Jury begins deliberations in California death penalty case

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — Attorneys in the California death penalty case of a man convicted of killing a Sacramento County deputy tried to convince jurors of the sentence he should face Tuesday.

The jury began deliberating the sentence for 44-year-old Anton Lemon Paris, who faces death or life in prison with no chance of parole for the murder of Deputy Mark Stasyuk. Paris already has been convicted in Sacramento County Superior Court on charges of murder, attempted murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Because death is a possible verdict, a jury instead of a judge heard evidence over a two-week trial solely to determine Paris’ sentence.

Speaking first Tuesday, Deputy District Attorney Omar Singh tried to anticipate the defense’s arguments while making his own case for why jurors should vote for death.

Singh said they might have sympathy for Paris or consider the argument that a mental health issue played a role in his fatal shooting of Stasyuk on Sept. 17, 2018, at a Rancho Cordova Pep Boys. Jurors also might weigh testimony that he suffered trauma from his mother — trauma Singh disputed.

“Mr. Paris made a choice to murder,” the prosecutor said. “He was not destined for it.”

Singh said that jurors, instead of giving weight to mitigating factors that Paris’ upbringing or the possibility he was suffering a manic episode at the time, should examine the impact the death had on Stasyuk’s family and friends. Simultaneously, the prosecutor tried to steer them away from questions he said they shouldn’t ask.

Jurors should avoid considering what God would want or opt for making an easy decision, he added.

“You have to do what is right and what is just,” Singh said.

Stasyuk was recently married, the prosecutor said. He wanted to become a father. He likely wouldn’t have wanted Burger King fries to be his last meal, finishing them moments before he stepped inside the Pep Boys with his partner, Deputy Julie Robertson.

Robertson testified during the trial, telling jurors she retired from her career after the shooting because she feels disconnected from the world.

“Remember the ripple effect this has caused,” Singh said of the fatal shooting. “Your verdict is a message as to what we as a society will condone.”

Thomas Clinkenbeard, one of Paris’ public defenders, told jurors about his client’s abusive childhood. Despite that upbringing, Paris played in a band and attended church. He participated in pre-college studies. He was prepped for success.

But mental illness sidetracked that path, Clinkenbeard said. The jury heard about Paris' four hospitalizations between 2000 and his 2018 arrest. Paranoia affected Paris, leading him to carry a firearm after someone fired a gun at him about a decade before Stasyuk’s shooting, the defense attorney said.

“A belief that people were watching him and out to kill him,” Clinkenbeard said of his client. “A belief that police are going to kill him.”

After his arrest, Paris said he heard music in the Pep Boys. However, no music was playing, the public defender said.

Clinkenbeard focused much of his argument on his client’s mental illness. His other public defender, Norman Dawson, spoke a lot about Paris’ personal relationships.

Dawson listed the friends and family who testified for Paris. Many of them continue to support him, speaking with him in person or over Zoom while he awaited trial in jail.

“His family still cares,” Dawson added. “They’re here. He’s a part of their lives.”

The public defenders didn’t excuse Paris’ behavior. Instead, they pointed to a combination of factors that led to the fatal shooting. Intergenerational trauma, coupled with his untreated mental illness, contributed to Paris’ actions, they said. However, they added that his positive past and present relationships — and the present-day statements friends and family have made — should weigh on jurors’ minds as they deliberate his fate.

Additionally, jurors could consider their own levels of sympathy, mercy and compassion when deciding, the defense said.

“It is a subjective decision that each of you has to make,” Clinkenbeard said. “You never have to vote for death. Voting for life is always an option.”

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit