U.S. Supreme Court denies convicted murderer's petition
3 years ago | 133 views | 0 0 comments | 0 0 recommendations | email to a friend | print
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition by a Sequoyah County man, who was sentenced to death in the 1999 shooting and killing of an Oklahoma Highway Patrol (OHP) trooper, asking the high court for his conviction to be reversed.

Kenneth Eugene Barrett, 48, was convicted in federal court in November 2005 for intentionally killing OHP Trooper David "Rocky" Eales, a state law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his duty.

Eales, along with another trooper, was shot while attempting to serve a night-time drug search warrant at Barrett's rural home northwest of Sallisaw.

In December 2005, Barrett was formally sentenced to death for Eales' death. He was also sentenced to two life prison sentences without the possibility of release for both using or carrying a firearm during and in relationship to a drug trafficking crime with death resulting and using or carrying a firearm during and in relationship to a federal crime of violence, with death resulting. Barrett's federal conviction was automatically appealed, which is mandatory in federal death sentences.

In July, Barrett lost his bid for an appeal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colo., unanimously affirmed Barrett's conviction and death sentence.

Since that time, Barrett sought a remedy through the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This petition for writ of certiorari was a two-part request," U.S. Attorney Sheldon J. Sperling announced Thursday. "First, the petitioner asked that the Supreme Court inspect the prior appellate proceedings in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the trial record from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Second, the petitioner asked the Supreme Court to determine that the proceedings below contained irregularities warranting reversal of his convictions and sentences."

Sperling said that Barrett's attorneys argued that the Supreme Court should further consider three legal arguments: first, whether the capital scheme under which Barrett was sentenced is unconstitutional because the jury was permitted to consider, as an aggravating factor, the fact that Barrett intended to kill the victim; second, whether the search of Barrett's house was constitutionally impermissible; and third, whether Barrett was unfairly prejudiced by the admission of victim impact evidence at the penalty phase of his trial.

"We responded in opposition to all three arguments," Sperling said. "The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Barrett's request, in all respects. The order concisely provides, 'The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.' The high court's order has been filed in the Supreme Court, in the Denver-based Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and today, in the Muskogee-based U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma."

Sperling referred to the findings of the federal jury trial.

"The defendant had repeatedly boasted he would go out in a blaze of glory," Sperling said. "He repeatedly announced that he knew an outstanding arrest warrant had been issued for him. He bragged that, if the laws came, he'd take out as many as he could.

"The decision filed today, affirms the convictions and sentences from the district court. The Supreme Court decision also has the effect of approving the decision rendered by the Tenth Circuit."

Barrett's federal trial was his third. His first state trial in Sequoyah County ended with a deadlocked jury, while his second trial resulted in a manslaughter and assault conviction. Barrett was serving a combined 30-year prison sentence for Eales' death when he was indicted in federal court.

Throughout both trials, the prosecution argued that Barrett knew he was shooting at officers who attempted to serve a search warrant at his home, while Barrett's attorneys argued Barrett was shot first and was acting in self-defense when he fired his rifle.

After an experiment that lasted several months, the editors at Your TIMES decided this week to end the practice of allowing anonymous comments on our website because most of the comments involve personal attacks and unfounded accusations. These comments do not add information to a story, or add any true insight. While we believe in the free exchange of ideas, it had become evident that was not what was happening in the comment section of our website. Readers can also become fans of Your TIMES on Facebook and may comment on our postings there. Readers are also encouraged to write letters to the editor to the newspaper about matters of public interest. The newspaper circulation is several times that of the web site, so readership is much higher. Letters must include a name and phone number so that we may contact the writer to verify authenticity of the letter. Letters are limited to 500 words and one letter per writer per month is accepted.