LAPD Detective Rick Jackson's Retirement Dinner

October 24th, 2013
I’ve known about Rick Jackson long before the early days of my writing career. I got to learn more about him when I attended pretrial hearings on a case that Rick was involved in, the Kazuyoshi Miura case. Rick was the cold case detective who in 2008, flew to Saipan (a US territory) on an outstanding warrant to retrieve Miura for the November 1981 murder-for-hire of his wife, Kazumi, on a downtown Los Angeles street. Miura was originally convicted of this murder in his native Japan, but ten years later a higher court overturned the verdict and he was set free.  He was rearrested on California's outstanding warrant when he set foot in Saipan.

Rick Jackson, left, with Kazuyoshi Miura, 
getting off the plane in Los Angeles

Photo credit: Unknown

Fast forward many years later. It wasn't until March 2012 when my friend Matthew McGough gave a reading on his first book Batboy, at the Pasadena Library that I finally got to meet Jackson (a long-time baseball fan) in person.  That day was memorable for me because I got to talk with him about some of the noteworthy cases he worked, such as the Pierre Romain case and the murder in the Chatsworth tunnel. Jackson didn't have any business cards on him at the time, so he wrote out his contact information and phone number on a piece of paper. I still have it. For a detective, Jackson has excellent penmanship.

In the past year, I've had the opportunity to run into Rick a few times down at court and out on the downtown streets getting lunch with Matthew. Rick has an easy going attitude and a twinkle in his eyes when he smiles. When I heard about Rick's retirement and plans for an honorary dinner, I let Matthew know I hoped I could get on the invitation list.

Retirement Dinner - Familiar Faces
The event was being held at the El Paseo Inn on Olvera Street. As is the case with me, I failed to read the fine print on the flier.  I thought I could get there by 6:15 PM and be there in plenty of time. However, cocktails started at 5:00 PM. I had contacted Matthew about possibly catching a ride with him but he was already getting ready to leave. I was on my own. This was to be a casual event, just as Rick requested. I found out hours after I arrived that there was no formal dinner time. If you decided to sit down at a table, the restaurant would serve you.

When I got to the restaurant, the place was packed. Rick has made quite a few friends in his distinguished career.  Just as you enter the restaurant, the bar is to your right.  A few steps forward from the entrance, there are steps down to a lower level with dinner seating and tall casual tables to stand at.  On the lower level were photos of Rick on the back wall during several stages of his career.

There was an open bar and the party was in full swing.  I was trying to find my way in a sea of distinguished looking LAPD Detectives, former detectives, LAPD civilian staff and deputy DA's from the District Attorney's office.  Just as I had entered I saw Major Crimes Department Head Gary Hearnsberger leaving. I was definitely late to the party.

Looking through the crowd, I tried to find familiar faces. What most readers don't realize is, I haven't attended that many trials or gotten to know very many officers.  I'm actually a very shy person, a wallflower really, and still have difficulty approaching people to introduce myself. I located Matthew near the bar and tried to listen in on his conversation. 

Fortunately, I did see some familiar faces. Josh Mankiewicz from NBC's Dateline was there, sans tie as usual. We chatted about his new assignment of watching Dateline with fans. Supervising Detective Rob Bub from the Van Nuys Homicide Unit (The Cowboys) arrived and I got to talk to him about the Raul Lopez murder. There's still no arrest in that case. I saw DDA John Lewin chatting up actor Miguel Ferrer about Miguel's career. Rick has always spoken very highly of Lewin. Surprising to me, Lewin remembered seeing me at one of the Lois Goodman pretrial hearings.

One of the most brilliant stars in the DA's office, DDA Beth Silverman was there. I caught her eye and got a chance to say hello. Not only is Beth prosecuting Lonnie Franklin, Jr., aka the "Grim Sleeper," she's also assigned to the Samuel Little case, a suspected serial killer and another case that Rick worked.

Also in attendance was longtime crime beat reporter Andrew Blankstein, who I met at the Van Nuys Courthouse attending my first murder trial, the Robert Blake case. Andrew recently jumped ship from the Los Angeles Times to join NBC's Dateline.

I got to meet author Miles Corwin and tell him I saw him testify in the Robert Blake trial. Corwin trailed LAPD's Robbery-Homicide Division for an entire year and wrote a book, Homicide Special about the unit. Besides Rick, several of the detectives mentioned in Miles' book were also here. One of the cases in the book was the Robert Blake case. Because Miles was trailing RHD, Blake's defense attorney's dragged him into the trial. I'll never forget when Miles testified that he had destroyed all his notebooks that comprised his research for the book. Because I arrived so late, I missed meeting authors Joseph Wambaugh and Michael Connelly. Connelly wrote this nice farewell piece to Detective Jackson.

I got to speak briefly to Judge Ricardo Ocampo, who I met during the first Phil Spector trial. I remember when Judge Ocampo's daughter was sitting in the gallery one day during the Spector trial.

A pretty face I was very happy to see was DDA Francis Young. Francis, along with DDA Sean Carney did the preliminary hearing in the Gerhard Becker case. I talked to Francis about the Joshua Woodward prelim I was attending.  I also got to meet a few of Ricks former partners: Detectives Tim Marcia, Elizabeth Camacho, and Mitzi Roberts. I saw Detective Greg Stearns (who was part of the team that conducted that famous Lazarus interview) but never got a chance to say hello. 

Rick's Speech
Later in the evening, Rick took to the podium to talk about some of the people he's had the pleasure to work with. I miss hearing the very beginning of his speech. I wove my way from the back of the restaurant to the podium so I could hear better and take a few pictures.

Rick Jackson and Buddy at the podium

Sitting at a table near the podium are Rick's children, his fiance Debbie and other close family members. There were quite a few retired coworkers and people who flew in from out of state to be here for the event.

When I get down front, Rick is reading from a piece of paper. It's one of his elaborate pranks he's pulled on a long time colleague, Bud Arce, "Buddy." This is just one of the many stories that are memorialized to the crowd. Buddy is standing at the podium with Rick while he tells the story. The paper is a fake letter Rick created supposedly coming from Buddy's high school. With that mischievous twinkle in his eye, Rick proudly tells the crowd that he even got authentic stationary from the school to pull the prank. The letter was mailed to Buddy at the Hollywood station. Rick reads from the letter.

The letter states it's an invitation and a congratulations to Buddy, for being inducted into the "1983 Ramona High School Hall of Fame". The letter mentions recognizing his distinguished career and service as a homicide detective for the LAPD, and that he will join past recipients.  The letter is very detailed in it's ruse and Rick proudly tells the crowd that he looked through the high school year book to get the names of other "VIP" students.  The letter tells Buddy that a plaque and his photo will be displayed in the administration's building Hall of Fame.  The letter goes onto say that there will be an event ceremony during "homecoming week" with many alumni and the press. The author or the letter closes by saying he's looking forward to meeting him and hearing all about his work.

The weekend after Bud receives the letter he has a party. Rick wasn't invited but he has his spies report back on the conversations at the party to see if the letter is discussed. At the party, Buddy is heard to say that he didn't understand why the high school was doing this because "I was only a C student." Buddy's wife at the time tells Buddy that she's so proud of him. Buddy doesn't call the guy back for three weeks, but he does tell his parents. They're so proud of him. There's quite a bit of laughter from the crowd as the story is told. Rick explains that "This is the kind of shit that we used to pull."

Buddy then adds a bit to the story, as to what Rick said to him after the prank was successfully pulled. Buddy explains, "Rick tells me, Bud, burn down my house, make love to my wife, but leave my kids alone." The crowd roars. Buddy then proceeds to tell everyone that it took three years for an opportunity to get back at Rick.

As Buddy tells it, Rick comes in one day and says he's got a summons for jury service. Policemen are exempt from jury duty. Rick doesn't know what to do and he says to Buddy, "I have to get out of it."  Buddy realizes this is his chance and he hatches a plan. He's focused. He's running with two murders, yet, he looks over the list of all detectives to see who has the best voice to do his "sting." Buddy finds a guy, he calls him and lays out his script. They're working at Parker Center and Buddy says he's going to get Rick to drive to Pomona in the next ten minutes.

Buddy then calls a man he knows at the DA's office and asks if they have an extension they don't use. Oh yeah, the prosecutor says, 427. Buddy tells him, "Don't answer it in the next 20 minutes."  The plan is set, the call goes in. If Rick hurries out to Pomona, he can get off the service. Buddy waits. Rick takes off and comes back 20 minutes later.  Buddy doesn't say anything, just asks Rick, "So, how's it going? What happened on that subpoena?" Rick doesn't say anything.

Buddy then tell the crowd that his prank becomes a reverse sting. Rick knows that Buddy did this.  Buddy waits two months to ask Rick, "So, what happened on the subpoena?" Rick replies, "Well, I went over there, and the guy I talked to wasn't there, but he got me out of jury duty." Buddy explains to the crowd, "It was a reverse sting on me. He got me again."   There is a nice round of applause for Buddy's story.

Rick takes the mike again and asks if Miguel Ferrer is still here.  Rick met Miguel about 12 years ago and they've been friends ever since. One year, Miguel heard about a police golf tournament and wondered if Rick could get him an invite. Since then, Miguel has been there every year and now hosts the event. The event organizers say that Miguel is their favorite celebrity. Miguel went on Celebrity Jeopardy and won $50,000. Miguel's charity that he donated his winnings to was the LA Police Memorial Foundation for slain officers.

There were several other people that Rick brings up to the podium. Next is Don Bleier. Rick tells the crowd that the first day out of the police academy, January 16th, 1977, he is the first officer Rick worked with, his first training officer. Don stayed with Hollywood patrol for 25 years and became the "legend" for other officers after him.  Don shared a story about taking Rick on his first foot patrol down Hollywood Blvd.

George Herrara, a retired latent print analyst who testified in the Lazarus trial is introduced. George came in from Colorado to be here. In Rick's early career in homicide,  George was the go-to person to get a print run quickly. George was also the only person to match a single print to the Hillside Strangler. George's nickname was "no make" Herrara. This refers to whether the print analyst was able to "make" a match to an identified print.  George tells the crowd that when he retired from the LAPD's Science Investigation Division (SID) he received something totally unexpected. He received an etched crystal plaque on a granite base. The inscription honored his service and it was from all his friends and coworkers from Robbery Homicide Division. He was blown away and quite touched by the gift.

DDA John Lewin takes to the mike to tell a story that Matthew had shared with me before. John states that whenever Rick's name comes up, he tells people this story, to explain the kind of guy that Rick is. Let's say there was a plane crash in the middle of the ocean, remote, no civilization around and Rick and anyone else are the only two survivors. They swim ashore to the nearest island. The island is filled with people who've never been off the island. There will be at least 20 people there who know Rick and greet him by name.  Lewin says, "All his partners know, everyone knows, you can't go anywhere in the city without there being at least 20 people who know Rick."

Rick introduces his sisters, daughters Hillary and Megan, and his nephew.  Afterwards, Rick becomes quite emotional when he introduces a family that were lifesavers at a very difficult time in his life. For me, it was a very touching and tender moment to witness.

Finally, Rick introduces "Miss Halliday."  Rick knew Debbie from about eighth grade through high school.  Back in 1965, at Cecil B. DeMille Junior High School, Rick remembers walking down the school hallway, seeing Debbie with her dark hair and olive complexion and thinking, "Oh my God, I love that girl." Rick tells the crowd that he even loved her in eighth grade. They became friends but never dated.

 Debbie in the red dress & Rick

Rick and Debbie, who lives in the Bay area, kept in touch over the years.  Forty-one years later in 2006, she calls Rick up.  Rick was up in the Bay area with one of his partners.  Debbie was single at the time and Rick adds that they always had fun when they got together.  So Debbie calls him up and asks him if he would go to a wedding with her in April, and afterwards they could hang out.  Rick jokingly asks Debbie if it's their wedding.  Debbie laughed.  Rick has to think about it for a week because he knows if he goes up there, "I'm done, but if she only wants me to come up there as a friend, it's probably not worth going. Well, I went and we're getting married next August."   After the laughter and applause, Rick adds that they are debating whether they want children or not, which brings another round of laughter.

Rick adds, "As anyone who knows who's been around me for the last six years, I just light up when I talk about her. My sisters remember me talking about her back in the 60's."

Debbie then adds a few words. Says that she's a little concerned because being a detective has been Rick's life. Anytime he's been around people and friends they want him to tell stories and he loves telling his stories. Debbie says  that he's moving up to the Bay area to be with her. Consequently, she's a little worried about him having a bit of an adjustment disorder.  So she gives Rick a little gift, that might help with that adjustment disorder, help him remember "home."  Rick opens the gift and this is what it is:

 LAX cologne, The Scent of Departure

There are more stories, and future in-laws to introduce.  Rick tells everyone that, "Even though I worked Robbery Homicide for 20 some years, my heart is always in working Hollywood." That's where all the people here, and his long time close colleagues started. Rick becomes emotional again as he remembers back to those Hollywood years, with a great boss, and close friends where they all learned to do, what it is they do best.

Rick Jackson's LAPD photos
When you join the LAPD, your photo is taken at various stages of your career.  Here are a few photos of Rick during his career.

Rick's application photo for LAPD, mid '70's

Rick graduating from the LAPD Academy

Rick, starting at Robbery Homicide Division

Rick at Robbery Homicide Squad Room 

The Female Detectives: L-R,
Mitzi Roberts, Rick's last partner; Rick, Susan Antenucci;
Elizabeth Camacho, Rick's first female partner

Rick's exit photo from the LAPD

Before I left, I got the opportunity to meet Rick's fiance, Debbie, an absolutely charming woman. Rick truly is a lucky man. Overall, it was a wonderful evening. I was happy that I got to see so many of Rick's friends share their memories. I wish him well in the adventures ahead.

Conrad Murray Adds New Lawyer

Updated 2/15, 4:40 pm:According to CNN.com, Judge Pastor has delayed the addition of Nareg Gourjian to Murray's defense team until a possible conflict of interest issue can be further investigated.

From the CNN article:

The decision rests on if Gourjian's work for Jackson was "substantially related" to the current case and if his work for the defense would require "Gourjian to attempt to discredit his former client directly or indirectly," Pastor said.

Updated 2/15/2011:
According to Radar Online, the new member of Murray's defense team could create a conflict of interest. Sprocket___________
According to this CNN article, Joseph Low IV left Murray's defense team and has been replaced by Nareg Gourjian. Gourjian, formerly an associate of high profile attorney Mark Geragos where he assisted in the defense of Scott Peterson, Kazuyoshi Miura, and Chris Brown.

I got my first glimpse of Gourjian at one of the many hearings in the Miura case and if my memory serves me, he was in the gallery a few times during the Cameron Brown case. I was not very impressed with Low's closing argument for the defense at Murray's preliminary hearing. It also seemed to me that Judge Pastor had to educate the defense team what would happen next after the prosecution presented their closing argument.

To me, adding Gourjian to the team was a smart move. I suspect Gourjian is probably familiar with Judge Pastor's courtroom rulings from when Geragos's office was representing Cameron Brown.

Ricardo (Rick) R. Ocampo & Karla D. Kerlin Appointed to Los Angeles Superior Court

Updated!
Governor Arnold appoints 17 to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, including Rick Ocampo and Karla Kerlin, who will take the bench November 14th, 2008.

I've seen Rick Ocampo in Judge Fidler's courtroom many times, sitting in the back observing, conferring with AJ or Pat Dixon, as well as present arguments before Judge Van Siklen in the Kazuyoshi Miura matter.

I remember one time during the first Spector trial, where an adorable young girl was seated in the back and all the accredited press wondered who she was. If I am remembering correctly, it was Ocampo's daughter. Recently, during one of the many pretrial hearings for Spector round 2, Mr. Ocampo was in the gallery and took the time to introduce himself to me.

It was a similar type of appointment of Doug Sortino to the bench that delayed the Spector trial back in 2005 and a new Deputy DA was apppointed to try the case: Alan Jackson.

I saw Karla Kerlin take the stand in the first Anthony Pellicano trial, testifying for the prosecution. Years ago, Ms. Kerlin was working in the DA's sex crimes division and Pellicano was the defense detective for a case she was prosecuting. At the time, Pellicano tried to investigate and intimidate her. I was impressed with her testimony on the stand and how well she stood her ground on cross examination.

T&T congratulates Rick Ocampo and Karla Kerlin's appointments to the LA County Court!

Update!
I just found out that Karla Kerlin will be sworn in November 24th and Rick Ocampo will be sworn in November 14th.

Kazuyoshi Miura's Body Cremated Thursday

Fuji News Network is reporting that Miura's body was cremated in Los Angeles yesterday. After the body was released, an independent examination was performed by David Posey. Miura's Los Angeles attorney, Mark Geragos stated that exam raised questions about the manner of death and that it could not have been suicide. With the body being cremated, Miura's family ~ and Mark Geragos ~ can continue to raise questions in the media as to how he really died. I'm betting that once the LA County coroner's report is released, there will be no unanswered questions about manner of death

Miura had been extradited from Saipan to the US to stand trial on a charge of conspiracy to commit murder for the 1981 death of his wife, Kazumi Miura.

Kazuyoshi Miura Found Dead!

Japanese business man Kazuyoshi Miura was found dead in his cell this morning of an apparent suicide. Miura had just been returned to the US on Friday after awaiting extradition in Saipan for over seven months on a 1988 murder and conspiracy warrant. He had been in the US less than 24 hours. Miura was to be arraigned Tuesday morning for the 1981 shooting of his wife, Kazumi on a busy downtown Los Angeles street. After the shooting, Kazumi lingered in a coma for over a year before passing.

Several years later, stories broke in the Japanese press that Miura had a mistress and that he conspired to kill his wife for three insurance polices taken out on her life, the last one purchased the day before she was shot. Those stories kicked off an investigation in Japan that led to his eventual arrest and conviction for attempted murder, murder, and fraud. After serving approximately ten years of his sentence, Miura's murder conviction was overturned by a higher court in Japan.

Miura, sometimes labeled "Japan's OJ" in his native country, was somewhat of a celebrity there where his case garnered national attention and his every move was chronicled by the press.

When I told Mr. Sprocket about the news this morning, he wondered if this was something that was common for a Japanese man awaiting trial.

Special thanks to Sherri for the heads up on the story.

CNN.Crime

The Associated Press

Phil Spector, OJ Simpson & Kazuyoshi Miura

Phil Spector's retrial for the murder of Lana Clarkson over five and a half years ago kicks off today with 300 jurors showing up at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center today and tomorrow. Judge Larry Paul Fidler's courtroom 106 is not large. A placard on the wall indicates the seating capacity is "80."

Here's how the process works. 75 potential jurors will show up in the morning and squeeze into 106. Another 75 will show up in the afternoon. The same process will be repeated on Friday. There may be a pre-screening process to exclude those jurors who can not serve due to hardship reasons. The remaining jurors will then receive a detailed questionnaire to fill out and turn into the court at a later date. Copies of the jurors questionnaires are then turned over to the prosecution and the defense. I'm betting that sometime later, the questionnaire will released to the public.

During the first trial, the initial stages of jury selection was not open to the public. The reason was logistics. There just are not enough seats in the gallery and jury box to accommodate any extra bodies in the courtroom. Ciaran McEvoy, who covered the first trial for City News back then, told me that he waited out in the hall (possibly for days) until there was a free seat that he could occupy.

Yesterday, it was agreed that the kick off of voie dire would be moved back one week from October 14th to October 20th, to give counsel more time to review the jurors responses.

Back on September 15th, Spector's lead counsel, Doron Weinberg made an initial petition to the court for Spector to replace his 1 million cash bond with "his own property." The people objected. This could possibly reduce the bond to half it's current amount. Fidler responded that this is a lengthy process to get the property valued and to determine if there were any title liens. He would allow the defense to submit [the request] "under seal." It may be a while before we get to know if Fidler approves a bond reduction or a property swap for the cash bond. This could be an indication that Spector is hurting for cash, seeing as how he's got a few lawsuits pending for nonpayment of royalties and hotel bills. If he really is hurting, why not sell his catalog? Do you think Spector would consider parting with that continual cash cow to pay his lawyers? It could just be like Michelle Blaine has indicated on her blog, Spector is typically not fond of paying bills.


OJ Simpson's defense in his robbery trial rested yesterday and this morning, all parties are currently hammering out jury instructions. Those of us who have watched this trial on The Legal Edge, are anxiously awaiting the start of closing arguments. There is the hope that the jury will receive the case sometime today. Tomorrow is the 13 year anniversary of the "not guilty" verdict in OJ Simpson's infamous murder trial. OJ Simpson is currently facing 12 counts, including kidnapping. How astronomically coincidental would it be if this jury reaches a verdict tomorrow?

Kazuyoshi Miura is currently sitting in a jail cell in Saipan, waiting to be picked up by LAPD detectives and returned to Los Angeles to stand trial on conspiracy murder charges. It's been speculated in the Asian press that this will not happen until sometime next week. On September 26th, Judge Van Sicklen ruled that double jeopardy applied, and he could not be tried on the murder charge. Miura was convicted of the 1981 murder of his wife, Kazumi, in downtown Los Angeles in his native Japan but the verdict was later over tuned by a higher court. The Japanese are fascinated by all things Miura, and his notoriety and murder trial in Japan are often called "Japan's OJ case."

CNN.Crime

Kazuyoshi Miura: Judge Rules Conspiracy Charge Can Go Forward

Today Judge Van Sicklen finally ruled on the defense's motion to quash the 1988 arrest warrant of Kazuyoshi Miura for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The murder of Miura's wife, Kazumi, occurred on a busy side street in downtown Los Angeles over twenty-five years ago. Miura was shot in the leg and Kazumi was shot in the head. She died a year later.

Van Sicklen granted the motion to quash on the first degree murder charge on double jeopardy grounds, but denied the motion on the conspiracy charge. In his ruling, Van Sicklen wrote, “Although the murder charge is barred by double jeopardy, the State may proceed on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder because there is no evidence that Miura was previously acquitted or convicted of the same offense in Japan."

The prosecution on the conspiracy charge will go forward. All that needs to happen now is to get Miura to the US.

It's taken quite a bit of time to get to a resolution on this matter. Back in February of this year, Miura traveled from his native Japan to Siapan where he was arrested on that old, 1988 outstanding warrant. Ever since, the Los Angeles DA's office has been trying to get him extradited to Los Angeles, and high profile attorney Mark Geragos has been trying to squash the arrest warrant. Authorities were alerted to Miura's travel plans to the US territory because they had been monitoring Miura's Internet blog, where he talked about taking the trip. Note to the criminally stupid: If there's still a murder warrant out on you in another country, it's probably not a good idea to detail your travel plans on your publicly viewed Internet blog.

During the July hearing, Judge Van Sicklen stated that before it could be determined if the alleged crimes were the same crimes that Miura was convicted of in Japan, he would need to see translations of the Japanese court rulings. From what I've overheard in court, these translations run over five hundred pages and were probably very costly. During this hearing, Van Sicklen also ordered a live video feed hookup with Saipan, so that Miura could "appear" at the next hearing.

August 15th
The live video connection was accomplished with a translator in Saipan for Mr. Miura and a translator in the court to record anything he might say.

Alan Jackson, Ric Ocampo and Phyllis Asayama were arguing for the people. Mark Geragos and his associate, Nareg Gourjian, are representing Miura in Los Angeles. Miura also has three high profile attorneys in Saipan, as well as legal representation in Japan. A huge video screen was set up in the court. Once Miura's face appeared on the screen and sound checks were made, court was called into session. On the record, Miura formally waived his right to appear.

The prosecution presented Mark D. West, a law professor at the University of Michigan. He founded the Japanese Law Studies, Law Program in 1998 at the university. After direct exam and cross, Professor West was accepted as a legal expert in Japanese law. Professor West is fluent in written and spoken Japanese, has been invited to teach at many schools in Japan, and read the Japan court rulings in their original Japanese.

The main issue of disagreement between the parties is the conspiracy issue and the expo facto issue. The question that needs to be answered by the court: Is our (Californial Criminal Code) conspiracy statute the same as the one in existence in Japan? Professor West testifies and educates everyone on the nuanced differences between US Law and Japanese Law.

In Japan you can not be charged with just conspiracy. There is no such statute of law on their books. However, under their murder statute, there is a theory of colusion, but you can not be convicted of a "theory" in Japan. West testifies that Japan is in violation of international treaties because it does not have a conspiracy statute. There is a big movement in Japan to try to enact a conspiracy law. They have tried three times and each time it has failed. After reading the Japanese court documents, Professor West testified that Miura was convicted of attempted murder, fraud and murder. The murder conviction was later overturned by a higher court and Miura released from prison.

Professor West held his own under relentless cross examination by Mark Geragos. Professor West disagreed with the prosecution's translation of the Japanese court proceedings, where the English word "conspiracy" is used several times. One of the Japanese words that can have several meanings, especially when used in the context of law is "kyobo." West states that it was translated as "conspiracy, collusion, colludes." In his reading of the court documents, it was not always translated properly. Koybo does not have the same concept in the US, West said. In translation, it can mean collusion or plotting. But the word plotting is not a easy word to translate from Japanese to English. Translating koybo as "complicity" would be a stretch.

Professor West was clear that in Japan, you can not be convicted for conspiracy as a stand alone charge. As Geragos gets snippy with West, the video feed with Saipan is lost, but not the sound connection. Several times Geragos raises his voice and appears to be badgering the witness.

At about this same time, a buzzer goes off in the courtroom. There is a jury deliberating in the jury room and they want to go home. The court takes a few minutes break while the Judge deals with the jury working on another case. If I'm remembering correctly, Allan Parachini, who is sitting in the jury box along with the Japanese film crew and still photographers, gets up and forcefully moves the film camera so that it is aiming away from possibly photographing any jurors that might be exiting the courtroom.

It's near 4:30 pm and Judge Van Sicklen will not continue the hearing past that time. Geragos has not had the opportunity to put on his own witness. His expert who wrote an opinion submitted with his motion, a Mr. Cleary (sp?) is currently in Mongolia. He wants to try to get him here to testify.

Judge Van Sicklen wants to continue the hearing and counsel try to work out another day and time. As court is ending, Van Sicklen comments that, ". . . the written work on both sides is outstanding." The next hearing date is scheduled for September 5th, at 1:30 pm.

September 5th
On this day, Mr. Sprocket drives down with me to the Torrance courthouse. I want him to take a short video of the prosecution arriving at court so I can put it up on the blog. However, we arrived too late to film their arrival. Mr. Sprocket left me at the courthouse and went off shopping at Home Depot. I was only able to get a photo of Mr. Pat Dixon arriving by himself.

When I'm finally in the courtroom, all the same players are seated and ready to go. Geragos for the defense, and Jackson, Ocampo, and Asayama for the prosecution. Pat Dixon is sitting in the row in front of me. I notice he has a large, absolutely striking watch on his left wrist and I have a hard time pulling my eyes away from it. There is a waiver by both parties for the Saipan hookup today. Geragos filed a number of exhibits but will not be putting on any witnesses today. I'm guessing he couldn't get his expert to leave Mongolia and come to the US to testify.

Geragos argues his exhibits first. Van Sicklen removes his glasses and rocks a bit in his chair, his expression a study in concentration as he listens to Geragos's argument. Late arrival reporters enter the room and I have a hard time hearing Geragos from the back row. Consequently, I don't have any notes on his arguments. Then Jackson is up at bat and he makes an interesting argument. "The real issue is, which law applies? We know there is a 793 law that provides no protection [. . .] which of the two citations of the law applies [here]? The law as it stands clearly dictates that the only penal code that applies is 793. Any statute can be appealed at any time [. . .] 656 is not a substantial defense; it's a procedural [statute]. 793 only vests when he [the defendant] enters a plea of once in jeopardy. The laws methods have to be pursued by the defendant. Double jeopardy is not applied unless the defense has asked for the application of those rights. [. . .] As I indicated, a change in a statute can be amend a procedure down the road."

More arguments are made, and then Judge Van Sicklen does something interesting. He interrupts Jackson and asks this question of him, "When does jeopardy attach?" And with this question, I get a gut feeling that Van Sicklen has made up his mind on the murder charge, and he believes that jeopardy has attached in the '88 murder warrant. I keep thinking he's going to rule on that right then and there. Jackson and Van Sicklen go back and forth on this issue. Asayama steps up and states, "He [Miura] never made that claim of double jeopardy. In order for it to legally vest, the defendant has to assert." Jackson is back on point. "[The] defendant never entered the once in jeopardy plea. [. . .] He has no double jeopardy claim because California doesn't recognize the Japan conviction." With this argument, Jackson is relying on the new statute that was ammended in 2004.

It's now Ric Ocampo's turn, and he addresses the "aiding and abetting" theory verses the "conspiracy" theory. There are several ways the prosecution can go, since the ". . . crime of conspiracy doesn't exist in Japan. There is no 'enhanced' punishment in Japan for a 'theory' of conspiracy."

Geragos gets in the last word today. "It's not true that it's necessary a defendant has to come to court to declare to be vested. The act that triggers the protection is the jury conviction." Geragos's tone shows he's quite irritated with the prosecution's arguments. "Jeopardy attaches once the conviction occurs. The comparison of this case to a juvenile case example is ludacrous!"

Judge Van Sicklen responds, "I think I've heard enough. there's still a lot of analysis I have to do, but by the end of next week, it's impossible. I'm going to try to provide some analysis." With a smile on his face Van Sicklen adds, "No more briefs!" And with that comment several of the attorney's laugh and court is adjourned for the day.

I call Mr. Sprocket to come pick me up and we decide to spend the rest of the day shopping in the Torrance area. We stop by the huge Marukai market and some other Asian stores before we head back to the valley.

September 26th
On the drive down donchais and I talk about several hot cases we're covering and the various comments we've received on the blog: Judge Halverson, Casey Anthony and of course, Phil Spector. I don't believe there will be much coverage of Spector. The economy is about ready to tank, most new organizations are hurting and besides, it's old news. I predict if there is coverage, it will only be the important points of the trial. There will not be anything new at round deux. We both think that there is a strong possibility that Halverson could have injured herself because the tape of her 911 call sounds completely scripted. We're also hoping that the Orange County Sheriff's Office in Orlando, Florida is getting their final T's crossed and I's dotted for an arrest of Casey Anthony on the death of her child, Caylee. We are both overly saturated with Casey Anthony drama and wish the entire crazy family would just go away.

When I finally get to the parking lot, I realize that my cell phone battery is just about dead and I won't be able to take the photographs of the building and all the reporters waiting outside like I had hoped. I sit in my car a bit, trying to charge up my phone.

On the fifth floor, the crowd of Japanese reporters appears smaller than the last time, but it's just an illusion. The Public Information Office (PIO) has more than half their staff here to keep the process moving smoothly and orderly. There is a demand for individuals to turn over their recording devices, and many of the reporters hand them to the PIO staff for safekeeping. Today, Allan Parachini announces to the crowd that no email, PDA's or laptops will be allowed in the courtroom today. I notice there are two young deputy explorers standing by the front door to the courtroom and they will be inside to assist in keeping order.

I see the City News desk reporter, and I over hear her talking to the newest member of the PIO staff. I step closer and ask her if she will be covering Spector. She doesn't know yet. Her superiors still have not made the decision whether or not they will put a reporter on that trial every day. And then I see a face that I thought had left the PIO office and moved out of state. It's Miriam! I over hear her tell someone that she's just here for a wedding, and she is helping out for a few days. I reach over and touch her shoulder and tell her it's nice to see her.

I'm finally inside the courtroom in the back row, but I don't see any counsel up at the tables. Sandi Gibbons is a late arrival with Rick Ocampo. Phyllis I saw in the hallway earlier. I see Claudia from KFWB grab the last seat in the front row on the right. I haven't seen her since a month or so after the end of Spector 1. I now see Mark Geragos alone at the defense table. The courtroom is packed. Almost every seat is filled. It's 1:32 pm and Alan Jackson isn't here yet.

A few minutes later and I see Jackson at the prosecution's table. He appears to be reading a document, his posture in a familiar position. His right elbow is resting on the table, and his right forefinger is resting on his right temple. He appears completely absorbed in the document he's reading. At 1:36 pm Judge Van Sicklen takes the bench.

Van Sicklen states that both counsels have the written ruling with his analysis he's prepared. He is granting the defense motion to quash the arrest warrant on the murder, but denying it as to the conspiracy count. His reasons for his decisions are in the written ruling.

Geragos requests that the Judge stay the ruling until they can get an appellate ruling. Van Sicklen responds, "I don't have any jurisdiction over Saipan." Geragos goes on to ask again to stay to seek an appellate ruling. Ocampo stands and defends the people's position.

Van Sicklen states, "He [Miura] will be arraigned in downtown, Department 30." The case is now out of his hands.

And that's it. Court is over and the press files out to get a copy of the Judge's written ruling. Only those news organizations on the list will receive a single free copy. All others will have to pay for a copy in the clerk's office. I debate on whether or not to wait the reported half hour it will take to get the extra copies ready for sale. I decide to leave the courthouse and head home.

Outside the courthouse, I'm standing on the steps trying to decide whether or not I'm going to listen to Geragos talk to the press or head directly home. Jackson and Ric Ocampo are on the sidewalk along with, IIRC, Pat Dixon. This is my opportunity to ask the prosecution a question. I approach the group and ask, "Has it been decided who will be assigned to this case?" Ocampo responds that at this time, nothing has changed. Ocampo and Dixon are now trying to convince Jackson to at least listen in on the presser. Jackson's not interested, and I don't blame him. Ocampo asks Jackson something to the effect of, "What are you going to go do?" And Jackson jokingly responds "I'm going to go hang out with her," reaching his arm out towards me. At a loss for words, I smile as everyone slowly walks over to listen in on what Geragos is saying to the press.

Afterwards, Sandi Gibbons addresses the group of reporters. When I get bored with the press questions, I walk towards the group of PIO staff. Nervous, I try to make some small talk with the ladies. "Is it a short day today?" I ask. They smile and say it's already a long day. And then I ask them a faux pas question, "Did anyone have any predictions?" And that makes them all freeze and Allan Parachini quickly comes over to answer, stating something to the effect of, "It's not their position to have an opinion." Oops. Wrong thing to ask. All during the drive home I'm driving behind a huge white truck that says, 'Document Shredmobile,' and all I can think about is I'm worrying that I've unintentionally pissed of Allan Parachini. From now on, I'll just smile and ask if anyone has any pets.

The Associated Press

Rafu.com

Phil Spector Pretrial Hearing August 14th, 2008, Kazuhoshi Miura, Cameron Brown and Dominick Dunne

With so much going on in the Sprocket household these days, I decided to drive into downtown LA for Spector's pretrial hearing so I could get back home, faster. I was hoping that I might run into Dr. C. Carroll Adams for an update on what's happening in the Cameron Brown case and as luck would have it, Dr. Adams was in the hallway on the 9th floor, waiting for Judge Pastor's courtroom to open at 1:30. He is currently watching a retrial of a case he first started watching at the end of Spector 1. He could not talk about it above a whisper at all (I barely heard what he said), since jurors from that trial were in the hallway all around us.

Dr. Adams mentioned that Spector's defense team was at the courthouse yesterday, appearing before Judge Perry in Dept 104. This had to do with the double jeopardy issue and the motion for an "indefinite stay" in Spector's trial that the Associated Press reported on yesterday.

We talked a bit about this motion for an indefinite stay filed by Spector's defense team. I will explain it a bit here since I've received a few emails and comments on the blog about the "double jeopardy" motion filed by the defense and people are confused about it. First, you need to read the defense's motion , titled "DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION IN LIMINE, BASED ON PLEA OF ONCE IN JEOPARDY, FOR ORDER PRECLUDING THE PROSECUTION FROM DISCUSSING IN ITS OPENING STATEMENT, INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF, MAKING CLOSING ARGUMENTS ON, OR SEEKING INSTRUCTIONS ON ANY LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THE CHARGED CRIMES OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER." It's available on the LA County Court's website, here. After that, I recommend reading the prosecution's response to that motion here, on T&T. I did not copy the entire document and the Court's website has not yet uploaded a copy of the document.

At the end of Spector 1, once both parties rested and the jury instructions were hammered out. (Do you remember that torturous process?) At that time, the Court ruled that since no party presented a theory that would support a lesser included charge (manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter), then the jury would not receive any instruction to consider lesser included. They were only given the option of second degree murder or not guilty. The defense is now trying to say that since the Court instructed that in the first trial, that amounts to an "acquittal" of a lesser charge of manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. Consequently, because of that ruling, the prosecution should be prohibited from being able to present any arguments for lesser included charges in their case in the retrial, because if they did, that would be "double jeopardy" for those lesser charges.

On July 29th, the motions mentioned above were argued before Judge Fidler. At that hearing, Fidler stated that he would not rule on the defense motion at this time because it's too early. The Court does not know what the evidence will show. He would not make a ruling. There is no decision on this yet because the trial evidence has not been presented to a jury. However, the defense went before another judge requesting an "indefinite stay" so they will have ample time to "appeal" this issue. The problem is, there is no ruling to appeal. Fidler hasn't ruled on their initial motion. My thoughts are (and one reporter I spoke to agreed with me) that this stay will fail because how can one appeal a nonexistent ruling? Here is what I think is happening: Spector is trying to delay the trial by any means possible and Riordan and Weinberg are just following Spector's marching orders. If Riordan is half the appellate attorney he thinks he is, he knows this latest stunt will not fly.

The Cameron Brown case, Dr. Adams tells me that the trial has been delayed until sometime in early October. He did not have an exact date for me in his notes. Geragos is off the case and Pat Harris has officially taken over as lead counsel. According to Dr. Adams, apparently, Geragos has not been paid and that appears to be the main reason he's no longer representing Brown. The next pretrial hearing in that case is scheduled for September 5th, and the count reset to 0-45 from that date. From what Dr. Adams told me, Harris is currently in trial on another case and that is delaying the Brown case. At the last hearing it was agreed by both parties and the Court that Harris doesn't have to appear on September 5th; someone can stand up for him. I won't be attending that hearing but thought I would report on the new dates for those who are interested.

While I'm talking to Dr. Adams, Allan Parachini arrived and so did the AP reporter and another reporter whom I don't know. They are chatting away about the Miura hearing tomorrow in Torrance. Almost at the same time, Ciaran shows up as well as Robin and Sherri. It's about 1:25 pm and Courtroom 106 isn't open yet. There is a cameraman talking to Allan, and for a moment I think he's going to cover the proceeding but then he says his goodbye's to Allan and the other reporter's and takes off. There will be no video coverage or photos of today's rulings. Two distinguished gentlemen arrive and stand near the end of the hall. I get the feeling they are from the DA's office because they are not carrying briefcases but I don't know for sure.

Weinberg arrives without Riordan. Spector has waived his right to appear which means Rachelle Short, the trial bride has missed another photo op. Weinberg comes up and shakes hands with the AP reporter and says hello to the group of reporters. A few minutes later the prosecution team arrives. It's Alan Jackson, Truc Do, Ric Ocampo and a few others I don't recognize. The team greets the reporters and walk past them to shake hands with the gentlemen who arrived earlier and are standing a bit behind the press. I didn't see Sandi Gibbons walk up but she's here. The courtroom is finally opened and everyone slowly files in. Once inside the courtroom a familiar face who was at the prosecution table operating the Elmo shows up and says hello to everyone. She takes a seat on the "defense" side of the room. If I'm recalling correctly, I believe her name is Sudi.

The man I don't recognize with the prosecution team sits directly in front of me beside Ric Ocampo. I'm in the second row, about two seats in, leaving plenty of room for the AP reporter who likes to sit on the end of that row. The reporter is right there ready to sit down and I think I mention to Sherri or Robin that this is where the AP reporter likes to sit. she smiles and I tell her, "That is your reserved seat." Sherri and Robin sit in the row behind me. The AP reporter is kind enough to update me on Dominick Dunne. I knew that the surgery was cancelled but I didn't know that the book he is currently working on is his memoirs. I thought he was still working on finishing his last Bailey book. The AP reporter said that he went to the Dominican Republic for stem cell treatments. While he was there, a big party was thrown for him. He may go back and get another round of treatments there. That's just like Dominick to have a great time in the midst of his health issues. I said to the reporter, "Dominick has so much to offer the world. It would be so sad if he's not with us much longer." Please go to Dominick's Diary page, and leave him some positive thoughts towards a swift recovery. You could also send him a card, care of Vanity Fair and it will get to him.

Jackson and Truc Do are at the prosecution table, and Jackson is speaking to the reporter I don't know, who is sitting beside Ciaran. Jackson and the reporter exchange a few words about the Miura hearing in Torrance tomorrow, where Jackson will be presenting arguments to continue the extradition of Miura to the US. Jackson then looks over at me and asks how I'm doing. I don't hear his question clearly, and I think he's asking about Mr. Sprocket (but I realize how could he know about his injured arm) and then I think I hear the words carpal tunnel. I don't know why but I'm embarrassed. He's asking about my writing at the keyboard. I'm a little befuddled because I'm now wondering if he is referring to all my typing of recreating the prosecution's motions for the blog, but I'm also wondering if he was referring to the fact that I don't have my laptop with me. I smile and say I'm fine.

As I look around the courtroom, I see Pat Dixon in the third row, way off to my left. He's busy studying a small section of newspaper. Jackson, Truc and Weinberg all go into Judge Fidler's chambers and are there for a few minutes and after they exit, court is called into session.

Fidler states that since the people have presented two motions they should go first. Jackson starts off by mentioning something about a filing that the defense made that ". . . purports to be a declaration, but it's not a declaration. It doesn't establish any evidence or facts...but it does state argument...." Since I don't know what document he is referring to, I'm immediately lost. I then regain my footing just a tad. It has something to do with the defense making a statement, something to the effect of, the Court has ruled the PBA witnesses could not testify. That didn't make any sense because they were admitted, but maybe the defense motion is about the one's who were excluded. I'm lost again.

Jackson then moves on to present the argument of his motion to admit all 12 PBA's, and his argument is the Doctrine of Chances and the Doctrine of Corroboration.

AJ: "1101(b) doesn't require that level of recipe, that all 1101(b)'s are on a date . . . the defense said this is not consistent because it's not similar enough . . . they are relying on a civil case, Bowen, and not a criminal law case." Jackson explains the case, and says that the Court ruled correctly in that case to exclude all eight PBA's. "(In this case here) . . . in every one of our incidents, the exact same weapon was used . . . that distinguishes our case from Bowen . . . a single common marker . . . and in our case. . ."

Weinberg then stands up to interrupt Jackson. He's objecting to Jackson's motion. He's upset that Jackson is arguing a motion that they did not have time to respond to. That in the last hearing, time lines were agreed upon as to when motions would be filed. The prosecution was supposed to file by August 8th, and they filed this motion they are arguing on August 11th. And, the prosecution has not responded to their motions about the PBA's or Kemper. It's Weinber's understanding that this was all agreed to in the last hearing. You can tell he's quite perturbed that the prosecution has not followed the agreed upon filing dates, and has not made any formal response to their motions.

Weinberg is upset about the prosecution's latest motion to admit the PBA's under a new theory, the Doctrine of Chances and the Doctrine of Corroboration. . . these are totally contrary to what where the Court ruled in the first trial, that the PBA's needed to be linked by motive. "What the Court said is motive. The Curt identified that as the basis . . . no way that this evidence flies as motive . . . they are trying to do exactly what you told them not to do.

Jackson steps away from the podium and sits down. Weinberg continues: "There's no response (from the prosecution) to the "motive" motion (they filed) . . . Riordan is not here today to brief it, and there are no motions in reply."

Judge Fidler then says, "This is a new trial. I'm not bound by any of that. I'm not bound by anything in the first trial." He goes onto explain that we are starting fresh here. If a new argument is presented, a new theory for admitting evidence, he's obligated to consider it.

Out of the corner of my eye I see Dixon motioning Ocampo in the first row to come over to where he is sitting.

Jackson gets up and explains to the Court that, "We didn't respond because our thought is, we didn't think it was necessary. We thought it was ridiculous. We felt we didn't need to (respond)."

Jackson goes onto explain that these arguments are all interconnected. We don't concede motive. We don't concede Kemper. We are seeking 12 witnesses.

Unfortunately it's not clear in my notes but I believe this next part is Weinberg speaking.

"They presented the Doctrine of Chances; the Doctrine of Corroboration . . . under that theory . . . our motion was to exclude this evidence on motive . . . our motive is that there simply is a misconstruction of motive of 1101(b). . . with Kemper . . . that was presented as a common scheme or plan, not motive."

Jackson leans over and whispers to Truc as Weinberg is speaking.

Weinberg goes onto say, "There are so many things wrong here. . . In order to add Kemper, they are suddenly changing their scheme . . ."

Jackson stands up and says, "Mr. Weinberg says he's not prepared . . . not prepared to argue Kemper. . . and then he argues Kemper . . . we could have saved several pages of Diane's transcription (the court reporter) . . . and the court's time . . ."

Judge Fidler finally says something to the effect of, that all these arguments should be addressed at one time and not in piecemeal. All parties agree to that and a new trial date is set for September 15th at 1:30 pm. The admissibility of Dr. Pena as a witness is brought up and whether or not that will be argued then but I believe the Court indicated that this would be held over until October 2-3, or right before trial starts.

And that's it. Court is over. The reporters are commenting a bit that there is no headline today. The AP reporter says that in a few days (I think next week) she's going to Vegas to cover the OJ trial, so she may or may not be here for the start of Spector. As we all slowly head toward the elevators, Weinberg answers a few questions off the record. As we wait for the elevator, I ask Mr. Weinberg if he is flying home this evening. Sherri, Robin and I ride the elevator down with him. He is polite to Sherri and Robin, asking who they are, what is their interest in the trial and making a correct guess that they are not here, "for" Spector. I had the devilish urge to introduce myself as, "the woman your client tried to get permanently removed from the courtroom in the first trial," but I censored myself and didn't say anything.

On the way back to the parking lot I gave donchais a call and tried to explain what happened today; basically nothing. I think both sides came to the hearing unprepared, but for different reasons. I have to say, it didn't appear to be a very good excuse that Jackson gave for not having filed any responses to Weinberg's motions. From what transpired, it looks like the prosecution is presenting an entirely different theory for Spector 2, as to why all the 12 1101(b) witnesses should be admitted into evidence. Whether Fidler will be swayed by their new arguments remains to be seen on September 15th.

Kazuyoshi Miura Case Delayed Again

On July 16th, prosecutors requested a delay until September 2nd, in the hearing of Japanese business man Kazuyoshi Miura who was charged in 1988 for the contract killing of his wife, Kazumi Miura, on a busy street in downtown Los Angeles in 1981.

Just a few minutes ago, I contacted the Los Angeles County Courts' Public Information Office to find out if the prosecution's motion had been granted. Judge Van Sicklen granted the delay, but not for as long as the prosecution wanted. The hearing has been postponed until August 15th, at 3:00pm.

Cameron Brown Pretrial Hearing: June 13th, 2008

I don't take the train today. I need to pick up a bolt of fabric in downtown and driving means I don't have to come back for a second trip. Traffic was quite light and even leaving my driveway at five past 7:00 am, I made it down to the intersection of First and Hill by 7:35 am. What I did miss was my usual phone call to donchais when I drive into downtown. She and ritanita have been doing an excellent job tag teaming, covering the Neil Entwistle trial, so I just left her a message to give me a call when she could. I parked in the nine dollar lot and made my way up Broadway to the back of the criminal court building.

I pass through the first floor security and get off on the 9th floor and there's a surprise. This is the first time I've ever seen the 9th floor security closed up. No one is there and there are two gentlemen waiting (they look like detectives) for security to open. When the sheriff's finally do arrive, I'm the first person in the hallway at 7:52 am. As expected, the place is deserted.

I take the bench that is at the very end of the hall along the back wall. I get donchais on the phone and she fills me in on whats been happening with the Entwistle trial. I see Patty peek her head around the corner and then go back into the security station area by the elevators.

Patty's brother Ted rounds the corner and heads toward this end of the hall. With all the empty benches in the hall, Ted chooses to sit on the bench next to me. I'm talking to donchais as quietly as I can, but not long after Ted takes out his phone and is speaking to someone so loudly in a foreign language that I can't hear donchais speak. I stand up to walk away and Donchais says to me, "Is someone talking to you?" I tell her what's going on and I move to another bench several feet away on the side wall of the hallway. I can now hear my friend and continue our conversation.

Patty emerges from the restroom. She is wearing all black. She has some sort of open toed shoes or sandals on her feet. I did not look closely enought to see if they are the same ones she wore at the last hearing. This end of the hallway is almost completely empty, there's only a few other people standing at this end of the hall and as Patty approaches, she chooses the bench I'm sitting on. I don't know or care what Patty and Ted's motives are with their hallway bench selection. I just want to have a quiet, private conversation with donchais so I get up again and walk down past the elevators towards the opposite end of the long hallway.

As donchais and I consider a new story idea for the blog, I observe the other end of the hall as best I can and just wait for Pastor's courtroom to open. I can't really tell from where I'm sitting, but I figure that when Patty and Ted go in, I will head down to that end of the hall. From my far away point of view, I see Pastor's clerk enter 107. donchais and I chat a bit more about the Entwistle case. The trial has been on a break but it's almost over. After we say our goodbyes, I take the time to write up my observations so far.

After a bit, I get up from my seat and go stand in the middle of the hallway opposite the elevator bay. I keep my eyes peeled on Pastor's courtroom door. As I watch the other end of the hallway, Patty and Ted are still on their chosen benches. They don't appear to be talking to each other, but if they were I wouldn't be able to tell anyway. I see Patty stands up and walks over to Ted for a moment but she doesn't stay more than a few moments then goes back and sits on the same bench. It's 8:27 am. In just a few minutes the courtroom should be open. Then I observe Ted get up and go sit by Patty.

Mark Geragos shows up and I see Patty give him a big smile. They all head into the courtroom together and that's when I head down towards 107. Patty is sitting in the front row on the far left of the long bench, and I also sit in the front row at the opposite end near the jury box. Ted is in the row behind Patty, off to her right a bit. At 8:35 am the Judge is in his robes but he's not really on the bench or calling court into order. Geragos and Craig Hum greet Judge Pastor right beside his clerk's desk, and it's pleasantries all around as Geragos shakes the Judge's hand. The Judge and both counsel stand there for some time chatting. It's all pleasant sounding conversation although I can not get any detail as to what is being said.

The court reporter is here. A suited gentleman in the well (a clerk or an attorney for another case) speaks to the gallery about the Laker upset last night. Ted responds, "What's the matter with those guys. They play like that, they deserve to lose. " There's more chatter about the game but I don't take any more notes on that. I'm still trying to watch the Judge and see if I can ascertain what they are discussing. More people enter the courtroom, a silver gray haired man with a mustache (whom I can't identify) and a younger, bald headed man whom I believe is Nareg Gourjian, an associate in Geragos's law practice. There are a few others who enter and sit in the same general area with them. The gentleman with the mustache appears in a photo montage on the home page of Geragos's web site but he's not identified anywhere.

We are all waiting for Brown to be brought into the courtroom. Pastor's bailiff is here and I notice one of the gentlemen in Geragos's group is speaking to Patty but I tune it out. I'm still watching Geragos and Hum in deep in conversation with Judge Pastor.

Another sheriff, a black woman comes in to chat with Pastor's clerk. The man who was speaking to Patty is now talking to some of the other individuals in the group. I'm betting that the two attorneys and Judge Pastor are hammering out when this trial is going to start. Geragos has the Miura case that still isn't settled. (If you don't know about Miura this link has a short primer. It's a much higher profile case ~ at least in Japan ~ than Brown.) One could easily assume that Geragos needs to get that case over and done with before he puts all his efforts on Brown. Late in the afternoon on Friday, I learned that the next Miura pretrial has been moved from June 16th to July 18th in Torrance, which is where Judge Van Sicklen who is presiding over the Miura matter, is now located.

Ah. The Judge and counsel must have come to an agreement since the attorneys leave the Judge and I overhear the Judge say something to the effect of "... present this to Mr. Brown." A smiling Geragos goes over and greets a pretty young clerk or extern with brown hair and bangs standing behind Judge Pastor's clerk's desk. Hum is over talking to the court reporter. It's 9:55 am and we still wait for Brown to be brought into the courtroom. I see Patty and Ted whisper for a moment. The mustached gentleman passes what looks like a CD or DVD to Patty and Ted. Patty says to Ted, "Check it out."

This could very well be related to the other charge Brown is facing, possession of a weapon while incarcerated. At a pretrial hearing for that case in another court, Brown's counsel demanded that the sheriff's department hand over video tapes or CD's or whatever medium these videos were are stored on. These are tapes of daily activities from the jail that are collected on a hard drive. I don't catch all of Patty's reply back to mustached man which is something to the effect of, "I can't possibly... (?imagine?) ....they must be thinking." Since I'm not really interested in that case and have decided not to follow it, I tune out any more conversation.

Geragos is still having a jovial conversation with Pastor's clerk and the slender young woman. Judge Pastor is in discussion with two other gentlemen, most likely another case.

Brown is finally brought in. He nods and gives a quick smile to Patty and Ted. His hair has been cut very short but his beard is still quite long. Geragos consults with Brown for a few moments and I see the mustached man enter the well and sit in one of the chairs along the low railing behind Geragos. Jurors for another case file along the back wall and proceed to the jury room.

Pastor calls court into order and states that Hum and Geragos are here for the record. There are a few issues that still need to be resolved before they go to trial, and there's scheduling. They are asking for one more pretrial hearing on June 30th, and a trial start date of July 28th, marking that date as a 0-30 count.

The Judge formally asks Brown if he gives up his right to a speedy trial and he first nods his head and then says "Yes," for the record. The Judge formally states that trial will start on July 28th with 0-30 starting there after. On the 3oth, there may be a problem with Hum attending since he may still be in trial in another court. Judge Pastor says that we may do the hearing telephonically, so they may have to facilitate that.

Geragos then asks the court to order the defendant to get a shave. I hear Geragos say, "I want him cleaned up (for trial). Enough of this Taliban look." (That's the word I believe I hear: Taliban.) I glance over at Ted and Patty and I see that Ted has his face down in his arm and his face is beet-red. To me, it appears that Ted finds this statement by Geragos hilarious and is trying to keep himself from laughing out loud in court. The Judge says that he was under the impression that Mr. Brown did not want to get a shave, and he asks Brown what he wants. Brown indicates that since it's closer to trial, he agrees to a shave.

Geragos goes onto say, "They're obviously playing games over there." (Apparently referring to the LA County Jail, and the harassment Brown and his attorneys are claiming he is consistently experiencing at the hands of the sheriffs.') Geragos is mentioning to Judge Pastor now that he and his staff are, "...being made to wait as much as two hours to speak to their client." Pastor appears to be very concerned about this and tells Geragos that he spoke to an officer there. Geragos tells the Judge something to the effect that yes, while he was on the phone with you, but right after he (the officer) said, "No Judge is going to tell me what to do." Geragos tells Judge Pastor, "I'm going to take care of it." And Pastor addresses Geragos, "Handle it properly." Geragos mentions again, "Have to sit for two hours and then for them to say there's no Sergeant available."

The Judge states that he will sign an order requesting that Brown will get a shave. And that's it. I get up to leave as fast as possible. I've got to go get fabric and I've got a client later at 1:00 pm. Ted is right by the door, almost waiting for me to exit and he addresses me. "You know you can talk to us if you like. We're friendly," he says. Although I'm sure an accredited journalist would jump at the chance, I continue out the courtroom doors without responding to him.

I understand that Patty and Ted are standing by Brown and I can respect that. However, T&T has always been a "pro prosecution" blog and it's always been about trial reporting. It's never been an avenue for a defendant's relatives to air their support for their loved one. Patty and Ted have been very vocal in their support of Brown on other blogs and web sites, vigorously defending him against those who think Brown is guilty. T&T is not interested in being drawn into those debates.

I don't know if Cameron Brown did or did not throw his daughter off that Rancho Palos Verdes cliff, Inspiration Point but there is one thing that troubles me about this case. In his first trial, Cameron Brown chose not to take the stand and tell the jury himself in his own words that he is not guilty in the death of his daughter. I understand that when an individual takes an oath to be a juror, they are not allowed to hold that against a defendant. That's a fundamental right of our legal system and it's one of the things that sets the bar higher than the justice served in some other countries. However, I'm not sitting on a jury. I'm in the gallery, observing a trial and observing the defendant. That's one of the things that I'm always interested in: a defendant's behavior pre- and post-incident. I have the question that many T&T readers probably have. Why isn't Brown taking the stand and telling us what happened? Why isn't he telling the jury the story he told investigators? He was there. He is the only witness to this horrific incident. What happened on that cliff, Mr. Brown? How did your daughter happen to fall? From my perspective, if I was innocent and wrongfully accused of premeditated murder, there is nothing that could keep me off the witness stand. I would want to tell the jury myself exactly what happened. Let them hear the story from me, directly.

After court, I drove the few blocks over to my long time canvas and flannel supplier in the warehouse district. Read about that story, and the rooster I saw, on my sewing blog. It should be up later today.

Kazuyoshi Miura Case: Pre-Trial Hearing May 9th

I apologize that it has taken this long to get a story up. Blogging has taken a back seat to RL priorities in the last few weeks.

I take the train today to save on expenses. Unleaded gas in Los Angeles is fluctuating somewhere between $3.85 to $3.95 a gallon. Mr. Sprocket drops me off at the train station in North Hollywood. He's on a bit of a forced work break having injured his arm just two weeks ago today.

The NH station is virtually empty and as I get down to the train platform there is a train just about ready to leave. I pick up my pace walking down the escalator and just make the train. I'll call donchais as soon as I get back above ground. Just passing the Universal City Station, there is a group of young teenage boys that, even though I'm terrible at judging ages, must still be in school. I wonder why they are all off today.

The car is about 3/4's of the way full and not very noisy at all. I can't help but listen in on the teens conversation and try to keep from rolling my eyes or laughing.

"Dude! If you had teleportation powers, you wouldn't have to pay for anything! Teleport on some's skateboard! They'd be like, WTF? Teleport into someones car..."

All this dialog is accompanied by sound effects to represent the teleportation and the astonished individuals faces when you would teleport next to them. Passing the Wilshire/Vermont station the car starts to fill up and I continue to wonder where the teens are headed. Right before I get off at Civic Station, I overhear that they are headed into Chinatown.

I finally get to the courthouse and through the first floor security. When I reach the 13th floor, I'm told that they will not be drawing tickets because they believe they will be able to get everyone in this time. In the large crowd, I see Miriam Hernandez from local ABC Ch 7. They public liaison clerks start calling out the accredited paper's names and the Japanese journalists line up.

Associated Press! GG Press! NHK! Sun K Shinbushin (sp?)! LA Times! Fuji TV! City News! Channel 7! KNX Radio! KTLA! CNN! Japanese Broadcasting! US Frontline News!

After most of the reporters are lined up, Alan Parachini speaks to the crowd. "We don't know if there will be a ruling today. If there is a decision, don't assume there will be a written decision along with it."

I see the cute Japanese reporter Mirei Sato again and we exchange greetings. This time, her paper US Frontline got on the reserved list for a seat and she joined the line when her paper was called. I also see Mary Plummer from The Yomiuri Shimbun and she introduces me to her associate, Caleb (sp?) who knows more about the Miura case.

Caleb and I chat about the types of stories that interest him the most and if he ever gets the opportunity to choose the stories he reports on. Caleb has an interest in anything science or medicine related and we discuss what he's followed in neuro-physics, black holes and the atom smashing machine (particle accelerator) on the border of France and Switzerland. The machine hasn't been turned online yet and there is fear that the machine could create a miniature black hole in the center of the earth. Apparently, the machine that was planned in Texas was abandoned and there is one planned for somewhere in California. I mentally shake my head at the thought of building one of these machines in a state rife with earthquakes.

We're finally let into the courtroom and I take a seat in the center back row. It's not a great seat, but I can see a bit more than I did at the previous hearing. It's 1:35 pm and court hasn't started yet. I see Sandi Gibbons is in the front on the very far right of the courtroom. She's wearing a really nice black suit and white blouse. I have a feeling she's going to be speaking to the cameras today after the hearing, and not Alan Jackson.

I see the AP photographer in the jury box along with the video camera and other photographer. We are just waiting for the judge, who just now takes the bench.

Judge Van Sicklen: "I've had a chance to review everything, and will give both sides (time) to respond. Mr. Geragos has the burden and the motion."

I don't know what it is, but I just have a hard time listening to Geragos. Geragos goes over the points in his motion saying something about "the tortured meaning about 656..." He goes onto say, "The second thing is the Mallord case. The Superior Court case said that the language shall not apply." (I'm lost here. I'm not getting what shouldn't apply.) He brings up another case. "Michael Conolly, (sp?) 1936 case, the Superior Court ha said, no prosecution can be made against this witness." Then he mentions something about 804 and 977 and that the people are somehow making it out that 977 "is the trump card" but Geragos also mentions that the California Supreme Court "...does not require the defendant's presence, it's called the Beardsley Analysis." People vs Beardsley is a 1991 case. "656 is implemented at trial. 793 is prior to trial," Geragos says. There are more rulings and cases quotes and I'm totally lost again.

"866 section specifically says that you can present a defense at preliminary hearing. If there is no preliminary hearing then why do we need Division 30?" Another case is mentioned but my notes on it are not clear.

Alan Jackson gets up to speak for the people. "Mr. Geragos misses the entire point. We are not trying to be creative as to what the statue states. Prosecutions will be prosecuted by indictment or an information (process). 682: The only way a felon can plead, specifically hold that there are five exceptions to that broad rule."

"Why do we have Division 30? Common sense. Because the prosecution has not begun until a prelim or exam. (There are) separation of powers. The judicial branch is examining evidence." And he goes on about the separation of powers between the various branches to support his point. Jackson mentions 1016, and something about "a plea of once in jeopardy, the prosecution (?) an indictment. Under 977, he has to come back. But let me say about the cases presented. Six cases. Valiant effort, but all the information (decisions?) was post indictment, or post trial."

"If you follow his (Geragos) reasoning, this would be the first time in California history that this would be done. (Not requiring an accused to be present.) There are many stages between now and then. There are many stages and arguments. 793 has to be litigated. What was he tried for. What was the conviction? Was there an acquittal? Are those the same acts he will be charged for here?"

I write in my notebook: Jackson is magnificent!

"These are all things that must be litigated. He can't phone in a defense." I look up at the right wall of the courtroom and there are photographs of 29 Criminal Supervising Judges up high on the wall.

The Judge finally speaks. "I want to resolve some of the glaring issues, and will prepare a tentative ruling. Bottom line, absolutely right on point. Geragos did not present anything of a legal nature to prove that Miura was convicted and the decision overturned. His motion would fail at least because of that. You (Geragos) have not shown that jeopardy would attach."

"Whether or not he can waive his appearance on 793....whether he is here or not, there's no reason that I could anticipate that I could ask him about....the people can not explain how the people are prejudiced by him not being here....." And Jackson gets up and apologizes for interrupting the Judge.

"No prejudice exists. There is a procedural prejudice," Jackson replies.

I agree if there was just 656. I would agree," the Judge responds, and then goes on to give an example of a person acquitted and then confesses. "The people, under our law could not convict. 973 says you are immune from doing that. We are dealing with constitutional question not just statue questions."

The Judge then says he's going to table the matter until May 23rd as to that issue, and it looks like Geragos is going to win Miura not having to come to the US just yet. The Judge asks Geragos if he can get Miura connected to the courtroom for the next appearance via a video feed. Geragos babbles something about getting a hook-up via his son's Apple computer.

I have a note here, but I'm not sure who said it; Geragos or the Judge. You arrange for a video screen. We can ask him for his waiver via the video feed.

The Judge goes onto say that, "Just dealing with 793 excludes 656." And then it's like he's pondering some things over in his mind. "When does a prosecution actually begin? The arrest warrant begins," and then he calls off cases to support his point. "(It) starts from complaint; not from information." Another case example is given. Hannon. Case starts one a complaint is filed. Immunity is granted long before a case is filed. Not an offense, an immunity.

Jackson steps up to speak again. "These are due process rights to that particular procedure. I don't know that we've had a case where we've...." The Judge and Jackson argue case points, and then Ric Ocampo also joins the banter, but I was scribbling so fast, I'm not exactly sure who said what.

If prosecution ignores defenses or immunity exists, they shouldn't be doing that. (Judge?)

If we don't like the law.... (?)

Ric Ocampo argues, "We disagree in the interpretation on the double jeopardy issue."

I don't know if we've ever seen this before... a person with extradition. (Judge?)

We have an immunity issue. It's a (?) of law and enormous expense. In the Judge's opinion, a prelim won't make a difference. (Judge)

Alan Jackson: "This is an important issue and I appeal that the court takes the time. How can we even make a determination if the acts are the same? How can we determine that?"

Judge: "You lay out in your complaint in great detail. We can determine that from the documents in Japan. I think we all know that we are all dealing with the same case."

There's lots of commentary by the Judge that the case has been heavily in the media, and the media has reported that this is the same case, however, we don't have any judicial documents to substantiate that.

And I write a note here that it now sounds like Geragos has won, well, at least has stopped the extradition in it's tracks.

Judge: "My ruling is against the people on whether he has to be here. My ruling is that we can proceed without him. On the issue of judicial notice, I think you (people) prevail." Then there is quite a bit of wrangling to try to get a date to come back that everyone can agree on. The Judge did state that he needs documents from Japan, translated, from three different court rulings. The arraignment, the trial court, and Japan's high court that over ruled. We're talking about thousands of pages of documents, translated. That's going to take a while.

Gerago's motion to quash the arrest warrant would fail because he did not include these documents in with his motion to show his client had legally been prosecuted before. A date is finally chosen to reappear. June 16th.

As I'm leaving the courtroom, I see over on the far left side of the courtroom in the almost the back row, Pat Dixon sitting by himself in casual clothes.

The press conference is held in the same place on the Temple Street plaza. It's not really a big "plaza" like one would think but just the small open space in front of the building.

Smiling, Geragos tells the dozens of Japanese reporters, "The judge ruled that Miura didn't have to be here. (At the next hearing) at that time, we are hopeful that the case will be thrown out. The judge decided that Miura didn't need to be here. We've won that we won't have to drag him here. I'm disappointed only in that he has to sit there for another five weeks. Miura will be on video for the next hearing."

Then Sandi speaks to the press, and I can't hear her over the street traffic. I'm too far back in the crowd.

"The Judge says that Miura doesn't have to be here for the double jeopardy ruling, but that he also needs to see the rulings from the Japanese court before he can rule ( on double jeopardy)."

Sandi goes onto say that these are hundreds of pages of documents and it will take some time to get them from Japan and translated. She sort of hinted that the date of June 16th will probably be delayed again depending on how long it takes to get these documents and get them translated.

And that's it. I give donchais a call to update her on today's proceedings and I take the train back home.

Kazuyoshi Miura Case: Pre-Trial Hearing April 23rd, Part II

Miura Hearing Coverage Continued:

On the 13th floor, I round the corner and catch the eye of Liz from the public liaison's office. She immediately knows I will want a public seat. I get a ticket and my number is 696782. They are collecting recording devices from the reporters. When I get off the phone with donchais I try to get an internet connection in the hallway of the 13th floor. Nothing I try works. I'm using our data plan, tethering my phone to my laptop, and I've had this problem before. I can get a good connection while in the ground floor cafeteria, sometimes on the 9th floor hallway but I also had difficulty getting a connection within the courtroom at the last Spector pre-trial hearing. I'm coming to the realization that when Spector round deux comes around, I will have to bite the bullet and pay my cell phone service provider for a monthly internet connection if I have any hope of blogging on that trial from the back row of Courtroom 106.

So, I go back to scribbling notes in a notebook. Liz and another cute woman from the Public Liaison's office (I know her by sight from Spector but for the life of me I can't remember her name; Miriam; Marilyn?) start to call off the reporter's names or the news service they are with, and ask them to line up. "Ted Kim; Terry Keith; Channel 7; KNX Radio; Channel 5." I see a video camera operator go in. The Asian camera guy that I've seen at Spector and Robert Blake's civil trial get's called and he picks up his various cameras.

"LA Japanese News; Fox 11." I see Miriam Hernandez is here and she gets in line. Liz and her coworker struggle with some of the Japanese names. Four LA County sheriffs are standing off to the side beside me, watching the entire proceedings. More reporters keep arriving. I go up to Liz and I ask her who will be arguing for the people. Will it be Pat Dixon? I had read in some articles that he had been assigned to this case. Liz tells me a name of a prosecutor who's name has been on most of the motions, but then says, "Don't quote me." I tell her I won't say anything until I see the individual for myself.

One of the sheriff's in the group beside me is a very pretty woman who starts to speak to the Japanese reporters in Japanese. After she is finished, I go up to her and ask her what she told them. She said that she just told them that once they are in the courtroom, they must stay in. There will be no "going in and out." Geragos is finally here and he goes into the courtroom via the clerk/judge's entrance.

The reporter for the LA Times finally shows up and I also see Sandi Gibbons. A cute woman reporter on assignment here has been standing beside me, and I point out Sandi to her and tell that this is the DA's office spokesperson. She also had to get a ticket. I explain to her the process and that it is always like this. To get a reserved seat she has to register with the court's Public Information/Liaison's office. She's quite frustrated because they are now letting in the reporters that are on the waiting list for a seat, and some of them are second and third seats with papers that are already inside the courtroom. They are letting these journalists in before the public. They then start calling numbers and my number is not called. It's at the very end that Alan Parachini decides that there is enough room to let everyone else in the hall inside. If I'm remembering correctly, the reporter mentioned something about moving the hearing to a larger courtroom, and I told her this "is" the largest courtroom. When I finally get inside, the reporter that I was talking to in the hall is in the courtroom a row or two in front of me. I see Sandi Gibbons in the very front row on the far right of the courtroom, the same side I am sitting on.

This gallery is much wider than Fidler's courtroom and it is almost packed but not quite. There is also extra seating in the well area for assistants to sit directly behind the attorneys presenting their case. Alan Parachini is addressing the courtroom and he is explaining the rules of this courtroom. "There are no tape recorders allowed on your person. No cell phones. No trio's, no photography, no blackberries. We have allowed one Japanese news agency to film." I look over and I see that with the camera operator, there are two still photographers also set up. Alan goes onto say that if you are caught using a device that is not allowed such a recorder or take a photograph you will be removed from the courtroom and no one from your organization will be allowed back in to cover this case.

It's official. Alan Jackson and Ric Ocampo will be arguing for the people. I'm estatic. I observe some reporters hand their business cards to Sandi Gibbons. A sheriff now gets up and speaks to the crowd. He asks if there is anyone who did not get a blue envelope package. (It's actually a folder that he holds up.) I'm thinking, "Hey, I didn't get one, lol!" He point's out various papers in the folder with the universal images of cell phones and recorders with the circle around them and a line drawn through them. He basically says the same thing Alan Parachini said a few moments earlier.

In this courtroom, the prosecution is sitting on the right and the defense on the left. It's just the opposite of Judge Fidler's courtroom. It's now 1:35 pm and the judge finally takes the bench. Back in the far left of the well, I see a few ladies standing and one of them is Wendy, Judge Fidler's clerk. The Judge is Steven K. Van Sicklen.

Judge Van Sicklen starts off by saying he "...respects the fact that there is a significant interest in this case. We take the rules that apply to the media very seriously. We've allowed a camera and two still photographers." He stresses what Alan Parachini and the sheriff also said about no cell phones, no recording devices but goes onto to point out that since he has now mentioned this on the record, if anyone violates these rules then they could also be liable for prosecution for violating his directive.

Geragos is on the record for the defense, Alan Jackson and Rick Ocampo for the people. Geragos is presenting a motion to quash the arrest warrant. Van Sicklen states that he has read all of the motion papers that have been submitted, and Geragos is asked to stand up and address the people's response to his motion.

He starts off by talking in California penal code numbers, 656 and 793 and that each one operates differently. Geragos mentions the Martinez case ruling out of San Diego. He also brings up the amended 2004 law, and that there is nothing in there about applying this law retroactively. Specific areas of the penal code are mentioned and I get lost in the details of what he's trying to argue. In Geragos argument, "656 applies not 793."

Alan Jackson gets up to speak. I know he's going to present a great argument. "The reason we are all here is because he committed a murder in California. While we're not there (in trial?) yet, Mr. Miura is glaringly absent." Jackson brings up another section of the penal code 977b and says something to the effect that every proceeding "starts and stops there. It's not a willy nilly procedure." It's mandatory in all cases. The defendant must appear in court. Each time, the defendants body must be in the courtroom. He must come to court to appear or waive his presence. Even to waive his presence he has to appear before the court to waive it. He must be here at all stages of the proceedings. You can't possibly ignore this statue. Overturning these decisions are legion. It's to protect the defendant's right. It's our opinion that ends the argument. 977 begins and ends the argument."

Geragos stands to address the people's argument. "It's just plain wrong. 973 bars the people from prosecuting Miura. They have no jurisdiction. I have a notarized waiver from Mr. Miura."

The Judge asks about the next date in Saipan and it's May 28th. Saipan is waiting to see what happens in California. Van Sicklen addresses Geragos. "Mr. Jackson is correct. Unless we did something to his (Miura) detriment.... when can you litigate it? Can you do it pre-arraignment? Or does it actually have to go to trial? I've been wondering if you can do it before arraignment itself."

Gerago's gets back up and says 973 bars institutions from illegal prosecutions. (Those are not his exact words but it's something to that effect.) Van Sicklen says he agrees with the people's 656 argument, but he doesn't know about 793. When Geragos gets back up to argue, you can tell there is quite a bit of irritation in his voice. "They (656 and 793) were amended in tandem!!" he says with an exasperated tone.

Van Sicklen says something to the effect, "If 793 is an immediate (?) statute, and we have someone thousands of miles away.....what is your opinion Mr. Jackson and why, because of 793...???" Jackson replies that he (Miura) must make arguments in person because of 977. "The defendant can't phone in the defense. He can't say, I don't want to appear because it's inconvenient."

Van Sicklen responds that the extradition is not before the court, and he doesn't really want to discuss that since it is not in any of the motion papers. But that is at the heart of the matter. The motion to quash, the complaint and the underlying warrant all goes to the extradition.

Geragos gets up and argues again the differences between the three statues. Stricklen states that Geragos makes a very interesting argument, and you can see that it appears that he's wavering a bit to Geragos' side. Earlier, I thought he was going to rule in favor of the people, but Geragos has won some ground with the judge at this point. Then Jackson gets up and does what he does best. He explains that the extradition is at the heart of the matter.

Jackson says, "Once the ball starts to roll, it can't be undone." He presents I think three case law examples about extradition between states and also gives an example almost exactly like this case. The judge listens and apparently is swayed. "I don't want to rush into this ruling. I want to be as pragmatic as possible." The attorney's and the judge hash out a return date. Van Sicklen wants the people to address Geragos's 973 arguments. A date of Friday, May 9th at 1:30pm is set to argue this matter again. All paperwork (motions) are due on Monday of that week, which would be May 5th. And that's it.

The reporters slowly exit the courtroom and I overhear that there will be a press briefing on the Temple Street plaza. And I get confused as to where that is and it suddenly dawns on me that this is the front of the building. I've always entered the building from the back, on 1st Street. I step back into the courtroom just as Alan and Ric are at the foyer and I touch Jackson's arm and tell him, "Great argument." He reflexively says, "Thank you," and then a second later, recognizes me. He then tells me, "I was just reading an article about you!" At first I thought, Did I get some bad press somewhere? but Jackson goes onto say that it was the ABA Journal article and then he asks me what did I compare him to a dog or something? I'm struggling with what he's talking about and then I remember. I explain to Mr. Jackson that the ABA article attributed a statement to me that was actually by a guest writer to the blog, Sedonia Sunset. (Here is Sedonia Sunset's story where she compares Jackson and Pat Dixon to Chance and Shadow from the movie Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey.)

The sheriff's call out to Jackson and the rest of the DA's who sat in on the hearing that there's "an express elevator with your name on it," and they all head off to one of the freight elevators. As Sandi Gibbons is rounding the corner away from me she's calling out, "Sprocket! Sprocket! I've got that information for you! It's five!" And I'm totally lost to what she is referring to. (It's not until later in the day that I realize she must have gotten mixed up in what I was asking for. I know that five PBA witnesses testified in the Spector trial; I want to know how many witnesses in total the prosecution presented motions to present. How many, total. I know there were others and I could have sworn someone told me at one time there were a total of fourteen, but maybe what she's telling me is it's five more.)

Down on the Temple Street plaza, (which is just a small walkway area in front of the building) you can see that Mark Geragos glows when he gets in front of the camera. As he starts to speak to the media (and there are quite a few cameras trained on him) I turn to Sandi who is standing right behind me (along with Alan and Pat Dixon) and say, "He wore a nice tie today." That's all that I can positively say about Mark Geragos. While Geragos beams for the camera, Jackson and Dixon compare the quality of the shine on their shoes and I smile as look down to see who's shoes are out shining the other.

My notes are sketchy here, but Geragos statement to the media is something to the effect of, California has no authority in this case. Specific penal code sections prohibit double jeopardy happening. And then Geragos tries to put his interpretation as to what he thinks the people's position is. "The judge can't decide without Mr. Miura here." I write in my notebook here, He loves the camera. "It's a complex issue and there is no case on point," Geragos continues." He mentions the San Diego judge's decision in the Martinez case and behind me, it's either Sandi or Alan Jackson who whispers something that I can barely hear, "It's not final. He can't cite a trial court." From my understanding, that's correct. Geragos needs to cite a Superior Court ruling that hits the law books, not just a trial judge's decision in another case. Geragos then says, "I'm confident the law is clear here." And that's it for him; he hands the stage over to Alan Jackson, who is basically standing in for Sandi.

Mr. Jackson is brief. He states that before summarily deciding is there jurisdiction, those arguments can't be made until he (Miura) is here, before the court. Jackson mentions that the people will specifically be addressing Judge Van Sicklen's request to address penal code 793 that Geragos argued before the court today.

And that's it. Nothing new until the attorney's file new motions before the court on May 5th, and the hearing date on May 9th.

The Japanese reporter I was talking to in the hallway outside the courtroom, we exchange pleasant goodbyes, but I make sure to ask her for her business card and I write down my blog address in her notebook. On the plaza, another woman reporter approached me and asked if she could ask me some questions. She was not able to get into the hearing and wanted my impressions about the hearing as well as wanted to know my opinion about all the Japanese media attention.

I told her a little bit about myself (I'm a semi-retired house wife that takes care of a messy husband; that I have attended a few other high profile trials, I have a blog and that the ABA Journal wrote about my blogging.) I also told her what I thought of the proceeding. I thought the Public Liaison's office did a good job of being prepared for the Japanese press. This media interest isn't much different than the Spector or OJ case here, and the way they handled things today is pretty much how it goes in other high profile cases.

I thought Alan Jackson's arguments were fantastic. I went on to sing Alan's praises as a rising star in the prosecutors office: he's got tons of charisma and juries as well as the public just love him. I mentioned his great skills during the Spector case as well as Jackson's success in the Mickey Thompson case. I said that although the Miura case is big in Japan, there is no interest here in the US. I felt Miura is interesting because in Japan, from my understanding Miura pursued the media spotlight, and his current wife is a noteworthy personality also. She wanted to know about why I was here, and I said it's because it's a murder trial, and I follow murder trials. I've had a life long interest in criminal psychology. As a closing question she said that Japanese like to know people's ages and she asked me how old I was. I had to think for a moment and then told her, "I'm 53." I ask for her business card and write out my blog address for her, too.

Later this evening when I'm trying to write up my entry I dig the two business cards out of my pocket and I realize I am a total idiot. I can't remember which card goes with which reporter! One of the reporters was Mirei Sato, a staff writer for U.S. Frontline News, Inc., and the other woman was Mary Plummer, Los Angeles bureau reporter for the Yomiuri Shimbun. Ladies, I sincerely apologize. I'll put up the photos I took as soon as I download them from my camera.