How this headline may connect to industries in Alaska. Technical scores are below — click any ? for what a metric means.
He has spent decades in prison for an Anchorage double murder committed at 17.Now his sentence is under review..In 1993, Brian Hall shot and killed two young men at a party in the woods of East Anchorage.Hall was a teenager, 17 at the time.After he was convicted of the double murder at trial, a judge sentenced him to serve more than 150 years in prison, all but ensuring he’d be jailed for life.But on Friday, a court proceeding that will determine whether Hall’s sentence is reduced — and whether he is released — got underway at the Nesbett Courthouse in Anchorage, with a judge hearing evidence and arguments about the role of youth in Hall’s crimes, his decades in prison and what his life might be like if he were given a chance at living outside.Hall is being resentenced based on a 2023 Alaska Court of Appeals decision that requires judges to consider factors of youth and rehabilitation when sentencing juveniles.Based on the new criteria, several people convicted of high-profile crimes as teenagers in Alaska have had, or are in the process of having, their life sentences reconsidered.Fewer than 20 people serving lengthy sentences and convicted as juveniles in Alaska qualify for the resentencing, according to the ACLU of Alaska.On Friday, family members of murder victims Stanley Honeycutt, 20, and Mickey Dinsmore, 24, declined to comment through an attorney from the Alaska Office of Victims’ Rights.Some relatives testified during Friday’s hearing in the courtroom of Anchorage Superior Court Judge Andrew Peterson, including Dinsmore’s mother, Donna Dinsmore-Poff.Addressing Hall, she said she feels he’s been “lucky.” ”You’ve had a really good life where you are," Dinsmore-Poff said.“You can see anybody you want, your mom, your dad, sister.I can’t see anybody.” “I’ve done nothing but cry, forever,” she said.Mindi Robuck, Mickey Dinsmore’s sister, said her brother was her best friend and only sibling, and losing him destroyed her family.The family considered the matter of Hall’s sentence long settled, and coming back to court has been rending, she said.“Losing my brother is the worst thing that’s ever happened to me,” Robuck said.“And this, your honor, is the second-worst thing.” “Reliving this tragedy all over again is so much worse, because now it has the impact of 33 years of loss behind it,” she said.Hall also addressed the court.“Whether I serve 15 years, 50 years, or the rest of my life in prison — at the end of each day, those two young men are still dead, and I am still responsible for their deaths,” he said.“Their families still suffer, my family still suffers, and I suffer knowing I am the cause of so much harm to so many lives.” Hall said he couldn’t change what he did 32 years ago, but “I choose to focus on what I can change, which is myself.” Much of the testimony focused on Hall’s actions in 1993, as well as his decades in the Alaska prison system.At issue: whether Hall, as a teenager, was acting under the cloak of adolescent immaturity and unfinished brain development, to what extent that factored into his actions, and if he could be considered rehabilitated after decades of incarceration.Antoinette Kavanaugh, a forensic psychologist called as a defense witness, testified that her assessment of Hall included a 10-hour in-person visit at Wildwood Correctional Complex in Kenai.Kavanaugh said she concluded that Hall wasn’t one of the rare teens who display “irreparable corruption.” The Court of Appeals decision holds that the court can only give what amounts to a life sentence when there’s evidence a teenager is “irreparably corrupt.” Hall’s actions the night of the murders showed his adolescent immaturity and suggestibility, Kavanaugh testified.She said she saw “maturity and growth” in Hall’s trajectory afterward, especially in his participation in substance abuse treatment programs, dog training programs and leadership in inmate organizations.“Is the act of killing Stanley Honeycutt and Mickey Dinsmore an act of transient immaturity?” asked assistant district attorney Daniel Shorey.Kavanaugh took care to qualify her answer: “As described in the documents that I’ve read, and based upon my conversation with him, it reflects characteristics of youth impulsivity and recklessness that’s associated with a young person, especially when a young person is surrounded by peers when their emotions are going, and when they are fearful and feel threatened,” she said.A memo prepared by Hall’s attorneys said he would reside in a transitional living facility upon release, and eventually move in with his wife, Angela Hall.Hall’s wife Angela, whom he met when she completed a college assignment to interview an inmate, also testified.She said her husband of more than 13 years has a realistic view of what life might look like on the outside.“He’s not expecting to come out and make loads of money and drive fast cars,” she said.“He wants to get out, work in the community, work in peer support.” His case is one of several getting a second look in the wake of the appeals court decision.Last year, Winona Fletcher was released from prison after serving more than 40 years of a 135-year sentence for her role in the notorious killings of three elderly people in a 1985 home invasion.Fletcher was 14 at the time of the crimes.She is now working in Anchorage, has learned to drive, and got a driver’s license for the first time in her life, her attorney Marcelle McDannel said.Fletcher recently visited Hiland Mountain Correctional Center, the women’s prison where she spent decades, to speak at an event for inmates.Another man, Jonathan Norton, is in the process of having his resentencing request heard.Norton was a 16-year-old Service High School student when he shot and killed a man at a Hillside home and stuffed the body in a closet.A resentencing hearing for Norton’s 99-year sentence is scheduled to continue later this month.The victims of some of the crimes have spoken out against the resentencing.In an op-ed published in the Daily News, family members of victims of Fletcher, Norton and Hall said the Alaska Court of Appeals’ interpretation was a ”profound unfairness to victims." Kavanaugh, the psychologist who testified in Hall’s hearing Friday, also testified in Norton’s case, which includes the same defense legal team of ACLU of Alaska attorneys Susan Orlansky and Jacqueline Friedman Shepherd.The hearing on Hall’s sentencing reconsideration is expected to continue later this month.