Trying this suspect in court

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2017 4:50:40 GMT paulienyc84 said:

Jan 28, 2017 21:52:48 GMT michravera said:

The venue will depend upon who brings the charges and which charges are brought. Remember that Statute of Limitations is just a defense and is not absolute. For instance, if he has been in prison for most of the last 35 years, the SoL would not be running. It does not have to be invoked by the defense. One possible scenario is that EAR could confess and plead guilty to all of the Northern California rapes (not using the SoL as a defense) as a deterant to the Southern California procecutors having a trial which seeks the death penalty. Assuming that EARONS is at least my age, 15-25 consecutive 2 year sentences might be all that we need (or at least the best that we will get). He deserves to be offerred the choice of which in arm he wants the lethal injection and to then get it in the other arm, but a 50 year sentence might well acheive the same result as a death sentence (even though we recently voted to speed up the death penalty here in California). 

I'm so sorry but I don't understand anything you're saying.  I know that the SOL on the rapes has run out and he can never be charged with any of them.  What do you mean when you said that it's just a defense and not absolute? And what do you mean when you said that he if was in prison for the last 35 years the SOL would not be running.  You mean if he was charged with rape 35 years ago? I'm completely lost.  If and when he is apprehended I know that he can only be tried for the murders. With the DNA evidence, I don't see how he could ever plead not guilty and request a trial.   

Leaving the state tolls the statute of limitations as well.  Never say never.  Doesn't have to have been charged inside the rape SOL if outside of state or in prison during and since that time frame.

[bebe1]

Just a further note, but if they have concrete proof (i.e. DNA) in the murders, they probably wouldnt charge him with the rapes, even if there werent a SOL on it.

You can see this in a lot of serial murder cases. The murderer is only charged with the crimes that the prosecutor is sure they can get jail time on. The others are left out due to money, time constraints, proof and etc. If you get a life sentence (or 2), there is really no point from the prosecutors side of convicting him on every rape as well. Even if there were no SOL on the rapes, the murders would get him much more time behind bars. If they want to seek the death penalty, they'd have to go after him for the murders.

That would put the venue in So Cal, but it would depend upon a number of factors including what the DA's office could prove. If they have a strong case in LA county and a weak one in Contra Costa, for example, they're going to go after the case which is going to secure a conviction.

Even if tomorrow, rape in California suddenly had no SOL, it likely wouldnt be retroactive, thats not usually how the justice system works. It would start from the moment the law came into place, so he still wouldn't be able to be charged with the rapes.

So, I guess you would have to ask yourselves what murder do you think has the best chance of being solved. If I remember correctly, there was an attempt quite close to the Harrington murder. If the DA were able to bring that evidence in and have the survivors ID ONS, i'd speculate that this would probably be the best place to try the murders, unless there was DNA at another crime scene?

[nick]

My take on this case would include finding a jury that has not heard of the East Area rapist might be difficult and not having preconceived concepts of the case from the media and being able to set those prejudice feelings aside and being able to look at the facts of the case without already decided on the suspects guilty or innocence (if your a nut). I know "regular people", non board members, and they still know something about the case, it's mostly incorrect but they know something and would want a person punished for these crimes and it LE dragged a guy up there I am sure he would be convicted due to all that has been said of him. The public demands blood where blood is due. It would be very frightening to be the guy accused of being EAR and I would hope DNA would be the top of the evidence against him so as to cast no doubt on his guilt.

[leonidis]

Jan 31, 2017 6:18:13 GMT nick said:

My take on this case would include finding a jury that has not heard of the East Area rapist might be difficult and not having preconceived concepts of the case from the media and being able to set those prejudice feelings aside and being able to look at the facts of the case without already decided on the suspects guilty or innocence (if your a nut). I know "regular people", non board members, and they still know something about the case, it's mostly incorrect but they know something and would want a person punished for these crimes and it LE dragged a guy up there I am sure he would be convicted due to all that has been said of him. The public demands blood where blood is due. It would be very frightening to be the guy accused of being EAR and I would hope DNA would be the top of the evidence against him so as to cast no doubt on his guilt.

When they find this guy, it is going to be like opening Pandora's Box!! I bet he has every little trinket he ever took. It is probably like a hoarding situation. It might also be set up like a trophy room or personal museum. This guy was very meticulous and persistant. Who truly knows how many trinkets he actually stole?

He was not a Charles Albright, but it was never mentioned if he took a lock of hair or something from the bodies of the murdered women-In the conference call, they said they have 2 things they are not willing to offer at the moment, so we can only speculate.

However, I am sure that once DNA is a match, he will be followed to see what he does durine his normal day in and out to in order to determine if he is still up to some shenanigans. Then, they will take him down without allowing him any notice. Then, the jig will be up. I hope that DNA connection is being processed now.

We shall see!

[michravera]

Jan 30, 2017 4:50:40 GMT paulienyc84 said:

Jan 28, 2017 21:52:48 GMT michravera said:

The venue will depend upon who brings the charges and which charges are brought. Remember that Statute of Limitations is just a defense and is not absolute. For instance, if he has been in prison for most of the last 35 years, the SoL would not be running. It does not have to be invoked by the defense. One possible scenario is that EAR could confess and plead guilty to all of the Northern California rapes (not using the SoL as a defense) as a deterant to the Southern California procecutors having a trial which seeks the death penalty. Assuming that EARONS is at least my age, 15-25 consecutive 2 year sentences might be all that we need (or at least the best that we will get). He deserves to be offerred the choice of which in arm he wants the lethal injection and to then get it in the other arm, but a 50 year sentence might well acheive the same result as a death sentence (even though we recently voted to speed up the death penalty here in California). 

I'm so sorry but I don't understand anything you're saying.  I know that the SOL on the rapes has run out and he can never be charged with any of them.  What do you mean when you said that it's just a defense and not absolute? And what do you mean when you said that he if was in prison for the last 35 years the SOL would not be running.  You mean if he was charged with rape 35 years ago? I'm completely lost.  If and when he is apprehended I know that he can only be tried for the murders. With the DNA evidence, I don't see how he could ever plead not guilty and request a trial.   

I am saying a couple of things:
1) The time that a suspect spends in prison in another jurisdiction doesn't count against the time to bring prosecution under the SoL. If the reason that we haven't caught this guy is that he has been in prison in Arizona from 1982-1985 and then came back and committed the 1985 murder and then went to Suriname where he has been in prison since 1986, the SoL hasn't been running and he could still be prosecuted for the Northern California rapes.
2) The defense can WAIVE the SoL.
3) The SoL has to be brought up as a defense. Most of the time prosecutors just give up at the conclusion of the SoL, but they could offer him a chance to plead guilty to the rapes despite the fact that the SoL has elapsed. Since he would get what amounts to a life sentence anyway for those rapes, if convicted, it might deter the Southern California prosecutors from trying him for any of the murders (at least until he gets paroled). By doing this, he might be able to cheat the needle.

[Deleted]

My guess is OC. Based more on resources available than anything else. With trial costs skyrocketing it makes sense. What will probably happen (assuming an arrest is made) is an agreement to plead out in return for taking the death penalty off the table. I'd really like to see EAR in the dock but the reality is at his age he will die of natural cause on death row long before he works his way to the front of the line and gets a needle.

[nick]

There is one other possibility that would allow the Sacramento rapes to be prosecuted and it is something that is had been used quite a bit and has been allowed by law. The federal government can bring civil rights violations against the suspect who is charged as EAR for each sexual assault victim as well as husbands, children, Boyfriends and anyone else who were tied up and or held captive or restrained from movement either by force or threat of force. The civil rights statutes have been used against many criminals where state statute of limitations have expired and also when offenders have been cleared by state trial. It is not considered double jeopardy in cases where offenders have been acquitted or found not guilty since these are different trails for different offenses. In cases where prosecutor's feel an offender has got off of a state charge they can ask the federal prosecutors to take the case on the federal side and charge an offender with a federal crime even if the statute of limitations has run out, it is just a matter of how they charge the offender. In this case, Sacramento Sheriff may have already asked to have a civil rights case brought to federal court in the event of EAR being arrested. If they charge him 50 plus civil rights violations combined with kidnapping he would never see the light of day again. In the federal prison system when you are given say 20 years for an offense you do the 20 years without early release.