- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -


« News Home

Jury spares young arsonist

Published: Fri, October 24, 2008 @ 12:09 a.m.

By Patricia Meade

The defendant is learning-disabled, with an IQ of 75.

YOUNGSTOWN — Somber and thoughtful after learning that his teenage client escaped the death penalty, James S. Gentile said: “We should try to take better care of our children, raise them better.”

Jurors who weighed life or death for 18-year-old arson killer Michael A. Davis voted for life in prison with eligibility for parole after 30 years on each of six murder convictions. He will be sentenced later.

The jury, eight women and four men, returned to Mahoning County Common Pleas Court on Thursday for the penalty phase of the capital murder trial. Last week, the panel found the Bennington Avenue teenager guilty as charged — six counts of aggravated murder and 19 counts of aggravated arson. The arsons relate to the six who died Jan. 23, five who escaped the house fire and eight firefighters who were injured.

The panel began deliberating at 2:45 p.m. and reached a verdict at 4:30 p.m. Thursday.

Gentile’s comment after court was a reflection on the mitigating factors he and co-counsel Ron Yarwood used to sway the jury against voting for the death penalty.

Yarwood, in recapping witness testimony during his closing argument, said his client had been neglected and abused at home, was borderline retarded, had cognitive challenges, a second-grade reading level and had been in the lower third of a learning-disabled class.

“We’re asking you to return one of the life sentences,” the lawyer implored.

Youth and mental defect are just two of the mitigating factors allowed by state law to argue against the death penalty.

Davis is small — 5 feet 1 inch, 110 pounds — and looks years younger than 18. He is trying to fill out his baby face with a sparse moustache.

He sat silently, rocking in a chair, at the defense table as his lawyers tried to convince the jury that his life should be spared.

When Judge R. Scott Krichbaum read the verdicts, Davis covered his face with his right hand to conceal a small smile. When he removed his hand, relief showed on his face.

Yarwood, in his closing argument, told the jury that Davis, whose birthday is Dec. 15, “was barely 18” when the crime occurred. “If it had been 39 days earlier, [as a juvenile] death would not be an option,” he said.

Prosecutor Paul J. Gains objected to the comment, and the judge sustained the objection.

On Jan. 23, a bitter-cold day, Davis walked to the Crawford house at 1645 Stewart Ave., stepped onto the porch where an upholstered couch sat near the front door, and used a ignitable liquid to set it on fire at 5:30 a.m. The fast-spreading blaze trapped the six victims — two women and four children — upstairs. All died from smoke inhalation.

Dr. Sandra McPherson, a clinical psychologist hired by the defense, testified that tests she gave Davis showed his IQ is 75; normal is in the 100 range. She said he has low logical application of knowledge, or “common sense,” and has a serious deficit when it comes to taking in and managing information.

McPherson said Davis developed erratically, missed opportunities to learn how to make good decisions and, because of his adolescence, was prone to impulsivity and influence by peers. She pointed out that, beginning in the first grade, he missed a lot of school days over the years.

McPherson admitted, when questioned by Gains, that she is opposed to the death penalty.

Davis’ mother, Ann Davis, who turns 36 today, talked about being a young mother — three boys by age 18 — who worked long hours when they lived in Cleveland, and how Michael was abused by her brother. She said her son’s father was not involved in his life and there was violence in the home with the second man she lived with in Youngstown.

“You want Michael to live, do you not?” Gentile asked.

Wiping tears from eyes and raising her voice, the distraught mother said, emphatically, “Yes!”

Though those on the Davis side were thankful for the jury’s verdicts, relatives and friends of the Crawfords were clearly upset.

“I’m tired of y’all always being in my face. I’m already going through enough,” Retia Crawford, 19, said to reporters after court. “I don’t need y’all always running up to me asking me questions.”

Crawford escaped the fire that claimed the lives of her mother, Carol, 46; sister Jennifer, 23; and Jennifer’s children, Ranaisha, 8; Jeannine, 5; Aleisha, 3; and Brandon, 2.

Crawford and other friends and family huddled with Gains after court while he explained victim-impact statements that they can make in court at Davis’ sentencing.

The prosecutor would not say how he intends to approach sentencing — whether he will ask that the six 30-year terms run concurrently or consecutively.

During his closing argument, Gains said, “If you don’t go to school, you’ll be a slow learner,” and, “Even slow learners don’t have the right to engage in [this] behavior.”

The prosecutor said life is all about choices, whether you’re a slow learner or not. He said, “Nobody forced this young man to do what he did.”

Davis has been in custody since he confessed to the lead detective the day of the fatal fire. The motive was his stolen cell phone, taken by a teenage boy who stayed overnight at the Crawford house and escaped the fire.

Jurors had these options on each of the six murder counts: death penalty; life in prison without possibility of parole; life in prison, parole eligibility after 30 years; or life in prison, parole eligibility after 25 years. They were not told that a vote for the death penalty was only a recommendation to Judge Krichbaum. Judges can override a jury decision for death but cannot override if jurors vote against death.

For the death penalty, the jury had to decide if the aggravated circumstance attached to each murder — that Davis was the principal offender and committed the crimes during another crime, arson — outweighed the mitigating factors raised by the defense.



1paulydel(1574 comments)posted 7 years, 7 months ago

He took six lives over a stupid cell phone then he needs to be put to death. The procecutor is exactly right in his statement. If this guy is going to get life it should be true life in prison without a chance of parole.

Suggest removal:

2jjs3718(1 comment)posted 7 years, 7 months ago

The men and women on this jury should be ashamed of themselves!!! This man killed six innocent people, not one, but SIX. How can anyone justify this act in their mind and not impose the death penalty. You mean to tell me that his disability has affected his ability to tell right from wrong? I know it hasn't.

Suggest removal:

3alumni(10 comments)posted 7 years, 7 months ago

This is wrong he should have at least gotten life without a chance of parole. This system works for you if you are the right skin color anyone else would have gotten the death penalty or 30 years for each person that died in that fire. He knew what he was doing I don't care if his IQ was 50.

Suggest removal:

4DRDAVE1965(80 comments)posted 7 years, 7 months ago


Suggest removal:

5alumni(10 comments)posted 7 years, 6 months ago

How do we really know anything was stolen? Please black people get there faces plastered all over the news media and in the vindicator.This does not have anything to do with the black community starting any rampage. If you are not black you don't know you get stopped driving down the street for no reason.This was a white person and they spared his life its as simple as that. I don't have any sympathy for him. His momma should have raised him right what was she doing. You are talking about raise your kids right where was his daddy? She should have been sterilized or used birth control to. Fair is fair and this was not

Suggest removal:

61gr8woman(3 comments)posted 7 years, 6 months ago

Okay so now if you have a low I.Q. it's okay because the justice system says you really didn.t know what you were doing and they are going to give you a punishment that does not fit the crime. That is what happened in this case. That youngman killed 6 people 4 who were innocent children so spare me the bull about his IQ and the bull about his mother not wanting him to die,because know mother wants to see there child die just like the survivors of the Crawford family didn't want to see there family members die. This tragic loss was over a stupid cell phone , something that can be replaced a life cannot. Are justice system sucks worse than a bad nipple on a baby bottle. The judge and jury were just wrong.

Suggest removal:

7Rayen1985(24 comments)posted 7 years, 6 months ago

I must say there is a part of me that would like to see this kid fry but then there is that part that feels he should not. I do not think he wanted to kill anyone. Should he be punished? "YES" he should.Life in prison with a chance to get out in 30 years may or may not be a good idea. Who knows what this young man will be like after that long in prison. I do know this there are a TON of kids just like him out there who at any moment could do something like this. These kids are broke and need to somehow be fixed before this happens again. My question is this. If the kid set fire to a bag of dog poop and placed it on the porch as a halloween joke and people died, would we be looking at this any different?

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes