UPDATE 1:00 pm
February 17, 2016
Today will be my fourth day at the Airport Courthouse, attending a pretrial hearing in the Robert Durst murder case.
There was a preconceived notion that the hearing would only last three days. I'm not placing any bets that by 4:30 pm today direct and cross examination of the "secret witness" will be completed. The hearings are to question witnesses the prosecution plans to call at trial just in case these witnesses might not be available by the time the trial takes place. This is conditional testimony and that questioning comes with wider latitudes. There has been testimony that in a regular trial would be considered hearsay, and has not been offered for the truth of the matter. If the witnesses are available for trial, then this conditional testimony is moot. However, if for some reason these witnesses are unavailable, some of this testimony taken today will be admitted at trial. The DA has also taken the step of video taping the witnesses.
I am days behind in posting my detail notes on the last few days of the hearing. Having a recovering husband means my writing time at home is limited. Until I get those notes published, I will give a short synopsis on what each witness has testified to so far.
On Tuesday the first witness was Dr. Kuperman. He testified about his duties at Albert Einstein Medical College, what the curriculum, assignments and responsibilities were for med students during each year back in late 1978-1982.
Dr. Kuperman stated that he remembered Kathy Durst, the defendant's first wife, how attractive she was, that she was bright and a "sharp dresser" and that in four years he had two conversations with her. He testified the total time he had spoken to her in those four years was about 15 minutes.
Kathy disappeared February 1, 1982, months away from graduating. Dr. Kuperman stated that based on her school records, he saw no reason that she wouldn't have graduated. Dr. Kuperman also testified that he had never spoken to her on the phone before he received a phone call from a female voice on February 1, 1982 who identified themselves as Kathy Durst. Today, Dr. Kuperman cannot be certain that the voice he heard on the phone was Kathy Durst.
On Wednesday, Susan Giordano, a close personal friend of the defendant, testified that Durst was her best friend. She said she loved Durst and that their relationship was strictly platonic. She also testified that she did not give police permission to remove over 60 boxes of Durst's personal effects that were stored in her basement.
On Wednesday afternoon and all day Thursday, the prosecution's "secret witness" Nathan "Nick" Chavin took the stand. He testified that he met the defendant, a long-time close friend over 30 years ago through their mutual friend, victim Susan Berman.
Chavin testified that in December 2014, he had dinner with the defendant. After the dinner when they were walking away from the restaurant, Chavin and Durst had a talk about the murder of Susan Berman. Chavin testified, "Bob said I had to. It was either her or me. I had no choice." Chavin then asked about Kathy but "... he continued to walk away."
Chavin's direct testimony continues today.
1:00 PM
Defense cross examination of Nathan Chavin by lead counsel Dick DeGuerin began around 10:40 am and continued to the lunch break. At one point, DeGuerin raided his voice and appeared to be yelling at the witness. The prosecution objected to this.
Chavin was confronted via transcripts with conflicting statements he made in his various interviews with the prosecution team, about what he said the defendant told him regarding Berman's murder at their dinner meeting in 2014.
Right before the lunch break was called, DeGuerin informed the court that when they resume, they will be playing the entire 60 minute audio of a July 24, 2015 interview Chavin had with prosecutors.
It's doubtful at this point this hearing will be concluded today. On Thursday we learned that Judge Windham has a trial that is scheduled to start on Tuesday. Monday, President's Day is a court holiday.
Correction, DeGuerin states the recording is from July 23, 2015.
4:30 PM
Amazing we finished today. Next hearing is for motions on April 25.
More to come.....
Showing posts with label Habib Balian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Habib Balian. Show all posts
Friday, February 17, 2017
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Robert Durst Pretrial Hearing 2 & Mr. Sprocket Update
UPDATE 2/15 spelling of Det. Bengtson's name, further additions
UPDATE 12:00 AM added more notes from today's hearing
UPDATE 1:00 PM minor spelling corrections and (?) notations about name spellings
February 14, 2017
8:40 AM
Testimony from two prosecution witnesses is expected today in order to memorialize their statements for trial. For one witness, this is due to age. For a second witness the prosecution has shared with the court their concerns about the witnesses' safety. The identity of this witness has been kept from the public. I believe at the last hearing the court ordered the people to share the name with the defense team at the end of January.
At the last pretrial hearing, I live-blogged from the courtroom. The consequences of that meant that when I later went into edit, I did not have a back-up copy of my notes and I lost a good portion of my data. So for today's hearing my notes will be posted later. If there are breaks, I may post to Twitter during the hearing.
The courtroom is a nice modern courtroom but the number of seats in the gallery are very few. For the last hearing, most of the seats were taken up by the mainstream media.
Mr. Sprocket Update
It is unknown how long this hearing will take. It could take all day, which will definitely put a damper on Mr. Sprocket's plans for or day. For those of you wondering how Mr. Sprocket is doing, he's slowly recovering.
Last December, the day he was cleared to drive again we learned that he had a broken/ separated rib in his upper right chest, a common byproduct of open heart surgery. It explained why he still had so much pain in one localized spot. It also delayed his recovery and ability to exercise these past two months.
However, he's doing much better now. He's started exercising and working to build his strength back. Sadly, we learned yesterday that his job will not be waiting for him when he is able to return to work.
Last week, I mailed out 'Thank You' gifts to everyone who made a donation to T&T to help us out financially. We can't thank or friends and readers enough, or tell you how much your donation has helped us through this difficult time.
A note to new readers. T&T is 100% reader funded. T&T does not receive any financial backing other than what our readers donate. If you appreciate the public service that T&T provides, consider making a donation to cover T&T's court costs. Thank you.
8:54 AM
Robert Durst Defense Team
Dick DeGuerin arrives with Donald Re and the rest of his team. Donald Re defended German Nationalist Gerhard Becker on involuntary manslaughter in the death of firefighter Glenn Allan. Attorney David Chesnoff arrived in the cafeteria a little after I did.
9:29 AM
On the 8th floor. Several familiar faces among the media. Terri Keith from City News, Marisa Gerber with LA Times, Robert Dean & Andrew Blankstein from Dateline, People Magazine's Christine Pelesik, 48 Hours' Greg Fisher, Brian Melly from the Associated Press. There are other faces that I recognize but I cannot for the life of me place a name with the face. We have two sketch artists today. Bill Blais and Mona Edwards Shaffer.
The defense team also arrived on the 8th floor.
9:40 AM
Mary Hearn of the PIO is here. Her assistant just took role call for the press. But we are learning now that some at the bottom of the list might not get a seat.
10:00 AM
I have a seat! Some seats have been reserved for defense team support staff. They are directly in front of me. I am on the far left of the courtroom and an older, colorful gentleman has the end chair on my left. Greg Fisher is to my right. Earlier, Bill Blais won the coin toss for sketch artist. Durst is not in the courtroom yet. The Judge is not on the bench yet. I hate this directed, you must sit here seating.
DDA Lewin chatting with Donald Re. I overhear Lewin say something about getting a waiver. It was real quick. There are about eight support staff, possibly more for the defense team. At least five or more for the prosecution. I cannot see over heads.
10:07 AM
More last minute people are being given the final empty seats. I will be switching to draft mode in a few minutes.
10:09 AM
Durst comes out. slowly walking, a back and forth gait. Fine, Box stripe shirt glasses hanging on for his shirt gray pants. He slowly takes his seat. He turns around to look at the gallery.
[Judge Mark Windham takes the bench. The gallery is called to stand. The bailiff continues his announcement. The court asks the gallery to be seated.]
DeGuerin introduces people to the court. His wife, and I think his son. Stacey (sp?) Manilla.
David Chesnoff. Chip Lewis, Donald Re, (Kathie?) Bane (sp?).
People introduce themselves. Habib Balian, Evan Miller. For the people John Lewin, More people from the prosecution introduced. Lewin also tells the court that there are staff from the crime lab here and other investigative officers are here. George Shamlyan, Elizabeth Camacho, Richard Bengtson, (also miss a name). Another DDA states his name for the record.
Judge allows sketch artist only if image is not definitive.
12:45 PM
I raced down to the cafeteria to get some lunch. I then headed back upstairs to the 8th floor to sit on the floor and use the power outlet. In the entire cafeteria, there were only two power outlets and they were being used by people sitting at the tables next to them.
Before the first witness took the stand, DeGuerin had an objection to a reporter, Charles Bagli with the New York Times being in the courtroom during testimony. DeGuerin tells the court, "We only found out the name of the witness two weeks ago. There is some. indication I can't say that is [a] credible witness, that's some indicate that Mr. Bagli and this witness are collaborating on a book about the case. ... I have not asked Mr. Bagli about that but there is that fact."
The court rules that Bagli can stay in the courtroom during the first witness testimony. He will wait to make a ruling on the secret witness. DDA Lewin argues to the court the unprecedented step of barring a member of the media from the courtroom. He adds,
"... in many cases you have reporters who have long standing interest in cases and I'm [not] aware, ... no authority as an offer of proof ... they're saying they have suspcion of conflicts .. I’m [confident] you have the authority out there, if you take that step you [will] have a due process issue. ... I would just ask to a hearing prior to that so we can litigate it."
Judge Windham responds to counsel. "Thank you. That’s why I didn't rule on that. Ofcourse I’ll entertain any motion from any side and that motion ..."
The first witness is called, Dr. Albert Kuperman. DDA Balian presents the witness.
1. ALBERT KUPERMAN
Dr. Kuperman lives in New York City and is 85 years old.
Several basic themes are presented to the witness about memory and to let the DA know if he doesn't remember, or if his memory might be from something he read or a personal memory.
Dr. Kuperman gives an abbreviated CV. Before he retired, for 40 years he was the Associate Dean of Education at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. [Interview with Dr. Kuperman before he retired.] Dr. Kuperman has obtained his degree at Cornell Medical School of Sciences. He also has a Ph.D. in
pharmacology. He was responsible fore the management and development of the educational program for medical students. Under him were the heads, directors and various assistant deans.
DDA: The Albert Einstein medical school, how difficult is it for someone to become a med student there?
AK: In the 1980's we would get eight to ten thousand applications for a class of 176. They would screen out all but 1100 and interview 500 or 600 of those 1100 and then choose a class of 176.
DDA: You would take the brightest of the brightest?
AK: Yes.
DDA: If someone could not undergo the curriculum, they would not be there?
AK: Yes.
DDA Balian comments that he went to law school and it was a lot easier.
Dr. Kuperman states that the program is four years. The first year, 95% of the students time would be spent in various biomedical courses, lab and small group sessions as well. The other 5% clinical type teaching. The first two years is the classroom like work that occurs in a large lecture hall. In the 3rd year, the clerkship rotations in every specialty, psychiatry, surgery, medicine, etc. And the fourth year, there are also a few clerk-ships, neurology being one, some internship in medicine and pediatrics and an ambulatory program. Dr. Kuperman also mentions there are various electives in clinic specialties or research or community based work programs. In the third and fourth year, there are rarely courses that take place in a classroom setting. The clerk-ships take place off campus, so the students get to work in the hospital with patients leaning their craft. They are a minimum of four weeks, maximum eight weeks.
The supervisory structure of these programs are explained. The student either passes or fails. There's no middle ground. The students are given responsibilities where they are located at month in a clerk- ship. The school places the student in a hospital and the doctors will train that student. The supervision is left to those doctors.
During the 1982, there were approximately 700 to 899 students at Albert Einstein Medical School. In his 40 year career, he was responsible for the education of almost 7,000 students.
DDA: Do you remember them all?
AK: No.
DDA: Do you remember some of them?
AK: yes.
Dr. Kuperman explains that most of his interaction was with students who were taking his pharmacology course. Occasionally, students would come to him to discuss special programs the school offered beyond the clerk ships, beyond the required courses. Occasionally he would interact with other students but mostly, issues with students were handled by the Dean of Students. The interaction between student and teacher was formal. In his role, he didn't have much time interacting with students.
The Dean of Students in 1982 was John Cook. His first name was really Jean but he liked to be called John. When Dr. Kuperman arrived Dr. Cook was already dean of students and he remained there until 1988. Dr. Cook's duties are explained. After medical school, a student has an MD degree but not licensed to practice. They must go through three years residency before they can practice. He explains the school matching program. Dr. Cook was in charge of matching students to the hospital they would do their residency in.
I note that DeGuerin's blond wife, sitting in the row in front of me beside DeGuerin's son has a casual polished look about her.
DDA Balian shifts to asking Dr. Kuperman about a "particular student" that happened in the late 70's to early 80's. Dr. Kupperman is familiar with this particular case and had read media accounts over the years.
DDA: Have you watched the documentary The Jinx?
AK: No.
DeGuerin objects to the word "documentary" to describe Andrew Jarecki's film. The witness testifies he has not watched any film or video related to the Durst situation. He has not seen the movie, All Good Things but has read articles over the years. He acknowledges that it might be difficult to delineate what he has read from what he remembers. He remembers Kathleen Durst. He would see her around campus. He could not give an exact number of times he saw her on campus, but states, "I would say about a dozen times." He remembers what Kathy Durst looked like.
DDA: Was there ever any other med student at your school that ever disappeared that just suddenly disappeared?
AK: No.
Dr. Kuperman remembers he had a couple informal setting discussions with her. He remembers her as a very bright, attractive young woman who "... looked very good in terms of her dress. Things were different then. Students were very rebellious in dress. She was very smart looking is how I would describe it. And that's how I would describe it for the two informal meetings I had with her."
The interactions Dr. Kuperman had with Kathy were very quick, no more than five to ten minutes each.
DDA: What is the best amount of time you would estimate over the three or four years of [meeting her]?
AK: Fifteen minutes.
DDA: And have you previously said it was 10 minutes.
AK: I might have stated that, yeah.
DDA: Your best estimation, as you sit here today, what was the time as to the length of it?
AK: Probably 10 to fifteen minutes.
DDA: And how certain of you are that?
AK: Reasonably certain.
DDA: Did you think that perhaps that you had hours of interaction with Kathy?
AK: Definitley not.
DDA: How certain are you that your interactions with her were brief?
AK: I'm certain it was very brief.
DDA: Who knew Kathy Durst better, you or Jean Cook? ... Who had more contact with Kathy Durst?
Defense: Objection!
Court: Sustained.
And the changing questions about who had more contact with Kathy keep coming the defense keeps objecting and the court continues to sustain them.
DDA Balian asks to be heard on the issue. The court tells him he must lay a foundation. DDA Balian confers with DDA Lewin. The people switch to another line of questioning.
Dr. Kuperman testifies that regarding to Kathy's background, he knew that she was a nurse. He had no knowledge of her personal life or was aware of any family problems.
DDA: If someone were to say, if Dr. Cook were to say, if anyone talked to Kathy on a daily basis, it would be Dr. Kuperman?
AK: That would be incorrect.
DDA: If Dr. Cook were to say [Kathy Durst's] immediate contact was Dr. Kuperman...
AK: That would be incorrect.
DDA: If someone were to say that Kathy spoke directly with [you] were her [advisor] ...
AK: That would be incorrect.
Defense: Objection!
Court: Sustained.
DDA: If Dr. Cook were to say, very infrequently, a student were to work with you rather than Dr. Cook?
AK: That would be incorrect.
DDA: If Dr. Cook were to say, that Kathy dealt with you directly what would you say?
AK: [That's] incorrect.
More hypothetical questions along the same line of 'if Dr. Cook would say.' Dr. Kuperman testifies that he is "very certain" that he did not have more contact with Kathy than Dr. Cook. There are more objections by the defense.
More to come.....
Friday, January 6, 2017
Robert Durst Case, Pretrial Hearing 1
UPDATE 1/11/17 11:30 AM - Continued edits for spelling, clarity
UPDATE 1/7/17 12:15 PM - Continued edits for spelling, clarity
UPDATE 1/7/17 11:15 AM - Minor editing
UPDATE NOTE 2:15 PM - Editing of entry for spelling/clarity later tonight. Sprocket.
Friday January 6, 2017
8:25 AM
I'm here at the Airport Courthouse for a pretrial hearing in the Robert Durst case. Robert Durst is charged with the December 2000 murder of his long time friend, Susan Berman. Berman was found dead in her Benedict Canyon home from a single gunshot wound to the back of her head. Durst was charged in her murder in March 2015 after the final episode of the HBO documentary, The Jinx.
Although I sent notice that I planned on attending the hearing, there is no guarantee I will get a seat.
8:33 AM
Security station has changed at the courthouse.
I see local radio station KFI's Eric Leonard enter the cafeteria and get a coffee or tea before he heads out.
10:03 AM
Waiting in the media line.
Lead defense attorney Dick DeGuerin arrived earlier. Huge prosecution team arrived at the last minute. We are waiting on Judge Mark Windham to finish his morning calendar. There are 20 reporters in line. We've been ordered by the PIO to fill the first two rows with no empty seats.
Terri Keith is here Miriam Hernandez is here from local ABC. Marisa Gerber from the LA Times, Andrew Blanksiein and Robert Dean from Dateline. There are reporters from Reuters, Daily News, CNN, TMZ and others.
I believe the reporter from Fox News is from the local channel 11. Almost forgot, People Magazine's Christine Pelisek, who broke the Grim Sleeper case is here. She's writing the book on that case.
The court's Public Information Officer is counting heads. The media cameras are already being set up inside. I think the LA Times has the pool still camera.
10:17AM
Inside Dept. 81 West. Judge Mark Windham is on the bench. We are crammed into tight folding down seats. There are about 22 reporters or more. We fill up every seat in the first and second rows.
The layout of the courtrooms at the Airport courthouse is not a typical layout. The Judge's bench is in the far left corner, the witness box is in the center and the jury box is on the right. Exactly like the courtroom in the Dawn DaLuise case that was held in this courthouse.
DeGuerin is at the defense table with co-counsel David Chesnoff. On the prosecution team is DDA John Lewin, DDA Habib Balian, and another prosecutor I recognize but I don't know his name.
Clerk asks, "Counsel ready?" I hear "Yes."
The bailiff goes to retrieve Durst.
10:23 AM
The back row in the gallery is filled with young fresh faces, most likely interns with the DA's office. I did not see anyone here that looked like relatives of Durst or the victim.
10:34 AM ROUGH NOTES NOT EDITED.
Case is called. Durst is wheeled in backwards in a wheelchair. Now turned around . He's in a suit.
Appearances please.
David Chesnoff
Durst is wheeled into the courtroom.
Lewin is naming his team. DDA Dave Yaroslavsky. I miss the name of the second deputy DA.
The court explains the hearing. We're today to discuss conditional examinations. People have asked that for two examinations on Feb 14 and two more [later].
The court want's to focus discussion today. The court reads into the record California statues regarding what the people are requesting.
[California law] allows either party to have conditional examination if witness is 65 years of age or if the witnesses life is in jeopardy. Law requires the name of the witness and address. There may be other circumstances but those are the ones [here?]..
Penal code calls for three days notice of the hearing. Court must set time and place. Court reads the law governing conditional testimony.
The people have field a single application for just one witness and that is Dr. Albert Cooperman (sp?) and the application states that Dr. Cooperman is over the age of 65. People provided discovery for this sometime in November.
Defense is objecting to any conditional examinations. Court has read all moving papers.
DeGuerin gets up to address the court.
Your honor, the court has said that ... I think that the prosecution has misinterpreted the statute. ... DeGuerin recognizes that the court only wants one counsel to speak, but he asks the court if his co-counsel Chesnoff can address the court. Mr. Chesnoff is capable of speaking on his own.
Chesnoff addresses the court.
As experienced counsel, we are not in the habit of trying to create issues that don't exist. This is a unique situation and that's ..... Just going to add a few things. in essence, the State of California has had over a decade to prosecute this case. The initial statements of this case... the investigation was not done very well.
Chesnoff mentions the HBO documentary The Jinx. We've had all these years and all the discovery ... and we've only recently received discovery in this case and it's voluminous.
These are provisional witnesses for trial and we haven't even had a preliminary hearing yet.
Why should we have a trial [of these witnesses] when we haven't even had a preliminary hearing yet?
Mentions the big media interest of the case balanced against the rights of the defendant. They [the defense] don't understand the state's theory. They have a idea they are going to try three murder cases ... one which he's been acquitted of and one he's never been charged with.
Talks about witnesses being taken out of order... and bias. Suggest to the court that prelim be set and that we do preliminary hearing that we not have secret witnesses and secret hearings. We know that the witnesses are over 65 but we don't know what the alleged threat is.
Mentions the defense experience with Federal work and Federal judges and how things go on in Federal court. Only ask this proceeding [be conducted?] in a orderly way, so that we can examine these witnesses in an orderly way. Now talking about future events and the potential make up of the jury.
Complains about inflammatory things being said in the pleadings. Complains about ex parte meetings with the judge. "If the purpose of the ex parte was to keep something secret, ...."
Mr. Durst is in custody .Mr Durst is in a wheelchair. All his conversations have been listened to, and that somehow he poses a thread, without knowing what it is that was ... a threat makes it imperative that you approach most cautiously.
John Lewin counters Chesnoff's oral argument.
Hope the court will indulge me me. I don't know what steps can we take. That the court ...
I can barely hear Lewin. I'm not close and he's speaking somewhat softly.
We are here to ... for one reason, to set the conditional examination. We're not here to bring up my interview with Mr. Durst. We/re not here to talk about other issues. We're here for one issue only.
Defense said let's set up preliminary hearing. I have emailed them no less than 30 times. I've asked for dates for preliminary hearing when they will be ready and the response I've gotten is, I don't know.
Lewin continues.
A lot of logistics, a lot of information. If they can't be prepared in one month for one witness, how are they going to be prepared for a complete preliinary hearing?
Defense has talked about the rules of application. I'm not aware of any case that says when discovery is to be provided. ...
[Penal Code?] 1335 would require that these intentional examinations could not be done prior to preliminary hearing. That's completely wrong. It can.
The defense is taking the approach that [they] can't be ready for anybody. Lewin argues for conditional examination.
Durst is wearing a blue striped shirt.
Dr. Cooperman. is basically talking about one issue in this case. They are well aware of Dr. Cooperman. The case in Galveston in 2003 .... The defense were intimately aware of the points of Kathey Durst's death. Dr. Cooperman allegedly received a phone call from Kathy Durst. That phone call took place in 1982.
We believe that call was made by Susan Berman. "That man kills witnesses. ... That's what he does." That's what he did with Morris Black. Back to Dr. Cooperman. That was his sole involvement in [this?] case.
Lewin talks about Durst's defense team.
We have five, well paid, nationally known lawyers in this case. There are others that are working on this case that are not coming to court.
Lewin goes over the amount of material that the defense would have to go over, to prepare for Dr. Cooperman. He mentions a few documents. A one hour interview which was taped and the transcript [turned over]. That's approximately the complete discovery. And we are told that they cannot be prepared. I'm going to describe this very charitably. The defense arguments ... have a distant relationship with the facts.
Lewin reads from a defense Email about questioning Dr. Cooperman. Lewin documents his communication with the defense about witness Dr. Cooperman. In December, he got a call from one of the defense lawyers, asking where the interview transcript of Dr. Cooperman was in discovery. The idea that we are hiding discovery ... "They've been given 150,000 pages of discovery. The idea that we are somehow not turning over discovery, doesn't even pass a cursory review of the facts."
Dr. Cooperman is 85 or 86 years old. The defense is in no hurry to protect damaging discovery in this case.
In their motion they mention that there are numerous "secret witnesses." There are two. The court knows of both. We made an ex parte motion to the court, where we detailed the reasons why in the process and the manner reviewing it. The court found good cause and approved of what we were doing. Lewin states, I cannot tell them who the secret witnesses are but I can at least tell them the dates. We have bent over backwards in every way possible.
Lewin tells the court about helping the defense getting into the jail to see their client on a weekend.
Lewin continues.
We originally filed our motion regarding our special master, I only put in the transcript, the limited part, that Mr. Durst unequivocally waived. The defense responded to that, accusing me of improper and deceptive tactics. They did that, knowing they had that tape and transcript for months.
Lewin goes over the timeline of events of defense motions filed and the claims that the defense has made against Durst's frailty and not a threat to anyone.
Numerous conversations with defense about the admissibility of the Morris Black case and the standard for admissibility. Lewin states that they have evidence contrary to the [fact?] that it was murder and not self defense.
Lewin explains more.
The defense is well aware of all these issues with respect to what we put in our motion because they know why he was arrested in the Galveston case. They knew before they filed their motion, they knew exactly why Robert Durst was a danger. They come back with, well, he's frail. I talk about Susan Berman, I talk about Morris Black.
And this was chilling. Lewin goes over the events where Durst was arrested for Black's murder. He [Durst] tells the security guard that he has to go to his car to get money. Durst makes another request to go to his car. Worried, [the security guard] she calls the local police. When the local police get there, Mr. Durst asks to be taken to his car, so he could get his ID from the glove compartment. This was very suspicious. They would not do it. That was a good thing. What was waiting in the glove compartment, was loaded 38.
Lewin argues, why, did Durst, who had money on him, continually ask to be taken to his vehicle where there was a loaded gun. Now discussions about another witness who testified, now deceased, where Durst showed up on her street dressed as a woman. ... Vernon Lajame, is a person he hold responsible for pushing the investigation into his missing wife.
When the defense said that Durst wasn't a danger, the defense did not address any of these issues in their motion. This is a man who has shown the ability and the desire to harm any witness in his way. We have two secret witnesses. The court has heart this information. The idea that the defendant's rights is being infringed, is absurd. It doesn't become relevant until one of those witnesses doesn't become available.
Lewin continues to argue to get the witnesses statements on the record before preliminary hearing. Lewin adds that they got the defendant's last motion, and he had to laugh, and it's talking about his interview with the defendant and that it was improper. That interview does need to be litigated as to be a part of the attorney client privilege. We filed our motion yesterday as to why that intervew was legal and proper. Need hearing dates for when those issues will be litigated.
Lewin states that the defense has everything regarding all witnesses that will testify at the preliminary hearing. Lewin then tells the court that they Miriam Barnes ... This was a witness they found out about when they read the article in the NY Times. they are also possibly wanting to conditionally interview her as well.
Rafael Prado, they are also requesting to conditionally interview him also. He is not 65, but he is being treated for cancer. His testimony is relevant as to whether Kathy Durst ever made it back to her [condo] in 1982. Lewin states they will disclose on January 31, on secret witnesses. After these witnesses testify, then if defense wants to set case for prelim, then we could do witnesses at preliminary hearing.
And I said this to the court when I asked ex parte. I never said they should be ready in two months. What I do expect, if you aren't ready and you know that you're not going to be ready, then notify the court and the defense.
Lewin states that if defense is ready by a particular date, then they would not need to do the conditional examinations. We need to calendar the attorney client waiver motion.
Lewin wraps up his arguments.
Mr. Cheznoff, you can reply.
We have 150,000 pages in documents, we can't possibly be ready for trial, we have secret witnesses, and that Mr. Lewin says his interview with Mr. Durst is okay. He's disparaged the Galveston law enforcement and DA ... Mr. Lewin's constant request that we fit his schedule or as to how he things things should go along ... except that we need to do this and this on this date.
Complains that they will go into the disappearance of his first wife. It's whether or not that Ms. Berman was going to be a witness or not. We can't be ... when I said Alice in Woderland, when we go down one rabbit hole we [come out another place]. ... You're honor I ask you, let's proceed in an orderly pace. He told you that they most likely will be available for trial.
Continues to argue for Durst for due process. There must be order. We have to be able to have time to share ideas and to study. Now asks that Mr. Deguerin to address the Galveston accusations.
DeGurein, I will try to address this without any ad hominen comments. I was there. We have something close to your 1101b. And that is, if you can't prove something, you can't present it. Prosecution conceeded that Mr. Durst had anything to do with the disappearance of Kathy Durst, much less that she had been killed. The prosecution also conceded, .... [explains who the prosecution atorneys were] ... They also conceeded there was absolutely no evidence that Robert Durst had anything to do with the disappearance of Kathy Durst. We actually went into that. We explain why Mr. Durst ended up in Galveston in disguise. ... The other part about Galveston that I was there for, .... is Mr. Durst's arrest in Pennsylvania at the Wegman's store. .... And that testimony doesn't amount to much. We went through a hotly contested trial and 12 jurors ... [concluded] that Mr. Durst was not guilty.
DeGuerin argues the 1101b compared to Texas 404 law. DeGuerin talks about conditionally examination of witnesses, when the purpose is to use that testimony at trial. ... Apparently they have everything in regards to Dr. Cooperman ... it's the other conditional, secret witnesses. They have withheld ... we don't know how much ... a number of files on these conditional witnesses.
And not to [?] another ad hominen, and we've been told, there are eight to ten, not two secret, conditional witnesses. So that's why we are opposing.
DeGuerin.
I can see a smile on Balian's face as DeGuerin argues to the court. He now brings up the three hour interview of Mr. Durst. It happened when he was in the air, flying to meet with Mr. Durst. Mr. Durst called his lawyers from the jail, before that interview. The prosecuiton had copies of the telephone calls, to his lawyers, before they went to talk to him in the jail .We think that needs to be litigated. One party should not go talk to the other side when they know he's being represented. We think that needs to be litigated. ... That was also improper. ... But that doesn't need to be spread in the public before hand. It was filed and it was available. The video and audio were filed. The media had it immediately. ... What we learned and they disclosed it to it. The media office made copies of those videos and audio and supplied it to the media. And that's what happened. I don't think that needs to happen in the future. There's a lot of things that are very favorable to Mr. Durst, that's in the discovery. And we could do that. [But we refrain from doing that.] We don't think that what's out there in discovery should be spread out there. .... before we ever get to trial.
We've gone way beyond what we are here today which is conditional witnesses. We need to know the identity of those witnesses .... before we go to trial. .... And the discovery that goes with those witnesses. ... We don't want to be shadow boxed. We don't what to know without knowing the prosecutions position is.
To follow the prosecution's theory ... the danger here. ... The first presumption is Kathy Durst, and there's no evidence [Durst had anything to do with that]. Talks about what happened in Galveston when that was put to the court.
Next presumption is if Kathy Durst is dead and or he had anything to do with that, then he killed Susan Berman. Ther'es no evidence of that. Then next presumption of that is ... that he covered up. ... When Kathy Durst first disappeared, ... Susan, being a writer, took responsibility for answering press inquiries. .... Then the presumption that Susan Berman covered up something. Then the next presumption is that Susan Berman contacted authorities [regarding Kathy's disappearance] and covered up something. .... This is when the investigation heated up again. ... There's no one from [the NY investigation] ... no one contacted Susan Berman. That's a fact.
DeGuerin, continues with his list of presumptions of the prosecution's case. Now mention's Susan Berman's father and his supposed Mafia connections.
DeGuerin talks about the secret witnesses and the [objectie?] of fear.
Court.
Thank you so much for providing so much context. First let's talk about the application that's pending, conditonal examination of Dr. Cooperman. People have demonstrated that witness is over 65. Discovery was provided in November. Not unreasonalbe to sechedule examination for him.
As for the second, unidentified for him. I have no applicaiton regarding this witness. I think the suggesiton may be this witness may be in jeopardy. Although I don't have three days notive for that, it's in substantial compliance. It's a witness is a material informaiton about the case. And the people state that he is also over 65, and that Mr. Lewin states he is also over 65, won't get into whether his life in si jeopardy, he is over 65.
There is no case law on discovery, mentions case law People v. Herado, conditional exam done 2.5 years before trial. Reason for that was interragatory appeal. Court approved delay of discovery until seven days before that hearing.
People there argues the defense has not right to discovery. Assumes there is a right ot discovery, and also assumes there should be limitations under 10.4.7. Here, I'm concerned with this idea of "secret" witnesses. Court mentions another case Alvarez, where witnesses remained secret throughout the trial. Mentions US vs. Edwards, witnesses could not remain unidentified throughout trial, but discovery was limited. ... I did receive a showing, exparte, of two additional witnesses. It's similar to what was described to people's the opposition. If you look at pages 3-7 and the declaration ... it all applies to other witnesses. That was the supplemental in camera.
The standard of 1054.7 is to possible danger to witnesses. Court mentions another statute regarding life in jeopardy, danger.
The problem is that the defense ability to contest [the evidence]. I don't easily allow a showing ex parte, I don't automatically accept it. There was a showing prima facia, .... the standard is possible danger, and it seems that it's only reasonable that there is a danger as described by Mr. Lewin in his moving papers. ... there was evidence presented and there is evidence of a possibility of danger. And I need to balance the defendant's right ... with the safety of witnesses. And it's twofold. ...
The court continues to argue the weighing factor and cites the rulings he's relying on in his ruling. Mentions one case as well as Alvarado.
UPDATE 1/7/17 12:15 PM - Continued edits for spelling, clarity
UPDATE 1/7/17 11:15 AM - Minor editing
UPDATE NOTE 2:15 PM - Editing of entry for spelling/clarity later tonight. Sprocket.
Friday January 6, 2017
8:25 AM
I'm here at the Airport Courthouse for a pretrial hearing in the Robert Durst case. Robert Durst is charged with the December 2000 murder of his long time friend, Susan Berman. Berman was found dead in her Benedict Canyon home from a single gunshot wound to the back of her head. Durst was charged in her murder in March 2015 after the final episode of the HBO documentary, The Jinx.
Although I sent notice that I planned on attending the hearing, there is no guarantee I will get a seat.
8:33 AM
Security station has changed at the courthouse.
I see local radio station KFI's Eric Leonard enter the cafeteria and get a coffee or tea before he heads out.
10:03 AM
Waiting in the media line.
Lead defense attorney Dick DeGuerin arrived earlier. Huge prosecution team arrived at the last minute. We are waiting on Judge Mark Windham to finish his morning calendar. There are 20 reporters in line. We've been ordered by the PIO to fill the first two rows with no empty seats.
Terri Keith is here Miriam Hernandez is here from local ABC. Marisa Gerber from the LA Times, Andrew Blanksiein and Robert Dean from Dateline. There are reporters from Reuters, Daily News, CNN, TMZ and others.
I believe the reporter from Fox News is from the local channel 11. Almost forgot, People Magazine's Christine Pelisek, who broke the Grim Sleeper case is here. She's writing the book on that case.
The court's Public Information Officer is counting heads. The media cameras are already being set up inside. I think the LA Times has the pool still camera.
10:17AM
Inside Dept. 81 West. Judge Mark Windham is on the bench. We are crammed into tight folding down seats. There are about 22 reporters or more. We fill up every seat in the first and second rows.
The layout of the courtrooms at the Airport courthouse is not a typical layout. The Judge's bench is in the far left corner, the witness box is in the center and the jury box is on the right. Exactly like the courtroom in the Dawn DaLuise case that was held in this courthouse.
DeGuerin is at the defense table with co-counsel David Chesnoff. On the prosecution team is DDA John Lewin, DDA Habib Balian, and another prosecutor I recognize but I don't know his name.
Clerk asks, "Counsel ready?" I hear "Yes."
The bailiff goes to retrieve Durst.
10:23 AM
The back row in the gallery is filled with young fresh faces, most likely interns with the DA's office. I did not see anyone here that looked like relatives of Durst or the victim.
10:34 AM ROUGH NOTES NOT EDITED.
Case is called. Durst is wheeled in backwards in a wheelchair. Now turned around . He's in a suit.
Appearances please.
David Chesnoff
Durst is wheeled into the courtroom.
Lewin is naming his team. DDA Dave Yaroslavsky. I miss the name of the second deputy DA.
The court explains the hearing. We're today to discuss conditional examinations. People have asked that for two examinations on Feb 14 and two more [later].
The court want's to focus discussion today. The court reads into the record California statues regarding what the people are requesting.
[California law] allows either party to have conditional examination if witness is 65 years of age or if the witnesses life is in jeopardy. Law requires the name of the witness and address. There may be other circumstances but those are the ones [here?]..
Penal code calls for three days notice of the hearing. Court must set time and place. Court reads the law governing conditional testimony.
The people have field a single application for just one witness and that is Dr. Albert Cooperman (sp?) and the application states that Dr. Cooperman is over the age of 65. People provided discovery for this sometime in November.
Defense is objecting to any conditional examinations. Court has read all moving papers.
DeGuerin gets up to address the court.
Your honor, the court has said that ... I think that the prosecution has misinterpreted the statute. ... DeGuerin recognizes that the court only wants one counsel to speak, but he asks the court if his co-counsel Chesnoff can address the court. Mr. Chesnoff is capable of speaking on his own.
Chesnoff addresses the court.
As experienced counsel, we are not in the habit of trying to create issues that don't exist. This is a unique situation and that's ..... Just going to add a few things. in essence, the State of California has had over a decade to prosecute this case. The initial statements of this case... the investigation was not done very well.
Chesnoff mentions the HBO documentary The Jinx. We've had all these years and all the discovery ... and we've only recently received discovery in this case and it's voluminous.
These are provisional witnesses for trial and we haven't even had a preliminary hearing yet.
Why should we have a trial [of these witnesses] when we haven't even had a preliminary hearing yet?
Mentions the big media interest of the case balanced against the rights of the defendant. They [the defense] don't understand the state's theory. They have a idea they are going to try three murder cases ... one which he's been acquitted of and one he's never been charged with.
Talks about witnesses being taken out of order... and bias. Suggest to the court that prelim be set and that we do preliminary hearing that we not have secret witnesses and secret hearings. We know that the witnesses are over 65 but we don't know what the alleged threat is.
Mentions the defense experience with Federal work and Federal judges and how things go on in Federal court. Only ask this proceeding [be conducted?] in a orderly way, so that we can examine these witnesses in an orderly way. Now talking about future events and the potential make up of the jury.
Complains about inflammatory things being said in the pleadings. Complains about ex parte meetings with the judge. "If the purpose of the ex parte was to keep something secret, ...."
Mr. Durst is in custody .Mr Durst is in a wheelchair. All his conversations have been listened to, and that somehow he poses a thread, without knowing what it is that was ... a threat makes it imperative that you approach most cautiously.
John Lewin counters Chesnoff's oral argument.
Hope the court will indulge me me. I don't know what steps can we take. That the court ...
I can barely hear Lewin. I'm not close and he's speaking somewhat softly.
We are here to ... for one reason, to set the conditional examination. We're not here to bring up my interview with Mr. Durst. We/re not here to talk about other issues. We're here for one issue only.
Defense said let's set up preliminary hearing. I have emailed them no less than 30 times. I've asked for dates for preliminary hearing when they will be ready and the response I've gotten is, I don't know.
Lewin continues.
A lot of logistics, a lot of information. If they can't be prepared in one month for one witness, how are they going to be prepared for a complete preliinary hearing?
Defense has talked about the rules of application. I'm not aware of any case that says when discovery is to be provided. ...
[Penal Code?] 1335 would require that these intentional examinations could not be done prior to preliminary hearing. That's completely wrong. It can.
The defense is taking the approach that [they] can't be ready for anybody. Lewin argues for conditional examination.
Durst is wearing a blue striped shirt.
Dr. Cooperman. is basically talking about one issue in this case. They are well aware of Dr. Cooperman. The case in Galveston in 2003 .... The defense were intimately aware of the points of Kathey Durst's death. Dr. Cooperman allegedly received a phone call from Kathy Durst. That phone call took place in 1982.
We believe that call was made by Susan Berman. "That man kills witnesses. ... That's what he does." That's what he did with Morris Black. Back to Dr. Cooperman. That was his sole involvement in [this?] case.
Lewin talks about Durst's defense team.
We have five, well paid, nationally known lawyers in this case. There are others that are working on this case that are not coming to court.
Lewin goes over the amount of material that the defense would have to go over, to prepare for Dr. Cooperman. He mentions a few documents. A one hour interview which was taped and the transcript [turned over]. That's approximately the complete discovery. And we are told that they cannot be prepared. I'm going to describe this very charitably. The defense arguments ... have a distant relationship with the facts.
Lewin reads from a defense Email about questioning Dr. Cooperman. Lewin documents his communication with the defense about witness Dr. Cooperman. In December, he got a call from one of the defense lawyers, asking where the interview transcript of Dr. Cooperman was in discovery. The idea that we are hiding discovery ... "They've been given 150,000 pages of discovery. The idea that we are somehow not turning over discovery, doesn't even pass a cursory review of the facts."
Dr. Cooperman is 85 or 86 years old. The defense is in no hurry to protect damaging discovery in this case.
In their motion they mention that there are numerous "secret witnesses." There are two. The court knows of both. We made an ex parte motion to the court, where we detailed the reasons why in the process and the manner reviewing it. The court found good cause and approved of what we were doing. Lewin states, I cannot tell them who the secret witnesses are but I can at least tell them the dates. We have bent over backwards in every way possible.
Lewin tells the court about helping the defense getting into the jail to see their client on a weekend.
Lewin continues.
We originally filed our motion regarding our special master, I only put in the transcript, the limited part, that Mr. Durst unequivocally waived. The defense responded to that, accusing me of improper and deceptive tactics. They did that, knowing they had that tape and transcript for months.
Lewin goes over the timeline of events of defense motions filed and the claims that the defense has made against Durst's frailty and not a threat to anyone.
Numerous conversations with defense about the admissibility of the Morris Black case and the standard for admissibility. Lewin states that they have evidence contrary to the [fact?] that it was murder and not self defense.
Lewin explains more.
The defense is well aware of all these issues with respect to what we put in our motion because they know why he was arrested in the Galveston case. They knew before they filed their motion, they knew exactly why Robert Durst was a danger. They come back with, well, he's frail. I talk about Susan Berman, I talk about Morris Black.
And this was chilling. Lewin goes over the events where Durst was arrested for Black's murder. He [Durst] tells the security guard that he has to go to his car to get money. Durst makes another request to go to his car. Worried, [the security guard] she calls the local police. When the local police get there, Mr. Durst asks to be taken to his car, so he could get his ID from the glove compartment. This was very suspicious. They would not do it. That was a good thing. What was waiting in the glove compartment, was loaded 38.
Lewin argues, why, did Durst, who had money on him, continually ask to be taken to his vehicle where there was a loaded gun. Now discussions about another witness who testified, now deceased, where Durst showed up on her street dressed as a woman. ... Vernon Lajame, is a person he hold responsible for pushing the investigation into his missing wife.
When the defense said that Durst wasn't a danger, the defense did not address any of these issues in their motion. This is a man who has shown the ability and the desire to harm any witness in his way. We have two secret witnesses. The court has heart this information. The idea that the defendant's rights is being infringed, is absurd. It doesn't become relevant until one of those witnesses doesn't become available.
Lewin continues to argue to get the witnesses statements on the record before preliminary hearing. Lewin adds that they got the defendant's last motion, and he had to laugh, and it's talking about his interview with the defendant and that it was improper. That interview does need to be litigated as to be a part of the attorney client privilege. We filed our motion yesterday as to why that intervew was legal and proper. Need hearing dates for when those issues will be litigated.
Lewin states that the defense has everything regarding all witnesses that will testify at the preliminary hearing. Lewin then tells the court that they Miriam Barnes ... This was a witness they found out about when they read the article in the NY Times. they are also possibly wanting to conditionally interview her as well.
Rafael Prado, they are also requesting to conditionally interview him also. He is not 65, but he is being treated for cancer. His testimony is relevant as to whether Kathy Durst ever made it back to her [condo] in 1982. Lewin states they will disclose on January 31, on secret witnesses. After these witnesses testify, then if defense wants to set case for prelim, then we could do witnesses at preliminary hearing.
And I said this to the court when I asked ex parte. I never said they should be ready in two months. What I do expect, if you aren't ready and you know that you're not going to be ready, then notify the court and the defense.
Lewin states that if defense is ready by a particular date, then they would not need to do the conditional examinations. We need to calendar the attorney client waiver motion.
Lewin wraps up his arguments.
Mr. Cheznoff, you can reply.
We have 150,000 pages in documents, we can't possibly be ready for trial, we have secret witnesses, and that Mr. Lewin says his interview with Mr. Durst is okay. He's disparaged the Galveston law enforcement and DA ... Mr. Lewin's constant request that we fit his schedule or as to how he things things should go along ... except that we need to do this and this on this date.
Complains that they will go into the disappearance of his first wife. It's whether or not that Ms. Berman was going to be a witness or not. We can't be ... when I said Alice in Woderland, when we go down one rabbit hole we [come out another place]. ... You're honor I ask you, let's proceed in an orderly pace. He told you that they most likely will be available for trial.
Continues to argue for Durst for due process. There must be order. We have to be able to have time to share ideas and to study. Now asks that Mr. Deguerin to address the Galveston accusations.
DeGurein, I will try to address this without any ad hominen comments. I was there. We have something close to your 1101b. And that is, if you can't prove something, you can't present it. Prosecution conceeded that Mr. Durst had anything to do with the disappearance of Kathy Durst, much less that she had been killed. The prosecution also conceded, .... [explains who the prosecution atorneys were] ... They also conceeded there was absolutely no evidence that Robert Durst had anything to do with the disappearance of Kathy Durst. We actually went into that. We explain why Mr. Durst ended up in Galveston in disguise. ... The other part about Galveston that I was there for, .... is Mr. Durst's arrest in Pennsylvania at the Wegman's store. .... And that testimony doesn't amount to much. We went through a hotly contested trial and 12 jurors ... [concluded] that Mr. Durst was not guilty.
DeGuerin argues the 1101b compared to Texas 404 law. DeGuerin talks about conditionally examination of witnesses, when the purpose is to use that testimony at trial. ... Apparently they have everything in regards to Dr. Cooperman ... it's the other conditional, secret witnesses. They have withheld ... we don't know how much ... a number of files on these conditional witnesses.
And not to [?] another ad hominen, and we've been told, there are eight to ten, not two secret, conditional witnesses. So that's why we are opposing.
DeGuerin.
I can see a smile on Balian's face as DeGuerin argues to the court. He now brings up the three hour interview of Mr. Durst. It happened when he was in the air, flying to meet with Mr. Durst. Mr. Durst called his lawyers from the jail, before that interview. The prosecuiton had copies of the telephone calls, to his lawyers, before they went to talk to him in the jail .We think that needs to be litigated. One party should not go talk to the other side when they know he's being represented. We think that needs to be litigated. ... That was also improper. ... But that doesn't need to be spread in the public before hand. It was filed and it was available. The video and audio were filed. The media had it immediately. ... What we learned and they disclosed it to it. The media office made copies of those videos and audio and supplied it to the media. And that's what happened. I don't think that needs to happen in the future. There's a lot of things that are very favorable to Mr. Durst, that's in the discovery. And we could do that. [But we refrain from doing that.] We don't think that what's out there in discovery should be spread out there. .... before we ever get to trial.
We've gone way beyond what we are here today which is conditional witnesses. We need to know the identity of those witnesses .... before we go to trial. .... And the discovery that goes with those witnesses. ... We don't want to be shadow boxed. We don't what to know without knowing the prosecutions position is.
To follow the prosecution's theory ... the danger here. ... The first presumption is Kathy Durst, and there's no evidence [Durst had anything to do with that]. Talks about what happened in Galveston when that was put to the court.
Next presumption is if Kathy Durst is dead and or he had anything to do with that, then he killed Susan Berman. Ther'es no evidence of that. Then next presumption of that is ... that he covered up. ... When Kathy Durst first disappeared, ... Susan, being a writer, took responsibility for answering press inquiries. .... Then the presumption that Susan Berman covered up something. Then the next presumption is that Susan Berman contacted authorities [regarding Kathy's disappearance] and covered up something. .... This is when the investigation heated up again. ... There's no one from [the NY investigation] ... no one contacted Susan Berman. That's a fact.
DeGuerin, continues with his list of presumptions of the prosecution's case. Now mention's Susan Berman's father and his supposed Mafia connections.
DeGuerin talks about the secret witnesses and the [objectie?] of fear.
Court.
Thank you so much for providing so much context. First let's talk about the application that's pending, conditonal examination of Dr. Cooperman. People have demonstrated that witness is over 65. Discovery was provided in November. Not unreasonalbe to sechedule examination for him.
As for the second, unidentified for him. I have no applicaiton regarding this witness. I think the suggesiton may be this witness may be in jeopardy. Although I don't have three days notive for that, it's in substantial compliance. It's a witness is a material informaiton about the case. And the people state that he is also over 65, and that Mr. Lewin states he is also over 65, won't get into whether his life in si jeopardy, he is over 65.
There is no case law on discovery, mentions case law People v. Herado, conditional exam done 2.5 years before trial. Reason for that was interragatory appeal. Court approved delay of discovery until seven days before that hearing.
People there argues the defense has not right to discovery. Assumes there is a right ot discovery, and also assumes there should be limitations under 10.4.7. Here, I'm concerned with this idea of "secret" witnesses. Court mentions another case Alvarez, where witnesses remained secret throughout the trial. Mentions US vs. Edwards, witnesses could not remain unidentified throughout trial, but discovery was limited. ... I did receive a showing, exparte, of two additional witnesses. It's similar to what was described to people's the opposition. If you look at pages 3-7 and the declaration ... it all applies to other witnesses. That was the supplemental in camera.
The standard of 1054.7 is to possible danger to witnesses. Court mentions another statute regarding life in jeopardy, danger.
The problem is that the defense ability to contest [the evidence]. I don't easily allow a showing ex parte, I don't automatically accept it. There was a showing prima facia, .... the standard is possible danger, and it seems that it's only reasonable that there is a danger as described by Mr. Lewin in his moving papers. ... there was evidence presented and there is evidence of a possibility of danger. And I need to balance the defendant's right ... with the safety of witnesses. And it's twofold. ...
The court continues to argue the weighing factor and cites the rulings he's relying on in his ruling. Mentions one case as well as Alvarado.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Joshua Woodward Pleads No Contest to Attempted Murder of Fetus Charges
Joshua Woodward, at a previous court hearing.
UPDATE 11/16:
Woodward remains out on bond until his sentencing on January 29. His passport is surrendered. He will get one last Christmas and New Year's with his wife and new child.
November 13, 2015
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office reports:
A former national restaurateur pleaded no contest today to attempted murder for trying to induce a miscarriage of his ex-girlfriend's fetus six years ago, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced.
Joshua Woodward, 43, entered his plea before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Curtis Rappe to one count of attempted murder. He is scheduled to return to court Jan. 29 when he is expected to be sentenced to nine years in state prison.
Deputy District Attorneys Habib A. Balian of the Major Crimes Division and Marguerite Rizzo, Deputy-in-Charge of the Forensic Science Section, prosecuted the case.
Woodward, a Florida resident who once co-owned the former Table 8 restaurants in Los Angeles and South Beach, tried to induce the miscarriage on Oct. 18, 2009, by using misoprostol, a drug used in the medical community to induce labor and terminate early stage pregnancies.
Evidence presented at a preliminary hearing showed that Woodward attempted to induce the miscarriage on three other occasions.Coverage of the Joshua Woodward preliminary hearing can be found HERE.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Joshua Woodward Preliminary Hearing Day 6 - Part II
Joshua Woodward at a previous court hearing.
Note: I meant to get these notes written up soon after Woodward was bound over for trial on 1/23/14 but they got put on the back burner. A few months later, Mr. Sprocket's heart attack happened and helping him get back on his feet was more important. Below are my notes from the last day of Woodward's preliminary hearing, one year ago. T&T's exclusive Woodward trial coverage can be found HERE. Sprocket
Continued from Part I.....
January 23, 2014
When I get to the downtown criminal court building, there is log jam of bodies in the elevator bay. It took me 20 minutes to get an elevator.
8:42 AM
On the 7th floor. The entire defense team is already here: Levine, Currie, Weisgerber and four other attorneys along with the defendant Woodward. They have two boxes of case files with them.
8:44 AM
Judge Pastor's clerk opens Dept. 51. About a minute later the main defense team files in. Woodward and the four other attorneys stay in the hallway. They are either on their smart phones or chatting amongst themselves.
8:55 AM
I head into Dept. 51. Soon after, the prosecution team of DDA's Habib Balian and Marguerite Rizzo arrive. I know Detective Shafia is in the building since I saw him in the cafeteria when I arrived. DDA Rizzo is wearing a sharp red jacket with a red scarf. Ms. Rizzo always looks perfectly put together.
(At the September 2014 Forensic Science Forum, I learned that not only does DDA Rizzo have a law degree, she has a masters in the biological sciences. Sprocket)
Counsel are chatting together in the well. Levine is speaking and the two DDA's are nodding their heads. Detective Shafia arrived and is seated in the jury box. Woodward is now at the defense table. There are four attorneys in the gallery. Two in front of me and two behind me. Two of the faces are new and I don't know if they are part of Woodward's extended defense team or not.
Just as it looks like things are close to getting started I have a coughing fit. Damn. I hope I don't have to step outside. The court reporter Mavis is not at her desk but her equipment is already set up.
9:03 AM
Mavis emerges from the back rooms. Judge Pastor goes on the record and appearances are stated. I believe Judge Pastor states that the court received two documents filed on January 13. It's a discovery matter. There's some discussion about a narrow cross or redirect. Documents were received to be moved into evidence.
Ms. Levine addresses the court. It's an issue with discovery. The DA searched emails in the LAPD data base among the two detectives and Ms. Doe. I believe Ms. Levine wants to examine Detective Shafia on these emails.
DDA Balian tells the court that they did conduct a search. This was potentially discovery/Brady material. I believe from my notes there may be one email, one contact between a detective and Ms. Doe by email.
I believe the defense states that the retrieved a piece of the chrono record, held in digital form that happened after, possibly after discovery was turned over to the defense. I believe there is other evidence that they uncovered that contradicted the testimony of Detective Shafia and Detective Fairchild. The defense would like to recall Detective Shafia.
Detective Shafia is recalled to the stand for cross examination by Ms. Levine.
JL: Since the last time you were here, have you reviewed any materials ....
JS: An email that was generated from searches.
JL: [Was that] provided by the DA or Detective Fairchild?
JS: The DA.
JL: Did you recall in November 2009 an email [from? to?] Ms. Doe?
JS: No, I did not recall that.
Ms. Levine questions the detective about the chronological log (aka "chrono). She points out an item that is missing a BATES stamp number. He's asked to look at the last page, the next to the last entry at 6:00 AM.
I believe the detective reads the document and then explains that it shows he received a message from Ms. Doe, asking for an update, and then possibly an email was sent or received from Ms. Doe.
JL: Do you have copy [copies?] of the email[s]?
JS: No.
JL: do you recall any other communication?
JS: No.
A copy of the email is not in the file. Detective Shafia is asked about a lawsuit filed by Ms. Doe against the defendant. Shafia doesn't recall the conversation.
JL: Do you recall a conversation in court about the lawsuit?
JS: No.
Shafia states he did not receive an email about the lawsuit. Defense exhibit R is presented, a copy of an email from Detective Fairchild.
JL: This is an email from Karen Fairchild, right?
JS: Yes.
JL: It's to you?
JS: Yes.
JL: Dated February 7, 2012?
JS: Yes.
JL: At 2:01 PM?
JS: Yes.
I believe Detective Shafia mentions his last conversation with DDA Rizzo the prior month and Ms. Levine moves to strike. Ms. Doe has filed a lawsuit.
JL: So you did know about the lawsuit?
JS: No. I don't remember this email.
JL: Do you remember an email from Detective Careo (sp?)?
Defense exhibit S, an email from a Frank Careo or a Jose Careo... turns out (Jose/Frank) is the same person. The employee number of Frank Careo is mentioned. The email is dated December 13, 2011. Detective Shafia recalls this email. There was an exchange between ... [ a phone call?] Shafia doesn't remember the phone call. It was requested that Detective Shafia document [in person?] a conversation that he [over?] heard. There is a question about Officer Careo and if he was not assigned to this matter. Prosecution objects, 350/352. Sustained. Ms. Levine asks for a moment. She confers with an attorney in the gallery and Mr. Currie.
JL: Did you know Detective Careo tried to interview your subject?
Objection! Sustained!
JL: Did you know about any other emails?
JS: (No.)
There is no redirect by the people and Detective Shafia is excused. The defense recalls Detective Fairchild.
JL: Before you came to court, is there any document[s] you reviewed?
KF: Yes. I reviewed emails that were the product of a search. ... My answer was, but I had not done a search.
Ms. Levine has more questions about emails Detective Fairchild exchanged with Ms. Doe. Defense exhibit T, an email. It's an email addressed to Ms. Doe [including the email address] from the witness. Detective Fairchild verifies that this email was not listed in the chrono log.
JL: You did not put those emails in the log?
KF: Correct.
Ms. Levine reads from the email. "Hi [Ms. Doe], I hope you enjoyed your vacation in between ... Italy."
Under questioning, the witness verifies that she took no notes or documented the exchange in the logs.
JL: The second paragraph is about a computer search of Ms. Doe's hard drive, is that correct?
KF: Yes.
JL: Before you picked up the computer, were there any emails about picking up that computer?
KF: No.
JL: Any communication that you were going to do a search, by email?
KF: No.
Defense exhibit U. An email with BATES stamp #1185. Witness verifies this is an email from Ms. Doe to Detective Fairchild. It's Detective Fairchild's work email.
JL: Do you recall interviewing Ms. Doe that day?
KF: No.
JL: June 24, 2010 interview?
KF: Now I remember.
JL: What time did that take place?
KF: I don't recall.
JL: What time did it take place?
KF: 10 AM in the morning.
Levine states the email title is "Charged with murder," then reads from the email. "Please let me know if you want my emails/texts from Josh so that you can see what Josh typed."
Articles were attached but the witness doesn't remember them. There's a question about what Detective Fairchild remembers about these emails and if she responded to Ms. Doe.
Defense exhibit V is next. It's another email not in the chrono log and no copy of the email in the file. The email has a link to an article about the case. Ms. Levine asks the witness if she accessed that article. The email is dated 6/25/2010 at 10:12 AM
Defense exhibit W, BATES stamp 1187, email from the witness to Ms. Doe, dated 6/25/10 at 11:00 AM. It has the same subject line as the prior email. This was in response to Ms. Doe's email. This email is not in the log and a copy was not put in the file. Ms. Levine reads from the text of the email. "Thanks so much for the link."
JL: Does that refresh your memory that you clicked on the link?
KF: I still don't recall.
Defense exhibit X, BATES stamp 1888, from the witness to Ms. Doe, dated 6/25/10 at 11:02 AM. Two minutes after the last email. Same subject line. This email did not make it into the chronological log or file.
Defense exhibit Y, BATES stamp 1889, from Ms. Doe to the witness dated 12/31/10, titled Happy New Year. This email was not listed in the chrono log and a copy was not included in the file.
JL: In this email Ms. Doe wishes you a Happy New Year?
Objection! Sustained!
JL: In it she thanks you for your hard work?
KF: Yes.
JL: And wishes you a Happy New Year?
KF: I think she is referring to herself and not me.
Defense exhibit Z, BATES stamp 1890, email from the witness to Ms. Doe, dated 1/4/2011. It is in response to the prior email. This email is not in the chrono log or a copy in the file. Subject line is the same, Happy New Year. The email states meeting with two more doctors.
JL: Was one [of them?] Dr. Kingston?
KF: No.
JL: There were two doctors?
KF: I honestly ... we never met with with the doctor. ... I believe that Ms. Rizzo was calling around to find an expert .... a medical expert.
JL: You mean someone who would agree with your theories?
Objection! Sustained!
JL: You wrote, "There's light at the end of the tunnel" ?
KF: Yes.
JL: Your email about the lawsuit ....
The witness knew that Ms. Doe was filing a lawsuit and that subpoenas were sent out. That's all she knew.
JL: Did you report the lawsuit to the district attorney?
KF: I don't know at what point that was found out.
The witness states that [Ms. Doe?] might have had a conversation with DDA Rizzo but doesn't know the specifics of what was said or when.
Defense exhibit AA #1891 two emails. The first from the witness to Ms. Doe, dated August 2011 at 12:03 PM. I believe the subject is "Question." The witness asked Ms. Doe in her email" "DDA Rizzo wanted to know if you had ever told Joshua how many weeks [you were?] pregnant. ... She will talk to you."
There is discussion about Ms. Doe's reply. I believe this is from Ms. Doe's emails:
Josh was informed of every [process? procedure] from pictures and ultrasound.He was supposed to go to ultrasounds with me but he cancelled every time.There's more that I miss. This email is not in the chrono log and information not in the case file. Ms. Levine confronts the witness that she didn't relay the information anywhere.
Ms. Levine asks the court for a moment. She then leans in and whispers to Woodward. Cross is finished and DDA Balian gets up to redirect.
Defense exhibit X.
HB: I believe you testified that email was from you to Ms. Doe.
KF: It's from Ms. Doe to me.
HB: So it's from Ms. Doe to you?
KF: Yes.
Defense exhibit Y
HB: Here's to looking to a better New Year?
KF: Yes.
HB: Didn't she write, Here's to looking to a better New Year and Justice?
KF: Yes.
Redirect is finished. The court asks if there are any more witnesses. Ms. Levine states there are only defense exhibits and motions. No more witnesses this morning. The court will take a break until 10 AM.
There are attorneys in the gallery. One attorney greets DDA Rizzo. Another attorney greets one of the defense team. Ms. Rizzo asks if the DA's law clerk can sit in the front row. There are signs in the front row that no one can sit in that row without permission.
While we are on break, I hear counsel chat about what courtroom the case will be sent to. Personally, I believe the case will be sent to the 9th floor. The 9th floor handles long cause (4 weeks or longer) or complex cases. The clerk asks Ms. Levine if she will be seeking to admit new exhibits. I hear Ms. Levine reply that she's not going to move her exhibits into evidence. They will be reference only.
10:02 AM
The court reporter Mavis takes to her desk. 10:05 AM the court goes back on the record. There are no additional people's exhibits. Different defense exhibits (B, C, F, I, N) are gone over describing them. The defense is not moving their exhibits into evidence. They were by reference only. Ms. Rizzo objects to Defense B. Dr. Kingston's report and CV. Those are hearsay. People object to defense F. It's hearsay. Detective Shafia testified.
Ms. Levine responds. "With respect to ... CV, ... pretty standard for experts. ... and what she looked at and relied on. ... With respect to F, ... Detective Shafia research ... what the detective did on research and ..."
I believe it's DDA Balian who responds and the court agrees. People's objection is sustained. Defense exhibits B & F not received into evidence. (I'm confused here because I thought the defense was not submitting their exhibits into evidence anyway.) I believe the defense has a motion to strike.
The people and defense rest.
The defense motion is to strike the testimony of Woodward via Miranda. The court has received the filed motions and is happy to receive argument by counsel.
Defense attorney Kelly Currie steps up to argue.
The people can't ask questions in the guise of booking information or medical information. Context matters. What preceded the questioning [when] .... [Officer] Hernandez was present. Detective Shafia did not advise him of his rights. Mr. Woodward invoked his right five times during the interview. Officer Hernandez asked questions during the booking process. After booking, Hernandez reports to Shafia. He [Woodward] did not have any medical issues. [He] used to take blood pressure medications. Currie goes over the informed arrest screening form.
The court asks what would be fair game, if anything, and then asks about [I believe] a check box on the form. Currie argues that they don't have the benefit of Officer Hernandez being here. They don't have the benefit of what Hernandez asked the defendant.
DDA Balian argues for the people.
What they do know. They know from 115 [testimony], that he [Officer Hernandez] asked if he [Woodward] had any health issues of medication.
The court replies. I certainly recognize prop 115. The court allows hearsay testimony on a daily basis. The court hears hearsay testimony. [However] there are limitations in the context of certain legal issues. ... It is not satisfying to the people's burden of proof. Under existing law, People v. Gomez, look to underlying circumstance and the mindset of the inquiry.
The people chose to rely on Detective Shafia's testimony on 115, and I'm concerned about that. There might be a legitimate or non legal inquiry. Asked that the defendant submit to questioning and he chose to invoke. The court wonders if that swallows up the [?] .... The court is not satisfied that the people met their burden. People have not met their burden. Strike testimony of Officer Hernandez. This is a ruling at prelim. It certainly is without prejudice for further legislation. The court does strike out that entire testimony.
Now the defense has motions to dismiss all counts. Currie will address count 1. The court states it will hear all defense arguments.
Mr. Currie states he will speak to some foundational issues. People to charge attempt, instead of charging completion, with regard to specific attempt to kill the fetus. This is not the same [analogy?] if [the state?] had charged murder.
People must know that Mr. Woodward knew the fetus was an embryo, and that he made one intent to that end. The law clearly states ... conscious disregard doesn't apply when charging attempt. Mr. Currie goes over the law and it's requirements. The legislature chose to target fetus not an embryo. The defendant would need to know how long the fetus had progressed. [Josh?] had to know that the embryo had progressed to the stage of a fetus. The people haven't presented evidence of Jamba Juice evidence. The people have to present evidence that the target was the fetus.
Mr. Currie argues prior rulings that apply.
The people proved on October 13 the pregnancy proceeded beyond the embryonic stage. The people haven't established when did the alleged Jamba Juice [incident] take place. According to Detective Shafia, sometime after September and before October 7. The people still can't establish either ending and can't establish offspring from embryonic. [The people] can't prove that he [Woodward] put Misoprostol in this drink.
Judge Pastor is scrunching up his face. The corners of his mouth are turned down.
Mr. Currie addresses the testimony of Dr. Tsu, and that he [could not?] consider this episode. Ms. Doe did not tell Dr. Tsu about this episode. She did not report this episode to her doctor on October 8. The statements of Ms. Doe are unreliable. After she went to police, she came up with this poisoning theory. The Jamba Juice claims are all the more incredible ... on other inconsistencies in her account. She [Ms. Doe] accused him of poisoning but continually invited him [Woodward] into her home for sexual foreplay. Currie talks about the 'watering down.' Currie argues that the prosecution failed to meet their burden on any [part] of this count. [Ms. Doe's] symptoms are consistent with a person in her first trimester of her pregnancy. The court requires a higher standard. Requires more. She drank a drink and felt sick, but not sick enough [to tell her doctor?].
I believe the court asks, "What should the court rely on? Internet search?" I believe the court asks about the second trimester. The second trimester was on October 20, 2009. That was [well?] after the Jamba Juice incident occurred.
I believe Ms. Levine gets up to argue the remaining counts.
[Regarding] counts 1, 2, 3 and 4, generally would like to point out that there is no evidence of Misoprostol. No evidence of Misoprostol in counts 1, 2, and 3. The panties were searched for powder by two different labs. Two different labs were consulted. Nothing to support Misoprostol.
One of problems in the case, which Ms. Levine points, out stops the investigation. There's no way to know what was in the [Ms. Doe's] house. No ... searches.
In respect to our papers, ... prosecution points out ... points to the time of the arrest. No evidence of Misoprostol. Anything in Count 4 is tainted. Ms. Levine mentions in relation to prior events. She now argues specifically to Count #2. Then Count #3 the next night, followed by the miscarriage. Then one week lapse. In that week, they [Ms. Doe, Woodward] they had substantial contact. We don't know the extent of that contact. We know texts were deleted from [her?] phone. Ms. Doe had determined to set up Mr. Woodward long before.
Count #2. Mr. Woodward allegedly goes to apartment and allegedly inserts Misoprostol into Ms. Doe's vagina and Ms. Doe allegedly experiences some symptoms. One thing about Internet searches, the only thing that can be deduced is that he [Woodward] had no interest in having a child. There is this testimony, that, in the past they had a relationship but its not backed up by anything.
The search on the Internet about ways to abort, there's no crime in that. He did not hide the fact that he wanted her to have an abortion and wanted her to try the pill. There was no relationship ... or that they wanted to have a child together. There are problems with Ms. Doe. She doesn't tell them [detectives] anything about October 16th in the first interview. She doesn't [relay? that?] until 2010. Ms. Levine argues more details about what Ms. Doe said about the October 16 incident.
Count #3 suffers from the same problem as Count #2; lack of physical evidence. Ms. Levine mentions Dr. Kingston's testimony. How much of her testimony was based on her medical history? We know about smoking. We know that she suffered from various illnesses and diseases and things. The thing to remember is Ms. Doe's financial motive. She told Detective Shafia from day one ... how rich he [Woodward] was and her lawsuit is an attempt to do that.
Count #3, Ms. Levine argues about the physical symptoms Ms. Doe should have had. Count #4. We don't know what Ms. Doe reported to Mr. Woodward. One thing we know about the LAPD, they know how to tape a phone call. Ms. Doe started out in the first interview to snare, because she told Joshua Woodward, all was well. ... We don't know if she told him to bring Misoprostol, because she deletes stuff off her phone. All we know is what happened in the arrest.
Defense argues the 115 testimony of Ms. Verde. He [Woodward] didn't get close enough to the apartment. [He was] arrested too early. Count #4 fails because he doesn't go far enough in the attempt. Ms. Levine then cites cases for her position, one being 'Holebrook.' (sp?) Mr. Woodward would had to have walked across the street, enter the apartment, go through all other steps.
At this point, I have in my notes that Judge Pastor is asking Mr. Currie a question which leads me to believe that Mr. Currie may have been arguing some of the counts and I missed documenting this in my notes.
JP: There must be an acknowledgement ...
KC: The ... he must know ... a belief and awareness of ...
JP: Does any other case say that?
The court asks about CALCRIM and CALJIC.
There is more discussion as to lewd behavior and the notion of what makes something a crime. Mr. Currie state that the legislature did not make the death of an embryo a crime. So the defendant must know the baby is past embryonic stage.
The defense has concluded their argument. There is a big conference between defense counsel in the well and one attorney in the gallery.
I believe DDA Balian argues to the court Counts #2-4.
DDA Balian argues to the court that the people were fairly detailed in their opposition papers. We're going to try to focus on a few things in [those papers]. Before he starts DDA Balian states that the defense started out by saying the purpose of the prelim is to weed out groundless charges. That's true, [however?] if there's some basis ... to give [the court?] strong suspicion, so that's the basis. This is not a jury trial, where there are [two answers?] and ... [?]. If there is some rational basis to give you a strong suspicion, based on ... what you heard.
We have Misoprostol on the defendant, in his possession. We have white powder tested to [prove]... But put that aside. The defendant wants to ignore what does exist. The computer searches that were done.
I believe DDA Rizzo argues Count 1.
I believe DDA Rizzo reminds the court that the defense argued that the defendant must know that the fetus progressed beyond the embryonic stage. This would be ludicrous that a defendant can only be convicted if he had knowledge of the fetus being beyond 7-8 weeks. It is a requirement [(law) that the fetus be beyond the embryonic stage]. We don't dispute [that]. Mr. Curie talked about transfer intent. There are no issues of transfer intent. The defendant learned that the ex-girlfriend is pregnant. ... That he did not want a child. ... There was a pill she could take. This was the one time she was not going to go along with him.
The prosecution brings up the statutes on the elderly, and that a [defendant] must know the person was an elder. ... Think it would be absurd for the defendant to [have] to know development [of fetus]. Judge Pastor asks what is the specific intent ... in dealing with fetal homicide? What is the intent...
I believe DDA Rizzo continues:
[He?] took a step to kill [an] unborn [child] ... We rely on medical experts and when acts occurred. Major structures occurred after 7-8 weeks of development. Dr. Kingston, based on testimony. Major structures were outlined on October 13. She reviewed the ultrasound images. Dr. Kingston also rendered her opinion on fetal age based on October 8 and October 13 ultrasounds. Also, Dr. Kingston [testified/] before court, the first day of Ms. Doe's last menstrual period was July 22, 2009. That date [was the] last date ... July 23, July 24, Ms. Doe could have gotten pregnant.
Dr. Kingston reviewed the ultrasound on October 8. Gestational age was not based on the last period. It was based on last ultrasound age. Dr. Kingston determined Ms. Doe was 11 weeks, 5 days on October 8. Furthermore, the second ultrasound of October 13, the pregnancy had progressed to 12 weeks 2 days. That is in line with the first ultrasound dating.
If the court worked backwards, it's likely Ms. Doe became pregnant around August 1st or earlier. Around 7 weeks, we would be on September 19th, we would have reached a stage beyond embryonic.
Judge Pastor asks when was the Jamba Juice.
She would have become pregnant beyond July 22nd. The defense places the Jamba Juice as Mid September and uses this as a reference point. September 15. There is no evidence this was a hard line date. Detective Shafia testified Ms. Doe met the defendant [for the Jamba Juice] some point after the middle of September. Ms. Doe stated the meeting occurred at The Grove. Jamba Juice happened after mid September or late September.
Did the Jamba Juice incident even occur. We have evidence that Ms. Doe suffered. Dr. Kingston testified those are side effects that she was exposed to Misoprostol. Dr. Kingston testified the timing of the symptoms is consistent of Misoprostol exposure. Ms. Doe knew how she felt during her pregnancy and this vomiting was something that was beyond her experience. The defense [alleges?] she made the incident up because she never relayed the incident to Dr. Tsu.
The people argue that Ms. Doe thought the intense vomiting incident was related to her pregnancy and not the Jamba Juice. It was a reasonable inference and that's why she didn't tell Dr. Tsu. It explains why Ms. Doe didn't tell Detective Shafia about the incident at The Grove at first. The victim was still in a state of shock after the miscarriage.
I believe DDA Balian argues Count #2.
The defendant knew about Misoprostol. He knew how to administer it and how much. There's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. People are not asserting he was unhappy and that's why he wanted to kill. To him, it was going to ruin his life and he was going to kill himself. This defendant was resolved to kill this fetus. It didn't work. [Count #2] Was he not being [secretive?] when he typed "evil ways to end pregnancy"? When he typed, "the most powerful sedative?"
It wasn't presented in testimony [however], he also typed "How to wipe a Mac clean." Counsel indicates there is no evidence of [intent?]. There were searches [on the computer], as to how to insert Misoprostol vaginally.
[Additionally], Ms. Doe to Detective Fairchild. 'She felt like she was in a fog. Like she had taken NyQuil.' Dr. Kingston agreed that [these] symptoms are consistent with exposure to Misoprostol. This is someone who was determined to kill that fetus. ... Who said he would kill himself if that fetus would come to fruition. He was resolved to kill that fetus. He had started and he wasn't going to stop.
It's not clear in my notes, but I believe that Mr. Currie argues rebuttal, or the court asks Mr. Currie about a specific intent. I believe Mr. Currie addresses jury instructions and that the prosecution must show specific intent. There is defense argument about the people bringing an intent charge and not completed charge because Ms. Doe miscarried.
I believe the court asks Mr. Currie for a response to Ms. Rizzo's arguments on elder abuse and if that has applicability to this case. Currie doesn't think it does because it goes back to intent. Intended crime did not occur. Currie argues that the cases the people cited, those cases focus on, ... did the defendant have intent to have sexual relations with a female under 14 years of age. It goes to the defendant's specific intent, ... because they chose to bring intent charges and not the completed crime. Currie continues with another point on Count #1. Defense exhibit AA, email.
I believe Mr. Currie reads the email. I let him know about ultrasounds and I kept him appraised. That doesn't support Jamba Juice because that came before ultrasounds.
Janet Levine continues with defense rebuttal argument. Couple of things. [Probably?] make clear at 115 prelims. Ms. Rizzo argued on several themes that what Ms. Doe may have thought or [speculated?] because we did not hear from Ms. Doe. Ms. Levine argues again that the dates suggested when that occurred were variable. That she was an ex-girlfriend; there is no evidence of that. There is no testimony about what Mr. Woodward was doing at that time. No evidence that he was a boyfriend of Ms. Doe. All we have are some inferences.
I believe the court asks the defense what they make of a computer search using [the word] 'evil' as opposed to 'ways.' Ms. Levine states that we don't have the evidence as to how the searches went. We don't' have evidence against the law. ... The drug is being prescribed and used.
I believe it is at this point where Judge Pastor rules.
The court is aware of it's duty to establish probable cause. The court does not have to find if the defendant is guilty. The court only has to find probable cause. ... I've done so. Based on the evidence presented, the people have met their burden on Counts 1 through 4. ... They have met the burden ... establishing each one of these instances. That the target was a fetus. That he had an intended specific intent to kill. Do not find that the defendant must have known [fetal age?]. However, if required, I'm satisfied the defendant knew the development ... knew of the fetal age.
Find the conduct ... did .. in fact consist of intent. Did extend beyond [embryonic?]. Any motion to [defer?] counts 1 through 4 is denied. Counts 1 through 4, each a 664/187 [count], order him to be held to answer. Judge Pastor continues with the Penal Code descriptions.
The 4 million bail stands. Arraignment is scheduled for February 6, 2014, at 8:30 AM in Dept. 111, Judge Henry Hall. Will be required to sign a bond form.
Judge Pastor then addresses counsel. "I have to comment on the lawyering ... [it] was brilliant." The court also complements counsel on their conduct and sensitivity. Judge Pastor comments that he doesn't think the case should be in Dept. 111. The nature of the case and the motions, "I think the case should be assigned to complex criminal court. ... I think the case should go there." Ms. Levine agrees. I believe the court adds that ultimately it will be Judge Hall's call. DDA Balian thanks the court for their time and the scheduling.
The arraignment in Dept. 111 was reported on February 6, 2014.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Robert Durst Case - QUICK LINKS
This page was last updated on 1/8/17 at 4:45 pm PT. Sprocket
ROBERT DURST
CASE NO: SA089983 (Filed at Airport Courthouse)
PLAYERS
Defendant - Robert Durst (DOB 4/12/43)
Victim - Susan Berman
Prosecution - DDA's John Lewin & Habib Balian
Defense - Dick DeGuerin
Documentary Filmmaker: Director Andrew Jarecki
T&T CASE COVERAGE
3/16/15 Robert Durst Case - Felony Complaint
11/07/16 Robert Durst - Arraignment at Airport Courthouse Today
01/10/17 Robert Durst Pretrial Hearing 1
02/08/17 Robert Durst People's Motions
03/01/17 Robert Durst 3/15/15 Interview with LA Co. DA John Lewin
People's Motions/Documents
Felony Complaint
12/05/16 Motion to Admit Special Master12/16/16 Supplemental Declaration
12/19/16 Special Master Reply
12/29/16 Response to Defense Motion01/05/17 Motion to Admit Defense Mirandized Statements
01/17/17 Collateral Estoppel
Defense Motions/Documents
Mainstream Media Articles
OLDER Mainstream Media Articles
Archived
02/2002 VF - The Fugitive Heir
04/2002 GQ - Robert Draper Investigates Robert Durst
01/01/15 NY Times - Douglas Durst on Robert Durst
Current - March 2015
03/16/15 LA Weekly - Durst Says He "Killed Them All"
03/16/2015 NY Times - Interview with Andrew Jarecki, Director of THE JINX
03/16/15 LA Times Extradition Delayed
03/16/14 Buzzfeed - Questions We have for Jinx Filmmakers
03/16/15 Gawker Durst Formally Charged With Murder
03/16/15 LA Times - Durst Documentary Reminds Us Of the Narative Power of Crime Dramas
03/16/15 Buzzfeed - How Did "The Jinx" Narratively Manipulate Its Viewers?
03/16/15 Mashable - How "The Jinx" Came Out of Nowhere to Become Part of a Murder Case
03/16/15 The Wrap - Robert Durst Charged with Murder of Susan Berman
03/16/15 Arts Beat - Why The Timeline of The Jinx is so Confusing
03/16/15 Slate - The Jinx Timeline
03/17/15 CNN - Durst Charges with 1st Degree Murder
03/18/15 CNN - Who is Robert Durst's Wife, Deborah Lee Charatan?
03/18/15 Salon - Robert Durst is not a true psychopath...
03/18/15 LA Times - False Starts Dodged the LAPD's Murder Case Against Durst
04/03/15 USA Today - Trial Postponed, Witnesses Failed to Show
04/09/15 LA Times - Durst Writes to the LA Times
04/14/15 NBC- Durst: I'm Still Not Guilty (Federal Court)
04/16/15 Salon - Durst Biographer on what Jinx Got Wrong
04/20/14 Houston Chron. - Judge Postpones Trial Until Sept.
04/21/15 NOLA - Durst Federal Charges Trial Moved to Sept. 04/22/15 Boston Globe - Did Robert Durst Murder My Friend Susan?
04/23/15 Huff Post - Gun & Drug Charges Dropped
04/27/15 NOLA - Durst to be Transferred to St. Charles Parrish Jail
05/01/15 NY Curbed - Durst's Brother Could Freeze $74 Mil Fortune
05/08/15 KHOU - Newly Released Video Show's Durst Public Urination
05/08/15 Click2Houston - A Look at Durst's Time in Houston
06/04/14 NOLA - LA Cops Arrest Millionaire Because of "The Jinx"
06/10/15 THR - The Jinx Reporters Break Their Silence
06/23/15 LA Times - Jeanine Pirro Writing Robert Durst Book
06/25/15 ESQ - Robert Durst Took Me To Lunch, 2 Wks Before Murder
07/24/15 PgSix - Durst's Brother Threatens to Sue Pirro over Book
Links
Wikipedia
HBO Documentary: The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst
Book: A Deadly Secret: The Bizarre and Chilling Story of Robert Durst, by Matt Birkbeck
ROBERT DURST
CASE NO: SA089983 (Filed at Airport Courthouse)
PLAYERS
Defendant - Robert Durst (DOB 4/12/43)
Victim - Susan Berman
Prosecution - DDA's John Lewin & Habib Balian
Defense - Dick DeGuerin
Documentary Filmmaker: Director Andrew Jarecki
T&T CASE COVERAGE
3/16/15 Robert Durst Case - Felony Complaint
11/07/16 Robert Durst - Arraignment at Airport Courthouse Today
01/10/17 Robert Durst Pretrial Hearing 1
02/08/17 Robert Durst People's Motions
03/01/17 Robert Durst 3/15/15 Interview with LA Co. DA John Lewin
People's Motions/Documents
Felony Complaint
12/05/16 Motion to Admit Special Master12/16/16 Supplemental Declaration
12/19/16 Special Master Reply
12/29/16 Response to Defense Motion01/05/17 Motion to Admit Defense Mirandized Statements
01/17/17 Collateral Estoppel
Defense Motions/Documents
Mainstream Media Articles
OLDER Mainstream Media Articles
Archived
02/2002 VF - The Fugitive Heir
04/2002 GQ - Robert Draper Investigates Robert Durst
01/01/15 NY Times - Douglas Durst on Robert Durst
Current - March 2015
03/16/15 LA Weekly - Durst Says He "Killed Them All"
03/16/2015 NY Times - Interview with Andrew Jarecki, Director of THE JINX
03/16/15 LA Times Extradition Delayed
03/16/14 Buzzfeed - Questions We have for Jinx Filmmakers
03/16/15 Gawker Durst Formally Charged With Murder
03/16/15 LA Times - Durst Documentary Reminds Us Of the Narative Power of Crime Dramas
03/16/15 Buzzfeed - How Did "The Jinx" Narratively Manipulate Its Viewers?
03/16/15 Mashable - How "The Jinx" Came Out of Nowhere to Become Part of a Murder Case
03/16/15 The Wrap - Robert Durst Charged with Murder of Susan Berman
03/16/15 Arts Beat - Why The Timeline of The Jinx is so Confusing
03/16/15 Slate - The Jinx Timeline
03/17/15 CNN - Durst Charges with 1st Degree Murder
03/18/15 CNN - Who is Robert Durst's Wife, Deborah Lee Charatan?
03/18/15 Salon - Robert Durst is not a true psychopath...
03/18/15 LA Times - False Starts Dodged the LAPD's Murder Case Against Durst
04/03/15 USA Today - Trial Postponed, Witnesses Failed to Show
04/09/15 LA Times - Durst Writes to the LA Times
04/14/15 NBC- Durst: I'm Still Not Guilty (Federal Court)
04/16/15 Salon - Durst Biographer on what Jinx Got Wrong
04/20/14 Houston Chron. - Judge Postpones Trial Until Sept.
04/21/15 NOLA - Durst Federal Charges Trial Moved to Sept. 04/22/15 Boston Globe - Did Robert Durst Murder My Friend Susan?
04/23/15 Huff Post - Gun & Drug Charges Dropped
04/27/15 NOLA - Durst to be Transferred to St. Charles Parrish Jail
05/01/15 NY Curbed - Durst's Brother Could Freeze $74 Mil Fortune
05/08/15 KHOU - Newly Released Video Show's Durst Public Urination
05/08/15 Click2Houston - A Look at Durst's Time in Houston
06/04/14 NOLA - LA Cops Arrest Millionaire Because of "The Jinx"
06/10/15 THR - The Jinx Reporters Break Their Silence
06/23/15 LA Times - Jeanine Pirro Writing Robert Durst Book
06/25/15 ESQ - Robert Durst Took Me To Lunch, 2 Wks Before Murder
07/24/15 PgSix - Durst's Brother Threatens to Sue Pirro over Book
Links
Wikipedia
HBO Documentary: The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst
Book: A Deadly Secret: The Bizarre and Chilling Story of Robert Durst, by Matt Birkbeck
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Restauranteur Joshua Woodward Arraigned on 4 Counts of Attempted Murder of a Fetus
Joshua Woodward at a previous court hearing.
UPDATE 12 NOON: spelling, clarity, links
I'm at the downtown Los Angeles Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center for the Joshua Woodward case. Woodward's preliminary hearing took about six days, spread out over three months from October to January. On January 21, Judge Michael Pastor ruled there was sufficient evidence for Woodward to stand trial on four counts of attempted murder of a fetus. His arraignment is scheduled for this morning in Dept. 111, Judge Henry T. Hall's courtroom.
I'm at the downtown Los Angeles Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center for the Joshua Woodward case. Woodward's preliminary hearing took about six days, spread out over three months from October to January. On January 21, Judge Michael Pastor ruled there was sufficient evidence for Woodward to stand trial on four counts of attempted murder of a fetus. His arraignment is scheduled for this morning in Dept. 111, Judge Henry T. Hall's courtroom.
During the preliminary hearing, Detective John Shafia testified that when Woodward was arrested in the early morning hours of October 25th, he pulled his hands out of his pockets and dropped a cellophane bag on the ground that had a white powder substance in it. Later, via a search warrant of Woodward's restaurant, Table 8 (aka 8 oz. Burger Bar), investigators discovered 22 tablets (19 white and 3 blue) in a backpack along with Woodward's laptop. The 19 white tablets were Misoprostol,
Misoprostol, 100 microgram tablets
an abortion drug that's used through vaginal insertion.
Also found on Woodward's laptop were computer searches starting on August 26, through October 20, 2009, looking for abortion drugs and how to administer them. A sampling of the computer searches included:
"unwanted pregnancy" - legal rights men,8:00 AM
evil ways to terminate a pregnancy,
misoprostol insertion,
safest way to knocksomeone out,
chloroform
I'm in the cafeteria. Woodward and a small part of his defense team are here. Janet Levine, Megan Weisgerber and one of the younger gentlemen who sat in the gallery during the prelim. While in the cafeteria, I write up my notes on the Cameron Brown hearing yesterday. I missed the Brown hearing because Bryan Barnes was being sentenced. Barnes pled guilty to two counts of first degree murder in the deaths of the USC Chinese grad students who were murdered during a robbery. His codefendant, Javier Bolden at this point, is pleading not guilty. Barnes' sentencing was heart wrenching. I hope to have my notes up on that hearing in a few days.
8:30 AM
I'm on the 11th floor and Judge Henry Hall's court room just opened. The hallway is mostly empty. Just a few jurors and general public. Woodward's defense team, who came upstairs before I did, head inside. I have not seen DDA Habib Balian or DDA Marguerite Rizzo yet. I'll wait a few more minutes then go in. I'll have an update as soon as the hearing is over.
8:40 AM
Inside Dept. 111. It's a large courtroom with six rows of gallery seating. The jury box contains 14 seats. There are several additional seats directly in front of the jury box in the well. There are some notebooks in the jury box so I'm guessing Judge Hall might be in trial.
Judge Hall comes out from the back rooms. He's a tall, silver haired be-speckled white man. His face is open, friendly. There is no glass around the bailiffs box. A man enters and checks in with the bailiff. DDA Balian arrives and speaks to Ms. Levine. From what I'm overhearing, they are working on scheduling dates for the next hearing. It's a pleasant conversation. I'm wondering what types of cases Hall usually handles.
Two maintenance men enter and head to the back rooms. The clerk asks if everyone is ready. DDA Balian asks for five minutes. Ms. Levine tells the clerk that everyone is here but the prosecutor just needs to get some dates.
There is a nicely dressed woman sitting in the jury box. She has a rolling cart with her. I don't see a juror badge on her clothing. She works on some files. When she picks up her phone, that reminds me that I need to put mine in silent mode.
8:53 AM
DDA Balian returns. Another prosecutor enters and starts to set up at the prosecution table. The court reporter is a handsome man with a hint of gray hair. A few moments later Judge Hall takes the bench and asks counsel to state their appearances.
Judge Hall tells counsel that for some reason, his court ended up getting many copies of the preliminary hearing transcripts. He doesn't know how that happened and they will take up too much space. Ms. Levine states they would be happy to take the extra copies.
Ms. Levine starts out by saying she wanted to inform the court of Judge Pastor's thoughts on the case. Judge Hall politely interrupts her and informs her that he's read the preliminary hearing transcripts. He ran the case past Dept. 100. The only question Dept. 100 had was, should the matter go to trial, putting aside 402 hearings, etc., is that three weeks would be the cut off time. He was to hang onto the case at this time.
Ms. Levine tells the court she feels not including jury selection, jury selection would be lengthy, she expects that with expert testimony it's at least three weeks but no more than five.
Judge Hall said he would take that back to Dept. 100. The next court hearing would be in Dept. 100. Ms. Levine is concerned about the case calendar and 0 of 60. She asks to delay the arraignment and have it in Dept. 100. Judge Hall informs her that arraignments are not taken in Dept. 100. The arraignment will be here.
The arraignment is quick. Woodward pleads not guilty to all charges and allegations. The case calendar is set at zero of 90. There is some discussion about the next date. Monday March 10 or Friday February 21. DDA Balian states he does have another pretrial on February 21. Judge Hall states that Monday's in Dept. 100 are pretty busy so he sets the date for February 21. Bail stands. I believe Judge Hall states that if the people hang with more than three weeks then the case will go to the 9th floor.
And that's it. There is a long hearing in the Michael Gargiulo case on February 21, so I will probably miss the Woodward hearing in Dept. 100. I'll have to find out afterwards what the decision is on where this case will land.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Joshua Woodward Ordered to Stand Trial on 4 Counts of Attempted Murder of a Fetus
Joshua Woodward at a previous court hearing.
UPDATE 4:45 PM
January 23, 2014
A few moments ago, Judge Michael Pastor ruled that the prosecution has met their burden for Joshua Woodward to stand trial on all four counts of attempted murder of a fetus. His arraignment on those charges is scheduled for February 6 in Dept. 111.
I will have a detailed report of the proceedings later tonight.
4:45 PM
After arguments from both sides on a defense motion to dismiss the case, Judge Pastor ruled as follows:
"The court is aware of it's duty ... to establish probable cause. The court does not have to find if the defendant is guilty. ... The court only has to find probable cause. ... I've done so. ... Based on the evidence presented, ... the people have met their burden on counts one through four. ... [They have] met their burden to establish each one of these instances: That the target was a fetus. That he had an intended specific intent to kill."
The court did not find, (as the defense argued in court that for the first count -Jamba Juice incident- the defendant must know the fetal age was beyond the embryonic stage) that the defendant must have known at the time of the attempt the fetus age. "However, if required [by law], I'm satisfied the defendant knew the development ... of the fetal age."
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Joshua Woodward Preliminary Hearing, Day 5
Joshua Woodward at a prior court hearing in 2012.
December 16, 2013
8:48 AM
I'm on the 7th floor of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, waiting for Judge Pastor's courtroom, Dept. 51 to open.
Judge Pastor's court clerk and his court reporter, Mavis, arrive around the same time. Mavis says hello.
Once inside Dept. 51, I see Woodward take a seat in the last gallery row on the defense side of the room. He's hard at work on his cell phone. It's another day with a cold courtroom. The defense has their materials all set up. I think this is a new bailiff in the room. I don't recognize him.
The clerk goes right to work and Mavis starts setting up her desk. Mavis is wearing a very nice gray and black outfit with a long jacket. It's freezing, freezing cold in here. As Mavis and the clerk chat, I overhear the clerk say that she's comfortable. I'm amazed because she's wearing a short sleeved top. I hear that the back rooms behind the courtroom are warm, stifling, but the courtroom is freezing.
8:58 AM
Detectives Shafia and Fairchild arrive. Greetings are exchanged in the well. Detective Fairchild sits at the prosecution table and Detective Shafia takes a seat in the jury box. Clerks from the DA's staff arrive to set up the overhead screen.
9:00 AM
DDA Rizzo and Balian arrive. Ms. Rizzo is wearing a lovely cream trench coat. It has these very large tortoise-shell looking buttons down the center of the back. I love this coat. The defense team works with moving the overhead projector device to use for exhibits during cross.
Marguerite Rizzo sets up the prosecution's files. DDA Balian is at the clerk's desk, going through a stack of files, possibly the exhibits. The clerk asks the room, "Are we ready? People, are we ready?" Habib Balian answers, "Yes."
There are two defense attorneys in the gallery row in front of me and 2 directly behind me.
9:05 AM
On the record in People v. Woodward. Appearances are stated for the record.
Judge Pastor starts off by stating there was a telephonic conference last week to defer (arguing of the motions). I believe either Judge Pastor states or DDA Balian states that the people are researching more electronic documentation. They will return on January 23 for argument.
Ms. Levine gets up to continue her cross examination of Detective Shafia.
There are questions about screen shots on Ms. Doe's blackberry.
JL: Was that a direction you asked Mr. Hernandez?
JS: Yes. ... I directed him to take photos of what he thought were relevant.
JL: So he made a decision?
JS: (Yes.)
Questions about the names of the other detectives in the Wilshire Homicide Unit in 2009. Detective Wong: Director of the unit. Detective Carrilo (sp?) is D3, supervisor of Homicide Unit.
JS: He's one step above me.
JL: (?) returned to Ms. Doe's apartment next day?
JS: Yes.
JL: (?) Retrieved some items?
Detective Shafia was appraised of that and items were collected afterwards. Now there are questions about phone calls between him and Ms. Doe.
JS: She was complaining about how long it was taking.
JL: Do you recall an email from Detective Fairchild inquiring about those calls in 2012/
JS: Yes.
Detective Shafia states he wrote her back that he didn't remember the conversations and he has nothing else to help him remember. Shafia states he's never been inside Ms. Doe's apartment that she had in October 2009. Detective Shafia states he had no personal knowledge of what her view was from her apartment. People's exhibit 2 is put up on the overhead screen.
Judge Pastor asks for a moment. He leaves his bench for a moment to turn on his computer.
JL: Detective, do you recognize this?
JS: yes.
JL: ... and this is the area where you arrested Mr. Woodward?
JS: Yes.
JL: This photo has (indications?) of what's north?
JS: Yes.
JL: He was arrested on the northeast corner of 3rd & (Houser?)
JS: Arrested in a cut-out area for wheelchair (access?).
Woodward was arrested with the assistance of Officer Hernandez. There are questions about where his car was parked and what direction it was facing.
Defense N. Photo of parking lot of KFC and apartment building where Ms. Doe resided.
Detective Shafia points out in the image where a white car is parked, that his car was in the approximate same position but his car was facing out (not in).
JL: The photo is a fair depiction of what his view was like?
JS: Yes.
Detective Shafia states he could not see how or when Woodward arrived in the area.
JL: Do you know if any time elapsed between the time Mr. Woodward arrived in the area and time he arrived...
HB: Objection!
JP: Sustained.
Question about the direction Woodward arrived walking when he was arrested.
JS: He was walking from Pointsetta towards Fuller.
Detective Shafia had pulled out from the spot when he first saw Woodward. He pulled out as if exiting to the street. The KFC was completely closed there was no staff inside.
JL: Did you see a taxicab drop Mr. Woodward off?
JS: No.
JL: In direct, you said Mr. Woodward dropped a substance in a plastic bag?
JS: Yes.
JL: And Detective Hernandez swabbed the item?
(Exhibit 18 - photo of swab tube against pants).
JS: (Yes.)
There are questions about the swab tube and it's description.
JL: Did you see Mr. Woodward earlier that day or was that the first time you saw him?
JS: First time.
JL: Nothing further.
Cross ends and redirect begins.
HB: Prior to taking the swab, did Detective Hernandez touch the defendant?
JS: Yes.
HB: Describe (that).
JS: He took a tactical position and searched him for weapons.
The witness is asked to describe the tactical position.
JS: Got him ready to be handcuffed.
HB: Did you observe Detective Hernandez touch Mr. Woodward's hands?
JS: Yes.
There are questions about the underwear. Detective Shafia did not examine the two pairs of panties for powder.
HB: Why?
JS: Those items had already been booked into evidence.
HB: (Regarding the incident at) Jamba Juice. I believe you testified about what Ms. Doe told you. Did she ever tell you in the October 20 interview ... Did Ms. Doe tell you whether the nausea she experienced, compared to other times?
JS: Yes.
HB: What did she say?
JS: She said she had only been nauseous a few times. ... This was much more violent ... of puking.
The questions about alleged incident on October 18th, in reality were late ... Sunday AM.
HB: During her description to you of symptoms, she had with the defendant during that incident, did she tell you she experienced any vomiting?
JS: Yes. ... That she had been puking.
HB: Now, late Friday, early AM Saturday, October 17th. ... She did not tell you about any symptoms she had? ... On that interview and that date, she did not tell you about any symptoms she experienced?
JS: Yes.
Detective Shafia did not ask her any questions or follow up questions. He didn't really ask her any questions at all. "It was more an informal interview. ... I just listened." Shafia is asked about the reference in the file to coroner Dr. Young.
The clerk interrupts to speak to Judge Pastor. It's a quick exchange.
HB: Does that note have anything to do with this case or investigation?
JS: No.
This is a hand written log that he made up to try to remember the case as well as other cases. He also responsible to other death investigations. Those other notes were turned over that had nothing to do with this case.
Now questions about LAPD SID employee, Dan Anderson (Anderson testified in the Lazarus trial as well as the two Spector trials.) and inquiring about the potential of the coroner's lab testing Misoprostol. The lab did not have the blanks for the Misoprostol to test. Dan Anderson gave Detective Shafia the contact of another person to help him with the case. Anderson is a toxicologist at the lab.
The chrono log, Defense exhibit L, is a log he prepared in relation to his testimony. He did not prepare it while investigating the case. It's what he prepared, in order to get ready for the case. Detective Shafia testified on cross there was no record of the conversation with Ms. Doe.
HB: Didn't you in fact document that in .. You did document that contact in the original arrest report?
JS: Yes.
HB: Which report did you document?
JS: The original arrest report.
HB: Regarding the 2010 calls he received from Ms. Doe, I believe you testified on cross they were case related?
JS: The calls received ... were inquiries from Ms. Doe. (Such as) Who was the DA. What could she do to speed things up.
There are questions about the calls. Detective Shafia doesn't remember. It was about the content of the calls.
HB: Questions about how you were parked in KFC. What were you focused on?
JS: We were in a stand down position; waiting. ... call from Ms. Doe that Woodward was in route.
Detective Shafia wasn't looking at traffic or particular cars.
HB: Why were you there on that night?
JS: I had information from Ms. Doe that Woodward would be in town. That he would be coming there after he closed the restaurant, and that Ms. Doe told him that he usually would come through that north gate.
HB: The final incident. Did she tell you how long after the final incident she started experiencing cramps?
JS: 8:30 AM ... The intensified to extreme hard cramps. Enough to notify her doctor and sister.
DDA Balian asks the detective to go to Page 28 line 20 of Ms. Doe's interview to refresh his memory. Detective Shafia reviews the transcript then testifies.
JS: That the cramping symptoms were in full swing. The worst she ever felt. Nothing like it.
HB: What was her exact words?
JS: They were just full on. Like I'd never felt.
HB: Experienced when? What time?
JS: 10 AM.
Redirect is finished and Ms. Levine recrosses the witness.
JL: Communications with Detective Fairchild, about calls (from Ms. Doe), you could not remember the calls or the content?
JS: Yes.
There's no more redirect. Judge Pastor asks, "Should Detective Shafia remain on call?" The defense replies, "Yes."
Detective Shafia is ordered back on January 23 at 9 AM. There is a discussion about a health issue Detective Shafia has scheduled to address on January 24 and the stress of being in court the day before.
JL: Maybe we don't need Detective Shafia.
JP: That would be great.
Detective Kimberly Fairchild is called to the stand. She's still under oath.
DDA Balian presents the witness.
9:50 AM
Detective Fairchild is currently assigned to LAPD Robbery Homicide - Special assault section. She's been a detective for 12 years. Her assignment in 2009 was to the Juvenile Division, Abused Child Unit. She investigated deaths of children under 11 years of age. She was officially assigned the case on November 2, 2009. This is the type of case she would routinely handle.
She handled and booked (evidence?) under case number 09-0719880. She also wrote reports under 09-0719173.
On January 29, 2010, she interviewed Cheryl Will (sp?), supervisor for LAPD narcotics lab, who was overseeing the analysis of evidence collected in the case. Those were items #15, #16, #17, #18 and others.
HB: What did she tell you?
KF: Their labs were not equipped to do the testing.
HB: February 3, 2010, what action did you take with respect to this case?
KF: Transported items to the DEA lab in Vista, CA.
Detective Fairchild thinks the individual she handed the evidence items over to was a supervisor named (Cheche? sp?).
HB: Did you participate in an interview with Ms. Doe and Ms. Rizzo in this case/
KF: Yes.
Detective Fairchild identifies a photo of Ms. Doe. (The photo is not put up on the overhead screen.)
HB: What was her demeanor?
KF: She was very upset at times, crying and (other times) would be angry.
HB: Did it appear to you ... recalling information...
JL: Objection! Calls for conclusion.
(missed ruling)
HB: Did you ask her ... were questions asked of her?
KF: Yes.
HB: That asked for specific information?
KF: Yes.
HB: Based on questions asked, did she ever indicate to you, even though she was upset, crying, did she...
JL: Objection!
JP: Sustained.
HB: Given her demeanor, did she ever indicate to you she had difficulty remembering events?
KF: No.
Ms. Doe related events regarding (her interactions?) with Woodward. Also spoke to her afterwards. Ms. Doe identified a photo of Woodward. Detective Fairchild also identifies the defendant for the record.
HB: June 24, 2010, you interviewed Ms. Doe on that date. Did she tel you when she met the defendant?
KF: She said she met him in 2000. ... At the time she was a bartender at Saddle Ranch and she had met him there.
Detective Fairchild has been to Ms. Doe's apartment. She's also been to Jamba Juice; it's in The Grove mall.
HB: Interview on June 24, 2010. Did she at some point, she told the defendant she wanted to know the baby (due date?)/
KF: She said that he became very angry. (He told her) "You can't keep this. It would ruin me." ... I think she said that he threw himself on the floor and he was so angry.
HB: Did she tell you he did anything else while on the floor?
KF: That he would buy her a real estate business if she would abort.
HB: No, I mean, what else he did?
KF: No, I don't recall.
(Question or answer) He was crying and he told her it would ruin his life and she couldn't have it.
HB: Did she talk to you about the Jamba Juice incident at The Grove?
KF: Yes.
HB: Did she give you a specific date?
KF: She didn't give a date.
HB: ... went through steps to give an approximate time line?
KF: Yes.
Questions about Ms. Doe having (interview? meeting? with defendant?) at 8 Ounce Burger to, (possibly) a friend buy (her?) a business.
KF: Approximately in September. .. Her impression was, they were going to talk about the baby but they talked about his bankruptcy problems.
Another meeting Ms. Doe had with Woodward is discussed.
HB: Approximately when was the next time?
KF: She said weeks later ... would be in October 2009.
I believe the entire answer to the last question is stricken.
KF: She said next meeting was weeks later, after the 8 Ounce Burger meeting.
HB: The meeting at The Grove (Jamba Juice) was before that meeting? (Before Oct 18th?)
KF: It was before. ... She said she received a text message from Joshua telling her to meet him at The Grove. ... She met him there. He had a Jamba Juice ready for her. It was watered down. ... She did not ask him to order it. She accepted it. ... As they were shopping, she started to feel ill. ... They were talking about the baby and he seemed to be more accepting. ... She told him it tasted funny. ... He grabbed it; tasted it and said nothing was wrong. ... She continued to gt ill and went home. Twenty minutes to an hour later, her symptoms .... violently ill. She was vomiting and had diarrhea ... about five times during that period.
HB: During the interview on June 24, 2010, did she talk about the incident on October 17th, early morning ... Saturday?
KF: Yes.
HB: Did she tell you about what time he arrived?
KF: ... they are together and ended up in bed. She was describing the foreplay.
They began kissing. He reached down to his pants, then reached into a back pack. Then he put his fingers insider her. It was the same hand. He penetrated her vagina with his hand for about five minutes. It was very hard and uncomfortable. That was something out of their ordinary, in their sexual routine. He had never done that before. He stayed for a little while and left after seven or eight AM.
KF: She said she experienced abdominal cramping, fatigue and sweating, ... feeling out of it. She called the on-call doctor at Cedars. ... She called her work and called in sick.
HB: (What work?)
KF: She called into her bar tending and also her real estate (job).
HB: Did you write into your report Saddleback Ranch? ... Did you write into your handwritten notes?
KF: I would have to refer to my notes.
I am freezing in this courtroom. I don't know how I am going to last through the morning.
KF: It's not in my notes.
HB: Did you participate in an interview with Ms. Do, Ms. Rizzo and myself (on) December 12, 2012/
KF: Yes.
HB: (What was the purpose of the interview?)
KF: For Ms. Doe to meet you and also clear up what phone she used to make calls, and if she used a land phone.
HB: What was her response?
KF: She said she never called a doctor at Cedars in 2009.
HB: Did I confront her? ... Did I ask her if she had told you and Ms. Rizzo?
KF: She said, "I never said that, and you must be mistaken."
There are questions about Ms. Doe and the October 17 event.
KF: She then said, "I never said that. I never said there was cramping. I just said I was out of it and tired." Like she was in a fog.
HB: How adamant was she that she didn't experience cramping on the 17th?
JL: Objection! Conclusion!
JP: Sustained.
She was upset and very forceful that she had never called the on-call doctor and was very certain that she had never said (about) the cramping. (In relation to Oct. 17.)
HB: What was her demeanor when she said she never called the doctor?
KF: She was very sure, very forceful that she had never had that call. ... She was again very forceful that she had never called Saddleback Ranch. ... She said she didn't work at Saddleback. She worked at another location.
Detective Fairchild called Saddleback Ranch and spoke to a Mr. Pollack. He said Ms. Doe worked there from 2000 to 2002. She was not employed there in 2009.
10:30 AM
I'm watching the clock like a hawk since I am so cold. (They keep saying Saddleback however online it states the restaurant is Saddle Ranch. Sprocket.)
HB: June 24, 2010 interview ... where you said in your report where you report Ms. Doe experienced cramping. Is it possible that Ms. Doe did not tell you? ... How quickly, during that interview was Ms. Do speaking/
KF: She spoke very quick, very fast.
HB: She was speaking quickly?
KF: Yes.
HB: Was it hard to take notes?
KF: It was hard to follow. ... She would skip around on events, between October 17, October 18. Back and forth between dates.
10:32 AM
The morning break is called. I get up and move around to get some blood circulating again. Several of the attorneys are shivering like I am and commenting on the cold courtroom.
10:52 AM
HB: June 24, 2010 interview. Did you speak to her about the alleged incident that occurred on October 18, 2009?
KF: Yes.
HB: Did she discuss with you symptoms she experienced after Mr. Woodward left her apartment?
KF: Yes. ... She said that almost immediately after he left, she had cramps, feeling feverish, sweating and diarrhea.
DDA Balian ask her about a follow up investigation (report? chrono in log?) dated August 9, 2010.
KF: She said that she got chills. She began sweating and started violently vomiting. ... This was around seven to eight in the AM. ... Cramps like she never experienced before. ... She then laid down. ... She contacted the on-call doctors at Cedars. ... At 10:15 AM, she was still feeling sick, cramping and called in sick to her real estate job. ... She still was feeling sick, ... some cramping.
She said at about two to three PM, she went to the toilet to urinate and noticed spotting from her vagina when she wiped herself. ... She was concerned so she called the on-call doctor. At five PM she started to feel a little bit better. At six PM she was still feeling (okay?). Not a lot of symptoms. No symptoms in report. She said she still felt pressure in her abdomen.
At nine PM she stood up and water came out of her vagina. She went to the bathroom; there was more gushing out of her vagina, blood clots. She then looked in the toilet and saw her baby in the toilet. She wiped herself, called McKell, (sp?) her friend, and told her about it.
(A date, May 6, 2011 is discussed. This is possibly an interview with "McKell" (sp?). My notes are not clear. Possibly the interview was also with Ms. Rizzo present. Sprocket.)
McKell went to Ms. Doe's apartment. (Ms. Doe?) knew that it was Woodward's baby because she had not had sex with anyone for about a year. She had never seen a black backpack before.
McKells husband, Jay (Cremin? sp?) is mentioned. I believe Detective Fairchild interviewed him also. He was married to McKell. While Ms. Doe was miscarrying her baby, she called McKell.
Now there are questions about what Mr. Aremis said his wife said to him. There are several questions and then there's an argument about what Detective Fairchild can testify to.
HB: In interview with Jay Cremin, did he tell you what if anything ...
KF: He said that McKell received a phone call from Ms. Doe. ... He was present in the home. ... McKell left the apartment. ... The car ride from his apartment (to Ms. Doe's?) was about five to seven minutes. He had contact with mcKell, five to seven minutes after.
HB: Did he tell you that McKell asked him to do something?
KF: Yes.
There are lots of objections with this testimony.
KF: First, he went to Ralph's (grocery store) to pick up gloves and maxi pads. ... When he arrived (at Ms. Doe's apartment) Ms. Doe was out of it, upset and crying. McKell was there. ... He saw blood on the floor and on a towel. He opened the toilet lid and saw blood and saw a baby that was smaller than his fist and looked normal. ... He said he got some toilet paper and cleaned up and flushed the contents of the toilet. It took several attempts. ... He then went into Ms. Doe's bedroom. ... McKell was there. Ms. Doe was upset.
HB: Did he tell you whether he looked into a pair of turquoise underwear?
KF: Yes. ... He saw white powder on the turquoise underwear. ... He said that the police should be notified.
According to Jay, Ms. Doe did not want to call the police. She was not out to get the defendant. She had to be talked into it.
There is argument between counsel as to if this is relevant. Judge Pastor rules that he is going to allow it.
KF: Jay said that Ms. Doe told him that she didn't believe that Joshua would do that to her and she wasn't inclined to call police.
HB: Did Jay tell you whether Ms. Doe ... willingness to go and call police?
KF: He said at one point McKell Googled white powder. ... He observed McKell on the computer Googling white powder.
JP: In regards to Ms. Doe, evidence code 1250.
KF: Ms. Doe was present (as?) to McKell's Google search. ... Sometime after that, Ms. Doe (? prayed?) together.
JL: Objection!
JP: Sustained.
Gail became angry and decided to go to the police. Direct is finished and cross begins by Ms. Levine.
Ms. Levine asks about the Google search. The name "Google" was given to Detective Fairchild.
JL: Who's computer was it? ... Who told you which computer? ... Who searched what computer when and was the search for "white powder" and abortion?
(miss answer)
11:20 AM
October 5, 2012. Detective Fairchild verified that M.s Doe told her she searched "white powder & abortion." Detective Fairchild never searched Ms. Doe's work computers. A roommate named Sam, Detective Fairchild never interviewed.
JL: Do you know if Sam had a computer that was on the premises?
KF: No.
JL: When did you first obtain Ms. Doe's computer?
KF: I don't recall.
She first seized it in April 2010 and seized it again in 2012. There are questions about Detective Fairchild's training. She's been an officer 23 years and a detective 12 years. Ms. Levine asks the witness if she ever asked someone if they could slow down, or ask to repeat. Detective Fairchild is asked if she has ever taped interviews and about her experience in interviewing subjects before.
JL: Did you expect if Detective Shafia had spoken with Ms. Doe, he would tell you about it?
KF: Only if it was relevant to the investigation.
JL: You are aware that there were two calls in 2010 that lasted at least 20 minutes? (Between Shafia & Ms. Doe?) ???
HB: Objection!
I believe Judge Pastor rules 352.
Ms. Levine asks about an interview I believe in May, 2011. Detective Fairchild has been in Ms. Doe's apartment five or six times in the last three to four years. Detective Fairchild has interviewed Ms. Doe three times. During those different interviews (and /or visits to Ms. Doe's apartment), Detective Fairchild took photos, Ms. Do identified Mr. Woodward from photos and she returned Ms. Doe's laptop to her.
11:30 AM
JL: Did you ask Detective Shafia about the tape not working of the first interview?
KF: He just said that the tape just shut off.
In a question about missing photos when the file was transferred over:
KF: When I got the murder book, I thought everything was there?
JL: In conversation with Ms. Doe, did you ever have a conversation that (wasn't?) recorded on notes or?
The dates she interviewed Ms. Doe: April 2010; June 2010; May 2011; Sept. 2012.
JL: Did she ever call you ...
KF: (She would complain about the case.)
JL: Did you ever ask her any questions?
KF: No.
KF: She had mentioned that she was going to sue Mr. Woodward civilly.
Detective Fairchild didn't write that in any notes or logs.
JL: Did you inquire what she was suing him for?
KF: No.
JL: In that interview in Ms. Rizzo's office, was there some time limit?
KF: No.
After the interview, she wrote notes contemporaneously.
JL: Written contemporaneously? ... We you taking notes as Ms. Doe was talking?
KF: Yes.
JL: then you went back and wrote a report?
KF: Yes.
Defense exhibit P, her report (dated October 9, 2010?).
JL: Did you write this based on your memory and your notes? ... Did you ask Ms. Rizzo or did you do it all by yourself?
KF: I did it all by myself.
Detective Fairchild reviewed all the reports in the file and was aware of prior interviews.
JL: Were you present at a November 11, 2009 interview?
KF: It was conducted at Ms. Doe's apartment.
JL: You did not do an inventory of Ms. Doe's ...?
KF: No.
JL: Do you know if there were any drugs or alcohol ... in her apartment?
KF: No.
JL: Any Misoprostol?
KF: No.
Detective Fairchild was not present during the "sting." In the first interview with Ms. Doe with Ms. Rizzo, it went from topic to topic.
JL: You knew that she was an actress and taking acting lessons?
HB: Objection!
JP: Sustained. 352.
JL: At the time you interviewed her in 2010, you heard testimony that Mr. Hernandez was (authorized? with?) to take photos of text message of what he determined was relevant?
KF: ... first saw those .... can't remember. ... did not have those with me when questioning Ms. Doe.
Defense exhibit I. (I miss rewriting what this document is. It might be a list of text messages.)
Going over the photos of the texts dated October 7, 2009. The text messages mention Jamba Juice.
"I almost puked on you that's why I left."
JL: So that means the Jamba Juice took place before the first visit with Dr. Tsu.
More questions about the text messages. Part of the report said Ms. Doe accused Woodward of poisoning her. There's a question about the missing text messages that Ms. Doe deleted (off of her phone). Now there are questions about the first time Detective Fairchild saw the panties and the powder in the panties.
The first time she viewed the panties was at the property room and viewed the underwear.
JL: September 2013 about right/
KF: That's correct.
JL: Was the first time Ms. Doe told you you were wrong, was when Mr. Balian and Ms. Rizzo were all together?
KF: Yes.
The September 2012 meeting was to determine if she used a land line in 2009. That was the first time she asked Ms. Doe if she used a land line. Detective Fairchild never asked Ms. Doe for her phone bills. Detective Fairchild obtained Ms. Doe's phone number. She had two cell phones.
JL: She had two physical cell phones?
KF: Yes. ... I believed she used one and then it stopped. And then used another.
JL: Did she have more than one cell phone number?
KF: (No.)
JL: did she have more than one text address?
KF: No.
JL: Did you know that she communicated with Detective Shafia by email?
HB: Objection!
JP: Sustained.
JL: In the September 2012 interview with Ms. Doe, you were asking if she communicated with Mr. Woodward by cell or land line?
KF: I think that was to determine which phone she used to call in sick and to call the doctor.
JP: Did she indicate she had more than one bartender job in 2009-2010?
KF: No.
Detective Fairchild did not interview her boss at the bartender job. She did not interview him to verify Ms. Doe called in sick.
JL: Did you ask for information to show they dated?
KF: She said they had known each other for ten years and had communicated on and off.
JL: (She said?) she hadn't spoken to him in over a year in August 2009?
KF: Yes.
I believe Ms. Levine asks if Ms. Doe first told the detective she called in sick on October 17 but in a later interview she said she hadn't. Fairchild is asked abut the date of when she went to Table 8. Detective Fairchild's report says they were all drinking alcohol. Detective Fairchild states that Ms. Doe was referring to Joshua and the friends. Her report doesn't say that.
Cross is not finished yet.
1:30 PM
There are four defense attorney's in the well and four defense staff in the gallery. Woodward takes his seat at the defense table. Thankfully, the courtroom is much warmer.
1:33 PM
The clerk asks, "Counsel, are you ready?" DDA Balian replies, "Yes."
Judge Pastor takes the bench. He apologizes to Detective Fairchild for addressing her with an incorrect name. She retakes the stand.
There is some discussion about photos that had not been in the murder book in print form but were on disk. There's a question about cell phone numbers of Ms. Doe's phone and if it was used to obtain cell phone records. Detective Fairchild also had Mr. Woodwards' cell records by search warrant.
Cell records were obtained from August 2009 to October 26, 2009 for Ms. Do and Mr. Woodward.
JL: Did you compare photographs from Officer Hernandez photographing (the texts) to cell phone records obtained via subpoena?
KF: No.
There are questions about who did a computer search for "white powder" and "abortion" and who didn't.
KF: Ms. Verde (sp?) (This must be McKell's last name. Sprocket) said that she and Ms. Doe did the computer search.
Detective Fairchild talked to Ms. Verde about what she saw that evening.
JL: That she saw Mr. Woodward on the street.
HB: Objection! Beyond scope.
JP: Sustained.
JL: .... asked Ms. Verde about the 18th and the 25th?
HB: Objection about the 25th.
JP: Sustained on the 25th.
I believe the defense argues to get this information before the preliminary hearing. I believe it's Ms. Levine who makes an offer of proof to the court.
JL: Ms. Verde was parked on fuller on the 25th. She was waiting outside. She saw him get out of a cab. ... get out walking around ... on cell phone smoking.
HB: All of this testimony what she saw, would have been out of Detective Shafia's view.
I have in my notes more questions, and it appears that these questions were allowed by Judge Pastor.
JL: She (Ms. Verde) was parked on Fuller?
KF: Yes.
JL: She saw him walk up and down the street?
KF: Yes.
JL: She saw him make several phone calls?
KF: Yes.
JL: She saw him arrested?
KF: Yes.
JL: Did he walk around the block?
KF: Yes.
Now a question about the October 17th incident. Ms. Doe discussed the mechanics of the placement (of the white powder). Detective Fairchild went into Ms. Doe's apartment. The bed is higher than the floor. Ms. Doe was simply watching what Mr. Woodward was doing.
JL: Did you ask her if he used a lubricant? ... How the powder got off her hand ... got into her vagina?
KF: She said that she was excited and that the powder would have adhered to her.
Apparently, Detective Fairchild had not told that to anyone before today.
JL: Where is that in your reports?
(miss answer)
Ms. Levine goes over the sequence of events that Ms. Doe claimed happened on October 17 and 18. On the 17th, it happened once (insertion of powder into her). On the 18th, several times.
JL: Did you ask about (lighting?) conditions of ... room?
KF: No.
JL: Did you ask Ms. Doe if the light was on?
KF: She didn't specify.
JL: Did you ask Ms. Doe if she used glasses or contact lenses?
KF: No.
Cross ends and redirect begins.
HB: During the June 24, 2010 interview with Ms. Doe, did she say whether she saw the defendant before early 2008 - 2009?
KF: She said she didn't see him.
HB: Counsel asked you on cross examination whether Ms. Doe told you she was drinking alcohol when she was (drinking at the restaurant with friends & Joshua) ... that would have been .... do you recall that?
KF: Yes.
HB: Counsel said in report ... In your hand written notes, did you write: "Entered restaurant and sat down with friends that were drinking?"
KF: I meant that Josh and his friends were the ones that were drinking.
Question about an interview with McKell Verde (sp? on September 7, 2012.
KF: Yes, they were friends.
HB: Did she tell you about her relationship with Mr. Cremins?
KF: Yes. Her husband was Jay.
HB: Regarding the arrival of the suspect on October 25, 2009. Where did she (McKell) tell you she parked her car?
KF: She parked it on Fuller.
HB: Where did she tell you she parked?
KF: I believe it was on the west side.
HB: Could you look at your report?
Detective Fairchild takes out her report and reviews it.
KF: She said she had parked her car across from Kentucky Fried Chicken facing the apartment complex.
She (Ms. Verde) said Woodward arrived via taxi, just est of Ms. Doe's complex. He began walking down Fuller towards his car and he walked right past her. She observed him smoking a cigarette and talk on his cell phone. He was walking back and forth, pacing. Then he took off down the street and walked around the (corner?).
People's exhibit 3. Overhead view of the streets. DDA Balian asks the witness to indicate where.
KF: He walked past her car northbound.
The witness is asked to place an X on Fuller and a cross street.
She saw him go right. ... He left her view, eastbound. The next time she saw him, she saw him walking west bound on 3rd Street. That was toward KFC. This would be consistent with walking around the block. The cab dropped off Woodward in a spot that would be blocked (from Detective Shafia's view).
Ms. Levine has no more recross.
People would move all of people's exhibits into evidence. Ms. Levine asks that they hold on that until the 23rd of January. Then Ms. Levine asks for a few minutes as to whether or not they will decide to go over the exhibits now and decide on which ones to accept into evidence.
There is a short break. They go off the record.
2:07 PM
The prosecution returns. Ms. Levine asks to withdraw Detective Shafia's notes, informally 24A.
2:10 PM
Back on the record. Exhibit 24A is withdrawn. People's 1-24 are (received?) for in evidence. At this juncture, contingent on the upcoming (1/23).
I believe Judge Pastor asks, "Do you ... an affirmative defense?" Ms. Levine responds that it will depend on the results of the search (of records?) they are doing today.
I believe Judge Pastor asks, " Do you want any defense exhibits admitted?" I believe the prosecution offers, "If they want to let us know..." Judge Pastor responds, "I'd just would have as much notice as possible." I believe Ms. Levine states she would let the people know by January 10th.
Judge Pastor tells counsel, "If there is something else by (discovery?) standpoint, I'd like to be notified." I believe he then asks, "When can the defense have motions filed?"
The rest of the discussion is when motions and responses are due. Defense motion due by Jan 13th. Peoples response by 4 pm Friday 17th. That will give Judge Pastor time to review all motion documents.
Mr. Woodward remains on bond. He is ordered to come back January 23rd at 9 AM Thursday. There is a question about a telephonic conference and Woodward gives his waiver that his attorneys can represent him at that conference. And that's it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
