Trials & Tribulations

Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial Hearing 14

2012-01-25T03:00:00.000-08:00

UPDATED!

Sherri Rae Rasmussen

There is a pretrial hearing today in the Stephanie Lazarus case. For those of you who have been living in a cave, Stephanie Lazarus, a 25-year veteran detective of the LAPD has been charged with the February 1986 cold case murder of Sherri Rae Rasmussen, the new wife of her ex-boyfriend, John Ruetten. Her trial is scheduled to start January 30th, 2012 with jury selection.

Last Friday we learned that the parties will be arguing "chain of custody", most likely concerning the bite mark swab located in the Coroner's freezers back in December 2004. It's also possible the prosecution will be presenting motions for a "402" hearing regarding one or several defense witnesses testimony. What is a 402 hearing? It's a preliminary hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence. It's conducted outside the presence of the jury, or before a trial starts.

I forgot to mention it in my last entry, but Judge Perry did indicate that if they are unable to get through all the motions (or any testimony) today, they will be able to reconvene of Friday, January 27th, 2012. I will have an update later tonight or Thursday.

UPDATE: January 25th, 2012 9:55 am
I've made it to the cafeteria in the lobby with a half hour to spare and purchased my first bottle of water for the day. One of my personal goals for covering this case is to try to stick with water or tea and not slip back into drinking soda for a pick-me-up caffeine fix when I'm dragging. When I walked by the rear entrance windows, I saw Nels and Loretta Rasmussen in the cafeteria. They both smiled at me as I walked by. Both Nels and Loretta have been very polite to me during all these pre-trial hearings.

I don't have any expectation that I will be one of the reporters selected for the pool reporter during voir dire (if Judge Perry even allows a single seat for the media) but I will hang out in the hallway anyway, to see if I can get any information during breaks.

If you are considering attending some of this trial, I recommend getting here before court starts and Judge Perry is one of the judge's who is usually very punctual to the 8:30 am start time. Although there are several lots much closer to the courthouse, I park two-and-a-half blocks south of the Criminal Court Building in Broadway. There is a Joe's Parking on the west side of the street that is only $9.00 per day. All you have to do is walk up Broadway and you can enter the building from the rear. The incline up Broadway is not that steep, even for those out of shape like myself. New management has taken over the dim cafeteria of old but I have not tried the new menu; I usually bring my lunch. The walls are painted some bright colors but the chairs, tables and floor is the same.

The other thing to be cognizant about is there could be long lines to get through building security as well as the time waiting for an elevator. There are only four elevators that go to the 9th floor from the lobby and the area in front of the elevators is often jammed with people trying to get to their courtroom. Then when you reach the 9th floor, there is another security scanning station to clear. I'll try to check back in during the lunch break.

UPDATE 12:05 pm
The short news is, the hearing is over and there will be no collected or DNA tested evidence excluded at trial. The chain of custody issue raised by the defense on several items of evidence was denied. The bite mark swab comes in, as do the torn fingernails, blood stains, blood stain typing, fingernails collected by the coroner and DNA testing done on those items. The evidence collected by investigators that are deceased (Ochi (sp?) and Mahanay will be allowed in. Judge Perry ruled against cameras in the courtroom for opening statements. The court ruled, "Because of my uncomfortableness of where this (case) is going, I'm not going to allow cameras (for opening statements)." (More of what he meant by that in my detailed update.) Judge Perry also limited the number of reserved seats for the defendant's and victim's families to eight seats each.

I'll have a detailed update on the hearing late tonight or later in the week. I'll get to it as soon as I can.

Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial Hearing 13, Part II

2012-01-23T23:15:00.000-08:00

Murder victim Sherri Rae Rasmussen, date unknown

January 20th, 2012
I wrote this entry over several days, down in the "dungeon" basement of Mr. Sprocket's current job project, acting as his helper. I'd get a little bit of writing done, and then I'd be called away from my laptop to hold a pipe or retrieve a tool. Sprocket

I get into downtown LA with just enough time to make it to the 9th floor if security isn’t too bad. As I’m walking past the glass windows of the rear entrance of the building, I see John Taylor (attorney for victim Sherri Rae Rasmussen’s family) standing with a tall, bald-headed black man in the cafeteria, talking to a dark haired woman working on a laptop. I don't believe I've seen the woman at the Lazarus pretrial hearings before, but it’s a good bet she’s talking to Taylor about the case.

I breeze through first floor security and head for the best spot to keep my eyes on the elevator lights. I want to grab the first one that lights up so I make it into Department 104 before 8:30 am. Success! I clear the 9th floor security and make it into Judge Perry's courtroom just in time. Sherri Rae's parents, Nels and Loretta Rasmussen are in the same spot, the center of the first row. Lazarus' mother is next to the aisle in the first row, but today there is a tall slender handsome man to her right. I believe it's Lazarus' husband, Scott.

The Dateline producer, Robert Dean is here in the second row and I take a seat on the cushioned bench to his left, almost directly behind Nels and Loretta. The court clerk is someone new that I don't recognize. John Taylor finally arrives. A few moments later, writer Matthew McGough slips quietly into the back row on the far left. I turn around and give him a smile. I make sure my phone is completely turned off and remind myself that I need to purchase a watch. Because of Judge Perry's rules about cell phones, I won't be able to use it to watch the time. Besides, the clocks in the courtrooms are notorious for never being set on time and are difficult to see from where I'm sitting. Sometime during the hearing, 48 Hours producer Greg Fisher also slips into the back row behind me, slightly to my left.

The large, barrel-chested defense investigator whose name I can never remember arrives with a shorter, older looking gray haired mustached man, casually dressed in a dark brown polo shirt and tan pants. I finally see the court reporter standing behind the clerks desk. The LAPD detective (who I think is Jaramillo) is chatting with the defense investigator. One of the court bailiffs comes over to the Rasmussen family and says something I can't hear. Judge Perry finally comes out of his chambers and takes the bench. He drops a big set of files on his desk and then goes back inside his chambers. One of the courtroom staff members says, "Let me get the clerk."

Mark and Courtney Overland come out from the jail holding area, and Lazarus comes out shortly after, carrying a type of canvas looking satchel/bag. She smiles at her husband and mother. The older, gray haired mustached man is holding a brown file folder. He approaches Mark Overland and shakes his hand. There's a very young, slender Asian looking woman sitting in one of the chairs directly behind the prosecution table in the well of the court. She wearing a medium gray colored suit, typical of what I've seen on other clerks in the DA's office.

Judge Perry is back on the bench and calls court to order. He informs the room that there are some issues regarding when they can start and it has to do with juror availability. I think he mentions something about discovery that still needs to be resolved but Overland speaks up and tells the Judge, "No need for the court to take action. It's all resolved."

Judge Perry states he had a discussion with the jury commissioner for the county. The commissioner told Judge Perry that he has been ordered to cut back on the number of jurors called to various courts. They are cutting way back because of the costs involved. To that end, the commissioner gave Judge Perry three options.

Perry states he felt this trial needed to talk to 80 to 200 jurors to get the 80 to 100 jurors that would fill out the juror questionnaire. Monday and Tuesday of the week they had planned to start the trial is a heavy day. There are lots of trials starting that day. Without getting into the details, Judge Perry was given some options. The first option was starting the trial a week early. The commissioner could give them the full compliment of jurors they wanted (200) on January 25th, and hand out juror questionnaires on that date. This would advance the start of the trial date. They would then be back on January 31st to start voir dire and start the trial on Wednesday. With this option, they could get 75 jurors at 10 am and another 75 at 11 am. Judge Perry would pre-screen them to find jurors that could sit for four to five weeks. To start the trial on January 25th, would be the jury commissioner's preference.

The second option would be to stick with the original trial date of January 30th and hand out questionnaires to those who can serve for the four to five weeks. However, the jury commissioner will only be able to provide the court 100 jurors on that day. They would be able to provide another 100 jurors the next day, Tuesday January 31st. That would mean rescheduling voir dire from February 2nd to February 3rd.

The third option would be to look at January 26th or January 27th to pre-screen jurors. Judge Perry states that he has a scheduled hearing in a capitol case on January 27th, but he could probably work around that.

Shannon Presby states the prosecution would have a problem moving up the trial. "That would not be ideal," he tells the court. Presby has a number of witnesses coming from out of town that are traveling a long distance. "Advancing the case even a few days would be difficult," he adds. Presby also mentions something about scheduling a day (before trial) for the change of custody ruling.

Mark Overland also agrees that advancing the trial date would be a problem.

Everyone agrees to settle on option number two, to pre-screen jurors on January 30th and the 31st. Judge Perry feels the time spent pre-screening should only take a half an hour. He also tell the parties that the first group to fill out the questionnaires, those would be the first jurors in the box. They would only hand out the questionnaires to those jurors able to serve. Then they would come back on that Friday, February 3rd, (for voir dire). Judge Perry states that he would hope to seat a jury that day.

Overland tells the court that a trial of five to six weeks is a more reasonable time frame (that will be needed to try the case). Judge Perry asks the parties if they want to discuss the questionnaire. He would "entertain added requests." Judge Perry ensures that all parties have his most recent version of the questionnaire.

Overland speaks up and requests the court that in the juror questionnaire, Lazarus be referred to by her full name, and not "the defendant." Judge Perry responds, "She is the defendant. I feel uncomfortable to do that. She is the defendant. It is denied."

Overland requests that the prosecution be referred to as the plaintiff. Judge Perry thinks about that request for a moment and then denies that request also, giving his reasoning that this is a criminal case. Shannon Presby has an updated list of names for the jury questionnaire and Judge Perry states that he will do the integration of the new names into the current list.

Judge Perry then tells the prosecution and defense his "vision" of what's going to happen on January 30th. They will have a list of jurors names that will be alphabetized and random. (I'm surprised at this. I think he means the juror number for court but behind the scenes the court will have their names). The court will announce and introduce the parties and what he will say to the potential jurors. "It is alleged she committed a murder (of Ms. Rasmussen). That the defendant discharged a firearm. " I believe Judge Perry asks if the prosecution would like him to tell the potential jurors that it is not a death penalty case and they agree.

Then Judge Perry would ready the charge. He would stress to the jurors the charge is not evidence and remind them about the rules of evidence. He would also stress that the defendant does not have to testify. Judge Perry would also stress the issue of publicity and stress that the jurors not be influenced (by the press). He would then ask them if they (have heard about the case) and made up their minds, or if they have specific details about the case. "We'll find out if the jurors have details about the case from the questionnaire. From this point forward, I would remind the jurors not to do research on the case."

After that, they would talk about the questionnaires. Those jurors who can serve would then go to another area where they would fill out the questionnaire and then come back (on Feb 3rd.) The prosecution and the defense both state they don't have any concerns about Judge Perry's vision for the start of the trial. Judge Perry says, "That will be it for Monday and the same thing on Tuesday. At 8:30 am on Friday, we'll bring the jurors back (for voir dire). If things come out in the questionnaires, we'll deal with it at that time, or otherwise turn it over to the attorneys." (I have a little chicken scratch of a note here, about numbers being used to refer to the jurors.)

Judge Perry also tells the parties, "We'll give each side an hour to do follow up questions. Talk to anyone you want to in the room, not just ones in the box. That's the way I would encourage you to go forward." (I've never seen voir dire done that way.) (snip) "If I see reasons in the questionnaire enough to excuse them, I will let you know and they won't even have to show up. I'm hopeful to have 70 or 80 that will fill out the questionnaire. You will know the order of seating and who they are (juror #?) in the jury box." Overland has a question that I miss and Judge Perry replies, "In voir dire, you can talk to anyone you want. After that, you get an hour. I'll be flexible if you need more time. I'll give you more time. You'll have all day to select this jury."

I don't have in my notes who asked about setting a date for the chain of custody issue, but Judge Perry answers it with, "I'm happy to select a date next week for the chain of custody."

Overland then tells the court that he has prepared a memorandum of law and he can give it to the court now. This must be in regards to the chain of custody issue the defense is raising.

Judge Perry states he thinks they should have the chain of custody hearing next week, January 25th at 10:30 am.

Mr. Presby states, "I have not seen the defense memorandum."

Paul Nunez tells the court, "I think we can address some of those issues on the 25th." I believe Nunez goes onto say, "(There are) some added witnesses that were not at the prelim and I think we need to address those next Wednesday."

I believe it's Presby who brings up the possibility of a 402 hearing on chain of custody issues. He then goes on to tell the court that he and Mr. Overland have been going through the defendant's statement (This is the video that was made of Lazarus when she was being questioned in the LAPD jail.) and there is a dispute as to whether (parts of) the defendant's statement are out or should be out. Presby states, "(There is) another section he (Overland) failed to object to and he is objecting to now."

Stephanie Lazarus, interrogation video image

Overland states his concerns were outlined in an E-mail to Presby, and that E-mail is being copied for the court. While this is going on, I note that the young Asian woman who is most likely the prosecution's clerk for this case, gets up from her seat behind the prosecutors and whispers to a tall, young dark-suited Asian looking man in the gallery. She then leaves the courtroom.

The prosecution believes they have edited the video tape according to the court's order about the defendant's statement. Overland has issues with the prosecution's interpretation of the court order.

Judge Perry states, "I've read the E-mail Mr. Overland wrote identifying the text. Page 62 line 6. I would be inclined to sustain the objection." I believe Judge Perry goes onto say, "They argue over the conflict.....that Jaramillo is asking about....the conflict is with the victim. (snip) There is a question to Lazarus about her contact, conflict with the victim."

I think it's Presby who interjects, "I don't believe that's hearsay. (snip) A conflict with a woman that took the man you loved, you would remember."

Now the question is, did you have a conflict.... Judge Perry rules, "I'm going to sustain the objection. It's going out."

Presby goes over another issue the defense has with the prosecution's video tape. "The way the tape is currently redacted, the bottom of page 89, middle of line 25, that portion is out." They then discuss the first line of (?) on line 23. (I miss the rest.)

Overland interjects, "I'm just seeking compliance with the court's order."

I think at this point it's Judge Perry who states, "I didn't say what I intended (for lines) 23-25. I meant to say to sustain that. I think that page 23, line 5 on page 90, 89.... should go out." (I know this doesn't make sense, but those are my notes that I got.)

The defense wins their motions to get more of the video tape redacted.

Judge Perry says, "I'm sorry to see that prior ruling as that was written."

Presby answers, "It is currently redacted (from?) the word "some." Judge Perry responds, "I think that's all I meant to have taken out there."

Judge Perry reads on through the written transcript of the video statement. I observe that Mark Overland has his arm draped around the shoulders of his client, Lazarus, and he is whispering intently to her.

Judge Perry says, "From the second word 'some' on line 19 to 25 (page?) ...one of the concerns...those all come out. "

Overland has one more issue for the court. He is asking that the prosecution disclose who the additional witnesses are (for the chain of custody issue) so they can prepare. Paul Nunez responds that, "(I'm) referring to counsel (Overland) and his motion and Miss (Ocean?), and Miss Ocean died well in advance of this case. (We will) address those concerns on the 25th. He makes reference that he (Overland) recently was made aware of that."

Presby brings up the prosecution's 402 concerns about discovery. "We have received from the defense some witnesses who have been interviewed and (we have) 402 motions as to their testimony." Presby wants to know if they should address these issues before trial or before the defense case. (My notes are not clear here.) The witnesses (could be) the first investigator from the original investigation and experts and friends who knew the defendant. The original investigator was Lyle Mayer. Presby states, "Mayer provides a lot of material that we would object to at trial. We're not calling him and we'd like a 402 before trial, or opening statements or if the defense has an opening statement. (snip) We're not going to mention this in our case (in chief)."

Judge Perry answers, "Bring a 402 motion and we can talk about it on Wednesday."

Presby mentions the defense expert (I think this might be a firearms expert) and that he has not written a report about his testimony or conclusions. "We have one paragraph (of a?) report (and?) no notes." There are not reports of witnesses testimony. Judge Perry answers, "They (experts) don't have to write a report. I think they look bad when they don't." Presby continues, "Mr. Overland (stated) that he would call DNA experts or (?) experts and they are not on any witness list." Judge Perry replies, "Well, I think that's obvious..." Presby says, "Well he mentioned he was going to call (them)."

Judge Perry addresses both parties. "I think I've commented that I don't want either side to call surprise witnesses." He goes onto mention the current trial they are waiting for a verdict on and an 802 hearing. (I'll mention a bit about that case, at the end of this entry.) Presby also brings up another issue, "Mr. Overland indicated he might call Judge Shelly Torrealba and we've asked the relevance of her testimony. He said it would depend on the cross of several witnesses and he never told me who those witnesses are."

Judge Perry replies, "We'll have to wait and see. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. If someone said something and only Shelly heard...." Judge Perry must have said something that I totally missed because Presby makes a joke in reply, "What is sleep, your honor?"

Nunez asks about available seating space for family members during voir dire and Judge Perry says they will see how many respond to the questions we have. "It will be tough," he adds. Judge Perry then adds that he is not anticipating a packed courtroom, "But, you never know." He then mentions the seating ticket lottery that the Public Information Office holds.

Overland has one last issue regarding discovery and he asks to approach the bench for sidebar. I see that Lazarus is in intense conversation with the investigator at the defense table during the sidebar. When the side bar is over, Judge Perry states, "See everyone on Wednesday at 10:30 am." Before he leaves the bench, I believe it's Presby who asks about which jury instruction set Judge Perry will use. They are going to use CAL JIC since this is a 1986 case. Now I see Lazarus and Courtney Overland in intense conversation. Since the hearing is over, I head out to the elevator bay.

At the elevator bay, I see DDA Craig Hum and ask him if Cameron Brown is being represented by a public defender. Hum tells me that Brown has, "...a court appointed attorney, Aron Laub." I ask him when the case might go to trial and he felt it would be sometime late summer. I tried to find a web site for Laub, but could not. Laub recently defended convicted serial killer, Michael Hughes.

The case with the 802 hearing.
Earlier today (Monday), I received a press release from the District Attorney's office regarding the case that was in trial in Judge Perry's courtroom during Friday's hearing. Former California Highway Patrol officer Tomiekia Johnson, 32, was found guilty of shooting her husband Marcus Lemons in the head three years ago, shortly after they left a Compton restaurant. The jury also found true the special allegations of personal discharge of a firearm and discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury. Johnson, who had been out on bail during the trial, collapsed under the defense table as the verdict was being read. Paramedics were called and she was taken out of the courtroom handcuffed to a gurney. Judge Perry remanded her into custody. Lemons was fatally shot as he was sitting in the passenger side of Johnson's BMW near a 91 freeway off-ramp around 11 pm on February 21st, 2009. She then drove the car to her parents home in Compton and had her mother call police. Johnson is facing 50 years to life in prison and will be sentenced March 9th, 2012.

Updated January 24th, 2012 to correct spelling and a factual error. Sprocket.

Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial Hearing 13

2012-01-20T06:41:00.000-08:00

Stephanie Lazarus, at her first arraignment hearing in 2009

There is a pretrial hearing at 8:30 am in Department 104 of the downtown Los Angeles Criminal Court Building. At the last pretrial hearing, both prosecution and defense asked the judge to set a date for trial and that date is January 30th, 2012. Today's date was selected for a last check in with Judge Perry and to argue some last minute motions. I'll be posting an update on the hearing later this evening.

Stephanie Lazarus Case - Interview with a Former UCLA Dorm-mate

2012-01-16T18:26:00.000-08:00

Stephanie Lazarus, date unknown

With the holidays a few weeks behind us, I have "finally" finished my portion of a massive project on behalf of my family. Three months of daily work late into the night, literally hundreds and hundreds of pages of detailed worksheets and a thirty-plus page report summarizing my findings. Calling it a difficult project doesn't even come close. I'm so relieved to put that task behind me and get back to what I enjoy most and that's attending a trial and reporting on the proceedings for T&T's readers.

I recently had the opportunity to meet in person, an individual who lived on the same floor of UCLA's Dykstra Hall during the time that Stephanie Lazarus and John Ruetten were enrolled. They also kept in contact with Lazarus for many years after graduation. For those of you who have been living in a cave, Stephanie Lazarus, a 25-year veteran detective of the LAPD has been charged with the February 1986 cold case murder of Sherri Rae Rasmussen, the new wife of her ex-boyfriend, John Ruetten.

The individual I spoke to was not looking for media attention for themselves, but did want to give T&T's readers a more in depth picture of Stephanie Lazarus, one other than the two dimensional character that the mainstream media has presented. I have agreed to protect this individuals name and gender, identifying them only as "Pat" (not their real name) for the rest of this entry.

Pat is in their 50's, has a family and and works as an administrator for a company affiliated with a local university. Before I even agreed to speak to Pat, I stressed that I could not talk to them if they were on the prosecution or defense witness list. I did not want my interview with Pat to be construed as possibly trying to influence the trial or potential witness' testimony. Pat assured me that they were not. Between Christmas and the new year, Pat and I met at a local coffee shop.

Pat first met Stephanie when she was a freshman and Pat was a junior at UCLA. They lived on the same floor of Dykstra Hall which was a co-ed floor. Back during the late 1970's, California universities, including UCLA, were considered the cream of the crop in higher education. Pat remembers there was a strong feminist sector during that time and the women who were accepted for enrollment were probably scoring much higher than average on intelligence tests.

Pat got to know Stephanie very quickly. "You got to know everyone who lived on the floor," Pat said. Stephanie was not "unique" in that, she didn't stand out from other women, but Pat went onto say, "She was more strong willed and assertive than most." During Stephanie's years at UCLA, Pat remembers her as a very outgoing, gregarious and strong willed person. Pat said, "She still has that same personality today." Pat also said that Stephanie's tongue could turn sharp very quickly, putting someone in their place if they said something that she perceived as negative or talking down to her. This attitude Stephanie projected could also make people feel a bit uncomfortable.

Lazarus was a jock in high school where she played on the women's basketball team and she continued her strong interest in athletics at UCLA. Pat and Stephanie socialized at UCLA basketball games or when there might have been a party in the dorm. Pat remembers that they had one or two classes together and they sometimes studied together.

Stephanie's major was political science. Back then, UCLA did not have a 'pre-law' program and Pat states a political science major was "...code for pre-law." Pat also recalls having at some point a discussion with Stephanie about plans for a future career as an attorney. When Pat learned Stephanie had joined the LAPD, they were surprised and could not immediately see her in that role. Later Pat came to believe being an officer did fit her personality and that Stephanie seemed comfortable and happy with her career choice. Pat said that they talked with Stephanie over the years about being a peace officer and "...Steph took a lot of pride in her job and was comfortable with it."

Through the 1980's, Stephanie would call Pat up, looking for information about friends and they would chat, catching up with each others lives. About ten or twelve years ago, Pat came home to find a business card left on their door from "Unique Investigations". Pat showed me the saved business card. The note on the back said, "Call me. Don't have your number. Steph." In prior conversations with Pat, Lazarus had mentioned she was getting into PI work and was being mentored by a senior officer. When Pat called back, it was for an invitation to a "reunion" party that Stephanie was hosting at her Simi Valley home, for her fellow dorm-mates who lived on the 10th floor at Dykstra Hall.

Lazarus initiated and hosted the party. Pat remembers Stephanie's current boyfriend was there but Pat did not interact with him or remember his name. (It's quite possible this person is Lazarus' current husband, a fellow police officer.) At the party, Pat was mostly focused on their fellow dorm-mates and catching up with their lives.

Pat does not remember having any conversations with Stephanie around the time of Rasmussen's murder. At the time, Pat lived in a different part of the city and wasn't too concerned with crime in the San Fernando Valley. Pat indicated they may have read about the crime when it happened, but has no memory of that.

Pat said, "I can't imagine her doing something like this. Although she can be cocky and brash, the Steph I know is a straight forward and to the point woman." Pat also said that as Lazarus progressed in her career, she became more serious, professional, and dropped her playful side. Still, she was outgoing and had a lot of energy. Pat never saw Lazarus as someone who could become obsessed.

The next pretrial hearing is scheduled for Friday, January 20th, 2012, in Department 104 at the downtown Criminal Court Building. Opening statements are tentatively scheduled for February 6th, 2012.

The Christian-Newsom Torture-Murders Five Years Later

2012-01-07T15:28:00.000-08:00

Channon Christian and Christoper Newsom

On the anniversary of the murders of Channon Christian and Christoper Newsom, guest writer David in Tennessee takes us back in time to remember Channon and Christoper and the horror that they suffered. Prayers are with the victim's families, who will have to sit through four heartbreaking trials again. Sprocket.

The Christian-Newsom Torture-Murders Five Years Later
by David in Tennessee

Five years ago, on the night and following morning of January 6 and 7, 2007, University of Tennessee student, Channon Christian, and her boyfriend Christopher Newsom were abducted at an apartment complex in Knoxville, Tennessee. The couple was about to drive to a party with friends when three armed men forced them into Channon's Toyota 4Runner and took them to a house about 3.5 miles away.

At the house, both were raped, tortured, and murdered. Chris Newsom was anally gang-raped. Channon Christian was raped orally, anally, and vaginally. Both were brutally beaten and cleaning fluid was poured down Channon's throat in an (unsuccessful) attempt to destroy DNA evidence.

According to the medical examiner, Channon Christian was found at the Chipman Street house in a trash can wrapped in five garbage bags. She was bound so tightly her knees were touching her cheeks. Christian was alive when placed in the trash can and died of suffocation. She had a plastic bag over her head. Her body had bruising and abrasions indicating rape with blunt trauma and an object. Her vaginal area had been kicked bloody.

The attorneys for the supposed ringleader, Lemaricus Davidson, called this "consensual sex."

Christopher Newsom, as described by the medical examiner, was raped with an object hours before he was killed. His bare feet were bound and he had been led or dragged to a railroad track a short distance from the house were Channon's body was found. Newsom's face was wrapped in a sweatshirt with a hole in it where he was shot in the head. His hands were tied behind his back and he was gagged with socks. Newsom was shot three times, the third to the head caused death. He was dead when his body was set on fire at the railroad track.

When Newsom's body was found, his mother, a genteel lady, wanted to see it. The police would not let her. She put her arms around the body bag.

The four suspects, Lemaricus Davidson, his half-brother Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas, and Vanessa Coleman were arrested a few days later. Davidson was hiding in a house in Knoxville and was wearing Chris Newsom's shoes when the police found him. He took them off but they were found in a corner of the house. Cobbins, Thomas, and Coleman had fled to Kentucky. They were visiting Davidson that weekend and were at his house by chance.

Davidson, Cobbins, and apparently Davidson's friend, Eric Boyd carried out the abduction. Boyd was convicted in federal court in 2008 of helping Davidson escape. There wasn't enough evidence to charge Boyd in the murders.

It should be emphasized that the killers almost got clean away with it. Davidson's fingerprint was found on an envelope in Channon Christian's SUV. When run through the AFIS database, Davidson's name and address came up. Without this fingerprint, The police would not have gone to the Chipman street house and found Channon Christian's body.

Each of the four suspects blamed the others and claimed not to have done the killing. There was overwhelming DNA evidence against Davidson and conclusive forensic evidence against Cobbins. Thomas didn't leave any DNA but admitted to being in the house at the time, claiming he was stoned on drugs. Coleman also admitted being in the house but claimed to be a prisoner herself. Cobbins was her boyfriend.

There was also semen from two unidentified males found on Channon Christian' undergarments. The suspects said they were the only ones in the house, but they can't be trusted, to say the least.

Each suspect was tried separately. Cobbins was convicted in August, 2009 and sentenced to life without parole. Davidson was convicted in November that year and sentenced to death. Thomas was convicted a month later and sentenced to life without parole. Vanessa Coleman, the only female, was found not guilty of every charge relating to Newsom and not guilty of murder regarding Christian. She was convicted of facilitation of Channon Christian's murder and was sentenced to 53 years.

In 2011, it was learned that Judge Richard Baumgartner, who presided over all four trials, was addicted to prescription drugs that were provided by probationers in his court. Among other things, he had sex with one of his drug suppliers in judge's chambers during one of the trials. Baumgartner was eventually disbarred after resigning in disgrace from the bench.

On December 1, 2011, Special Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood, who took over Baumgartner's cases, overturned all four verdicts and ordered new trials for all four suspects. Judge Blackwood ruled "structural errors" made new trials necessary. This supposes that Baumgartner's drug addiction made him unsound and everything he did suspect.

The Knox County District Attorney's office has appealed Blackwood's ruling to the Tennessee Supreme Court. There is supposed to be a hearing on January 12 to set the dates for the new trials. Despite the murders taking place place five years ago this weekend, the case is still undecided. We don't know how long the Tennessee Supreme Court will take to make their decision or whether there will be any trials in 2012.

Merry Christmas

2011-12-24T23:59:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to you and your families.

LAPD Cold Case Squad: Not Forgotten

2011-12-13T14:23:00.000-08:00

David Lambkin, and some of the thousands of cold case files at the LAPD.

photo credit: Stefano Paltera

I'd like to point T&T readers to an excellent article by a wonderful writer I've had the pleasure to meet at the Stephanie Lazarus pre-trial hearings, Matthew McGough. Matthew wrote an in depth story on the Lazarus case that appeared in the June issue of The Atlantic.

In the Nov-Dec. issue of Miller-McCune, McGough takes us into the fascinating world of the Los Angeles Police Department's Cold Case Unit, the struggles visionaries had in getting the squad implemented, how the squad has grown in the past ten years and the headlining cases this unit has solved.

I was lucky to receive a print copy of the magazine, with photos and DNA charts. If you don't want to wait to pick up the issue, you can read McGough's article, Not Forgotten, online HERE.

Matthew McGough's web site

Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial Hearing 12

2011-12-02T08:00:00.000-08:00

UPDATED

Stephanie Lazarus at a prior hearing

There is a pretrial hearing this morning in the Stephanie Lazarus case. You can find all my stories covering this case, as well as links to mainstream media stories here.

Lazarus is charged with first degree murder in the 1986 death of Sherri Rae Rasmussen, the new wife of her former boyfriend, John Ruetten. I will have an update on the hearing later this evening.

Sherri Rae Rasmussen

UPDATE 11:15 am

I arrive inside Judge Perry's courtroom, Department 104 a few minutes past 8:30. I'm in luck. The hearing hasn't started yet.

Sherri Rae Rasmussen's family is sitting in the front row. DDA Shannon Presby is speaking softly but intently to Nels, Sherri's father while showing him some documents. I get a couple seconds glimpse of the top page. I cannot be certain of what I saw, but it appeared to be a computer print of a photo of two people, outside in a beach setting. I "think" there was also quite a bit of text on the page also. The image looked "washed out" and I was too far away to recognize any faces in the few seconds I saw it.

DDA Paul Nunez is sitting beside Nels, Sherri's father, showing him something on a laptop.

Lazarus' mother is by herself, sitting on the very end of the first bench row. I don't see Lazarus' counsel anywhere. There are several reporters here from the mainstream media. Matthew McGough (who did that excellent piece in The Atlantic on the case), Greg Fisher, 48 Hours producer, Lisa, producer from ABC and Robert Dean, Dateline producer. The two Robbery-Homicide detectives are also here sitting on the right side of the courtroom in front of the bailiff's box.

8:41 am: Courtney and Mark Overland come out of the jail holding area. Presby comes over to Overland and is showing them a packet of information. Lazarus comes out from the jail area a few moments later. She's carrying a small bag and is wearing the same thing I've always seen her in, a white long sleeved undershirt on underneath her orange jumpsuit.

8:45 am: Judge Perry takes the bench and goes on the record, detailing that all parties are present. He states that this is a status conference, with the case set at 0/60 as of today. Perry asks if the parties are ready. Mark Overland asks the court to set the case for trial.

Presby states for the record that the prosecution handed over discovery to the defense today. Some of the discovery were items previously requested that they didn't' have as well as some new items. The prosecution also turned over to the defense Lazarus' LAPD personnel file, since the defense requested it and there are no privacy issues involved.

Presby then tells the court something that is somewhat of a bombshell, at least to the media in the gallery. The coroner's investigator, Lloyd Mahanay has died. He died on October 14th, 2011, just days before the case was originally slated to go to trial. Presby confirms for Judge Perry that Mahanay testified at the preliminary hearing.

Mahanay was the first witness the prosecution called at the prelim, and is also the key individual who collected the bite mark swab evidence from Sherri Rae Rasmussen's body at the scene back in 1986. The defense has contested this evidence because when it was found in the coroner's freezers, the envelope was torn and (apparently) the top of the evidence tub containing the swabs was sticking out.

Presby states the prosecution has received from the defense a report written by the defense's firearms expert. Presby tells Judge Perry that all other discovery items will be handled informally.

Judge Perry asks Overland what his schedule is like and Overland states he is in trial right now. Perry asks both parties about starting the trial on January 30th, 2012, by handing out the questionnaires on that date. Voir dire would then start on Thursday, February 2nd. If all went well then opening statements would start on February 6th.

Overland states that there are still some outstanding questions on the questionnaire and when would they be able to discuss those. Perry tells him that he has added a couple of questions per his request and he can E-mail the prosecution and defense the updated questionnaires so they can go over them.

I think something is said about the defense adding names to their witness list, but I'm not positive.

There is discussion about having one more pretrial conference to check in before trial starts. Judge Perry picks Friday, January 20th as a "soft date" and if there are any other motions to get them filed so that they can be argued on that date.

And that's it. The hearing is over. There is a short bit of friendly banter between Shannon Presby and Mark Overland and then Presby heads over to the family to speak to them out in the hallway.

New Trials Granted for Defendant's in Christian-Newsom Case

2011-12-01T10:14:00.001-08:00

UPDATED

Murder victims Channon Christian, Christoper Newsom

I just finished watching live streaming on WATE.com out of Knoxville, Tennessee, the hearing regarding granting new trials for the convicted killers (Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas and Vanessa Coleman) in the Christian-Newsom murders. Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood granted the defendants new trials.

Occasionally the camera would pan to the parents of the two victims in the gallery. My heart went out to those parents and their extended families who will now have to sit through these trials and hear the gruesome details of what happened to their children all over again.

Blackwood could not contain his anger and disgust in revealing the tawdry details of Judge Richard Baumgartner's criminal actions while presiding over the Christian-Newsome cases. He sounded like an angry preacher at the pulpit. Blackwood, in his summation, stated that Baumgartner (who presided over drug court) knew since 2008 that he was addicted to pain pills. Blackwood stated that Baumgartner could of, at that time, stepped down from the bench but chose to continue taking pills. It's my understanding that the full details of Judge Baumgartner's crimes were initially sealed in the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation's (TBI) report. It was turned over to the defense attorney's back in September of this year. However, both the prosecution and defense attorney's agreed that the report would be treated as evidence in the hearing. Baumgartner's crimes included (but not limited to) trading drugs from defendant's who came before him in drug court to having sex in his chambers with a prostitute (Castleman) that he bought a phone for and paid some of her bills.

Update:
Some details from the hearing tweeted by WATE.com. (Thanks to my friend Carolina Blue, who also watched the hearing on live stream.)

"Baumgartner's physician, Dr. Dean Conley, tried to wean Baumgartner off his addiction and urged him to retire in 2008. Baumgartner admitted his addiction, but said he needed another three years on the bench."

"The TBI found that during breaks in Davidson's trial, Baumgartner would visit Castleman at St. Mary's Hospital behind closed doors for 15-20 minutes at a time. He told hospital employees he was her attorney."

"Baumgartner's assistant, Jennifer Judy, passed him a note during the Coleman trial when he slumped his head down. It said, "Sit up or get off the bench. You're disrespecting the families." "

UPDATE 12/6/2011:
Thanks to guest writer David in Tennessee, here is a link to a web chat with Knoxville reporter Jamie Satterfield, answering questions about Judge Baumgartner and the upcoming retrials.

Paper seeks to join Christian-Newsom case

Judge Grants New Trials in Christian-Newsome case

Family Law Court: What's Wrong in San Diego County

2011-11-28T18:45:00.000-08:00

Bonnie Russell, founder of Family Law Courts.com and guest writer brings us a story from the San Diego area. Sprocket

Fresh from wild and woolly climes of San Diego, scene of Ashton Kutcher’s big “oops.”

The Wind Up:
Family Court litigants who are victims of inter-family crimes have a bad go of it in San Diego County. To wit: North County (Vista) Family Court Judge Gregory Pollack used his “discretion” to award spousal support to Shawn Harris, (after Harris’s release from prison) after his violent attack on estranged wife, Crystal. Earlier Judge Pollack told Crystal, an attractive, high-income earning blonde, “You’re no mouse” apropos of?

The case is important because without Crystal Harris’s tape recorder, (purchased to document earlier threats) the DA wouldn’t have prosecuted. Family court litigants becoming crime victims without recourse remains an ongoing issue in San Diego. This includes sex abuse of children.

In 2009, police only reacted when Henry Parsons molested kids from “intact” families who ran home and told their parents. As the news clip revealed, police refused to provide police services for five years – and targeted the mother who repeatedly attempted to get help.

In 2010, DA Bonnie Dumanis “declined” to file charges against the husband of Diana Gonzalez, after he kidnapped, raped, held her hostage and beat her for attempting to escape. The police had arrested him, but Dumanis declined to prosecute. He’s currently on the lam. Diana Gonzalez’s body was found in the college bathroom.

The Pitch
To that background add financial crimes - from one’s attorney. Patricia Gregory comes to mind….as does the DA’s refusing to prosecute for fraud and grand theft, after the victims did most of the DA investigator’s work. After the San Diego Union Tribune profiled Bonnie Dumanis’s refusal to prosecute Patricia Gregory, she suddenly remembered she *is* running for Mayor and Patricia Gregory was charged with 11 felonies, including the unauthorized practice of law.

On November 18th, 2011, two of her victims appeared in Vista court for Gregory’s arraignment. They asked Gregory be arrested. They asked for bail.

The judge said, no. She could go. Just drop by for a readiness conference later on. Gregory left with her attorney. One concern is her website. Which remains active.

Gregory was asked when she would take it down in the parking lot….well, we had to follow her around to ask, but we asked.

As of this writing, Gregory's site remains up. Familylawcourts.com will be following the Gregory case. Details will be posted here.

The Blood Type Thanksgiving Dinner that Almost Wasn't

2011-11-25T12:22:00.000-08:00

As things sometimes go with us, we got a late start on Thanksgiving Day. This time, we had a good reason. The day before, Mr. Sprocket and I had worked quite late at the big job project, finally getting connected a complicated section of adjacent ducts joining a huge return blower fan. After working about 12 hours that day, we got the equipment in place around 9:30 pm.

Yesterday, we woke up late, took our morning walk at a leisurely pace and then had breakfast: Leftover wild salmon, stir-fry onions and bell peppers and steamed broccoli. When we finally took an inventory of our fridge, we realized we were quite low on many of our daily staples, and we still needed a few things for our Blood Type compliant pumpkin pies and turkey gravy.

We needed to gas up the car and hit several grocery stores and it's already close to noon. Mr. Sprocket wants to go to Whole Foods first, just to see what they have. There are two very small stores at either end of Sherman Oaks, but I suggest we try the brand new, very large store in Tarzana, about six miles away so Mr. Sprocket can see how big it is with all the special features. BIG. MISTAKE.

The only thing we really needed at Whole Foods was amaranth to make my pumpkin pie crust. (For those of you who don't know about amaranth, it's an ancient grain that's good for almost all blood types. The only type that cannot eat amaranth are Blood Type B, secretors.) We can easily grind up the very tiny seed in our spice grinder to make flour for the pie crust or use for gravy. We already had buckwheat flour that we would use to make Mr. Sprocket's special pie.

Once we get to Whole Foods, Mr. Sprocket has to look at EVERYTHING in the store. He's looking to see what organic vegetables they have. He takes 'forever' to pick out the 'best' broccoli crowns. He's ecstatic when he finds they have brussels sprouts on the stalk and he can get a whole stalk for only $3.99. When he was a child, Thanksgiving dinner always included brussels sprouts so he wants to make them this year. Then he hits the freshly prepared food section. There's an area for freshly baked whole grain breads (whole grain commercial wheat is the worst bread for Blood Type O's so we steer clear), an Asian foods section, a coffee and juice bar and finally the place my husband stops....the pizza ovens. He's over the moon that he can buy a slice of mozzarella pizza made with rice flour crust. He absolutely "had to" try a slice. According to Mr. Sprocket, this pizza was "way better" than the "Amy's" brand of rice crust pizza sold in the frozen food section.

When I finally get him out of the store, we still need to go to a couple local markets to get the rest of our staples: 99 Ranch for the 'Japanese yam' variety of sweet potatoes that I like as well as our green tea, and then Jon's for our pitted dates, onions, more sweet potatoes, bell peppers and dried chilies. 99 Ranch had Greenland Turbot on sale so we took the time to get several pieces.

On the drive home, Mr. Sprocket is calling a local amusement park to see if they were open. I didn't think they would be on Thanksgiving, but he decides to call anyway. One of our disappointments with going to Disneyland on our 10th anniversary a few days ago was no "Skeeball," one of my favorite arcade games.

Amazingly, the amusement park is open and we stop in to spend $5.00 on Skeeball. It's been a long time since we've played it at this park and we were disappointed to see that the Skeeball lanes were very new and the heavy wooden balls had been replaced with some type of hard plastic. Skeeball isn't the same with plastic balls.

So now it's almost 3:00 pm, and we haven't even started making our pumpkin pies yet. I'm making a guess that we won't even have dinner finished until 9pm. Mr. Sprocket had totally forgotten to get fresh sage, rosemary and thyme while we were out so I offer to go back out and hit a local grocery to see if they have it. Luckily, I find the spices. I'm about to drive home when Mr. Sprocket calls me and says, "The oven thermometer broke."

I thought he meant the "add on" magnetic thermometer I had attached to the oven door. I told him I would just buy another one. No. That wasn't it. He meant the wire thermometer that's attached to the oven temperature dial. It was hanging loose inside the oven. He went to add a metal clip so it wasn't hanging down into the middle of the oven and it broke off. This is an old oven. It's not like there would be a store open on Thanksgiving where we could just go buy the part. He didn't think that even the industrial supply houses would have the part.

It's then that the amazing Mr. Sprocket has an idea. He can insert into the oven one of his gauges with a probe to measure the temperature in the oven. The gauge would give us a digital read-out of what the exact temperature in the oven is. However, we won't have a way to really 'control' the temperature and keep it constant except by manually turning the temperature dial on and off.

And that's what we did for the next three and a half hours to bake our pies and cook our bird. Lewis sat on a chair in front of the oven and watched the temperature gauge. To keep him sane, I read out loud the fascinating book Deep Survival, Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why by Laurence Gonzales. When the temp dropped below a certain point, he turned the dial on. When it got too high, he turned the dial off. He did this about every 30 seconds for the hour it took to make our three pies, and then the two-and-a-half hours it took to cook our turkey. We finally got to eat turkey about 9:45 pm, along with the roasted onions, Japanese yams, brussels sprouts and parsley roots. We also had a selection of three pumpkin pies with different spice combinations, made with agave syrup and almond milk. Quite late in the evening, but all Blood Type compliant.

I have to say, this was the best bird Mr. Sprocket has cooked EVER, thanks to the cooking recommendations of top chef, Bobby Flay. The turkey was moist and tender, even a day later for breakfast.

Not to be out done, today was another set of problems. When we woke up this morning, our 'tankless' hot water heater was not working (for the second time within the past month) and we find that we can't get a replacement part for the oven; it's history. And to totally dampen my Jo Ann Fabric's Black Friday shopping, I have a scratchy, sore throat again. Sometimes when it rains, it pours.

James Fayed Formal Sentencing

2011-11-20T06:54:00.000-08:00

James Fayed, left, with his defense attorney Steve Meister
at the reading of the death penalty verdict on May 31st, 2011

As much as I’d love to be down at the courthouse on a regular basis, real life has knocked on my door with more pressing responsibilities. Within the past few months, I’ve been called upon by my family to utilize my prior-life banking skills to conduct a forensic audit of my mother’s accounts. The work is tedious and painstaking.

In addition, my husband has needed me to help him with a difficult project that has taken much longer to complete than the original bid. Unfortunately, that work is going very slow right now.

I have had a chance to get away from these responsibilities for a few hours to attend the first debate between the candidates for LA County DA, on November 2nd, as well as the sentencing hearings of Tyquan Knox on November 8th, and James Fayed. Unfortunately, I have not had the time to write up my notes on all these events. Hopefully, soon.

Here’s what happened at the James Fayed sentencing hearing on November 17th, 2011.

I'm in the hallway waiting for the courtroom to open up. The family has arrived and they are shaking hands with a few of the jurors. I was here early chatting with Terri Keith from City News and one of the defense attorney's Steve Meister. The news cameras are here parked on the bench across from myself and Terri.

Pat Kelly is here from the Public Information Office and we were chatting about the Lazarus case and the delay. She is going to try to find out for me "why" that case was delayed.

Pamela's siblings (Dawn, Scott, Greta) and Scott’s wife Renee are here a few seats down talking to the jurors. The woman with the short gray hair I often saw during the trial is here. I believe (but I'm not positive) she is a public defender who represents one or more of the co-defendants.

More of the prosecution team shows up. I'm so horrible with names. I know the DDA's clerk is here, I think here name is Caroline but I'm sure I have that wrong. (I was wrong. I later learn it’s Monique.) She's hugging the family. DDA Eric Harmon arrived while I was still in the hallway and now I see DDA Alan Jackson is here.

Everyone is saying hello and shaking hands. Smiles everywhere. Mark Werksman is here. Steve Meister mentioned in the hallway that he has split with Werksman's firm and is now working solo.

PIO Pat Kelly is here and we chat about a few cases I’m following. Pat tells me that Cameron Brown has a new defense attorney and that case may be a year away from trial. She also tells me that currently, all the hearings for the "fake Rockefeller" case (Christian Karl Gerhartstreiter), accused of murdering Jonathan Sohus in 1985, are being held in an outlying courthouse, either Alhambra or farther out. I hope to cover that case but if it's going to be in an outlying area, it may be logistically undesirable.

Jackson greets the family and later speaks to the two jurors who I saw at the last hearing: Jason the jury foreman and Kathy (sp?). The cameramen set up in the jury box. The dark haired female Dateline producer is here, directing the cameramen. Miriam Hernandez from local ABC Channel 7 is here sitting next to Terri Keith in the third row. Miriam has a lovely rust and gold shawl covering her shoulders.

Eric Harmon is sitting in the front row but facing the family chatting with them. I don't see Desiree, Pamela's daughter yet. Werksman and Meister go back to speak with their client in the jail holding area. Pat Kelly is in the well area, coordinating with the cameramen.

Miriam is the only other reporter working on a laptop. I'm sorry that Marjorie for the Ventura County Star couldn't be here. I enjoyed getting to know her during the trial.

9:00 am: Desiree Goudie, Pamela Fayed's oldest daughter arrives and hugs her relatives. Jackson is explaining to Desiree (I believe) the sequence of what's going to happen with the sentencing.

Werksman and Meister are still in the jail area with their client. There's still a bit of bustling around with the camera crew (there appear to be four guys from maybe, two different networks).

Jackson and Harmon are speaking with the deputy for a moment.

Werksman and Meister are now out from speaking with their client and are discussing something with Jackson.

In looking at Judge Kennedy’s bench, all the figurines I was fascinated with during the trial are still there. It's a large assortment on the left side (her right) near the clerk's desk area.

The bailiff announces to turn all cell phones off and I hurry to turn my sound to silent and then turn my phone off. Fayed is brought into sentencing. His hair has grown out a bit and now has a graying-white mustache/goatee/beard. He looks quite different to me.

Judge Kennedy takes the bench.

Judge states there are several items on the calendar for this case, but there are two items that need to be marked as exhibits. One is a defense PowerPoint during opening and closings I think, to be marked as court's exhibit 14. The other is a typed letter regarding the issue during the accusation that promotional campaign materials from DDA Alan Jackson were sent to the jurors. That will be court's exhibit fifteen. Juror questionnaires will be marked as court exhibits, and some will be sealed. No other items need to be marked.

Several motions on calendar. Judge Kennedy asks both parties if they have reviewed the transcript, for errors. Harmon gets up to speak to Werksman. The court clerk states that they have not received anything.

Eric Harmon first states something to the effect that they have 60 days after formal sentencing to certify the verdict. Werksman and Harmon agree they will review the transcript before 60 days have passed. Judge Kennedy explains the lengthy process of verifying the trial record and that it can't be on day 59 they turn in their submissions.

Move onto the motions. First, is a defense motion for a new trial. The Court has read the original pleading and the people's opposition. Werksman wants to be heard in open court before the court rules.

Werksman: Each issue provides independent grounds for a new trial. The issues that were raised are serious. I believe that my client did not get a fair trial. The tape should have been excluded. (Of Fayed & Smith.) The court allowed the prosecution to play the tapes including the out of court declarant speaking on tape. (Shawn Smith). Werksman goes over how the prosecution led the jury to believe Shawn Smith although he did not testify in this trial. (During the trial, the court instructed the jury that Shawn Smith’s statements were not offered for the truth of the matter.) Then there is the Mary Mercedes tape. The defense was deprived of that evidence and the prosecution should not have been allowed to play it (as part of rebuttal).

There were a litany of additional errors that were made by the prosecution interpreting the jury instructions. Judge Kennedy asks Werksman where were his objections during trial. Werksman admits that some of his objections are missing.

I would ask your honor to look at the totality of each and every error that occurred, and it resulted in a jury verdict that was tainted. And an improper shifting of the burden of proof.

Harmon. As the court knows we addressed these issues in (our brief). Harmon does not argue.

Judge Kennedy states her ruling for the record. The Court has carefully considered all these issues. The court is convinced that the charges have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The taped recordings.
I conclude that the tape of Shawn Smith and James Fayed was not admitted in error (cites case). The words of Mr. Shawn Smith which are, in essence, his discussions with Mr. Fayed about being a hit man or conduit to a hit man that would kill the three co defendants who participated. They are not offered for the truth of the matter. Mr. Swan Smith was not acting as a hit man. He was acting in his own benefit. The jury had the opportunity to listen to James Fayed and determine the truth of the matter.

We've litigated the issue of Shawn Smith four times and the court has made a record in each instance as to why the tape was admissible and I adopt my prior ruling at this time.

Recording of Mary Mercedes became relevant after the defense presented it's evidence. The defense presented evidence that Mary Mercedes contacted the sister (Patricia Taboga) and offered Patricia 200,000 for her husband to commit the murder of Pamela Fayed. Mercedes, outside the presence of the jury claimed 5th amendment rights and was unavailable to testify. It was at that point the evidence of conversation that the prosecutor had with Mary Mercedes. It only became admissible once the defense case was presented. It was not part of the prosecution's case in chief.

Withdrawal from the conspiracy.
The court indicated at the outset of this proceedings it was going to use CALJIC instructions, that's because in a death penalty case the court decided it was the wiser course to use instructions that have been tested on appeal. There are no reported cases of death penalty cases that has examined the CALCRIM instructions, no death penalty case has gotten that far that either supports or (attacks?) the CALCRIM instructions. It seemed more prudent (to use instructions) that have been battle tested, so to speak, and that the Supreme Court has affirmed.

When it come to jury instructions there is no requirement that the court use CALCRIM, CALJIC, or any instructions. The court only has to instruct the jury on the law.

Denying a request for a new trial on that basis. Even if CALCRIM was used, there is no evidence at all that the defendant withdrew from the conspiracy. Judge Kennedy goes over the evidence and that the defendant did not exercise any of the possible opportunities to warn the victim before she was killed.

One point in the prosecution argument about producing evidence of withdrawal. I don't think it was as artful as it could have been, but the court's instructions were clear. There was only one point, where the defendant asked for his money back, but that was before the victim was killed.

Judge Kennedy makes note that if objections are not made during the trial then she can't make a ruling or instruct the jury. That was not done in this case. Court finds the prosecution did not make misconduct; they did not argue outside the case or matters beyond the record.

One other point that was raised was the issue of not allowing the AUS Attorney to answer questions about the federal case against the defendant. It was irrelevant then it's irrelevant now. The strength of that case didn't make any difference on this case.

The issue of jury misconduct.
I have never in all my years, had a case like this, where, there were outside forces which somehow or another, were associated with the defense. NOT defense counsels’ creating mischief and attacking the very heart of our criminal justice system and trying to derail the jury in this case. I know there are jurors here that were present in the trial. I have nothing but the greatest respect for the jury in this case. A death penalty case is not easy. The facts of this case were gruesome and horrible. In this case, there was all this chicanery going on. The jury in the case, self reported (the problems with an alternate and one of the original jurors. They were talking and they let us know that.

I conducted a hearing and I removed an alternate and a juror. And thereafter, we got these anonymous (communications) and phone calls and letters that were claiming that jurors were performing misconduct. We had an anonymous voice mail on the Court’s telephone that was purportedly from one of the jurors.

And with regard to each and every one of those issues (that occurred) the Court conducted a hearing and I examined all of the jurors and made inquires. All of the jurors denied sending the letter, leaving the voice mails and I believe those jurors. I have nothing but the greatest respect for the jurors who participated in this trial. It was someone else, someone associated with the defendant.

If the defendant was willing to pay $25,000, (to kill his wife) why wouldn't he have someone do this? We'll never know who was exactly responsible. As I said again, I have the greatest respect with the integrity of the jury. The defense is not suggesting any way that the conduct occurred because of this baseless accusation. For all of the reasons that I stated here and considering all the arguments in support of a new trial. The motion of an new trial at this (time? point? is denied).

Werksman asks to speak.

Judge Kennedy (with an angry or exasperated tone to her voice) says no, we’re moving on.
But Werksman speaks anyway.

MW: There is a possibility that an opponent of one of the prosecutions may have wanted to embarrass the DDA (Alan Jackson).

JK: The only one who stood to benefit from this case being derailed, was the defendant. The prosecution did not benefit from that. What my finding is, that there was no misconduct by this jury.

JK: Move onto the defense motion to modify the verdict.

Judge Kennedy states she has read the motions by the defense and the people. Meister gets up to speak about his motions.

Mesiter states he knows of no evidence of an investigation into the jury misconduct or evidence to support the court's position on the jury tampering allegations.

Meister talks about the death penalty issue and in California death doesn't mean death. He brings up the “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez, who was sent to death row in the 1990's and Ramirez habeas brief has been sitting in the US Attorney's office for the past five years.

The co defendants are not facing death. They are facing life without parole (LWOP). Sending Fayed to death row is not accomplishing anything. Meister reads from Marci's Law. A moratorium is now in place (in California). Meister brings up the probation report and Judge Kennedy interrupts him that she has not read the probation report and she can't comment on it at this point.

Meister talks long about what it's like in San Quentin, and that's where inmates often outlive their victims. It won't do Pamela Fayed's family any good. It won't give them closure. He will live there throughout 27 years of appeals. It will only be punishing Pam's family over and over.

Harmon speaks for the people, "We've made our point clear in the motion. There's no reason to set aside or modify the jury verdict.”

JK: There may be a lot wrong with the appeal system for condemned prisoners, but that's not something that the court can do anything about. We are a trial court; we do not make new law here. We don't make any laws here. We apply the laws that exist. And the laws require that the weighing process set forth in the penal code 190.3. The idea that, the victims families are somehow going to be punished by, if the court elects to impose the sentence the jury felt was the verdict to impose in this case, but that's a bit of arrogance. You are not a proponent of the victim's family in this case. What the court has to do is follow the law. And, so pursuant to the penal code, obviously this is an automatic motion of reduction to life in prison without parole. Judge Kennedy states she has reviewed independently the evidence. "The motion for modification of the verdict is denied for the following reasons:

I find that the first degree murder was an intentional killing, personally carried out by the defendant who hired the co defendants. I find that it was purposeful, premeditated and was carried out with malice aforethought. I further find that it was carried out with a means of lying in wait, and that it was carried out for financial gain, in relation to the pending divorce and in relation to the pending federal case."

Judge Kennedy goes onto describe Pamela Fayed’s injuries in detail. "The victim was brutally and brazenly murdered. Her throat was slashed. She was stabbed 13 times. She was attacked in a parking garage minutes after a preplanned meeting with the defendant and his lawyers."

Afterwards, the defendant was caught on tape, after her screams were bouncing of the office buildings. The people were coming out of their offices getting ready to come out for the day. The (poor?) witness witness in the area. (Judge Kennedy mentions Edwin Rivera, who was sitting in his car.) "There were lots of people around. Even thought we only had video tape, (no sound) you knew, we could hear those screams. An attorney in an office building across the street, several stories up could hear her scream."

Judge Kennedy talks more about the loud screams. "On the video tape, we could see, all the people are rushing over and looking up at the garage, everyone except the defendant. (We can see) the defendant is sitting there and texting on his cell phone. He doesn’t have a care in the world. He eventually walked over to where the people are. And that is one cold, calculated human being. Mr. James Fayed, he doesn't feel anything. This is his wife that at one time he loved. The mother of his child. And he doesn't feel anything. He doesn’t feel anything. He has no concern at all."

"That was one of the most chilling parts of the evidence, is that tape, where we see him totally outside that parking garage, totally immune to the screams of his wife. The mother of his child, his wife. Chilling."

Once the defendant was taken into custody, and housed in detention, not only did he brag about the murder of his wife, these are his words, “..as a dumb fucking cunt and a dumb money fucking whore...”

Further, he planned to hire his cell mate to carry out three additional murders, the three co defendants who carried out the murder of Ms Fayed in the garage.

He was convicted not just of murder, but conspiracy to commit murder. He paid Jose Moya $25,000 to commit the crime. Within, days he promised to pay to (cell mate Shawn Smith) to carry out further murders of the co defendants, who was wearing a wire.

(The Court) considered there was no prior criminal conduct. The defense stated he was a good stepfather, "That was true to a point. At one point the defendant had withdrawn from the family, stayed in his room and was addicted to pain killers. In the penalty phase, there were no people called by the defendant who were present associates, but people he had known 15 years before."

The defense stated that he did not carry out the murder himself, however on the audio tape (the defendant is heard saying),

“I wanted to do it myself. I wish I could do it myself, but knew I would get caught.”

There's nothing mitigating about that, because he had a lot of money or he did at one time, to hire someone else to do it for him. I don't find that to be a circumstance to be mitigation in this case.

The Fayed’s had a lot of money. Most people in divorce court are dividing debts rather than assets. Mr. Fayed could have split up the assets and they both could have had a lot of money, but that wasn't good enough for him. His greed, was seemingly the controlling factor as to why this murder was carried out.

Judge Kennedy forcefully again, talks about the great respect she has for the jurors in this case, and the time they took to reach their decision in this case.

"I find that the aggravating circumstances so outweigh the mitigation the court denies the modification of the verdict," Judge Kennedy rules.

Judge Kennedy takes five minutes to read the probation report and then will return to the bench. Fayed is returned to the little jail area.

10:24 am: Fayed is brought back into the courtroom. Since I'm getting a better look, he looks like he has lost some noticable weight since the trial. Here is a photo from the LA Times.

Far left, Deputy Penna, defense counsel Mark Werksman, James Fayed, co counsel Steve Meister, and bailiff Deputy "Shawn."

Judge Kennedy takes the bench.

Werksman's client does not wish to be heard. Werksman asks to make a few statements.

Werksman:
Mr. Fayed now stands alone. He met his client two days after the murder, he was on pain meds and distraught over the death of his wife and the location of his daughter. He was arrested a day and a half later. Since then, he has lived through the most oppressive situation. He's been deprived the use of a telephone. I've watched over the past three-and-a-half years, I've watched his world shrink. His business disappeared overnight. Now, he has no one to call, no one to visit. Today, he is indigent and relies on the charity of others to put money on his commissary account. He wants to live. He want's to see his daughter's grow up. I know it seems (odd? contrary?) to want to see his daughters grow up, but he does your honor. But never the less, he loved his family. He want's to live. There are contributions he could make to society, and to not judge him on the very worst thing he did in his life.

JK: People?

We'd like give this day to the victims family, and to have your honor impose a justice sentence.

Two family members speak to the court.
Renee Goudie. "Pamela Goudie's sister in law for 29 years. In those 29 years, I've never met or spoken to this individual. I am the one raising his daughter. (Renee mentions something about being the one having to answer the hard questions that kids on the school bus ask, ‘Is your mother dead?’ and ‘Was she murdered?’)"

"I am the one that has to answer the questions. I do have a message that she (Jeanette) wanted to give her dad. She said to say 'Hi, and she misses him.' "

Scott Goudie, Pamela's kid brother. "(I am in) a void that this man has left in our life you can not describe. He has committed the ultimate betrayal of all, (and) to his children, they will never know and never get to feel their mother’s touch and caring hands again. He’s left our family in fear. This man kills people for money. We cannot pull into a parking lot, or we can not turn on the TV, because something reminds us of this."

"We can not live (a normal life?). Not just my family but our extended family. Our daughter (Jeanette) does not understand. I don't think to this day we have not seen the hardship that she will endure. There are not enough words to describe how I feel about this man. We will spend the rest of our life picking up the pieces of our lives, and trying to move on."

No other family members speak to the court before sentence.

Judge Kennedy states there are two additional exhibits to put on the record, the DVD recording, of the proposed (supposed) juror on the telephone call and the sheriff's office investigation.

The court has previously denied the request to modify the sentence an nothing that has been said here after has caused the court to change (it’s opinion? decision?). The fact that the defendant is living in an uncomforaable jail cell and no access to phones, that's a hell of his own making; and there are consequents of (his) actions.

Judge Kennedy reads her ruling and it’s addressed to the warden. She goes over the sequence of the events of his charging arraignment and the start of the trial, through the jury verdict and the jury's penalty phase verdict.

Court rules that James Michael Fayed sentence is the death penalty. It is the order of this court that you should suffer the death penalty.

Judge asks about restitution hearing. Fayed waves his right to be at the restitution hearing. Ordered to submit DNA samples, etc.

Ordered to San Quentin’s custody within 10 days. Orders warden of San Quentin to hold Fayed in custody until the time of his death.

Restitution hearing on January 24th, 2012.

Either Werksman, or Harmon tells the court, “It's complicated (by the) potential civil case, (but they would need) probably 1.5 hours.”

Only other issue is the transcript, December 19th, for submission of the initial corrections. No appearance necessary.

And that’s it for the sentencing hearing. Court is adjourned. I ask Jackson if he’s going to speak to the media. He tells me that if they decide to go, they will be there in about 15 minutes. Any longer, and they won’t be going.

Up on the 12th floor, media area, the defense team (Werksman and Meister) spoke on camera to the media (video taped) regarding the various issues they felt were errors in the judge's ruling. An abridged version of what he argued in his motions. After they spoke, Mr. Werksman came over and greeted me, shook my hand. He addressed me as, "Madam blogger" on the 12th floor and thanked me for being the most consistent reporter who covered the case.

I was quite impressed to hear Fayed’s defense attorney, Mark Werksman, on the 12 floor media area, make a very (to me) sincere sounding statement, “...sorry for your loss...” to the family regarding the loss of Pamela.

More camera men show up on the 12th floor.

One of the reporters asks what was given to the defendant. Because of where I was sitting in the courtroom, I did not observe this. I find out (I believe DDA Harmon answers this question but I could be wrong.) that each daughter (Jeanette, Desiree) wrote Fayed a letter. The children are both conflicted. There was a photo of the younger daughter in the one letter and given to Fayed in court.

It’s now11:27 am, and the family as a group speaks on camera to the media. (I have to tell you, I was quite disappointed with Miriam Hernandez and the questions she asked the family. She was clueless about the facts of the case. I think if you’re going to go to a sentencing hearing, it might help to know something about the trial, and the family as well before you shove a camera and a microphone in their face and ask questions.)

MSM: What does this sentence mean to you?

Scott Goudie: It brings partial closure. There are still three more defendants.

MSM: (What are your) feelings about sentence?

SG: I think the sentence is fair. He orchestrated the murder of another human being. I think it’s fair. I’m going to tell you... to tell you I’ve tried to prepare for each hearing you go to but you can’t. There isn’t any preparation to prepare you for what you are about to hear.

(Scott speaks about the family’s love for Pamela, and what she was like.)

SG: She was a generous, loving mother. She cared more about her daughters more than everything else. And one of her last words to me were to make sure that her daughter’s were taken care. She laughed a lot and enjoyed life.

MSM: You’ve had conversations with her daugher, Jennette? How is Jeanette doing?

SG: Jeanette is adjusting to the move to our household. She doesn’t discuss this a lot. And I don’t know how to describe how she feels inside. It’s hard for her. (Scott’s wife, Renee nods her head as Scott speaks.) “Its a different environment than what she's used to.

MSM: What went wrong with James Fayed?

There’s no way that I could perceive (...?).

MSM: Did Pamela ever share anything with you...?

SG: Other than, than, the last couple of years. The fact that he was quite a recluse in his living environment. (There might have been a question here, about what Pamela told her family that I miss.) She didn't; she didn't. She lived in fear of him the last six months of her life. While she was still married she didn’t' share a lot of that with me.

MSM: Anything else (you want to say?)?

SG: You know, I think the trial, went amazingly well. the DA office did a remarkable job, and they have been so helpful to our family throughout all of this. The police, an outstanding job as well. Special thanks to the jury, and what they had to go through in, in answering that letter (jury summons). It says report to jury duty and you can see that it deeply affected those people as well forever.

MSM: Why did you decide to speak now?

SG: No, there's (?....) and, I have spoken to some of the other media, but I generally try to keep it private, try to keep my private life private and above all, try to protect Jeanette.

Somone asks how old Jeanette is and how old she was at the time of Pamela’s murder.

SG: Jeanette is twelve and she was nine at the time.

I know Scott spoke about living in fear because of what Fayed might be capable of doing, even from a prison cell, the possibility of still being able to reach out and harm them, but I don’t have the quote exact. And that’s about it. There are questions about the spelling of their names.

DDA Alan Jackson, when addressed by the media states, “We don't have anything. This was about the family, unless you have specific questions.”

Other media asks about the status on the other three defendants. They are going to trial next sumer. (Some thought one of the co defendants may have pled out. That's not the case.) Hopefully, in the next six months. No one has pled guilty.

The reporters, who did not follow the trial, are asking about the "letter" which claimed to be from a juror anonymously. (This is another issue, that if any of these reporters had covered the trial, they would have known about.) The letter claimed that DDA Alan Jackson sent them campaign promotional materials. Miriam Hernandez tries to get a copy of the video tape Judge Kennedy spoke about of Fayed in the plaza, ignoring the screams of his wife but DDA Eric Harmon tells her she would have to get a copy directly from the court. The DA’s office cannot release them a copy since this same evidence will be used against the other three co defendants.

And that's it. I was quite touched by the family's many thanks to me for my trial coverage, and how much it helped other members of their family who could not attend the trial.

Local ABC Channel 7's video report on the sentencing.

Conrad Murray Trial: A Verdict Has Been Reached

2011-11-07T11:20:00.000-08:00

GUILTY!

No jury press conference.

Dr. Conrad Murray, during his trial

After deliberating a little over 10 hours, the jury has reached a verdict in the involuntary manslaughter case of Dr. Conrad Murray. For those of you living in a cave for the last couple of years, Dr. Murray is on trial for the death of pop icon Michael Jackson. The verdict will be read at 1:00 pm Pacific Time today in Department 107. I'll post an update as soon as the verdict is read.

Correction.
I should know better than listen to Vinnie. Beth Karas posted on her Facebook that the jury deliberated a total of 8.5 hours.

UPDATE 1:17 PM
GUILTY.

1:18 PM
Judge Pastor polls the jury. All jurors indicated in the affirmative that this is their verdict individually.

Judge Pastor now reads to the jury their final instructions. The jurors personal information will be sealed. The court will decide whether, or under what condition, any information about the jurors will be released. Their emergency contact numbers will be destroyed.

Judge Pastor speaks passionately to the jurors about their service, mentioning going back to when they first were sworn in as jurors. "Throughout this trial, you have been remarkable. You've never been late. .... We've been generally appreciative of it. You took the responsibility in good faith. Want to take the time of our courtroom family, we thank you." Now Judge Pastor addresses the five alternates and their conscientiousness. He talks about sometimes needing a spare tire, but that they didn't need them in this case because the sworn jurors were so dedicated. He tells them that some of the courtroom staff want to thank them personally. All the jurors exit back to the jury room.

Judge Pastor addresses the parties. "Mr. Chernoff, would you like to be heard?" Murray has a right to a speedy sentencing within 20 days. Chernoff talks about a date in three weeks. Judge Pastor asks Chernoff to supply a date he's thinking of so he can turn to the people.

Chernoff checks his calendar. Defense counsel are conferring. Chernoff asks about November 22nd? Is that sufficient time for a probation report? Judge Pastor states it's difficult to get a report in that time frame.

Judge Pastor states he has a major case the next week, starting on the 29th. Acceptable to the people, Tuesday, November 29th is acceptable.

Walgren asks that the defendant be remanded into custody. He's had two and a half years to prepare for this date. He's now a convicted felon. As for custody without bail.

Chernoff states he has not been a flight risk or a danger to the community. There's no reason to remand under the circumstances.

Court takes into account 1166 and 1272 from the penal code. Dr. Murray has been convicted of a felony, he has been found guilty of manslaughter. There is not constitutional right to bail. He shall be committed to the custody of the county unless, the evidence suggests he can remain out on bond. The public risk, dictates that the defendant be remanded to jail. He's been convicted of a crime of homicide. It's not a crime of a mistake of administration of drugs per se. That fact demonstrates that the public needs to be protected.

Judge Pastor weighs all the issues and concludes that Dr. Murray is to be remanded without bail.

I see the bailiff's putting the cuffs on him as he's still sitting. Nothing else to address. Court will be addressing the jury and members of the court staff will be addressing the jury first. Walgren asks if the media blackout is still in effect. Judge Pastor says no.

UPDATE 2:25 PM PT:
In Session's Facebook page is reporting there will NOT be a jury press conference.

First LA County District Attorney Debate Nov 2nd 2011

2011-11-01T23:59:00.000-07:00

The first debate between the candidates for Los Angeles County District Attorney is being hosted by the Asian Pacific Bar Association on November 2nd, 2011, between 6:00 and 8:00 pm. It will take place at the Japanese American National Museum, 369 E. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90012.

According to the statement from the APABA:

'Join us for a town hall discussion with all of the declared candidates for Los Angeles County District Attorney: Bobby Grace, Steve Ipsen, Alan Jackson, Jackie Lacey, Danette Meyers and Mario Trujillo.' Meet and mingle with the candidates at a reception after the program.'

This is a great opportunity to meet all the candidates.

The Christian-Newsom Torture-Murder Case: Motions For New Trials

2011-10-23T12:36:00.000-07:00

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom,
Wikipedia photo

GUEST ENTRY by David In Tennessee

On Friday, October 14, a hearing regarding motions for new trials for the four defendants convicted in the Christian-Newsom torture-murder case were held in Knoxville, Tennessee. This is my account of the previous hearing regarding Letalvis Cobbins, the first suspect to be tried. It has links to my article outlining the case and one on the verdict in Cobbins' trial.

Judge Sword, who has replaced Judge Richard Baumgatner, was on the bench doing Friday calendar work. It was mostly probationers with drug offenses. Judge Baumgartner who resigned earlier this year, was disbarred on Thursday after pleading guilty to buying prescription drugs (mainly painkillers) from a defendant who appeared in his court.

I saw three TV cameras set up in the back of the courtroom. At 9:50 am, I went out in the hallway. I saw the parents of the victims, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. I went over to Chris' father, Hugh, and exchanged greetings. He told me the hearing was scheduled for 10 am. We went into the courtroom.

At 10 am, Judge Sword left and Special Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood, who has taken on former Judge Baumgartner's work, took the bench. The courtroom was tense because it was anticipated that the four convicted murderers were about to enter. For a minute, there was dead silence. Two of them, Cobbins and George Thomas, were brought into the courtroom. Both wore Knox County jail stripes. The other two, ringleader Lemaricus Davidson and Vanessa Coleman, did not appear.

Attorneys for all four defendants were present. They are seeking the overturn of the convictions in all four trials. This is standard procedure. Judge Baumgartner's troubles have made it very serious. The defense is claiming the judge was impaired during the trials, causing him to make bad decisions.

This is ironic. It was obvious that Baumgartner was trying above all to conduct the trials in such a fair way that the verdicts would stand up on appeal. This was the most horrific crime in memory for Tennessee. Who wants to hear the details again?

State prosecutors want to call to the stand Capital Case Attorney Susan Jones, who advised Baumgartner during the four trials, at upcoming hearings. They expect her to testify that Baumgartner's judgement was sound. However, Jones, through attorney Tom Scott, claims her dealings with Baumgarner were protected by attorney-client confidentiality.

However, prosecutor Leland Price argued the court was the client, not Baumgartner, and this argument should not apply.

Davidson's attorney, Doug Trant, then spoke. He told the court they don't need Jones' testimony. He said the files from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation probe of Baumgartner are enough to get a new trial (Story on Wate.com).

"The TBI files itself, the evidence is so overwhelming that there is structural error that the court cannot have confidence in that verdict," Trant said.

Channon Christian's father, Gary, spoke at a press conference following the hearing. He feels the defendants got fair trials and the evidence spoke for itself. "Judge Baumgartner, if he did anything, he leaned toward making sure their rights were sought after," Gary Christian said.

Even if the defense motions for new trials are denied, Gary says the battle is not over until Eric Boyd is prosecuted in state court. Boyd was convicted in federal court on lesser charges connected to the murders.

Judge Blackwood gave the state 15 days to outline the questions prosecutors would have for Susan Jones, reserving final judgement.

In still another development, Vanessa Coleman's lawyer's subpoenaed Knoxville News Sentinel reporter Jamie Satterfield to testify at a court hearing. The subpoena was served after the motions hearing.

Satterfield is compelled to testify at an evidentiary hearing, which is scheduled December 1-2, 2011. The subpoena does not specify the nature of her testimony. Satterfield has covered the case from the start and has said she plans to write a book on the Christian-Newsom torture murders.

Presumably, the December hearing would have testimony from both Jones and Satterfield.

My brother is an attorney. He told me the appellate courts will decide on Judge Baumgartner's rulings by their legal merits. If they were sound, the verdicts will stand.

For this article, I used the notes I took in the courtroom. I also referenced reports from the Knoxville News Sentinel, and WATE, WBIR, and WATE TV stations.

Conrad Murray Trial Update II

2011-10-18T21:41:00.000-07:00

Dr. Murray in court, October 13th, 2011

Several hours ago, In Session's Beth Karas reported the following on her Facebook page:

Quote:
The attorneys were in court this afternoon to give the judge an update. Conrad Murray was excused from appearing. The defense is still getting answers to questions raised when they received a new toxicology report from the State last Friday. The report concludes that Michael Jackson did not have a large amount of lorazepam in his stomach contents, contrary to the defense's own report prepared by a different lab. The State's expert anesthesiologist and pharmacologist, Steven Shafer, will be back on the stand tomorrow morning. He is expected to be on the stand all day. The defense case will begin Friday and will continue through next Wednesday. Among the defense witnesses are four character witnesses, a few police officers, a toxicologist, an anesthesiologist and AEG CEO Randy Phillips. If Dr. Shafer completes his testimony tomorrow, court will be dark Thursday.

From Beth's posting, it appears the State is resting their case-in-chief with the testimony of Dr. Shafer. The defense case will only take four days to present. We still don't know at this time if the prosecution will put on rebuttal witnesses, but it's my guess they will.

Meanwhile, CNN is reporting that Katherine Jackson is against Prince taking the stand in Dr. Murray's trial, "....and that there are no discussions going on with prosecutors about it."

Seal Beach Massacre: 8 Dead, 1 Critical Condition

2011-10-14T11:52:00.000-07:00

Scott De Kraai

Since I've been concentrating on a personal project, I don't know if this story has hit the national news or not. However, it is all over the news locally in greater Los Angeles since Seal Beach is located just a skip over the county line into Orange County.

On Wednesday, October 12th, Scott Evans De Kraai entered Salon Meritage where his ex-wife, Michelle Fournier De Kraai was working and started shooting. This is the worst mass killing in Orange County history. Along with his former wife, five other people died at the scene, and two additional victims were reported dead at the hospital. One victim still remains in critical condition but is expected to survive. De Kraai was apprehended a short time later.

From my understanding De Kraai was in a custody battle with his ex-wife over their young son. The latest news coming out of the MSM is that De Kraai suffered PTSD from a tugboat accident in 2007 where one of his legs was severely mangled and a friend died.

I personally don't believe De Kraai's PTSD had anything to do with the fact that he went on a shooting rampage in the salon where his wife worked. Custody issues bring out the worst in people, as I've seen over and over again in the cases I've followed. Consider filicide, which is more common than what De Kraai ultimately did. There are parents who make the choice to kill their children, just to hurt the other parent.

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckus has filed eight murder charges and will seek the death penalty against De Kraai.

Please say a prayer for the victims. Those killed inside the salon were:

Randy Lee Fanin, Owner, Salon Meritage
Michelle Fournier De Kraai, employee
Victoria Ann Buzzo
Lucia Bernice Kondas
Laura Lee Elody
Michelle Daschbach Fast
Christy Lynn Wilson

Elody's mother, Hattie Stretz, is the lone survivor who watched her daughter die in front of her eyes. Dave Caouette was killed in his car outside the salon.

ABC Seal Beach Suspect Had PTSD

NBC Victims Identified

8 Dead at Seal Beach Salon Shooting

DA Seeks Death Penalty Against De Kraai

NBC Complete Coverage

Conrad Murray Trial Update

2011-10-12T14:45:00.000-07:00

Dr. Conrad Murray

As you are probably aware, I have not been able to continue my coverage of the Conrad Murray Trial. I am quite sorry about this. Although I had hoped to provide a short synopsis of each days testimony, a personal family matter has come up and my sisters have asked that I pitch in with my financial auditing skills. Consequently, I need to devote all my time and energy to that until it's completed.

In the mean time, I'd like to provide some links to various places where you can access coverage of the trial.

Fellow Crime Blogger Rose Speaks has a daily synopsis and court documents on her site.

CNN's IN SESSION has a blog covering the trial.

To watch the trial online, there are many sources (just do a Google® search) but my favorite will always be CNN VIDEO. Once the video page loads, click on the link at the top that says LIVE.

For edgy reporting, check out THE DAILY BEAST'S coverage.

If you're in the Los Angeles area, I highly recommend catching crime reporter Eric Leonard's 4 PM, Pacific Daylight Time reports on KFI, 640AM. Eric gives an excellent recap and always makes the days testimony interesting.

If you want to watch the trial at your own convenience, there is an individual "gurgle1624" on YouTube who is uploading (I believe) the complete trial.

And if you're into crime forums and want to discuss the case with other individuals I will recommend two forums WEBSLEUTHS and JUSTICE QUEST. They are moderated quite differently but each have something unique to offer.

If you're on Facebook, I recommend In Session's page as well as Beth Karas' In Session page.

Although I have not followed the trial since Day 5, I do try to hear Leonard's report on KFI when I can. If you have questions, or would like to discuss the case here, please feel free to leave a comment. Please remember that comments are moderated. All we ask is that you be respectful.

Inglewood Police Association Announces Support for Alan Jackson for LA County DA

2011-10-05T09:28:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, October 5th –

Today the Inglewood Police Association announced their endorsement of Alan Jackson to become the next District Attorney of LA County. This is yet another testament to Jackson’s strength and staunch support from the rank and file law enforcement community. As District Attorney Jackson intends to build upon his rock solid reputation as a cop’s prosecutor to protect our families and children across the county.

“We’re certain that your knowledge of the law, leadership skills, strong work ethic and the experience you have gained as a Deputy District Attorney will serve you well and be a tremendous benefit to everyone who resides or works in the County of Los Angeles. We also feel that you are a role model and set a fine example that other attorneys should follow,” stated Detective Loyd Waters, President of Inglewood PA.

Deputy DA Alan Jackson said, “I am proud to have earned the support of the Inglewood PA. Their support is impactful to my candidacy and emboldens my determination and resolve to work tirelessly to become the next LA County DA. As DA I look forward to partnering with law enforcement all over the county to put criminals behind bars and keep our streets safe.”

Waters continued, “While you were assigned to the Inglewood Superior Court, many of our officers commented on your compassion and empathy toward victims as well as your impartialness and fairness toward defendants. Although your goal was to convict criminals for the crimes they committed, you were also respectful of their rights when dealing with them.”

Deputy DA Alan Jackson has earned strong support from other public officials such as County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, State Senator Tony Strickland, Los Angeles City Councilmember Dennis Zine, Long Beach City Attorney Robert Shannon, former La Cañada-Flintridge Mayor and current City Councilmember Steve Del Guercio, San Gabriel City Councilman Mario De La Torre, Honorary Mayor of San Pedro Anthony Misetich, and El Monte Chiefs of Police Bill Ankeny, Tom Armstrong, Wayne Clayton and Ken Weldon.

For more information, please visit Alan Jackson’s campaign website at www.VoteAlanJackson.com.

Conrad Murray Trial Day 5

2011-10-03T20:15:00.000-07:00

Dr. Conrad Murray and his defense team.

UPDATED October 4th, 2011
I incorrectly reported that Sade Anding testified yesterday. She is testifying Tuesday morning. Sprocket.

A recap of the witnesses today.

Monday's testimony continued with #11 Richelle Cooper returning to the stand. She testified much the same as she did in the preliminary hearing. In Session's Beth Karas reported on her Facebook page that defense attorney Michael Flanagan cross examined Dr. Cooper about her use of propofol in her medical practice as well as her knowledge of how long benzodiazepine and Lorazepam stay in the body.

AT&T Employee #12, Edward Dixon testified about Dr. Murray's AT&T phone, data and text message records. Dr. Murray was talking and texting all morning while treating Jackson.

Witness # 13, Jeff Strohm, Sprint/Nextel employee testified about more phone records much the same as his preliminary hearing testimony. DDA Deborah Brazil performed the direct of the phone records and Nareg Gourjian performed the cross examination.

Dr. Thao Nguyen

Witness # 14, Dr. Thao Nguyen, UCLA emergency room doctor is on the stand detailing her CV. She's smart as a whip. I believe DDA David Walgren presented the witness. She was on the CCU rotation at UCLA when Jackson entered the ER. Dr. Nguyen testified pretty much the same as her preliminary hearing testimony. She was the fourth witness the prosecution called that testified Dr. Murray did not mention propofol to her as a drug that he had given Jackson. Defense attorney Flanagan tried to shake her testimony but she had a response for him every time. Dr. Murray could not tell Nguyen a timeline of when he gave Jackson two doses of Ativan (aka lorazepam), when he arrested and how long before paramedics arrived. Murray told Nguyen, "I have no concept of time."

Witness #15, Dr. Joanne Bednarz-Prashad did not testify in the preliminary hearing. She called Dr. Murray the morning of June 25th to ask about a patient of his about to undergo surgery in a Houston hospital. Dr. Bednarz-Prashad was surprised that Dr. Murray had the information she needed immediately, and did not have to go check a patient file.

Antionette Gill

Witness #16, former Dr. Murray patient and friend, Antoinette Gill. Spoke to Dr. Murray on the morning of June 25th, 2009 and everything was normal.

Witness #17 Consuelo Ng, met the defendant through her grandmother in 2003 or 2004. He was treating her grandmother. After saving grandma's life, she began to work in Dr. Murray's office as a volunteer. Prior to that, she worked in a group home as a caregiver. In June, 2009, she volunteered in his office five days a week from 2004 to 2009. She is not a nurse.

CN: I would help in filing, answered phones, help in the front and the back room. I would take vitals and pulse rate.

Ng worked at Murray's Los Vegas office, on Flamingo Rd. She describes the layout of the office and the number of treatment rooms. She also testified about treating patients with specific cardiac equipment.

Bridgette Morgan

#18 Bridgette Morgan, one of three girlfriends to testify for the prosecution. Morgan called Dr. Murray on the morning of June 25th but did not speak to him. Prosecutors were prevented from asking questions about where she met Dr. Murray, (a Los Vegas nightclub) the nature of their relationship and that he gave her his number on a cocktail napkin.

Witness #19 Sade Anding, one of three girlfriends to testify for the prosecution. Anding was on the phone with Murray when she heard something strange. Here is an interview with Anding back in February, 2011.

(I listened to KFI's Eric Leonard's report regarding the various girlfriend's testimony.)

HERE is a link the the California Evidence Code. If you hear Judge Pastor make a ruling and cite a number (for example, 352), you can look up that number to have a better understanding of Judge Pastor's ruling.

FOX NEWS has a who's who list (judge, all counsel, etc.) and a bit of history on the major players in the well of the court. Go to the link and scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the list.

Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito

2011-10-03T12:16:00.000-07:00

Amanda Knox

On November 1st, 2007 in Perugia, Italy, English student Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and brutally murdered in her bedroom flat. Her roommate, American Amanda Knox and Knox's boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito were convicted of Meredith's murder on December 9th, 2009. A third individual, Rudy Guede was also convicted in a separate trial. The Italian court system is quite different that the US. An appeal is heard by a judge and jury, and the judge is inside the jury room during deliberations.

Today, an appeals court overturned Knox's and Sollecito's convictions for murder. She was convicted of another charge, defamation, from initially identifying her employer, Patrick Lumumba as being in the apartment with Meredith.

Amanda Knox and Rafaelle Sollecito, November 2nd, 2007

This is a case that has sparked strong opinions as to the guilt or innocence of these two young people. Personally, I have leaned more towards the opinions of lie detection expert, Eyes For Lies, and what she has written about the truthfulness of Amanda Knox's public statements. For those of you who are not familiar with Eyes For Lies, HERE is an explanation about her abilities.

HERE is the link to read Eyes For Lies analysis of the Amanda Knox case.

Conrad Murray Trial: Day 4

2011-09-30T19:15:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the last witness was #6, Kai Chase, Michael Jackson's personal chef. She testified much the same as she did in the preliminary hearing.

Robert Johnson, Nonin Medical, Director of Regulatory Affairs

Today #7, Robert William Johnson, Nonin Medical employee, Director of regulatory affairs, clinical research and quality assurance. Johnson's responsibilities at the company are to get product approvals with FDA and world wide health ministries. Nonin medical makes physiological monitoring devices. Mr. Johnson testified about the pulse-oximeter (made by his company) that Dr. Murray was using on Michael Jackson, as well as other advanced models of equipment they sell. (I listened to a portion of Mr. Johnson's testimony on TV this morning.)

Prosecution is showing the witness a pulse oximeter sensor and circuitry all in one that can be worn on the finger, Model #9500. The witness states it does not have an audible alarm.

Johnson testifies that this model is designed for spot checking vital signs. It's not designed for continuous monitoring. The product manual/description included with the product is specifically labeled against that. Labeled against continuous monitoring in the warnings. Does come with instructions for use.

From warnings in directions of device:
This device has no audible alarms and is designed for spot checking. "Taking an instantaneous reading." Warning quote in package materials. The retail cost: $275.00.

Mr. Johnson also testified about another model of pulse oximeter, the Nonin 2500A.

Prosecution: What type of pulse oximeter is that?

RJ: It is a pulse-oximeter that displays the same functions but also has visual and audible alarms.

Prosecution: Is that an alarm that is designed to be heard in another room?

RJ: Yes.

Prosecution: It can be heard outside of a bedroom?

RJ: It is loud. And annoying.

Prosecution: In 2009 how much did that product cost?

RJ: It would be about $750.00 retail.

Robert Russell, former patient of Dr. Murray

Witness #8, Robert Russell, was a former patient of Dr. Murray . Dr. Murray told him he was leaving his Las Vegas practice to be Michael Jackson's full time physician. Russell's last two appointments with Dr. Murray were rescheduled then the last appointment, on June 22nd, cancelled. (I heard a recap of this testimony on the radio while driving.)

Next up was #9, Richard Senneff, Los Angeles Fire Department Paramedic, first on the scene. Testimony basically the same as during the preliminary hearing. Senneff testified that Jackson's skin was cool to the touch and his pupils fixed and dilated. During the paramedics treatment of Jackson at the scene, Senneff testified he was never able to feel a pulse or see a heart beat on the monitors. Dr. Murray did not not tell him that he had administered propofol to Jackson.

Following Senneff was #10, Martin Blount, fifth paramedic to enter the residence and care for Michael Jackson. Testimony basically the same as during the preliminary hearing. Blount never heard Dr. Murray mention the drug propofol.

Last witness of the day on Friday was #11, Dr. Richelle Cooper, UCLA ER physician who paramedics consulted with over the radio. Pronounced Jackson dead over the radio, and a second time when he was wheeled into the ER. Dr. Cooper was still on the stand at the close of the court day.

What are your thoughts on the prosecution's case so far?

Some more images.

DDA Deborah Brazil, co-prosecutor on the Murray case.

Nareg Gourjian, one of three defense attorneys representing Dr. Murray.

Conrad Murray Trial: Day 3

2011-09-29T14:25:00.000-07:00

Dr. Conrad Murray, front, Attorneys J. Michael Flanagan behind him and Nareg Gourjian, right. Photo: Reuters

I've been watching a bit of the Conrad Murray Trial. I listened to opening statements, saw a bit of testimony on Tuesday, listened to some talking heads commentary yesterday and I've listened to some of Alberto Alvarez on the stand today.

So far for me, there has been very little difference in the prosecution's case from what I heard at the preliminary hearing back in January. The only startling information came in via the prosecution's opening statement with that tape recording of a clearly out-of-it Michael Jackson. The only additional witness (compared to the prelim) so far has been Paul Gongaware, AEG CEO who testified about how many concert dates there were, when they were added and how quickly they sold out.

Prosecution witnesses who have testified so far:

1. Kenneth Ortega (Co-director/creator THIS IS IT tour)
2. Paul Gongaware (AEG Live Co. CEO)
3. Michael Amir Williams (Personal assistant to Michael Jackson)
4. Faheem Mohammad (Head of Security for Michael Jackson)
5. Alberto Alvarez (Security Staff)

What are your thoughts on the trial so far? Was there any information that was new to you beyond what we learned at the preliminary hearing? For me, it was nice to see Judge Pastor's clerk, Mrs. Benson and his long-time court reporter, Mavis on camera. They are both lovely people.

Conrad Murray Quick Links

KZ's "Dr. Murray's Death Drip: Explained" Series

Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial Hearing 11

2011-09-28T13:42:00.000-07:00

UPDATE September 29th:
The next pretrial hearing is December 2nd, 2011. Sprocket.

The Associated Press is reporting that the Stephanie Lazarus case has been postponed until January, 2012. Jury selection was originally slated to start October 24th, 2011.

This is what happens when I totally miss a hearing. As soon as I know when the next pretrial hearing is scheduled, I will update this entry.

Lazarus is accused of murdering Sherri Rae Rasmussen, the wife of John Ruetten, Lazarus' ex-boyfriend, in February, 1986. Prosecutors allege DNA evidence collected off of the victim's body and torn fingernails found at the scene link Lazarus to the murder.

Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial Hearing 10, Conrad Murray & James Fayed Pre-Sentencing Hearing

2011-09-28T11:45:00.000-07:00

I am so behind in my real life responsibilities and sewing, I decided to make it easy on myself and combine the coverage of three cases. Sprocket.

September 15th, 2011
Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial 10

As I clear the first floor security checkpoint, I see Mark Overland and his daughter Courtney Overland in the lobby and heading for the elevator bay. On the 9th floor, I see that Lazarus' mother is here by herself. There's an older couple with gray hair sitting in the second row. The man is reading a paper and the woman is working on a crossword puzzle. It's a good bet that they are here for the case that's currently in Judge Perry's courtroom.

One of the detectives comes over to speak to Sherri Rae Rasmussen's mother, Loretta, who is sitting directly in front of me along with her husband, Nels. He tells her he is going to be in her neck of the woods soon and Loretta tells him to call her later. As I'm sitting behind Nels and Loretta, it's hard not to overhear snatches of their conversation. I don't quite grasp all of it. All I hear is, "They found out where she purchased...." and a reply, "Sounds like it." Usually, Nels and Loretta write each other notes back and forth on a little notepad, so this is a rare time that I hear something.

Jane Robson from the DA's office is here. Both parties go back into Judge Perry's chambers for an incamera discussion off the record. I squint and finally can read the first name on the court clerk's plackard. It's Melody. Melody is on the phone with a juror from the current case in Perry's court. From hearing half of the conversation, it appears the juror is feeling ill and feels she can't continue. Melody is telling her Judge Perry has asked that she come into court so she can be excused. She's in the parking lot, but reluctant to come in. She doesn't want to be embarrassed in front of her fellow jurors. Melody keeps assuring her that it's just a formality and that it won't happen in front of her fellow jurors.

Lazarus is brought into the courtroom. She's not wearing her glasses but she does have some type of cloth bag with something in it. I try to note the time on the wall clock behind me but it's wrong. It's about 50 minutes or so slow. Lazarus turns and gives her mother a big smile. There's something different about her hair but I can't pinpoint what it is. She has the long white thermal undershirt on under her orange jumpsuit.

Dateline isn't here. Neither is Greg from CBS. The defense investigator arrives and sits with Lazarus. He tells the clerk Melody, "I have something for you." Jurors for the current case file in and head to the jury room.

Presby and Nunez exit from Judge Perry's chambers along with Courtney Overland, but she quickly goes back in after retrieving something from her files. I believe Presby give some motion papers to Melody. Courtney and Mark come back into the courtroom from Perry's chambers.

Judge Perry takes the bench. "All parties present. (snip) We were in chambers chatting about some matters, part of discover and the investigation still ongoing. We're not going to start the jury questionnaire on the 17th. (October). The court hopes to start the trial on October 24th."

Judge Perry also states he's not confident that is going to happen. All parties will be ordered back on September 28th to check on trial readiness and other issues. Judge Perry mentions something I don't quite hear right. It's a defense "fictitious?" or "pitches?" motion that he is inclined to accept regarding Renay Brawning (sp?).

Judge Perry states both sides are not ready to go to trial on Onctober 17th. Judge Perry asks Lazarus about waiving her speedy trial rights and to set the trial calendar as 0-10 on October 24th. "Yes, your honor," Lazarus replies.

Judge Perry states he's ready to rule on the defense firearm motion regarding the "firearm transaction records." (I believe the records that document when Lazarus purchased the weapon she later reported stolen from her vehicle.). "I don't think it's a protected statement. It's not a violation. Motion denied," Perry rules.

Overland asks if at the Sept. 28th hearing they can talk about the jury questionnaire. "I know the court eliminated some questions..."

And that's all. It's over pretty quickly. I ride down the elevator with Shannon Presby to ask him about the "fictitious" motion and he explains to that it's a "Pitchess Motion." This is where the defense asks to access a police officer's personnel records for potential negative information. The records are reviewed by the Judge and if there is anything relevant in the file, the defense gets to see it.

I get all the way outside the building when I realize that there was a Conrad Murray hearing today and I could drop in and see if anything interesting is being ruled on.

(Note: I totally missed going to the Sept. 28th hearing this morning. I had it in my head the hearing was this Friday, on the 30th. I will update when I know when the next hearing is scheduled.)

Conrad Murray Pretrial Hearing
(The trial is now in progress since I stopped by this pretrial hearing.)

When I enter Dept. 107, Judge Pastor's courtroom, I was expecting a crowd but it's virtually empty. There are a few people in the gallery but less than a handful. I knew Dr. Murray would not be there but I thought there would be a few reporters (I later learn that the MSM had already left after hearing the major news). The court reporter up is Mavis and I smile when I see her. Nareg Gourjian is by himself at the defense table. Over on the prosecution side is the rugged David Walgren and the absolutely stunning Deborah Brazil. (She truly is a gorgeous, sophisticated looking woman. The cameras in the courtroom do not do her justice.)

I believe Gourjian is telling Judge Pastor that the attorney that is handling a specific issue is his co-counsel Mr. Flanagan, who has all documents related to it. Judge Pastor tells the defense that he wants (everyone?) "...to come back Tuesday or Wednesday and we'll add all the people concerning (to be excused) for cause..."

My notes are not clear, but I believe it's Walgren who asks Judge Pastor if they can come back tomorrow on another issue. Then I think they decide on Monday, the 19th. Also on Monday they will discuss any issues concerning Dr. Pustilnick.

Issues concerning Karen Faye's testimony need to be gone over, and Tim Lopez's testimony. Apparently, Lopez left the country and it's not clear if the prosecution will have to write a motion to introduce his testimony from the preliminary hearing via reading it into the record, or if he will be back in the US and take the stand.

There's also a Dr. Schafer the prosecution wants to call and the defense wants to block him from testifying. Judge Pastor instructs the defense to have Dr. Murray here on Wednesday, the 21st at 2 pm for Jury questionnaire cause issues and voir dire will start at 8:00 am on June 23rd.

I can't remember if it was the prosecution or not, but one side was questioning the 8:00 am start time, and Judge Pastor was firm on that time since the jurors were ordered to be back at that time.

I really didn't learn much at the hearing and besides, the MSM has kept up with every detail of this case. The only thing that surprised me was how Judge Pastor pronounced Gourjian's name. It's totally different than how I was sounding it out in my head. Anyway, the real reason I stopped by was to hopefully inquire with Mavis Theodorou, Judge Pastor's long-time court reporter about getting a copy of a transcript for a day or two of an old trial. She was so generous and kind in helping me make my first purchase of a trial transcript.

September 22nd, 2011

James Fayed Sentencing

When I get up on the 9th floor, I see Jason, the jury foreman and one of the female jurors and a male friend. The female juror tells me she wanted to contact me about my blog because she is writing a book. I tell her that all of my content is copyrighted. She say’s she’s not going to quote anything verbatim.

Then I see Marjorie from the Ventura County Star and I sit to chat with her and find out what she’s been covering. Unfortunately, she will not be covering the trial of the three co-defendants.

Pat Kelly and Arlene for the Public Information Office arrive.

Before we even get inside 109, the Bailiff, Shawn (sp?) tells us it’s not happening today. Lori the court clerk emerges from the bathroom. Several sheriff’s arrive. There is a camera man with large video equipment. Alan Jackson shows up. Alan introduces himself to to the new bailiff’s and there’s a bit of conversation among them.

Eric Harmon apparently is late. Alan Jackson jokingly says, “When he gets here tell him he’s fired”. Locat TV Station KTLA shows up and the camera man sets up in the jury box. Eric Harmon has arrived and is with AJ at the clerks desk. A Dateline producer is here. THe one dark haired woman whom I never met.

A few more people show up, casually dressed. They have lanyards around their necks so they are most likely reporters.

Marjorie and I are set up in the far right corner of the gallery on our laptops. Pat Kelly has given Marjorie a copy of one of the defense motions. James Fayed, case # BA346352. On September 12th, the defense filed a motion for new trial. When Marjorie is finished taking her notes from the motion, I try to type what I’m reading as fast as I can.

In their motion, the defense argues... (Note: Understand, there might be typographical errors and errors in my effort to copy as much of the motion as I could.)

“The court should not impose the death penalty in this case because the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors. James Fayed had no criminal record before this case. He was not the actual killer; his life was one of law abiding productive contribution to society; prior to the Fayeds’ bitter divorce, the family had been happy, and Jim Fayed was by the account of none other than Desiree Goudie a good father and good family man; the jury heard from long long time friends and colleagues of Mr. Fayed that they would be deeply hurt by Mr. Fayed’s death, that Mr. Fayed’s life was worth sparing, and that they could not connect the man they knew with the man who’d been convicted of murder. the penalty phase in this case took two court day to try and a day to argue; they jury deliberated penalty for five days. This fact alone shows that the present case is not “open and shut,” or so unassailably and deservedly a death penalty case that a jury did not even wrestle with what to do; clearly the jury did wrestle ever earnestly, for days longer than it took to try (the case? cause?).

The second reason the court should modify the verdict and impose LWOP is that the death penalty in California is unconstitutional, and Mr. Fayed should not be subjected to it.

California’s death penalty violates the federal constitution’s fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendment and the corresponding sections of the California Constitution. Although the California Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty against the challenges listed below, the Supreme Court is simply wrong. The challenges are meritorious and should the law change in the future and the Supreme Court come to see the error of it’s ways, defendant Fayed submits the following argument as to the unconstitutionally of the death penalty in this state.

Consistent with the ethical rule which requires counsel to alert the court to the existence of adverse authority, citations to cases overruling the defense position follow the specific challenges are now listed:

Calif death penalty statute does not (meaningly?) narrow the pool of jurors eligible for the death penalty

The breadth of the circumstance of the crime “ aggravating factor (Factor A of Penal code 190:3 results in arbitrary and capricious application of the death penalty. Over ruled by People v Smith (2005 35 cal . 4th 334).

The law unconstitutionally (?) excuses jurors from finding beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular factor in aggravation exists, that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigation factors and that death is the appropriate (?) penalty. Over ruled by People v. Burgener (?) (snip).

The law unconstitutionally excuses jurors from making written jury findings or achieving unanimity (?) as to the aggravating factors.

Prosecutorial discretion to determine which defendants merit the death penalty renders the statutory scheme invalid.

The jury should not be allowed to consider the unadjudicated criminal conduct in fixing the penalty.

The law unconstitutionally fails to require intercase proportionality be considered by juries and judges.

(snip)

The law fails to require “intercase” proportionality be considered by juries and judges. Here, Mr. Fayed’s culpability should be weighed against that of his co-conspirators, and the fact that all of the co-conspirators are facing only LWOP, while Mr. Fayed’s was a capital prosecution, should have been admissible and considerable by the jury.
END

The above is "not" the full motion, but all that I could copy before the hearing started.

9:31 am: James Fayed is brought into the courtroom. He’s in an orange jumpsuit.

Judge Kennedy takes the bench.

JK: Matter of People vs. Fayed. Mark Werksman (for the defense)
Eric Harmon and Alan Jackson for the people.” (snip) Now (the) mater is on calendar for sentencing and motion for reduction (in sentencing). I understand that neither side (is ready)?

There is a motion for a new trial and motion to modify the verdict.

JK?: Counsel joining in requesting us have a hearing on it?

(?) I would be ready to go except everyone needs time.

JK: Mr. Harmon or Mr. Jackson?

AJ: We agree. (snip) We need a little bit more time to respond to the two motions.

JK: (sounding a bit perturbed) I want to remind both sides to your obligation to the record. Within 15 days of receiving (the verdict) trial counsel must file corrections or directs stating... (they agree with the court reporter’s record or they are making recommendations to amend it). (snip) Neither side has done any of those things.

(It sounds like Judge Kennedy is sternly giving all counsel the riot act.)

JK: (snip) I want to emphasize how important that it is for attorneys to go thought the transcript. (snip) The record of this trial, con(versely?) could be dissected over the next 25 or 30 years. Having experts (?) of other cases, and thats assuming that’s a death penalty, but we have to proceed as if that’s whats going to happen in that.

JK: Appeal courts are going to come in here and they are go to come in for a (lot? long list?) of changes to the transcript and they were not present for the trial.

JK: They like to make changes to what they wish, but you are the people that were there. If you don’t take the time to go through the transcript and you’re not (going?) to have any request later on.

JK: And work together for changes and the court reporter has a lot of work to do on that.

And they need to be addressed by (you?) and you.

AJ: We will have gone though the record by the time it comes to argue motions.

(MW:?) We will have those corrections. (snip) But i will now endeavor to complete that particular requirement.

There is some discussion back and forth between the judge and the prosecution as to “when” they have to be ready with their response to the defense motions. October 31st is discussed and then Judge Kennedy moves that date to October 28th. Judge Kennedy was unmoved by Jackson's assertion that he would be out of the country until mid-October. The issue is that the defense has to have their rebuttal motion argument to the prosecution’s, ten days after that, and the court needs to have time to read all motions. That’s why the date is changed to October 28th. The defense response is due November 9th.

The date both sides will be ready for oral argument is November 17th.

Judge Kennedy asks Fayed if he is willing to have the sentencing continue until November 17th. I don’t hear him but he obviously agrees. And that’s it.

Guest Entry by KZ: The Conrad Murray Case

2011-09-27T11:26:00.000-07:00

Pool Photo

Guest Blogger KZ, a CRNA, offers her opinion on why we should care about the Conrad Murray case. The following entry is copyrighted by T&T. Please contact T&T for permission to reproduce on any web site or forum. Sprocket.

The Conrad Murray Case-- Why should we care?

Just as we are all collectively recovering from the international frenzy and widespread outrage at the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial, the next "trial of the century" is poised to begin. Conrad Murray is the private physician of Michael Jackson, who is charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of the King of Pop. The trial is certain to receive widespread and nonstop coverage by the media, and will be televised according to a ruling earlier this year by Judge Michael Pastor. It is expected that many of Michael Jackson's ardent fans and supporters will have a presence in the area during the trial.

For background into what Conrad Murray is accused of doing, please refer to the 4 part series I wrote earlier this year for Trials and Tribulations. You can start reading it, HERE.

So, why should we care about Conrad Murray? For the enthusiastic fans of Michael Jackson, (MJ) the answer is obvious. He is accused of causing (but not on purpose) the death of the King of Pop. But why should this case be of interest to casual fans of MJ, or those without an emotional connection to the man or his music?

I believe that we all should care about the conduct and outcome of this trial, but not simply because of the superstar victim.

We should care because of the deaths of the following individuals:

Osvaldo Hernandez
Denise Hendry
Ralph Gonzalez
Alicia Santizo Blanco
Leslie Ann Ray
Stephanie Kuleba
Maria Shortall
Walter Riley
Julie Rubenezer
Krista Stryland
Claudia Anderotimi
Kay Cregan
Aura Javellana

And literally DOZENS, if not hundreds more people. You have likely never heard of a single one of the people in the above list. They were average citizens, and in some cases, such as Osvaldo Hernandez, they were illegal immigrants. But their deaths fall into the same category as Michael Jackson-- namely, they were killed by the breathtaking, reckless incompetence of a licensed physician, or someone posing as a licensed physician, either in a private home, or a "private office" clinic. That's why we should care about the Conrad Murray case.

But wait! What does the deaths of illegal immigrants or average citizens have to do with Michael Jackson, the incredibly wealthy superstar musician, and his private cardiologist?

It's quite simple. In every case, the physician involved was practicing as a "lone wolf", not affiliated with hospitals, legitimate clinics, or involved in any way with mainstream medicine. None of these physicians accepted insurance payments, or medicare or medicaid for their services. They all hung out a shingle asking for "cash on the barrel head." Cash only business. None were credentialed in any legitimate facilities to perform the surgeries or services that they used to kill their patients. And yes, I use the word "kill" intentionally.

For the individuals POSING as legitimate, licensed physicians, they were able to do this because of the laws which allow REAL physicians to do this. It becomes confusing for patients (customers) to determine who is a real doctor, allowed to do liposuction in a hotel room, from someone posing as a physician, doing liposuction in a hotel room.

Once a person (rich or poor) decides to seek out a "lone wolf" physician, every single safety net provided by legitimate, mainstream medical care is gone. The transaction becomes a fee for service, based only on whatever the two parties agree to. People who are determined to have care from these individuals generally aren't overly concerned with doing a lot of investigation of the provider's credentials, licensing and inspection of the facilities, periodic maintenance and calibration of equipment, etc. They accept the M.D. as the ultimate safety credential, and don't question much further.

Now KZ, a cash only business isn't illegal.

No, it isn't. And small business entrepreneurs are what our country's economy was founded on, so this is an American economic value. But, in my strong opinion, it is a very bad thing for safe medical care. Lone wolf physicians target vulnerable populations in order to sell their trade. And vulnerable populations who seek care from these individuals are typically either VERY poor......or VERY rich....or vulnerable due to a devastating diagnosis not amenable to mainstream medical therapies.

The very poor, like Osvaldo Hernandez, who was undocumented, seek needed care in the shadows of the legitimate medical system. They do not want to become known to immigration authorities. You can read about Osvaldo Hernandez' horrifying death, and about his lone wolf neighborhood surgeon, Roberto Bonilla, here.

LA Times article 4/25/2010
LA Times Blog article 2/2011
LA Times Blog article 7/2011

Other ordinary people seek out lone wolf doctors to perform cosmetic surgeries at "bargain" prices, in offices or converted homes. There are numerous stories of the deaths of patients who underwent shoddy surgeries under substandard conditions, in hotel rooms, rented storefronts, and private offices. Notably, California and Florida, and a few other states have become alarmed at the reports of healthy people dying under these circumstances, and have moved to enact laws aimed at deterring these surgeries in these environments. But deterring doesn't mean prohibiting.

Roberto Bonilla was fully aware of the California requirements for general anesthesia, and flagrantly decided to "appear" to comply with those requirements by attempting the complex surgery under "local" anesthesia. Apparently he did this a number of times without severe complications. But that trick was guaranteed to come back to create a disaster. It was only a matter of time, but Bonilla's arrogance would not allow him to consider the possibility of local anesthetic overdose. Success so emboldened Bonilla, that he just kept pushing the envelope, until he killed Hernandez with a local anesthetic overdose. True, I must agree with Bonilla that by the time Hernandez was in full cardiac arrest, there was an overwhelming possibility he would die regardless of whether advanced measures were implemented. But Bonilla, in his arrogance, either didn't know what simpler measures to try (such as high dose intralipid rescue), and clearly never thought that the hospital a few blocks away would be able to help him problem solve what was going on. Or maybe he just wanted to keep the whole situation quiet. But I digress. Let's get back to Conrad Murray and Michael Jackson.

But wait, KZ. How can the VERY rich be "vulnerable"? After all, they can afford the very best of the best medical care, right?

Sure they can. But the very rich (and famous) have privacy concerns that you and I don't have. And the very rich have definite ideas about a lot of things in their lives. Extreme wealth provides options and opportunities that less wealthy people don't have access to. For some very wealthy people, they want, what they want, when they want it. And there are definitely people and doctors willing to provide what they want, for a price. And the M.D. credential insulates the activity from scrutiny. After all, anything a licensed doctor does in the care of his patients is assumed to be without malice, right? No malice, no murder charge, as long as the death occurred during care provided in the context of the doctor-patient relationship. As long as a doctor doesn't MEAN to kill a patient, there was never any malice.

But wait! Second degree murder can also be charged if an action was sufficiently reckless that the accused should KNOW that death can be an outcome. Well, there can be no doubt that Conrad Murray knew he was administering propofol to Jackson, in a bedroom, in a private home, with substandard monitoring. So that's reckless, right?

Well, it would be if you or I did that. But it IS NOT sufficiently reckless because Murray DID NOT THINK IT WAS POSSIBLE TO KILL JACKSON BECAUSE HE IS A DOCTOR AND CAN HANDLE THE SITUATION. He didn't mean to kill Jackson.That is the argument for involuntary manslaughter, with its pitiful 4 year sentence. Prosecutors have tried in various locations to "win" with second degree charges against doctors, with very unpredictable track records. Involuntary manslaughter is easier to "win" than second degree charges.

But wait! Gifted with the prospect of only 4 years if convicted, Murray pushes back even harder, and tries to make the dead musician responsible for his own death!! That is such unimaginable, jaw dropping hubris that I almost can't finish this article. Basically, what Murray wants us all to agree is that it was perfectly OKAY for him to provide the propofol and other drugs, to start the IV, to hang the drip (and yes, it WAS a drip, imo), and then absolve himself of any responsibility when things went horribly MORE wrong. Really?? Is anyone buying this, other than Murray and his attorney?

Well.....it WAS perfectly legal for Murray to buy 4 gallons of propofol, ship it to his girlfriends apartment in another state, and cart it into the mansion. Was it okay? Was it medically legitimate care, with outcome based evidence, and well documented in the literature? No. Was it even slightly documented in the literature as a valid technique or therapy for insomnia? No. Was it reckless? Yes. YES. Holy crap, yes it was reckless. SO reckless, that in my opinion, it was criminal. Involuntary?? Hell no. I believe the case is sorely undercharged, but I also believe that prosecutors would not be able to get a conviction on second degree. That is the conundrum.

Conrad Murray, in my opinion, was lured into Michael Jackson's exclusive circle of people as one who Jackson perceived as willing to provide him with what he wanted. Namely, propofol and other prescription substances, under the thinly disguised veil of "legitimate" medical care. Legitimate, because it was a licensed doctor (not a nurse, a technician, or a layperson) providing the substances, even though there is NO medical indication or research precedence for what Murray was doing. Had it been ANYONE other than a licensed physician providing those drugs to Jackson, under those circumstances, the criminal charges would have been AT LEAST 2nd degree murder, due to the recklessness. I do not think Conrad Murray wanted to kill Michael Jackson, or intended to kill him. But I also do not buy the argument that he was too dumb to know propofol could kill Jackson, yet so smart that he believed he could rescue Jackson from any mishap. Or wait, maybe I do. I guess that is the very definition of hubris. So maybe involuntary manslaughter IS the right charge, after all.

I'd like to see Murray convicted and do his full 4 years. But it almost doesn't matter to me whether he is convicted or not. Because what we REALLY need to do, to prevent these kind of situations like Osvaldo Hernandez and Michael Jackson, is to change the laws and privileges that physicians have when working outside of valid clinics and hospitals. That, in my opinion, is what will save lives. If you can't be credentialed to perform a certain procedure in a hospital, then that physician should not legally be able to provide that service in a private home or private office/ clinic. Conrad Murray would NEVER have been allowed to provide propofol in that manner for that indication in a legitimate medical setting. That doesn't make him a visionary, or a researcher. It makes him a reckless, incompetent, arrogant man, who happened to go to medical school. Physicians, including lone wolf physicians, need to be held to the same standards as physicians who practice in legitimate settings. And the penalties should be enough to be a deterrent.

Perry: Casey To Pay $97,000: Door Open For More

2011-09-15T11:13:00.000-07:00

Update!
September 23, 2011

Today, Judge Perry added a total of $119,822.25 more to the amount of money Casey will have to reimburse to the OCSO. The amount represents the more detailed information provided to the judge.

Judge's order.

*****

Judge Belvin Perry just handed down an Order on the money Casey Anthony will have to repay for expenses into the investigation which were caused by her lying to LE. As of now, Casey will have to pay just over $97,000, with the cut-off date being September 30, 2008.

FDLE: $61,505.12
MBI: $10,283.90
OCSO: $25,837.96
Prosecution: $50.00
Total: $97,676,98

In addition, Perry directed OCSO to file revised investigative cost expense reports that state the investigative work performed from July 15, 2008 through September 29, 2008 for certain employees. The revised reports are due by Monday, September 19 and the judge could amend the order and the cost could be somewhat more.

The judge denied the prosecution request for their expenses other than the $50 ordered by statute.

It may not be the half million asked for, but it certainly is a lot of money for a gal who has none.

Recommend Trials & Tribulations on Google®

2011-09-14T20:57:00.000-07:00

Google® has a new ranking system that lets readers with a Google® or Gmail account, rank websites. If you are logged into your account, up in the top right corner of the blog you should be able to see a +1 sign. Clicking on that +1 will help promote Trials & Tribulations.

You have the ability to also recommend individual blog stories. Just click on the link to a specific blog entry and then press the +1.

Many of you have written me, thanking me and telling me how much you appreciate T&T's in depth trial coverage. You can give T&T and all our writers a big thanks by ranking the blog and the individual trial coverage stories you like. It would help spread the word about T&T's trial coverage and reporting. Everyone here at T&T would so appreciate that.

9/11 Anniversary, Then and Now

2011-09-10T21:01:00.000-07:00

Images of the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and a field in Shanksville, PA, then and now. We're Americans. We remember and we rebuild.

Photo Gallery at this link of remembrances around the world today. Sprocket, 9/11/2011

World Trade Center

World Trade Center Memorial

Pentagon Crash Site

Pentagon Memorial

Crash site of United Flight 93

United Flight 93 Memorial isn't complete ten years later. Here are temporary memorials (I believe erected at the site) to those who decided to fight back.

Wall at Shanksville, PA, unveiled

9/11 Memoiral Architect Discusses Vision For Landmark

Memorial Construction at Ground Zero Images

9/11 Memorial and Museum

Tributes of Light Rises in Twin Towers' Footprints

Thousands Help Restore Massive Flag From Groung Zero

Conrad Murray Trial: MSM Jury Selection Coverage

2011-09-09T11:15:00.000-07:00

Dr. Conrad Murray, at a prior pretrial hearing.

UPDATE: 12 Noon: USA Today is reporting:

A judge presiding over the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor said Friday he expects to have enough prospective jurors to form a complete pool by the end of the day, meaning lawyers could prepare to begin the screening process to select a final panel.
--------

I've read bits and pieces around the web of the first day of jury selection. Famed journalist Linda Deutsch from the Associated Press was the lone "pool" reporter on the first day. Approximately 450 potential jurors were sent a jury summons notice. The first batch (187 according to CNN & the AP) showed up on Thursday. Another group will show up today and the last group on Monday. After jurors are excused for hardship, the remaining jurors will receive a thirty-page questionnaire to fill out that Judge Pastor has called "exhaustive."

There are four public seats available and a lottery is held for those seats each day. Yesterday, In Session's Jean Casarez got into jury selection via the public lottery.

Local ABC 7's Mirian Hernandez's story was the first report I read that indicated jury selection was being conducted in an assembly hall, and not Judge Pastor's courtroom, specifically. (Judge Pastor's courtroom barely holds 80 people in the gallery.) I'm not exactly sure where this assembly hall is in the Criminal Court building but I will try to find out.

From my understanding, Judge Pastor was looking to obtain at least 100 pre-screened jurors to fill out the extensive questionnaire. Once those questionnaires are completed and copies provided to counsel, the most important part of the trial, voir dire, is scheduled to begin Friday, September 23rd. Voir dire will continue until 12 jurors and 6 alternates are selected.

Why do I call vior dire the most important part of the trial? Every individual I've ever consulted who has attended, reported on, or participated in a court trial in some capacity has told me the outcome of a trial starts and ends with voir dire. No matter how compelling the evidence against a defendant, if a thorough voir dire isn't conducted the case can easily be lost. (It's my personal opinion that the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial in Florida was the result of a rushed voir dire process (with no jury questionnaire) that Judge Belvin Perry conducted, but I digress.)

Optimistically, opening statements are tentatively scheduled to begin on Tuesday, September 27th. That's the day I expect there will be a large public showing to get into the lottery for what public seats are available. Not only will the public be vying for these seats, but those journalists that were unable to get a reserved seat will be using this avenue as well.

Although I will not be attending this trial, I will try to follow it as best I can until the Lazarus case kicks off. If you have a question, please leave a comment and I will do my best to try to answer.

KTLA First Day Coverage

KFI's Eric Leonard's Coverage

CNN Coverage

In Session

Los Angeles Times Coverage

Jury Questionnaire (via KTLA)

Nicholas Sheley Spree-Murder Trial

2011-09-08T20:50:00.000-07:00

Nicholas T. Sheley, booking photo

My blogging friend katfish, of katfish ponders, has been following the Sheley case ever since he was arrested July 1st, 2008 for allegedly committing eight murders in four towns in Illinois and Missouri.

Shelly's first trial (there will be several) got underway on August 29th with jury selection. Although katfish did not attend the jury selection (she did keep up with the proceedings through twitter reports from the courtroom) she plans on attending the trial once opening statements kick off. You can read her latest report on Shelly's first trial on her blog, HERE.

katfish's complete Sheley coverage

Conrad Murray Trial Starts Tomorrow

2011-09-07T11:23:00.000-07:00

Dr. Conrad Murray, right, with his attorney J. Michael Flanagan, at a prior court hearing. Photo: Pool/REUTERS

In Sessions is reporting on their Facebook page that the California Court of Appeal has just denied a defense request to stay Conrad Murray's manslaughter trial. Murray is charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of pop icon Michael Jackson.

In pretrial motions the defense team had requested that for Murray to receive a fair trial, the jury should be sequestered (a la Casey Anthony jury) to protect it from the onslaught of media coverage. Judge Pastor had previously denied that motion and the defense appealed Pastor's ruling with the Appellate Court.

The trial starts tomorrow with the first phase of jury selection. From my understanding, the first questionnaire will deal with hardship issues to see if they can get a pool of jurors that can serve for the expected five weeks of trial. Once the hardship cases have been weeded out, the remaining jurors would be required to fill out a more extensive questionnaire.

I decided early on that I would not try to get a reserved seat at this trial because it would be difficult to get and the fact that the trial would have cameras in the courtroom. Instead, I chose to cover the Stephanie Lazarus trial (set to begin October 17th) where cameras, laptops, blackberries and smart phones have been banned from the courtroom. Hopefully, our guest writer "KZ" will be able to contribute a story or two on the Murray case once the trial kicks off with opening statements.

CNN Judge Denies Defense Jury Sequestration Motion

Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial Hearing 9

2011-09-06T14:20:00.000-07:00

Thursday, September 1st, 2011

I thought I would get to the hearing in plenty of time but I ended up missing it altogether. The interesting news is, I learned for the first time that the prosecution plans to introduce DNA evidence collected from other items at the scene, allegedly coming from the defendant, Lazarus. Here's what happened last Thursday.

When I got in my car to leave for court the battery was dead for the third time in under two weeks. The first time it happened we thought the door switch to automatically turn the headlights off had failed so we charged up the battery and made a point to turn off the headlights at the steering wheel lever. The second time it happened Mr. Sprocket put in the battery from his car. However, when my car died this time with his battery, Mr. Sprocket wasn't sure what the problem could be. Over the phone, Mr. Sprocket talked me through taking the monster spare work-truck battery from the garage to start up the car and let it run. (We keep this battery charged on a rolling cart so it was easy for me to get it out to the car.)

The minutes are ticking away to get to court on time. What to do, what to do? Do I forget the car and walk the mile or so to the Orange line bus or wait for Mr. Sprocket to get home? On the phone with Mr. Sprocket, we toss around the idea of putting the spare battery in the car in case the car doesn't start when the hearing is over, and I could jump it right there in the parking lot myself. The only problem with this plan is, the monster battery is too heavy for me to lift and get it into the trunk of the car. After the car had run for about 20 minutes Mr. Sprocket has me shut off the engine to see if it would start again without the extra battery assist. The engine won't turn over. This leads us to believe it's the alternator that's going bad. (Later in the day, Mr. Sprocket confirmed this diagnosis and installed a new alternator.)

I wait for Mr. Sprocket to get home so he can take me to the North Hollywood train. I'm very late, but I'm hoping there's a slim chance the hearing started late and I won't miss much of the oral arguments. I really want to hear the defense argument for the Kelly/Frye hearing. Just as I step off the elevator on the ninth floor of the Criminal Court Building I look up and directly inside the elevator car across from me I see DDA's Paul Nunez, Shannon Presby and Sherri's parents, Nels and Loretta Rassmussen heading down. I made it to the 9th floor, but I missed the hearing. I'm lucky they see me at the same time and someone holds the elevator while I sprint across the hallway to join them. I ask about the hearing as the elevator heads back down to the lobby.

A few days prior, I had the rare opportunity to meet with In Sessions' Beth Karas while she was in town. (For those of you who don't know, I met Beth on the second day of opening statements in the first Phil Spector trial. She's been a friend and colleague ever since.) We caught up with each other on the cases we were covering. Beth was in town covering a Conrad Murray pretrial hearing and leaving the next day for Florida and all things Casey Anthony. I shared with Beth what I knew so far about Kelly Soo Park and Lazarus. During that short chat, it was Beth who encouraged me do the one thing I have difficulty doing, and that is to ask the attorney's directly for copies of their motions. I'm independent and don't have the financial resources of a television network or newspaper to buy every copy from the court clerk.

So when I stepped inside the elevator with the prosecutors and Rasmussen's family, this was the first thing I did. I asked Shannon Presby if he would be so kind as to give me a copy of his response motion to the defense Kelly/Frye motion. Mr. Presby replied that he would and then asked me if I had a copy of the defense motion. I told him that unfortunately I didn't have that either. Presby said if I was willing to wait a moment, he would give me copies of all three motions. (Defense, prosecution response and defense final response.)

While I waited in the lobby, reporter Matthew McGough from The Atlantic was kind enough to tell me that I didn't miss much and that the next hearing would be in two weeks on September 15th. I took the opportunity to ask him if he was working on another article, since I thought I overheard him mention something at the last pretrial hearing. He says he is working on a new story and as soon as it's up on the web I'll link to it.

From my understanding, Judge Perry did not have counsel give oral arguments on their motion papers at this hearing and that's why it was so short. Once I got a chance to read the motions, I was surprised to learn that the prosecution plans to introduce other DNA evidence on items collected at the scene that allegedly can not be excluded as coming from Stephanie Lazarus.

I will quote from these motions to summarize the defense motion and the prosecution's response to the defense.

DEFENSE NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR KELLY/FRYE HEARING

From Pages 1 & 2
"...Stephanie Lazarus, through counsel, will move for a hearing concerning the admissibility of the results of DNA analyses by Serological Research Institute ("SERI") utilizing the AMpFISTR® MiniFiler™ ("MiniFiler™").

The motion will be based on the ground that SERI's DNA analysis utilizing the MiniFilter™ must first satisfy the first and third prongs for admissibility required by People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3rd 24 (1976) and Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) and their progeny. MiniFiler™ is a completely new DNA analysis commercial kit and its analytical results have never been admitted in evidence over a Kelly challenge."

This is the crux of the defense argument. From my understanding reading the defense motion, the independent lab, SERI used a totally new DNA extraction technique (MiniFiler™) that has not met the rigorous test of scientific standards and acceptance and therefore cannot be admitted at trial. The defense motion is 13 pages detailing what DNA analysis is and the current accepted methods of DNA extraction. The titled headings are: DNA ANALYSIS; PCR/STR TYPING; MINIFILER™; People v. Kelly; Kelly Prong One; Kelly Prong Three. (I hope you can understand why I am not posting the entire motion, just excerpts.)

Overland's motion on pages 9 & 10 states:
"The first Kelly prong provides that admissibility of expert testimony based on "a new scientific technique," requires proof of its reliability. A new scientific technique is reliable when it is "sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs. Despite superficial similarity to past generation kits, there are significant analytical differences involving the use of MiniFiler™."
(snip)

Pages 10 & 11:
"There is a lack of scientific acceptance of MiniFiler™ for use on low level mixed samples. Accordingly, as utilized in this case, MiniFiler™ employs a new scientific technique that requires a preliminaryshowing of the technique's general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. The third prong of Kelly requires the prosecution to establish that the analyst used "correct, scientifically approved procedures." (See People v. Venegas, 18 Cal. 4th at 80."
(snip)
"Even if MiniFiler™ could pass the first prong required for admissibility in this case, Kelly's third prong requires an analysis of the validity of the procedures actually utilized in the case before the Court. In order to determine whether the SERI MiniFiler™ analysis meets the third prong of Kelly, Ms. Lazarus requests that the Court issue the attached Order requiring SERI to produce its MiniFiler™ internal validation as well as SERIs most recent ASCLD-LAB audit report and its current contamination and/or corrective action log."
(End quotes from defense motion)

When I first stumbled through reading all the technical information contained in the defense motion, I was wondering what other DNA samples the SERI lab could have tested that the defense is trying to get excluded through this motion. All I knew about at this time was the "bite mark swab" presented at the preliminary hearing and the DNA that allegedly matched Lazarus. Reading the prosecution's reply motion made it clear what the SERI lab had tested.

PEOPLE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONDUCT A KELLY HEARING

Page 2
INTRODUCTION On April 22, 2011, The Serological Research Institute (SERI) reported the results of their analysis conducted on various items of evidence including: (A) SERI Item 5 (LIMS 11) - a portion of a fingernail discovered near the front door of Rasmussen's home; (B) SERI Item 8 (LIMS 16) - fingernail clippings from Rasmussen taken by the coroner; and (C) SERI Item 13 (LIMS 21) - a swab taken from another fingernail discovered near the front door of Rasmussen's home.(1)"

(So as late as just a few months ago, SERI conducted DNA testing on items collected from the coroner AND at the scene. Two items collected at the scene would have been in LAPD custody all this time and not the coroner's freezers.)

"Those results are contained in SERI's Amended Third Analytical Report attached as Exhibit 1.(2) In short, as to SERI Item 5, SERI determined that material found under Sherri Rasmussen's fingernail could have been derived from Defendant Lazarus. SERI concluded that one woman in twenty-six thousand (26,000) unrelated individuals would exhibit this same set of DNA markers. As to SERI Item 8 (subdivided into 8-B1 and 8-B2); SERI concluded that Defendant Lazarus could have been a contributor. SERI concluded that, as to 8-B1, one woman in ten (10) unrelated individuals would exhibit this same set of DNA markers; as to 8-B2, one woman in (9) unrelated individuals would exhibit this same set of DNA markers. With respect to SERI Item 13, SERI concluded that Defendant Lazarus could have been a contributor. SERI concluded that one woman in nine thousand (9,000) unrelated individuals would exhibit this same set of DNA markers. SERI utilized the MiniFiler test kit to obtain these results."

This new DNA evidence extracted from the torn fingernails found at the scene appears to be problematic for the defense because from my understanding the defense has not raised issues of possible evidence tampering with these DNA samples like the defense has with the "bite mark swab" during the preliminary hearing.

On pages 3 through 5 of their motion, the prosecution argues that the MiniFiler test kit does not constitute a new technology.

"Because the MiniFiler test is not founded on any new science and because SERI employs the testing protocol procedures necessary and sufficient to insure the reliability of its test results (the correct procedures) a Kelly hearing is unwarranted. "Kelly/Frye only applies to that limited class of expert testimony which is based, in whole or in part, on a technique, process, or theory which is new to science and, even more so, the law." People v. Stoll, (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 1136, 1156; see also, People v. Webb, (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 494, 524. Courts are unlikely to perceive a scientific technique as "new" if it has been subjected to "repeated use, study, testing and confirmation by scientists or trained technicians." People v. Leahy, (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 587, 605. Both concordance studies and validation studies of the MiniFiler test kit have shown it to be both effective and reliable.(4)

Below is footnote 4:
"4. See, Concordance Study Between the AMpF/STR MiniFiler PCR Amplification Kit and Conventional STR Typing Kits, J. Forensic Sci., July 2007 Vol 52 No 4, p 870-973 (attached as exhibit 2) finding "Full concordance between Identifiler and MiniFiler . . . in 99.7% (10,437 out of 10,464) STR allele calls compared." Id., at p 871; see also, Validation of the AMP/FSTR MiniFiler PCR Amplification Kit for Use in Forensic Casework, J. Forensic Sci., July 2007 Vol. 54 No 5, p 1046-1054 (attached as exhibit 3) finding "This study demonstrates that the MiniFiler kit is successful in generating robust and reliable DNA profiles from samples exhibiting DNA degradation or PCR inhibition. Id., at p 1054."

From reading the footnote, it would appear that back in 2007, the MiniFiler test kit was validated as being a technique that is 99.7% accurate in generating DNA profiles from samples tested.

The people also argued that the MiniFiler test kit was not new technology.

"Once a particular scientific technology (such as PCR/STR DNA testing) is held to be generally accepted, new or varied applications of that fundamentally unchanged technology do not raise a "prong one" Kelly question requiring a Kelly hearing. See, People v. Hill, (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 48, 58. A scientific technique that remains fundamentally unchanged, but is simply refined, improved, or varied in its application, is not a new scientific technology requiring a "prong one" Kelly hearing. Hill, supra, at p. 58 (new and varied PCR/STR testing kits do not require new prong one hearing). At the time that the Hill court made its decision:

". . . two methodologies are widely used in forensic DNA testing: restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and PCR. (cite omitted) There are three subtypes of PCR testing: DQ-Alpha, which test a single genetic marker; Polymarker, which tests five genetic markers; and the STR, which tests three or more genetic markers. (cite omitted) The RFLP and PCR methodologies, including the PCR subtypes, have acquired general acceptance in the scientific community."

Hill, supra, at p. 57. Hill's holding controls the present case. This fact is made explicit when the Hill court states:

We reject the argument that each new PCR/STR test kit must, as a matter of law, be subjected to a Kelly prong one analysis to determine scientific reliability. (cites omitted). The Kelly prong one analysis applies to new scientific techniques.

Hill, supra, at p. 58."

In their motion, prosecutors cited eight different California and Federal court appellate rulings regarding the fundamental validity that PCR and STR analysis is well established by the scientific community and the law.

The motion then goes onto to cite seven other cases in detail arguing on page 4 that:

"...an evolution in testing does not constitute a new scientific technology for the purposes of Kelly..."

(snip)
"In the present case the core technology of PCR/STR DNA testing has been firmly established and is widely accepted within the scientific community. As the court in Hill stated (discussing an earlier testing evolution of the PCR/STR technology) "The [new test kit] does not embrace new scientific techniques. To the contrary, it uses the PCR and STR testing methods, which are generally accepted by the scientific community. It is just more sophisticated because it examines a greater nuber of genetic markers. The test result will exonerate the innocent and, as here, will seal the fate of the guilty." Hill, spura, at p. 59. As in Hill, the MiniFiler test kit rests on the same underlying science as all PCR/STR DNA testing. Because the scientific technology supporting the MiniFiler test is not new, the defendant's request for a Kelly hearing should be denied."

The prosecution then addressed the "prong three" of Kelly, stating all that is necessary is

"... a foundational showing that correct scientific procedures were used." Hill, supra, at p. 58. This showing is best accomplished not in a separate Kelly hearing but by way of an Evidence code § 402 hearing preceeding the receipt of the expert testimony at trial."

Judge Perry ruled just from the written motions alone, denying the defense motion for a Kelly/Frye hearing for "prong one" and "prong three" on the MiniFiler test results. Next hearing is September 15th, 2011.

STEPHANIE LAZARUS QUICK LINKS

Casey Anthony Aftermath: Two Days, Two Hearings

2011-09-03T06:10:00.000-07:00

I managed to watch both the Gonzalez v Anthony status hearing Thursday and yesterday's hearing concerning reimbursement to be made for the costs of investigation which directly relate to Casey Anthony's four misdemeanor charges of lying to the police.

The only video available for the September 1 hearing was on InSession and I was able to see the whole hearing and analysis.

Charles M. Greene, Casey's civil attorney addressed Judge Lisa Munyon concerning and number of issues. First of all, he is planning to as for a judgment of acquittal as he believes Ms. Gonzalez has no basis for her suit. He pointed out that the name is not exactly the same and that this Zenaida Gonzalez is just one of many people with that name.

I seldom follow civil suits, and I don't know the merits of the case on the part of the Morgan&Morgan law firm. Some say Gonzalez has no case, others want to see her repaid for the defamation of character she claims.

Mr. Greene also wanted more discovery from the plaintiff. He said that he wasn't satisfied with the information he has received to date. He specifically mentioned that he wanted to know how much money Zenaida Gonzalez received from the fund set up for her by Morgan&Morgan as it could mitigate any financial settlement should the case actually go to trial.

Greene also told Judge Munyon that he needed more time to prepare for the trial (should it take place at all). The new trial date is April 9, 2012.

In addition, he asked that Casey's October 8 deposition be postponed. Judge Munyon denied that request but will allow Casey to do her deposition from an unknown location. The judge also limited the deposition to two hours. Mr. Greene approved of this and indicated that, due to her appeal on the four misdemeanor conviction for lying to the police, Ms. Anthony would only give her name and take the 5th on all the other questions.

John Dill, representing Ms. Gonzalez had a number of issues as well. He pointed out to the judge that the Morgan&Morgan firm had been on the case since 2008 and was ready for the original trial date in February, 2012. He also indicted that he had received no discovery from the defense.

Dill would have preferred to depose Casey face-to-face, although, if she were to take the 5th, it wouldn't make much of a difference. He indicated that it would be up to Judge Munyon to rule on Casey Anthony's ability to take the 5th after the deposition. She agreed and indicated she would make the ruling either before the deposition or when the issue was brought to her after the deposition.

Finally, the deposition will be sealed immediately, pending a motion by the plaintiff to have it unsealed within 30 days of the deposition.

After the hearing, I watched Beth Karas on InSession discussing the civil case and Casey's appeal of her misdemeanor charges. She apparently spoke with Jose Baez who told her that the basis of the appeal (which has yet to be filed) would deal with the charging and sentencing on the charges. They are going to say that the four charges should have been one charge because all the lies were told the same day. This was also an issue mentioned during the criminal trial. If Baez were to file such a motion, it would not take into account the fact that she lied, but rather the charging and sentencing.

For me, the issue will be very sticky because (surprise, surprise), the motion has yet to be filed. Until it is filed, we won't know the basis for the appeal officially. The defense could claim that whenever it is filed, it will ask for the entire verdict to be overturned. For that, we will have to wait and see what his motion says.

What is the cost of lying?

One true statement that Jose Baez made in the criminal trial was that Casey Anthony was raised in a family where lying was the norm. Of all the member of the family, Casey is the best liar of them all. Even Yuri Melich, John Allen, and Appy Wells couldn't get the truth about what happened to Caylee. Casey never testified at the trial, so officially, her Zanny the Nanny Took My Baby story is still her final word to law enforcement.

Although it wasn't to be considered testimony, Mr. Baez' opening statement to the jury was that Caylee Anthony drowned in the family pool. That could be true, although I am pretty sure that George Anthony and Roy Kronk had no part in that. George Anthony is the worst liar in the family, it shows clearly in his tone of voice and body language, as it did when he testified at trial, in the hearings, and in his deposition to Morgan&Morgan.

However, if indeed Caylee drowned in the pool, why is it still in the Anthony back yard? Why is it the Sunfire that was crushed? Think about it.

Friday's hearing focused directly on Casey's four misdemeanor convictions for lying. As charged in the indictment unsealed October 14, 2008, the four counts focused on four different lies:

Count 4: That she was employed at Universal Studios during the year 2008
Count 5: That Casey Anthony left Caylee Anthony at the Sawgrass Apartments with Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez
Count 6: That Jeffrey Michael Hopkins and Juliette Lewis, former Universal Studios employees, were informed of Caylee's disappearance
Count 7: That Casey Anthony received a phone call from Caylee Anthony on July 15, 2008 at approximately 12:00 pm

For these lies, the prosecution, represented by Linda Drane Burdick and Frank George, wants Casey Anthony to reimburse the State of Florida as follows (give or take a few thousand due to errors).

FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement): $71,939.56
MBI (Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation): $10,645.38
OCSO (Orlando County Sheriff's Office): $293,123.77
State Attorney's Office: $140,396.6
Total: $516,105.31

To bolster her figures, Linda Drane Burdick called seven witnesses who gave a brief summary of where the money was expended. There was one notable error when OCSO employee, Kari Roderick billed the state for 1,106.5 hours between the dates of July 16-21, 2008. Cheney Mason made quite a fuss about this during the morning session. He loudly expounded on the impossibility of a person working so many hours over a period of 16 days. (Mr. Mason, check YOUR math, it was a total of 6 days!) In the afternoon session, Ms. Roderick testified that the date was a typographical error. Mr. Mason pointed out that she had made the error TWICE, once in the typed date and once in a handwritten date at the bottom of the page.

This is an unfortunate error, it should have been caught! Now, Judge Perry will have to over-work his calculator to be sure all the hours make sense.

In her closing argument, Ms. Burdick eloquently explained why Casey Anthony should be responsible for the expenses, which include depositions and expert witness costs. For the investigation, she asked Judge Perry to use the dates of July 15, 2008-December 11, 2008, when Caylee's remains were found. There were also some investigative costs for trial preparation and investigation which occurred somewhat later than that date.

Since the feed was constantly dropping, it was difficult to follow certain details, but (without watching the whole hearing again), FDLE representative Paul Zamboris indicated the direction the State was taking in asking for over half-a-million dollars. He stated that if they had known the truth from the beginning, there would have been no investigation. Earlier, it had been stated that the time consumed by a typical child drowning takes about 6 hours of investigation.

As Ms. Burdick stated in her closing, "Once Ms. Anthony set the machinery in motion with her lies, there was no turning back on this investigation. She has yet to give any other explanation to this day other than that the nanny took the child." and, in her rebuttal argument, "But for Ms. Anthony's lying to LE at the inception of the investigation, there would be no costs for the investigation and the prosecution."

Cheney Mason, of course wants to keep the reimbursement costs to a minimum. Throughout his questioning of the witnesses, he stressed the dates when they learned the truth of the lies Casey Anthony told them, such as when they knew she was lying about working for Universal, when they knew she was lying about Sawgrass, when they learned the truth of the non-existence of outcry "witnesses" Jeffrey Michael Hopkins and Juliette Lewis, and when they knew the phone call from Caylee never took place. He seemed surprised that the people who did the collecting of data for the information did not know these details of the case.

Finally, he wanted John Allen to tell him when the case changed officially from a missing child case to a homicide case. Allen gave him the date of September 30, 2008.

His closing argument started out with Mason charging State's Attorney Lawson Lamar with a case of sour grapes over Casey's acquittal. He stressed that Ms. Anthony was found not guilty of murder and only found guilty of 4 misdemeanors. He excoriated the State for wanting the costs of the expert witnesses, specifically mentioning many of them, including the hydrologist (who never testified), Neil Haskell (the bug man), Dr. Michael Warren (who did his most hated exhibit, the video super-imposition), Arpad Vass, and so on.

He went on to mention that the defense had done 2 million in free legal work and the 3 years Casey Anthony spent in jail. (He left out the fact that she ended up using the time to serve out sentences for check fraud and her misdemeanor counts.)

His major faux pas during his closing was to make a statement to the effect that he was sure Judge Perry's people would go over the expenses line-by-line in making the determination of costs. Perry interrupted him to point out that Mason knew he did all that HIMSELF!

When he was finished, Ms. Burdick rose to his bait (She said it, I didn't.) and responded to Mr. Mason's closing. She spoke as I quoted above and said that there were no "sour grapes" over the acquittal.

You can watch the entire hearing at WFTV (article) or at their links (HEARING 09/02 Part 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6). Personally, if you only want to devote limited time to the endeavor, start with the closing arguments where the parties both speak eloquently to their points of view on the issue. It was clearly the most interesting part of the hearing!

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Perry asked both parties to submit briefs on the legislative intent of the law governing the repayment of costs. Clearly, his decision will be based not only on the law itself, which lends itself to interpretation, but also to what the legislature intended the law to encompass.

At this point, Perry's jurisdiction will run out 30 days after August 11th when it will go back to the jurisdiction of the appellate court. Mason said that he wouldn't mind if Perry asked for an extension of the deadline.

So, the issue comes down to, as Cheney Mason said, "It was the intent to lay at a defendant's feet solely those costs which have a reasonable relationship to what they were convicted of versus what they were NOT convicted of." versus the State's position that but for Casey Anthony's lies, the investigation would never have taken place at all.

What will Judge Perry do? I don't think the State will get all they want, but more than the defense wants Casey to pay. What do you think?

Note: All quotes are approximate.

Stephanie Lazarus Preliminary Hearing Day 4

2011-08-31T18:50:00.001-07:00

December 10th, 2009

Mr. Presby states that the prosecution and defense have entered into several stipulations.

The first stipulation concerns Detective L. Mayer. If called to the stand he would testify regarding his preliminary investigation to this case, he wrote on his report the point of entry was the front door and the point of exit was the garage. Mr. Overland so stipulates.

The second stipulation concerns Jayne Goldberg. If called to the stand she would testify that during the time she lived with the victim Sherri Rasmussen at the Balboa condo, Sherri often left the front door to the condo unlocked. Mr. Overland so stipulates. (Correction edit for fact/clarity 9/2/11)

Ms. Torrealba states that this is for the preliminary hearing only.

The third stipulation concerns Santa Monica Police Department Records Manager Carl Olson were called to the stand he would testify that he searched the records of the Santa Monica Police Department Database and that there was only one burglary from a motor vehicle that occurred on March 9th, 1986 and that the person who reported that burglary was Stephanie Lazarus.

He would also testify that between Feb 1st 1986 and April 30th 1986 there were 54 thefts from motor vehicles in Beat 3, and that Beat 3 was the location where Lazarus reported the burglary from her car. Mr. Overland so stipulates.

Ms. Torrealba has some issues regarding the marking of evidence and certain items requesting to be rebooked back into evidence at LAPD. The exhibits are moved into evidence as reference only. There are no objections from Mr. Overland.

At this point, the people rest. Mr. Overland states there will not be an affirmative defense. There will be no defense witnesses.

Judge Perry stated he received the jury instructions related to the crime of murder as it was defined in CALJIC 2.10 in the 1983 revision and the definition of malice aforethought in CALJIC 8.11 and special circumstance, CALJIC 8.81.15, (lying in wait) also a 1983 revision. Perry also received the CALJIC instruction 8.81.17, which was revised in 1984, for special circumstance murder in commission of. Perry states he’s reviewed them and also did some research of his own.

Perry states, “This is the time for argument on whether the people have made their proof for purposes of a preliminary haring for the charges set out in the second amended felony complaint.” Perry then reminds all participants what a preliminary hearing is, that it is not a trial, it is an abbreviated hearing to determine if probably cause exists to require a defendant to stand trial.

Perry states he needs to hear argument from the prosecution on the issue of special circumstance allegations. He has concerns whether there is sufficient proof on both the special circumstance allegations.

Perry’s concern about the “lying in wait” charge has to do with case law that existed at the time, 1986. Shannon Presby argues for the people.

“With respect to the special circumstance of lying in wait as it was elucidated at the relevant time in 1986, I belive that the primary factors are essentially watching and waiting and a sudden attack. I think the evidence...”

Judge Perry interrupts Presby and says he’s not sure he agrees. He checks his notes and refers to Proposition 8, an initiative approved by the voters in March, 2000. It changed the language of the lying in wait special circumstance. It went from “while lying in wait” to “by means of.”

Judge Perry feels that the requirements of what the people need to show under the prior penal code, that the crime occurred “while lying in wait.” Judge Perry then talks about how various courts interpreted the “while lying in wait” and citing Domino vs. Superior Court, a 1982 decision. That ruling required:
“The killing must take place during the period of concealment and watchful waiting or the lethal act must begin at and flow continuously from the moment the concealment and watchful waiting ends. If a cognizable interruption separates the period of lying in wait from the circumstances calling for the ultimate penalty do not exist.”

Judge Perry then talks about the cases he’s read and how the old definition differs from the new ruling.

Presby states he agrees the distinction that was made by Proposition 8 was a “...greater temporal difference from the time that, so that the modern law permits a greater temporal difference from the time that the concealment ends until the tie of the attack...”

Presby still feels they can satisfy the more rigorous standard that existed in 1986 and cites to the court the evidence he feels supports the shorter time period.

Rasmussen was attacked in her home while her husband was absent. This suggests the defendant waited until the victim was alone. The defendant was off from work the day Rasmussen was killed and had three days off prior to the attack to stalk her victim and determine patterns of behavior.

Judge Perry interjects that the people have no evidence that Lazarus watched the condo for any amount of time. Presby agrees but contends that the location of the attack and the fact that John Ruetten was not indicates a natural inference the defendant was able to determine when Rasmussen would have been alone.

Presby goes onto argue that since the condo complex was secure there several things Lazarus must have done to gain admittance and that she had training on how to pick locks. Presby also presents statements from Lazarus’ journal about watching Ruetten’s car for 1/2 hour.

Presby also presents elements of the crime scene itself and that all evidence of a struggle take place in the entry way and the ultimate shooting in the living room area. The victim’s blood and torn fingernail are found right in front of the front door. All those facts indicate the victim was attacked immediately once the defendant gained entry to the home.

Presby mentions the bullets that shattered the sliding glass doors and the fact that five bullets were fired. The miss fires also support a sudden attack the moment the defendant is detected in the home. All this supports an attack from either the stairway or right near the front door. The garage and the front door are the only two access points to the condo and those doors are within five to six feet of each other.

Presby continues to argue that the only way the defendant could have gained access at that time was to have watched and waited for when John Ruetten was absent. And the fact that the attack occurred almost immediately upon the defendants entry into the home, which would qualify with respect to a sudden attack.

Ms. Torrealba reminds Presby about how Rasmussen was dressed in her nightclothes indicating she was not expecting company or anyone in the home and is also evidence of a sudden attack.

Presby continues with the argument that if one was expecting company and some conversation they would have been fully dressed instead of in just a robe, t-shirt and panties.

Judge Perry then asks who is going to argue the killing during the commission of a burglary and Presby states that he will also make that argument. Perry states he feels the prosecution has a problem arguing the defendant came there specifically to murder the victim then the prosecution does not have special circumstance of killing during a burglary.

Presby agrees with that, but states that’s not what they are alleging. The prosecution is alleging that Lazarus entered with the intent to kidnap. Judge Perry states you are not alleging that as special circumstance.

Presby responds, “We are not alleging that the felony is during the course of a kidnapping, but that the garget of the burglary was to kidnap. So that when she entered the house, her intent was not to steal or to assault, but to kidnap. So it is during the courts of the burglary, but the target of the burglary is not an assaultive crime or a theft crime; it is a kidnapping.”

This argument rests on the same evidence as well as the rope that was found in the front area of the condo. Presby argues all the evidence regarding the rope near the front door with the victim’s blood on it and the victim having a pattern ligature on her wrist.

Presby also argues that the lack of the defendant’s prints at the scene is another factor he feels supports the kidnapping theory and goes to the special circumstance of lying in wait. Presby mentions the contact with items in the home... the stacked stereo equipment and the broken vase. Presby argues that the lack of prints and the DNA (strong evidence of identity) from the probable bit wound a reasonable conclusion is that Lazarus was gloved. Presby goes onto argue that going to a rivals home wearing gloves, and bringing a gun and a rope is evidence of intent.

Judge Perry asks Presby, “What about if you just wanted to tire her up?”

Presby argues why that would not be a reasonable inference because the defendant was a police officer just going into someone’s home and tying them up is a crime, at least battery, false imprisonment and if there’s movement, kidnapping. Those charges are not the type of thing a young officer would want on their record. If the victim was left alive, what happened would certainly have been reported to police.

Judge Perry counters about the other evidence found at the scene of disruption. The stereo equipment on the floor, the phone pulled off, the drawer pulled out. Presby states the prosecution believes all those elements were staged to lead the investigators to conclude this was a burglary.

Presby and Judge Perry continue to argue back and forth the elements of the evidence presented.

Judge Perry states the prosecutions theory again. “Your theory is there was an attempt to bind that resulted in some kind of physical altercation, a gun comes out. When does the gun get covered by the...”

Presby replies that is significant and it “...goes to the willful, deliberate premeditation.” Presby mentions the victim was struck several times in the head. She was disfigured. Presby and Judge Perry agree that at least one shot was a “killing shot” right in the heart. Presby states that they know that the blanket covers the firearm for all three shots into the victim but not the one’s through the sliding glass doors.

Presby argues this means the defendant had the opportunity to take the gun and wrap the gun. Judge Perry replies, “So your theory, as I have it, you’re saying that the evidence is consistent with entering, attempt to bind, struggle, gun comes out, two bullets fired, beating with the vase an then execution?” Presby states, “Yes your honor, that’s correct.”

In response, Overland argues only with respect to the special circumstance charge. He first addresses a bloody fingerprint (I believe on the stereo equipment) which he states a lift was taken. Overland states he doesn’t believe there is any evidence of “lying in wait” whatsoever. He feels that, “...the argument made by the prosecutor seems to be self-contradictory in the sense that he equates a sudden attack with lying in in wait. And the two are contradictory, it’s either a sudden attack or there’s lying in wait, waiting.

Judge Perry states that the cases cited back in 1986 indicate that just taking someone unaware was not sufficient to establish the special circumstance of lying in wait. Overland responds that the prosecution’s theory is the first he’s ever heard “...this novel theory of kidnapping.” Overland mentions the prosecution’s original theory, the theft of the vehicle because it was given to Rasmussen, but now they’ve dropped that and gone with kidnapping. Overland states there is no evidence as to the prosecution’s theory of the sequence of events. “There’s no evidence as to what happened, when.” Even though Mr. Ruetten had never seen the rope before, that’s not evidence that Lazarus brought it with her to bind the victim.

Judge Perry states that it is “curious” why the rope and abraded wire is on the floor, and there is the possibility that the rope might have been in contact with the victim’s wrist, “...but I don’t know that that gets you as far as they want it to go. I would agree with you.”

Overland goes onto say that it is a theory, but it falls short of probable cause. Judge Perry asks for rebuttal from the prosecution.

Presby argues that the rope was not from the home, it had the victim’s blood on it, the victim had a pattern abrasion and the rope was knotted; it had two knots in it as if it was tied in preparation for binding.

Judge Perry rules. “The court dies find the people have produced ample evidence in support of the allegation and that the defendant is responsible for and did commit a willful, deliberate and premeditated murder as charged in count 1. I find that there is sufficient evidence for purposes of the preliminary hearing. That would also follow that there’s sufficient evidence that the defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of that offense.

I do find the evidence insufficient for both of the special circumstance allegations. I just think that it’s too speculative. I appreciate very much the argument, Mr. Presby. I think you’ve done as much as you can with the evidence.”

Judge Perry complements Mr. Presby on being an excellent attorney, but as he looks at the evidence he finds it insufficient to support that the murder occurred during a burglary or under the other special circumstance of “lying in wait” as it was defined in 1986. Judge Perry asks Overland if he wants to present a motion to suppress Lazarus’ statement, but Overland states he doesn’t know if he wants to bring a motion or handle it during trial. Judge Perry tells him he better do it before trial. Judge Perry confirms that the people do want to litigate the matter of the defendant’s statement.

The parties then discuss returning for arraignment in ten days. A hearing is set for December 18th for bail and the arraignment.

And that ended the four days of preliminary hearing.

Stephanie Lazarus Case Quick Links

Something Happy for a Change!

2011-08-26T19:25:00.001-07:00

I’m going to deviate (yet again) from T&T traditional bread and butter article to share a happy story with you all.

Longtime T&T readers will remember our coverage of the brutal and utterly senseless murder of Cindy Ramos, a vivacious 58-year old mom and grandma, who was killed in her Tracy, California home in August 2009. You’ll also remember Cindy’s brave and stubborn daughter Christina Barnes, a good friend of T&T, who has grown into a formidable victims’ rights advocate.

Christina is also the founder of Children of Murdered parents and she and her siblings are working to get SB 906 passed, which would require that accused and convicted co-conspirators of violent felonies be jailed and prisoned apart from one another.

Today’s happy story: Christina and her husband Steve, already parents of three daughters (eldest daughter Stefiana serving in Afghanistan, Janessa and Briana) announced they have a baby boy on the way! He was most cooperative during a recent ultrasound, as you can plainly see in the photo. Congratulations Christina!

Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial Hearing 8

2011-08-25T19:45:00.000-07:00

Stephaine Lazarus at one of her early court appearances.
Photo credit: Mark Boster, LA Times

I arrive into downtown LA just in time to make the hearing if the security lines in the Criminal Court Building are not long and there isn't a mad crush at the elevator bays for the lower floors. I'm in luck. There's virtually no line to speak of. Just as I'm about to walk through the security scanners I get a tap on my shoulder from behind. It's 48 Hours Producer Greg Fisher who totally missed the last Lazarus hearing. I had received a heads-up the day before that this would be a very short hearing so I wasn't expecting many people to be there.

When I get inside the courtroom my favorite seating area is taken up by a black couple I've never seen before and I make a guess that they are here for a different hearing. I shuffle down to the second row and Greg and I sit a bit to the left behind Nels and Loretta Rasmussen. The Rasmussen's are fine people. Fisher asks Loretta if she received his voice mail but she did not have time to check her messages. No matter how short it will be, every time there is a hearing in the case of their daughter's murder, they make the seven-hour drive to Los Angeles. Sitting in the same front row at the far right is Lazarus' mother. The two Robbery-Homicide detectives are in their usual seats on the far right, second bench row.

8:33 am: Lazarus is brought into the courtroom. She is not wearing glasses today but I notice that she has some sort of plain black hair clip in the center-top towards the back. Her hair from the front crown area is pulled straight back and held down with this clip. I note to my friend Greg that she looks much paler than usual. Lazarus has been incarcerated since early June, 2009 and this is what happens when you don't have access to sunlight for over two years.

Greg sees a defense attorney he knows over by the clerks desk and he waits for the right opportunity to go chat with him. He's a tall, handsome black man that Greg tells me used to work in Johnny Cochran's firm but left and started his own. Later, he sits with him in the back row in deep conversation during the entire hearing.

Lazarus turns around and gives her mother a big smile. She's wearing the white, long-sleeved long-john type shirt under her orange jail-house jumpsuit. The beefy defense investigator who's name I've forgotten is here along with Courtney and Mark Overland. (Overland finally has a new web site up detailing his experience and new partnership with his daughter. For a time there, I could find very little information about Mark on the web.)

8:37 am: Judge Perry takes the bench and Shannon Presby greets the judge. "Good Morning, your honor." Lazarus appears to be whispering intently with Courtney Overland. Judge Perry makes the standard announcements that we are on the record and names the prosecution and defense team. This is a status conference to determine additional (rounds?) of hearings. Overland has a motion for a Kelly/Frye hearing which Judge Perry asks Overland if it will require the taking of testimony. Overland responds, "Yes." From what I'm understanding, apparently part of the motion is asking the Judge to order certain DNA evidence be provided to the defense (for their own testing).

Shannon Presby states he has not had the opportunity to contact SERI (At first, I thought he said "sera" or "serology" but this is an independent testing laboratory.). The prosecution would like time to digest the defense motion since they just received it (yesterday or today). Presby states he's not clear on exactly what it is regarding the DNA that relates to the Kelly/Frye hearing.

Perry states this will be a two-step process. First, we will determine if we will have a Kelly/Frye hearing then... (snip) I think Presby then tells Judge Perry that it (the motion) did not seem to go to the accuracy of the (Key-Meyer?) test, (but the?) technique to use the test, not the science.

Overland states that he can answer the question the prosecution has. It relates to a "three prong." (Unfortunately, I can not decipher my own notes here so I'm going on memory.) The Kelly/Frye hearing is the first "prong" and the (DNA?) order relates to the documentation required (in the DNA testing) that needs to be reviewed to see that it meets the second "prong." (I didn't totally understand what Overland said.)

Matthew McGough from The Atlantic arrives and slips quietly into the back row.

I think it's the prosecution who states, "All we need is to reach out to SERI....."

Perry states that he also has a motion regarding firearms and a motion from the defense requesting a personnel file. Overland states the City Attorney has been served. Judge Perry tells the parties that he will contact the City Attorney and see if we can get a fire going. Presby asks that once that personnel file is turned over (to the defense) they are requesting a copy (reciprocal discovery). Judge Perry has no problem with that. Judge Perry is then asking all parties about their schedule. "I can tell you my schedule. I have a trial set to start September 12th. I have a trial set to start September 19th. I would like very much if possible to (?) have or (a?) ruling on motions early in September, the 8th or 9th." I believe Overland states September 8th is not a good day for him. Judge Perry asks Overland for his calendar for early September, and there may be a problem if experts are going to be called and if they would be ready (available) by then.

Judge Perry then goes onto say he doesn't even know if we are going to have a hearing yet. He doesn't have a response from the people (regarding Overland's motion for the Kelly/Frye hearing.) "Can you get it filed next week?" Judge Perry asks the prosecution. Presby states they could get it filed by the end of next week; that would be practical. Judge Perry asks, "How about August 31st?" Presby responds, "Then, that's when we'll file it." I believe it's now that Presby asks the Judge if they could just concentrate their efforts on this motion by that deadline and not address the other motions filed. I believe Judge Perry agreed.

There is then a back and forth by the attorneys trying to schedule a date to argue Overland's motion. A date of September 1st is chosen. Judge Perry then asks the prosecution if they will have talked to their expert witnesses by then. "And I'll keep my calendar open and not set any trials. (snip) So, to be clear, availability of experts September 6th 7th, 9th. (No Sept. 8th; Overland is not available on that date.) Sept. 1st, hearing on motion for Kelly/Frye." Judge Perry also mentions something to the effect about the prosecution and a discovery issue, if they will have discovery available at that time. Judge Perry asks if there was anything else and I believe Overland stated that he has one other issue but it must not have been important since Judge Perry left the bench.

And that's it. It's over and Lazarus is taken away. I was too busy scribbling to see if Lazarus turned to smile at her mother before she was whisked out. At some point during the hearing, Robert Dean, the tall Dateline producer slipped in. Out in the hallway, all the reporters are standing together and I ask if anyone knew what Mr. Presby said when he was talking about "SERI," if anyone knew if he said serology, or what. No one fessed up to knowing. I knew I would then have to do what I am the most uncomfortable doing when I am around attorneys, and that's ask them a question. I leave the group of reporters and quickly head to the elevator bay where DDA's Shannon Presby and Paul Nunez are. I rustle up my courage and ask Presby if he could answer a question. He's a very personable and engaging man. I ask him about the "sera" word and what he really said and what it refers to. "Serological Research Institute. SERI. It's an independent lab. I don't know what the E is." I thank him for his time.

While we are all waiting for an elevator, Paul Nunez is talking with someone about a case where he is making the opening statement tomorrow. It's the case of Los Angeles Unified School District Police Officer, Jeff Stenroos, who back in January of this year made a false statement to police where he fabricated a story of being shot by car robbery suspects. Stenroos was arrested (and obviously indicted) a week later, charged with five felonies. When I overhear that the case is being heard at the Van Nuys Courthouse, I ask Nunez what Department the case is being heard in. He pauses for a moment and then tells me, "Department G." (The same judge who heard Robert Blake's murder trial is presiding over this case.) If I can get an appointment rescheduled tomorrow morning, I might go just to get a sneak peak on how Nunez does in his OS as well as present witnesses.

I grab an elevator to head home and check in with Mr. Sprocket about his day and whether the huge heaters got delivered to his job site. I'm out the door of the court building and it's not even 9:00 am.

Stephanie Lazarus Case Quick Links

Keeping Up With Casey Who?

2011-08-23T09:06:00.000-07:00

UPDATE #2!
August 24, 11:40 AM

InSession has just announced that they will be carrying the hearing live at 9 AM tomorrow. It also appears that there is a possibility it will be live streamed by some TV stations.

UPDATE!
August 23, 7:08 PM

Casey Who?'s probation must be served. In a decision just released by the Appellate Court, it states that Judge Strickland's oral order for probation takes precedence over the written order. In addition it says that

The petitioner and her lawyers were well aware that her probationary placement was not to begin until her release from confinement. The petitioner may not, under these circumstances, take advantage of the administrative error of the Department of Corrections.

*****

I have to admit my real life has now become more interesting than tracking down Ms. Casey's every movement. Was she in Ohio? I don't really care. Where is she in Orlando? I don't care. Will she make money from the infamy her trial has given her? As of now, I don't see the money rolling in for her and that pleases me. As for her family, the same applies. It's a good thing I've never been a Dr. Phil fan. Whatever they have told him can stay off my DVR. I don't really have any interest in what they have to say. The verdict is in and we have to live with it.

What does interest me is the probation situation. Yesterday, the State Attorney General filed a reply to the defense motion. State's Assistant Attorney Frank George joined in the Attorney General's reply. The Attorney General's reply pretty much followed along with Judge Perry's ruling. Attorney Lisabeth Fryer just filed a reply. It said much the same as the original motion. All we have to do is wait for the Appellate Court to make its ruling.

Proof positive the media interest is waning in this case is the fact that there has been very little publicity about the hearing on Thursday where the State will be asking to be repaid by Ms. Casey based on her convictions for lying to Law Enforcement and causing the massive investigation. There has been virtually no mention of the hearing and have not heard of any live feeds that will be available.

So, it will be interesting to see if anyone actually streams it. I won't know. I'll be away for the hearing and will only get to read about it later! After three years of living and breathing this case, it's good to move on.

As for the civil cases, I will be following up on them. However, these cases tend to move at a snail's pace, and that suits me just fine right now. Let Ms. Who? sink into the background, forgotten for the most part. Let little Caylee linger in our hearts, forever.

Source:
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
Check out the current news for all the documents in the appeal.

Deporting U.S. Citizens from Their Home State?

2011-08-19T12:33:00.000-07:00

I want to deviate a little bit form T & T’s usual back of tricks. This story does not involve murder or child abuse. It does not involve any sort of violence nor is the “perp” an illegal alien gang member or a career criminal. It is the story of two states, medical marijuana, a plea deal, and the State of California “deporting” a native-born Californian for no stated reason.

In January 2011, a 29-year old man we will call T.J., a legal resident of California, was driving through Arizona on the way to a family visit on the East Coast. T.J. was a legal medical marijuana cardholder in California, prescribed for anxiety, and was traveling with legally-acquired marijuana in the trunk of his car He was stopped in the high desert region of Arizona for a minor traffic infraction, and consented to a search of his car after the cop had a “feeling” T.J. had marijuana in the vehicle. He consented to the search because he knew he could have been detained while the officer obtained a warrant.

He was arrested for possession and transport of marijuana for sale, booked and released. He turned around and returned to California, and shortly thereafter retained an attorney in Arizona. The penalty could have been as severe as several years’ imprisonment or as little as probation.

In concert with his criminal defense attorney, T.J. decided to plead guilty to transportation of marijuana for sale, a Class 3 felony, through a plea bargain, avoiding a trial. A judgment and sentencing hearing at the end of June outlined the terms of the plea deal. The terms of the plea kept T.J. out of jail in Arizona, but necessitated paying a series of fines, community service and three years probation. Terms of probation included random drug testing (which also meant no more medical marijuana) and no alcohol use or spending time socializing in bars. Because T.J. had gainful full-time employment in California, he and his attorney asked that probation be served in California. He was also ordered to pay an interstate processing fee and a refundable interstate extradition deposit along with monthly probation fees.

Here is why you are reading this story: Earlier this week T.J. learned that the State of California did not accept his probation, and told him he had to leave the state, nearly two months after Arizona drafted the terms of probation. Yes, you are reading this correctly—a 29-year old white male United States citizen, a taxpaying resident of California, was deported (of sorts) by the state of California.

In the court order, in the section titled “Uniform Conditions of Supervised Probation,” there is a statement that reads:

I may apply for Interstate Compact supervision in the state of California and will not proceed to that state until reporting instructions are received and the APD [Arizona Probation Department] issues a written travel permit.

Problem is, T.J. has NOT been residing in Arizona. He holds a job and maintains a residence in California, and was never jailed in Arizona. Once he was booked, he was free to go, with no travel restrictions. He even asked permission from Arizona’s probation department to attend a family function in Mexico—something required by the terms of his probation.

California’s Department of Probation did not give T.J. or his attorney in Arizona a reason for denying T.J.’s request to serve his probation in California. T.J. drove down to Arizona to try to get things straightened out, but has been told that he can be anywhere BUT California.

Yes, you are reading this correctly. A gainfully employed white male who has broken no laws in California, who plead guilty to a class 3 felony in Arizona and has agreed to terms of probation, has been deported from his state of residence. As I write this, his attorney believes that T.J. may be unable to return to California until the end of September.

So now it’s legal to “deport” an American citizen from a given state, but it’s nearly impossible to deport an illegal alien who is breaking the law by being here, let alone other probable infractions including identity theft, driving without a license, and maybe welfare fraud? It’s legal to prevent a U.S. citizen from holding down a job, to put his life in limbo because the state of California is broke and unwilling to “supervise” his probation? (As part of his agreed-upon sentencing, T.J. will pay a monthly probation fee.)

Seriously, is this what this state and nation have come to? And if any of our readers happen to be attorneys with ideas on how this miscarriage of justice should proceed, please contact me through T & T.

West Memphis 3 Walk Out of Prison

2011-08-19T09:57:00.001-07:00

From left to right, Jessie Misskelley, Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols; photo credit WREG

I heard on the news yesterday that an Arkansas court called a short notice hearing in the West Memphis 3 case for this morning. Eighteen years ago, three teenage men, Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley were convicted in the death of three eight-year-old boys: Christopher Byers, Steven Branch and James Michael Moore.

The case grabbed national attention with the release of the documentary Paradise Lost: The Child Murders and Robin Hood Hills, and it's sequel Paradise Lost 2: Revelations.

All three were released today after entering new Alford pleas. I listened to a representative from the area District Attorney's office speak at a press conference. This plea arrangement started three weeks ago when one of the defense attorneys contacted the DA's office. From my understanding, (after watching a DA speak to the press) the DA's office believed that the judge hearing the appeal would most certainly have ruled in December to overturn the verdicts and order new trials. The DA's office, faced with the prospect of having to try the defendants again felt there was a strong possibility they would not be able to secure convictions a second time. Agreeing to the Alfred pleas meant that the guilty verdicts would stand.

At the press conference the three young men held right after their release, we learned that it was Jason Baldwin who was reluctant to take the plea, but what finally convinced him was it would release Echols from the threat of death row. He agreed to the plea only to help save Damien's life. To me, all three of them looked shell-shocked at the quick turn of events. Echols stated that when he first learned about this turn of events, he could not sleep and that he had not slept in four days.

All three defendant's sentences were changed to 18 years and credit given for time served. They are no restrictions on their travel. There is some type of hold from the Arkansas department of corrections for an additional 20 years that will only come into effect if any one of them get into trouble with the law again.

No matter what your feelings are on the guilt or innocence of these three young men, they are now free to try to rejoin society.

UPDATE: CNN will have a special report, "Presumed Guilty: Murder in West Memphis" @ 11:00pm ET tonight.

CNN Story

Free West Memphis 3 web site

Free West Memphis 3 Blog

ABC News Report

Casey Anthony, Will She Serve Probation?

2011-08-18T09:37:00.000-07:00

UPDATE!

August 18, 1:46 PM EDT

Jean Casarez on InSesson just reported that the paper copy of the motion has been filed and the case will now move forward.

*****

Okay, I took a week off to go on my first real vacation in seven years. Once we arrived at our destination, we had a wonderful time. However, due to lost airline connections in both directions, we ended up spending two days extra NOT having a good time! There was a sweltering day and night in a Houston hotel whose air conditioning wasn't quite up to snuff, without our luggage and a fresh change of clothing. To avoid the same situation on the way home, we spent a day shuttling to the airport and spending the night shuffling from plane to plane to plane making tight connections. We ended up "visiting" in three states which were not on our itinerary.

I heard about Judge Perry's order concerning her probation and caught a bit of news about it. Unfortunately, my husband banned my laptop from the trip for good cause. Thanks, Sprocket, for posting the news. Now that I've had a chance to rest up a bit, I can also report on the defense reply to the Appellate Court. As of now, the defense reply has only been filed electronically and we all know that it has to be filed on paper. Somebody will have to drive over to Daytona to file the hard copy.

Listening to Jean Casarez on InSession right now, she is pointing out that nobody has filed a stay on the order that Casey Anthony appear for probation on or before August 26.

During the original hearing, Lisbeth Fryer argued vehemently about Judge Strickland's bias and that he had recused himself and had no jurisdiction over the fraud case. She argued double jeopardy.

She also argued that putting Casey on probation in Orange County would put herself and others in danger. At the time, I can recall that she kept throwing the responsibility to the State to report the scrivener's error that caused Casey to be on probation while in protective custody.

In his order, Judge Perry replied to all her concerns:

1. He stated that the Court had jurisdiction. He stated (omitting specific legal citations) that

It is axiomatic that oral pronouncements control over clerical errors. The court has the authority to correct its judgment. An order is rendered, valid and binding, when orally given. It may be corrected at any time to reflect what the court had in fact done.

2. As to violation of double jeopardy, Perry stated that

This case does not involve additional punishment proscribed by the double jeopardy clause nor does it involve a punitive effect by requiring the Defendant to serve probation twice. The Defendant was in jail and unable to meet the goals and requirements of the probationary sentence. The Defendant could not comply with the standard thirteen conditions of probation while incarcerated on a pending charge.

3. As to the defense's responsibility to report the error to the Court, Perry was very clear.

In this case, the State, defense counsel, and the Defendant all knew what the announced intent of the Court was as to when the Defendant's probation was to begin... To permit this error to continue would in fact turn a clerical error into a game cautioned against in the Bozza case...

4. Due process was briefly mentioned.

The Court does not address the issue of the alleged violation of the Defendant's right to due process because the defense did not allege how it was violated.

5. To be sure that the defense understood the issue of Duty to the Court, Perry stated in part that

Finally, this Court would like to address the issue of what duty does an attorney, an officer of the court, owe to our system of justice to see that the lawful orders of the court are followed. The defense acknowledged in court that Mr. Baez knew about the error, but contended that he did not have any obligation to inform the court... While ignorance of the contents of a court order is one thing, the failure to abide by that order and the failure to notify the court of a known scrivener's error in the order may be a violation of an attorney's duty of candor. To additionally seek to use a scrivener's error to achieve an end that was against the court's intent, especially where both parties had argued the issue of when probation should commence, strikes a the very foundation of our justice system...

The duty of candor is simply not a rule of fine etiquette, but is the gold standard that all officers of the court - especially attorneys - must live by if we are to ensure the public's trust and faith in our justice system... While "(z)ealous advocacy is the cornerstone of good lawyering and the bedrock of a just legal system...zeal cannot give way to unprofessionalism" and noncompliance with court orders.

Perry then went on to recommend that the defense refer to The Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct.

As I am writing this, the Orlando Sentinel is reporting that a Bar Complaint against Jose Baez on this very issue.

6. Judge Perry did address the issue of Casey's safety. He ordered her address not be disclosed and cited an article in the Orlando Sentinel which reported that Casey was the most hated person in America.

The Appellate Court in Daytona is still waiting for a paper copy of the defense reply to be provided. At this moment, WESH is reporting that the court will hear the appeal prior to Casey's reporting date.

The appeal is written by Lisabeth Fryer, who argued the motion in court on the 6th. It is very long and has many legal references. There is a great deal of bashing for Judge Stan Strickland. It is a longer version of what I posted about that hearing. In addition, she criticized Judge Perry.

...the trial court engages in three pages of of moralizing about the responsibility of the defense counsel in candor to the tribunal, as if somehow this entire 'mess' was the responsibility of the defense, rather than a vindictive act by a glaringly biased judge... For the record, this was not a case in which the defense was in possession of information that neither the court, nor the State of Florida lacked. Instead, defense counsel only learned of the probation informally, whereas the State of Florida received formal notice of the commencement of probation... Further, the former disqualified judge actually signed the original order which established probation while the Defendant was awaiting trial on a different set of charges. That the court feels it necessary to chastise the defense (and the defense alone -- by name) for not bringing this matter to the court's attention is, at best, misplaced.

Right now, I'm waiting to see if Frank George files a response to this motion, once it is officially filed.

Keep tuned for the latest turn in this twisted case!

California Supreme Court Denies Phil Spector's Petition

2011-08-17T16:38:00.000-07:00

Phil Spector prison booking photo

In a not so surprising move today, the California Supreme Court denies Phil Spector's petition for review of the Appellate Court's decision for his 2nd degree murder conviction in the death of actress Lana Clarkson. It's my understanding that Spector's only recourse is the United States Supreme Court. Good luck with that, Phil. You will have to survive on visits from your Trial Bride for at least the next seventeen years. I wonder how long that will last?

Rest in peace, Lana.

Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial Hearing 7

2011-08-15T06:01:00.000-07:00

Updated: 12:30 pm

Today starts a three-day hearing in the Stephanie Lazarus case to hear defense motions to exclude evidence. From my understanding, defense counsel Mark Overland plans to call several prosecution witnesses over the next three days. I will have an updates on today's hearing at the noon lunch break and later this evening. Stephanie Lazarus is charged with the murder of Sherri Rae Rasmussen, the new wife of her former boyfriend in 1986. This cold case was solved 23 years later by DNA evidence. The trial is scheduled to start in mid October, 2011, with DDA's Shannon Presby and Paul Nunez representing the people.

Update: 12:30 pm
Stephanie Lazarus, Kelly Soo Park, Clarkson Family Civil Suit against Phil Spector and that HBO "dramatization" of Spector's legal woes.

What a frustrated morning I had! I got out the door on time, that wasn't a problem. My drive into downtown was perfect; it only took about 25 minutes to get to the budget parking lot. It was right when I was going to pull into the lot. I reached into my purse to get my wallet to pay the attendant when I realized I left my wallet at home. I called Mr. Sprocket, hoping he hadn't left the house yet. He was still home, but not nearly ready to leave for his project in Glendale. His first thought was to just go to a branch of our bank and get some cash. I asked him, "How would I prove who I was?" I had no identification on me. Having worked in the banking industry for over 15 years as an internal auditor, I knew it would be near impossible to withdrawal even twenty dollars out of our checking account. I knew that I was going to miss possible testimony because Judge Robert J. Perry is a stickler for starting right at 8:30 am.

I immediately headed back home and Mr. Sprocket and I planned to meet at a freeway exit. By the time I got back downtown and inside Judge Perry's courtroom, he was already ruling on the second of two motions presented. And that was it. No three day hearing with testimony. The next court date is August 25th, 2011. I had to get most of my information from other people who were there from the beginning.

From my understanding, two motions were heard and ruled on today. I heard the tail end of Judge Perry's ruling on the second motion regarding the prosecution having a forensic expert testify as to whether or not the crime scene was a "staged event."

Judge Perry basically said the expert can testify about what was found at the crime scene and whether or not that was consistent with a burglary. The witness cannot speculate. Judge Perry will allow him to offer an opinion. "He can be your 'pull it together witness' as to how (he believes?) the crime occurred, the number or shots, the sequence of events..."

Judge Perry then talks about something where I'm not fully getting the gist. The expert cannot testify about "...the hand over the mouth or torn septum... (snip) (If? It's?) the medical examiner offers an opinion as to how (that?) occurred....but he can't say it on his own."

Judge Perry continues "...broken nail at the front door.... no (?) at the upper level...he can opine. I don't know what to do about the cordage.... (or?) need for more cordage. (It?) could be an attempt to kidnap..... I thought probably (a?) permissible opinion. (snip) He can offer that as part (of the crime scene that's) not consistent with a burglary..... but not kidnap. (I?) don't think (there's) anything (there) to support kidnap."

Then Judge Perry instructs Mr. Presby what he should say for argument, that the witness cannot say as opinion. The narrow window of time, and that the killer waited until the husband was gone. That's not permissible on speculation (by the expert). "All that you can argue," Perry rules. "How committed the killer was, no financial gain.... pure argument....the level of violence. (snip) The adjustment of the driver's seat on the BMW, I don't know that that's permissible for this witness. The fact of adjusting of the driver's seat goes more to the size of the offender. (snip) (It) points to personal cause....argument."

Judge Perry then talks a bit about the recovery of the purse. The purse was found by gardeners, groundskeepers. Mr. Presby states that the gardener's are not even around. Perry states then that the witness can't even talk about it. Perry states the witness can talk about facts that are inconsistent with a burglary and he can say how he things the crime occurred; the evidence inconsistent. Then the front door and whether it was locked or unlocked is mulled over. From what Judge Perry was saying, the front door had three locks and the condo had an alarm system, but apparently from statements John Ruetten, the front door might have been left unlocked because from the night before because of a visitor. Judge Perry states, "There's no evidence of forced entry that I can see....I realize that I'm cutting him way back."

Judge Perry then asks if there's anything from the defense? Mark Overland responds, "No."

The jury questionnaire is then mentioned. Judge Perry states he received a revised copy from the people and that it's quite extensive (larger) that the one he saw before. Mr. Presby stands and explains that the prosecution and the defense agree on almost all except question #74. Judge Perry states he will look at it. Presby then brings up one other matter, the scheduling (on? of?) course of the trial.

Mr. Overland talks about discovery and that he still doesn't have some important evidence from the people. Overland wants to set the next court date, "sooner rather than later." Overland would like a date set in ten days for the LAPD to give him materials. "And additional discovery that might be missing." Judge Perry asks, "You still planning a motion on the DNA?" Overland states that he is. His expert just received the evidence. Judge Perry rules the next hearing to be August 25th and at that time they will set dates for further motions.

The people who were in the gallery were Nels and Loretta Rasmussen and their attorney John Taylor. Lazarus' mother was there along with her friend who was at a prior hearing on June 30th. Steven Lazarus, Stephanie's brother was there with a female friend with short blondish hair. The Dateline producer was there along with Matthew McGough, from The Atlantic.

After the hearing I got a quick update on what I missed. There were 18 sections of the secretly video tape recorded interview with Lazarus that were objected to being presented to the jury. Three or four of those sections were excluded but the overall majority (well over 90% of the tape) will be admitted into evidence and the jury will get to see the tape. The defense has withdrawn their "chain of custody of evidence motion" and will argue at trial (through objections) the admissibility of the "bite mark swab" evidence.

I had just a moment to speak with attorney John Taylor about the upcoming civil suit against Phil Spector. The case is still on for trial on January 9th, 2012. If there is no settlement by the parties before then, it's expected at that time the case will be moved out of the Pasadena courthouse to a "long cause judge" and fighting for a time on that judge's calendar at either the Stanley Mosk Courthouse or the Central Civil West Courthouse.

After the hearing I got to chat a bit with Lisa from ABC network. Since she missed the hearing I got her up to date on what I had just heard as well as letting her know that Judge Perry is a stickler for starting on time and never allowing cameras inside the courtroom, or computers or blackberry's. She was kind enough to let me know that the next Kelly Soo Park hearing is set for September 14th, possibly at 9:00 am.

And a last word about David Mamet's "docu-drama" on Phil Spector's legal woes. (Y'all already know how I feel about the potential accuracy of this film.) Helen Mirren has replaced Bette Midler in the role of Linda Kenny Baden. Midler had to pull out after suffering a herniated disk. Although I adore Helen Mirren ever since I first saw her in the British series Prime Suspect, I thought Midler was a more believable casting choice. Photos have surfaced of Al Pacino in makeup and wigs to look like the eccentric Spector. The problem Pacino will have trouble duplicating is Spector's lack of anything resembling a chin and the great flabs of hanging skin around his neck before Spector's nip/tuck.

Stephanie Lazarus Preliminary Hearing, Day 3

2011-08-14T23:15:00.000-07:00

December 9th, 2009

The parties identify themselves for the record. Shelly Torrealba and Shannon Presby, DDA’s. Mark Overland and Julio Vergara for the defense.

The hearing starts out with Judge Perry bringing up a case decision, Vanwinkle vs. County of Ventura, a decision which was filed on December 7th of 2007. The opinion is at CAL.APP.4TH, 492.

This is in regards to statements the defendant may have made in regards to the Public Safety Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights Act. Judge Perry quotes from the case ruling. “That we hold these protections do not apply to officers subject to criminal investigations conducted by their employers.”

Judge Perry does not want to discuss this issue now. He wants to proceed with testimony and take up this issue at another time.

17. MINELA SRBOVA
Ms. Srbova is a criminalist at the LAPD crime lab, toxicology unit. She was hired in 2003 as a laboratory tech and in February 2005 she became a criminalist. Srbova outlines her training and qualifications. She obtained her masters in environmental chemistry and engineering from the University of Chemical Technology in Prague, Czech Republic.

Srbova is shown a document, Defense Exhibit A. She identifies it as a document (an evidence log) that originates from the coroner’s office. She identifies her initials and and serial number on the log as receiving evidence labeled “bite mark swab.”

Srbova states she also goes by the nickname of “Millie.”

Srbova testifies that she did go to the coroner’s office and pick up this item. Srbova is now shown People’s Exhibit #29. She identifies her handwriting on this exhibit in the lower left hand corner. It has the D.R. (?) number (86-09-0480), item number, her initials S.I.D. and the date she wrote the numbers on the envelope.

Srbova is asked about the “D.R.” number and where she obtained it. It was obtained from a detective or the coroner’s office. The number “30” on the envelope is the item number at LAPD property that it would be booked into evidence as.

When she received the envelope, she transported it to the LAPD crime lab where she placed it in the refrigerator. The refrigerator is also a freezer.

This was not the only case she picked up that day. She also picked up evidence from 18 coroner cases for a total of 106 pieces of evidence.

Srbova states that each case’s evidence items are kept separate. She states she never opened the envelope that she picked up involving this case.

Srbova outlines her procedures once she gets the items back to her department and placed the evidence inside the freezer/refrigerator. She went through all the cases and all the pieces of evidence that she picked up and wrote all the D.R. numbers and item numbers, initials. She marked on the envelope or on the packages whatever she received. She then places them in LAPD envelopes and writes a report for all the cases and then booked them into property.

People’s number 86 and 87, photos that depict the front and back of the LAPD envelope. Srbova identifies her name and serial number on the envelope “frozen tag.”

Srbova is asked about a date on the envelope and what it refers to. She states that is the original booking date.

(Reading the transcript, I’m somewhat confused about the dates they are referring to.)

A date of February 25th, 1986 is not the date that she booked it. It was booked into LAPD evidence on January 25th, 2005. The January date is the date Srbova booked it into evidence.

Srbova identifies on People’s number 87, the backside of the LAPD envelope. She states she sealed that envelope. She identifies her signature, her serial number, the date and the S.I.D.

The delay from the date Srbova picked up the evidence from the Coroner’s office (December 30th, 2004) and the date from the time it was booked into evidence at LAPD (January 25th, 2005) is explained by Srbova.

Srbova states, “There’s actually no delay because it takes time until I went through all the evidence packages and all through everything I book - - I picked up. So therefore, it seems like delay, but it’s a normal process.

Judge Perry doesn’t understand the answer and questions Srbova on the details of her procedure.

Judge Perry elicits from Srbova that it takes time for her to go through 106 pieces of evidence. Although she receives the evidence on December 30th and files it in the freezer, it takes time to log all those pieces into LAPD evidence.

Under questioning, Srbova states that if she only picked up one piece of evidence from the coroner, then it would get processed in one day. But she picked up 106 pieces. That takes time. Although she picked up the piece of evidence on December 30th, 2004, she doesn’t work weekends and sometimes she’s off and sometimes she assigned to do something else. She states that the envelope goes in the freezer on December 30th, in the original coroner’s envelope but it’s not transferred to an LAPD envelope and LAPD documentation until January 20th, 2005. She states that she did not “repackage” the envelope. She on the 20th, she took the item out of the LAPD freezer, put the envelope from the coroner inside an LAPD envelope, documented it and put it back in the freezer.

Judge Perry also elicits from the witness that during that time the evidence is waiting to be booked, there is no notation anywhere, that this evidence is in the freezer waiting to be booked.

Srbova states there was no particular order in which those cases were worked on. She states she would not work on more than one case at a time. She had to verify with the property unit in order to get the number “30” for this piece of evidence. That was the next in order number available at that time.

Direct is finished and Overland begins the cross.

Srbova states that when she picked up the evidence (in this case) from the coroner, she took it to the LAPD the same day. Srbova states that it’s a matter of procedure (she always did it that way) that she would put items that needed to be refrigerated in the refrigerator or freezer. When the items are put in the freezer, there is no log that she signs at that immediate time. Here are her words.

“When I picked up any evidence from the coroner’s office, I put it into serology unit, which was the unit that had refrigerator and freezer, into the refrigerator or freezer in the property unit, that happens after I book it. And there is - - there is a log that I sign the D.R. number and everything that I booked it that day, but that belongs to property unit.”

There is no record or log that she put something in the freezer or refrigerator (until the paperwork is completed that the item is booked into evidence).

Judge Perry asks questions of the witness again to clarify the delay from December 30th to January 25th. Again the witness states there is no record that she put the item in the freezer on December 30th. “Nothing like that was in the procedure, so there is no record that would indicate that I put it in the freezer. Just have to believe me that I did.”

Judge Perry asks what record would she have to remind her that she had put something in the freezer.

(Srbova’s answer is confusing to me and to Judge Perry.)

“The record would be that I booked it as a frozen, that’s why it was i the freezer. Because if it needed to be frozen, I would not put it on the shelf or anywhere else. I would put it always in the freezer.

Judge Perry asks again, about any record being made at the time it was put in the freezer, and Srbova answers, “There’s no record about it, only the envelope that I booked it.”

Overland enters into evidence, Defense Exhibit C, a one page LAPD property report dated January 21st, 2005.

Srbova is asked about the report and states she prepared the report for D.R. number 86-09-10480, the case here. Srbova agrees that there is nothing in that report as to when she put the evidence in the freezer.

Srbova is questioned further as to what was involved in booking those 106 items of evidence. She has to review to ensure that all the pieces she received do belong to the proper case number. She has to ensure that everything is properly sealed by the coroner’s office. She also has to ensure that she is marking everything correctly on each envelope and package. She had to find out the D.R. numbers and sometimes that took a couple of days until she got a response from a detective or someone handling the case. So that took time.

Srbova is asked how many pieces of evidence she went through in that period of time from December 30th to January 25th. She states 106. She knows this because she created an EXCEL spread sheet that had all the items of evidence that she picked up. She created the spread sheet at that time she picked up the evidence.

Srbova states that the EXCEL spread sheet she created does not document how much time she spent on each individual item to properly book it into LAPD evidence and that she doesn’t know how much time she spent on each of those 106 items.

Srbova states, specifically to the bite mark swab, it would have taken her about 1/2 hour to verify that everything was correct.

Overland is finished with his cross and Judge Perry asks a few more questions of the witness.

Judge Perry makes a general statement that her job was basically that of courier. She would go over and pick up evidence and bring it back to the LAPD and make sure that what she got from the coroner was properly booked.

Srbova states that she was usually faxed a sheet of what she was to pick up, but she didn’t care that much what she was going to pick up. She verified when she got back to LAPD it was her job to verify everything that she signed for on the evidence log.

Srbova states that she did have a regular run or she could go over to the coroner’s office by special request. That special request could be from a detective or from someone in the coroner’s office.

The EXCEL spread sheet, that was something that she did on her own, so that she could keep track of what she picked up. Judge Perry asks her if she has a copy of the spreadsheet or if she can make a copy of one for the period they are talking about. Srbova states that she has it in the computer at work.

Ms. Torrealba gets up to redirect the witness.

Srbova states that at that time, there was only one freezer in the serology unit and that it was locked. Only criminalists in serology unit and during the daytime (had access to the freezer). There was a special place in the freezer, a box labeled “Coroner’s evidence” and that was her box. There was no one else picking up evidence from the coroner’s office.

Redirect is finished and there is no recross. Shannon Presby presents the next witness.

18. RICHARD SMITH
Mr. Smith is an LAPD officer and firearms examiner for the Scientific Investigation Division. He describes his background, training and experience with respect to firearms. He first trained with the FBI and AFT in 1993 to become a computer aided firearms examiner. He entered the firearms training program in 2004, completed it in 2006. He took all the required tests and has been working as a firearms examiner ever since.

When he first went to firearms, he was tasked with completing an exemplar set of cartridges for LAPD. That involved studying and finding out about anything to do with cartridges from .22’s all the way up through the 458 rifle rounds. He assembled a collection of over 1,000 cartridge cases from 1993 to 1994 that are currently being used by LAPD as exemplar cases for them.

Smith has previously been accepted as an expert witness in court in respect to firearms analysis in approximately 100 cases.

Smith first joined the LAPD in 1981. Smith states that the LAPD has rules, regulations that authorize specific types of ammunition for specific guns for specific periods of time for rank and file officers, officers on patrol.

Smith testifies that it is a violation of LAPD policy for an officer to use ammunition other than what LAPD has authorized.

Smith states that he does remember the authorization and use of .38 caliber Plus-P semi-jacketed lead soft point ammunition by the LAPD. Smith states the time range that ammunition was authorized for use was between 1982 and 1984. Smith states that during that time he was a patrol officer. Smith states there is an event in his career that helps him to remember this fact about the ammunition and that was he was working with a partner who was in a shooting with that type of ammunition. Smith states he believes the shooting took place approximately in 1983, but he doesn’t remember the exact date.

Smith is asked about the .38 caliber Plus-P semi-jacked lead soft point ammunition. Plus-P is a .38 cartridge, that is loaded to a higher pressure creating more pressure which creates a higher velocity of when the bullet leaves the firearm.

Smith states that Richard Maruoka is the supervising criminalist of the firearms analysis unit. In July of 2009, he had a discussion with Maruoka about this ammunition. He told Maruoka during that discussion what he told the court here, that at one time, the LAPD authorized the use of this ammunition. During that conversation, Smith informed Maruoka that he still had in his possession some of this specific ammunition.

People’s next in order, number 88 and 89, color photocopies of boxes of ammunition. Smith identifies the photos of the back side of a box of ammunition that he gave to supervisor MAruoka. Photo number 89 is another view of the same box of ammunition.

Using the laser pointer, Smith points out a “30” sticker on the box and explains. “The significance of the 30 sticker is the box is designed to hold 50 cartridges, and because we qualified with LAPD with 30 cartridges, LAPD returned to us 30 cartridges when we qualified at the sooting range. So in order to identify the box as one that was only holding 30 they would put a sticker on the box so that we were not lead to believe that it was a 50, box of 50 cartridges.”

Smith verifies that is the same type of sticker he recalls seeing on boxes of ammunition that he was given when he was an officer at LAPD. Smith verifies he gave this box to his supervisor, Maruoka. Before he handed it over, he looked inside the box and verified there were some of the mentioned rounds of ammunition, made by the company, “Federal.”

Direct ends and cross begins by Overland.

Smith states that he is able to narrow down the date to the early ‘80’s of when the ammunition was used because of the shooting incident involving his partner.

Overland gets the witness to admit that he doesn’t remember the name of the victim and he wasn’t able to track down any reports to solidify the date of the shooting.

Cross ends and there’s no redirect. Mr. Presby presents the next witness.

19. DANIEL RUBIN
Mr. Rubin is a criminalist with the LAPD for 19 years. He describes his training and background. Rubin is also an firearms examiner for 19 years. He’s testified approximately 146 times as an expert.
Rubin examined firearm evidence in this case (86-09-10480). He received two bullets with identification numbers 42-A and 42-B. Rubin describes the packaging the bullets arrived in. (Envelopes within envelopes.)

Rubin explains that he engraves on the base of each bullet his identifying mark to document that he’s analyzed a projectile. He puts his identifying mark, the item number and the nine digit case number.

Rubin examined the bullets and determined that they came from the same firearm. He based his conclusion on the tool-marks that were on the bullets from being fired. After his examination Rubin testifies that the bullets were consistent with being fired from a Smith & Wesson Model 45. Rubin details all the steps he took (photographs and measurements) including the comparison to a reference source (the rifling characteristics file from FBI) to come to this conclusion. The items were then repackaged and returned to the property center.

On July 22, 2009, he reacquired the items from the property room to reexamine the bullets and compare them with other ammunition to determine the possible manufacturer. On July 39th, 2009 he obtained some live ammunition from Richard Maruoka (.38 caliber semi-jacketed lead ammo) for comparison to the two bullets.

Rubin took a photograph of his microscopic comparison of the items (People’s number 92). Presby then asks him to explain “jacket crimp” as it relates to a bullet. Rubin states that he had not come across before, the unique characteristic of the jacket crimp on the fired bullets. It wasn’t very common. The jacket crimp on the fired bullets appeared to be the same type and shape as the live rounds provided by Maruoka. Using the laser pointer, Rubin points out for the court the similarities in the microphotographs he took in comparing these items. Rubin describes the jacket crimp as “a hoof print of cattle.”

Rubin states that in all his 19 years of microscopic examination of “thousands” of bullets, he has no recollection of ever seeing that type of jacket crimp before.

Direct ends and cross begins.

Overland has Rubin clarify his expert opinion about the bullets. Rubin states “they could be” Federal brand bullets, since they are “consistent with” that particular brand. Rubin states he did look at other brands and the bullets were not consistent with other brands he compared them to.

Rubin excluded a particular Remington jacketed hallow point brand bullets. Overland has Rubin’s report that he wrote marked Defense Exhibit D. Under cross, Rubin clarifies that the bullets “could have been fired” from a Smith & Wesson model 49.

Rubin states there are other models of weapon that the bullets could have been fired from. Ruben rattles off a long list (over 30 different weapons from Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Sportarms or Taurus).

Rubin goes onto explain that there could be other weapons beyond this list. This list is limited to weapons in the General Rifling Characteristics File supplied to crime lab by the FBI. There could be other makes and models that have the same general rifling but that data has not yet been submitted to the FBI (and reached the GRCF list).

Overland wants to ask the witness about cartridges that were recovered from Lazarus’ home that he tested and compared to the fired bullets. None of those cartridges were consistent with the bullets that killed Rasmussen.

At this point, the people agree to stipulate to the cartridges Overland is referring to were obtained during a search warrant of the defendant’s home and one cartridge obtained through a search warrant of Lazarus’ (work) locker.

Through his own questioning, Perry elicits a point that Overland is trying to make, and that is that none of the bullets loaded in the unfired rounds recovered from the search warrants are consistent by design with the bullets recovered from the victim’s body.

Rubin states that the .38 special caliber revolver found in Lazarus’ locker was test fired. Rubin could neither confirm nor eliminate the bullets recovered from Rasmussen's body as being fired from the .38 special. The bullets could have been, but Rubin cannot determine if they were or were not fired from that weapon. He doesn’t know.

Cross is finished and there is no redirect. Mr. Presby introduces the next witness.

20. GEORGE LUCZY
Luczy is an independent forensic firearms and explosives consultant since 1991. Before that, he was employed by the LAPD. At that time he was assigned to the Scientific Investigation Firearms and Explosives Unit. He was a forensic firearms examiner and bomb technician. Luczy describes his background and training in regards to firearms examination.

Luczy was in the army before joining the LAPD in 1971. From a patrol officer he was trained as a divisional armorer. He was responsible for the maintenance of all model ITHICA .37 shot guns owned by the LAPD. During that position, he researched a safety defect in the model 15 Smith & Wesson revolver that eventually resulted in the recall of every city owned LAPD firearm. Over 7400 guns were recalled, rendered safe and reissued.

Luczy came in as a temporary member in the firearms and explosives unit to assist during the 1984 Olympics. His loan to the department started in 1983 under a 15 month loan. In 1986 he was reassigned back to the firearms and explosives unit. From 1986 to 1991 Luczy performed approximately 3400 firearms examinations for LAPD as well as being a bomb squad member.

Since retiring, he does the same thing he did for the LAPD except his practice is 99% defense work. In his own practice he has conducted hundreds of cases.

In his career he has examined clothing that has been in close proximity to a firearm discharge. The examination of clothing can reveal the type of firearm that caused marks on clothing. There are certain types of marks (left on clothing) that are indicators of the type of firearm that may have been used in a crime.

Luczy examined clothing related to this case. During his tenure with the LAPD he kept his own journal of the cases where he conducted firearm analysis. Pages from Luczy’s journal relevant to this case are entered into evidence, People’s number 94. Luczy also wrote a report (Peoples number 95) relevant to his examination of a specific caliber bullet, a rust colored robe and a pink tank-top style shirt. In the report, Luczy also made a diagram of the front and back of the rust colored robe, People’s number 96 and 97.

Luczy also examined a quilted, multi-colored bathrobe and wrote a report, People’s number 98 and the diagram of that bathrobe, People’s number 99. Luczy re-examined the rust colored robe and the multi-colored item on December 1st, 2009 and wrote a new report detailing that examination. That report, People’s number 100 is entered into evidence. The examination took place at a crime lab on the campus of Cal State University.

When the items were presented to Luczy they were wrapped in heavy brown paper, over wrapped with string and inside a sealed cardboard box. The items were in two separate boxes. Luczy testifies they were in an “...excellent state of preservation.” During Luczy’s recent examination, he attempted to “match” the lineup of the holes in regards to the rust colored robe. At this point, Overland makes an objection to chain of custody and Judge Perry overruled that objection.

Luczy testifies that the correspondence between the holes in the items he examined on December 1st and his report and diagrams prepared back in 1986 were exact. The rust colored robe was photographed during his reexamination. That photograph, People’s number 101. During Luczy’s initial examination in 1986, he numbered the holes in the front portion of the robe (depicted in diagram, People’s number 96). Overland made another objection to chain of custody. The holes are numbered A1, A2, A3, A4.

Luczy testifies that he noticed a material deposited around holes number A3 and A4. Luczy described it. “There’s a very, very heavy deposition of unburned granules of gunpowder that surround those holes in that area of the robe.” (The front of the robe.) That finding was consistent with what he noted back in 1986. Luczy states what he was attempting to do was document what he saw on the robe in his 1986 diagram. He placed many little black dots around holes A3 and A4 to represent numerous burns or unburned grains of powder.

People’s exhibit number 102, a photo of the robe taken during the reexamination in 2009 documenting the tiny speckling, grains of unburnt gunpowder. They are still there after 23 years.

The presence of unburned grains of powder on the robe is significant as to distance determination, which is defined as the distance between the muzzle of the firearm in question and the surface upon which the residue was deposited; in this case, the robe.

Luczy states, based on his experience, there is a difference with respect to the about of unburned particles you would expect to find on a garment between a short barrel weapon and a longer barreled weapon. His opinion is the unburnt particles were left by a short barreled weapon. The length of the barrel in a firearm determines how much of the powder is combusted. Luczy testifies, “These grains that you see here are unburned and that is caused by the - - - by the fact that the firearm that produced this is a short barreled weapon.”

Luczy reexamined the hole designated as A2. A2 had a cruciform appearance, meaning there was tearing at the margins of the hole that is similar to a cross or star shape. This is an index of a contact gunshot would where the muzzle of the firearm is in direct contact with that piece of material. Luczy determined that hole number A1 next to hole A2 was produced when the portion of the robe number A1 was underneath number 2. In other words, the lapel of the garment was folded over and that hole 1 and 2 were created by one fire, one shot fired. Hole number 2 is indicative of a classic ‘contact gunshot wound.’

Luczy reviewed Dr. Selser, the coroner’s report, specifically what she documented in her report as gunshot wound number 1. The report indicates there was gunshot residue inside that wound indicating it was a hard contact gunshot.
Luczy determined that this was the same robe he examined back in 1986. He added his initials via a label to the robe in 1986. People’s exhibit number 103 is a photograph of the label attached to the robe.

Luczy now details his reexamination of the multi-colored robe in 2009. (It is much the same as his reexamination of the rust colored robe. He came to the same conclusions about the multi-colored robe in his re-exam as he did in 1986.) Luczy came to the conclusion that there were three shots fired through this robe. He based that on the grouping (of the shots) that he observed as well s the appearance of the holes that were created. More photos are introduced and analysis to back up Luczy’s conclusions. Luczy states the gunshot residue left by the muzzle blast leads him to conclude that the multi-colored robe was draped or wrapped around the firearm when it was discharged.

Luczy states that a linear gunshot residue deposit on the garment in one area is called a barrel cylinder gap discharge mark. A barrel cylinder gap is something that is unique to a certain type of firearm mainly a revolver-type handgun.

(I remember learning about this during the Spector trials.)

The barrel cylinder gap is a gap that is between 4 and 6 thousands of an inch in width, and this is a gap that the bullet has to jump. When that happens, there is blow back or blow out to the sides. It’s called barrel cylinder gap discharge. This phenomenon is present on the garment which indicates that the mark could only have been produced by a revolver.

Because of the location of the bullet holes in the multicolored robe, and the location of the barrel cylinder gap discharge on the garment exactly two inches away. That measurement allows Luczy to identify the length of the barrel of the gun involved in this crime.

With this information, Luczy attempted to align the barrel cylinder gap with an exemplar of a Smith & Wesson model 49 handgun. Photographs were taken of that alignment, People’s exhibit number 106.
In conclusion, Luczy states that the bullet holes and the barrel cylinder gap discharge was caused by a two-inch barreled gun, and that gun was a revolver.

Direct examination ends and cross begins.

Luczy verifies there are a huge number of revolvers manufactured with a two-inch barrel. Easily 2,000 different weapons.

Judge Perry asks questions of the witness and there is a confusion if Overland wants to know how many different models, or just Smith & Wesson's or overall guns. Judge Perry wants to know how many models of two-inch revolvers are out there. More than 10? Yes. More than 100? Luczy doesn’t know but states he could easily find out. Luczy agrees it’s a large number.

Luczy states that he was only asked to compare one model of weapon to the holes and residue on the weapon.

Cross is finished and there is no redirect. The noon recess is taken early.

Mr. Presby notifies the court that the defense and prosecution is trying to work out some stipulations as to some lose ends that are remaining, and they hope to get those completed tomorrow. Judge Perry responds he is “..jumping up and down with glee” regarding the news that both parties will probably finish the preliminary hearing tomorrow. Mr. Presby presents the next witness.

21. ELAINE SENA-BROWN
In March of 1986 Ms. Sena-Brown was employed by the Santa Monica Police Dept. She was not a police officer; she was a Community Service Officer and her duties were to handle non-emergency calls. She was not sworn; she is a civilian. As part of her duties, she routinely took reports. On March 9th, 1986, she took a report from someone who identified themselves as Stephanie I. Lazarus. People’s next in order is exhibit number 108, a four page document entitled City of Santa Monica Police Report. It’s a crime report.

Sena-Brown details the document. It was obtained on March 9th, 1986, on a Sunday in district 3. The reporting person was Stephanie I. Lazarus, who identified herself as a police officer. Lazarus was reporting a theft from an automobile of her firearm and some miscellaneous items. Lazarus gave Sena-Brown a description of the firearm. The report states the firearm was a Smith & Wesson model 49, two-inch blue steel five shot .38 caliber revolver. Lazarus also provided a serial number for the weapon which was noted on the report.

Sena-Brown wrote the entries on the report based on what Lazarus reported to her. The report indicates she looked at the vehicle but the witness doesn’t have any independent memory of doing that. The report states the driver’s side lock was “punched” meaning the lock had been tried (pried?) or attempted to be removed off of it’s normal seating. Sena-Brown states she is testifying based primarily on looking at the report and knowing what her custom and practice was back then. She does not have an independent recollection of the vehicle or any damage to the vehicle or of the person who reported it.

Direct ends and cross begins.

Overland has the witness detail the address location and the streets in between where the crime supposedly occurred. Back in 1986, Santa Monica did not take these types of reports over the phone. She would have received a call and arranged to meet the reporting individual at the station. In this case, she did not meet the individual at the location of the auto burglary.

During Ms. Sena-Brown’s interview with detective Jaramillo and Mr. Presby, she stated that whenever there was a burglary from an auto, she would request the victim to come to the station if they wanted prints. This was her normal practice. It’s noted on the report that an I.D. tech was requested, but she would not have any contact or report back from that technician.

A blue gym bag was also reported stolen as well as clothes, six music cassettes and currency and coin. Sena-Brown states she can recall one other incident where another police officer reported having their weapon stolen, two incidents if she counts Ms. Lazarus.

Overland reminds her of her taped conversation where she stated she could remember four reported incidents of officers having their guns taken. Sena-Brown concedes she probably did.

Cross is finished and there is a short redirect.

Sena-Brown states she does not have a specific memory of Lazarus specifically asking to take prints of the vehicle. She has no independent recollection if this was actually done. Based on her report she assumes that it was done but she doesn’t know if it was done or not.

Sena-Brown indicates that the location of the vehicle at the time of the burglary was five blocks from the pier and is a location that is commonly used for parking for people who want to visit the pier.

Redirect ends and recross begins.

Sena-Brown is asked more detail questions about the burglary location and it’s proximity to the 3rd Street Promenade where there are shops. Sena-Brown states in 1986 it was a lot different. The Promenade was not as well attended as it is today. Sena-Brown agrees that the location was also close to Santa Monica Place, once a large area with various stores, like a mall. It’s no longer in existence today but it was in 1986.

Sena-Brown states that if the individual decided they did not want to wait for a technician to print the car, they didn’t have to because that may take time to get the technician there. Sena-Brown states that if that was the case, she would have noted it on the report.

Recross ends and redirect begins.

Presby presents a map of the area where the burglary supposedly occurred. Sena-Brown states the area is actually four and a half blocks from the pier. She does not know if the person who initiated the report, remained to have prints taken of the car. After completing her report, if the individual changed her mind about prints being taken, Sena-Brown would have no way of knowing tat.

Further recross.

Sena-Brown states that back then, she would have just knocked on the door (to that department) and say she needed a technician to look at the car. She would do that at the time she made the report. She would either make a phone call or walk over to the department. She would not necessarily do that in the presence of the reporting individual. If she had cancelled the I.D. tech, she probably would have a notation in the report.

Examination ends and Presby calls and presents his next witness.

22. JIM NUTTALL
Mr. Nuttall is a homicide detective for the LAPD. He conducted a re-review of this case in February, 2009. In that review, he discovered the original theory of the case that was pursued in 1986, of a botched robbery conflicted with other information found in the file.

There are objections by Overland regarding the questioning and whether the answer would be “double hearsay.” Judge Perry rules that at this time it’s not relevant “why” the detective did something. He instructs Mr. Presby to just ask his witness what he did.

From a review of the original “murder book” Nuttall identified five females that were part of Ms. Rasmussen’s life at the time of the murder. They were given numbers 1 through 5.

On February 10th, Nuttall interviewed John Ruetten by phone that was not tape recorded. He conducted a second in person interview on May 20th, 2009. In the interviews Nuttall asked Ruetten about any possible females from his life in 1986 who might have had some animosity toward his wife. Nuttall made it clear to Ruetten they were reopening the investigation and that he wanted him to be forthcoming. Judge Perry interrupts and explains to the witness he’s offering too much information. He instructs the witness to listen carefully to the question. He repeats the question to the witness. John Ruetten gave him the name of Stephanie Lazarus. Ruetten told Nuttall he met Lazarus at UCLA, and that they had an ongoing relationship through the time of the incident in 1986. Ruetten told Nuttall that Lazarus was an LAPD officer at the time of his wife’s death.

Nuttall also investigated a woman by the name of Debra Hoey. Nuttall determined where Ms. Hoey lived in 2009 and arranged to obtain a surreptitious DNA sample from her that was submitted for comparison. Subsequently, he spoke to Ms. Hoey and she volunteered a DNA sample that was submitted for comparison.

In the interview, Nuttall discussed Ruetten’s relationship with Sherri Rae Rasmussen. Ruetten stated he purchased a BMW vehicle for Rasmussen about the time of their engagement. Ruetten was living somewhere in the San Fernando Valley at the time of his engagement. After the engagement, he moved into Rasmussen’s condo. Ruetten stated that after he moved in, the couple changed their security practices. They had an alarm installed that Ruetten paid for.

Overland wants clarified as to which interview the detective did where all this information was obtained. The information came from the face to face meeting with Ruetten.

Ruetten told Nuttall that he met Lazarus in his second year at UCLA. They were living on the same floor of the Dykstra Hall Dormitory. Initially, their relationship was “very good friends” and it continued after they graduated from UCLA. Ruetten described his relationship with Lazarus as a “gray area between a friendship and one-on-one dating relationship.” Ruetten stated they were never fully intimate while on campus together. After graduation, they became “fully intimate.”

After Ruetten became engaged to Ms. Rasmussen, he described to Nuttall a contact he had with Lazarus. Lazarus called Ruetten asking to see him. They met at Lazarus’ residence in Northridge. At that meeting Lazarus made what she wanted clear. She wanted to be “more than friends” she had strong feelings for Ruetten and wanted a romantic relationship. During the conversation Lazarus told Ruetten she was in love with him.

Ruetten described his activities on the day his wife was murdered. The woke early. Ruetten ran a morning errand and went to work. He left work to go to a nearby bank and then went back to work. He left work at approximately 5:00 pm. He made a stop on the way home and arrived home about 6:00 pm.

Arriving home, Ruetten noticed that the garage door was open, no cars inside and there was glass on the pavement. Sherri’s BMW was gone. Ruetten told Nuttall that Sherri did not have a bite mark on her body the day prior to her murder.

Nuttall also interviewed Rasmussen’s sister, Theresa Lane, in June, 2009 regarding any injuries Sherri may have had in the days prior to the murder. Ms. Lane had seen her sister the day prior to the murder and did not see any bite marks on Sherri’s body that day.

Ruetten informed Nuttall that Lazarus had never been in either of the two cars he and Rasmussen owned at the time of Sherri’s death.

(There is a question and answer here at this point in the transcript, right after the above question was answered that does not make any sense. Here is what it says.

“Q. Did you ask Mr. Ruetten whether or not the decedent had ever been inside the residence 7100 Balboa, to his knowledge, prior to the date of the murder?

A. Yes.

Q. What did she tell you in that regard?

A. She had never been inside the home.”

(It’s my guess there are two errors here. It’s my opinion the transcript should read “whether or not the defendant had ever been inside the residence.” The second error, I believe is in the next question, and should read “What did he tell you.”)
Ruetten told Nuttall that to his knowledge, Lazarus did not have keys to Sherri’s condo nor was there any personal property of Lazarus’ that he brought with him from Lazarus’ residence.

Ruetten stated that to his knowledge, there was no time where he, Lazarus and his deceased wife, were ever all together at the same time. Ruetten was very clear to Nuttall. He stated that during the initial investigation in 1986 “...he made it known to our investigators that Stephanie Lazarus was his ex-girlfriend and perhaps she should be spoken to.” Ruetten also clearly remembered following up with LAPD investigators in the 1980’s about Lazarus being a possible suspect.

(This is interesting. Presby wants to ask some specific questions of the detective, but Judge Perry feels the line of questioning for the preliminary hearing is not relevant. Judge Perry rules, “352,” but I will include it because it’s noteworthy to explain Ruetten’s behavior with Lazarus after the murder.)

“Presby: I think what detective Nuttall will say is that John Ruetten told him that he was told that Ms. Lazarus had been eliminated as a suspect. It’s relevant because it explains - - there are some post murder contacts between Mr. Ruetten and the defendant explains why he would have such contacts. You don’t care about that.

Judge Perry: 352.”

Ruetten told Nuttall that he did have contact with the defendant after the murder. Ruetten also stated that he told the defendant “face to face” that he had provided her name to police. That conversation took place in Hawaii. In that conversation, Ruetten told the defendant (that he told police) about his knowledge of Lazarus’ confrontation with his wife at Adventist Hospital in the fall of 1985.

Nuttall testifies that when Ruetten informed Lazarus about the police knowing about this confrontation, she appeared “...unfazed. There was no reaction or response.”

Judge Perry asks how Ruetten and Lazarus were in Hawaii together. Ruetten informed him it was by chance. They went to Hawaii independently.

Direct ends and Overland crosses Nuttall.

Overland questions Nuttall on the specific words he used in questioning Ruetten. Nuttall states for the record that he didn’t use the word ‘animosity,’ he actually said, “...anybody who may be involved in the investigation...”

Nuttall states that Ruetten never told him that he informed Lazarus about the gift of the BMW. Nuttall clarifies that it was an “engagement” gift and not an anniversary gift. Nuttall clarifies that the term “never fully intimate” means sexual intercourse. Overland states that they will continue with Nuttall’s term.

Nuttall states that Ruetten told him that any contact he had with the defendant after February 24th, Ruetten initiated. Overland gets Nuttall to concede that the word he used to describe the Adventist Hospital incident was “met with” and not “confronted.” Nuttall agrees there was a “meeting.”

Nuttall concedes that Ruetten stated he had “no direct knowledge” of the meeting. Nuttall states that Ruetten said, “...it was his fault, that he had confused the relationship between himself and Ms. Lazarus.” Ruetten had confused the relationship by being friends and at the same time being intimate.

Overland asks Nuttall about that incident where Ruetten went to Lazarus’ apartment. Nuttall states Ruetten told him that Lazarus was not angry or mad. That Lazarus thought this might be the last chance. Ruetten told Nuttall that Ruetten and Lazarus were intimate that night, and this was after Ruetten and Rasmussen were engaged.

During Nuttall’s interview with Ruetten, he told him that he hoped that June would be a deadline for resolving the case. Nuttall was not getting any pressure to resolve the case by June by anyone higher up in the department. With the resources Nuttall had, he had a good time frame of when he would have his answer.

Cross ends and Presby picks up redirect.

When Nuttall predicted a resolution to the case by June, he was expecting an answer on the DNA. At the time Nuttall had no idea if the DNA was going to identify the defendant. He thought it would either eliminate or identify her.

Overland has one more question on recross. When Ruetten told Nuttall he installed an alarm system, it was because there were burglaries in the area.

Ms. Torrealba presents the next witness who is not on the list.

23. MARIA TOMES
Ms. Tomes is a detective with the LAPD Robbery/Homicide Division, Robbery Special Section. She holds the rank of senior supervising detective. She has been with the department for 22 years. Tomes states she does know an individual by the name of Nand Hart-Nibring, a criminalist employed by the LAPD.

Tomes states that on June 5th, 2009, she was with Hart-Nibring and detective Dennis English were at the old LAPD location on Los Angeles street. English is a detective with Robbery/Homicide division. The defendant was also present. Tomes states she observed Hart-Nibring collect two buccal swabs from the defendant, also called oral swabs. Tomes described the steps Hart-Nibring took to collect a DNA sample.

Tomes states once the swabs were collected she described the steps he took to package up the swabs. During the collection, Hart-Nibring had on a facial mask, protective clothing and gloves. Once the collection was properly packaged Tomes states that Hart-Nibring booked the items into evidence under the proper DR number. The item number placed on the swabs was 51. Hart-Nibring prepared a report regarding the collection which Tomes reviewed.

Direct is finished and there is no cross of this witness. Ms. Torrealba presents the next witness.

24. ANDREA DILLION
Ms. Dillion is a forensic print specialist assigned to the Scientific Investigation Division of the LAPD. She has been in the assignment of fingerprints a total of 15 years. Dillion describes her training and experience and has already been qualified to testify as an expert witness.

Dillion worked on DR number 86-09-10480. She was assigned to work on comparison. The victim in the case was Sheri Rasmussen. She compared palm prints regarding the defendant. Dillion refers to her notes to state she compared prints on a package on June 8th, 2009, August 21st, 2009 and yesterday. She prepared a report of her findings, dated August 21st, 2009.

Dillion compared Lazarus’ prints to 18 lifts in Package “A” and 15 lifts in Package “B.” Package “C” was a photo of a latent print which she didn’t compare because it had already been identified. There were five latent prints in Package “D” four of them identified and one unidentified.

The contents of Package A, two pages is marked next in order, exhibit 111-A and 111-B. These are prints that were collected from the crime scene. And on the document, there’s columns that say, identifiable, identified and not identifiable.

Identifiable means, the print has been evaluated by the examiner initially before work is started and later on it’s (possibly) identified. She did not prepare this document. It’s a document that’s prepared in the field, by a field individual who collected the print.

She was asked to take the unidentified prints and see if she could compare them to the defendants. Overland concedes that there are exemplars of the defendant’s prints to compare to.

Dillion could not make a match comparison between Lazarus and any of the unidentified prints in Package A or Package B or Package D. She compared one print in Package B to the victim, #12, and it did not match the victim. Some of the prints were not able to be identified (classified as unidentifiable) because they did not have enough ridge pattern. Direct is finished and cross begins by Overland.

Dillion states that she did not prepare the form. There is a document log with a list of people who did previous comparisons on these exemplars prior to her employment at LAPD. She cannot speak to forms prepared back in 1986. Dillion explains she does a visual comparison of latent print to exemplar print. She does not use photographs. She does not take notes when she evaluates a print. Dillion states she takes mental notes comparing the land and groves between the two. If she comes to a conclusion and finds a comparison, then a report is generated. If there is no comparison then the print is marked as unidentifiable.

Before the next witness testifies, the defense makes an objection for the record in respect to comparison and analysis of the DNA on the grounds of the failure to establish a chain of custody. The objection is overruled. Presby recalls Detective Gregory Stearns and presents the witness.

16. GREGORY STEARNS (recalled)
In November, 2009, Stearns met with John Ruetten and showed him some photographs of rope, the same rope that was booked into evidence. (People’s exhibit number 43.) Stearns also showed Ruetten other rope photographs as well as photographs that were taken at the crime scene. Ruetten told Stearns that rope was not in his residence at the time of the murder. Ruetten focused in on the frayed ends of the rope and was certain it did not come from his home.

Direct is finished and cross begins by Overland.

Overland asks Stearns if he asked Ruetten how he knew (the rope did not come from his home) at the time of the murder. Stearns testifies that he never asked Ruetten that question.

In redirect Presby asks one more question but Judge Perry interrupts and asks his own questions. The rope was shown to Ruetten and Stearns asked him if he’d ever seen it before and Ruetten replied he’d never seen it before. That’s it for Stearns recall to the stand.

Ms. Torrealba calls Jennifer Butterworth.

25. JENNIFER BUTTERWORTH
Ms. Butterworth is a criminalist with the LAPD crime lab currently assigned to the serology DNA section. She’s been with the department for ten years. She describes her position states she’s been certified as an expert witness before approximately 25 to 30 times. She gives her background and training. Butterworth has been with the serology department about eight and a half years.

Butterworth performed DNA testing on items from Rasmussen’s case. She first performed DNA testing in December, 2004. She described the analysis performed at that time, which would have been presumptive tests for blood, nucleated epithelial cell searches using a microphone and then DNA analysis of particular items.

Butterworth explains the “four steps” it takes to go from an item like a swab to a DNA profile. The first step is DNA extraction. The second step is DNA quantification. The third step is P.C.R. amplification. The fourth step is running a sample using capillary electrophoresis on a genetic analyzing instrument.

(These steps are then described in more detail.)

Butterworth testifies that there were different types of kits available in 2004 verses 2009. The kits that the lab used back in 2004 (that are still available) consists of two different kits which combine target 13 genetic markers plus a gender marker. Currently the lab uses a new kit called identifier. It combines those 13 markers and adds another two for a total of 15.

The difference between the two is the 2004 kit came in two parts but the 2009 kit has everything in a single kit.

Butterworth prepared a single page report from her analysis in 2004, dated February 8th, 2005. It’s marked as People’s 17 for identification.

Butterworth, when assigned the case made a request first with LAPD property to request items to test for possible biological evidence. At first, there was difficulty locating the item with LAPD. When she had trouble locating it, she then contacted the coroner’s office and spoke to a technician. At some point she spoke to Dan Anderson. In January, 2005 she was able to obtain the evidence from the coroner’s office.

Butterworth identifies the photo of the envelope she received. She states that the photograph up on the screen, she took that photo. She points out her identifying information on the envelope. The next photo Butterworth states she took also. It’s item “30” from inside the envelope. The inner packaging and the two bite mark swabs. Butterworth identifies the envelope sealed by Dan Anderson and her identifying marks. Butterworth then identifies People’s #6, a photograph of the original evidence envelope and protruding red cap shown sticking out of it.

Butterworth is now shown a photograph, People’s #118, a photograph depicting an envelope and a tube. Butterworth took the photo #118. It’s the reverse of the envelope they just saw and the tube has been removed. Butterworth identifies the writing on the tube that is hers.

Another photo of the tube People’s #7; Butterworth testifies she took the photograph. It’s the same tube, rotated in the photo to see other writing on the tube.

When reading the other writing on the tube, Butterworth states she could make out the word “left” and maybe the first two digits of the coroner’s case number. Butterworth states she can make out the name of the decedent on the top of the envelope in People’s #6.

Butterworth now describes what she observed when she first opened the LAPD envelope and saw the old envelope for the first time. She noted that the package was torn. She described it as “ratty” and “torn” and recalls seeing the red part of the tube sticking out. By ratty, she meant not in mint condition.

When she first pulled out the tube from the envelope, she noticed that the label was a little worn and hard to read. Judge Perry asks the witness, “Otherwise the tube appeared to you to be intact?” The witness replies, “Yes.”

Butterworth then describes that she took a portion of one of the swabs, did an extraction, examined the cellular material using a microscope and then went on to DNA extraction.

Butterworth states there were two swabs inside the tube and they are physically attached to the cap and the cap screws into the tube. The swabs cannot move around inside the tube since because of being attached to the cap.

Butterworth found a DNA profile that was consistent with a mixture. There was a major female DNA profile on the swab that did not match the victim and there was a very minor partial extra alleles that were consistent with Rasmussen’s DNA profile. Butterworth knew Rasmussen’s DNA profile because she typed the coroner blood swatch.

Butterworth made comparisons (of this DNA profile) to other items collected at the scene that matched Rasmussen’s DNA profile. She prepared several reports detailing this analysis.

Butterworth then prepared a report on item 51, People’s 119. It’s the DNA report she prepared in June, 2009. This is the DNA sample that was obtained from Lazarus while she was in custody. Butterworth then compared Lazarus’ collected DNA to the “bite mark swab” and determined that they were a match. The combination of those 13 genetic markers “is expected to be found in 1 in 402 quadrillion unrelated individuals.” (That’s a 4 with 17 zeros.)

Butterworth also analyzed “brown speaker wire” and “white cord” (rope) collected at the crime scene. She tested the rope for blood and found it positive. DNA profiles found matched Sherri Rasmussen. In all the items she tested, the only item that had DNA other than the victim was item 30, the “bite mark swab.”

Direct ends and cross begins.

Butterworth indicates a specific date on her report, People’s number 117, September 19th, 2003 is the date the DNA analysis was originally requested by Robbery Homicide Cold Case Section.

This is the date that Robbery Homicide detectives submitted a request to a laboratory in general. She started working on the request in December, 2004. The request was sitting on another analysts’ desk and she volunteered to work on the request. On or about December 15th, 2004 she contacted the coroner’s office searching for the “bite mark swab” that was not in LAPD’s inventory.

It took a little over a month for her to receive the “bite mark swab” from the coroner’s office.

When she received the evidence envelope, Butterworth confirms that the original envelope was torn. Butterworth states that there is no seal on the cap of the tube. Overland asks her, “And all you have to do to open it up is just to unscrew the top or pull the top out; right?” Butterworth answers, “Correct.”

Cross is finished and redirect begins.

Butterworth states that when she opened the evidence, it looked like a “regular dry secretion swab.” It didn’t show any presence of mold or have any deterioration or color change on the swab.

When Butterworth looked at the cells on the swab under a microscope, she noted and evaluated quantity of “nucleated epithelial cells.” In the DNA profile obtained Butterworth states the profile was “robust.” She did not see any other DNA profile other than the major profile of the defendant and the minor profile of the victim.

Redirect ends and recross begins.

Butterworth states that the cells she found were skin cells. Those cells can be found on anything anyone touches.

Recross ends and redirect begins again.
Butterworth states that these nucleated epithelial cells can come from the mouth. There are large quantities lying in the mucous membranes of the body. Butterworth explains the difference between a mouth epithelial cell and a skin epithelial cell. In the skin cells, the nucleus is degraded and broken down. Those inside the mouth are much newer and they slough off more frequently. She describes them as the nucleus being more robust than what is a part of the top of the skin.

This is why when DNA is taken from someone, they take a swab from the inside of the mouth.

Redirect ends and there is no recross.

Presby informs the court there are no additional witnesses and they are going to work out some stipulations with counsel. Presby informs the court that although they do not concede the validity of the defense’s argument with respect to the suppression of the defendant’s statement, they are not going to seek to introduce that statement at the preliminary hearing.

This is it for December 9th, 2009. The hearing is continued on December 10th, 2009.

STEPHANIE LAZARUS QUICK LINKS

Casy Anthony Ordered to Serve 1 Year Probation

2011-08-12T09:55:00.000-07:00

BREAKING NEWS: (ritanita is on vacation and will update when she returns. Sprocket)

Judge Belvin Perry ruled today that Casey Anthony must return to the Orlando area by noon, August 26th, 2011 to serve one year of probation for her check fraud conviction.

WESH.com reports:

In his order, Perry cited a survey that found Anthony was the most hated person in America. Perry ruled that the department of corrections must keep Anthony's residential information confidential. Perry said in the order he did not want any information released that could lead to the discovery of her location.

It will be interesting to see how long Casey's residential information remains private.

Judge Perry's Ruling on Anthony's Probation

The Child Abuse Case that Keeps on Giving…

2011-08-10T21:40:00.000-07:00

And everyone thought the Phil Spector trial took forever to bring in front of a jury and resolve! The failed prosecution of accused child molester Dr. William Ayres makes Spector’s trial look like a speedy one! Ayres was originally arrested in 2007 and has been out on bail ever since.

I personally covered much of this trial the summer of 2009, which ended up in a hung jury on all nine counts. One count was hung 11 to 1—and that reliable hold-out juror was a recent law school graduate who believed nothing had been proven. I have no idea how she came to that conclusion, but then again, I have no idea how Spector I ended up hung or Casey Anthony ended up acquitted.

After noted defense attorney Doron Weinberg did the very best he could with a stinker of a case by managing to convince just one juror of reasonable doubt, the San Mateo County (San Francisco Bay Area, California) District Attorney’s office elected to retry Ayres, and the wheels were put in motion for a retrial. Ayres’ new attorney Jonathan McDougall proved quite masterful at the art of delay and delay tactics (and why not—Ayres remains at large on bail, living the good life, attending the opera in San Francisco, wandering the streets with his wife). McDougall’s most brilliant idea was to question Ayres’ competency to stand re-trial in the first place, and earlier this year, he managed to take his case of “poor infirm Dr. Ayres cannot assist in his own defense” in front of a jury to determine his competency. That trial ended in a hung jury as well, with the majority of jurors leaning toward Ayres’.

Meanwhile, a third survivor of Ayres’ psychotherapy with genital exam died by his own hand this past weekend. Earlier this year one survivor, Mark Doe, died from internal bleeding (complications of alcoholism) after being punched by his roommate. For Mark Doe, there had been numerous attempts at therapy as an adult. In therapy, Mark Doe stated that Ayres plied the then-13-year old with alcohol and drugs and told him, "If you let me do this to you, I will make sure you don't go to juvenile hall."

As always, I encourage readers to stop by Deep Sounding’s blog for the latest on this case. I have been asked to inform T & T readers about a strategy meeting to be held in Redwood City this coming Saturday, August 13, 2011, at 5 p.m. If you or someone you love is a victim of Dr. William Ayres "psychiatric services" at any time during his career (which started in Boston and continued in San Mateo County), you are encouraged to contact organizers of the meeting. This meeting is not a support group meeting—it is a strategy meeting for victims of Ayres to voice how they feel the case should proceed. Your anonymity will be fully protected at the meeting, and your voice will be heard. Please contact deepsounding@gmail.com or trapellar@gmail.com for information regarding the specific location.

The San Mateo County District Attorney’s office has not announced or made a decision regarding the continued prosecution of this case, even though the same six men who testified the summer of 2009 are all ready to take on round two of justice. Unfortunately the issue of competence must be resolved before the criminal trial can be re-heard.

There are rumors that Ayres has been seen out and about town, driving himself hither and yon, enjoying his life free from his crippling dementia. If any local residents have any Ayres sightings while he is out-and-about in the community, seemingly unimpaired, snap a photo and please contact deepsounding@gmail.com or trapellar@gmail.com.

Deep Sounding’s blog

Ayres thread on Websleuths

Warren Jeffs Sentenced to Life Plus 20 Years

2011-08-10T11:50:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Texas released Jeffs prison photo after his head was shaved.

Warren Jeffs booking photo, undated, AP

It is a relief to the T&T team that polygamy sect leader Warren Jeffs will most likely spend the rest of his natural life behind bars. Jeffs was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a 12-year-old "spiritual bride" and sexual assault of a 14-year-old "spiritual bride". (Some MSM reports have described her as 15-years-old; this specific victim bore a child by Jeffs at age 15.) Jeffs was sentenced to life in prison plus 20 years.

My real life responsibilities got in the way of researching this case, but I followed Jeffs molestation trial when I could through In Session's Beth Karas' reports on TV, and through her Facebook page. On August 3rd, my jaw dropped when Beth posted this on Facebook:

I just witnessed some of the most disturbing evidence I've ever seen (or heard) in a courtroom. It was a 20-minute audio recording of a 50 year old Warren Jeffs and a 12 year old child allegedly having sex in the presence, and with assistance, of several other wives of Jeffs. It allegedly occurred on August 7, 2006 on the FLDS's ranch outside Eldorado, Texas. The recording was the final evidence presented by the State. Jeffs says he wants to call witnesses. Court is in a recess right now.

That's right. Jeffs, tape recorded his rape of a 12-year-old. The tape recording was recovered after a raid on the Texas compound in 2008. Can you imagine sitting in the gallery, much less the jury box and listening to this evidence? One has to wonder why Jeffs tape recorded these rapes. Could it have been for Jeffs to 'relive' the experience, much like serial killers and rapists do when they take a trophy from their victims?

Once Jeffs was convicted, Beth reported on air that even more outrageous, damaging testimony would be heard in the penalty phase. At the time, I wondered, 'What could be worse than listening to a tape recorded rape of a 12-year-old?' Here's what Beth report on her Facebook page:

Among the punishment evidence to be heard by the jury (starting tomorrow): Jeffs's 78 unlawful "marriages," 24 of which were to girls under 17; that he presided over, or was a witness to, 67 other "marriages" to underage girls; that he presided over, or was witness to, more than 500 bigamist "marriages;" that he broke up more than 300 families by expelling husbands and reassigning wives and children to other men; and proof of 6 other alleged illegal sex acts (presumably with children).

The punishment phase of Warren Jeffs's sexual assault trial is winding down. Jurors heard an audio recording allegedly made in August 2004at the FLDS's Texas ranch. Jeffs can be heard instructing 5 wives that it is important to sexually pleasure each other in order to pleasure him.

Beth was right. The information in the penalty phase of the case was just as damming if not more so.

In Sessions had a video interview with Jeffs nephew, who claims Warren raped him when he was 5-years-0ld in a bathroom.

There are still thousands of people who follow the FDLS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) way of life. Putting Jeffs behind bars doesn't end the abuse that many more children will experience living under the repressive beliefs and subjugation of this religious sect. What will happen to this sect now that Jeffs is behind bars? There are MSM reports that an associate of Jeffs, Willie E. Jessop will lead the sect but others state that Jeffs brother Lyle will now take over. There are also reports that Jeffs will still try to lead from prison.

CNN coverage of Jeffs trial.

Casey Anthony Probation Hearing

2011-08-05T09:23:00.000-07:00

To quote Judge Belvin Perry, "This is a mess." Jose Baez, Frank George, and Lizabeth Fryer duked it out during the hearing this morning's hearing.

Baez started with a Ms. Finnigan the Florida Department of Corrections Probation Supervisor.

She received Casey Anthony case January 25, 2010. It was was entered in data base and assigned to a probation officer. On January 26, the intake supervisor received the case and which indicated that Ms. Anthony was sentenced to one year probation. The supervisor noted she was in jail, awaiting trial on another case. Her case was assigned to an officer who located Casey in the jail, Natalie Lewis went to the jail to instruct Casey on the terms of her probation.

She didn't recall if it was publicized in the news. She completed an intake packet. There was a special condition, that she have no contact with the victim, Amy Huizenga.

They monitored the case and checked each month that she was in jail. They checked her records for any problems in the jail because inmates can get arrested for crimes in the jail. During that time, Casey did not commit any other crimes in jail and there were no problems that prevented her release from probation.

Ms. Finnigan went on to say that any time a case is in jail, she decides if the case should be tolled (delayed) or not. Since Casey had another case, she decided not to toll it. She based her decision on the Department of Probation guidelines. She's been in that position for 28 years.

Usually, probation is not given on an indefinite basis. There is no provision in the policy for probation to be served "someday".

Ms. Finnigan stated that Casey was treated as any other probationer.

Baez then went on to mention the media coverage being a problem if she were to serve probation. Baez asked what precautions would they take to see she was treated like any other probationer.

Ms. Finnigan didn't know how to answer that question. She said that it would be possible she would have to and would be concerned for the safety of her probation officers as well, she is ALWAYS concerned about the safty of her people. She pointed out it would be a unique challenge.

Baez pointed out that Casey made restitution. The cost of supervision was waived by the department since she was in custody, not by Judge Strickland.

January 24, 2011, Casey was dismissed from probation and they sent her a form letter. A letter was also sent to the victim, Amy Huizenga. She also said that if Casey had written a letter of apology, it would have violated her probation.

Frank George then spoke for the state. He asked what the purpose of probation was. Ms. Finnigan to protect the community, as it is a community-based service. It is not intended to watch people in custody.

Baez objected to George's next question. Judge Perry allowed him to ask it even though Baez had a point. Ms. Finnigan indicated that the purpose is to supervise those already released from custody and assist them into reentry to a law-abiding life style. It's purpose is to help them assimilate back into the community.

George then asked if it is not a normal practice to supervise a probationer while in custody?

Ms. Finnigan indicated that it happens on occasion when there are subsequent dockets. They could have additional cases and be on probation for the first one.

George then asked it it was a requirement of probation to report every 30 days? Yes Was it a normal condition to pay the cost of supervision? Yes (We know Casey did neither.)

According to Ms. Finnigan, after Feb. 2, 2010, nobody went out to the jail to supervisor her. They merely checked to see if she was still incarcerated.

George then asked if probation could begin at an unspecific time? The witnesses indicated that it was true, especially because the release date from prison can change. George also got her to agree that the words "upon release" have meaning. Those cases resolve themselves at different points in time. It's not so confusing or spectulative that you wouldn't know when probation would begin. While the last question confused Ms. Finnigan a bit, she did indicate that there is a mechanism for them to know if probationer has reported within 30 days of release.

George also asked her if parolees are seen outside of their monthly reporting dates. Finnigan stated that parolees are classified as maximum, medium, or minimum and that decides how often their parole officer sees them in the field.

Costs was waived because Casey was incarcerated. There would be no way for her to violate terms of probation unless she attacked someone or committed some sort of crime in jail. Or contacted the victim.

Baez then brought out that at time of probation, she wasn't under sentence, but she was under possibility of violation by her office.

Judge Perry then asked about the issue of tolling. Did she ever contact Judge Strickland about that? She said she hadn't. He also asked her if she was familiar with a number of cases (Jones (2007) Bradley (1998), Savage, (?). Ms. Finnigan said that she was only familiar with Savage.

With the conclusion of testimony by the witness, Lisabeth Fryer made a number of arguments to the judge. She spoke as fast as usual, but managed to get the gist of her arguments. She mentioned the Judicial Cannon 3B2, a direct slap at Judge Strickland.

(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

Fryer continued by saying the issue is moot on several grounds. First was that the issue came from previously disqualified judge. (I would tend to disagree with that. Judge Strickland was the judge who accepted the plea deal and did the sentencing in question. He did NOT recuse himself from the fraud case.)

She also cited lack of jurisdiction because the court loses jurisdiction 30 days after the decision.

The sua sponte decision was written by a disqualified judge. His oral order was not followed up in writing with a motion concerning the issue.

The State Attorney unofficially stated she had served her time.

Ms. Fryer then went on to cite case law at a rapid pace and I missed a lot of her references. Such items as the 1ssue of double jeopardy (most of which dealt with erroneous jail sentences). separation of powers, and so on. One remarkable comment was that, "The disqualified judge's displeasure is not a problem for the judiciary." Another issue was that The Department of Probation did consider if it could be tolled and decided it did not.

Fryer went on by stating that Casey's acquittal could not affect her sentencing. There was no previous attempt by the State to challenge the decision. Judge Strickland was in the media and is vindictive. Casey was not serving a sentence and there was no certainty to when she would be released. It would be inappropriate to toll based on DOC policies.

Finally, Judge Perry asked if she reviewed the sentencing transcript? Fryer said she didn't, but she saw the video.

Perry handed out transcripts of the hearing to everyone and referred to page 5 of transcript, lines 16-23. He pointed out that long before he was recused, Strickland reserved decision. Mr. Baez felt strongly that Casey would be acquitted and Judge Strickland said he would withhold, follow by one year probation when released.

Perry asked her what obligation, if any, would he or she have once he or she knew that the written pronouncement differs from the oral pronouncement, what responsibility does he or she have to inform the court? What obligation does the defense have to notify the court? Can a judge, on his own volition, correct a scriveners error to give the sentence that he announced in open court which no one appealed for whatever reason?

Perry went on to the issue of double jeopardy (Brown v State) and pointed out to Ms. Fryer that a probation order is NOT a sentence. A sentence can only been given with the adjudication of guilt.

Perry then stressed this is not a cut and dried situation. Casey was not serving a sentence. She was given time served. He also noted that when people are erroneously placed on probation while being incarcerated they really can't function on probation. (All Casey had to do was not attack anybody or contact Amy. That's not real-world probation.)

Perry then indicated that the judge's oral pronouncement was not followed. They knew she would complete one year upon release.

Ms. Fryer said that the defense WAS aware of the situation, but it wasn't their burden. It was up to the State to prove it. (Notice, she never answered the earlier question about the defense's responsibility to report errors to the court, considering they are all Officers of the Court.)

Then, Ms. Fryer blasted Judge Strickland's bias and his recent appearance in the media.

Judge Perry disagreed. Strickland imposed sentence and probation BEFORE that all came up. He also asked if there is a time limitation to correct the scrivener's issue?

Fryer avoided answering that question as well and simply indicated that Strickland no longer had jurisdiction over that case. She then rambled on that Casey hadn't violated probation, she had completed probation, and so on and so on ending with the statement that Strickland made a correction that she serve a second period of probation.

Perry again asked the question that, as an Officer of the Court, doesn't counsel have the responsibility to report errors? Fryer again threw the responsibility back to the State. He then asked if the State even knew she was serving probation. Then, he went back to the oral order in court by Judge Strickland. "It's a mess, go home Ms. Frye!"

Perry said that her strongest point is that of jurisdiction and the ability to amend the scrivener's error. Ms. Fryer stated, "This is done, this is over." Perry kept saying that probation is not a sentence! She was given time served and probation. Perry again pointed out it is NOT a sentence. (Yes, we were listening to them repeat themselves by this point.)

Judge Perry then opined that it is a legal maze

Frank George then spoke. Here is the short version of the points he made:

It's bad public policy to allow people to serve probation in jail. This supervision was in name only. She was in PC, her only obligation was not to attack anybody or escape.

Another jurisdiction says she has successfully served probation.

They discussed time frame for correcting a scrivener's error. Judge Perry brought up the case(Drumright v Fl)

Gave more legal citations.

Judge Strickland was merely correcting a scrivener's error.

Oral pronouncements trump written.

George ended by saying they would leave the decision to the court.

Perry then asked George when the State of Florida learn the written pronouncement was different from the oral pronouncement. When did they learn she had been placed on probation?

George said he learned of it when Judge Strickland corrected the error. When that case was resolved, he received no documentation about the probation.

Perry then asked his position on administrative probation?

George said that he had none and mentioned that there may not even be a statutory provision for administrative probation.

Judge Perry said that he didn't know.

Ms. Fryer said they have wide latitude and that administrative probation was the only practical solution. She went on to state that they were back to Casey having to serve probation TWICE!

I believe Judge Perry pointed out that time waiting in detention was release, she was not serving a sentence. (Actually she was, retroactively.)

Ms. Fryer brought up that if Casey were to have to serve probation, if there would be an opportunity to discuss the difficulties in dealing with her "unique" situation. Perry agreed.

At that point, the hearing was finished. Judge Perry indicated he could find no similar situation in Florida law and would have to do a nationwide search.

According to InSession, we shouldn't expect a decision from Judge Perry until late next week. He is taking over Judge Adams docket for the present and has to deal with his cases.

Stay tuned to T&T for any developments on this situation!

Watch the hearing:

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3