This is the last in a fascinating two-part interview with Ed Perez, visiting professor at the University of La Verne College of Law, who has enmeshed himself in the legal issues that surround the Jesse James Hollywood death penalty case, and is attempting to do something about it.
Jesse James Hollywood attorney James Blatt speaks with the media.
Q: Can you tell us a little bit about the symposium you’re putting together?
A: I have some of the participants of the case – for instance, (California Supreme Court) Justice Carlos Moreno, who can’t participate on the panel because he is a judge and he was involved in the decision. And the case may come back in some other form. But he’s going to be a keynote speaker to talk about prosecutorial misconduct, generally, and ethics, generally. And then I have Michael Mehas, the author of the book, Stolen Boy, who’s also an attorney. I have James Blatt, the defense attorney (for Jesse James Hollywood). I have Grover Trask, the former District Attorney for Riverside County for over thirty years. I have Scott Hadly, who is with the Ventura County Star, who broke the story on Jesse James Hollywood. These are people that know quite a bit about the subject matter and the case, and they’re going to discuss it and take some question and answers from students and members of the bar.
Q: And when is this going to take place?
A: October 24th, which is a Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the La Verne College of Law.
Q: There are some other issues you’re contemplating as well, like trying to bring in some new California legislation regarding this conduct by the prosecutor?
A: Yes, what happened was the California Supreme Court ruled in this case. Hollywood’s attorney Mr. Blatt filed a motion to recuse the district attorney involved in the case who actually turned over his files, and the entire office of the Santa Barbara District Attorney. And the court found there were no grounds for recusal. And they decided since there was no money transferred from the media to the district attorney – no money was exchanged – so no conflict of interest. That is the statutory scheme in California, which I think is flawed. And I want to propose legislation that would add the concept of appearance of impropriety as the basis for recusal in these types of situations.
Q: Why is that important?
A: It’s important because it gives the court an opportunity now to have other reasons besides financial reasons for seeking justice or making sure a defendant gets a fair trial by recusing those people who offend the sensibilities of the justice system. People have to have confidence in the judicial system and it doesn’t look good when you have DA’s doing what Mr. Zonen did.
Q: You have also talked about filing an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court. How would that work?
A: Mr. Blatt has filed a Writ for Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court asking them to review the matter, and an amicus brief, literally translated, it means friend of the court. What I’m going to do is offer the thought about the appearance of impropriety, which is not in the statutory scheme. And I’m hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court will see that and will see the importance of the concept and apply it to this case, and actually recuse the district attorney and the district attorney’s office in this matter.
Q: Strategically speaking, based on the hearing you saw today, how do you see James Blatt handling the change of venue motion in the Jesse James Hollywood case, since they obviously haven’t started voir dire, yet?
A: I think Mr. Blatt’s making the motion now just to make the motion, hoping that it might be granted, which, probably it won’t. And then he’ll reassert it once he’s gone through voir dire, and if he believes the panel has been tainted by the book (Stolen Boy) and/or the movie (Alpha Dog).
Q: So what’s the strategy to file it now, knowing that even if he loses it now he’ll get a second stab at it later?
A: That’s the way I see it. And if you notice all the motions that were denied today, Mr. Blatt made the point: Can I reassert them later? And the court said, “yes.”
