SAN JOSE — A judge is not expected to make key rulings in the trial of the man accused of killing missing teen Sierra LaMar until next week at the earliest, after a hearing on the matters resumes Tuesday.
But no matter how Superior Court Judge Vanessa A. Zecher rules on defense motions to move the trial of Antolin Garcia-Torres out of Santa Clara County and exclude potentially incriminating evidence against him, another thorny question still looms.
Should jury selection in the capital murder case begin before or after California voters decide seven weeks from now — on Nov. 8 — whether to abolish or streamline the death penalty?
LaMar, 15, vanished on her way to the school bus stop near Morgan Hill on the morning of March 16, 2012. Her body has not been found.
Defense attorneys have continually warned that it is unlikely they will be ready for trial by the end of September, as the judge would like. They have not mentioned the pending election, but observers say both sides can’t help but be keenly aware of it. Prosecutors have said they’re ready for trial. Neither side will comment on the case outside the courtroom.
But advocates for Proposition 66, which would streamline the death penalty, and for Proposition 62, the abolition measure that would replace it with life without parole, expressed strong opinions Friday on the timing of the trial. (Since the two ballot measures conflict, if both passed, the measure receiving more votes would take effect).
If the jury is selected before Election Day — and if the death penalty winds up being repealed — the stiffest punishment Garcia-Torres would face is life without parole. But the jury would be “death-qualified,” meaning made up of people willing to impose the death penalty.
“Studies over the past 30 years show that a death-qualified jury is more likely to convict,” said Santa Clara University law professor Ellen Kreitzberg, director of the Death Penalty College, a residential training program held at the university each August to train lawyers assigned to the defense of a capital case. “They’re even called ‘guilt-prone’ jurors.”
Kreitzberg agreed with fellow death penalty opponent Matt Cherry that Garcia-Torres’ trial should be delayed.
“It would make more sense to wait,” said Cherry, executive director of Death Penalty Focus, a nonprofit aimed at abolition.
But Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and a supporter of streamlining the costly, decades-long death penalty process, disagreed.
“I don’t think we should stop following California law because we’re thinking about changing the law,” Scheidegger said. “There are always proposals out there.”
Scheidegger also pointed to a poll released this week by the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, which showed the abolition measure trailing. Voters opposed the repeal measure 54.9 percent to 45.1 percent, while three out of four supported the streamlining proposition. The poll of more than 1,500 voters was conducted in English and had a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.
Santa Clara County isn’t the only jurisdiction to proceed on a death penalty case while the initiatives are still pending, of course. This week, Monterey County District Attorney Dean Flippo announced he will seek the death penalty in the case of Tami Huntsman, who faces multiple charges of murder, torture, child abuse and conspiracy in connection with the deaths of two children, 6 and 3. But the trial in that case, including jury selection, is set for Feb. 17, 2017, after the election.
The California District Attorneys Association is among the many law enforcement groups that support Proposition 66. Supporters of Proposition 62 include the California Democratic Party and League of Women Voters.
Contact Tracey Kaplan at 408-278-3482. Follow her at Twitter.com/tkaplanreport.
