County’s 1st Traffic Death Murder Verdicts Rejected

A state appellate court in Santa Ana on Thursday overturned the 1986 murder convictions of a man who killed two Costa Mesa teen-agers in a car crash as he fled from police, ruling that discrimination against Asians and Latinos was evident during jury selection.

The decision reversed the first murder convictions ever in Orange County based on traffic deaths. The 4th District Court of Appeal ruled, 3 to 0, that the exclusion of a Vietnamese immigrant because of what the prosecutor stated was his inability to understand English was illegally based on a racial stereotype.

In a 16-page opinion written by Justice Edward J. Wallin, the court also found that Ruben M. Valle’s rights were violated during a police interrogation following his arrest.

Valle, driving a stolen van and chased by Costa Mesa police on Dec. 19, 1984, ran a stop sign and rammed a car carrying two Estancia High School students, Roy Williamson and Billy Dearing.

The boys, both 17 and surfers, were heading for the beach. Both were killed, but Valle, who was later convicted on two counts of second-degree murder, walked away with only minor injuries.

When told that two people had died in the crash, Valle responded, “I hope so,” according to testimony at the trial.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Richard King said his office would consider an appeal.

“If an appeal fails, obviously we will try the case again,” King said.

Valle, 24, of Santa Ana is now serving two sentences of 15 years to life at Folsom Prison.

“Oh, my heart’s pounding,” Dearing’s mother, Vicky Grage, said Thursday. “It’s very disappointing. There was no doubt about his guilt.”

Grage, who lives in Lake Elsinore, said she “sat through every day of the trial. There is no doubt in my mind that he was guilty. If he were to be released, that would be very unfair. He took the lives of two boys.”

Sharon Williamson, the mother of the other young victim, said she was “shocked and angry.”

“It seems like the criminal’s rights are over-protected, and the victims and their families’ rights are just ignored,” she said.

Disbelief and Shock

Both mothers readily acknowledged that they did not understand the legal reasoning involved in the decision. But each expressed disbelief and shock that the man convicted of murdering their sons may now get another trial.

“It’s been 4 years since this accident happened,” Grage said. “You just don’t get over it. Different things remind you of it. He committed a crime, and he needs to be punished.”

Williamson said she believed that “justice had been carried out” but now has changed her mind. “I still think Mr. Valle belongs in prison,” she said. “There are consequences every person must pay for what they do to other people.”

King’s questioning of prospective jurors was the subject of scathing criticism by the appellate court, which said he had shown bias by disqualifying Tuoc Vo, a Vietnamese immigrant who worked as mechanic, when there were no proper grounds to do so.

Basis of Group Bias

The court found that King challenged Vo on the basis of group bias, violating Valle’s right to have a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community.

According to the opinion, King stated that in his experience, which included a tour of duty in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, “members of the Oriental race” can have difficulty learning English and can have “serious problems in understanding words that have abstract meanings to them.”

The prosecutor’s comments amounted to “a rather substantial mistake,” according to Valle’s attorney, J. Courtney Shevelson of Monterey. While inability to understand English may be a valid basis for excluding a prospective juror, Shevelson said, King failed to establish that Vo had such problems.

“The court concluded that there was no indication of any language problem. He (Vo) had an accent. That’s all that was established. He had no difficulty responding to questions,” Shevelson said.

King, seconded by state Assistant Atty. Gen. Howard Wayne, who argued the case before the appellate court, said the decision misstated the record and misinterpreted his grounds for objecting to Vo’s presence on the jury.

Inappropriate Responses

“I did not excuse Mr. Vo because he was Oriental or because he was Vietnamese,” King said. “I excused him because he had difficulty with the English language. That statement by me was intended to explain to the court why he (Vo) was having problems.”

Wayne said the justices ignored Vo’s inappropriate responses to several questions. For instance, Vo said, when asked if he would sympathize with Valle because he was a member of a minority, Vo first answered yes, then later said no.

“The juror was not competent in the English language to sit through the trial,” Wayne said “The Court of Appeal totally ignored this.”

King said he resented the decision’s implication and insisted that he had simply been attempting to explain why Vo, in particular, showed a poor ability to speak English.

The prosecution and the defense each rejected 19 jurors during jury selection, but each accepted a Vietnamese immigrant as an alternate.

“If I discriminated, why did I keep the Vietnamese as an alternate?” King said.

The justices also found that King had improperly rejected a Latino man for jury service. While King said the prospective juror had expressed reservations about his ability to serve, the appellate court found that the prosecutor had failed to show any proper basis for rejecting him.

After the 1984 traffic deaths that led to Valle’s convictions, the police decision to chase a suspected car thief at high speeds over busy streets was closely scrutinized. The families of both victims sued the police, claiming that the chase was unnecessary and careless. But a jury last year exonerated Costa Mesa police.

While the ruling on jury selection will not affect a new trial, the court’s decision on Valle’s statements to police at the time of his arrest could have a big impact.

The appellate court found that a police officer ignored Valle’s decision not to talk after his arrest. Ultimately, Valle admitted his involvement in the accident in the discussion that followed.

As a result of Thursday’s decision, prosecutors have no statements from Valle that may be used in a new trial, King conceded.

At his first trial, psychiatrists testified that Valle, who showed no signs of recent use of drugs or alcohol, had been acutely psychotic during the interrogation. Asked if he would waive his rights, Valle had responded that he did not know. Asked if he understood he was entitled to a lawyer, Valle had said he was hungry.

“Valle’s rambling, nonresponsive answers, repeated protestations of hunger and request for sleep due to fatigue and pain do not support the inference of a knowing, intelligent and unequivocal waiver of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel,” the court ruled.