Sunday, January 25, 2015

Joshua Woodward Preliminary Hearing Day 6 - Part II

Joshua Woodward at a previous court hearing.

Note: I meant to get these notes written up soon after Woodward was bound over for trial on 1/23/14 but they got put on the back burner.  A few months later, Mr. Sprocket's heart attack happened and helping him get back on his feet was more important. Below are my notes from the last day of Woodward's preliminary hearing, one year ago. T&T's exclusive Woodward trial coverage can be found HERE. Sprocket

Continued from Part I.....

January 23, 2014
When I get to the downtown criminal court building, there is log jam of bodies in the elevator bay. It took me 20 minutes to get an elevator.

8:42 AM
On the 7th floor. The entire defense team is already here: Levine, Currie, Weisgerber and four other attorneys along with the defendant Woodward. They have two boxes of case files with them.

8:44 AM
Judge Pastor's clerk opens Dept. 51. About a minute later the main defense team files in. Woodward and the four other attorneys stay in the hallway. They are either on their smart phones or chatting amongst themselves.

8:55 AM
I head into Dept. 51. Soon after, the prosecution team of DDA's Habib Balian and Marguerite Rizzo arrive. I know Detective Shafia is in the building since I saw him in the cafeteria when I arrived. DDA Rizzo is wearing a sharp red jacket with a red scarf. Ms. Rizzo always looks perfectly put together.

(At the September 2014 Forensic Science Forum, I learned that not only does DDA Rizzo have a law degree, she has a masters in the biological sciences. Sprocket) 

Counsel are chatting together in the well. Levine is speaking and the two DDA's are nodding their heads. Detective Shafia arrived and is seated in the jury box.  Woodward is now at the defense table. There are four attorneys in the gallery. Two in front of me and two behind me. Two of the faces are new and I don't know if they are part of Woodward's extended defense team or not.

Just as it looks like things are close to getting started I have a coughing fit. Damn. I hope I don't have to step outside.  The court reporter Mavis is not at her desk but her equipment is already set up.

9:03 AM
Mavis emerges from the back rooms.  Judge Pastor goes on the record and appearances are stated.  I believe Judge Pastor states that the court received two documents filed on January 13.  It's a discovery matter. There's some discussion about a narrow cross or redirect. Documents were received to be moved into evidence.

Ms. Levine addresses the court. It's an issue with discovery. The DA searched emails in the LAPD data base among the two detectives and Ms. Doe. I believe Ms. Levine wants to examine Detective Shafia on these emails.

DDA Balian tells the court that they did conduct a search. This was potentially discovery/Brady material. I believe from my notes there may be one email, one contact between a detective and Ms. Doe by email.

I believe the defense states that the retrieved a piece of the chrono record, held in digital form that happened after, possibly after discovery was turned over to the defense. I believe there is other evidence that they uncovered that contradicted the testimony of Detective Shafia and Detective Fairchild. The defense would like to recall Detective Shafia.

Detective Shafia is recalled to the stand for cross examination by Ms. Levine.

JL: Since the last time you were here, have you reviewed any materials ....
JS: An email that was generated from searches.
JL: [Was that] provided by the DA or Detective Fairchild?
JS: The DA.

JL: Did you recall in November 2009 an email [from? to?] Ms. Doe?
JS: No, I did not recall that.

Ms. Levine questions the detective about the chronological log (aka "chrono). She points out an item that is missing a BATES stamp number. He's asked to look at the last page, the next to the last entry at 6:00 AM.

I believe the detective reads the document and then explains that it shows he received a message from Ms. Doe, asking for an update, and then possibly an email was sent or received from Ms. Doe.

JL: Do you have copy [copies?] of the email[s]?
JS: No.
JL: do you recall any other communication?
JS: No.

A copy of the email is not in the file. Detective Shafia is asked about a lawsuit filed by Ms. Doe against the defendant. Shafia doesn't recall the conversation.

JL: Do you recall a conversation in court about the lawsuit?
JS: No.

Shafia states he did not receive an email about the lawsuit.  Defense exhibit R is presented, a copy of an email from Detective Fairchild.

JL: This is an email from Karen Fairchild, right?
JS: Yes.
JL: It's to you?
JS: Yes.
JL: Dated February 7, 2012?
JS: Yes.
JL: At 2:01 PM?
JS: Yes.

I believe Detective Shafia mentions his last conversation with DDA Rizzo the prior month and Ms. Levine moves to strike. Ms. Doe has filed a lawsuit.

JL: So you did know about the lawsuit?
JS: No. I don't remember this email.
JL: Do you remember an email from Detective Careo (sp?)?

Defense exhibit S, an email from a Frank Careo or a Jose Careo... turns out (Jose/Frank) is the same person. The employee number of Frank Careo is mentioned. The email is dated December 13, 2011. Detective Shafia recalls this email.  There was an exchange between ... [ a phone call?] Shafia doesn't remember the phone call.  It was requested that Detective Shafia document [in person?] a conversation that he [over?] heard.  There is a question about Officer Careo and if he was not assigned to this matter. Prosecution objects, 350/352. Sustained.  Ms. Levine asks for a moment. She confers with an attorney in the gallery and Mr. Currie.

JL: Did you know Detective Careo tried to interview your subject?
Objection! Sustained!
JL: Did you know about any other emails?
JS: (No.)

There is no redirect by the people and Detective Shafia is excused. The defense recalls Detective Fairchild.

JL: Before you came to court, is there any document[s] you reviewed?
KF: Yes. I reviewed emails that were the product of a search. ... My answer was, but I had not done a search.

Ms. Levine has more questions about emails Detective Fairchild exchanged with Ms. Doe. Defense exhibit T, an email.  It's an email addressed to Ms. Doe [including the email address] from the witness.   Detective Fairchild verifies that this email was not listed in the chrono log.

JL: You did not put those emails in the log?
KF: Correct.

Ms. Levine reads from the email. "Hi [Ms. Doe], I hope you enjoyed your vacation in between ... Italy."

Under questioning, the witness verifies that she took no notes or documented the exchange in the logs.

JL: The second paragraph is about a computer search of Ms. Doe's hard drive, is that correct?
KF: Yes.
JL: Before you picked up the computer, were there any emails about picking up that computer?
KF: No.
JL: Any communication that you were going to do a search, by email?
KF: No.

Defense exhibit U. An email with BATES stamp #1185. Witness verifies this is an email from Ms. Doe to Detective Fairchild. It's Detective Fairchild's work email.

JL: Do you recall interviewing Ms. Doe that day?
KF: No.
JL: June 24, 2010 interview?
KF: Now I remember.
JL: What time did that take place?
KF: I don't recall.
JL: What time did it take place?
KF: 10 AM in the morning.

Levine states the email title is "Charged with murder," then reads from the email. "Please let me know if you want my emails/texts from Josh so that you can see what Josh typed."

Articles were attached but the witness doesn't remember them.  There's a question about what Detective Fairchild remembers about these emails and if she responded to Ms. Doe.

Defense exhibit V is next. It's another email not in the chrono log and no copy of the email in the file. The email has a link to an article about the case. Ms. Levine asks the witness if she accessed that article.  The email is dated 6/25/2010 at 10:12 AM

Defense exhibit W, BATES stamp 1187, email from the witness to Ms. Doe, dated 6/25/10 at 11:00 AM. It has the same subject line as the prior email. This was in response to Ms. Doe's email. This email is not in the log and a copy was not put in the file.  Ms. Levine reads from the text of the email. "Thanks so much for the link."

JL: Does that refresh your memory that you clicked on the link?
KF: I still don't recall.

Defense exhibit X, BATES stamp 1888, from the witness to Ms. Doe, dated 6/25/10 at 11:02 AM. Two minutes after the last email. Same subject line. This email did not make it into the chronological log or file.

Defense exhibit Y, BATES stamp 1889, from Ms. Doe to the witness dated 12/31/10, titled Happy New Year. This email was not listed in the chrono log and a copy was not included in the file.

JL: In this email Ms. Doe wishes you a Happy New Year?
Objection! Sustained!
JL: In it she thanks you for your hard work?
KF: Yes.
JL: And wishes you a Happy New Year?
KF: I think she is referring to herself and not me.

Defense exhibit Z, BATES stamp 1890, email from the witness to Ms. Doe, dated 1/4/2011. It is in response to the prior email. This email is not in the chrono log or a copy in the file. Subject line is the same, Happy New Year.  The email states meeting with two more doctors.

JL: Was one [of them?] Dr. Kingston?
KF: No.
JL: There were two doctors?
KF: I honestly ... we never met with with the doctor. ... I believe that Ms. Rizzo was calling around to find an expert .... a medical expert.
JL: You mean someone who would agree with your theories?
Objection!  Sustained!
JL: You wrote, "There's light at the end of the tunnel" ?
KF: Yes.
JL: Your email about the lawsuit ....

The witness knew that Ms. Doe was filing a lawsuit and that subpoenas were sent out. That's all she knew.

JL: Did you report the lawsuit to the district attorney?
KF: I don't know at what point that was found out.

The witness states that [Ms. Doe?] might have had a conversation with DDA Rizzo but doesn't know the specifics of what was said or when.

Defense exhibit AA #1891 two emails. The first from the witness to Ms. Doe, dated August 2011 at 12:03 PM. I believe the subject is "Question." The witness asked Ms. Doe in her email" "DDA Rizzo wanted to know if you had ever told Joshua how many weeks [you were?] pregnant. ... She will talk to you."

There is discussion about Ms. Doe's reply. I believe this is from Ms. Doe's emails:
Josh was informed of every [process? procedure] from pictures and ultrasound.He was supposed to go to ultrasounds with me but he cancelled every time.
There's more that I miss. This email is not in the chrono log and information not in the case file. Ms. Levine confronts the witness that she didn't relay the information anywhere.

Ms. Levine asks the court for a moment. She then leans in and whispers to Woodward. Cross is finished and DDA Balian gets up to redirect.

Defense exhibit X.

HB: I believe you testified that email was from you to Ms. Doe.
KF: It's from Ms. Doe to me.
HB: So it's from Ms. Doe to you?
KF: Yes.

Defense exhibit Y

HB: Here's to looking to a better New Year?
KF: Yes.
HB: Didn't she write, Here's to looking to a better New Year and Justice?
KF: Yes.

Redirect is finished.  The court asks if there are any more witnesses. Ms. Levine states there are only defense exhibits and motions. No more witnesses this morning.  The court will take a break until 10 AM.

There are attorneys in the gallery. One attorney greets DDA Rizzo. Another attorney greets one of the defense team.  Ms. Rizzo asks if the DA's law clerk can sit in the front row.  There are signs in the front row that no one can sit in that row without permission.

While we are on break, I hear counsel chat about what courtroom the case will be sent to. Personally, I believe the case will be sent to the 9th floor.  The 9th floor handles long cause (4 weeks or longer) or complex cases. The clerk asks Ms. Levine if she will be seeking to admit new exhibits. I hear Ms. Levine reply that she's not going to move her exhibits into evidence. They will be reference only.

10:02 AM
The court reporter Mavis takes to her desk. 10:05 AM the court goes back on the record.  There are no additional people's exhibits. Different defense exhibits (B, C, F, I, N) are gone over describing them.  The defense is not moving their exhibits into evidence. They were by reference only.  Ms. Rizzo objects to Defense B. Dr. Kingston's report and CV. Those are hearsay. People object to defense F. It's hearsay. Detective Shafia testified.

Ms. Levine responds. "With respect to ... CV, ... pretty standard for experts. ... and what she looked at and relied on. ... With respect to F, ... Detective Shafia research ... what the detective did on research and ..."

I believe it's DDA Balian who responds and the court agrees. People's objection is sustained. Defense exhibits B & F not received into evidence.  (I'm confused here because I thought the defense was not submitting their exhibits into evidence anyway.) I believe the defense has a motion to strike.

The people and defense rest.

The defense motion is to strike the testimony of Woodward via Miranda. The court has received the filed motions and is happy to receive argument by counsel.

Defense attorney Kelly Currie steps up to argue.
The people can't ask questions in the guise of booking information or medical information. Context matters. What preceded the questioning [when] .... [Officer] Hernandez was present. Detective Shafia did not advise him of his rights. Mr. Woodward invoked his right five times during the interview. Officer Hernandez asked questions during the booking process. After booking, Hernandez reports to Shafia.  He [Woodward] did not have any medical issues. [He] used to take blood pressure medications.  Currie goes over the informed arrest screening form.

The court asks what would be fair game, if anything, and then asks about [I believe] a check box on the form. Currie argues that they don't have the benefit of Officer Hernandez being here. They don't have the benefit of what Hernandez asked the defendant.

DDA Balian argues for the people.
What they do know. They know from 115 [testimony], that he [Officer Hernandez] asked if he [Woodward] had any health issues of medication.

The court replies. I certainly recognize prop 115. The court allows hearsay testimony on a daily basis. The court hears hearsay testimony. [However] there are limitations in the context of certain legal issues. ... It is not satisfying to the people's burden of proof.  Under existing law, People v. Gomez, look to underlying circumstance and the mindset of the inquiry.

The people chose to rely on Detective Shafia's testimony on 115, and I'm concerned about that. There might be a legitimate or non legal inquiry.  Asked that the defendant submit to questioning and he chose to invoke.  The court wonders if that swallows up the [?] .... The court is not satisfied that the people met their burden. People have not met their burden. Strike testimony of Officer Hernandez. This is a ruling at prelim. It certainly is without prejudice for further legislation. The court does strike out that entire testimony.

Now the defense has motions to dismiss all counts.  Currie will address count 1. The court states it will hear all defense arguments.

Mr. Currie states he will speak to some foundational issues. People to charge attempt, instead of charging completion, with regard to specific attempt to kill the fetus. This is not the same [analogy?] if [the state?] had charged murder.

People must know that Mr. Woodward knew the fetus was an embryo, and that he made one intent to that end. The law clearly states ... conscious disregard doesn't apply when charging attempt.  Mr. Currie goes over the law and it's requirements. The legislature chose to target fetus not an embryo. The defendant would need to know how long the fetus had progressed.  [Josh?] had to know that the embryo had progressed to the stage of a fetus.  The people haven't presented evidence of Jamba Juice evidence. The people have to present evidence that the target was the fetus.

Mr. Currie argues prior rulings that apply.

The people proved on October 13 the pregnancy proceeded beyond the embryonic stage. The people haven't established when did the alleged Jamba Juice [incident] take place.  According to Detective Shafia, sometime after September and before October 7.  The people still can't establish either ending and can't establish offspring from embryonic. [The people] can't prove that he [Woodward] put Misoprostol in this drink.

Judge Pastor is scrunching up his face. The corners of his mouth are turned down.

Mr. Currie addresses the testimony of Dr. Tsu, and that he [could not?] consider this episode. Ms. Doe did not tell Dr. Tsu about this episode. She did not report this episode to her doctor on October 8. The statements of Ms. Doe are unreliable. After she went to police, she came up with this poisoning theory.  The Jamba Juice claims are all the more incredible ... on other inconsistencies in her account.  She [Ms. Doe] accused him of poisoning but continually invited him [Woodward] into her home for sexual foreplay.   Currie talks about the 'watering down.'  Currie argues that the prosecution failed to meet their burden on any [part] of this count.  [Ms. Doe's] symptoms are consistent with a person in her first trimester of her pregnancy. The court requires a higher standard. Requires more. She drank a drink and felt sick, but not sick enough [to tell her doctor?].

I believe the court asks, "What should the court rely on? Internet search?"  I believe the court asks about the second trimester. The second trimester was on October 20, 2009. That was [well?] after the Jamba Juice incident occurred.

I believe Ms. Levine gets up to argue the remaining counts.
[Regarding] counts 1, 2, 3 and 4, generally would like to point out that there is no evidence of Misoprostol. No evidence of Misoprostol in counts 1, 2, and 3. The panties were searched for powder by two different labs. Two different labs were consulted. Nothing to support Misoprostol.

One of problems in the case, which Ms. Levine points, out stops the investigation. There's no way to know what was in the [Ms. Doe's] house.  No ... searches.

In respect to our papers, ... prosecution points out ... points to the time of the arrest. No evidence of Misoprostol. Anything in Count 4 is tainted.  Ms. Levine mentions in relation to prior events.  She now argues specifically to Count #2. Then Count #3 the next night, followed by the miscarriage. Then one week lapse.  In that week, they [Ms. Doe, Woodward] they had substantial contact. We don't know the extent of that contact. We know texts were deleted from [her?] phone.  Ms. Doe had determined to set up Mr. Woodward long before.  

Count #2. Mr. Woodward allegedly goes to apartment and allegedly inserts Misoprostol into Ms. Doe's vagina and Ms. Doe allegedly experiences some symptoms.  One thing about Internet searches, the only thing that can be deduced is that he [Woodward] had no interest in having a child. There is this testimony, that, in the past they had a relationship but its not backed up by anything.

The search on the Internet about ways to abort, there's no crime in that.  He did not hide the fact that he wanted her to have an abortion and wanted her to try the pill.  There was no relationship ... or that they wanted to have a child together.  There are problems with Ms. Doe. She doesn't tell them [detectives] anything about October 16th in the first interview. She doesn't [relay? that?] until 2010. Ms. Levine argues more details about what Ms. Doe said about the October 16 incident.

Count #3 suffers from the same problem as Count #2; lack of physical evidence. Ms. Levine mentions Dr. Kingston's testimony. How much of her testimony was based on her medical history? We know about smoking. We know that she suffered from various illnesses and diseases and things. The thing to remember is Ms. Doe's financial motive. She told Detective Shafia from day one ... how rich he [Woodward] was and her lawsuit is an attempt to do that.

Count #3, Ms. Levine argues about the physical symptoms Ms. Doe should have had. Count #4. We don't know what Ms. Doe reported to Mr. Woodward. One thing we know about the LAPD, they know how to tape a phone call. Ms. Doe started out in the first interview to snare, because she told Joshua Woodward, all was well. ... We don't know if she told him to bring Misoprostol, because she deletes stuff off her phone. All we know is what happened in the arrest.

Defense argues the 115 testimony of Ms. Verde. He [Woodward] didn't get close enough to the apartment. [He was] arrested too early. Count #4 fails because he doesn't go far enough in the attempt.  Ms. Levine then cites cases for her position, one being 'Holebrook.' (sp?) Mr. Woodward would had to have walked across the street, enter the apartment, go through all other steps.

At this point, I have in my notes that Judge Pastor is asking Mr. Currie a question which leads me to believe that Mr. Currie may have been arguing some of the counts and I missed documenting this in my notes.

JP: There must be an acknowledgement ...
KC: The ... he must know ... a belief and awareness of ...
JP: Does any other case say that?

The court asks about CALCRIM and CALJIC.

There is more discussion as to lewd behavior and the notion of what makes something a crime. Mr. Currie state that the legislature did not make the death of an embryo a crime.  So the defendant must know the baby is past embryonic stage.

The defense has concluded their argument. There is a big conference between defense counsel in the well and one attorney in the gallery.

I believe DDA Balian argues to the court Counts #2-4.
DDA Balian argues to the court that the people were fairly detailed in their opposition papers. We're going to try to focus on a few things in [those papers]. Before he starts DDA Balian states that the defense started out by saying the purpose of the prelim is to weed out groundless charges. That's true,  [however?] if there's some basis ... to give [the court?] strong suspicion, so that's the basis. This is not a jury trial, where there are [two answers?] and ... [?]. If there is some rational basis to give you a strong suspicion, based on ... what you heard.

We have Misoprostol on the defendant, in his possession. We have white powder tested to [prove]... But put that aside. The defendant wants to ignore what does exist. The computer searches that were done.

I believe DDA Rizzo argues Count 1.
I believe DDA Rizzo reminds the court that the defense argued that the defendant must know that the fetus progressed beyond the embryonic stage. This would be ludicrous that a defendant can only be convicted if he had knowledge of the fetus being beyond 7-8 weeks.  It is a requirement [(law) that the fetus be beyond the embryonic stage].  We don't dispute [that]. Mr. Curie talked about transfer intent. There are no issues of transfer intent. The defendant learned that the ex-girlfriend is pregnant. ... That he did not want a child. ... There was a pill she could take.  This was the one time she was not going to go along with him.

The prosecution brings up the statutes on the elderly, and that a [defendant] must know the person was an elder. ... Think it would be absurd for the defendant to [have] to know development [of fetus].  Judge Pastor asks what is the specific intent ... in dealing with fetal homicide? What is the intent...

I believe DDA Rizzo continues:
[He?] took a step to kill [an] unborn [child] ... We rely on medical experts and when acts occurred. Major structures occurred after 7-8 weeks of development. Dr. Kingston, based on testimony. Major structures were outlined on October 13. She reviewed the ultrasound images.  Dr. Kingston also rendered her opinion on fetal age based on October 8 and October 13 ultrasounds. Also, Dr. Kingston [testified/] before court, the first day of Ms. Doe's last menstrual period was July 22, 2009.  That date [was the] last date ... July 23, July 24, Ms. Doe could have gotten pregnant.

Dr. Kingston reviewed the ultrasound on October 8. Gestational age was not based on the last period. It was based on last ultrasound age. Dr. Kingston determined Ms. Doe was 11 weeks, 5 days on October 8.  Furthermore, the second ultrasound of October 13, the pregnancy had progressed to 12 weeks 2 days. That is in line with the first ultrasound dating.

If the court worked backwards, it's likely Ms. Doe became pregnant around August 1st or earlier. Around  7 weeks, we would be on September 19th, we would have reached a stage beyond embryonic.

Judge Pastor asks when was the Jamba Juice.

She would have become pregnant beyond July 22nd. The defense places the Jamba Juice as Mid September and uses this as a reference point. September 15. There is no evidence this was a hard line date. Detective Shafia testified Ms. Doe met the defendant [for the Jamba Juice] some point after the middle of September.  Ms. Doe stated the meeting occurred at The Grove.  Jamba Juice happened after mid September or late September.

Did the Jamba Juice incident even occur. We have evidence that Ms. Doe suffered. Dr. Kingston testified those are side effects that she was exposed to Misoprostol.  Dr. Kingston testified the timing of the symptoms is consistent of Misoprostol exposure.  Ms. Doe knew how she felt during her pregnancy and this vomiting was something that was beyond her experience.  The defense [alleges?] she made the incident up because she never relayed the incident to Dr. Tsu.

The people argue that Ms. Doe thought the intense vomiting incident was related to her pregnancy and not the Jamba Juice. It was a reasonable inference and that's why she didn't tell Dr. Tsu.  It explains why Ms. Doe didn't tell Detective Shafia about the incident at The Grove at first. The victim was still in a state of shock after the miscarriage.

I believe DDA Balian argues Count #2.
The defendant knew about Misoprostol. He knew how to administer it and how much. There's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. People are not asserting he was unhappy and that's why he wanted to kill. To him, it was going to ruin his life and he was going to kill himself. This defendant was resolved to kill this fetus. It didn't work. [Count #2] Was he not being [secretive?] when he typed "evil ways to end pregnancy"? When he typed, "the most powerful sedative?"

It wasn't presented in testimony [however], he also typed "How to wipe a Mac clean." Counsel indicates there is no evidence of [intent?].  There were searches [on the computer], as to how to insert Misoprostol vaginally.

[Additionally], Ms. Doe to Detective Fairchild. 'She felt like she was in a fog. Like she had taken NyQuil.'  Dr. Kingston agreed that [these] symptoms are consistent with exposure to Misoprostol. This is someone who was determined to kill that fetus. ... Who said he would kill himself if that fetus would come to fruition. He was resolved to kill that fetus. He had started and he wasn't going to stop.

It's not clear in my notes, but I believe that Mr. Currie argues rebuttal, or the court asks Mr. Currie about a specific intent.  I believe Mr. Currie addresses jury instructions and that the prosecution must show specific intent.  There is defense argument about the people bringing an intent charge and not completed charge because Ms. Doe miscarried.

I believe the court asks Mr. Currie for a response to Ms. Rizzo's arguments on elder abuse and if that has applicability to this case. Currie doesn't think it does because it goes back to intent. Intended crime did not occur. Currie argues that the cases the people cited, those cases focus on, ... did the defendant have intent to have sexual relations with a female under 14 years of age. It goes to the defendant's specific intent, ... because they chose to bring intent charges and not the completed crime.  Currie continues with another point on Count #1.  Defense exhibit AA, email.

I believe Mr. Currie reads the email. I let him know about ultrasounds and I kept him appraised. That doesn't support Jamba Juice because that came before ultrasounds.

Janet Levine continues with defense rebuttal argument.  Couple of things. [Probably?] make clear at 115 prelims. Ms. Rizzo argued on several themes that what Ms. Doe may have thought or [speculated?] because we did not hear from Ms. Doe. Ms. Levine argues again that the dates suggested when that occurred were variable.  That she was an ex-girlfriend; there is no evidence of that. There is no testimony about what Mr. Woodward was doing at that time. No evidence that he was a boyfriend of Ms. Doe. All we have are some inferences.

I believe the court asks the defense what they make of a computer search using [the word] 'evil' as opposed to 'ways.' Ms. Levine states that we don't have the evidence as to how the searches went. We don't' have evidence against the law. ... The drug is being prescribed and used.

I believe it is at this point where Judge Pastor rules.

The court is aware of it's duty to establish probable cause. The court does not have to find if the defendant is guilty. The court only has to find probable cause. ... I've done so. Based on the evidence presented, the people have met their burden on Counts 1 through 4. ... They have met the burden ... establishing each one of these instances. That the target was a fetus. That he had an intended specific intent to kill.  Do not find that the defendant must have known [fetal age?].  However, if required, I'm satisfied the defendant knew the development ... knew of the fetal age.

Find the conduct ... did .. in fact consist of intent.  Did extend beyond [embryonic?].  Any motion to [defer?] counts 1 through 4 is denied.  Counts 1 through 4, each a 664/187 [count], order him to be held to answer.  Judge Pastor continues with the Penal Code descriptions.

The 4 million bail stands. Arraignment is scheduled for February 6, 2014, at 8:30 AM in Dept. 111, Judge Henry Hall.  Will be required to sign a bond form.

Judge Pastor then addresses counsel. "I have to comment on the lawyering ... [it] was brilliant." The court also complements counsel on their conduct and sensitivity.  Judge Pastor comments that he doesn't think the case should be in Dept. 111. The nature of the case and the motions,  "I think the case should be assigned to complex criminal court. ... I think the case should go there."  Ms. Levine agrees. I believe the court adds that ultimately it will be Judge Hall's call.  DDA Balian thanks the court for their time and the scheduling.

The arraignment in Dept. 111 was reported on February 6, 2014.