Darrell Keith Rich

b2ux

Banned
Darrell Keith Rich



A.K.A.: "Young Elk" - "Hilltop Rapist"

Classification: Serial killer
Characteristics: Rape
Number of victims: 4
Date of murders: June-August 1978
Date of arrest: August 23, 1978
Date of birth: February 14, 1955
Victims profile: Annette Fay Edwards, 19 / Linda Diane Slavik, 26 / Patricia Ann Moore, 17 / Annette Lynn Selix, 11
Method of murder: Beating with a rock / Shooting
Location: Shasta County, California, USA
Status: Executed by lethal injection in California on March 15, 2000



Murderpedia






Juan Ignacio Blanco



home


last updates


MALE murderers


by country
by name A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


FEMALE murderers


by country
by name A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Darrell Keith RICH
















A.K.A.: "Young Elk" - "Hilltop Rapist"

Classification: Serial killer
Characteristics: Rape
Number of victims: 4
Date of murders: June-August 1978
Date of arrest: August 23, 1978
Date of birth: February 14, 1955
Victims profile: Annette Fay Edwards, 19 / Linda Diane Slavik, 26 / Patricia Ann Moore, 17 / Annette Lynn Selix, 11
Method of murder: Beating with a rock / Shooting
Location: Shasta County, California, USA
Status: Executed by lethal injection in California on March 15, 2000





Summary:

Rich sexually assaulted and killed several young women in the Redding area between June and August 1978 and became known as the "Hilltop Rapist."

He was convicted and sentenced to death for 3 counts of First Degree Murder: Annette Fay Edwards, 19, was beaten to death with a rock after Rich attempted to have sex with her; Linda Diane Slavik, 26, was driven by Rich to his house in Cottonwood. She was raped there and then driven to a remote area where she was shot and killed.

Just before she was killed, she was shown the dead body of Patricia Ann Moore, who had been killed at the same remote location; Annette Lynn Selix, 11, was driven by Rich to his Cottonwood house where he committed acts of rape, and sodomy. He then drove her 30 miles to Johns Creek Bridge and threw her 105 feet to the rocks below.

An autopsy determined that she had been alive at the time he threw her off the bridge and that she survived for a time after landing on the rocky area.

Rich was also convicted of Murder in the Second Degree: Patricia Ann Moore, 17, was driven to a remote area by Rich, where she was raped and then beaten to death with a rock.

Rich was also convicted of sexual assauks on four other women and an attempted sexual assault on a fifth. Rich told a friend he had "found" a dead body. The friend informed police, who questioned Rich. After flunking a polygraph test, Rich confessed to each of the crimes.


Rich, Darrell Keith CDC# C25800 Sex: M

Alias: None
Race: White
Date Received: 01/23/81
DOB: NA
Education: High School
Location: San Quentin State Prison
Married: Yes

Sentence:

County of Trial: Yolo Sentence Date: 01/23/81
County of Residence: Shasta County of Offense: Shasta
Offense Date: NA Court Action: Affirmed
Court Date: June 30, 1988 Case #: NA


Victims:

Annette Fay Edwards (female, 19)
Patricia Ann Moore (female, 17)
Linda Diane Slovik (female, 26)
Annette Lynn Selix (female, 11)

Summary:

Darrell Keith Rich was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder in the July-August 1978 deaths of Annette Fay Edwards, Patricia Ann Moore, Linda Diane Slavik, and Annette Lynn Selix. Three of these convictions were with special circumstances, and a Yolo County jury sentenced Rich to death on January 23, 1981.

Annette Fay Edwards, 19, of Redding was beaten with a rock after Rich attempted to have sex with her. She died of multiple head injuries.

Patricia Ann Moore,17, was driven to a remote area by Rich, where she was raped and then beaten to death with a rock.

Linda Diane Slavik,26, was driven from Chico, by Rich, to his house in Cottonwood. She was raped there and then driven to a remote area where she was shot and killed. Just before she was killed, she was shown the dead body of Patricia Ann Moore, who had been killed at the same remote location.

Annette Lynn Selix,11, was driven by Rich to his Cottonwood house where he committed acts of rape, sodomy and oral copulation. He then drove here 30 miles to Johns Creek Bridge and threw here 105 feet to the rocks below.

On Aug. 20, 1978, three days before Darrell Rich’s arrest, he advised a friend that he had discovered a dead body. The friend informed police officers who in turn began to question Rich. He consented to a polygraph and failed. This led authorities to believe he knew more about the bodies than he was revealing.

Several days later, Rich began telling acquaintances that he in fact received $7,000 for killing one of the women. When he was asked about the other body, he responded that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Authorities were informed of these revelations and this resulted in Rich’s arrest. He later confessed to the above listed crimes along with two others. He also gave police officers his gun and provided detailed information regarding the offenses.

Execution:

At 12:06 a.m., March 15, 2000, the execution by lethal injection of Darrell Keith Rich began in San Quentin State Prison’s execution chamber. Rich was pronounced dead at 12:13 a.m.

Rich declined a last meal and drank tea, broth and Gatorade until his execution. He spent his last hours with his spiritual advisors and his attorneys.

Darrell Keith Rich’s last word was “Peace.”

Prior:

First arrested age 17 for assault with a deadly weapon, and sent to the California Youth Authority at age 19. Since age 16, Rich has had a history of progressive violence. He was a heavy drinker from the time he was in his mid-teens up to his arrest in August 1978.

In addition to the four counts of first-degree murder, the Yolo County jury also also found Rich guilty of 15 other counts, including rape, sodomy and kidnapping, in December of 1980.

Keith Darrell RICH

As of June, 1999, Shasta County serial killer Darrell Rich -- convicted of four murders in 1978 -- is slated to be the next prisoner to be executed in California.

Rich, 44, of Cottonwood, was convicted of three first-degree murders, one second-degree murder and sexual assaults on five other women, all committed between June and August 1978. One victim, 11-year-old Annette Selix, left home to buy groceries in August 1978 and was found dead the next day under a bridge. Rich had worked for her mother.

According to a state Supreme Court ruling, Rich was interviewed after her body was found, mentioned seeing one or more bodies at a dump and agreed to take a lie-detector test, at which sheriff's deputies decided he was lying. He ultimately told officers he had murdered the girl as well as Annette Edwards and Patricia Moore of Redding, both beaten to death, and Linda Slavik, who disappeared from a bar in Chico and was found shot to death at a dump in Shasta County. The Moore killing was ruled to be second-degree murder.

On August 13, 2000, a panel of three circuit judges rejected defense arguments that a federal trial judge in Sacramento should have let them investigate the way Shasta County killer Darrell Rich, an American Indian, was prosecuted.

The defense lawyers claimed the prosecution violated Rich's rights by systematically excluding American Indians from the grand jury that indicted him. The federal appeals court refused to review the death sentence. His only remaining hope to stay alive is a Supreme Court appeal.

Rich was tried in Yolo County following a change of venue. He was convicted of sexually assaulting and murdering two victims in 1978 -- an 11-year-old Cottonwood girl, whom he tossed off a 105-foot-high bridge, and an Oroville woman. He also was convicted of killing two other women and sexually assaulting five more during the same summer.

Rich's lawyers say his trial was tainted by financial pressures placed by county supervisors on his public defender, allegedly hampering his representation of Rich.

California Department of Corrections

SUMMARY:

Darrell Keith Rich was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder in the July-August 1981 deaths of Annette Fay Edwards, Patricia Ann Moore, Linda Diane Slavik, and Annette Lynn Selix. Three of these convictions were with special circumstances, and a Yolo County jury sentenced Rich to death on January 23, 1981.

Annette Fay Edwards, 19, of Redding was beaten with a rock after Rich attempted to have sex with her. She died of multiple head injuries. Patricia Ann Moore, 17, was driven to a remote area by Rich, where she was raped and then beaten to death with a rock. Linda Diane Slavik, 26, was driven from Chico, by Rich, to his house in Cottonwood.

She was raped there and then driven to a remote area where she was shot and killed. Just before she was killed, she was shown the dead body of Patricia Ann Moore, who had been killed at the same remote location.

Annette Lynn Selix, 11, was driven by Rich to his Cottonwood house where he committed acts of rape, sodomy and oral copulation. He then drove here 30 miles to Johns Creek Bridge and threw here 105 feet to the rocks below.

On Aug. 20, 1978, three days before Darrell Rich’s arrest, he advised a friend that he had discovered a dead body. The friend informed police officers who in turn began to question Rich. He consented to a polygraph and failed.

This led authorities to believe he knew more about the bodies than he was revealing. Several days later, Rich began telling acquaintances that he in fact received $7,000 for killing one of the women. When he was asked about the other body, he responded that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Authorities were informed of these revelations and this resulted in Rich’s arrest. He later confessed to the above listed crimes along with two others. He also gave police officers his gun and provided detailed information regarding the offenses.

PRIOR RECORD

First arrested age 17 for assault with a deadly weapon, and sent to the California Youth Authority at age 19. Since age 16, Rich has had a history of progressive violence. He was a heavy drinker from the time he was in his mid-teens up to his arrest in August 1978.

In addition to the four counts of first-degree murder, the Yolo County jury also also found Rich guilty of 15 other counts, including rape, sodomy and kidnapping, in December of 1980.

EXECUTION

At 12:06 a.m., March 15, 2000, the execution by lethal injection of Darrell Keith Rich began in San Quentin State Prison’s execution chamber. Rich was pronounced dead at 12:13 a.m. Rich declined a last meal and drank tea, broth and Gatorade until his execution. He spent his last hours with his spiritual advisors and his attorneys. Darrell Keith Rich’s last word was “Peace.”

ProDeathPenalty.com

Darrell Rich was convicted of murdering 3 women and an 11-year-old girl in Shasta County, California. "This is a day that has been long in coming for the citizens of Shasta County," McGregor Scott, the Shasta County district attorney, said after the execution date was set. "This man wreaked havoc over the course of 1978.

There is no one more deserving of the death penalty than Darrell Keith Rich." Rich's 1981 trial was moved to Yolo County because of extensive news coverage in Shasta County.

Rich, 44, of Cottonwood, sexually assaulted and killed girls and young women in the Redding area between June and August 1978 and became known as the "Hilltop Rapist". He did not deny most of the attacks and offered a defense based on his mental condition. He was convicted of three 1st-degree murders, one 2nd-degree murder, sexual assaults on 4 other women and an attempted sexual assault on a 5th.

One of the victims was 11-year-old Annette Selix, whose mother had previously employed Rich. The girl left her Cottonwood home one day in August 1978 to buy groceries. Her partially clad body was found the next day under a 105-foot bridge, from which she had apparently been thrown to her death. An autopsy determined that she had been alive at the time he threw her off the bridge and that she survived for a time after landing on the rocky area.

"I'm just glad it has come to this and that it's finally going to be over," the girl's mother, Sharon Tidwell, said. Annette's stepfather David Tidwell, said, "We're wasting time -- just kill him. He better pray there's not a life after death -- if there is, he better hide." Other relatives of Rich's victims echoed such comments, and the courts over the years have taken note of the brutal nature of Rich's crimes, which included beatings, a shooting, strangulation and bludgeoning. "To even the most hardened eye, the crimes were almost unimaginably brutal -- savage attacks on defenseless young women, all sexually ravaged," 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote. The other murder victims were Annette Edwards and Patricia Moore of Redding, both beaten to death, and Linda Slavik, who disappeared from a Chico bar and was found shot to death at a dump in Shasta County. The Moore killing was ruled to be 2nd-degree murder.

None of Rich's relatives spoke at his clemency hearing and his lawyers did not attend. The only people who spoke on his behalf were death penalty opponents, whose comments drew hisses and a few walkouts from angry victims' relatives. "We've been unjustly sentenced to 22 years of hell," said Linda Hines, Annette Selix's aunt. "Please, please, put all of us out of our much-prolonged misery." Mike Yates, whose sister, Linda Slavik, was murdered by Rich, said the case has meant "22 years of legalized torture" for his family.

A woman who survived an attack by Rich sobbed, her hand pressed over her face, as a victim's rights coordinator read her written statement to the board recounting how she had pleaded with Rich for her life, begging him to spare her for the sake of her baby daughter. In her statement, the woman described in poignant detail how the attack has haunted her life, reaching into her dreams and shadowing her relationship with her husband. "We are never alone. Darrell Rich is always there between us," she wrote.

California execution

San Francisco Chronicle

Serial killer Darrell Rich was executed early today at San Quentin State Prison, 22 years after he murdered 3 women and an 11-year- old girl in a savage, summerlong rampage that terrorized rural Shasta County. Rich, who embraced his American Indian ancestry after landing on Death Row and adopted the name Young Elk, was led into the prison's apple-green death chamber shortly before midnight and strapped onto a gurney.

As he lay with his arms and legs secured -- and a 14-inch, ritual white feather with black edges draped on his chest -- a solution of sodium Pentothal was pumped into his veins to render him unconscious. Fifty cubic centimeters of pancuronium bromide was then injected into his bloodstream to paralyze his diaphragm and stop his breathing, followed by an intravenous jolt of 50 cubic centimeters of potassium chloride to paralyze his heart.

Throughout the execution, Rich lay with his eyes closed, exhibiting little movement. He swallowed once and his cheeks seemed to bulge -- and then in the final moments his face turned slightly purple.

The feather quivered as he drew his last breath. As he died, 5 relatives of his victims, plus 1 of 5 other women he sexually assaulted, held hands and showed little emotion.

The only sound in the execution chamber was the uncontrollable coughing of one witness. Christopher Slavik, whose mother Linda was killed by Rich, watched dressed in a black suit with a dark tie covered in white skulls. When Rich was declared dead, Slavik allowed himself a small smile.

At 12:13 a.m., 7 minutes after the poisons began pumping into his body, the 45-year-old killer was pronounced dead. "Peace" was his final word, according to Bob Martinez, spokesman for the California Department of Corrections.

Rich was the 8th inmate executed since California reinstated the death penalty in 1977, and the first with any American Indian ancestry, to die in the death chamber since then. He spent his final day visiting with relatives and Leonard Williams and Henry Adams, his American Indian spiritual advisers, said Martinez. Rich was described as calm as he awaited the end. He had spent the past several days fasting in accordance to what he saw as spiritual penance.

The entire prison was in lockdown during Rich's final day, and at 6 p.m. he was moved to a cell near the death row office, where he was strip-searched and scanned with a metal detector. Just before he was escorted to a "death watch" cell a few feet away from the execution chamber, Rich received a new outfit -- a blue shirt, blue jeans, undershirt, shorts, socks and hospital slippers. As he fasted, Rich's lawyers filed last-minute appeals requesting court action to force the prison to let their client participate in an American Indian sweat lodge ceremony to make spiritual atonement.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued the final rejection at about 8:30 o'clock last night. Lawyers were hoping to have the execution stayed while the sweat lodge issue was resolved. The prison refused to allow Rich -- who said he was 1/4 Cherokee --into the sweat lodge, which is in an exercise yard, because administrators believed the activity posed too great a security risk. Conducting a ceremony at the lodge requires several hours, and the use of hot rocks and a shovel would have had too much potential for violence, they argued.

Rich's appeals on the death sentence itself were exhausted weeks earlier. Yesterday, California Deputy Attorney General Carlos Martinez, who fought Rich's recent appeals, called the sweat-lodge argument a ruse. "He's just trying to delay the execution, and to do so would be really cruel to the families of his victims," Martinez said shortly before leaving his office to get ready to witness Rich's execution.

About 750 anti-death-penalty and American Indian demonstrators spent the night outside the prison gates praying and singing Indian spiritual songs to protest the execution. A handful of capital punishment advocates also showed up. "I'm here not only to pray when he leaves, but also because all of us here think all life is sacred," said Fred Short, a 53-year-old Chippewa from Sacramento who led a group of 20 Apache, Yaqui and Chippewa people to the gates. A group of Indians drummed furiously throughout the evening, saying they hoped Rich could hear them in his final hours. The crowd fell silent when Rich's death was announced.

Peggy Eastwood, sister of Rich's 1st murder victim, Annette Edwards, said in a statement after the execution: "It was too easy for Darrell Rich after what he put us through for 22 years." Rich's execution date came two decades after he was sentenced to die for 2 of 4 murders he committed in Shasta County, preying on young women whose bodies were found battered, bruised and, in one case, shot.

He also sexually assaulted5 other women. The killing that prompted the most outrage was that of 11-year-old Annette Selix, whom Rich flung -- still alive -- from a 105-foot bridge after raping and beating her. She lived long enough to curl into a fetal position in the muddy gravel before she died.

All of the victims were killed or attacked near Rich's hometown of Cottonwood, a small ranching town tucked in the northern corner of the Sacramento Valley. The reign of mayhem is still described as the time Cottonwood lost its innocence -- and many townsfolk last night were either glued to the television news or celebrating the execution with drinks.

The 1st murder victim was Edwards, 19, whom Rich snatched in July 1978 while she was walking to the fireworks show near her home in Redding. Patricia "Pam" Moore, 17, was next: She disappeared from a Redding motel in early August, and was later found dead in a dump.

Rich then kidnapped Slavik, 28, from a Chico bar, and after raping and killing her left her near Moore's body. His final victim was Annette. The Cottonwood youngster was walking home from the grocery store when Rich snatched her, and she was later found by a passer-by below the bridge.

Rich becomes the 1st condemned prisoner to be put to death this year in California. He was the8th person to die in the San Quentin State Prison death chamber since executions resumed there in 1992. He also becomes the 22nd condemned prisoner to be put to death this year in the USA and the 620th overall since the USA resumed executions on January 17, 1977.

Death Penalty Focus

Darrell "Young Elk" Rich was executed by the state of California on March 15, 2000. The time of death was 12:13 a.m. The following information was posted previous to the execution.

Darrell Young Elk Rich was convicted of murdering three women and one eleven-year-old girl and sentenced to death in 1982. Young Elk has exhausted his appeal process and awaits his execution, scheduled for 12:01 a.m., March 15, 2000. The only recourse available to Young Elk is a grant of clemency by Governor Gray Davis.

Young Elk is a Cherokee Indian, and would be the first Native American to be put to death in California since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977. Eleven American Indians have been executed in the United States since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, and 46 others are currently incarcerated on death row.

Young Elk has been on death row for 18 years. Throughout that time he has been an exemplary inmate with a great institutional record. Young Elk is not a present or future danger to his fellow inmates or the prison guards. He has shown remorse for his actions since the time of his arrest, which he led the police to make. He confessed his crimes and pleaded innocent by reason of insanity.

Young Elk was diagnosed with a history of head trauma, neurological deficits and with "intermittent explosive disorder," a mental illness in which the person is overcome by sudden fits of rage followed by periods of deep remorse. Young Elk"s life is in the hands of Governor Gray Davis and the clemency board.

Please write to them and demand that Young Elk's life be spared, and that all capital punishment be abolished in California. We also need you to join your fellow abolitionists at the various vigils and rallies being held across the state for Young Elk on March 14.

The State of the Death Penalty in California

California is poised to execute its first victim of the new millennium, Darrell Young Elk Rich. While other states are considering, or in the case of Illinois, have imposed, moratoria, California is preparing to continue its brutal history of executing the poor, the mentally ill, the developmentally disabled, minorities, and, perhaps, even the innocent.

There are over 555 men and women on death row here in California, the third largest death row in the world, almost one third of whom do not even have a lawyer representing them. Are the few dozen men and women sentenced to death each year more guilty, more culpable of murder than the 2,000+ other men and women convicted of homicide each year, but spared the death penalty? Or are they simply less privileged? Did they kill in the "wrong" county? Was their legal representation inadequate? Was their victim white? Were their constitutional rights violated? Were they mentally incompetent to defend themselves? As even the pro-death penalty, conservative republican governor of Illinois George Ryan admits, the judicial system is "fraught with error."

"There is no margin for error when it comes to putting a person to death," Ryan said this week in announcing a moratorium on executions in Illinois. "Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty — until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection — no one will meet that fate," he said. California Governor Gray Davis has not taken heed from his fellow head of state.

Indeed, Davis has repeatedly stated his support of the death penalty in California and has not granted clemency to any death row inmate during his tenure. In addition, two initiatives to expand the death penalty will appear on the March 7 ballot, just days before Young ElkÕs scheduled execution.

Proposition 18, Murder: Special Circumstances, would expand by three the number of special circumstances that would allow a prosecutor to seek the death sentence. Prop. 21, Juvenile Crime, will add gang-related murder to the list of "special circumstances" that make offenders eligible for the death penalty.

While the population of California is backing away from capital punishment (only 49% of Californians polled in a recent survey supported the death penalty) and political and religious leaders throughout the country are questioning the fairness of our judicial system and the morality of capital punishment, California politicians steadfastly hang on to this outdated and barbaric travesty they call "Justice."

Crime & Punishment

Darrell Young Elk Rich was convicted in 1981 of murdering three women and one eleven-year-old girl. The attacks and murders all took place in the summer of 1978, when Young Elk was 23. He confessed to the killings shortly after being taken into custody. Young Elk pleaded innocent by reason of insanity. His court-appointed defense stated that he suffered from "intermittent explosive disorder," a mental illness in which the person is overcome by sudden fits of rage followed by periods of deep remorse.

Further examination of Young Elk by psychiatrists and psychologists found long-standing brain damage, neurological deficits, extreme mental disturbance, and a history of head trauma. During the penalty phase of sentencing, the jury initially returned to the courtroom hung, but was instructed by the judge to continue deliberations. The judge failed to instruct the jury that a sentence of Life in Prison Without Parole would be automatically imposed if they were unable to come to a unanimous decision. The next day they returned with a sentence of death.

The Victims

The tragedy that befell Annette Edwards, Patricia "Pam" Moore, Linda Slavik, and Annette Selix in the summer of 1978 was unconscionable. DPF has the deepest sympathies for all of the victimsÕ families and believes that justice needs to be served for their terrible loss. Justice, however, is not served by execution.

The murder of another human being will not bring the four women back to life. An execution can not offer solace or closure to the family of a murder victim. While the feelings of rage and lust for revenge are understandable, even natural, spending years, even decades, anticipating a person's murder and nurturing one's anger towards him can only prolong the tragedy, not heal the wounds.

A sentence of life in prison without parole (LWOP) would have offered the same desired punishment — separating Young Elk from the rest of society for the entirety of his life — and would have offered closure to the family 19 years ago. For more information on victims' families services, please visit the Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation (MVFR) web site at http://www.mvfr.org/. One of the largest victims' rights organization in the country, MVFR is a national organization of families and friends of murder victims who are opposed to the death penalty.

American Indians and the Death Penalty

The brutal history of the white man's systematic extermination of American Indians since their arrival to this land is well documented. In addition to the killing, their land was stolen, their traditions and religion smothered by local law and missionary zeal. All executions belong to a culture of violence that has no place in this country, but the execution of a Native American brings the added history of the dominance and repression by our government of an entire population.

No Native American tribe has the death penalty. This is a punishment being subjected upon a population that has had little to no say in the structure of our government or our legal system. A population that is unproportionately impoverished and lacking in sufficient human services programs, including medical, educational, legal, psychological, and rehabilitation progroms.

Native Americans on Death Row Executed in the U.S. since 1976: 11
On Death Row in the U.S.:46
On Death Row in California: 15

Execution is Closure, Victims Say

By Sam Stanton and M.S. Enkoji - Sacramento Bee

March 16, 2000

SAN QUENTIN -- They watched intently as Darrell Keith Rich's life slowly slipped away, and the seven-minute window that Rich's victims had to view the death row inmate's execution early Wednesday went far toward erasing 22 years of anguish. "In the end, Mr. Rich was sorry -- sorry he got caught," said Gordon Yates, whose sister, Linda Slavik, was one of the murder victims of Rich's 1978 summertime crime spree.

Yates was one of 18 victims or relatives of the victims who showed up at San Quentin State Prison on Tuesday evening for the execution just after midnight of the Redding area's "Hilltop Rapist."

Only six actually witnessed the execution. Others said it was too painful for them to attend, but officials said that none of the victims or their family members who had been tracked down in advance of the execution objected to Rich being put to death. "He's not the victim in this story," Yates told reporters less than an hour after Rich died. "Today, my family and I will visit my sister's grave and tell her she can truly rest in peace."

Rich, 45, convicted in a rape and murder binge that left four young women dead and five others sexually assaulted, died at 12:13 a.m. Wednesday from a lethal-injection execution at the prison.

Despite a flurry of last-minute appeals to delay the execution or allow him to take part in an American Indian sweat lodge ceremony, the Cottonwood man was put to death as scheduled.

Rich, whose Cherokee heritage had become a cornerstone of his legal team's efforts to save him, died with a large feather resting on his chest, the closest he was allowed to any sort of American Indian last rite. He never made any move to lift his head, open his eyes or speak to the approximately 50 witnesses gathered around the light-green death chamber.

But the meek fashion in which he met his death had little effect on the witnesses, most of whom never took their eyes from him during the procedure. David Tidwell, stepfather of 11-year-old Annette Selix, whom Rich raped and then threw off a 105-foot bridge, sat stone-faced in one of the dozen chairs arranged in a semi-circle around the octagonal chamber.

As he watched through the thick glass panels as Rich died, he held tightly onto the hand of the woman sitting next to him, a rape victim who had survived an attack by Rich and wanted to see him die for his crimes. "I can finally live in peace," the woman said later in a statement read by Nathan Barankin, spokesman for state Attorney General Bill Lockyer. "He won't be there to haunt me anymore."

Although none of the families or victims had sought counseling during their two-decade wait, Lockyer's office is helping them arrange that now through Nina Solarno, the state's first director for the office of victims services. Solarno, whose 19-year-old sister was murdered in 1979 on the University of the Pacific campus in Stockton, helped shepherd the victims through the execution process and said they experienced great relief after it was over. "It was like each of them got about 100 pounds off their shoulders," Salarno said. "I think they all said now it's time to start focusing on themselves and heal." The pain caused by Rich had been carried for so long that some angrily lashed out at the legal system that allowed such an extended period to pass between his 1980 conviction and Wednesday's execution.

And they praised Lockyer, Shasta County District Attorney McGregor Scott and others who toiled for years to see the execution carried out. "The reality is that tonight Darrell Rich has finally paid the full price for his crimes," said Michael Yates, another of Slavik's brothers. "The reality is evil does exist." After a few hours of sleep following the execution, the victims met again with Scott, the district attorney. None expressed regret at having witnessed the procedure, Scott said. "We all met (Wednesday) morning before we split up, and every one of them, to a person, said they just felt a great weight off their shoulders," Scott said. "Every one of them was glad that they had gone."

Rich's attorneys recently had sought clemency for their client on the grounds that he had been a model inmate and his indictment had been tainted because none of the grand jury members was American Indian. By Tuesday, they were appealing to Gov. Gray Davis to reverse his decision refusing clemency and were asking President Clinton to intervene. But those pleas -- as well as appeals that went to the U.S. Supreme Court for review -- were rejected and left his attorneys bitter at the fate of the inmate they referred to by the Cherokee name of Young Elk. "Despite an 11th-hour call from one of Young Elk's attorneys, Gov. Davis never responded," attorney James S. Thomson said after the execution. "In the end, Gov. Davis proved to be a political and moral coward."

But there never seemed to be a real hope of clemency for Rich, who had admitted to his crimes at the time and had even bragged about some of his killings to acquaintances. By early evening Tuesday, as the first of a few hundred death penalty opponents began to gather outside the prison, Rich was spending his last moments with his attorney and two spiritual advisers. He chose a last dinner of broth, papaya juice and Gatorade. His last statement to the warden was simply the word "peace."

[Sam Stanton was one of 17 media witnesses to the execution. M.S. Enkoji reported from inside San Quentin. ]

California Executes Killer of Four

Inmate's Last Word Is 'Peace.'

APBNews Online

March 15, 2000

SAN QUENTIN, Calif. (AP) -- A serial killer who threw an 11-year-old girl more than 100 feet to her death was executed by injection early this morning after losing a court bid to hold an American Indian ceremony.

Corrections spokesman Bob Martinez said Darrell Rich's final statement was one word: "Peace." Rich, 45, was sentenced to die for the death of the girl, Annette Selix, and the murder of 28-year-old Linda Slavik.

He also was convicted of murdering two other women in and near the town of Redding during what prosecutors called a "reign of terror" in the summer of 1978. Rich killed the two women by crushing their skulls with rocks, and he fatally shot Slavik. He assaulted the girl and threw her 105 feet from a bridge.

Wanted to be 'spiritually purified'

Rich said he had reformed after discovering his Cherokee heritage in prison, and he spent the hours leading up to his execution seeking legal permission to take part in a sweat lodge ceremony as a last rite. Sweat lodges are used in some American Indian religious ceremonies to purify the spirit.

Participants sit within an enclosed structure and pray while water is poured over fire-heated rocks. In court papers, Rich said the ceremony was crucial to helping him make amends. Without it, he feared, "I will not be spiritually purified to enter the Spirit World, and my spirit will not successfully pass over to the Spirit World." Prison officials said the ceremony -- which would include a rake, shovel and the hot rocks -- was too high a security risk. State prosecutors also filed an affidavit from a policy analyst for the Cherokee Nation who said the ceremony is not a Cherokee tradition.

Serial Killer Executed

ABCNews.com

Associated Press

SAN QUENTIN, Calif., March 15 — A serial killer who threw an 11-year-old girl to her death off a bridge but said he had reformed after discovering his Cherokee heritage in prison was executed early this morning. Darrell Rich, 45, wore a large feather across his chest as the lethal drugs were administered. He was dead seven minutes later, at 12:13 a.m.

The feather quivered slightly as he drew his last convulsive breath. His final statement was one word: “Peace.” Rich was given a lethal injection for the death of the girl, Annette Selix, and the murder of 28-year-old Linda Slavik. He also was convicted of murdering two more women and assaulting five others in and near Redding during what prosecutors called a “reign of terror” in the summer of 1978.

Clemency Denied

Gov. Gray Davis denied a request for clemency, saying Rich acted in a “callous and almost unbelievably brutal manner.” Rich, whose death sentence had been upheld in state and federal courts, spent the hours leading up to his execution waging a court battle for permission to take part in a sweat lodge ceremony as a religious last rite.

The Supreme Court declined to consider the matter late Tuesday. Sweat lodges are used in some American Indian religious ceremonies to purify the spirit. Participants sit within an enclosed structure and pray while water is poured over fire-heated rocks.

Prison officials said the ceremony was too high a security risk. State prosecutors also filed an affidavit from a research and policy analyst for the Cherokee Nation who said the sweat lodge ceremony is not a Cherokee tradition. Rich’s lawyers said Rich had studied Native American beliefs in general before learning his specific ancestry and the sweat lodge was part of his religious tradition.

Protestors Hold Vigil

Protestors held a candlelight vigil outside the prison, praying, singing and carrying signs against capital punishment. “It’s a senseless, meaningless act of revenge that might feel good to a few people, but it really lowers us as a people,” said Lance Lindsey, director of Death Penalty Focus, a San Francisco-based anti-death penalty group. Lindsey also said it costs the state as much as $4 million to prosecute a death penalty case, 2 to 3 times more than pursuing sentences of life without parole. But relatives of the victims said it was past time for Rich to die.

Brutal Slayings

Rich killed two women by crushing their skulls with rocks; he shot Slavik to death and later mimicked her pleas for mercy to friends. He assaulted 11-year-old Annette and then threw her, alive, off a 105-foot high bridge. She lived long enough to inhale her own blood and crawl into the fetal position. “He better pray there’s not a life after death—if there is, he better hide,” David Tidwell, Annette’s stepfather, said at a March 6 clemency hearing. But defense lawyers said Rich had changed. In court papers, Rich said the sweat lodge ceremony was crucial to helping him make amends.

Sought Spiritual Purity

Without it, he feared, “I will not be spiritually purified to enter the Spirit World, and my spirit will not successfully pass over to the Spirit World.” Tuesday morning, the body of Rich’s mother, Lillie, was exhumed from a cemetery in Cottonwood. Rich had planned to be buried next to her, but agreed to be buried with his mother elsewhere out of respect for the family of one of his victims. To their horror, the family of Annette Selix learned that the Rich family plot was just 100 feet from the girl’s grave.

People v. Rich, 248 Cal.Rptr. 510 (Cal. 1988) (Direct Appeal).

Defendant was charged in Shasta Superior Court with four counts of first degree murder, three counts of kidnapping, three counts of rape by force, three counts of rape by use of threats, one count of assault with intent to commit rape, two counts of oral copulation by force, one count of oral copulation of the victim by force, one count of oral copulation by a person over 21 on a person under 16, one count of attempted oral copulation, one count of sodomy by a person over 21 on a person under 16, and one count of assault with a deadly weapon by means likely to produce great bodily harm.

Each murder count further alleged as special circumstances that defendant had murdered the victims named in the other three counts. (Former Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (c)(5) (all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated).) One of the murder counts additionally alleged that defendant had murdered his victim, a child under 14, during the commission of a lewd and lascivious act. (Former § 190.2, subd. (c)(3)(iv).)

The cause was eventually transferred to Yolo County. During trial by jury, the indictment was amended to include an additional count of sodomy by force. The jury found defendant guilty as charged of three of the murders, and found the special circumstances of "felony murder lewd and lascivious act on a child under 14" and "multiple murder" to be true; on the other murder charge the jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder and found the multiple-murder special circumstance to be not true. As to the other 18 counts, the jury found defendant guilty as charged of all but three crimes. He was found not guilty of two counts of rape by force and one count of rape by use of threats. (See post, fns. 4-6.)

Immediately after the jury returned its guilt verdicts, the sanity trial commenced. The matter was submitted to the jury on the evidence presented during the guilt phase.

The jury found defendant was sane when he committed the crimes. At the penalty trial, the matter was again submitted to the jury on the evidence presented during the guilt phase.

The following day the jury fixed defendant's sentence at life without possibility of parole for one of the first degree murders and imposed death for each of the other two first degree murders. This appeal under the 1977 death penalty law is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)

I. FACTS

A. The People's Case:

The People introduced evidence establishing the following:

1. Count I--The murder of Annette Edwards

In early July 1978, Annette Edwards disappeared from her home in Redding. Her body was found three days later two miles from her apartment, about 75 feet down an embankment off a county road. She was lying on her back with her legs spread; her panties had been pulled below her knees and her tank top had been pulled above her breasts.

A blood-stained trash can lid was near her, and additional evidence was also discovered at the scene. The autopsy revealed severe injuries to her face and head. Her upper jaw had suffered two fractures: one began at the left midline and went through her left eye socket and into the lower portion of her skull to the base of her brain; the other followed a similar pattern but began on the right side of her face. The body had other injuries and bruises.

The autopsy surgeon testified that a substantial amount of force was required to inflict the injuries on the jaw. The cause of death was described as basal skull fractures inflicted by blunt force.

2. Count II--The murder of Patricia Moore

In early August, Patricia Moore disappeared from a motel in Redding. Her nude body was found over two weeks later at the Igo dump. The autopsy revealed severe injuries to her face and head. Several of her teeth had been fractured or broken. Her head had sustained several blows, the most severe of which crushed the right side of the front of her skull.

The wound measured about five inches in diameter and was probably inflicted by a heavy rock. There was evidence of manual strangulation. The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage from head wounds inflicted by blunt force. The jury returned a second degree murder verdict as to this count.

3. Count III--The murder of Linda Slavik

Also in early August, Linda Slavik went to a bar in Chico with a friend. Slavik's friend left the bar about 1 a.m.; she returned approximately 45 minutes later and found Slavik gone. Slavik's nude body was found at the Igo dump, about 20 feet from Patricia's body. Slavik had been shot twice: one bullet entered in the front of her neck and struck her spine, the other bullet was fired into her open mouth and severed the spinal column, causing instant death.

4. Count IV--The murder of Annette Selix

On an evening in mid-August, 11-year-old Annette Selix left her home in Cottonwood and walked to a nearby market to buy groceries. Her body was found the following day underneath a bridge in Shasta County. She had been stripped naked except for her panties.

The autopsy revealed that she was still alive at the time she had been thrown off the bridge, and that she had been forcibly raped and had performed oral copulation. She suffered several broken bones as well as substantial internal bleeding. Bite marks were found on the victim's thigh and it was positively determined that defendant had inflicted the wound.

5. Counts V and VI--The assault and attempted forcible oral copulation on Donna W.

On an evening in mid-June 1978, Donna W. left her home in Redding and began walking to a nearby market. Defendant attacked her from behind, pushed her off the road and threw her down a hill. He grabbed her hair and blouse, threatened to kill her, and asked if she wanted to give him "a blow job."

When Donna said no, defendant hurled her to the ground and began hitting her on the head with a blunt instrument. He struck her at least 10 times. Donna's head injuries prevented her from climbing up the hill to the main road; she remained at the foot of the hill for more than 12 hours before a passerby saw her and called for help.

6. Counts VII--XI--The kidnap, rape and oral copulation of Robin H.

In mid-June 1978, Robin H. went to the Anderson fair with a friend. She left the fair alone around 11 p.m., and walked past defendant, who was in his car parked on the side of the road. When defendant called for her to come to him, Robin declined, and defendant drove off. Robin took off her shoes and started running to a bus depot. Suddenly, defendant grabbed her from behind and carried her to his car. Defendant placed Robin in the front seat, grabbed her hair, and pushed her head between her legs.

Defendant then drove off. Soon thereafter, defendant ordered Robin to take off her clothes. He parked the car and commanded Robin to lie down and cover her eyes with his shirt so she could not see him.

Defendant then proceeded to rape and orally copulate her. He also forced Robin to orally copulate him. Robin was finally released; defendant told Robin he knew where she lived and threatened to kill her if she told anyone what he had done. The indictment charged two counts of rape of Robin H. Because the evidence established only one rape, the jury found defendant not guilty of forcible rape but guilty of rape by use of threats.

7. Counts XII--XV--The kidnap, oral copulation, sodomy and assault with intent to commit rape of Lisa S.

On an evening in late June 1978, 14-year-old Lisa S. was walking with a boyfriend in Redding when defendant drove up next to them. He asked if they would like a ride, and they accepted. Lisa's boyfriend opened the door and Lisa began to climb in; as she did so, defendant grabbed her, pulled her into the car, and sped off. Defendant ordered Lisa to take off her clothes. He then parked the car and attempted to rape Lisa, but could not achieve penetration. He ordered Lisa out of the car and sodomized her. He also forced Lisa to orally copulate him, and eventually released her.

8. Counts XVI and XVII--The rape of Marla Y.

On an evening in early July 1978, Marla Y. was walking in Redding when defendant grabbed her. She fought until he knocked her unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she realized defendant was rolling her toward a body of water. She again began to struggle. Defendant ripped off her shirt and ordered Marla to remove her pants.

Defendant covered Marla's face with her pants so she could not see him and then raped her. He ordered her not to look up and then he left. The indictment charged two counts of rape of Marla Y. Because the evidence established only one rape, the jury found defendant guilty of forcible rape but not guilty of rape by use of threats.

9. Counts XVIII--XXII--The kidnap, rape, oral copulation and sodomy of Kelly M.

On an evening in mid-July 1978, 15-year-old Kelly M. left her home in Red Bluff and bicycled to her cousin's house to visit. As she returned home, defendant passed her and asked for the time, then grabbed her by the hair and pulled her off her bike. He hit her in the eye, forced her into his car, and drove off. While driving, defendant held Kelly by the hair and forced her head between her legs. He ordered her to take off her clothes.

Defendant parked the car and forced Kelly to orally copulate him. He then started the car and drove to another location. En route, defendant threatened to hit her on the head with a flashlight if she did not do as he asked. He also told her that he had a gun under his seat and a dead body in his trunk. When defendant stopped the car again, he sodomized, raped, and orally copulated Kelly. He eventually let her go. The indictment charged two counts of rape of Kelly M. Because the evidence established only one rape, the jury found defendant not guilty of forcible rape but guilty of rape by use of threats.

10. The arrest and investigation

The circumstances surrounding defendant's arrest and the police investigation are as follows: In mid-August 1978, defendant, who was riding a "street bike," asked a friend if he wished to go "dirt bike" riding. His friend declined. About 20 to 30 minutes later, defendant returned and told his friend that he had found a human body.

Defendant led him to the Igo dump, and showed him a body. There were no tire marks where defendant claimed to have driven, and defendant could not have traveled the distance from his friend's house to the Igo dump and back in the time he had been gone. They went and called the police from the nearest telephone. The police arrived, saw two bodies, and began an investigation.

Meanwhile, in the course of their investigation into the murder of Annette Selix, Shasta County officers interviewed defendant. He was at that time not a suspect; he was interviewed because the police knew that defendant had worked for Selix's mother. The discussion lasted approximately one hour. When it was over, one of the officers, Detective Brewer, asked defendant if he would submit to a polygraph examination on the Selix murder, and defendant agreed.

Defendant arrived at the Shasta County Sheriff's Department at 4 p.m. the following day. Detective Brewer learned that defendant had reported finding bodies at the Igo dump, and he asked defendant about those bodies. Defendant replied that he had seen only one body, not two, at the dump.

Detective Brewer concluded that because there was as yet no evidence connecting defendant to the Selix murder, but there was evidence that defendant found the bodies at the Igo dump, it would be "more relevant" or "more reasonable" to question defendant about the Slavik and Moore murders during the polygraph examination.

Defendant was taken to the room where the polygraph examination would be administered. He was read his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and waived them. He also signed a written waiver of his Miranda rights on a document entitled, "Waiver, Shasta County Sheriff's Department, for Polygraph Test." After explaining the procedure and putting defendant at ease, the examiner administered the polygraph examination.

The examination lasted about 15 minutes. One of the questions asked of defendant was whether he had murdered the girl whose body he claimed to have found at the Igo dump. When the examination was over, the examiner spoke with Detective Brewer outside of defendant's presence and informed him that he believed defendant was lying when he denied involvement in the murders. Brewer then met with defendant and questioned him further about the murders.

Detective Brewer testified that at this point defendant was a suspect only to the extent that he had apparently failed the polygraph test. Brewer informed defendant that it appeared he had been lying during the polygraph examination. Defendant replied that he thought the test was fairly administered, and he could not explain why he failed it.

Brewer then discussed with defendant "what I thought to be unusual behavior or unaccounted for activity, [or] an accounting that was not satisfactory." Defendant became nervous; he lost eye contact with Brewer and paused for long periods before responding to questions. Defendant twice said he was going to leave. Brewer asked him to stay and talk about the case.

Finally, defendant stood up, said he was going to leave, and told Brewer, "I've got something to tell you, but not now." Defendant said he would call Brewer in a few days, and left. On his way out, defendant asked Brewer for his business card, and Brewer complied. Brewer asked defendant when he could expect a call and defendant said within three days. Defendant then left.

Early that evening, defendant met with his friend Gale Croxell and Croxell's girlfriend. Defendant told them that he had taken and failed a polygraph examination about finding the bodies at the Igo dump; he said the only question he got right was his name.

The three went to defendant's house where they discussed the matter further. Croxell asked defendant why he rode his street bike on a dirt road; defendant said "he wanted to see if they [were] still there." Croxell then asked defendant whether he had committed the murder; defendant said yes.

He said the Hell's Angels paid him $7,000 to kill the girl. Croxell also asked about the second body; again, defendant said, "yes." He said he had met her at the Madison Bear Gardens in Chico, and had killed her because "she was in the wrong place at the wrong time." He then acted out the kidnap and murder of Linda Slavik and told his friends "he shot her in the head and the neck with a .22 [-caliber pistol]."

Defendant said he had thrown the pistol in a river and the police would never find it. He also said that the .22 rifle, which he had used to kill the other woman, was at his mother's house. Later, Croxell's girlfriend contacted the sheriff's department and gave them a written statement whichincluded the information that one of the murder weapons was at defendant's mother's house. Around 9 that evening, defendant saw two of his friends near a liquor store.

He approached them and told them he had failed the lie detector test. He said "he had until 7 o'clock the next day to come up with an alibi or [the police] were going to pick him up." Before leaving, defendant said, "Hey guys, I'll level with you. I snuffed her for $7,000." Defendant's friends telephoned the police.

When Detective Brewer received this additional information he decided to arrest defendant immediately. He learned that defendant's motorcycle was outside the Oarlock Bar in Redding. Brewer, accompanied by other officers, arrived at the bar about 11 p.m. and placed defendant under arrest. Defendant was not told he was under arrest; he was handcuffed and told he was going back to the sheriff's department. Officers then drove defendant back to the station.

Once at the station, defendant was placed in an interrogation room; a tape- recording system was turned on without defendant's knowledge and Detective Brewer questioned defendant for almost two hours. A transcript of the interview, in which defendant confessed to various of the charged murders, spans 45 pages.

At the conclusion of the interview, Brewer and defendant returned to the Oarlock Bar. They arrived about 2 a.m. and retrieved without a warrant some of defendant's personal property from a car located in the bar's parking lot; both defendant and the owner of the car consented to the search.

Brewer then drove with defendant around the area, and defendant pointed out where evidence could be discovered. He also told Brewer that they should retrieve the .22 rifle from defendant's mother's house. Defendant's mother was out of town, and defendant consented to a search of her house; he led Brewer to a bedroom closet, picked up the rifle, and handed it to him.

They returned to the station about 3:30 a.m. Defendant was booked and transported to the sheriff's substation in Burney, approximately 50 miles from Redding. He was transported to Burney instead of being housed in the Shasta County jail because jail trustees had previously informed the sheriff's department that the person responsible for the Selix murder "would be taken care of when he was placed in our jail." Before leaving, defendant agreed to submit to a second polygraph examination at Burney.

Later in the early morning of August 24, Russell Swartz, a public defender, visited defendant at the Burney substation. Defendant had not requested to see an attorney and by the time Detective Brewer arrived to arrange for the second polygraph test, Swartz had left. Brewer was informed of Swartz's visit by Lieutenant Eoff, the deputy sheriff in charge of the Burney substation. Brewer telephoned District Attorney Robert Baker for legal advice.

Baker told Brewer that he could proceed with the polygraph examination if defendant wished to take it. Baker explained that Swartz had not been appointed to represent defendant, and that what was involved "was [defendant's] right to counsel, not counsel's right to seek a client." He counseled Brewer to "leave the [question] to [defendant] entirely." Detective Brewer contacted defendant, who agreed to take another polygraph examination.

The interrogation was interrupted when Swartz returned to the substation and advised Brewer that defendant was "his client." Swartz also told defendant to stop talking. Brewer informed Swartz of the legal advice he had received and the two then telephoned District Attorney Baker. Baker again advised Brewer "[t]hat it was to be left to [defendant] entirely. [I was] to advise him that it was his choice whether to retain [Swartz] as counsel or not, and that choice was to be made by [defendant]. If he chose to retain [Swartz] or to be represented by [him], then we were naturally to stop; if not, we could proceed with our polygraph examination." Detective Brewer informed defendant that the choice was his. Swartz told defendant at least twice that he could be facing the death penalty. Defendant was then asked whether he wished Swartz to represent him and defendant said "he guessed that he'd better." All interrogation ceased and Swartz left.

That afternoon, a consent search was conducted of defendant's residence. The refrigerator was searched and found to contain the grocery items Annette Selix had purchased moments before she was kidnapped.

The following day, August 25th, Detective Brewer obtained the services of a technician from a local hospital, who retrieved hair and blood samples from defendant pursuant to a search warrant.

On August 26, Lieutenant Eoff visited defendant in jail. Defendant began speaking about his parents and his childhood. He then told Eoff "he didn't understand how he could have done what he did."

On August 28, after defendant's arraignment, he told Eoff that he had been embarrassed by everyone looking at him in court. He also asked Eoff why the investigation was continuing when he had admitted committing the crimes. Eoff explained that an investigation does not end when a person is taken into custody. Defendant said, "I'll admit to anything I have done, but I won't admit to anything I haven't done." He added that he "should have stopped a long time ago but couldn't."

The following day, about 9 a.m., defendant told Eoff he wished to speak to him but that he wanted to talk with his attorney first. Eoff allowed defendant to telephone Swartz; they spoke for about five minutes.

On the way back to his cell, defendant told Eoff that he still wished to speak with him. Eoff told defendant "to think about it, and if he still wanted to talk to me at a later time I would listen to whatever he had to say."

Thereafter, Eoff received word around 4 p.m. that defendant wished to speak with him. Eoff met with defendant and told him "that he shouldn't talk to me" because "he had an attorney at that point." Defendant insisted he wished to talk.

Eoff said he would not ask any questions but that he would listen to what defendant wished to say. Eoff informed defendant that he would tape record the conversation; he obtained a tape recorder and brought it into defendant's cell. The tape recorder was placed in plain view and turned on; defendant then admitted that he had killed Annette.

The only question Eoff asked defendant was whether he was referring to the 11-year-old girl; defendant clarified that he was referring to Annette Selix. Later, defendant signaled Eoff to turn off the tape recorder; Eoff complied.

Defendant then told Eoff he had "made a list of everything that he was responsible for and that he hadn't done anything else other than what was on the list."

Defendant asked Eoff if he wanted to see the list and Eoff said yes. Defendant handed him a piece of paper and reiterated that "everything he had done was on that list." Eoff asked defendant if the list was for him; defendant said, "f you would like to have a copy I can make you a copy of it." Defendant then told Eoff that he could also use a copy machine if he had one available. Eoff replied, "Fine. We have a copy machine here and I can make a copy of it."

When Eoff returned the original to defendant, defendant asked Eoff if he wished him to sign it, and Eoff said, "No."

On August 31, Detectives Lambert and Brewer transported defendant from Burney to Redding for a court appearance. While waiting, Brewer asked Lambert what one of the officers had learned from defendant's girlfriend, Darlene Munsinger. Lambert responded that it appeared that Munsinger had "figured ... out ... what was going on."

According to Lambert, defendant then volunteered that he "knew this was true because he had told his girlfriend that he had killed a girl." Lambert informed defendant that he "preferred" not to discuss the case and that he could not question him. Defendant responded that "the only murders or rapes that he had committed were the ones that he had written down on the list and given to Lieutenant Eoff."

On September 6, defendant took another polygraph examination with Swartz's consent. Eoff drove defendant from Burney to Redding for the test. En route, they drove down a road near the location where Annette Edwards's body was found. Defendant said it bothered him to drive through the area "because of what happened here." Eoff said he could not discuss the case.

After the polygraph examination, defendant asked Detective Lambert whether he knew the results of the test questions concerning the murder of one Georgia Ruel. He told Lambert that one of the questions was whether he had thrown a girl off a bridge; he explained that he had thrown a girl off a bridge, but she was not Ruel.

On the way back to Burney, defendant asked Eoff if he knew the results of the polygraph test. He told Eoff that "he felt much better, that he had taken the polygraph and felt he passed it." He further stated that "what he had admitted to was all that he had done."

On September 8, Detective Lambert secured a search warrant authorizing him to obtain a bite sample from defendant. Defendant inquired which victim possessed bite marks; Lambert answered that it was Annette Selix. Defendant said he did not remember biting her. Pursuant to a second search warrant, Lambert obtained additional teeth impressions the following day; defendant told Lambert that "he was sure he had not bitten Annette Selix."

On November 28, defendant sent for Detective Lambert and asked Lambert why he did not like him. Lambert denied disliking defendant. He explained that, having seen the bodies of the murder victims, he could understand why someone with less experience would hate defendant, but that he did not feel that way. According to Lambert, "[defendant] replied that he knew the feeling because he had seen the bodies, and that the only reason he got caught was because he wanted to be caught."

On December 11, Detective Lambert was informed that defendant might attempt suicide. He went to the jail to speak with defendant, who told Lambert that he was very depressed, and had tried to hang himself but was unable to go through with it. He also said that he had left a letter for Lambert in a shoe box and that Lambert could have the letter. Lambert retrieved the shoe box and brought it to defendant, who gave the letter to Lambert. It stated in part, "I didn't kill anyone that I hadn't said I did. I'm telling you the truth, whatever. I hate myself. God help me."

B. Defense Evidence

As noted above, the defense presented no additional evidence at the sanity and penalty trials, but instead relied on the evidence introduced at the guilt trial. That evidence was as follows: Defendant's complete family, medical and social history were presented through numerous lay witnesses (defendant's mother, sister, two uncles, ex-wife, and three ex-girlfriends, his family doctor, two of his grammar school teachers, his grammar school principal, his school psychologist, his eighth-grade teacher, both his high school assistant principal and principal, two of his high school teachers, four coworkers, a psychiatric social worker, three probation officers, a California Youth Authority parole agent, a police officer, and others) as well as six expert witnesses.

Defendant was adopted, and had a difficult childhood. His mother was domineering. She took care of other people's children for a living, and defendant resented the attention those other children received. Nevertheless, he was helpful with the other children, and once rescued another child from a canal.

Defendant performed poorly in grammar school, and was kept back in the first grade. His parents fought constantly, and he had few friends. He was referred to the school psychologist, who reported that defendant might become violent, but defendant received no treatment.

He exhibited suicidal tendencies after his parents divorced when he was about 15 years old. Initially he lived with his mother in southern California, but returned to live with his father and new stepmother in northern California. His academic performance deteriorated in his sophomore year of high school. He transferred to a continuation school, where his grades improved. He was suspended for fighting, and was sometimes truant.

At age 17, after one of numerous disagreements with a girlfriend, he went hunting and shot himself in the chest, in what was possibly an attempted suicide. Later, he fired a shot over a police car, and claimed he hoped the officer would return the fire and kill him.

A subsequent psychiatric evaluation disclosed defendant was suicidal and urged treatment, but defendant terminated the therapy. When he was 18 he became drunk and repeatedly rammed another automobile with his mother's car.

Thereafter he was sentenced to a county jail camp, where he received counseling. His probation officer noted defendant had a short temper, especially when he was drinking; otherwise, defendant was friendly and responsible. The officer recommended defendant seek psychiatric help, but defendant maintained that after his counseling in jail he was "in control" and had learned to deal with his temper.

At 19 defendant, acting in a crazed manner after drinking, attacked a person with a tire iron. When he heard the police approaching he smashed his fist through the windshield of the victim's car and drove off. He was arrested, and went berserk while being treated for his injury. He was sentenced to the California Youth Authority.

There he was diagnosed as not having psychological problems, but it was recognized that he exhibited bizarre behavior. Defendant learned that his girlfriend was pregnant by him, and they married. When released, he lived with his wife and child, and secured a job at a lumber mill. Initially, his parole agent felt defendant's progress was good. Thereafter, however, defendant hit his wife on two occasions.

For the next five months, he managed to control himself. Then, in April 1976 he was injured in a car accident and required numerous stitches on his face, resulting in a severe scar across his nose. This made him very depressed. In late 1976 he once again hit his wife, and in August 1977 he told her to leave, which she did. They divided their property, and defendant voluntarily paid child support.

At work, defendant became less cheerful and more hot-tempered, and his attendance deteriorated. He met Darlene Munsinger, who was visiting from out-of-state, and she moved in with him. They had problems, and she left, only to return and leave again after a fight. At defendant's request, Munsinger returned once more to stay with him in April and again in June of 1978.

In late July 1978 she left him for the last time because she had become afraid of him; she thought he provoked fights to give him an excuse to leave the house. When he learned she was leaving he said he was glad she would not be around "when all the stuff came up." Munsinger asked, "what stuff," and defendant replied, "I'll tell you sometime but not now," and that if he had met her earlier "none of this would have happened."

Each of the women with whom defendant had become romantically involved testified defendant had engaged in sexual intercourse with them by mutual consent, and that he had not engaged in unusual acts, such as sodomy. As noted above, defendant presented six expert witnesses.

170 F.3d 1236

Darrell Keith RICH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 97-99007.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 16, 1998.
Decided March 25, 1999.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Edward J. Garcia, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-S-89-00823-EJG.

Before: PREGERSON, KLEINFELD and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner Darrell Keith Rich ("Rich"), facing the death penalty following his 1980 convictions for a series of sexual attacks and murders, appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition. Rich's claims include the district court's denial of discovery and an evidentiary hearing and various errors in the handling of the criminal charges against him in state court--among them pre-indictment and pre-trial publicity, the makeup of the grand jury returning his indictment, the instructions given his trial jury, prejudice from an "economically conflicted" defense counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and his shackling during trial. Rich also contends that he lacked the necessary mental competence to stand trial. Because each of these claims lacks merit, we affirm.

FACTS

The investigation of the crimes leading to Rich's arrest and trial produced substantial public notice in the community where those crimes occurred and understandably so. To even the most hardened eye, the crimes were almost unimaginably brutal--savage attacks on defenseless young women, all sexually ravaged. Four were also murdered: two bludgeoned to death, a third shot in the face and a fourth--an 11 year old girl--thrown off a 100 foot bridge to her death. Five other women, ranging in age from 14 to 25, managed to survive; four unhesitatingly identified Rich as their attacker.

PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

Following a change of venue from Shasta County where he was indicted, Rich was brought to trial in Yolo County California. Provided with an investigator as well as access to a battery of psychological experts, Rich's court-appointed counsel put on a detailed defense, aimed at showing that Rich had acted under the compulsion of a mental defect that rendered him incapable of understanding the gravity of his deeds.

Some forty-four witnesses, including childhood friends, teachers and neighbors, provided the jury with a detailed portrait of Rich's formative years. Three state-paid mental health experts, two psychologists and one psychiatrist testified in support of the defense theory.

The jury ultimately found Rich guilty of three counts of first degree murder, one count of second degree murder, and a series of sexual assault crimes. The jury concluded that Rich was sane and found special circumstances in connection with the first degree murder counts.

The jury recommended Life Without Possibility of Parole on the second-degree count and death on the three first-degree counts. After the trial court declined to modify the jury's recommendation, Rich pursued a direct appeal in the California system. The California Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Rich's convictions and sentence. See People v. Rich, 45 Cal.3d 1036, 248 Cal.Rptr. 510, 755 P.2d 960 (1988), cert. denied 488 U.S. 1051, 109 S.Ct. 884, 102 L.Ed.2d 1006 (1989). Rich's habeas petition was filed below in 1990 and reached this court in 1997.

ANALYSIS

We examine Rich's habeas claims against the following backdrop. Rich's habeas petition, brought ten years after his conviction and nearly two years after that conviction was final, was initially found to be rife with claims that had not been exhausted in state court. After being given a four-year opportunity to do so, Rich asked for and was given an opportunity to amend his claims and provide a discovery plan. When he filed his amended habeas petition, it still contained unexhausted state claims.

1. Denial of Discovery, Evidentiary Hearing.

Rich contends he was denied the opportunity to discover and present evidence supporting his claims. In fact, the Magistrate Judge established an entirely reasonable process to deal with the claims for which Rich sought discovery and a hearing.

The process required Rich to identify which of his claims remained unexhausted, which actually presented federal questions, and those as to which habeas relief might be available if favorable evidence were developed. Despite being given more than five months to investigate and prepare as well as a full day of argument to identify claims that might colorably entitle him to relief, Rich was unable to do so.

Habeas is an important safeguard whose goal is to correct real and obvious wrongs. It was never meant to be a fishing expedition for habeas petitioners to "explore their case in search of its existence." Calderon v. U.S.D.C. (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.1970)). An evidentiary hearing on a claim is required where it is clear from the petition that: (1) the allegations, if established, would entitle the petitioner to relief; and (2) the state court trier of fact has not reliably found the relevant facts. See, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.1992). Nothing in Rich's submissions below suggests he could meet either requirement.

A habeas petitioner does not enjoy the presumptive entitlement to discovery of a traditional civil litigant. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 903-05, 117 S.Ct. 1793, 1796-97, 138 L.Ed.2d 97 (1997). Rather, discovery is available only in the discretion of the court and for good cause shown. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 6(a) 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. This is consistent with our caselaw that there is no general right to discovery in habeas proceedings. See Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d 1356, 1358 (9th Cir.1993).

Other decisions cited by Rich do not establish a contrary proposition. Crandell v. Bunnell, 25 F.3d 754 (9th Cir.1994), Jeffries v. Blodgett, 5 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.1993), and McKenzie v. Risley, 915 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir.1990) all involve petitioners who presented evidence in support of claims that colorably entitled them to relief. None of Rich's claims meet this standard.

2. Pre-Trial Error.

a. Pre-Indictment Publicity.

Any claim that Rich's indictment was tainted by pretrial publicity was waived when Rich failed to challenge the impartiality of the jury venire following a change in venue; the presumptively impartial trial jury having considered the charges and returned its verdict. See United States v. Reed, 726 F.2d 570, 578 (9th Cir.1984). Even if we were to accept Rich's argument that Reed has been effectively overruled by Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986), such an interpretation would constitute a "new rule" and be subject to the bar of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989).

b. Grand Jury Selection.

Rich broadly complains of the process by which the grand jury that indicted him was selected and composed. The district court properly limited Rich's equal protection claim under Teague v. Lane to the exclusion of Native Americans. Rich's claim fails because he did not set forth a prima facie case of systematic exclusion of members of that group. The 1980 Census for Shasta County showed that the overall population consisted of 2.7% "American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut."

A survey of the cases show that the exclusion of a group constituting 7.7% or less of the total population is, standing alone, generally insufficient to establish a prima facie case of systematic exclusion. See United States v. Cannady, 54 F.3d 544, 548 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Suttiswad, 696 F.2d 645, 649 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Potter, 552 F.2d 901, 906 (9th Cir.1977). There was no constitutional error in the selection and composition of the grand jury that returned Rich's indictment.

3. Trial Error.

a. Jury Instructions.

Rich claims that the trial court misled the jury by failing to instruct, after the jury had reached a temporary impasse, that a failure to reach agreement on penalty would result in a life sentence. This argument fails because such an instruction would have been contrary to California Penal Code section 190.4(b) and inconsistent with established caselaw that a trial court need not inform a jury of the consequences of deadlock. See People v. Memro, 11 Cal.4th 786, 882, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 905 P.2d 1305, 1359 (1995).

Intermediate California appellate decisions suggesting a contrary rule fly in the face of our recognition of the California Supreme Court as the "final expositor of California law." Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 841 (9th Cir.1995). There is no error, constitutional or otherwise, in the failure to give the requested instruction.

b. Defense Counsel Conflict of Interest.

Rich claims that his trial counsel labored under an "economic conflict" of interest because of pressures put on him by Shasta County funding authorities. The result of these pressures, Rich claims, was twofold: (1) his counsel was "chilled" from obtaining experts "untainted" by a confession that was ultimately suppressed; and (2) an investigator was not hired to look into jailhouse conditions and their impact on Rich.

Even under the deferential standard the district court applied to this claim, it fails because Rich cannot show that: (1) his counsel actively represented conflicting interests; and (2) an actual conflict of interest adversely affected counsel's performance. See id. at 825. Rich's failure to make out such a prima facie case relieved the district court of any responsibility to hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim. See Williams v. Calderon, 52 F.3d 1465, 1484 (9th Cir.1995).

A claim that a conflict produced adverse impact is not made out by simply claiming such; it must be an impact that significantly worsens the client's representation. See United States v. Mett, 65 F.3d 1531, 1535-36 (9th Cir.1995). Rich's trial counsel provided an affidavit discussing the financial pressures he perceived at the time, which does not even suggest that he gave in to those pressures in any way that produced demonstrable harm of any kind to Rich's defense.

The finding below that Rich was not denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial is supported by substantial evidence.

c. Shackling.

Asked at argument to identify the most serious error affecting Rich's trial, his habeas counsel chose this one. The underlying facts are straightforward and not in essential dispute. Rich was in fact shackled with ankle chains during the course of his trial. The shackles were behind a curtain or "skirt" placed around the defense table to insure that they were not visible to the jury. He was not handcuffed and was able to take notes and communicate freely with his defense counsel.

The record is devoid of any suggestion that the skirt was not effective in screening Rich's shackles from the jury's view. Neither the trial judge, who insisted on the shackling, nor Rich's defense counsel, who objected to it, made any comment about the jury being able to see the shackles in the courtroom during the trial.

Our caselaw is clear: where care is taken to ensure that a defendant's shackling is not visible to the jury in the courtroom, no error results. See United States v. Collins, 109 F.3d 1413, 1418 (9th Cir.1997); Castillo v. Stainer, 983 F.2d 145, 148 (9th Cir.1992), as amended 997 F.2d 669 (9th Cir.1993) (no constitutional error from brief jury viewing of shackled defendant outside the courtroom). No constitutional error resulted from the shackling methods employed here.

d. Prosecutorial Misconduct.

Rich claims that the prosecutor at his trial engaged in misconduct during penalty phase final argument by referring to the potential for future acts of violence on Rich's part and to a photograph showing one of his tattoos. This claim is also without merit. Rich made no objection at the time and California enforces a contemporaneous objection rule during final argument. See Hines v. Enomoto, 658 F.2d 667, 673 (9th Cir.1981); Bonin, 59 F.3d at 842. Especially in light of Rich's braggadocio comments to his friends ("Once you've killed, you can always kill again."), the arguments constituted appropriate comment on an issue properly before the jury. Prosecutorial misconduct did not occur here.

e. Mental Competence.

Rich understandably concentrates on the testimony of the mental health experts he called to the stand. The Magistrate Judge, however, went carefully through the testimony of all mental health experts and could not find a "real and substantial doubt" concerning Rich's competency to stand trial. See Boag v. Raines, 769 F.2d 1341, 1343 (9th Cir.1985). Rich was mentally competent to stand trial and no error occurred in the process by which the trial court so determined.

Having found no constitutional error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.
 
Top