Death Penalty Upheld Despite Witnesses’ Lies

The California Supreme Court upheld the death sentence Thursday of a Los Angeles man despite a finding by a lower court judge that three prosecution witnesses lied during his murder trial.

In a 5-2 ruling, the court found that Larry H. Roberts, 49, would have been convicted and sentenced to death for murdering another inmate in 1980 even without the false testimony of prosecution witnesses.

Roberts’ claims of perjury and prosecutorial misconduct had so troubled the high court that it appointed a judge in 2000 to determine whether witnesses had lied during his 1982 trial and whether the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony to frame him.

Roberts, who is from Watts, was serving a life sentence for the murder of a security guard when he was charged with killing fellow Vacaville inmate Charles Gardner in 1980. Roberts received the death penalty for the stabbing of Gardner.

Solano County Superior Court Judge Franklin R. Taft, named by the Supreme Court to investigate Roberts’ allegations, concluded that three witnesses who testified at his trial had lied but that Deputy Atty. Gen. Charles R.B. Kirk did not induce their false testimony.

In reviewing Taft’s conclusions, the state Supreme Court said Thursday that the findings failed to undermine its confidence in Roberts’ conviction. The court noted that one witness had been deemed unreliable because he recanted his testimony years after the trial. But the court, in an opinion written by Justice Carlos R. Moreno, said the recantation “must be viewed with suspicion.”

The court also was not swayed by the recantation of a second witness, who testified during a hearing in Taft’s courtroom that he had lied during Roberts’ trial. There was plenty of evidence to convict Roberts even without that testimony, the court found.

Taft’s finding that a third witness also was untruthful “does not cause us to question the validity of the jury’s verdict,” Moreno wrote, because Roberts’ lawyer had thoroughly impeached the witness’ testimony.

The most explosive allegations involved Kirk, a seasoned prosecutor whom colleagues nicknamed “Mad Dog” for his aggressive prosecutions. Kirk, who has retired, previously had been fined for withholding evidence in another murder case.

Roberts claimed that Kirk had bribed and threatened inmates to obtain false testimony. Kirk denied the allegations.

Siding with Kirk, the high court said Roberts “failed to show the prosecution knowingly presented perjured testimony.”

Taft reported to the court that the inmate witnesses expected and received some favorable treatment as a result of testifying for the prosecution. But the court agreed with Taft’s finding that Kirk did not deliberately induce them to lie.

“The inmates were transferred to a prison facility they preferred and given small amounts of money,” the court said.

Yet “the prosecution did not promise the inmates specific rewards in exchange for testifying, and the small amounts of money deposited into their prison accounts only compensated them for the amounts they lost while they were in protective custody and hence were unable to work,” the court concluded.

Justice Joyce L. Kennard, joined by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, dissented. “Without the false testimony, there is a reasonable probability the jury would not have convicted petitioner of Gardner’s killing,” Kennard wrote.

Robert Bloom, Roberts’ attorney, called the ruling “an astonishing opinion.” He said he will continue to fight Roberts’ conviction in federal court.

“This court is saying it is OK for the state to execute a guy who could well be innocent and whose conviction was based on testimony that has already been found to be false,” Bloom said.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Susan Duncan Lee said the ruling vindicates Kirk.