Only One Killer

I am pretty curious to see how many more cases had similar tactics,

The California Supreme Court, condemning a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney's conduct in a death penalty case, ruled Thursday that prosecutors should not intentionally tell different juries that two defendants committed the same crime when only one could have been responsible.

In 1988, two men, Peter Sakarias and Tauno Waidla, attacked Viivi Piirisild with a hatchet and a knife in her North Hollywood home.

The men had separate trials. In both, the court found, Los Angeles Deputy Dist. Atty. Steven Ipsen, the prosecutor, "inconsistently and falsely" told jurors that it was the defendant before them who had delivered the deathblow. Both men were convicted and sentenced to death.

It is pretty sad that this had to take 17 years to sort out. Nonetheless, the effects of this could be at least somewhat widespread, although I am doubtful that there are too many similar cases. Overall, it is clear that such a prosecutor, who knowingly portrays two people as culprits of one blow, should be severely punished. However, it is difficult to see such a thing happening when our state's top lawyer condoned the process.

A spokesman for state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, who had defended the use of inconsistent arguments, said the ruling would give "clear guidance" that prosecutors "should settle on one theory and argue it consistently."

That's right, he defended this type of court tactic, but now is changing his mind for whatever reason. Shame on you Lockyer.

Full Article at LA Times.