Lauren Sarene Key, 4, died November 8, 2000.
Copyright© Sarah Key-Marer, all rights reserved.
UPDATED 5/8 4:00 PM edited for spelling, readability, accuracy.
Wednesday May 6, 2015
I'm inside Dept. 107. Dr. Hayes is here. Counsel are getting set up in the well. For a few minutes, there was a camera here from Inside Edition but they left. I don't know what that was about.
Counsel are now talking about how short a day the testimony will be this morning.
Sarah and her friend arrive.
I believe Dr. Hayes will interrupt Detective Leslie's testimony.
No. It's Detective Leslie back on the stand.
DETECTIVE JEFFRERY LESLIE
ON Nov 30, 2000 Did you interview Jan Mueller? Yes.
Did Ms. Mueller tell you why she explained to Sarah about the abuse allegations that the defendant made? Objection Sustained.
Did Ms. Muller tell you the defendant had told her, that he felt his mother was an evil person? Yes.
Did Ms. Muller tell you, she had seen the defendant get angry and frustrated when he spoke of his mother? Yes, she did.
Did she encourage you to read the court file where the defendant said he had 50% custody? Yes.
Did you see Mrs. Brown, [Patty] in the courtroom a couple of weeks ago? Yes, I did.
I want to ask about your contact with the defendant at the archery range and during the interview on Nov 9, 2000.
First of all, with regard to the interview on 11/9, did you ask the defendant if he was receiving any treatment for psychological conditions? I don't think that came up at all.
Did the defendant ever say to you, or did you ever observe in the defendant at the archery ranage or in the interview, any of the following symptoms or behaviors:
That the defendant displayed or mentioned reduced awareness of surroundings? No
Did the defendant ever say, Where am I? No.
Did the defendant ever ask, What's under the sheet?" No.
Did the defendant appear to be very aware of his surroundings? He did.
He had mentioned the surfboard[s?] on his car not wanting to be stolen. He had mentioned about where the car was parked. Mentioned concerned about the news media. He mentioned about the boots being wet. He mentioned he knew where he was in regards to going back to the station.
Did the defendant ever display or tell to you that he felt:
Like an outside observer?
[As if he was] floating in the air looking down?
His body legs or arms distorted or that his head was wrapped in cotton... ?
[There are more, but I miss them all.]
That he felt like he was living in a movie?
I believe the witness answers 'no' to all these questions.
Judge interrupts and asks to approach.
Did the defendant state to you or [did you] observe the defendant appear to have, that his surroundings looked distorted, artificial or heightened awareness or surroundings? No.
Distortions of distance or time or the size or shape of objects? No.
[You] spoke with Lt. Erickson, Deputy Brothers, [Firefighter] Curcio, did any of them tell you, that the defendant had complained of any of these symptoms or that they had obvserved any of these symptoms in the defendant? No.
Direct ends and cross begins.
You were just asked a series of questions about symptoms of a disorder that you have supposed to have listened to, when Dr. Booker testified. Yes. I listened.
Then you know that the symptoms were in the DSM-5 manual? I don't know what a DSM-5.
I wasn't real clear on what Dr. Booker's opinion was, to be honest.
You were asked about your talk with Ms. Mueller. Is it correct that she told you, Mr. Brown had a legitimate interest with Lauren? Yes.
And that it seemed to grow as he spent more time with Lauren? Yes.
And she also told you that it wasn't her impression that Mr. Brown's interest was financial? Obj. Sustained.
Laub wants to have a photo marked. Defense BB. Goes beyond the scope.
This photograph is, one on the left, back of the defendant's legs. It's a close up of his calves and boots.
That [photo] was taken in the early morning hours of Lomita Station. When had his interview with him? Yes.
Showing the jury on the screen. Photo shows some red marks on the back of Brown's legs.
You've been working on this case now, 15 years? Well, it will be 15 in September.
You've worked consistently with Mr. Hum, in preparing this case? At times.
Traveled out of state to interview witnesses? Yes.
Went to Inspiration Point? Yes.
About how many times? I have no idea.
And also prepared written report of your personal activities? Correct.
Also prepared six volumes of notes? Myslef, I'm on my sixth notebook.
Now about the various witnesses that were recorded? Yes. That's the one you flew to Hawaii. [Yes.]
None of the other witnesses were recorded? That's hard to remember. I think Ms. Muller was. I'm not sure.
Brown's interview was not recorded.
The only thing that this jury has to rely on is the witness testimony and yours? [Miss answer.]
When you talked with Mr. Hope, he was someone who was not a friend of Mr. Brown? That's correct.
And you know he said he didn't know Mr. Brown. That's correct.
As far as you know, he had no motive to help Mr. Brown? I would assume that to be correct.
And the previous proceeding and this proceeding and was at Inspiration Point, and no motive to help? His testimony was read in as a defense witness. I have no idea ...
You worked hand and hand with Mr. Hum ... you testified in the grand jury, and prior proceedings and testified in this case? Correct.
DDA Hum, [the people] will stipulate.
Now where did you write that Mr. Hope was naked? No. That is correct.
And the very first time, that you saw a bush wiggling, and low and behold, you found this witness, Objection. Counsel, don't editorialize.
Now [this is] the first time, this witness was naked in a [wiggling] bush comes out in this proceeding. First of all, the bush was not wiggling. I heard rustling.
Mr. Laub accuses Detective Leslie of bringing this up for the first time.
I testified that when I spoke to Mr. Hope he was naked and getting dressed. I was asked for the first time, I was asked why I referred to him as the naked guy.
Detective Leslie explains that when he found Mr. Hope he was naked and getting dressed,
Cross ends direct begins.
Defense BB the back of defendant's legs. You checked the back of his legs, did you see any source of any injury of the defendant's legs?
It's intended to depict what it is. There's blood soakage on the socks. There's diluted blood or blood transfer, on the inside portion of the left ankle. He was not bleeding.
Did you also see blood on the back of the defendant's shirt? Judge states we've heard this before.
When you were first asked why you referred to [Mr. Hope] as the naked guy? Yesterday.
[He said he was a member of the] Polar Bear club and that's why he did that.
Redirect ends and recross begins.
Photo. First detective, the things that you're claiming were blood from Lauren, none of that was checked for blood type was it? Our lab would not do analysis on blood from a known donor. In order for our lab to DNA test, I didn't ask about DNA. I asked about blood typing. ABO? We don't do blood typing.
DDA Hum objects. The court asks the jury to go into the jury room please.
The court addresses Mr. Laub. What is your problem this morning? You've been rude to the court. What was that about? ... Don't cut me off. I don't know what this is about this morning. What I take issue with is your tactic this morning. Tone it down.
The court doesn't understand why Mr. Laub is going over the naked issue and blowing it up.
Laub argues that the prosecution is only doing this because they've had two hung trials and they are further trying to discredit the witness.
The court tells him to save that for argument.
There is a way to cross examine, it's your tonality is what I have an issue with.
Laub continued to defend his point in front of the jury.
DDA Hum: I want it to make one statement. Once again, he has called me a liar. Because he doesn't believe the testimony from Detective Leslie that this was the first time I made the inquiry from Detective Leslie.
DDA Hum, as an officer of the court, I am not lying when I say that this was the first time that I inquired about why Detective Leslie called him the naked guy.
The judge tells counsel to tone it down before we bring the jury out.
The jury comes back out.
Back on the record.
When we broke a moment ago I was asking if you had anything done to type the blood that we see in this photograph. Is the fact, doctor's put on charts either A, B, O. Again, no it does not. Our lab does not do the typing that you are referring to. All we do is is DNA.
What you're telling us is that request for DNA analysis wasn't done, because you had concluded anything that you saw came from Lauren? There was no DNA analysis in this case.
Mr. Laub asks if a particular streak is a blood droplet? That is a blood droplet. There is blood on the socks.
So what we're looking at is not an abrasion? That is not an abrasion.
How did that blood get there? When he brought Lauren up from the beach and carried her over his shoulder.
Laub asks Detective Leslie why there isn't blood on the upper parts of his legs? [Miss answer.]
You testified Mr. Brown said that he ran, though what he said was some brush? And you didn't find what you thought you would find scratches and abrasions?
He said he was running as fast as he could across that terrain. For running as fast as you could, across that terrain, I would expect to see abrasions, cuts, even lacerations from the terrain.
I'm saying that I was in that interview. I did not see any injuries on Mr. Brown.
Cross ends and the witness is excused.
People recall Dr. Wilson Hayes.
DR. WILSON HAYES
A few questions, some follow up.
President and CEO of Hayes & Associates? Yes.
Have you been a consultant and an academic in your career at the same time? Yes.
Explains in detail.
He's been involved in falls from cliffs? How many? I believe about six.
Falls from great height? Somewhere around 20. Construction height falls or falls off of tall buildings.
Have you observed injures that resulted from these great heights? I have.
Have you analyzed injures in falls from great height? I have in much the same way that I have here.
Is it your testimony that there is no possible way that Lauren Key could have fallen from a great height, from a biomechanical or physical [standpoint?]. If we can, or could disregard the injuries and just go on the shape of the cliff and the physics biomechanics. she could have fallen from the cliff, yes.
Could, ... if you now take into consideration the injuries that Lauren sustained and the physics could she have accidentally fallen and sustained these injuries? That is to understand the question.
If you take into account all three sets of factors, biomechanics, the topography of cliff and the injuries sustained, no, she could not have fallen accidentally from Inspiration Point.
Object [to?] replay of testimony.
Is it your testimony, if you were to disregard Lauren's injuries, that Luaren could not have sustained a single impact from the cliff... [miss rest]? That was not my testimony. She could have sustained a single impact [with a ?] ..... however, you must include the injuries.
In your testimony, does the terminology single impact with the cliff, and Lauren's injuries mean the same thing? No.
A single impact with the cliff, could be a trip at the top of Inspiration Point and never going over. That could be a single impact. I could image a single impact where she just hits the cliff with her feet. Hypothetically. That's very different than her injuries. So no, I don't see those [as being] one and the same at all.
Was it your testimony, Lauren's injures could only have been caused by a single impact with the cliff face? That doesn't encompass my testimony. It was my testimony she had one single impact with the cliff.
The added information that was crucual, she had to do so head down, face inward in way that esentially broke her neck. So it's much more than that.
Dr.. Hayes, I emailed t you a copy of the PowerPoint that Dr. Sigmund used? Yes.
Was there one slide that had your slide documenting your injuries and other information added? [Yes.]
Were you trying to hide injuries when you prepare that slide? Not in any way shape or form.
I testified that there were other minor scrapes and abrasions that could have happened from other sources. The walk there, or the rocks. ... I was calling attention to the massive impact on the cliff, and what we would expect with interacting, hitting the rocks at the top.
You're also aware that Dr. Siegmund testified about some calculations about 11.3 ft per second.and running. ... Where did the number 11.3 feet per second came from? A book. Pedestrial Reconstruciton. And it gives walking and runniNG speeds for various ages. TherE were data there for five year old children and the running data for a five year old femal child running at top speed, was 11.3 per second. That's where that came from. ... There was no data for four year olds.
And the data for 6 year olds was 12.3 feet per second? Correct.
Were you trying to hide that information from anyone? No. That was information was produced prior to the 2006 proceeding in a spreadsheet and hand form, when we were considereing the issue of running. No I was not trying to hide that information.
Also aware in Dr. Siegmund's presentation that he had a couple of slides depicting the 11.3 ft per second on the graph.
People's 144 for identification.
Showing his original slide. on the side view lines of the cliff.
This slide was in Dr Siegmund's presentation. IT was taken from my presentation and included in Dr. Siegmund's presentation.
Doesn't it appear that slides were superimposed over your slide? Yes. Here is my original slide format.
You know we talked about the cliff geometry. We talked about the launch at 15 ft per second 10 ft per second.
The blue line was Dr. Siegmund's and superimposed over our slide.
Is the next slide an illustration of that. It was superimposed.
Is there a reason why you did not include the 11.3 per second that you presented in your PowerPoint?
That was most fundamentally, the running off the cliff, because issues of credibility generally, it also violated the fundamental laws of physics.
Because we knew that could not in fact happen.
The first slide speaks to the point that a four year old child, starting to run from a standing start, with a four foot distance between where she and her father were located, four feet from the edge of the cliff. would have to run off the cliff. Second, a four year old chidl, can't get close to up to speed in four feet. Work had been done to show, [that even experienced sprinters, need a certain amount of distance to get up to speed, and that distance is 4? ft.].
Dr. Hayes explains his new slide. The Y axis is the vertical axis. Distance traveled on the horizontal axis. And these blue lines are trained female runners who have trained as sprinters. What the blue line shows, even trained sprinters with the benefit of starting blocks can only get up to three feet per second in a distance of four feet.
She starts behind her father, you have to believe she can get up to 11.3 feet per second. It takes trained sprinters to get up to ....
Lauren, we don't know how she could get up [to that speed?]? Let's assume she could get up as a trained sprinter, she could only get up to about 4 feet. ... It would still take her 16 feet to get up to 11.3 ft per second.
Were there other reasons why you didn't include that in your PowerPoint presentation?
Dr. Hayes gives a Running Scenario
No one would run straight off a cliff.
Had Laruen manage to reach 11.3 feet per second and run of the cliff, she would have hit the shelf feet first.
I type the exhibit first then Dr. Hayes' words.
Had Lauren manged to reach 11.3 feet and run, then trip at the edge of the cliff, the trip would have initiated a forward fall. Based on the conservation of momentum and the 1.8 second it would have taken Lauren to reach the shelf, she would have completed on complete flip in the air followed by an additional rotation of 249 degrees. Such rotation would result in an impact on the back of her head and would not produce the injuries she received.
She's now running fast and trips, and now what happens is, she rotates, far more quickly and rotates. She would rotate almost another full revolution she would hit the back of her head and sustain a different set of injuries.
Considering all three sets of factors, it also rules out running and tripping for the same three sets of reasons.
Is that why you didn't include it in your presentation? Yes, it is.
Direct ends and cross examination begins.
Going back to your first slide. Testified as your slide with [...]? Dr. Siegmund superimposed data on my slide. He added an anotation. Kept the logo. Added a blue line.
And you're aware that his testimony, his very thing? I haven't read his testimony, so I can't say that's true.
So looking at that graph, look at the green line. In your slip/trip calculations Lauren doesn't even go off the cliff. Sometimes she does and others she doesn't.
It's a bit of a confusing question for a couple of reasons.
In any of these frames that we're looking at, does Lauren fall off the cliff?
We don't know. because this doesn't show beyond the first interaction. It show that we know what doesn't occur. That's why we did the other analysis. Because if she would slide. ... There were some where she would't.
Are we seeing anywhere where she would go over? Like I said before we're seeing [only] the first impact with the cliff.
More questions that I can't keep up with. The testimony is too fast and the answers are complex.
What your telling us is that green line, and that data represent and example of something, that could not, produce the actual injuries that Lauren sustained. I don't know how to answer that, because it would not.
We have to be careful with that. She couldn't have solely sustained, ...
More questions about his graphs and what they show, don't show.
Now questions about four year olds, five year olds where he got the 11.3 ft per second and that there is no data on how long/far it takes for the children to reach that speed. Back then, they were only measuring how fast these age ranges could go.
Laub continues to cross Dr. Hayes on his exhibits and his spread sheet.
Isn't what you did by adding the green line and not the blue line is choosing for the jury what they could see? No. The blue line violates the law of physics. The green line does not. Two completely different sets of data.
You saw that Dr. Sig produced a lower speed? No, I didn't see that.
So you have nothing to say that Dr. Siegmunt showed a running speed of 8.55 would show a fall off the cliff that would produce those injuries?
Mr. Brown testfied that he was seated ... in interviews he was seated four feet from the cliff. He also said that his daughter was at his side or just behind him.
Did you find anything in the interviews that was not credible? If there's a question about credibility what's stated in interviews, then we turn to the laws of physics.
The one fact that you take fro Mr. Brown's interview, the fact that he allegedly said, that it's four feet, and used that with, took that one fact, and based everything on that? What if he was 12 feet away? So she was running, she would need 16 feet.
Dr. Hayes goes into a lengthy explanation about the physics, the rotation, and all the other testimony.
Are you asking if he disregards what Deputy Falicon observed, would he have a different conclusion? The court intervenes. Laub steps away from that.
Mr. Laub and Dr. Hayes continue to go back and forth.
So if Mr. Brown said 12 feet would that affect your conclusion? You'll remember that I testified that it was a range of space, a 12ft by 8 ft space. We tested a range of [points within that space].
We can move him back another six feet we can move him to the side another few feet and these analyses apply.
Laub continues with what if she is running at 8.5 feet per second and what if she does throw a rock?
If she's traveling at 8.55 ft per second and she trips she's going to hit the top of the cliff.
Laub asks again about the 13.3 ftt per second and the rotation. Dr. Hayes states that if you trip you go forward you can actually calculate the speed. Dr. Hayes explains what a trip means. The trip foot stops and the rest of the body continues to go forward.
Laub goes on about Dr. Hayes not working with a slower speed of 8.55 ft per second.
Laub accuses Dr. Hayes of talking off the top of his head.
Mr. Laub continues with the fact that Siegmund went through and presented those calculations. Dr. Hayes insists that he didn't go through and show the rotation. That Dr. Siegmund didn't work back from the injuries.
Sidebar request by judge.
No further questions.
The court tells the jury that both sides have rested.
The court now addresses the jury about the site visit. My bailiff will give you a menu. Don't get excited, it's just a Subway menu. Please fill that out. Put your juror number and seat number.
The court then reads the jury an instruction. The fact that physical restraints may be placed on the defendant [at the jury site visit] should not be considered by you that he is more likely to be guilty or not guilty. Disregard this matter entirely. Jurors are not to converse amongst themselves in any manner connected with this trial. Please do not make comments at all. Please do not wander off. Stay with the group.
Tomorrow at 9:00 AM, Monday at 8:30 AM. The jury asks about Friday. There is no court on Friday.
The bailiff hands them a menu when they pass behind me.
The staff and counsel are asked to fill out a paper also.
Going to take a break then come back and discuss the site visit, and jury instructions.
The jury has left.
On the record about the viewing.
We are set to have the site viewing tomorrow. Caravans of buses, SUV's and so forth take off about 9:30 AM be on site between 10:30 and 10:45 am.
I believe it's DDA Hum who explains to the court on the record what will happen and what the jury, court and counsel will see.
1. First site. At the parking lot to trail head. Which is about 100 yards walk across flat land. Abalone Cove parking lot. Once we leave there, the jury the rest of of us are transported to the bottom of the road to the preschool.
2. Site 2 preschool. Only takes longer because Jury goes back to the vehicles the defendant is taken to the spot in advance. The time will be less than five minutes.
3. Site 3 top of Portuguese Point. Vans can be driven out to Portuguese Point. West side to the East side of Portuguese Point.
Mr. Laub asks to approach. Off the record.
After three, we went and back to the parking lot to eat lunch.
4. Site 4 Inspiration Point. Then take the cars on the road to the point where the trail off to Inspiration Point connects with the road.
Jurors will be taken onto the point.
5. Site 5 archery range. [SUV's will drive down to the archery range.]
On both prior occasions, maybe two or three of the photo boards were taken to the location, at the top of the trail head and at the top of Portuguese Point and halfway out to Inspiration Point, just to orient the jurors to the areas in the photographs.
DDA Hum continues. This is a photograph directed to the east, to the top of Inspiration Point, to the parking lot. Things of that nature. But certainly no argument.
[Defense] Counsel will have that same luxury, you may want to reference to the jury. [Have exhibits to orient their witnesses testimony.]
DDA Hum: Last time, the judicial officer gave a synopsis as to what happened on site [that became part of the court record.]
DDA Hum, the only other thing that happened last time, Detective Leslie, has purchased a digital tape reorder, and if comments were recorded and put on a CD and they become part of the court record.
DDA Hum, I have no problem, if the CD's of that recording are prepared, I will be happy to give Mr. Laub a copy of that as well.
Do you have any objections to jury instructions? Only that some have been updated since the last proceeding. There are some where there is additional language that was not in the prior.
Other than adding, identifying the four individuals whose testimony was read into the record,
Mr. Laub do you?
I'm sure you're familiar with the defnes that 250.1 where it talks about the preponderance of the evidene, and that it's too confusing as to different standards of proof.
DDA Hum, that's a standard objection the defnse make.
Laub, 8.31 instruction. The second paragraph of number 3, I recognize it as a standard instruction but none the less, it's not necessary to prove intent. Judge disagrees. Instruction stands.
DDA Hum it's a standard instruction and discusses the intent requirement, and that malice doesn't require an intent to kill.
Laub continues on this instruction and what his interpretation of malice and implied malice.
2.50 Evidence of Frieda Clifford.
He objected to the testimony. Just, I don't believe that evidence should be produced it doesn't fit within 1101b and also objecting to the instruction regarding that.
Court has already ruled on this issue prior to trial. Mr. Laub is just making a complete record.
2.50.1 Preponderance of the evidence.
2.50.2 Preponderance of the evidence.
Court has previously ruled on these. Mr. Laub is just making a complete record.
Now trying to get copies of the previous CALJIC books to compare the previous language to the new language, of the instructions that DDA Hum previously identified as having different language.
DDA Hum is just stating that he is pointing out the language is different. He's not necessarily objecting to the new language.
The first one expands on the admonition to reading Blogs/Facebook, social media, etc.
Instruction 1.05 Jurors use of notes.
DDA Hum states this change was minor.
2.71 references statements of out of court statements by the defendant.
Judge Lomeli is inclined to leave the instruction as it is.
2.80 Expert testimony. Added second paragraph.
8.71 "If any of you" to "If any juror" The only difference is... [that?]. The court feels they read the same. Laub reads the old instruction that "you" is the jury as a whole. New instruction reads the jury as an individual. Court will be giving the new instruction.
Now instruction 8.74 The new instruction has an added paragraph. The court agrees with that instruction. Laub doesn't object to the statement of the law, but think it should [be modified?].
Court is not going to step into that and going to keep the instruction as the same.
8.80.1 Hum doesn't know what the difference is. There may not be a change in the portions. The use notes do not tell us, oh yes it does. Some require an intent to kill and some do not.
17.5.2 Electronic media. Separation admonition. Just adds electronic media to the instruction itself.
Laub, I just saw, the last page of the disposition table, there's a note from Judge Pastor, apparently at the prior trial, these weren't given.
In spring 2012, it references electronic media.
DDA Hum: No.
DDA Hum. These were given, but they were modified from the CALJIC. These were handwritten notes from Judge Pastor.
DDA Hum has noted his objections to his defense exhibits. I can tell the court what they are.
Objection are to Exhibit A - E - M - O - W - SS.
Addition to that, he was going to alter a series where this... [miss the rest of DDA Hum's statement].
Modification to V with the writing on V is taken out as long as there is a deletion of the language.
The clerk will assist in removing this language from the exhibit.
They will resume at 1:30 PM with exhibits. Brown will waive his appearance for the afternoon.
A reporter from Inside Edition is going to go on the jury site visit. She is getting information from the court on the logistics as to where the jury will be able to go and film. The judge made it clear that the jury will not be able to be filmed.
Judge Lomeli leaves the bench.
DDA Hum and Mr. Laub go over exhibits together off the record.
There are just a few exhibits to go over at 1:30 PM. I've decided not to stay.
So, Monday morning at 8:30 AM for this case.
I'm on the train home. Since there will be media at the site visit, there may be video on the news Thursday night or later. I recommend checking Inside Edition's schedule.