- Elizabeth Larson
- Posted On
Man convicted of 1980 murder ruled competent in retrospective competency hearing
Retired Alameda County Superior Court Judge William McKinstry said that he found that Jerry Stanley, 66, was competent during the 1983 trial in Butte County.
Stanley and his attorney, Jack Leavitt, appeared via video conference from San Quentin State Prison, where Stanley has been housed on death row since February 1984.
The case now goes back to the federal courts, where appeals on the case have gone on for years, despite Stanley's sometimes contradicting claims that he actually wants to be executed.
In August of 1980 Stanley – who had worked as a hunting guide – used a high-powered rifle to shoot his wife, Cynthia Ann Rogers, from across Highway 20 as she was at her father's resort in Nice.
Five years earlier he had murdered his first wife, Kathleen Rhiley, and was linked to the disappearance on Feb. 14, 1980, of his second wife, Diana Lynn Ramel in Manton, in northern Tehama County.
The retrospective competency hearing in Stanley's case resulted from a March 2008 decision by federal Judge Frank C. Damrell, who ruled that because of juror misconduct in the penalty phase of Stanley's trial – during which his competency was considered – the retrospective hearing was necessary.
After Damrell's decision, the case went back to Butte County – where it was moved due to pretrial publicity – but earlier this year it was ruled that the matter could come back to Lake.
On Sept. 7 McKinstry had presided in a hearing in the case, during which Stanley – also appearing at that time by video conference – told the court he deserved to die for killing his wife.
At that appearance, both Stanley and Leavitt explained that Stanley's competency had been raised by his original defense team after he had objected to their desire to call his family members as witnesses.
Stanley, in turn, tried to stop the testimony of Dr. Allen Axelrad, and his attorneys questioned his competency. However, Leavitt said Stanley eventually allowed Axelrad's testimony to go forward.
Stanley's federal defenders – against his wishes, according to him and Leavitt – raised concerns about a female juror in the penalty phase who had been a domestic violence victim and had not informed the court of that fact. Yet Stanley testified that he and his original defense team were aware of the issue, and that he wanted to keep her on the jury anyway.
During the half-hour hearing Friday morning, Stanley waived his right to a jury trial in the matter under questioning by McKinstry, who indicated he had read numerous transcripts from both the original 1983 trial and more recent proceedings in Butte County.
The judge said the attorneys could argue if Stanley was mentally competent. District Attorney Don Anderson asked McKinstry for his intended decision.
“I'm inclined to find Mr. Stanley competent,” unless counsel wanted to point out something he hadn't considered, McKinstry said.
Anderson waived his right to offer arguments. Leavitt asked McKinstry to consider that in his Sept. 7 appearance Stanley had testified under oath that he was convinced that he was competent at the time of his original trial.
He also pointed out, “The only alleged basis for Mr. Stanley's incompetency was his early refusal to waive a privilege he had in being able to bar Dr. Axelrad from testifying,” with Stanley later allowing the testimony.
“The focus of these entire proceedings seems to be clouded,” said Leavitt. “They never should have taken place.”
Leavitt argued that all of the issues at the heart of the proceedings were cured in 1984. “On that basis we feel there should be no question of the competency findings and the lack of a need for a competency finding because the issue was moot.”
Leavitt asked McKinstry to request that the federal court investigate the allegations that the competency motion was made against Stanley's wishes, and that the federal defense team withheld the information that Stanley's original trial defense team knew of the female juror's background.
“We consider that Mr. Stanley was misrepresented deliberately and that an investigation is worthwhile,” said Leavitt.
Leavitt further requested that McKinstry ask the State Bar of California to take action on Butte County attorney Dennis Hoptowit's failure to provide Stanley's file in connection with recent Butte County appearances to Leavitt as ordered by the court.
“Other than that, Mr. Stanley and I concur in your tentative ruling” that he was competent, Leavitt said.
Leavitt asked Stanley if he agreed with McKinstry's finding that he was competent. “I absolutely agree,” Stanley said.
McKinstry said he found Stanley's testimony credible. He ruled that Stanley was competent during the original proceedings, and that he understood the nature and purpose of the original trial.
As to Leavitt's request that McKinstry make certain recommendations and findings regarding a federal investigation, McKinstry noted, “I believe that my jurisdiction in this matter is quite narrow.”
He said the federal court was exercising its habeas corpus powers when it ordered the retrospective hearing. If there was to be further review of that process, it would need to be at the federal level.
McKinstry said he would consider the matter of asking the state bar to look into the Hoptowit issue.
He executed a competency determination document and adjourned the hearing.
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 .