People v Robert C

As mentioned in the previous writing, by just very bad luck and bad fate, Robert C  could not get an appointment with a psychiatrist until after the New Year’s Holiday. So, on New Year’s Day, it was alleged that Robert had convinced two other young men who were both minors, i.e. age 17, to “off” another young man, who was also a son of a prominent dentist living in Orange County, whose family had immigrated to the United States from Singapore and was also of Chinese descent, a pistol. This victim was a young man who attended another high school in the area, and, like Robert, maintained a 4.7 grade point average in high school, and, if my memory is correct, planned on attending Harvard University. The so-called plan was to lure the other young man (who will be referred to from now on as the victim) to where Robert and his two accomplices had stashed three baseball bats at different vantages and placements in the garage for easy access to the conspirators, to be used to overpower the victim and basically bash the victim’s head in. The three had also previously dug a hole in the backyard of one of the boy’s homes just outside of the garage in the rear yard of the area of action. So, when the victim arrived, a chair had been set in the middle of the garage, and the victim was handed a package supposedly containing the firearm to be purchased, and as the victim attempted to open the package to inspect its contents, allegedly the three young men grabbed the hidden bats and began to smash the victim until the victim lay on the floor of the garage. At that point,  gasoline was poured down the victim’s throat and then the victim’s mouth was duct-taped, and he regurgitated and, according to the autopsy surgeon, he then died of suffocation. Then, his body was thrown into the previously-dug hole, covered with dirt and thus buried. The three young men then went out that night and celebrated New Year’s Eve.

Unfortunately for the three, it did not take long for the Anaheim police to uncover the whole plot and recover the body, as one of the young men was observed the day before digging the hole by a neighbor. The three were charged with Murder 1st, even though two were juveniles, because at the time, the DA had the choice of charging the minors as juveniles with juvenile proceedings and wardship treatment, or as adults with criminal consequences, sort of a “no brainer,” wouldn’t you say? With Robert, Murder 1st carried a life term and if the murder contains special circumstances, then the punishment is either life without parole or death. One of the enumerated special circumstances is what is known as “lying in wait.” Lying in wait occurs when the perpetrator intends to kill, and creates a situation in which the victim is unaware of the killer’s intent before the act causing death is going to occur. The classic is killing by ambush, but any circumstance where the created situation causes the intended victim to be unaware of the deliberative process of the perpetrator is an example. So, in Robert’s case, the DA did call for special circumstances and was asking for either death or life without parole.

I mentioned in an earlier blog that when I was  prosecutor, I made the choice of whether to seek the death penalty or just life in prison in a Capitol Case assigned to me, and did seek the death penalty, even though the investigating officers were not hot on the deal. I also mentioned maybe a “gung ho” young prosecutor has not had enough life experience to make such a decision. Well, that decision process has changed as a result of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court holding that a decision by a prosecutor to singly determine when to ask for the death penalty is arbitrary without any fixed standards and therefore unconstitutional. Now, each County DA has set up an independent committee to weigh several factors for or against asking for the death penalty, without the elected DA’s interference, weighing several factors, both in aggravation and mitigation. In my defense capital death cases, I have been successful in presenting evidence and reasons why death should not be imposed and except for the Risotto, Franklin cases written about previously, I have not had to face a death case as a defense attorney. In Robert’s case, I presented to the committee mitigating evidence such as no criminal background, his civic participation in school, his gold medals from the academic decathlon, his family, and so forth. The committee rejected a death sentence and the DA’s Office was only going to ask for life without parole, which is not so great either, but leaves room for maybe a shot at a lesser charge, such as manslaughter, an intentional killing, but based on some mental condition diminishing his capacity to contemplate, or maybe an unreasonable, but honest, belief in self defense or anything that might reduce the mental requirement of malice aforethought. If the charge has a life without parole penalty attached to it, no reason not to go to trial, which we did.

Unfortunately, the co-defendants, the two other participants, had good lawyers who cut a deal with the prosecution to plead guilty to murder 1st, but be able to ask for juvenile treatment to be incarcerated with juveniles, which was known then as youth treatment until the age of 25 and then be eligible for a parole release.

I tried, brought in a great witness, who was the director of the local state mental facility, to try to show Robert as acting under a delusion that the victim needed to be eliminated as Robert believed the victim had planned to murder Robert’s parents. Under the law at the time in order to raise a mental defense, the accused had to testify. Robert testified, and I was hoping the jury could see Robert as not all there, but it as hard to overcome the testimony of the co defendants and other witnesses, and Robert was convicted and sentenced to life. I did not go into all of the ramifications of the trial or my thoughts but needless to say, saving Robert from Death Row was not easy. What a pity and what a waste that the whole scene occurred; just a few days before, he could have met with the psychiatrist who, if available, might have averted the whole tragic consequence. I might mention that the last I know, Robert has had no trouble or discipline while in prison and even set up a school for other inmates to complete their education and Robert is their teacher.

Next I think I will write about my experience with big time Mexican drug dealers

Marshall