Lonnie Franklin, Jr., pretrial hearing, possibly July 2010
Photo Credit: Unknown pool camera
Prior post can be found HERE.
T&T Case coverage and Media Links HERE.
Wednesday May 25, 2016
Mona Shafer Edwards, the sketch artist is here along with ABC reporter Miriam Hernandez. Well, they were in the hallway. City News Reporter Terri Keith was trying to decide whether to continue with the Jace murder trial in Judge Robert Perry's courtroom or drop in on these evidentiary hearings.
Atherton was in his chair, rocking when I arrived. Over at the bailiff's desk was the court’s regular bailiff and Deputy Sargent Westphal.
I step out quickly to get a bottle of water before court begins. Defense attorney Seymour Amster arrived right before I stepped outside. Mona and Miriam enter Dept. 109.
The German witness is here. There is discussion as to whether or not the witness will be sketched. I think they agreed that the witness will decide whether the media will be able to use a sketch of her.
Franklin is brought out. He’s in an orange jumpsuit.
The German woman has her husband with her, a female victim's advocate from the DA's office I've seen before and a woman sitting in the bench row behind her who is comforting her by patting her back. I find out later that the woman in the row behind her is from the crime lab. Both the victim's advocate and the crime lab person speak German.
Judge Kennedy greets parties.
The thing everyone wants is to hear is if the German woman will agree to an interview with the defense or the defense investigator, but that's not what the court starts off with. There are 402 issues on both sides.
Amster argues that he has received no written motions. There is no law that that requires him to give an offer of proof. He argues that he's not required to give discovery.
Regarding a witness named Williams, Judge Kennedy asks, "You said that he was going to testify as to the destruction of evidence. Is that not true anymore?" Amster states he will be testifying about the body dump. As far as destruction of property, it’s solely to Inez Warren and if he had that evidence, to him, [witness] that might strengthen or change his opinion about the body dump.
Amster states that it is his witness's opinion that the Warren case is not a body dump. Well, it is a body dump but different than other body dumps in this case, verses hiding the body which did not occur. We had a rapid leaving of the scene of individuals or individual that we did not see in other individual [cases]. We know the victim was alive where we know in other scenes where the victim was dead when left at the scene. They are contradictions and dissimilarities. And that’s what his testimony will center on.
Judge Kennedy slowly responds, "Okay..."
DDA Silverman counters, "All of that would not be an area for expert testimony. He can argue, but all of that would be prior hearsay testimony he wasn’t at any of these locations."
Judge Kennedy asks if Amster can qualify him as an expert.
Amster responds, "He’s had the same amount of experience as the people’s expert. They opened the door. We have under the law, to be able [present him?]." Amster continues to object to the 402 since he insists the people never filed a motion.
DDA Silverman counters that. "The defense is wrong. ... The people did file a motion, back in November. ... There was no destruction of the sexual assault case in Inez Warren. She was taken to the hospital. There was no sexual assault kit collected."
The court rules in favor of the 402. "He’s not testifying as a police practices expert. Just testifying what makes this case difference than the other cases. [Warren]. They [people] do have a right to have him questioned as to his expertise."
An older black gentleman gets up from the seats by the door and takes the witness stand. Amster starts off with very simple questions. In no time DDA Silverman is objecting and Judge Kennedy is having to direct some of the examination.
1. TIMOTHY T. WILLIAMS
Were you eve employed by the LAPD?
Yes I was.
Were you employed by as a detective?
Yes I was ... I was employed as a detective from 1979 trainee. I was promoted in 1981 and retired in 2003.
Did you investigate homicides?
Would you investigations include situations that would be a body dump?
Did you you believe your expertise ...
Judge Kennedy tells the defense, "Deal with his qualifications first."
Did you gain knowledge and experience to determine ... knows about body dumps? ... How many homicides did you investigate?
How many of those involved a body dump?
Objection. No foundation.
Judge Kennedy tells the people to wait with the objections because this is a 402 hearing. She'll rule. DDA Silverman lays out her battle lines. "The people's position is, is that they have to lay a proper foundation."
The witness explains he received on the job training from his partners to see what constitutes a "body dump" scene. He would check post mortem lividity to see if the body was moved or other types of evidence of the body not being there.
And as a homicide investigator, was it part of your duties to determine if this [Warren] was a body dump?
And that's it. Amster believes he's done all he needs to do. The court asks the people if they want to cross the witness. DDA Silverman replies. "No foundation."
I believe at this point the court starts questioning the witness.
In your opinion what is a body dump and what are you looking for?
Where, someone is killed at another location and then they place it in another location. That's my terms.
What is it you specifically look for?
Witnesses that may have seen or heard anything. ... Physical evidence that may exert itself on the body. Post mortem lividity. Body is moved and the lividity. ... May have witnesses who say they walked through that area.
Judge Kennedy replies with a question, "That's it?" It's hard to interpret the expressions on the court's face during questioning. At times, it looked like she was puzzled or, not believing what she was hearing. The witness adds a bit more.
There may be other evidence that suggest that a body is a dump. You may have a purse that's near the body. You may have something that shows that the activity that the homicide was not there at the scene or someone else.
The court asks the prosecution if they want to cross. The defense wants a completed ruling. The people state they haven't heard anything from this individual. Amster states they are not asking particular opinion on this case. People proffered a detective that Inez Warren was a body dump. His opinion is exactly the same as Mr. Williams, someone who was trained to recognize a body dump or not.
Judge Kennedy continues with her questioning. "Your opinion of a body dump is that the person is killed elsewhere and then the body is left at some other location after death?" The witness replies, "That's my opinion and the long and short of it."
The look on Judge Kennedy's face is priceless. I believe she asks another question. "If the evidence is [the victim] is dying or has received significant injuries elsewhere, but is left someplace different from where the injuries were inflicted, that's not a body dump?" The witness states, "In my opinion, that is still a body dump if the person was alive or dead."
Amster argues that his witness is going to render an opinion verses what was given by the people. The defense position is, that the crime may have or might have occurred at the location, not on the ground where the individual was found but in the van right there ... But the way that the evidence, ... the rapid leaving of the scene is contrary to other scenes.
DDA Silverman is not happy. I don't think she is believing what she is hearing that the court may consider this witness an expert, in comparison to Detective John Skaggs. She moves forward in cross examining the witness.
Can you give a list of all the 44 homicides you claim to have worked?
[He cannot remember.]
Can you list one?
[He can't remember.'
You can't list one homicide? ... What homicide division was that you were assigned to?
77th Street Homicide.
Who were your supervisors? ... Tell us who your superior was?
Joe [?] Lieutenant over detectives at that time.
The witness mentions two more names. He's asked who his partner was and he names him. He was assigned to 77th Street homicide as a detective for a little over a year. He states he worked 44 homicides when he was working child abuse as well.
DDA Silverman gets more specific in her questioning, whether he investigated any women who were shot to death and left at a particular location. Williams sates he can't name one, but he's sure he has, he just can't name them. The time frame is gone over as to when he actually worked homicide. And he states he was lead on about 20% of the homicides. He's asked who was the D3 [detective 3] in the unit. When asked what homicide schools he attended, he states he needs to check his CV.
The people ask that the CV be turned over. The court orders it. Amster insists that he's already turned it over, or he thinks he did, but then he says he's not sure but that he will.
DDA Silverman continues her relentless questioning of the witness for his training and qualifications. Question after question after question about they types of cases he worked and what units he served in.
City News reporter Terri Keith and Jane Robison from the DA's office arrive.
The witness states that at one point, his job was to review all homicides through the bureau and review them and some were body dumps. He would make recommendations to the commanding officer. He states, "I have had my experience dealing with [them?] throughout my career."
But DDA Silverman is not finished. She wants to know how much of his education was specifically directed at body dumps. How many of the 44 homicides was he a patrol officer. What is it that you're saying was different with respect to Inez Warren? What is it that you claim to be testifying about that is different?
I believe the distinction is the difference between Inez Warren and others.
And then Judge Kennedy rules. "I think he has sufficient expertise to render an opinion.
He has copies of his CV and he is ordered to give a copy to the people.
The people object to Amster's "mitigation expert." DDA Silverman argues that anything she says is hearsay. The people were given a document of five pages that doesn't have a source. The last page is numbered Page 2. Some pages are in a different font. The people believe that all this information is hearsay and not expert opinion.
Judge Kennedy looks through the information on the five pages and states, "I don't understand."
Amster argues that the information is being offered under Factor K. "Her experience and expertise is the same as Dupree when he testified about the conditions, about that area when he was growing up. Ms. Kaiser [sp?] was also in that area in that time period. Thease are the things that she observed and we feel that all these facts and circumstance that are state in that [document?] ... circumstances factor into the crimes and how that woud affect someone in that area at that time and something where ... for the jury to consider under Factor K."
Amster then adds that this is under the defendant's fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendment rights. DDA Silverman states this is exactly the type of information that is excluded under the law.
Judge Kennedy opines, "I read this document over. And [there's] no mention ... there is no evidence in the record that the defendant even grew up in Los Angeles. He was there during that time [during the murders] ... [and somehow this?] is the basis of some evidence about how this affected the defendant's life or was his life or certain factors about the crimes that he committed or ... that were brought up. I don't see that this is Factor K evidence."
The court adds that this is all very interesting but the court doesn't see in the evidence where it has to do with Mr. Franklin that the court has heard. Amster counters that it's not to be considered as to the defendant growing up, just the circumstance of living in South Los Angeles during the crimes. Amster adds that everyone was influenced by the circumstance, ... the weight that should be given to it. And it should be up to the jury. That's how we're stating it. That's why we're giving it rendering. Introducing it as Factor K. Amster states it's also being rendered as Factor A. Just because a factor is listed, it's not necessarily aggravating it's mitigation, too. Amster insists that nothing in the law says something has to be used as mitigating or aggravating. The defense is saying this evidence is mitigating under Factor A and Factor K.
DDA Silverman tells the court that there is a lot of commentary in there that may be historical. She reads what I'm interpreting are snatches of text from the document. "... multiple [serial?] killers, homosexuality ... corruption of the police ... election of Bill Clinton ... rap records ... genocide in Rowanda and the million man march. ... And the only way to seek happiness is to seek God. ... Religion. ... Nothing specifically related to the defendant. ... If you read through it ... those are someone's opinions that have no basis in a court of law, and to point to one area that this person does [not?] know what they are talking about. ... The snooty box hotel. ... Numerous spelling errors and factual errors and none of this has shown to be relevant in this case."
Amster argues that not all the information should get in. However, he goes onto say that his mitigation expert, described the events as seen in that area where the crimes occurred and to give as much experience ... that Ms. Kaiser can give first hand knowledge of that area and how it would affect all the residents in that area. The drugs, the prostitution, murder, the amount of drugs. Amster says something to the effect that the court will give the appropriate ruling.
Judge Kennedy tentatively rules, "It seems to me, number one, you have, somehow, have to connect this to this defendant. That he experienced this thing and it affected him in some way. You haven't established that link. ... I don't know ahat Mr. Franklin grew up in South Los Angeles. The only thing I know about Mr. Franklin is, is the time he worked for the city and the addresses that were [on file] with the Sanitation Department or the LAPD. ... At some time he was in the military and so he was out of the country somewhere ... about activity in Germany. ... Prior to that, I don't know if he grew up in Los Angeles or grew up somewhere else. Minimally, you have to establish it's relevant to him and his experience. ... And all this stuff on who got elected president, I don't get it. I don't understand it."
The look on Judge Kennedy's face, when she says she doesn't get it or understand it, is priceless.
Amster counters, "The only thing I want to put on the record, ... we do not know how this influenced him growing up, but how it influenced him when he lived in that area." DDA Silverman responds, That would require him to take the stand and we would welcome it." Judge Kennedy makes a final ruling, "On the basis of this document, I'm not going to let this person testify."
For weeks now, I thought this woman in a wheelchair who has been in the gallery was a defense investigator. Turns out she's supposedly a mitigation expert. I don't know if I'm correct or not, but it sounded like, the only expertise she had was, growing up in the area. I did not hear anything read or argued in court about this individual's credentials as a mitigation expert.
The people ask for an offer of proof for more names on the defense witness list and what they are going to testify to. Several names are said but I know I did not get them all down correctly. Then the court interrupts to ask a question.
"Mr. Atherton, what are you doing?," the court asks. Mr. Atherton responds something to the effect that he's trying to get an appearance rescheduled. I could not see, but my best educated guess was, Mr. Atherton was using his cell phone at the defense table. The court tells him, "Maybe you can go out in the hall and do that." [I'm astonished.]
Now there is discussion as to whether or not the defense is going to call DNA analysts from Sorenson, to testify that no DNA belonging to the defendant was found on Enietra Washington or her clothing.
DDA Rizzo tells the court, "... we had testimony from Sorenson. We got into the waste-band, front of the crotch, side crotch. I've no idea why we would need to bring in [the Sorenson witness] in for the same testimony."
Amster tells the court, "Our position is this. The jury rejected our position on Ms. Washington. We feel there is no DNA connecting the defendant to Ms. Washington. We feel that we have a law enforcement lab doing their own analysis on the panties ... finding this conclusion ... using up all the sample ... this happens but we were not allowed to [do our own analysis]. We feel that under lingering [doubt?] giving information from another lab ... as to Sorenson, so it's a lingering doubt position."
There's more argument back and forth regarding Enietra Washington. The defense continues to argue there was no evidence of sexual assault linked to the defendant with this victim. The people did not put on any DNA evidence linking Mr. Franklin. The court responds to the defense that if the people are willing to enter into a specific stipulation, that there was no DNA that connects the defendant to Enietra Washington, sexual assault kit, the underwear, her clothing, whatever, would that work.
DDA Rizzo states that, if counsel wants to draft a stipulation they will look at it and assuming [the facts are correct] the people will so stipulate.
Judge Kennedy asks the defense if they want to argue lingering doubt.
Another witness is named that the people state they don't have any report with regards to that witness, a Mr. Coon [Cook?]. The court states they have something on their bench some where. She starts looking for a document. She then adds that they had a discussion at sidebar last week. It has to do with a Mr. Coon [Cook?] could review the fingerprint evidence. Apparently, there needs to be an order for the crime lab. DDA Silverman states she's never received a report from this witness. The defense states there is no report.
DDA Silverman argues, "It's the same thing with respect to Mr. Lamagna. We're asking for an offer of proof." The defense states they gave a lot of fingerprint evidence on Monday. All of this testimony is going to involve all of the evidence that was turned over. The court asks, "Is he a person that doesn't believe in fingerprint evidence?" Amster responds, "No, no. It's not that he doesn't believe, it's to the exclusion of all others. The significance of pattern and everything else."
DDA Rizzo replies, "I believe that based on the forensic review of all the various disciplines, that in forensic comparison, ... they do not testify to the exclusion of all others. ... [The defense?] knows of the changes to [testifying?]. ... The people are .... the court is aware that the NAS is revisiting the guidelines as to the way testimony is presented in court and the FBI has reviewed the way testimony is present in court ... to the exclusion of all others."
Amster disagrees. "He [Deacon?] said it was unique. He's [defense expert] going to testify ..." DDA Silverman states that the people haven't received anything from him, even a CV. DDA Rizzo states it was included on a CD [the defense provided.] DDA Rizzo states she looked at it briefly. She thought this whole issue had come up a few weeks ago.
Now there is another issue. Defense attorney Dale Atherton has given a document to the court for the judge to sign but he hasn't passed it by the people first. This is law 101. Judge Kennedy appears quite perturbed and tells counsel, "As far as evidence, I would never sign an order without the prosecution seeing it first. Ever." The people will not agree to this. The defense has waited until the 11th hour.
Amster insists that everything they have, that the people have, the defense turned over and this was the order 'he' got. [That doesn't make sense or my notes could be wrong.] The people state that the defense will have to fashion a new order so the people can review it. DDA Silverman states, "Once again, defense delay."
Apparently, what this involves, is for the defense expert to go to the LAPD fingerprint department with the order in hand so that the defense expert can look at the prints, the latent prints that were found on the [gun] magazine. The expert needs to be able to scan in the photographs. One doesn't look at the prints on the magazine. One utilizes the photograph and it can be digitized and enhanced. So the expert needs access to any photos that are in the file. The problem is, there were things done in the courtroom. [That was when the defendant was printed again on Monday, before the afternoon session began.]
The people argue that it's not their job to go through and explain to them [defense] what [evidence] they have that was turned over. Besides, it's not in the people's possession anymore.
Amster argues that this was done at the last second, the print roll in court. The people's expert, didn't compare the print from the gun and magazine, to what was rolled in court. The court reminds Amster that the expert compared the prints found on the evidence [A] to the print card from AFIS [B]. Then the print card from AFIS [B] was compared to the printcard [C] rolled in court.
Amster argues, "I don't want to place semantics on this." The court replies, "Semantics are critical."
Amster argues that they want the original photographs. The people insist that all documents [turned over] are in the file with the original photograph. That's what they are representing . The people also state that there are no notes regarding Mr. Deacon rolling the defendant's fingerprints. He rolled them on that card and that's what he indicated. The court tells Amster, "You have that testimony. ... Mr. Coon [Cook?] was here." Amster agrees that his expert was here in court. So the court tells him to now redraft his order for the court. Amster wants this fingerprint exam to be on Friday. The court asks, "Why wait? Why not today? ... Even if you hand write it ... [the order] can we just get it done so I can sign it?"
DDA Silverman tells the court, "They are just using this as another reason to not start [the defense case] on Friday." The court tells counsel, "Just get it done." Amster tells the court that he can't get it done today. He doesn't have access to a printer today.
[I'm shaking my head in disbelief.]
DDA Rizzo asks, "Is Mr. Coon [Cook?], is he going to testify as Mr. Lamagna as to the state of fingerprint evidence and is he going to be allowed to testify to that without a hearing?" Amster states he is going to go into the state of the evidence.
DDA Silverman states that the people need a 402 hearing. The court tells Amster, "If he's going to go into the NAS, then we need a hearing for that." The people then insist that they want a report and what the basis [is] of what he's going to say. Amster tells the court, "There is no report. We had no report on Mr. Hamby."
Back and forth, back and forth the arguing and comments from both sides go. Judge Kennedy in a loud voice commands counsel, "STOP. ... STOP."
Again, there's another interruption with another snide comment.
I believe the court tentatively concludes, "If he wants to testify that in his opinion ... based on his experience that there could be another person, untested person, who has the same fingerprints ... that the science hasn't come to the definitive conclusion ... they said that [finding?] ... and I say that's fine. ... And then lets do that and get done with it."
Amster states that the basis of his experts opinion will be the NAS reports. The court counters, "The NAS report does not say thatt, that there's another person that has that fingerprint. ... Mr. Deacon did not say to the exclusion of all others and he did testify that they were unique fingerprints."
Back and forth it goes, questions about what Mr. Coon [Cook?] will testify to, what the NAS report said about fingerprints to the exclusion of all others and whether Mr. Coon [Cook?] analyzes fingerprints in the same way. Interruptions back and forth again on both sides. Back and forth.
Amster insists he doesn't want to be locked into what his experts opinion is, all those studies and everything else. There's something else about the NAS [studies?] that were done with different parameters. I can no longer follow the arguments on both sides.
Amster states that the defense is challenging the uniqueness [of the fingerprint] and that there's lingering doubt that this is the defendant's fingerprint. He tells the court, "I think that science can't eliminate someone else with the same fingerprints because they've not tested everybody in the world."
Back and forth it goes as to what Mr. Coon [Cook?] will testify to and if those are Mr. Franklin's prints or not.
Amster states that the only issue he is having, is that he doesn't want to be locked into a box. He doesn't know if his witness uses the same technology that Mr. Deacon used, and that there are some variances. DDA Rizzo adds that Mr. Amster did mention several minutes ago that Mr. Coon [Cook?] may be modifying or enlarging. Judge Kennedy tells the defense, "We need to know what methodology he's using." Amster replies that he doesn't know if his expert is enlarging [the evidence digitally].
Judge Kennedy tells Amster, "The point of his testimony, that you want to get in front of the jury, I think you can get that easily. I think you can do it and you don't have to reinvent the whole analysis of fingerprint analysis because we're not going to do that."
With Judge Kennedy's ruling, DDA Silverman is shaking her head left to right. She asks the court, "Can't we find out in the meantime, as opposed to waiting a week?" The court answers, "We're not going to wait a week. ... I assume he's not here this morning? ... When is he going to be available to look at the evidence?"
Amster wants his expert to look at the evidence on Friday. DDA Silverman wants to do this today. Amster doesn't know if his expert is available. The court tells Amster that he can make a phone call.
Now it's back and forth, questions about whether the people are going to put on DNA evidence in the penalty phase. The people state that the defense said they are putting the Sorenson expert on the stand. Judge Kennedy reminds the defense that the stipulation only deals with Enietra Washington's panties. Amster states that there will not be any more DNA evidence from them.
Exhausted, Judge Kennedy states, "I need a martini."
Now the court changes the topic. The court wants to talk about the witnesses from Germany. DDA Silverman tells the court that they've been patiently waiting here. The court asks if they have a German interpreter here.
The court clerk tells Judge Kennedy that she called for a German interpreter and also sent the interpreter department an email. Still no German interpreter. They take a 15 minute break while the court tries to locate a German interpreter and Amster to finish rewriting his order for his expert to visit the LAPD fingerprint lab.
About 20 minutes later we're back on the record. Judge Kennedy tells counsel that she printed out some jury instructions for the guilt phase that she though were applicable.
Amster states, "I'm assuming that they're going to prove up the events in Germany because the witness is there. And they have the report of the foreign commission." Judge Kennedy states, "The events in Germany, the crimes have to be the same as ours and I don't know if you have all that. ... There's the issue of proving a foreign conviction in Germany. ... only if we have the objection to identity."
Amster replies, "Yes. We don't know what the witness testimony will be." DDA Silverman responds, "It's going to follow the transcript of the witness counsel has." Amster responds, "The foreign conviction, yes, we have copies of it. There is a procedure that they have to document ..." DDA Silverman interrupts and Judge Kennedy tells her not to interrupt. Amster states, "We're not conceding to the conviction on any of those grounds."
There's more back and forth.
DDA Silverman states there are other witnesses. 'We have a JAG officer who observed the trial, who will be able to connect up the defendant. There is also a military representative with respect to official records to the defendant's name and date of birth."
Amster responds, "Again, I don't want ... we're not trying to take advantage of any situation. ... ID is an issue as far as, particular acts. ... We're not conceding to anything. "
Judge Kennedy gives a tentative analysis. "What Ms. Silverman is saying, she feels she is going to be able to prove identity from the witnesses and you have [the] documents report. ... If that's the case she's not planning on introducing the physical documents of the German conviction."
Amster replies, "We're not conceding the German court documents or the military court marshal documents because the military never made a founding [about the conviction?]." DDA Silverman replies, He was discharged based on the conviction. ... Unless counsel is going to make an issue out of the identification then we have that as well."
I believe at some point, DDA Silverman tells the court that a copy of the discharge papers were found in the search of the residence.
Amster replies hes not sure if he's going to make an issue because he doesn't know what the testimony is going to be. DDA Silverman adds, "There was also an attempted forced oral copulation."
The parties move onto talking about jury instructions. In the mean time, they were unable to get a court certified German interpreter here for the morning session. They will have to wait until the afternoon. Judge Kennedy orders everyone back at 1:30 pm.
Several members of the mainstream press, Christine Pelisek, Terri Keith, and Stephen Ceasar are here. The court goes on the record.
DDA Rizzo tells the court that they did the redaction's on the two priors and stipulated to in court and those are exhibit numbers 653 and 654.
The court's German interpreter is here. She is getting acquainted with the witness. The interpreter states her name for the record.
The witness requests to only be identified by a first name and an initial. Amster then asks his question, "So does Ms. [ ] wish to participate in an interview with the defense or the defense investigators?" The German witness answers, "No."
There's nothing further on that issue. She, her husband and the various German interpreters leave the courtroom.
As far as interviewing Ms. [ ], nothing else can be done at this point. The defense just wants to make sure that any interviews that the people have... DDA Silverman states that she turned over extensive notes that she did with the witness and Mr. Pyle. Tomorrow, they pick up with the jury.
DDA Silverman informs the court that the people expect to finish their case tomorrow. There will be short testimony from the victim. Short testimony from the JAG officer and representative of the US Army. There will be three victim impact witnesses. That is the extent of the people's witnesses tomorrow.
Amster tells the court that he anticipates the defense penalty phase case should be two days, or at the very most three. Amster asks the court that they start on Tuesday. The court replies, "I will dot that on the condition that your fingerprint expert gets his report on Friday. Amster states he will rearrange his schedule. The court states that on Friday, they won't be in session unless to conclude the people's case.
There are discussions about making arrangemenets with Mr. Coon [Cook?] to look at the evidence as early as possible on Friday. They are hoping to schedule that at 9:00 am at the fingerprint department. DDA Rizzo states she provided explicit directions and instructions, and who Mr. Coon [Cook] is supposed to meet at the lab. The German interpreter is ordered back for tomorrow.
There's nothing else to take up at this time, and court is over for the day.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
The following morning, with the courtroom packed with family, the media and the people's next witnesses, Judge Kennedy asks counsel if they are ready for the jury. Amster then stands up and drops his latest bombshell.
Continued in Day 9 Part I......