Richard R. Laird’s quest to be removed from death row to the general prison population suffered a major blow last month, when a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied his appeal for a new penalty-phase trial.
In December 1987, Laird and his accomplice Frank R. Chester kidnapped Anthony Milano, 26, to a wooded area in Tullytown, Pa., and slashed the gay man’s throat so many times that his head was nearly severed.
The case became a cause celebre in the local LGBTQ+ community because both defendants voiced homophobic slurs and taunted Milano by slow dancing inside a Bucks County tavern, prior to kidnapping Milano and killing him.
In a scathing 37-page opinion, the appellate panel said Laird had adequate legal representation during his 2007 retrial and there’s no basis for him to get a new penalty-phase trial.
The federal appellate judges who issued the opinion on Feb. 26 are: D. Michael Fisher, Peter J. Phipps and L. Felipe Restrepo.
Laird, who’s been on death row for 35 years for Milano’s murder, maintains that jurors during his 2007 retrial would have spared his life if they knew the full extent of his childhood sexual abuse.
In 1988, Laird and Chester were sentenced to death by a Bucks County jury. But both men eventually were granted new trials due to faulty jury instructions.
Rather than retry Chester, Bucks County authorities agreed to remove him from death row to the general prison population in 2016. In return, Chester agreed to serve a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Chester, 56, is currently incarcerated at a state prison in Marienville, Pa.
However, no such deal was offered to Laird, who’s believed to have inflicted the most severe wounds upon Milano. After a second trial in 2007, Laird was resentenced to death. He remains on death row in a state prison near Pittsburgh.
During oral arguments on Oct. 8, Laird’s appellate attorney Joseph W. Luby told the three-judge panel that Laird’s previous attorneys gave him a “threadbare” defense” because they didn’t present a comprehensive picture of Laird’s alleged abuse to jurors.
As a young boy, Laird was forced to provide oral sex to his father and to receive anal sex from him. The alleged abuse solidified Laird’s inclination to murder Milano, according to Luby. If jurors in 2007 were alerted to the strong connection between Laird’s childhood abuse and Milano’s murder, they may have spared his life, according to Luby.
But the three-judge panel wrote that Laird, himself, was responsible for jurors not hearing graphic details about his alleged childhood abuse. The judges noted that Laird didn’t testify during his 2007 retrial, nor did he ever generate documentation regarding the alleged abuse.
“For example, there are no records from any school, medical facility, mental health facility, court proceeding, or police investigation to corroborate or detail Laird’s sexual abuse that [his 2007 attorneys] failed to uncover,” the judges wrote.
Laird, 61, claims he lacked effective legal representation in 2007, partly because his defense attorneys didn’t seek out the right type of expert to convey his alleged sexual abuse to jurors.
But the judges rejected Laird’s claim that he needed a more sensitive, special expert to coax the information out of him. The judges called Laird’s claim “merely one-sided speculation.”
The judges added: “There was no first-hand support for the notion that [Laird] would have revealed more information in 2007, had counsel retained a different type of expert who would have employed different techniques.”
The judges also noted that jurors in 2007 did receive some limited information about Laird’s alleged sexual abuse. Simply adding more details about the alleged abuse wouldn’t necessarily have caused jurors to spare Laird’s life, the judges wrote.
Moreover, the judges said that if they accepted Laird’s grievances as valid, “no trial counsel can ever be effective enough — as there may always be other experts who could prompt survivors to reveal more information about their sexual abuse.”
The judges reiterated their opinion that Laird’s 2007 attorneys acted reasonably and that Laird doesn’t need a new penalty-phase trial.
In concluding their opinion, the judges wrote they were sensitive to Laird’s problematic childhood. “We are not callous about the anguish caused by a traumatic upbringing like Laird’s,” the judges wrote. “Nor do we forget the anguish of Anthony Milano, who unfairly bore the brunt of what can only graciously be considered a gruesome and altogether avoidable manifestation of that trauma.”
Jennifer M. Schorn, Bucks County’s district attorney, praised the judges’ opinion.
“The Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in this matter was well-reasoned and reflects the outcome the law demanded,” Schorn said, in a statement. “While this decision will likely not be the final step in Laird’s case as he may seek further review from [all 14 judges on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals] as well as the United States Supreme Court, this decision brings this lengthy litigation one step closer to finality. The Bucks County District Attorney’s Office will continue to advocate for justice on behalf of Anthony Milano through all further appellate processes and for the affirmance of Laird’s death sentence.
Attorneys for Laird declined to comment for this story.