Daniel Ray Wilkes

 

This case has me a bit perplexed on some things. Everyone that has been or continues to be held on death row in Indiana can be found on a particular website. The site is full of information about a case, but more particularly about the person. If they have already been executed it will add things such as what they had for their last meal or their last statement. One of the more interesting things that it often shows is the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case. It was here that I found one of the confusing things. The second thing revolved around issues with the jury in the sentencing phase. I will get into these issues as I tell the story but I will let you know that while Daniel Ray Wilkes was sentenced to death in December of 2007, after several appeals upholding this sentence, in 2011 he was subsequently re-sentenced to life without parole.

Daniel Ray Wilkes met Donna Claspell when they were both residents at a rehabilitation center in Evansville Indiana. Wilkes also met a man named Michael Baker but it was not completely clear with Baker and Claspell also met and/or remained friends. It is unclear whether Donna and Daniel finished the program around the same time or whether Donna finished first. However, when Daniel was released he went to go live with Donna and her two daughters, thirteen year old Avery Pike and eight year old Sydne Claspell. It is not clear exactly when Daniel moved into the home.

Michael Baker would later tell authorities that Wilkes would tell him that soon after moving into Donna's home he had been awakened one night to find Avery “hunching on his leg” and this led to the two engaging in “mutual oral sex.” Wilkes himself would later admit to authorities that he had molested Avery at least three or four times.

According to his later confession, one that he repeated several times but later would try to say was admitted into his trial illegally, sometime in the early morning of April 24, 2006 Donna walked into the room and found Wilkes and Avery “together.” She proceeded to tell him that he needed to leave the home. Around 8:00 that morning Michael Baker picked up Daniel Wilkes from the home. Neighbors saw his vehicle and one reportedly heard him say “something like 'I've got to get out of here.'” Michael Baker would also tell authorities later that Wilkes spent the night at his home and he constantly looked out the window expressing concern that the police would be looking for him. There was indication that Baker did not know the reason why and yet on April 26^th the bodies of Donna and her two daughters were found in their home.

Donna and her eight year old daughter, Sydne were found in the master bedroom of the home. They had both been beaten with a hammer and a wooden level. Sydne had received at least twenty seven blows to her head, back and shoulders. Donna's throat had also been cut. The knife would be found under her body. Both had multiple skull fractures. Sydne had severely deep cuts from the hits she took and Donna's jawbone, cheekbone and even the socket around her eye had been broken. Donna's thirteen year old daughter, Avery Pike, was found in her room. She was found laying naked, face down on her bed with her hands tied behind her back and one leg tied to the foot board of the bed. A medical examiner would determine that she was strangled with her own sports bra.

Almost immediately Daniel Wilkes became a suspect. In fact, seeing as neighbors saw Michael Baker's vehicle at the scene, he too was initially considered to be a suspect. Both men were found and brought in for questioning. Investigators would later say that it was determined that Baker was not involved in the crime. Throughout his interrogations Daniel Wilkes would confess to molesting Avery as well as the murders, and as I stated, he would repeat these statements.

Daniel Ray Wilkes was charged with the three murders and the prosecutors sought the death penalty. Due to the publicity of the case the trial was moved from Vanderburgh County to Clark County, nearly two hours to the east, just across the river from Louisville Kentucky. In December of 2007, after less than two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on three counts of murder. The next job of the jury was to listen to arguments for and against the death penalty being imposed. After attempting to deliberate they were unable to come to a unanimous decision. This is where one of the things that I was confused about that I mentioned in the beginning. It appears that the jury were hung 11-1 in the penalty phase. I believe that I may have assumed that it was 11-1 FOR the death penalty considering the fact that the judge subsequently sentenced Wilkes to death. However, there were indications later that in fact that it was 11-1 for life without parole. This perplexed me a bit more that the judge gave the death sentence not only without a unanimous decision from the jury but also when it was highly leaning against the death penalty. I did learn that surprisingly at the time of the sentence Indiana did not have a law like many other states where the judge was not allowed to impose the death penalty without a unanimous decision. But, the fact that Wilkes was given the death penalty, which led his case being put on a website actually led me to more things that seemed confusing.

When a jury is to consider a sentence in the penalty phase they are told about aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances are things such as the heinousness of a crime, if it was in the commission of another crime, or if the defendant has a long criminal past. Mitigating circumstances are things like a lack of a criminal history, things that may have led to the crime, any medical diagnosis' and even childhood history. In this case there were two aggravating circumstances. The first was that there was three murders at the same time; the second is that one of the victims was under the age of twelve. But, it was the mitigating circumstances that confused me. There were some normal things like no criminal history, under the influence of drugs or alcohol and even “mixed personality.” It was the next two things listed as mitigating circumstances that threw me off. There was a notation “Victim was a participant in or consented” and “Defendant was only an accomplice and acted under the substantial domination of another person.” When it comes to the first thing I can only assume that Avery is being referred to and I take GREAT issue with this. First she was only thirteen years old so do say she “consented” is nothing short of BS to me... and yes, I know you do not hear that phrase from me very often. Secondly, in addition to that, the fact that this was in his “mitigating” circumstances indicates as if this was a reason or an excuse to murder this child. Then there was the second thing that referred to Wilkes being “only an accomplice.” No one else was ever arrested, charged or even as I found as being referred to as being involved. I do know, and I mentioned, that Michael Baker was questioned but it was said it was proven that he was not involved in any way.

I do want to point out that Wilkes' clothing and other items were ceased and tested. The fact that he lived in the home with the victims would mean that his DNA would obviously be in the home. However, Donna's DNA was found on both his shirt and his hat. In addition to that Synde's blood was found on his shirt and her DNA was found on one of his shoes.

After his conviction Wilkes made several appeals. Most often pointed out was the fact that the jury had hung on the issue of the death penalty but the judge still gave him a death sentence. There was also another point that he attempted to make in his appeals that I want to touch on. As I stated earlier, he made several initial confessions. There was apparently an audio of one and a video of another. Wilkes claimed that his confession was illegally entered into the court because he was under the influence of drugs when he made the confession. It was noted that throughout the interview Wilkes make this claim four or five times. And, while courts have ruled that confessions made under the influence of drugs or alcohol are questionable as far as being reliable the appeals court ruled that they are only not admissible if they are so intoxicated “that they are unaware of what they are saying.” They ruled that the fact that Wilkes repeatedly spoke of being under the influence indicated he knew exactly what he was doing.

Not all has been lost for Wilkes in his appeals however but again I am a bit confused. In 2011 a judge commuted Wilkes' death sentence to life without parole stating that a change in state law had taken away the latitude that judges' once had. I assumed that this law must have taken place after the trial and after at least a few of the appeals that had already made it to the court. However, doing a search about things made things more confusing. Initially I was surprised that the judge was allowed to give him a death sentence without a unanimous decision because I did not think that was allowed. A Google search indicated that Indiana is only one of a few states that does not require a unanimous decision for a judge to issue a sentence of death. But, then I found information that said that the latitude that was once given to judges in this area had all but been revoked in 2002, long before Daniel Wilkes went to trial.

With all of this being said, I must admit that I believe Daniel Wilkes did deserve the death penalty. My arguments here have been based on legal issues. I question the judge giving him the death penalty not only when the jury was hung on the issue, but also when it appears that the majority of the jurors voted for life without parole. I feel as if IF the judge was given the latitude to do this it went a little too far in my opinion. In our justice system whether we agree or disagree with a verdict we have to accept the answer from the jury. Whether I believe he deserved to receive the death penalty or not, a majority of the jurors did not believe this and that should be respected.