Woman Tries to Recant Guilty Plea

On the eve of her sentencing, Jo Lula Haynes, the 75-year-old grandmother who two months ago admitted gunning down her former son-in-law after he won a bitter custody dispute, is trying to withdraw her guilty plea to second-degree murder.

When she entered the plea Nov. 30--midway through her trial in Van Nuys--attorneys said family members were divided by Haynes’ decision, motivated in part by her wish to spare her granddaughters the pain and embarrassment of testifying about alleged child abuse and molestation.

Court papers filed this week by W. Ronald Seabold, a new lawyer hired by Haynes’ daughters, Pamela and Elisabeth, contend that Haynes was sick, sleep-deprived and under the influence of 15 different medications when she entered the guilty plea.

The documents state that Haynes did not understand that she could face a 19-year sentence, “which, for this 75-year-old woman, with her health problems, is virtually a death sentence.”

If, after a hearing, Superior Court Judge Bert Glennon Jr. finds no legal basis for Haynes to withdraw her plea, she will be sentenced as scheduled on Wednesday.

“I expect the sentencing will go forward,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Carole Chizever said. “I think it’s just a delay tactic.”

According to testimony during the trial, Haynes fired three .38-caliber shots into Kenneth Lisi, a 43-year-old Walt Disney Co. executive, as Lisi picked up his daughters on Halloween night, 1993. Haynes occupied a granny unit behind the house on Louise Avenue.

Lisi’s parents, Ernest and Fay, were eyewitnesses to the shooting. They could not be reached.

Ten days before he died, Lisi had won custody of the children after a bitter divorce ended his 15-year marriage to Haynes’ daughter, Pamela. During the custody battle, Pamela Lisi alleged that her former husband had molested and abused their youngest daughter, then 4. After his death, Pamela Lisi received more than $600,000 in insurance proceeds.

Haynes is scheduled for a medical examination Sunday by a gerontologist to determine whether, among other ailments, she might be suffering from senility, which could have impeded her ability to understand her right to a jury trial.

The court papers note that Haynes “nodded off during the trial on at least one occasion,” suffered from bronchitis, had difficulty breathing, ran a fever and has problems with short-term memory.

“This evidence suggests that Ms. Haynes might not have been mentally capable of understanding the nature of the charges and penalties that she faced, and therefore might not have have knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently pleaded guilty,” the motion states.

The court papers also contend that Haynes’ former lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Michael M. Duffey, provided ineffective counsel to Haynes. The documents allege that Duffey did not thoroughly investigate the case, particularly a defense that Haynes “had an actual and reasonable belief that the decedent had abused defendant’s grandchildren and would continue to do so in the immediate future.”

Duffey could not be reached. “Not true,” said prosecutor Chizever regarding the criticism of Duffey’s trial preparation and performance.

“I have his list of defense witnesses. I know the motion that was before the court over who could testify and who could not,” said Chizever in Duffey’s defense.

“Mike Duffey had talked with [Haynes] a lot about that plea. She met with the family members in the jury room beforehand, which is never allowed. It was the plea she wanted.”