One perspective on Brandon McInerney, his father, and death on court day

I hardly knew the man, but I understood him well. Thick, tall, and deeply troubled, William McInerney wore the weight of someone tied to the bottom of a run away locomotive. He reeked from the guilt associated with crimes his son had been charged with. I had spoken with Bill several times since I first started covering his son’s case. His face was always tight with strain, his eyes penetrating the very depths of your thoughts with self-imposed anger. But through all the insanity that was Bill McInerney, one thing stood perfectly clear to this observer: the man had a heart that beat like a frantic drum upon his very thick sleeve.

Our first meeting was actually quite bizarre. My friend, and excellent Ventura County defense attorney, Brian Vogel, was representing Bill in relation to Brandon’s case. They were sitting and talking together one day in the hallway outside of court during one of Brandon’s early hearings, when I came up to have a word with Brian. Bill ultimately introduced himself and said he knew who I was because he had read some of the things I had written about his son’s case. He liked what I had to say and he practically begged me to please help do whatever I could to help save his son’s life. I could feel the pull of his words clatsping on my mind like an anchor. I abhorred the crime Brandon had been accused of committing, but I’ve also always been sympathetic to his plight in this particular instance. Children are never adults. And this child, who was barely fourteen years old when he took Larry King’s life away, must not, in all good conscience, be allowed to spend the rest of his life in an adult men’s prison. It just can’t happen, and I’ve never wavered in this opinion. But, I have also always, in the deepest and darkest recesses of my gray matter, felt it to be out of our hands in a worldly, physical kind of way, anyway.

It is inevitable that the Ventura County District Attorney will continue to prosecute Brandon McInerney as an adult, which will lead to the child being locked away for a mandatory minimum of fifty-one years, or the equivalent of the rest of his life. Gregory Totten will not change his mind. And Maeve Fox, the prosecuting attorney, appears relentless in her persecution of Brandon. This will not change. Thus, from the ways in which the universe operates, the only way for Brandon to truly change the reality that stares him directly in the face is for him to begin to transform his life from the inside out.

The world of form has not been good to Brandon nor his family. It has generated hatred and violence in his own home. It has led to harm being inflicted upon and between his parents. It has created a child who learned to solve his problems with two squeezes of his father’s trigger finger. Brandon’s lack of consciousness in childhood created a dire crisis that would threaten his life in the present. The only way for that to change will be for Brandon to begin transforming himself from within.

And that’s what I told Bill in court that day, and any time we had a chance to talk after that. That’s what it was going to take to save his son’s life. Bill stared at me with glazed-over eyes. And then I told him about the best book I’d ever read, one we use in our Transformational Third Thursdays workshops at Bank of Books, and what it had done for me and countless others. I told Bill McInerney, in front of his lawyer and the universe, and outside of his son’s courtroom, that the wisdom espoused by Eckhart Tolle could help to change his life. It could turn him around and help push him toward his true, joy-filled destiny, one he might never have imagined could exist for him. In the next breath I urged Brandon’s dad to get a copy of Eckhart’s newest book, A New Earth, read it, and digest everything in it that resonated with him. And then I told William McInerney in no uncertain terms that he should get a copy of the book to his son as quickly as possible. Figure out a way for someone to coach Brandon, to teach him the ways of the Light, so that Brandon could begin to transform the negative energies he’s been feeding into his tragic life situation into something he would want to live with forever.

PRESENT CONSCIOUSNESS = ULTIMATE REALITY

It didn’t appear to be an accident one day in court when I witnessed Bill’s father, Brandon’s grandfather, a hulk of a man sporting a full head of white hair, overflowing from a wheelchair that could barely withstand him. I would learn later that the elder McInerney was a former Marine who appeared to be paying dearly for the negative energies he had spent a lifetime breeding. Then, a few months ago, in court, I witnessed Bill McInerney being wheeled into court in his own wheelchair, wearing a neck brace and a sadly pitiful look. I couldn’t help but dwell on the irony of father-like-son. And then a couple months after that Bill didn’t even make it to his son’s hearing because he had been arrested and charged with felonies for allegedly threatening to kill his sister and blow away the entire Oxnard Police Department. And now, today, William McInerney is dead.

I’m sure Bill never followed my advice. It didn’t resonate with him as I had hoped it might. He couldn’t see the light through the darkness of alcohol and pills and depression and guilt. Bill McInerney simply never had a chance to succeed in life because his unconsciousness was too far out of control. He was not conscious in the way he lived his life. His life was filled with negative emotions and hate-filled thoughts that bred an antagonist reality around him. He treated life as a battle, and that’s what he got. And he lost. And now, his son Brandon wheezes in his father’s shadow. They have both flown recklessly and wantonly through life in unconscious states of being that ultimately has destroyed one, and the jury, so to speak, is still out on Brandon.

That’s why it is up to us to try to help save this child, to allow him to finally see the Light of day. He must have the opportunity to be rehabilitated. He must have that one shot at life his unconscious existence never offered him before.  And, if we work really hard at this, maybe, somehow in the process we might be able to help Maeve Fox and the Ventura County District Attorney to also see the Light. “We’ve had enough death, Mr. Totten.” Two wretched souls have been wrenched from our community in this Greek Tragedy; please don’t take another. And, for Brandon, as the rest of us, we must combine our collective energies to transform this community crisis into something positive for us all. For Brandon, it’s the only way to avoid the destiny that has befallen his father. For the rest of us, it just might be our salvation.

A compassionate letter for Brandon McInerney

I received this incredible letter from this incredible woman filled with compassion and tolerance in response to my editorial this past Sunday in the Ventura County Star regarding the Brandon McInerney case. It touched me tremendously, and provided me with a great need to share it with you. If you too are moved by what you read, please share your feelings…

---

Dear Mr. Mehas:

I have been saddened since first reading the article regarding the death of Larry King. As a parent and a grandparent my heart ached for the parents and loved ones of Larry and Brandon McInerney. What a tragedy . Now our self righteous district attorney Totten and Fox wishes to compound this tragedy further by having Brandon charged as an adult. This is not only cruel but borders on insanity.

There is an abundance of scientific evidence to prove that a child of 13 years and 19 days does not have the capability of adult thinking and reasoning. I suspect the district attorney has no children or not ones that have hit 13 years of age. Any parent (especially mothers) of a teenage child can tell you what they are like in middle school. First, they are scared to death of being different, they want to be accepted by their peers. I always laughed and thought they are little clones of each other. They dress the same, wear their clothes, hair and make-up the same, listen to the same music, and speak the same (strange to adults) teen language. If you are different in any way from the norm (too skinny, too fat, too nerdy, an egg head or gay, etc) you are tormented. All though this is not condoned by most parents or teachers this happens, it is part of the beast or right of passage.

Larry was different, he was openly gay. Many adults do not understand the gay lifestyle yet we expect a young teenager to understand and show tolerance? Not going to happen. By accounts Larry teased Brandon that he liked him a lot and would let be known to him and his friends. In Brandon’s mind he panicked. He was mortified that Larry or any of his friends would think he was gay. Of course his action of bringing a gun to school was absolutely the wrong decision. Maybe if he had been raised differently or if the school officials would have intervened much earlier he might have chosen a different course of action. Why didn’t the school (who knew there were problems between these two boys) made a counselor or teacher available for these boys to talk to? Maybe his intention was just to show Larry the gun to scare him. To let him know he would not tolerate him to speak that way about him. (again very inappropriate) We will never know. Teenagers say all the time to friends or parents “I hate him/her, I wish they were dead” of course they do not literally want that person dead. They are a rollercoaster of emotions and hormones.

I am not saying that Brandon’s should not be charged, of course he should be made accountable for his actions. BUT AS A JUVENILE. He should not be charged as an adult. HE IS NOT AN ADULT. It is horrible to think of this child being shoved into an adult prison with men who will surely abuse him. This is his death sentence. How can we justify this action? I understand Larry’s parents wanting justice for their son’s murder, but if it had been Larry who killed Brandon wouldn’t they want Larry charged as a juvenile?

I have spoken in length with many adults in my community who feel the same as I do. They are appalled at the district attorney’s office and the judge who made this terrible decision to charge this child as an adult. What can we the average citizens (but one’s who vote) do if anything about this injustice?

Sincerely,

Mrs. Thomas J. Bright

Ventura

Brandon McInerney tries to discover why Ventura DA wants to kill him

Brandon McInerney’s youthful life takes another wild twist this coming Monday where his preliminary hearing is scheduled to take place regarding his alleged murder of fifteen-year-old Larry King. As I understand it, the prelim will not proceed due to the fact that the defense team is filing a writ to appeal the judge’s recent denial of their motion to dismiss the case due to the Ventura County District Attorney’s violation of their teenage client’s due process rights.

It’s a novel approach to a very difficult issue. The DA wants to punish Brandon to death. They’ve made their decision to pin 51 years in an adult prison on this child for the horrible act he committed. They don’t want Brandon to have an opportunity to rehabilitate, which, in itself is a crime since the juvenile courts were created for that very purpose: the rehabilitation and redemption of child offenders.

Below please find the defense discovery motion, which includes their novel arguments of why they believe Ventura County Senior Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox violated Brandon’s due process rights, the DA’s boilerplate response, which the defense claims doesn’t even address the defense theory on the matter, and the defense reply thereto. And let us know your thoughts on the matter when you’re done…

Motion for Discovery Order

Opposition to Motion for Discovery Order

Defendant’s Reply to Opposition

(Continued) Part two of two: Interview with Brandon McInerney’s new attorneys

 

Brandon McInerney’s attorneys: Josh Solberg, Scott Wippert, and Robyn Bramson. 

Q: But didn’t the voters do that with Prop 21 by doing away with the fitness hearings?

Robyn Bramson then asked: “Can I address that?” Which she did:

BRAMSON: Yeah, but if you look back at what the voters were reading when they were making an informed decision about whether or not they wanted to give the district attorney this additional power. It was all…under the guise of whatever they called it – the Juvenile Crime Gang Prevention… I mean the whole tone of the whole proposition was, Okay, this is for these heavily entrenched gang kids. These are for these kids with these extensive prior records that cannot be served by the juvenile court. So instead of wasting the court’s time, and burdening the judges with fitness hearings and them having to make the decision, we’re (the DA) just going to exercise our discretion. And we’re going to sift through these cases, and we’re going to make a determination about which of these kids don’t even have any business being served in the juvenile court. Because, quite frankly, they’re not amenable to the rehabilitative services of the juvenile court. But, that process clearly is not being undertaken by the district attorney’s office in this county.

Scott Wippert then added his views on the issue:

WIPPERT: Yeah, that law was passed for the kids that obviously were unfit for the juvenile system… It’s obvious from their environment and their lifestyle and the crime they committed that they cannot be rehabilitated, so, therefore the DA should have the power to file in adult court. That is not this case. And none of those factors are present in Brandon’s allegations or his background.

BRAMSON: But the district attorney doesn’t care. They’re not looking at any of those things, or the absence of any of those things.

Q: But they did look at the fact that it’s a first-degree murder, execution style slaying, and the brutality involved in the case?

BRAMSON: They considered the facts of the murder. But that’s still just the offense itself. That’s still just the offense. Offense plus age, that’s the only thing they’re considering.

Q: But again, what in the law requires them to consider anything else?

BRAMSON: I think the word “may” is contextual. And I think “may” has significance in these kinds of cases that we haven’t perhaps been paying attention to. And our position is that “may” requires an analysis of something more than the offense and the age.

Q: The DA, Maeve Fox, has said that if Brandon McInerney winds up with the juvenile justice system, with good conduct credits and if he’s a model inmate, he could get out in less than four years for this crime?

WIPPERT: First of all, is it conceptually possible? Yes. But the only way that would happen is if he did go to a juvenile facility then he would only be released when a parole board determines that he has been rehabilitated. Now, when you go to that kind of facility they give you schooling, they give you counseling. They give you things to rehabilitate you and to make you be able to function in society. Prison is not that. Prison, you go there and, especially in this case, he will go there until he dies. And that’s it. So, is it possible that he would get out in that soon a time? Conceptually, yes. But, again, there would be a parole board that would have to make the determination that this young child now is fully rehabilitated. Otherwise, he would serve the complete amount of time up until he’s twenty-five. And I think that those people who would house him, school him, teach him, know everything about him for a period of years, would be in the best position to make that determination as to whether or not he has been rehabilitated. And I don’t think this DA is in the position to be able to say he’s definitely going to be able to get out in four-and-a-half years. If he does get out in four and a half, or five years, or seven years, that means that the system worked. That means that he was rehabilitated. And all we want is for him to have that option. If, in fact, he doesn’t become rehabilitated he will be there until he’s twenty-five.

Q: (to Robyn Bramson) Do you have thoughts on that?

BRAMSON: …To add to that, I would say just say that if public safety is the primary concern of the district attorney, which they assert that it is, then are they considering what’s going to be the implication for the public if and when Brandon gets paroled from adult prison…down the road. Are we going to release into society someone who is safe to be released. You’re talking about putting a child in an adult prison. No services. No rehabilitation. No counseling. Nothing to address the concerns that we have about him being a threat to society. And then you’re going to release him after being locked up with the most violent offenders in the state. And that’s supposed to be safe for society? It doesn’t make any sense at all.

Q: What does this do as far as the appeals court?

WIPPERT: This is Josh Solberg. He’s an attorney working on the case, and he’s going to be working on the writ.

SOLBERG: We’ll be filing writs. We’re first awaiting the transcript of the proceedings from today, then we’ll be filing at least a writ on the discovery issue, if not more, within the next few weeks. And we expect that the court of appeal will hear it at some point…shortly thereafter.

Q: Did the court’s failure to grant a stay in the matter or continue the preliminary hearing affect what you need to do at all?

SOLBERG: No, it doesn’t affect what we need to do. What we need to do is make the most convincing writ possible. There are always time concerns but those are concerns that can be dealt with just by the way we arrange things… We will have the writ timely filed, in plenty of time, and, hopefully, the court of appeals can consider it without causing any prejudice to any of the proceedings.

Q: What is this writ basically going to say?

SOLBERG: The discovery writ will argue that this judge’s ruling today denying the discovery request was incorrect. Basically, that we have made the required showing for discovery. That is that there is a possible defense and that we need this material to flush out whether that defense is valid. The defense obviously being that the People abused their discretion by failing to utilize their discretion in determining that they should charge it directly in adult court. It will obviously be based on the papers that we’ve already filed and the oral argument today, and then the judge’s statements today in court.

Q: And today you guys got nothing, is that correct?

WIPPERT: Well, we got a lot of things, actually. And what I mean by that is certain statements made be Maeve Fox – and the judge as well – that we’ll be using to further our discovery issue. I think that it’s an issue of, What do they have to hide? Why don’t they just give us the information that we request? I don’t understand why it is. If they did actually utilize and exercise their discretion and chose to file Brandon McInerney’s case in adult court, then why won’t they share with us the thought processes and what criteria they used in order to do that? Again, it’s a scary world to think that a DA has unfettered discretion to do whatever they want. And we gave it to them, us, as the voters. And I think there has to be some checks and balances. And for the DA to stand up and say nobody can question our authority, whether or not we should file something in adult court or juvenile court, I think that’s a scary proposition. And I don’t think the appellate court’s going to agree with that.

Q: Bush League – and other types of insults the prosecutor has made when the previous attorney, the public defender’s office, was battling on the case as well, in reference to your motion. What are your feelings about Maeve Fox’s insults re the defense motions?

WIPPERT: Well, I think that that comment was inappropriate. But I think it was telling. I think it showed their lack of understanding of this issue that we brought. And, I think anybody who reads the motion, and first reads their response, which is not even responsive to what we asked. It’s not even responsive to what we filed… And she conceded. It just clearly shows they do not understand the issue. And the district attorney is so used to judges just saying, okay, the DA said so, so therefore we agree with them. That she didn’t feel it necessary to make any further argument. And I think that it’s clear that maybe she still doesn’t understand what this issue really entails. And I think clearly the judge didn’t either. And we get assigned out here (to department 46) this morning, and this judge read these papers in the thirty minutes that we were waiting in the back of the courtroom. And then she hastily made this decision, and wouldn’t even let us make a complete record. So…we are looking forward to filing this writ because the appellate court will not be so dismissive, and will actually look at our legal arguments, and, we believe, will concur with us, and give us the material we need.

End of part two of two…

Ventura County DA tightens noose around fourteen-year-old Brandon McInerney’s neck

Scott Wippert, Robyn Bramson, and Josh Solberg arrive in court. 

Ventura County Senior Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox is bent on punishing fourteen-year-old murder suspect Brandon McInerney – to death. She’s already bypassed any legal scenario where Larry King’s alleged teenage killer might get a fitness hearing to determine whether or not he is amenable to rehabilitation through juvenile court, by deciding to directly file the case in adult court. With thirty witnesses saying that Brandon shot Larry, and at least 51 mandatory years facing Brandon, he’s as good as dead.

Or is he?

HELP COULD BE ON ITS WAY

Not if his lawyers can help it. As reported here first, Brandon’s father fired his previous attorney and has brought on a team of young and aggressive lawyers who drive up from LA, while paying their costs out of their own pockets, just to try to save a kid’s life. And then when they get here, they get to listen to the DA, Maeve Fox, oppose the motion by telling the court, and all the world, that their motion is “Bush League.”

Scott Wippert, Robyn Bramson, Josh Solberg, and Summer McKiever head a defense that has filed a motion to discover documents in possession of the district attorney to show how Ventura County prosecutors decide when juvenile offenders will be tried in adult court. If granted, this motion would inform them, and the world, as to what factors the Ventura DA uses in charging juveniles as adults, and, in particular, what they considered when filing Brandon’s case in adult court earlier this year. But, of course, Maeve Fox has other ideas.

BUSH LEAGUE

“Guess what?” the senior Deputy District Attorney says about Brandon’s attorneys request. “They aren’t entitled to know what is mulling around in the DA’s mind.”

Say what? Who exactly does Ms. Fox think she is? She’s not the district attorney, that’s for sure. That job belongs to Gregory Totten. Secondly, Mr. Totten was elected by the People of the county of Ventura. We voted him into office, and he represents us: the People. And yes, I do vehemently disagree with Ms. Fox and her severe punish-to-the-max-with-no-compassion mentality. I believe that we the People of the county of Ventura do have a right to know what our duly elected district attorney is doing to our children who are accused of serious crimes.

A NOVEL APPROACH

Wippert, Bramson, Solberg, and McKiever are attempting to do something that no one else may ever have attempted. It’s a novel legal approach to breathe life into the darkness of not only a very ugly case that may ultimately take the life of two of our teenage citizens, but also of what goes on in the Ventura County District Attorney’s office. And it may be the only chance Brandon McInerney has to survive.

Because of the way Fox has chosen to charge the case, Brandon is as good as a dead boy walking. But with four attorneys who possess a determination the size of the Pacific, and with a little help from a courageous appellate court, Brandon just may, ultimately, win the right to a fitness hearing to determine if he might actually be amenable to rehabilitation, be tried in juvenile court, and earn the right to turn his life around.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH THE ATTORNEYS

After court, Wippert, Bramson, and Solberg took a few moments to explain what they’re trying to do, and why it could be so important to all the voters in the state of California.

Please enjoy part one of two with three of Brandon McInerney’s fascinating new attorneys:

 The crowd gathers for discovery motion.

Q: You filed a motion to basically dismiss the case in its entirety based on the abuse of the discretion of the prosecutor in direct filing this case into adult court?

SCOTT WIPPERT: Yes, exactly.

Q: And that was denied by the judge?

WIPPERT: Yes, that was denied, and I don’t even think it was considered by this judge, quite frankly. I think that this is an issue that they don’t understand. And I think that was clear from the district attorney’s comments, as well as the judge. At first the judge talks about whether or not this mysterious threshold was met. And Ms. Bramson I believe clearly asked her, “Is there a threshold that we could make?” And then the judge backtracked and said, “No, there’s no authority for this…” And, you know, that’s how law gets changed. If there’s no authority for something, then it goes up to the appellate court. And that’s how authority happens. That’s how law happens… There are issues everyday that go up to the appellate court… The best-case scenario is having a trial judge, a judge ruling on the motion, who has the courage to actually follow the law, and the spirit of the law. And a lot of times that doesn’t happen. And we have to take it to the appellate court, where we have people who consider it more. And, hopefully, again follow the spirit of the law. And, with reason, look at our arguments, and not just respond like this judge did.

Q: How do you make the legal distinction between the mandatory provision versus the permissive provision in the charging laws for prosecutors?

WIPPERT: Well, there are certain cases that are mandatory direct filing…

Q: Like what?

WIPPERT: If there was a murder case where there was a lying in wait allegation, or something to that degree. There are certain categories that would make it so that the DA would have to file it that way. And this is not. It’s permissive. And even in their motion they say it would be an abuse of discretion to not file it that way. And again, in our mind and our argument by even saying that they did not exercise any discretion. And they abused their discretion by not doing that. So, the case should have been dismissed today, just based on their own arguments within their brief.

Q: What specific factors can you point to as to why they didn’t exercise any discretion?

WIPPERT: Ms. Bramson?

Q: Ms. Bramson… Can you site an specific factors that make you believe the prosecution didn’t use any discretion in direct filing this case into adult court?

Attorney Robyn Bramson then took over to answer.

BRAMSON: They “say” that they filed it based on the severity of the offense. They say – Maeve had said – that she filed it the way she thought the law required her to… And then they set forth only the facts of the case as a basis to support their filing decision. But that’s not enough. I mean it’s clear as day in (Welfare and Institutions code section) 707 that fourteen years of age plus the offense creates a situation where they can permissively file it in adult court. And our position is that more needs to be taken into consideration in order to make that final determination. It’s very clear, because they’re expressly saying so: they didn’t consider anything else. They considered the crime itself – and that’s it.

Q: What are the things you wanted them to look at? The background of this case?

BRAMSON: …It doesn’t matter to me. But it matters to the voters of the state of California who gave them this power, via Prop 21… Obviously, we assumed that they were going to be adopting some guidelines, some criteria, to help them make these decisions. Otherwise, we would have made it all mandatory, right? We would have said, Oh, well these crimes are very serious, and once you reach a certain age – all these cases get filed (in adult court). But, we didn’t do that. We separated it out for ‘em. Here, these cases are so serious that you must file these in adult court. These cases are on the fence. And so you’ve got to take that extra step, district attorney, and consider something else – or many something elses – in helping you make the decision. And they didn’t do it. And they’re admitting that they didn’t do it.

Q: Is there anything in the language in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 that specifically requires them to consider these “something elses” like Brandon’s dysfunctional home life or the Larry King situation with the school, and school officials?

Ms. Bramson then asked if Mr. Wippert wanted to answer that question?

WIPPERT: …707(d)…what they’re using to file this in adult court, as opposed to the rest of 707 which allows them to have a fitness hearing in juvenile (court). Whereas, usually they would file it in juvenile court and have a judge determine, and use certain factors, like his lack of a record, the sophistication of the crime…his home life. All of these other environmental things. Everything that is about that child that judge will use to determine whether or not he is fit for the juvenile court. Can he be rehabilitated? As opposed to the adult court where they just punish. …That system was created so that a judge would make that determination. Not (where) a politically appointed district attorney, behind closed doors, can go and make a decision, and nobody can ever check how they went about making that decision. It’s a scary world we live in when we give the district attorney the power to make these decisions. And then nobody can ever understand or ask what you did, what you considered in…exercising that power. That’s scary.

End of part one of two…

Breaking news: Brandon McInerney attacks District Attorney’s “Failure to Exercise its Filing Discretion”

Things are starting to heat up in a very interesting manner in the Brandon McInerney case. Brandon’s new attorneys, Scott Wippert of the United Defense Group, and Robin Bramson, have just filed a defense motion for discovery, which in great part attacks the Ventura County District Attorney’s “Failure to Exercise its Filing Discretion.” If the motion were granted, then the defense attorneys hope to gain access to DA communications and records that might show a lack of filing discretion when dealing with juveniles alleged to have committed serious offenses.

 Brandon McInerney’s attorneys Scott Wippert and Robyn Bramson hustling to court.

The concern here of course is that the DA’s office in Ventura County just basically files all cases with a violent nature involving juveniles in adult court rather than in juvenile court, where the cases presumably belong. Look at the motion, and the arguments created by the defense, and see if you agree with the defense’s contentions.

Later this week we will also have an interview with Ventura County Senior Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox on her brief thoughts on the status of the case, and with Brandon’s new attorney, Scott Wippert, on his request to have Brandon psychologically evaluated and his concerns regarding his discovery motion.

The discovery motion, filed today, can be found here.

Q and A with Prosecutor Maeve Fox and Brandon McInerney’s former attorney William Quest

At the conclusion of a bizarre Tuesday filled with hearings and recesses, Stolen Boy caught up with Brandon’s McInerney’s former attorney, Ventura County Senior Deputy District Attorney William “Willy” Quest, to find out his thoughts after being replaced as Brandon’s attorney.

Brandon McInerney’s family members comfort one another after court.

Q: What are your feelings on what happened today?

A: Well, we just hope that they have the best interests for Brandon, and we’ll leave it at that.

Q: Do you have any concerns at this point about Brandon’s new attorney?

I continue to have concerns.

Q: About what?

I just want to leave it at that.

Q: What was your specific opposition to the gag order request by the new defense counsel?

Well, I have ethical obligations as a member of the bar and as an officer of the court. I also have first amendment rights. So I think it was overbroad and vague. But they’re the attorneys now, and that’s the end. Okay?

Thanks Mr. Quest.

Brandon McInerney’s new attorneys hard at work.

And Willy walked off into the Ventura sunset.

And then, low and behold, the prosecutor on the case, Maeve Fox, stepped into the corridor outside of the courtroom, and we, being the vultures of the media that we are, swarmed her. And here’s what Maeve had to say:

Q: What was the In Camera hearing about?

A: It’s kind of the same thing as a reverse Marsden, where a criminal defendant has the right to have the counsel of their choosing. And a lot of times if there’s disagreement between a client and a counsel, they’ll have something called a Marsden hearing based on the case bearing that name. And I think this was a similar situation, it was just kind of in reverse. So the court wanted to make a finding, and have it on the record and sealed about whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily decided to fire the public defender and hire new counsel. So I’m assuming that’s exactly what happened.

Q: I take it that’s what happened, but I don’t know?

A: I don’t either, because we’re not allowed to be in there.

Q: What does appointing a new defense counsel do to change the case overall?

A: Nothing as far as I can see. You know, it’s none of our business who the defendant has as their counsel. It’s purely his decision. So, it’ll slow things down a little bit, I’m sure. But, I can’t even state that really, because, who knows?

Q: What can you tell me about the new defense attorneys?

A: I don’t know anything about them.

Q: Do the new attorneys at all change the district attorney’s attitude towards prosecuting the case?

A: No.

Q: Have they contacted you about anything up to this point?

A: I’ve had some informal discussions with him, but nothing substantive.

Q: What is it on for later this month?

A: We’re coming back on the 21st just to set some dates. Maybe a prelim date. And we have a couple motions that are outstanding. But you know, counsel’s going to need some time to get up to speed on this stuff, so I’m not going to push him along when he doesn’t have any idea of what the discovery is all about.

Thank you Ms. Fox.

Brandon’s new attorneys came out of court a few minutes later and refused to comment to the press. Maybe it had something to do with the fact the media was all over Mr. Wippert about how they were going to pay for experts in his client’s trial. Maybe Mr. Wippert wants to get his feet firmly in the case, get up to speed on where they’re at, so he can speak intelligently about the case once he has. Hopefully, next week Mr. Wippert will supply answers to these and other very important questions.

Brandon McInerney: Ventura County’s Sacrificial Lamb

Please read the following opinion piece from the Ventura County Star…

14-year-old Brandon McInerney: Ventura County’s sacrificial lamb

---

VenturaCountyStar.com
By Michael Mehas

Michael Mehas discusses the case with Ventura County Senior Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox.

It’s too bad for Brandon McInerney that he wasn’t born 19 days later. If he had been, we probably wouldn’t be talking about him right now. The 14-year-old Oxnard boy would be just another kid we read about in the newspaper, charged with murder, tried in the California juvenile court system. He’d then be sentenced to the California Youth Authority, where attempts at rehabilitation would be made. And, if successful, Brandon would one day be released back to society as a new man, one who had paid his debt for sins committed when he was a child.

Unfortunately, for Brandon, this is not the case. There will be no efforts to rehabilitate. Because Brandon is being tried as an adult, and if convicted — which appears assured — he will spend the rest of his life in a California men’s adult prison.

The charges

There are so many things wrong with this case that it is difficult to know really where to begin. But, we’ll start with what took place two days after Larry King’s murder. That’s when Ventura County District Attorney Gregory Totten chose to charge Brandon as an adult. Totten had a choice. He could have charged Brandon as a juvenile, and he could have charged Brandon differently than he did. But, instead, the district attorney chose to charge Brandon with one count of murder and two enhancements, use of a gun and hate crime, which painted Brandon into a desperate legal corner.

The prosecutor knew the basic facts of the case before the charges were made. He knew Brandon had taken the gun to Oxnard’s E.O. Green Middle School and shot classmate Larry King in front of many youthful witnesses. He knew he could prove the elements of his case and bring a swift guilty verdict against Brandon, whether he charged him as an adult or a juvenile.

As charged in adult court, if found guilty, Brandon will be required to serve the next 51 years of his life behind bars. That’s because count 1 carries with it a mandatory minimum of 25 years to life with no possibility of parole. The gun enhancement carries a mandatory minimum of 25 years with no possibility of parole, followed by a life sentence. The hate-crime enhancement carries a one- to three-year consecutive term. That adds up to 51 mandatory minimum years Brandon will serve.

He will not be eligible for parole until he’s 65. And since he’ll be spending his time in a place where children are regularly beaten and raped, and their lives are often ended with suicide, this basically amounts to a death sentence for a 14-year-old child.

No chance at redemption

Because of the way the prosecutor charged the case, Brandon’s age, domestic circumstances and the situation of Larry King’s sexual advances become irrelevant to Brandon’s case. There will now be no reason to consider the fact the defendant was so young when the crime was committed, that if he were 19 days younger, he would be legally unfit to be tried as an adult. There will be no mitigating circumstances to consider. The court may never hear the facts regarding how Brandon appeared crazed by his victim, a teenager himself who was admittedly gay, who teased and taunted Brandon, which humiliated the 14-year-old in front of his fellow students. There were reports that Larry’s behavior had caused problems with other boys as well.

Brandon, who had many of his own issues regarding his domestic life, never gained the skills necessary to cope with the stress of this situation. And, to exacerbate matters, it appears school officials, who were aware of the situation between the two boys, failed to move aggressively to quell the rising tensions. Instead of counseling the victim about his behavior, and Brandon, too, witnesses claim school officials appeared more intent on nurturing Larry as he explored his sexuality. They allowed him to come to school wearing feminine makeup and accessories and they downplayed the turmoil that his behavior was causing on campus.

So, Brandon took the matter into his own hands in the only way he knew how. He got a relative’s gun, took it to class with him, and shot and killed Larry. Pure tragedy every step of the way. The only factors that seem to matter to the district attorney.

The prosecution

May 8, Catherine Saillant wrote in the Los Angeles Times that Totten said he was “open to further discussion on trying McInerney as an adult.” This posed great hope that the Ventura County district attorney possessed ambivalence about the way he charged Brandon; that Totten wanted to hear what the public had to say about the matter and that there was a chance he would still do the right thing, and try Brandon as a juvenile.

This thought was shattered when I met with Senior Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox, who’s responsible for trying Brandon, the week before last, after the hearing. Fox iterated that she filed the charges against Brandon as she believed the law required her to charge. In other words, Fox was taking full responsibility for charging Brandon as an adult, for essentially handing this 14-year-old a death sentence, and there was no need to hear from the public on the matter. What was done was done, and that’s that, public outcry or not.

Brandons everywhere

The sad part about all of this is that there are Brandon McInerneys all over our country. According to Human Rights Watch, at least 227 people, who were under 18 at the time they committed their crimes, have been sentenced in California to life without the possibility of parole. In the United States, at least 2,380 people are serving life without parole for crimes they committed when they were under 18.

In the rest of the world combined, only seven people are known to be serving a life sentence for crimes committed when they were juveniles. International law prohibits the use of life without parole for those who are under 18. The United States is in violation of those laws.

Limited culpability

The reasons children should not be given life sentences are quite simple. As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its landmark 2005 opinion in Roper vs. Simmons, it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on criminals for offenses committed when they were younger than 18. The court ruled that doing so violates the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.

“Their own vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate environments,” the court majority reasoned in Roper, “mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment.”

This same rationale that led the court to outlaw the execution of juveniles applies equally to the second-harshest penalty available to our justice system, life without possibility of parole. The vulnerability and immaturity — and thus, the diminished culpability that the high court recognized in banning the death penalty for juveniles — are factors equally present for juveniles facing life sentences.

Yet, in this case, that didn’t happen. Brandon is going to stand trial in adult court, and he is going to pay severely for what he did. Though considered too young to buy alcohol or cigarettes, sign rental agreements or vote, he will be held to the same degree of culpability as an adult, and face adult penalties, and he will go to prison for the rest of his life.

Trying Brandon as an adult does not serve us in terms of bringing justice to the issue. What would bring justice was if Brandon were given the chance to mature and learn socially acceptable behavior. But, if he must be charged in an adult court, then levy him with charges that would allow a judge to consider his age, his personal-life situation and the circumstances surrounding his crime. These mitigating circumstances are certainly more relevant than the Ventura County district attorney considers them to be.

— Michael Mehas of Ventura is an attorney, associate producer of the film “Alpha Dog” and author of the novel “Stolen Boy,” both based on Jesse James Hollywood, who faces the death penalty in Santa Barbara for allegedly orchestrating the murder of 15-year-old Nicholas Markowitz. Mehas can be reached at www.michaelmehas.com.

For more on Brandon McInerney please read related articles:
– Larry King, Another Stolen Boy
– Brandon McInerney, Our Sacrificial Lamb
– Brandon McInerney is Worth Saving
– Brandon McInerney’s Legal Court Brief for July 24, 2008
– Let’s Not Destroy Brandon McInerney
– Another child is dead: So, how should we respond?

Brandon McInerney, Our Sacrificial Lamb

The verdict is in. Ventura County Senior Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox is taking no prisoners. There will be no survivors when she’s finished with Brandon McInerney. How do I know this? She basically told me as much when I spoke with her after court this afternoon.

I’d seen that kind of look before, during the days when I banged heads with the agencies of state criminal prosecution. It’s a look of sheer drive mixed with the determination to do a job right. To prosecute “the accused” to the best of one’s abilities. To convict and to put away.

Only this time, Fox’s prey is a little different than the average criminal she’s used to facing. It’s a young boy that sits on the other side of the table. Although, not so little anymore, Brandon McInerney is still just a kid. Fourteen and counting.

THE DEFENDANT

Brandon sat with his back to me in Department 26 at the Ventura County courthouse in Ventura. His hair was slicked back like 14-year-old boys like to do, and he had a white T-shirt on as he sat head bowed before the Hon. Douglas W. Daily. Brandon’s attorney William Quest had filed a demurrer attacking the Complaint as being an unconstitutional violation of Brandon’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

In this case, the cruel and unusual punishment involves Welfare and Institutions Code Section 707(d), which substantially widens the District Attorney’s authority to file charges against minors 14 years of age and older in superior court, rather than juvenile court, without any judicial determination as to the fitness of the juvenile.

THE PROSECUTION

I caught up with Ms. Fox after today’s hearing and tried to confirm through her my belief that her boss, Ventura County District Attorney Gregory Totten, had invited public feedback regarding how his office might handle this case. After all, they did have the discretion to charge Brandon as an adult or a juvenile. But when I spoke to Fox, her attitude was quite sincere when she bluntly stated that this was the first she’d heard of that.

Ms. Fox assured me that she had been the one to file the charges against Brandon, and that she had filed them as she believed the law required her to charge. In other words, Fox was taking full responsibility for charging Brandon as an adult, and there was no need to hear from the public on the matter. What was done was done, and that’s that, public outcry or not.

THE CHARGES

Ms. Fox charged Brandon with Count I, murder, which carries a mandatory minimum of 25 years to life with no possibility of parole. She also charged him with a gun enhancement that carries a mandatory minimum of 25 years to life with no possibility of parole and a hate crime enhancement that carries a 1 to 3 year consecutive term. That’s 51 mandatory minimum years of Brandon’s life. The kid who, if three weeks younger, would never be considered fit for adult court, is now headed for the death sentence.

But the rub is that if this truly were Ms. Fox’s sole decision, she made a very bad one. Because she had the discretion to charge Brandon as a juvenile. She did not have to put the first nail into Brandon’s cross. This prosecutor intentionally chose to send Brandon McInerney to California’s adult prison system, a place where children are beaten, raped, and commit suicide, a place where children do not survive.

THE DEFENSE

When I spoke to Brandon’s attorney during a recess in the hearing, there was strain in his voice as we talked about the difficulties that lie ahead for his client’s case. The law is the law, and the defense will have their day in court. The prosecutor will parade her witnesses before the jury. One after another after another, each witness will verify each fact and confirm each element of the prosecution’s case. There will be swift justice.

Brandon will be convicted, because Brandon is guilty. Brandon committed a horrible act. He murdered Larry King. And now, it’s time for revenge. Thanks to the way the Ventura County District Attorney, through Senior Deputy Maeve Fox charged this case, Brandon has been handed what equates to a death sentence. There will be no rehabilitation. There will be no second chances with this system. The Ventura County District Attorney has made sure of it.

For more on Brandon McInerney please read related articles:
– Brandon McInerney: Ventura County’s Sacrificial Lamb
– Brandon McInerney is Worth Saving
– Brandon McInerney’s Legal Court Brief for July 24, 2008
– Let’s Not Destroy Brandon McInerney
– Another child is dead: So, how should we respond?