PoliceLink

News >> Browse Articles >> Crime News

Prosecutor Scores Key Point In Trial Of Accused Cop Killer

EAST PALO ALTO, CA – An attorney prosecuting the 26-year-old man accused of killing East Palo Alto police Officer Richard May scored a significant victory Tuesday when a judge granted his request to present evidence that suggests a motive for the crime.

San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Craig Parsons listened to about an hour of testimony and arguments Tuesday morning before ruling he would allow defendant Alberto Alvarez’s parole officers to tell jurors about a form the accused cop killer signed upon his release from prison.

The document informs parolees that under a federal “Trigger Lock” law they could serve 15 years to life in prison if caught with a firearm.

May was killed on Jan. 7, 2006, after chasing Alvarez near the scene of a fight at the Villa Taqueria on University and Cooley avenues. The two men ended up in a driveway on Weeks Street, where they scuffled and apparently exchanged shots.

San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe has argued Alvarez shot and killed May after fleeing the scene of a fight to avoid going back to prison for gun possession — a violation of his parole.

Defense attorney Eric Liberman told the court Tuesday that the evidence shouldn’t be submitted because it’s “common knowledge” that federal authorities almost never prosecute anyone under the “Trigger Lock” law, which wouldn’t even have applied to Alvarez given his relatively minor previous convictions on marijuana and concealed weapon charges.

During the hearing, attorney James Thompson, who has worked as a public and private defender on numerous death penalty cases, confirmed the law wouldn’t have applied to Alvarez because it requires three separate, serious drug or violent felony convictions, and the defendant didn’t even have one.

“A person is presumed to know the law,” Liberman heatedly told Judge Parsons after Thompson completed his testimony. “The presumption is he would know this does not apply to him. … There is no evidence before the court that Mr. Alvarez believed he was facing a 15-year sentence or a life sentence.”

In a brief Wagstaffe submitted to the court, he called that argument specious, saying "it is not relevant whether the defendant actually faced a potential life sentence under federal law.

“The fact is that he was told twice that he did face a life sentence if he possessed a firearm, and this evidence of his state of mind provides strong evidence of his motive and his intent to kill,” Wagstaffe wrote.