Luster Rape Verdicts Will Stand

Convicted rapist Andrew Luster may be back in custody, but he still has no right to appeal guilty verdicts because he flouted the law by fleeing his trial and hiding in a foreign country, a state appellate court ruled Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the bounty hunter who captured Luster and is now awaiting trial in Mexico on charges that he unlawfully detained the rapist returned to the United States and told reporters Wednesday he does not believe he broke any laws.

Luster, the 39-year-old great-grandson of cosmetics legend Max Factor, was dragged away from a taco stand in the beachside resort town of Puerto Vallarta in June after five months on the run.

During that time a Ventura County jury convicted him on multiple counts of rape, poisoning and drug possession involving three women, and a judge sentenced him to 124 years in prison.

Luster’s attorney filed an appeal, but it was dismissed just days before his client’s capture after the court ruled that a fugitive has no right to challenge a criminal conviction.

Last week, Santa Monica attorney Roger Jon Diamond asked the court to reconsider based on Luster’s return.

But the justices at the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Ventura were not swayed.

Had Luster “voluntarily reappeared, he would have a much stronger argument for reinstatement of the appeal,” Justice Kenneth Yegan wrote in a decision with Justices Arthur Gilbert and Steven Perren.

“By his flight to a foreign country, the inference is compelling that but for his capture he would be a fugitive to this day. That he is now serving his prison sentence and is once again subject to the court’s power does not, standing alone, provide a compelling reason for reinstatement,” Yegan wrote.

The justices went on to state that Luster knew, or should have known, that his flight could be viewed as a waiver or abandonment of his right to appeal.

They also cited a decade-old federal case that allows appellate courts to dismiss such appeals “as a sanction when a defendant’s flight operates as an affront to the dignity of the court’s proceedings.”

Attorney Diamond previously asked the California Supreme Court to review the dismissal but was advised that the matter was still in the hands of the appellate court because the initial June 10 ruling was not final for 30 days.

He then asked the court to reinstate the appeal and cited a case in which another court allowed the appeal of a captured fugitive to proceed. Diamond believes the state high court will take an interest in the conflicting decisions.

“Naturally, I am disappointed in the Court of Appeal,” he said Wednesday. “But I knew this would be decided by the California Supreme Court.”

Diamond says the judge made significant errors in Luster’s case, mostly dealing with the admissibility of evidence, that hurt the defense and resulted in an unfair trial.

Luster “is facing 124 years in prison. What if his rights were violated?” Diamond said. “Then he should get a reversal.”

On Wednesday, California Deputy Atty. Gen. Joseph Lee said he expected that Diamond would try to press the issue before the Supreme Court. But based on court history, it may be a tough sell.

Lee said in a brief filed this week that only once before had the state high court considered whether a captured fugitive could seek reinstatement of an appeal after it was dismissed. The case was in 1927, and the request was denied.

“A fugitive should not be allowed to flout the criminal justice system and then receive the benefit of an appeal under California law,” Lee wrote. He added that to do so would allow defendants to make a mockery of the justice system.

In other developments, Diamond is asking a Ventura County Superior Court judge to return his client’s $1-million cash bail. Under state law, if a defendant returns either voluntarily or in the custody of law enforcement within 180 days of a bail forfeiture, he gets his money back. In this case, Diamond said, Luster’s mother deposited the bail money and is therefore entitled to collect the funds.

But that request is being opposed by two of Luster’s victims, who are suing the rapist for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Lawyers for the women are expected to appear at a hearing Monday to oppose any return of the money.

“We are going to do everything in our power to make sure justice is done for the victims of Andrew Luster,” said attorney William Daniels, who represents one of the victims.

Duane Lee “Dog” Chapman, the bounty hunter who captured Luster, may also petition for some of the money, and lawyers for the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department are expected to try to recoup some of their investigative costs.

Said Diamond: “We may have a free-for-all here between Liz Luster [the offender’s mother] and the taxpayers, the bounty hunter and the victims.”

On Wednesday, Chapman appeared before reporters at a brief news conference in Beverly Hills. Shirtless under a Western-style poncho, he ignored repeated questions about how he got a sizable black eye.

Chapman read a statement saying the events of the past few weeks had been “exciting and nerve-racking.”

He said he was grateful to be back in the United States and was proud to have gotten Luster off the streets. Chapman denied Luster’s allegation that he was bitten by “Dog” during the incident.

Luster “spit on us going out of the jail,” Chapman said. “We didn’t bite him.”

As for his legal troubles, Chapman said he went across the border fully informed by his lawyers about the laws there. “We still don’t think we broke the law in Mexico,” he said.

*

Times staff writer Megan Garvey contributed to this report.