This is part of the inquest (the entire document reportedly has not been made public) into the death of Amy Bishop’s brother, Seth. Bishop shot him in 1986 and claimed it was an accident. After her school shooting in 2010, the case was reopened and this inquest was conducted.
During a faculty meeting on February 12, 2010 Professor Amy Bishop opened fire on her colleagues, killing three and wounding three others. In 2011, Dr. Vistasp Karbhari (Provost and Vice-President of Academic Affairs) was tried for not following the university's policy regarding employees who are in crisis on the grounds that he was aware that Bishop was in a state of psychological crisis.
This document lists allegations by Debra Moriarty against Bishop (referred to by her full married name of Amy Bishop Anderson) and her husband, James Anderson.
Bishop claimed that her guilty plea was involuntary and appealed the case. The appeal was denied. The court case presents a detailed summary of the events leading up to, during, and after her attack.
Amy Bishop challenged many things about her trial and its outcome. This case responds to these challenges by dismissing them as without merit.
This is actually a collection of Exhibits A through J from Bishop’s trial. It begins with Bishop’s first-person account of her mental deterioration leading up to her attack, including her paranoid delusions.
This document provides details of Brazill’s behavior the day of the attack and addresses several legal challenges he made regarding his conviction.
This is one of several attempts to hold the makers of Brazill’s gun liable for damages.
This document reveals critical information about Brazill’s family history of alcoholism, domestic violence, and other issues that may have been factors in his attack.
This documents includes the police paperwork recording the arrest of Brazill, along with witness reports.
The parents of some of the victims of Carneal’s attack claimed that he was influenced by violent media and sued the makers of the media products that allegedly contributed to his motivation to commit violence. The outcome was as follows: “An order dismissing this case in its entirety will be entered.”
This document addresses allegations of negligence on the part of multiple people, including Carneal’s parents, his neighbor (from whom he stole the gun used in the attack), and peers who knew he had brought guns to school prior to his attack.
James continued to pursue the case after the initial decision was unfavorable. This case affirms “the district court's dismissal of James's actions.”
During his imprisonment, Carneal’s psychosis was relieved by medication. He then claimed that his earlier guilty plea was made while he was incompetent due to his mental illness. This document addresses this claim.
Carneal appealed his case, desiring to withdraw his guilty plea and claiming that he had been misdiagnosed. The court record includes important information about Michael's mental health.
This case is a continuation of Carneal’s appeal.
This case continues Carneal’s appeal.
This is a further appeal, consisting of Carneal’s claim that “he was not competent to plead guilty to murder, attempted murder, and burglary in 1998 due to an undiagnosed mental illness that he did not fully appreciate until several years later.”
In addition to the court case itself, this document contains several appendices that include medical forms, school records, law enforcement paperwork relating to Chanthabouly’s attack, and reproduced school safety materials.
The estate of the deceased victim, Samnang Kok, sued Chanthabouly and the school district, trying to hold the district accountable for not foreseeing the risk posed by Chanthabouly.
Chanthabouly appealed the decision against him, arguing that his mental health issues were not given sufficient consideration.
These documents are the transcripts from Fabrikant’s trial and were created by combining dozens of smaller documents posted on Fabrikant’s personal website. The link to one of the documents did not work, so there are presumably missing pages for part of one day’s transcripts (the last of three links to the hearing on July 14).
This is a collection of all the legal documents associated with Flores’s divorce and the custody issues relating to his two children.
Several months after the shooting by Jaylen Fryberg, his father (Raymond Lee Fryberg, Jr.) was arrested for illegal possession of firearms. Mr. Fryberg reportedly was not permitted to own guns due to a protection from abuse (PFA) order that had been filed against him in 2002. Mr. Fryberg had allegedly threatened and abused a woman he was involved with and who was the mother of a child of his (not Jaylen). This is the first such information I have seen regarding Jaylen’s family life. This is of particular concern because when this was filed in 2002, Jaylen was three years old. According to the document, the woman had an intimate relationship with Mr. Fryberg in 2001. Initially, two temporary orders (PFAs) were issued. Eventually, the court concluded that Mr. Fryberg had committed domestic violence and a permanent order was put in place. Thus, Mr. Fryberg was intimately involved with and abusing another woman during Jaylen’s early years. When Jaylen’s parents married, and whether or not Mr. Fryberg was living with Jaylen and his mother during this period is unclear. Further still, the document notes that Mr. Fryberg pleaded no contest to a charge of violating the order in 2012, thus indicating that he had resumed contact with the woman.
Andrew Golden committed a school shooting with Mitchell Johnson in 1998. Golden was eleven years old at the time of the attack. In 2000, he appealed his conviction, focusing on issues of competency to stand trial and whether or not juveniles can use insanity as a defense.
Because Mitchell Johnson was only 13 years old at the time of his school shooting, he could only be imprisoned until age 21. Following his release, he was arrested in 2007 for possession of marijuana and a firearm. In 2009, Johnson appealed the case.
On April 2, 2007, nine years after his attack, Mitchell Johnson gave this deposition.
This case is not connected to Johnson’s rampage attack. After he was released from prison for the attack at age 21, he was subsequently arrested for possession of marijuana and firearms. In this case he is appealing his conviction.
On September 29, 2006, at Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconsin, Eric Hainstock shot and killed the principal, John Klang. This court case includes a review of evidence that Hainstock intended to murder Klang.
This court case, alleging racial discrimination by Avis, occurred many years prior to Halder’s rampage attack. It is of interest, however, because years later Halder believed he was victimized by “master race” people at Case Western because he was of an “inferior” race.
Halder appealed his conviction on five grounds but the original decision of the court was upheld.
This case includes several letters by Halder.
This is a case brought by the estate of Norman Wallace (killed by Halder) against Halder and Case Western Reserve University.
This is a case brought by the estate of Norman Wallace (killed by Halder).
This is part of the case brought by the estate of Norman Wallace, who was killed by Halder.
In this case, Halder “alleges that: (1) the trial court erred in depriving him of his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself; and (2) the trial court erred in finding him competent when he had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not capable of assisting in his own defense.”
This is a challenge by Halder regarding his competency and the outcome of his trial.
This court report reviews Houston's early life, his preparation for the attack, and his actions during the attack, including the hours during which he held people hostage. Much of the document deals with Houston's appeals and why they were denied. This is the best source of information on him that I have found.
The judge in this case denied Hribal a trial as a juvenile.
Kip Kinkel was sentenced to 111 years in prison for the murder of his parents and the murders and attempted murders of students during his rampage attack in May, 1998. In 2002 he appealed his sentence. The court record includes a summary of the details of his attacks as well as information provided to the court by mental health professionals.
As noted in this document, Kinkel requested “that the judgment of conviction be set aside and the sentences vacated. In support of that request, petitioner contends that, among other things, he had received constitutionally inadequate assistance of counsel during the plea negotiations, that his acceptance of the plea agreement was not knowing and voluntary, and that the plea agreement should not have been accepted without the consent of his guardian ad litem.” The court did not support Kinkel’s request.
This document contains excerpts from court testimony on Kinkel's mental status provided by four mental health professionals: Dr. Orin Bolstad, Dr. Richard Konkol, Dr. William Sack, and Dr. Jeffrey Hicks.
This case was between Lane’s mother (Sarah Nolan) and father (Thomas Lane, Jr.), with the father requesting emergency custody of T. J., citing the mother’s inabilty to “control herself with respect to the use of alcohol” and concerns about her history of violence.
This document is from 1995 and records the results of Thomas Lane’s paternity test regarding his son, T. J. Lane. The results supported that Mr. Lane was the father and he acknowledged so to the court.
This document contains the full list of indictments against Lane.
Lane challenged the circumstances of his arrest, claiming that he was not properly informed of his Miranda rights. This case reviews the relevant sequence of events. After the court report there are excerpts from Lane’s interrogation on the day of his attack, including the advising him of his Miranda rights and conversation about school and whether or not he knew the victims.
This document lists the charges against Lane and his plea of “guilty.”
Lane appealed his case. This document addresses his appeal. The report also contains a description of the attack as captured by the school’s video cameras. In addition, it highlights Lane’s disclosure that he lied about having psychotic symptoms, lied about having been sexually molested, and lied about not knowing any of the victims.
The families of Lane’s victims requested a trial for Lane’s parents, grandparents, and uncle (from whom Lane stole the gun he used in the attack) for allegedly not providing appropriate supervision and care of Lane.
In 1998, Lo appealed his conviction and in 2001 to 2002, there was another court case regarding the college's financial liability for the attack. Both cases recount the sequence of events the day of the shooting, with the former case including important information indicating Lo's desire to fake mental illness.
This document lists the charges against Loughner, the names of his victims, details of his attack, and other related information.
This is one of several appeals Loughner made protesting being forced to take anti-psychotic medication.
This case continues Loughner’s protest regarding being medicated.
This court document is the record of Loukaitis's 1999 appeal of his conviction.
This court case reviews the facts of the shooting as well as McLaughlin's background and mental health status. This document provides a detailed review of the events of the attack and a discussion of his mental status as reported by different evaluators.
This report contains significant information about O’Rourke’s psychotic symptoms.
These are depositions from people involved in the Karl Pierson case.
This document consists of all the deposition exhibits relating to the incident at Arapahoe High School. The exhibits were numbered 1 through 64, but there are only 63 because for some reason there is no exhibit 39. They have been combined into one document for ease of viewing. The contents includes general reports on school safety and threat assessment, policies and materials of Littleton school district, and documents specifically relating to the shooting by Karl Pierson.
Donald Ramsey, Evan's father, went on an armed rampage on October 21, 1986, and was sent to prison for ten years. In 1992 he filed an appeal. This document provides a summary of the events leading up to and including his rampage.
Evan Ramsey committed his school shooting on February 19, 1997, and was imprisoned. In 2002, he filed an appeal because the original court had not let him introduce evidence at his trial of his history of physical and sexual abuse, as well as bringing up other issues. The court record includes important information about Ramsey's history of placements, abuse, and other matters.
Two of Ramsey's friends were arrested for playing a role in his attack. One friend, James Randall, appealed his conviction. The court document reviews the role that Randall played in the attack and reverses the earlier decision against him.
Evan Ramsey was imprisoned with a sentence of 210 years. In 2005 he filed an appeal that his sentence was excessive. The court record provides a summary of the details of the attack.
Rouse's friend, Stephen Abbott, was charged for his alleged role in the attack. Abbott had heard Rouse talk about killing people and gave him a ride to school on the day of Rouse's attack. Abbott maintains that he did not know Rouse was serious when he talked about shooting people. This court case reviews the evidence regarding Abbott's knowledge of Rouse's intentions.
The court case includes details of the shooting as well as information regarding Rouse's family history.
This case was brought by the estate of one of Jiverly Wong’s victims against a firearms dealer. It recounts the process involved in legally purchasing firearms and Wong’s history of purchases, as well as descriptions of encounters with Wong.
This document makes the case against Gander Mountain, a firearms dealer who provided Jiverly Wong with a gun.
On 1 October 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham killed his mother at home and proceeded to his school, where he committed a rampage attack. Following his initial conviction for murder, Woodham appealed the case on procedural grounds. The documents listed below are records of the subsequent hearings.