Published: November 16, 1997
THE
GREMMINGER CASE - A TWISTED CASE RESULTS IN A TWISTED VERDICT
By Gayle M. Tiller
Political Editor
On Thursday November 6, 1997, a San Jose jury composed of 7 white women, 2 white men, 2 Latinas, and 1 Asian American woman found former white San Jose Fire Captain Robert Gremminger guilty of 1) involuntary manslaughter and 2) carrying a weapon without a permit. Gremminger could face up to fourteen years in prison.
Former San Jose Fire Captain Robert Gremminger had been charged with second degree murder for the shooting and killing of Anthony Lamont Gilbert, an unarmed African American man at the Great Mall of Milpitas on October 24, 1996.
Many members of the African American community were outraged by the verdict. In a joint press release, the San Jose Branch of the NAACP, the San Jose Million Man March, and the Human Rights Defense Committee stated:
“We are outraged by the jury’s findings. We firmly believe that had there been even one African American juror, the results may have been different. Today’s verdict shows that it's still perfectly acceptable for an individual to act as “judge, jury, and executioner” in Santa Clara County. Gremminger acted as a vigilante in the shooting and killing of Anthony Lamont Gilbert who was an unarmed African American man at the Great Mall of Milpitas.”
BACKGROUND OF THE
DEFENDANT
Former San Jose Fire Captain Robert Gremminger resides with wife Judi
Gremminger in Ben Lomond which is a small town in Santa Cruz County. Gremminger
and his wife own two other properties in Santa Cruz County. One of
the properties is in Boulder Creek and the other is in Felton. According
to the 1990 census, Ben Lomond’s population is 93% white, Boulder
Creek’s population is 95.5% white, and Felton’s population is
96.5% white.
Gremminger is a registered Republican and his wife is a school teacher. His daughter is currently a San Jose Firefighter.
Gremminger is the son of a San Francisco police officer and he is a former Daly City and Mountain View police officer.
In the late 1960s, Mountain View High School teacher Arthur Olmos alleges that Gremminger stopped his brother for drunk driving. According to Mr. Olmos, Gremminger later arrested Mr. Olmos when he argued that his brother should not be arrested. Mr. Olmos was later taken to the Mountain View City Jail.
According to Mr. Olmos, Gremminger called him “every dirty name that you could call a Mexican American.”
Gremminger shot a white man in the arm in the late 1960s. The man sued and later a settlement was reached in the amount of $3,000.00. Shortly thereafter, Gremminger left the Mountain View Police Department.
In 1970, Gremminger joined the San Jose Fire Department. At that time, there were no African American firefighters.
On May 21, 1995, Gremminger informed San Jose city officials that an African American firefighter had leaked to him portions of the oral component of the Battalion Chief’s exam. On May 22, 1995, a city consultant rewrote the exam based on this allegation.
On May 23-26, 1995, all of the five African American candidates passed the exam whereas 26 of 37 of the white candidates failed.
The Santa Clara County Black Firefighters presented evidence that for the past decade, African Americans had a 90% pass rate. In some years, 100% of the African American candidates had passed the Battalion Chief’s exam. Despite this evidence, on July 26, 1995, Gremminger, along with 22 other firefighters, filed a reverse discrimination lawsuit alleging that African American firefighters had cheated on the Battalion Chief’s exam.
On January 23, 1996, Superior Court Judge Conrad Rushing dismissed the lawsuit. In his dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Rushing wrote:
“The plaintiffs herein seem to me, by their testimony, to be convinced that there was a conspiracy between the five black firefighters who passed the test and the fire chief. The only evidence of that is that the chief knew and met with those persons at times prior to the test. He also knew and met with the other candidates, but the difference is that (and the only difference is) of skin color. Propping a conspiracy theory on skin color is unreasonable.”
Less than a year later, on October 24, 1996, Robert Gremminger shot and fatally wounded Anthony Lamont Gilbert at the Great Mall of Milpitas in broad day light at 12:07 p.m. (noontime) with a gun that he did not have a permit to carry.
Gremminger claimed that the gun was a 30 year old off duty weapon that he had from his days as a Mountain View Police Officer and prior to this incident, he had never fired the gun.
Gremminger also claimed that he initially retrieved his gun from his red Corvette licensed “Hotstuff” on the basis that he thought a security guard needed help after he had confronted Gilbert over an alleged shoplifting incident in the parking lot. Gremminger did not know what the confrontation was about, nor did he ask the security guard did he need help.
After Gremminger returned from retrieving his gun, he claimed that he shot his gun because he thought that Gilbert was going to run him over. At the time of the incident, Gilbert’s car was moving at the rate of one mile per hour.
The whole incident with the exception of the actual shooting was captured on videotape by the Great Mall’s cameras.
Gremminger was later charged with second degree murder.
GREMMINGER’S
WIFE DEFENDS HIS ACTIONS
On November 4, 1996, Judi Gremminger called Gremminger a “hero”
in the shooting and killing Anthony Lamont Gilbert. She also said “He
was really trying to help someone.”
Judi Gremminger also stated that if the killing had involved a “black man who shot a black man, or a brown man who shot a brown man, we wouldn’t be here today.”
THE BAIL HEARING
When Gremminger was arrested, he was originally held without bail. The
prosecution argued that Gremminger should not be released on bail, because
he was a danger to the community.
On November 8, 1996, Gremminger’s attorney Ken Robinson presented over 70 letters supporting that bail should be set. Among these letters were letters from Deputy District Attorney Rod Braughton and Deputy District Attorney Lynn Knapp.
Braughton was Gremminger’s former supervisor when they worked together at the Mountain View Police Department in the late 1960s. Knapp had previously worked with Gremminger at the San Jose Fire Department.
To the African American community’s dismay, bail was set at $1,000,000 by Santa Clara County Municipal Court Judge Jerome Brock. On the Monday before the Thanksgiving, Gremminger posted bail and was released.
SPECIAL TREATMENT
GIVEN BY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
After returning from spending the Thanksgiving holiday with his family,
on December 2, 1996, the defendant Robert Gremminger was escorted in and
out of Superior Court through the hallways which are reserved for judges
and escorted out of the back door of the court room.
The Sheriff’s office claimed that the reason for the special treatment was that it was necessary to ensure public safety.
No one from Gilbert’s family had threatened Gremminger. Many members of the African American community were outraged by this unfair treatment.
The NAACP intervened and requested that the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department stop providing Gremminger with special treatment.
GREMMINGER FILES
FOR PENSION
In November 1996, the City of San Jose issued a statement saying that
Gremminger was no longer with the department. However, it refused to state
whether Gremminger had been terminated or had resigned.
Through the San Jose Branch of the NAACP’s investigation, it discovered that Gremminger had applied for retirement benefits when he had turned 55 in November 1996.
Under the City Ordinance, the City of San Jose was required to provide an employee with retirement benefits unless he is convicted of a felony or he has committed treason. Because Gremminger had been only charged with a felony, the City of San Jose was required to provide Gremminger with his retirement benefits.
As a result, on December 16, 1996, the Police and Fire Retirement Board issued Gremminger’s pension in the amount of $47,000.00 per year.
THE TRIAL AND ITS
JURY POOL
On October 6, 1997, the trial of Robert Gremminger finally began. The
jury pool of 180 prospective jurors consisted largely of whites. There
were only a handful of African Americans.
One African American man testified that he could not be fair and impartial, because his family had gone through a similar incident. As a result, he was excused from the jury duty.
The final jury picked was composed of 8 white women who were mostly middle aged and senior citizens, 1 white man, 2 Latinas, and 1 Asian American woman.
The San Jose Branch of the NAACP was disappointed by the composition of the jury. However, because there was no legal ground for the NAACP to challenge the composition of the jury, the NAACP was unable to take any action.
EVIDENCE THAT THE
JURY NEVER HEARD
The jury was presented evidence of the videotape, Gremminger’s testimony,
the security guard Gary Petrakowitz’s testimony, Milipitas police
officer Steven Petrakowitz’s testimony and about a half dozen witnesses
who saw the shooting and killing of Anthony Lamont Gilbert. The jury also
visited the scene of the crime.
However, the jury was never presented evidence relating the following incidents: 1) Gremminger’s shooting of a man in the late 1960s in the arm, 2) the reverse discrimination lawsuit in which he alleged African American firefighters had cheated on the Battalion Chief’s exam, and 3) testimony from Mr. Olmos in which he would have alleged that Gremminger as a Mountain View Police Officer had called him racial epithets in 1960s.
Because Gremminger never presented evidence relating to his character, the prosecution could not present any evidence which related to his character. As a result, the jury was never provided with the above evidence.
GREMMINGER’S
ATTORNEY’S ARGUMENT
In his closing argument, criminal defense attorney Ken Robinson pointed
out problems with the videotape. Prosecutor Joyce Allegro in her rebuttal
later pointed out to the jury that in Robinson’s opening statement,
he had said “Thank God for the video. This is the best evidence that
we have.”
Robinson noted the defendant had dedicated his entire life to protecting people. Robinson pointed to Gremminger’s past careers as a police officer and a firefighter.
Robinson also pointed out that Gilbert had assaulted security guards in the past when he had other shoplifting incidents.
Robinson also noted that self defense does not require that the individual retreat from danger. Under the law, the individual has the right to stand his ground and defend himself.
Robinson noted that he would have left and summoned help. However, given Gremminger’s background in helping others, he was under no duty to retreat. He had the right to defend himself.
Robinson also pointed that other witnesses supported Gremminger’s testimony that he felt his life was in danger. He concluded by telling the jury that he was turning over the fate of Gremminger’s life to them.
THE PROSECUTION’S
ARGUMENT
In her closing argument, veteran prosecutor Joyce Allegro pointed to the
videotape as the best evidence of Gremminger’s intent to kill Anthony
Lamont Gilbert.
Allegro refuted Gremminger’s claim that he had retrieved his gun from his car in order to protect the security guard who was in the middle of a confrontation with Anthony Lamont Gilbert who was a driver of 1989 Pontiac that was boxed between other vehicles. Not once did Gremminger asked the security guard did he need help or what was going on.
Allegro also pointed out if Gremminger were so concerned about the security guard’s safety why did he turn his back to him when he went to his car to retrieve the gun. She also noted that Gremminger had not run to his car to retrieve the gun, rather he “sauntered” over to his car.
Allegro also refuted the defense’s allegation that Gilbert intended to run over Gremminger after he returned. She noted at the time of the shooting, Gremminger had stated the car was going one mile per hour.
Allegro pointed to other evidence that Gilbert’s foot was on the brakes and it took several men to remove Gilbert from the car. She also stated that even if Gilbert had been accelerating, shooting him would not have stopped the car.
She compared Gremminger to acting as “judge, jury, and executioner” and practicing vigilantism.
Allegro asked the jury “Since when do you get the death penalty for petty theft?”
THE JURY’S
DELIBERATIONS AND ITS VERDICT
After jury instructions were given on November 4, 1997, the jury began
its deliberations. At the end of the day, one juror informed the court
that she could not continue to serve, because she had a prepaid airline
ticket. As a result, she was replaced with a white male juror and deliberations
began all over again on November 5, 1997.
The jurors never really entertained the issue of race. One white male juror noted that they discussed the issue for five minutes and that issue was later put to rest.
Initially five of the jurors wanted to acquit Gremminger on theory that he had acted in self defense. Two wanted Gremminger to be convicted of second degree murder. Others felt that Gremminger had acted negligently in firing into a crowded parking lot during noontime.
After two days of deliberations, the jury decided to reach a compromise. On Thursday November 6, 1997 at approximately 5:15 p.m., it announced its verdict of involuntary manslaughter. The members of the family of the victim were shocked by the jury’s findings.
THE COMMUNITY’S
RESPONSE TO THE VERDICT
The San Jose Branch of the NAACP, San Jose Million Man March and the Human
Rights Defense Committee held a community forum at the African American
Community Service Agency on the night of the verdict.
The civil rights organizations advocated that Gremminger should receive the maximum penalty under California law and he not be given probation, because probation was totally unacceptable.
They also advocated that because Gremminger had been convicted of a felony, the City of San Jose Police and Fire Retirement Board should exercise it discretionary powers and revoke Gremminger’s pension.
SAN JOSE CITY COUNCIL
MEMBER ALICE WOODY’S RESPONSE
San Jose City Council Member Alice Woody who is the only African American
member of the San Jose City Council and a member of the San Jose Police
and Fire Department Board will place on the January agenda of the San
Jose Police and Fire Department Board the line item of whether the Board
should revoke Gremminger’s pension.
THE FAMILY OF THE
VICTIM
FILES 7.5 MILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT
On November 7, 1997, Rodney Moore who is the attorney for the family of
the victim Anthony Lamont Gilbert announced that the family had filed
a 7.5 million dollar lawsuit against the City of San Jose, City of Milpitas,
Great Mall of Milpitas, and Robert Gremminger.
The San Jose Branch of the NAACP has vowed that it will support the victim’s family in its civil lawsuit.
RACIST BACKLASH
IN THE FACE OF THE VERDICT
Since the announcement of the verdict, the San Jose Branch of the NAACP
has received several racist messages on its answering machine.
One message from an unidentified white male stated: “F--k the struggle. You guys are a bunch of n----rs. This n----r got shot for shoplifting. Deserves what he got. He f-----g steals from people. That’s what I call justice. That’s what I think.”
WHERE DO WE GO
FROM HERE?
First, there needs to be healing in the community at large. African Americans
and whites view this case from a different prospective. We need to begin
a dialogue with each other.
Secondly, the NAACP will begin a letter writing campaign to the judge and request that Gremminger be sentenced to the maximum sentence under California law. Gremminger is scheduled to be sentenced on December 19, 1997 by Judge Rene Navarro.
Gremminger’s attorney Ken Robinson is a top notch criminal attorney who will use every tactic to argue that Gremminger should receive probation.
In the past, Robinson represented a Stanford faculty member who admitted to strangling his wife and in this case, the defendant pleaded to voluntary manslaughter. The defendant’s sentence was probation, community service and a fine.
We cannot allow this to happen in this case. Therefore, it is very important that the community get involved in the letter writing campaign.
Thirdly, the NAACP will be filing a petition with the San Jose Police and Fire Retirement Board requesting that Gremminger’s pension be revoked.
We ask that the community contact San Jose City Council Member Alice Woody at (408) 277-5242 to voice their support that Gremminger’s pension should be revoked. For more information, contact the San Jose Branch of the NAACP at (408) 295-3394.
Click Here to email this page to a friend |
