The trial of the two cop killers was before The Honorable Mark Brandler, I believe in 1963 or 1964. Having chosen LA as the place to try the case, it was going to be a slow tedious process involving multiple witnesses and ballistic experts to tie the case together and reveal each bad guy’s involvement in the murder and other related crimes, such as the approximately 32 armed robberies, plus the story of the meeting of the police officers with Gregory Powell and Jimmy Smith. Just from observing the two bad guys, it was clear to me Powell would be no problem getting a conviction for and a recommendation of Death by cyanide in the gas chamber, but Jimmy Smith was another story. In court, Powell would strut and sneer and show his true side, but Smith, an ex-con, knew how to play the system. Smith would look “hang-dog,” and his defense was going to be believed, “Powell did it all:” the robberies, the shooting at the fleeing officer, and the coup de gras murder of Officer Campbell. My purpose was going to be to show, without any doubt, that Smith was as bad as Powell, if not worse. Thus, I had to be meticulous in the presentation.
In gathering evidence, Pearce Brooks, the brilliant detective, was able to pin down both defendants on strategic statements made by each defendant. The most important was the act each had admitted in tape-recorded interviews, the weapons in their possession when arrested were the same weapons they first had on their respective possessions from the time the kidnapping first occurred to the time they were arrested. Bingo, ballistics proved the fatal wounds administered to the fallen officer were from Hettinger’s 38 Smith and Wesson revolver, which Hettinger gave to Smith, and Campbell’s Colt 38 was taken by Powell at the time of the first encounter back at the Hollywood area. Shell casings from the area where Powell was standing at the end of the ride were from Campbell’s revolver and conclusively the shots to the fallen officer were definitely from Hettinger’s Smith and Wesson.
Also, when Hettinger fled and ran across the field, he encountered a farm worker driving a tractor. The two of them started towards a farmhouse about 5 miles west of the original spot and while hiding in the furrows, they observed the Ford used in the kidnapping going up and down the area searching for Hettinger, and that could only be Jimmy Smith, as Powell had already stolen a vehicle and was on his way back to LA, but was captured going South on the Ridge Route. (now Interstate 5) Also, Smith had prior knowledge of the killing area as a past field worker in those fields. In the end, I tied both defendants in a web so tight there was no way they could get out of it.
One of the problems was putting the story together, so I decided to start with the two defendants, meeting and becoming partners, how they started robbing small convenience stores, with Powell the gunman and Smith the driver. How they prepared with the purchase of weapons in Las Vegas, their practicing to shoot to kill at a remote waste area with simulated dummies as people to show their intent to kill from the very beginning. They had pledged they would not be taken alive. Then, after presenting the robberies which lead up to the killers cruising the Hollywood area, I then brought the two officers into the picture with the testimony of Officer Hettinger meeting with his partner, the confrontation and the kidnapping leading to the murder.
I had a huge aerial photograph of the Ridge Route and the area, which was pretty good for illustration purposes, but could not really recapture the scariness and loneliness of the actual crime scene. For some unknown reason which I never understood, the defense requested a view of the area of the shooting. I have, as a defense attorney, never asked for a view, as I have never seen a view benefit the one requesting it. For your information, when a party requests a view of the crime scene, the whole court, its staff, the jury and the parties and their respective attorneys are transported or driven to the area. No testimony is allowed, but there can be questions relating to pointing out what was taking place at the time of various incidents such as: “Officer Hettinger- using different people, would you please stand where you were when the first shot by Powell hit Officer Campbell in the lip and caused him to fall backwards? Please position officer Pearce where Officer Campbell was standing.” (and so on) Well, once out there in the field, it was more than clear how lonely and desolate the area, the ready-made grave where the irrigation pipes were to be laid, the fact that if both officers were killed, they may never had been found, leaving their wives and children to never know what happened to their husbands and fathers. Pretty cold, wouldn’t you say?
I also had a mannequin made of a head and torso, sort of resembling Officer Campbell based on pathology and ballistics showing the entry and exit wounds illustrated by rods which showed the angle of flight which corresponded with someone standing behind the fallen officer shooting into his body from behind, as described be the surviving officer.
Needless to say, the trial was lengthy, covering maybe 32 volumes of testimony. My opening statement was the longest I ever delivered, and I usually don’t like to overwhelm the jury with small details, but in this case in order to put the occurrence together, I had to spend about a day in opening statement.
As expected, the defendants each blamed the other, hoping to escape the Death Penalty. Didn’t work. I nailed each one with their own recorded statements
Closing argument did not take as long. The jury was instructed and went to the jury room to deliberate
Then the best-laid plans went awry. One juror would not deliberate, because she lived in Sierra Madre, sort of a rural area in the San Joaquin hills just above Pasadena, and one day she called the police to remove a rattlesnake that found its way to her front porch. So the police came, shot the snake and she apparently went ballistic against the officers for killing the snake and developed a hatred against police which was never revealed when we were selecting the jury. Fortunately, because she did not reveal the bias and also refused to deliberate, after inquiry, the court excused her for cause, and an alternate juror was selected, Shortly after, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty of Murder 1st and we then went into the next phase: what penalty should the jury recommend, life or death.
At that time, I could and did present to the jury that life does not necessarily mean life and the accused would be eligible for parole after 25 years. I could present parole statistics showing parole grants and the number of those committing crimes while out on parole. I could also show the defendants’ criminal backgrounds, such as the several felonies each defendant had previously committed, and, in Smith’s case, his knife attack on a teacher when he was a juvenile. Also, I could present evidence of escapes over a set period of time.
It’s not a good idea to try a case by way of several lawyers deciding strategy by committee. The OJ Simpson case is a classic example. In that case, not only were there at one time three DAs in Court, but also, after court, there were additional DAs assigned to participate in strategy, which in my opinion dilutes the effectiveness of the prosecution. In the Onion Field case, Powell’s girlfriend would bring their infant to court and stand by the jury as they would leave the room, holding the baby up for the jury to see. I wanted that in the record and planned to use it against him. So, when he was testifying, I asked him if that child was his? Yes, he admitted. You could hear the gasps in the courtroom. But I knew once I had that evidence, in closing argument regarding penalty, I told the jury why I asked the question and that Powell was such a coward he would not only hide behind his girlfriend’s skirts but would, for his benefit, have an infant in court rather than at home in a crib where the child belongs. If I had a committee, they probably would veto that ploy, but it fit me and my style.
Well, the jury returned a death verdict for both defendants and there would follow an automatic appeal
I left the office in 1965 for private practice. My next blog will cover the automatic appeal, its results and a discussion of the pros and cons of the death penalty, as well as the aftermath of the Powell/Smith saga
Marshall
MarshallsKnowledge© 