Case of the Week: “15 Years Isn’t Long Enough To Figure Out If A Trial Was Fair”

In a first non-Lorelai contribution to Flatlander Follies, we welcome James Gladstone to our weekend dialogue. Cheers James!

Case of the Week

“15 Years Isn’t Long Enough To Figure Out If A Trial Was Fair”

By James Gladstone

Volume 1 Part 1

December 6, 2008

My name is Gladstone. James Gladstone. I shall contribute to this fine Blog http://flatlanderfollies.blogspot.com/ every Saturday and muse about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions of that week by selecting a singular case of interest. It will not necessarily be the most discussed in the media – rather, it will be whatever strikes my fancy.

This week’s Case is an easy one to select as the Court issued but one published opinion, it being Hedgpeth v Pulido, 555 US _____ (2008). (Before starting, let me point out that there was a human victim in this case, a 21 year old named Ramon Flores. That is a cold fact, along with the fact that he was murdered in May 1992 at a Shell station in San Mateo, California. Another fact is that $150 was taken from the station’s cash register.)

Hedgpeth presents two oddities in that it is a PER CURIAM decision, but with a dissenting opinion.

“Per curiam” is Latin for “the Court as a whole” and is usually a brief and unanimous decision involving a case in which there is little to argue about. It is unsigned – so the actual author of the text takes no bow for a job well (or poorly) done.

But sometimes there is a dissenting opinion attached to which authorship is claimed (don’t ask how can a decision be one by the Court as a whole when everyone does not agree?). One not versed in the law might have reason to remember a case called Bush v Gore in which their were multiple signed opinions but no one signed on to claim authorship of the decisive opinion itself – and of course, there is little wonder why.

But I digress.

Hedgpeth is an example of why nine lawyers should never be put in charge of anything that requires a simple explanation.

Mr. Hedgpeth himself is the California Warden who is holding one Michael Pulido in custody. Pulido was convicted of murder – in fact felony murder – which is normally proven by showing that a murder occurred while the perpetrator was performing a felony. This often happens, as all Law and Order fans know, when a couple of robbers are interrupted and one murders a victim – the non-shooter is responsible under the felony murder doctrine.

Well, in this case, then 16 year old Michael Pulido was convicted of robbing a gas station during which the attendant, the unfortunate Ramon Flores, was shot dead. Pulido said he had no idea what his uncle was up to until he heard a shot, went in the station, appraised the situation, and then was ordered by his armed Uncle (Michael Aragon) to empty the cash register. The Uncle – surprise-surprise – said it was Pulido who did the dirty. The Police apparently agreed because Uncle Mike has never been charged with anything in connection with the case.

Now usually this is the type of thing juries are hired to iron out. The question for the jury should be not only who pulled the trigger but also, if the jury believed that Pulido did not, whether he was in on the heist before the shooting. No sane person would think that little Michael should be convicted if a jury believed he did not shoot the victim and he did not know of the heist ahead of time – right?

Well, sort of. At the trial it seems the judge made a mistake (or two). He told the jury that even if they did not find that Pulido was the shooter, they could convict him of felony-murder if they found he was in cahoots with his Uncle on the robbery ahead of time or if they found he made the plan to rob the cash register after the murder. The judge not only verbally told the jury this, but also gave them written (form) instructions

regarding the law of felony-murder, but incorrectly used the word ‘either’ instead of ‘and’.

Well, little Michael was convicted of felony murder after the jury said they could not determine he was the shooter. Their finding of guilt did not say whether Michael knew of the robbery ahead of time. They just determined he committed the robbery either before or after the murder. Everyone involved admits that under California law, this is error.

So this is when we get a bunch of lawyers involved. The unnamed Per Curiam court says the lower court must now reconsider its ruling that Pulido deserves a new trial by determining whether the faulty instructions were “harmless error” - thereby holding it error for the lower Courts to just automatically give Pulido a new trial.

The plain meaning to anyone but a lawyer is that the six conservative members of the Supreme Court would really, really, really like to find a way to keep Pulido in jail for the rest of his life without a chance for parole (his original sentence) but just couldn’t find a way to do so without deciding that if you have a jury of 12 and six think you did something wrong and six think you did something else wrong, then that counts as unanimous.

The lessons?

1. Don’t go for a ride with your uncle when you need to stop for gas.

And if you do, expect the police to believe your uncle’s version.

2. Don’t expect that an unfair trial will get fixed anytime soon – even if any sane person concludes it is unfair.

3. Do expect the Bush Court to give Gladstone, James Gladstone, more ammunition in weeks to come.