Williams v. Superior Court, S.F. 24521

• Decision Date: 08 September 1983
• Docket Number: S.F. 24521
• Citation: 194 Cal.Rptr. 492,34 Cal.3d 584,668 P.2d 799
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 668 P.2d 799 Fredrick Winfield WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY, Respondent; The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

Page 492

194 Cal.Rptr. 492

34 Cal.3d 584, 668 P.2d 799

Fredrick Winfield WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY, Respondent The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

S.F. 24521.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

Sept. 8, 1983.

Robert J. Trombley, Public Defender, Auburn, and Thomas W. Condit, Roseville, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

George Deukmejian, Former Atty. Gen., and John K. Van De Kamp, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philiboisan and Daniel J. Kremer, Chief Asst. Attys. Gen., Arnold O. Overoye, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles P. Just and David De Alba, Deputy Attys. Gen., for real party in interest.

BROUSSARD, Justice.

Shortly after dawn on June 12, 1980, the body of a young white woman, Heather Mead, age 22, was found on Industrial Avenue near Roseville in Placer County. A few days later, Kenneth Williams, a young black man, was arrested in connection with the homicide, and charged with murder with special circumstances, rape, burglary, kidnaping, kidnaping for robbery and robbery. After Kenneth was arraigned, his brother Fredrick (defendant herein) was arrested and identically charged. Preliminary examinations were held and both were bound over for trial. Because it appeared likely that Kenneth and not defendant had been the triggerman, Kenneth was denied bail and defendant was released on $10,000 bail.

The trials were severed and Kenneth was tried first. His 10-month-long trial began in May 1981 and resulted in conviction on all counts in March 1982. The jury selected the death penalty in April 1982.

While Kenneth was on trial, defendant was twice arrested, once for burglary and once for assault with a deadly weapon. Both charges were eventually dismissed and defendant has remained on bail.

Several months ago, the deputy district attorney indicated to the trial court that he would not seek the death penalty against defendant, but would seek life without possibility of parole. Defendant nevertheless sought capital funds under Penal Code section 987.9. The trial court, concluding that the case was no longer "capital," denied the request. At the same hearing, defendant moved for a change of venue due to prejudicial pretrial publicity. This motion was also denied. Defendant then sought extraordinary relief to compel the trial court to provide the section 987.9 funds and to The issue whether defendant, facing only life without the possibility of parole, is nevertheless eligible for capital funds under Penal Code section 987.9 has already been answered in the negative in Sand v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 567, 194 Cal.Rptr. 480, 668 P.2d 787. We have chosen, however, to issue a peremptory writ to compel the trial court to grant a change of venue in this case. ¹

change the venue for purposes of trial. We issued an alternative writ of mandate.

DISCUSSION

Between June 1980 and June 1982, extensive media coverage was given to the progress of the proceedings against the two Williams brothers. During that time span, 159 different items appeared. Nearly every item mentioned both brothers and the fact that they were charged with the murder of Heather Mead. Defendant contends that the dissemination of this material is potentially prejudicial, and he therefore cannot receive a fair trial in Placer County.

In Maine v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 375, 66 Cal.Rptr. 724, 438 P.2d 372, we adopted the comprehensive standards outlined in the Reardon Report for determining when a change of venue is properly required: " 'A motion for change of venue or continuance shall be granted whenever it is determined that because of the dissemination of potentially prejudicial material, there is a reasonable likelihood that in the absence of such relief, a fair trial cannot be had. This determination may be based on such evidence as qualified public opinion surveys or opinion testimony offered by individuals, or on the court's own evaluation of the nature, frequency and timing of the material involved. A showing of actual prejudice shall not be required.' " (P. 383, 66 Cal.Rptr. 724, 438 P.2d 372; fn. omitted.) "The phrase 'reasonable likelihood' denotes a lesser standard of proof than 'more probable than not.' [Citation.] Further, when the issue is raised before trial, any doubt as to the necessity of removal to another county should be resolved in favor of a venue change. [Citations.]" (Martinez v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 574, 578, 174 Cal.Rptr. 701, 629 P.2d 502.)

Several factors shall be examined in our determination of the reasonable likelihood that defendant will not receive a fair trial in Placer County: (1) the nature and extent of the publicity; (2) the size of the population of Placer County, (3) the nature and gravity of the offense, (4) the status of the victim and of the accused, and (5) whether political overtones are present. ² As we shall explain, the first four factors weigh heavily in defendant's favor, and although each factor alone might not be determinative 1. Nature and extent of the publicity.

we conclude that a change of venue is warranted in this case.

In this case, there has been extensive publicity over a two-year period, some of which has been inflammatory. Over 159 items have appeared either in a newspaper or on the radio. Several items appeared in each month during this two-year period (with the exception of November and December of 1980, and April of 1981): on twelve different days in June 1980, seven in July 1980, one in August 1980, four in September 1980, two in October 1980, three in January 1981, two in February 1981, one in March 1981, two in May 1981, four in June 1981, thirteen in July 1981, four in August 1981, two in September 1981, four in October 1981, five in November 1981, three in December 1981, six in January 1982, one in February 1982, eight in March 1982, five in April 1982, four in May 1982, and on two different days in June 1982. ³ Nearly every item contained a short description of the murder and the Williams brothers as suspects. Many of the items received front-page coverage; some were the subject of the main headline. Thus, the evidence clearly indicates that on a weekly or bi-weekly average for a two-year period, readers and listeners were subjected to news coverage, whether fair or inflammatory, of the murder, the trial of brother Kenneth, and the fact that defendant Fredrick will soon be tried on the same charges. Such continual, repetitive and at times inflammatory coverage indicates that potential jurors in Placer County may not be able to give defendant a fair trial.

The public opinion survey undertaken by the district attorney (noted in fn. 3, ante ) in which 117 individuals from former jury lists were questioned, indicates that a significant percentage of potential jurors may already have formed opinions on the guilt or innocence of defendant. According to the poll, 22.4 percent of those questioned claimed they had formed such an opinion; only 64.7 percent of these individuals believed that they could disregard their opinion and decide guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented--i.e., 11 percent of The news coverage, for the most part, consisted of factual accounts of the progress of the case. Nevertheless, even factual accounts, if continuous and extensive enough, can be potentially prejudicial. "A reasonable likelihood of unfairness may exist even though the news coverage was neither inflammatory nor productive of overt hostility. [Citation.]" (Corona v. Superior Court (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 872, 877, 101 Cal.Rptr. 411.) In addition, some of the accounts were capable of eliciting a hostile response from their audience.

the 117 individuals questioned could not disregard their opinion. And, only 79.3 percent felt that they could decide the case based only on evidence presented in the courtroom, regardless of what they had [668 P.2d 803] heard or read--i.e., one out of five would not be able to give defendant a fair trial. ⁴

For example, sexual assault or rape was referred to 145 times in the accounts. "Bullet-ridden body" was used 4 times. "Execution-style" killing was referred to 12 times (variations were used 3 additional times).

The victim was described several times as a young woman whose virginity had been robbed from her before she had been killed. For example, as recently as March 18, 1982, the Auburn Journal reported under a front-page headline that the victim, "a tall, strong but somewhat slow-thinking young woman who was saving herself for marriage--was found sprawled in the middle of Industrial Avenue near Roseville, where she had been shot to death." On April 7, 1982, in reporting on the progress of the penalty proceeding against Kenneth, the Auburn Journal on page 4 quoted the deputy district attorney as saying that " '[t]he defendant took upon himself to take Heather Mead's virginity, her property and her life to satisfy his own lust and greed,' ...." And, during the guilt phase of Kenneth's trial, the Auburn Journal reported evidence which linked Kenneth and defendant, due to their race, to the rape: "[The state criminalist] testified that hairs found on a bed sheet at the home where Mead allegedly was raped could have been left by Williams or his brother, Fredrick, who also is accused of murder. The criminalist noted that [the hairs] also could have been left [on the bed] by anyone else whose hair had the same characteristics. [p] The criminalist said the hairs had Negroid features; the Williams brothers are black." (Nov. 19, 1981, p. 3.) The Auburn Journal noted other evidence linking Kenneth to the rape: "Defense attorney Douglas Greer asked Williams about a business card found on the bed in the master bedroom, the only item in the house which carried his fingerprint." (Jan. 26, 1982, story under front-page headline.)

There were other racial references in addition to the report of the testimony linking a black man's hair to the bed where the rape allegedly took place. In...