Sunday, October 20, 2013

Bryan Barnes & Javier Bolden Prelim Day 3, Part III, USC Chinese Grad Student Murders, Ying Wu & Ming Qu

Continued from Day 3, Part II....

October 2nd, 2013
1:30 PM
I'm inside Dept. 102.  All of the attorneys are here setting up their files.  Akemon and Goldman are having a conversation.  There has been a good, friendly rapport between all counsel. In the last several years I've covered cases, I've not seen the animosity between counsel like I observed between former DDA Alan Jackson and defense attorney Doron Weinberg, back during the second Spector trial.  It was so apparent, even Judge Fidler commented on it, on the record. 

What I have observed, is defense counsel that is provided to defendants by the court system (Public Defenders, Alternate Public Defenders and court appointed counsel), work with the DA's office on a regular basis.  Often times, defense counsel and DDA's are friends outside of the work environment. It makes every one's job much easier if they cooperate and get along with each other in court.

(Note: When prior transcripts are read back verbatim, I can't guarantee I'm getting the wording exactly as said. Sprocket.)

1:34 PM
6. TIMOTHY HALL. (continued)
Timothy Hall retakes the stand.  Javier Bolden is brought out first and handcuffed to his chair, then Bryan Barnes is brought out and placed in his chair.  Like I've mentioned before, the chairs defendants sit in don't have wheels, making them harder to move.  Mrs. Barnes is sitting in the courtroom on the far left side.

(Unfortunately, my notes are not clear if Barnes' defense counsel, Gustavo Sztraicher continues with the questioning, or if it's possibly Marie D'Onofrio. Before lunch, my notes indicate that Mr. Sztraicher's cross was finished.  A bit later on, I do have it clearly marked that Jana Seng, Javier Bolden's counsel crosses the witness.  So the next set of questions are marked with a Q, instead of counsel's initials. Sprocket.)

Q: This morning, counsel has asked you several times about ... had you ever been shown this transcript prior to today?
TH: I was given a copy but I never looked at them.
Q: You never read them?
TH: No.
Q: This is the first time that you've actually becoming familiar with them?
TH: Yeah.
Q: Directing you to the audio. Had you ever heard that audio tape prior to today?
TH: No.

People's exhibit #32, the group photo.

Q: Mr. Hall, directing you to an interview that Detective Mansillas has on February 21st of 2012. She showed you two group photographs, is that correct?
TH: Yes.
Q: Did those two group photos look like they were taken at approximately the same time?
TH: No.
Q: You recall the photo you were shown?
TH: Yeah.
Q: When you looked at it back in (Feb?), did you have a chance to (?) it back in February?
TH: No.
Q: But you examined it ... and the only person you identified was Javier Bolden?
TH: Yeah.

Now the second photo.

Q: Now sir, directing your attention to the December 5th transcript, page 4 lines 21 through the end of the page. Page 6 line 1 and 2.  Sir, you've been asked about these transcripts multiple times, would it refresh your memory if I read you a piece of this transcript and ask you what you're referring to? ... I'm going to read about eight lines, and ask you what you're referring to, okay?

The witness nods his head.  Counsel says it's to put it in context.  Talking about going to parties, to put in context.
And I said, okay, I'll go, but I'm not really the type to explore random neighborhoods.
Because I've had my time out here in these streets, I know, you know what could happen.  Like I told the ambulance, this isn't my first time being shot.
Interviewer. Okay.
I've been shot before. It's like I know what happens out there and the dude whatever he was knew me from high school, (banging?) days.
Q: When you were talking about the dude, whoever he was, were you talking about the dude the first time you were shot?
TH: No.
Q: You went to a Dorsey, Hamilton and a third high school, what (was that?)?
TH: South Bay Lutheran.
Q: Did you go to the regular part of Hamilton ... ?
TH: No. I was in the magnet program.

Q: (Drawing your?) attention to the February 22nd transcript, pages 2 lines 11 through 16.  Sir, would it jog your memory if I possibly read a portion of this transcript to ask what you were referring to?
Interviewer: I only brought out one picture today.
Interviewer: I only brought one picture today, that's because you said you knew this guy.
High school ... high school and all that other stuff.
Q: Were you referring to Javier Bolden at that time?
TH: Yeah.
Q: And subsequently, earlier this morning ... you were shown a photograph marked People's #33. (The single person photo.) ... You remember being shown that photo?
TH: No.
Q: Remember being shown this morning?
TH: Yes.
Q: Remember the audio tape?
TH: Yeah.

Q: You never said during that interview (correct?) that this was the shooter? ... And you never remembered telling the detective this was the shooter?
TH: Yeah.

This examination ends and Ms. Seng steps up to cross for Javier Bolden.

JS: Mr. Hall, the party that you were at on December 3rd, 2011, was there a strict dress code?
TH: No, there was not. ... No.
JS: Did you tell the detective during the interview at the hospital that there was a strict dress code?
TH: No.
JS: You did not tell Detective Mansillas that the particular party you attended, there was a strict dress code?
TH: No.

JS: But you did tell her, tell Detective Mansillas, there was some sort of argument inside the club, isn't that correct?
TH: Yes.
JS: And that was between a (partying?) with another individual?  ... And that person was Bobby?
TH: Bobby? I don't know the dude.

JS: Did you tell them that the person who had an argument with Bam (was Bobby?)?
TH: No.

The witness doesn't remember that.

JS: You didn't tell him that the person who had the argument was Javier?
TH: No.
JS: After inside the party, you walked out of the party. Was that with your cousin Bam?
TH: Yes.
JS: When you walked out, was he by your side?
TH: No. He was in front of me.
JS: SO he was in front and you followed behind?
JS: And at some point you heard him say to you was, "Run?"
TH: Yes.

He was headed in the direction of 89th Street.

JS: So when Bam told you to run, that's what you did, correct?
TH: Yes.
JS: Do you recall seeing an SUV right in front of the party?
TH: I don't remember, no.
JS: Do you recall running around an SUV vehicle at the (start?) of the shooting?
TH: I remember running in the street but I wasn't paying attention to the car.
JS: Do you recall where you had earlier indicated how you played possum? ... You played dead even though you hadn't been hit?
TH: Yeah.
JS: By any gunshot?
TH: No. ... No, I just laid in the street, close to the curb.

Pat Kelly and Mary Hearn from the court's Public Information Office enter Dept. 102.

JS: During the time that you were outside of the party, did you see a red Camaro parked on Western?
TH: No.
JS: Did you see a red Camaro anywhere in the middle of the street?
TH: No.
JS: Turning your attention to your interview at the hospital with female Detective Mansillas.  ... Isn't it true that you never mentioned the name Javier Bolden at the hospital?
TH: Yeah.

The witness went to school with Javier at Darcey, not Hamilton.

JS: The interview where the detective went to your house, ... the group photo you said that you pointed to Javier Bolden, and you did that because he was a person that you knew?
TH: Yes.
JS: You didn't do that because he was in any way involved in your shooting?
TH: No.
JS: The only reason you had pointed to Javier Bolden was because you simply knew him, correct?
TH: Yes.
JS: And that was the only reason?
TH: Yes.
JS: Javier Bolden was not ... there were not subsequent photos that were shown to you of Javier Bolden were there?
TH: No.

Ms. Seng's cross ends and DDA Akemon gets up to redirect.

DA: One question. A moment ago that ... you were given the transcript in your interview in this case and you testified that you did not look at those ... Why?
TH: From the beginning when ... (at?) first I wasn't really trying to deal with the case so I never really (looked at them?).
DA: You didn't read the transcripts because you didn't want to be involved in this case?
TH: Yeah.

The witness is excused.  People in the gallery leave the courtroom with Hall. The older female could be his mother or aunt.  As the group leaves, at least one hugs a black couple to my left.

Ms. Mansillas is an LAPD officer assigned to the 77th gang investigation (table?) for the past four years.  Sworn officer going on 13 years. She was involved in the investigation of the shooting of Timothy Hall.

DA: Do you recognize the man who just exited the courtroom?
YM: Yes.
DA: Have you had some contact with Mr. Hall?
YM: Yes.
DA: As part of the investigation in the shooting, did you go to the hospital with your partner Ernie Mendoza to interview Mr. Hall?
YM: Yes, I did.

They talked in his hospital room. He was on the bed seated in an upright position. He looked aware and coherent.

DA: Who was present?
YM: Myself, Detective Mendoza and Timothy Hall at first.
DA: Were you joined by other people?
YM: His mother, grandmother and father.
DA: Did you attempt to interview Mr. Hall about the shooting that happened on December 3rd, two days prior?
YM: Yes we did.
DA: When you were speaking with Mr. Hall, did he tell you what happened inside the club located at ...
YM: Yes. He said he was in the club when someone inside started (banging?) on his cousin. When he approached the people that were (banging?) on his cousin; his chain was snatched.

He told his cousin that they should leave. They both exited the club at which point they were shot at. He ran directly in front of the street when he exited.   He referred to Bam as his cousin. He ran down the sidewalk south bound.

DA: Did you ever ask Mr. Hall ....(if anyone?) inside the club had an identifiable tattoo?
YM: ... At the end of the interview, 26 or 27 minutes, I asked him more about one of the individuals ... that he had a tattoo above his kneecap (that said?) FUCK NAPS.

AG: Objection. (miss ruling)
DA: Page 25 of the December 5th, 2012 (transcript?) Do you recall these questions and answers with Mr. Hall.
You said, Okay, Um, and no tattoos that you recall? Nothing that sticks out in your head?
He had FUCK NAPS on his knee.
DA: Do you recall those questions an answers?
YM: Yes I do.

DA: Was it that person with that (?) tattoo that was in the club?
YM: Yes it was.
DA: Did he tell you that he had some familiarity with the shooter's brother? ... What did he tell you about the shooter's brother?
YM: (That) he's familiar with him because he'd hung out with (them?) ... (at other?) parties with them before.
DA: Did Mr. Hall tell you (in?) that interview about the gun that he was shot with?

I believe there's an objection by counsel for both defendants. Calls for speculation ... about what he believes about the gun.  I believe DDA Akemon withdraws that question and everything is stricken. Judge Marcus states his beliefs about who owned the gun is not sufficient to have that admitted.

DA: In your conversation with Mr Hall in the hospital room, did he tell you that he had been shot before?
I've been shot before so I know what happens for ... and the dude whoever it was, he knew me from my high school banging days. 
DA: Did he say that to  you?
YM: Yes.
DA: When you were talking to Mr. Hall in the hospital room, did he tell you he was a freshman?
I was in the 10th grade...
YM: Yes.
DA: Page 7, line 4 to line 7.  Did Mr. Hall tell you...
Yeah, because his little brother, his brother. .. I was shot with his brother's gun.
There's an objection. I believe the ruling is that the next lines can be read.

DA: Page 7 line 4 to 7.
Now, I don't know his brother like that, but I do know his brother always got a gun, I know.
YM: Correct.
AG: Objection! Move to strike.

DDA Akemon explains that the second part of the (question? quote?) is what is important.

DA: But he's saying:
I don't know his brother like that
DA: ..refers to his level of knowledge.
JM: I'm going to allow it. It goes to weight.
DA: When you were talking to Mr. Hall in his hospital room on December 5th, 2012, did you ask him if he could (also?) describe the clothing of the person who shot him?
YM: Clothing came up more than once in the interview. .. I think once at the beginning and once towards the end, yes.

DA: Direct attention to page 21 starting at line 17 to 21.
So, um, do you remember what kind of shoes? You said you saw a white shirt. Could you tell me the kind of shoes he had on?

I know he had a white T-shirt and beige shorts...

And you said he had his brother, had a gun. What kind of gun was that (do?) you know?
DA: Were those the questions and answers you had with Mr. Hall at that point?
YM: Yes.

I believe Mr. Goldman asks that counsel read line 22.
The police officer told me that whomever, ... that it was a 45.
DA: Did Mr. Hall tell you that the police officer told him it was a 45?
YM: Yes.
DA: When talking to Mr. Hall in the hospital, that, when he came out of the club the shooter was already sitting outside?
YM: Yes.
DA: In the conversation in the hospital room, did you discuss with him where the shooter went after the shooting?
YM: He said the shooter ran across the street.
DA: Did you ask him which street?
YM: I was trying to get a location north or south. ... he just said, "Across the street." And my indication was that was eastbound.
JM: How do you know?
YM: My knowledge of the area.

DA: Did he say,
I just seen him taking off running across the street.
YA: Correct.
DA: Page 23 at line 17 through 20. Did Mr. Hall tell you, quote,
(Cause?) I seen his brother before. I know it's his brother's gun.
There is an objection and then a discussion about whether this statement can come in or not. DDA Akemon withdraws another objected question and moves on.

DA: Did you ask Mr. Hall,
Where have you seen the brother before?
DA: And did he tell you, "Parties?"
YM: Correct.
DA: Did Mr. Hall tell you that the brother was from (Keystones? Peastones?)
YM: Yes.
DA: And did he tell you that the brother went by ... sometimes the name (Active?)?
YM: Correct.
DA: In your conversations with Mr. Hall, was there a discussion about the two people being involved in the shooting being brothers?
YM: Yes.

I believe Goldman objects, and then Ms. Seng also objects that it's contextual. Judge Marcus sustains.

DA: On page 25, line 1 and 2.  I'll withdraw that.  Were you trying to distinguish how many were involved with the shooting?
YA: Correct.
DA: Were you trying to figure out if there was a brother involved?
YA: Correct.
DA: When you were trying to refer to a person named (Peastones? Keystones?)... ?

I believe there is another objection because I have Judge Marcus responding, "The thing that matters are his answers to what her thoughts were. It's not the question that matters, it's the answer."  There's more discussion and Judge Marcus adds, "It's not her thought it's what Hall thinks that matters."

DA: Did you ask Mr. Hall, was it the younger brother that shot at you or was it Mr. (Active?)? (And did he say?)
No, it was the younger.
YA: Yes, he did.
DA: Direct you to page 25 line 18 through 26, line...  Mam, did you have the following questions and answers.
Question: Okay, um and no tattoos that you can recall, nothing that sticks out in your head.
Answer: He's got FUCK NAPS on his knee.
Question: Who's that? The younger brother?
Answer: No, that's (Active?).
Question: Active has the tattoo?
Answer: On his knee.
Question: And you saw that during the party?
Answer: (Parties?) As I remember.
Question: And that was where? Where did you see that?
Answer: At the party because he be pulling up his (?) ... He's always trying to show off his tattoos.
DA: A the end of your interview, did you continue your investigation to try to find out who was involved in the shooting of Timothy Hall?
YM: Yes.
DA: (On February 21st, 2012), did you go Mr. Halls residence to attempt to show him anything to see if he could make an identification?
YM: Yes, I did.

DA: February 21st and 22nd. What did you do?
YM: I tried to find out who (Active?) was. I tried to locate other witnesses who may have observed what happened. I searched numerous Facebook photos and profiles. ... All were in the group (in part circled friends of friends?). I found Facebook photos posted under No Respect Inc. with approximately 20 people containing two individuals that I believed were involved according to witness statements and reports.  I showed Hall that photo.

DA: People's 32.  Photo. Do you recognize that photo?
YM: It's a photo off No Repsect Inc., that was on their (Facebook) profile.
DA: Did you make a copy and go to Mr. Halls house and make an identification?
YM: Yes.
DA: When you went to (Halls?) residence on February 21st, was this the photo you had, people's 32?
YA: He immediately identified Javier Bolden ... and he said...

He (Hall) squinted and looked at the people in the photo to the left and right of Bolden.

YA: I didn't want him to guess because he stated that the caps were turned down low.
DA: Please point to people's 32 and describe who's on that photo Mr. Hall pointed out.

Officer Mansillas uses the laser and pints to the individual circled on the photo, Javier Bolden.

YA: He pointed to Javier.
DA: Then he stated the others to his right and left, and including this individual with (the?) cap pulled down looked alike.
JM: For the record, she pointed to the individual who was previously circled.
DA; Is that person in court today?

Witness identifies Javier Bolden.

DA: When you were talking to Mr. Hall about Javier Bolden while ... what did you ask him about Mr. Bolden?
YM: I asked how he knew the family and he started to talk about a sister with a similar name, Javiara, and the family had a house at .... And he was aware, or he knew that family a little better.
DA: And what was the relevance of identifying Mr. Bolden?
YM: He stated that the brother was the shooter, 'BJ," and so ( wanted to get a better photo of the possible shooter, so that Hall would have a better photo to (choose?) or look at.

The witness had Mr. Hall look at a photo of an individual that was similar to (Bruce Shay?).  Hall just stated that Bryan and Bruce looked similar. 

YM: I was asking him if he would be able to identify 'BJ," but I don't recall what exactly was said regarding Mr. Shay (sp?).

It's Officer Mansillas experience as a gang investigator that people who live next to each other are called aunts and uncles, and they have no relation.

(Unknown) Objection! Move to strike!
JM: Objection sustained.

The witness did an investigation to look for photos that might be of the individual she thought was 'BJ.'  She found a photo of 'BJ Barnes.'

DA: Where was Mr. Barnes in people's 32?
YM: He is in the red hat seated to Mr. Bolden's left.

She then went back to the station to get another photograph for Hall to see a better image of 'BJ."  People's 33.

DA: Do you see that man? ... Do you recognize ... ?
YM: This is a photo I pulled off of a Facebook ... that I showed to Timothy Hall.
DA: Is that person in court today?
YM: Yes. He's seated to my far left and he's (?) a blue jumpsuit.

Mansillas went back to Mr. Halls residence and showed him the photo, people's 33. Hall identified the individual as 'BJ' and initialed the photo.

DA: Did he indicate what BJ's involvement was?
YM: He was the shooter.
DA: When you showed the photos, where exactly did that happen?
YM: In Mr. Hall's living room.

Mansillas believes Hall's mother and a brother or another relative was there, standing in back of the dining room at Hall's residence.

DA: And when you had that conversation with Hall in the living room with his mother present, were you recording that interview?
YM: Yes.
DA: May I play just briefly, the interview, so the officer (can?) identify the voice, or can we stipulate to the voice?

DDA Akemon plays the audio. Mansillas identifies her voice and Hall's voice on the audio.

DA: Did his mother speak at some point as well?
YM: You can hear her in the background.

Akemon tells the court this is to have her authenticate the voices. This is for under Green, to show the prior inconsistent statements of Mr. Hall.  Sztrachier states he would prefer the audio played in it's entirety.  Judge Marcus states the people can play the (entire?) audio.  I can hear voices in the background on the tape.  It's clear on the tape that Hall identifies Barnes in the photo. In the audio, Halls' mother is concerned that if he's (Barnes) part of a gang.  Mansillas tells Hall's mother that she understands that is a concern of victims.  She tells the mother the department does have emergency funds in case of that.

DA: When having those questions and answers, was that with Mr. Hall about Bryan Barnes?
YM: Yes.

Mansillas states that it was Mr. Hall who made those initials on the photo, BJ and TH.

DDA Akemon asks Mansillas if she interviewed witness ABC.  She did.  Goldman objects.  There is  argument about whether this witness can testify as 115, since the prosecution is going to call witness ABC.  The defense (for Barnes) wants to cross examine her before hand, before witness AB is called. I believe it's Mr. Sztraicher who states he anticipates Ms. ABC will testify differently regarding descriptions of the suspect than what she told Ms. Mansillas.

Judge Marcus rules that the defense will have to call Ms. Mansillas themselves and put her on as their witness. Akemon agrees with the court.  There's more discussion about what witness ABC might say, but since ABC is going to be called and hasn't testified yet, Mansillas can't be cross examined yet, on what Ms. ABC told her, until after Ms. ABC testifies.  It's decided that Ms. Mansillas will be ordered back in a day or so.  Judge Marcus asks if the defense is ready for cross.  Gustavo Sztraicher crosses the witness for Bryan Barnes.

GS: Good afternoon Detective Mansillas. ... You prepared logs in this case?
YM: Notes.
GS: You did actually prepare a police report?
YM: It's called a follow report.
GS: And it's called 'Detective's Case Progress Logs?'
YM: Yes.
GS: Did you enter those notes when the time of the investigation was fresh in your mind?
YM: I try.
GS: And, have you had a chance to review all your detective progress logs prior to testifying today?
YM: I did review them, yes.
GS: Would you like to make any additions?
YM: I did notice that I had made an incorrect notation in my ...
GS: What would that be?
YM: Regarding Hamilton High School and the suspect. ... After clarifying in the hospital with Timothy Hall and what I had documented in my follow up report, I documented that Hall went to Hamilton High School with the suspect. ... In reviewing the recording, he stated he ... the suspect knew him from his banging days when he was in Hamilton High School.
GS: So Mr. Hall never said that he never went to high school with Bryan Barnes. ... Would you like to make any other corrections to your progress logs or follow up (314?) reports?

YM: Okay. I have the (?) in front of me ... progress logs. ... There was an inconsistency in a report where I believe I misstated what Hall had communicated on the interview of the 21st, and that was I believe I had documents that he was more familiar with the brother, verses Bolden.

GS: And is it fair to say your initial progress report said he was more familiar with Barnes? ... And you're saying that is in error. ... (It's true?) Hall said he was more familiar with Bolden?
YM: Correct.
GS: Is there anything else that you would like to correct?
YM: Not at this point.
GS: Directing your attention to your progress log, February 21st, 2012. ... Find it?  You have them? ... Then just find it then I'll ask you a few questions. Let me know when you're ready.
YM: I read it.
GS: Earlier this afternoon, you testified that on February 21st, you showed up to Mr. Halls house, is that correct?
YM: Correct.
GS: And you showed him a photograph today marked people's 32, the group photo. Is that correct?
YM: Yes.

GS: You indicated that, Mr. Hall identified Mr. Javier Bolden in that photograph. Is it fair to say, that Mr. Hall did not identify Bryan  Barnes in that photograph?
YM: Correct.
GS: Is it fair to say that Javier Bolden in people's 32 is the person whose face (he? is?) circled?
YM: Correct.
GS: And to (our?) right of Mr. Bolden, ... Mr. Bolden ... left, is a picture of Bryan Barnes, is that correct?
YM: Yes.
GS: And now, you documented what happened that day in a progress log? ... And while you audio taped several interviews you conducted in this case, you did not audio tape this conversation, correct?
YM: Correct.
GS: And your documentation today, you indicate that, when looking at that photograph, Mr. Hall squinted and looked at Bryan Barnes photo image there, is that right?
YM: Correct.
GS: You said that he squinted (at?) the image that was seated to Mr. Barnes right?
YM: He squinted in general.
GS: He squinted at the whole photograph?
YM: Correct

GS: It appeared to you that he was paying (attention to?) Barnes image on that photograph, or am I wrong?
YM: (Did I document?)
GS: I suggest that you might have implied or documented that ... so did you say that?
YM: No.
GS: So, Mr. Barnes image never came up on February 21st?
YM: When we were talking about Barnes, was not during the time he was viewing the photo.
GS: So Mr. Hall looked at people's 32, he told you that Javier Bolden was in that photograph?
YM: Correct.
GS: And he never said Bryan Barnes was in that photograph?
YM: He said that 'BJ; and Bryan (Shay ?) looked similar but he couldn't tell because of the baseball caps.
JM: What is the significance of that they looked alike? ... He just said that they looked alike?
YM: Yes.
GS: You didn't document that in your progress log?
YM: Correct.
GS: You only documented things that are important or significant?

Detective Mansillas explains that she had two other officers with her that day, and they were doing other business interviews.

YM: I didn't have a recorder on me that day.
GS: What I mean is, you didn't indicate in your detective case progress logs that Mr. Hall commented that 'BJ' and Brian (Shay?) looked alike?
YM: No, I did not.
GS: And you returned to Mr. Hall's home the following day, correct?
YM: Yes.
GS: And you took, ... you showed him one single photograph?
YM: Correct.
GS: As an investigator, it's your job to, to try to get at the truth and not influence anyone in any way?
YM: Correct.
GS: And your (received?) training abut (showing?) protocols regarding showing witnesses photo packs and photograph line ups?
YM: I did receive training, yes.
GS: And did you read Mr. Hall any admonition regarding the photograph you showed him on February 22nd?
YM: I did not.
GS: Are there any protocols regarding LAPD, ... regarding reading admonitions prior to showing witnesses photos?
YM: I have now.

Detective Mansillas states she received her training in showing witnesses photos a couple of months ago.

YM: At the time, I did what I saw other detectives did.
GS: Are you saying you advised Mr. Hall you were there to eliminate or identify someone?
YM: Not in those words.
GS: Isn't it true that the first thing that you said:

Counsel reads from the transcript.
I only brought you one picture today. 
YM: Correct.

Counsel continues reading.
I only brought one picture today. That's because you knew this guy from ...
And you said high school, high school and all the other stuff.
GS: Is that what you said?
YM: Correct.
GS: Would it be fair to say the next thing you said, you were talking to his mother?
I was telling Timothy that he knows who these people are, so he could say, yeah, ... that's who the people are it's going to take five minutes.
GS: Is that what you said?
YM: Correct.
GS: And then you said:
We had that conversation yesterday about how you knew him?
YM: Correct.
GS: (You said:)
His brother, let me find that picture
YM: Correct.

Unfortunately, my notes here are a little difficult to interpret, as to what is part of the question, and what is part of the statements on the transcript. Sztraicher continues going over each statement Mansillas made to Hall.

GS: No where during that (conversation?) did you admonish him you were there to identify or eliminate?
YM: Correct.
GS: You took a photo to him... the only thing you were there with, for him to say if that was the person (you?) were talking about?
YM: Based on our prior conversation.
GS: The first thing that Mr. Hall did, he expressed uncertainly. Isn't that true?
YM: I think he was apprehensive.
GS: (Did he say) Is that him?
YM: The photo was on the coffee table, when he looked and looked at that and leaned forward.

Judge Marcus calls the afternoon break.  During the break, I believe Judge Marcus asks about other witnesses, civilian witnesses that were ordered back today. I believe Judge Marcus asks, "How can we just keep ordering people back?"  I believe the prosecution responds that they will take care of it.

3:14 PM
During the break, the older gentleman who was sitting to my right during testimony speaks about his nephew who was shot. From memory, he was not addressing me directly, but just speaking out loud. I know the LA Times reporter, Jill, sat down beside him and spoke to him. I wrote down what I heard him say.  I had put my laptop down and took notes on my notepad. His niece is a witness that is being order back again.  Here are the rough notes I have as to what the man said.
Shot my nephew three times. ... In the hospital a year later. ... It's her brother lying in the convalescent (hospital? home?).  Second shooting. ... He hasn't spoken in one and a half years. ... Should be dead. 
If the foreign exchange students hadn't got (shot?)  
In talking about the police investigating that shooting the uncle said:
We gave it to them. ... Gave stuff on Facebook ... and they didn't do anything. ... They didn't even. You have it on YouTube.  ... Mason Knight. ... Two shot in one night, 51st & Western.  ... Police didn't do nothing.   Tried to arrest (me?) trying to cross the line. ... I didn't even want to be here ... If they cared they would have taken our statements.  ... Came to the hospital four days later...
The gentleman did not want to give his name.  He said his name was not important.

Judge Marcus and counsel are at sidebar, regarding calling back witnesses. He doesn't want the defendants brought out yet. Now, Ms. D'Onofrio and Mr. Sztraicher are speaking with Bryan Barnes' mother.  Three witnesses are called back. One witness states that she needs a document for her employer that she has to go to court.  The court tells her that they will provide that. One witness is ordered back for tomorrow, another witness for Friday afternoon.

3:24 PM
The defendants are brought out. Their handcuffs are not attached to the chairs they are sitting in. They are kept handcuffed behind.

GS: I was approached by my client's mother who is present in court. She indicated a thing to me. I did not witness any of this (confrontation? information).  She indicated to me she observed the detective communicating to the witnesses family regarding photographs and there is a possible, ... suggesting a witness was given information that happened in court.  ... leave that up to the court to decide.

JM: Sounds really nebulous Mr. Sztraicher. What is it?
GS: She's talking to witness family. She's one of the people involved in the case.  ... I suppose to have the court admonish to not communicate with a witness or transmit information to third parties that might transmit the information to witnesses.
JM: Who did she talk to?
GS: I can inquire further. Because (?) family is already ...

It's Ms. Flowers. Her uncle has been sitting here all day.  I believe the people tell the court. It's the Flower family and that's on a charge that we haven't arrived at yet.  I believe Judge Marcus states, "I don't think you've been given me any broad inquiry ... that they've given them any information is a great leap ... or discuss things in court is a great leap. ... I will do that. You can bring her in."

Detective Carreon and Detective Mansillas reenter the courtroom. Detective Mansillas retakes the stand.  I believe the court addresses the witness.

JM: There is an indication that you are talking to a future witness in this case, and I don't know if you did or if you didn't. You're not allowed to discuss your testimony in this case with any other witnesses and you're not allowed to educate them or give them information that's been presented in this case. We have a no contact order. .... Do you understand? ... what happened ... because it was very vague as to what I was told. I'm telling you that is the rules.
GS: Thank you, your honor.  Detective Mansillas, earlier you testified, I believe during the course of your February 22nd audio tape interview that Mr. Hall said that Bryan Barnes was the shooter.
YM: He referred to him as 'BJ.'

The witness is asked where does Mr. Hall say the word 'shooter.'

YM: In the second interview, no.
GS: Correct. He never said that's the shooter?
YM: He never used those words, no.
GS: In fact...
JM: Where does he say anywhere in the transcript in words or otherwise?  (miss response)

GS: To be clear, isn't it true that all of your interviews with Mr. Hall, he never said he knew the Bryan Barnes ... ?
YM: (no?) ... that's correct.
GS: And he never said that he knew Bryan Barnes' sister?
YM: Correct.
GS: And he never said that he was more familiar with Bryan Barnes' family?
YM: Correct.
GS: And he indicated to you that on February 21st, that the shooter was wearing beige shorts and a white T-shirt?
YM: I think that was brought up during the December 5th interview at the hospital.
GS: And on December 5th, he indicated the shooter was wearing beige shorts and a white T-shirt?
YM: Yes.

GS: Thank you. No further questions.  Ask to strike all the testimony regarding Mr. Hall. Strike all of Ms Mansillas' testimony regarding Mr. Hall identifying Mr. Barnes as the shooter and two, based on the suggestive photo showing that she made where she did not ask Mr. (Hall) ... did not admonish Mr. Hall that he could identify or eliminate ... and I would argue that  and she in fact she told him to say "Yeah, yeah, that's who I was talking about."
JM: I'm not going to do that. ... I'm going to wait until I hear all the evidence. ... I do find that the identify procedures that were done here ... and doesn't comport with identification where you use "six packs" and that's all I'm going to say on the subject.

Ms. Jana Seng gets up to cross on behalf of Javier Bolden.  Ms. Mansillas states that her title is "Officer" not "Detective."

JS: Just want to clarify ... and your earlier statement, testimony had some corrections and you did make while on the stand. ... One of the (corrections?) regards to your interview on February 21st, 2012?
YM: Correct.
JS: Documents in a detective case log?
YM: Correct.

JS: When you said that you spoke with victim Hall at his residence, was that true?
YM: Yes.
JS: And this is your documentation of February 21st? ... And you further said you showed him in respect to the 'No Respect' party crew/gang?  (I believe Ms. Seng used the word "gang." Sprocket.)
YM: Correct.

Ms. Seng goes over the report and each specific thing she wrote.

JS: (You?) further wrote, 'BJ is Bryan Barnes?'
YM: No. That's where I said I had been .... (?) with brothers, and who Hall was more familiar with.
JS: Correcting, rather than Barnes, it should be Bolden?
YM: Yes.
JS: So the correct statement should be he knew Javier Bolden, and his mother's name is Denise (sp?)
YM: Correct.
JS: (You?) further go onto write, 'Hall is more familiar with the shooter,' should be, Hall is more familiar with the shooter's brother and his family. Is that correct?
YM: Yes.
JS: Meaning, that Mr. Hall was more familiar with Javier and his family, is that correct?
YM: Yes.
JS: And that Mr. Hall was not as familiar with the shooter is that correct?
YM: Correct.
JS: And when you presented one photograph to Mr. Hall on February 21st, it was a group photo of the crew...?
YM: Yes.
JS: And when Mr. Hall identified Mr. Javier, he said he was the brother of the shooter?
YM: Correct.
JS: In previous interviews did he ever say that Mr. Bolden was the shooter?
YM: No.
JS: Rather, he said that it was the brother, that was the shooter?
YM: Correct.

JS: In (the) interview on February 21st, did he ever say that it was Javier? ... Did he ever say that when he was getting shot at he saw Mr. Bolden?
YM: No.
JS: When you went back to see him on the 22nd, you brought another photo. Was that because he didn't identify the shooter?
YM: He didn't identify "BJ."
JS: So that's why you went back?
YM: Correct.

JS: Now going back to your conversation with Mr. Hall on December 5th, at the hospital. During your conversation, did he tell you there was ... Did Mr. Hall tell you that his cousin Bam had an argument with an individual named Bobby?
YM: I don't think it was phrased that way. ... I recall him stating that suspects were banging on Bam, and one of them he went to elementary school with.
JS: Did he tell you the party he had attended, that there was a strict dress code enforced?
YM: Yes. ... He said there was a dress code enforced and they were not allowed to wear baseball hats. He explained that people were wearing white T-shirts, but he didn't elaborate.

There is a question I believe, about whether or not Hall told her on December 5th,  that gangs were not allowed but I miss the answer.  Officer Mansillas interviewed Ms. ABC. After that interview, she made an attempt to secure video from a Denny's restaurant.

JS: Another question during the interview with Mr. Hall on December 5th, he indicated to you that there was one shooter, is that correct?
YM: Yes.
JS: And in subsequent interviews that was made to...

I miss the answer and there's one final question that I don't quite get.  The witness is excused and a new witness is called. DDA Akemon presents the witness.

LAPD uniformed officer assigned to the 77th Division.  Patrol officer, five and a half years.

DA: On February 12th, 2012, were you on patrol with Officer Whitfield (sp?)? ... Were you trained at the academy and given a proficiency (test?)?
LV: Yes sir.

The witness received a radio call to respond to 51st Street and Western.  He arrived at 12:29 AM.

LV: We observed a large crowd at 51st and Western Avenue. We approached. I observed a male black lying on 51st Street on the north sidewalk, just west of Western.  ... His head was toward the west and he was motionless. .. His upper body was covered in blood. ... Just west of him another female, black victim.

The female victim was Zanae Flowers. The male victim was Deionce Davance.

DA: Approximately how many people in that crowd?
LV: I'd say about 30 or 40.
DA: He (partner?) was attempting to control the crowd and control the scene.
LV: That's correct.

Photo, people's exhibit 36.  Its a photo of an overhead view of the scene.  DDA Akemon adds that all this testimony goes to count four and count five.  The witness recognizes the area. It's the northwest corner of 51st and Western where the incident took place.  The witness points to streets on the image and identifies them.

LV: The street north south is going to be Western. ... This is 51st Street. It's east west.
DA: So the top would be the north and the (?) side here would be the west. ... Is there a banquet hall in that location?
LV: (Garr Banquet Hall.)

On the corner, there is a transmission shop, J&R Transmission.  He saw a male, black, down and motionless. The witness points to the area in the photo where the person was. Just below J&R Transmission shop is where he indicated.  The female victim was in the alley, just east of a driveway off 51st Street.  The witness is asked to mark on people's 36 where Deionce Davance and Zanae Flowers were found.

DA: Did you see both of the people transported to the ambulance?
LV: Yes.
DA: After the ambulance left, did you further assist at the crime scene location?
LV: Yes.
DA: Were you tasked to canvas other witnesses for evidence and tasked to recover evidence?
LV: Yes.

Akemon goes over Officer Valle's report and the LAPD's DR number assigned to the case. An Officer McGreggor (sp?). Officer McGreggor found a spent ammo casing for a 9 millimeter. McGreggor pointed it out to Officer Valle.  Valle indicates on the image where the casing was found.

DA: Did Sargent Ortega (sp?) assist you in your canvas of evidence? .. Did Sargent Ortega tell you what she found?
LV: She found a life ammo round 9 millimeter.
DA: Did she point that out to you? (miss answer)

DA: Describe on the map where that was.
LV: Found north of the northwest corner, so right here.
DA: Pointing is just where the white sign is for the J&R Transmission Shop.

It's just below that rectangle (sign) just below the word shop on the sidewalk.

DA: Did you designate that as evidence item 2 in your report, DR 12 12 06793?
LV: Yes.
DA: After Sargent Ortega pointed out the live round that was on Western, did she point out another piece of evidence to you?
LV: Yes.  (Spent ammo casing, just near the victim Deionce Davance's body.
DA: Did you also indicate that item as evidence, item #3 and booked it under that DR number?
LV: (Yes.)

The witness marks on the exhibit where evidence items were located by the investigating officers, A 'C' is used to mark where a casing was found and "LR" is used to mark where a live round was found.  The witness is then asked to walk through the items he marked on the photo.  So they recovered two shell casings and one live round.

DA: The two 9 millimeter shell casings, those were pointed out to you by other officers...?
AG: Objection! Leading. (miss ruling)

LV: I recovered those items. I booked those items.
DA: Who booked those items?
LV: I booked those items.

Counsel for Bryan Barnes have no questions.  (This witness goes to count four and count five. Barnes is not charged in those counts. Sprocket.)  Andrew Goldman gets up to cross for defendant Javier Bolden.

AG: I have questions. I don't know this officer's availability. I will have Prop 115 questions of this witness ... We're talking about a Mr. Reece and a Mr. Carver.
JM: Are you calling these witnesses?
AG: No. I think they are impeach witnesses ... I think they impeach what the civilian witnesses (will say).
JM: You want to do it now, or after your witnesses are called? ... So do you have any questions based on what he testified to?
AG: Briefly.

AG: You testified you received the radio call regarding the shooting at approximately 25 minutes after midnight, February 12, 2012?
LV: Yes.
AG: Were you in a black and white?
LV: Yes, I was.
AG: Were you the driver?
LV: I don't recall. I can look at my report.
AG: You were with a partner?
LV: Yes.
AG: And that was Officer Whitfield?
LV: Yes.
AG: And when you responded to the scene, were there any other officers present?
LV: Yes.

AG: Can you approximate how ... first responder cars were there?
LV: I would say thee were about four officers and a (?) at that time.
AG: So, three police vehicles?
LV: That's correct.
AG: And you said there were approximately 30 or 40 people still milling around the area?
LV: That's correct.
AG: And had the area already been secured with crime scene tap?
LV: No.
AG: Were you part of the team that put it up?
LV: I was there when it happened.
AG: In terms of the area, people's 36, how much of that area was secured ... ?
LV: When I arrived there?
AG: When the yellow tape was put up?

The tape went up across the south side of Western past 51st Street. Then took it down just west of the alley on 51st Street, off the photo which would be west of the alley.

AG: And the people milling around, where they inside or outside that area?
LV: They were pretty much everywhere.
AG: You canvased and also spoke to witnesses?
LV: That's correct.
AG: You prepared a police report in connection to the shooting of February 12th, 2012, at approximately 25 minutes after midnight of 51st and Western?
LV: Yes.
AG: Did you review that report prior to testifying in court today?
LV: (Yes.)
AG: Did you find it to be a true and accurate account of events? ... Everything in it true and accurate?
LV: Yes.
AG: In addition to collection of evidence, you testified that you actually collected the evidence and (tagged?) and found the evidence?
LV: Correct.
AG: So you secured, they told you they found something, then you recovered and booked the evidence?

He recovered evidence item 2 and and evidence item 3.  Item 3 had two pieces of evidence; two casings.

AG: In addition to collecting evidence, you also spoke to a number of witnesses that evening?
LV: Correct.
AG: You reviewed your notes regarding those interviews?
LV: Yes.
AG: And those were true and correct regarding those witnesses?
LV: Yes.
DA: No redirect.

Judge Marcus tells the room that he has a hearing all morning on Friday. After Thursday, they would not be able to pick up the prelim back again until probably 2 PM on Friday.   Judge Marcus doesn't think they will get to call this witness before then. Judge Marcus asks if there isn't any way to stipulate to the witnesses that he interviewed.  He then addresses the witness.

JM: Officer Valle, I apologize. We're going to need you on Monday. You're ordered to return to my court.

I believe Judge Marcus has another quick hearing Monday morning. He asks counsel if they are done for today. He has to prepare for the Friday morning hearing again. Orders everyone back at 9 AM tomorrow, then changes his mind and says 8:45 AM to 8:50 AM.

Continued in Day 4.....