Alan Jackson Says Goodbye to the DA's Office

UPDATE Jan 21st, 2013 Alan Jackson will be on Headline News (HLN) at 6PM PST with Dr Drew discussing the Jodi Arias case.

On February 6th, 2013, the Los Angeles Times reported:

Alan Jackson, a veteran Los Angeles County prosecutor whose bid to become district attorney ended in defeat in November, is leaving the district attorney's office to join a private, downtown firm that practices civil law.

Jackson, 47, said his last day in the office he sought to lead will be Feb. 15. He will pursue a career as a civil litigator with Palmer, Lombardi and Donohue, whose three partners were political supporters of his election campaign.

I was quite sad to read the news.

I'll never forget the first time I spoke to Jackson.  It was in the evening, August 16th, 2007, months into the first Phil Spector murder trial. Spector was on trial for the murder of Lana Clarkson and it was being televised on CourtTV.

 That day and the day before had been two exceptionally stressful days for me in Judge Fidler's courtroom.  When I left the trial that day, I swore I wouldn't go back.  I was in my kitchen and I got a call from Dominick Dunne, who tells me he's at the Dodger game in a private box.  He's with the entire prosecution team on the Spector case and having the time of his life.  Dominick tells me the topic everyone is talking about at the game is the admonishment Judge Fidler gave me on the record. (I was accused of being the individual who spoke so loud in court that the jury heard me.) Dominick then tells me he has someone who wants to speak to me. The next voice I hear is DDA Alan Jackson.

I don't remember everything he said in that first conversation, but I do remember him telling me that he would talk to the judge. That this judge was a fair judge and he would like for me to come back to court on the next scheduled court day, which was a Tuesday.  Because Jackson took it upon himself to go to the judge, I got an apology from Judge Fidler on the record. Because of Jackson, I was vindicated.  That event was the catalyst that eventually developed into a friendship with Alan.

After the debacle of the first Spector trial, Jackson and I stayed in touch.  T&T got it's start during the first Spector trial and, I made a point to try to cover cases that Jackson was assigned.  Jackson was a brilliant prosecutor, a charismatic orator, and I wanted to follow his career. I wanted to experience first hand, his skills in the courtroom and write about the cases he prosecuted.

When Kazuyoshi Miura was arrested in Saipan,  I started to go to the hearings.

Robbery Homicide Detective Rick Jackson, left, 

Kazuyoshi Miura, right

Kazuyoshi Miura was convicted of the 1981 shooting death of his wife, Kazumi, on a downtown Los Angeles street in his native country, Japan. Ten years later, a higher court overturned the verdict and he was released. In February 2008 Miura traveled to Saipan, a US territory, where was arrested on an outstanding 1988 warrant. He was held in Saipan while attorneys in Los Angeles argued whether he could be brought back to the US and tried for murder, again.

It was a complicated legal issue.  Miura's defense attorney, Mark Geragos, argued that bringing him back to the US and prosecuting him again would be double jeopardy. The court transcripts from Japan had to be obtained and translated. A expert witness in the Japanese language testified to the accuracy of the translation and the meaning of specific words. It was difficult to follow each side's arguments as to which aspect of the Penal Code should apply.

Because of the arguments presented by Jackson and his co-counsels DDA Ricardo Ocampo (now Judge Ocampo) and DDA Phyllis Asayama, Judge Van Sicklen ruled: “Although the murder charge is barred by double jeopardy, the State may proceed on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder because there is no evidence that Miura was previously acquitted or convicted of the same offense in Japan." Unfortunately, the case ended when Miura committed suicide within 24 hours of touching down on US soil.

When Spector's retrial finally came around in November 2008, I knew I would dedicate myself to attending every single day of the case.  I wasn't going to let Spector or his trial bride try to eject me from the courtroom again. There were no cameras this time and Jackson had a new co-counsel, DDA Truc Do (now with Munger Tolles & Olson).  It was during the retrial that Jackson opened up more, and insisted I keep him informed of any intimidation tactics the Spector's or their supporters threw my way.

Alan's strategy for the second trial was tighter, more focused, presenting fewer witnesses than the first trial.  Alan and Truc Do's opponent this time was not a large defense team, but a single counsel, Doron Weinberg, a crafty and difficult adversary. From the very start, Jackson and Weinberg had difficulty getting along.  To me, it appeared that Weinberg used every delay tactic he could not to turn over discovery.   Even Judge Fidler commented outside the presence of the jury that it was "evident" Jackson and Weinberg couldn't stand each other.  Weinberg was able to convince Judge Fidler to let him present an expert on suicide and an expert on memory. Despite these obstacles, Jackson's cross examination of many of the defense witnesses was a pleasure to watch.  The most memorable were doctors Werner Spitz and Vincent DiMaio. Spitz lost his temper more than once on the stand and could not answer the most basic questions about his billing practices.  I remember that defense expert Dr. DiMaio complimented Jackson on an excellent cross examination when he stepped off the stand.

Alan was the first person I asked for advice when a Spector fan posted my personal information online and he willingly gave it.  No matter what the question was, Alan always found the time to respond.  During the second trial there were many times that people in the gallery would ask the prosecution team questions before court started.  At one point, I asked him if he would ever consider going into private practice.  At the time he responded in a very strong tone, "Never!"  Jackson's message was clear. He was a career prosecutor. Prosecuting criminals was his life's work.  But things happen in our lives that we can't always foresee.  As everyone knows, Spector was convicted of second degree murder on April 13th, 2009.

Spector booking photo, post conviction

Over the next several years, I was fortunate to attend many court hearings and one more trial where Alan was involved in the prosecution: the  Lily Burke, preliminary hearing, the James Fayed, trial and pretrial hearings for Kelly Soo Park and Alberd Tersargyan.

No matter the case, attending a trial or a short pretrial hearing where Alan was the prosecutor was always time well spent.

James Fayed, sentenced to death

I'll never forget during the James Fayed case, when Alan brought some of the seized gold bars and gold coins into court.  He passed a $50,000 gold bar to Judge Kennedy and the jurors, so they could feel the weight of it.  After that day in court, I asked him what it was like.  He was astounded at the experience of having over a million dollars in bullion sitting in a box at his desk that morning (with a FBI agent in tow, guarding the bullion), as well as holding a single gold bar, the cost of a brand new Lexus, in his hand.

In May 2010, Alan received his second prosecutor of the year award. By this time he had already been promoted to Assistant Head Deputy of Major Crimes.  Even though my trial coverage took a back seat to my real life responsibilities, I tried to report on the various projects Alan was involved in and keep in touch with him by email. 

When Alan announced in December 2010 that he was making a run for the District Attorney's Office, I immediately signed up on his campaign web site.  I didn't think twice about it. It didn't matter than we were members of opposing political parties because I knew Alan personally.  I felt he had the integrity and skills to lead the DA's office.

Even though the DA's office is non-partisan, politics is still a major factor in this race. I knew Alan would have a tough road to climb in a mostly democratic county. Even though I had never written about this type of subject, in support of Alan, I attended many of the debates for district attorney and blogged about them.

When Alan was defeated on November 6th, I was hoping that things would work out at the DA's office. Sadly, that was not to be.  Back in May 2011 during the Fayed trial, I asked Alan, "What are your plans if you don't win?"  At that time, he told me he didn't have a "Plan B" and I was very worried for him. Fortunately, he did eventually get a plan in place.  Alan joined the civil litigation firm of  Palmer, Lombardi & Donohue.

There's no question that Alan is a brilliant trial strategist, highly respected by his peers.  The clients that chose him, will get a tirelessly dedicated attorney that will fight the hardest for them.  Even though Alan has moved into civil litigation, I hope to continue following his career by dropping in on the cases he takes on.  Best of luck to you Alan.  I hope to see you inside a courtroom again, soon.

Vanity Fair, Domick Dunne 'Legend With A Bullet'

About Alan Jackson, (From Vote Alan Jackson website)

LA Times, DA's Rival Has A New Post

LA Times Opinion, Lacey's Definition of Lateral

Note:
Phil Spector convicted of the murder of Lana Clarkson
James Fayed convicted of the murder for hire of his wife, Pamela
Kelly Soo Park is charged with the first degree murder of Juliana Redding
Alberd Tersargyan is charged with four murders
Kazuyoshi Miura, convicted in Japan of murdering his wife, Kazumi. Verdict overturned.

The Race for Los Angeles County District Attorney, Part III

UPDATE JUNE 18th 2012: VIDEOS FROM THE ELECTION NIGHT PARTY!

DDA's ALAN JACKSON and JACKIE LACEY SET FOR NOVEMBER RUNOFF!

DDA Alan Jackson 

LA WEEKLY Election Article.

Los Angeles Dragnet Blog Election Article. 

June 5th, 2012.
 It was a packed house for Alan Jackson's election night results party held at the Blue Cow Kitchen & Bar in downtown Los Angeles.  I attended the event with my good friend, writer Matthew McGough.  I had hoped to blog about the event live but the free WiFi I was told was available at the Blue Cow unfortunately did not work in the open patio area. After many attempts I finally put my laptop down and enjoyed the festivities rather than reporting on them.

Many of Jackson's high-profile endorsements attended the event as well as Jackson's long-time friends in the LAPD and DA's office. Faces I immediately recognized were DDA Pat Dixon (co-prosecutor on the first Phil Spector trial) and LAPD Robbery Homicide Detective Rick Jackson.  I was surprised but pleased to see defense attorney Steve Meister who faced off against Jackson in the James Fayed case.

Also in attendance were DDA Paul Nunez (co-prosecutor on the Lazarus case) and Judge Ricardo (Ric) Ocampo (former DDA who worked with Jackson on the Miura case).  His Honor Ocampo and Paul Nunez have both known Jackson from their days working in the District Attorney's Compton office, prosecuting gang cases. I was surprised and honored that Judge Ocampo remembered me from my Miura reporting.

For most of the evening, Matthew and I got to talk shop with Detective Rick Jackson.  Some of the best conversation of the evening was from Montebello Police Chief Kevin McClure. McClure was Captain of LAPD's eliete Robbery Homicide Unit when Stephanie Lazarus was arrested three years ago.  I would love to tell all of you some of the interesting stories Chief McClure shared with me and Matthew but he made it clear that everything he said last night was strictly off the record.

On another note, the July issue of Vanity Fair with famed writer Mark Bowden's article on the Lazarus case has hit the news stands. T&T will have a commentary review of the article in the near future.

It's going to be an interesting race in the upcoming months.  It's my impression that Lacey took the lead in the primary because of her endorsements from the Los Angeles Times and local KFI radio hosts John & Ken.  However, I wouldn't call Lacey's first place finish in the primary a sure bet in November just yet.  Let's see how the battle plays out.  I'll end this piece with one of my favorite images captured of Jackson at the first Phil Spector trial back in 2007.

Jackson's official campaign statement after last night's win for the run-off in November, posted on Jackson's Facebook Page:

“We see tonight as a huge victory. The Jackson campaign took on Carmen Trutanich and saved the people of Los Angeles County from a politician who was more concerned about winning the next office instead of winning the next case. We were outraised, outspent and outsized by the City Attorney, yet we prevailed because voters clearly want a modern prosecutor not a politician. We look forward to November where voters will once again have a choice to elect a modern prosecutor to lead the District Attorney’s office."

Official Election Results Page.

UPDATE June 18th, 2012:
I took these videos on my old camera.  There wasn't adequate lighting.

Later in the evening...

James Fayed Formal Sentencing

James Fayed, left, with his defense attorney Steve Meister
at the reading of the death penalty verdict on May 31st, 2011

As much as I’d love to be down at the courthouse on a regular basis, real life has knocked on my door with more pressing responsibilities. Within the past few months, I’ve been called upon by my family to utilize my prior-life banking skills to conduct a forensic audit of my mother’s accounts. The work is tedious and painstaking.

In addition, my husband has needed me to help him with a difficult project that has taken much longer to complete than the original bid. Unfortunately, that work is going very slow right now.

I have had a chance to get away from these responsibilities for a few hours to attend the first debate between the candidates for LA County DA, on November 2nd, as well as the sentencing hearings of Tyquan Knox on November 8th, and James Fayed. Unfortunately, I have not had the time to write up my notes on all these events. Hopefully, soon.

Here’s what happened at the James Fayed sentencing hearing on November 17th, 2011.

I'm in the hallway waiting for the courtroom to open up. The family has arrived and they are shaking hands with a few of the jurors. I was here early chatting with Terri Keith from City News and one of the defense attorney's Steve Meister. The news cameras are here parked on the bench across from myself and Terri.

Pat Kelly is here from the Public Information Office and we were chatting about the Lazarus case and the delay. She is going to try to find out for me "why" that case was delayed.

Pamela's siblings (Dawn, Scott, Greta) and Scott’s wife Renee are here a few seats down talking to the jurors. The woman with the short gray hair I often saw during the trial is here. I believe (but I'm not positive) she is a public defender who represents one or more of the co-defendants.

More of the prosecution team shows up. I'm so horrible with names. I know the DDA's clerk is here, I think here name is Caroline but I'm sure I have that wrong. (I was wrong. I later learn it’s Monique.) She's hugging the family. DDA Eric Harmon arrived while I was still in the hallway and now I see DDA Alan Jackson is here.

Everyone is saying hello and shaking hands. Smiles everywhere. Mark Werksman is here. Steve Meister mentioned in the hallway that he has split with Werksman's firm and is now working solo.

PIO Pat Kelly is here and we chat about a few cases I’m following. Pat tells me that Cameron Brown has a new defense attorney and that case may be a year away from trial. She also tells me that currently, all the hearings for the "fake Rockefeller" case (Christian Karl Gerhartstreiter), accused of murdering Jonathan Sohus in 1985, are being held in an outlying courthouse, either Alhambra or farther out. I hope to cover that case but if it's going to be in an outlying area, it may be logistically undesirable.

Jackson greets the family and later speaks to the two jurors who I saw at the last hearing: Jason the jury foreman and Kathy (sp?). The cameramen set up in the jury box. The dark haired female Dateline producer is here, directing the cameramen. Miriam Hernandez from local ABC Channel 7 is here sitting next to Terri Keith in the third row. Miriam has a lovely rust and gold shawl covering her shoulders.

Eric Harmon is sitting in the front row but facing the family chatting with them. I don't see Desiree, Pamela's daughter yet. Werksman and Meister go back to speak with their client in the jail holding area. Pat Kelly is in the well area, coordinating with the cameramen.

Miriam is the only other reporter working on a laptop. I'm sorry that Marjorie for the Ventura County Star couldn't be here. I enjoyed getting to know her during the trial.

9:00 am: Desiree Goudie, Pamela Fayed's oldest daughter arrives and hugs her relatives. Jackson is explaining to Desiree (I believe) the sequence of what's going to happen with the sentencing.

Werksman and Meister are still in the jail area with their client. There's still a bit of bustling around with the camera crew (there appear to be four guys from maybe, two different networks).

Jackson and Harmon are speaking with the deputy for a moment.

Werksman and Meister are now out from speaking with their client and are discussing something with Jackson.

In looking at Judge Kennedy’s bench, all the figurines I was fascinated with during the trial are still there. It's a large assortment on the left side (her right) near the clerk's desk area.

The bailiff announces to turn all cell phones off and I hurry to turn my sound to silent and then turn my phone off. Fayed is brought into sentencing. His hair has grown out a bit and now has a graying-white mustache/goatee/beard. He looks quite different to me.

Judge Kennedy takes the bench.

Judge states there are several items on the calendar for this case, but there are two items that need to be marked as exhibits. One is a defense PowerPoint during opening and closings I think, to be marked as court's exhibit 14. The other is a typed letter regarding the issue during the accusation that promotional campaign materials from DDA Alan Jackson were sent to the jurors. That will be court's exhibit fifteen. Juror questionnaires will be marked as court exhibits, and some will be sealed. No other items need to be marked.

Several motions on calendar. Judge Kennedy asks both parties if they have reviewed the transcript, for errors. Harmon gets up to speak to Werksman. The court clerk states that they have not received anything.

Eric Harmon first states something to the effect that they have 60 days after formal sentencing to certify the verdict. Werksman and Harmon agree they will review the transcript before 60 days have passed. Judge Kennedy explains the lengthy process of verifying the trial record and that it can't be on day 59 they turn in their submissions.

Move onto the motions. First, is a defense motion for a new trial. The Court has read the original pleading and the people's opposition. Werksman wants to be heard in open court before the court rules.

Werksman: Each issue provides independent grounds for a new trial. The issues that were raised are serious. I believe that my client did not get a fair trial. The tape should have been excluded. (Of Fayed & Smith.) The court allowed the prosecution to play the tapes including the out of court declarant speaking on tape. (Shawn Smith). Werksman goes over how the prosecution led the jury to believe Shawn Smith although he did not testify in this trial. (During the trial, the court instructed the jury that Shawn Smith’s statements were not offered for the truth of the matter.) Then there is the Mary Mercedes tape. The defense was deprived of that evidence and the prosecution should not have been allowed to play it (as part of rebuttal).

There were a litany of additional errors that were made by the prosecution interpreting the jury instructions. Judge Kennedy asks Werksman where were his objections during trial. Werksman admits that some of his objections are missing.

I would ask your honor to look at the totality of each and every error that occurred, and it resulted in a jury verdict that was tainted. And an improper shifting of the burden of proof.

Harmon. As the court knows we addressed these issues in (our brief). Harmon does not argue.

Judge Kennedy states her ruling for the record. The Court has carefully considered all these issues. The court is convinced that the charges have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The taped recordings.
I conclude that the tape of Shawn Smith and James Fayed was not admitted in error (cites case). The words of Mr. Shawn Smith which are, in essence, his discussions with Mr. Fayed about being a hit man or conduit to a hit man that would kill the three co defendants who participated. They are not offered for the truth of the matter. Mr. Swan Smith was not acting as a hit man. He was acting in his own benefit. The jury had the opportunity to listen to James Fayed and determine the truth of the matter.

We've litigated the issue of Shawn Smith four times and the court has made a record in each instance as to why the tape was admissible and I adopt my prior ruling at this time.

Recording of Mary Mercedes became relevant after the defense presented it's evidence. The defense presented evidence that Mary Mercedes contacted the sister (Patricia Taboga) and offered Patricia 200,000 for her husband to commit the murder of Pamela Fayed. Mercedes, outside the presence of the jury claimed 5th amendment rights and was unavailable to testify. It was at that point the evidence of conversation that the prosecutor had with Mary Mercedes. It only became admissible once the defense case was presented. It was not part of the prosecution's case in chief.

Withdrawal from the conspiracy.
The court indicated at the outset of this proceedings it was going to use CALJIC instructions, that's because in a death penalty case the court decided it was the wiser course to use instructions that have been tested on appeal. There are no reported cases of death penalty cases that has examined the CALCRIM instructions, no death penalty case has gotten that far that either supports or (attacks?) the CALCRIM instructions. It seemed more prudent (to use instructions) that have been battle tested, so to speak, and that the Supreme Court has affirmed.

When it come to jury instructions there is no requirement that the court use CALCRIM, CALJIC, or any instructions. The court only has to instruct the jury on the law.

Denying a request for a new trial on that basis. Even if CALCRIM was used, there is no evidence at all that the defendant withdrew from the conspiracy. Judge Kennedy goes over the evidence and that the defendant did not exercise any of the possible opportunities to warn the victim before she was killed.

One point in the prosecution argument about producing evidence of withdrawal. I don't think it was as artful as it could have been, but the court's instructions were clear. There was only one point, where the defendant asked for his money back, but that was before the victim was killed.

Judge Kennedy makes note that if objections are not made during the trial then she can't make a ruling or instruct the jury. That was not done in this case. Court finds the prosecution did not make misconduct; they did not argue outside the case or matters beyond the record.

One other point that was raised was the issue of not allowing the AUS Attorney to answer questions about the federal case against the defendant. It was irrelevant then it's irrelevant now. The strength of that case didn't make any difference on this case.

The issue of jury misconduct.
I have never in all my years, had a case like this, where, there were outside forces which somehow or another, were associated with the defense. NOT defense counsels’ creating mischief and attacking the very heart of our criminal justice system and trying to derail the jury in this case. I know there are jurors here that were present in the trial. I have nothing but the greatest respect for the jury in this case. A death penalty case is not easy. The facts of this case were gruesome and horrible. In this case, there was all this chicanery going on. The jury in the case, self reported (the problems with an alternate and one of the original jurors. They were talking and they let us know that.

I conducted a hearing and I removed an alternate and a juror. And thereafter, we got these anonymous (communications) and phone calls and letters that were claiming that jurors were performing misconduct. We had an anonymous voice mail on the Court’s telephone that was purportedly from one of the jurors.

And with regard to each and every one of those issues (that occurred) the Court conducted a hearing and I examined all of the jurors and made inquires. All of the jurors denied sending the letter, leaving the voice mails and I believe those jurors. I have nothing but the greatest respect for the jurors who participated in this trial. It was someone else, someone associated with the defendant.

If the defendant was willing to pay $25,000, (to kill his wife) why wouldn't he have someone do this? We'll never know who was exactly responsible. As I said again, I have the greatest respect with the integrity of the jury. The defense is not suggesting any way that the conduct occurred because of this baseless accusation. For all of the reasons that I stated here and considering all the arguments in support of a new trial. The motion of an new trial at this (time? point? is denied).

Werksman asks to speak.

Judge Kennedy (with an angry or exasperated tone to her voice) says no, we’re moving on.
But Werksman speaks anyway.

MW: There is a possibility that an opponent of one of the prosecutions may have wanted to embarrass the DDA (Alan Jackson).

JK: The only one who stood to benefit from this case being derailed, was the defendant. The prosecution did not benefit from that. What my finding is, that there was no misconduct by this jury.

JK: Move onto the defense motion to modify the verdict.

Judge Kennedy states she has read the motions by the defense and the people. Meister gets up to speak about his motions.

Mesiter states he knows of no evidence of an investigation into the jury misconduct or evidence to support the court's position on the jury tampering allegations.

Meister talks about the death penalty issue and in California death doesn't mean death. He brings up the “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez, who was sent to death row in the 1990's and Ramirez habeas brief has been sitting in the US Attorney's office for the past five years.

The co defendants are not facing death. They are facing life without parole (LWOP). Sending Fayed to death row is not accomplishing anything. Meister reads from Marci's Law. A moratorium is now in place (in California). Meister brings up the probation report and Judge Kennedy interrupts him that she has not read the probation report and she can't comment on it at this point.

Meister talks long about what it's like in San Quentin, and that's where inmates often outlive their victims. It won't do Pamela Fayed's family any good. It won't give them closure. He will live there throughout 27 years of appeals. It will only be punishing Pam's family over and over.

Harmon speaks for the people, "We've made our point clear in the motion. There's no reason to set aside or modify the jury verdict.”

JK: There may be a lot wrong with the appeal system for condemned prisoners, but that's not something that the court can do anything about. We are a trial court; we do not make new law here. We don't make any laws here. We apply the laws that exist. And the laws require that the weighing process set forth in the penal code 190.3. The idea that, the victims families are somehow going to be punished by, if the court elects to impose the sentence the jury felt was the verdict to impose in this case, but that's a bit of arrogance. You are not a proponent of the victim's family in this case. What the court has to do is follow the law. And, so pursuant to the penal code, obviously this is an automatic motion of reduction to life in prison without parole. Judge Kennedy states she has reviewed independently the evidence. "The motion for modification of the verdict is denied for the following reasons:

I find that the first degree murder was an intentional killing, personally carried out by the defendant who hired the co defendants. I find that it was purposeful, premeditated and was carried out with malice aforethought. I further find that it was carried out with a means of lying in wait, and that it was carried out for financial gain, in relation to the pending divorce and in relation to the pending federal case."

Judge Kennedy goes onto describe Pamela Fayed’s injuries in detail. "The victim was brutally and brazenly murdered. Her throat was slashed. She was stabbed 13 times. She was attacked in a parking garage minutes after a preplanned meeting with the defendant and his lawyers."

Afterwards, the defendant was caught on tape, after her screams were bouncing of the office buildings. The people were coming out of their offices getting ready to come out for the day. The (poor?) witness witness in the area. (Judge Kennedy mentions Edwin Rivera, who was sitting in his car.) "There were lots of people around. Even thought we only had video tape, (no sound) you knew, we could hear those screams. An attorney in an office building across the street, several stories up could hear her scream."

Judge Kennedy talks more about the loud screams. "On the video tape, we could see, all the people are rushing over and looking up at the garage, everyone except the defendant. (We can see) the defendant is sitting there and texting on his cell phone. He doesn’t have a care in the world. He eventually walked over to where the people are. And that is one cold, calculated human being. Mr. James Fayed, he doesn't feel anything. This is his wife that at one time he loved. The mother of his child. And he doesn't feel anything. He doesn’t feel anything. He has no concern at all."

"That was one of the most chilling parts of the evidence, is that tape, where we see him totally outside that parking garage, totally immune to the screams of his wife. The mother of his child, his wife. Chilling."

Once the defendant was taken into custody, and housed in detention, not only did he brag about the murder of his wife, these are his words, “..as a dumb fucking cunt and a dumb money fucking whore...”

Further, he planned to hire his cell mate to carry out three additional murders, the three co defendants who carried out the murder of Ms Fayed in the garage.

He was convicted not just of murder, but conspiracy to commit murder. He paid Jose Moya $25,000 to commit the crime. Within, days he promised to pay to (cell mate Shawn Smith) to carry out further murders of the co defendants, who was wearing a wire.

(The Court) considered there was no prior criminal conduct. The defense stated he was a good stepfather, "That was true to a point. At one point the defendant had withdrawn from the family, stayed in his room and was addicted to pain killers. In the penalty phase, there were no people called by the defendant who were present associates, but people he had known 15 years before."

The defense stated that he did not carry out the murder himself, however on the audio tape (the defendant is heard saying),

“I wanted to do it myself. I wish I could do it myself, but knew I would get caught.”

There's nothing mitigating about that, because he had a lot of money or he did at one time, to hire someone else to do it for him. I don't find that to be a circumstance to be mitigation in this case.

The Fayed’s had a lot of money. Most people in divorce court are dividing debts rather than assets. Mr. Fayed could have split up the assets and they both could have had a lot of money, but that wasn't good enough for him. His greed, was seemingly the controlling factor as to why this murder was carried out.

Judge Kennedy forcefully again, talks about the great respect she has for the jurors in this case, and the time they took to reach their decision in this case.

"I find that the aggravating circumstances so outweigh the mitigation the court denies the modification of the verdict," Judge Kennedy rules.

Judge Kennedy takes five minutes to read the probation report and then will return to the bench. Fayed is returned to the little jail area.

10:24 am: Fayed is brought back into the courtroom. Since I'm getting a better look, he looks like he has lost some noticable weight since the trial. Here is a photo from the LA Times.

Far left, Deputy Penna, defense counsel Mark Werksman, James Fayed, co counsel Steve Meister, and bailiff Deputy "Shawn."

Judge Kennedy takes the bench.

Werksman's client does not wish to be heard. Werksman asks to make a few statements.

Werksman:
Mr. Fayed now stands alone. He met his client two days after the murder, he was on pain meds and distraught over the death of his wife and the location of his daughter. He was arrested a day and a half later. Since then, he has lived through the most oppressive situation. He's been deprived the use of a telephone. I've watched over the past three-and-a-half years, I've watched his world shrink. His business disappeared overnight. Now, he has no one to call, no one to visit. Today, he is indigent and relies on the charity of others to put money on his commissary account. He wants to live. He want's to see his daughter's grow up. I know it seems (odd? contrary?) to want to see his daughters grow up, but he does your honor. But never the less, he loved his family. He want's to live. There are contributions he could make to society, and to not judge him on the very worst thing he did in his life.

JK: People?

We'd like give this day to the victims family, and to have your honor impose a justice sentence.

Two family members speak to the court.
Renee Goudie. "Pamela Goudie's sister in law for 29 years. In those 29 years, I've never met or spoken to this individual. I am the one raising his daughter. (Renee mentions something about being the one having to answer the hard questions that kids on the school bus ask, ‘Is your mother dead?’ and ‘Was she murdered?’)"

"I am the one that has to answer the questions. I do have a message that she (Jeanette) wanted to give her dad. She said to say 'Hi, and she misses him.' "

Scott Goudie, Pamela's kid brother. "(I am in) a void that this man has left in our life you can not describe. He has committed the ultimate betrayal of all, (and) to his children, they will never know and never get to feel their mother’s touch and caring hands again. He’s left our family in fear. This man kills people for money. We cannot pull into a parking lot, or we can not turn on the TV, because something reminds us of this."

"We can not live (a normal life?). Not just my family but our extended family. Our daughter (Jeanette) does not understand. I don't think to this day we have not seen the hardship that she will endure. There are not enough words to describe how I feel about this man. We will spend the rest of our life picking up the pieces of our lives, and trying to move on."

No other family members speak to the court before sentence.

Judge Kennedy states there are two additional exhibits to put on the record, the DVD recording, of the proposed (supposed) juror on the telephone call and the sheriff's office investigation.

The court has previously denied the request to modify the sentence an nothing that has been said here after has caused the court to change (it’s opinion? decision?). The fact that the defendant is living in an uncomforaable jail cell and no access to phones, that's a hell of his own making; and there are consequents of (his) actions.

Judge Kennedy reads her ruling and it’s addressed to the warden. She goes over the sequence of the events of his charging arraignment and the start of the trial, through the jury verdict and the jury's penalty phase verdict.

Court rules that James Michael Fayed sentence is the death penalty. It is the order of this court that you should suffer the death penalty.

Judge asks about restitution hearing. Fayed waves his right to be at the restitution hearing. Ordered to submit DNA samples, etc.

Ordered to San Quentin’s custody within 10 days. Orders warden of San Quentin to hold Fayed in custody until the time of his death.

Restitution hearing on January 24th, 2012.

Either Werksman, or Harmon tells the court, “It's complicated (by the) potential civil case, (but they would need) probably 1.5 hours.”

Only other issue is the transcript, December 19th, for submission of the initial corrections. No appearance necessary.

And that’s it for the sentencing hearing. Court is adjourned. I ask Jackson if he’s going to speak to the media. He tells me that if they decide to go, they will be there in about 15 minutes. Any longer, and they won’t be going.

Up on the 12th floor, media area, the defense team (Werksman and Meister) spoke on camera to the media (video taped) regarding the various issues they felt were errors in the judge's ruling. An abridged version of what he argued in his motions. After they spoke, Mr. Werksman came over and greeted me, shook my hand. He addressed me as, "Madam blogger" on the 12th floor and thanked me for being the most consistent reporter who covered the case.

I was quite impressed to hear Fayed’s defense attorney, Mark Werksman, on the 12 floor media area, make a very (to me) sincere sounding statement, “...sorry for your loss...” to the family regarding the loss of Pamela.

More camera men show up on the 12th floor.

One of the reporters asks what was given to the defendant. Because of where I was sitting in the courtroom, I did not observe this. I find out (I believe DDA Harmon answers this question but I could be wrong.) that each daughter (Jeanette, Desiree) wrote Fayed a letter. The children are both conflicted. There was a photo of the younger daughter in the one letter and given to Fayed in court.

It’s now11:27 am, and the family as a group speaks on camera to the media. (I have to tell you, I was quite disappointed with Miriam Hernandez and the questions she asked the family. She was clueless about the facts of the case. I think if you’re going to go to a sentencing hearing, it might help to know something about the trial, and the family as well before you shove a camera and a microphone in their face and ask questions.)

MSM: What does this sentence mean to you?

Scott Goudie: It brings partial closure. There are still three more defendants.

MSM: (What are your) feelings about sentence?

SG: I think the sentence is fair. He orchestrated the murder of another human being. I think it’s fair. I’m going to tell you... to tell you I’ve tried to prepare for each hearing you go to but you can’t. There isn’t any preparation to prepare you for what you are about to hear.

(Scott speaks about the family’s love for Pamela, and what she was like.)

SG: She was a generous, loving mother. She cared more about her daughters more than everything else. And one of her last words to me were to make sure that her daughter’s were taken care. She laughed a lot and enjoyed life.

MSM: You’ve had conversations with her daugher, Jennette? How is Jeanette doing?

SG: Jeanette is adjusting to the move to our household. She doesn’t discuss this a lot. And I don’t know how to describe how she feels inside. It’s hard for her. (Scott’s wife, Renee nods her head as Scott speaks.) “Its a different environment than what she's used to.

MSM: What went wrong with James Fayed?

There’s no way that I could perceive (...?).

MSM: Did Pamela ever share anything with you...?

SG: Other than, than, the last couple of years. The fact that he was quite a recluse in his living environment. (There might have been a question here, about what Pamela told her family that I miss.) She didn't; she didn't. She lived in fear of him the last six months of her life. While she was still married she didn’t' share a lot of that with me.

MSM: Anything else (you want to say?)?

SG: You know, I think the trial, went amazingly well. the DA office did a remarkable job, and they have been so helpful to our family throughout all of this. The police, an outstanding job as well. Special thanks to the jury, and what they had to go through in, in answering that letter (jury summons). It says report to jury duty and you can see that it deeply affected those people as well forever.

MSM: Why did you decide to speak now?

SG: No, there's (?....) and, I have spoken to some of the other media, but I generally try to keep it private, try to keep my private life private and above all, try to protect Jeanette.

Somone asks how old Jeanette is and how old she was at the time of Pamela’s murder.

SG: Jeanette is twelve and she was nine at the time.

I know Scott spoke about living in fear because of what Fayed might be capable of doing, even from a prison cell, the possibility of still being able to reach out and harm them, but I don’t have the quote exact. And that’s about it. There are questions about the spelling of their names.

DDA Alan Jackson, when addressed by the media states, “We don't have anything. This was about the family, unless you have specific questions.”

Other media asks about the status on the other three defendants. They are going to trial next sumer. (Some thought one of the co defendants may have pled out. That's not the case.) Hopefully, in the next six months. No one has pled guilty.

The reporters, who did not follow the trial, are asking about the "letter" which claimed to be from a juror anonymously. (This is another issue, that if any of these reporters had covered the trial, they would have known about.) The letter claimed that DDA Alan Jackson sent them campaign promotional materials. Miriam Hernandez tries to get a copy of the video tape Judge Kennedy spoke about of Fayed in the plaza, ignoring the screams of his wife but DDA Eric Harmon tells her she would have to get a copy directly from the court. The DA’s office cannot release them a copy since this same evidence will be used against the other three co defendants.

And that's it. I was quite touched by the family's many thanks to me for my trial coverage, and how much it helped other members of their family who could not attend the trial.

Local ABC Channel 7's video report on the sentencing.

Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial Hearing 10, Conrad Murray & James Fayed Pre-Sentencing Hearing

I am so behind in my real life responsibilities and sewing, I decided to make it easy on myself and combine the coverage of three cases. Sprocket.

September 15th, 2011
Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial 10

As I clear the first floor security checkpoint, I see Mark Overland and his daughter Courtney Overland in the lobby and heading for the elevator bay. On the 9th floor, I see that Lazarus' mother is here by herself. There's an older couple with gray hair sitting in the second row. The man is reading a paper and the woman is working on a crossword puzzle. It's a good bet that they are here for the case that's currently in Judge Perry's courtroom.

One of the detectives comes over to speak to Sherri Rae Rasmussen's mother, Loretta, who is sitting directly in front of me along with her husband, Nels. He tells her he is going to be in her neck of the woods soon and Loretta tells him to call her later. As I'm sitting behind Nels and Loretta, it's hard not to overhear snatches of their conversation. I don't quite grasp all of it. All I hear is, "They found out where she purchased...." and a reply, "Sounds like it." Usually, Nels and Loretta write each other notes back and forth on a little notepad, so this is a rare time that I hear something.

Jane Robson from the DA's office is here. Both parties go back into Judge Perry's chambers for an incamera discussion off the record. I squint and finally can read the first name on the court clerk's plackard. It's Melody. Melody is on the phone with a juror from the current case in Perry's court. From hearing half of the conversation, it appears the juror is feeling ill and feels she can't continue. Melody is telling her Judge Perry has asked that she come into court so she can be excused. She's in the parking lot, but reluctant to come in. She doesn't want to be embarrassed in front of her fellow jurors. Melody keeps assuring her that it's just a formality and that it won't happen in front of her fellow jurors.

Lazarus is brought into the courtroom. She's not wearing her glasses but she does have some type of cloth bag with something in it. I try to note the time on the wall clock behind me but it's wrong. It's about 50 minutes or so slow. Lazarus turns and gives her mother a big smile. There's something different about her hair but I can't pinpoint what it is. She has the long white thermal undershirt on under her orange jumpsuit.

Dateline isn't here. Neither is Greg from CBS. The defense investigator arrives and sits with Lazarus. He tells the clerk Melody, "I have something for you." Jurors for the current case file in and head to the jury room.

Presby and Nunez exit from Judge Perry's chambers along with Courtney Overland, but she quickly goes back in after retrieving something from her files. I believe Presby give some motion papers to Melody. Courtney and Mark come back into the courtroom from Perry's chambers.

Judge Perry takes the bench. "All parties present. (snip) We were in chambers chatting about some matters, part of discover and the investigation still ongoing. We're not going to start the jury questionnaire on the 17th. (October). The court hopes to start the trial on October 24th."

Judge Perry also states he's not confident that is going to happen. All parties will be ordered back on September 28th to check on trial readiness and other issues. Judge Perry mentions something I don't quite hear right. It's a defense "fictitious?" or "pitches?" motion that he is inclined to accept regarding Renay Brawning (sp?).

Judge Perry states both sides are not ready to go to trial on Onctober 17th. Judge Perry asks Lazarus about waiving her speedy trial rights and to set the trial calendar as 0-10 on October 24th. "Yes, your honor," Lazarus replies.

Judge Perry states he's ready to rule on the defense firearm motion regarding the "firearm transaction records." (I believe the records that document when Lazarus purchased the weapon she later reported stolen from her vehicle.). "I don't think it's a protected statement. It's not a violation. Motion denied," Perry rules.

Overland asks if at the Sept. 28th hearing they can talk about the jury questionnaire. "I know the court eliminated some questions..."

And that's all. It's over pretty quickly. I ride down the elevator with Shannon Presby to ask him about the "fictitious" motion and he explains to that it's a "Pitchess Motion." This is where the defense asks to access a police officer's personnel records for potential negative information. The records are reviewed by the Judge and if there is anything relevant in the file, the defense gets to see it.

I get all the way outside the building when I realize that there was a Conrad Murray hearing today and I could drop in and see if anything interesting is being ruled on.

(Note: I totally missed going to the Sept. 28th hearing this morning. I had it in my head the hearing was this Friday, on the 30th. I will update when I know when the next hearing is scheduled.)

Conrad Murray Pretrial Hearing
(The trial is now in progress since I stopped by this pretrial hearing.)

When I enter Dept. 107, Judge Pastor's courtroom, I was expecting a crowd but it's virtually empty. There are a few people in the gallery but less than a handful. I knew Dr. Murray would not be there but I thought there would be a few reporters (I later learn that the MSM had already left after hearing the major news). The court reporter up is Mavis and I smile when I see her. Nareg Gourjian is by himself at the defense table. Over on the prosecution side is the rugged David Walgren and the absolutely stunning Deborah Brazil. (She truly is a gorgeous, sophisticated looking woman. The cameras in the courtroom do not do her justice.)

I believe Gourjian is telling Judge Pastor that the attorney that is handling a specific issue is his co-counsel Mr. Flanagan, who has all documents related to it. Judge Pastor tells the defense that he wants (everyone?) "...to come back Tuesday or Wednesday and we'll add all the people concerning (to be excused) for cause..."

My notes are not clear, but I believe it's Walgren who asks Judge Pastor if they can come back tomorrow on another issue. Then I think they decide on Monday, the 19th. Also on Monday they will discuss any issues concerning Dr. Pustilnick.

Issues concerning Karen Faye's testimony need to be gone over, and Tim Lopez's testimony. Apparently, Lopez left the country and it's not clear if the prosecution will have to write a motion to introduce his testimony from the preliminary hearing via reading it into the record, or if he will be back in the US and take the stand.

There's also a Dr. Schafer the prosecution wants to call and the defense wants to block him from testifying. Judge Pastor instructs the defense to have Dr. Murray here on Wednesday, the 21st at 2 pm for Jury questionnaire cause issues and voir dire will start at 8:00 am on June 23rd.

I can't remember if it was the prosecution or not, but one side was questioning the 8:00 am start time, and Judge Pastor was firm on that time since the jurors were ordered to be back at that time.

I really didn't learn much at the hearing and besides, the MSM has kept up with every detail of this case. The only thing that surprised me was how Judge Pastor pronounced Gourjian's name. It's totally different than how I was sounding it out in my head. Anyway, the real reason I stopped by was to hopefully inquire with Mavis Theodorou, Judge Pastor's long-time court reporter about getting a copy of a transcript for a day or two of an old trial. She was so generous and kind in helping me make my first purchase of a trial transcript.

September 22nd, 2011

James Fayed Sentencing

When I get up on the 9th floor, I see Jason, the jury foreman and one of the female jurors and a male friend. The female juror tells me she wanted to contact me about my blog because she is writing a book. I tell her that all of my content is copyrighted. She say’s she’s not going to quote anything verbatim.

Then I see Marjorie from the Ventura County Star and I sit to chat with her and find out what she’s been covering. Unfortunately, she will not be covering the trial of the three co-defendants.

Pat Kelly and Arlene for the Public Information Office arrive.

Before we even get inside 109, the Bailiff, Shawn (sp?) tells us it’s not happening today. Lori the court clerk emerges from the bathroom. Several sheriff’s arrive. There is a camera man with large video equipment. Alan Jackson shows up. Alan introduces himself to to the new bailiff’s and there’s a bit of conversation among them.

Eric Harmon apparently is late. Alan Jackson jokingly says, “When he gets here tell him he’s fired”. Locat TV Station KTLA shows up and the camera man sets up in the jury box. Eric Harmon has arrived and is with AJ at the clerks desk. A Dateline producer is here. THe one dark haired woman whom I never met.

A few more people show up, casually dressed. They have lanyards around their necks so they are most likely reporters.

Marjorie and I are set up in the far right corner of the gallery on our laptops. Pat Kelly has given Marjorie a copy of one of the defense motions. James Fayed, case # BA346352. On September 12th, the defense filed a motion for new trial. When Marjorie is finished taking her notes from the motion, I try to type what I’m reading as fast as I can.

In their motion, the defense argues... (Note: Understand, there might be typographical errors and errors in my effort to copy as much of the motion as I could.)

“The court should not impose the death penalty in this case because the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors. James Fayed had no criminal record before this case. He was not the actual killer; his life was one of law abiding productive contribution to society; prior to the Fayeds’ bitter divorce, the family had been happy, and Jim Fayed was by the account of none other than Desiree Goudie a good father and good family man; the jury heard from long long time friends and colleagues of Mr. Fayed that they would be deeply hurt by Mr. Fayed’s death, that Mr. Fayed’s life was worth sparing, and that they could not connect the man they knew with the man who’d been convicted of murder. the penalty phase in this case took two court day to try and a day to argue; they jury deliberated penalty for five days. This fact alone shows that the present case is not “open and shut,” or so unassailably and deservedly a death penalty case that a jury did not even wrestle with what to do; clearly the jury did wrestle ever earnestly, for days longer than it took to try (the case? cause?).

The second reason the court should modify the verdict and impose LWOP is that the death penalty in California is unconstitutional, and Mr. Fayed should not be subjected to it.

California’s death penalty violates the federal constitution’s fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendment and the corresponding sections of the California Constitution. Although the California Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty against the challenges listed below, the Supreme Court is simply wrong. The challenges are meritorious and should the law change in the future and the Supreme Court come to see the error of it’s ways, defendant Fayed submits the following argument as to the unconstitutionally of the death penalty in this state.

Consistent with the ethical rule which requires counsel to alert the court to the existence of adverse authority, citations to cases overruling the defense position follow the specific challenges are now listed:

Calif death penalty statute does not (meaningly?) narrow the pool of jurors eligible for the death penalty

The breadth of the circumstance of the crime “ aggravating factor (Factor A of Penal code 190:3 results in arbitrary and capricious application of the death penalty. Over ruled by People v Smith (2005 35 cal . 4th 334).

The law unconstitutionally (?) excuses jurors from finding beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular factor in aggravation exists, that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigation factors and that death is the appropriate (?) penalty. Over ruled by People v. Burgener (?) (snip).

The law unconstitutionally excuses jurors from making written jury findings or achieving unanimity (?) as to the aggravating factors.

Prosecutorial discretion to determine which defendants merit the death penalty renders the statutory scheme invalid.

The jury should not be allowed to consider the unadjudicated criminal conduct in fixing the penalty.

The law unconstitutionally fails to require intercase proportionality be considered by juries and judges.

(snip)

The law fails to require “intercase” proportionality be considered by juries and judges. Here, Mr. Fayed’s culpability should be weighed against that of his co-conspirators, and the fact that all of the co-conspirators are facing only LWOP, while Mr. Fayed’s was a capital prosecution, should have been admissible and considerable by the jury.
END

The above is "not" the full motion, but all that I could copy before the hearing started.

9:31 am: James Fayed is brought into the courtroom. He’s in an orange jumpsuit.

Judge Kennedy takes the bench.

JK: Matter of People vs. Fayed. Mark Werksman (for the defense)
Eric Harmon and Alan Jackson for the people.” (snip) Now (the) mater is on calendar for sentencing and motion for reduction (in sentencing). I understand that neither side (is ready)?

There is a motion for a new trial and motion to modify the verdict.

JK?: Counsel joining in requesting us have a hearing on it?

(?) I would be ready to go except everyone needs time.

JK: Mr. Harmon or Mr. Jackson?

AJ: We agree. (snip) We need a little bit more time to respond to the two motions.

JK: (sounding a bit perturbed) I want to remind both sides to your obligation to the record. Within 15 days of receiving (the verdict) trial counsel must file corrections or directs stating... (they agree with the court reporter’s record or they are making recommendations to amend it). (snip) Neither side has done any of those things.

(It sounds like Judge Kennedy is sternly giving all counsel the riot act.)

JK: (snip) I want to emphasize how important that it is for attorneys to go thought the transcript. (snip) The record of this trial, con(versely?) could be dissected over the next 25 or 30 years. Having experts (?) of other cases, and thats assuming that’s a death penalty, but we have to proceed as if that’s whats going to happen in that.

JK: Appeal courts are going to come in here and they are go to come in for a (lot? long list?) of changes to the transcript and they were not present for the trial.

JK: They like to make changes to what they wish, but you are the people that were there. If you don’t take the time to go through the transcript and you’re not (going?) to have any request later on.

JK: And work together for changes and the court reporter has a lot of work to do on that.

And they need to be addressed by (you?) and you.

AJ: We will have gone though the record by the time it comes to argue motions.

(MW:?) We will have those corrections. (snip) But i will now endeavor to complete that particular requirement.

There is some discussion back and forth between the judge and the prosecution as to “when” they have to be ready with their response to the defense motions. October 31st is discussed and then Judge Kennedy moves that date to October 28th. Judge Kennedy was unmoved by Jackson's assertion that he would be out of the country until mid-October. The issue is that the defense has to have their rebuttal motion argument to the prosecution’s, ten days after that, and the court needs to have time to read all motions. That’s why the date is changed to October 28th. The defense response is due November 9th.

The date both sides will be ready for oral argument is November 17th.

Judge Kennedy asks Fayed if he is willing to have the sentencing continue until November 17th. I don’t hear him but he obviously agrees. And that’s it.

James Fayed Murder-For-Hire Day 7

Note: This is the final day of testimony in the guilt phase of the Fayed trial. The only things I have left to edit are the closing arguments. Sprocket.

May 13th, 2011
I'm finally in Dept. 109 and set up next to Marjorie. When Werksman arrives, he asks Lori if there were any new messages.

She replies yes, but it’s not bad.

There’s more chatter by the clerk with Werksman. Werksman reads something at Lori’s desk and says, Juror #3. After he’s finished reading he says, “Well. That makes sense.”

There’s a new family member with Dawn, Greta and Scott. I’m guessing it’s Scott’s wife because of the body language. Marjorie is beside me and the courtroom is empty except for Lori, the bailiff Sean and the court reporter.

Jackson arrives and Werksman tells Jackson about the new note. Jackson says, “What!” Werksman says something to the effect that it’s “kind of” about the issue but neutral and recommends Jackson should read it.

Harmon asks Jackson for a conference and they go into the jury room. A few moments later they come back out.

Steve Meister, “Is that another note?” Jackson, “It’s another note.” He hands the note to Meister to read.

Jackson and Werksman confer in the well, possibly about evidence.

It’s 9:06 am and we haven’t seen a hint of Judge Kennedy.

The defendant is brought in. Lori asking if we are ready for jurors.

Counsel is going over something at the defense & prosecution tables. Fayed is in the same brown suit, yellow shirt.

I’m just hearing snatches of what the counsel are discussing. Something about “...she met a pizza delivery man...” but that may not have been what they said.

Harmon goes over to speak to the family and get them updated as to today's events.

Lori: Are we ready?

Both sides say “Yes.”

An attorney looking gentleman sits in the row behind the family and has been with them.

On the record. Judge takes bench.

One of the Dateline reporters came in

Judge Kennedy is obviously sick. Red nose, Kleenex.

It says it’s a note from Juror #3.

JK: Assume both sides have been able to review that? I think that maybe what we should have all of them go into the jury room and bring out selected jurors.

Lori just wants to make sure no one left anything in the jury room first.

JK: What have you guys been doing?

Lori says the prosecution's been back there.

AJ: Feeling any better?

JK: A little bit.

Judge Kennedy doesn’t look great. I commend Judge Kennedy for coming in while this sick.

JK: A okay?

Lori: It’s fine.

Dateline reporter and another Dateline person here.

All jurors are now in the jury room as well as the alternates.

JK: And we now need to deal with this issue of anonymous commutations (jurors) have made or claiming to be members of the jury made.

Judge Kennedy goes over the one note came today.

The note is from Juror #3. Judge Kennedy reads the note into the record.

JK: Good morning and thank you for taking the time to (?) this note. I am some what concerned about the admonishing may have created an aura of suspicion of doubt. I'm not sure this is the the best ??/ to have. Question I would feel more (confident?) in my fellow jurors. (?) I have neither seen or heard (details?) of discussion of the case in the halls or walking to the parking garage.

Juror #3

Judge Kennedy reads into the record the voice mail court received yesterday morning. (Transcript prepared by court reporter.)

JK: Left unidentified woman caller

I’m juror in 109 against case against Fayed. After morning questions about questioning (snip) I thought that I would bring it to (your?) attention, a few jurors, were taking about reading articles on line and things they are investigating themselves about the case. And I do not want this to factor into the case or the the fact when we have to deliberate. I (?) want it even to be known after we were notified. It seems to, kind of seemed to make certain jurors to discuss it more. Even after the discussion happened on the way to the parking garage and it (?) is very concerning to me, that if I have to go into deliberate Juror #6 & #9 with them.

JK: Other item E-mail sent to Mr. Werksman's office:

Counsel I wanted to state (to?) you and state I believe Mr. Fayed deserves new trial. Even after today’s jurors questioning including viewing web sites about trial. Please continue to express concerns. Thank you. No juror number.

JK: Received on evening of May 11 accessed May 12.

JK: Um, in light of these various communications I think that the court has to make various inquires. (snip) I think I would like to start with Juror #10 woman with short gray hair that I think might be the voice of that person. Why don’t we have juror #10 come in which I think might be the voice of that person. (snip) Short gray hair? You know the woman I’m talking about, with short gray hair.

Lori nods and goes into the jury room.

JK: Is there a way that, Mr. Harmon, that we can move that screen away little better? (The TV screen that is between the witness stand and the jury box.

Judge Kennedy Did you by any chance leave a voicemail on the court telephone.

Juror #10 The day (?). The next day when we got evacuated. I called got a recording and I hung up.

JK: Have you had since last time we spoke, heard the jurors discussing the case or make reference to leaving E-mails, posting E-mails or looking on the Internet on the case?

The juror answers no. Judge Kennedy asks if she feels she can still perform her duties as a juror. She still feels she can be a qualified juror.

Judge Kennedy tells Juror #10 not to discuss with the other jurors what we’ve discussed out here.

JK: Juror #7 please.

More people show up from DA’s office. Greg Fisher is here from CBS 48 Hours.

JK: Did you by any chance leave a voice mail on the courts telephone? Did you send an E-mail to any of the lawyers offices? Did you hear any discussion between any jurors since we last spoke?

Judge Kennedy asks her more detailed questions.

She answers no to sending the anonymous communications.

JK: Are you a person who still feels they are able to decide this case based exclusively on the evidence that is presented to you?

Juror #7: Yes.

JK: Send out Juror #11.

JK: Did you by any chance leave a voicemail message on the telephone? Did you send an E-mail to any of the attorneys associated with this trial?

Juror #11: No mam.

JK: Have you heard anyone discuss the case? (N0.) Do you feel you are an individual still able to judge the evidence of this case?

Juror #11: Yes.

JK: Send out Alternate #3.

JK: Did you leave a voice mail message on the court?

Alternate #3: No, no.

JK: Do you, have heard since we last spoke, any of the jurors and alternate jurors in this case (discussing the trial)?

JK: No, absolutely not. I haven't heard anyone say anything since the last incident.

She states she feels she can still deliberate.

JK: Send out Juror #3.

JK: Juror #3, have a seat.

JK: Thank you for writing me the note you sent me this morning. I intend to do exactly what you suggested.. Great minds think alike.

JK: You haven’t heard any discussions?

Juror #3: Correct.

JK: You’re not aware of any jurors sending E-mails to other jurors (or) accessing information?

Juror #3: No.

JK: Still able to deliberate?

Juror #3: Yes.

JK: Return to the jury room and please send out to me Juror #4.

This is a woman juror.

Judge Kennedy asks her the same questions she asked of the other jurors.

JK: You did not leave a voice mail?

She shakes head and says no. She states she did not send the E-mail.

JK: Have you seen or heard any other jurors in the case discussing the case?

Juror #4: No.

JK: Are you still able to be someone who can deliberate?

Juror #4: Yes.

JK: Please send out Juror #5.

Same thing. Juror #5 answers no to all questions.

The next juror called is Juror #1.

JK: Did you send an E-mail to either attorneys in this trial?

Juror #1: No mam.

JK: You have not heard any discussion or heard of anyone talking about the case? (No) Are you an individual prepared to discuss this case solely on the evidence of the case? (Yes.)

Judge Kennedy asks the juror to send out Juror #2.

Juror #2.

JK: By any chance did you send an E-mail to either of the attorneys office in connection with this trial? (No.) Have you heard any of the jurors discussing the evidence in this case? (No.) Have you heard anyone make a comment about sending an E-mail or doing Internet research?

Juror #2: No I have not.

JK: Still able to deliberate? (snip) You look like you are confused.

Juror #2: I’m confused.

(?) Just a little bit.

Juror #2: Yes.

The Judge explains to the juror that she is required to conduct an investigation.

(I’m betting the jurors are getting tired of this too.)

Judge Kennedy asks the juror to send out Juror #6.

JK: Sir I’d like to ask by any chance (did) you have sent an E-mail to any of the attorneys with this trial? Have you done any research ...? (snip) Discussions?

The juror states no to the inquiry questions and feels that yes, he can still deliberate.

Judge Kennedy asks for the next juror to be sent out, a particular number, Juror #9.

JK: Another gentleman with goatee. Youngish fellow.

Juror #6: I don’t even know who Juror #9 is.

JK: Man who is younger like you with a little bit of a goatee.

(?) Yes.

JK: Send out Juror #9.

Judge Kennedy looks tired.

Juror #9: Morning mam.

JK: Juror #9, by any chance have you sent an E-mail to any of the attorneys office?

Juror #9: No mam.

He shakes his head no. Judge Kennedy asks him about research. “No.”

JK: Particularly Juror #6

Juror #9: No mam. No mam. Yes I am (able to deliberate).

JK: Please send out Juror #12.

JK: By any chance did you send an E-mail to either of the attorneys office in conjunction with this trial? (N0.)

JK: Have you heard any of the jurors talking about the case on the Internet? (N0.)

JK: Are you prepared to refrain from making a decision on this case and base your (deliberations) exclusively on the evidence presented in the trial? (Yes.)

JK: Please send out Alternate #2.

JK: By any chance did you send an E-mail....

Alternate #2: I’m computer ignorant. Don’t have to worry, because I'm computer ignorant. No, No, honestly, no.

JK: Are you prepared if we do select you, to (fulfill your duties and base your decision?) exclusively on the evidence presented here in court while the trial is presented?

Alternate #2: Yes.

JK: Please ask Alternate #5.

JK have I spoken with all the jurors?

Lori: Alternate #1 you have not called.

Juror #11 came out. Used to be alternate #4 came out?

JK: Alternate #5 did you send an E-mail to any of the counsel in this trial? (No.) Have you head any of these jurors discussing the evidence in this matter? (No.)

(?) Not to know about any others doing research.

JK: Are you prepared to decide this case exclusively on the evidence?

Alternate #5: Yes.

JK: Until time to deliberate?

Alternate #5: Yes.

Alternate #6 is called.

Man in court speaks to Werksman briefly as and then leaves carrying a huge black binder.

Alternate #6 comes out.

JK: Did you send an E-mail to either of the attorneys in connection with this trial?

Alternate #6: No I did not.

JK: You have not (heard discussions) ...?

Alternate #6: No I have not.

JK: Sir are you an individual, that would be prepared to discuss the case exclusively on the evidence?

Alternate #6: Yes.

JK: And refrain from coming to a decision until the end of the case?

Alternate #6: Yes.

JK: All the jurors have been spoken to already. The state of the record is this: Every single juror had denied sending the E-mail. Has denied sending the E-mail (voice mail?) on the courts telephone. Every single juror has indicated that they have NOT heard other jurors expressing an opinion on this case. (snip) That includes those jurors who let us previously know of their concern. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate any of these jurors now, has engaged in misconduct.

(?) The E-mail that was sent from Mr. Werksman’s office is anonymous and didn’t sound like any of those folks.

JK: The voice mail that was left, all of the female jurors denied having left that voice mail, and I have no way of knowing who it’s from. But every single jurors seems to be doing what they are required to do.

JK: Mr. Werksman? Mr. Jackson?

(AJ?) (I have a memory that Mr. Jackson said this but my notes are not clear.) I have an offer to the court. I would ask the court consider (?) Number 1, you have already done. Number 2, the E-mail reportedly came from the juror was a hoax and the note was a hoax and didn’t come from any sitting juror. Number 3, the voice and, the phone number is public information. Based on the inquiry and interview, everyone who was female, ask the court to make a very clear finding, (the voice message) was not left by any sitting jurors. Then should (d0?) the following: Ask the court that the panel be placed in jury box in bank and explain what has happened. This is no reason to cloak this jury in some kind of secrecy or distrust.

AJ: Juror 3# articulated there is already mistrust. And Juror #2 through body language indicated the same kind of distrust. (Recommend the court) say the following four things: One of the attorneys received an E-mail? It did. The court received a voice mail. I’m convinced it did. It appears to be a little bit of a hoax going on and that appears to be (an occurrence in?) high profile cases. Based on this no one has done anything wrong. I think with that... they don’t have to sit next to one another wondering if anyone snitched.

Judge Kennedy is nodding her head.

MW: I would ask the court not to make such specific findings that the E-mail was a hoax. I’m not as concerned...

JK: But of course your not Mr. Werksman.

(?) I don’t know what on what basis the court could make a finding. Each is a very possible scenario.

JK: But some jurors did lie before but some were very honest and brought it to the courts attention. I’m, I’m not going to tell them it was a hoax. (I will conclude?) that there is insufficient evidence that that an E-mail or voice mail that was received by the attorney or the court came from the jurors.

JK: The court is under an obligation that when there is a question, there is an obligation to investigate, that’s what the court. has done.

MW: I object. It’s not really their concern. I don’t think that’s necessary to say you’re absolved and lock arms.

JK: Your objection is noted.

The jury files in.

JK: We’re back on the record. (snip) I don’t believe I spoke with Juror #8. Let’s have everyone go over to sidebar right now.

Over at the sidebar, I can hear Judge Kennedy ask the juror the same questions she asked of all the male jurors.

JK: I didn’t mean to ignore you. Did you send an E-mail...

Judge Kennedy asks the juror all the same questions as before. He never sent any of the communications in question. He states he is still able to deliberate. Judge Kennedy then addresses the jurors in bank.

JK: Why is the judge asking us all these questions.
Whenever there is some suggestion that there is, not just in this trial, there is something going on with jurors that isn’t right, the judge has to make an investigation. And the court’s job is to ensure that every defendant receives a fair trial.

JK: The court had received an anonymous voice mail. One of the attorney’s had received an anonymous E-mail that jurors were involved in some improper conduct. I have conducted an inquiry of every one of you. To my mind there is not sufficient evidence to give credence to that voice mail and E-mail, and that you are are adequately (? following my instructions???).

JK: Am I right ladies and gentlemen?

The jury jointly responds, “Yes, yes we are.”

JK: I think we can proceed. Let me see counsel at side bar for a moment.

Harmon speaks at sidebar. Werksman speaks and I can’t hear what he is saying either. Sidebar is over and Judge Kennedy addresses the jurors.

JK: There is a legal issue that I have to sort out with (she smiles) counsel. It’s not related to you!(She smiles at the jurors again.) Remember my admonition, (she smiles) you probably know it by heart now.

There’s laughter in the courtroom and the jurors exit.

JK: Mr. Harmon 1202 reference to evidence code?

EH: Yes your honor.

Judge Kennedy reads the law.

EH: (What) we're offering is an out of court statement that Mary Mercedes made in a telephone call. She denies, the statements made by the other sister. (The evidence code allows us to impeach (defense witness) via Mary Mercedes.

Werksman objection discovery issue.

MW: I’ve not been provided with any information or with any discovery issue.

JK: This is impeachment, they don’t have to give it to you in advance.

MW: Transcript of tape recording just received. It’s not dated. I don’t know when it was.

(EH?:) (She) appeared on April 25th and asserted the fifth.
Mary Mercedes. She was concerned that she might incriminate herself.

(MW?) They did not offer her immunity.

(?) When did she talk to them?

MW: I have no idea!

(?) She spoke with detectives before she invoked.

(EH?) I take great exception that any of this is underhanded. This is impeachment that we are allowed to present. Mary Mercedes made herself unavailable because she invoked. Evidence 1054 provides that we don't’ have to disclose this information because it’s impeachment. No valid objection to it (is) coming in.

(JK?) I don’t know if, Mr. Werksman, I don’t know.

(?) The statement is nine minutes.

EH: We have a (copy of the transcript) that contains the conversation. I’d like to mark that as court exhibit next in order.

Pat Dixon enters 10:10 am and sits in the back row. He picks up a small set of stapled papers (a memorandum?) and begins to read.

EH: Number eight and nine (court?) exhibits. would like them to be people’s exhibits #151 and #152.

JK: So marked.

(EH:?) The reason, let me say this. We’ll give Mercedes works the time .... (snip) The reason there is redacted and unredacted.

EH: Mary is very angry with Mr. Werksman. She says very angry things made to him. He doesn’t want disparaging statement, that (states?) that.

(?) The redacted copy contains...... the hearsay contains out of court statements.

MW: Your honor 1202 states that, if the hearsay is not....

Werksman argues whether this evidence really falls into 1202, because now he can’t cross examine MM.

JK: She’s not coming up on the stand.

MW: If she remains unavailable because of the fifth then this is......

JK: I haven't seen the statement unredacted or redacted.

EH: At the time of the statement, she asserted AFTER they made that statement.

JK: You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You had your cake!

MW: I had my cake but now....

Werksman can’t cross examine the tape recording!

AJ: Let me supply you with both copies.

The redacted transcript (and the unredacted).

A woman came in not long after Pat Dixon did and sits beside him. Possibly his staff?

Fayed was taken back into custody while Judge Kennedy’s off the bench to read the transcripts. Pat Dixon, the woman and Jackson step out into the ante chamber with Harmon and the detective. Interesting development.

JK: Back on the record court has reviewed both redacted and unredacted. And Mr. Werksman?

MW: I already argued why I believe it’s (unarguable?) hearsay.... considering an allowing (statements?) through a tape and denying me the right to cross examine her. There is some language that needs to be further redacted. There’s a lot of self laudatory remarks. That the DA’s are patting themselves on the back in the conversation that... I don't’ this is appropriate before the jury. (They are specific statements of the witness and not the (specifying? speech?) the witness.

JK: I think that, some of that has to come out. Can we go through on the record and what is to come out? (To Lori? Sean?) Can you do me favor to tell jurors (who are in the hallway, waiting) we are working and that.

(?) Are we going to redact?

JK: I do think that under 1202 they are entitled to (present this).

(MW?:) So if she had testified to that, the DA’s would have ben able to cross examine her about a denial of that.
That is a statement that she contained within the statement here.

Werksman argues.

Werksman claims that the prosecution silenced Mary Mercedes by threatening her with prosecution, so now they (get to have these statements without cross by him).

MW: This is a double whammy. And what is (?), they already interview her when she asserted the fifth. Why don’t they have her here? They could have her here in 15 minutes.

JK: It’s the constitution. It’s the fifth amendment.

MW: The DA, no, they will not give her immunity. When all along they expected to have her into court on the last. day. And this is a problem

JK: Well, I think you've made your record. What I was thinking that, we will cut out, eight, nine; anything after line two...

MW: Are we at the phase now, is prevent the DA from specifying....

JK: I’m going to admit some of this under 1202. I’m not going to allow all of it.

AJ: Not to put too fine a point on it, he specifying... (Jackson laughs) I don’t like that word.

(?) Right now they’re saying, from page eight, line two almost all of page eight, all (of page) nine, all (of page) eleven. They are already saying get rid of that.

(?) You don’t have any objection excluding that at the onset?

JK: Last three pages are gone. Now talk about what remains. Page two, line four. Mary Mercedes gives some speechifying.

MW: This stuff is off point your honor. It’s irrelevant.

JK: Page three, line twelve. What she is thinking where this may start....?

AJ: Part of the, page three, line twelve. I don’t have problem redacting the first interactions between Mary Mercedes and myself. Where Mary Mercedes beings, “I don’t understand I just want to tell the truth. I don't’ like lawyers playing these games.” (snip) It’s absolutely inconsistent with Pat Taboga. And about Mary Mercedes...

JK: But that’s an opinion. And the fact that Mary Mercedes opinion of herself is different is not an inconsistent statement.

Jackson concedes to Judge Kennedy’s opinion.

(?) Line 25 on that page and through the whole following next page.

Counsel and the judge go back and forth about what they feel should be admissible. Judge outlines what she feels should be admissible. Counsel are both going over the transcript and determining what else they can get in (prosecution) or out (defense). This will be it for rebuttal.

There will not be any sur-rebuttal case. Pat Dixon gets up to leave.

Werksman makes an 1118 motion. (I believe this is a standard motion at the end of the trial to dismiss charges.)

MW: (?)...upon close of peoples case. That no rational triers of fact could make the charge of murder. There’’s no evidence of preliminary intent to.... insufficient evidence of conspiracy evidence. (snip) If there was one he withdrew from it. He did not lie in wait and he didn’t cause anyone to lie in wait. (snip) There was no establishment for financial gain. He wasn’t able to specify in any specificity that there would be any (financial hit) against Mr. Fayed.

JK: Who want’s to respond?

Harmon responds.

Harmon gives case law where the people are not required to show that he himself killed the person. He gives case law where people are not required to show that he himself laid in wait. Harmon explains the special circumstance under the financial gain issue, that it’s both their, the hier-er, and hire-ee. (That it can be either person who gains from the lying-in-wait.)

JK: Motion under 1118 denied.

Now substituting newer redacted versions.

JK: 150 and 151 not offered into evidence... 150, 151 redacted versions (put into evidence).

MW: Objecting to (people’s exhibits) 2,3, 5 and 7 through 13. Pam Fayed with daughters at different times of their lives. #1 Pam Fayed and two daughters. (With the?) others, object on grounds that they are irrelevant will prejudice defense. Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 7-10.

JK: Who will respond?

AJ: There is ample evidence in this trial of Pamela’s relationship with her children and there was evidence from the defendants own mouth that she was a terrible mother, etc. Even Mr. Werksman asked who was on the other side of the camera and that it was James Fayed.

Judge Kennedy rules the photos are allowed in.

MW: People’s #31 & 32. Set of meetings that were filed in divorce documents.

As more of this goes on, I make a decision to not listen to jury instructions.

Harmon responds for people.

EH: People’s #32 is official court record that establishes a timeline and refereed to by divorce lawyer regarding the timeline and pleadings . That were things that (were) filed by Mr. Fayed and Mr. Fayed’s hand. (He) accuses Pam of fraud and embezzlement. and a check which is evidence of her embezzlement. (snip) Admission of by a point of what he felt about Pam and why he wanted her dead.

EH: I think it shows the extent of the dispute and clearly shows the financial issues involved and a list of their assets that are subject to division. So I think it’s relevant on the issue of special circumstances of financial gain.

EH: Next People’s 36A transcript of phone call between Mary Mercedes and James Fayed. Court requires that the court cannot admit an audio without transcript.

EH: People’s #113 set of documents collection of documents, sequestered by Ms. Fayed. (snip) Jim’s last E-mails several (?) (and a) hand written letter from Pam to her children. Completely hearsay no foundation.

(?) Court take a look at this.

EH: The foundation laid by FBI agent who said he recovered (the) documents themselves. Those are E-mails from Jim Fayed to Pam or to other people. And also indicated James Fayed knew that his company was involved in money transfer. And that she took these and put them in safekeeping is that she knew he was involved in criminal activity. We will not seek to admit the letter to her family at this time.

MW: Red tab. I put those on the post it. First one is extremely prejudicial, that has no clear indication as to who sent it. (snip) It’s prejudicial it’s irrelevant it has no foundation it has no clear (?) who was wrote it.

(JK:?) Not sufficient foundation for people’s #113 . People’s 113 won’t be admitted.

MW: Reserve my objection to (the) last exhibits to last....

EH: There are E-mails that are E-mails in there that are written by his own hand.

JK: You would have needed someone that verified that it was an E-mail that it was his account; that it came from his account. (snip) Just because someone has an E-mail that has his name on it.

MW. And someone could also send an E-mail that came from a juror...

JK: That could happen too.

Harmon goes over the evidence, still trying to get these E-mails in.

EH: This one, has the name of the person from who it was sent, that also has the phone number of the phone. (snip) It’s text message that went to someone’s E-mails. I would like to show you only one or two that I believe are relevant, that are admissions and then if the court could reconsider on the rest.

Judge Kennedy states, “You should have had someone testify to E-mail addresses. It’s not coming in for this.
All the E-mails are not coming in found in the storage facility.”

JK: I’m sorry your person is back whom I previously identified as “minion” (I apologized).

(This is the people’s female clerk. Although I identified her as a clerk throughout the trial, I found out at the end of the trial that she is an attorney in her own right.)

JK: Coming back on the record to introduce the taped recording. (The) detective will introduce this evidence.

Harmon and Werksman both step out, asking for one minute. Greg Fisher leaves. It’s not in my notes but I believe by the next statement, the jury is brought back in at this point.

Judge Kennedy addresses her jury.

JK: Just waiting for counsel to come back in. Of course, they walk out as you walk in.

The jury laughs. The people now present their rebuttal case to the defense’s single witness.

#20. DETECTIVE SALAAM ABDUL

Jackson presents the witness.

AJ: Did you engage in a telephone conversation between you, me and Mary Mercedes on March of this year:

Det. SA: Yes.

AJ: We were all in different places on different phones?

(Det. SA:?) A Conference call.

AJ: Were you on during the entire conversation?

Det. SA: Yes.

AJ: We will play the entire audio.

Judge Kennedy reminds the jury about transcripts.

JK: It’s to aid you only.

Judge Kennedy coughs and receives a copy of the transcript.

The people play the tape. I can hear Jackson’s voice on tape.

“Well you’ll have to ask my attorney about that.”

“Yes, I’m aware of this letter about the allegations. If she believes this, (it’s) ridiculous. Three years ago, then why did she invite me to her house? Why did (her husband) help Jim help get the firearms sold?”

“Everything was registered and proper (selling firearms).”

“None of this makes any sense. I’m sorry.”

(?) “I’m guessing the point you were trying to get across to the detective.”

(?AJ:) Did you have anything to do (with Pamela Fayed’s death)?

“Absolutely not. No.”

(?AJ:) When was the first time you heard or learned of this allegations?

“Through my attorney, yeah.”

(?AJ:) Was that at least in part of the conversations in part where you were privy to that conversation?

“ Yes.”

AJ: Is that a true and accurate recording that you and I had with Ms. Mercedes?

Det. SA: Yes.

Jackson is now asking about a bit of conversations of the wiretaps.

AJ: Did you ever listen to conversations between Mary and her sister Patty Taboga? (snip) Conversations of.... five of them? (snip) Of the (?) calls, were the length of the calls
8 minutes
19 minutes
52 minutes?

Wiretap conversations between Ms. Mercedes and her sister Patty Taboga?

On 9/1 two hours and 12 minutes
On 9/3 twelve minutes
On 9/3 18 minutes
On 9/6 3 hrs. and 32 minutes

AJ: Did you listen to all (these conversations)? (snip) During all that time did you hear Patricia Taboga and Mary Mercedes discuss anything about (the prior hiring plot?)

Det. AS: No.

AJ: The people rest.

JK: No further evidence from defense?

MW: Defense rests.

JK: We have not concluded all the evidence in this case (We will) work with the attorneys. We have more work to do this afternoon and finalizing jury instructions. I though we would be at final argument today but it will be Monday. I know that you've been waiting a lot of time today.

I’ve tried to minimize that kind of thing. I don’t like it. It makes me cross and the attorneys don’t like it when I’m cross. I’m Sending you folks home to come back on Monday. (snip) Everything will be ready for you at that time. Then the attorney will make their final arguments and hopefully we will be able to give all of that to you on Monday.

Smiling, Judge Kennedy tells the jurors, “I want to remind you one more time, the admonition....”

The jury exits and the attorneys go over what evidence they are going to admit.

JK: Back to defense exhibit A.

(?) Redacted?

Defense B letter Patty wrote to Jim. Hearsay. It’s not coming in.

Defense C cover letter to Holly .

(People) Objection! Hearsay.

JK: Sustained. Not in.

MW: Could I receive a redacted version of defense A? A redacted version? I will return with a redacted version.

JK: I suggest we break for the day. I’ve made a few changes. I’ve added (instruction?) 250 and that everyone comes back at 1:30 pm and we will discuss jury instructions.

MW: May we come back at 2:30?

JK: Can we come back at 2? What I really want to do is go home and go to bed.

Werksman says sure.

JK: Recess until 2 pm.

They are battling over jury instructions already and I decide to take off.