Norfolk death sentence upheld

LINCOLN — The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled Friday that the ringleader of a robbery attempt that left five people dead at a Norfolk bank was properly sentenced to die.

The court majority affirmed the conviction and sentence given to Jose Sandoval, now 31.

But Judge William Connelly, in a partial dissent, said the case should have been sent back because of errors made during the sentencing phase of the trial.

Under Nebraska law, a jury determines whether aggravating factors exist in a murder case.

A three-judge panel then decides on the death penalty after weighing aggravating factors against mitigating factors and looking at sentences given in similar cases.Aggravating factors are circumstances, defined by law, that serve to justify the death penalty. Mitigating factors are those that justify a lesser sentence.

Sandoval and two accomplices fatally shot five employees and customers of U.S. Bank during the 2002 robbery attempt.

Sandoval was responsible for three of the deaths. The men fled after less than a minute inside the bank and took no money.

Sandoval, Erick Vela and Jorge Galindo all were sentenced to die. A fourth man, who served as the lookout, was given five consecutive life sentences.

The state high court previously upheld the death penalty for Vela and Galindo.

Sandoval's attorney, Ron Temple of Norfolk, said his client was very disappointed in the opinion. They now have the choice of seeking a rehearing from the Nebraska Supreme Court or appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Temple said he strongly disagreed with the court's ruling on several points, especially concerning the use of an anonymous jury and issues regarding the sentencing process.

Attorney General Jon Bruning was pleased with the ruling.

“These crimes were so heinous, wanton and violent that death is the appropriate penalty,” he said.
In the appeal, Temple had presented 42 arguments challenging Sandoval's conviction and sentence.

The court rejected all but three of those arguments, including a challenge to the use of the electric chair.

The court had earlier ruled the electric chair unconstitutional, and the Legislature has changed the method of execution to lethal injection.

Sandoval's appeal was filed before the change and did not raise questions about lethal injection. Temple said he won't challenge lethal injection in this appeal but expects to raise objections later.

Two errors involved the jury's determination of aggravating factors.

The court majority determined the errors did not change the outcome of the case.

The trial judge had told jurors that a victim's mental anguish could be considered in deciding whether a murder was “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.”

The court said Nebraska law does not recognize mental anguish as part of that aggravating factor.

The court also found there was not enough evidence to show Sandoval had “apparently relished” the killings, which would have amounted to exceptional depravity under the law.

Witnesses said Sandoval was smiling during the murders and after being arrested. However, the court said that did not prove he relished the killings rather than being merely indifferent to human life.

The high court rejected arguments that Sandoval was denied a fair trial because jurors were identified only by number. Sandoval's membership in the Latin Kings gang, the news media attention to the case and the potential of a death sentence justified the unusual step, Friday's ruling said.

It found that proper steps were taken at trial to prevent bias.

« Crime/Courts

Share