Trial ordered for former officer in 3 armored car heists

An ex-police officer and his suspected accomplice were held over for trial Wednesday on charges they robbed armored cars carrying hundreds of thousands of dollars in a series of carefully plotted heists.

Judge Gayle Guynup ruled there was sufficient evidence at a preliminary hearing to try Robert "Steve" Starling, 35, a former Santa Rosa policeman, and Andrew Cooper Esslinger, 27, on charges including robbery, conspiracy and making false 911 calls as a diversion.

Before testimony Wednesday, Guynup heard arguments from The Press Democrat challenging her previous order prohibiting the newspaper from publishing photographs taken of Starling in court Jan. 25. She said the photos could prevent Starling from receiving a fair trial and that a previous order from another judge allowing the photos was invalid.

Prosecutor Marianna Green and both defense lawyers, Jeff Mitchell and Martin Woods, supported the ruling. Mitchell and Woods argued photos in the newspaper could be seen by potential jurors, and Green said they could corrupt witness identification of the defendants.

"In balancing the public's right to know and the defendant's right to a fair trial, the court upholds the restriction of the photos in the interest of justice," Guynup said. "The court does not believe First Amendment rights supercede a defendant's right to a fair trial."

A lawyer for The Press Democrat, Thomas Burke, argued that Guynup's prohibition against publishing the photos constituted prior restraint, a form of censorship restricting the free press. He said concerns about the trial's integrity could be handled by other means used by judges, such as careful jury selection or changing the trial venue.

Blocking a First Amendment right "is an extraordinary remedy," he told the judge.

Later, Burke said the ruling was "like using a cannon in the place of a flyswatter."

The decision came at the beginning of the second day of a two-day preliminary hearing for Starling and Esslinger. Guynup ruled they must stand trial on all charges except a witness intimidation allegation against Starling.

A trial date was not set, pending a Feb. 16 hearing.

Prosecutors argued that Starling was the mastermind and gunman behind three robberies in Sebastopol and Santa Rosa from 2007 to 2009 involving more than $700,000 that was being delivered.

Starling, who had been a Santa Rosa police officer for three years before taking a job as an armored car guard, used his knowledge of law enforcement and banking practices to pull off the heists, police testified.

Esslinger was the getaway driver or lookout, prosecutors said. He is charged in two of the robberies. Detectives testified he placed a false 911 call to police last year, reporting there was a man with a gun on the Rancho Cotate High campus in Rohnert Park. It was a diversion for a planned robbery that was never carried out, prosecutors said.

The pair attempted a fourth robbery in Novato, but the armored car was carrying no money, police said.

Esslinger was arrested this summer through cell phone records and implicated Starling. During the preliminary hearing, an armored car guard identified Starling as the man who pointed a gun at his head outside a Sebastopol bank and made off with $97,000.

Prosecutors played a tape recording of a phone conversation Starling had with his wife while he was in jail. Starling said police had evidence to "put me away for a long time" and talked about his gun, which he said was never loaded. He hoped for leniency based on his background and circumstances of the crime.

"No one ever got hurt," Starling said on the tape. "I was never going to put anyone at risk besides myself."

You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 568-5312 or paul.payne@pressdemocrat.com.

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.