Friday, May 17, 2013

Kelly Soo Park Day 5, Prosecution Testimony Resumes

Kelly Soo Park at a previous court hearing.

UPDATE 6/1: This post was edited to place the entries in chronological order for easier reading. Sprocket.
UPDATE 5/18 12 Noon. clarity

7:59 AM PT
Court ended yesterday with the playing of an audio tape.  This tape documented an event in the case that occurred in June 2010. Armed with a court order, Santa Monica detectives went to Ventura County to collect the fingerprints of Kelly Soo Park.  They informed her who they were and that her name came up in the murder investigation of Juliana Redding. Park was not under arrest at the time. However, because Park would not cooperate with the court order, she was arrested by Ventura County deputies and taken to the nearest jail facility where her fingerprints were obtained.

Towards the end of the audio tape, I happened to glance over at Park.  I believe she was dabbing her face with a tissue, near her eyes.  I wasn't sure of what I saw, so I continued to watch Park.  She appeared to dab a tissue to her eyes a few more times.  At one point, it appeared she rubbed her fingers under her eyes.

I have to admit that I can not be certain as to what I observed. Although my seat is close to the well area of the court, I am at the other end of the courtroom from Park by the jury box.  

In Judge Kennedy's courtroom, the families of the parties involved are given priority seating.  The family gets to sit where they want. The media gets the back row or the seating along the side wall adjacent to the jury box.  The other disadvantage is, there are only two electrical outlets in the room for me to use my laptop.  One outlet near the entry door along the back wall, the other at the opposite end of the gallery on the same wall.

Court resumes today at 10:30 AM.  For those of you interested in attending a portion of the trial, the media has thinned out quite a bit so there is plenty of public seating available.

10:31 AM
I'm inside Dept. 109.  Along with Park's husband, there are ten other family supporters here for Park. There are smiles and hugs all around for the new faces I've not seen before. Park smiles at some people who are sitting near me.

10:34 AM
Juliana's friends and parents enter the courtroom.  Park takes her seat at the defense table next to Buehler.  the prosecution team has not arrived yet.

10:43 AM
DDA Okun-Wiese and her clerk arrived a few minutes ago. The witness at the end of the day yesterday entered the courtroom and will take the stand in a moment.

About eight people are here to represent Juliana Redding.  Less than a handful of people are here from the public.  Lonce LaMon from is the only other person here from the press that I recognize. Sue from CBS and Luz from NBC make it into the courtroom a bit later.

10:52 AM
Judge Kennedy calls for the jury.

10:54 AM
An additional three girlfriends of Juliana enter and sit with the Redding group in the first row.

Buehler starts cross of yesterdays witness.

17. Michael Bambrick -cross examination
He was in a Ford Crown Vic unidentified car. It was dark gray, with tinted windows.

Had a partner with you?
Actually two.

The witness describes the police vehicles. Detective Thompson enters Dept. 109.

So three black cars, with tinted windows. He was in a suit and tie, along with the other detectives. One car blocked the entry to the parking lot.

Someone was taking pictures. Doesn’t recall his name. It was a Ventura County deputy. 
Why wasn’t it video taped?
I don’t know.
Your purpose was to record the event, to get her reaction?
You’re asking me what the intention was? The intention was to serve the search warrant.
You knew she would be arrested at some future time?
At some point in time.

Buehler states that the whole event was orchestrated  to just get Park’s reaction. 

Buehler states the witness never showed the defendant his badge.  The witness insists he did.  Asks the witness to turn to the third page of the transcript. The witness claims that when he asked if she was Kelly Park, he was showing the defendant his badge.

Buehler reads from a page of the transcript. “I will give you my business card so you can know who I am.”

Buehler, challenges him that he did not show the badge, but only gave her his business card, that the transcript doesn’t reflect that. The witness answers back that the video only records the audio, it doesn’t record the visual. Buehler insists, that there is nothing in the transcripts that supports he did this. Several questions are objected to (asked and answered) and calls for speculation, and there are sustained.

It didn’t surprise him that Park wanted to call her attorney when confronted with the search warrant.  Witness states that several times in his 18 year career he’s executed a search for fingerprints.  He’s executed search warrants for a house when there are not uniformed officers present.

Doesn’t your office have a police to take care, about certain things you should do, when confronting someone when you’re not in uniform?
I don’t understand what you’re referring to. We’ve done search warrants both ways. 
You don’t take any precaution, to ensure that person knows you’re a police officer?
Objection! Relevance!
Confronts him with a section of the Santa Monica Police Manual, and ask him if he recognizes it.

Do you recognize that?
For the most part.
So you’re familiar with that policy?
For the most part.
This policy addresses the situation when police are working in plain clothes?

More questions, statements from the policy for avoiding situations that could escalate into confrontation.

Questions him about procedure in searching a house, and if he would let that individual call an attorney. The witness replies, "No."

The real purpose was to make her afraid, was it not?
You keep saying other reasons, what are they?
Investigative techniques and tactics.

Accosting someone, that’s something you would usually do?
You always operate in this manner?
I wouldn’t say I accosted. 

The witness states that he’s not in “plain clothes.”  He operates on a daily basis in a business suit.  It’s his regular attire.  He doesn’t wear “plain clothes.” 

Buehler continues to cross him on how the serving of the search warrant was carried out.  States several times, that he did not show the defendant his badge.  The witness states he did show his badge.

Buehler confronts him if that is a “common” practice to obtain fingerprints that way, by rolling them on the hood of a car.

I don’t know what you mean by common. It's too complex a situation. It depends on the circumstance.

Buehler goes over the transcript with the detective as to what was said, and that his client didn’t believe him.  “This is a joke, right?”  And later, “I think you’re scaring me.”

Do you agree that if you had shown up in uniform, or had someone in uniform, it would have put Ms. Park or any citizen at ease?
Objection, calls for speculation!

She was cited for willfully disobeying a court order.  It went before a judge and the judge threw out the case.

11:28 AM
Another friend of Juliana enters the courtroom and sits in the back row.

Judge Kennedy finally tells Buehler to, “Move on.” Buehler keeps asking these questions on the record. They are all objected to and the objections are sustained.

Cross ends, redirect begins.

Can we see your badge, please?  Indicating for the record, he's holding up his badge with his business card on one side.

Asks what type of information his business card has.   The witness reads off of his business card. Wiese asks that the card be entered into evidence. Judge Kennedy asks the witness if the card has an image of a badge embossed into it.

That was the card you gave to the defendant? ... She asked how he knew she was at the animal shelter. How did you know?
Through Detective Thompson.
Were you aware that there was a wire listening device on the defendants phone?

Questions him on the procedures to go to someone and take a DNA sample.  Asks about his regular business attire and vehicle that he uses as part of his job.

Questions him if he recognized the part of the manual the defense showed him.  There is nothing in the manual that requires him to take a uniformed officer with him. He explains that situations where he would take a uniformed officer to execute a search warrant are usually situations where weapons or gangs are involved. When taking DNA sample from a warrant, they may or may not take a uniformed police officer.  Serving a search warrant and taking someone into custody are totally different events.

There were uniformed officers in the area. He didn’t feel uncomfortable contacting her.

Questions him about manual procedures again.

I think you are confusing the intent. That’s primarily towards undercover officers.  Referring when one officer is stopped by another.

Buehler states that he did not offer his supervisors name and number to the defendant to verify his identity.

Has the officer explain situations where that would apply.  Confirms that Park did not ask for his supervisor's name and number.

End witness.

18 David Enriquez

Santa Monica PD  patrol unit. He's been an officer for 26 years. On Jan 13th, 2009, he stopped a vehicle. It was a Porche. The driver was Munir Uwaydah.  (Like me, the witness had trouble pronouncing Uwaydah's first and last name.) The car was registered to Paul Turley, at Frontline Medical.

He pulled him over for using his cell phone while driving. He had a valid license (or document) and then he had a fraudulent or fake license.
An image of two California ID type of cards is put up on the screen. The top image looks like a California driver's license.  The second card, says "Second ID" and is not a driver's license.

On the back of the "Second ID" document, it says to contact “Kelly” at a specific number

Officer, you seized two different cards.  One is regular valid...

The card that is on the top, that looks like a driver’s license, was fraudulent.
Next ID is called a SECOND ID, at very bottom, it says, not a driver’s license.

It says it’s a photo identification card.  It’s the back side of that card, that refers to a person named Kelly,

There were two different birth dates on these cards, is that what alerted you?
He actually said it was fake when I recovered it from him.
The witness is excused. Another girlfriend of Juliana enters and sits with Kelly Duncan, the second prosecution witness.

19  Felicia Burke

She used to go by Felicia Gardner(sp?)?

She is employed as a forensic scientist at the Orange County Crime Lab. I believe she states she worked there since Dec 2001.

Originally started in forensic alcohol section.  Now is in the DNA section.

Explains what her job is and her duties. Explains her background in regards to training and DNA Explains the process of DNA analysis and how it begins.

She met with detectives when she started the case. Originally met with Detective Lewis.  Then met again with other detectives at a later date. Doesn’t remember which detectives were in the meeting.

Received evidence from the evidence source location in the DNA laboratory. Explains the steps to get the case evidence, their evidence control unit and who has access to evidence locations.

At the crime lab where she works, crime evidence is tracked by a number called an FR number, (forensic report) number. Then the case can also have item numbers, for different pieces of evidence. The FR number is assigned by evidence control or by a clerical unit.  Also explained when she gets evidence it’s sealed. Explains what sealed means to her, that it includes initials and date.

After examining the evidence, do you prepare a report?
She was not the only examiner on this case.
FR # is 0843964. ... At that time we were still using evidence tags.

People’s 52.
Identifies an Orange County Sheriff’s Coroner evidence tag on the envelope. Explains how these blue stickers are generated.

I find that interesting that the city of Santa Monica contracts with the Orange County Coroner's Office for their forensic testing, even though the city is in LA County.  It's probably has to do with who will give the city of Santa Monica the best contract to process their evidence.

The LA County Crime Lab is a large building where the City of LA and LA County Sheriff's each have forensic labs.  There are a few locations within the building where equipment is shared, like the DNA lab on the 3rd floor, but for the most part, their evidence storage and work areas are completely separate.

Judge Kennedy calls the lunch break.


Anonymous said...

Oh Sprocket, I love reading your reports. The testimony so far is so clear and dry it seems like they will finish much sooner than four weeks. Does it seem that way to you?
My question is about the defendant. Since she is out on bail, I presume she arrives each day like you do, goes through the metal detectors and waits for the door to the courtroom to open. How is law enforcement ensuring that she will not skip town? Does she wear an ankle bracelet or anything?
Thanks in advance and thanks so much for covering this trial.
Wise Latina

Anonymous said...

I have to say: excellent coverage. You are doing an amazing job! Keep up the good work.

I would love to see a bit more of your personal impressions and/or thoughts regarding presentation of evidence, counsel's questioning, and its effect on you.

Sprocket said...

Anon @ 4:22 PM
Judge Kennedy told the jurors that they are ahead of schedule. I didn't quite understand "when" she said the case would end, but it might only be three weeks of testimony and deliberations verses four. I'll try to get that verified on Monday.

Anon @ 5:22 PM
The evidence has been well presented. I have to say that so far, the prosecution has been presented their case .

The defense did try to attack the credibility of the detective who executed the search warrant for the fingerprints. Although a lot of the questions Buehler asked the witness were objected to and sustained, he still got those questions in front of the jury.

We have yet to see how well the defense does on cross examination of the DNA experts who analyzed the final data.

It seemed to me that Okun-Wiese did a very easy to understand presentation of the DNA evidence, but that could be because the information is old hat to me now.

Sprocket said...

Wise Latina,
I'm sorry I missed answering you earlier. Park is out on 3.5 mil bond. She is under GPS ankle monitoring. Last year, a cell phone started beeping very loudly in the courtroom and Judge Kennedy was having a fit about it. Turns out, it was Park's monitoring system where, she had strayed too far from the monitor she must have had to carry with her. She was at the defense table and she left her bag in the gallery. It went off during a pretrial hearing!

If the verdict is guilty, Park will immediately be taken into custody.

I have to say that she has had quite a bit of support from her family. Many people come to court to support her. It is unknown if they all believe in her innocence. They may though. Stephanie Lazarus's family believes she is innocent.

Anon @5:22 PM
It remains to be seen what the defense will be since much of what the defense was relying on has been ruled inadmissible by Judge Kennedy.