A high-stakes legal battle over a death sentence verdict reaches an extraordinary turning point at Louisiana's highest court.
According to NOLA.com, the Louisiana Supreme Court has reinstated Darrell Robinson's death sentence and four murder convictions in a rare reversal of its own January ruling that had initially granted him relief.
The court's dramatic change of position came after a contentious rehearing in May, resulting in a narrow 4-3 decision on Friday. This marks an unprecedented situation in the state's judicial history, where the high court had never before reversed a lower court to grant relief to a death row inmate over Brady v. Maryland violations, only to later overturn its own decision.
The case centers around Robinson's 2001 convictions for the execution-style murders of Billy Lambert, Carol Hooper, Maureen Kelley, and infant Nicholas Kelley.
The victims were found fatally shot in the head on their living room floor on May 28, 1996, near the town of Poland. Robinson, who had been living with Lambert and working on his farm for eight days before the murders, was seen fleeing the scene in Lambert's truck.
The January ruling by the court had focused on potentially suppressed evidence and questions about a deal with jailhouse informant Leroy Goodspeed. Chief Justice John Weimer, writing for the majority at that time, highlighted concerns about DNA testing and a withheld serology report that could have supported Robinson's theory of an alternate suspect.
Capital prosecutor Hugo Holland defended the conviction, disputing the analysis of blood evidence and arguing against claims of a quid pro quo arrangement with Goodspeed. The prosecution's stance received strong support in Friday's ruling.
Justice Jay McCallum, writing for the majority in Friday's reversal, emphasized the victims' suffering while dismissing claims about deals with informant Goodspeed. The decision gained support from Justices Will Crain, Scott Crichton, and Jeannette Knoll.
Chief Justice Weimer, in his dissent alongside Justices Piper Griffin and Jefferson Hughes, maintained his position regarding the state's failure to disclose Goodspeed's reward for testimony. As Weimer explained:
I remain convinced that defendant is entitled to a new trial because the State failed to disclose that it provided Goodspeed with a substantial reward for his testimony against defendant, and because the State elicited misleading testimony intended to convince the jury that Goodspeed's testimony was free of inducement.
Rapides Parish District Attorney Phillip Terrell strongly supported the court's latest decision, stating:
It's the right thing. It's pretty clear Mr. Robinson did it, committed the crimes.
The landmark reversal represents a significant victory for the prosecution and brings closure to a complex legal journey that has spanned decades. The case highlighting the rare instance of the Louisiana Supreme Court reversing its own ruling in a criminal matter has drawn attention to the state's application of the Brady v. Maryland precedent.
The decision affects Robinson's status as he faces execution for the 1996 murders of four family members in Rapides Parish.
With most of the victims' family members now deceased, the few remaining relatives have expressed satisfaction with the court's final ruling, though the case's extended duration has meant many never saw its resolution.
