I'm not surprised that the jury found the defendant guilty here. He's definitely an arsonist who set at least several wildland fires. We're not excited about people who do that.
I am, however, somewhat surprised that the defendant was sentenced to death.
He has no criminal history. There's no evidence that he intended to kill anyone; though, of course, there's always that risk. And the evidence that he started the one fire that killed the five firefighters -- the only one of the fires in which anyone was injured -- was very slim, in my mind. The guy might not even be guilty of that one; I think he probably is, but it's also possible that it was one of the many other people in this world who like to start similar wildfires.
(I'm not persuaded that the device used to start this particular fire was really unique. It's a cigarette attached to a matchbook. I'm not a serial arsonist, and even I know that's exactly how to start these sorts of things. The fact that the matches here were sometimes wooden matches, and that the matches were sometimes pointed in both directions, is hardly novel; again, I'm a complete novice in this area, and I could easily see even myself constructing such a device.)
So you're talking about someone for whom there was no intent to kill, no criminal history, and residual doubt as to his guilt.
Look, I understand the reality. It's a wildfire in which five innocent firefighters were horribly burned and killed. People want retribution for that. Especially people, as here, in the vicinity of that fire. I get why the jury sentences him to death. As well as why the California Supreme Court affirms.
But of the many, many death penalty cases I've read, this one stands out to me as strongly on the low end of the "obviously should be killed" spectrum.
Read all 162 pages of the opinion if you'd like.
