Page 1
California Supreme Court:
Judicial Misconduct Invalidates Death Sentence of Slayer
Opinion Says Inmate, Who Caused Death of Four Daughters, Was Prejudiced by Judge’s Remarks
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The California Supreme Court yesterday invalidated the death sentence of a woman who, in 1998, set a fire that killed her four daughters, holding that while the convictions stand, the penalty cannot in light of misconduct by the trial judge.
That judge was L. Jeffrey Wiatt of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Wiatt, facing a Sheriff’s Department investigation into allegations of child molestation, fatally shot himself in 2005.
Yesterday’s opinion spares inmate Sandi Dawn Nieves from the prospect of execution. She was sentenced to death by Wiatt, pursuant to the jury’s recommendation, on Oct. 6, 2000.
Chief Justice’s Opinion
Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said:
“Defendant contends the trial judge was ‘impatient, undignified, and discourteous’ to the defense, engaging in conduct that established bias and misconduct in violation of her state and federal constitutional rights. The People argue that the trial judge’s apparent intemperance must be viewed in light of defense counsel’s ‘shenanigans,’ and indeed, the judge characterized the defense as ‘one of the most unprofessional performances’ he had ever seen. The trial judge’s response to this challenge, however, failed to maintain the high standards of fairness we demand.”
The attorney was Deputy Public Defender Howard Waco, now deceased. Waco was known for his Oct. 21, 1991 victory in the U.S. Supreme Court in gaining a decision that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Raymond Mireles (now retired) did not enjoy judicial immunity in an action based on having Waco forcibly brought to court when failed to make an appearance.
Cantil-Sakauye quoted Wiatt as uttering some comments to Waco as:
“Why don’t you just ask a simple question?”; “[D]on’t talk, except to ask a question”; “You don’t listen do you?”; “Stop saying ‘ah’ every time you get an answer”; “Don’t say ‘okay’ anymore”; “Just ask the question in a proper way”; and “What does it take to get the point that you can’t talk at the same time [as the witness?]”
Further Examples
She continued:
“At other times, the trial judge more pointedly portrayed defense counsel as inept or wasting time: remarking. ‘[y]ou are using valuable court time for something that doesn’t need to be used’; responding to counsel’s question about an exhibit number by stating. ‘Look at the tag on the front: it might give you a clue’; responding to counsel’s question that began, ‘I appreciate the fact that...’ with. ‘[w]hat your appreciation level is, is not pertinent or helpful’; observing that defense could have done ‘a little legwork’ to develop the evidence ‘rather than doing some kind of guessing game’; characterizing counsel’s ‘ridiculous question’ as appropriate only for ‘comic books or the movies’; noting counsel was unprepared to examine witnesses: exclaiming, ‘Why didn’t you say that when the jury was out?’’; referring to counsel’s ‘tongue wagging’ and admonishing him to get on to something meaningful’; urging counsel, ‘if you get to some questions that are proper, you might finish sooner rather than later’; noting, ‘[i]f you thought there was going to be a problem, you should have addressed it when we don’t have to keep the jury waiting’; raising the court’s own objection to counsel’s ‘nonsensical question’; commenting that the witness cannot answer counsel’s question ‘unless he’s superman and has x-ray eyes’: and exclaiming, “Can’t you figure that out before we resume?’, among other comments.”
The chief justice said that Wiatt reprimanded Waco in front of the jury and made of point of reporting to jurors chastisements that were administered outside of their presence. Wiatt imposed a $500 sanction on the lawyer for making speaking objections and later found him in contempt although, after the verdict came in, declared, “[G]iven the jury’s verdict in this case, I think that’s probably enough.”
During argument in connection with the penalty phase. She noted, the judge interrupted Waco to scold him.
Some rebukes, Cantil-Sakauye said, were warranted, but she added:
“There are numerous instances, however, in which the trial judge disparaged counsel in a manner we cannot condone.”
She also pointed to instances where Wiatt demeaned defense witnesses. Nonetheless, she said, evidence that the defendant deliberately set the blaze that resulted in the deaths of four of her daughters—aged 5, 7, 11, and 12—was “compelling.”
That evidence, she noted, included the testimony of her son, 14, who survived.
“Although we conclude that the court’s misconduct could not have altered the jury’s guilt determination, we are unable to reach that conclusion regarding the penalty trial, thus finding prejudicial misconduct that requires reversal of the penalty judgment,” Cantil-Sakauye wrote.
She elaborated:
“It is not difficult to imagine the horror a jury might feel in response to defendant’s actions. Nonetheless, a juror could regard the stunning enormity of the crime, and the fact that defendant intended to take her own life, as a sign of significant mental instability. Absent the trial judge’s persistent, disparaging remarks, a juror might have viewed these circumstances with greater sympathy and concluded the crime was a tragedy lacking the moral culpability to warrant death. A juror might also have given greater weight to defendant’s remorse and evidence she had been a loving mother to conclude that life in prison, confronted each day with what she had done to her children, was a fitting punishment.”
The case is People v. Nieves, 2021 S.O.S. 1898.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company