Story Behind the Story in Triple Slaying Case

The pretrial proceedings in the case of two brothers charged in a Southeast San Diego triple slaying have taken on the aspect of a down-on-its-luck traveling circus: The sideshows outshine the activity in the center ring.

Hector and Reynaldo Ayala, suspected members of the “Mexican Mafia” prison gang, could face the death penalty if convicted of first-degree murder in the execution-style killings of an auto body shop owner and two of his employees in April, 1985.

A trial in the case is scheduled to begin March 17. But, for now, the defense, the prosecution and assorted third parties find themselves sparring over shadows--closed-door hearings, a sub rosa appeal, and the identity of a mysterious author who may or may not have written an article touching on the case.

The latest tempest to upset the proceedings concerns “My Life of Crime,” a front-page story published last month by the Reader, a weekly newspaper in San Diego. Credited to an author identified only as “X,” the article is a rollicking, rambling, first-person account of life on the wrong side of the law in San Diego.

The Ayalas’ lawyers didn’t find the story very entertaining.

In it, “X” relates his knowledge of a “gangland style” killing involving “the Mexican Mafia” at a San Diego area body shop. “X” writes that he helped San Diego detectives locate the suspects in the slayings and gave other firsthand information about the killings to investigators.

The defense lawyers contend that the episode described by “X” undoubtedly was the slaying of Ernesto Dominguez, Marco Zamora and Jose Rositas at a body shop at 43rd Street and National Avenue--the alleged murders with which the Ayalas and a co-defendant are charged.

The lawyers, moreover, think they know who “X” is--ex-convict Tom Eugene Abbott, a sometime police informant who gave two tape-recorded interviews to police investigating the triple homicide.

In proceedings shaded by uncommon secretiveness, the defense lawyers are seeking to force the Reader and its editor, Jim Mullin, to identify “X” and turn over all notes, recordings and other materials on which his story was based.

When the lawyers first subpoenaed the materials from the Reader, the defense obtained an order preventing the newspaper’s lawyer from disclosing to anyone--including Mullin--the contents of a statement justifying the request for the records.

Despite their pleas to be present, prosecutors were excluded from the closed-door hearing Nov. 12 at which San Diego County Superior Court Judge Richard D. Huffman rescinded the secrecy order and said the statement could be made public.

At that point, according to Reader attorney Steven B. Davis, defense attorney Elisabeth Semel, lead counsel for Reynaldo Ayala, withdrew the statement rather than allow it to be released.

Some of the mystery surrounding the proceedings dissipated later that day, when Semel publicly filed a laundered version of the statement.

In it, she explained the defense’s reasons for wanting to learn as much as possible about Abbott, the suspected “X,” whom defense lawyers expect will be called as a prosecution witness in the Ayalas’ trial.

Semel argued that “X” ’s account of the triple slaying conflicted with facts established by police investigators, raising questions about Abbott’s credibility--assuming Abbott is “X.”

The article, she said, mentions conversations between “X” and prison officials regarding the possible benefits he could obtain by testifying--conversations, if they involved Abbott, which Semel said prosecutors failed to reveal to the defense.

“If Tommy Abbott is the author of ‘My Life of Crime,’ disclosure of his identity is critical to discrediting his anticipated testimony,” Semel said.

Reader editor Mullin said he has no intention of revealing “X” ’s real name. In the meantime, Abbott--who, like “X,” completed a state prison term in August--is living in terror at having been publicly linked to the case.

Abbott, interviewed by telephone from an undisclosed location, said he had been stalked by people he believes to be friends of the Ayalas. He said he has no job and no money, and has been forced to move his wife and children six times in the last two months for their safety.

“My car’s broke down. I can’t even get 50 bucks to fix that sucker,” Abbott said. “They got me paranoid, always looking over my shoulder.”

Abbott said he had been mistreated by both the defense and prosecutors in the case. He believed he had an agreement with the district attorney’s office for his early release from state prison in exchange for testimony about the Ayalas, Abbott said.

But his cooperation only hurt him, he contends. Prosecutors revealed his name to the defense lawyers, who subpoenaed him during the Ayalas’ preliminary hearing. He was held in isolation for eight months without ever being called to testify, Abbott said. And he ultimately spent two extra months in custody before he was released.

At this point, Abbott said, he will not testify for either side in the case.

“I wouldn’t be a witness if they paid me a thousand bucks,” he said. “If they call me in there, I’ll just sit there and won’t say a word.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. William Woodward will not say if he plans to call Abbott as a witness against the Ayalas. He denied that prosecutors had ever made a deal with Abbott. Semel, meanwhile, said Abbott refused to talk to the defense during his months in San Diego County jails.

Prosecutors still are smarting from the last set of secret proceedings in the case.

By chance, Woodward found out about a hearing the defense had scheduled Sept. 15 before Superior Court Judge David M. Gill. He tried to attend the hearing, but was ordered to leave. Gill recently reaffirmed his decision that the district attorney’s office had no place at the hearing.

Though prosecutors have officially registered their objections to the closed-door procedure, Woodward still does not know what the hearing was about. Nor does the district attorney’s office know the subject of a matter the San Diego city attorney’s office brought to the 4th District Court of Appeal after the hearing.

“We are at a real disadvantage to be able even to discuss what is going on,” Woodward said. “I am not aware of any precedent that establishes a case can be called in court and we are not there to at least look after the interests of the people.”

The defense has its own set of grievances. Defense lawyers fought for weeks--unsuccessfully--to prove in court that the district attorney’s office and the San Diego Police Department withheld important evidence until after the brothers’ preliminary hearing. Defense lawyers say the information helps prove that the body shop was a center of drug dealing, that the prosecution’s key witness lied when he linked the Ayalas to the killings and that others may have been responsible for the shootings.

Semel, meantime, has wanted as little publicity as possible about the case--an objective compromised by the Reader article and by the prosecution’s efforts to publicize the disputes over secret hearings. She is considering seeking court sanctions against Davis for revealing the substance of last week’s closed-door hearing about the subpoena to Mullin.

Defense attempts to shroud aspects of the case in silence, Semel added, are reasonable. The prosecution, for instance, should not be able to waltz into a hearing about a subpoena--a defense effort to obtain information about a case--and waltz out with the evidence gathered by the defense’s hard work, she said.

“We have a right to investigate, and investigation isn’t done in the public arena,” Semel said. “It’s not as secretive or as clandestine as people are making it out to be.”

The next court date in the case is today, when Huffman will conduct a hearing on whether the prosecution can be present while the Reader fights to have the defense subpoena quashed.