Mitigating Evidence - Randy Halprin

Randy Halprin
"You can't go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending" C.S. Lewis
Go to content
Mitigating Evidence

Randy's  trial attorneys hired Dr Kelly Goodness - a psychological expert - to  perform an evaluation to support his case. Dr Goodness was prevented  from presenting most of this report to the jury during the sentencing  phase of Randy's trial, because the State argued that much of what she would be testifying to was 'hearsay.' This was despite the fact that there are thousands of pages of adoption records, Child Protective  Service records, school records, and more in existence - all of which  support and confirm what was presented in the report.

Very  little effort was made on the part of Randy's trial attorneys, to push  for this evidence to be shown to the jury. Each and every time, the  judge sided with the prosecutor that these pieces of crucial evidence in  Randy's favour, remain outside of the jury's awareness. This allowed  the State to forcefully present their own narrative on Randy's life, to  the jury, with the support of the presiding judge. The State had also  scared Randy's biological mother into not testifying to the fact that  Randy was severely abused as a child.

As  a further example of how Randy did not receive a fair trial, we're  including here a set of three 'Special Questions' a jury must address  before handing out a death sentence:

  1. Is the Defendant a future threat to society?
  2. Did the Defendant wilfully and knowingly cause the death of the victim?
  3. Are there any mitigating factors that can be considered in saving the Defendant's life?

If  the third question is answered “yes”, then the defendant automatically  receives a life sentence, and cannot receive a sentence of death. The  exclusion of vital evidence in Randy's case made certain he could not be  given fair consideration by the jury.

The  State also declined to put up their own expert to show Randy as being a  future danger to society - this is almost unheard of in a capital case.  We maintain the belief that any such expert could only come to one  conclusion: Randy is not any kind of future threat or danger to society.  

Randy  was neither tried as an individual nor judged on his own actions which,  in light of recently uncovered evidence of misconduct by the presiding  judge in Randy's trial - Judge Vickers Cunningham - confirms that Randy never had anything like a fair trial.

Randy  knows he should be punished, and has always taken responsibility for  his own actions. However, justice is not served by holding him  accountable for the actions of others.

We  hold onto the belief that had the jury been permitted to hear all  crucial evidence in Randy's favour, the outcome of his trial could have  been different.

Back to content