*Images may require viewing via a desktop for clarity*
Unqualified to defend a case of such magnitude.
“It is nothing you would understand, but I do have something to say. In fact, I have a lot to say, but now is not the time or the place. I don’t even know why I am wasting my breath, but what the hell. As for what is said of my life, there have been lies in the past and there will be lies in the future..”
Richard Ramirez
You think you know a story? To understand the ending you must go back to the beginning.
The right to a fair and unbiased trial and competent assistance of counsel “is one of the safeguards of the Sixth Amendment deemed necessary to ensure fundamental human rights of life and liberty”.
Just because a person, who happens to be a lawyer, stands alongside the accused, however, this alone is not enough to satisfy the constitution. A defendant is entitled to an attorney, whether retained or appointed, who plays the role necessary to ensure that a trial is fair. Every criminal defendant, no matter who, not matter the crime, is required in law to have competent counsel.
This is what we are told but in the case of Richard Ramirez, that simply didn’t happen. Instead, what happened was unconstitutional and completely unethical.
“Now I am calling this hearing, Mr Ramirez, to tell you that I reluctantly have to tell you that in my opinion your lawyers are incompetent. Now, I have had this case for six months and I must say that I am convinced that your lawyers are nice guys, good company, maybe good fellows to spend an evening with. I am also convinced they are dedicated to your defence emotionally. But I must tell you that in my opinion they are not competent to handle your case. I don’t think they have sufficient experience in law. I don’t think they have the staffing, if you will, or whatever, to do the job. I am telling you now.. I don’t think they know the law well enough, they are not ready to present the evidence and push it through. I am just telling you this because I have no personal axe to grind at all, I simply want to see that whatever happens in this case is done right and you get your rights protected, that whatever conclusion is reached is right. And I am telling you now that your rights are not being protected”.
From the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Judge Morrow during a closed session. Sealed recorded transcript, 6th January 1987, page 228 of 764.
This subject, the incompetence of his defence, will be broken down into different parts, where it will be shown how Richard Ramirez was systematically failed from the start. His defence counsel, ill-prepared, highly inadequate and unqualified to handle a case of this magnitude, failed to establish his mental competence, which will be covered in detail in an upcoming article. Although, at this point, it should be understood that Richard had cognitive impairment, which rendered him incapable of assisting in his own defence, to waive his rights and being fully engaged and aware of what was happening to him. Arturo and Daniel Hernandez failed to refute or challenge any charges against him. They later more or less abandoned him once they realised they were way out of their depth, leaving him virtually undefended in a trial that could cost him his life.
No matter what you “think” you know, have seen on Netflix or read on Twitter, the truth has been buried as more sensationalised stories emerge, as careers are built and money made. Expendable for a cause..
Alan Adashek, a lawyer attached to the Public Defender’s Office had been assigned to Richard shortly after his arrest, however they soon came into conflict, as Richard felt that anyone attached to the court could not have his best interests at heart. Subsequently, a new lawyer, Joseph Gallegos, was appointed by the court, appearing on Richard’s behalf on October 9th, 1985.
After discovering that the newly retained attorney, Gallegos, had been tried for the assault and attempted murder of a prostitute (a judge later reduced the charges, leading to the guilty verdict set aside) Richard’s sister, Rosario, found two new lawyers, who she hoped would replace him. Enter Daniel and Arturo Hernandez, no relation to each other.
That these two were nowhere near qualified or experienced enough to undertake a case of such notoriety and complexity is an understatement!
It’s utterly inconceivable that the trial court actually allowed these two to take Richard’s case, having already acknowledged the court’s responsibility to ensure a defendant’s rights to an effective counsel were protected and yet permitted the substitution of unqualified counsel.
In October, 1985, at an open court hearing, Judge Soper informed the Hernandez’s that the state wouldn’t be funding them as they didn’t meet the state’s minimum criteria to qualify their being appointed to counsel for defence by the court. Under the Bar Plan an attorney must have practiced law for ten years, at least, and have been counsel of record in forty trials minimum, three of which must be murder trials. They must also have tried at least one murder trial to a jury.
The Ramirez family were of limited means and lawyers expensive. Already there were hopes of book and movie deals about Richard coming their way, and Richard had signed over any rights to such deals to his sister. She had promised to pay the Hernandez’s from any proceeds.
Neither Daniel or Arturo Hernandez had even half of what was required by the state of California and yet they were not dismissed, as under state law, the accused has the right to choose their own counsel, and Richard, encouraged by his sister, chose the Hernandezes. Although Richard’s competence to be able to choose his own counsel had been raised by a concerned Joseph Gallegos, this was dismissed. Motion denied.
A floundering defence..
Way out of their depth, strapped for cash and displaying a mind-boggling lack of integrity, professionalism and without due care for their client, and struggling to challenge the charges against him, Richard had been left practically undefended. (An example of which can be seen in THIS post) With Arturo ceasing to even attend court, being fined for being held in contempt, for saying he was attending his brother’s funeral, whilst in fact, he was on honeymoon in Europe, the trial was fast descending into the realms of the ridiculous and should have been stopped. The fact that Judge Michael Tynan saw no such need, further underlines the farcical nature of the proceedings.
One example of unprofessional behaviour was defence counsel leaking a cartoon drawn by Richard of Phil Halpin, counsel for prosecution, to the press. This inflamed and already biased media, who had demonised Richard on an almost daily basis for months and further polluted the jury, who were non sequestered. One juror commented on how much the drawing angered her and made it impossible for her to remain neutral. Well played defence!
With Arturo “missing in action” for most of the time and Daniel increasingly under strain, suffering bouts of ill health (and vanishing after lunch.) the court appointed Ray Clark to assist the defence. He had his own conflict of interest, where he was paying Daniel Hernandez 30% of the money, he was earning from his court appointment to the trial and felt beholden to Daniel for bringing him onto the case. Because of this, he did not seek to change the clearly deficient and inadequate strategy employed by the Henandezes. This will be further examined in PART TWO.
Their utter incompetence, conflicted interests, absences at crucial moments, meant they failed in their duty to provide a viable defence. Add to that Arturo’s jail time, the collective failure to challenge prosecution or to seek investigation into their client’s mental health, means that they, alongside Judge Tynan, who although fully aware of what was going on allowed this to continue, they, must also bear responsibility in denying Richard a fair, unbiased trial and due process.
1989 – a copy can be found in document 7-3
(Note: This version has been superseded by a February 2003 revision)
Everyone, no matter who, no matter the circumstances, is entitled to have their rights protected under law and access to a qualified and competent defence. These rights were denied to Richard Ramirez.
In this, part one, I have only covered a small part of a series of failings leading to the railroading of Richard Ramirez. In part two, I shall discuss more horrendous failings from possibly the worst defence counsel in history, and how a conflict of interest further jeopardised any chance he had of receiving a fair trial.
You think you know a story? Think again!
“The strictest law sometimes becomes the severest injustice”
Benjamin Franklin
~ Jay ~
Expendable For A Cause. 
Leave a comment