STUNNED RESPONSE IN LANCASTER COUNTY

In bars and cafes, street corners and living rooms, the citizens of
Lancaster County gasped at the news of Lisa's release. Their district
attorney may not have seen reason to object, but they did. Most sounded
stunned; many sounded enraged. One man, at 8 a.m. on the morning after her
release, anonymously called in a phone threat to the Lancaster Sunday News,
saying he would kill Lambert if she returned to Lancaster.

Maybe there were "mistakes," the more rational by now were willing to
allow. Maybe there was "sloppy" police work. Maybe Lisa even deserves a new
trial. Nothing more than that, though. Certainly not her freedom. She was
there, she was an accomplice, she was a coconspirator. Give her a new
trial, remand it elsewhere even. But don't just let her go. You can't just
let her go.

"Lambert is not innocenthow could she be?" the Lancaster New Era
editorialized the day after Hazel Show's revelation. " . . . even with
newly revealed evidence that supports her claims, Lambert is still
irrevocably involved in the events that lead to Laurie Show's murder. These
facts must not be drowned out by the explosive revelations at Lambert's
federal appeals hearing. . . . "

As it happened, these thoughts exactly echoed those offered by Judge
Stengel, who'd presided at Lisa's murder trial. "Even if Lambert's story at
trial was completely credible," Stengel had declared in his written
opinions, "she would still be an accomplice to the crime of murder. . . .
The single most important fact on the issue of guilt is whether Ms. Lambert
was present in the Show condominium at the time of the killing. By her own
admission, she was present. . . . "

Dalzell, however, simply did not accept this notion, at least not in a
federal habeas hearing.

On the proceeding's final day, when Madenspacher in his closing argument
spoke of Lambert being guilty at least as an accomplice or conspirator,
Dalzell waved him off. "She wasn't charged with conspiracy was she?" he
declared. "She was charged with firstdegree murder. So the only issue
before me is actual innocence of firstdegree murder. That is what she was
convicted of."

In fact, the law is murky on this point. Lisa was actually charged with
criminal homicide, which in Pennsylvania encompasses all degrees of murder.
How her conviction for firstdegree murder affects her exposure to lesser
murder charges is a matter for debate.

So, Madenspacher tried to argue: "What I am saying here is that charged
with criminal homicide, she could be found guilty of murder in the first
degree . . . or she could have been found guilty of second degree . . . or
she could be found guilty of third degree."

That didn't sway Dalzell: "But if one took her testimony, she said that she
did everything possible to deescalate what spun out of control. . . . By
her own testimony she exited when it started spinning out of control. So
therefore, it was not 'reasonably foreseeable' from her point of view, so
the argument would go."

The judge then cut things off: "Let's not waste time debating that."

Dalzell had good reason for not wishing to bother further with this issue.
By thenafter 14 days of testimony covering 3,225 pages of transcriptthe
judge wasn't thinking only about Lisa's conduct at the Show condo. He was
thinking about the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and the role of a
federal habeas corpus in upholding the unalienable right of due process.

Among other historic cases, Dalzell's mind was on a 1973 opinion by
thenJustice William H. Rehnquist, in United States vs. Russell. There,
Rehnquist predicted that "we may some day be presented with a situation in
which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due
process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking the
judicial processes to obtain a conviction."

That day, Dalzell decided at the close of Lambert's hearing, had come.

While presiding at a habeas hearing, he reminded himself, he effectively
sat as a court of equitya court operating under a system of law designed
to protect rights and deliver remedial justice. He recalled the ancient
maxim that "equity delights to do justice, and not by halves." To give Lisa
full relief, it seemed to him imperative that he do nothing to benefit or
empower those who had wronged her.

He would not just release Lisa, Dalzell decided. An outrageous violation of
due process required even more severe sanction. He would bar the state from
ever retrying her. He would strip the state of its natural right to
adjudicate a murder committed within its boundaries.

He wrote his 90page opinion over the weekend, after court adjourned at
4:10 p.m. on Friday, April 18. Before a packed courtroom late the following
Monday morning, he declared Lisa "by clear and convincing evidence" to be
"actually innocent of firstdegree murder."

"If Lisa Lambert's is not the 'situation' to which Chief Justice Rehnquist
referred, then there is no prosecutorial malfeasance outrageous enough to
bar a reprosecution. . . ." he proclaimed. "We have now concluded that Ms.
Lambert has presented an extraordinary, indeed, it appears, unprecedented
case. We therefore hold that the writ should issue, that Lisa Lambert
should be immediately released, and that she should not be retried."

In scorching language, Dalzell explained just why: "We have found that
virtually all of the evidence which the commonwealth used to convict Lisa
Lambert of firstdegree murder was either perjured, altered or fabricated.
Such total contempt for due process of law demands serious sanctions. The
question we must now answer is whether . . . the commonwealth is entitled
to get another try at convicting Lisa Lambert and sending her to prison for
the rest of her life. . . . In short, the question is whether we may accept
a promise from anyone on behalf of the commonwealth that a trial will be
fair 'next time.' "

No, Dalzell concluded, we cannot.

"We hold that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment bars the
commonwealth from invoking judicial or any other proceedings against Lisa
Lambert for the murder of Laurie Show. . . . Equitable considerations
preclude our leaving the decision whether to retry Lisa Lambert in the
hands of those who created this gross injustice. . . . "

As far as legal researchers could tell, there was an accepted basis, but no
exact precedent for a federal judge in Dalzell's situation to take such
action. Dalzell did not stop there.

He was, he announced in his opinion, going to refer the matter of Kenneff's
"blatantly unethical and unconstitutional" actions to the Pennsylvania
Disciplinary Board. He also was going to refer the whole Lambert
prosecution to the U.S. attorney for investigation of "possible witness
intimidation, apparent perjury by at least five witnesses in a federal
proceeding, and possible violations of the federal criminal civil rights
laws."

Still, Dalzell wasn't finished. He felt compelled, in the two final pages
of his opinion, to address the question of just why all this had happened
in Lancaster County.

"Those who have read this sad history," he wrote, "may well ask themselves,
'How could a place idealized in Peter Weir's 'Witness' become like the
world in David Lynch's 'Blue Velvet'?' Because it is so important to that
community and indeed to many others to prevent a recurrence of this
nightmare, we offer a few reflections on the record."

Laurie Show's grandfather, Dalzell pointed out, was, in the 1980s, the
coroner of Lancaster County. Her mother was "a paragon of morality" who
kept "a pictureperfect home." By contrast, Lisa Lambert was "as though
delivered from Central Casting for the part of villainess." By the
testimony of even those who loved her, "she was at the time literally
'trailer trash.' " The community "thus closed ranks behind the good family
Show and exacted instant revenge against this supposed villainess." Almost
immediately after "the snap judgment" was made, law enforcement officials
uncovered "inconvenient facts," but soon "discovered a balm for these
evidentiary bruises, Lawrence Yunkin." Thus "Lancaster's best made a pact
with Lancaster's worst to convict the 'trailer trash' of firstdegree
murder."

Dalzell's parting words: "In making a pact with this devil, Lancaster
County made a Faustian bargain. It lost its soul and it almost executed an
innocent, abused woman. Its legal edifice now in ashes, we can only hope
for a 'Witness'like barnraising of the temple of justice."

Uprising Began With Calls, Letters

The uprising in Lancaster County in the wake of Dalzell's ruling began
first with the usual letters to editors and calls to radio talk shows.

The legal system is a "crock of crap." How could Dalzell destroy the
reputation of "honorable and decent people" for the purpose of freeing a
"coldblooded killer?" What kind of justice do we have?

Soon enough, such talk escalated. All sorts of theories about Dalzell's
motives began circulating. Something's been going on behind the scenes, it
was suggested. Something behind what Dalzell did, something we don't know
about.

Ted Byrne, the conservative radio talk show host in Lancaster County, pored
through Dalzell's decisions in a law library. Then, seeking hidden
connections, he analyzed the activities of the attorneys at Dalzell's old
law firm and Rainville's firm.

It was considered significant that Dalzell and Greenberg, 30 years before,
had been classmates at the University of Pennsylvania. Some talk had it
that they were old pals. Some talk had it that Dalzell had handed the
Lambert case to his own "carefully assembled defense team."

Had Dalzell reached the end of a career path? Had he felt unfulfilled? Had
he wondered how he might become an appellate judge? Had he seen a challenge
to the controversial habeas corpus situation as a means to garner attention?

For that matter, how did the Lambert case get to Dalzell in the first
place? Had not Dalzell displayed an excessive personal interest in Lisa in
his chambers? Was it possible that they had a relationship?

"We must begin to think who it was that had to gain from this travesty of
justice other than Lambert," suggested one citizen in a letter to the
editor. "My vote goes to Judge Stewart Dalzell. It would appear that it is
an appropriate time for this newspaper to dig very deep into the archives
of the noteworthy judge to determine what it was or who it was that set him
on his grudge mission to 'punish' the county for sins of the past committed
against him."

Such comments reflected as much bewilderment as paranoia. They came from a
citizenry who well knew Lisa Lambert, and well knew those who had
prosecuted her. Yet rarely did anyone, amid all the outpouring of emotion
and speculation, feel inclined to discuss the particulars of the Lambert
case as revealed in Dalzell's courtroom.

More common was East Lampeter Supervisor Chairman John Shertzer's response.
"There were a lot of false accusations throughout the trial. . . . We never
had the opportunity to address those," Shertzer told a reporter, before
confessing that he, in fact, couldn't address them: "There are some things
about this that I don't have a lot of background in. But I just know these
people. . . . They were treated very abusively on the stand by Lambert's
attorneys as well as the judge."

Lancaster's citizens were struggling to hold together a way of viewing
their world. Even those willing to acknowledge certain blemishes in that
worldeven those willing to acknowledge official wrongdoing in the Lambert
casefound themselves laboring to understand what Dalzell had done. No
matter what was revealed in a Philadelphia courtroom, no matter what
Lancaster authorities did or failed to do, it seemed incomprehensible that
Dalzell would let Lisa Lambert walk free, without at least a retrial.

Not even Lisa's parents had hoped for that back when their daughter's
appeals first started. Their dream, Leonard Lambert told a reporter then,
was that Lisa receive "a level of punishment that's not greater than what's
deserved. . . . It's a known fact that she was there. But something could
argue that maybe she doesn't deserve more than aggravated assault or
thirddegree murder."

Dalzell went too far, even the more reasonable in Lancaster County now
declared. He was a disgrace to the legal profession. He had made a mockery
of justice. He was a man without honor.

Hazel Show, more than anyone, sounded the clarion. "Thank you for listening
to me," she'd told Dalzell on the hearing's last day. "My parents brought
me up to be truthful, and I believe in God. . . . So it is up to me to tell
the truth." Yet soon after, whether out of confusion or regret at what
she'd wrought, Show began to backtrack and revise.

Never in her "wildest dreams," she declared, had she thought her story
would free Lisa. All her story proved was that she got home just as the
killers left, in time to hear her daughter's dying declaration. But the
judge "didn't want to hear that." The judge "wouldn't let me say that."

No matter that Madenspacher insisted Hazel never mentioned this notion to
him in their hotel meeting. No matter that she never mentioned this notion
while on the witness stand on the hearing's last day. It now became her
constant refrain. "We have to get this judge off the bench," she began
declaring publicly. "There is not one bit of justice in him."

They began first with a petition drive. Hazel's exhusband, John Show, drew
it up, calling for Congress to "investigate" Dalzell and take "corrective
action," including impeachment. Show's girlfriend took it to her beauty
shop, where customers clamored to sign it. Local businesses started
stocking piles on their front counters. Volunteers called for extra copies,
carried them door to door, offered them at yard sales. One couple outside a
Kmart parking lot on a hot Sunday collected more than 500 signatures. On
the morning after an ad for the petition appeared in the Lancaster
newspapers, John Show walked to his mailbox and found 300 envelopes. By
midSeptember, he had 37,000 signatures.

Then came Hazel Show's 10page "Citizens Action Report," the keystone of
her newly launched national campaign seeking to reform the entire federal
judiciary. Now the Shows wanted, among a host of items, to bar federal
judges from banning retrials, to fix stricter guidelines for appointing
federal judges, to limit federal judges' terms in office. Hazel Show's
words and image soon became ubiquitous in Lancaster County.

Television provided one forum, both local talk shows and the national
tabloids. Politicians provided another. The Washingtonbased Judicial
Selection Monitoring Project, an archconservative organization seeking to
block the appointment of what it calls "activist liberal judges," featured
both Shows in a 15minute videotape that lambasted Dalzell and
misidentified him as a Clinton appointee.

The Shows, accompanied by 16 friends and relatives, took their campaign to
Washington on Sept. 17, where Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, along with
Reps. Joseph R. Pitts and George W. Gekas, accepted cartloads of petitions.
The lawmakers, weeks before, had introduced legislation that would severely
restrict federal judges' power to bar retrials during habeas proceedingsa
bill specifically designed to reverse Dalzell's decision. Now, to the
Shows, Specter agreed to call it the "Laurie Bill" and promised them a
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Wherever they went, the Shows were
applauded and courted.

"How often do you get to do this?" Hazel observed.

"I think we made an impact," John offered.

Argument That Judge Brought It on Himself

It can fairly be argued that Dalzell brought some of this on himself. He
may have overly embraced Lisa Lambert's account of events, and unduly
diminished her role. He may not have needed to rough up witnesses in his
courtroom as much as he did. He certainly need not have painted Lancaster
County with such a broad brush at the end of his opinion.

How could he claim to know this county, his critics asked. How could he
claim to know our citizens? How could he say such things about us?

Yet, valid as such claims may be, it most likely will be Dalzell who leaves
a lasting impact, not those fueling the backlash against him.

Whether right or wrong, whether he operated entirely within his bounds, a
federal judge consumed by moral outrage has, as he intended, sent a
message. The idea behind Lisa Lambert's outright release was not, finally,
to let a guilty person go free. It was to let the powers of the state know
they can't violate bedrock principles of the Constitution and get away with
it.

They haven't.

In early May, the U.S. attorney's office in Philadelphia, responding to
Dalzell's referral, announced it had launched a criminal investigation into
those who investigated and prosecuted Lisa Lambert. Aiding them will be the
FBI and the Justice Department's civil rights division. They will focus on
John Kenneff and seven police officers, among them Ronald Savage, Ronald
Barley, Robin Weaver and Raymond Solt.

Days later, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in refusing Lancaster
County's motion for a temporary stay of Dalzell's order, said "the
commonwealth has not demonstrated that it is likely to prevail on the
merits of its appeal. . . . We remind the commonwealth that Judge Dalzell's
factual findings are based on his view of the credibility of the witnesses
and testimony. . . . We can only reverse if we find them clearly erroneous."

In that written opinion, the appellate panel also chastised the
commonwealth for calling Lisa Lambert a "convicted killer" in its brief.
She "no longer has that status," the 3rd Circuit reminded. "Indeed, that
description is inflammatory and inappropriate, given [Dalzell's] findings
of actual innocence. . . . "

What remains to be seen is whether Dalzell will ultimately be allowed his
unprecedented involvement in a state's sovereign affairs. At the habeas
hearing's end, Lancaster County hired its own highpowered Pennsylvania law
firm, Sprague & Lewis, known for its political connections, particularly to
the Republican Party. On Oct. 21, when lawyers for both sides argued the
merits of the county's appeal before a 3rd Circuit panel, the appellate
judges grilled them on a critical question: Did Lisa Lambert exhaust all
her appeals in Pennsylvania's courts before turning to a federal judge for
help?

This issue, rather than any question of Lisa's innocence or a prosecutor's
malfeasance, is what presently fuels a nationwide debate in the legal
community and beyond. Elemental principles of law and government in this
country normally restrain federal intrusion until a state has heard all
claims, and has been given the chance to correct its own errors. Just weeks
ago, a 3rd Circuit panelsaying "we are sensitive to the independence of
the Pennsylvania courts and of that state's sovereignty"denied another
convict's habeas petition because he hadn't exhausted his state appeals.

Dalzell, in his opinion, recognized these principles, then essentially
dismissed them. The Pennsylvania General Assembly, he pointed out, amended
its statutes in 1995 to exclude "actual innocence" as a basis for certain
appeals. By doing so, Dalzell declared, Pennsylvania, in effect,
relinquished its jurisdiction over claims such as Lisa Lambert's, and
placed them "squarely into the federal forum." And even if Pennsylvania
were willing to consider some of Lambert's claims, Dalzell added, "we find
that the state proceedings that would follow if we dismissed this action
are ineffective to protect the rights of Ms. Lambert."

By thus declaring his utter distrust in Pennsylvania's ability to deliver
justice, Dalzell has challenged the fundamental balance of power between
state and federal courts that governs the judicial system. This is why five
state attorneys generalincluding California'shave joined Pennsylvania
in an amicus brief that talks of the Dalzell ruling's "potential to
seriously weaken, if not to dismantle entirely, the system for litigating
habeas actions." This is why lawandorderminded national politicians have
their knives out for Dalzell. This is why Lisa Lambert's federal hearing
promises to be one of the most carefully reviewed cases in criminal law for
a long time to come.

This is also why Dalzell's actions will leave a legacy no matter what the
outcome of the present appeals. His ruling may or may not stand, his ruling
may or may not establish a formal precedent, butby granting a hearing and
allowing widespread discoveryDalzell has required that attention be paid
to what happened in a Lancaster County courtroom in the summer of 1992.
He's shown why the federal habeas corpus action is essential to the
integrity of the judicial system.

Dalzell has also set a moral, if not legal, example. Rulings in one case
often affect other rulings. One judge's decision shapes not just the
outcome of a particular case, but also the character of justice. What he
doesn't allow, others likewise forbid.

In midMay, in Lancaster County court, Lisa Lambert's original trial
lawyer, Roy Shirk, serving as defense attorney in a routine burglary case,
rose to ask for a mistrial. As in the Lambert case, he argued, prosecutors
in this one had failed to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense.
Shirk most likely meant only to put this commonplace claim into the record
for later review, but Judge Paul K. Allison, to the lawyers' astonishment,
promptly granted his request.

Yes, the judge said in declaring a mistrial, this is exactly what Dalzell
felt happened to Lisa Lambert.

Copyright Los Angeles Times