"Grim Sleper," Lonnie Franklin, Jr. Sentencing Today

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., May 5, 2016
Photo Credit: Pool Camera/Video

Full T&T Case Coverage HERE.
Prior case post found HERE.

UPDATE: Daily News - City News Service, Terri Keith report.
UPDATE: ABC7's Miriam Hernandez is live tweeting the sentencing.

August 10, 2016
Lonnie Franklin, Jr., the "Grim Sleeper" a serial killer whose killing spree of young women spanned over 20 years in South Central Los Angeles, was convicted on 10 counts of first degree murder and one count of premeditated attempted murder on May 5, 2016.

During the penalty phase of the trial, Deputy DA's Beth Silverman and Marguerite Rizzo connected Franklin to five additional victims, the oldest dating back the 1970's when Franklin was in the US Army stationed in Germany.

On June 6, 2016, the jury returned death verdicts on all 11 counts. It's expected that Judge Kathleen Kennedy will honor the jury's verdict and sentenced Franklin to death today.

During the penalty phase, jurors heard the heart wrenching memories of 28 family members of the victims testifying about their loss and grief of losing their mother, their sister, their daughter or the grandmother they never got to meet.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the sentencing today.  Our kitty Scout, who was diagnosed last year with Lymphoma, has not been doing well these past few days. I stayed up with him all last night. Hopefully our vet can help him feel better today.

ABC Associated Press- Brian Melley

LA Times - Marissa Gerber & James Queally
NBC4 - Wire Serivces
CBS2 - Local

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., "Grim Sleeper," Penalty Phase Verdict Watch Day 2

 Lonnie Franklin, Jr., in custody, 2015

Photo Credit: Pool Camera

UPDATE 6/8 NOTE: A summary page has been developed of all the witnesses who testified in the penalty phase, with links to the pages of their detailed testimony.

UPDATE 6/7  Day 9 Part II has been published. This concludes all the prosecution witnesses who testified in the penalty phase.
UPDATE 6/7 Day 9 Part I has been published. This includes the testimony of the German witness. Sprocket.

UPDATED 4:03 PM spelling, grammar, clarity
UPDATED 3:45 PM spelling, grammar, clarity and afterword
Monday June 6, 2016
9:08 AM
I'm still out in the hallway of the 9th floor of the downtown Criminal Justice Center. All the jurors have not arrived yet, so deliberations have not started. Judge Kennedy's bailiff is chatting with the jurors who have arrived. There are about seven or eight jurors here.

9:10 AM
Marissa Gerber from the LA Times arrives on the 9th floor. A cameraman is here and a reporter I know by sight but I don't know her name. Three members of the Anderson family have arrived.

9:12 AM
Terri Keith from City News is here.

9:14 AM
Quite a bit of laughter coming from the jurors chatting with the bailiff. Judge Kennedy's bailiff is really a funny guy.  Local ABC 7's Miriam Hernandez is here.  Miriam looks lovely today, as always.

9:18 AM
The jurors and the bailiff head into Dept. 109.

9:19AM
The jurors gave a single buzz that they have started deliberating.

9:27 AM
NBC's Patrick Healy arrives and chats with the cameraman. Besides the fires, this case may be the only 'big' news in the area.

9:45 AM
Smiling, Judge Kennedy came out and said hello to the media.

9:48 AM 
BUZZ! BUZZ!  A question. The court clerk goes back to ask. The clerk comes out carrying a container and tells the media that it's "food related." The jurors wanted to share some of the food they brought with the alternates.  I believe it's tamales.

10:00 AM
Scriptwriter MW arrives.  A while ago, Terri left to check into her office.

10:13 AM
LA Times reporter Marissa Gerber enters Dept. 109 and plugs in her laptop. The bailiff enters right after and scolds a few of the reporters on their cell phones.

10:22 AM
Buzz! Buzz! The bailiff goes to check. Morning break.

10:34 AM
Well known sketch artist Mona Edwards arrives and starts a conversation with Miriam. Miriam's network hires Edwards to do courtroom sketches.

10:40 AM
The jurors file in and reenter the jury room.

10:41 AM
Buzz! They are deliberating again.

10:43 AM
Mona Edwards leaves the courtroom.

10:56 AM 
Reporter Terri Keith returns. She immediately opens up her files and starts working.

10:59 AM
Deputy Sargent Westphal returns and stops by the bailiff's desk. He was here earlier this morning when the jurors were waiting for everyone to arrive.  It was a short visit.

11:11 AM
Mary Alexander [mother of victim Alicia Alexander] and two of her son's are in the courtroom.

11:21 AM
BUZZ BUZZ BUZZ! We have a verdict. The bailiff went back to check on the jurors.

A few minutes later, Judge Kennedy comes out to view the gallery. The bailiff comes out from the jury room. The bailiff and the judge go back to discuss a time.

Verdict will be read at 12:30 PM

The jurors deliberated about 3.5 hours on Friday and about 1.75 hours today, for a total of just over five hours of deliberations today. 

11:30 AM
The bustling has already started with the media. There is a camerawoman setting up the camera.

11:46 AM
I'm in the cafeteria grabbing a quick lunch. Seven of the jurors are sitting at a table, having their last meal together. It's been a long journey.

At around 11:38 AM, the bailiff closed the courtroom to the media since the court staff were taking their lunch early, and would be working through their normal lunch hour.

12:15 PM
The 9th floor is busy with lots of press. I see interns that are working for the DA's office. Mary Hearn from the court's Public Information Office is here. The three alternates are on the 9th floor. New reporters are Dave Lopez, Reporter Claudia from KNX, and Christine Pelisek, the reporter who broke the case. I saw KFI's Eric Leonard in the first floor lobby when I first went downstairs to grab a bite to eat.

There are quite a few conversations going on at once, but the floor isn't very packed.

12:20 PM 
DDA Tannaz Mokayef arrives to hear the verdict. I see the two clerk interns who worked on the case arrive. Two of the DA's victim advocates are here. I also see another group of young looking DA interns.

Head Deputy Patricia Wilkinson arrives and it let into the courtroom along with several other DA's.
DDA Silverman is on the floor along with Detective Daryn Dupree. She is hugging family members and telling them, "We're done!"

Seymour Amster arrives. Family members are being let into the courtroom first.

12:28 PM
Inside  Dept. 109. DDA Silverman tells the family that they don't have to talk to the media if they don't want to. DDA Silverman makes it clear that if the defense team does speak to the media, she will not be there. There are family members here, but not nearly as many as were here for guilt verdict.

Amster is here but the rest of his defense team is not. The media and the bailiff are getting the logistics together as to when they can turn their camera and microphones on.

12:34 PM
The courtroom is packed. There are quite a few interns from the DA's office, as well as other DA staff and superior court personnel.

12;35 PM
Amster tells someone the gallery, probably one of the reporters, that Beth Silverman will probably speak, ... and after he says her name DDA Silverman interrupts and says, "Mr. Amster doesn't speak for me and never does."

Still getting the last bit of logistics ready.

Three deputies by the courtroom door. Three additional deputies in the well besides the bailiff.

No live transmission from the courtroom. Only a live transmission to the 12th floor, who sends out the live feed.  It doesn't make any sense.

12:42 PM
The bailiff goes to get the defendant.

More family members arrive at the last moment.
The defendant is brought out.

12:44 PM
The court takes the bench.

Caution members of the audience to maintain their dignity.  Court orders the jurors and alternates to be brought into the courtroom.

12:45 PM
The jury enters.

Judge Kennedy greets the jury. Juror #2 was the jury foreperson on this part as well. The verdicts are handed to the bailiff who hands them to the court.

Clerk will read the verdicts.

COUNT 1 DEATH

COUNT 2 DEATH

COUNT 3 DEATH

COUNT 4 DEATH

COUNT 5 DEATH

COUNT 6 DEATH

COUNT 7 DEATH

Family members weep behind me.  Mary Alexander shakes.

COUNT 8 DEATH

COUNT 9 DEATH

COUNT 10 DEATH

COUNT 11 DEATH

The defense has the jurors polled.

Judge Kennedy: All of the jurors have entered into the affirmative.

This has been a very long process we started picking you as jurors in December of last year.

You have been an absolutely exemplary jury ... toward all the respect you've shown to the staff and the attention you paid for in this case.  You now know more about DNA than 90 % of the population.  I know that listening to evidence like this is not easy. There we a lot of very gruesome details that you had to listen to over and over again and yet you maintained your composure and dignity... when I look at you, and our alternates, ... but you are just as important as the original 12. We had such a committed group that made personal sacrifices ... to stay on as long as you did.

I've been on the bench almost 28 years, ...28 in October. You are, without a doubt just the finest group of jurors we've had in terms of how you dealt with people and with each other ... and I'm really going to miss all of you. I'm going to, [I wish I could] bottle you and save you for all my other trials.

The court tells them they cannot be called for jury service for a year. The court speaks more to their jury service. You come from all kinds of backgrounds and ethnicity and some not born in the US. And we have 12 people, ... who have to tackle this monumental task, and you respected each other and kept your composure and had a great attitude towards this process, and you are the best of the US.

The court tells them about if they want to speak to the media it is their decision. She tells them that the court will protect their identity. However, once they speak, their identity is out.

You are relieved from all the admonitions I put on you on this case. You can read and talk about it with anyone. Absolutely free of those limitations. I will tell you that, you are also free to speak to the attorneys. You can come to future proceedings in this case if you wish to.  As I said, you've been such an extraordinary group, and want to thank you so much for your participation. We're going to miss you.

The court continues to thank and praise the jury.

The jury goes back to the jury room to get their personal belongings. DDA Silverman and DDA Rizzo stand as they leave.

Judge Kennedy tells the gallery that the jurors have asked to leave privately so the bailiff will escort them out.

Setting a sentencing date.  August 10th.  The court tells counsel they have to go through the record to verify the transcripts. If you seek a continuance beyond August 10, please let the court know as soon as possible.

Amster addresses the court. He has selected August 10, to accomplish all these tasks.  It will [be the defense who] most likely is to ask for continuance. Their drop date would be August 3, to ask for a continuance, then the court could let the prosecution know if they are going to grant it, so they know to notify the victim families.

Defendant is remanded. People start to pack up.

DDA Silverman hugs Detective Dupree as she exits. Now DDA Rizzo hugs Detective Dupree.  People file out of the courtroom.

3:45 PM
I'm home now. Here is my update on what happened after the courtroom was cleared.

Several victim's family members spoke to the press on the 12th Floor lobby.  Then the prosecutors answered questions from the press and introduced everyone from their team. I tape recorded those interviews and it will take me a while to get the highlights transcribed. I will be concentrating on getting my notes on the last day of the people's case completed, the defense case next and then closing arguments.  In-between that, I'll also try to bring you some still photos from the press conference. I have to have someone help me in blurring out faces of people who did not agree to be photographed.

After the prosecution finished speaking, I headed towards an elevator. I didn't see until the elevator doors were closing that Seymour Amster started to give the press a statement. I did not stay for it; my feet were about to give out and I needed a break. However, I did hear about it from other reporters.

Mr. Amster was said to have been screaming at the press. DDA Silverman was still on the 12 floor and called out to Amster during his statement. I don't have Beth's exact quote, but it was something to the effect of, You don't need to scream, the camera's right in front of your face.


I waited in the ground floor lobby for the prosecution team to emerge from the elevators. It was easy to see on everyone's faces that a great weight had been lifted off their shoulders. The sentencing still has to happen but basically, that's just a formality. It's over. The jury has spoken and the verdicts read into the record. Franklin will stay in LA County custody for the time being.

I learned that DDA's Paul Pzrelomiec and Jamie Castro will go back to their regular assignments in different divisions. It is unknown whether the law clerks, who, having passed the bar and are full fledged attorneys now, will stay with the DA's office. Detective Dave Holmes is happy to get his partner Detective Dupree back. They've got many more cases to work on together.

In the courthouse lobby, I watched as Detective Holmes and a staff assistant took photos of the team. The biggest decision on their minds after that, was where to go for lunch.

Thank you all, for reading T&T.

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., "Grim Sleeper," Penatly Phase Verdict Watch Day 1

Lonnie Franklin, Jr, left, Def. Atty. Seymour Amster, right.

Photo Credit, Al Seib, Los Angeles Times

Friday June 3, 2016 - Verdict Watch 10:47 AM
The bailiff takes the evidence book and the verdict forms back to the jury room.

10:57 AM
It's very quiet in here. ABC's Miriam Hernandez is the only other person in the gallery besides myself and scriptwriter MW.

The clerk is busy on the phone. The ticking of the clock is the loudest noise in the courtroom now, even though all three of us in the gallery are working on our laptops.

11:11 AM
In the eerily silent courtroom, I'm working on the detailed testimony from the people's final witnesses, a week ago Thursday: The German woman, the JAG officer, the Army records supervisor and the three victim impact witnesses. Currently, I'm in the middle of the JAG officer's testimony.  So I'm flipping back and forth between this tab and my work on that entry.

11:21 AM
The clerk answers a phone call question about closing arguments.

11:35 AM
A deputy enters and asks the clerk a question. Then a woman enters. It's a older woman from the public who has attended the trial off and on for the last couple of weeks. It appears she thinks she left a pair of shoes in a bag inside the courtroom. She speaks to the clerk. The clerk asks her to wait for the bailiff to return.

11:40 AM
The clerk is hard at work at her desk. I can see files being organized and I hear sounds of heavy stapling, stamping of forms and occasional typing.

11:49 AM
I notice something I've never noticed before. On the wall behind the bench, just to the right of the US flag, in-between the clerk's desk area and the bench, is a round white button of some sort. It's about 3 or 4 inches round, set withing a square. It's down low, lower than the thermostat that's to the left of the flag.

11:54 AM
I ask the bailiff. He tells me it's a light switch controlling lights over the judge's bench.

11:56 AM
The bailiff opens the door to the custody area. He calls in, "Franklin, are you good?" I believe Franklin replies, "I'm good."

11:58 AM
BUZZ! BUZZ! The bailiff tells us, "That's either a question or break time," as he heads back to the jury room.

Break. The jurors leave for lunch.

Judge Kennedy comes out and smiling, watches as the jurors leave. One juror tells judge Kennedy, "I loved your necklace yesterday."

And we are on lunch break.

1:30PM
The bailiff unlocks the door and the jurors file in. There is some pleasant banter between the jurors and the bailiff.

2:13 PM
In the gallery, it's just me, Miriam Hernandez, MW, and a news camera operator I've seen around trials for a long time. The bailiff and the clerk have been having a conversation that's been keeping both of them in stitches for about 10 minutes now. I can also hear some conversation in the back support rooms among other court staff members.

There's not much to talk about, except when the jury might come back with a verdict. In the James Fayed case, the jurors deliberated five days before coming back with a death penalty verdict. Like I've said time and time again, I don't try to predict what a jury will do, because juries will surprise you.

 2:46 PM
Not a peep from the jury. All quiet in Dept. 109.

Judge Kennedy comes out to ask her clerk a question. Judge Kennedy is wearing a dark green olive dress with a brown cinched belt. From where I'm sitting, it's a white looking beaded necklace.

3:06 PM
Tracy from the DA's victim advocate program drops by with DDA Tannaz Mokayef drop in to see what's happening. We chat the Fayed case and the Kelly Soo Park case. DDA Mokayef prosecuted the three accomplices connected to Pamela Fayed's murder.

3:14 PM
The bailiff comes over to where Tracy and DDA Mokayef are sitting to join their conversation.

3:24 PM
Buzz! Buzz! It's either a question or a break. The bailiff goes to check.

The bailiff comes out. The jurors have a question but no paper. Someone is on hold on the phone but the bailiff says they don't have to come over.  The bailiff states they jury is going home.

5:05 PM
I'm home. It's clear from what I observed and overheard that the jurors asked if they could go home early. The clerk or the bailiff went back to Judge Kennedy's chambers to ask. Right after it was approved, the bailiff told the gallery and he went over to let the jury know.

While this was going on, the clerk was on the phone with possibly one of the attorneys. That's what I believe.

Jurors return Monday at 9:00 am to continue their deliberations.

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., "Grim Sleeper," Penalty Phase Update

Lonnie David Franklin, Jr. During his trial

Photo Credit: Pool Camera

T&T Case coverage and Media Links HERE.

Friday June 3, 2016
8:15 AM
Here's what's happened the last few days of trial.

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 the prosecution presented their final witnesses in their case-in-chief. A woman traveled from Germany to testify about events that happened to her in 1974, when she was 17 years old.  In the early evening of April 16, 1974, while waiting for a train ride home in Stuttgart, Germany, this German woman was kidnapped by three African American servicemen. With a knife held to her throat with threats that she would be killed, she was driven out of the city into the country. The servicemen pulled into a field and all three proceeded to gang rape her throughout the night.

Through two other witnesses, one a JAG officer and the other a US Army records supervisor, DDA Beth Silverman presented evidence that one of the individuals who participated in the attack was the defendant.

In the afternoon, Romy Lampkin testified about the loss of her best friend, her sister, Lachrica Jefferson and the impact her loss had on her and the family. They shared a bedroom growing up. Romy described a sister who was her "protector," more outgoing than she was and wanted to be a pediatrician when she grew up She was devastated when she learned of her sister's death. She described how her mother broke down when she had to tell her that Lachrica was dead.

After Ms. Lampkin, Billy Ware testified about the loss of his sister, Barbara Ware. Billy talked about how he and Barbara grew up together. They were very close and did everything together. They were like one person and protected each other. After Billy testified, his stepmother, Diana Ware took the stand to talk about how when she married Billy and Barbara's father, they became a blended family, like the Brady Bunch. She described the shock and devastation on the family when they learned about Barbara's murder.

After Diana testified, the people rested with the exception of admittance of exhibits. The jury was ordered back the following Tuesday.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016, the defense presented two witnesses, a retired LAPD homicide detective Tim Williams who testified that the Inez Warren murder may not have been a body dump, and a fingerprint expert Kurt Kuhn, who agreed with the people's expert, Mr. Duncan that the latent print found on the Titan gun magazine was from the defendant.

Wednesday, court was dark so a juror could attend their child's graduation ceremony.

Thursday,  June 2, 2016, DDA Silverman presented her closing argument. Almost the first hour of the morning was taken up with defense attorney Seymour Amster's objections to many slides in the people's Powerpoint presentation. Silverman systematically went through the evidence presented at trial arguing that the defense presented no mitigating evidence. Point by point, the prosecution went over the three aggravating factors, the ten murders, the additional crimes, the victim impact statements and the evidence of remorselessness of the defendant. DDA Sliverman spoke for over an hour in the morning session and about an hour and a half in the afternoon session.

Friday, June 3, 2016. Defense attorney Dale Atherton spoke to the jurors extensively about jury instructions and the mitigating factors they can rely on to choose life. He also goes over lingering doubt in the murders of the ten women, focusing on the unknown DNA found on many of the victims. He asked the jurors, "Don't you want to know..." who those individuals are?

He talked about the mystery gun and that they don't have it in evidence. He also talked about Eneitra Washington being the "key to the prosecution's case." He then delved into all the inconsistencies with her testimony, the sketch, the pock marks verses skin discolorations, no Franklin DNA on her underwear.

Atherton read a poem about a forked path in the woods and which path to take with no one to give guidance. And then he spoke passionately about mercy. Several times during his talks about mercy, his voice got emotional, and he sounded like he was near tears. Since Atherton was facing away from me, I could not tell if he did have tears in his eyes. He quoted from The Merchant of Venice on mercy. He quoted from President Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural address. He then read from a news article about a woman who forgave her son's killer and after he was released from prison, had him move next door to her.

Closing arguments ended around 10:13 AM and then Judge Kennedy read the jurors their final instructions. They entered the jury room at 10:19 AM

There was a lot of lingering inside the courtroom after Judge Kennedy told parties there would be
one hour notice for counsel to get here for the reading of the verdict.

Just now, at 10:47 AM the bailiff took the evidence book and the verdict forms back to the jury room. There are 10 verdict forms for the counts the jurors have to decide on the death penalty.

I'll be here inside the courtroom for verdict watch. I'll be starting a new post to cover that. Over the next week, I'll be getting my detailed notes up on the last witnesses and the closing arguments, so look for those in the days ahead.

A shout out to a special T&T reader in the Carolina's, that I just learned about this morning before court started.

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., "Grim Sleeper," Penalty Phase, Day 9, Part II

l-r: Extra deputy, behind, Judge Kennedy's bailiff

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., center, Deputy Sargent Westphal, right

Photo Credit: Pool Camera, Al Seib, LA Times

Continued from Day 9, Part I......
T&T Case coverage and Media Links HERE. 

Thursday, May 26, 2016
1:34 PM
I'm inside Dept. 109. People are slowly arriving. The defense is all set up. The prosecution still needs to arrive. Reporter Terri Keith takes a seat beside me and immediately starts working on her thick file of documents. She's one of the hardest working reporters I know.

1:39 PM
The court goes on the record. Amster wants to address the documents again. He's referencing the law to the hearsay exception rule and arguing court cases. Conclusions of opinions are inadmissible under the evidence code. "We think the people are looking to get the proceedings of the German court into evidence by Mr. Pyle. ... And that's what we're objecting to, based on various levels of hearsay. ... The sixth amendment deals with hearsay. ... Those are our objections. This witness should not be able to testify as to what's in the records." He continues on how the people should or should have laid their foundation.

The court turns to the people with their response. DDA Silverman responds. "As I indicated we laid a foundation ... testimony to come in under a section of the evidence code 1280 where the defendant has written down his information on documents. Those are his admissions." Judge Kennedy states that she would have a problem with the report of the criminal proceedings. DDA Silverman tells the court she made that clear before lunch that she wasn't trying to put the report into evidence. She's only saying that the report was a part of the [defendant's] personnel file.

The court asks for Amster's response. "We still feel that anything covering that report as it's contents we're objecting to. ... As this moment we don't feel this witness should be asked [anything regarding this report]."

Judge Kennedy rules. "I believe the contents, summary, his conclusions, his thoughts, clearly are not relevant. The fact that there is a report [in] regards to the trial, that is contained in this packet of materials, I believe that fact is admissible. And if you want to back out the other parts of it ... that would be one way to do it, and just not admit it at all ... and just say that there was a report involving Lonnie D. Franklin in German court."

Amster continues to argue after Judge Kennedy has ruled. He does not feel that this witness should be able to explain anything more from this report. DDA Silverman counters that she's not wanting to get any of the records in. "I said that there were records ... because I don't believe that the contents are admissible."

Now there is back and forth about who will "mark" an exhibit. The defense wanted the people to mark it. DDA Silverman counters, "Mr. Amster, if he wants to put it on himself ... he's mentioned several times he wanted me to mark it so if he wants to do that, he can do it on cross." Amster continues to argue that the records are hearsay, and that there's no hearsay exception that allows for that under the code." Judge Kennedy makes her final ruling. "I understand your objection and I'm overruling your objection as far as the record is identified. ... Can we bring the jury in now please?"

1:47 PM
We have our witness on the stand and we are back on the record. DDA Silverman resumes questioning of Lamar Whatley, the records supervisor for the Army.

39. LAMAR D. DERICO WHATLEY


Before we broke for lunch, did you review the official certified personnel file for Lonnie David Franklin, Jr.?
Yes.
Are you familiar with all of those documents in a personnel file?
Yes, I am.
Do all [personnel files] include an enlistment contract?
Yes.
What type of information does the individual fill out on that document?
Name, birth date, his home of record.
His home of record for when he came into the army?
[Yes.]
Does that include a service number?
Right.

[The enlistment, or service number is the individual's social security number. That number is protected and not stated in testimony.]

Does the document also contain a signature by the person enlisted?
Yes it does.

DDA Silverman presents her next exhibit, the service contract #655. Amster asks for a sidebar.

1:51 PM
DDA Silverman continues. The exhibit #655 has two sides, a and b.

Showing you this document, do you have this same document in the personnel file?
Yes.
What kind of form is it?
[DD Form 4?]
Does that have the name of Lonnie David Franklin, Jr.?
Yes.

Amster interrupts, "Could the court please [have the prosecutor?] leave the editorial remark that she stated?" [I somehow missed an alleged editorial remark.] The court responds, "Neither of you should address each other. And if you need to go to sidebar, we will."

The social security number is his identification number in the military, is that correct?
That's correct.
Do you recognize what you see there [pointing to the document up on the ELMO]?
Yes. This is an enlistment contract.

Shows the name where the address is on [West 85th Street?] in Los Angeles. Points out the date of birth.

Would that be based on information that the enlistee gives to the contract, July 26, 1971?
That is the date he enlisted into the army.

The back of the document has the date the defendant actually went on active duty. The document also has the defendant's signature.

Is the individual fingerprinted at the time he enlists?
Yes....
People's 656, a fingerprint card.
Objection! Sidebar.

1:58 PM
Several of the jurors chat with each other during the sidebar.

Do the records indicate where he was assigned after he enlisted?
Objection, hearsay. Sustained.
What is a DD 214?
It's a certificate of discharge in the defendant's name.
Objection. Overruled.
Showing the top half of exhibit #657. Do you recognize this document from the personnel file?
Yes, it is.
Other than the ID number of the individual that I cover, does that document also contain the same name?
Yes it does.
The same date of birth?
Yes, it does.
And the same residence?
Yes, it does.
Does the document also say he was last assigned to overseas service in Germany?
Yes, I believe it does.
By the way, in the terms of what we [said?], what is a National Defense Service medal?
Objection. Sustained.

Judge Kennedy has a look directed at DDA Silverman that is not positive.

Do the documents in the file also describe .... include a trials observers report and document and notes of a trial?
Yes, it does.
And the end of the trial's observers report, does it have the name Frank Pyle?
Yes it does.
Nothing further.

Amster has no questions for this witness, then asks to approach at sidebar again.

2:05 PM
The people call Romy Lampkins. Unfortunately my notes are not clear, but I believe DDA Rizzo presents the witness.

40. ROMY LAMPKINS

Do you know someone by the name of Lachrica Jefferson?
She's my sister.
Who's older?
I am.
By how many years?
17 months.
Do you have any other brothers or sisters?
No.  ... She was my best friend.
Did you share a bedroom together?
Yes, we did. ... When we were little girls. ... She slept on the top. I slept on the bottom. ... I slept in her bed at night so I wouldn't get tinkled on.

They would do things together. Go to the park, the beach, roller skating. They both liked to skate.

Who was the better skater?
She was more outgoing than I was.
What were her favorite things to do?
She liked to dance. She loved to sing.
Since you shared a bedroom, would you talk all the time at night about things?
Yes.
What were some of the things [you would talk about]?
Some girl things. She said she never wanted kids. I was the one that had kids. ... She wanted to be a pediatric doctor.  ... She figured that would be enough kids for her.
What kind of person was she?
Outgoing person. Happy go lucky. She was well loved.
What about holidays growing up?
It was fun. We had family gatherings a lot of good things going on ... when they would get together.
Since there was the two of you, were there other family members around LA?
Yes.

They would celebrate with extended family. She remembers them getting Barbie houses together and her sister knew how to put her house together. They had their fights about sharing Barbie doll clothes.

Would you say you were the closest person to Lachrica then?
[Yes.]
How was it you learned about her death?
A detective left a card at my mom's house, and then I came over. I stayed on Western.
And a detective came and told you?
Yes.
What was your reaction?
I was devastated. In shock. I couldn't believe it. It was unbelievable.
Did you have to tell your mom?
I had to go over and tell my mom because [I? she?] wasn't able to drive.
How did your mom take it?
Very hard. Very hard.
Did she break down?
She did. She did break down.

How did it affect your mom afterwards?
She was over protective of me then. She was more protective of me. ... I was 23 at the time.
So your mom clamped down on you and she wanted to protect you?
Right.
To make sure it didn't happen [to you?]?
Right.

She helped her mother plan the funeral.

What was that like?
It was hard.
Did you ever think you would be planning the funeral of your sister?
No, not at all.
You went to the funeral?
Oh yes.
What was that day like?
It was the most hardest day of my life.
Do you still think about that day?
I do.
What do you think [about]?
Just trying to go on.

She went to the cemetery that day. She doesn't go to the grave site today. It's too difficult for her.

What day is her birthday?
November 23, 1965.
Do you do anything on that day?
Sometimes, her birthday would fall on Thanksgiving.

During the holidays, her sister is gone, her mother is gone. She celebrates with her children, but it gets a little depressing for me though.

I'm going to show you some photos.
Okay.

Exhibit 490. It's just a face photo of Lachrica Jefferson.

That's "Chrica"" my sister.
Was that a nickname?
Yes. We called her Chrica.

Another exhibit, #629

Do you recognize that photo?
That's my mother and my sister. Mom on the right and left Lachrica with her head on mom's shoulder.
Do you recall when this photo was taken?
I believe it was the day we had buried my grandma.

Another exhibit #658. She points out herself, a cousin, her auntie and Lachrica, next to the cousin. This photo was also taken at the grandmother's funeral. The next photo on the exhibit is of Romy again, her auntie and Lachrica and other cousins. Same event, grandma's funeral.

Exhibit #659. Romy is in the front and Lachrica in the back. This was their elementary school graduation.  Exhibit #660. Romy and her sister again, taken outside of a house. Exhibit #661.  A photo of Lachrica with her oldest son. He was three at the time. The next photo is of Lachrica at Christmas time.


[Tell us about this photo.]
She loved to pose. She was just modeling.

The next exhibit is the memorial program with a photo of Lachrica.

That was the day we laid her to rest. And that was the front page of the funeral program.

The next photo is a photo of Lachrica's headstone. It's a beautifully carved plaque. There is also a photo of the grounds around her grave site.

What is it that you miss most about your sister?
Her smile and her dancing.

No questions from the defense. Witness is excused. Romy testified in a low toned voice. She appeared very sad to me. The people call their next witness, Billy Ware. DDA Rizzo presents the witness.

41. BILLY WARE DION, JR.

Who is Barbara Ware?
My sister. My baby sister.
How many years older?
18 months.
Did your baby sister have a nickname?
Beth. ... It was a full middle name, Bethune, but we called her Beth.
How old were you at the time of her death?
24. ... I have a brother in Houston, Texas.  I have one in Oakland and a sister that resides here. ... Me and Beth, we grew up in the same household. We had the same mother. [My] other siblings had different fathers. ... We were born and raised here. ... When I was in sixth grade, she was in fifth. We were very, very close.

Were you like the same person almost?
Yeah.
What would you do together?
A host of things. ... Most of all, we'd watch cartoons together, eat cereal. We played together, fought together, went to school together. ... We went to the same school at the same time. ... She was always right there with me.

Were you her protector?
Yes. And she was mine as well.
Bach and forth, is that right?
Yes.
What was she like?
Very outgoing, very sweet. She trusted people a little bit more than what she should have. ... She gave away too much in trusting people. ... She would think everybody was okay.
She never questioned people and their motives?
Yes. ...
She would give them the benefit of the doubt; not suspicious of anyone, right?
Right.

She.... we would ride our bikes together. ... Right up to Hollywood and we would catch the bus to Burbank Studios. That's when you could pay to ride the horses. We'd take the Western [Ave.] bus. And then we would take the bus or ride our bikes back home.

They did that when there wasn't such things as iPads or thinks like that.

What did she want to do when she grew up, did she tell you?
No, she didn't. I had a feeling that she wanted to do something that would help people, I really do. In my heart I believe that.
And what about holidays? Do you remember any special holidays?
I have a lot of fond holiday [memories] growing up, and Christmas is one of our favorite times of the year. ...  Christmas is one of our joyous holidays. Christmas was like our thing.
Now, when you celebrate Christmas with your kids?
I do. My kids are 13 and 10. ... I speak of my mother and sister constantly. I show them pictures. They are very much aware of what's going on today and they know.
So you try to bring Beth alive in pictures?
Yes I do.

How old were you when your mother passed?
I was 14. Beth was 13. ... Then our dad remarried Diana Ware. ... Beth never got to meet my kids.
Did Beth talk to you about her problems in life?
Yes. I was aware.
She had some struggles?
She did. ... When [our?] grandparents died, and Beth came for the funeral, and I could see that she was going through some troubles. And I asked her to stay with me in Wichita. ... And that was the last time I saw her.
[When was that?]
April 1987.

The spoke on the phone often. The got in trouble for running up the phone bill. They would keep in touch.

Would you say that you were the closest person to Beth?
Yes, I would, besides her daughter.
She has a daughter? What's her daughter's name.
Naomi [Shae?] Ware.
Did you get to meet her daughter?
Yes.
How old is Naomi now?
Somewhere between 27 and ... I don't even know my own kids age that good.

How did you get to meet Naomi?
Naomi was five before I moved to Wichita.

He still keeps in contact with Naomi, who has her own family now, too.

You were in Wichita when you learned about Beth's death. What was your reaction?

The witness pauses before he answers.

Just shock.

He takes a moment to speak. He takes his glasses off and he puts his hand over his face. He sobs. He then tells DDA Rizzo, "Go ahead."

Was it like a part of you, your best friend had died?
Yes.
How were you able to go on and deal with it?
Up until five years ago, I wasn't able to deal with it. I went through mental health counseling. I went to drugs and alcohol. And about five years ago, when I was told that Mr. Franklin was apprehended. I thought that was ... I took a tailspin with drugs and alcohol. That's the toll that it took on me.

Do you feel like you are moving forward?
I'm a lot better now than I was. ... I'm clean almost three years now. ... But no, prior [to that] ... that was my way of dealing with the pain. ... And that went on for years.
The pain is still there?
Yes. The pain is still there. And I know how to deal with it [now] without turning to that ... and the pain will always be there.
I'm going to show you some photos.

People's exhibits #469 to 470, 472, 476, 475. Photo of Barbara Ware. It's a photo of their mother on a sofa holding Beth on her lap.

That big guy there, that's me.
How old is Billy?
I'm saying two, three years old. But yeah, that's us.

Another photo. Billy identifies his father, Beth and her daughter Naomi. He doesn't know when the photo was taken. Another photo of Naomi very young.

That looks about the last time I'd seen her [Naomi]. That was about that size and age.

Another photo is presented, exhibit #474.

Do you recognize [that photo]?
Yes. I do.
Who is that young man?
That would be me.
Hold old are you?
Probably about 12 or 13 maybe. ... That's my grandfather and Beth.
What year is that?
Maybe 1975, 1976.

The middle to late 70's. Two smiling kids, standing with their grandfather.

What do you miss most about your sister Beth?
That she's not here with me. I often wonder what she would be like as of today. I often wonder what was on her mind when she was going through what she was going through. ... I wish she was here so I could talk to her. ... I miss that I don't have what I had with Beth, with my other brothers and sister. ... And I miss the fact that she's not here.

No cross examination. The people call Diana Ware, stepmother to Beth.

42. DIANA WARE

Do you know someone named Barbara Ware?
She's my stepdaughter.
How old was Barbara when you married her father?
She was 8.
And her brother Bill a little bit older?
Yes. He was about 10.
When you married Barbara's father [did you already have a family?]?
I had a son and a daughter.
So you had melded your families then at that time?
Yes, we did. We had a blended family.
Kind of like the Brady Bunch?
Yes.
Where was Barbara in the age order?
She was the youngest. ... She was a baby.
At that time, you all lived in Los Angeles?
Yes, we did.

Did you call her Beth, too?
Yes. We called her Beth.
[Tell us about Beth.]
She was a very outgoing and fun loving child. She had her challenges when she was older. She loved to roller skate. Her and her brother were very close. Later on she did have her challenges. And she did go to stay with her grandmother in Houston for a while.
And that was to help her get through some of these challenges?
Yes, it was.
And her brother Billy said they would like to go out and ride horses?
Yes. That was when they were younger.
What did you do as a family?
Universal Studios, Disneyland, ball games, recreation areas.
Would you say that you would do a lot of things together on weekends as a family?
I'd say so. Especially around the holidays, we'd get together with the other family members.
Would you be the host?
Most of the times we would be the host.
Did you have a big house so that you could host everybody?
Yes, Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Did Beth like those holidays?
Yes, she did.
How did you know that she loved them?
She was always very happy. And I remember one particular holiday, we were waiting for guests to come. ... There were all kinds of guests coming. There children and ... She was always very happy when we would have people over.

There were cousins in the same age range?
Yes. There were cousins.
She enjoyed seeing the cousins?
Yes. ... Her and Billy, they were very close. He would stick up for her and vice versa. She was rough. She could be a tomboy at times.
She wasn't afraid of anyone and wasn't going to let them pick on her brother?
That's for sure.
How long was she in Houston?
That was after ... She was just starting high school, so she was there [about three years?] ... so she came back.

Did she tell you what she wanted to do?
Yes she did. She liked to care for others. I figured she would be in the nursing career. That's what she tended to do.
If she'd gotten the chance, right?
Yes.

How did you learn about Beth's death?
A detective went to my husband's place of business. And then he [husband] came home and told me.
What was your husband's reaction?
He was devastated. ... When he came in I knew something was wrong by the look on his face. And then he told me. It was just ... hard to believe. That it just happened, all of a sudden you know?
Did you believe it?
No. I couldn't believe it. It was very hurtful.
Did you have to tell other family members?
Yes. We had to call my sister-in-laws, and her grandmother and cousins in Houston.
Did you have to let the family from Wichita know about it?
Yes, yes.

Diana, did you plan the funeral?
Yes. My husband and I planned the funeral.
What was that like planning the funeral of your stepdaughter?
No parent thinks that they would ever [have to] bury their child.
[She grabs a tissue and dabs at her eyes.]
My husband was very devastated so I had to take over a lot of it so. ... I did have the help of my sister-in-law. ... My other stepdaughter came from San Diego and she pitched in to help us.
Do you think her father ever got over it?
No, no.

Do you remember the day of the funeral?
I remember it very well. It was very sad. Especially at the cemetery, that we had relatives that had come from Houston. And they were all gathered around so it was a very sad occasion.
Do you go to visit Beth at the cemetery?
We go twice a year.
What about on her birthday, to remember her birthday?
Not anymore. We did at one time on her birthday. ... Other holidays, especially Christmas, we always remember her. We always say a special prayer at that time. Not only for her but for my husband and all the other ones we lost along the way. ... We have pictures and things that we go through ...

You have a granddaughter named Naomi. ... What happened [to Naomi]?
Naomi was adopted by one of Beth's cousins, right after Beth passed away. Her cousin wanted to adopt her and he [Beth's father] agreed. He wanted her out of Los Angeles.
And your husband was very protective of her?
She could come back in the summer and she would spend a few weeks with us.
So your granddaughter was cared for in a loving family?
Yes.
And you would see her about once a year?
Yes. When she was younger she would come back. .. She has children of her own now. ... We don't see her that much anymore. We talk occasionally on the phone.

2:52 PM 
Photos are shown to the witness. The first one is the same photo with Barbara and Billy as very young children.

Do you recall that photo?
That's Beth and her mother. Barbara and Billy. She identifies the same photos that Billy did.

Beth was about 12 when her mother passed and she came to come live with us. ... Naomi was five when her mother [Beth] died.
Do you know if she realized what happened?
They told her afterwards. She didn't remember.
She was too young.
Yes.

More photos. This time it's the witnesses identifies her sister-in-law Sherry [sp?] and her daughter Angela. In the middle, Beth and Naomi. On the right is Treva and her daughter Tia. Treva lives in Los Angeles. That's her other stepdaughter.  Another photo #471, of the young ones. Angela, Naomi, Tia and Shawn [sp?]. Shawn is Treva's son.

Next, Diana is shown the memorial program for Beth.

Do you recognize this?
That's Barbara's obituary.

She recognizes the photo but doesn't know when it was taken. She's then shown a photo of inside the program, listing some of the relatives and friends Barbara left behind.  More photos of Barbara when she was in junior high, possibly 8th grade. Her school photo. Another photo Diana describes.

That's Beth in a yellow dress standing by a car, when she was staying with her grandmother.
Late teenage years?
Yes.

Another photo, exhibit #476. It's Barbara in a uniform, in a crouching position.

That's Beth. She was working at The Hungry Owls Barbecue on Western Avenue. She was about 21 in that photo.

Exhibit #482, a photo of Barbara's headstone.

Yes, that's her grave site.
What do you think about when you're at her grave site?
Oh, ... I just think about the good times we had. And that's at Inglewood ... My husband is there as well and Barbara's mother is there also.
What do you miss the most?
Mostly her smile and the good times we had. The laughter. Just miss her. ... A [spot?] in our hearts that is always there. ... We think about her everyday. ... Prayers have got me there, but it's rough. ... Glad that things have gotten me to this point where things have gotten better.

Direct is finished and there is not cross. The people rest with the admission of the exhibits evidence.

3:01 PM
Over at sidebar. Amster did not want to start until next Tuesday with his case and I'm guessing they are arguing about that. Then it's over and Judge Kennedy addresses the jurors.

"To give you a timeline of where we are. The prosecution has rested in the penalty phase. The defense is going to present witnesses in the penalty phase. There wasn't a lot of cross examination so it's hard to predict how long it's going to take to put on the evidence. ... I have the defense counsel, that he could start the presentation of his evidence on Tuesday, anticipating that we would have [more of] this testimony tomorrow and he relied on that though."

"Most likely, the entirety of the defense case will be finished on Tuesday, or if not entirely finished. ON Wednesday is a graduation and I indicated that we would not be in session on Wednesday. And Monday is Memorial Day ... So I'm sorry for the little bit of disjointed days here. There's a light at the end of this tunnel, and we're almost finished and I do believe we will have final arguments and instructions on Thursday and maybe begin your deliberations maybe late on Thursday."

"What does that mean for tomorrow? We have some things to do on Friday. I'll ... we'll be working for the lawyers tomorrow. Going back to work on Wednesday the first. But I order you to have a wonderful holiday on Monday and I hope everyone has no bungee jumping ... It's possible [you will be] in deliberations by Friday, June 3rd."

One of the jurors has a doctor's appointment scheduled for June 3 and on June 6, and doesn't know how long they will take. The juror is going to see if it's possible to move her doctor's appointments. The court asks, "Why don't you verify that information and we'll talk about it next time I see you. ... I appreciate all of your dealing with our crazy schedules and you've been absolutely incredible jurors."

She gives them her standard admonition about not discussing the case or watching TV or reading about the case in the Internet, and no research. The court orders jurors back at 10:30 on Tuesday.

"Have a wonderful Memorial day."

The jurors and alternates leave. The court discusses logistics of going over the admissibility of exhibits on Friday afternoon. Modified jury instructions are also mention that those can also be reviewed. The length of closing arguments is discussed. DDA Silverman states she will speak for a couple of hours.

And that's it.

Continued on Day 10 with defense witness testimony....

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., "Grim Sleeper," Penalty Phase - Motions

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., pretrial hearing, possibly July 2010

Photo Credit: Unknown pool camera

Prior post can be found HERE.

T&T Case coverage and Media Links HERE.

Wednesday May 25, 2016
8:55 AM
Mona Shafer Edwards, the sketch artist is here along with ABC reporter Miriam Hernandez. Well, they were in the hallway. City News Reporter Terri Keith was trying to decide whether to continue with the Jace murder trial in Judge Robert Perry's courtroom or drop in on these evidentiary hearings.

Atherton was in his chair, rocking when I arrived. Over at the bailiff's desk was the court’s regular bailiff and Deputy Sargent Westphal.

I step out quickly to get a bottle of water before court begins. Defense attorney Seymour Amster arrived right before I stepped outside. Mona and Miriam enter Dept. 109.

9:17 AM
The German witness is here. There is discussion as to whether or not the witness will be sketched. I think they agreed that the witness will decide whether the media will be able to use a sketch of her.

Franklin is brought out. He’s in an orange jumpsuit.

The German woman has her husband with her, a female victim's advocate from the DA's office I've seen before and a woman sitting in the bench row behind her who is comforting her by patting her back. I find out later that the woman in the row behind her is from the crime lab. Both the victim's advocate and the crime lab person speak German.

Judge Kennedy greets parties.


The thing everyone wants is to hear is if the German woman will agree to an interview with the defense or the defense investigator, but that's not what the court starts off with. There are 402 issues on both sides.

Amster argues that he has received no written motions.  There is no law that that requires him to give an offer of proof. He argues that he's not required to give discovery.

Regarding a witness named Williams, Judge Kennedy asks, "You said that he was going to testify as to the destruction of evidence. Is that not true anymore?" Amster states he will be testifying about the body dump. As far as destruction of property, it’s solely to Inez Warren and if he had that evidence, to him, [witness] that might strengthen or change his opinion about the body dump.

Amster states that it is his witness's opinion that the Warren case is not a body dump. Well, it is a body dump but different than other body dumps in this case, verses hiding the body which did not occur. We had a rapid leaving of the scene of individuals or individual that we did not see in other individual [cases]. We know the victim was alive where we know in other scenes where the victim was dead when left at the scene. They are contradictions and dissimilarities. And that’s what his testimony will center on.

Judge Kennedy slowly responds, "Okay..."

DDA Silverman counters, "All of that would not be an area for expert testimony. He can argue, but all of that would be prior hearsay testimony he wasn’t at any of these locations."

Judge Kennedy asks if Amster can qualify him as an expert.

Amster responds, "He’s had the same amount of experience as the people’s expert. They opened the door. We have under the law, to be able [present him?]." Amster continues to object to the 402 since he insists the people never filed a motion.

DDA Silverman counters that. "The defense is wrong. ... The people did file a motion, back in November. ... There was no destruction of the sexual assault case in Inez Warren. She was taken to the hospital. There was no sexual assault kit collected."

The court rules in favor of the 402.  "He’s not testifying as a police practices expert. Just testifying what makes this case difference than the other cases.  [Warren]. They [people] do have a right to have him questioned as to his expertise."

An older black gentleman gets up from the seats by the door and takes the witness stand. Amster starts off with very simple questions. In no time DDA Silverman is objecting and Judge Kennedy is having to direct some of the examination.

1. TIMOTHY T. WILLIAMS


Were you eve employed by the LAPD?
Yes I was.
Were you employed by as a detective?
Yes I was ... I was employed as a detective from 1979 trainee. I was promoted in 1981 and retired in 2003.

Did you investigate homicides?
I did.
Would you investigations include situations that would be a body dump?
I did.
Did you you believe your expertise ...
Objection!

Judge Kennedy tells the defense, "Deal with his qualifications first."

Did you gain knowledge and experience to determine ... knows about body dumps? ... How many homicides did you investigate?
44.
How many of those involved a body dump?
Objection. No foundation.

Judge Kennedy tells the people to wait with the objections because this is a 402 hearing. She'll rule. DDA Silverman lays out her battle lines. "The people's position is, is that they have to lay a proper foundation."

The witness explains he received on the job training from his partners to see what constitutes a "body dump" scene. He would check post mortem lividity to see if the body was moved or other types of evidence of the body not being there.

And as a homicide investigator, was it part of your duties to determine if this [Warren] was a body dump?

And that's it. Amster believes he's done all he needs to do. The court asks the people if they want to cross the witness. DDA Silverman replies. "No foundation."

I believe at this point the court starts questioning the witness.

In your opinion what is a body dump and what are you looking for?
Where, someone is killed at another location and then they place it in another location. That's my terms.
What is it you specifically look for?
Witnesses that may have seen or heard anything. ... Physical evidence that may exert itself on the body. Post mortem lividity. Body is moved and the lividity. ... May have witnesses who say they walked through that area.

Judge Kennedy replies with a question, "That's it?" It's hard to interpret the expressions on the court's face during questioning. At times, it looked like she was puzzled or, not believing what she was hearing. The witness adds a bit more.

There may be other evidence that suggest that a body is a dump. You may have a purse that's near the body. You may have something that shows that the activity that the homicide was not there at the scene or someone else.

The court asks the prosecution if they want to cross. The defense wants a completed ruling.  The people state they haven't heard anything from this individual. Amster states they are not asking particular opinion on this case. People proffered a detective that Inez Warren was a body dump. His opinion is exactly the same as Mr. Williams, someone who was trained to recognize a body dump or not.

Judge Kennedy continues with her questioning. "Your opinion of a body dump is that the person is killed elsewhere and then the body is left at some other location after death?" The witness replies, "That's my opinion and the long and short of it."

The look on Judge Kennedy's face is priceless. I believe she asks another question. "If the evidence is [the victim] is dying or has received significant injuries elsewhere, but is left someplace different from where the injuries were inflicted, that's not a body dump?" The witness states, "In my opinion, that is still a body dump if the person was alive or dead."

Amster argues that his witness is going to render an opinion verses what was given by the people. The defense position is, that the crime may have or might have occurred at the location, not on the ground where the individual was found but in the van right there ... But the way that the evidence, ... the rapid leaving of the scene is contrary to other scenes.

DDA Silverman is not happy. I don't think she is believing what she is hearing that the court may consider this witness an expert, in comparison to Detective John Skaggs.  She moves forward in cross examining the witness.

Can you give a list of all the 44 homicides you claim to have worked?
[He cannot remember.]
Can you list one?
[He can't remember.'
You can't list one homicide? ... What homicide division was that you were assigned to?
77th Street Homicide.
Who were your supervisors? ... Tell us who your superior was?
Joe [?] Lieutenant over detectives at that time.

The witness mentions two more names. He's asked who his partner was and he names him. He was assigned to 77th Street homicide as a detective for a little over a year. He states he worked 44 homicides when he was working child abuse as well.

DDA Silverman gets more specific in her questioning, whether he investigated any women who were shot to death and left at a particular location. Williams sates he can't name one, but he's sure he has, he just can't name them. The time frame is gone over as to when he actually worked homicide. And he states he was lead on about 20% of the homicides. He's asked who was the D3 [detective 3] in the unit. When asked what homicide schools he attended, he states he needs to check his CV.

The people ask that the CV be turned over. The court orders it. Amster insists that he's already turned it over, or he thinks he did, but then he says he's not sure but that he will.

DDA Silverman continues her relentless questioning of the witness for his training and qualifications. Question after question after question about they types of cases he worked and what units he served in.

City News reporter Terri Keith and Jane Robison from the DA's office arrive.

The witness states that at one point, his job was to review all homicides through the bureau and review them and some were body dumps. He would make recommendations to the commanding officer. He states, "I have had my experience dealing with [them?] throughout my career."

But DDA Silverman is not finished. She wants to know how much of his education was specifically directed at body dumps. How many of the 44 homicides was he a patrol officer. What is it that you're saying was different with respect to Inez Warren? What is it that you claim to be testifying about that is different?

I believe the distinction is the difference between Inez Warren and others.

And then Judge Kennedy rules. "I think he has sufficient expertise to render an opinion.

He has copies of his CV and he is ordered to give a copy to the people.

The people object to Amster's "mitigation expert." DDA Silverman argues that anything she says is hearsay. The people were given a document of five pages that doesn't have a source. The last page is numbered Page 2. Some pages are in a different font. The people believe that all this information is hearsay and not expert opinion.

Judge Kennedy looks through the information on the five pages and states, "I don't understand."

Amster argues that the information is being offered under Factor K. "Her experience and expertise is the same as Dupree when he testified about the conditions, about that area when he was growing up. Ms. Kaiser [sp?] was also in that area in that time period. Thease are the things that she observed and we feel that all these facts and circumstance that are state in that [document?] ... circumstances factor into the crimes and how that woud affect someone in that area at that time and something where ... for the jury to consider under Factor K."

Amster then adds that this is under the defendant's fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendment rights. DDA Silverman states this is exactly the type of information that is excluded under the law.

Judge Kennedy opines, "I read this document over. And [there's] no mention ... there is no evidence in the record that the defendant even grew up in Los Angeles. He was there during that time [during the murders] ... [and somehow this?] is the basis of some evidence about how this affected the defendant's life or was his life or certain factors about the crimes that he committed or ... that were brought up. I don't see that this is Factor K evidence."

The court adds that this is all very interesting but the court doesn't see in the evidence where it has to do with Mr. Franklin that the court has heard. Amster counters that it's not to be considered as to the defendant growing up, just the circumstance of living in South Los Angeles during the crimes. Amster adds that everyone was influenced by the circumstance, ... the weight that should be given to it. And it should be up to the jury. That's how we're stating it. That's why we're giving it rendering. Introducing it as Factor K.  Amster states it's also being rendered as Factor A. Just because a factor is listed, it's not necessarily aggravating it's mitigation, too. Amster insists that nothing in the law says something has to be used as mitigating or aggravating. The defense is saying this evidence is mitigating under Factor A and Factor K.

DDA Silverman tells the court that there is a lot of commentary in there that may be historical. She reads what I'm interpreting are snatches of text from the document. "... multiple [serial?] killers, homosexuality ... corruption of the police ... election of Bill Clinton ... rap records ... genocide in Rowanda and the million man march. ... And the only way to seek happiness is to seek God. ... Religion. ... Nothing specifically related to the defendant. ... If you read through it ... those are someone's opinions that have no basis in a court of law, and to point to one area that this person does [not?] know what they are talking about. ... The snooty box hotel. ... Numerous spelling errors and factual errors and none of this has shown to be relevant in this case."

Amster argues that not all the information should get in. However, he goes onto say that his mitigation expert, described the events as seen in that area where the crimes occurred and to give as much experience ... that Ms. Kaiser can give first hand knowledge of that area and how it would affect all the residents in that area. The drugs, the prostitution, murder, the amount of drugs. Amster says something to the effect that the court will give the appropriate ruling.

Judge Kennedy tentatively rules, "It seems to me, number one, you have, somehow, have to connect this to this defendant. That he experienced this thing and it affected him in some way. You haven't established that link. ... I don't know ahat Mr. Franklin grew up in South Los Angeles. The only thing I know about Mr. Franklin is, is the time he worked for the city and the addresses that were [on file] with the Sanitation Department or the LAPD. ... At some time he was in the military and so he was out of the country somewhere ... about activity in Germany. ... Prior to that, I don't know if he grew up in Los Angeles or grew up somewhere else. Minimally, you have to establish it's relevant to him and his experience. ... And all this stuff on who got elected president, I don't get it. I don't understand it."

The look on Judge Kennedy's face, when she says she doesn't get it or understand it, is priceless.

Amster counters, "The only thing I want to put on the record, ... we do not know how this influenced him growing up, but how it influenced him when he lived in that area."  DDA Silverman responds, That would require him to take the stand and we would welcome it." Judge Kennedy makes a final ruling, "On the basis of this document, I'm not going to let this person testify."

For weeks now, I thought this woman in a wheelchair who has been in the gallery was a defense investigator. Turns out she's supposedly a mitigation expert. I don't know if I'm correct or not, but it sounded like, the only expertise she had was, growing up in the area. I did not hear anything read or argued in court about this individual's credentials as a mitigation expert.


The people ask for an offer of proof for more names on the defense witness list and what they are going to testify to. Several names are said but I know I did not get them all down correctly. Then the court interrupts to ask a question.

"Mr. Atherton, what are you doing?," the court asks. Mr. Atherton responds something to the effect that he's trying to get an appearance rescheduled. I could not see, but my best educated guess was, Mr. Atherton was using his cell phone at the defense table. The court tells him, "Maybe you can go out in the hall and do that." [I'm astonished.]

Now there is discussion as to whether or not the defense is going to call DNA analysts from Sorenson, to testify that no DNA belonging to the defendant was found on Enietra Washington or her clothing.

DDA Rizzo tells the court, "... we had testimony from Sorenson. We got into the waste-band, front of the crotch, side crotch. I've no idea why we would need to bring in [the Sorenson witness] in for the same testimony."

Amster tells the court, "Our position is this. The jury rejected our position on Ms. Washington. We feel there is no DNA connecting the defendant to Ms. Washington. We feel that we have a law enforcement lab doing their own analysis on the panties ... finding this conclusion ... using up all the sample ... this happens but we were not allowed to [do our own analysis]. We feel that under lingering [doubt?] giving information from another lab ... as to Sorenson, so it's a lingering doubt position."

There's more argument back and forth regarding Enietra Washington. The defense continues to argue there was no evidence of sexual assault linked to the defendant with this victim. The people did not put on any DNA evidence linking Mr. Franklin. The court responds to the defense that if the people are willing to enter into a specific stipulation, that there was no DNA that connects the defendant to Enietra Washington, sexual assault kit, the underwear, her clothing, whatever, would that work.

DDA Rizzo states that, if counsel wants to draft a stipulation they will look at it and assuming [the facts are correct] the people will so stipulate.

Judge Kennedy asks the defense if they want to argue lingering doubt.

Another witness is named that the people state they don't have any report with regards to that witness, a Mr. Coon [Cook?].  The court states they have something on their bench some where. She starts looking for a document. She then adds that they had a discussion at sidebar last week. It has to do with a Mr. Coon [Cook?] could review the fingerprint evidence. Apparently, there needs to be an order for the crime lab. DDA Silverman states she's never received a report from this witness. The defense states there is no report.

DDA Silverman argues, "It's the same thing with respect to Mr. Lamagna. We're asking for an offer of proof." The defense states they gave a lot of fingerprint evidence on Monday. All of this testimony is going to involve all of the evidence that was turned over. The court asks, "Is he a person that doesn't believe in fingerprint evidence?" Amster responds, "No, no. It's not that he doesn't believe, it's to the exclusion of all others. The significance of pattern and everything else."

DDA Rizzo replies, "I believe that based on the forensic review of all the various disciplines, that in forensic comparison, ... they do not testify to the exclusion of all others. ... [The defense?] knows of the changes to [testifying?]. ... The people are .... the court is aware that the NAS is revisiting the guidelines as to the way testimony is presented in court and the FBI has reviewed the way testimony is present in court ... to the exclusion of all others."

Amster disagrees. "He [Deacon?] said it was unique. He's [defense expert] going to testify ..."  DDA Silverman states that the people haven't received anything from him, even a CV. DDA Rizzo states it was included on a CD [the defense provided.] DDA Rizzo states she looked at it briefly. She thought this whole issue had come up a few weeks ago.

Now there is another issue. Defense attorney Dale Atherton has given a document to the court for the judge to sign but he hasn't passed it by the people first. This is law 101. Judge Kennedy appears quite perturbed and tells counsel, "As far as evidence, I would never sign an order without the prosecution seeing it first. Ever."  The people will not agree to this. The defense has waited until the 11th hour.

Amster insists that everything they have, that the people have, the defense turned over and this was the order 'he' got. [That doesn't make sense or my notes could be wrong.] The people state that the defense will have to fashion a new order so the people can review it. DDA Silverman states, "Once again, defense delay."

Apparently, what this involves, is for the defense expert to go to the LAPD fingerprint department with the order in hand so that the defense expert can look at the prints, the latent prints that were found on the [gun] magazine. The expert needs to be able to scan in the photographs. One doesn't look at the prints on the magazine. One utilizes the photograph and it can be digitized and enhanced. So the expert needs access to any photos that are in the file. The problem is, there were things done in the courtroom. [That was when the defendant was printed again on Monday, before the afternoon session began.]

The people argue that it's not their job to go through and explain to them [defense] what [evidence] they have that was turned over. Besides, it's not in the people's possession anymore.

Amster argues that this was done at the last second, the print roll in court. The people's expert, didn't compare the print from the gun and magazine, to what was rolled in court. The court reminds Amster that the expert compared the prints found on the evidence [A] to the print card from AFIS [B]. Then the print card from AFIS [B] was compared to the printcard [C] rolled in court.

Amster argues, "I don't want to place semantics on this." The court replies, "Semantics are critical."

Amster argues that they want the original photographs. The people insist that all documents [turned over] are in the file with the original photograph. That's what they are representing . The people also state that there are no notes regarding Mr. Deacon rolling the defendant's fingerprints. He rolled them on that card and that's what he indicated. The court tells Amster, "You have that testimony. ... Mr. Coon [Cook?] was here." Amster agrees that his expert was here in court. So the court tells him to now redraft his order for the court. Amster wants this fingerprint exam to be on Friday. The court asks, "Why wait? Why not today? ... Even if you hand write it ... [the order] can we just get it done so I can sign it?"

DDA Silverman tells the court, "They are just using this as another reason to not start [the defense case] on Friday." The court tells counsel, "Just get it done." Amster tells the court that he can't get it done today. He doesn't have access to a printer today.

[I'm shaking my head in disbelief.]

DDA Rizzo asks, "Is Mr. Coon [Cook?], is he going to testify as Mr. Lamagna as to the state of fingerprint evidence and is he going to be allowed to testify to that without a hearing?" Amster states he is going to go into the state of the evidence.

DDA Silverman states that the people need a 402 hearing. The court tells Amster, "If he's going to go into the NAS, then we need a hearing for that." The people then insist that they want a report and what the basis [is] of what he's going to say. Amster tells the court, "There is no report. We had no report on Mr. Hamby."

Back and forth, back and forth the arguing and comments from both sides go. Judge Kennedy in a loud voice commands counsel, "STOP. ... STOP."

Again, there's another interruption with another snide comment.

I believe the court tentatively concludes, "If he wants to testify that in his opinion ... based on his experience that there could be another person, untested person, who has the same fingerprints ... that the science hasn't come to the definitive conclusion ... they said that [finding?] ... and I say that's fine. ... And then lets do that and get done with it."

Amster states that the basis of his experts opinion will be the NAS reports. The court counters, "The NAS report does not say thatt, that there's another person that has that fingerprint. ... Mr. Deacon did not say to the exclusion of all others and he did testify that they were unique fingerprints."

Back and forth it goes, questions about what Mr. Coon [Cook?] will testify to, what the NAS report said about fingerprints to the exclusion of all others and whether Mr. Coon [Cook?] analyzes fingerprints in the same way. Interruptions back and forth again on both sides. Back and forth.

Amster insists he doesn't want to be locked into what his experts opinion is, all those studies and everything else. There's something else about the NAS [studies?] that were done with different parameters. I can no longer follow the arguments on both sides.

Amster states that the defense is challenging the uniqueness [of the fingerprint] and that there's lingering doubt that this is the defendant's fingerprint. He tells the court, "I think that science can't eliminate someone else with the same fingerprints because they've not tested everybody in the world."

Back and forth it goes as to what Mr. Coon [Cook?] will testify to and if those are Mr. Franklin's prints or not. 

Amster states that the only issue he is having, is that he doesn't want to be locked into a box. He doesn't know if his witness uses the same technology that Mr. Deacon used, and that there are some variances.  DDA Rizzo adds that Mr. Amster did mention several minutes ago that Mr. Coon [Cook?] may be modifying or enlarging.  Judge Kennedy tells the defense, "We need to know what methodology he's using." Amster replies that he doesn't know if his expert is enlarging [the evidence digitally].

Judge Kennedy tells Amster, "The point of his testimony, that you want to get in front of the jury, I think you can get that easily. I think you can do it and you don't have to reinvent the whole analysis of fingerprint analysis because we're not going to do that."

With Judge Kennedy's ruling, DDA Silverman is shaking her head left to right. She asks the court, "Can't we find out in the meantime, as opposed to waiting a week?" The court answers, "We're not going to wait a week. ... I assume he's not here this morning? ... When is he going to be available to look at the evidence?"

Amster wants his expert to look at the evidence on Friday.  DDA Silverman wants to do this today. Amster doesn't know if his expert is available. The court tells Amster that he can make a phone call.

Now it's back and forth, questions about whether the people are going to put on DNA evidence in the penalty phase. The people state that the defense said they are putting the Sorenson expert on the stand. Judge Kennedy reminds the defense that the stipulation only deals with Enietra Washington's panties. Amster states that there will not be any more DNA evidence from them.

Exhausted, Judge Kennedy states, "I need a martini."

Now the court changes the topic. The court wants to talk about the witnesses from Germany. DDA Silverman tells the court that they've been patiently waiting here. The court asks if they have a German interpreter here.

The court clerk tells Judge Kennedy that she called for a German interpreter and also sent the interpreter department an email. Still no German interpreter. They take a 15 minute break while the court tries to locate a German interpreter and Amster to finish rewriting his order for his expert to visit the LAPD fingerprint lab.

About 20 minutes later we're back on the record. Judge Kennedy tells counsel that she printed out some jury instructions for the guilt phase that she though were applicable.

Amster states,  "I'm assuming that they're going to prove up the events in Germany because the witness is there.  And they have the report of the foreign commission."  Judge Kennedy states, "The events in Germany, the crimes have to be the same as ours and I don't know if you have all that. ... There's the issue of proving a foreign conviction in Germany.  ... only if we have the objection to identity."

Amster replies, "Yes. We don't know what the witness testimony will be." DDA Silverman responds, "It's going to follow the transcript of the witness counsel has." Amster responds, "The foreign conviction, yes, we have copies of it. There is a procedure that they have to document ..."  DDA Silverman interrupts and Judge Kennedy tells her not to interrupt. Amster states, "We're not conceding to the conviction on any of those grounds."

There's more back and forth.

DDA Silverman states there are other witnesses. 'We have a JAG officer who observed the trial, who will be able to connect up the defendant. There is also a military representative with respect to official records to the defendant's name and date of birth."

Amster responds, "Again, I don't want ... we're not trying to take advantage of any situation. ... ID is an issue as far as, particular acts. ... We're not conceding to anything. "

Judge Kennedy gives a tentative analysis. "What Ms. Silverman is saying, she feels she is going to be able to prove identity from the witnesses and you have [the] documents report. ... If that's the case she's not planning on introducing the physical documents of the German conviction."

Amster replies, "We're not conceding the German court documents or the military court marshal documents because the military never made a founding [about the conviction?]." DDA Silverman replies, He was discharged based on the conviction. ... Unless counsel is going to make an issue out of the identification then we have that as well."

I believe at some point, DDA Silverman tells the court that a copy of the discharge papers were found in the search of the residence.

Amster replies hes not sure if he's going to make an issue because he doesn't know what the testimony is going to be. DDA Silverman adds, "There was also an attempted forced oral copulation."

The parties move onto talking about jury instructions. In the mean time, they were unable to get a court certified German interpreter here for the morning session. They will have to wait until the afternoon. Judge Kennedy orders everyone back at 1:30 pm.

Afternoon session.
Several members of the mainstream press, Christine Pelisek, Terri Keith, and Stephen Ceasar are here.  The court goes on the record.

DDA Rizzo tells the court that they did the redaction's on the two priors and stipulated to in court and those are exhibit numbers 653 and 654.

The court's German interpreter is here. She is getting acquainted with the witness. The interpreter states her name for the record.

The witness requests to only be identified by a first name and an initial. Amster then asks his question, "So does Ms. [ ] wish to participate in an interview with the defense or the defense investigators?"  The German witness answers, "No."

There's nothing further on that issue. She, her husband and the various German interpreters leave the courtroom.

As far as interviewing Ms. [ ], nothing else can be done at this point. The defense just wants to make sure that any interviews that the people have... DDA Silverman states that she turned over extensive notes that she did with the witness and Mr. Pyle.  Tomorrow, they pick up with the jury.

DDA Silverman informs the court that the people expect to finish their case tomorrow. There will be short testimony from the victim. Short testimony from the JAG officer and representative of the US Army. There will be three victim impact witnesses. That is the extent of the people's witnesses tomorrow.

Amster tells the court that he anticipates the defense penalty phase case should be two days, or at the very most three. Amster asks the court that they start on Tuesday. The court replies, "I will dot that on the condition that your fingerprint expert gets his report on Friday. Amster states he will rearrange his schedule. The court states that on Friday, they won't be in session unless to conclude the people's case.

There are discussions about making arrangemenets with Mr. Coon [Cook?] to look at the evidence as early as possible on Friday. They are hoping to schedule that at 9:00 am at the fingerprint department.  DDA Rizzo states she provided explicit directions and instructions, and who Mr. Coon [Cook] is supposed to meet at the lab. The German interpreter is ordered back for tomorrow.

There's nothing else to take up at this time, and court is over for the day.

Thursday, May 26, 2016
The following morning, with the courtroom packed with family, the media and the people's next witnesses, Judge Kennedy asks counsel if they are ready for the jury. Amster then stands up and drops his latest bombshell.

Continued in Day 9 Part I......

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., "Grim Sleeper," Penalty Phase, Day 7

Lonnie Franklin, Jr. pretrial hearing

Associated Press Pool Camera, date unknown

This post has not yet been fully edited for spelling and clarity. Sprocket

Prior post can be found HERE.

T&T Case coverage and Media Links HERE.

Friday, May 20, 2016
8:45 AM
Defense attorneys Seymour Amster and Dale Atherton arrive. There are two attorneys here sitting at the defense table. Over at the deputy's desk, Judge Kennedy's bailiff is giving his two new assistants what their duties are for the day. He tells them when they are required to stand, what to watch out for and the zero tolerance regarding cell phones in the courtroom. I like Judge Kennedy's current bailiff. He's actually a funny guy and from what I have heard, a good jokster.

Judge Kennedy comes out from her chambers. Shes' wearing a beautiful red sleeveless dress. Judge Kennedy, known for her love of the Dodger and "Dodger Blue," is asked, "Why are you wearing red?" Smiling she replies, "I have to give credit where credit is due." There's laughter with her reply. I take it from her comment, the Dodgers did not win last nights game.

The other counsel in the well were waiting for someone to arrive. When he does, all three go into chambers with counsel.

8:54 AM
The defense team's investigator arrives. A woman in a red dress and a much younger woman, possibly her daughter sits in the gallery.  About ten minutes later, the courtroom starts to fill up. The people arrive with their support staff.

9:10 AM
Amster is ecstatic. He says out loud to the room, "The 9th circuit just came down and reversed in our favor." He says it out loud enough that everyone in the courtroom hears. He's quite happy, joyful. Smiling from ear to ear, he goes up to a few people and whispers in their ears. I know this can't be about the Franklin case, but what kind of message does that send to the victim's families that are sitting in the gallery? Amster leaves the courtroom to make a phone call. Dale Atherton, sitting at the defense table, continues to rock in his chair. When Amster returns, he continues to laugh and smile over his good news with his co-counsel at the defense table.

9:19 AM
Franklin is brought out. Amster brings up the witness from Germany again. He tells the court, "The people have implied that they have not had any communications themselves with the witness. Yet yesterday, they've represented the witness has refused an interview. And if they've had some type of communication..."

DDA Silverman interrupts. "That's inaccurate. ... We haven't take any statements that deal with the schedule of detail of her testimony."

Amster continues. He's very concerned about the fact that the prosecution is going to feel that way. It doesn't not mean that she [the witness] doesn't want to be fair and the material facts to her. He adds, "I don't think it's up to the prosecution what should be the type of communication that should be turned over or not." Amster is requesting an in-camera hearing and [the prosecution?] telling the court why [their communications with the witness?] should not be turned over. "At this point, I'm extremely concerned that any discussion the prosecution or law enforcement is going to be presented in a manner or implied, or expressed persuasion. I'm requesting an order by the court that the prosecution or law enforcement not have any discussions what so ever." The court rules, "I'm not going to order that at this time."  The court does order a German interpreter. The witness will be brought to court on Wednesday. At that time an inquiry will be made if she wished to be interviewed [by the defense].

DDA Silverman tells the court that she is aware of her discovery obligations. She then mentions the defense and their issue with discovery violations. Some years ago, the witness [had said she was terrified]. The prosecution's office had access to a German interpreter, who has been attempting to assist us in getting her here. We don't have any statements from interpreters.

Amster feels this is a discovery violation at this point. The court states she is not going to do this at this time. Amster is asking for an order that the people turn over any notes and communication from a third party.

DDA Silverman, or the court replies, that what an interpreter said third hand or second hand, is not what you can use to impeach a witness. If an interpreter is interpreting simultaneously that becomes her statement. The court wants to get the witness here first. Amster want's the people's interpreter here. DDA Silverman tells the court that their interpreter is not a certified court interpreter. It's just someone they know that speaks German.

The court asks, "None of these people who are helping you have not taken statements regarding the crime?" DDA Silverman replies, "Except for the one short interview done by Detective Dupree, no. ... Detective Dupree kept a log of all the contact that was made with the German victims. That was turned over to him [Amster] a long time ago. ... We didn't speak to them for three months. ... The interpreter doesn't know about the case and has never been to court."

The court orders that all recent contact be added to Detective Dupree's list and that turned over to the defense.

Amster has another issue, this time regarding Dr. Vivian Williams testimony. "I reviewed my discovery lat night. I did not see any reference to the name Lonnie in discovery." DDA Silverman counters, "That interview, the last line of her statement mentions that line of that statement that she said."

DDA Silverman then brings up an issue that I'm guessing was brought up at sidebar. "Yesterday, because of the complaint by the defense that victim impact statements should be called twice, there is absolutely no law that indicates that that is somehow prosecutorial misconduct for not calling the witness twice. ... that entire scenario is unsupported by any law. Just because counsel doesn't like the evidence in this case doesn't mean that he can require the court to fashion some procedure that's required by law." DDA Silverman gives a measured review to the court about counsel's behavior, that he is, or appears to still be upset by the jury's note. "If we could please get through this trial in somewhat of a professional manner."

Counsel then discuss the stipulation to the prior convictions. Amster states he agrees to the priors package unless there is something that they ask the court to redact. DDA Silverman wants to go over each item in detail and get that out of the way now. Amster doesn't appear to have reviewed the documents yet. They go over the priors packages and make stipulations.

9:42 AM
The jury is brought in. Judge Kennedy comments to the jury on her dress that she has to give credit where credit is due. The jury laughs. The people call their next witness.

35. LATANYA CLARK

The woman who steps up to the witness stand is a strikingly attractive woman I had noticed in the gallery many times.

Do you know someone named Rolenia Morris?
She's my sister.
Are you younger or older?
Older.
So you're her older sister?
Yes.

Amster interrupt testimony to request a side bar.

You said that Rolenia was 4 years younger than you?
Yes.
Are there any other siblings?
I'm the oldest. Yolanda lives in Atlanta, then Rolenia and then the younger sister, Regina.

When her sister got dislocated from her apartment she came [to live with her]. Rolenia's children at Donte, 22, and Donchae [sp?], 25.

When they all moved in with you, how old were the kids?
Donchae was 14 and Donte was 10 or 11.
When she moved in with your for a while, where were you living?
When the first time, I was 25 and she relocated from Pasadena to Los Angeles with my other sister.

All three sisters in Los Angeles lived together. Then they moved to a bigger place to have room for the kids. They always stayed together.

Rolenia, where was she living in September 2005? If you know, from your own knowledge.
She was living in Los Angeles.
South LA?
Yes. ... Near Manchester and Western.

On September 5, 2006, did you and your sisters go somewhere to, get together?
They came to my house.
Was that for a barbecue?
Yes.
Was that in the San Gabriel Valley?
At that time, yes.

She lists the other family members who were there at the barbecue.

Where was Rolenia living?
She was living with Regina.
What happened after the barbecue? Did everyone leave? ... Did Rogenia and Rolenia go back home?
I drove them home.

After the date of September 5, 2005, have you ever seen you sister again?
I have not.
Have you ever heard from your sister again?
No.

A few days after that, I asked my boss if I could leave because I believed my sister was missing.

She went to the 77th Street Station and filed a missing person's report. She also gave them a photo of her sister.

In terms of your sister Rolenia who went missing, have you has she had any contact with her two children, if you know?
Objection. Sustained.

Do you have a father who is still alive?
My step-father, Albert Morris. ... He lives in Lancaster.
Are you in contact with him?
Yes.
Are you also in contact with your other sisters/
Yes, I am.
What about Rolenia's children, are you in contact with them?
Yes.
Did you come to court one day, and bring Donte with you?
Yes I did.

Was your sister working at the time she went missing?
Yes, she was.
How was she working? In what capacity?
She loved helping elderly people so she did a lot of in-home type of service position type of jobs.
How old was she when she went missing?
31.
Were you contacted at some point towards the end of 2010, by a Detective from the LAPD, Robbery Homicide Division?
I wasn't contacted through them first.
You contacted RHD, is that right?
No. They contacted me.

Have you had meetings with Detectives McCoy and Dupree?
Not so much Dupree, but since ...  Mccoy.
In regards to your sister, you had more contact with Detective McCoy?
Yes.

When your sister went missing, did you determine if any of her property .... are you aware of any property that went missing?
Objection.  Sustained.
Did you ever go over to the house where your sister went missing with Rogenia?
[Yes.]
Were you familiar with your sister's habits? Would she take her purse with her?
Yes.
Did you find her purse anywhere where she was living?

Judge Kennedy asks her own question. "Did you look for the purse?
Yes.
Judge Kennedy asks again, "What was the result?"
I didn't find it.

Were you familiar with the contents of [the things your sister carried in her purse?]?
Yes. Driver's license, California ID and a security card. Perfume, napkins.
Did you find any of that type of property, her ID? Did you find any of that or observe any of that at your sister Rogenia's house?
No.

Did your sister live for a period of time in Las Vegas? ... Do you have any family in Las Vegas?
Yes. My mom's eldest sister.

There are questions about her mother that I don't quite follow regarding Las Vegas. There is a long explanation about losing their lease on a house they were living in so that's why the sisters had to split up. There are continual objections by Amster and a motion to strike her answers.

Prior to 2005, [specifically] had your sister ever disappeared before?
No.
Did she discuss with you, your sister, her plans for the future?
Objection. Sidebar.

A few of the jurors appear to be laughing but I'm not sure what it's about.

Did your sister indicate that she had pans to go back to school of some sort? What were her future plans, if you know?
She wanted to go back to school to become a nurse.

When you looked through your sister's property, what kinds of property was left behind?
Her clothes, a bible, shoes, books, pictures of her children, letters, that sort of thing.
So everything but her purse with her identification? ... How about things like her toiletries? Were there makeup, a toothbrush, things of that nature?
Right.

Did your sister have a passport?
Not to my knowledge.
At some point did you give up hope that your sister would come back?
No, I didn't. I was still hopeful. I was always hopeful.
At some point did you try to call her cell phone?
Yes, I did.
Did you do that over and over again?
[Yes.]
With what result?
No service.
Did you have... let me ask you this. What did you do with respect to your niece and nephew?
My sister [Regina?] had already spoken to my nephew's father.
Did someone take care of Donchae and Donte?
Yes.
How old were they, when your sister went missing?
Donte was 12 and Donchae was 16.

Did you assist in raising them over the last ten years?
Yes.
And did you do that along with your other sisters?
Yes.
What was the custom, if any, on their birthdays? Did family get together to celebrate birthdays?
Always.

Did you and your family get together to celebrate Donte and Donchae's birthday prior to Rolenia going missing?
Always.

When the next birthdays rolled around, did she make any contact with you?
No mam.
What about all of their birthdays?
No.
Did she ever show up at the house?
No.
What about their graduations over the years?
No.
Did you attend their graduations?
Yes I did.

In your mind, as knowing your sister as you did, if your sister was alive.
Objection! Sustained.

At some point did you have some type of memorial party or remembrance party for your sister?
April 2012.
What was the purpose of that?
I'd spoken to my sister Yolanda in Georgia
Objection! [Miss ruling.]
Did you have a memorial party that you lost hope that your sister was still alive?
Yes.
Who attended that memorial?
All of my family, myself, close friends and relatives. A pastor came and spoke on behalf of my sister.
In your view, do you view your sister now as deceased?
Yes I do.
How did that impact you, that your younger sister isn't ever coming home? ... At one point did you realize that your sister was dead?
Um, when I went to Parker Center and they had her ID and social security card.
Objection! Motion to strike! Sidebar.

I hear DDA Silverman at the sidebar. "Can he just make a legal objection and just move on? The side bar is over.

You were shown an ID card and photographs by LAPD?
[Yes.] When I got to Parker Center, they had us sequestered in a room. they asked me who I was.

Judge Kennedy asks, "Were, at some point, were you shown some ID related to your sister?
Yes.

People's exhibit 366D is presented.

Is this the ID card that was shown to you?

The card says, Rolenia Adele Morris.

Yes.
And who is the person?
My sister.
Did you ever see that card before that day?
No.
Do you recognize your sister's photos?
Yes I do.
Did you know what address [was on the card?]?
I didn't know the address but I knew.

I note the birth date on the card. 2/4/1954.

Is that the same ID card that we see in 366C?
Objection. Sustained.
Do you recognize your sister's photo here?
Yes I do.
Do you recognize this person?
Yes I do. ... My sister Rolenia.
Do you also recognize her in this photo of her?
Yes I do.
Do you recognize her clothing?
Yes. I do.
Was this a blouse or top you'd see her wear before?
Yes I have.

One of the pictures, Rolenia is posed like Janecia Peters, with one breast exposed. Next, the missing person's flyer is put up on the ELMO. Latanya testifies she gave that photo to detectives so that it could distributed  to missing persons websites throughout the country.

Who is this person?
My sister.

Another photo she is asked to identify. It's her sister. She does not know when the photo was taken. More photos of Rolenia with other family members and her children. A photo of Rolenia's daughter of Donchae at her prom. It's the witness's niece and her prom date.

When did this take place?
Several years ago?
Before or after she went missing?
After
You went with her, to buy her prom dress?
yes.

Another photo of Rolenia, taken in Riverside at Regina's children's father's house. More photos of Rolenia with family. The next photo is of Rolenia with her sister Regina's son.

Do you still have parties like this for the family?
Not really. ... They're older now, since my sister's been gone...
[So you haven't gotten together as a family?]
We do but we usually go out to dinner. Not big like we used to do.

Another photo of the children, having a big birthday party.

That was the same day. It was Donte's birthday as well so we celebrated along with ... celebrated both their birthdays .... with two cakes.

Another photo.

That's Rolenia's grandson. He's six now. His name is Tyce [sp?].

More photos of Rolenia with her children. Then photos of her children older, after Rolenia went missing. Another photo of Rolenia as a little girl.  Then a photo, of family at the memorial. They are all wearing shirts with her baby photo.

We had t-shirts made when we had the memorial.

More photos of Tyce, and the four girls when they were young. A photo of Rolenia's mother. Latanya tells the jury her mother is not alove. She passed January 26, 1995, before Rolenia went missing.  Another photo of her missing sister.

Were you responsible for getting all these photos together? What was that like, getting all these photos together, knowing the venue?
It was hard. ... I know these girls. Once my mom passed, I just took over the mom role.d I knew it had to be done.

Another photo of Rolenia and her children, and then a photo of Rolenia's grandson Tyce again. Then the photos, recovered from the defendant's home.

Do you recognize these original photos recovered from the Franklin home?
Yes.
Of the three sisters that you have, who was the one you were closest to when growing up?
I was close to them all. I didn't have a favorite. I was called sister mamma. I loved them all the same.

She dabs a tissue at her eyes.

We would have a few squabbles, but she knew that I loved her.
Typical sister squabbles?
Yes.
Were there any special things that you two did together as you look back?
Not me or her, all of us. ... It was always all of us. ... Because that's the way my mom raised us, just to be there for each other.

Given the close relationship, did that make it all the more difficult that she's been missing for so long?
Yes.
Given that you've had this memorial, ... what is it like to believe that, in your sister's [case you've] not had a place to bury her.
Very difficult. ... I'm always wondering where she is and what happened to her, and, what happened.

You've been sitting through a lot of this trial. Do you think it affects you differently because there isn't a body to bury and you haven't had the opportunity to have that funeral and a place to visit?
Horrible.
What was the impact?
I was very depressed for a long time.
Did you get help?
No. I just prayed.
Did that give you a sense of comfort?
Somewhat.
In terms of depression, is that something you seem to carry with you whereever you go?
Yes.

Can you describe what it's like, on her birthdays?
Just sad. Sad because we always celebrated and did things as a family unit. ... And to not have that, and to have that taken away from you is very traumatic because we'd never experienced anything like that in our family. ... We don't really celebrate like that anymore. Seems like everyone started doing their own things since this happened.

Unless you are the instigator, to put everything together, it sort of all falls apart?
Yes.
How is it for your niece and nephew?
Donte, he's devastated. He was a mamma's boy.
Who did they live with?
He lived with his biological father, in Rialto.
And my niece is with her grandmother in Rialto.
So they were separated?
Yes.

Do you have conversations with them about this case?
Donte yes. Donchae, no. ... Donte is more receptive of getting the information. I try to try to give him the information. ... With my niece, this is hard for her. She doesn't want to hear about the case or anything about him.
Do any of them ask you for information?
Donte, yes.
Donchae doesn't even speak about her mother?
No.
Were there special events you looked to celebrating with your sister and her family that you've been deprived of?
Of course.
In going through this process through the last several months, has this provided you with some closures and some answers?
Some answers, but I will never have closure.

No more direct. Amster gets up to cross the witness.

When was the last time you physically went to the place where she was living?
September 5, 2005.
And that was in Los Angeles?
Yes.
Since September 5, 2005 to the current date, have you maintained the same cell phone number?
No, I haven't.
Prior to September 5, 2005, did your sister ever call you on your cell phone?
Yes.
When did you change your cell phone number that she used to call you?
I think I changed it in 2010 because I wanted to keep it the same in case she contacted me so I waited a while.

Once you changed your number, did you do anything [leave a forwarding number?] if anyone knew about the old number they could contact you on your new one?

She had a forwarding system set up so that if someone called the old number, it will tell the caller what  her new number was.

And is that still active today/
No, I don't do that anymore.When did you stop that?
A while ago. 2013, something like that.

Nothing further. No redirect. We take the morning break.

10:41 AM
Latanya is comforted by DDA Silverman and Mary and Donnell Alexander in the gallery. I am awed at how patient and understanding DDA Silverman is with these victims' family members. She often tells them how strong they are.

11:04 AM
Judge Kennedy calls for the jury. The jury enters. The first order of business is the stipulation about the priors package. Once the stipulation is over, Judge Kennedy tells the jurors, "When the parties agree to stipulate you are to regard those facts as proven.

36. DARYN DUPREE

Since the jurors know who LAPD Detective Dupree is from the guilt phase of the trial, she does not reintroduce him.

With respect to crime scenes relative to Georgia Thomas, Inez Warren and Sharon Dismuke, are you familiar with those locations given your experience in the areas?
Yes.
Are you also familiar with the documentation with respect to those three homicides?
Yes.
And have you sat through the testimony in this case?
Yes.

Sharon Dismuke, found 1/15/1984. DR #84-13-029088
Inez Warren, found 8/15/1988. DR #88-12-28738
Georgia Thomas found 12/28/2000. DR #00-13-02969

The witness is shown the next people's exhibit. The exhibit documents how close the Barbara Ware and Georgia Thomas body dump sites were and the proximity of the crime scene locations.

What about the location that  we just heard about a few moments ago, with respect to Latanya Clark, with respect to where her sister Regenia [and Rolenia] was living. Do you see this location on this map? ... You can't see it because it's in the green circle area.
How far away [is it] from the defendant's location?
Nine city blocks.

Nothing further. No cross examination. The people have no additional witnesses at this time.

11:12 AM
Judge Kennedy addresses the jury. "Because w'ere going to have this block of several days off, and the other witness coming ... a long time ... as much as it pains me to do it, I'm going to give you a few more days off. We will be continuing on Thursday, May 26. ... Lady in red, have a good trip."

Judge Kennedy reminds the jury about their admonitions. "A ring tone on your phone, just pretend it's me [telling you], don't discuss the case, no posting and research on the Internet.  We'll be picking up again on Thursday at 9:00 AM

11:14 AM
All the jurors and alternates have left. Then Judge Kennedy adds, "Not going to see any of you hopefully until Wednesday morning. ... You [people] need to know about some of the defense witnesses or whether or not they are testifying."

They will have a 402 hearing on "Williams." The defense want to call Diana Kaiser. The people ask who she is. The defense states shes a mitigation expert. The people ask for a 402 hearing on her and the scope of her testimony in her so-called report. The people want to know if she is presenting anything the defendant [said?] in her testimony.

Judge Kennedy states, "I don't know what's in her report and who it's necessary."

The defense rolls of names he "might" call in his case. I don't get a single potential witness name correctly. However, Amster states that he's not finalized his witness list. "We've not made a decision until the people's case is over. ... The offer of proof is in the reports."

Judge Kennedy tells Amster, "Are you, will you have made up your mind by Wednesday. ... I don't what to do a 402 hearing on people that will not be called."  Amster asks about the people's remaining witnesses. The court answers that it's her understanding that the people's remaining witnesses are the woman from Germany, someone from JAG, someone from the military.

There's another individual from the military for the record and a couple victim impact witnesses left. The people feel they can finish their witnesses on Thursday.

The court asks Amster, "How long do you feel your case is going to take? ... Mr. Amster, you have the Sorenson witnesses?"  Amster is not sure they are going to call the Sorensen witnesses. The court responds, "On Wednesday, you need to tell us. ... I don't know if you have witnesses to counter."

The people are asked who the victim impact witnesses are. Diana Ware and Billy Ware and Romy Lampkin will be the final victim impact statements.

The court reminds the parties that June 1st, is Juror #9's child's graduation. And they've been so accommodating. ... Is because we've taken so long, they've been so good about all the delays we've had. The court also talks about going over jury instructions and that a special instruction needs to be crafted. Atherton states he just wants to check if the principal [language?] is in the law to see if it's already in the instruction, otherwise, they'll rely on CALJIC.  Amster states that by Tuesday noon, if they're requesting a special instruction, they will supply them to the court and email the DA.

And that's it. Wednesday at 9:00 am for evidentiary hearings. We are in recess.

Continued in Day 8, Evidentiary Hearing....