Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

What warrants a penalty of death?

A man charged with murder is facing the death penalty because of a previous conviction for second-degree arson.

The case of Arie Redeker is in front of the Nevada Supreme Court and has raised the question of what it takes to qualify for the death penalty.

"I've been handling these cases day to day for four years and this just doesn't smell like a death penalty case and the whole thing has me confused," Redeker's public defender, Scott Coffee, said. "Not every murder case is a death penalty case. If this is a death penalty case, then I guess every murder case is."

Prosecutors say that on Oct. 22, 2002, Redeker strangled his girlfriend, Skawduan Lanna, with a telephone cord and dumped the body in the desert near Red Rock.

The year before, Redeker set fire to his garage. Lanna had moved out, and no one was home at the time. Redeker accepted guilt in a plea to second-degree arson.

Under state law, any number of so-called "aggravators," including previous felonies and the crime committed, can qualify a defendant for the death penalty.

Appellate Chief Deputy District Attorney Steven Owens said a previous felony conviction that includes "a 'threat' of violence" qualifies Redeker for the death penalty under state law.

When the facts surrounding Redeker's second-degree arson conviction are examined it becomes clear a threat of violence existed and seeking the death penalty is warranted, Owens argued in a court brief.

"Not every second-degree arson case will involve a threat, but he (Redeker) verbally threatened her, he threatened to kill her and then he torched the house," Owens said. "The legal question here is whether we can look at all the circumstances or just at the name of the crime."

But underlying the defense claim is a criticism of how death penalty cases are charged. The district attorney's office has a committee that reviews death penalty cases to determine whether the charge fits.

Coffee says the committee is "stretching the facts" of the arson case to suggest that what is normally considered a property crime is a felony involving the use or threat of violence.

Coffee also argues that the death penalty review committee should be required to submit the alleged aggravating circumstances to a judge to determine whether probable cause exists.

The public defender said he would "like to think there would be due process, an equal protection of rights" present within the death penalty committee's decision making or at least a "standardization" that the committee would follow in determining whether to seek the death penalty.

The review committee decided to seek the death penalty based on two aggravating circumstances, "namely that the murder was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment," and because Redeker "had previously been convicted of a felony involving the use of threat of violence to the person of another."

Redeker pleaded guilty to the arson charge under an Alford plea and was sentenced to probation with the Drug Court as a condition. Under an Alford plea, the defendant does not technically admit guilt but agrees that prosecutors could prove their case at trial.

Prosecutor Robert Daskas, who is handling the Redeker case alongside prosecutor Pam Weckerly, said his experience with murder cases leads him to disagree with Coffee.

"I've tried three times the amount of murder cases Coffee has and the Redeker case smells like a death case to me," Daskas said. "The Legislature has determined what cases warrant the death penalty, and we're acting accordingly in the Redeker case."

Owens added that Redeker's actions also placed his neighbors at risk because Redeker not only sprayed gasoline in the garage "but throughout the house in an attempt to burn it down to the ground."

Owens said even though he believes the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled countless times in favor of the district attorney's office on the issues raised by Coffee, he's reluctant to predict what the justices will decide in the Redeker case.

"The justices have ruled on this before and I think it's become a moot point, but for some reason they keep entertaining the issue and want it briefed," Owens said. "It makes me nervous. I really have no idea what the court will say. The justices are unpredictable."

The case could be decided as soon as next month.

Matt Pordum can be reached at 474-7406 or at [email protected].

archive