by Echols, Mike
Chapter Thirteen
The Trial for Kidnapping Steven Stayner
"I'd like to point my finger at Mendocino County."
By September of 1981 Mendocino County's trial of Kenneth Eugene Parnell for the kidnapping of Timmy White was history, but many of the same participants in the drama just past would be reassembled for Merced County's scheduled December trial for his nine-year-old kidnapping of Steven Stayner. Also, this time there would be two defendants, since defense attorneys for Ervin Edward "Murph" Murphy were unsuccessful in their attempts to separate the simple-minded accomplice's trial from that of Parnell. The venue of the trial was changed to Hayward and Judge Sabraw would again preside.
Unlike Mendocino County's trial, where a Deputy D.A. represented the State, the Merced County trial would be prosecuted by the District Attorney himself, Pat Hallford, a dedicated, straight-arrow law enforcement officer who for sixteen years had been a highly respected F.B.I. agent before he resigned and ran successfully for office in Merced. He was a man as conservative and restrained in handling his job as Joe Allen was unconventional and verbose.
Within weeks of the trial the Merced County D.A.'s investigator, Lyle Davis, a trenchant, heavyset man with a jocular approach to life, took Steven on an intense four-day evidence-gathering trip to Mendocino County. About the trip Lyle recalled, "Our task was to photograph and document where he was, when he was there. I think the most memorable thing was the apparent ease with which we completed our task . . . Steve was always very, very well received, very well liked by a lot of the adults in that area. But in terms of visible trauma [to Steve], there was none. But I did realize that he has two feelings for Parnell. I think that there is a very paternalistic one. I think he would have also, if given the chance, probably removed Parnell's head."
Besides the trip with Steve, Lyle's responsibilities included uncovering as much as possible about Murphy's background and involvement in Steve's kidnapping, particularly how much Murphy knew about Parnell's sexual fixation on young boys. Said Lyle, "I don't think Murphy was ever totally honest with us, and I guess we shouldn't have expected him to be, but I knew that he knew a hell of a lot more than he told us."
Remarked Merced Police Chief Harold Kulbeth, "Murphy allowed himself to be used. While he's not intellectual by any means, certainly, I think, the man knows right from wrong; and he participated in a very, very serious crime. He covered it up and did not come forth with the information that was needed to help find Steve or clear the case up for all those years."
On December 1, 1981, Merced County's case against Kenneth Eugene Parnell and Ervin Edward Murphy went to trial in Judge Sabraw's courtroom in the Hayward Hall of Justice with a lineup of witnesses only slightly different from before. This time there was three defense attorneys instead of one: the Merced Public Defender, John Ellery, was representing Parnell and, because of that, Merced County had hired other local attorneys Wayne Eisenhart and Neil Morse to represent Murphy as privately contracted Special Public Defenders.
Parnell and Ellery never did see eye to eye. However, Ellery later explained that he had been disturbed about representing Parnell because he himself had been sexually abused as a boy; but, he hastened to add, he had done his "professional best" to defend Parnell.
As for Morse and Eisenhart's defense of Murphy, Eisenhart said that they used "substantially what was in the police reports [because] I don't think Murphy ever varied from what was in the police reports."
Recalled Morse, "Murph is not someone who is gonna spend a lot of time fabricating stories. He is a fairly harmless person who is always looking for someone to like him, either through telling them stories or buying them drinks or something else. He made a mistake: he helped Parnell. He shouldn't have, and he acknowledges that he shouldn't have. I can remember talking with him and he'd be physically shaking. He knew it was wrong and he worried about it for years and years after."
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 tri
al, 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: The second or third time, was it reinforced in any way?
Kay: Yes.
Eisenhart: And how was it reinforced?
Kay: He got a paddling from his papa.
Eisenhart: And how long before his disappearance was this?
Kay: It was the week previous.
Eisenhart: Were you present?
Kay: I can't remember. I probably was.
Eisenhart: Do you know whether the paddling was administered with a hand or otherwise?
Kay: It probably was with a belt, but it probably wasn't very hard, knowing his papa.
Eisenhart: Okay. "Knowing his papa." What do you mean by that?
Kay: He tended to be a little bit easy with the kids.
Eisenhart: Didn't punish them very often?
Kay: Very, very seldom.
Eisenhart: So it would be unusual that he would spank Steven with a belt?
Kay: Very unusual, though he thought it was important that the boy know he was supposed to come home first.
Eisenhart: My understanding would then be, if there was disciplining of Steven, spanking, it was your task more than your husband's. Is that correct?
Kay: Typical mother, I nagged at him and paddled him a lot, yes.
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.
Morse: Now, prior to December 4th, a week to ten days prior, had you had occasion to spank Steven?
Del: I spanked him one time on a Friday before he disappeared on the Monday.
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: Was the flyer sent to schools in Santa Rosa?
Del: Yes, they were. They were sent to every school in the state of California. I have a directory on that.
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."
Walsh: He had to be recognized as a person. Sometimes I did that with children in my classroom with a wink of the eye or a smile or a touch on the shoulder.
Hallford: He wanted your approval?
Walsh: Yes, right. I tried to do that. And that evening [December 4, 1972] he had waited for a special approval before I sent him out of the classroom, and I sent him on his way after I'd fastened his windbreaker around his chin and told him to get on. It wasn't raining right then, but it would be raining before he got home.
Hallford: And that's the last you saw of him?
Walsh: That's the last I saw of him, yes.
Hallford: Until he was a big boy?
Walsh: Until he was a big boy.
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 unknown 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."
Hallford: Now, at some time or other was there anything of a sexual nature that occurred?
Steven: Yes.
Hallford: And where did that start, as far as you recall?
Steven: Cathy's Valley.
Hallford: What happened?
Steven: He made me do oral sex.
Hallford: On him?
Steven: Yes.
Hallford: What else did he make you do? [Steven blushed and looked at the floor, and Hallford paused.] It's embarrassing to tell, isn't it, Steve?
Steven: Yes.
Hallford: You go ahead in whatever words you care to use. Did he do something to any part of your body?
Steven: Yes.
Hallford: Steve, I asked you a question, [to] what part of the body did this other thing occur? If you can't find the word, show us.
Steven: It's the rectum.
Hallford: What did he do to your rectum? Did he put a part of his body into you?
Steven: Yes.
Hallford: What?
Steven: His penis.
Hallford: All right. Did this occur at other times after that?
Steven: Yes.
Hallford: Could you estimate with what regularity, if any?
Steven: Maybe once every two weeks.
Hallford: Were there times when he would stop?
Steven: Yes.
Hallford: Did you want this to happen?
Steven: No.
Hallford: Did you feel ashamed?
Steven: Yes.
Hallford: When was the last time any sexual acts occurred?
Steven: January.
Hallford: Of 1980?
Steven: Yeah.
Late that afternoon Steve's testimo
ny progressed to his first sight of Timmy, in Parnell's car on February 14, 1980:
Hallford: What did you suspect?
Steven: That he had kidnapped Timmy White.
Hallford: Why? Why did you suspect that?
Steven: Well, I had never seen Timmy before and all of a sudden he just shows up, and because he done the same thing with me.
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.
