Death penalty not sought in LA multiple murder cases

A man charged with murdering five people and injuring nearly a dozen others during a shooting rampage in Los Angeles County pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity on Thursday, a month after the district attorney dropped a request for the death penalty.

Alexander Hernandez, 40, of Sylmar, is charged with the murders of Sergio Sanchez, Gilardo Morales, Gloria Tovar, Michael Planells and Mariana Franco, along with 11 counts of attempted murder, three counts of animal cruelty and dozens of other counts, including shooting at an occupied vehicle.

Prosecutors planned to seek the death penalty against Hernandez, accused in charging documents of shooting 16 random victims, along with three dogs, between May and August 2014. Deputy District Attorney Michele Hanisee, who is prosecuting the case, took that off the table at a hearing last month due to District Attorney George Gascon’s special directives, which in part prevent prosecutors from seeking capital punishment. Hanisee said Wednesday she is pursuing a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

Prosecutors in LA have dropped the death penalty in several other high-profile murder cases since Gascon took office, including the case of Christopher Michael Mejia, accused of killing a Whittier police officer and wounding another just hours after killing a relative. Prosecutors said at a trial setting conference on Thursday morning they expect Mejia’s trial will only take a week to complete once a jury is selected. The trial is expected to commence Aug. 4.

After Hernandez’s insanity plea Thursday, Superior Court Judge Stephen A. Marcus appointed doctors for the prosecution and the defense to assess his mental state next month. Hanisee said in an email she expects the case will go to trial by the end of the year. Hernandez is due back in court May 12.

Earlier in the week during a virtual event hosted by the Criminal Courts Bar Association, Gascon fielded questions from defense attorneys curious about how his policies could affect their clients’ cases. Gascon avoided specifics about his special directives, citing pending litigation.

The DA is appealing a Los Angeles Superior Court judge’s ruling that some of his directives are unlawful. The underlying lawsuit was filed by the The Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles, whose president is Hanisee.

Speaking broadly about his policies, however, Gascon noted prosecutors in his new Resentencing Unit have begun sifting through possibly more than 20,000 criminal cases that could be eligible for reduced sentences.

Defense attorneys asked if Gascon would entertain suggestions for resentencing candidates, to which he responded the office is prioritizing cases by type of crime and recommended they contact the unit if they believe their clients’ circumstances fall on the priority list.

The cases receiving priority involve people serving lengthy sentences for nonviolent crimes, people who have immediate health risks, and people convicted as juveniles who have served more than 20 years, Gascon said.

“Our goal within the first four years of my term is to try to get through as many of those as we can,” Gascon said, adding his view that years of tough-on-crime policies have allowed prisons and jails to swell with inmates without having any deterrent effect on violent crime.

Gascon was also asked about the disconnect between leadership in his office and line prosecutors and what defense attorneys should do if a prosecuting attorney refuses to dismiss enhancement allegations or increases an offer to compensate for dismissal of an enhancement.

The DA said although he’s been surprised at how the majority of his prosecutors are showing “a high level of civility” toward his directives, he advised defense attorneys to first have a conversation with prosecutors whom they believe are noncompliant before reporting them up the DA’s chain of command.

“Anytime you take a large organization like the LA County District Attorney and you make such a radical shift in the way that you do business, it’s going to be difficult for people to adjust,” Gascon said. “As human beings, we like certainty. We’re very used to doing things the way we always have, and I understand that we have to work on that.”

He added that he expects there will soon be some “judicial resolution” regarding the varied response judges throughout the county have had to his dismissal motions. The California Supreme Court recently asked Gascon to file an answer to a petition for review filed by a defense attorney in a case in which a judge denied a motion to dismiss an enhancement charge on public safety grounds. A DA spokesperson said Thursday that the office is drafting its response in the case, and then the defense will have an opportunity to respond before the high court decides whether to take the case.

“We’re evaluating our response to this,” Gascon said. “For those of you that have an interest in this area, you might want to consider reviewing it possibly. If you’re so inclined to writing amicus on behalf of the defense in this case, it will support the process of the directives.”

He did not name the case, and a spokesperson had no additional details about it on Thursday.