The Rush to Judge Avila

As a deputy public defender, Denise Gragg spends her professional life behind the eight ball, trying to convince juries to acquit people charged with crimes. Or, once they’re convicted, to punish them less severely than prosecutors want. It’s a daunting task, if only because even defense attorneys know that the vast majority of people brought to trial are guilty.

Gragg must be pulling out her hair these days. She’s representing Alejandro Avila, perhaps the most notorious murder suspect in the country, and she must have the feeling that most people would rather not bother with the man’s trial. After all, the Orange County sheriff and the district attorney both have said he’s guilty, and that apparently was enough for President Bush, who a week after Avila’s arrest publicly referred to him as “the killer” of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion.

Sheriff Michael S. Carona and Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas both have discussed the case on national TV. They’ve alluded to evidence that convinces them Avila is the man who abducted and killed Samantha.

Mind you, Gragg hasn’t seen any of it. The other side isn’t required to turn it over yet, so, naturally, it hasn’t. Like the rest of us, however, she’s certainly free to watch TV and learn that her client is guilty. My experience with Gragg over the years tells me she’s not a media hound, but the cries of “guilty!” against her client have her talking about a change of venue.

Can you blame her?

Play By the Rules

Does anybody play by the rules anymore? I need not recite all the violators from various walks of American life, but how many of you remember a day when someone arrested and charged with a crime wasn’t considered guilty until after a jury heard a little evidence?

Sounds almost quaint, doesn’t it?

I realize it’s possible that the sheriff and district attorney are sitting on a confession from Avila, who has pleaded not guilty. So far, however, we haven’t heard publicly that he confessed to anyone.

Authorities say DNA and other evidence will prove Avila’s guilt. For all I know, that evidence is air-tight.

If so, why am I going on so?

The big deal is, this isn’t how murder cases should be run. Yeah, I do live in the real world and know that all the old rules don’t exist anymore, but they should.

For argument’s sake, what if someone had information that would help in Avila’s defense? Would that person be discouraged from coming forward, having heard from the president on down that Avila is guilty?

Never a Mistake?

To accept the current playbook is to say that prosecutors or police never arrest the wrong guy. It’s to accept they never misread or misstate evidence.

It’s to give them credit for collaring the bad guy before they get a conviction.

Authorities said early on that Avila knew the Runnion neighborhood from experience. They say his car matched a description given by Samantha’s playmate.

I’ll suppose, as Gragg no doubt does, that the authorities have much more than that.

Their DNA evidence may be unassailable.

Or not.

Not to be old-fashioned, but that’s why we have trials. We have them to find out if there’s either a smoking gun or an unshakable alibi.

There’s much comfort to a community to know that a child-killer is in custody. I think that’s what drove Carona to be so emphatic in the first hours after Avila’s arrest.

But it has been three weeks since his arrest. Now should come the silent period between arrest and trial.

If only as a nod to our system of justice, we used to be patient enough to wait for a trial.

When did that go out of style?

*

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