New trial ahead in 2009 stabbing after testimony on gloves debunked
Court: Prosecutors should have known witness statement had no factual basis
SAN JOSE >> A second trial could soon be underway in a deadly stabbing at a light-rail station more than a decade ago following a string of lengthy court battles over a prosecutor’s assertion that wearing gloves reflected a defendant’s intent to stab someone.
David Pilipina and Eddie Rivera were convicted in 2016 of first- and second-degree murder, respectively, along with gang charging enhancements in the Aug. 15, 2009, death of 19-year-old Kristina Harris-Perkins at the Alum Rock VTA station.
A year after the conviction, defense attorneys convinced Judge Sharon Chatman to grant a new trial; one of their chief contentions was that the lead prosecutor presented an investigator’s unsubstantiated testimony that Pilipina’s wearing gloves was a signal that he planned to commit a stabbing. In May, an appellate court affirmed Chatman’s decision, paving the way toward a retrial that looks to pick up in the new year.
For Harris-Perkins’ family, the prospect of a second trial brings new sting to old wounds and has made closure elusive.
“My family still can’t understand how this continued to go on for this long,” said her uncle, Lee Perkins. “It’s a case that has continued to go on and on and on.”
To Deputy Public Defender Miguel Rodriguez, however, the new proceedings are a chance to give proper attention to the self-defense argument for his client, Pilipina, and to debunk the idea that the brawl that ended in Harris-Perkins’ death was not a gang-motivated attack.
“I’m bothered by the way the DA prosecuted the case,” Rodriguez said. “It doesn’t seem at all like a gang case to me, and I’ve litigated a lot of gang cases.”
Prosecutor David Shabaglian said he is approaching the case similarly to how it was tried in 2015 — focusing on the contention that Pilipina and Rivera tried to assess the gang affiliation of the group Harris-Perkins was with, then ended a fight between women in the two groups by stabbing the victim as she tried to break it up.
“We’re just going to move forward with the case as it was,” Shabaglian said. “A right outcome was reached, and we’re seeking to accomplish that again.”
During the original trial, Santa Clara County sheriff’s Detective Herman Leon testified that “30 to 40 percent” of stabbing suspects wear gloves,
an assertion that he would admit was “pretty much speculation.” It was shown to be without any substance after defense attorneys requested a trove of investigative records that actually showed a miniscule proportion of stabbing reports contained accounts of attackers wearing gloves.
Chatman granted a defense motion for a new trial, and the District Attorney’s Office appealed that decision to the 6th District Court of Appeal, arguing that excluding the glove issue only warranted Pilipina’s first-degree murder conviction getting changed to second-degree murder. The appellate court affirmed the retrial order, stating in its written decision that the glove testimony influenced the jury’s evaluation of premeditation and the defendants’ self-defense arguments.
In its decision, the appellate court found that Peter Waite — the deputy district attorney who secured the original convictions and referred to “murder gloves” in his closing arguments — “should have known of the falsity of the statistical testimony” and that “had the prosecutor fulfilled his duty to investigate, he would have learned of the testimony’s falsity.”
“Accordingly, a new trial on all counts is the proper remedy,” the court concluded.
“That was just completely made up, and the prosecutor allowed that to happen,” Rodriguez said of the glove evidence. “The DA had every reason to believe the officer was not being honest.”
In 2009, the State Bar issued Waite a public reproval — akin to a censure — when he was found, during the sanity phase of a murder trial a decade earlier, to have concealed from the defense that his own psychiatric expert had changed his stance and believed the defendant was legally insane.
Rodriguez said he is looking to re-emphasize how Pilipina, who was on the light-rail train and platform with his pregnant girlfriend, sister and other relatives, was trying to protect his sister, while his brother Rivera, who had been waiting for their arrival at the train station, also sought to get her out of the fracas.
During the trial, witnesses testified that Pilipina said “What’s up cuz” to someone in Harris-Perkins’ group, which they took to mean he was asking if they were in a street gang. But the trial also established that the groups exchanged insults that included invitations to fight, and soon after women in both groups started to brawl. Those accounts partially fueled the gang enhancements filed against Pilipina and Rivera.
“It’s clear (Pilipina) acted after both his sister and girlfriend were in a physical fight she was losing,” Rodriguez said. “I don’t know how they could say he was acting for a gang, and not defending his girlfriend and sister.”
Rodriguez said he wants to see a legal resolution that reflects that stance, including but not limited to nixing the life sentences issued to the two defendants. Pilipina, now 31, and Rivera, now 34, are in custody at the Main Jail in San Jose, awaiting their new day in court.
Perkins said his family is frustrated about how the glove evidence effectively led to the convictions being overturned, arguing that it compromised a murder case that was strong enough without it.
“How did this become a centerpiece? It just really doesn’t make a difference,” he said. “This is a failed judicial system. It has failed us and it has failed others.”
Shabaglian said he does not intend to re-introduce the glove evidence.
“I don’t see why I would offer that specific evidence given that I don’t think it was that necessary to the verdict that was reached,” he said.
He extended sympathy to Harris-Perkins’ family, still awaiting a final resolution.
“My heart breaks for their situation,” Shabaglian said. “The victims want finality and so do we.”