FOLLOW US

Washington, D.C. - Three decades after an Arizona man fatally bludgeoned a friend, a young girl, and a grandmother, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ended his efforts to escape execution. The court found that a trial lawyer's incomplete illustration of the man's psychologically damaging experiences does not merit leniency.

In a 6-3 decision, the high court's conservatives sided with Arizona prosecutors and reversed a Ninth Circuit panel's ruling in favor of convicted murderer Danny Lee Jones. The ruling held that mitigating factors, such as childhood sexual abuse and lasting trauma, do not outweigh the brutality of the baseball bat killings in 1992.

According to the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the Ninth Circuit "downplayed the serious aggravating factors present here and overstated the strength of mitigating evidence that differed very little from the evidence presented at sentencing." The opinion asserted that, had the Ninth Circuit followed Supreme Court precedent, it would have affirmed the district court's decision rejecting Jones' bid to avoid capital punishment.

The relevant precedent is Strickland v. Washington, where the high court in 1984 detailed standards for capital punishment challenges alleging constitutionally ineffective counsel.

Thursday's decision effectively concludes 32 years of legal proceedings that began in 1992 after Jones, intoxicated by alcohol and crystal methamphetamine, committed a deadly baseball bat attack on his friend Robert Weaver, Weaver's 7-year-old daughter Tisha Weaver, and Weaver's grandmother Katherine Gumina. Jones was convicted in 1993 of murdering the Weavers and attempting to murder Gumina, who died 17 months later from her injuries.

Death Sentence for Arizona Man 32 Years After Murders

Jones has contested his death sentence by arguing that jurors only received a partial view of his traumatic experiences, which included his mother's exposure to toxins while pregnant, severe physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by male family members, and a poor diet. However, the Supreme Court was not convinced that a full presentation of these experiences would have altered Jones' original sentence due to the vicious nature of his attacks. The high court directed the Ninth Circuit to conclude that the shortcomings of Jones' trial lawyer did not violate the constitutional right to counsel.

This ruling vindicates the nine Ninth Circuit judges who dissented from a denial of rehearing by the full appeals court. The dissenting judges criticized the panel for "grave errors" and noted that the Supreme Court had previously reversed a 2009 ruling in Jones' favor by the Ninth Circuit.

The state is represented by the Arizona Office of the Attorney General. Jones is represented by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP and the Federal Public Defender's Office for the District of Arizona.

The case is Thornell v. Jones, case number 22-982, before the Supreme Court of the United States.