Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday reaffirmed the conviction and death sentence imposed on a Floyd County man convicted of two counts of murder in the 2012 strangulations of two women, as well as his 65-year sentence for a 2003 murder he confessed to after his arrest seven years ago.
William Clyde Gibson III was found guilty of the separate murders of Stephanie Kirk and Christine Whitis. He invited Kirk to his house in March 2012, where he “brutally strangled her to death and sexually assaulted her corpse,” Justice Mark Massa wrote. Gibson buried Kirk’s body in a shallow grave in his backyard, and a month later, he invited Whitis to his home, where he murdered her and likewise abused her corpse.
The next day, Gibson’s sisters discovered Whitis’ body, called New Albany police, and Gibson was arrested after a brief car chase. Afterward, he confessed to the 2003 murder of Karen Hodella. He was sentenced to death for the murders of Kirk and Whitis and 65 years in prison for pleading guilty to killing Hodella.
The Indiana Supreme Court upheld Gibson’s conviction and death sentences on direct appeal in 2016, and likewise rejected his appeal of denial of post-conviction relief Thursday in William Clyde Gibson, III v. State of Indiana, 22S00-1601-PD-00009, 22S00-1608-PD-00411.
Justices determined Gibson had not received ineffective assistance of counsel during his trials and found no basis for relief under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
“Finding Gibson’s arguments unpersuasive and largely unsupported by the record, we now affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief,” Justice Mark Massa wrote in a 40-page opinion joined by all justices except Geoffrey Slaughter, who did not participate.
Justices also rejected these arguments from Gibson: there was unreasonable delay in assembling his legal representation; that the defense team was deficient in questioning potential jurors; that his defenders failed to sufficiently pursue a plea agreement that would spare the death penalty; that mitigating factors were not sufficiently presented; and that counsel failed to object to allegedly coerced statements and allegedly false or prejudicial testimony.
The court likewise rejected Gibson’s claim of conflict of interest because the public defender appointed to represent him in a resource-intensive case also had an interest in the efficient administration of public funds. “Applying the standard Strickland analysis to Gibson’s claim, we find neither deficient performance nor prejudice,” Massa wrote for the court, noting the office submitted claims for reimbursement totaling more than $686,000.
“Based on the actual expenditures in representing Gibson and the employment of co-counsel, an investigator, a mitigation specialist, experts, and other consultants, we have little doubt that Gibson received quality representation, not ineffective assistance of counsel prejudicial to his defense,” the court concluded.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.