Death Row Inmate Wins New Trial

A federal appeals court on Thursday reversed the murder conviction of an Oakland man who has been on death row for 15 years, ruling that he had been denied a fair trial because a woman got on the jury by lying about her family members’ history of involvement with the criminal justice system.

While the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has often been criticized by conservatives for overturning death sentences, the 7-4 decision in this case was written by Judge Alex Kozinski, a Ronald Reagan appointee who has frequently upheld death sentences.

The ruling grants a new trial to Alfred R. Dyer, who was convicted in 1983 of killing two people and wounding two others in a dispute over stolen jewelry. Kozinski’s decision overturned an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, as well as by several state courts in California.

Kozinski lashed out at juror Jessica Freeland for a series of “lies,” blasted the Oakland trial judge for what he termed an “ostrich-like” unwillingness to examine facts in the case and criticized the California Supreme Court for inadequately reviewing the entire matter.

Normally, a trial judge’s findings are entitled to deference, Kozinski acknowledged. But not in an extraordinary set of circumstances such as this, he ruled.

Freeland had been asked during the standard pretrial questioning of prospective jurors whether she or any of her relatives had ever been a crime victim or accused of any offense other than traffic cases. She responded no.

In reality, Freeland had been the victim of numerous burglaries and had been attacked at knifepoint, her brother had been murdered in a manner very similar to the killings in this case and her family had a long history with the law.

“Nearly every close relative of hers had been arrested,” Kozinski wrote: “Her husband for rape; her father for kidnapping; her uncle Jason for murder, and again for armed robbery; her brother Billy for possession of brass knuckles, and again for drug possession; her cousin Buddy for attempted rape of Freeland herself.”

It was conceivable that Freeland could have forgotten some of the incidents, Kozinski wrote, “but her failure to mention that any of her relatives had been accused of crime defies innocent explanation.”

Dyer’s constitutional rights were violated because “a juror, like Freeland, who lies materially and repeatedly in response to legitimate inquiries about her background introduces destructive uncertainties into the process,” he said.

His opinion was joined by one appointee of President George Bush--Thomas G. Nelson--and five judges appointed by Democratic presidents--James R. Browning, Betty B. Fletcher, Procter Hug Jr., Harry Pregerson and Stephen Reinhardt. All four dissenting judges--Melvin Brunetti, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and David R. Thompson--were appointed by Republican presidents.

The dissenters accused the majority of creating a new constitutional right and ignoring a Supreme Court ruling against applying newly minted rights retroactively in order to reverse sentences.

Kozinski retorted that the right to have a trial uninfected by a biased juror is hundreds of years old.

Under the dissenters’ logic, Dyer could have been lawfully convicted by a jury that included the prosecutor’s mother, the Oakland chief of police, the sister of one of the murder victims, “or the Grand Dragon of the Bay Area KKK . . . so long as they had all sworn they would be fair,” he wrote. “No reasonable jurist would take that position.”

Near the end of the decision, Kozinski noted that in “yet another bizarre twist,” Freeland got a job as a guard on San Quentin’s death row, where Dyer had been housed awaiting execution.

Later, Freeland became a parole agent “and on at least two occasions--in violation of prison regulations--she reviewed and photocopied” portions of Dyer’s confidential file to check on the status of his appeal.

“While it is hard to know what to make of these facts--they are too few in number to prove that Freeland was on a vendetta or had a particular interest in seeing Alfred Dyer executed--they certainly are not consistent with the picture of a model indifferent juror,” Kozinski wrote.

Oakland attorney John L. Burris, who first raised the juror bias issue at Dyer’s trial, said he felt vindicated.

“We’ve been trying for so long to get someone to hear the truth in this case,” added an elated Shelley Sandusky, one of Dyer’s appellate attorneys.

The California attorney general’s office had no immediate comment.