Metropolitan News-Enterprise

Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Page 1
SC Upholds Death Sentence in Rape-Murder of Valley Child
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer/Appellate Courts

A death sentence imposed for the murder of an eight-year-old San Fernando Valley girl was unanimously affirmed yesterday by the California Supreme Court.

Justice Carlos Moreno acknowledged that the defendant, Hooman Ashkan Panah, “was a youth who, before this crime, had no prior record of any serious offenses” whose “journey from his native land”--Iran—“to this country was an arduous and perhaps traumatic one.”

But those facts “pale in comparison to the gravity” of the killing of Nicole Parker, who was kidnapped and sexually assaulted with tremendous force, Moreno said. “We are unable to conclude that the penalty imposed in this case is disproportionate to his culpability.”

Nicole disappeared Nov. 20, 1993, while playing with a softball and mitt outside her father’s Woodland Hills apartment. Her body was found stuffed in a suitcase in the close of Panah’s bedroom in an apartment he shared with his mother across the courtyard.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Sandy Kriegler, who has been nominated for elevation to this district’s Court of Appeal, sentenced Panah to death on the basis of a jury verdict rendered in Van Nuys in 1995.

Multiple Counts

Jurors found Panah, who was 22 at the time of the killing, guilty of first degree murder with special circumstances, and of kidnapping a minor for sexual purposes, kidnapping a child under the age of 14, child molestation, forcible sodomy, forcible penetration of a child with a foreign object, and forcible oral copulation of a child.

In the penalty phase, prosecutors presented evidence from the victim’s parents and brothers as to the devastating effect of the crime upon their lives. The defense argued that Panah should be spared because he was mentally disturbed.

The defendant’s mother testified that Panah had a difficult life, for which she took a great deal of the responsibility. She recounted the turmoil amid which he had grown up, as she moved from Iran to Germany to Mexico and finally to the United States.

She had disciplined him harshly, she said, and had twice threatened to commit suicide in order to get him to break off relationships with young ladies of whom she disapproved.

The defense also called a former girlfriend of Panah, who testified that she believed him to be the father of her infant daughter and that his execution would leave her without a father. Prosecutors presented a rebuttal witness who testified the woman had lived with another man for 10 years and had identified him as the father.

On appeal, in addition to attacking his sentence, Panah argued that Kriegler deprived him of his right to counsel by replacing one of his two court-appointed attorneys rather than continuing the trial after the lawyer was injured in an automobile accident.

‘Second Counsel’

Moreno pointed out that Judge Lance Ito, who had the case before Kriegler, had specifically appointed the attorney, Syamak Shafi-Nia, as “second counsel” to Robert Sheahen. Sheahen, the justice noted, is a veteran criminal defense lawyer with prior death penalty experience, whereas Shafi-Nia was not a criminal lawyer but was chosen because of a personal relationship with the defendant.

Sheahen, Moreno noted, had acknowledged making “97 percent of the decisions in this case,” and had analogized his co-counsel’s “learning curve” as a “50-pound weight that we are dragging around.”

Moreno also pointed out that the trial judge had praised the work of William Chais, who was appointed to replace Shafi-Nia. While Chais had only been practicing for five years at the time and had not previously tried a murder case, Kriegler said he had done an “outstanding job” that was “far beyond what Mr. Shafi-Nia could have ever hoped to have added in this case because of his complete lack of criminal experience.”

Attorneys on appeal were Robert Bryan of San Francisco, who was appointed by the court to represent the defendant, and Deputy Attorney General Ana Duarte for the prosecution.

The case is People v. Panah, 05 S.O.S. 1231.

 

Copyright 2005, Metropolitan News Company

Ventura County; Transgender Prostitute Guilty in Man's Death; In returning a manslaughter finding, jurors reject a murder charge in the fatal beating of an elderly Ventura retiree in 2000.:[VENTURA COUNTY EDITION]Tracy Wilson. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 28, 2003.  pg. B.3 Full Text (607   words)Copyright (c) 2003 Los Angeles Times)

A transgender prostitute who pummeled a 78-year-old retiree during a scuffle in the man's bedroom was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter Thursday after jurors rejected a more serious charge of murder.

James Cid, 31, who uses the name Jamie, wept as the verdict was read in Ventura County Superior Court.

Prosecutors had sought a first-degree murder and robbery conviction for the slaying of widower Jack Jamar, arguing that Cid deliberately beat Jamar and stole his wallet before fleeing the area.

Cid was apprehended in San Diego County after the March 10, 2000, assault, and admitted in a police interview to hitting and kicking Jamar in the man's east Ventura home.

Cid insisted during the interview that he acted in self-defense after Jamar tried to rape him.

The jury of five men and six women ultimately rejected both the prosecution and defense theories.

Outside the courtroom Thursday, three jurors told reporters that prosecutors were unable to prove premeditation or malice, and that the elements for robbery were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

But jurors also decided the evidence did not support Cid's claims of self-defense based on the testimony of a crime-scene expert who found blood spattered on the bottom of a bedroom dresser, suggesting that Jamar was on the floor during at least part of the altercation.

"There was spirited discussion over what was self-defense," juror Denise Barnett said.

Barnett said that after seven days of painstaking deliberations, during which the jury asked questions and heard testimony over and over again, the group agreed the evidence pointed to manslaughter.

It also found Cid guilty of petty theft instead of robbery.

Barnett and juror Tina Dwyer said they all had different opinions and theories and worked hard just to develop a list of facts they could agree upon. In the end, they said, it was still not clear what actually occurred in Jamar's bedroom.

Defense attorneys Robert Sheahen and Moriya Christie praised the jury for its work and called the outcome an example of how the criminal justice system is supposed to operate.

"Jamie Cid's vindication is a tribute to our system of justice," Sheahen said. "We are thrilled."

Deputy Dist. Atty. John West could not be reached for comment.

At trial, West tried to show that Cid beat Jamar, a retired businessman who was known to pick up prostitutes, into a coma and took his wallet after Jamar brought Cid to his Varsity Street house for sex.

According to testimony, police officers responding to a possible robbery found a seriously injured Jamar in the bedroom, bleeding from head wounds and wearing only a T-shirt.

The elderly man's clothes were found in the hallway.

Jamar's injuries were so severe, West told jurors, that "officers initially thought Jack was shot in the head."

Jamar, whose teeth were knocked into his stomach during the assault, later died, and prosecutors charged Cid with murder and robbery.

But Sheahen told jurors his client, whom he described as a nonviolent individual who suffers from a gender-identity disorder, acted in self-defense after being attacked by Jamar.

During the police interview, Cid initially denied being in Jamar's house, but later admitted hitting Jamar on the head during a rape attempt. "I remember just trying to get away from him, fighting for my life," Cid had told detectives.

Cid faces up to 12 years in prison when sentenced April 24 but could receive as few as four years, most of which has already been served in County Jail.

[Illustration]Caption: PHOTO: CONVICTION: James Cid, 31, who uses the name Jamie, leaves court Thursday. Cid had claimed self-defense.; PHOTOGRAPHER: Ricardo DeAratanha L.A. Times
Credit: Times Staff Writer

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.    

Hells Angels Leader, Ex-Wife and Son Get Probation in Drug-Selling Case; Court: George Christie Jr., co-founder of the group's Ventura chapter, and family members are sentenced after judge rejects a last- minute bid for prison time.:[VENTURA COUNTY EDITION]TRACY WILSON and DAVID KELLY. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Apr 18, 2002.  pg. B.1 Full Text (1236   words)Copyright (c) 2002 Los Angeles Times)

National Hells Angels leader George Christie Jr. was sentenced Wednesday to three years' probation for conspiring to sell drugs after a Ventura judge refused prosecutors' last-minute plea for prison time.

As he left court, the 54-year-old Christie denied he had sold prescription drugs and told reporters he only pleaded guilty to spare his family prosecution.

"I did not sell drugs to anyone," said Christie, a co-founder of the Ventura chapter of the Hells Angels and a national club spokesman for two decades. "I made a deal because they were holding my family hostage."

Christie's sentence came after a tense court hearing in which defense lawyers accused the district attorney of trying to back out of a plea agreement negotiated in the high-profile drug case.

Last month Christie pleaded guilty to conspiring to sell drugs and no contest to filing a false tax return--resolving one of the longest and most expensive criminal cases in Ventura County history.

Christie's ex-wife and their 25-year-old son, who were charged in the same indictment, also pleaded guilty and no contest to felony counts after cutting deals to dismiss most of their charges. The plea bargains ended a five-year investigation into allegations that the elder Christie ran a criminal narcotics ring that stole drugs from an Air Force base and sold them to teens as they left campuses in Ventura and Ojai.

The massive Hells Angels case took eight months to present to the grand jury and included tens of thousands of pages of evidence, seized during raids over the last four years. The Christie family had faced 57 criminal counts--23 against George Christie Jr., 19 against his ex-wife and 13 against their son.

Most of those counts were expected to be dismissed after lawyers reached a plea agreement, which the defense believed excluded prison time.

But at the sentencing hearing, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Jeff Bennett urged Superior Court Judge Bruce A. Clark to impose a seven- year prison sentence for George Christie Jr.

"The district attorney's office believes the defendant should be sent to state prison for his conduct," Bennett said, arguing that Christie was involved in large-scale narcotics sales.

Bennett described Christie as a drug dealer who deserved the most severe penalty possible.

But San Francisco defense lawyer William A. Welch minimized George Christie Jr.'s role and said prosecutors tried to renege on a plea deal after being criticized for their handling of a case that cost millions of dollars.

"We believe the district attorney's office has engaged in deceit and duplicity," Welch argued in court. "It is fraud, and it is wrong."

After listening to the arguments, Clark ordered the elder Christie to sit down and asked his son, George Christie III, to come forward.

The son, also a Hells Angels who has no criminal record, had pleaded no contest to two counts of possession of drugs for sale.

Prosecutors did not argue in favor of prison, and Clark placed George Christie III on five years' probation with credit for one year served in County Jail.

Then the judge recalled the father's case.

As the elder Christie stood before a courtroom crowded with lawyers, including Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury, Clark said evidence in the case showed the son was more culpable than the father of selling drugs and he rejected the request for prison time for George Christie Jr.

Clark further rejected probationary terms that would have prohibited the two Christies from associating with Hells Angels members, finding there was no evidence the group was a street gang as alleged by the prosecution.

Outside the courtroom, defense lawyers accused prosecutors of squandering millions of dollars in a mean-spirited pursuit of the Hells Angels leader.

Los Angeles attorney Robert Sheahen, who formerly represented George Christie Jr., said his client offered to plead guilty to the same charges three years ago, but prosecutors refused.

"Their conduct has been disgraceful," Sheahen said.

Defense attorney Kay Duffy said prosecutors reneged in a deal for her client, ex-wife Cheryl Christie, who was sentenced to three years' probation after pleading guilty to one count of accessory to grand theft after the fact.

Duffy said prosecutors had previously indicated a willingness to dismiss the entire case, but then sought a felony conviction.

"They have not stood by their word in this case," Duffy said. "Their role is to seek justice and the truth, and that was not the case here."

After the sentencing, Bradbury admitted his office did not get everything it wanted but said it exposed George Christie as a drug dealer and helped shut down an epidemic of the prescription drug Vicodin throughout Ventura County schools.

Bradbury attributed his rare court appearance to the high- profile nature of the case and his involvement in the lengthy investigation.

"I came here because this is a case I initiated five years ago," he said. "I was there at the beginning and I wanted to be there at the end."

He dismissed defense claims he had reneged on a plea-bargain agreement.

"You will find no commitment from the district attorney's office against asking for a state prison sentence," he said.

"It is my opinion that what you are hearing are a bunch of lies from a drug dealer's public mouthpieces."

Responding to criticism that millions had been spent on the case only to see the defendants go free, Bradbury said the figures had been inflated by the defense.

The total cost of the prosecution was $1.5 million, he said.

The prosecution has resulted in guilty or no-contest pleas by 16 of the 28 defendants initially indicted.

Most have been released from custody, and many of the most serious charges have been dropped.

Bradbury scoffed at the notion the Hells Angels were a bunch of guys who simply share a love of motorcycles, saying they were in fact a criminal gang. And he accused George Christie Jr. of masquerading as a businessman while selling drugs to children.

"All the king's horses and all the king's men won't put George Christie together again as a businessman in this county," he said.

As he left the courthouse, George Christie Jr. questioned the evidence prosecutors had against him.

He said he has been harassed by law enforcement for years because he hosted the Hells Angels' 50th anniversary celebration in downtown Ventura in 1998. He said he is certain he would have prevailed at trial, but wanted the case to be over.

Now, he said, his focus is on complying with the terms of probation and getting on with his life. He hopes to open up a coffeehouse in downtown Ventura.

"I'm glad it's over," he said. "It's been a long haul."

[Illustration]Caption: PHOTO: (VN)Attorney Robert Sheahen, left, his client George Christie Jr., co-founder of the Hells Angel Ventura chapter, and Angel member Scott Sutton leave the courthouse after Christie was given three years' probation in his no-contest plea that ended a five -year investigation.; PHOTOGRAPHER: MEL MELCON / Los Angeles Times; PHOTO: (VN)Prosecutor Greg Totten, left, and county Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury, who had made a rare appearance in the case, leave court.; PHOTOGRAPHER: MEL MELCON / Los Angeles Times; PHOTO: (VN)From left, George Christie III, his sister Moriya Christie, mother Cheryl Christie and private investigator Chip Reinhart after sentencing. George Christie III, along with his mother and father, George Christie Jr., received probation terms in the drug case.; PHOTOGRAPHER: MEL MELCON / Los Angeles Times
Credit: TIMES STAFF WRITERS

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.    

Feed Store 'Grannies' Trial Opens; Courts: Four are first to be tried under '98 law that requires logging of sales of iodine crystals-- which are used to treat hoof disease or to make methamphetamine.:[Valley Edition]MARTHA L. WILLMAN. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 29, 2001.  pg. B.1 Full Text (999   words)Copyright (c) 2001 Los Angeles Times)

A jury trial began Wednesday to determine whether the "Lancaster Grannies" acted in stubborn defiance of the law or were caught in the web of an overzealous drug enforcement sting in the sale of tiny jars of iodine crystals.

The "grannies"--three sisters plus one grandpa, all in their 60s- -run the oldest feed store in Lancaster. They are accused of failing to properly record sales of iodine crystals, sometimes used in the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine, but also used to treat hoof disease in horses.

They are the first to stand trial under a 1998 law requiring merchants to log detailed information--including driver's license and vehicle license numbers--on all iodine crystal buyers.

Facing up to a year in jail if convicted of misdemeanor charges are Armitta Mae Granicy, 60, and her husband, Robert Roy Granicy, 63, owner-operators of Granicy's Valley Wide Feed. Also charged are Armitta's sisters, Dorothy Jean Manning, 67, and Ramona Ann Beck, 62, who run a gift boutique out of the funky, 40-year-old store on the outskirts of town.

In opening statements in Lancaster Superior Court on Wednesday, prosecutor Robert Sherwood accused the defendants--who have become known as the Granicy Four--of acting out of "good, old-fashioned greed" by allegedly selling thousands of two-ounce jars of the crystals without keeping proper records.

"Armitta Granicy, from the very beginning, said she was not going to comply with the law," Sherwood told the jury.

Defense attorneys said they will argue that the four did all they could to comply with an "insidious, crazy law" that they say forces unqualified private citizens to act as front-line drug informants.

"These are good, churchgoing, law-abiding people, and this hearing is an outrage," attorney Robert Sheahen said. He said investigators allegedly "set them up, snared them and brought this into court."

Iodine crystals, sold by the ounce, have been used for decades to treat hoof disease in horses and to purify stored water. More recently, they have been used to manufacture methamphetamine, a powerful stimulant often associated with violence.

The sale of iodine is not illegal, but a law that went into effect in January 1999 requires merchants to log detailed information on buyers, which can be used by drug enforcement investigators. A task force in 1999 shut down 68 suspected meth labs in the north county area, triple the number of the previous year, according to the state attorney general's office.

Sheriff's drug enforcement investigators cracked down on the Granicy Four a year ago, after they reportedly refused to comply with regulations requiring detailed records. But the proprietors contend they did all they could without putting their lives in jeopardy.

At the opening of the trial at the Antelope Valley Courthouse, Sherwood, a deputy district attorney, said undercover agents on five occasions purchased jars of the crystals while using an alias and were not asked to produce identification, as the law requires.

Defense attorney Alison Bloom said she will show that the law is confusing and that the defendants did not understand what they were supposed to do. She described the feed store as a throwback to a country general store that sells "tackle, books, cards and has a petting zoo."

The four defendants earlier this month turned down a plea agreement that would have dismissed the charges but required them to pay a $500 fine and to stop selling the tiny $16 jars of crystals for two years.

The defendants, "on principle, believe they have done nothing wrong, so it is very hard for them to accept the idea of compromise," Bloom said in an earlier interview.

"They've been on this planet for many years with a clean record, and that's how they want to go to their graves," Bloom said.

Distributors for feed dealers and saddleries say many in California have stopped selling the crystals because they do not want to be bothered with the required record-keeping. Investigators said they cracked down on Granicy's after the shopkeepers repeatedly refused to produce records.

Granicy's sold about 16,000 ounces of iodine crystals in a 15- month period--triple the amount typically sold by similar outlets, according to Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Tom Holeman.

The three sisters were arrested and briefly jailed during a raid in March 2000. Robert "Grandpa" Granicy turned himself in later. The women said they sat barefoot on a concrete bench in a cell, singing church hymns for four hours until deputies released them.

Dozens of supporters in the past have rallied repeatedly behind the four during previous pretrial hearings. But only five demonstrators showed up Wednesday, carrying fluorescent placards and chanting "Free the Grannies" before a single freelance television cameraman.

Protester Betty Maki, 64, of Lancaster commented on the jury selection process, which consumed three days during questioning of 142 potential jurors. "You'd think they killed somebody, with all this bother," she said of the Granicys, from whom she has purchased feed for more than 30 years. "This is a giant waste of taxpayer money."

The family represents five generations of business, community and church leaders. Married in 1958, the Granicys opened the feed store in the 1960s on land purchased by Robert Granicy's parents in 1943. The sisters have lived in Lancaster since the 1950s, when their parents left a family farm in Missouri.

Armitta Granicy, who has led the fight against authorities, maintains that undercover drug enforcement investigators should monitor the store, rather than requiring merchants to record information on possible drug traffickers.

The trial is expected to continue for five days, attorneys said.

[Illustration]Caption: PHOTO: Defendants, from left, Dorothy Jean Manning, Ramona Ann Beck, Armitta Mae Granicy and her husband, Robert Roy Granicy, listen to the remarks of the judge and attorneys at the opening of the trial Wednesday in Lancaster Superior Court.; PHOTOGRAPHER: MYUNG J. CHUN / Los Angeles Times; PHOTO: Heading to court are defendant Ramona Ann Beck, left, lawyer Alison Bloom, and defendants Armitta Mae Granicy and Dorothy Jean Manning.; PHOTOGRAPHER: MYUNG J. CHUN / Los Angeles Times
Credit: TIMES STAFF WRITER

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.    

Please click on the following link to read the published article
Daily News, September 14, 1999

Judge Rules Exorcism Death Manslaughter; Trial: Two Korean Christian missionaries are cleared of murder in the killing of Kyung-Ja Chung during cleansing ritual.:[Valley Edition]ANN W. O'NEILL. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Apr 17, 1997.  pg. 1 Full Text (1060   words)Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 1997all Rights reserved)

Ruling that two Korean Christian missionaries who performed a deadly exorcism were trying to heal, not harm, a judge cleared them of murder charges Wednesday in a case experts called a potential landmark in California criminal law.

Ending a three-week trial in Malibu that he said raised "novel and significant issues" of religion and culture, Superior Court Judge James A. Albracht found Jae-Whoa Chung, 50, and Sung Soo Choi, 47, guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the stomping death of Chung's wife during a demon-cleansing ritual called ansukido.

Chung and Choi have been jailed since their arrests July 4 in the slaying of 53-year-old Kyung-Ja Chung. They face no more than four years in state prison. Had they been convicted of second-degree murder, they would have faced 15 years to life.

Declaring victory, defense attorneys said they will ask Albracht to release their clients on probation when they return to court next week for sentencing.

Legal analysts called Albracht's ruling bold--even courageous--given the disfavor with which religious and cultural defenses have been viewed during the past decade.

Opinions differed, however, on the potential impact of the decision. One analyst said he was troubled by it.

"This case pushed the envelope and may be seen as a landmark case," said Laurie Levenson, a dean at Loyola Law School. "I do expect the ruling in this case will prompt other defendants to raise similar defenses. But I don't think the courts will want to open the door for defendants to claim that their cultural background led them to beat a woman to death."

Peter Arenella, a UCLA law professor, said cultural and religious defenses are bound to fail in court unless they specifically address the key concern of homicide law--the defendant's state of mind.

In fact, Arenella believes, not allowing evidence of cultural norms and religious practices could provide grounds for a higher court to overturn a murder conviction.

Attorneys and legal analysts agreed that Albracht bucked the current legal trend by recognizing the cultural and religious strains in the case, even welcoming testimony from a cultural anthropologist who appeared as an expert witness for the defense.

Despite a horrifying outcome, Albracht found, the missionaries had acted with the best of intentions. Their religious zeal led them to repeatedly crush Chung's abdomen and chest with their hands and feet--conduct that was reckless but not malicious, the judge determined.

Calling the case "a tragedy of Shakespearean magnitude," Albracht found that the men may have been misguided and blinded by their religious zeal, but were focused on "saving her from the demons they believed possessed her."

Albracht's was the first verdict rendered in a criminal case resulting from a demonic exorcism, attorneys and legal experts believe. Two other recent cases--one in Oakland, the other near Chicago--were resolved by plea bargains.

Chung seemed stunned by the verdict, but later managed a smile for his attorneys, Robert Sheahen and Christopher Lee. Choi, handcuffed to his seat, fished for a handkerchief with his free hand and wiped tears from his eyes.

The Chungs' son and daughter, ages 16 and 18 respectively, seemed relieved that their father was not convicted of murder.

"These are men of God," defense attorney Sheahen said. "They were doing the work of God. They were doing what they honestly believed was necessary to drive the demon out."

"My client was relieved," said Jim Barnes, who represented Choi. "He was happy. He was very gratified that the judge had seen this for what it was--good acts gone bad without an intent to kill."

Outside the courtroom, Deputy Dist. Atty. Hank Goldberg said he was satisfied with winning a conviction--and with the judge's recognition that the killing of Kyung-Ja Chung was unlawful.

The prosecutor had argued vigorously for second-degree murder convictions, contending that by continually pressing and stomping on the woman, the men showed a conscious disregard for her life--no matter if their intent was to heal her or harm her.

Exorcist Choi even advised the husband that to cure her, they'd have to subject her to suffering comparable to journeying through hell.

According to testimony, 16 of her ribs were broken, the muscles in her thighs were so damaged the tissue had died, internal organs were displaced and crushed, and a vein leading to her heart was torn.

The men received ample notice that their actions were endangering the woman, Goldberg argued, even "from the devil himself," who is said to have warned that he would not leave without killing Chung.

Goldberg's position was supported by USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who said he found it difficult to fathom how anyone--no matter what their cultural background--could use lethal force on another person and not be aware of the possibility that he or she was being harmed.

"It's hard not to understand this manslaughter verdict as anything other than an implicit acceptance of the cultural defense," Chemerinsky said.

In his ruling, Albracht noted that Kyung-Ja Chung's crushed chest was not noticed by paramedics or emergency room doctors.

The judge distinguished between the actions of the missionaries, who were engaged in an otherwise lawful endeavor, and those of other defendants who have been convicted of murder under similar legal theories. Those convicted of murder, the judge said, participated in "wanton, antisocial conduct" such as child abuse, repeated drunk driving or quack medicine for profit.

Chung died after two exorcism rituals that began the previous afternoon at a home in Koreatown and continued, after a break for church services, at a Century City condo borrowed from a church member.

According to testimony, everyone involved in the ritual--known as ansukido--fervently believed that Chung was possessed by demons. Ansukido combines Korean folk traditions with the charismatic Christian healing practice of laying on hands.

Chung agreed to the exorcism, according to testimony, because the demons were making her arrogant and disobedient to her husband.

The ritual involved prayer, hymns, laying on hands, speaking in tongues and invoking the name of Jesus Christ.

The Chungs were Korean missionaries based in Bangladesh. Choi was based in China. All had traveled to Los Angeles to report on their work to some of their sponsoring churches.

PHOTO: Sung Soo Choi wipes a tear after manslaughter verdict is read.; PHOTO: Bailiff removes handcuffs from Jae-Whoa Chung after verdict was delivered. At left, lawyer Christopher Lee.; PHOTOGRAPHER: GEORGE WILHELM / Los Angeles Times

Credit: TIMES STAFF WRITER

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.    

Panah's Mother Tells Court of Abusing Him Sentencing: Testimony, meant to gain jury's sympathy for convicted murderer so he will not get death penalty, brings him close to tears.:[Valley Edition]ANN W. O'NEILL. The Los Angeles Times (Pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Jan 7, 1995.  pg. 1 Full Text (1106   words)Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 1995 all Rights reserved)

Taking the witness stand in a bid to spare her son from the death penalty, the mother of convicted child murderer Hooman Ashkan Panah portrayed herself Friday as a harsh and controlling mother who slapped and bit her son when he was a boy.

She also admitted that she showered with him when he was 9, and slept in the same bed with him when he was about 13. Later, when Panah was a young man, she said, she broke off two of his romantic relationships by threatening suicide.

Mehri Monfared, 47, a former cable television producer and talk show host, told a Superior Court jury during a day of compelling defense testimony that she wanted only the best for her only child.

"I'm sorry," she said, weeping uncontrollably, "but he is all my life. I raised him all by myself. . . . I loved him. I was so hard with him, too." Admitting that at various times she also beat Panah, locked him in a room and shaved his head, she said she punished him "because I wanted him to be a good man. I am father and mother to him."

Panah, now 23, faces the death penalty or life in prison for the sodomy-murder of Nicole Parker, the 8-year-old daughter of a neighbor at his Woodland Hills apartment complex. Nicole's disappearance on Nov. 20, 1993, prompted a massive search until her body was found 36 hours later in a suitcase in Panah's bedroom closet.

Lori Parker, Nicole's mother, listened intently to the testimony. Outside the courtroom, she said, "I do feel sorry for her. But her son is alive and my daughter is dead."

Monfared appeared as the key witness in a defense built around Panah's troubled life story and possible psychosis, two factors the jury could weigh in deciding whether he should receive the death penalty for killing Nicole during a sexual attack.

Monfared sobbed uncontrollably at first, glancing often at Panah and apologizing to him. Later, she maintained her composure even as she admitted to incident after incident of abuse, neglect and bizarre behavior.

Her testimony sometimes brought Panah to the brink of tears.

As a 4-year-old, she said, Panah deliberately cut his finger and said he didn't want to live. She had separated from Panah's father, whom she married at age 20, because he beat her while she was pregnant.

Panah "wasn't right" when he was born in 1971, during a difficult delivery, she testified. As an infant, Panah fell and hit his head when his father pushed her during an argument, she said.

Under questioning by defense attorney Robert M. Sheahen, Monfared admitted beating Panah when he was a young boy and punishing him by slapping him and hitting him with shoes. After she left her husband and moved back to her parents' home, her brothers and sister beat him with belts, she said.

She said Panah's childhood also was punctuated by fearful nighttime trips to the basement, seeking shelter from bombing in the war between Iran and Iraq.

She testified to three key incidents that occurred in Tehran when her son was about 10.

When Panah refused to get a haircut, Monfared said, she and an uncle threw him to the ground, and cut his hair with a knife. She made him go to school with his newly bald head as a lesson, she said.

"It hurt Hooman a lot because he was crying for a few days," she recalled. She said he later told her, "You treat me as a dog, as a sheep, that you cut my hair like that."

She said she slapped him in the face when he claimed at age 10 that he and a cousin were being sexually molested by her elderly father.

"I called (Hooman) a liar," she said. "I couldn't believe that an old man would do something like that to children."

At about that same time, she said, she gave her son the cold shoulder for a year and called him a derogatory Farsi word for homosexual after a school principal told her "Hooman was acting like a gay."

She admitted she would hurl the epithet at her son whenever they disagreed.

A year later, Monfared and Panah left Iran for Turkey. Panah never saw his father again. Mother and son shared a bed in a tiny hotel room with a single window overlooking an alley in the worst section of the Turkish capital, Ankara. When she worked, she locked Panah in the room to study.

"I had no choice," she said.

Two years later, they left Turkey for Germany. Panah, then about 15, was left behind at a German home for teen-agers while she traveled to Mexico, and then to the United States. The plan was to send for Panah when she received her green card, a process she expected to take a few weeks. It took two years.

When Monfared returned to Germany to fetch her son, he was happily involved with a young woman he planned to marry. He had no interest in leaving with his mother.

"I didn't agree with him. I didn't accept it," she testified. "I said, `I am your mother and you are underage. . . . If you love me, if I am your mother, you have to come with me. If you don't come, I'm going to leave you alone forever."

She said she threatened to kill herself.

Six months after his arrival in the United States in 1988, Panah tried to kill himself by overdosing on over-the-counter allergy medication, Monfared said. The attempt followed a quarrel between mother and son. Panah wanted to wear an earring. His mother wouldn't allow it "because it wasn't our culture."

Treating physicians recommended a stay at a mental health facility, but Monfared said she told the doctors her son was fine. When social workers came to her home, she said, she refused to talk with them, saying she had to go to work.

Later, when Panah began to fall in love with another young woman, his mother again threatened suicide if he didn't break off the relationship, she said.

"I didn't want to hurt him, but that girl wasn't good," Monfared said.

She said she suspected the girl of theft. "There wasn't any choice. I thought I was doing right because I didn't want him to get involved with any problems."

Testimony continues Monday.

[Illustration]PHOTO: COLOR, Defense attorney Robert Sheahen tells of abuses suffered by his client.; PHOTO: Mehri Monfared, mother of convicted murderer Hooman Ashkan Panah, tells court about their relationship. / TODD BIGELOW / For The Times
Credit: TIMES STAFF WRITER

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.    

Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 1991all Rights reserved)
JULIO MORAN

Rock singer Rick James and his girlfriend were ordered Thursday to stand trial on charges that they tortured a woman with a hot cocaine pipe and forced her to have sex.

James, 43, and Tanya Anne Hijazi, 21, are to be tried in San Fernando Superior Court on charges of aggravated mayhem, assault with a deadly weapon, torture, false imprisonment and forced oral copulation of Hijazi. They face life imprisonment if convicted on all counts.

James, who scoffed and laughed with Hijazi from the defendants' table during the two-day preliminary hearing before Municipal Judge John C. Gunn, was visibly upset as he left the courtroom.

"Take care, Myron," said James as he walked out glaring at Deputy Dist. Atty. Myron L. Jenkins. Jenkins had unsuccessfully sought to have bail revoked for both defendants.

Outside the courtroom, Robert M. Sheahen, one of James' two attorneys, said Jenkins' request to revoke bail was an attempt to save a case that was falling apart. The singer, best known for his 1981 hit "Super Freak," has denied all charges and his attorneys have portrayed the 24-year-old woman as a drug addict seeking a civil settlement and publicity.

Gunn acknowledged from the bench that there were many inconsistencies in the testimony of the woman, including statements on when she moved to California from her native Georgia, and the chronology of incidents that occurred at James' Hollywood Hills home above Studio City.

But Gunn said testimony from James' maid, Dinorah Zumbado, that she saw Hijazi crying and observed a knife being heated was enough of an independent account to warrant a trial.

The woman claims that James used a cocaine pipe, a kitchen knife and a cigarette lighter to burn her legs, knees and stomach after accusing her of stealing some of his cocaine.

She said the three of them had used cocaine almost nonstop for a week when the alleged abuses took place.

The woman testified that she thought Hijazi also had been a victim, which Hijazi's attorney, Leonard B. Levine, unsuccessfully tried to use to have the charges dropped against his client.

A trial date is to be set on Sept. 26.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission. 

Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 1990all Rights reserved)

The Times should be commended for alerting readers to the inability of our congested civil courts to administer justice (editorial). While recognizing the problem, you appear to endorse the quick-fix solution of adding more judges for civil courts. A deeper analysis was suggested that same day at confirmation hearings for Judge David Souter. He stated in part that civil courts are slow because our Constitution requires criminal cases to be heard first. Even a tiny cocaine case takes precedence over a billion-dollar business suit affecting millions.

The easiest way to free up judges for handling civil disputes is to relieve them of the burden of processing penny-ante drug cases. As a start, we should take all simple possession for personal use cases out of the criminal justice system and transfer them to an administrative health board. The savings would be enormous. By unclogging our criminal system, we would begin to free up our civil court system to hear the vital business, insurance and environment cases which now are not heard properly. In short, we do not need more judges. We need fewer drug laws.

ROBERT SHEAHEN Los Angeles

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.