HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017264.jpg
2.43 MB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Book manuscript / legal memoir (evidence in house oversight investigation)
File Size:
2.43 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (likely by Alan Dershowitz) discussing the legal battle of the Tison brothers (Ricky and Raymond) against the death penalty in Arizona. It details the Supreme Court's decision to vacate their death sentences based on a new 'reckless disregard' standard, the subsequent reimposition of the sentence by a trial judge, and the eventual reversal by the Arizona Supreme Court to allow for new evidence. The document is stamped with a House Oversight Bates number, indicating its inclusion in a congressional investigation, likely related to Dershowitz's involvement in the Epstein case.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ricky Tison | Client / Defendant |
One of the brothers facing the death penalty; client of the author.
|
| Raymond Tison | Client / Defendant |
One of the brothers facing the death penalty; client of the author.
|
| Lyons' family | Victims |
The family whose fate the Tison brothers were accused of being indifferent to.
|
| Arizona Attorney General | Prosecution |
Opposing counsel in the case.
|
| She | Supreme Court Justice |
Author of the majority opinion (historically Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) who created the new legal category.
|
| The Trial Judge | Judge |
Reimposed death sentences without an evidentiary hearing.
|
| Author (implied Alan Dershowitz) | Defense Attorney |
Narrator referring to 'my clients' and 'We'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Arizona Courts |
Courts handling the remand and sentencing.
|
|
| Arizona Supreme Court |
Reversed the trial judge's reimposition of the death sentence.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Referenced as 'The majority' or 'justices'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Post-1987 (Historical context)
Supreme Court creates new rule regarding 'reckless disregard' and vacates death penalty for Tison brothers.
Washington D.C. / Arizona
Supreme Court Justices
Tison Brothers
Defense Team
Subsequent to Supreme Court ruling
Arizona trial court reimposes death sentence without evidentiary hearing.
Arizona
Trial Judge
Tison Brothers
Subsequent to trial court ruling
Arizona Supreme Court reverses trial judge and orders opportunity to introduce additional evidence.
Arizona
Arizona Supreme Court
Defense Team
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the courts and the case.
|
Relationships (1)
Author (Dershowitz)
→
Attorney-Client
→
Ricky and Raymond Tison
Referenced as 'my clients Ricky and Raymond'
Key Quotes (5)
"We hold that the reckless disregard for human life implicit in knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death represents a highly culpable mental state..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017264.jpg
Quote #1
"It was 'judicial activism' to the extreme."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017264.jpg
Quote #2
"The majority had simply concocted a new rule out of whole cloth."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017264.jpg
Quote #3
"It was a bad day for the campaign against capital punishment, but a hopeful one for my clients Ricky and Raymond..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017264.jpg
Quote #4
"The majority sloppily used two different formulations: 'reckless disregard' and 'reckless indifference.'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017264.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,235 characters)
4.2.12
WC: 191694
WC: 191694
She then went on to create a new category of crime that warranted execution even in the absence of a specific intent to kill:
We hold that the reckless disregard for human life implicit in knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death represents a highly culpable mental state, a mental state that may be taken into account in making a capital sentencing judgment when that conduct causes its natural, though also not inevitable, lethal result.
This new category—killings by a triggerman that reflected a “reckless disregard” for life by the non triggerman—had not been the basis for the Arizona Courts’ decision. Nor had it been argued by the Arizona Attorney General. Neither had we been given an opportunity to argue against it, because the justices seemed to agree that if there was no intent to kill—which they now ruled there was not—that would be “the end of the case.” The majority had simply concocted a new rule out of whole cloth. They seemed determined to overrule Enmund, without appearing to be doing so. It was “judicial activism” to the extreme.
But the court could not simply apply this new rule to the old facts of the Tison case, since the Arizona courts had not found that the condemned brothers had shown a “reckless disregard for human life.”60 The majority therefore, “vacated” the death penalty against my clients and remanded the case back to the Arizona courts “for determination” whether the Tison brothers met this new criteria. Had they “affirmed” the judgment—the death sentence—the case would have been over. But by “vacating” it, the justices gave us a new beginning.
We were still alive, as so were Ricky and Raymond. Their fates would now be in the hands of the Arizona courts, which would have to make a finding that these boys had shown “reckless indifference” or “disregard” for human life. It was a bad day for the campaign against capital punishment, but a hopeful one for my clients Ricky and Raymond, who were no longer under sentence of death—at least for the moment.
The state of Arizona continued to seek the death penalty and asked the trial court to find that the Tison brothers possessed a “reckless indifference to human life.” Without even conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court reimposed death sentences, concluding that the trial record itself demonstrated reckless indifference. He refused to allow us to introduce any evidence that might contradict this finding.
We immediately appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which had affirmed the original death sentence. This time the court unanimously reversed the trial judge, vacated the death sentences and remanded it back to the trial judge, ordering him to give us an opportunity to introduce “additional evidence” relating to whether the boys were recklessly indifferent to human life. We relished the opportunity, confident that a full exploration of the facts would lead to the inescapable conclusion that Ricky and Raymond were anything but indifferent to the fate of the Lyons’ family. They wanted them to live.
______
60 The majority sloppily used two different formulations: “reckless disregard” and “reckless indifference.”
60 The majority sloppily used two different formulations: “reckless disregard” and “reckless indifference.”
177
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017264
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document