Prosecutors to Again Seek Death for Convicted Killer

The district attorney’s office will again seek the death penalty for Edward Charles III, who was convicted of murdering his parents and brother, a prosecutor said Wednesday.

The same jury that convicted the 23-year-old Fullerton mechanic of the 1994 triple murder deadlocked 11 to 1 last week in favor of sentencing Charles to death.

Deputy Dist. Atty. David Brent said the close vote played a large part in the decision to seek a second penalty trial. Guilt will not be at issue, only whether Charles should be executed or spend the rest of his life in prison without parole.

“We still feel [the death penalty] is appropriate and 11 other jurors felt the same way,” Brent said. “So, with that combination, we think it’s worth going ahead and doing it again.”

Superior Court Judge Everett W. Dickey previously set a March 1 hearing date to determine how to proceed with the case.

An attorney for Charles could not be reached for comment.

Dickey declared a mistrial in the first trial’s penalty phase Jan. 25 when jurors announced they were deadlocked.

The jury had found Charles guilty of first-degree murder for stabbing and bludgeoning his father, Edward Charles III, 55, a Hughes Aircraft engineer. They found him guilty of second-degree murder for the apparent strangulation of his mother, Dolores, 47, a self-employed typist; and the stabbing and bludgeoning of his brother, Danny, 19, a USC performing arts student.

All three were killed after a Sunday dinner in the family’s home in the Sunny Hills section of Fullerton. Their bodies were found Nov. 7, 1994, in a flaming car parked at a La Mirada school.

The defendant’s grandfather, who slept through the killings, said the second penalty phase would be a hardship for him and other relatives.

“It’s been a very tough year for me and there doesn’t seem to be any way out,” said Bernard Severino, 74, who has said he has no feelings one way or the other on what sentence his grandson should receive.

Several relatives, traveling from New York and Texas to testify during the penalty phase, had asked that Charles be spared the death penalty because they could not endure the death of another loved one.

Attorneys for the defendant contended the killings represented an “act of derailment” in Charles’ character and that life in prison without parole would be a harsh punishment for someone who had never been in trouble with the law.

Prosecutor Brent had said Charles was driven by hatred and sibling rivalry, and was not worthy of sympathy after showing no mercy for his own family.