Emotional Solomona Case Involves Much Retrial-and-Error Thinking

By the time you read this, Pete Solomona will have learned whether Orange County will retry him for murder. High drama and big stakes normally are reserved for jury verdicts, but this is a decision that carries the same potential down the road.

This morning’s courtroom scene, scheduled for 8:30, is expected to be short and to the point: Should there be a third trial for Solomona, who shot a teenager to death in a car outside his house after the teen and two buddies swiped a Halloween pumpkin from Solomona’s lawn?

As much as any in recent memory, the case has tormented everyone associated with it.

The pain Brandon Ketsdever’s parents have felt has spilled out, both as overwhelming emotional suffering and anger. They insist that Solomona pay for what he did.

The Solomona family has its own set of emotions. The 50-year-old Buena Park resident had no history of legal problems until that October night in 1999, when he reacted to what many people would call a Halloween prank. He says he approached Ketsdever’s car, but only to scare the boy and his two friends--not shoot them with the .357 magnum he’d brought from the house. He says the gun went off accidentally.

I won’t predict what the district attorney will do, but here’s my give-and-take on the decision:

Why Solomona should be retried: A 17-year-old died because Solomona stormed into the street with a loaded gun and pointed it at the boy’s head.

Why he shouldn’t: There never would have been a confrontation had the boys not stolen the Halloween decoration. As such, Solomona doesn’t deserve to go to prison, possibly for the rest of his life, if convicted.

Why he should: His first jury returned a guilty verdict. It was overturned, however, because the judge later decided he didn’t give the jury proper instructions on Solomona’s state of mind.

Why he shouldn’t: He already has had two trials. It isn’t fair to continue to look for a jury just to find one that will convict him. At his second trial, three jurors held out against a murder conviction.

Why he should: Society needs to send a message that people shouldn’t rush out angrily into the street with a loaded weapon.

Why he shouldn’t: Solomona had a right to defend himself against a perceived threat.

Why he should: A juror in Solomona’s second trial says he thinks a third trial is warranted.

Why he shouldn’t: That same juror says, “I think it will be tough to get 12 people to agree” on a verdict.

Why he should: Even if jurors can’t agree on second-degree murder, they might agree on lesser charges.

Why he shouldn’t: The nine jurors who favored a murder conviction in his second trial wouldn’t compromise on lesser charges.

Why he should: The Ketsdever family deserves justice for Brandon’s death.

Why he shouldn’t: Because neither jury found that Solomona intended to shoot Ketsdever, the incident will always be seen as a tragic accident and jurors will be reluctant to return a murder verdict.

I don’t know if there’s a public consensus on this case. It surprised me that the second jury deadlocked and couldn’t agree, even at minimum, on a manslaughter conviction.

That said, I generally don’t like multiple prosecutions on the same charges. If a prosecutor can’t prove the charges at trial, that should be it.

But then I go around the next bend. I can’t shake the belief that Solomona is guilty of something serious and doesn’t deserve a reprieve, except under one condition: that the Ketsdever family tells the district attorney’s office it doesn’t want to go through another trial.

Some families would do that and find a way to make peace in ways that a conviction may not bring.

A tough call all the way around, but on the question of should he or shouldn’t he. . . .

He should.

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821; by writing to him at The Times’ Orange County edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626; or by e-mail at dana.parsons@latimes.com.