Supreme Court Upholds Bonin Conviction and Death Penalty

The state Supreme Court on Monday upheld the death penalty a second time for “Freeway Killer” William George Bonin, affirming his conviction and sentence in the notorious beating and strangulation murders of 10 young males in Los Angeles County in 1979 and 1980.

Last August, the justices affirmed a separate capital sentence that the 42-year-old Bonin received for the killings of four teen-age boys whose nude bodies were dumped near roadways during the same period in Orange County. An appeal by Bonin to the U.S. Supreme Court in that case is pending.

In a 6-1 ruling Monday, the court majority rejected claims that Bonin’s convictions and sentence for the Los Angeles slayings should be set aside because of a potential conflict of interest between the defendant and his trial counsel, William T. Charvet of Torrance.

Book-Rights Issue

Bonin’s lawyers on appeal had contended that the trial judge should have made a full inquiry to determine if there was a book-rights agreement between Bonin and Charvet that could have affected the attorney’s strategy and tactics. Charvet had not responded directly to the question of an agreement when it was raised in court, but he told reporters outside the courtroom that no deal had been made.

The appeal also had argued that Charvet faced another conflict because he had previously met with and considered defending James Munro, an accomplice in one of the murders who later became a key prosecution witness against Bonin. Munro pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.

The high court, in an opinion by Justice Stanley Mosk, found that while trial judges must make inquiries about such possible conflicts, the failure to do so does not require the reversal of a conviction and sentence unless the defendant has shown that an actual conflict existed and that it had adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.

In this case, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William J. Keene was not presented with evidence that an agreement for Bonin’s life story actually existed, and thus had no obligation to press an inquiry, the court said.

Lack of Caution Cited

Keene should have further investigated the potential conflict arising from Charvet’s previous dealings with Munro, and the judge “plainly failed to act with the caution required in a capital proceeding,” Mosk said. But there was no showing of an adverse impact on the defense of Bonin and thus Bonin’s appeal must be turned down, he said.

At trial, Charvet had sharply cross-examined Munro for several days and made a “broad and deep” attack on Munro’s credibility, Mosk said.

“We cannot find or even conjecture any failing on Charvet’s part that could be attributed to any information he . . . could conceivably have received from Munro when they discussed the possibility of representation,” Mosk wrote. In dissent, Justice Allen E. Broussard argued that Bonin’s convictions and sentence should be set aside and the case sent back to the trial court for a full hearing on the potential conflict of interest.

“I am well aware of the pain and horror that this defendant has inflicted on so many,” Broussard wrote. “I too feel that his crimes were so shocking and heinous that it seems an outrage to question the lawfulness of the verdict in any way. Yet I am convinced that an impartial application of the law to the facts requires us to remand the matter to the trial court.”

The issue arose when Bonin, a one-time truck driver from Downey, sought before trial to substitute Charvet as his lawyer in place of Earl L. Hanson of Los Angeles, his court-appointed attorney. Asked why, Bonin replied, “Personal vibes.”

The prosecutor, Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. Sterling E. Norris, objected, saying the substitution was a delaying tactic. Norris also raised the potential for conflict of interest by Charvet.

The defense attorney denied that he had received any significant information from Munro and said that no formal lawyer-client relationship ever existed between them. Charvet said the prosecution had no right to question his fee arrangement with Bonin. Judge Keene at first refused to allow Charvet to substitute for Hanson, but he later relented, and Bonin was tried, convicted and sentenced to death.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Steven Zeigen welcomed Monday’s ruling, saying that Bonin clearly expressed his desire to be represented by Charvet and that there was no indication that Bonin suffered any harm.

“This case was so egregious and the evidence so irrefutable that it is very difficult to find any prejudice against Bonin,” Zeigen said.

Bonin’s lawyer on appeal was not available for comment.

In another ruling Monday, the court held 6 to 1 that a drunk driver who kills one victim and injures others in the same accident can be punished for both vehicular manslaughter and felony drunk driving resulting in bodily injury.

The court, in an opinion by Justice Marcus M. Kaufman, rejected the contention that such “double punishment” was barred by a state law that, with certain exceptions, prohibits multiple punishments for a single act.

In dissent, Mosk contended that the defendant in the case, Donald Joseph McFarland Jr., had committed only a single criminal act--driving while intoxicated--and thus should not be punished under both the manslaughter and drunk-driving statutes.

The case arose in 1986 when McFarland, while driving on a road in San Diego, slammed into a car stopped at an intersection, fatally injuring the driver, Steven Herbert, and seriously injuring Herbert’s wife and son. McFarland, found to be driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.27%, was sentenced to prison for a total of eight years for vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence and for causing injury while driving under the influence of alcohol.