Death penalty for the accused killer of Rylan Fuchs? Wouldn’t be usual, says DA

The 19-year-old Berkeley man, arrested in the January 20 pot-robbery killing of Danville teen Rylan Fuchs, is facing murder charges that carry special circumstances, because the killing took place during the commission of an attempted robbery. Authorities believe that Fuchs was selling marijuana, and Walter Bell went to his home to rob him of his pot. The special circumstances mean that if Bell were convicted of murder, he could face the death penalty.

Prosecutors have not decided yet whether they will seek lethal injection for Bell, who is being held without bail.

However, Harold Jewett, the prosecutor in charge of the D.A.'s office homicide division, says, in an e-mail to me, that it would be “unusual for us to do so in a case where the defendant is young and where the shooting may not have been intentional.”

Jewett told the Contra Costa Times that Bell says he fired the single, fatal shot--which struck Fuchs in the throat—as Bell was trying to rob Fuchs of marijuana.

“Put it another way,” Jewett continued in his e-mail. “A jury is unlikely to impose the death penalty unless they know beyond question that the defendant intentionally and personally took the victim’s life.”

I appreciate Jewett getting back to me. Actually, I didn’t contact him to ask him specifically about whether his office would seek the death penalty against Bell, but on a closely related issue.

I read about the special circumstances charges against Bell, and the possibility of the death penalty, and that got me thinking and wondering.

Fuchs’ father, Bill Fuchs of Alamo, questions whether his son was selling pot and whether police are using the marijuana-deal-gone-bad excuse to preserve Danville’s image.

I’m sorry for Mr. Fuchs loss, but, unfortunately, it does look like Rylan, a senior at San Ramon Valley High, in fact died in a drug deal gone bad.

And that drug-deal-gone bad scenario is what got me ruminating about the death penalty issue, possibly in this case, but in general. Drug deals gone bad are regular occurrences, if not in safe, affluent suburbs like Danville, then in tough neighborhoods in towns like Oakland, Richmond, and in the unincorporated community of North Richmond. Some of those drug deals gone bad result in homicides, and, more likely than not, the killers and their victims are minorities.

I contacted Jewett because I began to wonder if the special circumstances and the death penalty talk was being applied to the Fuchs case because 1) the killing happened in Danville; 2) the victim is white; and 3) the defendant is African-American. Yes, I wondered if race and class bias were coming into play in this case.

Racial disparity in death penalty prosecutions and in sentencing is a huge issue, in California and around the United States. Many of us have probably heard that minorities are more likely to be executed than whites for murder in the United States. But what many might not know is that more recent studies have pointed to another racial difference between who lives and who dies at the hands of the state: the color of the victim. As a USA Today editorial says:

While blacks and whites are murdered in roughly equal numbers in the United States, the killers of white people are six times as likely to be put to death, according to a statistical analysis by Amnesty International USA. It found that of 845 people executed since the United States resumed capital punishment in 1977, 80 percent were put to death for killing whites, while only 13 percent were executed for killing blacks.

So, my mind was on this track yesterday morning, and I wondered whether this racial disparity applies in Contra Costa special circumstances prosecutions, and whether it would apply to the prosecution of Walter Bell case. Would an African-American defendant, who shot and killed an African-American victim, in a similar kind of drug-deal-gone bad in North Richmond, be charged, like Bell, with special circumstances and face the death penalty. The racial breakdown for defendants and victims in Contra Costa capital cases was not available yesterday, and may not be readily available.

But I e-mailed Jewett, and he provided this response:

“Walter Bell is a young black male. Rylan Fuchs was a young white male. In this county, we have prosecuted white defendants for killing white victims; white defendants for killing black victims; black defendants for killing white victims; and black defendants killing black victims. Of course there are also permutations with other ethnic groups, primarily Hispanic and Asian. I would say imposition of the death penalty is roughly equal between cases with white and black defendants, and cases with white and black victims. I don’t see a pattern there.”

And then he addressed Bell’s prosecution specifically and how “I cannot whether this office will seek the death penalty in the Bell case.”

Berkeley man charged in Danville teen's pot-robbery killing

A 19-year-old Berkeley man appeared in Contra Costa County Superior Court Thursday, on charges that he shot to death 17-year-old Rylan Fuchs on the front porch of his Danville home while trying to rob him of some marijuana.

Walter Bell faces special circumstances murder charges, alleging that he shot Fuchs during the commission of a robbery. If convicted, Bell faces the death penalty.

Fuchs, a senior at Danville's San Ramon Valley High School, was killed at about 9:15 p.m. January 20, just outside his home on El Capitan Drive. According to various news reports, authorities believe that Fuchs was selling pot and that Bell tried to rob him.

It's unclear how many people were outside Fuchs' home when he was shot. A 15-year-old boy was arrested in connection of the killing shortly after it happened, but he was never charged. He was re-arrested Thursday, though the extent of his involvement remains unclear.

Marijuana Paranoia: Our perplexing attitudes about pot and crime, but what about crime and that other socially acceptable mind-altering substance?

I’m sure some opponents of Walnut Creek allowing a medical marijuana dispensary in town are frothing at this local news: How a shooting erupted in Concord Sunday over an attempt by six suspects (er, idiots) to steal marijuana plants being legally grown in someone’s back yard.

Apparently, a man suffered a flesh wound in the leg, possibly at the hands of his own associates, after he or someone from his crew was caught in the backyard of a home where the residents had a legal right to grow marijuana for medical purposes. You can read more about the attempted pot plant theft, the attempted getaway, and the shooting at Claycord.com.

But certainly, the Reefer Madness fearmongers would say, such an incident shows that allowing a medical marijuana dispensary in Walnut Creek will attract similar robberies and other violent crime to our fair city.

And, absolutely, these fear mongers would assert, such an incident provides more evidence that marijuana is a dangerous, destructive, crime- and violence-ridden drug.

It would be silly of me to say that marijuana cultivation, sales, use, and abuse are victimless, crime-free vocations. There is this incident, and, off the top of my head, I can think of two recent homicides in the East Bay suburbs that possibly involved pot deals gone bad. They include the shooting death of 17-year-old Rylan Fuchs of Danville earlier this year and the December 2007 killing of Eric Martin, of Pittsburg, in Walnut Creek over a failed marijuana growing and distribution scheme.

But are there any other mind-altering substances, whose cultivation and/or manufacture, sales, use, and abuse attract crime, including robberies, assaults, and homicide?

Of course!Alcohol!

The stuff of beer, wine, and Grey Goose martinis.

Once again, I’ll repeat that alcohol—mostly in the form of red wine—is my drug of choice. I like it--perhaps too much. But that's a whole other story.

As for pot, I have not tried it since college. I didn't like it much then, and have no desire to use it at any time in the future. The smell? Ick.

And who wants to be around a bunch of stoners? If you're not stoned? Although, I have to say that being around a bunch of people blissed out on weed would be no worse than—and might even be preferable—to being around loud, annoying drunks. Among these drunks, I’m including a very obnoxiously vocal and tipsy silver-haired man in a polo shirt (a lawyer? Bank executive? Real estate entrepreneur?) who was toting a wine glass and making an ass of himself on North Main Street during last week’s Fall Wine Walk. This wine-tasting event, hosted by the Downtown Business Association, was, remember, a fundraiser to benefit local Walnut Creek schools.

Again, what about alcohol and it's connection to crime and destruction? No wait! Alcohol is legal, so it’s harmless, right? It doesn’t cause death, destruction, or crime, right?

Well, of course, we all know it does. We’re familiar with the fact that alcohol is involved in thousands of traffic fatalities every year across the United States. We also know that long-term alcohol abuse is associated with tragic health consequences, astronomical medical costs, and the breakdown of families and communities.

The U.S. government says about both alcohol and tobacco, which are both legal in this country, for recreational use, to people of a certain age: "Alcohol and tobacco cost society a great deal every year in terms of crime, lost productivity, tragedies, and deaths. ... As a result of legal settlements and vigorous public education efforts, many Americans are aware of the dangers of dependence and addiction associated with alcohol and tobacco use. Even so, alcohol and tobacco remain a significant part of the American health problem."

So, we might be aware that alcohol is a major health problem, but most of us probably don't think of it as a major crime problem as well. But it is, and like marijuana and other drugs, it contributes to our local, state, and national crime rates. Alcohol, notably, is a major factor in domestic violence.

From the U.S. Department of Justice:

• About 3 million violent crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense.


• Another Justice Department study found that that alcohol abuse was a factor in 40 percent of violent crimes committed in the United States.


• Among those victims who provided information about the offender's use of alcohol, about 30 percent of the victimizations involved an offender who had been drinking.


• Two-thirds of victims who suffered violence by an intimate (a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend) reported that alcohol had been a factor. Among spouse victims, three out of four incidents were reported to have involved an offender who had been drinking.

Let's return to alcohol’s contribution to annoying, life-style crimes in downtown Walnut Creek. As I mentioned in a prior story, the Walnut Creek police reported that 1515 Restaurant and Lounge attracted their attention seven times between late July and late August. Police had to come to arrest drunks, and patrons not cooperating with state Alcoholic Beverage Control agents. Police also had to hear from a father who was alarmed that his daughter got so tanked up on booze at 1515 and/or other downtown establishments that she couldn’t talk or walk, and had to be carried to her car.

1515 Restaurant operates legally, as do some nearly 100 other liquor-dispensing establishments in town. After crying about lost profits due to their 12:30 a.m. closing time, the owners of 1515, Jack and Tony Dudum, received permission from the City Council to stay open a half hour later. They needed this extra time so that they could sell more beer, wine, and cocktails--to earn more money. To stay in business. To turn a profit. That is, they were given permission to dispense more mind-altering substances legally, and for recreational purposes, with profit as a prime motive.

But pot? Well, some city leaders and members of the public have gotten huffy and expressed their grave concerns about C3 Collective—just one venue so far—dispensing pot in town. The owners of this pot club, which has been hit with a lawsuit to shut down, claim they are dispending pot, not for recreational purposes or for profit, but to benefit people with serious medical conditions.

C3 owners may or may not be telling the truth. I will assume they are, until someone proves otherwise. Meanwhile, we have plenty of other venues in downtown that are dispensing the mind-altering substance of alcohol—for recreational purposes and, most definitely, for a profit. I could fill a page with their names, but here are just a few. Besides the above-mentioned 1515, which by the way allegedly caters to an “mature, upscale crowd,” there are the upscale restaurants Prima, Va de Vi, Lark Creek Walnut Creek, and the Walnut Creek Yacht Club. There are also markets and drug stores like Whole Foods Market, Trader Joe’s (Two Buck Chuck!), Safeway, CVS Pharmacy, and 7-Eleven.

I'm sure in the history of any of these establishments--mostly likely the grocery and convenience stores--someone has come in and tried to steal a bottle or two of something. From my police reporting days, this was a fairly regular occurance at grocery and convenience stores: thefts of booze that amounted to a misdemeanor shoplifting. It might involve someone who is dependant on alcohol, shoplifting a bottle, or kids eager to get their hands on a six-pack or a bottle of hard liquor.

How is this kind of theft so much different from what those idiots in Concord were trying to do, when they were attempting to steal a bit of weed from that legally grown backyard crop?

Marijuana and alcohol: Both mind-altering substances. Both legal, with varying restrictions. Both promise to pleasure the senses, including smell and taste. Both offer the promise of relaxation, escape, and an altered mental state. And, both, when abused in terms of sales, distribution or use, become the source of devastating consequnces.

But why is one substance culturally embraced, celebrated as a symbol of the California good life, and used to entice people into donating money to help local school kids? And why is the other substance treated with contempt and mostly outlawed, when there is no evidence, I can find so far, that it causes society any more harm than the other? I'm trying to figure that one out.