NH Supreme Court Hearing Death Sentence Appeal

The New Hampshire Supreme Court is hearing arguments by Michael Addison's defenders today, Nov. 14, contesting his death sentence in the killing of Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs in 2006.

Attorneys for Addison, New Hampshire's only death row inmate, are raising several questions regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty statute, including arguments asserting errors in the guilt phase of the trial in 2008, as well as reasonable doubt instructions.

Some excerpts from the hearing, culled from the court's live-streaming of the case Wednesday morning, include:

David Rothstein, Appellate Defender:

"The real question is what did the details of the armed robberies prove? The state said that the details of the armed robberies, in other words, hearing witnesses describe the armed robbery, what they proved, is that he had some greater motivation to shoot a police officer because of those details. In our view, as we took the position below, that was not logical, that did not follow."

"The problem is, that when you hear these descriptions, the detailed descriptions of the crimes...in all of those crimes, none of those cases was there a mental state defense. In all of those crimes there was forethought, there was planning. And you're hearing about these things, you're hearing how they went down, you're hearing how he participated. So what it does, by sharing those things, you're getting the picture of a person that plans out his crimes, that acts with forethought, that acts with knowledge, which is the exact issue you have here. The more attention that you draw to the details of those crimes, the more you undercut the effectiveness of the limiting instruction, and the more that it becomes piling on that can't be sorted out..."

"The fact that he was wanted for other serious crimes certainly goes to intent, and we conceded that, the question is whether, the essential question is, whether the actual details or the actual descriptions of him doing armed robberies was so relevant that it had to be admitted in light of its prejudicial impact."

Elizabeth C. Woodcock, an attorney for the State of NH:

"The defense had argued that Michael Addison was not familiar with the gun. They said that he didn't plan to have the gun, he only had the gun because it seemed his co-conspirator, Antoine Bell-Rogers, was going to hurt someone. He took the gun, and here's a quote, 'to prevent harm, and not to cause harm.' They argued that the defendant was really unfamiliar with the weapon. And the 7-Eleven video came in to show his familiarity, his comfort, with that weapon."

The hearing continues this morning, and again Wednesday afternoon.