Death-penalty deliberations resume today
After a Franklin County Common Pleas Court jury heard from a parade of defense witnesses about the value of Lincoln S. Rutledge’s life, the prosecution asked them to focus on the Columbus police officer that Rutledge fatally shot and two other officers who were in the line of fire.
“I don’t know of a better way than to mention their names to shake you and say, ‘Remember,’” Assistant Prosecutor Daniel Hogan told the jurors Wednesday in urging them to impose the death penalty for Rutledge.
The jury spent nearly four hours Wednesday evening deliberating whether to recommend a death sentence or life in prison before being sequestered for the night at a Downtown hotel. They will return to Common Pleas Court on Thursday morning to resume deliberations.
Rutledge, 45, became eligible for the death penalty last week when the jury convicted him of aggravated murder in the April 10, 2016, shooting death of Officer Steven Smith and returned three additional findings: that Rutledge knew he was shooting at police officers, that he was attempting to kill two or more people and that he committed the crime to avoid detection or apprehension.
Defense attorneys Jefferson Liston and Mitch Williams called 21 witnesses over parts of three days in support of mitigating factors that they contend make a death sentence inappropriate for the former Ohio State University cybersecurity worker.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty should be reserved for “the worst of the worst,” Liston told the jury in his closing argument. “This is not that kind of a case.”
The defense focused heavily on Rutledge’s mental health, which witnesses said unraveled in the weeks leading up to the SWAT standoff outside his Clintonville apartment. A psychologist who testified for the defense said Rutledge had developed a delusional disorder, a type of psychosis in which he held an irrational belief that others were out to get him or harm him.
Rutledge’s mother, father, sister, ex-wife, friends and former coworkers were among those who testified that he had been a shy, gentle and trustworthy family man, friend and employee before he rapidly sank into mental illness.
In rebuttal, prosecutors on Wednesday showed a video of Rutledge’s interview with a Columbus fire
investigator, which was conducted one day after Rutledge barricaded himself in his apartment and began shooting when officers tried to serve him with an arrest warrant accusing him of setting fire to his thenestranged wife’s house.
In large part, Rutledge comes off as the laidback “hippy type” that so many of his friends and family described in testimony. Still wearing a hospital gown after being brought to the interview from Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center, he smiles and chuckles and remains calm during the interrogation.
He admits hearing the police identify themselves outside his apartment, but adds, “then they said they weren’t the police.” He says he was “scared for his life” and only admits to shooting at the floor and a wall of his apartment.
The interview also could be interpreted as supporting claims about Rutledge’s paranoia, as he says “some weird stuff started happening” and repeatedly mentions being treated aggressively by others in recent weeks.
In an apparent effort to establish that Rutledge understood right from wrong, investigator Mike DeFrancisco tells him, “You know you can’t set houses on fire, you can’t shoot at the police, you can’t shoot at people or shoot a gun out of a house. We all know that.”
“Yeah,” Rutledge responds, nodding.
Rutledge ends the interview after DeFrancisco suggests that he apologize for what he’s done.
“I feel like if I say anything, I’m confessing to a crime,” Rutledge replies.
The jurors are required to weigh the mitigating factors presented by the defense against the aggravating circumstances of the crime to reach a sentencing recommendation.
If the jurors can’t agree on death as the appropriate sentence, they must recommend a sentence of life in prison without parole or life with a chance of parole after 25 or 30 years.
The sentencing decision must be unanimous.