Jury draw set as Fell continues fight on death penalty

Donald Fell

Donald Fell

RUTLAND — The retrial of Donald Fell is scheduled to begin early this year, but a motion filed last week seeking to appeal U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford’s ruling on the constitutionality of the death penalty could delay the proceedings.

In his 57-page decision in mid-December, Crawford acknowledged serious flaws in the way capital cases are tried in this country but concluded that it was not a question for the lower courts to settle.

Fell’s defense team argues otherwise. Lead counsel Michael Burt says Crawford should amend his ruling to allow for an interlocutory appeal of the death penalty decision and that all other matters should be put on hold during that time.

The defense motion says the court’s ruling, which “defers any remedial action to the Supreme Court, should be vacated and the relief sought granted such that the notice of intent to seek the death penalty is stricken in Donald Fell’s case.”

The legal question focuses on whether such an appeal can be granted in a capital case as opposed to a civil case. Such action is typically reserved for civil cases; however, exceptions have been made, and in a recent ruling the 1st Circuit referred to a “lack of uniformity” that has left the question unsettled.

In the motion Fell’s defense contends that the case meets all of the requirements for a certificate of appeal and that Crawford’s own careful review of the facts in his death penalty decision should compel him to “remedy the constitutional violation that the court found.”

Fell was charged in the 2000 killing of North Clarendon resident Teresca King and was convicted in 2005 in federal court. He was later sentenced to death, but the verdict was overturned due to juror misconduct.

While not ruling the death penalty unconstitutional, Crawford found that it was applied in an arbitrary manner and that protections put in place 40 years ago to prevent a variety of injustices had failed.

Perhaps in anticipation of the government’s argument — it has until Jan. 10 to respond — the defense asserts that denying an appeal at this stage will not speed the resolution of the case.

“It is misleading in the extreme in the circumstances of the present complex capital case to hold out to the victim’s family the promise of ‘closure’ upon the mere return of a jury verdict,” the defense writes, “when the government knows full well that this case, regardless of whether a pretrial appeal is authorized, is destined for years, if not decades, of future appeals and … proceedings.”

Members of King’s family have attended every hearing for the past 16 years.

The defense also suggests the integrity of a future conviction could be at stake if an appellate court later finds that the death penalty should have been ruled unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

In previous rulings Crawford denied a motion to delay the trial after hearing arguments from the defense attorneys that they had not had enough time to prepare. He also denied a motion to withdraw as Fell’s counsel if the request for more time was not granted.

At a recent status conference during which the motion to postpone was discussed, Crawford appeared frustrated with the amount of time the pretrial hearings have eaten up. Though he sympathized with the defense attorneys’ demands — both are involved in other capital cases — he said the hearings had dragged on for two years and that it was time to bring the matter before a jury.

On Wednesday, the day after the defense filed its motion seeking an appeal of the death penalty decision, Crawford issued an order to draw a jury pool of 1,800 names from all divisions within the state of Vermont. According to the order, jury selection is scheduled to begin Feb. 13.

Adam Federman

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • Hi Adam. Based on your comment from Jan 1 on your article, “RUTLAND DRUG KINGPIN CONVICTED,” I expected a description of Fell’s race to be included here. Just to remind, you wrote “And, yes, if Joyce had been Asian, Caucasian, or Native American I would’ve included that too.”
    As you know, I believe Joyce’s race should be deleted from your previous article. Describing race selectively when someone is non-white promotes racial profiling.

    • edward letourneau

      Few really care. We want drugs out our communities. If perps are black and from out of state, its worth nothing since it takes a community to stop this, and community memember need to know what to look for. — Now perhaps you can make a case by telling us how many white guys from Vermont are hauling drugs from the cities to sell here?

    • Dennis Works

      John Rosenblum: This article, and most if not all of the articles in VT Digger regarding Donald Fell have included a picture of Mr. Fell. Also, Mr. Fell and his crime are well-known to virtually every Vermonter. Therefore, no description, racial or otherwise, of Mr. Fell is necessary.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Jury draw set as Fell continues fight on death penalty"