Floyd lawyers seek new trial, say jury unfairly influenced

Kim Smith

Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2000 | 10:01 a.m.

Defense attorneys in the Zane Floyd case are arguing the convicted four-time killer deserves a new trial because the jurors who sentenced him to death were unfairly influenced in a variety of ways.

Deputy Public Defenders Curtis Brown and Doug Hedger are scheduled to go before District Judge Jeffrey Sobel on Monday to argue for the new trial.

The attorneys plan to argue that prosecutors made inappropriate comments during their closing statements, that Sobel erred when he allowed certain people to testify and that one family member was allowed to testify about irrelevant matters. The attorneys also say the media influenced the jury.

District Attorney Stewart Bell said all of the issues contained in the motion have already been ruled on by Sobel. He said he sees no reason why Sobel would change his rulings.

Floyd, 24, was sentenced to death in July for walking into a Las Vegas grocery store in June 1999 and shooting everyone he came across. Four people were killed and a fifth was critically wounded.

The former Marine told police he joined the military and committed the murders because he had always wanted to know what it was like to kill someone.

Floyd's attorneys portrayed their client as a mentally ill young man who turned to drugs and alcohol out of feelings of inadequacy early in life. They said that because of a number of letdowns in the year leading up to the shooting he was suddenly overwhelmed by an "extreme emotional or mental disturbance."

In their motion for a new trial, the defense attorneys said prosecutors went too far when they told jurors that Floyd committed "the worst massacre in the history of Las Vegas."

They also complained that Bell committed "the most flagrant and outrageous case of prosecutorial misconduct" when he asked jurors that if the death penalty wasn't applied to the Floyd case, when should it be.

Bell and Chief Deputy District Attorney Bill Koot also asked the jury to compare the Floyd case to other murder cases even though they knew two other death penalty cases had been or were being tried around the same time, the defense attorneys noted.

"Suspiciously, the jury came back with its verdict after the death penalty verdict in the Hernandez trial was announced, wherein only one victim was killed," they wrote, referring to the case of Fernando Hernandez, who was convicted in the killing of his wife.

The defense attorneys also said that many of the people who were unharmed during the rampage should not have been allowed to give victim impact statements during the penalty phase. Only the statements of those related to the victims were relevant, the attorneys argued.

In addition, one of the victim's mothers was allowed to speak about her son's kidnapping years before.

"This testimony likely had an enormous prejudicial effect on the jury, and only encouraged them to find someone to hold responsible for prior suffering endured by her and her family," the motion states.