Posted on 02/08/2008 10:35:34 PM PST by NormsRevenge
A federal judge on Friday overturned the conviction of a man on death row for the rape and murder of a woman outside an Orange County bar because of statements made by a prospective FBI agent that allowed him to get on the trial's jury.
U.S. District Court Judge Consuelo B. Marshall overturned the conviction of Richard Raymond Ramirez because the jury foreman - who was a candidate to become an FBI agent - made "false and misleading" statements about his employment situation during jury selection in the 1985 trial.
The juror, Thomas Alston, is now an FBI agent in Portland. Marshall said his behavior "fatally undermines the court's confidence in his impartiality."
Alston declined to comment about the case.
Marshall ordered that Ramirez either be released from San Quentin's death row or be granted a new trial.
Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas urged the attorney general's office to ask the judge to reconsider or to appeal.
"Mr. Ramirez was, and continues to be, a poster child for the death penalty," Rackauckas said in a statement. "We will make sure justice is done in this case."
Deputy state Attorney General William Wood, who argued the prosecution's side in federal court, said he had not yet decided whether to appeal.
"We're examining our options," Wood said. "We've advised the district attorney to let them know in case they have to make a decision on retrial."
Ramirez was convicted for the 1983 killing of a 22-year-old Norwalk bank teller outside a bar in Garden Grove. The partially nude body of Kimberly Gonzales was found in a nearby alley. She had been stabbed 19 times and bled to death.
He was convicted of rape, sodomy and murder. The California Supreme Court upheld the conviction in 1990.
Transcripts show that when the trial judge asked the jury pool if any had law enforcement ties, Alston said his stepfather was an FBI agent and his father and uncle were retired agents. He didn't indicate he was a prospective agent himself.
Alston said he was working as a civil attorney, though he had been recently laid off.
"Mr. Alston understood that defense counsel would likely excuse him from the jury panel if he knew the full extent of his connections to the FBI," Judge Marshall wrote.
Did he lie? He was asked if he had any ties to law enforcement.
A job app fills that? How? He said he had direct family in law enforcement, that’s not ties more than a job app?
So, anyone with a job app in for a law enforcement job is not able to differentiate between right and wrong, fact and fancy?
Pardon me for bucking the trend but I see this as another example of a judge that could benefit from a bit of a job change.
The defendant was found guilty by a jury led by someone who worked to get on the jury. We don’t want people to get on the OJ jury to let him off. We don’t want people to get on juries for the purpose of sticking it to some big company. But we also dont want people to get on juries with a hidden bias toward conviction.
None of us know the exact wording of what the prospective jurors were asked. None of us know exactly where this guy was in the process of becoming an FBI agent. So I can not be sure whether I agree with this judge’s ruling or not.
I do know this guy’s status with the FBI should immediately be up for review. The FBI needs the answers to the questions I raised above and if this guy explicitly or implicitly lied in court to get on a jury, he needs to be looking for a new line of work.
Now I am just a layman but without seeing what statements the juror said when being interviewed the impression that comes across from this ruling is that potential law enforcement members are not welcome on a jury. I understand possible loyalty issues but the juror admitted a history of FBI employment at the time while he himself was not. Now again without knowing if there is an unquestionable lie involved, this story doesn't indicate the rules but obviously jurors can be excused by defense lawyers. What I also don't see is what I have seen before - some breach of the law but not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Was this juror a foreman? If he was is it known if he was the catalyst to change a single, or several, juror(s) leaning towards not guilty. Is there any indication of improper conduct during the trial?
What I really dislike about an article like this is the lack of info to really let the public decide. With the limited info presented, as of now I feel the judge has reacted overzealously and nullified the millions of dollars surely spent convicting and defending that conviction on appeal.
I think that's a point on which everyone here can agree. Like you, I don't know the full story of what the juror said or whether he was biased, but what I have read makes me very uncomfortable.
When asked if he had ties to law enforcement the juror told of his family’s connections but did not reveal that he was a “prospective agent”. That meant he might be an agent sometime in the future. I am all for honesty and not lying and I agree with you that we don’t know the exact wording but I’m not sure the juror was asked to predict what he would do in the future. This one issue was used by the defendant’s attorneys to get a conviction overturned and potentially put a violent criminal on the street.
Is this THE Richard Ramirez? As in the Nightstalker?!
From reading the article the juror had at least applied to be an FBI agent. The question to me is how far into that process was he.
And this is a lesson for all who want criminals put away, dont play funny with getting on a jury. All you do is set things up for a retrial years later when memories have faded and evidence is old.
None of us know the exact wording of what the prospective jurors were asked. None of us know exactly where this guy was in the process of becoming an FBI agent. So I can not be sure whether I agree with this judge’s ruling or not.
—
I agree more information with specifics would be beneficial, a cursory of this article would obviously cause both sides to feel they are correct and the Judge’s action at this late date would be warranted.
My gut feel is it is not, however.
Nor would I agree that this agent is now to be hung by his pinkies to satisfy anyone as you would seem to suggest.
I’m sure more info will be forthcoming or I would hope so at least. I’ll see what else I can find towards that end and post it.
I would also caution those reading this thread and comments that this site is all too oft frequented by folks who are dead set on getting death penalty convictions overturned by hook or by crook and would let the victims and their families be damned in their own pursuit of beating the penalty imposed at any cost.
No, different fella.
IMPEACHMENT TIME!!!
Horse manure.
Does the following make any sense to you?:
Transcripts show that when the trial judge asked the jury pool if any had law enforcement ties, Alston said his stepfather was an FBI agent and his father and uncle were retired agents.... "Mr. Alston understood that defense counsel would likely excuse him from the jury panel if he knew the full extent of his connections to the FBI," Judge Marshall wrote.
The guy had THREE close relatives who were current or former FBI agents, but leave it to a corrupt Clinton scumbag like Marshall to come up with the lame reasoning that because the juror failed to mention that he himself was SEEKING employment with the FBI (was he even asked what he speculated about his future?), well THAT would have sent up a red flag to the defense. Yeah. Sure, okay.
The Judge has been a recipient of a number of awards over the years and also been involved in some very interesting cases.
Judge Consuelo Marshall to Receive CWL Award
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/Mars051007.htm
This is from 2005
http://www.4law.co.il/judpor1.htm
Ex - Judge Agrees to Plea Deal In Child Porn Case
Judge Rules For L.A. Solicitors
http://www.vnn.org/usa/US0108/US20-6864.html
Why did the douche bag omit that he had put in an application to be a federal agent and why was he angling so hard to be on the jury???? Most sane people work to get out of being on a jury, no less a capital offense trial. This guy deserves some sort of serious reprimand.
fwiw.. The juror had an application pending.. still pretty flimsy imo.. -—the eventual foreman of the jury failed to reveal that he had been laid off at the law firm he had been working for because of his then-pending application for employment at the FBI.-—
http://www.capdefnet.org/hat/wag.asp
Habeas relief granted to California death row inmate in pre-AEDPA habeas case.
On February 5, 2008, United States Judge Consuelo Marshall of the Central District of California issued an order granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Richard Raymond Ramirez. Ramirez v. Ayers, CV-91-3802-CBM (C.D. Cal.). Following an evidentiary hearing, she found that the jury foreman affirmatively misrepresented his employment status during voir dire which gave rise to a presumption of bias that was not dispelled at the hearing. (At the time of voir dire, the eventual foreman of the jury failed to reveal that he had been laid off at the law firm he had been working for because of his then-pending application for employment at the FBI.)
Marshall rejected Ramirez’s claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to present an intoxication defense during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, ruling that Ramirez had failed to establish prejudice. In order to defeat the first-degree murder conviction, Ramirez would have had to raise a reasonable doubt about his intent to rape the victim. In finding it unlikely that he could have done so, Marshall concluded, after an extensive discussion of the evidence: “In this case, the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony established that Ramirez was not so intoxicated that he could not walk, force [the victim] to submit, become sexually aroused, penetrate her vaginally and anally, ejaculate, stab her to death, and then drive himself home. The question the jurors would have asked themselves, therefore, was whether it could reasonably be doubted that Ramirez intended to use force when he committed the act of intercourse. It is not reasonably probable that the jurors would have felt reasonable doubt about this.” The remaining allegations and claims were denied or dismissed.
Whew! Ya just never know about liberal judges in California. It could happen.
I don't think the question is whether he expected to be in law enforcement. The fact that he wanted to be in law enforcement is reason to expect bias. Personally, if I was bucking for a job in LE the last thing I would want to do is serve on a jury.
Probably the wisest words posted to this thread, FRiend.
All too true. Needless to say, the same can be said of the converse side of the argument.
Heck! Release him. He can bunk with the judge while he waits for retrial!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.