The Valley of the Shadow of Death
Page 18
As he spoke of the killings Norris waved the murder weapon in front of the jury, arguing that either CW and Burns brought the rifle with them, or Burns got it when he went to pick up Cox, or when they stopped at Burns’s house to supposedly get gas money. Norris further suggested that the letters “PBG” scratched onto the gun indicated it came from the Playboy Gangsters, a Crip set friendly to the Rolling Sixties at the time, and argued that the gun may have come from Horse’s PBG friend known as Insane.
In establishing Burns’s liability, Norris stated that “those who directly and actively commit the act constituting the crime, or those who aid and abet the crime are principals. It is the contention of the People in this case that Mr. Burns falls under both categories.”
Norris then quoted the law:
A person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he (1) with the knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator, and (2) with the intent or purpose of committing or encouraging or facilitating the commission of the offense, either by act or advice, aids, promotes, encourages, or instigates the commission of the crime.
As to motive, the district attorney listed several: a retaliatory hit, a hit for a drug deal, a hit for a businessman, and a Rolling Sixties–ordered hit. But it made no difference. Motive was not an element of murder. As long as the defendants went there with the intent to kill, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilt was proven.
Norris concluded, “You have something just as bad as your Nazi storm trooper upon that street when they come down to the house where the Alexander family is. . . . Convict Mr. Horace Burns of what he righteously deserves, that is, all four murders as well as the special circumstances.”
* * *
The defense pointed the finger at CW, saying that the prosecution witnesses had lied to protect him and instead fingered Burns. The defense focused on Ida Moore’s relationship to CW and that she was an accomplice whose testimony had to be viewed with great caution.
The defense continually stressed that a jury should not convict based upon the testimony of lying dope dealers, accomplices, and jailhouse snitches who cut deals in exchange for testimony.
The defense criticized the prosecutor’s closing argument for throwing out four possible motives: a drug hit, a retaliatory hit, a murder for hire, and a Rolling Sixties gang–ordered hit. The defense argued that this asked the jury to convict based upon speculation.
For the defense, Burns was “a nonfactor sitting in the van.”
The defense concluded:
“Your not guilty verdict will not tell Horace that you endorse his lifestyle. You can rest assured this case will be implanted in his mind the rest of his life.” “I’ll give you my assurance, that with Mrs. Burns—I’m going to give her my assistance—to turn this boy around. I have not said this in any other case I’ve had.” “He is eighteen, nineteen. He’s gone through that period of time which is very difficult for single parents to rear boys.”
“I say to you, jurors, from this evidence, this case, I’ve never seen anything like it. Don’t convict this young man on this type of evidence.”
* * *
Because the prosecution has the burden of proof in a criminal case, they get the opportunity to rebut the defense argument.
Norris concluded by quoting the jury instruction on murder: “Motive is not an element of the crime charged and need not be shown. . . .”
He then stated: “If you can imagine to go back in time, we haven’t had the killings; Ebora and Dietra and Damon and Damani are still in there alive, and at the door is Fee and CW. You ask them: Does it make any difference in the world as to what their motivation is? You think they care? The question is the intent to murder, the intent to kill when they go out.”
Finally, “They walked to that door. That is the important thing. They had an execution squad to kill human beings when they walked to that door.”
* * *
On May 23, 1985, the jury found Burns guilty of four counts of first-degree murder.
The defendant sat motionless as the jury rendered its verdict.
The special circumstance of multiple murders was likewise found to be true. The jury would next decide whether Burns would receive the death penalty or life in prison without parole.
Following the verdict Burns was led back to jail.
Our family left the courtroom in tears. In the hallway we embraced as one.
It was my sister Joan’s thirty-seventh birthday. She called the verdict a “beautiful birthday present.” But she also said, “This was just the beginning.”
Norris called the verdict “a message to the gangs of Los Angeles County that not only have the police gone to the fullest to prosecute, but the community itself is tired of gang warfare and of being ruled by the gangs on the streets.”
* * *
In the penalty phase of the trial the defendant’s background and character are at issue. The district attorney presented evidence of Burns’s nine prior arrests, primarily for gun charges.
Burns testified that he did nothing to merit any of the arrests and that they were all cases of police harassment. Burns was brought to court on only one of the cases, a robbery charge stemming from an incident at Crenshaw High School, which was pled as a misdemeanor charge of brandishing a weapon.
The prosecutor also presented evidence from another jailhouse informant who testified that Burns wanted to have witnesses, jurors, and the district attorney killed.
The defense showed that Burns had attended church every Sunday, sang in the choir, and taught Sunday school. Burns’s mother, Edwina, testified on his behalf, stating that he had been close with his father before the latter left the family when Burns was fourteen. According to Burns’s mother, his father had been shot and injured by the LAPD and left L.A. because he feared for his life while living in the city. Burns testified that he had missed his father very much.
In the penalty phase the jury considers aggravating and mitigating factors in determining whether to impose death. In reaching its decision, the jury considers both guilt and penalty-phase evidence. Such factors include the circumstances of the crime itself, prior criminal activity by the defendant, prior felony convictions by the defendant, whether the defendant was suffering from extreme mental disorders at the time of the crime, whether the victim was a participant in the crime, whether the defendant felt his conduct was morally justified, whether the defendant operated under extreme duress, whether at the time of the offense the defendant’s mental capacity was impaired by mental disease or intoxication, the defendant’s age, his role in the crime, as well as any extenuating circumstances.
If the aggravating outweigh the mitigating, then the verdict shall be death; otherwise the verdict shall be life without parole.
The prosecutor focused on the four innocent victims and the defendant’s lack of remorse. In establishing Burns’s aggression, violence, and lack of concern for the victims, the prosecutor repeatedly referenced Burns’s intercepted kite.
In his summation, Norris called the crime “a bloodstain upon our American way of life.” He continued, stating that the inhabitants of the van, given their intent, might as well have been chanting “Kill them all.” “If you can imagine for a minute the van coming down in front of the Alexander house . . . having a chant coming down American streets: “Kill them all! Kill them all!’ ” “I suggest to you,” he concluded, “that in the interests of justice that the same chant ought be: ‘Kill them all! Kill them all!’ Kill Horace. Kill Fee. Kill CW. They all deserve the death penalty for what they did in this case.”
The defense argued that a defendant of “tender years,” eighteen years old, in a bad environment, was under extreme duress due to his fear of the older CW, and that he rode in the van with no knowledge of what was intended.
Burns’s attorneys further claimed that he should not be gassed based on the unreliable testimony of snitches and accomplices. They said his role was minor, that he should not die for the acts of Cox.
The
defense concluded:
“Whatever your verdict will be in this case is a death penalty. The question is whether he dies immediately or whether he’s given the opportunity to live a long time and think about this case on a day-to-day, around-the-clock basis. Life without the possibility of parole is a death sentence in effect.”
The prosecution countered that the crime would not have occurred without Burns’s participation.
The defendants, he concluded, “made their own decision. They earned it. . . . They killed them all.”
* * *
One month after they returned their guilt-phase verdicts, the jury rejected the death penalty, imposing instead a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
In pronouncing the jury’s sentence, Judge Munoz stated, “I do not believe he should ever be released from prison. This was a vicious attack in the early morning hours. If not for the grace of God, there would have been six victims, not four.”
One week later, on September 27, Horace Burns was admitted into the California Department of Corrections.
Two years after his admission to prison, on December 16, 1987, the Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, affirmed Burns’s conviction, denying each of his grounds for appeal. These included challenging the testimony of Ida Moore and Delisa Brown, the testimony of the jailhouse snitch, David Mangola, and the admission of Burns’s jailhouse kite.
Burns would spend the rest of his life in prison. He was twenty years old at the time of his sentencing.
* * *
On June 20, 1985, following Burns’s conviction and sentence, David Michael Williams, a Los Angeles high school teacher, wrote a “comment” for the Los Angeles Sentinel.
Several points are heart-wrenchingly obvious in Burns’s letter. From the composition . . . replete with gang slogans, misspellings and assorted grammatical errors, it is clear that Burns is barely literate. Either he failed the schools or the school system failed him—maybe the truth is a combination of both.
He is glaringly unprepared academically; it is doubtful that he was able to enter the competitive job market after high school, if he finished his education at all. With such limited skills, he probably had few options other than to serve as a henchman for a drug syndicate, although this in no way excuses the heinous crimes.
. . .
In view of the above, it is particularly gratifying to see thousands of area high school seniors graduate this week. Because of their diplomas, their options are so much broader than the Burnses in this world, their futures loom so much brighter. . . .
As processions begin, our joyful tears for the marchers should be tempered with regret for those who do not. We must search for answers; we must retrieve the Horace Burnses that are willing to be helped.
And it is not enough to show interest in a restricted few. Our neighborhood is an African village where the young are children shared by all adults. If we are to benefit from the harvest, each member of the village must join in collective responsibility. The vigilant watch must continue.
Congratulations to the graduating class of 1985. We celebrate you as you walk, tall and stately. We anticipate your run, your swift race toward unprecedented success. We stand alert, ready to pick you up if you should fall.
There it was, Madee’s life lesson all over again, her insistence on education, on literacy, on taking control over our lives. Give ourselves the maximum options. The only way we could ensure our own success was to make sure we had the ability to seize it. Instead of controlling his own destiny, Horace Burns let the streets control him.
And the case was a microcosm of the problems plaguing the black community: absent fathers, overwhelmed mothers, failing schools, youth without options, those tiny minds, stuck in limited spaces, how they needed to grow, expand their future.
A whole world of Horace Burnses, and no Madee to guide them.
25
DO YOU KNOW WHO THAT IS?
IN NOVEMBER 1985, several months after the conviction of Horace Burns, the trial of Tiequon Cox began.
From the start, the Cox trial generated far more publicity. Cox was the accused shooter, and an enforcer in the gang.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Roger Boren, a former prosecutor and recent appointee of Governor Deukmejian, recalled that from the start the courtroom felt very tense. The combination of the emotions coming from the victims’ large family, and the stoic, threatening demeanor of Cox, made it seem the courtroom could easily spin out of control.
This sense of tension was ratcheted up early in the trial process.
On November 22, 1985, Department 126, Judge Boren’s courtroom was dark, with no proceedings held.
Next door in Judge Paul Bowland’s courtroom four black males were seen by the judge casing it out. Judge Bowland relayed this information to Judge Boren.
On the same date, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department contacted Boren and told him that they had received word of rumors of an escape attempt, that members of the Rolling Sixties were planning to break out Tiequon Cox.
On the following day Judge Boren’s courtroom had several undercover members of the Sheriff’s Department stationed throughout the public gallery. Additionally, a magnetometer and a body scan were conducted upon entry. Finally, in the hallway that runs behind the courtrooms and leads to the judges’ chambers, a deputy sheriff with an Uzi stood guard.
Also on the same day, during jury voir dire, Edward Cook, Cox’s trial counsel, acting nervous and agitated, sought to meet with Judge Boren outside the presence of both his client and the court reporter.
Boren considered it a most unusual request, putting him in an awkward position.
* * *
Edward “Ned” Cook was an experienced public defender, having tried numerous cases, and ranked “Level 4,” the highest degree in the office.
Cox’s appellate attorneys, however, later questioned Cook’s motivation for handling this case.
Cook, a Los Angeles native born in 1936 at St. Vincent’s Hospital—where Madee worked up until her death—took the case because “Kermit Alexander had always been a hero of mine.”
Cook described himself as an avid sports fan, and said he had cheered for me at UCLA and on the Rams. Cook in fact became so involved with the Rams that he once sat with team owner Georgia Frontiere in her box at a game. He gave her flowers.
Cook said he initially took the case because he thought it would be interesting. He later admitted that it became “somewhat of a nightmare.” Cook also stated that he was always uncomfortable because he felt that I hated him for representing Cox, and he regretted the thought that my family viewed him as “the enemy.”
As with Burns’s attorneys, I never held anything against the man personally, and understood he was just doing his job. But given the nature of the case, his words on behalf of the shooter were hard to hear.
Based on the horror of the crime, and the strength of the ballistic and fingerprint evidence, Cook concluded from early on in the case that the only hope was to try to save Cox’s life. In this respect he would later resort to a novel strategy.
As defense attorneys go, Cook struck me as a pragmatist, one who plainly saw that the emotions of the case were against his client, and that the physical evidence was overwhelming. He would essentially concede the guilt phase, and simply seek to stave off execution.
Throughout the trial it was clear to everyone in the courtroom that Cook and Cox barely spoke to each other.
* * *
It was only Judge Boren’s second trial. His first was the Twilight Zone case, in which actor Vic Morrow and two children were killed when a helicopter crashed during the filming of the movie in 1982.
Boren’s limited judicial experience, coupled with Cook’s unique request, left the judge ill at ease.
When Boren stressed to Cook that under the law he was not able to meet without the reporter, Cook “hemmed and hawed,” and then, in the reporter’s presence, stated the following:
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COOK: We would—we’re against full shackles but I think there should be some—like a handcuff to a chair I think would be sufficient so the jury can’t see.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COOK: I just think that’s—
THE COURT: For the safety of everyone then?
MR. COOK: For the safety of everyone. As an officer of the court, I feel that it’s my duty to—
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COOK: It’s something, though, that should not be looked at lightly.
A defense attorney requesting his own client be restrained in court was highly controversial. Cox’s appellate attorneys would later argue that it represented an egregious breach of the attorney-client relationship, and an example of Cook’s ineffective representation.
Judge Boren felt that Cook was genuinely frightened, and the judge took the threats “very seriously.”
Cox would have his hands and legs immobilized by a metal restraining device. Observers wishing to enter Department 126 were required to go through a metal detector.
* * *
Cook’s request for restraints marked another step in the breakdown of the relationship between counsel and client.
Cook felt frustrated that Cox would not talk to him and provide aid in his defense. Cox, on the other hand, refused to trust Cook.
Those who knew Cox said that he felt “alienated,” “hopeless,” and “fatalistic” about his case.