Page 8
Daily Ncbraskan
Tuesday, October 15, 1985
1 y 0
I
5V rata
Oft"
v " "
if J
Chief Justice Norman Krivosha
X
f '
" 1
j i
t
' k
V; t
State Sen. Ernie Chambers
By Judith Nygren
Staff Reporter
It sent shock waves through the state. It
stirred public anger first against the mur
derer, later against the state's highest court.
Robert Edward Hunt Jr.'s crime, it seemed,
threatened the very idea of Nebraska's "good
life."
Hunt's crime was sexually motivated. It was
violent. It was chilling. It was heinous.
But was it "especially heinous"?
Three judges serving on the District Court of
Madison County thought so. They sentenced
Hunt to die in the electric chair.
The Nebraska Supreme Court thought dif
ferently. When the Hunt case came before the
high court on an automatic appeal, four of the
seven justices overturned the lower court's
decision, reducing death to life in prison.
Reaction was quick and damning.
Syndicated columnist Mike Royko labeled the
decision "dumb." A Nebraska minister called for
the ousting of Chief Justice Norman Krivosha.
Nebraska newspapers statewide bombarded the
high court with criticism. A Maryland Supreme
Court judge pointed to the decision as an
example of injustice in the American legal
system.
"What these four judges did was look at
this case and understand they vere going
to make a decision that was very unpopu
lar, that would be condemned. But based
on their understanding of the law they
made the decision they had to make."
Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers
urn
J
f
ji
t
!
X
x
! i
V
Defendant Robert Edward Hunt Jr.
Courtesy of Associated Press
Citizens have even hurled threats against the
justices and their families. Some have suggested
that judges' wives and daughters should suffer
the same fate as Hunt's victim.
It is a vicious wish.
Beverly K. Ramspott had wonderful plans last
spring. Joyous plans. She ran her engagement
picture in the Norfolk Daily News only to share
that joy.
But Hunt saw it as something else fantasy
turned reality.
Hunt, now 29, repeatedly fantasized about
having sex with dead women. Ramspott's engage
ment picture again stirred that desire.
On April 12, 1984, two days after Ramspott's
photo ran in the newspaper, Hunt shoplifted a BB
gun, several pairs of women's panties and some
nylons.
He then drove to Ramspott's mobile home,
where he kept vigil as he leafed through sex
magazines.
He continued his watch for 20 minutes.
Finally, he gathered his wares and knocked on
Ramspott's door.
Ramspott came to the porch. Hunt threatened
her with his BB gun and forced his way in.
Within minutes Ramspott lay on the kitchen
floor, her hands and feet bound with a rope.
"Take my car," Ramspott pleaded. But before
she could utter another plea for life, Hunt
stuffed the panties down her throat.
After dragging his victim into the living room,
Hunt wrapped a nylon stocking around Ram
spott's throat. During testimony, he said that he
pulled "down tighter and tighter, trying to
render her unconscious."
His victim stilled, Hunt moved her to the
bedroom, undressed her and pulled down his
pants. He masturbated over the body, ejaculating
onto the victim's stomach. At some point, Hunt
also performed oral sex on the body.
His fantasy complete, Hunt felt his victim's
pulse. He felt something, he thought.
He dragged Ramspott to the bathtub and
stuck her head into a foot of water. The body
shook and twitched.
Hunt confessed his crime to police in a series
of interrogations and was sentenced to death by
the district court.
On Aug. 9, 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that
these deeds failed to justify a death sentence.
In the majority opinion, the justices stated:
"Although the method by which the defendant
achieved sexual gratification may be accurately
described as exceptionally heinous and atroc
ious, and as manifesting exceptional depravity
by ordinary standards of morality and intelli
gence, the murder itself, given the inherent
nature of a killing, cannot."
Public fury has raged ever since. Anger once
directed at a murderer has twisted into a
personal and emotional vendetta against the
state's high court But long after fury gives way to
calm, Nebraskans still will have to sift through
the Hunt decision, decipher its meaning and
contend with its many implications:
O Already some argue it means fewer death
sentences in a state that traditionally supports
capital punishment.
O Others, mostly those who oppose the
death penalty, only hope the Hunt case abolishes
capital punishment.
O Some argue the state will need to enact
new legislation; laws that better define "espe
cially heinous and atrocious."
And still others say it has no implications;
the decision followed law.
But most are like Assistant Attorney General
J. Kirk Brown. They really don't know what the
decision means for Nebraska.
"Hunt may just stand for itself. . . I just don't
know what to make of it," Brown said.
Brown said his uncertainty comes not so much
from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the
law, but from its interpretation of the facts.
Under Nebraska law, the courts must deter
mine the aggravating and mitigating circum
stances in each case. Once determined,
the circumstances are weighed against one
another. Only when the aggravating circumstan
ces outweigh the mitigating circumstances
beyond any reasonable doubt can the death
penalty be imposed. At least two aggravating
circumstances are required for death.
In the Hunt case, the lower court ruled that
two aggravating circumstances existed: (1) The
murder was committed in an apparent effort to
conceal the commission of a crime or to conceal
the identity of the perpetrator of a crime. (2) The
murder was especially heinous, atrocious, cruel,
or manifested exceptional depravity by ordinary
standards of morality and intelligence.
The Supreme Court later ruled neither of .
these aggravating circumstances existed. In its
opinion, the high court said Hunt's deliberate
and premeditated intentions to kill Ramspott
were inconsistent with the concealment circum
stance. The opinion states: "There is no question but
that the murder was not committed for the
purpose of concealing the commission of the
crime. Nor does the evidence establish that it
was committed for the purpose of concealing