Supreme Court Upholds Two Death Sentences

SAN FRANCISCO —  The state Supreme Court on Thursday affirmed the death sentences of two convicted murderers, rejecting claims that their court-appointed lawyers failed to properly defend them at trial.

The decisions came over the sharp dissent of one justice, who said the defendant in one case had been represented by an attorney who served as a “second prosecutor” and “virtually commended him to the gas chamber.”

The rulings brought to 11 the number of death sentences upheld in 15 capital cases decided by the new court since the departure of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and two other justices defeated in the November, 1986, election. Under Bird, the court affirmed only four of 68 death verdicts.

In Thursday’s actions, the court upheld the sentences rendered against Melvin Meffery Wade for the torture murder of his 10-year-old stepdaughter in San Bernardino in 1981 and Keith Daniel Williams for the killings of three farm workers during a robbery and kidnaping in Merced in 1978.

Dog Leash

Wade, among other things, was accused of beating the girl with a wooden board, confining her for hours in a duffel bag, wrapping a dog leash around her neck and finally stomping and punching her to death, shouting that he was “Michael the Archangel” killing “a devil.”

Wade’s sentence had been reversed by the Bird court in January, 1987, on grounds that the jury was improperly instructed it should not be influenced by “mere sympathy” for the defendant.

The new court later granted a rehearing at the request of state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court held in another case that the sympathy instruction was permissible, so long as jurors were also told that they must still consider all mitigating evidence that might lead them to vote for life in prison for a defendant instead of death.

In a 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, the state court found that under the federal high court guidelines, Wade’s sentence must be upheld.

The justices said that jurors had not been misled by the sympathy instruction because other statements by the judge, prosecutor and defense attorney made it clear that jurors must weigh all mitigating evidence, including background and character evidence submitted in Wade’s behalf.

Wade’s main contention, however, centered on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by his court-appointed attorney, S. Donald Ames of San Bernardino. Such contentions are frequently made in capital appeals.

Lawyers representing Wade on appeal said Ames improperly implied that he was representing Wade only out of a sense of duty--not conviction--and failed to fully and vigorously wage a defense of his client.

The court majority turned down that claim, finding that Ames may have had sound tactical reasons for readily acknowledging “the heinous nature” of the crime and concentrating on the assertion that Wade was insane--a contention the jury ultimately rejected.

Justice Allen E. Broussard issued a strong dissent, based largely on an opinion Bird wrote in the 1987 decision, saying Ames’ representation of Wade made a “mockery” of his right to adequate counsel.

Broussard noted that Ames had told jurors he himself was “appalled and disgusted” by the crime, that his wife had bought flowers for the girl’s grave and that if he did not contend Wade was insane, he could be accused of inadequately representing Wade.

Mental State

Alluding to Wade’s mental state and a claim that he suffered from “multiple personalities,” Ames, after urging that Wade’s life be spared, also told the jury that if death were imposed, “you may be also giving an escape, once again by analogy the gift of life, to Melvin Meffery Wade to be free from this horror that he and only he knows so well.”

Broussard said: “To the extent such an argument is directed at gaining the jury’s sympathy for the defendant, it does so only by commending him to death.”

An attorney who argues that death offers his client “an escape,” is “not an adversary of the prosecution (but) rather . . . a second prosecutor,” the justice said.

Ames on Thursday defended his actions, saying he believed that it was the best way to defend a mentally unstable client faced with insurmountable evidence in a “very, very difficult case.”

His statements to jurors, Ames said, were aimed at winning mercy for a defendant so mentally troubled that he said on the witness stand he would welcome death because God knew a “different personality” had entered his body and actually committed the crime.

“To have treated this case as a whodunit would have received very short shrift from the jury,” Ames said. “The only way to treat it was to raise any and all mental defenses that appeared to be present.”

Previous Ruling

Ames expressed particular dismay with the criticism he received from Bird, in the previous ruling, and Broussard, in Thursday’s decision.

“My feeling lies with the defendants I represent, but on an intellectual basis, I feel California is well rid of Justice Bird,” he said.

State Deputy Public Defender Donald L.A. Kerson, who represented Wade on appeal, was highly critical of the decision.

“When a lawyer says in effect, ‘Execute my client and you’ll be doing him a favor,’ it’s beyond me how that comes out as a plea for sympathy,” Kerson said.

The court’s unanimous ruling upholding Williams’ death sentence also focused largely on the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Justice David N. Eagleson, in a 149-page majority opinion, acknowledged that Williams’ trial counsel improperly placed before jurors statements by a psychiatric expert finding that contrary to defense claims, Williams was sane and quoting the defendant as saying in an interview he would kill again if released from prison.

Strong Evidence

While the lawyer’s actions were “not within the range of acceptable performance,” it was “not reasonably likely” that the outcome of the trial would have been different in view of the strong evidence against Williams, the court said.