Opinion ID: 2581010
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts underlying defendant's motion

Text: As noted above, on December 5, 1989  a day before the preliminary hearing began  the prosecutor and Inspector Sjostrand interviewed Donna Guthrie at her home and, finding Maurice Solvang there, briefly interviewed him at that time as well. Later that day, Solvang agreed to accompany the prosecutor and Sjostrand to the Richmond Office of the District Attorney, where Solvang submitted to a tape-recorded interview for approximately 90 minutes. In that interview, which was transcribed and made available to defendant (and was subsequently referred to and extensively quoted in defendant's midtrial motion seeking immunity for Solvang), Solvang described his contacts with defendant in the days prior to and after the killings. We set out below a summary of that interview. At numerous times during the interview, Solvang recounted that, prior to the killings, defendant told him he hated his mother and his stepfather for sending him to prison and that, in retribution, he planned to kill them. Solvang stated that on June 30, 1989  three days before the killings  Solvang advised defendant concerning how one would go about committing such homicides, including the killer's need to make sure that he was not seen by any witness, the need to dispose of any evidence, and the procedures necessary to create a gas leak in order to burn the home of his intended victims. In the course of this recitation, Solvang volunteered that in making such recommendations to defendant he was neither encouraging nor dissuading defendant, because he (Solvang) was an impartial party who reasoned, if you're going to be stupid and do it, do it the smart way. He also asserted, however, that he did not believe that defendant actually would commit the planned crimes. Solvang proceeded to explain that defendant told him how defendant obtained the gun used in the killings; that at Solvang's own recommendation, the two of them test-fired the gun; and that on July 2  two days before the crimes  Solvang went with defendant to purchase a box of bullets. Solvang related that on July 5  the day after the killings  he and Donna Guthrie spent approximately four hours with defendant in a park, at which time defendant spoke to Solvang about the homicides and told him how he had killed each of the victims. Solvang stated he was uncertain as to of the number of bullets defendant said had been fired. Solvang recounted that defendant reported strangling the family dog with a vacuum hose because it would not stop barking after the gunfire ended, and that defendant had described looking out the front door and being noticed by Terry Guillory. Solvang, revealing his and defendant's ingestion of drugs and alcohol for three days prior to the killings, described defendant's demeanor on July 5 as alternating between euphoria (at having killed Ardell) and depression (at the prospect of having no place to live), but showing no remorse. Solvang twice emphasized that while he and Donna Guthrie sat with defendant in the park, listening to him recount the crimes, he feared that defendant, who still was armed, also might kill him and Donna. Solvang speculated that defendant was in a cloud of ecstasy at the time he committed the crimes and did not know right from wrong. Solvang related that he advised defendant to shed the clothing he had worn during the killings and drove with defendant and Donna to a store where defendant purchased new clothing. Solvang explained that while they were waiting for defendant to try on the new clothing, Donna told him (Solvang) that on July 3, defendant had telephoned her numerous times from the Pillow home, last calling at about 11:30 p.m. and pleading, `If you don't come pick me up you'll read about it in the newspapers. I hope you feel great `cause this is all your fault, it's your trip.' Solvang conceded having helped defendant discard his shoes and the gun, both of which, he claimed, defendant threw into a deep reservoir in his presence. Solvang also admitted speaking with defendant by telephone numerous times in the months after defendant's arrest, and related that defendant had made me several offers for Terry Guillory's life. Solvang explained that, in this regard, he had accepted from defendant a $1,000 retainer that was delivered to him in a cigarette box at a Foster Freeze in El Sobrante. Solvang stated that although defendant did not specifically ask that Guillory be killed, it was clear to Solvang that defendant wanted Guillory's termination, which Solvang assumed meant that Guillory was to be killed. Solvang, however, asserted that he never intended to kill Guillory, but instead viewed the retainer as free money, which he used to purchase gifts and food for Donna Guthrie (who, by this time, was Solvang's girlfriend  and who, further complicating matters, also had a long-standing relationship with Terry Guillory). During the interview, Solvang expressed concern that he might be prosecuted for his involvement in the events he was relating. Inspector Sjostrand replied that if Solvang in fact had destroyed evidence or assisted defendant after the killings, that's something you're going to have to address. Finally, Solvang acknowledged having suffered three prison terms for numerous crimes, including smuggling narcotics, shooting a dog, and (in his words) robberies, robberies, robberies, robberies. Evidence adduced at the hearing on defendant's motion for court-ordered immunity for Solvang revealed the following. Approximately one month prior to the December 5, 1989, interview described above (on November 4, 1989), Solvang had been charged with a misdemeanor, brandishing a firearm. On December 7, 1989, a police officer reviewing the original November report obtained Solvang's criminal records and on that basis modified the charges to include the additional felony charge of felon in possession of a firearm. There is no indication that the modification was made at the behest of the District Attorney's office. A subsequent police report entry in February 1990 indicated that the police would take this case to D.A. review. Still later, a police report entry stated: This case has been reviewed by the D.A. and a felony complaint issued. Solvang had been subpoenaed by the prosecution to testify at defendant's preliminary hearing, which commenced on December 6, 1989. But thereafter Solvang was provided appointed counsel who advised him concerning his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Solvang was not subsequently called to testify at the preliminary hearing, apparently because he had demanded transactional immunity, which, the prosecutor later explained at a February 1990 hearing, he was not prepared to offer. Counsel for defendant learned of Solvang's December 5, 1989, interview shortly after noon on December 6. Soon thereafter, Craig Rock, the defense investigator, attempted at various times to interview Solvang. Ultimately Solvang agreed to an interview with Rock on July 26, 1990. At that interview, Solvang first stated that he knew he had AIDS. Solvang also stated he had been subpoenaed by the prosecution to testify at defendant's trial and would do so if he received user immunity from the D.A. Solvang further asserted he would state that his previous statement to the D.A. regarding [defendant's] involvement in the killings was a lie and that defendant was an innocent witness to a robbery and the killings. Rock testified: When I asked him how he knew this, was he present at the killings, he said `possibly.' I then asked him if he did the shootings to which he again said `possibly.' I asked him if he knew about a bracelet that was left at the crime scene. He asked me if I meant the one belonging to Donna. He then said we should check for her fingerprints on the wine bottle and on a pair of sunglasses. [¶] [Solvang] said that he and Donna had gone their separate ways and that in the past he had had a sexual relationship with Donna but not while [defendant] was going out with her. Later, Solvang agreed to another interview with Rock, held on September 12, 1990. While Rock was driving Solvang to the office of defendant's counsel for that interview, and as they neared that office, Solvang noticed the prosecution investigator, Sjostrand, traveling in the opposite direction, and shared that observation with Rock. At the September 12 interview with Rock and defense counsel, counsel began by telling Solvang he wanted to know what really happened on the night of the killings. Solvang responded he would demand immunity in order to testify at defendant's trial. Solvang asserted that the prosecution had told him that somebody else must be involved [in the killings] because these victims didn't wait in line to be shot and that if Solvang helped the prosecution, Donna would not be prosecuted, nor would he unless he did the actual killings. Solvang asked defense counsel whether the public defender's office would represent him (Solvang) if the weight of the evidence shifted to him, and counsel responded that in that circumstance a conflict would be declared and Solvang would receive another court-appointed attorney. Solvang asked why should a person be punished for something he didn't do?, adding I don't want to see [defendant] get what they, the D.A. wanted him to get. Solvang then mused: If me and two friends go to a house and I see valuable items and things get out of hand you got to terminate certain people. People with you have to decide whether they're going to be a witness against the person. Later, Rock testified, Solvang mentioned that he `never saw this lady [Gloria Pillow] until....' Rock explained that Solvang did not finish the sentence. Rock further stated Solvang told him that after the killings, Donna was going around telling people that [Solvang] was the one who did the killings. Solvang also said that he saw Terry Guillory with a $1,000 check, apparently from a newspaper's witness reward program, provided for having turned in defendant, and that Guillory had purchased drugs from Donna with that money. Solvang further stated that he also had given Donna the $800 he had received from the cigarette package delivered by defendant's friend Jackie. Solvang explained that Donna has a way of wrapping men around her finger. Finally, Solvang asserted that at one point Guillory demanded that Donna share the $800 with Guillory, and that Inspector Sjostrand happened to have arrived while Guillory was making this demand. After the September 12 interview, Rock served Solvang with a subpoena to testify for the defense at defendant's trial. Immediately after Solvang's September 12 interview, when Rock returned Solvang to his home, Donna  who at that time resided at the same location  angrily confronted Solvang, claiming Solvang was out to get her. Donna then telephoned the police to report a charge of disturbing the peace, a violation of Penal Code section 415. The San Pablo police responded. Upon interviewing Solvang, the investigating officer discovered that Solvang had two outstanding warrants. Based upon those warrants, Solvang was transported to the San Pablo Police Department, booked, and then transported to the Contra Costa County Jail. Investigator Rock testified that, within two weeks of March 1991 (just prior to the beginning of jury selection in defendant's trial) he was led to believe by the prosecution that it planned to call Solvang as a witness at defendant's trial and that the prosecution had secured a removal order for the transportation of Solvang from the prison where he was then confined. But, Rock testified, when he checked he found that the prosecution in fact had not sought a removal order. Accordingly, defense counsel was required to seek such an order for Solvang's removal. Rock also testified that during defendant's trial  on March 27, 1991, the day before the immunity motion at issue was filed and heard  Rock spoke to Solvang, who advised him that he (Solvang) would exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege to decline to testify at defendant's trial. Rock did not ask Solvang why he would elect to exercise that privilege, and Solvang did not indicate why he had made that decision. The parties stipulated that if called to the stand at defendant's trial, Solvang would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and would refuse to testify absent a grant of immunity from the District Attorney.