California’s Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence for a 64-year-old man convicted of murdering four people near Yosemite National Park more than 25 years ago.
Cary Anthony Stayner had challenged his convictions and death sentence on multiple grounds, including alleged violations of his Miranda rights, coercive police questioning, and lack of probable cause for his arrest. The court rejected all of his arguments in a ruling issued Thursday.
The murders occurred in 1999 and shocked the region. In February of that year, Stayner killed Carol Sund, her 15-year-old daughter Juli, and Silvina Pelosso, an Argentinian family friend. Five months later, he murdered Joie Armstrong, a 26-year-old naturalist who worked in the area. Armstrong’s body was found decapitated.
Stayner was not initially considered a suspect in the killings. According to court records, he later confessed to FBI agents that he had entered the El Portal, California, room where Sund and the two girls were staying. He strangled Sund and subsequently killed Pelosso, placing both bodies in their rental vehicle. He then drove Juli to a lake near Mocassin, California, where he killed her.
In 2001, Stayner pleaded guilty to Armstrong’s murder. A jury convicted him of the three other killings the following year and recommended the death penalty.
During his trial, Stayner’s defense team argued that he suffered from mental illness, which they attributed partially to childhood trauma. His younger brother Steven had been kidnapped in 1972 at age seven and held captive for seven years before escaping. The case garnered significant media attention and was later adapted into a television movie.
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Stayner claimed that a conversation with an FBI agent about his brother’s kidnapping should have been excluded from evidence. He also argued that despite being told he wasn’t under arrest, he was handcuffed during transport to Sacramento, where he eventually confessed.
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, writing for the majority, found that the handcuffs were used for safety reasons and that Stayner had properly waived his Miranda rights. The court determined that the conversation about his brother’s abduction was just one topic among many discussed during the drive and was unrelated to the murders.
The justices also rejected Stayner’s claim that law enforcement used coercion or improper promises to obtain his confession. While an FBI agent had mentioned the possibility of counseling and safe housing if Stayner were incarcerated, the court ruled this did not render his confession involuntary.
Regarding the probable cause challenge, the court found that multiple factors justified Stayner’s arrest. Officers had discovered that his vehicle tires matched tracks found at Armstrong’s crime scene. When agents sought to question him further, they learned he had failed to appear at work. Additionally, Stayner had been selling personal items at low prices after being questioned by authorities.
The court also dismissed allegations of judicial bias, noting that some friction between judges and attorneys is inevitable during lengthy trials.
One justice agreed with the guilty verdicts and the jury’s finding that Stayner was sane but dissented on the death penalty verdict.
Stayner’s attorney, Andrew Parnes, declined to comment on the ruling. The state Justice Department could not be reached for comment.
The case remains one of California’s most notorious murder cases, both for the brutal nature of the crimes and their proximity to one of America’s most beloved national parks.
Leave a Reply