Convicted killer appeals today on campus

Attorneys for Anthony Castillo Sanchez appealed Tuesday for a new trial for the Norman man sentenced to death for raping and killing OU student Jewell “Juli” Busken in 1996.

Law students, attorneys and Busken’s parents were in the audience as oral arguments were presented in the Dick Bell Courtroom in the OU College of Law.

Michael Morehead, Sanchez’s lead attorney, argued that Sanchez didn’t receive a fair trial because he was illegally restrained during the trial and the collection of the DNA evidence that implicated him in the crime was a violation of his constitutional rights.

Sanchez stood trial in Norman in February 2006. He was forced to wear restraints throughout the trial, despite an Oklahoma law that says defendants “in no event shall be tried before the jury in chains or shackles.”

Morehead and Jennifer Strickland, the attorney representing the state, said Sanchez was given a choice between wearing ankle shackles or a shock collar. Shock collars fit underneath clothing and, if activated by security personnel, deliver 50,000-volt electric shocks.

Morehead said Sanchez’s attorneys urged him to wear the collar, which would not be visible to jurors, but he initially resisted.

“Mr. Sanchez was terrified by this electrical device,” Morehead told the appellate justices.

During the jury selection phase of the trial, Sanchez appeared in the courtroom wearing leg shackles, but officials made efforts to conceal the shackles from jurors.

Strickland said after jury selection was over, Sanchez opted to wear the shock collar for the remainder of the trial.

Morehead argued that trial court judge William Hetherington shouldn’t have forced Sanchez to wear any restraints at all.

Justices questioned how restraints that couldn’t be seen could have impacted the outcome of the trial, but Morehead said the restraints’ influence on Sanchez, not their prejudicial effect on jurors, was the source of his complaint.

“Mr. Sanchez said, ‘I cannot deal with the idea of having 50,000 volts strapped to my body,’” Morehead said. “I’m asking for you to send this back for a new trial, where Mr. Sanchez can be tried with his full faculties.”

Strickland argued that the restraints were justified because of Sanchez’s violent history and construction at Cleveland County Courthouse forced Sanchez to sit closer to the public during the trial than most defendants.

Justices seemed skeptical of Morehead’s claim that the shock collar interfered with Sanchez’s mental abilities during the trial.

They repeatedly asked Morehead for evidence of such interference and asked why Sanchez hadn’t submitted an affidavit to that effect.

“Nice argument,” Justice Gary Lumpkin told Morehead. “Good appellate advocacy. But no basis.”

In the second part of his presentation, Morehead argued that Sanchez’s rights were violated when a sample of his DNA was entered into a national database.

Sanchez’s DNA entered the database after a 2004 conviction on second-degree burglary charges. He hadn’t been a suspect in Busken’s murder until then, but his DNA matched DNA that had been found on Busken’s clothing, and he was subsequently charged with her rape and murder.

Courts have found that taking DNA samples amounts to searching an individual, and Morehead argued that the Oklahoma law, which mandates that DNA samples be collected from convicted felons, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Strickland dismissed the idea, saying courts have held that prisoners have diminished, if any, Fourth Amendment rights and that many courts have specifically ruled that DNA sampling is constitutional.

Justices also challenged the idea that collecting DNA samples from felons is a rights violation.

“The Fourth Amendment applies to unreasonable searches. How in the world is the search of a convicted individual in state custody unreasonable?” Lumpkin said.

It could be months before the five-judge panel that heard the appeal returns a decision on the case.