As a juror who voted for death in Ray Tibbetts’ trial, I can attest we voted without the key facts: Ross Allen Geiger

LOVELAND, Ohio — Twenty years ago, the state of Ohio asked me to make one of the most consequential decisions of my life when I sat on a jury that determined whether to recommend a death sentence for Ray Tibbetts. I believed then, and I still believe, that jury service is a duty that upholds our constitutional system. I also believed that the death penalty is not a black-and-white issue, but that there are times when it is the appropriate punishment.

I had faith in the system in which I made my vote for death, but Ohio’s criminal justice system failed me and Mr. Tibbetts. The system failed to provide me with the information I needed to make an accurate and fair determination.

Only Gov. John Kasich can now correct the system’s mistake.

Mr. Tibbetts’ crimes were terrible, and nothing excuses his guilt. But if I had known all the facts, if the prosecutors had been honest and forthcoming about the horrors he and his siblings experienced in the foster care system, and if we had an accurate understanding of the effects of Mr. Tibbetts’ severe drug and alcohol addiction and his improper opioid prescription, I would have voted for life without parole over death.

I have learned that under Ohio law, my one vote would have made it impossible for Mr. Tibbetts to face execution, as he now does this Saturday, Feb. 13.

But this is not about me, or my conscience. Gov. Kasich should commute Mr. Tibbetts’ sentence because he now has proof that he didn’t receive a fair sentencing. The governor now knows that I would have voted for a life sentence, and Mr. Tibbetts would never have ended up on death row.

During the sentencing phase, the defense called just one witness, Dr. Glen Weaver, a psychiatrist, to persuade us not to recommend death. He testified vaguely and with just anecdotal stories that Mr. Tibbetts had a tough upbringing related to inattentive parents and poor foster care, and that these circumstances may have led to abuse of alcohol and drugs at an early age. We learned scant detail about Mr. Tibbetts’ siblings.

The prosecutors dismantled the mitigating circumstances based on the argument that lots of people with troubled childhoods do not become murderers. They said Mr. Tibbetts’ placement in foster care was the best thing that ever happened to him. They also strongly implied that Mr. Tibbetts’ siblings turned out fine, essentially leading us to believe that despite similar upbringings, the other four overcame their challenges and were leading good lives. Mr. Tibbetts’ attorneys and Dr. Weaver never challenged these arguments.

I can only speak for myself, but I do not believe I was the only juror surprised that day when not another witness was called to offer any mitigating circumstances that might cause the jury to make a determination that execution was not appropriate.

Imagine my shock when I recently read the now publicly available clemency report as well as supporting documentation.

I saw pages of relevant information concerning details of the abandonment, foster abuse, and reabandonment, and that it began before Ray Tibbetts was even two years old and continued throughout his childhood. I discovered that Mr. Tibbetts’ sister was available to testify about the details of this trauma, but his attorneys never put her on the stand.

And I learned that the prosecutors got it wrong about Mr. Tibbetts’ siblings having normal lives. In fact, of Mr. Tibbetts’ four siblings, one committed suicide, one also spent time in prison, one is essentially homeless and unemployed, and only his sister is now doing well, despite having had a very turbulent younger life.

All of the above is of great concern to me. These facts show Tibbetts’ childhood was worse than we were led to believe, and that its devastating impact carried into adulthood.

Our deliberation on death came down to the single question of whether Mr. Tibbetts’ upbringing was such that his life should be spared. We did not know the facts.

Although we were aware of the history of drug abuse, at the time the drugs argument did not carry much weight, because we were not aware of the very real problem of prescribing opioids to people with addictive behaviors.  As we now know in Ohio, too well, opioids can quickly lead to seriously grave consequences when not prescribed properly.

All of these things lead me to one conclusion: The system was and seems to be today very flawed in this case.

The state of Ohio (through Hamilton County) called on me to fulfill a civic duty, one that included an unenviable task of possibly recommending death for another man. I fulfilled this duty faithfully.

If we are going to have a legal process that can send criminals to death that includes a special phase for mitigation, shouldn’t we get it right? Shouldn’t the officers of the court (primarily the defense attorneys) treat the life or death phase with great attention to detail and the respect it deserves?

I urge Gov. Kasich to show mercy by exercising his power of clemency to commute Mr. Tibbetts’ sentence of death by execution to one of death by lifelong imprisonment.