Is a Retarded Person Capable of Murder? The Shawn Grell Case

I have covered news for the past decade or more in the Phoenix area and the case of Shawn Grell is one of the most troubling, gruesome cases I have ever encountered.

I remember covering this story when it broke. I was working the morning assignment desk and heard the scanners crackle with radio traffic from MCSO on a burned body in the desert. At the time, I didn't know it was the body of a 2 yr old girl....or the facts of this gruesome case.

According to court records her father, Shawn Grell, took his daughter out to the desert to "visit Santa and look at Christmas lights"...the reality couldn't be further from the truth. Instead, he doused her sleeping body with gasoline and burned her to death.

In his first trial, Grell chose to waive a jury trial and a judge sentenced him to death. Grell is now challenging this and goes to court again on Monday. His argument is that a mentally retarded person cannot waive a jury trial. He contends that the trial court erred by failing to find that he is mentally retarded and appropriately weighing that factor in mitigation of his sentence, Second, Grell argues that the execution of a mentally retarded person violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The heinous crime of this man brings to light the question whether a "retarded" man can be put to death. You play jury and decide whether the crime deserves the punishment.

On November 29, 1999, Shawn Grell left work early, claiming that he was needed at his girlfriend's house. He never returned to work. He spent the next few days at the home where he lived with his 2 yr old daughter Kristen, his girlfriend Amber Salem and Amber's parents.

On the morning of December 2, Amber dropped Kristen off at a daycare center. Later that day, Grell picked Kristen up from the center, signing Amber's name instead of his own on the sign-out sheet.

That afternoon Grell drove to Mesa with Kristen. At 5:40 p.m., he stopped at a convenience store to purchase beer and a sports drink. About an hour later, Grell bought a red plastic gas container at a department store in Mesa. He continued to drive around Mesa before stopping at another convenience store where he bought just over a gallon of gasoline. Still later that evening, Grell entered a convenience store in Apache Junction, but apparently did not buy anything.

Grell then drove to a remote area near Apache Junction, took his sleeping daughter out of the car, and laid her on the ground in a drainage ditch approximately fifteen feet from the road. Kristen woke up as her father poured gasoline over her. He then lit a match and flicked it on her, setting her on fire. Kristen stumbled around, walking at least twelve feet before falling to her knees and then collapsing face down in the dirt. She died from smoke inhalation and severe burns over 98% of her body. Only the bottoms of her feet were not burned.

After watching Kristen fall to her knees, Grell returned to his car and drove around briefly before returning to see if the fire had gone out. He then returned to one of the convenience stores he previously visited to purchase more beer. He told the worker at the cash register that he had just seen some kids light a dog on fire in the nearby desert. He said, "I can't believe that kids would set a dog on fire[;] this is what the world is coming to when kids set dogs on fire."

For several hours, Grell drove around and drank beer. Just before midnight a Phoenix police officer pulled Grell over on suspicion of driving under the influence , Grell handed the officer a bottle of beer he had been drinking, and the officer eventually released Grell to walk home.

Grell apparently returned to his car after the officer left and continued driving because around two a.m., another Phoenix police officer stopped Grell. This time the officer arrested Grell and took him to the police station, where breath tests confirmed that he had a blood alcohol content of approximately .16. After processing Grell, the officer released him and a taxi cab took Grell to Third Avenue and Van Buren.

From there, Grell walked to the state capitol, where he used a call box to telephone the Capitol Police.epartment. Grell told the capitol police several times that he had killed his daughter and informed them where he left her body. After confirming that an infant's body was found where Grell indicated it would be, the police arrested him on suspicion of murder.

At the scene, police investigators found Kristen's badly burned and lifeless body, tire tracks that were consistent with the tires on the car Grell was driving that day, large and small shoe impressions in the dirt that were consistent with the shoes that Grell and Kristen were wearing, and a book of matches with one match missing. They also found some partially burned candy, a melted hair clip, and various articles of partially burned clothing. Police recovered a red plastic gas container that appeared new and still contained a small amount of gasoline. Grell's fingerprints were found on the gas can. Finally, investigators noted several areas of burnt soil and a strong smell of gasoline in the area.

Kristen's body was found face down, and her clothes, hair, and body were badly burned. An autopsy revealed that she suffered third and fourth degree burns over 98% of her body. According to the lead detective, the positioning of Kristen's body, the burn patterns on her clothes and body, the burn patterns on the ground near her body, and other evidence collected at the scene were all consistent with Kristen having had gasoline poured on her body and then being lit on fire. The autopsy revealed that Kristen's death resulted from thermal injuries and smoke inhalation.

Several months after his arrest, Grell signed a "Prisoner Media Waiver" informing him that "statements made to reporters, newspersons and other members of the media may be used against you in court." Grell then held a news conference at which he admitted killing his daughter. At the news conference, which was video taped, Grell stated:

We [he and Kristen] had gone to Mesa. Went to Mesa. I was going to see my sister's, my sister's house, but I decided not to. I decided to go to the store and get a few beers, and to go drinking, and drive around in the car. Took Kristen to McDonald's, um, then we just cruised around a little bit more. And I just, I didn't, I decided that I was going to go ahead and do it. I went to the gas station to get the stuff and drove around, trying to find a place where I could do it.

During the press conference, Grell also stated that Kristen woke up when he poured gasoline on her and she stood up when he lit the match and threw it on her.

Three weeks later Grell sent a letter to the prosecutor in which he stated, "I took my daughter's life away from her on December 2, 1999; in a very sickening way!" In the letter, Grell stated several times that he was guilty. Police investigators confirmed that the handwriting on the April 21 letter matched Grell's handwriting.

In consultation with his attorneys, Grell elected to avoid a jury trial and the parties submitted the case to the trial court based on stipulated facts. The court found Grell guilty of first degree murder. At the sentencing hearing, the court concluded that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of three aggravating factors: a prior conviction for a serious offense, A.R.S. § 13-703(F) (2) (Supp. 2002); the heinous, cruel, or depraved manner of the murder, id. § 13-703(F) (6); and that the victim was less than fifteen years of age, id. § 13-703(F) (9). Finding no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, the court sentenced Grell to death. Id. § 13-703(E).

Grell makes two arguments regarding mental retardation. First, he contends that the trial court erred by failing to find that he is mentally retarded and appropriately weighing that factor in mitigation of his sentence, Second, and more importantly, Grell argues that the execution of a mentally retarded person violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

At his sentencing hearing, Grell presented evidence that he is mentally retarded, but failed to convince the trial court of that fact. Since the time of Grell's conviction, the United States Supreme Court has determined that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of mentally retarded persons, Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S. Ct. 2242 (2002), a point not at issue in Grell's sentencing hearing. Thus, we turn to the companion questions of what standards govern the determination of mental retardation, and whether the trial court applied those standards when finding that Grell was not mentally retarded, for if the proper standards were correctly applied, then the trial court's determination that Grell is not mentally retarded may stand. If, however, the wrong standards were applied to an issue that may serve as a constitutional bar to execution, the matter must be reconsidered. We also consider the effect, if any, on Grell's case of A.R,S. § 13-703.02 (Supp. 2002), which makes the mentally retarded ineligible for the death penalty in Arizona.

If you have read this far, then I ask that you watch Mike Watkiss' coverage of this case on KTVK Ch 3 starting next Monday and decide for yourself whether this man deserves to be sentenced to death.

Don't Taze Me Bro!

"Don't Taze Me Bro!"... those famous words forever changed the Taser stun gun from a trademarked name to a verb.
Just like Kleenex refers to a tissue, or Coke refers to a soda, Taz(s)e refers to an action.

When a Glendale, AZ school resource officer was unable to break up a fight between two 14 yr old boys, he chose to pull out his Taser and shock one of the boys in the back. Forget that part of the story for a moment.

What the police officer didn't know was that he was going to spark a debate in our newsroom that still has no clear resolution.

Is a person "tazed" or "tased"?

We had an interesting discussion on the topic. If you conduct a Google search, there is no consistency throughout newsrooms across the country. Some headlines refer to a person as being tased, others say tazed. CNN has both variations of the word listed on their website. So who is right?

In my newsroom, I argued that Taser with an "s" is a trademarked name for the weapon while tazer with a "z" refers to the action. I was in the minority. Our anchor Patti serves as the grammar police and she actually sided with me, however we were still in the minority. Since we couldn't come to a resolution we consulted Al Tompkins at the Poynter Institute.
He presented an interesting response. Dialogue below:

On May 5, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Passman, Laurie wrote:
Hi Al-
We have an ongoing debate in our newsroom and I was hoping you could provide some resolution. We are discussing whether it is appropriate to refer to someone as being “tased” or “tazed”. One argument is that Taser is a registered trademark name and refers to the company. “Being tazed” is a verb referring to the action. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Al responded:
"I think if you got shot by a Taser you have been tased.
Remember, it is a made-up word anyway, but as long as we are making it up, it seems to me we should stick to the tradmarked name of the product that shot you, not pretend there is another kind of shock gun.

On the other hand, if you get shot by a Glock 9 did you get glocked?
If you get shot by a Beretta, did you get Beretta'ed?
Should we drop tased and explain what actually happened--police shot him with a 52,000 volt shock."

Regardless of who is right or wrong, and whether we truly have any resoltion on the matter, I am proud that our newsroom took the time out of our busy day to actually have the discussion in an effort to be accurate.

In an era when newsrooms are doing more with less, I am proud that we took the time to have a discussion as to which term is more accurate. Many people want to slam the media for being biased and having an agenda, when the truth is, we don't even have the time to form an agenda, much less run out to McD's for lunch. We just want to be accurate and present a good product.

As a side note, one of our competitors chose to use an FSG with the words "Student Zapped". This only makes me think that the kid was microwaved, which further diminishes the actions of the officer. Zapped? Isn't that what happens to bugs in a mid-western backyard? Tasers KILL people, so why would you demean the action and call a kid "Zapped"? I don't think the OTHER newsroom EVER had a discussion as to which term was accurate. Which brings us back full circle.

Regardless of whether the officer was right or wrong for using a stun gun on a kid, I am proud that our newsroom took the time to have a discussion in an effort to be accurate in covering a story. This dialogue challenges us to do better and think beyond the cliched language that has penetrated our culture...which in the end makes us better journalists.

Shut Up!

Shut up! Those two words are so abrasive and childish. Yet those are the words Maricopa County Deputies chose during a press conference last week to send a message to Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon. At the heart of the matter was the 287(g) program which allows local law enforcement to investigate and enforce federal immigration laws. A congressional hearing convened in Washington to investigate allegations of racial profiling and unconstitutional searches and seizures by MCSO deputies.

Julio Mora, 19, of Avondale traveled to Capitol Hill to testify about his recent tangle with MCSO Deps. You see Mora is an American citizen who happened to be taking his Dad to work one morning. At the same time, MCSO was serving a search warrant on the senior Mora's employer, HMI. When the men pulled into the HMI parking lot, Deputies pulled them from their truck, zip-tied their hands and detained them for hours. When Mora's father asked to use the restroom, he was told no five times. The senior Mora, a diabetic, was finally allowed to pee by the side of a truck. When he asked for assistance because his hands were zip-tied, he was ridiculed and teased. Same for Julio Mora- he pee'd down the side of his pants. Remember, Julio Mora is an American citizen. He was detained because he unknowingly walked into an MCSO raid....and his skin was brown so he fit the profile.

So back to this press conference called by MCSO. Their press release stated it was in response to the Capitol Hill hearing. So the media high-tailed it downtown, cameras and mic's ready to hear some kind of rebuttal to what was happening in Washington. Instead, they said those two words "Shut up!" Really? Shut up? That's how you choose to respond to a congressional inquiry? I'd expect to hear those words from children fighting on a playground, not professional adults addressing a serious issue in our community. Yet those are the exact words Lt. Joe Sousa of MCSO's Human Smuggling Detail used to criticize Mayor Gordon during a press conference. He shouted those words with such venom and hatred- he practically spit all over himself! Now Sheriff Joe isn't exactly known for his tact and eloquence, however you would think his chosen mouthpiece would be a little more articulate when addressing the media on such a serious and controversial topic.

Makes me wonder...if MCSO Deputies use this language to address the public during a press conference, what kind of language do you think they use when rounding up suspected illegal immigrants here in Maricopa County? Kind of validates Julio Mora's account of what happened that day in an HMI parking lot.

http://www.azfamily.com/video/?z=y&nvid=348302

Serial Shooter: Dale Hausner Jury

I have been a broadcast journalist for the past decade or so. Over the years, I have felt the thrill of being on the winning side of breaking news, and on the losing side. This week, not only was I only on the winning side of news, but the winning side of the justice system. The system doesn't always work, but this time it did. I'm talking about the Serial Shooter case of Dale Hausner in Phoenix, AZ.
Twelve men and women put their lives on hold to hear every gruesome detail that occurred when Dale Hausner and Sam Dieteman went on a random shooting spree across our metro area over a two year period. These men shot people (and animals) for sport. A man sitting at a bus stop. A woman walking to meet a friend. A horse grazing in a field. All in the name of fun. These killers lived in a fantasy world, where they no longer valued life. They sought power that was missing in their own lives. In a twisted search of pleasure and control, Hausner and Dieteman played God and took the lives of eight men and women and wounded numerous others.
But back to these jurors. There were a million excuses they could have given the judge as to why they could not commit to a 7 month long trial. Yet each one dropped everything to honor their civic duty.
A man starting out his career put everything on hold. Women and men enjoying the freedom of retirement. A single mom working to support her children. They set it all aside to fulfill their obligation to our justice system. In turn, they took a narcissistic sociopath off the streets and sentenced him to death.
Next time you receive a jury summons, forget about the inconvenience it will cost you in your life. Stop complaining about the parking, the crappy pay or the work you'll miss. It's a small price to pay to make sure justice is served and men like this are off the street. And in the larger scheme of life, wouldn't you rather feel safe walking from your office to fetch a Starbucks than worrying about whether you'll be the next target of a Serial Shooter?

To view the entire interview my talented co-worker Mike Watkiss conducted visit http://www.azfamily.com/news/homepagetopstory/stories/phoenix-local-news-040109-hausner-juror-speaks.9307e1b4.html