by Robert Scott
Darrell’s violent incidents occurred after his parents divorced. And when he was sent to the California Youth Authority, once at Crystal Creek Conservation Camp in Redding, and later at the CYA, he adjusted his behavior and got good reports. Darrell was away from the negative factors in his life and worked well with others and the counselors, too. From that point on, until 1978, Swartz said, Darrell had a good job, did not get into trouble with the law and was a good citizen in the community.
Swartz agreed that the jury did not find diminished capacity for the crimes. “But I submit to you, when you first heard of these offenses and the nature of them, that many of you had the initial reaction, ‘My God, anybody who would do something like that must be crazy!’ ”
Swartz declared that during this part of the trial, there was validity, even now under the law, to that initial reaction. Swartz said that in the summer of 1978, Darrell was out of control. That very phrase meant he could not control his actions because something was seriously wrong with him. And the key word now within the letter of the law was the word “impaired.” According to Swartz, Darrell’s mind and thought processes were impaired during the summer of 1978, and especially at the times that he committed the offenses.
Swartz related the best evidence for that was what happened after the murder of Annette Selix. There was a tremendous outcry in the community after that crime, and Darrell, in essence, finally realized the enormity of what he had done. He committed no further crimes and, in fact, told himself, “ ‘My goodness, I want to stop myself. I want to go to the police.’ ” Swartz said that it was Darrell, more than anyone else, who ensured that he would be caught for the crimes.
Swartz added, “You have heard officer after officer after officer testify that on that day [until Darrell contacted law enforcement about the body at the Igo dump], they had no suspects. Or he could have fled the area after his first polygraph test. Darrell hadn’t been ordered to come in and take that polygraph test in the first place. He had done so on his own volition. They didn’t know who they were looking for. Darrell fully had the capacity at that time to continue his course of conduct.” Swartz said that Darrell could have kept on raping and killing.
Even after an attorney came on the case—meaning his public defender, Russell Swartz—Darrell felt compelled to talk to police officers. Swartz said that Darrell wanted to “clear his conscience.” Darrell knew that everything he said could be used against him, and yet he persisted until he had made sure that officers knew every person whom he had killed.
Swartz noted that the jurors would have exhibits before them when they were in the deliberation room, and one of those exhibits was the letter that Darrell had written to Lieutenant Eoff. It was a thank-you letter to Eoff, even after that officer had testified against Darrell during the convening of the grand jury.
Darrell had written to Eoff about his gratitude for the kindness shown to him during his incarceration: I want to thank you for all you did when I was there. Most of all, thanks for listening and trying to understand.
Swartz declared that one of the arguments for the death penalty was that it was supposedly a message to others: do these kinds of crimes and this could happen to you.
However, in the future, Swartz pointed out, someone else might be like Darrell, wanting to clear his conscience with a police officer. But if Darrell got the death penalty, that person might say to himself, “ ‘Why should I talk to them? See what happened to Darrell Rich when he did that.’ ”
Swartz said that for all the bad things Darrell had done, he did right after August 13, 1978. He stopped himself from doing more crimes; and he helped officers in their investigation more than any other person. Swartz added that was something that was to be encouraged in society.
Defense attorney Swartz wanted to make sure that the jurors knew that if even one of them voted against imposing the death penalty, then Darrell would have to spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole. He could never hurt anyone in the outside world, ever again. Swartz said that the defense never contested that Darrell hadn’t done wrong in any of the crimes. Instead, they had tried to give the jurors a complete picture of Darrell’s life. And then Swartz said that he would have one final opportunity to talk to them briefly after Frank O’Connor made the prosecution’s final statement to them.
O’Connor was much more brief than either Baker or Swartz had been. He told the jurors that they were a microcosm of society. They were faced with a very large moral judgment as to whether Darrell Rich had forfeited his right to life. O’Connor asked rhetorically if Darrell had gone too far, and then he answered that he believed he had. O’Connor reiterated that they, as jurors, had found Darrell guilty of four murders and fifteen other felonies.
“You have a judicial duty to do the right thing. If this is not a case calling for the death penalty, what sort of case are we going to have?”
O’Connor pointed out that Darrell had even mimicked Linda Slavik’s last words as she pleaded for her life, when he spoke with Gale Croxell. Raising his voice’s pitch, Darrell had imitated Linda as she cried out, “No, no, don’t!” And then he had shot her twice, once in the mouth.
And as far as eleven-year-old Annette Selix went, O’Connor declared, “That girl can’t ever come back! She can’t ever achieve anything. Think of the disappointment that is left with her family, her friends. Think of the other families. Think of all the ruined lives that have been caused by this man—not in an isolated incident, not in some motiveless operation, but in nine separate incidents.”
It was now Russell Swartz’s last chance to try and persuade the jurors to spare his client’s life. Swartz emphasized once again that more than anyone else who had stopped Darrell Rich from committing further acts of violence, it was Darrell himself.
“You have at this time an assumed responsibility because you hold another human life in your hands. To some extent I have had that responsibility in this case since August of 1978 as attorney for Darrell Rich. I have felt it deeply, as I am sure each of you feel it deeply. I ask that you go into the jury room and consider all that evidence that we have given you—consider it carefully—and then give the verdict of life imprisonment without the possibility of release on parole.”
Judge Warren Taylor then gave instructions to the jurors. He let them know that if they did not reach a verdict about the death penalty, then he would by law have to sentence Darrell Rich to life in prison without parole.
All during the next day, the jury deliberated about life or death for Darrell Rich. They could not come to a consensus and they sent a note to Judge Taylor that they were deadlocked. Despite objections from the defense, they were told to come back the next day and deliberate some more.
Judge Taylor told the jurors, “The penalty in a case of this type is a subject about which reasonable people can disagree. In my opinion you have not deliberated long enough to discuss fully and understand fully each other’s viewpoints.”
Hearing this, Russell Swartz immediately spoke up and said, “We believe the court’s statements are improper, and we specifically ask the court to discharge the jury.”
Judge Taylor, however, stuck by his guns and responded, “I’ll stand by my statement to the jury.” He then sent them back to deliberate more on the matter.
Also on that same day, a marriage license was issued for Loretta Summers and Darrell Rich in Yolo County. She listed her occupation as a hairstylist.
Before the jury came back with a decision, a reporter spoke with Robert Baker and Frank O’Connor. Baker told the reporter, “I’d hate to have to make the decision they’re [the jurors] making. It’s a tremendous decision to put on a juror.”
O’Connor related, “I feel like I gave it my best shot. Some of this is not wholly in our control. It’s more of an art form than a skill.”
Asked about rumors that had gone around that Russell Swartz had offered them a deal early on for Darrell Rich to plead guilty for life without the possibility of par
ole, Baker said nothing ever concrete had been offered. Then he added, “I think this case was so horrible, it was up to a jury to decide.”
And O’Connor concurred, saying, “I didn’t want to be the one to look Mrs. Selix in the eye, or other people who had their wife or children murdered, and say I signed a piece of paper saying this animal doesn’t have to worry about a death penalty.”
The prosecutors were asked, “Do you hope you picked the right twelve people?”
Baker replied, “That’s it exactly.”
The jurors did go back to deliberation; and after seven hours on the second day, they came back with a verdict. They voted for death on the murders of Annette Selix and Linda Slavik. They voted for life without the possibility of parole for the murders of Annette Edwards and Pam Moore.
As a Redding Record Searchlight article related: Emotionally drained by the ordeal, the somber jury members each answered yes when Judge Warren Taylor polled them on whether Darrell Rich should be put to death.
Darrell Rich sat motionless when the verdict was read. As he was escorted away through the hall, a reporter asked if he had anything to say. Darrell’s only reply was “Later.”
The jurors were no more communicative than he was. When jury foreperson Patricia Cox was asked by reporters if she wanted to say something, all she said was “I’d rather not comment.” The other jurors felt the same way.
Ironically, Robert Baker, who had spent the last two years of his life putting together a case against Darrell Rich, was not there when the verdict was read. He had gone shopping; and in an era before cell phones, he could not be reached in time.
Frank O’Connor, however, was there when the verdict was rendered. He told reporters, “I think the verdict was solid. Judge Taylor was very careful in his rulings, and I will be surprised to see the case reversed.” When asked when he thought a death sentence would be imposed, O’Connor said he thought it would be in two years or so.
As it turned out, he would be off by two decades.
Chapter 23
The Highest Court in the Land
This being a death penalty case, it went immediately to an appeals court for a review. And for years to come, it would be dissected, debated and discussed. All while this was going on, a very curious thing had occurred at the dump site in Igo, the locale where Darrell Rich had murdered and buried Pam Moore and Linda Slavik. There was a mini–gold rush there.
The dump site was going to be sold to a new corporation, and many enterprises, including the Southern Pacific Railroad, wanted to learn just how much gold could be extracted from the dump locale. It had been extensively worked over by placer operations in the 1850s and 1860s and no one knew how much gold might still be there. A spokesman for Harmony Enterprises said there might still be a good deal of gold in the ground.
Elsewhere, the California State Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentencing of Darrell Rich as handed down by the Yolo County Superior Court, but things did not stop there. In the October term of 1988, the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, took a look at Darrell Rich’s appeal that some of his rights had been violated, especially in the first few days after he was arrested.
During Darrell’s appeals process, his looks changed dramatically.
(Mug shot)
In essence, Darrell and his lawyers were saying that his rights under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution had been violated. When the Supreme Court looked at the lower-court rulings, they did so with a synopsis of the case in full. They basically had to, for there were nearly five thousand pages of transcripts from the trial of 1980 alone.
Darrell’s attorneys were not saying that he didn’t perpetrate the acts, but they did accentuate once again that several psychiatrists and psychologists said in testimony that Darrell was mentally deficient at the time of several murders, and he could not form “intent.” Chief amongst these were Dr. Morrison and Dr. Satten. In the brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was noted: Dr. Morrison felt defendant was insane at the time of the crime against Edwards, Moore and Selix. Dr. Satten believed defendant could not form the mental states to rape and kill Edwards and Moore, or to kill and commit the sexual acts against Selix.
California, which was trying to have the convictions and sentencing upheld, countered with their own set of psychiatrists and psychologists, whom they termed, “rebuttal experts.” Chief among these were Dr. VonDedenroth, Dr. French and Dr. Kaldor. Dr. Robinson wrote, Defendant’s asserted memory failure about various of the killings was not caused by organic brain dysfunction, or psychotic or schizophrenic functioning. He was simply (and badly) faking in order to gain sympathy and avoid responsibility for his actions.
Now, according to Darrell’s lawyers, there was also a problem with the verdict regarding the supposed rapes of Pam Moore and Linda Slavik. Since no medical evidence proved this, the defense contended that the prosecution was in error in saying these two women had been raped.
The United States Supreme Court, however, found that the jurors had been properly instructed by Judge Taylor on this matter. Taylor had cautioned them: “No person may be convicted of a criminal offense unless there is some proof of each element of the crime independent of any confession or admission made by him outside of this trial.”
The U.S. Supreme Court noted, The jury properly did not find petitioner (Darrell Rich) guilty of first-degree murder as to Slavik under the felony murder theory of murder committed during the commission of a rape. And the jury had found in a similar fashion regarding Pam Moore.
Then the U.S. Supreme Court added, To now argue that petitioner would not have received the death penalty but for the evidence of the two unproven rapes that might also improperly have been taken into consideration, defies both logic and reason.
In another area the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the prosecution had never asked the jurors that they must ignore mitigating circumstances. Instead, in closing arguments the prosecution had merely said they could decide if Darrell’s background and character were mitigating or not. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court said, that even if there were some mitigating circumstances about Darrell Rich’s mental state: There was nothing in the way of mitigation to overcome the four brutal murders, especially that of eleven-year-old Annette Selix.
And as far as inadequate representation by counsel, it was apparent that Russell Swartz and Werner Ahrbeck had been very vigilant in trying to have no death penalty imposed upon Darrell Rich. Swartz alone had spent hours in closing arguments trying to sway the jurors.
On the very important matter of mental state at the time of the crimes, the California Supreme Court in its brief to the U.S. Supreme Court claimed: It is patent from the forgoing that the jury, which had literally been bombarded with a stream of defense testimony as to appellant’s mental state at the time he committed the rampage of four murders and sexual assaults upon five living victims, knew full well from the arguments and the instructions that in assessing penalty they could consider as factors in mitigation appellant’s background, history and character, including his extremely depressed mental state and obvious mental problems.
In the end Darrell Rich and his lawyers were not able to overturn the ruling of the California State Supreme Court, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. He was now destined to die by lethal injection at San Quentin Prison. The main question now was when.
On August 22, 1990, Yolo County judge James Stevens made a ruling: It is hereby ordered and adjudged that for the crimes of murder in the first degree with special circumstances, the defendant Darrell Keith Rich shall suffer the death penalty and that said penalty shall be inflicted within the walls of the State Prison of San Quentin, California, in the manner and means prescribed by law on the 12th day of October 1990.
Judge Stevens might have been surprised at the time, but there was one more full decade ahead with court battles on whether Darrell Rich would be put to death or not.
W
hile in San Quentin State Prison, Darrell Rich had learned that he was one-quarter Cherokee. He had, of course, been adopted by the Rich family only two days after he was born. Darrell began practicing Native American religious beliefs while in San Quentin and took the name Young Elk.
A group called Death Penalty Focus noted that Young Elk (Darrell Rich) has been an exemplary inmate with a great institutional record. Young Elk is not a present or future danger to his fellow inmates or the prison guards. And then the group asked, Are the few dozen men and women sentenced to death each year more guilty, more culpable of murder than the 2,000 plus other men and women convicted of homicide each year, but spared the death penalty? Or are they simply less privileged?
It was also noted that eleven Native Americans had been executed in the United States since 1976. That was a large number relative to the entire population of Native Americans in the country. Death Penalty Focus also noted that not one American Indian tribe had the death penalty as part of their tribal laws.
Chapter 24
The Last Hurrah
In March 2000, there was to be a final clemency hearing for Darrell Keith Rich before the California Board of Prison Terms (BPT) in Sacramento. Those who wished to speak against the death penalty could do so, and so could family members of Darrell’s murder victims, as well as his rape survivors.
One person who couldn’t wait to go there was Wally Yates, of Oroville. Linda Slavik was his daughter, and she had been abducted from Madison Bear Garden in 1978 by Darrell Rich. Darrell had raped her and shot her to death, even as she begged for her life. Wally said he wanted to vent his anger and frustration, twenty-two years after the events that ended his daughter’s life.
