Man’s Murder Conviction Is Overturned : Ruling: The state Supreme Court, in a rare move, reverses the verdict and death sentence on grounds that the suspect’s attorney failed to provide a competent defense.

The state Supreme Court on Thursday took the unusual step of reversing the conviction and death sentence of an accused killer on grounds that his trial lawyer failed to provide competent representation.

The justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Robert Paul Wilson, 41, found guilty of the 1984 murder of an Arizona tool salesman in Long Beach.

The court found that Wilson’s trial lawyer, Ronald J. Slick, should have objected to the use of crucial taped telephone conversations in which Wilson, while in jail, seemingly tried to arrange for the killing of a key witness against him.

The would-be “hit man” was an investigator for the prosecution--and the justices noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has barred the use of such incriminating statements obtained in the absence of counsel. Without the tapes and other supporting testimony, Wilson might not have been convicted, the court said in an opinion by Justice Ronald M. George.

Thursday’s decision marked only the third time in 49 cases in the last two years that the court has overturned a death sentence. Since 1987, the court under Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas has upheld 130 death sentences and reversed 30.

Slick previously has been criticized by defense lawyers in Los Angeles for allegedly failing to properly investigate cases and adequately represent capital defendants. As of last fall, eight of his clients--including Wilson--had been sentenced to Death Row, the most of any attorney in California.

In a declaration filed with the court, Slick, now a juvenile court referee in Los Angeles, defended his record as an experienced defense lawyer. He said he did not object to the tape recordings and other testimony because he believed there was no plausible argument against them.

Bradley S. Phillips, who represented Wilson on appeal, noted that court reversals of convictions on grounds of inadequate trial counsel are rare.

“We argued repeatedly that (Slick’s) performance fell far below the standard of a reasonably competent defense lawyer,” said Phillips.

Neither Slick nor a lawyer for the state could be reached for comment.

Wilson was charged with the shooting death and robbery of Roy M. Swader of Tucson, for whom he worked and accompanied on trips to California. While Wilson was in the Los Angeles County Jail awaiting trial, a fellow inmate, Donald Loar, reported to authorities that Wilson said he wanted a hit man to eliminate a key witness.

A district attorney’s investigator, Frank Kovacevich, arranged to impersonate an assassin. Loar called Kovacevich from jail and summoned Wilson to the phone. In the tape-recorded conversation played for jurors, Wilson was heard describing the witness, a gas station attendant, and how he could be found.

Kovacevich asked: “Do you want us to scare him or what?”

Wilson replied: “I think it’s gonna come out a little bit more drastic than that. I think it’d be better if he just kind of took a permanent vacation.”

In Thursday’s ruling, George said Slick’s failure to object was not a plausible tactical move but reflected “ignorance or misunderstanding” of court rulings and “constitutes deficient performance.”

George said Wilson’s conviction and sentence must be reversed because of the pivotal role that the inadmissible evidence played in the case. The justice noted that there was nothing in the prosecution’s case directly linking Wilson to the murder.

Although there was other testimony from inmates that Wilson had made incriminating admissions, that testimony would have been much less credible without the tape-recorded statements, George said.