RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A Virginia prisoner who killed two people during an escape was improperly denied a chance to show that he wouldn’t do it again if spared the death penalty, his lawyer told a federal appeals court Tuesday.
Attorney Jonathan P. Sheldon said the trial judge should have allowed an expert witness to testify that William Morva would not endanger other inmates or prison guards if sentenced to life without parole. The jury had cited “future dangerousness” as the aggravating factor in sentencing Morva to death for the 2006 slayings.
Virginia Senior Assistant Attorney General Alice Armstrong argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has never required a trial judge to allow the kind of expert testimony sought by Morva.
The appeals court typically issues its decision several weeks after hearing arguments.
Morva was in jail awaiting trial on attempted-robbery charges in 2006 when he was taken to a Blacksburg hospital for treatment of an injury. He overpowered a Montgomery County deputy sheriff in the hospital and used the deputy’s pistol to shoot unarmed security guard Derrick McFarland.
Morva shot Cpl. Eric Sutphin of the sheriff’s department one day later on a walking trail near the Virginia Tech campus, which had been shut down on the first day of classes as police tracked the escapee.
Sheldon also argued in court papers that Morva’s trial attorneys failed to adequately investigate their client’s background, but Tuesday’s hearing focused entirely on the trial court’s refusal to allow a psychologist to conduct a prison-violence risk assessment and present the results to the jury.
Prosecutors argued during the sentencing phase of the trial that Morva “would kill again if put in prison,” Sheldon said. He said the defense expert would have countered with scientific evidence that Morva posed an “exceedingly low” risk of violent behavior.
He said every other state that imposes the death penalty based on “future dangerousness” allows such defense testimony, but appeals court Judge Albert Diaz said “that doesn’t mean it’s constitutionally required.”
Armstrong said a defendant is entitled to a psychiatric expert only if mental health is an issue, and Morva had an expert for that purpose.
Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Spartan Echo 