West Virginia Supreme Court hears arguments on mercy decision deadlock in murder case

Williams was representing the state in a Rule 20 hearing on a certified question in the case of Shaundarius Reeder, a 23-year-old Fairmont man convicted of the first-degree murder of a WVU student on Feb. 28, 2020. The jury then deadlocked over whether Reeder should ever get to see the parole board.

Under West Virginia law, both Williams and Reeder’s lawyer, Christopher M. Wilson of Fairmont, agreed that the statute mandates a life term without parole unless the jury unanimously grants mercy. That decision allows the convicted to begin seeing the parole board after 15 years.

Justice John Hutchison asked Williams, “do you agree that any decision by the jury to grant mercy has to be a unanimous verdict?”

“Yes, your honor. [State of West Virginia vs. Billy Ray] McLaughlin holds that,” Williams replied.

“Conversely, the decision not to grant mercy, does that have to be unanimous?” Hutchison asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Williams said. “That’s what we believe mandates the result that it has to actually be retried.”

“We send this case back, and we order a new jury?” Hutchison said.

“That’s correct,” Williams said.

“They hang up. How many times do we have to do it?” Hutchison said.

“I think I hear your concern. We have that concern as the state, certainly, but I think the Legislature has given us the answer, which is it has to be retried as many times as is necessary to obtain a unanimous verdict. Given the many cases that this court has sort of repeatedly emphasized that all aspects of the jury’s verdict have to be unanimous, I think there’s simply no other way around it,” Williams said.

Chief Justice Beth Walker asked Williams about how to handle procedure when the case is sent to a new jury on the mercy phase. That came after defense counsel Wilson had raised concerns about a new jury’s lack of knowledge about the evidence that led to the conviction.

“Obviously, the trial court has the right to gatekeep the evidence that happens in the penalty phase, but I foresee an instance where the defendant could be precluded from eliciting some information from the underlying case in this part that would be potentially very relevant to the determination of mercy,” Wilson said. “I mean, that’s just me looking forward and seeing what potential problems may exist if we take that route.”

Williams again relied on the June 8, 2010, State vs. McLaughlin opinion authored by Justice Margaret Workman.

“Specifically, it talks about how the circuit court has substantial discretion when it comes to conducting this additional phase. Because the petitioner is right that there does need to be an understanding by the mercy phase as to sort of the nature of the crime, the sort of broader picture of this defendant, I think, is how this court put it in [State of West Virginia vs. Finley, Nov. 16, 2006], for instance.

“So there needs to be substantial discretion, but I don’t think the state agrees that that’s a reason for concern or a reason to sort of reshape the statute out of concern for sort of the ordinary difficulties that might arise from managing a bifurcated trial,” Williams said.

“I think this court has repeatedly said sort of different evidentiary standards apply at the mercy stage; we apply a somewhat laxer standard of admissibility because it is kind of a holistic endeavor. And so for that reason, I think we would say, the only direction that this court should give is that the parties and the court should work together and have substantial flexibility to structure this trial in whatever way is the most expeditious way to provide a clearer picture of all the factors that are relevant to a mercy recommendation,” Williams said.

“So that’s ultimately all we want, your honors. This individual committed a horrible crime. And ultimately, we just want this to be sent back expeditiously so that he can then face an appropriate punishment by a jury of his peers,” Williams said.

Wilson had suggested that in the event of a hung jury on the mercy phase, the Supreme Court could give guidance that a grant of mercy should ensue. But Justice Tim Armstead indicated that through his reading of the statute, the justices would be likely to give guidance of no mercy should they go down that road. Wilson then appeared to back away from that part of his argument.

Monongalia County Circuit Judge Susan B. Tucker presided over the June 2021 trial in which the jury also convicted Reeder of conspiracy.

Tucker sought guidance from the high court on the issue via a certified question and her answer to it:

1) Whether a jury’s failure to unanimously decide the recommendation of mercy allows the Circuit Court to impose the life sentenced required for a conviction of First Degree Murder pursuant to WEST VIRGINIA CODE §61-2-2 and either grant mercy or decline to grant mercy?

Answer: Yes.

The lawyers and justices appeared to clearly agree during Wednesday’s argument that circuit judges can’t step in and decide the mercy issue.

Co-defendant Terrell Linear, 24, also of Fairmont, pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced by the circuit court to life with potential of parole after 15 years.

Linear is in a state prison, and will be eligible for parole on Feb. 28, 2035.

Reeder remains in jail instead of prison. He’s been incarcerated since the day of the shooting, and would have the same parole date as Linear if he’s granted mercy by a jury or receives a parole eligibility ruling from the court.

Reeder and Linear shot dead WVU student Eric James Smith, 21, of Clementon, New Jersey.

According to Williams’ brief, “this case traces back to Reeder’s decision to turn a minor dispute into a fatal one.”

Reeder and Linear followed Smith, a WVU sophomore, back to Smith’s apartment after Reeder and Smith had “squabbled earlier in the evening about who drove the nicest car or had more money,” according to Williams.

Reeder and Linear opened fire when Smith came to the door, according to Williams.