Home › News › Conejo Valley
Judge to release portions of sealed warrant in killing
Man charged in death of boy in Newbury Park
Download this story as a podcast!
HOMICIDE MAP
Data from death certificates, law enforcement records and court documents, were used to create a searchable map detailing more than 10 years of county homicides.
Search map »
STORY TOOLS 
More from Conejo ValleyTrying to balance the public's right to know with a murder suspect's right to a fair trial, a Superior Court judge said Thursday that next week he would release portions of a sealed search warrant in the case of a man charged with killing a 6-year-old Newbury Park boy.
The decision by Judge Ken Riley came after three hearings on a request by the Ventura County Star for public release of the search warrant documents. During those hearings, both the prosecution and defense urged the judge to keep the warrants sealed.
The warrants include statements from detectives, witnesses and Calvin Sharp, the 28-year-old suspect. The Newbury Park man is charged with using a meat cleaver to kill Sev'n Molina, 6, on Aug. 12. He is also charged with attempting to kill Molina's mother, Sandra Ruiz, 33, as well as her neighbor Dianne Cox, who tried to stop the attack.
The charges also include one count of burglary and an animal cruelty charge alleging Sharp killed a dog named Knuckles, plus enhancements that could make him eligible for the death penalty if convicted.
Ron Bamieh, The Star's attorney, argued that the law, except in certain narrowly defined situations, favors open public access to courtrooms and case files.
"The public can handle the truth," he said.
The judge ordered that substantial portions of the two search warrants The Star requested be redacted, or blacked out.
Deputy Public Defender Todd W. Howeth said nothing should be released at this stage.
Citing both the Sixth and 14th amendments of the Constitution, Howeth argued that the release could hurt Sharp's right to a fair trial and due process. "Literally, our client's life hangs in the balance," Howeth said.
Howeth said media coverage of the killing already had exposed Sharp to an "unprecedented level of rancor and hatred." In his motion asking that the warrants remain sealed, he called the case "sensational" and said, "To hawk their papers, newspaper writers have not been shy about stoking the flames of public outrage." More stories about the case would only add to that sentiment, making it harder to find impartial jurors, he said.
Riley delayed the release of the documents until next week, partly to give Howeth time to appeal his ruling if he chooses.
As he left the courtroom Thursday, Howeth said he didn't know if he would appeal.
Senior Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox reiterated her opinion that the warrants should not be released. Along with concerns about tainting jurors,
Fox argued that detectives were still investigating the killing and the release of search warrant details could hurt the case. Since The Star requested the unsealing of the two warrants, investigators have filed at least two more, which remain sealed.
There is case law for sealing search warrants in criminal cases. In the Michael Jackson child molestation case in Santa Barbara County three years ago, a state appellate court upheld a lower court's decision to keep the documents closed.
Both Fox and Howeth cited some of the principals outlined in that decision. The court set a standard that documents can remain sealed if a judge determines the release of information would create a "substantial probability that the interests (of a fair trial) will be prejudiced."
But other issues also underpinned the decision, including the intense media attention created by Jackson's celebrity status and that the alleged victim in the Jackson case was a minor.
Sharp's arraignment has been put off until January. He is being held in Ventura County Jail in lieu of $1.5 million bail.
Posted by AngryYouth on November 2, 2007 at 4:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
C'mon Bamieh you used to work at the courthouse you should know better. This guy is facing one count of murder and 2 counts of attempted murder and all you care about is "The public can handle the truth". You know what, we will all find out in the trial. What you are doing now is just making it harder to find a unbiased jury therefore making it harder to get a conviction. Thanks for thinking about the victims rights !?! I hope you can sleep at night if there are problems because you think the public has a "right to know".
Posted by spokenit on November 2, 2007 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This guy killed a little boy! He is not innocent in any shape of the word. The public already knows this. People were witness to it so there is no maybe here. He should have NO RIGHTS! A trial will be to long for this scumbag.. That poor little boy had a shorter life then this A** has getting a fair and unbias jury? Our system need changing it isnt working.. Everything needs updating and we shouldnt let the blue hairs do it. They have no idea what they are doing anymore.
Posted by slkrchck on November 2, 2007 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We're all very concerned about this person's rights? He robbed a family of their rights, but we must grant him his. I don't need the STAR to stoke my flame of outrage. I was outraged before it even hit the paper. To kill a person is horrific, but to kill a child that is stepping in for his dear mother? I have no words.......
Posted by spokenit on November 2, 2007 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Exactly Slkrchck! But our court systems, lawyers, judges, etc.. need their pay checks so they will drag this one out.
Posted by shaver_one on November 2, 2007 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While I agree with most of the comments above, I cannot fathom why the public has a right to know anything that is included in the search warrants...especially when the investigations are ongoing.
The information that the Star will obtain WILL be presented at trial.
Is this merely an attempt to earn more money with sensational headlines for the Star? Would the public be any less well off if the information was not released?
I am not defending the accused. I simply cannot understand "the public's right to know."
Posted by rebel123 on November 2, 2007 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can certainly understand the outrage this crime has engendered. But to suggest that the defendant should have no rights is treading on some very thin ice. As a society, in order to ensure that justice has been served to the letter of our laws and to have a clear conscience when we make decisions on capital cases that involve the death penalty, we owe it to ourselves to give the defendant every right afforded under out constitution. To do less whittles away at OUR rights under the law. If you've ever sat on jury duty, you know the rigors of finding an unbiased group, especially in the face of a horrific crime such as this. If there is to be a speedy carriage of justice, leave the facts to the trial and don't take a chance on contaminating the prospective jury pool with sensationalized accounts of the evidence in this case. It will likely end up with a request for a change of venue and ultimately take longer for justice to be served on this man.
Posted by interested on November 2, 2007 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He did it, he is guilty. It doesn't matter what the newspapers say, everyone knows he is guilty. Its not like no one knows that and as soon as the paper tells us we will think what he did was wrong. Everyone knows he is a monster anyway and if you present the facts to anyone that has not heard of this case, I don't know anyone who would say that he is innocent.
Posted by Comments on November 2, 2007 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The comments by the attorney for the defense are ridiculous.
"Howeth said media coverage of the killing already had exposed Sharp to an "unprecedented level of rancor and hatred." In his motion asking that the warrants remain sealed, he called the case "sensational" and said, "To hawk their papers, newspaper writers have not been shy about stoking the flames of public outrage." More stories about the case would only add to that sentiment, making it harder to find impartial jurors, he said."
The media's reporting of this murder did not stoke any flames for me. The hate and rancor come from the absolute viciousness and horror of this crime are what make me mad. The media simply reporting what happened is what they're supposed to do and like it or not we all have a right to a free press. Yes, even this scum of the earth has a right to a fair trial but his rights don't take precedence over of the press' right to do their jobs.
I don't feel as though the media in general and the Star in particular have sensationalized this case. The case itself is sensational due to the awful acts committed by the defendant. A little boy was murdered in a terrible way and his poor mother witnessed it and was hurt badly trying to defend her son.
Knowing what made this monster tick and what might have possibly drove him to "crack" in the way he did is important in order to prevent it from ever happening again.
Posted by spokenit on November 2, 2007 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ok maybe he should have some rights, so he isnt taken out back and ********** but to what extent do they deserve?
Posted by dom_kenpo on November 2, 2007 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keep it sealed, give him a speedy trial, find the perp guilty (there is no way he cannot be found such), and then send him to his just sentence on death row to die by lethal injection. Then, release the warrant details. I can wait to get the details until after he has been sentenced!
Posted by rebel123 on November 2, 2007 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He deserves a fair trial and the best defense possible, as guaranteed under our constitution. The best defense possible means that regardless of the nature of his obvious guilt, that they are willing to listen to the facts of the case IN COURT and make an informed decision as to his guilt. More importantly, the facts of the case will determine the penalty phase which is in many ways more important if you want this guy either put away forever without parole or put to death. The more details out there, the harder it will be for a jury to be chosen within our area that is not "contaminated" by the media. Then comes the request for a change of venue, dragging it out even longer.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on November 2, 2007 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If both the prosecution and defense believe that releasing the documents might compromise the perp's right to a fair trial, it would seem that releasing them would be irresponsible at best.
Yes, I'm as curious as the next guy. However, in the interest of justice and to best ensure a conviction and punishment ... I'm willing to wait until trial to satisfy my curiousity.
We have all seen evidence thrown out of court on technicalities that had nothing to do with guilt or innocence. The judge may have set the stage for that to happen in this case. If, somehow, the perp escapes just punishment as a consequence of document public disclosure, there will be absolutely zero accountability to the public for those who allowed it to happen.
Posted by ironwoman on November 4, 2007 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why would anyone be curious about the details of this horrific murder? Watch "faces of death" or Iraqi TV or something.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on November 6, 2007 at 4:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
honestopinion,omg my son rented that movie years ago and within the first five minutes I was OUT OF THE ROOM!!!!!!!! That film would have given my nightmares for years !!!!!! (faces of death).
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.