Judge Denies Venue Move in Alvarez Murder Trial

In a setback to the defense, a judge has denied a request for a change of venue in the murder trial of David Alvarez and agreed to allow two women who dated him as teens to testify that he forced them to have sex.

The rulings are among four handed down Thursday by Superior Court Judge Rebecca S. Riley that are expected to broaden the focus of Alvarez’s upcoming trial on murder and attempted rape charges.

Alvarez, 23, is accused of strangling 14-year-old Oak View teen Kali Manley during an alleged sexual assault at his Ojai-area trailer Dec. 20, 1998.

Manley disappeared from a girlfriend’s house about midnight Dec. 19 and was reportedly seen soon after with Alvarez and his friend, Robert Miears, at a convenience store.

Miears later told authorities that he, Alvarez and Manley drank wine coolers at the trailer, and then Alvarez and the girl went into a bedroom.

Manley’s naked body was found a week later in a drainpipe in the mountains above Ojai. It was Alvarez who led authorities to the scene and ended a community-wide search for the missing girl.

On Thursday, Alvarez’s lawyers urged Riley to grant their request for a change of venue, arguing that publicity surrounding the search and subsequent criminal proceedings has tainted the local jury pool.

Defense attorney James M. Farley said it would “boggle his mind” if any Ojai Valley resident claimed to have never heard about the case.

“I would have to take that with a pound of salt--not a grain,” Farley argued.

But Deputy Atty. Gen. Michael Katz told Riley that the trial should remain in Ventura County because it does not involve sensational issues or well-known members of the community.

While acknowledging the case has generated much publicity, Katz said the county is large enough--with a population of more than 700,000--that a panel of impartial jurors could be found.

“If you add up all the articles--some of which have been favorable to the defense--this is not the case to change venue,” Katz said.

Riley agreed, but told the lawyers that she would reconsider her ruling if they have difficulty finding open-minded jurors.

Riley rejected a second defense motion that sought to separate a terrorist-threats charge involving a second alleged victim--Kim Schmeltz --who contends Alvarez threatened her at the same convenience store in which he was seen with Manley.

And the judge agreed to let prosecutors present evidence that Alvarez and the Schmeltz family have a long-standing feud that allegedly boiled over into two angry confrontations.

But the ruling that may have the greatest effect on the trial was Riley’s decision to allow the defendant’s ex-girlfriends to testify that he sexually assaulted them while dating them as teenagers.

By suggesting Alvarez is violent with girls who resist his sexual advances, the testimony could bolster the prosecution’s theory that Alvarez killed Manley during an attempted rape.

Alvarez’s lawyers have objected to the proposed evidence. They say the two women--who testified at a recent hearing--are biased against their client and can’t be trusted to tell the truth.

The women, referred to only as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, each testified that they dated Alvarez when they were 14. One woman dated him for three years, one for six months.

The women said Alvarez, at times, forced them to have sex by holding them down. But one of the women acknowledged that she never told Alvarez that she didn’t want to have sex with him.

Alvarez’s lawyers say any testimony about alleged sex crimes that were never reported to police will create a “mini-trial” within the murder trial that will only confuse and prejudice the jury.

But Riley said such evidence is admissible. She disagreed that the women’s testimony would consume a large amount of the jury’s time.