Erin Norton

Law & Ethics

April 09, 2016
The Mark Becker Case
Parkersburg, IA, one of the small towns that make up the great state of Iowa. It was
known for the tornado that ripped through the entire town and nearly destroyed it with its
destructive winds. However, these tornadoes were not the only thing the bring Parkersburg on the
edge of its seats. On June 24th, 2009, Coach Ed Thomas was killed by a former student/football
player of his. Mark Becker was this former student who killed the beloved coach by all. To better
understand the story, my class was blessed to have an insider of the story come to our class and
talk to us about the whole story through their eyes and understand just what they were going
through. That someone was Joan Becker, Marks mother. (127)
Joan Becker came to our class and sparked interest in our eyes as she told us her heart
wrenching story about her suffering and then the enlightenment of what had happened from the
beginning and beyond. One of the quotes she said that struck out to me the most was, Mark told
me that ever since he could remember existance, the voices were with him in his mind.. This
quote alone caused shiver down my spine to just imagine a little boy hearing voices he did not
know talking to him and how he did not talk to his parents at all about the voices in fear of being
judged for what he was hearing and couldnt control it at all. Later on, Joan went through their
family's ancestry and saw that mental illness ran through their entire family on both sides. Nor
her or her husband or their other kids had any evidence of mental illness in them, but they make
sure to be open about it. Now, with Mark having a mental illness, he went to the Iowa Supreme
court and claimed insanity. What happened in the court? I am here to tell you what had
happened. (199)
When browsing and reading the STAVE v. BECKER case, the first thing that caught my
mind was when the jury foreman sent a note to the court asking, What would happen to Mark
Becker if we find him insane? The response from the court was what caught my eye the most:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: You have asked the following question: What would happen
to Mark Becker if we find him insane? Answer: You need not concern yourself with the
potential consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Please refer to Instruction
Number 10. You must decide whether he is guilty or not guilty, and, if you decide he is guilty,
you must then decide the issue of insanity. In the event of a guilty verdict or a verdict of not
guilty by reason of insanity, you have nothing to do with the consequences. Those are issues for
the Court, not for the jury. After the court read this proposed answer to the attorneys, the State
indicated that it believed the instruction accurately states the law. Becker's counsel agreed and
did not renew its request that the jury be instructed about the consequences of a not-guilty-byreason-of-insanity verdict. (203)
If I was a part of this jury, I would request and want to know what would happen the man
and make sure he would get the proper help he would need. Now, I was wondering what had
happened so to quote from the last paragraph of the case, The record amply demonstrates the
jury had reached an impasse on the insanity defense by midday on the third day of its
deliberations. Seeking to break the impasse, the jury requested information about what would
happen to Mark Becker if he were found insane. I believe this request clearly reveals some
jurors were unwilling to credit the insanity defense without the additional information. Indeed,
when the district court denied the jurors' request for such information, the deadlock persisted
through the remainder of the third day of deliberations, and through the fourth day as well,

before the impasse was broken and the uninformed jury rejected Becker's defense. Under these
circumstances, I would hold, just as surely as if Becker had been denied the opportunity to
present testimony, expert or otherwise, supporting his insanity defense, the district court's
rejection of Becker's proposed consequences instruction deprived Becker of a meaningful
opportunity to assert his insanity defense. Given Becker's history of violent, delusional, and
homicidal conduct consistent with severe mental derangement, the jurors were justifiably
unwilling, without the requested information about the consequences, to risk the possibility that
Becker would again be released without proper psychiatric assessment and management.
Deprived of a meaningful opportunity to assert his only defense, Becker's right to a fair jury trial
was abridged. I would grant him a new trial. This was also posted on the website, Iowa
Appeals, This morning, the Iowa Supreme Court has issued an opinion affirming Mark
Beckers conviction for killing Aplington-Parkersburg football coach Ed Thomas. With Justice
Zager writing for six of the seven justices, the Court ruled that while the district courts jury
instructions relating to Beckers insanity defense were not a model of clarity, they accurately
and fairly stated the applicable law. The Court also ruled that the Iowa Constitution does not
require that the district court explain to the jury the consequences of a not-guilty-by-reason-ofinsanity verdict. Justice Hecht was the lone dissenting vote. He would have reversed the
conviction and remanded the case for a new trial because, in his view, the district courts failure
to instruct the jury on the consequences of a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict deprived
Becker of due process because it, in effect, nullified his insanity defense. I now end this with a
final thought. Would YOU give Mark Becker another trial? Would you wonder if he would be
getting proper help? If I had the choice to give him a new trial, I would grant him a new trial in
the end.