Cameron Brown 3rd Trial, Pretrial Hearing 11

 Arial view of Inspiration Point in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

In the above photo of Inspiration Point, at the far right point at the top of the cliff is where the prosecution alleges Cameron Brown threw his 4-year-old daughter, Lauren Sarene Key, to her death. Sprocket.

Friday, September 20th, 2013
I'm back downtown at the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center for a pretrial hearing in the Cameron Brown case.  I was here yesterday for a pretrial hearing in the Gerhard Becker case, but I don't have that report finished yet.  Hopefully, later tonight or tomorrow.

I arrive on the 9th floor a few minutes before 8:30 AM.  DDA Craig Hum is here along with a younger colleague. We are all waiting for Judge Lomeli's courtroom to open. Brown's wife Patty, is sitting on a bench at the end of the hallway with Brown's attorney, Aron Laub.  Laub is reading over several pages of a document. Patty leaves the bench and walks towards the center of the long hallway to make a phone call.

8:35 AM
The same bailiff who was here last time opens the courtroom and everyone files inside.  Before taking a seat, Patty Brown stops to speak to the bailiff about paying for a transcript with the court reporter.  The first two rows of gallery seating are still roped off and numbers are attached to the seat backs. Judge Lomeli's dual jury trial is still in progress.

Laub takes a seat at the defense table. Hum paces for a bit in the well while his associate takes a seat in one of the chairs against the well wall. Hum is wearing a grayish suit, baby blue shirt and light green tie. His hair looks a bit different to me today and I wonder if he's had a new cut.

I hear the bailiff on the phone asking for a "video escort."  Since Brown has made numerous complaints against the LA County Sheriff's for alleged mistreatment, anytime he is moved from one location to another, it's my understanding he must be video taped.

Hum walks over to where Laub is sitting. I'm not positive, but I believe I hear him ask Laub something to the effect of, what are they going to do today.  I don't hear Laub's reply.  Hum then goes over to Judge Lomeli's clerk and asks about the dual jury case.

8:50 AM
Two deputies bring Brown out of the holding area.  Although his hair has been trimmed short, he still has the "ZZ Top" looking beard.  I was checking my phone so I didn't see at what time Laub and Hum went back to Judge Lomeli's chambers.

Brown looks around the courtroom, and a few moments later asks the bailiff, "Where's my attorney?"  The bailiff responds, "He's in chambers with the judge."

8:55 AM
Counsel emerge from chambers.  Laub confers with his client and Hum updates the pretty, younger female associate.  I watch Brown, but I cannot hear what he and his attorney are saying.  Now Laub and Brown both look into the gallery towards Patty.  There's something about "documents."  I'm not positive, but I believe Patty answers something to the effect that she doesn't have or forgot the documents.  Smiling, Brown then tells Laub, "Story of my life. ... Have you ever talked to someone and every time they say they forgot?"

8:57 AM
Judge Lomeli takes the bench and asks counsel to state their appearances. Judge Lomeli states that he did receive a fax from Dr. Knapke that he went to the jail to interview Mr. Brown and Mr. Brown refused to meet with him. Because the defendant refused to meet with him, he could not provide the court with an evaluation.

Judge Lomeli addresses Brown. "As long as you fail to cooperate ... you will remain 1368. ... So your cooperation is crucial in this matter. ... Mr. Knapke interviewed you in the past. ... If you don't believe that happened, we can provide you with a copy ... (of his report) ... a (court?) stamped copy .... we can do that."

Judge Lomeli states it's important for Brown to cooperate with Dr. Knapke, and then addresses Brown again. "But as long as you fail to cooperate, you remain in limbo."  Judge Lomeli adds that Dr. Knapke, "... found you competent in the past." 

Judge Lomeli tells the defendant that the court will provide him with a court stamped copy of Aron Laub's declaration to the court. This is what Brown was asking for at the last hearing, but was denied. Now he's going to get the document he's asked for.  He will also be provided with a copy of Dr. Knapke's report from the first time he was evaluated. He will get a copy of those documents today.

Judge Lomeli rules that the case is still suspended until the 1368 issue is resolved.  Judge Lomeli tells Brown that it takes about 30 days for a Dr. to do an evaluation, so the case is continued until October 25th.  This is a Friday, which Laub asked for. Judge Lomeli asks the parties to get here early because he has additional hearings on that date.

Before Judge Lomeli leaves the bench Brown speaks up and asks for an order to see the doctor.  Judge Lomeli tells Brown to have his attorney fill out the proper paperwork and he will sign it.

 The bailiff informs counsel that they are unable to keep Brown on this floor.  They have to move him back to another area.  I believe it's agreed they will not transport him back to the jail until Brown gets the copies of the documents from the court.

Before Judge Lomeli leaves the bench, he has an off the record conversation with DDA Hum about Hum's other case in his courtroom, the Patrick Harran case.

While I was waiting in the elevator bay waiting to go home, an elevator going up stopped on the ninth floor. Inside I saw Cameron Brown's attorney from his first trial, Mark Geragos.

What Will Happen - Opinion
I'm sure many of you are wondering what's going to happen in this case.  For Brown to represent himself, (he's indicated to the court, that he wants to go pro per status) he has to get around the hurdle that his attorney has put in front of him, and that is, he needs an evaluation to prove his competency to stand trial to even make this decision.  Remember, Laub is trying to block his client from going pro per. Why would Laub do this? My best guess is, Laub cares about his client and feels it is in Brown's best interest to be represented by counsel when facing first degree murder charges.

Being competent to stand trial does not automatically mean an individual is competent to represent himself in a criminal proceeding, especially first degree murder charges.  It's my understanding that there isn't that high of a standard for an individual to be ruled competent to stand trial.  They must be able to understand who everyone is in the courtroom and assist in their defense.  Here is and excerpt of what the California Evidence Code (1367-1376) specifically states:

The examining psychiatrists or licensed psychologists shall evaluate the nature of the defendant's mental disorder, if any, the defendant's ability or inability to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner as a result of a mental disorder and, if within the scope of their licenses and appropriate to their opinions, whether or not treatment with antipsychotic medication is medically appropriate for the defendant and whether antipsychotic medication is likely to restore the defendant to mental competence.

 Since Judge Lomeli stated the court would provide Brown with a copy of Laub's declaration as well as a copy of Dr. Knapke's prior report (from several years ago), maybe Brown will then agree to be interviewed by Dr. Knapke.  We'll have to wait and see what happens at the next hearing.

If Brown is ruled competent to stand trial, the next step would be for Judge Lomeli to determine is Brown is capable of representing himself.  It's my understanding there are certain conditions Judge Lomeli would have to determine before he would let Brown go pro per. It's possible that Judge Lomeli could rule Brown competent to stand trial, yet deny his request to go pro per.

To be continued on October 25th.

Alan Jackson Says Goodbye to the DA's Office

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

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

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

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

I was quite sad to read the news.

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

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

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

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

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

Robbery Homicide Detective Rick Jackson, left, 

Kazuyoshi Miura, right

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spector booking photo, post conviction

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

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

James Fayed, sentenced to death

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vanity Fair, Domick Dunne 'Legend With A Bullet'

About Alan Jackson, (From Vote Alan Jackson website)

LA Times, DA's Rival Has A New Post

LA Times Opinion, Lacey's Definition of Lateral

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

Dr. Conrad Murray Case Postponed 1 Month

Update 3/5/2011:
Judge Pastor has approved the addition of Nareg Gourjian to the defense team. From my understanding, Mark Geragos changed his position on his former colleague when he spoke privately with Judge Pastor in chambers.

Update 3/3/2011:
The mainstream media is now reporting that opening statements will start May 9th. This is about a week later than the initial reporting of May 4th, for the final jury selection.
Sprocket

After an in camera meeting with counsel, Judge Pastor ruled today to delay the start of Dr. Conrad Murray's manslaughter trial for one month. Initial jury selection will still start on March 24th, but the final selection will not begin until May 4th, 2011. Dr. Murray is charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of music icon, Michael Jackson on June 25th, 2009.

Although I did not go to the hearing, it appears Judge Pastor granted the prosecution's motion for a delay because of untimely turn-over of discovery of the defense's top witness, Texas anesthesiologist Dr. Paul White. One of the sanctions a Judge can impose on a particular side besides fines is barring a witness from testifying for not complying with discovery.

From what I'm reading in the mainstream media, jurors will show up on March 24th where they will be given a jury questionnaire to complete. What will most likely happen is those questionnaires will be due back to the court by a certain date (possibly before May 4th for counsel review) or they could be due back on May 4th. I expect the jury questionnaire will be made public at some point.

I had a feeling from the very beginning that this trial would not start on the original date of March 28th (later amended to March 24th). I would not be surprised if there are further delays in the case.

The May 4th date precedes one of the most talked about and over analyzed murder trials to date: The Casey Anthony case scheduled to start on May 9th, 2011. Our own ritanita has provided T&T readers with some of the Internet's best easy-to-understand analysis of the motions presented by both sides. Almost every one of my trial watching buds has been waiting on the edge of their seat for this trial to start. Even the media is building a special staging area in an empty lot directly across from the courthouse that has been dubbed "Casey Town."

For a while there, I thought that I might get on the media list to try to get a seat at opening arguments for the Conrad Murray case. However, since it's probably going to start near to or about the same time of the Stephanie Lazarus trial, I'll just have to watch what I can online or late at night on TV.

The delay in Murray's trial now means that the Cameron Brown retrial that was originally slated to begin in Judge Pastor's courtroom on February 24th, is also delayed. Cameron Brown is being tried for the third time for the November 8th, 2000 death of his 4-year-old daughter, Lauren Sarene Key. I covered his second trial in Judge Pastor's courtroom. Brown's two previous trials both ended in a hung jury.

Cameron Brown Retrial; Closing Arguments, Part II

Continued from Closing Arguments, Part I...

1:14 pm: I'm back in the courtroom that is filling up with people. Judge Pastor asks to see counsel at sidebar. A new reporter sits in the back row, not realizing she can't sit there because that's how the jurors enter the courtroom. We're missing Juror #7, the MD who works for Kaiser. The reporter and her cameraman move to the far back corner and stand.

Sarah is wearing a gray pantsuit. Patty is wearing a bright turquoise jacket and navy pants.

It's 1:20 pm and we're still waiting for the juror.

I learn that the young, pretty woman to my left who attended the trial off and on was in the jury panel in this case. She said she was originally in seat #8. Her aunt was murdered and her father is an attorney. She tells me she is a big fan of Pat Harris and brought a paperback copy of Susan McDougal's book The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk with her. She asked the relatives of Pat Harris if they could get him to autograph the book for her. (Link to an interview with Susan McDougal.)

1:25 pm, the missing juror finally arrives. I note that in the afternoon session Mavis is the court reporter up again. I don't know how she's going to pull this all day session and probably go into overtime!

Harris steps up to give his closing argument.

PH: I too on behalf of Ms. Yeretsian and Mr. Brown thank you for your service.

He speaks so quickly, I can't write much of what he says in the beginning down. I have a note here that says ~black/white .... back and forth~ but it's not bringing up any memory of what Harris said.

PH: ....sincere appreciation. This has been a long trial. [...] Mr. Hum ended by stating Cameron Brown walked onto Inspiration Point and picked up Lauren and threw her to her death. [...] Step back [...] in a courtroom, perspective can be a difficult thing. [...] It's that incredible an act and that's what you're asked to believe. [...] What kind of person does that? That's what the prosecution would ask you to believe.

Harris then makes an analogy to an old television show with Ralph Edwards, This Is Your Life.

PH: They've gone all over the US, all over the US to prove that Cameron Brown is the type of person that would throw his daughter off a cliff. [...] They allege a jealous relationship with a prior girlfriend. Imagine. A 22 year-old male having a jealous relationship. Now that's something you've never heard about.

Harris refutes the prosecution witness who testified about Brown being upset about his father arriving late for a breakfast meeting.

PH: they spent years, thousands of dollars (trying to prove) that this man (is a monster).

Mark Geragos, Nareg Gourjian and other staff members of Geragos and Geragos enter 107 and sit in the very back row.

PH: They have to dehumanize him. They can't even call him by his name.

(That's an interesting tactic, pointing out that the prosecution called Brown "the defendant.")

Harris puts up on the overhead an obviously much younger photo of Brown standing beside his surfboards with long, sun-bleached blond hair, sporting muscular shirtless body.

PH: That's the monster who supposedly (threw his daughter off a cliff). Mr. Hum told you he never took photos of her before. [...] That was wrong.

Harris puts up photos of Lauren taken at Lynne Brown's home. I believe it's at this point that Harris mentions that there was a photo of Lauren on Brown's nightstand.

PH: There are nineteen of them, just to start with.

(I think the photographs the defense presents are interesting evidence. They were not found at Cameron's home during the executed search warrant on 1/2/2001.)

Harris mentions the letter that Jon Hans wrote "a while back" where he said Cameron "...couldn't possibly do what he's accused of."

Harris mentions defense witness Mr. Dietzler (sp?) and how he testified that Brown would go out of he way to help his grandmother, who had Alzheimer's.

PH: Ms. Lynne Brown testified that he was the son who came around to help change her diapers; (the other's stayed away). [...] Mark Thompson talked about cam as a friend and human being [...] and that was an amazing story. (The story about a night out camping, Brown slept outside and let his friend sleep in Brown's van/camper and that's the night he believes his wife got pregnant.) [...] He would drive to Fontana to bring gifts to Thompson's daughter on his motorcycle. [...] Jane (Doe) talked about him always being extremely thoughtful. [...] (When they made the decision to end her pregnancy) they cried together on the sofa. [...] That's the kind of man he was. Jeane Barrett. [...] that's another (prosecution) witness who (said) he was kind and thoughtful.

Harris mentions testimony of Lynne Brown again and then Sarah.

PH: Ms. Key-Marer went out with him for two months. She said he had lots of good traits. [...] Mr. Hum only spent about two minutes about Cameron Brown's relationship with his daughter. [...] What did he have as a relationship with his daughter?

Harris brings up the testimony of Scott Simonson.

PH: (They asked him) How was he with his daughter? He used to bring her down to his boat.

Harris puts up the transcript testimony of Scott Simonson.

PH: This is key. His whole attitude changed after he found out about his daughter.

Harris reads from the transcript some more.

PH: That's critical because that's a prosecution witness. [...] Their witness told you this.

Harris says he won't dispute that before Brown got to meet his daughter (he didn't believe she was his).

PH: But witness after witness said that once he knew it was his (child) his whole attitude changed. [...] These are people who saw her with Cam.

Harris mentions the witness who took his children trick-or-treating with Cameron and Lauren.

PH: [...] brought him in to show you that one before, he was taking her trick or treating. that he specifically found a family, a friend with kids so that she would have a good time. [...] Lynne Brown talked about their relationship and that they were so special together, that he (adored that little girl).

Harris addresses the testimony of the teachers at Lauren's school when Brown picked Lauren up and told her "Daddy's here."

PH: Even prosecution witness Dave Bannister, that [...] he spoke very lovingly about his daughter. [...] Jan Meuler, the mediator said, "Cam always wanted more time with Lauren." [...] That's her testimony. [...] And that he loved her and wanted more time with her. [...] Again, he was there alone, without Patty.

(Harris mentions this, that Brown went to the mediation alone, without Patty, as if that's significant but he fails mention that attorney Stacey Phillips testified that spouses of either party were not allowed in on the mediation meetings.)

Harris mentions Sarah writing "over and over in her journal that they were getting along, feeling each other out; it was good."

PH: Mr. Hum's theory is, he was angry, vindictive and was going to get her. [...] There's on thing wrong with that theory. For three months, they got together and met at parks together (for Lauren to get to know Brown). [...] He had absolutely a good relationship with her (Sarah). [...] This idea that he was bitter for several years just doesn't hold water.

Harris mentions again that Brown always wanted more time with Lauren. Harris brings up the alleged adoption agreement.

PH: They can talk about (it) all day. It doesn't hold water. One swipe of the pen; (could have signed away his rights) but he didn't do it because he refused to do it because he didn't want someone to adopt his daughter.

Lynne Brown and Brown Senior enter 107.

Harris states that the argument with his mother was about the fact that she snuck around trying to see Lauren without his knowledge and that Brown can't see his daughter. Harris mentions the long list of gifts that Brown gave his daughter. He mentions the nine photos at the house and that one was on the bed stand.

PH: He took few vacations and scheduled his vacation while Lauren was in England.

Harris describes the long drive he would have to take to Orange County to see his daughter, every week. An hour down and an hour back.

PH: Every week to see his daughter. This man, who (supposedly) didn't want anything to do with Lauren.

(It was court ordered. He had to.)

PH: Look at her (Sarah's) journal. Almost every single week, like clockwork.

Harris then presents arguments against the prosecution's claim that Lauren's death was premeditated.

PH: They've been telling you for two months that he's been planning it for two months and then they tell you that it didn't have to be that.

Harris then goes over Lynne Brown's testimony, about how she feels guilty that her son called and asked if he could bring Lauren there and she told him "Sorry, I can't today. It will have to be next week." (From what I've been told, it's not been firmly established that he called his mother the day of Lauren's death and asked to bring Lauren. It could have been the day before.)

PH: This is the plan? That he drives all the way to Inspiration Point? What if there are three people up there having a picnic? How does he plan that? How does (Hum) know that he's going to do that? [...] He doesn't know if people from the houses (on the hillside) can see him. [...] He doesn't know if people from the road can see him. [...] He could have gone to park in the parking lot across the street to the church, and parked in that lot for free, then taken her directly to Inspiration Point to throw her off the cliff. That would have been easier. [...] Why couldn't he do that? [...] He's got a boat. That would be easier.

Then Harris addresses Brown's demeanor after Lauren's death.

PH: Yes,t when you premeditate this whole thing and then you're going to act like you don't (care)? (You) come up with this whole plan and then when police show up, you act like you don't care? It doesn't make any sense! [...] It's like planning a robbery and not bringing a get away car.

Harris then addresses the prosecution experts as to where Lauren left the cliff.

PH: They literally have to have a point of departure there because that's the only thing that supports the physics. [...] You have to ask, why would you go all the way down to throw her off there.

Harris now goes to attack Detective Leslie's partner, Detective Smith who is retired, living in another state and was not called by the prosecution.

PH: You didn't see Detective Smith here. His fingerprints are on everything in this case. Maybe it has something to do with that phone book "assholes" comment.

Harris then brings up the 50 minute video tape of the walk (hike) that retraced the route, and that the jurors had to sit through it.

PH: Notice we didn't hear that today? [...] Because it wasn't 50 minutes. Once we timed it, it was 27 minutes, total. [...] Supposedly Detective Smith had a video [...] they walked [....] 27 minutes.

Harris now brings up the fact that Dr. Hayes did not do dummy drop tests off the cliff.

PH: Why didn't they do that? [...] Because they know they would get the results that Dr. Siegmund got.

Harris now argues that the amount of time that passed from when Brown hung up the 911 call to when the first responders arrived at the archery range was six to eight minutes.

PH: That's super-human (that Brown did that apparently in that short of time, got over the cliff from Sacred Cove to retrieve his daughter out of the water) and they didn't want you to know it. [...] The prosecution to counter that, they attacked their own witness! [...] They know that Cameron Brown was running around out there like crazy trying to get his daughter out of the water.

Harris then states that the prosecution never asked for Patty Brown's finances at first.

PH: The phone calls, that Sarah Key-Marer documented, we don't eve know when that happened.

Harris implies that the phone calls could have been months later than Sarah dated them. Harris states that police put Brown under surveillance for days. "Where are those tapes? You didn't see them," he argues. Harris states that Dr. Lachmanan was never called to back up the testimony of Dr. Chinwah. He goes onto imply that we don't know exactly what Dr. Lachmanan did in reviewing the case. He could have been just an administrator, and just signed off without reviewing the case file.

Harris then states the witnesses that the prosecution could have called to back up Sarah's testimony of statement Lauren supposedly made, "This talk about Mommy's going to jail." The prosecution didn't call Greg Marer or Lauren's step-brother, Joshua. "Then bring them in to testify to back her up. [...] They don't do it."

PH: Mr. Hum made two references to Dr. Karim (sp?) about (him being) a doubles's partner to my wife. Dr. Karim was educated at Cambridge. (He) gets repeatedly hired by police forces. [...] Hum didn't bring in a single person to say that disassociation didn't happen.

Harris now presents argument about Hum's allegation that Dr. Oppenhaven (sp?) lied about Dr. Hayes.

PH: If that's not true, well then, if I'm Dr. Hayes I'd get on a place and Id be back to rebut that. [...] Why didnt' he come to rebut it? They didn't do that. [...] They had Ms. Key-Marer total up the hours (that Brown visited with his daughter) and it was only sixteen days. Why didn't they do the next logical step and find out how many hours was he legally allowed to see her? They didn't do that. [...] They still stood up and said her injuries were minimal. We showed you the photos. [...] Pictures don't create that. [...] Those injuries are reminiscent of someone falling. [...] Bruises up and down her shins. They just ignored that. [...] The bruise on her back. They just ignored that.

Harris then puts up the exhibit of People's #15 and implies that there used to be a photo in a certain area of the poster board display.

PH: Notice there was a photo taken out? Lauren on her back. [...] This picture.

Harris is showing the jury a defense exhibit photo.

It's 2:30 pm and I wonder how long Harris is going to argue.

PH: What else did they ignore? [...] Detective Leslie said, "I didn't think that he ran very hard because he didn't have any cuts. [...] You can see in the photos cuts on the back of his legs. [...] If it doesn't fit the evidence, just ignore it.

Harris now argues that the prosecution witnesses all described the "protrusion" as "U shaped."

PH: The trail looks like a U shape.

Harris then argues that it would not look like a "U shape" from the ground.

My notes are not clear at this point. I believe Harris then repeats a statement by Mr. Hum.

PH: Mr. Hum said I want to show you something, the single most damming thing in this trial [...] (talk about the U shape) and this protrusion. [...] They have to put her down there because they can say [....] but they chose to ignore.. (They went with Dr. Hayes....)

Harris now mentions Detective Brothers.

PH: Cameron Brown told her where he was; everyone ignored it.

Harris is now reading from Brother's testimony, the questions and answers.

PH: Did the defendant tell you the sloped part where Lauren fell from? [...] He said he was seated at the end of Inspiration point on a level area at the end of Inspiration Point. [...] He TOLD them that! [...] He was standing on the level area [...] and then it slopes down. [...] The level area is by the bush. [...] No one's saying... [...] Mr. Brown told them he was for feet from the edge [...] if you get a little off the trail. [...] What they chose to do is take the information and transfer it to that sloped area. [...] Where he actually told them he was was where you and I were standing yesterday.

Brown is stoic, unemotional all through the prosecution and the defense arguments.

PH: Answer, he said that he was seated at the end of Inspiration Point on a level area.

Harris then goes after several aspects of Detective Leslie's testimony and calls it "scripted." Harris states he doesn't have children, he has a dog. He can't imagine what Sarah Key-Marer has gone through.

PH: Ms. Key-Marer wants Mr Brown convicted and she's stretching some things that have happened at the time. (There are) discrepancies about her declaration that she dated him for a year.

Harris addresses where Sarah testified Brown told her, "that's where kids died."

PH: That's not what she told Detective Leslie. "That people commit suicide there." [...] What Cam said (she wrote everything down in her journal) what comes around goes around. (Apparently this is not in her journal of things that Brown said.)

Harris then addresses Ms. Key-Marer's testimony about the counseling session. He goes over the testimony of the counselor, and that for her to do what Ms. Marer suggested would have been "unethical." Harris then brings up the deportation. He brings up every issue that he challenged in motions before trial to get ruled inadmissible. He takes all those issues that Sarah accused Brown of and challenges their validity.

PH: She lied to say all the things going on (problems) in Lauren's life were Cam's fault.

Harris challenges more of Sarah's testimony that's damaging to his client. At 2:57 pm Judge Pastor calls for the afternoon break.

In the restroom, I speak to the woman sitting in the row in front of me that I've been told is a relative of Pat Harris. She tells me that she is his aunt, and this is the first time she's seen one of Pat's closings.

3:14 pm, we are waiting for the jury. Brown puts his tie back on. I see Harris flip though the rest of his notes. He flips through six pages and there appear to be more underneath those. Judge Pastor reminds Brown to get his jacket on before they call the jury in a minute later.

Harris continues attacking the prosecution witnesses and the fact that they called Detective Leslie to the stand three times. He describes Detective Leslie as the prosecution's "relief pitcher."

PH: When you start looking at actual facts verses what was testified to...

Harris brings up the fact that Brown's three hour interview with police was not audio or video taped. (In my mind, this is the single most powerful defense evidence.)

PH: That's all well and good if he had tape recorded or video taped the interview. [...] We don't have the actual recording or evidence. [...] Even if (it's) written in the report, we don't know if that's exactly as Cameron Brown said. [...] We wouldn't have that [...] he chose not to video tape or record that. [...] What Mr. Brown said was, she started off hiking. He never said she led. [...] Lynne Brown said she tool Lauren all the time (to the water?). [...] She (Lauren) started to walk along the beach. [...] Which is what Cameron Brown said. [...] She started to walk.

Harris now gives his impression of what a hike is. Sometimes some is ahead and sometimes someone else is ahead. "It's a hike. It's not a march."

Harris then addresses (the prosecution?) attacking Terry Hope's (sp?) testimony.

PH: Either Hope is telling the truth about both things or he's not. You can't have it both ways. [...] Dr. Berkowitz. [...] They took her on a hike that didn't exist. They told her it took 50 minutes. [...] They didn't show her the other video. [...] She had the wrong time and the wrong route.

Pat Harris addresses Dr. Berkowitz's testimony that Lauren would not have gone on the hike voluntarily.

PH: There's a third way that a child will want to do something. [They would want] to do something to please a parent.

Harris states that from the playground to Inspiration Point it's "about 25 to 30 minutes."

PH: They go down to the beach, walk the beach and then they took the paved road. [...] Then (they) go down the first time, down the gully.

My note here is not clear, but Harris is saying something to the effect that the only part of the route that might have been hard would be the route through the gully. (I'm now certain that my husband and I took the same route that Lauren and Brown took from Palos Verdes South to Inspiration Point.)

Harris goes back to challenge more of the testimony of Detective Leslie about what he countered. He then brings up Detective Smith, who put in one of his notebooks "Phonebook Assholes" for a list of phone numbers of Brown's friends.

PH: (They) can't get away from that. It's there in writing.

Harris now says that during the three hour interview with Detectives, Brown was slowly remembering the events that happened up on the cliff.

PH: Why would he (Brown) lie? It makes no sense. [...] He was trying to recall details.

Harris states that he won't go over all the witnesses but he does go back to Dr. Hayes.

PH: In order to get the physics to work, he has to get her down at the bottom.

I take a moment to look on over at Brown. Brown leans back in his cair. His left elbow is on the defense table. Most of the fingers of his left hand are curled back, but his forefinger and thumb are stretched out and they are resting, no, supporting his chin.

Harris accuses Dr. Chinwah of missing a bruise on Lauren's back. Harris states that Dr. Beckwith testified the injuries were extensive and were from more than one impact.

Now Harris goes over with the jurors jury instructions and the four options they have. First degree, second degree, involuntary manslaughter and not guilty. He tells the jury that, "Second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter can be confusing, so aks if you have any questions." Harris points out that it has to be an intentional act for second degree.

Harris states our theory is in jury instruction 4.45. That's basically our theory of the case. Jury instruction 8.50 is the distinction between murder and involuntary manslaughter.

PH: The burden is on the prosecution to prove [...] all have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Jury instruction 8.45, this is for involuntary manslaughter.

He reminds the jurors again, what it requires. He then mentions something about jury instruction 8.46, and that it talks about "without due caution and circumspection."

Harris states that their view of the case is not first or second degree, but asks them to look at involuntary and not guilty instructions.

PH: We don't believe it's an involuntary case. We don't believe they proved it's a murder case.

Harris then moves onto the special circumstance of financial gain and that the prosecution did not do a good job os proving he married her (Patty) for her money.

PH: You marry for at least seven figures, which is what someone does when they marr for money.

(I have to force myself to keep from smirking. I cannot believe Harris makes this argument, that Patty wasn't wealthy enough for Cam to marry her for money. Patty certainly had a lot more money than Brown ever did.)

PH: Brown could have earned $500. more a month if he worked just a few more hours a week. (But he chose instead to spend time with his daughter.) [...] The man who couldn't wait to get rid of his daughter, paid the child support for another six months. [...] You would think that he would have been in that courtroom next month to end the child support! [...] When you get into custody, you're actually getting into more expenses. They're not cut.

Harris addresses Hum's accusation that Patty wanted Lauren for herself.

PH: Patty wasn't even around Lauren. She had barely met Lauren at that time.

Harris then addresses Jon Han's testimony about that issue. He then goes onto interpret the letter that Patty wrote, that was found in the home during the search warrant.

PH: No one thought they'd get custody of Lauren. She just said ask for the moon and maybe you'll get something.

Harris now moves onto Dr. Chinwah.

PH: Dr. Chinwah never said that wasn't a bruise on her back. [...] He never said that.

(I dispute that. Dr. Chinwah stated it was lividity.)

Harris states he believes Detective Leslie was wrong, and that he became (personally? emotionally?) involved in the case.

PH: (Detective Leslie) That night he got angry. He has a daughter. He got invested. He got his ego involved. But he's just dead wrong.

Harris accuses the homicide detectives of ignoring things. It's 4:00 pm, and Harris now tries to project what Hum will say in his rebuttal argument.

PH: I think we live in a different society today. If this happened thirty or forty years ago, Mr. Brown wouldn't be here. [...] With the shows on TV, the society [...] somebody's got to pay for it. [...] (TV) shows where they have convicted (him/someone) before he's even accused.

Harris mentions the Internet and some of the horrible things that are said.

PH: That's society today. [...] It's simply not true.

Harris mentions Jon Hans, and what he read on the Internet.

PH: That's some of the interest that society has today. [...] Look at the evidence. Please be fair; not on emotion.

Harris now has the softest tone of voice I've ever heard throughout the trial.

PH: If you look at the evidence, there's no way he picked his daughter up and threw her off the cliff. It's just not possible.

Harris is finished with his closing argument and Judge Pastor asks, "Mr. Hum?" Hum states he needs a few minutes. Judge Pastor asks the jurors to go into the jury room for a moment while Hum gathers his final thoughts together. Hum tells Judge Pastor that he needs just two to three minutes. Ted comes over to the reporters and speaks to Jack Leonard again.

It's seven minutes after 4:oo pm and Hum is ready to present his last argument. The jury is brought back in and Hum starts at about 4:10 pm. I thought that Hum meant that his rebuttal argument would be just a few minutes. But that's not what happens. He speaks for over an hour.

To be continued in Part III....

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.

Scott Peterson Civil Trial & Cameron Brown Retrial

At the Cameron Brown pretrial hearing on June 13th, Nareg Gourjian an associate in Mark Geragos's law firm was in the gallery observing the proceedings. Patsy, of CMM sent me a mail to let me know that this is the attorney that is defending Scott Peterson in the civil suit filed by Laci Peterson's parents, Sharon and Dennis Rocha.

You had to have been living in a cave not to have heard of Scott Peterson, the death of 8 months pregnant Laci Peterson and the OJ Simpson level of media frenzy that surrounded it. Although I knew that Geragos missed the reading of the verdict and another Geragos associate, Pat Harris, sat next to Peterson when he was found guilty of first degree murder, I didn't know that Gourjian was also at the table. Patsy was kind enough to forward some links mentioning Gourjian and the civil case. What do you want to bet that Ma & Pa Peterson are shelling out some serious bucks for Scooter's defense in the civil case?

In a stunning move, Judge Roger Beauchesne ruled that the criminal conviction alone was insufficient evidence to prove guilt in the civil case. However, Judge Beauchesne also stayed his ruling and allowed lawyers until June 23 to appeal. The trial is officially set to start on July 8th, 2008.

From the Modesto Bee:
While the civil trial will be longer and more difficult as a result of the ruling, Professor Michael Vitiello of the University of Pacific's McGeorge School of Law said having a jury hear the emotional testimony could result in a larger monetary award.

"You want to hear as many details as possible to come before the jury ... all the evidence about all the things (Peterson) did and how (Laci's) body vanished, showing a calculating and uncaring person," Vitiello said. "You get the jury all worked up, and when it comes to finding damages, then the jury's mad."

A larger award? That sounds good to me. The trial is projected to last about five weeks and T&T will be keeping tabs on whatever news comes out of Judge Beauchesne's courtroom.

In the mean time, with the added responsibility of taking care of Mr. Sprocket for the next several months while he recovers from surgery on his right distal bicepital tendon, I've come to the realization that I will not be able to attend the Cameron Brown retrial in Judge Pastor's courtroom. There is a slim possibility that may change by the time the trial is projected to start on July 28th. However, at this point with all the therapy appointments I know I will have to take him to, it's doubtful.

CNN.Crime

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.