Murderpedia

 

 

Juan Ignacio Blanco  

 

  MALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

  FEMALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

 

 

 
 

Daniel Eugene REMETA

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
Classification: Spree killer
Characteristics: Robberies
Number of victims: 5
Date of murders: February 1985
Date of arrest: February 13, 1985
Date of birth: 1958
Victims profile: Mehrle Reeder, 60; Linda Marvin, 42; Larry McFarland, 27; Glenn Moore, 55, and John R. Schroeder, 29
Method of murder: Shooting
Location: Kansas/Arkansas/Florida, USA
Status: Executed by electrocution in Florida on March 31, 1998
 
 
 
 
 
 

photo gallery

 
 
 
 
 

The Supreme Court of Florida

 

opinion 1993

opinion 1998

 
 
 
 
 
 

March 31, 1998, Daniel Remeta -- convicted of killing five people in a tri-state crime spree -- took a seat on Old Sparky. Twelve minutes later, he was pronounced dead Remeta had no last statement. He was calm and expressionless when strapped into the chair. Before the hood was lowered, he nodded to someone on the other side of a glass partition.

More of a rampage killer than a mass murderer, Daniel collected five dead over six days in February 1985. His first victim was the convenience store clerk, 60-year-old Mehrle Reeder. Within six days, he had gunned down Linda Marvin and Larry McFarland in Arkansas, and Glenn Moore and John R. Schroeder in Kansas. Three more were wounded. The violence ended in a gun battle with police in an unoccupied farmhouse in Atwood, Kansas. Remeta was sentenced to life for the Kansas murders and to death in both Arkansas and Florida.

Remeta once said he wanted to be extradited to Florida because it imposes capital punishment. "I want them to pull the switch," he said. "I'm not afraid. Death is only as ugly as you make it.''

 
 

Daniel Remeta, 40, was put to death for the slaying of a convenience store clerk. He was pronounced dead at 7:12 a.m. EST.

Remeta's 1st victim during his February 1985 rampage was the convenience store clerk, 60-year-old Mehrle Reeder. Within 6 days, he had gunned down 4 other people -- Linda Marvin in Arkansas and Larry McFarland, Glenn Moore and John R. Schroeder in Kansas. 3 more were wounded.

The violence ended in a gun battle with police in an unoccupied farmhouse in Atwood, Kan. Remeta was sentenced to life for the Kansas murders and to death in both Arkansas and Florida.

Remeta once said he wanted to be extradited to Florida because it imposes capital punishment.

"I want them to pull the switch," he said. "I'm not afraid. Death is only as ugly as you make it."

A year ago, Florida executions were put on hold after flame erupted from the headpiece during the electrocution of Pedro Medina. The state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 last fall that death in the 75-year-old electric chair was neither cruel nor unusual.

No fire appeared during the executions last week of Gerald Stano or Leo Jones -- nor during Monday's electrocution of Ms. Buenoano.

 
 

Daniel Remeta led James Hunter and Lisa Dunn on a crime spree in 1985 in Kansas, Arkansas and Florida that left five people dead. Three more were wounded.

Remeta was executed for killing Mehrle "Chet" Reeder, a convenience store clerk in Ocala who was shot four times during a 1985 robbery that netted $50.

Two days after killing Reeder, Remeta and an accomplice entered a convenience store in Wascom, Texas, bent on robbery. A clerk was shot five times but lived and later testified at Remeta’s trial in the Florida killing.

Remeta, a native of Traverse City, Mich., was also convicted of 3 murders in Kansas, where he faced 5 life sentences.

In Kansas, Larry McFarland, a restaurant operator in Grainfield -- was killed before Remeta and his accomplices moved on to Levant. Remeta was convicted in that case. Glenn Moore, 55, and John "Rick" Schroeder, 28, were kidnapped from a grain elevator in Levant and shot to death execution-style on a dirt road northwest of Colby. Kansas did not have the death penalty at the time of Remeta's convictions. He received two life sentences in this state.

In Arkansas, Remeta was under a death sentence for the murder of Linda Marvin, who worked at a convenience store in Mulberry in 1985. The violence ended in a gun battle with police in an unoccupied farmhouse in Atwood, Kan.

Remeta once said he wanted to be extradited to Florida because it imposes capital punishment. "I want them to pull the switch," he said. "I'm not afraid. Death is only as ugly as you make it." Hunter was convicted but later acquitted after claiming he was forced to participate in the crimes. He died of a heart attack four days after his acquittal. Dunn, too, was acquitted in a retrial. She successfully used the "battered-woman syndrome" defense, saying that because she was abused by Remeta she was not responsible for her actions. She now lives in Michigan.

 
 

Florida executes man convicted of 3-state killing spree

March 31, 1998

STARKE, Florida (CNN) -- A man who killed five people in a three-state spree 13 years ago was executed in Florida's electric chair Tuesday. It was the state's fourth execution in nine days.

Daniel Remeta, 40, who once urged authorities to "pull the switch," was put to death for the slaying of a convenience store clerk. He was pronounced dead at 7:12 a.m. EST.

Remeta's first victim during his February 1985 rampage was convenience store clerk Mehrle "Chet" Reeder, who was shot four times and robbed of $50. Within six days, Remeta had gunned down four other people -- Linda Marvin in Arkansas and Larry McFarland, Glenn Moore and John R. Schroeder in Kansas. Three more were wounded.

The violence ended in a gun battle with police in an unoccupied farmhouse in Atwood, Kansas. Remeta was sentenced to life for the Kansas murders and to death in both Arkansas and Florida.

Remeta once said he wanted to be extradited to Florida because it imposes capital punishment.

"I want them to pull the switch," he said. "I'm not afraid. Death is only as ugly as you make it."

Florida resumed executions last week following a one-year hiatus while the courts considered arguments that the 75-year-old electric chair constituted cruel and unusual punishment after flames leaped from the head of an inmate during an execution in March 1997.

 
 

Trail of terror

Shooting spree leaves six dead before group nabbed in gunfight

By Tim Hrenchir - The Capital-Journal

Ben Albright expected to die.

The Thomas County undersheriff lay on the seat of his patrol car and watched as the man who already had pumped two bullets into his body pointed the gun at him again.

It was shortly after 4 p.m. Feb. 13, 1985, and Albright had been taken by surprise.

Twenty minutes earlier, the 27-year-old undersheriff was patrolling Interstate 70 in northwest Kansas when he heard over police radio someone had been shot and killed at Grainfield, about 45 miles to the southeast.

A red and blue car might have been involved, Albright learned. A Kansas Highway Patrol trooper had seen a car matching that description go west on I-70. But the trooper was low on fuel, so he asked Albright to look for it.

Before long, Albright saw the car. He stopped it at I-70's Levant interchange, about 10 miles west of Colby. Albright turned on his loudspeaker and ordered the four people in the car to stay inside and put their hands on the ceiling.

The passenger's side door opened. A man started to get out. Albright repeated his command.

The door closed partway, then opened again. A man got out, pointed a handgun at Albright and pulled the trigger.

The man fired four times as he went to the driver's side door of Albright's vehicle. Two bullets missed, but others slammed into Albright's right arm and chest.

Albright leaned over to take cover. He tried to put his car in reverse, but it was no use.

Lying wounded on his front seat, Albright looked out the driver's side window and saw the man point the gun at him.

"I just closed my eyes and waited for another shot," he said later.

The group

Albright had stopped a car that already had been involved in three random murders.

One occupant, 27-year-old Daniel Remeta, had served prison time for burglary in Michigan. Court testimony indicated both of Remeta's parents were impoverished alcoholics who neglected their five children. As a young teen, he was arrested for crimes that included stealing bicycles, breaking windows and shoplifting. Remeta was sent to reform school, but escaped.

Remeta was with his 18-year-old girlfriend, Lisa Dunn. Both were from Traverse City, Mich., but Remeta made Dunn feel guilty about the privileged upbringing she had enjoyed compared to the poverty he'd endured. Dunn's high school counselor would describe her as a gifted student who became rebellious in her junior and senior years, yet still kept a grade-point average well above 3.0 on a 4.0 scale. Remeta and Dunn had met at a party in December 1984. Within a week, they were living together. Soon afterward, Remeta was jailed and accused of breaking car windows during a drunken rampage in which he beat Dunn. He told Dunn he wanted to leave because authorities in Traverse City would never give him a break.

Dunn and their friend, Mark Walter, 18, of Suttons Bay, Mich., bailed Remeta out of jail. Acquaintances would describe Walter as an average achiever who graduated from Suttons Bay High School, worked for Frigid Food Products and was well-liked. Remeta, however, would say Walter was "no angel."

Going south

The three left northwest Michigan in late January 1985, bound for Florida on a trip that would involve drugs, alcohol and murder. Dunn brought a gun she'd stolen from her father. She later testified she thought she needed the .357 Magnum because two men had raped her the previous year.

When Dunn gave the gun to her boyfriend to look at, Remeta kept it. He even gave the gun a name: "Susie."

Remeta used the gun to commit the trip's first crime -- a service station robbery -- on Jan. 27, 1985, at Copemish in northwest Michigan.

The three then went to Florida, and visited Walt Disney World.

The first murder came on Feb. 8, 1985, at a convenience store in Ocala, Fla.

Mehrle "Chet" Reeder, a 60-year-old clerk, was shot four times and robbed of $52.

On Feb. 10, in Waskom, Texas, 18-year-old convenience store cashier Camellia Carroll survived after being abducted at gunpoint, taken to a nearby wooded area and shot five times. She survived, making her way to a road and flagging down a passing car.

On Feb. 11, in Mulberry, Ark., 42-year-old grocery store clerk Linda Marvin was shot 10 times and robbed of $556. She was dead at the scene.

On to Kansas

On Feb. 12, a car carrying Walter, Dunn and Remeta bumped a curb as it pulled into a Wichita restaurant. A police officer eating at the restaurant asked Dunn if the driver was drunk. She responded that the driver was tired. Another officer wrote down the car's license tag number, but neither checked out the car or its occupants.

Remeta and his friends were outside Wichita en route to Colorado on Feb. 13 when they picked up a hitchhiker -- James C. Hunter Jr., a former roofer who owned his own home at Amoret, Mo., about 60 miles south of Kansas City, Mo.

Hunter, 33, had been in some minor scrapes with the law. In January 1985, he hitchhiked to Texas to visit his brother and look for work, then left the following month to hitchhike back.

That afternoon, Remeta gunned down 27-year-old Larry D. McFarland. McFarland was shot several times during a robbery at the Stuckey's Restaurant just off I-70 at Grainfield in northwest Kansas.

The crime was discovered at about 3:45 p.m. Authorities were given a description of a red and blue car that might have been involved. Soon afterward, Thomas County Undersheriff Ben Albright pulled the car over.

Across Kansas

After a man got out of the car and shot Albright twice, the undersheriff lay on his front seat expecting to die.

But the gunman returned to the car. Albright peeked over his dashboard and saw the car was using the off-ramp to leave I-70 and go east on US-24 highway. He used his police radio to tell his dispatcher where the car was going. Albright would survive, though his wounds would end his law enforcement career.

Albright later testified it was Hunter who shot him. But Hunter and Dunn said Remeta shot Albright and was returning to the car when Hunter grabbed a gun, tried to shoot Remeta and accidentally shot Dunn, inflicting a minor wound. Remeta struck Hunter with his handgun and took Hunter's gun away.

"I wasn't sure if he accidentally shot her or if he was trying to shoot me in the back," Remeta testified. He said he would have shot Hunter, but Remeta's gun was out of bullets.

Remeta had something else to worry about -- he needed a different vehicle. At about 4:15 p.m., the car he was in pulled into the yard of a grain elevator at Levant, a nearby community of from 80 to 100 people.

Grain elevator manager Maurice Christie looked outside his office and saw a man with a gun force two men to get in the back of the truck. Those abducted were grain elevator employee Rick Schroeder, 29, of Levant, and Glenn Moore, 55, of Colby. owner of a construction company that was doing work at the elevator.

Christie warned his assistant manager, Fred Sager. Christie pulled down the shades of his office, locked the door and started to call the sheriff's office.

Outside, Hunter kicked in a window while Remeta smashed open a different window and shot Christie in the back., near the right shoulder. The force of the bullet whirled Christie around so he faced Remeta.

"I thought he was going to shoot again, but I fell or jumped behind my desk," he later testified.

Remeta peered into the building from outdoors, looking for someone else to shoot. He failed to see Sager, who hid behind a counter.

Sager later recalled Remeta said "No one else is in there," and walked away.

Christie stayed down for a time, then looked out a window and saw the pickup leaving. Moore and Schroeder were riding in back with two other men.

That exit also was witnessed by Moore's son, Wesley Moore, who didn't realize he was seeing his father alive for the last time.

Wesley Moore later testified Glenn Moore was "huddled over in the corner ... out of fear, I think."

'No hostages'

The pickup went east for four miles, then north for two before Remeta ordered the driver to stop.

"I don't need no hostages and I don't need no witnesses," he said.

Remeta made Moore and Schroeder get out and lie in the road. He shot Moore and Schroeder execution-style in the back of the head, killing them. Moore also was shot in the chest.

Remeta later said he shot the men "more or less to show the cops behind us that the people they were chasing weren't just playing."

The bodies were left lying face-down in the road, parallel to each other, with their hands at their heads.

The pickup went to K-25 highway, started north, then turned around after reaching a police roadblock outside Atwood, 29 miles north of Colby.

Kansas Highway Patrol Trooper Mark Conboy followed the truck south. Two Colby Police Department cars followed Conboy.

It was dusk, about 5 p.m., when the pickup left the road 17 miles north of Colby and careened into an abandoned farm yard covered with new-fallen snow.

End of the line

The truck stopped near a metal farm shed. Walter got out and ran to the front. Conboy stopped his patrol car at the end of a driveway.

Walter fired at Conboy, who had one foot out the door when the bullet slammed into his windshield. Colby Police Officer Mark Eibert parked next to Conboy. Walter fired shots that hit both cars.

Conboy and Eibert took cover and returned fire., with Conboy shooting 12 times in about a minute.

Walter, Remeta and Dunn stayed behind the pickup on its passenger's side as Hunter ran away, to some trees near the shed.

Sgt. Dennis Brown and Reserve Officer Kenneth Dible had been following in the other Colby police car. They stopped at a place where they could clearly see Walter.

As Walter fired at Eibert and Conboy, Dible drew a bead on Walter with his assault rifle.

Walter turned and pointed his gun at Dible and Brown.

Dible shot Walter in the forehead.

Before long, Remeta had been wounded in the buttocks and Dunn had been struck in an arm by a shotgun blast.

Dunn knelt in the snow holding her wounded arm as the lawmen approached the truck, finding Walter and Remeta lying face down in the snow.

Dunn screamed to the lawmen that they had killed an innocent man. She called out "I love you" to Remeta, who responded "I love you, too."

Hunter, who was still armed, was captured. He told officers he was innocent, "just a hitchhiker."

'Liked to kill'

The six-day shooting spree had left six people dead and five wounded.

Hunter, Dunn and Remeta were booked into the Thomas County Jail at Colby, a community of about 5,500. Anonymous phone calls from people threatening vigilante justice caused Sheriff Tom Jones to move them to another, undisclosed location.

Hunter, Dunn and Remeta asked that their trials be held elsewhere because of pretrial publicity and the prevailing mood of the county. Area residents felt anger, grief, fear and shock. Jones noted it had been at least 30 years since anyone was tried for murder in Thomas County.

But Remeta never would go to trial. In May 1985, he pleaded guilty to three murders, two kidnappings and two other shootings. In exchange for his guilty plea in the Albright slaying, Remeta got a promise that Dunn wouldn't be charged in that case. In July 1985, Remeta was sentenced to five life prison terms.

Remeta said in jailhouse interviews that he wanted to get the Kansas cases taken care of so he could be extradited to Florida and executed.

"I want them to pull the switch," he said. "I'm not afraid. Death is only as ugly as you make it."

Remeta said in interviews that "Dungeons and Dragons," a fantasy board game he enjoyed, had a lot to do with the slayings.

When reporters asked why he went on the crime spree, Remeta suggested that he had a bad attitude and a lot of hostility. He just didn't care, he said, and perhaps he "just liked to kill people."

Trial by jury

In May 1985, a judge denied a request from Hunter and Dunn that their trial be moved. They went on trial the following month on seven felony charges each.

Prosecution witnesses testified about the roles they'd seen Hunter and Dunn play during the crime spree.

Hunter and Dunn insisted Remeta committed the crimes and forced them to tag along, leaving them unable to get away without being shot.

Dunn said Remeta initially treated her well but began abusing her after Dunn, Remeta and Walter left Michigan for Florida.

She contended Remeta raped and sodomized her, punched her, burned her with cigarettes, placed a loaded gun in her mouth and threatened to kill her and members of her family if she tried to leave. Remeta had complained that people always left him.

Dunn insisted she told Remeta she loved him after their capture because she continued to be afraid of him, and thought he would still have access to her.

Hunter, who had cut his long hair and shaved off his beard, testified Remeta had refused to let him out of the car. He said Remeta had bragged about having killed 12 people, including a hitchhiker, and made it clear he didn't leave witnesses.

Hunter, Dunn and Remeta agreed Hunter had tried to shoot Remeta and accidentally wounded Dunn after Remeta shot Albright. Remeta said he took the gun from Hunter then, but gave it back at the scene of the shoot-out.

"I thought he would cover me while I was reloading, but he didn't," and instead ran from the pickup, Remeta said.

Remeta testified he planned to kill Walter and Hunter in Colorado, but hadn't decided what he would do with Dunn. He said he used threats against Dunn and her family to ensure she had "no choice" as to whether to leave him.

Still, after nearly 12 1/2 hours of deliberation, jurors found Hunter and Dunn guilty on all counts. Both were given four life prison terms.

Meanwhile, Remeta had been extradited to Florida. He was convicted of Reeder's murder and sentenced to death in June 1986. Kansas Gov. John Carlin, who opposed the death penalty, asked Florida to return Remeta to serve his life sentences in Kansas. Florida refused, and Carlin chose not to press the issue.

Remeta was later extradited to Arkansas, convicted of Linda Marvin's murder, sentenced to death, then returned to Florida.

Successful appeals

Back in Kansas, attorneys for Hunter and Dunn would win them new trials.

In July 1987, the Kansas Supreme Court unanimously threw out the verdict against Hunter, saying the trial judge was wrong when he refused to allow jury members to consider whether Hunter was acting under "compulsion."

Compulsion is a principle of common law that says people are not responsible for crimes -- short of murder or voluntary manslaughter -- when someone compels them to commit them under threat of death or great bodily harm.

Hunter was tried again in January 1988 at Hays. A jury acquitted him on all seven charges.

Hunter credited his acquittal in large part to being tried in a neutral county. He said winning the case made him very happy and was "kind of like being born again."

Four days later, Hunter, 36, died of an apparent heart attack. Hunter's father said he felt the stress of the case was largely responsible for his son's death.

In 1992, a federal court of appeals ordered Dunn receive a new trial because her defense team didn't receive money to hire expert witnesses to develop a defense based on the battered woman syndrome.

Dunn's new trial took place in Topeka. She contended Remeta psychologically and physically abused her so badly that she was incapable of escaping from him or preventing his crimes. In September 1992, a jury found her "not guilty" on all seven counts.

Still, Dunn faced an Arkansas capital murder charge in Marvin's slaying. In December 1993, that charge was dropped when she pleaded guilty to one count of hindering apprehension or prosecution. Dunn was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but received credit for eight years served in Kansas. The rest of the sentence was suspended, with a warning that she could be returned to serve the remaining years if convicted of another felony.

No other states filed charges against her.

Dunn returned home to Traverse City, Mich., worked at a center for abused women, and got a job as an office manager and bookkeeper for a local therapist.

But gambling and alcohol problems left her in debt. Between February 1996 and January 1997 she stole more than $8,000 from her employer. Dunn and her boyfriend fled to Florida. Within a few weeks, she returned to face prosecution, saying they had married and she was pregnant.

In 1998, Dunn, by then the mother of an infant daughter, pleaded guilty to felony embezzlement. A judge sentenced her to one year in jail and placed her on probation for five years, noting she had already paid back all the stolen money. The state of Arkansas did not ask for her return.

Date with Sparky

Before being sentenced to death in 1986, Remeta said he welcomed execution. But he changed his mind afterward and fought for his life, urging his attorneys to pursue appeals and stays of execution. In 1992, he married a Jacksonville, Fla., woman.

Remeta got good news when Florida executions were put on hold in March 1997 after flames shot from the head of a condemned man in the state's electric chair, nicknamed "Old Sparky."

But the state Supreme Court ruled that fall that the 75-year-old chair didn't amount to cruel or unusual punishment. Executions resumed in March 1998.

Remeta died in that chair on March 31, 1998. He was 40. Remeta was calm and expressionless as he was strapped in and a hood placed over his head. The power was turned on at 7:07 a.m., and Remeta was pronounced dead five minutes later.

His spiritual adviser read a statement afterward from Remeta that encouraged the public to tell his story so young people wouldn't waste their lives like he did.

"I would give a thousand lifetimes to undo past deeds," it said. "If this death brings comfort to the friends and families of those harmed and initiates real healing, justice is truly served."

In Colby, Police Chief Randall Jones was unimpressed.

"I could care less what Daniel Remeta says 13 years later," Jones said. "What lasts with me was how he was the day he took lives here in Kansas."

 
 

Daniel Remeta: On the Road to Destruction

By Mark Gribben - TrueTV.com


America's Sewer Pipe

For the communities along Interstate 70 — a 2,100-mile artery of asphalt and concrete moving the lifeblood of American commerce from Maryland to Utah -- the highway is many times more trouble than it's worth. Although the road provides a direct link between some of the American heartland's major cities -— Baltimore, Wheeling, Columbus, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Topeka, and Denver, as well as countless small, anonymous communities — the economic benefits of being located along a major thoroughfare are offset by the predators who also use I-70 for their own sinister purposes.

One of the worst of these predators, Douglas Belt, was a truck driver known as the "I-70 Rapist." He began attacking women in 1989 in the Kansas communities that dot the interstate, stopping in 1996 when he was arrested for burglary. He racked up a series of convictions for other violent crimes, but was paroled in 2001 and continued his violent ways. In 2002, Belt raped and decapitated a 43-year-old Wichita woman. For his crimes, Belt received the death penalty.

Before Belt, there was the "I-70 Killer," a maniac who police say targeted women working alone in stores located near the highway. That killer is thought to have slain seven women between 1992 and 1994. An eighth murder victim, a Terre Haute, Ind., man who wore a ponytail and an earring, may have been mistaken for a woman. One woman survived the attempt on her life.

The same .22-caliber pistol was used in six of the nine shootings during the early-'90s spree. Police say this pistol was also the murder weapon in the deaths of five women in Missouri, Indiana and Kansas and the Terre Haute man.

Although authorities have identified a "person of interest" in those cases, the killings formally remain open and unsolved.

The communities touched by the havoc wreaked by desperate criminals on the run or sociopaths out hunting for human prey have their own name for I-70. They call it America's Sewer Pipe. After Daniel Remeta killed his way through rural Kansas in 1985, a gas station owner at the intersection of Kansas 25 and I-70 summed up the feelings of the people who lived near the highway for reporters: "You just don't know what's coming down the sewer pipe next."

Remeta and his companions — some call them hostages, while others say they were accomplices — cut a swath of carnage across the south and then descended on the 400-person hamlet of Grainfield, Kansas, like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, leaving death, pain and misery in their wake.


Daniel and Lisa

Daniel Eugene Remeta and Lisa Dunn met at a party in Traverse City, Michigan in December 1984. They moved in together shortly after their fateful meeting, although at first glance, they were an unlikely pair. Remeta was the product of alcoholic parents and had been maltreated much of his life, while Dunn was — until shortly before they met — a well-cared-for child of an apparently loving middle-class home who excelled in classes and seemed to be on her way to graduating high school, attending college and building a successful life for herself.

Remeta was first adjudicated as a delinquent when he was 13 years old, although there had been numerous run-ins with the law and authority figures before his first appearance in a courtroom. He was of below-average intelligence, had a violent temper and reportedly had only two goals in life: to kill a cop and to become a hit man. Whether it was heredity, environment or dumb luck, Danny Remeta was just plain bad. His first adult conviction came for felony breaking and entering, earning him a 4-year stretch in a Michigan prison. Slightly built, he was, pound for pound, a tough character who managed to earn enough tickets in prison to spend a majority of his first sentence in the hole at Marquette, Michigan's maximum-security facility.

Even before she met Danny Remeta, Lisa Dunn was uncomfortable with the role life assigned her as a college-bound honor student. Her grades slipped, she experimented with drugs and alcohol, and she ran away from home to Florida. Dunn managed to hold it together long enough to graduate from high school and was taking some college courses when she and Remeta hooked up.

He was 27 and she was 18.

Remeta quickly established control over Dunn. In prison, Remeta managed to become a leader of several prisoner protests, which attests to his apparently magnetic personality. In a profile of Remeta, the Detroit News likened him to Charles Manson, crediting him with the "ability to control vulnerable people."

"After he gets them in trouble, then he blackmails them to get them in further," the News quoted one of Remeta's former acquaintances.

Another of the "vulnerable people" who fell under Remeta's control in the cold winter of 1984-1985 was Mark Anthony Walter, the 18-year-old son of a northern Michigan farmer who had recently moved out on his own. Walter, a former altar boy, was well-liked by those who knew him and had never been in any serious trouble. He was a hard-working young man with a full-time job, and a friend of Lisa Dunn's from school.

When the three of them set out in late January 1984 for a Florida vacation, it is unlikely that even in their darkest nightmares did Dunn or Walter envision how the trip would end.


Odyssey of Mayhem

There are conflicting stories about how the .357 handgun belonging to Lisa Dunn's father ended up in Danny Remeta's possession. One account states that Dunn, who had been sexually assaulted when she ran away to Florida as a 17-year-old, took the gun for protection. Another version has Remeta convincing Dunn to steal the weapon.  Regardless, the trio probably wasn't long on the road when Mark Walter and Lisa Dunn realized that Remeta wasn't simply planning a casual trip to Walt Disney World.

Remeta quickly put the gun to use in a convenience-store holdup in Copemish, Michigan. They had pooled some of their resources to bail Remeta out of jail, where he had been taken after smashing a car window in a drunken rage. Somewhere along I-75, Dunn and Walter learned the true extent of Remeta's psychopathy. Around the same time, Remeta began physically and sexually assaulting Dunn. She would later testify about how he forced them to play Russian roulette with the pistol and how he picked out her clothes and pawned her belongings for money. When Dunn told him she wanted to return to Michigan, Remeta threatened her life and the lives of her family.

Dunn would later testify that Remeta, who never left her alone with Walter, told her that if she tried to leave him in a public place, he would "kill everyone around them." Walter and Dunn, fearing for their lives, agreed that one of them would remain awake at all times. Inexplicably, during the time she spent on the road with Remeta, Dunn sent letters and postcards home telling everyone how much fun she was having.

On February 8, 1985, Remeta, armed with the stolen .357 Magnum, robbed a Tenneco gas station in Ocala. After the clerk handed over the $52 in the register, Remeta opened fire, shooting Merhle "Chet" Reeder twice in the head and twice in the stomach. Reeder,  a 60-year-old loner with no known family or close friends, died instantly.


Date with Death

From Ocala, the trio headed west, surfacing again in Waskom, Texas, an oil town of less than 2,000 people on Interstate 20 just across the state line from Louisiana. Two days after Chet Reeder was slain, Remeta, Walter and Dunn entered a Waskom gas station,   where 18-year-old Camilla Carroll was finishing up her Sunday evening shift. When he finished emptying the store's cash register, Remeta ordered Carroll outside and took her, Dunn and Walter into a wooded area about 300 yards from the gas station. Remeta then ordered the terrified teenager to walk away from the group. Taking aim with the pistol, Remeta yelled for Carroll to begin running, which she did. As the girl ran, he opened fire, striking her once in each leg.

Carroll crashed to the ground, her legs collapsing from the force of the slugs. Remeta walked up to her as she lay writhing on the ground and proceeded to empty the remaining shots into her stomach. Leaving Carroll to die in the woods, Remeta, Walter and Dunn got back into their car and drove away with approximately $400.

The group hadn't counted on Carroll's determination to live. With five slugs in her body, she managed to crawl a quarter-mile down the road and stop a passing car. She was taken to a hospital in Shreveport, while the desperate trio headed north to Arkansas and another date with murder.

Just south of I-40 in northwest Arkansas is the small town of Mulberry, which, in 1985 was a quiet community of around 1,500 people.  Remeta, Walter and Dunn chauffeured Death into town at about 8 p.m. on February 11, while 42-year-old Linda Marvin was working at Bob's Grocery on U.S. 64.

Bob's Grocery was near an off-ramp for I-40, and several witnesses saw two men exit a car that was later identified as belonging to Mark Walter. The two men entered the store. Inside, the gunman bought some items, and when Linda opened the register to give him change, he opened fire and shot her ten times with a .22-caliber pistol. She was dead at the scene. Remeta would later testify that he purchased the second firearm and enlisted the help of a "wino" to buy the bullets. The killer and his accomplice cleaned out the register and fled the store, leaving behind the change Linda had placed on the counter. The haul was about $500.

Although they didn't know it, as Remeta, Dunn and Walter drove northwest away from Crawford County, Arkansas, fate was directing their course. The group had already left a trail of death during their odyssey of mayhem through the south, but what was behind them would pale in comparison to what lay ahead in Kansas.


The Hitchhiker

The day before Valentine's Day 1985, the killers crossed into Kansas, apparently on their way to Colorado, where Remeta had relatives. On I-135 north of Wichita, the group picked up a hitchhiker, James C. Hunter Jr., a Missouri roofer who was looking for a ride back to his home in Amoret, Missouri, after a trip to Texas. Walter was driving at the time, Dunn was seated in the middle of the front seat and Remeta was seated next to her.

With Hunter in the backseat, the group continued north. Somewhere along the 250-mile trip from Wichita to the tiny off-ramp community of Grainfield in central Kansas, Remeta showed Hunter the pair of handguns he was carrying. Testimony later revealed that the .22 had apparently jammed and was inoperable, and Remeta gave it to the hitchhiker to repair — which Hunter did. James Hunter told authorities later that he  asked to be dropped off at the Intersection of I-135 and I-70, which was consistent with his claim that he was attempting to hitch home to Missouri.

Instead, Remeta refused to let him leave and began talking about a previous hitchhiker the group had picked up and how much he regretted not taking advantage of the opportunity to kill that rider. As if to punctuate his statement, Remeta fired three rounds from the .22 pistol out the window as Walter drove through the Kansas fields.

To further intimidate Hunter, as they pulled into Salina, Remeta pulled some .357 shells from his pocket and asked Hunter if he thought the shells would be powerful enough to kill him if he shot Hunter with the Magnum.

Shortly after 2 p.m., the group pulled off I-70 at the Grainfield exit and drove into the gravel parking lot of the Stuckey's Restaurant. A popular spot for students on their way home from the nearby high school, the restaurant was empty except for manager Larry McFarland.

Remeta and at least one other person entered Stuckey's, and when McFarland handed over the $170 in the till, Remeta shot him to death.

The killers fled the scene, but not before someone noticed the red-and-blue car with Michigan plates leaving the restaurant. That witness, a high-school student stopping off for a snack before heading home, discovered McFarland's body and called police.


Place of Reckoning

A Kansas Highway Patrol officer reported that a blue-and-red car was heading west on I-70, and Thomas County Undersheriff Ben Albright heard the call. A typical rural Kansas community, Thomas County was, at the time, home to around 8,600 people, most of whom lived near the county seat, Colby. It is fertile, flat prairie country, and generally doesn't receive a second glance from the people who zoom by on I-70.  If they notice Thomas County at all, it's because at the county line where Thomas and Sherman counties meet, they have to adjust their clocks between Central and Mountain Time.

For Daniel Remeta, Lisa Dunn, Mark Walter, and James Hunter, Thomas County would be their place of reckoning.  In a little under an hour, the group would do more to change Thomas County than anyone had ever done in the county's 100-year history. Their cold-blooded acts of violence would drive home, once and for all, the notion of I-70 as a sewer pipe, an unwelcome intrusion into the peaceful way of life in Colby and the other communities of Thomas County. In a matter of minutes, they would change how people there felt about outsiders and tempt Good Samaritans to become vigilantes. Fate had decided the time had come for Danny Remeta to show the people of Thomas County just how malevolent a man can be.


Bloody Kansas

Albright spotted a red-and-blue car matching the description the highway patrol had broadcast near the Levant, Kansas, interchange, which is about 45 miles from the Colorado line. He stopped the vehicle, but before he could take any action, Remeta jumped out of the passenger's side of the car and fired the .357 through the deputy's car. Remeta pulled off four shots, hitting Albright twice: once in the right arm and in the chest. As Albright slumped to the side, lying on the front seat of the cruiser, he recalled later that he expected to die.

"I just closed my eyes and waited for another shot," he told the Topeka Capital-Journal several years later.

Instead, Remeta, thinking  the shots had done the job, got back into the car and sped off.

Before he lost consciousness, Albright watched the car leave I-70 for U.S. 24. He radioed for help and told the dispatcher what had happened.

Albright didn't know everything that occurred, and in his semi-conscious state, the officer, who would later testify that he was shot by Hunter, possibly saw Hunter raise the .22 pistol and fire — except that by all accounts, Hunter was trying to shoot Remeta. Believing that he had just one chance to escape, Hunter tried to shoot Remeta as he returned to the vehicle. Instead, the hitchhiker managed to shoot Dunn in the leg.

Remeta knew he had to ditch the car and find new transportation. About 10 minutes after he shot Albright, he directed Walter to drive to a grain elevator nearby.

There were three men working that day at the grain elevator. Maurice Christie was inside the shack that served as an office and 29-year-old Rick Schroeder, a friendly, well-respected father of two toddlers, and Glenn Moore, 55, were outside near Moore's pickup truck when the outlaws roared in.

The gang bailed out of Walter's car with guns drawn, forcing Schroeder and Moore into the bed of the truck. Remeta saw Maurice Christie watching through the window of the office, and when Hunter kicked in one of the office windows and Christie turned, Remeta shot him in the back and left him for dead.

Years later, Randy Jones, Chief of Police for Colby, reflected on why Remeta took the two men. At the time of the spree, Jones was a Colby patrolman.

"I'm sure things were happening very fast, and they took them not knowing how they were going to utilize them," Jones said.

With Walter again driving, the wounded Dunn and the panic-stricken Hunter in the cab, the gang fled the grain elevator and drove for several minutes before Remeta ordered Walter to stop.

Remeta then told Schroeder and Moore that he didn't want or need any hostages, and ordered them out of the truck. He told the men to lie down in the road and proceeded to shoot each of them in the back of the head.


Shoot Out

The law enforcement officers pursuing Remeta and his gang came upon Schroeder and Moore just moments after the killers left the scene. At first, they stopped some distance away from where the two men lay, wondering if it wasn't some kind of trap.

"I approached them really cautiously because at the time, from a distance, it just looked too perfect the way they were lying there," Jones said. "I was really concerned somebody was going to roll over and take a shot at me, until I got closer and could see the blood."

It soon became all too clear that the men were dead. Jones called for support and the hunt for the killers intensified. Across northern Kansas, every law enforcement agency within 50 miles of Grainfield was alert and looking for Remeta and his crew. Closer to the scene of the latest crimes, authorities set up roadblocks, intent on putting a stop to Remeta's brutal killing spree.

The killers approached one of the roadblocks, stopped, and turned around. Then what had been a dragnet around some of the most barbarous killers Kansas had seen in 100 years became a chase.

The chase ended at a farm about 17 miles north of Colby, in Rawlins County. The bandits stopped at the farm and jumped from the truck. Remeta and Walter were both armed and firing at police as they ran for cover, witnesses said. When Walter stood up and took a couple of shots at a state trooper, he was shot in the forehead by a reserve officer from Colby's police force.

With Walter dead and Dunn wounded, Danny Remeta had managed to take out almost everyone except himself. He continued to fire at police, stopping only when he was shot in the buttocks. Only James Hunter emerged unharmed.

Dunn, cradling her arm, nicked by a shotgun blast and wounded by Hunter's earlier shot, screamed at police that they had killed an innocent man, possibly referring to the notion that Walter had been an unwilling participant in the ordeal. Then, she turned to Remeta.

"I love you, Danny," she shouted as the pair were being restrained.

"I love you, too," Remeta called back.


In the Courts

The fallout from the multi-state killing spree was swift. Law enforcement agencies quickly linked Remeta, Dunn and Walter to the killings in Florida, Texas, and Arkansas. Prosecutors in the different jurisdictions conferred and came up with a procedure to try the killers in the various states. Danny Remeta had his own ideas. He wanted to die, and soon. That meant he had to get out of Kansas, which had no death penalty at the time.

The three surviving criminals were taken back to Colby after the shootout and Mark Walter's body was shipped home to his grief-stricken and baffled family in Michigan. The preliminary investigation yielded no answers for his family, and early indicators portrayed Walter as a willing participant in the spree. Remeta claimed Walter murdered Linda Marvin in Arkansas. At the time there was no evidence to dispute his statements.

The trio didn't stay in jail in Colby for long. The bloodbath to which they subjected the small community had sparked a backlash of anger that was unprecedented in recent memory, and for their safety, Sheriff Tom Jones moved Dunn, Hunter and Remeta several counties away to prevent vigilantes from subjecting them to their own brand of justice.

In May 1985, Remeta opted to put Kansas behind him and pleaded guilty to the three murders committed in that state. He subsequently waived extradition to Florida, which wanted a shot at him for the slaying of Chet Reeder.

"I want them to pull the switch," the killer said at the time.

Many connected to the mayhem concurred with Remeta's idea.

"They had a total disregard for life," said Colby Police Chief Mark Spray.   "Money can't be neglected as some of the motive, but the shootings and killings — why, that's a totally different motive when you get to abduction and killing."

Prosecutors in Kansas turned their attention to convicting Lisa Dunn and James Hunter. Dunn's family secured defense counsel for her, but with their limited resources, there was little they could do. The same month the judge accepted Remeta's guilty pleas, he rejected motions from Dunn and Hunter to have their trials moved out of the small community surrounding Levant. The judge also refused to provide funds Dunn sought for a psychologist to examine her and testify as an expert witness about hostage  syndrome and the compulsion to commit crimes.  This type of defense was used by Patty Hearst to explain why she started out as a victim and ended up as a participant.  A month later, the pair went on trial for murder.

Both defendants presented significant evidence that they had been forced to participate in the spree by Daniel Remeta. Dunn described physical and verbal abuse, sexual assaults and threats that left her unable to make rational choices and spot opportunities to escape from his control.

During the trial, Remeta, who was serving four consecutive life sentences in Kansas and awaiting extradition to Arkansas, Texas and Florida, took full responsibility for the spree and said that Dunn and Walter and later Hunter — were tricked into participating. He said he had planned to kill everyone but Dunn, about whom he hadn't made up his mind. The entire trip, he implied, was a long, drawn-out suicide attempt.

The Kansas jury, however, didn't buy Remeta's story, Dunn's claims that she was a hostage, or Hunter's plea that he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. After 13 hours of deliberation, they returned guilty verdicts against the pair for the murders of Schroeder and Moore.

When the jury announced its verdicts, Dunn's head dropped to the table and she began to sob. Hunter, who spent a grand total of six hours in Daniel Remeta's company, from the time he was picked up as a hitchhiker until the time he was arrested, simply grimaced.


Compelled to Kill

Lisa Dunn and James Hunter were each sentenced to two life terms for the felony-murder convictions, two life terms for the aggravated kidnapping convictions, 15 years to life for aggravated battery of a law enforcement officer, 15 years to life for aggravated robbery, and 5 to 20 years for aggravated battery, and quickly disappeared into the Kansas correctional system. There was a brief scuffle between Kansas and Arkansas over Dunn's extradition, because Kansas's governor adamantly opposed the death penalty and wouldn't send her to face a capital murder charge, but most of the attention for the next several years was focused on the appeals she and Hunter launched shortly after their convictions.

Hunter argued that the trial court erred when it refused to give the jury specific instructions about how compulsion can mitigate a person's guilt.  Most laws that provide for a defense of compulsion stem from the age-old legal belief that a person, when faced with a choice between suffering death or serious bodily harm and committing some lesser crime, should not be punished for committing the lesser offense.

Under Kansas law, the coercion or duress "must be present, imminent, and impending, and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury if the act is not done.  The doctrine of coercion or duress cannot be invoked as an excuse by one who had a reasonable opportunity to avoid doing the act without undue exposure to death or serious bodily harm. In addition, the compulsion must be continuous and there must be no reasonable opportunity to escape the compulsion without committing the crime."

Additionally, the common law does not allow a compulsion defense when a person is accused of murder, because, in the words of one legal treatise, "When confronted by a choice between two evils of equal magnitude, the individual ought to sacrifice his own life rather than escape by the murder of an innocent."

Hunter, who was charged with a felony murder — that is, a killing that occurred during the course of the commission of a felony — argued that he was entitled to use a compulsion defense to excuse his conduct because he was forced to choose between his own death and the kidnappping — not the killing — of Moore and Schroeder. The judge in his trial disagreed, and did not include instructions to the jury about compulsion.

In July 1987, the Kansas Supreme Court handed down its decision on Hunter's appeal, overturning his convictions and ordering a new trial, at which time he would be allowed to offer the compulsion defense. The court reasoned that if compulsion is available as a defense to the underlying felony, it must also be available as a defense to the murder committed by someone else that accompanied the felony.

Kansas prosecutors quickly moved to retry James Hunter, but after the defense presented the evidence of Remeta's abuse and the judge delivered the required instructions about compulsion, the jurors returned a not-guilty verdict.

Hunter had little time to enjoy his newfound freedom, however. Four days after his acquittal, he suffered a fatal heart attack brought on, his father told the press, by the stress of the retrial.


"Poor Judgement"

Lisa Dunn's appeals to the Kansas judicial system were less successful, and her convictions withstood all of her challenges at the state level. To the appellate judges in Kansas, the fact that Dunn had ample opportunity during the spree to leave Remeta, and that his threats were not continuous, indicated that she was not — like Hunter — compelled to commit the crimes.

The court held Dunn's own words against her.

"He still did treat me nice at times, but he'd always make sure that threat was known to me, that he'd be nice — you know, he could be nice to me if I was behaving," she testified. "But if I didn't behave, you know, he wasn't going to be because, you know, like if I'd smart-mouth him real bad or something, I might get a slap or whatever he felt like at the time.  It depends on his mood.  He's real moody."

The high court also rejected Dunn's arguments that had she been able to bring in an expert to talk about the hostage syndrome, the outcome of the trial might have been different. Successfully presenting a hostage syndrome defense requires that the defendant demonstrate the necessary elements, including prolonged captivity, isolation of and a lack of privacy for  the captive, and, most importantly, a breakdown of the captive's personality and establishment of a new psyche in its place.

In a strongly worded rejection of Dunn's argument, the court held that "the facts do not support Dunn's claim that she was a captive. She was not kidnapped; she went with Remeta voluntarily after stealing a gun for him.  She was not guarded round-the-clock. In fact, there were many times when she was alone, or awake while Remeta was asleep. She was not isolated, but stayed with friends in Florida, went to Disney World, and stayed in a number of motels and hotels during the crime spree.  She was not subject to brainwashing.    It is apparent that Dunn's romantic attachment to Remeta was voluntary.  If she was a victim, she was a victim of her own poor judgment."

But in a stunning turn of events, in 1991, a federal district court judge overturned Dunn's conviction and ordered a new trial. Because she was charged with aiding and abetting Daniel Remeta, her mental state was a key component to her defense, the court ruled, and the trial court erred by not providing Dunn with an expert witness. The State of Kansas quickly appealed to the 10th  Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower federal court ruling. The 10th  Circuit's ruling on compulsion and the "battered-woman defense" significantly reshaped how courts look at battered women who commit crimes.

The Dunn decision "extends the use of the battered woman syndrome beyond situations in which a defendant uses testimony about the syndrome to justify her actions and relieve her of culpability," wrote Kimberly Kuhn in the Toledo Law Review.  "(Now a) defendant may use testimony on the battered woman syndrome to prove her innocence when charged with a specific intent crime."

In 1992, Lisa Dunn went on trial a second time. Like James Hunter, this time Dunn was able to present a formidable defense of compulsion, complete with expert testimony about why a battered woman with ample opportunity to flee a hostile environment "chooses" to stay with her batterer. Like Hunter, this time Lisa Dunn was acquitted of all charges.

"We're quite disappointed, and somewhat surprised about it," said Kansas Assistant Attorney General John Bork, who prosecuted Dunn the second time. "I never felt the defendant in this case was ever a victim."

Dunn remained behind bars, facing an Arkansas capital murder charge in Linda Marvin's killing. In December 1993, she pleaded guilty to one count of hindering apprehension or prosecution and was sentenced to 20 years in prison, receiving credit for the time she served in Kansas. By plea agreement, the rest of the sentence was suspended.

She returned home to Traverse City and took a job at a center for abused women. Dunn later got work in a psychologist's office. Still emotionally troubled, alcohol and gambling problems followed her.  In 1996, she stole more than $8,000 from her employer. In an eerie repeat of earlier events, Dunn and her boyfriend fled to Florida. This time she willingly returned to face prosecution, announcing that they had married and she was pregnant. In 1998, she pleaded guilty to felony embezzlement. Noting that she was undergoing treatment for her addictions and had paid back the money in full, the judge sentenced her to a year in jail and placed her on probation for five years.

The state of Arkansas did not ask for her return.


The execution of Daniel Remeta

During the time Lisa Dunn and James Hunter were appealing their convictions, Daniel Remeta was busy with trials of his own. In 1986, he was extradited from Kansas to Florida and tried for Chet Reeder's murder. He didn't put up much of a fight at the time and was quickly convicted and sentenced to die in "Old Sparky," Florida's balky electric chair.

The next year, Florida sent him to Arkansas, where he was tried and convicted of murder there, again receiving the death penalty.

Early on in his incarceration, Remeta made it clear that he didn't want to grow old in prison. In one letter, he wrote, "If I don't try for the death penalty I'll die in some prison, this is why I'm trying to get extradited."  In another letter, he stated, "I'm gonna try for the death penalty if I can."

Regardless of the inmate's wishes, the capital punishment process moves slowly. Even so-called "volunteers" who opt not to pursue every possible avenue of appeal do not go from trial to punishment quickly, and most states with death-penalty statutes have certain mandatory appellate reviews built into the system. More often than not, brash murderers like Daniel Remeta who actively seek execution begin to get cold feet as appellate deadlines pass and the inevitable long walk to the death chamber grows nearer. Although the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act has somewhat streamlined the appeals process and limited the number of times a case can be reviewed, there is little to stop a condemned convict with second thoughts from filing an 11th-hour appeal.

Such was the case for Daniel Remeta after Florida Governor Lawton Chiles set a March 31, 1998 execution date. Remeta probably had many reasons to fight his execution. He had met and married a sympathetic woman, rediscovered his Native American roots, and was a prolific poet, writing about the cruelty of imprisonment and the unfairness of the death penalty. The fact that the last man executed in Florida's electric chair the year before had flames shooting from his head probably motivated him as well.

As March 31 grew closer, Remeta and his attorneys pulled out all the stops. In a death row interview, he told a reporter he only pleaded guilty to the killings to save Dunn from execution. "I'm a thief and all that, but I'm not a killer," he said.

Because the Florida prosecutors used his pleas in Kansas and Arkansas as a basis to seek the death penalty there, he tried to recant his guilty pleas,  to no avail. In court papers, he claimed it was all Dunn's doing: "Dunn dominated and directed Mr. Remeta during the crime spree," the brief said.

On March 30, 1998, 40-year-old Daniel Remeta downed his last meal, which consisted of two 44-ounce Icees. He met with his family, attorneys, friends and his spiritual advisor and awaited the 7 a.m. execution.

He showed no emotion as officials strapped him into the chair and placed the headgear and electrodes on top of his head. Remeta declined to make a final statement, and then the hood was pulled down over his face. In an adjacent room, a black-hooded executioner received the go-ahead from the prison warden and pulled the switch that sent thousands of volts coursing through the killer's body.

His muscles tightened, straining against the straps that held him down. In just over 30 seconds, it was over. He was declared dead at 7:12 a.m.

Outside the prison in Raiford, Daniel Remeta's spiritual advisor shared his final statement with the crowd.

"For past actions and events there is genuine remorse and even greater sorrow that none of it can be undone," the man said, reading from a statement Remeta composed two hours before the execution. "I would give 1,000 lifetimes to undo past deeds . . . If this death brings comfort to the friends and family of those harmed and initiates a real healing process then justice is truly served for them."

Although the statement doesn't reflect it, Remeta reportedly admitted to almost all of the killings that occurred during the spree. He was unable to speak about one that occurred during a drug-and-alcohol-induced blackout.

In Kansas, not far from where trucks rush by on Interstate 70, reaction to his statement was, for the most part, unforgiving.

"I could care less what Daniel Remeta says 13 years later," said Colby Police Chief Randall Jones. "What lasts with me was how he was the day he took lives here in Kansas."

Rick Schroeder's father, John, summed up the paradoxical closure that survivors of crime victims feel when the ultimate punishment is carried out.

"It takes so long to get something over with," he told reporters. "It doesn't sound like he felt sorry for anyone. It sounded like he didn't have any remorse. But when you kill someone, it's not a happy day."

 
 

DANIEL EUGENE REMETA, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Statement of the Case and Facts

In its opinion affirming Remeta's conviction and sentence on direct appeal, this Court stated the facts as follows:

Remeta had been involved in a series of murders and robberies throughout three states during a two week period in early 1985. On February 8, 1985, the clerk of an Ocala, Florida, convenience store was murdered during a robbery. An autopsy of the victim revealed four gunshot wounds: one to the stomach, one to the upper chest, and two to the head, all made by a .357 Magnum gun. The appellant, Daniel Remeta, was later extradited to Florida in response to an indictment charging him with the murder.

Two days after the Ocala murder, on February 10, 1985, Remeta and one companion entered a convenience store in Waskom, Texas, where they robbed the cashier, Camillia Carroll, at gunpoint, abducted her to a location two to three hundred feet from the store and shot her five times with the .357 Magnum used in the Ocala shooting. Miraculously, Carroll lived and testified to the events of that day at Remeta's trial in Florida. At the time of the Florida trial, Remeta had not been convicted of the crimes against Carroll.

On February 13, 1985, the manager of a Stuckey's gas station located along Interstate Highway 70 in Kansas was shot and killed with the same .357 Magnum gun used in the Ocala murder. Shortly thereafter, a Kansas sheriff following Remeta's car on the highway noticed suspicious activity and signaled for him to pull over. When he approached, one of Remeta's companions exited the passenger side of the car and shot the sheriff twice.

Remeta and his companions fled the scene and went to a grain elevator, where they abducted two men and took their truck. Shortly thereafter, the men were made to lie face down in the roadway and each was shot in the back of the head and killed with the same .357 magnum gun. The truck was later chased into a farmyard by Kansas authorities and a shootout occurred, in which one of Remeta's companions was killed and the other injured. Remeta pled guilty to charges of homicide and aggravated robbery against the Stuckey's store clerk and received two consecutive life sentences. Remeta also pled guilty to the killings of the grain elevator employees and received two consecutive life sentences with no eligibility for parole for eighty-five years.

The Florida trial commenced in May, 1986. Defense counsel, after consulting with Remeta in a holding cell outside the courtroom, waived Remeta's presence during preliminary questioning of the jury venire. Before trial, the state filed a notice of intent to offer evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts pursuant to section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (1985). At trial, the state was allowed to introduce the testimony of Camillia Carroll over Remeta's objection.

Carroll testified that on February 10, 1985, after Remeta and his friend had robbed the convenience store where she was working, they kidnaped her and drove her to a location two to three hundred feet away and shot her five times. Remeta objected to the testimony on the basis that it was not relevant to any material fact in issue, that the evidence was relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity, that the evidence was not necessary to the state's case, and that the evidence was not sufficiently similar to modus operandi and identity. The state presented a stipulation of fact that one of the bullets recovered from Carroll's body was fired by the gun which had killed the Ocala convenience store clerk two days earlier and which was found three days later in close proximity to Remeta.

In its case-in-chief, the state also presented several statements made by Remeta which the trial court found to have been freely and voluntarily made. A Kansas Bureau of Investigation agent had interviewed Remeta at Remeta's request and related that Remeta admitted involvement in both of the convenience store clerks' shootings, but implicated his deceased companion as the triggerman in both incidents. Remeta was also interviewed at his request by a newspaper reporter. Remeta told the reporter that he and his friends had robbed the Ocala convenience store because they needed money, and that he was the only one who had planned the robbery.

Remeta also admitted sole possession of the .357 magnum revolver at the time of the Ocala murder. Remeta offered several alternative explanations for killing the victim, including that he "just liked to kill people" and that he "just didn't care." In a different interview with a television reporter, Remeta made a general comment on his intent to eliminate witnesses by stating, "[L]ike Florida, they ain't got no witnesses. Anytime I seen a witness, I took him out, or at least shot him."

In an interview with a member of the state attorney's office, Remeta first stated that he had committed the Ocala murder, but, at a later point, changed his story to implicate his companion as the triggerman. There was also presented videotaped portions of Remeta's testimony in other court proceedings, in which he stated he had possession of the gun used in the Ocala murder while in Kansas. Carroll had testified it was Remeta who had the gun at the Texas convenience store robbery.

Remeta, as part of his theory of defense, attempted to establish that it was his accomplice who had possession of the murder weapon and was the triggerman in the Ocala murder. Remeta was found guilty by the jury of first-degree murder for the Ocala robbery.

During the penalty phase of the trial, Remeta introduced testimony of his mother, an expert clinical psychologist, and several social workers who had known Remeta since his childhood.

The state presented evidence of appellant's prior convictions, including his pleas of guilty to the Kansas crimes of first-degree murder and aggravated robbery. It also presented portions of a videotaped interview which the appellant had with a reporter containing his admission of executing two hostages so that they would not cause trouble.

The jury recommended imposition of the death sentence and the trial judge imposed the death penalty, finding that the four statutory aggravating factors clearly outweighed the four mitigating factors.

Remeta v. State, 522 So.2d 825, 826-827 (Fla. 1988).

Remeta was extradited to Florida, where he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for the Ocala murder. On direct review, his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court. Remeta v. State, 522 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1988). The United States Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. Remeta v. Florida, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S. Ct. 182, 102 L. Ed. 2d 151 (1988). Remeta next filed both a motion for state post-conviction relief with the state circuit court pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and a state habeas petition with the Florida Supreme Court. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the Rule 3.850 motion.

The Florida Supreme Court consolidated the Rule 3.850 appeal and the habeas petition, affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for post-conviction relief, and denied the habeas petition. Remeta v. Dugger, 622 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1993). Remeta then petitioned the federal district court for the Middle District of Florida for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In 1994, the district court denied the petition after finding that Remeta was either procedurally barred or not entitled to relief on the claims raised therein. The district court also granted Remeta's motion for a certificate of probable cause to appeal.

Remeta v. Singletary, 85 F.3d 513, 515-516 (11th Cir. 1996). 

The federal appellate court upheld the district court's order denying Remeta any relief. Id. at 519. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review on March 24, 1997. Remeta v. Singletary, 117 S. Ct. 1320 (1997).

On February 18, 1998, Remeta's CCRC attorney filed a motion to withdraw from representation of the defendant. The Marion County Circuit Court denied that motion and Remeta appealed. On March 6, 1998, this Honorable Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw. Remeta v. State, No. 92,411, slip op. at 2 (Fla. March 11, 1998). On March 18, 1998, Remeta filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Therein, he sought to challenge the seven (7) Thomas County, Kansas convictions and sought a stay of the Florida execution scheduled for March 31, 1998. The State of Florida, on behalf of Respondent Singletary, filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in regard to the requested stay of execution. A telephonic hearing was held on March 24, 1998. The following day, the federal district judge issued an order which purported to stay the Florida execution. On March 25, 1998, an Emergency Application was filed in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking vacation of the lower court's order. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Remeta to file a response to the Emergency Application by 1 o'clock on March 26, 1998, and he did so. Shortly, thereafter, the appellate court issued an order vacating the purported stay of the Florida execution.

On March 24, 1998, Remeta filed an Emergency Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing and Stay of Execution in the Marion County Circuit Court. The State of Florida filed a Response to that Motion on March 25, 1998. A Huff hearing was held that same afternoon, and an order from the Honorable Judge Carven D. Angel was entered on March 27, 1998, denying Remeta's requested relief. Notice of Appeal was given, and this appeal follows.

 
 

85 F.3d 513

Daniel Eugene REMETA, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Harry K. SINGLETARY, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 94-3058.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

May 31, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

BIRCH, Circuit Judge:

Daniel Eugene Remeta appeals the district court's order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Remeta raises numerous issues on appeal with respect to both his conviction and sentence. We conclude that Remeta's claim regarding the state's alleged violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("IAD"), Fla.Stat. § 941.45, is an issue of first impression in this circuit and therefore warrants discussion. We find all remaining claims to be without merit and affirm the district court's denial of his habeas petition for the reasons set forth in its opinion.1

I. BACKGROUND

The facts relevant to this appeal are summarized briefly:

Remeta committed a series of murders, attempted murders, and robberies in three different states during a two-week crime spree in 1985.

On February 8, Remeta murdered Mehrle W. Reeder while robbing a gas station in Ocala, Florida. Two days after the Florida murder, Remeta and a companion shot Camillia Carroll, a cashier at a convenience store in Texas, after robbing her at gunpoint; Carroll survived the incident and testified against Remeta at his Florida trial.

On February 13, Remeta shot and killed the manager of a highway gas station in Kansas. Shortly thereafter, the car in which Remeta and several other individuals were driving was pulled over by a Kansas sheriff; one of the passengers in the car shot the sheriff twice. Remeta and his companions subsequently fled to a grain elevator, where they abducted two men after stealing their truck, made them lie face down in the road, and killed them with gunshots to the back of the head.

Remeta pleaded guilty to each of the three Kansas homicides, receiving two consecutive life sentences for killing the gas station manager and two consecutive life sentences for killing the grain elevator employees.

Remeta was extradited to Florida, where he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for the Ocala murder. On direct review, his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court. Remeta v. State, 522 So.2d 825 (Fla.1988). The United States Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. Remeta v. Florida, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 182, 102 L.Ed.2d 151 (1988).

Remeta next filed both a motion for state post-conviction relief with the state circuit court pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and a state habeas petition with the Florida Supreme Court. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the Rule 3.850 motion. The Florida Supreme Court consolidated the Rule 3.850 appeal and the habeas petition, affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for post-conviction relief, and denied the habeas petition. Remeta v. Dugger, 622 So.2d 452 (Fla.1993).

Remeta then petitioned the federal district court for the Middle District of Florida for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In 1994, the district court denied the petition after finding that Remeta was either procedurally barred or not entitled to relief on the claims raised therein. The district court also granted Remeta's motion for a certificate of probable cause to appeal. This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

In reviewing a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, we presume that the factual findings made by a state court of competent jurisdiction following a hearing on the merits are correct if evidenced by reliable and adequate indicia.2 Hamilton v. Ford, 969 F.2d 1006, 1010 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1000, 113 S.Ct. 1625, 123 L.Ed.2d 183 (1993). We review factual conclusions made by the district court under a clearly erroneous standard. Id. We review mixed questions of law and fact de novo. Id. at 1034.

A. Procedural Default

We note at the outset that the appellee raises the issue of procedural default, stating that Remeta failed to present his IAD claim either at trial or on direct appeal. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). In its ruling on Remeta's consolidated petition for state habeas relief and motion for Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief, the state court expressly found nine claims set forth by Remeta to be procedurally barred; the court went on to conclude that Remeta's IAD claim "[p]resent[ed] a novel argument regarding extradition; however, we find that claim to be without merit and to be inappropriately raised in a 3.850 motion." Remeta v. Dugger, 622 So.2d at 454.

As noted, Remeta raised the challenge to his conviction based on Florida's alleged violation of the IAD in both his state habeas petition and his Rule 3.850 motion; these separate challenges were consolidated for purposes of appellate review by the Florida Supreme Court. While we acknowledge that the state supreme court's ruling in this case is not a model of clarity, we disagree with the state's contention that the court found Remeta's claim to be procedurally defaulted or, in the alternative, lacking in merit.

Rather, we resolve that the state court's decision constituted a ruling on the merits with respect to Remeta's state habeas petition and a finding of possible procedural default with respect to his motion for post-conviction relief. Because the Sykes procedural default rule does not preclude federal habeas review of a petitioner's constitutional claim if the state court adjudicates the federal claim on the merits, Hardin v. Black, 845 F.2d 953, 958 (11th Cir.1988), we therefore proceed to address the underlying merits of Remeta's challenge.

B. IAD Claim

While imprisoned in Kansas State Penitentiary in 1985, Remeta signed a document entitled "Request for Disposition of Indictments[,] Informations or Complaints," in which he stated:

I hereby agree that this request will operate as a request for final disposition of all untried indictments, informations or complaints on the basis of which detainers or other criminal charges have been lodged against me from your state. I also agree that this request shall be deemed to be my waiver of extradition with respect to any charge or proceeding contemplated hereby or included herein, and a waiver of extradition to your state to serve any sentence there imposed upon me, after completion of my term of imprisonment in this state. I also agree that this request shall constitute a consent by me to the production of my body in any court where my presence may be required in order to effectuate the purpose of the Agreement on Detainers and a further consent voluntarily to be returned to the institution in which I am now confined.

R41-4627. Florida Assistant State Attorney John Futch subsequently filed the following request for temporary custody of Remeta, pursuant to the terms of the IAD, with Herb Mashner, director of the Kansas penitentiary at which Remeta was incarcerated:

I hereby agree that immediately after trial is completed in this jurisdiction I will return the prisoner directly to you or allow any jurisdiction you have designated to take temporary custody.

R41-4639. On the same day this request was sent, Futch informed Mashner that he would be sending "under separate cover ... an Executive Agreement stating that if Remeta should receive the death penalty for the offense here in Florida that he will not be returned to Kansas."3 R41-4632.

The record reveals that in 1988, three years after Kansas relinquished temporary custody of Remeta to Florida, a Kansas Department of Corrections' ("DOC") official forwarded a letter to the Florida DOC asking that a detainer be lodged against Remeta in favor of the Kansas State Penitentiary. R41-4615. This letter explicitly reminded the Florida DOC that Kansas' release of Remeta "was under the term[s] of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. Under this Agreement, [Florida] is obligated to return Remeta upon completion of all litigation." Id. Remeta remains incarcerated, and on death row, in Florida.

In this habeas corpus proceeding, Remeta contends that (1) his waiver of extradition was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and (2) Florida's failure to abide by the terms of the IAD--by trying him without a valid extradition waiver and by failing to return him to Kansas--either effectively divested Florida of jurisdiction to try him or rendered his conviction invalid. Remeta seeks to have his conviction set aside on this basis. Whether violation of the provisions of the IAD concerning extradition and return to a "sending state" following trial can constitute reversible error meriting habeas relief is an issue of first impression in this circuit.

The IAD is a compact entered into by forty-eight states and the United States for the purpose of disposing efficiently of outstanding criminal charges brought against prisoners incarcerated in other jurisdictions. Hunter v. Samples, 15 F.3d 1011, 1012 (11th Cir.1994). The central provisions of the IAD are Articles III and IV. Article III provides a procedure by which a prisoner against whom a detainer4 has been filed can demand a speedy disposition of the charges giving rise to the detainer. United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 1842, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978).

If the prisoner does make such a request, the jurisdiction that filed the detainer must bring him to trial within 180 days. Id., 436 U.S. at 351-53, 98 S.Ct. at 1843. The prisoner's request operates as a request for the final disposition of all untried charges underlying detainers filed against him by that state, and is deemed to be a waiver of extradition. Id. Under Article IV, a signatory jurisdiction that has filed a detainer may receive temporary custody of a prisoner incarcerated in another jurisdiction, and then prosecute that prisoner for outstanding charges. Hunter, 15 F.3d at 1012.

The district court found that Remeta actively sought the death penalty in Florida, and therefore not only knew the consequences of his waiver of extradition, but also possessed all the necessary information to object to extradition at the time Florida sought his presence for trial.

Remeta argues that the district court's findings in this regard are clearly erroneous and that the fact that Remeta requested his Kansas trial attorney as counsel in the Florida proceedings demonstrates that he did not understand the import of the extradition waiver. Remeta asks, at the minimum, that we remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on this question.

As an initial matter, although the district court provided no record citation to support its finding that Remeta was aware that he might receive the death penalty in Florida, our independent review of the record reveals that this determination was not clearly erroneous. The record contains letters from Remeta written while incarcerated in Kansas that sustain the district court's conclusion that Remeta understood the possible consequences of being extradited.

In one letter, Remeta wrote, "If I don't try for the death penalty I'll die in some prison, [t]his is why I'm trying to get extradited." R39-4357. In another letter, he stated, "I'm gonna try for the death penalty if I can." Id. at 4359. A psychiatrist who authored a clinical evaluation of Remeta for the Kansas DOC also remarked that Remeta "hopes that he can be transferred to one of the states where he is being sought and he can get the death penalty." R40-4594. We conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Remeta was informed of the possible consequences of being extradited and tried for murder in another state prior to signing an extradition waiver.

We need not decide, however, whether the district court properly concluded that Remeta's extradition waiver was knowing and intelligent. Even assuming that the waiver was not knowing and intelligent, the denial of Remeta's statutory right to a pre-extradition hearing would not entitle him to habeas relief. Remeta suggests that Florida's flagrant violation of the IAD effectively deprived that state of jurisdiction to try him for murder.

He fails, however, to point us to any decisional or statutory law establishing that the IAD has a jurisdictional element, nor does he provide any legal authority for the proposition that a due process violation of the sort claimed here renders a jury's verdict void on jurisdictional grounds.

The IAD does dictate that a state's failure to try a prisoner within the statutory time period, prior to being returned to the "sending" state, must result in dismissal of any untried portion of the outstanding indictment. See Fla.Stat. § 941.45(e). However, there is no provision in the IAD dictating that failure either to obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of extradition or to provide a prisoner with a pre-transfer hearing deprives the "receiving" state of jurisdiction. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has held:

[D]ue process of law is satisfied when one present in court is convicted of a crime after having been fairly apprised of the charges against him and after a fair trial in accordance with constitutional procedural safeguards. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape justice because he was brought to trial against his will.

Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522, 72 S.Ct. 509, 511, 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952); see also Shack v. Attorney General of State of Pa., 776 F.2d 1170, 1172 (3rd Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1030, 106 S.Ct. 1234, 89 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986) (where petitioner was not given pre-transfer hearing, court held that "the existence of a procedural defect in [petitioner's] extradition proceedings did not impair [the state's] power to try him and ... his confinement does not violate due process.")5

We conclude that Kansas's alleged failure to obtain from Remeta a knowing and voluntary waiver of extradition coupled with its concomitant denial of a pre-transfer hearing, even if assumed to be true, did not deprive Florida of jurisdiction to try him for murder.

As stated earlier, the record is ambiguous as to whether Florida entered into a separate agreement with Kansas stipulating that Remeta would not be returned if he received the death penalty and whether such an agreement released Florida of its obligations under the IAD. We also do not know whether Kansas is currently seeking Remeta's return to serve the remainder of his sentence. Even if we were to assume that Florida has failed to honor its statutory commitment to Kansas under the IAD, however, this appears to be a matter exclusively between Florida and Kansas. The resolution of an IAD dispute between these two states (if such a dispute exists) may necessitate that Kansas seek an injunction to force Florida to abide by its agreement, return Remeta, and allow him to serve out his Kansas sentence. This is not a matter for federal habeas corpus review.

More importantly, we previously have held that IAD violations are not cognizable in habeas proceedings absent a showing that the violation prejudiced the rights of the accused by affecting or impugning the integrity of the fact-finding process. Hunter, 15 F.3d at 1012; see also Seymore v. State of Ala., 846 F.2d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir.1988) (holding that "violations of the IAD are nonfundamental defects and--absent a showing of some sort of prejudice--are uncognizable in a federal habeas proceeding."), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018, 109 S.Ct. 816, 102 L.Ed.2d 806 (1989).

As discussed earlier, Remeta has neither alleged nor shown that the two IAD violations at issue in this appeal, viewed in tandem, have affected or undermined the integrity of the trial. Assuming that Remeta did not voluntarily waive extradition, the alleged failure of Kansas to provide Remeta with a pre-transfer hearing did not divest Florida of jurisdiction to try him for murder.

By the same token, Florida's failure to return Remeta to Kansas to serve the remainder of his Kansas sentence in accordance with the terms of the IAD is a matter between Kansas and Florida, and is not reviewable by this court in a habeas corpus proceeding. In the absence of any showing of prejudice to Remeta caused by these alleged violations of the IAD, we are compelled to affirm the district court's decision to deny habeas relief.

III. CONCLUSION

Remeta asks that we set aside his conviction due to Florida's alleged breach of its commitments under the IAD. Remeta urges us to strip the Florida court of jurisdiction to try him for murder based on that state's allegedly flagrant and egregious violations of the statute; yet, Remeta is unable to point to either statutory or decisional law supporting such a directive.

Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that Florida did fail to abide by its obligations under the IAD, there is no indication from either the records or briefs that the integrity of the trial itself was undermined. The district court's order denying habeas corpus relief is AFFIRMED.

*****

1

Shortly before the release of this opinion the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the "Act") was signed into law; the Act aims to expedite the process of federal collateral review. The Act specifically provides, in pertinent part:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim--

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

Title I, Sec. 104, § 3(d)(1), (2) (1996). Our review of this case indicates that the state adjudiction of Remeta's IAD claim resulted in a decision that was neither contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent nor based on unreasonable factual determinations. Therefore, under the express terms of the new law, Remeta would not be entitled to habeas relief. Because we deny the petition according to pre-existing standards, however, we decline to consider either the applicability of the Act to this case or whether the Act provides a basis for the denial of relief.

2

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) provides, however, that a petitioner can rebut this presumption by showing that

(1) the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the state court hearing;

(2) the factfinding procedure employed by the state court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing;

(3) the material facts were not adequately developed at the state court hearing;

(4) the state court lacked personal or subject-matter jurisdiction;

(5) the petitioner was indigent and the sate court failed to appoint counsel, in deprivation of his constitutional rights;

(6) the petitioner did not receive a full, fair and adequate state hearing;

(7) the petitioner was otherwise denied due process of law in the state court proceeding; or

(8) the state court factual determinations are not supported by the record.

3

This executive agreement was not contained in the record before the district court, nor is it contained in the record on appeal

4

A detainer is a request filed by a criminal justice agency with the institution in which a prisoner is incarcerated, asking the institution either to hold the prisoner for the agency or to notify the agency when release of the prisoner is imminent. Stewart v. Bailey, 7 F.3d 384, 389 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 719, 105 S.Ct. 3401, 3403, 87 L.Ed.2d 516 (1985))

5

It is interesting to note that in Shack, the Third Circuit observed that although "the right to pre-transfer hearing is an important one ... [the] denial of that right by a state official is a violation of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act." Id. at 1173. The court further remarked that congressional silence regarding the need for a pre-transfer hearing as a jurisdictional prerequisite to a trial in the receiving state may be "attributable to an unwillingness on [Congress's] part to flog one state for the failings of another." Id. Indeed, in this case it is Kansas that allegedly failed to provide Remeta with a pre-transfer hearing after obtaining from him an involuntary waiver; we are not persuaded that Kansas's alleged violation of the IAD should be found to have deprived Florida of jurisdiction to try Remeta

 

 

 
 
 
 
home last updates contact