Kelly Soo Park [Uwaydah et. al], Michael Gargiulo Updates

The previous post on this case can be found HERE.

UPDATE I 4/18/16  - edited for spelling, clarity; corrected number of counts dismissed on April 12; more coverage of Park case.
Friday, April 15, 2016
Hello T&T readers! After a two month absence, I am finally feeling well enough to go back to court and drop in on the latest Kelly Soo Park hearing.  If my coughing doesn't act up,

While the mainstream media was sleeping, on April 12, the defense in the Park/Uwaydah et. al case successfully argued their 995 motion to dismiss 20 counts of aggravated mayhem against 12 of the defendants. Adjuster.com posted this report on that hearing.

The parties are back in court today to revisit the issue of bail. Many of the defendants on the larger indictment were able to get their high bails reduced to 10 million. With the mayhem counts dismissed it will be interesting to see how Judge Kennedy rules on bail reduction for those defendants that are appearing today.


Also on the docket today is a 1368 hearing for defendant Albert Harutyunyan, also known as the "Little Armenia" case. Harutyunyan is charged with four murders. One of Harutyunyan's defense attorneys, Pete Waimrin is here. I believe there may also be third hearing on another case due to the  attorneys I see in the well and gallery.

After this hearing, I hope to stop by the Public Information Office and get a copy of the minute orders on the Gargiulo case .

Kelly Soo Park
8:48 AM
The bail hearings are set for 9:30 am. Park's husband, Tom Chronister just arrived. Defendant Tatiana Arnold is here. Several Park supporters are in the gallery.  A silver-haired woman is sitting with Chronister in the gallery. I believe it's his mother. When I entered the criminal court building, Paul Turley's attorney, Benjamin Gluck was several steps ahead of me.

8:53 AM
More Park supporters arrive that I've seen at previous hearings.

8:59 AM
Terri Keith from City News drops in to get updated.  About two minutes later, Park's sister Kim arrives and takes a seat in the gallery. The first row is almost filled with Park supporters. Park's mother and aunt are here. Co-defense on the Harutyunyan case, Gregory Apt arrives and gives a not to his co-counsel Waimrin.

Prosecutor Amy Ashvanian on the Harutyunyan case arrives. More attorneys shuffle in. Benjamin Gluck is her, chatting another defense attorney up in the well.

DDA Ashvanian and Apt step outside to discuss the latest developments in their case.

9:06 AM
DDA Mathai arrives and heads directly to the prosecution table to sit with the rest of the prosecution team.

More counsel arrive and sit in the well and the jury box. There are two sheriff's sitting near the door to my left. There are two other deputies sitting in the back of the courtroom to my right. Judge Kennedy's regular bailiff is at his desk.

I'm guessing there are about 20 people in the gallery for the Park [Uwaydah] case.

9:17 AM
Counsel on the Harutyunyan case reenter the well.

9:19 AM
One of the defense counsel, Mr. Moss, representing defendant Jeff Stevens is using a walker. He has a protective boot on his foot.

9:20 AM
Marissa Gerber from the LA Times arrives.  Mark Kassabian, Park's attorney arrives.

9:28 AM
Another Case
The bailiff tells counsel to take their seats and all defense counsel to sit in the jury box.
I was right There is a third case on the calendar and it will be up first. The defendant is brought out.

Tony Brooklier arrives. He represents defendant Leticia Lemus in the Park / Uwaydah matter.

Judge Kennedy takes the bench. The case is called. DDA Louis Avila is for the people. I recognize the defense attorney, but I miss his name and the defendant's name.

A stay has been issued by the court of appeals, so nothing can be done on the case until the court of appeals rules.  And the hearing is over quickly.

9:36 AM Albert Harutyunyan
Harutyunyan will be up next. They are ensuring they have an Armenian interpreter.

Now there are three sheriff's deputies to my left.

Hart is brought out. The interpreter is sitting with him, surrounded by his counsel.

The case is called. Appearances are stated. DDA Jonathan Chung is DDA Ashvanian's co-counsel.

Both reports from doctors feel the defendant is competent to stand trial. There is a disagreement whether he is competent to represent himself. Two doctors examined him. One report says yes, one report says no.

Apt: He wishes to represent himself.  Judge Kennedy states she needs to schedule a hearing on that issue.  Different case law is mentioned as to whether there needs to be a jury trial to determine competency as to representing himself.

Judge thinks there are some issues as to whether the defendant is competent to represent himself.

Even if he is found competent, Judge Kennedy doesn't think it is in his best interests. There's the language issue. She knows the defendant is distrustful of his two counsel, and the court system. She is requesting another report, to tip the scales. The court states there is definitely something going on (mentally).

The one doctor who does not feel he is competent, could not pin an exact diagnosis to back up their conclusion.

Defense suggest that they all meet, to suggest someone to interview the defendant for another evaluation.

The interpreter is talking in Armenian, translating what Mr. Apt is saying.

They will return in two weeks to update the court. Counsel will get together to arrange a third doctor. Criminal proceedings will remain suspended until a third doctor's report is received.

Kelly Soo Park et. al
Arnold case will be next. Ellyn Garafalo for the defendant.

[We are in the midst of 995 regarding Arnold and the single charge of mayhem against Arnold. This is on the smaller indictment.]

DDA Chon: There is probable cause to believe that Peter Nelson performed surgery on one of the victims.

[Note: At this point in the proceeding, my laptop died and my back-up battery was not working. I had to revert to hand notes.  I did not have time to transcribe these notes until 4/17. Sprocket]

UPDATE I
DDA Chon is continuing with her rebuttal argument that I believe was started on April 12.

DDA Chon references a document submitted in the defense brief. "Based on their [defense] own exhibit, a PA [physician's assistant; Chon is referencing Peter Nelson, who is alleged to have performed surgeries with no supervision] can only perform parts of a surgery he was trained on and that was not the case here," Chon contends.

Judge Kennedy asks, "[She's a direct aider and abettor to mayhem?"  DDA Chon replies, "Let me rephrase. She was a co-conspirator. ... She put her name on shell companies ... laundered money ... restructured companies. ... Rose Kelly testified these meetings would take place while surgeries were going on. ...."

She [Rose Kelly] testified at these meetings they would discuss the medical board's investigation and ways they could hide monies. The goal, as stated by Ms. Kelly was to push people to have surgery and make money.

"Ms. Arnold was a part of that. ... Ms. Arnold had knowledge because Uwaydah was in the meetings ... and [Peter] Nelson performed all parts of the surgery."

DDA Chon then references something in her moving papers and reads that into the record. The people are finished and Ms. Garofalo gets up to rebut the prosecution's argument.

This allegation was in regards to Ms. Pope [victim]. The court has already found that Peter Nelson [did not? specifically?] intend harm. 

Garofalo continues, "Not a witness testified in the grand jury other than Ms. Pope as to who performed the surgery. ... There was no extended testimony introduced at the grand jury to support this allegation [aggravated mayhem]. ... Dr. Brody testified at the grand jury that there was no way to determine when the tendon detached. ... [One] cannot infer aggravated mayhem from this scar. ... Ms. Pope was not referred by a capper ... no expert medical testimony in their grand jury or anything that comes close to aggravated mayhem."

Ms. Garofalo also argues that the co-conspirator theory fails.

Judge Kennedy rules. "As I indicated before where we talked about this count ... [there's] no evidence Ms. Pope was a capped patient.  ... According to her own testimony, she had a shoulder injury. ... The surgery was necessary. ... Apparently it wasn't performed too well and she and Ms. Arnold tried to settle a malpractice claim. ... It is unclear from the record who performed the cutting. Surgery notes say Dr. Uwaydah ... [other names are mentioned as being present] and Dr. Uwaydah was there ... Even though the nurse [stated? testified?] that it was impossible for all those doctors to be in there ... I don't see that testimony as helpful. ... It's not even clear the surgery was fraudulent. ... There no evidence that Ms. Arnold was present in surgery or that she ... Count number 75 is dismissed. ... The other counts remain."

The court asks what they want to do next.

Benjamin Gluck informs the court that the need to at least waive time. They need to address bail.

The court brings up a completely different issue that she feels needs to be addressed first.

Judge Kennedy begins, "You know that, ... lawyers working for the court ... and reviewed a lot of records and [this was done] prior to the case here and filed .... when it was with Judge Fidler. ... Are those records part of discovery turned over to the defense?"

DDA Ma answers, "No. ... Judge Fidler was going to go over that and determine ... nothing was ever told to the people ..."

Gluck responds, "Because the people chose not to disclose the search warrant ... in camera ... he said he would turn over to the defense and let them claim privilege."


[Note: I'm back covering the Lonnie Franklin, Jr. murder trial. I hope to have these notes complete much later tonight. Sprocket]

More to come........

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., Pretrial Hearing 6

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., in custody. Pool photo.

The previous post on this case can be found HERE.

UPDATE: 9/12 correct spelling of Daryn Dupree's first name
August 31, 2015
I’m on the 9th floor of the downtown Los Angeles Criminal Justice Center. Besides the cafeteria, it’s the floor that I’ve spent the most time on down here. I haven’t been to court in well over a month.

I’m waiting for Dept. 109 to open. I’m sorry I missed the last two hearings in the Lonnie Franklin, Jr. case. Fortunately, I’m almost completely over my lung congestion.

When I arrived, DDA Garrett Dameron was at the end of the hallway with a defense attorney. Both are waiting for Dept. 101, Judge Coen's courtroom to open.

There is also a hearing in the Albert Harutyunyan (aka Alberd Tersargynan) case in Dept. 109. Harutyunyan is charged with four counts of murder. I believe the DA’s office is seeking the death penalty in this case. DDA Daniel Akemon is prosecuting. Harutyunyan is on his second set of lawyers. I don’t know which hearing will be first.

DDA Akemon is here and my eyes are drawn to his shimmering, baby blue tie. With him are two LAPD homicide detectives, Greg Stearns, who worked on the Lazarus case, and Daniel Myers. Myers worked the Ka Pasasouk case and also testified in the Lazarus case. They go off to towards the other end of the hall to chat privately.

DDA Marguerite Rizzo arrives. She's wearing a sharp red jacket with a camel toned skirt. I've always been envious of Marguerite's trim figure. She takes a seat on a bench alongside her investigating officer, Daryn Dupree.

People Magazine investigative reporter Christine Pelisek arrives. 

There is a video cameraman here, but he's waiting for Dept. 101's current case in trial, the Tobias Dustin Summer case. I believe the victim will testify but since they are underage, no camera can record their image on the stand. Harutyunyan's defense team, Pete Waimrin and Gregory Apt arrive. DDA Akemon greets them and now they go off to chat privately.

8:31 AM
Dept. 109 opens and a few of the victim's relatives in the Franklin case head inside. After a little while, I head inside also.

8:38 AM
Inside Dept. 109. DDA Akemon is at the counsel table.  Defense attorney Louisa Pentsanti arrives. She's wearing a white jacket over a form fitting black dress.

In the Franklin case, the victim’s families start to enter the courtroom and greet the few people already here. Harutyunyan’s defense team goes back to the custody area to speak to their client. DDA Rizzo greets the victim’s families who are already here.

From the back row of the courtroom I briefly see Judge Kennedy pass by the open doorway. She’s wearing a black and gray print jacket. She comes out to greet her bailiff.  She’s asking the bailiff about a court clerk and a court reporter. Both desks are empty. They chat at the clerks counter for a bit.

Detective’s Stearns & Myers are in the gallery, first row behind the bailiff’s cubicle. Defense attorney Seymour Amster arrives.

8:44 AM
I wonder where DDA Beth Silverman is. Amster and DDA Akemon chat at the counsel table.

8:46 AM
The friendly court clerk from Judge Perry’s court comes in to sit in for the missing court clerk. I adore Judge Perry’s clerk. She was so nice to everyone in the media during the Lazarus trial. A few years ago, I got to have a nice chat with her while waiting for my friend Matthew. A court reporter I remember from the first Spector trial is sitting in for the missing court reporter.

Amster and DDA Rizzo appear to have a friendly chat about (I believe) some documents the prosecution is requesting.

It looks like the Harutyunyan case will go first. There is an Armenian interpreter for the defendant.

DDA Silverman arrives. She's wearing a black skirt and matching short sleeved suit jacket. I glance down to her feet. I can't wear heels, ever since I broke my left ankle in four places, but I always notice Silverman's shoes, since she has a great collection. On Beth's feet are black patent-leather, open toed high-heels with black bows. She stops to greet the victim’s families and ask how everyone is doing.

Harutyunyan is brought out. He’s a small, diminutive man with a gray and white beard. The court goes on the record in the Harutyunyan case. Defense attorneys Greg Apt and Pete Waimwrin from the Alternate Public Defender’s Office for the defendant. We learn that the defendant wants a Marsden hearing. This is at least the second Marsden hearing for Harutyunyan.

Judge Kennedy clears the courtroom. It’s like, Michael Gargiulo deja vous all over again. Everyone piles out into the hallway. DDA Akemon and his detectives, and everyone related to the Franklin case.

I find an empty bench seat and observe the little groups that form together.  Prosecution teams and their detectives, the Franklin defense team, support staff with the District Attorney’s Office and then the victim’s family members, who have come to know each other from attending the pretrial hearings.  Interspersed among all these groups are a few jurors on benches waiting to be called to their courtrooms.

Seymour Amster is wandering the hallway looking at his cell phone, then comes back over to his team, who are standing to my right. The jurors for Dept. 101 are called and the little groups seem to huddle closer.

9:14 AM
There are late arrivals for the Franklin case. They greet other family members already here.

9:37 AM
An older gentleman who was standing with the Franklin defense team walks over to where DDA Silverman is sitting and hands her a document. DDA Silverman signs for the document. Beth and Marguerite go over the document in detail.

9:53 AM
The Marsden hearing is over and I’m back inside Dept. 109.  Judge Kennedy is on the bench and making a ruling in the Marsden case. The hearing, which was transcribed by the court reporter, would be put under seal and not to be disclosed.  Judge Kennedy asks the parties about coming back for another hearing in about a month. The next court date in this case will be October 2, and the case calendar will be set at zero of 90.

Judge Kennedy asks if defendant waives time. The interpreter asks, and then answers for the defendant. “Yes.”  Judge Kennedy asks, “Counsel join?” Judge Kennedy then addresses the defendant. “I’m going to do what I told you I was going to do and your attorney’s are going to prepare [a document] for me. ... I hope you feel better.”

DDA Akemon documents the pages of discovery that are turned over, and that’s it for this case.  Defense attorney Apt asks about the document. Judge Kennedy states, “I don’t have anything to sign yet. ... I need you to prepare something.” Mr. Waimrim goes over to the clerk’s desk along with DDA Akemon. The Armenian interpreter leaves.

9:56 AM
We are waiting for things to start for Franklin.

The clerk is busy at her desk with Akemon and the two defense attorneys. Judge Kennedy is waiting on the bench. I think the collection of figurines on Judge Kennedy's bench appears to have gotten bigger since last year. The  abstract painting that looks like several "V" lines is still hanging on the wall behind her bench.

The Franklin case is finally called.

Mr. Amster addresses the court. “At the present time, as of this morning we turned over all report from all experts with the exception of Sorenson. She is prepared to represent to the court, there are three, categories of evidence that still has to be processed. ... Two of [the] three will be done this week and the third by September 11.”

The court asks, “When would they [prosecution] have reports?”

Seymour responds, “As soon as I get this stuff, It should be expeditious.”

Seymour continues. As soon as I get it I will get it to them as fast as I can. I can’t forward it [in an email]. It’s too big. It’s on CD. “They will have everything by September 14, ... Thirty days before trial. ... Sorenson will turn it into a CD or and ... [I’ll] make sure they get it. ... The two reports on the evidence that we will get this week ... I’ll have Dr. Sowers(? sp?) to have it within a week. ... And the second, the minute [I?] gets it, he does it.”

Again, September 14th.

The court asks the people if they acknowledge what the defense has turned over.

The people respond, “I don’t think so your honor.  We’re entitled to the raw data.”

The people go over with the court, the document that was given to them earlier in the hallway. They document with the court, how what they’ve received is incomplete. There are several experts, where they still have not received anything at all. 

I don’t get all the names that the people mention, of the potential defense expert witnesses, where the people have not received the reports.

DDA Sliverman tells the court, "A psychiatrist. we don’t have any of the data that went into his report
 which we are entitled to ... Same is true for Mr. Krout (sp?). ... received [Metallurgical?] effects expert and we received a, .. I’d like to say it’s a one line, hand lined piece of paper that constitutes a report fro Mr. Munos."

DDA Sliverman states she agrees with the general [parameters?] in the one line statement and the people also agree on the exception of the drug [?] bearing any [?]


Amster interrupts DDA Sliverman and asks, “Did you get the second page?” 


The court asks the people, “Did you get the second page?” DDA Silverman responds, “I wasn’t finished speaking.”

The second page and what it entails is discussed.

Amster interrupts again. “That report  is about the rebuttal. The second page is the summary of the phone conversation and mine.” The have in substance, the same thing I have.

The court asks, “Just so I can understand. ...You anticipate that the prosecution is going to present the drug recognition expert?”

Amster answers. "I believe at least one witness [?] these events under a drug, a controlled substance. We have to determine what she was under the influence of and how much. And then I bring in a drug expert to talk about it."

The court clarifies. "So being under the influence of a specific drug and being able to recall?" Amster responds. "And she’s someone who had a habit of drugs"

Judge Kennedy states, "And all of these are under 402." [402 meaning, that there will be a hearing, outside the presence of the jury, to determine if this witness can testify or not.]

DDA Sliverman asks. "Is there any reports, notes, in addition to this?" Amster responds. "I don’t think there’s anything in addition to this from Mr. Munos (sp?). ... I wanted to get the reports to the other side by August 31. ... The vast majority of these reports came in last night. This has not been the easiest situation , I wish it would be an easier situation with my experts."

DDA Silverman informs the court the people have not received [Mr. Paul, Schmitz, Tobin, George Reese, Gibson] (Sp?)

The court clarifies that what they are talking about are defense experts that may testify.

Amster adds. "With exception of Mr. Reese. ... Ibelieve we sent the 911 report of Mr. Gibson [already]. I thought we delivered that." DDA Sliverman tells the court. "We’ve received no notes, [reports?] from any of these people."

Amster replies. "One step at a time. The report from Mr. Gibson (sp?), we gave. ... As far as the other experts at this point, we don’t ...  [Mr. Paul, Mr. Jones, Mr. Reese Mr. Gibson?]  at this point, we don’t anticipate [calling them]."

Mr. Amster adds a bit more that I miss.

DDA Silverman asks. “Which individuals are those?” Amster answers, “Mr. Schmidt is off the list.”  DDA Sliverman asks another question. “How about Mr. Jones?”

I believe Amster responds that at this point, they don’t plan on calling him. DDA Sliverman asks, “Is there any report or notes that he’s created so far.?” Amster responds, “There are notes and reports that he’s made, but it depends on what the prosecution is going to present.”

DDA Sliverman tells the court, “The defense knows what the people’s case is. We’ve turned over 26,000 pages of documents.” Amster counters back, “I don’t agree, but I would be willing for this court to make a ruling.”

Judge Kennedy asks, “Based on the 26,000 pages that you have, you don’t anticipate calling this person?”

I believe the people continue. However, if they turn over ... they didn’t turn over until later, then we have a hearing demonstrating that fact, ...

The court asks, “And now this witness becomes relevant that you didn’t have at trial?” Amster responds, “At this point, unless something new occurs.”

DDA Silverman asks about a Mr. Paul. Amster responds, “Mr. Paul has not prepared a report. And again, it’s only if there’s a problem with an expert coming on the stand. I may bring him in on sur-rebuttal.”

“On what issue?” Judge Kennedy asks.  Amster answers, “Ballistics.”

DDA Silverman asks about defense witness George Reese. Amster replies, “At this point, [we’re] not anticipating [he will] get on the stand. ... I have a report I’m not disclosing. ... If something new, I will have to make the same showing as Mr. Schultz.”

DDA Silverman asks, “A report from Tim Williams that talks about improper handling but no specifics.”  Amster answers, “I’m sure there are notes to that effect.”

DDA Silverman clarifies,”We are still waiting for that.” Amster responds, “I’m not so sure I agree with that but I will try to get a hold with Mr. Williams.”

DDA Silverman adds, “There are a number of civilians, over 100, what we received from counsel. ... [We] did not receive the specifics of conversations. ... [There's] the same type of summary for each and every witness.”  Amster insists that they [have? don't have?] a witness statement from each and ever person.

The court asks the defense, “Does that mean that collection of people, but, that you don’t anticipate calling [them]because you haven’t take statement from them?”

Amster doesn’t agree with the court’s assessment. “That’s not what I’m saying. ... The vast number of people are on the movie. [HBO documentary.] We have not found them. We have not taken a statement from them. ... We have not [taken] statements. ... Some of them, they’ve turned over statements to us. ... We don’t have any statements, but then we’ve put them in the potential of witness.”

DDA Silverman, tells the court that they will have to build in extra time for this trial, to have 402’s for each of these witnesses. The court agrees, “We’re going to have many 402’s." DDA Sliverman asks about another witness, a Mr. Crawley (sp?).

This is the third party culpability motion that needs to be ruled on. Judge Kennedy tells the parties, “We need to specifically ... We need to have that handled on another date.”

Amster responds on this issue. “We are not presenting third party culpability in the guilt phase. Third party culpability will be lingering doubt in the penalty phase.”

DDA Silverman informs the court, “We’ve researched the law and the same law applies.”

DDA Silverman also asks for the test results and raw data from the clinic neuro-psychologist. The court asks the defense if they will have that ready on the 14th as well.  Then there is a bit of back and forth discussion about when to return and what will be decided on what date.  Judge Kennedy finally rules that they will return on September 9 four outstanding defense discovery and also on September 14 for argument on the third party culpability motion.

As a last issue, the court informs parties, “If there are any other briefs that you want me to consider get them in as soon as possible.”

DDA Rizzo has an issue about a protective order for an individual [I’ve not included the name].

And that’s it September 9 it is. This will create a conflict with the Gargiulo case. I still haven't decided which hearing to go to.

Commentary
There is a reason why the court and the prosecution stated there would be many 402 hearings. Although the defense was supposed to turn over all their discovery by today, they have not done so. From what I gathered today, there may be witnesses the defense decides to call at the last minute, depending on what the prosecution experts say. If the defense did not turn over discovery with that witness before trial, and during the trial decide to call them during their case, then the prosecution has the right to have a hearing, outside the presence of the jury to question the witness. The court then decides if the witness can testify before the jury.

The reason the court does not, at this time, bar these witnesses from testifying because the discovery was not turned over to the prosecution 30 days before trial, is the appellate court. It's pretty much guaranteed that a guilty verdict would be turned over on appeal if the court barred a witness because of a discovery violation.

I remember a 402 hearing in this very courtroom two years ago. It was a last minute defense witness right before the start of the Kelly Soo Park trial. The hand written, defense investigator's interview notes (on yellow lined paper) of this witness were turned over to the prosecution on a Friday, when the trial was to start on Monday. 

The next post on this case can be found HERE.

Help Choose T&T's Next Case

Rear entrance of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center,

Before Grand Park was built behind it.

Tuesday June 2, 2015
Now that the Cameron Brown 3rd trial is over I have an idea for the next case I might cover but I'd like to hear from T&T readers.  Granted, Brown still needs to be sentenced but once that takes place the only case I'm currently following is Michael Gargiulo.

Michael Gargiulo
I don't foresee Gargiulo going to trial this year, but I could be surprised. Right now the case is juggling a Marsden hearing that Gargiulo raised. Once that's completed I'll write about it. On the calendar track for the trial, the next court date is June 12. I believe the people are scheduled to respond to the defense 995 motion.

Next Case
I have some personal commitments to Mr. Sprocket's business over the next two months but after that I should be free to cover a trial or a preliminary hearing. There are quite a few interesting cases out there that I've listed in the poll.  The ideal case is downtown, since I can take the train. However, I can cover a case at the Van Nuys courthouse, the San Fernando Courthouse or the Airport Courthouse. Those are all relatively convenient for me, with so-so travel issues. Please understand that T&T doesn't have a budget or sponsor, other than reader donations. Consequently, I can't travel out of state or to another California county to attend a trial.

T&T NEXT CASE POLL


____

Michael Gargiulo Pretrial 19; Cameron Brown 3rd Trial, Pretrial 17 & Alberd Tersargyan

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, booking photo, date unknown

Lauren Sarene Key, 4 years old

UPDATE 11/2614: add Tersargyan's other name.
8:23 AM
I'm at the downtown  criminal court building with Mr. Sprocket. A few minutes ago, DDA Daniel Akemon and an assistant quickly passed and entered Dept. 105, Judge Bowers courtroom. I believe they are both working on the case of Damascio Ybarra Torres who shot some doctors at Cal USC Medical Center., sometime in 2003 or 2004.  DDA Akemon was just assigned to follow that case. It's a complicated, mixed sentencing case. Then DDA Akemon heads down to Dept. 109 to get a new date on the Alberd Tersargyan (aka Albert Harutyunyan) case.

DDA Craig Hum, who is prosecuting the Brown case arrives with an assistant. When Dept. 107 opens, DDA Hum and his assistant head in side.

8:32 AM
Mr. Sprocket and I head into Dept. 107.

Brown is already here, sitting at the defense table.
He’s sitting in the chair at the end of the fable so he’s facing us.

Patty Brown is here in the second row. Her body is turned facing toward her husband.  She hands a paper to the bailiff, and the bailiff hands the paper to him.  Brown is wearing black, horn rimmed glasses.

The bailiff leans in to answer a question Brown has. DDA Hum and the court reporter are chatting. This is the earliest that Brown has been brought up, but Judge Lomeli is in trial at the moment so I’m sure that’s why it’s happening so quickly.

I ask Judge Lomeli’s bailiff (the same bailiff I first met in 2007 during Spector 1) if Gargiulo has been brought up yet. He calls and checks for me. No, not yet.

I’ll leave the courtroom in a few minutes to cover the Gargiulo hearing and Mr. Sprocket will take over taking notes on this case.

UPDATE 1:15 PM
Mr. Sprocket and I are at Olive View Hospital so that he could register for a Cardiac Rehab Program and to get some additional blood tests.

I thought I would give a quick update on Michael Thomas Gargiulo. When he came out of the holding area, he was completely bald. No side burns, no mustache. No facial hair whatsoever.  It was a stark change.

I also obtained a copy of the prosecution's motion that was filed today. This motion is to introduce at trial, crime scene evidence and expert testimony from a retired FBI Behavioral Analyst, Mary Ellen O'Toole.  You can read the motion, HERE.

Gargiulo hearing continued in Part II....

Michael Gargiulo Pretrial Hearing 18 & Ka Pasasouk

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, in custody

Booking photo, date unknown

UPDATE 9:15 PM spelling, clarity
May 16th, 2014
8:05 AM
I'm downtown and the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center, also known as "CJC." I arrive on the 9th floor a few minutes after 8:00 AM. There are two hearings I'm hoping to attend today. Gargiulo's and Ka Pasasouk. I attended Pasasouk's preliminary hearing at the San Fernando Courthouse.

The lobby was quite empty, typical of a Friday.  In the elevator on my ride up was DDA Robert "Bobby" Grace.  DDA Grace who has prosecuted many high profile cases, was one of several DDA’s who ran for district attorney in 2012.

Investigator Chris Nicely sits down on the next bench over about a minute after I sat down. He’s wearing a sweater vest, check shirt and a heavy, gold banded watch. It’s a nice combination. I’ve been thinking about getting a watch to wear in court since I can’t have my phone visible when a judge is on the bench. My only hesitation is, I’ve never gotten used to wearing any type of jewelry or bracelets. I did occasionally wear watches in my bank auditing career but I usually lost them after wearing them for short periods.

There are little more than a handful of people on the entire floor.

It’s my understanding that the Ka Pasasouk hearing in Dept. 106, Judge Fidler’s court will be quick. It’s my guess that DDA Akemon will go there first before heading into Dept. 108.

8:21 AM
A few more people have arrived on the 9th floor, but they are mostly at the other end of the hall.  At this end it’s just me, Nicely and a suited gentleman sitting directly across the hall from me. The gentleman has his eyes closed, but he’s not asleep.

8:28 AM
Three male attorney’s with rolling carts arrive and stop in front of Dept. 105, Judge Bowers, Jr. courtroom. More people have arrived. They are standing in the center of the hallway, in front of Dept. 104.

I notice a new sign on the paneled wall between Dept. 107 & 108. It says “No talking or passing notes while court is in session.”  'No passing notes' is a new one.

A sharply dressed female attorney quickly comes down the hallway pulling a rolling cart and enters Dept. 105 right after it opens.

Down at the center of the hallway, I see DDA Grace arrive on the 9th floor. He probably went up to one of the DA's floors, before coming back to the 9th. He’s greeting several people. I see another female DDA with Grace greeting some members of the public. They are most likely family members on a case they are working together.  The woman is wearing a white jacket over a black dress with white dots. It sounds like DDA Beth Silverman, and I hear her introduce herself saying, "I'm Beth," but from where I'm sitting, I can’t tell if it’s her.  I need new glasses.

Everyone enters Dept. 104. I believe the hearing is for Chester Turner, a convicted serial killer who has been charged with four additional murders. That case has a hearing today and I know Silverman is one of the prosecutors. Former DDA Truc Do and DDA Grace were on the team that successfully prosecuted Turner for 13 murders.

8:38 AM
Nicely gets up and enters Dept. 108. DDA Akemon hasn’t arrived yet.  There are more people from the general public on the floor now. Another male attorney with a rolling cart enters Dept. 105.

LAPD Robbery-Homicide Detective Dan Myers who worked the Ka Pasasouk case arrives. Detective Myers also worked on the Stephanie Lazarus case. He was called as a defense witness. He testified that he recovered a gun in Lazarus' locker.

I greet Dan and he asks about the cases that I'm covering. I mention that my number one case is the Cameron Brown case and Gargiulo is right behind that.

Myers and DDA Akemon are on another case together, the Alberd Tersargyan case, (aka Albert Harutyunyan) which originally was one of former DDA Alan Jackson's old cases.  Tersargyan is charged with four counts of murder (he basically wiped out an entire family) and the case is being heard in Dept. 109, Judge Kennedy's court.

Alberd Tersargyan (who is Armenian and ex-military), is not the defendant's birth name. He apparently changed it when his visa expired around 2004 or 2005. In court, when Judge Kennedy addresses him, and in court filings he's charged under his real name, Albert Haroutunyan.

It's my understanding that Haroutunyan has developed quite a following/reputation among other detainees down at Men's Central Jail.

DDA Daniel Akemon and DDA Garrett Dameron arrive and greet Detective Myers.  Once the prosecution team arrives, I close up my laptop and take a seat in Dept. 108.

Inside Dept. 108, DDA Akemon is chatting with Gargiulo's investigators. I can't hear them, but I'm guessing that they are discussing what possible remedies Judge Ohta will make after his review of the Wilson hearing.

DDA Akemon tells me that the Gargiulo hearing will go first. Apparently, Judge Fidler is on vacation and Judge Ito will come down and preside over the hearing.  The Pasasouk case will be heard at 10 AM.

Inside Dept. 108, there are a pair of attorneys inside the well, chatting.  Judge Ohta's court reporter is at the clerks desk, on the phone. I look over at the tub of red vines on the clerk's counter. It's about two-thirds full now. At some point, another attorney, I think a DDA enters the well.

Detective Mark Lillienfeld arrives. Now the clerk is at her desk. Judge Ohta comes out from the back area and asks the three attorneys in the well if  they are ready.  The court reporter comes back out with her equipment.  Judge Ohta speaks to counsel off the record about sentencing in two other defendants. This is about changing a sentencing.

Judge Ohta goes on the record in the other case. The DDA is Sean Hassett. I've heard of him before, but I've never met him. DDA Hassett worked on the City of Bell corruption scandal.

The two defendants are not in the courtroom. The original sentencing was in 2003. The US Supreme Court over ruled the sentencing on one of the counts.  The case was appealed by the defendants. The court ordered bak to re sentence on count 2. Defense counsel waive appearances of defendants. (They are in prison.) Judge Ohta re sentences defendants on count 2. They were originally sentenced with the high term, 5 years on robbery. The US Supreme Ct ruled it should have been the middle term of 3 years.  This re sentencing will be a reduction in sentence for both defendants. The higher court ordered new sentencing but it was never carried out. Minute orders were sent to the Dept. of Corrections. And that's it.

While this re sentencing was going on, DDA's Akemon and Dameron are in the well, sitting in the seats in front of the jury box. Akemon appears to be reviewing some documents. Judge Ohta asks Akemon if the LA Co. Sheriff's counsel is coming.  Judge Ohta tells Akemon to ask him to be here. Akemon explains that it's not a counsel. It's a sworn deputy inside the jail. He's on his way from LA County jail. Akemon adds, 'He knows he's on notice." DDA Akemon leaves the courtroom to make the phone call.

Two additional sheriff's deputies arrive in anticipation of Gargiulo's hearing.  Now, Detectives Myers and Lillienfeld, and Akemon and Dameron are all chatting by the courtroom entrance doors.  The attractive, black female deputy with the three stripes arrives. Mr. Sprocket told me that three stripes usually indicates a rank of Sargent. According to the LA County Sheriff's Wikipedia entry, he's right. Another two deputies arrive. Now there are five deputies in the well. Several weapons are placed in the security box by the door.

Judge Ohta's bailiff chats with investigator Nicely. I believe he is explaining that they are waiting for Deputy Kennedy from the jail.  Since there is a delay, the deputies take their weapons back out of the black box and a few of the deputies leave.  Judge Ohta is back out of his robes.

9:30 AM
Defense attorney Charles Lindner (who is in trial next door) arrives. I don't know if the man with him is one of his sons or an associate. They chat with DDA Akemon and one of the detectives. Lindner was ordered to be here as standby counsel for the hearing. I believe Akemon leaves the courtroom for a moment.

9:47 AM
Deputy Kennedy arrives.  He's in uniform. Judge Ohta takes the bench. Judge Ohta is informed that DDA Akemon is on his way.  DDA Akemon arrives.  Off the record, Akemon, Filipiak and Nicely go over their calenders.

A balding, youngish looking man in a tan suit arrives. I've never seen him before. He looks like a detective or an officer out of uniform.

9:58 AM
Gargiulo is brought out. Filipiak and Nicely are at the defense table. Gargiulo looks like he has a bit of color in his face.  He's carrying a green satchel with files, papers.  Judge Ohta goes on the record with the review of the Wilson administrative hearing.

I believe Judge Ohta asks Gargiulo if there's something he needs. I believe he replies, "I'm just ready for argument's sake."  Judge Ohta starts off by asking Deputy Kennedy a few questions.

Garbiulo's pro per privileges were revoked.  His law library access. Access to get legal supplies, his pro per phone privileges.  Those are pretty much most privileges.  The defendant's pro per fund account is discussed and Judge Ohta asks why the sheriff's were able to take away the defendants pro per fund account?

Deputy Kennedy states that it was Officer (Hinds?) who conducted the hearing. He's not available today. Deputy Kennedy has to do this in his place.  Deputy Kennedy apparently is not sure exactly which specific privileges of Gargiulo's were revoked. Judge Ohta appears to be a bit irritated. He tells Kennedy, "I need clarity."  Deputy Kennedy leaves the courtroom to make a phone call. I'm guessing it's to get the correct information from Officer (Hinds?).

At the defense table, Gargiulo is asking the deputies for one hand free to file a motion. Apparently, when they handcuffed him to the chair, they kept his hands locked to the waist chain.  It's not in my notes, but I have a memory of the Sargent telling Gargiulo that he is a security risk. The deputies then free one of his hands so he can work with his papers and documents.  Three deputies stand and watch his every move.

A woman enters, speaks to the bailiff and sits in the front row for a moment.  We are waiting for Deputy Kennedy to come back.  Gargiulo is going through his papers. The bailiff sharpens a pencil for Gargiulo.  The woman who just entered leaves.

Deputy Kennedy returns. He tells Judge Ohta that two things have been restricted for Gargiulo.  No law library privileges. He will not be able to use the pro per phone system.  He is able to use the regular phone system.  Gargiulo is able to purchase legal supplies.  Searches of Mr. Gargiulo will be conducted (as in?) general population setting.

Gargiulo objects. He states he would like to call (a witness?).  Judge Ohta tells him that this is a review. It is not a hearing. Judge Oha states he does not have authority to change security at the jail. He continues, "I have a right to intervene in as far ... what I have seen ..."

Judge Ohta puts into the record the series of events as he understands them from the Wilson hearing documents. "... on that date on the way back ... you were searched. ... That a metal object was found that resembled a shank or key..."  I believe Gargiulo replies but I miss the statement. Judge Ohta continues, "Well, they are now saying your access ... your phone access ... you won't be able to do legal research in the law library. ... Based on what I read and based on their actions ... there are two violations ... two sections of the pro per rules. One, 8.42b ... jail (security?) ... Two, 8.42d, ... to not to infringe on the rights of others ... Because of that ..."

I believe Gargiulo objects. Judge Ohta replies, "So now you say you object?" I have in my notes that Gargiulo objects for argument sake.  He then starts to read from a hand written paper.

Gargiulo argues, "If ... any use of the object is pure speculation ... Did the defendant have the object during the use of pro per status ... Did the defendant use the object ... No, he did not. ... Did he use it against another defendant? ... No, he did not. ... Defendant did not use this small object. ... It could have been a sewing needle or to use as a small screwdriver to fix glasses ... Any use of this small, metal object is pure speculation. ... Request reinstatement of all privileges."

Judge Ohta asks Deputy Kennedy, "Do you wish to respond to any of that?" I believe Deputy Kennedy responds, "He was returning from court. ... The sheriff's don't have to wait for (something to happen?)"..."

Judge Ohta responds. "I've been a judge for a long time. ... I've handled several jail murders. ... Cases where inmates (?) ... The sheriff's don't have to wait until a violation happens before they take action. ... I've been put on notice that you previously made an attempt to escape [The El Monte jail event.] ... So there is a (connection? correlation?). ... The (concern?) .. is the restitution is whether there is evidence ... is substantiated. ... The US Supreme Ct, as it relates to security in jail ... those rights can be restricted upon ... as it relates to security. ... They cannot (punish?) but relate ... take actions to security. ... It appears to me ... that what the sheriff's have done, relates to security. The metal object could be used as a shank or key. ...  (Possession? Possibility?) ... of law library is remote. ... I do think that concern is real, in respect to the law library. ... You have more opportunity to engage with other inmates. ... I do think that the ... substantial evidence supports the action. ... The defendant has the ability to purchase legal supplies.  ... phone access is the same as other inmates."

The court modifies the pro per status.  Gargiulo states, "I do have about 30,000 papers. ... They've written a false claim ... They can come in at any time and search." Gargiulo then complains about the phone access being the same as other inmates. "Any other defendant can her me on the phone, talk to my defense experts, and the district attorney could have access to that."

Judge Ohta goes into great detail to explain to Gargiulo about wire taps and that the district attorney would not have access to his phone conversations.

Gargiulo continues to argue, "Other inmates can hear my conversations."  I believe Judge Ohta reminds Gargiulo that he was informed that once he went pro per, that there would be difficulties that he might face, by being in custody and pro per.  That's the situation of being in jail.

Judge Ohta continues, "Case law does say ... at this juncture, because I agree with the modification (of pro per status by the sheriff's) I need a response from you whether you intend to continue to represent yourself."

Gariulo tells the court that he would like to file an appeal. He tells the court that Deputy (Hinds?) called the defendant a motherfucker and told him to shut up.  Gargiulo tells the court that he's demanding that the sheriff's turn over all audio and video tapes.  He makes more claims against the sheriff's. Gargiulo is requesting a copy of this transcript so he can prepare a defense.   He talks about the showers, and that something happened there, and the fact the sheriff's have not followed proper procedure in regards to following the rules when it comes to searching his cell.  He mentions something about his legal supplies, or that he hasn't been able to get more legal supplies.

Judge Ohta is reading over a document. He then reads into the record the documents that he reviewed of the Wilson hearing and describes them. He describes several exhibits. The declaration of Officer Kennedy. Five pages of historical analysis of what happened. One page declaration of hearing officer. Exhibit A, is the pro per rules. Exhibit B is the notice of Wilson administrative hearing. Exhibit C is the incident report concerning allegation the defendant had in his mouth a metal object, a key or shank. Page has a photocopy of a metal object. It appears to be a shank or metal key. Also attached is the inmate discipline report. Exhibit D is documented statement of hearing officer (at?) Wilson hearing.  Exhibit E is notation or report of review (board?) by Sargent (Ponce?).

Detective Myers leaves the gallery of the courtroom.

Judge Ohta continues describing the documents Exhibit E is sheriff's department correspondence from Deputy Kennedy to Mr. Gargiulo concerning modification to pro per privileges.

The court states, "The defendant contention (is) at hearing was he didn't have enough time to prepare. ... Notice was given the day before the hearing ... within 48 hours. ... Hearing on April 21st. ... I don't see any problem. ... Despite complaint, I do believe the sheriff's department acted within rules and I believe the actions are proper."

The next pretrial hearing is set for June 27th, and Gargiulo agrees.   Gargiulo makes a formal request for video and audio tapes for everything that was previously demanded. Gargiulo tells the court, "I would think that the DA's would have all that information since it does involve the case." Judge Ohta tells the defendant, "The DA's office is not involved with that. ... They are not involved. ... They did file something because ... filed under 190.3 under a mitigation factor. ... They did not hand over pictures (or?) reports."

Gargiulo addresses the court, "You keep saying 'shank.' The defense objects."  Judge Ohta responds, "That's what it says in the report. ... I will give you a transcript (of today's proceedings) so you can prepare your written ...."

The general time waiver is discussed again.  DDA Akemon puts on the record that Charles Lindner has been in the audience and present.

Gargiulo tells the court that it will take some time to get his supplies. "Every time I put in a pro per kit I'm not getting my double supplies ... It will take weeks to get my supplies."  Deputy Kennedy tells the court he doesn't know what the defendant is talking about.  Judge Ohta tells Gargiulo, "I'll see what I can do about that."

That's it for Gargiulo.

Ka Pasasouk
I rush across the hall to Dept. 106.  The DDA's and the sheriff's chat privately in Department 106's ante chamber. There is country music playing at the deputy's desk. Judge Fidler's clerk asks me what I'm here for. I tell her Ka Pasasouk.  She tells me they already had the hearing.  I'm totally embarrassed. I answer, "I can't believe the DA didn't tell me!"  Evidently they had the hearing and DDA Dameron must have stood in for DDA Akemon.

 I rush back out the hallway to try to catch up with DDA Akemon. He tells me the next Pasasouk hearing is August 22.

Dept. 100, Part II & Lunch With Friends

Continued from Part I.....

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012
When Mr. Sprocket told me on Tuesday, that we were going to take a “cross-the-city” light-rail trip to Norwalk, I knew that we would be passing through downtown LA, and the perfect opportunity to drop in on any possible pretrial hearings that might be going on that day.

I immediately checked the DA’s calendar and saw that Alberd Tersargyan (aka Albert Harutyunyan) had a hearing in Department 100. I also checked the LA County Sheriff’s web site to see if Tersargyan was in custody....he was. The inmate information indicated Tersargyan did have a court appearance scheduled for March 21st, at 8:00 AM. I didn’t believe that Department 100 started that early, but I knew from other inmate records that the Sheriff’s usually got the inmates to their respective courtrooms in plenty of time before court starts.

I told Mr. Sprocket that we were going to leave early enough to attend this hearing.

Department 100 is on the 13th floor of the Criminal Justice Center. (In a comment response some time ago, I mistakenly reported that it was on the 9th floor.) It is also known as the “Master Calendar Court.” This is the court that assigns cases that cannot be settled and will go to trial. Department 100 assigns the trial court. I do not know the criteria for assigning cases to particular courts/judges.

Although Mr. Sprocket came to court one time during the Spector trial, he’s never taken the train or bus to court. Let’s just say, instead of following directional signs, Mr. Sprocket would sometimes go with the flow of human traffic from point to point instead of verifying if that was the particular stairwell or escalator we needed.

We arrive on the 13th floor around 8:00 AM. The hallway is virtually deserted. Taped to the wall outside the small door to Dept. 100 is the calendar. There are 28 cases listed and the Tersargyan case is fifth. The list is in alphabetical order by defendant name. The first column is the appearance order, then defendant name, then attorney name, the case number and then Department 100. As Mr. Sprocket and I wait, attorney’s show up by one’s and twos and check to see if the door is unlocked yet.

I'm betting that the door isn’t opened until 8:30 AM.

I observe a few of the attorney’s who are waiting outside Dept. 100. One attractive petite woman is nicely dressed with an unstructured trench-like long sweater jacket, long skirt and white silky scoop neck blouse. Her hair is nicely coiffed in a French bun and she has on just the right amount of make-up (in my opinion..not too overly done). She’s carrying a monogrammed Louis Vuitton handbag, a second small sparkly-looking bag and silver ballet slippers with a huge fake crystal on top that covers the entire toe area of her shoes. Her legs are nicely tanned and across the top arch of her feet are tattoos, an interesting contrast to the upper half of her look. I make a guess that she is a defense attorney.

Once inside Dept. 100 I take in the room. It’s a large room with two aisles toward the front of the court and three sections of wooden row benches divided by two aisles toward the bench.

Mr. Sprocket and I take a seat in the second row, center. I tell my husband that if he wants to cruise the Internet on his cell phone, he will have to step outside in the hall. He doesn’t understand that his cell phone will be taken away from him if he doesn’t put it away. I tell him, if he can’t wait quietly with me, then go outside. He chooses to go back out into the hallway.

Dept. 100 is laid out slightly different than a regular courtroom. The far left side is separated by some short and medium height half walls and that’s where the court clerks desk is. A little forward of that is a small short walled off area where there is a LA County Sheriff bailiff at a desk. This area is for defendants in custody. Beside this area is a podium for their counsel to address the judge.

In front of the judge are three long tables where (I’m guessing) three public defenders are seated, busy going through thick files.

Right behind these tables are two bench rows. Then there is a wide aisle walkway that separates this seat grouping from the rest of the gallery seats. Over on the right side of the courtroom there are 18 jury box type comfortable rocking cushioned seats. It’s quite likely that there was a jury box wall enclosing this area at some time in the past, but today there isn’t any. It’s in this general area that the prosecutor’s congregate. There is a podium in front of the comfy seats that the DDA’s will stand at to address the judge.

Attorney’s file in and go up to the clerk’s desk. I try to think back, to see if I’ve ever been inside this courtroom before. I think I was here for a hearing in the Miura case, almost four years ago. More attorneys arrive. It’s a buzz of activity in the center area in front of the judge's bench.

I note in the bailiff’s area, there are two large double doors with signs on them.

ATTORNEYS
NO CELL PHONES
IN LOCK-UP

ALL CELL PHONES & WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS ARE
PROHIBITED IN LOCK-UP

The sheriff stands up and in a loud voice addresses the room to turn their cell phones completely off. “Not silent, completely off!” Virtually all the attorneys in the room ignore this and keep on checking their smart phones.

At 8:45 AM: I see the court reporter come out and set up her computer and equipment to the left of the judge near the clerk’s desk. Defendant’s not in custody, or those asking about loved one’s cases check in with the sheriff. There’s still a lot of noise, buzz coming from the attorneys in the room. I see some counsel meeting with their clients in the gallery.

Now, there are more attorneys in the room than people in the gallery, all chattering. I see some attorneys head into the lock-up area to speak with their clients. More people greet each other and chat. More attorneys head over to the comfy seats, several with their morning coffee or tea in their hands.

Now I see there is another female sheriff with the deputy at the bailiff’s desk. She may have come out from the lock-up area when I wasn’t watching. I’ve seen her before. She was a regular in the Lazarus trial and I’m bummed that I never got her name.

8:50 AM: Another attorney shows up and checks in with the clerk. I survey the room a bit more. There are seven bench rows on the right, four bench rows in the center after that wide aisle and five bench rows on the left. The bailiff yells out, “Folks in the audience, all cell phones off! No power, all the way off.” I’m thinking it’s a good thing Mr. Sprocket left to hang out in the hallway, because I wouldn’t put it past him to go up and ask the deputy why he couldn’t use his cell phone on silent.

More attorneys file in, wave to others and greetings are exchanged. As I sit and watch the interaction of the various players, I’m seeing Dept. 100 as more of a schmooze fest. I just noticed that DDA Lisa Kassabian, (who happens to be DDA Alan Jackson’s wife) slipped into Dept. 100. She’s standing at the center tables using the phone there. Several of the women attorneys have entered with rolling cars.

DDA Alan Jackson arrives; it’s his case that I’m interested in and why Mr. Sprocket and I have made this little detour on our trip. Jackson has on a dark gray suit. There are very thin, barely discernible white lines about one-inch apart in the weave. From how he’s standing, I haven’t had a good look at his tie, but it’s either a shimmering purple or striking shade of blue.

Jackson is speaking to a stylishly dressed woman with short, perfectly permed, blond highlighted hair. She has on a red form-fitting jacket, black skirt and red open-toed heels with a buckled ankle strap. Even from where I’m sitting I can tell she has a lot of expertly applied eye-makeup. I’m betting this is Jackson’s co-counsel on the Tersargyan case. With them is a tall slender woman I first saw at the Kelly Soo Park hearing, Ariel, who I believe is a clerk in the Major Crimes Division. Ariel takes a bench seat on the right side of the room.

Two female attorneys approach Jackson and there are smiles all around. I think I hear Jackson say, “Hi Gina.” I think it’s coincidence but both are wearing pink. One attorney wears glasses and her hair is in a loose bun. She is wearing a pink sweater over a white top and black pants. The other older looking woman has a squarish jawline and short blond highlighted hair. She has on a pink suit jacket and like her (possible) co-counsel, a white blouse and black slacks.

9:03 AM: More attorneys keep coming into Dept. 100 and check in with the court clerk. I see attorneys speak to clients, family members. Then I see defense attorneys approach prosecutors right after. The two women are still talking to Jackson and his co-counsel.

A much older woman with jet black hair (she reminds me of aged Nancy Reagan with Jackie Kennedy hair), is sitting center at the table in front of the bench. She stands up and facing the gallery calls out, “Mr. Rose! Mr. Rose!” There’s no answer. It doesn’t look like he’s shown up for his appearance.

9:10 AM: Things start to quiet down in the courtroom. Jackson and his co-counsel have taken seats off to my right in the row in front of me. The Nancy Reagan with Jackie hair woman stands up again and calls out, “Mr. Bolden! Mr. Bolden!” Again, there’s no answer. I note that the first two rows of benches on the left side of the courtroom, next to the bailiff’s desk have little ropes and signs indicating those seats are reserved for law enforcement.

I start to get a feel for the room after watching the actors for the last 45 minutes. It’s pretty easy to tell the prosecutors from the defense attorneys. Jackson gets up from his seat to greet another prosecutor over in the comfortable jury chairs.

9:17 AM: The Nancy Reagan woman with Jackie hair stands up again, calling for Mr. Rose. No one answers her.

9:20 AM: A few attorney’s come out from the jail area. Judge Schnegg takes the bench. She says something to the effect of, “We have a lot of death penalty cases this morning.”

JS: Everyone here on (case) number 1?

Judge Schnegg calls out the order number of a few other cases.

JS: Number 6; Number 14?

I think Judge Schnegg then calls out #16 Bernard. This might be the woman defendant who was just brought out. Then a case #24 is called, People v. Bland. The hearings happen very quickly and it’s difficult to understand what is happening with each case.

From just these few names called, I’m wondering how long Mr. Sprocket and I will be here today. I thought the case would be the fifth one up, but Judge Schnegg is calling them in her own particular order.

Bernard is brought out and it’s barely a minute and that’s it for the Bernard case.

Mr. Sprocket comes back into the courtroom at the last minute. He’s trying to tell me something about not being able to play a video on the County’s free wifi (he’s upset about that) and I have to tell him to be quiet so I can hear the next case being called.

9:40 AM: People vs. Tersargyan is called. When he’s brought out, I only see him for a moment. He’s a small statured man with a full gray beard. The LA Co. Sheriff’s website puts his height at 5’5” and 145 pounds. The two women who were speaking to Jackson earlier, step up to the podium and from where I’m sitting, I can no longer see the defendant. Standing with the defense attorneys for Tersargyan is an Armenian translator. The death penalty is still pending in this case; the prosecution has not made a decision yet on whether they are seeking death. That will have an impact on where this case gets assigned. A new date of April 30th, 2012 is set for another hearing in Dept. 100. Judge Schnegg tells the defendant that he will have a trial date set within 60 days of that April 30th date. She asks him if he waives his rights to a speedy trial. Tersargyan agrees. Judge Schnegg also orders the Armenian interpreter back on that date.

And that’s it. We get up to leave so we can catch Jackson before he goes back to his office. I catch him just as he exits the courtroom.

“Mr. Jackson,” I call out. “I just need to see the color of your tie.” He turns around slightly startled and when he sees it’s me and Mr. Sprocket, he smiles, understanding the joke.

I ask him a question off the record about the Kelly Soo Park case which he confirms for me. Thanks to a friend, I've received copies of public documents on that case and as soon as I get them turned into a PDF document, I’ll post an entry about them and link to the documents. The prosecution alleges that Kelly Soo Park's DNA was found on the throat of Juliana Redding, who was strangled to death.

And then Mr. Sprocket asks Jackson about who will play him in the movie. I try not to turn beet red with embarrassment. This is the risk I take, bringing him to court with me. I don’t even think Mr. Sprocket knows what case he’s even referring to. Jackson, ever the gracious person that he is, answers the name of a well known actor who has a similar southern accent. I drag Mr. Sprocket away before he has the chance to open his mouth again and we head back to the Red Line train and the rest of our cross-the-city trip.

The rest of my week was one of the best weeks I’ve had in a long, long time.

On Thursday, March 22nd, I got the opportunity to meet some more of those terrific cowboys who proudly wear the blue uniform. If you’re ever in the Valley for lunch, the place to stop is the Four & Twenty restaurant because it’s likely those guys in suits are local detectives and you just might be surprised to see a familiar DDA or two from the DDA’s Justice System Integrity Division.

On Friday, March 23rd, it was a non-stop fun coffee-chat-lunch at the historical landmark Bob’s Big Boy Restaurant in Burbank, CA, with two totally charming women who dedicate their lives to keeping our streets safe. Ladies, I had a blast.

On Saturday, March 24th, I attended my friend Matthew’s discussion about his book at the Pasadena Library. It was a good turnout of baseball fans and I got to meet his family. At the end of the discussion, Matthew is signing books and a tall, commanding balding man with a mustache, rosy cheeks and warm smile walks up to me and tells me he wants to talk to me. When he introduces himself I’m floored and excited at the same time. It’s none other than the guru of all LAPD detectives, a detective’s detective, Rick Jackson, of the LAPD’s Cold Case Unit. If you’ve never heard of Rick Jackson, you need to get your head out of the sand because he is legendary.

I’ve known about Rick Jackson ever since early on in my blogging career when I attended hearings on the Kazuyoshi Miura case. He was the detective who flew to Saipan on an outstanding warrant to retrieve Miura in 2008 for the November 1981, murder-for-hire of his wife, Kazumi on a downtown Los Angeles street. Miura was originally convicted of this murder in his native Japan, but ten years later a higher court overturned the verdict and he was set free.

Rick Jackson also worked on the Grim Sleeper and Westside Rapist Cases.
I was in heaven getting the opportunity to chat cold cases with Rick.

On Sunday, March 25th, I had lunch at the infamous Vitellos (where Robert Blake supposedly left his gun on a booth seat while his con-artist wife, Bonnie Lee Bakley was getting murdered) with my longtime friend and mentor since the first Spector trial, Ciaran McEvoy, currently writing for The Daily Journal.

I don’t think I packed so much excitement into half-a-week since I rode my R60/2 with Earls from Cali to Ohio in four-and-a-half days.

Here are a few cases I’m keeping my eye on and the next upcoming pretrial or arraignment hearings:

March 29th, 2012, Dept. 30 Gerhard Albert Becker
 
April 16th, 2012, Dept. 109, Kelly Soo Park: pretrial hearing.

April 17th, 2012, Dept. 109, Grim Sleeper, Lonnie Franklin, Jr.: pretrial
hearing.

April 20th, 2012, Dept. 107, Cameron Brown: pretrial hearing for 3rd trial. (Second trial.)

April 25th, 2012, Dept. 108, Michael Gargiulo: pretrial hearing.

April 30th, 2012, Dept. 100, Albert Tersargyan: assignment hearing.

May 4th, 2012, Dept. 104, Stephanie Lazarus: sentencing.

I know I will be at the Lazarus sentencing, the Becker hearing tomorrow and the Kelly Soo Park hearing, but I don’t know at this time if I will make the rest. Some of them will depend on how long it takes Mr. Sprocket to get my car back on the road again. Sigh. Yep. It's still not fixed yet.

Going to Court: Department 100: Master Calendar Court

UPDATED 3:10 PM

It's always something isn't it? Well, my little car is still not fixed!

Yesterday, Mr. Sprocket realized at a late juncture that he got the exhaust and intake seals on the valves...mixed up. On American "Felpro" the exhaust gaskets are brown. However, on Toyota the intake gaskets are brown. You can but the exhaust seals on the intake, but you can't put the intake seals on the exhaust. They won't take the heat.

Consequently, we are taking a trip down to Norwalk and the only Toyota dealership in the area that has the extra seals we need. Since this trip in the White Whale Work Truck would take quite a bit of time (and not to mention gas with it's very economical 8 miles per gallon fuel efficiency) Mr. Sprocket and I are using public transportation to get down to Norwalk. Since we are passing through downtown, I checked the DA's calendar for today to see if there were any interesting cases that might have a morning hearing.

DDA Alan Jackson has a case that is in Department 100, which is not on the 9th floor. Dept. 100 is the Master Calendar court that assigns cases to other courts that can not be settled. It's the Alberd Tersargyan case, (aka Albert Harutyunyan) who is charged with four murders. I don't think much is happening today, it might even be held over and not assigned to another court today. Still, I couldn't pass up an opportunity to drop in on the Criminal Court Building and see if this case might be interesting.

I'm in the hallway outside of Dept. 100 right now and I'll post an update later today.

8:30 AM:
The judge in Dept 100 is Patricia M. Schnegg, who I believe presided over the Robert Blake case, the very first high profile case I attended.

3:10 PM
Mr. Sprocket and I are finally home from our cross-the-city on light rail trip to the Norwalk Toyota Dealership. It was enlightening taking the Blue and Green Lines and I've decided I'm partial to the newer trains and buses of the Orange and Red Lines with their more cushioned seats. As soon as Jusge Schnegg took the bench I knew it was not the same judge who presided over the Robert Blake case. That judge was Honorable Darlene Schempp. I think it was the double letters in Judge Schnegg's name that made me think it was the same person.

It was an interesting morning on how things go in Department 100. To answer a comment question, there is no place on line that gives a list of the cases appearing in Dept. 100. And, things went so fast, it was hard to follow. I'll write up my notes on my impressions of this courtroom later today.

8:09 PM
I'm trying to get a PDF link for the LA Co Superior Court's description of the Master Calendar Court but I'm having a bit of difficulty. Hopefully, I'll be able to get that link working when I update this story.

Thursday March 22, 2012 7:28 PM
HERE is the PDF link to a description of Department 100, the Master Calendar Court and it's duties.

LA County Superior Court Rules.