Prosecutor: 'Samantha Runnion identified her killer'

By: JOHN HALL - Staff Writer | Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:21 PM PDT ∞

SANTA ANA ---- The fate of a Lake Elsinore man charged with the brutal murder of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion is now in the hands of an Orange County jury.

Assistant District Attorney David Brent concluded his rebuttal to the defense's closing argument in the trial of Alejandro Avila on Wednesday morning, after which jurors went into deliberations.

The prosecutor told jurors that the girl, through evidence she left behind during her struggle to get away, is telling them who killed her.

During the monthlong trial, jurors heard testimony from dozens of witnesses and viewed about 200 exhibits. The eight-man, four-woman jury now must decide whether it was Avila who kidnapped, sexually assaulted and then murdered Samantha about three years ago.

Samantha was grabbed near her mother's Stanton townhouse the evening of July 15, 2002, and her nude body was found the next day along Killen Trail, west of Lake Elsinore. Avila, 30, was arrested three days later near his Lake Elsinore apartment.

If jurors find him guilty of first-degree murder, as well as at least one of two special circumstances he's charged with, those same jurors will decide if Avila should be executed. The special circumstances alleged are that the murder was committed during a kidnapping and child molestation.

Brent addressed the jury for about an hour Wednesday, presenting his rebuttal to the defense's closing argument the day before. Brent concluded his final argument by putting an exclamation point on the trial.

Pointing at Avila, Brent said, "Samantha Runnion identified her killer."

Outside the downtown Santa Ana courtroom, the prosecutor elaborated, "She did enough by leaving her DNA in his car."

There is less than a 1-in-1 trillion chance the DNA evidence recovered from the inside of the passenger door of Avila's Ford Thunderbird came from anyone other than Samantha, a prosecution expert told jurors during the trial. DNA evidence found under the fingernails of the girl's left hand also connects Avila to the crime, prosecutors say.

Prosecution experts told jurors there is less than a 1-in-600 million chance that the DNA evidence came from anyone other than Avila.

Avila had scratches on his legs when arrested and Brent has said they could have come from Samantha fighting off her assailant.

Avila's defense attorneys contend the DNA evidence was not properly collected or analyzed. Their experts contend there is a much stronger likelihood than the prosecution alleges that the DNA could have come from someone other than Avila. Their analyses put that likelihood at anywhere from a 1-in-5 to a 1-in-750 chance.

Defense attorney Philip Zalewski went so far as to imply during opening statements last month that the DNA evidence in Avila's car could have been planted by authorities. That infuriated Brent, who took one last swipe at the defense claim while addressing the jury Wednesday morning.

He called it "a wild, pie-in-the-sky accusation" and said it was one of many tactics the defense used to try and distract jurors from the facts.

"They made all kinds of promises they couldn't keep," Brent told jurors.

In his closing argument Tuesday, Brent challenged the defense to back up the planted-evidence claim by naming names or providing details, which hadn't occurred during the trial. On Wednesday, the prosecutor reminded the jury that Zalewski did not back up the implication in his closing argument the afternoon before.

"The best they can do is tell you it's my job to show there is no planting," Brent said. "All they can give us back is that it's the DA's job to prove it didn't happen? Hello?"

In his rebuttal Wednesday, the prosecutor addressed 30 points of contention he has with the defense's closing argument.

Zalewski told jurors Tuesday that the prosecution's case was entirely circumstantial.

He attacked circumstantial evidence such as tire, shoe and footprints found near Samantha's body, which prosecutors say link Avila and his Thunderbird to the crime.

Brent countered Wednesday by saying that many criminal cases tried with mostly circumstantial evidence result in convictions.

The defense probably can point to an alternative scenario to explain away each piece of circumstantial evidence in this case, "except for the DNA which, in my mind, is too powerful," Brent told jurors.

Brent asked them to look at all the evidence, circumstantial, as well as the DNA, as a whole.

In Tuesday's defense argument, Zalewski talked about Avila's previous charges of child molestation, for which he was acquitted in 1999 by a Riverside County jury.

Jurors in the murder case are being allowed by the judge to hear about those allegations strictly to determine if Avila has a predisposition to commit sexual crimes against children.

Zalewski pointed out that the girls in the Riverside County case continued to be around with Avila and do social activities with him, even after he had allegedly molested them.

"These are little, 7-year-old girls," Brent said to jurors Wednesday. "How were they supposed to know these things were wrong? The defense is putting adult standards on these kids."

Brent said Avila's motive for killing Samantha stems from what happened in the Riverside County case.

"He had to go through the shame and embarrassment of a criminal trial (for child molestation)," Brent said. "Who would ever want to go through that again?"

Brent said Avila killed Samantha "so she wouldn't tell or else he'd have to go through that again."

The prosecutor also talked to jurors about the window of time Avila would have had to abduct and kill Samantha, which was something Zalewski questioned in his closing argument.

Brent said he doubts Avila ever came off the mountain with Samantha, meaning she had already been molested and murdered before Avila came to Temecula, where he checked into the Comfort Inn.

"Kill her, he did," Brent said. "When he did it is not something I have to prove."

One of the last points Zalewski made to jurors Tuesday was to tell them it would be a difficult deliberation for them, saying the case is a dangerous combination of circumstantial evidence and pressure on the prosecution to convict someone in the high-profile case.

Brent stated it differently Wednesday.

"It's not difficult to follow the evidence to the truth," he told jurors. "It should be a thing of joy and beauty to follow the truth to a conclusion."

Once Brent had concluded his rebuttal, a sheriff's deputy escorted the jurors to the deliberation room just after 10:30 a.m.

"There's no doubt in my mind they'll come back with the right verdict," Brent said outside the courtroom.

The veteran prosecutor, who has handled about 150 cases, including 50 murder trials, said this has been "one of the strongest cases" he's ever had.

If the jury does convict Avila of first-degree murder with either or both special circumstances, jurors will return for the "penalty phase" of the trial. Both sides would then call witnesses to talk about the good and bad of Avila.

Brent said for the first time Wednesday that Samantha's mother, Erin Runnion, will testify if there is a penalty phase. She has been in the courtroom throughout the proceedings, beginning with evidentiary hearings and now the details of the trial.

"Erin Runnion is the face of this case," Brent said, adding that she will testify about how she and her family have suffered as a result of Samantha's kidnapping and subsequent murder.

The defense is expected to call members of Avila's family to testify if a penalty phase is needed.

Contact staff writer John Hall at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2628, or jhall@californian.com.