California death row retrial hinges on Quatman testimony

Local attorney Jack Quatman is at the center of a maelstrom surrounding an appeal of a California inmate, Fred Freeman, that he helped send to death row. At issue is whether jurors were excluded based on religion and race and of consequence are the lives of inmates currently on death row whose cases were prosecuted by Alameda County attorney's office.

Lawyers for the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, the non-profit organization that is seeking a new trial for Fred Freeman, a man that Quatman sent to death row while serving as a prosecutor for Alameda County, were in the Flathead Valley this past week seeking affadavits that testify to Quatman's character and credibility.

Quatman's credibility will be central to their case because a new trial hinges on Quatman's testimony that jury exclusion was common practice in the county attorney's office.

Quatman served as an Oakland district attorney for 26 years and put hundreds of people behind bars and many on death row before he began practicing law in Whitefish in 1998. No stranger to controversy or the limelight, Quatman and his wife Phyllis have built a very successful practice in Whitefish.

In a sworn declaration submitted for the case, Quatman wrote that during the jury selection for Freeman's case, Judge Samuel Golde, the presiding judge, said to him in chambers that "no Jew would vote to send a defendant to the gas chamber."

Jurors cannot be excluded on the basis of their race or religion and, such an act is grounds for a new trial.

The case rests on several intricacies, including whether or not the Judge gave the statement and then whether that statement amounts to collusion between attorney and judge. Proving that will be no easy feat because Judge Golde passed away in 1998 and his family denies that he would have said anything of the kind.

According to a New York Times article, James Meehan, a 35-year veteran of the Oakland office, claimed that the practice of excluding jurors was based on other factors, such as background and political beliefs and not race. But Meehan didn't shed much light on the case, disputing the specifities of Quatman's testimony and suggesting his motivation.

The same article cited statistics that bear out Quatman's statement that potential Jewish jurors ethnicities were excluded.

Another death row inmate, Mark Schmeck, is also using Quatman's testimony as a basis for an appeal. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the inmates, other death row inmates prosecuted by Alameda County attorneys may have a basis for an appeal.

Quatman's office stated that he was not commenting on the case. He is currently in California to testify in the Supreme Court case.

-Christine Hensleigh