This one takes the cake ...

Cindy Ramos, from her memorial page

She was a lively 58-year old woman with a large loving family and lots to live for.

Robert Plunkett-Morgan, age 39, and his “life partner” Jorge Morgan, age 24, thought otherwise.

Today Tracy, California is unfortunately better known as the city where Sandra Cantu was murdered in the spring of 2009. But there was another horrific murder at the end of last summer, on August 6, that of a vibrant mother of six who was proud of her Cherokee heritage, who wrote poetry and loved spending time with her kids and grandkids.

She knew one of the killers, Plunkett-Morgan, an acquaintance of one of her sons. Plunkett-Morgan actually phoned Cindy asking if he and Morgan could come to her home and leave her an early birthday present.

In thanks for Cindy’s hospitality, they strangled, stabbed 55 times and bludgeoned 13 times with a small safe, leaving her dead on the floor. According to information offered in the preliminary hearing by Detective Knight of the Tracy police department, in Morgan’s confession/statement, Plunkett-Morgan asked Cindy to take a seat and close her eyes—he was going to give her a necklace for her birthday. Instead, he put a rope around her neck and started pulling. She fought like a tiger. They’d also brought a knife—sounds pretty premeditated to me. That bloody knife was later found in the Morgan trailer, hidden under a makeshift toilet, along with some of Cindy’s belongings.

T & T readers, you know there is usually a twist in the cases we cover. This one quite possibly takes the cake.

Morgan and Morgan were no doubt the two most inept murderers/robbers ever. They were spotted by Cindy’s roommate leaving her pink mobile home after the crime with a small safe in hand, one known to contain Cindy’s jewelry. And, the pair, registered as domestic partners in San Joaquin County, also lived in the mobile home park. The pair was arrested later that day.

Jorge Morgan confessed to the crime. He said he and Plunkett-Morgan had been planning it for some time. Nice neighbors

Seriously, you’d think Plunkett-Morgan and Morgan would have been a bit sneakier about the whole thing. After all, the pair had met in prison, at Mule Creek. Each had been out of prison for less than a year; Plunkett-Morgan having been incarcerated for grand theft auto and Morgan for possession of stolen property. Both had served time for other serious felonies. Quite the pair.

They sealed their “marriage” by filing domestic partner paperwork in San Joaquin County in November 2008.

But that’s not the twist.

Here is the twist: for a short time after their arrest, they were housed together, in the same cell while cooling their jets at the Deuel Vocational Institution.

Do heterosexual married couples have the same privileges after they kill someone in broad daylight? Anyone?

If ever a case called for the death penalty, this one is it. There were three special circumstances attached to the crime—robbery, burglary, lying in wait and for two prior felony convictions—and being found of any of the three special circumstances would have kicked in death penalty eligibility. California’s “Three Strikes” law also applied to Plunkett-Morgan and Morgan. But what was one of the things that they asked for in court during preliminary hearings.

Sit down, please.

The pair wanted to be housed together (share a cell), and to have the right to sit next to each other on the bus to and from court, and to be able to sit together in the courtroom.

Because they could not sit next to each other in court, Plunkett-Morgan claimed they could not get a proper defense. San Joaquin County Deputy District Attorney Valli Israels and Cindy’s family properly argued that letting the two spend time together would encourage more plotting and planning. Recall there was an attack on a judge in her own courtroom in that very same courthouse in Stockton, California earlier that year, and the attacker was killed by a bailiff to protect the judge.

There is a law on the California books requiring inmates who are likely to be having sex to be housed apart. It is intended to prevent consensual sex as well as rape. At the time the couple plead not guilty on August 31, the younger Morgan was housed in solitary confinement (the pair had been moved from the San Joaquin County jail to DVI, where they were housed together for a short time), and the pair were made to sit a couple of chairs apart from each other whenever they made a court appearance.

Cindy’s family was outraged to learn that the couple had been housed together for a short time after their arrest. A court order had mandated the two not be allowed any contact; no shacking up, no sitting next to each other in the prison van on the way to court, no sharing a holding cell while at the courthouse. As former gang members, the two were to be kept separate on that basis as well.

The couple continued to fight their separation, and the defense asked for county council to intervene in September. Honestly, you’ve just murdered someone in cold blood, you are a “three strikes” felon and you are facing the death penalty, but the most pressing problem you have is wanting to be with and near your “life partner.”

The suspects also acted out in court. Inmates making appearances in court share hallways with the general public. During a November court appearance, Jorge Morgan, ever the badass, taunted Cindy’s son and wife while in the hallways, holding his shackled hands high and yelling, “This don’t mean shit. I’ll do life. I did it … and I’d do it again.”

During that same court appearance, he was made to wear a facemask as he was spitting, kicking, and hollering obscenities at people.

Finally in October 2009, Judge Bernard Garber ruled the pair could not sit next to each other in court or meet with their attorneys (together) for four hours at a time.

Plunkett-Morgan and Morgan claimed other inmates were hassling them. Plunkett-Morgan also claimed that he’d learned in a criminal justice class that he’d taken while in prison (yeah say it out loud, WTF???) that inmates who were gang drop-outs are allowed to mingle in jail, ride buses together and share cells at the courthouse. He was being housed in AdSeg custody. Plunkett-Morgan also took his “case” to the media, claiming he suffered from grand mal seizures and that there would be a delay in his treatment if he had a seizure while in the courtroom, and how Jorge would know how to take care of him while he was seizing.

I am serious. Read that here

Claiming to have a seizure disorder brings privileges to inmates. There is a disproportionate number of inmates with seizure disorders when compared with the general population, and this is due to the lifestyles they may lead: violence, drug abuse. Self-reporting a seizure disorder moves an inmate to the head of the line for medical care. I should know. My nursing career was ended by an inmate faking seizures … so I have no sympathy for this creep, none whatsoever. The punk who did me in did 90 extra days, I’ve done 20 years and three back surgeries. But I digress …

I encourage you to visit the website set up by Cindy’s family. There are links to stories and so much of what went on in this case is simply beyond belief.

Meanwhile, Cindy Ramos is still dead, while this “couple” fight for their right to be together, ‘cause they are married and all.

Somewhat mercifully, this whole ugly crime has come to a quick resolution. Not a satisfying resolution, but a quick one.

On January 25, the San Joaquin County DA announced the death penalty would be taken off the table if the Morgans were found guilty. And on February 2, Robert Plunkett-Morgan and Jorge Morgan pled guilty to the murder of Cindy Ramos and accepted the penalty of life in prison. At least Cindy’s kids got to face her murderers and tell them what they thought … a small victory.

But of course the biggest issue for this pair of fumble bums is they want to be together. That’s why I’ve chosen to post this story and links.

What I am about to write may piss some of you off.

I believe with all of my heart that these two were given a break because the San Joaquin County DA’s office did not want to risk seeking the death penalty on a pair of openly gay men who have filed a domestic partnership. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and trangendered lobby is small but vocal and well organized, and I believe that county simply didn’t want to deal with it. But there is still an issue at hand: heterosexual couples convicted of a crime are not housed together—what makes this different?

In the links below I have included letters written by Plunkett-Morgan to a local newspaper reporter. Have your emesis basis ready. Your tax dollars are at work giving this lowlife two hot meals a day, free housing, free medical care. I am sure he does not thank you.

Please take the time to write your local elected reps. Even if you are not in California, it’s simply a matter of time that this happens in your state. Criminals like the Morgans already have entirely too many rights, while victims and their families have none.

After all, it isn’t called the “criminal” justice system for no reason…

In Memory of Cindy Ramos

Letter urges probe of violations of court order

Tracy couple sentenced to life in woman's slaying

Victim apparently stabbed to death

letter from Plunkett-Morgan describing where the “love” began

another letter from Plunkett-Morgan

Manson Family Member Gets Parole

Bruce Davis today

Bruce Davis at the time of his arrest

While researching another story for T & T, I tripped over some Manson family news. The Department of Corrections news release says it all:

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Board of Parole Hearings today issued a grant of parole for convicted killer and former Charles Manson associate Bruce Davis during a parole consideration hearing at California Men’s Colony. Davis was sent to state prison on April 21, 1972 with a life sentence from Los Angeles County for two counts of first-degree murder. Today’s decision was the result of Davis' 26th parole suitability hearing.

Davis, 67, appeared before the panel today. The suitability finding is subject to a 120-day decision review period. If the grant is finalized at the conclusion of decision review, the Governor may conduct an independent review of the decision. Under California law, the Governor may reverse, modify, affirm or decline to review the Board’s decision.

Davis was convicted for the July 25, 1969 murder of Gary Hinman and the murder of Donald Shea sometime between August 16 and September 1, 1969.

He is currently incarcerated at California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo. Davis has remained disciplinary-free since 1980 and has participated in all available education, vocation and self-help programs.

Remember how Gary Hinman died: Multiple stab wounds to the head and chest. Perforation of heart. Massive thoracic hemorrhage.

Remember how Shorty Shea died: Hit on the head by a pipe by Steve (aka Clem) Grogan (Grogan has been out for years). Stabbed by Tex Watson. Tortured by Grogan and Watson; Davis admits he was present. Davis’ palm print was found on a footlocker belonging to Shea. Shorty was buried so well his body was not found until Clem gave up the location in exchange for his release from prison in the late 1970s.

Maybe someone higher up will intervene … Governor Schwarzenegger I’m looking at you.

Parole Granted for Former Manson Family Member Bruce Davis

Gary Hinman autopsy (gruesome, read with care)

Casey Anthony: Strickland sets new trial date

It's going to be a long time before there is any resolution to the Casey Anthony murder trial. Fox35 has reported that Judge Stan Strickland has set a trial date of May 2, 2011.

In addition, they are reporting that the prosecution has filed a motion to meet with the judge in camera. According to Fox35,

Prosecutors say they have new material and information from investigators regarding the case that they don't want to go be disclosed to the public.

WESH has an article out which states that:

In the motion, the assistant state attorney said the team wants more time to go over new materials and information that has come into the hands of law enforcement. Prosecutors said they want to meet with the judge and ask to delay turning that information over to the defense.

Attorney Richard Hornsby said the state needs to determine how the materials affect the murder case against Anthony. If the information is coming from a new witness, he said the state needs more time to prevent the defense from discrediting or scaring away that person from testifying.

Read the MOTION FOR INCAMERA EX PARTE HEARING.

So, we will have to all be patient and watch the motions fly for over a year. Let's hope that the defense can get its act together by then.

Let's also hope that the information that the prosecution wants to keep away from the public is true "Bombshell" material at trial time.

I do have to wonder what Casey Anthony thinks about this timeline. I'm certain of one thing, she's not a happy camper in the Orange County Jail!

For The Christian-Newsom Families The Suffering Continues

~Deena Christian, second from right, weeps in court

Although the brutal torture and murders occurred 3 years ago there has been no closure for the families of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. The families have not been idle in seeking justice not only for their children, but they are attempting to have laws changed to benefit all victims. Gary and Deena Christian and Hugh and Mary Newsom still face numerous court rulings and another trial.

Tomorrow is a status hearing for Vanessa "Nessa" Coleman, the only female charged in the murder case. Coleman's attorneys want the charges dropped because they claim for Coleman's agreeing to testify against Eric Boyd, federal agents offered or indicated she could receive immunity.

If the charges stand against Coleman her trial is slated to begin May 10.

Letalvis "Rome" Cobbins was convicted last August and sentenced to life without parole on murder and rape charges. He will appear before Judge Richard Baumgartner on February 4 for sentencing on all the lesser charges.

George "G" Thomas was convicted in December and also sentenced to life without parole. He will be back in court for sentencing on the lesser charges on February 26.

Unbelievably, the Tennessee Department of Corrections sent Thomas to the Northwest Correctional Complex in Tiptonville. Yup, they did it again - Tiptonville is a medium- security facility! The same thing they did with Cobbins. Both are now residing in a maximum security facility, but only after protests by the families.

Remember, during the Thomas trial the defense filed a 24 page motion for acquittal. Judge Baumgartner reserved ruling and instructed the State to file a response

In mid-January, Thomas' attorneys acknowledge that their request is not yet complete, but they needed to file the motion for a new trial within 30 days of the order of sentence.

Thomas' attorneys argue there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict Thomas and that the admission of Thomas' statements to police was unconstitutional.

For those who followed the Lemarcus Davidson trial, you may recall the outrage of the families, as well as the public, when defense attorneys Doug Trant and David Eldridge basically besmirched the reputations of Channon and Chris by saying that is was possible that they may well have known Davidson and willing went to him to purchase drugs.

No, there is absolutely no proof of that! What was suggested by the defense was said to try to create doubt for the jury. However, the lines of honor, and respectability where crossed when these words were uttered in court. Is it acceptable for defense to lie about the victims? I think not!

Tennessee State Senators Tim Burchett, Randy McNally and Representative Ryan Haynes are working with the families on two pieces of legislation. The first would automatically make maximum-security prison the immediate destination for anyone convicted of murder in Tennesse. Logically, this should be in place in all states!

The second piece of legislation could have a dramatic effect on defense attorneys. The law would basically hold defense lawyers criminally liable for any unproven claims made during a trial. Again, this should be in place in all states!

Senator Tim Burchett said, "Those young people suffered enough indignity, and their families have, too. At some point somebody has got to do something for the victims."

Gary and Denna Christian discuss victim's reputations.

Thank you David from Tennessee for sharing some of the information!

WBIR
KnoxNews

Casey Anthony Pleads Guilty To Check Fraud

When Casey Anthony was escorted to the courtroom during the hearing on January 25, noticeably absent was the jingle-jangle sound of her shackles which usually accompany such appearances. Anthony, dressed in a freshly pressed, light blue shirt and gray pants, walked in with a smile for her attorneys.

According to Jose Baez, in an interview with Jane Velez-Mitchell on HLN later in the evening, Casey was going to get her wish. Baez told Velez-Mitchell that

Well, she always wanted to plead to this case. It was always a concern of hers. She was always very sorry for what she did to Amy.

I have to wonder if that is truly the case here. The fact is, Casey waited for well over a year to reach that point. In the meantime, her defense had filed a number of motions in the fraud trial. There was a motion for change of venue, to submit prospective jurors to an extensive questionnaire, and individually sequestered voir dire. There were other motions for other various and sundry exclusions from the trial, including barring the admission of evidence relevant to the murder trial and evidence of Casey's prior bad acts. Now, those motions go into the "major waste of paper" section of my stack of motions for the case, never to see light of day again.

The hearing began with Casey's plea to the Court. Casey, accompanied by her attorneys, Jose Baez and Andrea Lyon, came to the podium. Baez spoke first, stating that his client would be entering a plea to the Court in the check fraud case. Judge Strickland then looked over the plea form. Casey was sworn in and asked the usual questions prior to entering her plea.

At this point, I noticed that her yes/no responses were very short and clipped, almost choked off at the end. This morning, I found one of my favorite sources for body language, Lillian Glass. Her article on the hearing is very interesting and, in many ways, reaffirmed my own reaction to the proceedings. Her article is a must-read!

After questioning Casey, Assistant State's Attorney Frank George briefly presented the basic facts of the case, including each check, its number and amount, and place where it was cashed.

Jose Baez stipulated to the facts as cited by Mr. George.

The judge then told Casey that she seemed alert and intelligent and that he would accept her plea.

Judge Strickland then asked Jose Baez to speak to what sentencing he would expect. Instead of simply stating that he wished to have all charges not be adjudicated and his client sentenced to one year's probation, he went into quite a diatribe against the State.

He went on, in his faltering manner, to state that he felt that Casey had been discriminated against because she was "unpopular". He even listed "unpopular" as a type of discrimination way up there with race and gender. He also said that the State could not find, even if they did extensive searches through the entire public records, where a first-time offender, such as Casey, would only be offered an unacceptable five year sentence. He also carped on the fact that his client had been over-charged and that the five years offered by the State was not "fair". He likened the situation to being in "a muck of justice".

Personally, I think his comments were all "in a muck" and very painful to listen to. He ended asking the judge to see that Casey receive "equal justice under the law as is written above you"and to not adjudicate any of the charges and impose parole of "about" a year. As a closing, Baez reminded Strickland that Casey had no prior record and had made full restitution. Lastly, he objected to the costs that the State was asking for. Baez stated that the $5,517.75 cost of investigation was excessive considering that the theft was only $600.54. He mentioned again the "armada" of police cars sent to arrest Casey.

Judge Strickland indicated that he had to impose the costs and that they could be argued over later.

If you remember, at the December 11 hearing, Judge Strickland had given Baez & Company an ultimatum: January 25 was THE date for either a jury trial, a bench trial, or a plea. The judge had also indicated clearly to Baez what his decision would probably be for any first-time offender in Casey's situation. While the judge was not in a position to broker a deal with Casey, he made it very clear (wink-wink) that she would probably get time served and that while she would be found guilty of all 13 counts, her punishment would not reflect 13 felonies. In a sense, Baez was "speaking to the choir" here with his back against the wall in terms of ending the case.

I can only assume that this speech by Baez was mainly to attack the State's Attorneys and do some gratuitous grandstanding. I have to wonder if this was a wise decision, considering the much more serious trial to come.

Mr. George briefly responded and indicated that he didn't know how long Mr. Baez had practiced law in Orange and Osceola Counties, but that the charging situation was not uncommon. In fact, Judge Strickland had made the exact same comment at the December 11 hearing. George stated that he did not want to get into a competition of words and simply indicated that Casey had plead guilty to all 13 counts and that punishment would be the Court's decision. He also stated that that she had already been incarcerated for over a year-and-a-half and that the actual cost of the restitution that had been paid was $654.25. George continued by stating that the State would object to adjudication and parole and would prefer adjudication and a straight jail sentence.

George then brought up a prickly situation that exists. It would not be possible for her to be put on probation as she is incarcerated and already under 24 hour supervision. Casey would still be incarcerated for the foreseeable future and possibly for the rest of her life.

Upon saying that, the camera went to the podium and Casey's face tensed and she gave a big gulp. I am sure she wasn't comfortable hearing this from Mr. George.

Baez responded briefly, telling Judge Strickland that the State was "putting the cart before the horse" in assuming that Casey would spend the rest of her life in jail. He said that they were working hard to acquit Casey and it was "bold" of the State to make such assumptions.

It was then Judge Strickland's time to render justice. He ended up adjudicating Casey on 6 charges, one each for the writing of the four checks, one for one of four counts of using Amy Huizenga's identity, and one for grand theft, as the total was over $300. Each charge was given time served, 412 days (as the judge had hinted at the prior hearing). He did not adjudicate on the remaining 7 charges and sentenced Casey to one year of probation. She is not to have any contact with Huizenga. Strickland stated that “I withheld in seven. I adjudicated in six. If that seems Solomon-like, it is. I just couldn’t think of a better, more appropriate way to do it.”

Almost as an afterthought, it was mentioned that Amy Huizenga was not present in court and did not wish to make a statement. Then, it was Casey's turn to make a brief apology to her friend.

“I just wanted to let everyone know that I’m sorry for what I did. I take complete and full responsibility for my actions. And I’d like to sincerely apologize to Amy. I wish I would have been a better friend.”

In her blog this morning, Lillian Glass had this to say about that little speech:

As Casey was reciting her lines of bullshit, Jose Baez’s eyes did not leave Casey’s face. He looked like a proud papa at a grade school play, making sure that his kid didn’t flub her lines. Casey may have memorized her lines and not flubbed them verbally, but she sure flubbed them vocally and body language wise.

The probation situation is problematic. In order to be adjudicated, probation must be served and then the charges essentially "go away" for the most part. Since Casey is in jail already, probation, or public supervision is not possible at this point. It was suggested by Mr. George that she serve the probation in jail. Strickland pointed out that that particular remedy was difficult since he can only sentence a person to jail for up to one year. In the end, the probation issue and the financial issue were left for another time. Jose Baez cracked a not-so-funny joke: "We could solve this with a reasonable bond..." As Baez smirked at his own wit, nobody laughed.

When all was said and done, Casey Anthony ended up as a convicted felon. What this will mean for the future remains to be seen. Experts disagree and Baez didn't seem to mind about that. In an interview with reporters as he was leaving court, Baez stated that "adjudication didn't mean a "whole lot".

Once the plea was dealt with, the hearing returned to motions in the murder case.

The first motion discussed was the defense MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY OF JILL KERLEY. Kerley is the ex-wife of Roy Kronk who was interviewed by a defense PI and essentially said she thought Roy could have done it. She is ill with non-Hodgekins lymphoma and is unable to travel to Orlando due to her illness. Andrea Lyon indicated that they are working towards resolving the issues. She indicated that Linda Drane Burdick wants the opportunity to do an evidence deposition first. This was agreed to by both parties and interviews will take place based on Ms. Kerley's chemotherapy schedule. Ms. Burdick did not waive the right of the State to call the witness to the stand during the actual trial, health allowing.

Judge Strickland approved the motion.

The only concern Ms. Drane Burdick had was with the costs of traveling to the "mini-trial proceeding." While she was willing for the State to pay for the expenses to travel to Tennessee for the discovery process. Some time later in the hearing, Andrea Lyon made a brief comment that perhaps Casey could be declared indigent for these particular purposes. For now, financial discussions are premature and will be discussed when and if it is necessary.

In his interview after the hearing, Baez also commented on the "Kronk" situation. He stated that they are "not pointing the finger at Mr. Kronk" and they are not "making any disparaging remarks about Mr. Kronk". Baez claimed that he is only looking for material with which to impeach Kronk. He also called the police investigation into Kronk, "shoddy work". Any other information concerning Kronk would come out at trial.

This whole Kronk issue should be going on for quite a while. The Court hasn't even discussed the main motion, DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO INTRODUCE PRIOR BAD ACTS AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO ROY M. KRONK. I have a feeling it will be another circus-within-a-circus.

The next motion that was discussed brought up some very lively discussion. Linda Drane Burdick stated that the purpose for the STATE OF FLORIDA'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY and MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SCHEDULE was to move the case along.

Judge Strickland started the discussion of the motion by indicating that he expected both sides to submit discovery schedules and that he would either make one of his own or choose one of the two submitted.

Drane Burdick indicated that no trial date could be set until the defence took depositions of witnesses. She said that the defense had filed a motion entitled OBJECTION which blamed the lack of progress on the State. She indicated understanding of the scientific information status, but stated that there were other, non-scientific aspects of the case on which they could move forward. She said that the defense has any number of LE and civilian witnesses they could depose. In addition, the defense has received 90% of the discovery in the case has already been turned over to the defense. While she was not casting blame on the defense, she felt that the court now needed to get involved in the discovery process. Finally, she said that, based on the current pace, that the trial would probably not be able to be scheduled for the summer. She was also concerned that, as the trial date approached, that the defense would "dump" 50 or 60 witnesses on them, forcing the trial even further back in time. Drane Burdick mentioned that the State would not like to see the trial take place 3, 4, or even 5 years after the incident.

Strickland mentioned that the main items asked for included names and addresses of witnesses. Drane-Burdick said that the defense had begun to supply them to her recently and that that particular issue was moot at this point.

Jose Baez spoke to the motion next. He began by saying that there was no disagreement among the parties. He said they wanted to see the case move along as well. However, he said that they were "not going to have the rug taken from under us" and that they were "gonna be thorough...". He then said that, "We call this motion the pot calling the kettle black".

Before Baez could continue with more of this sort of legal argument, Judge Strickland interrupted him to say, "let's not go there".

Baez then said, "How many times have we filed motions to compel...".

Strickland responded, "You're doing it again, anyway".

Strickland pointed out that he was aware that due to the "tough" nature of the case, people got hot under the collar. He essentially told Baez that this was not the time for finger-pointing; it was time to make progress in the case. Next, the judge indicated that it was time for each party to present a discovery schedule. He then pressed both sides as to whether or not they wanted to set a trial date, even though it is difficult to do in this case.

Baez then went on to state that they had still not received all the empirical scientific data they had asked for.

This situation has been going on since December 11, 2008, the day Caylee's remains were discovered. The next day, the defense wanted all the photographs, maps, etc. This was followed up numerous times throughout 2009. Not the least of the information the defense wants is just about every piece of information about testing, the lab, the technicians, the scientists that exists. It goes far beyond the information that is normally given out. We heard about the fact that the judge has no jurisdiction over these entities and neither does the State's Attorneys' Office.

Baez said that the Oak Ridge Lab would give them everything that they requested above and beyond what had been supplied to the State.

When Baez said that it wasn't about pointing fingers, the judge interrupted him again to say that that was where he was heading. Judge Strickland then brought the discussion back to setting a trial date. The judge asked Baez if he would like to discuss this with Ms. Lyon (the lead attorney on the case). Strickland quickly pointed out that they would establish deadlines for discovery. As he was saying this, Ms. Lyon approached the podium and Baez went on talking for a bit telling the judge that they would be meeting with the defense that afternoon to discuss these issues. Then, the judge again recommended he consult with Lyon, and he did, briefly.

Jeff Ashton got up to speak to the issue. He said that the State had all the information that the Oak Ridge lab was willing to provide and that all that information had been turned over to the defense. If the defense wanted anything else from the lab, it was an issue the defense would have to deal with directly with the lab.

The judge told the defense that they would have to file something and then have the lab's counsel come in to deal with the situation. Essentially, the State is "incidental" to the issue, according to Strickland.

The judge went back to the point at hand. He now asked if he should set a trial date and work backwards from there, or would they prefer not to have a trial date and set the discovery schedule.

Ashton said that the defense and prosecution would meet together to make a discovery schedule. Strickland set a deadline of 10-15 days for this. Once he had set the schedule, a trial date could then be selected.

Ashton went on to ask if the only problem was with the Oak Ridge lab. Baez stated that there was also a problem with the FBI. Ashton then said that he believed there were some "latent print-related items that are not in the discovery" that he has been able to find.

Needless to say, that line has brought up a great deal of discussion on the Internet!

He then said that, other than that, the defense had everything the FBI lab was willing to provide.

Baez then went on to complain about how the State was providing them with discovery. He said that there is a strong percentage of the forensic evidence they do not have.

Strickland made it clear, one last time, that the defense has everything the labs will provide and that the situation now demands that attorneys for Oak Ridge and the FBI lab now be involved in the process.

Ashton did request that Linda Kenney-Baden, who is the "science" attorney in the case, get directly in touch with him rather than go through the chain of Baden-Baez-Drane Burdick-Ashton to improve communication on the issues.

With this, the hearing came to a close.

If you would like to watch the entire hearing, here are the links:

Part 1
Part 2

According to WESH, later Monday, Strickland denied the defense's motion to stop jail visits from being videotaped. The motion had been filed January 19.

Earlier this week, Tim Miller's attorney, Mark NeJame asked for a continuation and the TES motion was not heard as expected.

I am so pleased with Judge Strickland. Today, he managed to keep the defense from running on and on and on and kept the hearing on track.

What's next to look forward to? Well, we are fast approaching the February 1 deadline set for the defense to provide the witness list which will prove that Caylee's body was placed in its final location while Casey Anthony was in jail!

Stay tuned to T&T!

You Be the L.A. County District Attorney and Judge …

Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate

When T & T last examined the curious case of Roman Polanski, our fugitive from justice was busy gathering up $4.5 million bail so he could hang out at his Swiss chalet in Gstaad as opposed to hanging out in a Swiss jail. The money was collected and turned over to the Swiss authorities, the monitoring systems put into place on Polanski’s property, and he enjoyed the Christmas holiday in the comforts of his vacation home in the arms of his wife Emmanuelle Seigner and the couple’s two children, Morgane and Elvis.

Thus far the diminutive director has honored the terms of his bail and hasn’t yet escaped back into France in the trunk of a car or a suitcase.

The case against him, however, trudges its way through the Los Angeles County Superior Court system.

A state appeals panel suggested that Polanski should be sentenced in absentia, but Superior Court Judge Peter Espinosa is not bound by that recommendation. Nor does he accept it: in the Los Angeles Times, Espinosa is quoted “I have made it clear he needs to surrender.”

Meanwhile, Polanski’s attorneys are still working the judicial misconduct case. Polanski alleges that a now-deceased judge, Laurence Rittenband, was going to back out of what Polanski and his attorneys felt was a “ sentencing deal”: Polanski was handed over for a 90-day psychological evaluation at Chino and was to return to court for official sentencing. The evaluation at Chino, which took only 42 days, recommended Polanski be sentenced to probation for the one charge he’d plead guilty to, that of unlawful intercourse with a minor, in order to allow his victim to maintain some semblance of privacy. Evaluators did not believe Polanski was a pedophile nor was he likely to reoffend. However, Polanski’s lawyers believed that the judge was going to slap their client with extra jail time and ultimately deportation. Rather than take his chances, Polanski left the United States before sentencing, thus leaving the sentencing part of the case open and adding a new crime: unlawful flight from justice.

There is legal precedent for the LA County Courts’ position. The fugitive disentitlement doctrine is a 19^th century legal principle barring a fugitive from calling on the help of the court while giving a middle finger to said court’s authority. The 2^nd District Court of Appeal did uphold Judge Espinosa’s application of the principle back in December, but also urged that sentencing in absentia or other resolution that would address the misconduct claims was acceptable.

Polanski’s victim still wants the whole thing dropped and claims the DA’s office didn’t inform her that they were looking to arrest Polanski at all. The DA’s office has evidence to the contrary, that they did inform Samantha, so Judge Espinosa also rejected her attorneys’ request that prosecutors drop the extradition proceedings against Polanski. Recall that Samantha’s full name was not publicly known until she initiated a lawsuit against Polanski in the late 1980s when she was an adult.

Polanski has not stayed out of the media spotlight during his house arrest. In December, a photo of Polanski peering outside of his chalet was published; an image the paper felt was an accurate depiction of Polanski’s life under house arrest. Polanski feels those photos are an invasion of his privacy, and he and his wife have initiated lawsuits against a total of four French publications. At odds are photos taken of the couple’s children in a French airport, though when published the children’s faces were blurred out, a common practice in France.

The paper that published the “Polanski at window” photo, Le Journal du Dimanche, has argued that the photo was a legitimate news photograph. “Can you seriously claim in this context that if you stand at the window you won't get your picture taken?" argued attorney Christophe Bigot. The newspaper is asking the court to impel Polanski to pay its legal fees.

The magazine that published the photos of the children argued those photos were taken in a public place, and reminded the court of the blurring out of the kids’ faces.

Polanski claims to have an intense fear of the media, dating back to Sharon Tate’s murder. The rumors shortly after the murders included allegations of the victims’ bizarre drug-fueled lifestyles and that somehow their own actions prompted the butchering.

And finally, Swiss authorities haven’t yet decided if they will turn Polanski over to the United States at all.

Today, you get to be the D.A. and the judge. What do you think is at the heart of this issue? Do you think there was judicial misconduct back with Judge Rittenband? Do you think Rittenband was within his rights as a judge to sentence Polanski to more time and the eventual deportation? What do you think Rittenband was going to do?

Is the rape case a moot issue? Should it be? Is the issue the unlawful flight from justice? Should Polanski be extradited and accept the will of the court? What is the worst you think should happen to him?

If I’m asking for your opinion, I’ll give you mine. I think Rittenband was going to send Polanski back to Chino to do a full 90 days. I think he was then going to deport Polanski. Remember, what Rittenband did was not the “official” sentence: it was an evaluation to see how sentencing should proceed. He expected this to take 90 days. I bet he believed that Polanski would be brought to court fresh off the Department of Corrections bus, and did not at all think Polanski would charm his way out of his evaluation so quickly. I wonder how many Department of Corrections employees were eventually cast in a Polanski film; it's rumored he made such promises to Chino employees.

How do I feel the case should be resolved? Polanski needs to be extradited and do that additional time. But let’s give the guy a break, a day for a day. He’s got 48 days left; for every day he behaves, take a day off, just like most California inmates get. So he gets 24 days in jail to close the rape case.

He also faces flight from justice charges (felony offense), and because he left the United States, one could argue both state of California and federal charges could be filed. The maximum time for the federal offense is five years in prison and a fine; the state offense is a bit lighter—a $5K fine and up to a year in county jail or state prison. I’ve not read anything about federal charges in the works. Give him the maximum state charges—one year, a day for a day, served concurrently with the “resolve the rape” time.

So, six months in custody and pay a fine. Drop the deportation stuff; chances are he will do that anyway.

How would you proceed?

Polanski loses bid to be sentenced in absentia

Director Roman Polanski sues French publications for invasion of privacy

Lily Burk Murder: Preliminary Hearing Starts Today

Lily Burke, 17

As this entry posts I'm at the downtown Los Angeles Criminal Justice Center, Department 102, Judge Wesley's courtroom covering the preliminary hearing in the case against Charlie Samuel. The hearing is expected to continue next Monday.

Seventeen year-old Lily Burk's life tragically ended on Friday, July 24th, 2009 when she crossed paths with Charlie Samuel, a 50 year old transient with a violent criminal past who was recently released from prison after serving time for petty theft. That afternoon, Lily was at the Wilshire Boulevard Southwestern University School of Law on an errand for her mother, Professor Deborah Drooz, who worked there.

Described as a funny, warm and empathetic girl, she was an aspiring writer like her journalist father Gregory Burk. A merit scholar, Lily regularly carried two heavily laden book bags to school and was set to star that week in a school production of The Boston Marriage a play by David Mamet. She was also looking forward to her senior year at Oakwood School in North Hollywood.

Lily left her Los Felitz home around 2:30 pm. About an hour after picking up exam papers for her mother, Lily made cell phone calls to both her parents asking how to get cash out of an ATM using her credit card. ATM video recovered showed Samuel by Burk's side as she repeatedly tried to withdrawal cash. Her parents told police she "seemed rushed but not frightened." Lily's explanation to her parents was she needed the money to buy shoes. Her parents told her to come home. Sadly, the credit card was not set up to make cash withdrawals.

When Lily didn't return home by 5:00pm, her parents contacted police, who initially appeared to treat the case as missing person/runaway case. 6:00 am the following morning, her badly beaten body was found inside her black Volvo near 5th and Alameda Streets near downtown Los Angeles. Her neck had been slashed.

Not long after Lily was reported missing by her parents, Charlie Samuel was arrested and detained on an unrelated charge of suspicion of drug possession and drug paraphernalia. He had been given permission earlier that day to leave drug treatment facility located near the law school. While in police custody, a cell phone belonging to Burk and the key to her car were found on Samuel as well as blood stains on his clothing. After Samuel's fingerprints were found in Lily's car, he was charged with murder, kidnapping and other charges.

Sadly, from what I've been able to gather from news reports, it appears that back in 2006, Samuel broke into a Van Nuys home. When he was confronted by the owner Samuel attacked him, grabbed a phone, keys and fled. Unfortunately, several clerical errors in the accurate reporting Samuel's complete rap sheet meant Los Angeles County prosecutors were not informed of all of his prior convictions. At that time, Samuel would have fallen under the three strikes law, meaning he could have received 25 years-to-life for his third strike.

DDA Alan Jackson, assistant head of LA County's Major Crimes Division who successfully convicted Phil Spector of second degree murder last year, will be prosecuting the case. I don't know at this time if there will be a second chair. Although I'm still recovering from a deep cough and lingering sinus infection, (I will have to step out of the courtroom if I start coughing) I hope to cover this case once it reaches a trial date.

There are several other cases I have my eye on that I would like to cover and it will just depend on how quickly I can recover as well as other personal commitments.



Lily encountered suspect near law school

Suspect had history of violent crimes

Lily Burk's Neck Slashed

Friends and Family mourn Lily Burk

Clerical errors and luck keep suspect on the streets

RIP Lily Burk Facebook Page

Lily's Law Flaw

James Elroy: Remembering Lily Burk