Crime and Consequences Blog

Crime and Consequences Has Moved

2020-01-01T08:00:01Z

Effective New Year's Day 2020, the Crime and Consequences Blog has moved to https://www.crimeandconsequences.blog.

The old blog will be left in place at this address as an archive of posts from the blog's inception in 2006 through the end of 2019.

Abolish the Police?

2019-12-27T19:02:26Z

Some ideas of the soft-on-crime crowd are simply misguided, but some are so bizarre as to make one question their sanity. Christopher Rufo has this article in the City Journal, with the above title, on one of the latter variety.

]]>

The latest call to action from some criminal-justice activists: "Abolish the police." From the streets of Chicago to the city council of Seattle, and in the pages of academic journals ranging from the Cardozo Law Review to the Harvard Law Review and of mainstream publications from the Boston Review to Rolling Stone, advocates and activists are building a case not just to reform policing--viewed as an oppressive, violent, and racist institution--but to do away with it altogether. When I first heard this slogan, I assumed that it was a figure of speech, used to legitimize more expansive criminal-justice reform. But after reading the academic and activist literature, I realized that "abolish the police" is a concrete policy goal. The abolitionists want to dismantle municipal police departments and see "police officers disappearing from the streets."

One might dismiss such proclamations as part of a fringe movement, but advocates of these radical views are gaining political momentum in numerous cities. In Seattle, socialist city council candidate Shaun Scott, who ran on a "police abolition" platform, came within 1,386 votes of winning elected office. During his campaign, he argued that the city must "[disinvest] from the police state" and "build towards a world where nobody is criminalized for being poor." At a debate hosted by the Seattle Police Officers Guild, Scott blasted "so-called officers" for their "deep and entrenched institutional ties to racism" that produced an "apparatus of overaggressive and racist policing that has emerged to steer many black and brown bodies back into, in essence, a form of slavery." Another Seattle police abolitionist, Kirsten Harris-Talley, served briefly in as an appointed city councilwoman. Both Scott and Harris-Talley enjoy broad support from the city's progressive establishment.

* * *

Police abolitionists believe that they stand at the vanguard of a new idea, but this strain of thought dates to the eighteenth-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that stripping away the corruptions of civilization would liberate the goodness of man. What police abolitionists fail to acknowledge is the problem of evil. No matter how many "restorative" programs it administers, even a benevolent centralized state cannot extinguish the risks of illness, violence, and disorder. Contrary to the utopian vision of Rousseau and his intellectual descendants, chaos is not freedom; order is not slavery. In the modern world, civilization cannot be rolled back without dire consequences.

This movement, then, is merely an extreme version of the fundamental problem that underlies so many of the soft-on-crime movement's misguided ideas. They wear ideological blinders that prevent them from seeing the primary cause of crime and pretend that secondary factors are the sole cause. The primary problem is culture. The combined influences on youth lead too many to grow up internalizing the ideas that rules are for suckers and success means taking what you want from those who have it. See this post.

Until people take off their blinders and see the primary problem, there is little hope for real solutions.

News Scan

2019-12-27T18:19:51Z

CA Has The Most Porch Pirates: Three of the top ten regions with the most porch piracy are in California according to SafeWise, a national security system rating company. Julia Barajas of the Los Angeles Times reports that the San Francisco metro area ranks #1 in the nation for its level of packages stolen off of porches. The Los Angeles metro area ranked 9th, while the Sacramento metro area 10th. The other regions in the ranking were Salt Lake City, Portland, Oregon, Baltimore, Seattle-Tacoma, Chicago, Austin, Texas and Denver. What other factors link these places? Well, the entire state of California has embraced sentencing reform, essentially decriminalizing theft and drug use. Seattle, Baltimore, and Chicago have also weakened the penalties for so-called "low level" property crimes and drug use. The Mayors of each of the cities belong to the same political party as are all of the governors of their home states but Texas and Utah. As reported earlier, the progressive Mecca of San Francisco has the highest per-capita level of property crime of the nation's 20 largest cities.

Most Alabama Officers Killed in Three Decades: 2019 was a deadly year for police officers in Alabama with six officers shot and killed by criminals. The Associated Press reports that the total was the highest for the state since 1987. Five of the six officers were killed with stolen guns. "None of the guns were in the hands of people who should have had them," according to the head of the state's ATF bureau. A seventh Alabama officer died in a car crash while responding to a burglary. Nationally, 128 police officers have been killed in the line of duty over the first 51 weeks of 2019.

Cal. Law on Mandatory Reporting of Kiddie Porn May (or May Not) Be Unconstitutional

2019-12-26T19:42:08Z

California, like many states, has a mandatory reporting law that requires various people to report child abuse or neglect when it comes to their attention. The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act stems from a law enacted in 1980. It was amended and renamed in 1987.

Among the mandatory reporters are mental health professionals. In 2014, the law was amended again to include, among others, persons who download or stream videos "in which a child is engaged in an act of obscene sexual conduct."

]]> Two marriage and family therapists and a certified drug and alcohol counselor sued to have the statute declared unconstitutional as applied to patients who admit downloading kiddie porn but whom they do not deem to be a danger of committing sexual acts with children themselves.

The California Attorney General and Los Angeles District Attorney defended the law. They filed demurrers, claiming that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. (This is substantially the same as a 12(b)(6) motion in federal court.) The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Today, a bare majority of the California Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the trial judge should not have rejected the case on its face but should have taken evidence. The California Constitution, unlike the federal, includes a right to privacy explicitly stated in the text. The majority held that the therapists "have asserted a cognizable privacy interest" and "the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate a sufficient justification for the incursion on privacy as this case moves forward."

And what exactly is the burden? How much justification is "sufficient"? The court says, "there is ultimately no need to resolve at this juncture whether the proper standard of justification here is the compelling interest test or a general balancing test." Thanks a heap. That's a lot of help. They might as well have said, "Superior Court and Court of Appeal, you try and decide this case. We will tell you later if you used the right standard. Maybe."

The dissent maintains that the 2014 amendment was merely a technical update made to address new ways of committing the same kind of conduct that was reportable all along. Given that it has been an exception to therapist-patient confidentiality the whole time, no reasonable expectation of privacy is invaded.

The 4-3 split is unusual in the California Supreme Court. In recent years, that court has maintained a high degree of cohesion, even in controversial cases. Is that cohesion going to come unglued? We will have to wait and see.

I think the dissent has the better of the constitutional argument. As a matter of policy, I can see an argument for maintaining confidentiality in this situation. The goal is to reduce the market for child pornography, reducing the incentive to make it and abuse children in the process. That reduction may be better achieved by encouraging the watchers to seek therapy and extending confidentiality for that purpose. But that kind of policy-making is for the legislature, not the judiciary.

The case is Mathews v. Becerra, No. S240156.

USCA9 Upholds Sentence of Serial Murderer/Rapist Dean Carter

2019-12-26T19:13:05Z

The notorious Dean Carter is on deck to join the ranks of exceptionally vicious murderers spared from their full punishment by Cal. Gov. Newsom's misuse of the reprieve power. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today affirmed the rejection of his collateral attack on his convictions and sentences in two counties for four murders and three rapes, aggravated by two other rapes and another murder.
]]>

News Scan

2019-12-26T17:16:50Z

The Cost of Being Hip: While there are violent killings in many parts of America every day, generally the ones that make the national news involve celebrities or their families. Last week an habitual violent felon was arrested for murdering the brother of the backup quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers and another young man in front of a bar in Nashville. Paul Mirengoff reports on Powerline that the accused murderer, Michael Mosley, had multiple convictions for drugs and property crimes before graduating to violent offenses including a 2015 stabbing conviction and arrests last year for domestic violence and assault. How is it that a ticking timebomb like Mosley, who in years past would have been sent back in prison for his continued violence, was armed with a knife and free in Nashville to commit a double murder? Recent sentencing reform policies designed to empty out prisons and jails have been embraced by politicians looking to challenge the old fashioned approach to habitual criminals which removed them from law abiding society. As Mirengoff, notes, this hip new trend is not just evident in liberal states such as California, New York and Washington, but is also being promoted by Republican Governor Bill Lee in Tennessee. Sadly, everything is new to those who do not know history. Hat tip to Hans Bader for this story.

Robocalls

2019-12-26T17:01:51Z

All I want for Christmas is to stop the damn robocalls.

Congress passed the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act last week, and the President is expected to sign it. Ryan Tracy and Sarah Krouse report for the WSJ on what the act will and won't do.

]]> Criminal prosecution is part of the package, but that remedy has its limits.

What the act does: The Federal Communications Commission now has a longer shot clock to bring a robocall case--up to four years, instead of one or two currently. In an effort to speed up enforcement, the agency also now may take legal action against violators without issuing a warning first, as they have previously been required to do.

The law is designed to push prosecutors to jail violators of telephone consumer-protection laws, recognizing that the government struggles to collect on big-ticket fines from civil litigation. The new law requires the FCC to share evidence of robocall violations with the attorney general, and to disclose how often it does so.

What it doesn't do: More prosecutions won't necessarily solve the "Whac-A-Mole" problem: Mass dialing with internet-based technology is so easy that bad actors pop up constantly using new names or locations.

Venue at 30,000 Feet

2019-12-23T21:37:54Z

The Ninth Circuit has granted rehearing en banc in an interesting venue case, United States v. Lozoya, No. 17-50336. The panel decision is here. The case involves a charge of misdemeanor simple assault occurring somewhere over the Great Plains on a flight from Minneapolis to Los Angeles. A garden-variety dispute between passengers escalated to a physical blow.

Where should this case be tried? (Sounds like a law school exam question.) It is more complicated than you might think.

]]> Assault on an airplane is a federal offense, though you have to follow a convoluted path to get there. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46501(2), the plane comes within the "special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States." Then § 46506 incorporates for that jurisdiction the law for assaults and certain other crimes "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." That gets us to 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(4). So, this simple assault is a federal case. But which district?

In federal courts, venue has a constitutional dimension under Article III, §2: "The Trial of all Crimes ... shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Ninth Circuit precedent holds that the navigable airspace above a federal court district is part of that district. So if it has to be in the district of occurrence, it is definitely not Los Angeles. Whether it is South Dakota or Wyoming or some other state might be difficult to determine at this point. A statute for "offense[s] involving transportation in interstate or foreign commerce," 18 U.S.C. § 3237, may or may not permit venue in any district through which the plane moved, including the Central District of California (LA). The panel split over the interpretation of that statute as applied to this case.

The majority recognized the "creeping absurdity" of its holding.

Should it really be necessary for the government to pinpoint where precisely in the spacious skies an alleged assault occurred? Imagine an inflight robbery or homicide--or some other nightmare at 20,000 feet--that were to occur over the northeastern United States, home to three circuits, fifteen districts, and a half-dozen major airports, all in close proximity. How feasible would it be for the government to prove venue in such cluttered airspace?

For offenses "committed upon the high seas, or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district," the proper venue is where the defendant is first brought. Does that statute apply? Could Congress constitutionally make it apply to high-altitude airplanes if it wanted to?

This is a case where original understanding of the Constitution does not answer the specific question because there is no original understanding. If we reason by analogy, the closest analogue seems to me to be ships at sea, which the Constitution places entirely under federal control. In practice, regulation of activities at high altitudes is entirely federal now. However, the argument that making this airspace constitutionally the same as the high seas would require an amendment of the Constitution is not a trivial one.

How high is "high altitude"? I suggest 18,000 feet. That is the present floor of "Class A Airspace" in the contiguous 48 States. See 14 CFR § 71.33(a). Different rules apply there. It is high enough that the territory below has no real interest in local regulation. Nearly all airline flights any longer than local fly there for all except the beginning and end of the flight.

We will see what the Ninth does with this case en banc, but eventually Congress should speak on the subject.

News Scan

2019-12-20T18:23:40Z

South Dakota Upholds Death Sentence: In a decision announced last week, the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld the death sentence given to an Alaska man convicted of a 2000 torture and murder during a burglary. The Associated Press reports that, hoping for sympathy from the court, Briley Piper plead guilty to the kidnap and brutal torture murder of Chester Poage in a remote area outside of Spearfish, North Dakota. Piper and two accomplices were high on drugs when they decided to burglarize Poage's home on March 12, 2000. The trio attacked Poage, beating and kicking him, then forcing him to drink a mixture of pills and hydrochloric acid. They then stripped him naked and buried him in the snow. But Poage was still alive and attempted to escape. The murderers then threw their naked victim into a creek and stabbed him multiple times as he begged for his life, finally killing him by smashing his scull with a bowling ball sized rock. A more complete discussion of the facts is provided in the direct appeal here. In his second state habeas corpus petition Piper argued that his guilty plea was involuntary and that his attorney was incompetent. The court unanimously rejected those claims

Supreme Court Takes Excessive Force/Seizure Case

2019-12-19T19:29:43Z

In 1985, the Supreme Court decided that a police officer's use of a level of force that the Court deemed excessive--despite being authorized by state law and consistent with a rule going back to the common law and widely adopted by the states--was an "unreasonable seizure" in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The case was Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. Under that case and its progeny, before a federal court can get into the question of how much force is "reasonable" it must first find a "seizure."

In a nutshell, a person is seized if either (1) he is physically stopped by the police action, or (2) he stops in obedience to the police show of authority. CJLF last briefed this issue in the Eighth Circuit case of Johnson v. Ferguson. See our brief and the post on the decision.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court took up a case presenting this issue, Torres v. Madrid, No. 19-292.

]]> New Mexico State Police Officers Janice Madrid and Richard Williamson went to an Albuquerque apartment complex with a warrant to arrest a woman there. Two people were standing in front of the apartment, so the officers went to talk to them to see if one was the subject of the warrant. They were wearing vests identifying them as police. One of the people ran into the apartment in question. The other, plaintiff Roxanne Torres, got in a SUV and started the engine. Torres claims that she did not know they were police officers, not because they were not plainly enough identified but because Torres was "tripping out" on a meth binge.

Torres drove her SUV at Officer Madrid, and both officers fired. Torres was wounded but not badly enough to stop her. After crashing the SUV, she stole another car and drove it 75 miles to Grants, where she went to a hospital and gave a phony name.

Was the firing of guns at Torres, unsuccessful at stopping her flight, a "seizure"? It would seem to be more of an attempted seizure. The main problem is a comment in the opinion in California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991), that was not really necessary to the decision of the case, obiter dictum in lawyer-speak. Hodari D. was not an excessive force case. The question there was whether Hodari had been arrested at the time he tossed away the cocaine while running away, before the application of any force at all. Unsuccessful application of force was not involved in the case, but nonetheless the opinion says, "The word 'seizure' readily
bears the meaning of a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is ultimately unsuccessful."

Should this dictum be applied in the different context of an excessive force claim to expand the reach of the dubious Garner rule? Stay tuned.

A second crime-related case taken up yesterday, Pereida v. Barr, No. 19-438, involves the classification of state convictions for the purpose of federal immigration law.

USCA9 Judges Getting Testy Over AEDPA

2019-12-18T23:59:44Z

As we have noted on this blog multiple times, the Supreme Court has often (and correctly) rebuked the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for failure to follow the standard for reviewing state criminal judgments prescribed by Congress and elaborated by the Supreme Court. A growing minority of judges of the Ninth Circuit itself are rebuking their colleagues on the same point, and the dispute is getting increasingly strident. Here is the opening of the dissent from denial of rehearing en banc in the Arizona capital case of Kayer v. Ryan, No. 09-99027:
]]> Like clockwork, practically on a yearly basis since the Millennium, we have forced the Supreme Court to correct our inability to apply the proper legal standards under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"). [Footnote listing reversals.] A divided panel in this case took that tradition one step further, though, by re-writing AEDPA entirely: to institute the federal habeas court as a mere second state appellate court of state law error review.

* * *

From our position, the issue is not what we think the state PCR court should have done to conform to Arizona law. The issue is whether what the state PCR court in fact did (its decision, not how it arrived at its decision) was objectively unreasonable under the standard articulated in Harrington. The Supreme Court has told us--specifically us--not to "ignore[]" that this is literally "the only question that matters." Id. at 102 (quoting Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71 (2003)). How the panel majority's opinion could outright ignore (and replace) this standard is incomprehensible. We should have taken this case en banc to correct the panel majority's opinion's errors before the Supreme Court (again) does it for us

The panel replies with an unusually extended defense of its decision, ending: "Contrary to the contention of our dissenting colleagues, we are acutely aware of the deference required under AEDPA."

The split is mostly along appointing-party lines, but not quite. Judge John Owens, appointed by President Obama, dissented from the panel decision and joins Judge Bea's dissent from denial of rehearing en banc. Judge Eric Miller, appointed by President Trump, is not listed as joining. That does not necessarily mean he agrees with the panel opinion, though. He might have been recused, or he might have just not wanted to join this controversial form of dissent. The newest member of the court, Judge Hunsaker, is also not listed as joining, but she probably came on board too late to participate in this case.

The Ninth Circuit is authorized 29 active circuit judges. There are presently 16 appointed by Presidents Clinton or Obama and 13 appointed by Presidents Bush or Trump, with no vacancies.

The repeated failure of the Ninth to go en banc to correct rogue panel decisions when they favor criminal defendants and prison inmates is the primary shortcoming of the court at present. Though we are tantalizingly close to the point where that could be corrected, we are not there yet. I do not expect to see it soon, but next year's election could make all the difference.

How High? Adjusting California's Cannabis Taxes

2019-12-18T22:17:20Z

California's Legislative Analyst's Office issued this report with the above title yesterday.

Proposition 64 (2016) directed our office to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2020, with recommendations for adjustments to the state's cannabis tax rate to achieve three goals: (1) undercutting illicit market prices, (2) ensuring sufficient revenues are generated to fund the types of programs designated by the measure, and (3) discouraging youth use.... While this report focuses on cannabis taxes, nontax policy changes also could affect these goals.

]]>

* * *

We view reducing harmful use as the most compelling reason to levy an excise tax. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature replace the existing retail excise tax and cultivation tax with a potency‑based or tiered ad valorem tax, as these taxes could reduce harmful use more effectively. If policymakers value ease of administration and compliance more highly than reducing harmful use, however, the Legislature might prefer to keep the existing retail excise tax. In contrast, we see little reason for the Legislature to retain the weight‑based cultivation tax.

Readers might be wondering if alcohol is taxed by potency. Sort of. Here is a chart I put together with rates from the Treasury Dept. and approximate alcohol-by-volume (ABV) numbers:

Distilled spirits are truly taxed by potency. A "proof gallon" is the amount that has an alcohol content equal to a gallon of 100 proof, which is 50% ABV. So for spirits the tax rate of 21.1 cents per ounce of ethanol is exact, not an approximation.

Beer is just taxed flatly by volume with no reference to alcohol content. Wine has tiered rates to raise the tax per gallon for the higher alcohol varieties, but most wine is included in the first tier. The alcohol in a 12% ABV wine is taxed only one-third as much as in spirits. The wine industry has a strong lobby. I didn't include sparkling wines in the chart. They are taxed comparably to spirits.

Getting back to the LAO report (italics added):

Higher Taxes Could Reduce Youth Use, Depending on Availability of Illicit Cannabis. As discussed above, higher taxes would reduce legal cannabis consumption, but we do not know how much of this reduction would consist of substitution to the illicit market and how much would consist of reductions in actual consumption. This uncertainty extends to the effects of changes to cannabis taxes on youth use. If youth easily can acquire cannabis from the illicit market, tax increases on legal cannabis might not substantially raise the actual prices that youth pay. If taxes do not substantially raise actual prices paid by youth, they very likely would have little effect on youth use. That said, if the illicit market becomes less active over time--for example, as a result of more active enforcement--taxes could become a reliable tool for reducing youth use.

The pro-pot crowd calls for lower taxes to undercut the illegal market, but doing so would increase youth use to some extent. Personally, I think reduced use generally is a desirable result, but that is particularly true for young people. It is most important of all for the involuntary "use" by unborn children. The optimum result would be achieved by increasing the tax and using the additional revenue for more vigorous enforcement. While the illegal sellers would not pay tax, they can be made to pay in the form of fines, forfeitures, and imprisonment.

Nontax Policies Also Affect Legal and Illicit Markets, Revenues, and Youth Use. The scope of this report is limited to state cannabis taxes. These taxes, however, are only one of many state policies that could affect revenue, the illicit market, and youth use. Examples of other such policies include increased criminal or civil penalties for participating in the illicit cannabis market, additional state or local resources devoted to enforcing state laws, changes in state licensing requirements, changes to local governments' authority to ban cannabis businesses, and resources devoted to youth education on the effects of cannabis use. For instance, enhanced enforcement would make it more difficult and costly for businesses to operate in the illicit market. This likely would shift activity from the illicit market to the legal market, thereby increasing tax revenues. Additionally, it likely would affect youth use by making it more difficult and expensive for them to access cannabis through the illicit market.

Right.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Issues Scathing Order

2019-12-18T01:37:17Z

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court today issued this order regarding the revelations on the FBI's conduct in the Carter Page matter.
]]> The FBI's handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the OIG report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above. The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable. The FISC expects the government to provide complete and accurate information in every filing with the Court. Without it, the FISC cannot properly ensure that the government conducts electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes only when there is a sufficient factual basis.

THEREFORE, the Court ORDERS that the government shall, no later than January 10, 2020, inform the Court in a sworn written submission of what it has done, and plans to do, to ensure that the statement of facts in each FBI application accurately and completely reflects information possessed by the FBI that is material to any issue presented by the application. In the event that the FBI at the time of that submission is not yet able to perform any of the planned steps described in the submission, it shall also include (a) a proposed timetable for implementing such measures and (b) an explanation of why, in the government's view, the information in FBI applications submitted in the interim should be regarded as reliable.

Rising disrespect for cops not only wrong, it puts us in danger

2019-12-17T19:32:48Z

U.S. Attorney General William Barr has this op-ed, with the above title, in the New York Post.

Serving as a cop in America is harder than ever -- and it comes down to respect. A deficit of respect for the men and women in blue who daily put their lives on the line for the rest of us is hurting recruitment and retention and placing communities at risk.

]]>

* * *

Policing is only getting harder. Police officers are now required to handle the fallout from a vast range of social pathologies that were once the domain of social workers, psychologists and family members, such as mental illness, widespread homelessness and drug abuse.

Even more demoralizing, police officers must look on as the criminals that they have risked their lives to apprehend get turned loose by "social-justice" DAs and "progressive" judges who no longer see their role as protecting the community from predators. Some DAs have even exposed police officers to greater danger by announcing that they will not prosecute those who resist police.

* * *

There were times in the past when we didn't demonstrate sufficient respect for men and women who served in our armed forces. Thankfully today, veterans and members of the military get the respect they deserve. There are demonstrations of gratitude when they deploy and return home, and even in everyday encounters, Americans thank them for their service. As a country, we need to do more to recognize the sacrifice and the service of law enforcement.

News Scan

2019-12-17T17:19:55Z

Tool Box Killer Dies in Prison: Lawrence Bittaker, California's notorious "tool box killer" died of natural causes on death row according to corrections officials. The San Jose Mercury News reports that Bittaker, who was the ringleader, and an accomplice kidnapped, raped and tortured five teenage girls along the California coast over a span of five months, from June to October 1979. The victims, some of them hitchhikers, ranged from 13 to 18 years old and were from Los Angeles County's South Bay, Long Beach and San Fernando Valley. Bittaker and the accomplice were tagged as the "tool box killers" because Bittaker would use hand tools such as vice grips, hammers and ice picks to torture the girls before they were killed. He tape-recorded the torture and murder of 16-year-old Lynette Ledford, which he later called "pillow talk." Jurors cried during the trial when that tape was played. It took only 15 minutes for the jury to return a death sentence, yet Bittaker's claims against his sentence for these horrific crimes has been languishing in a federal district court for decades. Veteran prosecutor Stephen Kay told reporters "I'm upset that he beat the system. He died a natural death, something that his victims didn't have a chance for. They had their whole lives ahead of them; they never got to get married, have children or grandchildren."