Brandon McInerney/CASE UPDATES

[knightgale]

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jul/25/judge-oks-adult-trial-for-teen-suspect/

Attorney sought juvenile court for fatal shooting case
By Raul Hernandez

Relying on past court decisions, a judge ruled Thursday that trying a 14-year-old boy accused of murder in an adult court does not violate the constitution, swatting down legal arguments raised by the boy's attorney that it was cruel and unusual punishment to do so.

"I cannot say that this is unconstitutional," said Ventura County Superior Court Judge Douglas Daily.

Teenage defendant Brandon McInerney of Oxnard is charged with first-degree murder and a hate crime in connection with the Feb. 12 killing of classmate Larry King, 15, who sometimes wore makeup and told friends he was gay.

McInerney is accused of shooting the Oxnard youth as students worked on English assignments in a classroom at E.O. Green School in Oxnard.

Before making his ruling, Daily heard legal arguments for about 30 minutes from McInerney's lawyer, William "Willy" Quest, and from a prosecutor, Senior Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox, on whether the teen can be tried in adult court rather than juvenile court.

In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 21, which widened prosecutors' authority to file charges in adult court against juveniles 14 and older without having to go to a judge.

Before he made his findings, the judge called for a 20-minute break to go back to his chambers to read the California Supreme Court cases cited by Quest and Fox in their legal petitions.

After his ruling, Daily set McInerney's arraignment for Aug. 7.

Outside the courtroom, Fox said: "The judge followed the law so I wasn't really surprised. I am just relieved."

Fox said Daily's ruling on the constitutionality of the state law "pretty much" eliminated the possibility of the district attorney sending McInerney's case to the juvenile justice system, where penalties are generally less severe than adult court.

"So, per the law of California, the (case) is going to stay in adult court," she said.

Quest said the district attorney took only a couple of days to file charges against his client in adult court without knowing all the facts about McInerney, King and the circumstances surrounding this case.

"The problem is their office, once they make a decision, it's hard for them to change course," said Quest.

He said this is the first he's heard that the district attorney has decided that McInerney will be tried in adult court.

During a previous courtroom hearing, Fox had indicated that the District Attorney's Office could decide to send the case to the juvenile criminal justice system after more facts came to light.

McInerney was in court wearing a white T-shirt and dark blue pants. He sat quietly, much of the time looking directly at the judge.

His mother, who has appeared at all his hearings, was sitting nearby and left in tears after the court proceedings.

Quest told the judge that he might file a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division Six in Ventura.

In an interview, Quest said he was disappointed by the judge's rapid decision.

"I just wished he would have spent a little more time thinking about it," said the attorney.

In the courtroom, Quest spent much of the time attacking the constitutionality of Proposition 21. He said it gives prosecutors the power to send a juvenile offender into the adult criminal justice system, where a sentence of 51 years to life, such as the one McInerney is facing if found guilty, can be given because state law mandates it.

Also, the attorney said, Proposition 21 prevents judges from looking at the facts surrounding the criminal cases of juveniles such as McInerney.

In addition, Quest said, jurors who find a juvenile guilty have no say about the sentencing.

McInerney's case, Quest told the judge, could be the first of its kind that challenges Proposition 21 based on the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the state and federal constitutions.

"It's a case of first impression. It's a very important case," Quest told the judge.

Fox told Daily that a judge already sits as the "13th juror" in a courtroom and can throw out a jury verdict, for example by lowering a first-degree murder to second-degree. She said this changing of a jury's verdict has been done before by judges at the Ventura courthouse.

"The law does not allow you to murder anyone at any age," Fox told the judge. She said that while she might feel "sympathy" toward McInerney because of his age, there is no legal defense for not trying him in adult court, she said.

During the hearing, Quest relied primarily on the People v. Dillon, a 1983 California Supreme Court case, to shore up his legal arguments.

In that case, a jury convicted a 17-year-old defendant of first-degree murder with gun enhancement for shooting the victim at least nine times during an attempted marijuana theft, according to Quest. After hearing all the evidence, the jury sent a letter to the trial court stating that it appeared that the "juvenile acted like a minor."

Quest stated in his legal petition, "Only after being instructed not to speculate as to why defendant was being tried as an adult did the jury reach a verdict."

In that case, the judge concurred with the jury and believed that life imprisonment was much too harsh, given the lack of maturity of the 17-year-old. The judge sentenced the defendant to the California Youth Authority.

Later, however, an appeals court ruled that the judge had no jurisdiction to sentence the defendant to the California Youth Authority. The 17-year-old received life in prison with eligibility for parole in 20 years.

Still later, the California Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and reduced the sentence to second-degree murder and ordered the trial court to sentence the defendant to the Youth Authority.

Fox told the judge that state law mandates that if there are special circumstances in a murder case involving juvenile defendants, the district attorney is required to file in adult court.

So, even if the judge sided with Quest's legal arguments, Fox said she could, hypothetically, go back and file a "lying in wait" special circumstance against McInerney and by law, the case would have to be transferred back to adult court.

(Posted for PUBLIC AWARENESS/author/copyrights acknowledges/NO infringement intended)

[knightgale]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-oxnard26-2008jul26,0,861359.story

As Brandon McInerney, 14, will be tried in adult court, his lawyer wants a jury to weigh in before his client gets much older.

By Catherine Saillant, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 26, 2008

A lawyer for an Oxnard middle school student charged with killing gay classmate Lawrence King said Friday that he wants to get the case in front of a jury quickly now that a Ventura County judge has turned down his request to move it to juvenile court.

Deputy public defender Willie Quest said he was disappointed by Superior Court Judge Douglas Daily's finding earlier this week that there was no constitutional violation in Dist. Atty. Gregory Totten's decision to try Brandon McInerney, 14, as an adult.

We hope a jury will look at it in a much more reasonable light," Quest said. "I'm not going to allow a 14-year-old to go to prison for the rest of his life without someone other than the D.A.'s office looking at this."

Quest said the public defender's office may appeal Daily's decision but would probably wait until after his client has been tried. It can take months, or even years, to get an appellate court ruling, he said.

By then, McInerney may no longer be a fresh-faced adolescent, Quest said.

"If people get to know Brandon and see Brandon as who he really is, I think they will be very unlikely to want him to die in prison," Quest said.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Maeve Fox, the lead prosecutor, said Daily ruled appropriately. Previous courts have upheld prosecutors' discretion in deciding in which court to file murder charges against young defendants, Fox said.

"I didn't think it was a particularly close call," Fox said.

McInerney is being tried in adult court under the provisions of Proposition 21, which allows prosecutors to bring murder charges against juveniles as young as 14 for certain serious crimes.

McInerney turned 14 three weeks before he walked into a classroom at E.O. Green Junior High School on Feb. 12 and allegedly shot Lawrence in the head. Lawrence, 15, was in a coma for a day before he was declared dead.

Totten, the district attorney, said the crime's severity prompted him to file a murder charge, with a special hate crime enhancement, in adult court.

Students and other witnesses told investigators that tension had been simmering for days between the two eighth-graders. Lawrence had announced that he was gay and sometimes dressed in feminine clothing, said students, who added that McInerney was annoyed by Lawrence's public interest in him.

If convicted on all charges, McInerney would face 51 years to life in prison, with the possibility of parole after 43 years, Fox said.

McInerney's arraignment is set for Aug. 7. Fox suggested that the district attorney's office might be willing to strike a plea bargain with Quest to avoid the expense and emotional trauma of a trial.

"We have told him point-blank that his case is unusual and that our minds are open," Fox said. "There is a wide range of sentencing alternatives that can be negotiated at any time until the jury comes back with a first-degree verdict."

Quest said he won't try to move the trial out of Ventura County despite the intense publicity the case has generated locally. It's a big story everywhere, he noted.

catherine.saillant@latimes.com

[knightgale]

[b][color=darkblue]Far too often in cases, there is so much bitterness, hatred and vengeance, this case is again, of "children", tho a horrible tragedy occurred, NO one has the right to take another "life", that of this child, as well. Justice must be tempered with compassion and mercy. Indeed, this case truly belongs in a "juvenile court" of law. Victims are never forgotten, but this child is a "victim" as well, of the "broken, so called, judicial system".......The "taking" of this child's life, is "state sanctioned murder".........this is NOT "justice"!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jul/27/try-boy-14-in-juvenile-court/

Editorial: Try boy, 14, in Juvenile Court
Still up to DA Greg Totten
Sunday, July 27, 2008

Prosecutors can argue all day about why it is constitutional to try a boy 19 days into his 14th year as an adult, making him eligible for a mandatory sentence of 41 to as much as 51 years to life.

Thursday, Superior Court Judge Douglas Daily said that was OK by him and the Constitution.

So, now the legal path could be cleared for 14-year-old Brandon McInerney of Oxnard to be tried as an adult in the Feb. 12 killing of his classmate, Larry King.

But, we all know that just because you can do something doesn't make it right.

The law, as it now stands, gives Ventura County District Attorney Greg Totten the discretion to decide whether Brandon is tried in Juvenile Court or adult court. Now that he has asserted his right to decide, Mr. Totten can better weigh

[knightgale]

Age doesn't justify a minimal sentence
By Pete Kossoris
Sunday, August 3, 2008
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/aug/03/age-doesnt-justify-a-minimal-sentence/


14-year-old Brandon McInerney: Ventura County's sacrificial lamb
By Michael Mehas
Sunday, August 3, 2008

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/aug/03/14-year-old-brandon-mcinerney-ventura-countys/

[knightgale]

As we can see, by news articles, this child has already been, tried, convicted and sentenced in the media.........

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/31/111944/626

[knightgale]

This child is already tried, convicted and sentenced in the media, No compassion, No mercy, no one has the "right" to take his life, tho this was indeed a horrible incident, HE IS STILL A CHILD, his case "warrants" "juvenile court", NOT tried as an adult, he clearly is NOT. This case "reeks" of vengenance, bitterness. Punishment IS warranted, but also WITH the offer of a "chance" of "rehabilitation", counseling, HELP, NOT "destroy" this child. Society has long become, cold, harsh, vengeful and totally unforgiving. Seems society and the officials "sanction" the "destruction" of this child, is that not "state sanctioned murder" of "yet" another child????

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/aug/08/mcinerney-pleads-not-guilty

[knightgale]

[b][color=darkblue]
I must applaud this reporter, a well stated article, he certainly hit the nail right on the head, so to speak, indeed, this child is NOT 100% the blame for this tragic incident, for truly many "others" are to blame as well. He certainly did NOT get to where he is today, ALL BY HIMSELF.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/share_the_blame_for_mcinerney_s_shame/6206/

Share the blame for McInerney's shame
By Michael Sullivan 08/14/2008
editor@vcreporter.com

At the university level, journalism students are taught about a theory called

[knightgale]

Have added this editor's email address and encourage members to write to him....I have sent him an email, inviting him to check out out support forums

[knightgale]

Just below reporter's name in the above article just posted

[knightgale]

PLEASE READ OPINIONS, it is clear, this child needed "help", again he, one of many, will be offered up as a sacrificial lamb, prosecutors using him, to set an example, to try him as an adult, EVERYONE knows, he clearly IS NOT. In the media, this child has already been tried, convicted and sentenced, where is the justice? In the papers, it seems to ring out, the hate and vengenance, from the general society. Adam Bollendeck, William Thornton, and so many other children, all too well, know and feel the "blow" from such horrific and inhumane sentencing, "as a child", when will this madness, of "destroying" children, ever end? Tho this was a horrible tragedy, what "right" do officials have, to take "this child's life",too??--this is state sanctioned "destruction",of yet, another "child"!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/aug/17/ob13brandon17/

[knightgale]

A MUST READ.....these comments are much like ours, for this child to be treated as the child he is, instead of, the taking of his life too. This child desperately needs help, he will not get, being tried/sentenced as an adult.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/aug/19/ob9juvenile19/

[knightgale]

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jan/21/state-supreme-court-rejects-mcinerney-appeal-to/

McInerney’s trial is set to begin May 14 in Ventura County Superior Court.

[knightgale]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/a-ventura-county-superior-court-judge-on-wednesday-denied-a-request-for-a-continuance-in-the-trial-of-an-oxnard-teenager-accu.html

A Ventura County Superior Court judge on Wednesday denied a request for a continuance in the trial of an Oxnard teenager accused of shooting and killing a gay classmate at school.

An attorney for Brandon McInerney, 15, had asked the court for a delay of at least three months so that he could interview more witnesses and further prepare for trial. McInerney is being tried as an adult.

But Judge Charles Campbell agreed with prosecutors that the defense has had plenty of time to prepare and should be ready to go.

Defense attorney Scott Wippert disagreed.

"We're about to start a trial we're clearly unprepared for," he said.

Campbell said it should have been clear to Wippert that the case was going to trial after the attorney refused the prosecution's offer in December 2008 of a reduced charge of 25 years to life for his client as part of a plea agreement.

"I don't think there has been adequate diligence in preparation," Campbell said.

McInerney is accused of murder and a hate crime in the Feb. 12, 2008, shooting death of classmate Lawrence "Larry" King, 15. The boys had been sparring in the days before the killing, allegedly because King had expressed a romantic interest in McInerney, who was 14 at the time.


The defendant is charged with first-degree murder with a gun enhancement charge and a hate crime allegation. If convicted, he could be sentenced to a maximum of 53 years to life in prison. Because of his age, he is not eligible for the death penalty.

A jury must now be picked before the trial can begin.

-- Catherine Saillant in Ventura