Home › News › County News
Bid to unseal documents in murder case fought
Lawyers say it would hurt right to fair trial
Download this story as a podcast!
Sharp
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 County NewsAttorneys for a man accused of killing a Newbury Park boy in August have asked a judge to not release their client's potentially self-incriminating statements in sealed documents.
Deputy Public Defender Todd W. Howeth argued that a request by The Star to unseal information in search warrants would hurt Calvin Sharp's right to a fair trial, according to a request filed in court last week. A judge is set to rule on the matter Thursday.
Sharp, a 28-year-old taxi driver, is accused of murdering 6-year-old Sev'n Molina with a cleaver on Aug. 12 and attempting to kill his mother, Sandra Ruiz, 33, his former girlfriend. Ruiz was seriously injured when she tried to shield her son from the attack, according to witnesses. Also injured in the attack was Dianne Cox, a neighbor who was able to subdue Sharp until Ventura County sheriff's deputies arrived.
The statements in the search warrant include what Sharp told detectives on two occasions, what his mother said, and details from a doctor's report on Sharp.
Although most of Howeth's request was sealed, a few pages that were public record revealed a few details about what's at issue.
"The findings are appropriate because the record sought to be sealed contains evidence that may not be admissible at trial, and public disclosure would violate defendant's state and federal right to effective assistance of counsel and privilege against self-incrimination," Howeth argued in the court papers. "It may also cause pretrial publicity that will force a change of venue."
Prosecutors in the case also want the search warrant to remain sealed. Citing the sealing of search warrants in the Michael Jackson child molestation case in Santa Barbara County, prosecutors argue that the release of the information would hurt their continued investigation and make it harder to seat an unbiased jury because of undue pretrial publicity.
Ron Bamieh, The Star's attorney, argued that there is no evidence of any ongoing investigation, and that while there is a community interest in this murder case, it does not rise to the kind of wall-to-wall celebrity coverage associated with the Jackson case.
But in a California Court of Appeal decision that upheld the sealing of the warrants in the Jackson case, 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."
Sharp's arraignment has been put off until January. He is being held at the Ventura County Jail on $1.5 million bail. Along with murder and attempted murder charges, Sharp faces special enhancement charges for using a "deadly weapon" during a burglary and in the attack in general. The enhancement charges could allow prosecutors to pursue a death penalty in the case.
Prosecutors also added an animal cruelty charge for reasons that have not been explained.
Posted by Nosmo_King on October 26, 2007 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Public defenders office, now thats an oxymoron. They defend perps who did crimes against the public at large, AND the public pays for it!
Posted by tigger on October 26, 2007 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I just hope that this guy gets what is coming to him. It is obvious that he did it. There are to many eye witnesses in this case for him to say it wasnt him. Obviously he confessed and thats why they want the records kept sealed. It amazes me that we are so concerned about him getting a fair trial. What about that childs fair chance at life? This guy just needs to plead guilty and accept that life in prison is where he belongs.
Posted by zany on October 26, 2007 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is this such an issue. He did it, there were many witnesses, and apparently admitted to it. Prosecute the arse, and never let him out of prison. To kill a young boy with a meat cleaver has got to be the lowest form of low I have ever heard of. This guy does not deserve a second chance. And once he gets in front of a jury and they find out what trial they have, do you not think it will take all of 30 seconds to decide his guilt? Save the county some money, give the dude a sheet and leave him alone in his cell.
Posted by VaLeNTiNo_ReD on October 26, 2007 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Prosecutors also added an animal cruelty charge for reasons that have not been explained......
I have an aunt in jail there...from police reports inside...well let's just say the media is not releasing all information what had happened, this guy is more twisted than everyone thinks...he deserves no fairness..this guy is horrible!
Posted by BillyBob on October 26, 2007 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To Nosmo_King,
I understand your frustration, however, if you just allow the government to prosecute with no rights for the defendant, you end up as a country like Iran or South Korea...
Posted by dom_kenpo on October 26, 2007 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lemme get this correct....he was caught, weapon in hand (by an older lady who should be commended), blood all over his clothing, and witness to the murder by the mother of the victim? How is it possible to get a fair trial when he is as guilty as a cat who got caught in a goldfish bowl? In my judgement, there is no trial needed - evidence is pretty direct, and a long drawn-out trial would only lead to more avoidable tax expense. His only possible hope is that they will bury him in an unmarked grave after he is given the death sentence! His only right in this case is to sentence bargain....
Posted by RelaxPeople on October 26, 2007 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
South Korea is a free country.
Posted by ConcernedCitizen805 on October 26, 2007 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
oh -- so the Constitution doesn't apply to everybody?
Personally I think the guy is a freak and should fry -
but your ignorance of the Constitution and how it governs our justice system is appalling.
Posted by josess on October 26, 2007 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Its really sad to think about losing the person you love the most to some f!@#$% low life that still thinks he has the right to a fair trial.
To all public defenders:
if this was your child that was murdered with a cleaver knife,would you still agree of a fair
trial?
My heart goes out to Sandra Ruiz and her family.
"Your son is in good hands now, he just had to leave a little early to save you a spot right next to him".
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on October 26, 2007 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, we are entitled to a fair trial. The problem is, "fair" too often oveshadows "justice." Justice for the public is keeping the streets free of scum like the perp. Our public defenders concept of a fair juror is one who cannot think --- and a fair trial is one where facts are legally withheld.
Legal technicalities that have zero bearing on guilt or innocence combined with the application of political correctness in the courts ends up costing dollars and grief to the law abiding majority.
The entire legal profession is out of control. This isn't the time to state all of my reasons for that statement, but I'll summarize the problem with these words: San Francisco Judges and inordinately rich trial lawyers.
I applaud the Star for going after the information. After all, we are the ones who asked them to dig deeper and that they are doing. My only problem with this is that we who pay the public defender salaries will also foot the bill for their attempt to keep the documents from being unsealed.
Posted by Nosmo_King on October 26, 2007 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BillyBob, I know every citizen is entitled to a fair trial and to hire a lawyer. I object to how much government is getting involved on the defense side.
Posted by zany on October 26, 2007 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally I think the judicial system needs revamping. Everything has evolved toward being "fair" to the guilty party. And in this case there is NO DOUBT who killed that little boy. So why all the hoopla? Justice should be swift and appropriate (and by appropriate I mean harsh). I know in some countries the punishment is extreme, but I bet there is a lot less violent crime committed in those places. Perhaps in this country if someone is caught red-handed, punishment should be immediate, forego the time and money consuming trials.
Posted by igavia on October 26, 2007 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
who gives a crap about this animals rights! HE SHOULD HAVE NONE! Little Sev'n didnt!
Posted by rebel123 on October 26, 2007 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To all those who seem to think that the Public Defenders office is somehow "helping" this guy, you are off base. They are duty bound by law to privide the defendant with the best defense possible, period. If you think they are not horrified by the crime, you are wrong. Having an office of the Public Defender keeps our judicial system honest. There are plenty of people who can't afford a lawyer, folks. Just because you're poor does not mean that the consitituition does not apply to you. And further more, just because someone is clearly guilty of a heinous crime does not mean that we can skirt the system. It is the LAWS and the JURY that determine the outcome of the case, not the Public Defender! If the DA does due diligence, this guy will get everything he deserves, regardless of what the Public Defender does.
Posted by stave1 on October 26, 2007 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He won't be safe dead or alive
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on October 26, 2007 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rebel123, a fair trial is one thing. Going off on zany defense arguments is another. A lawyer should not be permitted to try to snow a jury into believing something that the lawyer does not know to be factual. Moreover, if the lawyer knows the perp to be guilty, have h/she plead guilty and argue for mitigation of penalty. Fairness to the perp, okay, but first lets have justice for the people. Law abiding citizens are now suffering for the ills of our judicial system. The Sharp trial should take no longer than one day.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on October 26, 2007 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dom_kenpo ,FYI for your comment. The mother tried saving her son and was cut severly. She tried to get him off her son then the neighbor came and helped also . They are both true heros !!
But I do agree that regardless this is America and everyone has a right to trial........WE ALL KNOW that this guy is walking anywhere!
rebel123 ,I agree completely !!!!
(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.