A Maricopa County judge rejected surprise pleas in the killing of Pastor William Schonemann and set the case for another hearing next month.
PHOENIX, Ariz. — The man accused of killing a New River pastor in a staged, crucifixion-like attack told a judge he wants to plead guilty and be sentenced to death, but the court refused to move that quickly in one of Arizona’s most disturbing pending murder cases.
That courtroom clash matters because it showed how little control a defendant has over the pace of a death-penalty case, even when he says he wants the harshest punishment. Adam Sheafe, who is representing himself with advisory counsel, tried to force the case ahead during a hearing this month. Prosecutors objected, and the judge said the case must follow the required steps before any plea or penalty decision can stand.
The case began nearly a year earlier in New River, a small community north of Phoenix, where Pastor William “Bill” Schonemann was found dead at his home on April 28, 2025. According to prosecutors, two members of his congregation went to check on him and discovered his body posed with his arms outstretched in a way investigators described as similar to a crucifixion. Maricopa County authorities later alleged that Sheafe killed the 76-year-old pastor after breaking into the home during the night. By July, a grand jury had indicted Sheafe on first-degree murder and several related charges tied to the homicide and events before and after it.
At the March 12 hearing in Phoenix, the case turned from the facts of the killing to the rules that govern how a capital prosecution moves forward. Sheafe first tried to enter a no-contest plea. Prosecutors objected. He then said he wanted to plead guilty and accept a death sentence. The judge rejected that effort, telling him the court could not simply skip over the normal legal process. In open court, Sheafe argued that the case was being dragged out and said a quick resolution would help both his family and Schonemann’s family move on. The moment was striking, but it did not change the court’s duty to examine competency issues, plea standards, aggravating factors and all other required stages before any sentence could be imposed.
The legal stakes are unusually high because prosecutors have already signaled they are pursuing death. In Arizona, that does not happen automatically in a first-degree murder case. The state must prove at least one aggravating factor and then clear a separate penalty phase before a death sentence can be imposed. The victim’s age and the brutality alleged by prosecutors are likely to remain central to that argument. The court record described in public reporting also shows why the judge was reluctant to accept an abrupt plea from a defendant acting as his own lawyer. A guilty plea in a capital case must be knowing, voluntary and supported by a clear record. Any rushed plea would invite appeals and could throw the case into deeper delay rather than bring it to a close.
Sheafe’s position has added another unusual layer. He has repeatedly spoken to media outlets from jail and has openly admitted responsibility in interviews, saying he carried out the killing as part of a larger religious mission. Those public statements may shape how the broader public sees the case, but they do not replace the state’s burden in court. Prosecutors still must present evidence, establish the chain of events and show that the law supports the punishment they seek. The court also must protect the integrity of the proceedings, especially in a case that could end with the state’s most severe penalty. That is one reason judges move carefully, even when a defendant insists there is nothing left to decide.
The hearing also revealed the emotional tension around a case that has shaken both a close church community and the wider Phoenix area. Schonemann was known in New River as a longtime pastor and neighbor. His death drew grief, fear and intense attention because of the way authorities say the body was staged. In court, however, the case was reduced to the measured language of procedure. Lawyers argued over plea rules. The judge focused on legal steps. Sheafe, speaking for himself, tried to frame speed as justice. The contrast underscored a truth common in capital litigation: the more severe the possible punishment, the slower and more structured the process becomes.
For now, the case remains where it was before the hearing: pending, active and far from sentencing. The next major court date is scheduled for April 24, when the judge is expected to take up the next procedural steps in a prosecution that both the state and the defendant say could end in a death-penalty phase, but only after the rules are fully followed.
Author note: Last updated March 16, 2026.