Mom’s killer might go free; daughter discusses ruling
Supreme Court nixed mandatory life sentences for juveniles
On a spring day in 1994, a retired German couple who’d traveled to California to see their daughter were sightseeing in the San Jacinto Mountains when they were robbed and shot by three young men. Gisela Pfleger, 64, died in the attack. Her husband, 62year-old Klaus, was severely injured.
One of the assailants pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 25 years to life. The two others received life with no chance for release, and the Pfleger family believed justice had been done.
Then a U.S. Supreme Court ruling changed things.
Almost two years ago, the high court issued a decision that made more than 2,000 inmates serving life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles eligible for possible resentencing and release. In that ruling and others, the court said that mandatory life-without-parole sentences are unconstitutionally cruel and unusual for offenders under 18 and that all but the rare irredeemable offender should have a chance at parole.
The justices pointed to brain science research that finds teens lack impulse control and might engage in reckless behavior without fully understanding the consequences.
While inmates and their supporters have celebrated this opportunity, the decision has revived painful memories for victims’ families. Some have already returned to court to face those who killed their loved ones and to oppose their release.
Thongxay Nilakout, who at 17 was the gunman in the Pflegers’ shooting, is among those getting a chance at freedom. Birte Pfleger, the couple’s daughter, plans to testify against him at his resentencing hearing, likely to take place this year.
Pfleger, a history professor at California State University, Los Angeles, contacted the Associated Press after reading its coverage of the Supreme Court ruling and its aftermath and shared her story of a loved one left behind to pick up the pieces. Here is two excerpts of an essay she wrote for the AP, Nilakout’s public defender declined to comment.
❚ The effect of the crime on her family.
“My father lives with the scars of the events every day of his life, both literally and figuratively. It still amazes me that he managed to get help after being shot twice in the face and once in the back. He got into his car, drove down the hill and found someone with a mobile phone — still pretty unusual in 1994. Surgeons saved his life and his ability to eat and speak … but to this day the lower left side of his jaw is numb, he drools when he eats, drinks or speaks and always carries a cloth napkin to wipe his mouth.
“More than his physical injuries, his soul has never recovered from losing his wife of nearly 30 years — from watching how she was shot, unable to help her. For more than 20 years, he has been asking himself why. Today, my father is 85 years old, lonelier than ever. He still misses his wife, and he has no answers. My sister and I lost our mom when we were in our 20s. We both celebrated our weddings and the birth of our children without her. My two young children do not have a grandmother. My 5-year-old daughter was named after the grandmother she will never know. My 7-year-old son often asks me about her and why she died. I don’t know what to say. How do you explain to a child that his grandmother was murdered?”
❚ On previously testifying against parole.
“In 2010 … I spoke at a hearing against granting parole (for offender Xou Yang). I had that same gutwrenching feeling, almost numbness, profound sadness, desperation, and helplessness that I felt for years after my mother’s death.