Lawyers Seek New Trial for Famalaro, Citing Publicity

Citing community “anger” and “hatred of the defendant,” attorneys for John J. Famalaro have asked an Orange County judge to grant a new trial for the man convicted of kidnapping, sexually assaulting and murdering Newport Beach resident Denise Huber.

In papers submitted to Orange County Superior Court, Famalaro’s attorneys wrote that the trial judge erred in refusing their request to hold the trial outside Orange County, where the case had been publicized, and in allowing the victim’s parents to testify about the impact the loss of their daughter had on their lives.

Famalaro, 40, is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge John J. Ryan on Friday. In June, the jury that convicted him recommended the death sentence.

Huber, 23, was missing for three years before her nude, handcuffed and bludgeoned body was discovered in a freezer stored in a moving truck parked outside Famalaro’s Arizona home. Her death became one of the county’s most notorious murder cases, and 1,200 people were called as potential jurors before the start of the trial last April.

Deputy public defenders Leonard Gumlia and Denise Gragg wrote that Famalaro “stood trial for his life before a jury chosen from a panel which was subjected to substantial and prejudicial pretrial publicity.”

They stated that 50% of potential jurors were excused for being biased against the defendant and that the jury pool heard some of its members voice the opinion that Famalaro should die and heard the same thing from friends and co-workers.

Some jurors, the attorneys also said, were not entirely sure that Famalaro was guilty of kidnapping and sodomy, circumstances that made Famalaro eligible for the death penalty.

They quoted one juror as saying in a post-trial interview: “I wanted to sleep on our [guilt-phase] verdicts, but others were worried some might change their minds.”

They also argued that the victim’s parents should not have been allowed to give so-called “impact testimony” during the penalty phase because the murder occurred in 1991, before such testimony was allowed in death-penalty trials.

The attorneys pointed out what they called mitigating factors, such as Famalaro’s lack of a criminal record and an unhappy childhood that resulted in manic behavior and depression.

Famalaro’s “history was one of trying to overcome these,” they wrote. “Along the way, many good deeds were performed. Ultimately, the defendant failed, but he poses no threat to anyone now in the structure of a prison setting.”

They also stated that Huber died quickly after she disappeared in June 1991.

“There was no prolonged suffering, other than for her family, which would have experienced great pain even if her body was quickly discovered,” they wrote.