No conviction for two men in Ghost Ship criminal trial

Last year, an Alameda Superior Court judge rejected a plea deal reached with two men facing 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter, finding it too lenient. On Wednesday, a jury declined to hold them responsible at all.

The criminal trial stemming from the infamous 2016 Ghost Ship warehouse fire trial ended in a hung jury for the property's leaseholder, Derick Almena, and the acquittal of his associate Max Harris on all criminal charges.

Prosecutors argued Almena and Harris were criminally responsible for the blaze, having allowed dozens to live in a dilapidated building in violation of countless safety codes.

But given Wednesday's result, it's likely the jury agreed with the defense's argument there were simply bigger fish to fry, said Louis J. Shapiro, a criminal defense attorney not involved in the case. He speculated the average juror would question the prosecution's decision to target Harris and Almena while failing to hold the owner of the property criminally responsible.

"The jury pool where the trial took place..., there are a lot of renters who tend to have a pro-tenant type mentality," said Shapiro, a former Los Angeles County public defender. "I think as a tenant, a juror could relate to the tenant in that sense. Why is the rich landlord getting off scot-free? Why isn't he sitting here, too?"

That gave the defense room to make a low hanging fruit-based argument, Shapiro said, explaining, "They were able to do a good job of pointing the finger at everyone else."

Considering Harris and Almena previously tried to plead guilty in the case, Shapiro found Wednesday's result particularly jarring. In August 2018, Alameda County Superior Court JudgeJames Cramer stunned both prosecution and defense when he rejected a proposed plea agreement.

Cramer reasoned the deal failed to reflect a showing of true remorse for the incident and questioned whether the agreement would do victims "any good."

"They made the deal -- they pled guilty -- and the judge rejected it because the sentence was too light," Shapiro said.

That might make it hard to justify retrying the case against Almena, Shapiro said, particularly if the court finds the deadlocked jurors were already leaning in favor of acquitting him.

If the case doesn't end up retried, hope for some form of restitution for the tragedy rests largely with civil litigators. Mary Alexander, a personal injury attorney and founder of Mary Alexander & Associates PC, filed a lawsuit in May 2017 on behalf of victims and their families against the city of Oakland, the property's owners, and a number of other defendants.

"Today's verdict reflects that there are others responsible, including the city of Oakland, the owners, and PG&E," Alexander said.

In November 2018, the California Supreme Court rejected bids by the city and Oakland and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to have themselves dismissed from the case. While Almena has been named as a defendant in the case, Shapiro said it's likely other parties will be more central to the civil litigation.

"You can name anyone in a civil case," Shapiro said. "But these guys aren't the ones with the deep pockets."