As Adrian Gonzalez’s release goes before a jury, attorneys question whether he can get a fair trial

The Santa Cruz courtroom that will host Adrian Gonzalez’s jury trial as he seeks release was almost entirely full Tuesday morning, as a second round of potential jurors gathered to receive instructions ahead of a more in-depth selection process that begins Monday.

As the session neared its end, prospective jurors with conflicts had the chance to fill out one of two forms, or both if they applied. One form, colored blue, was for people to declare a hardship — extreme financial burden, medical conditions, student status or other factors that would significantly affect one’s ability to serve on the jury.

The second form, colored green, was a private disclosure request. That form was for people to disclose aspects of the case and charges that they would like to answer questions about outside of the presence of the jury panel — and a line that asked if they could still be fair and impartial despite those factors. As jurors exited the room to fill out the forms, most everyone had a copy of at least one of the forms, if not both.

Gonzalez, now 24, was convicted in 2021 of raping and murdering Santa Cruz 8-year-old Madyson “Maddy” Middleton in 2015, when he was 15. He was prosecuted as a juvenile after a multiyear battle over a California law that barred trying offenders under the age of 16 as an adult. Now, as he seeks release upon aging out of the state’s juvenile justice system on his 25th birthday in October, his defense attorney, Athena Reis, argued that he is unlikely to get a fair jury trial in Santa Cruz County due to the case’s severity and media coverage. Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Denine Guy denied Reis’ request for a change of venue last week.

Guy ruled that Reis did not prove there had been “extensive media coverage,” saying that delays in the case resulted in a number of years with little to no media coverage. But strong feelings in the community about the case have been on display both online and in the scene around court proceedings. During Gonzalez’s probable-cause hearing, which pushed his release to a jury trial, friends and supporters of Middleton sat on the courthouse steps with signs urging that Gonzalez remain incarcerated.

Larry Biggam, Gonzalez’s previous attorney and founder of law firm Biggam, Christensen & Minsloff — a firm that provided public defense services in Santa Cruz County for 47 years — briefly hesitated before saying that the issue does raise a concern for him. 

“I would be concerned, to be honest,” said Biggam, now retired. “The crime was horrific by any standard, and the media and social media went large.”

Biggam said the case “cries for a venue change.” However, convincing a judge is a tall order.

“You can’t do it without the evidence. You have to have some surveys done, and the documentary evidence of all the media to put in the record,” he said. “Then you have something to appeal with.”

Biggam said that his concern lies mostly in the nature of the crime obscuring the jurors’ true responsibility in the case, but added that he typically “has a lot of confidence in Santa Cruz jurors.” 

“The issue is how has he done in custody, what is his risk if he gets out, and what’s his post-release game plan,” he said. “It’s not ‘was it a bad crime,’ because that’s a given. It’s about the kid, or the young adult, in this case.”

Although it has been a number of years since Biggam has handled the case, he recalls Gonzalez being motivated about rehabilitation, and expects that he has stayed that course: “No one really knows, but I suspect Adrian has done very well,” he said. “He took advantage of every possible opportunity in juvenile hall.”

However, the gruesome details of the case loom large even nine years later. Should those details strongly impact the jury selection process or the upcoming trial itself, Biggam said, that could be additional evidence for Reis to renew the motion for a venue change. But even if that does happen, how likely would it be that a venue change is eventually granted? If history holds true, then not likely. At all.

Jon Minsloff, a retired partner at Biggam, Christensen & Minsloff, recalls the rarity of venue changes over the 47 years the firm provided public defense. Across all of those years, he said he can recall them being granted only four times. He, too, said he would “absolutely” be concerned that Gonzalez couldn’t get a fair trial if he were trying the case.

“A venue change requires an exceedingly high standard, and it’s going to be an uphill battle, certainly,” he said. “However, this case received an inordinate amount of publicity and lots of people were outraged and concerned, so I think they have a reasonable shot at it.

“Do I think they’ll be successful? Probably not, given the current state of the law. But if any case warrants a close look at a venue change, this is certainly one.”

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.