Scott Hain

This case is one of those in which I fear I will have difficultly putting together because of my conflicting feelings. You have heard me say many times that I am not necessarily for, or against the death penalty and that I do find it appropriate when there is no question that the person convicted committed the crime. You have also heard me often say that for me guilt or innocence for me is less important in a trial than following the law. I am not saying that all of these things apply in this case but I do admit that I am conflicted on some things.

The crime that Scott Hain and his accomplice, Robert Lambert, were convicted of is especially gruesome. It involved the murders of two people, twenty-seven year old Michael Houghton and his twenty-two year old co-worker, Laura Lee Sanders. I am going to tell the story of what happened as relayed through court records and then I will go into a deeper discussion.

According to the courts on the night of October 6, 1987 Houghton and Sanders were at a local Tulsa Oklahoma bar for a get together with people they worked with at a local restaurant. Houghton and Sanders went out into the parking lot and were sitting in Sanders car talking. Hain and Lambert were also said to be in the parking lot as they were “waiting to rob a nearby house.” The two men saw Sanders' car and it was alleged that they decided to rob them instead. They went over to the car where they threatened Houghton at knife point.

Scott and Robert made their way into the car and drove a bit away to a rural area to which they robbed Houghton at gunpoint. When he resisted the two men forced him into the trunk of the car. It was said that a short time later, they also forced Sanders into the trunk. At some point, which the victims were in the trunk the two men drove back to the bar where it all started and now having Houghton keys, proceeded to take his truck. They then went back to a rural road where the men cleaned out Sanders' possessions out of her car and put them in Houghton's truck. Then one of the two men cut the gas line to Sanders' car, placed a blanket and a lit piece of newspaper under where it was dripping and set the car ablaze.

It was said that while the two men were doing all of this Houghton and Sanders were still alive, in the trunk and could be heard banging and yelling. The official cause of death for the victims came from the fire and smoke.

It was then said that the two men went to a friends house and left a bag with items belonging to the victims in the garage belonging to the friend. Then they went back to the crime scene allegedly to ensure that the fire was “going good,” then continued in Houghton's truck to Wichita Kansas where they spent the more than $500 they had stolen from Houghton before returning back to Tulsa. Most of my research says they returned to Tulsa on October 9^th and were arrested at that time. However, one article that I found stated that they were arrested at Scott's mothers home on October 12^th.

Both men were charged with two counts each of first degree murder, kidnapping, robbery with a firearm, larceny of an automobile and one count of 3^rd degree arson. It appears that Robert Lambert went to trial first where he was convicted on all counts and given the death penalty on the murder counts. I found nothing related to either his trial or Scott Hains' trial but I came to the conclusion that they were separate trials due to two facts. One is that Robert was apparently sentenced in April of 1988 while Scott was sentenced, after his trial in June of 1988. I can only assume that there were separate trials due to the fact that apparently each man was blaming the other. Scott Hain, like Robert, was also convicted on all counts and given the death penalty for the murder counts.

As is customary in a lot of cases, let alone death cases, both defendants appealed their cases. Both men ended up getting either some or all of their cases reversed. Although I was not able to determine the reason that was given, Robert had his entire cases overturned and was retried later. The result was the same as he was found guilty on all charges and given the death penalty once again. As far as Scott, much of his appeal centered on the fact that he was a minor, at 17, at the time of the crime, but that is not why part of his case was reversed. The court ruled that while after the crime, but before Scott's trial, the courts had ruled that the jury could, or should, be given instructions about a sentence of life without parole. Instead of reversing his entire case, as they had done in Robert's case, this time they only reversed the sentencing phase of his trial and ordered that he be re-sentenced. But, as was the case with Robert, Scott too was re-sentenced to death.

For years both Robert and Scott continued to appeal their cases. Much of Scott's appeals continued to center around his age at the time of the crime. This was something that at had begun to seemingly gain a little traction. In fact, at that time several states had already changed their laws that did not allow anyone who committed a crime under the age of eighteen to be executed. In the end all of Scott's appeals failed and on April 3, 2003 the state of Oklahoma would execute him.

At the time of Scott Hain's execution Robert Lambert was asking the United States Supreme Court to look at his case. While the issue of whether a person who was a minor at the time of their crime was still working the way through the courts, in 2002 they had ruled that no one who was considered to be “mentally retarded” could be executed. Robert was now asking the courts to consider him in this category. Eventually in 2005 the Supreme Court agreed with him. His death sentences were reduced to life without parole.

So now you know the story, and the outcomes of the case. As I said, this was a horribly gruesome case. Two people lost their lives for less than six hundred dollars, but the way they died is unimaginable. What their families had to endure between losing their loved one, knowing how they died and having to endure multiple trials and endless uncertainty is cruel in and of itself. With that being said, as I mentioned earlier, I am on the fence with this case.

You have already heard me mention several times that Scott Hain's defense attorneys often mentioned the issue of Scott being a juvenile at the time of the crime as it related to execution. You also already know that their efforts failed. What you do not know is that Scott Hain became the last inmate executed in the United States who had been a minor at the time of committing his crime. In March of 2005, less than two years after his executed the United States Supreme Court ruled that anyone who was a minor at the time of their crime was not eligible for the death penalty. This is the same Supreme Court that refused to intervene in his case. By the time the Supreme Court got on board with their ruling in Roper V. Simmons nineteen states and the federal government had already made this law. Five other states had a minimum age of seventeen while fourteen others said the minimum age was sixteen. At the time of the Roper V. Simmons verdict seventy-one juveniles sat on death row.

To add to this when there is a penalty phase in a trial prosecutors talk about “aggravating circumstances” while defense attorneys talk about “mitigating circumstances.” For example in this case aggravating circumstances would have been things such as the fact that a weapon (gun and a knife here), while not used to cause death had been used in the commission of the crime. The fact that there were multiple deaths would also fall into the aggravating circumstances category. On the other hand, mitigating circumstances are those things that in essence “made” the person who they were. In Scott Hain's case there was a lot of information, mostly provided by his sister, about his childhood. His defense attorney argued that, “It began when this young man was born into the most dysfunctional family on this earth.” Scott's sister would say that both of their parents were alcoholics who were rarely home. It appears that at some point at least Scott was removed from the home. According to his sister there was a period of time where he lived with a friend of the family and while there he was shown “love and attention” and did well in school. “But the state returned him to his parents and his behavior grew worse.” It was said that at the age of eleven his father introduced him to marijuana and by thirteen he was helping his father commit crimes that included robbery and fraud. Throughout his childhood Scott was in and out of reform schools, youth homes and spent time in criminal juvenile facilities. He had “escaped” although that was not the word they used from one of these facilities around July of 1987 and this is when he met the twenty-one year old Robert Lambert.

Apparently this was not the only crime committed by Scott and Robert as there was a reference that another woman had been assaulted by the men “in an earlier crime spree” and she was a witness at Scott's execution.

So, this is all just part of the reason why I am on the fence in this case. If Scott's execution would have taken place, decades or even a possibly a few years prior to 2003 this issue may not mean as much to me. However, laws do not just end up getting made on whims and quickly. There is a long process in which it takes often years and years for a motion to make it to the Supreme Court and then for them to rule. I got the distinct impression that Roper V. Simmons was not the first, or the only, argument against execution those who were minors at the time they committed a crime. And, considering that Scott became the last person executed that was a minor at the time leaves me with questions. Obviously someone has to be “the last” but for me the timing just does not feel right for me.

The other issue I have in this case may be my own hang up. Because the crime was so heinous and because of the issue of Scott's age at the time I was not able to find a lot of information about exactly what evidence was presented at the trials. I could not even determine how the bodies were found and how authorities were led to Robert and Scott. I did find references that apparently Robert confessed first. As is often the case Robert claimed that the entire crime was Scott's idea and his doing. Defendants place most, if not all, of the blame on their accomplices when they can. That being said, it is also almost never all of the truth. In response to Robert's confession Scott then told his side of the story in a confession. But, like Robert, Scott put all of the blame on Robert. Scott would claim that Robert “controlled” him. Each man blamed the other when it came to who started the fire that ultimately killed Michael Houghton and Laura Sanders. So, aside from a he said/he said story I am uncertain there was any other evidence.

Now, some would likely argue that no one confesses to a crime they did not commit but if you know anything about true crimes you know that is not true. This also brings us to the issue of the fact that it has been alleged that Robert was “officially” deemed to be “mentally retarded.” I suppose I did not word that very well. He was deemed to be “mentally retarded” and I put that in quotes because that is the term that is used by the courts whether we believe it to be “politically correct” or not. I used the word alleged because I did not find a court paper to say how the courts came to this conclusion and there have been questions posed as to whether this was true or an “act” put on by Robert. Regardless, for this this brings into question the confession. Either Robert truly is “mentally retarded” which means that he can be easily coerced into a confession or he has fabricated the mental issue which still opens up whether his confession could be trusted.

Many jurisdictions will not even allow charges to be filed against another person solely based on the allegations of a co-conspirator. I cannot say that this is true in Oklahoma or if it was true in 1988 when this crime was committed.

Without knowing more information I cannot say that I believe Scott and Robert to be innocent and I am in no way saying this. I have to believe that there was plenty of more evidence proving that these men were responsible than what I was able to find that allowed three full juries to convict these men. But, just because I “have” to believe this, does not mean that it is a fact. But, it leads back to was there enough evidence to give these men, especially a minor, the death penalty?

This is one of those cases in which I would love to hear some feedback from those who may have more information. What happened to Michael Houghton and Laura Sanders was unquestionably and undeniably horrible, horrendous, and every other adjective you can think. They absolutely deserve justice, but the word justice means something different to different people. Their families have repeatedly been interviewed throughout the years and while they have stated Scott's execution was not “joyful”... it was just. In the same respect they believe that justice was not served when it came to Robert when his sentence was changed to life in prison.

I think the reason I have had so many problems with this case is partly due to not having answers about evidence in the case. But, I admit I also have issues with the executing a minor thing as well. There have been a few cases that when I put them together I have struggled make sure I did not “victim blame” or not sound as such if I do feel the victim should be held accountable in some way. That was not the case here as obviously Michael Houghton and Laura Sanders did nothing to deserve what happened to them and yet I felt as if questioning the system and case itself in some way diminished what happened to them. That was never something I wanted to do which is why you hear me repeatedly speak of how gruesome, horrendous and unnecessary these murders were.