Inmate avoids death for prison murder

A federal prisoner who killed his cellmate because he was a child molester was spared the death penalty Thursday when a jury hearing the case could not reach a unanimous verdict.

After deliberating two days, a federal jury in Atlanta could not arrive at a verdict as to whether Brian Richardson should live or die. Without unanimity on death, the sentence of life without the possibility of being released is automatic in federal court.

The jury had convicted Richardson of murdering 60-year-old Steven Obara in July 2007 by stabbing him nine times and then strangling him at the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta. Richardson said he killed Obara because Obara was serving time for child molestation.

Richardson, 48, was serving a 65-year sentence for armed robberies. For that reason, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Mckinnon told jurors in closing arguments, another life sentence would be “simply no punishment.”

Mckinnon noted that Richardson had previously attacked a guard by throwing bleach in his face, stabbed other inmates and talked an inmate into committing sui- cide. “The only way to deter him from committing other crimes is to sentence him to death,” he said.

But federal defender Brian Mendelsohn, pleading for mercy, said Richardson was abused as a child and suffers from schizophrenia, which is under control now that he’s getting proper medications.

Richardson will be sent to the “Supermax” prison in Florence, Colo., where inmates are locked in their cells 23 hours a day and have little, if any, contact with other inmates or guards, Mendelsohn told jurors. That prison houses terrorists, murderous gang leaders and violent drug kingpins, and there have been no killings there, he said.

After the verdict, Mendelsohn said,“the jury saw that, in spite of the tragic death of Mr. Oba- ra, that Brian’s life still had meaning and value. We are grateful that they reached this just result.”

In a statement, U.S. Attorney Sally Yates said, “Serving as a juror on a death penalty case is a weighty responsibility. We respect the seriousness with which the jury took this responsibility and appreciate the difficulty of reaching a unanimous verdict on such a momentous decision.”