JOSE’S PLEA DEAL — 44 DAYS TO DETERMINE THE REST OF HIS LIFE
WHAT IS NEXT FOR JOSE?
Jose Quiroz plead guilty to a crime, felony murder . . . . a crime the Indiana Supreme Court now says he never should have been charged with let along convicted of. One day after the Indiana Supreme Court said this Jose is sitting in prison with a 45-year sentence while the three others have had their sentences vacated and are looking at the possibility of a maximum sentence of 20 years.
In October 2012 Jose Quiroz, Blake Layman, Anthony Sharp and Danzele Johnson broke into a house they thought was unoccupied. Levi Sparks stayed outside the house. Unfortunately the homeowner, who was in bed at the time of the break in, woke up, grabbed his gun and shot killing Danzele Johnson and wounding Blake Layman.
In response to the death of Danzele Johnson, Elkhart County Prosecutor Curtis Hill charged the four survivors with felony murder. Jose Quiroz accepted a plea deal for 45 years while Layman, Sparks and Sharp went to trial. Layman Sparks and Sharp were convicted and sentenced to a significantly longer time in prison (55 years for Sharp and Layman and 50 years for Sparks). We covered Jose’s plea deal in detail in our article Jose Quiroz: A 16 Year Old Kid Who Was Given 44 Days to Decide the Rest of his Life.
In June 2011 the Indiana Law Blog reported that only about 2.5% of felony criminal cases are tried before a jury. 76% of felony cases are dealt with using plea deal, while 18% of felony cases are dismissed. As part of many of these plea deals the defendant is forced to give up many of their rights, including the right to appeal. This is what happened with Jose Quiroz. By giving up his right to appeal Jose was unable to join the appeals of Blake Layman, Levi Sparks and Anthony Sharp.
So what happens next? Jose Quiroz has filed a request for a post conviction relief hearing. The context for that hearing was drastically changed yesterday with the ruling of the Indiana Supreme Court.
The Elkhart County Prosecutor and the Elkhart Courts have a few options. These are the three we wish to highlight:
Curtis Hill Elkhart County Prosecutor refuses to re-open the plea deal and the court refuses to re-sentence Jose Quiroz:
This is the worst case scenario both for Jose Quiroz and for justice in Elkhart Country. The American Bar Association in their General Standards for Prosecutors states that the job of the prosecutor is:
( C ) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.
( D ) It is an important function of the prosecutor to seek to reform and improve the administration of criminal justice. When inadequacies or injustices in the substantive or procedural law comes to the prosecutor’s attention, he or she should stimulate efforts for remedial action
How Curtis Hill deals with Jose Quiroz is going to go a long way in showing how he views the moral imperative of his position and his responsibilities as expressed by the American Bar Association. If the Indiana Supreme Court decision is ignored and the plea deal is not re-considered Mr. Hill will show his community that he is not able to “seek justice” or address “inadequacies or injustices”.
The Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge will “uphold and apply the law”. Further more a judge must be “objective and open-minded”.
The law in this case is very clear. In their ruling the Indiana Supreme Court unanimously stated:
By contrast the record here shows that when the group broke and entered the residence of the homeowner intending to commit a theft—a burglary—not only were they unarmed, but also neither the Appellants nor their cohorts engaged in any “dangerously violent and threatening conduct.” Jenkins, 726 N.E.2d at 271. There was simply nothing about the Appellants’ conduct or the conduct of their cohorts that was “clearly the mediate or immediate cause” of their friend’s death. Palmer, 704 N.E.2d at 126. Thus, while the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for the underlying burglary, it is not sufficient to sustain a conviction for felony murder in the perpetration of a burglary. Accordingly, we reverse Layman’s and Sparks’ convictions for felony murder.
(Read the Layman/Sparks decision — Layman and Sparks ISC Decision)
Each time the Supreme Court wrote “cohorts” they are also referring to Jose Quiroz. Even though Jose was not able to participate in the appeals the Supreme Court has stated that no felony murder occurred in this case. So it is easy to come to the conclusion that Jose Quiroz (according to the Indiana Supreme Court) did not commit felony murder.
The judge in Elkhart County has an obligation to “uphold and apply the law”. The Supreme Court has ruled that this case was not felony murder . . . the Elkhart County judge needs to follow the ruling of the Indiana Supreme Court. If the court does not do this then the injustice of this case continues.
Curtis Hill Elkhart County Prosecutor refuses to re-open the plea deal but the Elkhart Court vacates the plea deal:
This would be a better solution to option one. It would show that the courts understand the importance of justice.
The unfortunate aspect of this would be the reaction of the prosecution. The case of the Elkhart 4 has grabbed the imagination of people across the globe, many believing this to be a significant injustice. On Friday the Supreme Court confirmed what many of us knew – this was case was not felony murder. This also confirmed that the way this case was handled in Elkhart County constituted an injustice.
It would not be fair for Jose to remain convicted of felony murder when the Indiana Supreme Court states that this case was not felony murder. Former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said:
“Fairness is what justice really is”
If Mr. Hill can’t be fair to Jose Quiroz, we question his dedication to justice.
Curtis Hill Elkhart Country Prosecutor sits down next week with Jose Quiroz’s lawyers and reaches a solution to this injustice:
A solution like this would show a commitment to justice from all sides. It would be respectful of the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court and it would help to bring finality to this case.
This would be an ideal way for this case to be resolved.
The notion that the Plea Deal with Jose should be vacated is supported by Larry Landis who is the executive director for the Indiana Public Defender Council. In an Interview with the IndyStar Mr. Landis said,
“If he [Jose] pled guilty to an offence for which he could not have been convicted, due process required that it be vacated,”
So legally Mr. Hill might have an obligation to vacate the plea bargain with Jose Quiroz.
This website has always advocated for justice for all four of the Elkhart 4 . . . including Jose. We will continue our advocacy and our work until we feel that this case has been resolved in a fair way.
There is a reason the Elkhart 4 grabbed the attention of the people around the world . . . that reason is that many feel what happened here was a huge injustice. There is a reason that Dr. Phil, The Huffington Post, The National Post of Canada, The Guardian, MTV and ABC looked into this story . . . they saw it as an injustice.
Now for the first time since 2012 the case is back in Curtis Hill’s authority. He has a choice . . .he can choose justice, or he can continue the controversy that has surrounded this case from the very beginning.
We hope Mr. Hill selects justice and gives Jose Quiroz a fair deal.
Imagine this situation . . . . two 16 year old kids steal some beer from a unoccupied house. They are caught and arrested. When the kids names are entered into the state criminal database the arresting officer learns that one of the teens had been convicted a few years earlier for stealing some candy from a store. The office learns that in the candy store robbery a juvenile judge transferred the case to adult court where the kid was convicted. The one kid with the previous adult record is sent directly to adult court while the other kid is sent for a hearing in juvenile court. The reason for this is the “once an adult, always an adult” doctrine.
The “once an adult, always an adult” doctrine means that once a juvenile has been found guilty in an adult court they are never able to return to juvenile court no matter how trivial the charge. This doctrine is present in many states, including Indiana.
Although the hypothetical story above has very different facts than the Elkhart 4 case, the “once an adult always an adult” provision of Indiana transfer laws now becomes a very controversial part of the post Indiana Supreme Court case against the Elkhart 4, specifically Blake Layman and Levi Sparks who were juveniles at the time they committed their crime.
In the fall of 2012 Elkhart Country Prosecutor Curtis Hill charged Blake Layman, Levi Sparks, Jose Quiroz and Anthony Sharp with felony murder. Jose Quiroz reached a plea deal. Layman, Sparks and Sharp were found guilty after a trial and sentenced to between 50 and 55 years in prison. (Read a full account of this story here). In early 2015 the case was argued before the Indiana Supreme Court and on September 18, 2015 the court released its decision (read the decision here — Layman and Sparks ISC Decision ). The Indiana Supreme Court vacated the felony murder convictions and sent Layman, Sparks and Sharp back to Elkhart County to be sentenced on a felony class B burglary conviction. Jose Quiroz was not included in the appeal and had not had his conviction vacated (see our story on Jose here).
In Indiana anyone over 16 charged with murder is automatically transferred to adult court. In Indiana anyone over 16 charged with class B felony burglary is sent to a juvenile court where the juvenile justice decides if the case should be heard in juvenile court or in adult court (Indiana Transfer Code). If a guilty verdict is reached the punishments are very different depending on if the trial was held in juvenile or adult court.
So Layman and Sparks never had a hearing in juvenile court because they were charged with felony murder – a crime with a mandatory transfer to adult court.
The Indiana Supreme Court has now vacated the felony murder conviction (read decision here – Layman and Sparks ISC Decision). This means that Blake Layman and Levi Sparks no longer convicted murderers. In the ruling the Indiana Supreme Court said,
“while the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for the underlying burglary, it is not sufficient to sustain a conviction for felony murder in the perpetration of a burglary.”
Funny enough, Elkhart County Prosecutor Curtis Hill only charged Layman and Sparks with felony murder. Not the underlying crime of burglary. In felony murder cases it is rare for the underlying crime not to be charged along with felony murder charge. This omission caused comment from the Indiana Supreme Court, which stated,
“for reasons that are unclear from the record before us the State did not follow common practice and file an additional count of burglary against the defendants. It chose instead to file a single count of felony murder in the perpetration of a burglary.”
So now we come to sentencing. Specifically the sentencing of Blake Layman and Levi Sparks.
Will they be sentenced as adults? Will they be sentenced as juveniles? Will they have the opportunity to appear before a juvenile judge? The answer is not clear.
On first glance their age at the time of the crime would suggest, at the very minimum, a hearing before a juvenile judge.
But then there is the “once and adult, always an adult” doctrine. Indiana transfer law states,
“The ‘juvenile law does not apply to’ a child who is accused of a crime and has previously been waived to adult court. In addition, even if there was no waiver involved in the previous case, a child who was convicted in adult court of a felony or nontraffic misdemeanor and is subsequently charged with a felony is automatically waived.”
Blake Layman and Levi Sparks were convicted of the adult crime of felony murder so the juvenile option is not available . . .but wait, the Indiana Supreme Court threw out that conviction . . . so they have not been convicted in an adult court of a felony.
In 2012 had they only been charged with class B felony burglary Blake Layman and Levi Sparks would have appeared first before a juvenile court. This did not happen . . . Layman and Sparks have never appeared before a juvenile court.
The Indiana Supreme Court using the facts from the felony murder case convicted Layman and Sparks of class B felony but remained silent on their juvenile/adult status.
Is this a violation of their right to appear before a juvenile justice to decide if the burglary charges will be juvenile or adult? Does “once an adult, always an adult” apply after the highest court in the state has vacated that adult crime? These are key questions that need to be answered over the next few weeks.
In an article in the Indianapolis Star Blake Layman’s lawyer Cara Wieneke says she is exploring to see if Blake can be punished as a juvenile. The lawyer for Levi Sparks is also exploring the possibility.
In the same article Larry Landis, the executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council points out that Indiana does not have a reverse waiver statute. According to Landis this means that there is no way for Layman and Sparks to have their cases transferred to juvenile court because they have already been through an adult court. Landis’s opinion seem to be supported in a recent tweet we received from Northwestern University Professor Steven Drizin (see Dr. Drizin’s Elkhart 4 Huffington Post Article here) who said,
In the Spring 2015 issue of the Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality Kaitlin Pegg published an article entitled “The ‘Once and Adult, Always an Adult’ Doctrine: More Harm Than Good”. In this article she examines many of the concerning outcomes of this aspect of transfer law.
She highlights the concern with automatic transfer (which happened to Levi and Blake when they were initially charged) stating,
“transfer mechanisms such as statutory exclusion of certain crimes provide no assessment of mitigating factors, so juveniles may have been initially transferred without any consideration of culpability or psychological development”
This means that at no time during the Elkhart 4 case have Levi, Blake (and also Jose) ever had the fact that they are juveniles considered (see our article on juveniles here and here).
She continues stating,
Although most jurisdictions require that a previous transfer result in conviction for the “once an adult, always an adult” doctrine to apply, this is not always the case. In two states – California and Delaware – if a juvenile was assigned to adult court previously, even absent a conviction, he or she is automatically transferred to an adult court for all subsequent crimes. In these states, juveniles who have been found not guilty in the eyes of the law are still automatically transferred to adult courts for subsequent charges.
Ms. Pegg is based at Indiana University Bloomington. She would know the law in Indiana. The fact that she did not mention Indiana in the same category as California and Delaware suggests that in Indiana the “once and adult, always an adult” doctrine does not apply to Blake and Levi seeing as they are no longer convicted of felony murder.
There are going to be interesting discussions and arguments in Elkhart County as lawyers for both sides figure out how to proceed with the upcoming sentencing of Blake Layman and Levi Sparks.
In a final note, the juvenile question is also a concern with Jose Quiroz, another of the Elkhart 4. Jose accepted a plea deal so his journey through the criminal justice system is very different than the journey of Blake, Levi and Anthony. Even though it is different we believe the juvenile factor should not be ignored by the authorities in the coming weeks.
In October/November 2012 Jose Quiroz was given 44 days to make the most important decision of his life. He had been offered a plea deal, by Elkhart Prosecutor Curtis Hill, that would see him serve 45 years in prison for the murder of his friend, even though Jose has never killed anyone. He was 16-years-old at the time. He had just committed a burglary, witnessed the death of his friend and been charged with murder. He was adapting to life in adult prison without his mom and regular support network. He was being advised by a public defender he did not know. Jose was not given the time to determine if he trusted the public defender who was assigned to help him navigate the Indiana legal system. Jose did not have the necessary support or time to fully understand the consequences or ramifications of this plea deal. This is the story of how Jose Quiroz had 44 days to determine the course of his life.
Over the past few months this blog and much of the media attention covering the Elkhart 4 has focused on Blake Layman, Levi Sparks and to a lesser extent Anthony Sharp. Very little has been written about the fourth member to the Elkhart 4, Jose Quiroz. The main reason for this is that on Thursday November 16, 2012 Jose plead guilty to the felony murder charge against him. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison with another 10 years suspended. Jose accepted a plea deal. By accepting the plea deal Jose is unable to appeal his conviction for felony murder. Jose is currently looking for post conviction relief (a process where he is asking the court to reduce his sentence) and has a hearing in February 2015. The fact that Jose’s case is not being appealed has meant that there has been little attention placed on his story. Yet by examining Jose’s story we can learn a lot about a major change in the way the justice system operates. In this article we are going to examine Jose’s experience through the Indiana Court System to shine some light on the phenomena of plea-bargaining.
97% percent of individuals convicted in the US Federal justice system never have their case heard by a jury.In Indiana it is estimated that 97.5% of individuals convicted never had their case heard by a jury. That is because plea bargains are now the most common way to resolve criminal cases in the United States. Plea bargains are when the state and an accused agree upon a conviction, often for a reduced sentence for the defendant.
Before the Civil War plea bargains were very rare. This was because the writers of the Constitution were suspicious of the power of government. It is for this reason that they included in the Bill of Rights several ways to protect those accused of criminal activity. Included in the Bill of Rights was the right to be informed of the charges, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right to a speedy public trial, the right to an impartial jury, the right to cross examine the state’s witnesses, the right to call witnesses and the right to a lawyer. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” Trial by Jury was a new and powerful right that people took advantage of. Plea bargains demand that an accused give up many of their rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and early on most people would not consider giving up these hard won rights.
After the Civil War plea bargains became more commonplace. Many in the legal system saw plea bargains as a way to speed up justice and while lessoning the burdens of trials on the court system. Then in the 1970’s and 1980’s new tough on crime laws were passed. One aspect of these laws was harsh sentences and mandatory minimums. The states and the federal government have used those mandatory minimums to pressure accused to accept plea bargains for shorter sentences. This has led to the current situation where the fear of extreme sentencing has caused the vast majority of criminal cases to be resolved using plea bargains.
In November 2014 federal judge Jed Rakoff wrote an essay in the New York Review of Books entitled “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty”. In this essay Rakoff suggests that thousands of innocent people are in jail because they “felt pressured to plead guilty”. He believes this is the case because prosecutors have “way too much power”. He reminds the reader, “prosecutors can determine which crime to charge defendants with, and they can often charge defendants with crimes carrying mandatory minimum sentences”. The judge continues “If a jury finds the defendant guilty, a judge has no choice but to hand out a harsh sentence . . . . Prosecutors can offer dramatically reduced sentences if defendants plead guilty but charge the maximum if defendants plead not guilty.” Judge Rakoff believes that plea deals can lead to false guilty pleas. Rakoff writes,
After all, the typical person accused of a crime combines a troubled past with limited resources: he thus recognizes that, even if he is innocent, his chances of mounting an effective defense at trail many be modest at best. If his lawyer can obtain a plea bargain that will reduce his likely time in prison, he may find it “rational” to take the plea.
It is with these facts in mind that we explore the plea bargain of Jose Quiroz. Jose Quiroz is not innocent of criminal activity. This blog, his family and Jose himself have never suggested this. In October 2012 Jose and his friends Blake, Levi, Danzele and Anthony broke into a house in Elkhart Indiana. The boys thought the house was unoccupied. They were wrong and the scared homeowner shot and killed Danzele. The surviving boys were arrested and charged with felony murder in the death of Danzele, even though none of the boys killed him. There is no question that Jose committed a crime that day . . . what is in dispute is was the charge felony murder, how the court dealt with the juvenile status (under age of 18) of Jose, Blake and Levi and the very long sentences they were given. This blog advocates for the Elkhart 4, but we have been very consistent in condemning their actions in October 2012.
According to Jose’s testimony in court in August of 2013 he was on drugs when he broke into the house in October 2012. He was still on drugs when police questioned him. During that questioning he admitted to his role in the crime . . . the crime of burglary. Then he was charged with felony murder and assigned a public defender. This is how Judge Rakoff describes this situation . . .
Against this background, the information-deprived defence lawyer, typically within a few days after the arrest, meets with the overconfident prosecutor, who makes clear that, unless the case can be promptly resolved by a plea bargain, he intends to charge the defendant with the most severe offences he can prove . . . . If, however, the defendant wants to plead guilty, the prosecutor will offer him a considerably reduced charge [or sentence] . . . In this typical situation, the prosecutor has all the advantages. He knows a lot about the case (and . . . probably feels more confident about it that he should, since he has only heard from one side), whereas the defence lawyer knows very little. Furthermore, the prosecutor controls the decision to charge the defendant with a crime . . . But what really puts the prosecutor in the driver’s seat is the fact that he – because of mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines, and simply his ability to shape whatever charges are brought – can effectively dictate the sentence by how he publicly describes the offence . . . Put another way, it is the prosecutor, not the judge, who effectively exercise the sentencing power, albeit cloaked as a charging decision.
In Jose’s case the Elkhart County Prosecutor, Curtis Hill, using the evidence collected by the police when Jose was under the influence of drugs, offered Jose the minimum sentence for felony murder in exchange for a guilty plea. In August 2013 during the trial of the other members of the Elkhart 4 Jose stated “attorneys said he would go to prison for 108 years if he didn’t accept their plea”. He also stated that he lied during his interrogation and during the court hearings about his plea deal (http://www.elkharttruth.com/crime-fire-courts/2013/08/21/Teen-sentenced-for-murder-testifies-in-joint-trial-for-three-others.html ).
In December 2012 when Jose Quiroz appeared before the court for his sentencing he requested to revoke his plea deal (http://www.goshennews.com/news/teen-gets–year-prison-term-for-role-in-fatal/article_a0b1142c-941e-59c0-a7a5-db234f477754.html ).
When the 16-year-old Jose accepted the plea deal he accepted giving up several of his constitutional rights. This has had huge ramifications on his ability to pursue post conviction legal options. Unlike the other members of the Elkhart 4, Jose is unable to appeal his conviction.
Jose’s plea deal was arranged between his arrest on October 3, 2012 and his court date on November 16, 2012. In total it took 44 days. In those 44 days Jose was coming down from being high on illegal drugs, mourning the death of his friend, adapting to his new living arrangements (a 16-year-old boy in an adult jail), and dealing with the separation from his mom his family and his support network. Added to all of this is the fact that his advocate, a public defender who he hardly knew, was telling him he was facing decades or even a century in prison.
At 16 the State of Indiana will not let a person vote. At 16 the state of Indiana will not let a person drink alcohol. 16-year-olds have several limitations placed on them by the government because the government believes they are not mature enough to take on all the benefits and responsibilities of an adult. Yet at age 16 Jose was given 44 days to navigate the complexities of the Indiana Judicial system while under great personal stress. He was given 44 days to make a decision with huge ramifications for the rest of is life.
Jose was sentenced to 45 years in prison and 10 years of probation. With good behavior he could be out of prison after 22.5 years. He will be in his late 30’s. We do not know how the appeals of the other members of the Elkhart 4 will be resolved. With the resolution of the appeals we will have a better understating if Jose Quiroz’s plea deal was a good or bad decision. What we do know is the State of Indiana gave a 16 – year old boy 44 days to make life-changing decisions with only the support of a public defender. Jose had to decide whether to risk everything on a trial or to give up some of the most important constitutional protections to guarantee 22.5 – 45 years in prison. I am not sure Jefferson and the framers of the constitution saw the legal system working this way.
Jose’s plea deal was negotiated in secret before being announced in court on November 16, 2012. During the August 2013 trial of Blake Layman, Levi Sparks and Anthony Sharp, Jose said the Elkhart Prosecutor and his public defender pressured him into the plea deal. On the stand Jose’s public defender denied pressuring Jose to accept the plea deal. We can’t know the truth because the deal was negotiated in secret.
In his essay Judge Rakoff states “Jefferson’s perception that a criminal justice system that is secret and government-dictated ultimately invites abuse and even tyranny” Judge Rakoff believes that the secretiveness of plea deals means there is “almost no review, either internally or by the courts. Such a secretive system inevitably invited arbitrary results.” Judge Rakoff believes these results are “one-sided”, in favor of the prosecution. He states,
Our criminal justice system is premised on the notion that, before we deprive a person of his liberty, he will have his “day in court,” i.e., he will be able to put the government to its proof and present his own facts and arguments, following which a jury of his peers will determine whether or not he is guilty or a crime and a neutral judge will, if he is found guilty, determine his sentence. As noted, numerous guarantees of this fair-minded approach are embodied in our Constitution, and were put there because of the Founding Fathers’ experience with the rigged British system of colonial justice.”
Judge Rakoff argues that the plea system that Jose Quiroz went through is just as rigged as the “British system of colonial justice” that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers’ were fighting against. In closure, we are reminded that in the past few years there have been a number of exonerations of people who initially accepted a plea deal. Judge Rakoff in his essay conservatively estimates that in the USA there is at lease 20 000 people currently in prison for crimes they did not commit because of the power of the prosecutor when negotiating plea deals. Jose Quiroz is not one of those people, but perhaps he is in a second category . . . someone who accepted a plea deal to an inappropriate charge. We will know the answer when/if the Indiana Supreme Court (or the US Supreme Court if needed) rules on the felony murder convictions of Blake Layman, Levi Sparks and Anthony Sharp.
RESOURCES Judge Rakoff’s essay http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/
Article about Jude Rakoff’s essay
Media Links related to Jose’s Plea Deal
Indiana Law Blog
DID CURTIS HILL IGNORE THE JUVENILE FACTOR IN THE CASE OF THE ELKHART 4?
“Any mandatory adult sentence for a juvenile convicted of felony murder, even if not life without parole, is constitutionally suspect. A sentencer must be able to fashion an appropriate sentence for a juvenile convicted of felony murder, and should not be required to impose a mandatory sentence designed for adults convicted of the offense.” Emily C. Keller – Constitutional Sentences for Juveniles Convicted of Felony Murder in the Wake of Roper, Graham & J.D.B.
On September 12, 2013 Elkhart County Judge Terry Shewmaker sentenced Blake Layman to 55 years and Levi Sparks to 50 years in the Indiana Department of Corrections for felony murder. In December 2012 co-accused Jose Quiroz accepted a plea deal of 45 years in prison and 10 years probation. All three were juveniles when at the time of their crime. None of the three boys killed their friend Danzele Johnson whose murder they were convicted of. In fact 21-year-old Danzele Johnson was a co-perpetrator with Layman, Sparks and Quiroz. Johnson was shot by the homeowner of the house the boys and young adults were breaking into.
In Indiana the mandatory adult sentence for murder and felony murder is between 45 and 65 years. In both charging and sentencing the judge and Elkhart Country Prosecutor Curtis Hill did not take the age into account in any way. Instead Judge Shewmaker and Curtis Hill have elected to throw these boys into the adult prison system for a crime that needed to be adjudicated in juvenile courts. Free The Elkhart 4 has already documented cases in Alabama and Florida with very similar facts, but instead of going the adult route judges and state prosecution have found the juvenile system a better fit to deal with the juveniles while respecting the moral imperative of juvenile justice.
The problem in the way the case of The Elkhart 4 has been handled is that the political elite in Elkhart County (Judge Shewmaker and Curtis Hill) has failed to recognize that currently there is a significant shift across the USA in how juvenile criminal issues are being dealt with. This has radically changed the moral imperative of juvenile justice in the USA. This shift is a result of four major decisions by The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS). These decisions have encoded into the legal system a real and important difference between juveniles and adults. These differences were ignored by Elkhart County in the way they dealt with Blake Layman, Jose Quiroz and Levi Sparks.
In this article we are going to examine these four decisions and look and look at how they were ignored in the criminal case against these teens.
2005 – Roper v. Simmons
In this landmark ruling SCOTUS made death sentences unconstitutional for any person convicted of a crime committed under the age of 18. In the decision SCOTUS found three main differences between juveniles and adults. These three differences are “lack of maturity”, an “underdeveloped sense of responsibility” and the fact that teens are easily susceptible to “negative influences and outside pressures”. The court stated, “it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievable depraved character.” Emily Keller notes “the Court recognized that the majority of youth who commit crimes will not grow up to be lifetime offenders, and that even experts cannot differentiate between the offenders whose crimes are merely a function of their age and immaturity and those rare juvenile offenders whose crimes will persist throughout their life”.
The Roper ruling clearly established a legal difference between juveniles and adults in the criminal court system. The justices relied upon new research into human development to differentiate the harshest punishments juvenile offenders can face in the USA. The court also recognised that the fact a youth who commits a crime it is not an indicator that they will be career criminals as adults.
2010 – Graham v. Florida
In Graham v. Florida SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional for states to sentence juveniles to life without parole for non-homicide offences. Keller describes the ruling “As compared to an adult murderer, children ‘who did not kill or intend to kill’ have a ‘twice diminished’ moral culpability due to both their age and the nature of the crime.” The courts used current research on teenage brain development and said that juveniles should have “some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” The Graham ruling further expanded the legal difference between juvenile offenders and adult offenders.
In the case of the Elkhart 4 Jose Quiroz, Blake Layman and Levi Sparks did not kill and they did not intend to kill and yet they received the same consequence as an adult . . . . for murder! In the Graham case SCOTUS states “children who did not kill or intend to kill have a twice diminished moral culpability due to both their age and the nature of the crime.” This places the teens of the Elkhart 4 in an interesting legal position for two reasons. The first reason is that they did not intend to kill, their crime was burglary, not murder. The second reason is that unlike many other juvenile felony murder prosecutions the teens and the young adult co-perpetrators did not do the killing. Instead in this case the actual killing was done by an external force, the homeowner.
2011 — J.D.B. v. North Carolina
In this case the court relied on the scientific studies used in Roper and Graham to show that juveniles are different from adults in legal terms. In this case J.D.B was in his early teens when the police and administration at his middle school pulled him into an empty class to ask him questions about some local robberies. The police questioned the boy for about an hour in the room, without his parent or guardian, before they read him his Miranda Rights. The police read the boy his Miranda Rights when they felt he was ready to confess to the robberies. SCOTUS ruled that an adult understand the difference between being asked questions by the police and being in police custody. In the case of J.D.B., given the presence of the police and school administration, the boy would not have known that he was not in police custody and he had a right to leave the questioning at any time. The court threw out the confession and ordered the case back to the North Carolina courts. The court ruled that teens were different and because their age.
This ruling established a legal precedent that being a juvenile is not just a product of age. SCOTUS ruled that there are significant and important differences in the behavior and perceptions of juveniles that make them different from adults.
2012 – Miller v. Alabama
In Miller v. Alabama SCOTUS ruled that states could not sentence juveniles to mandatory life without parole sentences. Instead the sentencing judge needed to take the age of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime into account at sentencing. Again the court relied on the scientific evidence that juveniles are different from adults.
The Moral Imperative
These four major decisions over the past eight years provide a new moral imperative for the courts in the USA. SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, has established that juvenile offenders are different from adult offenders and need to be treated differently. The paradox is that because life without parole was not an option in punishing Layman, Quiroz and Sparks their age was not seen by the judge or prosecutor as an issue at trial or at sentencing. (This paradox was overcome in similar cases we have documented in Alabama andFlorida)
Curtis Hill the Elkhart County Prosecutor has publically said that “People breaking into homes when there is someone there or someone not there, it has to stop and from our stand point we are going to use every available measure under the law to stop it.” Curtis Hill is justifying charging and convicting these boys with felony murder by stating that the charge will deter other would be criminals. Mr. Hill is doing this even though SCOTUS has strongly suggested that using the felony murder law to deter crime is not very effective. In a different case (Enmund v. Florida) SCOTUS quashed a felony murder death sentence stating that the court was “quite unconvinced” that a death sentence would “deter one who does not kill and has no intention or purpose that life will be taken”. Also SCOTUS believes that teens will not see the harsh punishment as a deterrent. SCOTUS does this in the Roper and Graham rulings where the court ruled that because juveniles are unlikely to “take a possible punishment into consideration when making decisions” because the “same characteristics that render juveniles less culpable than adults suggest as well the juveniles will be less susceptible to deterrence.” So the excuse of charging and punishing these juveniles to act as a deterrent does not measure up to what SCOTUS believes.
But Mr. Hill and his legal team went further. According to reporting, by Jillian Mahen of ABC 57 News, “Elkhart County prosecutors held firm that the teens needed to be held accountable for their actions and encouraged the jury to make their decision without prejudice towards boys’ ages.”
At the trial of Blake Layman and Levi Sparks who were both juveniles at the time of the crime Elkhart County Prosecutors encouraged the jurors to not take age into consideration. They did this, ignoring the moral imperative set out in SCOTUS in Roper, Graham, J.D.B and Miller. This imperative states that the age of juveniles is an important factor that must be taken into account when dealing with juveniles. In Elkhart Indiana not only did they ignore the moral imperative; they instructed the jury to ignore it as well.
Ignoring the fact that Blake Layman and Levi Sparks were teens should play a central role in the upcoming appeals. The opinions of SCOTUS in Roper, Graham, J.D.B and Miller provide lawyers with a good legal basis to make an extremely strong argument. This combined with the ambiguity of the current Indiana Felony Murder Law as we have already documented should make these appeals extremely important not just for Blake Layman, Levi Sparks and Jose Quiroz, but also for the legal system in Indiana.
**We document the ambiguity of the Indiana felony murder law in two articles: Is Curtis Hill Using the Elkhart 4 to Expand Felony Murder Rule in Indiana? and Most State Felony Murder Laws Would Not Apply To The Elkhart 4
REFERENCES
Constitutional Sentences for Juveniles Convicted of Felony Murder in the Wake of Roper, Graham & J.D.B. (Emily C. Keller)
http://www.jlc.org/sites/default/files/article_images/Keller%20-%20CPILJ%20Final%20PDF.pdf
http://www.jlc.org/sites/default/files/article_images/Keller%20-%20CPILJ%20Final%20PDF.pdf
Supreme Court Of The United States Rulings:
Roper v. Simmons — http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html
Graham v. Florida — http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-7412modified.pdf
J.D.B v. North Carolina — http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-11121.pdf
Miller v. Alabama — http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646.pdf
Enmund v. Florida — http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0458_0782_ZO.html
Other Sites Referenced
JOSE’S PLEA DEAL — 44 DAYS TO DETERMINE THE REST OF HIS LIFE
In October 2012 four teens and one young adult from Elkhart County Indiana made a horrible decision that would change their lives forever. Not in school they decided one afternoon to break into a house. They knocked on doors and decided that one house was empty. Jose Quiroz (age 16), Blake Layman (age 16), Anthony Sharp (Age 18) and Danzele Johnson (age 21) broke into the house. Levi Sparks (age 17) waited on the porch of the house across the street.
Sleeping in the house at the time was Rodney Scott, the
homeowner. Mr. Scott was awakened by the noise of the burglary.
He grabbed his gun and shot several times. The bullets killed
21-year-old Danzele Johnson and wounded 16-year-old Blake Layman.
Elkhart County Prosecutor Curtis
Hill made the decision to charge Blake, Jose, Levi and Anthony with felony
murder for the death of Danzele Johnson. All were charged as adults.
In some states felony murder is a law, which states that if someone dies
during the commission of a felony everyone involved in the felony can be
charged with first-degree murder. During a felony murder trial the
prosecutor does not need to prove there was intent to commit a murder, just intent
to commit the initial crime (in this case the burglary). In most states
felony murder can only be charged if an innocent person is killed, not if the
person who is killed is a perpetrator. Things are a little less clear in
Indiana (see FAQ for an explaination).
16 year old Jose Quiroz accepted a
plea deal. At sentencing Jose Quiroz said he wanted to withdrawal the deal.
Judge Terry Shewmaker denied this request and sentenced a
sixteen-year-old boy to 45 years in prison for a murder he did not do.
Blake Layman, Levi Sparks and
Anthony Sharp went to trial in August of 2013. The trial lasted four days
and was rushed. On the final day of the trial the judge refused to let
the jury leave until they had reached a verdict. At 11:00 pm the jury
returned with a guilty verdict. On September 12, 2013 Judge Shewmaker
sentenced Blake Layman and Anthony Sparks to 55 years in prison and Levi Sparks
to 50 years in prison. Again for a murder they did not do.
Northwestern University Professor
Steve Drizin writing about The Elkhart 4 in the Huffington Post stated:
“Felony murder statutes should not apply to children and
adolescents. Such statutes rely on an assumption that an individual who takes
part in a felony understands the risk that someone may get killed in the course
of the felony. However, adolescent development and brain science research show
that, compared with adults, children and teenagers are less able to perceive and
assess risks. This research confirms what common sense tells us:
adolescents are less capable decision-makers than adults — they are more
impulsive, less risk-averse, and have difficulty assessing the consequences of
their actions, often prioritizing short-term rewards over any potential long-term
negative consequences.” (Click here for the full article )
These boys did commit a crime in
October of 2012 (burglary). It is awful that a frightened Rodney Scott
killed Danzele Johnson. The behavior of Blake, Levi, Anthony and
Jose cannot be condoned. These boys must learn an important
lesson. A well-functioning society can’t have people
acting with such disregard to others . . . but, none of these boys
murdered anyone . . . three of them were juveniles at the time . . . the person
who died in this case was a friend. A friend who they continue to mourn
for.
Do the actions of these boys warrant
55 years in prison with the worst of the worst? In our opinion this case
demonstrates a huge overreach of the criminal justice system. Any
possibility of redemption has been abandoned and these boys are being thrown
away to spend their lives in a failing and often brutal prison system.
The Elkhart Four
and the Unjust Application of the Felony Murder Rule on Teens
Posted: 10/04/2013 3:12 pm
Co-written with Emily Keller
In October
2012, 16-year-olds Blake Layman and Jose Quiroz, 17-year-old Levi Sparks,
18-year-old Anthony Sharp, and 21-year-old Danzele Johnson broke into a house
in Elkhart, Ind. The five were not armed and thought the house was vacant.
Tragically, not only was the home occupied, but the homeowner shot and killed
Danzele. Though not his killer, the four surviving teens were charged with Danzele's murder.
Last month,
three of the teens were convicted of murder and sentenced to harsh prison
terms. Blake Layman, who suffered a gunshot wound himself, was sentenced to 55 years in prison, as was Anthony Sharp. Because Levi Sparks never even
entered the house, he received a slightly shorter sentence, but will still be
in prison for half a century. The fourth teen, Jose Quiroz, pleaded guilty to
the charges in order to receive a "reduced" sentence of 45 years. To
many, this result is unthinkable: Unarmed teens decide to break into what they
believe to be a vacant house, watch their friend get shot and killed by the
homeowner, and now must spend the majority of their adult lives in prison for
their friend's murder.
The plight
of the "Elkhart Four", as the teens are now known, is a consequence
of Indiana's felony murder statute, a law that allows participants in certain
felonies -- in this case burglary -- to be convicted of murder if anyone is
killed during the felony. Prosecutors need to prove only that the defendant
intended to commit the underlying felony, not that the defendant killed or
intended to kill the victim. Most states have adopted some version of this
felony murder rule.
Felony
murder statutes should not apply to children and adolescents. Such statutes
rely on an assumption that an individual who takes part in a felony understands
the risk that someone may get killed in the course of the felony. However, adolescent development and brain
science research show that, compared with adults, children and teenagers are less able to perceive and
assess risks. This research confirms what common sense tells us:
adolescents are less capable decision-makers than adults -- they are more
impulsive, less risk-averse, and have difficulty assessing the consequences of
their actions, often prioritizing short-term rewards over any potential
long-term negative consequences.
When teens like Blake Layman, Levi Sparks, and Jose Quiroz, take
part in a burglary, they therefore are less able to foresee the negative
outcomes that an adult may anticipate, including the chance that someone may
get injured or killed. Unfortunately, children and
teens are too often prosecuted under felony murder statutes that inaccurately
presume that the teens understand the risk that someone could be killed as a result
of their actions. Alarmingly, a report from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International shows that approximately 26 percent of the 2,500 juveniles in the
U.S. sentenced to life without parole received these sentences based on felony
murder convictions. Though these children did not kill or intend to kill the
victim, they have been sentenced to die behind bars.
Children who commit crimes should be held accountable, but their
charges and sentences must be based on their own actions and culpability rather
than results of their actions that they, as adolescents with poor
risk-assessment skills, are unlikely to foresee. In Roper
v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller
v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court relied on adolescent development
research in banning the juvenile death penalty and constraining the imposition
of juvenile life without parole sentences, finding that children are
categorically less culpable than adults. Similarly, the
Elkhart Four should not remain behind bars until they are senior citizens based
on an unforeseen killing, but should receive sentences based on their
individual actions, reduced culpability, and potential for rehabilitation.
Even for
adult offenders like 18-year-old Anthony Sharp, the felony murder rule should
be constrained, especially in cases where the death of an accomplice was the
result of an unpredictable, intervening event. Like the younger teens, Anthony
was unarmed, his accomplices were unarmed, and he believed he was entering a
vacant house. Some states, including Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey,
New York, North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington provide a defense to felony
murder charges if the defendant, like Anthony, was not the killer, was not
armed, and had no reason to believe an accomplice was armed or planned to
commit a potentially fatal act.
The time
has come to align felony murder statutes with adolescent development research
and common sense. Courts and legislatures should therefore exempt juveniles
from felony murder prosecutions and provide defenses for adults where the death
was the result of an unforeseen, intervening event. The case of the Elkhart
Four presents a golden opportunity for the Indiana courts and legislature to
take these steps and be a beacon to all the other states that will face this
issue in the future.
Steven A. Drizin is a Clinical Law Professor at Northwestern
University School of Law and a former winner of the American Bar Association's
Livingston Hall Award for excellence in advocacy on behalf of juveniles charged
with crimes.
Emily Keller is a Staff
Attorney at Juvenile Law Center and has written a law review article,
"Constitutional Sentences for Juveniles Convicted of Felony Murder in the
Wake of Roper, Graham & J.D.B" in the Connecticut Public Interest Law
Journal, Vol. 11, Issue 2, 2012, on the subject of the felony murder rule and
its application to juvenile offenders.
IS CURTIS HILL USING THE CASE OF THE ELKHART 4 TO
EXPAND THE FELONY MURDER RULE IN INDIANA?
On Thursday September 12, 2013
Elkhart County Judge Terry Shewmaker sentenced Levi Sparks to 50 years in
prison. Blake Layman and Anthony Sharp both got 55 years in prison.
Charged under Indiana’s controversial felony murder rule these teens (Layman
and Sparks were both under 18 at the time of the incident) were convicted of
murdering their friend Danzele Johnson during a botched burglary after the
homeowner shot at the boys killing Johnson and wounding Layman. Another
teen, 16-year-old Jose Quiroz, plead guilty in December 2012 and is serving 45
years. This case has been controversial from the start because:
§ The teens (who we call The
Elkhart 4) did not fire the deadly shots
§ The Elkhart 4 believed they were
entering an unoccupied house
§ Levi Sparks never entered the
house (he was across the street at the time)
§ The Elkhart 4 had no intent for
their friend to die. In fact they mourn his death
§ Three juveniles were charged and
sentenced as adults
Judge Shewmaker during his
sentencing felt the need to present a legal justification for the harsh charges
and sentences in this case. He possibly did this to address the active
community debate about the validity of the charges and convictions. As a
legal justification the judge referenced Jesse Palmer v. State of Indiana.
This case was a result of the June 24, 1993 killing of Robert Williams.
Here is a basic description of the case based on the Indiana Supreme Court
ruling published January 7, 1999.
On June 24, 1993 Robert Williams was
on parole. Knowing he was going to be arrested on a new drug charge
Williams asked his friend Jesse Palmer to go with him to see his parole
officer. When they got to the meeting correctional officers tried to
arrest and handcuff Williams. Jesse Palmer pulled out a gun and held the
gun to the head of Officer James Gehrich. According to the record Palmer
said, “I am going to blow you away. Do what I tell you.” Robert
Williams told Jesse Palmer to kill Officer Gehrich. Officer Gehrich heard
Jesse Palmer cock the gun. So Officer Gehrich grabbed the gun barrel
trying to push it away from his head. Robert Williams tried to help Jesse
Palmer get control of the gun. Jesse Palmer fired the gun wounding
Officer Gehrich in the hand. Gehrich then called over to a fellow officer
“I’m already shot, you’ve got to shoot him. We don’t have any
choice.” The fellow officer shot killing Robert Williams. Jesse
Palmer fled the scene. Jesse Palmer was arrested and charged with the
felony murder of Robert Williams and the kidnapping and attempted murder of
Officer Gehrich.
The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the
conviction of Jesse Palmer for felony murder stating “[A]
person who commits or attempts to commit one of the offenses designated in the
felony-murder statute is criminally responsible for a homicide which results
from the act of one who was not a participant in the original criminal
activity. Where the accused reasonably should have… foreseen that the commission of or attempt to commit the
contemplated felony would likely create a situation which would expose another
to the danger of death”
The case of Palmer v. State comes down to the argument about the
defendant being able to foresee that their actions could lead to the death of
another. The court makes the following statement about this “In
the present case, the defendant engaged in kidnapping, one of the felonies
designated in the felony-murder statute. He pointed a loaded and cocked handgun at the head of Officer Gehrich and
thereafter fired it, injuring the officer. Such conduct clearly raised the
foreseeable possibility that the intended victim might resist or that law
enforcement would respond, and thereby created a risk of death to persons
present. This felonious
conduct was clearly “the mediate or immediate cause” of Williams’s death.”
There are significant differences
between the case of Jesse Palmer and the case of The Elkhart 4. In both
cases the defendants were engaged in committing a crime. This blog has
already clearly stated that The Elkhart 4 need to be held to account for the
burglary. What is different is how the defendants reacted when it the
possibility of someone dying became foreseeable. Jesse Palmer chose to
hold a loaded gun to the head of an officer. He then shot the
officer in the hand. He did this in front of other officers. It is
hard to make an argument that he did not understand that his actions were
escalating this situation, making someone’s death a real possibility. The
Supreme Court uses Jesse Palmer’s escalation as proof of “foreseeable
possibility” of death.
In the case of the Elkhart 4 there
was no escalation. These teens broke into a house they believed was
empty. Without warning the homeowner began shooting. The teens ran
away. Some hid in a closet with their dying friend. Compare that to
Jesse Palmer who made conscious decisions to escalate this situation, which
ended up, deadly. Jesse Palmer pulled out a loaded gun. Jesse
Palmer held the gun to an officer’s head. Jesse Palmer threatened the
officer. Jesse Palmer struggled with the officer. Jesse Palmer shot
the officer. At each one of these points Jesse Palmer could have dropped
his gun and surrendered. If he had done this Robert Williams would not have
been killed. On the other side the Elkhart 4 broke into a house were shot at
and ran away. When the possibility of someone dying became
clearly foreseeable The Elkhart 4 did the only thing they could do . . . they
tried to deescalate the situation by leaving.
In the Palmer ruling the Supreme Court of Indiana cited
five other cases. In each case the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for
felony murder. These cases are as follows:
§ Sheckles v. State – The perpetrator
went into a bar and used force in an attempt to collect money. A gunfight broke out between the bartender and the perpetrator.
An innocent bar patron was killed in the gun fire.
§ Reaves v.
State – The victim
was ill and was confined to a hospital bed in his house. During the robbery the victim’s niece was thrown to
the ground, her hip was broken, and then she was thrown onto the victim.
The niece was then sexually assaulted while lying on the victim. She was left on the victim all night until help came the
next morning. The victim suffered clotting
from having his niece thrown onto him and having her stay there all night.
The clotting caused a pulmonary embolism,
which led to the victim’s death.
§ Pittman v.
State – During a robbery the victim was stabbed three times. The victim died two weeks later. Doctors
connected his death to the initial assault.
§ Sims v.
State – The victim,
a 92-year-old man, was beaten with a brick during a burglary. The victim died a few weeks later after surgery to repair wounds suffered in the assault.
§ Thomas v.
State – The victim
had a history of heart problems and was recovering
from surgery. The perpetrators forced
him to the floor and handcuffed him. The victim died of a heart attack
§ Booker v.
State – The victim
died after being knocked to the floor and mauled by the perpetrators.
These cases are horrific examples of
the damage humans can do to each other, but they also show another important
thing. In each one of these cases the convicted person did something to
escalate after committing the initial felony. If you go into a bar to use
violence to collect money and then you get into a gunfight there is a
“foreseeable possibility” that someone could die. If you stab someone
three times there is a “foreseeable possibility” that someone could die.
If you beat someone with a brick there is a “foreseeable possibility” that
someone will die. All the cases cited in the Palmer case have the
convicted person escalating by using person to person violence after the
initial felony. This is what eventually led to death. This did not
happen in the case of The Elkhart 4.
In the Palmer v. State case there was a judge who did not agree with the decision. This judge notes
that in each of the cases listed above the defendant inflicted some sort of physical harm to
the victim, which led to their death.
The dissenting judge argues that because Jesse
Palmer did not injure his co-accused, Robert Williams, he was not responsible for the murder. The
descending judge noted that if the murder conviction were to be thrown out
Jesse Palmer would still serve 108 years in prison as opposed to the 118 years
he was sentenced to.
The case of Jesse Palmer v. State of Indiana was used as justification for the conviction of The Elkhart 4. We are very
concerned that the clear establishment of “foreseeable
possibility” as defined in the Palmer case
is not evident in the case of The Elkhart 4.
Curtis Hill is arguing that the very fact that
these teenagers committed burglary is the “foreseeable possibility” in this
case. It seems clear to us that the case law that has been cited does
support Mr. Hill’s claim. What other acts did The Elkhart 4 commit to
cause the escalation?
We believe that Curtis Hill is using
this case to expand the definition of Felony Murder in the State of
Indiana. If the case of the Elkhart 4 stands on appeal then the court
will be throwing out the very clear “foreseeable possibility” that they
demanded and articulated in Palmer v. Indiana decision.
Given our belief that the
felony murder rule is too broad, and gives prosecutors like Curtis Hill far too
much leeway in charging already, we are concerned by this attempt to further
expand the definition of this law. Expansion of the felony murder law will place more power in the hands of the political
elite making mounting
an effective defense more difficult for the accused. Expanding the
definition of the felony murder rule will further reduce the requirement for
the state prosecutor to prove the facts of the case.
The case of The Elkhart 4 is unique
because the victim of the crime was one a conspirator in the burglary.
Unlike Palmer, the rest of the Elkhart 4 did not escalate the situation
after the burglary instead they tried to leave, their only option at
de-escalating what was happening. These are very different circumstances
than those found in Palmer v. State.
We are very concerned with the
legal precedent the case of The Elkhart 4 might set. We encourage legal
scholars, lawyers and everyday citizens to get involved to try and stop what
we perceive to be a power grab by the Prosecutors Office.
JOSE:
An introduction by Jose Quiroz.
"Hello, my name is Jose
Quiroz. I am a born and raised Elkhart, Indiana, baby. I am now currently the
age of 18. At this point of time I am currently serving an unjust sentence at
the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, for a "Felony Murder"
conviction.
Serving this bid has been very uneasy,
mentally and physically. So far away from home. no women, lack of
communication, and no freedom. It seems as if nowadays inmates are the new 21st
century animals. I try to be inverse from that. I spend my days of
incarceration, working out, reading, studying and listening to music. I really
enjoy these activities. It’s prominent that I work out twice a day, but on
occasion I try to get a third session in when I have the opportunity to do so.
I would say that reading is starting to become a passion for me. I read all the
time. I enjoy learning new things. These few genres here are what really grabs
my attention: Self Help, Philosophy, Mystery, Action Packed and Horror as well.
I enjoy Self Help books the most.
When it comes to studying I am
all about Small Business Management and Financial Accounting. One of my long
term goals is to one day own my own Motorcycle Customization and Repair Shop.
If that goal ever fails my back up plan is to join the Carpentry Business and
maybe one day own my own Business in that particular industry.
Music as people say, "is my
weak spot", it really calms me down and takes me to another place. R&B
is my pick of choice. You can't go wrong with some, Boys to Men, R Kelly and
Jaheim. I listen to other music genres as well, like Rap, Hip Hop, and Country.
To tell you a little bit about
growing up in Elkhart and Elkhart now. It was pretty rough for me. My father
was never hardly there. When he was, it was as if he was transparent or
something. My mother as well as my two grandmothers and my second mom Angie
Meadows, have been there for me no matter what.
Watching my mother endure
domestic violence abuse for many years really scarred me for life. I really
believe that my mother sustained from leaving that household due to the fact of
me still being young and needing my father in my life. She’s always wanted the
best for me and living with both parents no matter of what circumstances was
considered the best. But my father leaving at any time was pretty much
inevitable. For a while growing up my household was financially vacillating. Single
mother with one income and a child was rough for her and me living at home. I
remember I would not wear brand labels but similar clothes from Walmart, even
though I matched I honestly thought back then that I was separated from everyone
else because of money!
It seemed like I never had what everyone
else had. But really my friends wanted what I supposedly had. So I began to
distant myself, and eventually turned to the streets. Once my mother got a
better position at her job, cards began to fall in the right places. It was too
late then... I had allowed myself to be dragged deeper into the streets. I was
so deep into following negative people in those streets that it was too late to
turn around. I even tried to change myself. I enrolled and paid for Drug
Addiction Classes, Anger Management Classes, and even Counseling, but I was so
stuck into following the wrong crowd I would always take 2 steps forward and
get knocked 3 steps backwards.
I believe that part of my corrupt
decisions were based on me not having a father figure there to properly guide
me in the correct way, or to help encourage me to make better decisions. There
are a lot of kids out there that are stuck in the same predicament! Lost!
That’s considered normal in Elkhart.
Not having both parents living in
the same household, and a mother going through domestic violence abuse, and
preteens lost in the streets not knowing their true destiny... I don’t even
want to dwell on the things that are considered not normal. Elkhart is so
backwards... Especially their Justice System. All they believe in is
punishment, no rehabilitation whatsoever. We don’t even have leisurely after
school or weekend programs for the children and young teens to participate in
to keep from negativity and to keep themselves occupied and out of the way. Or
at least they didn’t when I was enrolled in school. The ones we do have you
have to pay for, which is sick! Because what about the people who don’t have
the finances to pay for those programs? But leave it up to the head
"Elkhardians its okay" because quote on quote statistically there all
going to end up in Jail anyways. So their still goanna get their money. So
basically it is a lose - lose situation. I and a lot of people firmly believe
that Elkhart is just a trap. They believe that if it doesn't make money it
doesn't make sense, which I can understand to a certain degree, but somewhere
down the line we got to give back because it’s not just all about receiving.
What about helping??? I pray every night that things will get better and people
will get the help they need and deserve. As I continue my journey of
imprisonment, I will maintain the mentality of hoping for the best and just
continue to pray that things will change!!
Thank you for taking your
valuable time to read this excerpt. I really appreciate it. By the way please
feel free to leave a comment. We only accept positive ones, not negative! So if
you’re here to hate just press that little red X in the corner of the screen
and go on about yrour business...
Elkhart 4 News Article: http://m.elkharttruth.com/news/crime-fire-courts/2014/06/12/Three-of-the-Elkhart-4-appealing-felony-murder-convictions-and-sentences.html
No comments:
Post a Comment