Lam Retrial Is Scheduled for March 18

A second trial was set for March 18 for the 21-year-old Vietnamese student charged with murder in the death of Cal State Fullerton Prof. Edward Lee Cooperman, but prosecutors acknowledged Friday that they will probably be barred from seeking a first-degree murder conviction next time.

Lawyers for both sides say they expect the case to go to a second trial without a plea bargain.

A mistrial was declared Tuesday in the first trial for Minh Van Lam, one of Cooperman’s former students, when an Orange County Superior Court jury became hopelessly deadlocked. Lam claims he shot the professor at his campus office last Oct. 13 by accident with a .25-caliber handgun when Cooperman grabbed his arm to show him how to aim the weapon.

International Interest

The trial gained international attention because Cooperman was known for his involvement in programs providing aid to the Communist regime in Vietnam.

Trial prosecutor Mel Jensen had sought a conviction for first-degree, or premeditated, murder, which carries a sentence of 25 years to life. Second-degree murder is punishable by 15 years to life and manslaughter by two to four years. If convicted of any of those charges, Lam could be sentenced to an additional two years for use of a firearm.

After the hearing, defense attorney Alan May said he would not exclude discussing an arrangement to have Lam plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter if the district attorney’s office approached him. But chief homicide prosecutor James Enright, who accompanied Jensen to court Friday, said adamantly that his office will seek a murder conviction.

“We think it was murder; that’s what we’re going after,” Enright said.

First-Degree Murder Vote

Superior Court Judge Richard J. Beacom set a date of March 18 for the case to return to Presiding Judge Everett W. Dickey for assignment to another courtroom.

But Beacom himself will hear defense motions on March 8, including one to bar first-degree murder from the second trial.

At Lam’s first trial, jurors voted 12 to 0 that Lam was not guilty of first-degree murder, then voted 7 to 5 in favor of a second-degree murder conviction and 9 to 3 in favor of involuntary manslaughter. Three jurors steadfastly maintained that Lam was innocent of all criminal charges.

Under California law, a defendant cannot be tried a second time for first-degree murder, or any other crime, if he has already been acquitted of first-degree murder by one jury. May made a technical error at the first trial when he failed to ask the court to send the jury back to make their 12 to 0 vote against first-degree murder a formal acquittal on that charge. Instead, May agreed to stipulate to a mistrial on all charges.

But Enright said it didn’t make much difference.

“Technically, we have the right to seek a first-degree conviction again,” Enright said.

“But you can’t prosecute people on technicalities. We have a pretty weak argument. We’ll ask for first degree, but I’m sure the judge is going to eliminate it from the next trial.”

Beacom reportedly had sought to get the two sides to agree to resolve the case without going to trial again. He met with the attorneys in his chambers for more than half an hour before the proceedings in open court, but the attorneys declined to give much detail about what they discussed.

“I can only say the judge inquired about a plea bargain,” May said.

One definition of involuntary manslaughter is that a death was caused by a defendant recklessly brandishing a weapon. Lam could plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter without changing his basic version that the shooting was accidental.

Wouldn’t Lower Bail

Beacom refused a request by May that Lam’s $200,000 bail be lowered. May argued that Superior Court Judge James O. Perez was “arbitrary and capricious” when he raised Lam’s bail from $100,000 to $200,000, because Perez had raised the bail after hearing defense witnesses who testified that the bail should have been reduced from $100,000.

Beacom said in response that he has known Judge Perez for many years and considers him “extremely conscientious.”

Beacom also denied a motion by May to have Lam removed from protective custody at the Orange County Jail. He was taken from the main jail population shortly before the first trial, when the district attorney’s office was investigating whether to call as a witness a jail house informant, Tuano Koivisto, who claimed that Lam made a murder confession to him. The prosecution decided not to call Koivisto, but Lam remained in protective custody.

May argued that it was more difficult for him to visit Lam in protective custody because of its extra restrictions.

Smiled Toward Family

But Jensen retorted, “At least three members of the press have been in to see Mr. Lam; they didn’t seem to have any trouble.”

Lam, wearing a white shirt, dark slacks and a dark tie each day in court, showed very little expression during the trial. But Friday, he smiled toward his family. Two of his natural brothers, ages 11 and 9, were in court to see him for the first time since his arrest in October.

Also in court Friday were two of the jurors. One of them, Laura Miller, had voted for acquittal on all charges. The other, June Foley, had voted for involuntary manslaughter only.

Foley was asked later whether she thought the prosecution would get a murder conviction with a second jury.

“Not unless they get some better evidence,” she said.