Scott Nordstrom has been eagerly waiting for his day in court.
However, that day will not come this month.
Nordstrom, 41, arrived in Pima County Superior Court last week
looking more like a lawyer than an 11-year resident of Arizona’s death
row. Nordstrom was one of two defendants convicted and sentenced to
death for the brutal 1996 slayings of six people at the Moon Smoke Shop
and Firefighters Union Hall. His case returned to Superior Court for
resentencing after a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling required juries,
not judges, to impose death sentences.
Long before the jury was seated, Nordstrom suspected he was going
back to death row.
“It’s a foregone conclusion,” he said Friday morning, Aug. 21,
during an interview at the Pima County Jail. (Resentencing proceedings
were still underway as of the Tucson Weekly‘s press
deadline.)
Since the day he was arrested, Nordstrom has proclaimed his
innocence. Back then, he said he trusted the system to do the right
thing and determine that his main accuser—his younger brother,
David—was the real killer. Now, Nordstrom said, he is convinced
that newly discovered evidence will prove his innocence.
“The way that I can really prove it to you is this right here,”
Nordstrom said, patting a stack of papers that’s the basis for his
upcoming appeal.
In exchange for testimony against his brother and co-defendant
Robert Jones, David Nordstrom claimed that he was the getaway driver in
the May 30, 1996, Moon Smoke Shop robbery in which Thomas Hardman and
Clarence O’Dell were slain, but that he wasn’t involved in the June 13,
1996, Firefighters Union Hall robbery in which Maribeth Munn, Carol
Lynn Noel, Arthur “Taco” Bell and Judy Bell were slain.
Nordstrom’s claims of innocence include allegations that his
brother’s so-called “air-tight” alibi was anything but; that David
Nordstrom was courted by prosecutors—including being let out of
jail for a steak dinner and a visit with his then-girlfriend; that
Scott Nordstrom’s alibis weren’t investigated adequately by his
attorneys; and that prosecutors knew David Nordstrom lied.
Prosecutors declined to be interviewed, but they, as well as Judge
Richard Nichols, have noted that Nordstrom’s convictions haven’t been
overturned, and the only matter before them right now is the
sentence.
“Once he was found guilty, the remaining question is the degree of
his participation, not whether he participated,” senior prosecutor Rick
Unklesbay has said.
Nordstrom’s current attorney, David Alan Darby, also declined to be
interviewed. But defense investigator Chuck Laroue, who was an ardent
death-penalty supporter when he worked in the Pima County Attorney’s
Office, said Scott Nordstrom is telling the truth.
“Every time I hear somebody say, ‘I’m innocent,’ I said, ‘Yeah,
right,'” Laroue said. “But as I started investigating this case, I very
quickly saw that there were serious problems with the way this case was
handled, from the police to the prosecutors. I am shocked and amazed to
know that my former colleagues were engaging in this disgusting
behavior, hiding critical evidence, basically cheating. Never in my
career have I been so firmly convinced that an innocent man is being
railroaded.”
When Nordstrom was convicted, Pima County had the highest per-capita
rate of sending defendants to death row in the nation. Prosecutors were
given carte blanche in capital cases.
“An unlimited budget—anything they wanted,” Laroue said.
Meanwhile, court-appointed defense attorneys were limited in what
they could spend. Nordstrom said he was often told that there were no
resources to investigate his innocence claims.
Pima County prosecutors also had, in the words of former Arizona
Supreme Court Chief Justice Stanley Feldman, a “win-at-all-costs”
attitude when it came to high-profile cases. In those days, many of the
county’s murder cases were prosecuted by Kenneth Peasley and David
White. Peasley was disbarred in 2004 after the Arizona Supreme Court
found that he solicited perjured testimony from a police officer in the
1992 El Grande Market triple slaying.
White, who died in 2003, was blamed posthumously for withholding
hundreds of pages of documents that could have helped the defense for a
Tucson woman, Carolyn Peak, who was charged with killing her husband.
When the documents were found, Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall
dropped Peak’s murder charge.
Nordstrom, a high school dropout who has accumulated a jailhouse
education in law, said White committed similar misconduct in his case.
With Scott Nordstrom’s conviction so heavily dependent on David
Nordstrom’s testimony, White admitted to jurors that the star witness
was a liar—except when he was on the stand. David Nordstrom’s
alibi was that he was on probation at the time and under electronic
monitoring, which White said was infallible.
Donna Boykin, whose mother-in-law was slain at the Union Hall, gave
a sworn statement this month saying she told White before the trial
that electronic monitoring could be beaten based on her own
experiences. Boykin turned over records to show she was “out of
pocket,” or not at home when she was supposed to be, and the monitor
failed to detect her slips.
“In June 1997, I initiated contact with the Pima County Attorney’s
Office because I heard the prosecution was basing its case against the
alleged defendants on what (prosecutors) claimed to be solid evidence
that their key testifying witness could not have been involved in the
Union Hall slayings,” Boykin said in her sworn statement.
“I knew the electronic monitoring was not accurate,” she said, “and
that I had information to prove it.”
Boykin, who was angry that David Nordstrom received such sweet plea
deal, spoke to White’s investigator, Steve Merrick. Merrick’s reports
weren’t discovered by Nordstrom’s defense team until LaWall initiated
an “open-file” system that allowed defense attorneys to examine
prosecutors’ files in wake of the Peak case.
David Nordstrom got a four-year sentence and reportedly lives in
Sacramento, Calif.
Their mother, Cynthia Wasserburger, said David has threatened her
over the years, because she remains steadfastly in Scott’s corner.
“I will never say Scott is or was a saint,” she said. “He’s done
bad. He’s been bad. … But there’s no way—and I believe that the
evidence is there to prove it—that he did what they’re saying he
did.”
Scott Nordstrom said he is confident he will be able to prove his
innocence.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted an evidentiary trial for
Troy Davis of Georgia, who maintained his innocence in the 1989 slaying
of a police officer. Justice John Paul Stevens said the risk of
executing a potentially innocent man “provides adequate justification”
for a new hearing.
“If the justice system’s purpose is justice,” Scott Nordstrom said,
“we will prevail.”
This article appears in Aug 27 – Sep 2, 2009.
What a crock.
just wait, you all will see what an injustice this court has done not only to Scott but to the jury that has been seated to hear only the state’s side, all the while knowing that he is innocent. the picture shown is of David Nordstrom not Scott
Scott Nordstrom’s convictions have held up throughout his appeals process. This article is extremely one-sided. The author works for the defense team as an investigator, or so I’ve been told. David Nordstrom got a sweet deal instead of the punishment he should have received. That doesn’t mean that Scott’s sentences aren’t valid. This jury has heard only the State’s side of things because Nordstrom’s team has refused to offer mitigation or to cross examine one single witness. It would appear that Nordstrom’s last line of defense is going to be “inadequate council”. As for the picture, isn’t that the fault of the publication for using the wrong picture? This article is nothing but shoddy, tabloid journalism.
Dear Editor,
Thanks for printing this well-written article on Scott Nordstrom. At some points along the way after a conviction and sentence, the issue is not so much about guilt or innocence (as it should be) but about the way our legal system works. Hopefully, Nordstrom’s day in court to re-hear the issue of his innocence or guilt will come very soon rather than the long time it took the system to finally set Ray Krone free – another man who consistently proclaimed his innocence in the Arizona system.
Kathy Norgard
For the record, I do NOT work for Nordstrom’s defense team!
AJ Flick
Also, the reason the defense didn’t present mitigation during the resentencing was that Judge Nichols ruled they couldn’t present any claims of residual doubt. So the jury in the resentencing wasn’t allowed to hear that he claims he is innocent.
Re: The photo: We got incorrect info. We apologize for the mistake, and will run a correction next week. We’ve corrected the caption here.
Re: alfabch: Your accusation, sans evidence, that A.J. works for the defense is appalling. Please be careful not to unfairly attack credibility.
If anyone has access to the composite drawing, compare the above picture of David Nordstrom to it, remarkable resemblance! I don’t know how the State’s people can sleep at night.
How can the Nordstrom family sleep at night knowing that BOTH of their sons were involved in this kind of sheer evil?
As for the comment that A.J. Flick works for the defense team, I did say “or so I was told”. And she certainly was very chummy with all of them in court. As for her bias, she didn’t even attempt to speak to any of the victims’ family members to get a balanced viewpoint for this article.
This trial was only to settle the matter of sentencing. Residual doubt, I’m sure, will be presented at his next appeal. Although, with living witnesses from the Moon Smoke Shop to identify the shooters, I doubt his so called alibi evidence will stand up any better than it has in the past.
It will stand up and then everyone will see that they have been having victory parties persecuting the wrong brother.
Hmmmm…..Perhaps the person who accused AJ of being on the defense team works to the County Attorney.
This type of response is typical of those who would cloud a legitimate issue by attacking the messenger.
The evidence is clear David Nordstrom conned the prosecutor and rather than admit they were taken in by this con artist, they allowed an innocent man to be convicted. Were you aware that David tried to get the cops to give him $5000 and he would show them where the guns were hidden? Were were you aware that David used a false name when he tried to con the cops?Were you aware that he failed several polygraph tests? Were you aware that while he was in the county jail David tried to get an inmate to fake a kidnapping of his David’s girlfriend so he could blame it on Scott? Were you aware that David solicited an inmate to beat him up so that he could file a lawsuit against the jail?
David is a con man and he conned his way out a murder conviction.
It is public record go check the facts in the court file. David White intentionally hid evidence that would have shot David Nordstrom’s story down and he was the only valid witness who could place Scott at the crime scenes without David they had no case.
Several witnesses gave statements that David approached them and asked them to participate in armed robberies, David told them that they had to be willing to “leave no witnesses” David is a stone killer and the prosecutor made a deal with the devil just to carve another notch on his six gun
We do not need gun slingers, prosecutors are supposed to be “misters of Justice” according to our Supreme Court, they are to seek “Justice” not convictions just for the sake of convictions.
Shame on those who would trample our system of justice for vain glory and shame on those who blindly support them without knowing the facts. Herbert Spencer describes this as “contempt prior to investigation” and he says it will keep men in everlasting ignorance
Just for the record I am a part of the defense team
Chuck Laroue
Makes you wonder what Alfbch was doing in the court room.
Just for the record the article does indicate that AJ approached the prosecutors and it was announced in open court that she was present if the family of the victims wished to have input they had their opportunity.
I read this article during last month’s trial and just now finished reading all of the comments on the article.
I sat through 90% of the original trial. The eyewitness at the Moon Smoke Shop was very credible. She mentioned the killer’s unforgettable eyes which Scott Nordstrom has and never mentioned Bozo orange hair and face which David Nordstrom has. I agree that David Nordstrom is a con man. He is also an idiot. He really doesn’t “get” why people think he’s not an overall good guy. I spoke with the Nordstrom’s grandfather, a very nice man, during the original trial. He had no doubt that Scott was the actual killer in the two cases. He said David was always a lousy liar, even though he optimistically kept trying. He said he did not see David’s “tells” during his testimony. Many years ago, Cindy Wasserburger, had to make a “Sophie’s Choice” decision: of her 3 sons, she could only take one of them. She chose Scott. Admirably, she continues to choose Scott.
I have wracked my brain as to who Donna Boykin is–the article said she was an in-law of one of the victims. People I spoke to after this article didn’t know her. I’m surprised that others who have known that “electronic monitoring could be beaten” haven’t also come forward.
The purpose of this trial was to re-sentence Mr. Nordstrom–that was all. It took 5 long years for this to be re-tried. Mr. Nordstrom and Mr. Darby repeatedly asked for continuances based on the necessity of gathering important evidence to present at what was going to be a 3 to 4 week resentencing trial (the original trial was 3 weeks). Many trips were made to the Court of Appeals to get permission to present new evidence, all of which were refused. The purpose of the resentencing trial was to resentence–that’s all. Although I am not an attorney, I believe there is a different way, under the law, to present the basis of new evidence and that is as a Rule 32, Post Conviction Relief. At that time, after his compelling evidence is presented, a judge may order a new trial.
Scott Nordstrom alleges that his attorneys at his first trial were “court-appointed defense attorneys were limited in what they could spend. Nordstrom said he was often told that there were no resources to investigate his innocence claims.” Ineffective assistance of counsel is grounds for overturning a trial. Our Court of Appeals did not see any evidence of this. The defense counsel he refers to were two highly competent defense attorneys in our community. Mr Nordstrom can argue ineffective counsel in his next appeal. It was quite a surprise to me and all the other lay people in the courtroom when Mr. Darby chose not to have an opening statement, put on a mitigating case or do a closing argument, causing the trial to become a barely 4 day trial rather than the 4 week trial originally set on the Judge’s calendar.
This has been a pretty long “comment,” and I could easily write much more. But I will stop here and wait for all of the next notices to come in the mail, for more appeals, more hearings, more continuances.
One more comment: I am not in favor of the death penalty. It helps defense attorneys be able to make the payments on their status houses and status cars, but the appeals process that, by law, accompanies such a penalty keeps ripping the scabs off the survivors’ wounds that just can’t seem to heal.
He is a cold hearted murderer and deserves to die a long and horrible death like those he killed, all innocent people with families who loved them and left a huge whole in there childrens lives. Who gives a crap about this piece of garbage, how would you feel if he just shot your loved one in the head just for the fun of it.
I am Donna Boykin. It’s perfectly fine that I remain unknown to all of you. That way, the scum who killed my mother–in-law might not come after me. I will spend every day of my life trying to get anyone who had anything to do with this horrific crime to the place where they belong. Deduce what you want from that statement. OH….Mr. Darby, thank you for putting my life in jeopardy. These scum sucking drug-infected fools killed 6 people. Don’t think they won’t come after me. I thought this was “priviledeged information”. Well, maybe after they get me, someone in my family will rightfully sue the city.
notwithstanding the fact that Kenneth J. Peasley, Steve Bunting, Kenneth Janes, and other’s connected to case # CR-0002883(St.of AZ. v. Alan Lee Gluth and Gregory Alan Bottoni)App.1982 ARIZ131,P2nd., do not want the “truth” of what really did happen on 03-03-1980, @ 719 S. 4th Ave., #4 to come out, is because all of them over there at that PCAO were involved in one manner or another! including LaWall, Unklsebay, Janes, and others, were all part of the prosecution team under Steve Neely! Peasley was pushed back on every aspect of this case from day 1! while Defendant Bottoni was a NON-Felon on that date, Peasley’s “dishonest motives” were already at work! Hence, the “plea bargain” Peasley came to Defendant Bottoni with, that if Defendant Bottoni had agreed to, would have resulted in a wrongfull conviction, and possible death sentence for an innocent person(Gluth)! the “bargain” was for Defendant Bottoni to falsely testify to the jury, that Defendant Gluth was the “trigger man”! Defendant Bottoni then would be “awarded” 21 years to plead guilty to 2nd degree murder! what amounted to a death sentence, because gang member’s would have killed Defendant Bottoni for testifying wrongfully “against” Defendant Gluth! Had Peasley been at all interested in “seeking justice, and seeking justice fairly”, Peasley would have ordered a Paraphigm test to be administered to both Defendant’s hands, to determine if either one of the Defendant’s had fired a gun that night! Enrico Laos saw the individual with the gun, just second’s after the shot was fired by that uncharged suspect, then when Laos was brought to 4th & Broadway to ID the suspect he(Laos) saw, after TPD had both Defendant Bottoni, and Defendant Gluth in custody, Laos told TPD that neither one of Defendant’s he observed was the person he saw with the gun! Hence, the proof in the pudding, as the saying goes are this statute;(13-303/13-304). This statute was used by Peasley to allow the real killer to walk free on March 10, 1980! Defendant Bottoni’s constitutional rights have been, are still today, be violated by the PCAO, by not reopening the investigation, and bring the killer to justice! Defendant Bottoni has maintained the innocence of Gluth, and himself from day 1! And now it is year 30! the corrupt LaWall, and her corrupt cronies over there, need to be led out of that office in Jail house orange jumpsuits, to small to fit any of them! they have left one man out here to suffer the humiation all of these years. And Peasley talks about his humiliation! what a bunch of crap! they are no more than thugs playing with taxpayer money!
signed,
Gregory Alan Bottoni
I thought at the time that he was falsely accused. and I think we all need to demand justice