Release Date:  March 19, 2007
Contact:  Michael Rushford
(916) 446-0345

The nation’s highest court will hear oral argument Wednesday in its review of a federal Eighth Circuit ruling overturning the death sentence of William Weaver.  Weaver was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1987 murder of Charles Taylor, a key witness in a federal drug case.  Among Weaver’s claims on appeal was that his sentence was unconstitutional due to improper statements made by the prosecutor in his closing argument at the sentencing hearing.  While the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed and rejected the claim on direct appeal, the Eighth Circuit accepted it on habeas corpus and overturned the judgment.

The California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has introduced an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the case to encourage a decision reversing the Eighth Circuit and reinstating the state court’s judgment.

“The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision on Weaver’s claim was reasonable and did not violate U. S. Supreme Court precedent,” said Foundation Legal Director Kent Scheidegger.  “Under the Act of Congress governing these cases, the Eighth Circuit did not have the authority to substitute its judgment simply because it disagrees with the state court’s conclusion,” he added.

In July 1987, Charles and Larry Shurn were being prosecuted on federal drug charges.  The two brothers, along with Charles Taylor, operated several “drug houses” in Jackson County, Missouri.  Taylor had agreed to testify for the prosecution against the Shurns.  On July 6, another Shurn brother, Daryl, and an associate named William Weaver went Taylor’s home to force him to sign over several drug houses which were owned by the Shurns but held in Taylor’s name.  Both men were armed, and Weaver was supposed to kill Taylor after he signed over the properties.  When they arrived, Taylor unexpectedly pulled a gun and fled.  Both Weaver and Shurn followed, firing several shots at Taylor.  Numerous witnesses observed the pursuit and the shooting.

When Taylor collapsed from his wounds in a wooded area, Weaver approached and finished him off.  Shurn and Weaver then drove away at high speed as witnesses called police with a detailed description of the vehicle.  While being pursued by the police, their car caused a collision and both men fled on foot.  They were apprehended a short time later by police.

At trial, Weaver claimed that he had nothing to do with murdering Taylor and that he was out jogging when he was arrested.  The jury found Weaver guilty of murdering Taylor and, after a separate sentencing hearing, recommended the death sentence.

Weaver claimed on appeal that in closing argument at his sentencing hearing, the prosecutor made improper statements.  Specifically, the prosecutor told the sentencing jury that he supported the death penalty; that it was their duty, like soldiers, to sentence Weaver to death; and that a death sentence would deter others from committing murder.  The Missouri Supreme Court denied the claim and upheld Weaver’s conviction and sentence.  Three years later on habeas corpus, the federal District Court overturned the conviction and sentence.  After another three years, in 2001, the Eighth Circuit reversed the District Court and sent the case back for reconsideration.  In 2003, the District Court upheld Weaver’s conviction but found the sentence invalid, ruling that his due process rights were violated by the prosecutor’s closing argument.  Another three years passed before the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in 2006.

This year, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the Missouri Attorney General’s appeal.  In a scholarly brief authored by Professor Barry Latzer of John Jay School of Criminal Justice, the Foundation argues that federal rules enacted by Congress prohibit the federal courts from overturning a state court decision unless it was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of” United States Supreme Court precedent.  To overturn Weaver’s sentence, the Eighth Circuit cited its own precedent, because there is no Supreme Court decision on point.

“The eight years wasted on federal habeas corpus review of this murderer’s weak claim is exactly what Congress intended to prevent when it enacted its reform of this process in 1996,” said Scheidegger.  “The Eighth Circuit sidestepped the rules in this case and we are hopeful the Supreme Court will make this clear,” he added.