THE LAST MEAL-Dennis Shere

authors that have written about them. It took almost ten years for investigators to arrest two men for the brutal murders of seven and workers at a fast food restaurant in suburban Chicago. The tragic events captured headlines throughout the nation for weeks. When arrests finally were made, the evidence against one of the.

two young women. If ever, someone deserved a death sentence, the Browns Chicken Killer certainly would qualify. The Last Meal is the story of a horrific crime. It is also the riveting account of how a team of defense attorneys fought to show how their client did not commit the killings and what happened if that failed to save him from the death sentence. My book, the book this scevening that we're going to be talking about, is the Last Meal Defending an accused mass murder with my special guest,

Dennis Sheher. Welcome to the program, and thank you to a Green dis interview.

the Brown's Chicken and Pasta murders. So what happened was that Brown's Chicken and Pasta was a restaurant that people would go to for an inexpensive family meal basically chicken meal with French fries, coleslaw, other kinds of amenities. It would have soft drinks and coffee. And on January the eighth, nineteen ninety three, which is a Friday night, there were probably a few customers in at close to closing time, which would be nine pm, and after the restaurant closed,

police said one or two men came in. Individuals came in ordered what I described in the book as the Last Meal, which also became the title for the book, and then after apparently eating a portion of it, carried out the crime, and all seven workers that included the two owners, Lynn and Richard Enenfeld, were murdered. Two of them were shot to death in a cooler, and five bodies were found in a freezer. They had all been shot in the head. In addition, two of the victims

had stab wounds. Young man whose name was Michael Castro, was stabbed post mortem, the medical examiner said in the abdomen and Lynn Enenfeld, the wife of Richard, had her throat slit. But what killed her, the medical examiner said for sure, was the head wound. All this took place, the police estimated sometime after nine pm, and probably before ten. The bodies were not discovered until the next morning, at about three am. Rather, and at that point it became

a huge, huge story in Chicago and elsewhere. Not only were the Palatine police involved, but you had FBI, you had police officers, you had officers from other communities surrounding a palatine, and a task force was formed to try to find the killers who massacred these seven people's back. Whether you want me to go at this point, I could tell you the score, but let's interrupt and go ahead and ask some questions.

Go back and tell us about the horror of the actual victims family discovering this.

was not home. Many didn't make much of it at that point, but he decided because his way was concerned that he would drive up to the restaurant and see if he could find his son. He drove to the Brown's Chicken and Pasta restaurant and discovered that the building was pretty much shut down. His son's car was parked in the parking lot, along with a few other cars,

but there was no activity. He got out of the car, looked around, went up to the doors, shook the doors to see if, by chance anything anyone might be in the building. He could not see any activity inside the building. Went back home said, couldn't find Michael. His wife became increasingly concerned, so they called the police and said, you know, we'd like to know where our son is. He was supposed to be home by now. He worked at this restaurant.

We have no idea where he was or where he is rather and the police said, well, we don't take missing person reports for twenty four hours, but we'll get the word at Manny and his wife went back up to the restaurant again, looked around, still know Michael. Becoming increasingly concerned, they called the police again the officer an officer was dispatched to the scene. The castros saw him there.

He looked around, he checked the doors. All the doors, two doors were customer doors, and then there were a couple of doors in the back of the building that employees might use. All of them were his, according to the officer.

problems here. I don't know where my son is. His Harris parked in the parking lot of the restaurant, and something's got to happen. So a Palatine police officer was dispatched to the Castro home. He took a police report that described Michael's appearance and what he did for a living,

where he went to school, all those things. And as the officer was filling out this so called missing person's report, he could see that Manny and his wife were not taking that too lightly, and they were very much concerned. So he said, look, I'll take a run up. The officer said, I'll take a run up to the restaurant

again and take a look around. And as he left, Manny said, I'm going with you, and his wife said I'm coming to They followed the cruiser police cruiser up to the restaurant and by the time they got there, the officer was out of the patrol car and was again walking around checking the doors. He checked the customer doors there they were locked. He checked one door that was used by the employees. It was locked. He went around to the other side of the building, pulled on

another door and it was not locked. It came open. At that point, Manny was right behind the officer. The officer peered inside with his flashlight and could see something was a miss. Manny tried to follow him. It follow him in because he saw a coat on top of a metal cabinet and he said, that's my son's coat, and the officer said, you can't come in here. And the officer then walked into the inside the building with his flashlight discovered a door ajar in what looked like

a hand and a foot outside of it. When he propped open that door, he saw five victims He couldn't tell how many there were. He couldn't tell if they were all dead, they were all mixed together, but there was blood all over the place, and he could tell that there had been some shooting. He then, of course, just called for backup. Other officers arrived, They went through the building, and the process discovered two more victims in a separate cooler. And that's how it all.

gone bad. There was an investigator who was a fingerprint specialist who was inside the building with another investigator and they discovered in a trash receptacle what looked like the remains of chicken dinner all the other There were two receptacles in the building. One of them was clean, the

other was not. It looked as though the employees had done some cleanup before this all took place, this killing took place, but there was this garbage in the bottom of this receptacle, and they waited a couple of days to deal with it. But when they pulled it out, they were able to see that it contained pieces of chicken, French fries, some coal, saw a soft drink container, a star stick, and it looked as though some of the

chicken had been eaten. And they then pulled the cash register tapes and discovered that although the restaurant had closed at nine pm, about seven minutes later there was one more meal sold, the so called last meal, again the title of this book, And they didn't know exactly what that was going to produce, But the woman who found all this evidence was smart enough at least the prosecutors said to bag it and make sure it was protected, and eventually it was two of those pieces of chicken

that yielded the DNA that then was ultimately used to accuse our client. One of the two men who went on trial for the murders of having committed the masker.

There was an investor, There was a nationally known crime scene guy who came into Chicago some time after the killings took place to help look at all the evidence and see what was there, and he recommended that the Palatine police ship some chicken pieces and the plastic stir that was found in that garbage to an outfit on the West coast for analysis. Those pieces were sent there.

An analysis was done for DNA, but unfortunately nothing of any significance could be yielded because the procedure wasn't good enough yet, and so the bone that they thought might most likely have the DNA on it was actually destroyed in the testing process as was a stir. Those pieces

were gone. So what happened was that they had all those other chickens still fill in hand, and over the next five six seven years, the process for analyzing DNA was improved dramatically, and now they could go back and extract from another piece of chicken DNA that they thought

might belong to the killer, and that's what they did. Now, this would have been in nineteen ninety eight, and immediately they started testing everybody they could think of, including people who were on the crime scene, cops who were there, any suspects they might have considered, to see if the DNA matched, and it did not. It did not match anyone.

came out. The palm print that was discovered also was on a napkin in that trash receptacle, but it was almost like a smudge, and no one was sure at first. The fingerprint experts were not sure at first exactly what that was, and only through some enhancements that were done

was it determined that it was a partial pomprint. So they had now by nineteen ninety eight, DNA that had been extracted that might match the killers and a partial, very small, partial pomprint that might also match the killer. But in that period from nineteen ninety three January of ninety three until that time, there had been substantial criticism

of the effort to locate find these killers. There had been an independent group that had analyzed all the work that had been done by the police and had been very critical of it would have been done. So you had not only this unsolved crime, but you had some people taking potshots at the cops saying, look, you didn't do what you were supposed to do. You messed up some evidence inside the building, there were too many people

in there. There were all kinds of questions raised. There was another group that came int defended the police effort. The Chief of police in Palatine hired a former FBI agent to come in and kind of reorganized the investigation, and he was responsible for the initial testing that was done on suspects and others for DNA. But for all intents and purposes, through the nineties late nineties, this crime

was going no place. They had no suspects that made any sense, They had no one who's DNA match, They had no witnesses who really had seen what was going on. No one was coming forward. It was dead now.

Chicken case, Casey worked for the restaurant. She was not on duty, of course, that night, but she did go into the restaurant, excuse me, earlier in the day and picked up a check. And so she's telling Bell and his people that her boyfriend was involved in this case. Well, they started concentrating on him, and he was I think it was pretty clever because basically what he was doing was both giving them information that kind of tantalized them and then denying it. As he was talking about all this,

he then focused. He then caused them to focus another young man whose name was John and I'm forgetting his last name at this point, but anyway, they interviewed the second young man and he started telling a story that was somewhat dream oriented and somewhat factual, and after four or five interviews, he finally told the story of what he said transpired in the restaurant. What he told was very close to the actual facts of the case as

the police understood them. And so Bell became very interested in going after this man, and he actually went to the prosecutors and said, we should arrest both these guys filed in his buddy. But the prosecutor said, we've tested both of them for DNA. Their DNA does not match. They did not test for the pombred because they didn't think that was nearly as important. So there was no physical evidence connecting either of these guys to the crime. So at that point the prosecutor said, we're not going

anywhere with this. The main suspect they had at that point was released and they were back to ground zero. And that's the way it remained for the next three years until two thousand and two.

Do you know anyone in the Pelatine police department? And she described for Melita what she knew, and what she knew she claimed was who had actually committed the Browns Chicken in Pasta murders, and she gave a couple of names. Melissa called a friend of hers who was on the police force. He in turn talked with Bill King, who was still one of two officers assigned to the Brown's Chicken in Pasta case. King had been there on the

night that the murders took place. He had helped take the bodies out of the and put them on blankets that they could be used could be used to transport them to the corner's office. He was intimately involved in

this from the very get go. When he heard this information that was passed on to him, he placed a call to Ann Lockett and in the car and it arranged to see her, went out with one of one of his other officers and they interviewed Anne, and in the process of her telling what she knew, she disclosed the piece of information that had never been disclosed publicly by the police, and that was that one of the victims, whose name was Rico sawas a young seventeen year old worker,

had vomited French fries and remains of those French fries were on the front of his t shirt, and that was in fact information that only the killers could have passed on to anyone, And they apparently told Anne in the process of what they'd done, that this had occurred. So at that point King became very interested in trying to trying to pursue the information that Ann Lockett gave to him.

and interview him. And so they went out to see Luna, and Luna was with his young son, and they talked for about a half hour, according to King, And in the process of the conversation in which Luna basically repeated information that he had given to, among others, other officers about where he was on the night of the killing, and the fact that he had been with a friend named Jim Degorski and another woman whose name was Eileen Pakawa, and they had just been together on the night of

the killings and didn't realize anything had occurred until the next morning. At the end of the conversation that King had with Luna, King said, well, you know, would you be willing to give us a swab from the inside of your mouth that we could send in for testing. We've been doing this with everyone Who've been asking anyone that we think might have any information to give us swabs and we can check for and I think they described as DNA. They said cooperated helped them take the swab.

King took this tip, stuck it into an envelope, sealed it, and sent it off to the Illinois crime Lab. Two months later or now, actually not quite two months later, it was less than that. King one afternoon gets a phone call from somebody at the lab and this person says, you know that's swab you sent us, And King says which one. The guy says, the one that was marked

one Luna, and King said, yes, his DNA matches. Well, it's like rockets going off, right, And at that point everyone started to concentrate on Luna and on the on the other young man, Jim de Gorski, and from that point the investigation quickly zeroed on him in on those two men.

been the police have been talking to me. They want me to tell them what I know about Brown's Chicken. What should I tell them? The Gorsky? I don't know what do you want to tell him? You know, tell him whatever you think you have to tell him. Lockett, well, you know that's that's going to be very difficult because you know it's going to involve you. And the Gorcy says, you know, how's it going to involve me? At any rate.

This conversation went on for several minutes, and it became a parent that Gorski was not going to bite and he was not going to say anything, and so at that point then they put that aside. The police put that aside and just continue to work on building a case against these two guys. They then interviewed this Eileen Bacalla, took her in front of the grand jury along with Lockett.

They testified in front of the grand jury, and at that point prosecutors were ready to move and in mid May of two thousand and two, both One Luna and Jim de Gorski were arrested and charged with the murders of seven persons at the Browns Chicken and Pasta restaurant.

a teenager or for that matter, as an adult. For the next period of time, from nineteen ninety three until his arrest, he held a number of jobs. At one point in nineteen ninety four, he returned to Mexico, briefly met a young woman who would become his wife, brought her back to the States and to settle in Chicago. They had a son who was, to use a cliche, the apple of Luna's eye. One was working for an appliance dealer as a delivery man, and he was pretty

much an ordinary citizen. He had one minor brush with the law when he wrote a check that bounced, but when he was confronted with it, he immediately paid off the amount and whatever charges there might have been were dropped. So Luna's background was very uneventful. Degorski had a little bit more of a problem. He was probably a year and a half to two years older than Luna. Both Luna and de Goroski were in special education classes at the high school in Palatine. They hung a round together.

They were good friends. They their their crowd included Ann Lockett and Eileen Bacara and some others, But neither one of them would have been the kind of person you would say was building up to some horrendous crime. When they were teenagers, there was nothing. There were some issues of h of drug abuse, but but nothing that drew the attention of the police.

able to go in and rob the place. And that was I think what what originally was supposed to transpire at least that's what I think, you know, we would have argued that there was no intent to kill anyone if if our guy was involved, that it was it was a robbery. And even in some of the other information we had, there was never anything mentioned to anyone about this being something other than the robbery. So that's how it began, how it how it unfolded from that point, No one, really.

but couldn't because of a change of jobs. So at the age of almost sixty in the year two thousand, I entered law school in Chicago, and I didn't know what I was going to do with a law degree, assuming I passed the Bar Association a bar exam rather in Illinois, but I decided after I passed that for a number of reasons, criminal offense intrigued me, and I managed to sign on for a year with an outfit called the Death Penalty Trial Assistance Division, which was part

of the State of Pellot Defender's Office for Illinois, and it just so happened that at that point in two thousand and four, Luna had been arrested along with the Gorski and they now had attorneys representing them, and the attorneys representing Luna included a team from this death penalty unit.

I became very involved in helping to analyze all the three hundred thousand pages of discovery that had been turned over to the defense of Luna's defense team that included reasons why they were sure Luna and de Gorski had committed the crime. And we spent a tremendous amount of time just trying to get through all that stuff and understand it and look at everything they had done. And at that point we were also beginning to focus on

what our strategy might be. So I worked for about a year on the case before I left to become an assistant public defender in a county outside of Chicago, and I did that for two years, and then Luna's trial was in the offing in early two thousand and seven and I was asked if I wanted to come back on and help the team work during the trial on Luna's defense. So I signed back on. So that's how it came to that point. My intention when I

did that was not to write a book. I was not going to write the last Meal defending the Q's mass murderer. That was not my intention. I really wanted to continue working on death penalty cases in Illinois, but some things happened that were outside my control that made it very difficult, And at that point I realized that there might be a book in the Browns Chicken case from the perspective of the defense team. Most crime books, as you know, are written from the perspective of the

prosecutors and the good guys. I was trying to explain all the challenges that defense attorney's face when they have to defend someone who, if he is he or she is convicted, at least in a state like Illinois, could be sentenced to death and put on death row, and how you do that and what you try to accomplish to keep that from happening.

people and even though you know they're guilty. So maybe tell our audience some of the just the principles of what you try to explain and demystify regarding this, some of the things that I just mentioned.

and a full defense. That's what our constitution demands. You aren't guilty, and you're proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And even though there was all this evidence against someone like Juan Luna, Luna said I did not do it. I'm innocent, and at that point he was entitled to fight for his acquittal and if he couldn't win his acquittal,

to fight for his life. And when I say fight for it, that doesn't necessarily mean that his defense team was going to put on a vigorous defense in his behalf, because the responsibility for convicting someone beyond a reasonable doubt is solely the prosecutor prosecutors, it's not the defense team. The defense team does not have to prove a negative

that our man did not do something. It is up to the prosecutors to say this guy is guilty and here's why, and for a judge or jury to look at that evidence, including testimony from witnesses, and either can conclude either the defendant is guilty or he's not. No, it's a very simple process, but people seem to get hung on out it and believe that defense attorneys are either scumbags or using all kinds of loopholes in this country to get criminals off. That's not it at all.

What we're trying to do is give a person who says I am innocent the right to try to prove that.

Maybe you could tell us, if you don't mind, what your actual position is on the death penalty, and what about if you can answer the question about someone that might say, well, geez, you guys are fervently against the death penalty, so obviously you know when there is an incredible amount of evidence against the client, your client, you really, in practical terms, are trying to save his life more so than anything else. You're preparing for that inevitable conclusion.

on death row in Illinois. He insisted from the very beginning that he was innocent, and as the process after conviction played out, it became apparent that there was a police unit in Chicago that was virtually torturing people into confessing that they thought were guilty, doing all kinds of crazy things to get confessions, and this particular young man, Madison Hobbley, was one of the people that they tried to suffocate. They tore men at him and they got

him to confess. And so because of that, it became apparent to me that one of the problems with the death penalty is that you unless you were absolutely sure that somebody did something, there is always the possibility that there's going to be a hobby type situation or there's something that's going to come up that will show that

this individual really doesn't deserve the ultimate penalty. And furthermore, the way the death penalty works it is to a large degree capricious and arbitrary, because it depends upon a whether the prosecutor wants to try to get the death penalty for your defendant, your client, and b whether a jury is going to buy into that, and some juries will and some won't. And there was a case here in Chicago recently where a guy was tried two different

times for the same crime. The first time he was sentenced to death, but the sentence was overturned and he was given a new trial because of some information that was imparted in the trial that turned out to be wrong. The second time, he was convicted again, but the jury wouldn't even find that he was eligible for the death penalty, much less sentenced him. To death. That tells me that there's some serious problems with the way death penalties jurisprudence

is conducted. And in Illinois right now, our governor is giving serious consideration to signing legislation that would outlaw the death penalty in Illinois, making Illinois the sixteenth state in the Union that does not have a death penalty.

but it's a shrinking majority. And when you have a situation like we had in Illinois where there were at least thirteen death row inmates who were there because of this unit, this police unit's malfeasance, then we've got some serious issues to do with And that's why that and the fact that it's extremely expensive in a state like Illinois to carry out a capital case and all the appeals that follow it before someone is sitting on death

row waiting for some day to be executed. And in Illinois there's even a moratorium now and has been a moratorium for at least ten years against any execution. So we had at one point in two thousand and three over one hundred and eighty men sitting on death row in Illinois, none of whom were scheduled for execution, and the governor that at that point not only pardoned our our our client in the definitely clinic, whose name was Hobby,

but pardoned three others. In other words, they were made they were set free, but he commuted all the sentences of everyone everyone else on death row to life imprisonment without role. And that's where they sit today.

one Luna and Jim de Gorsi about the crime. And then finally you had a forty four plus minute videotaped statement slash confession that Luna gave after he was arrested, in which he described what he and de Gorski did, and in that confession was one really toxic statement. Luna said that at one point in the shootings and killings, he got quote caught up in the moment and slit the throat of the woman owner. And we had to

deal with all that. Soasically took it apart, piece by piece, and we had our own experts testifying as to what the DNA might or might not mean. We had our own expert testifying about how hard it would be to determine that that palm print was Luna's. And furthermore, when people use napkins to wipe off what apparently was Greece on that napkin with their hands, they don't dab their hands, they rub their hands. We took the testimony of both the women and basically tried to show that they had

alterior motives in essence were lying. And then finally we attacked Luna's confession. And one of the ways we tried to attack Luna's confession was by bringing up the confession of the earlier suspect in nineteen ninety nine, who had better information than Luna had in his statement and show

that this guy was not charged. And furthermore, we asked a police officer on the stand whether it was possible if someone who was perfectly innocent, who had not been coerced or harassed, and would that person testify that he did something they hadn't done, And this officer said basically yes. So we were trying to show that false confessions are not that unusual. They happen for whatever reason. People confess the things they don't do when they're under pressure or

they feel their under pressure, or for whatever reason. And we tried to show that Luna's confession had holes in it and was not an accurate representation of what transpired in that restaurant in January of nineteen ninety three.

having actually committed seven murders. So what we were faced what we tried to do first, and Clarence Bert's, the lead attorney, worked on this very hard. He was hoping that at least one juror would would see that there was reasonable doubt that Luna had not committed the murder the murders, and he was hoping that the prosecutions evidence, as strong as it appeared to be, could be shown to have enough question marks in it that at least one juror and maybe more would say, wait a minute,

you can't rush the judgment. Judgment here. Well, as it turned out, the injury, the jury unanimously said that Juan was guilty of having committed the seven murders, and then it became the issue of how are you going to save his life? And in Illinois there are a capital murder trial is really three trials. The first stage is the guilt innocent stage. The second is whether the defendant who is now guilty is eligible for the death penalty,

and that's the terminology. And in order to be eligible under our state law, you have to fit into twenty aggravating one of twenty aggravating factors. That could include multiple murders, killing somebody who was either over or under a certain age, killing someone in the commission of another felony, being involved in planning and executing something intentionally. All these kinds of things play out, and there were four of these aggravating factors that the state was trying to prove that Luna

had committed that made him eligible for death. Well, the jury came back again and selected two of the four aggravating factors and said, this is what makes one Luna eligible for the death penalty. Fortunately, from ourspect, of the two most serious allegations of or factors that the state was trying to pin on him, the jury did not buy into. And one of those was that Luna actually

had killed one person or more in that room. And second that he and do Gorski had planned all this out and had this elaborately constructive deal as to how they were going to carry out these killings. And the jury didn't buy either one of those. So now we have Luna eligible for death, and the big battle occurs, and the big battle is will he get Will the jury decide that death is the appropriate sentence for one

Luna or will the jury decide it is not. And in Illinois that must be unanimous, just as a guilt verdict and eligibility for death must be unanimous. And we were the biggest, biggest battle took place.

he didn't grimace, he didn't do anything. He came into the courtroom dressed in a suit, tie and shirt, having changed from the from the jailhouse clothing that he had been wearing for five years when he was a waiting trial. He was a model prisoner when he was in the jail. During the five years, he never committed any infractions of jail house rules. He was a good client and in many respects, he was not someone that we would urge to testify. We saw no reason for him to testify.

But he was cooperative and the only time he showed emotion during the trial was when the daughter of one of the daughters of the owners was describing the horrible consequences that had occurred after her parents were killed, and Juan cried.

was what actually did kill her. We put on a forensic doctor who testified that the slit throat would not have killed her, that what killed her was the bullet wound. But more important than that, he claimed and insisted that the throat that her throat slitting occurred after she was dead. Another was postporum, not not before death, but after death. And we also were able to show that from even

what the medical examiner said. Luna described how he slipped this woman's throat as though he was standing over her, and she was looking up at him. The medical examiner, who was telling a cop her an alsis of that wound was that whoever did it was standing behind lin Nfeld and was slitting her throat from left to right, which would indicate that he could not have seen her

face and could not have been standing over her. That was just one of many inconsistencies in what Luna's videotape statement said that made us believe that he was coerced and fed information by the cops to get him to confess.

But he was insistent that he had not committed this crime, and our responsibility as defense attorneys at that point was to give him the best defense we can give him and try to force the state, the prosecution, to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, it's not our responsibility to prove a negative. We don't have to prove that Luna didn't do it. We just have to force the state has to prove that he did it and there's no reasonable doubt.

lesser extent his but not that much. His confession. The fingerprint mattered, but it was not as crucial, and they weren't particularly enamored with either of the two women in

terms of how they came across. So the DNA was huge, And we had tried at one point to also show that, in spite of the fact that it's said that my DNA won't match eight zillion other people more than exist on a planet Earth, that there was at least one other study that had been done that suggested maybe the match of one person's DNA to another's persons could occur in as often as maybe one and two and twenty thousand.

Now that doesn't sound like it's real good, but what we were trying to point out was that it's not as scientific and not as full proof as the people who claim it is are saying. And we had our own expert understand testifying as to why he believed Luna's DNA was not tested an sufficient number of points to make it almost a full proof match, and that more could have been done that might have eliminated his DNA as a matching DNA with that fund on the chicken.

The other issue that played out was that there was a second DNA found on that chicken, but it was never determined whose it was, so we didn't know where that came from, and no one did. We argued as well that even if that was DNA from one, no one knew when it got on that chicken. The chicken that was found in the in that TRANSH receptacle could have been there more than a day. It's possible Luna

could have been there for lunch the day before. No one knew that we were raising any possible point we could raise to draw reasonable doubt.

their minds. But because of some things that had occurred earlier in the trial, even in the guilt innocence phase, this jury decided it would take one vote and one vote only, and if they couldn't get unanimity, then they would sign the form that said he was that death was not the appropriate sentence. She would not vote for the death penalty. She said, I'm not going to go

along with it. They said, where's the form? They signed the form, came back into the courtroom two hours after they began their deliberations and made the announcement, much to Wan's relief and our relief.

that no one else spoke for her. In other words, whatever they were saying was not her thoughts, and she was not going to tell anyone why she did what

she did. I say the other jury, it was interesting when we met with a jury, they all seemed to be in relatively good spirits, and I got the impression, and I said this in the end of this book, the last meal, that they felt justice had been done, even though one now convicted and now no longer covered by the presumption presumption of innocence, could go to prison for life, and that was enough.

You have to work at it very hard, and you've got to cover every base and you can't be standing around saying, God, this death penalty is a horrible trouble thing. It should never occur. We're going to fight it on that basis. You lose hands down. You have got to fight it methodically, carefully and cover every base, and that's what the attorneys, the principal attorneys on this case who represented Luna, and I think de Gorski as well, tried to do right.