Supreme Court justices seem split on possible resentencing for Washington, D.C., sniper

This photo provided by the Virginia Department of Corrections shows Lee Boyd Malvo. Liberal and conservative justices seemed split on whether to grant a new sentencing hearing to Lee Boyd Malvo, who as a teenager was one of two snipers who terrorized the Washington area.

Washington D.C. — Liberal and conservative justices seemed split Wednesday on whether to grant a new sentencing hearing to Lee Boyd Malvo, one of two snipers who terrorized the Washington, D.C., region in 2002 when he was a teenager.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Malvo, who was 17 at the time of the killings, was wrongly sentenced in Virginia to life without parole.


His attorneys say he deserves a new hearing because of recent Supreme Court rulings barring mandatory life sentences for juveniles and reserving the punishment for those "rare children whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption."

Virginia argues Malvo's life sentence was not mandatory because the judge theoretically had discretion to suspend part of Malvo's life sentence, despite a state law mandating either execution or life without parole as the only sentencing options for a capital murder conviction.


Even if Malvo prevails at the high court and gets a new sentencing hearing, a Virginia judge could reimpose a life sentence. Malvo also faces six life-without parole terms in Maryland that are not technically in front of the high court, though courts there have placed Malvo's Maryland appeals on hold while the Supreme Court decides this case.

In this Oct. 26, 2004, file photo, Lee Boyd Malvo enters a courtroom in the Spotsylvania, Va., Circuit Court. A federal judge has tossed out two life sentences for D.C. sniper shooter Lee Boyd Malvo and ordered Virginia courts to hold new sentencing hearings.

Elena Kagan, a justice on the court's liberal wing, said the high court's previous rulings on the subject should be understood broadly, and that courts are bound to give serious consideration to the notion that "youth matters" in determining a juvenile's sentence.

On the other side, conservative Justice Samuel Alito suggested the court should simply apply the wording from its earlier case, which bans only mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles. Because Virginia's Supreme Court has already ruled that Malvo's trial judge had discretion to lower Malvo's sentence, he would not be entitled to any relief under the court's previous ruling.

Malvo was a 15-year-old from Jamaica who had been sent to live in Antigua when he met John Allen Muhammad and latched onto him as a father figure. Muhammad trained and indoctrinated Malvo, and in 2002 the pair embarked on a nationwide killing spree that concluded with a three-week rampage in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia that left 10 people dead and three wounded.

In November 2002, Lee Boyd Malvo, 17, leaves the Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations courthouse in Virginia. MUST CREDIT: Washington Post photo by Rich Lipski

The random shootings terrorized the region, and featured bizarre coded conversations from police to the snipers delivered during live news conferences with phrases like "Call me God" and "We have caught the sniper like a duck in a noose."

Notes left behind at the shooting scenes included demands for ransom, but trial testimony indicated the shootings were a plan for Muhammad to regain custody of his children by killing his ex-wife, who lived in the region, and making her death appear to be a result of random violence.

Breaking News Alerts

As it happens

Be informed of breaking news as it happens and notified about other don't-miss content with our free news alerts.

Muhammad was sentenced to death and executed. Malvo pleaded insanity but was convicted. The jury was then tasked with sentencing Malvo either to death or to life without parole. It opted for the latter.

Malvo's lawyer, Danielle Spinelli, said that when the court issued its initial ruling banning mandatory life sentences for juveniles, in 2012's Miller v. Alabama, about 2,800 individuals were affected. Since then, the Supreme Court ruled in a follow-up case that the Miller case should be applied retroactively, and Spinelli said all but 60 defendants in six states have been granted some form of relief.

A booking photo for Lee Boyd Malvo, then 18, during his murder trial in Chesapeake, Virginia, in 2003. MUST CREDIT: Chesapeake Sheriff’s Office.

"Virginia is not doing anything to comply with Miller," Spinelli said.

Victims of the snipers are divided on the question. Some survivors and family members say they oppose a resentencing.

Cheryll Shaw, whose father Jerry Taylor was killed by the snipers in Arizona, is one of several surviving victims and family members who have endorsed resentencing.

Shaw, who attended Wednesday's arguments, said after the arguments that she hopes Malvo gets a new hearing and that he is transferred from Virginia's notorious Red Onion prison, but she is unsure whether she wants to see him released.

“I’m not ready to see him get out anytime soon,” she said.