d

A Controversial South Dakota Death Penalty Murder Case Raises an Unusual Issue:
Should There Be a Double Standard for the Disabled?

By LARA SETRAKIAN and NATASHA SINGH
ABC News Law & Justice Unit

March 9, 2007 — It was a grisly crime, with details shocking enough to grab headlines of their own.

But the case of Daphne Wright, a deaf woman charged with murder in a lesbian love triangle, is raising a controversial question that goes beyond the case itself: Should deaf defendants ever face the death penalty?

Get The Full Story: Watch "World News With Charles Gibson" at 6:30 p.m. ET

A motion filed by Wright's attorneys argues that imposing the death penalty on Wright violates the Eighth Amendment, which forbids the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments." Wright's attorneys say that because she has been deaf since early childhood she is at an unfair disadvantage in trying to persuade a jury to spare her life.

In February the presiding judge denied that motion, rejecting their argument. As of now, with jury selection under way and a trial imminent, Daphne Wright faces execution for her alleged crimes.

The facts of the case are startlingly gruesome. Darlene VanderGeisen, a deaf woman from Sioux Falls, S.D., disappeared on Feb. 1, 2006. She was later found dead and dismembered, her body parts found scattered between a landfill in Sioux Falls and a ditch near Beaver Creek, Minn.

Ten days after the killing, Wright was arrested on murder charges. According to court documents, a search of Wright's basement yielded bone fragments and tissue that matched VanderGeisen's DNA. Autopsy reports determined the cause of death was either suffocation or a blow to the head. It is believed a chainsaw was used to dismember VanderGeisen after she had been killed.

Prosecutors say Wright got caught up in a whirlwind of lesbian drama which drove her to commit murder. The motive was jealousy. Wright says VanderGeisen, who was heterosexual, was trying to break up her lesbian relationship with a woman identified as Sallie Collins, a close friend of the victim. The two reportedly had a heated argument over the relationship shortly before the murder took place.

Wright maintains her innocence and has pleaded not guilty. If convicted on the charges of abduction, murder and dismembering, she faces death by lethal injection and could become the first woman to be executed in South Dakota.

In court this week, prosecuting attorney Dave Nelson told prospective jurors a simplified version of why he's seeking the death penalty for Wright.

"We don't have different rules for different people. We don't have different rules for different groups," Nelson said according to The Associated Press.

A number of disability rights activists agree, stating that equal rights for the deaf means equal treatment everywhere -- including in the courtroom. If Wright is charged with crimes that warrant the death penalty, then that's what prosecutors should pursue.

"I think it's very dangerous to argue that deaf people as a general matter shouldn't be eligible for the death penalty," Andrew Imparato told ABC News. Imparato is the president and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities.

"Making that argument [involves] saying that they are not aware of the consequences of their actions. It can reinforce stereotypes ... lead to discrimination against deaf people."

Daphne's Defense

Most scholars and clinical professionals agree that the deaf are at a disadvantage in the courtroom. But they disagree on whether that disadvantage can be overcome.

The defense motion to spare Daphne's life cited a study by Barbara Brauer, executive director of Gallaudet University, the first school for the advanced education of the deaf. Brauer measured how long it takes to interpret into sign language what a person is saying in English; she found that a series of questions that could be administered in 42 minutes in spoken English would take two hours to administer in American sign language.

In their motion to strike the death penalty, defense attorneys for Wright cited the lack of consecutive interpretation. In other words, the sign language interpreter assigned to her case would be translating simultaneously during the court proceedings, rather than listening to a portion of testimony and translating during a pause in the process.

This, attorneys argue, leaves little time to compensate for the fact that it takes longer to say something in sign language than in spoken English -- particularly when the complex legal concepts are part of the conversation.

Professor Jeff Braden, an expert in deafness and development, says that Wright should not face the death penalty, even if an ideal interpreter were available. "She is at more of a disadvantage than, say, if you or I were arrested and taken to court in Pakistan, where we'd be at the mercy of a court interpreter. Having an interpreter still doesn't change the fact that deaf people don't have a native language."

The problem, Brader believes, is that it is not uncommon for a woman like Daphne Wright -- deaf since early childhood and born to hearing parents -- to get a late start in her exposure to language. In those critical early years, Brader says, critical communication skills are lost.

"She doesn't have those [complex legal] concepts. She'd be at a significant disadvantage, even with an interpreter," Brader told ABC News.

Rick Norris of Communication Service for the Deaf told ABC News he believes otherwise. He says the only time interpretation could present a problem is at times of long duration because it becomes taxing on the interpreter.

Other researchers agree, stating that as long as qualified interpreters are provided, deaf defendants should have no inherent problem understanding the complexity of the legal process or the moral weight of their alleged crimes.

The problem seen by activists like Imparato is lack of access to qualified interpreters. In some cases, courts are not willing or able to find and pay for qualified interpreters.

"There is a serious problem around the country with deaf people not having access to qualified sign language interpreters," Imparato told ABC News. "Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal and state laws, deaf people are entitled to effective communication."

What's Next for Wright?

Jury selection began on March 5 and could last up to six weeks. Because the death penalty is a possible outcome, the pool of possible jurors is larger than in most cases.

The case is being closely watched by activists from the deaf community, the disabled community and the gay rights community -- all of them waiting to see how Wright is treated in court, whether she'll be convicted and whether execution is the sentence she'll ultimately face.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures