
Utah judge rules a convicted killer with dementia is competent to be executed
Ralph Leroy Menzies, 67, was sentenced to die in 1988 for killing Utah mother of three Maurine Hunsaker. Despite his recent cognitive decline, Menzies 'consistently and rationally understands' what is happening and why he is facing execution, Judge Matthew Bates wrote in a court order.
'Menzies has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his understanding of his specific crime and punishment has fluctuated or declined in a way that offends the Eighth Amendment,' which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, Bates said.
Menzies had previously selected a firing squad as his method of execution. He would become only the sixth U.S. prisoner executed by firing squad since 1977.
The Utah Attorney General's Office is expected to file a death warrant soon.
Menzies' lawyers, who had argued his dementia was so severe that he could not understand why he was being put to death, said they plan to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.
'Ralph Menzies is a severely brain-damaged, wheelchair-bound, 67-year-old man with dementia and significant memory problems,' his attorney, Lindsey Layer, said in a statement. 'It is deeply troubling that Utah plans to remove Mr. Menzies from his wheelchair and oxygen tank to strap him into an execution chair and shoot him to death.'
The U.S. Supreme Court has spared others prisoners with dementia from execution, including an Alabama man in 2019 who had killed a police officer.
Over nearly four decades, attorneys for Menzies filed multiple appeals that delayed his death sentence, which had been scheduled at least twice before it was pushed back.
Hunsaker, a 26-year-old married mother of three, was abducted by Menzies from the convenience store where she worked. She was later found strangled and her throat cut at a picnic area in the Wasatch Mountains of northern Utah. Menzies had Hunsaker's wallet and several other belongings when he was jailed on unrelated matters. He was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes.
Matt Hunsaker, who was 10 years old when his mother was killed, said Friday that the family was overwhelmed with emotion to know that justice would finally be served.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Ghislaine Maxwell's bombshell televised testimony on Epstein's crimes indefinitely postponed
Ghislaine Maxwell 's testimony before Congress has been postponed pending her Supreme Court case, a top Republican has announced. Maxwell, the longtime friend of deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, is currently serving a 20-year-sentence for sex trafficking and has been in talks with the Trump administration and Congress about dishing on the disgraced financier and his relationships. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer announced last week that Maxwell was set to testify before the panel on August 11 at the Tallahassee facility where she is serving her prison sentence. But now he says that planned sit-down interview is no longer happening. Comer said in a letter he would agree to delay their meeting so that Maxwell's pending Supreme Court petition regarding her case could move forward unswayed by her testimony to the oversight panel. 'On July 30, the U.S. Supreme Court noticed that your petition for writ of certiorari will be considered at its conference on September 29. In light of this notice, the Committee is willing to delay your deposition until a date following the Court's certiorari determination,' he wrote. The Supreme Court's new term begins in October. 'Your testimony is vital to the Committee's efforts regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, including the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and the circumstances surrounding Mr. Epstein's death,' the chairman wrote to Maxwell. Just days before, Comer denied the imprisoned woman's request for immunity should she speak to Congress. 'The Oversight Committee will respond to Ms. Maxwell's attorney soon, but it will not consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony,' a spokesperson for the panel told the Daily Mail this week. The letter from Maxwell attorney David Markus to the committee - which was obtained by the Daily Mail - contains a list of conditions for her to testify, including immunity. 'Public reports—including your own statements—indicate that the committee intends to question Ms. Maxwell in prison and without a grant of immunity. Those are non-starters,' the letter states. 'Ms. Maxwell cannot risk further criminal exposure in a politically charged environment without formal immunity. Nor is a prison setting conducive to eliciting truthful and complete testimony. The potential for leaks from such a setting creates real security risks and undermines the integrity of the process.' Markus further requested that the committee provide Maxwell with their questions in advance of their sit-down. He also asked to push their meeting until after Maxwell's pending case before the Supreme Court in which she's alleging wrongful legal treatment and until after a subsequent secondary challenge so that her testimony does not sway those cases. Maxwell may want to talk, according to a source who told the Daily Mail last week 'she would be more than happy to sit before Congress and tell her story.' But there were always going to be strings attached to testimony from such a notorious target. The rush to hear from Epstein's protege comes as some lawmakers have raised concern about her protection. 'I requested that she be placed immediately into protective custody and monitored - by guards as well as working surveillance equipment - around the clock, so that our justice system does not again fail the survivors of this Epstein nightmare,' Republican Rep. Scott Perry posted on X. Trump's closest allies and rank-and-file members - including House Oversight Chairman James Comer, Anna Paulina Luna, Nancy Mace and Marjorie Taylor Greene - backed the subpoena for Maxwell. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has met multiple times with Maxwell at the behest of Trump to discuss what she knows about the Epstein files. Blanche offered Maxwell a limited form of immunity during her two days of questioning over former lover and billionaire pedophile Epstein last week. She apparently requested what's known as 'proffer immunity' so that anything she revealed couldn't be used against her at a later date. This form of immunity is specifically provided to people under investigation or facing charges to determine the value of a possible witness. Maxwell has already been tried and convicted. However, Maxwell's lawyer David Oscar Markus said after her questioning: 'There have been no asks and no promises.'


Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Brazil's Justice Moraes ignores US sanctions, says he will continue doing his job
SAO PAULO, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is overseeing a criminal case against an ally of President Donald Trump, told a court session on Friday that he will continue to do his job and "ignore the sanctions" imposed by the United States that effectively block him from the country's wide-reaching financial system. On Wednesday, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Moraes for overseeing the trial of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, accusing the judge of authorizing arbitrary pre-trial detentions and suppressing freedom of expression. Justice Moraes has presided over the criminal case against Bolsonaro, who has been charged with plotting a coup to overturn Brazil's 2022 presidential election after his supporters violently stormed government buildings following the election victory of leftist Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. The U.S. sanctions were accompanied by an executive order imposing a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods, which was also tied to the case Moraes is overseeing against Bolsonaro, an unwavering supporter of the U.S. president. Bolsonaro, a far-right former army captain, and several of his closest allies were charged with plotting a coup to overturn his 2022 electoral loss, in a case that was in many ways similar to accusations against Trump. Moraes said the court would not submit itself to foreign coercion or what he likened to new coup attempts by Bolsonaro's allies. Moraes said the Federal Supreme Court will continue to exercise its role as guardian of the Constitution. "It will continue to exercise its role in criminal proceedings so that it can provide a final answer to all Brazilian society regarding who was truly responsible" for the attempted coup, he said, adding that there will be due process of law with no internal or external interference. Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro, a son of the former president who moved to the U.S. to persuade the White House to intervene in his father's favor, has claimed credit for Trump's policies on Brazil. "This criminal organization's insistence on implementing measures harmful to Brazil, by encouraging the imposition of these tariffs and making spurious and illegal attacks against Brazilian public officials, is aimed at creating a severe economic crisis in the country," he said. "But to the dismay of these traitorous Brazilians, that crisis will not happen." Moraes added that the court would conclude the trial of those accused of attempting a coup d'état before the end of the year.


Scotsman
5 hours ago
- Scotsman
Supreme Court blocks car finance payouts for millions
Millions of drivers were hoping for a payout over secret car finance charges ⚖️ Sign up to the weekly Cost Of Living newsletter. Saving tips, deals and money hacks. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Supreme Court rules lenders not liable for 'hidden' car finance commission payments Decision overturns Court of Appeal ruling that had backed drivers' right to compensation Around 2m cars a year are bought on finance, many with now-banned commission deals FCA to decide within six weeks if it will set up a central compensation scheme Tens of thousands of complaints remain on hold until the watchdog makes its move A landmark ruling made today (August 1) has determined whether millions of motorists are entitled to compensation over 'hidden' commissions on car finance deals. The case centres on hire-purchase agreements signed before 2021, where car dealers acting as credit brokers received commission from lenders — without fully informing the customer. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In October 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled that these undisclosed payments were unlawful and that affected drivers should be compensated. The case was brought by three motorists who were unaware dealers were being paid by lenders for arranging their finance. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged that ruling in the Supreme Court, calling it an 'egregious error'. New and secondhand cars for sale on a dealership forecourt in Ellesmere Port in 2023 (Photo:) | Getty Images The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) also weighed in, arguing the earlier judgment 'goes too far'. But the three motorists had fought to uphold the original ruling. The Supreme Court's decision will have major implications for car finance customers across the UK. But what exactly did it rule, and is there compensation coming down the road for millions of drivers? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad What is car finance? Around two million cars are bought on finance every year — but many drivers may have unknowingly paid too much in interest due to now-banned commission deals between lenders and dealerships. These so-called discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) gave sales staff a financial incentive to hike up your interest rate, leaving you with a higher monthly bill. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) banned these deals in 2021, but it's now deciding whether affected drivers should be compensated. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the meantime, tens of thousands of complaints made to the Financial Ombudsman or through the courts were paused while the watchdog reviewed the issue. What has the Supreme Court ruled? Millions of motorists will miss out on potential compensation after the Supreme Court ruled that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments made to car dealers as part of finance agreements. The UK's highest court overturned a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal, which had found that 'secret' commission deals — made before 2021 without the customer's fully informed consent — were unlawful. The Supreme Court sided with the lenders. Delivering the decision, Lord Reed said the appeals were allowed, ending hopes of a wider compensation scheme for millions of car finance customers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Is there compensation coming? As of now, compensation is not guaranteed, but it's still possible, depending on what the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) decides next. Though the Supreme Court's ruling on sided with the lenders, meaning they are not automatically liable for hidden commission payments - a blow to many compensation hopes - the FCA is still investigating whether drivers were treated unfairly. The FCA has said it will announce within six weeks of the ruling whether it plans to pursue a central compensation scheme. If it does go ahead, it will consult on the details for another six weeks — including who qualifies, how compensation would be calculated, and what years it would cover. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Are you struggling to make ends meet as costs continue to rise? You can now send your stories to us online via YourWorld at It's free to use and, once checked, your story will appear on our website and, space allowing, in our newspapers.