On September 20, 1989, he was convicted of all charges: 13 counts of murder, five attempted murders, 11 sexual assaults and 14 burglaries, although hes assumed to have committed many more crimes. Defendant ordered her to get up and don't make any noise. He took her into the bedroom of her 12-year-old son, woke him up, and handcuffed her to her son. (Ante, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d at pp. Accordingly, it is clear that a criminal defendant need not demonstrate prejudice resulting from a violation of that right in order to have his conviction reversed. (Ibid. WebVincent Zazzara was born on 8 October 1920. ] (People v. Lewis, supra, 25 Cal.4th 610, 676, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392; People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 737, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 485, 115 P.3d 1145.) at p. 982, 275 Cal.Rptr. 4. ), Defendant argues that granting prosecutors virtually unfettered discretion to decide whether to seek the death penalty violates the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. Defendant introduced evidence that participation in Neighborhood Watch programs probably doubled while the murders were occurring. During jury deliberations at the guilt phase of the trial, the trial court discharged Juror Robert L., over defendant's objection, after receiving information from the jury foreperson that the juror had fallen asleep on two occasions. (People v. Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th 395, 449, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 107 P.3d 790; People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 46, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30.) [Gallegos]: Yes, I would like to see his profile without glasses and also from behind. (People v. Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th 395, 448, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 107 P.3d 790; People v. Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th 900, 944, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044. But jury selection in the present case commenced on July 21, 1988, using prospective jurors summoned using the new master jury list for the 1988-1989 fiscal year. The Defendant: Yes. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291 (Mickens).) WebThey have also lived in Kensington, MD and College Park, MD. Because of the two contracts, the court will request if at any time there is the slightest possibility that a potential conflict might exist, you immediately inform whatever court this is in so that that problem can be raised and taken care of. Polo rang the doorbell and called out Vincents name, but received no response. The failure to do so forfeits the claim. She Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for plaintiff-appellee. 1237.). That is why-one of the reasons I gave them the day off. ), Section 1368 states: (a) If, during the pendency of an action and prior to judgment, a doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental competence of the defendant, he or she shall state that doubt in the record and inquire of the attorney for the defendant whether, in the opinion of the attorney, the defendant is mentally competent [] (b) If counsel informs the court that he or she believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent, the court shall order that the question of the defendant's mental competence is to be determined in a hearing which is held pursuant to Sections 1368.1 and 1369., In People v. Hayes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1211, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211, 989 P.2d 645, defense counsel asserted that his client was incompetent and moved for a hearing pursuant to section 1368. Defendant removed the victim's blindfold and gag and she directed him to a briefcase that contained jewelry and to her purse, which contained money. Later he gouged out Maxine's eyes and took them with him. Defendant twice asserts in his opening brief that in People v. Ortiz, supra, 51 Cal.3d 975, 275 Cal.Rptr. ] (Burgener, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 856, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747, 62 P.3d 1.) Richard Ramirez, known as The Night Stalker, is one of the most prolific and vicious serial killers to have terrorized the streets of Los Angeles in the 80s. As the four-part test is stated in the conjunctive, joinder may be appropriate even though the evidence is not cross-admissible (People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398, 423, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78.). We have no question in our mind at this point that there is a conflict in this case; however, we realize the concerns of the court. ] [Citation. Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for change of venue under section 1033, depriving him of his rights under article I, section 15 of the California Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The court carefully reviewed each photograph and, on one occasion, prevailed upon the prosecutor to withdraw a photograph that was particularly graphic and, on another occasion, to withdraw a photograph that was cumulative. She had multiple skull fractures, which could have been caused by a tire iron that had been left by her bed. The court viewed hours of videotape recordings of television news broadcasts. (Id. The court admitted the photographs, ruling that they were relevant and adding, although they are not particularly pleasant to look at, they were not so unduly gruesome to inflame the jury., The court admitted into evidence over defendant's objection that it was cumulative and irrelevant a photograph of Dale Okazaki lying dead on the floor with spilled groceries near her as she was found by law enforcement officers. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a change of venue, and the defendant was convicted and sentenced to death. Defendant correctly observes that we repeatedly have rejected this contention. Although the prospective juror in the present case described himself as a strong supporter of the death penalty, he assured the court multiple times that he would not automatically vote for the death penalty and would, instead, reach a decision based upon all of the evidence. Defendant asserts that the trial court repeatedly was made aware of counsel's conflicts and difficulties in communicating with their client, citing instances in which either defendant failed to cooperate with his attorneys or his attorneys failed to appear for trial. at pp. In Whittier, he cut out Maxine Zazzaras eyes and took them with him. Weeks opined that the disparity between the percentage of Hispanics available for jury service and the percentage that appeared for service was caused by the jury commissioner's use of records from the registrar of voters to compile a primary list. 83, 759 P.2d 1260.). [] Since we are nearing deliberations, I am concerned that he will not be able to input with total knowledge of what was testified to during the trial. Can you imagine the people caught me, not the police. Defendant laughed and then added: You think I'm crazy, but you don't know Satan. He hummed the song Night Prowler by the rock group AC/DC. The new list was already being used to send out juror questionnaires and jurors from the new list would begin appearing in court in mid-July. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944, which invalidated a law that provided a mandatory penalty of death for all first degree murders. Defendant claims that he was denied the right to conflict-free counsel in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into whether his attorneys suffered from a conflict of interest stemming from their retainer agreement with defendant's family. And also there will be a coroner's photograph of Mrs. Zazzara. Defendant's father, Julian Tapia, testified that defendant was with him in El Paso, Texas, from May 22 or 23, 1985, until May 31, 1985, which included the period during which Mabel Bell was attacked, her sister, Florence L., was murdered and Carol K. was attacked. If an exact match is found, that name is removed from the DMV list. March 27, 1985: Vincent Charles Zazzara and Maxine Levenia Zazzara were both shot. When the police approached the boyfriend, he killed himself. The court then again instructed the jury that the juror's death was in no way connected with the case of People versus Richard Ramirez and should in no way be permitted to influence you in the performance of your duties as jurors as you deliberate the evidence in this case. Before dawn on the morning of August 8, 1985, Sakina A. was awakened by the sound of defendant shooting her husband, Elyas, in the head as he lay next to her, asleep. [] This is also a concern of several of the other jurors and we were wondering if anything could be done to correct this situation., In response, the court admonished the jury that it was important to be attentive, adding: But if any of you feel that you have missed any of the evidence in a significant way it is incumbent upon you, under the oath that you took as a juror, to bring that to the court's attention. These provisions have been interpreted to entitle a criminal defendant to a jury selected from a fair-cross-section of the community. (Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357, 359, 99 S.Ct. Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, an expert in eyewitness identifications, testified that memory degrades over time, that witnesses who are assaulted with weapons focus upon the weapon rather than the features of the assailant, and that members of one race have difficulty identifying members of other races. It later was determined that two .22-caliber bullets removed from Maxine Zazzara's head and neck had been fired from the same gun later used to kill Chainarong K. Police discovered that the screen had been removed from a patio window at the Zazzara residence, which had been pried open. The trial court conducted an extensive and appropriate inquiry into defendant's awareness of the possibility of a conflict of interest, offered defendant separate counsel to advise him, and obtained assurances from defense counsel that no such conflicts existed or were likely to arise. As the garage door was closing, she unlocked the door to her condominium and heard a noise behind her. The Court: Did you understand each item in that contract? Drawers had been pulled out in the bedroom and bathroom, and clothing was strewn around the room. 885, 564 P.2d 1203.) The remaining names on the DMV list and all of the names on the registrar of voters list are combined to form the master list. (See Wheat v. United States, supra, 486 U.S. 153, 161, 108 S.Ct. Trial counsel could have respectfully disagreed and asked the court to rule on his request but, instead, withdrew the proposed instruction, thus forfeiting this issue. There was no gross unfairness and defendant was not deprived of a fair trial. Our attention, therefore, focuses on the two remaining factors-the nature and extent of the media coverage and the size of the community., The trial court described the media coverage of the murders and defendant's arrest as saturation, as much as they possibly can give, but noted that such coverage was not unprecedented in Los Angeles County. That person was apprehended and questioned, but then released. When he was arrested, defendant invited the police to kill him, and asked to borrow a gun so he could kill himself. He left Vincents body alone, though: He mutilated Maxine and infamously plucked out her eyeballs, placing them in a jewelry box, and leaving with them. Defendant argues that these instructions, coupled with the prosecutor's argument that the jury should consider each of these murders in turn, the first degree murders, and each of the special circumstances in turn, and make a decision on each one, impermissibly invited the jury to double-count the special circumstances, in violation of our decision in People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 768-769, 244 Cal.Rptr. A partial shoe print found on an unplugged clock was consistent with an Avia athletic shoe. Defendant claims that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence photographs of eight of the victims because those photographs were irrelevant, gruesome, and highly inflammatory. Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could consider whether defendant's refusal to remove his sunglasses as ordered by the court so that a witness could identify him showed a consciousness of guilt. Defendant again chose to wear the leg chains. Arturo Hernandez represented that defendant had entered into a written contract retaining him and Daniel Hernandez as his attorneys. A still photograph taken from a videotape of the lineup showed a police officer raising two fingers. She summoned her father, who called the police. Valenzuela removed the table and left to call the police. The defendant in Williams had argued that the relevant community was the entire county, while the People had asserted the relevant community was the judicial district. To the contrary, the United States Supreme Court has just reiterated that an element of a defendant's right to counsel is the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him. In response to the People's observation that defendant did not request additional peremptory challenges during the selection of the alternate jurors, defendant asserts that such a request would have been futile, because the trial court had denied his earlier request for additional peremptory challenges during the selection of the seated jurors. 439-440 [20 Cal.Rptr.3d 182, 99 P.3d 505]; People v. Brown [(2004)] 33 Cal.4th [382] at p. 404 [15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 93 P.3d 244] [International law does not prohibit a sentence of death rendered in accordance with state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements]. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of the second degree murder of Tsai-Lian Yu, asserting that the evidence is insufficient to establish malice because it does not establish that he intended to kill Yu and, if he did, that he did not act in the heat of passion, or upon a sudden quarrel, or in unreasonable self-defense. Defendant made Carol K. and her son lie on the floor and covered them with a sheet. The Court: Did you have any questions regarding any of the conditions in that contract? As noted above, the in camera hearing concluded, and Arturo Hernandez and Daniel Hernandez were substituted as counsel without the court ordering a psychiatric evaluation of defendant. A shoe print from an Avia athletic shoe was found in the bedroom. Sakina A. later identified defendant at a lineup and identified a television, a videocassette recorder, and several pieces of jewelry that police had recovered from Felipe Solano, who had purchased them from defendant. He called her names and repeatedly asked where was her money, jewelry, and other property. He forced her to kneel with her head on the bed and covered her head with a pillow. Counsel in Ortiz, Daniel Hernandez and Arturo Hernandez, are the same attorneys who represented defendant in this case. Five went to Arizona, and one was sold in Los Angeles. Based upon these figures, the relative disparity in Bell was 62.5 percent. A little over a week later, Ramirez murdered 64-year-old Vincent Zazzara and his 44-year-old wife, Maxine. Defense counsel stated that he had done extensive work interviewing potential witnesses in El Paso, Texas, and had located witnesses who are willing to come forth, but the defense had made a tactical decision not to present any additional evidence at the penalty phase. He brought her son from the closet and handcuffed them together to the bed. Whether a further inquiry was appropriate is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, which was in the best position to observe the jury. It is something that you simply must not allow to interfere with your deliberations. The court added: And again, please do not expose yourself to any news media representation about this case., Shortly before 10:00 a.m. the following day, the court informed the jury that Juror Singletary had been shot to death for reasons unrelated to the present case.