Who Defends the Undefended? Part Two: Conflict of Interest.
*Images may require viewing via desktop for clarity*
In Part One, which can be found HERE, I examined how unqualified the defence counsel was, how ill-prepared and unorganised they were and how they virtually abandoned Ramirez to his fate.
Welcome to Part Two, where we will continue to examine the failings and shortcomings of Daniel and Arturo Hernandez, and their contribution to the saga, that ended in the death penalty being meted out to Richard Ramirez, on the back of some of the crumbliest evidence ever to echo round a courtroom.
*Some images are best viewed on a desktop, due to size*
Here are some basics:
“An attorney owes all clients: the duty of loyalty, the duty of care, and the duty of confidentiality. Within the bounds of the law, the duty of loyalty requires the lawyer to put the client’s interests ahead of the lawyer’s own interests and to do nothing to harm the client.“
But what happens when the lines are blurred? What happens when the lawyer doesn’t seem too sure about who is the client? Is it the man in chains at the defence table, or perhaps, the family of the defendant, a third party, the ones who are paying (or have promised payment)?
This is what is referred to as a conflict of interest and it was this conflict which led directly to gross negligence, a violation of rights, a cover-up of mental impairment, and ultimately, resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
California Lawyers Association
Generally speaking, under the rules of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer cannot represent two or more clients whose interests potentially conflict, or whose interests actually conflict, without obtaining prior written consent. That’s an easy enough standard to follow in a typical legal case because one person = one client.
Or so you would assume, or at least hope, but this was the trial of Richard Ramirez, where constitutional errors were littered throughout the whole process, and there was nothing typical about this particular case.
A Dance of Lawyers
And a brief glossary of terms which may be useful as we unpick what happened.
Public Defender: a criminal defence attorney who gets paid a salary by the government (federal, state, or local) to argue the cases of clients who have been charged with a crime and can’t afford a lawyer.
Assigned Counsel also defends those who can’t afford an attorney, but these lawyers work in private practice, and the government pays them on a case-by-case basis.
Retained Counsel, privately engaged for a fee.
Sixth Amendment: says anyone charged with a crime has the right to counsel. (Unfortunately, the Sixth Amendment’s promise of counsel for all, including the poor, often remains unfulfilled in capital cases. The Supreme Court has affirmed that this right includes the right to an effective lawyer, but all too often, defence attorneys involved in capital cases prove inept, ineffectual, underfunded, and overmatched by the State’s attorneys.)
The Fourteenth Amendment, due process clause: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Conflict of Interest: An attorney’s conflictofinterest arises when an attorney takes on a new client who has interests that are averse to the interests of someone the attorney is currently representing or has represented in the past.
Declaration of Arturo Hernandez from the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
That’s the “legalese” out of the way, let’s move on…
On October 9, 1985, the trial court relieved the Public Defenders, Alan Adashek and Henry Hall, and Joseph Gallegos, retained counsel, appeared on Petitioner’s behalf. This did not last long either; more information about that brief, but relevant, appearance can be found in THIS post.
Why relevant? Because on October 24, 1985, counsel Joseph Gallegos moved for a psychiatric evaluation of Richard to determine his present mental state and his ability to choose his own counsel. Gallegos informed the court that he was gravely concerned about his mental condition and ability to retain new counsel. The matter surrounding Richard’s cognitive impairment is a mammoth and distressing subject, too large for the scope of this post. However, we aim to cover it in the future, as it is monumentally important.
So often in this case transcripts are missing.Declaration of Manuel Barraza, who seems to have done well out of this.
After Richard was arrested for murder in Los Angeles, police searched the home of his older sister, Rosario, in El Paso, Texas. A neighbour suggested to the Ramirez family that they talk to a local lawyer Manual Barraza, who, after meeting with the family, travelled to California with the intention of defending him. Mr. Barraza’s representation also included “protecting the family’s interest related to Petitioner’s case.” (Ex. 13, M. Barraza Declaration)
On October 3, 1985, while still officially represented by the public defenders Henry Hall and Alan Adashek, Richard signed an Assignment of Rights agreement in favour of his sister Rosario Ramirez. This was just three days after his capture!
The document covered rights “in any and all present or future literary, publishing, motion picture, television, interviews, serials, dramatizations, advertisements, manuscripts, all whether written or unwritten, published or unpublished, copyrighted or non-copyrighted, direct or subsidiary.” (Ex. 110, “Assignment of Rights.”) In it, Petitioner “irrevocably consent[ed] to and forever authorize[d] the use by the Assignee (Rosario) or anyone authorised by the Assignee, her legal representatives, the absolute and unqualified right to use the Assignor’s life material in any manner the Assignee may desire”
As the public defenders weren’t relieved until October 9th, it was already starting to get messy. Just who was representing him, defending his rights and protecting his best interests? There were doubts as to his ability to understand or to make rational decisions.
“Both Mr. Barraza and Mr. Hall admitted that Petitioner was acting unusually at and around the time the assignment of rights was executed. Mr. Hall admitted that Petitioner was “agitated and irrational” during his contacts with him. (Ex. 18, H. Hall Dec., ¶ 4.)
Mr. Barraza admitted that during the times he met with Petitioner in September and October 1985, Petitioner “exhibited extreme mood swings and his dialogue was remarkable for its incoherence and irrationality…. He was unable to focus or listen to [Barraza’s] attempted explanation about what appeared to be in his best interests.” (Ex. 128, M. Barraza Dec., ¶ 7) (Dec. 21, 1994)
Mr Barraza immediately began to solicit book or film deals, telling Rosario that he received many calls from interested parties. From these prospective deals, he was expecting a percentage of monies, and Rosario had already signed a promissory note of $100,00. Ultimately, Barraza could not take Richard’s case because he was not licensed in California.
It was Manuel Barraza who suggested to Richard’s sister that they hire Arturo and Daniel Hernandez to represent him, as he knew Arturo, and that they were licenced to practise in California.
This really boils down to money, cold hard cash. Retained attorneys charge for their services, and receive no funding from the state, unless they are appointed by the court. As the state refused to appoint the Hernandez’, their qualifications falling short of the requirements under Californian law, it was down to the Ramirez family to find what amounted to a vast amount of money. The harsh truth is that money buys you a decent defence, and in a capital case, a defendant needs all the help they can get. Their life depends on it. God help a defendant who finds himself saddled with an incompetent lawyer due to lack of funds, a conflict of interest, or horribly, as in this case; both.
Death is different.
Enter Daniel and Arturo Hernandez, stage right!
From the California Lawyers Association rules.
Richard’s sister met Arturo and Daniel Hernandez in court the day they appeared to represent him. Two retainer agreements were signed, one with the family and another with their client, Richard Ramirez. The family retainer agreement specified that the Hernandez’ would receive money from the family for their legal services when they received payment for the book or movie rights to Richard’s story.
They expected to be paid early in the case by the family’s attorney, Manuel Barraza, or by the family. Richard’s agreement did not require him to pay any funds for his defence, as payment was expected to be fulfilled by the family. The client retainer agreement bound the attorneys to represent Richard through court proceedings.
Rosario’s Declaration.
On October 22nd 1985, Daniel Hernandez informed the court that he had been retained by Richard and his family, and that contracts had been signed by both parties. The court inquired how the Hernandez’ were going to be paid, and Daniel told the court he wasn’t comfortable with disclosing that, however, once the counsel for prosecution had left the room, he confessed to the judge that the family was going to pay, but not how.
“I really can’t comment on that. I am really not necessarily aware of that, and I am not necessarily anxious to discuss their finances at all.”
Daniel Hernandez
Trial court noted that they knew Barraza had been on the TV asking for lawyers to take the case, on the proviso that they would receive payment from TV and book deals, and that any and all potential conflicts must be disclosed to both the court and to their client.
Then Hernandez’ denied any knowledge of this, which wasn’t true, because they had been, from day one, telling Rosario it was imperative to get Richard to sign a film or book deal, to enable them to build a vigorous defence. They went as far as taking her to see a Hollywood producer, however the deal fell through as Richard refused to sign the contract. Even though Rosario was the legal holder of the rights to Richard’s story, his cooperation was required to secure a media deal. He was, presumably, the only person who would know certain facts about his alleged criminal activity.
That’s the basic outline of how and why the possibility of conflict was born. So how did this affect the defence?
Where and to whom do they owe loyalty? To the family paying them, or to their client, the one they are duty bound to defend whatever the circumstances, within the law.
Declaration of Robert R Bryan, post-conviction attorney
On October 24, 1985, after denying attorney Gallegos’s motion for a psychiatric evaluation of Petitioner, the trial court advised Richard that “your attorneys have a contract with you and with your family, those two contracts may at some point be in conflict. . . Do you understand that possibility does exist?”
An accused person must be informed of any potential conflict of interest by the court, it must be fully disclosed and the defendant able to understand what, potentially, could happen when an attorney is unsure of where their priority is. He must also consent. To waive the constitutional right to conflict-free counsel, you must be clear what it means. Gallegos had raised his doubts in municipal court as to the mental competence of Richard and wanted him to be thoroughly assessed.
Inability of Client to Consent. This situation presents the opposite side of the coin from a lawyer’s inability to make an adequate disclosure. Even if a lawyer were able to fully “communicate [] and explain []” the risks and consequences of the conflicted representation, “informed consent” under CRPC 1.0.1(e) still requires that the client agree. Although diminished capacity presents a broad spectrum of abilities, a client with significantly diminished capacity might be unable to comprehend a lawyer’s disclosure concerning therisks associated with a conflicted representation and consequently would be unable to give informed consent to the representation.
From the Californian Lawyers Association
Richard said he thought there would be no conflict. He was wrong.
The fear that Richard was not competent to rationally assist, understand, consent to or waive his rights, was real and valid. He needed to be assessed properly.
Richard was seen (briefly) by William Vicary, M.D., a psychiatrist. A summary of his findings is below, although a further post will look in greater depth at his report.
Writ of Habeas Corpus, page 529
“His best interests before and during trial, and that of his family were divergent and irreconcilable. The fee agreement placed counsel in an untenable position between client’s best legal strategy – which should have included the adoption of a mental health defence at the guilt phase and/or the presentation of his impoverished and abusive upbringing at penalty – and the financial and privacy interests of his family.” (Writ of Habeas Corpus)
This subject, and its sensitivity will be discussed, as ever, in due course. Again, it is too complex to be included within this post.
Declaration of Robert R Bryan, post-conviction attorney
The sad fact is that Richard any psychiatric investigation that he was subjected to was not developed or followed up, to any degree, until after his LA convictions, when he was moved to San Francisco. That will be covered later, but for now, we remain in LA, with the complicated subject of conflict of interest and a defendant who has no idea what he should be entitled to in a capital trial for his life.
Here’s a little conundrum, the family needed money to pay for his defence, they did everything possible to help the son and brother they loved, but no deal was forthcoming, no money came rolling in, and they couldn’t afford the legal fees. The court refused to appoint the Hernandez’, who were broke. They, in turn, refused to acknowledge or investigate a defence strategy, which included mental health, for two reasons: They did not want to diminish his value or cause embarrassment tohis family.
Findings of Dr Dietrich Bulmer, Ex. 31, who examined Ramirez on 19th and 20th January 1986
When attorney Joseph Gallegos moved for a competency evaluation just before the Hernandez’ substitution, Arturo Hernandez objected, stating that Petitioner had no trouble understanding the proceedings. The Hernandez’ never again moved for a competency evaluation until seemingly compelled by the court. They did not develop or further investigate a strategy that focussed on his mental capabilities.
The opinions of Drs. Vicary, Blumer, and Henderson were known to trial counsel. Daniel and Arturo, and later, Ray Clark, provided constitutionally deficient performance in failing to present those experts’ views to the trial court to support a motion to determine Richard’s competence to stand trial and waive rights. The opinions of these experts, and the factual bases for those opinions, moreover, would have constituted mental health and other defences to the charged crimes at the guilt phase and robust mitigation at the sentencing phase of his trial, and the defence counsel performed deficiently in failing to present such defences to the jury.
No follow up on this assessment of Richard’s competence. Writ of Habeas Corpus.
A follow-up that could’ve helped at the penalty phase, an evaluation that could have saved him from the death penalty.
Writ of Habeas Corpus page 531
Trial court knew all this, knew what was happening, and yet did not stop proceedings.
Writ of Habeas CorpusWrit of Habeas Corpus
Hollywood loves a monster, and it soon became clear that adopting a defence, which included his mental impairments, lessened his value on the market. No one is interested in a man who might not be “quite right”; then, as today, people want the blood-soaked murderer. If such information were to come out at a public hearing, he would lose his appeal to a literary agent seeking exclusive material. After all, horror sells, right?
Writ of Habeas Corpus.
What to Do?
“In this case, the prospect of a book or movie deal further divided counsel’s loyalties. For example, more than once, Petitioner’s family voiced their concerns about protecting their monetary interest in Petitioner’s case: the Ramirez family expected to receive in excess of $300,000 for Petitioner’s story. (Ex. 18, H. Hall Dec., ¶ 3). Since trial counsel was dependent on the Ramirez family for the entire balance of the retainer agreement, counsel could not offend or embarrass them during the investigation or presentation of Petitioner’s case. The fact that no book or movie deal developed during the case, only furthered the Hernandez’ indebtedness to the Ramirez family, and gave counsel an ongoing incentive to defer to the interests of the family over Petitioner’s”
Writ of Habeas Corpus, page 224
Let’s add another spoke to this wheel…
Because they were running short of cash – cash they needed to run this defence successfully – the Hernadez’ began working on another case, another pending murder trial at the same time. The People v Ortiz. There’s a whole other story there, for they also messed up that case and were facing an incompetency investigation. Sometimes, when I think this could not get any worse, somehow, it does!
In THIS post I have already mentioned that Arturo Hernandez had stopped turning up, and was eventually jailed, Daniel was often M.I.A and Richard was often left to the machinations of paralegal Richard Salinas and one Ray Clark.
Attorney Ray Clark was appointed by the court (they were paying him) to assist Daniel Hernandez, who was unable to carry on virtually unassisted, and often sick. Unfortunately, Clark was not appointed until March 1989, with the trial well underway.
He did not review the case or bother to discover much about Richard and his alleged crimes, merely seeing himself as Daniel Hernandez’ assistant. There is more to this than at first seen. Clark, who had got this position because Daniel had opined to trial court that he couldn’t do this alone, felt somewhat beholden to him. After all, he was being paid $100 per hour, while Daniel was receiving nothing.
Declaration of Ray Clark
Clark and Daniel Hernandez had an agreement, whereby Clark would pay Daniel a percentage of his earnings from the court case. 30% of what he was paid, he gave to Daniel, and because he felt obligated, he did not try to change the lethal and downright unacceptable strategy employed by the Hernandez’, furthermore, Clark was dependent on Daniel Hernandez’ continued consent to his appointment.
This arrangement between the two attorneys was not even revealed to the court at the time, even though it caused yet another conflict of interest, with Clark seeming to have neither the authority to overrule the defence strategy or even to push back against the lack of mitigation evidence during the penalty phase. Where even the prosecution had to remind the jury that no mitigation had been given in defence!
Ray Clark declaration.
In fact, Ray Clark doesn’t seem to have cared very much about it at all and this failure, when it most mattered, will be the subject of a future post, as it is serious enough to warrant it.
If you are poor, and charged with a capital offence, you are left to the mercy of the dollar, and because of it, the mercy of the court. Or not.
“Death always went with the territory…”
Richard Ramirez
And, as we know, there was no mercy, no fair trial, for Richard Ramirez.
135 responses to “Who Defends the Undefended? Part Two: Conflict of Interest.”
sarah1997
what’s makes me angry is they knew damn well Richard was violated and yet they still voted guilty, and yet they still allowed such unprofessionalism to occur like Richard’s life didn’t matter to them but their owns!
Yes, some of them noticed how badly the trial was handled by his defence, but they can only consider what is put in front of them. The defence gave them nothing, because they had done nothing to fight the case. All they heard was the flawed evidence from Halpin, his co-counsel and the expert prosecution witnesses; that’s pretty powerful stuff to a lay person. It’s terrible that justice works in such a way that it really can’t be considered justice at all. The prosecution’s case was never really tested, and that’s not acceptable.
That’s not at all acceptable! It angers me that such things happened and can happened and allowed to happen! Poor people don’t deserve to be defended but the rich can?! Rubbish all of it. His useless lawyers I can’t believe he’d evne considered them to defend him! But again wasn’t he tricked into it?
Ahh gotcha. Poor guy had no clue about anything. I wish someone there was kind enough to help and I wish he opened up to them and accepted their help but then again he had so much trust issues that I don’t blame him for!
Yea I remember reading somewhere that the jurors were drawing little cartoons and one of them, Cupcake Cindy I think, drew a tombstone with a heart on the papers where they indicated whether he should get the death penalty or not or something like that. I was in complete and utter shock when I read that. Like do y’all realize that you literally voted for him to essentially be gassed 19 times! The jurors in this case were idiotic and biased as well in my opinion.
They all believed he was genuinely possessed! Some of them shouldn’t have been on the jury. Then again, the whole trial should have been moved out of the county.
The voire dire process like all legal processes in this case was not properly conducted in this case. But how can it be when Richard had two clown lawyers, a prosecution team that ‘allegedly’ was manipulating and changing evidence and witness testimony, and a judge who didn’t seem to care about giving the defendant a fair trial. The trial should have 100% been moved to a different county, the argument of LA county being too big to not find jurors who can listen impartially to evidence and reach a verdict based on the law is not good enough. I was reading his writ of habeas corpus recently and found that over 1,000 news articles had been written about this case prior to the actual trial taking place. The amount articles written does not necessarily show that there may prejudice prior to trial, the nature of the coverage has to be factored in, but juror “prejudice based on pretrial publicity is certainly related to the volume of that publicity and is unlikely to arise without it.”
also ray Clark how and why would you say you would kill your own client that man makes me sick that’s no way to treat your client and why didn’t he even have a proper talk with Richard if he had the chance.
That’s so inhuman thing to even debate about Ofc if Richard was having a heart attack you call for help! especially with the medical record that Richard had!
Ray Clark was terrible, it’s almost as if he had two or three breakdowns in that court room, He had his own conflict of interest in the case; he was giving Daniel Hernandez 30% of the fee he was getting from the court, without the court’s knowledge. He was getting paid – Daniel H was not. Clark’s qualifications allowed him to be assigned counsel, and could claim a fee from the State, He seems to have felt beholden to Daniel Hernandez for getting him the “gig” and did not challenge his strategy in the defence of Ramirez. Clark was appointed in March 89, way too late to have been much use. What an utter shambles!
I truly believe Richard was set up to get these lawyers I mean to have lawyers like these guys so useless didn’t even challenge anything! You guys aren’t lawers but you guys would for sure be way better than those useless lawyers Richard had and you guys aren’t even qualified to lawering around! Lol
My partner thinks this. It was too uncanny that he should get the worst lawyers known to man in the weakest serial killer case in history. It’s too much
It’s truly is too much! Nothing adds up at all! I agree it’s too weak. Isn’t it a lawyers job to challenge evidence? Why didn’t they do anything like say his lawyers! Sometimes I think they were working for the other team but idk.
The Hernandezs’ greed for money and fame mattered more than protecting another human. There were dozens of other factors that resulted in Richard’s life and freedom being stripped from him, but they were one of the most prominent ones. By trying to, in my opinion, pressure Richard and his family into signing some sort of book or movie deal. They basically already convicted and branded him the NS in their minds. They didn’t seem to have any intention of actually defending him and his rights to due process rather they wanted to profit as much as they could from the situation. Taking advantage of a mentally and physically ill man for money is one of the most sickening things that anyone can do!
I agree with you. The attorney posts were some of the hardest to do, I was so angry, and full of disbelief about what was I was seeing. All of it, hidden away in court papers, never talked about, never acknowledged. It is disgusting.
The audacity that Arturo Hernandez had to complain about not being paid properly while also not showing up to court. Is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my entire life. How about you do your bloody job first! You knew that his family did not have the means to pay you if the movie and book deals went through and yet yours till decided to go forward with representing him.
The grifter only realised too late that the case was defensible, they were hoping to force him through the trial quickly and get rich off of the profits of some rubbish movie. Two years into it they realise it was indeed VERY defensible, only it was too late! “History will absolve us”, they said. No, it won’t. Not now, not ever. They fucked up another case at the same time as Richard’s, that was their M.O – being useless.
I really wish Richard had stuck with his original public defenders they seemed to be decent people that were only trying to help. The judge was also complicit in allowing these two idiots to be hired for Richard’s defense.
I agree with you, Allen Adashek and Henry Hall would’ve done a much better job. Even his next attorney, the one he retained himself, Joseph Gallegos would’ve been better (although he died of a heart attack in Jan 86). Gallegos saw the competency issues, as did Adashek and Hall. Richard’s family talked him into firing Gallegos and then substituting him with the Hernandezes.
It’s a bad state of affairs when Californian law says attorneys must have the correct experience for defending a capital case, yet that same law allows a defendant to have the unqualified counsel to take him through a trial.
That part in particular did not make sense to me. I understand that they couldn’t give the Hernandezs money because they were not properly licensed. But they still let him keep them as his lawyers knowing that they weren’t fit for the job. Make it make sense!
I know. It’s because under Californian law a defendant can choose his own lawyer, but the court could have over ridden that, especially as Richard really wasn’t capable of choosing for himself. That decision created it’s own nightmare, he could indeed have his crap lawyers, but the court refused to appoint them because they weren’t qualified to defend a capital case. Without an official appointment from the court, the state wouldn’t pay them, hence they were broke and couldn’t afford to run his case properly. So they took on other work, failing all of their clients by not representing them, or fighting their cases. They make me rage.
The Manuel Barraza guy seems shady to me too. It was by his recommendation that Richard’s family sought out Arturo. He admitted that the publicity from Richard’s case helped grow his firm. Richard’s family probably desperate to find him a lawyer fast failed to do their own research on them before taking them on. I bet if they asked around a little bit they’d figure out that these two were clowns real quick.
Yes he was the one that recommend them because he was not licensed to practice law in California I think so he couldn’t represent him. If he could he would’ve jumped on the opportunity.
Yeah, if he’s a Texas-only lawyer, why was he waddling around California, talking to TV networks, reporters and producers? Did he have some connection to Hollywood? Was someone in LA pulling his strings?
There is so much hidden corruption and greed in regards to this case that I feel we may not ever get to know about or confirm. It’s repulsive and mind blowing how many tried to profit off this case back then and now. Like if you can’t have any form of sympathy and humanity towards him at least have it towards the innocent victims.
why was all this happening to only Richard case? why haven’t they allowed anything relating to his mental health been allowed in court?
why does he always end up with shitty lawyers except there was one you guys mentioned I forgot his name but you guys said he was pretty good but Richard I think fired him? Also what is up with all these constant documentaries that keep on freaking repeating itself! And oh don’t even get me started with those annoying crime podcast girls that out on make up while explaining the case lol those guys make me laugh! So pathetic! To take advantage of the man suffering from so much mental health problems physically and mentally is so damaging to the poor guy and his family! All for what money?! Is money so important that you guys had to sink that low to the sea?! Don’t you care at all about Richard’s health and hearing his side of the case?! Why all this BS! It’s not ok at all to take advantage of anyone especially someoen like Richard and anyone like him! He needed help so much help and was denied the chance to get that help!
Richard was essentially manipulated into choosing them by both his family and the lawyers themselves. This case really exposes the corrupt nature of human beings. His original public defenders Joseph Gallegos, Henry Hall, and other co-counsel immediately noticed that he was not competent mentally and ordered a psychological evaluation be conducted. Dr. William Vicary attempted to conduct the evaluation, but Richard was not cooperative or forth coming acting paranoid (rightfully so) and afraid that they would essentially send him to the ‘looney bin’ and use electroconvulsive therapy on him. Talking about mental illness and mental health in general seemed to be kind of a taboo thing to discuss back then and people weren’t as educated on it as they are today (there is still a lot misinformation and discrimination against people against people who have mental health issues). Being from a minority group myself I know that there is a huge stigma surrounding mental illness and mental health, even the very mention of it will have people looking at you and treating you differently. I bet that in the Mexican/Latino population it was probably not that well discussed or acknowledged for fear of this discrimination. So it made sense to me that unfortunately Richard was not willing to cooperate with the psychologist. Later in life they had to use the Rorschach test among a host of other psychological and neurological tests to get a understanding of his neurological and psychological state because he was not capable of communicating his issues properly. As a psychology student myself it was incredibly distressing and heartbreaking to read his psych reports.
So many names! His main LA public defenders were Allen Adashek and Henry Hall. Gallegos was the attorney he retained for himself, before firing him as well, on his family’s advice.
I found the psych reports heart breaking, too. Anne Evans in particular; oh my God! I found she made no effort to really understand him and pushed aside he real and valid fears without considering the reasons behind his paranoid imaginings. Yes, he was psychotic, yes he was delusional, but after 4 years of betrayals and surrounded by incompetency, is it any wonder? She derides him for being concerned about phone calls, money, books and his women; it does seem unimportant when weighed against a death penalty, but not to Richard. That was all he had left.
I personally find Dr. Anne Evans psych report to be kind of unprofessional. Richard was probably difficult to work with, but her personal opinions and beliefs seemed to leak in at some points distorting what is supposed to be a professional evaluation if that makes sense.
Elise Taylor’s I found more subtle and interesting. She seemed to have some compassion, although her exasperation with his sexual overtures are evident. She talks of her “relationship” with him, and drops the “Mr Ramirez” to “Richard” in her written report.
I can imagine that Richard’s persistence about the issue probably pissed her off. Everyone has their limits. But attempts should always be made to be as professional and objective as possible in these types of reports.
Did you notice how he used his advances almost as a deflection? When she tried to draw him out about his family and childhood, he would start on with sexualised thoughts about her.
Yea I noticed that too. I frankly found it weird at first. But after reading his families declarations (I don’t find the so called life story a reliable source tbh), particularly his mothers and Ignacio’s, it makes sense to me. His childhood was so horrific and painful to read about and his family had a whole host of issues. We probably only a small percentage of it as well. Nobody really wants to make themselves vulnerable, especially not Richard. The very thought of openly discussing these things was probably so painful for him. Poor thing.
I know some of the psychologists mentioned in their reports that he was very protective of his family. Most of what we know about them came directly from the family itself. There is definitely more to this family than what we know. Basically all of them turning to drugs and crime for support is not indicative of a safe, supportive, and conducive home environment.
Yeah I think his family had a massive mistrust of normal medicine. Rather than take him for prescribed Gringo shit, they took him to those Mexican/Indigenous American witch doctors. In the 60s and 70s they’d have qualified for Medicaid so I have no idea why they acted like they couldnt afford it. The brain scans were offered for free and there were charities for disabled children but they didn’t seek or trust them. Really sad.
The incident with the border patrol officer which resulted in them being kicked out of the country probably diminished whatever trust they had within the entire American system. I know that it sounds like I am making excuses for them, but neither of his parents were really formally educated and the rest of their families weren’t supportive in any way towards them. I think their personal pride for solving their own problems and distrust in the system led them to seek, in my opinion, rather crude forms of medical treatment, but it was at the risk of their children’s health. I agree it’s really sad to hear about.
Richard had very competent lawyers in San Francisco in readiness for the Pan trial (that never happened). Michael Burt, Dorothy Bischoff, Daro Inouye and Randall Martin. Richard fired Martin because of his paranoia, fuelled by his thinking Randall Martin was having a fling with Cupcake Cindy. He also refused to let Daro Inouye sit near him, because he once told Daro some personal things and then decided he knew “too much”. Richard was his own worst enemy. Although it is understandable why he didn’t trust his lawyers, considering he’d been so badly let down during the 4 years of the LA trial.
Sometimes I think he needed someone to hug him and calm him down but I guess it’s inappropriate and unprofessional for lawyers to do so. Plus his inappropriate behaviour probably creeped them out and it might make that worse if you establish physical contact with him.
I agree totally but still it’s so so sad that he couldn’t get that kind of love. He was also hiding how he feels and shuts off his emotions as his father told him and his siblings to do so that tough guy we saw is just a cover up to hide that pain in him so people don’t see him as a weakling
Something that I have often wonder but have been afraid to say in regards to this case is if Richard had been white would the result have been different. Would the media have reported anything differently? Would they have actually pegged him as the NS? There is so much racism and prejudice against Mexicans and Latinos in general in this country today. I can’t imagine what it was like back in the 80’s. California has been notorious for acting as if it is one of the most welcoming diverse states in the US and yet minority populations suffer the most amount of discrimination in this state from what I see.
I think it made him easier to despise and less people cared about him like “another Mexican criminal off the streets” attitude. I find it odd that Carrillo gets famous taking down a fellow Mexican-American… after Salerno became famous for taking out his fellow Italian-Americans the Hillside Stranglers.
tbh I felt the same way i felt as tho if he wasn’t someone of color or Mexican maybe things would have been different! I mean look at bundy case he got fair trial even tho we knew he was guilty! But how come Richard was denied one. Was it cuz he was Mexican? Not white but a person of color? Lots of things can be the reason! It’s so wrong! Here In canada it’s similar but to the native people not cool at all how they are treated
Gallegos? Because he’d been in trouble a few years previously. He had allegedly shot a prostitute in her hand over an argument over cash, A judge threw the case out later. Richard’s family said it wouldn’t look good if Gallegos defended him, but they had already retained the Hernandezes themselves.
We honestly don’t mind. If we’re around we will answer you. If we’re working or something, we’ll answer when we get back. It’s how we learn, by asking questions and sharing info.
The cover’s a weird one. Not the usual blood themed design you’d expect on this genre…it’s very colourful. I’m sure people will think it’s a weird choice but it’s my personal aesthetic and it’s different. 🤣
I definitely don’t think it’s weird! I think it will be super cool! I understand this case is very dark but bring a little color into it wouldn’t hurt!
Yeah he was so easy to take advantage of. It irritates me when people think he was a clever man, manipulating attorneys and gaming the system. He was clearly clueless, low IQ, brain damaged, learning disabled…even his “confessions” aren’t admissible because of this. It’s so sad and people with learning difficulties always end up being tricked and coerced in these situations.
I suffer from learning disabilities I hate admitting it and I try hiding it and like to believe and tell myself I’m normal so I totally understand Richard!
It’s so embarrassing to me idk why I just see others doing what I wish I could do and knowing I can’t do that hurts! And it’s prevents me from doing so much! I’m 27! And I don’t even have friends! 🫣
it’s crazy also how they thought of jk. As well as a criminal master mind when he was at follower and such an unskilled criminal! If you see other criminals especially serial killers they all have one thing in common! They are SKILLED! Richard wasn’t! He was different!
right now I just saw one of the paranormal shows I love watching and omg of course they mention Richard and ceil hotel and stating that he killed over 38 ppl but convicted of only 13 and possibly killed an employee at ceil hotel going to his room calling him I think omg I lost so much respect for these people it’s not even funny! I just should out loud LIES!!!!
There are multiple episodes where they hang out in the cemetery he supposedly hung out in. I don’t watch these shows but my mum does and she always tells me about them haha
LMAO someone posted rare footage of a interview with Richard on Youtube and his fangirls are freaking out! A lot of people commented that they were surprised to see that he seems like a pretty chill and laid back person instead of a cocky monster and that prior clips of the same interview seemed heavily edited to portray him negatively. It’s nice to see people use their brains for once.
I said a long time ago that it was so obvious they had edited that footage to show him negatively. We never saw the interviewer but it was obvious it was a female. I am now wondering about the bit on the edited video, the one where the male voice says “Why did you hurt those people?”, and Richard, seems to look sideways and laugh. I think that voice was edited in later to make him look psycho. His interviewer was a female.
Yea I watched the video several times and waited to hear that question and I was confused at first to hear a female voice. If they have nothing to hide release the full footage.
I always said for years that the interviewer (who we never saw) was a woman. His body language and flirtatiousness said it all. That male voice made no sense, we never saw who asked the question, and yet it has contributed to the twisting and manipulation of Richard’s image/personality. These ex cop “body language experts” going on and on about how it shows he’s a psychopath, when they were actually analysing a faked edit. I have never seen a greater example of media manipulation and brain washing.
Everyone always assumes he means the most evil thing possible. Even the Israeli woman interviewing him. Even though he said “crimes they said I did”, she interpreted it as him enjoying murder at the bit where he said he was happy until his arrest.
I thought that she was doing too much. She was reading too much into everything he said and did. Not everything is that deep. He was probably nervous as any person would be during an interview.
Lol I thought we would give a different answer after reading all his letters particularly the risqué ones. The way he started talking about how are some people are into s and m and bondage instead answering the question made me laugh out loud.
I’m gonna be honest I’ve read smut before (which I’m embarrassed to admit) and his letters kind of sound like something out of a sex education class. Like a step by step explanation of what happens. It’s almost kind of wholesome. He was so funny without trying!
LMAO don’t be embarrassed. I used to WRITE it hahahaha. Yes, he seemed very inexperienced. There was one where he was fantasising a situation where he was washing the woman’s legs…
Similar to how he was told by a different set of lawyers (I think) to not go on the Maury show. Sometimes his rebellious nature and actions can be incredibly annoying because it leads to him digging a bigger hole for himself. But seeing how disastrous of a job the Hernandezs and Clark did in LA it makes sense why he doesn’t trust lawyers in general.
No wonder he yelled “Liar!” at him in court. I imagine that betrayal must’ve hurt, for Solano to lie and say he only received stolen items off Richard is truly revolting.
When I saw the footage of law enforcement almost proudly displaying the stolen goods. The first thing that went through my mind is how did only one person steal 1,500+ items? It just doesn’t seem feasible to do without ever getting caught. That part never made sense to me and the fact that they didn’t find any fingerprints or other forms of evidence connecting him to the items was always weird to me.
Nah it put a smile on my face. He was such a goofball. It is kind of sad tho that it’s one of the few proper pieces of footage that we can find on him.
Yes! He was a dopey bastard! Very likeable though, just how people described him. I still think that wasn’t the full footage though. Bits are still missing.
Damn ten years is a long time. But it makes sense. There was so much stuff they had to go over including documents and footage and they had to hire experts to look over everything and get declarations and such. Sadly the lawyers that worked on his appeals seemed to be the only ones who cared about this case. I admire them for the sheer amount of work and dedication that they put into this case.
That was his direct appeal, it took ten years to even be read! Ten years! And with the automatic review on appeal, no new evidence is allowed. It is really just reiterating the original convictions. Disgusting! Did you see the post we have on all of his appeals?
I wish too. Life and the world itself can be incredibly unfair. The only thing we can do now is to try to put this mess of a case into understandable terms and explain it to those who are willing to listen and have a rational conversation. Like Jay, Venning, and Kaycee are trying to do.
You’re very kind, but we’re not really amazing. Just belligerent with a lot to say! We’re grateful for your support and glad you feel you can talk openly about the case. I know how hard that is to do.
I think there were many reasons; his incompetent lawyers stalling for time because they weren’t doing their job, voir dire took months, they just weren’t ready. Plus all the witnesses and the hearings, it was so strung out. Remember Lt Dan Jones of the LAPD saying “Now comes the hard work trying him to all the cases”.. I imagine that took a LOT of time as well.
If you are gonna accuse someone of committing something you better have bloody “iron bars” connecting them to the crimes not a “ball of kitting yarn”. His connections to all these crimes are just so weak you have to mental gymnastics to understand most of it.
That’s why the prosecution needed that joinder, to connect all the crimes and have just the one BIG trial. The defence did file a motion to sever the charges, but it was (of course) denied.
It is a massive and there is so much information it becomes overwhelming, It’s very hard to take it all in at once, it really takes a while to let it all sink in. This is probably the worst trial I have ever read about.
Richard had the worst set of lawyers imaginable, under qualified and under prepared.
You’re correct, it was Rosa who hired them after she was put in touch with them by the Ramirez family lawyer, Manuel Barraza. He was hoping to represent him but did not hold a licence to practice in California.
Funding was a huge problem, because they lacked the qualifications necessary to be court appointed, they were privately retained, but of course the Ramirez family had no money.
Hoping for a book or a movie deal was how they intended to fund themselves.
California law states that attorneys must have a certain level of experience of capital crimes to be assigned by the court (therefore state funded) but (paradoxically) it also states that a defendant has the right to choose their own defence team. Sadly, encouraged by the family, Richard chose the Hernandezes.
I doubt any of them knew how bad they were, and it’s unlikely, at that time, that Richard fully understood what he was entitled to expect from his defence team. He wouldn’t have realised how his 6th amendment right to due process was being violated.
I think his brother Robert insisted that he needed Spanish lawyers, I imagine the whole family did, including Richard. I have seen one video where Richard is whispering in Spanish to his lawyers during his first court appearance and another where he’s speaking to them in English.
Arturo stated in his declaration that they thought (at first) that the case was indefensible, and then found out that it was very defensible but lacked the funds (or skills) to fight it adequately. It was an appalling business and they should never have been allowed to handle his case.
Judge Dion Morrow warned Richard that his rights were being violated, I wish he’d removed them completely.
If you’ve read “And Justice For All”, I’ve included a list of the fines given to Arturo for being in contempt of court.
Although it’s marketed as “The Hubbard Street Heroes”, the incident was called in as a car-jacking, not “Hey, we caught the Night Stalker”.
When the arresting officer arrived he had no idea either and Richard was arrested for grand theft auto, not for being a killer.
It wasn’t until he asked his name the penny dropped.
So the Hubbard Street Heroes tried to beat to death a car thief. Of course people have the right to defend themselves and their property but it was a bit extreme. Richard was very
glad to see the police, which seems
unbelievable, but he was.
He was completely unaware of what was waiting for him until he got off that bus. Venning made an interesting comment the other day, she questioned why Ramirez was so unconcerned at seeing cops at the Greyhound station, he wandered off to buy himself coffee instead of trying to conceal himself.
He must have known the “Night Stalker” was hot news, even though he hadn’t known he was the prime suspect. Why Richard, if he was the Stalker, decided to return to a city on the hunt for him, seems a crazy move to me.. IF he was the killer.
I know, it does seem crazy, but allegedly he said, ‘Thank God!’ when they turned up.
We love those news archives, you can turn up some really interesting things.
The entire Hubbard Street Heroes debacle was nothing short of a disgrace—an appalling spectacle, a mockery of justice. As both of you pointed out, the individuals who attacked Richard on Hubbard Street had absolutely no idea he was the prime suspect for the Night Stalker murders, despite what the media and law enforcement eagerly pushed for public consumption. The reality is that they were savagely beating Richard because they thought he stole a car—which, yes, is wrong, but in no way justifies the brutal treatment he received. Getting bashed with a tire iron and stomped on until he was a bloody mess? Absolutely inexcusable.
Yet, in an unbelievable display of twisted righteousness, law enforcement not only failed to condemn the assault but actually lauded the attackers, handing out awards and commendations. This was nothing short of a concerted effort to publicly bias the masses—and potentially influence jurors—against Richard before he even had a chance to defend himself in court. The message sent to the public was clear: “Look at these brave, ordinary citizens who took down the ‘big bad’ Night Stalker.” But the truth is, these vigilantes did nothing more than falsely cement Richard’s guilt in the court of public opinion before a trial even took place. They weren’t protecting the community from a car thief—they were contributing to the witch hunt that would paint Richard as guilty long before due process could unfold.
And it doesn’t stop there. This same media frenzy and public manipulation was evident in the case of James Romero too, albeit he probably didn’t know what was going on because he was a child. If these so-called heroes genuinely cared about justice being served, they would’ve waited for the trial to unfold—allowing the constitutional process to determine guilt—before throwing around public praise and accolades. But no, they chose to crown themselves in the heat of a moment, after their actions had already poisoned the narrative. It’s not dissimilar to plastering Richard’s face on a billboard, labeling him the “Night Stalker” for all to see, before the trial could even begin. It’s a gross violation of everything justice is supposed to stand for, and yet, here we are, watching it unfold in broad daylight.
Absolutely, and of course it was heavily underlined by Mayor Tom Bradley telling the media that they “don’t need a trial for this guy” based on evidence he’d “seen”.
That made chance of a fair trial in LA impossible.
Yeah he was supposedly scared of being caught according to friends but it doesn’t explain that he went away and came back twice and was just bumming around the city as normal.
Expendable For A Cause. 
Leave a reply to ~ Jay ~ Cancel reply