Appeal claims lack of due process for Oyler

Editor’s Note: in our Feb. 27 edition, we reported on the status of Raymond Lee Oyler’s appeals of his March 2009 arson and murder convictions. He was found guilty of arson, igniting the Esperanza Fire in October 2006. The jury also found him guilty of the murder of five U,S. Forest Service firefighters who died battling the Esperanza Fire. Oyler’s jury imposed the death sentence. All of the convictions and the death penalty were upheld in June 2009.

This story further elaborates on the issues which Oyler is appealing. These all occurred following his arrest in October 2006 and the confirmation of the jury’s decision in June 2009. These are not the issues raised in the habeas corpus appeal, which would address evidentiary issues not occurring in the trial.

Michael Clough, Oyler’s appellant attorney, began his 464-page appeal with the issue of Oyler’s right to an appointed attorney. This right to legal representation was established nearly a century ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Powell v. Alabama in 1932. The State Supreme Court has issued decisions also establishing this right to counsel.

To protect and to enhance this constitutional guarantee, both the State Legislature and the Judicial Council have established a comprehensive set of statutes and Rules of the Court. In California, these rules allow the court to appoint a second counsel for capital defendants.

At Oyler’s initial arraignment, attorney Mark McDonald accompanied him to court. In June 2007, McDonald told the court Oyler was an indigent and his family’s resources were exhausted in defending him. McDonald asked the Court to appoint a second attorney, which occurred in April 2008 with the appointment of Thomas Eckhardt.

Before then, in October, Michael Hestrin, the Riverside County prosecutor, asked the court to assess McDonald’s qualifications to handle a capital case.

Clough stressed that Hestrin was not questioning McDonald’s qualifications, only whether Oyler was fully informed about his attorney’s experience.

Nevertheless, Clough pressed the issue of whether Oyler had adequate and sufficient representation given the seriousness of the charges filed against him.

The second issue, which Clough raised, was whether Oyler’s right to a fair trial was abrogated when the judge refused a request to change the venue (where the trial would occur) from Riverside County.

The request was filed in August 2008 and McDonald argued that the extensive media coverage of the fire and the concomitant deaths had been extensive. Further, a public memorial, statement from public officials, headlines and constant coverage over time, continued to put the fire and the defendant in the news and before prospective jurors. This negated the defense’s ability to find fair and impartial jurors in Riverside County, McDonald claimed.

While a media analyst, whom McDonald had hired, argued that many, many prospective jurors were aware of the fire and the trial, Judge W. Charles Morgan, the second judge assigned to the trial, denied the motion to change the venue at a November 2008 hearing.

“I bet we can find easily, from these statistics, a jury that doesn’t even know Esperanza and the death of persons,” he opined. “They won’t even be able to make the connection of the specific fire, let alone the client.”

A third critical issue that Clough raises is whether Hestrin actually had sufficient evidence to charge Oyler with starting all 23 fires. There was evidence that Oyler was responsible for three fires, and his defense team conceded that during their closing argument.

However, no direct evidence of Oyler’s presence at the Esperanza Fire site has been presented. Thus, Clough challenged Hestrin’s theory and allegation that all of the Banning fires were started by one arsonist.

Years later, Ed Nordskog, an arson/bomb investigator with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, opined that there were at least two serial arsonists operating in the Banning area during the 2006 and 2007 when the 23 fires were ignited.

Clough raises six other trial issues, besides these three. Several of which have subordinate issues. The appeal document was 464 pages long.

In his conclusion, Clough argued that while it may be true that none of the issues which he raises are sufficient singularly to overturn the verdicts; the cumulative effect of so many issues should result in a reversal. Consequently, Oyler was denied his due process of a fair trial.

“They undermine confidence in the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the resulting death verdict,” Clough wrote. He then cites cases where it is the cumulative affect of court and trial actions that caused a reversal and not a single action.