Daniel Wayne Cook

Case record: Daniel Wayne Cook

Background

Daniel Wayne Cook worked at a restaurant in Lake Havasu City, Arizona, and shared an apartment with John Matzke and Carlos Froyan Cruz-Ramos. Cook and Matzke worked at the restaurant and lived together in a two-bedroom apartment in Lake Havasu City. Cruz-Ramos, a co-worker at the restaurant, had moved in with Cook and Matzke and slept on the floor at the apartment. Kevin Swaney, another co-worker, was a dishwasher at the restaurant and was described as a sixteen-year-old runaway and sometime guest at the apartment.

The offence

On July 19, 1987, Cook stole money from Cruz-Ramos. After Cruz-Ramos began searching the apartment for the money, Cook and Matzke tied Cruz-Ramos to a chair and began beating him with their fists and a metal pipe.

Cook cut Cruz-Ramos with a knife, sodomized him, and burned his genitals with cigarettes. After several hours of torture, Matzke and Cook crushed Cruz-Ramos’ throat with the pipe.

When Kevin Swaney arrived at the apartment, Cook forced Swaney upstairs and showed him Cruz-Ramos’ body. Cook and Matzke then tied Swaney to a chair. Matzke went to sleep while Cook sodomized Swaney. After Cook was finished, he woke Matzke and the two men strangled Swaney to death with a bed sheet.

Investigation

John Matzke later went to the police, confessed to the murders, and implicated Cook. Matzke’s confession included a videotaped confession portion presented to the jury. Officers searched the apartment pursuant to Matzke’s consent and discovered the bodies in the closet of Matzke’s bedroom.

After Cook was arrested, Detective David Eaton advised Cook of his Miranda rights and asked Cook how the two bodies had gotten there. Cook replied: “We got to partying; things got out of hand; now two people are dead.” When asked how they died, Cook stated: “My roommate killed one and I killed the other.” Cook also admitted to choking Swaney to death. Cook refused to make any further statements after these admissions.

Arrest

Cook was arrested at the apartment in Lake Havasu City. Officers searched the apartment and located the two bodies.

Trial

Cook and Matzke were charged with two counts of first-degree murder, including a death penalty allegation under Arizona Revised Statute § 13-703. A grand jury returned an indictment on two counts of first-degree murder against Cook and Matzke.

Claude Keller was appointed to represent Cook. Cook received psychological evaluations on October 23 and November 17, 1987. The court held a hearing on January 4, 1988, and concluded that Cook was competent to stand trial. A motion for an additional mental examination was filed on January 14, 1988, and a neurological examination was performed on or about February 13, 1988; the results were filed with the court.

On April 11, 1988, Cook filed a pro se motion to waive counsel and have counsel appointed as advisory counsel. At a hearing on April 21, 1988, Cook asked for different advisory counsel and explained: “Mr. Keller has worked hard for my defense; cares about the outcome of my trial. My personal beliefs is that he cannot advise me according to my defense.” Cook also explained that he did not want Keller as advisory counsel: “If you're amenable to my waiver of counsel, I would ask that you not appoint Mr. Keller as my legal advisor.”

Judge Steven F. Conn conducted a lengthy explanation of the perils of self-representation and then conducted extensive questioning pursuant to Faretta v. California. The court found that Cook voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel. The court granted Cook’s motion and appointed Keller as advisory counsel.

Matzke entered into a stipulated guilty plea and an executed agreement to testify truthfully in a manner consistent with his videotaped confession on October 30, 1987. The trial judge sentenced Matzke to twenty years in prison. Matzke testified at Cook’s trial on June 28, 1988, and again on July 5, 1988.

Cook also faced the State’s motion to preclude evidence of intoxication. On June 24, 1988, Cook did not oppose the motion. Cook stated: “What [the prosecutor] brings up in his motion basically does not even apply to my defense, your Honor.” The court precluded evidence of intoxication because the State proceeded on a theory that the murders were committed “knowingly” rather than “intentionally.” The court then asked Cook if he had any objection to precluding evidence of intoxication and explained the consequences of granting the motion; Cook replied: “That's exactly what I was stating, your Honor. I have no objection.”

At trial, Cook elected general denial and alibi theories as affirmative defenses. Cook also reiterated that he did not want to present evidence of drinking or drug use by him or Matzke during a pre-trial conference.

In the course of trial, Cook questioned Detective Eaton about his contact with Cook on July 21, 1987 and attempted to discredit Eaton’s testimony that Cook confessed to killing Swaney by asking about why the statement was not videotaped. Detective Eaton responded that Cook’s confession was not taped because Cook invoked the right to remain silent.

Cook requested a mistrial at one point; the trial judge denied the motion, finding that Eaton’s testimony was responsive to Cook’s line of questioning and included a proper explanation for why Cook’s confession was not taped.

Cook made closing arguments including an attempt to argue that he was not at the apartment and that the murders were blamed on Matzke and Watkins. In his closing, Cook stated: “Mr. Matzke stated in his testimony there was a party that night at the apartment. I couldn't tell you. I don't know.”

During the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument, the prosecutor argued: John Matzke made [a videotaped statement] and we heard continuous cross-examination of the detective about why the Defendant didn't make one. He didn't make one because he, the Defendant, was the one that cut off the interview. If he had made one, you would have had the statements we got to partying a little bit and things got out of hand. My roommate killed one and I killed the other. I killed Kevin. You would have heard the exact same statements.

The prosecutor also commented: “There were only four people there at that time of the deaths; two of them are dead; one is in prison; one is the Defendant.”

Cook did not object to the rebuttal comments at the time, but moved for a mistrial during jury deliberations; the court denied the motion using the same grounds as for the earlier denial.

After the conclusion of the testimony, the court distributed proposed jury instructions and informed Cook that it did not include lesser-included instructions or alternative jury verdicts. Cook did not object to a first-degree murder instruction using “knowingly” as the required mental state.

Cook requested a second-degree murder instruction based on Matzke’s plea to second-degree murder; the judge denied it after concluding there was no evidence to show a lack of premeditation.

The jury began deliberations at 2:07 p.m. on July 6, 1988. The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts later that afternoon at 3:23 p.m.

Cook filed a motion for further mental health evaluation on July 29, 1988. The trial judge heard argument on August 4, 1988 and denied the motion, concluding that unless Cook articulated why the Rule 11 examinations were insufficient, there was no reason for further examination. The judge stated that any prior mental health evaluations could be considered when deciding mitigating circumstances.

Sentencing

Cook declined to present evidence at sentencing. Cook complained about access to the Mohave County law library and then stated: “[o]nly sentence I will accept from this Court at this time is the penalty of death, your Honor. I have nothing further.”

The trial judge considered the pre-sentence report, the Rule 11 mental health evaluations, the State’s sentencing memorandum, a letter from Cook, the trial evidence, and matters from hearings in the case.

The court found aggravating factors to apply:

1. Ramos was killed for pecuniary gain under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-703(F)(4) (or § 13-703(F)(5) as described in other portions of the proceedings).
2. The murders were done in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-703(F)(6) (or § 13-703(F)(6) as described at trial).
3. Multiple murders were committed under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-703(F)(8).

The court considered Cook’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-703(G) and found there was insufficient evidence that Cook’s intoxication affected his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. The court also considered Cook’s prior history of mental illness, suicide attempts, and other mental problems and found no connection between those prior mental problems and the murders. The court found no mitigating circumstances to offset aggravating factors and sentenced Cook to death on each count.

Cook’s admission and sentencing record included a specific sentence imposition listing: Sentence: DEATH Conviction Imposed: MURDER 1ST DEGREE (DEATH), Kidnapping (21 years), Sexual Assault (21 years), Burglary 1st Degree (21 years) County: Mohave Case#: 0009358 Date of Offense: 07/20/87 Admission: 08/23/88

Additional trial and sentencing details included the presiding judge and prosecutor: Presiding Judge: Steven F. Conn Prosecutor: Eric Larsen

At sentencing, the State argued that the murder of Cruz-Ramos was for pecuniary gain and that it was committed in an especially cruel, heinous, or depraved manner. The State also argued that Swaney’s murder was especially cruel, heinous, and depraved. The court found these aggravating factors existed and also found an additional aggravating factor for both murders: that they were committed during the commission of another homicide.

Appeals

On direct appeal, Cook raised issues including:

• Denial of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel based on allowing him to waive appointed counsel and failure to permit hybrid representation.
• Allowing conviction under a “knowingly” theory and precluding evidence of intoxication.
• Prosecutor comments on Cook’s invocation of Fifth Amendment rights.
• Dismissal of a juror based on allegations stemming from the prosecutor’s personal investigation.
• Refusal to continue trial to secure testimony of certain witnesses.
• Admission at trial of a statement made by Cook at his initial appearance.
• Admission of Matzke’s testimony pursuant to a plea agreement requiring truthfulness and consistency.
• Refusal to instruct the jury on second-degree murder.
• Findings of aggravating circumstances including multiple homicides, especially cruel/heinous/depraved murder, and pecuniary gain.
• Preclusion of evidence of voluntary intoxication for mitigation and failure to consider Cook’s history of neurological and psychiatric problems as mitigating.
• Unconstitutionality of Arizona death penalty statutes on specified grounds.

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Cook’s conviction and death sentences. The opinion stated that Cook was competent to waive counsel and that his decision was voluntary. It affirmed that Cook waived his claim regarding preclusion of evidence of intoxication by not objecting when the State proceeded on a “knowingly” theory and it found no fundamental error in other claims. It also affirmed findings that aggravating circumstances existed and that the aggravating factors outweighed any possible mitigating circumstances.

Cook later sought federal habeas corpus relief. In Cook v. Schriro, 516 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2008), the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of habeas relief. The holdings included that Cook’s waiver of right to counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, that the prosecutor did not violate Fifth Amendment rights regarding self-incrimination comments, that the trial court did not need to instruct on second-degree murder, and that procedurally defaulted claims were barred.

Outcome

Cook was sentenced to death. His execution proceeded after federal habeas proceedings and after the Supreme Court dismissed or cleared the way for execution. He was executed by lethal injection.

The Arizona Supreme Court citation for Cook’s direct appeal was State v. Cook, 170 Ariz. 40, 821 P.2d 731 (Ariz. 1991).

Last words

Before the execution, Cook made a statement that included: “I'd like to say sorry to the victim's family. I know that's not enough . . . (significant pause) . . . Where am I? To my lawyers, thank you. Red Robin, yum. I'm done. I love you”

Other last-statement excerpts also appeared in the execution coverage as: “I’d like to say I’m sorry to the victims,” “I know that’s not enough,” “Where am I?” “To my lawyers, thank you,” “Red Robin, yum. I’m done. I love you”

During the execution process, Cook was pronounced dead at 11:03 a.m.

Final / special meal

Cook’s final/special meal included: Eggplant lasagna, garlic cheese mashed potatoes, roasted brussel sprouts, broiled asparagus, root beer soda, and ice cream. Last Meal Request included: •Eggplant lasagna •Garlic cheese mash potatoes •Roasted brussel sprouts •Broiled asparagus •Ice cream •Root beer.

Other details

Cook’s DOC-related identifying details included: Inmate: DANIEL W. COOK DOC#: 069007 DOB: 07/23/61 Gender: Male Height: 71" Weight: 132 Hair Color: Brown Eye Color: Blue Ethnic: Caucasion

Execution-related placement was described as occurring in Florence, Arizona. Cook was sentenced to death on August 8, 1988 and executed by lethal injection on August 8, 2012.

During sentencing and trial proceedings, Cook filed a letter to the probation officer and other submissions, and he participated in proceedings as his own representative through sentencing.

John Matzke was allowed to enter a guilty plea to second-degree murder, was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, confessed and testified against Cook, and was released from prison in July 2007.

Family members of victims made remarks after the execution, including statements attributed to:

• Bridgette Lester
• Lynne Pattee (sister)
• Shean Stewart (brother) with remarks including: “I do not feel he truly had any remorse.” “People need to know that it was a rightful execution.” “He’s not an innocent man.” “I felt sorry for him.” “What he did was really wrong, and a lot of years, I used to hate him. I mean hate him. The man I saw laying there on that gurney was scared.” and “His views are not mine.”