Robert Jurado

Case details

Robert Jurado Jr. was sentenced to death on October 13, 1994.

Timeline

• May 15, 1991 — Teresa Holloway, 26, was strangled and beaten to death.
• May 17, 1991 — Teresa Holloway’s body was found in a culvert beneath Highway 163 in San Diego County.
• April 7, 2006 — The Supreme Court of California upheld the death sentence imposed on Robert Jurado Jr.

Background

The California Supreme Court considered The People v. Robert Jurado Jr.

The case involved the murder of pregnant woman Teresa Holloway, in connection with an alleged plan to kill a drug dealer, Doug Mynatt.

The offence

Teresa Holloway was murdered by strangling and being beaten to death.

Prosecutors alleged that Robert Jurado Jr.; his girlfriend Anna Humiston; and Denise Shigemura killed Holloway after she learned of their plan to kill Doug Mynatt.

It was alleged that Doug Mynatt sold methamphetamine and that his customers included Jurado and Brian Johnsen, who had been living with Holloway up until about a month before Holloway was killed.

Investigation

Witness testimony was admitted at Jurado’s trial for the murder of Teresa Holloway from an earlier proceeding involving Brian Johnsen.

Prosecutors alleged that the plan to kill Mynatt came about after the drug dealer supposedly stole Shigemura’s purse.

The plan was discussed with Johnsen, who was in custody on drug charges at the time Jurado allegedly shared details of the plot with him.

Trial

Charges and special circumstance

Prosecutors charged Robert Jurado Jr. with first degree murder with the special circumstance of lying in wait.

Prosecutors initially said they would not seek the death penalty, but later added the conspiracy charge and changed their position about seeking the death penalty.

Preliminary proceedings and conditional examination

After a preliminary hearing, the defense moved to dismiss the special-circumstance allegation under Penal Code Sec. 995.

The prosecution moved to have Johnsen testify at a conditional examination, stating he was in fear of his life.

San Diego Superior Court Judge David Gill Gill granted the prosecution’s motion.

Johnsen testified that he and the defendant had discussed a plan to kill Mynatt and that Jurado later admitted killing Holloway because “it had to be done.”

Dismissal and guilty plea

Later, the judge dismissed the special circumstance allegation and the defendant pled guilty to the remaining charges.

Writ of mandate and reinstatement of special-circumstance allegation

Before sentencing, the prosecution petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate.

The Court of Appeal reinstated the special-circumstance allegation and rejected Jurado’s argument that his guilty plea barred a trial on that allegation under double jeopardy principles.

Withdrawal of guilty plea and denial of lying-in-wait

Jurado withdrew his guilty plea, pled not guilty, and denied the lying-in-wait allegation.

When prosecutors announced they had changed their mind about seeking the death penalty, the judge rejected a defense bid to bar them from doing so.

Verdict and penalty phase

Jurors found the defendant guilty, determined the special allegation to be true, and returned a death penalty verdict at the end of the penalty phase.

Sentencing

Jurors returned a death penalty verdict at the end of the penalty phase, and Robert Jurado Jr.

Appeals

State Public Defender Michael Hersek represented Jurado on appeal.

Hersek argued that a conditional examination cannot be taken by the prosecution in a death penalty case.

Deputy Attorney General Marvin Mizell responded that the examination was proper and that, in any event, the prosecution was not seeking the death penalty at the time of the examination.

Justice Joyce L. Kennard rejected Hersek’s arguments, reasoning that Penal Code Sec. 1335(a), which allows a conditional examination in any case but bars the prosecution from seeking one in a capital case, does not apply when the examination is sought under Sec. 1336(b).

Justice Kennard stated that Sec. 1336(b) applies only to serious felony cases and only when there is reason to believe the life of the witness is in danger.

Justice Kennard wrote: “Because of the evidence that defendant, Shigemura, and Humiston had killed Holloway to prevent her from exposing a plot to kill Mynatt, the trial court...could justifiably conclude that defendant and the persons with whom he associated would be likely to use deadly force against anyone perceived as a threat, and that the substance of Johnsen’s proposed testimony made him an actual or potential threat to defendant and his codefendants....”

Justice Kennard also rejected the argument that the prosecution had impermissibly changed its position and asked for the death penalty in retaliation for the defendant challenging the special-circumstance allegation.

Justice Kennard stated that, while that may have been a factor, it was not improper for the prosecution to consider it.

Justice Kennard wrote: “Besides, Kennard said, it cannot be assumed that this was the only reason for the prosecution’s shift.”

Justice Kennard noted that between the time the prosecution announced its original position and the time it changed it, the prosecution case had been bolstered by Johnsen’s testimony at the conditional examination and by the presentation of evidence at Humiston’s trial.

The Supreme Court of California upheld the death sentence imposed on Robert Jurado Jr. in an opinion by Justice Joyce L. Kennard.

The case was People v. Jurado, 06 S.O.S. 1732.

Other details

Teresa Holloway was described as a pregnant woman.

Humiston became a suspect after she bragged to her friends at school that she held the victim while Jurado strangled her.

Anna Humiston was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison.

Denise Shigemura was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison.

Shigemura shared an apartment with Jurado.

Doug Mynatt was characterized as a drug dealer.