Dally, Haun Plead Not Guilty at Arraignment

Michael Dally and Diana Haun pleaded not guilty Wednesday to charges that they kidnapped and murdered Dally’s wife of 14 years, and they denied special allegations that would make them eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

Dally, 36, and his girlfriend, Haun, 35, are accused of plotting and carrying out the brutal kidnap-slaying of Sherri Dally, who was abducted from the parking lot of a Ventura shopping center May 6.

The remains of the 35-year-old day-care operator, who had been stabbed and bludgeoned to death, were found June 1 in a ravine north of the city.

Dally and Haun, who have been having an adulterous affair for the last two years, formally denied the murder charges Wednesday at a joint arraignment.

Dressed in matching blue jail smocks, the two Oxnard grocery clerks said nothing to each other during the daylong court proceeding, letting their attorneys enter the pleas for them.

Sitting between his lawyers with his hands neatly folded in his lap, Dally showed no expression as Deputy Dist. Atty. Lela Henke-Dobroth charged him with killing his wife.

Haun stared at the prosecutor as she read the lengthy indictment, shaking her head in disagreement at one point.

Unlike their first court appearance last month, Dally and Haun rarely looked at each other. They quickly exchanged smiles during a court recess as Dally silently mouthed “Hi” to his girlfriend seated a few feet away.

The Ventura County Grand Jury indicted Dally and Haun on Nov. 15 for murder, kidnapping and several related charges and allegations that make this a capital case.

Prosecutors have alleged that Dally and Haun killed Sherri Dally for financial gain and while lying in wait, the two allegations that make each of them eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

Prosecutors have not decided whether to seek death, and Superior Court Judge Frederick A. Jones ordered them to make up their minds by Dec. 31.

Jones’ ruling was one of several decisions handed down Wednesday on motions filed in the case. Among them:

* Jones set separate trial dates for Dally and Haun, pending a decision later on whether they should be tried separately or together, as prosecutors are asking. Dally’s case is set for Feb. 3 and Haun’s trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 13.

* The judge agreed to modify a gag order after defense attorneys complained that it hamstrung them from responding to recent news reports on an alleged confession in the case. He also banned courtroom photography at future proceedings.

* Jones denied Dally bail.

* The judge tentatively agreed to allow defense attorneys to survey random jurors at the courthouse about their views on the case in an attempt to determine the amount of pretrial publicity.

In another motion, prosecutors asked Jones to grant a joint trial for Dally and Haun, who were arrested at different times but are charged with the same offenses. They are also seeking to combine the trial dates and set the case for Feb. 3.

But Dally’s attorneys requested that the joint-trial motion be postponed to give them more time to investigate the case.

“We have not had adequate time to review all of the police reports,” said Dally’s attorney, James Farley. Co-counsel Willard P. Wiksell added that the case is an unusual one that warrants careful and thorough investigation.

“It is not routine compared to any normal case we have had,” Wiksell said.

Jones agreed to postpone a ruling on the joint-trial motion until Dec. 18.

Farley and Wiksell also objected to the scheduled Feb. 3 trial date, telling the judge that it was too soon.

“The chances of we being ready are almost impossible,” Farley argued. Jones set the matter for trial on Feb. 3 nonetheless, acknowledging that there could be delays.

By contrast, Haun’s attorneys urged Jones to set the earliest possible court date--Jan. 13.

“I am concerned about the addition of a new party in this action that will delay Ms. Haun’s trial,” Deputy Public Defender Neil Quinn said.

Later in the day, defense attorneys asked that the previously imposed gag order be lifted, arguing that it had prohibited them from responding to a recent newspaper article reporting that Dally had confessed to the murder to a friend.

“That confession never existed in the first place, but it still rests in some people’s minds,” Farley said, arguing that the gag order be rescinded. He said attorneys should be able to rebut statements “to take the sting” out of such accusations.

Over the objections of prosecutors who asked that the gag order remain, Jones agreed to lift it--but with a few caveats. He ordered each team of attorneys to designate a spokesperson who would be the only one to comment on the case.

“I want some accountability here,” Jones said.

Despite the gag order being lifted, defense attorneys remained tight-lipped about evidence in the high-profile case. Farley, the designated spokesman for Dally’s defense, had no comment.

Quinn also declined to comment on aspects of his client’s case but said he plans to issue a statement today.