Michael Gargiulo Verdict Reached

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, June 2008

UPDATED!
August 15, 2019
The Los Angeles Superior Court's Public Information Office states that a verdict has been reached in the Gargiulo trial. The verdict will be read at 11 am PT.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the reading. I will update T&T readers as soon as I hear news from the court.

August 16, 2019
Yesterday, after a little more than three days of deliberation, Gargiulo was convicted of first degree murder in the stabbing deaths of Ashley Ellerin on February 21, 2001 and Maria Bruno on December 1, 2005. Gargiulo was also convicted of premeditated attempted murder of Michelle Murphy on April 28, 2008 and attempted escape from the El Monte Jail on June 18, 2008. In the murders and attempted murders, the jury also found true the special circumstances of lying-in-wait and using a deadly weapon, a knife.

There are two more phases left in the Gargiulo case: Sanity and penalty phase.

Jurors return Tuesday, August 20, to hear evidence in the sanity phase. If jurors decide that Gargiulo was sane during these crimes, they will then hear evidence to determine Gargiulo's punishment. The prosecution is seeking the death penalty.

Michael Gargiulo Case: 11 Years From Arrest to Opening Statements

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, June 6, 2008

May 6, 2019
Eleven Years From Arrest to Opening Statements
One of the questions I often receive about the Michael Gargiulo case is, Why did this case take so long to get to trial?

Murder trials in LA County can take years to bring to trial. Defendants out on bail usually take longer to bring to trial than in-custody defendants. Multiple murder cases will take even longer. There is more evidence to present and more witnesses to interview.

However, even the Grim Sleeper case (charged with the murder of 11 victims) took less time to get from arrest to opening statements (5 years, 7 months) than the Gargiulo case (10 years, 11 months).

Cameron Brown was in custody over ten years but that was for three trials (two hung juries and a third trial ending in conviction). Gargiulo’s case is unusual in that he has been in custody almost 11 years until opening statements on May 2, 2019.



The answer to the question is complicated. It’s not a single issue. By my count, it was a series of eight separate events involving two different defense counsel, the defendant, the court and the prosecution team at different times over the past 11 years.



Arrest & Charges

In California, Michael Thomas Gargiulo was arrested on June 6, 2008. He was charged with burglary and the attempted murder of Michelle Murphy on April 28, 2008. The District Attorney’s office filed case number SA0068002 in the Airport courthouse. Deputy DA is Joseph A. Markus. Defendant was represented by private counsel. Defendant pleads not guilty. 


September 4, 2009
On September 4 Gargiulo was charged with four additional counts. Gargiulo pled not guilty to the following additional counts: Burglary and the murder of Ashley Ellen on February 21, 2001. Burglary and the murder of Maria Bruno on December 1, 2008.

Gargiulo requested representation by the court. However, for the next few months the clerk’s minute notes indicate he was represented from this date forward by a different private attorney. 



January 23 - February 24, 2009
1/23/09: Gargiulo’s lawyer made a request to the court that he be removed from the case. That request was granted and Gargiulo was appointed counsel from the Public Defender’s office. Gargiulo puts on the record that he would like to have a state appointed lawyer.
2/24/09: The Public Defender’s office and the Alternate Public Defender’s office declare conflicts in this matter and the office of the bar panel is appointed.



March 27 - December 11, 2009
Charles Lindner is appointed Gargiulo’s new counsel pending resolution of fees. 


5/15/09: Lindner informs the court that Department 123 has authorized his appointment of the case. 

7/17/09: Deputy DA Marna F. Miller has the case now. DDA Miller will present the case at the preliminary hearing almost a year later.


9/30/09: The prosecution presents to the court that the preliminary hearing will take two to three weeks and the defense states it will take a month. Based on the time estimates, the case is transferred to Dept 100, Master Calendar Court in downtown Los Angeles for transfer to a longer cause courtroom. There are no objections from counsel.



10/2/09 Dept. 100: Master Calendar Court transfers the case to Dept. 108, Judge Michael Johnson, on the 9th floor of the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center. The 9th floor is where long cause trials or complex cases are usually handled.

11/12/09: The complaint is amended. The actual change is not reflected in the clerk’s minute notes.


12/11/09: Clerk’s minute notes indicate the death penalty is pending. Second defense counsel, Dale Rubin is present in court.



January 5, 2010
A firm date of June 21, 2010 is set for the preliminary hearing. Over the next few months, subpoenas for documents come into the court are copied and disbursed. Discovery is completed. 



June 21, 2010
The preliminary hearing starts. The preliminary hearing takes eight days and is held on June 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30. On June 30, the court rules on the preliminary hearing. The people file an amended complaint to add a seventh charge. This charge is attempted escape during the Perkin’s Operation held in the El Monte Jail on June 17-18, 2008. The motion is granted. The court orders the defendant held to answer on all seven charges. Felony arraignment plea is scheduled for July 14, 2010. On that date Gargiulo is charged with seven counts. He pleads not guilty to all charges.



Note: Up to this point, things appear pretty standard in Los Angeles County Superior court for a defendant with a multiple murder charge and the death penalty pending.

November 10, 2010
The people state in open court their intention to seek the death penalty.

Delay #1

This is the first event that will extend the time it takes for the case to get to opening statements. 



11/10/10: The people file their statement of aggravating factors by the next court appearance. Defense requests additional time to prepare their 995, motion to dismiss and that is granted. December 6 is set as the date for the parties to meet with Judge Sam Ohta the new judge who will preside over Dept. 108 and the case. On December 6, new dates are set for the filing of the 995 motion, people’s response and the defense reply.



January 19, 2011 -  July 5, 2011
1/19/11: Deputy DA David B. Walgren is added as people’s counsel. 

2/25/11: The court holds an in camera review of discovery documents. Court reporter’s notes are ordered sealed.



Note: There are several status checks over the next  few months where the defendant does not appear. These appear to be counsel declarations and records rechecks of the preliminary hearing record in a death penalty case.

7/5/11: The court certifies the preliminary hearing record is complete and accurate.

7/7/11: In Illinois, the Cook County State’s Attorney General charges Gargiulo with the 1993 first degree murder of Tricia Pacaccio.

Note: Once California is finished with Gargiulo, Illinois will take custody of Gargiulo.


August 16, 2011 - December 7, 2011
A few pretrial hearings where the case is continued. It appears Deputy DA Eric Harmon replaces Deputy DA Miller. The defense lodges their 995 motion with the court on December 7. The motion is 132 pages long.

January 2012 - May 14, 2012

2/15/12: Deputy DA Daniel Akemon appears for the people, replacing Deputy DA Walgren. DDA Akemon will be the lead prosecutor who eventually tries the case.
3/6/12: Order to LA County Sheriff to provide a booth for a psychiatrist Samuel I. Miles, M.D., in the attorney room to interview, examine and psychologically test defendant Michael Gargiulo is signed by the court.

Note: It is unknown if there is a specific event that triggers the need for a psychological evaluation.

4/25/12: Defendant’s oral Marsden motion and possible Pro Per motion are continued to 5/14.


5/14/12: Defendant is present and not represented by counsel. Defendant appears Pro Per. Out of the presence of the people, the defendant’s Marsden motion is argued and denied. In the presence of the people, the defendant’s motion to proceed in Pro Per is granted. Charles Lindner is ordered relieved.

Discovery is to be reacted prior to being turned over to the defendant. Faretta advisement waiver is signed and filed. Order to Sheriff for Pro Per funds in the amount of $60 including legal supplies is filed and faxed to the Sheriff’s Dept. 

This basically resets the case as if a new defense counsel was appointed.



Delay #2
The defendant going Pro Per in a death penalty case is the second event that delays the case significantly. The defendant retains his pro per status for approximately 30 months and only files a single motion of any significance during that time.

Note: From the time the defense filed their 995 motion on December 7, 2011, until May 2012, I can only assume there was a total breakdown of communication and/or cooperation between the defendant and his counsel. Defendant’s motion for new counsel (Marsden) was denied. Defendant went forward with a move to self-represent, Pro Per.



May 15, 2012 - July 12, 2012

5/23/12: Defendant has not received his Pro Per funds and has not been to the LASD jail law library to prepare a motion for appointment of an investigator. 



Note: Over the next few weeks, several hearings occur for the defendant to get Pro Per funds and for an investigator to be assigned. By July 12, Lindner is appointed stand-by counsel and the defendant has his first investigator, Christian Filipiak.

August 21, 2012
I attend my first pretrial hearing in the Gargiulo case. 

Gargiulo files his first motions. Motion for an order to receive and have boxes for voluminous discovery. Motion for an order to have one hand free and uncuffed in private booth in attorney room. Motion to receive law library privileges. The court finds these motions are sheriff security policy issues and are continued to September 5. Defendant’s motion to receive all color copies of crime scene photos is filed and continued to September 5. The court allows defendant’s investigator to give defendant a pair of prescription glasses and two current law books.

Any discovery turned over to the defendant is to be copied on yellow paper. 


Note: All of Gargiulo’s requests for funds are handled by a completely different judge/courtroom, usually Dept. 123 but occasionally Dept. 110.

September 5, 2012 - May 9, 2014
9/5/12: The prosecution files a motion to prevent the defendant from possessing in his cell, the crime scene photographs. After a review of relevant case law, the court rules on September 26 that copies of the crime scene photographs and videos will remain in the custody of defendant’s investigator and not in the defendant’s jail cell. The court orders a representative of the sheriff’s department to appear at the next pretrial hearing to address defendant’s motions that are in conflict with security policy at the jail.

10/29/12: The people turn over discovery material to the defendant.

Note: All future discovery that the people turn over to the defendant is documented in the court record.



11/28/12: Defendant’s motion to have one hand free and uncuffed in attorney room at MCJ (LASD Men’s Central Jail) is granted. Defendant’s motion for boxes is withdrawn. 

2/25/13: People submit a protective order for discovery filed under seal. Defendant’s motion for order of transcripts is argued and denied. Defendant’s motion for a medical order is signed and faxed. 



6/14/13: Defendant’s motion for order for court transcripts is filed. Standing court order for transcripts is in effect. Defendant’s opposition to the people’s stipulation to the Maria Rodriguez murder is filed this date and requires no action. Prosecution’s informal request for discovery (second request) is filed. Charles Lindner is in court and informs the court he has not received any demand for discovery from the defendant. Prosecution will provide standby counsel with discovery.



6/28/13: DDA Garrett Dameron appears on behalf of the people. Defendant’s ex parte motion for order for DA’s office to handover information re the murder of Maria Rodriguez (the Downy case) to Judge Sam Ohta for in camera review is filed.

7/19/13: Stipulation is signed by all parties on the Maria Rodriquez murder. The prosecution is on their tenth set of discovery materials turned over to the defendant.


11/22/13: Twelfth set of discovery materials turned over to the defendant. Investigator Chris Nicely is present in court.

Note: This is the first mention of Mr. Nicely in the clerk’s minute notes but I believe he has been working on the case for some time. 



1/31/14: The people’s motion to compel compliance with PC 1054 ET SEQ discovery procedures and quash subpoena duces tecum (SDT) investigating agency is placed off calendar. The defendant withdrawals his subpoena duces tecum. People’s subpoenaed records are opened in court and released to the people for copying and returned to the court. Two boxes of sealed medical records are lodged with the court.

2/21/14: The people’s 1054 motion and request to quash defense SDT’s mentioned on 1/31 is filed with the court. The fourteenth set of discovery materials is provided by the people to the defendant. Parties confer regarding ongoing discovery.


3/7/14: Parties confer regarding ongoing discovery. The people’s motion to compel discovery and quash subpoenas is continued to next court date.

3/14/14: People’s motion is continued to next court date. Defendant is instructed to file under seal, a document indicating how subpoenaed documents relate to his defense.


4/18/14: Matter continued  to 5/9. The people turn over more discovery materials to the defense.

5/8/14: Defendant is not present. An in camera hearing is held in chambers. Court reporter’s notes are sealed. 

5/9/14: The court is in receipt of the notice of results of [an] administrative hearing to deny defendant’s in custody [at LASD] pro per privileges for cause filed May 1, 2014. A hearing was conducted at Men’s Central Jail by the Sheriff’s Department on April 25, 2014. The hearing officer terminated defendant’s in-custody pro per privileges. A hearing date is set on May 16, 2014, for the court to review the Sheriff’s Department decision. LA County counsel is notified to appear on behalf of the LASD on May 16. An in camera review was held in chambers on May 8. Discovery is ordered turned over to defendant’s investigator to copy and return to this court upon completion. 



Delay #3
The event mentioned in the court file on 5/8 and 5/9 is is the third event that delays the case. When Gargiulo was returning to the jail after his court hearing on April 18, 2014, he was caught with contraband, a piece of metal hidden inside his mouth. This was a violation of LASD jail policy. The LASD revoked Gargiulo’s in custody pro per privileges and access to the law library. Even with this setback, defendant does not wish to relinquish his pro per status. He hangs onto it for six more months.



May 16, 2014 - November 7, 2014

5/16/14: The court conducts a review of the LASD administrative hearing [Wilson hearing] to deny defendant’s in custody pro per privileges. The cause is argued. The court finds substantial evidence to support the sheriff’s action to deny defendant’s access to the law library and pro per phone privilege. Defendant requests a transcript of today’s hearing. Defendant does not wish to relinquish his pro per status and will remain in pro per.

5/30/14: Defendant not present. Court rules on defendant exparte motion to receive local daily news paper and daily journal. The expasrte request is denied without prejudice.



6/27/14: Discovery material provided by the people to defendant. This is the seventeenth set of discovery documents from the people. People state that discovery to the defense is complete. People’s response to defendant’s informal discovery filed.


7/11/14: Matter delayed and case called in Dept. 107 as defendant needs a wheelchair to appear in court. Judge Lomeli signs a medical order for defendant to have his back and ankle checked.

9/25/14: Defendant’s motion for continuance is filed. Defendant’s oral motion to reinstate privileges is a matter for the sheriff’s department to address to the court. (There is no motion to reinstate privileges in the legal court file and the defendant cannot produce a conformed copy on this date.) Medical order is signed
10/10/14: Defendant’s opposition to people’s motion in liming re: statements obtained during Perkins operation at El Monte Jail is filed. People will re-submit a copy of people’s motion in limine. The parties confer regarding the letter dated 9/29/14 from the LASD re defendant’s pro per privileges. 


Note: This is the only significant motion that Gargiulo filed during his entire 30 month run representing himself in a death penalty case. The motion was not hand written like many of his other motions but typed. Someone other than Gargiulo prepared this motion.



11/07/14: Defendant’s motion to relinquish his pro per status is granted. Standby counsel Charles Lindner is appointed as defense counsel. Court orders LASD that defendant is allowed to keep his papers related to his case in his cell until further order of the court set for 1/9/2015. All papers in storage are to be preserved until further review on 1/9.



January 9, 2015 - July 23, 2015

1/9/15: Court and counsel confer regarding discovery. Defense counsel to meet with Detective Lillienfeld regarding discovery material in the possession of the defendant.


1/16/15: In camera hearing with defense counsel. Defendant is not present in court. Court reporter’s notes are ordered sealed. Defense document submitted to the court is ordered sealed and placed in a sealed-records envelope as confidential. Envelope not to be opened except on order of the court. 


5/7/15: Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to PC section 995 is filed. Defendant’s oral Marsden motion is continued. 


Delay #4

Gargiulo trying to get his counsel replaced again with another Marsden motion is the next event that delays the case while the issue is resolved. I have no solid evidence to base my opinion on, but it appears to me Gargiulo and his court appointed attorney cannot stand each other and Gargiulo is doing everything he can to get a new attorney assigned.




Gargiulo’s Marsden hearing is held on seven different court dates over the next five weeks. 5/7, 5/14, 5/27, 6/2, 6/5, 6/9, 6/12.



6/12/15: On this date, the court denies Gargiulo’s oral Marsden motion. Gargiulo orally informs the court that he wishes to withdraw his general time waiver. The court, sensing Gargiulo is trying to punish or retaliate against his counsel, also orders defense counsel to speak to his client privately in the lock-up area. Lindner’s paralegal, his son Abe Lindner, and defense investigator Chris Nicely join Lindner in lock-up for this meeting. Afterwards, defense counsel informs the court that his client refused to speak to him in lock-up.  The defendant’s oral motion to withdraw his general time waiver is continued to 6/15.

6/15/15: Defendant’s oral request to withdraw general time waiver is granted. Counsel’s response to defendant’s request for speedy trial is filed. The last day until the trial must commence is 8/14/15.
6/30: Ongoing discovery is discussed.
7/14/15: Defense counsel informs the court that attorney Dale Rubin has been reappointed as co-counsel.  Court orders attorney Dale Rubin to be present on next court date.
7/23/15: Dale Rubin is present. Ongoing discovery is discussed. Defendant through his attorney requests to read a statement in open court without his attorney’s approval. Upon speaking to his attorney, the request is withdrawn. Case continued to 9/9.



August 27, 2015 - September 9, 2015
8/27/15 Department 123: On August 3, 2015, Charles Lindner counsel for the defendant submitted to this court a six-page letter detailing the circumstances of the inappropriate withdrawal of approximately $10,000 from the attorney-client trust fund in this matter by a third party. 


9/4/15 Department 100: On the direct order of Judge James Brandlin, [Presiding Judge of the LA Co. Superior Court] a Marsden motion is assigned to Judge Scott Gordon on 9/9 in Dept. 123.



9/9/15 Department 123: Cause is called for OSC and Marsden motion. Defense counsel Lindner and Rubin are present. Order to show cause is granted. Mr. Lindner is ordered to cooperate with the superior court’s finance department. Marsden motion is heard. Motion is granted. Lindner is relieved as counsel of record. Good cause exists for relieving Mr. Lindner as counsel independent of the findings in the Marsden motion. No conflicts exist between Mr. Rubin and the defendant. Rubin is conditionally appointed. Lindner is ordered to self-report himself to the State Bar of California and provide proof of reporting to this court within 30 days.

Delay #5
The court removes defense attorney Charles Lindner and Dale Rubin is conditionally appointed, pending court consultation with the I.C.D.A.[California Bar Assn, Indigent Criminal Defense Appointments].

Gargiulo’s desire for a different counsel comes true, but not based on anything he did. Dale Rubin is advanced as the attorney of record. Rubin has to present a budget to defend the case to Dept 123 and get it approved. He also has to find a co-counsel for second chair. Rubin will need to review all of the people’s discovery to date. These next steps will take time and delay he case.

Note: The full details of the theft from Lindner's client trust account and who was responsible will not be revealed until early in 2019 when defense counsel Dale Rubin files his non-standard 995 motion to dismiss the case (and reply motion) and the 995 motion is argued in open court.

November 5, 2015 - December 16, 2016
Dale Rubin has several appearances in Dept. 108 and in Dept. 123 to get a budget approved and find co-counsel. 


5/27/16 Department 123: Dale Rubin and his co-counsel Daniel Nardoni appear before Dept. 123, Gargiulo’s 987.9 judge for a closed hearing.

7/14/16: Defense co-counsel of record is Daniel Nardoni.

11/21: Sometime before November 21, Judge Ohta is moved from Dept. 108 to Dept. 123. A new judge is assigned to Dept. 108. The people file an affidavit of prejudice against the new judge in Dept. 108, the Honorable Judge Lisa B. Lench. The matter is set in Dept. 100 for assignment on 11/28.


11/28/16 Department 100: Counsel for the people and defendant are all present. Court transfers the case to Department 106, Judge Larry P. Fidler and orders parties to Dept. 106 on December 16, 2016.
12/16/16: Case is continued to March 17, 2017.


Delay #6
The people's request for a new judge delays the case. The Gargiulo case is moved from Dept. 108 to Dept. 106, Honorable Judge Larry P. Fidler. Judge Fidler’s case load is already extensive and Gargiulo’s case is low on the totem pole in this new court. Judge Fidler’s calendar is backed up for months. This transfer delays the case for more than a year.

March 17, 2017 - January 12, 2018

3/17/17: The case is continued until June.
9/8: Due to Judge Fidler having potentially back-to-back death penalty cases, the Gargiulo matter is scheduled for trial on January 12, 2018.

1/12/18: Gargiulo amends his plea to add not guilty by reason of insanity. 

Delay #7
Gargiulo’s additional not guilty by reason of insanity plea delays the case for another year. Trial is expected to start in January 2019.



Note: This means there will now be three separate trials to the Gargiulo case. First will be a trial to determine if Gargiulo is guilty or not. If Gargiulo is found guilty, then a trial will be held to determine if Gargiulo was sane at the time he committed the murders and attempted murder.  If Gargiulo is found sane, then there will be a third trial to determine punishment of life without parole or death penalty. The prosecution is now entitled to see the medical file and psychiatrist notes on every visit Gargiulo had with his doctor. The people are also allowed to have Gargiulo examined by their own mental health expert. All this will take time.



November 2, 2018

Delay #8
Judge Fidler’s packed calendar bumps the Gargiulo case to start March 19, 2019.
Jury selection starts in the Gargiulo trial on March 19, 2019.

Note: I was able to attend the Opening Statements on May 2, 2019. I'll have my notes up in a few days.

Michael Gargiulo Case: Status Update April 2019

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Arrested 6/6/08.

April 27, 2019
Here is a status update on the pending Michael Thomas Gargiulo murder trial.

Charges
Gargiulo is charged with two murders (Ashley Ellerin 2001, Maria Bruno 2005) and one attempted murder (Michelle Murphy 2008). Evidence of another alleged murder, Tricia Pacaccio (1993 Glenview, IL) will be presented as 1101(b) evidence, prior uncharged acts (in California). On July 7, 2011, Gargiulo was charged with first degree murder in the death of Tricia Pacaccio by the Illinois Cook County State's Attorney.

Trial Schedule
Opening statements are scheduled to start Thursday May 2, 2019.  Testimony will start on Monday, May 6. No live streaming of the trial will be allowed. Although the court announcement did not mention it specifically, I expect this also covers live tweeting. No photography or filming of witnesses.

The trial will be held four days a week, Monday through Thursday (9:30 a.m. to 12 noon; 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.) and is estimated to last six months. The court will be dark the first week of July and for any other court needs.

Media
For opening statements, closing arguments, verdict and sentencing (if necessary), filming and still photography will be allowed. The court is allowing laptops to be used for note taking only.

T&T
I have followed the Gargiulo case for over 6.5 years from my first post on August 21, 2012. It was inconceivable to me back then that it would take almost 11 years to bring Gargiulo to trial.  Sadly, due to the recent changes in my life and the length of this trial, I will be unable to cover this case in the depth and detail that makes T&T what it is. I will not even be able to attend opening statements. I will try however, after the trial has started, to drop in on testimony in May or June as my schedule permits.

Note: I am still trying to obtain a copy of the defense response motion to the people's 1101(b) motion regarding the murder of Tricia Picaccio. I will upload motion documents as I obtain them. Sprocket

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 47

The previous post on this case can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo

UPDATE 3/12: See below & edited for typos. Sprocket
March 1, 2019
This is a short post to let T&T readers know that I attended the pretrial hearing today. Judge Fidler denied the defense non-standard 995 motion to dismiss the case. Jury selection will start with jurors receiving the jury questionnaire on March 19, 2019.

I hope to have a full update on today's proceedings by next Tuesday. I was not able to obtain documents today and hope to get them by Monday.

There is the possibility that while jury selection in the Gargiulo case commences, I will be covering a civil case in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. 

March 12, 2019
I'm still trying to get a copy of the defense non-standard 995 motion, supplemental non-standard 995 motion as well as the defense response to the people's 1101(b) motion. As soon as I obtain these documents, I'll update everyone on what happened at this hearing.
More to come....

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 46

The previous hearing on this case can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, booking photo
June 2008.

UPDATE 2/23: Corrected Gargiulo's age.
UPDATED 2/16: Edited for spelling errors, clarity. Sprocket
February 1, 2019
I was late getting out the door this morning. It now takes me a hour-and-a-half to get to court via public transportation. I arrive on the 9th floor of the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center about 10 minutes before 9 am. I know Judge Fidler's courtroom opens at 8:30 so I head inside.

Lead defense counsel Dale Rubin is in the well of the court. CBS 48 Hours producer Greg Fisher is in the gallery sitting in the back row with Christine Pelisek, People Magazine reporter. I debate on whether to sit with them. I like to sit in the second row. I hate sitting in the back row because I cannot hear as well. I decide to sit in the third row in front of them, so I can still chat.

There is a bit of conversation between the press and Mr. Rubin, who is quite reticent about talking to the press about his client. Anything but that. All he will mention is, when he was supposed to retire in 2017 -Gargiulo is his last case- and where he would like to move to, out of California. Over the last few years, I've observed Rubin to be a friendly man and have had a few conversations with him. He gets along very well with the prosecution. He also speaks and interacts with Gargiulo respectfully. I'm betting that goes a long way with the defendant.

8:55 AM
Deputy District Attorney's Dan Akemon and Garrett Dameron enter Dept. 106 with Retired Sheriff's Detective Mark Lillienfeld. I've known Detective Lillienfeld for a long time. I saw him testify in the first Phil Spector trial and the second. He gives me a big smile and says hello.

A few minutes later Defense attorney Dan Nardoni enters. There is now a huddle in the well between the two teams as they confer over documents. I note that Nardoni has on a nice black suit. My eye is drawn to the red and black handkerchief in his suit pocket.

Over at the clerk's desk, Wendy, Judge Fidler's clerk for as long as I've been covering trials is not here. There is a man who is sitting in for her. There are two extra deputies in the well besides the bailiff. Behind me, I listen in as Greg and Christine chat about other cases they are covering. Not a single one rings a bell with me.

9:07 AM
The court reporter comes out to take her seat in the well. I stand up to look in the jury box. There are no notebooks on the jury seats which leads me to believe Judge Fidler is not in trial at the moment. Attorneys come in for other cases.  A Judge in robes I don't immediately recognize strides into Dept. 106 rather quickly. He asks the stand-in clerk at Wendy's desk if he can have a few minutes with the judge. I know most of the male judges on the 9th floor. Judge Coen, Judge Marcus, Judge Perry, Judge Fidler, Judge Lomelli, Judge Pastor. If the Judge was from this floor, I'm thinking this is Judge Curtis Rappe, in Department 103 but that's just a guess.

9:13 AM
Another defendant is brought out. He's a smallish man wearing a blue jumpsuit.

9:14 AM
Judge Fidler takes the bench.

The first case is continued to another date. It's over quickly. Then a second case, with no defendant present that takes less than a minute.

Then the Gargiulo case is up. The clerk asks DDA Akemon if counsel wants to confer with the court first. DDA Akemon responds, "I think we need the defendant out."

Gargiulo comes out. He looks much like he did last time. His head is completely shaved bald, like it has been for several years now. He has a mustache that is still dark and a goatee that is almost completely white.

The first issue discussed is the defense 995 (Penal Code) motion to dismiss. Rubin tells the court it is a non-statuitory motion. There are documents attached. The motion has not been argued yet. That motion is set for Friday March 1. I have been waiting since 2012 for this motion to be presented and argued.

Next up, 1101b. DDA Akemon addresses the court. The people have several 1101b (Evidence Code) motions before the court and asking for rulings today. The first is a motion to introduce the Tricia Pacaccio murder that occurred in 1993 in Illinois. The motion was filed in 2013. This motion was also litigated at the preliminary hearing. It's a 55 page motion. The people have nothing to add to the motion at this time. The second 1101b motion is a knife attack on Ashley Green. It's a 20 page motion. The people have nothing to add to that motion. The third 1101b are statements made by the defendant during the Perkin's Operation [at the El Monte jail]. The people filed a 55 page motion.  Mr. Gargiulo filed a response. The people don't have anything further to add. 

The people's prior motion of introducing a signature expert, former FBI profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole is discussed. The people inform the court that they are not going to utilize Ms. O'Toole. The court asks the people what the basis for introducing her. DDA Akemon tells the court that the people believe they have ample [basis? argument?] to support this evidence.

Nardoni tells the court that the arguments in the people's motions 1101b motions come from Ms. O'Toole. 

I believe it's DDA Akemon that informs the court that in the Pacaccio murder, they have 19 points of similarity [to the California charges].

Nardoni argues that the 1993 murder of Tricia Pacaccio adds nothing to what the government already has to identity and intent.  "...but clear in this case that the Tricia Pacaccio case adds nothing further to the government case." Nardoni goes back to the Ashley Ellerin case. The defendant knew her and she lived close by. Maria Bruno, [they lived in] the same complex. The have a bootie found in the courtyard with the victim's blood and DNA and alleged epithelial [cells, touch DNA] to the defendant. Nardoni asks the court, "Is identity really an issue in this case?"

Nardoni continues with his arguments, shifting to victim Ashley Ellerin. Ellerin was stabbed 47 times. "Is that really an issue? [Maria] Bruno was stabbed 17 times. Her breasts were cut off. ... Is intent an issue?"  Nardoni then mentions Michelle Murphy. "The problem of introducing under the facts of this case ... unduly prejudicial on this case, particularly in the guilt phase. ... I believe the introduction of Tricia Pacaccio [murder] is evidence of propensity, all covered by 1101a."

Judge Fidler asks about the guilt phase. Judge Fidler mentions Pacaccio and Gargiulo, "...they grew up together."  Nardoni responds, "Killing [his] best friend's sister ... is really identity an issue? It isn't. ... [The] facts speak for themselves."

Nardoni then addresses the 1101b for Ashley Green. It was filed August 8, 2017. The Ashley Green incident occurred in 2002. Nardoni continues to argument that the facts of that incident don't fall under 11l1b. "He lived in the same complex. It happened in broad daylight ... by the door. ... Other incidents .... evening hours. ... He takes from his pocket, a 3" folding pocket knife. ... He gives it to her and she opens it up."  It's related to self defense. It may have been inappropriate but does it go, call for intent and identity. Nothing material. Nothing related. Nardoni adds, "Nonsense to talk about intent and identity on a pocket knife."

Judge Fidler asks the people to respond [for the record] and also address about admissibility.

DDA Akemon responds. "The 1101b issues were articulated [and litigated at preliminary hearing]. .. Nineteen similarities between Ashley Ellerin and Tricia Pacaccio attacks. ... We believe we met that burden under the [Dewalt?] analysis. ... We've met the standard of admission on Tricia Pacaccio. ... Mr. Gargiulo has pled not guilty by reason of insanity. So, 1101b is also relevant to his state of mind, in particular to plan and premeditate. ... I think we can add that as an area of relevance in the Ashley Green attack."

Judge Fidler asks, "How so?"

DDA Akemon responds, "So geographic ... lived near and around ... a knife to the throat. ... [There are] seven to eight similarities to other attacks to other women."

Judge Fidler asks the people to comment on Gargiulo's admissions. Judge Fidler brings up the alleged statement by the defendant, "They're looking for me for a murder in Chicago."

Mr. Rubin interjects and explains what he believes the court is referencing. Then DDA Akemon clears it up for the court. That there was an individual arrested in Chicago, regarding statements by Gargiulo here. The court asks, "Is that coming into evidence here?"

DDA Akemon responds that there are two individuals, a Temer Leary and Anthony Dilorenzo, former friends of the defendant who worked with him in 1998. Statements to the effect of, "I left that bitch for dead... or something similar. ... So the answer is yes, we plan to introduce [those witnesses at trial]."

Nardoni asks to add more to his rebuttal argument. He looked over the Ashley Green motion. "The people say that Mr. Gargiulo attacked Ashley Green. ... simply not true. ... She never reported to police, or assaulted by knife to police." Nardoni continues to argue that it does not go to intent.

Gargiulo is leaning forward, listening intently to Nardoni argue.

Nardoni argues that with the Pacaccio murder, "... we're talking about a trial within a trial. [The] relevancy is outweighed by the prejudice."

Judge Fidler asks for the spelling of Tricia Pacaccio's last name.

Mr. Rubin then steps up to argue against the 1101b motions. This is unusual. It's been my experience the court only allows one attorney to argue a motion, not two.  Mr. Rubin argues the point of the evidence as to the way the crime was performed, other than the fact that Ms. Pacaccio was killed with a knife. Ms. Pacaccio lived a couple blocks around the corner from the Gargiulo family. Her murder occurred outside the door to the house that leads to the driveway. "[The house] is on a corner. ... Anywhere you stand you can see what's going on in that area. ... It's not similar to other attacks. ... The one thing we really have, is to get in front of the jury another murder, what he's also charged for."

Judge Fidler asks, "Is [your argument] the set of similarities or any dissimilarities, you can't use it? Mr. Rubin responds, "I use a fingerprint, or you can't use it by the court. When [Gargiulo's?] case was investigated, ... there were a number of other cases that ... (he was not involved in) ... the prosecution said, a number of steps. I don't know what that means. ... But some circumstances could be related to any other murder of this type."

Mr. Rubin continues his argument that, if the Tricia Pacaccio case is brought in, that means another four weeks of witnesses. Then Mr. Nardoni gets up to continue arguing another point relating to the Pacaccio murder that is different than the other cases.

Again, to me, this is unusual that two defense attorneys are both presenting motion arguments on the same issue.

Mr. Nardoni states that it is believed at the time of the [Picaccio] murder, right across the street, there was a late hour party with alcohol. "That factor detracts from [a] signature." Nardoni adds, "There were several suspects in the Pacaccio case that ended up committing suicide."

DDA Akemon presents rebuttal statements about the "level of proof" in the Pacaccio murder. "His [Gargiulo's] DNA is on Pacaccio's fingernails ... and the witness statements." DDA Akemon references Mr. Rubin's comments about signature needing to be a "fingerprint." DDA Akemon continues, "... Tricia Pacaccio and Ashely Green ... the issue of intent. Those are admissible because they are sufficiently similar."

The court signals in it's first comment how it plans to rule. Judge Fidler responds, "[I] feel differently to Ashley Green. I'll let you introduce Tricia Pacaccio. ... What's sufficiently similar ... knowledge of [individual?] victims ...  proximity of victim and place ... and use of knife as a weapon. ... That satisfies the law. ... I don't think it's unduly prejudicial. ... Facts of crime ... even with DNA ... I've seen cases.

Judge Fidler then references the Juliana Redding murder that was in Judge Kennedy's court, alleged to have been committed by Kelly Soo Park, who is now in his courtroom on another case/charge.

Judge Fidler explains, "... there was DNA on a victim in a case in Judge Kennedy's court, and I have the [same] defendant in another case." (Kelly Soo Park was acquitted in the Redding murder. Sprocket)

DDA Akemon responds that he understands about Ashley Green. I believe he adds that he doesn't know if the defendant will testify. He doesn't know what the mental experts will say.

The Perkin's Operation motion is brought up by Mr. Rubin. "I reread the Perkin's motion. I think it's important to note in Perkin's, the Supreme Court decided ..." Mr. Rubin reads directly from the court ruling. I don't write all of this down. It's not new argument presented by Mr. Rubin, it's a published decision of the original Perkin's.

Gargiulo intently watches Mr. Rubin present the Supreme Court's ruling on Perkin's. Then Mr. Rubin goes on about what happened in the Perkin's Operation in Gargiulo's case. "Forty-eight hours of tape where Mr. Gargiulo is barraged by witnesses. ... [They said to him] Don't listen to your lawyer. You can talk to us! Gargiulo was not in his house. He was in a custodial situation so under pressure at the time. ... If we consider what the prosecution did in this case ... it is so far out side (the issue of Perkin's) ... Also, Gargiulo was on medication at the time."

Rubin states that Gargiulo was in custody, Perkin's was not. "I believe we have a fifth amendment violation and outside of Miranda. ... if not required to give Miranda because of custody setting and also because of outside of contact with his counsel."

DDA Akemon rebuts the defense oral arguments. "He [Gargiulo] did have contact with his counsel. ...I would emphasize, that Mr. Gargiulo was so comfortable ... he was sleeping and had food. ... There were two [officers with him]. ... He was so comfortable in that setting ... not only did he hatch a plan of escape ... he was trying to recruit the other deputies to go in with him."

Mr. Rubin responds. "I didn't hear anything from the prosecution about, Don't listen to your lawyer. You can talk to us." Mr. Rubin continues with more reading from the higher courts decision on Perkins. "The court has long held that there are certain interrogation techniques that are so offensive that they ..."

When Mr. Rubin is finished, DDA Akemon tells the court the people have nothing to add. Then Judge Fidler gives his ruling. "The defense did a good job pointing out specifics in this case. ... I don't see where they broke down the will. ... I don't see it. ... It may come close to the line ... but it didn't cross it." 

Judge Fidler rules the evidence from the Perkin's Operation will come into the trial. The court calendar is set as zero of 60 as of today's date.

DDA Akemon states they are asking for a trial date of March 18, 2019.  That date is agreed to by all parties. Judge Fidler does tell the parties that he has a hearing on March 15th, (I believe in the massive insurance fraud case) a motion to disqualify the prosecution in that case.

The jury questionnaire is discussed. The people and the defense have been working on that. It's about 99% completed. The court asks if they are going to have a  pre-screening of time hardship waiver for the jurors. The court brings up a motion filed by the people about the security of the courtroom.

DDA Akemon tells the court that they are looking at a three phase trial [guilt, sanity, punishment] lasting four months. To be conservative, four to six months. Mr. Rubin asks about possibly sequestering the jury. The court responds, "...probably not."

In conclusion, the 995 motion will be argued on March 1 and jury selection will commence on March 18.  And that's it.

Sprocket Notes
At the time of this posting (February 15, 2019), Gargiulo's birthday, he is 43 years old. He has been in custody waiting trial 10 years, 8 months. A future post will attempt to answer why it has taken this long to bring Gargiulo to trial.

Unfortunately, at this time I do not know if I will be able to cover this entire trial.  I hope to be enrolled in classes for the summer session.

The next post on this case can be found HERE.

Michael Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 45

Previous post can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Arrested in June, 2008

November 2, 2018
Personal Update:
It's been a few days since I vacated my home of 21 years. I am in temporary housing until the end of December. Luckily, I chose a place where I can still take the Orange Line to the Red Line to get to the downtown Clara Shortridge-Foltz criminal court building.

The 9th Floor
8:31 AM
I'm the first person attending this case on the 9th floor. There are barely 8 people spread out along the long hallway. There are attorneys going into Dept. 106, Judge Fidler's court that I've never seen before. There must be another hearing beside Gargiulo's today. I suspect Gargiulo's hearing will not be first up on the schedule.

There is a pretty young girl on the floor obviously waiting for Dept. 106 to open. She might be a reporter or an intern with the DA's office.

8:45 AM
Second chair defense attorney Daniel Nardoni arrives in the hallway. I also see lead counsel Dale Rubin down at the center of the hallway, entering Dept. 103 or 104. Mr. Nardoni approaches a woman he recognizes on the floor and they chat.

8:50 AM
DDA's Dan Akemon and Garrett Dameron arrive on the floor. They stick their heads into Dept. 106 to check in with Judge Fidler's clerk, Wendy, to let her know they are here.  I overhear someone ask if Mr. Rubin is in Dept. 106. As always, Mr. Nardoni says hello to me, addressing me by name.  A few minutes later, Mr. Rubin comes down the hall from Dept. 103. The hallway is still very empty. Hardly any traffic. It doesn't appear that there is a single courtroom on the floor that is currently in trial.

8:52 AM
I head into Dept. 106 say hello to Wendy and take a seat. I pass the defense and prosecution teams having a very friendly chat in the ante chamber. It's very refreshing to see all the attorneys on both sides of a case treat each other with respect and deference. From what I've observed over the years, DDA Akemon and Mr. Rubin have known each other for some time and get along quite well.

There will be another hearing before Gargiulo's. Gargiulo's case will be heard at 10 AM.

9:10 AM
Mr. Nardoni enters and greets the court reporter. There are several other attorneys here for the other case, which is a multi-defendant case.  Mr. Rubin is in the courtroom. When he takes a seat, I notice his pink and blue large check-patterned socks.

9:27 AM
The other case, they are going to bring the defendant's out.

9:33 AM
Judge Fidler takes the bench. The three defendant case - possibly two trials or even three separate trials. The entire matter is held over to December 7th. And that's it. Judge Fidler is off the bench.

For the first time, I notice that there is a sanitary soap dispenser on the wall where the door to the custody area is. The dispenser is directly under the courtroom clock.

9:40 AM
There is a quick court review of a wire-tap hearing. For those of you who don't know, Judge Fidler hears and rules on, I believe, all the requests for a wire tap in Los Angeles County.

In the well of the court, I see DDA Akemon passing a document to Mr. Rubin and Mr. Nardoni. It appears the defense is officially receiving the document. Mr. Nardoni responds to DDA Akemon, "Thank you Daniel."  Mr. Rubin is mentioning something to Wendy about bringing a cart from home to place behind the defense table to hold all the files they will be working with on the case.

I see DDA Akemon dropping off a document at the clerks desk. I overhear a quick comment, "No rush." It has something to do with witnesses.

The chatter I'm overhearing at the clerks desk is a March start date for the Gargiulo trial. My heart sinks. One of the cases in the prior hearing is likely to be next up on Judge Fidler's calendar to start in January. Judge Fidler's calendar rules everything else. From what snatches of conversation I'm hearing now,and from what I believe I heard the clerk discuss with other counsel in the prior hearing, one of the three defendants in that case, is not in the greatest of health. The goal is to get his case to trial as quickly as possible. That's why Gargiulo will probably go after that case.

9:45 AM
Gargiulo is brought out. He is completely clean shaven except for a very small mustache. The green bag he carries with him is placed on the floor at his feet. He's wearing his black, horn-rimmed glasses. He looks much the same as he has in prior hearings.

9:48 AM
Judge Fidler takes the bench for the Gargiulo matter. The defense 995 motion is first mentioned. I've been waiting for the defense to present their 995 motion back in 2013, several attorneys ago. For those not familiar with a 995, it is a defense motion to dismiss the case. It's usually the first motion filed after the completion of the preliminary hearing. Judge Fidler asks if they wish to argue. Mr. Nardoni speaks for the defense on two motions by the people to admit evidence: the 1101b DNA evidence in the 1993 Illinois murder of Tricia Pacaccio and the People's Perkin's Operation. 

Mr. Nardoni briefly states that the court is well aware of Illinois v. Perkins (a ruling affecting Miranda when undercover agents are placed in a jail setting). Mr. Gargiulo was at the LA County jail (in LASD custody) when he was brought to another city jurisdiction, and placed in a cell with two undercover agents. Mr. Nardoni argues that this Perkin's Operationin Gargiulo's case was different than the usual encounters. "He was taken out of the cell and grilled. ... put back in the cell ... taken out again a grilled by LAPD and Downey police." In the people's response, they state Gargiulo had the benefit of a toilet and sleep.  Mr. Nardoni argues the People's Perkin's Operation goes beyond a Miranda type issue. Mr. Gargiulo was not given medication he required. "They took undue advantage of him." 

Mr. Nardoni then argues that, over counsel's objection, the Tricia Pacaccio evidence that was admitted in the prelim under 1101b. He argues that the Pacaccio case, as it is related to the other homicides, there is nothing that relates except the stabbing. Mr. Nardoni argues the evidence is not unique enough. 

Ashley Ellerin murder in February 2001. Nardoni argues, "Easy to say but for Pacaccio, he would [never?] been held to answer on Ellerin alone. ... There's no evidence on it's face. ... The last time [Gargiulo] was seen in the area [of Ellerin's murder] was around November 2000." From January 1st to her [Ellerin's] death he was never seen in the area. There was no DNA No footprint match. No hair fibers or anything to connect [Ellerin's murder] to Mr. Gargiulo.

With the Pacaccio evidence, they [people] are able to prove identity as it relates to Pacaccio, and they are trying to piggyback Ellerin case onto that.

Judge Filder asks to hear from the people. DDA Akemon informs the court that back in December, the people dismissed the burglary charges. I believe DDA Akemon informs the court that these issues were litigated before the prelim,  ruled admissible and it is not proper to relitigate them here. DDA Akemon goes over the basics of the preliminary hearing: 10 days long; 46 witnesses and 37 exhibits. There are over 1,221 transcript pages. In conclusion, the people had Gargiulo connected to three [attacks] and evidence of violence against three other women. Very compelling circumstantial case.

Mr. Nardoni tells the court that he thinks Mr. Akemon misspoke. We have DNA in Pacaccio. She was found at [her] doorstep at home, outside. Others, the attacker broke into apartment[s]. Mr. Nardoni mentions the Bruno case and that in the Murphy case, the same incident the attacker broke in. "Ellerin, that's not a break-in." Detective Small testified all the windows were secured and could not determine any point of entry of the residence or someone [had a] key to the entrance. Mr. Nardoni states that there were two other people who had keys to Ellerin's home: her roommate and the manager. The Ellerin case is unique. There's no DNA in Ellerin or any other physical evidence.

Judge Fidler rules. "I believe Judge Johnson had more that enough evidence..." The court mentions the 1101b and Perkin's Operation. The motion to dismiss is denied.

Mr. Nardoni tells the court, "We need a trial date." Then the case that has been in Dept. 106 for the past nine months is mentioned.  The 12 defendant preliminary hearing in the medical insurance fraud case is the one involving Kelly Soo Park. My notes are not clear on who makes the comment, 'That hearing has got to be coming to an end.'
The court tells the parties that another case will go before them in January. It's not a death penalty case. It will be tried in two separate trials and be six to eight weeks for each. There is one defendant that they need to get to trial first. The other defendant could possibly go after the Gargiulo case. Wendy reminds the court that Mr. Rubin is waiting to retire. I silently note that Mr. Rubin has been waiting to retire since 2017. The Gargiulo case will be Mr. Rubin's swan song.

A return date is finally selected: February 1, 2019 with the case calendar set at zero of 60 on that date. There is speculation that the other case could fall through and not go to trial in January. DDA Akemon, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Nardoni confer. They ask the court if there is a date in December that they can return. Wendy states there are no dates available in December. Judge Fidler's calendar is packed.

Mr. Rubin addresses the court. In 2016 Judge Gordon assigned the case over to him once Mr. Lindner was relieved. Mr. Rubin was assured the case would go to trial in 2017.

Judge Fidler tells the parties that the 12 defendant trial [prelim?] is a disaster.

DDA Akemon tells the court that they are in agreement with the defense. They are hoping not to lose their place in line.  The clerk tells the parties there is no November date available either. Judge Fidler asks to speak to Wendy for a second. DDA Dameron tells the court that whatever date, the February 1, 2019 date would be for arguing the 1101b and Perkin's motions. The February 1st date is locked down.

The court addresses the defendant. "Mr. Gargiulo, is that agreeable to you sir?" Gargiulo responds, "Yes."

The court states they will litigate both.

Then the issue of a jury questionnaire is discussed. Mr. Rubin informs the court that the defense does not want one. They want to have individual juror questioning in voir dire.  Mr. Rubin tells the court a name of the type of questioning, I have "...Hobi preferred" but I don't know if that's the correct term. Mr. Rubin wants to question jurors individually on their feelings on the death penalty vs LWOP. Mr. Rubin states again he is against a jury questionnaire. He prefers a capitol exam.

The court responds, "If you would like to make a formal motion.... I'm disinclined." Judge Fidler recommends to the parties to prepare a jury questionnaire.

And that's it. At 10:10 AM Gargiulo rises from his chair. The sheriffs pick up his green bag and hand it to him. Mr. Nardoni goes back into the custody area with him. About five minutes later, Mr. Nardoni comes back out of the custody area.

Outside in the hallway, I ask Mr. Rubin for a moment of his time. As polite as he has been over the past three years, he appears a bit irritated by my request. I explain that I am an independent journalist who has covered this case since 2012 and am hoping that he would be willing to share copies of his motions with me. 

I don't mention to him that I am hoping he will be willing to share copies of his motions because as an independent journalist, my budget to purchase them from the court is very limited.

Mr. Rubin flatly declines. He tells me I can purchase copies of his motions from the court. I then ask him if he and his co-counsel would be willing to sit for an interview. I make it clear to him that I would not be asking about the case but to do a profile on them as defense attorneys.

Mr. Rubin's tone changes. He is quite adamant in saying no. He tells me he never cooperates with the press. He does not speak to the press. He mentions several major networks by name that have contacted him on the case. Mr. Rubin tells me he never cooperates or sits for interviews. He says that I can go online and find out everything I need to know about him.

Mr. Rubin's response is disappointing since I will have to explore other avenues for getting copies of any defense motions. I know I will not be able to purchase them all. However from a defense standpoint, Mr. Rubin's policy of not cooperating with the press benefits his client the most.

Looking back, I find some irony in all of this. Over the years, I have been contacted by a few people who knew Gargiulo.  Some have shared information. Some have not.

In June of 2015, I was contacted by a woman who stated she was in phone and letter contact with the defendant. She knew him from high school. This was during the time that Gargiulo was represented by Mr. Lindner and it was clear from the pretrial hearings that Gargiulo could not stand his counsel, refused to cooperate, was trying to get a new counsel assigned and was unsuccessful in that endeavor.

The individual stated that Mr. Gargiulo wanted me to contact him via letter and possibly meet with him in the private attorney area to discuss the court proceedings with him. The individual stated that Mr. Gargiulo thought that the judge [At the time, this was Dept 108, Judge Sam Ohta] and his defense attorney were "...being deceptive in court and he feels that he is involved in a wrongful case." I respectfully declined.

As an independent journalist with limited resources, T&T has had a long standing policy of zero contact with potential trial witnesses or charged defendants while the case is pending. Anytime someone has contacted me on a pending case, I always check with the assigned Deputy DA's to see if the individual who has contacted me is on a witness list or someone on their radar.  Some journalists might ask, How could you pass up the opportunity to sit and talk to Gargiulo? To me, the answer is easy. My goal has always been to report on the story as an observer. I don't want to become a part of the story and end up on the witness stand myself.

Uncertain Future for Trial Coverage
I was hoping that the Gargiulo case would go to trial in January and take the estimated five months for three trials: guilt, sanity and penalty phases. I had originally hoped that I could continue reporting on T&T for another year, but things have changed for me. That's not going to be possible. I will need to return to employment much sooner than I had originally projected. I was hoping that in June after the case was finished, I could brush up on my computer skills and look for work in my prior field as a compliance auditor in the financial industry.

With this trial starting in March or even later means after covering the case since 2012, I probably will not be able to continue T&T and cover the Gargiulo trial without an additional source of income at the same time. Possibly a sponsorship if I can find one or trying to raise funds through a Go Fund Me campaign.

So unfortunately, at this time, things are uncertain for continued trial coverage into 2019.

The next post on this case can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 44

The previous post can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo 2008

August 10, 2018
I take the train into downtown Los Angeles. I think I have enough time to get a couple fried eggs in the cafeteria, but the line is too long. I head to the fifth floor snack bar and get a green Matcha tea and a hard boiled egg. That will have to hold me.

8:33 AM
Inside Dept 106. The courtroom is basically empty. The only people present are the bailiff, Judge Fidler’s clerk, Wendy, me and a pretty NBC reporter, Rebecca.



A suited gentleman arrives and sits in the first row. I’m in the second row. 
The only thing I hear is the tinnitus buzzing in my head. Sometimes it's strong like today. Other times I can barely hear it.

There are a quite a few boxes from Superior Document Services throughout the courtroom. A bunch stacked in front of the clerks counter. Some against the wall beside the jury box, some more against the low wall in the well of the court. 

There is some kind of hearing going on, because there are big binders on the prosecution and defense table and there are no notebooks on the seats in the jury box.

8:53 AM
Still very quiet inside 106. 

Judge Fidler's bench  has two tall stacks of papers. From where I'm sitting, one looks to be about 6” high and the other 8” high.

8:58 AM
Dale Rubin arrives. He wants to see his client,. The Gargiulo hearing is for 10 am. Everyone is real early. It's my understanding there is a hearing in another case that will go first before Gargiulo. There is a pool video camera here for that event.

I hear Mr. Rubin say to Judge Fidler's clerk, "It’s going to be easier if I see him now." Mr. Rubin adds, “I got a call.”

Judge Fidler's clerk responds to Mr. Rubin about the call he received regarding his client. She then tells him he might have to go to the14th floor to see Gargiulo. The 14th floor is a custody floor where detainees are held until they are needed for their court appearance. The clerk doesn't want Gargiulo brought down to the 9th floor until his hearing commences. I hear Mr. Rubin tell the clerk, "My main concern is that he gets out here and everything goes smooth."

The clerk tells the bailiff that the case will not be called until 10 am, so they don’t bring Gargiulo to 9th. He’s up on 14th in a holding cell area. Mr. Rubin leaves to go see Gargiulo on the 14th floor.

A few people arrive for the other hearing "Maxwell".  Deputy District Attorney Bobby Grace arrives for the Maxwell hearing. Although I've never covered one of his cases, I've heard wonderful things about DDA Grace's skills in the courtroom.

After the Maxwell hearing is over, I go out into the hallway to wait for a while and read the web.

On the 9th floor hallway, DDA Garrett Dameron is the first to arrive. I like Garrett. He and DDA Dan Akemon have always been kind to me. While exchanging hellos, second chair defense attorney Dan Nardoni arrives and says hello. He always states my full name. Then DDA Dan Akemon arrives. DDA Akemon brought two law clerks/interns with him. The last dozen times or so I've seen Akemon, he always has interns with him.

I inform Mr. Nardoni his compadre (Dale Rubin) is up on 14, speaking with their client.

We head inside Dept. 106. The pretty court reporter and I chat about both of us being here for Spector One. I was almost certain I first saw her in this courtroom during that trial and she confirmed it. She’s been a court reporter almost 20 years.  The first hearing I ever attended in the downtown criminal court building was in this very courtroom in February 2007. It was for a pretrial hearing in the Spector murder trial. The rest, is history.

9:52 AM
Dale Rubin is here. He reenters courtroom with DDA Akemon who has documents for the defense to sign. I see him place them on the defense table.   Now DDA's Dameron and Akemon are at the clerk’s desk, dropping off a document.

I really need to get my eyes reexamined and new glasses. I'm having to squint more and more now to see things.

Judge Fidler's clerk had gotten up from her desk and she saw that I was typing on my laptop. Judge Fidler was not on the bench but she made it clear in no uncertain terms that I had not gotten approval to use my laptop. Busted. I admit, I was pushing it. Usually, if the judge is off the bench it's not a problem but I was bad and did not wait for permission to use it. I immediately close my laptop and switch to hand notes.

Judge Fidler is the judge assigned to approve all wire tap requests in Los Angeles County. It's why he usually doesn't hold trial five days a week, only four.  Juge Fidler comes out to the clerk's counter area to speak with a detective dropping off (what I assume is) a wire tap warrant.

Over in the well of the court DDA's Akemon and Dameron chat. Then Judge Fidler's clerk talks with them about Judge Fidler's schedule and the "other case" that the Gargiulo case is competing with for being on Judge Fidler's schedule next.

Sprocket Note: This was the case that was supposed to have ended in January of this year, but went long. It's DDA Dayan Mathai's MS13 case that had more than one defendant. I know there was a hung jury on one or possibly more defendants.

DDA Dameron tells the clerk, "Dayan's not jumping ahead of me again. ... I've threatened his life over that." The clerk tells DDA Dameron about "...waivers ... So I'm just putting it out there." The clerk adds that one of DDA Mathai's defendants has gone pro per, so that would be better for DDA Dameron's case here.

And this is where I hear the next possible court date in the Gargiulo case. November 2, with calendar set at zero of 60. DDA Mathai's case and this case will both return to Dept. 106 on that date. On hearing that date, I know that the Gargiulo case will not go to trial until 2019.

Mr. Nardoni brings up the 995 motion with the clerk. "There's a 995 motion filed a long time ago," Nardoni tells her.

I have been waiting literally years for the Gargiulo 995 motion to be argued before the court. Mr. Rubin adds the possibility of arguing other motions in December.  The clerk asks the defense, "How much time do you need on that?"

Now the parties are debating if arguing the motions is too soon. What is so refreshing with this group of counsel, is how very respectful they are with each other. There's no animosity like I've seen in some other cases.

The clerk informs the defense that there is "nothing" available in December for motions to be argued. It's probably going to have to be the November 2 date. Mr. Rubin states, "[The] 995, we can do ... or we can do the Perkins...." The clerk asks, "What's the Perkins...?"  The parties explain the Perkins Operation to the clerk.

Other information about the 995 is discussed. The preliminary hearing transcript is 1500 pages. The 995 motion that was filed is about 100 pages. The parties feel the 995 motion needs to be argued so that Judge Fidler knows the case.

Sprocket Note: All of those page documents will have to be read by Judge Fidler before the 995 motion is argued before him.

10:05 AM
The bailiff goes to get the defendant. Gargiulo is brought out. He's still completely bald. Rubin leans in to speak to Gargiulo. I hear Mr. Nardoni ask his client, "How are you feeling? Any better?"

The clerk asks to speak to counsel for a second. I hear the clerk tell them, "...once you guys decide to go on that 995, it's going to go. No continuance."

Judge Fidler takes the bench. The parties state their appearances. DDA Akemon tells the court that their psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Schug has completed his review of the defendant. The people are turning over an additional 1500 pages of discovery with page numbers 37,822 to 39,352. The people
have given this material to the defense on DVD's.

Mr. Nardoni addresses the court next on the November 2nd date as a pretrial hearing as well as two motions.  They would argue the 995 motion on that date. He states the preliminary hearing transcript is 1400 pages. Mr. Rubin states the 995 motion is a "substantial motion".

Then Mr. Rubin adds something I do not recall ever hearing about the defendant. "Mr. Gargiulo has asthma. ... It's well documented. ... [an] inhaler.... up until recently [there's been] ... no problem with the showers. ... a week or two ago .... where he's getting his shower presently ... there's no ventilation .... he passed out .... [he] gets in [an] asthmatic seizure .... the steam ... I'm told [a]  Sargent or Lieutenant on the tier needed a court order for a better schedule."

Judge Fidler responds, "Just prepare [an order] for my signature and I'll sign it."

The next pretrial hearing is set for November 2nd with the case at zero of 60. I believe the court asks, "Is that all?" My notes are not clear as to who answered the court, but I believe it was the defense who replied, "Our hope is to commence trial in January." Judge Fidler responds, "Okay." Gargiulo is brought back into custody and that was it for the hearing.

The next post on this case can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 43

Previous post can be found HERE.

Michael ThoamasGargilo, June 2008

UPDATE 6/26: edited to correct date of hearing

June 6, 2018
8:30 AM The 9th Floor, Dept. 106
I'm in the gallery with two other reporters. CBS 48 Hrs. Producer Greg Fisher is here. Sitting beside Greg is a big cheese from Dateline, Susan, a supervising producer, who I met over 10 years ago in this same courtroom during the first Phil Spector trial.

There are attorneys in the well from another case that are having a loud discussion over by the counsel tables.

DDA Garrett Dameron & DDA Daniel Akemon are here along with lead defense attorney Dale Rubin. Rubin's co-counsel Dan Nardoni is a no show. All three of us are all listening as best we can with rapt attention to counsel speaking with Judge Fidler's clerk over at her counter. I hear "September trial date." And, "come back August 10 ... (or) August 4 ... with a zero of 30 calendar date."  From what I'm hearing, I believe it's Rubin's plan to have the case on a shorter leash. The feedback I think I'm hearing from the clerk is that the court may not allow it (the shorter leash). The idea with the shorter leash is that they can possibly swoop in and get a trial date before a potential seven-week preliminary hearing in a complicated insurance fraud case, if that case has any type of delay.

The conversation over at the clerk's desk is being drowned out by the other counsel chatting loudly in the center of the well. It's clear the banter between DDA Akemon and Mr. Rubin is friendly banter. Over the last several years, I've had the impression that Akemon and Rubin have known each other a long time and get along well. I hear Rubin say, "Let me approach it."

DDA's Akemon and Dameron leave the courtroom to chat.

While we wait in the gallery, the press talk about a couple cases. Convicted murderer Scott Peterson's appeal has been extended again. Scott Peterson made national news when his pregnant wife went missing on Christmas Eve in 2002.  He was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in 2004. His appeal still hasn't been completely adjudicated yet. Will Peterson get a new trial the Modesto Bee asked in August 2017 .

Another case that I thought was dismissed was Kelly Soo Park's federal lawsuit against Santa Monica PD Detective Karen Thompson, the lead investigator into the murder of Juliana Redding. Redding was strangled to death in her Santa Monica apartment in March 2008. At one time LE thought Redding's murder was the work of Gargiulo. Park, whose DNA was found around victim Redding's neck, on her T-shirt, on her blackberry, and other areas of the apartment -and a drop of Park's blood and fingerprint were lifted from a plate in Juliana's kitchen sink- was found not guilty of Redding's murder in June 2013. However, the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit  reinstated Park's lawsuit.

9:00 AM
Rubin goes back into the custody area to visit with Gargiulo. Not long after he comes out, Gargiulo is brought out into the courtroom. Gargiulo is in the high-risk orange jumpsuit, white long-john type shirt underneath. He's also wearing his black horn-rimmed glasses. As before, Gargiulo is completely bald, but he has a slight goatee during this visit. It's the first time that I see graying hair on Gargiulo's face.

While we wait for Judge Fidler to take the bench, former Suge Knight defense attorney Michael Fletcher -who has his own legal troubles stemming from his representation of Knight- stops by Dept. 106, has a short conversation with Judge Fidler's clerk, then quickly leaves.

9:14 AM
Rubin and Judge Fldler's clerk chat a bit. Three minutes later, Judge Fidler takes the bench and goes on the record. The court asks, "So where are we?"

DDA Akemon tells the court they are ready for trial, but are waiting on a report from Dr. Robert Schug, the people's medical expert, that will be issued in three to four weeks. "We hope to come back on August 10 for zero of 30 and get to trial in late August," DDA Akemon adds.

Judge Fidler asks the defendant, "Mr. Gargiulo, are those dates agreeable to you?" "Yes, they are," Gargiulo replies. It's over that quickly. Judge Fidler is off the bench and Gargiulo is then taken back into custody.

And that's it.

There is one issue that could hold up Gargiulo's trial starting in late August: the backlog of cases on Judge Fidler's calendar. There is one case, the massive insurance fraud case with 12 or 13 defendants I mentioned earlier. For a couple weeks, that case has had an evidentiary hearing. It's unknown how soon the preliminary hearing could start, possibly delaying Gargiulo's case further.

The next hearing on the case can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 41

Previous post can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, 2008

April 20, 2018
The Gargiulo hearing that wasn't lasted about 30 court seconds today.

Although a hearing was scheduled for today, somehow, the wrong date that Gargiulo was to be returned to court was entered into the computer system. Gargiulo wasn't brought to court by the LA Co. Sheriff's. Both parties agreed to trail the case until next Thursday, April 26. Next hearing will be on that date.

It should be noted that a new trial date has not been scheduled on Judge Fidler's calendar.

The next hearing can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo Case, Pretrial Hearing 40

Previous post on this case can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, booking photo, 2008.

UPDATE: edited for clarity
February 2, 2018
I arrive in downtown LA around 8am. That's plenty of time to get on the 9th floor before 8:30am, when Dept. 106, Judge Fidler's court opens.

For those who don't know, the civic center area of downtown Los Angeles has several hills, some steep and some not so steep. My walk from the church parking to the court on Temple Street is an easy block and a half and downhill. The Clara Shortridge-Foltz criminal court building takes up the entire block on Temple between Broadway and N. Spring Street. As I cross Broadway, Temple takes a sharper dip to the front entrance of the court. Unfortunately, as I get closer to the door, I see that the security station at the front entrance is closed, just like it was yesterday.

Clara Shortridge-Foltz, Criminal Justice Center.
Southeast corner of Temple St. and Broadway Ave.
My photo archive.

I have two choices. Continue downhill on Temple to the corner of N. Spring, turn right and take a tall, almost two story set of stairs to the upper balcony and back entrance. Or, I can walk back up the incline to Broadway, turn left and go slightly downhill on Broadway towards the level access walkway at the back of the building. I reverse course, deciding to take the incline verses the stairs.

When I realized the front entrance was closed, a woman stopped me on the sidewalk and asked which way to go to get into the court building. I told her to follow me. She asked me if I was going to jury duty. I told her "No." She immediately turned around to go East on Temple to N. Spring. "Mam!" I called after her, "This way is easier into the building." She then turned back around and rushed passed me up Temple.

As I'm walking west on Temple, CBS 48 Hours producer Greg Fisher is coming towards me and asked where I was going. I explain to him the front entrance is closed and we have to go to the back entrance. Greg is half a foot taller than me, in much better shape and with much longer legs. I'm not moving fast enough for him. My bag is heavy with my laptop and I struggle to keep up.

As we reach the door, the woman whom I just directed is in front of me at the security scanner. But she's standing there, not moving at all, acting like she doesn't know what to do. The security station is much like those found in airports. It consists of a walk through scanner for people, and an x-ray type device where you put your belongings on the table with the moving belt. Your personal items then move through the device so the security personnel can see through your belongings to make sure you're not bringing anything into a court building that's illegal. It's not like security scanners were just invented yesterday. They've been around for a long time.

Full disclosure. I admit that I get impatient with people at the security stations who don't know how to put their belongings on the moving belt. They are often confused about the security officer's instructions to take everything out of their pockets and put them in the round trays before they walk through the scanner. Impatient at the court scanners? Guilty as charged. I do need to work on having more patience. The rest of the morning, Greg doesn't let me forget that I went past the woman in front of me.

When we reach the 9th floor, the CBS 48 Hours camera crew is already there waiting for the security station to open. History lesson. This is the only security station on a courtroom floor. It was built before the start of the O.J. Simpson trial. Greg introduces me to the CBS camera crew. Apparently, Judge Fidler approved filming today's hearing. 48 Hours wants to get video of any family members who make statements to the court under Marsy's Law. 

A few minutes later defense investigator Chris Nicely arrives. He's wearing a really nice blue suit. Chris is quite tall and very easy on the eyes. While we wait, it's clear the sheriff's deputies are having difficulty turning the scanner machine on. One of the camera guys points out to the deputies that there appears to be a plug that's unplugged under the machine.  The cord gets plugged in and the sheriffs test the scanner. I had put myself in front of the camera equipment so I could get to the ladies restroom quickly. Greg, who likes to razz me, doesn't let me forget that either.

When I exit the restroom, the 9th floor hallway is mostly empty except for a group gathered in the center. It's CBS 48 Hours host Maureen Maher standing with the two cameramen I met at the security station. With her is another 48 Hours producer Doug Longhini. I walk toward the group and wait for a moment to introduce myself.  Maureen beats me to it and introduces herself first. Maureen is petite and just as pretty in person as she is on camera. She's wearing a sleeveless A-line black dress with a matching jacket. The cameramen are miking her up for interviews later.

Retired LAPD Hollywood Homicide Detective Tom Small and his wife Laurie (sp?) are also with the group. Detective Small investigated victim Ashley Ellerin's murder. His wife Laurie is a court reporter in Dept. 109, Judge Kennedy's court. Detective Small is in a complicated brace that is holding his right arm in a fixed position out from his body. With all that Mr. Sprocket has gone through, I'm guessing it's a good bet Detective Small had surgery to repair an injury on his right shoulder. I'm asked if I know Detective Small. I know him from several court appearances in this case and one other. I remember being in the elevator with him well over a year ago when he announced to a companion that he was retiring from the LAPD that day. After a few minutes I step away to sit down on a bench seat near Dept. 106 and jot down some notes.

8:30 AM
A bailiff opens Dept. 106 and Greg gets their approved filming order into the court. Across the hall from Dept. 106, Judge Lomeli's court clerk opens his courtroom, Dept 107. He stands with the door open for a minute, watching the group in the center of the hall. It looks like defense attorney Daniel Nardoni has arrived and joins the center hallway group. Other people headed for other courtrooms stop by to say hello to Maureen and the group.

Inside Dept. 106
When the courtroom opens, the camera crew gets right to work setting up their equipment in the jury box. Wendy, Judge Fidler's court clerk is telling the cameramen which podium to get in the back corner and where to place it in the well.

Like I noted in my post yesterday, Judge Fidler is in the middle of a death penalty trial with two separate juries. I can see the second jury's notebooks on the benches in the first and second rows of the gallery. There is a sign on the third bench row, not to sit there. This is to have some space between these jurors and members of the public. Since there are no jurors here today, I ask Wendy if it's okay to sit in the third row. She says that's fine today. A trick I learned from the late Dominick Dunne, I always try to sit directly in line with the witness box, or in this case, as close to the podium where the victims family members will stand. The camera crew quickly gets to work setting up wireless microphones at the bench, counsel tables and the podium.

Maureen enters the courtroom with Detective Small. Small takes a seat near the bailiff sitting on a chair in the well and Maureen sits with the other CBS crew in the far last row of the gallery.  Small's wife joins him a bit later. Defense attorney Nardoni arrives in the courtroom.

8:35 AM
There are several conversations going on at once all around the gallery. Detective Small and seated the bailiff chat. Another bailiff comes out of the custody area and calls out for Gargiulo's counsel. Mr. Nardoni asks, "Is he back [there]?" The deputy answers, "Yes." Nardoni goes back to see his client in the custody area.

8:37 AM
Retired Detective Mark Lillienfeld arrives. I believe Detective Lillienfeld investigated the murder of Maria Bruno and attempted murder of Michelle Murphy. I give him a smile and he is kind enough to sit beside me and say hello. We chat about what retirement is like from a long career as a detective. The bailiff who is chatting with Detective Small gets up from his seat to come over and shake Detective Lillienfeld's hand.

DDA Garrett Dameron enters Dept. 106 and checks in with the court clerk. There is a tall slender man with him I don't recognize. Nardoni, out of the custody area, leaves the courtroom with his investigator Nicely to chat. Det. Lillienfeld leaves me and joins the group chatting with Det. Small. Greg and Maureen are chatting in the far corner of the last gallery row.

Tracy, the DA's victim support staff who works with the Major Crimes Division arrives and checks in with the bailiff. She wants to be sure which path the deputy wants the victim's family to take when they approach the podium. She then exits the courtroom.

8:48 AM
DDA Daniel Akemon arrives. He's chatting with Mr. Nardoni just outside the courtroom in the ante chamber. On Judge Fidler's bench, there are several reference books in a desktop book-holder to the right and a huge reference book directly in the center of his bench. On the wall behind the bench to the left, is a large TV screen. To the right of the bench is the clerks desk and counter area. Directly in front of the clerks walled-off counter area, there are several file boxes stacked up, three or four high. I'm guessing these files relate to the death penalty case.

A pretty petite woman from the DA's office I've seen in other cases arrives. I think she's with the DA's JSID unit (Justice System Integrity Division). There are handshakes all around with the group over by Detective Small.  I look behind me to the chairs near the door where Chris Nicely usually sits. He's concentrating on his notepad, taking notes.

I'm wondering what the hold-up is. Maybe we are waiting for lead defense attorney Dale Rubin.  Detective Lillienfeld joins Greg and Maureen in the back left corner of the gallery. There are conversations still going on in several groups around me. Nardoni and Nicely go back into the custody area to speak with Gargiulo.

New York Magazine Editor and author Carolyn Murnick arrives with a male friend. She immediately recognized me but again, I didn't recognize her at first. I'm starting to wonder if I'm developing face blindness, or it's my age. Carolyn takes a seat to my left to chat and say hello. Carolyn then reaches into her bag and signs for me a copy of her book, The Hot One, about her childhood friend and murder victim Ashley Ellerin. I'm touched. Due to my husband's health, I wasn't able to make it to her book signings in Los Angeles, so this is a nice surprise.

9:00 AM
The family of victim Tricia Pacaccio arrive along with the DA's victim support staff.  DDA Akemon is conferring with Mrs. Pacaccio and her sons. Detective Small introduces himself to the Pacaccio family. Carolyn and I scoot down to make room for Mrs. Pacaccio and her sons, Douglas and Thomas at the far left end of our row.

The court clerk asks if counsel are ready. Dale Rubin is still not here.

9:06 AM
People Magazine reporter Christine Pelisek arrives. She greets Detective Lillienfeld and takes a seat in the back row.

9:08 AM
The court clerk calls for counsel over at her counter. Wendy also asks for one of the cameramen. 48 Hours producer Doug comes over to the other cameraman in the jury box to chat. Lots of conversations going on at once. The camera was taken down. There will be no video taping today, just audio of the impact statements. (After the hearing I learn that the Pacaccio family did not wish to be filmed so the court reversed the filming order but let 48 Hours record the audio.)

The court clerk tells the bailiff. "I think we're ready now."

9:14 AM
Gargiulo is brought out. Since defense counsel Dale Rubin is not here, Gargiulo doesn't sit at the end of the table where everyone can see his face. He sits directly beside Nardoni so his back is to the gallery. When he entered, he looks exactly the same as the January hearing. He's wearing the orange jumpsuit with the white long-johns type shirt underneath. His head is completely bald except for his eyebrows and mustache. It's clear Gargiulo looks about 10 years older than his booking photo at the top of this post. His face is much leaner, thinner.

9:15 AM
Judge Fidler takes the bench. DDA Akemon tells the court they have the Picaccio family from Illinois. He introduces Tricia Pacaccio's mother, Diane (sp?). Tricia was murdered in Illinois in 1993. Her case is pending in that state. Mrs. Picaccio reads a prepared statement. One of her sons stands beside her at the podium. She speaks so fast, I get very few complete sentences of her statement. As she starts to talk about her daughter, her voice breaks and I feel her pain. The anguish in her voice at the loss of her daughter affects me. My friend Matthew McGough is always telling me I need to maintain a distant professionalism, but I still struggle with that. I've silently wiped tears many times in the gallery, listening to a family member sob during testimony or give an impact statement.

Mrs. Pacaccio thanks the court. "We ask that ... why this had to happen to our wonderful loving Tricia. .. Twenty-four years later ... hard time suffering ... cannot understand ... [We are] fundamentally different people down to our soul since this happened.  ... When someone who is indispensable to your happiness is gone ..." Mrs. Pacaccio weeps as she speaks to the court. Toward the end of her statement she's crying and my eyes start to well up.

I believe it's Douglas, Tricia's other brother who reads a letter from his father. Mr. Pacaccio was unable to travel due to health issues. "I am here to represent my daughter's rights and the right for a speedy trial. The defendant needs to be brought to trial in the murder of Tricia. ... If you give one thought ... [we?] who have been waiting 25 years. ... We are very angry, disgusted and surprised ... the delays and extensions."

Douglas speaks fast and I'm having trouble keeping up. "Please do not delay this case any longer. ... Know that we will have another long case, once it gets to Chicago, Illinois."

Judge Fidler addresses the victim's family. "I do hear you. I've been doing this for 35 years. ... I have to be general. I can't speak to prior delays, because I don't know what happened."

Judge Fidler then speaks to them hypothetically, as to what happens after a California case that receives a death penalty verdict. It is first reviewed by the California Supreme Court. After California, it goes to the Federal system. "If they [California Supreme Court] affirm, then 12-15 years, it goes to the Federal side. ... Then habeas corpus." Judge Fidler says something about the Federal system [here in the west] taking a dim view of the death penalty, so California death penalty cases lose.

Judge Fidler goes onto explain that they can't have any mistakes in a death penalty case. When he tries a case, he tries to make no mistakes.  "We had a new plea. That will delay [the case] as a matter of law. ... I promise both sides that I will move this case as expeditiously ... and still follow the law. ... Because of the new plea, there are going to be delays. ... I will keep you in mind. You're not nameless to me. ... You didn't come out here [for nothing]. "

DDA Akemon addresses the court. They have picked a name from the court's approved list for a doctor to evaluate Gargiulo for the people. Dr. Robert Schug. DDA Akmon states, "He is ready to start his evaluation almost immediately. ... He is asking for face to face meetings and an ability to bring a laptop [into the jail]."

Judge Fidler rules, "If you give me an order I will sign it." 

DDA Akemon tells the court they have the next pretrial date in mind, April 20, 2018. By that time, they may have a good status on where they are.  Judge Fidler sets the case calendar at zero of 90 on April 20th. Defense attorney Nardoni tells the court they have given discovery to the DA. Their hope is to start the case this summer.

And that's it. Judge Fidler is off the bench and Gargiulo is taken back into the custody area. Out in the hallway I learn that lead defense attorney Dale Rubin is under the weather, so that's why he wasn't in court today.

I was really hoping that 48 Hours was going to get images of Gargiulo today. I have been unable to find any photos taken of Gargiulo beyond his various booking photos. It doesn't appear that Gargiulo has been photographed during any court proceeding since he was arrested in 2008.

Next hearing can be found HERE.