Court Upholds Death Sentence for Slayer of 4

The state Supreme Court on Monday upheld the death sentence imposed on the shotgun slayer of four people, ruling 5 to 2 that a trial attorney may defer to the wishes of his client and present no evidence in a plea for mercy.

The justices rejected an appeal in behalf of Stanley Williams, sentenced to death for the fatal shooting of a store clerk in a robbery in Whittier and the subsequent killing of three family members in the robbery of a Los Angeles motel in 1979.

The court substantially limited the impact of a 1985 ruling in which the justices overturned the capital sentence of a convicted murderer who asked the jury to send him to the gas chamber and told his lawyer not to present favorable character evidence in his behalf.

The justices held at that time that, despite the wishes of the defendant, any available mitigating evidence must be presented, to assure that the jury has received all “crucial information” it needs to render a reliable verdict on death or life in prison without parole.

For an attorney to accede to the defendant’s wishes, without making an independent tactical judgment about whether to present mitigating evidence, deprived the defendant of his right to effective counsel, the court said in the 1985 decision.

But in Monday’s ruling, the court said that an attorney could defer to his client’s request, so long as the jury was not misled about its responsibilities in the case and the evidence that might have been presented could not have affected the outcome of the case.

Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, writing for the court majority, noted that there was no indication of what mitigating evidence might have been offered in Williams’ behalf.

“We cannot, and will not, predicate reversal of a judgment on mere speculation that some undisclosed testimony may have altered the result,” Lucas said.

The majority pointed out also that, contrary to the 1985 case and a similar case in 1986, Williams had not made a statement asking for the death penalty and that his trial counsel had “argued eloquently” to the jury that the defendant should be granted leniency.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Joan Comparet said the ruling would give greater leeway to capital defendants who wish to forgo a defense and would provide their trial counsel with clearer guidelines on how to handle their clients’ request.

“This decision takes a lot of the guts out of the (1985) decision,” Comparet said. “It affirms the fact that a defendant has a certain right not to have to beg for mercy.”

In dissent, Justice Stanley Mosk, author of the 1985 ruling, said that the failure of Williams’ lawyer to present evidence could not be viewed as “harmless,” and that the death sentence should be reversed.

The majority’s attempt to distinguish Williams’ case from the previous rulings was “at best empty and at worst sophistical,” Mosk said in an opinion joined by Justice Allen E. Broussard.

“In my view, defense counsel’s failure to present any evidence in mitigation resulted in a constitutionally unreliable verdict of death,” Mosk wrote. “Someone might have been called to testify on the defendant’s behalf and to urge that his life be spared.”

The decision marked the 12th time in 17 capital cases it has decided that the court under Lucas has upheld the death penalty. Under former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, the court affirmed four death sentences in 68 cases.

Williams, now 34, was convicted in the slayings of Alvin Owens, Thsai-Shai Yang, Yen-I Yang and Yee Chen Lin in the two 1979 robbery-murder cases. After his conviction in Los Angeles Superior Court, his trial counsel, Joe Ingber, informed the judge that certain unnamed witnesses were available to present favorable background and character evidence in Williams’ behalf. But, said Ingber, “it’s the defendant’s desire that no one testify on his behalf” in the penalty phase of the trial--and “there will be no testimony called.”