Appeals court hears bid to vacate death sentence for Pittsburgh synagogue shooter

Background of the Tree of Life shooting and convictions

Two additional worshippers and four police officers sustained injuries during the attack.

The U.S.

The convictions included a violation of the 2009 Hate Crimes Act for targeting Jewish worshippers based on religion. In August 2023, a jury sentenced him to death for 22 of the capital offenses.

They argued he acted out of antisemitism, white supremacy, and a desire to promote those concepts through violence. The defense presented mitigation evidence regarding his mental illness, dysfunctional childhood, and struggles with depression to argue for a life sentence.

Defense claims procedural flaws merit a new sentencing hearing

They claim the original trial lacked accuracy, reliability and fairness in its charging, jury selection and sentencing procedures.

District Judge Robert J. Colville failed to conduct adequate fact-finding.

Bowers raised 16 issues in his appeal brief, but the appellate court limited oral arguments to four specific points.

The defense argues the 13th Amendment was not intended to target discrimination based on religion. They contend the prosecution could have charged a racial-animus case instead.

Judge Hardiman asked how a religious crime prevents it from being a racial one.

Challenge to a juror who previously worked on Chinese executions

The defense challenges the trial court's decision to seat Juror No. 119.

She later moved to the United States and worked as a paralegal starting in 1986. The juror did not disclose her Chinese government work on her questionnaire but revealed it during voir dire, stating she reviewed five to six death sentences.

Attorney Margaret Farrand told the appellate court the juror acted as an executioner and monitored an execution. Farrand emphasized that the juror’s former work was no ordinary employment.

Judge Bibas responded that courts have never recognized implied bias based solely on a juror’s past employment.

Justice Department attorney John-Alex Romano said the trial court had no reason to disqualify the juror. He noted the work occurred 40 years earlier and lasted only a couple of months. Romano added that the juror was a monitor, not as someone directing the execution.

Shackling of Bowers during penalty phase raises fairness concerns

Defense attorney Farrand criticized the trial court’s decision to allow Robert Bowers to wear leg irons for most of the penalty phase. Bowers wore no shackles for the first 34 days of the trial but was fitted with the restraints for the final 19 days.

Judge Colville permitted U.S. marshals to use shackles after they reported that Bowers’ behavior seemed “restless”.

Farrand argued that the shackling was prejudicial and that the court should have granted an evidentiary hearing to determine if the restraints were necessary. The defense filed six written objections, but Colville refused to grant a hearing at every stage.

Farrand said the defense had no opportunity to question the evidence regarding the need for shackles. She contended that jurors likely saw the restraints because the defense took photographs from the jury box during a break, showing that Bowers’ legs would have been visible.

Judge Hardiman asked whether the district court had made a factual finding about what the jury saw. Farrand said that issue could be explored on remand.

Prosecution opposes relief, defending the death‑penalty verdict

Attorneys for Bowers are seeking to have his death sentence vacated and to have him sentenced to life imprisonment.

Prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office said Bowers deserves no relief and called the defense claims “meritless”. Federal public defenders cited several reasons for a three-judge panel to vacate the death sentence, while acknowledging Bowers caused “profound and irreparable harm”.

The defense claimed that Bowers was improperly charged under hate-crime legislation, which applies to race but not to religion. Lamar stated, “Bowers went inside and murdered people worshipping… He murdered them because they were Jewish”.

Prosecutors also disputed the claim that a juror “acted as executioner”.

Survivor and family reactions to the appeal hearing

Synagogue shooting survivor Audrey Glickman said she would rather Bowers be on death row than serving a life sentence elsewhere, which she thinks might be comfortable for him. Glickman asserted that every individual who has been convicted possesses the right to appeal.

When asked if she hoped judges would not vacate the sentence, Glickman replied, “I do hope that indeed. One can only hope”.