home

S.D. Jury Rejects Death Penalty for Deaf, Woman Killer

In South Dakota's first death penalty case with a female defendant, a jury yesterday voted for life in prison without parole over a death sentence.

A jury on Wednesday spared the life of a woman who killed an acquaintance and hacked up her body with a chainsaw, sentencing her to life in prison without parole.

The victim's mother told the defendant's mother:

"We pray for you every day asking that God may touch your heart, that you may come to know his love and that you repent of your sins and seek God's forgiveness," she said.

Dee VanderGiesen told Wright's mother, Carolyn Tucker: "We both have lost our daughters. One to death and the other to prison time for as long as she lives. May God's grace be shown to you at this time of pain in your life."

The prosecution's facts:

More...

Prosecutors said that Wright was jealous of the friendship VanderGiesen had with Wright's former lover and that it turned to rage that drove Wright to kidnap VanderGiesen, kill her, burn the body and cut it apart with a chain saw.

VanderGiesen's remains were found in a Sioux Falls landfill and a Minnesota ditch.

The Prosecutor had this to say after losing the death case:

In closing arguments earlier in the day, prosecutor Dave Nelson said Wright, who like VanderGiesen is deaf, deserved to die by lethal injection because the mutilation was the act of a depraved mind. But he said he respected the jury's verdict.

"I think they reached this decision independently of any of the diversions of race, of deafness or anything else. I think they decided this case on the evidence," he said.

The defense attorney had a different view:

Wright's public defender, Jeff Larson, argued that she burned and cut the body as an afterthought and that the slaying was an isolated act motivated by jealousy.

The jury, who had the ultimate say, decided:

After about eight hours of deliberation, jurors found that Wright had the depravity of mind, but they decided that she should not be executed for it.

The prosecutor argued:

Nelson told jurors their verdict would be just if they treated both women equally. VanderGiesen was white and heterosexual; Wright is a black lesbian.

Both women received a death sentence in the sense that Wright will only leave prison when she's dead and carried out in a pine box. Her life until she dies will be lived in the hellhole of the S.D. prison system. Her life, as she knew it, was effectively over the day she was convicted.

I'm always ready to praise a jury that returns a life sentence. They brought their years of life experience to the table and decided no matter how horrid the facts,Wright didn't deserve to die. Kudos to her , the jury and her defense team for a job well done.

Another execution avoided is always a win for all of us.
< The Case Against Mandatory Minimums | Abuse of the Federal Prescription Database Law >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I totally agree (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by HK on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 04:55:12 AM EST
    with your comments, Jeralyn.

    Dee Vandergiesen behaved with utter dignity and her comments to Carolyn Tucker were true and gracious.  Both of these mothers must be hurting badly.  Let those who are quick to come up with the straw man 'what if your child was murdered' take note.

    Is not the "deafness" (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 08:06:44 AM EST
     part of who these people were? It would be wrong perhaps to define people ONLY or even primarily  by a disability (or other attribute such as race, sex, religion, ...) but it is not right to ignore attributes either. Being deaf greatly influences the way a person can interact in society and at the very least is relevant in the general sense.

      Moreover, although I do not know the facts of this case,  it may well be that these women were more greatly affected on a psychological level by the gain or loss of relationships within the "deaf community" because of a sense of isolation from the larger hearing world. The fact of their deafness might well help understand why the actions  occurred.

       Searching for truth and determining guilt or innocence and just punishment requires having as complete a picture of the people involved as possible.  

    Deaf? (none / 0) (#2)
    by ding7777 on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 07:31:03 AM EST
    Unless VanderGiesen's deafness caused Wright to murder her, what was the point of mentioning it?

    It was not (none / 0) (#6)
    by HK on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 08:07:57 AM EST
    cited as a mitigating factor.  The point in mentioning it was simply because it was a fact in the case.  Also, this crime occured within a minority community and so the jury will have had to have some appreciation of that.

    Parent
    The prosecutor mentioned it (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jen M on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 07:51:11 AM EST
    whats wrong with mentioning it?

    and your point would be? (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 08:01:30 AM EST
    whats wrong with mentioning it?

    again, what purpose was served by mentioning it? since both were deaf, it didn't distinguish one from the other, and clearly had nothing to do with the case at all.

    i do have to wonder though, if the defendant had been male, would the jury still have given life without parole?

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Jen M on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:22:17 AM EST
    the jury would never have noticed all the signing going on in the courtroom if someone hadn't mentioned it.

    Parent