Deliberations begin in Murrieta murder case

By: JOHN HALL - Staff Writer | Wednesday, March 22, 2006 11:38 PM PST ∞

FRENCH VALLEY ---- When Dustin Waid Stanford stabbed his girlfriend 22 times was it an intentional act, or was it because he was experiencing a drug-induced psychosis?

That is what jurors must now decide.

The seven-man, five-woman jury heard closing arguments Wednesday and are scheduled to return to Southwest Justice Center this morning to deliberate the Murrieta man's fate.

Stanford, 25, is charged with murdering Amber Frink, 21, of Murrieta, on Aug. 13, 2004. He is also charged with attempted murder for the stabbing two days earlier of Michael McGee as he slept in his Anza mobile home.

Jurors listened to six days of testimony that led up to Wednesday's synopsis by attorneys on both sides.

Deputy District Attorney Stephen Gallon told the jury they need to look at whether Stanford knew what he was doing when he stabbed Frink. She was found in an upstairs bedroom of the Murrieta home of Stanford's parents.

Frink's bloodied body was face down on the cluttered floor. A bayonet was still sticking from her back and a second knife had been placed in a provocative manner between her legs.

Addressing the issue of whether Stanford intended to kill Frink, the prosecutor snapped on a Latex glove and grabbed the smaller knife, which had about a 5-inch blade.

He then methodically began counting, thrusting or slashing the knife with each ascending number until he reached 24. There were 22 stab wounds and at least two more slashes found on Frink's body.

"What he did to that body shows what he felt about her," Gallon said loudly. He told jurors how Stanford stabbed or slashed "every part of her body," front, back, side, neck and forehead.

"Somebody who would take this person," Gallon said, displaying a portrait of Frink, "and do this," then showing a crime scene photo of her, "is not deserving of anything but (a verdict) of first-degree murder."

Such a person is sadistic, the prosecutor added. "It took a couple of minutes for her to die," he said.

"This was a sadistic and brutal murder by a sadistic and brutal person," Gallon said.

Jeff Zimel, Stanford's attorney, countered with a different image of his client.

He told jurors that they must decide "whether Dustin Stanford is a cold-blooded murderer or a sick young man driven to do this by the demons of drug abuse and mental illness."

Zimel described the case as being about the devastating combination of acute and long-term use of methamphetamine.

"The meth caused Dustin's downward spiral" which resulted in his psychotic disorder, Zimel said.

"We're not asking you to excuse what he did," he added.

Regarding the attack on McGee in Anza, Zimel told jurors there was no reason for Stanford to be in the home of a stranger or to stab the man. The only reason for the attack, he added, was his client being under the influence of meth and his mental illness.

Zimel said the prosecutor's version of what happened in the home where Frink was killed is just speculation.

"We don't really know how it happened," he told jurors.

Zimel's account of what may have occurred includes Stanford believing he was in fear of imminent harm.

That is based on a telephone call that Alberto Arias, Stanford's best friend, testified he received from Stanford just before the killing, asking him to come over and help.

Arias testified that Stanford and Frink were arguing and Stanford believed friends of Frink were headed over there to kill him. He also told jurors that he could hear Frink yelling and threatening Stanford in the background.

"To Dustin, at that moment his life was in danger and he needed to act to protect himself," Zimel told the jury. Based on what a psychiatrist called by the defense told jurors, someone suffering from a meth-induced psychosis would not have been able to appreciate the difference between an immediate and future threat.

In his closing argument, Gallon, the prosecutor, attacked the credibility of Arias and the belief that Stanford was experiencing psychosis at the time.

"Alberto Arias is a liar," Gallon said. "The defense has based this whole case on a fight that never occurred."

Gallon contends that Stanford actually called his friend to come over and help him clean up after the slaying and get rid of Frink's body.

If Stanford was supposedly in this meth-induced psychosis, how was he able to find a carpet cleaner and get the chemicals to clean the blood, Gallon asked jurors.

"Look at everything he did that shows his brain was functioning," Gallon said.

Zimel said his client showed all the signs of someone with mental impairment from both acute and chronic meth abuse.

He told jurors that if the evidence shows Stanford acted impulsively, was confused, acted in the heat of passion, believed he was acting in self-defense and in an uncontrollable rage, "then this is manslaughter."

Gallon argued that Stanford's actions prove this was premeditated murder.

He used two knives to kill Frink. "One wasn't good enough," Gallon said, again reminding jurors that one was left between her legs and the other in her back.

The number of times she was stabbed also prove Stanford's intent, the prosecutor told jurors.

"People get high (on drugs) every day. The true test (in this case) is: When he murdered her, did he know what he was doing," Gallon said. "He went out of his way to do this."

If jurors believe Stanford knew what he was doing when he killed Frink, they must decide if it was first- or second-degree murder. But if jurors instead find, as Stanford's attorney contends, that the killing happened because of a mental disorder, then they can find him guilty of manslaughter.

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