High Court Again OKs Bonin’s 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.

Orange County Deputy Dist. Atty. Bryan F. Brown, who prosecuted Bonin in the 1983 Orange County case, said of the high court’s action: “That’s good news. It kind of looks like Mr. Bonin is going to end up in the gas chamber, doesn’t it?”

The lawyer who will handle Bonin’s appeal was not available for comment.

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.

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.

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, the justice declared.

“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.”

Times staff Writer Jerry Hicks contributed to this story.