Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

An Orange County man, 31 year-old Stephenson Choi Kim, received a sentence of life in prison on April 30, 2012, for a 2004 shooting that killed one person and wounded four. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty but dropped it in 2011 after the jury deadlocked on the issue. Jurors had found that the murder was committed as part of a "criminal street gang," a special circumstance alleged by prosecutors.

Prosecutors claimed that, on March 14, 2004, Kim and six other gang members were driving around Orange County in several cars, armed and looking for rival gangs. They stopped at the Fifth Wave Cafe in Cypress. Two of Kim's companions went inside, where they reportedly approached a table of seven people and asked if any of them belonged to a gang. One person told them that he used to belong to a gang, but not anymore. The two left the restaurant and told Kim what happened. Prosecutors said that Kim then entered the restaurant and fired repeatedly at the group with a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol. He shot 22 year-old Venus Hyun, whom prosecutors described as an "innocent bystander," in the back. He shot at six other people, hitting four of them, before exiting through the restaurant's back door. Another gang member had allegedly pulled a car around to the back of the restaurant to wait for Kim. Hyun died at the hospital, and the other four survived.

Continue reading "Man Gets Life Sentence for 2004 Orange County Murder" »

A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last week threw out the death sentence imposed against Richard L. Phillips, formerly of Orange County. This is the second time Phillips has had a death sentence vacated. He is one of California's longest-serving inmates on death row, having originally received his first death sentence in 1980.

Phillips was convicted of the 1977 murder of Bruce Bartulis, and the attempted murder of Ronald Rose, in 1980. He was sentenced to death for Bartulis' murder. The evidence presented at trial showed that Phillips had offered to include the victims in a drug deal in which each of them would get $25,000. At a meeting in Madera County, Phillips shot both of them, took their wallets, doused their car in gasoline, and lit it on fire. Rose survived, but was wounded and badly burned. Prosecutors based their case on the testimony of Rose and Phillips' ex-girlfriend, Susan Colman. Because of the murder conviction and a special circumstance alleged by the prosecution that the murder was in furtherance of a robbery, Phillips received the death penalty.

The California Supreme Court threw out his death sentence in 1985 while upholding the convictions, based on evidentiary problems at trial. They remanded the case for a new penalty phase trial. Phillips' lawyer had claimed he did not know about statements made by Colman that indicated there had been a "shoot-out" between Phillips and the victims, but the judge had denied any relief. At the next penalty trial in 1991, he again received the death penalty.

Phillips filed a petition for habeas corpus in 1992, claiming that the prosecution failed to disclose material information about a plea deal offered to Colman in a different criminal matter in exchange for cooperation in his case. A federal court had denied a similar petition while he was awaiting his second penalty trial. Phillips' 1992 petition also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and other claims. The district court denied all of Phillips' claims as to the guilt-phase of his case, holding that none of the violations by the prosecution had prejudiced him.

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the prosecution's conduct in withholding information about Colman's plea offer. The district judge had previously ruled that it did not prejudice Phillips in either his convictions or in the special circumstance. The Ninth Circuit panel concluded that Colman had received substantial benefits from prosecutors in exchange for her testimony against Phillips, and that the prosecution had not disclosed this to Phillips. Furthermore, the prosecution misrepresented this to the jury and allowed Colman to testify falsely that she had received no benefit in exchange for her testimony.

Continue reading "Ninth Circuit Vacates Orange County Man's Death Sentence" »

A shooting at an Orange County hair salon that left eight people dead and one injured has led to both criminal charges and a series of civil lawsuits for the accused gumman, presenting an issue for criminal defense attorneys about how our civil and criminal justice systems intersect. On October 12, 2011, Scott Dekraai allegedly walked into an upscale hair salon in Seal Beach, California and opened fire, shooting eight people and wounding one. Among the dead was Dekraai's ex-wife, Michelle Fournier, the alleged target of the shooting. Authorities say Dekraai targeted Fournier because of frustration over an ongoing custody dispute. Dekraai and Fournier have an eight year-old son who is now living with relatives.

Prosecutors charged Dekraai with eight counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, one count for each shooting victim, and have announced their intention to seek the death penalty. Dekraai supposedly gave a confession to police after his arrest. He is scheduled for arraignment on November 29. How he intends to plead is not yet known, but his purported confession to police does not obligate him to enter a guilty plea. Some news analysts have speculated about a possible insanity plea, given news reports of a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, but nothing is certain yet.

Dekraai is also now the defendant in two civil lawsuits for the wrongful death of two of the shooting victims, including Fournier. First, Fournier's parents filed suit seeking to freeze Dekraai's assets in order to obtain compensation for Dekraai and Fournier's son. Next, the husband of victim Christy Wilson filed suit on behalf of Wilson's estate, himself, and their three children, requesting compensation for medical and funeral bills and "loss of companionship."

In both cases, the plaintiffs seek monetary damages from Dekraai, unlike the criminal case, which seeks imprisonment or the death penalty. The civil plaintiffs face a lower burden of proof than criminal prosecutors, needing only to show by a preponderance of evidence, essentially meaning "more likely than not," that Dekraai caused Fournier's and Wilson's deaths. Prosecutors must prove guilt "beyond and reasonable doubt," meaning jurors must find no reasonable alternate to the prosecution's theory of the case.

Continue reading "Shooting in Orange County Hair Salon Presents both Criminal and Civil Legal Questions" »

A mistrial was declared when a jury deadlocked in the attempted murder trial of two men and a woman. The jury deliberated for nearly two days before they announced they could not reach a verdict.

The case involved an alleged conspiracy by the three to kill a Fountain Valley man with a machete. The victim, Sharpski, was seriously injured in the March 2008 attack. The prosecution alleged one of the defendants, the victim's wife, wanted Sharpski dead because of past abuse. The second defendant, and alleged hit-man, was promised $5000 to commit the murder. The third defendant was the wife's boyfriend and was alleged to have assisted in the planning.

The jury foreman indicated three jurors questioned the DNA evidence linking the hit-man to the crime scene. Testimony revealed he was at the scene on an occasion prior to the attack, during which he suffered a nosebleed.

In the course of the attack, the victim resisted and caused the assailant to bleed thereby leaving his blood at the scene. The victim suffered a skull fracture and severed fingers.

Both sides agreed the victim was a heavy drinker as well as abusive to his family. All three defendants, however, argued they had nothing to do with the attack.

Following the mistrial, the court set a date of July 1, 2011 for selection of a new trial date. The District Attorney can, by then, determine who to retry.

In a case where three defendants are charged with a brutal assault, the failure to get a verdict against any of them indicates the jury did not believe the prosecution had a strong case. The Law Office of Barney B. Gibbs has had many hung juries over the years. Even though the defense needs only 1 juror to hang a case, the strength of the People's case can often be determined by the split of the hung jury. When the split approaches a 50-50 split or favors the defense, even the prosecutor should consider whether or not it is possible to get a verdict under the present facts. Trials take time and cost taxpayers money. Whereas a District Attorney on an 11-1 for guilt split may believe a lone holdout hung the case, a greater split might indicate negotiations for a disposition may be the better path the second time around.