LAKEPORT, Calif. – A man convicted of the 1980 murder of his wife made a court appearance via video conference Wednesday as part of the proceedings to retroactively determine if he was mentally competent during his trial decades ago.

Gerald Stanley, accompanied by his attorney Jack Leavitt, made the appearance from San Quentin State Prison during the hearing in Lakeport in which retired Alameda County Superior Court Judge William McKinstry presided.

Stanley, now in his late 60s, has been on San Quentin's death row since February 1984, when he was sentenced to death for the August 1980 death of Cynthia Ann Rogers, who he shot with a high-powered hunting rifle while she was at her father's resort in Nice. Stanley then fled, leading to the largest manhunt in the county's history.

His case took an unusual turn in March 2008, when his case was sent back to the trial court by federal Judge Frank C. Damrell.

Because a female juror who had been a domestic violence victim didn't disclose her situation to the court, Damrell ruled there had been juror misconduct during the trial's death penalty phase, as Lake County News has reported.

Stanley has stated previously, and repeated again on Wednesday, that he and his defense team – which included attorneys William Neill and Richard Petersen – were aware of the juror's background but had wanted to keep her on the panel.

Both Stanley and Leavitt have insisted that he was competent and that he should be executed, according to his sentence.

Because of pretrial publicity, the trial was held in Butte County. Following Damrell's 2008 ruling, the initial hearings to explore retroactive competency were held there. Then, earlier this year, Butte County Superior Court Judge Gerald Hermansen ruled that the case could return to Lake County.

The Wednesday morning hearing, which ran just under an hour, was delayed by technical difficulties, which persisted during the proceedings. The court clerk frequently needed to have statements by both Leavitt and Stanley repeated due to sound quality. A court information technology staffer was on hand to work on fixing the bugs in the system.

A large television on a rolling stand sat facing McKinstry on the bench, with District Attorney Don Anderson sitting on the witness stand to McKinstry's left.

The hearing began with Anderson reading a list of stipulations to which he and Leavitt agreed, including the entry into the record of testimony from law enforcement, psychologists and psychiatrists, and attorneys from the trial that stretched from 1983 into 1984, as well as from 2010 and earlier this year.

McKinstry said he needed to have the court clerk locate the transcripts so he could read them and then discuss them at a future hearing. He suggested that Stanley's testimony should wait until after he had read the transcripts.

Leavitt, however, asked that Stanley be allowed to give his testimony Wednesday morning.

“That might ease your burden on reading these other materials,” Leavitt said.

Leavitt also offered McKinstry some additional “framework” on the case.

He explained that Stanley, at the request of his original defense attorneys, had given interviews to Dr. Allen Axelrad. The trial defense team had no issues with Stanley's competency during the trial until the penalty phase, when they disagreed with Stanley about who should be called as witnesses, Leavitt said.

Stanley's defense team wanted to call members of his family to the stand, which he didn't want. The issue escalated to the point where Leavitt said Stanley invoked his privilege to prevent his interview with Axelrad to be introduced as evidence.

It was that that point that the defense team said they would have Stanley declared incompetent, Leavitt said. “They raised the issue of Mr. Stanley's competency only because Mr. Stanley would not waive his privilege as to Dr. Axelrad's testimony.”

Leavitt said Stanley ultimately was found competent during the original trial based on the evidence. Stanley would end up allowing Axelrad to testify in the case.

Years later, Stanley's federal defense team – which includes Tivon Schardl, Joseph Schlesinger and Florida attorney Mark Olive – found out about the issue with the female juror, at which time Stanley informed him that he had known about it and wanted her to serve anyway, according to Leavitt.

“The federal defenders concealed that information,” Leavitt alleged.

Leavitt said Stanley wanted to make clear to the court that he considered the failure of the federal defense team to disclose his knowledge of the juror as fraudulent. “As far as Mr. Stanley was concerned the evidence about his competency was properly presented and properly ruled upon.”

He added, “Even if you were troubled by aspects of testimony you should recognize that the entire competency issue was rendered moot by Dr. Axelrad's actual testimony during the penalty phase of this trial.”

Stanley testifies; says he wants death penalty

McKinstry allowed Stanley to offer testimony. After he was administered the oath, Stanley answered a series of questions from Leavitt in which he confirmed that he had understood the nature of the proceedings against him nearly 30 years ago, as well as those taking place now.

Leavitt's questioning followed along the lines of the information he already had shared with the court, with Stanley explaining that he had been very upset with his defense team for trying to call his family members as witnesses, which led to his attempt to stop Axelrad's testimony.

He said he had agreed with the findings of the jury in his original competency hearing, which found him sane.

Stanley testified that he had objected to the motion about his competency brought in his name by the federal defense team. He said he had written twice to a magistrate judge to try to stop it.

Anderson, who was a sheriff's deputy at the time of the shooting and participated in the manhunt, asked Stanley about his trial and if he understood that he had been tried for Rogers' murder, which he confirmed.

Stanley stated that his original defense attorneys were hoping he would get life without the possibility of parole instead of the death penalty. “I disagreed with trying to get me life when I deserved the death penalty,” he said.

Anderson asked him if he was asking for the death penalty at his 1983 trial, and Stanley said yes. When Anderson asked why, Stanley responded, “Because I deserved that punishment.”

He said he advised his attorneys that he wanted the death penalty, which he said they declined to pursue. After they, he said he and attorneys had no further relationship.

When his defense team disclosed to him the information about the female juror, Stanley said, “I wanted to keep her and I believe Bill (Neill) agreed with that,” adding that another defense team member had said it was a “good appeal issue.” When Anderson asked why he wanted to keep the woman on the jury, Stanley said, “I liked her very much.”

Stanley said he believes he is fully competent today, and he understood all of the proceedings. He denied having any mental disorders either during his original trial or now.

During testimony he said that Schardl, Schlesinger and Olive have all ceased contact with him. He also alleged that the federal defense team prevented him from participating in federal motion hearings on his competency.

Stanley and Leavitt agreed to have Anderson read into the record a statement from a court transcript attributed to Judge Hermansen, who said that he had the opportunity during his handling of the case to communicate with Stanley both in writing and in person, and at no time had any concerns about his sanity.

“I think he is rational and he is sane,” Hermansen had stated during earlier proceedings.

Leavitt also stated during the hearing that Dennis Hoptowit, who had been appointed to represent Stanley during the time the case was sent back to Butte County, has failed to send Leavitt Stanley's records in the case despite requests for the information. Leavitt said he has referred the matter to the California State Bar.

Contacted on Wednesday and asked for comment on Stanley's and Leavitt's allegations against the federal defense team, Schlesinger told Lake County News, “We don't have any comment on that.”

The case will return to court at 8:15 a.m. Friday, Sept. 30, at which time Anderson and Leavitt will offer their arguments as to whether or not Stanley can be declared competent retroactively. Both Anderson and Leavitt have told Lake County News in previous interviewed that they believe Stanley can be found competent.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews.