Deciding killer's fate took much consideration

By Johnny Johnson

Published: March 8, 2008

Despite the brutal and grisly manner in which Kevin Ray Underwood killed a 10-year-old girl, the convicted murderer’s fate was not taken lightly.

For the jury, deciding whether the man who killed Jamie Rose Bolin in his Purcell apartment in 2006 should die in prison or by lethal injection took more than eight hours Friday night.

For Cleveland County District Attorney Greg Mashburn, the decision to seek the death penalty was made after hearing the killer’s eerie, matter-of-fact confession.

"There are murder cases where life without parole is appropriate," Mashburn said. "But this was not the case. And if I thought that was justice, I would have pleaded it over a year ago."

Long before the jury struggled through Friday afternoon and nearly into morning, Mashburn and his staff deliberated about Underwood’s fate.

Life or death?

At first blush, even those who support the death penalty might wonder if the state would be best served by Underwood’s death.

Couldn’t psychologists study his mind — the mind of a man whose dark fantasies inspired a twisted plan involving torture, murder, decapitation, necrophilia and cannibalism?

Couldn't Underwood be used to help identify others with similar urges before another 10-year-old girl's mutilated body is found in another bedroom closet?

Those are questions Mashburn asked himself. He found the answer to be no.

Mashburn said the defense called three mental health experts to interview Underwood, 28, and none of them could ever really get inside the man's mind to find out why he chose to act out his fantasies.

As sick as some people's thoughts are, Mashburn explained, having sick thoughts is not a crime. And even the country’s best experts can't predict what a person is capable of doing and what makes them go from fantasy to action.

"There's no test or pill that can predict these things," he said. "It almost always takes a person getting caught in the act."

If anything were to be gained from allowing Underwood to live, Mashburn said, he would have considered the case differently — but that wasn't the case.

"They studied him backwards and forwards," Mashburn said. "And they got all the info they could get out of him. There's nothing else to study."

For more than a year, Mashburn and Assistant District Attorney Susan Caswell prepared for the high-profile case. Opening arguments were about two weeks ago.

The only thing left was convincing 12 others that taking the life of a human being — even one with obvious mental disorders — is sometimes the right thing to do.

Seven angry men and five women

The conviction was the easy part.

The mutilated body of Jamie Rose Bolin was found stuffed in a plastic storage tub in Underwood's apartment. There was a detailed video confession in which Underwood spared no details about his crime.

Defense attorneys, who did not present a case or even cross-examine most witnesses, told jurors they expected them to find their client guilty.

When closing arguments were made, it took the seven man, five woman jury only about 25 minutes to return a guilty verdict.

The deliberation between life and death, however, was much different.

The same jury that came back with a guilty verdict after 25 minutes was sequestered in the deliberation room for 8 hours and 15 minutes before they were able to come to a consensus on punishment.

"It was getting to the point where if we didn't come to a decision (Friday night) it was going to take a couple more days," 22-year-old juror Ryan Gadberry said.

The capital murder trial was the first jury duty for Gadberry, and it disturbed the Chesapeake Energy welder more than he thought possible.

"I wouldn't have wished this on anybody," he said, referring to the horrific images he can't seem to shake. "I haven't slept in three weeks, man. I'm going to have to talk to my pastor about it this weekend."

Juror Claudette Brumit said there's a big difference between just saying that you don’t oppose the death penalty and actually deciding that someone should die.

When closing statements concluded, Brumit said, she was not in agreement with the majority.

Most of the jurors were ready to take a vote immediately, but Brumit said she was not ready for that and needed to talk about it first.

For jurors such as Earl Garrett, 64, of Oklahoma City, the choice was easy.

During jury selection, Garrett revealed that he once shot a home invader in self-defense and was charged with aggravated assault as a young man after someone else came at him with a knife and "lost."

Garrett said didn’t think he’d lose any sleep knowing his signature was on Underwood's death warrant

In fact, he said he expected the opposite.

Garrett felt so strongly that he took a hard line with the two jurors holding out for life without parole.

"I told them the facts and had to hurt their feelings a little bit," he said. "I wasn't there to make friends. I think that for what he did he deserved to die."

When two women were initially intent on life without parole, Garrett said he felt it was time to look at some of the evidence.

"They didn't want to look at the (autopsy) pictures," he said. "But I thought it was time to look at them because if he had not been caught this time, he would do it again."

Garrett said Underwood showed no remorse.

"He acted like he couldn't care less and that he was getting some attention out of this," Garrett said. "I didn't like that. "It hurts to know you're sending a man to die, but he killed this little girl. He signed his own death warrant. And now we don't have to worry about him doing it again, so I think I can live with that." Formal sentencing is April 3.

Comments