Man Gets Rehearing in ’81 Slayings in Garden Grove

A man sentenced to death for a double murder in Orange County has been granted a new hearing by a federal appeals court on his contention that his trial lawyer was incompetent and preoccupied with his own campaign for Congress.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2 to 1 that Jaturun Siripongs was entitled to a hearing before a federal judge because his lawyer failed to investigate the possibility that an accomplice had committed the murders and presented no evidence about Siripongs’ background.

James Spellman, Siripongs’ lawyer and an Orange County deputy public defender, had never handled a capital case and “was running for Congress during most of the time that he should have been preparing the case for trial,” the court said. It also said available testimony from relatives and others “would undoubtedly have improved Siripongs’ chances of receiving a life sentence” instead of the death penalty.

Siripongs, 42, of Hawthorne, a former Buddhist monk from Thailand, was convicted of strangling a Garden Grove food store manager and fatally stabbing a clerk during a 1981 robbery.

Police said the manager, Packovan (Pat) Wattanaporn, 36, was robbed of jewelry worth $25,000, most of which was later traced to Siripongs.

The state Supreme Court upheld his death sentence unanimously in 1988 and denied a hearing on his separate claim of incompetent counsel. U.S. District Judge William Keller also dismissed that claim without a hearing, ruling that Spellman’s actions were legitimate tactical choices.

But the appeals court ordered Keller to hold a hearing into the rationale and impact of Spellman’s decision to present no evidence at the guilt phase and little evidence at the penalty phase.

Spellman did not seriously examine evidence, suggesting that others were involved in the crime, said Judge Mary Schroeder in the majority opinion. She said Spellman never tested hair and blood samples and shoe prints that did not belong to Siripongs or the victims, or checked out reports that an unidentified man had made threatening phone calls.

Spellman did not explain those omissions in out-of-court questioning reviewed by Keller, and “admits he was distracted by campaigning for federal office,” Schroeder said.

In 1982, Spellman won the Democratic primary for the 42nd Congressional District seat but lost in the general election to Republican Daniel E. Lungren.

Keller found that the failure to investigate a possible accomplice was a tactical decision, because it would have required admitting that Siripongs was at the scene. But Schroeder said there was no evidence that it was either a tactical decision or an informed one.

She also said the jury, in considering Siripongs’ punishment, could have been affected by evidence about a possible accomplice, testimony from family and friends about Siripongs’ background, or his lack of a violent criminal record.

Spellman presented no such testimony. His only explanation, which Keller accepted, was that he feared going into Siripongs’ record because it might allow evidence of his involvement in a burglary in Thailand.

But Schroeder said the trial judge tentatively barred evidence of the burglary. She said Spellman made “no attempt to humanize (Siripongs) before the jury” and failed to present evidence that would have improved his chances of a life sentence.

Judge Ferdinand Fernandez dissented. He said the accomplice defense was implausible, the available testimony from family members was “utterly unmoving,” and there were legitimate tactical reasons for the defense lawyer’s conduct.

Siripongs’ case was the only capital case from the state pending before the 9th Circuit Court, which overturned two California death sentences earlier this year.