Gwen Araujo Murder Trial Update
During the media circus that was the Laci Peterson murder trial, the thought that kept running through our head was, Why haven't we heard anything lately about the Gwen Araujo murder trial? In case you missed this underreported story (compared to the Peterson coverage, certainly), Gwen Araujo was a transgender 17-year-old, living as a woman, who was beaten and strangled to death in October 2002. At least two of the defendants in the case had previously had oral or anal sex with her, believing she was biologically a woman. The four men charged in the death all allegedly participated in transporting the teen's body to a remote location, where they buried her in a shallow grave. One of the men, Jaron Nabors, confessed to the police that he participated in the killing and cover-up, and he led police to the site where Araujo's body was buried. In the plea bargain, Nabors received a manslaughter conviction and agreed to testify against the three remaining defendants, Michael Magidson, Jose Merel, and Jason Cazares, who were brought up on murder charges with a hate-crime enhancement, which can increase a prison sentence by up to four years.
Last we'd heard, in June of last year, the jury ended in a deadlock on all three defendants, resulting in a mistrial. Though a number of subsequent developments were reported in the Chron and elsewhere, the case has all but disappeared from Bay Area media in the past several months. SFist thought it was time to update you about where things are with the trial.
The retrial date is set for May 9 of this year. Almost all of the same people are back: the defendants, Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Chris Lamiero, and two of the three original defense attorneys, Michael Thorman (representing Magidson) and Tony Serra (representing Cazares) -- the only new person is attorney Bill DuBois, who took over the representation of Jose Merel from Jack Noonan. The Chron had previously reported that Noonan removed himself from the case due to scheduling conflicts, but when we asked DuBois about the switch, he said it was privileged information. Noonan's office said Noonan was out of the office on vacation and was unavailable for comment.
The delay in the retrial was due to a scheduling conflict on the part of Thorman, who told us he had expected to be tied up in another trial for several months but that that case ended up settling at the last minute. At that point, however, there was apparently no way to move the retrial date up.
We wondered how the mistrial would lead the various attorneys in the case to adjust their approaches for the retrial. Though Lamiero, Thorman and DuBois said they weren't at liberty to discuss strategy shifts in any detail, each did give us some idea of what they had in store.
"There certainly may be some fine-tuning," Deputy District Attorney Lamiero said. "The jury last time around pretty solidly repudiated the idea of manslaughter," referring to Thorman's arguments at trial that his client was guilty of manslaughter and not first- or second-degree murder. Lamiero said that he had had informal discussions with the jury after the trial, and he said that no one he talked to thought that manslaughter would have been the appropriate conviction for any of the defendants. After the district attorney's office decided to seek a retrial, the Chron reported that Lamiero said the jurors he spoke with told him that they all agreed the defendants were guilty of murder but that they couldn't agree on the question of first or second degree.
Thorman, who represents Magidson, disagreed, arguing that the jury never got to discuss a manslaughter conviction. He said that since the jury couldn't agree on the question of first-degree murder, they never even got to the discussion of second-degree murder, let alone manslaughter. In a murder case, he said, the jury has to consider and reject the most serious charge before it can move on to considering lesser charges.
But while Lamiero and Thorman appear to be readying similar versions of how they approached the previous trial, DuBois, Merel's attorney, hinted at a significant shift from how his client's previous attorney handled his case.
"There will be more evidence produced at this trial," DuBois said, adding that there were "varying degrees of responsibility" among the defendants. He declined to specify what the additional evidence would be, but at the previous trial, Cazares was the only defendant who testified, so it's possible that DuBois is planning on putting Merel on the stand.
Serra, representing Cazares, didn't return a request for comments, so it's unclear what he has in store for the retrial. However, at the first trial, according to Thorman, Serra pushed for a full acquittal for Cazares, arguing that Cazares wasn't involved in the attack that killed Araujo. In Cazares's testimony, reported in the Chron and elsewhere, Cazares said he was outside smoking a cigarette while the killing took place. He also said in court that he had no idea how severe the beating was until Nabors came outside and told him that Araujo was dead.
At this time, Magidson and Merel are still being held without bail pending the retrial. Last July, however, a judge issued set bail of $1 million for Cazares, which Cazares posted in early August.
We'll keep you updated as we find out more.