In a recent legal pleading, Bucks County prosecutors vigorously defended the death sentence imposed on Richard R. Laird, who murdered gay artist Anthony V. Milano almost 30 years ago.
In 1987, Laird and Frank R. Chester kidnapped Milano to a wooded area in Bucks County and hacked out his throat with a box cutter. The case became a cause celebre because both men allegedly targeted Milano due to his sexual orientation.
In 1988, Chester and Laird were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. But federal judges overturned their first-degree murder convictions on the basis that they received unfair trials.
Laird was retried and reconvicted of first-degree murder in 2007 and remains on death row. But Laird wants a federal judge to pave the way for a third trial, claiming his 2007 retrial was unfair.
Last month, Chester was removed from death row after pleading guilty to first-degree murder and agreeing to spend the rest of his life behind bars.
Prosecutors refuse to consider a similar deal for Laird, noting he wielded the box cutter that hacked out Milano’s throat.
In court papers, Laird claims he wasn’t capable of forming a specific intent to kill Milano due to excessive alcohol consumption, brain damage and mental disorders.
In a 146-page reply brief, prosecutors insist Laird was cogent enough to form a specific intent to kill Milano.
Laird claims childhood sexual abuse at the hands of his father contributed to his homophobia — culminating in Milano’s murder, when Laird was 24.
But prosecutors note that jurors heard about Laird’s alleged childhood abuse, yet still rendered a death-sentence verdict. They also refute Laird’s claim that jurors were unfairly denied expert testimony about the effects of father-son sex abuse.
“[C]ounsel presented numerous witnesses and thoroughly explored [Laird’s] life history and mental health, in an effort to humanize him to the jury,” the prosecution’s brief states. “[Laird’s] claim that jurors would have weighed the evidence differently had trial counsel elicited another anecdote or two regarding his life — or heard from yet another expert why [Laird] murdered Anthony Milano — is little more than self-serving conjecture.”
The prosecution’s brief, filed April 19, also emphasizes that Laird’s 2007 trial didn’t suffer any constitutional defects.
“The jury’s verdict in this case was not a reflection on any alleged failings of counsel or the court,” the brief states. “[Laird] deserved the death sentence for this heinous and gruesome crime.”
In addition to claiming ineffective counsel, Laird also claims improper victim-impact information, improper jury instructions by the trial judge, excessive pre-trial publicity, lack of sentencing options for jurors and prosecutorial misconduct.
The prosecution’s brief refutes those claims, stating: “[T]he trial court, the prosecution and [Laird’s] counsel proceeded thoughtfully, carefully and diligently to ensure that [Laird’s] retrial was fair and comported with constitutional mandates.”
Laird, 52, remains on death row pending the outcome of his request for a new trial.
As of presstime, the matter remained pending before U.S. District Judge Jan E. DuBois.