Death-Row Inmate Case Leads to High Security at County Civic Center

A habeas corpus hearing in an appeal by a death-row inmate at San Quentin State Prison is taking place in Marin County Superior Court over the next few weeks in a case that appears to call into question actions by the county's district attorney's office.

The appellant, Jarvis Masters, 47, was convicted of killing a prison guard in a conspiracy with two other inmates in 1985. Masters, the only one of the three who was sentenced to death, says he is innocent and was not in the section of the prison where the murder took place at the time of the event.

All death-row inmates are given the opportunity to appeal their cases to the California Supreme Court. Others who are convicted of crimes go through the State Court of Appeal.

In Masters' case the State Supreme Court in 2008 ordered then Marin County presiding judge, Verna Adams, to assign one of her colleagues to serve as a referee and hear evidence about the facts of the case in the People vs. Jarvis J. Masters.

Adams assigned the case to Judge Lynn Duryee, who is holding the hearing in a high-security Courtroom K, where attorneys and spectators must go through a second security screening once they have passed through the initial metal detectors at the entrance to the court floor at the Marin County Civic Center in San Rafael. 

The court has been presented with seven questions by the higher court that include inquiries into whether then deputy district attorneys Paula Kamena and Edward Berberian, the former county DA and current DA, as well as investigator Charles Numark made promises or threats to witnesses in the case against Masters. 

Masters, who became a Buddhist while serving his term, arrived at San Quentin in 1981 after being convicted of armed robbery, according to the website freejarvis.org. Like other men from different racial groups, he became involved in what state officials call gangs. The site asserts that the inmates group together for protection.

Masters was accused of sharpening a piece of metal that was used to kill Sgt. Howell Burchfield in a scheme that included an inmate accused of the actual stabbing and a man who allegedly ordered the killing. 

Masters was one of seven children who was removed from his home because his father had deserted the family and his mother was addicted to drugs, according to the website. He lived in foster homes and turned his anger into a crime spree that included holding up businesses at gunpoint but never shooting anyone, the site says. He became a San Quentin inmate at 19, began a writing career that included the book That Bird Has My Wings, and became a Buddhist in 1989.

In the court gallery, always full to its 30-person capacity, and sometimes with a dozen California Department of Corrections officers standing guard, Masters is supported by members of the Buddhist community, as well an anti-death penalty activists. 

Berberian said he does not believe there were any improprieties in the trial.

"I know we did not do anything improper," Berberian said, noting that evidence showed that Masters was at the scene of the crime and had access to fellow conspirators in the prison yard.

He said evidentiary hearings like this one are not uncommon, but said they probably do not happen in the majority of cases.

"It's uncomfortable, to be honest with you," Berberian said. "I think at the end of the day, there will be no surprises here."

At a hearing last week, a key witness, Rufus Willis, a San Quentin inmate took the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions for fear of incriminating himself. 

Berberian said that he, like the other San Quentin inmates who will be on the stand, are motivated to say what they do for their own reasons.

Senauke, who is on Masters' paralegal team and blogs about the case, said he did not see the hearing as an evaluation of the prosecutors. 

"Ed Berberian was the original prosecutor and he has testified he had no personal knowledge of any deals," Senauke said. "The Supreme Court is looking at whether there is sufficient question for a basis for a new trial."