When SAC James Pierany received a call from Peter Anderson (alias Devon Howard), it was with mixed feelings. First, it was with a sense of relief, because his friend was alive and well. Second, it was a sense of dread. What can of worms did Peter open up with this call? As he listened to Peter update him, in he was sure  Cliff Note version of what had happened since the last time they spoke, a million thoughts went through his head. The biggest thought going through his mind was how it was that he was still alive. The second thing was that it was going to take someone higher up the food chain to sort out this morass.

When Peter finally finished with his narrative, SAC Pierany told him that he needed to turn himself in. Because if he didn’t as much as it would pain him he would have to put out an all points bulletin on him. With the order to arrest under extreme prejudice. Before he hung up with  Peter, he asked him the simple question, “Why did he make this call? I don’t know what you hope to accomplish here. No one is going to just pat you on the back and say,  ‘Well done.’ You took the law into your own hands, and have even used an alias to continue with your work. One thing, I do know is that you are most likely going to spend your remaining years in prison. Is Jennie OK with this decision?” Peter simply answered, “It is time, and yes, she is OK with my decision. She knew what kind of man I was when we got married. I am prepared to pay whatever price I have to pay. I have left my family as financially secure as possible. Jennie will soon have a fulfilling career to help occupy her, along with Amelia. I know it won’t be the same with me being gone, but I can’t live with this burden any longer, I thought I could. But nearly losing my wife and my daughter did something to me. Besides no matter how much I try, I can’t seem to make this world a better place.  Bad things keep on happening to good people. Besides I have way too much blood on my hands. I can’t put it any other way, it is time.”

SAC Pierany continued, “Peter when you arrive at my station, call me before you turn yourself in, so that I can meet you outside and personally escort you in. This is for your protection. We have gone through some rough times, and we have seen things that no one should ever see. And we have always survived. I don’t want to sound prosaic, but I just don’t have the words to express the emotions that I am feeling at this moment. So, in an effort not to sound like a babbling idiot. I will put it as simply as possible, I don’t want to see you get killed. I also kind of wish you had remained in Rome as Devon Howard.”

“James, this call has taken longer than I planned. Would you mind if I spent one more night as a free man with my family? I will be in front of the J. Edgar Hoover building at 9:00 AM tomorrow.” Peter queried. “No, that is fine,” James replied as he ended the call.

That night Peter and his family partook of a somber meal together in their rental house. No one else felt much like engaging in idle banter. Even Amelia seemed to feel the tension in the air. That night Peter and Jennie made love for the last time. The lovemaking was gentle and tender as they tried to seek comfort in each other’s embrace. Remember this date June 5th, 2025.

The next day at 8:30 AM, an Uber driver pulled up to the front door of the Anderson rental house and picked up Peter. I took 15 minutes to get to the FBI building. Peter knew exactly how long it would take because he drove there on two consecutive mornings so that he knew how much time he would need to allot to get there. He did not want to be late. When he arrived at the mammoth office building, he immediately texted SAC Pierany that he was waiting for him under a shade tree at the front entrance.

When SAC Pierany met Peter, he was all business he told him to put his hands behind his back and handcuffed him. He then patted him down, looking for any concealed weapons. The only thing Peter had with him was two passports, the one with the name Peter Anderson, which was nearly expired, and a second passport with the Name Devon Howard on it, and a debit card, just in case he would be allowed to post bail. Which of course due to his finances and the extreme nature of his crimes he was not granted.

SAC Pierany then led Peter into the FBI building.

While it does include some facilities for processing and temporarily holding individuals, such as interrogation rooms and cells capable of accommodating up to fifteen people overnight, it’s primarily an administrative and operational center, not a jail or prison. 

When the FBI makes an arrest, the individual is taken into custody, processed (photographed and fingerprinted), and typically held in a secure location until their initial court appearance before a magistrate or judge, which must occur without unnecessary delay. If the court decides to detain the individual further, they would be transferred to a suitable correctional facility, such as those operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which manages federal prisons and community-based facilities throughout the nation. The 

J. Edgar Hoover Building would not be the designated location for serving jail or prison terms. 

The J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, D.C., the FBI headquarters, is not designed for housing large numbers of booked criminals on a long-term basis. 

When Peter Anderson was read his Miranda rights*, he waived the right to an Attorney even though he could obviously afford one, and even though he had the legal right to one.

*Miranda Rights

The Miranda warning is a statement read by law enforcement to a person who is in custody and being interrogated. It informs them of their constitutional rights, specifically their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. The core of the warning includes informing the suspect that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to an attorney, with one appointed if they cannot afford one. 

Here’s a common script:

1.  “You have the right to remain silent.”This means the person can choose not to answer any questions from the police. 
2. “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”This explains that anything the suspect says, even if it’s just a casual conversation, can be used as evidence in their case. 
3.  “You have the right to an attorney.”This informs the suspect that they have the right to have a lawyer present during questioning. 
4. “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.”If the suspect cannot afford a lawyer, the state will provide one for them. 
5. “Do you understand these rights that I have just read to you?”This is a question to ensure the suspect understands the rights being explained. 
6. “With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”This is the final question, asking the suspect if, understanding their rights, they still want to talk to the police. 

It’s essential to note that, although this is a standard script, variations exist, and the police are not required to use the exact wording; however, they must convey the essential information about the suspect’s rights. The rights are intended to protect individuals from self-incrimination and ensure they have access to legal representation during interrogation. 

Having a didactic memory, Peter’s statement was not only concise but voluminous. It took the better part of two weeks to complete. He said that he didn’t want a jury of his peers, citing the sensitivity of his testimony. He pleaded guilty to all charges on a day he threw himself on the mercy of the court. His defense was that he did what he had to do to protect his family and to bring justice to those individuals who were immune to the law. He added,  “If I had waited for justice to be administered I would have been long dead and buried. The people who were responsible for killing not only my sister but my aunt and her family, and almost killing me and my wife, and my child, had resources beyond imagination. While I know what I did was wrong, I had no other choice. I tried following the law, I became a police officer, then a detective even an undercover agent to bring justice to the cartel members, only to get the soldiers, the leaders always seemed to slip away. In my system of justice, no one escapes my terrible swift sword. I may sound arrogant, but where was the justice for my sister and my family? Now we don’t have to worry, because those responsible for perpetrating these crimes are all rotting in hell.”

Three weeks later the court date was set, because, Peter pleaded guilty with a no contest clause, the date was set for the following Monday. Before the court date Judge Roy Thomas Parker the presiding judge on Peter’s case, received a diplomatic pouch from the Vatican. When he opened it up there was a DVD with an accompanying note, addressed to Judge Parker.

The note was from Pope Pius XIII. The note was brief and to the point.  This DVD is only to be watched by you just before the sentencing. It contains highly sensitive material. If this information becomes public it could spell the end of the Roman Catholic Church. The contents in no way absolve Peter Anderson (alias Devon Howard) from any of his crimes. Due to the highly critical missions that he participated in he deserves some consideration when you are deciding on his sentencing. I am not trying to be cryptic in any way. The video on the enclosed DVD will explain everything. Thank you for your consideration. Pope Pius XIII.

Prior to the court date being set, Judge Parker sat down and read through all the transcripts, and he also watched the complete video of Peter’s statement. Because this case was so complicated and involved crimes in more than one country, James Pierany the special agent in Charge, videotaped Peter Anderson’s entire confession and statement. He didn’t want there to be a claim made of impropriety during the confession.  Besides Thomas Anderson had not only been one of them. He had been one of the very brightest in the department. 

The video on the DVD was an hour long. When Judge Parker finished watching, all he could say was, “Damn!” He muttered to himself, “I can’t believe that the Pope just admitted to ordering the sanctioned killing of dozens of criminals. Who do I have in my jail? The Pope must think very highly of him, to risk so much.”

Judge Parker was for the first time conflicted about what to do. While the killings perpetrated by Peter Anderson were morally justified, they were still cases of premeditated murder. He hunted these people down and ruthlessly executed them. It was a case of extreme vigilantism. If he allowed these killings to go unpunished, he was opening a very big can of worms.

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

The minimum charge for premeditated murder varies by jurisdiction, but it generally involves a sentence of life imprisonment, potentially with the possibility of parole after a certain number of years, or even the death penalty in some jurisdictions. In Nevada, first-degree murder, which includes premeditated murder, can result in the death penalty or life in prison without parole if there are aggravating circumstances. 

• Life Imprisonment: Many states impose life imprisonment as the minimum sentence for premeditated murder. This can mean life with the possibility of parole after a specific period (e.g., 25 years) or life without the possibility of parole. 

• Death Penalty: In states that allow capital punishment, premeditated murder can be a capital offense, meaning the death penalty is a potential sentence. 
• Aggravating Circumstances: The presence of aggravating factors, such as a particularly heinous crime or a victim who was a child, can increase the severity of the sentence, potentially leading to the death penalty or life without parole. 
• Minimum Sentences: Some states have specific minimum sentences for premeditated murder, such as a mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison in Utah. 
• Federal Law: Federal laws also allow for the death penalty in some instances of premeditated murder, particularly if the victim was a government official or the crime occurred on federal property. 

After going through all of the viable options, Judge Parker kept coming back to second-degree murder. While it was true that first degree was the only one that truly fit the crimes legally, morally the penalty of life in prison or even death was just too high a price to pay. It can even be argued that Peter had begun serving his sentence when he was 10 years of age, so that he would have served 18 years of a 25-year sentence. The problem with using this logic, his ruling could be appealed by an overzealous DA, and Peter could end up being sentenced to a much longer sentence. Charging him with second-degree murder charges would be a lot harder for a DA to appeal. The burden of proof would be on them, so they would most likely not risk losing a case like this. Chances are that they would be willing to settle for a 10-year sentence at a maximum security prison. He would still be a fairly young man at 48 years of age. With his millions he could live a nice life, he would certainly not have to worry about getting a job. But one thing that Judge Parker did not take into account was the friends of the people Peter had killed.

A sentence for second-degree murder varies by jurisdiction, but generally involves a lengthy prison sentence, potentially ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment. The death penalty is usually not an option for second-degree murder. Factors like the specific laws of the state, the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and the judge’s discretion can influence the exact length of the sentence. 

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

General Characteristics:

• Felony: Second-degree murder is typically classified as a felony, and a conviction usually results in imprisonment.
• No Premeditation: Unlike first-degree murder, second-degree murder usually involves malice or intent to cause serious bodily harm, but not premeditated intent to kill.
• Sentencing Range: Sentences can range from a minimum of 10 years to life imprisonment.
• No Death Penalty: The death penalty is typically not applied for second-degree murder. 

Factors Affecting Sentence Length:

• State Laws: Sentencing guidelines vary by state.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Factors such as the use of a weapon, the vulnerability of the victim (e.g., a child or elderly person), or the offender’s prior criminal record can increase the sentence.
• Mitigating Circumstances: A judge may consider factors like the offender’s lack of prior criminal record, remorse, mental illness, or evidence of rehabilitation to reduce the sentence according to FindLaw.
• Judge’s Discretion: The judge has the authority to weigh the evidence and circumstances and impose a sentence within the statutory range. 

Important Considerations:

• Legal Counsel: Individuals facing second-degree murder charges should seek legal representation from an experienced criminal defense attorney.
• State Laws: It is crucial to understand the specific laws of the state where the offense occurred, as sentencing guidelines and potential penalties vary. 

A case could be made for justifiable homicide. It was a weak case, however, one could say that his life was in danger.

• Not a Crime: If a homicide is ruled justifiable, it is not a crime, meaning no criminal charges are filed. 
• Self-Defense: Justifiable homicide often involves self-defense situations where a person uses deadly force to protect themselves from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. 
• Other Situations: Justifiable homicide can also apply in other specific circumstances, such as preventing a felony or defending others from harm. 
• No Criminal Penalties: Because it’s not a crime, there are no criminal penalties associated with justifiable homicide. 
• Civil Liability: While not subject to criminal charges, a person involved in a justifiable homicide may still face civil lawsuits from the deceased’s family. 
• Burden of Proof: In cases where self-defense is claimed, the individual must prove they reasonably feared for their life or safety and that the force used was proportionate to the threat. 
• “Castle Doctrine”: Many jurisdictions have “castle doctrine” laws, which allow for the use of deadly force against an intruder in one’s home without a duty to retreat.

A case could also be made for exigent circumstances. This case was a little stronger. The people that he killed were a definite threat to the innocent and weak. By his removal of these individuals, he was in essence making society safer. He knew that no matter what his decision was Peter was not going to appeal it. However, what he was worried about was making the right decision. Peter/Devon, had not only suffered so much, but he had also helped make society a safer place to live in.

Exigent circumstances refer to situations where there is an immediate threat or emergency that requires law enforcement to act without a warrant, such as preventing harm to life, escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. These situations allow for warrantless searches and seizures, but they must be based on a reasonable belief that an emergency exists. 

Key points about exigent circumstances:

• Definition: Exigent circumstances are situations that create an immediate need for law enforcement to act without a warrant. 
• Examples: These situations often involve imminent danger to life, the possibility of a suspect escaping, or the potential destruction of evidence. 
• Warrant Exception: Exigent circumstances are an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, which generally protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. 
  • Probable Cause: While a warrant is not required, law enforcement must still have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed or is being committed. 
  • Scope of Search: If a search is conducted under exigent circumstances, it is limited to actions necessary to address the immediate emergency, according to Stephen G. Rodriguez & Partners. Any further search would require a warrant. 
  • Examples of situations that may constitute exigent circumstances:
    • Emergency Medical Situations: If someone is injured or needs immediate medical attention, police may enter a home without a warrant to provide assistance. 
    • Crimes in Progress: If a crime, such as a robbery or assault, is actively taking place, police may enter a location without a warrant to stop the crime and ensure safety. 
    • Destruction of Evidence: If police reasonably believe that evidence is about to be destroyed, they may enter a location to secure it. 
  • Escape of a Suspect: If a suspect is attempting to flee, police may pursue them into a building without a warrant. 
  • Hot Pursuit: If police are in the process of pursuing a suspect who is fleeing, they may enter a building or location without a warrant. 
• Creating the Exigency: It’s important to note that law enforcement cannot create the exigent circumstance themselves by violating the Fourth Amendment, says the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 
• Plain View Doctrine: If law enforcement is lawfully on the premises due to exigent circumstances, they can seize any evidence in plain view. 

After careful deliberation, Judge Roy Thomas Parker found Peter Anderson guilty of 10 cases of second-degree murder, each with the maximum time served of 10 years. They will be served concurrently with no parole for good behavior. Peter Anderson will immediately be remanded to Wallens Ridge State Prison. The court is adjourned.

Peter did not say a word when he received his sentence, frankly, he was surprised, he thought that he was going to get life. There were no family members present during his trial. That was part of the agreement he made with Jennie. He also stipulated that he wanted no visitors while he was in prison. He certainly did not want his daughter seeing him in prison, no matter what her age was.