Defense lawyers for Steven DeMocker told a judge Thursday that they plan to ask that two separate juries be impaneled for the upcoming murder trial: one to determine guilt or innocence and the other, if needed, to decide whether to impose the death penalty.
DeMocker, 55, is charged with first-degree murder in the July 2, 2008, slaying of his ex-wife, Carol Kennedy, who was bludgeoned to death at her Williamson Valley home.
Larry Hammond, a Phoenix lawyer who represents DeMocker, said he based his argument for two juries partly on The Capital Jury Project, a study begun in 1991 that has polled more than 1,000 jurors from around the country who served on capital cases. It found that a majority of those jurors had already made up their minds about whether to impose the death penalty early in the trial, long before they were supposed to under the law.
"Well over half said if he was guilty he was going to get death before he was (convicted)," Hammond said.
Deputy County Attorney Joseph C. Butner III, who is prosecuting the case, contended that DeMocker should get the death penalty if convicted, citing five aggravating factors. Superior Court Judge Thomas B. Lindberg ruled earlier this month that three aggravating factors applied, including a burglary charge, cruel, heinous or depraved behavior and financial gain. Prosecutors allege that DeMocker killed Kennedy to free himself from $6,000-per-month alimony payments and to avoid splitting a 401(k) retirement plan with her in their divorce settlement.
DeMocker, who maintains his innocence, told detectives that he was riding his bicycle on a mountain trail when Kennedy died. Defense lawyers note that DNA from an unknown male was found underneath the victim's fingernails.
However, they sparred with Butner over his desire to continue testing items, including a swab from Kennedy's shirt. Defense lawyer John Sears said prosecutors have had the items in their possession since July 2008.
Lindberg allowed the DNA testing to continue, it "could be exculpatory."
"I've said many times we want DNA testing to be done," Hammond said later. But the closer to trial the harder it is for the defense to "ferret out what hasn't been done" and have its own experts examine the evidence.
Lindberg did not rule on a defense request to bring 450 potential jurors to the courthouse on different days and have them fill out a 17-page questionnaire. The questionnaire would determine if serving on a jury for the lengthy trial would be a hardship, what if anything they knew about the case and what their attitudes toward the death penalty might be.
Butner opposed the questionnaire, saying it was not needed.
Margaret Merlitz, a county jury commissioner, told the judge and lawyers that there is normally a pool of about 4,000 potential jurors available. About 100 jurors at a time fit into jury assembly rooms at either the courthouse in Prescott or the one in Camp Verde.
Defense lawyers propose calling in 450 potential jurors in early April in order to have a smaller group of "qualified" jurors to question orally when the trial begins on May 4.
DeMocker remains in custody in lieu of a $2.5 million bond.
Posted: Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Article comment by:
Sonja
Well people... I have followed the case but not closely. I am not trying, on any level to prejudice the jury. Sincerely... I am concerned with the fact that people, who do not know all the facts, are more inclined to comment here. I'll back off just to back off and let you all have your say. I hold my own knowledge....... which may be worth nothing. I just know I think Democker is what he is. As do others... who are less likely to waste thier time commenting... You've heard the last from me, as I am sure you in favor are happy to hear.
Posted: Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Article comment by:
Jule Abrita
Sonja, you were proven wrong when you claimed DeMocker lived in Phoenix. But rather than admit you were wrong, you say “I’m not claiming to be an expert witness here” as if people were unfairly judging your comments according to some higher standard. But no one claimed you were an expert. Rather, the concern is that your statements about this case don’t even rise to the level of basic truthfulness. To make matters worse, you go on to say this is really all beneath you because “I don't have time to follow the story, nor do I care enough, as you do.” But by my count you have posted 27 separate comments on Courier articles about this case since last February. That implies you’re highly invested in this case, for some unknown reason, and that now when you make a false claim even your excuses for doing so are misleading. So let me ask you: are you intentionally trying to poison the minds of the future jurors with misinformation? Or is it that you just don’t care whether the future jurors’ minds are free of prejudice so they can focus on actual evidence and render a just verdict?
Posted: Monday, December 21, 2009
Article comment by:
PEOPLE AND THE SYSTEM FAILING
Sonja..guilty or not justice should be served?its people like you is the reason that there are MANY people in prison that dont deserve to be there.i think you need to do some serious soul searching.thats why we have the judicial system innocent until proven guilty!!!! which is FAILING terribly!!!!
Posted: Monday, December 21, 2009
Article comment by:
Sonja
Julie, I'm not claiming to be an expert witness here. I don't have time to follow the story, nor do I care enough, as you do. What will be, will be. I maintain the right to my opinion and to state what I believe to be so.
Posted: Monday, December 21, 2009
Article comment by:
Julie Abrita
Sonja once again proves you don’t need facts to have an opinion. In reality, No name provided is correct that Steve did not reside in Phoenix. His daughter got an apartment there where he sometimes stayed to visit her and his company’s headquarters, but that was MONTHS AFTER Carol died. Sonja’s uninformed and misleading comments prove how important it is to screen jurors, and a thorough questionnaire seems like a good way to weed out potential jurors with the kind of prejudice and bias shown by some in this blog.
Posted: Sunday, December 20, 2009
Article comment by:
Sonja
Sounds like Gracie is the only person on the right page here. The demeaning and ridicule is "rediculous" in the responses here... Hope I don't get picked, you said it right! Democker did reside, at least part of the time, in Phoenix where he was working part of the time. Y'all don't know know the facts. And there was more than one girlfriend... the money he spent on them alone would have paid Carol's alimony. Get a grip! Guilty or not... justice should be served... then there is the question of two juries... if it is that serious that he needs two separate juries, then there must be evidence. If you think the media has it all you are mistaken.
Posted: Saturday, December 19, 2009
Article comment by:
Gracie
No Name: You know that jury questionnaire this article is about? That's to help find people who are actually qualified to determine guilt or innocence AFTER having heard the evidence. Obviously you are not one of those who would be qualified, since you have already made up your mind BEFORE hearing ANY of the evidence. Believe me, evidence ain't what you read in the newspaper.
Posted: Saturday, December 19, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
To Nancy,
Yes DeMocker is in a fight for his life, as you would be in his situation, wrongfully accused, having to prove your innocence even though the burden of proof is on the state. And, NO, DeMocker didn't live in Phoenix at the time of the incident. He lived here in Prescott and hiked, ran or rode his bike on the trails around town nearly every day after work.
Posted: Saturday, December 19, 2009
Article comment by:
Get A Grip!
Taking an alleged murderer to trial is a wate of taxpayers dollars? If it was a family member or close friend that was murdered in such a fashion, would still feel the same way? Quit being so sanctimonious and let the legal system work. Innoncent or guilty, the truth needs to be found out.
Posted: Saturday, December 19, 2009
Article comment by:
Nancy Shelton
Based on the fact that DeMocker's counsel has asked for a jury questionnaire and bifurcation of juries, it is obvious he has some high-powered, expensive attorneys (and probably, consultants). He is fighting for his life, so I would guess, any expense is justified. It's probably going to cost him more than the potential alimony, which is the alleged motive.
My understanding is that Mr. DeMocker resided in the Phoenix area at the time of the incident. His riding a bike on a trail nearby his wife's home at the approximate time of her death is a little more suspicious in light of this fact.
Posted: Friday, December 18, 2009
Article comment by:
a citizen
To Hope I don’t get picked: I hope you don’t get picked too. He’s not a criminal until he’s convicted of a crime. Until then, he is an innocent person and a citizen of this country with the same rights to due process as any other American. Civic duty calls on us at times to step up and be a responsible part of the community. Sometimes that means serving on a jury, and in this case it’s not an everyday jury deciding about some petty burglary. If someone finds filling out a 17 page questionnaire a hardship too great to bear, then they aren’t enough of a citizen to serve on a jury responsible for deciding someone’s fate.
Posted: Friday, December 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Response to DA
DA...it was a actual verbalization of feelings...not truth. I am saying not too many incidents have been proven that a man will kill his ex wife because of a divorce. Money gain or not. This whole so called conviction is a pure waste of our time.
Posted: Friday, December 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Hope I don't get picked
I would find filling out a 17 page document a hardship. He shoudl be treated like any other criminal and given the same jury that everyone else gets.
Posted: Friday, December 18, 2009
Article comment by:
DA
Unleasssh: In my divorce, I didn't want to kill my husband. I know plenty who just couldn't live with their spouse for various reasons, or be responsible for their actions anymore.
Posted: Friday, December 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Tired
Anyone else tired of hearing about this guy?
Posted: Friday, December 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Unleasssh the innocenseee!
This man is innocent down to the letter. In a divorce, when doesnt a man or women want to kill his wife/husband. There was mention of a old girlfriend once? What happened with this possible suspect? Could it be a case of a jealous girlfriend cause maybe they the (Demockers) were reuniting their relationship? I hope once this is all over he sues the town for "NO evidence" false arrest. Mr. DeMocker I pray for your family to find peace during this ridiculous same town trail. So called witches were burned at the stake for no apparent reason. Feeling a little witchy I suppose? Blessed Be!
Posted: Friday, December 18, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Sounds to me like lawyers making more work for themselves to stay employed. What a waste of taxpayer dollars!
