death penalty convictions in August 1988 and January 1989. Despite upholding Bonin's convictions, the Supreme Court poured scorn upon Judge Keene for failing to fully heed a warning given by the prosecution prior to the Los Angeles County trial that Munro had discussed the possibility of agreeing to legal representation by Charvet prior to his testimony. Despite admonishing Charvet for a potential conflict of interest, Judge Keene had permitted him to act as Bonin's defense attorney at his first trial. In spite of this fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that Charvet had effectively cross-examined Munro at trial, and that Keene's actions, though ruled as "inexplicable", had not effectively harmed Bonin's legal defense. Further merit was given to Bonin's contention that his defense should have been allowed to stipulate to the testimony of the parents of his victims, rather than their being allowed to identify photographs of their sons in both life and death at his trials. Despite this ruling, this finding was also deemed not to have affected the overall verdict. A final submission to the United States Court of Appeals was submitted in October 1994, with Bonin contending such issues as his being denied the effective assistance of counsel at his trials, that he had been denied due process at his Los Angeles trial due to the judge's refusal to suppress the testimony of Munro and Miley, that Charvet failed to point out Bonin's brain damage and other mitigating circumstances, and that the judge at his Orange County trial had denied his counsel's motion for a change of venue upon the basis that pretrial publicity had effectively minimized any chance of obtaining an unbiased jury within the county. This final appeal was rejected on June 28, 1995, with the appellate judges stating they had found no evidence of legal misconduct, and that no evidence existed that the 13 jurors who served upon Bonin's Orange County trial who had admitted to minimal, indirect pretrial exposure to the Freeway Killer case had, as a result of this pretrial publicity, been incapable of judging Bonin with impartiality. As such, the appellate judges declared their satisfaction with the validity of Bonin's convictions, concluding that Bonin's verdict would not have changed with further mitigating circumstances revealed. The various experts who had examined Bonin would also find conflict with one another's assertions, with Dr. Park Dietz opining that fellow Dr. David Foster largely