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.
Status:
Executed
by lethal injection in California on March 15,
2000
Summary:
Rich sexually assaulted and killed several young women in the
Redding area between June and August 1978 and became known as
the "Hilltop Rapist."
He was convicted and sentenced to death for 3 counts of First
Degree Murder: Annette Fay Edwards, 19, was beaten to death with
a rock after Rich attempted to have sex with her; Linda Diane
Slavik, 26, was driven by Rich to his house in Cottonwood. She
was raped there and then driven to a remote area where she was
shot and killed.
Just before she was killed, she was shown the dead body of
Patricia Ann Moore, who had been killed at the same remote
location; Annette Lynn Selix, 11, was driven by Rich to his
Cottonwood house where he committed acts of rape, and sodomy. He
then drove her 30 miles to Johns Creek Bridge and threw her 105
feet to the rocks below.
An autopsy determined that she had been alive at the time he
threw her off the bridge and that she survived for a time after
landing on the rocky area.
Rich was also convicted of Murder in the Second Degree: Patricia
Ann Moore, 17, was driven to a remote area by Rich, where she
was raped and then beaten to death with a rock.
Rich was also convicted of sexual assauks on four other women
and an attempted sexual assault on a fifth. Rich told a friend
he had "found" a dead body. The friend informed police, who
questioned Rich. After flunking a polygraph test, Rich confessed
to each of the crimes.
Rich, Darrell Keith
CDC# C25800
Sex: M
Alias:
None
Race:
White
Date Received:
01/23/81
DOB:
NA
Education:
High School
Location:
San Quentin State Prison
Married:
Yes
Sentence:
County of Trial:
Yolo
Sentence Date:
01/23/81
County of Residence:
Shasta
County of Offense:
Shasta
Offense Date:
NA
Court Action:
Affirmed
Court Date:
June 30, 1988
Case #:
NA
Victims:
Annette Fay
Edwards (female, 19)
Patricia Ann Moore (female, 17)
Linda Diane Slovik (female, 26)
Annette Lynn Selix (female, 11)
Summary:
Darrell Keith Rich was convicted of four counts
of first-degree murder in the July-August 1978 deaths of Annette
Fay Edwards, Patricia Ann Moore, Linda Diane Slavik, and Annette
Lynn Selix. Three of these convictions were with special
circumstances, and a Yolo County jury sentenced Rich to death on
January 23, 1981.
Annette Fay Edwards, 19, of Redding was beaten
with a rock after Rich attempted to have sex with her. She died of
multiple head injuries.
Patricia Ann Moore,17, was driven to a remote
area by Rich, where she was raped and then beaten to death with a
rock.
Linda Diane Slavik,26, was driven from Chico,
by Rich, to his house in Cottonwood. She was raped there and then
driven to a remote area where she was shot and killed. Just
before she was killed, she was shown the dead body of Patricia Ann
Moore, who had been killed at the same remote location.
Annette Lynn Selix,11, was driven by Rich to
his Cottonwood house where he committed acts of rape, sodomy and
oral copulation. He then drove here 30 miles to Johns Creek
Bridge and threw here 105 feet to the rocks below.
On Aug. 20, 1978, three days before Darrell Rich’s arrest, he
advised a friend that he had discovered a dead body. The friend
informed police officers who in turn began to question Rich. He
consented to a polygraph and failed. This led authorities to
believe he knew more about the bodies than he was revealing.
Several days later, Rich began telling acquaintances that he in
fact received $7,000 for killing one of the women. When he was
asked about the other body, he responded that she was in the wrong
place at the wrong time.
Authorities were informed of these revelations and this resulted
in Rich’s arrest. He later confessed to the above listed crimes
along with two others. He also gave police officers his gun and
provided detailed information regarding the offenses.
Execution:
At 12:06 a.m., March 15, 2000, the execution
by lethal injection of Darrell Keith Rich began in San Quentin
State Prison’s execution chamber. Rich was pronounced dead at
12:13 a.m.
Rich declined a last meal and drank tea, broth
and Gatorade until his execution. He spent his last hours with his
spiritual advisors and his attorneys.
Darrell Keith Rich’s last word was “Peace.”
Prior:
First arrested age 17 for assault with a deadly
weapon, and sent to the California Youth Authority at age 19.
Since age 16, Rich has had a history of progressive violence. He
was a heavy drinker from the time he was in his mid-teens up to
his arrest in August 1978.
In addition to the four counts of first-degree
murder, the Yolo County jury also also found Rich guilty of 15
other counts, including rape, sodomy and kidnapping, in December
of 1980.
Keith Darrell RICH
As of June, 1999, Shasta County serial
killer Darrell Rich -- convicted of four murders in 1978 -- is slated to
be the next prisoner to be executed in California.
Rich, 44, of Cottonwood, was convicted of three first-degree murders, one
second-degree murder and sexual assaults on five other women, all
committed between June and August 1978. One victim, 11-year-old Annette
Selix, left home to buy groceries in August 1978 and was found dead the
next day under a bridge. Rich had worked for her mother.
According to a state Supreme Court
ruling, Rich was interviewed after her body was found, mentioned seeing
one or more bodies at a dump and agreed to take a lie-detector test, at
which sheriff's deputies decided he was lying. He ultimately told
officers he had murdered the girl as well as Annette Edwards and
Patricia Moore of Redding, both beaten to death, and Linda Slavik, who
disappeared from a bar in Chico and was found shot to death at a dump in
Shasta County. The Moore killing was ruled to be second-degree murder.
On August 13, 2000, a panel of three
circuit judges rejected defense arguments that a federal trial judge in
Sacramento should have let them investigate the way Shasta County killer
Darrell Rich, an American Indian, was prosecuted.
The defense lawyers
claimed the prosecution violated Rich's rights by systematically
excluding American Indians from the grand jury that indicted him. The
federal appeals court refused to review the death sentence. His only
remaining hope to stay alive is a Supreme Court appeal.
Rich was tried in Yolo
County following a change of venue. He was convicted of sexually
assaulting and murdering two victims in 1978 -- an 11-year-old
Cottonwood girl, whom he tossed off a 105-foot-high bridge, and an
Oroville woman. He also was convicted of killing two other women and
sexually assaulting five more during the same summer.
Rich's lawyers say
his trial was tainted by financial pressures placed by county
supervisors on his public defender, allegedly hampering his
representation of Rich.
California Department of Corrections
SUMMARY:
Darrell Keith Rich was convicted of four counts of
first-degree murder in the July-August 1981 deaths of Annette Fay
Edwards, Patricia Ann Moore, Linda Diane Slavik, and Annette Lynn Selix.
Three of these convictions were with special circumstances, and a Yolo
County jury sentenced Rich to death on January 23, 1981.
Annette Fay Edwards, 19, of Redding was beaten with a
rock after Rich attempted to have sex with her. She died of multiple
head injuries. Patricia Ann Moore, 17, was driven to a remote area by
Rich, where she was raped and then beaten to death with a rock. Linda
Diane Slavik, 26, was driven from Chico, by Rich, to his house in
Cottonwood.
She was raped there and then driven to a remote area where
she was shot and killed. Just before she was killed, she was shown the
dead body of Patricia Ann Moore, who had been killed at the same remote
location.
Annette Lynn Selix, 11, was driven by Rich to his Cottonwood
house where he committed acts of rape, sodomy and oral copulation. He
then drove here 30 miles to Johns Creek Bridge and threw here 105 feet
to the rocks below.
On Aug. 20, 1978, three days before Darrell Rich’s
arrest, he advised a friend that he had discovered a dead body. The
friend informed police officers who in turn began to question Rich. He
consented to a polygraph and failed.
This led authorities to believe he
knew more about the bodies than he was revealing. Several days later,
Rich began telling acquaintances that he in fact received $7,000 for
killing one of the women. When he was asked about the other body, he
responded that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Authorities were informed of these revelations and
this resulted in Rich’s arrest. He later confessed to the above listed
crimes along with two others. He also gave police officers his gun and
provided detailed information regarding the offenses.
PRIOR RECORD
First arrested age 17 for assault with a deadly
weapon, and sent to the California Youth Authority at age 19. Since age
16, Rich has had a history of progressive violence. He was a heavy
drinker from the time he was in his mid-teens up to his arrest in August
1978.
In addition to the four counts of first-degree murder, the Yolo
County jury also also found Rich guilty of 15 other counts, including
rape, sodomy and kidnapping, in December of 1980.
EXECUTION
At 12:06 a.m., March 15, 2000, the execution by
lethal injection of Darrell Keith Rich began in San Quentin State
Prison’s execution chamber. Rich was pronounced dead at 12:13 a.m. Rich
declined a last meal and drank tea, broth and Gatorade until his
execution. He spent his last hours with his spiritual advisors and his
attorneys. Darrell Keith Rich’s last word was “Peace.”
ProDeathPenalty.com
Darrell Rich was convicted of murdering 3 women and
an 11-year-old girl in Shasta County, California. "This is a day that
has been long in coming for the citizens of Shasta County," McGregor
Scott, the Shasta County district attorney, said after the execution
date was set. "This man wreaked havoc over the course of 1978.
There is
no one more deserving of the death penalty than Darrell Keith Rich."
Rich's 1981 trial was moved to Yolo County because of extensive news
coverage in Shasta County.
Rich, 44, of Cottonwood, sexually assaulted and
killed girls and young women in the Redding area between June and August
1978 and became known as the "Hilltop Rapist". He did not deny most of
the attacks and offered a defense based on his mental condition. He was
convicted of three 1st-degree murders, one 2nd-degree murder, sexual
assaults on 4 other women and an attempted sexual assault on a 5th.
One of the victims was 11-year-old Annette Selix,
whose mother had previously employed Rich. The girl left her Cottonwood
home one day in August 1978 to buy groceries. Her partially clad body
was found the next day under a 105-foot bridge, from which she had
apparently been thrown to her death. An autopsy determined that she had
been alive at the time he threw her off the bridge and that she survived
for a time after landing on the rocky area.
"I'm just glad it has come to this and that it's
finally going to be over," the girl's mother, Sharon Tidwell, said.
Annette's stepfather David Tidwell, said, "We're wasting time -- just
kill him. He better pray there's not a life after death -- if there is,
he better hide." Other relatives of Rich's victims echoed such comments,
and the courts over the years have taken note of the brutal nature of
Rich's crimes, which included beatings, a shooting, strangulation and
bludgeoning. "To even the most hardened eye, the crimes were almost
unimaginably brutal -- savage attacks on defenseless young women, all
sexually ravaged," 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals Judge Michael Daly
Hawkins wrote. The other murder victims were Annette Edwards and
Patricia Moore of Redding, both beaten to death, and Linda Slavik, who
disappeared from a Chico bar and was found shot to death at a dump in
Shasta County. The Moore killing was ruled to be 2nd-degree murder.
None of Rich's relatives spoke at his clemency
hearing and his lawyers did not attend. The only people who spoke on his
behalf were death penalty opponents, whose comments drew hisses and a
few walkouts from angry victims' relatives. "We've been unjustly
sentenced to 22 years of hell," said Linda Hines, Annette Selix's aunt.
"Please, please, put all of us out of our much-prolonged misery." Mike
Yates, whose sister, Linda Slavik, was murdered by Rich, said the case
has meant "22 years of legalized torture" for his family.
A woman who survived an attack by Rich sobbed, her
hand pressed over her face, as a victim's rights coordinator read her
written statement to the board recounting how she had pleaded with Rich
for her life, begging him to spare her for the sake of her baby daughter.
In her statement, the woman described in poignant detail how the attack
has haunted her life, reaching into her dreams and shadowing her
relationship with her husband. "We are never alone. Darrell Rich is
always there between us," she wrote.
California execution
San Francisco Chronicle
Serial killer Darrell Rich was executed early today
at San Quentin State Prison, 22 years after he murdered 3 women and an
11-year- old girl in a savage, summerlong rampage that terrorized rural
Shasta County. Rich, who embraced his American Indian ancestry after
landing on Death Row and adopted the name Young Elk, was led into the
prison's apple-green death chamber shortly before midnight and strapped
onto a gurney.
As he lay with his arms and legs secured -- and a 14-inch,
ritual white feather with black edges draped on his chest -- a solution
of sodium Pentothal was pumped into his veins to render him unconscious.
Fifty cubic centimeters of pancuronium bromide was then injected into
his bloodstream to paralyze his diaphragm and stop his breathing,
followed by an intravenous jolt of 50 cubic centimeters of potassium
chloride to paralyze his heart.
Throughout the execution, Rich lay with his eyes
closed, exhibiting little movement. He swallowed once and his cheeks
seemed to bulge -- and then in the final moments his face turned
slightly purple.
The feather quivered as he drew his last breath. As he
died, 5 relatives of his victims, plus 1 of 5 other women he sexually
assaulted, held hands and showed little emotion.
The only sound in the
execution chamber was the uncontrollable coughing of one witness.
Christopher Slavik, whose mother Linda was killed by Rich, watched
dressed in a black suit with a dark tie covered in white skulls. When
Rich was declared dead, Slavik allowed himself a small smile.
At 12:13 a.m., 7 minutes after the poisons began
pumping into his body, the 45-year-old killer was pronounced dead. "Peace"
was his final word, according to Bob Martinez, spokesman for the
California Department of Corrections.
Rich was the 8th inmate executed
since California reinstated the death penalty in 1977, and the first
with any American Indian ancestry, to die in the death chamber since
then. He spent his final day visiting with relatives and Leonard
Williams and Henry Adams, his American Indian spiritual advisers, said
Martinez. Rich was described as calm as he awaited the end. He had spent
the past several days fasting in accordance to what he saw as spiritual
penance.
The entire prison was in lockdown during Rich's final
day, and at 6 p.m. he was moved to a cell near the death row office,
where he was strip-searched and scanned with a metal detector. Just
before he was escorted to a "death watch" cell a few feet away from the
execution chamber, Rich received a new outfit -- a blue shirt, blue
jeans, undershirt, shorts, socks and hospital slippers. As he fasted,
Rich's lawyers filed last-minute appeals requesting court action to
force the prison to let their client participate in an American Indian
sweat lodge ceremony to make spiritual atonement.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued the final rejection at
about 8:30 o'clock last night. Lawyers were hoping to have the execution
stayed while the sweat lodge issue was resolved. The prison refused to
allow Rich -- who said he was 1/4 Cherokee --into the sweat lodge, which
is in an exercise yard, because administrators believed the activity
posed too great a security risk. Conducting a ceremony at the lodge
requires several hours, and the use of hot rocks and a shovel would have
had too much potential for violence, they argued.
Rich's appeals on the death sentence itself were
exhausted weeks earlier. Yesterday, California Deputy Attorney General
Carlos Martinez, who fought Rich's recent appeals, called the sweat-lodge
argument a ruse. "He's just trying to delay the execution, and to do so
would be really cruel to the families of his victims," Martinez said
shortly before leaving his office to get ready to witness Rich's
execution.
About 750 anti-death-penalty and American Indian
demonstrators spent the night outside the prison gates praying and
singing Indian spiritual songs to protest the execution. A handful of
capital punishment advocates also showed up. "I'm here not only to pray
when he leaves, but also because all of us here think all life is sacred,"
said Fred Short, a 53-year-old Chippewa from Sacramento who led a group
of 20 Apache, Yaqui and Chippewa people to the gates. A group of Indians
drummed furiously throughout the evening, saying they hoped Rich could
hear them in his final hours. The crowd fell silent when Rich's death
was announced.
Peggy Eastwood, sister of Rich's 1st murder victim,
Annette Edwards, said in a statement after the execution: "It was too
easy for Darrell Rich after what he put us through for 22 years." Rich's
execution date came two decades after he was sentenced to die for 2 of 4
murders he committed in Shasta County, preying on young women whose
bodies were found battered, bruised and, in one case, shot.
He also
sexually assaulted5 other women. The killing that prompted the most
outrage was that of 11-year-old Annette Selix, whom Rich flung -- still
alive -- from a 105-foot bridge after raping and beating her. She lived
long enough to curl into a fetal position in the muddy gravel before she
died.
All of the victims were killed or attacked near
Rich's hometown of Cottonwood, a small ranching town tucked in the
northern corner of the Sacramento Valley. The reign of mayhem is still
described as the time Cottonwood lost its innocence -- and many
townsfolk last night were either glued to the television news or
celebrating the execution with drinks.
The 1st murder victim was Edwards, 19, whom Rich
snatched in July 1978 while she was walking to the fireworks show near
her home in Redding. Patricia "Pam" Moore, 17, was next: She disappeared
from a Redding motel in early August, and was later found dead in a dump.
Rich then kidnapped Slavik, 28, from a Chico bar, and after raping and
killing her left her near Moore's body. His final victim was Annette.
The Cottonwood youngster was walking home from the grocery store when
Rich snatched her, and she was later found by a passer-by below the
bridge.
Rich becomes the 1st condemned prisoner to be put to
death this year in California. He was the8th person to die in the San
Quentin State Prison death chamber since executions resumed there in
1992. He also becomes the 22nd condemned prisoner to be put to death
this year in the USA and the 620th overall since the USA resumed
executions on January 17, 1977.
Death Penalty Focus
Darrell "Young Elk" Rich was executed by the state of
California on March 15, 2000. The time of death was 12:13 a.m. The
following information was posted previous to the execution.
Darrell Young Elk Rich was convicted of murdering
three women and one eleven-year-old girl and sentenced to death in 1982.
Young Elk has exhausted his appeal process and awaits his execution,
scheduled for 12:01 a.m., March 15, 2000. The only recourse available to
Young Elk is a grant of clemency by Governor Gray Davis.
Young Elk is a Cherokee Indian, and would be the
first Native American to be put to death in California since the
reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977. Eleven American Indians have
been executed in the United States since the reinstatement of the death
penalty in 1976, and 46 others are currently incarcerated on death row.
Young Elk has been on death row for 18 years.
Throughout that time he has been an exemplary inmate with a great
institutional record. Young Elk is not a present or future danger to his
fellow inmates or the prison guards. He has shown remorse for his
actions since the time of his arrest, which he led the police to make.
He confessed his crimes and pleaded innocent by reason of insanity.
Young Elk was diagnosed with a history of head
trauma, neurological deficits and with "intermittent explosive disorder,"
a mental illness in which the person is overcome by sudden fits of rage
followed by periods of deep remorse. Young Elk"s life is in the hands of
Governor Gray Davis and the clemency board.
Please write to them and
demand that Young Elk's life be spared, and that all capital punishment
be abolished in California. We also need you to join your fellow
abolitionists at the various vigils and rallies being held across the
state for Young Elk on March 14.
The State of the Death Penalty in California
California is poised to execute its first victim of
the new millennium, Darrell Young Elk Rich. While other states are
considering, or in the case of Illinois, have imposed, moratoria,
California is preparing to continue its brutal history of executing the
poor, the mentally ill, the developmentally disabled, minorities, and,
perhaps, even the innocent.
There are over 555 men and women on death
row here in California, the third largest death row in the world, almost
one third of whom do not even have a lawyer representing them. Are the
few dozen men and women sentenced to death each year more guilty, more
culpable of murder than the 2,000+ other men and women convicted of
homicide each year, but spared the death penalty? Or are they simply
less privileged? Did they kill in the "wrong" county? Was their legal
representation inadequate? Was their victim white? Were their
constitutional rights violated? Were they mentally incompetent to defend
themselves? As even the pro-death penalty, conservative republican
governor of Illinois George Ryan admits, the judicial system is "fraught
with error."
"There is no margin for error when it comes to
putting a person to death," Ryan said this week in announcing a
moratorium on executions in Illinois. "Until I can be sure that everyone
sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty — until I can be sure
with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal
injection — no one will meet that fate," he said. California Governor
Gray Davis has not taken heed from his fellow head of state.
Indeed,
Davis has repeatedly stated his support of the death penalty in
California and has not granted clemency to any death row inmate during
his tenure. In addition, two initiatives to expand the death penalty
will appear on the March 7 ballot, just days before Young ElkŐs
scheduled execution.
Proposition 18, Murder: Special Circumstances,
would expand by three the number of special circumstances that would
allow a prosecutor to seek the death sentence. Prop. 21, Juvenile Crime,
will add gang-related murder to the list of "special circumstances" that
make offenders eligible for the death penalty.
While the population of California is backing away
from capital punishment (only 49% of Californians polled in a recent
survey supported the death penalty) and political and religious leaders
throughout the country are questioning the fairness of our judicial
system and the morality of capital punishment, California politicians
steadfastly hang on to this outdated and barbaric travesty they call "Justice."
Crime & Punishment
Darrell Young Elk Rich was convicted in 1981 of
murdering three women and one eleven-year-old girl. The attacks and
murders all took place in the summer of 1978, when Young Elk was 23. He
confessed to the killings shortly after being taken into custody. Young
Elk pleaded innocent by reason of insanity. His court-appointed defense
stated that he suffered from "intermittent explosive disorder," a mental
illness in which the person is overcome by sudden fits of rage followed
by periods of deep remorse.
Further examination of Young Elk by
psychiatrists and psychologists found long-standing brain damage,
neurological deficits, extreme mental disturbance, and a history of head
trauma. During the penalty phase of sentencing, the jury initially
returned to the courtroom hung, but was instructed by the judge to
continue deliberations. The judge failed to instruct the jury that a
sentence of Life in Prison Without Parole would be automatically imposed
if they were unable to come to a unanimous decision. The next day they
returned with a sentence of death.
The Victims
The tragedy that befell Annette Edwards, Patricia "Pam"
Moore, Linda Slavik, and Annette Selix in the summer of 1978 was
unconscionable. DPF has the deepest sympathies for all of the victimsŐ
families and believes that justice needs to be served for their terrible
loss. Justice, however, is not served by execution.
The murder of
another human being will not bring the four women back to life. An
execution can not offer solace or closure to the family of a murder
victim. While the feelings of rage and lust for revenge are
understandable, even natural, spending years, even decades, anticipating
a person's murder and nurturing one's anger towards him can only prolong
the tragedy, not heal the wounds.
A sentence of life in prison without
parole (LWOP) would have offered the same desired punishment —
separating Young Elk from the rest of society for the entirety of his
life — and would have offered closure to the family 19 years ago. For
more information on victims' families services, please visit the Murder
Victims' Families for Reconciliation (MVFR) web site at http://www.mvfr.org/.
One of the largest victims' rights organization in the country, MVFR is
a national organization of families and friends of murder victims who
are opposed to the death penalty.
American Indians and the Death Penalty
The brutal history of the white man's systematic
extermination of American Indians since their arrival to this land is
well documented. In addition to the killing, their land was stolen,
their traditions and religion smothered by local law and missionary zeal.
All executions belong to a culture of violence that has no place in this
country, but the execution of a Native American brings the added history
of the dominance and repression by our government of an entire
population.
No Native American tribe has the death penalty. This is a
punishment being subjected upon a population that has had little to no
say in the structure of our government or our legal system. A population
that is unproportionately impoverished and lacking in sufficient human
services programs, including medical, educational, legal, psychological,
and rehabilitation progroms.
Native Americans on Death Row Executed in the U.S.
since 1976: 11
On Death Row in the U.S.:46
On Death Row in California: 15
Execution is Closure, Victims Say
By Sam Stanton
and M.S. Enkoji - Sacramento Bee
March 16, 2000
SAN QUENTIN -- They watched intently
as Darrell Keith Rich's life slowly slipped away, and the seven-minute
window that Rich's victims had to view the death row inmate's execution
early Wednesday went far toward erasing 22 years of anguish. "In the end,
Mr. Rich was sorry -- sorry he got caught," said Gordon Yates, whose
sister, Linda Slavik, was one of the murder victims of Rich's 1978
summertime crime spree.
Yates was one of 18 victims or relatives of the
victims who showed up at San Quentin State Prison on Tuesday evening for
the execution just after midnight of the Redding area's "Hilltop Rapist."
Only six actually witnessed the execution. Others
said it was too painful for them to attend, but officials said that none
of the victims or their family members who had been tracked down in
advance of the execution objected to Rich being put to death. "He's not
the victim in this story," Yates told reporters less than an hour after
Rich died. "Today, my family and I will visit my sister's grave and tell
her she can truly rest in peace."
Rich, 45, convicted in a rape and murder binge that
left four young women dead and five others sexually assaulted, died at
12:13 a.m. Wednesday from a lethal-injection execution at the prison.
Despite a flurry of last-minute appeals to delay the execution or allow
him to take part in an American Indian sweat lodge ceremony, the
Cottonwood man was put to death as scheduled.
Rich, whose Cherokee
heritage had become a cornerstone of his legal team's efforts to save
him, died with a large feather resting on his chest, the closest he was
allowed to any sort of American Indian last rite. He never made any move
to lift his head, open his eyes or speak to the approximately 50
witnesses gathered around the light-green death chamber.
But the meek fashion in which he met his death had
little effect on the witnesses, most of whom never took their eyes from
him during the procedure. David Tidwell, stepfather of 11-year-old
Annette Selix, whom Rich raped and then threw off a 105-foot bridge, sat
stone-faced in one of the dozen chairs arranged in a semi-circle around
the octagonal chamber.
As he watched through the thick glass panels as
Rich died, he held tightly onto the hand of the woman sitting next to
him, a rape victim who had survived an attack by Rich and wanted to see
him die for his crimes. "I can finally live in peace," the woman said
later in a statement read by Nathan Barankin, spokesman for state
Attorney General Bill Lockyer. "He won't be there to haunt me anymore."
Although none of the families or victims had sought
counseling during their two-decade wait, Lockyer's office is helping
them arrange that now through Nina Solarno, the state's first director
for the office of victims services. Solarno, whose 19-year-old sister
was murdered in 1979 on the University of the Pacific campus in Stockton,
helped shepherd the victims through the execution process and said they
experienced great relief after it was over. "It was like each of them
got about 100 pounds off their shoulders," Salarno said. "I think they
all said now it's time to start focusing on themselves and heal." The
pain caused by Rich had been carried for so long that some angrily
lashed out at the legal system that allowed such an extended period to
pass between his 1980 conviction and Wednesday's execution.
And they praised Lockyer, Shasta County District
Attorney McGregor Scott and others who toiled for years to see the
execution carried out. "The reality is that tonight Darrell Rich has
finally paid the full price for his crimes," said Michael Yates, another
of Slavik's brothers. "The reality is evil does exist." After a few
hours of sleep following the execution, the victims met again with
Scott, the district attorney. None expressed regret at having witnessed
the procedure, Scott said. "We all met (Wednesday) morning before we
split up, and every one of them, to a person, said they just felt a
great weight off their shoulders," Scott said. "Every one of them was
glad that they had gone."
Rich's attorneys recently had sought clemency for
their client on the grounds that he had been a model inmate and his
indictment had been tainted because none of the grand jury members was
American Indian. By Tuesday, they were appealing to Gov. Gray Davis to
reverse his decision refusing clemency and were asking President Clinton
to intervene. But those pleas -- as well as appeals that went to the
U.S. Supreme Court for review -- were rejected and left his attorneys
bitter at the fate of the inmate they referred to by the Cherokee name
of Young Elk. "Despite an 11th-hour call from one of Young Elk's
attorneys, Gov. Davis never responded," attorney James S. Thomson said
after the execution. "In the end, Gov. Davis proved to be a political
and moral coward."
But there never seemed to be a real hope of clemency
for Rich, who had admitted to his crimes at the time and had even
bragged about some of his killings to acquaintances. By early evening
Tuesday, as the first of a few hundred death penalty opponents began to
gather outside the prison, Rich was spending his last moments with his
attorney and two spiritual advisers. He chose a last dinner of broth,
papaya juice and Gatorade. His last statement to the warden was simply
the word "peace."
[Sam Stanton was one of 17 media witnesses to the
execution. M.S. Enkoji reported from inside San Quentin. ]
California Executes Killer of Four
Inmate's Last
Word Is 'Peace.'
APBNews Online
March 15, 2000
SAN QUENTIN, Calif. (AP) -- A serial killer who threw
an 11-year-old girl more than 100 feet to her death was executed by
injection early this morning after losing a court bid to hold an
American Indian ceremony.
Corrections spokesman Bob Martinez said
Darrell Rich's final statement was one word: "Peace." Rich, 45, was
sentenced to die for the death of the girl, Annette Selix, and the
murder of 28-year-old Linda Slavik.
He also was convicted of murdering
two other women in and near the town of Redding during what prosecutors
called a "reign of terror" in the summer of 1978. Rich killed the two
women by crushing their skulls with rocks, and he fatally shot Slavik.
He assaulted the girl and threw her 105 feet from a bridge.
Wanted to be 'spiritually purified'
Rich said he had reformed after discovering his
Cherokee heritage in prison, and he spent the hours leading up to his
execution seeking legal permission to take part in a sweat lodge
ceremony as a last rite. Sweat lodges are used in some American Indian
religious ceremonies to purify the spirit.
Participants sit within an
enclosed structure and pray while water is poured over fire-heated rocks.
In court papers, Rich said the ceremony was crucial to helping him make
amends. Without it, he feared, "I will not be spiritually purified to
enter the Spirit World, and my spirit will not successfully pass over to
the Spirit World." Prison officials said the ceremony -- which would
include a rake, shovel and the hot rocks -- was too high a security risk.
State prosecutors also filed an affidavit from a policy analyst for the
Cherokee Nation who said the ceremony is not a Cherokee tradition.
Serial Killer Executed
ABCNews.com
Associated Press
SAN QUENTIN, Calif., March 15 — A serial killer who
threw an 11-year-old girl to her death off a bridge but said he had
reformed after discovering his Cherokee heritage in prison was executed
early this morning. Darrell Rich, 45, wore a large feather across his
chest as the lethal drugs were administered. He was dead seven minutes
later, at 12:13 a.m.
The feather quivered slightly as he drew his last
convulsive breath. His final statement was one word: “Peace.” Rich was
given a lethal injection for the death of the girl, Annette Selix, and
the murder of 28-year-old Linda Slavik. He also was convicted of
murdering two more women and assaulting five others in and near Redding
during what prosecutors called a “reign of terror” in the summer of
1978.
Clemency Denied
Gov. Gray Davis denied a request for clemency, saying
Rich acted in a “callous and almost unbelievably brutal manner.” Rich,
whose death sentence had been upheld in state and federal courts, spent
the hours leading up to his execution waging a court battle for
permission to take part in a sweat lodge ceremony as a religious last
rite.
The Supreme Court declined to consider the matter late Tuesday.
Sweat lodges are used in some American Indian religious ceremonies to
purify the spirit. Participants sit within an enclosed structure and
pray while water is poured over fire-heated rocks.
Prison officials said
the ceremony was too high a security risk. State prosecutors also filed
an affidavit from a research and policy analyst for the Cherokee Nation
who said the sweat lodge ceremony is not a Cherokee tradition. Rich’s
lawyers said Rich had studied Native American beliefs in general before
learning his specific ancestry and the sweat lodge was part of his
religious tradition.
Protestors Hold Vigil
Protestors held a candlelight vigil outside the
prison, praying, singing and carrying signs against capital punishment.
“It’s a senseless, meaningless act of revenge that might feel good to a
few people, but it really lowers us as a people,” said Lance Lindsey,
director of Death Penalty Focus, a San Francisco-based anti-death
penalty group. Lindsey also said it costs the state as much as $4
million to prosecute a death penalty case, 2 to 3 times more than
pursuing sentences of life without parole. But relatives of the victims
said it was past time for Rich to die.
Brutal Slayings
Rich killed two women by crushing their skulls with
rocks; he shot Slavik to death and later mimicked her pleas for mercy to
friends. He assaulted 11-year-old Annette and then threw her, alive, off
a 105-foot high bridge. She lived long enough to inhale her own blood
and crawl into the fetal position. “He better pray there’s not a life
after death—if there is, he better hide,” David Tidwell, Annette’s
stepfather, said at a March 6 clemency hearing. But defense lawyers said
Rich had changed. In court papers, Rich said the sweat lodge ceremony
was crucial to helping him make amends.
Sought Spiritual Purity
Without it, he feared, “I will not be spiritually
purified to enter the Spirit World, and my spirit will not successfully
pass over to the Spirit World.” Tuesday morning, the body of Rich’s
mother, Lillie, was exhumed from a cemetery in Cottonwood. Rich had
planned to be buried next to her, but agreed to be buried with his
mother elsewhere out of respect for the family of one of his victims. To
their horror, the family of Annette Selix learned that the Rich family
plot was just 100 feet from the girl’s grave.
People v. Rich, 248 Cal.Rptr. 510 (Cal.
1988) (Direct Appeal).
Defendant was charged in Shasta Superior Court with
four counts of first degree murder, three counts of kidnapping, three
counts of rape by force, three counts of rape by use of threats, one
count of assault with intent to commit rape, two counts of oral
copulation by force, one count of oral copulation of the victim by force,
one count of oral copulation by a person over 21 on a person under 16,
one count of attempted oral copulation, one count of sodomy by a person
over 21 on a person under 16, and one count of assault with a deadly
weapon by means likely to produce great bodily harm.
Each murder count further alleged as special
circumstances that defendant had murdered the victims named in the other
three counts. (Former Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (c)(5) (all further
statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated).) One
of the murder counts additionally alleged that defendant had murdered
his victim, a child under 14, during the commission of a lewd and
lascivious act. (Former § 190.2, subd. (c)(3)(iv).)
The cause was eventually transferred to Yolo County.
During trial by jury, the indictment was amended to include an
additional count of sodomy by force. The jury found defendant guilty as
charged of three of the murders, and found the special circumstances of
"felony murder lewd and lascivious act on a child under 14" and "multiple
murder" to be true; on the other murder charge the jury found defendant
guilty of second degree murder and found the multiple-murder special
circumstance to be not true. As to the other 18 counts, the jury found
defendant guilty as charged of all but three crimes. He was found not
guilty of two counts of rape by force and one count of rape by use of
threats. (See post, fns. 4-6.)
Immediately after the jury returned its guilt
verdicts, the sanity trial commenced. The matter was submitted to the
jury on the evidence presented during the guilt phase.
The jury found
defendant was sane when he committed the crimes. At the penalty trial,
the matter was again submitted to the jury on the evidence presented
during the guilt phase.
The following day the jury fixed defendant's
sentence at life without possibility of parole for one of the first
degree murders and imposed death for each of the other two first degree
murders. This appeal under the 1977 death penalty law is automatic. (§
1239, subd. (b).)
I. FACTS
A. The People's Case:
The People introduced evidence
establishing the following:
1. Count I--The murder of Annette Edwards
In early July 1978, Annette Edwards disappeared from
her home in Redding. Her body was found three days later two miles from
her apartment, about 75 feet down an embankment off a county road. She
was lying on her back with her legs spread; her panties had been pulled
below her knees and her tank top had been pulled above her breasts.
A blood-stained trash can lid was near her, and additional evidence was
also discovered at the scene. The autopsy revealed severe injuries to
her face and head. Her upper jaw had suffered two fractures: one began
at the left midline and went through her left eye socket and into the
lower portion of her skull to the base of her brain; the other followed
a similar pattern but began on the right side of her face. The body had
other injuries and bruises.
The autopsy surgeon testified that a
substantial amount of force was required to inflict the injuries on the
jaw. The cause of death was described as basal skull fractures inflicted
by blunt force.
2. Count II--The murder of Patricia Moore
In early August, Patricia Moore disappeared from a
motel in Redding. Her nude body was found over two weeks later at the
Igo dump. The autopsy revealed severe injuries to her face and head.
Several of her teeth had been fractured or broken. Her head had
sustained several blows, the most severe of which crushed the right side
of the front of her skull.
The wound measured about five inches in
diameter and was probably inflicted by a heavy rock. There was evidence
of manual strangulation. The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage
from head wounds inflicted by blunt force. The jury returned a second
degree murder verdict as to this count.
3. Count III--The murder of Linda Slavik
Also in early August, Linda Slavik went to a bar in
Chico with a friend. Slavik's friend left the bar about 1 a.m.; she
returned approximately 45 minutes later and found Slavik gone. Slavik's
nude body was found at the Igo dump, about 20 feet from Patricia's body.
Slavik had been shot twice: one bullet entered in the front of her neck
and struck her spine, the other bullet was fired into her open mouth and
severed the spinal column, causing instant death.
4. Count IV--The murder of Annette Selix
On an evening in mid-August, 11-year-old Annette
Selix left her home in Cottonwood and walked to a nearby market to buy
groceries. Her body was found the following day underneath a bridge in
Shasta County. She had been stripped naked except for her panties.
The
autopsy revealed that she was still alive at the time she had been
thrown off the bridge, and that she had been forcibly raped and had
performed oral copulation. She suffered several broken bones as well as
substantial internal bleeding. Bite marks were found on the victim's
thigh and it was positively determined that defendant had inflicted the
wound.
5. Counts V and VI--The assault and attempted
forcible oral copulation on Donna W.
On an evening in mid-June 1978, Donna W. left her
home in Redding and began walking to a nearby market. Defendant attacked
her from behind, pushed her off the road and threw her down a hill. He
grabbed her hair and blouse, threatened to kill her, and asked if she
wanted to give him "a blow job."
When Donna said no, defendant hurled
her to the ground and began hitting her on the head with a blunt
instrument. He struck her at least 10 times. Donna's head injuries
prevented her from climbing up the hill to the main road; she remained
at the foot of the hill for more than 12 hours before a passerby saw her
and called for help.
6. Counts VII--XI--The kidnap, rape and oral
copulation of Robin H.
In mid-June 1978, Robin H. went to the Anderson fair
with a friend. She left the fair alone around 11 p.m., and walked past
defendant, who was in his car parked on the side of the road. When
defendant called for her to come to him, Robin declined, and defendant
drove off. Robin took off her shoes and started running to a bus depot.
Suddenly, defendant grabbed her from behind and carried her to his car.
Defendant placed Robin in the front seat, grabbed her hair, and pushed
her head between her legs.
Defendant then drove off. Soon thereafter,
defendant ordered Robin to take off her clothes. He parked the car and
commanded Robin to lie down and cover her eyes with his shirt so she
could not see him.
Defendant then proceeded to rape and orally copulate
her. He also forced Robin to orally copulate him. Robin was finally
released; defendant told Robin he knew where she lived and threatened to
kill her if she told anyone what he had done. The indictment charged two
counts of rape of Robin H. Because the evidence established only one
rape, the jury found defendant not guilty of forcible rape but guilty of
rape by use of threats.
7. Counts XII--XV--The kidnap, oral copulation,
sodomy and assault with intent to commit rape of Lisa S.
On an evening in late June 1978, 14-year-old Lisa S.
was walking with a boyfriend in Redding when defendant drove up next to
them. He asked if they would like a ride, and they accepted. Lisa's
boyfriend opened the door and Lisa began to climb in; as she did so,
defendant grabbed her, pulled her into the car, and sped off. Defendant
ordered Lisa to take off her clothes. He then parked the car and
attempted to rape Lisa, but could not achieve penetration. He ordered
Lisa out of the car and sodomized her. He also forced Lisa to orally
copulate him, and eventually released her.
8. Counts XVI and XVII--The rape of Marla Y.
On an evening in early July 1978, Marla Y. was
walking in Redding when defendant grabbed her. She fought until he
knocked her unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she realized
defendant was rolling her toward a body of water. She again began to
struggle. Defendant ripped off her shirt and ordered Marla to remove her
pants.
Defendant covered Marla's face with her pants so she could not
see him and then raped her. He ordered her not to look up and then he
left. The indictment charged two counts of rape of Marla Y. Because the
evidence established only one rape, the jury found defendant guilty of
forcible rape but not guilty of rape by use of threats.
9. Counts XVIII--XXII--The kidnap, rape, oral
copulation and sodomy of Kelly M.
On an evening in mid-July 1978, 15-year-old Kelly M.
left her home in Red Bluff and bicycled to her cousin's house to visit.
As she returned home, defendant passed her and asked for the time, then
grabbed her by the hair and pulled her off her bike. He hit her in the
eye, forced her into his car, and drove off. While driving, defendant
held Kelly by the hair and forced her head between her legs. He ordered
her to take off her clothes.
Defendant parked the car and forced Kelly
to orally copulate him. He then started the car and drove to another
location. En route, defendant threatened to hit her on the head with a
flashlight if she did not do as he asked. He also told her that he had a
gun under his seat and a dead body in his trunk. When defendant stopped
the car again, he sodomized, raped, and orally copulated Kelly. He
eventually let her go. The indictment charged two counts of rape of
Kelly M. Because the evidence established only one rape, the jury found
defendant not guilty of forcible rape but guilty of rape by use of
threats.
10. The arrest and investigation
The circumstances surrounding defendant's arrest and
the police investigation are as follows: In mid-August 1978, defendant,
who was riding a "street bike," asked a friend if he wished to go "dirt
bike" riding. His friend declined. About 20 to 30 minutes later,
defendant returned and told his friend that he had found a human body.
Defendant led him to the Igo dump, and showed him a body. There were no
tire marks where defendant claimed to have driven, and defendant could
not have traveled the distance from his friend's house to the Igo dump
and back in the time he had been gone. They went and called the police
from the nearest telephone. The police arrived, saw two bodies, and
began an investigation.
Meanwhile, in the course of their investigation
into the murder of Annette Selix, Shasta County officers interviewed
defendant. He was at that time not a suspect; he was interviewed because
the police knew that defendant had worked for Selix's mother. The
discussion lasted approximately one hour. When it was over, one of the
officers, Detective Brewer, asked defendant if he would submit to a
polygraph examination on the Selix murder, and defendant agreed.
Defendant arrived at the Shasta County Sheriff's
Department at 4 p.m. the following day. Detective Brewer learned that
defendant had reported finding bodies at the Igo dump, and he asked
defendant about those bodies. Defendant replied that he had seen only
one body, not two, at the dump.
Detective Brewer concluded that because
there was as yet no evidence connecting defendant to the Selix murder,
but there was evidence that defendant found the bodies at the Igo dump,
it would be "more relevant" or "more reasonable" to question defendant
about the Slavik and Moore murders during the polygraph examination.
Defendant was taken to the room where the polygraph
examination would be administered. He was read his Miranda rights
(Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and waived them. He also signed a written
waiver of his Miranda rights on a document entitled, "Waiver, Shasta
County Sheriff's Department, for Polygraph Test." After explaining the
procedure and putting defendant at ease, the examiner administered the
polygraph examination.
The examination lasted about 15 minutes. One of the
questions asked of defendant was whether he had murdered the girl whose
body he claimed to have found at the Igo dump. When the examination was
over, the examiner spoke with Detective Brewer outside of defendant's
presence and informed him that he believed defendant was lying when he
denied involvement in the murders. Brewer then met with defendant and
questioned him further about the murders.
Detective Brewer testified
that at this point defendant was a suspect only to the extent that he
had apparently failed the polygraph test. Brewer informed defendant that
it appeared he had been lying during the polygraph examination.
Defendant replied that he thought the test was fairly administered, and
he could not explain why he failed it.
Brewer then discussed with defendant "what I thought
to be unusual behavior or unaccounted for activity, [or] an accounting
that was not satisfactory." Defendant became nervous; he lost eye
contact with Brewer and paused for long periods before responding to
questions. Defendant twice said he was going to leave. Brewer asked him
to stay and talk about the case.
Finally, defendant stood up, said he
was going to leave, and told Brewer, "I've got something to tell you,
but not now." Defendant said he would call Brewer in a few days, and
left. On his way out, defendant asked Brewer for his business card, and
Brewer complied. Brewer asked defendant when he could expect a call and
defendant said within three days. Defendant then left.
Early that evening, defendant met with his friend
Gale Croxell and Croxell's girlfriend. Defendant told them that he had
taken and failed a polygraph examination about finding the bodies at the
Igo dump; he said the only question he got right was his name.
The three
went to defendant's house where they discussed the matter further.
Croxell asked defendant why he rode his street bike on a dirt road;
defendant said "he wanted to see if they [were] still there." Croxell
then asked defendant whether he had committed the murder; defendant said
yes.
He said the Hell's Angels paid him $7,000 to kill the girl. Croxell
also asked about the second body; again, defendant said, "yes." He said
he had met her at the Madison Bear Gardens in Chico, and had killed her
because "she was in the wrong place at the wrong time." He then acted
out the kidnap and murder of Linda Slavik and told his friends "he shot
her in the head and the neck with a .22 [-caliber pistol]."
Defendant said he had thrown the pistol in a river
and the police would never find it. He also said that the .22 rifle,
which he had used to kill the other woman, was at his mother's house.
Later, Croxell's girlfriend contacted the sheriff's department and gave
them a written statement whichincluded the information that one of the
murder weapons was at defendant's mother's house. Around 9 that evening,
defendant saw two of his friends near a liquor store.
He approached them
and told them he had failed the lie detector test. He said "he had until
7 o'clock the next day to come up with an alibi or [the police] were
going to pick him up." Before leaving, defendant said, "Hey guys, I'll
level with you. I snuffed her for $7,000." Defendant's friends
telephoned the police.
When Detective Brewer received this additional
information he decided to arrest defendant immediately. He learned that
defendant's motorcycle was outside the Oarlock Bar in Redding. Brewer,
accompanied by other officers, arrived at the bar about 11 p.m. and
placed defendant under arrest. Defendant was not told he was under
arrest; he was handcuffed and told he was going back to the sheriff's
department. Officers then drove defendant back to the station.
Once at the station, defendant was placed in an
interrogation room; a tape- recording system was turned on without
defendant's knowledge and Detective Brewer questioned defendant for
almost two hours. A transcript of the interview, in which defendant
confessed to various of the charged murders, spans 45 pages.
At the
conclusion of the interview, Brewer and defendant returned to the
Oarlock Bar. They arrived about 2 a.m. and retrieved without a warrant
some of defendant's personal property from a car located in the bar's
parking lot; both defendant and the owner of the car consented to the
search.
Brewer then drove with defendant around the area, and
defendant pointed out where evidence could be discovered. He also told
Brewer that they should retrieve the .22 rifle from defendant's mother's
house. Defendant's mother was out of town, and defendant consented to a
search of her house; he led Brewer to a bedroom closet, picked up the
rifle, and handed it to him.
They returned to the station about 3:30
a.m. Defendant was booked and transported to the sheriff's substation in
Burney, approximately 50 miles from Redding. He was transported to
Burney instead of being housed in the Shasta County jail because jail
trustees had previously informed the sheriff's department that the
person responsible for the Selix murder "would be taken care of when he
was placed in our jail." Before leaving, defendant agreed to submit to a
second polygraph examination at Burney.
Later in the early morning of August 24, Russell
Swartz, a public defender, visited defendant at the Burney substation.
Defendant had not requested to see an attorney and by the time Detective
Brewer arrived to arrange for the second polygraph test, Swartz had
left. Brewer was informed of Swartz's visit by Lieutenant Eoff, the
deputy sheriff in charge of the Burney substation. Brewer telephoned
District Attorney Robert Baker for legal advice.
Baker told Brewer that
he could proceed with the polygraph examination if defendant wished to
take it. Baker explained that Swartz had not been appointed to represent
defendant, and that what was involved "was [defendant's] right to
counsel, not counsel's right to seek a client." He counseled Brewer to
"leave the [question] to [defendant] entirely." Detective Brewer
contacted defendant, who agreed to take another polygraph examination.
The interrogation was interrupted when Swartz returned to the substation
and advised Brewer that defendant was "his client." Swartz also told
defendant to stop talking. Brewer informed Swartz of the legal advice he
had received and the two then telephoned District Attorney Baker. Baker
again advised Brewer "[t]hat it was to be left to [defendant] entirely.
[I was] to advise him that it was his choice whether to retain [Swartz]
as counsel or not, and that choice was to be made by [defendant]. If he
chose to retain [Swartz] or to be represented by [him], then we were
naturally to stop; if not, we could proceed with our polygraph
examination." Detective Brewer informed defendant that the choice was
his. Swartz told defendant at least twice that he could be facing the
death penalty. Defendant was then asked whether he wished Swartz to
represent him and defendant said "he guessed that he'd better." All
interrogation ceased and Swartz left.
That afternoon, a consent search was conducted of
defendant's residence. The refrigerator was searched and found to
contain the grocery items Annette Selix had purchased moments before she
was kidnapped.
The following day, August 25th, Detective Brewer obtained
the services of a technician from a local hospital, who retrieved hair
and blood samples from defendant pursuant to a search warrant.
On August
26, Lieutenant Eoff visited defendant in jail. Defendant began speaking
about his parents and his childhood. He then told Eoff "he didn't
understand how he could have done what he did."
On August 28, after
defendant's arraignment, he told Eoff that he had been embarrassed by
everyone looking at him in court. He also asked Eoff why the
investigation was continuing when he had admitted committing the crimes.
Eoff explained that an investigation does not end when a person is taken
into custody. Defendant said, "I'll admit to anything I have done, but I
won't admit to anything I haven't done." He added that he "should have
stopped a long time ago but couldn't."
The following day, about 9 a.m.,
defendant told Eoff he wished to speak to him but that he wanted to talk
with his attorney first. Eoff allowed defendant to telephone Swartz;
they spoke for about five minutes.
On the way back to his cell,
defendant told Eoff that he still wished to speak with him. Eoff told
defendant "to think about it, and if he still wanted to talk to me at a
later time I would listen to whatever he had to say."
Thereafter, Eoff
received word around 4 p.m. that defendant wished to speak with him.
Eoff met with defendant and told him "that he shouldn't talk to me"
because "he had an attorney at that point." Defendant insisted he wished
to talk.
Eoff said he would not ask any questions but that he would
listen to what defendant wished to say. Eoff informed defendant that he
would tape record the conversation; he obtained a tape recorder and
brought it into defendant's cell. The tape recorder was placed in plain
view and turned on; defendant then admitted that he had killed Annette.
The only question Eoff asked defendant was whether he was referring to
the 11-year-old girl; defendant clarified that he was referring to
Annette Selix. Later, defendant signaled Eoff to turn off the tape
recorder; Eoff complied.
Defendant then told Eoff he had "made a list of
everything that he was responsible for and that he hadn't done anything
else other than what was on the list."
Defendant asked Eoff if he wanted
to see the list and Eoff said yes. Defendant handed him a piece of paper
and reiterated that "everything he had done was on that list." Eoff
asked defendant if the list was for him; defendant said, "[i]f you would
like to have a copy I can make you a copy of it." Defendant then told
Eoff that he could also use a copy machine if he had one available. Eoff
replied, "Fine. We have a copy machine here and I can make a copy of it."
When Eoff returned the original to defendant, defendant asked Eoff if he
wished him to sign it, and Eoff said, "No."
On August 31, Detectives
Lambert and Brewer transported defendant from Burney to Redding for a
court appearance. While waiting, Brewer asked Lambert what one of the
officers had learned from defendant's girlfriend, Darlene Munsinger.
Lambert responded that it appeared that Munsinger had "figured ... out
... what was going on."
According to Lambert, defendant then volunteered
that he "knew this was true because he had told his girlfriend that he
had killed a girl." Lambert informed defendant that he "preferred" not
to discuss the case and that he could not question him. Defendant
responded that "the only murders or rapes that he had committed were the
ones that he had written down on the list and given to Lieutenant Eoff."
On September 6, defendant took another polygraph
examination with Swartz's consent. Eoff drove defendant from Burney to
Redding for the test. En route, they drove down a road near the location
where Annette Edwards's body was found. Defendant said it bothered him
to drive through the area "because of what happened here." Eoff said he
could not discuss the case.
After the polygraph examination, defendant asked
Detective Lambert whether he knew the results of the test questions
concerning the murder of one Georgia Ruel. He told Lambert that one of
the questions was whether he had thrown a girl off a bridge; he
explained that he had thrown a girl off a bridge, but she was not Ruel.
On the way back to Burney, defendant asked Eoff if he knew the results
of the polygraph test. He told Eoff that "he felt much better, that he
had taken the polygraph and felt he passed it." He further stated that "what
he had admitted to was all that he had done."
On September 8, Detective Lambert secured a search
warrant authorizing him to obtain a bite sample from defendant.
Defendant inquired which victim possessed bite marks; Lambert answered
that it was Annette Selix. Defendant said he did not remember biting her.
Pursuant to a second search warrant, Lambert obtained additional teeth
impressions the following day; defendant told Lambert that "he was sure
he had not bitten Annette Selix."
On November 28, defendant sent for Detective Lambert
and asked Lambert why he did not like him. Lambert denied disliking
defendant. He explained that, having seen the bodies of the murder
victims, he could understand why someone with less experience would hate
defendant, but that he did not feel that way. According to Lambert, "[defendant]
replied that he knew the feeling because he had seen the bodies, and
that the only reason he got caught was because he wanted to be caught."
On December 11, Detective Lambert was informed that
defendant might attempt suicide. He went to the jail to speak with
defendant, who told Lambert that he was very depressed, and had tried to
hang himself but was unable to go through with it. He also said that he
had left a letter for Lambert in a shoe box and that Lambert could have
the letter. Lambert retrieved the shoe box and brought it to defendant,
who gave the letter to Lambert. It stated in part, "I didn't kill anyone
that I hadn't said I did. I'm telling you the truth, whatever. I hate
myself. God help me."
B. Defense Evidence
As noted above, the defense presented no additional
evidence at the sanity and penalty trials, but instead relied on the
evidence introduced at the guilt trial. That evidence was as follows:
Defendant's complete family, medical and social history were presented
through numerous lay witnesses (defendant's mother, sister, two uncles,
ex-wife, and three ex-girlfriends, his family doctor, two of his grammar
school teachers, his grammar school principal, his school psychologist,
his eighth-grade teacher, both his high school assistant principal and
principal, two of his high school teachers, four coworkers, a
psychiatric social worker, three probation officers, a California Youth
Authority parole agent, a police officer, and others) as well as six
expert witnesses.
Defendant was adopted, and had a difficult childhood.
His mother was domineering. She took care of other people's children for
a living, and defendant resented the attention those other children
received. Nevertheless, he was helpful with the other children, and once
rescued another child from a canal.
Defendant performed poorly in
grammar school, and was kept back in the first grade. His parents fought
constantly, and he had few friends. He was referred to the school
psychologist, who reported that defendant might become violent, but
defendant received no treatment.
He exhibited suicidal tendencies after his parents
divorced when he was about 15 years old. Initially he lived with his
mother in southern California, but returned to live with his father and
new stepmother in northern California. His academic performance
deteriorated in his sophomore year of high school. He transferred to a
continuation school, where his grades improved. He was suspended for
fighting, and was sometimes truant.
At age 17, after one of numerous disagreements with a
girlfriend, he went hunting and shot himself in the chest, in what was
possibly an attempted suicide. Later, he fired a shot over a police car,
and claimed he hoped the officer would return the fire and kill him.
A subsequent psychiatric evaluation disclosed
defendant was suicidal and urged treatment, but defendant terminated the
therapy. When he was 18 he became drunk and repeatedly rammed another
automobile with his mother's car.
Thereafter he was sentenced to a
county jail camp, where he received counseling. His probation officer
noted defendant had a short temper, especially when he was drinking;
otherwise, defendant was friendly and responsible. The officer
recommended defendant seek psychiatric help, but defendant maintained
that after his counseling in jail he was "in control" and had learned to
deal with his temper.
At 19 defendant, acting in a crazed manner after
drinking, attacked a person with a tire iron. When he heard the police
approaching he smashed his fist through the windshield of the victim's
car and drove off. He was arrested, and went berserk while being treated
for his injury. He was sentenced to the California Youth Authority.
There he was diagnosed as not having psychological
problems, but it was recognized that he exhibited bizarre behavior.
Defendant learned that his girlfriend was pregnant by him, and they
married. When released, he lived with his wife and child, and secured a
job at a lumber mill. Initially, his parole agent felt defendant's
progress was good. Thereafter, however, defendant hit his wife on two
occasions.
For the next five months, he managed to control
himself. Then, in April 1976 he was injured in a car accident and
required numerous stitches on his face, resulting in a severe scar
across his nose. This made him very depressed. In late 1976 he once
again hit his wife, and in August 1977 he told her to leave, which she
did. They divided their property, and defendant voluntarily paid child
support.
At work, defendant became less cheerful and more hot-tempered,
and his attendance deteriorated. He met Darlene Munsinger, who was
visiting from out-of-state, and she moved in with him. They had problems,
and she left, only to return and leave again after a fight. At
defendant's request, Munsinger returned once more to stay with him in
April and again in June of 1978.
In late July 1978 she left him for the last time
because she had become afraid of him; she thought he provoked fights to
give him an excuse to leave the house. When he learned she was leaving
he said he was glad she would not be around "when all the stuff came
up." Munsinger asked, "what stuff," and defendant replied, "I'll tell
you sometime but not now," and that if he had met her earlier "none of
this would have happened."
Each of the women with whom defendant had become
romantically involved testified defendant had engaged in sexual
intercourse with them by mutual consent, and that he had not engaged in
unusual acts, such as sodomy. As noted above, defendant presented six
expert witnesses.
170 F.3d 1236
Darrell Keith RICH, Petitioner-Appellant, v.
Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No.
97-99007.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 16, 1998.
Decided March 25, 1999.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California Edward J.
Garcia, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-S-89-00823-EJG.
Before: PREGERSON, KLEINFELD and
HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit
Judge:
Petitioner Darrell Keith Rich
("Rich"), facing the death penalty following his 1980 convictions
for a series of sexual attacks and murders, appeals the denial of
his habeas corpus petition. Rich's claims include the district
court's denial of discovery and an evidentiary hearing and various
errors in the handling of the criminal charges against him in state
court--among them pre-indictment and pre-trial publicity, the makeup
of the grand jury returning his indictment, the instructions given
his trial jury, prejudice from an "economically conflicted" defense
counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and his shackling during trial.
Rich also contends that he lacked the necessary mental competence to
stand trial. Because each of these claims lacks merit, we affirm.
FACTS
The investigation of the crimes
leading to Rich's arrest and trial produced substantial public
notice in the community where those crimes occurred and
understandably so. To even the most hardened eye, the crimes were
almost unimaginably brutal--savage attacks on defenseless young
women, all sexually ravaged. Four were also murdered: two bludgeoned
to death, a third shot in the face and a fourth--an 11 year old
girl--thrown off a 100 foot bridge to her death. Five other women,
ranging in age from 14 to 25, managed to survive; four
unhesitatingly identified Rich as their attacker.
PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
Following a change of venue from
Shasta County where he was indicted, Rich was brought to trial in
Yolo County California. Provided with an investigator as well as
access to a battery of psychological experts, Rich's court-appointed
counsel put on a detailed defense, aimed at showing that Rich had
acted under the compulsion of a mental defect that rendered him
incapable of understanding the gravity of his deeds.
Some forty-four witnesses,
including childhood friends, teachers and neighbors, provided the
jury with a detailed portrait of Rich's formative years. Three state-paid
mental health experts, two psychologists and one psychiatrist
testified in support of the defense theory.
The jury ultimately found Rich
guilty of three counts of first degree murder, one count of second
degree murder, and a series of sexual assault crimes. The jury
concluded that Rich was sane and found special circumstances in
connection with the first degree murder counts.
The jury recommended Life Without
Possibility of Parole on the second-degree count and death on the
three first-degree counts. After the trial court declined to modify
the jury's recommendation, Rich pursued a direct appeal in the
California system. The California Supreme Court unanimously affirmed
Rich's convictions and sentence. See People v. Rich, 45 Cal.3d 1036,
248 Cal.Rptr. 510, 755 P.2d 960 (1988), cert. denied 488 U.S. 1051,
109 S.Ct. 884, 102 L.Ed.2d 1006 (1989). Rich's habeas petition was
filed below in 1990 and reached this court in 1997.
ANALYSIS
We examine Rich's habeas claims
against the following backdrop. Rich's habeas petition, brought ten
years after his conviction and nearly two years after that
conviction was final, was initially found to be rife with claims
that had not been exhausted in state court. After being given a four-year
opportunity to do so, Rich asked for and was given an opportunity to
amend his claims and provide a discovery plan. When he filed his
amended habeas petition, it still contained unexhausted state claims.
1. Denial of Discovery,
Evidentiary Hearing.
Rich contends he was denied the
opportunity to discover and present evidence supporting his claims.
In fact, the Magistrate Judge established an entirely reasonable
process to deal with the claims for which Rich sought discovery and
a hearing.
The process required Rich to
identify which of his claims remained unexhausted, which actually
presented federal questions, and those as to which habeas relief
might be available if favorable evidence were developed. Despite
being given more than five months to investigate and prepare as well
as a full day of argument to identify claims that might colorably
entitle him to relief, Rich was unable to do so.
Habeas is an important safeguard
whose goal is to correct real and obvious wrongs. It was never meant
to be a fishing expedition for habeas petitioners to "explore their
case in search of its existence." Calderon v. U.S.D.C. (Nicolaus),
98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d
688, 689 (1st Cir.1970)). An evidentiary hearing on a claim is
required where it is clear from the petition that: (1) the
allegations, if established, would entitle the petitioner to relief;
and (2) the state court trier of fact has not reliably found the
relevant facts. See, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9th
Cir.1992). Nothing in Rich's submissions below suggests he could
meet either requirement.
A habeas petitioner does not enjoy
the presumptive entitlement to discovery of a traditional civil
litigant. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 903-05, 117 S.Ct. 1793,
1796-97, 138 L.Ed.2d 97 (1997). Rather, discovery is available only
in the discretion of the court and for good cause shown. See Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 6(a) 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. This
is consistent with our caselaw that there is no general right to
discovery in habeas proceedings. See Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d
1356, 1358 (9th Cir.1993).
Other decisions cited by Rich do
not establish a contrary proposition. Crandell v. Bunnell, 25 F.3d
754 (9th Cir.1994), Jeffries v. Blodgett, 5 F.3d 1180 (9th
Cir.1993), and McKenzie v. Risley, 915 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir.1990) all
involve petitioners who presented evidence in support of claims that
colorably entitled them to relief. None of Rich's claims meet this
standard.
2. Pre-Trial Error.
a. Pre-Indictment Publicity.
Any claim that Rich's indictment
was tainted by pretrial publicity was waived when Rich failed to
challenge the impartiality of the jury venire following a change in
venue; the presumptively impartial trial jury having considered the
charges and returned its verdict. See United States v. Reed, 726
F.2d 570, 578 (9th Cir.1984). Even if we were to accept Rich's
argument that Reed has been effectively overruled by Vasquez v.
Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986), such an
interpretation would constitute a "new rule" and be subject to the
bar of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334
(1989).
b. Grand Jury Selection.
Rich broadly complains of the
process by which the grand jury that indicted him was selected and
composed. The district court properly limited Rich's equal
protection claim under Teague v. Lane to the exclusion of Native
Americans. Rich's claim fails because he did not set forth a prima
facie case of systematic exclusion of members of that group. The
1980 Census for Shasta County showed that the overall population
consisted of 2.7% "American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut."
A survey of the cases show that
the exclusion of a group constituting 7.7% or less of the total
population is, standing alone, generally insufficient to establish a
prima facie case of systematic exclusion. See United States v.
Cannady, 54 F.3d 544, 548 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Suttiswad,
696 F.2d 645, 649 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Potter, 552 F.2d
901, 906 (9th Cir.1977). There was no constitutional error in the
selection and composition of the grand jury that returned Rich's
indictment.
3. Trial Error.
a. Jury Instructions.
Rich claims that the trial court
misled the jury by failing to instruct, after the jury had reached a
temporary impasse, that a failure to reach agreement on penalty
would result in a life sentence. This argument fails because such an
instruction would have been contrary to California Penal Code
section 190.4(b) and inconsistent with established caselaw that a
trial court need not inform a jury of the consequences of deadlock.
See People v. Memro, 11 Cal.4th 786, 882, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 905
P.2d 1305, 1359 (1995).
Intermediate California appellate
decisions suggesting a contrary rule fly in the face of our
recognition of the California Supreme Court as the "final expositor
of California law." Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 841 (9th
Cir.1995). There is no error, constitutional or otherwise, in the
failure to give the requested instruction.
b. Defense Counsel Conflict of
Interest.
Rich claims that his trial counsel
labored under an "economic conflict" of interest because of
pressures put on him by Shasta County funding authorities. The
result of these pressures, Rich claims, was twofold: (1) his counsel
was "chilled" from obtaining experts "untainted" by a confession
that was ultimately suppressed; and (2) an investigator was not
hired to look into jailhouse conditions and their impact on Rich.
Even under the deferential
standard the district court applied to this claim, it fails because
Rich cannot show that: (1) his counsel actively represented
conflicting interests; and (2) an actual conflict of interest
adversely affected counsel's performance. See id. at 825. Rich's
failure to make out such a prima facie case relieved the district
court of any responsibility to hold an evidentiary hearing on the
claim. See Williams v. Calderon, 52 F.3d 1465, 1484 (9th Cir.1995).
A claim that a conflict produced
adverse impact is not made out by simply claiming such; it must be
an impact that significantly worsens the client's representation.
See United States v. Mett, 65 F.3d 1531, 1535-36 (9th Cir.1995).
Rich's trial counsel provided an affidavit discussing the financial
pressures he perceived at the time, which does not even suggest that
he gave in to those pressures in any way that produced demonstrable
harm of any kind to Rich's defense.
The finding below that Rich was
not denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial is supported
by substantial evidence.
c. Shackling.
Asked at argument to identify the
most serious error affecting Rich's trial, his habeas counsel chose
this one. The underlying facts are straightforward and not in
essential dispute. Rich was in fact shackled with ankle chains
during the course of his trial. The shackles were behind a curtain
or "skirt" placed around the defense table to insure that they were
not visible to the jury. He was not handcuffed and was able to take
notes and communicate freely with his defense counsel.
The record is devoid of any
suggestion that the skirt was not effective in screening Rich's
shackles from the jury's view. Neither the trial judge, who insisted
on the shackling, nor Rich's defense counsel, who objected to it,
made any comment about the jury being able to see the shackles in
the courtroom during the trial.
Our caselaw is clear: where care
is taken to ensure that a defendant's shackling is not visible to
the jury in the courtroom, no error results. See United States v.
Collins, 109 F.3d 1413, 1418 (9th Cir.1997); Castillo v. Stainer,
983 F.2d 145, 148 (9th Cir.1992), as amended 997 F.2d 669 (9th
Cir.1993) (no constitutional error from brief jury viewing of
shackled defendant outside the courtroom). No constitutional error
resulted from the shackling methods employed here.
d. Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Rich claims that the prosecutor at
his trial engaged in misconduct during penalty phase final argument
by referring to the potential for future acts of violence on Rich's
part and to a photograph showing one of his tattoos. This claim is
also without merit. Rich made no objection at the time and
California enforces a contemporaneous objection rule during final
argument. See Hines v. Enomoto, 658 F.2d 667, 673 (9th Cir.1981);
Bonin, 59 F.3d at 842. Especially in light of Rich's braggadocio
comments to his friends ("Once you've killed, you can always kill
again."), the arguments constituted appropriate comment on an issue
properly before the jury. Prosecutorial misconduct did not occur
here.
e. Mental Competence.
Rich understandably concentrates
on the testimony of the mental health experts he called to the
stand. The Magistrate Judge, however, went carefully through the
testimony of all mental health experts and could not find a "real
and substantial doubt" concerning Rich's competency to stand trial.
See Boag v. Raines, 769 F.2d 1341, 1343 (9th Cir.1985). Rich was
mentally competent to stand trial and no error occurred in the
process by which the trial court so determined.
Having found no constitutional
error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.