RPC §3.8

Paul Kovacich was convicted on wholly circumstantial evidence:  “nobody else could have done it,” and “there wasn't a serial killer... going around snatching women.” 

Most of his alibi was never investigated, none of it was disproven, and there was no reason to believe he lied about facts and locations that would have been so easy to check. The DA’s theory (that Janet was shot on the side of Rollins Lake Road at 11:00 am) was factually impossible...  nobody heard the shot, saw the Bronco, or found Janet’s body by the parking pullout.

•So, what happened when DeAngelo was arrested, and the DA discovered that a serial killer had motive, means, opportunity, and availability to kidnap/kill Janet, and he had confessed to multiple matching MO burglaries, dog crimes, kidnappings, and homicides? Nothing. 

•What about after Auburn PD, PSCO, the FBI, and the Placer DA discovered that DeAngelo had patrolled Janet’s neighborhood, including the path between Janet’s backyard and the community pool? More nothing—unless you count a cover-up.

•The California Bar, the organization that licenses and disciplines attorneys in the state, has very specific rules that cover exactly what a prosecutor must do if new evidence or a new suspect is discovered after a conviction. These rules aren’t optional, or up to the discretion of the DA—if they fail to act they can be disbarred or sent to prison for the felony of hiding exculpatory evidence:

Rules of Professional Conduct §3.8, as currently enforced (amended June 1, 2020):

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: 

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the offense, or mitigate the sentence;

The disclosure obligations in paragraph (d) are not limited to evidence or information that is material as defined by Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [83 S.Ct. 1194] and its progeny. For example, these obligations include, at a minimum, the duty to disclose impeachment evidence or information that a prosecutor knows or reasonably should know casts significant doubt on the accuracy or admissibility of witness testimony on which the prosecution intends to rely. 

[ This rule covers exculpatory and impeaching evidence, even if it is not “material,” meaning that the DA must turn over everything that could possibly help the defense, or hurt the state’s case—even if it wasn't critical at trial, and wouldn't have resulted in an acquittal or hung jury (the standard under Brady) ]

(f) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall: 

(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and 

(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction, (i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and 

(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.

Paragraph (f) requires the prosecutor to examine the evidence and undertake further investigation to determine whether the defendant is in fact innocent or make reasonable efforts to cause another appropriate authority to undertake the necessary investigation, and to promptly disclose the evidence to the court and, absent court authorized delay, to the defendant. Disclosure to a represented defendant must be made through the defendant’s counsel, and, in the case of an unrepresented defendant, would ordinarily be accompanied by a request to a court for the appointment of counsel to assist the defendant in taking such legal measures as may be appropriate. 

[ The Placer DA did not notify the Superior Court that DeAngelo could be a new suspect in Janet’s homicide; did not notify Paul Kovacich in prison; did not ask the court to appoint an attorney to represent him to file motions to dismiss the conviction or hold an evidentiary hearing; and did not order an investigation into DeAngelo’s availability, familiarity with the area, MO, or motive to kill Fuzz and Janet. In fact, someone ordered the PCSO cold case squad to shut down their entire investigation into DeAngelo two days after it started—he was never investigated for any crimes in Placer County—zero, none, nothing at all. ]

(g) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction. 

Under paragraph (g), once the prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor must seek to remedy the conviction. Depending upon the circumstances, steps to remedy the conviction could include disclosure of the evidence to the defendant, requesting that the court appoint counsel for an unrepresented indigent defendant and, where appropriate, notifying the court that the prosecutor has knowledge that the defendant did not commit the offense of which the defendant was convicted. 

[ Unfortunately, CalBar still imagines that prosecutors are following the rules that require them to seek actual justice, and correct corrupt convictions. The reality is that most DAs fail this test because overturning convictions is politically unpopular with voters, and will also lose them critical endorsements from police unions and the elected Sheriff. The DA will never have  “clear and convincing evidence” of innocence if they refuse to investigate new suspects, and fail to turn over exculpatory and impeaching evidence to the defense to conduct their own investigation and make motions to the court. ]

• Joseph James DeAngelo, Jr. was arrested on April, 18, 2018. 

• Following the arraignment, he agreed to plead guilty to thirteen homicides and admitted criminal culpability to multiple charges where the statue of limitations had elapsed. 

• On August 21, 2020, DeAngelo was sentenced for the following crimes :

• Thirteen counts of murder in the first degree, including six committed with .38/.357 caliber revolver, and seven by bludgeoning;

• Thirteen counts of kidnapping women to “take them away” while using a firearm;

• Attempted murder of a police officer, and a teen using a .38 caliber revolver;

• More than 50 sexual assaults in a dozen northern CA jurisdictions; and

• Hundreds of residential burglaries, ranging from 1972 to 1986.

• For the past five years, Placer District Attorney, Morgan Gire, and his staff—including Chief Criminal Prosecutor, David Tellman—have known about DeAngelo, and the new and credible evidence that another person may have committed this offense. 

• They did not turn over the DeAngelo case files, or investigator interview notes in the possession of the PCSO cold case unit. They did not disclose the seven hour DeAngelo interview video—or show it to the Kovacich defense under protective order. 

• For more than four years after DeAngelo’s arrest, Paul Kovacich sat in prison with no attorney, and absolutely no knowledge of the details of DeAngelo’s charged/admitted crimes, his past patrol of the Forest Court neighborhood, or DeAngelo’s involvement in the arrest for which Adolph and Paul received a commendation, and news coverage. 

•Prior to trial, Kovacich’s defense was denied access to all of the “Auburn-Folsom Road Killer,” unsolved Placer case files. Paul Kovacich remained completely unaware of the links to Janet’s disappearance, between the cases themselves, and to DeAngelo’s known offenses and locations during those years.

•If local Placer PI, Larry DeMates, had not kept digging for information he felt was being hidden from the public by SSD, PCSO, and the Placer/Sacramento DAs, the files would have remained secret forever. It took four years after DeAngelo’s arrest for DeMates to find an attorney with access to the DeAngelo files willing to take a look at the Kovacich conviction, and conduct further investigations of the case.

•New defense investigations have revealed specific motive, means, and opportunity information linking DeAngelo to Janet’s disappearance, and other unsolved Placer homicides/attempts. All of the information was: 

- known to the Placer DA; 

- is highly material to the Kovacich conviction (if the jury had known it, they might have reached a different conclusion about the prosecution evidence); and, 

- it should have been presented in court at an evidentiary hearing into Paul Kovacich’s claim of actual innocence in 2018—when it was first discovered.

• DeAngelo had formal training in law enforcement investigations, and was a fully commissioned, sworn police officer for six and a half years (Exeter PD from May 1973-August 1976, and Auburn PD from August 1976-July 1979)

• DeAngelo carried (as a police officer), owned, and stole multiple guns that matched the exact type and caliber of gun "identified" by the state’s expert as the Janet Kovacich murder weapon, a .38/.357 revolver; 

•DeAngelo confessed to  six homicides, and two attempted homicides committed with a .38/.357 caliber revolver;

•Two of DeAngelo’s confessed gun homicide victims were brunette women shot in the head;

• DeAngelo knew multiple members of law enforcement living on/near Forest Court in 1982;

• DeAngelo had a close female family friend living on Forest Court in 1982;

• DeAngelo had familiarity with the Forest Court neighborhood, and answered multiple patrol calls (within 100 ft) of the Kovacich house between 1976-79;

•  DeAngelo resided off Auburn-Folsom Road from 1963-1971, on Auburn Blvd in Citrus Heights from 1971-73, off Auburn Ravine Road (on Granite Lane) from August, 1976 to April, 1980; and, then off Auburn Blvd in Citrus Heights from April 11, 1980 to April 25, 2018. He attended Folsom High at Greenback Lane and Folsom Blvd from 1962-64, and Sierra College from 1968-70. DeAngelo was familiar with all of the communities, roads, and the routes between them;

• As a former Auburn PD officer, DeAngelo had specific operational knowledge of the department's 72 hour “wait and see” policy for missing persons, and the dates and duty demands created by the Gold Country Fair—which gave the kidnapper of Janet Kovacich a five-day delay in the start of the investigation;

• DeAngelo had a specific motive to hurt Paul after being publicly embarassed, and failing to get credit for an arrest of a suspect later caught by Paul Kovacich and his K-9. Kovacich and Adolph received front page newspaper coverage, and an offical commendation, while DeAngelo felt he was treated unfairly by APD Willick in the case;

•DeAngelo’s wife, Sharon Huddle, and her sister, Patricia were classmates of Janet Kovacich’s at San Juan High School;

• Janet’s mother, Jean Gregoire, was the Assistant Principal, and Dean of Girls responsible for choosing girls for honors, and applying discipline at San Juan High School while DeAngelo’s wife, Sharon Huddle, and her sister, Patricia attended;

• DeAngelo worked with Kovacich K-9 Adolph from 1976-79, and would have been familiar to the dog (but not Fuzz, who joined the K-9 unit in late 1979). DeAngelo also knew the commands used by K-9 handlers in Tulare and Placer counties;

• DeAngelo was familiar with Rollins Lake as a commercial diver, recreational dive instructor, hunter, and bass fisherman;

 • DeAngelo was available to commit the crime on September 8, 1982, between 10:00 am-12:00 pm; and,

• DeAngelo had a known and stated grudge against Nick Willick as his prior supervisor and Chief at Auburn PD. DeAngelo told multiple people that he wanted to kill Willick, or get some type of revenge against him for perceived “mistreatment.”  Willick neighbors Bill Harrington, Janet Kovacich, and Mary Lloyd were murdered with no apparent motive, on weekday mornings from 1978-85. 

Some of the admitted specific DeAngelo MO points that directly match the Janet Kovacich case include:

• Targeting the partners of men he felt showed him up in some way, usually brunette housewives in their 20s with young children;

• Attacking the family members of law enforcement who embarrassed or upset him;

• Attacking next door to members of law enforcement to taunt and terrorize those he thought were beneath him in skills;

• Prowling and stalking the homes of law enforcement, including APD Willick, SSD Shelby, TCSO Chamberlain, and TCSO McGowen;

• Stalking victims for hours, days, months, and years;

• Kicking, beating, stabbing, shooting, poisoning, feeding, letting loose, locking up, throwing in a pool, and using repellent on dogs during the commission of his crimes, and within his own neighborhood;

• Waiting for the victim’s husband or parents to leave, and immediately entering the house;

• Forcing a sliding window, often at the bottom left corner, and replacing the screen to hide the damage, and delay detection;

• Creating a false “undisturbed” scene, to prevent the discovery of a kidnapping;

• Immediately assuring his victims that he just wanted money, and asking females to get their purse;

• Convicted of shooting 2 women in the head with a .38 revolver loaded with jacketed hollow point rounds; 

• Convicted of kidnapping 13 women “to carry them away” using a firearm of unknown large caliber;

• Attacking in suburban single family homes, frequently at the end of a cul-de-sac;

• Choosing homes that had fully fenced, private backyards;

• Breaking the locks, and leaving open gates to yards;

• Using ditches, seasonal creeks, bike paths, canals, riverbeds, open spaces, vacant lots, school playfields, parks, orchards, railroad tracks, and power easements to travel unseen, avoid detection, park his car, and escape if chased;

• Upon entering a home, placing a chain, deadbolt, or chair to slow access through the front door;

• Confronting victims inside a home, then moving them outside;

• Entering or exiting the home through the backyard door to garage, and garage door into house;

• Always wearing gloves, and never leaving a fingerprint at a scene; and,

• Moving and planting evidence between scenes to frame innocent men for his crimes.

• Placer DA Gire claims that DeAngelo’s identification and conviction is not new, credible, material evidence that creates a reasonable likelihood that Paul Kovacich is innocent, and Gire will not turn over any of the previously withheld evidence to the defense, or conduct an investigation.