Suspect's violent life Father imprisoned for killing neighbor, gang may have murdered brother

SF Chronicle ^ | 7-20-02 | Tina Dimamman, Monte Morin

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Stanton, Orange County -- The manhunt that would soon snare him was well under way earlier this week when Alejandro Avila talked with his mother, Adelina, about the murder of Samantha Runnion.

Whoever sexually assaulted and killed the little girl should hang, the mother told her son.

[Mrs. P]

Do they have the death penalty in California? If not, I will take comfort in knowing that most child molesters/rapists find out in prison what their victims suffered.

[11th Earl of Mar]

[sniff, sniff] Maybe six months in therapy is what is needed for this obviously disfunctional person. Does somebody have a kleenex?

[CatoRenasci]

Death is too good for this scum. He should live out his days in a cage, like the animal he is. He should be given to the nastiest prison rapist to be found in the California system after having his voice box surgically removed so that his cries won't disturb the other prisoners.

[Mamzelle]

Wonder about the lawyer who got Avila off two years ago...

[Oldeconomybuyer]

This article telegraphs what will likely be the defense for this vermin - he is the victim of a dysfunctional family and the root cause of his crime is an abusive home enviornment. The phychobabble from his lawyers will be deafening.

[just me]

Avila's exposure to violence is the sort of background often seen in sexual offenders, experts said. "This hints at the kind of environment where normal social controls were not well developed," said Florida psychologist James Hord.

A lot of people have had troubled lives, and they do not go out and slaughter little girls.
Any one who defends this creeps actions needs help.

[cookiedough]

The defendant has a constitutional right to representation by counsel. The attorney is required by law and by ethical rules to be the defendant's advocate.

This has nothing to do with whether the attorney personally believes the defendant's story or personally champions the cause of the defendant.

The jury decides the facts of each case. It is up to it to determine the credibility of all witnesses and other evidence, and to decide what actually happened.

The jury decides whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty, based on the evidence presented by both sides and on the laws it is instructed to apply by the judge.

Sometimes juries make mistakes.

The judge decides what the sentence will be. Sometimes judges make mistakes.

The defense attorney presents a defense and introduces only the evidence s/he is legally permitted to introduce (the prosecutor objects otherwise, and if the evidence is not allowed, the judge sustains the objection).

Laws are made by the government, LE upholds the laws, judges interpret them, and juries apply them to specific cases. Laws have "elements", all of which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury's satisfaction, before a defendant can be convicted.

That's the way the system works. It is not a perfect system. The defendant's attorney is only one part of it -- the prosecutor, the witnesses, the evidence, the jury, and the judge have a lot more to do with the outcome of a case than the defense attorney does.

Personally, I would refuse to take this case, even though in my state it is unethical for me to do so -- not that I have the option! :-) Someone has to take it though, and his/her job is to be a zealous advocate for his client.

[cookiedough]

I think that if the forensic evidence hangs the defendant, either the defendant will plead guilty or the defense will have to play the mental illness or insanity cards. That's defense attorney's job - to make the government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the forensic evidence proves the defendant did this crime, I have no doubt the jury will convict him, regardless of what his defense is.

The defense attorney has to find some way to defend his/her client -- playing the mental illness or defect card, or the insanity card is sometimes the only defense an attorney can come up with. Most criminals are mentally ill, so it's not a stretch to come up with that one -- as long as funds are available for mental evaluation.

FWIW, the insanity defense is rarely successful, and when it is, the defendant usually spends the rest of his life in a mental institution.

[cookiedough]

I would not defend him, not in a million years. But someone will have to, and they will have to do their job. In return, they will get lots of press coverage, which is free advertising. Expect lots of grandstanding for the press.

Because of this, I bet there will be lots of private attorneys lined up to take the case, instead of leaving it to the public defender's office.

Yuck. The last thing I'd want to have my fifteen minutes of fame for is being this defendant's attorney.

[pabianice]

Ah, yes; I think we have another victim here...

[Mamzelle]

Sometimes judges make mistakes.))))

Isn't it convenient, then, that such legal personnel suffer no liability for their misjudgements, for their zealous efforts to acquit Avila so that he can nab Sammantha...? I wonder if the victorious defense atty put down Avila on his resume of successes when advertising for clients, or enjoyed that little ego thrill when the verdict came in.

All humans are subject for error, but some are also subject to lawsuits for those errors. I'd just like a few officers of the court to enjoy such experiences once in a while.

[dennisw]

Alejandro Avila was 17 when his father went to prison. His sister, Elvira, said her mother would take the three girls to visit their father at Chino and Lancaster state prisons, where he did time. The three boys, however, would rarely go.

Even after the elder Avila was released in December 2000 and put on a bus to Tijuana, Mexico, where he still lives and runs a restaurant, contact with his sons -- particularly Alejandro -- was rare, his sister said.

----> Hmmmmm... Was his father deported since he was illegal alien???

[Search4Truth]

Cry me a river.

[Gritty]

the elder Avila was released in December 2000 and put on a bus to Tijuana, Mexico

----> Hmmmmm... Was his father deported since he was illegal alien???

It would certainly appear to be the case. Nobody in the press seems to want to address this.

[jiggyboy]

It's a, not exactly "a refreshing change", let's say "a relief", that in this part of the reporters' drill, the part where they dig up old girlfriends, roommates, neighbors, et al, we are hearing "he was a GD SOB!" instead of the usual "gosh, he always seemed like such a nice guy...never suspected he could be accused of something like this..."

Let's hope the next part of the routine, the part where they try to "humanize" him with his baby pictures with the family puppy at Christmastime, is postponed for lack of interest.

[Amerigomag]

Just another fine, second generation, immigrant family living the American dream in California.

[cookiedough]

Our judicial system is an adversarial one. The criminal defendant has a federal constitutional right to counsel -- counsel who is a zealous advocate for the defendant. Someone needs to make sure the government proves its case -- otherwise why have a court system -- just incarcerate or shoot everyone who is arrested.

Hard cases, like this one, make it difficult to understand. I can assure you it will be nigh unto impossible to get Avila off the hook for his crime if the government has enough evidence to nail him.

Sometimes innocent people are acquitted -- they would not be if they did not have a defense attorney. There are lots of people who think a defendant is guilty simply because s/he has been arrested, among various other reasons.

Sometimes guilty people are acquitted -- usually because the government didn't have enough evidence to convince the jury to convict them. Evidence is not always as readily available as it seems to be in the Runnion case.

[cookiedough]

I have had a judge make a mistake with one of my clients. The government did not prove an element of the crime -- and in fact, my client was factually innocent. I went to the trial judge, as is procedure in my state, and the judge told me he knew he had made a mistake and he didn't care, because my client had done something wrong and deserved to be in jail for it. Problem was, my client had already served his time for what he actually did -- and was now serving additional time (a mandatory sentence) for what he did not do.

The judge's mistake was reversed on appeal.

[cookiedough]

P.S. I know my client was factually innocent because I investigated it and proved it beyond *all* doubt. It was one of those unusual matters where something either is true or it isn't -- a black and white issue.