I Know My First Name Is Steven (31 page)

In preparing their defense of Murphy, Eisenhart
and Morse hired retired F.B.I agents Mel Shannon and Tom Walsh (Chief Kulbeth's friend) to do some investigative work for them. Morse quoted his client as saying, " 'I know I've done wrong, and whatever they're gonna punish me with is okay. I should be punished.' It was a real fatalistic type of thing, but the amount of information we needed from him, he had some trouble trying to recall. He's not what you'd call the most insightful person you ever met.

"What we were trying to do with Murphy was aim for the statute of limitations argument. We were trying to show too that at a certain point in time—early on in the kidnapping—Steven Stayner was able to control his own destiny, his own fate; that he had free rein and was not a mental captive."

As with the first trial, Judge Sabraw spent part of the first day hearing assorted defense motions dealing with striking or including various categories of evidence, and he made an identical ruling to one in the earlier trial about extended media coverage: there could be one TV camera and operator, one news photographer, and one sound system, and reporters would be allowed to use their own small audio cassette tape recorders. Then, late that day and continuing for the next six days, the boring but vitally important process of jury
voir dire
ran its course.

On Thursday, December 10, with jury selection finally completed, Judge Sabraw had the jury sworn in and then had them leave the courtroom so as to allow still more State and defense motions to be argued outside their presence. Among the defense motions, the major one Ellery presented was one to limit evidence about the kidnapping of Timmy White, the other side
of the coin from LeStrange's concern during the first trial. After hearing Ellery out, Judge Sabraw walked a fine line by ruling that he would not allow testimony specific to that abduction, but would allow testimony "that would be appropriate covering that same period of time."

Then Judge Sabraw called the jury back and dismissed them for a late lunch, leaving just the lawyers, defendants, and court officials present. None of the attorneys were prepared for what happened next, but those familiar with Judge Sabraw, like Bailiff Bob Artis and court clerk Shirley Wensler, were not at all surprised. When the last juror had departed, Judge Sabraw began to speak, his voice rising in a carefully controlled crescendo of anger: "As counsel realizes, the matter of Mr. Murphy's glasses was first called to the Court's attention some two months ago, October 9th, and I indicated to Mr. Murphy at that time that I would ensure that he would have his glasses replaced and available to him for the trial.

"Now, in each session that Mr. Murphy has appeared since that time, inquiry has been made about these glasses, and, as a matter of fact, it's been done on a daily basis since the trial commenced on December 1st, and I indicated at the outset that I would not proceed with this trial until Mr. Murphy's glasses had been replaced."

Now wound tightly, Judge Sabraw concluded, "However, I'm going to invite the Sheriff and the Director of the county Health Care Services to be here at 9:30 on Monday morning if Mr. Murphy does not have his glasses at that time. . . . I'm inviting you, Deputy King, to communicate that to the Sheriff's Office and the
Court will communicate it to the County Director of Health Care Services." With that Judge Sabraw adjourned Court until 10:00 Monday morning.

Murph had his glasses well before ten o'clock Monday morning. Said Bailiff Artis about Judge Sabraw's pique over the delay, "He sure got their attention over at the Sheriff's Office! You bet!"

At 10:15 the following Monday morning it was a calm Judge Sabraw who greeted those assembled in his courtroom with, "Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, counsel. . ." before routinely replacing an ill juror with an alternate and having court clerk Shirley Wensler read the information on the charges to the jury, a five-thousand-word document prepared by Merced D.A. Hallford which detailed the two charges against codefendants Parnell and Murphy: kidnapping Steven Stayner and conspiracy to commit the kidnapping, a considerably more difficult charge to prove.

Ms. Wensler finished reading the lengthy document, the State and defense reserved their opening statements until the close of the trial, and Hallford called his first witness, Steven's mother, Kay. Her initial testimony was routine as she told about her family and children, and particularly about Steven and his school attendance, before she began relating recollections of the family's activities on December 4, 1972. There were no objections from the three defense attorneys during Hallford's steady, competent direct examination.

Wayne Eisenhart then cross-examined Kay and got right down to using what he felt might be helpful information on the subject of Steve's unhappiness about the family's move from the almond ranch into Merced
and the alleged immoderate physical punishment of Steve. Before the trial the trio of defense attorneys had discussed and agreed to use this angle in an attempt to explain their clients' statements to police that Steve had been happy to leave his home, and so Eisenhart asked about Steven's tardiness in coming home from school. As he expected, Kay responded by explaining what she and Del had done to counter Steven's misbehavior before Eisenhart drove home with:

Eisenhart was caught off guard by Kay's direct response but felt that this just might be the crack he had been seeking. Carefully he began to dig away at her, but it was to no avail, for Kay stood resolute in the correctness of her discipline of her children. Then, in turn, Ellery cross-examined Kay, but he, too, got nowhere.

Next Hallford brought Del to the witness stand to introduce Steven's Missing Juvenile flyer into evidence before turning him over to the defense for cross-examination. This time Neil Morse began with the ranch-vs.-town issue before nimbly shifting to the corporal punishment theme.

Then, after a few more questions, he got Del to admit that Kay spanked their children more than he did.

This put the onus of supposed immoderate punishment back on Kay. Then, Morse changed the subject and asked the witness about his family being approached about selling movie rights to Steven's story. Hallford quickly objected to this question and the objection was sustained by Judge Sabraw. John Ellery rose to assist in the argument that this was relevant, but it didn't profit the defense. Then came this exchange:

Ellery realized that his question and moreover, Del's response, opened a legal can of worms for the defense. By referring to Steven's school attendance while he was living with Parnell, Ellery had introduced a subject that could be damaging to his client's case. Prior to this point in the trial, the prosecution had been unable to raise this issue because it was not directly connected to the charges of kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap.

Hoping that his strategic error would go unnoticed, Ellery quickly ended his cross-examination of the witness.

Hallford then solidified the jury's memory of this unexpected gift from the defense with a brief redirect examination of Del about the Missing Juvenile flyers and their distribution to the very schools Steven had attended as Dennis Parnell. Then he called Steven's second-grade teacher, Mary Walsh, to
the stand. His direct examination elicited testimony from her that Steven was a young boy who needed "special strokes."

Next Eisenhart cross-examined Mary Walsh, a teacher with thirty-four years of experience, trying as he did to turn her testimony into the notion that Steven had been neglected at home.

Steve then took the stand and Hallford led the tall, lanky teenager through a basic question-and-answer session covering the move from the ranch and his early family life before turning to a series of detailed questions focusing on the defendants' behavior. Inevitably these questions got around to the then mostly un
known knowledge that Parnell had sexually assaulted Steven.

Said Hallford of his approach to having Steve testify about the subject, "We had an agreement at the trial that the media wouldn't film the portion about sex. I had the promises of the media—and Steve knew that—and I used to turn around and give a signal to the press, and they would shut the lights off, and he would feel more comfortable. You could visibly see Steve was more relieved. Then he was able to come out with it. I thought that was good of the press to be that cooperative."