Michael Gargiulo Case: 11 Years From Arrest to Opening Statements

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, June 6, 2008

May 6, 2019
Eleven Years From Arrest to Opening Statements
One of the questions I often receive about the Michael Gargiulo case is, Why did this case take so long to get to trial?

Murder trials in LA County can take years to bring to trial. Defendants out on bail usually take longer to bring to trial than in-custody defendants. Multiple murder cases will take even longer. There is more evidence to present and more witnesses to interview.

However, even the Grim Sleeper case (charged with the murder of 11 victims) took less time to get from arrest to opening statements (5 years, 7 months) than the Gargiulo case (10 years, 11 months).

Cameron Brown was in custody over ten years but that was for three trials (two hung juries and a third trial ending in conviction). Gargiulo’s case is unusual in that he has been in custody almost 11 years until opening statements on May 2, 2019.



The answer to the question is complicated. It’s not a single issue. By my count, it was a series of eight separate events involving two different defense counsel, the defendant, the court and the prosecution team at different times over the past 11 years.



Arrest & Charges

In California, Michael Thomas Gargiulo was arrested on June 6, 2008. He was charged with burglary and the attempted murder of Michelle Murphy on April 28, 2008. The District Attorney’s office filed case number SA0068002 in the Airport courthouse. Deputy DA is Joseph A. Markus. Defendant was represented by private counsel. Defendant pleads not guilty. 


September 4, 2009
On September 4 Gargiulo was charged with four additional counts. Gargiulo pled not guilty to the following additional counts: Burglary and the murder of Ashley Ellen on February 21, 2001. Burglary and the murder of Maria Bruno on December 1, 2008.

Gargiulo requested representation by the court. However, for the next few months the clerk’s minute notes indicate he was represented from this date forward by a different private attorney. 



January 23 - February 24, 2009
1/23/09: Gargiulo’s lawyer made a request to the court that he be removed from the case. That request was granted and Gargiulo was appointed counsel from the Public Defender’s office. Gargiulo puts on the record that he would like to have a state appointed lawyer.
2/24/09: The Public Defender’s office and the Alternate Public Defender’s office declare conflicts in this matter and the office of the bar panel is appointed.



March 27 - December 11, 2009
Charles Lindner is appointed Gargiulo’s new counsel pending resolution of fees. 


5/15/09: Lindner informs the court that Department 123 has authorized his appointment of the case. 

7/17/09: Deputy DA Marna F. Miller has the case now. DDA Miller will present the case at the preliminary hearing almost a year later.


9/30/09: The prosecution presents to the court that the preliminary hearing will take two to three weeks and the defense states it will take a month. Based on the time estimates, the case is transferred to Dept 100, Master Calendar Court in downtown Los Angeles for transfer to a longer cause courtroom. There are no objections from counsel.



10/2/09 Dept. 100: Master Calendar Court transfers the case to Dept. 108, Judge Michael Johnson, on the 9th floor of the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center. The 9th floor is where long cause trials or complex cases are usually handled.

11/12/09: The complaint is amended. The actual change is not reflected in the clerk’s minute notes.


12/11/09: Clerk’s minute notes indicate the death penalty is pending. Second defense counsel, Dale Rubin is present in court.



January 5, 2010
A firm date of June 21, 2010 is set for the preliminary hearing. Over the next few months, subpoenas for documents come into the court are copied and disbursed. Discovery is completed. 



June 21, 2010
The preliminary hearing starts. The preliminary hearing takes eight days and is held on June 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30. On June 30, the court rules on the preliminary hearing. The people file an amended complaint to add a seventh charge. This charge is attempted escape during the Perkin’s Operation held in the El Monte Jail on June 17-18, 2008. The motion is granted. The court orders the defendant held to answer on all seven charges. Felony arraignment plea is scheduled for July 14, 2010. On that date Gargiulo is charged with seven counts. He pleads not guilty to all charges.



Note: Up to this point, things appear pretty standard in Los Angeles County Superior court for a defendant with a multiple murder charge and the death penalty pending.

November 10, 2010
The people state in open court their intention to seek the death penalty.

Delay #1

This is the first event that will extend the time it takes for the case to get to opening statements. 



11/10/10: The people file their statement of aggravating factors by the next court appearance. Defense requests additional time to prepare their 995, motion to dismiss and that is granted. December 6 is set as the date for the parties to meet with Judge Sam Ohta the new judge who will preside over Dept. 108 and the case. On December 6, new dates are set for the filing of the 995 motion, people’s response and the defense reply.



January 19, 2011 -  July 5, 2011
1/19/11: Deputy DA David B. Walgren is added as people’s counsel. 

2/25/11: The court holds an in camera review of discovery documents. Court reporter’s notes are ordered sealed.



Note: There are several status checks over the next  few months where the defendant does not appear. These appear to be counsel declarations and records rechecks of the preliminary hearing record in a death penalty case.

7/5/11: The court certifies the preliminary hearing record is complete and accurate.

7/7/11: In Illinois, the Cook County State’s Attorney General charges Gargiulo with the 1993 first degree murder of Tricia Pacaccio.

Note: Once California is finished with Gargiulo, Illinois will take custody of Gargiulo.


August 16, 2011 - December 7, 2011
A few pretrial hearings where the case is continued. It appears Deputy DA Eric Harmon replaces Deputy DA Miller. The defense lodges their 995 motion with the court on December 7. The motion is 132 pages long.

January 2012 - May 14, 2012

2/15/12: Deputy DA Daniel Akemon appears for the people, replacing Deputy DA Walgren. DDA Akemon will be the lead prosecutor who eventually tries the case.
3/6/12: Order to LA County Sheriff to provide a booth for a psychiatrist Samuel I. Miles, M.D., in the attorney room to interview, examine and psychologically test defendant Michael Gargiulo is signed by the court.

Note: It is unknown if there is a specific event that triggers the need for a psychological evaluation.

4/25/12: Defendant’s oral Marsden motion and possible Pro Per motion are continued to 5/14.


5/14/12: Defendant is present and not represented by counsel. Defendant appears Pro Per. Out of the presence of the people, the defendant’s Marsden motion is argued and denied. In the presence of the people, the defendant’s motion to proceed in Pro Per is granted. Charles Lindner is ordered relieved.

Discovery is to be reacted prior to being turned over to the defendant. Faretta advisement waiver is signed and filed. Order to Sheriff for Pro Per funds in the amount of $60 including legal supplies is filed and faxed to the Sheriff’s Dept. 

This basically resets the case as if a new defense counsel was appointed.



Delay #2
The defendant going Pro Per in a death penalty case is the second event that delays the case significantly. The defendant retains his pro per status for approximately 30 months and only files a single motion of any significance during that time.

Note: From the time the defense filed their 995 motion on December 7, 2011, until May 2012, I can only assume there was a total breakdown of communication and/or cooperation between the defendant and his counsel. Defendant’s motion for new counsel (Marsden) was denied. Defendant went forward with a move to self-represent, Pro Per.



May 15, 2012 - July 12, 2012

5/23/12: Defendant has not received his Pro Per funds and has not been to the LASD jail law library to prepare a motion for appointment of an investigator. 



Note: Over the next few weeks, several hearings occur for the defendant to get Pro Per funds and for an investigator to be assigned. By July 12, Lindner is appointed stand-by counsel and the defendant has his first investigator, Christian Filipiak.

August 21, 2012
I attend my first pretrial hearing in the Gargiulo case. 

Gargiulo files his first motions. Motion for an order to receive and have boxes for voluminous discovery. Motion for an order to have one hand free and uncuffed in private booth in attorney room. Motion to receive law library privileges. The court finds these motions are sheriff security policy issues and are continued to September 5. Defendant’s motion to receive all color copies of crime scene photos is filed and continued to September 5. The court allows defendant’s investigator to give defendant a pair of prescription glasses and two current law books.

Any discovery turned over to the defendant is to be copied on yellow paper. 


Note: All of Gargiulo’s requests for funds are handled by a completely different judge/courtroom, usually Dept. 123 but occasionally Dept. 110.

September 5, 2012 - May 9, 2014
9/5/12: The prosecution files a motion to prevent the defendant from possessing in his cell, the crime scene photographs. After a review of relevant case law, the court rules on September 26 that copies of the crime scene photographs and videos will remain in the custody of defendant’s investigator and not in the defendant’s jail cell. The court orders a representative of the sheriff’s department to appear at the next pretrial hearing to address defendant’s motions that are in conflict with security policy at the jail.

10/29/12: The people turn over discovery material to the defendant.

Note: All future discovery that the people turn over to the defendant is documented in the court record.



11/28/12: Defendant’s motion to have one hand free and uncuffed in attorney room at MCJ (LASD Men’s Central Jail) is granted. Defendant’s motion for boxes is withdrawn. 

2/25/13: People submit a protective order for discovery filed under seal. Defendant’s motion for order of transcripts is argued and denied. Defendant’s motion for a medical order is signed and faxed. 



6/14/13: Defendant’s motion for order for court transcripts is filed. Standing court order for transcripts is in effect. Defendant’s opposition to the people’s stipulation to the Maria Rodriguez murder is filed this date and requires no action. Prosecution’s informal request for discovery (second request) is filed. Charles Lindner is in court and informs the court he has not received any demand for discovery from the defendant. Prosecution will provide standby counsel with discovery.



6/28/13: DDA Garrett Dameron appears on behalf of the people. Defendant’s ex parte motion for order for DA’s office to handover information re the murder of Maria Rodriguez (the Downy case) to Judge Sam Ohta for in camera review is filed.

7/19/13: Stipulation is signed by all parties on the Maria Rodriquez murder. The prosecution is on their tenth set of discovery materials turned over to the defendant.


11/22/13: Twelfth set of discovery materials turned over to the defendant. Investigator Chris Nicely is present in court.

Note: This is the first mention of Mr. Nicely in the clerk’s minute notes but I believe he has been working on the case for some time. 



1/31/14: The people’s motion to compel compliance with PC 1054 ET SEQ discovery procedures and quash subpoena duces tecum (SDT) investigating agency is placed off calendar. The defendant withdrawals his subpoena duces tecum. People’s subpoenaed records are opened in court and released to the people for copying and returned to the court. Two boxes of sealed medical records are lodged with the court.

2/21/14: The people’s 1054 motion and request to quash defense SDT’s mentioned on 1/31 is filed with the court. The fourteenth set of discovery materials is provided by the people to the defendant. Parties confer regarding ongoing discovery.


3/7/14: Parties confer regarding ongoing discovery. The people’s motion to compel discovery and quash subpoenas is continued to next court date.

3/14/14: People’s motion is continued to next court date. Defendant is instructed to file under seal, a document indicating how subpoenaed documents relate to his defense.


4/18/14: Matter continued  to 5/9. The people turn over more discovery materials to the defense.

5/8/14: Defendant is not present. An in camera hearing is held in chambers. Court reporter’s notes are sealed. 

5/9/14: The court is in receipt of the notice of results of [an] administrative hearing to deny defendant’s in custody [at LASD] pro per privileges for cause filed May 1, 2014. A hearing was conducted at Men’s Central Jail by the Sheriff’s Department on April 25, 2014. The hearing officer terminated defendant’s in-custody pro per privileges. A hearing date is set on May 16, 2014, for the court to review the Sheriff’s Department decision. LA County counsel is notified to appear on behalf of the LASD on May 16. An in camera review was held in chambers on May 8. Discovery is ordered turned over to defendant’s investigator to copy and return to this court upon completion. 



Delay #3
The event mentioned in the court file on 5/8 and 5/9 is is the third event that delays the case. When Gargiulo was returning to the jail after his court hearing on April 18, 2014, he was caught with contraband, a piece of metal hidden inside his mouth. This was a violation of LASD jail policy. The LASD revoked Gargiulo’s in custody pro per privileges and access to the law library. Even with this setback, defendant does not wish to relinquish his pro per status. He hangs onto it for six more months.



May 16, 2014 - November 7, 2014

5/16/14: The court conducts a review of the LASD administrative hearing [Wilson hearing] to deny defendant’s in custody pro per privileges. The cause is argued. The court finds substantial evidence to support the sheriff’s action to deny defendant’s access to the law library and pro per phone privilege. Defendant requests a transcript of today’s hearing. Defendant does not wish to relinquish his pro per status and will remain in pro per.

5/30/14: Defendant not present. Court rules on defendant exparte motion to receive local daily news paper and daily journal. The expasrte request is denied without prejudice.



6/27/14: Discovery material provided by the people to defendant. This is the seventeenth set of discovery documents from the people. People state that discovery to the defense is complete. People’s response to defendant’s informal discovery filed.


7/11/14: Matter delayed and case called in Dept. 107 as defendant needs a wheelchair to appear in court. Judge Lomeli signs a medical order for defendant to have his back and ankle checked.

9/25/14: Defendant’s motion for continuance is filed. Defendant’s oral motion to reinstate privileges is a matter for the sheriff’s department to address to the court. (There is no motion to reinstate privileges in the legal court file and the defendant cannot produce a conformed copy on this date.) Medical order is signed
10/10/14: Defendant’s opposition to people’s motion in liming re: statements obtained during Perkins operation at El Monte Jail is filed. People will re-submit a copy of people’s motion in limine. The parties confer regarding the letter dated 9/29/14 from the LASD re defendant’s pro per privileges. 


Note: This is the only significant motion that Gargiulo filed during his entire 30 month run representing himself in a death penalty case. The motion was not hand written like many of his other motions but typed. Someone other than Gargiulo prepared this motion.



11/07/14: Defendant’s motion to relinquish his pro per status is granted. Standby counsel Charles Lindner is appointed as defense counsel. Court orders LASD that defendant is allowed to keep his papers related to his case in his cell until further order of the court set for 1/9/2015. All papers in storage are to be preserved until further review on 1/9.



January 9, 2015 - July 23, 2015

1/9/15: Court and counsel confer regarding discovery. Defense counsel to meet with Detective Lillienfeld regarding discovery material in the possession of the defendant.


1/16/15: In camera hearing with defense counsel. Defendant is not present in court. Court reporter’s notes are ordered sealed. Defense document submitted to the court is ordered sealed and placed in a sealed-records envelope as confidential. Envelope not to be opened except on order of the court. 


5/7/15: Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to PC section 995 is filed. Defendant’s oral Marsden motion is continued. 


Delay #4

Gargiulo trying to get his counsel replaced again with another Marsden motion is the next event that delays the case while the issue is resolved. I have no solid evidence to base my opinion on, but it appears to me Gargiulo and his court appointed attorney cannot stand each other and Gargiulo is doing everything he can to get a new attorney assigned.




Gargiulo’s Marsden hearing is held on seven different court dates over the next five weeks. 5/7, 5/14, 5/27, 6/2, 6/5, 6/9, 6/12.



6/12/15: On this date, the court denies Gargiulo’s oral Marsden motion. Gargiulo orally informs the court that he wishes to withdraw his general time waiver. The court, sensing Gargiulo is trying to punish or retaliate against his counsel, also orders defense counsel to speak to his client privately in the lock-up area. Lindner’s paralegal, his son Abe Lindner, and defense investigator Chris Nicely join Lindner in lock-up for this meeting. Afterwards, defense counsel informs the court that his client refused to speak to him in lock-up.  The defendant’s oral motion to withdraw his general time waiver is continued to 6/15.

6/15/15: Defendant’s oral request to withdraw general time waiver is granted. Counsel’s response to defendant’s request for speedy trial is filed. The last day until the trial must commence is 8/14/15.
6/30: Ongoing discovery is discussed.
7/14/15: Defense counsel informs the court that attorney Dale Rubin has been reappointed as co-counsel.  Court orders attorney Dale Rubin to be present on next court date.
7/23/15: Dale Rubin is present. Ongoing discovery is discussed. Defendant through his attorney requests to read a statement in open court without his attorney’s approval. Upon speaking to his attorney, the request is withdrawn. Case continued to 9/9.



August 27, 2015 - September 9, 2015
8/27/15 Department 123: On August 3, 2015, Charles Lindner counsel for the defendant submitted to this court a six-page letter detailing the circumstances of the inappropriate withdrawal of approximately $10,000 from the attorney-client trust fund in this matter by a third party. 


9/4/15 Department 100: On the direct order of Judge James Brandlin, [Presiding Judge of the LA Co. Superior Court] a Marsden motion is assigned to Judge Scott Gordon on 9/9 in Dept. 123.



9/9/15 Department 123: Cause is called for OSC and Marsden motion. Defense counsel Lindner and Rubin are present. Order to show cause is granted. Mr. Lindner is ordered to cooperate with the superior court’s finance department. Marsden motion is heard. Motion is granted. Lindner is relieved as counsel of record. Good cause exists for relieving Mr. Lindner as counsel independent of the findings in the Marsden motion. No conflicts exist between Mr. Rubin and the defendant. Rubin is conditionally appointed. Lindner is ordered to self-report himself to the State Bar of California and provide proof of reporting to this court within 30 days.

Delay #5
The court removes defense attorney Charles Lindner and Dale Rubin is conditionally appointed, pending court consultation with the I.C.D.A.[California Bar Assn, Indigent Criminal Defense Appointments].

Gargiulo’s desire for a different counsel comes true, but not based on anything he did. Dale Rubin is advanced as the attorney of record. Rubin has to present a budget to defend the case to Dept 123 and get it approved. He also has to find a co-counsel for second chair. Rubin will need to review all of the people’s discovery to date. These next steps will take time and delay he case.

Note: The full details of the theft from Lindner's client trust account and who was responsible will not be revealed until early in 2019 when defense counsel Dale Rubin files his non-standard 995 motion to dismiss the case (and reply motion) and the 995 motion is argued in open court.

November 5, 2015 - December 16, 2016
Dale Rubin has several appearances in Dept. 108 and in Dept. 123 to get a budget approved and find co-counsel. 


5/27/16 Department 123: Dale Rubin and his co-counsel Daniel Nardoni appear before Dept. 123, Gargiulo’s 987.9 judge for a closed hearing.

7/14/16: Defense co-counsel of record is Daniel Nardoni.

11/21: Sometime before November 21, Judge Ohta is moved from Dept. 108 to Dept. 123. A new judge is assigned to Dept. 108. The people file an affidavit of prejudice against the new judge in Dept. 108, the Honorable Judge Lisa B. Lench. The matter is set in Dept. 100 for assignment on 11/28.


11/28/16 Department 100: Counsel for the people and defendant are all present. Court transfers the case to Department 106, Judge Larry P. Fidler and orders parties to Dept. 106 on December 16, 2016.
12/16/16: Case is continued to March 17, 2017.


Delay #6
The people's request for a new judge delays the case. The Gargiulo case is moved from Dept. 108 to Dept. 106, Honorable Judge Larry P. Fidler. Judge Fidler’s case load is already extensive and Gargiulo’s case is low on the totem pole in this new court. Judge Fidler’s calendar is backed up for months. This transfer delays the case for more than a year.

March 17, 2017 - January 12, 2018

3/17/17: The case is continued until June.
9/8: Due to Judge Fidler having potentially back-to-back death penalty cases, the Gargiulo matter is scheduled for trial on January 12, 2018.

1/12/18: Gargiulo amends his plea to add not guilty by reason of insanity. 

Delay #7
Gargiulo’s additional not guilty by reason of insanity plea delays the case for another year. Trial is expected to start in January 2019.



Note: This means there will now be three separate trials to the Gargiulo case. First will be a trial to determine if Gargiulo is guilty or not. If Gargiulo is found guilty, then a trial will be held to determine if Gargiulo was sane at the time he committed the murders and attempted murder.  If Gargiulo is found sane, then there will be a third trial to determine punishment of life without parole or death penalty. The prosecution is now entitled to see the medical file and psychiatrist notes on every visit Gargiulo had with his doctor. The people are also allowed to have Gargiulo examined by their own mental health expert. All this will take time.



November 2, 2018

Delay #8
Judge Fidler’s packed calendar bumps the Gargiulo case to start March 19, 2019.
Jury selection starts in the Gargiulo trial on March 19, 2019.

Note: I was able to attend the Opening Statements on May 2, 2019. I'll have my notes up in a few days.

Michael Gargiulo Case Pretrial Hearing 35

 Michael Thomas Gargiulo, in custody, date unknown

Full T&T case coverage HERE.
Prior hearing on this case HERE.

July 14, 2016
It's been awhile since I've had the chance to update everyone on the Gargiulo case. Not a lot has changed, except that Gargiulo now has counsel he likes and appears to get along with.

I attended the pretrial hearing on Thursday, July 14 in Dept. 108. The last pretrial hearing I attended was on January 27. I missed pretrial hearings on February 29 and April 11.

8:35 AM
In the hallway on the 9th floor I see Dale Rubin. I reintroduce myself to him. Right beside him is a sharply dressed attorney I've seen many times around the courthouse, but I don't know his name. I introduce myself. He is defense attorney Daniel Nardoni and Rubin's second chair on the Gargiulo case.

8:47 AM
Deputy DA Dan Akemon and his intern arrive on the 9th floor. DDA Akemon goes over to chat with Rubin and Nardoni. Defense investigator Chris Nicely is here. Chis is an exceptionally nice guy and I've enjoyed the conversations we've had over the last few years. 

8:50 AM
48 Hours producer Greg Fisher arrives around the same time as LA County Sheriff's detective Mark Lillienfeld. They chat for a bit before Greg comes over to say hello. Over the years, several of Detective Lillienfeld's colleagues have mentioned what a phenomenal detective he is.  

8:58 AM
There are about three dozen people in the hallway. It's a good mix of jurors, general public and counsel. 

9:05 AM
Down at the other end of the hallway headed this way I see Deputy DA Garrett Dameron, DDA Akemon's co-counsel. 

9:15 AM
Inside Dept. 108, I take a seat in the second bench row. Greg joins me. I give him a short update on the case. As we enter, there is a pretrial hearing in another case. Judge Ohta's regular court reporter and court clerk are at their desks. The other hearing is quickly over. 

9:16 AM
Judge Ohta tells his bailiff, "Let's have Mr. Gargiulo."  A few minutes later, the DA's Chief of Media Relations, Jane Robison arrives.

9:18 AM
While the bailiff is retrieving Gargiulo, Judge Ohta, Rubin and Nardoni have a friendly chat. Rubin jokingly tells the court that he and his new co-counsel can't stand each other.

When Gargiulo is brought out he looks the same as when I last saw him. Orange jumpsuit, bald head and clean shaven. As Gargiulo sits in his assigned chair, Rubin puts his left hand on his client's upper back. Gargiulo then leans right to speak to the bailiff and then his new co-counsel.

The court goes on the record. The defendant is before the court. The parties state their appearances. Daniel Nardoni then tells the court that they have "two Daniels," and asks Judge Ohta if he would like to call DDA Akemon "Dan" and himself "Daniel" or "Danny." Judge Ohta pauses a minute before he responds, "I'll probably call you by your last name."

It looks like this is the first time Mr. Nardoni has appeared on the record in Dept. 108 representing Gargiulo. I recently reviewed all the court clerk's minute notes on this case. It appears Mr. Nardoni was appointed on May 27, 2016 in Dept. 123.

As I've mentioned before, Dept. 123 is the 987.9 judge appointed for this case. This is where all defense requests for expenditures are reviewed and approved.


The case calendar is 3 of 90. Rubin tells the court that the defense team is set now. They are trying to come up to speed on the facts of the case. They request a return date of September 14. By that time they will have "digested" the materials.

The court asks Gargiulo if he waives his right to a speedy trial and that the next hearing will be on September 14. "Yes, your honor," Gargiulo responds.

The people put on the record that they turned over discovery pages numbered 30,904 to 31,491. The discovery has officially passed 31,000 pages. Mr. Nardoni verifies they got the discovery last week.


The defense tells the court that Mr. Gargiulo received from a medical person an order for bottled water. The Sheriff's have not been compliant with that order. The defense asks if the court can order that.

Judge Ohta tells the defense that they need to file a habeas [motion?] that [the Sheriff's?] are not compliant. Judge Ohta adds, "File it with me and I'll look [it] over."

Mr. Nardoni asks the court for an order to be able to take his laptop with him when he visits Gargiulo at the jail. Judge Ohta states he will sign that order.

And that's it. Next hearing is September 14, 2016.

When I step onto the elevator, I believe I recognize a detective. I ask him, "Are you Detective Thomas Small?" He tells me "Yes." He also adds that this is his last day. He's retiring as of today. Detective Small is a legendary LAPD Homicide Detective at the Hollywood Station. He was the lead detective on the murder investigation of victim Ashley Ellerin.

Next pretrial hearing September 14.....

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

Michael Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 33

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, in custody; date unknown.

The previous post on this case can be found HERE.

December 15, 2015
8:45 AM
Inside Dept. 108, on the 9th Floor of the downtown Los Angeles Criminal Justice Center.

Defense attorney Dale Rubin is here, chatting off the record with Judge Ohta about where he [Rubin] is in the case and what he needs to present to the 987.9 judge for his case proposal. It's not in my notes, but I believe defense investigator Chris Nicely arrives soon after.

I’m sure I’ve talked about what the 987.9 judge is in the Grim Sleeper case. When a defendant is provided counsel by the court (not public defender; not alternate public defender’s offices), a judge, seperate from the trial judge, reviews and approves or denies, expenses that the defense attorney requests, to defend his case. The law that covers that is 987.9 in the California Penal Code. The 987.9 Judge in the Gargiulo case is Dept. 123, Judge Scott M. Gordon’s courtroom.

There’s more off the record chatter about whether or not Mr. Rubin needs to go in camera with the court to discuss where he is with the 987.9 judge.

Judge Ohta glances around and asks, “Where is my staff?” A moment or two later, Judge Ohta’s clerk takes her desk. There is a discussion about the LA Unified Schoold District.

At some point, DDA Akemon arrives. Judge Ohta asks DDA Akemon, ‘Where is your partner in crime?” referring to DDA Garrett Dameron, Akemon’s co-counsel on the case. Judge Ohta then asks, “How did you rope him into it?” DDA Dameron is not assigned to the same unit, Major Crimes, as DDA Akemon, but another unit.

8:47 AM
Judte Ohta’s pretty court reporter comes out and starts to set up her equipment.

There’s more off the record chatter in the well. It appears Rubin and DDA Akemon chat off the record about Rubin’s issues in front of the 987.9 judge.

Rubin may have a different strategy to defend Gargiulo than former counsel Charles Lindner did, and those costs could be more. I don’t know.

Here is a hypothetical to consider. Suppose Gargiulo is convicted and sentenced to death. Could his appellate attorney successfully argue ineffective counsel, on the grounds that the 987.9 judge did not approve adequate funds for Gargiulo’s attorney to defend the case? I’ve heard that there is such an appellate case, that argued these similar points and was successful in overturning a conviction. I just haven’t found it yet. T&T readers who know the law better than I do, if you know of such a case, please post a link to the published decision or email me privately.

Judge Ohta gets into his robes and soon after Gargiulo is brought out. Gargiulo is much the same as I last saw him. He’s completely bald and clean shaven. He appears more filled out, muscular, that his 2008 booking photos. He’s carrying a large dark green bag or sachel of some kind.

Gargiulo is handed a package of yellow lined note pads.

The court goes on the record in the Gargiulo case. I believe the court states that the last time Mr. Rubin was before the court, the case was in limbo, and he had not presented a proposal to the 987.9 judge yet.

Rubin explains that he’s having a problem getting his proposal together. A lot of the proposal is privileged. 

The court replies that it understands, and that there’s a lot for him to put together. Judge Ohta tells Mr. Rubin that he doesn’t need to hear the details. 

Rubin goes onto explain that he’s received 15 banker’s boxes from Mr. Lindner, [Gargiulo's former counsel]. He also tells the court that a lot of information is also electronically produced. I believe he tells the court he’s received that information from the DA.

Rubin adds that he’s been in trial since October. It’s been hard to work on that proposal. He  also tells the court that because of Mr. Lindner’s position he’s taken in the past, it’s made things [harder?].

Judge Ohta asks the people what has been turned over to the defense. DDA Akemon responds 30, 880 pages of discovery.

Mr. Rubin tells the court he doesn’t intend to review all of that prior to presenting his proposal to the 987.9 judge. But it will require some time.


I believe the court responds, “I don’t know all that happened outside [referring to Dept. 123] but Mr. Lindner does have some knowledge. ... It’s not as if he’s [Judge Gordon?] totally blind.”

The problem is in the past, but Judge Ohta needs a requested return date.

Rubin’s suggestion is to put the case at zero of 90 and return on January 25th. He’s hopeful that at that time, his proposal to Judge Gordon will have been submitted.

A different date is bounced around and all parties agree to January 27, 2016.  DDA Akemon offers to Rubin if there is anything he can do, he’s there to help.

Gargiulo is asked if the January 27th date is fine with him. He shrugs his shoulders and replies, “Sure. That’s fine.

The January 8 trial date that was set last year is vacated.

Before Gargiulo leaves there is a quick exchange with his counsel that indicates how markedly different his relationship with Mr. Rubin is verses Mr. Lindner. Gargiulo says to his attorney, “Happy Holidays.” Rubin replies, “You too.”



And that’s it.

The next post on this case can be found HERE.

Michael Gargiulo Case: Pretrail Hearing 32

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, date unknown

Note to T&T readers: I'm still working on whittling down my 12 pages of typed notes on the 11/3 Park et. all hearing.  On Monday 11/2, I had jury duty in the Van Nuys Courthouse. I was sent to Dept. I for a civil case. I filled out a questionnaire and then was excused until Wednesday. I immediately left Van Nuys and came downtown, to attend the afternoon session in the Lonnie Franklin, Jr., case. Tuesday was the Park hearing and a continuation of Franklin. On Wednesday, the civil case was settled and my jury service finished.  The Franklin hearing has continued all week. So please be patient with me as far as notes on Park and Franklin. Sprocket

Previous post on this case can be found HERE.

November 5, 2015
I’m on the 9th floor of the downtown Criminal Justice Center. 

I see DDA Dan Akemon chatting with Gargiulo’s defense attorney Dale Rubin. DDA Akemon is in trial across the hall in Dept. 106 on the Ka Pasasouk case.

After Rubin heads into Dept. 108, I say hello to DDA Akemon. While we are chatting, Judge Ohta comes out of a little utility room at the end of the hall. A few minutes later, Mr. Rubin comes out of Dept. 108 and tells DDA Akemon that Judge Ohta indicated they could do the Gargiulo case right now. We quickly head into Dept. 108.


8:43 AM
Inside Dept. 108, Judge Ohta’s clerk addresses Mr. Rubin and asks how he’s doing. Mr. Rubin is a pleasant looking mustached man with white hair. DDA Akemon hands over a package of papers to Mr. Rubin. I note that there is a new deputy bailiff in Dept. 108. Judge Ohta’s regular court reporter is at her desk. She’s very attractive and has long dark hair. The clerk and Dale Rubin have a brief conversation about the calendar in this case. Judge Ohta was in the courtroom out of his robes for a moment. He informed his bailiff that Gargiulo is a “special handle.” While we wait for the bailiff to get Gargiulo to this floor, DDA Garrett Dameron arrives.

8:51 AM
Gargiulo is brought out. He looks pretty much the same as the last time I saw him. He is still completely bald and clean shaven. 

On the record in the Gargiulo case. The parties state their appearances. The issue where the case stands is discussed. Judge Gordon had issues with the prior counsel representation. The original counsel [Charles Lindner] was removed. Dale Rubin tells the court that technically, he’s still second chair.

Judge Gordon asked Rubin to submit a proposal. Under memorandum, because of problems with the funding [of the defense case], because it appears no services have been paid. There is also the issue of getting a second counsel assigned.

 Mr. Rubin is currently in trial in Compton. Rubin tells the court he will have his proposal to Judge Gordon by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. After that there will probably be some meetings to hash things out. Judge Ohta asks if Rubin if he is going to remain second chair. Rubin states that’s up to Judge Gordon.

Rubin suggests that this matter be continued. The set trial date of January 8 be set aside. There’s nothing that has been done on litigation. Rubin tells the court, “I came on the case in August, just as I was about to go to Chicago, when things broke loose.

Judge Ohta asks for input from the people.

The people’s position is obviously frustration that the case is not moving forward. It’s been seven years since arrest and still pending trial. The people remain ready for trial. They are hopeful to get to trial. There is a pending prosecution in Chicago, waiting for this case to conclude. The people recommend they return in two to three weeks to get a status on counsel.



Judge Ohta ponders, “Is it realistic you will have a a plan in order by Tuesday next week? ... Judge Gordon will have to review it. ... A month is [more] realistic.”



Judge Ohta asks Rubin about his proposal. I believe it’s Judge Ohta who states, he is assuming his proposal is that Rubin step into first chair. “How long will it take you to get to trial?” Rubin replies, “One year, if I’m first chair.”  DDA Akemon adds, “We kind of anticipated that would be the time frame.”



Judge Ohta proposes that they return in a month and see where they are. The date of December 15th is selected for return. December 15 is also the date that jury selection is set to start in the Lonnie Franklin, Jr. case in Dept. 109

.

Judge Ohta asks about what the case will be set at on December 15. He brings up the general time waiver that Gargiulo used to have. Judge Ohta is informed that Gargiulo gave up his general time waiver. Rubin suggests they set the court calendar at zero of 90 on December 15. It’s accepted.



Judge Ohta vacates the January 8, 2016 trial date. Rubin states that by December 15, he will have a better understanding and have done a bit of investigating.



Judge Ohta then addresses Gargiulo. “As I recall, you were insisting on a January 8, 2016 trial date.”  Ohta asks what Gargiulo’s position is now. Gargiulo tells the court, “Of course he [Rubin] has to get prepared. ... Whatever counsel wants.”

Gargiulo waives his right to a speedy trial. DDA Akemon brings up one housekeeping station. The prosecution has turned over more discovery pages. 30,229 to 30,880 to defense of the murder book. The pages were signed for.

And that’s it until December 15.


The next post on this case can be found HERE.

Complete Gargiulo Case Coverage HERE.

Michael Gargiulo Case Update

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, date unknown.

Previous post on this case can be found HERE.

UPDATE 10/30:
Defense attorney Charles Lindner was removed from the case on September 9, 2015 when the Marsden motion was granted. Defense attorney Dale Rubin is counsel of record. Next pretrial hearing is November 5.  Note: I have jury duty the week of Nov 2-6 at the Van Nuys Courthouse and may not be able to attend this hearing. Sprocket

September 18, 2015
T&T has just learned that at the last Gargiulo hearing on September 14, defendant Gargiulo raised another Marsden motion. From that Marsden hearing, defense attorney Charles Lindner is off the case. Gargiulo finally got what he wanted, and that was a new attorney.

Defense attorney Dale Rubin, who was to handle the penalty phase is still assigned.  It will take some time for a new counsel to get up to speed with over 30,000 pages of discovery.

It should be noted there is no limit as to the number of Marsden hearings a defendant can raise.

The next pretrial hearing is November 5, 2015. As I hear more information, I will update T&T readers.

November 5, pretrial hearing notes can be found HERE.

Mary O'Callighan Sentencing, Michael Gargiulo #31 & Grim Sleeper Update

UPDATE 8/27: spelling, clarity, accuracy
July 23, 2015
I’m on the 9th floor of the downtown Criminal Justice Center, sitting on a bench across from Dept. 108. There is a Gargiulo hearing and Mary O’Callaghan, the LAPD officer recently convicted of assault under color of authority will be sentenced today.


8:13 AM

There are quite a few people at this end of the hall. I observe first time greetings with many of the arriving people. It’s a good bet that the people are supporters of LAPD Officer Mary O’Callaghan.

Looking up, I see Gargiulo defense investigator Chris Nicely sitting on a bench down towards the center of the hall. He appears to be looking over his calendar. More supporters of Mary O'Callaghan have arrived. There are friendly greetings and hugs being exchanged.  I count at least fifteen people now.

Also today, DDA Beth Silverman is in jury selection in Dept. 106 on an old murder case. I’m hoping I get to say hello in the hall or later, if there's time to drop in on Dept. 106.

8:24 AM
DDA Shannon Presby arrives for the O’Callaghan sentencing. A reporter steps in front of him to speak to him.

Some of the people in the crowd of O’Callaghan supporters appear to be police officers.  More suited gentlemen arrive and speak to DDA Presby.  Mr. Ricco, O’Callaghan’s defense attorney arrives. H greets Presby and they chat. A female reporter identifies herself and approaches DDA Presby, telling him she emailed him.

DDA Dan Akemon arrives and checks the door. The hallway is so full that he goes down to the other end of the hall to speak to his investigator, Detective Small and another woman.

Mary O'Callaghan Sentencing
8:50 AM

Inside Department 108. Mary Hearns, Department Head for the Superior Court’s Public Information Office, (PIO) informs the media that the are allowed to use their laptops, as long as the keystrokes are not heard.

I believe I recognize DDA Jamie Garrison in the well. I’m pretty sure it’s DDA Garrison. During the people’s case in the Stephanie Lazarus trial, Garrison channeled the preliminary hearing testimony of LA County Coroner’s Investigator Lloyd Mahaney, who collected the bite mark swab off of Sherri Rasmussen’s body.

Chris Nicely leaves Dept. 108. There’s lots of bustle in the well and a bit in the gallery. The gallery is almost full. News media reporters set up their cameras in the jury box. Judge Ohta is here. He's wearing a white shirt and a light blue patterned tie. He will officiate the sentencing since he was the judge of record on the trial.

Jane Robison from the DA’s office is here and is able to find a seat in the gallery. I can usually type very softly. I hope I can type soft enough for Judge Ohta. DDA Presby speaks to Jane Robison for a moment. Judge Ohta asks for DDA Presby and Mr. Ricco to approach. It's for just a moment and then Judge Ohta leaves the bench.

PIO Mary Hearn is now in the jury box with the cameramen. Last minute stragglers arrive. Judge Ohta comes out to the bench for a moment. More last minute people arrive.

DDA Joshua Ritter, who last week was on the verge of closing arguments in his case, arrives with some staff.  Mary O’Callaghan is brought out. She is in a blue jump suit. She’s wearing the white long-johns type shirt underneath.



8:59AM
Rico puts his arm on the back of Mary’s chair. A few moments later her rubs her back for comfort. Mary appears to lean in closer to her attorney.

Detective Small leaves the courtroom. There are quite a few deputies in the courtroom. There are three in the well. Five deputy sheriff’s by the courtroom door. More sheriffs go to the back of the courtroom on the far left.


9:02 AM
Judge Ohta takes the bench.

Judge Ohta addresses the gallery. “I expect an anticipate that all of you will accord one another. [with] civility and dignity that these proceedings require. ... There shall be no emotional outburst or display of physical gestures or the like. ... If anyone acts out in that manner, you will be escorted from the courtroom.”

Judge Ohta calls the case. People v O’Callaghan and asks the parties to state their appearances. Robert Ricco for Ms. Callaghan. DDA Presby for the people.

The court continues: "The matter before the court [is] of sentencing. ... I understand that on the people's side there may be people who would like to address the court?"

First person Sandra Thomas, Alesia Thomas‘ mother.

"You honor. I‘m Sandra Thomas, Alesia’s mother. I want to thank God that.... I am so sorry all of this occurred. It was ... just happened out of nowhere. What I thought about a lot .. the only time when Alesia was placed in the back seat of the police car ... At ... once she was in the back seat, and she was saying I can’t breathe, Ms. O’Callaghan decided to take a cigarette smoke. After that, when she returned ..."

"I was wondering .... As a medical assistant, I’ve studied a lot of medicine. I love it with a passion. I’ve learned CPR. And I was wondering why would she leave when she can’t breathe. [Why did she] stay away so long and come back? Why didn’t she do some [CPR?]? Why not offer compression and a couple of breaths? Why was that chosen [cigarette] for her to do first?"

"To me, it appeared she was expecting that it [would] happen. She wanted that to happen. That’s what it looked like to me. Why didn’t she give her compressions and a couple of breaths if she was unconscious? Unfortunately, that is not what happened."

"I would love to forgive her, but I have to ask God to help me learn to forgive her ... how to learn to forgive. I have love for everyone in this world. When you work in the medical field..." 

Ms. Thomas’ voice starts to break, and I’m affected by hearing her voice falter.

"You have to have compassion for people. You have to want them to get better in their [health? heart?]. I help people of all ethnicity, it doesn’t matter. You don’t hurt a human being. When you are old, you are like a baby again. And it doesn’t matter what color you are. And if I was a police officer and she was a heavy girl .... And I would have to try to talk to her. [And ask her] What happened to you? Why did you get yourself in this position? I would allow her to give her [opinion?] ... ask questions and we could have moved forward with letting her to speak to someone ... to speak to a psychiatrist."

"And my grand-kids, they are without a mother now. And after, Ms. O’Callaghan ... speaks about how her son successfully completed [OS?] Academy. Now how does that make me feel? It was terrible. There was no feeling there at all."

"And that’s another reason I’m having trouble learning how to forgive her ...  Nobody can change what happened. That’s [what I have] to say today. ... Phillip Washington is my grandson. Oh, he’s here."

Judge Ohta addresses Mrs. Thomas. “I’m sorry for the loss of your daughter.”

DDA Presby introduces Mr. Washington.  He identifies himself as the father of Alesia’s older [son? daughter?]. I am having difficulty hearing him.

"Most difficult time in my life, having to explain to her younger daughter, [that her mother was gone]  about how difficult to speak in court ... then difficult time above ...

Mary O'Callaghan was not a professional ... She was a regular citizen who chose the noble process and then [betrayed?] her oath. ... And when this jury convicted Mary O'Callaghan, then they began to right that wrong. ... When her children will ask, what were her last moments like ... she was beaten, hog tied and treated like an animal. .... I don't know how to explain to them that she asked for help and no one listened [from?] them.  ... I don't know how to explain to them that her last words were, 'I can't breathe.'

Mr. Washington starts to break up. He says, "I'm sorry." He can't continue. Judge Ohta tells Mr. Washington, "We can wait for you, sir."

Mr. Washington continues.

When Alicia passed, her life taken, most importantly her children's lives, her children suffer the loss of their mother every day. I teach [them? her daughter?] that anger is not the way, that hate is not the way. and I've taught [them?] that the way is to forgive, but to also seek justice. .... I ask your honor to right this wrong. Let her children believe in the system to believe in justice.

Defense attorney Rico turns around in his seat to watch Mr. Washington speak.

Washington requests that O'Callaghan serve the three [year?] term.

Najee Ali (sp?) speaks on behalf of the family. 

He thanks Judge Ohta for permission to address the court. He thanks DDA Presby for bringing Ms. O'Callaghan to justice. ... It had a big impact on her family and her two children who will never see their mother again. ... They continue to mourn and miss their mother. ... There was nothing more important to her [Thomas) than her children and their safety. ... That's why she dropped them off [at] what she knew was a safe [haven?]. ... She should not have died in the back of a police [officer's?] car. ...  When she was telling [Ms.] O'Callaghan that she couldn't breathe, she responded with taunts and threats. ... She said to her, "Bitch, I'll break your arm." [She was] seen on video tape, assaulting her. ... Her last dying words as we saw her lose consciousness was, "I can't breathe." ... Black lives matter. ... Her life matters, to her children and our community. O'Callaghan has not shown any remorse for her crime. She has not apologized to the family. She could have done this through her lawyer. ... We ask that she receive the maximum sentence in state prison. ... Unfortunately, we see our citizens dying in police custody. ... The family is not seeking revenge. ... We've always sought justice for Alesia. ... Black lives matter; all lives matter.

That ends the victim impact statements.

The court asks, "Mr. Ricco, is there a statement or allocution that your client would like to make?"

Mary O'Callaghan stands up and turns to address Alesia Thomas' mother. "I never had the opportunity to say I'm sorry. ... I didn't have the opportunity until [now?]. ... Mother to mother, I'm extremely sorry for the loss of your daughter."

O'Callaghan starts to break down, and then continues. "There's not a day [that?] goes by that I don't think of her. I pray for her every day... I pray for her children ... that her children and you and other family members, and how much [she?] loved and  [to tell them? please?] forgive her. .... I'm sorry."

Alesia Thomas' mother appears moved by O'Callaghan's emotional remorse statement. Thomas' mother holds out her arms to O'Callaghan and asks the court if she can hug O'Callaghan.

The court denies the request. "No. It cannot be done," Judge Ohta answers. The court then moves onto the question of sentence. Both parties have submitted sentencing memorandums. "Mr. Presby, would you like to argue your point?" "Yes, your honor," DDA Presby replies.

DDA Presby first thanks the jury in this matter for their attention. He also thanks the court for providing both sides for a fair trial. In some cases, sentence is simply applying a predesignated [tier?], it's almost mechanical. ... But in cases like these, it's not a simple matter of addition. It requires [a review?] of the nuances of the case.

At every state in this process, the DA's office attempted to consider all the facts, to receive a just sentence. The prosecution opposes a reduction of the case to a misdemeanor. She is responsible for her actions. [The defense presented?] that Ms. Thomas was resisting and a combative defendant. "Those arguments were categorically rejected by the jury."

[An] effort to shift responsibility from Ms. O'Callaghan should be rejected by the court as it was rejected by the jury. ... Ms. O'Callaghan abused a position of trust. ... Police officers are supposed to [restrict? restrain?] individuals. This this great power comes great responsibility. ... the duty is not to be perfect, ... but to act reasonably under the circumstances of a particular case. ... When she goes by she is violating her duty. ... By failing to listen to Ms. Thomas, that she could not breathe, and could not comply to Ms. O'Callaghan's demands ... she compounded this by using gratuitous insults and kicking the victim. ... Her use of force was a violation of her position of trust. ... As a restrained prisoner, she was totally dependent of Ms. O'Callaghan. ... "Ms. Thomas needed help but all she got was violence." Instead of determining why she couldn't breathe, she decided to insult, shove and kick the victim. ... If the DA’s office thought that Ms O’Callagian casued Ms. Thomas death, we would have brought charges. ... After considering all the facts of the case along with Ms. O'Callaghan's history, the DA's office opposes reduction to a misdemeanor. ... Recommendation to spend 180 days in jail [and probation].

When defense attorney Rico stands up to speak, he first turns and addresses Alesia's mother. He then thanks to court for a fair trial. He then talks about O'Callaghan's service. [She has] honorably served this country and the city for so many years. ... She was in desert storm. Eighteen years on the LAPD. [She] lived a life of service, one that has been productive and one that is deserving of a probationary sentence. ... Ms. O'Callaghan went above and beyond serving her community of south east [Los Angeles]. ...

Some things that don't get in the media. [She? They?] were instrumental in founding "Operation Progress," which has led to 15 graduates from South LA, raising funds for inner city youth; a three million foundation. ... Ms. O'Callaghan was instrumental for this and this is what she did off duty and not on duty. This is the Mary that is deserving of a probation sentence. ... [She has] three children. ... [Her] 12 year old son, resides in Vermont. ... [As a stepmother] she mentored three step children. ... They don't call her Mary, they call her Mom.

In regards to the mitigating factors, that the court may consider [under code #], every one of the mitigating factors apply to officer O'Callaghan. ... No prior criminal history, not even an arrest in her  50 years. [She is] more than willing to comply with probation and restitution, participating [in an]  electronic monitoring program. She is able to comply with the terms of probation. She doesn’t have drug history or an alcohol problem; no mental issues.

[I would] also like to point out, she was placed on her own recognizance and made every one of her court proceedings; she flew cross country and made it on time. She has faced consequences. She lost her job, her medical insurance. She lost her job with Orange County as a dispatcher. Her source of livelihood and earning power will be severely affected by the verdict.

Ms. O'Callagain expressed her sorry and remorse. The court has been provided with 26 character letters from friends and family members who Mary had helped, to recent neighbors that Mary had recently met. Black neighbors. It was never about race. ... She has served. ... She is not a danger to the community or anyone. It is for those reason we are asking to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor sentence, [and] Ms. O'Callaghan to probation to time served.

Judge Ohta asks the people, "Mr. Presby, would you like to respond to any of that?"  DDA Presby replies, "No your honor. Submitted.

Judge Ohta addresses the courtroom.  "I got this case very late in the process. This was not a case that was assigned to me. ... One day I walked into my office and I heard I got this case assigned to me and both attorneys walked into my office the same day. ... 
I was told that it had to be a trial. There was no settlement. ... I wondered if there was real substation discussion to settle the case. There are consequences when one goes to trial. ... And in this case, she was convicted. We do not go backwards. We go forward. ... With that in mind, I will tell you what I think about this case. ... I received for the record that [there] were perspective views that were presented to the court. I read everything put in front of me. I read ever single one."

Jidge Ohta reads from letters, and then continues with his observations of the case.

Ms. Alesia Thomas, a mother, daughter, friend, suffered extreme loss of human dignity on the last moments of her life. ... If she [had] survived and lived, if they had properly observed [that] she needed medical attention is unknown. ... She was restrained, kicked and yelled at as she lay dying. She said she could not move and could not breathe. ... She was told her arms would be broken if she did not comply. ... I see the plight of Ms. Thomas' two children, who must one day confront the circumstances of how their mother passed from this life. I have absorbed and processed all of this. ... This case is truly tragic from the stand point of those affected on both sides.

There are no winners here. I see grieving and suffering people here ... looking for a deep meaning way to understand this horrible incident. ... Justice in our system is based on two fundamental principals. ... The determination [of] guilt is ... by the people in our community ... Lay people who have no stake in this contest that we call jurors. .... Law enforcement, under our given structure, as chosen representatives, [derive?] their authority from the people they serve.

Jurors here as [assigned?] representatives have spoken. ... They took in the evidence and convicted the defendant of assault under color of authority. They have indicated the defendant has stepped beyond the scope of the authority given. ... The decision of sentence is under the sentencing analysis. ... Defendant Mary O'Callaghan comes before the court for [this?] sentencing.

On June 5, 2015, defendant Mary O'Callaghan was convicted of [the facts] underlying that occurred on July 22, 2012. The victim, Alesia Thomas, when charged with child abandonment.

Judge Ohta continues with his observations of the video, and then moves onto sentencing.

[I will] now analyze objectives of criminal sentencing in California. I state the rule verbatim.

O'Callaghan appears to be emotional while sitting at the defense table. I think she could be crying, but I can't see her. Her back is to me.  Judge Ohta reads from the sentencing guidelines. I do not transcribe everything he reads.

... punishing the defendant, deferring others from criminal conduct by underpinning its consequences. .. The DA recommended probation. ... Is she suitable for probation .... No indication, until today, there was no indication for remorse. Had been told until today, that there had to be a trial. [She] ... failed to see Ms. Thomas as a woman in distress who needed medical help. ... The nature of this crime is more serious. .... Instead of accurately [identifying] her physical condition as someone who could not move and could not breathe, she misread the situation ... unwillingness .... and used excessive force against someone who could not comply.

Judge Ohta denies probation. He moves onto the judgement to be imposed.  The court shall consider the sentencing rules. ... There is some misconception in this room that somehow the defendant can be sent to prison. She cannot. ... [This is] not a crime that she can be submitted to prison. ... That's because of realignment .... changed sentences to county jail. ... [?] Not exceeding one year, of by both that fine and imprisonment. ... A felony punished by this subdivision shall be punished by a term of 16 months or 2 or 3 years.

Judge Ohta reads more of the sentencing guidelines, and the new sentencing procedures. "It's called applied sentence." ... The portion of a defendant's sentence that is suspended shall be known as mandatory supervision, shall commence upon release [from] custody.  ... Thus, I order not to apply applied sentence ... The trial court must make [explicit?] finding in the interests of justice.

I note that it's all a bit confusing to follow because of AB109, realignment.

Judge Ohta cites a prior case, People v. Sandaval (sp?) that he relies on for sentencing in this case.

"She will get a split sentence. ... She will be sentenced to three years, however, [she is] unlikely ever to pose a danger to the community. ... Her service in the military is to her credit. ... The many letters of support from the community. Suspend the execution of 20 months. The first 16 [months] to be served in custody.

Judge Ohta then talks about how this case affected him and how he pondered the decision of sentencing. "I’ve spent several days thinking about this and I’ve not really slept. This has been very troubling to me. ... I've taken this job seriously, taking into considering everything that's been in front of me."

Probation is denied. Count one, select the high term of three years. ... Twenty months, concluding portion of the term, ... the execution of that is suspended. The defendant is ordered to pay $300.00 restitution fine.

There are other court costs imposed on O'Callaghan.  She is ordered to give blood, saliva and fingerprints.

A couple of things to the defendant. Under realignment, there is no parole. When you finish this sentence, there will be no one for you to answer to. You have the absolute right to appeal. ...

The deadline for the filing of her appeal is outlined. She must file within 50 days of today's date.

Judge Ohta goes into more detail concerning an appeal and her rights to an attorney, rights to copies of any transcripts needed to effect her appeal. O'Callaghan replies "Yes, regarding understanding her rights to appeal.

Judge Ohta states, "That concludes all of the issues the court needs to resolve."

There's nothing else from DDA Presby and nothing from defense attorney Rico. The defendant is remanded. Judge Ohta states, "That concludes the sentencing hearing." And then he adds, "Oh. Credits. ... 49 actual, plus 49 for 90 days."

O'Callaghan is taken back into custody.  The gallery starts to leave the courtroom. As Judge Ohta leaves the bench, he's already out of his robes. He then asks for DDA Presby and Mr. Rico to stick around. And that's it.

LA Times story on O'Callaghan's sentencing
NBC News Report (with video)
Post by Jasmyne Cannick

Previous Gargiulo post can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 31
10:08 AM
LAPD Detective Tom Small, DDA Daniel Akemon and DDA Garrett Dameron enter Dept. 108.  A few moments later, defense attorney Charles Lindner and his son, paralegal Abe Lindner arrive.

Lindner greets Judge Ohta, who is at his clerk's desk. "Glad to have you back." Judge Ohta replies, "I'm not back." Judge Ohta was here only for the O'Callaghan sentencing. He will not preside over Gargiulo's hearing.

10:13 AM
The jury from a current case in trial files in. Judge Sortino arrives. He's wearing a blue and white pin-stripe shirt.

O'Callaghan's defense attorney Rico, comes out from the custody area. DDA Presby and Rico chat with Judge Ohta at the clerk's counter.

Judge Sortino is now in his robe and takes the bench.

Another case, a female defendant is heard first. She is out of custody. There is a motion for release on file that's pending appeal. Her sentence is to be served in county, but it appears she is in some kind of out of custody program. She is asking for bail. If she is able to have bail, then the program she is in will allow her child to be with her. A Marsden motion was denied and the defendant wants to go Faretta. This case is put on hold for the moment.

The court goes off the record.

10:32 AM
Defense attorney Lindner and Judge Sortino chat off the record and get up to date on where things stand.  Apparently, defense attorney Dale Rubin (who will be handling the penalty phase of the trial), went to where Gargiulo is currently being housed at the court. My guess is one of the custody floors.

I believe Judge Sortino goes over the defense 1050 motion again. At the counsel table, Lindner and DDA Akemon chat. Now, DDA's Akemon and Dameron go over a document at the clerk's desk with paralegal Abe.

Judge Sortino is now having a conversation with his court reporter. There are two different conversations going on at once in the well and I can't track either one.

10:46 AM
Buzz!  Buzz!  The current case in trial has a question.

Now, another case is before the court, trying to schedule a sentencing date for two defendants.
DDA Phillip Marshall (sp?) is addressing Judge Sortino.. There are extensive victim's family members. 20 plus people from out of state want to be here for the sentencing. The DA continues updating the court. Verdicts were reached in January 2014. The defendants had months and months [to prepare their motions for new trial] but now they need another date set. The victim's families spent all this money [on air fare and they can't get a refund]. Judge Sortino asks the people if they could look into seeing if the victim's fund could be utilized to address this situation.

10:51AM
Buzz!  Buzz!  Judge Sortino asks his clerk, "Do they have question or do they want to go on break?" The clerk replies, "I'll go check right now."

10:58 AM
Buzz! Buzz! Buzz!  The case in trial jury has reached a verdict.

DDA's Akemon and Dameron are motioned into the hallway by Abe Lindner.

11:10 AM
People come and go inside the courtroom, getting ready for the verdict in the current case to be read.

DDA's Akemon and Dameron are now back inside Dept. 108.  Lots of other attorneys arrive and are milling about the well.  Defense attorney Dale Rubin is here.

Judge Sortino continues with DDA Marshall and the two defendants who still need to be sentenced.  DDA Marshall continues. Two defendants, convicted over a year ago. One defendant has been pro per over a year. The second defendant has been pro per since November [2014].  I'm not sure if the court or DDA Marshall states, a 60 day drop date on the two pro per defendants.  The defendant's are taken back into custody.

Judge Sortino decides to go back to the female defendant who, under Faretta, is representing herself. Her motion for bail is denied.

11:33 AM
Judge Sortino calls for the jury to be brought out so their verdict can be read in the case in trial.  Judge Sortino gets the verdict forms and goes on the record in that case. There are two defendants.  After the verdicts are read and the courtroom starts to empty a bit, we shift to Gargiulo.

The court and counsel talk off the record about the Gargiulo case. Defense attorney Rubin tells the court that he spoke to Gargiulo this morning. "I told him I would see him in a few [minutes]. ... That was two hours ago. ... [It] appears he's going to waive time."

It looks like defense attorney Dale Rubin's conversation with the defendant did the trick.

It's my understanding that back in early 2012, before Gargiulo went pro per, he tried to get the court to appoint another attorney for the guilt phase. I believe Gargiulo wanted Rubin (who was assigned to the penalty phase) but the courts would not agree to assign new counsel. Because of that, Gargiulo went pro per.

Counsel and the court set a tentative trial date of January 8, 2016. [If Gargiulo does agree to waive time when the case is called today] ... they will possibly set the case at zero of 120 today, and make the January 8 date, zero of ten and a return date of September 9.  Currently, the case is 30 of 60. The last date to go to trial under the current clock is August 14. All of this discussion is off the record.

It is now getting very close to the lunch hour. Judge Sortino addresses counsel. "When I came on the bench, I was told not to go overtime at lunch and to stop at 4:15 pm, because the bailiff's go on over-time at 4:30 PM.   Judge Sortino continues to talk with Lindner about his first time on the bench.

My stomach is major growling. I'm wondering if the court will call the lunch hour and the hearing won't happen until court resumes at 1:30 pm.

Judge Sortino asks Mr. Lindner, "January 8, is that a realistic date?" Lindner replies, "Yes."

The people ask, "Well, let's hear from Mr. Gargiulo."

Judge Sortino asks Rubin, "you're formally back on the case?  Mr. Rubin replies, Well, formally, I'm part time.

We are going to continue into the lunch hour. I'm relieved.

12:06 PM
Gargiulo is inside Dept. 108 He's wearing his black horn-rimmed glasses. Defense attorney Rubin speaks to him. Judge Sortino asks the parties to state their appearances. DDA's Dameron and Akemon, Charles Lindner and Dale Rubin.

Rubin informs the court that he spoke to Mr. Gargiulo. "He is agreeable to put the case over to January 8 and set trial. ... He indicates to me that he will waive time. .... He would also like to put something on the record, but counsel [Lindner and Rubin] haven't see it yet."

Judge Sortino replies, "First things first." He addresses Gargiulo. "You have the right to go to trial August 14. Do you give up that right?"  Gargiulo replies, "Yes."

Mr. Rubin continues. He has something he wants to put on the record your honor."  Judge Sortino cautions Gargiulo. "What I can tell you ... is it's not a good idea to put on the record unless your attorney has seen it first."  Judge Sortino continues with his caution. He tells Gargiulo that there is a record. the court report takes everything down and the DA's have access to it.

The court sets a return date of September 9.

Judge Sortino continues to advise Gargiulo. "Discuss with Mr. Lindner what you want to tell the court. In that time frame, I recommend you speak to Mr. Lindner and Mr. Rubin and at that time. ...
When you come back on the 9th ... we'll address it."  Judge Sortino asks the people if they have anything to discuss.

DDA Akemon agrees with the court. There is the pending DNA issue in Chicago and the pending 1101(b) motion. The people want to resolve those issues sooner rather than later. They want to raise that now, so it doesn't cause a delay.

The court sets a trial date of January 8, 2016, with the case at zero of ten on that date.  They will return on September 9 for pretrial status.

DDA Akemon informs the court that they turned over to the defense new discovery today. Pages 29,669 to 30,412.  Gargiulo is taken back into the custody area. And that's it for Gargiulo.

The next post on the Gargilo case can be found HERE.

Lonnie David Franklin, Jr., aka The Grim Sleeper: Update
Pretrial Hearings August 11 & August 17
The prior post on this Franklin case can be found HERE.

The Franklin case is in Dept. 109, Judge Kathleen Kennedy's courtroom.  Franklin is charged with 10 counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Back in May of this year, I learned that the Franklin case, after many delays, had a trial date set for September 9, 2015. It is estimated the trial will take eight weeks. At that time I thought I could fit the Franklin case into my schedule.  I attended a pretrial hearing for the case in June 2015, and then became swamped with personal responsibilities.

I had hoped to attend the pretrial hearing on August 11, but I had caught Mr. Sprocket's flu bug two weeks before and was still not well enough to sit in court. I was pretty much confined to the sofa during that time. It is a shame that I missed that hearing because there were no media reports about what had happened. Court sources indicated that, with less than a month before the scheduled start of the trial, defense attorney Seymour Amster turned over to the prosecution 142 defense witness names. I can just imagine how explosive it must have been in court that day. The court took the case off calendar and the next pretrial hearing was set for August 17.

Unfortunately, I was still coughing and did not make the hearing on the 17. However, the mainstream media did report on the hearing.

The first news I saw on the August 17 hearing was a tweet by Los Angeles Times reporter Brittny Mejia:

I wasn't surprised by the news that the prosecution and defense were not getting along. Back in July 2012, I attended a pretrial hearing in the Franklin case where there was some back and forth bickering between defense attorney Seymour Amster and DDA Beth Silverman. DDA Silverman is co-prosecuting Franklin with DDA Marguerite Rizzo. I've been told DDA Rizzo is the department's "go to" person on anything DNA related. Both of these talented women are top performer's in the DA's office.

After the arguments between counsel became heated, Judge Kennedy finally stepped in and said,

"You're acting like children! ... I'm ordering you to go upstairs and work this out. ... I don't want this to be a personality driven case. ... Leave your ego at the door!'

In most of the cases I've covered in Los Angeles County, the prosecutor and defense teams are cordial and get along quite well inside and out of court. During the Ka Pasasouk and Barnes and Bolden preliminary hearings, I observed DDA Daniel Akemon get along quite well with all the defense attorneys.

In the James Fayed trial, former DDA's Alan Jackson and Eric Harmon were prosecuting and attorney Mark Werksman defended Fayed in the guilt phase and his cocounsel Steve Meister represented Fayed in the penalty phase. Everyone was cordial and quite friendly with each other.  A couple years later, Jackson joined forces with Werksman as a named partner.

The mainstream media is spread pretty thin when it comes to covering the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the largest county court system in the nation. Reporters rarely gets to observe these occasional blow-ups between counsel and even rarer still when the court comments on the behavior or has to rein in the tension.

That was the case back in March 2009 during the second Phil Spector trial. Former DDA Alan Jackson and defense attorney Doron Weinberg were having a battle of accusations after prosecution rebuttal witness and In Sessions TV anchor Lisa Bloom testified. Defense attorney Weinberg was accusing the prosecution of a discovery violation. After the bitter back and forth, Judge Larry Fidler made the following comment:

"It's clear that you can't stand each other. [...] I don't see any discovery violation. [...] Irregardless Mr. Weinberg, I saw your cross. You were not prejudiced in any way."

I also have a memory during that trial of Judge Fidler telling counsel that he appreciated the parties did not let the jury see their animosity towards each other during the trial.

At the Franklin August 17 hearing, Judge Kennedy put the Franklin case back on calendar. The next pretrial hearing is August 31 and the new trial start date [for voir dire] is October 14.

People Magazine investigative reporter, Christine Pelisek, who first first broke the story of the Grim Sleeper at LA Weekly back in August 2008, has a synopsis of the two hearings I missed combined into one story.

August 17: LA Times Franklin Story

I have some personal responsibilities that will take me through the next month. I hope I'm completely over my lung issue by then. However, the delay in the Franklin case means there won't be a conflict with the Gargiulo hearing on September 9 or Cameron Brown's sentencing on September 18.

The next hearing in the Franklin case can be found HERE.