Families of Victims Urge Lesser Penalty for Driver in Deaths

In a highly unusual twist, lawyers for two families Wednesday told an Orange County Superior Court judge that their clients preferred that the charges against a motorist who killed their relatives be reduced from second-degree murder to manslaughter.

The reason: insurance money.

Under California law, lawyers 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 truck collision was a negligent act--vehicular manslaughter--instead of an intentional one--second-degree murder.

But the prosecutor refused to reduce the charges, calling the insurance issue a red herring by the defense.

“We’re not backing off,” Deputy Orange County Dist. Atty. Richard M. King told Judge Luis A. Cardenas.

Gonzalo Garcia, a Mexican national, now 28, was arrested in the deaths of Javier Valdez, 45, of Orange and Norma Grossi, 42, of Anaheim. They were passengers in a car that Garcia struck Dec. 21, 1986, in Orange, when he was trying to elude police in a stolen truck. Grossi’s husband, Fernando, who was driving the car, was injured.

Garcia is scheduled to return to court today to plead guilty to second-degree murder. Although making no promises, Cardenas said his evaluation of the case was that it was worth a 10-year prison sentence, if Garcia pleaded guilty. That penalty is the equivalent to a vehicular manslaughter sentence. The two second-degree murder counts would carry a maximum sentence of nearly 33 years.

For the families, the insurance question remains unresolved. Because Garcia has no insurance, the families’ lawyers hope to collect from the insurance company of the truck owner.

Defense attorney James S. 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 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 does not 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’s position is: “On this planet, in this lifetime, the red herring of insurance does not exist in this case.”

The families’ lawyers strongly disagreed. 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 15-year-old Priscilla Grossi, who lost her mother in the crash. “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.

Dilemma for Son

The other party in the case is Jose Javier Orozco, who now lives in Mexico. His father died in the crash.

Orozco’s lawyer, Gregory L. Bartone of Santa Ana, said that the issue is 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,” the attorney said.

“I certainly understand Rick’s (King’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 it could speed the process.

Not Clear on the Law

But under cross-examination from King, he 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 they would be hurt on insurance if Garcia is convicted of murder? King asked the attorney.

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

King said he will argue today that 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 parole board.

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

King said the insurance issue 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.”