A Utah man sentenced to death in a 1985 murder case is appealing his conviction by arguing the Mormon church interfered in his trial.
But Mormon officials were concerned the bishopsā testimony could make it seem like church representatives approved of a murderer, so they told some members to keep testimony brief while preventing others from testifying at all, attorneys argue. One mentor tearfully asked not to be called as a character witness after a higher-ranked member cautioned him against it, Lovell said.
This reads like thereās at least a paragraph missing. Why does the 2nd paragraph start with āButā¦ā?
And Lovellās first name is never mentioned, which supports your theory.
Spokesman Eric Hawkins says leaders donāt usually participate in court cases unless it directly involves the church
So they did interfere in the case, innocent/guilty does not matter, guess it is church before justiceā¦
Convert the sentence to life and arrest the church leaders who interfered. Of course, the later wonāt happen, it is in Utah.
Mixed feeling about this. Just what is he saying these witnesses would have said in his favor that would have mitigated his crimes? (And yeah, I would mostly prefer him to be imprisoned for life.)
He was convicted again and sentenced to die a second time in 2015.
How do they expect him to do that?
Die and death are not congruent in meaning. [Hint: oneās a verb, the other a noun.]
When discussing the Mormon Church, always remember that the second āmā is silent
So Mormons think it is a good idea to baptize already dead people to give them a second chance, but not testify on their behalf to avoid a death penalty. Wow, your hypocrisy is showing.
Iām against the death penalty for a number of reasons, but this guy, if any, deserves to have the book thrown at him. Anyone who plots for months (after having committed a heinous crime), hires a hit man, stalks and kills in cold blood, and then on top of that somehow cannot fulfill the conditions of a plea deal, cannot then ask to show āhow sorry he isā for that series of crimes. Not in good faith.
That said, the Mormon church is totally in the wrong if it pressured anyone about how and whether they testified. Iām just having a hard time figuring out why anyone would even want to be a character witness for this guy.
Please remove, rewrite, and repost this article. As it stands, it doesnāt make any sense, except for the rather grisly description of the crime. If this were True Crime magazine, it would be perfect.
They did not interfere with the trial. Although they might have taken a semi-united stand NOT to interfere with the trial by expressing support for the defendant.
Lovell pleaded guilty to killing Yost in 1993 to avoid the death penalty, but a judge imposed it anyway after Lovell couldnāt fulfill a condition of the plea deal and find her body. He cooperated in a search, but she was never found.
Thatās a bizarre action by the judge, IMO. A ābest effortsā standard would be more appropriate than āsucceed or dieā. It is likely that the body already was long gone when the plea deal was made.
Reads as if they did exactly what Catholics have done with the Priest abuse scandal. That is encouraged those with knowledge to keep quiet and/or say as little and innocuously as possible. In my book this is interfering, may not be illegal but is for sure ethically challenged.