Jurors who believe in blood atonement can serve on Ronald W. Lafferty's jury - if their beliefs don't affect their ability to be impartial and follow the court's jury instructions.
The ruling was one of six issued last week by 4th District Judge Steven L. Hansen denying motions filed by Michael Esplin, Lafferty's defense attorney. Esplin asked Hansen to exclude anyone who believed in blood atonement from his client's jury, arguing that they are more likely to impose the death sentence.However, Hansen ruled that Lafferty's attorneys can question jurors about their blood-atonement beliefs during the selection process. If the attorneys think a juror who believes in blood atonement cannot remain impartial and base a decision on jury instructions, then the potential juror can be dismissed at that time.
Lafferty, accused of killing his sister-in-law and infant niece 11 years ago, will likely stand trial a second time in March. Brenda Wright Lafferty and her 15-month-old daughter, Erica, were found July 24, 1984, in their American Fork apartment with their throats slashed. Lafferty and his brother, Dan Lafferty, said the killings were ordered by God. Both were convicted of the crimes.
Dan Lafferty is serving a life sentence at the Utah State Prison. However, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Ronald Lafferty, saying the trial judge used the wrong standard in determining his mental competence.
In his rulings last week, Hansen also denied a defense motion to preclude the death qualification of the jury, a process to determine a potential juror's beliefs on the death penalty. Again, Hansen said attorneys can determine a potential juror's ability to remain impartial and follow court instructions during the jury selection.
Hansen also denied a defense motion to have the charges dismissed because a second trial would put Lafferty in double jeopardy for the same crimes. A trial that comes back on appeal is only subject to the double jeopardy consideration if the reversal was caused by prosecutorial misconduct. Hansen said none occurred in this case.
The judge also denied a motion to dismiss claiming Lafferty's right to a speedy trial has been violated. Hansen said the case's delays are the result of Lafferty using the appellate process and the need to determine his mental competence.
Hansen also denied defense motions for a new preliminary hearing and to require prosecutors to file a bill of particulars, a document outlining the facts of the prosecution's case and a list of witnesses and evidence. The judge ruled the defense should know what to expect from the evidence and testimony presented during Lafferty's first trial.