Pratt Lawyers See Cause for Optimism

An Orange County Superior Court judge’s questions to a prosecutor Thursday left Elmer “Geronimo” Pratt’s lawyers and supporters optimistic that the imprisoned former Black Panther Party leader may be on the verge of winning a reversal of his murder conviction after nearly 27 years behind bars.

During final arguments in a hearing to determine if Pratt will get a new trial, consulting Los Angeles Deputy Dist. Atty. Harry Sondheim referred to what he called the “overwhelming evidence” against Pratt, especially eyewitness testimony.

But Judge Everett W. Dickey questioned just how overwhelming that evidence could have been to a jury that twice reported being deadlocked.

“Obviously, the jury was having difficulty,” Dickey said. “They didn’t consider it an overwhelming case” as far as the eyewitness identifications were concerned.

Dickey is presiding over what Pratt’s attorneys call the most complete hearing Pratt has been given since his conviction.

Final arguments had been scheduled for last month, but were postponed when Deputy Dist. Atty. Brentford J. Ferreira suffered a mild stroke. Ferreira has been unable to return to work, leaving Sondheim to argue for the district attorney’s office.

Pratt was convicted of the 1968 murder of schoolteacher Caroline Olsen and of critically wounding her husband during a robbery on a Santa Monica tennis court that netted $18.

A decorated Vietnam War veteran who had enrolled at UCLA, Pratt has steadfastly maintained his innocence. He said he was in Oakland attending Black Panther Party meetings when Olsen was slain. Moreover, he insists that the FBI knew he was in the Bay Area because agents had him and the Panthers under surveillance.

Pratt was tied to the killing by Julius C. “Julio” Butler, the primary target of Pratt’s lawyers in this hearing. A disgruntled former Panther who had also been a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff, Butler is now a high-ranking official in Los Angeles’ First African Methodist Episcopal Church.

Dickey did not say when he would rule on Pratt’s petition, but he indicated that it could be within the next two weeks.