The appeals court reversed the guilty verdict of a Sequoyah County jury and remanded 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.
Various factors led to the appeals court decision, including an error in instructions to the jury about what a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict would mean and alleged misconduct by the prosecution during the trial.
In Presiding Judge Charles Chapel's opinion, he 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.
Fears, now 22 but who was 18 at the time of the shootings, was convicted in 2004 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.
Patsy Sue Wells of Sallisaw and Reba Spangler of Fort Smith, Ark., were left dead from the Oct. 26, 2002, shooting spree that began in Fears' father's neighborhood in Sallisaw and ended in Roland.
Fears' attorney, Rob Nigh of Tulsa, said Monday that the appeals court 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.
In Vice Presiding Judge Gary Lumpkin's opinion, which concurred in part and dissented in part with Chapel's opinion, Lumpkin said, "the proper remedy in this case is to reverse the judgment and sentence and then remand the case for a new trial. In that way, the questions of fact may be decided by a jury of the defendant's peers, rather than by a few judges who never saw the defendant or the witnesses testify."
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."
In closing, Lumpkin said that based on the errors that occurred during the trial and conceding that an improved jury instruction was needed, he would reverse and remand for a new trial.
"We are not jurors, and it is dangerous when we start believing we are," Lumpkin said.
The decision to not send the case back to Sequoyah County for a re-trial was also puzzling to 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.
"It's in the hands of the attorney general's office," Gray said, referring to possible appeals and a rehearing.
He noted that, "We feel the big losers in this case are the victims and their families."
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.
"The unit works to uphold the convictions of the guilty and ensures that the punishment imposed by judges and juries are carried out. Unit attorneys provide quality responses that aid the court in ruling on issues of law and in the development of new legal precedents."
For a complete news report, including more comments from Gray and Nigh and comments from the victims and their families about the reversal, see the Thursday edition of Your TIMES.
To read the complete appeals court opinion, see Your TIMES Web site and click on "Fears Criminal Court Opinion."
