Juror’s Spiritual Query Threatens Charles Sentence

A juror’s quest for spiritual guidance during a trial’s deliberations threatened Friday to topple a death penalty sentence and raised ethical questions about balancing faith and civic duty.

Defense attorneys for Edward Charles III demanded a mistrial after a juror testified that he “needed inspiration” when considering whether the Fullerton mechanic should receive a death sentence for killing his parents and younger brother.

The juror, identified in court papers as Robert Sumarsono, said he consulted a church member during deliberations about whether Christians should be involved in decisions involving death, attorneys said. The church member directed him to Old Testament scriptures, the juror said, and Sumarsono changed his vote from undecided to endorsing the death penalty for the 23-year-old defendant.

The juror’s testimony before Orange County Superior Court Judge Everett W. Dickey on Friday was closed to the public. Reached at his Anaheim home Friday night, Sumarsono declined to comment on the proceeding or his actions. “I don’t want to make a public statement,” he said. “This was not a pleasant experience.”

In researching the legal issues involved, defense lawyers said they found no similar cases where a jury member admitted seeking religious counseling during trial deliberations.

The defense contends the outside “research” amounted to misconduct and should result in a new penalty phase trial for Charles.

“This [consultation] was completely a product of this decision he had to make, which was clearly bothering him,” Deputy Public Defender Ronald E. Klar said.

Judge Dickey was scheduled Friday to review the jury’s recommendation of death for Charles and impose a sentence. The judge postponed sentencing, saying the juror’s actions violated court instructions against consulting with outside sources during deliberations.

Dickey, however, said he needed further legal study to determine if the action caused improper influence on the verdict. The judge is expected to rule Monday on the defense’s request, which could affect the penalty portion of the case, but would not alter Charles’ conviction on three counts of murder.

Deputy Dist. Atty. David Brent said there is no evidence the consultation legally prejudiced the jury’s death penalty verdict, or that the juror failed to follow the law in reaching his decision.

“Assuming that a juror was told that as a Christian he could impose the death penalty, this did little more than confirm that he was death qualified,” the prosecutor argued in court papers.

“It did nothing to compel [the juror] to choose any particular penalty. It was as if he was told that blue is a color.”

The unusual misconduct allegations are the latest snag in the murder case against Charles. The mechanic sat through two penalty phase trials before a second jury--the panel that included Sumarsono--reached a unanimous verdict on whether he should receive the death penalty or spend the rest of his life in prison with no parole.

Jurors wept in April as they recommended death for Charles, saying the horrors of his family’s slaying in November 1994 outweighed appeals by surviving relatives to spare the young man’s life.

A previous jury found Charles guilty of triple murder charges, but deadlocked during the trial’s penalty phase 11-1 in favor of execution.

Charles was convicted of stabbing and bludgeoning his father, Edward Charles II, 55, a Hughes Aircraft engineer; strangling his mother, Dolores, 47, a self-employed typist; and stabbing and beating his brother Danny, 19, a promising opera singer in his second year at USC.

The victims were killed after a Sunday pasta dinner in the family’s home in the affluent Sunny Hills area of Fullerton. The parents’ nude bodies were found on top of each other the next night in a car ablaze at a La Mirada school. Danny Charles had been stuffed in the trunk.

The prosecution contended Charles was driven by hate and jealousy when he killed his family.

Charles denied involvement in the slayings. His lawyers argued that the killings were an “act of derailment” in his character and life in prison would be harsh enough sentence for someone who had never been in trouble with the law.

In testimony and an interview with defense investigators, juror Sumarsono said he did not discuss details of the case with a church member, but that he had sought advice about making “life and death decisions and the topic of an eye for an eye, in other words, the death penalty,” according to the defense motion for a new penalty trial.

“He indicated to the investigator that the person he discussed this with gave God’s instructions to Moses as an example for it being OK to make such a decision,” Klar and Deputy Public Defender Mark Davis wrote in the motion.

The jury forewoman, in a court declaration, said it became clear during the deliberations that Sumarsono “needed to work out how his decision related to his spiritual beliefs.”

“He communicated he needed the weekend [the period between March 29 and April 2] to think and pray about his decision,” Susan Lansdon wrote. “During deliberations, upon returning from the above weekend recess, Mr. Sumarsono related that he was ready to make a decision. [He] related to the jurors, during deliberations, in the jury room, that he had received spiritual guidance.”

Lansdon said she was concerned upon learning Sumarsono had sought guidance from an outside source, but that he assured the jury he had not said anything about the case, or that he was even involved on a death penalty case.

The jury returned with its verdict in favor of a death sentence the next day.

While appellate courts have prohibited jurors from carrying Bibles into the jury room for consultation, other issues involving moral guidance outside deliberations remain a “gray area” legally, said David Biggs, a criminal law professor at Western State University College of Law.

“A juror cannot bring any outside influence into the jury’s deliberations,” Biggs said. “However, a juror certainly can use his common sense and his common experience.”

Several ethics and religion observers said the juror’s actions pose unique questions.

Corrine Bayley, the senior vice president of St. Joseph Health System, which operates nine hospitals, and a noted ethicist who spent 29 years as a nun in the Order of St. Joseph’s, said this particular case seemed to lean more toward the legal arena than the religious world.

“Certainly, with spiritual or moral issues like this, this man has the right to have these questions,” Bayley said. “The question, though, is does his seeking guidance on the matter materially affect his role as a juror? And that is a legal question.”

Bayley said the routine polling of jurors on their views of capital punishment typically filters out people grappling with the spiritual implications of state execution.

“When they asked this man he must have said he thought he could consider” the death penalty, Bayley said. “Does he have the right to reexamine that view? Yes, clearly he does, of course.”

Less clear, she said, is whether seeking spiritual guidance on the larger issue of taking a life violated the juror’s pledge not to discuss the capital offense case he sits in judgment on. Bayley said the juror seemed to be seeking help with a “matter of conscience” and not religion, so the communication should “not be more protected than others.”

Rabbi David Eliezrie of the North Orange County Chabad Center said the juror’s actions would make for an interesting topic at the next National Conference on Jewish and Contemporary Law, which he organizes in Orange County each year.

“It seems to me to be about this man’s moral dilemma, and it’s a very interesting case,” Eliezrie said. “He is trying to resolve the issue of whether he can take a life, to resolve the spiritual conflicts within himself. If he didn’t discuss the specifics of the case, if he’s talking about this issues in general, then I don’t think that’s improper.”

Eliezrie was quick to point out that he only had general details about the juror’s situation and no firm grasp on the law binding jurors. “Still, I don’t think he did anything terribly wrong. If he went seeking moral direction on the broader concept of death, I think that’s fine.”