Supreme Court hears debate on Westfall's 'Patton' remark

WASHINGTON - A lawyer for a St. Louis man convicted of murder in 1988 told Supreme Court justices Wednesday that a prosecutor crossed the line when he referred to Gen. George Patton in his closing argument, equating jurors to soldiers with a duty to kill.

The iconic general's rhetoric and its invocation in the courtroom were at the center of arguments in the St. Louis County murder sentencing case.

In the trial, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney George R. "Buzz" Westfall, who went on to become county executive and has since died, compared the juror's role in sentencing to that of a soldier who knows he has a duty to kill when he sees his friend's brains blown out on the battlefield.

"Tomorrow, when you reach over and put your hand in the pile of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do," Westfall told the jury.

The jury convicted William Weaver, now 45, and sentenced him to death for the execution-style murder of Charles Taylor, 48. Taylor was set to be a witness in a federal drug trial.

At the Supreme Court hearing Wednesday, Andrea Spillars, Missouri assistant attorney general, contended that Westfall's allusion to the war movie "Patton" during the trial was "inartful," but not inherently unfair to Weaver.

John Blume, a lawyer representing Weaver, argued that Westfall's "Patton" argument clearly told the jurors they had the duty to kill in this case and that in so doing, Westfall overstepped the bounds of precedent.

Blume also argued that Westfall had abused his position of authority when he told the jury that as the top law enforcement officer in the county, he decided which defendants should be subject to the death penalty. Such statements are forbidden in closing arguments at trials, and an objection to Westfall's statement was sustained by the judge at Weaver's trial.

Westfall also tied the execution of Weaver to a larger battle in the war on drugs. "You've got to say this is bigger than William Weaver," Westfall told the jury at that time. "It's not personal; it's business."

Justice Stephen Breyer agreed that the arguments as a whole showed that Westfall overstepped his bounds.

"It looks like he did an awful lot of what he wasn't supposed to do," Breyer said.

But Justice Antonin Scalia called into question the Supreme Court precedents Blume used to argue his case. Scalia said restrictions on arguments applied to the guilt phase of a capital trial, not the penalty phase.

Arguments about society should be allowed in the penalty phase, Scalia said.

"You don't find the person guilty in order to stop drug trafficking, but you do impose a heavier penalty in order to do that," Scalia said.