Lawyers, Judge Trade Barbs in Jury Selection for Night Stalker Trial

With jury selection entering its fifth and perhaps final month, the start of the so-called Night Stalker trial is approaching amid signs that it could be a highly emotional affair.

Stacks of subpoenas are being readied for hundreds of witnesses who are to testify in Los Angeles Superior Court, starting Jan. 17.

Carpenters have also received orders to enlarge the courtroom’s jury box to accommodate the 24 jurors and alternates still to be picked for the trial, which is expected to last as long as two years. Already, thicker seat cushions are in place.

And tempers all around are getting short, with the opposing lawyers threatening one another with bodily harm--and the judge threatening to hold them in contempt of court. The most heated exchanges occurred during Thanksgiving week as the next-to-last phase of jury selection was winding down. That phase ended Wednesday.

The clashes prompted Judge Michael A. Tynan to suggest, perhaps facetiously, that co-prosecutor Phil Halpin and defense lawyer Daniel Hernandez consider settling their personal differences in a boxing ring.

Selection Proceeding

But such distractions, and occasional flashes of humor, have not appreciably slowed the business at hand: the disqualification of prospective jurors who appear to have an inherent bias either for or against the death penalty.

In all, 143 Los Angeles County residents will enter the final stage of juror selection, set to begin Dec. 12. From this group will come the 12-member jury, plus 12 alternates, who will decide the fate of murder suspect Richard Ramirez.

Ramirez, a 28-year-old drifter from El Paso, Tex., is charged with murdering 13 Los Angeles County residents in a series of nighttime residential attacks three years ago that also left many others injured. He also faces 30 other felony charges, including robbery, rape and attempted murder.

If convicted, he could be sentenced to the gas chamber at San Quentin.

The initial phase of jury selection began July 21, and 1,581 Los Angeles County residents were considered for the case. By early September, all but about 300 were excused--for health or other reasons, such as having employers who would not pay their salaries for more than a few weeks of jury duty.

California law also requires all prospective jurors in capital cases to declare under oath that, having found a defendant guilty as charged, they would be able to choose--with a clear conscience--one of two options: life without the possibility of parole, or execution. The just-ended death penalty qualification phase of jury selection began Sept. 26.

Taking Keen Interest

Ramirez, who has been held in Central Jail without bail since his Aug. 31, 1985, arrest in East Los Angeles, has appeared to take an increasingly keen interest in the proceedings, often making notes and whispering animatedly with members of his defense team.

The interviewing of prospective jurors is typically unremarkable. But occasionally questions about imposing the death penalty have aroused intense soul-searching and emotional turmoil.

“I suppose I could if I felt--in that I believe in it--I suppose I could,” said one woman as she shifted uneasily in her chair. “I should be able to back up what I believe in, shouldn’t I? I’ve never. . . . “

Judge Tynan interrupted. “Don’t put yourself in a box.”

“I am in a box,” she replied. “Believe me, I’m in a box.”

After further questioning, Halpin and co-prosecutor Alan S. Yochelson sought to have the woman disqualified, but their motion was denied.

Wants to Avoid Choice

Among those excused was a woman who admitted, “I believe in the death penalty, but I just don’t want to be the one to choose that for someone.”

Those still in the running for jury service include a man arrested more than a dozen years ago for suspicion of heroin possession who spent a night in jail before the charges were dismissed.

Another eligible juror is a man convicted of driving while impaired 13 years ago in Van Nuys and who was arrested at a political demonstration as a college student in 1970.

All prospective jurors are admonished not to talk to anyone about their possible role in the trial. In the case of at least one prospective juror, this warning has caused some domestic strife.

As the man told Tynan: “Since I’ve been on jury duty, my wife has been trying to find out the person involved in the case, and I haven’t told her, and our relationship is kind of shaky right now because I’m sticking to what the judge says. And I’m blaming him totally for my marriage.”