Kelly Soo Park Fraud Case, Pretrial 3 (Uwaydah et. all & Arnold et. all) Park Bail Hearing

Kelly Soo Park, in custody, 9/25/15

Photo Credit: Pool Camera

UPDATE 6:30 PM edited for spelling, typos on former bail amount
UPDATE 11:45 AM
The Los Angeles Times is reporting the DA's office confirms that Dr. Munir Uwadah is still at large and not in custody in Germany. Back on September 25, this was an opinion that was voiced among several of the bail bondsmen in the hallway, outside of Judge Kennedy's court. I heard conversations speculating that Uwaydah may be in the Ukraine, where the doctor allegedly owns several clinics.


The previous post on this case can be found HERE.
October 6, 2015
The quick news is, Park had her bail reduced from $18.5 million to $10 million today. Park was wearing a blue jumpsuit and she smiled often to the numerous family and friends that were in the gallery. Her custody status is no longer on the high security K-10 tier. However, her counsel Mark Kassabian told the court she is still being kept in isolation and separated from the other female inmates. Judge Kennedy asked her bailiff to inquire on the reasoning for that and the bailiff states because this is a "notorious" case. Judge Kennedy informed counsel she does not tell the sheriff how to house his in custody defendants and he doesn't tell her how to run her courtroom.

I will have a full report on the arguments presented this morning within the next couple of days.

Continued in Kelly Park Fraud Case, Pretrial 3, Part II.... 

Kelly Soo Park Insurance Fraud Case, Pretrial 1 (Uwayday et. all & Arnold et. all)

UPDATE 10/7 accuracy, clarity
UPDATE 10/5 12 NOON
Tony Luke: $1,215,000 - Bonded out 10/26

UPDATE 10/2 1PM
Checking the LA County Sheriff's webside, the following defendants in this case have had their bail reduced or have been bonded out from custody.

Defendant Name / Previous Bail Bond / New Bail Bond Amt.
Maria Turley $21,500,000 --> $10,000,000
Jeff Stevens $18,500,000 ---> $10,000,000

Bonded Out From Custody
Tatiana Torres Arnold $2,730,000 --> Bonded out: 9/29
Yolanda Groscost $1,340,000 --> Bonded out: 9/30

UPDATE 9/29 1:24 pm LA Times story with grand jury testimony excerpts.

UPDATE 9/29 12:30 pm edited for spelling, clarity

The previous post on this case can be found HERE.

September 25, 2015
Case Introduction
This case consists of two indictments (BA425397 & BA435339) that were issued by a grand jury against 15 defendants. The defendants are charged with a massive insurance fraud and patient conspiracy scam, allegedly orchestrated by Dr. Munir Uwaydah. Two of the 15 defendants, Uwaydah and Wendee Luke, are not in US custody. Uwaydah fled the US in June 2010, soon after Kelly Soo Park was arrested for murder.

HERE is the LA County DA's press release on the case. It will give T&T readers some general background information.

In March 2008, Juliana Redding, 21, an aspiring model was beaten and strangled to death in her Santa Monica apartment. Two years later, Kelly Soo Park was arrested and charged with Redding's murder. T&T covered Park's entire murder trial. Park was Dr. Uwaydah's former officer manager and personal assistant. She was acquitted of 187 felony murder in June 2013.

Although this is not the typical case that T&T covers, I decided to attend this hearing and possibly cover the case because many T&T readers have an interest in Kelly Soo Park.

I learned from the LA County Sheriff's Inmate Locator Website that Park's next appearance would be in Dept. 109, Kathleen Kennedy's courtroom. It's not that surprising that the Superior Court assigned this complicated case to Judge Kennedy. The City of Bell corruption scandal case was held in her courtroom. In that case there were seven defendants. It's also the same courtroom, the same judge who presided over Park's murder trial.

Unfortunately, I could not stay for the entire hearing. With so many defendants, the hearing went into the afternoon session.

The Defendants
BA425397
1. Munir Uwaydah (Supposedly arrested in Germany)
2. Paul Turley
3. Maria Turley (wife to Paul)
4. Marisa Schermbeck-Nelson
5. Peter Nelson (husband to Marisa)
6. David Johnson
7. Leticia Alvarez  Lemus
8. Jeff Stevens
9. Wendee Luke (daughter of Terry; believed to be living in Estonia)
10. Kelly Park
11. Ron Case

BA435339
Tatiana Torres Arnold
Terry Luke (father of Wendee)
Tony Folgar
Yolanda Groscost

The 9th Floor
When I arrived on the 9th floor, many of Kelly Soo Park’s friends and relatives are already here. I see all the familiar faces from her murder trial. Her sister Kim. Her mother. Her aunt and other friends and relatives.

Park’s attorney Mark Kassabian is at the center of the hall. I don’t see George Buehler. There are attorneys that are here greeting people in the hallway. Most of the bench seats at this end of the hall are filled. There may be people from other courtrooms, but it’s too soon to tell. More of Park's friends arrive and exchange hugs and kisses.

There are also a lot of suited people in the hallway. They could be counsel or bail bondsmen. Attorneys are talking to people from the general public. Some people appear to be lost with the large amount of people in the hall. I have a feeling the courtroom will get packed quickly. I plan to take a seat as soon as the courtroom opens.

I observe Kassabian go over to speak to Kelly’s aunt. I get up from my seat to look down the hallway but don’t see Tom Chronister, Park's husband. He must not have arrived yet. More hugs are exchanged among Kelly's relatives and new arrivals. A couple brought a very young child. No more than a year old. I'm wondering if they are here for this case.

A tall balding man arrives. I ask myself, Is that the husband, the former Oxnard Police Commander? If it is, he looks a bit different since Park was acquitted of the murder charge. Interesting that Kassabian spoke to Kelly's aunt, and not Park's husband, but they could have spoken earlier, by phone.

More arrivals. More hugs being exchanged. I don’t think all these people will fit in the courtroom. I’m surprised there are no reporters here. I wonder if I'm the only one who will show up. I can't believe that. More people, more handshakes being exchanged.

Down the hallway comes attorney Anthony Brooklier, reporter Pat La Lama's husband. He must be representing one of the defendants.  He came and shook a man’s hand who was wearing sunglasses. The sunglasses wearing man could be a family member, or a bail bondsman. I also see the very tall Josh Herman. Herman bonded Park out during her murder trial.

Marissa Gerber from the LA Times arrives with a photographer. She tries the door, but it's still locked.

With 13 defendants appearing today (two defendants are not presently in the US) I’m not surprised so many people are here. Uwaydah is supposedly in custody in Germany. Wendee Luke is believed to be in Estonia. The US does have extradition treaties with both countries.

After awhile, I get up from my seat to stand by Marissa near the door so I can get my favorite seat, right by the power outlet.

Inside Dept. 109
The friends and family of the defendants swarm into the courtroom to grab a seat on the three long benches, since the first row is marked off limits. CBS 48 Hours producer Greg Fisher is here and he takes the empty seat to my right. 

The bench rows quickly fill up. I'd say, 70% of these people are here for Park. Inside the well of the court, there are so many attorneys it looks like standing room only. The bailiff tells people looking for a seat, 'If there are no seats for you you must step outside, unless you are a part of this case.' Every row except the front row is packed, which is blocked off.

8:42 AM
Former DDA Alan Jackson arrives. It's my understanding Jackson is representing Terry Luke. The DA's office has filed a conflict of interest motion to disqualify the Werksman-Jackson firm from representing defendants. Jackson's partner, Mark Werksman is representing Tony Folgar, but Werksman is not here today. Someone else from the firm is standing in for him. Jackson comes to the back of the courtroom where his support staff are seated and we exchange hellos.

More people arrive and the bailiffs try to pack the courtroom. The jury box is filled with attorneys. The gallery has counsel staff and bail bondsmen interspersed with the general public. A woman in the row of chairs set up behind the bailiff's box turns around and shakes the hand of the man's sitting to my left. She says, "Hi, I’m Wendy. I’m the sister-in-law." I don't know who she is related to, but the man beside me is with Jackson's firm.

A defendant is brought into court in a wheelchair. He's brought in through the door that goes back to the jury room area. He is wheeled across the well and back into the sheriff's custody area. I later find out that this is 80 year old Dr. David Johnson.

Jane Robison from the DA’s office arrives and tries to find a seat.

It took me several minutes to find Lonce LaMon from Adjuster.com. It's been over two years since I've seen her. LaMon has been chronicling Uwaydah's questionable business dealings ever since he fled the US in June 2010. [HERE is her story on this proceeding.]

The LA Times still photographer is in the back corner. They may put the cameraman in the corner by the jury box. It's a better angle to get photos of the defendants.

The courtroom is beginning to look like a big circus. It is worse than a sardine can in here. 

The bailiff's are now letting people sit in the first bench row. They are trying to jam more people into the courtroom. Still, I would say the majority of the people here are for Park.

Judge Kennedy Takes the Bench
It's 9:02 am. The court states, "We have this multi-defendant case on calendar. ... Defendants in custody are ..... Logistically, it will be complicated getting everyone in here at one time."

Judge Kennedy mentions something about a bail review report by defendants. However, because at the time they were requested, it was stated that none of the defendants wanted a personal interview at that point. Without a personal interview, to verify background [information?] their recommendation [for bail reduction] would be negative. Judge Kennedy continues. "So then I believe Judge Brandlin [Dept. 100, master calendar court] contacted many of the lawyers here. ... Many consented to an interview. ... I don't know that we've gotten any reports [yet]." 

Judge Kennedy speaks to her clerk for a moment and then addresses the parties again. "Although we don't have any at the moment we may get some by 10 o'clock or sooner. ... And none of you have seen what they say. ... I know that many of you have filed various motions today. [Some?] came by fax yesterday. ... I don't know what everyone's intention is with regards to bail motions today or 1275 hearings. ... I don't know to what extent you've exchanged documents with the DA. ... I do know we've already had some information ... with most of you ... I haven't seen you before. I don't know what communication you've had with the DA and who is ready to do what."

If there are any one of the defendants ... who is represented ...  in male in lockup here, that know what you want to do or if you know that you are not ready to handle bail or 1275 ... that would be the easiest to handle first of all. ... There are so many of you, ... and I don't know who all of you are. ... If any defense attorney speaks ... [say] your name and the defendant you represent."

A few of the counsel start to speak, one by one. One attorney just met with his client on Tuesday. Now he's on the service list. Defendant Ron Case's attorney is from the Alternate Public Defender's Office. The next attorney who speaks is for [Dr.] David Johnson. Deputy Attorney General Richard Marino for the California Medical Board. He filed a motion in respect to David Johnson.

Counsel for Paul Turley asks to approach off the record. Judge Kennedy has a sidebar with Turley's counsel. The DAG will possibly have additional charges ... or he might just be here to monitor the case.

Louis Shapiro representing the Nelson family. He asks the gallery if anyone is here from the Nelson family. Mr. Shapiro missed the last hearing since it was on Yom Kippur.

The sidebar is still on. There are people waiting in the ante chamber for an empty seat to open up. I see hard working Terri Keith from City News Service peeking through the window from the ante chamber. She can't get a seat. People are trying to leave, have their seat saved for them and come back in. The bailiff's appear to be getting frustrated with the people coming and going at will, and trying to find seats for people related to the proceedings.

Then something happens. A slew of attorneys from the well, file out of the courtroom, one behind the other like a marching line. I have no idea where they were headed. My best guess is, they were ordered to another courtroom to speak with the judge off the record. Now that Judge Kennedy is off the bench, the courtroom is boisterous and people are coming and going again.

There are some attorneys back inside the courtroom, and there are several groups of conversation, all going on at once. There are quite a few bail bondsmen in the gallery. The bailiffs are having a hard time keeping up with the phones going off by the general public. Phones are a big issue in Judge Kennedy's courtroom. If you are an attorney, you can use your phone. Everyone else, the phone must be completely off and out of sight. No exceptions. Reporters can use laptops, iPads, but they cannot transmit while inside the courtroom.

9:36 AM
Alan Jackson comes over to ask the gentleman seated next to me for the "177 pages." The man hands Jackson a very thick three ring binder. Then Jackson tells the man to stop speaking. He tells him, "Every other person you don't know, is a reporter ... and is writing down everything you say." I smile and chuckle a bit. After Jackson takes the binder I say to his staff member, "That's not really true. It's just that I know Alan."

The bailiff tells the gallery to quiet down again. I hear one of the court staff say to counsel, 'This is a bad day for the court." It could be, they were rejecting a tentative date for everyone to return.

It appears they are trying to find a court date that will work for all the counsel present. They might recess the jury trial that's currently in progress and this case would come in on a specific date. The bailiff asks everyone to be seated. The bailiff announces, "Counsel, the judge is coming out."

Judge Kennedy takes the bench and tells the room. "I've conferred with some counsel. ... I'm going to speak to everyone else as to the possible date[s?] and how to proceed."

There is a bit of discussion in the well with the court.  Several attorneys still need to speak to their clients. One of the attorneys speaks for the group and informs the court that one attorney has some issues with the general concept and objects to waiving time. They were discussing October 15 as a date to return without time waivers.

The court responds, "We can do that ... then you can discuss with your clients if they want to waive time. ... One other thing. I spoke with counsel in order to review rights in respect to 995 [filings] with the time then we can supplement it with any points and authorities, to look over the materials and work with that. ... What I mentioned to you and all counsel, understand ... in regard to 995 ... I don't want to read the grand jury transcripts so may times. ... [I] want the 995's filed together. The grand jury transcript is formidable and exhibits are even more formidable."

"With regard to anyone who does not want to proceed with a bail motion today ... we can handle those cases. ... In fact, if not taking time waivers [we] don’t need the defendants out. ... But they have family here so we could bring them out."

They will deal with male defendants first. Defense for [Peter] Nelson, he's prepared to waive. The Deputy Attorney General representing the medical board, mentions something but I miss it. Defense for Jeff Stevens is prepared for a bail motion today.

The court asks, "Who does not need to do anything but prepared to come back on October 15?"

There is one defendant with two attorneys, one from the alternate public defender's office (APD) and then there is a personal attorney for the same client wanting to handle the bail motion. I miss what this is all about. the APD counsel objects to the other counsel.

[Attorney] Mark Allen standing in for Mark Werksman. Continue for bail hearing for another date.  The court asks, "Anyone else besides those two? ... Nelson and Folgar, we can handle those first. ... Counsel ready?"

Allen, counsel for Folgar, is asking for a different date for a bail review. October 2. So each of these defendants, might have different bail review dates.  October 2 is changed to October 5. Allen also asks to be heard on that date regarding the people's motion to disqualify. The second client, Nelson, bail review on October 23. 

Ron Case will be next.  Case is brought out into the courtroom. He looks significantly aged from the photos I've seen of him online. The request is for a bail hearing on October 9 and pretrial on 15.

The court asks counsel in the well, "Is anyone else ready to handle their matter?" Judge Kennedy then asks her bailiff who are all the people in lockup. The bailiff mentions Turley. The court responds that his wife must be brought out at the same time.

DDA Lisa Kassabian enters and waits for her husband, Alan Jackson. We exchange a wave hello.

I believe the court asks again, "Anyone else whose defendant is in lock up who is ready to handle their matter now?" Someone in the well responds that they are still working on the Luke matter. It's decided that Luke will be handled at 1:30 pm. Johnson and Stevens are still in lockup. Both of those will take some time. Alan Jackson and his support staff leave. The bail motion on Stevens is next.

DDA's Cathy Chon and Dayan Mathai for the people. DDA Mathai outlines the fraud and Steven's participation. "... participated by feeding the engine of the fraud, by providing patients and making recommendations to Frontline personnel as to how a patient can be treated. ... it's all part and parcel of the scheme. ... Stevens participated in a bank takeover scheme. ... Doing that, could control how the money was moved."

The court asks how the 18.5 million bail was calculated.
 
The people respond. At the time that the indictment came down, the bail schedule is actually higher, [so the defendant's bail] is actually lower than the presumptive bail should be. ... By being set at that, the people are not asking to raise it to the presumptive bail because the grand jury just heard evidence from 21 individual patients that were victimized by these co-conspirators. ... Separate counts by separate victims on separate dates. ... 21 people were harmed by that in that they [performed] fraudulent surgeries ... [patients] that were cut open improperly by this defendant's actions. ... At the time that the indictment came down, the bail schedule is actually higher; [the bail] is actually lower than the presumptive bail should be. Because the grand jury heard 21 incidents, we are in no way saying it's limited to that. ... This was rampant. ... There were maybe hundreds of so called surgeries, because these are not what the patients intended and not what they signed up for. ... We selected 21 names for extensive grand jury, but we believe a vast number of people were harmed by this group. ... And because they were aggregated, true bail should have been [miss the amount].

The people continue. Mr. Moss [defendant's attorney] argued there was no high risk. The court should know, ... is that each of the defendants could be a flight risk .... Because of the amount involved .... hundreds of millions of dollars. ...

The conspiracy continues to this day. We've attached an insurance bill received, which shows on September 15, last Tuesday, the day that Mr. Stevens was in court, and most of these defendants in court, including Dr. David Johnson. An insurance bill from that date, that said he performed medical procedures on that date on the fifteenth. And it certified on the date that the date of service was that date and that's one bill. ... Even when they are in jail, they bill. 

These patients were never prescribed those medications. ... When you control the pharmacy and control the clinic and the patients were receiving medication ... were never prescribed or given instructions, we don't think we're being dramatic when we say there is real harm to the communities. ... The treatment of these patients and this continues to this day. ... The shell companies are still in existence. ... There are 15 names in this case. ... About another dozen names that have access to these accounts. ... We know Uwaydah instigated ... [and is a flight risk].

Judge Kennedy responds a bit forcefully, "Not only is he a flight risk, he fled!"  The DDA responds, "That's right. He fled through Mexico, not LAX. ... We are concerned to potential flight risk and the conduct that's been portrayed.

Defense attorney Moss argues for his client. "Your honor, these arguments are against Uwaydah. ... But this person is entitled to reasonable bail." 

I can no longer hear the defense counsel. There's so much noise in the courtroom.

Judge Kennedy states, "With regard to bail, I do have to assume the charges are true. I will reduce to 10 million and the rest [remaining?]."  Moss states they will challenge that. Judge Kennedy responds, "For now, I have to assume the evidence is true. I think that 10 million is enough. 1275."

The defendant is remanded. Return date is October 15.

Now the court is asking about Paul and Maria Turley. Over on my right, a bail bondsman is chatting about how the bonding laws have changed.  The Turleys are brought out. Defense filed a motion to ask the court to set bail over until Tuesday morning, Sept. 29. The court asks counsel how long they will need because she is in trial. Counsel responds they will need a short amount of time. After that, the next return date is October 15.

Both Turleys need to sign a document, that needs to be notarized for guardianship of their minor child. Defense has an individual in court [in the gallery] to get that done. After that's taken care of, the defendants will be remanded. The notary gets out of her seat, enters the well and notarizes the signatures of the defendants.

The next thing that is discussed is a protective order. The court states there was a disagreement [among counsel?] about some of the terms, at least at the present time.

The protective order was phrased with the caveat that there would be further litigation and discussion in the future .... and the issue of revealing, ... certain information that .... it was phrased they were having to notify the DA .... and that we would let the DA know we had applied to the court ... and revisit it amongst ourselves and [have?] a solution next time.

The people respond. The protective order does actually require ... the order that was drafted today .... any attorney of [involvement] or working directly on the case ... shall not share or produce .... will not share information without permission from the court.

There's so much going on in the gallery, it's so noisy I can't follow what is being discussed in the well. I hear something to the effect, If the fraud is still going on today, they can claim problems in releasing discovery, but I don't know who says it. The next defendant, David Johnson is brought out in his wheelchair.

And this is as far as I got with the hearing. I had to leave early. Mr. Sprocket had a doctor's appointment and I didn't want to miss that. It's been 16 months since his heart attack and this was an important check up. Thankfully, he's still doing very well.

Kelly Soo Park
I was able to get an update about Park's hearing. After Park was brought out, she often looked back at friends and family in the gallery. Marissa Gerber's article in The LA Times has a photo of Park and states Park wept. Sources tell me that in the gallery, Park's mother Irene and her sister Kim cried as they left the courtroom after Park's hearing. Park returns on October 6 for [presumably] a bail motion.

All the defendants in custody will return to court on October 15. However, some defendants will be returning sooner, most likely for bail motions.

The next post on this case can be found HERE.

Upcoming Hearings Before 10/15
Date/Defendant
09/29 Maria Turley
09/29 Tatiana Torres Arnold
09/30 Yolanda Groscost

10/05 Tony Folgar
10/06 Kelly Soo Park
10/07 David Johnson
10/09 Ron Case
 
09/25/15 LA Times - Judge calls operations by non-surgeon "horrible"
09/25/15 Yahoo News/AP - Unlicensed Worker Did Surgeries
09/25/15 - KPCC - Unlicensed Worker Did Surgeries in Scam

Kelly Soo Park Trial: Synopsis Part IV -- Non-Admitted Evidence via Pretrial Motions

 Juliana Redding, undated photo

COMPLETE KELLY SOO PARK TRIAL COVERAGE LINK

UPDATE: spelling, clarity
On June 4th, 2013, a jury found Kelly Soo Park not guilty of the murder of Juliana Redding.  Redding was found strangled to death in her Santa Monica apartment on March 16, 2008. Park was arrested for Redding's murder over two years later.

Juliana Redding's living room where prosecutor's believe 

Juliana fought for her life.

After the trial was over, I promised T&T readers that I would present a synopsis of the trial to help them understand the jury's verdict. Many readers did not understand the verdict when the state presented evidence that Park's DNA was found on several items, including the victim. Criminalists testified at trial that Park's DNA was found around Juliana's neck, on the T-shirt Juliana was wearing at the time of her death, on her cell phone left on a bedside table, as well as on a stove knob in the kitchen.

This is my last post in a four part series, that gave a detailed, post-trial analysis of the case. Part IV covers pre trial motions argued before trial, as to the admissibility of evidence one side or the other, wanted to introduce.

Special thanks and shout-out to my fellow journalist Lonce LaMon of Adjuster.com for her assistance in purchasing motions as well as photographing the evidence once the trial was over. You can see more of the exhibits in the Part III posts. I have purposefully not published a photo of Juliana as she was found out of respect for her family and friends.

CBS 48 HOURS
Tonight, CBS 48 Hours will profile the murder of Juliana Redding and the trial of Kelly Soo Park  who was charged with her murder. All three major networks had producers who attended pretrial hearings and attended most or some of the trial. (T&T was the only source for daily updates on the trial. T&T also reported the verdicts before any other news source. Sprocket) Journalists for NBC and CBS worked together to try to get Judge Kennedy to approve video taping of witness testimony. For the court to agree to that request, Judge Kennedy wanted the network to mount cameras on the wall.  The problem is, those cameras are not something the networks readily have at their disposal, and the daily cost of one camera is several thousand a day. Consequently, only opening statements and closing arguments were video taped.

I knew something was in the works when respected LA Times reporter Jack Leonard sent out this tweet:

Leonard is an excellent journalist and that was most kind of him. (It's a good bet that CBS has an arrangement with the LA Times to feature their journalists on cases they profile.) Not long after, former prosecutor Alan Jackson made a post about the upcoming episode on his Facebook Page.  The initial prosecutors, Jackson and his co-counsel at the time, Eric Harmon (now Judge Harmon),  probably know the case facts as well as DDA Stacy Okun-Wiese, who prosecuted Park.

I will be most interested to see if CBS producers were able to track down any of the jurors and get them to appear on camera. After the verdicts were read in court, the jury asked to be escorted out of the courthouse via a private elevator.  Back on June 13th, a T&T reader left a comment with information about the jury's verdict. Since the commenter asked that I not publish the comment, I have honored that request.

Throughout my coverage of the trial, several people who knew Kelly Soo Park over a significant portion of her life, contacted me and shared what they knew about her. Unfortunately, every single person spoke off the record and were not willing to share this information publicly.

Kelly Soo Park Trial Synopsis
Part I Opening Statements
Part II Prosecution Witnesses 1-10
Part II Prosecution Witnesses 11-18
Part II Prosecution Witnesses 19-21
Part II Final Prosecution & Defense Witnesses
Part III Prosecution Opening Argument
Part III Defense & Prosecution Closing Argument
Part III Additional Arguments to Jury

PART IV - NON-ADMITTED EVIDENCE via PRETRIAL MOTIONS
Before the trial even started, both sides presented motions to admit or exclude evidence at trial. Here's brief review of some of the more significant motions. 

James Bond Girl - Defense Motion to Exclude
From the moment Park was arrested, news agencies were reporting that Dr. Munir Uwaydah --the only connection between Park and Juliana-- had bragged to Juliana's father, Greg Redding that he had an enforcer, a female "James Bond" who would do his bidding. The public heard about this alleged statement but the jury didn't.

Dr. Uwaydah was not on trial; Kelly Soo Park was. Judge Kennedy ruled that Dr. Uwaydah's statement to Greg Redding could not be admitted because it was hearsay.

1101b Evidence People's Motion to Admit Other Conduct -- Defense Opposition Motion
The people alleged "The defendant has a history of threatening and intimidating individuals who have an ongoing dispute with her employer, Dr. Uwaydah." The people had two instances of this type of conduct they wanted to introduce at trial.  This evidence would have supported their theory of the case that Park was acting on the orders of Dr. Uwaydah because of the failed business venture with Juliana's father, Greg Redding.

Judge Kennedy ruled that this evidence was inadmissible. With this ruling, the people lost their ability to present to the jury their theory of Park's true relationship with Dr. Uwaydah. In closing arguments, the defense told the jury that there was no evidence presented that Park had any personal desire to harm Juliana, or that she had the murderous heart, capable to carry out such a violent act.

Dr. Uwaydah's Alleged Criminal Conduct -- Defense Motion to Exclude evidence of Uwaydah's Departure -- Defense Motion to Exclude Evidence of Fraud
The defense filed a motion to excluded references to alleged criminal conduct by Dr. Uwaydah. Dr. Uwaydah was not on trial, so it was not surprising to me that Judge Kennedy ruled this evidence was inadmissible.  The defense also argued to exclude references to when Dr. Uwaydah fled the country. Judge Kennedy ruled that there could be more than one reason for why Dr. Uwaydah fled, so that evidence was also excluded.

Drugs Found in Park's Possession During Arrest -- Defense Motion to Exclude
When Park was arrested with Ronnie Case, police "...found several bottles of prescription drugs in the bed of the truck [they were in when arrested], carrying the names of various doctors and various patients." Judge Kennedy ruled for the defense and this evidence was not admitted at trial.

John Glimore's Alleged Conduct & Statements --
Defense Motion to Admit Evidence of Third Party Culpability
The defense tried to present evidence to the jury that John Gilmore could have been the individual who killed Juliana Redding.  Gilmore was an on again, off again boyfriend of Juliana. Witnesses allegedly had seen him become violent against objects (furniture, etc.) when he argued with the victim.  The defense argued to have another girlfirend of Gilmore's, "M.A." testify about alleged violent conduct against her (choking) and statements he made to her about Juliana.  The defense also argued to present evidence of other acts by John Gilmore to show his violent nature.  The defense also filed a supplemental statement by defense counsel Mark Kassabian to support the 3rd Party Culpability evidence.

Judge Kennedy ruled that this evidence did not meet the standard of 3rd Party Culpability, and was excluded at trial.

Kelly Soo Park Trial: Synopsis Part I

 Park cries at the reading of the not guilty verdict.

Synopsis of Kelly Soo Park Trial: Part I

I promised T&T readers a synopsis of the trial to better understand the jury’s verdict.  The synopsis will be presented in four parts. 

Part I: Opening Statements
Part II: Trial Testimony
Part III: Closing Arguments
Part IV: Non-admitted evidence via pretrial motions

Part I

Prosecution Opening Statement by Stacy Okun-Wiese
SOW: Juliana Redding spent the last moments of her life, literally fighting to save herself.  Juliana Redding unsuccessfully tried to fight off a woman, a woman she did not know, a woman who beat and strangled her until she had her last breath of air, a woman who now sits before this 16 of you in this courtroom, and a woman who needs to be held accountable for her actions on March 15th of 2008. And that person, ladies and gentlemen, is the defendant, Kelly Soo Park.

Okun-Wiese explains the charge, violation of penal code 187, murder, and that it has two elements.  That someone was killed and that it was done with malice aforethought. She talks about the court providing them with instructions on the law, and that the court just read them some of those instructions.

Okun-Wiese explains that the court will provide them with jury instructions.  She also explains in small detail the type of evidence that will be presented to them: Testimony from witnesses, cell phone records, photographs, recordings. Through this, they will learn the facts of the case on March 15th.  The jurors are told that through evidence and testimony, they will be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant murdered Juliana Redding

A photograph is put up on the overhead screen. It’s a photo of Juliana Redding taken on March 15th, at a restaurant, Tengu, where she had dinner with her friend Kelly Duncan. They were there for two hours.   They left the restaurant around 8:15. They each headed for their own homes.  At approximately 9:52 PM 911 was dialed from Juliana’s cell phone, but that call never made it through.

SOW: At 9:53 PM that evening a neighbor of Juliana’s by the name of Lynn Parish heard a commotion, yelling and things being thrown from Juliana’s apartment.  And she knows that was the time that she heard the commotion because she looked on her cable box. And her husband subsequently called her, and she advised her husband about what she heard.

In the evening of March 16th, Juliana’s mother called Santa Monica Police. Her daughter had missed a photo shoot that day and she had not heard from her daughter. The police performed a welfare check on Juliana.

Santa Monica Police went to the location around 6:00 PM.  All the doors and windows were locked and the responding officer couldn’t get inside.  He called for assistance and they were able to enter through the rear door. 

Upon gaining entry to the apartment, they smelled natural gas. The Santa Monica Fired Department was called. Firefighter Gary Marshal, when he entered the location, he also smelled gas. It was coming from the stove. The right front stove knob was turned to the “ON” position. And he turned it off and opened up the windows.

A diagram of the apartment is put up on the overhead screen. Officers entered through the kitchen to the living room.  They observed that the front door knob lock and dead bolt lock were locked from the inside.

To the officers, inside the living room appeared to be evidence of a struggle. ... There was a plate hidden behind the TV stand. There was liquid spilled on the table. The table leg was twisted. They found a chain that was ripped in pieces. One of the pillow cushions, the cover had been taken off. The lamp was unplugged and in an awkward position and that the computer was unplugged from the wall, sitting on the couch. There was a lit candle on the coffee table.  A firefighter will testify that the combination of the gas being on and the lit candle could have caused an explosion in that apartment.

SOW: The officers ... found Juliana lying lifeless in her bed. They observed her injuries, her bruises, her abrasions, all over her body.

Okun-Wiese tells the jury that the first officer on the scene called homicide detectives, the coroner, and crime scene investigators. These individuals collected several items of evidence.  They recovered Juliana's blackberry cell phone on a table in her bedroom. They collected fingerprints; took hundreds of photographs. They took DNA swabs for comparison.  One fingerprint was collected from a plate inside the kitchen sink. The items collected were submitted to the Orange County Crime Lab and numerous items were tested.

Numerous reference samples from different individuals were sent to the crime lab in hopes of determining a match. Okun-Wiese tells the jury about the forensic and DNA testimony they will here. They will learn what it is, how people leave it on items, how it is tested and how profiles are created. Six items were tested for DNA -- there was DNA extracted from these six items: From Juliana’s cell phone, from Juliana’s neck, from Juliana’s tank top, from the right front knob of the stove, from the interior door of Juliana’s apartment, and from the fingerprint that was lifted.

SOW: There were two profiles, a major contributor and a minor contributor.  Sometimes in these items Juliana was the major contributor; and sometimes she was the minor contributor.  But what the criminalist found out was that the other contributor was a female, and that female contributor was the same for each one of these items.

Okun-Wiese explains about the latent fingerprint lifted from the plate.  That examiner Kapala observed what she thought was a spot of blood under the tape, lifted with the latent print.  It was sent to the Orange County Crime Lab to be tested.  It was blood, and  that blood came back to a single source, belonging to a female.  That single source also matched the other six items presented to the jury.

SOW: So we have one person for the spot of blood and also for the six items including the cell phone, the tank top and the neck swabs from Juliana.

Okun-Wiese explains that the investigation went on for two years.  Reference samples were collected from different subjects.  Sometimes those samples came from a cheek swab; sometimes they came from discarded items like a cigarette or wine glass or feminine products. 42 women were eliminated.

Okun-Wiese explains how the investigation fanned out to other people besides women friends of Juliana.

SOW: And what you are going to hear is that there is an individual by the name of Munir Uwaydah.  And Juliana dated him and started dating him in July of 2007.

Juliana introduced Uwaydah, a doctor, to her father, Greg Redding. Redding is an Arizona pharmacist.  Uwaydah wanted to go into business with Greg Redding.  The business venture was Redding would run a pharmacy where Uwaydah would create a pain cream and sell the cream through the pharmacy.

A contract was created and negotiations continued back and forth. Greg Redding, concerned about his daughter, started to investigate Uwaydah. He found out that Uwaydah was married, had children and wasn’t being truthful about his age.

SOW: Greg Redding told his daughter: He said, “I don’t think he is being truthful with you. I found out he is married. I found out he has kids. I don’t think he is being truthful about his age.”

Juliana gets into an argument with Uwaydah and breaks up with him on her 21st birthday.  Time passes, and Redding starts up the business negotiations with Uwaydah.  Redding asks his daughter if she had any problems with the potential partnership. Her father would be moving to Los Angeles. He would be closer to her. Juliana agrees.

Redding does more research on Uwaydah and he’s uncomfortable with the new information.  He decides to back out of the contract.  Uwaydah sends a letter to Redding on March 10th, stating everything is fine and wishing Redding success.

When Detective Thompson learns about Uwaydah, she begins to investigate women associated with him. She collects DNA reference samples from five women associated with Uwaydah, through cigarettes, swabs and submits them to the crime lab for testing.

SOW: All of those samples are eliminated except for one person, the defendant.

A reference sample was obtained from the defendant. It matched all the samples collected at the crime scene.  The sample from Juliana’s neck. The sample from the cell phone. The sample from the tank top. The sample from the blood found in the fingerprint, that was a single source. The sample that was from the interior front door knob.  Okun-Wiese tells the jury they will hear the numbers on those matching from the DNA analyst.

The defendant was arrested on June 18th, 2010 and her fingerprints taken. The prints were entered into AFIS.  One of the defendants prints matched the print found in Juliana’s apartment.   Two forensic specialists compared the print lifted at the apartment  to the defendant and concluded they were a match.

Okun-Wiese asks the jury for their full attention in this case and at the end, she will ask them to find the defendant guilty.

Defense Opening Statement by George Buehler
Buehler explains that he’s not required to give them an opening statement at this time. That he can present one later.  He states that he will take a couple of moments and he will be brief.  He tells them he’s not going to tell them at this time, everything the evidence will show, but he wants to make a few basic points.

GB: I believe that you will find from the evidence that the forensic evidence, the DNA evidence, the fingerprint, are not conclusive.  DNA evidence doesn’t tell you when it got there or how it got there. And that’s important.

Buehler goes onto tell the jury, and he’s emphatic about this point, that there isn’t any evidence to show a reason why Kelly Park would commit such a brutal crime.

GB: She had no connection to Juliana Redding.  Those two facts are very important in this case.

Buehler asks them to keep an open mind and to listen carefully to all the evidence.

Kelly Soo Park Trial Synopsis Part II.....

KELLY SOO PARK TRIAL QUICK LINKS

Kelly Soo Park Case: Former DDA Alan Jackson Comments & Reader Polls

Like I said yesterday, there are no winners here, regardless of the verdict.

Former Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson, who was the initial prosecutor assigned to the case, had this to say about the verdict:

"As a former deputy DA who prosecuted Kelly Soo Park from the beginning, I am intimately familiar with the facts and evidence in this case.  I am appalled by yesterday's verdict.  My first priority was always to seek justice for Juliana's memory and for her family. With yesterday's tragic verdict, it feels like the Redding family lost their daughter all over again.  I am heartsick at the grief they must be enduring, and I grieve along with them.  After 18 years as deputy DA, I can tell you this:  good prosecutors and cops toil every day to see to it that the justice system works.  But it's a human system, and sometimes it falters.  Yesterday, when Kelly Soo Park walked out of that courtroom, the system failed Juliana, failed her family, and failed us.  The Redding family, God willing, will heal.  But Park will forever have to live with the knowledge of what she did, and with her conscience--if she has one."

I know there are many T&T readers that do not understand how the jury came to their verdict. In the next few days, I will give a detailed synopsis of the testimony and arguments presented at trial, as well as the evidence that was ruled inadmissible by Judge Kennedy for both sides.  So look for that upcoming entry on T&T.  Please understand that I will not be giving an opinion on the evidence or arguments, just presenting them in an understandable manner so that T&T readers can come to their own conclusions.

Today, I have lots of emails to return as well as finish my thank you notes to every single reader who donated to my trial coverage costs.  In the mean time, I've put up two polls for T&T readers to vote on.

Please keep in mind T&T's comment policy that can be found on the right side of the blog, under Contact Us.  I've repeated it below:

All comments are moderated. T&T is not obligated to publish your comment.  All we ask is that you be respectful. 

Below are two polls for T&T readers to consider.

Who Proved Their Case?



How Would You Have Voted?

Note: All this time I had an incorrect spelling for the first name of DDA Stacy Okun-Wiese. All entries have been corrected where her first name was mentioned. I apologize for the error. Sprocket

Second Note: I corrected the wording on the poll to accurately reflect the law. A defendant is never required to "prove" their case.  I apologize.

Kelly Soo Park Verdict Watch, Day 8

Kelly Soo Park, pretrial hearing 2012

NOT GUILTY OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER!
UPDATE:  At 10:38 AM, the jury buzzed three times, indicating they have reached a verdict on second degree.

8:14 AM

Up on the 9th floor.  There was a long line at the 9th floor security station.  The sheriff's deputies were a bit late in getting the security station staffed.  I apologize for not getting to your questions yesterday. If you still have questions after my last update last night, please leave your question again.  Those who wish to write me privately can do so at sprocket.trials AT gmail.com.

I have to thank T&T readers for the high number of page views on the blog yesterday (over 15,300). This is the highest single day views since the Phil Spector verdict was reached on April 13th, 2009.  Thank you everyone for reading T&T.  It's because of your dedication, and your feedback on T&T's trial coverage that keeps it going.

Last but not least, thank you for your donations.  Every single donation is appreciated.Your donations help to pay for my trial coverage costs.

The Redding family is here. Patricia Redding's best friend came from Arizona.  There are lots of hugs and greetings being exchanged.

8:24 AM

DDA Stacy Okun-Wiese and her support staff arrive and greet the Redding family and friends.

Park and her husband Tom Chronister were also waiting in line on the 9th floor.  Their group is down at the other end of the hallway.

8:29 AM
We are waiting for the doors to open.  We won't know until Judge Kennedy takes the bench what counsel will argue in regards to the remedy for the jurors.  If you remember, the jurors asked for additional instructions on first and second degree murder. I have no idea what additional instructions could be given to the jurors.

8:33 AM
Inside Dept. 109. Terri Keith from City News is sitting to my left.  Luz from Dateline is to my right.  Greg Fisher is here as well as other familiar media faces.

8:34 AM
Our local broadcast news reported that Judge Kennedy "refused" to take the jurors verdicts yesterday.  That's an interesting headline, and in my opinion, does not accurately.

On the record.
I given a lot of thought what the state of the record is, and I think that at best, it's ambiguous. On that verdict form (for first), they wrote a note about two jurors not following jury instructions.

After inquiring, the jury provided a noted.  Requested further clarification of 520 on page 10

Because they asked for information that relates to the greater and lesser charge.  The note they sent back, doesn't answer the question of the court.

Judge Kennedy thinks the completed verdicts is ambiguous relating to the jury question.

Buehler.
Request to also give the jury and admonition that the court did not intend to influence them in any way by the courts questions.

That's fine.


JK: I'm just saying that the information is ambiguous.  When the court has a statement like that on the verdict form, I have to inquire.

Judge Kennedy did not expect to get this response from them. I will inquire as to the greater charge and see if the note does refer to the lesser included.

I can barely hear Buehler.

My concern is, the way it was handled yesterday, without (input?) of counsel, it basically sent a message to the jury that the court was unhappy with the verdict. I don't see how the jury can interpret that any other way. It creates an atmosphere of coerciveness.

Mr. B. The jury wrote this note not me. I don't tell the jurors what to write.  They've written several notes.  It is the courts duty to inquire.

It appears they had a legal question, about both verdicts.

I have a lot of faith in jurors. I don't feel that my responding or asking them for clarification that telegraphs to them what their verdict should be, at all.  I will tell them again. And I mentioned that yesterday.  I am not trying to influence their verdict in any way.

If they are requesting clarification, it is the court's duty to provide that.

SOW If the court is going to inquire about the (?) is the court also going to inquire about the juror misconduct?

They didn't exactly say that, but not following the jury instructions is jury misconduct.

I think the point is to provide them with further instructions and then wait for them.  For them to at first say that 2 jurors aren't following instructions, but then to ask for instructions....

Our first position, is to find out from the jury what their position is.

My first inclination was to add some further argument.  My other idea, is to perhaps look at CALJIC for jury instructions on second degree.

SOW: I just don't see how they could have reached a verdict on count 1, and then send a question out about clarification on (first and second).

(It's ambiguous and the court agrees.)

Judge Kennedy leaves the bench.
The DA's clerks quickly leave the courtroom.

Park and her counsel leave the courtroom.

I'm publishing without trying to check spelling. Please be patient.

8:51 AM
Some jurors file in. 

8:53 AM
More jurors file in.  The alternates are standing by the door, waiting to let the clerk or bailiff know they are here.

The bailiff tells them, "Stay close."  And they all exit the courtroom.

8:57 AM
More people enter the courtroom.

I apologize. I'm not typing very fast today. I missed a lot of what the judge and counsel said.

8:58 AM
Buzz! The jurors are all present and deliberating.

9:00 AM
Pretrial hearing in another case.  A defendant in an orange jumpsuit is brought out.  A group of young women, most likely interns or clerks with the DA's office enter.

9:01 AM
People v. Kevin Hayley (sp?)
Status update on this case. 

9:03 AM
More Park supporters open the courtroom door and peek in.  Park and Chronister motion to them to enter and sit in the back row.

9:04 AM
Next hearing in Hayley case held over until July 3rd.

Judge Kennedy passes the CALJIC instructions to defense and prosecution in Park case. Tells them, You might want to take a look at them.  Judge Kennedy leaves the bench.

9:06 AM
The court is going to inquire of the jurors again. That's my understanding.  The feeling of the court so far is, that the communications  the jurors have given the court so far  (note added to signed envelope of reached verdict; the jury question filled out later) is ambiguous.  The court is going to ask the jury "if their signed verdict form reflects their unanimous decision at this time."  The court will also inquire for more information on the alleged jurors not following instructions, which the court acknowledged is, jury misconduct.  The jurors didn't actually "say" juror misconduct.

9:12 AM
Court is in session.
What the court is going to do thought is ask the jurors to respond in writing (so they're not out here in open court asking, is that your verdict) so they can respond in writing that is their verdict. So then we'll go forward from that point.

Bring the jury out.

JK: Yesterday based upon the communication we had, I believe there is an ambiguity in the record and I want to make sure the record is clear. I want to preface my remarks by reminding you the portion of the instructions where, pg 15 3550, It is not my role to tell you what your verdict should be....
continues to read .

As you know, you returned a signed verdict form. And it had a question and comment written on it, and I asked you to respond to that and you sent us a jury question.

An enhanced definition of second;  further clarification of first and second degree murder.  What that question seemed to possibly indicate to the court is, you still had questions about legal issues regarding the charged greater offense.

What I want to do is to make sure the record is clear. What I want to make sure is that you verdict signed today, is your verdict... And to make sure, that verdict form is your unanimous verdict .

The only reason is because of that question, in the comment.  So asks them to return to the jury room and (complete that task).

9:18 AM
Judge Kennedy leaves the bench.

9:19 AM
The jury buzzes twice.

9:21 AM
The AP reporter enters and tries to find a seat.

More people enter.

The note is retrieved by the bailiff and shown to Judge Kennedy. Now counsel are going over the note.

Counsel return to their tables.

Juliana's friend, Kelly Duncan enters and sits by Juliana's brother.

9:24 AM
Counsel are called to the clerk's desk.

I hear the words, "So you want both of them?" I think the clerk asked that of counsel. That's what I believe I heard.

9:26 AM
The bailiff goes back to the jury room with an envelope and a paper.

9:28 AM
We don't know if the jury did reach a unanimous verdict yet, because of the added note/comment.  I thought it was on the envelope, but I could be mistaken about that.

They have responded with a written note, answering that question for the court. We still have to hear what they've communicated.

9:31 AM
Three buzzes!

BUZZ! BUZZ! BUZZ! at 9:32 AM

The bailiff inquires, then comes out.  He tells the court clerk, "About five minutes."

It's my guess that the court would want several more bailiffs in the room.  It could also be, they need to get the alternates.  I don't know.

9:35 AM
The clerk makes a call and asks them to come back up.

9:37 AM
Please be kind in your comments about jurors. They are working hard.  It would be speculation at this time to comment on whether or not a juror will be replaced.  Juror misconduct hasn't even been asked about by the judge yet.

9:38 AM
More bailiffs enter.

CALJIC are the old jury instructions. There was jury instruction reform, (I believe in 2007, but I'm not positive) and CALCRIM instructions replaced them.  Judges can use either set of instructions for jurors.  I believe Judge Perry in the Lazarus case used CALJIC. 

9:40 AM
Bailiff: We are missing one alternate juror.

CALCRIM vs CALJIC.  Trying to find information for you.

9:43 AM
On the record.

The jury has said they have come to a conclusion to the question as to count 1 so we are going to bring the jury out.

Jury brought out.

Mr. foreperson we provided you with a blank verdict form and have completed it and dated it.

That is correct.

Hands that to the bailiff.

Judge opens the form.

Ask the clerk to read the verdict as to count 1.

Verdict:

Not guilty of murder in first degree.

Yes their verdict.

The clerk polls the jury.

All the jurors have answered.

Now with regard to lesser included, we are now going to be in a position to answer your questions... so I ask you to return to the jury room.

K: Now all jurors have left the courtroom.

The people would like to argue.
Defense feels argument would be inappropriate.

Defense would like to poll the jury to see if further deliberation would be (necessary).

9:48 AM

The jurors questions are not specific. They are general questions.

If they come back with a more specific question.

JK: These are specific questions.

An enhanced definition of second degree. Further definition of first and second.

Buehler doesn't agree.

This court has on occasion, had further argument limited to the issue, and the issue is, first degree and second degree.  Obviously they found not guilty of first degree.

There appears to be a lack of understanding as to the difference between first and second degree.

So the, court is going to follow the option of limited argument on the issues contained.  If the defense doesn't wish to argue, you don't have to.

Defense feels that is argument should not be about the instructions.

Judge Kennedy states, the people can divide up their time, all ten at once, each side has 10 minutes.

Just relate it to the issue that the jury has put to us.

Then ask them to continue their deliberations and then try to reach a verdict or tell us if they cannot reach a verdict.

Buehler states the jury did not ask for argument.  I fear that again, the message sent to the jury, that the court is not happy .... ...they need more help.

I would assume the court would open it up,

Their whole question is dealing with difference between first and second degree murder.

GB:I don't see what they have in mind. So I object.

The people are ready to proceed?

SOW: Yes, if I could just turn on the elmo.

JK: Let's let the jury out.

9:54 AM
The bail bondsman, Josh Herman arrives.

9:54 AM
In response to your note, the court has elected to have the attorneys address you. I've limited it to ten minutes on the issues of first and second degree murder.

At the conclusion of those comments, then I will ask you to continue your deliberations to see if you can reach a verdict or if you are unable to do so as to the charge of second degree murder.

9:55 AM
All murders in California start at second degree. Expressed or Implied murder. There are two separate ways to reach second degree murder.   First degree murder also requires premeditation.

Let me go back to second degree murder  because your focus is on that area.

First way can reach second, is when there is an act that causes a death of another.

Explains malice aforethought.

1. The defendant committed an act that caused the death of another.
2. The person had malice aforethought.

1. Expressed malice.  That's an intent to kill.

(If I) point a gun at Detective Thomas, it is an intention to kill.
Aside and completely apart from that is ... second form of malice aforethought is (implied).

Because sometime,s it's not that clear from the evidence of expressed malice, and that's (implied malice).

The law recognizes this type of malice aforethought,

1. The defendant intentionally committed an act.

She placed her hands around Juliana's neck and it caused Juliana to die.

That is implied malice.

2. The natural and probably consequences of the act was dangerous to human life.

3. At the time she acted the defendant knew (what she was doing).

4. Acted with conscious disregard to human life.

It means you know what you are doing is causing serious injury to human life and you do it anyway.

You understand there is a harm to human life and you do it anyway.

Common sense tells us that choking another human being (could cause death.)

Mentions turning the stove on that could have caused an explosion... throughout the entire complex.

She knew what she was doing. She was trying to get the apartment to explode.  She knew what she was doing but she just didn't care.  It was to cover up the crime... and cover up evidence left at the scene.

Those are the four elements of implied malice.

There are two ways to reach second degree. Expressed malice. Is an intent to kill.  Implied malice is  (like just explained).  That the defendant had the state of mind to convict her of second degree.

It's the peoples position that when the defendant placed her hands around Juliana's neck, the defendant intended to kill her. She beat Juliana up, prior to killing her. Mentions Dr. Pena's testimony.

This strangulation occurred, after that b eating. When she placed her hands around Juliana's neck, it's clear, that she wanted Juliana to die.

If you don't think it's expressed malice, then look to implied malice.

Mr. Buehler. You used your entire 10 minutes.

We (know?) you're working hard on this case.

What you heard, is argument. The attorney has no authoritative word, on what expressed implied malice means, as applied to the facts, as you find them.

The prosecutor has given you her version of the facts, and what that means, under the instruction.

Second degree murder, does require a high level of evidence.

I submit to you, there is a whole lot of uncertainty as to what happened to Juliana in the apartment.  Even if the prosecution proved that Kelly Park was there, there is still a lot of questions as to what actually happened.

The prosecution relies heavily on DNA evidence.  You've heard, that the DNA evidence leaves a lot of questions.  It was the prosecutions expert that said, there's a lot of uncertainty as to how it gets placed and transferred. She could not say if that DNA got transferred from someone else.

There are a lot of unanswered questions.

Questions about why Park's fingerprints are not all over that apartment.

Questions about why others DNA was not there.

Prosecution has a whole lot of questions that are left unanswered in this case.  If there is a question about what happened, or have differing opinions and views ,as to what happened, as to the meaning of instructions, ... you go back to instruction 220, a defendant is presumed to be innocent.

Under the instructions and under the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. I submit to you, that there is no such evidence.

Judge Kennedy reminds them that all of the instructions do apply. They are asked to return to the deliberation room, to continue your instructions.

Jurors have left the courtroom.
10:11 AM

10:15 AM 
I've tried to edit my spelling.  The courtroom is almost empty. Many people have left.

The court is now on the record in the bench trial.

The defense team, Park and her husband are having a conference in the ante chamber.  Chronister informs the bailiff where they are then leaves. 

10:19 AM
An alternate juror was not put on the jury. That is incorrect. That did not happen. When counsel argued again to the jury for 10 minutes each, all the jurors, seated panel and alternates must be present.

The jury reached a verdict on the greater count, first degree.  They are now going to deliberate some more on second degree.

10:27 AM
I stepped outside for a moment to take a break.

Inside Dept. 109, testimony continues in the bench trial.  The defense has called another RN who interacted with the defendant.

10:31 AM 
Park, the bail bondsman and a few supporters, reenter Dept. 109.

10:32 AM
A few of Juliana's supporters enter.  A moment later, Chronister enters and sits beside Park in the back row.

10:33 AM
Answering a comment. I don't believe involuntary manslaughter can be added at this time.  Not when the case has already been given to a jury.  If that happened, I believe that would be an error by the court to allow that.  That could be grounds for an appeal.

10:36 AM
I stepped outside to stretch my legs and check the hallway.  The hallway is full. There are many jurors from other cases as well as supporters for each side.

10:38 AM
Buzz! Buzz! Buzz!
We have a verdict!

People file into the courtroom.  More media has shown up.  LA times reporter Jack Leonard arrives.

10:41 AM
There's a bit of bustle in the courtroom. More bailiffs enter.  Judge Kennedy admonishes a deputy because his radio is going off.

The Redding family is in the first seating row.  Several new bailiffs enter and tell people to put their cell phones away.  I see the pretty bailiff who was in Judge Perry's courtroom for the Lazarus case.

The bench trial witness on the stand is excused.

The defense counsel has been notified, but it's not clear if they are still in the building.

The jury deliberated an additional 30 minutes before reaching a verdict. Major Crimes Department Head Gary Hearnsberger arrives.  More DDA clerks and staff arrive trying to find a seat.

All this commotion is going on while a witness in the bench trial is trying to testify.

Until the defense and prosecution get here, the bench case will continue.

10:50 AM
The bench case continues.

10:53 AM
When I stepped outside to update, Judge Kennedy's bailiff was coming in.The bailiff told me to stop updating my blog.  That my coming and going was causing a distraction.

Defense attorney Mark Kassabian arrive about a minute ago.

10:56 AM
Judge Kennedy interrupts the bench trial for the Park case.

There are a ton of bailiff's in the ante chamber. I was told again, when I stepped into the ante chamber by a bailiff there, not to update.

10:59 AM
The jury is present.
Jury has reached a verdict.

Ask clerk to read the verdict.

NOT GUILTY.

The friends cry.

This is their verdict.  Juliana's friends sob.

I don't see Mrs. Redding face.

Now free to talk to anyone or no one.

As far as the court is concerned, we protect the identity of jurors. Your identity is sealed, and will not be disclosed.

If you choose to speak to anyone about this case. You are under no obligation to speak to anyone in this manner.

I'm told that you are requesting to leave privately, and not through the public hallway. The judge will accommodate that and the sheriff's will provide means to do that.

Again, I want to thank you for your service in this manner, and you are excused.

If they want to leave privately, just step back into the hallway.

At this time bail is exonerated. Defendant is discharged.  Thank you.

Juliana's friends left the courtroom.

As one family member passed they said to me.  "This is wrong. It's wrong, and you tell them that."

Or maybe I got that wrong and she said, "You write that."

11:13 AM
According to the Public Information Office, the Redding family and the Park family do not wish to speak to the media. speak to the media.

Mrs. Redding said something when the verdict was read but I did not hear it. 

There were outbursts from Redding supporters but I did not hear exactly what they said.

Jurors left via a freight elevator.

11:17 AM
Park and her husband leave the courtroom escorted by deputies.

I'm still amazed by the turn of events.  I'm still shaking from the events inside the courtroom.

12:30 PM
I'm back home now.  As you can imagine this has been an exhausting experience. After three weeks, I'm ready for a break.  I'm not going to publish any comments until later tonight after I've had a bit of rest and time away from my computer.  Thank you for your understanding.

As a reminder, here is T&T's comment policy.  At emotional times like these, it's very important to remember that friends and family members of both sides are reading. Please keep that in mind when posting a comment.  I will not publish any comment that is offensive or disrespectful to Juliana Redding or Kelly Soo Park, or their families. T&T is not obligated to publish your comments.

I recommend LA Time's Jack Leonard's report on the reading of the verdict. The LA Times comment policy may be more liberal than mine.

Thank you again for reading.  I'll be back online tonight or tomorrow. Sprocket. 

Statement by DA Jackie Lacey on the People v. Park verdict.

Video of Reading of the Verdict on Local NBC 4 

KCAL 9 News Reading of Verdict with gallery outbursts

Kelly Soo Park Verdict Watch, Day 7

Kelly Soo Park, May 13th, at Opening Statements

UPDATE:  AT 3:22 PM A VERDICT HAS BEEN REACHED!

7:00 AM
Jurors return today for their 7th day of deliberations. So far, I've calculated the jury has deliberated a total of 26 hours and 20 minutes.

In other news, Stephanie Lazarus's appeal for her first degree murder conviction may be in default. The case docket at the California Courts of Appeal indicates her court appointed attorney missed a filing deadline.

I'll update when I reach the 9th floor of the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center, in downtown Los Angeles.

Kelly Soo Park Quick Links
Kelly Soo Park Jury Clock
Kelly Soo Park Witness List

8:29 AM
I'm on the 9th floor.  The Redding family, Greg, Patricia and their son are sitting on the benches directly across from me.  Everyone is wearing a pink ribbon on their lapel. My eyes start to well up when I see a small silver heart over the ribbon Patricia Redding is wearing. I have no idea why that affected me so much. I'm sure my lack of sleep doesn't help.

8:30 AM
The bailiff unlocks the door to Dept. 109 and people start to file in.  The camera crew sets up their equipment.  The court clerk and court reporter are chatting at the clerks desk.  The bailiff is at his desk. The Redding family sits in the first seating row.

In Judge Kennedy's courtroom, there are four long bench rows on the right side of the gallery and two short bench rows on the left behind the bailiff's desk.  The first right side row is kept empty so jurors can easily enter the jury box. So seating is from the second row back.  The seats on the left are reserved for court personnel, officers, and counsel.

The well of the court is crowded.  There is a long continuous table for the defense and prosecution.  In the table center is the projection equipment for exhibits. The screen for the projection equipment is mounted on the wall above the clerk's desk. The court reporter's desk is directly in front of the witness box. There is very little room between the counsel table and the court reporter's desk. Up against the little wall that separates the gallery and the well, there are seats for additional counsel and staff.  It is this extra seating that makes the well a bit cramped for walking space.

8:44 AM
Park and Tom Chronister enter Dept. 109.  As I was walking north on Broadway from my parking lot, I saw Park and Chronister ahead of me.  Although I believe they park somewhere on Temple Street, I believe they walk through Grand Park to Broadway so they can enter the building from the rear.

8:48 AM
It's very quiet. The tapping of my keys on my laptop seem especially loud to me today, even though I have a keyboard protector that dulls the sound a bit.

A few jurors enter in groups of one and twos, heading back to the jury room.

8:53 AM
Park's mother Irene enters and greets Park and other family members.  DDA Okun-Wiese enters with her staff and greets the Redding family with hugs.  Detective Thompson is with them.  I believe Detective Thompson brought Patricia a rose that she just pinned to her lapel.

The alternate jurors enter and let the court clerk know they are here.  "Okay. Thank you," the clerk tells them. They exit the courtroom.

8:57 AM
The gallery has a flurry of conversation for a moment.  I believe the bailiff checks on the jury and quickly returns. He stops by the clerk's desk.  I believe the clerk is sharing with him some family photos.

9:00 AM
BUZZ!  The jurors are all present and deliberating.

9:15 AM
Several members of the media have arrived.  Lisa from 20/20 is back, along with Sue from 48 Hours.  Lonce from Adjuster.com, a few more faces I know and a few I don't.

All of us are in the back row near the door.

There is an attorney at the defense table.  I'm guessing that the bench trial will resume shortly.

DDA Okun-Wiese, Detective Thompson and their clerks are sitting in the very first row.  The bailiff comes over to sit down and chat with Okun-Wiese.

9:18 AM
TYPO!!! I meant to write, "heart" instead of "heard".  I've made the correction.

9:20 AM
The prosecutor in the bench trial arrives.  A cameraman leaves the courtroom.  The defense investigator, Linda Larsen is sitting in the gallery, reading pages from a print out.  There's a bit of rustling of newspapers in the gallery.  Park reads a magazine. Chronister, along with many others in the gallery, is focused on his smart phone.

9:23 AM
The prosecution team leaves the courtroom.

9:24 AM
Bench trial.
The clerk asks if the bailiff is ready. (To bring the defendant out.)  The defense attorney asks to hold for a minute.   Judge Kennedy takes the bench.  I will step outside to publish. I won't be able to publish inside the courtroom while Judge Kennedy is on the bench.

9:27 AM
Bench trial.
Counsel and the judge are discussing having the defense call a medical doctor to testify about their client's mental health.

A bench trial is one where the defendant has chosen to have their case heard by a judge only, and not a jury.  The judge hears all the evidence and renders a verdict.

9:34 AM
People are patiently waiting.  Most are engrossed in their reading material. I cannot say that there is an observable level of tension in the room.

9:36 AM
I had to step out for a moment earlier to return a phone call and I missed when Park and Chronister exited the courtroom.

The court report and the prosecutor in the bench trial are having a pleasant conversation.

9:38 AM
A casually dressed man in jeans and a T-shirt enters and asks what the case is about.  I try to quietly inform him. He thanks me and then leaves.

9:39 AM
Bench trial.
The court clerk enters from the back area and asks the room, "Are we ready?"  I believe the defense attorney responds "Yes."  The bailiff gets up to collect the defendant.  He's brought out.

9:42 AM
Bench trial.
A prosecution witness takes the stand. A doctor. He is an emergency medicine physician.  He works at LA County Medical Center.  I'm betting he treated the victim.

I will step outside to publish since Judge Kennedy is on the bench.

9:44 AM
Chronister and Park reenter the courtroom.

9:47 AM
Bench trial.
The doctor is describing the wounds to the victim's body.

Luz from Dateline enters Dept. 109.

9:53 AM
Greg Redding and his son appear to be paying attention to the bench trial.

Looking over at Park, she appears to be listening to the bench trial also.  She then pulls her fingers through her hair and goes back to reading her magazine.

10:04 AM
Bench trial.
An officer is now on the stand, testifying about the arrest.  When he searched Mr. Thomas, he recovered a knife. It was in two tan socks, then that was slid down his pants into his waistband.

10:09 AM
Bench trial is in recess for a moment. Judge Kennedy is off the bench.

10:15 AM
It's all quiet in the courtroom now.  Everyone is back to whispering as quietly as they can.  Patricia Redding and her so have left. The gallery has thinned out a bit.

The bench trial.
The prosecution rested it's case. There are defense witnesses still to testify.  Counsel for that case have left. 

One of the reporters leaves to get a snack. Another reporter asks if they can bring back some water.  It's now back to the tedious waiting with nothing going on except whispers and echos from the hallway outside.

10:31 AM
Parks sister Kim arrives.  Smiles, hugs and kisses are exchanged.

10:39 AM
Answering a question. There have been a few times where I have seen a contemplative expression on Parks face. I don't believe I can say that she looks worries all the time.  She is obviously happy to see her family that come to support her.

10:41 AM
Park and Chronister reenter the courtroom with another supporter I've seen before.  Currently, the bailiff is out of the courtroom.  The beautifully tall girlfriend of Juliana's who testified, Kelly Duncan enters and hands a card to the Redding family.

10:49 AM
The bailiff enters and sits back down at his desk.  The only sounds are coming from the clerks desk as she works on her computer.

10:50 AM
Answering a question. Yes. We still have another hour before the lunch break is called.

10:54 AM
Again, thank you to everyone who has generously made a donation to my trial coverage costs.  My husband and I so appreciate your support.  All the donations, no matter the amount, help to cover my costs in providing this public service. I know I am behind in writing my personal thank yous to those of you who have donated in the last few days but I will get to them, I promise.

If anyone wishes to write me privately, I will honor your request for confidentiality.

10:55 AM
There has been a lot of speculation in the comments that the jury is hung.  I don't see it that way.  I hold out hope that the jury is still trying to reach a unanimous verdict.  The jury isn't hung unless they tell the court they are hung.  It's that simple.

10:58 AM
The jurors 'could be' taking a break and not leaving the jury room. That is theoretically possible.

As of now, they have deliberated 2 hours this morning.

11:00 AM
There are supporters here for both sides. I would say there is a full bench row of supporters for each side.  Kelly Duncan is the only witness who testified who is currently in the courtroom, waiting.

11:02 AM
One of Park's more senior supporters appears to be playing a game of solitaire on a ThinkPad or iPad device.

11:05 AM
I update about every five to ten minutes or so.  Cher Brooks, a stunningly beautiful black woman who testified for the defense enters. Dept. 109.  It looked like she had a cup of joe or tea in her hand.

11:09 AM
I stepped out into the hallway to stretch my legs for a moment.  It's not easy to sit still, keep my computer on my lap and type.

There are a few people from each side of the case relaxing in the hallway. In the hallway, Detective Thompson is chatting with two gentlemen I'm not familiar with.  There are also several reporters hard at work on their laptops or smart phones.

11:11 AM
A new reporter face I've not seen before enters.  Some in the gallery complain about the chilly courtroom, myself included.  Friday it was too hot, today it's like an icicle.

11:19 AM
Cher Brooks is Juliana's friend. She spent the night at her house on the evening of March 14th.  The defense called her as a witness to testify about spending the night with Juliana. They shared Juliana's bed.  Not as lovers, but as two friends. I personally don't see anything wrong with that.

11:23 AM
Answering a question.  Everyone in the courtroom will be able to hear the jurors when they "buzz."  It's quite loud.  It usually makes my heart race when I hear the two buzzes, because I keep anticipating hearing a third that indicates there is a verdict.

11:25 AM
Commenting on a comment.  The law views circumstantial evidence with equal weight as direct evidence (eye witness testimony). There is no difference between the two.  This case did not have DNA evidence alone.  This case also had fingerprint evidence. There was evidence presented that linked Park to the victim through a common individual, Dr. Uwaydah.  All of that testimony is evidence beyond just the DNA evidence.

11:29 AM
Let me see if I can explain a bit about witnesses called by a defense attorney.

In a case, the defense is given discovery by the prosecution. From that discovery, they learn about the investigation. They learn about the people who knew the victim and who was with the victim during critical times, or relevant times.  There may be LE interviews with witnesses that the defense receives.

The defense, reading discovery, may want to call an individual to the stand to present testimony about their interaction with the victim or the defendant.  They may have a trial strategy, where they believe what that individual will say may help their case.  Individuals who were interviewed by police are not obligated to speak to defense representatives before trial.  The defense would have to subpoena the individual they want to testify, to ensure they appear for court.  I hope that answers your question.

11:38 AM
Please be kind and respectful to each other in the comments.  Sometimes, people are leaving comments from their cell phones, and for me, I'm not the best typist even on my laptop. I often have spelling errors, too.

11:45 AM
Years ago, in 2009, the Spector verdict was reached at 11:45 AM on a Monday.

11:46 AM
When you only have the written word, so much of our unspoken communication is lost. Facial expression, tone of voice, body language... make up 90% of communication.

11:50 AM
Park is sitting quietly, reading a magazine.  The few times that Park has looked in my direction she has smiled and I've smiled back.

I have not personally observed Park exchanging direct looks with the Redding family.  It's my impression that both sides politely give each other space.

Direct evidence is eye witness testimony. It is the testimony of someone who has personally observed an event.  Everything else is considered circumstantial evidence.  Understand that often times, circumstantial evidence is more powerful that direct evidence.  It's misleading, imho, for people to say "there's only circumstantial evidence" as if, it has a lesser value than direct, eyewitness testimony.

In the eyes of the court, direct and circumstantial evidence is equal. One is not better than another.  They both have equal weight in the eyes of the law.

11:55 AM
Not all cases have an eyewitness (direct evidence) to a murder.  Like I said, circumstantial evidence can be very compelling evidence.

11:58 AM
The bailiff heads back to the jury room to inquire.

12:25 PM
The jurors went to lunch. I'm at lunch. There is no verdict yet.  Back at 1:30 PM.  Thank you everyone for reading T&T!

1:05 PM
Up on the 9th floor.  My lunch was a "working" lunch on another project.
I had ground turkey & white onions spiced with hatch New Mexico chilies (Mr. Sprocket's favorite spice). I added a small salad from the cafeteria to get some greens.

1:22 PM
I'm up on the ninth floor, waiting.  It's a balancing act to stand, hold my laptop with one hand and type with the other.

1:32 PM
I'm inside Dept. 109 in my favorite seat.  From where I'm sitting, I have a good view of the well of the court. People file in and take their favorite seats.

1:33 PM
The Redding family are not inside the courtroom yet, but a few of their friends and other family members are.

There's still a bid of loud conversation in the gallery at the moment.

The bench trial.
The defense attorney is here.  He tells the bailiff he will step out of the courtroom for a moment and will be right back.

1:36 PM
BUZZ!  The jury is deliberating.

Kim Park exits the courtroom.

1:43 PM
Counsel for the bench trial are both here.  When that goes on the record, my time in-between postings will be a bit longer.   The bailiff asks counsel, "You guys ready to go?"  He then goes to collect the defendant.

1:45 PM
I try to sit back, get comfortable, cross my legs and balance my laptop on my crossed leg.  Judge Kennedy takes the bench.  The defense goes out to collect his witness.

When the bailiff walks by me to shut the inner courtroom doors, I notice there is this huge brass like key hanging from the front of his belt. It's very unusual looking with spines on both sides of it. It looked like it was at least five or six inches long.  I've never noticed this key before.

1:51 PM
Out in the hallway are members of Juliana's family.  Also hanging out in the hallway are DDA Okun-Wiese and Detective Thompson.

Members of Juliana's family and friends enter the courtroom as a group.

1:59 PM
Thank you to Anon @1:56 PM who explained the large brass like key.

2:05 PM
Although I've been told the names of a few of the people who have come to court to support Juliana and her family, I will only publish names that are part of the public record (via testimony).  The reason for that is, I do not have permission to use their names.  I forgot to answer a question earlier.  Patricia is the name of Juliana's mother.

2:08 PM
Sounds like the locks that fit the key are huge.

2:09 PM
Park appears to be listening to the testimony in the bench trial.  There is an RN who is testifying as a defense witness about an event in a hospital where he encountered the defendant in a specific hospital unit. There are notes in a patient file that the witness is referring to.  Currently, the witness is under cross by the prosecution.

Judge Kennedy asks the witness where he was being housed. It was in an individual cell.  So sounds like he was in custody at the time.  From the notes the witness has, the defendant was not violent in the RN's presence.


2:17 PM
The bench trial.
The defense attorney tripped over a rolling cart in the well as he was exiting to retrieve his next witness, another mental health RN who worked in the jail.

2:20 PM
Here's how the court process works.
First, you have a trial. The jury deliberates and reaches a verdict.  The verdict is read in open court.  If the verdict is guilty in a murder trial, the defendant is taken into custody, if they are not already in custody.  Formal sentencing does not happen immediately.  It's usually scheduled for some time in the future.  It can be a few weeks, a month, etc.  It depends on several things.

Once the defendant is formally sentenced, it's my understanding that's when a defendant would usually file an appeal.  If I'm remembering correctly, the California Penal Code states that after sentencing, a convicted individual must be transferred to the Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation within 30 days.

Filing an appeal.
An appeal takes time to wind through the legal system. It would take an attorney time, to go through the entire case file record, find points of law that were ruled on and present arguments to the appellate court that the rulings at the trial (or before trial) were in error.

Once the appeal is finished and filed, then the State of California has the opportunity to present their brief to counter the defendant's appeal.  This brief is prepared by the State of California. The case is no longer with the various counties that prosecuted the case.

After that is filed, the defendant has the ability to file a counter brief to the people's brief.  When all those briefs are filed, then the appellate courts review the moving papers.  The appellate court gets everything. They get a copy of the complete case file. They get copies/lists of the evidence presented at trial.  Once the judges have reviewed the case then a date is set for oral arguments.  This is usually just a formality. The judges by this time, have close to made up their minds.  Oral arguments are a very short amount of time.  Like 20 minutes per side or less.  In eight weeks or less, the judges publish their ruling on the case.

2:31 PM
Judge Kennedy calls a brief break in the bench trial. She leaves the bench and the defendant is taken back into the holding cell.

2:53 PM
Answering a question.  I have not attended that many trials in full. Just a few really. The list of trials I've attended are on the right side of the blog, except for one, Robert Blake.  Phil Spector 1 & 2, Cameron Brown 2, James Fayed, Stephanie Lazarus, Kelly Soo Park. 

There have been two instances where I did not provide beginning to end coverage. Phil Spector 1 and Cameron Brown 2. In Cameron Brown 2, I became ill during the defense case and I missed several of the witnesses.  In Spector 1, I left near the end of the case for personal reasons. I came back for the reading of jury instructions.

2:56 PM
I attended the Conrad Murray preliminary hearing, not the actual trial.

3:00 PM
I forgot to answer the question!  This is not the longest number of days I've sat on verdict watch. I think the Spector 2 jurors deliberated over 9 days, but less hours.

3:06 PM
Bench trial.
The defense attorney comes back and says, "I'm ready."  The defendant is brought out.

3:07 PM
Judge Kennedy takes the bench and court is in session.

3:11 PM
Bench trial.
A defense witness is on the stand, another RN who has worked her whole career at the Men's Central Jail.

A group of Park supporters enter the courtroom.  The bailiff admonishes the gallery to be quiet.

3:17 PM
Answering comments.  I do not know if I will attend a potential retrial. It would depend on when it happened, and if I was already attending another case.

There was no DNA expert that testified "1 and 20,000 chance it isnt hers.." That is incorrect.  The DNA analyst testified that to randomly find the exact same profile, as the one found at the crime scene, they would have to test one-trillion people to find an exact match, to the DNA found at the crime scene and on Juliana.  That's what the DNA expert testified to.   In essence, the DNA profile that was found at the scene is unbelievably rare.

2:21 PM
Parks counsel enter the courtroom.  Park gets up from her seat and sits with Buehler in the row of seats behind the bailiff's desk. Kassabian is sitting two seats over to my left.

3:22 PM
Buzz Buzz Buzz!  We have a verdict.

3:24 PM
People start to file in and it makes too much noise, since a witness is on the stand in the bench trial.  The bailiff tells the people entering to wait outside, that there is a trial going on.

From the bench, Judge Kennedy tells the bailiff that they have a right to be here. That we cannot exclude people from the courtroom.  They can enter but they have to sit down.

Park and Chronister exit the courtroom with Park's counsel a minute earlier.

3:27 PM
Park reenters the courtroom and sits next to her mother.

Chronister enters and sits next to his wife.

3:30 PM
A cell phone goes off in the courtroom. Judge Kennedy addresses the gallery, "Is there anyone else who needs to turn their cell phone off?"

Another person enters and their cell phone makes a noise.

3:31 PM
Detective Thompson enters.  She motions to the Redding family.  Patricia, Greg and their son leave the courtroom.

More deputy sheriff's arrive to keep order. There are three deputies in the courtroom.  Our bailiff is off somewhere.  Now a fourth deputy enters Dept. 109.

3:34 PM
Our bailiff comes out of the juror area.  Jane Robison from the DA's office arrived but I don't see her now.  DDA Gary Hearnsberger, head of Major Crimes was entering the ante chamber as I was exiting the courtroom to publish.

Kathy from the Public Information Office arrives.  Greg Fisher from 48 Hours arrives along with LA Times reporter Jack Leonard.

3:38 PM
No one told the Reddings to leave. Detective Thompson wanted to speak to them.  It is not unusual at all for this many deputies to be in the courtroom when a verdict has been reached and the courtroom is packed. This is normal.

Judge Kennedy ends the bench trial for the day. She asks for the prosecutor in the Park case.  DDA Hearnsberger tells Judge Kennedy that she is in the hallway.

3:40 PM
The defense attorney's enter. The courtroom is packed with people. Judge Kennedy stands. Parks defense counsel enter the well and sit at the defense table.  The prosecution is at the people's table.

The clerk is getting papers for the judge.

3:42 PM
Judge Kennedy asks that park step up and take a seat next to her lawyer.


3:44 PM
Judge Kennedy moves papers at her desk.  I want to just caution everyone in the audience, whatever the verdicts are, please contain your response, what ever your repsonse. There are things that have to be done, on the record. Please keep your responses (calm).

Bailiff. Please keep all cell phones turned completely off.

The jury enters.  The alternates enter.

Will just wait now, for the verdict.

On the record.

Juror #4, I understand the jury has reached a verdict.  It was the banker, jury foreman.

The AP reporter arrives.

Have been unable to reach a verdict on the lesser offense. Have reached a verdict on the greater offense.

There are a couple of jurors that are not following the court's instructions.

With reference to the charge on the lesser included offense. Do you think there's anything further than can be done to reach a conclusion... You say the jurors are not following the instructions.

Obviously, if jurors have a difference of opinion,... but if they are not following the courts instructions, I may need some more information. I don't want to know about deliberations, but I'm unclear about what you mean that the jurors are not following the courts instructions.

Are they refusing to deliberate, I don't care what the courts instructions are.

We have heard comments along those lines?

Yes.

Do you feel that there is anything the court can do, to instruct the jury that.... however, it is the law that all the jurors follow the instructions of the court.

Judge Kennedy speaks to the jurors.  It's not the courts rule, to tell any juror, how they should come to a conclusion.  But it is a law that all jurors follow the instructions of the court.

Is there any additional information that the court could provide.

Going to ask that you all go back, to write a note to me, as to what instructions are at issue, and see if you can come to further (deliberations).

If you feel that there is an instruction that you feel is being disregarded... at least for the moment, going to ask that you go back into the jury room, and the alternates step back outside.

We'll wait to hear from them.

Buehler asks to see the note. Judge Kennedy leaves the bench.

Park appears visibly shaken.

3:55 PM
I am quite confused because I thought there was only one charge. I didn't realize there was a lesser charge.

We have received clarification from Jane Robison.  It appears that the jurors have come to a decision on first degree, but cannot reach a decision on second degree.

4:02 PM
Court transcripts are not available online. You can however, purchase a personal copy from the court reporter. They are not cheap.

The only people who know the verdict on the greater charge, (1st degree) is the judge and the jury at this point.  Everyone else hears the verdict when it is read in open court.

3:05 PM
Buzz! Buzz!  The court clerk goes to investigate.

4:07 PM
The courtroom gallery  fills back up again.  Park is at the defense table. Waiting on Judge Kennedy and the jury.

Five deputies inside the courtroom.

4:09 PM
The cameraman adjusts a microphone at the clerk's desk.

4:11 PM
A commenter is correct. IF the jury has acquitted on the first degree charge, Park could not be retried on first degree.

4:12 PM
Buzz! Buzz! The bailiff investigates. He comes out with a paper and heads directly to Judge Kennedy's chambers

4:14 PM
Court is in session.
Received the following note, we request the following and enhanced definiton of second degree murder.  520, of the instructions.

What we are going to do, because it is 4:15 is let the jury go.

But it does not appear the jury has reached a verdict. and until the court has a chance to have a measured discussion.

The defense asks that the verdict for first degree be read.  Judge Kennedy states she is not taking any verdicts at this time.

The alternates enter.

The jury enters.

Once again on the record.  I'm in receipt of your note, juror #4 foreperson.  You're asking for an enhanced instruction on second degree, and a definition between first and second degree.  And for information on page 10 (of jury instructions).

It doesn't appear to me that the jury has not reached a verdict.  We are going to discuss this with counsel, we are going to do that tomorrow.  Going to be excusing you and the alternates until 9:00 tomorrow. Admonishes the jury not to watch the news, use the Internet.

The jury exits.

Judge Kennedy leans down low to speak to her bailiff privately while on the bench.

All jurors have left the courtroom.

#4 of 520 reads as follows.  Judge Kennedy reads the 520. My inclination is, to allow limited of period of time of further argument to the jury. The difference between first degree murder and second. Each side to address the jury for 10 minutes.  The prosecution can divide it all up or address at all one time.

Will make copies of this question and order

Buehler asks to see the verdict forms, and Judge Kennedy denies the request.  He is making an objection to the way the court is handling this proceding. He objects strongly.

The comment that is written on the verdict form is ambigous.

Buehler, feels that verdict should be taken now.  He continues

Contrary, there is a note on this form that two jurors were not following instructions.  At this point we are adjourned until tomorrow.   Judge Kennedy will give the defense the written note, but not the one on the envelope of the finished jury forms.

4:23 PM We are in recess.

Counsel is ordered back at 8:30 AM tomorrow.

4:29 PM
Defense attorney George Buehler is speaking to the press in the hallway.  He believes the court is in error for not taking the verdict on first degree at this time.

6:08 PM
I am not home yet.  I had to stop by Mr. Sprocket's current work project and help with a difficult part of the job.

You know, what a helper would do. Hold this just like this and don't move an inch..  Move that over there there. Now wait until I get on the other side.  Don't move yet. Keep steady.  I'm inbetween helping to hold things at the moment. 

I'm wearing one of Mr. Sprocket's spare work shirts. I'm in a dirty, dusty commercial building basement. I often call it the dungeon.  I have very sketchy Internet connection at the moment. However, I will try to answer the most important question now.

Here is my opinion at this point.

In jury instructions, the jury is instructed to tackle the first degree murder charge first.

There are two possible outcomes.
1. HYPOTHETICAL: They jury come to a guilty verdict on first. Their job is done. 
2. HYPOTHETICAL: The jury reaches a not guilty verdict on first. They then move onto second degree.

The jurors have reached a verdict on the greater charge.  They have not reached a verdict on the lesser charge.

Once I get home, I will try to answer everyone's questions.

7:40 PM
Here is LA Times reporter, Jack Leonard's report on what happened in court this afternoon.

I will gather all your questions and see if I can answer them as a group. Please be patient. I still am trying to unwind from a long court day.

10:09 PM
Thank you T&T readers for your support.  It's so appreciated.

I apologize that I am too tired to get to your questions tonight.  I'll be back at court at 8:30 AM tomorrow, to report on what remedy Judge Kennedy and counsel agree upon for fulfilling the jury's request for more detailed instructions on first and second degree murder.