Del. Supreme Court upholds Cooke's death sentence

In a unanimous decision Thursday, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence for James E. Cooke Jr. in the May 2005 rape and murder of University of Delaware sophomore Lindsey Bonistall.

"We are relieved by the decision of the Delaware Supreme Court and we are grateful that once again justice has been served," said Kathleen Bonistall, Lindsey's mother.

She added that she is "tentatively" optimistic that this ruling will mean that her family's days of sitting in a courtroom are over. "We are hoping," she said.

The Bonistall family, of White Plains, N.Y., has had to sit through, and testify at, two different trials. Cooke's first conviction and death sentence in 2007 was tossed out by a divided Delaware Supreme Court in 2009, leading to a 2012 retrial.

"There is absolutely no doubt that Cooke is dangerous, depraved and remorseless," said Deputy Attorney General Steve Wood, who prosecuted Cooke at both trials. "The evidence against him is overwhelming. We are gratified that the Supreme Court has affirmed his conviction and death sentence."

Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden added, in a statement, that the ruling was a victory for justice and public safety. "I hope that it also provides some measure of comfort and closure to Lindsey's family who have persevered through unspeakable pain for the nine years since her senseless death."

Defense attorney Anthony A. Figliola Jr. said the result "was not a total surprise."

Figliola said on Thursday he had not yet fully read the 71-page opinion, but would be reviewing it carefully to see if there was any basis for re-argument. Failing that, Figliola said, the likely next step would be to appeal the case to federal court.

Writing for the full court, Delaware Chief Justice Leo E. Strine Jr. said none of the 10 claims raised by Cooke's attorneys to overturn the 2012 conviction on first-degree murder charges provided a basis for reversing the decision of the jury, and the subsequent imposition of the death penalty by Superior Court Judge Charles H. Toliver IV.

"What is also common to many of Cooke's arguments is that they are grounded in the contention that he should be relieved of punishment because of his own inexcusable and incorrigible conduct," wrote Strine.

Cooke fired a string of publicly funded attorneys, including the legal team that won a reversal of his 2007 conviction and death sentence. After demanding his third legal team be fired, a judge told Cooke that he would have to represent himself if they were dismissed, and Cooke said he wanted to act as his own attorney.

Strine noted that Cooke appeared to be playing a "cat and mouse" game with the court, intentionally trying to disrupt his case and thereby delay the trial, and he said that continues in Cooke's appeals.

In particular, Strine wrote that Cooke's attorneys have argued that Toliver erred both in taking away Cooke's right to represent himself when Cooke became disruptive and disrespectful, and that Toliver also erred by failing to take that right away earlier due to Cooke's egregious conduct.

"This approach is Kafkaesque – but with the twist that it is the citizen who is seeking to ensnare the government in a capricious web of unfair illogic," Strine wrote.

Cooke's attorneys also argued that the imposition of the death penalty in this case was improper, but Strine wrote that it was consistent and proportional to other death penalty cases, and it was "not a close case."

"Burglarizing an occupied home in the early morning hours is more than sufficiently terrorizing to the victim," wrote Strine, who before taking office said he was personally opposed to the death penalty but would follow the law when required. "Binding, brutally beating, raping and strangling the innocent and defenseless victim, and then dousing her dead body in bleach and burning it in an attempt to destroy evidence of the crime is – by any minimal standard of human decency – horrific and depraved conduct, which renders the perpetrator eligible for a sentence of death," he wrote.

Cooke also alleged other mistakes by the judge and that there were issues with the jury. The justices dismissed those claims as well.

According to prosecutors, police and trial testimony, Cooke broke into Bonistall's off-campus apartment sometime after 1 a.m. on May 1, 2005. He then bound, beat and raped her before strangling her with a T-shirt. He then set fire to Bonistall's apartment in an apparent attempt to cover his tracks and mislead investigators.

Police later tied Cooke to the crime using DNA recovered from Bonistall's body, Bonistall's hair on a hoodie belonging to Cooke, and by witnesses who saw Cooke near the scene.

At his 2012 trial, Cooke claimed he was innocent and had consensual sex with Bonistall before her death, though he had claimed at his first police interrogation that he didn't know Bonistall.

Both of Cooke's trials were notable for disruptive outbursts by Cooke. In 2012, Cooke frequently feuded with Toliver and, in his opening statement, took a confrontational tone with the jury.

Cooke began with "Good afternoon," he then paused, scowled and said, "I see, I got no response, so I guess everyone has their opinion all made up."

All 12 jurors then responded, "Good afternoon."

On the second day of trial, after the judge again warned Cooke about following proper procedures and courtroom decorum, Cooke called Toliver "evil" and told the judge he was going to go to hell.

On the third day, following yet another confrontation, the judge ruled that Cooke had forfeited his right to represent himself and ordered Cooke's standby attorneys, Figliola and Peter Veith, to take over.

At the conclusion of the case, following a penalty hearing, the jury recommended, 11-1, that the death penalty be imposed.

Cooke's 2007 conviction and death sentence was tossed out by a divided Delaware Supreme Court because a majority of the court ruled that Cooke's public defenders had improperly entered a plea of guilty-but-mentally ill over Cooke's objections.

Cooke claimed he was neither guilty nor mentally ill.

Cooke now has two appellate options left. The first is an appeal to the federal court system to raise constitutional claims related to his conviction and sentence.

The second is a state claim that his attorneys provided inadequate representation. That claim will be difficult for Cooke in that he acted as his own attorney during key parts of the case, and because he turned down a plea offer before trial that would have spared his life.

Contact Sean O'Sullivan at (302) 324-2777 or sosullivan@delawareonline.com or on Twitter @SeanGOSullivan