Judge Ascribes ‘Moral Blame’ to Deputies and Brothers in Shoot-Out

Ascribing “moral blame” to sheriff’s deputies as well as three brothers charged in a June shoot-out, a Municipal Court judge on Monday held Monte, Charles and Stephen Slender to answer on various charges stemming from the June 27 melee.

The altercation, which began with a traffic ticket issued to Charles Slender outside the Slender family home near Tustin, escalated into a fight between two officers and the three brothers. In the course of the dispute, Charles Slender’s 23-year-old wife, Deanna, who acted as a peacemaker, was fatally shot by Deputy Sheriff Leon Bennigsdorf. Then Bennigsdorf and Charles Slender shot and seriously wounded each other.

Purpose of Hearing

Emphasizing that the purpose of a preliminary hearing is not to determine guilt or innocence, but rather to determine whether the evidence warrants taking a case to trial in Superior Court, Municipal Judge Eugene Langhauser said he “might make another ruling” if this were not a preliminary hearing. “Whether anyone is going to see these as viable charges” is a question for a jury or judge in Superior Court, Langhauser said.

Verna Slender, mother of the brothers, wept in court as the judge concluded his ruling. Charles left in tears, and other members of the family were distraught and teary-eyed.

Charles Slender, 21, is accused of attempted murder for shooting Bennigsdorf, assault on Bennigsdorf and assault with a deadly weapon on both Bennigsdorf and Deputy Sheriff Ben Stripe. Stephen Slender, 24, is accused of felony assault on Stripe, while Monte Slender, 20, is accused of felony assault on Bennigsdorf.

The judge threw out a charge of felony assault and two charges of assault with a deadly weapon against both Monte and Stephen. He recommended that the remaining felony assault allegation against the pair be treated as a misdemeanor if they are found guilty in Superior Court. However, Langhauser did not reduce these charges to misdemeanors himself, saying the three cases should be kept together for trial in Superior Court. (A misdemeanor would be tried in Municipal Court.)

The trio are to be arraigned in Superior Court Jan. 17.

The case has prompted questions concerning the ability of the Sheriff’s Department to fairly investigate shooting incidents in which its own officers are involved. Defense lawyers vociferously attacked the investigation conducted by the sheriff and bitterly attacked the credibility of the two deputies, one of whom had been involved in the beating of a handcuffed man at the Orange County Fairgrounds in 1982, according to testimony.

Following a defense investigation that was conducted through the questioning of Sheriff’s Department employees on the witness stand, Langhauser did rule that the Sheriff’s Department was “negligent” in improperly handling an item of evidence--Stripe’s night stick. Even though the deputies’ accounts of who wielded the night sticks during the escalating fight were disputed by other witnesses, Stripe’s club was not kept in evidence and never underwent laboratory analysis for fibers, blood or other material.

Saying the sheriff’s investigators and laboratory analysts have “a substantial duty to do a thorough and workmanlike job,” Langhauser found as fact the defense contention that Monte was struck on the head with a night stick.

‘Excessive Force’ Alleged

The defense argued that the fight began when Charles and Stephen Slender responded as the deputies used “excessive force” in attempting to arrest Monte Slender for interfering with the issuing of a ticket to Charles. A neighbor testified that he saw Stripe strike Monte on the head with an object, and Bennigsdorf testified that he struck Monte as hard as he could on the legs, trying to subdue him.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Bryan Brown argued that Monte precipitated the “tragic” escalation by resisting arrest and that Charles Slender struck Bennigsdorf repeatedly with Stripe’s night stick. Stripe maintained, however, that he lost his night stick in the struggle and did not use it.

Langhauser labeled the melee an “unfortunate situation” in which “the only innocent person” died.

“All five (the three brothers and two deputies) are to be blamed if we want to find moral blame . . . . The officers could have left earlier or had the courage to withdraw, rather than the courage to continue,” he said.

It would have been preferable for the officers to withdraw for reinforcements or to allow the situation to cool down, but that often is not what happens in a fight, he said.

Then, noting that people often dispute the actions of police, he said such questions must be decided by the courts.

“We want people to submit to a police officer . . . . It is too dangerous to try these cases in the streets,” he said.

Marshall Schulman, a defense lawyer for Charles Slender, said, “This is just round one. I’ll be happy to put this in front of a jury. I’m very disappointed. I thought he (Langhauser) would at least not bind (Charles) over on the attempted murder.”

Alan Stokke, lawyer for Stephen Slender (a student at the University of Washington Veterinary School), said the hearing had “dispelled the original picture of these guys as outlaws. This is a fine, upstanding family.”