Richard Edward Grant’s Crimes Grow to Murder
In 1975, Grant married Meryl Gelman, who said he was “fairly easy to live with” until 1979 when he “began showing signs of imaginary persecution and paranoia,” according to her statement filed with the court. He beat her many times that year, never explaining why. The couple separated that year.
Meryl and Grant’s longtime friend, Diane Wilson, met Grant’s buddy, Edward Halbert, and they became romantically involved. Carol suspected that her son and Halbert were selling drugs because he always seemed to have money despite being unemployed. In April 1980, Wilson asked Grant about Halbert, to which he responded that Halbert was “taking care of business.” In October, Wilson expressed her anxiety over Halbert’s continued absence. Grant told her to stop crying because “Edward was no longer going to be part of the group.”
The Killings Continue
Grant boasted to Wilson that he “blew away” a man in Shasta County who had beaten his wife and children. According to court records, Grant said “he was waiting for the skull to deteriorate so that he could use it as a candle holder.” Grant was talking about Frank Forman.
Forman moved to the Trinity Alps Preserve, where Grant had a property, with his wife, Pat, in January 1980. Pat left him in April after he swung an axe at her and her kids, but returned that summer after Forman went missing. One night in September 1980, while drinking with Grant, Wilson expressed fear of Forman returning. Grant told her not to worry since he blew off half of his head and offered to show her the skull.
The following year, Pat and her former husband, Mark Kingrey, found human remains at a makeshift gravesite on Grant’s property and notified police. Investigators found the remains of Halbert and Forman; the former was shot in the head while the latter had wounds to the head and abdomen.
On October 16, 1980, Grant killed a third person when he fatally shot one of Wilson and Meryl’s guests, Bobby Floyd, after storming in and demanding cars in front of the house be moved.
Grant believed each murder was justified. He claimed Halbert was obsessed with the thought of killing “cops and Jews.” Grant said he shot Forman because the man fired into a family home. Grant confessed twice while in police custody; he didn’t want people to think he was a deranged killer since what he did was “for the protection of other people.” Regarding Floyd, he claimed that it was an act of self defense.
Grant was convicted of first-degree murder of Floyd and got 27 years to life. In a separate case, he was convicted of first-degree murder of Halbert and voluntary manslaughter of Forman. During the trial, against the advice of his lawyer, Grant said he preferred the death penalty over life in prison. His wish was granted.
The Case Against the Death Penalty for Richard Edward Grant
Grant later changed his mind and argued, per court docs, that his counsel, Frank O’Connor, was incompetent.
One legal filing mentioned that, “Considering all the evidence O'Connor had in his possession, the court finds a reasonable probability that, had the evidence of petitioner's background, mental health, and substance abuse been introduced, the result of the penalty phase would have been different.” O’Connor never previously represented a defendant at a penalty phase or put on a defense involving psychiatric issues.
O’Connor looked for witnesses who only had positive experiences to relate about his client, which were few and far between.
Attorney James Larson testified at Grant’s evidentiary hearing. He said, “A reasonably competent attorney in 1982 would have understood the importance of thoroughly investigating the client's family background, medical and psychological history, childhood abuse, education, and employment history. … Gathering this information allows counsel to make informed choices concerning strategy and tactics for both guilt and penalty phases.”
As a result, Grant’s death penalty sentence was overturned in 2006. “What happened to Grant was actually the most common outcome of a death sentence across the United States today. And that is, the conviction is reversed and ends up with a different kind of sentence: Life without possibility of parole,” Richmond University law professor Corinna Lain tells A&E Crime + Investigation.
Lain, a former prosecutor and author of Secrets of the Killing State, reviewed Grant’s case and refers to the defense counsel’s handling of the penalty phase as “off the charts,” criticizing that only two witnesses were called to support a life sentence. “The court said they were as harmful as they were helpful,” she continues. “He presented nothing in mitigation. That’s why this case got reversed.”
Three years later, Shasta County D.A. Jerry Benito announced that his office would not seek a retrial. Given Grant’s age, declining health and the cost of a retrial, Benito felt it wasn’t worth the effort. "But if we had any belief that he would get out, we would prosecute the case with all our resources," Benito said, per the Record Searchlight.
Emily Olson-Gault, Director of the American Bar Association’s Death Penalty Representation Project, focuses on ensuring quality representation for defendants facing death sentences. To that end, she points to ABA guidelines that most states have adopted. “The number of death sentences that get overturned has been decreasing over time,” Olson-Gault says. “The courts are much more limited in the circumstances under which they can overturn a death penalty.”
Without adequate resources, defendants face an uphill climb to justice. Olson-Gault says defendants “are battling a system that is designed to maintain the status quo” and keep convictions in place.
While Grant was able to get his death sentence overturned, future applicants may not fare as well. The ABA’s DPRA has its work cut out for it.
