Joshua Woodward Preliminary Hearing Day 6 - Part II

Joshua Woodward at a previous court hearing.

Note: I meant to get these notes written up soon after Woodward was bound over for trial on 1/23/14 but they got put on the back burner.  A few months later, Mr. Sprocket's heart attack happened and helping him get back on his feet was more important. Below are my notes from the last day of Woodward's preliminary hearing, one year ago. T&T's exclusive Woodward trial coverage can be found HERE. Sprocket

Continued from Part I.....

January 23, 2014
When I get to the downtown criminal court building, there is log jam of bodies in the elevator bay. It took me 20 minutes to get an elevator.

8:42 AM
On the 7th floor. The entire defense team is already here: Levine, Currie, Weisgerber and four other attorneys along with the defendant Woodward. They have two boxes of case files with them.

8:44 AM
Judge Pastor's clerk opens Dept. 51. About a minute later the main defense team files in. Woodward and the four other attorneys stay in the hallway. They are either on their smart phones or chatting amongst themselves.

8:55 AM
I head into Dept. 51. Soon after, the prosecution team of DDA's Habib Balian and Marguerite Rizzo arrive. I know Detective Shafia is in the building since I saw him in the cafeteria when I arrived. DDA Rizzo is wearing a sharp red jacket with a red scarf. Ms. Rizzo always looks perfectly put together.

(At the September 2014 Forensic Science Forum, I learned that not only does DDA Rizzo have a law degree, she has a masters in the biological sciences. Sprocket) 

Counsel are chatting together in the well. Levine is speaking and the two DDA's are nodding their heads. Detective Shafia arrived and is seated in the jury box.  Woodward is now at the defense table. There are four attorneys in the gallery. Two in front of me and two behind me. Two of the faces are new and I don't know if they are part of Woodward's extended defense team or not.

Just as it looks like things are close to getting started I have a coughing fit. Damn. I hope I don't have to step outside.  The court reporter Mavis is not at her desk but her equipment is already set up.

9:03 AM
Mavis emerges from the back rooms.  Judge Pastor goes on the record and appearances are stated.  I believe Judge Pastor states that the court received two documents filed on January 13.  It's a discovery matter. There's some discussion about a narrow cross or redirect. Documents were received to be moved into evidence.

Ms. Levine addresses the court. It's an issue with discovery. The DA searched emails in the LAPD data base among the two detectives and Ms. Doe. I believe Ms. Levine wants to examine Detective Shafia on these emails.

DDA Balian tells the court that they did conduct a search. This was potentially discovery/Brady material. I believe from my notes there may be one email, one contact between a detective and Ms. Doe by email.

I believe the defense states that the retrieved a piece of the chrono record, held in digital form that happened after, possibly after discovery was turned over to the defense. I believe there is other evidence that they uncovered that contradicted the testimony of Detective Shafia and Detective Fairchild. The defense would like to recall Detective Shafia.

Detective Shafia is recalled to the stand for cross examination by Ms. Levine.

JL: Since the last time you were here, have you reviewed any materials ....
JS: An email that was generated from searches.
JL: [Was that] provided by the DA or Detective Fairchild?
JS: The DA.

JL: Did you recall in November 2009 an email [from? to?] Ms. Doe?
JS: No, I did not recall that.

Ms. Levine questions the detective about the chronological log (aka "chrono). She points out an item that is missing a BATES stamp number. He's asked to look at the last page, the next to the last entry at 6:00 AM.

I believe the detective reads the document and then explains that it shows he received a message from Ms. Doe, asking for an update, and then possibly an email was sent or received from Ms. Doe.

JL: Do you have copy [copies?] of the email[s]?
JS: No.
JL: do you recall any other communication?
JS: No.

A copy of the email is not in the file. Detective Shafia is asked about a lawsuit filed by Ms. Doe against the defendant. Shafia doesn't recall the conversation.

JL: Do you recall a conversation in court about the lawsuit?
JS: No.

Shafia states he did not receive an email about the lawsuit.  Defense exhibit R is presented, a copy of an email from Detective Fairchild.

JL: This is an email from Karen Fairchild, right?
JS: Yes.
JL: It's to you?
JS: Yes.
JL: Dated February 7, 2012?
JS: Yes.
JL: At 2:01 PM?
JS: Yes.

I believe Detective Shafia mentions his last conversation with DDA Rizzo the prior month and Ms. Levine moves to strike. Ms. Doe has filed a lawsuit.

JL: So you did know about the lawsuit?
JS: No. I don't remember this email.
JL: Do you remember an email from Detective Careo (sp?)?

Defense exhibit S, an email from a Frank Careo or a Jose Careo... turns out (Jose/Frank) is the same person. The employee number of Frank Careo is mentioned. The email is dated December 13, 2011. Detective Shafia recalls this email.  There was an exchange between ... [ a phone call?] Shafia doesn't remember the phone call.  It was requested that Detective Shafia document [in person?] a conversation that he [over?] heard.  There is a question about Officer Careo and if he was not assigned to this matter. Prosecution objects, 350/352. Sustained.  Ms. Levine asks for a moment. She confers with an attorney in the gallery and Mr. Currie.

JL: Did you know Detective Careo tried to interview your subject?
Objection! Sustained!
JL: Did you know about any other emails?
JS: (No.)

There is no redirect by the people and Detective Shafia is excused. The defense recalls Detective Fairchild.

JL: Before you came to court, is there any document[s] you reviewed?
KF: Yes. I reviewed emails that were the product of a search. ... My answer was, but I had not done a search.

Ms. Levine has more questions about emails Detective Fairchild exchanged with Ms. Doe. Defense exhibit T, an email.  It's an email addressed to Ms. Doe [including the email address] from the witness.   Detective Fairchild verifies that this email was not listed in the chrono log.

JL: You did not put those emails in the log?
KF: Correct.

Ms. Levine reads from the email. "Hi [Ms. Doe], I hope you enjoyed your vacation in between ... Italy."

Under questioning, the witness verifies that she took no notes or documented the exchange in the logs.

JL: The second paragraph is about a computer search of Ms. Doe's hard drive, is that correct?
KF: Yes.
JL: Before you picked up the computer, were there any emails about picking up that computer?
KF: No.
JL: Any communication that you were going to do a search, by email?
KF: No.

Defense exhibit U. An email with BATES stamp #1185. Witness verifies this is an email from Ms. Doe to Detective Fairchild. It's Detective Fairchild's work email.

JL: Do you recall interviewing Ms. Doe that day?
KF: No.
JL: June 24, 2010 interview?
KF: Now I remember.
JL: What time did that take place?
KF: I don't recall.
JL: What time did it take place?
KF: 10 AM in the morning.

Levine states the email title is "Charged with murder," then reads from the email. "Please let me know if you want my emails/texts from Josh so that you can see what Josh typed."

Articles were attached but the witness doesn't remember them.  There's a question about what Detective Fairchild remembers about these emails and if she responded to Ms. Doe.

Defense exhibit V is next. It's another email not in the chrono log and no copy of the email in the file. The email has a link to an article about the case. Ms. Levine asks the witness if she accessed that article.  The email is dated 6/25/2010 at 10:12 AM

Defense exhibit W, BATES stamp 1187, email from the witness to Ms. Doe, dated 6/25/10 at 11:00 AM. It has the same subject line as the prior email. This was in response to Ms. Doe's email. This email is not in the log and a copy was not put in the file.  Ms. Levine reads from the text of the email. "Thanks so much for the link."

JL: Does that refresh your memory that you clicked on the link?
KF: I still don't recall.

Defense exhibit X, BATES stamp 1888, from the witness to Ms. Doe, dated 6/25/10 at 11:02 AM. Two minutes after the last email. Same subject line. This email did not make it into the chronological log or file.

Defense exhibit Y, BATES stamp 1889, from Ms. Doe to the witness dated 12/31/10, titled Happy New Year. This email was not listed in the chrono log and a copy was not included in the file.

JL: In this email Ms. Doe wishes you a Happy New Year?
Objection! Sustained!
JL: In it she thanks you for your hard work?
KF: Yes.
JL: And wishes you a Happy New Year?
KF: I think she is referring to herself and not me.

Defense exhibit Z, BATES stamp 1890, email from the witness to Ms. Doe, dated 1/4/2011. It is in response to the prior email. This email is not in the chrono log or a copy in the file. Subject line is the same, Happy New Year.  The email states meeting with two more doctors.

JL: Was one [of them?] Dr. Kingston?
KF: No.
JL: There were two doctors?
KF: I honestly ... we never met with with the doctor. ... I believe that Ms. Rizzo was calling around to find an expert .... a medical expert.
JL: You mean someone who would agree with your theories?
Objection!  Sustained!
JL: You wrote, "There's light at the end of the tunnel" ?
KF: Yes.
JL: Your email about the lawsuit ....

The witness knew that Ms. Doe was filing a lawsuit and that subpoenas were sent out. That's all she knew.

JL: Did you report the lawsuit to the district attorney?
KF: I don't know at what point that was found out.

The witness states that [Ms. Doe?] might have had a conversation with DDA Rizzo but doesn't know the specifics of what was said or when.

Defense exhibit AA #1891 two emails. The first from the witness to Ms. Doe, dated August 2011 at 12:03 PM. I believe the subject is "Question." The witness asked Ms. Doe in her email" "DDA Rizzo wanted to know if you had ever told Joshua how many weeks [you were?] pregnant. ... She will talk to you."

There is discussion about Ms. Doe's reply. I believe this is from Ms. Doe's emails:

Josh was informed of every [process? procedure] from pictures and ultrasound.He was supposed to go to ultrasounds with me but he cancelled every time.

There's more that I miss. This email is not in the chrono log and information not in the case file. Ms. Levine confronts the witness that she didn't relay the information anywhere.

Ms. Levine asks the court for a moment. She then leans in and whispers to Woodward. Cross is finished and DDA Balian gets up to redirect.

Defense exhibit X.

HB: I believe you testified that email was from you to Ms. Doe.
KF: It's from Ms. Doe to me.
HB: So it's from Ms. Doe to you?
KF: Yes.

Defense exhibit Y

HB: Here's to looking to a better New Year?
KF: Yes.
HB: Didn't she write, Here's to looking to a better New Year and Justice?
KF: Yes.

Redirect is finished.  The court asks if there are any more witnesses. Ms. Levine states there are only defense exhibits and motions. No more witnesses this morning.  The court will take a break until 10 AM.

There are attorneys in the gallery. One attorney greets DDA Rizzo. Another attorney greets one of the defense team.  Ms. Rizzo asks if the DA's law clerk can sit in the front row.  There are signs in the front row that no one can sit in that row without permission.

While we are on break, I hear counsel chat about what courtroom the case will be sent to. Personally, I believe the case will be sent to the 9th floor.  The 9th floor handles long cause (4 weeks or longer) or complex cases. The clerk asks Ms. Levine if she will be seeking to admit new exhibits. I hear Ms. Levine reply that she's not going to move her exhibits into evidence. They will be reference only.

10:02 AM
The court reporter Mavis takes to her desk. 10:05 AM the court goes back on the record.  There are no additional people's exhibits. Different defense exhibits (B, C, F, I, N) are gone over describing them.  The defense is not moving their exhibits into evidence. They were by reference only.  Ms. Rizzo objects to Defense B. Dr. Kingston's report and CV. Those are hearsay. People object to defense F. It's hearsay. Detective Shafia testified.

Ms. Levine responds. "With respect to ... CV, ... pretty standard for experts. ... and what she looked at and relied on. ... With respect to F, ... Detective Shafia research ... what the detective did on research and ..."

I believe it's DDA Balian who responds and the court agrees. People's objection is sustained. Defense exhibits B & F not received into evidence.  (I'm confused here because I thought the defense was not submitting their exhibits into evidence anyway.) I believe the defense has a motion to strike.

The people and defense rest.

The defense motion is to strike the testimony of Woodward via Miranda. The court has received the filed motions and is happy to receive argument by counsel.

Defense attorney Kelly Currie steps up to argue.
The people can't ask questions in the guise of booking information or medical information. Context matters. What preceded the questioning [when] .... [Officer] Hernandez was present. Detective Shafia did not advise him of his rights. Mr. Woodward invoked his right five times during the interview. Officer Hernandez asked questions during the booking process. After booking, Hernandez reports to Shafia.  He [Woodward] did not have any medical issues. [He] used to take blood pressure medications.  Currie goes over the informed arrest screening form.

The court asks what would be fair game, if anything, and then asks about [I believe] a check box on the form. Currie argues that they don't have the benefit of Officer Hernandez being here. They don't have the benefit of what Hernandez asked the defendant.

DDA Balian argues for the people.
What they do know. They know from 115 [testimony], that he [Officer Hernandez] asked if he [Woodward] had any health issues of medication.

The court replies. I certainly recognize prop 115. The court allows hearsay testimony on a daily basis. The court hears hearsay testimony. [However] there are limitations in the context of certain legal issues. ... It is not satisfying to the people's burden of proof.  Under existing law, People v. Gomez, look to underlying circumstance and the mindset of the inquiry.

The people chose to rely on Detective Shafia's testimony on 115, and I'm concerned about that. There might be a legitimate or non legal inquiry.  Asked that the defendant submit to questioning and he chose to invoke.  The court wonders if that swallows up the [?] .... The court is not satisfied that the people met their burden. People have not met their burden. Strike testimony of Officer Hernandez. This is a ruling at prelim. It certainly is without prejudice for further legislation. The court does strike out that entire testimony.

Now the defense has motions to dismiss all counts.  Currie will address count 1. The court states it will hear all defense arguments.

Mr. Currie states he will speak to some foundational issues. People to charge attempt, instead of charging completion, with regard to specific attempt to kill the fetus. This is not the same [analogy?] if [the state?] had charged murder.

People must know that Mr. Woodward knew the fetus was an embryo, and that he made one intent to that end. The law clearly states ... conscious disregard doesn't apply when charging attempt.  Mr. Currie goes over the law and it's requirements. The legislature chose to target fetus not an embryo. The defendant would need to know how long the fetus had progressed.  [Josh?] had to know that the embryo had progressed to the stage of a fetus.  The people haven't presented evidence of Jamba Juice evidence. The people have to present evidence that the target was the fetus.

Mr. Currie argues prior rulings that apply.

The people proved on October 13 the pregnancy proceeded beyond the embryonic stage. The people haven't established when did the alleged Jamba Juice [incident] take place.  According to Detective Shafia, sometime after September and before October 7.  The people still can't establish either ending and can't establish offspring from embryonic. [The people] can't prove that he [Woodward] put Misoprostol in this drink.

Judge Pastor is scrunching up his face. The corners of his mouth are turned down.

Mr. Currie addresses the testimony of Dr. Tsu, and that he [could not?] consider this episode. Ms. Doe did not tell Dr. Tsu about this episode. She did not report this episode to her doctor on October 8. The statements of Ms. Doe are unreliable. After she went to police, she came up with this poisoning theory.  The Jamba Juice claims are all the more incredible ... on other inconsistencies in her account.  She [Ms. Doe] accused him of poisoning but continually invited him [Woodward] into her home for sexual foreplay.   Currie talks about the 'watering down.'  Currie argues that the prosecution failed to meet their burden on any [part] of this count.  [Ms. Doe's] symptoms are consistent with a person in her first trimester of her pregnancy. The court requires a higher standard. Requires more. She drank a drink and felt sick, but not sick enough [to tell her doctor?].

I believe the court asks, "What should the court rely on? Internet search?"  I believe the court asks about the second trimester. The second trimester was on October 20, 2009. That was [well?] after the Jamba Juice incident occurred.

I believe Ms. Levine gets up to argue the remaining counts.
[Regarding] counts 1, 2, 3 and 4, generally would like to point out that there is no evidence of Misoprostol. No evidence of Misoprostol in counts 1, 2, and 3. The panties were searched for powder by two different labs. Two different labs were consulted. Nothing to support Misoprostol.

One of problems in the case, which Ms. Levine points, out stops the investigation. There's no way to know what was in the [Ms. Doe's] house.  No ... searches.

In respect to our papers, ... prosecution points out ... points to the time of the arrest. No evidence of Misoprostol. Anything in Count 4 is tainted.  Ms. Levine mentions in relation to prior events.  She now argues specifically to Count #2. Then Count #3 the next night, followed by the miscarriage. Then one week lapse.  In that week, they [Ms. Doe, Woodward] they had substantial contact. We don't know the extent of that contact. We know texts were deleted from [her?] phone.  Ms. Doe had determined to set up Mr. Woodward long before.  

Count #2. Mr. Woodward allegedly goes to apartment and allegedly inserts Misoprostol into Ms. Doe's vagina and Ms. Doe allegedly experiences some symptoms.  One thing about Internet searches, the only thing that can be deduced is that he [Woodward] had no interest in having a child. There is this testimony, that, in the past they had a relationship but its not backed up by anything.

The search on the Internet about ways to abort, there's no crime in that.  He did not hide the fact that he wanted her to have an abortion and wanted her to try the pill.  There was no relationship ... or that they wanted to have a child together.  There are problems with Ms. Doe. She doesn't tell them [detectives] anything about October 16th in the first interview. She doesn't [relay? that?] until 2010. Ms. Levine argues more details about what Ms. Doe said about the October 16 incident.

Count #3 suffers from the same problem as Count #2; lack of physical evidence. Ms. Levine mentions Dr. Kingston's testimony. How much of her testimony was based on her medical history? We know about smoking. We know that she suffered from various illnesses and diseases and things. The thing to remember is Ms. Doe's financial motive. She told Detective Shafia from day one ... how rich he [Woodward] was and her lawsuit is an attempt to do that.

Count #3, Ms. Levine argues about the physical symptoms Ms. Doe should have had. Count #4. We don't know what Ms. Doe reported to Mr. Woodward. One thing we know about the LAPD, they know how to tape a phone call. Ms. Doe started out in the first interview to snare, because she told Joshua Woodward, all was well. ... We don't know if she told him to bring Misoprostol, because she deletes stuff off her phone. All we know is what happened in the arrest.

Defense argues the 115 testimony of Ms. Verde. He [Woodward] didn't get close enough to the apartment. [He was] arrested too early. Count #4 fails because he doesn't go far enough in the attempt.  Ms. Levine then cites cases for her position, one being 'Holebrook.' (sp?) Mr. Woodward would had to have walked across the street, enter the apartment, go through all other steps.

At this point, I have in my notes that Judge Pastor is asking Mr. Currie a question which leads me to believe that Mr. Currie may have been arguing some of the counts and I missed documenting this in my notes.

JP: There must be an acknowledgement ...
KC: The ... he must know ... a belief and awareness of ...
JP: Does any other case say that?

The court asks about CALCRIM and CALJIC.

There is more discussion as to lewd behavior and the notion of what makes something a crime. Mr. Currie state that the legislature did not make the death of an embryo a crime.  So the defendant must know the baby is past embryonic stage.

The defense has concluded their argument. There is a big conference between defense counsel in the well and one attorney in the gallery.

I believe DDA Balian argues to the court Counts #2-4.
DDA Balian argues to the court that the people were fairly detailed in their opposition papers. We're going to try to focus on a few things in [those papers]. Before he starts DDA Balian states that the defense started out by saying the purpose of the prelim is to weed out groundless charges. That's true,  [however?] if there's some basis ... to give [the court?] strong suspicion, so that's the basis. This is not a jury trial, where there are [two answers?] and ... [?]. If there is some rational basis to give you a strong suspicion, based on ... what you heard.

We have Misoprostol on the defendant, in his possession. We have white powder tested to [prove]... But put that aside. The defendant wants to ignore what does exist. The computer searches that were done.

I believe DDA Rizzo argues Count 1.
I believe DDA Rizzo reminds the court that the defense argued that the defendant must know that the fetus progressed beyond the embryonic stage. This would be ludicrous that a defendant can only be convicted if he had knowledge of the fetus being beyond 7-8 weeks.  It is a requirement [(law) that the fetus be beyond the embryonic stage].  We don't dispute [that]. Mr. Curie talked about transfer intent. There are no issues of transfer intent. The defendant learned that the ex-girlfriend is pregnant. ... That he did not want a child. ... There was a pill she could take.  This was the one time she was not going to go along with him.

The prosecution brings up the statutes on the elderly, and that a [defendant] must know the person was an elder. ... Think it would be absurd for the defendant to [have] to know development [of fetus].  Judge Pastor asks what is the specific intent ... in dealing with fetal homicide? What is the intent...

I believe DDA Rizzo continues:
[He?] took a step to kill [an] unborn [child] ... We rely on medical experts and when acts occurred. Major structures occurred after 7-8 weeks of development. Dr. Kingston, based on testimony. Major structures were outlined on October 13. She reviewed the ultrasound images.  Dr. Kingston also rendered her opinion on fetal age based on October 8 and October 13 ultrasounds. Also, Dr. Kingston [testified/] before court, the first day of Ms. Doe's last menstrual period was July 22, 2009.  That date [was the] last date ... July 23, July 24, Ms. Doe could have gotten pregnant.

Dr. Kingston reviewed the ultrasound on October 8. Gestational age was not based on the last period. It was based on last ultrasound age. Dr. Kingston determined Ms. Doe was 11 weeks, 5 days on October 8.  Furthermore, the second ultrasound of October 13, the pregnancy had progressed to 12 weeks 2 days. That is in line with the first ultrasound dating.

If the court worked backwards, it's likely Ms. Doe became pregnant around August 1st or earlier. Around  7 weeks, we would be on September 19th, we would have reached a stage beyond embryonic.

Judge Pastor asks when was the Jamba Juice.

She would have become pregnant beyond July 22nd. The defense places the Jamba Juice as Mid September and uses this as a reference point. September 15. There is no evidence this was a hard line date. Detective Shafia testified Ms. Doe met the defendant [for the Jamba Juice] some point after the middle of September.  Ms. Doe stated the meeting occurred at The Grove.  Jamba Juice happened after mid September or late September.

Did the Jamba Juice incident even occur. We have evidence that Ms. Doe suffered. Dr. Kingston testified those are side effects that she was exposed to Misoprostol.  Dr. Kingston testified the timing of the symptoms is consistent of Misoprostol exposure.  Ms. Doe knew how she felt during her pregnancy and this vomiting was something that was beyond her experience.  The defense [alleges?] she made the incident up because she never relayed the incident to Dr. Tsu.

The people argue that Ms. Doe thought the intense vomiting incident was related to her pregnancy and not the Jamba Juice. It was a reasonable inference and that's why she didn't tell Dr. Tsu.  It explains why Ms. Doe didn't tell Detective Shafia about the incident at The Grove at first. The victim was still in a state of shock after the miscarriage.

I believe DDA Balian argues Count #2.
The defendant knew about Misoprostol. He knew how to administer it and how much. There's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. People are not asserting he was unhappy and that's why he wanted to kill. To him, it was going to ruin his life and he was going to kill himself. This defendant was resolved to kill this fetus. It didn't work. [Count #2] Was he not being [secretive?] when he typed "evil ways to end pregnancy"? When he typed, "the most powerful sedative?"

It wasn't presented in testimony [however], he also typed "How to wipe a Mac clean." Counsel indicates there is no evidence of [intent?].  There were searches [on the computer], as to how to insert Misoprostol vaginally.

[Additionally], Ms. Doe to Detective Fairchild. 'She felt like she was in a fog. Like she had taken NyQuil.'  Dr. Kingston agreed that [these] symptoms are consistent with exposure to Misoprostol. This is someone who was determined to kill that fetus. ... Who said he would kill himself if that fetus would come to fruition. He was resolved to kill that fetus. He had started and he wasn't going to stop.

It's not clear in my notes, but I believe that Mr. Currie argues rebuttal, or the court asks Mr. Currie about a specific intent.  I believe Mr. Currie addresses jury instructions and that the prosecution must show specific intent.  There is defense argument about the people bringing an intent charge and not completed charge because Ms. Doe miscarried.

I believe the court asks Mr. Currie for a response to Ms. Rizzo's arguments on elder abuse and if that has applicability to this case. Currie doesn't think it does because it goes back to intent. Intended crime did not occur. Currie argues that the cases the people cited, those cases focus on, ... did the defendant have intent to have sexual relations with a female under 14 years of age. It goes to the defendant's specific intent, ... because they chose to bring intent charges and not the completed crime.  Currie continues with another point on Count #1.  Defense exhibit AA, email.

I believe Mr. Currie reads the email. I let him know about ultrasounds and I kept him appraised. That doesn't support Jamba Juice because that came before ultrasounds.

Janet Levine continues with defense rebuttal argument.  Couple of things. [Probably?] make clear at 115 prelims. Ms. Rizzo argued on several themes that what Ms. Doe may have thought or [speculated?] because we did not hear from Ms. Doe. Ms. Levine argues again that the dates suggested when that occurred were variable.  That she was an ex-girlfriend; there is no evidence of that. There is no testimony about what Mr. Woodward was doing at that time. No evidence that he was a boyfriend of Ms. Doe. All we have are some inferences.

I believe the court asks the defense what they make of a computer search using [the word] 'evil' as opposed to 'ways.' Ms. Levine states that we don't have the evidence as to how the searches went. We don't' have evidence against the law. ... The drug is being prescribed and used.

I believe it is at this point where Judge Pastor rules.

The court is aware of it's duty to establish probable cause. The court does not have to find if the defendant is guilty. The court only has to find probable cause. ... I've done so. Based on the evidence presented, the people have met their burden on Counts 1 through 4. ... They have met the burden ... establishing each one of these instances. That the target was a fetus. That he had an intended specific intent to kill.  Do not find that the defendant must have known [fetal age?].  However, if required, I'm satisfied the defendant knew the development ... knew of the fetal age.

Find the conduct ... did .. in fact consist of intent.  Did extend beyond [embryonic?].  Any motion to [defer?] counts 1 through 4 is denied.  Counts 1 through 4, each a 664/187 [count], order him to be held to answer.  Judge Pastor continues with the Penal Code descriptions.

The 4 million bail stands. Arraignment is scheduled for February 6, 2014, at 8:30 AM in Dept. 111, Judge Henry Hall.  Will be required to sign a bond form.

Judge Pastor then addresses counsel. "I have to comment on the lawyering ... [it] was brilliant." The court also complements counsel on their conduct and sensitivity.  Judge Pastor comments that he doesn't think the case should be in Dept. 111. The nature of the case and the motions,  "I think the case should be assigned to complex criminal court. ... I think the case should go there."  Ms. Levine agrees. I believe the court adds that ultimately it will be Judge Hall's call.  DDA Balian thanks the court for their time and the scheduling.

The arraignment in Dept. 111 was reported on February 6, 2014.

Restauranteur Joshua Woodward Arraigned on 4 Counts of Attempted Murder of a Fetus

Joshua Woodward at a previous court hearing.

UPDATE 12 NOON: spelling, clarity, links

I'm at the downtown Los Angeles Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center for the Joshua Woodward case. Woodward's preliminary hearing took about six days, spread out over three months from October to January. On January 21, Judge Michael Pastor ruled there was sufficient evidence for Woodward to stand trial on four counts of attempted murder of a fetus. His arraignment is scheduled for this morning in Dept. 111, Judge Henry T. Hall's courtroom.

During the preliminary hearing, Detective John Shafia testified that when Woodward was arrested in the early morning hours of October 25th, he pulled his hands out of his pockets and dropped a cellophane bag on the ground that had a white powder substance in it.  Later, via a search warrant of Woodward's restaurant, Table 8 (aka 8 oz. Burger Bar), investigators discovered 22 tablets (19 white and 3 blue) in a backpack along with Woodward's laptop. The 19 white tablets were Misoprostol, 

Misoprostol, 100 microgram tablets

an abortion drug that's used through vaginal insertion.

Also found on Woodward's laptop were computer searches starting on August 26, through October 20, 2009, looking for abortion drugs and how to administer them. A sampling of the computer searches included:

"unwanted pregnancy" - legal rights men, 
evil ways to terminate a pregnancy, 
misoprostol insertion,
safest way to knocksomeone out,
chloroform

8:00 AM
I'm in the cafeteria.  Woodward and a small part of his defense team are here. Janet Levine, Megan Weisgerber and one of the younger gentlemen who sat in the gallery during the prelim.  While in the cafeteria, I write up my notes on the Cameron Brown hearing yesterday. I missed the Brown hearing because Bryan Barnes was being sentenced. Barnes pled guilty to two counts of first degree murder in the deaths of the USC Chinese grad students who were murdered during a robbery. His codefendant, Javier Bolden at this point, is pleading not guilty. Barnes' sentencing was heart wrenching. I hope to have my notes up on that hearing in a few days.

8:30 AM
I'm on the 11th floor and Judge Henry Hall's court room just opened. The hallway is mostly empty. Just a few jurors and general public. Woodward's defense team, who came upstairs before I did, head inside. I have not seen DDA Habib Balian or DDA Marguerite Rizzo yet. I'll wait a few more minutes then go in. I'll have an update as soon as the hearing is over.

8:40 AM
Inside Dept. 111. It's a large courtroom with six rows of gallery seating. The jury box contains 14 seats. There are several additional seats directly in front of the jury box in the well. There are some notebooks in the jury box so I'm guessing Judge Hall might be in trial.

 Judge Hall comes out from the back rooms. He's a tall, silver haired be-speckled white man. His face is open, friendly.  There is no glass around the bailiffs box.  A man enters and checks in with the bailiff. DDA Balian arrives and speaks to Ms. Levine. From what I'm overhearing, they are working on scheduling dates for the next hearing. It's a pleasant conversation.  I'm wondering what types of cases Hall usually handles.

Two maintenance men enter and head to the back rooms.  The clerk asks if everyone is ready.  DDA Balian asks for five minutes. Ms. Levine tells the clerk that everyone is here but the prosecutor just needs to get some dates.

There is a nicely dressed woman sitting in the jury box. She has a rolling cart with her.  I don't see a juror badge on her clothing. She works on some files. When she picks up her phone, that reminds me that I need to put mine in silent mode.

8:53 AM
DDA Balian returns.  Another prosecutor enters and starts to set up at the prosecution table.  The court reporter is a handsome man with a hint of gray hair. A few moments later Judge Hall takes the bench and asks counsel to state their appearances.

Judge Hall tells counsel that for some reason, his court ended up getting many copies of the preliminary hearing transcripts. He doesn't know how that happened and they will take up too much space. Ms. Levine states they would be happy to take the extra copies.

Ms. Levine starts out by saying she wanted to inform the court of Judge Pastor's thoughts on the case. Judge Hall politely interrupts her and informs her that he's read the preliminary hearing transcripts.  He ran the case past Dept. 100. The only question Dept. 100 had was, should the matter go to trial, putting aside 402 hearings, etc., is that three weeks would be the cut off time. He was to hang onto the case at this time.

Ms. Levine tells the court she feels not including jury selection, jury selection would be lengthy, she expects that with expert testimony it's at least three weeks but no more than five.

Judge Hall said he would take that back to Dept. 100. The next court hearing would be in Dept. 100. Ms. Levine is concerned about the case calendar and 0 of 60. She asks to delay the arraignment and have it in Dept. 100. Judge Hall informs her that arraignments are not taken in Dept. 100. The arraignment will be here.

The arraignment is quick.  Woodward pleads not guilty to all charges and allegations. The case calendar is set at zero of 90. There is some discussion about the next date.  Monday March 10 or Friday February 21.  DDA Balian states he does have another pretrial on February 21. Judge Hall states that Monday's in Dept. 100 are pretty busy so he sets the date for February 21.  Bail stands.  I believe Judge Hall states that if the people hang with more than three weeks then the case will go to the 9th floor.

And that's it.  There is a long hearing in the Michael Gargiulo case on February 21, so I will probably miss the Woodward hearing in Dept. 100. I'll have to find out afterwards what the decision is on where this case will land.

Joshua Woodward Ordered to Stand Trial on 4 Counts of Attempted Murder of a Fetus

Joshua Woodward at a previous court hearing.

UPDATE 4:45 PM
January 23, 2014
A few moments ago, Judge Michael Pastor ruled that the prosecution has met their burden for Joshua Woodward to stand trial on all four counts of attempted murder of a fetus. His arraignment on those charges is scheduled for February 6 in Dept. 111.

I will have a detailed report of the proceedings later tonight.

4:45 PM
After arguments from both sides on a defense motion to dismiss the case, Judge Pastor ruled as follows:

"The court is aware of it's duty ... to establish probable cause. The court does not have to find if the defendant is guilty. ... The court only has to find probable cause. ... I've done so. ... Based on the evidence presented, ... the people have met their burden on counts one through four. ... [They have] met their burden to establish each one of these instances: That the target was a fetus. That he had an intended specific intent to kill."

The court did not find, (as the defense argued in court that for the first count -Jamba Juice incident- the defendant must know the fetal age was beyond the embryonic stage) that the defendant must have known at the time of the attempt the fetus age.  "However, if required [by law], I'm satisfied the defendant knew the development ... of the fetal age."

Joshua Woodward Preliminary Hearing, Day 5

Joshua Woodward at a prior court hearing in 2012.

December 16, 2013

8:48 AM
I'm on the 7th floor of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, waiting for Judge Pastor's courtroom, Dept. 51 to open.

Judge Pastor's court clerk and his court reporter, Mavis, arrive around the same time. Mavis says hello.

Once inside Dept. 51, I see Woodward take a seat in the last gallery row on the defense side of the room. He's hard at work on his cell phone.  It's another day with a cold courtroom. The defense has their materials all set up. I think this is a new bailiff in the room. I don't recognize him.

The clerk goes right to work and Mavis starts setting up her desk. Mavis is wearing a very nice gray and black outfit with a long jacket. It's freezing, freezing cold in here. As Mavis and the clerk chat, I overhear the clerk say that she's comfortable. I'm amazed because she's wearing a short sleeved top. I hear that the back rooms behind the courtroom are warm, stifling, but the courtroom is freezing.

8:58 AM
Detectives Shafia and Fairchild arrive. Greetings are exchanged in the well. Detective Fairchild sits at the prosecution table and Detective Shafia takes a seat in the jury box. Clerks from the DA's staff arrive to set up the overhead screen.

9:00 AM
DDA Rizzo and Balian arrive. Ms. Rizzo is wearing a lovely cream trench coat. It has these very large tortoise-shell  looking buttons down the center of the back. I love this coat. The defense team works with moving the overhead projector device to use for exhibits during cross.

Marguerite Rizzo sets up the prosecution's files. DDA Balian is at the clerk's desk, going through a stack of files, possibly the exhibits.  The clerk asks the room, "Are we ready?  People, are we ready?"  Habib Balian answers, "Yes."

There are two defense attorneys in the gallery row in front of me and 2 directly behind me.

9:05 AM
On the record in People v. Woodward.  Appearances are stated for the record.

Judge Pastor starts off by stating there was a telephonic conference last week to defer (arguing of the motions).  I believe either Judge Pastor states or DDA Balian states that the people are researching more electronic documentation.  They will return on January 23 for argument.

Ms. Levine gets up to continue her cross examination of Detective Shafia.

There are questions about screen shots on Ms. Doe's blackberry.

JL: Was that a direction you asked Mr. Hernandez?
JS: Yes. ... I directed him to take photos of what he thought were relevant.
JL: So he made a decision?
JS: (Yes.)

Questions about the names of the other detectives in the Wilshire Homicide Unit in 2009.  Detective Wong: Director of the unit. Detective Carrilo (sp?) is D3, supervisor of Homicide Unit.

JS: He's one step above me.

JL: (?) returned to Ms. Doe's apartment next day?
JS: Yes.
JL: (?) Retrieved some items?

Detective Shafia was appraised of that and items were collected afterwards.  Now there are questions about phone calls between him and Ms. Doe.

JS: She was complaining about how long it was taking.
JL: Do you recall an email from Detective Fairchild inquiring about those calls in 2012/
JS: Yes.

Detective Shafia states he wrote her back that he didn't remember the conversations and he has nothing else to help him remember. Shafia states he's never been inside Ms. Doe's apartment that she had in October 2009. Detective Shafia states he had no personal knowledge of what her view was from her apartment.  People's exhibit 2 is put up on the overhead screen.

Judge Pastor asks for a moment. He leaves his bench for a moment to turn on his computer.

JL: Detective, do you recognize this?
JS: yes.
JL: ... and this is the area where you arrested Mr. Woodward?
JS: Yes.
JL: This photo has (indications?) of what's north?
JS: Yes.
JL: He was arrested on the northeast corner of 3rd & (Houser?)
JS: Arrested in a cut-out area for wheelchair (access?).

Woodward was arrested with the assistance of Officer Hernandez. There are questions about where his car was parked and what direction it was facing.

Defense N. Photo of parking lot of KFC and apartment building where Ms. Doe resided.

Detective Shafia points out in the image where a white car is parked, that his car was in the approximate same position but his car was facing out (not in).

JL: The photo is a fair depiction of what his view was like?
JS: Yes.

Detective Shafia states he could not see how or when Woodward arrived in the area.

JL: Do you know if any time elapsed between the time Mr. Woodward arrived in the area and time he arrived...
HB: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

Question about the direction Woodward arrived walking when he was arrested.

JS: He was walking from Pointsetta towards Fuller.

Detective Shafia had pulled out from the spot when he first saw Woodward. He pulled out as if exiting to the street.  The KFC was completely closed there was no staff inside.

JL: Did you see a taxicab drop Mr. Woodward off?
JS: No.
JL: In direct, you said Mr. Woodward dropped a substance in a plastic bag?
JS: Yes.
JL: And Detective Hernandez swabbed the item?

(Exhibit 18 - photo of swab tube against pants).

JS: (Yes.)

There are questions about the swab tube and it's description.

JL: Did you see Mr. Woodward earlier that day or was that the first time you saw him?
JS: First time.
JL: Nothing further.

Cross ends and redirect begins.

HB: Prior to taking the swab, did Detective Hernandez touch the defendant?
JS: Yes.
HB: Describe (that).
JS: He took a tactical position and searched him for weapons.

The witness is asked to describe the tactical position.

JS: Got him ready to be handcuffed.
HB: Did you observe Detective Hernandez touch Mr. Woodward's hands?
JS: Yes.

There are questions about the underwear. Detective Shafia did not examine the two pairs of panties for powder.

HB: Why?
JS: Those items had already been booked into evidence.
HB: (Regarding the incident at) Jamba Juice. I believe you testified about what Ms. Doe told you. Did she ever tell you in the October 20 interview ... Did Ms. Doe tell you whether the nausea she experienced, compared to other times?
JS: Yes.
HB: What did she say?
JS: She said she had only been nauseous a few times. ... This was much more violent ... of puking.

The questions about alleged incident on October 18th, in reality were late ... Sunday AM. 

HB: During her description to you of symptoms, she had with the defendant during that incident, did she tell you she experienced any vomiting?
JS: Yes. ... That she had been puking.
HB: Now, late Friday, early AM Saturday, October 17th. ... She did not tell you about any symptoms she had? ... On that interview and that date, she did not tell you about any symptoms she experienced?
JS: Yes.

Detective Shafia did not ask her any questions or follow up questions. He didn't really ask her any questions at all. "It was more an informal interview. ... I just listened." Shafia is asked about the reference in the file to coroner Dr. Young.

The clerk interrupts to speak to Judge Pastor. It's a quick exchange.

HB: Does that note have anything to do with this case or investigation?
JS: No.

This is a hand written log that he made up to try to remember the case as well as other cases. He also responsible to other death investigations.  Those other notes were turned over that had nothing to do with this case.

Now questions about LAPD SID employee, Dan Anderson (Anderson testified in the Lazarus trial as well as the two Spector trials.) and inquiring about the potential of the coroner's lab testing Misoprostol.  The lab did not have the blanks for the Misoprostol to test.  Dan Anderson gave Detective Shafia the contact of another person to help him with the case.  Anderson is a toxicologist at the lab.

The chrono log, Defense exhibit L, is a log he prepared in relation to his testimony. He did not prepare it while investigating the case. It's what he prepared, in order to get ready for the case. Detective Shafia testified on cross there was no record of the conversation with Ms. Doe.

HB: Didn't you in fact document that in ..  You did document that contact in the original arrest report?
JS: Yes.
HB: Which report did you document?
JS: The original arrest report.
HB: Regarding the 2010 calls he received from Ms. Doe, I believe you testified on cross they were case related?
JS: The calls received ... were inquiries from Ms. Doe.  (Such as) Who was the DA. What could she do to speed things up.

There are questions about the calls. Detective Shafia doesn't remember. It was about the content of the calls.

HB: Questions about how you were parked in KFC. What were you focused on?
JS: We were in a stand down position; waiting.  ... call from Ms. Doe that Woodward was in route.

Detective Shafia wasn't looking at traffic or particular cars.

HB: Why were you there on that night?
JS: I had information from Ms. Doe that Woodward would be in town. That he would be coming there after he closed the restaurant, and that Ms. Doe told him that he usually would come through that north gate.

HB: The final incident.  Did she tell you how long after the final incident she started experiencing cramps?
JS: 8:30 AM ... The intensified to extreme hard cramps. Enough to notify her doctor and sister.

DDA Balian asks the detective to go to Page 28 line 20 of Ms. Doe's interview to refresh his memory.  Detective Shafia reviews the transcript then testifies.

JS: That the cramping symptoms were in full swing. The worst she ever felt. Nothing like it.
HB: What was her exact words?
JS: They were just full on. Like I'd never felt.
HB: Experienced when? What time?
JS: 10 AM.

Redirect is finished and Ms. Levine recrosses the witness.

JL: Communications with Detective Fairchild, about calls (from Ms. Doe), you could not remember the calls or the content?
JS: Yes.

There's no more redirect.  Judge Pastor asks, "Should Detective Shafia remain on call?"  The defense replies, "Yes."

Detective Shafia is ordered back on January 23 at 9 AM. There is a discussion about a health issue Detective Shafia has scheduled to address on January 24 and the stress of being in court the day before.

JL: Maybe we don't need Detective Shafia.
JP: That would be great.

Detective Kimberly Fairchild is called to the stand. She's still under oath. 

DDA Balian presents the witness.

9:50 AM
Detective Fairchild is currently assigned to LAPD Robbery Homicide - Special assault section. She's been a detective for 12 years. Her assignment in 2009 was to the Juvenile Division, Abused Child Unit. She investigated deaths of children under 11 years of age.  She was officially assigned the case on November 2, 2009. This is the type of case she would routinely handle.

She handled and booked (evidence?) under case number 09-0719880. She also wrote reports under 09-0719173. 

On January 29, 2010, she interviewed Cheryl Will (sp?), supervisor for LAPD narcotics lab, who was overseeing the analysis of evidence collected in the case.  Those were items #15, #16, #17, #18 and others.

HB: What did she tell you?
KF: Their labs were not equipped to do the testing.
HB: February 3, 2010, what action did you take with respect to this case?
KF: Transported items to the DEA lab in Vista, CA.

Detective Fairchild thinks the individual she handed the evidence items over to was a supervisor named (Cheche? sp?).

HB: Did you participate in an interview with Ms. Doe and Ms. Rizzo in this case/
KF: Yes.

Detective Fairchild identifies a photo of Ms. Doe. (The photo is not put up on the overhead screen.)

HB: What was her demeanor?
KF: She was very upset at times, crying and (other times) would be angry.
HB: Did it appear to you ... recalling information...
JL: Objection! Calls for conclusion.
(missed ruling)
HB: Did you ask her ... were questions asked of her?
KF: Yes.
HB: That asked for specific information?
KF: Yes.
HB: Based on questions asked, did she ever indicate to you, even though she was upset, crying, did she...
JL: Objection!
JP: Sustained.
HB: Given her demeanor, did she ever indicate to you she had difficulty remembering events?
KF: No.

Ms. Doe related events regarding (her interactions?) with Woodward. Also spoke to her afterwards. Ms. Doe identified a photo of Woodward. Detective Fairchild also identifies the defendant for the record.

HB: June 24, 2010, you interviewed Ms. Doe on that date. Did she tel you when she met the defendant?
KF: She said she met him in 2000. ... At the time she was a bartender at Saddle Ranch and she had met him there.

Detective Fairchild has been to Ms. Doe's apartment. She's also been to Jamba Juice; it's in The Grove mall.

HB: Interview on June 24, 2010. Did she at some point, she told the defendant she wanted to know the baby (due date?)/
KF: She said that he became very angry. (He told her) "You can't keep this. It would ruin me." ... I think she said that he threw himself on the floor and he was so angry.
HB: Did she tell you he did anything else while on the floor?
KF: That he would buy her a real estate business if she would abort.
HB: No, I mean, what else he did?
KF: No, I don't recall.

(Question or answer) He was crying and he told her it would ruin his life and she couldn't have it.

HB: Did she talk to you about the Jamba Juice incident at The Grove?
KF: Yes.
HB: Did she give you a specific date?
KF: She didn't give a date.
HB: ... went through steps to give an approximate time line?
KF: Yes.

Questions about Ms. Doe having (interview? meeting? with defendant?) at 8 Ounce Burger to, (possibly) a friend buy (her?) a business.

KF: Approximately in September. .. Her impression was, they were going to talk about the baby but they talked about his bankruptcy problems.

Another meeting Ms. Doe had with Woodward is discussed.

HB: Approximately when was the next time?
KF: She said weeks later ... would be in October 2009.


I believe the entire answer to the last question is stricken.

KF: She said next meeting was weeks later, after the 8 Ounce Burger meeting.
HB: The meeting at The Grove (Jamba Juice) was before that meeting? (Before Oct 18th?)
KF: It was before.  ... She said she received a text message from Joshua telling her to meet him at The Grove. ... She met him there. He had a Jamba Juice ready for her. It was watered down. ... She did not ask him to order it. She accepted it. ... As they were shopping, she started to feel ill. ... They were talking about the baby and he seemed to be more accepting. ... She told him it tasted funny. ... He grabbed it; tasted it and said nothing was wrong.  ... She continued to gt ill and went home. Twenty minutes to an hour later, her symptoms .... violently ill. She was vomiting and had diarrhea ... about five times during that period.

HB: During the interview on June 24, 2010, did she talk about the incident on October 17th, early morning ... Saturday?
KF: Yes.
HB: Did she tell you about what time he arrived?
KF: ... they are together and ended up in bed. She was describing the foreplay.

They began kissing. He reached down to his pants, then reached into a back pack. Then he put his fingers insider her. It was the same hand. He penetrated her vagina with his hand for about five minutes. It was very hard and uncomfortable. That was something out of their ordinary, in their sexual routine. He had never done that before.  He stayed for a little while and left after seven or eight AM.

KF: She said she experienced abdominal cramping, fatigue and sweating, ... feeling out of it. She called the on-call doctor at Cedars.  ... She called her work and called in sick.
HB: (What work?)
KF: She called into her bar tending and also her real estate (job).
HB: Did you write into your report Saddleback Ranch? ... Did you write into your handwritten notes?
KF: I would have to refer to my notes.

I am freezing in this courtroom. I don't know how I am going to last through the morning.

KF: It's not in my notes.
HB: Did you participate in an interview with Ms. Do, Ms. Rizzo and myself (on) December 12, 2012/
KF: Yes.
HB: (What was the purpose of the interview?)
KF: For Ms. Doe to meet you and also clear up what phone she used to make calls, and if she used a land phone.
HB: What was her response?
KF: She said she never called a doctor at Cedars in 2009.
HB: Did I confront her? ... Did I ask her if she had told you and Ms. Rizzo?
KF: She said, "I never said that, and you must be mistaken."

There are questions about Ms. Doe and the October 17 event.

KF: She then said, "I never said that. I never said there was cramping. I just said I was out of it and tired." Like she was in a fog.
HB: How adamant was she that she didn't experience cramping on the 17th?
JL: Objection! Conclusion!
JP: Sustained.

She was upset and very forceful that she had never called the on-call doctor and was very certain that she had never said (about) the cramping. (In relation to Oct. 17.)

HB: What was her demeanor when she said she never called the doctor?
KF: She was very sure, very forceful that she had never had that call. ... She was again very forceful that she had never called Saddleback Ranch. ... She said she didn't work at Saddleback. She worked at another location.

Detective Fairchild called Saddleback Ranch and spoke to a Mr. Pollack. He said Ms. Doe worked there from 2000 to 2002. She was not employed there in 2009.

10:30 AM
I'm watching the clock like a hawk since I am so cold.  (They keep saying Saddleback however online it states the restaurant is Saddle Ranch. Sprocket.)

HB: June 24, 2010 interview ... where you said in your report where you report Ms. Doe experienced cramping. Is it possible that Ms. Doe did not tell you? ... How quickly, during that interview was Ms. Do speaking/
KF: She spoke very quick, very fast.


HB: She was speaking quickly?
KF: Yes.
HB: Was it hard to take notes?
KF: It was hard to follow. ... She would skip around on events, between October 17, October 18. Back and forth between dates.

10:32 AM
The morning break is called. I get up and move around to get some blood circulating again. Several of the attorneys are shivering like I am and commenting on the cold courtroom.

10:52 AM
HB: June 24, 2010 interview. Did you speak to her about the alleged incident that occurred on October 18, 2009?
KF: Yes.
HB: Did she discuss with you symptoms she experienced after Mr. Woodward left her apartment?
KF: Yes. ... She said that almost immediately after he left, she had cramps, feeling feverish, sweating and diarrhea.

DDA Balian ask her about a follow up investigation (report? chrono in log?) dated August 9, 2010.

KF: She said that she got chills. She began sweating and started violently vomiting. ... This was around seven to eight in the AM. ... Cramps like she never experienced before. ... She then laid down. ... She contacted the on-call doctors at Cedars. ... At 10:15 AM, she was still feeling sick, cramping and called in sick to her real estate job. ... She still was feeling sick, ... some cramping.

She said at about two to three PM, she went to the toilet to urinate and noticed spotting from her vagina when she wiped herself. ... She was concerned so she called the on-call doctor. At five PM she started to feel a little bit better.  At six PM she was still feeling (okay?). Not a lot of symptoms. No symptoms in report. She said she still felt pressure in her abdomen.

At nine PM she stood up and water came out of her vagina. She went to the bathroom; there was more gushing out of her vagina, blood clots. She then looked in the toilet and saw her baby in the toilet. She wiped herself, called McKell, (sp?) her friend, and told her about it.

(A date, May 6, 2011 is discussed. This is possibly an interview with "McKell" (sp?). My notes are not clear. Possibly the interview was also with Ms. Rizzo present. Sprocket.)

McKell went to Ms. Doe's apartment. (Ms. Doe?) knew that it was Woodward's baby because she had not had sex with anyone for about a year.  She had never seen a black backpack before.

McKells husband, Jay (Cremin? sp?) is mentioned. I believe Detective Fairchild interviewed him also. He was married to McKell.  While Ms. Doe was miscarrying her baby, she called McKell.

Now there are questions about what Mr. Aremis said his wife said to him. There are several questions and then there's an argument about what Detective Fairchild can testify to.

HB: In interview with Jay Cremin, did he tell you what if anything ...
KF: He said that McKell received a phone call from Ms. Doe.  ... He was present in the home. ... McKell left the apartment. ... The car ride from his apartment (to Ms. Doe's?) was about five to seven minutes. He had contact with mcKell, five to seven minutes after.
HB: Did he tell you that McKell asked him to do something?
KF: Yes.

There are lots of objections with this testimony.

KF: First, he went to Ralph's (grocery store) to pick up gloves and maxi pads. ... When he arrived (at Ms. Doe's apartment) Ms. Doe was out of it, upset and crying. McKell was there. ... He saw blood on the floor and on a towel.  He opened the toilet lid and saw blood and saw a baby that was smaller than his fist and looked normal. ... He said he got some toilet paper and cleaned up and flushed the contents of the toilet. It took several attempts. ... He then went into Ms. Doe's bedroom. ... McKell was there. Ms. Doe was upset.

HB: Did he tell you whether he looked into a pair of turquoise underwear?
KF: Yes. ... He saw white powder on the turquoise underwear. ... He said that the police should be notified.

According to Jay, Ms. Doe did not want to call the police. She was not out to get the defendant. She had to be talked into it.

There is argument between counsel as to if this is relevant. Judge Pastor rules that he is going to allow it.

KF: Jay said that Ms. Doe told him that she didn't believe that Joshua would do that to her and she wasn't inclined to call police.
HB: Did Jay tell you whether Ms. Doe ... willingness to go and call police?
KF: He said at one point McKell Googled white powder. ... He observed McKell on the computer Googling white powder.

JP: In regards to Ms. Doe, evidence code 1250.

KF: Ms. Doe was present (as?) to McKell's Google search. ... Sometime after that, Ms. Doe (? prayed?) together.
JL: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

Gail became angry and decided to go to the police.  Direct is finished and cross begins by Ms. Levine.

Ms. Levine asks about the Google search. The name "Google" was given to Detective Fairchild.
JL: Who's computer was it? ... Who told you which computer? ... Who searched what computer when and was the search for "white powder" and abortion?
(miss answer)

11:20 AM
October 5, 2012. Detective Fairchild verified that M.s Doe told her she searched "white powder & abortion."  Detective Fairchild never searched Ms. Doe's work computers. A roommate named Sam, Detective Fairchild never interviewed.

JL: Do you know if Sam had a computer that was on the premises?
KF: No.
JL: When did you first obtain Ms. Doe's computer?
KF: I don't recall.

She first seized it in April 2010 and seized it again in 2012. There are questions about Detective Fairchild's training. She's been an officer 23 years and a detective 12 years. Ms. Levine asks the witness if she ever asked someone if they could slow down, or ask to repeat. Detective Fairchild is asked if she has ever taped interviews and about her experience in interviewing subjects before.

JL: Did you expect if Detective Shafia had spoken with Ms. Doe, he would tell you about it?
KF: Only if it was relevant to the investigation.
JL: You are aware that there were two calls in 2010 that lasted at least 20 minutes? (Between Shafia & Ms. Doe?) ???
HB: Objection!
I believe Judge Pastor rules 352.

Ms. Levine asks about an interview I believe in May, 2011. Detective Fairchild has been in Ms. Doe's apartment five or six times in the last three to four years.  Detective Fairchild has interviewed Ms. Doe three times. During those different interviews (and /or visits to Ms. Doe's apartment), Detective Fairchild took photos, Ms. Do identified Mr. Woodward from photos and she returned Ms. Doe's laptop to her.

11:30 AM
JL: Did you ask Detective Shafia about the tape not working of the first interview?
KF: He just said that the tape just shut off.

In a question about missing photos when the file was transferred over:

KF: When I got the murder book, I thought everything was there?
JL: In conversation with Ms. Doe, did you ever have a conversation that (wasn't?) recorded on notes or?

The dates she interviewed Ms. Doe: April 2010; June 2010; May 2011; Sept. 2012.

JL: Did she ever call you ...
KF: (She would complain about the case.)
JL: Did you ever ask her any questions?
KF: No.

KF: She had mentioned that she was going to sue Mr. Woodward civilly.

Detective Fairchild didn't write that in any notes or logs.

JL: Did you inquire what she was suing him for?
KF: No.
JL: In that interview in Ms. Rizzo's office, was there some time limit?
KF: No.

After the interview, she wrote notes contemporaneously.

JL: Written contemporaneously? ... We you taking notes as Ms. Doe was talking?
KF: Yes.
JL: then you went back and wrote a report?
KF: Yes.

Defense exhibit P, her report (dated October 9, 2010?).

JL: Did you write this based on your memory and your notes? ... Did you ask Ms. Rizzo or did you do it all by yourself?
KF: I did it all by myself.

Detective Fairchild reviewed all the reports in the file and was aware of prior interviews.

JL: Were you present at a November 11, 2009 interview?
KF: It was conducted at Ms. Doe's apartment.
JL: You did not do an inventory of Ms. Doe's ...?
KF: No.
JL: Do you know if there were any drugs or alcohol ... in her apartment?
KF: No.
JL: Any Misoprostol?
KF: No.

Detective Fairchild was not present during the "sting." In the first interview with Ms. Doe with Ms. Rizzo, it went from topic to topic.

JL: You knew that she was an actress and taking acting lessons?
HB: Objection!
JP: Sustained. 352.
JL: At the time you interviewed her in 2010, you heard testimony that Mr. Hernandez was (authorized? with?) to take photos of text message of what he determined was relevant?
KF: ... first saw those .... can't remember. ... did not have those with me when questioning Ms. Doe.

Defense exhibit I. (I miss rewriting what this document is. It might be a list of text messages.)

Going over the photos of the texts dated October 7, 2009. The text messages mention Jamba Juice.

"I almost puked on you that's why I left."

JL: So that means the Jamba Juice took place before the first visit with Dr. Tsu.

More questions about the text messages.  Part of the report said Ms. Doe accused Woodward of poisoning her. There's a question about the missing text messages that Ms. Doe deleted (off of her phone).  Now there are questions about the first time Detective Fairchild saw the panties and the powder in the panties.

The first time she viewed the panties was at the property room and viewed the underwear.

JL: September 2013 about right/
KF: That's correct.

JL: Was the first time Ms. Doe told you you were wrong, was when Mr. Balian and Ms. Rizzo were all together?
KF: Yes.

The September 2012 meeting was to determine if she used a land line in 2009. That was the first time she asked Ms. Doe if she used a land line. Detective Fairchild never asked Ms. Doe for her phone bills.  Detective Fairchild obtained Ms. Doe's phone number. She had two cell phones.

JL: She had two physical cell phones?
KF: Yes. ... I believed she used one and then it stopped. And then used another.
JL: Did she have more than one cell phone number?
KF: (No.)
JL: did she have more than one text address?
KF: No.
JL: Did you know that she communicated with Detective Shafia by email?
HB: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

JL: In the September 2012 interview with Ms. Doe, you were asking if she communicated with Mr. Woodward by cell or land line?
KF: I think that was to determine which phone she used to call in sick and to call the doctor.

JP: Did she indicate she had more than one bartender job in 2009-2010?
KF: No.

Detective Fairchild did not interview her boss at the bartender job. She did not interview him to verify Ms. Doe called in sick.

JL: Did you ask for information to show they dated?
KF: She said they had known each other for ten years and had communicated on and off.
JL: (She said?) she hadn't spoken to him in over a year in August 2009?
KF: Yes.

I believe Ms. Levine asks if Ms. Doe first told the detective she called in sick on October 17 but in a later interview she said she hadn't.  Fairchild is asked abut the date of when she went to Table 8. Detective Fairchild's report says they were all drinking alcohol. Detective Fairchild states that Ms. Doe was referring to Joshua and the friends.  Her report doesn't say that.

Cross is not finished yet.

1:30 PM
There are four defense attorney's in the well and four defense staff in the gallery. Woodward takes his seat at the defense table. Thankfully, the courtroom is much warmer.

1:33 PM
The clerk asks, "Counsel, are you ready?"  DDA Balian replies, "Yes."

Judge Pastor takes the bench. He apologizes to Detective Fairchild for addressing her with an incorrect name.   She retakes the stand.

There is some discussion about photos that had not been in the murder book in print form but were on disk. There's a question about cell phone numbers of Ms. Doe's phone and if it was used to obtain cell phone records.  Detective Fairchild also had Mr. Woodwards' cell records by search warrant.

Cell records were obtained from August 2009 to October 26, 2009 for Ms. Do and Mr. Woodward.

JL: Did you compare photographs from Officer Hernandez photographing (the texts) to cell phone records obtained via subpoena?
KF: No.

There are questions about who did a computer search for "white powder" and "abortion" and who didn't.

KF: Ms. Verde (sp?) (This must be McKell's last name. Sprocket) said that she and Ms. Doe did the computer search.

Detective Fairchild talked to Ms. Verde about what she saw that evening.

JL: That she saw Mr. Woodward on the street.
HB: Objection! Beyond scope.
JP: Sustained.

JL: .... asked Ms. Verde about the 18th and the 25th?
HB: Objection about the 25th.
JP: Sustained on the 25th.

I believe the defense argues to get this information before the preliminary hearing.  I believe it's Ms. Levine who makes an offer of proof to the court.

JL: Ms. Verde was parked on fuller on the 25th. She was waiting outside. She saw him get out of a cab. ... get out walking around ... on cell phone smoking.
HB: All of this testimony what she saw, would have been out of Detective Shafia's view.

I have in my notes more questions, and it appears that these questions were allowed by Judge Pastor.

JL: She (Ms. Verde) was parked on Fuller?
KF: Yes.
JL: She saw him walk up and down the street?
KF: Yes.
JL: She saw him make several phone calls?
KF: Yes.
JL: She saw him arrested?
KF: Yes.
JL: Did he walk around the block?
KF: Yes.

Now a question about the October 17th incident. Ms. Doe discussed the mechanics of the placement (of the white powder).  Detective Fairchild went into Ms. Doe's apartment. The bed is higher than the floor.  Ms. Doe was simply watching what Mr. Woodward was doing.

JL: Did you ask her if he used a lubricant? ... How the powder got off her hand ... got into her vagina?
KF: She said that she was excited and that the powder would have adhered to her.

Apparently, Detective Fairchild had not told that to anyone before today.

JL: Where is that in your reports?
(miss answer)

Ms. Levine goes over the sequence of events that Ms. Doe claimed happened on October 17 and 18.  On the 17th, it happened once (insertion of powder into her). On the 18th, several times.

JL: Did you ask about (lighting?) conditions of ... room?
KF: No.
JL: Did you ask Ms. Doe if the light was on?
KF: She didn't specify.
JL: Did you ask Ms. Doe if she used glasses or contact lenses?
KF: No.

Cross ends and redirect begins.

HB: During the June 24, 2010 interview with Ms. Doe, did she say whether she saw the defendant before early 2008 - 2009?
KF: She said she didn't see him.
HB: Counsel asked you on cross examination whether Ms. Doe told you she was drinking alcohol when she was (drinking at the restaurant with friends & Joshua) ... that would have been .... do you recall that?
KF: Yes.
HB: Counsel said in report ... In your hand written notes, did you write: "Entered restaurant and sat down with friends that were drinking?"
KF: I meant that Josh and his friends were the ones that were drinking.

Question about an interview with McKell Verde (sp? on September 7, 2012.

KF: Yes, they were friends.
HB: Did she tell you about her relationship with Mr. Cremins?
KF: Yes. Her husband was Jay.
HB: Regarding the arrival of the suspect on October 25, 2009. Where did she (McKell) tell you she parked her car?
KF: She parked it on Fuller.
HB: Where did she tell you she parked?
KF: I believe it was on the west side.
HB: Could you look at your report?

Detective Fairchild takes out her report and reviews it.

KF: She said she had parked her car across from Kentucky Fried Chicken facing the apartment complex.

She (Ms. Verde) said Woodward arrived via taxi, just est of Ms. Doe's complex. He began walking down Fuller towards his car and he walked right past her.  She observed him smoking a cigarette and talk on his cell phone. He was walking back and forth, pacing. Then he took off down the street and walked around the (corner?).

People's exhibit 3. Overhead view of the streets. DDA Balian asks the witness to indicate where.

KF: He walked past her car northbound.

The witness is asked to place an X on Fuller and a cross street.

She saw him go right. ... He left her view, eastbound. The next time she saw him, she saw him walking west bound on 3rd Street. That was toward KFC.   This would be consistent with walking around the block.  The cab dropped off Woodward in a spot that would be blocked (from Detective Shafia's view).

Ms. Levine has no more recross.

People would move all of people's exhibits into evidence. Ms. Levine asks that they hold on that until the 23rd of January. Then Ms. Levine asks for a few minutes as to whether or not they will decide to go over the exhibits now and decide on which ones to accept into evidence.

There is a short break. They go off the record.

2:07 PM
The prosecution returns.  Ms. Levine asks to withdraw Detective Shafia's notes, informally 24A.

2:10 PM
Back on the record. Exhibit 24A is withdrawn.  People's 1-24 are (received?) for in evidence.  At this juncture, contingent on the upcoming (1/23).

I believe Judge Pastor asks, "Do you ... an affirmative defense?" Ms. Levine responds that it will depend on the results of the search (of records?) they are doing today.

I believe Judge Pastor asks, " Do you want any defense exhibits admitted?" I believe the prosecution offers, "If they want to let us know..." Judge Pastor responds, "I'd just would have as much notice as possible."  I believe Ms. Levine states she would let the people know by January 10th.

Judge Pastor tells counsel, "If there is something else by (discovery?) standpoint, I'd like to be notified."  I believe he then asks, "When can the defense have motions filed?"

The rest of the discussion is when motions and responses are due.  Defense motion due by Jan 13th. Peoples response by 4 pm Friday 17th. That will give Judge Pastor time to review all motion documents.

Mr. Woodward remains on bond. He is ordered to come back January 23rd at 9 AM Thursday.  There is a question about a telephonic conference and Woodward gives his waiver that his attorneys can represent him at that conference.  And that's it.

Joshua Woodward Preliminary Hearing, Day 4, Part III

 Joshua Woodward at a previous court hearing.

Continued from Day 4, Part II....

December 9th, 2013

1:33 PM
The lunch break is over and I'm inside Dept 51.  I got a confirmation that the November 18 date was just a discovery hearing and not considered a part of the preliminary hearing. The clerk asks counsel to let her know when they are ready.  Ms. Levine, who is now at the podium states she is ready.  I notice that the gray haired man is wearing a Picasso-like tie.

1:35 PM
Detective Shafia retakes the stand. Levine asks the detective whether he considered Ms. Doe's apartment a crime scene. He answers, "... could have been. Correct."  Levine states he took no steps to secure the crime scene. Detective Shafia states he never went into that apartment.  He doesn't know if (Ms. Doe?) there was a prescription for Misoprostol at that apartment.

JL: Sometime later, were you aware  photos were taken of that apartment?
JS: No.

The chrono log reflects that the initial officers appeared anxious to make an arrest. The initial report listed Ms. Doe as a homicide victim.  Initial searches (Det. Shafia performed?) were for a probable drug based on what the initial officers told him.

Defense F is introduced. Judge Pastor asks, "Did we misplace Defense E?"  It's explained that Defense E is a lab report.  Defense F is not put up on the overhead screen. Defense F is described as a Wikipedia search.

JL: Is this the search you did?
JS: (He thinks so) It doesn't have a complete date on the document.

Levine asks if the search result told him Misoprostol could be applied as a powder.  Shafia looks over the document.

1:47 PM
Shafia is asked if he knew Ms. Doe told detectives she found powder in her panties?

JS: No.
JL: (Did you) search online line for women using powder?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

Shafia states he looked through a number of search engines and this was the most comprehensive so he printed it out. Shafia is asked about documentation on his search history. There is none.

Shafia called Ms. Doe and had her come to Wilshire Station to be interviewed.  She came with her friend McKell (sp?).

JL: Were you aware that McKell had been at Ms. Doe's house when she claimed to have miscarried?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

JL: Were you aware that McKell had been in the vicinity of (where?) Mr. Woodward was when he was arrested?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

Ms. Levine asks if McKell was in (present?) on Ms. Doe's interview?

JS: No.

There are many questions Levine asks that are objected to and sustained by Judge Pastor. Shafia states that Ms. Doe came in for an interview and that interview was taped. The video portion of the interview ends before the interview actually ended. Shafia states he learned of it a couple of months later.

JP: Did you do that on purpose?
JS: No.

Shafia had other discussions with Ms. Doe, but that was the only interview that was taped. Ms. Levine wants to question Shafia off of the defense copy of the interview transcript, bu there is a pagination between that copy and the prosecution's copy. Ms. Levine states there is no difference of any substance.

The discussion began of Ms. Doe's relationship with Mr. Woodward and that they were friends and that they had dated off and on.  Shafia states he did not do any investigation to determine if that was true.

JL: Did you interview any friends ... or ask to see any photographs of her and Mr. Woodward?
(miss answer)

Ms. Doe sent Detective Shafia (a text she wrote Woodward?) after the miscarriage.  "Just got back from doctor. Everything okay." It appears Ms. Doe showed Detective Shafia that text at that first meeting.

JL: Before your sting or snare, ... you knew that she, later she sued Mr. Woodward?
JS: No I did not know (that).

(JL: You asked her to pretend to still be pregnant but she had already decided to do that?)
(JS: Correct.)
JL: So, she was using you?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

Shafia directed Officer Hernandez to take photos of Ms. Doe's cell phone but Shafia doesn't recall what day the photos were taken (of the phone).

Defense H. Detective Shafia's chrono log, about 29 pages.

Detective Shafia does not know if Officer Hernandez took photos of all the messages on that phone.

Defense I. (Photo?) of a package? There are no BATE stamps. There's a blackberry on top in a photo. Appears to be photos of text messages. Shafia is asked to review them to determine if there were any not contained in this group.

JS: These appear to be all the photos that Officer Hernandez took. ... I did not look at the phone. I just looked at the photos.


There are more questions about what Ms. Doe told Detective Shafia she told Woodward about her pregnancy being "okay."

I believe Shafia repeats that Officer Hernandez told him that Hernandez took photos of everything on Ms. Doe's phone.

JL: In that meeting you told her not to erase anything on that phone?
JS: Correct.

Levine crosses Shafia on more of Ms. Doe's interview.  Shafia is asked if he knew if the District Attorney got phone records.   There are questions about another text of Ms. Doe's, but that text was (apparently) not on the phone when it was photographed.

JL: Did she tell you he (Woodward) was wealthy?
JS: I believe she talked about bankruptcy issues.
JL: Did she tell you he came from a wealthy family?
JS: Not sure. I don't recall.
JL: Look at page 79 of the transcript, line 7. She suggests Mr. Woodward comes from a family with money.  ... and talks about Mr. Woodward's mother and father having some money.
JS: (Yes.)
JL: And them traveling to a private island?

Detective Shafia doesn't recall that part of the conversation.

JL: Did you look into Ms. Doe's finances?
JS: No.
JL: (Do you) remember she told you that her hands itched?
JS: Yes.
JL: At any time, did she tell you that her vagina itched?

I believe Levine asks if Ms. Doe told him something that she didn't tell other detectives. She directs him to Page 32, line 17.

JL: She's talking about some meeting around mid September, is that right?
JS: Yes.
JL: And she claims that she and Woodward had sex in late August 2009?
(miss answer)

There's a question about what Ms. Doe said about when the "dates" were that Woodward and the victim got together. Levine continues to question Shafia about this interview. October 17, she went to restaurant but there was "too much smoke."  The "Jamba Juice" occurrence had to occur in September, before she saw the doctor on October 8th. (I'm not sure if this last statement is from the interview or Ms. Levine questioning Detective Shafia.)

Levine asks what Detective Shafia did to look at Ms. Doe's computer.  Shafia states he never seized her computer. The Jamba Juice incident. Ms. Doe felt sick 30 minutes later. Detective Shafia testifies that he just let her talk about the incident.

Jamba Juice incident, she described vomiting, nausea. Of the (October) 18 incident, she described as cramps and somewhat sickness.

JL: In the course of the interview, she watched 20/20, Dateline and Oprah and she learned how to deal with things according to those shows?
S: Yes.

Detective Shafia did not test her for drugs or cocaine.  He did no ask her if she smoked, drank or any behavior that would lead to miscarriage.

JL: You did not see any (office? official) records that pinned down the date of the miscarriage?
JS: No, I did not.
JL: As she put it to you, they had sex that one time?
JS: Correct.

She didn't expound on it, just that she didn't hear from him in the last year. There are questions about prior abortion and that it scarred her. Ms. Doe said that he (Woodward) suggested to her that she use a pill. (Late August, early September.)

Ms. Doe said he mentioned this to her early on.   After the miscarriage, she noticed powder in her undies.  (At that time, McKell was already in the apartment.

JL: You (discovered?) they (Ms. Doe & McKell) looked u on the Internet. Did Internet searches?

2:30 PM
JL: But she knew there was a pill, back in August ... there was a pill she could take?
JS: Yes.

JL: At some time during the interview, she was upset and cried. ... did you do any investigation of her?
JS: No.
JL: Were you aware that she was an actress?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

JL: When Mr. Woodward (& Ms. Doe) spent the night together, the Saturday .. it was at 2 AM?
JS: Yes.
JL: So the evening began late?
JS: Yes.
JL: She said they spent Friday night together?
JS: Yes.
JL: She didn't mention anything about symptoms on that night?
JS: Yes.
JL: She said it could have happened on Friday night, too?
JS: Yes.

JL: She did not complain of no cramping on that Saturday?
JS: Correct.
JL: Didn't complain about diarrhea?
JS: Correct.
JL: Didn't complain of any symptoms that could have been caused by Misoprostol?
JS: (Correct.)

JL: Did you search police records to see if she had made any other complaint about anyone?
DDA Objection!
JP: Sustained!
JL: Did you get into the mechanics as to how the powder got into her vagina?
JS: I did not get specific, but she offered details.

There are questions if:
he asked her if she knew how powder got on his hand.
he asked her how much.
he asked her if she felt anything unusual.

I believe there are questions about if there was a discussion about this might be a difficult case to prove.  Would it be difficult to prove without the fetus.

JL: You told her that you would need to speak to the coroner?
JS: Yes.

JL: This was said in the context that you said this case would be difficult to prove?
JS: Yes.

I believe there is a question that Detective Shafia told Ms. Doe that he would have to speak to her doctors.

2:40 PM
I'm watching the time because I want to get to the break, and I'm wondering how much more Levine will be questioning the detective.

JL: Page 79, line 2. Well you said it would be an accumulation of details ... going to end up (?) talking to coroner.

Levine then asks about something from Detective Shafia's notes, not his interview of Ms. Doe.

Defense J.
JL: If you look at this (BATE/EVID stamp 1873) ... Are these your notes?
JS: Yes.
JL: Is this your handwriting?
JS: Yes.
JL: Meeting with Dr. Young, correct?
JS: Yes.
JL: And that doesn't have anything to do with the case?
JS: Correct.
JL: What coroner did you meet with in this case?
JS: None.

Defense K (BATE/EVID stamp 1821)
JL: Is this your handwriting as well?
JS: Yes.
JL: Met with coroner ... People v Davis.  People v. Taylor.  ... Those are both cases .... ?
JS: Yes.
JL: What do those have to do with (this case?)?

I don't have it in my notes, but from memory, I believe Detective Shafia may have filed papers in the wrong case and/or wrote his notes on another case inside this case file.

Shafia asked about a Deputy District Attorney (Shiller?), about cases similar to this.  In Shafia's chrono, DDA Shiller is listed there.  Chrono page 10.    He called (Lomis?) at LAPD SID. Talks might have coroner ... better response.

JL: Does that relate to this case?
SJ: Yes.

2:48 PM to 3PM
Afternoon break.

During the break, there is a discussion in the well between the prosecution and the defense having to do with getting electronic inner-departmental communication of the LAPD. The LAPD keeps electronic records, not in an archival form, but keeps back-up tapes. I'm not really getting the whole gist of the conversation of what the defense is looking for.  Possibly something to do with conversations with other potential witnesses.  The prosecution will have to figure out how long it might take to do this type of search of LAPD inner-department communications and if it's even possible.  However, this discussion may have to do with Brady material and not potential witnesses.

DDA Balian disagrees. "We don't know what's ... anything there. ... It is a fishing expedition. We don't accept that. At this point, it's beyond the scope of our duties. ... This would be information we don't know if it does or doesn't exist. ... only to verify if what (the) detective told us. ... Would we have to go through file cabinets or go to their homes?"

Judge Pastor, who is part of the conversation states they are not on the record.  "If you want to brief it, brief it."  Judge Pastor tends to agree with the people. I believe Ms. Levine responds, "I expect we would do something like that. (Brief their request.)

Balian states the people's position is to conclude the hearing as scheduled. On December 16th, they are going to return.  There is a discussion about the days needed for he brief, the people's response and then the defense rebuttal to that response. I believe Judge Pastor responds, "I'm telling you right now, I'm not going as far as the defense wants me to go."

Judge Pastor now goes on the record and describes what just happened. "The people have a Brady obligation, but don't believe they have free range... "  There are discussions about the date and time the filings and responses will be done by.

Detective Shafia retakes the stand and Judge Pastor states he's still under oath.

Levine is going over notes Detective Shafia put in the chrono that refer to a different case. Then it's back to the interview transcript with Ms. Doe, page 17.

JL: Another reference of Mr. Woodward  coming from a wealthy family is that correct?
JS: Yes.
JL: So that (interview?) ends with what you refer as "the sting" then afterwards, you wrote a summary report?
JS: Yes.
JL: (You?) asked security at her building to burn a video of Mr. Woodward leaving the apartment?
JS: Yes.
JL: She asked her security to do that before she met with you is that correct?
JS: Yes.
JL: Did you ever get that video?
JS: I don't recall.
JL: (You) never asked for any other video, from Table 8?
JS: No, I did not.
JL: Do you know if she searched on her computer for someone elses' for abortion pill?
JS: I do not.

JL: (You? She?) ... talked about what happened in the bedroom, about scooting around and about a backpack. Do you know if that was ever possible?
JS: No, I did not.
JL: Do you know if she used contacts or glasses?
JS: No, I do not.

There are questions about Ms. Doe's computer and land line that are objected to and sustained.

Questions about snare verses sting.
JL: ... but in the police report you referred to it as a snare?
JS: I don't recall using the word snare.

Ms. Levine has the witness look over a document.

JL: Did you review the arrest report?
JS: Yes.
JL: Did you refer to "snare" ... Mr. Woodward?
JS: Yes.

3:22 PM
JL: The (interview?) tape with Ms. Doe ends around the time you talk about a snare ...
JS: Don't know how long it took, but was trying to find out what she wanted to do as far as (the LAPD) investigating.
JL: the tape ends where you talk about what steps she wants to take, to do next.
JS: Yes. ... The bulk of (the discussion?) was I to notify her doctors and she had to decide what she wanted to do next as to Joshua Woodward.  ... The interview ended with she had options and what she wanted to do next. ... It was mostly to give me time to determine if any of this even happened.

Shafia states he did not meet with Ms. Doe and Ms. McKell after the tape ends.

JL: Did you put in place plans to next speak to her?
JS: No.
JL: What happened next between you and Ms. Doe?
JS: At some point I informed her I was comfortable in making a decision and wanted to know how she wanted to handle it.
JL: Where is that in your log?

Defense exhibit H?  Defense exhibit L.

Several evidence pages BATES/EVID stamp 1774, 1775, 1825, 1821, 1822, 1823, 1824 are presented to the witness.

JS: These was the notes I had written down before the prelim date to get myself ready for testimony.
JL: So this was not a log created at the time ...

The first two pages he created, put together in advance to help him testify. 1774, 1775. More questions about which pages were created at the time he first investigated the case. 1821 - 1825. Pages 1774 and 1775 are pages that consolidate other pages in the investigation.

JL: Let me know what it is that shows you next communication with Ms. Doe.
DDA: Objection. Relevance.
JP: Sustained.

JL: When did you next talk to Ms. Doe?
JS: I believe it was after I obtained a search warrant for Mr. Woodward.
JL: You spoke to her on October 20 ... then spoke again after (you) obtained a search warrant?
JS: Yes.

Defense M. First page.

JL: Court order sealing search warrant?
JS: Yes.
JL: Bottom EVID 2235. Is that (the?) search warrant you're referencing?
JS: Yes.

DDA Rizzo asks for the BATES/EVID number. 0233? 0238?

Ms. Levine asks about something specific on the search warrant. Judge Pastor asks a question. There is another question that has an objection with the ruling as 352.

Another question about the powder in Ms. Doe's underwear.

JS: She told me she didnt' use any products that would leave a powder.
JL: When did she say this?
JS: (Not that I recall.)

After the search warrant was obtained, Detective Shafia called the victim and she was willing to help in the "snare." That phone call was after October 23. Shafia told Ms. Doe to tell the defendant she had a bad episode.

The phone call was on the date of the search warrant.

JL: Did she tell you that she had communicated with Mr. Woodward on the phone?
JS: No.

Ms. Doe usually communicated with Mr. Woodward by text.

JL: Did you ask her to tape conversations on the phone?
JS: No.
JL: Did you monitor her calls?
JS: No.

There are many, many questions about what he did and did not say and do in his investigation of this case.

JL: Do you and Mr. Hernandez have the same number reflected at the station?
JS: Homicide has a main number and five other lines assigned.

Levine asks about a specific number.

JL: Did you speak to her (Ms. Doe) two times that day?
JS: I don't recall.

Now there are questions about how he left the case.  I believe Levine asks if on October 26 he was told the case would be transferred to child abuse.

JL: Is that normal, usually?
JS: It happens on occasion.

Shafia was not notified on that date.

JS: I was told that I had to share for those few days and on November 2, totally transferred.
JL: (Did you) communicate with Ms. Doe after that date?
JS: Yes.
JL: When communicating with Ms. Doe, did you notify Ms. (Detective) Fairchild?

Ms. Doe was upset about the transfer. Ms. Doe called him and was upset about it.  Now Detective Shafia is asked about an entry on the log dated 10/27/09: Victim came to station to deliver medical records.

JL: that's what facilitated Detective Hernandez taking the shots (photographs)?
JS: Not on that day.

That's the day that Ms. Doe came to the station to object to the transfer. Detective Shafia spoke to her on other occasions.

JL: Did you contact Detective Fairchild about those communications?
JS: I don't remember.

Ms. Levine asks about other communication beyond the calls in April.

JL: Do you know prior to that date if Detective Fairchild was going to seize (?) computer?
JS: I think she may have told me.
JL: Did you tell Ms. Doe that her computer would be seized?
JS: No. ... It was more along the lines of how long the case would take.
JL: the materials turned over to Ms. Fairchild .. .was that everything?
DDA: Objection!
(352)

JL: (You?) spoke with Ms. Doe on October 23. ... Do you know if Officer Hernandez spoke with her that day?
JS: No.
JL: But do you know how many times ...

The next time Shafia spoke to Ms. Doe was the 25, about when Mr. Woodward was coming into town.

JL: (You?) don't remember if Ms. Doe told you on the 23 or the 25?
JS: I'm not positive what day it was that Mr. Woodward came into town.

There are questions about a note on a supplement log that Ms. Doe called Detective Shafia on October 21 but it's not on the original log.  Ms. Levine questions if in fact, there is no record of Detective Shafia ever speaking to Ms. Doe on October 21.  There are more questions about the chrono log and I'm so confused here.  Ms. Levine is making a statement or question that Detective Shafia's memory is not accurate about when he spoke to the victim.

Now there are questions about what Detective Shafia told Ms. Doe to tell Mr. Woodward.

JL: What was that?
JS: (I?) told her to tell him she was still pregnant. ... Stay home, answer texts and to let me know when he (Woodward) was on his way.

Ms. Doe had information that Woodward was going to come to her after (he closed?) the restaurant on October 25. Detective Shafia did not write it down.

JL: Did you tell Officer Hernantez?

I believe he answers that it was Detective Carillo (sp?).

JL: When did you tell them this detective?
JS: (On the night of the sting.)
JL: Do you know when you got that information?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained. Asked and answered.
JL: Did you get any other communication?

Detective Shafia doesn't recall if it was a text or message.

JL: Where did you write that down detective?
JS: I did not write it down.
JL: Where were you when you got that information?
JS: I was parked behind the KFC.
JL: How long ... there? ... What time (did you) arrive?
JS: I got there a little after eleven.

Now there are many rapid fire questions and I can't keep up.

JL: Did she tell you that her friend McKell was watching (from) the street as well?

Shafia states he was told that later by someone else.

JL: If there was a car circling, would you have been able to see it?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

JL: (Well?) You set yourself up as to what you could see .. the cars on the street and what businesses were open. I want to understand where you were. ... I want to be sure that we're in the same area, because that area is very busy (busiest?) in the city...
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

The Grove shopping center is mentioned as being near by.

JS: Well, it would depend on what you want to consider (is) close.

Ms. Levine asks where Cedars Sinai hospital is.

JP: Now we're going to the beach.

Ms. Levine argues about where Cedars Sinai was and why Ms. Do didn't go there. It's about two miles from where Ms. Doe lived. Now Judge Pastor over rules his own comment. I note that the defense attorney (or staff person with the defense) has left the courtroom.

Judge Pastor interrupts the questioning to go over again when motions will be due for the next hearing.  The target issue on scope, anything on Brady. He's asking to keep on schedule for Monday.  Court will resume at 9:00 AM on December 16th.

DDA Balian asks for a redirect questioning of Detective Shafia, if he recalled any email communication for the purpose of this motion (that's yet to be written).

HB: Do you have any email communications with Ms. Doe describing the facts of the case?
JS: No.
HB: Did you ever interview her via email?
JS: No.

There are new questions, but I believe it's Ms. Levine doing the questioning.

JL: Detective, there's at least one email or text that has to do with the facts of this case.
JS: The only email that I remember .. .is one in (the) murder book and put in evidence. ... Any other email/texts had to do with scheduling of this case. ... I don't talk about cases that are not my case.

I believe Detective Shafia continues...

JS: I remember her having concerns over the years about the case.

Detective Shafia did not keep records of those communications.

JS: I don't know what media; ... I just have memory of her (calling? asking?).

DDA Balian asks a question.

JS: To the best of my knowledge, it was her calling asking about timeliness.

And that's the end of my notes for Day 4.