The Spicknall Murder Trial: The Role of Discretion
Mary McAuliffe
The Choptank River rolls slowly between Talbot and Dorchester counties on Maryland's rural Eastern Shore, flowing out to the Chesapeake Bay. A half-mile from the Choptank, on the morning of September 8, 1999, 3-year-old Destiny Spicknall and her 2-year-old brother Richie were murdered in the backseat of their grandfather's Jeep Wrangler, shot at point-blank range as they slept in their car- safety seats. They were killed by their father, Richard Spicknall II. Spicknall then plunged into the Choptank River; he would later claim to police that an armed hitchhiker had hijacked the car, pushed him into the river, and driven away with the children.
From the moment Spicknall was arrested by police, his fate rested largely in the hands of prosecutorial and judicial discretion. The murder trial of Richard Spicknall II demonstrates the powerful influence of prosecutorial and judicial discretion on the strategy of the defense team and on the eventual verdict and sentence.
In the American criminal justice system, the judicial process begins with the prosecutor's exercise of discretion. He must decide whether or not to initiate prosecution against the defendant and charge him with specific charges.1 Not all crimes are tried. "As long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion."2 Limited by time and energy constraints, the prosecutor must consider the costs of taking the case to court.3 When the Spicknall case landed on the desk of Talbot County State's Attorney Scott Patterson in September of 1999, the decision to prosecute Richard Spicknall II for the murder of his children was completely under his discretion. However, in making the decision to prosecute Spicknall, Patterson had to consider several circumstances of the case including the defendant's guilt and the availability of valuable evidence.
The prosecutor's decision to press charges hinges upon his view of the "accused's guilt of the crime to be charged."4 Looking at the facts of the Spicknall case, Patterson undoubtedly believed that the defendant had intentionally murdered his two children. Spicknall not only voluntarily confessed to shooting the children, but also tried to cover up his crime by staging a carjacking. In fact, because Spicknall admitted to police that he had thought about killing his kids prior to pulling the trigger, he had committed the more serious crime of premeditated murder with the intent to kill. Patterson personally believed that Spicknall was guilty of murder, making him obligated to prosecute the defendant and seek punishment by the State for Spicknall's crime against society.
After determining the defendant's guilt, the prosecutor considers the amount of substantial evidence in the case when making the decision to prosecute the defendant. He has to "consider not only the worth of the prosecution's testimony, but also the likelihood of its availability" when deciding to bring the case to court.5 Given the amount of evidence in the Spicknall trial, Patterson would not have to prove Spicknall's guilt. The evidence would speak for itself. Patterson built his case on the defendant's written confession, the most reliable source of guilt. He also used the testimony of the distraught mother of the children and former wife of the defendant, Lisa Spicknall, who would speak on behalf the victims. Patterson would later introduce the testimony of the police officers who first arrived at the disturbing crime scene and tried to save the life of Destiny Spicknall, who was still alive in her car seat. Other critical evidence included the detailed pictures of the crime scene and autopsies of the children, which illustrated the serious nature of the crime. Considering all of the available evidence against the defendant in this case, Patterson had good reason to prosecute Spicknall and expect to receive a conviction.
The prosecutor's power of discretion has a tremendous impact on the role of the defense and the fate of the defendant.6 If the accused's guilt and the quality of evidence do not amount to a substantial case against the defendant, then the prosecutor can decide simply to dismiss the case and not bring the defendant to court at all, since "the prosecutor is given final authority for the decision [to initiate criminal prosecution]."7 In the Spicknall case, if Patterson had decided that there really was not enough evidence to prove guilt and thereby dismissed the case, there would have been no trial. Richard Spicknall II would serve no jail time or fear the death penalty. He would live as a free man for the murder of his own two children. The defendant and his attorneys are largely at the will of the prosecutorial discretion.
Based on the circumstances of the crime, the prosecutor has discretion as to what specific formal charges to bring against the defendant. He has the "legal authority to determine the specific offense for which a person is to be prosecuted" and the "legal authority to drop criminal charges."8 The prosecutor determines how to charge the defendant based upon the seriousness of the offense, which is "measured by the degree of injury and the instrument used to inflict the injury."9 When bringing charges against Richard Spicknall, Patterson decided to charge the defendant with two counts of first-degree murder as well as two additional weapons charges. Since Spicknall's crime had been one of the most serious offenses in the recent history of Maryland, Patterson believed that the defendant must face the most severe charges.
Along with charging decisions, the prosecutor exercises discretion when making sentencing recommendations to the judge or jury based on the seriousness of the crime. Although the judge or jury theoretically decides the sentence, "in practice, the prosecutor is the most important institutional determinant of a criminal sentence."10 The prosecutor has such a great influence because he prepares a pre-sentence report covering the "defendant's personal and social background, his criminal record, if any, and his mental and physical condition."11 From Patterson's point of view, Richard Spicknall II was deserving of a death penalty recommendation. The murder of two children at gunpoint, was a shocking crime. Since Patterson decided to charge Spicknall with two counts of murder, he could seek the death penalty for defendants accused of a double murder under Maryland law.12
The death penalty recommendation in the Spicknall case was also a result of the vengeful attitude of the community. The idea of a father murdering his two young children sent people into a state of shock. Since the day the crime took place, the Spicknall case was highly publicized by local television and newspaper media due to its disturbing nature, and the entire community demanded retribution for the killing of the children. State's Attorney Patterson, an elected official, faced the political pressures of carrying out the will of his constituents by seeking the most just punishment for the defendant. In Maryland v. Spicknall, Patterson and the community believed that justice would best be served by ending Spicknall's life.
The prosecutor's formal charges and his sentencing recommendations have a direct impact on the strategy of the defense team and, ultimately, the outcome of the trial. No matter what the severity of the charges and sentencing decided upon by the prosecutor, the defense will always ask for charge and sentence reductions to seek the best interests of its client.13 However, in the Spicknall case, there was much more at stake for the defense when their client was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and had the possibility of receiving the death penalty. With Patterson's decision to seek capital punishment, the trial had become a matter of life and death. To combat the severe charges, the defense strategy revolved around proving that Spicknall was not criminally responsible for the murders (Maryland's answer to the insanity plea), thereby acquitting him of the crime. When that strategy failed, the defense was forced to negotiate according to Patterson's terms. As demonstrated by the Spicknall case, the prosecutor shapes the outcome of the trial by influencing the defendant to plead guilty in order to avoid the prosecutor's heavy charges and sentence recommendation.
Like the prosecutor, the judge also has the discretion to make crucial decisions that influence the fate of the defendant and the outcome of the trial. While the prosecutor's decisions are made to benefit the State, the judge must make his decisions based on his impartiality and his duty to uphold the rule of law. "The most commonly recognized role of the trial judge is to be the umpire in disputes under the American system."14 Like an umpire, the judge, without taking sides, is there to ensure that the game is played fairly according to the established rules. However, he has the ultimate discretion to decide how those rules apply to the disputes in his courtroom. In Maryland v. Spicknall, the prudent discretion of Kent County Circuit Court Judge Price ensured that the defendant was given a fair trial by determining what external factors could potentially create bias in his courtroom and what evidence was admissible. Like the prosecutor, Judge Price's rulings on these matters would impact the defense team and its strategy.
The judge must use his discretion to determine when the atmosphere surrounding the courtroom is hindering the defendant's right to a fair trial. With his responsibility to keep order, the judge must try to prevent "prejudice, passion, excitement, and tyrannical power" from turning the courtroom into an inquisition filled with bias and injustice.15 While keeping the media at bay, the judge must guarantee the defendant a fair trial by ensuring that none of the prospective jury members have any prejudice prior to the trial proceedings, since "due process requires that the accused receive a trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences."16 Because the media attention in the early stages of the Spicknall case had tainted potential jury members in Talbot County, the first presiding judge granted the defense a "change of venue." However, once the trial was moved to Chestertown, Judge Price still had a great responsibility for keeping the trial as fair as possible. Furthermore, since the first judge could not prevent external factors from affecting the case, Judge Price had an even greater task of making sure those same factors did not contaminate his courtroom.
Judicial discretion is essential for determining when the freedom of the press interferes with the defendant's right to a fair trial.17 In the Spicknall case, Judge Price believed that the extensive media coverage would hinder the defendant's right to due process if safety measures were not taken. During the first day of jury selection, the judge openly warned reporters that they should only cover the case to a minimum so that they would not influence local citizens who might be selected as jury members. A few days after that statement, Judge Price publicly admonished the crowd of courtroom reporters, from Kent County and Baltimore alike, for exploiting the details of the case and potentially prejudicing the case. He believed that the news reporters, despite their First Amendment rights, were infringing on his own constitutional obligation to uphold justice and order by granting the defendant an unbiased trial.
In addition to seeking to thwart media exploitation of the case, other measures were taken by Judge Price to keep the trial as private and fair as possible. The clerk's office, under the strict orders of Judge Price, refused to give out any information regarding the scheduling of the trial, the witnesses, or any details about the jury selection process due to the sensitive nature of the case. All of the voir dire questions distributed to the one hundred and sixty potential jurors and used during the jury selection process were to be collected and destroyed so that they would not leak out to the public. During the course of the trial, the courtroom was surrounded by security, with numerous police officers standing guard, as well as deputies performing bag inspection and metal detector checks. In addition, the judge ruled that while Lisa Spicknall and her family could be present in the courtroom for proceedings, they could not wear any pictures of her children, the victims, nor act in any manner that would unfairly influence the jury. By keeping external factors from contaminating the courtroom, the judge used his discretion to uphold the defendant's right of due process and to ensure a fair outcome of the trial based solely on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Similar to prosecutorial discretion, the decisions made by the judge also have a great impact on the defendant and his situation in the trial. As seen in the Spicknall case, the judge's decisions aimed at keeping the trial as private and just as possible were favorable decisions to the defendant. The less media attention given to Spicknall and his alleged crime, the better chance Spicknall had of receiving a fair trial by an unbiased jury. Furthermore, keeping trial proceedings secret and heavily securing the courtroom would also help protect the personal security of the defendant, who received several death threats throughout the course of the trial.18 However, the judge could have made other more favorable decisions for the defendant, yet decided against them. In addition to rejecting the motion for a second change of venue, the judge also denied the defense's motion for a sequestered jury. Even though it would help protect the jurors from outside influences, Judge Price believed that it was unfair to sequester the jurors without giving them prior notice. This decision was a "loss" for the defense team. In the small community of Chestertown, where word spread quickly and everybody knew each other, the jury members could not possibly avoid being influenced about the trial. While the judge was seeking to guarantee the defendant the fairest trial possible, his discretion did not always coincide with the defense's view of a "fair trial."
Although the judge plays a major role in keeping external pressures from tainting the atmosphere of the courtroom, he also exercises his discretion with regard to which evidence is admissible in court during a jury trial. "The judge makes rulings, based on the law, about which evidence can be presented to the jury and which may not be."19 Thus, the judge must carefully examine the evidence and determine if it can be presented during the trial. In the Spicknall trial, the defense sought to exclude Spicknall's confession to police. Their client had allegedly hit his head while jumping into the Choptank River after committing the murders, thereby making him incapable of "sound judgment." Judge Price flatly denied the motion. He ruled that the defendant's confession was given voluntarily by Spicknall and, based on his mental and physical condition at the time, he was capable of sound judgment.
Failing to get Spicknall's confession excluded, the defense moved to exclude vivid color photographs of the crime scene and autopsies of the children. Defense attorney Kathryn Flynn argued that the photos "were prejudicial, had no probative value, and would only be used to inflame the jury." In response, the prosecution pointed out that the pictures "humanized" the victims and were necessary for proving the serious nature of the crime. The decision rested in the hands of Judge Price. He ruled that "the probative nature of the photos outweighed the inflammatory nature of the photos." Judge Price determined that black and white photos of the children, being less inflammatory to the jury, were admissible while other vivid color photos were excluded from the evidence. Through these decisions about what evidence was admissible and what wasn't, the judge's discretionary power shaped the trial.
The judge's decisions, of course, also affected the trial's outcome. Ruling the use of a crucial piece of evidence unconstitutional could make a conviction impossible, even when there was little actual doubt of the defendant's actions. In the Spicknall case, the judge's decisions would have been crucial to a jury verdict and, ultimately, the life of Richard Spicknall II. The defense team's initial strategy had depended on invalidating critical elements of the State's evidence. Because Judge Price disagreed, finding no reasonable grounds to dismiss the damning evidence of the confession and the photographs, the defense no longer believed it could establish that its client was not criminally responsible. Judicial discretion forced the defense to plea-bargain in order to avoid the death penalty at all costs. There was too much at stake for the defense to continue on with the trial after the judge validated the evidence of the prosecution.
The effectiveness of the American criminal justice system hinges on the discretion of prosecutor and judge. As seen in the Spicknall trial, those key decisions greatly influence the results of the trial and thereby define the American ideal of "justice." When Richard Spicknall II jumped into the Choptank River after murdering his own children, he did not realize that his own life would soon be carried along by the inescapable currents of justice. In the United States, that justice runs its course by the direction of prosecutorial and judicial discretion.
End Notes
- John Kaplan, Jerome H. Skolnick, and Malcolm M. Feely, Criminal Justice, 5th ed. (Westbury: Foundation Press, 1991), 291.
- Ibid., 469.
- Ibid., 291.
- Ibid., 292.
- Ibid., 295.
- Ibid., 291.
- Ibid., 291.
- Ibid., 582.
- George F. Cole, and Marc G. Gertz, The Criminal Justice System: Poli- tics and Policies, 7th ed. (Blemont: West/Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1998), 193.
- Kaplan, 582.
- Arnold S. Trebach, The Rationing of Justice: Constitutional Rights and the Criminal Process, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1964), 78.
- Raja Mirshra, "Father Accused of Slayings Was Taken Off Gun Ban List," Washington Post, 14 Sept 1999, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/local/daily/sept99/children14> (20 Nov 2000).
- Cole, 212.
- American Bar Association, Law and the Courts, (Chicago: ABA Press, 1995), 24.
- Lloyd L. Weinreb, ed., Leading Constitutional Cases on Criminal Jus- tice, (New York: Foundation Press, 2000), 933.
- Ibid., 939.
- ABA, 57.
- Cooky McClung, "After 3 Days, No Jury in Spicknall Capital Case," Kent County News, 2 Nov 2000, sec. A.
- ABA, 26.
Works Cited
American Bar Association (ABA). Law and the Courts. Chicago: ABA Press, 1995.
Cole, George F. and Marc G. Gertz. The Criminal Justice System: Politics and Policies. 7th ed. Blemont: West/Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1998.
Kaplan, John, Jerome H. Skolnick, and Malcolm M. Feely. Criminal Justice.5th ed. Westbury: Foundation Press, 1991.
McClung, Cooky. "After 3 Days, No Jury in Spicknall Capital Case." Kent County News, 2 Nov 2000, sec. A.
Mirshra, Raja. "Father Accused of Slayings Was Taken Off Gun Ban List." Washington Post. 14 Sept 1999, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/sept99/children14> (20 Nov 2000).
Trebach, Arnold S. The Rationing of Justice: Constitutional Rights and the Criminal Process. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1964.
Weinreb, Lloyd L. ed. Leading Constitutional Cases on Criminal Justice. New York: Foundation Press, 2000.