Davis Denies Request for Clemency in First Death Penalty Ruling

In his first decision on the death penalty, Gov. Gray Davis on Saturday denied a clemency request by a Thai immigrant who is scheduled to be executed Tuesday for a 1981 double murder. Davis rejected numerous contentions raised by lawyers for Jaturun Siripongs, 43, who was convicted of the murders in 1983--verdicts that have been upheld by every state and federal court that has reviewed them, the governor noted in a 10-page decision.

“This is a plea for mercy by a man sentenced to forfeit his life for capital crimes,” Davis said, referring to the two murders committed during the robbery of a Garden Grove market.

“However, it is also a plea by innocent victims, their families, and friends to carry out a sentence imposed by a jury. . . . Remorse is not sufficient to satisfy a capital sentence for double murder,” said Davis, referring to the contention of Siripongs’ attorneys that he has frequently expressed regret about the slayings.

In addition to the court rulings, Davis also alluded to the fact that the State Board of Prison Terms last week recommended that he not commute the sentence.

During his gubernatorial campaign last year, Davis declared frequently that he supported and would enforce the death penalty. Siripongs’ plea could be the first of many that come before him and as such was widely watched.

There are 526 people on death row in California, and a growing number are nearing the end of the appeal process in the courts.

Davis’ statement denying the clemency plea quoted at length from letters sent to him by the son and daughter of the murdered market owner, Packovan Wattanaporn, passionately urging him to permit the execution to go forward.

Davis said that the son of murdered store clerk Nguyen Quach also opposed clemency. The governor acknowledged that Wattanaporn’s former husband “favors clemency on religious grounds only but not on the basis that Mr. Siripongs was not guilty or that the sentence was improperly imposed.”

In his letter, Wattanaporn’s son, Vitoon Harusandangkul, wrote that he and his sister, Vipa Harisdangkul, were adamant that Siripongs “should not be given the opportunity to continue with his life.”

Harisdangkul, who was 9 when her mother was murdered, wrote that “my intention is not to seek revenge, but to see that justice is done. . . . Governor Davis, I am pleading with you on behalf of my family members as well as myself to please do what is right so that my mother can finally rest in peace.”

In denying the first clemency request that came before him, Davis, a Catholic, rebuffed a strong plea to spare Siripongs’ life from Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles, who urged the governor not to use the death penalty “as a tool by which vengeance and revenge can be exacted and political advantage can be maintained.”

Davis did not refer to the cardinal’s letter in his decision.

The governor also rebuffed the plea of former San Quentin Warden Daniel Vasquez, who said that Siripongs had been a model prisoner.

“The fact that Mr. Siripongs may have been a model prisoner for 16 years while his duly imposed capital sentence has not been carried out is beside the central point--model behavior cannot bring back the lives of the two innocent murder victims. These capital crimes can only be satisfied by the duly imposed sentence.”

Jim Tanizaki, who heads the homicide unit of the Orange County district attorney’s office, said “our office is very pleased with Governor Davis’ decision because it respects the wishes of . . . [victims’] family members . . . expressing their opposition to clemency.” Tanizaki added that the governor’s action “once again upholds the verdicts in this case.”

Siripongs’ lawyers, Michael Laurence of San Francisco and Linda Schilling of Costa Mesa, said they were disappointed by Davis’ decision. However, they said they remained hopeful that Siripongs would obtain a stay of execution from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

A three-judge panel of that court is scheduled to hold a hearing today on Siripongs’ attorneys’ contentions that they should be permitted to conduct testing of blood and other evidence in order to prove someone else committed the murders.

Siripongs has long acknowledged that he robbed Wattanaporn’s market. But he has maintained for years that he did not strangle Wattanaporn or knife to death store clerk Nguyen. Siripongs said that his accomplice committed the murders, but he would not disclose the person’s name.

Schilling has been attempting for nearly a decade to get forensic tests performed that she says will prove Siripongs’ contention. In recently filed legal papers, Schilling and Laurence contend that the actual killer was Netnapa Vecharungsin, a woman who was the prosecution’s key witness against Siripongs at his trial. Laurence said the woman is now living in Thailand.

They also submitted declarations from a criminalist, based on recent tests, that blood found on Wattanaporn’s hand does not match either that of Siripongs or the murdered clerk, thus pointing toward “the presence of an accomplice who bled during the crime.”

In their motion for an emergency stay from the 9th Circuit, the attorneys contend that “the execution of such a defendant without fair or thorough consideration of evidence of innocence risks state complicity in unlawful homicide.”

The papers also contend that the prosecutors suspected that the accomplice had committed the murders and had permitted her to testify against Siripongs without disclosing their suspicions to the jury.

Davis, for his part, said that Siripongs’ claims that he did not commit the murders “have been considered time and again by many courts over the 16-year history of this case.” The governor said all the courts had concluded that the claim was without merit.