Admission by D.A. May Aid Defense of Killer

An admission Thursday by the district attorney’s office may aid the defense of a convicted killer now in prison for the 1996 execution-style slaying of a sheriff’s deputy.

The district attorney’s office acknowledged that two prosecutors had improperly failed to reveal evidence that would have helped Michael Raymond Johnson’s defense during his 1998 trial in the fatal shooting of Sheriff’s Deputy Peter J. Aguirre Jr.

“This is evidence that could have had a tremendous impact on the case,” Assistant Public Defender Neil Quinn said. “But now that’s something that will have to be handled on appeal.”

The agreement came during a contempt hearing in Santa Barbara for prosecutors Maeve Fox and Matt Hardy, prompting the public defender’s office to drop its contempt claim against the veteran prosecutors.

Public Defender Ken Clayman, who attended the hearing, said he was satisfied with the prosecutor’s stipulation, which states that “at minimum” the prosecutors should have provided evidence regarding Johnson’s mental stability to the judge.

The judge, both sides say, could have then decided whether the information should have been passed along to defense attorneys.

The evidence is a memo from psychologist Daniel A. Martell, who concluded that Johnson, 51, was mentally ill. The argument buttressed the defense case, which argued that Johnson was a schizophrenic suffering from a paranoid delusion when he shot Aguirre, 26, who was answering a domestic disturbance call at Johnson’s estranged wife’s home in Meiners Oaks.

A document prepared by County Counsel Stephen Stark showed that Fox did not want Martell to testify, though the prosecution listed Martell as a witness. Fox believed the psychologist would only be used as a consultant on how to handle cross-examination of defense witnesses, and as a result did not believe his findings should be subject for review by the defense.

Martell, Fox warned Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Ron Janes, “may come to an unfavorable opinion, which we would have to disclose,” Stark’s brief said.

Among his statements, Martell called Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski “pretty normal” in comparison with defendant Johnson, and said the prosecution’s two expert witnesses were wrong when they failed to diagnose Johnson with schizophrenia.

In a prepared statement, Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury called Hardy and Fox “dedicated and principled lawyers” and added he was happy to see the contempt action dismissed. Hardy is no longer with Bradbury’s office.

But Bradbury also acknowledged the prosecutors should have tried to reveal Martell’s findings.

“The better practice would have been to provide the information to the defense or the court for an independent review,” Bradbury said.

Part of the agreement between the district attorney’s office and the public defender’s office requires prosecutors to receive additional training on the issue of discovery.

“Our main goal was to make sure this doesn’t happen again,” Quinn said. “They say the issue was murky. We don’t feel it was murky. Clearly this information should have been given to a judge. We don’t want to see this happen in any other case.”

Although he admitted his office’s error, Bradbury wouldn’t say the verdict against Johnson should be overturned.

“Although this issue will undoubtedly be raised on appeal, we believe the verdicts against Mr. Johnson were properly imposed and remain confident the court will affirm his conviction and sentence,” he said.