Page 3
Conviction for Threatening to Slay Judge Zacky Upheld
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district yesterday affirmed the criminal-threats conviction and sentence of a man who threatened to murder Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Hayden Zacky as well as a county prosecutor unless he received an apology from each of them and was paid $10 million.
Defendant Ahmad Talal Smadi uttered his threats in a April 12, 2018 email to his probation officer. Zacky had presided in 2013 over two separate cases in which Smadi was charged with making criminal threats, and the prosecutor was Deputy District Attorney Elena Abramson.
Pursuant to a plea bargain in 2013, both cases were resolved with a guilty plea to two felony counts of criminal threats and one count of misdemeanor vandalism and was placed on formal probation.
Los Angeles County Deputy Probation Officer Anthony Kramer met with Smadi more than 70 times and found no basis for referring him for mental health treatment. Then came the incendiary email.
|
|
|
HAYDEN ZACKY Los Angeles Superior Court Judge |
Judge Accorded Protection
Zacky was placed under guard and carried a firearm with him to court. At Smadi’s trial, Zacky noted that in light of the defendant’s training in college in physics and mathematics, he “had no reason to doubt” that Smadi had the capacity to construct a bomb.
Smadi was convicted in the courtroom of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark S. Arnold and was sentenced to 25 years to life on each of the two counts, to run consecutively, plus two consecutive five-year terms based on his priors.
Justice Thomas L. Willhite Jr. of Div. Four authored the unpublished opinion affirming the judgment. In several places in the opinion, in quoting the defendant, Willhite departed from the current trend of including vulgar language, instead inserting, “[expletive deleted].”
Email Quoted
In his 2018 email, Smadi said, in part (with Willhite’s sanitizing):
“I am the executioner - in more ways than one.
“And what do I want in return for this oh so glorious gift of patriotic service?
“(i) $10 million from Los Angeles County for wrongful imprisonment.
“I’ll put it to better use than any charity organization I’ve seen, heard of or worked with to date.
“And you already know that I’m donating that [expletive] to charity.
“(ii) A personal apology from D.A. Abramson and Judge Zacky.
“If you refuse, then I will execute Elena Abramson and Hayden Zacky for treason against the United States of America; because I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they deliberately, maliciously and/or by criminal neglect cooperated in my wrongful imprisonment....”
Smadi went on to warn:
“Remember this line: I know how to make a bomb so big I could blow up half of Los Angeles County.”
Motion for Acquittal
Smadi argued on appeal that Arnold erred in denying his motion for acquittal after the evidence was in because there was no showing of a threat that was specific and unequivocal. Rejecting the contention, Willhite said:
“The evidence in this case amply supports a finding that defendant’s email constituted a sufficiently specific and unequivocal threat to kill both victims. In his email, defendant stated that he would ‘execute Elena Abramson and Hayden Zacky for treason against the United States of America’ if two conditions were not met: the payment of $10 million by the County of Los Angeles and a personal apology by both victims. It is undisputed that neither of those conditions would be met,”
He continued:
….Moreover, describing himself as an ‘executioner in more ways than one,’ defendant stated that he knew how to ‘make a bomb so big [he] could blow up half of Los Angeles County.’ Obviously, defendant communicated his specific intent to kill (‘execute’) DDA Abramson and Judge Zacky.”
Instructional Error Alleged
Evidence was admitted of an email from a forensic psychiatrist who had examined Smadi in 2016 and had concluded that Smadi was “was delusional. Psychotic.” The appellant maintained that Arnold erred in declining to instruct the jury that such evidence could be considered “for the limited purpose of deciding whether, at the time of the charged crime, the defendant acted…with the intent or mental state required for that crime.”
Willhite noted that Smadi “did not introduce expert testimony or evidence that he suffered from a specific mental disease, disorder, or impairment at the time he sent his threatening email,” but that, even if it was error to omit the requested instruction, it was harmless.
Smadi sought a remand for resentencing, asserting that the record did not show that Arnold was aware of his prerogative, under recent legislation, to strike the priors. The contention was forfeited, Willhite said, because Smadi did not raise it in the trial court, but even if considered, “the record suggests the court was aware of its discretion under the amended law.”
The case is People v. Smadi, B303708.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company