Advertisement
Share

Prosecutors’ Puzzle: When to Try, Try Again

TIMES STAFF WRITER

The first time Carlos Burns was tried for attempted murder, the case ended in a mistrial when a sole juror held out for acquittal.

So prosecutors retried Burns, who is now 21, for allegedly shooting a man in the leg. This time, the majority voted not guilty--8 to 4--and another mistrial was declared.

Legal experts say it is usually more difficult to win a conviction with each successive trial. But Los Angeles County prosecutors nonetheless decided to try the street gang member a third time. The jurors were again split, 6 to 6, when the judge declared a mistrial because of evidence issues.

At that point, Burns’ lawyer declared that enough was enough. “If their case was so good, they should have won it the first time,” defense attorney Juanita McLean told the judge.

Advertisement

But since a unanimous verdict had not yet been reached, double jeopardy protection did not apply. And prosecutors, confident that Burns was guilty, decided to try him yet again.

The fourth time was the charm. Burns was convicted of attempted murder and is due to be sentenced to up to life in prison.

The Burns case illustrates the tug-of-war between prosecutors who are determined to win a conviction against people they believe are guilty and defense attorneys who believe their clients should not be tried over and over.

Trying 1 Defendant 4 Times Is Rare

Although prosecutors routinely try cases twice, and occasionally even three times, when jurors deadlock, it is rare to try a defendant four times. And it is even rarer for prosecutors to be so persistent in a case that does not involve a murder, lawyers and judges said.

“I think it’s unusual, but certainly not unprecedented,” said Supervising Criminal Judge Dan Oki, though he could not comment specifically on the Burns case.

In deciding whether to allow a fourth--or even fifth--trial to move forward, Oki said, judges consider several factors, including the seriousness of the crime, whether prosecutors have additional evidence and the cost of trying a particular case. It runs more than $9,000 a day to operate a courtroom, said Kyle Christopherson, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

With every trial, the likelihood of winning a conviction diminishes, because witnesses are no longer available or their recollections dim, attorneys said. In addition, at that point, defense attorneys have had several dress rehearsals and may know the best ways to attack the prosecution’s case.

Advertisement

As a result, prosecutors usually decide to offer a plea bargain, because they don’t believe they will get a jury to reach a guilty verdict in another trial, said Peter Keane, dean of Golden Gate University Law School.

Although there is no law preventing repeat prosecutions, Keane said trying someone more than two or three times raises ethical questions. Prosecutors have a duty only to try cases if they firmly believe they can convince jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, he said.

“After three trials, it is very difficult for a prosecutor to ethically justify another prosecution,” he said.

Keane said he represented a defendant in a capital murder case in which jurors deadlocked twice. Instead of trying the case a third time, prosecutors allowed his client to plead guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter, he said.

Advertisement

Diane L. Karpman, an attorney who specializes in legal ethics, agreed that devoting public resources to trying someone over and over “is very questionable.” In such cases, attorneys may have become overly zealous.

“That many times, you wonder if the lawyer has crossed over and gotten too emotional,” she said.

Type of Crime Is Key, Says Former D.A.

On the other hand, Karpman said, prosecutors should not give up on cases if the alleged crime is egregious.

Advertisement

Former Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Robert Philibosian says prosecutors have to carefully consider the type of crime when deciding whether to go forward. “Attempted murder is still a very serious crime,” he said.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Jose Arias succinctly explained his reason for trying the Burns case a fourth time: “I believe to the best of my ability that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

On Dec. 1, 1999, two men were walking on 53rd Street just east of Normandie Avenue in South-Central Los Angeles. A red car drove by, made a U-turn and backed into an alley. The passenger of the car fired at the two men, missing one and hitting the other in the knee, according to police.

The driver, Omar Camacho, was arrested that night after a car pursuit by LAPD officers. Camacho told police that the shooter, who fled on foot, was a Rolling 40s gang member named Carlos. Police made wanted signs with Burns’ picture on them, leading to his arrest two months later.

Advertisement

Camacho and Burns were each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit murder and two counts of attempted murder, along with a special allegation that the crime was committed to benefit a street gang.

In the first trial, which began in March 2001, Camacho took the stand in his own defense, telling jurors that Burns threatened him and forced him to drive. The jury acquitted Camacho on all counts and found Burns not guilty of conspiracy. They deadlocked on the attempted murder charges against Burns, with all but one juror voting for guilt. The judge declared a mistrial.

In the second trial, which began that November, Camacho again took the stand and testified against Burns. The jury deadlocked again.

The third trial took place in March 2002. Camacho did not testify, but both attorneys referred to him in front of jurors. McLean told jurors in her opening statement that Camacho was not able to identify Burns as the passenger. Arias told jurors in his closing argument that Camacho gave police information that pinpointed Burns.

Advertisement

The jurors began deliberating and sent two notes to the judge. The first said they were divided: six votes for guilty and six for not guilty. The second stated that they needed clarification about the references to Camacho.

After reading the notes, Judge Robert J. Perry declared a third mistrial because he believed that the emphasis on Camacho’s statements outside of court confused the jury.

McLean then asked the judge to dismiss the case, arguing that her client’s protection against double jeopardy would be violated if he were tried again. Prosecutors said they wanted to try him a fourth time. Judge Perry denied the defense motion.

In the fourth trial, Burns was finally convicted of attempted murder.

Advertisement

His mother said the prosecutors wanted a conviction, no matter what. “I don’t understand it,” said Mary Burns, a fleet service clerk for American Airlines.

But she said she too refuses to give up, and will urge his lawyer to appeal. Or demand yet another trial.

“I’ll fight for him any way I can,” she said.


Advertisement