Fears was found guilty in 2004 by a Sequoyah County jury which recommended a life prison term without the possibility of parole for a 2002 shooting spree that left Patsy Sue Wells of Sallisaw and Reba Spangler of Fort Smith, Ark., dead and eight others injured.
The appeals court decision reverses the Sequoyah County jury's decision and remands the case back to Sequoyah County for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The appeals court opinion means that Fears will not be retried and will be placed in a secure mental health facility under lockdown 24 hours a day.
Fears, now 22, was 18 at the time of the shootings. He was convicted of two first-degree murder charges, eight counts of shooting with intent to kill, five counts of drive-by shooting, one count of feloniously pointing a firearm, and one count of discharging a firearm with intent to kill.
The shooting spree that began in Fears' father's neighborhood in Sallisaw when Fears broke into his father and stole a gun ended in Roland where Fears wrecked his truck and surrendered to police.
During the trial, witnesses said that Fears suffered from mental illness and was taking over the counter medications, which added to his delusions that aliens ordered him to shoot kill as many people as he could.
Various factors led to the reversal, including an error in instructions to the jury about what a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict would mean and perceived misconduct by the prosecution during the trial.
While all the judges on the five-member panel agreed that a reversal in the conviction was needed, two disagreed with the appeal's court decision to declare Fears not guilty by reason of insanity and thought the case should be retried.
Since the reversal, victims and family members have agreed that if errors were made during the trial then a new trial should be held to decide the fate of Fears, but judges who never heard the testimony should not make the ultimate decision.
Some victims and their family rallied together in Sallisaw Monday to talk with the district attorney's office about the reversal and what it means, as well as the recourse the district attorney's office can take.
Elvie Wells, the husband of Patsy Sue Wells, now lives in Texas, and was on his way to Sallisaw Friday for a weekend family reunion when he got the news that Fears' conviction had been overturned.
Wells said he and others met Monday night to hear information about what happened with the change in the verdict, yet he said he remains in "disbelief."
"I couldn't believe it," Wells said. "I've been in Oklahoma most of my life...I had no idea a court in Oklahoma court could take a verdict away from the jurors and not turn it back to another jury."
If mistakes were found, Wells said the case should be sent back for a retrial.
"It's just not right and it's not fair," Wells said.
The decision to not send the case back to Sequoyah County for a re-trial also stunned Sequoyah County District Attorney Richard Gray.
"I'm shocked," Gray said Monday about the reversal.
He added that his office "always respects the appeals court decisions."
"It's a very, very rare decision," Gray said. "Usually the most the court does in reversals is remand it back for a new trial....It's highly unusual."
Gray said his office doesn't know at this time if they have any recourse. Gray's office has been in contact with the state Attorney General's office, which handles all appeals for district attorneys, to see if there's any type of recourse, such as getting a hearing in front of the appeals court.
According to the attorney general's Web site, "the criminal appeals division (of the attorney general's office) represents the state in the criminal appeals process to ensure that the decisions rendered by judges and juries are upheld in the appellate courts.
"It's in the hands of the attorney general's office," Gray said.
He noted that, "We feel the big losers in this case are the victims and their families."
Stan Spangler of Little Rock, Ark., whose mother, Reba Spangler, was shot and killed at a Sallisaw car dealership during Fears' shooting rampage through the county, was not able to attend the Monday meeting, but said that he is "devastated by the news."
"I'm in utter disbelief," Spangler said. "I can't believe this situation has occurred."
What Spangler said shocks him the most is that the appeals court wouldn't ask that the case be retried. He said he doesn't believe that three of five judges could overturn a conviction by 12 jurors.
"It's just like a slap in the face," Spangler said.
Spangler equates the shock of the reversal to the shock he felt when he heard that his mother had been killed. For Spangler, the reversal has reopened the emotional wound that was made when his mother was first killed.
What is most disturbing to Spangler and others is that Fears could be free if he is later found by doctors and a judge to not be a danger to himself or society.
"He killed my mother and Mrs. Wells and shot people... and now he's going to get to walk the streets some day," Spangler said. "Where is the justice in that?"
Jimmy Nunn of Muskogee, a car salesman who was shot twice and saw Fears kill Reba Spangler, agreed with Spangler's son.
"I think it's terrible," he said. "I'm very upset with the state of Oklahoma."
Nunn said he can see the appeals court finding errors and ordering a new trial, but is adamant that the final decision should not be left up to the appeals court judges.
"I don't think the state of Oklahoma respects the decision of those 12 jurors from Sequoyah County," Nunn said. "It's a dirty shame."
He added that it was pointless to have any trial if this was going to be the result.
"Why even have district courts?" Nunn asked.
Nunn, who today carries remnants of the shots in his lung and liver, continues to undergo counseling to cope with what he experienced and what he saw, and he is most frightened of the possibility of Fears being released from the hospital in the future.
"Who is going to be the next victim?" Nunn asked.
Fears' attorney said Monday that Fears being released in the future is a possibility.
Nigh said if it is found that Fears is not a danger to himself or others, "ultimately the court could order his release."
But Nigh said a number of steps have to be taken in the interim.
"It's not a result you could anticipate in the near future," Nigh said of Fears' release.
In the meantime, Nigh said District Judge John Garrett is required to issue the ruling, but when that ruling will be issued is unknown. Nigh said he is trying to cooperate with the district attorney's office as far as the timing of the ruling to get back in front of Judge Garrett.
After the ruling Fears will be evaluated and treated at a secure mental health facility that is locked down 24 hours a day.
Nigh said Fears' family are happy about the fact that Fears will be in a hospital instead of a prison.
"The truth of the matter is this event is as much of a tragedy for them as the victims' families...In a lot of ways they lost their son," Nigh said.
Fears currently remains in the maximum security end of the McAlester prison, where he receives medication, but no treatment, counseling or evaluation, Nigh said.
"It's no place for a person who is mentally ill to be," Nigh said.
While victims and their family oppose the appeals court decision, Nigh said that he thinks the court's decision was the "right result."
"I'm very happy about it for Daniel and his family," Nigh said of the reversal.
Nigh said that the appeals court's finding suggested that the emotion injected into the case overcame the jury's ability to apply the law onto the evidence that was presented and caused them to disregard that Fears was insane at the time of the shooting.
Central parts of Nigh's appeal revolved around the jury not being instructed about what the result of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict would mean and the overwhelming evidence of insanity that the jury disregarded, Nigh said.
Nigh said he believes that the emotion in the case compromised the jurors' ability to accurately determine facts of the case and apply the law onto the evidence that was presented.
"We're only human beings," Nigh said. "It was a tragic event. It touched a lot of people very deeply. There's no denying that...The jury felt that, and I don't at all fault them for feeling that."
But Nigh added that the jury's emotion overcame logical reasoning.
"I know this (the reversal) is tremendously difficult for the victims and families and I'm sympathetic to that," Nigh said.
Nigh said if there is a good part in the reversal it is that the victims and families don't have to go through another trial.
One of the judges who thought a retrial was needed was Vice Presiding Judge Gary Lumpkin, who concurred in part and dissented in part with Presiding Judge Charles Chapel's majority opinion.
Lumpkin said the appeals court decision takes "personal positions on witness credibility and weighs conflicting testimony. That is the sole responsibility of the jury under our Constitution."
Lumpkin said the proper remedy is to reverse the judgment and sentence and then remand the case for a new trial so the questions of fact are decided by a jury of the defendant's peers, "rather than by a few judges who never saw the defendant or the witnesses testify."
"We are not jurors, and it is dangerous when we start believing we are," Lumpkin said.
In the majority opinion, Chapel questioned whether the evidence presented during trial supported the jury's verdict, and referred to testimony given by all four mental health experts in the trial that Fears was schizophrenic and was seriously mentally ill.
"Taking all the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, it is insufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Fears was sane," Chapel wrote.
The problem over the jury instructions arose in Fears' appeal.
During jury selection, a juror asked whether a verdict of innocent by reason of insanity meant the defendant was innocent. After consulting with the prosecution and defense, the court's answer was that an entirely different process would occur if the jury rendered a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict.
"Law, logic, fundamental fairness and common sense require that juries be told the consequences of their verdict, not guilty by reason of insanity. Fears' jury should have been so instructed," Chapel wrote.
Chapel said in his opinion that the only issue in the case was Fear's sanity, and that the prosecution improperly encouraged jurors to reach a verdict based on sympathy and emotion rather than the evidence presented, which "deprived Fears of a fair trial."
