4.2.12 WC: 191694 He was the one who planned the robbery. In this case, these young boys were brought into the robbery at the last minute. One of the codefendants, Greenawalt, directed what went on in the penitentiary. Their father directed what went on thereafter. There was never a time when they could have left their father's side, when the father left any of them alone, the three of them, so that they could leave. These are young kids under the control of their father. I concluded my opening argument by acknowledging the responsibility of the brothers for the prison escape, but insisting that they could not be executed for the unanticipated murders: Nobody is denying their responsibility for these serious crimes of kidnapping, breakout of prison. But then after the crime was completed, after the car was taken, the father then, without any necessity... as the courts found; no necessity at all; could have easily have left them there... the father and the other defendant, on their own, after sending the boys away, made a shocking and surprising decision to kill this family in cold blood. There are findings by the Arizona Supreme Court that it was not necessary, that it was spontaneous, it was not part of the original plan. This is just like Enmund. In Enmund there was spontaneity. It was not part of the original plan. After Enmund left the person to go into the house, something unexpected happened. In this case it was the father who did something unexpected. In the other case it was the gunman. A family was tragically killed in both cases. This Arizona case is an attempt to relitigate Enmund. And we will hear relitigation after relitigation in every state if this Court allows every state to redefine intent the way it chooses to redefine it. 174 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017261