Showing posts with label Michael Gargiulo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Gargiulo. Show all posts

Friday, October 18, 2019

Michael Gargiulo Penalty Phase - Jury Has Reached A Verdict

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, 2008
The day of his arrest

UPDATE 10/20: The jury recommended death for Gargiulo. Local NBC4 has the story.
The Washington Post reports Gargiulo will be formally sentenced in February 2020.

October 18, 2019
The LA Superior Court has announced a verdict has been reached in the penalty phase of the case. The verdict will be read in Dept. 106 at 1:30 p.m., Pacific Time.

Thursday, August 15, 2019

Michael Gargiulo Verdict Reached

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, June 2008

UPDATED!
August 15, 2019
The Los Angeles Superior Court's Public Information Office states that a verdict has been reached in the Gargiulo trial. The verdict will be read at 11 am PT.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the reading. I will update T&T readers as soon as I hear news from the court.

August 16, 2019
Yesterday, after a little more than three days of deliberation, Gargiulo was convicted of first degree murder in the stabbing deaths of Ashley Ellerin on February 21, 2001 and Maria Bruno on December 1, 2005. Gargiulo was also convicted of premeditated attempted murder of Michelle Murphy on April 28, 2008 and attempted escape from the El Monte Jail on June 18, 2008. In the murders and attempted murders, the jury also found true the special circumstances of lying-in-wait and using a deadly weapon, a knife.

There are two more phases left in the Gargiulo case: Sanity and penalty phase.

Jurors return Tuesday, August 20, to hear evidence in the sanity phase. If jurors decide that Gargiulo was sane during these crimes, they will then hear evidence to determine Gargiulo's punishment. The prosecution is seeking the death penalty.

Sunday, June 2, 2019

Michael Gargiulo Case - Opening Statements 5/2/19 Part I

May 2, 2019
Michael Gargiulo Trial - Opening Statements, Morning Session, Part I


NOTE: I was using my laptop to take notes during opening statements. I accidentally had auto-correct switched on which made it difficult to re-interpret what I had originally typed. I edited my notes from memory. This is still a rough draft with possibly more editing to be done. Sprocket

Who's Here at the Gargiulo Opening Statements
There are so many new faces from the press attending the opening that I don’t know. Here is a list in order of appearance/notice. 

CBS News is the pool reporter with a camera in the far left corner. Nathan from Courthouse News is here. The head of the court’s Public Information Office, Mary Hern is here. With Mary Hearn is Ann Donlan newly hired Communications Director for the LA County Superior Court. Ms. Donlan introduces herself and hands out her card. Terri Vermeulen Keith from City News and Carolyn Murnick, Ashely Ellerin's high school friend who wrote a book about her and Ashley’s friendship. Defense attorney Dan Nadoni is here, with his standard kerchief -navy and red today- in his suit pocket. Defense lead counsel Dale Rubin is now talking to Mary Hearn. Los Angeles Times reporter Alene Tchekmedyian who I met at the Jennifer Francis civil trial is here. The prosecution team, Deputy DA’s Daniel Akemon and Garrett Dameron have now shown up. Court reporter Laurie Small and her husband Retired Detective Thomas Small who investigated the Ellen murder are in the gallery.

Local NBC 4 Patrick Healy arrives. I brief him on why this case has taken so long. More media arrive. Young clerks from DA’s office and Deputy DA’s are here. The young clerks have the blue badges and the Deputy DA’s are all wearing dark suits. At the prosecution table there is a new female assistant. I’m guessing she may handle the documents during opening statements.


Tracy from DA’s Victim Advocate unit arrives. There is a pretty black woman sitting with her. In the very back row is a handsome black reporter I don’t recognize. RHD Detective Daryn Dupree who worked the Grim Sleeper case comes in and says hello to other detectives in the gallery, then leaves. Retired LA County Sheriff’s Detective Mark Lillienfield is here saying hello to People Magazine's Christine Pelisek. Another female reporter I don’t know arrives. More reporters show up that I’ve never seen and sit in the back row. Terri and I talk new doggies. Alex from the London Sun introduces himself. The attorneys in the well from both teams have been chatting back and forth for a while now.


9:30 AM
Wendy announces to the room she is bringing the jury through in the 3rd row. This row will be empty for the jury to walk through. We are all to be quiet and remain seated. There are many older looking people on the panel.  A few middle age white males as well as Latino men and women. I don’t see a single young face. A woman with pretty dyed red hair. The jury goes back into the jury room to wait.

On the right side of the gallery behind the bailiff’s desk, the very young  interns from the DA’s office move up a row to sit with Tracy. Mr. Rubin and Detective Small are chatting in the well. So many faces in the back row I don’t know. Terri Keith is so dedicated. She is reading documents and making notes on other cases while we wait.

There are four deputies in the well now waiting for the defendant to be brought out.

Another individual that might be from the DA’s office sits with RHD Detective Greg Stearns -one of the voices in the infamous Stephanie Lazarus interview video- and another detective right beside Sterns.


Two more casually dressed women arrive and sit with Stearns in the second bench row behind the bailiff's desk. This is a light crowd. No one sitting in the front row yet and the third row is clear for the jury to walk through. More stragglers arrive. Another CBS reporter. We make room for that person in the second row.

Judge Fidler’s clerk Wendy watches everything going on in the courtroom. Dale Rubin smiles, shakes Thomas Small’s hand then sits at the defense table. Last little moments around the well of the court before the jury is brought in. Deputy DA Akemon chats with Detective Small for a moment. Dan Nardoni and Deputy DA Garrett Dameron chat quickly. Akemon and Small are still chatting.



9:43 AM
Bailiffs ask for quiet in the courtroom. Gargiulo s brought out. He looks much like I've seen him over the past several years except he's in civilian clothes today. He’s got a white goatee. Bald head. Black horn rimed glasses. I don’t notice a tie. The defendant smiles as Dan Nardoni leans in to talk to him. Nardoni rubs the defendant’s back. Gargiulo is wearing a purple shirt, dark pants.


The courtroom becomes eerily quiet. I can hear my keys type. I didn’t have time to pick up a keyboard silencer. We are now waiting on Judge Fidler. Gargiulo smiles again as he chats with defense counsel Nardoni.



9:45 AM Judge Filder Takes the Bench
Judge Fidler states someone wanted to raise an issue. All the counsel go to the bench to speak to the court. Rubin tells the court about the  “…onslaught of ABC news, … the media … I find that disturbing”



I believe Mr. Rubin continues with, “ … last in the middle of survivor a news story came on. I don’t know if we can do …. access…”

I hear DA Akemon respond, “I agree.” Judge Fidler asks, “How did they get pictures?” Nardoni responds to the court but I miss his statement.

Gargiulo leans forward, his left hand on his chin. He is intently watching the activity at the bench.

Mr. Rubin is now in a discussion with DDA’s Akemon and Dameron. I believe I hear the defense say, 'We are in the process of getting a jail [cell?] at the police department.'

Note: Sounds like something happened at the jail.  A stabbing?
 Sprocket

9:50 AM

Judge Filder tells the parties. “Ready for the jurors.”

A reporter tells me that the media got pictures from Chicago of when he was growing up.



The jury files through and takes their seats. Judge Fidler greets the jury. Judge Fidler addresses the jury about jury instructions. "Your verdict must be decided by the law and the evidence as it is provided to you.” I don’t type out the extensive jury instructions. This is something that will be provided to the jury after closing arguments.



The defendant keeps himself facing forward. He does not look over at the jury. People in the back row try to get a look at the jury.  From my viewpoint, there are five women seven men.

Note: I believe I have that correct. Sprocket

Alternates are three men and three women. Gargiulo watches Judge Fidler give the jury instructions. There are five bailiffs in the courtroom. One in the back by the entry doors and four around Gargiulo.

An individual who looks like and LAPD employee and friend enter late. They are asked to move to the fourth row. Judge Fidler asks Mr. Rubin if he wants the circumstantial evidence instruction read. Mr. Rubin indicates yes. A female detective or it’s a Deputy DA, I can't tell, enters and sits beside Detective Greg Stearns.



The jurors are ordered by the court not to post on Facebook & Twitter about the trial. Dan Nardoni, asks the court, in an abundance of caution puts forth an oral motion to exclude any an all witnesses from the gallery. Deputy DA Akemon joins that motion.


Opening Statements

And we start. Deputy DA Akemon puts up four photos on the big bulletin board. Tricia Paciccio, Ashley Ellerin, Maria Bruno and Michelle Murphy. 



Note: You can see an image of what the jury was shown HERE. Sprocket


Photos of the women, the year of the event and their age. (Paciccio 1993, Ellen 2001, Bruno 2005, Murphy 2008)

 DDA Akemon greets the jury.

The methodical and systematic slaughter of women by Michael Gargiulo, the boy next door. A killer. That’s what this case is about. Michael Gargiulo was watching. Always watching. Plotting the perfect opportunity to attack women in and around their homes.


What you will hear is … [Tricia Pacaccio] Ashley Ellerin, Michelle Murphy and Maria Bruno were all young attractive and outgoing. What these women also had in common was they all lived near Mr. Gargiulo. He had targeted them for murder and he ultimately attacked all of them with a knife.

From the onset you will learn that Gargiulo was a neighborhood kid who grew up in and around the Chicago area. He was athletic. He played high school football. He later worked as an air conditioning repairman and eventually owned his own plumbing business. And he was a husband and father. What no one knew for many years is that Michael Gargiulo was leading a double life.

He fancied himself an expert in forensic science. He attacked four women with a knife killing three of them and able to escape detection for almost 15 years.


How did he plan the attacks? The evidence will show that Gargiulo’s plan to kill was to first identify a target that lived near him. He would acquaint himself with that victim, their lives and routines. The evidence will show he stalked and hunted down the victim relentlessly … to plan his kill.

He watched and waited and collected real time intelligence on the victims. He then manipulated the circumstances to pounce and kill in a blitz type knife attack and then escape detection.

His killing spree ended in 2008 when he accidentally cut himself during one of the attacks and he bled all over the victim’s bedspread and sheets.

You will hear that his killing spree started in Chicago in summer of 1993 almost 26 year ago.

He killed his first victim 18 year old Tricia Pacaccio, who lived in Glenview, Illinois, an affluent neighborhood. Gargiulo lived around the corner [from her].

Friday August 13, of 1993. It was hot and muggy in Glenview and a thick fog settled over the area. Tricia Pacaccio ended her Friday at TGI Fridays. Tricia and her friends had just all graduated and were bidding each other a final farewell and heading off in different directions to college.

Tricia was bound off to Purdue University and had earned an engineering scholarship. For Tricia it was the summer of her life and the end of a perfect evening with friends. What she didn’t know is that Gargiulo who lived around the corner had targeted Tricia for murder.

She would never make it to college and the summer of 1993 would be her last. On the night that Tricia was killed she gave several friends a ride home after leaving TGI Fridays. She dropped her last passenger off a little after 1 am and walked up to her door, keys in hand but never made it inside.

Gargiulo was waiting for her. Gargiulo, who was experienced in marital arts, snapped her arm and stabbed her in the breast and chest. He left her bleeding on the doorstep of her home and fled. Tricia’s father found her the next morning.


Years later Gargiulo bragged to friends about killing Tricia. “ I left the bitch on the steps for dead.” Gargiulo’s DNA was found on Tricia’s fingernails. As detectives worked to solved the case, Gargiulo moved across the country and took up residence near Ashley Ellerin. Ashley was young and social with the Hollywood crowd. She soon attracted Gargiulo’s attention.

He frequented the dog park across the street from her house and injected himself into Ashely’s life. He offered to change a tire. Then offered to fix a furnace. He then showed up unannounced. A friend saw him staring up into the house at odd hours. Shortly before she was killed he crashed a party at their house. He obtained a key somehow and got inside and scared her. One of her friends concluded that he was stalking Ashely and she should be concerned.

One day he appeared unannounced and her roommate [was there?]. Gargiulo told the roommate that the FBI was pursuing him for a murder from Chicago. He showed the roommate a knife in a sheath (in his ankle).

Feb 21, 2001. Ashley was found stabbed to death [the next morning] in her hallway. She was stabbed over 47 times.

The evidence will show that the defendant attacked Ashley from behind, cutting through from right to left nearly decapitating her, indicating an attack from a left handed perpetrator. Gargiulo is left handed. The attack on Ashley shared several characteristics with [the attacks on] Tricia Pacaccio, Maria Bruno and Michell Murphy.

Gargiulo moved away to another city.

[In El Monte] Gargiulo entered Maria Bruno's apartment, put on blue surgical boots and murdered Maria while she slept. He stabbed her multiple times and gashed out her throat. Cut off her breasts and attempted to remove her breast implants and placed one of her breasts in her mouth.

Maria Bruno’s murder shared several similar events as the other victims. Gargiulo lived in the very same complex [as Bruno] and [from his upper floor unit] could see into her very own living room. Gargiulo attempted to inject himself in the victims life. He surveilled the victim in her home.

A witness saw someone matching his description watching the victim, staring. And also entered her apartment uninvited. Gargiulo left his DNA at the crime scene.

Afterwards, Maria’s husband discovered her body and called police. [Detectives] located a surgical bootie outside Maria’s front door. Analyst discovered there were drops of Maria’s blood on the booties. Gargiulo’s DNA was found around the elastic band. Years later, the matching bootie was found in Gargiulo’s apartment attic [space].

While that case was under investigation, Gargiulo moved to Santa Monica, and moved into an apartment across the alley from Michelle Murphy. Again, Gargiulo lived near the victim in an apartment directly across the alley where he was able to see into her apartment and see her movements.

April 20, 2008, at approximately 8 pm, Michelle Murphy went to bed. She was alone. Her roommate was out of the country. It was a warm evening, and she left a window open.

He climbed onto the railing, sliced through the screen with knife and climbed through the window. He found Michelle sleeping in her bed.

Gargiulo learned over her and stabbed her in the chest with a knife.

Michelle woke up and fought with Gargiulo as he stabbed repeatedly, stabbing her hands and arms as she defended herself. Michele who was very athletic in her own right was able to get her legs [underneath?] her. She was able to kick Gargiulo causing him to cut his own wrist.
Bleeding profusely, he ran out the door and said “I’m sorry.” He left a blood trail out the alley.

Gargiulo’s blood was on Michelle’s bedspread and sheet combined with Michelle’s blood. He left his DNA at the crime scene. When Gargiulo’s DNA was found on her bedspread and sheet it linked him with DNA on Tricia Pacaccio’s fingernails and the bloody booties from Maria [Bruno’s murder].


Gargiulo was arrested in June of 2008. When Gargiulo was held in the El Monte jail, he made makeshift handcuff keys, planned to attack a jailer, steal a police car and escape to Mexico.

Now back to the details of each stabbing. It all started in Glenview, Illinois in the Summer of 1993. What you seeing on the screen are the four women.

Tricia was 18 years old.
Ashes was 22.
Maria was 32.
Murphy was age 26 when she was attacked.

Chronology
It started on the doorstep around the corner from Gargiulo’s residence. He told one friend, “I actually left the bitch on the steps for dead.” Gargiulo’s DNA was on Tricia Pacaccio’s fingernails.

In 2001 Ashley Ellerin was stabbed to death in Hollywood. He entered Ashley’a house without permission.

In 2005 Maria Bruno was stabbed to death inside her residence. Gargiulo lived across the pool from Ms. Bruno’s residence. The bootie found outside her door had his DNA on it.

In 2008 Michelle lived across the alley.  Gargiulo left a blood trial across the alley. In 2008 Gargiulo was arrested and tried to escape from jail.

Tricia Pacaccio Murder
A photo of Tricia is put up on the screen. Then a photo of Tricia’s home in Glenview. Deputy DA Akemon points out Tricia’s bedroom on the second floor. He points out the door where she was stabbed outside of her home. The photo shows her car was parked in the driveway.

DDA Akemon now presents an aerial photo of Gargiulo’s home area. Gargiulo’s and Tricia’s home are 550 feet apart on the diagonal. He tells the jury that each victim lived within eye-shot and ear shot. Now we are shown a photo of Gargiulo’s residence in 1993. He lived there with brothers and sisters and mom and dad.

Deputy DA Akemon explains the event that Tricia participated in right before she was murdered, a road rally. Up on the screen there are about 40 names, to show the jury about how many kids were involved. These are the students who participated in the road rally roster. About 40 people attended. Deputy DA Akemon explains that it was like a treasure hunt.

Next is a photo of the TGI Fridays where Tricia’s group ended up that evening. August 13 going over into the 14th, 1993.

August 13, Tricia’s group arrived at TGI Fridays. Gargiulo was dropped off at home 12:30 am. At 1 am Tricia dropped off her friend. She arrived home around 1:15am.

In 1997 Gargiulo told a friend, “I stabbed up a girl.” He told another friend, “I stabbed up the bitch.”

 In 2002 Gargiulo’s DNA  matched up to the DNA found on Tricia Pacaccio.

Deputy DA Akemon explains that Gargiulo is not charged with Tricia’s murder in California. The presentation is used for special evidence even though the jury will not decide guilt or innocence in that case.

Next on the screen are photos of most of the people who attended the road rally that night. About 40 of them. Of those 40 people, many were people that Tricia had contact with that evening. None of those people’s DNA was found on Tricia.

Now the jury is shown photos of Tricia Pacaccio’s crime scene. Tricia’s car, a blue Buick is in the driveway. She parked her car, walked across the law to the side door of the residence and then [would have] headed to her bedroom.

Photo of crime scene, outside of house, August 14, 1993. Tricia's body is located at the face of that white door. Now a photo of Tricia’s body on the doorstep. Her feet on the lower step, her head is closer to the door. We are shown another view of her body on the doorstep then a closer view of her on the doorstep. It is so sad. She was so close to getting inside. At the upper part of the door is Tricia’s pocketbook, and near her head are her car keys. Another photo that shows the keys at the top of her head.


Coroner’s Evidence
Tricia was stabbed 12 times and she had a spiral fracture of the left arm.

Deputy DA Akemon details each wound and where they were located on her body. Shows photos of the wounds. Many stab wounds to the left arm. X-ray’s of Tricia’s left arm that show the spiral fracture. X-ray clearly shows it snapped.

What you will hear in this case, when Tricia Pacaccio’s body was taken to the morgue in Chicago, somebody, some person, tampered with her clothing. Another photo. What you looking at here are photos of Tricia’s body in the morgue, when she was transported to the morgue she was fully clothed.

And [also] and at the scene her hands were bagged at the scene. When they did the post mortem they noticed her clothing had been manipulated. That’s when a coroner’s investigators said that’s not the way she was [when she was brought into the morgue].  Somebody, it was never determined who, pulled her panties down and also pulled her t-shirt over her breasts. There’s no evidence that she was sexually assaulted, or the bags on her hands were tampered with, only her clothing was tampered with. Through the photos, we can see that the bags are still on Tricia’s hands in photos.

There will be DNA evidence in this case. A DNA expert tested [her] fingernails. Compared them to Gargiulo. A DNA match [came back], one in 97 million. No other DNA found on her fingernails. Only her own DNA.

People who attended the road rally. Gargiulo did not attend the road rally. There were [people] hugging and kissing that evening saying goodbye. Despite all those people having contact with Tricia that night, the only person whose DNA shows up on her fingernails is Michael Gargiulo.

Photo of a DNA evidence table. Expert will give an opinion. The DNA is a match and that will explain the DNA.


This is to Tricia Pacaccio’s case. Her brother Tom discovered her body with other family members. [Gargiulo] was not a friend of Tricia. [They] did not have any sort of relationship. He was a friend of Tricia’s brother. Gargiulo was 17 and lived around the corner. Tricia’s mother [will testify]. There was no reason for her to have contact with Gargiulo.

Doug was Tricia’s younger brother. This was Gargiulo’s friend. He will testify that he was friend of Gargiulo. There was no reason for Tricia to have any contact, physical contact with Gargiulo. What you will hear that night Tricia had [upset?] Rick Pacaccio [her father]. She took a long shower that night. She was very clean. She had an argument with her father for taking such a long shower. There’s no reason for her to have physical contact with Gargiulo.

[You will hear from] Andrew [Crouch?], Jennifer Spanjer, and [Karen?] Isenberg, Tricia’s friends. Tricia had physical contact with her friends. Very touchy feely. Gargiulo was not present at the [road rally].

You will hear from Gargiulo’s ex-girlfriend. On the night of Tricia’s murder, she was with Mr. Gargiulo. She dropped him off at [12:30 am? 1 am?] around the corner from Tricia’s residence before the stabbing. That was to show that he was in a position … No physical contact between Tricia and Gargiulo that night.

The Anarchist Cookbook
Next slide is up on the screen.

About 10:55 am, Judge Fidler calls for a break.

At the break, several reporters that are in the hallway, watching the cable feed and are asking for the attorneys to be identified for their reporting.

11:12 am
Judge Fidler’s clerk, Wendy, call’s for the jury. A sheriff’s deputy informs the courtroom that at the lunch break everyone [in the gallery] is to remain seated until all the jurors have left then you may go.

11:13 am
The Jury comes out then Judge Fidler comes out.

Deputy DA Akemon continues his presentation. What you will hear in this case, one of Gargiulo’s [friends] Suzanne [will testify] that Mr. Gargiulo liked this book [The Anarchist Cookbook] and he talked about this book. And he talks about what’s in there. This book talks about knives. There is a section for, there’s a section on knives. And how to use a knife on various sections of the body. Cuts to the throat, subclavian area. A key to this type of attack is the speed and silent [method] … based on approaching the enemy from behind …

Prosecutor Akemon mentions that there is no evidence of sexual assault with the victims in this case and the DNA matching.


Prosecutor Akemon mentions a former friend of Gargiulo’s, Anthony [?] who worked with Gargiulo as a bouncer at the Rainbow Room Bar in Hollywood in the 1990’s. I believe he presents a photo of them together at a party. This witness had a prior criminal history for theft and drug offenses. He [this witness] was the one that Gargiulo said this is from a [prior incident?]. Gargiulo told his friend, “I actually left the bitch on the steps for dead.”

Deputy DA Akemon puts up a photo of Tricia where she was found on her doorstep.

Temer Leary, another friend of Gargiulo’s. He also worked with Garigulo as a bouncer at the Rainbow Room Bar in Hollywood the 1990’s. He has a prior criminal record including violent offenses. Mr. Gargiulo told him that he “he stabbed up the girl” referring to Ms. Pacaccio.

These former friends of Gargiulo’s saw Gargiulo on television accused of the Pacaccio murder. When they saw that they were shocked per [their] girlfriends. They had one of those moments of watching Gargiuo on TV. When they found what they knew was relevant they texted to each other about being heroes.

Ashley Ellerin Case

Photos of Ashley are up on the screen. Ms. Ellerin was 22 when Gargiulo stabbed her to death. A Photo of Ellerin’s residence on Pinehurst Road in Hollywood. Photos of the house gated and a red car in front. Now an aerial view of the area showing where various things are.

When Ms. Ellerin was stabbed to death he [Gargiulo] lived in Hollywood at his building there [points to photo] and Ashely lived right down the street, about 400 feet down the street.

Across the street from Ms. Ellerin is the dog park. And Gargiulo frequented the dog park and Gargiulo would watch from that park.

Deputy DA Akemon will tells the jury they will go to a site visit and see the particular scenes so you can see the geography yourself and these particular scenes you will be able to see this house.

1759 Orchid Ave was Gargiulo’s apartment building. Showing a type of aerial view from the top of that building and you can see Ellerin’s house off in the distance. The roof of Gargiulo’s building is open to the tenant’s. And her bedroom is on that side of the house. You can see if the light is on or off from the roof of Gargiulo's building.

Pointing out on a photo, this is the dog park. Right across from Ellerin’s residence.

Now a view of what her home looked like from the dog park at night. But when the house was lit up inside you can see what was going on inside. And we show this to show that Mr. Garguilo was watching all the time. Pointing out on a photo, here is the front door to Ellerin’s home. Now a floor plan of Ellerin’s residence.

Older style bungalow home and the floor plan is older. The prosecutor explains where the front door is, the sun room. We’ll explain that when Ashton Kutcher came over and which window that he looked into the house.

Her bedroom is in the upper left hand corner. She just exited the shower and was getting ready to go out with Mr. Kutcher when she was attacked from behind. Identifies the other rooms on the photo. Points out the layout and the rooms and the windows that Kutcher looks into.

February 21, 2001. Ashley drops her father off at the airport. Between 7 and 8 pm her friend Durbin came over and they had sex. Then he left and she locked the door. At 8:24 pm Ashley talked to Ashton Kutcher on the phone with a plan to go out that night.

A man, Mr. Todd Jackson, around 8:30 to 9 pm heard screaming from her house. He was walking his dog in the dog park. 



Between 9 and 9:20 pm Mr. Durbin called her three times but Ashely did not answer. 


10 pm another friend called. 

10:15 pm Ashton Kutcher called and got no inswer.

10:15 pm Ashley’s roommate was locked out of the house.
10:45 pm Ashton Kutcher arrives, knocks on the door and looked inside and saw what he thought was spilled wine on the floor.

On the following day, 9:15 am Jennifer Disisto discovered her body.

Up on the screen is a photo of Ashley on her back, on leg splayed out her finger pointed toward her leg. Again, seeing Ashely is quite sad. There was a very violent struggle in this small space. Ashley was stabbed 47 times.

More crime scene floor plans of the house are presented. Now a view of the front door to the house. Explains layout and relation as to where her body is in this photo. Ashley’s body is inside the red circle in the photo. New photo showing the angle from her bedroom, her feet toward the bathroom door. 

The most severe injury to the neck area. She was nearly decapitated.

Dr. Ortiz [performed the autopsy]. He will give the opinion this is from a left to right cut so a left handed person. Bloody footprints and blood drops. Criminalist Steve Schliebe will testify to what the blood drops and the footprints mean. What we believe is the path he took to get out of the house.

Coroner Evidence
Stabbed 47 times. Overview of the injuries are presented. The first stab wounds were to her head. Many to her head first. Deputy DA Akemon goes over each stab wound and what area of the body they went through.
The coroner will testify that this stab wound on her neck nearly decapitated her body. More stab wounds are presented to the jury.


In the coroner’s photos, you can see her head was shaved to get a better photo of her stab wounds. Now describing wounds 28-30, wounds to her neck. Stab wounds 36-38 to the left hand, defense wounds. Stab wounds 39 40 are right hand defense wounds. More stab wounds to the hands. All defense wounds.

Deputy DA Akemon tells the jury about witnesses they will hear from in Ashley's case.

A photo from a party is shown. Ashely and her friends standing with her. Justin Peterson was her room mate. And this is Jennifer Disisto who discovered Ashley’s body. And Justin came face to face with Mr. Gargiulo.

It was during this party when Gargiulo was fixated with on Ms. Ellerin.
 There in the back of a photo, appears to be Gargiulo at this party..

This woman who was the party was for, will testify about the photos. Justin Peterson was Ashley’s friend. At social gatherings Gargiulo was watching Ashley.

Just Peterson, identified Mr Gargiulo as the man he saw outside of Ms. Ellerin’s house out in the middle of the night watching Ms. Ellerin’s home. Mr. Gargiulo was hanging out in this green truck, sitting in the truck and watching the house. Justin Peterson will testify that Gargiulo flashed a knife and Peterson drew [a sketch of] the knife he saw.

Mark Durbin,. Mr. Durbin was Ashley’s friend and landlord. He had sex with Ashley the night of the stabbing. He left her residence at 8:15 pm. He had to be home by 8:30 to meet his girlfriend. He called Ashley at 9 and 9:15 pm and she did not answer. Because he had sex with her he was initially looked at.


Ashton Kutcher, Ashley’s friend called at 10:45 pm. Mr. Kushner is called to testify to show there was a very narrow opportunity in this case.


Jennier Disisto. Ashley friend and roommate. She came home at 10:15 pm. The door was locked and she didn’t have her keys. She left and stayed the night with a friend. She came home the next day and discovered her body.


Anthony Castellane, Ashely’s friend.  He attended a party at Ashley’s residence. Gargiulo shows up uninvited and was the last guest to leave. Gargiulo fixated on Ashley. Anthony decided to stay and sleep on the sofa he was so concerned.

Monica Grandy. Will testify Gargiulo was fixated on Ashely. Weeks before Ashley was stabbed to death Gargiulo came into the apartment, [somehow] obtained a key, surprised her and Ashley and ran away.

Todd Jackson. Walked his dog in the dog park. Heard a scream from Ashley’s residence.

Witness Steve Schliebe, LA County Sheriff’s blood spatter expert. [I know Steve. He’s an excellent criminalist. Sprocket] Will testify blood drops are oriented to the door meaning the blood will go out that door. Gargiulo headed out that door. A line of blood drops to the left of the foot prints.


Maria Bruno Murder
She was 32 years old when Gargiulo mutilated her. Photos of Bruno’s residence. Deputy DA Akemon tells the jury they will go out to the residence and see the relationship between Ms. Bruno’s apartment and Gargiulo’s. And just to the left is the kitchen window and that’s the point of entry.

A photo view of Gargiulo’s and Ms. Bruno’s apartments in Arden apartment complex. Gargiulo’s apartment was 20 feet away across the pool. From his living room he could look right down into Ms. Bruno’s apartment. Another photo view showing her apartment looking up to Gargiulo’s apartment. This is the view Gargiulo had of Ms. Bruno’s apartment. Deputy DA Akemon points out in the image the point of entry, the kitchen window.

Cronology of the night of Ms. Bruno’s Murder

November 23, 2005, she was moved into the apartment complex. She moved there because she believed it was a very secure apartment building.

December 1, 2005, at 11:30 pm her and estranged husband left for a date. Maria and her husband Irving went out, they were drinking heavily, and then came back to the apartment and had sex.

The evidence will so that as soon as Irving left, Mr. Gargiulo entered her apartment. Since they had been drinking her husband drove her home and came back the next day to take her back to her job.

Her husband Irving climbed into her window to wake Maria up. He found her body and called 911. 

The prosecution plays the 911 call for the jury. He’s sobbing on the 911 recording.

“Someone broke into my wife’s house and they killed her.”



One of her nipples was placed over her mouth. 



Gargiulo turns toward Mr. Nardoni and leans in to talk to him. 

Crime Scene photos of Maria’s body. There are parts muted out of the photos. A photo of Maria’s body on the bed. DDA Akemon flashes through a series of photos before shutting down the presentation. Now Gargiulo is leaning in to speak to Mr. Rubin and Mr. Nardoni.

At 11:55 am Judge Fidler excuses the jury for the lunch break.


To be continued in Part II….


LINKS
Images from Opening Statements
Images from ShutterStock


Courthouse News Story on Opening
Local ABC 7 Story
People Magazine Story
Local NBC 4 Story

NY Daily News
Zimbo Photos

Monday, May 6, 2019

Michael Gargiulo Case: 11 Years From Arrest to Opening Statements

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, June 6, 2008

May 6, 2019
Eleven Years From Arrest to Opening Statements

One of the questions I often receive about the Michael Gargiulo case is, Why did this case take so long to get to trial?

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

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

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



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



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


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

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



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



March 27 - December 11, 2009

Charles Lindner is appointed Gargiulo’s new counsel pending resolution of fees. 


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

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


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



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

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


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



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



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



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

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

Delay #1

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




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



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

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



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

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

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

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


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

January 2012 - May 14, 2012
2/15/12: Deputy DA Daniel Akemon appears for the people, replacing Deputy DA Walgren. DDA Akemon will be the lead prosecutor who eventually tries the case.
3/6/12: Order to LA County Sheriff to provide a booth for a psychiatrist Samuel I. Miles, M.D., in the attorney room to interview, examine and psychologically test defendant Michael Gargiulo is signed by the court.

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

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


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

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

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



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


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



May 15, 2012 - July 12, 2012
5/23/12: Defendant has not received his Pro Per funds and has not been to the LASD jail law library to prepare a motion for appointment of an investigator. 



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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



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



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

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


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

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



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

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


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

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


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

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

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



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




May 16, 2014 - November 7, 2014

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

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



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


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

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


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



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



January 9, 2015 - July 23, 2015


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


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


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


Delay #4

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





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



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

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



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


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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


March 17, 2017 - January 12, 2018

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

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

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




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



November 2, 2018

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

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

Saturday, April 27, 2019

Michael Gargiulo Case: Status Update April 2019

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Arrested 6/6/08.

April 27, 2019
Here is a status update on the pending Michael Thomas Gargiulo murder trial.

Charges
Gargiulo is charged with two murders (Ashley Ellerin 2001, Maria Bruno 2005) and one attempted murder (Michelle Murphy 2008). Evidence of another alleged murder, Tricia Pacaccio (1993 Glenview, IL) will be presented as 1101(b) evidence, prior uncharged acts (in California). On July 7, 2011, Gargiulo was charged with first degree murder in the death of Tricia Pacaccio by the Illinois Cook County State's Attorney.

Trial Schedule
Opening statements are scheduled to start Thursday May 2, 2019.  Testimony will start on Monday, May 6. No live streaming of the trial will be allowed. Although the court announcement did not mention it specifically, I expect this also covers live tweeting. No photography or filming of witnesses.

The trial will be held four days a week, Monday through Thursday (9:30 a.m. to 12 noon; 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.) and is estimated to last six months. The court will be dark the first week of July and for any other court needs.

Media
For opening statements, closing arguments, verdict and sentencing (if necessary), filming and still photography will be allowed. The court is allowing laptops to be used for note taking only.

T&T
I have followed the Gargiulo case for over 6.5 years from my first post on August 21, 2012. It was inconceivable to me back then that it would take almost 11 years to bring Gargiulo to trial.  Sadly, due to the recent changes in my life and the length of this trial, I will be unable to cover this case in the depth and detail that makes T&T what it is. I will not even be able to attend opening statements. I will try however, after the trial has started, to drop in on testimony in May or June as my schedule permits.

Note: I am still trying to obtain a copy of the defense response motion to the people's 1101(b) motion regarding the murder of Tricia Picaccio. I will upload motion documents as I obtain them. Sprocket

Friday, March 1, 2019

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 47

The previous post on this case can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo

UPDATE 3/12: See below & edited for typos. Sprocket
March 1, 2019
This is a short post to let T&T readers know that I attended the pretrial hearing today. Judge Fidler denied the defense non-standard 995 motion to dismiss the case. Jury selection will start with jurors receiving the jury questionnaire on March 19, 2019.

I hope to have a full update on today's proceedings by next Tuesday. I was not able to obtain documents today and hope to get them by Monday.

There is the possibility that while jury selection in the Gargiulo case commences, I will be covering a civil case in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. 

March 12, 2019
I'm still trying to get a copy of the defense non-standard 995 motion, supplemental non-standard 995 motion as well as the defense response to the people's 1101(b) motion. As soon as I obtain these documents, I'll update everyone on what happened at this hearing.
More to come....

Saturday, February 3, 2018

Going to Court: Suge Knight, Artyom Gasparyan's Alleged Crime Spree Prelim, Alleged MS-13 Gang Death Penalty Case & Michael Thomas Gargiulo

Thursday, February 1, 2018
Potential New Cases
I wasn't really planning on going into downtown LA on Thursday since there is a Gargiulo hearing on Friday. However, once I got the sales taxes paid and the DA's calendar for the next day showed up, I thought I would take a look. I just wanted to see if there was anything interesting. There were several cases downtown that piqued my interest. Suge Knight was on the calendar for two courtrooms. A week ago, I was talking about the Knight case with my writing partner Katie. I haven't really followed the Knight case so I didn't know if that was a typo on the calendar or if he really did have two cases trailing each other in different courtrooms. The last news article I read said the murder trial was scheduled for January 8, 2018, but here it was February and the case was still in pretrial hearings. 

Also on the calendar was a listing for "continuing defense testimony" in Judge Fidler's courtroom. I was surprised. I thought the death penalty case that started in late October was supposed to be finished in early January, making way for the Gargiulo case. But again, here it is February and the defense is still putting on testimony. It is a cold case murder and alleged MS-13 gang affiliation. There are four defendants.


There was a preliminary hearing in Dept. 41, Judge Villar, that piqued my interest because of the Deputy District Attorney assigned. It's John McKinney with the DA's Major Crimes Division. I had heard good things about DDA McKinney but had never met him or followed one of his cases. This might be a good time to drop in and see what his case was about.

Best Laid Plans
I didn't sleep well Wednesday night. I did wake up in plenty of time to get to court, but I felt so out of sorts I debated with myself for almost an hour on whether to go or not. I got a late start out the door and didn't make it into downtown LA until after 9:00 am. I arrived on the 9th floor around 9:15 am.

Suge Knight, Dept. 101 Judge Coen

Full disclosure. I know very little about the case other than Knight has gone through a slew of attorneys. He is charged with murder, attempted murder in one case (TA136401 ) and charged with robbery in another (SA089020). Those cases are in Dept. 101. Knight is also charged with making criminal threats (BA452832). That case is in Dept. 120, Judge Richman.

When I arrive in Dept. 101, there are few people in the gallery. I make sure the Sheriff's Deputy sitting right by the door sees my press badge as I quietly enter. I know there probably are victim family members in the gallery because I see a familiar face from the DA's victim support staff sitting with them. I take a seat in the gallery beside another reporter with a camera man. Siting at the far end of the long benches I recognize Associated Press reporter Brian Melley. Anytime Melley covers a case you can expect an excellent story. Here is his write-up on the hearing today.

By the tone I'm hearing from the bench, it appears Judge Coen has lost his patience with one of the attorneys at the counsel tables. I'm not sure who. Judge Coen is a formidable presence on the bench. (I was briefly in his courtroom back in 2013, when I wrote about Coen's famous file boxes.) At this point, I don't know who any of the defense counsel are. In the well along with other DA staff I see Asst. Head Deputy of Major Crimes, Craig Hum. It appears it's DDA Cynthia Barnes, who impatiently tosses back a piece of paper handed to her by the defense. After a bit of back and forth, the next pretrial hearing date is set at February 14. I hear from other reporters that a trial date has already been set for April 19. And that's it. People start to file out. I get the chance to say hello to DDA Hum in the hallway. He is kind enough to tell me that Knight's other case is in Dept. 120, on the 13th floor.

Suge Knight, Dept. 120 Judge Richman

The reporter in the gallery of Dept. 101 that I didn't recognize was LA Times reporter James Queally, who has written several pieces on the Knight case already. Queally remembers me, and I apologized to him that I didn't recognize him.

Judge Richman is on the bench. There are a bunch of people in the gallery. There is a DDA at the people's table. It's clear he is hearing pretrial hearings in other cases. DDA Barnes is in the well along with two other DDA's that were in Dept. 101. There is a small child, no more than 18 months or 2 years, sitting alone at the end of the third bench row.  I take a seat in this row a little ways to the left of the child. After awhile, a slender black man comes and sits beside the child. He's either the dad or the guardian.

Judge Richman calls a different case than Knight's. The defendant is the man with the very young child. He leaves the child on the bench alone in the gallery and takes a seat at the defense table. Judge Richman mentions the case is a residential burglary. There's a prior fire arms conviction. I miss the next several statements in the well because the young child is making noises while he's sitting alone. There are several women sitting behind the detectives on the other side of the aisle. They are trying to shush the noisy child. Judge Richman appears to be finished with this defendant when he asks the man, "I'll ask you the most important question. Eagles or Patriots?" The man tells the court "Eagles."

With this case over, Judge Richman banters with DDA Barnes in the well. In reference to one of the DDA's with her, he asks, "Why is he here? He look comfortable." The court asks for the parties in the Knight case. It isn't until after the hearing I learn that the DDA on this case is not Barnes but DDA Stefan Mrakich. I find that the older black attorney sitting in the well is Thaddeus Culpepper. The black female attorney sitting beside Knight at the defense table is Dominique Banos. Ms. Banos is an attractive black woman. She's wearing a very form fitting suit over her ample bosom. The white female attorney, Rena Wallenius, is there representing Ms. Banos. Mr. Culpepper sits in the gallery for a short time before taking a seat in the well behind Banos.

Judge Richman tells Banos, "I think I read your declaration." The court tells the press photographer he is welcome to remain. DDA Barnes tells the court that they just set the cases in Dept. 101 for February 14, calendar zero of 60 for pretrial. She tells the court the murder trial has been set for April 9, 10 for jury trial. The robbery case is also set for February 14, calendar at zero of 60. Judge Richman sets Knight's case in his courtroom for the same date at zero of 30. DDA Barnes suggests the court sets the calendar in Dept. 120 the same as Dept. 101 (zero of 60 as of 2/14).

Judge Richman responds. He appears to be giving DDA Barnes a bit of friendly banter. "Judge Coen doesn't report to anybody. Judge Coen is a grade five. I'm just a grade three. I have to report to people." Judge Richman sets Knight's case at zero of 30 for February 14 and orders the defendant back at 8:30 am. The setting of the case calendar is all that DDA Barnes is here for. She then hands the presentation over to DDA Mrakish who presents to the court their conflict of interest allegation regarding Ms. Banos. The court comments that there are lawyers for the lawyers here. DDA Mrakish tells the court that he doesn't have a lawyer here.

Ms. Wallenius interjects on the conflict of interest allegation by the people by telling the court, "I am not a potted plant! The people have not filed a motion [regarding the conflict of interest] ... or on the perjury matter."

DDA Mrakish outlines for the court that sometime prior, Knight's phone privileges at the jail were restricted. He was only allowed to call his attorney. There were no 3-wall calls allowed. Mrakish tells the court [I believe] about a phone call between Ms. Banos, Knight and someone with a production company. Knight used the booking number belonging to another inmate to make the call, after the phone restrictions were put in place. DDA Mrakish states there is a potential conflict of interest between Ms. Banos and Knight. He is here to get a waiver from the defendant.

While this is going on, Knight has spun around in his chair. For a while there, Knight was spinning his chair a bit from side to side. Now he's turned it completely around, facing away from the judge and is speaking to a deputy sheriff standing behind him. Judge Richman stops the proceedings to ask if Knight is paying attention to what is going on. Knight spins back around and faces the court.

DDA Mrakish tells the court the production company may be paying Ms. Banos's fee. It creates a specter of conflict. Mr. Knight  has a "... right to have conflict free counsel" DDA Mrakish argues. Judge Richman tells the parties, "I'm just a small piece of a tail on a really big dog here." The court addresses the defendant. "Do you want Ms. Banos to continue to represent you?" Knight adamantly tells the court, "I'm not making a waiver." The court patiently continues to address the defendant. "Assume what the DA says is true. Do you want Ms. Banos to continue to represent you?" Knight replies, "Yes."

Judge Richman states that they are done here. There is no signed waiver, just a verbal waiver from the defendant. There's only one other question the court asks Knight. "Patriots or Eagles?" Knight makes his choice. There are a few more off the cuff comments from the court, something about Judge Ryan. Then Judge Richman addresses the defendant again. "Do you know the song, Drowning on Dry Land?" Knight replies, "Yeah." If I recall correctly, the court tells the defendant the song reminds him of Knight. There are a few more statements by the court that I miss.

Ms. Wallenius interjects and addresses the court. "What she [DDA Barnes?] did in the last courtroom is reprehensible! ... The people are suggesting Ms. Banos has broken  the law! ... I'm asking the court to make a finding she has not broken the law." Ms. Wallenius continues to argue with the court. The court responds, "You're bordering on contempt." Ms. Wallenius appears to back down from that and tells the court that the DA has made an allegation. The court responds, "I've not made any finding nor have I assumed anything." Judge Richman has had enough and that's it for the Knight hearing. Out in the hallway I get the names and correct spelling for all the counsel in this hearing.

Dept. 106, Judge Fidler

I head back down to the 9th floor to see if the trial in Judge Fidler's courtroom has resumed. Peeking through the window in the door, I see there's no one in the courtroom. I then head to the 3rd floor for Dept. 41.

Dept. 41, Judge M. L. Villar - Artyom Gasparyan preliminary hearing

I quietly enter Dept. 41. I make sure the bailiff sees my press pass. The courtroom gallery is almost completely empty except, I see Terri Keith from City News. Terri is one of my favorite reporters. She has a tough job and she does it quite well. Terri gives me a smile and scoots over so I can take a seat beside her. I note that Judge M. L. Villar is a woman.

Summary: Artyom Gasparyan is charged with 32 counts stemming from a crime spree that began August 5, 2015 and ended with the defendant being shot and apprehended on January 4, 2016. Gasparyan is charged with murder, several counts of attempted murder, robbery, and other crimes. This appeared to be a one man crime bonanza. A total of eight victims were shot, one fatal.

The parties are at the tail end of the preliminary hearing where the court is making their ruling. I've missed the closing arguments for both sides. For the moment, all I see is the back of the defendant. He hair is jet black, past his shoulders. Although the defendant is in a wheelchair beside his attorney, I can see from his body movements that he isn't paralyzed. He's able to move his lower body quite well.  DDA John McKinney is at the prosecution table. He is a tall, handsome black man. By the end of the prelim, the DA's office amended their original complaint, removing two charges and adding three. The court is detailing the evidence that was presented by the people. There were 133 exhibits presented in the course of the prelim and numerous witnesses. Judge Villar mentions GeoTime® mapping is a game changer. Not only place, but routes, times and place. It's illustrative to the court but not persuasive to the court. The court continues with the other evidence admitted that connects the defendant to the charged crimes. The court states, "Nine millimeter casings at crime scenes; multiple witnesses identified the defendant and vehicle." Judge Villar adds that the GeoTime® mapping [indicates the defendant?] to have been at these locations. "The forensic evidence, more than sufficient that ... [the defendant] will be held to answer."

That's it. Judge Villar rules that sufficient evidence was presented for the defendant be bound over for trial. There will be a hearing in Dept. 100 (Master Calendar Court) in two weeks. That's probably for assignment to a courtroom. When the defendant is wheeled out, I can see that his right arm is wrapped and in a sling. I can't remember if it was before or after Judge Villar adjourned the hearing when she specifically addressed the detective(s) by name and complimented them on their work.

Outside in the hallway, Terri Keith asked DDA McKinney several questions about the case and I listen in. The defendant's vehicle was equipped with a stand alone Garmond GPS. In was mounted on the dash. The crime spree occurred in neighborhoods all over Los Angeles County. Los Felitz, Glendale, West Hollywood, Burbank, Harbor, Mission, Woodland Hills, Wilshire, and Carson were some of the locations of the crimes. The murder victim occurred in the inner city and the motive isn't clear. He encountered the defendant for a short period, just seconds. It's possible that the victim was in the defendant's way. From December 29th, 2015 to January 1, 2016, the defendant had a co-conspirator (Daniel Ramirez? spelling?). Once together, they stayed together in the vehicle. The co-conspirator killed two people and then shot himself.

I asked DDA McKinney how long he's been with the Major Crimes Division. He tells me since 2011. After the chat with DDA McKinney, I head back up to the 9th floor.

Dept. 106, Judge Fidler - Alleged MS-13 gang murder case; 4 defendants, 2 juries
When I step into Dept. 106, the gallery is empty. The only person in the well is Judge Fidler's clerk, Wendy. The case that started in late October has gone long. The DDA on the case is Dayan Mathai. DDA Mathai is also leading the big insurance fraud case against Kelly Soo Park and a slew of other defendants, also pending in Dept. 106. Lonce LaMon at adjuster.com has been posting detailed reports on the insurance fraud case pretrial hearings.

For the murder case, the parties are still in the case-in-chief. No penalty phase has started yet. There are four defendants and two juries. The victim is Jacqueline Piazza, 13, who was raped and murdered in June 2001. One jury is hearing the case against Jorge Palacios, 39. The other jury is hearing the case against Santos Grimaldi, 35, Melvin Sandoval, 38, and Rogelio Contreras, 40. Grimaldi and Sandoval are facing the death penalty. If either one is found guilty, there will be a trial to determine penalty.

Wendy tells me they are in the defense case for one of the defendants. The parties and court are hopeful to start closing arguments on February 20. There will be separate closings for the defendants.

I ask Wendy about the Michael Gargiulo case. She tells me the parties passed on being the next case up on Judge Fidler's calendar. After so many courtrooms in one day, I head back home.

Previous hearing on the Gargiulo case can be found HERE.

Next hearing on the Gargiulo case can be found HERE.

Friday, January 12, 2018

Michael Gargiulo Case: Pretrial Hearing 39 Part II

Previous post on this case HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept.

UPDATE: edited to correct gallery to well of the court
January 12, 2018
PART II

I arrive on the 9th floor of the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles about 8:50 am. I head directly into Judge Larry Paul Fidler's courtroom, Dept. 106.

In the well of the court, Judge Fidler's clerk Wendy is at her desk. The court reporter is also at her desk in front of the bench. I don't know the court reporter's name, but she is someone I've seen in various courtrooms over the years.

DDA Daniel Akemon and DDA Garrett Dameron are standing in the well having a conversation beside the prosecution's table. The defense team (Dale Rubin and Daniel Nardoni) are in the custody area with the defendant.

In the back row of the gallery near the door is defense criminal investigator Chris Nicely. Chris looks just as handsome as the last time I saw him. We exchange greetings.

Also in the back row of the gallery is CBS 48 Hours Producer Greg Fisher. Right beside him is a pretty petite woman. Fisher informs me that Gargiulo is going to amend his plea to add not guilty by reason of insanity. This is a shocking development. This move could potentially derail the trial from being the next case up on Fidler's calendar.

At the last pretrial hearing, it was understood by both parties that as of today, the trial date was set at zero to sixty. Additionally, all motions and responses were to be filed by today and argued on February 2. The trial would then be scheduled soon after. All of that is now potentially out the window.

The woman beside Greg introduces herself. She is Tori Edgar from NBC Dateline.

At some point, People Magazine reporter Christine Pelisek arrives and she gets introduced to Tori. Apparently, both Tori and Greg have been covering a case in Riverside County for their respective networks.

9:10 AM
Dale Rubin comes out from the custody area. He immediately goes over to speak to DDA Akemon. Afterwards, Nicely gets up from his seat and goes up to the well gate to speak to Rubin.  DDA Akemon exits the courtroom for a moment and then comes back in.

9:12 AM
Daniel Nardoni comes out from the custody area.  Gargiulo is brought out less than a minute later. He is much the same as I last saw him. He is wearing the usual orange jumpsuit with the white long-johns type shirt underneath. His head is completely bald. His face is clean shaven save for a mustache and eyebrows. Understand, Gargiulo looks nothing like his booking photos, which are almost 10 years old now. He looks a bit leaner in the face.

Nardoni and Rubin both lean in to chat with Gargiulo.

9:15 AM
Judge Fidler takes the bench and they go on the record.

The defendant wishes to amend his plea. He is adding not guilty by reason of insanity. The court has to appoint two psychiatrists. The plea amendment is not for whether Gargiulo is competent to stand trial.

Judge Filder states that 1027 requires the appointment of psychiatrists. The defense tells the court that they already have two doctors appointed that have been examining their client for the past year. At first, this shocks me because I wonder if the defense has been planing this all along. But in reflection of past death penalty cases I've covered, it's not necessarily surprising. Defense counsel can use psychiatrists for mitigation in the penalty phase. Not positive, but I believe the defense can call the doctors to present mitigation evidence.

I believe it's DDA Akemon (but it could have been Rubin) names the doctors Gargiulo has seen for the court, but I totally miss getting their names. I believe it's Rubin that states one doctor's report has already been given to the DA or that one will be given today. He will get all the doctor's reports to the DA.

The case will be held over to February 2nd, and the case calendar set at zero of sixty as of that date. By that time, the DA will have viewed the doctor's reports and they can have the court appoint doctor's for the prosecution.  Rubin informs the court that February 2 was reserved for arguing motions. They would like to take that off the table for that date. 

The DA's office has already informed the victim's families and is now informing the court that the families may wish to appear on February 2nd to address the court under Marcy's Law. (It is unknown at this time if any of the family members will show up and make statements to the court.)

The DA is ready to take the plea now. Because of the type of plea, what follows is a series of questions that the DA is required to ask the defendant as well as some questions to his counsel. These questions are very specific. They ask questions such as,

Have you notified you client of the additional consequences of the additional plea?

The new plea means there could be a two step trial in this case. If Gargiulo is convicted on any of the charges, a second trial will take place to determine if he was legally sane (at the time of the murders). Only if Gargiulo is found guilty will there be this second trial.

The DA asks Gargiulo question after question after question to make sure he understands what will happen with this additional plea and the consequences. Conversations he previously had with his psychiatrists under his prior plea were privileged. With this new plea, the DA's office now gets to see all the session notes from those visits and any reports the doctor's have written.

DDA Akemon: "Do you understand all your constitutional rights?"
Gargiulo: "Yes."

If there is a sanity phase trial after the guilt phase, the DA's office doesn't have to prove anything. The defense must convince (a jury) at that trial Gargiulo was insane at the time he committed his crimes. If Gargiulo is found not guilty by reason of insanity, he could be committed to a psychiatric facility for at least 180 days or longer.

DDA Akemon tells the defendant, "If found not guilty (by reason of insanity) you could spend more time in a state hospital than required by law."  Gargiulo's responses to all of DDA Akemon's questions are that he understands.  DDA Akemon asks, "Do you have any questions ... that I've asked you about today?" Gargiulo responds, "No."

DDA Akemon continues to read questions to Gargiulo from his script. There are questions for defense counsel. I believe the defense counsel states they don't have anything further to add. Defense waives the reading of the arraignment.

Judge Fidler addresses Gargiulo. He asks him if he understands that if he is found sane, he would then face a penalty trial where he could face the death penalty.

DDA Akemon tells the court there have been two psychiatrists, possibly three that have been appointed to Gargiulo in the past, previously under 1369.

Gargiulo must now waive his privilege in regards to those prior doctor visits. DDA Akemon lists them for the court: Dr. Budding, Dr. Vianne Castellanos and Dr. Robert Freundlich. Under 730 and 1017, previously those visits were protected.

Either the court or DDA Akemon asks Gargiulo, "Do you understand that those statements are no longer protected? ... Do you waive (your rights) under the fifth amendment, in regards to those exams?" Gargiulo answers, "Yes." Judge Filder rules, "The court finds the waivers have been given."

And that's it. There's nothing else. The deputies start to take Gargiulo back into custody but the court calls out to the deputies to bring him back. They are still on the record.

DDA Akemon tells the court they did file an informal request for discovery reports. The defense tells the court that both doctor reports will be provided to the people.

And that's it. Next hearing February 2nd.

Here's what happens now. Every time Gargiulo spoke to a psychiatrist while he has been in custody since July 2008, the people get to see that doctor's notes and any report that was produced.

Let's say hypothetically, during one of those interviews, Gargiulo admits to that doctor that he committed the crimes he's charged with. The people do not get to use any of that information during the guilt phase of the trial, unless, Gargiulo's defense team uses it as part of their defense during the guilt phase. At that point, the people could then use the information, put on a rebuttal case and call their own witnesses.

It also becomes complicated if, hypothetically, Gargiulo rescinds his not guilty by reason of insanity plea. The law may differ as to what happens, depending at what point Gargiulo rescinds this plea. Like I said, all that is hypothetical at this point.

Next pretrial hearing on this case can be found HERE.