A patricide conviction raises questions about integrity of the justice system.

It’s hard to know exactly where the tragic story of the Sampognaro family begins. But according to court papers, it begins years before Joseph Sampognaro Jr. was accused of murdering his father, Joseph Sampognaro Sr.

Back in 2017, Joseph Sr.’s two sisters and his then-82-year-old mother filed for a restraining order against him, describing a physical altercation in the Monterey home he shared with his mother. Sister Maryann Sampognaro was visiting from San Francisco, and their fight is detailed in a Dec. 29, 2016 Monterey Police report.

It describes what began as a verbal argument before he grabbed their mom by the shoulders and shook her, then punched Maryann in the head. According to the police report, he told his sister, “I’m gonna kill you. You’ll see, you’ll see.”

Joseph Sr. was charged with battery and criminal threats. It was far from the only time he faced criminal charges during a time he struggled with drug abuse. But it was not until Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 that things escalated to tragedy.

Prosecutors say Joseph Jr. went to see his dad in a converted barn near the summit of Laureles Grade, asking to borrow a car. His father refused, an argument ensued, and Joseph Jr. eventually pulled out a handgun, then shot his father repeatedly. Sampognaro Jr. fled in his father’s Corvette, taking sheriff’s deputies on a high-speed chase sometimes exceeding 100mph before he was arrested and charged with murder, evading a peace officer and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

On April 26, 2021, a jury found him guilty.

It’s the most heartbreaking end point imaginable for this family already struggling with hot tempers, drugs and violence. But while Sampognaro Sr. is gone, the future of Sampognaro Jr. remains in question. That has less to do with whether or not he murdered his father, but whether the criminal justice system served him fairly and justly.

Sampognaro’s attorney, Tara Higgins, has filed a motion for a new trial. She produced a long list of reasons she says undermine the credibility of the trial.

Some of her arguments fall within the range of a typical effort by a defense attorney to give their client a second chance – specifically her claim that new evidence, a recent arrest of a man with a handgun matching the murder weapon, should warrant a new trial.

Then there’s her claim that jurors were sleeping through material parts of the trial – hard to prove, because case law allows jurors to close their eyes, and even to doze off as long as it’s not during a consequential part of the trial.

And then there’s the most sensational element of Higgins’ motion: That because one member of Sampognaro Jr.’s defense team was having an affair with the bailiff – “as a stress reliever during the trial” – without disclosing it to the client, he did not get fair, conflict-free representation.

“The question is all about the client: Was the client denied any due process rights?” Higgins says. “The law is clear. He is entitled to conflict-free representation.”

Bailiffs are responsible for managing the jury, and are employed by the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office – in this case, the investigating agency.

(The Sheriff’s Office says he didn’t violate any policies, and that employees may date whomever they wish on their own time, but he has since transferred out of the bailiff’s unit and now works in the county jail. The attorney no longer works for the Monterey County Public Defender’s Office and is at the Placer County Public Defender’s Office.)

Deputy District Attorney Matthew Johnson filed papers opposing a new trial, arguing the conviction should hold. He cites case law related to sleeping and inattentive jurors: “Retrials are to be avoided unless necessitated by a more substantial dereliction of jurors’ duties.”

He also argues that because the bailiff and defense attorney were not in direct opposition at trial, it didn’t create a conflict.

But Higgins says it’s critical the system is and appears untainted. “The system’s only going to work – especially when you are putting away people for 25 years to life – when we have faith that the process was fair, transparent and free of any kind of taint of misconduct,” she says.

On Thursday, Feb. 24, a judge is set to decide whether to grant Sampognaro Jr. a new trial.

SARA RUBIN is the Weekly’s editor. Reach her at sara@mcweekly.com