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.

Brandon McInerney files Petition for Review with California Supreme Court

Brandon McInerney has recently filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court. The Petition can be found in its entirety here: PETITION FOR REVIEW.

The issue presented for review is fairly straight forward: Whether a minor, whose case is discretionarily “direct-filed” in a criminal court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(d), may obtain a discovery order directing the district attorney to produce information relevant to his claims that the direct-filing amounts to an abuse of discretion, and that the prosecution deprives him of his liberty without due process of law.

Brandon’s attorneys believe the California Supreme Court holds the key to settling an important question of law, regarding how minors as young as 14 years of age can be subjected to a district attorneys’ direct-filing determinations and practices, since Proposition 21 went into effect in March of 2000. Although it has long been held that judicial determinations of unfitness may be reversed for abuse of discretion, no case currently exists with regard to the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion, and no appellate court has yet “opined about whether a prosecutor’s direct-filing of a minor’s case in criminal court and implied finding of unfitness is similarly reviewable for abuse of discretion.”

Very interesting indeed. This will be a very important decision in Brandon McInerney’s bid to gain the right to rehabilitate himself through the California state juvenile system. It could also affect other minors being charged and prosecuted as adults both here in California and the other forty-nine states. How the California Supreme Court decides to handle this case could have tremendous impact for the way juveniles are prosecuted for years to come, all across the world. Do we continue to punish and destroy kids deemed socially unworthy, as the prosecutor of Brandon McInerney is bent on doing in this case? Or do we utilize our vast resources of intelligence and compassion to try to rehabilitate these children and reincorporate them back into society. Please, read the petition, and tell us what you think.

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’s prelim continued; Wippert, Bramson talk of plan to appeal

It was a surreal day today at the Ventura County Courthouse as I made my way into Department 14 for what was scheduled to be Brandon McInerney’s preliminary hearing. But it didn’t go off, as I figured it might not, because Brandon’s attorneys were experiencing delays in getting their appeal filed, and they needed more time to pursue their discovery issue as it pertains to the Ventura County District Attorney and how they direct file discretionary juvenile cases in adult criminal court.

Brandon’s attorneys Scott Wippert and Robyn Bramson.

Robyn Bramson and Scott Wippert made the necessary appearances on their teenage client’s behalf, and Maeve Fox dressed for success on the side of the People. But there were no smiles or half jokes emanating from either side of the courtroom on this case on this day. Faces were stern, and the mood in and around the courtroom was somber and brittle. One prelim was already in action when Stolen Boy arrived, one migrant farm worker being accused of slashing another across the face for dirtying up his folding knife at a local labor camp. Then, at about 9:15 a.m. Brandon was brought into the cage and the attorneys continued the case until March 17, with a 30-day time waiver beyond that date. And that was it. After court, Stolen Boy hustled out into the hallway to catch up with Brandon’s two attorneys to test their feelings on the prelim, their client, the appeal, and the law as it pertains to juveniles being tried in adult court.

 

---

Q: What is the basis for the appeal you continued the prelim for?

ROBYN BRAMSON: …Judge Riley’s summary denial of the discovery motion.

Q: On what grounds was it denied?

BRAMSON: The grounds weren’t really clear because her record wasn’t all that clear. But, basically the issue on the writ is whether there is such a defense as abuse of prosecutorial discretion for a district attorney’s filing of a discretionary direct file case in adult court without sufficient consideration of factors other than age and alleged offense.

Q: What is the status of the writ?

BRAMSON: The writ is almost done. The court reporter took a little bit longer to get us the transcript than we had anticipated, so it delayed the process. But it’s almost done, and we anticipate filing it this week, or next week at the latest.

Q: Could you elaborate on the basis of your filing?

BRAMSON: The writ is asking the appellate court to reverse Judge (Rebecca) Riley’s denial of the discovery motion. And the issue on the writ basically turns on whether or not there is a defense for abuse of prosecutorial discretion… Properly evaluating a case prior to discretionarily direct filing it in criminal court.

Q: Why is it so important to take this step with the writ?

SCOTT WIPPERT: I think we disagree strongly with Judge Riley’s decision. So that is the appropriate process…to take it to another court…somebody who will consider it more. And we’ll actually brief it, and put more information and give that appellate court more information so they can look as to whether or not Judge Riley made the right or wrong decision.

Q: So what happened in court today?

WIPPERT: Today we just merely continued the preliminary hearing until March 17th so that we can continue to handle these legal issues before we deal with any of the factual issues, that being the prelim.

Q: Do you think the prelim will go on that date in spite of this writ?

BRAMSON: I couldn’t tell you at this point. We have to continue to file the appropriate legal papers and then see how long the appellate court is going to take to respond.

Q: Why is there a question as to whether you have the defense as to abuse of discretion?

BRAMSON: It’s never been raised before, as far as we know.

Q: You mean as far as your research here in California?

BRAMSON: Right. Exactly… And I think that was something Judge Riley was presented with – the absence of a previous court saying that this is a defense. She wasn’t willing to extend prior cases to this area and say that such a defense exists. So, at this point we need to get either the appellate court or the California Supreme Court to recognize this is an issue, and hopefully acknowledge that this is a valid defense.

Q: What else should they consider in your opinion?

BRAMSON: The more I research this issue the more I feel like it’s not appropriate for defense attorneys or for the Court to dictate to the district attorney what factors they should or should not be considering, because Proposition 21 changed that. It took away those previously specified criteria of what was required for a fitness determination. Our position is that a fitness determination is still required and (Welfare and Institutions Code section) 707(d)2 imposes upon the district attorney a duty to assess fitness, but what factors they need to look at – that is up to their discretion. But to not consider anything other than offense in our view constitutes an abuse of their discretion.

WIPPERT: And for us to even explore whether or not they did abuse their discretion, and, again, based on their own filings and comments to the media we believe they did abuse their discretion. But for us to…investigate whether or not that in fact is true, as it appears, we need to get the discovery. And that’s the whole purpose of filing the writ. It’s having another judge, or actually several take a look at Judge Riley’s decision and hopefully agree with us that we have a right to know what factors they did in fact use in deciding whether or not to prosecute him as an adult. And if they have nothing to hide, then certainly we should get those. But the focus of the writ is whether or not the judge erred in denying our motion. And that’s the only focus of the writ.

Q: Can you tell us more re the basis of the motion you’re appealing?

WIPPERT: It was a discovery motion where we were asking for specific internal guidelines that they might have that they use in determining whether or not they specifically, not only in this case, but what their policies are as to when they file cases that are permissive direct files – what they use to determine whether or not they should in fact charge this person as an adult or juvenile. And what we’re seeking are their internal guidelines that they use in all cases as well as statistics of how many cases they did in fact direct file (in adult court) when they had the opportunity to. And more specifically in this particular case we asked what they did in determining…to in fact prosecute Brandon as an adult.

Q: And what did the judge do?

WIPPERT: The judge denied our request. And it’s somewhat unclear from her ruling as to what legal basis she used to deny it. But it appears from her last statement that there’s no authority so therefore she wasn’t about to start making any.

Q: What legal remedy do you seek as a result of the writ you intend to file?

BRAMSON: Ultimately, what we would like to see is either the Second District Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court, by way of petition for review in the supreme court, issue a ruling that says there is such a defense for a prosecutor’s abuse of discretion in a direct filing case. And then our next step would be a pretrial motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion. And then a dismissal, which would result in a refilling of the case in juvenile court, which is where we feel it should be.

Q: And then what would happen?

WIPPERT: The writ is focusing on the discovery. Just because we win, and we expect to win the writ…we need to get the discovery motion denial overturned – and granted – and see what in fact is turned over pursuant to that discovery motion. But, again, it is our position just from what we know already and seen already that in fact the case should be ultimately dismissed as abuse of discretion. But this is a tool for us to get to that position legally. Where we can convince a judge to in fact dismiss it because they abused their discretion and right now it seems that they’re (Ventura County District Attorney) hiding behind that discretion.

Q: And if it were dismissed you would expect the district attorney to refile in juvenile court and request a fitness hearing at that point to see if Brandon were amenable to rehab through juvenile court?

BRAMSON: That’s exactly right. Our position is that that’s the way this case should have proceeded a year ago.

Q: That Brandon should have been entitled to a fitness hearing to determine if he is amenable to treatment?

BRAMSON: Right…

WIPPERT: Or certainly the district attorney should have gone through some analysis. Because, again, if you look at our briefing, and I think we’ve been consistent all along, is that it is our position that just because they have the option – they may file in adult court on a case like Brandon’s – that they should not in every case. And that although Prop 21 gave them the discretion to file in certain cases, certainly it did not take out those factors in determining whether or not to file. So, again, we’re not in a position to tell them what discretionary factors they should’ve used, but I think 707 and the fitness hearing criteria is certainly a place to start. Because, again it is a determination on whether or not the child should be prosecuted as an adult. Whether or not he can be rehabilitated. It’s just an issue of whether or not that decision and that determination should be made by a judge or a district attorney before they file the charges…

BRAMSON: …This all resulted in shifting the duty of this determination from the judge to the district attorney in these cases. So, they have a legal duty to make a reasoned determination in these cases. And the California Supreme Court, in a case called Mandaley, which was several years ago, talked about the changes made to Welfare and Institutions Code 707(d) via Proposition 21. And what it says is this proposition gives the district attorney the authority to adopt their own criteria for determining which of these cases are properly filed in adult court. We’re just asking for what, in the wake of the Mandaley case, this office is doing to comply with that mandate. What criteria have you adopted? What standards do you use? What is the decision making process that you are going through re each of these kids in determining which kid could still benefit from the juvenile justice system, and which kids cannot? In this case it appears that there was no analysis. And this is not based on bits of information that we’re grasping on. But this is coming from the admission of the district attorney… When we were in court last time, Ms. Fox acknowledged that they have no criteria, which is troubling. Because, again, California Supreme Court is telling them that they’re supposed to adopt such criteria and here we are like nine years later and apparently it just comes down to a willy-nilly decision. And that’s frightening. And that’s why this issue is so important. Because not only is this decision making process going on in this county, it’s going on in counties all over the state… Imagine the impact this is having on so many children’s lives. If this decision is just coming down to the whim of the district attorney on any particular day at any particular moment, as opposed to…analysis that really takes into consideration what is appropriate for this particular kid.

(Continued) Part two of two: Trying to save Brandon McInerney’s life

This is the last in a series of four interviews, dating back to last week, with Brandon McInerney’s new attorneys, Scott Wippert, Robyn Bramson, and Josh Solberg. Here, Stolen Boy narrows the issues in trying to explore who this fourteen-year-old child, that the Ventura County District Attorney has deemed worthless to society, is. Tell us what you think.

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

Q: What do we need to understand about Brandon that we currently don’t understand?

BRAMSON: …Brandon is a fourteen-year-old kid. He’s not Mr. McInerney. And it’s funny to me in court how suddenly he’s Mr. McInerney. I don’t know any fourteen year olds who go by Mr. anything. It’s completely age inappropriate and completely ridiculous. It’s a fiction that we’ve created, that this child ceases to be a child because he’s in this courthouse, and the case is called, People versus Brandon McInerney… In juvenile court, he wouldn’t be called Mr. McInerney. He’d be called Brandon…

Q: There’s an organization called Justice for Juveniles that states, “Children are never adults.” Could Brandon’s case be considered a metaphor for such a statement?

WIPPERT: …I’m familiar with that organization… It’s fourteen and fifteen-year-old children, and that’s what we need to remember. It’s children. And as I look back to the things I did as a child, and my thought processes – it’s just amazing to think that just because the DA said so, now Brandon’s being treated as an adult. Or, just because he just turned fourteen-years-old, now he’s an adult. He’s not an adult. He’s a child. His brain has not fully developed, and he does not understand the consequences, as no child does. Children have to learn those types of things.

Q: What do you say to those who imagine Brandon having committed an evil act?

SOLBERG: …At least in the imagination of the DA, who is supposed to represent the public, he is irredeemable, maybe. Irremediable… That’s what their decision to charge him as an adult implies.

WIPPERT: Their filing decision implies that he has no value anymore. He is not able to be rehabilitated and be a productive citizen of society.

BRAMSON: Or they don’t care.

WIPPERT: Yeah, and if you knew Brandon you would absolutely not have that opinion. He is a child. You would see a child that you would want to take home.

Q: So you’re saying the overall facts and circumstances require Brandon’s case to be seriously considered for juvenile court?

WIPPERT: Absolutely. The difference in the juvenile system and the adult system is that the juvenile system is rehabilitative in nature. And the adult system is punishment. You do not get training, you do not get counseling, you do not get schooling in prison. You are housed with other animals, and that is what you’re treated like. In juvenile facilities they still see some redeeming qualities. They give you schooling.

Q: If Brandon were tried as a juvenile, would Larry King’s family receive justice?

WIPPERT: We’re not asking that Brandon be just allowed to walk free. I think that the punishment of fifty-three (years) to…spending the rest of his life in prison is too steep… We’re not asking that he go home with us today – although we want to take him home, because we know Brandon. But, yes, there has to be some consequence. It was a horrific act, yes. But he’s a child.

BRAMSON: …We get caught up in this justice idea, but I think a lot of times we’re confusing retribution with justice. And I think that’s what’s going on here. And I think when we start coming from a place of wanting to see retribution as a society instead of wanting to see people get better…and function and contribute to society, we got a problem. And I think we got a problem…

Q: What kind of child is Brandon?

WIPPERT: He’s a child… He’s not a monster. And what the district attorney and what a lot of the media is portraying him as is someone who committed the most heinous crime for the most wrong reasons. That being a hate crime, and there being some “gay issue,” or something of this nature. And if you really get to know Brandon, he is not a monster. He’s a good kid who obviously made a horrific decision, and a horrific act he committed. But that does not make him a monster. And he is the product, in large part, to his environment. And, unfortunately, now we’re in a place where we have to deal with him in adult court. And our whole goal is to have him treated like the child that he is. And have people stop saying that he’s a monster and that he’s an adult.

Q: Brandon’s previous attorney stated that he wanted to expedite the trial to be able to preserve the youth in Brandon for the jury, to present that child to a jury. Is the fact that Brandon is growing into a big kid going to affect him in front of a jury in this case?

WIPPERT: I think there’s no doubt it will. But it’s our job to make sure that we explain to the jury and paint the portrait that is Brandon at the time of this offense. And should we hasten this trial and push it just to keep his youthful appearance, and not do what is necessary and ethical? Absolutely not. I think we have really valid arguments on why this case should go back to juvenile court. He should be prosecuted as a juvenile. Are we giving up something in his youthful appearance? Potentially. But, I think it would be unethical, and, just morally wrong to push it just for that reason. To make sure that his youthful appearance is apparent. We will always have to paint him as the child that he was, but at the same time there are legal issues. And there are checks and balances that have to be made for the district attorney and the court…

Q: What else can you tell us about Brandon?

WIPPERT: …We’re trying to give you what information we can, but, at the same time, we don’t want to compromise our defense… There’s so much we want to tell you about Brandon, and his environment, and the situation at the school, and between him and Larry, and I just don’t think it’s the appropriate time for us to do that right now. But there will be a time, at some point…

BRAMSON: I agree. But I will just say generally, when you’re a kid, you’re a kid… You haven’t reached that point in your life where you are an independent thinker. And you have reached that point of maturity where you can sift through various ideas, and you can say, okay, I believe in this, or I don’t believe in that. You’re just exposed to everything, and you’re absorbing everything, without recognizing what resonates and what makes sense to you. I think that’s the case with every kid. Developmentally, I don’t think you can get there until adulthood. Which is why we (and the law) recognize differences between minors and adults. Because there are differences. It’s not that a fourteen year old is just a miniature version of a thirty seven year old. It doesn’t work that way.

Q: What scares you about this case?

BRAMSON: …The district attorney is concerned with public safety. But from a public safety perspective, does it make much sense to want to send this kid to an adult prison with these horribly violent, dangerous offenders…?

WIPPERT: Men.

SOLBERG: This kid with no prior record, no prior history… He’s going to go into prison with, like you said, all these hardened, imprisoned, criminal men. And he’s going to potentially spend a great deal of time there, and the greatest likelihood is that when he comes out he’s going to be a hardened criminal.

WIPPERT: Because that’s what they do in prison. You have to adapt. And people in prison have to be imprisoned. And they don’t offer them services and they do not treat them as children as they would in the juvenile system. And, again, he has the ability to learn, and to change. And his emotions are different than those of adults. And just the capacity to understand the gravity of your actions and the response, the consequence, isn’t there. If he does in fact go to prison, and if he ever does get out, which is unlikely, but if he does, yes, would he be safer to the public at that point than if he actually went through a juvenile system where they in fact try to rehabilitate him? Absolutely not. The best thing for this trial for public safety is to give him services and to help him learn from this horrible mistake in this decision he made.

BRAMSON: …And it goes back to the whole thing that we were talking about with just him being there. As a child, you absorb whatever it is. Stick a kid in music camp, they’re going to pick up some musical ability. You send a kid to cheerleading camp they’ll learn some cheers. Send a kid to prison, what do you think they’re going to learn? There is a culture in prison, and he’s going to live there for a very long time.

Q: Have you ever met a bad kid?

BRAMSON: I’ve never met a bad kid.

Q: This is a kid who’s done something bad.

BRAMSON: Correct

Q: Isn’t that what we’re talking about here?

BRAMSON: Absolutely.

Q: In these cases?

BRAMSON: Absolutely.

Q: Beatings. Rape. Suicide. Isn’t this what a child who is sentenced to an adult prison can come to expect?

WIPPERT: Unfortunately, yes. That’s what he’s looking at. Unless, somebody stops it.

THE END.

Brandon McInerney’s lawyers speak up about Brandon, their efforts to save his life

After listening to lawyers argue Brandon McInerney’s discovery motion last week in Department 46, Stolen Boy caught up with three of Brandon’s attorneys outside the Ventura County Courthouse. Lead attorney Scott Wippert, his colleague from the United Defense Group, Josh Solberg, and co-counsel and sole practitioner Robyn Bramson, took some precious time from their busy schedules to explain what they’re trying to do to save their fourteen-year-old client’s life, and why. I think you’ll find their answers fascinating, with some interesting surprises.

Brandon McInerney’s attorneys contemplate their next move.

Q: How did you get involved in this case?

BRAMSON: We read about it in the paper, in the Daily News over lunch one day. There was a little article about the ruling on the demurrer which was a motion brought by his former attorneys. And, anyway, it was denied…and we had some concerns about the quality of representation that Brandon was getting. We’re concerned that he was probably going to end up spending the rest of his life in prison, and we wanted to help him.

SOLBERG: And not just about the quality of the representation that he was getting, but about the direction that his representatives were taking with his defense.

Q: What was that direction?

WIPPERT: Well, the first we learned of the case…again, we read an article where Willy Quest was quoted as saying he wanted to push this case to trial as soon as possible because of Brandon’s youthful appearance. And that he doesn’t think that he wants somebody other than the district attorney to make a decision on whether or not this child is going to spend the rest of his life in prison… The judge does not have any options in sentencing, so it is not an issue of getting in front of a jury, and a jury having pity on Brandon because he’s a kid. And if it goes to a jury, the issue is guilt or innocence, and not punishment. And the comments he was making implied that the jury would have the power to determine whether or not, and how long, Brandon would be in prison, which, in fact is not the case…

Q: Actually, what I understood from speaking with Mr. Quest was that he hoping to be able to claim a manslaughter defense and get a jury instruction to the jury on a manslaughter defense. A manslaughter verdict would enable some sentencing discretion.

WIPPERT: …Obviously if this case goes to trial there will be an issue of provocation and whether or not first degree will get down to second degree or possibly voluntary manslaughter. But that’s an issue we do not have to accelerate now.

BRAMSON: Our position was that they’re missing a lot of other really important…legal issues that need to be litigated before you even get to that issue… A trial is going to happen if it needs to happen…

Q: What legal issues are you speaking of?

SOLBERG: There’s an important step that is unique to juveniles… In some cases the DA, according to the law, is told (in regards to) these juveniles, you have to file the case in adult court, which means the person is potentially looking at prison time in adult prison. Other cases, the law tells the district attorney you have the discretion to file this in adult court or to file it in juvenile court. This is one of those cases. The district attorney in this case filed it in adult court, meaning that Brandon is facing time in adult prison, potentially, if a jury ever decided that he had done what’s been alleged against him. What we’re saying today is the DA didn’t take seriously their obligation to weigh various factors in deciding whether to file in adult court or to file in juvenile court. It appears to us from what the representatives of the people have said to news outlets and other context, that as soon as they saw the facts of the alleged offense they decided the only thing we can do is file in adult court. Which means they didn’t take into account other factors that they should have taken into account.

Q: How do you see the difference of adult court versus juvi for Brandon?

WIPPERT: It’s a night and day difference. Not only the consequence(s), obviously. The maximum time he’d be looking at in juvenile prison would be until he’s twenty-five. And, obviously, he’s looking at the rest of his life in prison, in adult court. In addition, being housed in an adult prison is much different than being a child, going through with other youths in a youth prison… There’s rehabilitation. They give you schooling. They give you counseling. They give you therapy. They give you the things that you need to rehabilitate yourself. And we have to really remember that this is a child, and that these were children. And we are looking at these issues and this case as grownups, as adults. And when this event happened these were fourteen and fifteen-year-old kids. And their body mechanics and their way of thinking and their emotions, and everything else, are a lot different than what we have today. And it’s hard for adults to really recognize that. And I think it’s unfair for adults – they’re not his peers – there will be adults that will be on a jury that will decide his fate. They don’t let fourteen and fifteen year olds be on the jury. So it is up to us to explain to these adult jurors the issues that these children were dealing with, and it’s a scary premise. And in juvenile court you have a judge. And usually that judge primarily handles juvenile cases, so tends to have more empathy, has more understanding of the issues that children deal with.

Q: How is it that a child can be tried as an adult to begin with?

BRAMSON: That’s because of Prop 21, which was the proposition that the voters of the state of California voted into law back in 1999. It went into affect in March 2000… Which basically allows for them (Ventura County District Attorney) to do what they’re doing in this case. It says under certain circumstances the district attorney can file…a case involving a minor, fourteen years or older, in criminal court. And they can do so in the case of murder, and that’s what Brandon’s charged with. So that law actually lowered the age from sixteen years of age to fourteen years of age, in certain circumstances. So that’s where Brandon is affected by this, because he was just a couple weeks into his fourteenth year.

Q: And so what moves can you make to get him away from that destiny?

WIPPERT: …There is still a system in place (in juvenile court) that if a judge determines that he cannot be rehabilitated, cannot go back into society and not be a threat, the judge will make a determination. And then it will be shipped to adult court. But that judge will use many factors. Not only the age and the crime, but the severity of the crime, the environment of the occurrence the crime. Whether or not the person has a record. And there’s many other factors that that judge who deals primarily with juvenile cases will be able to take into account before that decision is made to file in adult court. And it’s really important for people to remember that the district attorney always refers to themselves as the People. The People. I’m one of those persons. And I’m one of those persons that voted for or against it, as we all are. The point is when that law was passed it was under the guise of gang enforcement. And these were the worst of the worse. And these are kids that obviously are not amenable to rehabilitation, then, why waste the court’s time? This is not a gang case… And I don’t think the voters contemplated this type of case being in this situation when we first voted for it. And, as the People, again, I think it’s a scary premise for us to allow that much power into the district attorney’s hands, and not a least have a judge have the ability to go say, What did you do? What did you consider in making this determination, which is what we’re asking.

SOLBERG: That’s what we were asking for today.

WIPPERT: If it was a factual determination. If it was a decision that was made based on certain factors, then what are those? Why hide that from us? There’s no reason to do that. The people who voted on this should have the comfort in knowing that we trust this district attorney to exercise it’s power and its authority. And why can’t we question whether or not you actually did?

BRAMSON: And, it’s not just us as his defense attorneys, in my opinion. This inquiry, this wanting to know, why did you make this decision in this case, it’s not just coming from us as his defense attorney’s but us as voters of the state of California. I think everybody is entitled to know what you’re doing with the power that we gave to you. They only have the ability to do this because we gave them this ability. And it’s like what’s going on right now with the federal government with all these bailouts. It’s, okay, if we give you this money, if we give you this power, what are you doing with it. You know, the government needs to be accountable for what it’s doing. This is our government, you know. And Brandon’s government.

SOLBERG: As far as the district attorney is concerned, there’s no oversight over how we make our decision. That’s what they said.

WIPPERT: And that’s scary… We will writ this. We will go the appellate court and say that this judge was wrong. What the DA is saying is that there is no further step beyond the district attorney. We said so, so therefore we win. We do what we want, and nobody is ever going to say that we did it improperly, because we will never give you the tools to determine whether or not we exercised discretion. Even judges have other judges review their findings. And the district attorney essentially said today that we are immune from any oversight whatsoever in this regard. And we disagree.

End of part one of two….

(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…

Exclusive interview with Brandon McInerney’s new attorney, Scott Wippert

The case got going full bore yesterday, with the judge ruling Brandon McInerney competent and mature enough to stand trial in adult court. New dates were set in the case and an important discovery motion will be argued on December 29th, with a prelim date set for January 26th of 2009. After court, I had the chance to speak a little with Brandon’s new attorneys, Scott Wippert of the United Defense Group, and Robyn Bramson.

 

Brandon’s new attorneys, Scott Wippert and Robyn Bramson, wear their game faces to court.

I liked very much what I heard. This was the first time the new lawyers have felt free to speak. Brandon’s former attorney, Ventura County Senior Public Defender William Quest, had expressed major concerns that Wippert and Bramson and the other attorneys that took over the case did so just for the purposes of media exposure. Yet, now that I’ve had the opportunity to speak with the new attorneys at some length, I believe this not to be the case, and, that the change may have been the best thing to happen to Brandon and his defense.

Read the interview below and see if you can read into the defense’s strategy. I have a feeling the December argument re the discovery motion will be critical to Brandon’s defense. What do you think?

Q: Now that the psychological evaluations are complete, where do you go from here?

A: …We looked at their (the doctors’) reports, and at this point, we move on. At this point, he is competent to stand trial based on Dr. Woods’report.

Q: Did Dr. Woods indicate to you at any point that Brandon has some mental issues?

A: Just because someone raises an issue of competency doesn’t always mean it relates to mental deficiencies. What we were most concerned about is his development or maturity. And that is a standard that a lot of people aren’t aware of. But we were concerned, both myself and Ms. Bramson, that he was in fact… We had concerns whether he is competent or not. Obviously, we’re not psychologists. So we wanted to make sure that somebody who knew more than we do evaluated him. Obviously, we looked at his report to make sure that in our mind that he did follow the legal standards and apply his knowledge in those regards as well. And, again, we’re comfortable with the outcome… Ethically, we had to do this. Any time an attorney has doubts as to whether or not his client is competent, whether it be, as was (the doubt) we had for Brandon, or, for, like you said, some could be mental capacities. But, ethically, lawyers, if they have a doubt, have to raise the doubt so that it can be determined whether or not they can receive a fair trial.

Q: To the average layman, this might seem to be an unusual motion to determine whether a defendant is too immature? There have been other cases like that?

A: Yes, exactly. It’s whether or not he is mature enough to understand what exactly is going on. Obviously, when you have a child in a courtroom like this – and the legality of everything – a lot of times children will just do what the grownups tell them to do, for the lack of a better term. And, yes, there are issues. And I think Dr. Woods actually came back, a few months ago, with I think a thirteen year old where he held him developmentally immature. Which meant he wasn’t competent. But it is something that most lawyers maybe are not aware of – or don’t see it as an issue.

Q: Mr. Wippert, is there a question as to whether Brandon can help his attorney in his defense?

A: I think Dr. Woods did evaluate him for that. I think he is a smart kid, and that doesn’t necessarily automatically mean that he’s mature enough to understand what’s going on. But I do believe that he is competent enough to help us in his defense. Now, obviously we are going to take our sweet time. And we’re going to make sure he understands everything. But I do believe that he is at a point where he can help us in his defense. I certainly don’t think he could to it on his own. Where, as some adults – they’re allowed to represent themselves. Certainly, he would never be able to do that at this point.

Q: How many hours did the psychologist and psychiatrist spend with Brandon?

A: At the top of my head I’m not sure. But they both did two separate visits and both of them were pretty thorough. So a couple hours. I know that some tests were conducted. And Ms. Bramson actually sat through both of them just to be a fly on the wall. But Dr. Woods’ evaluation was very thorough and addressed all of our concerns.

Q: Are you satisfied with their conclusions?

A: Yes, I’m satisfied with Dr. Woods’ conclusions, because he did a proper analysis. And he evaluated him properly, according to the standards. And what we pointed out were our concerns. He took notice. And he evaluated him accordingly. So, yeah, I’m very pleased Dr. Woods did that.

Q: Was there something you weren’t satisfied with on the other reports?

A: I would just say that Dr. Thurston’s report wasn’t as thorough as Dr. Woods’.

Q: But they both reached the same conclusion?

A: They both reached the same conclusion. And I won’t get into any detail of those reports, because they are confidential. But, the ultimate issue is whether he is competent or not. And by us submitting on the reports to the court, and, specifically, on Dr. Woods’ report, then the issue is moot at this point.

Q: Can we go back to the relationship you had with Brandon’s previous attorney, the Public Defender’s office. Were you able to resolve everything with that office?

A: There are still some issues. We’re trying to iron out a few things. I don’t want to get into too much detail at this point. But, we’re still trying to comb through all of the discovery and investigation that we have gotten from both the DA and from the Public Defender’s office to make sure we have everything. But, needless to say, the Public Defender’s office wasn’t as forthcoming as we would have liked. But, at this point, we need to make sure that before we make any statements in that regard that we thoroughly examine everything we have to make sure that we do have everything. And, if necessary, we will go back. But I do expect them to fully comply with the law and their ethical obligations and manage to give us every part of the file that they have created for Brandon.

Q: Mr. Quest had expressed concerns previously regarding discovery that there were, amongst other things, reports regarding a Simi Valley Police officer regarding the hate crime allegation. Can you elaborate on that?

A: I’m not sure we will take on that issue at the early stage of prelim. I don’t know that I necessarily have the same opinion in that regard with Mr. Quest. The discovery motion that we filed today specifically requests many internal documents of the District Attorney’s office relating to their direct filing practices. When Prop 21 was passed it stated that they may in fact prosecute some children in adult court. We want to know…what they did to determine whether or not they should file this case in adult court. And what we’re looking for is whatever internal standards and guidelines they have that they used to determine: Is this a kid that I should prosecute as an adult, or leave in the juvenile court system? And we are also seeking any internal memorandum or emails or any summary of statements or conversations that they had specifically about Brandon’s case. And the issue of whether or not they should decide to file it in adult court or in juvenile court, because some of the statements they made to the media have indicated that it was just based on the severity of the crime. Which means, on its face, that there are some questions as to whether or not they really did exercise any discretion at all. As opposed to just saying that there was a child who was shot in the head and it was a very serious crime. And it may be hate related so therefore that’s the only analysis. So I don’t believe that from what information we have that they did in fact exercise any discretion. And, hopefully, they did. But all we’re looking for is the internal information that they have. The guidelines that they used in determining all (juvi) cases that they want to go ahead and file in adult court.

Thank you Mr. Wippert…

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.