Judge Waives Penn’s $421,820 Legal, Court Expenses

Ruling that Sagon Penn holds no “valuable asset” in a proposed TV movie series, a San Diego Superior Court judge ruled Friday that the man twice acquitted of murdering a police officer does not have to reimburse the county more than $420,000 in court and legal costs.

The ruling by Judge Terry B. O’Rourke came on the last day in which the county could show why Penn--acquitted in the shooting death of one San Diego police officer and the wounding of another officer and a civilian ride-along--should not pay back any or all of his massive county-provided legal expenses.

Penn, dressed in a dark blue suit, testified that he was never advised by a judge that he could be held liable for reimbursing the county for the costs for his legal defense. Attorneys for both sides agreed that Penn remains unemployed and shows no promise of immediate income.

But at the center of Friday’s lengthy hearing was whether the former defendant should be forced to turn over any proceeds he may receive from a proposed TV mini-series about the March, 1985, shootings.

Under the terms of a preliminary television movie contract offered to Penn in October, he would have received $10,000 if he signed over exclusive rights to the use of his name and character, as long as a second person connected to the case did likewise.

The identity of the second person was not revealed in court. However, officials associated with Fries Entertainment of Los Angeles said during a court recess that the second person was not Donovan Jacobs, the white San Diego police officer wounded by Penn.

On the stand, Stockton Briggle, executive producer in charge of the film adaptation of “The Sagon Penn Incident,” said Fries Entertainment and NBC television are interested in the movie project.

But he testified that Penn hasn’t signed the contract or agreed to any subsequent offers to put the story on television.

During a recess, Briggle said the movie project could still go forward without Penn’s approval, noting that there are extensive court records and media accounts of the shooting and two trials. He said it was not unreasonable to estimate that the film could be aired on television within a year.

John Lawrence, an attorney for Fries Entertainment, argued before the judge that allowing the county a carte-blanche right to any future movie proceeds Penn might earn would have “a chilling effect” on First Amendment and privacy rights of others in similar situations.

“Every person in San Diego County, convicted or acquitted, has those rights,” Lawrence said.

In his ruling, O’Rourke said that “there’s been a total failure on the part of the county” to show that Penn has indeed benefited financially from the proposed TV show.

In setting Penn free from his legal costs, the judge advised those present in his courtroom that the ruling should not be construed as preferential treatment.

“It’s not a situation where Mr. Penn is the equivalent of a lottery winner,” O’Rourke said.

Afterwards, Milton J. Silverman, Penn’s attorney, said that “everybody’s life story has some value,” but that it was unfair for the county to be allowed to recoup legal costs anytime in the future.

“They put him in jail,” Silverman said. “They put him through two trials. And they deprived him of his liberty. Now they’re talking about taking his soul.

“Say 10 years from now Sagon is a Christian missionary in China and writes a book. It is not right that the county should get a part of it.”

Penn’s father, Thomas, said during a court recess that his son lives with a woman and their child behind a halfway house in Southeast San Diego. He said Sagon has been unable to find work, and that he has advised his son that he should consider moving out of California and begin to rebuild his life.

The elder Penn also said that his son’s only real desire is that publicity about the case come to an end and that the county stop “hassling and harassing him.”

“Here they’re trying to collect from a man who was beaten and held hostage for two years,” the elder Penn said. “He just wants to be left alone.”

Daniel J. Wallace, an attorney in the county counselor’s office, said afterwards that he will weigh whether to appeal the ruling.

“I’d like to consider what we’re going to do before I make a decision,” he said.

Wallace told the judge that the county has been “hearing all kinds of stories about deals going on” for Penn to benefit from the proposed film and the government simply saw that prospect as an avenue to collect some of its costs.

“There was no personal animosity in this case at any time,” Wallace said.

But he also contended that the mere fact that Penn could receive a large sum of money in the future on a movie contract is an asset.

“That is a valuable asset,” he said. “That is worth money. If it wasn’t, these officials from the studio would not be here.”

According to Morris Pion, director of the county’s Department of Revenue and Recovery, the county spent a total of $421,820.27 in Penn’s legal defense between Oct. 30, 1985, and Jan. 8 of this year.

Those costs included $148,527.50 in attorney fees, $123,183.61 in expert witness fees, $106,922.64 in investigative fees, $28,490 in law clerk fees and $14,696.52 in other fees.

In November, Pion informed the court that after interviewing Penn, he had determined that the young man had a total net worth of $9 and was unable to find work because of the notoriety of his case and that he fears for his life.

The county stipulated on Friday that it if it won its case, it would have allowed Penn to keep $10,000 a year before the government took anything over that amount for court costs.

At one point, the legal proceedings were held up to allow Patricia Friend, the court reporter in the 1985 trial, to search for her notes to see if Penn was indeed warned about his liability for court costs. Friend was unable to find her notes.