Arguments heard in Leal homicide case

By ERIC LINDBERG — Dec. 10, 2009

With no testimony left to be heard during a preliminary hearing into the stabbing death of a 22-year-old Santa Barbara man in February, defense attorneys sought to have the charges against their clients either reduced or dropped altogether while the prosecution urged the judge to order all six defendants to stand trial.

Judge Frank Ochoa is expected to rule tomorrow on what charges, if any, the defendants will face during a jury trial.

Jonathon Alonzo, 21; Liliana Arrayga, 19; Andrew Baldarez, 36; Michelle Flores-Murillo, 30; Imelda Guevarra, 30; and David Martinez, 22, are charged with murder, conspiracy, assault with a deadly weapon and gang enhancements.

They are suspected of conspiring to assault Baldemar Leal, the 22-year-old found stabbed to death in the 400 block of De la Vina Street on February 22. Authorities believe the six defendants sought to retaliate against Leal after he allegedly attempted to rape Guevarra.

During several days of testimony in the hearing, police officials said Baldarez admitted to stabbing the victim during a police interview.

Prosecutor Hilary Dozer, a senior deputy district attorney, said the fact that Leal was stabbed a total of nine times shows intent to kill — a necessary finding for the special allegation against Baldarez of murder by lying in wait.

“Nine wounds on the victim in this case shows he was not intending to inflict some small, minor injury,” Dozer said. “…He intended to kill. He intended to kill Mr. Leal.”

In contrast, defense attorney Michael Carty argued there is no evidence to show that Balderaz planned to kill the victim. The defendant reportedly told police officials he “snapped” during the assault and pulled out a knife he typically carries for protection.

“That does not show premeditation, a decision to kill before the act that caused death,” Carty said.

If convicted of first-degree murder and the special allegation, Baldarez would face life in prison without parole or the death penalty, Dozer said.

The prosecutor turned his attention to the other defendants charged in the homicide case — noting that Alonzo and Martinez allegedly participated in the assault, while the three women reportedly planned the attack and traveled to the scene of the crime.

He said Arrayga and Flores-Murillo both participated as Guevarra discussed plans to attack Leal. He said Flores-Murillo — who was reportedly in a dating relationship with the victim at some point — lured the 22-year-old to the scene of the assault.

“That spiderweb of conspiracy allows for liability even for unforeseen results of that conspiracy,” Dozer said.

The prosecutor also sought to bolster the gang enhancement charges by arguing that all six defendants were acting in association with the Westside gang during the alleged assault.

Two defendants — Alonzo and Baldarez — have reportedly admitted to law enforcement officials during prior contacts that they were members of the gang, and Dozer argued that the remaining four defendants were gang associates or actively participating in the gang as a result of their actions during the homicide.

“There are indications throughout this case that they have gang associations,” he said.

But defense attorneys attacked that contention and railed against other points in Dozer’s argument against their clients.

Joseph Gerbac, representing Arrayga, argued that evidence presented during the hearing is not sufficient to charge his client with any crime. He said she was only present as Guevarra and Flores-Murillo allegedly discussed attacking Leal and did not participate in the conversation, even leaving from time to time to get food or napkins.

“I think the evidence is clear my client was not involved in any conspiracy,” he said, adding later, “The plan that was being developed didn’t involve her.”

Dozer later rebutted that argument, noting that Arrayga was apparently aware of the plans to assault Leal and still decided to accompany the assailants to the scene of the crime.

Alonzo’s attorney, Doug Hayes, focused on the gang enhancement charged against the 21-year-old. He said the special circumstance cannot be based solely on the fact that a person is a gang member and participated in a crime.

“One witness says he might have seen [Alonzo] throw a punch, but that’s about as far as it gets,” he said.

The defendant reportedly told police at one point that he was at the scene of the fight but did not participate in the attack.

Hayes also challenged a gang expert that testified as part of the prosecution’s case, arguing that the detective couldn’t name very many Westside gang members and didn’t speak Spanish.

“I don’t see that the expertise was there,” he said. “…It was not a gang case.”

William Duvall, counsel for Flores-Murillo, also attacked the testimony of the gang expert, Det. Michael Brown. He said the detective relied on sketchy evidence when linking his client to the gang, including an old tattoo, old photos, and the fact that she was born on the Westside and knew gang associates.

He also said there is no evidence Flores-Murillo knew Alonzo or Baldarez prior to the stabbing.

“The evidence is abundantly clear she had no idea anyone was going to go over there and commit a murder,” Duvall said. “…She thought Mr. Leal was going to be taught a lesson for attempting to rape Ms. Guevarra.”

Martinez’ attorney, Steve Balash, had a simple argument for why his client shouldn’t be tried before a jury, saying, “The only evidence against my client is hearsay that would not be admissible during a trial.”

Finally, Public Defender Rachel Solomon argued against the gang enhancement charged against her client, Guevarra, and the other defendants.

She said Guevarra had no prior record or contacts with police, and said police officials were attempting to link her client with Westside gang members or associates using insufficient evidence.

“I’m concerned there’s an attempt at bootstrapping,” Solomon said.

Her client only had nominal or passive contacts with the gang, she said, and there is nothing to suggest that her dispute with Leal was gang-related.

“They went out to vindicate her or make sure she wasn’t disrespected,” the public defender argued. “This is more indicative of friends than gangs.”

As arguments drew to a close, Ochoa asked for an additional day to consider testimony and evidence. He is expected to announce his decision on a possible jury trial tomorrow morning.

Comment on this article

Subject:

Body:

Poster:

Enter text seen above:

: 12/10/2009

“They went out to vindicate her or make sure she wasn’t disrespected,” the public defender argued. Sorry, but this is gang behavior!

---

lawyers : 12/10/2009

HAYES, DUVALL, BALISCH....good attorneys for a bunch of Latins.

---

: 12/11/2009

Doesn't necessarily mean gang behavior...It just means that if someone tries to rape you, you feel angry inside and you wish this person was repentful for what they tried doing to you..I think in many cases woman that are abused in any way have to live with that anger inside and maybe she was just so upset a beating would make her feel a little comfort! At no point did it state this woman wanted him dead she just wanted him to get his a** beat for what he attempted to do..I think we can all comprehend this statement..

---