Molestation Defendants to Be Freed : Kern County: The state Supreme Court refused to reinstate the convictions of the seven who were sentenced to massive prison terms.

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid to reinstate the convictions of seven people sentenced to massive prison terms in a notorious Kern County child-molestation case. Disappointed prosecutors then announced that they will not retry the defendants, paving the way for their release.

A state Court of Appeal overturned the convictions last September on grounds of misconduct by the trial prosecutor in what the court said was “a blind quest to convict.”

State lawyers appealed that ruling, saying that any misconduct was relatively minor compared to the “overwhelming evidence of guilt” by the defendants. But the high court, in a brief order signed by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, unanimously declined to review the case, leaving the appellate ruling intact.

Kern County Dist. Atty. Edward Jagels said that after reviewing the evidence that now could be presented, authorities have concluded that the case could not be successfully retried.

Jagels noted that the alleged offenses occurred eight years ago when the victims were 3 to 10 years old. “It’s simply not realistic to expect they can undergo the same kind of exhaustive cross-examination they did at the first trial and testify now with any kind of memory,” he said.

The district attorney also observed that the appeal court had dismissed several key counts against the defendants. Another factor, he added, were subsequent retractions by three of six alleged victims. “While we believe those retractions are unreliable, they obviously make the case virtually untriable.

“We’re disappointed, of course, “ Jagels said. “We thought there was very substantial evidence of guilt, and obviously the jury agreed.”

Cynthia A. Thomas, a lawyer for the Central California Appellate Program representing the defendants, said she was elated with the high court action and the prosecutor’s decision not to retry the case.

“I believe these people were totally innocent of the charges,” she said. “I’m glad it’s over and that these people can get out of prison now and get on with their lives.”

Formal procedures to secure release of the defendants will be started as soon as possible, Thomas said.

George E. Van Meter of Bakersfield, one of the trial defense attorneys, welcomed Wednesday’s actions, calling the convictions of the defendants “the greatest miscarriage of justice I have ever seen.” Van Meter also expressed the hope that at least some of the alleged victims, who have since been placed in foster homes or with other relatives, could now re-establish contact with parents who have been imprisoned.

Charges were filed in July, 1984, accusing the seven defendants of an array of lewd acts, assault and other offenses against children--including their own children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews. Among other things, the defendants were accused of forcing their young victims to take drugs, of filming forced sexual acts and of committing sodomy on the children with the barrel of a gun.

The defendants included Ricky and Marcella Pitts, Colleen and Wayne Forsythe, Grace and Wayne Dill Jr., and Gina Miller. All were convicted and sent to prison for terms ranging from 285 to 405 years each. Their collective sentence of over 2,600 years was believed the longest in a child-molestation case in state history.

But last Sept. 5, a state Court of Appeal in Fresno reversed the convictions in an exhaustive 367-page opinion by Appellate Justice Hollis G. Best, joined by Justices Robert Martin and Steven M. Vartabedian.

The panel issued a sharp criticism of the prosecutor, former Kern County Deputy Dist. Atty. Andrew G. Gindes, calling him “an overzealous prosecutor who, in his blind quest to convict, forgot or ignored his constitutional and ethical duties as a representative of the people.”

The appeal court said that Gindes’ “most egregious” act of misconduct took place during closing arguments, when he warned jurors that even one vote for acquittal could block a conviction and waste the jury’s six months of work. That statement put improper pressure on the jury to convict, the panel said.

The court also assailed the prosecutor for numerous biblical references during his argument, in which Gindes suggested that Christ “took the side of children over adults,” and that jurors should believe the children’s testimony rather than the adults’ denial of the crimes.

Lawyers for the state attorney general’s office, citing the “unprecedented and shocking” nature of the case, urged the high court to reinstate the convictions of the defendants. The instances of prosecutorial conduct were “arguably mild” and could be deemed harmless “where the evidence points unerringly to guilt,” state attorneys argued in a petition to the court.