I Know My First Name Is Steven (32 page)

Late that afternoon Steve's testimony progressed to his first sight of Timmy, in Parnell's car on February 14, 1980:

In preparation for the trial Hallford had ordered two professional evaluations of Steve's mental state, one by a Merced psychologist and the other by a psychiatrist in San Francisco. These were quietly but firmly opposed by Kay and Del, who believed, as did Steve himself that his mental health was just fine and therefore there was no need for any evaluations; and certainly, they staunchly insisted, there was no need for counseling, although counseling had been and would continue to be suggested to them repeatedly for years to come.

Steve and his parents were both very unhappy that these evaluations were both introduced into evidence at the trial. However, both seem very accurate and professionally prepared. Merced psychologist Dr. Phillip M. Hamm wrote:

     
Steve's parents present themselves as a very typical middle-American couple. They give the feeling that they are a close couple, conversing easily, spontaneously offering support to each other, and touching and holding hands at times during the interview.

     
Mrs. Stayner notes that she enjoys her children and relates well to them, but, on the other hand,
is more a disciplinarian than her husband. They note that Steven was taught to do as he was told by adults and not question it. . . .

     
The Stayners also have many concerns about Steven's adjustment since returning to their family. They note that Steven has been reluctant to talk much about his experience, and they have been reluctant to force him to discuss it. They have a feeling that he is very much like Mr. Parnell in that he seems not to have much interest in a more structured life or in taking on the responsibilities of an adult person. Finally, Mr. Stayner expressed some concern with the fact that Steven has few male friends. "All his friends are girls." He apparently has only one male friend. His father feels that he is in a pattern of attaching himself to one female, and then moving on to another in a kind of repetitive fashion, not being able to maintain any relationship, and going through one girlfriend after another without much evidence of attachment or commitment.

     
They [Steven's parents] are confused about how to handle Steven's irresponsibility and, either out of guilt or fear, are confused as to whether they should be more firm with their discipline or more patient.

     
Steven, on the other hand, presents himself as a rather happy-go-lucky, easygoing, agreeable young man with a ready smile. However, this sunny disposition is frequently punctured when he is pressed to deal with various areas of his experience with Mr. Parnell. This is especially true
as his face reddens as the subject of the sexual encounters with Mr. Parnell are brought up.

     
The results from the psychological tests administered provide a picture of Steven as a young man with average intellectual ability who is depressed, experiencing a great deal of emotional conflict, and who has a tendency to either act out or live out his very intense internal and conflicted experience. On the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Steven obtained an extremely high score on the L Scale. This is a scale designed to identify persons who attempt to give overly perfectionistic views of themselves; that is, to present a positive picture.

     
Steven's response to Card #6 [of the Rorschach Test] indicates that he has a tremendous amount of conflict about sexual matters.

     
While Steven attempted to fend off his abductors by initially declining their invitation, he appears to have been completely taken in and overwhelmed by their persistence and persuasiveness. I would note that in this connection, that I believe any seven-year-old child would be much moved by this persuasion, but that Steven appears especially vulnerable in as much as he was a rather trusting child who had been raised to respect the influence of adults.

San Francisco psychiatrist Robert A. Wald prepared a much briefer evaluation of Steven, stating in part:

     
Steven [was] essentially trapped and bound within the unconscious mind of Dennis. When
Dennis saw the active distress of the younger child, Timmy White, his satisfaction with the myth [of being Dennis] began to deteriorate. When he saw that Timmy was treated with kindness and concern by the officer, the mythic person was subordinated to the real person, and the young man spoke his true name. It is my absolute belief that with the acknowledgment of his true identity, Steven Stayner freed himself from his state of being kidnapped. From a psychological point of view, he was still in a state of kidnap until he spoke his name, thus ending a psychic capture that lasted two thousand, six hundred forty-four days.

Before and after Doctors Hamm and Wald introduced their evaluations from the stand, the State presented a lengthy list of witnesses: school officials, teachers, and some of Parnell's and Murphy's acquaintances. Following a redirect examination of Steven, several police officers gave evidence about his school attendance, the arrests of Parnell and Murphy, and Steve's frequent moves with Parnell. Then, on December 22, the State rested and the defense began its presentation, including testimony by Murphy, Steve, Sean Poorman, and Ukiah Police Officer Bob Warner.

From the stand Murphy told of his troubled childhood, his coming to California, his going to work in the kitchen at Yosemite Lodge, and his meeting and subsequent befriending by Parnell. It was exactly as he has always told it: simply, honestly, and matter-of-factly. And he patiently repeated the same honest
story—indeed, it was the only one he knew—when he was cross-examined by Hallford.

At this trial, Parnell did not take the stand. Testimony ended two days before Christmas of 1981 and because of the approaching holidays Judge Sabraw dismissed the jury until January 4, 1982, but asked the attorneys to meet with him in chambers on New Year's Eve to deal with various motions and agree on his instructions to the jury.

With the jury back in place on January 4, Hallford made his previously reserved opening statement on behalf of the people. When he finished, Morse spoke on Murphy's behalf before Ellery stood and spoke in defense of Parnell.

As is legal custom, the tall, dignified Hallford then rose again and gave the State's closing argument. It was short and to the point, ending with, "Any verdict that's not kidnapping and kidnapping for conspiracy I think would be a cruel joke on Steven, and it would be a sad and tragic day for justice in Merced County and Alameda County, and any other county in this state."

After the lunch recess the jury, attorneys, witnesses, news reporters, cameramen, and anyone else still around a month after the trial had begun were witness to Judge Sabraw's hour-long jury instructions. At 3:12 the jury retired to begin deliberations, a formidable task, since they had to decide not just Murphy's and Parnell's separate guilt or innocence on the kidnapping charges but also on the highly complicated conspiracy-to-kidnap charges.

Also, as expected with two defendants with such apparently differing levels of involvement and culpability
, the jury was sufficiently confused that it spent the balance of that day, all of the next, and nearly all of a third pondering the fate of Ervin Edward Murphy. Indeed, the jury repeatedly sent requests to Judge Sabraw for clarification of the detailed charges against Parnell's accomplice and rereadings of Murphy's testimony and the law, all of which the judge promptly responded to during the panel's nearly fourteen hours of deliberations.

At 3:25 the afternoon of the third day, the jury, having finally reached a verdict on one of the charges for both men, entered the courtroom. Parnell was first to learn that he had again been found guilty of second degree kidnapping, followed immediately thereafter by the pronouncement of Murph's guilt for an identical charge. But Judge Sabraw had already known the jury had been unable to reach a decision on the conspiracy-to-kidnap charges, and that to do so they needed additional, definitive information from him. Before the twelve returned to the jury room the judge furnished them with the requested information, but it was insufficient, for they were back in the courtroom fifteen minutes later for further clarifications.

Twenty-seven minutes later they finally came in with guilty verdicts for both men. Sentencing for the pair was set for February 3, and both were remanded to custody of the Alameda County Sheriff.

Just before he pronounced sentence that winter morning there were arguments before Judge Sabraw by all four counsel as to what the jury meant to do, what they did do, and how one or the other should be interpreted by him. After weighing both the State's and the defense's arguments, Judge Sabraw had
Parnell stand with his attorney and then imposed sentence.

     
It is the judgment of this court and it's hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that in punishment for said offense, that the defendant be imprisoned in the State Prison of the State of California for the term of eighty-four months. . . .
*

     
I note that by reason of the bizarre nature of the circumstances surrounding this crime . . . that a seven-year-old boy was taken from his home and lied to, told that his parents didn't want him anymore, presumably didn't love him anymore, told that he was separated legally from his parents by reason of obtaining a court order, thereafter permitting this boy for the next seven years to lead a loose and permissive and undisciplined life, depriving him of the training at a most critical period in his life, religious training, moral training. The resulting psychological impact, that this obviously had on this young boy, now sixteen years of age, is something that he's struggling with now and will be struggling with . . . for the rest of his life. The impact that
this had on his family is difficult to measure and difficult to perceive and to fully appreciate. All this conduct was callous, deceitful, insensitive, and as far as the Court is concerned, fully justifies the imposition of the maximum sentence that's available to the Court. . .

The judge then turned his attention to Parnell's accomplice.

     
With respect to the defendant Ervin Edward Murphy, the record would reflect that I have read and considered the probation report that has been filed in this matter and have concluded, based on the circumstances of the crime, the serious nature of the crime, that the defendant's application for probation should be denied . . .

     
. . . it is the judgment of this Court. . . that in punishment for said offense that the defendant be imprisoned in the State Prison of the State of California for the period of 60 months . . .

     
I am also mindful in this sentencing that the prime mover in this crime was the codefendant [Parnell]. It further is evident from the facts that the greater responsibility . . . is with the codefendant. I also have in mind that you appear before the Court without a prior criminal record. I also have in mind that it was to your credit that you acknowledged eventually your responsibility in the crime. . . . Whatever wrenching and struggling you had with that crime during the intervening years did not result in you coming
forward to the authorities and permitting the child to be returned.

For the kidnapping of Steven, Murphy received the average term allowed by law, 60 months, with an additional sentence of 60 months—to be served concurrently—for his conspiracy conviction. Thus, because of California law, for kidnapping Steven, Murphy received a prison term longer than Parnell's.

On Wednesday, February 3, 1982, the Stayner kidnapping trial drew to a complete and final close. Of course, there was the unsuccessful appeal made by Oakland attorney Daniel Horowitz for Parnell. But when the trial finished, Parnell and Murphy were remanded to custody of the California Department of Corrections.

Hallford was pleased with getting Parnell convicted for kidnapping Steven, but he said he wished that the sentences for the kidnapping convictions had at least been of equal length. "Consecutive sentences. Stack 'em! That is what the prisoners call them, in other words, one after the other. The second one is much less than the first.

"Now, in kidnapping Timmy White, [Parnell] got seven years. But since Steven Stayner was the second offense [to be tried], he only got twenty months. And that looked so bad when everybody realized that he got twenty months for keeping Steven seven years. The public was outraged! So they did change that law. Now, kidnapping is like rape: you can get seven years for the second one as well."

But under California law kidnappings like Steven's and Timmy's are still considered second-degree kidnappings . . . and the maximum sentence is still just seven years in prison.

Wayne Eisenhart and Neil Morse felt dejected for Murphy. Said Wayne, "We were trying to portray Murphy as a victim of Parnell's manipulations, just the same as Stayner was a victim."

Neil added, "To the extent that they found Stayner was a victim, Murph was a previous victim."

Remembering the protection Murph had unwittingly afforded him during those first days of the kidnapping, even Steve felt sorry for "Uncle" Murphy. "I'd like to see him. The only time I ever saw him [again] was during the trial. That was sort of a sad thing to watch, especially since the judge sentenced him to five years. It was kind of heartbreaking. . . . "

With the trials over, Hallford had still not given up trying to convince Mendocino County to prosecute Parnell for the 87 sexual assaults on Steve. "After my trial was finished, I called Mendocino County and Dick Finn came down here to talk to the Stayners and Steve. He wouldn't have come down at all except at my insistence. They were going to let it go! But after he got here, he didn't do anything other than 'Well, Steve, would you like to do this?' And that really didn't impress me.