Judge rejects prosecutors’ attempt to seek death penalty in Nevada case

A judge has struck down federal prosecutors’ plan to pursue the death penalty in a Reno case after they said they would not seek capital punishment during the Biden administration, then reversed course last month.

Cory Spurlock was indicted by a federal grand jury in 2023 on counts including organizing a murder for hire conspiracy, conspiring to distribute marijuana and stalking resulting in death.

Authorities have accused him and other men of killing William and Yesenia Larsen, whose bodies were found in Mono County, California, in 2021, according to U.S. District Judge Miranda Du’s May 9 ruling and a prior California Department of Justice news release.

Federal prosecutors said in a July 2024 notice that they would not pursue the death penalty, then filed a formal notice stating that they would seek death on April 10, just 12 days before the intended start of Spurlock’s trial.

The reversal came after the U.S. attorney general’s office under the administration of President Donald Trump issued a Feb. 5 memo that stated federal prosecutors would be expected to seek death in some cases and directed the attorney general’s capital review committee to re-evaluate cases from President Joe Biden’s administration in which prosecutors decided not to do so.

Du’s ruling, which granted a motion from Spurlock’s lawyers, was critical of federal prosecutors.

“The government falls far short of justifying its attempt to seek death on the eve of trial, years into this case,” the judge wrote. “The government had ample opportunity to exercise discretion in determining whether to pursue capital punishment. It formally notified the Court and Defendant it would not so do in advance of a notice deadline to which it consented. The government may not now unilaterally derail the course of proceedings with regard to this matter of clear procedural and constitutional weight.”

‘Unprecedented’

She added that prosecutors had violated court orders and Spurlock’s due process rights.

A spokesperson for the Nevada U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment, but noted prosecutors have filed a notice that they are appealing Du’s order.

The case may have national implications. Spurlock’s federal public defenders previously said the situation was “unprecedented.”

“Never before has an Attorney General’s decision not to seek the death penalty against a criminal defendant been reversed,” they wrote. “Mr. Spurlock is the first individual in the history of the modern federal death penalty to be provided formal notice that the United States would not seek death against him and then have that notice replaced with a formal death notice under these circumstances.”

Federal prosecutors argued in court filings that they had the right to file a notice to seek death after the court’s deadline, that the change “has not created any unfair advantage” and that “the government has not engaged in any deliberate manipulation of the Court.”

“The decision to seek capital punishment in this case does not reflect any abandonment of the prosecutors’ unique duty to seek justice but rather reflects the Department of Justice’s pursuit of that duty,” federal prosecutors wrote.

Defense attorneys said prosecutors had “no legal authority” for the change.

‘No authority for the government to undo an earlier decision’

The decision to seek death for Spurlock has worried attorneys in at least one other federal case, which involves a group of men prosecutors have tied to multiple killings and accused of being leaders of the MS-13 gang. Prosecutors have said they would not seek death for three of the defendants. A fourth was arrested on April 1.

Attorney Lisa Rasmussen, who represents one of the men, was pleased by Du’s ruling.

“It seems to me that Judge Du’s order is also applicable to our case and the fact remains that there is absolutely no authority for the government to undo an earlier decision not to seek the death penalty,” she said.

Lori Teicher, first assistant federal public defender for Nevada, praised Du’s decision.

“Other courts will read this order’s careful, exhaustive review of the constitutional and procedural issues and follow suit,” she said.

Contact Noble Brigham at nbrigham@reviewjournal.com. Follow @BrighamNoble on X.