Appeals ruling key to death sentence: Inmate leaves Death Row for life term
Dublin Core
Title
Appeals ruling key to death sentence: Inmate leaves Death Row for life term
Subject
Housen, Christine
Magill, Paul E.
Florida. Supreme Court.
Mello, Michael A.
Description
Paul Edward Magill was sentenced to death for crimes he committed as a juvenile. He went through many trials with many appeals. He is now withstanding the last trial to determine his fate. Magill stated that more people had gotten off Death Row than had been executed and that he should be allowed life.
Creator
Housen, Christine
Source
Broward Review Newspaper
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1988-05-16
Rights
The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.
Format
2 JPG
Language
English
Coverage
Florida
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
[[Image]]
Death Row inmate Paul Edward Magill: ‘I’ve been here for 11 years almost and more people have gotten off Death Row than have been executed – many more.’ [[end page]]
Death Row inmate Paul Edward Magill: ‘I’ve been here for 11 years almost and more people have gotten off Death Row than have been executed – many more.’ [[end page]]
Since Paul Edward Magill was sentenced to death in 1977, his lawyers have been trying to prevent him from becoming the first person in 34 years to be executed in Florida for a crime committed while a juvenile.
The Florida Supreme Court twice reviewed his case, once in 1980 and again 1983. Both times Magill, who committed first-degree murder when he was 17, came out the loser. By the time he was 26, the governor had signed two death warrants against Magill, who was convicted of robbing, kidnapping, raping and murdering a store clerk in Marion County.
His lawyers, however, haven’t let up, inundating appellate courts with an avalanche of briefs and pleadings in an effort to keep him out of Florida’s electric chair.
Two weeks ago, they succeeded. On May 5, a Marion county jury overturned Magill’s death sentence and recommended life. The following day, the judge, William T Swingert, approved the recommendation and signed an order sentencing Magill to life, which carries a mandatory 25-year minimum term in Florida.
According to one of his attorneys, Michael A. Mello, an assistant professor at Vermont Law School, who along with Clearwater lawyer Patrick D. Doherty defended Magill, he could be eligible for parole in 13 years, having already served 12 years in prison.
Magill’s age at the time of the killing played no part in his life sentence. Although the U.S. Supreme Court in November heard a case, William Wayne Thompson v. State of Oklahoma, on the constitutionality of executing juveniles convicted of capital crimes, it has yet to rule.
The Florida Supreme Court twice reviewed his case, once in 1980 and again 1983. Both times Magill, who committed first-degree murder when he was 17, came out the loser. By the time he was 26, the governor had signed two death warrants against Magill, who was convicted of robbing, kidnapping, raping and murdering a store clerk in Marion County.
His lawyers, however, haven’t let up, inundating appellate courts with an avalanche of briefs and pleadings in an effort to keep him out of Florida’s electric chair.
Two weeks ago, they succeeded. On May 5, a Marion county jury overturned Magill’s death sentence and recommended life. The following day, the judge, William T Swingert, approved the recommendation and signed an order sentencing Magill to life, which carries a mandatory 25-year minimum term in Florida.
According to one of his attorneys, Michael A. Mello, an assistant professor at Vermont Law School, who along with Clearwater lawyer Patrick D. Doherty defended Magill, he could be eligible for parole in 13 years, having already served 12 years in prison.
Magill’s age at the time of the killing played no part in his life sentence. Although the U.S. Supreme Court in November heard a case, William Wayne Thompson v. State of Oklahoma, on the constitutionality of executing juveniles convicted of capital crimes, it has yet to rule.
Sentencing ‘prejudice’
Instead, Magill’s resentencing was prompted by a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 11th Circuit. In 1987, the federal appeals court held that Magill’s sentencing proceeding was prejudiced by his trial lawyer’s ineffectiveness during the penalty phase of the first trial and by the jury’s failure to consider mitigating circumstances.
The 11th Circuit found that the jury in Magill’s first trial was limited to consideration of five factors enumerated in the Florida Statutes. But the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in a 1987 case, Hitchcock v. Dugger, that the Constitution precludes imposing the death penalty where “… the advisory jury was instructed not to consider, evidence of non-statutory circumstances.”
The 11th Circuit, therefore, remanded the case for a new trial on Magill’s sentence.
During the new sentencing phase, the defense put on Magill’s family, three psychologists and a criminologist. Magill also took the stand.
This time, only four of the 12 jurors voted for the death penalty. To recommend death, seven of the 12 must vote for it.
Mello says that the outcome proves that when a jury is allowed to hear all the factors that mitigate defendant’s criminal behavior, the result is significantly different. “It shows that Hitchcock error really matters. It’s not just a technicality. It’s the difference between life and death.”
“The theme of the defense was that this was an impulsive act done by a kid,” Mello said. “But he was a screwed-up kid who was not only chronologically a minor, but in terms of emotions was much younger than this stage can be – and Paul entered adolescence emotionally impaired. A psychologist who testified at the trial and had examined him when he was 12, likened Paul to a car with defective brakes rolling down a hill. He said that at age 12 Paul was troubled and predicted that it would only be compounded when Paul entered adolescence.”
Magill had been arrested twice for indecent exposure by the time he was 15, and for shoplifting at 16. He frequently ran away from home and, according to his mother’s testimony at the first trial, tried to slash his wrists when his father wouldn’t buy him a motorcycle.
Mello said evidence that the jury previously had been precluded from acting upon made a difference. The jury was allowed to hear how remorseful Magill felt and heard evidence establishing that he acted impulsively.
“When Paul was testifying at the first trial, his lawyer asked him about remorse,” Mello said. “The prosecutor objected that remorse wasn’t in the statute as a mitigating factor. The court sustained the objection and told the jury not to consider remorse because remorse wasn’t listed in the statute.”
Mello noted that the first jury was allowed to hear evidence about his impulsive actions but they weren’t allowed to give it independent weight. “The problem was that the jury was instructed that they could only consider that kind of evidence insofar as that evidence was probative of the two statutory mental or emotional distress,” he said.
“Eight out of 12 members of the jury bought the argument that he was distraught the argument that he was doing,” said John C. Moore, Ocala State attorney and one of the prosecutors in the case. “We were basically left with an old case. The defense spent a lot of time and money on the case. We don’t agree with the verdict, but we’ve got to live with it.”
Last December, Magill told The Review that he didn’t expect to die. “I’ve been here for 11 years almost and more people have gotten off Death Row than have been executed – many more,” Magill said. “And that’s going to continue until eventually I think it’s going to be abolished.”
He said he had come to understand himself better, but he didn’t understand why he had been on Death Row for so long. “There have been times when I’ve been in depressed moods wondering what’s taking so long. I’m really grateful for the opportunity because the time here has been a rebuilding process for me. It’s taught me a great deal and I think I needed to be forced to sit down and learn.”
Instead, Magill’s resentencing was prompted by a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 11th Circuit. In 1987, the federal appeals court held that Magill’s sentencing proceeding was prejudiced by his trial lawyer’s ineffectiveness during the penalty phase of the first trial and by the jury’s failure to consider mitigating circumstances.
The 11th Circuit found that the jury in Magill’s first trial was limited to consideration of five factors enumerated in the Florida Statutes. But the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in a 1987 case, Hitchcock v. Dugger, that the Constitution precludes imposing the death penalty where “… the advisory jury was instructed not to consider, evidence of non-statutory circumstances.”
The 11th Circuit, therefore, remanded the case for a new trial on Magill’s sentence.
During the new sentencing phase, the defense put on Magill’s family, three psychologists and a criminologist. Magill also took the stand.
This time, only four of the 12 jurors voted for the death penalty. To recommend death, seven of the 12 must vote for it.
Mello says that the outcome proves that when a jury is allowed to hear all the factors that mitigate defendant’s criminal behavior, the result is significantly different. “It shows that Hitchcock error really matters. It’s not just a technicality. It’s the difference between life and death.”
“The theme of the defense was that this was an impulsive act done by a kid,” Mello said. “But he was a screwed-up kid who was not only chronologically a minor, but in terms of emotions was much younger than this stage can be – and Paul entered adolescence emotionally impaired. A psychologist who testified at the trial and had examined him when he was 12, likened Paul to a car with defective brakes rolling down a hill. He said that at age 12 Paul was troubled and predicted that it would only be compounded when Paul entered adolescence.”
Magill had been arrested twice for indecent exposure by the time he was 15, and for shoplifting at 16. He frequently ran away from home and, according to his mother’s testimony at the first trial, tried to slash his wrists when his father wouldn’t buy him a motorcycle.
Mello said evidence that the jury previously had been precluded from acting upon made a difference. The jury was allowed to hear how remorseful Magill felt and heard evidence establishing that he acted impulsively.
“When Paul was testifying at the first trial, his lawyer asked him about remorse,” Mello said. “The prosecutor objected that remorse wasn’t in the statute as a mitigating factor. The court sustained the objection and told the jury not to consider remorse because remorse wasn’t listed in the statute.”
Mello noted that the first jury was allowed to hear evidence about his impulsive actions but they weren’t allowed to give it independent weight. “The problem was that the jury was instructed that they could only consider that kind of evidence insofar as that evidence was probative of the two statutory mental or emotional distress,” he said.
“Eight out of 12 members of the jury bought the argument that he was distraught the argument that he was doing,” said John C. Moore, Ocala State attorney and one of the prosecutors in the case. “We were basically left with an old case. The defense spent a lot of time and money on the case. We don’t agree with the verdict, but we’ve got to live with it.”
Last December, Magill told The Review that he didn’t expect to die. “I’ve been here for 11 years almost and more people have gotten off Death Row than have been executed – many more,” Magill said. “And that’s going to continue until eventually I think it’s going to be abolished.”
He said he had come to understand himself better, but he didn’t understand why he had been on Death Row for so long. “There have been times when I’ve been in depressed moods wondering what’s taking so long. I’m really grateful for the opportunity because the time here has been a rebuilding process for me. It’s taught me a great deal and I think I needed to be forced to sit down and learn.”
Original Format
Newspaper article
Vol. No./Issue No.
Vol. 27 Issue No. 117
Contributor of the Digital Item
Hall, Jennafer
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Williams, Megan
Files
Citation
Housen, Christine, “Appeals ruling key to death sentence: Inmate leaves Death Row for life term,” HIST299, accessed July 12, 2026, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/119.