Judge Assails Lam Lawyer, Drops First-Degree Charge

Orange County Superior Court Judge Richard J. Beacom Friday accused defense attorney Alan May of turning the first murder trial of Minh Van Lam into “a circus,” and threatened to take the attorney before the California State Bar if his tactics at the second trial are similar.

The 21-year-old Vietnamese student’s first trial in the shooting death of Cal State Fullerton professor Edward Lee Cooperman ended in a hung jury last month. The date for a second trial will be set on March 18.

Beacom on Friday, in a hearing to consider defense motions, also eliminated the first-degree murder charge against Lam for the second trial because all 12 jurors in the first trial voted against first-degree murder. But the judge refused to eliminate all other charges higher than involuntary manslaughter, which 9 of the 12 jurors had voted for.

Prosecutor Replaced

The case has gained national publicity because of Cooperman’s efforts to provide scientific and humanitarian aid to postwar Vietnam. Chief Homicide Prosecutor James Enright said Friday that he will handle the second trial, replacing Deputy Dist. Atty. Mel Jensen.

Lam has admitted shooting the 48-year-old physics professor, but he said the .25-caliber pistol he was holding went off by accident when Cooperman grabbed his arm to show him how to aim the weapon.

Beacom said May had turned the first trial into a circus by “bombarding the jurors with such a confusing array of evidence that it’s no wonder the jurors couldn’t come up with a verdict.”

Beacom berated May for “insinuating” to the jury that Cooperman’s own activities led to his death.

“You accused (Cooperman) of being a thief; you implied he was a homosexual, and you claimed he was engaged in illegal sales of sensitive materials to Vietnam,” Beacom told May in open court. “In the end, you didn’t prove any of it.”

Beacom accused May of bad faith in his opening statement to the jurors because he knew he couldn’t support statements he made about Cooperman’s activities.

Beacom told May that he would not interfere if May presented a similar picture to a second jury without having any evidence, because he believes defense lawyers should be given plenty of latitude. “But I want to warn you, if you do, I’m going have a transcript of the trial sent to the State Bar.”

The California State Bar is responsible for disciplining attorneys if their legal tactics are found to be unethical.

May later said that “without question” he would seek a different judge for the second trial. May said Beacom’s harsh comments were the product of the judge’s background as a former prosecutor.

“He has a prosecutor’s perspective on how a trial should be run,” May said. “I don’t think he sees things from a defense perspective as I do.” Beacom refused to comment on either his own remarks or May’s response.

In the first trial, the jurors voted 7 to 5 in favor of second-degree murder, then voted 11 to 1 for voluntary manslaughter and 9 to 3 for involuntary manslaughter. The three who voted against involuntary manslaughter said they did so because they thought the shooting was an accident and that Lam was not guilty of any of the charges.

May argued to Beacom Friday that Lam should not have to stand trial on second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter charges because he would have received no worse than an involuntary manslaughter verdict had it not been for the three jurors who sided with the defense. May reportedly would have been satisfied with an involuntary manslaughter verdict.

But Beacom shot back that May’s antics at the first trial clouded the issues for the jurors to the point that the prosecution should have the right to seek a second-degree murder conviction with a new jury.

Beacom has suggested that the two sides agree on a verdict to avoid a second trial, but both sides say that proposal is unlikely.

No Plea Bargain

Enright said Friday that a plea bargain is out of the question unless Lam pleads guilty to second-degree murder.

But Enright conceded that he will have the same problem Jensen had--lack of a motive. Lam was known to be a close friend of Cooperman’s. Jensen did not present any evidence during the first trial to explain why Lam would want to kill the professor.

In California, the prosecution does not have to show a motive to prove murder, but jurors are allowed to consider a lack of motive as favorable to the defense. The jurors said after the first trial that the lack of motive was critical in their vote against first-degree murder.

Enright told The Times that he will try to present new witnesses at the second trial, but that he has no new evidence at this time.

“I think we’ve got a shot at a murder conviction, or I wouldn’t prosecute,” Enright said. “But that’s just what we’ve got--a shot.”

Cooperman’s family and friends believe that he was the victim of a political assassination and expressed their dissatisfaction with Jensen for not making the assassination theory a major part of his case.

Defends Prosecutor

But Enright said he agreed with Jensen that there was no evidence to support an assassination theory. There is a big difference between theories and evidence that would be permitted before a jury, Enright said.

Enright defended Jensen as a good trial lawyer and said the change in prosecutors was made only because Jensen has a heavy schedule of other homicide cases. Enright said Jensen would assist him in preparing for the second trial.

The case will go to Presiding Judge Everett Dickey on March 18. It is not clear whether May could use his one peremptory challenge against the judge--which he did not use when the first trial went to Beacom--or whether he would have to show cause that Beacom was prejudiced.

“However, I have to do it, I’ll have to try to get a new trial judge,” May said. “For whatever reason, Judge Beacom is obviously prejudiced against me.”