LOS ANGELES (CNS) — A judge said Tuesday he would take under submission a proposal to release a sexually violent serial predator to the Antelope Valley, despite the opposition of Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón and county Supervisor Kathryn Barger, among others.

Superior Court Judge Robert Harrison — who said he had received more than 600 pages of comments — noted at the start of Tuesday’s hearing that the issue was not about whether Christopher Hubbart should be released but where he should be placed, noting that a judge in Santa Clara County had already ordered the 74-year-old man’s release.

Hubbart was convicted in 1973, 1982 and 1990 in L.A. County and northern California for a series of at least 40 rapes and other sex crimes — reportedly getting the “Pillowcase Rapist” nickname because he used pillowcases to muffle his victims’ screams.

He was subsequently detained as a sexually violent predator and committed to the Department of State Hospitals in 2000. Hubbart was initially released from Coalinga State Hospital in July 2014 and assigned to live at a Palmdale-area home — despite an outcry from residents and elected officials in that area.

In 2017, a judge in Santa Clara County revoked Hubbart’s conditional release, ruling that there was “sufficient evidence” to justify ordering him to be re-committed to a state hospital or other approved facility for violating the terms of his release.

Harrison said thousands of rental property listings have been reviewed, and that only one acceptable property has been found. He noted that placement of Hubbart would be a “years-long process” if it had to be started over again.

The judge said Tuesday that he is “mindful” of the anxiety the planned release has caused residents in the area, and doesn’t take anything lightly.”

He noted that Hubbart “will not be on his own,” will be required to wear a GPS bracelet, will be involved in a “highly structured program” and will be subject to spot inspections. His release will be revoked if he does not comply, the judge said.

Capt. Richard Cartmill of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, who was in the Hollywood courtroom for the hearing, said it was the department’s opinion that the location was “less than suitable” for Hubbart’s release.

He said the primary concern is delayed response time due to the location being more than 20 miles away from the sheriff’s station. He noted that the response time was “further complicated by the dirt roads that lead to the residence,” and that there were “undeniable logistical issues.”

In a letter read by a prosecutor on her behalf, Barger wrote that she wanted to “formally voice my opposition to Christopher Hubbart being permanently placed and housed in the unincorporated community of Juniper Hills.”

“Residents of the Antelope Valley have gone through this process three times. Mr. Hubbart was placed in the region in 2014, only to be removed for violating his conditions of release. After his removal, two other sexually violent predators were placed in the Antelope Valley and still live here,” the county supervisor wrote in her letter to the judge. “No other sexually violent predators are on conditional release anywhere else in Los Angeles County. This is glaringly unfair and unjust.”

Barger wrote that the proposed site is “proximal to 25 homes within a square mile — homes that house single women and women with children,” and wrote that they have “voiced their mental anguish at the mere nomination of the placement site.”

She added that the proposed location “also suffers from inconsistent internet and cell phone coverage, as well as long emergency response times by law enforcement.”

Gascón has also objected to the proposal.

In a statement read Tuesday in court on his behalf, Gascón said the proposed release site is an “inappropriate placement location for Mr. Hubbart.”

The district attorney said in a separate statement released this month: “Continuing to release sexually violent predators into under-served communities like the Antelope Valley is both irresponsible and unjust. Repeatedly placing these individuals in the same community shows a blatant disregard for the safety and well-being of our residents … We must demand more from our judicial system, ensuring decisions serve the best interests of our communities while exploring alternative locations for these placements.”

Copyright 2024, City News Service, Inc.