.jpg)
HARTINGTON — The first 18 exhibits were received and the constitutionality of the death penalty was briefly argued in a hearing in Cedar County District Court here Monday morning.
The hearing in the case against 42-yearold Jason A. Jones, accused of murdering four of his Laurel neighbors, lasted for about 45 minutes and exhibits included maps, data and charts highlighting the use of the death penalty throughout the United States and the world.
Jones waived his right to appear in court Monday. His lawyer, Todd Lancaster of the Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy, said Jones is still recovering from burn injuries and requires the assistance of a wheelchair.
Along with brief oral arguments heard Monday, both sides will submit a written brief due to Meismer by March 17. At the time Meismer rules on the motion to quash the death penalty, he will also set Jones’ arraignment date and rule on a pending motion for discovery.
Jones faces four counts of first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree arson and a number of weapons charges in the deaths of his neighbors, Michele Shankles-Ebeling, 53; and Gene Twiford, 86, Janet Twiford, 85, and Dana Twiford, 55, Aug. 4, 2022.
First responders were called to Shankles-Ebeling’s home at 209 Elm St., Laurel, around 3 a.m., Aug. 4, to the report of an explosion and house fire. About five hours later, local law enforcement on scene noticed smoke coming from the Twiford home just a few blocks away. All of the victims were found to have gunshot wounds.
Jones was apprehended at his home the morning after the murders with severe burns over his body and was treated at a Lincoln hospital for several weeks before being released to the Nebraska Department of Corrections Oct. 27.
Jones’ wife, Carrie, is also facing a murder charge and other felonies for her alleged involvement in the crimes. A hearing in her case is set for Wednesday.
The Nebraska Attorney General’s Office, who is prosecuting the case with assistance from the Cedar County Attorney’s Office, is seeking the death penalty against Jason Jones.
Under Nebraska’s death penalty statutes, a jury must find one or more aggravating circumstances in order for a case to be considered by a three-judge panel for a potential sentence of the death penalty. If aggravators aren’t determined by the jury, the only sentence that can be imposed is life in prison without parole.
Aggravators listed in Jones’ case allege the Aug. 4 murders were committed in an effort to conceal the commission of a crime and each murder charge alleges Jones committed the murder of three others during the same criminal transaction. Neither the statute nor the Nebraska Supreme Court define this ‘at the same time’ aggravator sufficiently so that it can be applied consistently, Lancaster said.
Corey O’Brien of the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office said in Jones’ case the murders occurred over a period of hours and it will be determined by a jury if that constitutes as occurring during the same criminal transaction.
Lancaster also argued there is no statutory guideline for filing of aggravators, which leaves the decision and effectiveness swayed by the experience of individual prosecutors, the size and resources of a county, prosecutor prejudice and even political circumstances.
One of the exhibits he submitted included a listing of first-degree murder cases in Nebraska where the death penalty was not pursued.
O’Brien argued that was not fair for the court to guess from the exhibit what the reason was why the death penalty wasn’t pursued in a particular case.
But Lancaster argued that goes directly to his point that there are no real standards to pursue the death penalty.
“It’s left individually to the prosecuting attorney to determine which cases the state will seek death sentences,” Lancaster said. “That’s different from county to county, whether it’s the county attorney prosecuting the case, the attorney general’s office prosecuting the case. It’s a county where cases are often charged with aggravators and the counties next door, they’re never charged with aggravators. It does go toward that ground that is arbitrary. We don’t know why and that’s what makes it arbitrary.” O’Brien said prosecutors have been given the legal authority to pursue cases how they see fit for more than 250 years in the justice system from speeding to first-degree murder cases.
Lancaster also argued the Nebraska Death Penalty statutes are unusual and unconstitutional in that the jury determines aggravating circumstances but has no authority to consider evidence regarding mitigating circumstances which is only part of the three-judge panel process.
In his motion to quash sections of the Nebraska death penalty statutes as unconstitutional, Lancaster cited U.S. Supreme Court ruling in cases from other states to bolster his arguments.
He also argued the death penalty violates society’s evolving standards of decency.
“In the past, our society deemed it acceptable to hang or crush to death those who were suspected of being involved in witchcraft,” he said. “Society now views that suspicion and response absurd. As our society has matured, it has shown its increasing discomfort with the imposition of the death penalty,” Lancaster said, adding that 23 states have abolished the use of the death penalty and many of the other 27 states do not actively use it.
“Only Texas and a handful of other states are death penalty states that use the death penalty with any frequency,” he said.
He said the imposition of death sentences has dramatically decreased to reach a point that imposition of such a sentence would be cruel and unusual.
Prosecutors objected to all of the exhibits with its main argument being now is not the time to decide the death penalty matter.
“There is an appropriate time to make these arguments regarding the constitutionality of sentencing after a conviction for first-degree murder,” said Corey O’Brien of the state attorney general’s office.
Lancaster said he is “covering all of his bases” by filing the motion to quash the death penalty now so that a court down the line doesn’t say that the issue was waived. O’Brien also objected to some of the exhibits, saying they not only contain data but also commentary that could sway Judge Bryan Meismer. The court received the exhibits with the limited scope of using them for data only.
