Serial Shooter Trial

They spare his life

By Nick R. Martin | July 29th, 2009 | 4:11 pm | 4 Comments »

Live from the courtroom: A jury has decided to spare the life of Samuel Dieteman, the second gunman in the Serial Shooter killing spree, for his role in the murders of Claudia Gutierrez-Cruz and Robin Blasnek.

The jury decided that Dieteman deserved to spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of release as long as he is alive.

Dieteman pleaded guilty to the 2006 murders but agreed to help authorities convict his co-conspirator, Dale Hausner, who was convicted and received six death sentences earlier this year.

The announcement by the 12-person jury in Maricopa County Superior Court drew an emotional response from Dieteman’s attorney and his mother, who both could be seen crying afterward.

“Justice has been served,” his attorney, Maria Schaffer, said following the verdict. “Sam has always been prepared to accept whatever sentence was presented by the jury.”


  • Although I’m disappointed in the decision not to execute him, I’m glad they didn’t sentence him to concurrent 150 year terms or something as equally weird.

    If they did and you’ve spared us the ridiculousness of reading that, I thank you. You’re good.

  • Although I'm disappointed in the decision not to execute him, I'm glad they didn't sentence him to concurrent 150 year terms or something as equally weird.

    If they did and you've spared us the ridiculousness of reading that, I thank you. You're good.

  • Anonymous

    I stumbled on this site after trying, in vain, to find quality articles on this case (as well as the baseline killer, mark goudeau). It’s difficult to find crime reporting that is not sensationalistic and lacking in idepth. In my opinion, your coverage of this case is exceptionally insightful.

    As for the decision itself…for lack of a better term, I refer to myself as a “capital punishment agnostic.” Not for any lack of thought Am I still ambivalent- I’m just torn. I suppose that controversial issues stay in the public conversation because they cannot be classified in black and white terms, and it’s healthy to have a little doubt no matter what side you’re on. I would hope that caution is exercised before professing total, utter agreement with executing other human beings, no matter how morally repugnant their behavior. However, that behavior must be dealt with- it’s just a question of method.

    Nonetheless, I definitely agree with the jury’s decision. His remorse, cooperation, and dysfunctional upbringing clearly gave me pause-and for the jury as well, who were provided with all of the necessary information to make that decision.

  • kprice

    I stumbled on this site after trying, in vain, to find quality articles on this case (as well as the baseline killer, mark goudeau). It's difficult to find crime reporting that is not sensationalistic and lacking in idepth. In my opinion, your coverage of this case is exceptionally insightful.

    As for the decision itself…for lack of a better term, I refer to myself as a “capital punishment agnostic.” Not for any lack of thought Am I still ambivalent- I'm just torn. I suppose that controversial issues stay in the public conversation because they cannot be classified in black and white terms, and it's healthy to have a little doubt no matter what side you're on. I would hope that caution is exercised before professing total, utter agreement with executing other human beings, no matter how morally repugnant their behavior. However, that behavior must be dealt with- it's just a question of method.

    Nonetheless, I definitely agree with the jury's decision. His remorse, cooperation, and dysfunctional upbringing clearly gave me pause-and for the jury as well, who were provided with all of the necessary information to make that decision.