Chainsaw Murderer Daphne Wright Appeals to Supreme Court
In 2006, Wright was tried for killing Darlene VanderGiesen and using a chainsaw to dismember her body and was convicted. She received the life sentence, escaping the death penalty sentence.. Wright is bringing up many issues, including the court’s refusal to approve her request for a Deaf certified interpreter (CDI).
Daphne Wright’s appeal goes before the South Dakota Supreme Court on March 25.
One of the appeal issues is whether she should have had a CDI during the trial.
The legal document submitted for the appeal to the Supreme Court:
#24531 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2009– NO. 1 State v. Wright
In August of 2004, Daphne Wright lived in Sioux Falls with her girlfriend, Sallie Collins. They initially lived in Jackie Chesmore’s home, but Collins moved out in September. Both Collins and Wright were deaf, and Collins moved into an apartment complex known within the deaf community as the “deaf apartments.” While living there, Collins became friends with Darlene VanderGiesen, who was also deaf.
Wright became jealous of the friendship between VanderGiesen and Collins, and Wright also thought VanderGiesen was trying to destroy Wright’s relationship with Collins. On February 1, 2006, Wright set up a meeting with VanderGiesen at a Pizza Hut, allegedly to plan a Valentine’s Day surprise for Collins. Wright admitted meeting VanderGiesen at Pizza Hut’s parking lot that evening at 6:00 p.m. VanderGiesen was not seen again. Two days later, VanderGiesen’s father reported that his daughter was missing.
While police were investigating VangerGiesen’s disappearance, Chesmore and Wright voluntarily drove together to the Sioux Falls law enforcement center to be interviewed. There the police employed the use of a certified sign language interpreter for Wright’s interview. The police interviewed Wright from 10:49 a.m. until 12:54 p.m., at which time the State acknowledges that Wright unequivocally asked for a lawyer. Wright remained at the law enforcement center in the interrogation room without a lawyer, however, from 12:54 p.m. until 6:10 p.m., while police officers obtained and executed a search warrant for Wright’s home and vehicle. At the conclusion of the search, Wright left the law enforcement center. Wright was never advised of her Miranda rights.
Wright was arrested and subsequently charged with murder in the first degree (premeditated murder), murder in the second degree (felony murder), and aggravated kidnapping in connection with VanderGiesen’s death.
Prior to trial, a psychologist recommended and Wright requested the use of a Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI) to interpret the testimony to Wright consecutively, rather than simultaneously. The trial court denied Wright’s request. Instead of employing a CDI to interpret consecutively, the court provided five certified sign language interpreters and employed “real time” captioning, in which every word the court reporter transcribed was projected onto a computer screen for everyone to observe. Separate interpreters were provided for counsel and for the court proceedings. At Wright’s request, the trial was also videotaped.
The State offered evidence at trial regarding the officers’ execution of the search warrant, which included blood, bone and tissue samples from Wright’s vehicle and the basement of Wright’s home. The State laboratory confirmed the presence of VanderGiesen’s D.N.A. in these samples.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three counts, but declined to recommend the death penalty. Wright was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the first degree murder and kidnapping convictions. No sentence was imposed on the felony murder conviction.
Wright appeals the following issues:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Wright’s motion to suppress statements made during the interview at the law enforcement center.
2. Whether the trial court should have granted Wright’s request for consecutive interpretation during the trial and provided a CDI.
3. Whether the trial court’s system of selecting jurors, in which African-Americans were under-represented, violated Wright’s constitutional rights.
4. Whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of a prior altercation concerning Wright, VanderGiesen, and Collins.
5. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdicts of felony murder and premeditated murder.
6. Whether Wright’s kidnapping conviction violates double jeopardy.
7. Whether cumulative error denied Wright a fair trial.
Mr. Lawrence E. Long, Attorney General, Ms Meghan N. Dilges, Assistant Attorney General, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellee, State of South Dakota
Ms. Traci Smith, Office of the Minnehaha County Public Defender, Attorney for Defendant and Appellant, Daphne Wright
End of document
Commentary: What are your thoughts?
In 2006, Wright was tried for killing Darlene VanderGiesen and using a chainsaw to dismember her body and was convicted. She received the life sentence, escaping the death penalty sentence.. Wright is bringing up many issues, including the court’s refusal to approve her request for a Deaf certified interpreter (CDI).
Daphne Wright’s appeal goes before the South Dakota Supreme Court on March 25.
One of the appeal issues is whether she should have had a CDI during the trial.
The legal document submitted for the appeal to the Supreme Court:
#24531 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2009– NO. 1 State v. Wright
In August of 2004, Daphne Wright lived in Sioux Falls with her girlfriend, Sallie Collins. They initially lived in Jackie Chesmore’s home, but Collins moved out in September. Both Collins and Wright were deaf, and Collins moved into an apartment complex known within the deaf community as the “deaf apartments.” While living there, Collins became friends with Darlene VanderGiesen, who was also deaf.
Wright became jealous of the friendship between VanderGiesen and Collins, and Wright also thought VanderGiesen was trying to destroy Wright’s relationship with Collins. On February 1, 2006, Wright set up a meeting with VanderGiesen at a Pizza Hut, allegedly to plan a Valentine’s Day surprise for Collins. Wright admitted meeting VanderGiesen at Pizza Hut’s parking lot that evening at 6:00 p.m. VanderGiesen was not seen again. Two days later, VanderGiesen’s father reported that his daughter was missing.
While police were investigating VangerGiesen’s disappearance, Chesmore and Wright voluntarily drove together to the Sioux Falls law enforcement center to be interviewed. There the police employed the use of a certified sign language interpreter for Wright’s interview. The police interviewed Wright from 10:49 a.m. until 12:54 p.m., at which time the State acknowledges that Wright unequivocally asked for a lawyer. Wright remained at the law enforcement center in the interrogation room without a lawyer, however, from 12:54 p.m. until 6:10 p.m., while police officers obtained and executed a search warrant for Wright’s home and vehicle. At the conclusion of the search, Wright left the law enforcement center. Wright was never advised of her Miranda rights.
Wright was arrested and subsequently charged with murder in the first degree (premeditated murder), murder in the second degree (felony murder), and aggravated kidnapping in connection with VanderGiesen’s death.
Prior to trial, a psychologist recommended and Wright requested the use of a Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI) to interpret the testimony to Wright consecutively, rather than simultaneously. The trial court denied Wright’s request. Instead of employing a CDI to interpret consecutively, the court provided five certified sign language interpreters and employed “real time” captioning, in which every word the court reporter transcribed was projected onto a computer screen for everyone to observe. Separate interpreters were provided for counsel and for the court proceedings. At Wright’s request, the trial was also videotaped.
The State offered evidence at trial regarding the officers’ execution of the search warrant, which included blood, bone and tissue samples from Wright’s vehicle and the basement of Wright’s home. The State laboratory confirmed the presence of VanderGiesen’s D.N.A. in these samples.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three counts, but declined to recommend the death penalty. Wright was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the first degree murder and kidnapping convictions. No sentence was imposed on the felony murder conviction.
Wright appeals the following issues:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Wright’s motion to suppress statements made during the interview at the law enforcement center.
2. Whether the trial court should have granted Wright’s request for consecutive interpretation during the trial and provided a CDI.
3. Whether the trial court’s system of selecting jurors, in which African-Americans were under-represented, violated Wright’s constitutional rights.
4. Whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of a prior altercation concerning Wright, VanderGiesen, and Collins.
5. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdicts of felony murder and premeditated murder.
6. Whether Wright’s kidnapping conviction violates double jeopardy.
7. Whether cumulative error denied Wright a fair trial.
Mr. Lawrence E. Long, Attorney General, Ms Meghan N. Dilges, Assistant Attorney General, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellee, State of South Dakota
Ms. Traci Smith, Office of the Minnehaha County Public Defender, Attorney for Defendant and Appellant, Daphne Wright
End of document
Commentary: What are your thoughts?
March 11th, 2009 at 8:04 am
I’d also add to the challenge that Deaf people were underrepresented on the Jury of her “peers” (although in this case, it probably would not have helped her…)
But I do agree if she wanted a CDI, she should have gotten it, if only to ensure that she understood everything that went on in trial and to eliminate this potential challenge. The court systems do need to learn that just because they think something is adequate (captioning, Certified interpreters), it isn’t always adequate for the Deaf person who might have specific needs that they (Hearing) don’t understand.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:27 am
A desirable outcome that could come of Daphne’s action is to insure that future deaf defendants have the option of a CDI in their questioning and defense cases.
The court systems have much to learn about the great variety of deaf people, and that is no one formula fits all.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Yes Daphne has a right to have a CDI in court but a plenty evidences against her. Oh well …
March 11th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Despite the lawyers’ explicit instructions to get ASL interpreters, a S.E.E. interpreter was used. Several Deaf spectators told me they couldn’t understand her interpreting.
Even people who we think are guilty deserve to have a fair trial.
Why would Daphne want the trial to be overturned, and facing a new death penalty trial? With the overwhelming evidence against her by the police and the prosecutor, chances appear to be slim that she will get any lesser conviction than a life sentence.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
The legal system goes wrong. Everything go wrong!
March 11th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
[...] Go to the author’s original blog: Mishka Zena » Blog Archive » Chainsaw Murderer Daphne Wright … [...]
March 11th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I have no judgement against Daphene Wright whether she is guilty or not guilty. I never have a chance of examining any prosectutional evidence against defense rebuttals.
From what Daphene Wright strongly felt that she was deprieved of such a fair trial to several factors. I wouldn’t blame her for feeling that way.
The logical question whether the hiring of CDI (certified deaf interpreter) will ensure the effectiveness of judical trial since the assignment of so-called qualified hearing interpreter, because the CDI overrely upon ASL interpreters or real-time captionings.
Daphene Wright will not face the death penalty due to the constitutional clauses of “double jeopardy” for not able to be tried for same crime.
The issue of “underrepresentation” among jury peers is pretty good for many deaf people like us.
The remaining question about Jose Mesa whether he did receive the fair trial for murdering two Gallaudet students due to the “underrepresentation” of his own jury peers.
I often wonder if any deaf individuals being served as jury peers for Jose Mesa and Daphene Wright will result in fair trial or increasingly biased due to the small community of deaf people.
The jury itself for the fair trial is still debatable whether jury members resort to illusions and deductible thinkings without the real justice without any kind of bias or personal sympathy or hatred, etc.
Many prosecutorial evidences were often questionable whether they are all true.
Prosecutors and some judges are more interested in making the headline news for their efforts without being truly interested in real justice.
Many prosecutors managed to get their foresnic scientists to fabricate or tweak the physical evidence to make names for themselves.
RLM
March 11th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
MZ,
My thoughts – in ASL….
Play Video Comment
March 11th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
RLM, she wants a new trial, saying the first trial wasn’t properly done. I think double jeopardy clause is exempted here because she is choosing to have her first trial thrown out, but I am not a lawyer.
It seems she still claims she is not guilty.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I agree Wright should have had a CDI interp, and a retrial might be useful in securing that right for future deaf defendents. Hard to imagine she really believes she’d be found not guilty by a second jury but she has nothing to lose by trying, and it’s unlikely she’d receive a worse sentence the second time around.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
fanicating case! thanks for bringing this to our attention.
I’m just a law student, but I can see two major issues re: interpreting
1. whether Wright was truly advised of her rights/understood the certified interps at the police station and whether the certified sign language interpreters translated her statements correctly
2. if Wright testified during the trial and a CDI was not present to translate her statements accurately, that could pose a big issue, especially in mitigation (when you reduce one’s sentence)
i saw this interesting article the other day…it’s somewhat relevant
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698c98dd101a846085256eb400500c01/2727ff773207b4c285257031005995f2?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,LaVigne
March 11th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Hi,
Well MZ… We could publish our comments to the newspaper and say We told you so SD Court!!!
She will not prevail if she gets another trail. Risky move on her part. Yet she still has rights to understand or to be understood.
March 13th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Hi Mishka!
Good to see you here and I am unbelivable about this and I’m not that surprising about it.
Where did you get the information from, I didn’t know about it.
Evidence is very strong against Daphne. Let’s talk on Email. I’d like to hear more.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Daphine Wright is taking a very serious and risky move. But I think in this case, when the court looks at the real time captioning, the certified interpreters and other issues, they are prolly going to rule that she was accommatdated in this.
But, as far as a deaf jury goes? Her lawyers could have done jury nullification in that sense to get the deaf jury that they wanted in the first place.
Sadly to say, daphine wright ought to be thankful she’s alive but not being put to death. But life in prison forever is a death sentence in itself.
I’m glad I wasn’t choosen to sit on her jury as far as my recent jury experience went. But the evidence was clearly against her and she was rightly convicted. (IMHO).
March 21st, 2009 at 8:36 pm
i think the verdict should be overturned and a retrial should happen.
Perhaps this time around she will get death.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Why the interpreter and CART? Had to be distracting watching a trial in two different languages not to mention the possibility of DEATH ROW! Are you kidding me?
If the psychologist recommended consecutive interpreting we can assume there were some issues during evaluation! HELLO!!
I’m sick of people hanging on to the phrase “reasonable accommodation” in providing ‘half assed’ services in the court room or otherwise.
Someone DIED and another is expected to spend the rest of hers in prison! Doesn’t anyone care about the truth?
September 19th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Daphine Wright should be in death penalty. We are human being doing things physically. She did physically killed her. We have brains to do it. She is not disabled. No matter who we are. Its tough.