Showing posts with label Beth Karas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beth Karas. Show all posts

Monday, November 24, 2014

Beth Karas Launches KarasOnCrime.com

 Beth Karas

In mid October 2014, right before the start of the Jodi Arias penalty phase retrial, former CourtTv/TruTv reporter and legal analyst Beth Karas launched a new website, KarasOnCrime.com, a monthly subscription based website.

On her new site, Karas explains why:
For the duration of Jodi Arias’s penalty phase retrial in Phoenix, Arizona, I’ll bring you updates and analysis through videos on this site. Why did I launch this? Because the judge is not allowing the trial to be televised live, and many of you who followed last year’s trial want to know the details of the retrial and how it ends. I was there every day last year, and I, too, want to see the final chapter. 
Here’s the plan: I will file a video report on the BK Live link on the site to talk about the entire day’s events—who testified, reaction from the players and jurors, and other observations. I’ll also answer your questions.
The access fee to KarasOnCrime is $5.99 per month. I believe this is the exact amount that CourtTv offered, back in 2004-2007, for online access to their accumulated video library of trial coverage.

There are several other journalists who are live-tweeting the Arias penalty phase retrial, but they don't bring to the table the experience and insight that Karas provides in her live blogging and her nightly wrap-ups. T&T co-contributor ritanita tells me, "Beth's site is excellent."

I don't have any personal insight, but I would not be surprised if there is a book in Beth's future. A book from Beth, detailing her experience as an Assistant District Attorney in New York City, as well as the many high profile trials she attended and reported on would be a fantastic read. I hope my wishful thinking comes true.

Friday, July 26, 2013

Beth Karas Joins WILD ABOUT TRIAL: Web Streaming, Trial Coverage Web Site









Beth Karas





The announcement is official on the Wild About Trial web site, that Beth Karas has joined the team as their Senior Legal Analyst.   Wild About Trial provides news coverage and live web streaming of high profile trials. Beth will cover cases, write a column and do live video chats. You can read the official announcement, HERE.

Alison Triessl, who represented Lois Goodman against felony murder charges (the charges were later dropped), launched Wild About Trial in 2012. I briefly met Alison during the pretrial hearings in the Goodman case.  On November 8th last year, this is what Alison said about T&T's Goodman coverage: "I love your blog! ... So much detail."

I met Beth in 2007 on the second day of the first Phil Spector trial and she's been a friend ever since.  Over the years she's been an invaluable resource and has helped to guide me in more ways that I can count. I knew some time ago that Beth was looking to branch out into something new. When Beth was let go from CNN's In Session, she spread her wings and landed at Wild About Trial.  I've been waiting to announce her move to Wild About Trial for over a week now. I'm so happy that Beth landed a great gig where she will continue to do what she does best.

Beth's trial coverage is top notch. Maybe I'm biased, but I don't think there is anyone else on TV that comes close to Beth's no nonsense style of trial reporting. CNN's In Session's loss of Beth Karas is Wild About Trial's gain.


Beth Karas Facebook Page.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial Hearing 9

Thursday, September 1st, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEFENSE NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR KELLY/FRYE HEARING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Once a particular scientific technology (such as PCR/STR DNA testing) is held to be generally accepted, new or varied applications of that fundamentally unchanged technology do not raise a "prong one" Kelly question requiring a Kelly hearing. See, People v. Hill, (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 48, 58. A scientific technique that remains fundamentally unchanged, but is simply refined, improved, or varied in its application, is not a new scientific technology requiring a "prong one" Kelly hearing. Hill, supra, at p. 58 (new and varied PCR/STR testing kits do not require new prong one hearing). At the time that the Hill court made its decision:
". . . two methodologies are widely used in forensic DNA testing: restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and PCR. (cite omitted) There are three subtypes of PCR testing: DQ-Alpha, which test a single genetic marker; Polymarker, which tests five genetic markers; and the STR, which tests three or more genetic markers. (cite omitted) The RFLP and PCR methodologies, including the PCR subtypes, have acquired general acceptance in the scientific community."
Hill, supra, at p. 57. Hill's holding controls the present case. This fact is made explicit when the Hill court states:
We reject the argument that each new PCR/STR test kit must, as a matter of law, be subjected to a Kelly prong one analysis to determine scientific reliability. (cites omitted). The Kelly prong one analysis applies to new scientific techniques.
Hill, supra, at p. 58."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STEPHANIE LAZARUS QUICK LINKS

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Warren Jeffs Sentenced to Life Plus 20 Years







UPDATE:
Texas released Jeffs prison photo after his head was shaved.














Warren Jeffs booking photo, undated, AP





It is a relief to the T&T team that polygamy sect leader Warren Jeffs will most likely spend the rest of his natural life behind bars. Jeffs was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a 12-year-old "spiritual bride" and sexual assault of a 14-year-old "spiritual bride". (Some MSM reports have described her as 15-years-old; this specific victim bore a child by Jeffs at age 15.) Jeffs was sentenced to life in prison plus 20 years.

My real life responsibilities got in the way of researching this case, but I followed Jeffs molestation trial when I could through In Session's Beth Karas' reports on TV, and through her Facebook page. On August 3rd, my jaw dropped when Beth posted this on Facebook:

I just witnessed some of the most disturbing evidence I've ever seen (or heard) in a courtroom. It was a 20-minute audio recording of a 50 year old Warren Jeffs and a 12 year old child allegedly having sex in the presence, and with assistance, of several other wives of Jeffs. It allegedly occurred on August 7, 2006 on the FLDS's ranch outside Eldorado, Texas. The recording was the final evidence presented by the State. Jeffs says he wants to call witnesses. Court is in a recess right now.

That's right. Jeffs, tape recorded his rape of a 12-year-old. The tape recording was recovered after a raid on the Texas compound in 2008. Can you imagine sitting in the gallery, much less the jury box and listening to this evidence? One has to wonder why Jeffs tape recorded these rapes. Could it have been for Jeffs to 'relive' the experience, much like serial killers and rapists do when they take a trophy from their victims?

Once Jeffs was convicted, Beth reported on air that even more outrageous, damaging testimony would be heard in the penalty phase. At the time, I wondered, 'What could be worse than listening to a tape recorded rape of a 12-year-old?' Here's what Beth report on her Facebook page:

Among the punishment evidence to be heard by the jury (starting tomorrow): Jeffs's 78 unlawful "marriages," 24 of which were to girls under 17; that he presided over, or was a witness to, 67 other "marriages" to underage girls; that he presided over, or was witness to, more than 500 bigamist "marriages;" that he broke up more than 300 families by expelling husbands and reassigning wives and children to other men; and proof of 6 other alleged illegal sex acts (presumably with children).


The punishment phase of Warren Jeffs's sexual assault trial is winding down. Jurors heard an audio recording allegedly made in August 2004at the FLDS's Texas ranch. Jeffs can be heard instructing 5 wives that it is important to sexually pleasure each other in order to pleasure him.

Beth was right. The information in the penalty phase of the case was just as damming if not more so.

In Sessions had a video interview with Jeffs nephew, who claims Warren raped him when he was 5-years-0ld in a bathroom.

There are still thousands of people who follow the FDLS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) way of life. Putting Jeffs behind bars doesn't end the abuse that many more children will experience living under the repressive beliefs and subjugation of this religious sect. What will happen to this sect now that Jeffs is behind bars? There are MSM reports that an associate of Jeffs, Willie E. Jessop will lead the sect but others state that Jeffs brother Lyle will now take over. There are also reports that Jeffs will still try to lead from prison.

CNN coverage of Jeffs trial.

Friday, September 3, 2010

In Session's Beth Karas Interviews Rachel Wade

In Session's Beth Karas had a rare opportunity to interview Rachel Wade on Tuesday, August 31st, 2010, three days before her sentencing hearing. Rachel Wade was convicted of second degree murder in the death of a romantic rival, Sarah Lundemann, 17, over Joshua Camacho, a young man who was dating both women at the same time. The full interview will be shown on In Session next Tuesday, September 7th, 2010. You can read about Beth's exclusive interview at the In Session blog.

Short, In Session promo video at Facebook.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

The Case Against Casey Anthony: Pre-Trial Hearing Tomorrow

Just a reminder that tomorrow is the long-awaited day for the pretrial hearing for Casey Anthony. InSession on TruTV will broadcast it live with Beth Karas doing the coverage. It should also be live-streamed by CNN and local stations. It will be interesting to see what happens!

If I am able, I will post a summary.

Mid-Week Summary

This week has been a virtual tornado of Baez and Anthony spin. Sunday evening, the Anthony family announced a temporary cessation of vigils for Caylee until the New Year.

At the same time, Cindy opined about the decision of the prosecution not to seek the death penalty:

"I don't think they have much of a case at all," said Cindy following a candlelight vigil for Caylee at the Eastside Baptist Church in Orlando. "I don't think they have a death penalty case at all, so I wasn't surprised."

She added that the whole notion of raising a death penalty case against her daughter was ridiculous. "I think we should be out there looking for Caylee and not focused on a few lies Casey told to the Sheriff's Office. The evidence will speak for itself."

It's interesting that Cindy refers to her daughter's "few lies" when those following the case know that virtually everything Casey said was a lie!

Monday morning, Jose Baez appeared on the Today Show. The broadcast began with the coverage of the extensive pretrial publicity and the difficulty of finding an impartial jury. Apparently, asking for a change of venue would cause a delay in the trial, something the defense does not seem to want. Baez still is doing media research to make a decision on the change of venue issue.

In his interview, Jose Baez contended that

"We believe that Caylee is alive, and what we want to do, as her attorney I have a responsibility to Casey, and that is to do the best job possible, so it's not an issue of rushing to get a trial just because we expect a body to be found,"

Apparently, he believes a speedy trial is necessary to absolve Casey of guilt and get her out of jail as soon as possible. I also noticed that Mr. Baez is now using the royal "we" nowadays.

Baez also indicated that he believes the "leaks" from law enforcement were put out in the public well before they should have been. He also stated the jailhouse videos released last week show an emotional Casey who is crying all the time. Cindy Anthony had also applauded the release of the tapes saying that:

"I said from the very beginning, if they would have shown those tapes people would have seen that she does have emotions," Cindy Anthony said. "She's not a cold, calloused person like everybody wants to paint her out to be. She's a desperate, loving mother."

Did Cindy actually view the videos, or is she doing this from memory? I haven't heard ONE expert say that's how Casey came off in those tapes. Pathological liar, deceptive body language, severe family dysfunction: That's what I observed and what was reported in the news by any number of experts.

Baez also claimed the public only has a "fraction" of the story. My goodness! All the thousands of pages of information released under the Florida Sunshine Laws are only a fraction! Does that mean Casey has much more to say? If she does, she'll have to take the stand at the trial. According to the defense witness list, there are only three scientific experts listed. There don't seem to be any witnesses to buttress Casey's lies and swear to her veracity.

Also on Monday, Jose Baez petitioned the court for an Application For Subpoena Duces Tecum for the release of various security tapes, including those from the infamous "Caylee sighting" at the Florida Mall. Apparently, the Anthony family can't get them for themselves without one. According to George Anthony, there is a 50-50 chance the little girl is Caylee.

Hello? How did he come up with that? OK, I get it, it's Caylee or it isn't! I suppose that the same logic would apply to almost any little brown-haired girl with bangs and a pony-tail? If there is a math wizard out there anywhere, please explain George's math to me!

The last news reported Monday of any value was the fact that Jose Baez still hasn't picked up the DVD's with the rest of the tips he's been begging for. According to WFTV:

Baez's spokesman said the sheriff's office has misled them in the past, implying the abandoned discs don't contain tips of Caylee sightings. He said that despite the defense having not looked at them yet. He also said that Baez "could maybe already know what's on those discs."

I personally believe he knows they won't find anything of value on them and he doesn't want to pony up the money he already owes the court for the last batch of tips. Also, his staff of 40 that he alluded to at the hearing last week just doesn't want to go down to the courthouse to sort them out for free.

Tuesday's news was replete with announcements about Cindy and George's journey to California on Wednesday to appear live on the Larry King Show. Of course, that trip is secondary to another hunt for Caylee. This time, they plan to visit a restaurant in Newport Beach where there was yet another Caylee "sighting."

On Nancy Grace, Leonard Padilla chimed in with yet another of his opinions:

Everybody knows when she died, and the 30 days is not a secret anymore ... Don't be surprised if Orange County or the FBI don't drop it on us here that they've got the body somewhere," Padilla said.

So, folks, it seems as though tonight is the night for the Larry King interview. It will be interesting to hear questions from the viewers. If you want, you can e-mail your questions here!

Tune in Friday! The Casey Anthony Case will be covered on Dateline NBC!

Local 6.com
MyFox35
WFTV
MyFox35
WESH
CNN Find Caylee Blog

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Tune in for Coverage of the Case Against Casey Anthony on TruTV!

I've received word that Beth Karas will be on In Session on Monday, December 8 doing three one-hour specials on the case. They will be broadcast from 10-11, 12-1, and 2-3 ET. Beth will also be covering the hearing live on December 11.

The Case Against Casey Anthony: The Week in Review


After a busy weekend of poring over the latest document dump and the new information released the previous week, the Anthony camp fired back. Cindy Anthony announced on Monday, December 1, that her Yahoo e-mail account had been hacked.

According to Kathy Belich of WFTV, she received four suspicious e-mails from Cindy. She notified her by text message and then forwarded them to the FBI for further investigation.

The FBI asked Eyewitness News not to reveal the details of emails because of their investigation. They include exchanges between Cindy Anthony and her spokesman, her private investigator, and even the PR person for Kid Finders, angry with Eyewitness News after exposing their founder has a criminal background.

There has been talk all over the internet about this, needless to say. Some believe she was hacked, others think Cindy may have accidentally sent out those e-mails. Either way, I am amazed that she kept sensitive e-mails on a Yahoo account. There are also rumors that some of the information is sensitive to the defense case. Unfortunately, if a third party such as Cindy is privy to such information, it is no longer covered by attorney-client privilege. It will be interesting to see if anything comes out of the FBI investigation.

The Anthony family maintains there is a possibility that the "hackers" have ties to Ocala and possibly some of the protesters. According to Dominic Casey, Anthony's' private investigator:

"It would be a connection between Ocala and Orlando or several protesters that we did run background checks on throughout that period. As to me saying it would be attributed to them, not what I'm saying, but possibly an Ocala to Orlando," said Dominic Casey, Anthonys' private investigator.

Later Monday night, Dr. Lawrence Kobilinski reported on Nancy Grace that it was probable that the defense might have to ask for a delay in the trial as he had not yet had the opportunity to examine the evidence.

Dr. Koblinski is one of the three scientific experts to comprise the entire witness list for the defense. The evidence he needs to examine is the hair root showing decomposition. At present, the hair is housed at the FBI labs in Quantico, VA. At the hearing last week, Judge Strickland ruled he could make arrangements with the lab to examine the evidence. I should hope that Mr. Baez is working hard to make that happen. At the hearing, the prosecuting attorney stated that more testing could happen and the hair needed to stay in Virginia. Shipping the evidence to Orlando for examination and shipping it back and forth posed a danger to the chain of custody.

Dr. Kobilinski is based in New York City. If I recall correctly, it is about a five hour drive or train ride to Quantico. Mr. Baez would be to an advantage cost-wise to send Dr. Kobilinski to Virginia instead of Orlando, FBI willing.

Tuesday began with an announcement by Leonard Padilla that he intends to return to Blanchard Park on Christmas Day with Jesse Grund's father, Richard for a vigil for Caylee. He also announced that he had already raised $50,000 from private donors to continue the search he began in November.

The Anthony family returned the ball by making an announcement that they had "big" news!

First, "...members of Kid Finders said they've had a third witness come forward to tell them they also saw a little girl who looked like Caylee in an Orlando mall last month.

Then, "Caylee's grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony, said a big development in the case is on the way. George Anthony wouldn't elaborate much further, but said a team of private investigators are working on a new lead that could lead to the discovery of the girl. "

According to George,

"There is just a lot of positive things that are still happening. A lot more people are coming forward because they can see some progress of bringing Caylee home and it's pretty awesome stuff. I can't be too specific with you but we believe we're close," he said. "

Apparently, any brown-haired, 3-year-old little girl is fair game for the Anthony family. As for me, I'm still waiting to see the photograph of Casey, Caylee, and "Zanny" that they have been hunting for somewhere out there.

Also on Tuesday, it was reported on WFTV that the family had still not reported the alleged hacking incident to police despite the assertion by Dominic Casey that "they are outraged and planned to report the intrusion to the Marion County Sheriff's Office."

After a break on Wednesday with no publicity about the case, Thursday thundered in with the release of 7 DVD's by the OCSO jail. They show the visits between Casey and her parents and her brother, Lee. These visits occurred in July and August during her first incarceration on felony child abuse charges and before she was bailed out by Leonard Padilla. Since her arrest on murder charges, Casey has had no visits from her family. Viewing the videos clearly explains why!

Casey shows her control over the entire situation. Her parents tip-toe around her, possibly to avoid angering her and shutting her down. In the long run, they learn nothing new and those of us watching learn about how Casey operates. Listening to Casey talk to her brother Lee is like listening to a foreign language. I'm going to have to learn Anthoneese!

I'm looking forward to seeing the analysis of some of these tapes when they are hashed out on In Session Monday!

The week closed out on Friday with the announcement that the State will not seek the death penalty in the case.

Prosecutors last month told WESH 2 News they were not sure they had enough aggravating circumstances to convince a jury to recommend the death penalty. In its notice to the court on Friday, the state attorney’s office simply wrote that “it is not in the best interest of the people of the State of Florida to pursue the death penalty.”

The Anthony family fired back with a statement through their representative.

"In response to the state's intent not to seek the death penalty came as no surprise to us this afternoon," the statement said. "Our family believes Caylee Marie is still alive and our efforts have not lost focus to the objective of bringing her home. Today's announcement only supports our theory that our granddaughter is still with us, and we will continue investigating all tips and leads that support our position despite what the authorities continue to say."

Hello? She's still facing life without parole! The only difference I can find is that Jose Baez will probably continue as her lead attorney. In addition, George and Cindy Anthony, as well as their spokesperson Michelle Bart are rapidly losing credibility with their constant "exciting news" press releases. It's hard to believe them anymore. They've gone to that particular well too many times.

The final news of the week came when it was announced that prosecution had added to their witness list. The new total is 144 witnesses. The revised list has not been published yet. It should be interesting to see what names have been added.

WFTV

WESH

CNN Find Caylee Blog


Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Nine of Testimony

Updated!
November 19th, 2008


Adriano De Souza testifies!

Prosecution Witnesses:

#13: Gamaliel Catalan* (Communications Supervisor of Alhambra Police Dept.; testimony completed) *Possible misspelling of first name.

#14: Sandra Hill (Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor for the California Highway Patrol; testimony completed)

#15: Adriano De Souza (substitute personal driver for Spector the night of February 2, 2003; currently under first cross by Weinberg)

Accredited Press in the courtroom:
Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times
Beth Karas of TruTv's In Sessions, morning session (unofficial capacity)

It was a very exciting day today. After two quick witnesses to present De Souza's 911 call, Adriano De Souza took the witness stand today and told the jury the words he heard Spector say just outside the rear entrance of his Alhambra home and holding a gun in his right hand, "I think I killed somebody."

The jurors appeared transfixed every since the playing of the 911 call. Court started a bit late this morning, a little after 10 am. De Souza's direct testimony was finished around 2:18 pm. After a very short break, Weinberg started cross examination. Weinberg methodically began to chip away at De Souza's memory. He also confronted De Souza on the different versions he gave to investigators of the statement he claims Spector said. Weinberg did something that I don't believe the defense did in the first trial. Wearing a latex glove, Weinberg had De Souza pick up the gun that killed Lana Clarkson and demonstrate to the jury how he saw Spector holding the weapon when he stood at the back door. De Souza testifies that he could see the color of the gun handle.

AJ: Let the record reflect that I'm approximately twelve to fifteen feet away and I can clearly see the [medallion? on the gun during the] demonstration."

While he is demonstrating for the jury, Weinberg asks De Souza, "Is it your testimony that at five o'clock in the morning you could see the handle?" "Sure," De Souza replies. "My hand is bigger than Mr. Spector's."

I'm very tired today and I will write up detailed notes over the holiday break. However, I wanted to mention some people who were in the courtroom today. Two middle age gentlemen came in and sat behind Rachelle. At the lunch break, Spector greeted them and they left the courtroom together. Beth Karas of In Sessions was in court during the morning session and we both commented that we did not recognize the men having attended the first trial. Louis Spector and his companion, Frieda were in court today. Remember Ricardo Ocampo, the former Deputy District Attorney who was appointed to the L.A. County Superior Court last Friday? His mother was in the gallery today. She was warmly greeted by AJ before court began. At the afternoon break, she was introduced to Mrs. Clarkson, who congratulated her on her son's recent appointment. Also in the courtroom was Onalee Hunter from NBC. In the afternoon, DA spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons introduced her to Harriet Ryan and myself. She is working on a fictional pilot/series for a show about L.A. prosecutors. AJ and Truc are both very attractive and with AJ's charisma, they could easily play themselves!

I almost forgot! Juror #5 is wearing the black, Sun Records t-shirt again. I believe this is the fourth time Juror #5 has worn a music related t-shirt in 9 days of testimony. When the jurors exited the courtroom passing the defendant, Spector smiled as he noticed the shirt. He then spoke to Weinberg's paralegal, Susan. I'm not positive on what Spector said. It could have been, "Did you see that?"


Update! Detailed Trial Notes for Wednesday, November 19th, 2008.

I’m a bit late. I make the 8:39 am train. As the train takes off from North Hollywood, I watch the walls of the tunnel speed by. My mind drifts off to a familiar topic and that’s an earthquake while I’m in the tunnel. The train is making an unusual stop in the middle of the tunnel. Over the speaker we’re told it’s to “drop off personnel." This is at a spot somewhere between the Universal City Station and the Hollywood and Highland Station. I try to peer out the window but I’m on the wrong side of the train to see anything. Yesterday, Mr. Sprocket and I had a “disagreement” about what an earthquake will and will not do. I want him to strap down all the electronic equipment ~ DVDR’s, receivers, the TV ~ in the living room armoire. Mr. Sprocket (who has never been through anything more than a 4.5) keeps telling me that the “cable” attached to the TV and other stuff will keep it in the armoire during an earthquake. I have to remind him that the last earthquake flattened an apartment building in Northridge and destroyed freeways.

9:29 am: I’m inside the courtroom. San Diego Linda and her friend Paula have taken the Metrolink to be here today. There is a possibility that De Souza will take the stand and Linda said she didn’t want to miss it. This is true dedication to watch this trial. The Metrolink ride is two hours one way.

9:45 am: Court still hasn’t started yet so something must be up. 9:53 am, Louis Spector and Frieda arrive. It isn’t until 10 am that Truc enters the courtroom. I’ve never seen anyone unpack a laptop and get it set up faster than Truc. There are a few public people in the courtroom today.

10:02 am: AJ strolls in with the cart carrying the prosecution's case binders that they need for today. A friend of AJ’s is in court and he greets her with a hug and a kiss. Later, I find out that this is the mother of Ricardo Ocampo, who was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court on November 14th. A gentleman enters the courtroom and asks AJ if he can sit in the first row on the end. I suspect this is the prosecution’s next witness. 10:05 am: One of the prosecution’s clerks arrives with AJ’s laptop. I note that Mrs. Ocampo is very nicely dressed in a dark skirt and white jacket with a thick black belt.

Spector is wearing his usual Edwardian type suit jacket. From where I’m sitting it has a bit of a satiny sheen to it. Rachelle is wearing a black pinstripe jacket.

10:07 am: Harriet Ryan and the Clarkson’s enter. Beth Karas arrives and greets Louis and Frieda. Both counsel approach the bench for a conference before testimony starts.

The next witness is called, #13 Gamaliel Catalan, a communications supervisor for the Alhambra Police Department. I remember when he testified at the first trial. He supervises the 911 system for the City of Alhambra. At the time of the shooting, land line 911 calls would go directly to the 911 emergency system. However, calls from cell phones went directly to the California Highway Patrol, (CHP) who would take the information and direct the call to the appropriate municipality.

The 911 system is audio voice recorded and a paper trail is generated and that’s called a “dispatch incident.” Under subpoena, he did a search of record systems and found a single 911 call from 1700 Grand View and provided the information to the DA’s office.

Truc plays for the jury De Souza’s 911 call. What’s interesting is, this is the “second” half of the 911 call. The text of the call is put up on the screen as the audio is played. The document shows the call came in at 5:02:20 am. When the paper document, the “dispatch incident” is introduced, Weinberg objects to the record as hearsay. His argument is that it’s not verified as to who said what words, that are on the document.

Judge Fidler questions the witness about the record and how it’s generated. Afterwards, he overrules the objection. I have here in my notes “the audio of the 911” but I’m not sure if it’s played again, (I think so) or if they are going over the dispatch incident.

The 911 call clearly states that De Souza saw Spector with the gun. This is moments after the shooting. The jurors have a transcript of the call and the text is also up on the ELMO as the audio plays.

TD: Other than this one call, were there others?

GC: No.

Direct is finished and cross begins.

Weinberg crosses the witness on the dispatch incident report. “Can you tell who created or spoke what [from this report]? Weinberg asks. “It’s the dispatcher’s abbreviation,” Catalan responds. Weinberg then brings up the fact that we have not heard the portion related to the CHP, who first took the call. That’s it. Cross is finished and the next witness is called.

#14 Sandra Hill, Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor for the California Highway Patrol. She has been in this position for 12 years. She is a custodian of records for the CHP. Their records are stored on audio tape for 180 days and a paper trail is also generated. Their incident report is up on the screen. What’s interesting is, the record shows the time as 5:04:52 am. The clocks must have been off somewhere, because this call actually happened before the call that was just introduced into evidence with an earlier time stamp on it’s paper document.

The audio tape is played for the jury and the text of the call scrolls down the screen. I copy what I can.

I think, my boss killed somebody.

He has a lady on the floor and a gun in, in his hand.

I think he, he killed her.

Direct is finished and cross begins.

Weinberg establishes that she had nothing to do with the call. Dispatcher Rick Vollmer handled the call. “Did CHP make that transcript? (exhibit 143)” Weinberg asks. Hill replies, “We did not prepare the transcript. We only prepare logs. [...] The CHP did not prepare it.”

Weinberg crosses her on line 19 of the transcript which has quotation marks around one of the statements. (I am trying to get a copy of the transcript so I can clarify this for everyone.) “There was nothing on the tape about quoting someone was there?” Weinberg asks her.

OBJECTION! Sustained.

DW: Has the CHP tried to enhance the quality of the tape?

OBJECTION! (I believe it’s AJ who makes the objection.) Your honor, there is some confusion because we had to take witnesses out of order.

There’s a bench conference.

DW: These 911 calls come in extemporaneously, correct?

Weinberg is challenging the interpretation of the call.

DW: Do you know if Mr. Vollmer had any other information on how he determined that his [De Souza's] boss killed someone?

Objection!

Fidler asks the witness, “If you know?”

SH: No, I do not.

Fidler then addresses the court. “Because of the confusion of witnesses out of order, we will play the complete 911 call from start to finish.”

The jurors watch the screen, as the audio is played but the text on the screen stops. Fidler points it out to Truc and she responds that the jurors have a transcript of the calls.

We are finally finished and the next witness is called. #15 is Adriano De Souza!

De Souza is wearing a white shirt and a green tie. AJ stands up to present De Souza’s testimony.

In 2003, De Souza was a limo driver. He worked as a private driver and also worked part time at the Grill on the Alley in Beverly Hills. He did not own his own limousine but drove the car of whomever hired him. He knew Kathy Sullivan who worked at the restaurant. Dillon Keane was Spector’s “official” driver. He met Keane at the restaurant and he was the one who recommended him to Spector to fill in when Keane was unavailable. De Souza testifies that he drove Mr. Spector in Spector’s own car. Michelle Blaine would call and set up the appointments. He states that he thinks he drove for Spector about 15 times.

When I take a look over at Rachelle, she has a pair of glasses on. It’s 11:03 am and one of the juror’s raises their hand and asks for a restroom break. I had forgotten how tiny Beth Karas is in person. She is wearing a beautiful deep blue skirt with a matching short, form fitting jacket top. Underneath the jacket she has on a stretchy long sleeve black top. She’s also wearing a striking necklace. It appears to be made of solid silver. It’s a large, open pedal rose on a black cord. I have never seen Beth look unprofessional when she's at court. Another woman who might be press is in the back row directly behind me. Spector is wearing black and brown two-toned shoes.

Before the break, AJ asked De Souza what branch of the military he served in. “Army,” he replies. “So a grunt?” AJ asked. De Souza didn’t get the reference and AJ replied, “Bad joke.”

De Souza’s education was reviewed in detail. He’s no slouch. He studied English from a very young age, his early teens. He graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in computer science. He wrote programming languages in English.

Two elderly looking gentlemen came in during the break or earlier and sit behind Rachelle. At the end of the break, they chat with Rachelle.

11:20 am: Break is over. In the Brazilian Army, De Souza reached the rank of First Lieutenant, which is an officer rank. I think De Souza’s English is a tiny better than the first trial. De Souza states that when he was in Brazil, he had private instruction to learn English.

Up on the ELMO now is an arial view of the front of Spector’s home, the “Castle.” Then two more photos are added that are outside, back of the house views. Next up is a city map of the area and De Souza identifies all the locations relevant to the night of the shooting. De Souza then is asked to identify Spector’s first “date” of the evening and describe her. He describes Rommie Davis.

I take a glance at Rachelle and her eyes are closed.

De Souza testifies about taking Rommie Davis home and going back to pick up Kathy Sullivan at The Grill on the Alley. He details the places that he drove Spector and testifies that he did not enter any establishment. He stayed in the car. When Spector wanted Kathy Sullivan to go with him to Dan Tanas from Trader Vic's, De Souza testifies that Kathy Sullivan told Spector that she was tired.

Spector then decides to go to the House of Blues. De Souza describes how he drove into the wrong entrance area at the House of Blues. He dropped them off, they got out of the car, discovered their mistake and they got back into the car and he drove them down around to the lower, Olive Street entrance.

De Souza then describes when Sullivan came back to the car. She was with someone else and he didn’t know who the other person was. The individual introduced herself to him as Lana. The video surveillance video of Lana coming out is played for De Souza. (Three other videos are also played.)

In each video, AJ asks De Souza to identify the “shorter person” he points to with the laser pointer. Each time, De Souza states that the person is Phil Spector.

It’s now that I get a clear view of Juror #5’s clothing. He’s wearing the SUN STUDIO t-shirt again. Alan Parachini from the PIO and one of his staff members have been in the courtroom most of the morning.

De Souza tells the jury what type of car Lana drove: a black Mercury Cougar.

I look on over at the two gentlemen behind Rachelle. One of them is dressed as if he “might” be in the music or entertainment industry. I think I might have seen that one at the first trial, but I’m not sure. He has slightly curly, almost frizzy salt and pepper hair.

It’s 12 noon and the lunch recess is called. Since I brought my lunch today, Linda, Paula, Sherri and I all have lunch in the courthouse cafeteria.

1:29 pm: We’re back inside the courtroom. The prosecution isn’t here yet. The defense is here with Spector and Rachelle. The friends from the morning session are not here, which leads me to believe they might not have eaten lunch with Spector. There are three students from Pepperdine University who are in a journalism law class, taking notes on the trial. They are sitting in the third row off to my left. A minute later AJ, Truc and one of their clerks arrive.

One of the trial watchers commented to me that Truc has a great wardrobe and I agree. I have been impressed with every suit I have seen her wear. You would think that with all my attention to fashion I would know something about clothes and high couture. I don’t. I couldn’t tell you anything about who the latest designers are. I’ve been a tomboy since my early teen years and my clothing of choice is a pair of comfy jeans with a white t-shirt. I do find it fascinating though, how several of the players are presented and what message that sends to the press as well as the jury. Before I forget, Truc is wearing a chocolate brown skirt and jacket suit. It’s perfectly tailored and the skirt has a nice design of five 10” pleats in the back.

One of Spector’s friends from the morning session returns. It’s the man with the salt and pepper hair. Beth Karas does not return to court for the afternoon session, but Harriet Ryan from the Los Angeles Times is here.

1:34 pm: Court is about to start. The jury files in. The second DA clerk is here and Mrs. Ocampo sits with him. 1:36 pm, Judge Fidler takes the bench. De Souza is back on the witness stand.

De Souza is now going over the testimony where Lana is already in the limo. She speaks to De Souza and De Souza tells the jury that Spector yelled at her not to talk to the driver. After they were driving for a while, De Souza testifies that he started to smell alcohol coming from the back seat of the Mercedes.

PIO staff enter the courtroom and sit in the plastic seats against the wall by the door.

De Souza testifies that for the first time ever, Spector instructed him to stop at the front entrance to the house where there is a huge staircase. If I’m remembering correctly from the first trial, there are over 80 steps to reach the front entrance. De Souza then drove around to the back gate and parked directly beside the rear entrance to the house. This was the first time that De Souza drove Spector and a woman to the Castle.

AJ pantomimes the handling of the briefcase and how far De Souza went into the house to drop it off. I then see AJ lean over the railing to Mrs. Clarkson to prepare her for gruesome photographs of her daughter. De Souza states that at around 5 am he heard a noise. He goes onto describe how he got out of the car and walked around the fountain looking for the source of the noise. He then got back into the car.

Right after he got back into the car, Spector emerged from the rear entrance of the house. AJ goes over to the bailiff and retrieves an evidence bag. A mug shot of Spector is put up on the ELMO, and De Souza identifies that this is how Spector looked, on the night of the shooting. De Souza stands and using his hand as a substitute for the gun, demonstrates how he saw Spector was holding the weapon. With his knowledge of guns from 9 years in the Brazilian Army, De Souza testifies that Spector was holding a revolver. He identifies the gun from the evidence bag as the one Spector was holding.

De Souza testifies what he heard Spector say after he emerged from the house. “I think I killed someone.” AJ goes over this several times with De Souza, making sure the jury hears that there is “no question in his mind” as to what he heard Spector say.

De Souza testifies that he saw blood on Spector’s right forefinger. “He had a stupid look on his face.” De Souza says. De Souza testifies that he leaned to the right to look around Spector who is standing in the rear entrance doorway and sees Lana. “What happened, sir?” De Souza says to Spector. Spector’s response to that question is to shrug his shoulders. The shrugging movement is demonstrated to the jury. Spector had no expression on his face. “Like a blank stare?” AJ asks. “Yes,” De Souza answers.

De Souza then tells the jury how frightened he was. He started to run down the driveway away from the house and then remembered the car. He ran back, got into the Mercedes and drove to the front gate where he knew there was a sign with the address on it. He had testified earlier that he knew how to get to the Castle but he didn’t know the exact address to tell the 911 operator.

De Souza states he first called Michelle Blaine. He didn’t reach her; he left a message on her answering machine. That tape is played for the jury and the text is put up on the ELMO.

2:16 pm: The white haired man from the first trial enters the courtroom and sits down beside Rachelle in the first row.

(I don’t have it i my notes but if I’m remembering correctly, I think the 911 call De Souza made is also played. I may be wrong, and it could have been played as part of the redirect.)

Direct is finished and cross begins.

Weinberg verifies that De Souza was interviewed by Alhambra Police Officer’s Kennedy and Pineda, as well as two from the Sheriff’s Department, Tomlin and Fortier. De Souza will continually state that he is not sure about all the officer’s names. He testifies that he was interviewed by many officers. He does remember being interviewed by Officer Pineda. Weinberg asks him if he was interviewed by the prosecutor’s since the last trial and De Souza says no. Weinberg then asks the question again, almost with a disbelief tone in his voice. De Souza states that he hasn’t talked to anyone since the last trial about the facts of the case except his wife and that was only to detail the times he would have to go to court.

Weinberg asks De Souza if he speaks Portuguese at home with his wife and De Souza says, “That’s right.” Weinberg acknowledges his education and English and that’s it. There are not hundreds of questions about his English like Bradley Brunon did at the first trial. But what Weinberg does for the rest of his cross examination for the day, is cross him on his testimony at the grand jury, his interviews with police and his testimony at the first trial and point out where there are inconsistencies.

DW: When you testified at the first trial, you said that you did have trouble understanding Mr. Spector when he was drunk. Why did you leave that out now? [...] [You said], you didn’t understand him when he was drunk; you didn’t understand him when he was mumbling; you didn’t understand him when he didn’t finish his sentences.

AJ: Objection! [Read back of prior testimony is incorrect.]

Judge Fidler asks De Souza a question. De Souza responds that when he testified on direct, he had no trouble understanding Mr. Spector that day.

Weinberg gets De Souza to admit that by the time that he was done with Mr. Spector, he had been up for about 23 hours.

In the interview with Detective’s Tomlin and Fortier, Weinberg questions De Souza on the fact that he told them that Spector was slurring his words outside of Trader Vic’s.

I believe there is an objection here by the people, and Fidler directs Weinberg in the first of many similar directions for the rest of the afternoon, to finish quoting from the interview so that the question he is asking is presented “in context.” It’s something that Weinberg tries to do again and again throughout De Souza’s cross.

Weinberg is now crossing on something De Souza testified to at the first trial. He has his clerk put the text of the testimony up on the ELMO and the people object. The objection is sustained. This is not proper protocol for introducing cross exam, and Weinberg has already been told by the Judge on prior occasions that he’s not to do that.

DW: Isn’t it true sir that the last time you testified under oath, you were the one who invited Lana into the Mercedes?

It happens again. Weinberg reads part of a prior testimony at either the trial or the grand jury and AJ quickly objects. Fidler then instructs Weinberg to include the next few lines or more lines to put the question into context.

I believe we are now on the afternoon break, because I have in my notes that I overhear Sandi Gibbons introduce the woman in the back row to Harriet Ryan. She’s a producer for NBC working on developing a pilot about Los Angeles prosecutors and she’s studying AJ. Harriet asks her if it’s a documentary and she replies that its a fiction series. Sandi Gibbons then says to me, “I saw your ears perk up Sprocket.” Sandi Gibbons then introduces me by my real name to Onalee Hunter and that I write I blog. I tell Ms. Hunter that I write from the perspective as if my readers were in the courtroom with me, as if they would see what I see. I have a lot of mundane commentary about people coming in and out of the courtroom and where they sit.

3:11 pm: Weinberg asks Fidler if he can play about 45 seconds of the prosecution’s tape of detectives talking outside near the fountain. He wants to play it not for the dialog, but for the sound level of the fountain. Weinberg also wants to have De Souza demonstrate with the weapon in his hand, how he saw Spector holding the gun. Fidler instructs Weinberg that he wants to make sure that De Souza does not hold the gun in the direction of the jurors and that a latex glove will be needed to handle the weapon. The bailiff produces a glove.

3:15 pm: Break is over and we are back on the record.

Weinberg asks De Souza about how much does Lana Clarkson weigh and how tall she is. The state objects and Fidler overrules them, saying he can guess. He estimates Lana Clarkson’s weight as 170 to 160 pounds. He is then asked to estimate the same for Spector. He states Spector is about 5’2” to 5’3” and weighs approximately 125 pounds. De Souza states that Lana Clarkson was helping Spector to walk up the stairs to the front entrance. Weinberg continues to cross him on the reenactment and plays the audio of the fountain. It’s quite noisy. De Souza states that he did not hear any arguing or other voices before the “POW” noise that startled him.

Again, via another question, De Souza still states that he didn’t have any problem understanding Spector that night.

3:29 pm: Spector’s fan arrives and sits in the third bench row.

Weinberg is asking several questions about how he saw Spector holding the gun. De Souza says, “I can show you.” Weinberg then wants De Souza to not just show the jury with his right arm and finger pointing, he wants him to demonstrate with the weapon in his hand.

Once De Souza takes the weapon and tries to show the jury without pointing the gun in their direction, AJ, who is seated at the prosecution table says, “Let the record reflect I’m 12 to 15 feet away and I can clearly see the demonstration [and medallion] on the weapon.”

Weinberg is crossing De Souza now about the color of the handle of the weapon. “Is it your testimony that at 5 o’clock in the morning you could see the handle?” De Souza answers, “Sure. My hand is bigger than Mr. Spector’s.”

3:36 pm: Now Weinberg brings up the fact that in the first trial he identified the handle of the gun as black verses brown, today.

DW: Do you remember talking to Tomlin and Fortier, that you “thought you saw some blood but not sure,” but now you’re testifying now you’re certain you saw blood. Why is that?

Now Weinberg is asking De Souza about Spector’s reaction after he asked him, “What happened, sir?” and the small discrepancies in his testimony.

I could swear that I just heard De Souza say in response to one of Weinberg’s questions, ‘It’s not like ordering a pizza sir, when you see a body.’

Now Weinberg is back to questioning him about the 911 call.

DW: If that’s what you were trying to convey, why didn’t you say that? Why didn’t you say, [clarifying] “He said?”

This is the part of the 911 tape where Weinberg asked the 911 system operator about the “quote marks” around a part of the text in the people’s transcript of the call.

DW: At no time in your conversation to 911 to CHP did you say, “Mr. Spector said this,” or, “Mr. Spector said that.”

DW: You’ve had the experience of misunderstanding someone and they’re not drunk.

ADS: Yes sir.

DW: No fountain, you’re not drunk. You just simply misunderstand.

Weinberg gives an example of one of the transcripts.

DW: You heard him mumble before?

ADS: Yes.

DW: You heard him clearly at that moment?

ADS: Yes.

DW: The first person you spoke to, Officer Cardella, his report, page 16 has you say that “he” [you; De Souza] opened the door, stepped inside and saw Phil Spector.

De Souza reads a paragraph from that report. The words that he says he heard spoken in that report are, “I think I just killed her.”

ADS: No, I don’t remember.

It’s 4:00 pm and court has ended for the day.

When the jurors exited the courtroom passing the defendant, Spector smiled as he notices the Sun Records t-shirt on Juror #5. Spector then spoke to Weinberg's paralegal, Susan. I'm not positive on what Spector said. It could have been, "Did you see that?"

Court resumes at 9:30 am, tomorrow morning.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Seven of Testimony

November 17th, 2008

Prosecution Witnesses
#8: Dianne Ogden (1101(b) witness; unavailable for trial; testimony was the video recording by Court TV during the first trial; testimony completed)

#9: Kathy Sullivan (waiter at The Grill on the Alley; after work, she went to Trader Vic's, Dan Tana's and the House of Blues with Spector; testimony completed)

#10: Sophia Holguin (waitress who served Spector at the House of Blues; direct testimony completed; cross tomorrow)

Special Hearing Outside the Presence of the Jury (Requested by Doron Weinberg)

#3 Judge Douglas Sortino (From 2002-2005, prosecutor assigned to the Spector case)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom:
Afternoon session only, Harriet Ryan from the Los Angeles Times; Beth Karas from CNN In Session (unofficial capacity)

Some quick news for those of you who have been waiting for the main stream press to put out another article on this case.

Dianne Odgen testified from beyond the grave today. Her video taped testimony, preserved by the former Court TV was played for the jury. Over the objections of Weinberg, the jury was give a redacted copy of the transcript of the tape to read as the video played.

Fidler gave the jurors a brief introduction to the video tape explaining that there were blacked out areas of the tape and that they were not to speculate on the reason for that. A few minutes into the tape it's stopped and Ms. Do asks the court to explain to the jury about the blue screen. Fidler goes onto explain about the different attorneys and their different style and tone and the way they present or cross witnesses. They are not to be concerned with that; just the content. It's at this point that Juror #1 asks if they could keep the transcript copy to write on. Judge Fidler says yes. "People?" Fidler asks. AJ states they have no objection. Weinberg objects. Fidler notes his objection and tells him he is overruled.

There was quite a bit of redaction and black out on the tape. Any time the camera zoomed in on Spector, those images were blanked out and although you heard the audio, the video went to a blue screen. Noticeably absent was Cutler yelling at Odgen about the purse on her shoulder incident and Judge Fidler admonishing him. (Later, I verified with AJ that he had a battle over that. He had to edit it out.) After the tape was finished (it went for approximately two hours) Weinberg made a motion about this testimony, objecting to the cross examination. "I've never been involved in a case where, the prosecution decided on the cross of the witness. [..] It was highly offensive in many ways." Weinberg goes onto say that because of Cutler's style of cross, he was severed from the case and never presented another witness to the jury again. He went onto say, "And now we are associated with it. Move for a mistrial."

Right after asking for a mistrial, Weinberg objects about Stephanie Jennings testimony. "Stephanie Jennings had nothing to do with the scenario outlined by the court. It was not about sex. [...] She thought Spector inviting her to her room had something to do with going to a party in his room with friends. [..] Her testimony should be stricken. [...] We still haven't heard any testimony having to do with the facts of the case."

Fidler: Let me hear from the people and then I'll rule.

AJ: Based on all the previous motions [that have already been ruled on] (unfortunately, I miss the rest of his statement. It was quite quick and brief.)

Fidler: Motion to strike denied. Motion for mistrial denied.

Weinberg then goes on, waxing poetic about the prosecution's method of questioning witnesses. He's complaining that the direct exam is more like a cross and too many questions are leading witnesses. The same thing on redirects. "[If you read back over the testimony] it reads like a cross. It reads like they are putting words in the witnesses mouth." Weinberg continues to give examples about the prosecutions questions to their witnesses. Weinberg wants to get this on the record (outside the presence of the jury) that he doesn't want to have to be constantly objecting to questions in front of the jury. Fidler waits to hear from the people before he responds.

AJ: We have no response. This is Mr. Weinberg objecting about the rulings.

Fidler: Mr. Jackson. You do have a bad habit of leading your witnesses.

AJ: I (or it may have been "we") respect the courts ruling.

The noon recess is called and the white haired man I've mentioned before is in court. He greets and hugs Spector.

Back from lunch while I'm waiting in the hallway, the beautiful Beth Karas walks up and I smile and give her a hug. She's very sharply dressed, wearing a light brown leather jacket with a string laces down the sides that can be tightened. I told her that AJ mentioned during the morning break that she would be here and she says, "He was supposed to keep it a secret so it would be a surprise." She is on vacation this week but said there is no way she could be out here and not drop in and see some of the trial. Beth indicated that she might not be in court tomorrow because she will be concentrating on giving her network a phone update on the trial. I'd recommend staying tuned to hear what she has to say.

Many people in the courtroom were quite pleased to see her.

Right before the afternoon session started Harried Ryan shows up and takes her usual seat in the back bench row.

Kathy Sullivan held fast to her version of events that transpired over the evening of February 2nd and early morning of the 3rd, 2003. Under cross examination Sullivan testifies that when she heard about what happened on the news, she took her own notes about what she remembered of the evening the following day. She felt that someone would be calling her and she felt it was important to take notes. I thought Sullivan was an excellent witness. She came across well on the stand and did not appear to get irritated by Weinberg's cross.

There are two areas where her testimony does not coincide with the testimony of the next witness we hear. During cross examination Sullivan states, "I just remember her being very professional and I have no notes or memory of her saying Miss." This was in regards to whether or not Lana addressed Spector as Miss when she didn't recognize him. Sullivan also testified under cross that she does not remember Spector demanding that she order a drink several times. She remembers him asking her only once. She also does not believe that Spector raised his voice or using profanity (the "F" word) when he was asking her to order a drink.

The next witness who testified was the waitress who served Spector in the foundation room at the House of Blues, Sophia Holguin. She looked a bit different to me. In the first trial, her hair was very wavy and curly. Today, it was completely straight. She completed her direct examination today and will be under cross, tomorrow.

At approximately 3:50 pm, the jury was released and there was a hearing outside the presence of the jury. Weinberg has the former prosecutor on the case take the stand. This is interesting because Doug Sortino is now a judge.

Sortino takes the stand and was sworn in.

DW; You are now a judge?

DS: Yes.

DW: Do you know why you are here?

DS: I believe it is about a discovery issue.

What follows is the biggest waste of time I think I have ever seen in this trial. Weinberg is still chasing after the statements Dorothy Melvin made on the stand, where she insisted that she told the investigators about the three different incidents at parties hosted by Joan Rivers' yet, there was nothing in discovery handed over by the prosecution to the defense.

At the end of the examination of the witness and cross, Weinber states, "It appears that his memory might be flawed because Detective Tomlin and Detective Bennett have records. [...] He says that he was never there alone with Ms. Melvin. [...] Bennett said he went with Sortino to Melvin's to pick up the notes/postcards. [...] Plus, he laid to rest that he showed the report to Melvin. [...] It appears to be clear that Melvin didn't tell prosecutors about the three different incidents. [...] [What] it comes back down to is, one paragraph in Tomlin's report is all the defense has and she swore that she talked Doug Sortino about the events. [...] I think that she didn't give the information to the detective. I think she testified about things that simply are not true, [...] to bolster her testimony. [...] I believe that at this very least we should have to inform the jury that the DA doesn't have any documentation to support [her statements]."

AJ: At this point, I'm not sure what Mr. Weinberg is trying to prove. The discovery issue is that she was aware of the discrepancy issue between the Pasadena report and Detective Tomlin's report. [..] It's for the jury to decide what's inaccurate. AJ goes onto defend the people's position on the Christmas incidents.

DW: At this point, I'm no longer surprised that Mr. Jackson doesn't understand the argument. [...] On the face of it, we now know it wasn't a discovery issue.

So Weinberg believes that Melvin is lying and he wants Fidler to tell something like that to the jurors. It's 4:24 pm and Weinberg is still arguing. "That does not leave room for her answer. That's untruthful," he continues.

Fidler: There are several things that need to be addressed. Now you believe that there was no deliberate discovery violation.

Fidler lists the possible options.

The first possibility is she told the police and they didn't give it the weight it deserved and didn't note it.

The second possibility is she thinks she did and she's mistaken.

The third possibility is she's purposefully covered up.

Certainly you can argue it and put on witnesses and argue it. You can do that.

Weinberg doesn't appear to be happy with this ruling.

DW: What I have contended is that she wound up giving testimony that she knows is untruthful. The woman cam up and falsely claimed that she made statements to the prosecution. [...] It should not be up to me.... it's not my job to convince the jury.

Fidler: It's not for the court to single out to the jury which witness is accurate or not.

I can tell by Fidler's face and tone, he's irritated. He's not happy with Weinberg.

Fidler: (Sounding exasperated) The mistake has been pointed out.

Weinberg in defense of his position, brings up the missing evidence in the first trial, and how the defense was admonished for this to the jury. He goes onto to say, "There's no reason why the court can't issue a jury instruction about this issue."

Fidler: I don't equate my prior instructions to be relevant to this issue. [...]I don't know how to say this politely. I find your request for an instruction to the jury to be totally inappropriate.

And that's it for the court day. Jon and I are very tired and we rush out of the courtroom with the Clarkson's to try to miss as much as we can of the freeway traffic.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Phil Spector Retrial: Day One of Jury Selection

Back in 2007, after the pretrial hearing where Judge Fidler ruled that cameras would be allowed in the courtroom, I asked Allan Parachini if the general public would be allowed to observe jury selection. He replied something to the effect that it would not be open to the public. So, I did not try to attend.

I later learned that the accredited press were allowed in after some seats opened up. So that's what I decided to do for the retrial. I would go and see if I could get a seat for any part of voir dire. When I rounded the corner on the 9th floor Dr. Carroll Adams was waiting at the end of the hall. It was so nice to see him.

Dr. Adams got me caught up on a case he is following in 107. It’s the retrial of Gary Glazier. Glazier is charged with arson of an occupied building, attempted burglary of an occupied building and illegal possession of a flammable substance. This case has a seated jury and opening statements are set to begin today.

Glazier is the uncle of Patty Glazier, law partner of Terri Christensen, who was recently on trial in Federal Court along with the infamous Anthony Pellicano for wiretapping. Dr. Adams said, “Ms. Glazier did such a great job in Christensen’s defense he got five years . . . instead of eighteen months.” Robert Shapiro is also on the defense team. The same Robert Shapiro who wrote a motion in the very early stages of Spector’s case wherein he stated, “We found something you missed.” I’ll never forget being in the courtroom during Spector 1 when Beth Karas showed me and Dominick Dunne the motion that then CourtTV staff had found, that was filed in the Alhambra courthouse long before the case was transferred to downtown Los Angeles.

But back to the case in 107. Dr. Adams said that in the afternoon session on Thursday, Robert Shapiro brought up an issue to the court that Juror #8 was seen in the courtroom cafeteria having a discussion over lunch with a web design specialist, who just happened to be the same individual that masterminded Robert Shapiro’s web site, “LegalZoom.com.” While we were waiting, Juror #8 was called into Pastor’s courtroom. Later, at the lunch break, Dr. Adams told me that she was kicked off the jury because it was revealed that she also had a meeting with the same individual on Saturday. Apparently, this juror was about 30 seconds from being found in contempt and spending several days in jail.

This is funny news that Dr. Adams shared that I just “have” to tell you. Robert Shapiro is going into the women’s dress shoe business. Yep. He is developing a web site where women can pay a small fee to join his shoe club and for $29.95 a pair or some such low cost, buy knock off's of Jimmy Choo and Manolo Blahnik, and other high end designers that will be shipped out of a warehouse in Ontario. According to Dr. Adams, the warehouse still needs to be stocked with inventory.

At 8:29 am the Aeron chairs that the prosecution used for Spector 1 were delivered to courtroom 106, and a minute later Dr. Adams entered Pastor’s courtroom.

I wait and wait and wait as the hallway slowly fills up with jurors.

At 9:19 am, Doron Weinberg arrives alone with a bottle blond assistant dressed in all black. She looks eerily like the assistant Jennifer, from New York in the first trial, who sat in the same chair at the end of the defense table and handled all the defense exhibits.

The associate attorney, Susan (I don’t have her last name yet), arrives in the hallway and hits the ladies room. Jurors for 106 stand around and chat. Then AJ and Truc Do enter with several other people. AJ is focused on something else and he doesn’t see me at the end of the hall. I get the courage up to address him and say, “Good morning Mr. Jackson.” He sees me, gets a big smile on his face and says, “Good morning! How are you?” I smile right back.

Susan exits the restroom and heads into 106, and here come the happy couple and their bodyguards. Everyone in the entourage is dressed in black; Phil, the Trial Bride, and his two jet black bodyguards from the hood, one of them the size of at least two NFL linebackers. Spector is wearing the diamond dragon pin on his lapel again and a bright red tie. As you can see in this photo in the LA Times, from a few weeks ago, it appears as if his face lift has fallen and he's all wrinkled again. He tries to stare me down when he passes by, but I barely give him a glance. In the latest photo in the LA Times, the Trial Bride looks like she might be trying to channel Malibu Barbie. Her hair is dyed completely blonde now and she wore it “up” by holding it together in the back by a plastic claw like clip. It’s actually the most flattering way she can wear her hair. Every other style I’ve seen her try looks terrible.

Right after Spector, Pat Kelly from the Public Information Office (PIO) makes her way down the hall. I peek into 106 and see there are five chairs lined up behind the prosecution table and several of the people who were with AJ and Truc are sitting there. Terri Keith from City News arrives and since she is the first accredited reporter to arrive, Pat tells her that Fidler approved a single pool seat for the press. Linda Deutsch isn’t here and is probably covering other news.

Out in the hallway, Fidler’s clerk Wendy is addressing 106 jurors and takes roll by calling their last three digit juror number. Earlier, the clerk for courtroom 107 called roll for her court and she called out their real names. Fidler had ruled earlier that even the court would not know the names of the jurors to further protect their privacy.

At first, there are five people missing, but then three of them show up. They can’t get started until all the jurors are there. One of the jurors asks Wendy, “What if you don’t show up?” Wendy explains that there is a warrant issued and a hearing is held to explain “why” you didn't show up for jury duty. The final result could be a fine and/or jail time.

Another reporter shows up and later I find out that this is Greg Risling from the Associated Press. I’m surprised that Harriet Ryan isn’t here. I’ve been told by many accredited reporters that the jury selection process is the most important part of the trial.

The large group of jurors is getting impatient. They are waiting for one more juror to still show up because Wendy tells them they can't get started without this juror. I’m not surprised but I note that neither the Clarkson family or their attorneys are here.

Wendy calls the first 18 jurors to line up, quickly calling out the three digits of their juror number. “Lucky juror #1!” And so on down the line. Afterwards, she said, “I feel like I’m at the bingo parlor.” And many in the crowd chuckle.

At 10:30 am, the missing potential juror finally arrives and she gets a patient lecture from Wendy that she “must” call the court if she is going to be late. Wendy goes into the courtroom and comes back out and apologizes but explains that there is a discussion going on right now.

When I hear that, I realize that they must be arguing a motion, so I step into the little ante room right before the courtroom to listen. Pat gets up from her seat and shows me her only copy of the last minute defense motion that was filed. Fidler had ruled on Thursday that Vincent Tannazzo would again be allowed to testify to inflammatory statements he heard Spector make about women during two Christmas parties held by Joan Rivers. In this latest motion, Spector’s defense team is trying to get the Judge to “sanitize” Spector’s statements he made those many years ago by eliminating the “C” word. Fidler denies the motion and the word will come into trial.

Wendy gets up and asks me to take a seat in the courtroom so she can easily get to the jurors if they try to enter. I take a seat and start scribbling notes. Fidler goes on to tell the attorneys that cause challenges will be settled at the bench. Jurors may claim privacy for issues but he will decide on whether or not they are valid. If he does accept the privacy issue then we will come to the bench. While I’m sitting there, I see Steve Mikulan from the LA Weekly standing in the little room area and I give him a quick nod hello. As fast as he entered, he was gone.

Judge Fidler wants to make sure he has the names and the pronunciation correct of the various people at the defense table representing Spector. Mattros. Barringer. I will have to check later for the correct spellings, and the first names of the people they go to. Richard Gabriel. This was the jury consultant Spector had at the first trial. It’s decided who else will be introduced to the jurors. Howard Varinski and Jennifer Merriman (sp?). I believe this is the jury consultant team the prosecution used last time, and at the lunch break, AJ verified this is the same team as last time.

Then everyone leaves the courtroom to make room for as many jurors as possible. All the reporters and assistants to the DA, the bodyguards, the Trial Bride file out into the hallway. There were 80 jurors called today and the courtroom maximum capacity is 80. It’s 10:46 am and all the potential jurors are squeezed into the courtroom.

Pat Kelly comes out and lets Greg from the AP know that the other reporter is ready to switch. When Terri comes out, she shares with us what she observed.

Judge Fidler instructed the jurors' why they were here. That an indictment had been handed down and the charge was second degree murder. He had Spector stand and face the jury so they could see him. Fidler goes on to instruct them as to their duty. The lengthy jury questionnaire was so that the attorneys could get to know them. He informed them that this case will garner “some” media attention but not nearly as much as the last trial.

Fidler talked about what they were looking for in a jury. “We are here to pick and impartial jury and not one with an agenda. The attorneys are both looking for a favorable jury to them. Fidler introduced the attorneys to the jurors. Terri got called off and may come back before noon to get briefed by the AP reporter.

I’m thinking that, if they do kick some jurors today, I may get in to observe a bit. At 11:11 am the jurors file out from 106 and enter the hallway. They are on their morning break. The Spector's leave the courtroom. The Trial Bride has her arm around Spector and it appears like she is holding him up. The bodyguards follow them. I note that there is a line of jurors out into the hallway for the ladies restroom.

At 11:33, Wendy calls the roll again. When the Spector's walk past me back into the courtroom, they are both laughing. The Trial Bride makes a point to laugh a little too long and a little too loud as she and Spector walk arm and arm into 106. For the second time today, Spector tries to stare me down when he passes me.

I get a seat in the courtroom in the back row. I’m sitting beside the huge bodyguard and I barely have room in my seat. I apologize to him for bumping him. Rachelle is on the other side of him and the other bodyguard is sitting next to Rachelle.

Fidler tells the jury that there will be media coverage, and that you are not to read or listen to anything pertaining to this case. Then Fidler starts with Juror #1 with his questions.

Did you complete the jury questionnaire?
Did you answer all the questions truthfully?
Is there anything you want to change?
Did you claim any privacy rights?
Do you think you can be fair to both sides?
Can you follow my instructions?

And down the line he goes with these same questions to every juror in the box.

When potential Juror #2 is asked if she can be fair to both sides, she hesitates answering and then says, “She doesn’t know.” We find out that this case has similarities to another case, a murder. It was her son.

Fidler responds to her and is sensitive to her situation.

Potential Juror #5 says he’s not sure he can be fair to both sides. I feel certain celebrities may have an advantage with certain attorneys they can afford. He mentions OJ, and Robert Blake and alludes to the verdict in Blake’s case.

Potential Juror #10 claims a privacy issue, and it has to do with her husband. Fidler asks her, “Is there anything about your husband’s employment that would cause you to be impartial?” She replies, “No.”

And it continues down the line with questions, a few jurors claiming privacy; one juror amended their statements to include that they owned a firearm.

Juror #18 stated, “I would have difficulty if the defendant didn’t testify. I would have a problem with that.”

And the morning session is almost over. Weinberg asks Fidler how voir dire will go. I’m surprised at his question. Doesn’t he know? Fidler informs him that the start of voir dire always goes to the defense and the prosecution has the first challenge. That’s the way it’s been in State court for the last 30 years.

I brought my lunch today, but I decide to not eat in the cafeteria. I want to avoid possibly sitting at the same table as jurors from 106. I walk over to the underground city and grab one of the many tables in the open patio area.

Cameron Brown
When I get back on the 9th floor a little before 1 pm, Dr. Adams is waiting at the end of the hallway. I ask him about the Cameron Brown trial and he digs through his notebooks until he finds his notes on Brown. Pat Harris is still the lead defense attorney and it’s not clear whether or not Geragos is still on the case. There originally was a pretrial hearing date of October 27th, but that had to be vacated and moved to November 18th because one of the attorneys could not make the 10-27 date. The clock was set at the last hearing to 0-60. Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht are slated to testify and NOT Werner Spitz. Somehow, the defense must think that Wecht ~who’s own trial ended in a hung jury~ will no longer have any restrictions on his travel by the time this case gets to trial. He is still out on bond from his last mistrial and supposedly is not allowed to leave his home state.

Spector
At the afternoon session I don’t get a seat. I wait for about 20 minutes then head down to courtroom 102 to listen in on the case that Seven Mikulan has been covering.

Just as I walk in the room and sit down, the defense attorney is asking one of it’s witnesses (apparently an Assistant District Attorney), whether or not the victim she interviewed had told her that the victim and the defendant had oral copulation or not. Yikes!

As soon as I can get some names verified with either the PIO or Steven, I’ll have to tell you about my visit in that courtroom at a later time.

When courtroom 102 goes on break, I head back to 106 and sit down beside Pat Kelly and she gives me a short update. They are expecting the case to take about three months. The court will follow the same procedure as last time of Fridays off. There will be three holidays in November. Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving, and the day after Thanksgiving. They will also possibly take the week of Christmas off. Pat tells me they are not even close to excusing anyone yet and they will have a court schedule date for the jurors, soon. It’s unclear what they will do with the 35 extra jurors that are expected to show up Tuesday morning, since the current 80 (minus a few that were excused via letters from their doctors) fills the room completely and there are another 35 that will show up on Wednesday.

I head back to courtroom 102 for the next half hour. Right after 4 pm, I go back into the hallway. I see Spector at the end of the hall, hugging his biggest fan at the first trial. A woman who wears Hawaiian style shirts. I ask Terri if I can follow her into the elevator and get briefed on the afternoon session.

We go up to her office on the 18th floor. Terri tells me that most likely, she will not be back to the trial until a jury is selected and sworn in. No one has been kicked yet. After Weinberg questioned this group, AJ only questioned them for about 10 minutes and then the court day was over. Weinberg asked jurors about the “C” word and no one seemed particularly offended.

Potential Juror #6 said she would want to hear the defendant to see what he has to say.

Potential Juror #7 said that graphic photos would not be a concern for her. She had a strong feeling about guns but more concerned when it becomes an armory.

Potential Juror #10 thought that was very vulgar and descriptive language, but won’t affect her. Her husband is in law enforcement, and she has a high respect for LE. She would tend to believe a police officer over a citizen unless directed otherwise.

A few jurors have worked for law enforcement. Two for the Sheriff’s, one of them in the budget department. Another juror worked for the District Attorney in IT.

A few jurors stated that they think the defendant should testify. One juror said, “But if he doesn’t, it doesn’t sway my judgment.”

One juror stated that he did hear something about the first trial. From what he remembers it was about the fingernail. Another juror said they would like to see the defendant testify but wouldn’t hold it against him.

One juror stated they think people should have guns locked up. One juror did not know who Spector was.

AJ asked the juror who’s son was murdered, “Do you think this is the best case for you to be sitting on?” I don’t have it in my notes, but from what I remember Terri briefing me, I believe the juror stated she didn’t think it was.

And that’s all I have for notes. I debate in my head whether or not to come tomorrow, and I think I will try.

I called Mr. Sprocket that I would be at the North Hollywood Red Line Station in about 35-40 minutes.

Special thanks to John Ferguson for helping find some story links.