Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
In November 1981,
defendant, then 21 years old, was a close friend of the Davies family,
who lived
in Belmont. He often visited the Davies residence and spent time with
17-year-old Mark Davies and his 15-year-old brother John.
On the morning
of
Sunday, November 8, 1981, James Davies called the police to report his
son John
missing. Davies and his wife, Joan, had returned home around 1:30 a.m.
and had
noticed nothing amiss.
Joan had found John missing when she opened his
bedroom
door sometime after 8:30 a.m. John had laid out his church clothes and
had left
behind all his possessions, including his only pair of shoes.
He usually
informed his parents of his whereabouts and, according to them, was not
the sort
of child who would be expected to run away. James and Joan Davies
unsuccessfully
made extensive efforts to locate John for several years after he
disappeared.
Soon after the disappearance, James Davies called defendant to come over
and
help post flyers describing John. Defendant came over on the Wednesday
or
Thursday after the Sunday John was reported missing, and left with some
flyers.
He never visited the Davies family again.
Mark Davies testified that
before John
disappeared, defendant would comeby the Davies residence in his white
Honda
automobile. If he came to visit in the evening, he would throw rocks at
Mark’s
window so Mark could sneak out of the house without his parents’
knowledge.
They
would drive to the Hassler Hospital site off Woodside Road and Highway
280 to
explore the partially abandoned grounds. Mark last saw his brother John
on
Saturday, November 7, about 10:30 p.m., when Mark went to bed. Mark
never heard
from defendant after John’s disappearance.
Joan Davies testified that when defendant visited her sons, they would
often
sit in defendant’s car listening to music.
Initially, police theorized
John had
run away. Belmont Police Detective Jerrold Whaley contacted defendant in
mid-1982, and defendant told him where John liked to hang out. Because
the
Davies family reported that defendant was John’s closest friend, Whaley
contacted defendant often. By September 1984 the police were treating
the
disappearance as a possible kidnapping and had contacted the Federal
Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) for assistance.
On December 4, 1984, Whaley and FBI
Agent
Robert Deklinski twice interviewed defendant at his residence near
Sacramento.
In the first interview, defendant denied seeing John on Saturday,
November 7,
1981, claiming he did not leave his parents’ home that evening, and
denied ever
throwing rocks to summon Mark or John and sitting in his car listening
to music
with John.
In the second interview, Whaley and Deklinski probed the
discrepancies between the Davies family members’ and defendant’s
accounts;
defendant was emphatic that he had neither thrown rocks at the boys’
bedroom
windows nor listened to music with John in his car. Defendant also
denied he had
ever traveled with John to a hangout he called the “morgue,” evidently
the
Hassler Hospital grounds.
2. Murder of Lance Turner
On October 2, 1984,
about
7:00 p.m., Belmont resident Margaret Turner called the police to report
her
12-year-old son, Lance, missing from soccer practice. That day, Timothy
O’Brien
had driven his two sons and Lance to soccer practice at the fields
behind
Ralston Intermediate School.
O’Brien began coaching his team and did not
see
Lance again. Later, when the practice ended, O’Brien asked Lance’s
coach, Ray
Williamson, where Lance was. Williamson told him Lance was not at
practice that
day. Several boys reported seeing Lance head
toward Waterdog Lake, three-eighths of a mile from the soccer field. A
search
followed.
William Russell arrived at 6:00 p.m. to pick up his son from
soccer
practice and, after taking his son home, joined the search for Lance.
About 8:20
p.m., Russell shined a flashlight onto some bushes in a gully off the
path to
Waterdog Lake and saw feet sticking out of the bushes. Lance’s body was
found
under the overgrown brush.
Pathologist Peter Benson, M.D., testified
Lance had
died from blood loss due to multiple stab wounds. Two wounds to the
heart were
each fatal; two other wounds to the lungs were potentially life
threatening.
There were numerous defensive wounds to the arms and hands, as well as
scratches, scrapes and bruises.
Stephanie Olson, Kendra Durham, and
Nicole
Guthrie, students at Ralston Intermediate School at the time of the
Turner
homicide, testified that about 3:00 p.m. on October 2, 1984, they left
school,
skipping volleyball practice, and went down to Waterdog Lake to smoke
cigarettes. A man whom Stephanie described as having dirty blond hair,
pimples,
and dirty teeth with a retainer approached them and started a
conversation. He
told them his name was Jon and said he had graduated from Carlmont High
School
the year before. He was drinking beer from a tall Budweiser can, which
he
offered to the girls.
The girls left after about 20 minutes. Another
Ralston
student saw a man with dirty blond hair near Waterdog Lake about 4:00
p.m. (None
of these witnesses was asked to identify defendant in the courtroom.
Olson,
Durham and Guthrie gave the police a description of the man that was
incorporated into a composite drawing used in the investigation of the
Turner
homicide. As discussed below (post, p. 7), in his confession to FBI
agents,
defendant described talking with the three girls shortly before he
killed
Turner.)
3. Investigation of Davies and Turner murders
On December 27, 1984, Belmont
Police Detective Sergeant James Goulart interviewed defendant concerning
the
Turner homicide. Defendant was by then the only suspect in the crime.
Detective
Goulart advised him of his constitutional rights, and he agreed to speak
with
Goulart. Defendant denied having been at Waterdog Lake on October 2,
1984,
claiming he had been at home until noon and then had gone to stores in
Redwood
City to fill out employment applications, returning home by bus at 4:30
p.m.
Later police contacts with those businesses turned up no such
applications.
In
January 1985, in an effort to gather information about the Turner
homicide,
Belmont Police Officer Lisa Thomas began working undercover at the
Sacramento
Carl’s Jr. restaurant where defendant was employed. There she
encountered
defendant several days a week, regularly visited him at his sister’s
house,
where he was residing, and sometimes went to a bar or movie with
him. Defendant
often spoke with Thomas about newspaper reports on the investigations, at
one
point showing her a collection of clippings.
On February 9, 1985,
defendant told
her the police and the FBI had been in his home for five hours,
confronting him,
and that he had lied to them. To Thomas, he maintained his innocence,
claiming
that on the day Turner was killed he had gone to Redwood City to fill
out job
applications. Defendant seemed impressed with the attention he was
getting from
the FBI.
In May 1986, James and Joan Davies met with defendant for
several hours
seeking information about John. Defendant said he had none. Joan Davies
met with
defendant again in July 1986, and he continued to insist he had no
information.
On September 16, 1986, Charles Rice told Michael Wiley, a law
enforcement
investigator for the State of California, that defendant had admitted to
killing John Davies and Lance Turner. (During the penalty phase, the
jury was
informed that Rice was defendant’s cellmate at the state prison in San
Luis
Obispo on that date. Defendant was then incarcerated on a burglary
conviction
arising out of an incident discussed post, at pages 72-75, in connection
with a
related appellate contention.)
Wiley testified that Rice voluntarily
made a
statement, asking nothing in return, and insisted on trying to obtain
further
information from defendant because he was appalled by the killings.
On
September
22, 1986, Rice gave investigators two maps, drawn by defendant, of the
crime
scenes. A week later, defendant met with Rice, who was wearing a
wireless
transmitter, and described the Davies and Turner murders in graphic
detail.
Defendant refused to report the crimes to the Belmont police because he
did not
trust them. He said he did trust the FBI, however, so Rice told
defendant he had
a friend who was an FBI agent and would help defendant if he confessed
to him.
Prison officials arranged to find an FBI agent to take the confession.
On
October 3, 1986, FBI Special Agents Frank Hickey and Daniel Payne
interviewed
defendant at the state prison in San Luis Obispo. Rice was also present.
Defendant was advised of his constitutional rights and signed a waiver.
Defendant stated that, before killing John Davies, he was at Half Moon
Bay with
three friends, drinking whisky and smoking marijuana. He then drove to
the
Davies residence, parked a few doors down the street, and entered
through an
unlocked door. He went to John’s bedroom and invited him to come and
drink beer.
John agreed, and went with defendant to Edgewood Park in Redwood
City near the
Crystal Springs Reservoir. John was wearing a black T-shirt, blue
corduroy pants
and no socks or shoes. Defendant parked near a shooting range and, before
leaving
the car, removed a knife from the glove compartment. At that point, he
“committed” himself to killing John. They walked half a mile to two
miles down a
dirt road. Defendant then stabbed John in the back, sat on his chest
and stabbed him in the throat. When John struggled, defendant picked up
a large
rock and struck him in the head.
Defendant then dragged the body to an
opening
in the ground, pushed it in and left the scene, later disposing of his
bloodstained clothing. A week after the murder, defendant returned to
the area
and observed that the body was bloated and animals were feeding on it.
In May
1984, he returned again and observed a skull.
Asked about a motive for
killing
John Davies, defendant said that when he drank beer and smoked marijuana
he
became aggressive. He also noted that John used to cause a computer
monitor to
flash irritating statements that defendant would observe, and this
angered him.
Defendant drew a map for the investigators illustrating the location of
John’s
remains.
Regarding the murder of Lance Turner, defendant stated that on
October
2, 1984, he was in the process of moving from Belmont to another part of
the
state. On that day, he bought a six-pack of beer and went to the park
near
Waterdog Lake to drink it. At 2:30 p.m., after some three hours at the
lake, he
went to an area near Ralston School. He climbed a tree known as the
“smokers’
tree” and used his buck-type hunting knife to stab at it. Three
junior-high-school-age girls came to the tree looking for a pack of
cigarettes
and dug up a matchbook with a distinctive inscription. The girls shared
defendant’s last beer and one of them offered him a marijuana cigarette.
At one
point defendant saw a boy wearing athletic clothes run down the hill.
After the
girls left, defendant stayed for another five minutes. Then, as he
headed back
toward the dock, he saw the boy jogging in the area. To get his
attention,
defendant asked him the time. The boy responded that it was 3:50, and
turned
away. As he turned, defendant stabbed him in the side with his hunting
knife.
The boy struggled as defendant stabbed him a second time, then went
down to the
ground and complied with defendant’s command to put his leg down.
In the
course of the struggle, the boy bit defendant so severely on the thumb
that he
later lost the nail. Defendant stabbed him again, in the throat, and yet
a
fourth time near the heart. The boy then appeared dead. Defendant moved
the body
under some low bushes and went home. He later disposed of the knife and
sheath
in separate places and discarded his shoes out of concern that their
prints
could be identified. He correctly described a birthmark on the side of
the boy’s
neck.
Using a map defendant had drawn, Belmont police searched for John
Davies’s
remains and found items of clothing, bones and a skull. A forensic
pathologist
who examined the skull testified it was consistent with that of a young
Caucasian male and bore evidence of blunt force trauma that could have
been inflicted by a rock. Orthodontist Stan Wolken compared X-rays of his
patient, John Davies, with X-rays of the remains, finding similarities
between
them.
On October 6, 1984, defendant led investigators into a field near
a
Carmichael residence and pointed out the shrubbery where he had
discarded
the knife he had used to kill Lance Turner. With the help of a metal
detector,
investigators found a folding Puma brand knife.
On two occasions in
October
1986, for 45 minutes and five hours respectively, Psychiatrist James
Missett,
met with defendant at the request of the district attorney’s office. Dr.
Missett
read defendant his constitutional rights at the outset of each interview
and
defendant waived them. Defendant described having an interest in reading
newspaper accounts of killings when he was in elementary school. He
stopped
doing so in fifth grade because “homicides weren’t part of my everyday
scene.”
In
sixth grade, defendant became aware that he wanted to kill someone after
watching a movie in which an older boy was about to kill a younger boy
to
prevent him from disclosing a diary containing references to other
murders.
About the Davies murder, defendant said: “I thought to myself[,] you
have
got someone out in the middle of nowhere, here is your chance to kill
someone.
You
have thought of killing someone before.”
After describing how he
initially
stabbed Davies, defendant told Dr. Missett he pinned Davies down with
his knees
on his shoulders and, when Davies asked what he planned to do, defendant
said he
was going to kill him. He told Davies to scream all he wanted before
stabbing
him in the throat and strangling him with his hands. Defendant said he
stopped
tothink whether he wanted to go through with it before he picked up a
rock and
hit Davies three times on the right side of the head.
B. Penalty Phase
1.
Prosecution case in aggravation
The prosecution introduced evidence that
defendant had attempted, in separate incidents, to kill Steve Murphy and
Monte
Hansen, and had murdered Sean Dannehl. The prosecution also presented
evidence,
described below in connection with related contentions (see pp. 68-72,
post), of
defendant’s threat to kill jail nurse Angela Beck and his burglary of
the home
of Richard Rennie.
a. Attempted murder of Steve Murphy
On November 5,
1982,
16-year-old Steve Murphy attended a party at a friend’s house in San
Mateo.
Leaving the party around 11:30 p.m., he walked another friend home.
Murphy was
heading toward his own residence, 15 to 20 houses away, when he lost
consciousness. He awoke after daylight the next morning near a large
dirt area
surrounded by trees. He fell unconscious again and next woke up in a
hospital,
discovering that his spleen and a kidney had been surgically removed. He
spent
the next three weeks in the hospital with broken ribs and a broken
pelvis. His
injuries caused him to miss several months of school.
In October 1986,
after
obtaining a waiver of constitutional rights, San Mateo Police Officer
Joseph
Farmer spoke with defendant about the assault on Murphy. Defendant
admitted he
had been drinking alcohol on the beach before
driving his car up the hill on 42d Avenue in San Mateo. He saw someone
walking
on 42d Avenue and made two or three right turns to encounter the person
again.
He deliberately ran over the person, put him in the back of his car, and
drove
himto an isolated area in Belmont at the Marburger turnaround. He took
the
person out of the car and laid him on the roadway. Defendant referred to
the
person as “Steve Murphy,” but did not explain how he had learned the
victim’s
name.
b. Attempted murder of Monte Hansen
In 1982, Monte Hansen, then 16
years
old, often went out drinking with defendant. On New Year’s Eve that
year, Hansen
invited defendant to come to his house, as his parents were out.
Defendant
arrived shortly before midnight, apparently under the influence of
alcohol, and
told Hansen he felt dizzy. Hansen told him to drink some water and went
out into
the backyard to smoke a cigarette. There, he turned to observe defendant
approaching him, a two-by-four-inch board studded with nails in his
raised hand.
Defendant struck at Hansen with the board. One blow hit him in the head,
but
Hansen blocked the rest of the blows with his forearm. Defendant was
smiling as
he attacked Hansen. Defendant then reentered the house and Hansen saw
him put a
knife back in a kitchen cabinet. Hansen screamed at defendant to get out
and
told defendant he would kill him if he harmed his little brother, who
was asleep
in a bedroom. Defendant ran toward his car and Hansen never saw him
again.
On
February 28, 1985, undercover officer Lisa Thomas told defendant a false
story
about her involvement in a hit-and-run accident. Defendant then told her
how he
had run over Steve Murphy and assaulted Monte Hansen; a recording of the
conversation was played for the jury.
c. Murder of Sean Dannehl
Around 6:00 p.m. on July 2, 1985,
12-year-old Sean
Dannehl went to a friend’s house in Sacramento, riding his bicycle. When
he did
not return home by 9:00 p.m., his mother called the friend’s house and
learned
Sean had left around 7:30. His father and mother and her husband
searched for
him. His body was found six days later at Lower Sunrise Park. A board
with a
nail in it and a beer can were found at the scene.
An autopsy revealed
the cause
of death to be two stab wounds to the heart, one penetrating a rib,
caused by
something thick, pointed and dense, consistent with a marijuana pipe
tool. Sean
also suffered a perforating wound to the skull consistent with the
nail-embedded
board. Insect activity in the facial and neck area also suggested the
presence
of some type of wound there.
Sacramento Detective Robert Bell questioned
defendant on July 5, 1985. Defendant said he did not know about the
missing boy,
but he admitted that on July 2 he was on a bicycle trail at Lower
Sunrise Park
drinking beer with friends until about 8:30 p.m., when he rode home. He
claimed
a flat tire prevented him from arriving at home before 10:00 p.m. Anton
Martinez
and Paul Stanley confirmed they were on the bicycle trail with defendant
that
day, drinking beer and smoking marijuana until they parted around
sunset.
After
Sean’s body was found, Detective Bell contacted defendant, who agreed to
accompany investigators to the police station. After waiving his
constitutional
rights, defendant denied knowing anything about Sean’s murder.
Investigators
drove defendant to his sister’s residence, where he was staying.
Defendant and
his sister agreed to a search of the house; no evidence was found.
Defendant
later voluntarily returned to the police station to provide hair, blood
and
saliva samples. The next day, July 10, 1985, defendant showed Detective
Bell
where on the bicycle trail he had had a flat tire and where he and his
friends had met to drink beer. Defendant also assisted investigators in
searching for his missing marijuana pipe tool, accompanying them to
several
smoke shops and finding one tool he said resembled the one he had lost.
On July
15, 1985, defendant telephoned Detective Bell to tell him Paul Stanley’s
blood
might be found on his (defendant’s) bicycle because Stanley had fallen
and might
have bled on it.
On August 19, 1985, in an effort to get defendant to
confess,
undercover narcotics officer Ronald Goesch, posing as “Ron Cross,” left
a letter
at defendant’s house. The letter advised that Cross lived near the
river, the
police were pressuring him, and he knew what defendant had done and
would be
communicating with him again. Defendant gave the letter to Detective
Bell.
Officer Goesch left another letter and called defendant four days later,
asking
to meet with him. Goesch said he knew about “the board” and “other
stuff,” and
wanted money or he would go to the police and give them evidence, adding
that he
needed the money to avoid his own arrest. Defendant did not respond and
did not
appear at the time Goesch requested.
After investigators questioned
defendant
about the Ron Cross information, defendant telephoned Detective Bell,
upset at
the course of the investigation. In the course of the conversation,
defendant
asked, hypothetically, what might happen if he confessed to the crime.
He also
asked, hypothetically, if he were at the scene, saw the victim screaming
and
took no action to save him, whether his inaction would get him in
trouble.
Department of Corrections Sergeant Michael Wiley took Charles Rice’s
report of
defendant’s confessions. On September 28, 1986, in Wiley’s office, Wiley
overheard defendant describe to Rice, who was wearing a wireless
microphone, the
murders of Lance Turner, John Davies and Sean Dannehl.
On October 3, 1986, following defendant’s agreement to confess to the
murders
to the FBI (see p. 6, ante), FBI Special Agents Frank Hickey and Daniel
Payne
asked defendant about the Dannehl murder. Charles Rice was also present
during
the interview.
Defendant stated that on July 2, 1985, he had left his
home at
11:30 a.m. and ridden his bicycle to the American River Park, where he
met an
acquaintance, Anton. They bought some beer and went to Anton’s house,
where
another friend met them.
The three rode their bicycles back to the park
and
smoked marijuana and continued to drink beer. Defendant drank four tall
beers
and three 12-ounce cans of beer. About 8:30 p.m. they parted, and
defendant rode
his bicycle to a vista point. He saw Sean Dannehl riding his bicycle
towards
Sunrise Boulevard, commenting to Agent Hickey, “I knew right then I was
going to
stop him and kill him.”
He chased after Sean, ramming Sean’s bicycle
with his
own. When Sean fell off his bicycle, defendant grabbed his arm and led
him to a
large tree. Sean cooperated, causing defendant to want to humiliate him,
over
Sean’s pleas that defendant not hurt him. Defendant forced Sean to take
off his
clothes and put them in a pile. A two-by-four lay in the area; defendant
put it
over Sean’s eyes as he lay on his back. Defendant was carrying an
electrician’s
instrument with a pick, which he thrust into Sean’s chest, near his
heart. After
Sean protested that defendant had promised not to hurt him, defendant
put a hand
over his mouth and stabbed him again, causing the blade of the
instrument to
separate from the handle.
Defendant retrieved the blade, screwed it back
into
the handle and stabbed Sean in the eyes. He then rode his bicycle home,
removing
the handle from the pick along the way and discarding the pieces
separately. At
home, defendant washed his clothes and buried his bloody socks in a
flowerbed
near a library three blocks from his house. He signed a written
statement
incorporating his confession, drew a map of the crime scene, and gave
investigators a sketch of his pick tool.
Former San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Judith Whitmer Kozloski
declined to find Dunkle incompetent for trial and the jury convicted him
on two counts of first-degree murder Dec. 6, 1989. The follow February,
the jury confirmed a death sentence. An extra life sentence was added
after Dunkle pleaded guilty to fatally stabbing Dannehl.
Dunkle’s mental state has been in question since nearly day one despite
Whitmer Kozloski’s refusal to suspend criminal proceedings. The original
competency finding does not preclude his abilities having declined since
his incarceration. Often, an inmate will claim a declining condition
exacerbated by prison conditions. In Dunkle’s case, those claims include
a notion he has a computer in his head.
During Dunkle’s trial, District Attorney Jim Fox acknowledged the young
man was not even at average mental capacity, Chief Deputy District
Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said.
“I believe it was borderline retardation,” he recalled.
The prosecution presented one doctor who testified Dunkle, regardless of
IQ, knew what he was doing at the time of each murder. Since his time on
death row, though, even courts are agreeing Dunkle can’t help in his own
case.
“I have to say that I would like to find Mr. Dunkle competent because I
think what he did is so horrible that he should suffer whatever
consequences have been meted out to him ... but I honestly cannot say
that I think he is competent,” she said, according to court transcripts.
Two years later, Dunkle became the first adult California inmate on
death row to have a guardian appointed for him. The role of Southern
California attorney Conrad Petermann is to help Dunkle understand his
current predicament and continue to fight for an appeal of his
convictions. The guardian can legally access Dunkle’s medical records
without his specific consent and make serious legal decisions.
The judge’s concession and the guardian’s appointment did not offer
Dunkle a reprieve from execution, at least until this latest pending
ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 it was unconstitutionally
cruel to execute murderers deemed retarded but left the definition of
retardation to individual states. Last year, the state Legislature
banned executions of the mentally insane and incompetent but did not set
a specific IQ level. In other states, retardation has been generally
defined at 70 or below.
The potential state court ruling will not alter the way the District
Attorney’s Office currently does business, Wagstaffe said. While mental
competency will remain a concern, the ruling won’t spark any more
stringent considerations or outside mental evaluations.
Under California law, only defense attorneys can compel a witness to
undergo psychiatric testing prior to trial. The results are not
necessarily shared with prosecutors unless they are favorable to the
defense. While local prosecutors have compassion for the plight of
mentally ill inmates, decades of using judicial loopholes to sidestep
executions left then wary of this latest wrinkle.
“It’s something that has to be looked at. If it is truly there, it is a
valid consideration to be dealt with,” Wagstaffe said. “But if it is
simply a tool to avoid execution, it is just another aspect of justice
denied.”
The appointment, quietly made by the Supreme Court in a closed
conference, is unprecedented in California and may affect whether the
inmate can eventually be executed. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that
it is unconstitutional to execute the insane.
The court appointed a guardian for Jon Scott Dunkle, 41, on the advice
of a Superior Court judge whom it had asked to determine his current
mental state. That judge, who found Dunkle mentally incompetent, had
presided over Dunkle's 1989 murder trial and sentenced him to death --
despite the defendant's repeated commitments to a mental hospital and
defense attorneys' contentions that he frequently lost touch with
reality.
Dunkle, who was convicted of murdering three boys -- two in San Mateo
County, is so deranged that he cannot fully understand the nature of his
legal appeals or assist his lawyers, San Mateo County Superior Court
Judge Judith Whitmer Kozloski reported to the California Supreme Court
in March 2000.
The appointment raises questions about whether Dunkle, diagnosed with
paranoid schizophrenia, was really ever sane enough to stand trial for
his crimes and whether he will ever be stable enough to be executed.
"We think we have the craziest client on the row," said Michael B.
Dashjian, one of Dunkle's lawyers.
The court's action in the case is expected to result in more petitions
for guardians from other mentally ill death row inmates. A legal finding
that a condemned prisoner is mentally incompetent can help defense
lawyers build a case against execution.
"If a person is really crazy, he shouldn't be tried, let alone be
convicted," Dashjian said. "We certainly believe that Jon Dunkle never
should have been tried."
Court records and transcripts of interviews with psychiatrists depict
Dunkle as a man who can express a coherent thought in one breath and
burst into gibberish the next. Absorbed by his own hallucinations,
Dunkle wants neither a radio nor a television in his cell. He is
frequently filthy.
When asked by a San Quentin psychiatrist in 1998 why he banged his head
against the wall, Dunkle said: "I wasn't getting along with the computer
inside me."
He told another psychiatrist that he was being medicated because "the
computers, they are getting arrested. The technicians, they are making
people smaller. Five inches tall. The CIA is doing it."
Faced with a client who psychiatrists say hears voices and suffers
delusions, defense lawyers told the California Supreme Court in 1996
that Dunkle was too unsound to assist in preparing a constitutional
challenge to his death sentence.
The court appointed Kozloski, who had sentenced Dunkle to death in 1990,
to hear testimony to determine his current mental condition.
She presided over his 1989 trial for the murders of the two boys in San
Mateo County. Fifteen-year-old John Davies was murdered in 1981, and 12-year-old
Lance Turner was murdered October 1984 in the Belmont Hills.
Kozloski believed that Dunkle was faking mental illness. A jury found
him mentally competent at the time, even though he was often incoherent
and insisted at one point that his first trial lawyer had murdered a
highway patrolman.
Kozloski's change of heart came reluctantly.
"I have to say that I would like to find Mr. Dunkle competent, because I
think what he did is so horrible that he should suffer whatever
consequences have been meted out to him," Kozloski said in court. "But I
honestly cannot say I think he is competent."
Deputy Attorney General Rene Chacon, who is representing the prosecution
in Dunkle's appeals, did not object to Kozloski's finding of current
mental incompetence. He called her decision reasonable.
Asked whether the inmate will ever be sane enough to be executed, Chacon
said: "In California, you can't execute a mentally incompetent person,
and the guy cycles back and forth, so I don't know."
He acknowledged that the appointment of a guardian has given defense
lawyers more ammunition to overturn Dunkle's death sentence on the
grounds that he also was mentally incompetent when he was tried for
murder. A person is deemed incompetent if he or she cannot understand
the nature of the legal proceedings and cannot cooperate with lawyers.
But Chacon said the appointment of a guardian also serves the
prosecution, because it will expedite the legal proceedings and the
production of a habeas corpus petition.
The California Department of Corrections has been giving Dunkle
antipsychotic medication against his will since 1996.
Kozloski believes that Dunkle's mental state has deteriorated since his
murder trial. And in reviewing his mental status for the state high
court, she gave no indication that she thought she had erred by
sentencing a mentally incompetent man to death.
When a prosecutor insisted that Dunkle's condition was essentially the
same as when he was found competent to stand trial for murder 10 years
earlier, Kozloski objected.
"I see a qualitative difference between his 1989 ability," she said
during a hearing Nov. 3, 1999.
Semel said the legal threshold for competency to stand trial "is so
invariably low that it repeatedly allows people who cannot meaningfully
assist their lawyers to go forward to trial."
In Dunkle's case, the jury that found him competent to stand trial knew
that he was charged with murdering two boys in San Mateo County and a
third in Sacramento.
Dunkle had confessed to his crimes and led police to Davies' body in
Edgewood Park near Redwood City. All but one mental health expert who
interviewed him before his competency hearing in the summer of 1989
concluded that he had a major mental illness, according to his appeal.
While housed in a county jail in San Mateo County before and during his
trial, Dunkle had several psychotic breakdowns. In May 1987, officials
said he was hallucinating and wanted to kill himself and have his body
displayed in front of the jail. He said that would prevent the building
from being blown up.
By the time Dunkle was sentenced in 1990, he had been sent from the jail
to a mental hospital five times, Dashjian said.
"He would leave court and go back to the mental health facility,"
Dashjian said. During one court proceeding, "he was completely off the
wall, ranting and waving and saying the most incomprehensible word
salad."
Dunkle's lawyers are not sure when his mental illness began, even though
they have interviewed members of his family. He could not function well
in elementary school, and reports indicated that he had learning
disabilities. At the age of 22, he was admitted to a hospital because he
injected bacon grease into his penis in an attempt to enhance its size.
Besides the death sentence for the two murders in San Mateo County,
Dunkle is serving life without the possibility of parole for the fatal
stabbing of a 12-year-old boy in Sacramento.
He was found mentally incompetent to stand trial in Sacramento in March
1993 and was committed to Atascadero State Hospital. A judge later
decided he was sane enough to plead guilty while he was under medication.
If Dunkle loses his appeals, he still may escape execution if his
lawyers can show that he does not understand that he will be put to
death and the reasons for it. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that
it is cruel and unusual to execute a prisoner who is insane.
Dunkle would then probably spend the rest of his life either in prison
or in a state hospital for the criminally insane.