NORFOLK, Neb. (AP) — Death-row inmate Jorge Galindo is seeking to overturn his convictions and sentence for his involvement in the 2002 U.S. Bank killings in Norfolk. This move comes after an unsuccessful bid for the Nebraska Supreme Court to rehear his case, following a split decision in September affirming a District Court judge’s decision to deny Galindo postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.
Galindo, along with Jose Sandoval and Erick Vela, entered a U.S. Bank branch on Sept. 26, 2002, and fatally shot five people, making it one of the deadliest bank killings in U.S. history. The three left empty-handed as the five victims lost their lives. All three men were subsequently locked up, with Sandoval and Galindo found guilty at trial and Vela pleading guilty.
After being denied a hearing without an evidentiary hearing, Galindo appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments last year. His attorney, Adam Sipple, is addressing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that Madison County Attorney Joe Smith shielded himself from federal scrutiny by getting participants in a criminal drug ring to testify against Galindo at the sentencing phase.
A partial dissent from Justice Jonathan Papik argued for granting an evidentiary hearing, raising concerns about the allegations against the county attorney. Justices Lindsey Miller-Lerman sided with Papik, asserting the need for an examination of the penalty phase prosecuted by a prosecutor with a conflict.
Galindo’s legal team filed a motion asking to stay the mandate from being issued while they seek review of federal questions, followed by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus raising 37 claims. The case continues to unfold as Galindo persists in challenging his convictions and death sentence.
In summary, Galindo is fighting to invalidate his convictions in connection with the U.S. Bank killings in Norfolk in 2002, presenting numerous claims and seeking a federal review of the case. The legal battle raises questions about prosecutorial conduct and the handling of the death penalty case, as Galindo seeks to prove his innocence and secure a fair judicial process.