by Robert Scott
When hearings resumed, the most damaging thing yet to Darrell’s cause became apparent. Lieutenant Eoff testified in a hearing about all that Darrell had told him while the defendant was incarcerated in Burney. Despite continuous objections by Swartz, Eoff said that Darrell had given him a written list of the women he had murdered and other crimes as well. This was around the time that Darrell said he would admit to the crimes that he had done, but not to others that the detectives wondered if he was involved in. Darrell had placed small crosses by the names of Annette Edwards, Patricia “Pam” Moore, Linda Slavik and Annette Selix. This was the first time the public became aware of this letter. If allowed into evidence, it was a direct confession from Darrell that he had murdered those four women. Without it, the defense could still try to prove that Darrell had not been at the different locations when law enforcement said he’d been there. The prosecution would have had to go on more circumstantial evidence. But with that letter, Darrell, in essence, had been his own worst enemy.
Most of the objections, of course, from Russell Swartz had been that Darrell’s Miranda rights had been violated by Lieutenant Eoff and other officers. Judge Small, however, overruled these, saying that Darrell Rich understood his Miranda rights and had volunteered information.
Then came the explosive matter of Darrell’s alleged “suicide note,” which was filled with misspellings and odd grammatical choices:
Mom, Darlene Rich, Russell Swartz, Ben Lambert, Who Ever, To God
Mom, I Love you, I hope that you’ll be able understand why I did this! Darlene, I love you more then anything in this world, Ya diserve someone alot better than I. Mr. Swartz, Thanks. Ben, I didn’t kill anyone that I hadn’t said that I did, I’m telling ya the truth. Who ever, I hate my self. God, Help me!
Darrell was so despondent in jail, he tried committing suicide. He wrote
this note before trying to hang himself. (Shasta County DA’s Office)
In the hearing Detective Ben Lambert testified that he’d gone to check on Darrell when a deputy told him that Darrell was very emotionally upset. This had happened on December 11, 1978. It appeared that Darrell had tried to hang himself in his cell. In a shoe box, he had placed the “suicide note.”
Once again, Swartz and co-counsel Werner Ahrbeck vigorously protested the admission of this letter. They said that whole period of time had been tainted by officers continually violating Darrell Rich’s constitutional rights against self-incrimination. Judge Small said that so much testimony was entangled, that he was going to allow it, and an appeals court could decide on what was legal and what wasn’t at a later point in time.
Over the next few months, Darrell was visited by various psychiatrists and psychologists for the prosecution and for the defense. Darrell had to be in wrist and ankle chains while being interviewed. This was for the safety of the doctors. Darrell indicated that he was taking the drug Triavil three times a day now, but he hadn’t been taking any illegal drugs or medications during the times of the crimes. (Triavil is an antidepressant drug.)
Dr. Alfred French, one of the lead psychiatrists, generally used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Behavioral Disorders of Childhood and Adolescence as his guides in interviewing Darrell. He also conferred with Dr. John Robinson and Dr. Bruce Kaldor. The biggest question Dr. French and the others had to answer: “Was Mr. Rich legally sane at the time of the offenses?”
Dr. French reported that Darrell Rich physically bore many scars because of his vehicle accident in 1976. He also had a severely sore right hand. When asked about this, Darrell responded, “I hit a wall with it.” There were scars on his arms and healed scars on his abdomen. On top of these was a scar on his chest, and Darrell said that was the area where he had tried committing suicide with a .22 rifle.
In his present state in the interview, Darrell was “sorrowful, repentant and cooperative” to the “point of obsequiousness,” according to Dr. French. It was important to get an oral history of how Darrell viewed his own life. He told the doctor that he’d often been depressed since childhood. And besides the .22 rifle suicide incident, Darrell said he had once pointed a large-caliber pistol at his head. He lost his nerve, and that was when he shot over the top of a police car, hoping the deputy would return fire and kill him.
Darrell looked at an “inkblot” on a Rorschach test and had a very interesting conclusion of what the pattern was. Darrell said, “It looks like somebody took a knife and cut into somebody’s layers of skin.”
After a while it was apparent that Dr. French’s opinion was not going to go Darrell Rich’s way. One paragraph in French’s report stated: In my opinion, Darrel [sic] Rich is simply an immature, impulsive individual and that his chronological age really has not much to do with the matter aside from his physical strength. He has an unsocialized, aggressive reaction of childhood and/or adolescence. I find no evidence of psychosis in my clinical interviews with Mr. Rich.
In another report the same kind of conclusion was rendered: no history of psychosis in Darrell Rich’s history. Even more emphatic from the prosecution’s standpoint was a statement by French: “In my opinion Mr. Rich is, and has always been, sane. Mr. Rich, in all probability, at the time of commission of the offenses was perfectly capable of understanding the criminality of his conduct.”
And in yet another report by a psychiatrist was the statement: This young man, with his chaotic life history, has moved to the extremes of rape and murder, with a fairly straightforward, logical progression.
In April 1979, Darrell was ordered to be examined by Redding neurologist Malcolm Wilson to see if he had incurred actual brain damage from his severe automobile accident. Russell Swartz was particularly interested in the outcome of these tests. If Darrell had indeed been suffering from brain damage at the time of the crimes, it put a whole new spin on the way the defense would present its case at trial.
When the results were in, it was another blow to the defense. Basically, it was shown that Darrell had no damage to his brain that would have caused him not to know the difference between right and wrong, as far as his actions went.
Delays on setting dates for various psychiatrists to appear was becoming a real strain on the Lake County judicial system. In a hearing Werner Ahrbeck stated that the defense was still waiting to get psychiatrist reports on Darrell. Ahrbeck also told Judge Small, “We’re a long, long way from even preparing a theory of defense.”
And true to his word, Russell Swartz appealed to the jurists of the Third District Court of Appeal Judge Small’s decisions about the admission of certain evidence. The main thrust of Swartz’s argument was “A show-cause hearing on why the evidence gathered by Shasta County sheriff’s agents shouldn’t be barred permanently.”
Finally it was determined that a trial was not in the cards for Lake County. Yolo County, farther down the Sacramento Valley, was chosen, and the courtroom would be in the city of Woodland. Woodland, a city just northwest of Sacramento, mostly catered to surrounding agricultural needs. However, many of the prospective jurors might come from Davis, which was a college town in the county and known for its liberal way of thinking. This fact greatly worried the prosecution. It would only take one juror voting against the death penalty to mean, by law, that Darrell Rich would have to be sentenced to life in prison without parole if found guilty.
In February 1980, California’s Third District Court of Appeal was not helpful to Darrell’s defense. Regarding when Darrell had spoken to Lieutenant Eoff and the others against his lawyer’s wishes, they wrote, It does not appear that the assorted violations resulted in violation of defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.
However, in April 1980, Russell Swartz got part of what he wanted. The California State Supreme Court ruled that the Third District Court of Appeal had to hear Swartz’s oral arguments of why a lot of the things Darrell Rich had said before and after his arrest must be suppressed. Once again, the long-delayed trial was not going to happen soon.
In August 1
980, Darrell Rich’s defense team got even more of what they wanted. Yolo County Superior Court judge Warren Taylor ruled that statements Darrell Rich had made to officers after being arrested at the Oarlock Room on August 24, 1978, would not be heard by jurors. The exact wording of these statements had never been made public, but Darrell apparently had admitted to at least two murders: Annette Edwards’s and Linda Slavik’s.
In another matter Judge Taylor also ruled a .22 rifle seized from Darrell Rich’s mother’s house on August 24 as inadmissible because the search and seizure had been illegal. Supposedly, this was the rifle used to shoot Linda Slavik to death.
One thing the prosecution was going to have jurors hear about and see was Darrell Rich’s “suicide note.” And some statements he made to Lieutenant Eoff while incarcerated in Burney would also be admitted. Judge Taylor was still holding off on rulings about some statements made by Darrell Rich’s friends who had visited him at the jail. These people had been recorded while there, and the things they and Darrell had said were detrimental to his case.
Finally in late August 1980, a jury was being picked for the upcoming Darrell Rich trial in superior court in Woodland. Ninety prospective jurors were questioned over a two-week period. And on August 29, the prosecution and defense had decided who would be impaneled as jurors. These included seven men and five women. All of them understood it would be a death penalty case.
Even before the trial began, Shasta County sheriff John Balma was telling reporters, “This was the worst crime case in the history of the county.” And Balma gave out some more information about the murder of Linda Slavik. He said, “Darrell Rich took her there, and shined a flashlight on the other body and asked her to look at it. When she turned around, he had a gun pointed on her.”
Sheriff Balma was very outspoken and said, “The oldest trick in the book for a defense attorney is postponement and delay. If you do this long enough, you know you’ll have the case won.”
Balma also had harsh words for the prosecution, and wondered why they hadn’t fought harder to keep the case from going to Yolo County. Sheriff Balma thought the people there were too liberal, and they might let Darrell escape the death penalty. Even if Darrell was sentenced to death, Balma had his doubts that Darrell would ever be executed. Balma declared, “Knowing how screwed up a criminal justice system we have in California today, and how screwed up the supreme court is, anything can happen.”
Screwed up or not, Darrell Rich was just about to get his day in court.
Chapter 18
Survivors on the Stand
Two years after the terrible events of the summer of 1978, Darrell Rich’s trial began in Woodland. Special Prosecutor Robert Baker and his assistant prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Frank O’Connor, had more than one hundred people on their witness list. It took a court clerk fifteen minutes just to read all the charges against Darrell Rich.
On September 5, 1980, Baker began his opening arguments, telling the jurors in great detail about the four murders. He also spoke of the various cases of girls and women who had been raped and survived. Baker added that Darrell Rich had gone so far as to draw up his own list of whom he had murdered, and he gave that list to law enforcement officers.
All during the prosecution opening statements, Darrell sat motionless at the defense table, clad in brown slacks and a white T-shirt. He did, however, write down notes on occasion. Baker made a lengthy presentation about all the victims of kidnapping and rape in the region around Redding, as well as in surrounding counties.
In the defense opening statement, Russell Swartz admitted that Darrell Rich had perpetrated many terrible crimes. These were “the type of offenses that outrage people. But he was under a lot of internal pressure. At the conscious level he was going about his daily activities, but his subconscious kept driving him closer and closer to the police.” Swartz contended that it was Darrell who had given law enforcement the break they needed. In fact, Swartz declared that near the end Darrell was subconsciously trying to get himself caught so that he would stop the killing, and that he was mentally ill.
The feelings against Darrell ran so high in Shasta County that the trial was
moved to this courthouse in Woodland, 150 miles away. (Author photo)
The first prosecution witness was Janet Olson, who spoke of having an argument with her boyfriend and taking a shortcut near the Anderson-Cottonwood Canal. She told of a man approaching her. He suddenly stopped, grabbed her and struck her hard in the face. As Janet had said, the man told her to shut up or he would kill her. Unlike Brenda Simmons, Janet was able to pick Darrell Rich’s photo out of a photo lineup.
Janet once again related how the man was “very professional” about what he was doing. In her opinion he had everything timed, and probably had done something like this before. The defense had very few questions for Janet. They basically acceded the fact that Darrell Rich had done the things Janet said that he did.
The second witness was Brenda Simmons, who had been walking near Hartnell Avenue and had just crossed the Churn Creek Bridge when attacked. In a barely audible voice, she spoke of being pushed down a hill and then savagely attacked. She had begged her attacker to let her go, but he said in reply, “Shut up, or I’ll kill you!”
Brenda refused to give him oral sex, and he picked up “an unknown object” and struck her in the head at least ten times. She went in and out of consciousness for the next twelve hours until discovered by a passerby. She had been taken to Memorial Hospital for treatment of several injuries, including a severe laceration to the back of her head, and a blood clot in the front of her head. She testified that she still suffered from bad headaches and memory loss. And just as with Janet, the defense had very few questions for Brenda.
Shannon Rodriguez, of Red Bluff, spoke of being grabbed from her bicycle and dragged into Darrell Rich’s car. Even now on the stand, she was very upset about what had occurred. She kept glancing nervously at Darrell Rich, and her voice could barely be heard over the air-conditioning system.
Shannon testified to being raped and sodomized and being in fear for her life. Shannon said that Darrell had told her he had a gun under his seat and a body in the trunk. Shannon glanced at Darrell at the defense table as she testified. She said, “I was scared to death.” Asked if she recognized anyone in the courtroom who had attacked her, Shannon pointed out Darrell Rich.
Defense attorney Ahrbeck had very few questions of Shannon, following the trend of the first two victims as well. Defense counsel was saving its most potent arguments for later witnesses and evidence.
There was so little in the way of cross-examination that day that Robert Baker apologized to Judge Taylor when he ran out of witnesses and court adjourned early. Baker said, “I’m sorry, Your Honor. I have never presented a rape case in half a day before. I’ve never had a case go by this fast.”
Russell Swartz had won one key point with Judge Taylor about Shannon, who had been fifteen at the time she was attacked. Baker wanted to tell jurors that Shannon still suffered psychological trauma from the kidnapping and rape. Swartz objected, and Judge Taylor sided with Swartz. Taylor said that information was only requested to inflame the passions of the jurors.
The next day Tracy Rogers testified that Darrell had asked Gale Croxell to make up an alibi for him concerning July 4. Tracy said, “He wanted Gale to cover up for him.” July 4 was, of course, when Annette Edwards had been bludgeoned to death while going down to the Sacramento River to watch fireworks. Tracy added that both she and Gale had been sitting in a car when Darrell approached them on July 8. He told them, “The police think I killed that girl.” (He was referencing Annette Edwards.)
Pathologist Johannas Klauwers was next on the witness stand and testified that Annette Edwards had been killed by blows to the head by some blunt object. Klauwers spoke of cuts to Edwards’s head and ears, and that her jaw had nearly been broken in two.
Elaine Edwards, Annette’s sister, testified that she was the last per
son to see Annette alive. Even though Annette had spoken to Elaine of going to watch fireworks at a different location, her body was found near Lake Redding Park.
A very potent witness against Darrell was his former wife, Darlene. She told of getting into an argument with him in July, and out of nowhere he blurted out, “I killed that girl!” Darlene said that he was referring to the girl whose body had been found on Sulphur Creek Road. In other words, Annette Edwards.
Darlene also spoke of one occasion in June 1978: Darrell came home very early in the morning and washed his jeans. She said he never did the wash while she was there. When asked about this, he said he wanted a clean pair of jeans for work the next day. But when the following day came, Darlene said he didn’t wear those jeans.
Darrell’s neighbor Carl Frank testified about Darrell asking him on August 20, 1978, to go ride with him on his new motorcycle to the Igo dump. Carl didn’t want to go, and Darrell took off alone. But within twenty minutes, Carl testified, “he came back, very shook-up. He said he’d just found a woman’s body there.”
Carl also testified that Darrell did not want to call police about this, so Carl took a ride back with Darrell to the Igo dump. Darrell showed him a female’s body amid the rubbish. Carl related, “She was lying on her back, and wore glasses. The body had slippers on her feet and looked as if she’d been there about a week.” This was, of course, Linda Slavik; and the shoes were sandals, not slippers.
