LAKEPORT — The position of the metal detector on the fourth floor of the Lakeport courthouse tells half the story.
Due to the gravity and controversy surrounding the case of the People vs. Renato Hughes, Jr., which was scheduled to begin Tuesday in Dept. 1, it was moved from its usual location just down the hall outside of Dept. 3. It still rests outside Dept. 1, and has not been moved back yet after a stay was granted in the trial.
The young Hughes is charged with the shooting deaths of his two companions, Christian Foster, 22, of San Francisco, and Rashad Williams, 21, of Pittsburg in an alleged robbery gone bad at the Clearlake Park home of Shannon Edmonds on Dec. 2, 2005.
A trial was set for Tuesday, May 8, in Dept. 1. Hughes” defense attorney Stewart filed a petition for review on Friday, also requesting a stay of the trial on an emergency basis. The stay was granted, according to District Attorney Jon Hopkins, who is prosecuting the case. As for the petition for review, that must wait for a decision to come down from the California Supreme Court.
“In effect we”re just stalled rite now, we”re dead in the water,” said Hopkins Thursday. He met Tuesday with Hanlon and California Supreme Court Jugde William A. McKinstry, who was assigned the case at the request of the Lake County Superior Court. A June 1 date was set for Dept. 3 for review and trial setting in the event that the stay is listed, Hopkins explained. “
There is really no way to know which way this will come out, simply based on the fact that they”re going to read the defendant”s petition,” said Hopkins, adding that the Supreme Court decision could come down at any time.
The review will decide whether or not the change of venue Hanlon requested should have been granted. Lake County Superior Court Judge Arthur H. Mann denied the change of venue in a March 2 ruling after Hanlon put forth an argument that Lake County is not the ideal racial climate for his client to receive a fair trial.
“I have an African-American client from San Francisco charged with a very awful crime,” said Hanlon in a December 2006 interview. “He”s being tried in a county right now that is less than two percent African-American, which according to the 2005 census is less than 1,300 people, in a case that has real racial stereotypes. I”m very concerned that he can get a fair trial here.”
What makes the case unusual, and controversial, is that Hughes did not wield the Browning automatic pistol that killed his companions. Although Edmonds actually pulled the trigger, Hughes is being held for their deaths under a clause in the law that holds co-perpetrators of a felonious act responsible of the act is likely to provoke lethal resistance.
Edmonds testified previously that Hughes and his two companions broke into his home and demanded marijuana he said he grows for medicinal purposes. When Edmonds resisted, he said the trio beat his fiance and bludgeoned his 17-year-old son with a metal bat.
But the June 1 court date will not be the end-all-be-all.
“A number of things could happen at this point,” said Hopkins. “The Supreme Court could deny the request for the review and send us a one-sentence ruling, they could request an informal response from the prosecution side, they could request a formal briefing and oral argument from both.”
“The latter would mean we”d respond to an informal petition and they could respond back in rebuttal. If any of that has happened by June 1, then we should have a better idea of which direction we”re heading,” he said.
Contact Tiffany Revelle at trevelle@record-bee.com.
