Double-Murder Suspect Granted Third Trial

A black man whose first murder conviction was overturned because of a restrictive juror selection scheme that excluded blacks from his jury has been granted a third trial by a state Court of Appeal.

The second conviction of Lee Edward Harris for the 1977 burglary, robbery and murder of Long Beach apartment managers Robert and Hattie Crumb was overturned Monday because Harris was not permitted to testify in his own defense.

Long Beach Superior Court Judge Richard F. Charvat ruled out the testimony at Harris’ second trial after hearing a rambling discourse by Harris, both admitting and denying guilt, outside the jury’s presence. Harris’ attorney advised him to remain silent.

Harris, according to appellate court records, told Charvat he wanted to testify “that I am guilty of the crimes” and separately that “I, Lee Edward Harris of Monroe, La., did not commit any of the crimes that I am accused of, although I was in the vicinity.”

Despite Harris’ contradictory “unguided monologue” offered over his attorney’s objections, denying Harris his constitutional right to testify required reversal of his conviction for a second time, Justice Donald N. Gates wrote in the 12-page appellate decision.

“Neither the good faith of the trial court (Charvat), the well-advised tactical considerations for the defense counsel, nor even the seemingly overwhelming evidence of guilt,” Gates wrote, “will enable us to sustain a conviction founded upon such a deprivation.”

In 1984, the California Supreme Court overturned Harris’ first conviction on grounds that he had been denied a representative jury. The state’s system of selecting prospective jurors solely from voter registration lists at the time of Harris’ first trial, the high court said, produced too few blacks for jury duty.

A survey showed that only 5.5% of prospective jurors were black in a county with 10.8% black population.

Nine other states joined California in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, claiming that selecting jurors from voter registration lists is a reliable way to find literate adult citizens.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case, however, allowing the state high court’s 4-3 decision to stand.

Jurors now are drawn randomly from a combination of voter registration and Department of Motor Vehicles lists.