Expendable For A Cause.

Peter Pan and his wife, Barbara, lived on Eucalyptus Drive in the Lake Merced area of San Francisco. Around 10 a.m. on August 18, 1985, their son stopped by their home and found Peter Pan had been shot and killed, and Barbara had been brutally attacked and sexually assaulted. The house had been ransacked. Initial news articles report the Pan’s son as having said his parents didn’t own anything distinctive or unusual and that nothing was missing from the home. However, later news reports would state that jewelry had been stolen.

After Richard Ramirez was convicted and sentenced to death at his Los Angeles trial in November 1989, he was transferred to San Quentin State Prison’s death row. But legal proceedings against him were not over. San Francisco Assistant District Attorney Eugene Sweeters and his supervisor, San Francisco District Attorney Arlo Smith, had every intention of prosecuting Ramirez for the 1985 murder of Peter Pan and the assault on Barbara Pan.

The San Francisco case against Richard Ramirez is shrouded in secrecy as the court documents are not available to the public. So, we can only speculate as to what evidence law enforcement may or may not have had against Richard. There is only a small amount of information contained in a few news sources from the time. Even those must be taken with a “grain of salt” as San Francisco Police, the media, and the community in general were biased against Richard, and his guilt was assumed.

Timeline of events per the San Francisco Examiner & the San Francisco Chronicle

Richard first appeared in San Francisco Municipal Court for the Pan crimes on December 5, 1989. Other than the Hernandezes, yes, the same ones that did a deplorable job of “defending” him on the Los Angeles charges, showing up and insisting they were going to defend Richard in San Francisco, nothing noteworthy is reported other than an arraignment date being set for January 1990. After this, much of what appears in news articles indicates a series of delays and postponements that hindered the discovery process and eventually culminated in the case never going to a preliminary hearing but instead being submitted to a grand jury for an indictment.

• December 5,1989-Richard’s first appearance in San Francisco Municipal Court on charges for the murder of Peter Pan, assault on Barbara Pan, and burglary. The arraignment was postponed to January 5, 1990.
• February 5, 1990-Richard pleads innocent to SF charges/Randall Martin of the San Francisco Public Defender’s office was appointed his attorney.
• March 30, 1990-Preliminary hearing set for June 25, 1990.
• June 8, 1990-Preliminary hearing postponed to July 25, 1990.
• September 1990-Preliminary hearing set for October 5, 1990.
• October 1990-Preliminary hearing delayed to March 5,1991
• April 1991-Preliminary hearing postponed.
• May 13, 1991-After over a year of delays in proceedings at the San Francisco Municipal Court, a San Francisco grand jury indicted Richard on charges of murder, rape, assault, and burglary.
• June 6, 1991-Richard pled not guilty to SF charges. The attorney’s request for a preliminary hearing was rejected. A trial date was set for December 9th.
• January 8, 1993-Due to defense discovery motions, a San Francisco Superior Court judge postponed Richard’s SF trial. Nearly four years after Richard first appeared in a San Francisco court, the LA district attorney’s office had yet to turn over all documents relating to the so-called Nightstalker investigation to Richard’s San Francisco attorneys, causing more delays.
• March 8, 1994-Trial delayed again due to concerns with the grand jury that handed down the indictment.
• 1995-San Francisco trial proceedings stayed indefinitely.

San Francisco Examiner, May 12, 1991

Without presenting too much legal jargon, a few definitions may be helpful to have a better understanding of the San Francisco proceedings.

• Preliminary hearing-like a mini-trial, the prosecution calls witnesses and introduces evidence, and the defense can cross-examine witnesses. Richard did not have a preliminary hearing in San Francisco.
• Grand jury– a group of citizens authorized to conduct legal proceedings and determine whether criminal charges should be brought against someone. The grand jury indictment is drafted by the prosecutor and presents only the prosecution’s case. No judge, public defender, or criminal defense attorneys are allowed in the grand jury room. Grand juries convene in secret, and a unanimous decision is not required. After receiving a decision from the grand jury foreperson, the prosecutor can skip the preliminary hearing and proceed directly to trial. The defendant does not know the evidence being considered, does not have a right to be present, and cannot question the evidence early in the criminal justice process. The grand jury can end up being a tool of the prosecution, and the prosecutor can choose to withhold evidence that is favorable to the accused. 
• Grand jury indictment–formal criminal charges are brought against a defendant. The indictment is merely a charging document used to bring a defendant into court to answer criminal charges. It is not evidence.

**We can only assume more delays and postponements occurred between 1994-1995, as no additional information appears in the San Francisco Examiner or other area newspapers regarding the SF charges or trial. **

The Grand Jury Indictment

A defense attorney not on the Ramirez case, but assigned to a different case in which the same grand jury also indicted his client, brought forth claims that the grand jury had not taken an oath and been sworn in. Therefore, the attorney claimed that his client should go free. If this was true, every other person indicted by this grand jury, including Richard Ramirez, should not have been charged. 

An article in the San Francisco Examiner from August 23, 1991, questioning the validity of the grand jury indictment.

Negative Impact of Grand Juries

A grand jury is a one-sided proceeding in that the defense attorney is not allowed to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or argue for his client. Consequently, grand jury indictments are relatively easy for a prosecutor to obtain. Suppose the grand jury decides the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence to support a belief a person has committed a crime. In that case, it returns an indictment charging the person with that crime. Typically, a trial follows the grand jury indictment. What appears to have happened with Richard’s case is that he was indicted by the SF grand jury, never had a preliminary hearing, and the district attorney was planning to take the case straight to trial (with Richard’s case, there was no trial after the grand jury indictment).

Because there was no preliminary hearing, Richard had no idea who testified against him, or what was said, and he would not have known what so-called evidence was being used against him.

Was District Attorney Eugene Sweeters “Soft on Crime?”

 Eugene Sweeters was the San Francisco Assistant District Attorney that was adamant about prosecuting Richard Ramirez for the Pan crimes even though Richard had received 12 death sentences at his LA trial. Some of his colleagues, specifically LA trial prosecutor Philip Halpin, questioned why Sweeters was pursuing the charges against Ramirez. Halpin felt strongly that the SF charges should be dropped as he was concerned that if the LA witnesses were required to testify in SF, there would be a conflict between the testimony they gave in LA and what they might give in SF. Sweeters response to Halpin was there was “no chance” he would drop the SF charges. Despite pushback from law enforcement and members of the community, Eugene Sweeters would not give in to the demands of those who opposed his decision to take Richard to trial for the Pan crimes.   San Francisco Examiner February 3, 1991

District Attorney Cat Fight

LA attorney Philip Halpin was very concerned that assistant district attorney Eugene Sweeters would not drop the Pan charges against Richard, despite the effect it could potentially have on the LA convictions and the Pan family wanting to settle the case out of court. Apparently, Halpin wasn’t just concerned that the LA victims might have to appear in SF court, but he was worried that the LA trial would be closely scrutinized. But if the LA cases were airtight, what did Halpin have to be concerned about? That’s just it. Nothing about Richard’s LA trial or convictions were airtight and Halpin knew it. Newspapers also reported speculation from legal experts who felt the LA convictions might be overturned on appeal because of incompetent attorneys.

Although we do not know specific details of the grand jury indictment or what occurred during the multiple SF court hearings, we know at the end of the day, the San Francisco district attorney stopped trial proceedings against Richard. Eugene Sweeters was unyielding in pursuing charges against Richard and bringing him to trial for the Pan crimes, despite the Pan family and many members of law enforcement not wanting a trial for someone who was already on death row. Something significant must have occurred to sway him from the course of action he was determined to carry out. What was it that persuaded Eugene Sweeters to cease proceedings? We do have an answer to this question. The mental health and psychosocial history developed by San Francisco Public Defenders Randall Martin, Daniel Inouye, and Michael Burt concerning Richard was very detailed with compelling supporting evidence. Eugene Sweeters feared if he moved forward with a trial in SF, Richard’s attorneys would use this information and get the SF charges altered or dropped.

The SF charges against Richard were stayed indefinitely, meaning he never had a trial to determine whether he committed these crimes. The San Francisco District Attorney did not stay the charges against Richard because he was “soft on crime.” The reason the SF charges were indefinitely stayed is because of the social and medical history that San Francisco Public Defenders developed and presented to the courts. Eugene Sweeters knew that if he took Richard to trial for the Pan crimes and his attorneys brought forth the evidence regarding Richard’s mental and physical health and his psychosocial history, this would very likely have been used to present an “insanity defense” or a “not competent to stand trial” approach, meaning the effect of the evidence presented in San Francisco would have affected all of the LA convictions, with a reasonable possibility of overturning the LA verdicts. Because if Richard wasn’t mentally competent at the time of the Pan crimes, then he could not have been mentally competent at the time of the other Night Stalker crimes. Regardless of what you may have read or heard elsewhere; this is an accurate account of what happened with the SF charges against Richard.

Let me reiterate this: Richard was never convicted of murdering Peter Pan, assaulting Barbara Pan, or for the burglary of their home. Anything you have read suggesting otherwise is based on a false narrative and is not true. Don’t believe everything you read or hear about this case.

Unanswered Questions

Perhaps one of the things we should consider is why attorney Philip Halpin was concerned about the LA trial and verdict being analyzed? There should have been no worries if the LA charges and evidence were legitimate. If the Los Angeles Police and Sheriff’s Departments conducted a thorough, top-notch investigation, then they should have been confident that the convictions would hold up and not be overturned. Apparently, Halpin and other members of law enforcement did not have faith in their case or the evidence they presented. If one takes a good look at exactly what they presented to the jury, you will see that most of it does not hold up to scrutiny, was false and deliberately misleading.

A brief explanation of what a legal “stay” is

 There are two main types of legal stays: a stay of proceedings and a stay of execution. A stay of proceedings refers to an order by a court stopping the actions of an entire case or a specific process within a case. A stay-in-execution court order refers to suspending the implementation of a ruling by a court. A stay of execution may be granted when a court allows an additional appeal by a prisoner and may also refer to a halt in carrying out a death penalty sentence. Richard received both types of stays: an indefinite stay of proceedings in his San Francisco case and a stay of his death sentences, as his 2008 federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was making its way to the United States Ninth Circuit Court. 

KayCee

Nov 25 2023