Bellevue murder case proves juvenile sentence reform has limits

It was a crime that shocked the community.

In 1997, two 17-year-olds killed their acquaintance Kimberly Wilson and then went to her house and killed her mother, father and younger sister.

Found guilty of first-degree aggravated murder in separate trials, Alex Baranyi and David Anderson were mandatorily sentenced to life in prison without parole.

But since then, the justice system has reconsidered the culpability of juvenile offenders. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 determined that mandatory life sentences without parole for those under 18 years old are unconstitutional. Subsequent rulings by the state Supreme Court and new state laws added additional layers.

On Wednesday, Baranyi will be in King County Superior Court again, this time to learn whether Judge Jason Poydras will grant his request for a sentence that complies with the state Supreme Court’s requirement that juvenile offenders have “a meaningful opportunity at life beyond incarceration.”

Baranyi wants to get out of prison now, after 27 years behind bars. The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office is seeking what it considers the appropriate sentence under state law: 80 years from the time of his conviction. That would be release in the year 2078.

The case underscores the shifting sensibilities of juvenile crime and poses serious questions: Are there some crimes that are too heinous to be chalked up to the poor decision-making of a young brain? Can the legal system tell whether someone is truly rehabilitated?

If Baranyi finally walks free after such a horrendous act, why should any offender face decades-long prison time?

In court papers, Baranyi’s attorney argues that he was socially immature, emotionally neglected by his parents and susceptible to peer pressure at the time of the killings.

His advocates say Baranyi, now 45, is a changed man who made the most of his incarceration. He is now a Buddhist, an educator, a writer, a dog trainer, a certified beekeeper and “the tailor of stuffed teddy bears that are distributed to children in shelters.”

He has not had a prison infraction in more than 17 years.

Prosecutors painted a different portrait. “Baranyi makes no compelling argument that his youthful brain or any adversity he faced growing up was reflected in his callous desire for murder and his premeditated slayings of the Wilson family,” they wrote.

They cite Baranyi’s own words at age 29, “ … he is a killer and a manipulator who has an amazing ability to tell people what they want to hear.”

If Judge Poydras agrees with Baranyi and sentences him to time served, his case would go before the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board, which will decide whether there is a likelihood that he would reoffend. If it rules there is not, Baranyi would be immediately released. There is no appeal.

If Judge Poydras sides with prosecutors and imposes a sentence of 80 years, Baranyi could appeal, and the case could go to the state Supreme Court. The high court could say Judge Poydras got it wrong and send the case back to a lower court.

Anderson was resentenced in 2022 to a minimum 33 years. After the state Supreme Court clarified the law, prosecutors appealed Anderson’s sentence. The state Court of Appeals agreed and ordered a third sentencing hearing, which will take place in the coming year.

Revisiting long prison sentences for youth convicted of serious crimes makes sense. Redemption should always be a possibility.

But to ensure justice, the compassion of the criminal justice system must have some kind of limit, even for those incarcerated for acts committed when they were legally underage. For some crimes, the shock never goes away.

A family is gone, and relatives of the Wilsons watch the legal proceedings year after year. No matter what happens in court on Wednesday, it is not likely to bring peace.