Convicted serial killer Michael Ross is still determined to stipulate his own execution, and the state is willing to try at least one more time to go along with him. In New London Superior Court on July 2, Ross and Special Assistant State's Attorney C. Robert Satti Sr. told Judge Joseph J. Purtill that after conferring for over an hour, they had jointly decided to file two motions asking the judge for further guidance in Ross' case. Satti plans to file the motions within the week.
After a four-month trial in 1987, Ross was convicted of six counts of capital felony murder in the deaths of four teen-age girls and given six death sentences. After the statutorily required appeal, the state Supreme Court in July 1994 upheld the convictions, but set aside Ross' death sentences because the trial judge had improperly excluded evidence about Ross' mental condition and improperly instructed the jury.
In September 1994, Ross wrote to prosecutors offering to "go into the courtroom and admit to my actions, to accept responsibility for my actions and to accept the death penalty as punishment for those actions. I am not asking you to do this for me, but for the families involved . . . who, in some small way, might gain a peace of mind by these actions and my execution." He has since explained that he does not wish to put the families through another full-blown trial.
Last November, Ross and Satti signed a stipulation, but reserved seven procedural questions to the state Supreme Court. On June 11, after asking the parties to brief and argue the justiciability of those questions, the court declined to answer the questions and sent the case back to New London. July 2 was the first time that Satti and Ross, who is representing himself, were able to confer on what would be the next step in the matter.
A Single Judge?
At the July 2 hearing, Satti told Purtill that the first motion would ask him to determine whether the court, meaning Purtill himself or some other individual judge, has the right to preside over and conduct the sentencing phase of the hearing in the Ross case. Until recently, Satti said, he believed that statute required a three-judge panel to preside over the penalty phase. However, upon further research, Satti now feels that a single judge could hear the case.
According to Satti, it is still both parties' intention to try to conclude the penalty phase by use of a stipulation that acknowledges aggravating factors in Ross' case while stating that there are no mitigating factors. The stipulation would also state that death was the appropriate sentence. Satti also said that Ross plans to object to the presentation of any mitigating evidence by any other party. According to the law under which Ross was sentenced, a death sentence can be imposed only when aggravating factors are present and there are no mitigating factors.
The second motion would ask the judge to rule on whether the defendant has the right to control his case completely. In this case that would mean that Ross would be able to exclude any mitigating evidence presented by other parties.
Contacted on death row after the hearing, Ross says, "I didn't know if Satti would go forward . . . but I've made my bed and I'm responsible. . . . I know I feel a lot better now than I felt a year ago because I feel I'm doing the right thing and it's been hard as hell."
Innocent People
During the brief proceeding last week, Purtill seemed hesitant to say whether he himself would be able to preside over the next proceeding because of his heavy schedule as the presiding criminal judge in New London. He also expressed a hesitancy to make any ruling that would tie the hands of a trial judge. "Aren't you asking me to make a decision that the trial judges would normally make?" he asked Satti.
"You may be right," responded Satti. But he also added that pretrial rulings are routinely made in matters of suppressed evidence. "We would like to have the answers because without these answers, Mr. Ross and the state may want to go to a full-blown hearing." Satti said that the problem with this case, which involves new areas of the law -- since Ross is the first to stipulate to his own death -- is that both the state and the defense do not know how to proceed.
Purtill, after determining that Ross agreed on all matters, told Satti to file the motions as quickly as possible and to file briefs by Aug. 7. The parties will return to court on Aug. 14.
Asked whether he is worried that his case will negatively affect other death row appeals, Ross says, "I don't like to think about that, and I hope it never does happen, but the way I look at it, it's my decision, and I have to think about the families. If that happens, it's the fault of capital punishment, not me. There are innocent people on death row." He cites the state of Illinois, where he says seven men have been executed and seven innocent men released from death row. "I would love to challenge the constitutionality of the statute and win, but what I wanted to do was control the damage to my [the victims'] families. That's what I'm doing now. Damage control."
(Connecticut Law Tribune is an affiliate publication of Court TV.)
Copyright 1996, American Lawyer Media.
