State Lacks Death Penalty, But Feds Can Still Use It

It took five years for prosecutors to build their case against Kristen Gilbert and five weeks for jurors to be selected in the state’s first death penalty case in decades.

In opening statements set for today, both sides will present publicly for the first time the broad contours of their cases in the trial of the former nurse.

Gilbert, 33, is accused of four murders and three attempted killings inside the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Northampton.

Prosecutors will argue she injected sick veterans with drugs that made their hearts race out of control in a bid to gain attention from co-workers when she responded to the medical crises she provoked.

Gilbert’s lawyers say the patients, some of whom were being treated for serious illnesses, died of natural causes.

Gilbert’s trial has revived debate on efforts to restore the death penalty in Massachusetts.

The state hasn’t had a death penalty since 1984, when the state’s highest court banned executions. But because the veterans died on federal property, Gilbert is being tried in U.S. District Court.

“There’s something deeply unsettling about seeing a federal capital trial in a state that has said ‘no’ to that,” said Ann Lambert, a lawyer for the state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the death penalty.

There are prisoners on federal death row, but there have been no executions for 37 years.

Gilbert’s lead lawyer, David Hoose, said Monday’s defense opening carries a special burden because this trial could last so long--potentially five months.

“It could be months before they get to hear from us,” Hoose said.

Gilbert, of Setauket, N.Y., has been treated for psychiatric problems, but the defense is not mounting an insanity case.

Prosecutor William Welch said his side’s opening “is not going to be any different than it would be for any other case.”

The jurors, seated Friday from among 600 initial candidates, will hear months of often technical medical evidence and likely will have to decide whether to acquit or convict on mostly circumstantial evidence.

During questioning of potential jurors, the government suggested it might not even propose a concrete motive.

If jurors do convict Gilbert of murder, they would have to decide in a separate penalty phase whether to order her put to death.