 "Photo: N/A")
Three years ago, James Cooke was found guilty of the rape and murder of then-sophomore Lindsey Bonistall in 2005 and was later sentenced to death.
But in February 2011, Cooke will be given a second chance to prove his innocence in a retrial.
Last spring, Cooke appealed his convictions to the Delaware Supreme Court, claiming his Sixth Amendment rights were ignored.
The court ruled that the trial court violated Cooke’s rights by permitting the Office of the Public Defender to argue Cooke was “guilty but mentally ill” over his objection and despite his plea of “not guilty.”
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to overrule the appeal, and last week, a Delaware Superior Court judge set Cooke’s new trial for Feb. 22, 2011.
Kathleen Bonistall, Lindsey’s mother, said the family will, for the second time, relocate to Newark from their home in New York and take leaves of absence from their jobs.
“Clearly, we don’t have a choice,” Kathleen said. “We are Lindsey’s family. I can’t imagine not being there to represent her.”
She said last fall that the first trial was traumatically scarring and she does not know how the family will cope with another trial.
“We are just getting to a place where we have learned to manage our grief, and this new trial will destroy that,” Kathleen said.
Joseph Gabay, Cooke’s lawyer for the appeal, said he is not surprised by the reversal.
“In fact, I started planning the appeal with Kate Aaronson on the third day of the [2007] trial,” he said.
Gabay said the appeal was about Cooke’s constitutional rights, not the merits of the case.
“There are a lot of misconceptions that we are screwing over the Bonistall family,” he said “That has not ever been my intent. I just know we don’t want the state to do that to Cooke either.”
Gabay said he will not be defending Cooke in the new trial. Rather, Patrick Collins and Jennifer- Kate Aaronson will defend Cooke.
This time, Cooke will plead not guilty, he said.
Gabay also unsuccessfully asked that Judge Jerome Herlihy, who oversaw the first trial, recuse himself from the new trial because Gabay believes the judge contributed to the errors in the trial that made it unfair.
“He never made inquiries about what the dispute between Cooke and his attorney was, there were things he heard that he shouldn’t have been privy to,” Gabay said.
Gabay said he fears the Delaware Supreme Court will later rule that Herlihy should have recused himself and request a new trial for the third time.
“Then the state will really be in an uproar,” he said.
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our feed
Contact us through email
1 comments