High Court Asked to Upset Death Penalty of ‘Freeway Killer’

SACRAMENTO — The state Supreme Court was asked Wednesday to overturn the death sentence imposed on William George Bonin in the brutal “Freeway Killer” slayings of 10 young men and boys in Los Angeles County.

State acting Public Defender Monica Knox said the trial judge improperly failed to fully investigate whether there was a literary rights-fee arrangement between Bonin and his trial counsel. The judge should have ensured that Bonin knew such a pact could raise a conflict of interest for the lawyer that could hurt him.

A trial attorney’s strategy and tactics may be affected, even subconsciously, by the commercial prospects of a forthcoming book in a highly publicized case, Knox said. A best-seller, she added ominously, could well result after an execution.

The judge should have received Bonin’s assurance that he understood the potential for conflict or should have removed the lawyer, William Charvet of Torrance, from the case, the defender said.

Prosecutor’s Position

But a state prosecutor urged the court to uphold Bonin’s murder conviction and sentence, pointing out that there was never any showing that a book contract even existed or that Bonin had not been properly represented by Charvet.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Steven H. Zeigen noted that under a 1982 ruling by the court, an agreement by a defendant to give a lawyer literary rights in lieu of fees in itself does not mandate removal of the attorney.

“Only when there is ‘significant prejudice’ to the defendant or ‘a disruption of the orderly processes of justice’ may the defendant be denied counsel of his choice,” Zeigen said.

Bonin unequivocally had stated he wanted Charvet as his lawyer, implying that he waived any conflict of interest, the prosecutor said.

The issue arose in September, 1981, when Bonin, a former truck driver from Downey, sought before trial to substitute Charvet as his lawyer in place of Earl Hanson of Los Angeles.

Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. Sterling Norris argued against the substitution, saying it was a delaying tactic, and raised the question of whether a deal on book rights to Bonin’s story was the reason for the move.

Superior Court Judge William B. Keene asked Charvet about the matter, but Charvet declined a direct answer, saying “I’m not making a statement one way or the other.”

Outside court, Charvet told reporters that no agreement had been made. “At this point,” he said, “I don’t know if there is any book deal to be made.”

Finally, Charvet was allowed to represent Bonin, who subsequently was convicted and sentenced to death in a string of murders in which the battered and sexually abused bodies of young victims were abandoned near highways or freeways.

Later, Bonin also was convicted and condemned to the gas chamber for the similar slayings of four teen-age boys in Orange County. That case also is pending before the state Supreme Court on an automatic appeal. Rulings in both cases are expected later this year.

In Wednesday’s 90-minute hearing before the justices, Knox contended that Charvet faced a conflict of interest not only because of the possibility of a book deal but also because Charvet earlier had temporarily assisted James Munro, an accomplice who later pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and testified for the prosecution against Bonin.

Questions From Court

But the defender ran into a barrage of questions from the court indicating doubt among the justices that there were sufficient grounds to order a new trial.

Both Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas and Justice Marcus M. Kaufman questioned Knox repeatedly on the absence of evidence that Charvet had not properly represented Bonin.

“It’s been seven years now and there has been no book,” Lucas added. “And there is no evidence there even was any agreement.”

Knox acknowledged that there may have been no agreement, but said the judge should have pursued an inquiry to ensure that Bonin was fully informed on the risks of such an arrangement if it did exist.

“When a defendant unknowingly goes to trial with counsel who has a conflict of interest, there can be no fairness,” she said. “No one ever explained to him what the problems were. Nobody ever explained to him the dangers.”