Hearing for Ramirez to Be Open to the Public

A Municipal Court judge Monday ordered the preliminary hearing of Night Stalker suspect Richard Ramirez open to the public, rejecting defense arguments that disclosure of such evidence as a victim’s eyes being gouged out or another being beaten with a tire iron would result in their client not receiving a fair trial.

“I am . . . not persuaded that a reasonable likelihood exists of prejudice,” Los Angeles Municipal Judge James F. Nelson ruled. “Taint there will be, but there will be a fair jury found in Los Angeles County.”

Nelson issued his ruling after hearing oral arguments from attorneys representing major newspapers and television stations intent on covering the case.

“There are 5.5-million potential jurors in this county,” asserted Rex S. Heinke, representing the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times. “It is inconceivable that a fair jury cannot be found to try the case.”

Other lawyers argued in behalf of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, NBC, ABC, CBS, the Pasadena Star-News, the Daily News and the Radio-Television News Assn.

Postponed Till Monday

Nelson postponed the preliminary hearing--in which he will decide whether Ramirez, 25, should stand trial on 14 murder charges and 54 other felonies--until Monday to allow defense attorneys to appeal, most likely to the state Court of Appeal. The preliminary hearing, which had been scheduled to begin Monday, could take several months to complete, attorneys said.

Ramirez, a drifter originally from El Paso, was arrested last August following a series of brutal nighttime killings, sexual attacks, robberies and burglaries, mainly in the San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys.

In a court brief seeking a closed hearing, defense attorneys Daniel Hernandez and Arturo Hernandez argued that the case has already received intense media coverage and that additional disclosure “could inflame the public further against (the defendant).”

“There are many extremely gruesome and prejudicial facts relating to the crimes defendant is accused of committing that could be alluded (to) at the preliminary hearing,” they wrote.

The attorneys, who attached 47 newspaper articles to their brief, also cited several specific crimes Ramirez allegedly committed that could prejudice public opinion.

One example, they wrote, was the double murder last March of a Whittier couple, Vincent and Maxine Zazzara. Vincent Zazzara, 64, was shot with a handgun while Maxine, 44, was stabbed and “had her eyes gouched (sic) out by the attacker,” according to the defense.

In other assaults, the defense attorneys stated, victims were clubbed with hammers and tire irons or restrained with thumbcuffs and handcuffs.

The Night Stalker case, asserted Daniel Hernandez, resulted in “hysteria” in Los Angeles County, “where everybody was afraid to leave their windows open.”

Under the provisions of a recent state Supreme Court ruling--currently on appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court--municipal judges are to close preliminary hearings at the request of the defense when an open hearing would result in a reasonable likelihood of substantial prejudice against a defendant.

Judge Not Convinced

“If this case does not present a case for closure,” Judge Nelson said Monday morning, “it is impossible for this court to conceive of any case in the county of Los Angeles which would present a case for closure.”

However, Nelson, after hearing from the media attorneys Monday afternoon, ruled that the defense had failed to convince him that enough prejudice would result in a county the size of Los Angeles County to preclude the selection of an impartial jury.

“The right to a fair trial is the cardinal right to be protected,” Nelson said. “ . . . I have confidence in the judicial process sufficiently to control the proceedings so that what is said reflects the truth of the situation and is consistent with the public’s right to be in attendance.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. P. Philip Halpin, who is prosecuting the case, said he favored an open hearing, except during the testimony of a handful of witnesses such as juveniles.

Ramirez, who answered “Yes, yes” when asked by Nelson whether he sought to give up his right to an open hearing, displayed little emotion during the lengthy session.