Christopher Scott Emmett
Date of Birth: 8/18/1971
Sex: Male
Race: White
Entered the Row: November 2, 2001.
District: Danville
Conviction: Capital murder in the commission of robbery.
Christopher
Scott Emmett was convicted in October 2001 of the April 26, 2001,
capital murder and robbery of his co-worker, John Langley, in Danville,
Virginia. Jurors heard a taped confession in which Emmett admitted
striking Langley in the head with a lamp in the motel room they were sharing. In the tape, Emmett says he killed Langley,
robbed him of $100, bought and smoked crack cocaine, and then called
the police to report that something had happened to his roommate.
Emmett’s
court-appointed defense lawyer failed to investigate and present
mitigating evidence during the penalty phase that would have detailed
Emmett’s wretched life as a child. Social service records and witnesses describe Emmett’s childhood home as extremely chaotic, abusive, and neglectful. Three
of Emmett’s older siblings were kidnapped from school by their
biological father, who was appalled by the conditions in the home. Sadly, because Emmett was too young to be attending school, he was left behind. Emmett’s
juvenile probation officer, Butch Parker, states that Emmett’s
“impoverished home situation, with emotional abuse and neglect, is very
typical of what we see with children who become involved with the
juvenile system.”[iii] Faye
White, a state social worker who visited Emmett’s childhood home,
states “[t]he situation in the Emmett home was one of the worst I have
seen. It was the classic, text-book case of what
you hear discussed as being the environments in which adults who have
serious problems have been raised.”[iv]
During trial, defense counsel failed to take even the most basic steps to investigate Emmett’s childhood. Defense
counsel never requested Emmett’s mental health records from
court-ordered therapy he received as a child, never requested social
service records documenting efforts to remove Emmett from his childhood
home, never interviewed six of Emmett’s seven siblings, any paternal
relatives, or Emmett’s daughter or her mother. As a result, virtually no mitigating evidence about Emmett’s childhood was presented to the jury to avoid a death sentence. On November 2, 2001, Emmett was sentenced to death.
In April 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court in Williams v. Taylor had ruled that a Virginia
lawyer’s lack of diligence in unearthing evidence of childhood neglect
and limited intellect demanded the verdict be overturned and the case
be sent back to trial for a new sentencing hearing. In similar fashion three years later in Wiggins v. Smith, the U.S.
Supreme Court rebuked the defense attorneys for not conducting a
thorough investigation as they overturned a prior death sentence and
sent the case back for a new hearing.
In a 2-1 decision early this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Emmett’s appeal, even though the U.S.
Supreme Court has ruled time and again that defense counsel must
thoroughly investigate a client’s childhood for mitigating evidence in
convincing juries to spare their life. In his
dissent, Circuit Judge Roger Gregory sharply noted that “[c]ounsel had
failed to investigate adequately Emmett’s childhood, and counsel’s
inadequate investigation prejudiced the sentencing phase of Emmett’s
trial.”[v]
During
state habeas corpus proceedings, the Supreme Court of Virginia
unanimously ruled that “it is clear that trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to object to the improper and incomplete verdict forms”
that were given to Emmett’s jury.iv In a second order dated March 3, 2005, the Supreme Court of Virginia unanimously reaffirmed that “the
representation provided to Emmett by his trial counsel ‘fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness.’ [and that ‘r]easonably competent
counsel would have objected to a verdict form that did not comport with
the holding in Atkins and the requirements of [Virginia] Code.”v Despite finding that Emmett had not been competently represented at trial, the Supreme Court of Virginia refused to grant a new penalty trial.
An execution date of June 13, 2007 had been set by the Danville
Circuit Court but was stayed just hours before by Gov. Kaine to allow
for a possible review by the US Supreme Court. On Oct. 1, 2007 that
court declined review but Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul
Stevens issued a statement noting that except for Gov. Kaine’s
intervention the Commonwealth of Virginia had attempted to cut short the ability of the court to review Emmett’s appeal.[vi]
Mr.
Emmett has a Clemency Petition before Gov. Kaine and his attorneys have
appealed to the US Supreme Court the 2-1 ruling of the 4th
Circuit Court of Appeals denying a challenge to Virginia’s method of
execution by lethal injection. On September 25, 2007 the Court agreed
to consider the constitutionality of lethal injections in the case of
two Kentucky death row inmates. Baze v Rees is to be argued in 2008 with a ruling expected by next summer.[vii]
Barring
a further stay of execution due to the lethal injection challenge by
either the US Supreme Court or Gov. Kaine, Mr. Emmett’s execution is
set for 9:00 PM on Wednesday, October 17, 2007.
NB: This page was last updated on October 10, 2007.
UPDATE:
VA Attorney General Bob McDonnell has requested Christopher Scott Emmett's execution date be set for July 24th, 2008.
[iii] Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Emmett v. True, No. 031201, (Va. May 23, 2003) at 18.
[iv] Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Emmett v. True, No. 031201, (Va. May 23, 2003) at 20.
[v] Emmett v. Kelly, 474 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2007).
iv Order, Emmett v. Warden, No. 031201 (Va. June 4, 2004), at 5.
v Emmett v. Warden, 269 Va. 164, 169, 609 S.E.2d 602, 606 (2005).
[vi] See HIGH COURT’S REFUSAL OF INMATE’S PETITION INCLUDES REBUKE OF STATE, Washington Post, October 2, 2007; B06.
[vii] See COURT TO CONSIDER LETHAL INJECTION, Washington Post, September 25, 2007.
