John R. Hicks faces execution on Nov. 29, 2005 for the death of his stepdaughter, Brandy Green, a five-year-old black girl, early on Aug. 3, 1985. 

Hicks received a sentence for 30 years in prison without parole for the related death of his mother-in-law, Maxine Armstrong, a black woman late on the evening of Aug. 2, 1985.  After dropping his stepdaughter off at her maternal grandmother’s apartment, Hicks spent all of the money he had on cocaine and alcohol.  He returned home to get a VCR that he then used to buy cocaine.  Fearing his wife Ghitana Hicks’ reaction to the missing VCR, John Hicks decided to rob his mother-in law.  During the robbery Hicks reportedly strangled her.  Hicks then left the apartment to consume more cocaine and to retrieve the VCR.  Realizing that his stepdaughter could place him at the scene of Armstrong’s murder, Hicks returned to the scene and suffocated Brandy Green with a pillow.

Although Hicks admitted to these crimes there are many problems with his case that suggest that the death penalty is not appropriate for Hicks.  For example, although according to Ohio law voluntary intoxication may be considered a mitigating factor in determining intentionality or premeditation, the jury hearing Hicks’ case was not made aware of this fact.  The cocaine and alcohol consumed by Hicks near the time of the murders clearly suggest that he was not in control of his actions. 

Also, an expert who had examined Hicks to determine whether he was competent to stand trial testified that Hicks suffered from a psychotic decomposition and that he should be put under observation in a psychiatric facility to determine competence to stand trial.  The trial court decided to favor other expert opinions instead, therefore ruling that Hicks was competent to stand trial. 

Another major problem with Hicks’ sentence is that the jury was told that the final decision about whether to impose a death sentence rested with the judge.  Such instruction may suggest to the jury that it is okay to vote for the death penalty even if they have doubts because the verdict will be reviewed.  Such a statement has clear implications to the jury’s decision.  Although the Court of Appeals of Ohio overruled this error, the Court of Appeals did admit that by overruling the claim of error they did not endorse “the perpetuation of a practice that has fallen into disfavor in this state.”  The Court of Appeals admits that the trial court erred and yet overruled the claim of error by the defendant in his appeal.  This decision raises many issues.  Particularly, the fact that allowing the death sentence to move forward in such a case suggests to lower courts that such statements to the jury are acceptable. 

Furthermore, in deciding whether the death penalty was appropriate in Hicks’ case, the Court of Appeals of Ohio compared his case only to other cases reviewed by the Court of Appeals of Ohio in which the death penalty was imposed.  This eliminates comparison with cases in which the death penalty was sought and not imposed or cases in which the death penalty was not sought.  Considering the arbitrary nature of the death penalty it is important for the appellate court to review cases in which a similar defendant was not sentenced to death.  The fact that the court in this case did not consider such comparisons presents a grave error.

Hicks was under the influence of both alcohol and cocaine at the time of the murders.  He has expressed his sorrow for the crimes and for the suffering family.  Considering the numerous problems with Hicks’ trial, his cooperation with authorities throughout proceedings, his questionable mental competence to stand trial and his remorse it is clear that this is not a case that warrants a death sentence. 

Please write Gov.  Taft requesting that he commute John R. Hicks’ sentence.