Possible outcomes after Mavrick trial verdict
THE DAILY MOTH:
Hello, Michael! Thank you for joining us again. Can you introduce yourself again and your experience with criminal law and its system?
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ:
Sure. Hello Alex. My name is Michael Schwartz. I’ve been an attorney for a long time, since 1982. For almost 8 years, during the 1980’s, I worked for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. That’s the DA in New York County. So I was exposed to principles and things related to criminal law. So I hope I can answer your questions about the Mavrick case.
THE DAILY MOTH:
Can you explain the charges that he was convicted with, involuntary manslaughter, what it means, and then explain what voluntary manslaughter is?
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ:
Okay. The California penal code defines involuntary manslaughter as an unintentional killing of another person, while at the same time committing a crime or a legal act that results in a death. “Involuntary” means it was an unintentional killing. Voluntary manslaughter is, as the saying goes, a “crime of passion,” done in the heat of the moment. It’s when someone gets angry and strikes someone else. That’s voluntary. It is an action that hurts someone in the moment that ends up killing them. The important thing about involuntary manslaughter is that it does not require intent. With murder, showing an intent is required. “I want to kill the person” and actually killing the person. So murder one, murder two, murder three, it depends on the state. It varies from state to state. New York and California are different. But the basic idea is the same — intent versus an unintentional, accidental killing of someone else.
THE DAILY MOTH:
The court informed the District Attorney Susan Krones that she has until December 4 to decide whether she wants a retrial on the charge of voluntary manslaughter. The first degree / premeditated charge was found not guilty, so it cannot be tried again. That’s done for, never again?
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ:
Right. A deadlock means you can retry. If it is an acquittal, you cannot retry because that would be a double jeopardy. Double jeopardy.
THE DAILY MOTH:
Now, on December 4, if the DA decides she wants to retry, will the December 22 sentencing still take place or be postponed?
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ:
If the DA decides on December 4 to go for a retrial on two charges, the involuntary manslaughter conviction still stands. If Mavrick is found guilty of the other two charges, voluntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon, then prison time is guaranteed to go up. More time. On top of the four years or whatever sentence is given.
[Sponsored Video from Convo: https://www.convorelay.com/]
THE DAILY MOTH:
Now, the DA has until December 4 to decide if she wants a retrial or not. What must the DA consider before she makes the decision?
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ:
Well, the first question is, is there a reason why the jury voted not to convict? She has to do an analysis, maybe you can call it a cost-benefit analysis, on whether it’s worth it to go forward. Are there plausible reasons for the deadlock? Why? Sometimes you are allowed to interview the jury after the verdict and find out what went wrong, why they were unable to convict. You also have to think about the money, it is expensive to conduct a trial. You have to think about the family, are they willing to go through a second trial? Maybe it is too emotionally painful for them. Or are the witnesses from the first trial still available? What if they disappear? You have to assess the evidence to see if you can identify gaps that you can fill to present a stronger case.
THE DAILY MOTH:
The defense attorney — if the DA decides she wants to retry — what would the defense attorney’s strategy be, how would he respond to that?
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ:
The first trial gave both sides a glimpse of the strategy of the other. The DA saw the defense’s arguments, heard their arguments, and understood what their goals were and how they analyzed the evidence and how they thought about their defense. It is the same on the defense attorney’s side, as they learned what the DA’s side was and how they pursued the case. So both learned from each other. The second trial will reflect their understanding of the opposite side’s strategies and adjust.
In America, our law says that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is critical to our justice system. The prosecutor has the burden of evidence to provide each and every aspect of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Each and every aspect, meaning the person, the crime, the knife or weapon, the location, all of it must be presented to the jury for them to believe that there is no other reasonable explanation but what the prosecutor said. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. The job of the defense attorney is — they are not bad people, they are good people — because they perform a critical role in our system. They are forcing the prosecutor to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They force the state to prove it because to deprive someone of their liberty, their freedom, to put them in jail, that’s significant and one of the most serious responsibilities of the state. So the defense attorney makes sure that the system is working by punching holes in the state’s case. Then a jury of twelve people who are drawn from the community makes the decision. There is nothing more democratic than that.
THE DAILY MOTH:
Mavrick’s sentence for involuntary manslaughter — what is the maximum sentence?
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ:
Four years.
THE DAILY MOTH:
He has already served one year and three months in jail, so that is time credited. I did some research that said judges in California might, because of coronavirus and prisons being full, consider the possibility of reducing the sentence to the point where Mavrick could walk with probation? Is it possible that on December 22, Mavrick will walk? Suppose on December 4, the DA decides to not retry the case. Could the sentence be reduced that much?
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ:
Well, your guess is as good as mine. I don’t think Mavrick will walk. I think the state has a good case for more time. If it’s four years, it means the remaining time would be 27 months, approximately over two years. The release date may be the summer of 2023. Maybe the judge will give something in that range or the maximum. The most famous involuntary manslaughter case involves the doctor for Michael Jackson, Dr. Murray, who gave Jackson the sleeping drug propofol. It ended up killing him. He got four years. Maybe it is because of the notoriety of the case. Michael Jackson! The doctor gave him it outside of the hospital. But with Mavrick, if he shows remorse, if the family of Grant is very emotional and gives what is called an impact testimony, I believe it’s on December 22…
THE DAILY MOTH:
The 22nd or the 21st.
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ:
On either day, then that may influence the judge. If Grant’s death was brutal. I’m sure it’s tragic for the family. Also Mavrick fled to Mexico. That’s an admission of guilt. It shows that he is capable of disappearing. So there may be a need for a longer sentence for him to think about his actions. So, all of those play a role in deciding how much time to give him. But allowing him to walk on December 22? I doubt that.
THE DAILY MOTH:
I understand. Mavrick did turn down Certified Deaf interpreters. The state provided him with two pairs of interpreters, but Mavrick declined them and preferred to get information directly from hearing interpreters. He didn’t want the translation process. So, I wonder if a person can appeal their case based on the quality of interpreters? Is that a possibility?
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ:
Sure. But the defendant would have to write an affidavit saying that the interpreters weren’t effective. But if Mavrick did not raise the issue of an effective interpreter until after the trial, then it means nothing. You have to let the court know right away, that “it’s not working.” It is the defense attorney’s job to ask Mavrick if he is able to understand and follow the interpreters. Is the interpreter in the right position? He should have that conversation with Mavrick. Did he? I don’t know.
THE DAILY MOTH:
I did not see any issues raised with interpreters from the beginning of the trial up to the end, no.
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ:
Then it’s too late. It’s too late for an appeal based on interpreters being not effective. If you didn’t bring it up at the beginning, then sorry, the train is gone.
THE DAILY MOTH:
Thank you so much for your time!
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ:
It’s my pleasure.