Hair Analysis Causes Delay in Alvarez Murder Trial

A judge Thursday postponed the murder trial of David Alvarez to permit testing of four small hairs prosecutors hope could show that Alvarez had sexual contact with slain Oak View teen Kali Manley.

The ruling comes after defense attorneys complained they were being sandbagged by the prosecution, which knew about the potentially significant evidence 13 months ago but is just now having it tested.

The four hairs, collected three days after Manley was reported missing in December 1998, were taken from the carpet in Alvarez’s Ojai-area trailer and could bolster the prosecution theory that the defendant strangled the girl while trying to force her to have sex.

But the hairs, which authorities believe are from the 14-year-old victim and the 23-year-old defendant, were never tested to determine identity.

Last week, prosecutors notified the defense that they are now having those tests run at a DNA lab in Northern California, because the Ventura County sheriff’s crime lab was busy and had not had time to complete its analysis.

On Thursday, outraged defense attorneys accused the prosecution of blindsiding their client just days before the start of trial and sought a one-month postponement to obtain their own tests.

Defense attorney James M. Farley told Superior Court Judge Rebecca S. Riley that prosecutors have no physical evidence--such as semen or genital trauma--to support an allegation of attempted rape.

But the four hairs could prove significant in supporting the allegation, which with a murder conviction could send Alvarez to prison for life without possibility of parole.

“The problem here is all of a sudden on the eve of trial--voila!,” Farley said of the pubic hair evidence. “It’s the only thing that may point the finger that Mr. Alvarez may have been involved with attempted sexual contact with Kali Manley.”

Farley asked Riley to exclude the evidence entirely, saying the Ventura County Crime Lab, and thus the prosecution, had been negligent.

“They’ve had 13 months to do this,” he said.

But Riley said she would not exclude the evidence and told Alvarez’s lawyers she did not believe they were being sandbagged.

She did agree to postpone the trial to Feb. 21 so the defense could obtain its own DNA tests.

Asked to explain the delay in testing, Deputy Atty. Gen. Michael Katz said the crime lab had the hairs, which were lifted from the carpet on tape rolls, but had only two technicians qualified to analyze the hairs. Katz said the technicians were very busy and had not completed the work.

Katz argued that the trial should start on time because the prosecution’s tests would be returned by the end of next week. But he did not oppose the defense request for a postponement.

Alvarez is facing charges of murder and attempted rape, as well as a special-circumstance allegation that the murder was carried out during an attempted rape.

Manley, an Oak View resident, was reported missing Dec. 20, 1998, and her naked body was found a week later in a drainpipe in the mountains above Ojai. Alvarez led authorities to the scene.

Robert Miears, a friend of the defendant, told authorities that he, Alvarez and Manley were drinking together at the trailer the night before she disappeared.

Miears told a detective that Alvarez told him that night he planned to have sex with the girl.

On Thursday, Riley tentatively agreed to allow two of Alvarez’s ex-girlfriends to testify about alleged sexual assaults they say occurred when they were 14 and dating the defendant.

The defense contends the women, now 20, should not be allowed to testify because they are biased, scorned ex-girlfriends out to get Alvarez because he cheated on them with other women during their relationships.

Before issuing a final ruling, Riley allowed the defense to cross-examine the women--referred to only as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane No. 2--in court Thursday morning.

Jane Doe No. 1, a brunette with shoulder-length hair, told the judge she began dating Alvarez when she was 14 and living in the Ojai area. He was 16 at the time.

The couple dated off and on for 3 1/2 years, she testified, and during the relationship, she said, Alvarez forced her to have sex with him.

She also testified that Alvarez repeatedly cheated on her with other women--including her own mother--and plied her with drugs and alcohol.

Asked by defense attorney Robert Schwartz why she didn’t leave the relationship, the witness testified that she was “stupid and naive.”

“He was the first person I had sex with, the first person I did drugs with,” she testified. “He was introducing me to a way of life--I stuck around for that.”

Pressed by Schwartz to acknowledge a hatred for Alvarez, the woman said she doesn’t hate him.

Jane Doe No. 2 told a similar story.

A soft-spoken petite brunette who still lives in Ojai, she testified that she began dating Alvarez at the same time he was involved with Jane Doe No. 1.

In fact, she said, Jane Doe No. 1 once slapped her after learning that she had had sex with Alvarez.

Jane Doe No. 2 testified that she continued to have a relationship with the defendant for six months. During that time, she said, Alvarez would force himself on her sexually.

But she later admitted that she never told Alvarez no when he wanted to have sex. And when asked to describe how he forced himself on her, she said he “hugged and kissed” her.

“There were times I didn’t want to,” she said, “but I didn’t fight him.”

In court documents, Jane Doe No. 2 recalls an incident in which she said Alvarez held her against her will in a truck with childproof locks. Defense attorneys tried to discredit that statement Thursday, pointing out that Alvarez’s 1980 Chevy truck did not have childproof locks.

Riley delayed a final ruling on whether the women will testify until next week.