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.

 

 

[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.