Judge: prosecutor fabricated tainting death penalty jury

AP ^ | 4/5/5 | DAVID KRAVETS

[SmithL]

SAN FRANCISCO - The former Alameda County prosecutor who claimed he conspired with a trial judge to exclude Jewish jurors in a capital case that sent the defendant to death row is a liar, a judge ruled Tuesday in an opinion forwarded to the California Supreme Court.

Judge Kevin Murphy, appointed by the Supreme Court to investigate the allegations from John Quatman, said the former prosecutor's assertions "are not true" and that he is "dishonest and unethical."

Last month, Quatman testified before Murphy that he colluded with now-deceased Alameda County Superior Court Judge Stanley Golde to exclude Jews so it would more than likely send a killer to San Quentin State Prison.

Quatman recalled a private lecture about excluding Jews he said the judge gave him on April 28, 1987, while they were picking a jury in the capital case of Fred Freeman, a white man later sentenced to death for killing a bar patron during a robbery in Berkeley.

Judge Murphy, however, concluded after a weeklong trial that the conversation never took place, that no Jews were unlawfully removed and that Quatman "had a motive to embarrass the Alameda County District Attorney's Office in general, and District Attorney Tom Orloff in particular."

Murphy noted that Orloff had disciplined Quatman, now a Montana criminal defense attorney, for making disparaging remarks to a female colleague. Murphy said Quatman's "anger continued" even after Quatman left the office years ago, and that it took 16 years for Quatman to come forward with the allegations.

The Supreme Court ordered Murphy to investigate Quatman's allegations when they surfaced two years ago and likely would have granted Freeman a new trial if the allegations were proven true. The court is not likely to do so now.

Nathan Barankin, spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, said the office was "alarmed" by Quatman's allegations "and urged the Supreme Court to direct a fact-finding mission."

Barankin said Murphy "reached the correct conclusion."

Following Quatman's allegations, other Alameda County defense lawyers have told the California justices that the Alameda County district attorney's office had an unwritten policy, in violation of federal and state law, of excluding Jews and black women from capital juries from the late 1970s through the early 1990s. The policy was based on the theory those jurors would be lenient to defendants.

Orloff and his predecessor, John Meehan, have steadfastly denied the allegations, and the justices have not addressed them. Orloff was not immediately available for comment Tuesday. Freeman's attorneys did not immediately return telephone calls.

Excluding jurors based on religion, race or ethnicity violates state and federal law and creates grounds for a new trial.

[tracer]

andjusticeforallbump

[Citizen James]

SF Bay Area Ping
FReep mail me to be added or removed!

[PAR35]

in violation of federal and state law, of excluding Jews and black women from capital juries from the late 1970s through the early 1990s.

I don't know about state law, but the 1970s number for federal is suspect.

Batson was decided in 1986. Before Batson, Swain was the law, and upheld the death penalty for a Black man (for raping a white woman) by an all white jury in a county which was over one quarter Black.

Batson opinion: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/batson.html

Swain opinion: (1965) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=380&invol=202

[Lawgvr1955]

It would take some major "stones" to lie about such a thing. Perjury and discipline all in one shot. You would really have to hate someone to pull a stunt like that.

[LexBaird]

AP is going for the "most awkward headline writer" award.

[PAR35]

It would take some major "stones" to lie about such a thing.

The risk does go down when the other party to the alleged conversation (the judge) is dead. On the other hand, I don't see how the fact finder could determine that the conversation never took place. How could anyone prove or disprove what was said to me some 20+ years ago by a now deceased judge.

[California Patriot]

This dirtbag probably figured that in the liberal Bay Area, anyone can get away with anything, as long as it helps a liberal cause. As of right now, he's been proven wrong.

I would add this, however: Even if his allegations were true, he'd still be a rat and an enabler of criminals for making them.

[Grut]

How could anyone prove or disprove what was said to me some 20+ years ago by a now deceased judge.

Well, it's in an official finding by proper authority, so under the doctrine of legal positivism it's real, isn't it?

[SmithL]

Again?