Forsyth County prosecutors are unlikely to pursue the death penalty against the man accused of killing Winston-Salem police Sgt. Howard Plouff, who was shot two years ago while responding to a fight at a nightclub on Jonestown Road.
David Hall, the case's prosecutor, said yesterday that pursuing the death penalty against Keith Carter, 24, is unlikely, based on what the investigation has found so far.
He declined to discuss that evidence.
"I can't say why," he said.
Carter's attorney, Mark Rabil, said that he and Hall continue to investigate and talk about evidence in the case. Rabil said he agrees that the case doesn't meet the standards for pursuing the death penalty.
"It seems legally that's the appropriate position because of the difficulty of proving any aggravating factors in this case," he said.
To pursue the death penalty, prosecutors would need to allege at least one of 11 possible aggravating factors, such as evidence that Carter knew he was firing at a police officer.
If prosecutors don't pursue the death penalty, they still have the option to pursue first-degree murder, which would carry a possible penalty of life in prison.
Plouff's widow, Joyce Plouff, declined to comment. Hall said he has been keeping her informed about the case and where the investigation stands.
Plouff was shot Feb. 23, 2007, in the parking lot of the Red Rooster, a nightclub on Jonestown Road. He had been on his dinner break at the nearby Waffle House when a call came out over the radio asking police to help deputies who were trying to control a series of fights in the club.
Plouff was shot once in the neck as he made his way across the parking lot through a panicked crowd.
Carter, at the time a student at Winston-Salem State University, has been held in the Forsyth County Jail since his arrest four days after Plouff's death.
Hall and Rabil said they agreed to hold off on indicting Carter until both sides have investigated the case fully. An indictment moves the case from District Court to Superior Court, where most felony cases are heard.
Hall and Rabil declined to say why they agreed to postpone an indictment, but defense attorneys and former prosecutors not involved in the case said that a possible reason is that it gives each side more time to try to convince the other of what the evidence shows.
"What it sounds like is they're trying to negotiate what the ultimate charge will be," said Richard E. Myers II, a law professor at UNC Chapel Hill. "You want to make sure you only bring the appropriate charge, and you don't have to drop charges."
When prosecutors charge more than they can prove, it can lead to criticism that they were overzealous, Myers said.
And if they accept a plea deal for a lesser charge, people may say that the prosecutor was too lenient.
"If you've got the time and opportunity to do the complete investigation and only charge what you're going to prove, it avoids upsetting folks on both ends of the spectrum," Myers said.
The indicted charge can also be a starting point for any plea negotiations. If it's a charge that both sides agree is supported by some evidence, a plea can improve the chances of a quick resolution to the case, Myers said.
"That way no one is staked out to a position that then becomes inflexible, and it gives you time and room to then negotiate," he said.
■ Dan Galindo can be reached at 727-7377 or at dgalindo@wsjournal.com.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement