The Los Angeles Press Club, 2011 Southern California Journalism Awards

 

UPDATE: July 2nd, 2012:  At the awards dinner on June 14th, 2012, Matthew McGough won in both categories for his Atlantic article, "The Lazarus File."  His article in Miller-McCune, "Not Forgotten," won third place. Sprocket.

The Los Angeles Press Club has announced the finalists that honor "... the best work in journalism for 2011".  I'm not on the list but my good friend Matthew McGough is a finalist.

Here's the short list:

 MAGAZINES

G1. NEWS INVESTIGATIVE
* Radley Balko, Reason Magazine, The War on Cameras
* David Evans, Bloomberg Markets, “Benefits Denied”

* Matthew McGough, The Atlantic Magazine, “The Lazarus File”

* Matthew McGough, Miller-McCune Magazine, “Not Forgotten”
* Daniel Miller, The Hollywood Reporter, “Scientology’s Hollywood Real Estate Empire”

G2. FEATURE/COMMENTARY OVER 1,000 WORDS
* Tim Appelo, The Hollywood Reporter, "The Making of A Separation"
* Shikha Dalmia, Reason Magazine, "Bollywood v. Jihad: Which is the Bigger Threat to Fundamentalist Islam: the Pentagon or Mumbai?"

* Nick Gillespie & Veronique de Rugy, Reason Magazine, "The 19 Percent Solution: How to Balance the Budget Without Increasing Taxes"

* M.G. Lord, The Hollywood Reporter, "Elizabeth Taylor: How She Broke the Rules"

* Matthew McGough, The Atlantic Magazine, "The Lazarus File"

Did you see that?  Matthew has three nominations two categories!  He could go home with two statues when the winners are announced at the awards gala on June 24th, 2012.  Matthew, I'll be rooting for you!  Complete list of finalists can be found here.

(Miller-McCune was recently renamed Pacific Standard Magazine. Sprocket)

LAPD Cold Case Squad: Not Forgotten

David Lambkin, and some of the thousands of cold case files at the LAPD. Photo credit: Stefano Paltera

I'd like to point T&T readers to an excellent article by a wonderful writer I've had the pleasure to meet at the Stephanie Lazarus pre-trial hearings, Matthew McGough. Matthew wrote an in depth story on the Lazarus case that appeared in the June issue of The Atlantic.

In the Nov-Dec. issue of Miller-McCune, McGough takes us into the fascinating world of the Los Angeles Police Department's Cold Case Unit, the struggles visionaries had in getting the squad implemented, how the squad has grown in the past ten years and the headlining cases this unit has solved.

I was lucky to receive a print copy of the magazine, with photos and DNA charts. If you don't want to wait to pick up the issue, you can read McGough's article, Not Forgotten, online HERE.

Matthew McGough's web site

Nine Years Ago Today....

Lauren Sarene Key, late summer, 2000.

Nine years ago today, in the early afternoon of November 8th, four-year-old Lauren Sarene Key ended up dead at the bottom of Inspiration Point, a 120-foot sheer cliff face in Ranch Palos Verdes. That day, Lauren was on a court-ordered visitation with her father, Cameron Brown, who drove her to the Abalone Cove parking lot where they set out on an approximate one-mile hike. To this day, only two people know what really happened to cause Lauren to lose her life in such a dangerous place. Her father, Cameron Brown and Lauren.

Much later that night back at the Sheriff's station, Brown was interviewed by LA Co. Sheriff's Homicide detectives for approximately three hours. According to Detective Jeffery Leslie, Brown gave three slightly different versions as to what happened to Lauren on the southeast section of Inspiration Point. That single interview would be the one and only time Brown cooperated with authorities investigating the death of his daughter.

Brown was arrested on first degree murder charges in 2003. Because of the special circumstances of lying-in-wait and murder for financial gain bail was denied. He's been in the custody of LA Co. Sheriff's ever since. Two hung juries later, (all jurors from both trials agreed that Brown was guilty of something, they just couldn't decide on what charge) Brown is still waiting to find out if DDA Craig Hum will bring this case to trial a third time.

On October 29th, Brown's defense team missed a court ordered date to file motions to argue for Brown to be released on bail and/or to have the case dismissed all together. Judge Michael Pastor ordered a new date of December 17th, 2009, for the filing of defense motions.

People who knew Lauren described her as a bright light who talked up a storm. She enjoyed going to church and being around other people. She was a very sociable child who enjoyed connecting with others. Lauren was a "girly-girl" who also enjoyed playing dress-up and playing with her dolls. She was not a tomboy who played rough-house with other children or knew how to swim. Supposedly, Lauren did not like to go on hikes. Please take a moment to light a candle in remembrance of little Lauren today.

Quick links to T&T's coverage of Brown's retrial.

First Christian-Newsom Torture-Murder Trial on TruTV

GUEST ENTRY FROM DAVID in TENNESSEE!

On Monday, November 9, starting at 9 am ET, Tru TV's In Session will show the taped replay of the August trial of Letalvis Cobbins for the torture-murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. Here is my first article outlining the case. It has an account of the Cobbins trial.

This is my summary of the trial of Lemaricus Davidson, who was the ringleader in this horrific crime. He was convicted and sentenced to death. It was the first death sentence handed down in Knox County since 1997.

A few days ago, a juror in the Davidson trial posted an account of the jury deliberations in a Knoxville-based sports forum. He tells how the jury analyzed the evidence and arrived at the guilty verdict and the death sentence in the sentencing phase. Here is the link.

This week after next, Tru TV's In Session will move from New York to Atlanta. There will be new anchors except for former host Vinnie Politan, who is returning. Beth Karas will remain as a correspondent. The Cobbins trial will be covered next week by the usual hosts.

David From Tennessee

Thank you so much David, for keeping T&T readers up-to-date on the defendants trials in the Christian-Newsom murders. You coverage of these cases has been much appreciated. Sprocket.

Death Sentence in Christian-Newsom Torture-Murder Trial

GUEST ENTRY by DAVID in TENNESSEE!

On Wednesday, October 28, 2009, Lemaricus Davidson was found guilty of the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. Davidson was considered the ringleader of the 5 individuals who have been charged. Eric Boyd was convicted in ferderal court of accesory to carjacking in 2008 and sentenced to 18 years. Davidson's half-brother, Letalvis Cobbins, was convicted of the murder of Channon Christian last August and sentenced to life without parole. 

Davidson was defended by two prominent Knoxville attorneys appointed by the court, Doug Trant and David Eldridge. Surprisingly, Davidson insisted on a Knox County jury, despite advice to the contrary from Judge Richard Baumgartner. His attorneys agreed with their client. Opinion was running high against the defendant. Why did he and his lawyers not want an outside jury? The answer seems to be in the tactics employed. The defense was to smear the two victims. There is no other word for it. They thought this would change the perception of the case. 

Here is my outline of the case written in August. The accepted story was that Christian and Newsom were carjacked by a gang led by Davidson. Cobbins testified in his trial to taking part in the carjacking which brought the victims to Davidson's house on Chripman Street. In his police interview, Davidson admitted the pair was brought to his house at gunpoint, but claimed he wasn't involved, and had never seen the couple before. He also said his DNA would not be on Channon Christian. It was. 

At the trial, attorneys Trant and Eldridge claimed that Christian and Newsom were out looking to buy drugs and came to the Chipman Street house voluntarily. Some druggie friends of Davidson provided dubious testimony of seeing the victims in the area. This is recounted here. This put the prosecution on the defensive for part of the trial. Marijuana was found in Newsom's truck and a small amount in his toxicology report. Christian's toxicology report showed her clean of drugs, and she had passed several drug screens for employment.

There was no credible evidence that the victims had ever met Davidson. Cell phone records showed neither had ever made or received calls from the defendant. The defense claimed that Davidson's DNA was on Channon Christian because of "consensual sex," after which Davidson went on his dope selling run while the other members of the gang killed the couple. 

Channon Christian's injuries were recounted by the medical examiner. She was found in a trash can in the kitchen wrapped in five garbage bags. She was bound so tightly her knees were touching her cheeks. Christian was alive when placed in the trash can and died of suffocation. She had a plastic bag over her head. Her body had brusing and abrasions indicating rape with blunt trauma and an object. Davidson's sperm was in both Christian's vaginal and anal region. Cobbins sperm was in her mouth and vagina. Her vaginal area had been kicked or beaten bloody. 

Does this sound like consensual sex?

Chris Newsom, according to the ME, was raped with an object hours before he was killed. His bare feet were bound and he had been led or dragged to the railroad track. Newsom's face was wrapped in a sweatshirt with a hole showing in it where he was shot in the head. His hands were tied behind his back and he was gagged with socks. Newsom's was shot three times, the third to the head caused death. He was dead when set on fire at the railroad track. 

When Newsom's body was found, his mother, a genteel lady, wanted to see it. The police would not let her. She put her arms around the body bag.

This is only a brief account of what was done to the victims. The first time I watched the ME's testimony on the live stream, I cried. The second time, I was in a cold rage.

In most murder trials, the prosecution puts it together in the closing argument. The lead prosecutor, Takisha Fitzgerald (TK), did exactly that. She spoke to the jurors for over an hour Monday without notes making a passionate call for justice. TK framed it by playing Davidson's own police statement in which he admits the couple was brought to his house. She questioned his motive for sullying the couple's reputation. TK described the horrors the couple suffered. "The only thing that matters is giving these two kids justice," Fitzgerald said.  

The jury found Davidson guilty of both murders. At the sentencing phase, the defense brought in a series of social workers who tried to help Davidson. He had received chance after chance to change his life but went back to crime each time. In 2001, Davidson was convicted of carjacking and was paroled in 2006. His former foster parents (white incidentally) testified at the hearing and offered him a job in New Orleans rebuilding after Katrina. Instead, Davidson went to Knoxville to sell drugs and commit robberies. In January 2007, the murders of Channon and Chris occured. There was no objective reason for mitigation. On Friday, the jury of 7 men and 5 women voted for death. One of the men was black, normal for a Knox County jury. 

"The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel," the foreman said, reading the verdict form for Newsom. The same was said regarding the murder of Christian.

Davidson was taken to death row at Riverbend in Nashville Tennessee. 

In my first article on this case, I wrote that the 6 days of the Cobbins trial was harder to get through than both Spector trials combined. The Davidson trial was even worse. Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were good and decent young people with a promising future who died in unspeakable agony.

  

Here is a complete archive of articles by the Knoxville News Sentinel.

A professional writer needs to write a book about the case to do this story justice. This is the best I can do. 

David From Tennessee

Thank you David for your excellent coverage of this horrific case.  I know it has been very emotionally draining for you to write about the trials and T&T is greatly appreciative of your efforts. Sprocket.

Second Christian-Newsom Torture-Murder Trial: The Prosecution Rests

GUEST ENTRY from DAVID IN TENNESSEE!

On Saturday, the state rested its case in the second Christian-Newsom torture-murder trial after defense failed to make a dent in the cross-examination of the medical examiner. The defense still insists that the defendant, Lemaricus Davidson, had "consensual vaginal sex" with Channon Christian. The defense began its case with the two most dubious witnesses I can remember.

The first, Ethel Lynn Freeman, who testified for the state in the Cobbins trial in August. At that time said that Davidson was "out of breath" when Freeman called him at 3 AM on that Sunday morning. Freeman is a friend of Davidson's and was his neighbor on Chipman Street. Davidson and company helped her move to the Washington Ridge Apartments in December 2006. Freeman testified last August that she was expecting Davidson to come by around 10:30 PM Saturday January 6, 2007 to bring her some money.

Today as a defense witness, Freeman said she saw Christian and Newsom at a gas station on Cherry Street between 9:30 PM and 10:00 PM that same night. "Channon had said that she ran out of gas and asked me if I had any money to give them because they were trying to get to Jefferson City or Johnson City," Freeman told the court.

However, Newsom pulled $100 from his bank account that night, and the Christian family said they paid for her gas as Channon was still a college student. "That Four Runner never saw half empty," Gary Christian said. Gary Christian also said that when Four Runner's run out of gas they cannot just restart.

After Freeman's testimony, the jurors asked what Freeman was doing at the gas station. She didn't have an answer and was defensive. The jury was skeptical. Tennessee jurors can ask questions of witnesses.

The defense then called a neighbor of Davidson's named Jeffrey Bradley who said he was looking for his mother's cat at 10 PM on January 6, 2007. Bradley said that he saw Davidson and two white girls get out of a Grand Am between 9:30 and 10:00 that night. He claims one of the girls was Channon Christian.

This is the same night and time period when Freeman supposedly saw Christian and Newsom at the Cherry Street gas station in a SUV.

During cross, Bradley didn't do well. He has a long rap sheet and admitted to being a thief. Earlier this week, one Stacey Lawson testified she left the Chipman Street house on January 2, 2007 in her teal Grand AM.

One would think that if these are the best witnesses the defense can produce, they have no case at all.

On Monday, Davidson will announce whether he is going to take the stand. The defense has still another druggie witness whom they want to place Davidson with one of the victims. This witness is trying to have the subpoena crushed for "her personal safety." They are also going to call a witness regarding the two unknown DNA samples in Channon's underwear.

Closing arguments will then take place and the jury is expected to get the case on Monday evening.

The defense case is that Christian and Newsom were druggies and Channon came with her boyfriend to Chipman Street to buy drugs and have consensual sex with a thug like Davidson, who is supposed to have left the house while the murders took place. How did his fingerprints and hand prints get on the trash bags holding her body? Why was Davidson barefoot with Newsom's shoes in the room when he was arrested? Just two of many questions one could ask.

The source for the above is WBIR, the Knoxville NBC station, along with my own viewing of the live stream.

Here again is my first article outlining the case. This is what the defense wants the jury to forget.

David From Tennessee

Thank you so much David, for covering this case for T&T's readers. It's very much appreciated. Sprocket

Second Christian-Newsom Torture-Murder Trial Starts Monday

GUEST ENTRY from DAVID in TENNESSEE!

The second trial involving the torture-murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom begins on Monday, October 19. The defendant is the alleged ringleader, Lemaricus Davidson. On August 25, Davidson's half-brother, Letalvis Cobbins, was convicted and sentenced to life without parole.

On October 15, an article about the case appeared in a leading British newspaper, the London Daily Mail The article criticizes the U.S. media for ignoring the case, but has some errors. For one thing, East Tennessee is NOT the "deep south." The Knoxville News-Sentinel has the most extensive coverage dating back to January 2007. The articles are archived here.

In my most recent entry, I reported that the defense attorneys accused the Knox County Sheriff's office of copying a letter from Davdson to his attorneys. The defense made a motion to either dismiss the case on the grounds of attorney-client privilege, or remove the prosecutors.

On Thursday, Judge Richard Baumgartner ruled that he would not dismiss the case against Davidson. The judge also said he would not remove the prosecutors. Baumgartner said the letter that was copied was accidental and was not prejudicial to the defense. This was after hearing testimony at Thursday's hearing from the sheriff's department employees.

The judge concluded it was "an inadverdant and unintentional breach." The mail from suspects is routinely monitored because of possible escape plans or threats to witnesses.

In a motions hearing on Friday, the judge ruled that Davidson's defense has a right to bring up DNA evidence that was found on Channon Christian' underwear. According to analysis, they belong to two unknown males, none of which are current defendants or Chris Newsom.

I repeat what I wrote before. The prosecution should ask the defense to produce the names of these two so they can be arrested and charged with participation in the rape and murder. Davidson's DNA was all over Channon Christian along with his fingerprints in her car and elsewhere.

Also on Friday, the judge ruled that photos of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom taken while they were alive will not be allowed during the guilt phase of the trial. The judge is undecided over whether the photos should be allowed in the sentencing phase of the trial. Judge Baumgartner said appellate courts have overturned sentences for pictures that create prejudicial sympathy with a jury.

A female juror has been excused because of a new childcare hardship. She will be replaced by another woman who was one of 6 alternates. Fifteen jurors will report to an undisclosed hotel on Sunday night. Two other alternates will report on Monday morning. At that time, the judge will question jurors to make sure they followed the court order to avoid any exposure to the case. If no more are excused, the judge will excuse two more alternates.

The defense attorneys held a press conference in which they reported death threats to them and their families. Some letters containing threats were turned over to the FBI. The families of the victims have also received death threats.

David From Tennessee

Thank you David, for covering this horrific case for T&T! Sprocket

Cameron Brown Retrial: VERDICT!

UPDATE Monday, 9:30 pm, PT.

Sprocket here. I'm quite tired. I didn't get home until 7:30 pm. I stayed in downtown LA and fabric shopped until Mr. Sprocket got off from jury duty and could pick me up. Came home, had dinner and then started writing. I'll finish writing up my notes on today's proceedings tomorrow, with a new entry. Outside the courthouse on the Temple Street plaza after the foreman gave an interview to the press, several jurors came over to Sarah, the victim's mother, to give her their condolences. At least one of the jurors was openly sobbing while hugging her.

UPDATE!

I just got a call from Sprocket. The news of a verdict was a miscommunication with the jury. There has been another mistrial. The final vote was 6 for 2nd degree and 6 for manslaughter. Sprocket will fill in the details when she gets home from court.



A verdict has been reached in the retrial of Cameron Brown for alleged murder of his four-year-old daughter, Lauren.

The verdict will be read at 1:30 pm in Department 107.

I won't have my laptop with me, but I will try to arrange an update as soon as possible.

Cameron Brown Retrial: Mistrial Request Denied

After questioning Juror Number 1, the defense requested a mistrial. The motion was denied. The jurors were strongly admonished to disregard anything they read, may have read, or may have heard regarding the printout of the dictionary definition of malice that was brought into the jury room. Judge Pastor clearly told the jurors the definition was wrong as it relates to this case.

All jurors agreed that they would disregard the information and could continue deliberating.

Sprocket will give an update when she gets home from court.

Cameron Brown Retrial: Still in Limbo

The quick news is, Judge Pastor did not make a decision today because one juror did not make it to court due to an unavoidable emergency. Consequently the juror could not be interviewed. That juror, Juror #1 has been ordered back to court at 8:30 am, Monday October 5th.

I arrive on the 9th floor and see that Dr. Carroll Adams has rearranged some appointments and made it to court early to find out what's going to happen with the Brown jury today. Dr. Adams told me that in all the time he's spent in Pastor's courtroom, he didn't think he's ever seen Judge Pastor look as upset as he did yesterday, once this latest note from the jury came to light.

Dr. Adams and I talk about the Polanski case and the latest drama about the retired DDA David Wells who is now admitting he stretched the truth so to speak, to the HBO documentary film producers. Dr. Adams reminds me that when he spoke on camera in that documentary, he wasn't under oath. I mention the statements Polanski made in an interview several years ago, where he defends his actions of raping a 13-year-old girl by stating something to the effect of, everyone wants a young girl. Jurors want a young girl. Judges want a young girl. Again, Dr. Adams reminds me that Polanski wasn't under oath when he made those statements.

Harris and the woman working as the defense clerk arrive and go into 107. Patty is sitting at the very end of the hall. She's dressed a bit more casual today than what I've seen in the weeks I attended the trial. As Dr. Adams and I chat, DDA Hum and Deputy Leslie arrive. Sarah, her husband and a friend are here. Soon after, Denise Nix from the Daily Breeze arrives. After pounding on the door, DDA Hum and Leslie get admitted to 107.

The proceedings started before 8:30 am, but the courtroom is not opened to the public before that time. So as Carroll and I enter, I hear Harris in the middle of making an argument. Mavis is the court reporter up. There are several other attorneys in the courtroom, waiting to have their pretrial discussions put on the record.

PH: (It's) ...very clear there is misconduct.... [...] Appears to be the way it was phrased, they (the juror) consulted a dictionary but did not bring it (up? further?)

Judge Pastor then states he agrees with both counsel that they don't know the facts and they need to speak to the jury foreman. Judge Pastor also wanted to add that they received the note at around 10:30 am and after that the jury was excused.

JP: That has some meaning here as far as any (likelihood) [...] like Mr. Harris said, of infiltration [...] of the virus [...] and any other....

Judge Pastor asks Ms. Benson to get Juror #7, the foreman and direct him to his seat.

The juror is brought in and Judge Pastor starts to question him. The juror gives a bit of background on the malice discussion. I believe he states that one juror (unknown) asked if the group could use a dictionary definition for the word "malice." Juror #9 (the former alternate #2), states that if people would like I have the dictionary definition.

Some jurors were interested; some were not. The foreman then states that Juror #12 said no, we're really not supposed to use that. Then Juror #5 asked if they could at least submit it as a question to the court.

Judge Pastor clarifies some points with the foreman. He asks if it was Juror #5, but it's clarified that it was Juror #9 who voided this point, "If people would like I have looked up the dictionary definition."

JP: He looked it up on the Internet and printed it and some how it came up that is was the Columbia Dictionary?

J#7: He did have a copy. [...] He proposed passing it around.

(I'm not sure if the foreman states this or Judge Pastor asks: "But number 12 objected."

It's clarified that a piece of paper was brought into the jury room, and he (#9) said, "Here it is."

It was a few minutes later that people cleared it up. (A few minutes later that Juror #12 objected.)

JP: Was the info from the form read, disclosed by Juror #9?

J#7: No.

JP: Was any definition of malice...

Juror #12 objected. The foreman decided to write a note when another (juror inquired).

The foreman states he did not see what Juror #9 did with the paper.

It's 8:43 am. The foreman is excused and Pastor asks to see counsel at sidebar.

There is a lengthy sidebar and Judge Pastor then asks Ms. Benson to get Juror #9.

Juror #9 is brought in. Judge Pastor starts off by saying something to the effect, "I'm advised a dictionary (was used?) yesterday morning, in part..... [...] Did you volunteer.

J#9: One of the jurors asked for the definition. [...] Wednesday, ... sometime, there was a mention.

Under extensive questioning, Judge Pastor asked the juror what he did and it was finally clarified that Thursday morning before court, Juror #9 accessed the Internet. He used a search engine. "I have AOL." He went to the AOL home page and typed in the word malice. He printed it out and gave it to Juror #7. He gave Juror #7 a piece of paper. Juror #9 states that, that morning he was in a rush and didn't read it.

J#9: I glanced at it. I didn't really read it. [...] We just talked about malice. [...] Juror #7 read the paper out loud. [...] Juror #6 asked about it. [...] The paper was passed to Juror #6. [...] Juror #12 opposed it right off the bat.

JP: Juror #7 read it out lout to...

J#9: Yes he did.

(Juror #9 has the paper on him and it's brought out and handed to the court I believe at this time.)

Juror #9 then clarifies that some of the information is highlighted but he didn't do it. Juror #6 did that.

Juror #9 is then asked to go into the jury room while the court and counsel go over the paper that was brought into deliberations. Terri Keith from City News Service arrives. At 8:55 am, Cameron Brown's parent arrive and the sidebar is still going on.

The stories between Juror #7 the foreman and Juror #9 are different. Dr. Adams reminds me that the jurors take an oath. They are sworn in. Everything they say in court is under oath. So either a juror is lying or their memories of events are different. I overhear at the sidebar they are trying to get a color copy of the piece of paper, since the highlighting is causing a problem with copying the document.

Pat Harris brings up a point and wants the Judge to ask Juror #9 another question so he is brought out again.

JP: In looking again at the copy, the page number says "one of two."

The Judge asks if there was another page. The juror states that he thinks it was blank. He states that this was the only page he brought in.

Judge Pastor then confronts the juror about his actions and the juror states he'd like to explain himself.

JP: Do you recall my jury instructions and specifically stating (not to use the Internet or access a dictionary)?

(I remember much earlier in the trial that this was the juror that Judge Pastor mentioned in open court that they were having trouble staying awake.)

J#9: Honestly, your honor, I don't remember. [...] I apologize to the court.

Judge Pastor then asks the juror, "Candidly, would you be able to disregard anything you read or heard, especially about (malice?) [...] not reading the dictionary?

J#9: When it was read out loud, it was read so softly....

The juror is excused and Judge Pastor says, "Mr. Hum? Some thoughts?"

CH: I think we are going to have to inquire (of the other jurors). [...] It would seem there's a possibility that some have heard. [...] I don't see anything around it.

Harris agrees and he wants to add that when Judge Pastor questions them, I believe he asks that the jurors are questioned, they can be told that's an incorrect definition. Pastor states he doesn't have a problem with that, "If it gets to that point."

Judge Pastor then works with attorneys from another case to go over scheduling for the next hearing while Ms. Benson is instructed to grab another juror. They are going to be polled individually and questioned. Judge Pastor informs counsel that they will pick juror numbers randomly. "That's how we do it so nobody has any rhyme or reason to it."

Judge Pastor asks Ms. Benson to get Juror #5. He then addresses the court and states that Juror #1 will not be here for several hours. I believe it's at this point he states that it's an emergency and a safety transportation issue.

Juror #5 is brought in and Judge Pastor starts to question him.

J#5: There was some slight mention. They were confused about the definition.

I believe Judge Pastor asks if someone objected.

J#5: Yeah, I think somebody did say that.

He's asked what juror number it was, and Juror #5 doesn't remember. Juror #5 states he did read the paper and that it was passed around. He states that the jurors were talking about it.

Judge Pastor then asks the Juror a serious question. "If the court directs you in the strongest terms to disregard this extra information, can you follow my instruction?"

J#5: What ever you say, I'll follow.

What happens next is kind of confusing, since Judge Pastor wants to make it clear what is being said and what is understood. The Juror then says, "I never saw it," with a smile on his face. The Judge appears to be confused for a moment, asks him again, the juror states the same thing, "I never saw it," and then I think Judge Pastor gets it.

JP: Don't go all Soprano on me.

The juror explains that he was trying to make a joke. Judge Pastor clarifies that when the record is read (back) that (innuendo) won't be understood.

Harris asks for a sidebar and afterwords, Judge Pastor asks the juror one more question.

JP: Did you suggest to any of the other jurors that we should perhaps bring it to the attention of the court?

J#5: No.

That's it and he's excused.

Juror #6 is called into court. This is the black woman who injured her foot weeks earlier. Judge Pastor politely asks her how her foot is doing and I believe she replies, "Much better."

Juror #6 identifies it as Juror #9 who brought the paper into the jury room.

JP: What did he say?

J#6: He said he looked up the word malice and pass it around. [...] Juror #7 read it out loud.

JP: Did someone object?

She has trouble remembering which number.

J#6: I think it was number eleven.

JP: Are you sure?

J#6: I'm not sure.

JP: If the court directs you to disregard completely what you read [...] can you do it?

J#6: Yes sir. [...] Yes I can.

Juror #10 is brought in. This is a tall Asian man with a heavy accent.

Judge Pastor starts in with describing what he understands happened inside the jury room but the juror obviously isn't understanding the question at first. He thinks Juror #7 brought the paper into the jury room. He states that he did read the paper.

JP: Did #7 read it out loud?

The juror is not sure; he's vague about that.

Judge Pastor then asks him if he orders him to disregard anything he may have read from the paper, and tell you to disregard anything... [...] Do you think you can do that?

J#10: Yes sir.

JP: I'm ordering you to do that.

He's excused and Juror #2 is brought in. This appears to be a middle ages, very slender, tall black man with glasses.

Judge Pastor begins his questioning. The juror thinks that Juror #9 brought the paper in. He states the paper never got to him but it was passed around.

JP: Was it read out loud?

J#2: Yes. [...] I'm not sure.

JP: Did you hear the reading of it?

J#2: Yes, your honor.

JP: Did another juror ask for it to be stopped?

J#2: There was a question about submitting the question to you, about it's meaning.

JP: Who was that?

The juror states he can't remember. He states that he didn't read the paper but he did hear it.

Judge Pastor then goes on to ask the juror in strong language that if he directs him to disregard everything he heard and/or read, could he do that. He orders him not to consider (what was brought into the deliberations). The juror agrees that he can.

The juror is excused and Juror #11 is brought in. This is another Asian man.

The juror states he doesn't remember who brought in the paper. He can't remember if it was male or female. He states that he read the paper. It was passed around. He also states that the foreman read it out loud. The juror states that he thinks it was Juror #6 who said that it should be brought to the judge's attention.

Judge then asks him if he can disregard what he might have read/heard.

JP: Can you do that?

J#11: Yes.

Juror #3 is called in. This is an Asian looking woman. Her face is quite round. She now has a cast on her left arm that she is holding up and Judge Pastor asks her several questions about how her arm is feeling. Judge Pastor asks her which juror brought in the paper. I miss whether or not she knew.

J#3: It started off with the foreman so I didn't hear.

She states that she didn't read the paper and she doesn't believe she heard the paper read.

J#3: I don't believe so.

She states that she knows someone read it but she, "...turned it off, because she knew from other instructions they received, the material given to them...." that she was not to consider anything that didn't come from the court. She tells the court that she can disregard the information because she already tuned it out.

She's excused and Juror #12 is brought in.

Juror #12 states that Juror #9 brought in the paper. He states that, "Yes, the paper was passed around. [...] I didn't want to read it."

JP: Did you suggest that this be brought to my attention?

J#12: No. I objected. I said we weren't supposed to use it. [...] #7 read it out loud.

The juror states he recognizes the instructions and he will be able to follow the judge's orders.

The upset juror from a few days ago, an older black man with a barrel chest, Juror #4 is called in. He comes in and sits in Juror #5's chair.

JP: Hi Juror #5.

The juror gets up and moves to his chair, #4. I believe he states that he doesn't know who brought it in.

J#4: We all looked at it. [...]I read it. [...] I looked at it. [...] It was the consensus that one person read it and that was #7.

At first he doesn't remember the number of which juror didn't want the jury to use it. After questions by Pastor, he describes the juror as the young oriental man.

The judge asks him the same closing question in stern terms if directed, can he disregard what he read in the paper. He states that he can. The judge so directs him.

J#4: Yes sir.

The last juror called is Juror #8. The juror is asked if someone brought in some paper to the jury room.

J#8: I think it was #7. I'm not sure.

JP: Was the paper passed around?

J#8: Yes, I think so.

The juror states he didn't read the paper but he heard it read.

JP: ...Another juror asked that it be brought to the attention of the court?

J#8: Yes, but I don't recall (the number of the juror).

Judge Pastor asks this juror if he can disregard the information he heard and follow his instructions. He says that he can.

The juror is excused and Judge Pastor and the counsel agree that they need to recall Juror #7, the foreperson.

Juror #7 is called in and he is instructed to sit in the back row. All during the hearing outside the jury's presence, Judge Pastor is aware of the time, his other trial that was being held up and how long this is dragging on. After a few jurors were called, he asked Ms. Benson to have them lined up outside to speed things up. Having the juror just step inside 107 and sit in the plastic chairs against the back wall near the door was in Judge Pastor's words, "...to save a few steps..." to the jury box.

JP: At some time did you actually read out loud (the piece of paper)?

J#7: No. [...] It was first brought in...

He explains something that I miss about it being brought in and then contradicts himself by saying, "[...] What happened was.... [...] I might have read the first few lines...."

The juror is excused and Judge Pastor explains that they still have Juror #1 to interview. They will come back Monday morning to finish with Juror #1. Judge Pastor asks counsel if it's okay to inform the jury what's going on with Juror #1. I believe Ms. Benson chimes in and states that they already know. Two of the alternates are here, but Alternate #4 is at work. Judge Pastor states he's going to request that the jury get here on Monday at 8:45 am.

The jury is brought in and Judge Pastor painstakingly explains the instructions to them again.

JP: I've been ordering you, every chance I got, ordering you [...] giving you instructions not to [?] the case. He gives them the detailed instruction again. " [...] Not to perform experiments. Not to consult references, site resources, legal definition. [...] Don't access the Internet, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. [...] You must only follow the legal instruction I give you. [...] Have we heard this before?

Jury in unison: Yes, your honor.

JP: Are we clear?

Jury in unison: Yes, your honor.

The jury is told when to report back and then they are released until Monday. Judge Pastor tells the courtroom that Juror #1 will be here at 8:30 am on Monday.

JP: (If anyone has...) any particular legal citations let me know and we'll go from there.

That's it; until Monday.

I chat with Carroll about his thoughts on what Judge Pastor might do. He's seen Judge Pastor in action through many trials but he's not sure what the remedy is. During the proceeding, I noticed that Katie and Lisa had shown up. As I was leaving I stopped by the third row to say hello to them. They said they were staying because they had started to follow the current case before Judge Pastor. I ask them what they thought. Katie said that they were here yesterday when this all happened and that Judge Pastor mentioned while on the bench that this type of stuff, of bringing in dictionary definitions happens quite often.

We won't know what he decides until Monday. At this point I don't think that anyone wants a mistrial. Certainly the state doesn't because they're broke. I doubt Brown does, because a retrial might take at least a year or more to get back on the calendar and Judge Pastor may retire before that would happen.

I certainly think this is an appellate issue the defense can bring up if Brown is convicted. However, I don't think it is a serious error that would cause irreversible prejudicial harm to the defense. We'll just have to wait and see what happens on Monday.

Denise Nix from The Daily Breeze wrote an excellent synopsis of what happened in court as well as detailing malice and the legal definition.

(I don't know this for a fact but I think that Denise Nix knows the old fashioned "shorthand" which is why she is able to take such articulate notes.)

Cameron Brown Retrial: No Hung Jury....Yet.

UPDATED!

It was quite hard getting up early this morning. (I've been sewing sometimes until almost 2 am, getting ready for my fleece and flannel blanket sale.) But I did make it down to the courthouse this morning to try to see if I could find out some more information on the jury.

The short report out by Denise Nix of the Daily Breeze on Friday that hinted at a deadlocked jury made me think that "possibly" the Judge might give an Allen instruction (also called Allen charge) to the jury.

When I arrived at 9:15 am inside 107 the gallery was empty. Judge Pastor was still on the bench, Ms. Benson was at her desk and Mavis, the lovely court reporter was working away at her station in front of the witness box. Unfortunately, I arrived just after the jury had entered to deliberate.

Ms. Benson told me the jury had just entered. She also asked me about Dr. Adams and if I had spoken to him recently. I told her no, but that I would have to send an E-mail off to him. Judge Pastor then said, "We do miss him terribly." He then went onto joke that if he didn't come back soon, he wouldn't be allowed back.

After Judge Pastor stepped off the bench, I asked Ms. Benson if the jury was read the "Allen instruction." She told me that no instructions were given to the jury today. So apparently, Judge Pastor gave them a long weekend off and they are back to deliberating. So it appears the jury is back to work. I said goodbye to Ms. Benson and Mavis then left 107 to take the train back home.

I will try to call the courtroom this afternoon to see if there have been any developments or requests sent out by the jurors.

UPDATE!

Looks like I missed the show this morning. Denise Nix has an update here.

Cameron Brown Retrial: Juror Replaced

I just got a confirmation from Ms. Benson, Judge Pastor's clerk that the juror who had surgery and was replaced yesterday was Juror #9. If my memory serves, this was the older juror who needed to have copies of paper exhibits handed to him because of his eyesight.

The alternate who replaced Juror #9 was Alternate #2 who was seen wiping away tears at the end of the prosecution's rebuttal argument where the videos of Lauren were played.

Nicholas Sheley Battery Case

Guest Entry by katfish!
My friend katfish is attending the trials of Nicholas Sheley in Illinois and writing about her experiences on her blog.

Jury Seated in Battery Case; Testimony Begins Tuesday September 22nd

Today, Monday September 21, was the first day of the trial for Nicholas Sheley on the charges related to an alleged incident at the Knox County jail. Sheley was indicted on three counts of aggravated battery and one count each of aggravated assault and criminal damage to property stemming from an incident at the Knox County jail on April 17, 2009. The indictment accuses Sheley of attacking correctional officers with the metal legs he took off a chair in a maximum security day area and punching a sheriff’s Deputy in the face.

Sheley has been incarcerated in the Knox County jail, awaiting trial since July 2008 for the bludgeoning death of Ronald Randall of Galesburg. That trial is expected to be held in Summer 2010.

I was in the courtroom from 9am until after 6 pm today. The day started out with Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Stephen Mathers handling a few other cases before Sheley. Because it was such a long day with a lot of repetition, I will just touch on the highlights of the day.

Sheley appeared in court for the first time since his arrest in July 2008 without the orange jailhouse scrubs. Today he wore a blue button-down shirt and khaki pants with white socks and jail issue sandals. He wore his readers most of the day as well.. I noticed they give Sheley only the guts of the pen to write with, I guess I hadn’t noticed that before because his hands have been shackled.

Before jury selection began, Sheley’s public defender, Jim Harrell, argued a motion which would bar Sheley from testifying on his own behalf. Harrell said Sheley could not intellectually or knowingly waive his right to testify or agree to testify without incriminating himself in his capital murder case. Judge Mathers denied the motion and said it was up to Sheley whether he testifies or not.

I mentioned in my last Sheley entry, after Sheley had to be forcibly removed from the courtroom after an outburst, there was concern if Sheley would be shackled during the trial. The solution they came up with seems fair to all. Before potential jurors entered the courtroom for questioning, Sheley’s hand-cuffs were removed. His legs stayed bound with a belt-like device and both of the tables where the Defense and the State sat had table skirts to hide restraints and prevent jury bias.

Forty-seven jurors were questioned in groups of six about their familiarity with Sheley and their ability to be fair and impartial, particularly given what they may have heard.

Continue reading at katfish ponders....

Jersey Finally Sentences “The Perv”

Gordon Wateridge, nicknamed, “The Perv” by his victims, was sentenced to two years in jail today for repeatedly sexually assaulting children at Haut de la Garenne.

Described as a ''persistent sexual bully'' during his trial, Wateridge was found guilty of eight charges of indecent assault against young girls and one charge of assault against a young boy in court last month.

Judge Christopher Pitchers said, "What he did was rightly described in the trial as sexual bullying," adding that the acts carried out by Wateridge against the girls were at the "lower end" of the sentencing guidelines, but he also noted "There is no such thing as a trivial indecent assault of child."

Crown Advocate Stephen Baker claimed, "The offences were committed against the victims sometimes took place in the presence of other children so as to cause particular humiliation."

Defense Advocate Michael Preston argued for a "merciful" sentence because he claims Wateridge is "being held up as a scapegoat".

He said the offences came to light in the midst of the media frenzy surrounding the "discredited" police investigation into events at Haut de la Garenne.

Wateridge sentence is 21 months for each of the eight indecent assault charges, to run concurrently, and for three months, consecutively, for the assault on the boy.

Wateridge also pleaded guilty to possession of two unlicensed air pistols, a silencer, and 48 rounds of ammunition that were found by police during a raid on his home.

Wateridge was not sentenced on the weapons charges.

So, there you have it! Wateridge was found guilty at trial - the man AG Bailhache said he didn’t want charged and thanks to Lenny Harper was ultimately charged.

Did you note while in court, Advocate Preston referred to the “discredited” police investigation of Haut de la Garenne? Hmmm...charged, convicted, sentenced?

Is this justice? Or is this the sacrificial lamb being offered up? Are some saying, “glad that’s over with, now we can go back to things as usual in Jersey”? – I’m leaning toward the latter.

Telegraph

Metro.uk

Cameron Brown Retrial; Closing Arguments, Part III

It's 4:10 pm and Craig Hum presents his final closing argument.

CH: We're here today because the defendant threw his daughter off Inspiration Point. The defendant's attorney would like to distract us and the way you do that is attack the police and victim. However, the victim in this case is a four-year-old-girl so they attack the mother again. [...] They're saying Detective Leslie is lying but there's a problem with that argument.

Hum asks, "Why would he lie? [...] They don't have a reason. There is none. [...] (They're saying) that he's trying to frame an innocent defendant. [...] But what's the huge hole in that argument? [...] How does the fact that Detective Smith wrote on the top of the phone book "assholes" (prove they framed the defendant)? [...] It's to distract us."

CH: They are saying it's (only) Sarah's word for that. (The statements Lauren told her and that she said Greg and Josh might have heard.) [...] Why would Sarah lie? [...] She's not the vindictive one. [...] It's not going to bring Lauren back. [...] If he didn't do it she wouldn't want him convicted. [...] Insinuations and implications. [....] (By asking that question) the defense planted in our minds that there is a question. [...] The defense insinuation that the prosecution didn't do this, didn't do that, so it must be (something) that helps the defense.

CH: Dr. Chinwah did the autopsy. (He's performed over 8,000 autopsies.) (He said) if that was a bruise I would have seen it on the autopsy. [...] Dr. Hayes. He didn't do a water drop because (he testified) I have a more accurate and robust way to test the evidence.

It's 4:20 pm and Brown's parents leave the courtroom.

CH: Officer Erickson asked him (Brown), "The projection?" And he points there and says, "Yes." [...] The Behavior towards Jane Doe is a little bit more than a jealous argument. (He threw her belongings off a cliff. He broke into her fourth floor apartment and wrote BITCH over several of her writings and he took his car and rammed it into her car.)

CH: The defense argued that he didn't do it because the defendant had other ways he could have killed her. How does that make any sense?

CH: "She had so much energy, I could hardly keep up with her." That's what he told Detective Leslie.

Hum points out to the jurors an exhibit by the people that documents the requirements, what it takes to get child support ended.

CH: He couldn't do it until there was a death certificate issued!

(This finally explains to me why his wages were garnished months past Lauren's death. He still had to pay support until the coroner issued the death certificate and MOD.)

CH: On the day Lauren died, the first day, the first day that Patty is on the Internet to trying to find way to take Lauren away from Sarah. [...] Do you think that's a coincidence?

Craig Hum points out to the jurors that all the witnesses friends who testified on his behalf were men. There wasn't a single woman who testified.

CH: The defense could have called Patty, but we heard not a word.

Regarding the arrival time of the detectives and first responders.

CH: Deputy Brothers arrived at 3:12 pm. (The sign in sheet was at the top of the cliff, on the road.) But the scene was at the archery range. [...] The log says Deputy Brothers got there at 3:30 pm.

The defense tried to make it seem like the first responders arrived very quickly.

CH: But the fire station that Captain Curcio came from is not the one the defense mentioned is just up the road. The one they came from is five miles away. It's a different fire station. [...] That's why it took them longer to get there.

The defense alleges to the confidential mediator he was just expressing his concerns.

CH: In that court document he makes these same allegations.

Hum then makes a stunning (to me) argument.

CH: Even if you believe everything from the defense case, and I don't think you can, but just lets suppose that you do. Even if you believe everything, he's still guilty of second degree murder. [...] He has a legal duty to protect her from harm on Inspiration Point. [...] A duty to take all steps reasonably possible to (protect) her.

(These words are put up on the overhead screen.)

1. Exercise care for child.
2. Exercise control over child.
3. Protect child from harm.

Hum then explains his perspective of the difference between second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter.

CH: Jury instruction 8.51 tells you the difference between second degree and involuntary manslaughter. For second degree murder, the defendant realizes the risk. [...] For involuntary manslaughter, the defendant does not realize the risk. [...] Did the defendant know it was dangerous? OF COURSE he did! [...] It's obvious to anyone!

Hum then quotes from Detective Leslie's testimony of his report of the interview with the defendant.

CH: Not only that, he said, "The whole place is dangerous." The defendant admitted it. [...] How many times did we hear about what an outdoors man he was. [...] That he lived on the edge and knows the risk. [..] If the defendant knew it was dangerous and he did it anyway, he's guilty of second degree murder. It's not involuntary manslaughter.

CH: All the evidence contradicts the defendant's story. [...] The defendant had been around water all his life and he knew Lauren couldn't swim. [...] If by (some remote possibility) she did fall and this was an accident he would know that every second counts. [...] He knows that by going down to the nude beach he can't get to Lauren because he said on the 911, "I have to back track (to get to her)." [...] You know that if you see a child floating in the pool you get them out as soon as possible. [...] You don't take the time to take your clothes off.

CH: Not a single defense witness came in here and said that the defendant didn't murder Lauren. [...] The defense didn't present a single shred of evidence that the defendant didn't murder Lauren.

CH: Why did the defendant chose that southeast point of Inspiration Point? [...] Because that's the ONE PLACE where you can't be seen from the parking lot. You can't bee seen from the beach. You can't be seen ( from the road/ houses?). [...] Yeah, maybe there was someone with binoculars but that's the only place you can't be seen.

CH: Lauren didn't hike. She was crying all day, and that's a fatiguing event. [...] She was four. [...] What was the one thing we all wanted when we got back from Inspiration Point? Water. [...] Lauren didn't have any water.

(When I hear this argument, this fact hits me like a ton of bricks because I'm thinking about the hike Mr. Sprocket and I took and he carried our water.)

CH: They still had to go back to the car. That's another mile. [...] What's the other big problem with Detective Leslie's argument? [...] He didn't have to come up with this story. [...] So, we're going to come up with this story that he said it was an accident. Why didn't they say they spoke to him for five minutes and then he confessed?

CH: It's the hardest thing to think, is that a father would do this.....

Hum addresses filicide and a recent case that happened while they were in trial.

CH: While we were in trial, another case, a father beat his child to death. [...] We know it happens, we know it does. We just don't want to believe it.

I look at the clock. It's 4:50 pm. Hum mentions Jon Hans.

CH: If the defendant's best friend believes he did it, we shouldn't have any trouble believing it either. [...] In Lauren's tragically short life of four years (he adds the months and days which I miss) [...] he spent no more than sixteen days with her. [...] There was no relationship.

CH: In support of Lauren being so wild and daring and just running around Inspiration Point, this is their proof.

The prosecution presents the videos of Lauren that the defense played as part of their proof that Lauren was a daring and adventurous child. I see these videos for the first time and they bring me to the edge of tears. Lauren is in a pair of in-line skates trying to skate, inside a garage. She walks in the skates and it looks like she's actually on carpet, not cement garage floor. I look over at Sarah and she's crying. Even writing about this brings tears to my eyes.

The next video, Lauren on a skateboard. She's got one foot on the board and slowly steps the board along. She eventually sits on the skateboard, straddling it. Now a video of her walking on the edge of the water getting her shoes wet. She's fully dressed. She's not at the beach, she's at a marina. There are no "waves" like it was mentioned on the Support Cam web site. It's a tiny lapping of water on a sandy launch area for boats. Then two more videos of her walking along water. Again, these all appear to be the same day, walking this time in water up to her ankles. There are no waves.

CH: That's their proof. What a daring little girl Lauren was. That's their proof that Lauren was running around and that she fell off. [...] All I ask is that you look at the law. Look at the evidence. [...] What an amazing coincidence, the only person to fall off Inspiration point is a four-year-old child who's father never wanted her, hates her mother and pays 1,000 a month in child support. [...] What an amazing coincidence. [...] The only person who fell off Inspiration Point.

CH: It's not a coincidence. We know what happened. All I ask is for justice. Simple justice. Because we know the truth. [...] He never wanted Lauren. [...] The truth is, he hated her mom, Sarah.

(At some point in the argument, he mentions that this was a way to hurt Sarah, by taking away the child that she loved.)

CH: The truth is the defendant took her (and threw her off Inspiration Point.) [...] And we know the truth and all I ask is that you tell him the truth and convict him of murder.

That's the end of Hum's closing argument. Judge Pastor tells the jurors to turn to Page 16 in their instruction packet and reads to the jurors the concluding instruction.

It's 5:03 pm. After the jurors are instructed where they will deliberate (courtroom 108 on Thursday) they are excused and Pastor makes a comment about how he is going to explain the 45 minutes of overtime. There is a bit of bustle in the courtroom as it slowly empties out.

The jurors deliberated for a short time on Thursday and Friday. They won't return until Tuesday to continue their deliberations.

Cameron Brown Retrial; Closing Arguments, Part II

Continued from Closing Arguments, Part I...

1:14 pm: I'm back in the courtroom that is filling up with people. Judge Pastor asks to see counsel at sidebar. A new reporter sits in the back row, not realizing she can't sit there because that's how the jurors enter the courtroom. We're missing Juror #7, the MD who works for Kaiser. The reporter and her cameraman move to the far back corner and stand.

Sarah is wearing a gray pantsuit. Patty is wearing a bright turquoise jacket and navy pants.

It's 1:20 pm and we're still waiting for the juror.

I learn that the young, pretty woman to my left who attended the trial off and on was in the jury panel in this case. She said she was originally in seat #8. Her aunt was murdered and her father is an attorney. She tells me she is a big fan of Pat Harris and brought a paperback copy of Susan McDougal's book The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk with her. She asked the relatives of Pat Harris if they could get him to autograph the book for her. (Link to an interview with Susan McDougal.)

1:25 pm, the missing juror finally arrives. I note that in the afternoon session Mavis is the court reporter up again. I don't know how she's going to pull this all day session and probably go into overtime!

Harris steps up to give his closing argument.

PH: I too on behalf of Ms. Yeretsian and Mr. Brown thank you for your service.

He speaks so quickly, I can't write much of what he says in the beginning down. I have a note here that says ~black/white .... back and forth~ but it's not bringing up any memory of what Harris said.

PH: ....sincere appreciation. This has been a long trial. [...] Mr. Hum ended by stating Cameron Brown walked onto Inspiration Point and picked up Lauren and threw her to her death. [...] Step back [...] in a courtroom, perspective can be a difficult thing. [...] It's that incredible an act and that's what you're asked to believe. [...] What kind of person does that? That's what the prosecution would ask you to believe.

Harris then makes an analogy to an old television show with Ralph Edwards, This Is Your Life.

PH: They've gone all over the US, all over the US to prove that Cameron Brown is the type of person that would throw his daughter off a cliff. [...] They allege a jealous relationship with a prior girlfriend. Imagine. A 22 year-old male having a jealous relationship. Now that's something you've never heard about.

Harris refutes the prosecution witness who testified about Brown being upset about his father arriving late for a breakfast meeting.

PH: they spent years, thousands of dollars (trying to prove) that this man (is a monster).

Mark Geragos, Nareg Gourjian and other staff members of Geragos and Geragos enter 107 and sit in the very back row.

PH: They have to dehumanize him. They can't even call him by his name.

(That's an interesting tactic, pointing out that the prosecution called Brown "the defendant.")

Harris puts up on the overhead an obviously much younger photo of Brown standing beside his surfboards with long, sun-bleached blond hair, sporting muscular shirtless body.

PH: That's the monster who supposedly (threw his daughter off a cliff). Mr. Hum told you he never took photos of her before. [...] That was wrong.

Harris puts up photos of Lauren taken at Lynne Brown's home. I believe it's at this point that Harris mentions that there was a photo of Lauren on Brown's nightstand.

PH: There are nineteen of them, just to start with.

(I think the photographs the defense presents are interesting evidence. They were not found at Cameron's home during the executed search warrant on 1/2/2001.)

Harris mentions the letter that Jon Hans wrote "a while back" where he said Cameron "...couldn't possibly do what he's accused of."

Harris mentions defense witness Mr. Dietzler (sp?) and how he testified that Brown would go out of he way to help his grandmother, who had Alzheimer's.

PH: Ms. Lynne Brown testified that he was the son who came around to help change her diapers; (the other's stayed away). [...] Mark Thompson talked about cam as a friend and human being [...] and that was an amazing story. (The story about a night out camping, Brown slept outside and let his friend sleep in Brown's van/camper and that's the night he believes his wife got pregnant.) [...] He would drive to Fontana to bring gifts to Thompson's daughter on his motorcycle. [...] Jane (Doe) talked about him always being extremely thoughtful. [...] (When they made the decision to end her pregnancy) they cried together on the sofa. [...] That's the kind of man he was. Jeane Barrett. [...] that's another (prosecution) witness who (said) he was kind and thoughtful.

Harris mentions testimony of Lynne Brown again and then Sarah.

PH: Ms. Key-Marer went out with him for two months. She said he had lots of good traits. [...] Mr. Hum only spent about two minutes about Cameron Brown's relationship with his daughter. [...] What did he have as a relationship with his daughter?

Harris brings up the testimony of Scott Simonson.

PH: (They asked him) How was he with his daughter? He used to bring her down to his boat.

Harris puts up the transcript testimony of Scott Simonson.

PH: This is key. His whole attitude changed after he found out about his daughter.

Harris reads from the transcript some more.

PH: That's critical because that's a prosecution witness. [...] Their witness told you this.

Harris says he won't dispute that before Brown got to meet his daughter (he didn't believe she was his).

PH: But witness after witness said that once he knew it was his (child) his whole attitude changed. [...] These are people who saw her with Cam.

Harris mentions the witness who took his children trick-or-treating with Cameron and Lauren.

PH: [...] brought him in to show you that one before, he was taking her trick or treating. that he specifically found a family, a friend with kids so that she would have a good time. [...] Lynne Brown talked about their relationship and that they were so special together, that he (adored that little girl).

Harris addresses the testimony of the teachers at Lauren's school when Brown picked Lauren up and told her "Daddy's here."

PH: Even prosecution witness Dave Bannister, that [...] he spoke very lovingly about his daughter. [...] Jan Meuler, the mediator said, "Cam always wanted more time with Lauren." [...] That's her testimony. [...] And that he loved her and wanted more time with her. [...] Again, he was there alone, without Patty.

(Harris mentions this, that Brown went to the mediation alone, without Patty, as if that's significant but he fails mention that attorney Stacey Phillips testified that spouses of either party were not allowed in on the mediation meetings.)

Harris mentions Sarah writing "over and over in her journal that they were getting along, feeling each other out; it was good."

PH: Mr. Hum's theory is, he was angry, vindictive and was going to get her. [...] There's on thing wrong with that theory. For three months, they got together and met at parks together (for Lauren to get to know Brown). [...] He had absolutely a good relationship with her (Sarah). [...] This idea that he was bitter for several years just doesn't hold water.

Harris mentions again that Brown always wanted more time with Lauren. Harris brings up the alleged adoption agreement.

PH: They can talk about (it) all day. It doesn't hold water. One swipe of the pen; (could have signed away his rights) but he didn't do it because he refused to do it because he didn't want someone to adopt his daughter.

Lynne Brown and Brown Senior enter 107.

Harris states that the argument with his mother was about the fact that she snuck around trying to see Lauren without his knowledge and that Brown can't see his daughter. Harris mentions the long list of gifts that Brown gave his daughter. He mentions the nine photos at the house and that one was on the bed stand.

PH: He took few vacations and scheduled his vacation while Lauren was in England.

Harris describes the long drive he would have to take to Orange County to see his daughter, every week. An hour down and an hour back.

PH: Every week to see his daughter. This man, who (supposedly) didn't want anything to do with Lauren.

(It was court ordered. He had to.)

PH: Look at her (Sarah's) journal. Almost every single week, like clockwork.

Harris then presents arguments against the prosecution's claim that Lauren's death was premeditated.

PH: They've been telling you for two months that he's been planning it for two months and then they tell you that it didn't have to be that.

Harris then goes over Lynne Brown's testimony, about how she feels guilty that her son called and asked if he could bring Lauren there and she told him "Sorry, I can't today. It will have to be next week." (From what I've been told, it's not been firmly established that he called his mother the day of Lauren's death and asked to bring Lauren. It could have been the day before.)

PH: This is the plan? That he drives all the way to Inspiration Point? What if there are three people up there having a picnic? How does he plan that? How does (Hum) know that he's going to do that? [...] He doesn't know if people from the houses (on the hillside) can see him. [...] He doesn't know if people from the road can see him. [...] He could have gone to park in the parking lot across the street to the church, and parked in that lot for free, then taken her directly to Inspiration Point to throw her off the cliff. That would have been easier. [...] Why couldn't he do that? [...] He's got a boat. That would be easier.

Then Harris addresses Brown's demeanor after Lauren's death.

PH: Yes,t when you premeditate this whole thing and then you're going to act like you don't (care)? (You) come up with this whole plan and then when police show up, you act like you don't care? It doesn't make any sense! [...] It's like planning a robbery and not bringing a get away car.

Harris then addresses the prosecution experts as to where Lauren left the cliff.

PH: They literally have to have a point of departure there because that's the only thing that supports the physics. [...] You have to ask, why would you go all the way down to throw her off there.

Harris now goes to attack Detective Leslie's partner, Detective Smith who is retired, living in another state and was not called by the prosecution.

PH: You didn't see Detective Smith here. His fingerprints are on everything in this case. Maybe it has something to do with that phone book "assholes" comment.

Harris then brings up the 50 minute video tape of the walk (hike) that retraced the route, and that the jurors had to sit through it.

PH: Notice we didn't hear that today? [...] Because it wasn't 50 minutes. Once we timed it, it was 27 minutes, total. [...] Supposedly Detective Smith had a video [...] they walked [....] 27 minutes.

Harris now brings up the fact that Dr. Hayes did not do dummy drop tests off the cliff.

PH: Why didn't they do that? [...] Because they know they would get the results that Dr. Siegmund got.

Harris now argues that the amount of time that passed from when Brown hung up the 911 call to when the first responders arrived at the archery range was six to eight minutes.

PH: That's super-human (that Brown did that apparently in that short of time, got over the cliff from Sacred Cove to retrieve his daughter out of the water) and they didn't want you to know it. [...] The prosecution to counter that, they attacked their own witness! [...] They know that Cameron Brown was running around out there like crazy trying to get his daughter out of the water.

Harris then states that the prosecution never asked for Patty Brown's finances at first.

PH: The phone calls, that Sarah Key-Marer documented, we don't eve know when that happened.

Harris implies that the phone calls could have been months later than Sarah dated them. Harris states that police put Brown under surveillance for days. "Where are those tapes? You didn't see them," he argues. Harris states that Dr. Lachmanan was never called to back up the testimony of Dr. Chinwah. He goes onto imply that we don't know exactly what Dr. Lachmanan did in reviewing the case. He could have been just an administrator, and just signed off without reviewing the case file.

Harris then states the witnesses that the prosecution could have called to back up Sarah's testimony of statement Lauren supposedly made, "This talk about Mommy's going to jail." The prosecution didn't call Greg Marer or Lauren's step-brother, Joshua. "Then bring them in to testify to back her up. [...] They don't do it."

PH: Mr. Hum made two references to Dr. Karim (sp?) about (him being) a doubles's partner to my wife. Dr. Karim was educated at Cambridge. (He) gets repeatedly hired by police forces. [...] Hum didn't bring in a single person to say that disassociation didn't happen.

Harris now presents argument about Hum's allegation that Dr. Oppenhaven (sp?) lied about Dr. Hayes.

PH: If that's not true, well then, if I'm Dr. Hayes I'd get on a place and Id be back to rebut that. [...] Why didnt' he come to rebut it? They didn't do that. [...] They had Ms. Key-Marer total up the hours (that Brown visited with his daughter) and it was only sixteen days. Why didn't they do the next logical step and find out how many hours was he legally allowed to see her? They didn't do that. [...] They still stood up and said her injuries were minimal. We showed you the photos. [...] Pictures don't create that. [...] Those injuries are reminiscent of someone falling. [...] Bruises up and down her shins. They just ignored that. [...] The bruise on her back. They just ignored that.

Harris then puts up the exhibit of People's #15 and implies that there used to be a photo in a certain area of the poster board display.

PH: Notice there was a photo taken out? Lauren on her back. [...] This picture.

Harris is showing the jury a defense exhibit photo.

It's 2:30 pm and I wonder how long Harris is going to argue.

PH: What else did they ignore? [...] Detective Leslie said, "I didn't think that he ran very hard because he didn't have any cuts. [...] You can see in the photos cuts on the back of his legs. [...] If it doesn't fit the evidence, just ignore it.

Harris now argues that the prosecution witnesses all described the "protrusion" as "U shaped."

PH: The trail looks like a U shape.

Harris then argues that it would not look like a "U shape" from the ground.

My notes are not clear at this point. I believe Harris then repeats a statement by Mr. Hum.

PH: Mr. Hum said I want to show you something, the single most damming thing in this trial [...] (talk about the U shape) and this protrusion. [...] They have to put her down there because they can say [....] but they chose to ignore.. (They went with Dr. Hayes....)

Harris now mentions Detective Brothers.

PH: Cameron Brown told her where he was; everyone ignored it.

Harris is now reading from Brother's testimony, the questions and answers.

PH: Did the defendant tell you the sloped part where Lauren fell from? [...] He said he was seated at the end of Inspiration point on a level area at the end of Inspiration Point. [...] He TOLD them that! [...] He was standing on the level area [...] and then it slopes down. [...] The level area is by the bush. [...] No one's saying... [...] Mr. Brown told them he was for feet from the edge [...] if you get a little off the trail. [...] What they chose to do is take the information and transfer it to that sloped area. [...] Where he actually told them he was was where you and I were standing yesterday.

Brown is stoic, unemotional all through the prosecution and the defense arguments.

PH: Answer, he said that he was seated at the end of Inspiration Point on a level area.

Harris then goes after several aspects of Detective Leslie's testimony and calls it "scripted." Harris states he doesn't have children, he has a dog. He can't imagine what Sarah Key-Marer has gone through.

PH: Ms. Key-Marer wants Mr Brown convicted and she's stretching some things that have happened at the time. (There are) discrepancies about her declaration that she dated him for a year.

Harris addresses where Sarah testified Brown told her, "that's where kids died."

PH: That's not what she told Detective Leslie. "That people commit suicide there." [...] What Cam said (she wrote everything down in her journal) what comes around goes around. (Apparently this is not in her journal of things that Brown said.)

Harris then addresses Ms. Key-Marer's testimony about the counseling session. He goes over the testimony of the counselor, and that for her to do what Ms. Marer suggested would have been "unethical." Harris then brings up the deportation. He brings up every issue that he challenged in motions before trial to get ruled inadmissible. He takes all those issues that Sarah accused Brown of and challenges their validity.

PH: She lied to say all the things going on (problems) in Lauren's life were Cam's fault.

Harris challenges more of Sarah's testimony that's damaging to his client. At 2:57 pm Judge Pastor calls for the afternoon break.

In the restroom, I speak to the woman sitting in the row in front of me that I've been told is a relative of Pat Harris. She tells me that she is his aunt, and this is the first time she's seen one of Pat's closings.

3:14 pm, we are waiting for the jury. Brown puts his tie back on. I see Harris flip though the rest of his notes. He flips through six pages and there appear to be more underneath those. Judge Pastor reminds Brown to get his jacket on before they call the jury in a minute later.

Harris continues attacking the prosecution witnesses and the fact that they called Detective Leslie to the stand three times. He describes Detective Leslie as the prosecution's "relief pitcher."

PH: When you start looking at actual facts verses what was testified to...

Harris brings up the fact that Brown's three hour interview with police was not audio or video taped. (In my mind, this is the single most powerful defense evidence.)

PH: That's all well and good if he had tape recorded or video taped the interview. [...] We don't have the actual recording or evidence. [...] Even if (it's) written in the report, we don't know if that's exactly as Cameron Brown said. [...] We wouldn't have that [...] he chose not to video tape or record that. [...] What Mr. Brown said was, she started off hiking. He never said she led. [...] Lynne Brown said she tool Lauren all the time (to the water?). [...] She (Lauren) started to walk along the beach. [...] Which is what Cameron Brown said. [...] She started to walk.

Harris now gives his impression of what a hike is. Sometimes some is ahead and sometimes someone else is ahead. "It's a hike. It's not a march."

Harris then addresses (the prosecution?) attacking Terry Hope's (sp?) testimony.

PH: Either Hope is telling the truth about both things or he's not. You can't have it both ways. [...] Dr. Berkowitz. [...] They took her on a hike that didn't exist. They told her it took 50 minutes. [...] They didn't show her the other video. [...] She had the wrong time and the wrong route.

Pat Harris addresses Dr. Berkowitz's testimony that Lauren would not have gone on the hike voluntarily.

PH: There's a third way that a child will want to do something. [They would want] to do something to please a parent.

Harris states that from the playground to Inspiration Point it's "about 25 to 30 minutes."

PH: They go down to the beach, walk the beach and then they took the paved road. [...] Then (they) go down the first time, down the gully.

My note here is not clear, but Harris is saying something to the effect that the only part of the route that might have been hard would be the route through the gully. (I'm now certain that my husband and I took the same route that Lauren and Brown took from Palos Verdes South to Inspiration Point.)

Harris goes back to challenge more of the testimony of Detective Leslie about what he countered. He then brings up Detective Smith, who put in one of his notebooks "Phonebook Assholes" for a list of phone numbers of Brown's friends.

PH: (They) can't get away from that. It's there in writing.

Harris now says that during the three hour interview with Detectives, Brown was slowly remembering the events that happened up on the cliff.

PH: Why would he (Brown) lie? It makes no sense. [...] He was trying to recall details.

Harris states that he won't go over all the witnesses but he does go back to Dr. Hayes.

PH: In order to get the physics to work, he has to get her down at the bottom.

I take a moment to look on over at Brown. Brown leans back in his cair. His left elbow is on the defense table. Most of the fingers of his left hand are curled back, but his forefinger and thumb are stretched out and they are resting, no, supporting his chin.

Harris accuses Dr. Chinwah of missing a bruise on Lauren's back. Harris states that Dr. Beckwith testified the injuries were extensive and were from more than one impact.

Now Harris goes over with the jurors jury instructions and the four options they have. First degree, second degree, involuntary manslaughter and not guilty. He tells the jury that, "Second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter can be confusing, so aks if you have any questions." Harris points out that it has to be an intentional act for second degree.

Harris states our theory is in jury instruction 4.45. That's basically our theory of the case. Jury instruction 8.50 is the distinction between murder and involuntary manslaughter.

PH: The burden is on the prosecution to prove [...] all have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Jury instruction 8.45, this is for involuntary manslaughter.

He reminds the jurors again, what it requires. He then mentions something about jury instruction 8.46, and that it talks about "without due caution and circumspection."

Harris states that their view of the case is not first or second degree, but asks them to look at involuntary and not guilty instructions.

PH: We don't believe it's an involuntary case. We don't believe they proved it's a murder case.

Harris then moves onto the special circumstance of financial gain and that the prosecution did not do a good job os proving he married her (Patty) for her money.

PH: You marry for at least seven figures, which is what someone does when they marr for money.

(I have to force myself to keep from smirking. I cannot believe Harris makes this argument, that Patty wasn't wealthy enough for Cam to marry her for money. Patty certainly had a lot more money than Brown ever did.)

PH: Brown could have earned $500. more a month if he worked just a few more hours a week. (But he chose instead to spend time with his daughter.) [...] The man who couldn't wait to get rid of his daughter, paid the child support for another six months. [...] You would think that he would have been in that courtroom next month to end the child support! [...] When you get into custody, you're actually getting into more expenses. They're not cut.

Harris addresses Hum's accusation that Patty wanted Lauren for herself.

PH: Patty wasn't even around Lauren. She had barely met Lauren at that time.

Harris then addresses Jon Han's testimony about that issue. He then goes onto interpret the letter that Patty wrote, that was found in the home during the search warrant.

PH: No one thought they'd get custody of Lauren. She just said ask for the moon and maybe you'll get something.

Harris now moves onto Dr. Chinwah.

PH: Dr. Chinwah never said that wasn't a bruise on her back. [...] He never said that.

(I dispute that. Dr. Chinwah stated it was lividity.)

Harris states he believes Detective Leslie was wrong, and that he became (personally? emotionally?) involved in the case.

PH: (Detective Leslie) That night he got angry. He has a daughter. He got invested. He got his ego involved. But he's just dead wrong.

Harris accuses the homicide detectives of ignoring things. It's 4:00 pm, and Harris now tries to project what Hum will say in his rebuttal argument.

PH: I think we live in a different society today. If this happened thirty or forty years ago, Mr. Brown wouldn't be here. [...] With the shows on TV, the society [...] somebody's got to pay for it. [...] (TV) shows where they have convicted (him/someone) before he's even accused.

Harris mentions the Internet and some of the horrible things that are said.

PH: That's society today. [...] It's simply not true.

Harris mentions Jon Hans, and what he read on the Internet.

PH: That's some of the interest that society has today. [...] Look at the evidence. Please be fair; not on emotion.

Harris now has the softest tone of voice I've ever heard throughout the trial.

PH: If you look at the evidence, there's no way he picked his daughter up and threw her off the cliff. It's just not possible.

Harris is finished with his closing argument and Judge Pastor asks, "Mr. Hum?" Hum states he needs a few minutes. Judge Pastor asks the jurors to go into the jury room for a moment while Hum gathers his final thoughts together. Hum tells Judge Pastor that he needs just two to three minutes. Ted comes over to the reporters and speaks to Jack Leonard again.

It's seven minutes after 4:oo pm and Hum is ready to present his last argument. The jury is brought back in and Hum starts at about 4:10 pm. I thought that Hum meant that his rebuttal argument would be just a few minutes. But that's not what happens. He speaks for over an hour.

To be continued in Part III....