Charles Jr. (Chuck) Murdoch

On May 17, 1983, at the Horse Shoe Bar in Long Beach, California, witnesses reported that either two or three Latino men had entered the bar, and as one man had emptied the cash register, another had fired a shot, killing a customer. An additional patron survived a brutally stab wound. In the hour following this violent robbery, the Time Out Bar, located only two miles away, was also forcefully ambushed. Accounts of this robbery noted nearly identical perpetrators. A Long Beach Police Department press release and a newspaper article from the following day report that “Three Mexican Males” had robbed the Horse Shoe and Time Out Bar at gunpoint. No one was arrested for the murder, stolen money, or stabbing of the patron at the time.

Eleven years later, police announced that they finally secured a match on a fingerprint left on the cash register. They claimed that they had traced the print to a man named Dino Dinardo, who they arrested in Berkeley, California. Prior to trial, Dinardo maintained his innocence, claiming that his confession had been coerced and involuntary, made under duress. The judge overruled this, and allowed the prosecution to use it against him. 

Both were brought to trial, despite the fact that neither matched the description of the initial reports, nor were either selected by eyewitnesses in photo lineups conducted in the days after.

Dinardo had written a statement, intended for Murdoch and his attorney, on a piece of notebookpaper. It was determined by the judge to be protected by attorney-client privilege, so it was never introduced at trial – instead, sealed away at the Long Beach Court. The Ninth Circuit’s reconstruction (in dissent) summarizes Dinardo’s statement:

"I would like to make a statement about the facts surrounding my arrest for robbery and murder. I was taking care of my young daughter when Long Beachpolice arrested me at my home in Berkeley. Two policemen, Detective Pavek andhis partner, took me to the Berkeley Police Department and interviewed me. Iwanted to get back to my daughter as I worried about her welfare. At that time, Detective Pavek coerced a statement from me and promised not to charge me if I made a statement that Charles Murdoch participated in the crime. But, I do not actually know Mr. Murdoch, although I know his brother. Mr. Murdoch and I did not commit any crime." Murdoch v. Castro (9th Cir. 2010) 609 F.3d 983, 987, 997-998.

Years later, another judge lamented the ruling; Chief Justice Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit issued a dissent to the denial of federal relief, writing: