Joshua Woodward's LA County Status is now SP4

Joshua Woodward, in custody after his arrest

UPDATE 2/17/16 5:30 AM
Yesterday, Woodward's custody was transferred over to the CDCR at 11:22 AM.

Woodward is now listed in the CDCR's system. He is at the North Kern facility.

UPDATE 2/16/16 5:20 AM
The LA County Sheriff's website is indicating that Woodward has been moved to the "Inmate Reception Center." It's a good bet that he will be picked up by the CDCR sometime today. I'll keep checking back to see when Woodward is on the move.

February 13, 2016
In November of last year, Joshua Woodward pled to one count of attempted murder of a fetus. He was sentenced to 9 years in prison on January 29, 2016.  He was immediately taken into custody and waiting transfer to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

I just checked the LA County Sheriff's inmate locator website page for Joshua Woodward. Woodward's disposition status is now SP4. This means that all his paperwork for transfer to the CDCR is complete. Woodward now waits for CDCR to come retrieve him. He could be transferred out any day now. As soon as I see Woodward had been transfered, I will update T&T readers.

LA County Sheriff's inmate locator website page for Woodward

Michael Gargiulo Case: Pretrial Hearing 34 & Joshua Woodward Sentencing

 Michael Gargiulo, in custody, date unknown

UPDATE - edited for readability The previous post on the Gargiulo case can be found HERE.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016
8:29AM
I'm on the 9th floor of the downtown Los Angeles criminal court building. I'm waiting for Dept. 108 to open.  There's hardly anyone here on the floor.

8:35 AM
Dale Rubin is here along with his investigator Chris Nicely. They are down the hallway a ways off my left.

8:45 AM
DDA's Garret Dameron and Daniel Akemon arrive. They check the door but its' not open yet.

8:54 AM
Still waiting for the courtroom to open.  A minute later, the bailiff comes out and unlocks the front door. Everyone heads inside.

Inside Dept. 108
Judge Ohta is on the bench, no robe. He has a white shirt on today. I note that the red vines container on the clerk's counter is virtually empty. There's a new bailiff at the sheriff's desk.

Chris Nicely and I chat about the good parking lots north of the 101 freeway on Spring Street that have closed. There used to be a $10.00 lot on Spring Street right across from El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument. You could pay with a credit card and it was about a 2 block walk to the courthouse. Now that lot is closed and the land will be developed. I'm hoping I can find a new lot within three blocks where I won't have to walk up hill.

9:03 AM
Gargiulo is brought out. He looks much the same as before, completely bald and muscular. If you only had his in custody photos to go by, you would not recognize him.

The court goes on the record and the parties state their appearances. The case is zero of 90 today.

Defense attorney Rubin addresses the court. "The proposition required by [a] capital case contract has been filed [with Dept. 123]." Mr. Rubin went to see [the clerk] in Dept. 123 for a time frame. Apparently the message at this time was for Judge Ohta to call Judge Gordon. Mr. Rubin recommends the court put the matter over for another 30 days. Mr. Rubin adds, "At this time there is not funding. ... There's nothing I can assign [my investigator]..."

I believe the court asks Mr. Rubin if the prior contract under which the second chair opperated is no longer valid.

Mr. Rubin tells the court that the contract with Mr. Lindner has been frozen. Ancillary services [under that contract] have not been paid. He needs to be appointed as lead counsel and funding ordered and those funds put in a trust account.

Judge Ohta clarifes for the record that he's not involved in the funding of the case, and that the pre-existing contract with Mr. Lindner is frozen.  Mr. Rubin is interim counsel but he has no funding.

Mr. Rubin adds that the lead counsel was removed and he was working under that contract. Mr. Rubin can't do anything without funding.  Judge Ohta asks Mr. Rubin, in his past experience, when appointed on a capitol case, how long before he would get funded. Mr. Rubin replies, that in the past, about 30 days. But most other cases are not like this case.

The court makes a joke that I partially miss. I believe the court states, "Sounds like psychological counseling."

Mr. Rubin states that we need to check back in 30 days. The court adds, "Looks like your hands are tied Mr. Akemon."

DDA Akemon tells the court that he's happy to talk to Judge Gordon [about the complexities of the case] if need be.

A date to return is passed around and February 29 will be the next date, and the case will be set at zero of 90 on that date.

Mr. Rubin brings up one other issue. Apparently Mr. Gargiulo is having some medical issues in Men's Central Jail. Judge Ohta comments that he knows. "Glasses, water..." Mr. Rubin continues, "He [Gargiulo] has seen a doctor that has ordered things for him [medications, etc.?], but the other doctor says he doesn't need them." Mr. Rubin asks Judge Ohta to order that he gets those items, to get the prescriptions.

Judge Ohta replies, "I can't order that." Judge Ohta can't order a doctor to give a patient medication. Judge Ohta will sign an order for Gargiulo to see a doctor.  Gargiulo speaks up and asks for an ENT [ears, nose, throat] doctor.

DDA Akemon tells the court that today, they turned over more discovery to the defense. Pages numbered 30,881 to 30,903.

And that's it. As everyone is packing up, I hear Mr. Rubin say to Gargiulo, "As soon as I hear, I'll come see you."

Next court hearing in this case is February 29.

The next hearing on this case can be found HERE.

Note From Sprocket
I wanted to update my readers on how I was doing from my fall last Saturday evening.

It was a very painful day for me to attend this hearing on Wednesday. There were a few moments where it was painful to breathe.

Oh Thursday I went to see my doctor. I did feel quite a bit better that day. My doctor believes I tore my intercostal muscles, right where the cartilage attaches to the sternum. It feels like the fall affected my third to fifth ribs on my left side. I could have even cracked a rib, but it's not really worth it to find out, because the treatment is the same: heat therapy and rest. It will probably take 4 to 6 weeks for a complete recovery. 

I decided to take it easy and not attend the Joshua Woodward sentencing in Dept. 103 Friday morning.

The previous post on the Woodward case can be found HERE.

Friday, January 29, 2016 - Joshua Woodward
From the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office:

A former national restaurateur was sentenced today to nine years in state prison for trying to induce a miscarriage of his ex-girlfriend's fetus more than six years ago, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced.

On Nov. 13, defendant Joshua Woodward, 43, pleaded no contest to a felony count of attempted murder in case BA403598. At today's court appearance, Woodward was immediately remanded into custody following the sentencing by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Curtis Rappe.

Deputy District Attorneys Habib Balian of the Major Crimes Division and Marguerite Rizzo, Deputy-in-Charge of the Forensic Science Section, prosecuted the case.

Prosecutors said Woodward was a Florida resident who once co-owned the former Table 8 restaurants in Los Angeles and South Beach.

On Oct. 18, 2009, the defendant tried to induce a miscarriage on his ex-girlfriend 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. 

The case was investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department.

 New York Daily News reports that Gail Greaves gave an impassioned victim impact statement.
From the NYDN story:

She detailed how Woodward selfishly robbed her of a rare chance to be a mom at age 39 when he secretly dosed her with the early-term abortion drug misoprostol shortly before she miscarried in October 2009.

"Do you not understand that you are a textbook psychopath?" Greaves said at the sentencing in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

“Do you really not understand what you've done to me, yourself, your family? You took my choice away.”

"I get to see you sitting there right now with no remorse. You are a sick, sick individual, and you are disgusting," she added. "You don't care who you hurt as long as you get what you want."

T&T will track when Woodward is transferred into the custody of California's Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation.

CBS Los Angeles - Ex-girlfriend Confronts Restauranteur
ABC7.com - Restaurateur Sentenced to 9 Years

WOODWARD UPDATE 1:26 PM

Screenshot of the LA County Sheriff's website

Inmate Locator Page for Joshua Woodward

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.

Help Choose T&T's Next Case

Rear entrance of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center,

Before Grand Park was built behind it.

Tuesday June 2, 2015
Now that the Cameron Brown 3rd trial is over I have an idea for the next case I might cover but I'd like to hear from T&T readers.  Granted, Brown still needs to be sentenced but once that takes place the only case I'm currently following is Michael Gargiulo.

Michael Gargiulo
I don't foresee Gargiulo going to trial this year, but I could be surprised. Right now the case is juggling a Marsden hearing that Gargiulo raised. Once that's completed I'll write about it. On the calendar track for the trial, the next court date is June 12. I believe the people are scheduled to respond to the defense 995 motion.

Next Case
I have some personal commitments to Mr. Sprocket's business over the next two months but after that I should be free to cover a trial or a preliminary hearing. There are quite a few interesting cases out there that I've listed in the poll.  The ideal case is downtown, since I can take the train. However, I can cover a case at the Van Nuys courthouse, the San Fernando Courthouse or the Airport Courthouse. Those are all relatively convenient for me, with so-so travel issues. Please understand that T&T doesn't have a budget or sponsor, other than reader donations. Consequently, I can't travel out of state or to another California county to attend a trial.

T&T NEXT CASE POLL


____

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.

Michael Gargiulo Case: Pretrial Hearing 24

 Michael Thomas Gargiulo, in custody, date unknown

UPDATE 11/10 2:30 PM spelling, clarity
UPDATED 11/10/14 11:45 AM November 7, 2014

November 7, 2014
Michael Gargiulo relinquishes his pro per status and standby counsel Charles Lindner has been reinstated as attorney of record.

Next pretrial hearing is January 9th, 2015.

I'll have an update on the proceedings later tonight.

UPDATE 11/10/14 
November 7, 2014
There are three cases I'm following that have hearings this morning. Gargiulo, Brown and Woodward. I decide to cover Gargiulo since Brown's hearing is just a status conference and I haven't been to any Woodward hearings since the prelim.

I get to my regular parking lot around 8:10 AM.  I keep the car running for another five minutes to charge up my cell phone.  While I’m sitting there, Cameron Brown’s defense attorney, Aron Laub, parks his vehicle beside mine. After he exits his car, he paces a bit in the parking lot while on a phone call. When he does see me, he smiles and waves.  He then takes off for the courthouse will his rolling cart.  I leave a few minutes later.

I finally catch up to him at the corner of Temple and Broadway. Since I decided I’m going to cover Gargiulo today, I told him that I would miss his hearing. Laub tells me that an associate will be standing in for him since he is in trial in Dept. 102. I tell him that I’m also stopping by 102 first, to drop off a bakery gift for Judge Marcus and his staff.



The Ninth Floor
Up on the ninth floor, I see defense investigator Chris Nicely, already here in his usual spot. I stop to say hello and look around the floor to see who else is here. Cameron Brown’s wife Patty is here. I tell her I saw Mr. Laub earlier and what he communicated to me about his schedule. Laub also said that nothing would happen today in her husband's case, except setting a return date.

In the center of the hallway, I see Janet Levine (and I believe Kelly T. Currie) the lead defense attorney’s for Joshua Woodward. Not long afterwards, DDA’s Habib Balian and Marguerite Rizzo who are prosecuting the case, are deep in conversation with them.

I walk down to the other end of the hallway and wait outside Dept. 102 until the bailiff opens the door. I hand my box to the bailiff and head back to the other end of the hall. Walking back, I see defendant Joshua Woodward sitting on a bench in-between two suited gentlemen, obviously attorneys.  I try to catch his eye but he’s totally engrossed in his cell phone.  I pass DDA Balian and DDA Rizzo again. I really wanted to stop and congratulate Ms. Rizzo on another fantastic Forensic Science Conference back on September 11, but she and Balian were still engaged with Woodward's counsel.

At Dept. 108, DDA's Daniel Akemon and Garrett Dameron arrive. They greet me and Nicely.  Just as we are entering the courtroom, DDA Craig Hum is beside the door to Dept. 107. He asks me if I've seen Mr. Laub.  I tell him he's in trial in Dept. 102.  Hum replies, "He's not there." Unfortunately, I don't have any additional information on Mr. Laub's whereabouts.

As far as attending Brown's hearing, the DA's calendar indicated that Dept. 107 would have a sentencing hearing, but I don't know if that would happen before or after Brown's hearing. I'm hoping that the sentencing would be first, Brown would be second and then I could attend the Brown hearing.  (The next hearing in the Cameron Brown case is November 24, 2014. Sprocket)

Inside Dept. 108
As I entered Dept. 108 behind DDA’s Akemon and Dameron, Judge Ohta slips by us and enters the well.  Judge Ohta looks sharp in a crisp white shirt and blue bow tie.


Defense attorney Charles Lindner is wheeled in by his son, (Abe?).  In the gallery, Lindner and Nicely chat for a moment.  I’m not sure if I hear correctly or who is being referenced, but I believe it’s Lindner who says, “They moved him in with four people.” 

Judge Ohta is at the bench. Lindner and Judge Ohta are have an engaging chat about “model citizens” and what that might be.

Judge Ohta directs his deputy to bring Gargiulo out. There is a bit of a wait while a Sargent Deputy arrives.

Lindner introduces his son to Judge Ohta. Lindner tells the court that his son [has], “...worked for me for eight years ... worked on several murder cases...” Lindner shares with the court where his son went to school and where he is thinking about attending law school. I believe Judge Ohta responds, “If you can get into Irvine, that would be great. ... That’s a good school.”  The discussion then moves onto what I often hear judges talk about with counsel in the well, recent appellate court rulings. Judge Ohta brings up the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals  decision on gay marriage, and discusses the merits of the majority decision.

Two casually dressed young men enter Dept. 108 and sit in the third bench row. I don’t know if they are reporters, or interested parties to Judge Ohta’s current case, that may have already gone to the jury.  Judge Ohta and Lindner now discuss rulings by the Supreme Court. Another prosecutor enters the well and begins chatting with DDA's Akemon and Dameron.  A Latino family of four enters and sits in the back row.

Gargiulo Hearing
Gargiulo is brought out. He sits in the end chair at the defense table. He is still completely clean shaven and bald. Lindner greets his client by asking, “How are you this morning?”  Lindner and his son Abe switch positions so that Lindner can speak directly to Gargiulo.  Investigator Nicely moves up from the gallery to sit a chair along the low wall of the well.  More people arrive and sit in the gallery.

Gargiulo speaks to the bailiff. He hands him some papers that appear to be hand written. The bailiff hands them to the clerk.

Judge Ohta calls the Gargiulo case and indicates the parties present for the record. He adds, “Also Mr. Lindner, standby counsel.”


Gargiulo tells the court, “I just filed a motion ... relinquishing my pro per status ..." The court reads Gargiulo’s motion. It appears to be the lined pages of paper Gargiulo handed to the bailiff earlier.  After reviewing what Gargiulo filed, the court responds, “Before I [discuss?] ruling on this request ... Are you making your [request?] ... contingent on your being able to keep your books and discovery? ... And for [defense? defendant?] to be able to keep discovery and legal books?”

The court asks again if relinquishing his pro per status is contingent upon those other requests.  Gargiulo responds, “No, it’s not. ... I’m relinquishing my status.  But it’s an updated ....” I miss getting the rest of Gargiulo’s explanation.

Judge Ohta responds, “But let's separate these two things. ... You’ve been pro per, and you understand what it is to be pro per. ... you made ..." I believe Gargiulo interrupts the court and states that at the time he chose the pro per route, it wasn’t made clear to him that he could lose privileges.  He goes on to state that, “Because the court has hampered my ability to represent myself. ... The Sheriff’s violated [my rights]....”

Gargiulo mentions a few other things that he feels have been a violation of his rights.  Judge Ohta interrupts him and states, “We’re not going to get into that [again?]. ... I’ve gone over it several times.”



Lindner asks the court if he may speak to Gargiulo.  It’s my interpretation that Lindner explains to Gargiulo in simple terms what his choices are. 

The court continues, “If you feel, Mr. Gargiulo that there’s some [?] ... a violation has occurred that’s impeded your right to self represent in this case ... [it] makes sense to me for you to file a motion. ... I’m not going to sit back and let you just accuse me [the court]...”  Judge Ohta tells him to communicate with the Sheriff’s and file a motion.

Gargiulo replies, “I’ve tried that a few times and there’s no going back and forth. ... I’m fighting for my life. ... I have no access [to legal research/law library]....”

Judge Ohta responds, “If that’s true .... you filed this motion [at the last court hearing]...” Judge Ohta is referencing the 60+ page typed document Gargiulo filed.

Gargiulo replies, “That was written six months ago.”  Judge Ohta has an interesting look on his face and tone in his voice when he asks, “So you held back for six months and delayed this for six months?”  Gargiulo quickly replies, “But that’s because I was working on my 995 motion.”



(I may be wrong, but I thought at the last hearing Gargiulo said he was working on the motion he filed 11/7, and then he told the court he was going to work on the 995 motion. Sprocket.)

Lindner speaks to the prior issues of the court ruling regarding the pro per status and prior Faretta motion.

Judge Ohta, explains again to Gargiulo that, “It’s in your realm of domain as a pro per to litigate that.  If you think [there's been a violation of your rights]...” Gargiulo insists that he has no access to do something, to do the research to file that type of motion. Judge Ohta replies, “You acknowledge you have the right to put forward a complaint ... but you are putting that aside?”

Judge Ohta states for the record that Gargiulo would like to relinquish his pro per status. Gargiulo’s request is granted. Lindner is reassigned as Gargiulo’s attorney.

Lindner addresses the court and talks about discovery since he was removed from the case. “Apparently the amount of discovery ... is five-fold ... since [I was] relieved two and a half years ago.  ... 30,000 pages. ... It’s going to take me time to re-prepare.”

The court asks the prosecution if they have been updating Mr. Lindner as to discovery. DDA Akemon responds, “I have your honor. A hard drive of 29,000+ pages, ... except for about 20 to 30 pages.”

 Lindner tells the court, “I was told by the DA, ...[I] needed to purchase a two-terabyte hard drive.”

Counsel and the court then discuss what a terabyte is, since DDA Akemon adds, “Not sure what a terabyte is.” Someone adds that a terabyte is one-thousand gigabytes.

There is then a discussion as to whether it makes sense to come back in December or to come back next year.   Lindner’s phone goes off and he apologizes to the court.

The second week of January 2015, specifically January 9th is selected.  Gargiulo, Lindner and the prosecution team agree to the date.  The court informs Lindner that the case is working under a general time waiver. But that can be changed if so needed. 

Lindner tells the court that at a prior court hearing, Gargiulo got his foot caught in an elevator and needs to see a podiatrist.

The next issue that’s discussed is whether or not Gargiulo will for the time being, be able to keep his court materials.  Lindner is asking for a court minute order for Gargiulo, at least until January 9, be able to keep his trial documents. While Lindner gets up to speed on the case, it would make things easier if Gargiulo had access to his court documents.  The court replies, “I don’t see a need to take it away from him [at this point].” Judge Ohta asks the prosecution, “If you see a need that he not have it...”

 DDA Akemon and Lindner confer.  Nicely gets up to speak to Gargiulo. Afterwards, Lindner speaks to the court about the DA, but he mistakenly calls DDA Akemon, John Lewin. Someone jokingly says something about DDA Akemon and DDA Lewin looking alike, and it being a slip of the tongue. (They don’t look anything like to me. Sprocket.)  Judge Ohta responds, “We all have slips of the tongue.”

It's either Lindner or Gargiulo who states that Gargiulo currently has access to 14 boxes of books and papers. There’s more discussion as to whether or not Gargiulo, since he relinquished his pro per status, has a right to keep his papers until January 9. I believe the prosecution states they don’t believe he’s entitled to them.

 The issue isn’t really whether the DA agrees, it’s what the Sheriff’s will do, to ensure the safety of the jail. The Sheriff could just take his documents and books away from him. Lindner tells the court that, “I’d like to start over with Mr. Gargiulo.” 

DDA Akemon tells the court that he believes there are two issues. “Mr. Gargiulo is in possession of attorney work product. ... there needs to be [?] ... a need to protect that.” The court replies, “I can’t control [this] issue in the jail....”

Judge Ohta replies, “You can ask me to issue a temporary order.”  Judge Ohta asks his clerk to do that by “minute order.” The parties discuss how the minute order will be worded. Lindner asks that it state that all papers be preserved until January 9.

Gargiulo addresses the court. He mentions that the documents could be put on a hard drive that’s just plugged in, and then he would be able to access them. I’m not sure exactly what he’s talking about.  Judge Ohta rules, “For now, ... issue an [interim] order [that] your documents not be disturbed until January 9.”

And that’s it. Nothing on the case until next year.

When I exit Dept. 102, I peek into Dept. 107 to see if the sentencing hearing was still on. The courtroom is empty so I missed the sentencing and Brown's pretrial hearing.  I then stop by and peek into Dept. 103, where Woodward's pretrial hearing was held, and that courtroom is empty, too. 

I checked with the Superior Court's Public Information Office. Woodward's next court date is January 30, 2015.

Michael Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 15, Ka Pasasouk & Joshua Woodward Update

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, date unknown

February 21, 2014
8:04 AM
I’m on the 9th floor of the downtown Criminal Justice Center. The hallway at this end has a scattering of people.  There are more people down at the other end of the hall including media. I think I see the famous AP reporter as well as Miriam Hernandez from local ABC 7. I also see Terri Keith from City News. Terri is the most talented reporter covering the criminal courts. She often juggles 40 cases at a time.

I see the media head into Dept. 109 so I’m betting it’s for the Bell corruption fiasco that’s still ongoing.

There is also a Woodward hearing in Dept. 100 on the 13th floor that I will miss. I will try to find out when the next hearing date is and where the case gets assigned.


Shortly after I arrived Chris Nicely, one of Gargiulo’s private investigators (Nicely will handle the death penalty phase) arrives. I note that Nicely is left handed, like myself.

There are several people here from the general public that have children with them. There are also several attorneys. It’s not too difficult to tell who is a DDA and who is a defense attorney. There’s also the regular bunch of court appointed defense attorneys that I usually see in Dept. 30, arraignment court.

I see Judge Lomeli, (Dept. 107) out of his robes and wearing a short sleeve navy shirt, unlocking his front door. A few attorneys try several of the doors on this end of the hallway but Dept.’s 108 and 106 still remain locked.

8:31 AM
DDA Akemon is usually here by now, and I’m wondering if he has a hearing in another courtroom.  I see Mark Werksman, who defended James Fayed on murder for hire charges. It looks like he has a hearing in Dept. 108 this morning.  He’s currently chatting with a few other attorneys.

A quick glance at the entrance to the security station, and I see DDA Habib Balian who is prosecuting Woodward. I’m wondering if the Woodward case got transferred already. It looks like he went into Dept. 103 with another attorney I don’t recognize.

Dept 108 opens and I debate going inside or stay watching the activity in the hallway.  I decide to go inside.

Inside Dept. 108
There are a few people already inside.  There is another case that will also be heard today, and it will probably go first. I hear Mr. Werksman, who is over at the clerk's desk, state that they are here for the Yang/Kim matter.  When Werksman see me, he smiles, but I get the sense that he doesn't remember who I am.

A few moments later DDA Daniel Akemon, DDA Garrett Dameron and LA Co. Sheriff's Detective Mark Lillienfeld (pronounced Lilly-field) enter.  I get a quick greeting smile from everyone. Dameron leaves the courtroom a moment later.

Akemon goes over to the clerk's desk to check in. Afterwards, he places a short stack of papers at the defense table. Werksman and Detective Lillienfeld enter into a lively conversation in the well.

Ka Pasasouk
I ask DDA Akemon about the Ka Pasasouk case. There was a pretrial hearing in that case yesterday in the San Fernando courthouse. He tells me that the case was transferred downtown to Judge Larry Fidler's courtroom.  I have no idea why the case was transferred. The next hearing is February 28 and will most likely be short.

Akemon and Nicely are having a quick chat. I catch a few words of their conversation and it appears they might be talking about whether or not Gargiulo received the DA's latest motion filings.

DDA Garrett reenters.

8:50 AM 
Judge Ohta's pretty court reporter sets up. Chris Nicely has moved from the last row of the gallery to the well of the court. I note that Judge Ohta's hair looks a little fuller today. Maybe it's just tossed up a bit higher.

8:53 AM
Judge Ohta enters the courtroom, putting on his robe as he approaches the bench. He addresses counsel in the well. "Counsel on Yang & Kim, approach please."

After a discussion at the bench the court goes on the record to set the case over to April 11th. Ms. Kim's court approved Korean interpreter is also ordered back on that date.

9:00 AM
Gargiulo is brought out. He still has the gray and black goatee. His hair looks like it's been recently trimmed. He's not wearing his glasses. To me, he doesn't look anything like the booking photo at the top of the page. He's lost his color from being incarcerated for so long, and he appears like he's lost weight.

Judge Ohta asks the defendant if he's ready, or if he wants some time to talk to his investigator.  As Gargiulo and Nicely chat, Gargiulo puts on his glasses.

Judge Ohta goes on the record and documents the appearances. "The last time we talked about SDT's issued for police records." Judge Ohta mentions the filing motions he has in front of him, most likely from the DDA. There are four motions filed, three responses and a motion to compel. Judge Ohta tells the parties he needs to read through them. He asks Gargiulo if he has received them and if he needs to read through them.  The court also indicates that there are four envelopes here (subpoenaed documents). "I don't know what they are. ... I think we should come back ..."

I believe Gargiulo is asked what he wants to do. Gargiulo replies, "My understanding ... that I didnt' want the prosecution (interfering?) in (my defense?) ... I think I'm being (?) ... I'm asking the SDT's to be held ex parte ... "

Judge Ohta tells the defendant, "They (DA) say they have standing to quash."  Gargiulo replies something to the effect that what he is requesting is the Sheriff's Dept. medical disbursement procedures, that they have no objection and that they handed over the SDT.  The court replies, "So respond to it and give me authority that they are prohibited from (participating?) from this process." Judge Ohta is basically telling Gargiulo that he needs to give him case or code law to support his position that the DA has no standing to quash the SDT's he's sent ut.

Judge Ohta also tells Gargiulo that just because he's issued an STD, that doesn't mean the party being served can't appear.  Gargiulo tells the court that his understanding is that party he's serving would be the one's challenging his subpoena.  The court tells Gargiulo that the DA believes they have standing to challenge.

The next court date is March 7th, and Gargiuo is asked if that will be sufficient time for him to write a response. Gargiulo responds, "That should be okay."  Gargiulo then adds, "The last time [he was here] I withdrew the subpoenas. ... I went under informal request. ... It's a protocol to determine who is authorized to disburse medication."

Gargiulo at some point, believes that the DA is trying to get inside his defense, his work product by trying to quash these SDT's. 

Judge Ohta replies. "I have no idea what you are talking about. ... I understand the procedure. I just don't understand the content."

It appears Gargiulo is looking for policies and procedures for "who" at the LA County Sheriff's is authorized to disburse medication to detainees at the jail. Gargiulo then goes into this long ramble about how he was told by a deputy that he was ordered to take a medication.  "Now the prosecution says I'm not allowed to have that, quoting 105.4.1. ..."

Judge Ohta responds, "You speak specifics and then you go global on me and I'm trying to follow you."

At the last hearing, Gargiulo withdrew some SDT's he issued, requesting the protocol and procedures of disbursing medication. He was supposed to request this information informally of the DA. On February 9, 2014, hi filed (an SDT?) for LA County Sheriff's protocol for disbursing medication at the Men's Central Jail for June and July 2008.   Gargiulo points out that there was a typo in the DA's response (they quoted criminal procedure 104.5.1 and it should be 105.4.1) saying this information is not discoverable. Gargiulo states something about this material being exculpatory.

Judge Ohta interrupts Gargiulo and tells him to stop. The court says something to the effect of kudos to Gargiulo for finding that error in the DA's motion. He then explains the standard procedures these requests need to go through.  It depends on each and every item, the specific item, what steps will be followed. "The item dictates what happens, " Judge Ohta explains.  Gargiulo is allowed certain information under an umbrella. That's the discovery process.  There is other information that he can obtain, that's outside the umbrella. "Not everything you ask for are you entitled to." The court explains that the opposing party can contest the other side gets this information. "The prosecution says they have standing to quash. ... It must be resolved individually. ... Are you with me so far?" Gargiulo responds, "Yes, yes."

Judge Ohta continues, "I haven't read this motion to file and motion to quash. " DDA Akemon explains that the motions he filed today are related to the SDT's that were discussed at the last hearing. Akemon believes they target law enforcement.

Gargiulo asks if he can make a suggestion, if it's convenient for both parties.  Juge Ohta tells Gargiulo, "How you want to hand this is completely up to you. ... If you want to let the DA know what it is (the SDT's) that's completely up to you.  ... We all don't know what's in there."

DDA Akemon adds, "One of the remedies that I suggested, it seems it would be appropriate for the court to look at the documents to see if it's discoverable." Akemon adds that, "I'm not in a position to argue on the SDT's ... I don't know what' in the envelopes." Akemon's position is, "... we can't litigate in the dark. ... People's rights may need to be protected."

Judge Ohta tells Gargiulo, "I'm going to hand you the envelopes. You are not to open them. This is to determine if these are the matters that you issued SD'Ts for."

While Gargiulo is looking over the envelopes with his investigator, a man with a badge on his belt comes in to speak to Detective Lillienfeld. I see Lillienfeld hand the officer his parking stub. The deputy quickly leaves.

Judge Ohta addresses the parties, "What's that code for in camera procedures regarding SDT's? Is it 1326c?"  After Gargiulo looks through the envelopes, the court asks, 'Are all these documents here, documents you issued an SDT for?"  Gargoulo states that there is one envelope with the name of his other investigator, Christian Filipiak. He's not sure what that one is, because all the SDT's he issued under investigatory Nicely.

Judge Ohta asks the prosecution if they would like to look over the envelopes. The two prosecutors and their detective look over the envelopes. DDA Akemon tells the court that all the envelopes appear to be SDT's issued by Gargiulo, with the exception of the UCLA Medical Center envelope. He believes that envelope is his subpoena.

Gargiulo thinks that might be his medical records.

Akemon tells the court, "I believe those are records for a victim. ... This is a prosecution subpoena. ... One of the victims was treated at UCLA."  Judge Ohta explains to Gargiulo that this is the prosecution's subpoena.  The court asks Gargiulo if the prosecution can open the envelope, copy the information, give the defense a copy and return the original documents to the court."  I believe Gargiulo agrees.

Judge Ohta continues, "That leaves seven big envelopes. I think some of these contain smaller envelopes."   I believe Gargiulo asks, "If there's no objection the the DA's behalf, ... okay if the court opens [his] the subpoena's and identifies each of the items."

Judge Ohta tells Gargiulo, "Doing that bypasses the motion to quash. ... but if some one's quashing, I need to deal with that." There is a bit more explanation about the quashing process.

DDA Akemon states he's going to object to the court opening the subpoenaed documents without first knowing who what subpoenaed. Judge Ohta tells the parties he is not going to open them at this time.  The next step then, is Gargiulo needs to respond the the motion to quash the subpoenas. Gargiulo is asked again if the next scheduled hearing date, March 7, is enough time to respond to the prosecution's motion.  Gargiulo agrees that this is enough time.

DDA Akemon then tells the court that there is one last housekeeping matter. The DA's office has turned over discovery pages 28,697 through 28,775 of the murder book to the defense.  The court asks if Gargiulo received the documents. He did. The court signs the receipt as does Gargiulo. And that's it for today's hearing.

Here is my understanding of what's going on with the case at this point.

Basically, just because Gargiulo issued a subpoena for documents doesn't mean he has the right to see the material he's requesting. What if Gargiulo issued a subpoena for my phone records and the carrier  turned them over? Does Gargiulo have a right to that material?  How relevant would it be?  The prosecution's position is, they will question any subpoena Gargiulo issues, when they don't know 'who' he is issuing a subpoena for.

Joshua Woodward
After the hearing, I head to Dept. 100 on the 13th floor to see if I can find out where the Woodward case was sent. A sheriff's deputy kindly told me that Woodward was transferred to Dept. 103, Judge Curits Rappe. I've never been in his court before. The next hearing date is March 21.

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.

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, 
evil ways to terminate a pregnancy, 
misoprostol insertion,
safest way to knocksomeone out,
chloroform

8:00 AM
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.

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."

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.