Delores Rivers

Case details

Delores Rivers (Delores Precious (Lane) Rivers) was a home health-care worker in Philadelphia. She was 34 years old at the time of the crime (DOB 12-25-1953).

Rivers was convicted in connection with the murder of Violet Burt, a 74-year-old woman, in Burt’s home in the Frankford section of Philadelphia.

Timeline

• January 29, 1988 — Nathaniel Lewis watched television with Violet Burt while they made up a grocery list, and locked the doors when he left.
• January 30, 1988 — Violet Burt was found dead lying on the dining room floor in a pool of blood; Rivers was linked by witnesses to being in a nearby drug house and later returning with cash; Rivers did not service her scheduled weekend client appointments according to Home Cross Care records.
• February 7, 1988 — A search warrant was executed for the residence of the appellant; police also obtained a warrant for appellant’s arrest.
• February 26, 1988 — Rivers was arrested when she was found lying face down on a roadway in an intoxicated and drugged condition.
• March 15, 1989 — A jury convicted appellant of murder in the first degree, robbery and possession of an instrument of crime.
• March 16, 1989 — Common Pleas Judge John J. Poserina Jr. formally sentenced Rivers to death.
• June 30, 2005 — Rivers was resentenced to life in prison without parole.
• July 1, 1994 — The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided the direct appeal in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Delores Rivers, Appellant.

Background

Rivers provided at-home nursing care for Violet Burt, a regular patient scheduled for weekend service by Home Cross Care Services. She also worked the night shift at Norwood Nursing home in January of 1988 and was scheduled to work from 11:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. on January 29, 1988, but she never showed up that night or any night thereafter. She was eventually terminated from Northwood for job abandonment.

Home Cross Care Services included employment as a home care nursing assistant, with Rivers listed as a regular home care provider for patients such as Mrs. Knuckles and the father Frank Newman. According to Home Cross Care records and witness testimony, Rivers did not arrive to care for Mr. Newman on January 30, 1988 and did not service clients according to a record entry by the weekend co-ordinator.

The offence

Rivers was convicted of murder in the first degree, robbery and possession of an instrument of crime in connection with the homicide of Violet Burt.

The scenario regarding Burt’s death was described as follows:

• Violet Burt was last seen alive on the evening of January 29, 1988, with Nathaniel Lewis from 7:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. while they made up a grocery list and watched television.
• When Lewis left, he ensured the doors were locked.
• On January 30, 1988, Lewis returned with Burt’s groceries and received no response to repeated knocking.
• On discovery of Burt’s body on January 30, 1988, Burt was found dead, lying on the dining room floor in a pool of blood.

The medical examiner testified that Burt’s death was a homicide. The cause of death was attributable to various traumas to the head and body, multiple stab wounds and manual strangulation. The stab wounds were the result of two or three different knives. Broken pieces of one knife were discovered at the scene.

Witness testimony described Rivers as having come to a nearby house to smoke cocaine, running out of money, and later returning with cash. One witness testified that Rivers ran out of money and left around 7:30 or 8:00 p.m., then returned later that evening at approximately 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. with a large amount of cash, primarily fifty dollar bills, wadded and stuffed in her shirt. When asked how she obtained the cash, Rivers replied that she had robbed somebody. The witness testified that Rivers gave him fifty dollars to say she had been in his house all day and night if someone asked, and also gave money to purchase more cocaine for her along with beer and cigarettes. The same witness stated that Rivers remained in his house until 7:00 or 8:00 a.m. the next morning.

Another witness testified that on January 29, 1988 she was smoking crack with Rivers when Rivers left and later returned; Rivers called her into the bathroom, pulled money out of her shirt, and stated that she had beaten and stabbed someone. The witness stated that she observed blood stains on Rivers’ white pants and yellow jacket and that Rivers became hysterical about the blood and asked to wipe it off. The witness testified that Rivers also gave her twenty dollars to say that Rivers had been at the house all night. The witness further testified that Rivers asked her to hold her knife; the witness interpreted this as a request to dispose of the knife and refused.

A further witness testified that she saw Rivers around midnight on January 30, 1988 in the bathroom of the house, identifying Rivers’ white jeans and yellow jacket.

A witness related that in the morning of January 30, 1988, she helped remove Rivers from the house. Rivers was acting strangely, and was carrying a large bag from which she pulled a large knife. Rivers entered housing projects asking the witness to wait for her. After waiting without seeing her return, the witness continued on.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania described that the Commonwealth established that Burt was intentionally killed by the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of her body, and that Rivers had access to Burt’s home, was in the vicinity on the night of the murder, was seen shortly thereafter, had blood-stained clothing and boasted of having robbed and stabbed someone, and acted in a manner consistent with guilt after the homicide.

Investigation

Detective Walsh executed a search warrant for the residence of the appellant on February 7, 1988. Among the items seized were a pair of white jeans, a yellow jacket and a knife. Joseph McBride, a crime lab chemist, examined the items and discovered traces of human blood on the jacket. No blood was found on the other items, and the residue on the jacket was not sufficient for blood typing analysis.

The investigation also involved searching police reports and hospital emergency records to find no reported beatings or stabbings for the time period from 4:00 p.m. January 29, 1988 through midnight February 1, 1988 in the geographic neighborhood where Lewis and Burt lived. The investigation revealed only the death of Burt in that area during that time frame.

The warrant for appellant’s arrest was obtained on February 7, 1988. Officers were unable to locate appellant at her residence when they arrived. A diligent search included placing an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer with a picture of appellant, stating that she was wanted in connection with the investigation into the murder of Violet Burt.

Arrest

Rivers was arrested on February 26, 1988 when she was found lying face down on a roadway in an intoxicated and drugged condition.

Trial

Convictions

Rivers was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree, robbery and possession of an instrument of crime.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania noted that on March 15, 1989, a jury convicted appellant of murder in the first degree, robbery and possession of an instrument of crime. The following day, the same jury found sufficient evidence to establish two aggravating circumstances and no evidence of any mitigating circumstances, and the penalty was fixed by the jury at death.

Evidentiary and pre-trial issues

Rivers claimed that statements given to police prior to her arrest should have been suppressed because they were made while she was in custody without Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania concluded that the first statement was taken at her residence the day after the body was discovered, and at that time she was not a suspect, was not in custody, and there was no reason for police to provide Miranda warnings. It also concluded that although the second statement was made at the police station, she was not in custody and was not considered a suspect when the discussion commenced, and that after finishing the discussion the officer drove her home; the trial court concluded the statements were not coerced from her as a result of custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court further noted that the statements were exculpatory and neither was introduced against her at trial.

Rivers also asserted insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing to justify holding her over for trial on the charge of murder. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania treated this as moot after concluding trial evidence was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to connect her to the crime.

Other trial error arguments

Rivers argued that the trial court erred by excluding evidence that the decedent was afraid of and had been threatened by persons other than Rivers. During trial, counsel attempted to elicit testimony that the investigating officer had suspected the decedent’s nephew of being involved in the murder. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania concluded that Rivers was not precluded from presenting evidence that John Butler may have been a suspect or had a motive, and that she was merely prevented from eliciting the inference that John Butler was a suspect via cross-examination without relevant admissible evidence.

Rivers challenged admission of two photographs:

• One photograph showed the outline of the decedent’s body with blood stain visible around the outline, in black and white, and the body was deliberately deleted to minimize gruesome details. The Supreme Court concluded admission was within the trial court’s discretion and did not abuse that discretion.
• The second photograph depicted the decedent alive. The Supreme Court concluded the admission was error, describing it as irrelevant to the central issue of guilt or innocence and noting that admission of this type of photograph was error; however, it concluded the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

Rivers also objected to admission of a photograph of the appellant published in the Philadelphia Inquirer along with an article describing the police interest in speaking with her regarding the death of Violet Burt. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania concluded the article with accompanying photograph was relevant to the Commonwealth’s position that appellant was eluding the police and that the mere fact that police possess a photograph did not create an inference of prior criminal activity without testimony regarding its source.

Rivers challenged Rose Bair’s testimony about Burt’s habit of keeping large sums of cash hidden. The Supreme Court concluded the testimony had sufficient foundation because Bair was familiar with her mother’s habit and had recently counted the money in her presence, and because upon discovering Burt’s body Bair was unable to locate the money. The Court stated the testimony was relevant to provide a possible motive.

Rivers asserted prosecutorial misconduct during the guilt stage, listing ten allegations grouped into categories. The Supreme Court concluded none of the listed allegations constituted misconduct and that cumulative prosecutorial misconduct also failed.

Quotations from sentencing-related proceedings

At the sentencing hearing, Rivers accused two prosecution witnesses of committing the murder. Rivers said:

"I was the lookout," Rivers said. "I never went into the house. I've lived with this a long time. They were just supposed to get some money and come out. "I loved Mrs. Burt," she told the jury. "I would never hurt her. I swear I did not hurt her in any way."

Assistant District Attorney David Desiderio commented later:

"it was obvious she was lying."

Sentencing

Original sentence

On March 16, 1989, Common Pleas Judge John J. Poserina Jr. The sentencing followed a jury conviction and a penalty determination.

Appeals

Commonwealth v. Delores Rivers (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania)

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decision is identified as Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Delores Rivers, Appellant. It stated:

• Argued October 20, 1993
• Decided July 1, 1994

The Court described that on March 15, 1989, a jury convicted appellant of murder in the first degree, robbery and possession of an instrument of crime, and that the same jury found two aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances, fixing the penalty at death.

Issues addressed

The Court addressed sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder, pre-trial error, trial error claims including photographs and evidentiary rulings, and prosecutorial misconduct claims.

In the penalty phase, the Commonwealth argued two aggravating circumstances:

• that the killing occurred during the perpetration of a felony, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(6)
• that the appellant had a significant history of felony convictions, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(9)

The appellant argued two mitigating circumstances:

• that her participation in the murder was relatively minor, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(7)
• general evidence of her character and record, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(8)

Rivers also sought to present mitigating evidence as to her age at the time of the killing pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(4), but the trial court refused to allow that age argument as a mitigating factor. The jury found no mitigating circumstances and imposed a sentence of death.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the sentence of death. It concluded the sentence was not the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor, found the evidence sufficient to establish the two aggravating factors found by the jury under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(6) and (d)(9), and determined the sentence was not disproportionate to similar cases.

The opinion included a note that Larsen, J., did not participate in the decision, and that Montemuro, J., was an appointed justice of the Court at the time of argument.

Outcome

Resentencing

In May 2005, a federal judge granted Rivers a new penalty phase hearing. Philadelphia prosecutors agreed not to seek another death sentence if Rivers would admit her guilt and waive all future appeals.

A resentencing hearing took place in June 2005, where Rivers withdrew the sentence of death and was resentenced to life in prison without parole. The Common Pleas Court judge who presided over Rivers’ 1989 trial, John J. Poserina Jr., presided over the resentencing hearing. Poserina said:

"I formally withdraw the sentence of death, and resentence the defendant to life in prison without parole,"

At the same hearing, Rivers made statements about her hair and Poserina responded jovially:

"Thank you, your honor. . . . You look so good!" said Rivers, clad in a brown Department of Corrections shirt and pants.
"Was my hair dark then?" the white-haired Poserina jovially asked her.
"I'm silver, too," Rivers said in a soft voice, pointing to her own hair.
"God bless you," Poserina told Rivers as she was led away.
"God bless you, too," Rivers told the judge.

Assistant Defender Victor Abreau, of the Federal Defender Association, said:

"is a different person than she was 18 or 19 years ago. She's clean. She's involved in church. I think this is the best thing for all parties."

The resentencing resulted in Rivers not being eligible for parole.

Other details

Rivers was described in connection with drug use and seeking money to buy drugs. Assistant District Attorney David Desiderio said Rivers decided to rob her patient to get money to buy drugs. Desiderio also related that before the murder, Rivers told fellow "coke users" at a drug house that she was out of money and would come back later, and that two hours later she returned with a "wad" of bills totaling $6,000. Desiderio testified that Rivers told friends: "I just beat and stabbed somebody,".

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania also referenced legal provisions at issue:

• Footnote 1 stated the specific provisions of the criminal code at issue were respectively: 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502, § 3701 and § 907.
• Footnote 5 cited Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

A note within the Supreme Court opinion stated that the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court was directed to transmit, as soon as possible, the full and complete record of the trial, sentencing hearing, imposition of sentence and review by the Court to the Governor under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(i).