Crash Victims’ Families Urge Lesser Charge for Defendant

In a highly unusual twist, the lawyers for two families who lost loved ones in a traffic collision said in court Wednesday that the families would like to see the charges against the man accused in the case reduced from second-degree murder to manslaughter.

The reason: insurance money.

Under California law, attorneys for the families and the defense claim, the insurance company for the owner of the truck that plowed into their loved ones is more likely to pay if the collision was a negligent act--vehicular manslaughter--instead of an intentional one--second-degree murder.

But the prosecutor in the case calls the insurance issue a red herring by the defense.

“We’re not backing off,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Richard M. King told the judge.

Gonzalo Garcia, a Mexican national now 28, is accused of murder in the deaths of Javier Valdez, 45, of Orange and Norma Grossi, 42, of Anaheim. They were passengers in a car that Garcia is alleged to have hit in a stolen truck Dec. 21, 1986, in Orange when, investigators say, he was trying to elude Orange police in a high-speed chase. Grossi’s husband, Fernando, who was driving the car, was injured.

There is another twist to the case: Garcia is scheduled to return to the courtroom today to plead guilty--not to manslaughter but to second-degree murder.

That is because even if King wouldn’t bend on the issue, the judge might.

Saying he was making no promises, Superior Court Judge Luis A. Cardenas said in his evaluation that the case was worth a 10-year prison sentence if Garcia pleads guilty to murder. That is equivalent to a vehicular manslaughter sentence. The two murder counts against Garcia carry a maximum sentence of nearly 33 years.

James S. Egar, Garcia’s attorney, told the court Wednesday that his client would plead guilty to murder and take his chances on the sentencing.

For the families, the insurance question remains unresolved. Because Garcia had no insurance, attorneys for the families hope to collect from the insurance company of the owner of the truck.

Egar acknowledges that he sought help from the families by raising the insurance issue. But he says his interest is in their rights as well as those of his client’s.

“It’s an incredible situation; the prosecutor is attacking the credibility of the victims in this case,” Egar said. “We end up getting what we want; Rick (King) can only hurt the victims.”

King doesn’t see it that way.

“We are interested in justice, and if someone could show us that the victims’ families would suffer in attempts to collect insurance money, then naturally we would be sensitive to that,” he said recently.

King said that his position is simply: “On this planet, in this lifetime, the red herring of insurance does not exist in this case.”

The families’ lawyers strongly disagree with King. But the families themselves appeared Wednesday to sympathize with the prosecutor.

“Personally, I hope he (Garcia) is kept behind bars as long as possible,” said Priscilla Grossi, 15, the daughter of the victim. “But we have to follow our lawyer’s advice.”

Fernando Grossi, 47, an immigrant from Costa Rica who is not always comfortable speaking English, said, with his daughter interpreting, that he must be more concerned with his mounting medical bills than with Garcia’s punishment.

“Only God can punish; I cannot,” Grossi said.

His 17-year-old son, Leroy, would say only: “I stick with my father.”

Survivor in Mexico

The other party in the case is Jose Javier Orozco, who now lives in Mexico. His father was the other person killed.

Orozco’s lawyer, Gregory L. Bartone of Santa Ana, called the issue one of the most unusual he has ever experienced in court.

“My client’s heart tells him one thing, but his head tells him another,” Bartone declared.

Bartone added that Orozco speaks no English and has left the decision to his lawyer.

“I certainly understand Rick’s position,” Bartone said. “But I have to look out for my client’s best interest. And that tells me that if the insurance company can’t hang its hook on the ‘intentional killing’ issue, it will be more likely to make us a financial settlement.”

Gene Goldsman, a Santa Ana attorney who represents the Grossis, testified Wednesday that common sense tells him that if the intentional-killing issue is eliminated, it could improve the family’s chances of collecting insurance, or at least speed the process.

But under cross-examination from prosecutor King, Goldsman acknowledged that he did not know what section of the law covered the issue, nor could he cite any legal authority to back his claim.

Did his clients fear that they would be hurt regarding insurance if Garcia is convicted of murder? King asked him.

Prefers Opportunity

“I wouldn’t use the word fear; I’d use the word opportunity,” Goldsman answered.

Garcia’s fate might have been in a jury’s hands had it not been for emergency illnesses. First, Superior Court Judge William W. Bedsworth faced emergency surgery in the middle of the trial. Then the case was moved to two other courtrooms, including Cardenas’. But a lengthy illness by one of the jurors brought the case full-circle back to Bedsworth.

Bedsworth agreed with Egar that the case had “such a tortured legal history” that the best thing to do was start over with a new trial. Now it is back to Cardenas.

King will argue today that regardless of the judge’s earlier evaluation of the case, Garcia should be sentenced to at least 15 years to life in prison.

An indeterminate sentence, King said, would ensure that Garcia’s release date would be in the hands of the state Board of Prison Terms.

Egar said he believed that the judge would give Garcia a manslaughter sentence--even if King’s position means that the defendant must plead guilty to murder or go to trial.

King admitted after the court session that Egar’s use of the insurance issue as a defense upsets him.

“My job is to represent both the people (of the state of California) and the victims,” King said. “I have never had a case where there was an inconsistency in representing both. And certainly not in this case.”