Judge Rejects Haun Defense Claim of Bias in Death Penalty Cases

A defense attorney’s contention that Ventura County prosecutors exercise racial and gender bias when seeking the death penalty was rejected Monday by a judge who told attorneys for Michael Dally and Diana Haun that their legal brief was statistically flawed.

But Superior Court Judge Frederick A. Jones said the attorneys could do more research and bring back the motion, aimed at eliminating the special circumstances that make the pair eligible for the death penalty.

“It seems to me that the homework hasn’t been done here,” Jones said. “And that is not to say you haven’t tried.”

As part of his ruling, Jones ordered prosecutors to turn over a list of all death penalty cases prosecuted in Ventura County since Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury took office in 1977.

Outside the courtroom, Deputy Public Defender Neil B. Quinn said he would probably file a new motion after conducting further research.

“We are continuing to refine our data,” he said. “If it is still a supportable motion, we will file it.”

Last month, Quinn filed a 27-page motion accusing prosecutors of allowing the race and gender of homicide victims to influence decisions on who should face the death penalty and who should not.

Quinn argued that such biases have affected his client, Diana Haun, who is accused of killing Sherri Dally, a white woman. Attorneys for Michael Dally, also accused in the slaying, joined Quinn in his motion.

*

In his brief, Quinn cited statistics, gathered by a law clerk, that he says show Ventura County prosecutors are more likely to seek the death penalty if the victim is a white woman than if the victim is a Latino male.

Sherri Dally, a 35-year-old homemaker, was abducted May 6 from the parking lot of a Ventura shopping center. Her stabbed and beaten remains were found June 1 in a ravine north of the city.

Haun, 35, of Port Hueneme, and Michael Dally, 36, of Ventura, are charged with murder and kidnapping. They face additional allegations that the slaying was committed while lying in wait, and for financial gain.

According to the defense study, in the last 10 years, the death penalty has been sought five out of six times in the county when the victim was a white woman but never when the victim was a Latino man.

But in their response to his motion, prosecutors said Quinn’s studies were inaccurate.

They pointed to the case of Sheriff’s Deputy Peter J. Aguirre, a Latino man, who was killed on duty July 17. The district attorney is seeking the death penalty against Aguirre’s accused murderer--a case not included in Quinn’s analysis.

In addition, prosecutors said the motion improperly cites cases involving juvenile defendants, incorrectly cites a case involving a black victim, and is misleading in its overall findings.

When deciding to seek the death penalty, Deputy Dist. Atty. Peter D. Kossoris argued in court Monday, “The district attorney has used rational criteria unrelated to gender and race.”

*

During the hearing, Jones noted several murder cases he said were either omitted or incorrectly cited in Quinn’s motion.

“These statistics are of little value to this court,” he said, explaining that he was not prepared to hear arguments on the abstract issue of race, gender and the death penalty until the statistics supporting those claims were better researched.

Quinn said defense attorneys relied on news reports and their own records to compile the statistics, and that they could draw a more accurate picture with additional information provided by prosecutors.

“We do the best we can with publicly available data,” Quinn said at the start of Monday’s hearing. “We have started that process, and the court is correct that it is not complete.”

Quinn asked Jones to order prosecutors to turn over materials such as written memos about death penalty eligible cases and trial strategy.

But Kossoris, who prepared the prosecution’s response to Quinn’s motion, said defense attorneys were not entitled to such confidential information.

Jones told prosecutors to provide the list of defendant names, but did not order them to turn over confidential materials.