Judge dismisses murder case, DA to refile charges

BY COLBY FRAZIER
DAILY SOUND STAFF WRITER

After nearly a year of court proceedings and one of the longest preliminary hearings in Santa Barbara County history, a Superior Court judge ruled yesterday that a murder case involving a 14-year-old Santa Barbara boy be dismissed.
Judge Frank Ochoa said the gravity of the case is such that the District Attorney’s office erred when it filed a charging document seven days later than is mandated by law and as a result, the case should be thrown out.


“There was no good cause shown for the late filing,” Ochoa said. “The motion to dismiss is therefore granted.”
Since March 14, 2007, Ricardo Juarez has been locked in juvenile hall charged with murdering 15-year-old Luis Angel Linares in a downtown gang brawl on that same day.
After a 12-day preliminary hearing in August, Judge Brian Hill ordered Juarez to stand trial.
But Deputy Public Defender Karen Atkins, legal counsel for Juarez, filed a motion to dismiss Hill’s ruling, saying she believed the judge and the District Attorney made a number of errors. One of these errors was the late filing of the charging document, which must be filed within 15 days of the conclusion of the preliminary hearing. Senior Deputy District Attorney Hilary Dozer said the document was filed 22 days after the hearing concluded.
Atkins said she was pleased with Ochoa’s ruling, but hoped the District Attorney would reconsider its decision to try Juarez as an adult.
Atkins’ co counsel, Jennifer Archer, said she also hoped the District Attorney would change its tone in regards to the charges.
“In a turn of fate sort of way it gives them a chance to reconsider,” Archer said after the ruling. “It’s time to step back and take a look at that and how it’s serving our community so far to have charged him as an adult.”
But three hours after Ochoa’s ruling, Dozer said Juarez had been re-arrested and he plans to personally file an identical list of charges against the boy today in Superior Court.
“Our view of the evidence now is the same before the first preliminary hearing,” Dozer said. “The District Attorney’s Office will file the exact same charges as we did before once again, charging Ricardo Juarez as an adult with the murder of Luis Linares.”
Dozer said the charge will continue to carry a gang enhancement, which is pivotal in order to try a 14-year-old as an adult.
Attempts to reach Atkins last night for comment on Juarez’s re-arrest were not immediately successful.
While Ochoa hinged his decision on the technicality of the charging document, the brunt of Atkins’ motion to dismiss the findings of the preliminary hearing focused on Juarez’s constitutional rights that she believed were breached when Hill viewed a videotaped interrogation of the boy outside of court. Atkins said this alone was grounds for a new preliminary hearing; as was the judge’s decision to deny her an opportunity to cross-examine the officer who conducted the interrogation.
When yesterday’s hearing got under way, Atkins began to restate her arguments about the way Hill conducted the preliminary hearing. As she was making her way through these points, Ochoa peered above his glasses and reminded her that he had heard them before.
Atkins told Ochoa she was tying to get a feel for the way he would rule when he said, “If you end you’ll find out.”
While reading his ruling, Ochoa declined to comment on any of Atkins’ constitutional arguments, which all accused Hill of wrongdoing. He instead read from the penal code, which states the charging document must be filed within 15 days of the preliminary hearing’s conclusion, or the findings of that hearing can be dismissed.
Dozer said the 15-day rule exists to ensure the speedy trial rights of a defendant are upheld. Until 1998, Dozer said a defendant had a right to trial within 60 days after the conclusion of a preliminary hearing. When this was the case, he said it was important to file the charging document within 15 days.
But now, Dozer said the 60-day timeline doesn’t begin until after the second arraignment, which often occurs more than 15 days after the end of the preliminary hearing. Therefore, Dozer said, the 15-day rule in the case of Juarez did not impact the boy’s right to a speedy trial.
Dozer said the document was filed on the same day as the arraignment, which was 22 days after the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, not 15.
When asked how the District Attorney’s Office could overlook the 15-day rule in the face of the case’s dismissal, Dozer said it was a mistake, plain and simple.
“The typical [charging document] in the DA’s office is filed within 15 days,” Dozer said. “That’s a system that most of the time works flawlessly. In this particular instance it did not work flawlessly, in fact it was flawed, causing the information to be filed within 22 days.”
Dozer said he usually isn't the person who files the charging document and there’s no point accusing anyone of wrongdoing now.
“Ultimately it is my case and I don’t think there’s any profit in talking about how it may gave happened or why it may have happened,” he said. “The bottom line is it didn’t happen [within 15 days].”
Dozer’s assessment of the 15-day rule is slightly different than Archer’s.
She said regardless of when the 60 days begins, it is important to have the charging document in a timely manner so defense counsel can prepare the case for trial. Archer noted that the expeditious manner in which a charging document is filed is compounded when the defendant is in custody.
“When you have somebody in custody they have to file on time,” she said.
Dozer said he plans to have another preliminary hearing as soon as possible. When asked if he would consider convening a grand jury, he said that decision would be determined by the timeliness of a new preliminary hearing.
If the District Attorney takes the grand jury route, it would be done outside the presence of Atkins, Juarez and the public.
Dozer indicated that he would likely do this only if Atkins requests a significant amount of time to prepare for the new preliminary hearing.
“I think that decision has to be based to some extent on how expeditiously the defense asks the case to proceed,” he said.
Dozer said he is in favor of having another public preliminary hearing.
“I think there’s a certain amount of benefit to allow a case that’s of public concern to be heard by the public,” he said. “It tends to effect kids and how they perceive gang violence. I think it makes some kids think twice about being involved in gangs.”
Atkins said its been her intention all along to move through this as quickly as possible, but the errors that occurred during the preliminary hearing required her to file her motion for dismissal.
“When I first got this case it was my intent to get it moving as quickly as we could,” she said.
When asked how Juarez’s parents handled Ochoa’s ruling, Atkins said they both broke out in tears and noted that their boy turns 15 tomorrow.
“They don’t know what to expect,” Archer said. “It’s been a roller coaster year for them.”