"I Am No Serial Killer": Aileen Wuornos at Her Sentencing, January 1992

Name: "I Am No Serial Killer": Aileen Wuornos at Her Sentencing, January 1992
Uploaded: 2024-07-31
Duration: 34 min 14 s
Description: After a jury recommended death 12 to 0, Aileen Wuornos told the judge she was a prostitute who had defended herself, not a serial killer, and accused the prosecutor and her former partner of lying.

After a jury recommended death 12 to 0, Aileen Wuornos told the judge she was a prostitute who had defended herself, not a serial killer, and accused the prosecutor and her former partner of lying.

Subject: Aileen Wuornos
Recorded: January 30, 1992
Runtime: 34:14

Content warning: Concerns a murder and the death penalty; Wuornos describes the men she killed as having raped or attacked her (her claim).

The Hearing

In January 1992 Aileen Wuornos stood trial in DeLand, Florida, for the murder of Richard Mallory, the first of the killings she was charged with. This courtroom video begins on January 30, 1992, when the clerk read the jury's advisory sentence: by a vote of 12 to 0, the jury recommended death. The next morning Judge Uriel Blount Jr. held the sentencing hearing. The prosecutor, John Tanner, asked for death in the electric chair. Wuornos's adoptive mother pleaded for her life. Then Wuornos spoke for herself: "I have been labeled a serial killer, and I am no serial killer." The judge sentenced her to death for murder and to ten years for armed robbery.

Historical Context

Between late 1989 and late 1990, seven men were shot dead along highways in central and northern Florida. Wuornos, who had worked as a highway prostitute, was arrested in January 1991 and confessed on videotape, saying she had killed the men in self-defense. Richard Mallory, of Clearwater, was the first: he was killed on November 30, 1989, and his body was found in woods in Volusia County on December 13. At the Mallory trial the jury heard her taped confession and evidence of the other killings, and her former partner, Tyria Moore, testified for the state. The jury found her guilty on January 27, 1992.

Circumstances of the Hearing

The penalty phase heard defense experts describe Wuornos as suffering from borderline and antisocial personality disorders. At sentencing Tanner said he would not recount the evidence, asked the court to depart from the sentencing guidelines on the robbery count, and asked it to keep jurisdiction over costs and over show-cause motions against two defense psychologists who, he said, had refused to honor subpoenas. Arlene Pralle, who had adopted Wuornos during the case, asked for mercy and offered to pay for counseling. Defense lawyer Billy Nolas argued that a death sentence would serve no purpose but retribution.

What the Hearing Covers

Wuornos speaks twice. She says she was a prostitute who met many men, that she killed in self-defense after being raped or attacked, and that police had framed her as a serial killer "for books and movies". She says she was coerced into confessing by threats that Tyria Moore would be arrested, accuses Tanner of lying to the jury and Moore of lying for money, and interrupts her own lawyer to complain that witnesses she wanted, including a police officer and high school friends, were never called. The judge then pronounces sentence, ordering that she be "electrocuted until you are dead".

What Makes the Recording Significant

This was Wuornos's first conviction and first death sentence. The video preserves, in her own words and at length, the self-defense account she gave throughout the case, delivered at the moment it was rejected. It also records the sentencing ritual of a Florida capital case in 1992, including the clerk's poll of each juror.

Archival Importance

Wuornos later pleaded guilty or no contest to five more murders and received five more death sentences. She was executed at Florida State Prison on October 9, 2002. Her claims about Mallory gained attention after the trial, when it emerged that he had a past conviction for attempted rape in Maryland and had been held for treatment as a sex offender there, a fact the jury did not hear. This recording preserves the day the first sentence was imposed.

Important Caveats

The upload's title says "verdict", but the guilty verdict of January 27, 1992, and her outburst in court that day are not in this video; the "verdict" shown is the jury's death recommendation. Wuornos's statements about rape, coercion and conspiracy are her claims; the jury and the judge rejected her self-defense account. Jurors' surnames are read aloud during the poll and stay in the transcript, but the page copy does not repeat them.

Court Clerk: [unclear: "In the Circuit Court of the ... Judicial Circuit, in and for ... Florida" / "The circuit court ... judicial circuit in for ..."], case number 91-257, State of Florida versus [Aileen] Carol [Wuornos], also known as Susan Lynn Blahovec, also known as Lori Kristine Grody, also known as Cammie Marsh Greene. As to count one, a majority of the jury, by a vote of 12 to nothing, advise and recommend to the court that it impose the death penalty upon Aileen Carol Wuornos, also known as Susan Lynn Blahovec, also known as Lori Kristine Grody, also known as Cammie Marsh Greene. Dated at DeLand, Volusia County, Florida, this 30th day of January, 1992. Pamela J. [unclear: "Mills" / "po"], [unclear: "foreperson" / "court person"].

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Thank you, [inaudible]. I'm going to ask each of you individually concerning the advisory sentence. It is not necessary that you state how you personally voted or how any other person voted, but only if the advisory sentence was correctly stated. Madam Clerk, will you please [poll the jury]?

Court Clerk: Yes, sir. Do you, Mrs. [unclear: "Staton" / "ston"], agree and confirm that a majority of the jury join in the advisory sentence that you have just heard read by the clerk?

Juror: Yes.

Court Clerk: Do you, Mrs. [unclear: "Farrell" / "frell"], agree and confirm that a majority of the jury join in the advisory sentence that you have just heard read by the clerk?

Juror: Yes.

Court Clerk: Do you, Mrs. Mills, agree and confirm that a majority of the jury join in the advisory sentence that you have just heard read by the clerk?

Juror: Yes.

Court Clerk: Do you, Mr. [unclear: "DeGane" / "deer"], agree and confirm that a majority of the jury join in the advisory sentence that you have just heard read by the clerk?

Juror: Yes.

Court Clerk: Do you, Mrs. Mathis, agree and confirm that a majority of the jury join in the advisory sentence that you have just heard read by the clerk?

Juror: Yes.

Court Clerk: Do you, Mrs. Walters, agree and confirm that a majority of the jury join in the advisory sentence that you have just heard read by the clerk?

Juror: Yes, I do.

Court Clerk: Do you, Mrs. [unclear: "Wiley" / "Wy"], agree and confirm that a majority of the jury join in the advisory sentence that you have just heard read by the clerk?

Juror: Yes.

Court Clerk: Do you, Mr. Flowers, agree and confirm that a majority of the jury join in the advisory sentence that you have just heard read by the clerk?

Juror: Yes.

Court Clerk: Do you, Mrs. [unclear: "Bevin" / "Bugman"], agree and confirm that a majority of the jury join in the advisory sentence that you have just heard read by the clerk?

Juror: Yes.

Court Clerk: Do you, Mr. Watley, agree and confirm that a majority of the jury join in the advisory sentence that you have just heard read by the clerk?

Juror: Yes.

Court Clerk: Do you, Mr. [unclear: "Aranczy" / "Ransy"], agree and confirm that a majority of the jury join in the advisory sentence that you have just heard read by the clerk?

Juror: Yes.

Court Clerk: Do you, Mr. [unclear: "Beshaw" / "Basha"], agree and confirm that a majority of the jury join in the advisory sentence that you have just heard read by the clerk?

Juror: Yes.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Thank you. [unclear: "All any further request?" / "Any further request?"]

Counsel: No.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for your time and consideration of this case. I also wish to advise you of some very special privileges that are enjoyed by jurors. No juror can ever be required to talk about the discussions that occur in the jury room except by court order. For many centuries our society has relied upon juries for consideration of difficult cases. We have recognized for hundreds of years that the jury's deliberations, discussions and votes remain their private affairs so long as they wish. Therefore the law gives you a unique privilege not to speak about the jury's work. Although you are at liberty to speak with anyone about your deliberations, you are also at liberty to refuse to speak. A request may come from those who are simply curious, or may seek to find fault with you. It will be up to you to decide whether to preserve your privacy as a juror. With those instructions, [unclear: "the jury is excused" / "the and ... fur"] [inaudible] responsibility. [unclear: "We'll be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow" / "for 9:3 ... tomorrow" / "scheduled for 9th grade, which is tomorrow morning"].

Defense Counsel: Judge, before we leave, we would renew all previous applications and motions. [inaudible; music over the recording] Thank you, Your Honor. *[Edit to the next day's session, January 31, 1992.]*

Bailiff: Circuit Court is now in session, the Honorable Judge Uriel Blount Jr. presiding. Please be seated. Quiet in the courtroom.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Case number 91-257, the State of Florida versus Aileen Carol Wuornos, also known as Susan Lynn Blahovec, also known as Lori Kristine Grody, also known as Cammie Marsh Greene. The court is prepared for sentencing. Does the state have any witnesses it would like to present at this time?

John Tanner: Your Honor, we have no witnesses. May I make a brief statement?

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Yes, sir.

John Tanner: Your Honor, I'm not going to insult the intelligence or the wisdom or the perception of this court by going into any type of a detailed recounting of the facts and circumstances which bring Aileen Wuornos before this court at this time, in this county. I would like to discuss just for a moment or two a couple of aspects of the law, and why in fact the state is urging the ultimate penalty permissible under Florida's law for Miss Wuornos.

John Tanner: First, I say to you sincerely that this is probably, for every prosecutor, the most difficult assignment that our office faces, and that is the studied and considered decision to first ask the citizens, and then ask the jurist, to permit the law which requires the forfeiture of a human life to be activated against another citizen. It is not only of great and considerable legal weight, but I can tell you from a personal standpoint, I speak for my staff, it is a great emotional drain upon all of us involved in a case like this.

John Tanner: Nonetheless, the people of the State of Florida, through their elected representatives and through well-documented and voiced opinion polls over the years, as the people of this nation, believe that there is a place in our society, a necessary place in our criminal jurisprudence, for the death penalty. Rare are the cases of murder, in the grand scheme of the number of murders committed nationwide, in which the death penalty can be fully and unequivocally justified. This is one of those cases.

John Tanner: The aggravating circumstances, I'll not recount them. They were argued and the court instructed upon them. They have been proven, Your Honor, beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt. The unanimous verdict of this trial jury, and I can say this, that they took the time to deliberate and return a unanimous verdict, which I think is a clear [unclear: "indication" / "condition" / "IND issue"] of the completeness of the evidence and the propriety of the sentence of death. I would ask you to not only sentence Aileen Wuornos to be electrocuted; I would ask that with regard to the additional sentences, that the maximum penalty be imposed.

John Tanner: We know that under the law, the three-year minimum mandatory as a part of the robbery sentence is called for by statute. No exception for that, even in a murder case where a weapon is used, and I refer specifically to Chapter 775. Under the case law, I cite Williams v. State, and I have a copy we've provided already to defense counsel, Your Honor. The imposition of the minimum mandatory is appropriate, and that is at 517 Southern 2nd 681, Florida Supreme Court, 1988. Also, even if the weapon was a part of the statute, we believe that is correct, Your Honor, under the Williams decision. May I hand you that case? Defense counsel has already been provided these cases.

John Tanner: In addition, we're asking you to depart from what the sentencing guidelines, which I believe have been one of the greatest impediments in the State of Florida to the fair and appropriate administration of criminal justice, and have directly resulted in the [unclear: "diminution" / "communion" / "dunion"] of the respect for the bench and for the law in this state. Nonetheless, we are still bound by them, and we, and certainly like yourself, Your Honor, will abide by sentencing guidelines so long as they remain a part of our law. But a departure is appropriate in this case from what the guideline sentence would permit, to a sentence of what the statute would allow, and that is life imprisonment.

John Tanner: And for the authority of that, I would refer Your Honor to the case of Hansbrough v. State, 509 Southern 2nd 1018, as cited in Rutherford v. State at 545 Southern 2nd 853, and if I may also provide the court with that case. *[Laughter in the courtroom.]* The case essentially indicates that the forms that the legislature and the committees developed under the sentencing guidelines provisions of the law simply don't include a category for a conviction of murder in the first degree to be considered at the time. And under the cases cited, the Supreme Court has upheld, in effect sanctioned, the departure for a sentence exceeding the guidelines up to the maximum statutory allowable.

John Tanner: Also, if Your Honor please, with regard to the legalities of where we are for a moment, we would ask you to retain jurisdiction in this case for several matters. One, count three was severed at the bench just as the jury selection began. We would ask you to retain jurisdiction until count three is disposed of. There may come a time that discussions between ourselves and the defense will result in a resolution without litigation. We certainly hope that. We can only offer what we believe would be a fair resolution. We will do that sometime in the future.

John Tanner: In addition, the State of Florida, and the people of Volusia County particularly, are entitled to reasonable and full cost assessment. We have not yet had an opportunity to compile those figures in their entirety. The bills from the mental health care experts have not been submitted. Bills for expedited depositions that became necessary because of the lateness of some of the experts' testimony, including their refusal to honor subpoenas from this court, resulted in many late-hour depositions and expedited printings of depositions. So we cannot come to you with those figures at this time, and ask you to retain jurisdiction for that.

John Tanner: And in connection with that, the rule to show cause motions which have been filed, which we don't want to argue or present at this time, with regard to Dr. Elizabeth McMahon and Dr. Jethro Toomer for their refusals to comply with subpoena. Not meant as a vindictive measure, Your Honor, but only to hopefully bring an orderly procedure to cases in the future where we deal with that particular profession, and more specifically those particular professionals. The housekeeping matters behind, I would only say in closing:

John Tanner: This is the only time that I've stood before this particular jurist and asked you to enforce, uphold and pronounce a sentence to take another person's life. I don't do it lightly. I can tell you I do it with a heavy heart. Aileen Wuornos has come into this courtroom with an utter disregard, continuing, for the truth; with an utter disregard for the destruction she has wrought upon her victims; with a continuing utter disregard for even the reputation of her very family, her deceased mother and father. Her acts of murder, and of total, absolute, unwavering determination to avoid and deny responsibility, continue even to this date. I ask you to sentence her to die in Florida's electric chair.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Mr. Tanner, do you have a guideline score sheet for me?

John Tanner: Yes, I do.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Has copy been made available to counsel?

Defense Counsel: That's what I was asking. May we step out and make a copy?

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Well, let them view that one, then we can follow.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Ms. Wuornos, when I have completed my task here today, you will begin the first day of the rest of your life. The curtain will fall on the tragic drama of the trial of Aileen Wuornos. Tomorrow's sunrise will bring the beginning of the appellate procedures as provided by law, and I will return to pasture. You have been convicted by a jury of your peers of the offense of first-degree premeditated and first-degree felony murder, and armed robbery with a firearm, of Richard Mallory. Do you or your attorneys who stand to your side have any legal cause to show why the sentence of law should not now be imposed upon you? Do you have any matters in bar or preclusion of sentence? Do you have any matters in mitigation of sentence that you would give the court at this time?

Defense Counsel: We have certain matters we'd like to bring up, Your Honor.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Yes, sir.

Defense Counsel: First, we would ask that Your Honor hear from Ms. Arlene Pralle.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Certainly. So the court reporter can hear you, will you speak loudly enough, and also give her your name.

Arlene Pralle: Yes. My name is Arlene Pralle, P-R-A-L-L-E.

Defense Counsel: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I was going to say Ms. Pralle has certain matters that she would like to relate to the court.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: I think this is your opportunity to speak.

Arlene Pralle: Okay. Your Honor, my husband and I adopted Aileen Wuornos on November the 6th. We heard in this courtroom three expert witnesses in the field of psychology who said that Aileen Wuornos, though 35 years physically, was emotionally and psychologically a child. Dr. McMahon referred to her as the most primitive one she had ever seen other than within an institution. My husband and I have spent as much time, if not more, than all of the experts combined. We are 100% behind their diagnosis, and I would plead for mercy for my daughter's life, because she never was given the chance to grow up. She is still a child, as they have said.

Arlene Pralle: And there are two factors, I think, that are very important. Her school records indicated, as well as the experts, that Aileen Wuornos from a very young age wanted the structure of a very tight family. She longed to have that nurturing environment. And the school records also indicated that she was in need, immediately, of counseling. Immediately. Those were never granted. Both of those factors are now present. On this day in 1992 she has a family that cares about her, that loves her unconditionally, and we are also, Your Honor, if you would give mercy in this case, we are willing to pay for the professional counseling that Aileen Wuornos should have received as a child. And I just plead for your mercy for my daughter's life.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Thank you very much, ma'am. You may return to your seat.

Defense Counsel: Judge, a couple of technical matters. As to the show cause issue that Mr. Tanner mentioned, we would like an opportunity to be heard on that.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: [unclear: "Surely" / "Shall"]. I take it today is not the appropriate time?

Defense Counsel: I think not. As to the proceedings as a whole, we renew our previous motions, objections and applications. We do have certain brief comments, and I think Ms. Wuornos has certain brief comments as well.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Yes. Okay.

Aileen Wuornos: First of all, I'd like to say that I have been labeled a serial killer, and I am no serial killer. I've been framed by the law enforcement as a serial killer because of numerous men involved. But what I was, was a prostitute, and in my prostitution I happened to deal with a lot of men, at least 200, 250 men a month, and I ran into these men along the way in my prostitution. I do not feel I was... I was not out there to hurt anyone. I had no intentions of hurting anyone.

Aileen Wuornos: In my confessions I stated that nine times. I stated 37 times self-defense, 39 times that they raped or beat, and then began to rape, and had intentions of killing. And what I did was what anybody else would do. I defended myself, which everybody has the right to defend themselves, and I had no intentions of killing anyone. I would not do that. I'm not that type of person.

Aileen Wuornos: Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is that while I've been through this two and a half weeks in the courtroom, I told you that I was raped, and that is what happened, and that is what happened with all other cases that I'll be involved in and discussing. And these people did a violent attack on me, and I did what I had to do to protect myself.

Aileen Wuornos: Now, I'd like to point out one other thing, is that the law enforcement has framed me as a serial killer purposely for books and movies. And I have been, since I've been incarcerated a year in jail, have gone through a lot of physical and mental abuse, which I felt as being a conspiracy through the law enforcement. And I also believe that the law enforcement and the state attorneys have a conspiracy here.

Aileen Wuornos: And I have to say another thing, as far as manipulation was talked about yesterday in the courtroom: I believe State Attorney Tanner was the one manipulating the jury, which he had made a [unclear: "whole lot" / "hell of a lot"] of things up. Things were just made up at the top of his head, were not true, and I felt that he lied right through his teeth. I was up in that stand there and I did not lie.

Aileen Wuornos: I was coerced into making my confessions. I was threatened that Tyria Moore would be arrested if I did not talk about the confessions. I was also coerced and threatened and told that if I did not answer their questions the way they wanted me to, I mean their questions, and I did it any other way, that she would be arrested. And the questions that they asked me were strictly to implicate me as a serial killer. When every time I talked about a rape, they cut me off, and they had my mind all messed up, where I was hysterical, I was in trauma, and I was alcohol withdrawing. I had been totally under duress and delirium, and I didn't, I couldn't tell you what happened anyway. I couldn't remember anything under that stress.

Aileen Wuornos: All I had in my mind was focused on Tyria, which I was trying to clear Tyria, which Tyria knows it's self-defense. And she's lying through her teeth, telling that she doesn't know anything, even the smallest of things of our life together, four and a half years, and she does know. She knows it's self-defense. And she's been offered like a half a million dollars, and might be a multimillionaire after this is over, and she's just keeping her mouth shut because she wants money. They have to have a conviction in order to get this money. And that's all I got to say. I'm not a serial killer.

Billy Nolas: Your Honor, we have some observations. I guess I should go first, or maybe I could make some observations for the three of us. Mr. Tanner provided to Your Honor some personal views as to his understanding of his position here, and the difficulty that he has, and I think that's legitimate. I really do think Mr. Tanner finds this role very difficult. It hasn't been easy for us either. It has been a difficult task when you're litigating over the life of a fellow human being. What I would suggest to Your Honor, and we will not go through aggravators and mitigators and rehash the evidence, Your Honor has heard it, and...

Aileen Wuornos: [unclear: "Like" / "I"] I need to speak again. Can I?

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Sure. Okay. Yes, ma'am, you may. You want to wait till [unclear: "he's through" / "leave through"], or you want to talk now?

Aileen Wuornos: I just want to make sure he wouldn't cut me [unclear: "out" / "off"].

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Go ahead now.

Aileen Wuornos: Okay. What I'd like to also say is that we had two clients that were willing to testify for me, that we did not bring the mitigator factors in, and I was surprised that my lawyers had me just testify on the stand and then said "defense rests this case", 'cause I did not know this was going to happen. We had a police officer that was going to verify that they misused evidence and that they falsified reports.

Aileen Wuornos: None of the evidence, I mean, all the evidence on the floor, there was half of the stuff was mine. And there was a radio on the floor that one of the victim's family said, "Yeah, that's mine," and it isn't. It was our radio, and Tyria knows that, and I'm sure I could get a witness to verify that radio I had before Richard Mallory was ever killed. And I kept all the weapons in storage. None of the weapons were on the floor, for proof, if I ever got busted, that I could prove that these guys used these weapons on me. None of the weapons were on for evidence.

Aileen Wuornos: And we had two clients, we had a police officer. There was also, I had high school friends, at least 15, that I wanted contacted. If they were not contacted, I just... This case did not, for me to testify for myself, it seemed like I just, I had got a total raw, raw deal. I should have had my clients should have went up. My, I mean, the officer should have went up. I should have had my high school friends testifying for me. I couldn't believe I just got in that stand for myself, and I was telling the complete truth. I was being as honest as I could be.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Thank you. Mr. Nolas, you may proceed.

Billy Nolas: Yes, sir. What I was going to say is just to give to Your Honor some personal observations.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Certainly.

Billy Nolas: We, Your Honor has a very difficult job here. You've been on the bench quite a long time, and you've seen, I dare say, quite a lot more than the three of us combined. It is a task that we do not envy, and that hopefully none of us will ever be in a position to make. I know I never want to be in a position to make the type of decision Your Honor needs to make here.

Billy Nolas: We as a people can decide to impose the death sentence on Ms. Wuornos. We can decide to have her executed. Those procedures, as Your Honor knows, are about as cold and calculated and premeditated, using those terms, as any procedures can get. It's done with a great deal of formality, with a great deal of calculation. What I would suggest to Your Honor is that such a sentence would meet none of the goals that we consider to be penologically appropriate. No one would be deterred by a death sentence on Ms. Wuornos. Surely rehabilitation is not an issue. And the only question is really retribution.

Billy Nolas: And the question is, is it worth the thousands and millions of dollars that it's going to take to have Ms. Wuornos executed? Is it worth us as a society? Is it something we should do? We can do that. If we were to do that, we would be doing something, and I would submit to Your Honor that we will be accomplishing nothing. And with that, Your Honor, I guess the...

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: Ms. Jenkins? Mr. Miller?

Defense Counsel: I have nothing to say.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: All right. The defendant, Aileen Carol Wuornos, being before the court, attended by attorneys Tricia Jenkins, William Miller and Billy Nolas, her attorneys of record, having been tried and found guilty of the crimes of count one, first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder of Richard Mallory, a capital felony, and count two, armed robbery with a firearm, an armed robbery of Richard Mallory with a firearm, and no cause being shown why the defendant should not be adjudicated guilty, you're hereby adjudged guilty of said offenses.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: You will be, as required by law, compelled to pay $20 to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, and $5 in accordance with Florida Statute 943.25, subparagraph 4. I've reviewed your affidavit of indigency, find that you're unable to pay costs, and accordingly all costs are hereby waived.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: As to count two, the sentence is imposed in accordance with the guidelines mandated upon this court by the State of Florida. The defendant being before the court, attended by her attorneys Tricia Jenkins, William Miller and Billy Nolas, having been adjudicated guilty herein, and the court having given you an opportunity to be heard and offer matters in mitigation of sentence, no cause being shown, it is the sentence of the law and the judgment of this court that you, Aileen Carol Wuornos, be imprisoned by confinement, committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections, for a term of ten years from this date, with credit for time heretofore served in the Volusia County Jail, and you will be compelled to serve a three-year mandatory minimum as provided by Florida Statute 775.087(2). That's in count two. As to count one, you will be required to make restitution as entered by separate order that I am signing at this time.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: As to count one, the defendant, Aileen Carol Wuornos, being now before the court, attended by her attorneys Tricia Jenkins, William Miller and Billy Nolas, and having been adjudicated guilty of the crime of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder, a capital felony, and the court having given the defendant an opportunity to be heard and to offer matters in mitigation of sentence, and to show cause why the sentence of law should not now be imposed upon you, and no cause being shown: I'm filing with the clerk my written findings in this matter; copies will be made available to counsel when they are available.

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: It is the sentence of the law and the judgment of this court that you, Aileen Carol Wuornos, be delivered by the Sheriff of Volusia County, Florida, with a copy of this sentence, forthwith to the proper officers of the Department of Corrections of the State of Florida, and by him safely kept until, by warrant of the Governor of the State of Florida, you, Aileen Carol Wuornos, be electrocuted until you are dead. And may God have mercy upon your [unclear: "soul" (standard formula) / "court" (both machine passes)].

Judge Uriel Blount Jr.: The judgments and sentences will be entered in open court this 31st day of January, 1992, and my signature attached. The court does now advise you that you have the right to appeal the judgment and sentence imposed upon you, upon showing to the court of your desire to appeal the judgment and sentence. And should you be an indigent person, counsel will be appointed to represent you for the appeal purposes. Will you please step over to the bailiff for fingerprinting, ma'am? *[About 50 seconds without clear speech while she is fingerprinted.]*

Unidentified Speaker: [unclear: "Out." / "That's the way I am."]

Unidentified Speakers: Thank you, Judge. Take care. ---