By WILLIAM H. FULLER III

The article, “Public defender at issue,” (Feb. 11, page A1) concerning the death sentence imposed on Christopher Scott Emmett was biased, one-sided and misrepresented the facts of the case. According to the article, McClatchy Newspapers reviewed death penalty cases in Virginia, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. The article consisted of quotes from Emmett’s lawyer and a minority opinion by a judge of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is interesting how the story’s author and Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (as Kaine did in his review of the Percy Walton death penalty case) like to quote minority opinions rather than majority opinions. The majority opinion of the 4th Circuit Court upheld Emmett’s death sentence, as did the U.S. District Court.

Ignoring the truth

The article distorted the facts by saying Emmett “was convicted in 2001 of killing a co-worker in a hotel room during a fight over money to buy crack cocaine.” This statement does not even resemble the truth. The deceased, John Langley, was asleep in his motel room bed after a hard day’s work when his roommate, Christopher Scott Emmett, beat him to death with a heavy brass lamp.
The undisputed evidence revealed that on the night of April 26, 2001, Emmett - who wanted more money to buy cocaine - viciously beat his sleeping co-worker to death in order to rob him. Langley had already loaned Emmett money that same day and on many occasions Langley had befriended Emmett by giving him rides to work, as well as having Emmett in his mother’s home for a meal.
Emmett, who had the highest IQ of any capital murderer I have ever prosecuted, initially tried to implicate Pittman, his black co-worker with whom he had earlier smoked crack cocaine, as Langley’s murderer. However, “ultimately Emmett told the police that he alone had beaten Langley to death with the brass lamp.” Emmett stated he decided to rob Langley because, “Langley refused to loan them more money to buy cocaine.” Emmett admitted beating his sleeping co-worker John Langley to death by striking him five or six times “with the base of a brass motel lamp in order to rob Langley …” Emmett then “took Langley’s wallet, and left the motel to buy cocaine.”
Before striking Langley with the heavy brass lamp, Emmett methodically removed the lampshade, unscrewed and removed the light bulb so he wouldn’t cut himself, and then beat his helpless, sleeping companion to death by repeatedly striking him in the head with the heavy brass lamp. It would be hard to find a stronger case of premeditated murder. Emmett’s explanation for killing the man who had befriended him and loaned him money was it “just seemed right at the time.”

Future dangerousness

In addition to the cold-blooded murder of Langley, a few years earlier Emmett struck and killed a motorcyclist while driving a van on the wrong side of the road and while under the influence of alcohol. The North Carolina Highway Patrol officer who investigated this manslaughter case took a picture of Emmett while he was smiling after the motorcycle driver had been killed. The trooper quoted Emmett as saying “that there was no need to worry about the man on the motorcycle. He was already dead and that (Emmett) could do nothing to help him.” As noted by the Virginia Supreme Court:
“(t)he evidence … showed that Emmett lacked remorse for this earlier violent crime and for the instant killing of a co-worker (Langley). Indeed, Emmett himself confessed that he killed Langley because it ‘just seemed right at the time.’ Such lack of regard for a human life speaks volumes on the issue of future dangerousness. …”
This is why the jury recommended the death penalty and why Emmett deserves it.
In an attempt to mitigate this gruesome and premeditated murder, Larry Gott, Emmett’s trial lawyer, called Emmett’s mother and a half-sister as witnesses. Emmett’s father was an alcoholic who failed to take care of the family and Emmett’s mother left him while Emmett was an infant. However, Emmett was raised by his stepfather with whom he had a good relationship. His mother and half-sister testified Emmett was a good person but his behavior changed between six months and a year before he killed Langley. They attributed the change to Emmett’s use of alcohol and drugs. Gott also called a family friend as a witness who testified favorably for Emmett. This friend said Emmett helped her disabled husband with repairs and yard work as well as looking after her son when he was injured.
In addition to family members and friends, Gott called three witnesses from the North Carolina and Virginia prison systems who testified that while Emmett was incarcerated as an adult, he created no problems and that he would not be allowed outside the prison if he received a life sentence. This testimony enabled Gott to ask the jury to give Emmett a life sentence. This mitigating testimony also enabled Gott to argue Emmett was not a monster “but a good and decent person whose addictions to alcohol and cocaine overwhelmed his judgment and ultimately resulted in his murdering John Langley.”

Trial strategy

Based upon Emmett’s own statements to Gott and his psychiatrist, Dr. Evan Nelson, Gott made a strategic decision not to call as a witness Emmett’s probation officer. According to the evidence, Gott was afraid the probation officer “could damage more than help” because her evaluations of “Emmett’s home life, while not ideal, was at worst one of some neglect, but not of abuse or other atrocities.” On the other hand, Gott feared the probation officer’s “testimony would serve to remind the jury that Emmett had been a ‘lawbreaker’ since the age of eight, ‘over 20 years (and) two-thirds of his life.’” Gott’s trial strategy kept this evidence from being presented to the jury.
Gott also took Nelson’s advice not to call him as a witness because it would “have opened the door to Emmett’s extensive criminal history beginning at age seven and his antisocial traits and criminal personality” … a history which I was not privy to and which was unavailable to me through juvenile records. If Nelson had been called as a witness he would have had to testify that he “viewed Emmett as a career criminal with a pattern, ‘beg(inning) in childhood and continu(ing) into adulthood’ of ‘commit(ting) property offenses for his own personal gain’ - the same thing that motivated the capital murder offense.” Nelson further informed Emmett’s trial attorney, Gott, “that Emmett was of average intelligence for the general population, above average intelligence for an incarcerated male felon, and that his personality test revealed an anti-social personality trait, i.e., ‘an attitude that the world is a place of competition and one must take what you can get, and feel that you deserve it.’”
Emmett told Nelson that “he was twice arrested during his elementary school years for breaking and entering a neighbor’s home and a business, both of which he committed alone.” At age 10 he had another breaking and entering that sent him to a training school. Later, at age 11, while playing with matches he accidentally burned down a trailer. At age 14, he committed yet another breaking and entering. Nelson found that Emmett was “showing strong criminal social values as early as age 14.” When placed in another juvenile facility, he ran away four times. Emmett was then sent to a more secure facility. From there he escaped three more times. In fact, Nelson noted that “Emmett’s account of his own criminal history (was) more damning than the actual records.”
Because of Gott’s trial strategy, the jury did not hear any of this information that Nelson received from Emmett concerning his juvenile criminal record or Nelson’s evaluation of Emmett. Gott made a professional decision not to open up Emmett’s long criminal record to which he knew I didn’t have access. If he had brought out the alleged problems in Emmett’s home, it would have just opened up more of his criminal record. In an affidavit I gave in the federal district court, I stated that if Emmett had presented evidence about his childhood that suggested more criminal activities, I would certainly have made use of that evidence. In fact, Detectives Eddie Burke and Mike Wallace made several trips to North Carolina in an attempt to locate Emmett’s juvenile records but only one juvenile case was available to us.

A long juvenile record

Thus, only one of Emmett’s juvenile offenses was introduced at trial. That juvenile offense involved an escape in which Emmett was charged with kidnapping, assault and robbery. On this occasion “he stuffed a guard in the closet,” and took the guard’s keys from him. He then escaped from the institution. Emmett stayed in detention until he was 18.
Had I known about Emmett’s long juvenile record of crimes and escapes it would have made an even stronger case that he should have received the death penalty because with a life sentence he is an escape risk. Now Gott is being second-guessed by lawyers who were far removed from the trial of this case.
As an adult, Emmett told Nelson that he had convictions or charges for several DUIs, driving without a license, assaulting his girlfriend, second-degree trespassing, possession of stolen property and vehicular manslaughter.
Only in the aftermath of Emmett’s conviction and death sentence, have these allegations about Emmett’s home life been presented. In fact, the new allegations about Emmett’s home life contradict “the information Emmett provided his lawyer (Gott) and the forensic psychologist (Dr. Nelson) appointed to work on his (Emmett’s) behalf to develop and present a mitigation case …” As the majority opinion of the 4th Circuit Court pointed out, Emmett told Gott and Nelson that:
“(H)e had a good relationship with his mother, his stepfather, and his siblings, and that he had maintained a good relationship with his parents into adult years. He (Emmett) specifically denied any physical or emotional abuse to him or to his siblings, denied any DSS interventions into his home, and described his mother as a loving mother who rearranged her schedule to take care of him. He denied being raised by his older siblings and indicated that there was adequate money available to ensure that his basic needs were met.”
Emmett’s probation officer also advised Gott “that she remembered Emmett’s stepfather taking Emmett hunting, trapping, and fishing, which Emmett loved, so there was ‘obviously parental involvement.’”
Even now, as the 4th Circuit Court pointed out, “Emmett has not factually disputed that he provided this history to” Gott. Nor has he contradicted his earlier statements to Gott. In fact, Emmett has made no personal effort to state “an account of his family and social history which differs from” what he gave his trial attorney Gott. Moreover, “Emmett has presented no testimony or affidavit on his own behalf in the proceeding now before the courts.”
An ‘experienced’ lawyer
Furthermore, after he was found guilty and sentenced to death, Emmett initially did not want to appeal his case to the Virginia Supreme Court. It was not until his present lawyers became involved that he changed his mind and this effort to discredit his trial lawyer took place. This is not surprising in view of the fact that Emmett’s present lawyers only got involved in this capital murder case after the trial had taken place which gives them the luxury of second-guessing the lawyer who had to make the tough decisions at trial. As the 4th Circuit Court stated, Gott “was an experienced public defender … who had tried at least 15 murder cases, including two capital cases.” As the court further pointed out, Gott interviewed Emmett “with the aid of a 23 page, comprehensive questionnaire specifically designed to obtain biographical information and explore all possible areas of mitigating evidence.”
Larry Gott did his job, but sometimes the evidence is too overwhelming for any lawyer to overcome. There is no mitigating evidence in this case that could possibly justify Emmett’s brutal, ruthless and sadistic murder of an innocent, sleeping companion that had befriended him on numerous occasions. The sentence imposed by a Danville jury should be upheld - and Emmett’s execution should take place.
Fuller serves as Danville’s commonwealth’s attorney.

The circumstances of the murder of John Langley as described by the Virginia Supreme Court:

“Weldon Roofing Co. employed Emmett and Langley as laborers for its roofing crews. During late April 2001, both men were assigned to a project in the city of Danville and shared a room at a local motel where the roofing crew was staying. On the evening of April 26, 2001, Emmett, Langley, Michael Darryl Pittman, and other members of the roofing crew cooked dinner on a grill at the motel, played cards and drank beer. During the course of the evening, Langley loaned money to Emmett and Pittman, who used the money to buy crack cocaine.
“At approximately 11 p.m. that evening, Rainey Bell, another member of the roofing crew, heard a noise he described as ‘bang, bang’ coming from the room Emmett and Langley shared. Shortly after midnight, Emmett went to the motel office and asked the clerk to call the police, saying that he had returned to his room, ‘seen blood and stuff … and didn’t know what had took place.’
“The police arrived at the motel at 12:46 a.m. on April 27, 2001, and accompanied Emmett back to his room. There they discovered Langley’s dead body lying face down on Langley’s bed beneath a comforter. Blood spatters were found on the sheets and headboard of Langley’s bed, on the wall behind it, and on the wall between the bathroom and Emmett’s bed. A damaged brass lamp stained with Langley’s blood was discovered beneath Langley’s bed.
“In his initial statement to police, Emmett denied killing Langley. … Observing what appeared to be bloodstains on Emmett’s personal effects, the police took possession of Emmett’s boots and clothing with his permission. Emmett suggested that the blood might be his own because he had injured himself earlier in the week. Subsequent testing, however, revealed that Emmett’s boots and clothing were stained with Langley’s blood.
“…(On) the morning of April 27, Emmett voluntarily accompanied the police to the Danville police station. There he agreed to be fingerprinted and gave a sample of his blood. Emmett admitted to the police that he had been drinking and using cocaine on the previous evening. Over the course of the next several hours, Emmett related different versions of the events of the previous evening to the police.”