Given the enormity of this crime … I am finding in favor of the idea that the victims' rights include the right to be able to make statements and address the court in the presence of the defendant."
Clark filed a waiver of his right to be present last Friday. His lawyer says:
Given that this is an academic exercise in terms of the number of years that the court has to impose … and given Mr. Clark's constitutional right to be present at any critical stage in the proceeding, he explicitly waives his right to be present for sentencing."
Before imposing sentence today, they had a mini-trial to have Clark declared a habitual offender due to his prior convictions:
One was a 2006 felony theft conviction in Denver, the other was a 2004 aggravated assault conviction in Texas.
The effect of the habitual conviction:
It allowed prosecutors to multiply by three times the 24-year penalty for each of the 16 attempted murder counts for which Clark has been convicted. The total: 1,152 years on top of the life sentence.
They aren't done with Willie Clark yet either. He goes on trial with two other people for murdering a witness in a drug case in a few months.
Update on the issue of Clark being forced to attend: The hearing was televised.
1:50 p.m.: Judge Christina Habas rules that Clark has to sit in the courtroom. She says she doesn't want to deny the victims the "cathartic" effect of addressing the court in Clark's presence.
1:55 p.m.: Hutt asks Habas to reconsider her decision. "This is someone who has maintained his innocence," he says of Clark. "He knows he's about to be sentenced to life without parole plus 1,100 or 1,200 years for something he didn't do.
"The only purpose of this [sentencing] is the theater of venting."
Habas declines to reconsider. "There may be people in this room who view this as a spectacle or a circus," she says, "but I'm not one of them."
Clearly Clark wasn't going to show remorse when he insists he didn't do it and is appealing his conviction, which is his legal right. The victims would have made their statements and the public would have heard them regardless of whether he was present. Forcing a defendant to be on television is wrong. Cameras in the courtroom should be allowed only if the defendant consents.
