APPEALS

Rodriguez´ appeal attorney, Dennis P. Riordan and Harold Rosenthal of San Francisco, won Luis a reversal of his death sentence in 1986. This appeal to the California Supreme Court should have won a reversal of the entire conviction except that there were a few very significant, political games being played in this case. 

Luis´ appeal was maneuvered by the California Supreme Court Justices to be heard by them in September, 1986, right before the California elections were to be held, and at the peak of an intense attack against the California Supreme Court Justices Rose Bird, Grodin, and Reynoso who were being pursued by right-wing conservatives in an attempt to expel them from the Supreme Court for their perceived excessive reversals of death penalty cases. In a blatant attempt to save their jobs Grodin and Reynoso, (who were appointed as temporary Justices at the time) voted against Rodriguez´ appeal. It was the first time they had voted in opposition to Chief Justice Rose Bird, who voted to reverse Luis´ entire conviction. However, there was a unanimous decision to reverse his sentence. Even the conservative right wingers lambasted Reynoso and Grodin in the media stating their votes against Rodriguez´ appeal were blatant attempts to save their jobs by voting to affirm the conviction in Rodriguez´ highly publicized notorious case to appease those who were seeking to remove them from office. 

Justice Grodin should never have sat as a judge in Rodriguez´ case as he had a vested self interest in not granting Luis a reversal on his entire conviction on the damaging special juror instruction issue, (which was refered to as the ´Cook´ issue because just prior to Rodriguez´ case appeal, another case ´People V. Cook´ had just been decided by Grodin who at the time was seated as a appellate court judge). 
The ´Cook´ case involved the trial court´s comment on evidence during juror deliberations and was much weaker than the facts of such in Luis´ case. Grodin as an appellate judge voted against ´Cook´ in that case and the California Supreme Court reversed Grodin´s decision in that case and stated in their ruling that it was reversible error for a trial judge to comment on evidence at any time that a jury was in deliberations. Rodriguez should have then had a definite win for reversal. However, Grodin was then appointed to temporary judgeship on the California Supreme Court and used Rodriguez´ case to effectively reverse the previous Supreme Court decision which had reversed him (the ´Cook´ decision). Grodin was obviously biased and not impartial as a judge on this case. 

While Rodriguez was back in the trial court for resentencing in 1987, he and his attorneys, (Riordan, Snell, and Rosenthal) uncovered various other issues which wrongly contributed to his conviction. In addition to the judge misconduct, such as the fact that the prosecution with-held evidence, (a false polygraph test given to the key prosecution witness, Margaret Klaess in January, 1979 which prosecutors claimed was the primary reason they granted Klaess immunity and focused their efforts in building the case around Rodriguez and pursuing the death penalty so intensely against him. Yet, it was then exposed that the entire polygraph test was completely meaningless, false, full of serious errors, and in the process, never even questioned Klaess if Rodriguez was even present at the crime scene). Additionally, the hypnosis of several witnesses by the prosecution prior to trial was presented to the trial court judge in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The judge granted the writ ordering the conviction entirely null and void, ordering a new trial for Rodriguez (1988). 

The California Appellate Court again in a politically motivated move, refused to accept the trial judge´s order for a new trial and under pressure from prosecutors, politics, and police, ordered the trial judge to sentence Rodriguez to life or death even though there was no conviction against Rodriguez for any crime. It was the first time in California and possibly U.S. history, that an appellate court and California Supreme COurt had ordered a judge to sentence a man to life or death without a conviction against him for any crime, and the first time in criminal case history that a man was actually sentenced to life in prison without parole without being convicted of any crime (1989). 

In 1990, it was the first time in U.S. history that an appellate court reversed a trial court´s judges factual findings of prejudicial juror misconduct and order for a new trial based on such.
Rodriguez, having already been sentenced to death (1981), then life (1989), and having experienced all the political games played with his life and freedom, was again before the same trial judge (Karesh) to again be sentenced to life or death (1991). 
The judge allowed Luis to personally present arguements to the court for two days, in November 1991, pointing out to the judge all of the inconsistent and obviously perjured testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The irrefutable evidence which pointed to his innocence, pointing out the blatant prosecution and police misconduct, mishandling of evidence, and intentional creations of perjurious witnesses, Luis ended his arguments, telling the judge that regardless of his innocence, he prefered the judge to sentence him to death because any other sentence would serve only to continue to hide the total injustice in this case, and because he did not believe he would be provided fair hearings, free from political and racial prejudice in the California Appellate Court and California Supreme Court, and desired to expediate his access to the U.S. Federal Courts. 

The judge was stunned by Rodriguez´ request to be resentenced to death and refused to do so, stating that he could not in good conscience, sentence a man to death for crimes he did not believe the defendant committed. The judge also stated that Rodriguez did not receive a fair trial, that the key prosecution witness, Margaret Klaess, was not credible, that the evidence produced by the prosecution was tainted and unreliable, and that the remaining evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of guilt. The judge further stated that he had a ´deep lingering and continually growing doubt as to the defendant´s guilt, and a sense of the defendant´s innocence,´ in the crimes. He imposed a sentence of ´Life Without Parole´, (this same judge had thrown out the entire conviction of guilt against Rodriguez in 1988, and haf ordered a new trial, stating that Rodriguez had not received a fair trial, but this order was overruled by the higher courts and Luis never received the new trial). The judge was ordered by the higher courts to sentence Luis to life or death and that he was not to consider any new motions for a new trial, so the judge sentenced him to life in prison. 

In response to a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Northern District Court of California's Federal Court, a federal magistrate made a strong, sixty page recommendation to the federal court judge that Luis should be granted a new trial based on the Juror Misconduct and other violations of his right to a fair trial under the U.S. Constitution (Oct.4, 1995). 
However, the judge, on March 7, 1996, refused to order the new trial. Rodriguez' consequent Appeal of that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circiut was denied. The US Supreme Court Confirmed theAppeal Court  Decision in 1998.

On April 21, 1997 Rodriguez filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the San Mateo Superior Court, asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, which got denied on June 8, 1998. His consequent appeals to the First Appellate Court and then to the California Supreme Court were denied in 1999.
Luis is now preparing a second federal writ, which is his last chance to obtain justice. He still has no attorney to assist him..