Huber Case a Challenge to Defend or Prosecute : Courts: Circumstantial evidence of slaying looks bad for Famalaro, but some details could work in his favor.

It seems like a damning case: A long-missing Newport Beach woman turns up dead, her body nude and handcuffed in a locked freezer stowed away in a rental truck parked in the prime suspect’s driveway.

A search of that suspect’s home turns up keys to the handcuffs and the freezer, a box containing the woman’s clothing and personal effects from her purse, as well as yellowed newspaper clippings about her disappearance--even documents proving he rented the truck and bought the freezer.

But defense attorneys and criminal law authorities caution against assuming that prosecutors will have little difficulty proving John J. Famalaro, 37, of Dewey, Ariz., fatally bludgeoned Denise Huber, 23, then wrapped her corpse in plastic bags and kept her in a freezer for nearly three years.

“Just because he has the body doesn’t prove he did it. Just because evidence points in one direction doesn’t mean you can assume the person must be guilty,” said Orange County Deputy Public Defender Leonard Gumlia, before he unexpectedly became responsible for Famalaro’s defense and decided he should avoid further comment.

Gumlia is currently embarking on the most critical aspect of his case, experts say, mapping out a defense strategy that could run the gamut from self defense to an insanity plea to arguing that he was threatened by the real killer into keeping the horrible secret in the freezer.

As the case stands now, it’s a classic example of circumstantial evidence, say Famalaro’s original attorneys in Arizona and Sacramento Deputy Public Defender James R. Ramos, who handled a similar case several years ago.

Michael Schinkel, dubbed “Freezerman,” was convicted of first-degree murder in Sacramento in November, 1991, for killing his girlfriend during a heated fight, and carrying her body around in an unplugged freezer for almost five years.

“You can take a set of facts that seem to say, ‘Hey, this guy is guilty of everything,’ but to find him guilty, you would have make a leap and infer that that means he did it. But you still have no evidence of that,” said Ramos, whose client admitted to police that he killed the woman when she attacked him during an argument.

When jurors are faced with two reasonable interpretations of the facts, and one points to guilt and one points to innocence, jurors are bound by law to acquit the defendant, Ramos said.

But Yavapai County Deputy Counsel Thomas B. Lindberg, who was set to prosecute Famalaro in Arizona before he relinquished the case to Orange County prosecutors, said “I completely disagree” with that assessment. He points out that most murder cases are circumstantial: the key witness--the victim--is no longer alive to testify, and there are rarely first-hand, eyewitness accounts of a killing.

“I don’t think you’ll have a jury that says, ‘Oh, you have a body and there’s all this other evidence, but we’ll let you go because no one saw you do it,’ ” said Lindberg, adding that the evidence against Famalaro appears greater than in most murder cases.

Many who have been following the Huber murder case as it unfolded after Famalaro’s arrest say a troublesome point for prosecutors may be proving allegations that would make Famalaro eligible for the death penalty under California law.

Orange County prosecutors have filed charges alleging Huber was kidnaped and murdered. California law requires prosecutors to prove the murder took place during a kidnaping, sexual assault or in one of several so-called “special circumstances” before a convicted murderer can be sentenced to death.

Under Arizona law, prosecutors must only prove a killing was sufficiently “depraved and heinous” before seeking the death penalty, leading some to speculate it would be more difficult for California authorities to secure a death penalty conviction.

Huber, a 23-year-old UC Irvine graduate who was working as a waitress, was driving home from a concert in Inglewood in June, 1991, when a tire on her blue Honda Accord suffered a blowout on the Corona del Mar Freeway. She was never heard from again, but her parents launched a tireless public search for her whereabouts, making Huber’s name easily recognizable by many Orange County residents.

No witnesses have come forward to testify that Huber was kidnaped or ambushed by her attacker. The final results of an autopsy could lead to additional charges, but decomposition and the frozen condition of the body may forever conceal evidence of any possible sexual assault, officials said.

Huber’s personal belongings were found in Famalaro’s garage, but she was not stripped of rings and other jewelry. A savvy defense attorney could fight a robbery allegation by saying the items were taken after her death, or were in fact mementos of a macabre sort--not stolen goods.

Law enforcement officials say their “gut reaction” tells them Huber was too smart to fall for a stranger’s ploy in the middle of the night and she must have been abducted or lured from her crippled vehicle by a sophisticated ruse.

But they also admit that the gut instincts of even the most experienced detective do not equal convictions.

Costa Mesa Police Lt. Ron Smith said the discovery of blood in a Laguna Hills storage facility helps pinpoint the murder scene and indicates that Huber must have been abducted from the freeway.

While many criminal attorneys agree it will not be a simple case for prosecutors, they also say the defense has an uphill battle ahead.

How can Famalaro explain away a body in his freezer--which he apparently took pains to keep plugged in at all times--if he goes on trial?

Thomas K. Kelly and Warren Darrow, two Arizona defense attorneys who until recently were planning to defend Famalaro against Arizona murder charges, have declined to comment on what their strategy might have been had the case gone to trial in Yavapai County, where Famalaro was living at the time Huber’s body was discovered.

But legal motions filed in Yavapai County court late last week indicate they intended to scrutinize the prosecution’s case at every turn for evidence that police focused only on their client as a suspect--and may have doctored their notes to help prove their case.

It is anticipated that Kelly and Darrow will assist Gumlia as needed.

“I really think there are a limitless number of issues here for the defense to seize upon,” said one prominent Orange County defense attorney. “They could argue that other people had access to the freezer and lived at the home as well. They could try to point the finger at someone else, and (Famalaro’s) brother doesn’t have the best record in this area,” the attorney said.

But police say that, barring additional evidence, they have ruled out Warren Famalaro as a possible suspect. As an Orange County chiropractor, Warren was convicted more than a decade ago of sexually assaulting a young boy and a teen-age girl, both patients of his at the time.

John Famalaro’s first defense attorney, Lawrence W. Katz, seized upon some of these same ideas during a bail hearing.

Katz repeatedly questioned Lt. Scott Mascher of the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Department about whether authorities could prove that Famalaro knew the contents of the freezer.

He also questioned how Mascher could be sure Famalaro’s brother-in-law, Duane Thobe, had taken all his belongings when he moved from the house. Records show the home in which Famalaro lived is owned by Thobe.

Thobe’s civil attorney in Arizona, Eric Chester, became enraged when a reporter called to ask him about Katz’s comments.

“We will only do our explaining to the authorities,” he said, threatening to sue if any further questions were asked.

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella said the bizarre nature of the case could pave the way for an insanity defense--although he noted that such cases are rarely successful.

“It’s not simply a question . . . that a person did a bad thing, so he is guilty of all the charges,” Arenella said. “There remains the question of the person’s mental state at the time, and that’s an issue that could lead to an acquittal or a conviction of a less serious charge.”

William Thompson, professor of criminology, law and society at UC Irvine, said he expects psychiatric experts will be examining Famalaro before long.

Thompson said the prosecution may face difficulty proving premeditation and deliberation--elements needed for a first-degree murder conviction--especially since so much time has passed.

Both sides disagree on how the lapse of time between Huber’s disappearance and the unsettling use of the freezer and handcuffs will impact the case. Huber’s mouth and eyes were covered with cotton and sealed shut with duct tape.

For the prosecution, those elements can be used to argue premeditation and consciousness of guilt. For the defense, it could help in an insanity defense.

Both sides, however, say key evidence that could help their case may have been lost or destroyed over the years.

“Is it possible she died accidentally? It may not seem plausible, but remember the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the standard of proof is high,” Thompson said. “One can speculate on any number of defense theories to be advanced. He could argue it was in the heat of passion, after an argument. He could even argue self-defense. He tried to kidnap her, took her back to his place, in her struggle to get away she came after him with a knife, and he beat her to save himself.

“The prosecution will have to establish both the act and the mental state for the act,” Thompson said. “At this point, the defense will be looking at the evidence like it’s a chain-link fence, and wondering where the weak links are.”