Friday, April 17, 2015

Cameron Brown 3rd Trial, Day 15 - Prosecution Case Continues

Photo taken of Cameron Brown, at Lomita Sheriff's Station
On November 8, or 9, 2000.

UPDATE 4/19 final edit for readability and clarity

UPDATE 4/18 Note: A Witness List has been added to the Quick Links Page

UPDATE 4/17 PM editing for clarity, readability, accuracy
Friday, April 17, 2015
9:40 AM
There was an in camera hearing in Judge Lomeli's chambers this morning.  Counsel and the court reporter just came out. Brown was brought out. The jury comes out of the jury room. The jury was in the jury room because the court provided them bagels and doughnuts. The jury thanks the judge.

There are several students here from law school, covering the trial today. The people call their next witness.

Do you know Sarah KeyiMarer? Yes. She was my next door neighbor. Back in 2000. In addition to Sarah, did you know the entire family? Yes, I did.

Do you have a daughter? What is her name? MD. Back in 2000, how old was MD? She would have been about seven, I guess.

In addition to neighbors, we grew as friends. They would do barbeques together, meet out front and have conversation. At some point he learned that Lauren was going on unsupervised visits with her father. Identifies the defendant. 

Were you ever present when the defendant would come pick up Lauren? Yes, quite often. Did you ever hear Sarah say anything negative about the visits? No. Did you ever hear Sarah say anything negative about the defendant in front of Lauren? No.

On those occasions, could you describe Lauren's reaction? She was very hesitant to want to go with him? How would you know that? She would stand behind her mother and hang onto her. She was a pretty timid child.

Did Lauren ever cry and act sad? Did you see any other reaction besides [that]?  She would cling onto her mother and basically, didn't want to go. You could tell by the action of the child. It appeared [that way to him]. [Court helped with this questioning.]

Did you ever hear Sarah to tell Lauren to act that way? No.

About how long did you know Lauren? I'd say about 2.5 years. I got to know Lauren real well.

Did you ever see Lauren at play with his daughter? What would Lauren like to do? They would play in the back yard of my home. There was a play house, a tree swing, a play set. Lauren would be in the playhouse playing with the Barbie dolls, away from the other kids, where she would be safe.

Sarah was next door, but he was supervising the kids. Hum asks about the activities that Lauren would do. I believe Hum asks about the tree swing? Lauren would never go on the tree swing. Even when the other kids were around, you could only push her gently on the regular swing. She wasn't rough house or adventurous, not by any means.

If the other kids outside were playing too rough or rowdy what would she do? She would come in the house and park herself next to me. She wouldn't have anything to do with it. Sit next to me like she was a part of me. Wanting to be safe.

Did your daughter have a Barbie jeep? Most kinds in the neighborhood had them. Lauren didn't want nothing to do with those things. She didn't even want to sit in it.

The witness is asked to describe his relationship with Lauren. She was my little buddy. When I would pull in [the driveway in his vehicle], the first time, she would, she was kind of running up and down the grass area, never close to the street where it would be too daring for her. I stopped and told her she needed to stand there like a soldier and [wait while I] park my truck, and [then when he got out] give me a hug. When she started trusting me, she would come over, and stand there like a little soldier, wait and then hug my leg, and then go back off and play with the other kids.

In what you knew about Lauren 2.5 years, observations, etc., would Lauren ever go near the edge of a cliff? No.

Direct ends. Cross begins.

Good morning. Back when Sarah Marer and Mr. Brown were going through the family court proceedings, you wrote a letter of support for her? Yes.

The reason you did that, is you have a strong feeling of allegiance with Ms. Marer in relation to the custody and child support? [You wrote the letter to support Sarah?] I had, I wrote that letter basically for Lauren.

There was a incident when Mr. Brown came to pick up Lauren, there was dispute about whether she would ride in the front of back seat, do you recall that? Yes.

In the dispute, Mr. Brown had started to put her in the rear seat, fiddled with the seat belt, and then asked Lauren if she wanted to ride in the front? I don't recall it that way. Brown was putting her in the front seat, and her Mom didn't allow that and then he put her in the back seat and he did fiddle with the seat restraints.

You talked with police on December 5, 2000. At that time, do you remember what you said? Not exactly. If you would look at [your statement]. The witness states that he had brought some papers, I believe a copy of that statement with him. Laub brings the papers to him.

The witness reads the document.

I believe the court asks, if there a particular question you want to ask him about, rather than have him read the entire thing? Well, it's a sequence of things.

The witness reads.

Was the sequence, what happened on that specific date, Mr. Brown came to get Lauren? Yes, he came to get his daughter.

He started to put her in the back seat, and fiddled with the seat belt? You're trying to change it up.

He tried to put her in the front seat to begin with? [Miss answer.]

Laub reads from the transcript. The witness agrees that's what he told police.

The witness states, that Sarah said to Mitchel in a soft voice, she leaned in and said Lauren doesn't ride in the front seat.

In response to Sarah's statement, .... Laub pauses. [I'm lost here.] He told Lauren she didn't have to listen to her mother.

Lauren said that her mother didn't allow her to ride in the front seat.

Cross ends a redirect begins.

Was there anyone with the defendant? There was a lady with him.

Isn't what the defendant actually said, to Lauren, "Tell your mother to shut up. You will do what your dad says now." Isn't that what you said Brown said, and it was put in quotes? Yes.

Redirect ends and recross begins.

The letter that you wrote in support of Ms. Marer, in family court, this is the way you described that incident, you wrote, Sarah Key-Marer, I witnessed on the 31 of October, stood on the sidewalk, while Cameron and Patty Brown picked up Lauren.  Laub reads from the letter. I can't keep up with the speed of his reading.

There is some back and forth, between the court, Laub and DDA Hum objecting.

The court asks the witness, how does that impact your statement? The witness doesn't understand.

Another question is asked and the witness states, I was there when he told Lauren that he didn't have to listen to her mother, that she was with him now.

Laub now goes to his prior testimony. The court states, "This reading is now unbearable. Let's move along please."

Mr. DeGraff, isn't it true, you very much in your testimony today, would like to see Mr. Brown convicted of these charges? Yes.  And that influences the way you are remembering things? No.

So do you have a reason, ... [miss the rest of Laub's question.] The witness responds: I've testified twice already. And both times I've testifying as I did now. And he told Lauren she didn't have to listen to her mother. She had to listen to him.

Cross ends.

Mr. Hum looks at his papers, and says that Mr. Graff has already answered the question he was going to ask.

The witness is excused. The prosecution calls Jeane Barrett.

What's you occupation? Fire Captain LA Co. Fire Dept. She's worked for the Fire Dept. for 16 years.

In the summer of 1994 and 1995, she worked as a lifeguard, for the Fire Dept., in Manhattan Beach. She met someone who is in court today. She met Cameron Brown. Identifies the defendant.

How is it that you came in contact with the defendant? I surf a lot and we met surfing. She was 22 at the time. She and the defendant started going out. They were boyfriend and girlfriend, about 1.5 years.

How frequently? It would depend on whether or not she was in school. In the summertime they saw each other more. In school year, back and forth. Weekly, maybe.

In late summer of 1995, did you plan on moving out of the country? [Yes.] In Jan, 1996. She was going to Chile, and she was going to continue her studies in Spanish immersion. She told him she was moving, she didn't want to be in a relationship [while traveling and out of the country].

It upset him. We fought over it. He cried a few times, as did I. After you told the defendant you didn't want to be in a relationship did you continue to see each other? Yes.

At some point, sometime around Christmas or New Years, did you have a conversation with the defendant where he was very emotional and crying? He called me to tell me he had gotten a woman pregnant, and he was upset.

What did he say about that? He said he wasn't ready to be a father.  Did he tell you anything else? He said she was English or British, and wasn't sure she was going to be able to remain in the country. I remember something about a visa, and that's about all.

What was your reaction about that? I was upset. I told him that we were going to break up. I didn't realize he was seeing someone else. I don't remember if we argued, I told him I was very upset about it.

During this time, when you and the defendant were dating, did you see him emotional on a few occasions. Would you describe yourselves as emotional people? Yes I would saw we were.

Direct ends. Cross begins.

First, thing about when you say fighting. When you told Mr. Brown you wanted to break up to move on to travel?You used the word fought. There was never any physical? [Correct.] It was just verbal?  Yes, just verbal arguments.

When you were spending a lot of time together, what were the kind of things you did? We did a lot of outdoor things together. Surf, riding, biking. Was Mr. Brown very much an outdoors person and he enjoyed sharing those things with you? Yes.

You don't have any person knowledge of what Mr. Browns relationship was with Lauren? I have no idea.

When Mr. Brown would get teary eyed, and cry with you, it was always something that happened in private, without other people around? Yes.

Also visited with his father and his grandmother's house and spent time with his mom? The time I spent with his parents was at his grandmother's house.

Did you ever see anything with Mr. Brown's parents that seemed out of the ordinary? No.

It seemed to be a normal loving relationship? Yes.

As part of your work as a firefighter paramedic, you've had a chance to see people going through different experience at displaying a wide range of emotions? Yes. And you've seen some people will become very hysterical?  Yes. And other people, some people just shut down? Yes.

Cross ends. Redirect begins.

Did the defendant tell you that his dad worked for the CIA? Yes.

You said that as far as you knew, he had a normal relationship with his family? [Yes.] If you were aware that he had filed a [statement] under declaration of perjury, that his family had disowned him, would your opinion of his family relationship, that it was normal, would that change, that he had made this claim? That would surprise me.

If that had happened would you think that he still had a good relationship with his family? No.

Redirect ends and recross begins.

What you observed, was that he had a loving relationship with his family [at that time]? [Yes.]

The thing about Mr. Brown saying that his father was in the CIA, did Mr. Brown tell you that his actually father owned a company named Cable [Industrial, ?]? Is it possible that what he was telling you? Obj. Sustained. 

There is some back and forth with the court, Laub, and DDA Hum as to the relevancy of Brown "may have" said about his father's company/employment, and what may have happened later.

The court asks: You remember him saying CIA? Yes.

Laub asks if she has any other details beyond that? No.

The court asks that the jury step into the jury room for one minute.

10:27 AM
The court has the jury come back in.

 People call Jon Hans.

How old are you? I'm 52. Are you married? Yes. His wife's name is Lisa. They live in Breckenridge, Colorado. Hans started living there in March, 1983. He worked at a place called Horseshoe Restaurant in the 1990's, as a dishwasher. and met someone there in Breckenridge in the 1990's. I believe the witness identifies the defendant.

How did you meet the defendant? He met him while hiking up to his cabin. A friend introduced them on that hike. He and Brown became friends.

Hum asks about their friendship. It endured for 18-20 years their friendship.

Describe it. We were very good friends, I considered him a brother. When we were together we were always having fun.  Considered having him as the best man at your wedding? That's correct.

He had a cabin. Cameron had a cabin. They would go hiking, four wheel driving, backpacking, had beers together. Hanging out.

Brown's family had given him a car, a [Suburban?], and they took a road trip from Colorado to California. I believe the witness states this was when Brown moved to California.

During the road trip, did the topic of having a child come up? Yes it did.  Tell us how that came up? I had been to a party, and there were four other guys there. At the party, the topic came up of, how many of the guys had gotten someone unexpectedly pregnant, unplanned, and they had a child.

Hans brought this discussion it up on this road trip to California and Cameron mentioned to him, that Brown had a child with a girl [he had dated?]. He wanted her to have an abortion. But she decided to keep the child, so he had a son.

In the party discussion, the pregnancies were unplanned. Hans was the only one who did not get someone pregnant.

Hans is asked what Brown said about that pregnancy. He told me he wouldn't have any obligations. It was done. He had no connections. It was in 1989, on their road trip, that Brown said this.

At some time in 15 year later, Hans learned that the defendant had been arrested. [How did he learn?] My sister told me she saw it on the news.

After Brown was arrested, Hans is asked about a phone conversation. He had a phone conversation with the defendant, where Hans brought up the conversation they had in the car, on that road trip in 1989.

Yes, at the time, Brown had been in jail for a while. What was that conversation? I mentioned that other child. And he got [really] defensive and totally denied that other child. And that's when our relationship started changing.

Did he talk about people listening in on the call? Well he had told me about that earlier. He told me he was concerned that they were taping all his conversations.

The defendant had told you not to say things on the phone to say things because they were listening? He had informed me that everything, that they were recording everything, that he was in jail and would have to face a trial and he was very cautious.

And at some point during these conversations did he tell you to be careful what you should say? Obj. Over ruled.

What did he say regarding his reasons for saying that? I don't remember a specific thing, I felt he knew he would be going to trial and [not to discuss?].

And did he tell you [miss rest of question]...

Objections to strike answers. Strike.

What specifically you do you recall about not talking on the phone because the conversation being recorded? I remember it being in conjunction, that he thought the police were putting people in with him, to get him to talk and that he was being recorded.

Laub moves to strike. Over ruled.

Now go back to the trip to California. How did you get back to Colorado? He had two friends that were out [in California] at the same time so he got a ride back with other friends.

Shortly after Brown moved to California, did he tell you where he was living? He sold his Suburban and had purchased a sailboat that he would live on in the harbor.

They remained close. Still considered him like a brother? Yes. And based on your interaction with him, that he felt the same way? [Yes.]

They still saw each other after the move to California. Since Brown worked at the airlines he had free flights. Brown would travel to Colorado and the witness would come to California. When Brown went to Colorado, Brown would stay with him.

Brown brought Sarah to Colorado on a trip with him. Hans remembers her. It was in winter time. Brown and Sarah were on a ski trip.

What do you remember about Sarah? I liked Sarah. She was a pretty girl; she was a lot of fun. I liked her accent. This was the only time he met Sarah.

Shortly after you met Sarah, did Brown discuss Sarah? He called and told me he had gotten Sarah pregnant. Was he happy, was he sad, how did he seem? He was pretty bummed out about. it. He was sad.

Could you tell that by the way he was talking to you? He was resigned to it.

You have children Mr Hans? Yes sir.

Did you tell people when your wife got pregnant? Objection. Sustained.

DDA Hum asks Hans to compare Brown's reaction to becoming a father, to his own reaction. Brown's reaction wasn't anything at all like he felt. He was excited and scared but it was awesome. Did the defendant tell you he tried to do anything? He suggested he tried to get Sarah to have an abortion.

After this conversation, were there issues in contacting the defendant on his phone? At a certain point he changed his phone number, because he said he was being hassled by Sarah. My best recollection, he changed it two or three times.

Did the defendant ever call you and tell you when Lauren was born? He did not. Did you get a birth announcement? Negative.

During that time he had gotten Sarah pregnant, he told you about trying to get her to have an abortion, did you still consider each other brothers? Yes I did. And it seemed to you he felt the same way? Yes.

When did you find out that the defendant had a daughter? I don't remember the exact time that it was, I just remember that, I think it was when he mentioned that he had to make payments. He brought it up.

So, to the best of your recollection, the first time you found out that he had a child was when he was making child support payments? [Yes.] Tell us his demeanor. It seems like it was a real drag to him. How did, ... what made you think that? Just his tone of voice and like it was a hardship to make payments.

Let me ask you this Mr. Hans. ... characterizations. [There's probably some objections and the court steps in to ask their own questions.]

Court asks a question. He didn't tell me how much he was paying. He had this kid he didn't want and it seemed like a burden. The court rules the last part is stricken.

Did you ask the defendant maybe nine months later, hey what about your kid? Hows that thing going or any of that? I don't think I did. Is there a reason why? Well, I felt bad about it now. He was my friend and I didn't want to, ... it seemed like it was his business. I wasn't his dad or anything.

At some point, other than Sarah, did you meet other women that the defendant dated? Yes I did. I met at least a few. At some point did you meet the defendant wife Patty? Yes I did. When you met the defendant's wife Patty, were they married at that time or do you not yet remember? I'm not 100 percent certain,

If you're estimating, or believe? To the best of my recollection they had gotten married and then [we? I?] met them. It happened really quickly.

Photos shown to Laub.

Group of two photos marked as 102.

Is that Patty the defendant's wife? Yes, that looks like her.  [These are photos of Patty I've never seen before. She's much younger, and her hair is blond. She looks thinner than she is now. This is not the Patty I've seen in court over the past seven years.]

Was there anything that struck you as different about Patty, that was different than any of his other dates?

Mr. Laub asks for a sidebar. Sidebar over.

As regards to activities, the other girlfriends [you've seen] enjoyed with Brown verses Patty? Yes sir.

Tell us the difference in activities. His wife seemed very nonathletic, and his other girlfriends were athletic. And this was also what the defendant told you? Yes.

Not to be indelicate, but what else? I thought the other girls were at a different level of attractiveness, at least to me.

DDA Hum asks if he knew the name of Brown's daughter, or when he learned it. I didn't know what the daughter's name was, until Patty came into the picture.

Did you know before Patty came into the picture that he was unhappy about [? ? ?] Patty came into the picture? I believe so.

You knew he was making child support payments but didn't know the child's name? Correct.

Do you recall the second time you met Patty? It think that was the time when they came to Colorado.

Was there a particular conversation that you recall, where you, your wife and Patty were present? Yes. Did that conversation stick in your mind? Yes. We had taken a little walk behind my house, we stopped on the walk and sat down. Why did you stop and sit down? I don't remember why, but we ended up stopping.

Tell us how you were seated. Who was where? My wife was on my left, Patty was on my right, Cameron was sitting to her [Patty's]  right. Did Patty start to speak, did you turn and face her while she was talking? I was looking at her while she was talking to me. He could also see the defendant.

What did Patty say? I believe that Laub objects but it's over ruled. She said that Lauren's mother, had been abusing little Lauren and that they were going to get full custody because she was in a dangerous situation. They had taken Polaroids of Lauren.

I believe DDA Hum asks what Brown was doing as Patty spoke. I could see him across from Patty staring out to the woods and he wasn't making any eye contact with me.

Did the defendant say to you, that they were going to get custody? No. Did this strike you as odd? Yes.

[Why?] Because [in my] mind Patty had just came in to the picture and he's not having any interaction in this conversation. He was aloof. He wasn't going along with it.

I believe Mr. Laub objects as to whether or not Mr. Brown could hear what Patty was saying.

He appeared to be listening? Yes. Was the defendant closer to you than [he or Patty would be] to the judge? [Yes.] Distance is stated.

At the time Patty was making these statements, was your relationship still the same, like brothers? Yes.

Did it seem odd that she was making these statements and not him? It seemed strange to Hans. It was like Patty was behind the whole thing. It was just strange to me.

Now, shortly after this conversation, where Patty was making these statements, within a month, a couple months, did you receive a phone call from the defendant? Yes I did.

The defendant was pretty happy and excited, he and his wife were looking into purchasing a trailer park thing and go camping and leave your stuff, near Mojave and they were going to have a business and have partners. He was excited about the move and they [Hans and Brown] would be closer and they could do some stuff.

Did you question him about the move? And I asked oh you must have gotten custody of Lauren? I  assumed they had gotten custody because they were going to be leaving.

So they got custody, and they were going to move to Utah? No. He was going to sign over custody to the husband of Sarah, so that would free him up. He wouldn't have the obligation anymore and he was very lighthearted and excited.

11:00 AM
Judge Lomeli calls the morning break.

Laub and Brown remain sitting while the jury exits. Everyone is asked to leave the courtroom.

11:16 AM
For the last 15 minutes, there is an exparte hearing with the defense and the court. This is quite unusual for the defense to have an ex-parte meeting with the judge in the middle of a trial.
11:25 AM
Back inside the courtroom. The defendant is now back in custody. We are waiting on the court. Judge Lomeli is speaking to his clerk and bailiff in the back rooms.

The witness is asked to retake the stand.

The judge states, "Jury walking" and Brown and Laub stand. The jury enters behind me. Judge Lomeli tells the jury they are going to try to recess at three today. Going to try. No promises.

Patty and Brown were going to move to Mojave. He thought they had gotten custody of Lauren. Your testimony was no, and Sarah's new husband was going to adopt Lauren? Correct.

Do you remember specifically what was said? It was a legal thing, that they had to work it out. How did he sound on the phone? He sounded very relieved and excited.

Did you once the defendant told you about this offer and process that was going on, did you ask about the allegations about Lauren being abused? No I didn't press it further.

There was a reason why you didn't press it? On that day that we were sitting in a row, his wife and I went home and Brown and Patty went off another way. I told my wife at the time that I didn't believe it was happening, and that it was a story that Patty was just saying so they could get custody and not pay child support anymore. In my mind, after I heard the different news, I told my wife, "See it was a lie," and that's why I didn't press it further.

Again, within a relatively short period of time, a few months later, did you receive something in the mail? Yes I did. We got a little card, it said, the loss of our angel. It looked liked Patty's writing. That's all that it said. It was a little hallmark bereavement card. It had an angel on the top.

Was there any photo of Lauren? No. Was this the first you knew, of Lauren's death? Yes.

At the time that this happened, did you still consider your relationship with the defendant the same? Yes. Did it seem strange to you that you found out this way, other than by phone? Yes, it did.

After soon getting the card, it might have been that night, I called their house to find out what happened because of how sad I felt.

Did any time from the time you got the card, until you heard the defendant was arrested. Did the defendant ever tell you personally, about what happened? Negative.

Did you personally ask him? I didn't really press him. I called the house. Cameron might have been at work, I spoke with Patty. Did you ever ask the defendant himself, in person or on the phone? I don't recall asking him.

Did the defendant ever tell you? No, negative.

After you received this card, and before he was arrested did you have contact with the defendant? Yes. He went to California and visited him and Brown visited Hans in Colorado.

Brown never said anything about Lauren's death. He thought that was odd.

At the time that this was going on, you still thought of him as a brother and still thought he thought the same about you? I did.

Did you still keep in touch by phone as well? I did.

Did you see the defendant in person, did he ever seem to be sad or upset or remorseful, about Lauren's death? No, not really (when he saw him in person.

During your entire relationship with the defendant, had he discussed personal things with you? Yeah. I can't remember specifics, just we were really good friends. They discussed personal things with each other.

Now, at some point, you found out the defendant had been arrested? Yes, I did.

After he was arrested, he still continued to speak with him.

Can you tell us about how many times you would speak on the phone after he was arrested? How much total, per year or per month? I can't give you an estimate, my wife paid the phone bills, she would say they were expensive. After the arrest, he still supported him [Brown].

At some time that changed. What caused it to change? Finally I found out where Lauren died, and I looked at the photos, and I looked at the story in the grand jury transcript. It rocked my world.

After you received all that additional information, did things take on a different [perspective?] It all fell into place.

At some point, did someone encourage you to talk to the police and tell them what you knew? Objection, what he knew? Over ruled.

Well, there was a lady. It's along story, I had written a letter in support of Cam when I was his friend. Once this [additional] information came out, I asked the person [on the support Cam Brown web site] to take his letter off, and to remove his letter. He wanted his letter taken off, so I didn't know where to go, so I went to another web site, to these people that had another web site. I told them I no longer support this person [Brown].

One of the people that I never met, [on this other web site] they said you might have more information, and that you should contact the police. I didn't know what to do. It didn't seem that easy to me. It was just exchanges on the internet. I just wanted to make my point.

At some point after this information was on the internet, he received a phone call. It was from Detective Leslie. Detective Leslie told him he would like to speak to him. Two people showed up. Craig Hum and Detective Leslie showed up at his door in Breckenridge.

The day before we came to speak to you, did you receive a message from the defendant? Yes I did, and it was after I had written him and told him I didn't want anything to do with him anymore.

Explains the phone calls from the jail. Got a phone call from Brown from the jail, Brown didn't say his name, Brown only said to him on the phone, "WHY JON?" It was said in a loud statement like voice.

Direct ends. Cross begins.

Mr. Hans you described the relationship was like brothers? Yes sir. And then you knew that he was represented by counsel when he was in custody, correct? Yes. And you knew that his counsel while he was in custody had said, you can't talk to anybody? Correct. He didn't say he couldn't talk to anyone. He said he couldn't talk about the details of the incident.

But you did write a letter to Mr. Brown at the point you wanted to cut off his relationship with him? Yes I did. I wanted him to know, that I didn't want him in my life anymore.

In that letter, you wrote that you knew that he couldn't talk? What I'm saying is, he didn't tell me anything. And to me that seemed... cut off.

And what you're telling us now, your own personal feelings, he could at least have talked to you, about something? At least on a level of where I could understand another human being. It was nothing.

You read the grand jury transcript, that you got off the internet. They had some of the grand jury transcript? And it was the part about where it happened and stuff.

And before that, you were solidly with Mr. Brown's support, and then you read that? I'm sure as you know, the only person presenting any evidence is the prosecutor? Yes.

And that was Mr. Hum? I think so. And you know there wasn't a defense attorney presenting defense evidence and the defendant himself, isn't present, at a grand jury proceeding? Yes.

And there's nobody from the defense to cross examine prosecution witnesses? So knowing all of that, if you were such a strong brother for 19 to 20 years, how could reading this transcript, of this limited pro prosecution proceeding, it's a way for the prosecutor to get an indictment, a charging document?

Hum asks to approach. [I'm surprised Hum let this line of questioning go on for so long.]

11:52 AM
Sidebar over. I over hear Laub state at the side bar, "I'll move on."

And after you read the transcript, you also went to other web sites where there was discussion about what people felt about Mr. Brown and what he was charged with? That's correct. Those web sites had people who were not witnesses to anything that had happened? Correct.

I read a lot of things. I looked at the California cliffs. I was not a stranger to him.

These were people who were angry and said this person deserves what he gets? And you were reading this and you wanted Mr. Brown to tell you everything was okay, and you wanted him to tell you, don't worry my brother, it's not what they say, don't worry about it?

Even before he was in, he never discussed it for years. His wife had said that he couldn't discuss details of the situation. There was nothing, there. When I saw the cliffs, and I know what cliffs are like. I've jumped off of cliffs. I have.

Laub: [So] he committed murder? I'm 100% certain of this without even being there! (Hans speaks with force and emotion in his voice.)

The court states, Mr. Laub let's break right now.  The jury is excused and the judge leaves the bench.

We're back at 1:30 PM.

12:40 PM
I am starting the process of editing my atrocious typing for the morning session.

1:31 PM
Back in side Dept. 107. I've barely started editing the morning session. I'm sorry my typing is so bad from the morning session. I will try to edit it on the train home and later tonight.

Brown is brought out. He leans in and whispers to Laub.

The jury is brought in. Everyone in the well is standing for the jury, even the witness.

Continue with cross examination.

Want to go back to when things between you and Cameron were good. Witness nods his head. You talked about a lot of it in the letter you wrote on the support web site after Cameron's arrest.

I understand that later you changed your mind and you wanted it removed. But when you wrote the letter you talked about facts in a truthful way? Yes. This is what you were writing.

I've known Cam since the early 1980's? Yes. I remember him because it was the first time I'd ever been on a snowmobile, and we were friends ever since. It sounds like, from the very start, he was making it possible to have new experiences? Yes.

Every time I was with Cam, my life would shift into high gear? Yes. The witness states, "I admired his skills. He was someone ...[miss] We'd have adventure.

Laub reads more from the letter. Now talks about the cabin Brown lived in, that he also lived in this same cabin as well. Brown got caught in an avalanche chute. It was a rustic, old cabin.

There's more about Cam living in this remote cabin and getting caught in the avalanche.

His wedding, and why Brown couldn't do the best man thing. He bought an old army truck and drove everyone around in it? [Yes.] Every time he visited he always wrote thank you notes after he visited? Yes. He played with your dogs in a thoughtful way. Yes.

When Mr. Hum and Detective Leslie came out to talk to you, one of the things they wanted to know is if you ever had seen Cam angry? I think so. You had to stop and think of something to come up with? Can you tell the jury what you remember.

The time when he came to California and he was late and Cameron was mad. Another time when he barred a woman from his boat. Brown claimed that the woman was drunk. Another man, who was a gambler, and he knew Cam was going to Las Vegas, and this guy got a ride with them. Something about Cam kicking the guy out of the car and leaving him in Las Vegas because he was a gambler.

Laub, is asking about the few incidents, that the witness could think about, that in none of those incidents, where Brown had became physically violent. There's no incident where he is physically assaulting another human being? No. And you've never seen it where he kicked a dog or anything, or get violent with another human being? No. I probably wouldn't have been his friend if I'd seen that.

Laub infers that Hans had gotten married and had moved on [away from a single life] and that Brown still had that type of single life. Hans responds: My wife was also friends with him and we would all have fun together.  You became more of a grown up, and had a wife? I guess. Maturity. 

You became and man and you felt Cameron wasn't doing that? I just felt he was on his own path.

There comes a point, where, he gets accused of murdering his daughter and you go and look back on the person you know for 18-20 years and you write a letter of support, right? This was when all I knew is what his wife had told me. Yes, that's true.

You didn't know what the grand jury, you didn't have the pictures on the internet?  Right.

As you gather more information for yourself, read the transcript and correspond with internet sites, you started to feel, it was important to ask Cameron questions? I don't remember what I asked him exactly.

What I mean is, you wanted to, because you guys had been so close?

Well, he would call me up. I wanted him to express something. As part of a connection. He was leaving me hanging. There was nothing. Nothing at all.

You would call him or he would call you, ... when there's something happening like that, that felt like a betrayal? You guys were solid brothers.... and now when he's in trouble, it's as if, he's not even treating you like the person you once were? Not really. He was calling me up and he was looking to me for support. He wasn't even telling me how he was feeling. He was just talking about how he was treated

I read the transcript and saw the photos. I asked him what was going on. He didn't even tell me how he was feeling or that he felt terrible. He wouldn't say anything. I would expect my brother to do this.

Nobody, no defense lawyer ever told you about the conditions in the jail? No. The conditions in the jail? No. About people illiciting false confessions? Objection. Sustained.

All you could feel, what was happening was a violation of a long relationship? It did not sit right with me. And it did not sit right for a very long time? [Miss answer.] Laub reads from the letter that Hans wrote.  "However, there is a price to be paid, because I won't be a friend in limbo anymore." Yes.

So you didn't break it off,  you broke it off because you couldn't be in limbo with an emotion friend anymore? I just thought I'd make it easier for him.

And you resolved it for yourself, by accepting the picture that you've been given? Well, I examined the photos and stuff, and he didn't say anything. I would expect him to at least say that he didn't do it.

I had seen the photos. I had seen the cliff. I knew. It all added up.

What you were doing was saying, if I can't get Cameron to talk, at that point you're saying to yourself, I don't know why your lawyer...What fell together wasn't what you knew of him, it was what you read on the Internet. No it was combined with all that he knew about him up until this point.


Hum asks him to detail the car and an incident in the car chase. Hans gives a story about possibly hitting another car, and Cameorn didn't stop they drove around and it was weird.

Hans talks about the web sites he read and that Brown's brother-in-law had a web site and he was supportive, and he read that. He read lots of other things on the Internet.  Brown's brother-in-law only knew him for about a year. We got a subscription to LA Times, so we could read about it.

The witness is excused.


Back in 1999 and 2000. She was working in the Orange Co. DA's office, support division. Explains her duties. Establish paternity, and collect arrears. Asked to explain arrears.

Wage garnishment. If a person was employed and had access to employer directly to get the support directly from the employer. If a person was receiving welfare, the family support would start the case on their own. A parent could come in fi they had an order in place to and we would enforce that support. A person could come in on their own seeking child support.

Once the paperwork was filled out, did you have to find the non-custodial parent to initiate a case for support payments. The office represented the city and county.

There was a room in the building where family law court was. There were attorney referrals. Sometimes staffed with people.

Are you familiar with mediation and the purpose of mediation? Yes. In the context, mediation was ordered to see if they could reach a time share agreement. "Time share" is basically visitation time with the child.

Would it be accurate to say that you would seek and support child support orders? There's a courtroom. There's no jury, there's a judge or commissioner.

When documents were filed in a specific child support case, would they each contain a unique case number? Yes.

Documents filed in court, would they have a file stamp, of the date they were filed.  Explains the process how documents become part of the official court file. They are filed under penalty of perjury.

Explains documents to detail income and expense statements from each person. They are written/filed under penalty of perjury.  Explains "OSC" filing. You could have an OSC filing to request more visitation, etc. And are filed under penalty of perjury. Examined all the documents in the family court case file [related to Lauren].

Original document for support filed by Sarah Key-Marer. It was filed March 19, 1998. Paternity was determined. Court order of support and judgment filed on Feb 11 1999.

People's 34 for identification. That's the order that was entered in that case.

And there is an amount for support $787.00, for support. $195.00 for child care. Total $982.00. And arrearages? Over $3,000.00 in arrears, split into monthly payments. Add 982 + $50.00 and you get $1,032. That's the total amount of child support per month ordered to pay on Feb 11, 1999? Correct.

Initially the amount was arrived at by stipulation. Basically all parties agree to a stipulation.

The $787.00 was arrived at by a program via DISSOMASTER. That program takes into account each parent's income and expenses.

The arrears and child support was stipulated to by the parties and signed off by the Orange County DA.

Explains the process of how these things are calculated by the court. DISSOMASTER. You plug in numbers from the income and expense and it spits out an amount. It's based on the amount of income a person makes and how much visitation, or "time share."

A person could pay more, than what the guideline was.

Also based on examination of court file, July 22, 1999. He filed an order to have joint custody, 32% physical custody and a reduction in child support. Presents the document. People's 35 for identification.

Is that the order to show cause that was filed on July 22, 1999? Yes. It was filed under penalty of perjury? Yes.

On the bottom of the form is hand written. "I cannot afford to pay the amount currently ordered."  This was the reason he was requesting a reduction.

Also was a graduated visitation agreed to prior to mediation. The parties agreed to a visitation plan and that visitation began. I don't know if it begain, but I saw in the court file a graduated visitation plan.

The court case was continued a number of times. Yes.

Was there a specific hearing where the support was reduced because of a declaration where Brown was on disability. There was testimony taken and a transcript? Yes.

People's 65 for identification. Is that a transcript of that hearing, in which the defendant stated he was making 800.00 a month because he was on workman's comp? Yes.

Another income and expense declaration was filed by both parties.

Another document, people's 41. Is that an income and expense declaration filed by the defendant in January of 2000?  Yes. Was the defendant ordered by the court to bring proof that he was not receiving full pay, to the next hearing? Yes.

Two page document filed minute order. Marked as People's 42 for identification.

Is that in fact the order reducing the defendants child support? Yes. This is the order after that hearing.

The next hearing was on March 20, 0f 2000, for child support. Yes. Again the defendant testified at that hearing. Yes. Another transcript of that hearing. People's 66 for identification.

That's a copy of the transcript on March 20, where the defendant. testified under penalty of perjury, and also got a paycheck stub, as of March 17, were $11,176. come out to $1,119 a week. So if it was 10 weeks, for each week it would be aproximately $1,119.00 About four thousand dollar a month? Correct.

Even though he testified under penalty of perjury that he was only making $800.00 a month. What happened based on that hearing? The court rescinded the reduction and reinstated the child support.

People's 67 and 68, one is a court order another is a minute order, reinstating the child support back to the original amount. 

2:21 PM
The minute order for the defendant showed cause for joint custody and 35% custody had been denied.

And a response filed by the mother? There were several. Which one. People's 2 for identification. That was the mother's response to the joint custody and 35% custody. 

Describes a 730 eval. The DA's office doesn't get involved in these. The court orders them, to ensure that the child is not being [harmed?] in any way.

People's 36. Was that letter related to a 730 exam part of the court file? And the 730 was not done because the defendant didn't pay for it? Correct.

After the July request, He filed another request in June of 2000.  Order to show cause (OSC). People's 37 for identification. Is that the second request for reduction in child support filed on June 22 2000? I don't know if its the second, but it's another one filed.

Put's another document up on the screen. Is that page up on the screen.

The current order appears to be too much in light of my timeshare, which is 50%. Time share is the time each parent spends with the child, is that correct? Yes.

He's requesting that his child support be reduced because of his time share? Yes.
It's signed 6/21 but filed 6/22/2000? Correct.

Second page entitled parenting agreement, specifically 1c. Does that relate to the order of visitation, that was applicable to the time the defendant said he had 50% time share? Yes.

This parenting agreement he would have alternating Wednesdays to Thursdays to 4:20[?] and on alternating Wednesdays he would have the child until 4:00pm. Or approximately per week, 2.5 days per months. 

36 hours every four weeks? Yes.

It was 2.5 days? Correct.

Now in response to the defendants claim under penalty of perjury that he had a [50%?] time share, was there another filed on June 12, of 2000?  People's 39 for identification. Is that, a declaration in response to the defendants claim? It's a response filed the the DA's office. 

Also as part of the court file, did you see a request from the mother, requesting attorney's fees? Yes, saw something like that in the file.  Also a document Filed Feb, 2001.  People's 40.

Response filed by the defendant, regarding Ms. Key-Marer's request for attorney's fees. Yes.
In this response under penalty of perjury, does the defendant state, that Ms. Key-Marer, is receiving more money than he is from most pay periods? Yes.

As part of the court file, there was a trial date set regarding child support issues, and other issues for this case? I don't know if there was a trial date, but there was a huge hearing set.
It's a hearing on two issues, OSC for child custody and visitation. The parties were ordered to 
Nov 30th of 2000, regarding the OSC to reduce child support, and also the OSC regarding custody and visitation? Yes. For 11/30/2000? Yes.

Nothing further.

Direct ends and cross begins.

2:35 PM
You studied the family court file? Yes. And testified in 2009? Yes.

And for instance in 2009, the prosecutor asked you the same questions about the claimed assertion by Mr. Brown that he had 50% time share, same thing as now? I believe the question was very similar. 

Again today, there's a big omission here, claim as a 50% time share. Didn't you claim in the past, that actually on that form, there's another space, where Mr. Brwon is asked, what he's requesting?  I know the document speaks for itself. I don't know what you're asking. 

The court, People's 37.

The part of it that... is where there's the statement is too much and his time share is 50%. And there's something else here that's important about a 50% times share. On the alternating weeks.

Isn't what he's doing, that he's be requesting that he be given this? She reads the document. I know that you will find a portion of this, where he is requesting this. 

Well, in this document, on page four the issues before the court is one, a child support modification, where he's requesting 50% time share.  This time share indicates alternating weeks.

I don't know if this is the right document that he is referring to.

Laub looks over the document. 

2:40 P 
I'm looking at the fourth stapled page. [Miss documenting who's speaking; possibly Laub.]

Court states, it does say it's requesting.

Then you have another place where he's saying is...? I can't speak to what he's thinking, I can only speak to what the document says.

Laub indicates that this was a request by Brown, and the document has the word request.  

The court has Laub move on.

The Jan 10, 2000 hearing. And he stated that he was getting 800 a month disability. And what further developed in the hearing, was that, one, if the two hearings concerning, that Mr. Brown said, I'm getting $400.00 a month.

In January there was a hearing where he said he was injured in November. And the DA's office asked for proof for that.

And he did bring ever piece of paper that he was requested to bring? No he did not.

He was ordered to provided to the DA's office his documents showing on disability, other documents a month before the hearing. He did not do so. I asked him at the March hearing to provide anything and he provided a paycheck stub with an amount on it.

Laub continues with his questions about the orders that Brown was requesting. 

The two separate issues, had been split into two separate courts? Well, they were often co mingled. 

Witness explains that there was a hearing where there was commingling of the two issues.

Laub now moves onto the 730 exams. She doesn't remember who asked for the 730 exam. 

Laub moves to strike everything related to the 730, is that it wasn't in the court file.

The witness states: It's not on that document in the court file, and it may be buried in some other documents in the court file.

Laub is finished. Court asks, Mr. Hum anything? No redirect.

The court addresses the jury. We are back on Monday at 9:30 am. Have a good weekend. Stay healthy and stay safe.