Appendix C:

Transcript of competency hearing for Mark David Chapman, June 22, 1981

Judge: Justice Dennis Edwards
Assistant DA: Allan Sullivan
Court appointed defense attorney: Jonathon Marks

If at any time you do not understand any of the questions, please inform the court. In addition, it is your right and I suggest that you exercise it, that as to any question or comment made by the court or anyone else during the proceeding, if you have any doubts as to the importance of it or if you do not understand or you seek clarification or you merely wish to speak with your attorney who is standing next to you, Mark, then feel free to do so. What we are trying to do now is to ascertain, to decide and to determine that you do in fact which to withdraw your prior "not guilty" plea and to plead "guilty." So that we will understand what you are offering to plead guilty to I will read the indictment to you and then I will ask you if you understand the indictment.

Then I will ask you whether you wish to plead guilty to this indictment. All right?

Chapman: Yes, sir, your Honor.

Edwards: The People of the State of New York against Mark David Chapman, defendant. The grand jury of the County of New York by this indictment accuse the defendant of the crime of murder in the second degree (all murder cases are second degree in NY state as a way of circumventing the death penalty) committed as follows: The defendant, that is Mark David Chapman, in the County of New York on or about 8 December 1980 with intent to cause the death of John Winston Ono Lennon, caused the death of John Winston Ono Lennon, by shooting him about the chest and body with a pistol.

Do you understand the indictment, sir?

Chapman: Yes, your Honor.

Edwards: And do you now request the court that you be given the opportunity to withdraw your not guilty plea and to plead guilty to this indictment, the sole count, murder in the second degree?

Chapman: Yes, your Honor.

Edwards: First, do you understand that by pleading guilty today to this indictment it is the same as if you had been found guilty after a trial whether it is a trial by a judge or a trial by jury?

Chapman: Yes, your Honor.

Edwards: Then do you further understand that having entered your guilty plea today that what remains after today is the procedure for an adjournment to have an investigation and a sentence imposed by the court?

Chapman: Yes, your Honor.

Edwards: It is your right of course to change your plea and the importance of the changing of the plea is that it is being done knowingly, intelligently, informed and voluntarily. Do you say to the court then that you knowingly, intelligently, informed and voluntarily change your not guilty plea and now plead guilty to murder in the second degree?

Chapman: Yes, your Honor.

Edwards: By waiving and giving up your right to a trial you do in fact give up the right that you have to have a trail either by a judge or a trial by a judge and jury. You give up your right through yourself and through your attorney at such a trial to either question the witnesses produced by the prosecution and to produce witnesses in your behalf by the defense.

Do you understand?

Chapman: Yes, your Honor.

Edwards: Now, the events in question took place on 8 December 1980. Where did the events take place, in what part of the City?

Chapman: On Central Park West and 72^nd Street at the Dakota apartment building.

Edwards: And about what time on 8 December 1980 did they take place?

Chapman: Around 11 o’clock in—that evening.

Edwards: Now, take a moment and again if you wish to speak with your attorney, tell the court in your own words, what it is you did on 8 December 1980 in the County of New York in the area of the Dakota, 72^nd and Central Park West at or about 11:00 pm?

Chapman: I intended to kill John Lennon and that night I drew a pistol from my pocket, proceeded to shoot him with intent to kill him.

Edwards: All right. Do you recall now how many shots you fired from the pistol?

Chapman: Five shots.

Edwards: And do you now know or did you know at that time of the five shots, how many actually struck John Winston Ono Lennon?

Chapman: No, your Honor, I don’t.

Edwards: Do you know how many shots struck the victim?

Chapman: Yes, your Honor, I do.

Edwards: How many were there?

Chapman: Four.

Edwards: Four.

Chapman: Yes.

Edwards: Would you tell us approximately how far away you were from the victim Mr. Lennon, when you started to fire the shots?

Chapman: I am not quite sure but I think it is around twenty feet.

Edwards: And at any time during the firing of the shots did the distance between you and Mr. Lennon change or did you remain?

Chapman: I don’t think so, no.

Edwards: You remained approximately in the same area?

Chapman: Yes, your Honor.

Edwards: What was Mr. Lennon doing just before you started to fire the shots at him?

Chapman: He was approaching the door that would lead to up to the security area.

Edwards: And what were you doing just immediately before you fired the shot?

Chapman: A second before?

Edwards: Yes. Or a moment before. In other words, as you were standing. Did you stand and wait for him?

Chapman: Yes, your Honor, as he did. As he passed me I stepped off the curb and walked a few steps over, turned, withdrew my pistol and aimed at him in his direction and fired off five shots in quick succession.

Edwards: Did you say anything at or about that time?

Chapman: No, your Honor.

Edwards: Do you recall if the victim said anything that you heard?

Chapman: No, your Honor.

Edwards: And as I understand you say that you were therewith the intent to cause the death of John Winston Ono Lennon and that you fired the five shots from your pistol with the intent to cause the death of John Winston Ono Lennon?

Chapman: Yes, your Honor.

(Judge Edwards then asks Assistant District Attorney Allen Sullivan if he has any questions for Chapman. Sullivan asks two questions.)

Sullivan: What kind of bullets did you use?

Chapman: They were .38 caliber hollow points.

Sullivan: What was the reason for using hollow points?

Chapman: To ensure John Lennon’s death.

(Judge Edwards asks Chapman detailed questions about the sentencing process. He asks Chapman if he fully understands the consequences of his guilty plea. He offers to give Chapman the opportunity to change his plea at a later date if after reviewing the case in more detail, he (Edwards) decides to give Chapman the maximum sentence. Chapman assures Judge Edwards that he understands his situation, but declines the offer with the following compelling statement.)

Chapman: Your Honor, I appreciate the court’s offer in a case where you rule "twenty-five years to life" after reviewing the material, that I would be allowed the option to return to the "not guilty" plea. I would like to tell you that I made the decision to plead guilty regardless of any such circumstances. So, if we did return to that position, I would still plead guilty.

(Judge Edwards allows Allen Sullivan to ask Chapman why he changed his plea to guilty. Chapman responds as follows.)

Chapman: It is my decision and God’s decision.

Sullivan: When you say it is God’s decision, and I ask this advisedly since certain representations have been made to me by Mr. Marks (Chapman’s attorney), did you hear any voices in your ears?

Chapman: Any audible voices?

Sullivan: Any audible voices?

Chapman: No, sir.

Sullivan: Before you made this decision did you indulge in any prayer?

Chapman: Yes, there were a number of prayers.

Sullivan: After you prayed did you come to the realization which you understand to come from God that you should plead guilty?

Chapman: Yes, that is His directive, command.

Sullivan: Is that a realization you came to within yourself inspired perhaps by God?

Chapman: No, I felt that it was God telling me to plead guilty and then probing with my own decision whether to do what God wanted me to do, whether to do what I wanted to do and I decided to follow God’s directive.

Sullivan: So would you say at this time that this plea is a result of your own free will?

Chapman: Yes.

(Judge Edwards resumes questioning.)

Edwards: All right! Have any threats been made to force you to plead guilty?

Chapman: No, your Honor.

Edwards: Have any promises been made to compel you or induce you to plead guilty?

Chapman: No in such words. But I have been assured by God that wherever I will go, He will take care of me.

Edwards: A good Christian ethic. I presume we all feel that God will assist us in times of need and emergency.¹

Sentencing

With that, Judge Edwards was satisfied that Mark David Chapman was completely sane. There was some maneuvering by Chapman’s lawyer to claim that Chapman was mentally incapable of pleading guilty and waiving his right to a trial. But in the end, on August 24, 1981, Judge Edwards sentenced Chapman to twenty years to life, a slightly lesser sentence than the maximum which was twenty-five years to life. Justice Edwards delivered judgment to Chapman with the following words:

I disagree with the defense attorney's suggestion that it is an insane crime. An act of a person who is insane. It may well not be a crime committed for the classic motives, revenge or for money; but it was, as the district attorney carefully pointed out, an intentional crime. It was a crime contemplated, planned and executed by an individual fully aware of the situation and the consequences of his conduct.

There is no question in this court's judgment that defendant may benefit from psychiatric attention, although equally beyond any possible challenge, there is no doubt in the court's judgment that he is to be held accountable for his knowing, voluntary and intelligent act.²

END NOTES:

1

2

ibid, pp 320-321