<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Thursday, March 28, 2024
March 28, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

Benjamin Orozco to be retried in Columbia County after 2019 murder conviction reversed by appeals court

By Jeremy Burnham, Walla Walla Union-Bulletin
Published: January 3, 2022, 7:15am

WALLA WALLA — A 1996 murder case in Dayton was recently concluded with a conviction and 36-year prison sentence, but an appeals court decision now means the case has to go to trial all over again.

Benjamin Orozco, extradited to Washington after 20 years of hiding under a false identity in Mexico, was found guilty in 2019 of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Dayton man Lance Terry. He was sentenced in 2020 after being held for four years at the Washington State Penitentiary awaiting trial since his 2016 arrest.

But a three-judge panel in Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals reversed the conviction in October and ordered that Orozco receive a new trial saying the county prosecutor’s decision to remove a Black woman from the jury pool in the first trial was discriminatory.

Orozco is set to have his pretrial hearing on Jan. 5, and Columbia County Prosecuting Attorney Dale Slack said he expects to find out who is representing Orozco in the second trial at that time. He also said a timeline for the proceedings will likely be established then.

The courts reversal was not connected to evidence presented in the first trial. Rather, the decision, which was written by Judge Robert Lawrence-Berrey and joined by Judge Laurel Siddoway, takes issue with the dismissal of the only person of color in the jury pool.

The third judge on the panel, Chief Judge Rebecca L. Pennell, voted with the majority, but wrote her own, concurring, opinion.

Slack used one of his peremptory challenges to dismiss the would-be juror.

Peremptory challenges may be used to remove a perspective juror from the pool without cause. Unless the other side objects, a lawyer does not have to provide reason for the peremptory challenge.

A peremptory challenge may not, however, be used to remove a person because of their race.

Of peremptory challenges, the appeals court wrote in its decisions that, “These challenges, while important, are potentially rife with implicit and explicit bias.”

Slack said race had nothing to do with why he eliminated the juror. He also argued that the juror did not identify herself as Black.

“I honestly couldn’t tell you what her racial background was, and I didn’t care,” Slack told the U-B.

He said the juror was a woman he had prosecuted for a minor crime a year earlier. He said he didn’t want one of the jurors to be someone who might hold a grudge against him.

“I had just prosecuted her,” Slack said. “I didn’t want any bad feelings around because of that.”

So, without asking any questions of the juror, he used a peremptory challenge.

The defense objected.

In court, Slack defended his challenge by saying, “Your Honor, I’ve prosecuted (this prospective juror) in the past for minor crimes — they weren’t anything major; she’s not a felon, but I have prosecuted her in the past, and also her name has appeared in a number of police reports as associating with people that I believe have been engaged in criminal activity.”

While the trial judge — M. Scott Wolfram — ruled in favor of Slack, the appeals court took issue with this statement.

According to the court’s written decision, Washington uses a set of rules called the Batson framework for determining whether a peremptory challenge was racially motivated.

If a valid objection is raised by the defense, the Batson framework requires the prosecutor “to provide an adequate, race-neutral justification for the strike.”

The decision also states that the standard used says, “If the court determines that an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge, then the peremptory challenge shall be denied.”

The decision notes that “the court need not find purposeful discrimination to deny a peremptory challenge.”

The appeals court accepted Slack’s reasoning that he didn’t want someone he had prosecuted on the jury.

“Personally prosecuting a prospective juror for minor crimes is a race-neutral justification that supports a prosecutor’s decision to remove that person from the jury,” the decision states.

It was the second part of Slack’s argument that concerned the court.

“Recognizing (prospective) juror 25 from multiple police reports indicates she has ‘prior contact with law enforcement officers’ and ‘a close relationship with people who have been stopped, arrested, or convicted of a crime,’” the decision states.

“These reasons are historically associated with improper racial discrimination in jury selection. Combining a race-neutral justification with a presumptively invalid one is not ‘race neutral.’ We conclude that the state failed to rebut the presumption that its peremptory strike was not for a discriminatory purpose.”

The appeals court also stated that Slack should have questioned the juror on whether she could stay impartial despite being prosecuted recently.

“We conclude that the state violated Batson … by striking the only Black person during (jury selection) and providing a presumptively invalid justification for doing do,” the decision concludes. “The remedy is a new trial.”

Orozco is accused of shooting Dayton men Lance Terry and David Eaton near downtown Dayton on the night of July 7, 1996. Terry died the next day in hospital while Eaton suffered wounds on his hands and leg.

Orozco and David Delarosa, a former co-defendant, fled to Mexico. Orozco used his deceased brother’s identity to elude capture, officials said.

In the four-day trial two years ago, Orozco claimed the shooting was self-defense. The jury deliberated for a little over an hour before finding him guilty of murder.

mobile phone icon
Take the news everywhere you go.
Download The Columbian app:
Download The Columbian app for Android on Google PlayDownload The Columbian app for iOS on the Apple App Store

While Slack is disappointed that the original verdict was set aside, he emphasized that the court’s decision had nothing to do with the evidence presented at trial. He said he’s prepared to present the same case again.

“We do basically have a script for how we convicted him the first time,” the prosecutor said. “I think the closer we follow it, the better, the second time around.

Loading...