Dawn DaLuise Case: Pretrial Hearing 2

Dawn DaLuise in custody March 19, 2014. 

Photo Credit: KTLA Pool Camera

UPDATE 6/23: An earlier version had Judge Dabney's name spelled wrong. I apologize.
May 19, 2014
8:15 AM
I’m on the 8th floor of the Airport Courthouse.  I arrived before 7 AM, missing most of the 405 traffic. Unfortunately, the cafeteria doesn’t open until 7:30 AM so I sat in the lobby to wait.  While I was waiting, I did have a very interesting chat with a woman, a retired minister. She was here for her first experience on jury duty.

My lobby companion lived most of her life in the center of her east coast state. When she and her husband retired, a family member offered them the opportunity to live with them in their home in the south bay area. They jumped at the chance.  They currently live in on the coast and are relatively recent transplants.

I shared with her a little bit about the LA County court system.

8:23 AM
Although there are several people from the general public here, I don’t see a single person from the media. A few people come and try the doors to the two courtrooms on this wing of the hallway.

Just to be sure that nothing’s changed, I check the LA county Sheriff’s inmate locator site again. The date is today and the courtroom is Dept. E.

There is a new sign on Judge Dabney's courtroom door that states no electronic media. It specifically states NO laptops. I'm disappointed.  Wont be able to use my laptop to write.

8:26 AM
I put my phone on silent and try to stretch out my low back.  I was up until 4 AM, helping Mr. Sprocket on a new ductless split system at a bakery.  I slept for maybe an hour before I got up to get ready to come here. I have no idea when I’ll get these notes written up.

8:33 AM
The courtroom opens. People head inside. I debate on whether to get in there to get a good seat, or wait to see if any of DaLuise's family show up.  I close up my laptop and head inside.

Inside, there are signs that indicate no sitting in the first row. I take a seat in the second row, directly behind the defense table. Judge Dabney's courtroom is a mirror image of Department F, next door.  The black female bailiff's desk is to the right. The court clerks desk is along the wall directly beside the curved corner bench.

I believe I forgot to mention in my last notes, that the courtroom ceilings are constructed and a nice, wide arch. Very attractive.

The clerk is at her desk and it is eerily silent in here.  After a while, I start to get a little chilled. I forgot to bring a light sweater. There are several attorneys in the well and three in the lone chairs on the very left side of the gallery.

There is another desk directly beside the clerks desk. Then there is a walkway space to the jail area and the bailiff's desk to the right. There isn't a phone or computer at this desk but there is a file basked and what appears to be an industrial size hole punch or stapler. An attorney stops at the clerks desk to check in. There is a woman seated at the extra desk. She looks like a defense attorney. A Latino woman in the gallery gets up to speak to her.  The woman at the desk replies, "It will be a while."

Another deputy opens the door to the custody area and peeks his head inside Dept. E for a moment they goes back inside the jail area.

8:45 AM
Judge Dabney's court reporter arrives.  On the right side wall next to the gallery there is a large, permanent sign that says "No Food Or Drink In Courtroom."  There are individual fold up seats just like in Dept. F.  Two male attorneys come and go and then enter again.

Just to be safe, I put my phone in 'airplane' mode.


The female bailiff takes a suit of clothes back to the custody area. I start to yawn. I'm hoping I don't fall asleep. I had about a quart of iced tea this morning and a second, hot tea in the cafeteria. I only had sausage and hash hash browns in the cafeteria for breakfast. I was too afraid to have scrambled eggs because I'm still not sure exactly how I got the food poisoning after my last trip here.

A woman enters from the back area, sits in the jury box and is typing on her cell phone. My best guess is that she is a court appointed interpreter.

A defense attorney asks the bailiff if his client could be brought up so that he could speak to him. He is informed he may have to go to another area to see him because they already have some one (back in the private room/cell?).  A minute later he says that's okay, "Where ever."  The bailiff then calls him back to speak to his client.

It's now that I realize there are two ways that defense attorneys can speak to their clients. There is a second door to the custody area in the far back right corner.  It has a sign on it that says "Interview Room - No Cell Phones Allowed." This door does not have a window or one of those special locks on it like the doors behind the bailiff's desk. My guess is, this leads to a room where there is an enclosed "cage" area, much like Dept. 30 downtown, or Dept. 100 at Van Nuys.  I imagine there could be several defendants in this area at once, talking to their attorneys.

I'm guessing that DaLuise's case wont be called early since her family isn't here.

9:03 AM
A female attorney checks in with the bailiff.

9:15 AM
I didn't see him enter, but there now is a slightly balding white haired man sitting in the well seats directly in front of me. Is that defense attorney Pat Harris? I didn't see him check in with the court clerk. It will be a surprise if it is. Pat Harris defended Cameron Brown in his second trial.  Harris was affiliated with Geragos & Geragos for about 15 years or more. Now he has his own practice.  I attended most of Brown's second trial. I became ill right after the defense case started and missed several defense witnesses.

The defense attorney stands and faces the gallery. It is Pat Harris. He's known for defending Susan McDougal and co-authoring a book about it. I address him. "Pat Harris." He looks at me, but he doesn't recognize me. It has been a while. I add, "Betsy Ross, Trials & Tribulations." He smiles. He's surprised to see me. He replies that it's been six years.  I inform him that his former client is now pro per and still in custody.

It's my understanding that Brown earns "good time" credits while in the LA County Sheriff's custody. I believe (but I'm not positive), that he earns 1 day for every two days served in county.  He's been in county custody over 10 years. If Brown got convicted of second degree murder, it's possible he could be eligible for parole after he's sentenced.  It doesn't mean he will get parole, it just means he's eligible.

9:20 AM
Philip Dube, (pronounced Due-bay) DaLuise's public defender is her. I don't see any family. Dube comes out from the jail area carrying some magazines. He hands them to a gentleman in the last row, sitting on the other side of the courtroom. The man is older, gray hair and a beard. I don't believe he was here last time. If he was, I didn't see him. I hear Dube tell him that DaLuise is not allowed to have magazines while in custody.

It's my guess that one of the reasons that magazines are now allowed is because of the staples that could be used to hold them together. I can see the face of the magazine that was on top: People.

Judge Dabney takes the bench. He has mostly black hair, slightly balding with a grayish mustache and small beard. The first case is called. A defendant in an orange jumpsuit is brought out.  While this case is heard, Pat Harris and Dube get up from the well and chat beside the right wall in the gallery. Now I'm wondering how Harris is associated with the case.

I've become fascinated with the unusual lock on the door to the jail area.  It takes a huge, flat key that's on a ring on the bailiff's waist. From where I'm sitting, the key looks like it's three or four times the size of a normal door lock key.

Harris paces back and forth in the well. When the first case is over, Harris addresses the judge. He tells the court, "My is a witness who was ordered here today." Harris' client is Edward Feinstein, who is not in the courtroom. New discovery was provided to the defense late (last night? Friday?) and it's going to be held over.  The judge orders his client back for the next hearing.

That's it for Harris. He takes off.

It appears that Judge Dabney wanted to call the DaLuise case but her counsel can't be found. Someone tells the court that he needed a few more minutes with his client.

Another case is called in the mean time. A defense attorney tells the court that his client changed his mind and decides to take a plea on count 2.  The defendant takes a plea on a charge of assault with a deadly weapon.  He pleads no contest. Judge Dabney makes sure that the defendant understands his rights and that he is giving up his rights by pleading.

9:50 AM
Judge Dabney leaves the bench. Mr. Dube passes an envelope to the gray haired friend of DaLuise. I hear him say, "These are some cards and letters."  I don't think that DaLuise had these cards and letters in her possession and gave them to her attorney. My guess on what happened is, Dube may have been able to share these items with his client in custody, or he returned them to DaLuise's friend because he was unable to share them with her.

The courtroom is back to that eerie pin drop silence.  There are only eight people in the gallery.

10:05 AM
DDA Heather Steggell, who is prosecuting the DaLuise case, returns. I believe Dube is still with his client. My notes are not clear, but I think Judge Dabny is back on the bench and asking if they can do the DaLuise case. He's told that Dube is still with his client. The bailiff gets up to check.

DDA Steggell gets up and goes to the 'Interview Room' to ask Dube if they can call the case. Steggell has a three defendant plea next door.

10:17 AM
Mr. Dube comes out from the interview room.  Judge Dabney and counsel talk about future dates off the record. They want to set the case at zero of 10 on June 23.

Judge Dabney calls the case: SA086704. DaLuise is brought out. I believe she has a waist chain, or is cuffed at the waist somehow. She quickly looks in the gallery and smiles at her friend in the back row.  Dube tells the court, "Friday, I received a large packet [of discovery] from the people and apparently more is to come."  Judge Dabney asks, "What is it?" I believe it's Steggell who answers. "Analysis of computer and phones from the defendant." She continues, "There are other witness phones (and computer?) ..." that still need to be analyzed. She tells the court that the report on the defendant's computer and phones is "pretty substantial. ... There is one witness computer in the process and possibly a second witness."

Judge Dabney rules that he wants everyone back on June 9th. The 9th doesn't work for Dube. Dube offers Friday the 13. Judge Dabney replies, "I'm not superstitious."  DaLuise lets out a little giggle or laugh at the courts comment.  Dabney orders Edward Feinsten, the prosecution's witness to be on call for the 13th and ordered back on the 23. And that's it. As DaLuise is taken back into custody, she turns to the gallery again. Smiling at her friend she lifts her palm up slightly to give him a wave.

After I leave Dept. E, I head up to the 9th floor to see if Judge Deborah Brazil's courtroom is open. I'd like to drop in and say hello. The door is locked so I make my way back home.

Michael Gargiulo Pretrial Hearing 14

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, date unknown

UPDATED 2/2: clarity, spelling
Friday, January 31, 2014
I'm in the cafeteria of the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center.  A long-time girlfriend has come to court today to sit in on the hearing. Like some people might be, she's curious as to how Gargiulo looks, since he's been in custody for over five years. After court, we'll take in a film at the ArcLight.

When  I re-entered the deserted lobby I was pleasantly surprised to see a long-time fellow colleague clearing security. I had not seen them in over two years. We had a great time catching up on cases in the elevator to the 9th floor.

After clearing 9th floor security, I see Gargiulo's two private investigators, Christian Filipiak and Chris Nicely.  Filipiak is the investigator on the guilt phase of the case. Nicely is Gargiulo's investigator on the penalty phase. Filipiak is friendly and engaging. Nicely doesn't speak.

8:50 AM
When I see DDA Daniel Akemon, DDA Garret Dameron and LASD Detective Mark Lillienfeld coming down the hallway, my girlfriend and I follow them inside Dept. 108.

We take a seat in the second row. DDA's Akemon and Dameron are chatting with Filipiak. They brought two brown file boxes with them. This is either discovery or something else.

Judge Ohta comes out from the back area but he's not in his robes. I point him out to my friend.  Lillienfeld takes a seat in the well in front of the jury box. In the gallery behind me are two women. They are either reporters or clerks for either side.

Now the DDA's and Filipiak are going over several large, brown envelopes.  I'm guessing these are SDT's otherwise known as subpoena duces tecum. Counsel can issue a subpoena to a person but a SDT is a subpoena for documents.  When documents are subpoenaed, they are delivered to the court. They are not opened unless the opposing side agrees the requesting side can see the information.

Judge Ohta is currently in trial, and the counsel involved in that case start arriving and setting up their equipment and files.  The parties in the Gargiulo case are still going over the subpoenaed documents.

More deputies start entering Dept. 108.  The bailiff from Dept. 107 and an attractive, black female deputy I've seen many times before.

9:10 AM
Judge Ohta's pretty court reporter comes out and starts to set up her equipment.  The bailiff sets up the chair for Gargiulo to sit in.  Since he has two investigators sitting with him, he places the chair without wheels at the end of the table.  This means those of us in the gallery will be able to see Gargiulo face on, instead of from he back.

A bit later, Judge Ohta, has taken the bench asks DDA Dameron, "Who's taken over Brazil's spot?" I miss hearing the name that Dameron answers. "Brazil" former DDA Deborah Brazil, who was sworn in as a judge on December 11th. At some point, Filipiak asks Judge Ohta if he can have a few minutes with his client before the proceeding starts.

We are waiting for Gargiulo to come out. She asks me if he will be handcuffed. I tell her he will be handcuffed and he will have a waist chain on. I point out the door to my friend to watch where Gargiulo will be brought into the courtroom. He's finally brought inside the courtroom, and I'm surprised. He looks even more gaunt and pasty than the last time I've seen him. He doesn't look anything like the photo at the top that was probably taken when he was arrested.

Gargiulo has completely shaved off his dramatic mustache. He has grown a goatee on his chin that's about two inches wide and three inches long. The goatee is mostly black but there are very noticeable gray hairs on one side. He's also not wearing the black, horn-rimmed glasses.  Without the glasses to break up his face, it appears longer, thinner.

9:30 AM
On the record in the Gargiulo matter. The DDA's state their names for the record. Judge Ohta states that Gargiulo is present and requests that his investigators state their names.

Judge Ohta stats off by stating there have been court appearances for the exchange of regular discovery. There is a document from the people stating this is the 13th set of discovery turned over. Judge Ohta asks the defendant, "Mr. Gargiulo, you have (discovery?) about that?" "Yes, your honor," Gargiulo replies.

Judge Ohta asks DDA Akemon if all the discovery has been turned over to the defendant.  "Not yet. ... expecting a report in the next couple of weeks. ... that's the bulk ... still some odds and ends."  Judge Ohta responds, "That's the nature of the process."

Then Judge Ohta asks the defendant, "What would you like to do Mr. Gargiulo?"  Gargiulo submits a new date, March 7th, for a return to court.  That date works for the DA. Judge Ohta asks the defendant, Mr. Gargiulo, you want that at zero of 90? "Yes, your honor," he replies.  Gargiulo has stated in prior hearings that Fridays are preferable for him. The reason is unknown.

Judge Ohta asks the parties if there is anything else that needs to be addressed.

DDA Akemon tells the court about SDT's that Gargiulo issued to the El Monte PD. The DA's office filed a motion to quash. If it's not going to be quashed, it needs to be dealt with.  The prosecution also issued subpoena's for records.  DDA Akemon explains the documents they subpoenaed. First, they subpoenaed Gargiulo's visitor records at the jail. (These are not public documents. Not anyone can request to see them.)

The other documents are Gargiulo's medical records.  That's what the two brown files boxes are. DDA Akemon is requesting to open the visitation records. The DA's office doesn't need to open the medical records at this time. The DA's office would simply like to lodge them with the court.

Judge Ohta replies, "Thank you for increasing the amount of boxes in this trial."  Judge Ohta then asks the defendant, "Mr. Gargiulo, were you aware that the prosecution issued a motion to quash?" "Yes, I got it yesterday. ... and because of the phone issues ... What I plan on doing is withdrawing the subpoena and agree with the DA, .... if (they?) are willing to hand over (the claimed? ?) discovery. ... I don't wish to make it difficult."

Judge Ohta tells Gargiulo, "You don't have to cede to the DA. It's your decision." Gargiulo says something to the effect that the DA has been very open and helpful in making documents available. He gets along with him. My notes are not clear, but I believe it's Gargiulo who adds, "Thing is, I have nothing to hide."  Smiling, Judge Ohta addresses DDA Akemon, "He's saying you're a nice guy."

DDA Akemon tells the court that they are not willing to hand over the documents in the specific El Monte PD subpoenas. Gargiulo plan now is to issue an informal SDT request. DDA Akemon states they plan to litigate.  Judge Ohta asks Gargiulo if he understands. Gargiulo states he does.  Judge Ohta then states for the record that Gargiulo is going to withdraw those specific SDT's at this time.

DDA Akemon states that they are requesting to open the visitation logs. Gargiulo doesn't appear to understand. He thinks that these logs were already turned over many times already.  I believe he asks if it's all the same stuff. DDA Akemon explains that it's additional visitor records. New logs.  Once that's explained, Gargiulo agrees that the prosecutor can open the subpoenaed records. They will be copied and given to the defendant.

DDA Akemon also tells the court, "Mr. Gargiulo has subpoenaed other records I'm not privy to."  Akemon doesn't know what they are and doesn't know if he as grounds to object.  "Without knowing what's there, I have an objection to [Gargiulo] opening. Akemon requests that the court view the documents in camera.

I believe Gargiulo is asked, or Akemon offers to the court that there are two SDT's. One is for the LA County Sheriff, and the other is for the City of Monterey Park. I believe Gargiulo offers, "It's for impeachment evidence."

Apparently, no one has spoken with the legal departments of LA County Sheriff or the City of Monterey Park. Representatives of those entities would need to be here.  DDA Akemon tells Judge Ohta, "We're objecting to Mr. Gargiulo opening and looking. ... A defense subpoena to any law enforcement agency, ... must go through a DA review."

Judge Ohta doesn't agree with all of Akemon's argument. He agrees they have to go through the DA, but he's not sure he agrees with the entirety of Akemon's statement. Judge Ohta needs to get started with his trial. He has a jury coming in. He suggests they put this matter over to another day where they can spend all day on the issue.

Filipiak wants to make it clear to the court that the only subpoena's that are being withdrawn are the ones to El Monte PD. All that needs to be decided is a date to return to argue about the other subpoenas.

February 21st is the date chosen to return to take up the matter of the SDT's.   And that's it. Right before Judge Ohta leaves the bench, he tells Gargiulo, "I've signed your medical order." Gargiulo replies, "Thank you, your honor. ... (May?) you have a good day."

After Gargiulo is taken back to the holding area, I ask my friend what she thought of Gargiulo. She was surprised at how engaged he was in the court process, but that's understandable since he is representing himself. She was surprised by how he looked, and that he didn't look like his photo in news articles.

Gerhard Becker Pretrial Hearing 9

Gerhard Becker and his previous attorney at a pretrial hearing in 2012.
© Artist Thomas Broersma 2012, all rights reserved.

  thomasbroersma@yahoo.com

Wednesday, December 11, 2013
I'm on the 9th floor of the downtown criminal justice center.  The hallway is virtually empty.  There are less than a handful of jurors from Dept. 109 who have just arrived.

Gerhard Becker is charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of firefighter Glenn Allen.  Allen died while fighting a fire that broke out in Becker's 12,000 square ft., Hollywood Hills home in February 2011.  Becker was arrested about a year later.

8:22 AM
DDA Sean Carney arrives on the 9th floor and breezes by me to enter Dept. 104, Judge Robert Perry's courtroom. I quickly get up to follow him in.

Becker and a girlfriend I've seen on previous hearings are already inside the courtroom, seated in the last row.  I take a seat in the second row.  I mention to DDA Carney that DDA Deborah Brazil will be sworn in today to the Superior Court. Carney indicates that the other DDA that will be sworn in, Frank Tavelman, is in his unit and a good friend.

On December 5th, Governor Brown announced eight appointments to the bench.

I knew that Ms. Brazil was being interviewed by the governor's office back in September, but it was unofficial. I did not have permission to write about what I knew. The political blog Los Angeles Dragnet reported the appointments on Friday. I learned about Ms. Brazil's appointment on Monday when a friend sent me the notice. DDA Brazil and DDA Tavelman will be sworn in today in Dept. 100 at 12:15 PM.  I first saw DDA Brazil in action during the Conrad Murray preliminary hearing in January 2011 and during the recent Barnes & Bolden prelim. She's a very talented prosecutor and I'm looking forward to attending her swearing in ceremony today.

There are at least eight DDA's that will be running for two vacant Superior Court seats. It's unknown at this time who will be paired up against each other and it could turn into a Hunger Games like blood-bath.

DDA Carney tells me he's currently in trial in another courtroom.  What he tells me about the case piques my interest.  After this hearing is over, I don't have anything to do until the swearing in so I tell him I'll probably follow him up to the 15th floor and sit in on his case for a few hours.  Carney tells me the case is in Dept. 127 on the 15th floor and that the defendant is pro per.

8:33 AM
We're waiting on defense attorney Donald Re. Judge Perry's clerk Melody is not at her desk at the moment. DDA Carney and Judge Perry's court reporter Beth chat about getting ready for Christmas and how fun the holidays are with little ones.  Beth has on a cute black and gray outfit today. It's a long, form fitting tailored top with a pronounced flair at the hips. It's paired with a long complimentary skirt.

A woman comes in and speaks to the bailiff.  The bailiff points out Becker, who is still in the back row. I overhear him tell the woman that they "...don't do that sort of thing inside the courtroom, but you can take a seat."  I'm guessing she is here to serve Becker with papers.

8:44 AM
Judge Perry takes the bench. I believe I hear him tell the room, "I think I set this thing for nine (9:00 AM)."  Judge Perry and his court reporter chat. She jokingly chides him that he didn't tell her he was leaving early on a prior day. Judge Perry had a doctor's appointment. He jokingly responds, "What are you, my mother?"  It's a pleasant, jovial conversation.  Judge Perry then addresses his bailiff, asking about someone the bailiff knows. The bailiff used to play football and there is a conversation about where the bailiff is from. Judge Perry then shares a personal experience about when his children were very young and experienced snow for the first time.

8:50 AM
Donald Re enters and stops by the back row to speak to his client. I over hear him say, "...and there's a lady outside if you want to get served."  Judge Perry is reading motions at the bench.  Re is going to go grab DDA Carney, who left earlier for a hearing down in Dept. 107. 

8:56 AM
DDA Carney and Re return.  Judge Perry asks counsel, "Do we want to talk in chambers?"  DDA Carney and Re wait behind the clerk's desk before entering the back area.  One of them jokingly says, "I don't know if it's 'safe' to go before the judge." The other responds, "I don't want any booby traps." (Judge Perry hasn't left his bench yet, and they don't want to go in "before" Judge Perry.)

As the attorneys follow Judge Perry into his chambers, their voices are loud. I'm guessing Judge Perry left the door to his chambers open.  The bailiff advises the clerk to close the door to the back area.  Even so, I can still barely hear DDA Carney's voice.

Behind the clerk's desk, I can see the days that are blacked out on December's calendar. Judge Perry's courtroom is dark from December 13 through the 31.

9:06 AM
It's totally quiet in the courtroom. I note that there appears to be a new piece of equipment in the well by the court reporter's desk. It looks like a printer combined with a cabinet. I hear the faint sound of a radio, but I have no idea where it's coming from.

9:15 AM
Becker leaves the courtroom to take a phone call. A few moments later, Re and DDA Carney emerge from Judge Perry's chambers. I believe Re goes out to speak to his client. Judge Perry, DDA Carney and the court reporter talk about Carney's other fire case involving a German national, Harry Berkhart. That defendant is facing 100 counts. The discussion is about reading all those counts into the record. Judge Perry shares that he had a case with 129 counts and he told counsel there would be a summary reading of the verdicts.  Beth shares that Judge Kennedy had a case with more counts than that.  They were all read.  Judge Kennedy read some, the clerk read some, and another clerk was brought in to read some of the verdicts.   Smiling, Judge Perry says, "I did 125 [counts] in half an hour."

Judge Perry discusses a prior case in his courtroom. DDA Carney is asked about his current assignments. He explains that he is also involved in cases involving explosives and several other interesting cases.

9:20 AM
Mr. Re returns and Judge Perry goes on the record. "We have discussed the case ... and have everyone come back on January 3, 2014, at 8:30 AM for further proceedings.

And that's it. Out in the elevator bay, Becker's girlfriend gives a hug to Re.  I go down to the cafeteria to wait until 10:30 AM when DDA Carney's other case will pick up again in Dept. 127.  I sit in on that case until noon and then head to Dept. 100 to attend DDA Brazil's swearing in ceremony. I'll have that report up in another day or two.

Case Status
The DA's weekly calendar indicated that Becker's next hearing on January 3 is a plea hearing.  Another source confirmed that Becker will be taking a plea.

Belated Merry Christmas 2013

Tree at the US Capitol Building, date unknown

UPDATED 12/26: spelling of Ms. Brazil's name
The T&T crew hopes everyone had a memorable holiday this year.

Since I am under the weather with a sore throat, we had a low-key celebration at home. Mr. Sprocket is the resident cook and this year he made an excellent turkey with chili from the local Indian store.

Trial Coverage Update
After my last post on December 10, I took a break from writing to sew holiday gifts for friends and family. I did step away from my sewing machine to attend a pretrial hearing for Gerhard Becker on December 11, and more of Joshua Woodward's prelim on December 16.  I hope to be finished sewing in the next day or two and I will update those stories over the next few weeks.

I have the rest of the Bryan Barnes and Javier Bolden prelim coming, as well as a story on DDA Deborah Brazil's December 11 swearing in ceremony to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Sprocket Gift Wrapping Tip
If you run out of wrapping paper on Christmas eve, fabric works in a pinch.

Happy Holidays, and best wishes for the new year.

Gerhard Becker & Cameron Brown Updates

Thursday, November 14, 2013
Gerhard Becker
Last I heard, Gerhard Becker was scheduled for a pretrial hearing this morning.  The case was listed on the District Attorney's weekly calendar for this week. However, when I received the daily calendar late yesterday evening, the Becker case wasn't listed.  It was too late to call the courtroom or the court's public information office. So this morning, I thought I would go to court just in case the hearing was still on but not listed on the calendar.

While I was trying to grab an elevator in the lobby, I waved hello to DDA Beth Silverman, who with her tiny figure was able to squeeze into a packed elevator.

I didn't get up to Dept. 104 on the 9th floor until 8:30 AM. I did not see Mr. Becker or his defense attorney Donald Re in the hallway, so I peeked inside Judge Perry's courtroom. I didn't see anyone inside the courtroom either. I could tell that there were counsel in the well setting up for trial.  I asked Judge Perry's clerk, Melody, if Becker had been rescheduled. She informed me the case was rescheduled about two weeks ago to December 3rd. She didn't know the reason.  I thanked her and then headed out to the hallway to decide what to do next.

On the drive into downtown, I had heard Eric Leonard of local radio station KFI give a report on the Andrea Spaccia trial, part of the larger Bell City Counsel public corruption scandal.  Spaccia, who has been charged with 13 counts, was Bell's former assistant city manager.  Eric's report indicated that after four days on the stand under direct, Spaccia would be under cross examination today.

When I get down to that end of the hallway, I see beautiful DDA Deborah Brazil quickly enter Dept. 102 with a large set of files. I wish I had asked her which case she was working.

Local CBS 2 on air reporter Dave Lopez told me that the Spaccia trial resumes at 9:30 AM.  That meant an entire hour to wait.   I'm still debating on whether to stay when more of the mainstream media start to show up.  I see the lovely Miriam Hernandez from local ABC 7, and Terri Keith from City News Service. Although it would be interesting to see a defendant under cross examination, I decided not to attend the hearing because I am not adequately familiar with the case, or the charges against Spaccia, to cover it.

Before I leave the courthouse, I log into the LA County Sheriff's inmate web site to check on Cameron Brown's next court date.  During the last hearing, Judge Lomeli ruled that Brown would be brought down to the courthouse to meet with Dr. Knapke, but that date had not been set yet. Brown's next scheduled date is November 15, 2013, so I'll be back down here tomorrow.

Huffington Post Article on Brown Case
Hunter Stuart of the Huffington Post has written an extensive article on the Brown case.  This Saturday, November 16, 2013, marks ten years that Brown has been in custody. I agreed to let Stuart use one of my photos I took of Inspiration Point for his article.

There are a couple of issues Stuart's article mentions that I will expand upon.

Although Brown had two trials that ended in hung juries, it should be noted that every juror in both trials voted for guilt. What the jurors were unable to agree upon was the degree of Brown's guilt.

In the first trial, two jurors voted for first degree, eight jurors voted for second degree and two jurors voted for involuntary manslaughter. Not a single verdict form was completed.

In the second trial, the jurors were deadlocked six to six.  Six jurors voted for second degree murder and six voted for involuntary manslaughter.  I was in the courtroom when Judge Pastor questioned the jury foreman. The jury foreman told Judge Pastor that not a single juror voted for first degree. Although on the surface, it would appear as if the jury found Brown not guilty of first degree murder, that is not the case.

In California, jury instructions are very specific as to how jurors are supposed to fill out the verdict forms, and in what order they are supposed to do it. Each juror has a copy of these instructions with them in the jury room.

Jurors are instructed that they must decide on the most serious charge, first.  That would be first degree murder.  They have to unanimously decide whether or not the defendant is guilty or not guilty of first degree murder. If they decide the defendant is guilty, then they fill out the first degree verdict form, sign it and their job is done.  However, if they decide the defendant is not guilty of first degree murder, they still have to fill out the verdict form, indicating the defendant is not guilty of that charge and sign it.  After that, they are to decide whether or not the defendant is guilty or not guilty of second degree murder. If the jury finds the defendant not guilty of second degree murder they complete the form and move onto the involuntary manslaughter charge.

In Brown's second trial, it is my understanding that although the jury foreman told the court that no one voted for first degree, the first degree verdict form was not filled out and signed. So legally, the jury never made a decision on that charge.

My understanding that the reason Brown has not been allowed bail, is because of the special allegation that Brown murdered his daughter for financial gain. Defendants who have this special allegation added to a first degree murder charge are not eligible for bail.

Bryan Barnes & Javier Bolden Prelim Day 3, Part III, USC Chinese Grad Student Murders, Ying Wu & Ming Qu

Continued from Day 3, Part II....

October 2nd, 2013
1:30 PM
I'm inside Dept. 102.  All of the attorneys are here setting up their files.  Akemon and Goldman are having a conversation.  There has been a good, friendly rapport between all counsel. In the last several years I've covered cases, I've not seen the animosity between counsel like I observed between former DDA Alan Jackson and defense attorney Doron Weinberg, back during the second Spector trial.  It was so apparent, even Judge Fidler commented on it, on the record. 

What I have observed, is defense counsel that is provided to defendants by the court system (Public Defenders, Alternate Public Defenders and court appointed counsel), work with the DA's office on a regular basis.  Often times, defense counsel and DDA's are friends outside of the work environment. It makes every one's job much easier if they cooperate and get along with each other in court.

(Note: When prior transcripts are read back verbatim, I can't guarantee I'm getting the wording exactly as said. Sprocket.)

1:34 PM
6. TIMOTHY HALL. (continued)
Timothy Hall retakes the stand.  Javier Bolden is brought out first and handcuffed to his chair, then Bryan Barnes is brought out and placed in his chair.  Like I've mentioned before, the chairs defendants sit in don't have wheels, making them harder to move.  Mrs. Barnes is sitting in the courtroom on the far left side.

(Unfortunately, my notes are not clear if Barnes' defense counsel, Gustavo Sztraicher continues with the questioning, or if it's possibly Marie D'Onofrio. Before lunch, my notes indicate that Mr. Sztraicher's cross was finished.  A bit later on, I do have it clearly marked that Jana Seng, Javier Bolden's counsel crosses the witness.  So the next set of questions are marked with a Q, instead of counsel's initials. Sprocket.)

Q: This morning, counsel has asked you several times about ... had you ever been shown this transcript prior to today?
TH: I was given a copy but I never looked at them.
Q: You never read them?
TH: No.
Q: This is the first time that you've actually becoming familiar with them?
TH: Yeah.
Q: Directing you to the audio. Had you ever heard that audio tape prior to today?
TH: No.

People's exhibit #32, the group photo.

Q: Mr. Hall, directing you to an interview that Detective Mansillas has on February 21st of 2012. She showed you two group photographs, is that correct?
TH: Yes.
Q: Did those two group photos look like they were taken at approximately the same time?
TH: No.
Q: You recall the photo you were shown?
TH: Yeah.
Q: When you looked at it back in (Feb?), did you have a chance to (?) it back in February?
TH: No.
Q: But you examined it ... and the only person you identified was Javier Bolden?
TH: Yeah.

Now the second photo.

Q: Now sir, directing your attention to the December 5th transcript, page 4 lines 21 through the end of the page. Page 6 line 1 and 2.  Sir, you've been asked about these transcripts multiple times, would it refresh your memory if I read you a piece of this transcript and ask you what you're referring to? ... I'm going to read about eight lines, and ask you what you're referring to, okay?

The witness nods his head.  Counsel says it's to put it in context.  Talking about going to parties, to put in context.

And I said, okay, I'll go, but I'm not really the type to explore random neighborhoods.
Yeah.
Because I've had my time out here in these streets, I know, you know what could happen.  Like I told the ambulance, this isn't my first time being shot.
Interviewer. Okay.
I've been shot before. It's like I know what happens out there and the dude whatever he was knew me from high school, (banging?) days.

Q: When you were talking about the dude, whoever he was, were you talking about the dude the first time you were shot?
TH: No.
Q: You went to a Dorsey, Hamilton and a third high school, what (was that?)?
TH: South Bay Lutheran.
Q: Did you go to the regular part of Hamilton ... ?
TH: No. I was in the magnet program.

Q: (Drawing your?) attention to the February 22nd transcript, pages 2 lines 11 through 16.  Sir, would it jog your memory if I possibly read a portion of this transcript to ask what you were referring to?

Interviewer: I only brought out one picture today.
Okay.
Interviewer: I only brought one picture today, that's because you said you knew this guy.
Uh-hum.
High school ... high school and all that other stuff.

Q: Were you referring to Javier Bolden at that time?
TH: Yeah.
Q: And subsequently, earlier this morning ... you were shown a photograph marked People's #33. (The single person photo.) ... You remember being shown that photo?
TH: No.
Q: Remember being shown this morning?
TH: Yes.
Q: Remember the audio tape?
TH: Yeah.

Q: You never said during that interview (correct?) that this was the shooter? ... And you never remembered telling the detective this was the shooter?
TH: Yeah.

This examination ends and Ms. Seng steps up to cross for Javier Bolden.

JS: Mr. Hall, the party that you were at on December 3rd, 2011, was there a strict dress code?
TH: No, there was not. ... No.
JS: Did you tell the detective during the interview at the hospital that there was a strict dress code?
TH: No.
JS: You did not tell Detective Mansillas that the particular party you attended, there was a strict dress code?
TH: No.

JS: But you did tell her, tell Detective Mansillas, there was some sort of argument inside the club, isn't that correct?
TH: Yes.
JS: And that was between a (partying?) with another individual?  ... And that person was Bobby?
TH: Bobby? I don't know the dude.

JS: Did you tell them that the person who had an argument with Bam (was Bobby?)?
TH: No.

The witness doesn't remember that.

JS: You didn't tell him that the person who had the argument was Javier?
TH: No.
JS: After inside the party, you walked out of the party. Was that with your cousin Bam?
TH: Yes.
JS: When you walked out, was he by your side?
TH: No. He was in front of me.
JS: SO he was in front and you followed behind?
TH:Yes.
JS: And at some point you heard him say to you was, "Run?"
TH: Yes.

He was headed in the direction of 89th Street.

JS: So when Bam told you to run, that's what you did, correct?
TH: Yes.
JS: Do you recall seeing an SUV right in front of the party?
TH: I don't remember, no.
JS: Do you recall running around an SUV vehicle at the (start?) of the shooting?
TH: I remember running in the street but I wasn't paying attention to the car.
JS: Do you recall where you had earlier indicated how you played possum? ... You played dead even though you hadn't been hit?
TH: Yeah.
JS: By any gunshot?
TH: No. ... No, I just laid in the street, close to the curb.

Pat Kelly and Mary Hearn from the court's Public Information Office enter Dept. 102.

JS: During the time that you were outside of the party, did you see a red Camaro parked on Western?
TH: No.
JS: Did you see a red Camaro anywhere in the middle of the street?
TH: No.
JS: Turning your attention to your interview at the hospital with female Detective Mansillas.  ... Isn't it true that you never mentioned the name Javier Bolden at the hospital?
TH: Yeah.

The witness went to school with Javier at Darcey, not Hamilton.

JS: The interview where the detective went to your house, ... the group photo you said that you pointed to Javier Bolden, and you did that because he was a person that you knew?
TH: Yes.
JS: You didn't do that because he was in any way involved in your shooting?
TH: No.
JS: The only reason you had pointed to Javier Bolden was because you simply knew him, correct?
TH: Yes.
JS: And that was the only reason?
TH: Yes.
JS: Javier Bolden was not ... there were not subsequent photos that were shown to you of Javier Bolden were there?
TH: No.

Ms. Seng's cross ends and DDA Akemon gets up to redirect.

DA: One question. A moment ago that ... you were given the transcript in your interview in this case and you testified that you did not look at those ... Why?
TH: From the beginning when ... (at?) first I wasn't really trying to deal with the case so I never really (looked at them?).
DA: You didn't read the transcripts because you didn't want to be involved in this case?
TH: Yeah.

The witness is excused.  People in the gallery leave the courtroom with Hall. The older female could be his mother or aunt.  As the group leaves, at least one hugs a black couple to my left.

7. YOLANDA MANSILLAS-VALENTO
Ms. Mansillas is an LAPD officer assigned to the 77th gang investigation (table?) for the past four years.  Sworn officer going on 13 years. She was involved in the investigation of the shooting of Timothy Hall.

DA: Do you recognize the man who just exited the courtroom?
YM: Yes.
DA: Have you had some contact with Mr. Hall?
YM: Yes.
DA: As part of the investigation in the shooting, did you go to the hospital with your partner Ernie Mendoza to interview Mr. Hall?
YM: Yes, I did.

They talked in his hospital room. He was on the bed seated in an upright position. He looked aware and coherent.

DA: Who was present?
YM: Myself, Detective Mendoza and Timothy Hall at first.
DA: Were you joined by other people?
YM: His mother, grandmother and father.
DA: Did you attempt to interview Mr. Hall about the shooting that happened on December 3rd, two days prior?
YM: Yes we did.
DA: When you were speaking with Mr. Hall, did he tell you what happened inside the club located at ...
YM: Yes. He said he was in the club when someone inside started (banging?) on his cousin. When he approached the people that were (banging?) on his cousin; his chain was snatched.

He told his cousin that they should leave. They both exited the club at which point they were shot at. He ran directly in front of the street when he exited.   He referred to Bam as his cousin. He ran down the sidewalk south bound.

DA: Did you ever ask Mr. Hall ....(if anyone?) inside the club had an identifiable tattoo?
YM: ... At the end of the interview, 26 or 27 minutes, I asked him more about one of the individuals ... that he had a tattoo above his kneecap (that said?) FUCK NAPS.

AG: Objection. (miss ruling)
DA: Page 25 of the December 5th, 2012 (transcript?) Do you recall these questions and answers with Mr. Hall.

You said, Okay, Um, and no tattoos that you recall? Nothing that sticks out in your head?
He had FUCK NAPS on his knee.

DA: Do you recall those questions an answers?
YM: Yes I do.

DA: Was it that person with that (?) tattoo that was in the club?
YM: Yes it was.
DA: Did he tell you that he had some familiarity with the shooter's brother? ... What did he tell you about the shooter's brother?
YM: (That) he's familiar with him because he'd hung out with (them?) ... (at other?) parties with them before.
DA: Did Mr. Hall tell you (in?) that interview about the gun that he was shot with?

I believe there's an objection by counsel for both defendants. Calls for speculation ... about what he believes about the gun.  I believe DDA Akemon withdraws that question and everything is stricken. Judge Marcus states his beliefs about who owned the gun is not sufficient to have that admitted.

DA: In your conversation with Mr Hall in the hospital room, did he tell you that he had been shot before?

I've been shot before so I know what happens for ... and the dude whoever it was, he knew me from my high school banging days. 

DA: Did he say that to  you?
YM: Yes.
DA: When you were talking to Mr. Hall in the hospital room, did he tell you he was a freshman?

I was in the 10th grade...

YM: Yes.
DA: Page 7, line 4 to line 7.  Did Mr. Hall tell you...

Yeah, because his little brother, his brother. .. I was shot with his brother's gun.

There's an objection. I believe the ruling is that the next lines can be read.

DA: Page 7 line 4 to 7.

Now, I don't know his brother like that, but I do know his brother always got a gun, I know.

YM: Correct.
AG: Objection! Move to strike.

DDA Akemon explains that the second part of the (question? quote?) is what is important.

DA: But he's saying:

I don't know his brother like that

DA: ..refers to his level of knowledge.
JM: I'm going to allow it. It goes to weight.
DA: When you were talking to Mr. Hall in his hospital room on December 5th, 2012, did you ask him if he could (also?) describe the clothing of the person who shot him?
YM: Clothing came up more than once in the interview. .. I think once at the beginning and once towards the end, yes.

DA: Direct attention to page 21 starting at line 17 to 21.

So, um, do you remember what kind of shoes? You said you saw a white shirt. Could you tell me the kind of shoes he had on?

I know he had a white T-shirt and beige shorts...

And you said he had his brother, had a gun. What kind of gun was that (do?) you know?

DA: Were those the questions and answers you had with Mr. Hall at that point?
YM: Yes.

I believe Mr. Goldman asks that counsel read line 22.

The police officer told me that whomever, ... that it was a 45.

DA: Did Mr. Hall tell you that the police officer told him it was a 45?
YM: Yes.
DA: When talking to Mr. Hall in the hospital, that, when he came out of the club the shooter was already sitting outside?
YM: Yes.
DA: In the conversation in the hospital room, did you discuss with him where the shooter went after the shooting?
YM: He said the shooter ran across the street.
DA: Did you ask him which street?
YM: I was trying to get a location north or south. ... he just said, "Across the street." And my indication was that was eastbound.
JM: How do you know?
YM: My knowledge of the area.

DA: Did he say,

I just seen him taking off running across the street.

YA: Correct.
DA: Page 23 at line 17 through 20. Did Mr. Hall tell you, quote,

(Cause?) I seen his brother before. I know it's his brother's gun.

There is an objection and then a discussion about whether this statement can come in or not. DDA Akemon withdraws another objected question and moves on.

DA: Did you ask Mr. Hall,

Where have you seen the brother before?

DA: And did he tell you, "Parties?"
YM: Correct.
DA: Did Mr. Hall tell you that the brother was from (Keystones? Peastones?)
YM: Yes.
DA: And did he tell you that the brother went by ... sometimes the name (Active?)?
YM: Correct.
DA: In your conversations with Mr. Hall, was there a discussion about the two people being involved in the shooting being brothers?
YM: Yes.

I believe Goldman objects, and then Ms. Seng also objects that it's contextual. Judge Marcus sustains.

DA: On page 25, line 1 and 2.  I'll withdraw that.  Were you trying to distinguish how many were involved with the shooting?
YA: Correct.
DA: Were you trying to figure out if there was a brother involved?
YA: Correct.
DA: When you were trying to refer to a person named (Peastones? Keystones?)... ?

I believe there is another objection because I have Judge Marcus responding, "The thing that matters are his answers to what her thoughts were. It's not the question that matters, it's the answer."  There's more discussion and Judge Marcus adds, "It's not her thought it's what Hall thinks that matters."

DA: Did you ask Mr. Hall, was it the younger brother that shot at you or was it Mr. (Active?)? (And did he say?)

No, it was the younger.

YA: Yes, he did.
DA: Direct you to page 25 line 18 through 26, line...  Mam, did you have the following questions and answers.

Question: Okay, um and no tattoos that you can recall, nothing that sticks out in your head.
Answer: He's got FUCK NAPS on his knee.
Question: Who's that? The younger brother?
Answer: No, that's (Active?).
Question: Active has the tattoo?
Answer: On his knee.
Question: And you saw that during the party?
Answer: (Parties?) As I remember.
Question: And that was where? Where did you see that?
Answer: At the party because he be pulling up his (?) ... He's always trying to show off his tattoos.

DA: A the end of your interview, did you continue your investigation to try to find out who was involved in the shooting of Timothy Hall?
YM: Yes.
DA: (On February 21st, 2012), did you go Mr. Halls residence to attempt to show him anything to see if he could make an identification?
YM: Yes, I did.

DA: February 21st and 22nd. What did you do?
YM: I tried to find out who (Active?) was. I tried to locate other witnesses who may have observed what happened. I searched numerous Facebook photos and profiles. ... All were in the group (in part circled friends of friends?). I found Facebook photos posted under No Respect Inc. with approximately 20 people containing two individuals that I believed were involved according to witness statements and reports.  I showed Hall that photo.

DA: People's 32.  Photo. Do you recognize that photo?
YM: It's a photo off No Repsect Inc., that was on their (Facebook) profile.
DA: Did you make a copy and go to Mr. Halls house and make an identification?
YM: Yes.
DA: When you went to (Halls?) residence on February 21st, was this the photo you had, people's 32?
YA: He immediately identified Javier Bolden ... and he said...

He (Hall) squinted and looked at the people in the photo to the left and right of Bolden.

YA: I didn't want him to guess because he stated that the caps were turned down low.
DA: Please point to people's 32 and describe who's on that photo Mr. Hall pointed out.

Officer Mansillas uses the laser and pints to the individual circled on the photo, Javier Bolden.

YA: He pointed to Javier.
DA: Then he stated the others to his right and left, and including this individual with (the?) cap pulled down looked alike.
JM: For the record, she pointed to the individual who was previously circled.
DA; Is that person in court today?

Witness identifies Javier Bolden.

DA: When you were talking to Mr. Hall about Javier Bolden while ... what did you ask him about Mr. Bolden?
YM: I asked how he knew the family and he started to talk about a sister with a similar name, Javiara, and the family had a house at .... And he was aware, or he knew that family a little better.
DA: And what was the relevance of identifying Mr. Bolden?
YM: He stated that the brother was the shooter, 'BJ," and so ( wanted to get a better photo of the possible shooter, so that Hall would have a better photo to (choose?) or look at.

The witness had Mr. Hall look at a photo of an individual that was similar to (Bruce Shay?).  Hall just stated that Bryan and Bruce looked similar. 

YM: I was asking him if he would be able to identify 'BJ," but I don't recall what exactly was said regarding Mr. Shay (sp?).

It's Officer Mansillas experience as a gang investigator that people who live next to each other are called aunts and uncles, and they have no relation.

(Unknown) Objection! Move to strike!
JM: Objection sustained.

The witness did an investigation to look for photos that might be of the individual she thought was 'BJ.'  She found a photo of 'BJ Barnes.'

DA: Where was Mr. Barnes in people's 32?
YM: He is in the red hat seated to Mr. Bolden's left.

She then went back to the station to get another photograph for Hall to see a better image of 'BJ."  People's 33.

DA: Do you see that man? ... Do you recognize ... ?
YM: This is a photo I pulled off of a Facebook ... that I showed to Timothy Hall.
DA: Is that person in court today?
YM: Yes. He's seated to my far left and he's (?) a blue jumpsuit.

Mansillas went back to Mr. Halls residence and showed him the photo, people's 33. Hall identified the individual as 'BJ' and initialed the photo.

DA: Did he indicate what BJ's involvement was?
YM: He was the shooter.
DA: When you showed the photos, where exactly did that happen?
YM: In Mr. Hall's living room.

Mansillas believes Hall's mother and a brother or another relative was there, standing in back of the dining room at Hall's residence.

DA: And when you had that conversation with Hall in the living room with his mother present, were you recording that interview?
YM: Yes.
DA: May I play just briefly, the interview, so the officer (can?) identify the voice, or can we stipulate to the voice?

DDA Akemon plays the audio. Mansillas identifies her voice and Hall's voice on the audio.

DA: Did his mother speak at some point as well?
YM: You can hear her in the background.

Akemon tells the court this is to have her authenticate the voices. This is for under Green, to show the prior inconsistent statements of Mr. Hall.  Sztrachier states he would prefer the audio played in it's entirety.  Judge Marcus states the people can play the (entire?) audio.  I can hear voices in the background on the tape.  It's clear on the tape that Hall identifies Barnes in the photo. In the audio, Halls' mother is concerned that if he's (Barnes) part of a gang.  Mansillas tells Hall's mother that she understands that is a concern of victims.  She tells the mother the department does have emergency funds in case of that.

DA: When having those questions and answers, was that with Mr. Hall about Bryan Barnes?
YM: Yes.

Mansillas states that it was Mr. Hall who made those initials on the photo, BJ and TH.

DDA Akemon asks Mansillas if she interviewed witness ABC.  She did.  Goldman objects.  There is  argument about whether this witness can testify as 115, since the prosecution is going to call witness ABC.  The defense (for Barnes) wants to cross examine her before hand, before witness AB is called. I believe it's Mr. Sztraicher who states he anticipates Ms. ABC will testify differently regarding descriptions of the suspect than what she told Ms. Mansillas.

Judge Marcus rules that the defense will have to call Ms. Mansillas themselves and put her on as their witness. Akemon agrees with the court.  There's more discussion about what witness ABC might say, but since ABC is going to be called and hasn't testified yet, Mansillas can't be cross examined yet, on what Ms. ABC told her, until after Ms. ABC testifies.  It's decided that Ms. Mansillas will be ordered back in a day or so.  Judge Marcus asks if the defense is ready for cross.  Gustavo Sztraicher crosses the witness for Bryan Barnes.

GS: Good afternoon Detective Mansillas. ... You prepared logs in this case?
YM: Notes.
GS: You did actually prepare a police report?
YM: It's called a follow report.
GS: And it's called 'Detective's Case Progress Logs?'
YM: Yes.
GS: Did you enter those notes when the time of the investigation was fresh in your mind?
YM: I try.
GS: And, have you had a chance to review all your detective progress logs prior to testifying today?
YM: I did review them, yes.
GS: Would you like to make any additions?
YM: I did notice that I had made an incorrect notation in my ...
GS: What would that be?
YM: Regarding Hamilton High School and the suspect. ... After clarifying in the hospital with Timothy Hall and what I had documented in my follow up report, I documented that Hall went to Hamilton High School with the suspect. ... In reviewing the recording, he stated he ... the suspect knew him from his banging days when he was in Hamilton High School.
GS: So Mr. Hall never said that he never went to high school with Bryan Barnes. ... Would you like to make any other corrections to your progress logs or follow up (314?) reports?

YM: Okay. I have the (?) in front of me ... progress logs. ... There was an inconsistency in a report where I believe I misstated what Hall had communicated on the interview of the 21st, and that was I believe I had documents that he was more familiar with the brother, verses Bolden.

GS: And is it fair to say your initial progress report said he was more familiar with Barnes? ... And you're saying that is in error. ... (It's true?) Hall said he was more familiar with Bolden?
YM: Correct.
GS: Is there anything else that you would like to correct?
YM: Not at this point.
GS: Directing your attention to your progress log, February 21st, 2012. ... Find it?  You have them? ... Then just find it then I'll ask you a few questions. Let me know when you're ready.
YM: I read it.
GS: Earlier this afternoon, you testified that on February 21st, you showed up to Mr. Halls house, is that correct?
YM: Correct.
GS: And you showed him a photograph today marked people's 32, the group photo. Is that correct?
YM: Yes.

GS: You indicated that, Mr. Hall identified Mr. Javier Bolden in that photograph. Is it fair to say, that Mr. Hall did not identify Bryan  Barnes in that photograph?
YM: Correct.
GS: Is it fair to say that Javier Bolden in people's 32 is the person whose face (he? is?) circled?
YM: Correct.
GS: And to (our?) right of Mr. Bolden, ... Mr. Bolden ... left, is a picture of Bryan Barnes, is that correct?
YM: Yes.
GS: And now, you documented what happened that day in a progress log? ... And while you audio taped several interviews you conducted in this case, you did not audio tape this conversation, correct?
YM: Correct.
GS: And your documentation today, you indicate that, when looking at that photograph, Mr. Hall squinted and looked at Bryan Barnes photo image there, is that right?
YM: Correct.
GS: You said that he squinted (at?) the image that was seated to Mr. Barnes right?
YM: He squinted in general.
GS: He squinted at the whole photograph?
YM: Correct

GS: It appeared to you that he was paying (attention to?) Barnes image on that photograph, or am I wrong?
YM: (Did I document?)
GS: I suggest that you might have implied or documented that ... so did you say that?
YM: No.
GS: So, Mr. Barnes image never came up on February 21st?
YM: When we were talking about Barnes, was not during the time he was viewing the photo.
GS: So Mr. Hall looked at people's 32, he told you that Javier Bolden was in that photograph?
YM: Correct.
GS: And he never said Bryan Barnes was in that photograph?
YM: He said that 'BJ; and Bryan (Shay ?) looked similar but he couldn't tell because of the baseball caps.
JM: What is the significance of that they looked alike? ... He just said that they looked alike?
YM: Yes.
GS: You didn't document that in your progress log?
YM: Correct.
GS: You only documented things that are important or significant?

Detective Mansillas explains that she had two other officers with her that day, and they were doing other business interviews.

YM: I didn't have a recorder on me that day.
GS: What I mean is, you didn't indicate in your detective case progress logs that Mr. Hall commented that 'BJ' and Brian (Shay?) looked alike?
YM: No, I did not.
GS: And you returned to Mr. Hall's home the following day, correct?
YM: Yes.
GS: And you took, ... you showed him one single photograph?
YM: Correct.
GS: As an investigator, it's your job to, to try to get at the truth and not influence anyone in any way?
YM: Correct.
GS: And your (received?) training abut (showing?) protocols regarding showing witnesses photo packs and photograph line ups?
YM: I did receive training, yes.
GS: And did you read Mr. Hall any admonition regarding the photograph you showed him on February 22nd?
YM: I did not.
GS: Are there any protocols regarding LAPD, ... regarding reading admonitions prior to showing witnesses photos?
YM: I have now.

Detective Mansillas states she received her training in showing witnesses photos a couple of months ago.

YM: At the time, I did what I saw other detectives did.
GS: Are you saying you advised Mr. Hall you were there to eliminate or identify someone?
YM: Not in those words.
GS: Isn't it true that the first thing that you said:

Counsel reads from the transcript.

I only brought you one picture today. 

YM: Correct.

Counsel continues reading.

I only brought one picture today. That's because you knew this guy from ...
Um-hum
And you said high school, high school and all the other stuff.

GS: Is that what you said?
YM: Correct.
GS: Would it be fair to say the next thing you said, you were talking to his mother?

I was telling Timothy that he knows who these people are, so he could say, yeah, ... that's who the people are it's going to take five minutes.

GS: Is that what you said?
YM: Correct.
GS: And then you said:

We had that conversation yesterday about how you knew him?

YM: Correct.
GS: (You said:)

His brother, let me find that picture

YM: Correct.

Unfortunately, my notes here are a little difficult to interpret, as to what is part of the question, and what is part of the statements on the transcript. Sztraicher continues going over each statement Mansillas made to Hall.

GS: No where during that (conversation?) did you admonish him you were there to identify or eliminate?
YM: Correct.
GS: You took a photo to him... the only thing you were there with, for him to say if that was the person (you?) were talking about?
YM: Based on our prior conversation.
GS: The first thing that Mr. Hall did, he expressed uncertainly. Isn't that true?
YM: I think he was apprehensive.
GS: (Did he say) Is that him?
YM: The photo was on the coffee table, when he looked and looked at that and leaned forward.

Judge Marcus calls the afternoon break.  During the break, I believe Judge Marcus asks about other witnesses, civilian witnesses that were ordered back today. I believe Judge Marcus asks, "How can we just keep ordering people back?"  I believe the prosecution responds that they will take care of it.

3:14 PM
During the break, the older gentleman who was sitting to my right during testimony speaks about his nephew who was shot. From memory, he was not addressing me directly, but just speaking out loud. I know the LA Times reporter, Jill, sat down beside him and spoke to him. I wrote down what I heard him say.  I had put my laptop down and took notes on my notepad. His niece is a witness that is being order back again.  Here are the rough notes I have as to what the man said.

Shot my nephew three times. ... In the hospital a year later. ... It's her brother lying in the convalescent (hospital? home?).  Second shooting. ... He hasn't spoken in one and a half years. ... Should be dead. 

If the foreign exchange students hadn't got (shot?)  

In talking about the police investigating that shooting the uncle said:

We gave it to them. ... Gave stuff on Facebook ... and they didn't do anything. ... They didn't even. You have it on YouTube.  ... Mason Knight. ... Two shot in one night, 51st & Western.  ... Police didn't do nothing.   Tried to arrest (me?) trying to cross the line. ... I didn't even want to be here ... If they cared they would have taken our statements.  ... Came to the hospital four days later...

The gentleman did not want to give his name.  He said his name was not important.

Judge Marcus and counsel are at sidebar, regarding calling back witnesses. He doesn't want the defendants brought out yet. Now, Ms. D'Onofrio and Mr. Sztraicher are speaking with Bryan Barnes' mother.  Three witnesses are called back. One witness states that she needs a document for her employer that she has to go to court.  The court tells her that they will provide that. One witness is ordered back for tomorrow, another witness for Friday afternoon.

3:24 PM
The defendants are brought out. Their handcuffs are not attached to the chairs they are sitting in. They are kept handcuffed behind.

GS: I was approached by my client's mother who is present in court. She indicated a thing to me. I did not witness any of this (confrontation? information).  She indicated to me she observed the detective communicating to the witnesses family regarding photographs and there is a possible, ... suggesting a witness was given information that happened in court.  ... leave that up to the court to decide.

JM: Sounds really nebulous Mr. Sztraicher. What is it?
GS: She's talking to witness family. She's one of the people involved in the case.  ... I suppose to have the court admonish to not communicate with a witness or transmit information to third parties that might transmit the information to witnesses.
JM: Who did she talk to?
GS: I can inquire further. Because (?) family is already ...

It's Ms. Flowers. Her uncle has been sitting here all day.  I believe the people tell the court. It's the Flower family and that's on a charge that we haven't arrived at yet.  I believe Judge Marcus states, "I don't think you've been given me any broad inquiry ... that they've given them any information is a great leap ... or discuss things in court is a great leap. ... I will do that. You can bring her in."

Detective Carreon and Detective Mansillas reenter the courtroom. Detective Mansillas retakes the stand.  I believe the court addresses the witness.

JM: There is an indication that you are talking to a future witness in this case, and I don't know if you did or if you didn't. You're not allowed to discuss your testimony in this case with any other witnesses and you're not allowed to educate them or give them information that's been presented in this case. We have a no contact order. .... Do you understand? ... what happened ... because it was very vague as to what I was told. I'm telling you that is the rules.
GS: Thank you, your honor.  Detective Mansillas, earlier you testified, I believe during the course of your February 22nd audio tape interview that Mr. Hall said that Bryan Barnes was the shooter.
YM: He referred to him as 'BJ.'

The witness is asked where does Mr. Hall say the word 'shooter.'

YM: In the second interview, no.
GS: Correct. He never said that's the shooter?
YM: He never used those words, no.
GS: In fact...
JM: Where does he say anywhere in the transcript in words or otherwise?  (miss response)

GS: To be clear, isn't it true that all of your interviews with Mr. Hall, he never said he knew the Bryan Barnes ... ?
YM: (no?) ... that's correct.
GS: And he never said that he knew Bryan Barnes' sister?
YM: Correct.
GS: And he never said that he was more familiar with Bryan Barnes' family?
YM: Correct.
GS: And he indicated to you that on February 21st, that the shooter was wearing beige shorts and a white T-shirt?
YM: I think that was brought up during the December 5th interview at the hospital.
GS: And on December 5th, he indicated the shooter was wearing beige shorts and a white T-shirt?
YM: Yes.

GS: Thank you. No further questions.  Ask to strike all the testimony regarding Mr. Hall. Strike all of Ms Mansillas' testimony regarding Mr. Hall identifying Mr. Barnes as the shooter and two, based on the suggestive photo showing that she made where she did not ask Mr. (Hall) ... did not admonish Mr. Hall that he could identify or eliminate ... and I would argue that  and she in fact she told him to say "Yeah, yeah, that's who I was talking about."
JM: I'm not going to do that. ... I'm going to wait until I hear all the evidence. ... I do find that the identify procedures that were done here ... and doesn't comport with identification where you use "six packs" and that's all I'm going to say on the subject.

Ms. Jana Seng gets up to cross on behalf of Javier Bolden.  Ms. Mansillas states that her title is "Officer" not "Detective."

JS: Just want to clarify ... and your earlier statement, testimony had some corrections and you did make while on the stand. ... One of the (corrections?) regards to your interview on February 21st, 2012?
YM: Correct.
JS: Documents in a detective case log?
YM: Correct.

JS: When you said that you spoke with victim Hall at his residence, was that true?
YM: Yes.
JS: And this is your documentation of February 21st? ... And you further said you showed him in respect to the 'No Respect' party crew/gang?  (I believe Ms. Seng used the word "gang." Sprocket.)
YM: Correct.

Ms. Seng goes over the report and each specific thing she wrote.

JS: (You?) further wrote, 'BJ is Bryan Barnes?'
YM: No. That's where I said I had been .... (?) with brothers, and who Hall was more familiar with.
JS: Correcting, rather than Barnes, it should be Bolden?
YM: Yes.
JS: So the correct statement should be he knew Javier Bolden, and his mother's name is Denise (sp?)
YM: Correct.
JS: (You?) further go onto write, 'Hall is more familiar with the shooter,' should be, Hall is more familiar with the shooter's brother and his family. Is that correct?
YM: Yes.
JS: Meaning, that Mr. Hall was more familiar with Javier and his family, is that correct?
YM: Yes.
JS: And that Mr. Hall was not as familiar with the shooter is that correct?
YM: Correct.
JS: And when you presented one photograph to Mr. Hall on February 21st, it was a group photo of the crew...?
YM: Yes.
JS: And when Mr. Hall identified Mr. Javier, he said he was the brother of the shooter?
YM: Correct.
JS: In previous interviews did he ever say that Mr. Bolden was the shooter?
YM: No.
JS: Rather, he said that it was the brother, that was the shooter?
YM: Correct.

JS: In (the) interview on February 21st, did he ever say that it was Javier? ... Did he ever say that when he was getting shot at he saw Mr. Bolden?
YM: No.
JS: When you went back to see him on the 22nd, you brought another photo. Was that because he didn't identify the shooter?
YM: He didn't identify "BJ."
JS: So that's why you went back?
YM: Correct.

JS: Now going back to your conversation with Mr. Hall on December 5th, at the hospital. During your conversation, did he tell you there was ... Did Mr. Hall tell you that his cousin Bam had an argument with an individual named Bobby?
YM: I don't think it was phrased that way. ... I recall him stating that suspects were banging on Bam, and one of them he went to elementary school with.
JS: Did he tell you the party he had attended, that there was a strict dress code enforced?
YM: Yes. ... He said there was a dress code enforced and they were not allowed to wear baseball hats. He explained that people were wearing white T-shirts, but he didn't elaborate.

There is a question I believe, about whether or not Hall told her on December 5th,  that gangs were not allowed but I miss the answer.  Officer Mansillas interviewed Ms. ABC. After that interview, she made an attempt to secure video from a Denny's restaurant.

JS: Another question during the interview with Mr. Hall on December 5th, he indicated to you that there was one shooter, is that correct?
YM: Yes.
JS: And in subsequent interviews that was made to...

I miss the answer and there's one final question that I don't quite get.  The witness is excused and a new witness is called. DDA Akemon presents the witness.

8. LUIS VALLE.
LAPD uniformed officer assigned to the 77th Division.  Patrol officer, five and a half years.


DA: On February 12th, 2012, were you on patrol with Officer Whitfield (sp?)? ... Were you trained at the academy and given a proficiency (test?)?
LV: Yes sir.

The witness received a radio call to respond to 51st Street and Western.  He arrived at 12:29 AM.

LV: We observed a large crowd at 51st and Western Avenue. We approached. I observed a male black lying on 51st Street on the north sidewalk, just west of Western.  ... His head was toward the west and he was motionless. .. His upper body was covered in blood. ... Just west of him another female, black victim.

The female victim was Zanae Flowers. The male victim was Deionce Davance.

DA: Approximately how many people in that crowd?
LV: I'd say about 30 or 40.
DA: He (partner?) was attempting to control the crowd and control the scene.
LV: That's correct.

Photo, people's exhibit 36.  Its a photo of an overhead view of the scene.  DDA Akemon adds that all this testimony goes to count four and count five.  The witness recognizes the area. It's the northwest corner of 51st and Western where the incident took place.  The witness points to streets on the image and identifies them.

LV: The street north south is going to be Western. ... This is 51st Street. It's east west.
DA: So the top would be the north and the (?) side here would be the west. ... Is there a banquet hall in that location?
LV: (Garr Banquet Hall.)

On the corner, there is a transmission shop, J&R Transmission.  He saw a male, black, down and motionless. The witness points to the area in the photo where the person was. Just below J&R Transmission shop is where he indicated.  The female victim was in the alley, just east of a driveway off 51st Street.  The witness is asked to mark on people's 36 where Deionce Davance and Zanae Flowers were found.


DA: Did you see both of the people transported to the ambulance?
LV: Yes.
DA: After the ambulance left, did you further assist at the crime scene location?
LV: Yes.
DA: Were you tasked to canvas other witnesses for evidence and tasked to recover evidence?
LV: Yes.

Akemon goes over Officer Valle's report and the LAPD's DR number assigned to the case. An Officer McGreggor (sp?). Officer McGreggor found a spent ammo casing for a 9 millimeter. McGreggor pointed it out to Officer Valle.  Valle indicates on the image where the casing was found.

DA: Did Sargent Ortega (sp?) assist you in your canvas of evidence? .. Did Sargent Ortega tell you what she found?
LV: She found a life ammo round 9 millimeter.
DA: Did she point that out to you? (miss answer)

DA: Describe on the map where that was.
LV: Found north of the northwest corner, so right here.
DA: Pointing is just where the white sign is for the J&R Transmission Shop.

It's just below that rectangle (sign) just below the word shop on the sidewalk.

DA: Did you designate that as evidence item 2 in your report, DR 12 12 06793?
LV: Yes.
DA: After Sargent Ortega pointed out the live round that was on Western, did she point out another piece of evidence to you?
LV: Yes.  (Spent ammo casing, just near the victim Deionce Davance's body.
DA: Did you also indicate that item as evidence, item #3 and booked it under that DR number?
LV: (Yes.)

The witness marks on the exhibit where evidence items were located by the investigating officers, A 'C' is used to mark where a casing was found and "LR" is used to mark where a live round was found.  The witness is then asked to walk through the items he marked on the photo.  So they recovered two shell casings and one live round.

DA: The two 9 millimeter shell casings, those were pointed out to you by other officers...?
AG: Objection! Leading. (miss ruling)

LV: I recovered those items. I booked those items.
DA: Who booked those items?
LV: I booked those items.

Counsel for Bryan Barnes have no questions.  (This witness goes to count four and count five. Barnes is not charged in those counts. Sprocket.)  Andrew Goldman gets up to cross for defendant Javier Bolden.

AG: I have questions. I don't know this officer's availability. I will have Prop 115 questions of this witness ... We're talking about a Mr. Reece and a Mr. Carver.
JM: Are you calling these witnesses?
AG: No. I think they are impeach witnesses ... I think they impeach what the civilian witnesses (will say).
JM: You want to do it now, or after your witnesses are called? ... So do you have any questions based on what he testified to?
AG: Briefly.

AG: You testified you received the radio call regarding the shooting at approximately 25 minutes after midnight, February 12, 2012?
LV: Yes.
AG: Were you in a black and white?
LV: Yes, I was.
AG: Were you the driver?
LV: I don't recall. I can look at my report.
AG: You were with a partner?
LV: Yes.
AG: And that was Officer Whitfield?
LV: Yes.
AG: And when you responded to the scene, were there any other officers present?
LV: Yes.

AG: Can you approximate how ... first responder cars were there?
LV: I would say thee were about four officers and a (?) at that time.
AG: So, three police vehicles?
LV: That's correct.
AG: And you said there were approximately 30 or 40 people still milling around the area?
LV: That's correct.
AG: And had the area already been secured with crime scene tap?
LV: No.
AG: Were you part of the team that put it up?
LV: I was there when it happened.
AG: In terms of the area, people's 36, how much of that area was secured ... ?
LV: When I arrived there?
AG: When the yellow tape was put up?

The tape went up across the south side of Western past 51st Street. Then took it down just west of the alley on 51st Street, off the photo which would be west of the alley.

AG: And the people milling around, where they inside or outside that area?
LV: They were pretty much everywhere.
AG: You canvased and also spoke to witnesses?
LV: That's correct.
AG: You prepared a police report in connection to the shooting of February 12th, 2012, at approximately 25 minutes after midnight of 51st and Western?
LV: Yes.
AG: Did you review that report prior to testifying in court today?
LV: (Yes.)
AG: Did you find it to be a true and accurate account of events? ... Everything in it true and accurate?
LV: Yes.
AG: In addition to collection of evidence, you testified that you actually collected the evidence and (tagged?) and found the evidence?
LV: Correct.
AG: So you secured, they told you they found something, then you recovered and booked the evidence?

He recovered evidence item 2 and and evidence item 3.  Item 3 had two pieces of evidence; two casings.

AG: In addition to collecting evidence, you also spoke to a number of witnesses that evening?
LV: Correct.
AG: You reviewed your notes regarding those interviews?
LV: Yes.
AG: And those were true and correct regarding those witnesses?
LV: Yes.
DA: No redirect.

Judge Marcus tells the room that he has a hearing all morning on Friday. After Thursday, they would not be able to pick up the prelim back again until probably 2 PM on Friday.   Judge Marcus doesn't think they will get to call this witness before then. Judge Marcus asks if there isn't any way to stipulate to the witnesses that he interviewed.  He then addresses the witness.

JM: Officer Valle, I apologize. We're going to need you on Monday. You're ordered to return to my court.

I believe Judge Marcus has another quick hearing Monday morning. He asks counsel if they are done for today. He has to prepare for the Friday morning hearing again. Orders everyone back at 9 AM tomorrow, then changes his mind and says 8:45 AM to 8:50 AM.

Continued in Day 4.....

Bryan Barnes & Javier Bolden Prelim Day 3, Part II, USC Chinese Grad Students Murers, Ming Qu, & Ying Wu

Continued from Day 3.....

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
I somehow accidentally deleted all my morning notes before court went on the record. DDA Akemon presents the next witness.

5. BRADLEY NIELSON.
LAPD patrol officer with 11 years on the force. He was working the 77th Street area. He now works downtown at OAS.  He works counter-terrorism now. (I believe I have an error in my notes. I have that DDA Akemon asked about the date, April 11th, yet, Officer Nielson responded to a radio call on December 3rd, 2011. Sprocket.)

DA: Did you receive a call?
BN: Yes sir.
DA: Were you alone or with a partner that morning?
BN: With Officer Martin (sp?). He was driving.
DA: What did you do?
BN: Responded to the location and radio call.

Nielson states that the area is mostly commercial structures, barber shops and local businesses. People's exhibit #27, an overhead photo of a street. It's Western Avenue with 89th Street to the north and 91st Street to the south.  With a laser, the witness describes the streets and points them out. Near the corner of 89th and Western, there is a grocery, Superior Market on the northwest corner. Traveling north, that's toward downtown.  South on Western is the Compton area.   The address 8927 S. Western Avenue would be about mid-block. The witness points to the location on the exhibit.

DA: It's on the west side of the street?
BN: Correct sir.
DA: When you arrived at the location, what was the first thing you noticed, if anything?
BN: It looked like a large party had broken up. There were numerous people on the sidewalk. We were directed to a person that was on the sidewalk who had been shot.

New photo, People's exhibit #28, a street view. Nielson explains the photo and points to a business in the middle of the block on the left side of the photo.

BN: This is a photo looking northbound up Western Avenue just south of the location.

DA: When you first arrived, where was the person who was shot?
BN: He was seated in the doorway of 8927 Western.

New photo, Peoples' exhibit #29, a photo of a rolling office chair.

BN: When we first arrived, Mr. Hall was seated in that chair.
DA: Did you look... withdraw. The person in that chair, did you later identify that person as Mr. Timothy Hall? ...
BN: (Yes sir.)
DA: Did you see any injuries on his body?
BN: It immediately captured my attention. ... It appeared he had a gunshot wound (GSW) to his head and to his abdomen.
DA: Was he transported to a hospital?
BN: Yes sir. ... There was bullet casings and some expended bullets that were in the vicinity of the sidewalk at 8927.

New photo, People's exhibit #30, car on the street. It's a photo of the street in front of 8927 and a Ford Expedition parked out in front.

DA: Was the vehicle in front of Mr. Hall, seated outside?
BN: It was very close to it sir.

There were some 9 mm casings and some expended bullets just beside the area. New photo, People's exhibit #31, with red circles already on the photo. It's the same photo as before with the added red circles.

DA: What is in those red circles?
BN: Expended casings and expended bullets.
DA: Did you recover and book into evidence those casings?
BN: Thirteen cases were recovered. ... There were nine, 9 millimeter casings and there were ... the 9 millimeter were in the southbound street. And the 40 millimeter casing were at the entrance way of the door to 8927 S. Western.

Detective Carreon arrives and takes a seat in the well. 40 millimeter casings were directly in the doorway of the business at 8927 S. Western.

Another photo (People's #32?). I can see the placards on the ground near the chair. The witness explains:

BN: Those are "FI" cards placed over the cartridge casings on the sidewalk of S. Western Avenue.

Nielson took the casings into evidence and booked them into evidence all under the same DR number (DR 11 12-27926). The 9 millimeter casings were booked into evidence as item number 1.  40 millimeter casings as item number 2.

Direct is finished and defense attorney Gustavo Sztriacher gets up to cross the witness on behalf of defendant Bryan Barnes.

GS: Good morning officer Nielson.
BN: Good morning.
GS: You prepared a police report in this matter?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: Does it accurately document the investigation?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: Did you review the report to this day? ... Would you like to make any corrections to that report before we proceed?
BN: No sir.

Nielson was one of the first patrol officers to arrive. He was in a black and white. He and his partner secured the scene. He took the photos that they saw and he personally recovered items that were just shown.  He searched the areas for possible evidence.

GS: How many officers responded to that location when you were there?
BN: I'd say, maybe fifteen or twenty, sir.
GS: How long did that investigation take before you packed up and left?
BN: Hour; hour and a half.
GS: Did any other officer search for evidence?
BN: Like get evidence and hand it to me sir? .. No sir.
GS: You find nine shell casings that were 9 millimeter. Where those Remington?
BN: I believe they were just R-P sir.
GS: Those were found in the street by the Ford Exposition?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: You also found four, 40 caliber. Those were Smith & Wesson shell casings?
BN: I believe they're marked S&W.

They were found by the front door.

BN: Recovered ... not sure if lead projectile or copper jacket. They were, one by the chair and two others were in the vicinity of the gray Expedition.
GS: Did anyone tell you how many guns that were involved that night?
BN: The information we got was that there were two different people that fired guns that night.
GS: When you arrived, Mr. Hall was sitting in a chair outside the business?
BN: Yes.

Nielson interviewed Mr. Hall.

GS: At first he said he was shot by someone that was unknown to him?
BN: Yes sir.

GS: He told you that he didn't know he knew the shooter? ... He did not tell you he did not know the shooter's mother? ... He did not know the shooter's sister?

DA: Objection! This is beyond the scope. (miss ruling)
GS; Mr. Hall never told you that he knew Javier Bolden?
BN: No sir.
GS: Did Mr. Hall ever tell you that he had partied (with?) Mr. Barnes (previously?)?
BN: No sir.
GS: Did Mr. Hall ever tell you he had partied with Mr. Bolden?
BN: No sir.
GS: At some point in time, LAFD rescue ambulance arrived?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: And they transported Mr. Hall to the hospital?
BN: That's correct.

Bryan Barnes' mother arrives and takes a seat in the gallery.  She sits in the second bench row, far to the left.

I believe Mr. Sztraicher tells the court that there's a line of questioning he intends to ask Mr. Nielson regarding interviews conducted by other officers that went to the hospital with Mr. Hall.  However, given this officer's status, Sztraicher tells the court he believes it will be inconsistent to testimony that will be elicited later that is inconsistent. And from officer to Mr. Nelson and come in under Prop 115.

JM: Do the People have anything to say?
DA: It's definitely hearsay.
JM: The first one would be an inconsistent statement. I have to take that on faith; I haven't heard Mr. Hall testify yet.  Assume that's correct, then the second (proffer? proof?), the actual ... what he told him, that would, would be under Prop. 115.  It appears to meet all exceptions to the hearsay law. I think  you're sort of agreeing, so you may continue. (Akemon agrees.)

GS: Officer Nielson, did you speak with officer (Hyre?) and or (Digangi?) prior to your police report?

I believe Judge Marcus states the court reporter needs the spelling of the names. Chairez; Digangi. (I believe I have those spellings correct. Sprocket.)

GS: Officer, did you have an opportunity to speak to Chairez and or Digangdi prior to preparing your police report? ... Did they inform you of their interview with Mr. Hall? ... Did they tell you they went to the hospital and interview Mr. Hall? ... Did they tell you that Mr. Hall tol them that he did not know the suspect who shot him?
BN: Correct.
JM: I have to interject. It's not a big deal to me. We're not going to ... who told ... who actually said what.

GS: Who is it you spoke to regarding the interview?
BN: Officer Chairez.
GS: Officer Chairez told you of the substance of that interview? ... Mr. Chairez told you that he did not know the suspect who shot hm? ... Officer Chairez told you that Hall had no other information about the person who shot him? ... Is that correct?
BN: Correct.
GS: Officer Chairez never told you that Hall told him that he knew the shooter's family?
BN: That's correct, sir.
GS: Officer Chairez told you that Hall never said he knew the shooter's mother? ... Officer Chairez told you that Hall never said he knew the shooter's sister? ... Officer Chairez never indicated Hall knew Javier Bolden in any way?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: Officer Chairez, he did not, ... never indicated that Hall said that he had ever partied with Mr. Barnes? ... And during your conversation with Officer Chairez, he never indicated that Hall ever indicated that Hall ever partied with Mr. Bolden? (miss answers)

Mr. Sztraicher continues.

GS: The following I'm going to ask Officer Nielson regarding an interview conducted with a witness who has not testified yet. May I attend to extract statements prior to..
JM: Who is that, this witness?
GS: Ms. ABC. (This witness has contacted me and requested her name be removed from T&T. I have chosen to honor that request. Sprocket.)

JM: And your thinking that the statements may be inconsistent? Others are offered pursuant to Prop 115.  ... Problem is, you don't get to offer it if the witness doesn't testify. So I need a better explanation. If she isn't going to testify.
GS: I can limit my examination to those items that will be inconsistent with testimony.

Judge Marcus makes notes that if there's a problem, he will strike the testimony an it will not be part of the prelim.

GS: Were you present when Ms. ABC was interviewed on December 3rd, 2011?
BN: Yes sir. ... I spoke with Ms. ABC, sir.
GS: Ms. ABC, did you refer to her as Ms. ABC-D?
BN: That's how she identified herself to me.
GS: She indicated she was present at the party?
BN: Yes sir.

Judge Marcus asks to check the date of December 3rd, to ensure he has the right date.  Someone answers, "You did, your honor."

GS: She indicated to you that, um, by way of foundation, that she was inside the party?
BN: That's correct. ... She said that a fight broke out inside the party?
GS: More than one person was fighting inside the party?
BN: That's correct.

GS: She indicated to you that she had gone out from the outside the party for reasons altogether different  from the fight?
BN: I don't recall her telling me why she left the party.
GS: She was outside when the shooting occurred, is that correct?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: She told you that it looked as though the shooter and the person who was shot appeared to be about to engage in a fight?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: And she told you, Ms. ABC told you that, the suspect walked to a red Camaro, is that correct?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: The person walked to a red Camaro prior to any shooting occurred?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: After it appeared, the suspect and the person who was shot, appeared to engage in a fight and then, and only then did the shooter walk to a red Camaro?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: Ms. ABC told you she couldn't tell you what type of gun it was?
BN: Correct sir.

GS: She told ... Ms. ABC told you subsequently, she saw some shooting?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: When you interviewed Ms. ABC, she never told you the name of the shooter?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: She didn't tell you ... told you she had ever been contacted by the shooter prior to December 3rd, 2011?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: Ms. ABC never told you that she had been in Facebook contact with the shooter prior to December 3rd, 2011?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: Ms. ABC never told you that she'd ever received a text message from the shooter prior to December 3rd, 2011?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: Ms. ABC never told you she ever had contact with the shooter prior to December 3rd, 2011?
BN: That's correct.
GS: Officer Nielson, Ms. ABC provided a description of the shooter to you?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: She told you the shooter was a male, black?
BN: Correct.
GS: The shooter's height was five feet, five inches?
BN: That's correct.
GS: Ms. ABC told you he was approximately 16 to 18 years old?
BN: That's correct.
GS: Ms. ABC told you he was wearing a gray hooded sweater?
BN: Correct, sir.
GS: He was wearing long dark pants?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: She told you she could provide no further information regarding the shooter?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: And sir, Ms. ABC told you she observed, she observed a second shooting from the doorway?
BN: Yes sir.

Mr. Sztraicher pauses then tells the court, "No more questions."  Ms. Jana Seng gets up to cross the witness on behalf of Javier Bolden.

JS: Following off on Officer Nielson ... Ms. ABC told you that she did not know the man who was firing from the doorway?
BN: That's correct, mam.
JS: The only thing was, it was a male, no other description?
BN: Correct mam.
JS: Ms. ABC also told you that or she made it clear to you that there were two shooters involved?
BN: Correct mam.
JS: She never indicated that there was a third shooter? ... She never indicated that, she only mentioned two? ... She never mentioned the name Javier Bolden?
BN: Correct mam.
JS: She never indicated ... she saw anyone shooting from a red Camaro?
BN: That's correct mam.
JS: she told you that the red Camaro was parked directly behind the SUV, is that correct?
BN: I'm not sure about directly behind. It was in the vicinity of that.
JM: Vicinity of what?
BN: I'm sorry, sir. Your honor, it was in the vicinity of the rear of the Expedition.

JS: I want to redirect you to People's 30. ... Is that a photo of the SUV?

Ms. Seng approaches the witness with the actual photo. DDA Akemon gets up to stand by his witness to observe everything Ms. Seng shows the witness.

BN: Yes mam.
JS: Can you tell me where the doorway of 8927 S. Western Avenue is?
BN: I believe it is the doorway by the left side of the scene.

The witness identifies where the door is in the photo in relation to the SUV.

JS: The doorway appears to have light coming out of the window is that correct?
BN: Yes mam.

DDA Akemon returns to the prosecution table.

JS: Officer Nielson, what time did you arrive to the location of 8927 S. Western?
BN: Approximately 0030 hours.
JS: Can you tell me how much time it took you to arrive at that location after receiving the regular call?
BN: I'm not sure mam.
JS: Can you give an estimate for the time you received the radio call to the time you arrived? ... Was it within minutes?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: So it was very quick?
BN: I believe so.

There is a question about where the yellow crime scene tape was placed, and what areas were closed off.

BN: I don't know if we closed all of Western, or if we closed just the south bound lane.
JS: But you did close some of Western?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: You said that you observed on ... several casings directly in front of the doorway of 8927 S. Western, is that correct?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: And where those 40 caliber casings you observed?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: And you observed one expended bullet as well on the sidewalk?
BN: Yes mam.  There was one expended bullet from where the 40 caliber casings were.
JS: And the casings you observed were in the vicinity of the SUV Expedition, previously shown in People's 30?
BN: Yes mam.

JS: It was ... you indicated it was a 9 millimeter casing on the ground in addition to spent bullets as well? .. And that those were discovered to the rear of the SUV, the back of the SUV?
BN: To the rear and to the side.
JS: Not in the front of the SUV?
BN: I don't believe so, mam.
JS: Not to the right of the SUV?
BN: I don't believe so, mam.

JS: Did you find bullet casings that a (third?) gun had been involved in the shooting?
DA: Objection! Speculation. (miss ruling)
JS: You didn't find any other casings other than the 9 millimeter and the 40 millimeter? ... You didn't find any other type, other than those two types?
BN: That's correct.
JS: You didn't find any other casings towards the north area of Western Ave?

This would be 89th Street.

BN: No mam.
JS: All the casings you observed on the scene that night you had secured by placing your FI cards over them?
BN: Yes mam.
SJ: You did not notice or did not see any strike marks in the SUV did you?
BN: I don't remember if the SUV had strike marks or not.
SJ: You did not see it?
BN: I don't recall, mam.
SJ: That would have been something that you had noted if had seen bullet holes?
BN: I'm not sure mam.
JS: That (?) would be relevant to (?) shooting if there was a bullet strike on the car?
BN: I'm not sure mam.
JS: Would you consider that to be evidence of a shooting?
BN: I think the evidence of the shooting is the cartridge casings and the bullets.

JS: I'm not asking about (?) I'm asking about strike marks. You were trained at the academy?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: You were trained to collect evidence in (investigations?) ... ?

Another question about what he didn't find. I stop taking notes for a bit. My fingers are tired.

JM: He hasn't indicated if he looked at the truck to see strike marks. Did you?
BN: I don't recall sir.
JS: In those photographs you took, it shows the Expedition, is that right?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: In your report, you didn't note any strike marks in the Expedition?
BN: That's correct.
JS: You didn't notice any strike marks on buildings?
BN: That's correct.
JS: Thank you. Nothing further.

DDA Akemon redirects his witness.

Akemon directs his witness to People's 27, the aerial photograph.  It's a Google® map photo. Officer Nielson did not take that photograph. People's 28 is a Google® map street view photo, that Officer Nielson did not take either.

DA: When you interviewed Mr. Hall, where did that take place?
BN: I spoke to him while he was seated in the chair.
DA: What was his condition?
BN: His medical ... ?
DA: Lets start with that.
BN: His medical condition was poor. He was kind of laid back, semi conscious. Not talking and just looked like he was in a lot of pain.
(Unknown) Objection! Motion to strike, "He was semi conscious," Lack of foundation.
JM: I'll allow it. ... It goes to weight.
DA: Did you ask Mr. Hall who shot him? ... How did he respond to that?
BN: I don't remember if he verbally said, or if he shook his head.
DA: What was his level of cooperation?
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: Sustained.

DA: Was he doing back springs?
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: Sustained.
DA: How long have you been assigned to 77th?
BN: Ten years.
DA: How many shootings? ... you've been involved in ... those shootings?
BN: A lot sir.
DA: What is the level of cooperation of shooting victims?
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: Sustained.
DA: Were there other people present when you interviewed Mr. Hall?
BN: There were people who were trying to administer aid to him ... apply pressure ... two or three.
DA: How long was the interview?
BN: It was brief.

DA: Where did the interview with Ms. ABC take place?
BN: She was waiting next to a vehicle, a police vehicle ... Her interview was brief. ... I think she had a friend that was with her.

There are more questions about what Ms. ABC said about the red Camaro, or whether her friend could hear her interview conversation.  Redirect ends and Mr. Sztraicher gets up to recross.

GS:Was Ms. ABC ... appear to be intoxicated?
BN: I don't remember if she appeared to be intoxicated.
GS: Did Mr. Hall appear to be intoxicated?
BN: I could not tell.
GS: Did she tell you the color of hair of the shooter?
BN: No sir.
GS: How many people would you estimate were outside of the shooting when you arrived?
BN: Um, outside? I'd say probably 25 to 50 sir.
GS: Would you describe the lighting conditions when you arrive?
BN: It was dark sir.
GS: How close was a street lamp to 8927 ... ?
BN: I don't know sir.

My notes are not clear, but I believe Ms. Seng performs the following recross.

JS: During your time at the crime scene, did you receive information to look out for two suspects  in a (?)... ?
BN: I'm not sure mam.
JS: Would looking at an instant recall report assist your recollection?
BN: Yes mam.

A document is handed to the witness. Judge Marcus instructs the witness that he doesn't want him to read the document into the record. He explains the purpose of reading the document back is only to refresh his memory.  "Does that make sense?" Judge Marcus asks the witness, who replies, "Yes, your honor."  DDA Akemon reads the document presented to his witness.

JS: Does that instant recall report refresh your memory?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: do you recall the (?) case that there was two suspects?
DA: Objection! Hearsay.
(JS?) Goes to state of mind.
JM: It doesn't go to the truth of the matter. The only way it goes in is to help explain what he may have done. ... If you're not using for that purpose then it's wasting the courts time.

JS: One of the descriptions was an individual (?) ... Want to ask him if he asked for an individual ...

There is some argument among the parties as to what Ms. Seng can ask.  Judge Marcus muses, "But if you didn't look for anybody..."

JM: Did you go look for anybody?
BN: No, your honor.
JM: At the scene, were you looking for any suspects?
BN: At the scene, we have to be careful of anyone trying to shoot us.
JM: I'm going to change my ruling. I'm going to sustain the objection.

JS: Where were you when you interviewed Ms. ABC?
BN: I'm not certain, but I believe we were in the street by a police vehicle.
JS: Was it by her vehicle?
BN: I'm not sure mam.
JS: Did she indicate where her vehicle was?
BN: I'm not sure.  ... I can't remember where Ms. ABC's vehicle was.
JS: Nothing further.

JM: Any further redirect? ... Is there anything you can tell me about the demeanor of Ms. ABC when you were interviewing her? Was she hysterical or calm?
BN: She was calm. She was pretty manner of fact about what she was telling me.
JM: May witness be excused?  ... Is it detective?
BN: It's Officer.

Andrew Goldman asks for a break.  There is another reporter I don't recognize on their laptop and the young reporter with the Times is to my left.

JM: Who is our next witness?
DA: Timothy Hall.

The witness, a young black man, is wearing a white shirt, black pants and what might be diamond looking earrings in both ears. He has very close cropped hair.  There is a discussion as to whether or not the court appointed counsel needs to be here or not.  I'm not sure if my next note is correct. I have Judge Marcus saying, There could be a possibility in the (stars?). He says he will just wait in case he gets a call.

DDA Akemon presents the witness, Timothy Hall.

6. TIMOTHY HALL.
Judge Marcus instructs the witness.

DA: How old are you?
TH: 22.
DA: December 3rd, 2011, were you at a party ... 8927 S. Western, in the county of Los Angeles?
TH: Yeah.
DA: Did you go to the party with anyone?
TH: I partied ... my cousin.
DA: What's your cousin's name?
TH: Bam.

The cousin's real name is Solomon Barnett.

DA: What time did you get to the party? ... About what time?
TH: If I can remember exactly, about 10. It was close to midnight.
DA: How did you get there?
TH: My cousin's car. ... I rode with him.
DA: When you arrived did you go inside?
TH: Yes.
DA: When you were there, did something unusual happen?
TH: My chain came up missing. ... Someone must of taken it. ... I was in a circle of conversation. ... they crept up to me and snatched it at my neck.

The witness states there were more than 100 people at the party.

DA: When your chain got snatched (what did you do?)?
TH: I got ready to leave. ... I was angry because someone had pulled my chain out. ... I was walking out. .. I was going to the car. ... I start hearing shots.
DA: Where were the shots coming from?
TH: Behind me. .. At first, ... only heard about two, three shots.
DA: What happened after that.
TH: I took off running.
DA: Where did you run?
TH: In the street. ... I kept heading ... the street ... I just played possum. .... I thought everything was over. ... I started to walk back to the party. That's when I realized I got shot.
DA: How many times did you get shot?
TH: Eight.

DDA Akemon stops the witness and asks him to go over all his gunshot wounds, starting at the head.
The first gunshot wound the witness talks about is the right side of his head, in his temple area.

DDA Where were you?
TH: I was in the midst of running. ... I don't know when the bullet hit my head. ... I know it just hit me. ... It grazed my head but it gave me a slight concussion.
(Unknown) Objection! Hearsay. ... that it gave him a concussion. (miss ruling)

DA: Did you get stitches or (sutures?)
TH: How many? I don't know. I just know it was a lot.

The next injury that's discussed was to his right shoulder.

DA: Please describe the injury to your right shoulder.
TH: There was just a big chunk missing.

This wound was like a graze. Hall got stitched, but he doesn't remember.  There were two gunshot wounds to his stomach.

JM: Pointing to the right side, four inches from his waist line.
DA: That's accurate.
JM: Lower quadrant of his stomach, right side.
DA: So you had two bullet wounds to your right side.

These bullets were removed. They didn't exit the body. The next injury is to his rib.

JM: Pointing to his right side and ribcage.
DA: By the way, when the two (gunshot wounds) to the stomach. Where were you when you were running?
TH: I was on the sidewalk.
DA: When you came out of the club, when was the first time you knew (you were hit?)?
TH: I didn't know I was hit until all the shooting was over. ... When I got up and all the adrenaline was rushing. ... When I hear someone said someone got shot in the head.

There's an objection. Judge Marcus allows the statement to stand.

DA: You indicated right side (of your?) rib. Did that bullet go inside your body?
TH: They had to remove that one also.
JM: I'm going to allow that one. Objection over ruled.

DA: What was the next gunshot wound?
TH: One to my back.
DA: Please stand up and show. 

The witness points to his right side, very close to the waist, right lower back, possibly right kidney area.

JM: I'll accept that.
DA: What was next?
TH: My right upper thigh. ... On the inside.
DA: Did that bullet go inside your body?
TH: That was removed also.
DA: What was the next gunshot wound your suffered?
TH: My (anus?).
DA: Did that bullet go inside you ... ?

This bullet was also removed during surgery. DDA Akemon adds up the injuries and Hall verifies those are all eight of his wounds.

DA: When you were shot, and you're (laying? down?) ... you were shot, what did you do?
TH: I panicked. ... The first think I did was to try to call 911 because I had blood running down my face, I couldn't see good. ... I didn't want to sit down. ... My adrenaline was running. I was scared. I was scared for my life. ... Someone called 911 and I heard the ambulance ... everything ... coming up  Western.
DA: Did the ambulance come and help you? ... Did you get into the ambulance?

TH: I went into surgery.
DA: How long were you in the hospital?
TH: I can't be exact, but it was about a week.
DA: Do you have anything left over from your gunshot wounds today?
TH: Yes sir.
DA: (What's that?)
TH: I have to go to the surgery last year around this time for a bowel obstruction because the (?) had ripped up the colon, and my intestines they had to remove 16 inches of my colon. ... What I was eating caused a bowel obstruction.
DA: Are you walking okay?
TH: Yes.
DA: Any other problems?
TH: Just my back.
(Unknown) Objection!  Your honor. (miss ruling)
(Unknown) So he has some back pain.
TH: It's just me bending, since I work now, so standing for long periods of time, it would cramp up or tighten up when it's also real cold.

DA: Who shot you?
TH: My back was turned. ... Social media told me... My back was turned because I was running.
DA: Did you see any part of the person who was shooting?
TH: No.
DA: Did you see what race that person (was?)?
TH: Most of the party was black, so...
DA: Did you see...
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: I'll strike that answer.
DA: Did you see what sex that person was?
TH: No.
DA: When you went to the hospital .... When you were seated in that chair .... Did you sit down in a chair in front of the party?

The witness denies sitting in a chair in front of the event, or he doesn't remember.

DA: Did you at any time, sit in a chair in front of the party?
TH: No.
DA: ... Direct your attention to a photograph. Do you recognize whats in the photo?
TH: Yes. Those are my clothes that were ripped off. ... If I'm not mistaken, that's my T-shirt that they cut off of me. ... Yeah, that's my t-shirt.

DDA Akemon zooms in on the image of the chair to see the clothing better.

DA: Were you seated in that chair?
TH: Yeah, that's when they cut my clothing off me. ... I didn't want to sit down. They forced me to sit down.
DA: That's when they ....

TH: I told them I wasn't sure who shot me because my back was turned.
DA: At that party, do you see anyone here that was also at the party? ... Is there anyone that you recognize besides me?
TH: Javier Bolden. ... We went to school together.

The witness identifies Javier Bolden for the record.

DA: When did you first meet Mr. Bolden?
TH: Years ago ... I don't remember. ... We've known each other for a while.
DA: Can you give me an estimate for the number of years?
TH: I'd say about three or four.
DA: When did you first meet Mr. Bolden?
TH: High school.
DA: What grade were you in?
TH: I had just left high school.
JM: What grade were you in when you met him?
TH: I was a junior in ... He was a year behind me. (So he was a year younger?)
DA: When inside the party, where did you first see Mr. Bolden?
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: Sustained! He didn't say that yet.
DA; Did you see him at the party?
TH: No.
DA: Did you see anybody inside the party that had any tattoos?
TH: Everybody had tattoos.
DA: Did you see anyone that had a tattoo on his knee? ... Do you recall someone in the party that, someone had a tattoo on his knee?

I believe the witness answers no to all of the above questions.

DA: Have you heard the term FUCK NAPS? ... Do you know what it means?
TH: Yes.
DA: Did you see anyone at the party that had that tattoo on their knee?
TH: No.
DA: Did you tell ... Do you remember you telling the police officer when you were in the chair ... (talked to a police officer?
TH: I don't remember.

The witness does remember talking to a police officer. It was a few days later, when he was under medication.

DA: Do you remember talking to officers who were in standard blue uniforms?
TH: I remember police officers coming into the hospital, but they were not in uniform.
DA: Did they appear to be detectives?
TH: Yeah.
DA: Did they come to interview ... after you had surgery?
TH: Yeah, the ones ...
DA: How long after surgery did the detectives come to talk to you?
TH: About my second or third day after surgery ... because I was rushed into surgery from the ambulance.
DA: When you discussed ... with those detectives, was it at the hospital? ... Was it in the hospital room?
TH: Yes.
DA: Did you know your conversation was being recorded?
TH: Yes.

DA: Did you give them some information...?
TH: Yes.
DA: Was your father and mother present?
TH: Yes.
DA: Were two detectives present?
TH: Yes.

The detectives had asked questions about what happened at the party and who was present.

DA: At that time, did you tell them anything about what you knew who shot you?
TH: I told them that I was told who shot me from multiple sources, who could have been the shooter.
DA: After that interview, a couple of months later, did a woman detective show you some Facebook photos to see if you could identify who shot you?
TH: Yeah.
DA: Did you give her some information at that point?
TH: I really don't remember what I told her. It was so long ago. ... I don't.
DA: After you were with that detective, and you looked at photos, and gave you some information, did she come back with more Facebook photos ... ?
TH: Just one.
DA: Did you give her some information about who shot you?

DA: How do you feel about testifying in this case?
TH: Nervous.
DA: Why are you feeling nervous?
TH: I've never ha to do anything like that. It's not normal for me.
DA: Are you concerned at all ... concerned about being a snitch?
(Unknown) Objection! Leading.
TH: Snitch? No.
JM: I'll have to sustain the phrasing.

DA: When you were interviewed in the hospital room, you were interviewed ... You were interviewed in the hospital, do you recall that?
TH: Yes.
DA: There were two uniformed officers who interviewed... do you recall that at all?
TH: No.

The witness states he only remembers the second time, when there was a female detective and his parents were there.

DA: You told them that your chain ... Didn't you tell them that the shooter went to school with you?
(Unknown) Objection! Leading.
TH: I don't remember that.
DA: Do you run with a gang or party crew?
TH: I used to but not any more.
DA: What was that.
TH: Inn Ink.

(I had this spelling verified. Sprocket. Inn Ink Facebook Page.)

DA: You said that you weren't concerned about being labeled a snitch ...

It was Hall's father that didn't want him to be involved in this case.

TH: I mean, he has to do what .... I have to do what is right for me. So...
DA: So when you were issued (a subpoena) to be at court last week, .... because your dad told you not to come ... so it was out of fear?

The morning break is called. After the break is over, Hall explains why he ignored a subpoena to be at court on September 25th.

DA:  ... left off with being afraid...
TH: Because for one my dad didn't want me to participate and two because I was fearful for myself.
DA: Why are you fearful for yourself?
TH: Just personal reason. The thought of the name the snitch will come to mind and I had never really had to deal with nothin' like this.

When the witness didn't show up at court he was picked up and put in jail for a little while.

DA: Going back to the shooting. Did you see the person who shot you?
TH: No. I was running.
DA; when you were interviewed by detectives in the hospital, did you give them information about the shooter?
TH: I don't know. I told them I was told.
DA: Did they give you names from high school?
TH: They gave me names.
DA: Do you recall talking to them about someone from your high school days?
TH: No, I don't remember that.
DA: Would it help your memory if you looked at the transcript of the recording of that conversation? Page 6 of the interview with Mr. Hall, with Detectives Mendoza (sp?) and Mansillas.

GS: Objection! You're going to start on page 5?
DA: Why don't we start on page 5, line 28, and see if that refreshes...

Judge Marcus appears to be reading the transcript.  I think that's what we are waiting for.

DA: Do you recall telling the detectives as knowing the man who shot you was from your high school days?

Hall states he has no memory of that. Akemon asks him if going over the transcript will help him remember.  There's an objection by both defense teams.  Same problem.

DA; I asked the witness if he remembered saying "The dude, whomever he was, I knew in high school." Does that refresh your memory about what you told detectives?
TH: I don't remember saying (that?).
DA: So did you say that to police?

Looking at the transcript does not refresh his memory.

TH: No.
DA: Do you remember saying that the man who shot you was someone who was in tenth grade when you were in eleventh?
TH: I don't remember saying that.
DA: You do remember the shooting. ... You remember telling them that someone snatched your chain off.  .. When you came out of surgery, how many people told you about what happened?
TH: I don't remember. There were so many.
DA: When you were talking to detectives, do you remember telling (them?) you knew the shooter?
TH: No.

He doesn't remember.

DA: Do you... you don't recall saying that?
TH: No.

The transcript does not refresh his memory.

DA: You said there were people in your hospital room that told you who shot you. ... ?
TH: There were so many people there, who said they were there, who saw the shooter.
DA: And those conversations happened in your hospital room?
TH: Yes.
DA: How many people in your ... hospital room told you who shot you?
TH: It was many.
DA: Can you tell me, was it less than ten or more than ten?
TH: I don't remember. ... I had countless people.
DA: What were the names of the people who told you in your hospital room who told you who shot you?
TH: I don't remember.
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: Sustained.
DA: How long (have?) you known Mr. Bolden?

The witness shrugs his shoulders.

TH: Three or four years.
DA: During that three or four year period have you seen Mr. Bolden before?
TH: (At) parties.
DA: On about how many occasions have you seen Mr. Bolden?
TH: Three or four times. We don't mess with the same people.
DA: During those times, did you get to know him?
TH: We was friends, we didn't....
DA: During that time frame, did you come to know who his brother was?
TH: No.
DA: Did you know if he had a foster brother or not?
TH: No.
DA: Did you come to know the names of his family?
TH: No.
DA: When you were in the hospital room, do you remember telling detectives that you were shot with Javier's brother's gun?
TH: No sir.
DA: Did you tell police in the hospital room that you know his brother and that he always had a gun?
TH: I never knew that he had a brother.
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: If you're going to object, you must give me the evidentiary reason. (miss ruling)

DA: When you were talking to detectives...
JS: Objection! He already testified that he learned form friends and social media.
JM: I don't know that the DA has to accept that. Objection over ruled.
DA: When talking to detectives in your hospital room do you remember telling them you were shot with his brother's gun?
GS: Objection!
JM: Over ruled.
DA: You testified earlier that you ... unable to tell us what the shooter was wearing?
TH: I don't know who the shooter was. My back was to him and I was running.
DA: Do you recall telling detectives in the hospital, information about what the shooter was wearing?
TH: (No.)
DA: Would it refresh your memory if you looked at a transcript?
TH: It's been too long. I was in the hospital and under medication.

I believe there is another objection. Judge Marcus responds, "I don't see anything about clothing. Am I missing something here?"  Judge Marcus is informed that there is a problem with the pagination of this transcript too.  The court is given a corrected copy.

JM: This is quite different. Thank you.
DA: May I attempt to refresh his memory?
JM: Sure. You want to show him something?
DA Page 21 line 19.

Judge Marcus instructs the witness to pleas read the transcript to himself.

DA: Does that refresh your memory about what you told the detective about what the defenant was wearing?
TH: No.
DA: When you were interviewed by police in the hospital room, do you recall telling them about where the shooter was when you got shot?
TH: No. Like I said, that whole thing was pretty much a blur. I was so doped up under the medication, I don't remember most of it.
DA: So if I show you your transcript and show you line by line will that assist you in your meory or not?
TH: No.

The bailiff tells a woman in the gallery to put her phone away.

DA; When you were in the hospital room with detectives, you told them that when you walked outside the shooter was waiting for you?
TH: No. I don't rememer that.
DA: You told detectives in that interview, the shooter chased you around and you ran. (miss answer)

DA: Do you remember telling the detectives that the shooter chased you around and shot you? ... You told the detectives that you were shot in the stomach?
TH: Yeah.
DA: You told the detective that the shooter went to school with you?

The witness shakes his head no.

DA: You told the detective that the shooter was present at the party with his brother and that his brother had a tattoo on his knee that said: FUCK NAPS.

I believe the witness either says no or has no memory of that.

DA: You told the detective that the shooter and his brother were always together?
TH: No.
DA: You told detectives in that interview that the shooter's brother always has a gun?
TH: No, I don't remember that.
DA: You told detectives in that hospital ... in that interview, that you know the shooter's brother from parties?
TH: I don't know anything about a brother.
DA: But you told detectives that you knew the shooter's brother from parties?
TH: No, I don't remember. ... The whold interview was a blur, it was so long ago.
DA: You told detectives in that interview that the brother goes by (Actie or something Active?)?
TH: No.
DA: You told the detectives that you went to Hamilton with the brother?
TH: No.
DA: I thought you testified earlier that you went to Dorsey? Did you go to Hamilton or Dorsey?
TH: I went to both.
DA: You told detectives that you were in the 10th grade and the shoother was in the 9th grade?
TH: No.
DA: Your father was in the interview and do you remember your father telling detectives...?
TH: No, I don't. ... I just remember him going off on the detective.

DA: In that interview in that hospital room, did anyone give you the name of the shooter?
TH: No.
DA: Nobody gave you that name?
TH: No.

DA: After that interview, were you interviewed again, a couple of months later, by a woman detective?
TH: Yes.
DA: Do you know what that detective's name is?
TH: I don't know her name. I just know she's from the 77th Division.
DA: When that woman detective interviewed you, did she show you some photographs?
TH: (Yes.)
DA: Tell us what the officer showed you.
TH: It was group photos.
DA: Where were you when she showed that to you?
TH: I was at home.
DA: Did she ask you wheter you could identify who  was involved in the shooting?
TH: I told her that nobody in the photo looked familiar to me.

DA: Did you tell her that you recognized Javier Bolden?
TH: No, not from that photo.
DA: You don't remember telling her whe you looked at the group photo, you identified Javier Bolden?

I believe the witness tells the judge it was two groups of photographs and that he identified (Bolden?) in another photo.

People's exhibit #32. Photograph. It's a group photo of about 12 people in the photo.  DDA Akemon directs his attention to the photo on the overhead screen.

DA: Do you recognize the photo?
TH: That's the photo she showed me.
DA: That's the photo that the woman detective showed you at your house that day?
TH: Did you tell her anything about that photo?
TH: This is the photo where I told her I knew Javier.
DA: Javier Bolden?
TH: Yeah.

The witness is asked to point out Javier Bolden in the courtroom.

DA: Mr. Hall sir, I'm going to put this group photo in front of you. Please put a circle around where Mr. Bolden is in this photograph.

Judge Marcus states for the record that the witness circles the man.  The witness clarifies that the circled person in the photo is Javier.  The witness is asked if that's the person he identified in court today.  Hall replies, "Yes."

DA: Did you tell the detective that you knew Mr. Bolden and you pointed him out to her? ...Do you remember telling her about what the person's relationship was to the person who shot you?
TH: No.
DA: During the interview with the woman detective, do you remember telling her that Javier was the brother of the shooter and that you knew him as 'BJ?"
TH: No.

DA: Do you recall saying anything to her about knowing about being familiar with the shooter and his family?
TH: No.
DA: After you looked at this group photograph, and you pointed at Mr. Bolden, did the detective leave ... ?
TH: Yes she did. She only came to the door.

DA: Did she ask you if you recognized anybody else? ... Did you recognize anybody else?
TH: No.
DA: Did the detective come back the next day?
TH: No.
DA: Did the detective come back at all?
TH: Not that I recall. ... No, I just remember her coming once. ... I think it was February, I'm not sure.

DA: The detective came to your house on February 21st, does that sound familiar?
TH: I don't know the date.
DA:You don't remember the detective coming back the next day?
TH: No.
DA: You don't remember that at all?
TH: No.
DA: You just remember her showing you two photographs, but you don't remember if it was on two different days?
TH: No.

People's exhibit #33. It's a photo of a man. I can't see it well from where I'm sitting.

DA: Mr. Hall, ... direct your attention to the photograph. Can you see that sir?
TH: Yeah.
DA: Can you recognize the person in that photograph?
TH: No.
DA: At the top of the photo there are some initials.  Do you see that sir?
TH: Yeah.

DDA Akemon zooms in, a close up of the image of the man.  I recognize that it's defendant Bryan Barnes.

DA: Left side are initials that say BJ. Who put those initials here? ... Did you put those initials there?
TH: No
DA: Do you remember putting those initials there when you wit with the detective?
TH: No.
DA: In the upper right corner, ... the corner .. "TH." ... Who put those initials there?
TH: No. ... Not that I remember that.
DA: Do you remember putting those initials there?
TH: No.

DA When the detectives showed you a photograph, did you know that you were being recorded?
TH: No.
DA: When the detective showed you a photo, you didn't know that you were being recorded?
TH: She didn't stay long. ... I don't remember that photo(s). I just remember two group photos.

DA: Would it refresh your memory to read a transcript of when the Detective Mansillas ... ?
TH: I don't know.
DA: When the detective came to your residence, the detective showed you some photographs?

The witness reads the six page transcript. He is instructed to read the transcript to himself.  The witness states he doesn't remember or know that he was being recorded because the detective didn't stay long.

DA: Mr. Hall, you had a chance to read that. Does that refresh your memory?
TH: No. I don't even remember that interview.

DDA Akemon and DDA Brazil whisper for a moment.

DA: Mr. Hall sir, you do recall the detective coming to your house?
TH: Yes.
DA: You recall how many times she came to your house?
TH: I only recall once.
DA: And that was bout two months after you were shot?

Hall was talking to the detective at his home.

DA: ... Was anyone in the house?
TH: My mom, I think.

Hall was inside, and then he went outside on the porch with the detective.   I believe Hall is asked if his mom came out onto the porch or not.  Hall states he recalls seeing that group photo, but he doesn't recall seeing People's exhibit #33, the photo of Bryan Barnes.

DA: You don't recall that at all?
TH: No.
DA: In your interview with, ... at your residence with detective Mansillas, she brought one photo to look at?
TH: Yes. But it was the two group photos that she (showed?) me.

DDA Akemon tells the court, "I'm going to play a recording. I'm almost done."

DA: And when the detective came to your house, is it true that she showed you that photo with the single person?
TH: Not that I know.
DA: Isn't it true that you looked at the photograph, People's 33, and told the detective the person was 'BJ' who shot you? .. And isn't it true that the detective asked you to initial the photograph?
TH: I don't remember.
DA: Isn't it true that you looked at this photo and put your initials TH.... ?
TH: I don't remember.
DA: With the court's permission, can we play a prior recording of this interview?
JM: Is that the one involve with this photo?
JS: Objection!
JM: Over ruled. This is basically a green situation. ... They are allowed to put on his previous statements and the court gets to decide which one to believe.

People's exhibit #34, a transcript of an interview with the witness. People's exhibit #35, a CD of that interview.  Akemon explains to the witness that he's going to play the recording, then stop it at certain points and ask the witness questions about the recording.  Hall replies, "Okay."

My notes on the recording:
Female Detective: February 22nd. I'll only take five minutes of your time. I want you to look at one picture today. I only brought one picture today. That's because you said you knew this guy from high school.

DA: I'm pausing the tape now sir. Do you recognize voices on the tape?
TH: That's the detective but I can't recall that day. ... But I do know the detective's voice, but I don't recall that day.
DA Please listen to the male voice.

Recording:
... the (vine?) officer saw you at the hospital ... was tell Timothy since these people are kind of familiar ... he now ... who they are ... from that would be able to show.  Yeah ... That, ... it's going to take five minutes.  We had that conversation yesterday that you knew him and his brother.

DA: Stopping the recording at 2 minutes and (?)
TH: Yeah, that's my voice.
DA: And you just heard yourself talk to the detective. Do you remember any part of that?
TH: No.

Recording:
This Javier brother ... Bryan ... I just need you to initial here really quick okay? We're just going to take this one step at a time. He's not in custody. We kind of have to put this case together. I don't want to take it to court with (?) a piece of a paper like that. If you could just write your initials, just yours. But you know, it's like we need a bunch of stuff. We need a whole bunch of papers. We have other people who are talking to me because of retaliation and stuff.  ... Okay, it's all basically we're doing today.  ... I think he just.... I'm going to rec...

JS: I'm going to object to this part of the recording.

I believe Judge Marcus states that it creates content.

Recording:
That's always a common fear with victims. Don't want to make you do anything you don't want to do. We have those emergency funds, just take care of him that's all I want to do. I don't want to take up any more of your time.

JS: Objection.

I'm not sure if it's the court of Ms. Seng who talks about the tape and whether it's showing context, which set of statements is true. It's not "352." Mr. Sztraicher crosses the witness for Bryan Barnes.

GS: The fear of the (mother?) and him being present... Is the court is about to consider his credibility with the officer on the other day?  (miss response)

GS: Sir, do you know Ms. ABC?
TH: No.
GS Sir do you know Ms. ABC-D?
TH: No.
GS: Directing your attention to the night you got shot. Your evening started on December 2nd, is that correct?
TH: Yes.
GS: And you were shot somewhere, (in the?) early morning hours of December 3rd?
TH:No, it was late Friday night.
JM: Do you understand after midnight?
TH: No, it was Friday.

GS: Fair to say you were at the party about one hour prior to getting shot?
TH: I don't know if it was that long.
GS: You arrived somewhere between 10 pm and 11 that night? ... time when you woke up that day to the time you left the party. ... Did you drink any alcohol?
TH: No.
GS: Did you smoke any marijuana?
TH: No.
GS: When you arrived at the party, did you drink alcohol?
TH: Yeah.
GS: How much alcohol would you say you drank?
TH: I don't remember.
GS: What was your drink of choice on that evening?
TH: I don't remember that either.
GS: Would it  be fair to say you drank a significant amount of alcohol before the night ended for you?
TH: No.

GS: You were taken to the hospital?
TH: Yes.
GS: And they gave you medical treatment?
TH: Yes.
GS: And they took a blood alcohol analysis?
TH: Yes.
GS: Did they tell you what the results of that blood alcohol was?
TH: Yes.
GS: Would it be fair to say that prior to being shot you were feeling intoxicated?
TH: Yes.
GS: Would it be fair to say you had consumed alcoholic beverages?
TH: Yes.
GS: Did you smoke marijuana?
TH: No.
GS: Did you use any other drugs?
TH: No.

GS: Is it your testimony that you attended high school with Mr. Bolden is that right?
TH: Yeah.
GS: And you went to both Hamilton and Dorsey?
TH: Yeah.
GS: Did you go to any other (school)?
TH: South Bay Lutheran. It's a private school in Inglewood.
GS: You don't recognise anyone in this courtroom ... The only one in blue that you recognize is Javier, is that right?
TH: Yeah.

GS: You've been asked a lot of questions in this court about a transcript.  ... You said you can't identify the person who shot you because you had your back turned?
TH: Yeah.
GS: In fact this is not the first time you said that (right?) ... You were interviewed in the hospital by Ms. Mansillas on that day?
TH: Yes.
GS: And she asked you about who the shooter was?

The page and line number is asked for.

GS: Page 3 of the December 5th, lines 12, 13.  ... on December 5th, the events that occurred on the night of the shooting were fresher in your mind than they were told previously ... ?
TH: Yes.
GS: (Prior?) to the people that came to your hospital room and they were telling you things that you didn't have first hand knowledge of, is that correct?
TH: Yeah.
GS: And they were telling you things that they said?
TH: Yeah.
GS: You knew for a fact that some of the people who talked to you, that they didn't have first hand information?
TH: Yeah.
GS: Your father, was he at the party?
TH: No.
GS: And he was giving you information?
TH: My father was told the same things that (they?) reported.
GS: He was told some tings second, third hand, you don't know?
TH: Yeah.

GS: You said on that date, who was it, honestly, my back was turned and my cousin told me to run. Is that the truth?
TH: Yes.
GS: And you testified early this morning that there were lots of people inside that party, is that correct?
TH: Yes.
GS: Would it be fair to say the party was crowded?
TH: Yes.
GS: Was it dark in the ...
TH: Yes.
GS: Was there loud music?
TH: Yes.
GS: Do you know what a strobe light is?

The witness pauses. He appears confused to me.  Another question about the party.

GS: Were the colored lights strobe lights?
TH: No.
GS: You said there was more than 100 people inside that room?
TH: Yeah.
GS: Since I wasn't there and no one inside this courtroom was there, was.. could you move around without bumping into people?
TH: Not really.
GS: And it's your testimony that at some point ... that it appeared your chain got snapped?
TH: Yeah.
GS: And you have no idea who snatched your chain is that correct?
TH: Yeah.
GS: And in fact you have on previous occasions during an interview with police you told them it was very difficult to know who was the ... and what people were doing?
TH: Yeah.
GS: Is that correct?
TH: Yeah.

GS: Same transcript, page 3, line 26.  Isn't it true that... regards to the party and who was there, and you said, "Well the party was so messed up with so much .. (going on in there?)..."
(TH?) Yeah.
GS: "You couldn't really tell who was banging on who and who was gettin' on who, I (could?) name a few of the hoods that were in there, but I know I got my chain snapped." ... Is that what you said?
TH: Yeah.

GS: You testified you had some lingering back injuries?
TH: Yeah.
GS: The other time you were shot, previously, what part of your body was that?
TH: Both feet.

I believe there's a startled response to that by counsel. There are very few people here today. One reporter left before court even started.  Jill from the LA Times is here.

GS: Your testimony that ... isn't it true that ... did you just hear an audio tape of a transcript that was recorded on February 22nd?
TH: Yes.
GS: And you heard what sounded like your voice on that tape?
TH: Yeah.
GS: And Officer Mansillas on that tape ...?
TH: Yes.
GS: And she's the officer that came to your house?
TH: Yeah.
GS: Did you recall that tape?
TH: No.

Counsel asks the court if they can break at this point. It's a good moment to decide whether or not he has any other questions.  The court agrees. I believe Judge Marcus asks the witness a few questions of his own.

JM: Mr. Hall, you said earlier that you still consider Mr. Bolden as a friend today is that correct?
TH: Yeah.
JM. When people came to tell you who was the shooter...
MD: Objection! The court is asking for third hand or fourth hand (information?)!
JM: I'm not asking for the truth of the matter. ... Did they give you any names about who the shooters were?
TH: No.

The lunch break is called. Hall's testimony isn't finished yet.  Hall appears to be mumbling, or speaking under his breath when he walked past the two detectives in the well. I couldn't understand him, but he didn't appear to be happy.

1:17 PM
I'm on the 9th floor, waiting for the courtroom to open. I've not covered a case where there are two defendants, both facing the death penalty.

When a defendant is facing the death penalty, they must have two defense attorneys. One counsel represents the defendant for the guilt phase while the other will represent them in the death decision phase. One of those reasons is the US Supreme Court has adopted the American Bar Association's recommendations for death penalty cases. According to this ACLU document [PDF], those requirements state that the judge, counsel, and jury, all must be "specially qualified as capable and experienced."

The document also states:  

Defense costs in death penalty trials are also significantly higher than in other cases because of the greater obligations imposed on the defense. The United States Supreme Court has used the ABA [American Bar Association] Guidelines for Death Penalty Representation to establish the appropriate “standard of care” in defending death penalty cases. ...

The guidelines prescribe a four-member defense team in every potential death penalty case: two attorneys and two investigators. This is twice the usual defense staffing in a murder case and is required because there may be a separate penalty phase trial. 

It's my understanding that one of the reasons there are two defense attorneys is that they argue different phases of the case. The reasoning for that appears to be, you would not want the jury to hear arguments from the same attorney (who just lost the case on the guilt phase) also arguing to the jury to save the defendant's life.  (If there are legal eagles out there who have a different understanding of the law, please leave a comment or drop me a line. Sprocket.)

To be continued in Day 3, Part III.....