Kelly Soo Park Verdict Watch, Day 8

Kelly Soo Park, pretrial hearing 2012

NOT GUILTY OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER!
UPDATE:  At 10:38 AM, the jury buzzed three times, indicating they have reached a verdict on second degree.

8:14 AM

Up on the 9th floor.  There was a long line at the 9th floor security station.  The sheriff's deputies were a bit late in getting the security station staffed.  I apologize for not getting to your questions yesterday. If you still have questions after my last update last night, please leave your question again.  Those who wish to write me privately can do so at sprocket.trials AT gmail.com.

I have to thank T&T readers for the high number of page views on the blog yesterday (over 15,300). This is the highest single day views since the Phil Spector verdict was reached on April 13th, 2009.  Thank you everyone for reading T&T.  It's because of your dedication, and your feedback on T&T's trial coverage that keeps it going.

Last but not least, thank you for your donations.  Every single donation is appreciated.Your donations help to pay for my trial coverage costs.

The Redding family is here. Patricia Redding's best friend came from Arizona.  There are lots of hugs and greetings being exchanged.

8:24 AM

DDA Stacy Okun-Wiese and her support staff arrive and greet the Redding family and friends.

Park and her husband Tom Chronister were also waiting in line on the 9th floor.  Their group is down at the other end of the hallway.

8:29 AM
We are waiting for the doors to open.  We won't know until Judge Kennedy takes the bench what counsel will argue in regards to the remedy for the jurors.  If you remember, the jurors asked for additional instructions on first and second degree murder. I have no idea what additional instructions could be given to the jurors.

8:33 AM
Inside Dept. 109. Terri Keith from City News is sitting to my left.  Luz from Dateline is to my right.  Greg Fisher is here as well as other familiar media faces.

8:34 AM
Our local broadcast news reported that Judge Kennedy "refused" to take the jurors verdicts yesterday.  That's an interesting headline, and in my opinion, does not accurately.

On the record.
I given a lot of thought what the state of the record is, and I think that at best, it's ambiguous. On that verdict form (for first), they wrote a note about two jurors not following jury instructions.

After inquiring, the jury provided a noted.  Requested further clarification of 520 on page 10

Because they asked for information that relates to the greater and lesser charge.  The note they sent back, doesn't answer the question of the court.

Judge Kennedy thinks the completed verdicts is ambiguous relating to the jury question.

Buehler.
Request to also give the jury and admonition that the court did not intend to influence them in any way by the courts questions.

That's fine.


JK: I'm just saying that the information is ambiguous.  When the court has a statement like that on the verdict form, I have to inquire.

Judge Kennedy did not expect to get this response from them. I will inquire as to the greater charge and see if the note does refer to the lesser included.

I can barely hear Buehler.

My concern is, the way it was handled yesterday, without (input?) of counsel, it basically sent a message to the jury that the court was unhappy with the verdict. I don't see how the jury can interpret that any other way. It creates an atmosphere of coerciveness.

Mr. B. The jury wrote this note not me. I don't tell the jurors what to write.  They've written several notes.  It is the courts duty to inquire.

It appears they had a legal question, about both verdicts.

I have a lot of faith in jurors. I don't feel that my responding or asking them for clarification that telegraphs to them what their verdict should be, at all.  I will tell them again. And I mentioned that yesterday.  I am not trying to influence their verdict in any way.

If they are requesting clarification, it is the court's duty to provide that.

SOW If the court is going to inquire about the (?) is the court also going to inquire about the juror misconduct?

They didn't exactly say that, but not following the jury instructions is jury misconduct.

I think the point is to provide them with further instructions and then wait for them.  For them to at first say that 2 jurors aren't following instructions, but then to ask for instructions....

Our first position, is to find out from the jury what their position is.

My first inclination was to add some further argument.  My other idea, is to perhaps look at CALJIC for jury instructions on second degree.

SOW: I just don't see how they could have reached a verdict on count 1, and then send a question out about clarification on (first and second).

(It's ambiguous and the court agrees.)

Judge Kennedy leaves the bench.
The DA's clerks quickly leave the courtroom.

Park and her counsel leave the courtroom.

I'm publishing without trying to check spelling. Please be patient.

8:51 AM
Some jurors file in. 

8:53 AM
More jurors file in.  The alternates are standing by the door, waiting to let the clerk or bailiff know they are here.

The bailiff tells them, "Stay close."  And they all exit the courtroom.

8:57 AM
More people enter the courtroom.

I apologize. I'm not typing very fast today. I missed a lot of what the judge and counsel said.

8:58 AM
Buzz! The jurors are all present and deliberating.

9:00 AM
Pretrial hearing in another case.  A defendant in an orange jumpsuit is brought out.  A group of young women, most likely interns or clerks with the DA's office enter.

9:01 AM
People v. Kevin Hayley (sp?)
Status update on this case. 

9:03 AM
More Park supporters open the courtroom door and peek in.  Park and Chronister motion to them to enter and sit in the back row.

9:04 AM
Next hearing in Hayley case held over until July 3rd.

Judge Kennedy passes the CALJIC instructions to defense and prosecution in Park case. Tells them, You might want to take a look at them.  Judge Kennedy leaves the bench.

9:06 AM
The court is going to inquire of the jurors again. That's my understanding.  The feeling of the court so far is, that the communications  the jurors have given the court so far  (note added to signed envelope of reached verdict; the jury question filled out later) is ambiguous.  The court is going to ask the jury "if their signed verdict form reflects their unanimous decision at this time."  The court will also inquire for more information on the alleged jurors not following instructions, which the court acknowledged is, jury misconduct.  The jurors didn't actually "say" juror misconduct.

9:12 AM
Court is in session.
What the court is going to do thought is ask the jurors to respond in writing (so they're not out here in open court asking, is that your verdict) so they can respond in writing that is their verdict. So then we'll go forward from that point.

Bring the jury out.

JK: Yesterday based upon the communication we had, I believe there is an ambiguity in the record and I want to make sure the record is clear. I want to preface my remarks by reminding you the portion of the instructions where, pg 15 3550, It is not my role to tell you what your verdict should be....
continues to read .

As you know, you returned a signed verdict form. And it had a question and comment written on it, and I asked you to respond to that and you sent us a jury question.

An enhanced definition of second;  further clarification of first and second degree murder.  What that question seemed to possibly indicate to the court is, you still had questions about legal issues regarding the charged greater offense.

What I want to do is to make sure the record is clear. What I want to make sure is that you verdict signed today, is your verdict... And to make sure, that verdict form is your unanimous verdict .

The only reason is because of that question, in the comment.  So asks them to return to the jury room and (complete that task).

9:18 AM
Judge Kennedy leaves the bench.

9:19 AM
The jury buzzes twice.

9:21 AM
The AP reporter enters and tries to find a seat.

More people enter.

The note is retrieved by the bailiff and shown to Judge Kennedy. Now counsel are going over the note.

Counsel return to their tables.

Juliana's friend, Kelly Duncan enters and sits by Juliana's brother.

9:24 AM
Counsel are called to the clerk's desk.

I hear the words, "So you want both of them?" I think the clerk asked that of counsel. That's what I believe I heard.

9:26 AM
The bailiff goes back to the jury room with an envelope and a paper.

9:28 AM
We don't know if the jury did reach a unanimous verdict yet, because of the added note/comment.  I thought it was on the envelope, but I could be mistaken about that.

They have responded with a written note, answering that question for the court. We still have to hear what they've communicated.

9:31 AM
Three buzzes!

BUZZ! BUZZ! BUZZ! at 9:32 AM

The bailiff inquires, then comes out.  He tells the court clerk, "About five minutes."

It's my guess that the court would want several more bailiffs in the room.  It could also be, they need to get the alternates.  I don't know.

9:35 AM
The clerk makes a call and asks them to come back up.

9:37 AM
Please be kind in your comments about jurors. They are working hard.  It would be speculation at this time to comment on whether or not a juror will be replaced.  Juror misconduct hasn't even been asked about by the judge yet.

9:38 AM
More bailiffs enter.

CALJIC are the old jury instructions. There was jury instruction reform, (I believe in 2007, but I'm not positive) and CALCRIM instructions replaced them.  Judges can use either set of instructions for jurors.  I believe Judge Perry in the Lazarus case used CALJIC. 

9:40 AM
Bailiff: We are missing one alternate juror.

CALCRIM vs CALJIC.  Trying to find information for you.

9:43 AM
On the record.

The jury has said they have come to a conclusion to the question as to count 1 so we are going to bring the jury out.

Jury brought out.

Mr. foreperson we provided you with a blank verdict form and have completed it and dated it.

That is correct.

Hands that to the bailiff.

Judge opens the form.

Ask the clerk to read the verdict as to count 1.

Verdict:

Not guilty of murder in first degree.

Yes their verdict.

The clerk polls the jury.

All the jurors have answered.

Now with regard to lesser included, we are now going to be in a position to answer your questions... so I ask you to return to the jury room.

K: Now all jurors have left the courtroom.

The people would like to argue.
Defense feels argument would be inappropriate.

Defense would like to poll the jury to see if further deliberation would be (necessary).

9:48 AM

The jurors questions are not specific. They are general questions.

If they come back with a more specific question.

JK: These are specific questions.

An enhanced definition of second degree. Further definition of first and second.

Buehler doesn't agree.

This court has on occasion, had further argument limited to the issue, and the issue is, first degree and second degree.  Obviously they found not guilty of first degree.

There appears to be a lack of understanding as to the difference between first and second degree.

So the, court is going to follow the option of limited argument on the issues contained.  If the defense doesn't wish to argue, you don't have to.

Defense feels that is argument should not be about the instructions.

Judge Kennedy states, the people can divide up their time, all ten at once, each side has 10 minutes.

Just relate it to the issue that the jury has put to us.

Then ask them to continue their deliberations and then try to reach a verdict or tell us if they cannot reach a verdict.

Buehler states the jury did not ask for argument.  I fear that again, the message sent to the jury, that the court is not happy .... ...they need more help.

I would assume the court would open it up,

Their whole question is dealing with difference between first and second degree murder.

GB:I don't see what they have in mind. So I object.

The people are ready to proceed?

SOW: Yes, if I could just turn on the elmo.

JK: Let's let the jury out.

9:54 AM
The bail bondsman, Josh Herman arrives.

9:54 AM
In response to your note, the court has elected to have the attorneys address you. I've limited it to ten minutes on the issues of first and second degree murder.

At the conclusion of those comments, then I will ask you to continue your deliberations to see if you can reach a verdict or if you are unable to do so as to the charge of second degree murder.

9:55 AM
All murders in California start at second degree. Expressed or Implied murder. There are two separate ways to reach second degree murder.   First degree murder also requires premeditation.

Let me go back to second degree murder  because your focus is on that area.

First way can reach second, is when there is an act that causes a death of another.

Explains malice aforethought.

1. The defendant committed an act that caused the death of another.
2. The person had malice aforethought.

1. Expressed malice.  That's an intent to kill.

(If I) point a gun at Detective Thomas, it is an intention to kill.
Aside and completely apart from that is ... second form of malice aforethought is (implied).

Because sometime,s it's not that clear from the evidence of expressed malice, and that's (implied malice).

The law recognizes this type of malice aforethought,

1. The defendant intentionally committed an act.

She placed her hands around Juliana's neck and it caused Juliana to die.

That is implied malice.

2. The natural and probably consequences of the act was dangerous to human life.

3. At the time she acted the defendant knew (what she was doing).

4. Acted with conscious disregard to human life.

It means you know what you are doing is causing serious injury to human life and you do it anyway.

You understand there is a harm to human life and you do it anyway.

Common sense tells us that choking another human being (could cause death.)

Mentions turning the stove on that could have caused an explosion... throughout the entire complex.

She knew what she was doing. She was trying to get the apartment to explode.  She knew what she was doing but she just didn't care.  It was to cover up the crime... and cover up evidence left at the scene.

Those are the four elements of implied malice.

There are two ways to reach second degree. Expressed malice. Is an intent to kill.  Implied malice is  (like just explained).  That the defendant had the state of mind to convict her of second degree.

It's the peoples position that when the defendant placed her hands around Juliana's neck, the defendant intended to kill her. She beat Juliana up, prior to killing her. Mentions Dr. Pena's testimony.

This strangulation occurred, after that b eating. When she placed her hands around Juliana's neck, it's clear, that she wanted Juliana to die.

If you don't think it's expressed malice, then look to implied malice.

Mr. Buehler. You used your entire 10 minutes.

We (know?) you're working hard on this case.

What you heard, is argument. The attorney has no authoritative word, on what expressed implied malice means, as applied to the facts, as you find them.

The prosecutor has given you her version of the facts, and what that means, under the instruction.

Second degree murder, does require a high level of evidence.

I submit to you, there is a whole lot of uncertainty as to what happened to Juliana in the apartment.  Even if the prosecution proved that Kelly Park was there, there is still a lot of questions as to what actually happened.

The prosecution relies heavily on DNA evidence.  You've heard, that the DNA evidence leaves a lot of questions.  It was the prosecutions expert that said, there's a lot of uncertainty as to how it gets placed and transferred. She could not say if that DNA got transferred from someone else.

There are a lot of unanswered questions.

Questions about why Park's fingerprints are not all over that apartment.

Questions about why others DNA was not there.

Prosecution has a whole lot of questions that are left unanswered in this case.  If there is a question about what happened, or have differing opinions and views ,as to what happened, as to the meaning of instructions, ... you go back to instruction 220, a defendant is presumed to be innocent.

Under the instructions and under the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. I submit to you, that there is no such evidence.

Judge Kennedy reminds them that all of the instructions do apply. They are asked to return to the deliberation room, to continue your instructions.

Jurors have left the courtroom.
10:11 AM

10:15 AM 
I've tried to edit my spelling.  The courtroom is almost empty. Many people have left.

The court is now on the record in the bench trial.

The defense team, Park and her husband are having a conference in the ante chamber.  Chronister informs the bailiff where they are then leaves. 

10:19 AM
An alternate juror was not put on the jury. That is incorrect. That did not happen. When counsel argued again to the jury for 10 minutes each, all the jurors, seated panel and alternates must be present.

The jury reached a verdict on the greater count, first degree.  They are now going to deliberate some more on second degree.

10:27 AM
I stepped outside for a moment to take a break.

Inside Dept. 109, testimony continues in the bench trial.  The defense has called another RN who interacted with the defendant.

10:31 AM 
Park, the bail bondsman and a few supporters, reenter Dept. 109.

10:32 AM
A few of Juliana's supporters enter.  A moment later, Chronister enters and sits beside Park in the back row.

10:33 AM
Answering a comment. I don't believe involuntary manslaughter can be added at this time.  Not when the case has already been given to a jury.  If that happened, I believe that would be an error by the court to allow that.  That could be grounds for an appeal.

10:36 AM
I stepped outside to stretch my legs and check the hallway.  The hallway is full. There are many jurors from other cases as well as supporters for each side.

10:38 AM
Buzz! Buzz! Buzz!
We have a verdict!

People file into the courtroom.  More media has shown up.  LA times reporter Jack Leonard arrives.

10:41 AM
There's a bit of bustle in the courtroom. More bailiffs enter.  Judge Kennedy admonishes a deputy because his radio is going off.

The Redding family is in the first seating row.  Several new bailiffs enter and tell people to put their cell phones away.  I see the pretty bailiff who was in Judge Perry's courtroom for the Lazarus case.

The bench trial witness on the stand is excused.

The defense counsel has been notified, but it's not clear if they are still in the building.

The jury deliberated an additional 30 minutes before reaching a verdict. Major Crimes Department Head Gary Hearnsberger arrives.  More DDA clerks and staff arrive trying to find a seat.

All this commotion is going on while a witness in the bench trial is trying to testify.

Until the defense and prosecution get here, the bench case will continue.

10:50 AM
The bench case continues.

10:53 AM
When I stepped outside to update, Judge Kennedy's bailiff was coming in.The bailiff told me to stop updating my blog.  That my coming and going was causing a distraction.

Defense attorney Mark Kassabian arrive about a minute ago.

10:56 AM
Judge Kennedy interrupts the bench trial for the Park case.

There are a ton of bailiff's in the ante chamber. I was told again, when I stepped into the ante chamber by a bailiff there, not to update.

10:59 AM
The jury is present.
Jury has reached a verdict.

Ask clerk to read the verdict.

NOT GUILTY.

The friends cry.

This is their verdict.  Juliana's friends sob.

I don't see Mrs. Redding face.

Now free to talk to anyone or no one.

As far as the court is concerned, we protect the identity of jurors. Your identity is sealed, and will not be disclosed.

If you choose to speak to anyone about this case. You are under no obligation to speak to anyone in this manner.

I'm told that you are requesting to leave privately, and not through the public hallway. The judge will accommodate that and the sheriff's will provide means to do that.

Again, I want to thank you for your service in this manner, and you are excused.

If they want to leave privately, just step back into the hallway.

At this time bail is exonerated. Defendant is discharged.  Thank you.

Juliana's friends left the courtroom.

As one family member passed they said to me.  "This is wrong. It's wrong, and you tell them that."

Or maybe I got that wrong and she said, "You write that."

11:13 AM
According to the Public Information Office, the Redding family and the Park family do not wish to speak to the media. speak to the media.

Mrs. Redding said something when the verdict was read but I did not hear it. 

There were outbursts from Redding supporters but I did not hear exactly what they said.

Jurors left via a freight elevator.

11:17 AM
Park and her husband leave the courtroom escorted by deputies.

I'm still amazed by the turn of events.  I'm still shaking from the events inside the courtroom.

12:30 PM
I'm back home now.  As you can imagine this has been an exhausting experience. After three weeks, I'm ready for a break.  I'm not going to publish any comments until later tonight after I've had a bit of rest and time away from my computer.  Thank you for your understanding.

As a reminder, here is T&T's comment policy.  At emotional times like these, it's very important to remember that friends and family members of both sides are reading. Please keep that in mind when posting a comment.  I will not publish any comment that is offensive or disrespectful to Juliana Redding or Kelly Soo Park, or their families. T&T is not obligated to publish your comments.

I recommend LA Time's Jack Leonard's report on the reading of the verdict. The LA Times comment policy may be more liberal than mine.

Thank you again for reading.  I'll be back online tonight or tomorrow. Sprocket. 

Statement by DA Jackie Lacey on the People v. Park verdict.

Video of Reading of the Verdict on Local NBC 4 

KCAL 9 News Reading of Verdict with gallery outbursts