LYNN STATEMENT FROM THE AUTHOR Duane Lynn* Nila Lynn, 69, of Peoria, Arizona, was murdered at a homeowners

association meeting on April 19, 2000 by a man unhappy with the way the association had trimmed the bushes in his yard. Nila and another woman were killed, and several other men were injured. Nila died on the floor in the arms of her husband, Duane. They were three months short of their 50th wedding anniversary. Their children paid for her casket with the money they had saved for an anniversary gift. Duane wanted the killer to be sentenced to life without parole, rather than endure the lengthy appeals of a capital case. Despite having clear constitutional and statutory rights, Duane was not allowed to make a sentencing recommendation. The killer received the death penalty.1 Ventana Lakes is a senior community and has its own home owners association with a seven-person board of directors. In April, 2000, I was a member of that board and was in charge of the landscaping for the grounds. The first Wednesday of each month we held our board meeting. On April 19th, my wife, Nila Ruth, was going to the meeting with me. We arrived at the meeting hall about thirty minutes early so I asked Nila if she would sit with a lady by the name of Ester LaPante for a few minutes because she was new to our board and that was to be her first meeting. Little did I know that in about two hours both Nila Ruth and Ester would be dead. About thirty minutes before we closed the meeting, a man entered the room and began shooting a pistol at the board members. I later learned he had four guns with him and about 700 rounds of ammunition. About eight months earlier I had taken a lawn maintenance crew and cleared off his lawn. We trimmed his trees, cut his shrubs, and cleared off his lawn. All of this type of maintenance was required by our rules and regulations. He had refused to follow these rules. A few weeks after I had done this he and his wife moved. We all were very glad to hear

* 1

The author is a retired officer with the Arizona Highway Patrol. Jon Kyl et al., On the Wings of Their Angels: The Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims Rights Act, 9 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 581, 583 (2005).

PHOENIX LAW REVIEW this; however, what we did not know was that he had been evicted for non-payment by his mortgage company. There were ten shots fired; my wife and Ester were killed, and three men were hit and wounded. It all took place in twenty seconds. My entire life changed forever in that short period of time. Almost three years later the trial for the murders of Nila Ruth and Ester began. It was to be a capital trial seeking the death penalty. I was very much against the death penalty and let the county attorneys office know my views. But I was only talking to a wall. Nobody cared and of course nobody heard my cries. For the sake of my life and that of my family, I wanted to have the increased certainty that would come with a life sentence, but my reasons were ignored. I was told that in Arizona crime victims had a constitutional right to be heard at sentencing. We had moved during this time from judge sentencing to jury sentencing after the Ring case.2 Even before trial, I asked the judge to protect my right to be heard and to tell the jury that I wanted to ask for life imprisonment and not the death penalty, and I wanted to tell them my reasons. With an organization called Arizona Voice for Crime Victims representing me, I filed a motion before the trial judge but it was denied.3 We sought a review of this decision before the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court.4 We lost in both courts, again on the basis of the Eighth Amendment.5 The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that for me to exercise my right to be heard under the Arizona Constitution to ask for life imprisonment and not the death penalty would deny the defendant his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual

2 3

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). Minute Entry at 1, 5, Arizona v. Glassel, CR 2000-006872 (Super. Ct. Ariz. Nov. 12, 2002). 4 Lynn v. Reinstein, 68 P.3d 412, 414 (Ariz. 2003). 5 Id.

LYNN punishment.6 We asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review this but they refused to accept it.7 So it seemed that my rights were of little value. My right to be heard was not the only right of mine that was ignored. During the long period of time that it was taking to start the trial, I asked why so long and again it was never explained. I asked where the speedy part of our Constitution was, and was told that it only applied to criminalsnot to victims. Also, I was requested to remain quiet so the trial could begin. I asked where was the part of our Constitution that covered freedom of speech and again I was told that victims had no right to be heard at the start of a trial. It turns out that the Constitution of the United States of America is only for accused or convicted criminals and there is nothing in the Constitution for the victims of crimes. Why? What is being done today for victims to allow them to have a voice in how their lives will be lived and how they will forever cope with that new life they are now living? Everything the victims go through is done in a very hard way. There was a short hearing after conviction for restitution. A certain small portion was to be taken from monies received by this inmate and given to the victims for the cost they had to bear. Ten years after the trial, I had yet not received any money from this man, and I learned that he was receiving money each month from his wife. I had to go back to the courts to fight for my rights again. I truly believe that the court should have seen that restitution was being taken from his money. After all, my right to restitution is also written into the Arizona Constitution.8 It ended up again with my having to fight for my rights. I ended up once again in the Arizona Court of Appeals. It took eleven years after the death of my wife before I received any funds for restitution. If you are a victim, nothing is simple; even with so called state rights we are treated as second-class citizens.
6 7

Id. Lynn v. Reinstein, 540 U.S. 1141 (2004). 8 ARIZ. CONST. art. II, 2.1.

PHOENIX LAW REVIEW What I dont understand is why our lawmakers cannot see the need for victims across the nation to be able to have rights just like the criminals have. One day, maybe somebody can really explain this to me. In the meantime, we as victims of crime will just have to go on living in the valley of death and walk in our shoes alone.