Ron Guzek's claim that he should have been allowed to present evidence that he didn't do it at sentencing is going before the Supreme Court. A little history on his case:
[Guzek] was 18 when he and two other accomplices robbed the home of Rod and Lois Houser in June 1987. Court testimony showed Guzek, under the influence of methamphetamines, ordered an accomplice to kill Rod Houser. Lois Houser was then chased up a staircase and shot four times by Guzek, who then ripped her wedding ring off her hand.
Guzek was arrested days later after the Houser's tablecloth was found on his own dinner table.
This case is on certiorari from the Oregon Supreme Court, which overturned Guzek's death sentence on the ground that he has an unconditional right to present such evidence (even where there isn't any real question whether he did it). This represents the third time the Oregon Supreme Court has overturned his sentence. And the families of Rod and Lois Houser have now been waiting eighteen years for justice to be done.
I'm not sure how much "due process" a guy like Guzek is due, but at some point in the last couple of decades you would think he used up his share.
Comments