Docket #2531:  No. 1
Case Name: State v. Wright

#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

(( Source:  http://www.usd.edu/law/SDSC2009cases.cfm#24466 ))

By Ben Dunsmoor

Darlene VanderGiesen’s parents were at Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, as they continue to follow Daphne Wright’s case.

It’s been three years since their daughter died at the hands of Daphne Wright.

“I just wanted people to see that it is possible, it can be done,” Darlene’s mother Dee VanderGiesen said.

Dee and Gene VanderGiesen say it is possible to forgive the woman convicted of killing their daughter.

“We were actually able to do that even before the court trial. We were able to say and really mean it in our hearts, ‘Daphne we have forgiven you,’” Dee VanderGiesen said.

Just a few weeks ago, the VanderGiesen’s received their first published copy of a book about forgiveness. It’s a book the VanderGiesen’s wrote about their daughter’s life and death. It’s a book about the VanderGiesen’s faith in God.

“When you are in it, you don’t always see the full picture. But, as I wrote it and I started remembering and started listening to what people had said then. I just knew that God’s hand had been all through this,” Dee said.

It’s a book that has helped the couple heal.

“You rehash a lot of what happened but it just brings some closure after going through it,” Gene VanderGiesen said.

And it’s a book they hope will help others heal.

“Other people who have had deep, deep tragedies in their life.  It doesn’t have to be a death or something like that, but anything that just brought a deep tragedy that they will see that God gives you the ability to move on. Give you the ability to forgive and gives you the ability to just say I praise you Lord,” Dee said.

It’s a peace that the VanderGiesen’s have been able to realize after their daughter’s death, and a peace they hope others can share.

The VanderGiesen’s are not making any money off the book.  The proceeds will go to the Furniture Mission in Sioux Falls.  Copies of Darlene VanderGiesen’s life story can be purchased there as well.

(( Source:  KELOLAND TV ))

Daphne Wright is serving life in prison for kidnapping and murder,
but she’s appealing to the state supreme court because she doesn’t
think she got a fair trial

Daphne Wright was convicted for the disappearance and death of
Darlene VanderGiesen in Sioux Falls three years ago. On Wednesday,
the states highest court heard arguments clarifying the main points
behind her appeal. One of the main issues that attorney Traci Smith
pointed out was that Wright was not read her Miranda rights.

“Our argument is that her statements should have been kept out,”
Smith said. “Whether or not it led to a confession is irrelevant.”

But assistant attorney general Meghan N. Dilges told the court that
Wright was not denied her right to counsel when she was questioned by
Sioux Falls police

“The videotape clearly shows that the defendant was voluntary in her
statements,” Dilges said. “And the tape clearly shows her statements
were voluntary.”

Wright’s attorney also argued that she didn’t get a fair trial
because she was denied added interpretation services, but the state
said that Wright clearly understood the court proceedings.

The justices will now meet to discuss the case. When the majority
agrees an opinion, it becomes the decision.

(( Source:  KSFY ActionNews ))

On Sunday, August 12th at 9 PM Central time, the Oxygen channel will
air a thirty minute documentary on the Daphne Wright case. To our
knowledge, this is the first Wright-related documentary to air on
television.

The documentary is part of Oxygen’s Snapped true-crime series which
profiles cases of women accused of murder.

Documentary Description: “Daphne Wright faced many challenges as a
deaf lesbian minority living in the conservative Midwest. But, when
her romantic rival was brutally murdered and dismembered, Daphne
would also find herself facing the death penalty. 30 minutes. (TV-PG)”

Zell sat down with the Argus Leader the day after jurors rendered their sentence of life in prison to talk about the trial – preparations, issues, the jury, the sentence.

It’s a rare look at a death penalty case from the inside.

Question: Because this was a capital case, how was it different from others?

Answer: We’ve handled other types of felonies. From the perspective of the court, … other than the penalty phase … it doesn’t take on a much different flavor, whether it be an aggravated assault case or a murder case. Everything is essentially the same. … When selecting the jury, we had other issues that elongated the selection process

Q: Were there any special court preparations?

A: I knew that we had a defendant who was deaf. Those type of arrangements, accommodations had to be made for interpreters. That’s not really special because I’ve had Spanish-speaking defendants. I’ve had Numar – an Arabic dialect out of Sudan, and that’s even more difficult than finding a deaf interpreter.

Q: How did you prepare?

A: The one thing that I started doing preparatory work on was that the state had indicated it may be seeking the death penalty. … You need to know what you’re going to be dealing with. … We started working early on jury questionnaires. … Mr. (Jeff) Larson said deaf is different, … different for attorneys, different for the court, different for court personnel.

Q: What background information did you seek?

A: The one thing I did was gather some of the South Dakota case law … The State vs. (Donald) Moeller, Moeller II we call it, was very instructive on jury selection and other issues. … (Charles) Rhines. … I think I also grabbed State vs. (Darrell) Hoadley. Those are very instructive cases. Although there haven’t been that many capital cases, any informational material you can (get, you) go back and glean to help you. … I’ve talked to the judges, … talked to a few of the attorneys … about jury selection, … not the substantive issues but procedural things, the way things are handled and such.

(Rhines and Moeller are on death row. Hoadley was convicted of a torture-murder, but was sentenced to life by a jury.)

Q: What kind of mental preparation was there for a capital case?

A: Judge Gene Paul Kean sat here for 25 years, and he was a prosecutor before that. … He never had one. … It requires a lot of work and a lot of patience, and you need to have, in my opinion, … mental fortitude. I knew there were going to be some gruesome photos. I knew there was going to be some stressful testimony, … to be ready for that emotionally and to keep my emotions that are human out of the formula, out of the mix. That’s the things I went through emotionally.

Q: What about the jury?

A: I think they’re great. Just in the last calendar year I think this might be my 12th jury trial. The body of a jury is just like a person. It has its own personality. Some trials are very short, so they don’t get to develop that personality. I haven’t found one jury … that hasn’t taken its role seriously and hasn’t come away with a real newfound respect for our form of government, not just our judiciary but our form of government. We truly get to sit in judgment of the acts of the defendant as a peer. This case exemplifies that. I did not talk the the jurors about what they decided or how they decided. But my sense is as they decided this case, … (they examined) what should our society consider in the form of punishment in this case? So they’re speaking for all of us. … I really admire them. They’ve been super. I have not had a bad jury. If you let the jury know that they’re a part of this very important process, they take it very seriously. … They take that duty to heart. … I really, really appreciate what they did.

We pluck those people out of their ordinary lives and then we ask them to do extraordinary things. That’s what makes it work.

Q: How were decisions on motions concerning interpreters made? Was it just, “This is good enough?”

A: It’s more than that. … I went through about a four-part test. Three of those parts came from the defense witnesses (law professor Michele LaVigne, Dr. McKay Vernon, who co-authored an article about the deaf in the criminal justice system). … On levels of intelligence, … Dr. Vernon testified that (Wright) was very smart. … Second, does she have a fluent form of communication? … She is very fluent in ASL. … The third level was the written language or comprehension level. … They said that was low for most people. However, for those folks who have gone through the same experiences as Daphne did, that was normal.

She’s smart, … she’s fluent … and she’s – for the written level of comprehension – normal.

The fourth element I looked at was the two hours of the video with the police interview. I watched that, not so much for the content, … but was she understanding the question, were her responses logical, was she struggling, … was she continually saying, “I don’t understand you?”

Using LaVigne and Vernon’s standards, Daphne did not appear to be a person who needed more.

But if she doesn’t understand, … the defense was told to stop the proceedings and see if they (could) explain.

Q: You’re human. How do you stay objective? Or did you develop conclusions?

A: If you’re the umpire for your child’s softball game and a strike is thrown, … you got to call a strike. That’s part of the black robe. I talked about that mental fortitude. … I knew in the case that I’m not a fact-finder. I have no interest whether the person’s acquitted or found guilty. … I’m the umpire. … I call the balls and the strikes, and I have the rulebook in my pocket.

I don’t (come to a conclusion about guilt or innocence) unless it’s tried before me without a jury. I don’t have to.

That’s the uniqueness of being a judge. That’s part of our job.

Q: What about the VanderGiesen family and the mother Dee’s statement before sentencing? Have you heard other such statements?

A: In the (Gary) Mulder case the sentencing was eight hours long. There were multiple victim impact statements, and the defendant addressed the family. In the Mulder case there were some. … A few were very angry and wanted retribution. … A few were very forgiving, much like Dee’s.

I thought it was wonderful. I wish we could see that in every case, but we don’t. When I offered Miss Wright the opportunity to speak, it wasn’t anything that would impact the court, but it’s for the opportunity if she wants it, to say whatever she wanted to say to the family or to the court or to the attorneys or to her family, her mom or her step-dad.

I thought Mrs. VanderGiesen’s final statement, I wish that happened in every case. That promotes healing. The line I like to use a lot is, “We should never forget, but we should forgive, work toward forgiveness.”

Q: There are some questions about the consistency of your sustaining or overruling objections. How do you answer those?

A: That’s hard to explain to folks that aren’t law trained. Certain questions that are asked. … The objection is that you haven’t laid the foundation … Then you go back and build the foundation. … Or relevancy. … Sometimes you allow some latitude in things. In some of those bench conferences, you ask, “Where are you going with this?” Like Dr. (Michael) McGrath, I think was one of them. There was an objection. … I said, “Jeff, where are you going with this?” If you’re not law trained, you don’t necessarily understand?

Q: Were you surprised by the sentence?

A: No. I agree with what Dave Nelson said, that there is no wrong. That’s my belief in a jury. They made a statement for us, and I have no problem with it. Even if I did, it wouldn’t matter. They made the decision that was right for them. They spoke for our community, and I respect it.

Q: The life sentence cuts out one avenue of appeal, doesn’t it?

A: Yes, there’s things we won’t know. … What we won’t know because of the life decision is where does this fall in the scheme of death penalty cases? … The state Supreme Court mandatorily has to compare them all – proportionally. Moeller – he raped, slashed, raped the corpse of a 9-year-old girl. … Then we have Hoadley, Piper and Page. We won’t know if the Supreme Court would have said, “Here’s Page, Moeller, Rhines, Robert Leroy Anderson. … They’re just above the threshold (for a death sentence), … (and this case), it’s in that level. Or not.” If the death sentence is disproportionate (to the crime and other death sentences), we throw it out. That’s one thing we lose (having that answer), … and that’s OK. That’s not the jury’s job.

(( Source:  Argus Leader ))