Strohmeyer lawyers spar over guilty plea

Bill Gang

Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2000 | 11:22 a.m.

Jeremy Strohmeyer's current and former lawyers sparred this morning in a hearing that ultimately will determine whether the confessed killer of 7-year-old Sherrice Iverson will be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.

Robert Preuss, one of two New York lawyers hired by the Strohmeyer family, argued District Judge Joseph Bonaventure should allow Strohmeyer to be tried on the murder and sexual assault charges because his former lawyer, Leslie Abramson, had coerced Strohmeyer into his 1998 guilty plea.

Abramson took the witness stand to talk about the process that ended in a life prison sentence without the possibility of parole.

Preuss began with questions about Abramson's contract with the Strohmeyer family. He also asked about a motion that was authored by another California lawyer. Preuss asked several times why the attorney had been hired and whether part of the reason was to preserve an opportunity to appeal.

"Did you get any of the fee paid to (the California lawyer) from the Strohmeyer trust fund?" Preuss asked Abramson, who was paid a $250,000 flat fee for her services.

"No, counsel," she shot back. "Did you?"

In her replies to several questions, Abramson noted that she no longer had her file on the motions she filed on behalf of Strohmeyer, because they had been taken out of her office by Strohmeyer's mother.

When Preuss pointedly asked Abramson if she knew that court rules require that the court records be turned over to the defendant after the proceedings are done, she retorted, "If I'd known that it would be removed from my office, I would have made copies, so don't give me your snide 'Are you awares.' "

District Attorney Stewart Bell argued that the defense has to prove not only that the plea was coerced, but also that a "manifest injustice" had been carried out -- "that we have the wrong person in prison."

Bell noted that the prosecution's evidence against Strohmeyer was strong. Prosecutors have statements from other teens at the Primm casino where Sherrice Iverson died who identified Strohmeyer, as well as video surveillance tapes showing Strohmeyer entering the casino's restroom with Sherrice and leaving without the girl. Her body was found in a stall hours later.

In his guilty plea, Strohmeyer admitted he strangled Iverson in a women's restroom at the Primm casino in 1997. He also pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting the Los Angeles girl.

The new lawyers contend that Strohmeyer wasn't told everything he needed to know to make a "knowing and voluntary" guilty plea. If that's the case, Bonaventure may rule that the plea was improper.

Strohmeyer's lawyers also say he should be allowed the chance to stand trial because there is new evidence that points to the defendant's buddy at Primm, David Cash Jr., as the actual killer.

That new evidence came from Sherrice's father, LeRoy Iverson, who said he recalls bumping into Cash outside the restroom just moments before the girl's body was found propped on a toilet seat.

The defense team claims that Iverson told police he saw Cash outside the restroom but that information was never provided to the trial attorneys or presented to the grand jury that indicted Strohmeyer.

Prosecutors and police say that Iverson never mentioned Cash to them so there was no way to share that information.

Iverson is scheduled to testify during the hearings today and Wednesday, but Bonaventure said that the man's health may make it impossible for him to appear. Bonaventure did say that Iverson might be able to testify by telephone link.

The issue is important because the defense is entitled to all the evidence that might have cast doubts on Strohmeyer's guilt. The defense said the withholding of such information, if true, prevented Strohmeyer from making an informed decision on his chances at a trial.

If Bonaventure decides, after hearing testimony from witnesses and arguments from lawyers, that Strohmeyer should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, it would not mean the 21-year-old defendant would get out of jail.

In fact, prosecutors would be free to again seek the death penalty -- something he avoided through the plea bargain.