U.S. v. Sampson, CR. 01-10384-MLW.

• Decision Date: 04 February 2004
• Docket Number: No. CR. 01-10384-MLW.,CR. 01-10384-MLW.
• Citation: 300 F.Supp.2d 275
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Gary Lee SAMPSON
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

300 F.Supp.2d 275

UNITED STATES of America v. Gary Lee SAMPSON

No. CR. 01-10384-MLW.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

February 4, 2004.

Frank M. Gaziano, George W. Vien, John A. Wortmann, Jr., United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WOLF, District Judge.

In the first Federal Death Penalty Act prosecution in Boston, Massachusetts, defendant Gary Sampson pled guilty to two charges of carjacking resulting in death in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(3). After a trial to determine his sentence, which was conducted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3591 et seq., the jury decided that the death penalty was justified for each of Sampson's offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 3593(e).

At Sampson's sentencing on January 29, 2004, the court stated and explained the following. Citations have been added.

* * * * * *

Gary Sampson, pursuant to the jury's verdicts, I hereby sentence you to death for the carjacking resulting in the death of Philip McCloskey and to death for the carjacking resulting in the death of Jonathan Rizzo. See 18 U.S.C. § 3594.

You must also pay a $200 special assessment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A).¹

You have a right to appeal this sentence within ten days of the entry of judgment. If you would like to appeal but cannot afford a lawyer, at least one will be appointed to represent you at public expense.

I hereby commit you to the custody of the Attorney General, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3596(a). Also pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3596(a), I hereby order that you be executed in New Hampshire in the manner prescribed by the laws of New Hampshire, by lethal injection or, if that is impractical, by hanging. See N.H.Rev.Stat. § 630.5 XIII, XIV. The reasons I have selected New Hampshire are explained in a separate Memorandum and Order.

Death is, of course, the most severe punishment that can be imposed for any crime. Your crimes were despicable, inexplicable, and inexcusable.

They were despicable because you brutally murdered Philip McCloskey and Jonathan Rizzo, who were innocent of everything except showing kindness to a stranger. Then you murdered Robert Whitney in New Hampshire as well.²

Your crimes were inexplicable. You grew up in a suburb, not a slum. You had two parents. You had more advantages than most of the people that I sentence.

Your crimes were certainly inexcusable. You may be dyslexic. You may or may not be bipolar. You used crack. However, our homeless shelters and prisons are largely populated by people with untreated mental illnesses and learning disabilities who have abused drugs. Yet they are not cruel, multiple murderers.

I always try to understand the people that I am called upon to judge. Usually, knowledge is a foundation for understanding.³ Having listened to weeks of testimony and observed you for many months, I know more about you than any man that I have ever sentenced. Yet I do not feel that I really understand you at all.

However, one thing has been clear, at least to me. You are a human being. You are a man who has done monstrous things, but you are a man nevertheless, and a member of the human family. You personify the wisdom of the poet's insight that:

Evil is unspectacular and always human, And shares our bed and eats at our own table.

W.H. Auden, "Herman Melville," Collected Shorter Poems 1927-1957 145 (Random House 1966).

You essentially denied and destroyed the humanity of your victims, Philip McCloskey, Jonathan Rizzo, and Robert Whitney. You treated them as things on which you could unleash your sadistic impulses, rather than as people with rights to life and hope.

Nevertheless, every effort has been made in this case to recognize and respect your humanity, to give you the fair chance that you denied your victims to live rather than to die.

The prosecutors treated you with the dignity due to every defendant. The public has provided you with three lawyers who devoted all of their energy, ability, and experience to trying to save your life. The public also paid for the employment of expert and other witnesses to testify on your behalf.

I have made my best effort to give you a fair trial. That required making decisions that I understand were painful to the victims' families, but which were legally necessary and appropriate.

The jury heard the substantial evidence about you as a person that your attorneys presented. After considering all of the evidence, the jury decided that death was the most appropriate penalty in this case. There will, therefore, be another killing.

However, there is a difference between a murder and an execution. That difference is the fair process by which a jury of citizens from this community has decided that your death is justified.

There are several purposes that are usually considered and may be served by a particular sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The jury's factual findings make clear that there is really only one purpose to be served by the death sentence imposed on you.

This sentence is not necessary to protect society from any danger that you might present in the future. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). The jury was not persuaded that you would be dangerous if sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release.

This sentence is obviously not intended to rehabilitate you or to deter you from committing crimes in the future. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), (D). Nor was there any argument or evidence that executing you will generally deter other potential murderers. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). I have never seen any evidence that the death penalty serves this purpose. Indeed, the irrationality of your crimes illustrates why capital punishment is unlikely to deter potentially violent criminals.

However, the jury's fact-finding and verdicts make clear that it decided that the death penalty is appropriate in this case to reflect the seriousness of your crimes and to provide just punishment for them. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). The law calls this "retribution." Retribution is: "one of the purposes of punishment, [ ] satisfying the instinct of retaliation and revenge, which naturally arises in a victim, but also to a considerable extent in society generally. It may be deemed controlled and regularized vengeance exacted by society." David M. Walker, The Oxford Companion to Law 1068 (Oxford Univ. Press 1...