Expendable For A Cause.

You may recall our exciting adventure to the Los Angeles Archives and Records Center last October in the hope of finding some key legal documents. While we were able to obtain several trial documents, we were unable to access all the volumes from the LA trial due to time constraints; however, this did not deter us.

After returning to our respective homes, we were still determined to obtain documents from volumes 4, 5, & 6 – there were 9 in total. Motivated by our commitment to uncovering the truth, we rolled up our sleeves, persevered through months of less-than-enthusiastic writing, and unleashed a flurry of phone calls that would make any telemarketer envious. With every frustrating, “Sorry, that’s not public record” response, we could practically hear the collective eye rolls from our side of the phone. Our persistence finally paid off! At long last, we’ve obtained a small number of trial documents, mostly legal motions referring to things that we could probably recite in our sleep. But hey, every little bit counts, right? Is it everything we hoped for? No, but it adds another layer to understanding this already complex case.

Amongst the various motions we recently received from the Los Angeles Archives and Record Center, we found a declaration from an expert witness that provides insight into Judge Tynan’s courtroom behavior and his stance toward the defense during the trial. This declaration strongly suggests that Judge Tynan displayed a troublesome bias against both the Hernándezes and Richard. We have previously noted instances of bias in Judge Tynan’s rulings and objections, which clearly favored the prosecution at the expense of the defense.
However, this is the first time we’ve encountered explicit mention by anyone directly involved in the trial, aside from the defense attorneys, of the bias that influenced the courtroom dynamics.

In 1987, the Hernándezes arranged for John Weeks, a demographic and statistical expert witness, to examine the jury selection process in the Ramirez case, explicitly addressing the small number of Hispanics drawn from the population as potential jurors. John Weeks was a distinguished Professor Emeritus of Sociology and the Director of the International Population Center at San Diego State University. He had decades of experience in research, writing, publishing papers, and consulting. He had also served as an expert witness in numerous legal cases, representing both the defense and prosecution.

Weeks submitted a declaration to the court, although it is unclear to whom it was specifically addressed; the document is marked as having been received on July 1, 1988. Having served as an expert witness in multiple criminal cases in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside counties, Weeks had observed numerous judges presiding over legal motions. In his declaration, he stated that Judge Tynan demonstrated a level of bias against the defense that he had never encountered with any other judge. Weeks noted that Tynan often appeared “irritated and exasperated” with the Hernándezes during the proceedings. He also observed Tynan rudely interrupting the defense’s questions and objections on numerous occasions, suggesting a lack of interest in what the defense attorneys had to say.

John Weeks vividly recalls how his testimony was abruptly cut short by an end-of-day recess on one occasion. Judge Tynan ordered him to return to court the following morning, showing no concern about whether this would conflict with Weeks’ professional commitments. Faced with this dilemma, Weeks informed Daniel Hernandez of his inability to attend court the next morning. In response, Hernandez called upon the Court Bailiff to summon Tynan for a discussion. However, the bailiff returned without Tynan and conveyed that the judge had no interest in listening to excuses and refused to engage with either Hernandez or Weeks. When Weeks did not appear in court the next morning due to his teaching obligations in San Diego, Tynan became furious, threatening to have him “bodily attached”, meaning that Tynan would issue a warrant for Weeks’ arrest and have law enforcement bring him to court. He dismissively ignored the defense’s explanation for Weeks’ absence, showing a complete disregard for the circumstances. Weeks reported that he arrived later, during the noon recess, at which point Tynan displayed a sarcastic attitude toward him. Tynan neither apologized for his rudeness the previous day nor acknowledged Weeks’ legitimate reasons for missing court. Weeks asserted that Tynan seemed uninterested in the jury challenge motion to which he was testifying and acted in a way that suggested he simply wanted to dispose of the motion as quickly as possible.

Weeks appeared in court again at a later date to continue his testimony regarding jury selection. He reported that as he was finishing his direct examination, Judge Tynan stated that he had not been presented with the basic facts that Weeks was discussing, specifically the disparity in the number of Hispanics selected as potential jurors. Because of this, Tynan was inclined to deny the motion. The defense pointed out to Tynan that Weeks had indeed presented the very evidence he claimed to have not seen. At this point, Judge Tynan acknowledged that he had not taken the time to review Weeks’ prior testimony; however, he had already decided that he was likely to rule against the motion concerning the matter of Hispanics on the jury panel.

Weeks expressed his dismay at Tynan’s behavior, describing it as one of the“most blatant instances of judicial close-mindedness” he had ever witnessed in his many years as an expert witness. He further stated that this behavior reflected Judge Tynan’s overall attitude toward the defense during the time he was involved in the case.

From the available information, it’s clear that Judge Tynan made absurd rulings, ignored precedents and court rules, overlooked legal errors by the prosecution, and appeared to exhibit inherent biases towards the defense. It appears that Judge Tynan wasn’t interested in fairness or justice. But then what else should we expect from an LA Superior Court judge working for one of the most corrupt judicial systems in the nation?

And onward we continue…

Why do we continue the quest for trial documents and other materials? Because of a genuine interest in untangling the convoluted web that permeates every aspect of the Nightstalker case.

Our mission? To uncover the truth that has been buried in the California legal system for decades, out of public awareness, and to sift through the legal maze and uncover the documents that hold the key to exposing the intricate, sensationalized story. We aim to continue to find and divulge the essential documents that can shed light on the railroading of Richard Ramirez.

The journey is far from over.

We look forward to sharing our findings with you. Stay tuned for updates as we continue in our efforts to unravel this story piece by piece

KayCee