Advertisement

Children’s Testimony in Case Assailed

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

Court-appointed attorneys for most of convicted murderer Marco Barrera’s children said Wednesday they were outraged prosecutors had called three of his sons and a daughter as witnesses whose testimony helped secure the death penalty for their father.

The two advocates and other child experts said prosecutors in their zeal to obtain a death verdict may have caused lasting psychological harm to the four children, including 8- and 10-year-old boys.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Commissioner Donna Groman has scheduled a special hearing for next week to examine why the children were called in support of the death sentence. Court officials declined to comment further on the hearing.

Advertisement

Barrera was convicted of killing two of his 14 children and burying them in Angeles National Forest. A jury Wednesday recommended he be executed by lethal injection. Final sentencing is next month.

“These children are going to have to deal with the ramifications of their testimony for the rest of their lives,” said Val Valle, a lawyer for some of Barrera’s children. “I wonder how much the children [realized] what they were doing.”

Neither Valle nor Lisa Mandel, an attorney for some of the other Barrera children, were consulted by Deputy Dist. Atty. Carolyn McNary before their clients were brought into court Monday to testify against their father during the penalty phase of his trial, the advocates said.

“I am so upset,” Mandel said. “Is the D.A.’s office going to pay for the lifetime of therapy these kids are going to need?. . . . This is over the top.”

McNary did not return calls seeking comment, but the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office defended her actions.

“I would imagine [the children] were more traumatized by their living conditions than having to testify against their dad,” spokeswoman Jane Robison said.

Advertisement

The foreman of the Barrera jury, Shadow Hills money manager Bob Moore, said none of the jurors seemed bothered by the prosecutor putting the children on the stand.

“I thought Ms. McNary handled a very difficult situation very well,” said Moore, a former prosecutor in Stockton.

McNary did not directly ask the children whether Barrera should die, but posed “reasonable” questions such as whether they wanted to see their father in the future or have their grandchildren know him, Moore said.

Moore also said he believed the children “were treated very responsibly by the lawyers.”

Children often testify against a parent, especially if the child is an eyewitness to a crime. Last year in San Fernando Superior Court, a teenage boy testified against his mother, Sandi Nieves, later convicted and sentenced to death in the arson killings of her four daughters.

But Nieves’ son was not called to testify against his mother in the penalty phase. “We decided we didn’t want to do it. It wasn’t necessary,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Ken Barshop, who declined comment on the Barrera case.

Legal experts, including some prosecutors, said they did not know of another case where a child had testified against a parent in the penalty phase of a capital murder trial.

Advertisement

In the Barrera case, the young sons, a 14-year-old daughter and a 20-year-old son, testified for the prosecution, which urged the father’s death. The 8-year-old spoke haltingly on the stand and repeatedly replied “I don’t know” to questions.

The children’s testimony “was voluntary,” Robison said. “One of the foster mothers called to say one of the children really wanted to testify.”

But others said the advocates had reason to worry about the long-term effect on the children.

“It could complicate the children’s psychological recovery from their trauma,” said Dr. Charles Grob, director of the child psychiatry division of Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.

Frank Ochberg, former associate director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said: “When the choice is between an effective life sentence and a death sentence, we don’t need the state trying to win emotional points by appealing to young people to influence a sentence.”

*

Times staff writer Richard Fausset contributed to this story.

Advertisement