Dally, Haun to Have Separate Murder Trials

Accused murderers Michael Dally and Diana Haun will face separate trials in the kidnap-slaying of Dally’s wife, a judge ruled Tuesday, dramatically altering the course of the high-profile case.

“I have read and considered in chambers the declarations of defendants’ counsel,” Superior Court Judge Frederick A. Jones said, “and now conclude that the claimed defenses of each are conflicting.”

Haun will be tried first, since she was indicted by the grand jury in the slaying of Sherri Dally three months before Michael Dally’s indictment. His trial will be held after Haun’s concludes.

The decision stunned attorneys, who looked astonished as Jones spoke.

His ruling marks a blow to the district attorney’s case, one that will force prosecutors to reevaluate their witness lists, subpoenas and overall trial strategy just two weeks before jury selection is scheduled to begin.

Dally, 37, and Haun, 36, are charged with murder, kidnapping, conspiracy and related allegations in connection with the killing of Dally’s wife, Sherri, last year. If convicted, they could face the death penalty.

In the past month, defense attorneys pushed to have the case split into separate proceedings, concerned that the defendants might be battling each other as well as the prosecution.

“That usually means that they’re going to point fingers at each other,” said Laurie Levenson, associate dean and professor at Loyola Law School and a former federal prosecutor.

The defendants might not be preparing to testify directly against each other, but they may be planning to give conflicting alibis or differing versions of events to the jury, she said.

Attorneys for Dally and Haun submitted written, sealed documents this week explaining the defense strategies they planned to present at trial--documents that persuaded the judge to grant separate trials over the objection of prosecutors.

“They are mutually antagonistic,” Jones said of the anticipated defense tactics. “They are also in effect irreconcilable and if one is accepted, it would preclude acquittal of the other.”

As prosecutors walked out of the courtroom, Dally turned to his attorney, James M. Farley, and smiled, obviously pleased by the decision. He firmly shook Farley’s hand before being escorted back to a holding cell by two deputies.

Haun showed no outward reaction to the judge’s decision. She remained seated in the courtroom to talk to her two court-appointed lawyers after the other parties left.

Also Tuesday, Jones ruled that Haun’s attorneys must turn over to the prosecution 71 letters written to her by Dally during the past eight months. The content of the letters has not been disclosed.

He also granted a prosecution motion allowing the district attorney to present a letter written by Sherri Dally as evidence in Haun’s trial once testimony starts.

Six months ago Jones granted a prosecution motion to join the two cases, stating that separate trials were more the exception than the rule in cases involving co-defendants.

*

But he also gave defense attorneys an option to bring motions to sever the cases once they got closer to trial. After reviewing a flurry of legal briefs, Jones agreed the Dally-Haun case warrants such an exception.

“An antagonistic defense is where you can’t put your case forward because you’re not only being attacked by the D.A. but by your co-defendant too,” criminal defense attorney Harland W. Braun of Los Angeles said.

When trying to defend a client against both prosecutors and damaging testimony from a co-defendant, Braun said, “you’re sort of fighting with one hand tied behind your back.”

Separate trials can save time that might otherwise be spent dealing with conflicts between co-defendants in a single trial, Braun said. But they probably take longer than a single trial.

“Judges don’t generally grant severances because they require two trials. And the unfortunate fact is, judges are more concerned about judicial economy than fairness,” Braun said.

Severing trials can set up a chessboard scenario, Braun said. The outcome of the first trial--whether conviction, acquittal, mistrial or sudden confession--can drastically affect the course of the second, he said.

“Many times, the second case doesn’t get tried,” he said, “because in the first case, if the person’s acquitted or convicted, it changes the settlement potential in the second one--or the first [defendant] testifies against the second in exchange for a lesser sentence.”

*

Although severance in cases is unusual, George Eskin, a retired Ventura County defense attorney and former prosecutor, said he was not surprised by the ruling in this case.

Based on news reports, Eskin said, it seemed that grand jury proceedings against Dally dragged on and pressure was being brought against him and Haun that could have signaled conflicting defenses.

He also said severance cases in Ventura County are not so rare.

“I had a case in which two fellows were charged with a first-degree burglary in the daytime,” Eskin recalled. “My client had made statements while he was in custody which implicated him. And the co-defendant’s counsel . . . filed a motion to sever which wasn’t even contested by the district attorney and was granted.”

Although Haun will face a jury first, both she and Dally will continue to appear in court together this week as attorneys argue a series of motions on the admissibility of evidence prior to jury selection.

A panel of 200 jurors from southern Santa Barbara County has already been summoned to appear June 30 for the first phase of jury selection. It is a date that Jones has said will not be changed.

In other matters Tuesday, Jones told prosecutors that they could not force Haun to undergo a psychological evaluation. But he said he was willing to reconsider the request at a later date if the case reaches the penalty phase.