UPDATE 2/24/15
Monday, February 23, 2015
According to the LA County Superior Court's Public Information Office, (PIO) the case went to the jury on Friday, February 20th. The jury is still deliberating as of 12:30 pm today.
If you check the Rafael Martinez Quick Links Page, you will see I have updated Day 4, Part III with more detailed testimony. I also added a back-dated entry, Day 5, Part II. I'm still working on the detail testimony for Day 5, afternoon session.
The Quick Links Page is the best place to go for updated pages on detailed testimony.
I will check in on this case tomorrow to see if the jury is still deliberating.
UPDATE 2/24/15
According to the court's PIO, on Monday, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
Showing posts with label Nancy Boehm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Boehm. Show all posts
Monday, February 23, 2015
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Rafael Martinez, Jr. Trial - Update III
Wednesday February 11, 2015
I get all the way to the security station this morning and I forgot my laptop. Mr. Sprocket was kind enough bring my laptop to the courthouse for me. Consequently I did miss about the first five or ten minutes of testimony this morning.
Rafael Martinez is not on the stand. The defense is presenting their DNA expert, Marc Taylor, President and Laboratory Director of Technical Associates, Inc. Mr. Tayor is detailing his CV when I arrive. Technical Associates performed DNA testing on Shawn and Nancy Boehm's fingernails as well as the fingernail scrapings. The results of their testing is presented to the jury. Unfortunately I was not able to follow a lot of this witnesses testimony.
I note that at the prosecution table, DDA Akemon uses a variety of different colored markers in the management of his case. Also back in the gallery is the alternate juror.
The lunch break was called at 11:50 am.
When I returned to the courtroom for the afternoon session I made a personal decision that I had to step away from this case. I will no longer attend testimony, closing arguments or sit for verdict watch.
I apologize to T&T readers for not being able to completely cover this trial. I will check with the courts public information office for if/when a verdict is reached and report the conclusion.
Again, my apologies.
I get all the way to the security station this morning and I forgot my laptop. Mr. Sprocket was kind enough bring my laptop to the courthouse for me. Consequently I did miss about the first five or ten minutes of testimony this morning.
Rafael Martinez is not on the stand. The defense is presenting their DNA expert, Marc Taylor, President and Laboratory Director of Technical Associates, Inc. Mr. Tayor is detailing his CV when I arrive. Technical Associates performed DNA testing on Shawn and Nancy Boehm's fingernails as well as the fingernail scrapings. The results of their testing is presented to the jury. Unfortunately I was not able to follow a lot of this witnesses testimony.
I note that at the prosecution table, DDA Akemon uses a variety of different colored markers in the management of his case. Also back in the gallery is the alternate juror.
The lunch break was called at 11:50 am.
When I returned to the courtroom for the afternoon session I made a personal decision that I had to step away from this case. I will no longer attend testimony, closing arguments or sit for verdict watch.
I apologize to T&T readers for not being able to completely cover this trial. I will check with the courts public information office for if/when a verdict is reached and report the conclusion.
Again, my apologies.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Rafael Martinez, Jr. Trial - Update II
Exclusive T&T case coverage can be found HERE.
Continued from Short Update post...
UPDATE 2/23: corrected the spelling of Ms. Huck's name
UPDATE 2/13: corrected holiday and court dark days in final paragraph
February 10, 2015
Here's a short recap of the remaining witnesses who testified over the last few days. I don't know when I'll be able to return to detailed notes since Mr. Sprocket's business has needed my attention.
Thursday, 2/5
In the morning and the afternoon, LAPD Criminalist Patricia Huck took the stand. She's been a criminalist since 1984. She's been with the LAPD since 2005 and a DNA analyst since 2008. Ms. Huck has a soft toned voice and a nice demeanor. I had to really concentrate to hear her. She testified about the DNA testing she performed on evidence collected at the Boehm residence.
Ms. Huck took the partial, male DNA profile that was identified by Cellmark and input the information into CODIS. CODIS returned a potential suspect in the Boehm murders, Rafael Martinez, Jr. Performed two different analysis, a "likelihood ratio" and a "combined probability of inclusion" analysis on the two DNA profiles found under Nancy's fingernails. For the first test, she did a calculation where she assumed one profile was Nancy's. She then performed a calculation which tells her what is the probability that Rafael Martinez' DNA is the second part of that mixture. It is 3.297 billion times more likely it get the profile of Rafael Martinez, than if it was someone else's profile. The second analysis test gives a lower number. It tells how many different people could possibly be in that mixture. 1 in 123,900 individuals could be included in that mixture. Rafael Martinez could not be excluded as a contributor to the DNA mixture found under Nancy's fingernails.
After Ms. Huck, LAPD Investigating Officer Detective Thomas Townsend took the stand. He explained the murder book and the various sections in the book. Townsend collected a DNA sample from the defendant after CODIS came back with a potential hit and booked the sample into LAPD evidence.
LAPD Detective Vincent Bancroft took the stand. He assisted in the Boehm murder investigation in 1997. Retrieved from the Coroner's property room the fingernail clippings from Nancy and Shawn Boehm. He also collected blood sample swatches prepared by the coroner's officer for both victims. He booked all items into evidence at LAPD.
Friday, 2/6
Two sisters, Patricia Robbins and Teresa Ferro,who lived across the street from Nancy and Shawn testified about their relationships with Nancy and Shawn. Both sisters knew Shawn from around the time he was born. Ms. Robbins testified that, before Nancy lost her job, her house used to be immaculate. Robbins used to occasionally babysit Shawn for Nancy when Shawn was little. When she realized that that there was drug dealing going on at Nancy's house, she called a crime tip line. Ms. Robbins stopped going inside Nancy's house many years prior to Nancy's death.
Ms. Ferro was Shawn's babysitter when he was little. Visited Nancy in her home on September 16, 1997 around 11 PM. They shared a few drinks and had a nice visit. She left Nancy's house around 3 AM the following morning.
Both sisters testified they did not know the defendant.
Dr. Irwin Golden, retired Deputy Medical Examiner for the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office, performed the post mortem examination on Nancy Boehm. Testified she received 14 stab wounds to her body. Manner of death was homicide. Cause of death was multiple stab wounds. Dr. Golden testified he did not find any defensive wounds on Nancy's hands or arms.
Dr. Louis Pena, Deputy Medical Examiner for the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office, reviewed the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Bockhacker (sp?) on Shawn Boehm. He presented his conclusions about the report to the jury. Shawn received 11 stab wounds.
This is about the fourth or fifth time I've seen Dr. Pena testify. He testified in the Kelly Soo Park trial. He's a great witness and very engaging. I said hello to him before he took the stand. I remember how nervous he was during the first Spector trial in 2007. By the second trial in 2009, he was like an old pro and does quite well explaining things to the jury.
After the afternoon break, Detective's Townsend and Bancroft retook the stand. I missed their direct testimony and any possible cross.
Monday 2/9
Jody Hynds, Senior Forensic Scientist at Orange County DA's Office. The Orange Co. DA's office has two forensic scientists and their own internal DNA data base. This unit trains the DA's office staff in understanding DNA and presenting this evidence at trial. She has worked in DNA analysis for over 15 years and testified around 100 times.
Hynds worked at Cellmark from 2000 to 2008 as a DNA technician then analyst. Eventually worked in a supervisory capacity. Testified about the DNA analysis and procedures at Cellmark regarding Nancy Boehm's fingernail clippings. She prepared a report on the analysis in 2006. It was during this testing that the extracted DNA from the left and right hand fingernail clippings were combined into a single sample. From her testing she generated a partial male profile.
Based on her training and experience with DNA analysis, Hynds formed an opinion about the likelihood of obtaining a foreign DNA profile from under fingernails. It's very rare to find foreign DNA under fingernails. Normally, people are constantly depositing their own DNA underneath fingernails. Reviewed various peer reviewed studies in regards to fingernail DNA. Her opinion is based on her own work experience and just seeing it every day and knowing the type of result that is seen in samples. The peer reviewed reports really substantiates her experience in the laboratory. Percentage results and conclusions from several peer reviewed studies are presented to the jury. For example, a study by E.A. Dowlman in 2010, concluded that, a high level of DNA mixture under one’s fingernails is a relatively rare occurrence and its not correlated with causal everyday activities. Based on the studies, cohabiting couples don't have DNA under their fingernails.
In the afternoon session, a defense witness was taken in the middle of Ms. Hynds testimony. LAPD Sargent Frank Kryshak responded to the 2001 crime scene where Luz Nieves was murdered and Francisco Santos survived his injuries. Collected bullet, 6.68 grams of cocaine and a bloody, ten dollar bill from the crime scene. Sargent Kryshak did not have an independent recollection of events.
Tuesday 2/10
Detective Townsend retakes the stand to testify about stipulations between the defense and prosecution. Mostly, it's regarding fingerprints that were found on items that were piled on top of Nancy Boehm's body. A printout of phone numbers obtained from the call screening device attached to Nancy's phone. The print out of the 911 call from Michael Eulo, who found Nancy and Shawn Boehm's bodies.
The defense calls their third witness, Tami Maynard. Maynard was a friend of Nancy and Shawn's who also knew the defendant. She knew Nancy over ten years. She was a friend and customer and knew Nancy sold drugs on credit. The name she knew Martinez by was "Junior." Saw Martinez at Nancy's house occasionally. Testified about what she knew of Nancy, her habits, the different groups of friends, the bars Nancy frequented, the security procedures at the house, how many different people she saw at the house, etc. Testified about Shawn and his capabilities. Stated the last time she spoke/saw Martinez was several months before Nancy's death.
Next defense witness is Anthony Gobea. Neighbor of Nieves and Santos, who were attacked in 2001. He was in a building next door. At 1:15 AM in the morning of May 10, 2001, he heard two people arguing. He couldn't understand what they were saying. It was two males. It continued for a bit, but he couldn’t hear what they were saying. He hear a door shut, a loud scream and then a bang. When he heard tires squealing, he and a friend stepped outside and saw Mr. Santos in the street, bleeding. They called 911. He remembers the man saying, "Help me, please, help me, please." Gobea and his friend told Santos to stay put.
Stephanie Martinez, the defendant's aunt is the next defense witness. She mostly testifies about Martinez's childhood. Her demeanor strikes me. I can't pin it down. David Martinez is her stepson and Martinez' cousin. Martinez lived with her husband's parents, Martinez's grandparents.
Her stepson, Martinez and Shawn played together as children. Shawn was often over at her house. She often fed the neighborhood children who came to her house. She testifies about what she knew about Shawn's capabilities. When Mr. Burns asks if she would describe Shawn as "retarded," Stephanie replies, "I'd say mentally challenged. He could comprehend a lot."
Stephanie testifies about meeting Nancy twice. Nancy was the known drug pusher in the neighborhood. One incident was when David was expelled from school when marijuana was found in his possession. She was embarrassed to have to pick him up from school. David told her that Nancy sold him the marijuana. She went to Nancy's house and confronted her. David was not allowed to hang out at Nancy's after that. David was "infatuated" with Shawn's older sister, "Trish."
When David and Junior were adults, they were hanging out at Nancy's a lot. Sometime in 1998 or 1999, Martinez lived with his aunt and uncle. His aunt threw him out of her home when she realized he was doing drugs excessively.
David Martinez, [Sr.] takes the stand. He is the defendant's uncle and Stephanie's husband. His son David is in Soledad prison. David [Jr.] has a mental condition but he doesn't know how to pronounce it. He's asked if it could be schizophrenia, and he states that could be it. Testifies that Martinez lived with his parents, Martinez's grandparents. Knew Shawn as a neighborhood boy. When he was asked if Shawn used to eat at his house he replies, "My wife used to make a lot of good food, espeically chili." The jury laughs.
He knew Nancy from the neighborhood. Nancy was after a couple of his friends. He first met Nancy when he was 13, and he was about five years older than her. He heard through the grapevine that Nancy used to deal drugs, but he was never there. Testifies that Martinez lived with him and his wife but he doesn't remember about when or why the defendant left their residence.
In the afternoon session, the people move most of their exhibits into evidence. The defense makes a "eleven-eighteen motion" (1118) which is basically a motion to dismiss. There is argument from both sides. Judge Speer denies the motion.
Rafael Martinez takes the stand. DDA Akemon and Detective Townsend stand up and move away from their seats while he walks behind their chairs to the witness stand. He's smiling. The jury is then brought in. Before he starts his testimony a juror's question is answered. Then the people rest their case.
Mr. Burns asks his client, "Can you look these people in the eye...." Martinez turns to the jury and states, "I can tell each an every one of you I have nothing to do with this case on any level."
Martinez finishes his direct testimony a little after 3:30 PM. He was on the stand for about an hour and a half. The jurors are excused for the day. Court resumes at 10:30 am Wednesday. I believe the defense has a DNA expert that will testify tomorrow, but I'm not positive.
Monday is a state holiday. Dept V will also be dark Thursday and Friday of this week. After tomorrow, the trial will resume the following Tuesday.
Continued in Trial Update III.......
Continued from Short Update post...
UPDATE 2/23: corrected the spelling of Ms. Huck's name
UPDATE 2/13: corrected holiday and court dark days in final paragraph
February 10, 2015
Here's a short recap of the remaining witnesses who testified over the last few days. I don't know when I'll be able to return to detailed notes since Mr. Sprocket's business has needed my attention.
Thursday, 2/5
In the morning and the afternoon, LAPD Criminalist Patricia Huck took the stand. She's been a criminalist since 1984. She's been with the LAPD since 2005 and a DNA analyst since 2008. Ms. Huck has a soft toned voice and a nice demeanor. I had to really concentrate to hear her. She testified about the DNA testing she performed on evidence collected at the Boehm residence.
Ms. Huck took the partial, male DNA profile that was identified by Cellmark and input the information into CODIS. CODIS returned a potential suspect in the Boehm murders, Rafael Martinez, Jr. Performed two different analysis, a "likelihood ratio" and a "combined probability of inclusion" analysis on the two DNA profiles found under Nancy's fingernails. For the first test, she did a calculation where she assumed one profile was Nancy's. She then performed a calculation which tells her what is the probability that Rafael Martinez' DNA is the second part of that mixture. It is 3.297 billion times more likely it get the profile of Rafael Martinez, than if it was someone else's profile. The second analysis test gives a lower number. It tells how many different people could possibly be in that mixture. 1 in 123,900 individuals could be included in that mixture. Rafael Martinez could not be excluded as a contributor to the DNA mixture found under Nancy's fingernails.
After Ms. Huck, LAPD Investigating Officer Detective Thomas Townsend took the stand. He explained the murder book and the various sections in the book. Townsend collected a DNA sample from the defendant after CODIS came back with a potential hit and booked the sample into LAPD evidence.
LAPD Detective Vincent Bancroft took the stand. He assisted in the Boehm murder investigation in 1997. Retrieved from the Coroner's property room the fingernail clippings from Nancy and Shawn Boehm. He also collected blood sample swatches prepared by the coroner's officer for both victims. He booked all items into evidence at LAPD.
Friday, 2/6
Two sisters, Patricia Robbins and Teresa Ferro,who lived across the street from Nancy and Shawn testified about their relationships with Nancy and Shawn. Both sisters knew Shawn from around the time he was born. Ms. Robbins testified that, before Nancy lost her job, her house used to be immaculate. Robbins used to occasionally babysit Shawn for Nancy when Shawn was little. When she realized that that there was drug dealing going on at Nancy's house, she called a crime tip line. Ms. Robbins stopped going inside Nancy's house many years prior to Nancy's death.
Ms. Ferro was Shawn's babysitter when he was little. Visited Nancy in her home on September 16, 1997 around 11 PM. They shared a few drinks and had a nice visit. She left Nancy's house around 3 AM the following morning.
Both sisters testified they did not know the defendant.
Dr. Irwin Golden, retired Deputy Medical Examiner for the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office, performed the post mortem examination on Nancy Boehm. Testified she received 14 stab wounds to her body. Manner of death was homicide. Cause of death was multiple stab wounds. Dr. Golden testified he did not find any defensive wounds on Nancy's hands or arms.
Dr. Louis Pena, Deputy Medical Examiner for the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office, reviewed the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Bockhacker (sp?) on Shawn Boehm. He presented his conclusions about the report to the jury. Shawn received 11 stab wounds.
This is about the fourth or fifth time I've seen Dr. Pena testify. He testified in the Kelly Soo Park trial. He's a great witness and very engaging. I said hello to him before he took the stand. I remember how nervous he was during the first Spector trial in 2007. By the second trial in 2009, he was like an old pro and does quite well explaining things to the jury.
After the afternoon break, Detective's Townsend and Bancroft retook the stand. I missed their direct testimony and any possible cross.
Monday 2/9
Jody Hynds, Senior Forensic Scientist at Orange County DA's Office. The Orange Co. DA's office has two forensic scientists and their own internal DNA data base. This unit trains the DA's office staff in understanding DNA and presenting this evidence at trial. She has worked in DNA analysis for over 15 years and testified around 100 times.
Hynds worked at Cellmark from 2000 to 2008 as a DNA technician then analyst. Eventually worked in a supervisory capacity. Testified about the DNA analysis and procedures at Cellmark regarding Nancy Boehm's fingernail clippings. She prepared a report on the analysis in 2006. It was during this testing that the extracted DNA from the left and right hand fingernail clippings were combined into a single sample. From her testing she generated a partial male profile.
Based on her training and experience with DNA analysis, Hynds formed an opinion about the likelihood of obtaining a foreign DNA profile from under fingernails. It's very rare to find foreign DNA under fingernails. Normally, people are constantly depositing their own DNA underneath fingernails. Reviewed various peer reviewed studies in regards to fingernail DNA. Her opinion is based on her own work experience and just seeing it every day and knowing the type of result that is seen in samples. The peer reviewed reports really substantiates her experience in the laboratory. Percentage results and conclusions from several peer reviewed studies are presented to the jury. For example, a study by E.A. Dowlman in 2010, concluded that, a high level of DNA mixture under one’s fingernails is a relatively rare occurrence and its not correlated with causal everyday activities. Based on the studies, cohabiting couples don't have DNA under their fingernails.
In the afternoon session, a defense witness was taken in the middle of Ms. Hynds testimony. LAPD Sargent Frank Kryshak responded to the 2001 crime scene where Luz Nieves was murdered and Francisco Santos survived his injuries. Collected bullet, 6.68 grams of cocaine and a bloody, ten dollar bill from the crime scene. Sargent Kryshak did not have an independent recollection of events.
Tuesday 2/10
Detective Townsend retakes the stand to testify about stipulations between the defense and prosecution. Mostly, it's regarding fingerprints that were found on items that were piled on top of Nancy Boehm's body. A printout of phone numbers obtained from the call screening device attached to Nancy's phone. The print out of the 911 call from Michael Eulo, who found Nancy and Shawn Boehm's bodies.
The defense calls their third witness, Tami Maynard. Maynard was a friend of Nancy and Shawn's who also knew the defendant. She knew Nancy over ten years. She was a friend and customer and knew Nancy sold drugs on credit. The name she knew Martinez by was "Junior." Saw Martinez at Nancy's house occasionally. Testified about what she knew of Nancy, her habits, the different groups of friends, the bars Nancy frequented, the security procedures at the house, how many different people she saw at the house, etc. Testified about Shawn and his capabilities. Stated the last time she spoke/saw Martinez was several months before Nancy's death.
Next defense witness is Anthony Gobea. Neighbor of Nieves and Santos, who were attacked in 2001. He was in a building next door. At 1:15 AM in the morning of May 10, 2001, he heard two people arguing. He couldn't understand what they were saying. It was two males. It continued for a bit, but he couldn’t hear what they were saying. He hear a door shut, a loud scream and then a bang. When he heard tires squealing, he and a friend stepped outside and saw Mr. Santos in the street, bleeding. They called 911. He remembers the man saying, "Help me, please, help me, please." Gobea and his friend told Santos to stay put.
Stephanie Martinez, the defendant's aunt is the next defense witness. She mostly testifies about Martinez's childhood. Her demeanor strikes me. I can't pin it down. David Martinez is her stepson and Martinez' cousin. Martinez lived with her husband's parents, Martinez's grandparents.
Her stepson, Martinez and Shawn played together as children. Shawn was often over at her house. She often fed the neighborhood children who came to her house. She testifies about what she knew about Shawn's capabilities. When Mr. Burns asks if she would describe Shawn as "retarded," Stephanie replies, "I'd say mentally challenged. He could comprehend a lot."
Stephanie testifies about meeting Nancy twice. Nancy was the known drug pusher in the neighborhood. One incident was when David was expelled from school when marijuana was found in his possession. She was embarrassed to have to pick him up from school. David told her that Nancy sold him the marijuana. She went to Nancy's house and confronted her. David was not allowed to hang out at Nancy's after that. David was "infatuated" with Shawn's older sister, "Trish."
When David and Junior were adults, they were hanging out at Nancy's a lot. Sometime in 1998 or 1999, Martinez lived with his aunt and uncle. His aunt threw him out of her home when she realized he was doing drugs excessively.
David Martinez, [Sr.] takes the stand. He is the defendant's uncle and Stephanie's husband. His son David is in Soledad prison. David [Jr.] has a mental condition but he doesn't know how to pronounce it. He's asked if it could be schizophrenia, and he states that could be it. Testifies that Martinez lived with his parents, Martinez's grandparents. Knew Shawn as a neighborhood boy. When he was asked if Shawn used to eat at his house he replies, "My wife used to make a lot of good food, espeically chili." The jury laughs.
He knew Nancy from the neighborhood. Nancy was after a couple of his friends. He first met Nancy when he was 13, and he was about five years older than her. He heard through the grapevine that Nancy used to deal drugs, but he was never there. Testifies that Martinez lived with him and his wife but he doesn't remember about when or why the defendant left their residence.
In the afternoon session, the people move most of their exhibits into evidence. The defense makes a "eleven-eighteen motion" (1118) which is basically a motion to dismiss. There is argument from both sides. Judge Speer denies the motion.
Rafael Martinez takes the stand. DDA Akemon and Detective Townsend stand up and move away from their seats while he walks behind their chairs to the witness stand. He's smiling. The jury is then brought in. Before he starts his testimony a juror's question is answered. Then the people rest their case.
Mr. Burns asks his client, "Can you look these people in the eye...." Martinez turns to the jury and states, "I can tell each an every one of you I have nothing to do with this case on any level."
Martinez finishes his direct testimony a little after 3:30 PM. He was on the stand for about an hour and a half. The jurors are excused for the day. Court resumes at 10:30 am Wednesday. I believe the defense has a DNA expert that will testify tomorrow, but I'm not positive.
Monday is a state holiday. Dept V will also be dark Thursday and Friday of this week. After tomorrow, the trial will resume the following Tuesday.
Continued in Trial Update III.......
Monday, February 9, 2015
Rafael Martinez, Jr. Trial - Short Update
Exclusive T&T case coverage can be found HERE.
Continued from Day 9.....
Monday, February 9, 2015
This is just a short update to let T&T readers know I haven't forgotten about this case.
I apologize. Although I don't have any notes up for last Friday, I did attend most of the proceedings and I am in court today. Real life responsibilities to Mr. Sprocket's business have kept me from posting my daily reporting.
I am working on a witness list in this case. It will be updated as new witnesses testify.
Continued on Short Update II....
Continued from Day 9.....
Monday, February 9, 2015
This is just a short update to let T&T readers know I haven't forgotten about this case.
I apologize. Although I don't have any notes up for last Friday, I did attend most of the proceedings and I am in court today. Real life responsibilities to Mr. Sprocket's business have kept me from posting my daily reporting.
I am working on a witness list in this case. It will be updated as new witnesses testify.
Continued on Short Update II....
Friday, February 6, 2015
Rafael Martinez, Jr., Trial - Day 9, People's Testimony Continues
Exclusive T&T case coverage HERE.
Day 8.....
Thursday, February 5, 2015
For those of you who are new to reading T&T, I recommend checking out our ABOUT Page, where you can find out a bit more about how and why T&T got started. You should notice that there's no advertizing on T&T. T&T is 100% reader supported, trial reporting. T&T has a donation link on the right side of the blog. Donations help cover my travel costs as well as my notebooks when I take hand notes.
One of the reasons I’ve enjoyed covering this case is, I don’t have to drive downtown. It takes about 10 minutes to drive the three miles to the courthouse. Today I brought an extra sweater because my fingers have been getting so cold inside Dept. V, that it’s been difficult to type. I don’t know how Judge Speer’s court reporter is able to handle this chilly courtroom.
I understand that we will hear from more forensic experts on DNA. In several of the high profile cases that I’ve covered, I’m one of the few journalists who pays attention to the DNA testimony. I don’t find it boring. I’‘m a geek in that regard. It’s all very fascinating to me and I always learn something new every time any type of criminalist testifies.
Most of the forensics for the LAPD are performed at the Hertzberg Davis Forensic Science Center, http://file.lacounty.gov/lasd/cms1_144942.pdf aka “The Crime Lab.” The Crime Lab is a collaboration between three entities: California State University, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s and the Los Angeles Police Dept. The facility is utilized by all three entities and located on the campus of CSU-LA There are specific courses and classrooms for students in the forensics program.
Back in 2009, after the conviction of Phil Spector, Mr. Sprocket and I were given the opportunity to tour the crime lab. This was due to the generosity of LA County Sheriff’s senior criminalist Dr. Lynne Herold, who testified in the Spector case. My husband and I spent about 10 hours at the lab that day. I’ll never forget meeting all the very dedicated people who shared with us the work that they did and explained the instruments they used in their analysis.
I took a lot of photographs at the time but unfortunately lost my rough notes, so I was never able to write about what we experienced. The Sheriff’s and LAPD have their own separate property areas where evidence is stored. And they have their own labs. There are a few areas where they share the instruments. From what I remember, that’s the DNA lab andI believe, some of the tools in the firearms section.
I love the sciences and anything of an investigative nature has always been fascinating to me.
After I get set up in my regular seat (I’m in the second row, directly in front of Judge Speer) we go on the record, outside the presence of the jury. The defense is arguing for a mistrial based on Mr. Callahan’s testimony yesterday.
Mr. Burns mentions the prosecution’s opening statement and comparing that to what came out in testimony. He argues that the evidence just isn’t there to support the 1101b evidence. If the court will not rule on a mistrial, then give a limiting instruction to the jury to ignore all the evidence presented so far.
Judge Speer disagrees. In her view, based on the testimony of the witnesses so far, “I’m considering an instruction [on the 1101b evidence] not only for intent but for motive. Burns asks the court based on what evidence. The court replies, “Based on Salmas, Stockton and Callahan .... credit arrangements.” Mr. Burns counters, “That has no similarity ... that anything happened in the Nieves case.” DDA Akemon agrees with the court. Judge Speer tells the parties, “I think there is a sufficient number of similarities for the jury to consider motive. I want to secure my notes and read them more carefully ... [and that?] my memory is serving me well. ... Defense motion for a mistrial or for additional jury instructions is denied.”
Buns and Akemon confer on a witness and agree to take a witness out of order. This is a defense witness presented in the prosecution’s case.
(Defense Witness)
JEFFREY BECK - LAPD Sargent 2, Police Watch Command.
On May 10, 2001, Beck was P3 working out of North Hollywood station. He responded to a call at the Bonner Ave address. He reviewed a male victim named Mr. Santos. Another officer was with him when Santos was interviewed, Officer Gutherie. At that time, Mr. Santos was distraught, bleeding and angry. And Burns asks, “And he became a little uncooperative with you and wanted to ‘fuck up’ the assailant?” Beck answers, “I could read it to you if you like.”
Beck reads from the report. He makes it clear that he did not take this statement, that Officer Gutherie took this statement. Per the report: He was not sure where it happened. If it happened in the bedroom or towards the living room.
Direct is finished and cross examination begins.
When Beck responded to the radio call, he was present and participated in interviewing Mr. Santos.
DA: Did Mr. Santos tell you that he was residing with [the other?] victim, who was Luz Mieves?
JB: Yes.
DA: Did Mr. Santos tell you that he was in the bathroom in the apartment when he overheard an argument in the living room?
JB: Yes.
DA: Did Mr. Santos tell you when he walked outside he saw a male, holding an unknown type of knife over victim 1 who was seated on the couch?
JB: Yes.
DA: Did he tell you that he ran into the bedroom to retrieve a baseball bat?
JB: Yes.
The witness basically confirms the testimony Mr. Santos said on the stand.
DA: Did Mr. Santos tell you he was uncertain at what point he got stabbed? JB: Yes.
DA: At some point he became uncooperative?
JB: Yes.
Nothing further. There’s no more redirect. The people call their next witness, a criminalist.
BARBARA LEAL - Senior DNA Forensic Analyst at Cellmark Forensics. Cellmark is a private lab that specializes in DNA testing for different law enforcement agencies around the country. They do testing for prosecution and defense attorneys. Cellmark has a contract with the LAPD. Ms. Leal has worked for Cellmark for almost 9 years now. She gives her CV, as well as her Bachelor and Master degrees. She has testified over 40 times all around the country. She’s young, pretty and professional. She looks like she’s about half my age.
Leal is asked to explain DNA. She explains that DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid. THIS is how it’s pronounced.
BL: It’s the blueprint that makes up who we are. It codes for hair color, eye color, that we breathe and have a heart beat. ... DNA is unique, except for identical twins. They would have the same DNA.
She is asked to explain STR DNA Analysis.
STR DNA testing is a type of DNA test. It’s where you look at the parts of DNA that is inherited by both the mother and father. When they run an STR profile, the test looks at DNA that a person received from both a male and female, parents. STR is short for Short Tandem Repeats.
Leal goes onto explain that DNA is built from four building blocks, A,G,C,T, that appear on the DNA in a certain order. She explains about how a sequence of DNA will be repeated a number of times. STR testing is the most common type of forensic testing that’s used throughout laboratories.
They look at 13 different locations. They are looking for the number of repeats at each location. The result for that particular location is the number of repeats.
Leal is asked to explain Y-STR testing.
Leal first explains that a male will inherit a Y chromosome from the father. That is passed down unchanged from father to son. Y-STR testing only looks for areas on the Y chromosome. In this test, it ignores all the female DNA. However, you can’t uniquely identify someone with Y-STR the way you can with standard STR testing.
This witness is involved in the decision making whether to do Y-STR or STR testing. She can offer input as to where she thinks the sample would be best tested, the standard, or Y-STR. Y-STR is more sensitive than the standard STR testing, there are some samples that are more suitable for Y-STR than STR. She is then asked to explain “masking.”
Masking is when some of the DNA might ‘overwhelm’ other, smaller amounts of DNA in the sample, making the smaller parts, undetectable.
Leal is asked to explain the procedure that Cellmark uses in order to test a sample. She explains the four steps:
Extraction
Quantitation,
Amplification (aka Polymerase Chain Reaction, PCR)
Detection.
Continued on Short Update.......
Day 8.....
Thursday, February 5, 2015
For those of you who are new to reading T&T, I recommend checking out our ABOUT Page, where you can find out a bit more about how and why T&T got started. You should notice that there's no advertizing on T&T. T&T is 100% reader supported, trial reporting. T&T has a donation link on the right side of the blog. Donations help cover my travel costs as well as my notebooks when I take hand notes.
One of the reasons I’ve enjoyed covering this case is, I don’t have to drive downtown. It takes about 10 minutes to drive the three miles to the courthouse. Today I brought an extra sweater because my fingers have been getting so cold inside Dept. V, that it’s been difficult to type. I don’t know how Judge Speer’s court reporter is able to handle this chilly courtroom.
I understand that we will hear from more forensic experts on DNA. In several of the high profile cases that I’ve covered, I’m one of the few journalists who pays attention to the DNA testimony. I don’t find it boring. I’‘m a geek in that regard. It’s all very fascinating to me and I always learn something new every time any type of criminalist testifies.
Most of the forensics for the LAPD are performed at the Hertzberg Davis Forensic Science Center, http://file.lacounty.gov/lasd/cms1_144942.pdf aka “The Crime Lab.” The Crime Lab is a collaboration between three entities: California State University, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s and the Los Angeles Police Dept. The facility is utilized by all three entities and located on the campus of CSU-LA There are specific courses and classrooms for students in the forensics program.
Back in 2009, after the conviction of Phil Spector, Mr. Sprocket and I were given the opportunity to tour the crime lab. This was due to the generosity of LA County Sheriff’s senior criminalist Dr. Lynne Herold, who testified in the Spector case. My husband and I spent about 10 hours at the lab that day. I’ll never forget meeting all the very dedicated people who shared with us the work that they did and explained the instruments they used in their analysis.
I took a lot of photographs at the time but unfortunately lost my rough notes, so I was never able to write about what we experienced. The Sheriff’s and LAPD have their own separate property areas where evidence is stored. And they have their own labs. There are a few areas where they share the instruments. From what I remember, that’s the DNA lab andI believe, some of the tools in the firearms section.
I love the sciences and anything of an investigative nature has always been fascinating to me.
After I get set up in my regular seat (I’m in the second row, directly in front of Judge Speer) we go on the record, outside the presence of the jury. The defense is arguing for a mistrial based on Mr. Callahan’s testimony yesterday.
Mr. Burns mentions the prosecution’s opening statement and comparing that to what came out in testimony. He argues that the evidence just isn’t there to support the 1101b evidence. If the court will not rule on a mistrial, then give a limiting instruction to the jury to ignore all the evidence presented so far.
Judge Speer disagrees. In her view, based on the testimony of the witnesses so far, “I’m considering an instruction [on the 1101b evidence] not only for intent but for motive. Burns asks the court based on what evidence. The court replies, “Based on Salmas, Stockton and Callahan .... credit arrangements.” Mr. Burns counters, “That has no similarity ... that anything happened in the Nieves case.” DDA Akemon agrees with the court. Judge Speer tells the parties, “I think there is a sufficient number of similarities for the jury to consider motive. I want to secure my notes and read them more carefully ... [and that?] my memory is serving me well. ... Defense motion for a mistrial or for additional jury instructions is denied.”
Buns and Akemon confer on a witness and agree to take a witness out of order. This is a defense witness presented in the prosecution’s case.
(Defense Witness)
JEFFREY BECK - LAPD Sargent 2, Police Watch Command.
On May 10, 2001, Beck was P3 working out of North Hollywood station. He responded to a call at the Bonner Ave address. He reviewed a male victim named Mr. Santos. Another officer was with him when Santos was interviewed, Officer Gutherie. At that time, Mr. Santos was distraught, bleeding and angry. And Burns asks, “And he became a little uncooperative with you and wanted to ‘fuck up’ the assailant?” Beck answers, “I could read it to you if you like.”
Beck reads from the report. He makes it clear that he did not take this statement, that Officer Gutherie took this statement. Per the report: He was not sure where it happened. If it happened in the bedroom or towards the living room.
Direct is finished and cross examination begins.
When Beck responded to the radio call, he was present and participated in interviewing Mr. Santos.
DA: Did Mr. Santos tell you that he was residing with [the other?] victim, who was Luz Mieves?
JB: Yes.
DA: Did Mr. Santos tell you that he was in the bathroom in the apartment when he overheard an argument in the living room?
JB: Yes.
DA: Did Mr. Santos tell you when he walked outside he saw a male, holding an unknown type of knife over victim 1 who was seated on the couch?
JB: Yes.
DA: Did he tell you that he ran into the bedroom to retrieve a baseball bat?
JB: Yes.
The witness basically confirms the testimony Mr. Santos said on the stand.
DA: Did Mr. Santos tell you he was uncertain at what point he got stabbed? JB: Yes.
DA: At some point he became uncooperative?
JB: Yes.
Nothing further. There’s no more redirect. The people call their next witness, a criminalist.
BARBARA LEAL - Senior DNA Forensic Analyst at Cellmark Forensics. Cellmark is a private lab that specializes in DNA testing for different law enforcement agencies around the country. They do testing for prosecution and defense attorneys. Cellmark has a contract with the LAPD. Ms. Leal has worked for Cellmark for almost 9 years now. She gives her CV, as well as her Bachelor and Master degrees. She has testified over 40 times all around the country. She’s young, pretty and professional. She looks like she’s about half my age.
Leal is asked to explain DNA. She explains that DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid. THIS is how it’s pronounced.
BL: It’s the blueprint that makes up who we are. It codes for hair color, eye color, that we breathe and have a heart beat. ... DNA is unique, except for identical twins. They would have the same DNA.
She is asked to explain STR DNA Analysis.
STR DNA testing is a type of DNA test. It’s where you look at the parts of DNA that is inherited by both the mother and father. When they run an STR profile, the test looks at DNA that a person received from both a male and female, parents. STR is short for Short Tandem Repeats.
Leal goes onto explain that DNA is built from four building blocks, A,G,C,T, that appear on the DNA in a certain order. She explains about how a sequence of DNA will be repeated a number of times. STR testing is the most common type of forensic testing that’s used throughout laboratories.
They look at 13 different locations. They are looking for the number of repeats at each location. The result for that particular location is the number of repeats.
Leal is asked to explain Y-STR testing.
Leal first explains that a male will inherit a Y chromosome from the father. That is passed down unchanged from father to son. Y-STR testing only looks for areas on the Y chromosome. In this test, it ignores all the female DNA. However, you can’t uniquely identify someone with Y-STR the way you can with standard STR testing.
This witness is involved in the decision making whether to do Y-STR or STR testing. She can offer input as to where she thinks the sample would be best tested, the standard, or Y-STR. Y-STR is more sensitive than the standard STR testing, there are some samples that are more suitable for Y-STR than STR. She is then asked to explain “masking.”
Masking is when some of the DNA might ‘overwhelm’ other, smaller amounts of DNA in the sample, making the smaller parts, undetectable.
Leal is asked to explain the procedure that Cellmark uses in order to test a sample. She explains the four steps:
Extraction
Quantitation,
Amplification (aka Polymerase Chain Reaction, PCR)
Detection.
Continued on Short Update.......
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Rafael Martinez, Jr., Trial - Day 8, Prosecution Testimony Continues
Exclusive T&T coverage can be found HERE.
Day 7.....
UPDATED 11:25 PM
UPDATED 3:15 PM
Wednesday, February 4, 2015.
I've updated yesterday's notes (Day 7) with the afternoon witnesses. Although I am behind on getting more detailed notes up, and I working on them in whatever spare time I have. Yesterday evening, I was working on getting some invoices and work proposals out for Mr. Sprocket's business.
The courtroom has been ice cold for several days now. The building maintenance can't seem to get the system working right. I'm freezing while sitting in the gallery. Yesterday, I believe Judge Speer had a heater under her desk that was helping to warm her and her clerk. Even though I took the bus this morning and got a good work-out with the amount of walking I did, it didn't help me one bit inside Dept. V. When there is a break, I get up to move around but it doesn't help much.
Over the past seven days, I've noticed that Mr. Burns is very friendly and interacts quite a bit with his client. Quite I few times I've seen him, in a familiar or fatherly fashion, place his hand up on the defendant's back or shoulders. In conversation, I've seen them both smile in reaction to the other's words.
From what I've observed, it appears the defendant is quite engaged in helping in his defense. During some questions of a witness that might have known the victims, the defendant is leaning in to mention something to his attorney. He also appears to be helping his attorney by look for particular photographs or documents during questioning. Mr. Burns does not have a clerk or intern to help him on the case, so it appears that Martinez is filling this role.
There was some argument on the record outside the presence of the jury about an upcoming witness, Mr. Callahan. Defense wanted to cross examine him on the fact that every time the police brought to him the name of a potential suspect, he spoke negatively about them. DDA Akemon argued and Judge Speer agreed, this was getting into 3rd party culpability evidence, which was already ruled on. Judge Speer ruled that the defense could only ask the witness that in all the prior interviews with police, he never mentioned the defendant's name.
MELISSA POPOVIC - LAPD Criminalist, forensic print specialist, latent print unit. Popovic collected evidence in the 2001 case. Collected a partial bloody palm print left on the door jam or door, of Nieves bedroom door. On Monday, 2/4, she printed the defendant's palms. She matched the bloody palm print she found on the door to the defendant.
CHRISTINE SALMAS - Friend and client of Nancy Boehm. Considered herself a recreational user and not an addict. Knew Nancy from sometime in 1996 until shortly before her death. Knew Shawn as well. Testified that after becoming a client of Nancy's they hit it off and became friends. Testified about Nancy's security procedures, the time that they spent together, and how Nancy conducted her drug business. Testified she believed Nancy either kept her supply in the bathroom or in a compartment under the coffee table in the back bedroom.
Testified to an event where there were 8-10 people at the residence, waiting for a "runner" to deliver Nancy's supply. Salmas remembers Nancy and the defendant, coming from the hallway, and Nancy having to tell the defendant in a raised voice, "Calm don. Be quiet. Don't talk."
Salmas is currently under cross examination when the noon lunch break was called. Defense is questioning the witness on evidence photos and what she recognizes in the back room, as well as asking questions about the names of various people, and if she knew them or not.
UPDATE 3:15 PM
We are on the afternoon break.
Judge Speer allows jurors to ask questions. I've never seen this happen at the downtown courthouse, and this is the first trial I've attended where the judge allows juror questions. It is written into the new CAL CRIM jury instructions and some judges do allow it, and I've seen it in cases in other states.
We have one juror that has been asking several questions. There is some friendly chatter in the courtroom among the bailiff, the deputy and cout staff. We have a few interns from CSUN (California State University Northridge), who are interning under several of the judges in the courthouse.
I really like the female bailiff that is Judge Speer's regular bailiff. She has a nice personality. When attorneys come in that she hasn't seen for awhile, she's always so happy to see them. The other deputies that are assistant security in the room are different every day. There is a technical person working with the court reporter at the moment because the computer interface between her court transcript machine and the judge's computer isn't working and they haven't been able to get it fixed.
UPDATE @11:25 PM
1:45 PM
After lunch, cross examination continued with Salmas. The defense presented several photographs to the witness to see if she recognized anyone in the photographs as well as areas and items in Nancy's residence.
Mr. Burns used several photographs to cross the witness on where she, Nancy and Martinez were in the room during the "shushing" incident. Salmas admitted she didn't hear the complete conversation, but only what Nancy said to Martinez.
On redirect, Salmas was presented with a photo of the defendant with a statement underneath it that she signed. She verified that Detective Townsend wrote out a statement from information that she told him. The statement detailed the "shushing' incident that she remembered when she was presented with a photo of the defendant. I was able to get most of the statement, as it was read in court.
"I’m almost sure this is the guy that I saw once in her house. She had to tell him to calm down and be quiet. She shushed him. He must have been coked up and I only saw him once."
There are a few more questions from the defense on whether or not she often saw people come out of the hallway "kind of stoned."
ROBERT CALLAHAN - Close friend of Nancy Boehm; mentored Shawn Boehm. Callahan is 47 years old. Callahan is asked to describe his relationship with Nancy. "At the time I knew her, she was pretty much my best friend." Callahan states that he mentored Shawn and took him to the Special Olympics.
Around the time of the murders, he was living in Ventura County. He would visit Nancy about twice a week. He met Nancy is 1991, when he was attending a University in the area. Callahan states that in the first few years that he knew Nancy, he used to have a cocaine habit but he stopped using. He still remained friends with her.
Callahan recounts Nancy's security procedures. Nancy was strict about security. It's very similar to what other witnesses testified to. There was the front gate to the property with a buzzer that was always locked. Nancy could see the front gate from the front window. Someone came out of the house to open the front gate and lock it again. There was a screen security door that was also kept locked, then the front door. Shawn was allowed to open the front gate, but usually not.
Callahan and Shawn were friends even though there was an age difference. They would go to carnivals together, play, watch TV sometimes. "He was a fun kid to hang around," Callahan remembers. When asked about his level of development, Callahan states, "Like a younger kid, maybe 10 or 12. ... Some things he was really smart about; some things he wasn't. ... He had a photographic memory for dates and things and places. Really good."
Callahan remembers that Nancy's stash was kept under the coffee table (in the back room), on her left hand side. When they would watch television together in the back room, Callahan never sat on the left. He always sat on the right on the futon. Callahan did observe transactions take place in the back room.
Callahan states that he knew the defendant as Junior Martinez, and that he was a neighbor friend of Nancy and Shawn's. The only place he ever saw Martinez was at Nancy's residence. Callahan believes that the last time he saw Martinez at Nancy's house was less than a year before her death. After Callahan testifies to this, Martinez leans into his attorney and whispers. Mr. Burns nods in response. Callahan also testifies that he remembers the defendant screaming at Nancy a few times and leaving the house mad. They were in the back room together; Callahan was in the front room. He doesn't know what it was about. Callahan states that Nancy could scream pretty loud, too.
Nancy would sell drugs on credit, but she didn't like to. Callahan is asked if he ever mentioned to Detective Townsend whether Nancy would sell drugs on credit to Martinez. "I think I observed it in the room once," Callahan states. When asked if he ever saw any [confrontation? conflict] between Nancy and Martinez and Martinez ability to pay for drugs, Callahan believes he did so once, but he can't recall the date. That there was at one time, where Nancy refused to extend any more credit to Martinez.
There are many more questions about what he remembers seeing of the interaction between Nancy and Martinez and drug transactions. There are questions about what he told Detective Townsend in 2013 about Nancy telling Martinez to "get the fuck out" and how many times he told Detective Townsend he remembers that happening. Callahan also testifies that he remembers seeing Martinez loose his temper at Nancy's house.
Under cross examination, Callahan repeats that he did business with Nancy for about the first two years that he knew her, then he cleaned up his act. Callahan at the time had a business involving security electronic equipment. Callahan testifies that Nancy, "... didn't really use much of my stuff at all. ... She didn't feel the need for it." Callahan states that he didn't have any type of weapons such as pepper spray or stun guns. It was mostly sensors. In 1997, Callahan was working in the alternative fuel technology, building electronic vehicles.
Mr. Burns confronts the witness on his memory. "... fair to say that your memory isn't all that perfect at the time? ... Before, you didn't even know who junior was." The witness insists that he identified the defendant. Defense exhibit 1 is put up on the ELMO. The witness is firm. "They put a picture on the table and I said, that's junior. Exactly like that."
TB: Exactly like that?
RC: Yes.
TB: Didn't you first say no, when asked if you knew the guy in that picture?
RC: I don't believe so.
The witness is emphatic that he identified "junior" when he was shown Martinez' photo by detectives. Mr. Burns asks him a second time.
TB: Didn't he ask you if you knew a junior and you said no?
RC: I don't believe so.
Mr. Burns then asks the witness about when he was first interviewed by detectives, and that the detectives asked him about people that problems. I believe this is in reference to other potential suspects that the witness spoke to detectives about in a negative way. The witness admits that when he was first interviewed, he never gave Martinez' name to detectives as someone to look at. In his second interview with detectives, Burns confronts the witness that he mentioned another person to detectives, but he never mentioned Martinez' name at that time either. The witness states he's confused and isn't following Mr. Burns' questioning.
TB: They asked you again if you were concerned about anybody Nancy knew and you talked about a different person than junior.
RC: I don't know the person with whom you were referring to. Who were you referring to?
This is getting close to the 3rd party culpability evidence that Judge Speer has already litigated cannot come into the trial. Mr. Burns asks the court if they can approach. Judge Speer decides to take the afternoon break so this can be litigated again, outside the presence of the jury.
Burns offers to the court, that he could have the witness read the statement himself. I'm guessing it's the detective's report, and not a transcript of the interview. There is a bit of back and forth with the court and DDA Akemon. The court ultimately rules that this was already litigated and that it cannot come in and that Mr. Burns will not have the witness read the statement to himself. Before Judge Speer leaves the bench for break, I believe she asks the parties to speak to the witness.
I note that there is a dark haired, nicely dressed woman who came in during the afternoon session. She is sitting at the end of the same row of seats I'm sitting in. I believe she is trying to get Mr. Burns' attention before she leaves the courtroom. After the defendant is brought back into custody, it appears that Mr. Burns quickly leaves the courtroom to catch up to the woman.
The afternoon break stretches to a half hour because of the transmission problems between the court reporter and Judge Speer's computer. Judge Speer goes back on the record but without the jury.
3:30 PM
Mr. Burns tells the court that they have talked to Mr. Callahan, showed him the defense reports and admonished him not to name names. DDA Akemon tells the court that Mr. Callahan referenced Dennis Stockton, and the drama going on with Dennis and Jessica [Stockton]. He also mentioned that Nancy knew that Jessica was on heroin. Mr. Burns tells the court, "All I want to do is ask him about back in December, and that he gave them [detectives] information about that person and the name "Junior" never came up." DDA Akemon tells the court, "If it's asked like that I don't have a problem. That's as close to the 3rd party culpability that I'd like to get." Burns then reads a statement that he would like to be able to read to the witness. DDA Akemon is not comfortable with that. It's too close to 3rd party culpability. Judge Speer has made her decision and asks the parties, "Do you want me to admonish him, or I think you already have?" I believe it's DDA Akemon who asks the court, "Maybe so there's no misunderstanding..." with the courts ruling on 3rd party culpability. Burns asks the court, "Can we say he said he gave negative information about another person?" DDA Akemon has a problem with that. Judge Speer rules that would be 352, 3rd party culpability. She then tells her bailiff to bring in the jurors.
3:37 PM
Cross examination resumes.
TB: We were talking about in December 1997, detectives came to you and at that time you mentioned other people but you did not say anything about Junior?
RC: That's correct.
TB: Now Mr. Callahan, you gave up drugs when you were with Nancy?... about two years before she died?
RC: No. That was long before.
Callahan explains that he gave up cocaine about two years after he met Nancy. Mr. Burns asks the witness if his drug of choice was methamphetamine. Callahan explains that was after Nancy died.
TB: After Nancy diet, you went on methamphetamine?
RC: Yes.
TB: [Have you] taken any medications today before you testified?
RC: No.
Mr. Burns continues to ask the witness about when he witnessed discussions about Nancy giving customers credit, if Junior was in Nancy's "inner circle," and if Martinez had a cousin or brother. Mr. Burns shows the defendant photographs of people and asks him if he recognizes them. Callahan is shown a photo of Martinez with another man. Callahan replies that it's similar to Junior but he doesn't know if it is or not. The other photo he insists he's never seen before. There are more questions as to whether or not Callahan met the defendant's father or someone named Darren.
Mr. Burns then shows the defendant his own driver's license photo, taken in 1995 and asks him if that's what he looked like in 1997? Callahan replies no, that's what he looked like in 1995. Burns then asks Callahan if the photo of Nancy in the People's large exhibit is how Nancy looked in 1997? Callahan states the photo was taken when Nancy was younger.
Under redirect, DDA Akemon puts up another photo of Nancy which Callahan identifies is how Nancy looked in 1997. Under recross, the defense asks the defendant about another photo and if he knew the name of another man.
The questioning of this witness is finally over and he is excused. Court resumes tomorrow at 9:30 AM.
More to come....
Day 7.....
UPDATED 11:25 PM
UPDATED 3:15 PM
Wednesday, February 4, 2015.
I've updated yesterday's notes (Day 7) with the afternoon witnesses. Although I am behind on getting more detailed notes up, and I working on them in whatever spare time I have. Yesterday evening, I was working on getting some invoices and work proposals out for Mr. Sprocket's business.
The courtroom has been ice cold for several days now. The building maintenance can't seem to get the system working right. I'm freezing while sitting in the gallery. Yesterday, I believe Judge Speer had a heater under her desk that was helping to warm her and her clerk. Even though I took the bus this morning and got a good work-out with the amount of walking I did, it didn't help me one bit inside Dept. V. When there is a break, I get up to move around but it doesn't help much.
Over the past seven days, I've noticed that Mr. Burns is very friendly and interacts quite a bit with his client. Quite I few times I've seen him, in a familiar or fatherly fashion, place his hand up on the defendant's back or shoulders. In conversation, I've seen them both smile in reaction to the other's words.
From what I've observed, it appears the defendant is quite engaged in helping in his defense. During some questions of a witness that might have known the victims, the defendant is leaning in to mention something to his attorney. He also appears to be helping his attorney by look for particular photographs or documents during questioning. Mr. Burns does not have a clerk or intern to help him on the case, so it appears that Martinez is filling this role.
There was some argument on the record outside the presence of the jury about an upcoming witness, Mr. Callahan. Defense wanted to cross examine him on the fact that every time the police brought to him the name of a potential suspect, he spoke negatively about them. DDA Akemon argued and Judge Speer agreed, this was getting into 3rd party culpability evidence, which was already ruled on. Judge Speer ruled that the defense could only ask the witness that in all the prior interviews with police, he never mentioned the defendant's name.
MELISSA POPOVIC - LAPD Criminalist, forensic print specialist, latent print unit. Popovic collected evidence in the 2001 case. Collected a partial bloody palm print left on the door jam or door, of Nieves bedroom door. On Monday, 2/4, she printed the defendant's palms. She matched the bloody palm print she found on the door to the defendant.
CHRISTINE SALMAS - Friend and client of Nancy Boehm. Considered herself a recreational user and not an addict. Knew Nancy from sometime in 1996 until shortly before her death. Knew Shawn as well. Testified that after becoming a client of Nancy's they hit it off and became friends. Testified about Nancy's security procedures, the time that they spent together, and how Nancy conducted her drug business. Testified she believed Nancy either kept her supply in the bathroom or in a compartment under the coffee table in the back bedroom.
Testified to an event where there were 8-10 people at the residence, waiting for a "runner" to deliver Nancy's supply. Salmas remembers Nancy and the defendant, coming from the hallway, and Nancy having to tell the defendant in a raised voice, "Calm don. Be quiet. Don't talk."
Salmas is currently under cross examination when the noon lunch break was called. Defense is questioning the witness on evidence photos and what she recognizes in the back room, as well as asking questions about the names of various people, and if she knew them or not.
UPDATE 3:15 PM
We are on the afternoon break.
Judge Speer allows jurors to ask questions. I've never seen this happen at the downtown courthouse, and this is the first trial I've attended where the judge allows juror questions. It is written into the new CAL CRIM jury instructions and some judges do allow it, and I've seen it in cases in other states.
We have one juror that has been asking several questions. There is some friendly chatter in the courtroom among the bailiff, the deputy and cout staff. We have a few interns from CSUN (California State University Northridge), who are interning under several of the judges in the courthouse.
I really like the female bailiff that is Judge Speer's regular bailiff. She has a nice personality. When attorneys come in that she hasn't seen for awhile, she's always so happy to see them. The other deputies that are assistant security in the room are different every day. There is a technical person working with the court reporter at the moment because the computer interface between her court transcript machine and the judge's computer isn't working and they haven't been able to get it fixed.
UPDATE @11:25 PM
1:45 PM
After lunch, cross examination continued with Salmas. The defense presented several photographs to the witness to see if she recognized anyone in the photographs as well as areas and items in Nancy's residence.
Mr. Burns used several photographs to cross the witness on where she, Nancy and Martinez were in the room during the "shushing" incident. Salmas admitted she didn't hear the complete conversation, but only what Nancy said to Martinez.
On redirect, Salmas was presented with a photo of the defendant with a statement underneath it that she signed. She verified that Detective Townsend wrote out a statement from information that she told him. The statement detailed the "shushing' incident that she remembered when she was presented with a photo of the defendant. I was able to get most of the statement, as it was read in court.
"I’m almost sure this is the guy that I saw once in her house. She had to tell him to calm down and be quiet. She shushed him. He must have been coked up and I only saw him once."
There are a few more questions from the defense on whether or not she often saw people come out of the hallway "kind of stoned."
ROBERT CALLAHAN - Close friend of Nancy Boehm; mentored Shawn Boehm. Callahan is 47 years old. Callahan is asked to describe his relationship with Nancy. "At the time I knew her, she was pretty much my best friend." Callahan states that he mentored Shawn and took him to the Special Olympics.
Around the time of the murders, he was living in Ventura County. He would visit Nancy about twice a week. He met Nancy is 1991, when he was attending a University in the area. Callahan states that in the first few years that he knew Nancy, he used to have a cocaine habit but he stopped using. He still remained friends with her.
Callahan recounts Nancy's security procedures. Nancy was strict about security. It's very similar to what other witnesses testified to. There was the front gate to the property with a buzzer that was always locked. Nancy could see the front gate from the front window. Someone came out of the house to open the front gate and lock it again. There was a screen security door that was also kept locked, then the front door. Shawn was allowed to open the front gate, but usually not.
Callahan and Shawn were friends even though there was an age difference. They would go to carnivals together, play, watch TV sometimes. "He was a fun kid to hang around," Callahan remembers. When asked about his level of development, Callahan states, "Like a younger kid, maybe 10 or 12. ... Some things he was really smart about; some things he wasn't. ... He had a photographic memory for dates and things and places. Really good."
Callahan remembers that Nancy's stash was kept under the coffee table (in the back room), on her left hand side. When they would watch television together in the back room, Callahan never sat on the left. He always sat on the right on the futon. Callahan did observe transactions take place in the back room.
Callahan states that he knew the defendant as Junior Martinez, and that he was a neighbor friend of Nancy and Shawn's. The only place he ever saw Martinez was at Nancy's residence. Callahan believes that the last time he saw Martinez at Nancy's house was less than a year before her death. After Callahan testifies to this, Martinez leans into his attorney and whispers. Mr. Burns nods in response. Callahan also testifies that he remembers the defendant screaming at Nancy a few times and leaving the house mad. They were in the back room together; Callahan was in the front room. He doesn't know what it was about. Callahan states that Nancy could scream pretty loud, too.
Nancy would sell drugs on credit, but she didn't like to. Callahan is asked if he ever mentioned to Detective Townsend whether Nancy would sell drugs on credit to Martinez. "I think I observed it in the room once," Callahan states. When asked if he ever saw any [confrontation? conflict] between Nancy and Martinez and Martinez ability to pay for drugs, Callahan believes he did so once, but he can't recall the date. That there was at one time, where Nancy refused to extend any more credit to Martinez.
There are many more questions about what he remembers seeing of the interaction between Nancy and Martinez and drug transactions. There are questions about what he told Detective Townsend in 2013 about Nancy telling Martinez to "get the fuck out" and how many times he told Detective Townsend he remembers that happening. Callahan also testifies that he remembers seeing Martinez loose his temper at Nancy's house.
Under cross examination, Callahan repeats that he did business with Nancy for about the first two years that he knew her, then he cleaned up his act. Callahan at the time had a business involving security electronic equipment. Callahan testifies that Nancy, "... didn't really use much of my stuff at all. ... She didn't feel the need for it." Callahan states that he didn't have any type of weapons such as pepper spray or stun guns. It was mostly sensors. In 1997, Callahan was working in the alternative fuel technology, building electronic vehicles.
Mr. Burns confronts the witness on his memory. "... fair to say that your memory isn't all that perfect at the time? ... Before, you didn't even know who junior was." The witness insists that he identified the defendant. Defense exhibit 1 is put up on the ELMO. The witness is firm. "They put a picture on the table and I said, that's junior. Exactly like that."
TB: Exactly like that?
RC: Yes.
TB: Didn't you first say no, when asked if you knew the guy in that picture?
RC: I don't believe so.
The witness is emphatic that he identified "junior" when he was shown Martinez' photo by detectives. Mr. Burns asks him a second time.
TB: Didn't he ask you if you knew a junior and you said no?
RC: I don't believe so.
Mr. Burns then asks the witness about when he was first interviewed by detectives, and that the detectives asked him about people that problems. I believe this is in reference to other potential suspects that the witness spoke to detectives about in a negative way. The witness admits that when he was first interviewed, he never gave Martinez' name to detectives as someone to look at. In his second interview with detectives, Burns confronts the witness that he mentioned another person to detectives, but he never mentioned Martinez' name at that time either. The witness states he's confused and isn't following Mr. Burns' questioning.
TB: They asked you again if you were concerned about anybody Nancy knew and you talked about a different person than junior.
RC: I don't know the person with whom you were referring to. Who were you referring to?
This is getting close to the 3rd party culpability evidence that Judge Speer has already litigated cannot come into the trial. Mr. Burns asks the court if they can approach. Judge Speer decides to take the afternoon break so this can be litigated again, outside the presence of the jury.
Burns offers to the court, that he could have the witness read the statement himself. I'm guessing it's the detective's report, and not a transcript of the interview. There is a bit of back and forth with the court and DDA Akemon. The court ultimately rules that this was already litigated and that it cannot come in and that Mr. Burns will not have the witness read the statement to himself. Before Judge Speer leaves the bench for break, I believe she asks the parties to speak to the witness.
I note that there is a dark haired, nicely dressed woman who came in during the afternoon session. She is sitting at the end of the same row of seats I'm sitting in. I believe she is trying to get Mr. Burns' attention before she leaves the courtroom. After the defendant is brought back into custody, it appears that Mr. Burns quickly leaves the courtroom to catch up to the woman.
The afternoon break stretches to a half hour because of the transmission problems between the court reporter and Judge Speer's computer. Judge Speer goes back on the record but without the jury.
3:30 PM
Mr. Burns tells the court that they have talked to Mr. Callahan, showed him the defense reports and admonished him not to name names. DDA Akemon tells the court that Mr. Callahan referenced Dennis Stockton, and the drama going on with Dennis and Jessica [Stockton]. He also mentioned that Nancy knew that Jessica was on heroin. Mr. Burns tells the court, "All I want to do is ask him about back in December, and that he gave them [detectives] information about that person and the name "Junior" never came up." DDA Akemon tells the court, "If it's asked like that I don't have a problem. That's as close to the 3rd party culpability that I'd like to get." Burns then reads a statement that he would like to be able to read to the witness. DDA Akemon is not comfortable with that. It's too close to 3rd party culpability. Judge Speer has made her decision and asks the parties, "Do you want me to admonish him, or I think you already have?" I believe it's DDA Akemon who asks the court, "Maybe so there's no misunderstanding..." with the courts ruling on 3rd party culpability. Burns asks the court, "Can we say he said he gave negative information about another person?" DDA Akemon has a problem with that. Judge Speer rules that would be 352, 3rd party culpability. She then tells her bailiff to bring in the jurors.
3:37 PM
Cross examination resumes.
TB: We were talking about in December 1997, detectives came to you and at that time you mentioned other people but you did not say anything about Junior?
RC: That's correct.
TB: Now Mr. Callahan, you gave up drugs when you were with Nancy?... about two years before she died?
RC: No. That was long before.
Callahan explains that he gave up cocaine about two years after he met Nancy. Mr. Burns asks the witness if his drug of choice was methamphetamine. Callahan explains that was after Nancy died.
TB: After Nancy diet, you went on methamphetamine?
RC: Yes.
TB: [Have you] taken any medications today before you testified?
RC: No.
Mr. Burns continues to ask the witness about when he witnessed discussions about Nancy giving customers credit, if Junior was in Nancy's "inner circle," and if Martinez had a cousin or brother. Mr. Burns shows the defendant photographs of people and asks him if he recognizes them. Callahan is shown a photo of Martinez with another man. Callahan replies that it's similar to Junior but he doesn't know if it is or not. The other photo he insists he's never seen before. There are more questions as to whether or not Callahan met the defendant's father or someone named Darren.
Mr. Burns then shows the defendant his own driver's license photo, taken in 1995 and asks him if that's what he looked like in 1997? Callahan replies no, that's what he looked like in 1995. Burns then asks Callahan if the photo of Nancy in the People's large exhibit is how Nancy looked in 1997? Callahan states the photo was taken when Nancy was younger.
Under redirect, DDA Akemon puts up another photo of Nancy which Callahan identifies is how Nancy looked in 1997. Under recross, the defense asks the defendant about another photo and if he knew the name of another man.
The questioning of this witness is finally over and he is excused. Court resumes tomorrow at 9:30 AM.
More to come....
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Rafael Martinez, Jr., Trial - Day 7, People's Testimony Continues
Exclusive T&T case coverage can be found HERE.
Day 6.......
UPDATED: 2/4 afternoon witnesses
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Note
I've updated Day 4, Part III to include the detailed testimony of the first couple of witnesses. I've got a little but more to go before that's complete. I'm also working on the detailed testimony of Francisco Santos, for the morning of Day 5.
Observation
For the past six days of trial, I've been observing Martinez at the defense table. Every time an image is put up on the screen for the jurors, he turns around to look at the photo. Oftentimes, I see him with his right elbow resting on the arm of the chair with his fingers over his mouth. Yesterday, I noticed that he was helping his attorney look for documents during criminalist Bruce Lyle's testimony.
There is a woman who comes to court and sits in the very back row on the right, against the wall. One day, Detective Townsend went up to her and asked her who she was and why she was here. The woman said that she often just comes into the courtrooms to listen and to pray.
I remember during the Blake trial, there was a man who came in several days a week carrying a large duffel bag. He would fall asleep in one of the back rows. It was speculated among several of the people in the gallery that he was homeless because he smelled. I remember my first day attending the Blake trial, there was a homeless man sleeping in a niche corner, near the entrance to Van Nuys West Courthouse.
9:50 AM
I'm inside Dept V. Judge Speer just finished up with other court proceedings. Defense attorney Tom Burns is here. Once the proceedings are over, Judge Speer leaves the bench and Mr. Burns paces in the well. DDA Akemon and his investigating officer, Detective Townsend have not arrived yet. I step outside the courtroom to publish this update.
I'm at lunch at the moment. Here's what happened during the morning session.
On the record without the jury present. It's around 10 AM. Mr. Burns argues to the judge about specifics in the prosecution opening statement.
Mr. Burns argues that the prosecution's argument, as his case is unfolding, with the 1101b testimony. I believe Burns is arguing that DDA Akemon has gone outside the bounds of what was ruled on by insinuating when Martinez is "shushed" that is when he lashes out. Mr. Burns complains about DDA Akemon calling the defendant "blood thirsty" in his opening statement.
I'm surprised this was not objected to at the time of the opening statement.
Burns tells the court that he doesn't think they should be allowed to argue this, in relation to intent. That it’s in direct violation of 1101. He goes onto say that he would like to be on the record that thsi is highly prejudicial to the defendant.
Akemon responds, "That’s part of the intent argument. ... When he’s told to shush he intends to cause harm.
Judge Speer responds, "The jurors have a responsibility to compare the similarities of the 1101 b evidence and the charged crimes. So any similarities between the two crimes should be considered by the jurors, ... and what sets him off, what his motive is."
Burns counters, "So, we’re adding now some type of motive on his part?"
I believe Judge Speer reponds, "It is showing motive. .. The 1101b isnt offered to show motive. .... They will be instructed to that proposition. ... But they will be able to compare."
Burns replies, "I understand that your honor. ... Were tyring to have them unring the bell for anything but intent. ... But counsel calls my client blood thristy, as a propensity to do something and he's going anginst the instrcution."
Judge Speer offers, "They can't decide what the intent is unless you know the facts and the details of each of the crimes."
Burns argues, "I have no problem with that your honor. ... My problem is the prosecuiton arguing a propensity argument."
Judge Speer assures the defense, "I won’t let the pople aruges propensity in that [way? context?]."
I'm not sure who says this next sentence. "Not that the defendant has the propensity to kill, when people shush him."
Judge Speer mentions the motive is when he's high or when he wants drugs.
Burns continues to argue, "I don’ think that argument is proper."
Judge Speer says she won't let the people argue in those terms, but [argue?] the similarity between both crimes.
Argument is finished. I have in my mind that DDA Akemon responded but I missed getting his counter.
The jury is brought in. A witness is taken out of order. People's witness, Bruce Lyle retakes the stand to reopen cross examination. Lyle tells the jury and the court that he was mistaken how he packaged the fingernail clippings and the fingernail scrapings. Lyle now states that all the fingernails for the left hand were put in a single bindle. The same for the right hand. He doesn't remember how he packaged the fingernail scrapings. Judge Speer is not confused as to how this evidence was collected.
The witness explains that at some point in time, he knows he collected evidence in the manner he originally testified but he's not sure when that change in procedure happened.
The defense asks him if 1997 was a long, long time ago. The witness agrees. The defense asks if DNA testing back then was different than it is today. The witness agrees. DNA testing is more sensitive now. The witness agrees that there is more concern today about contamination.
DDA Akemon recrosses the witness.
DA: When you collect scrapings and clippings, even back in 1997, you maintain a chain of custody? Even with blood type evidence, etc?
BL: Correct.
The witness is excused.
Two more witness were called in the morning session.
STEVEN KORDAK, was a friend of the Boehms. He grew up in the Boehm neighborhood and knew Shawn all throughout his childhood. He testified that around 11:00 am on September 19th, 1997, he saw Shawn on the street and they exchanged greetings.
SUSAN RINEHART, LAPD Criminalist, who testified yesterday afternoon retakes the stand on direct. When we broke for lunch, she was under cross examination.
UPDATE: 2/4 -Afternoon session witnesses
SUSAN RINEHART - LAPD criminalist retakes the stand. The defense introduces over 50 crime scene photos to document the messy home as well as what was found in the back room where Nancy conducted her drug transactions.
JESSICA STOCKTON - 36 year old, Friend of victims Nancy and Shawn and former heroin addict. She's been clean for 7-8 years. Knew Nancy through her father, who worked at the Palimono night club. Lived at the residence for a few months in 1997 just prior to their deaths. Nancy was like a mother figure to her. Testified about Nancy's personality, Shawn's mental capacity, the security procedures of the house and what she observedas far as customers coming and going. When talking about Nancy and Shawn, she became emotional on the stand. On cross examination she stated that at that time she was a dancer. Defense also asked if the work was strenuous.
At the end of the court day, the jury was ordered back for 9:30 AM.
More detailed testimony will come....
Day 8.....
Day 6.......
UPDATED: 2/4 afternoon witnesses
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Note
I've updated Day 4, Part III to include the detailed testimony of the first couple of witnesses. I've got a little but more to go before that's complete. I'm also working on the detailed testimony of Francisco Santos, for the morning of Day 5.
Observation
For the past six days of trial, I've been observing Martinez at the defense table. Every time an image is put up on the screen for the jurors, he turns around to look at the photo. Oftentimes, I see him with his right elbow resting on the arm of the chair with his fingers over his mouth. Yesterday, I noticed that he was helping his attorney look for documents during criminalist Bruce Lyle's testimony.
There is a woman who comes to court and sits in the very back row on the right, against the wall. One day, Detective Townsend went up to her and asked her who she was and why she was here. The woman said that she often just comes into the courtrooms to listen and to pray.
I remember during the Blake trial, there was a man who came in several days a week carrying a large duffel bag. He would fall asleep in one of the back rows. It was speculated among several of the people in the gallery that he was homeless because he smelled. I remember my first day attending the Blake trial, there was a homeless man sleeping in a niche corner, near the entrance to Van Nuys West Courthouse.
9:50 AM
I'm inside Dept V. Judge Speer just finished up with other court proceedings. Defense attorney Tom Burns is here. Once the proceedings are over, Judge Speer leaves the bench and Mr. Burns paces in the well. DDA Akemon and his investigating officer, Detective Townsend have not arrived yet. I step outside the courtroom to publish this update.
I'm at lunch at the moment. Here's what happened during the morning session.
On the record without the jury present. It's around 10 AM. Mr. Burns argues to the judge about specifics in the prosecution opening statement.
Mr. Burns argues that the prosecution's argument, as his case is unfolding, with the 1101b testimony. I believe Burns is arguing that DDA Akemon has gone outside the bounds of what was ruled on by insinuating when Martinez is "shushed" that is when he lashes out. Mr. Burns complains about DDA Akemon calling the defendant "blood thirsty" in his opening statement.
I'm surprised this was not objected to at the time of the opening statement.
Burns tells the court that he doesn't think they should be allowed to argue this, in relation to intent. That it’s in direct violation of 1101. He goes onto say that he would like to be on the record that thsi is highly prejudicial to the defendant.
Akemon responds, "That’s part of the intent argument. ... When he’s told to shush he intends to cause harm.
Judge Speer responds, "The jurors have a responsibility to compare the similarities of the 1101 b evidence and the charged crimes. So any similarities between the two crimes should be considered by the jurors, ... and what sets him off, what his motive is."
Burns counters, "So, we’re adding now some type of motive on his part?"
I believe Judge Speer reponds, "It is showing motive. .. The 1101b isnt offered to show motive. .... They will be instructed to that proposition. ... But they will be able to compare."
Burns replies, "I understand that your honor. ... Were tyring to have them unring the bell for anything but intent. ... But counsel calls my client blood thristy, as a propensity to do something and he's going anginst the instrcution."
Judge Speer offers, "They can't decide what the intent is unless you know the facts and the details of each of the crimes."
Burns argues, "I have no problem with that your honor. ... My problem is the prosecuiton arguing a propensity argument."
Judge Speer assures the defense, "I won’t let the pople aruges propensity in that [way? context?]."
I'm not sure who says this next sentence. "Not that the defendant has the propensity to kill, when people shush him."
Judge Speer mentions the motive is when he's high or when he wants drugs.
Burns continues to argue, "I don’ think that argument is proper."
Judge Speer says she won't let the people argue in those terms, but [argue?] the similarity between both crimes.
Argument is finished. I have in my mind that DDA Akemon responded but I missed getting his counter.
The jury is brought in. A witness is taken out of order. People's witness, Bruce Lyle retakes the stand to reopen cross examination. Lyle tells the jury and the court that he was mistaken how he packaged the fingernail clippings and the fingernail scrapings. Lyle now states that all the fingernails for the left hand were put in a single bindle. The same for the right hand. He doesn't remember how he packaged the fingernail scrapings. Judge Speer is not confused as to how this evidence was collected.
The witness explains that at some point in time, he knows he collected evidence in the manner he originally testified but he's not sure when that change in procedure happened.
The defense asks him if 1997 was a long, long time ago. The witness agrees. The defense asks if DNA testing back then was different than it is today. The witness agrees. DNA testing is more sensitive now. The witness agrees that there is more concern today about contamination.
DDA Akemon recrosses the witness.
DA: When you collect scrapings and clippings, even back in 1997, you maintain a chain of custody? Even with blood type evidence, etc?
BL: Correct.
The witness is excused.
Two more witness were called in the morning session.
STEVEN KORDAK, was a friend of the Boehms. He grew up in the Boehm neighborhood and knew Shawn all throughout his childhood. He testified that around 11:00 am on September 19th, 1997, he saw Shawn on the street and they exchanged greetings.
SUSAN RINEHART, LAPD Criminalist, who testified yesterday afternoon retakes the stand on direct. When we broke for lunch, she was under cross examination.
UPDATE: 2/4 -Afternoon session witnesses
SUSAN RINEHART - LAPD criminalist retakes the stand. The defense introduces over 50 crime scene photos to document the messy home as well as what was found in the back room where Nancy conducted her drug transactions.
JESSICA STOCKTON - 36 year old, Friend of victims Nancy and Shawn and former heroin addict. She's been clean for 7-8 years. Knew Nancy through her father, who worked at the Palimono night club. Lived at the residence for a few months in 1997 just prior to their deaths. Nancy was like a mother figure to her. Testified about Nancy's personality, Shawn's mental capacity, the security procedures of the house and what she observedas far as customers coming and going. When talking about Nancy and Shawn, she became emotional on the stand. On cross examination she stated that at that time she was a dancer. Defense also asked if the work was strenuous.
At the end of the court day, the jury was ordered back for 9:30 AM.
More detailed testimony will come....
Day 8.....
Monday, February 2, 2015
Rafael Martinez, Jr., Trial - Day 6 People's Testimony Continues
Exclusive T&T coverage can be found HERE.
Day 5.........
UPDATED 6:25 PM update of the afternoon session below
Monday, February 2, 2015
Before I talk about this morning, I'd like to give a recap of the witnesses who testified Friday afternoon.
Friday Afternoon
People's witness #5, Francisco Santos was back on the stand under detailed cross examination. Santos was questioned on differences in his testimony today, and his testimony at Martinez' preliminary hearing in the 2001 case. One of the issues the defense cross examined Santos on is the blood that was found in the bathroom. Santos testified that after the attack, he never went back into the bathroom. On other statements under cross, specifically about whether or not Martinez bought drugs on credit, the defense played Mr. Santos' statement to police to impeach his testimony today. Mr Santos, appearing a bit flustered at this point, countered, "What does that have to do with anything?" Mr. Burns commented, "I wish I could answer that." After that comment, I have the following testimony:
FS: I made have changed a few things at the beginning. I was actually scared. whether I was going to get charged with [selling drugs].
TB: You mean [you] said things that weren't true?
FS: If you want to look at it that way.
TB: Did you say things that were not true?
FS: I might have changed a few things. ... The fact was that [it? the attack?] happened.
#6 Richard Householder - LAPD officer in 1997. Assisted in the 1997 Boehm investigation. Interviewed Martinez at the North Hollywood police station. Martinez told Householder that he knew the family and went to school with Shawn and his sister. He spoke to Nancy daily and saw her a week before.
#7 Martin Pinner - LAPD Detective. Assisted in the 2001 investigation into Nieves and Santos stabbings. Pinner is used to introduce the interview tape of Martinez about the stabbings. The tape is played for the jury. The tape is long and I believe the transcript of the tape is 150 pages long. Large binders are passed out to the witness, each juror and I believe, the court. When 4:00 pm arrives, the tape is stopped and court will continue at 10 AM on Monday.
Monday, Feb 2, Morning Session
I arrived in Dept. V just in time. The jurors were still out in the hallway. After I get settled in my seat, DDA Akemon asks if I watched the game. I have to admit that Mr. Sprocket and I are not big sports fans. We didn't watch the game, but our neighbors across the street had a big party with lots of guests who watched the game.
After the jurors are brought in, Judge Speer addressed the jury and asks, "Who was happy with the outcome of the Super Bowl?" One juror raised their hand. She then asks him, "Who enjoyed the commercials?" Two jurors.
#7 Martin Pinner
We continued with Detective Pinner and the playing of the 2001 interview with the defendant. Throughout the entire interview, Martinez insisted that Nellie [Luz Nieves] got a knife from the kitchen and stabbed him. He denied ever having control of the knife. He was not aware of any injuries on Nieves and Santos. After repeated questioning, he admitted that, in the struggle it was a possibility that he got the knife when struggling with Nieves. He admitted that it was possible that he got a potato peeler away from Santos in his struggle with Santos. At one point, he did say that he got the potato peeler.
Detective Pinner testified that this morning, he drove in his car and measured the distance between Martinez home and the victim's homes. The distance to Nieves and Santos' homes was 1/2 mile. It took him two minutes to drive the route. The distance from Martinez home to the Boehm home was .70 miles, or three quarters of a mile. It took him three minutes to make the drive.
Detective Pinner was cross examined on what he remembered about the 2001 investigation and if he recalled the injuries that Martinez had when he was being interviewed. Pinner was asked if a gun or BB gun was recovered from the victim's apartment. Pinner testified that bullets were recovered but no weapons.
#8 David Riemen - LAPD officer. He testifies in uniform. On September 20, 1997, he was working North Hollywood Patrol. Riemen is currently a Sargent, in charge of facilities management. Riemen does not have a specific recollection of his work at the Boehm murder scene. In reviewing the case documents, Riemen believes that he was involved in securing the crime scene. Riemen filled out a field interview card on the defendant the following day, Sept. 21. Field interview cards are cards that are filled out by officers when they attempt to interview individuals. The field interview card that Riemen filled out is People's exhibit #20.
Rieman explains all the information on the card, Martinez description, his DL and contact numbers. A short amount of information that Martinez gave to Riemen is on the card.
Close family friend. Last seen 1 wk ago. Last spoke to on the phone Mon or Tues or Wed. Since then no response. Supposed to go to the fair 9/2097.
Sargent Rieman was under cross examination when the lunch break was called. Jurors are to return at 1:40 PM.
UPDATE 6:30 PM
Monday, Afternoon Session
1:45 PM Judge Speer calls for the jurors.
Sgt. Reimen continued with cross examination in the afternoon. Sgt. Reimen continued to state that he did not remember the specific incident. On redirect, Sgt. Reimen, after reviewing all the field interview cards states that he did interview more people. It appears his interviews were going door to door, and not observers on the street. In interviewing Martinez, he did not note anything about a bicycle nor did he notice any scratches or injuries on the defendant. The card indicates that Martinez told Sgt. Reimen that his nickname was "Jay" and that he was a self-employed stunt man.
#9 Bruce Lyle - Deputy Coroner Investigator, Los Angeles County. Lyle currently works for the Orange County Coroner's office as the Assistant Chief Deputy Coroner. He is not a medical doctor. His current position is administrative.
On September 20, 1997, Lyle responded to the Boehm's residence as a Coroner's Investigator. A coroner's investigator is a person that responds to a sudden violence and unexplained death. They examine the body at the scene, writes reports and takes certain types of evidence. They locate the next of kin and secure any property evidence. He goes to the scene where there might be a body and transports the body back to the coroner's. In his career, he has rolled out to over 20,000 dead body scenes.
Lyle responded to the scene with an assistant who drove the vehicle and help recover the bodies. Lyle is asked to explain his procedure for collecting bodies at the time. They would place the decedent on a clean plastic sheet and wrap the sheet up and around the feet and head. They would then placed that in a regular clean cotton bed sheet then wrap up the body with ties around the upper body, arms and legs then tie those off.
Lyle recoverd Nancy and Shawn's bodies. They were placed in the same transport van and taken to the coroner's office. There, the bodies were placed on clean gurneys and put in the refrigerator. The next day, his next shift he collected fingernail scrapings and fingernail clippings from Nancy and Shawn.
Lyle does not remember this case and had to refer to the report he wrote. Lyle testified as to what his normal custom and practice was, since he did not remember this specific case.
There were quite a few questions on direct and cross about his procedure in collecting the fingernail scrapings and fingernail clippings. My understanding of his testimony was, [after Judge Speer questioned him about the collection] he used a standard fingernail kit that came with specific envelopes and "paper bindles" to collect the material from each hand. A left hand kit and a right hand kit. The kit for each hand came with two envelopes and a wood scraper for each hand. It was not clear to me if the fingernail kits also contained their own nail clippers, or if that was a tool he kept as part of his evidence collection kit. Lyle testified that they are not special nail clippers, but just like you might buy at Rite Aid [a local drug store chain]. After every use, the clippers are wiped down with an alcohol swab.
He would start with one hand and collect the nail clippings from that one hand. Each clipped nail was placed in a separate paper bindle. Those five paper bindles were placed in a single envelope and that envelope marked. The same procedure would be repeated for the other hand.
After the nails were clipped, then he would move onto scraping under the fingernails on the victim's hands. He would start with one hand and use the wood stick that came with the kit to scrape under the nails. Each nail scraping was dropped in its own paper bindle. Those five paper bindles were placed in an envelope and marked. The stick is thrown away. Then the procedure is repeated on the nails of the other hand.
Lyle states that it was part of his normal custom and procedure to bag the hands. He doesn't remember what he did, but he assumes he followed the procedures in effect in 1997.
During cross examination the defense put up close up photos of Nancy's hands. The photos show her hands were covered in blood. Lyle describes rigor mortis, lividity and signs of decomposition for the jurors and if they were present in Nancy and Shawn.
Lyle collected a human tooth to the left of Nancy's body, indicating she suffered some trauma to her face.
The witness was extensively questioned on his procedure, what he remembered and what was his normal practice at the time.
10 Susan Rinehart - LAPD Science Investigation Division Criminalist. Criminalist for SID for over 20 years. For the past 17 years, she is a DNA analyst. In September 1997, she responded to the crime scene to document and collect evidence. She gives her CV and training in criminalistics.
Through a continuing series of photographs and diagrams, DDA Akemon takes the witness through the crime scene and what she documented. She describes the photos taken outside the home, and in various rooms of the home, as well as the victim's bodies and their orientation within the rooms. It's clear from the photographs that the Boehm residence was very cluttered, packed with stuff. One could easily call the home similar to a hoarder's home. Literally every room was over loaded with items. The most normal looking room was the bathroom.
The witness is presented with photos of Shawn as he was found. Next, we are shown photos of Nancy as she was found with lots of paper, bags and purses piled on top of her body. Rinehart describes the procedure to remove all of this debris off of Nancy.
Everything was first photographed in place with standard placard markers before it was removed, layer by layer. A sequence of photos are shown with numbered placards on items that might contain physical evidence such as fingerprints, etc. Once the first layer is removed, new placard numbers are placed on the items below and the entire scene is photographed again. This is repeated. I note the placard numbers on items in the last photo are in the 20's.
When the clock hit's 4:00 PM, Judge Speer calls an end of the court day. The witness will be back on the stand tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM.
Continued on Day 7.......
Day 5.........
UPDATED 6:25 PM update of the afternoon session below
Monday, February 2, 2015
Before I talk about this morning, I'd like to give a recap of the witnesses who testified Friday afternoon.
Friday Afternoon
People's witness #5, Francisco Santos was back on the stand under detailed cross examination. Santos was questioned on differences in his testimony today, and his testimony at Martinez' preliminary hearing in the 2001 case. One of the issues the defense cross examined Santos on is the blood that was found in the bathroom. Santos testified that after the attack, he never went back into the bathroom. On other statements under cross, specifically about whether or not Martinez bought drugs on credit, the defense played Mr. Santos' statement to police to impeach his testimony today. Mr Santos, appearing a bit flustered at this point, countered, "What does that have to do with anything?" Mr. Burns commented, "I wish I could answer that." After that comment, I have the following testimony:
FS: I made have changed a few things at the beginning. I was actually scared. whether I was going to get charged with [selling drugs].
TB: You mean [you] said things that weren't true?
FS: If you want to look at it that way.
TB: Did you say things that were not true?
FS: I might have changed a few things. ... The fact was that [it? the attack?] happened.
#6 Richard Householder - LAPD officer in 1997. Assisted in the 1997 Boehm investigation. Interviewed Martinez at the North Hollywood police station. Martinez told Householder that he knew the family and went to school with Shawn and his sister. He spoke to Nancy daily and saw her a week before.
#7 Martin Pinner - LAPD Detective. Assisted in the 2001 investigation into Nieves and Santos stabbings. Pinner is used to introduce the interview tape of Martinez about the stabbings. The tape is played for the jury. The tape is long and I believe the transcript of the tape is 150 pages long. Large binders are passed out to the witness, each juror and I believe, the court. When 4:00 pm arrives, the tape is stopped and court will continue at 10 AM on Monday.
Monday, Feb 2, Morning Session
I arrived in Dept. V just in time. The jurors were still out in the hallway. After I get settled in my seat, DDA Akemon asks if I watched the game. I have to admit that Mr. Sprocket and I are not big sports fans. We didn't watch the game, but our neighbors across the street had a big party with lots of guests who watched the game.
After the jurors are brought in, Judge Speer addressed the jury and asks, "Who was happy with the outcome of the Super Bowl?" One juror raised their hand. She then asks him, "Who enjoyed the commercials?" Two jurors.
#7 Martin Pinner
We continued with Detective Pinner and the playing of the 2001 interview with the defendant. Throughout the entire interview, Martinez insisted that Nellie [Luz Nieves] got a knife from the kitchen and stabbed him. He denied ever having control of the knife. He was not aware of any injuries on Nieves and Santos. After repeated questioning, he admitted that, in the struggle it was a possibility that he got the knife when struggling with Nieves. He admitted that it was possible that he got a potato peeler away from Santos in his struggle with Santos. At one point, he did say that he got the potato peeler.
Detective Pinner testified that this morning, he drove in his car and measured the distance between Martinez home and the victim's homes. The distance to Nieves and Santos' homes was 1/2 mile. It took him two minutes to drive the route. The distance from Martinez home to the Boehm home was .70 miles, or three quarters of a mile. It took him three minutes to make the drive.
Detective Pinner was cross examined on what he remembered about the 2001 investigation and if he recalled the injuries that Martinez had when he was being interviewed. Pinner was asked if a gun or BB gun was recovered from the victim's apartment. Pinner testified that bullets were recovered but no weapons.
#8 David Riemen - LAPD officer. He testifies in uniform. On September 20, 1997, he was working North Hollywood Patrol. Riemen is currently a Sargent, in charge of facilities management. Riemen does not have a specific recollection of his work at the Boehm murder scene. In reviewing the case documents, Riemen believes that he was involved in securing the crime scene. Riemen filled out a field interview card on the defendant the following day, Sept. 21. Field interview cards are cards that are filled out by officers when they attempt to interview individuals. The field interview card that Riemen filled out is People's exhibit #20.
Rieman explains all the information on the card, Martinez description, his DL and contact numbers. A short amount of information that Martinez gave to Riemen is on the card.
Close family friend. Last seen 1 wk ago. Last spoke to on the phone Mon or Tues or Wed. Since then no response. Supposed to go to the fair 9/2097.
Sargent Rieman was under cross examination when the lunch break was called. Jurors are to return at 1:40 PM.
UPDATE 6:30 PM
Monday, Afternoon Session
1:45 PM Judge Speer calls for the jurors.
Sgt. Reimen continued with cross examination in the afternoon. Sgt. Reimen continued to state that he did not remember the specific incident. On redirect, Sgt. Reimen, after reviewing all the field interview cards states that he did interview more people. It appears his interviews were going door to door, and not observers on the street. In interviewing Martinez, he did not note anything about a bicycle nor did he notice any scratches or injuries on the defendant. The card indicates that Martinez told Sgt. Reimen that his nickname was "Jay" and that he was a self-employed stunt man.
#9 Bruce Lyle - Deputy Coroner Investigator, Los Angeles County. Lyle currently works for the Orange County Coroner's office as the Assistant Chief Deputy Coroner. He is not a medical doctor. His current position is administrative.
On September 20, 1997, Lyle responded to the Boehm's residence as a Coroner's Investigator. A coroner's investigator is a person that responds to a sudden violence and unexplained death. They examine the body at the scene, writes reports and takes certain types of evidence. They locate the next of kin and secure any property evidence. He goes to the scene where there might be a body and transports the body back to the coroner's. In his career, he has rolled out to over 20,000 dead body scenes.
Lyle responded to the scene with an assistant who drove the vehicle and help recover the bodies. Lyle is asked to explain his procedure for collecting bodies at the time. They would place the decedent on a clean plastic sheet and wrap the sheet up and around the feet and head. They would then placed that in a regular clean cotton bed sheet then wrap up the body with ties around the upper body, arms and legs then tie those off.
Lyle recoverd Nancy and Shawn's bodies. They were placed in the same transport van and taken to the coroner's office. There, the bodies were placed on clean gurneys and put in the refrigerator. The next day, his next shift he collected fingernail scrapings and fingernail clippings from Nancy and Shawn.
Lyle does not remember this case and had to refer to the report he wrote. Lyle testified as to what his normal custom and practice was, since he did not remember this specific case.
There were quite a few questions on direct and cross about his procedure in collecting the fingernail scrapings and fingernail clippings. My understanding of his testimony was, [after Judge Speer questioned him about the collection] he used a standard fingernail kit that came with specific envelopes and "paper bindles" to collect the material from each hand. A left hand kit and a right hand kit. The kit for each hand came with two envelopes and a wood scraper for each hand. It was not clear to me if the fingernail kits also contained their own nail clippers, or if that was a tool he kept as part of his evidence collection kit. Lyle testified that they are not special nail clippers, but just like you might buy at Rite Aid [a local drug store chain]. After every use, the clippers are wiped down with an alcohol swab.
He would start with one hand and collect the nail clippings from that one hand. Each clipped nail was placed in a separate paper bindle. Those five paper bindles were placed in a single envelope and that envelope marked. The same procedure would be repeated for the other hand.
After the nails were clipped, then he would move onto scraping under the fingernails on the victim's hands. He would start with one hand and use the wood stick that came with the kit to scrape under the nails. Each nail scraping was dropped in its own paper bindle. Those five paper bindles were placed in an envelope and marked. The stick is thrown away. Then the procedure is repeated on the nails of the other hand.
Lyle states that it was part of his normal custom and procedure to bag the hands. He doesn't remember what he did, but he assumes he followed the procedures in effect in 1997.
During cross examination the defense put up close up photos of Nancy's hands. The photos show her hands were covered in blood. Lyle describes rigor mortis, lividity and signs of decomposition for the jurors and if they were present in Nancy and Shawn.
Lyle collected a human tooth to the left of Nancy's body, indicating she suffered some trauma to her face.
The witness was extensively questioned on his procedure, what he remembered and what was his normal practice at the time.
10 Susan Rinehart - LAPD Science Investigation Division Criminalist. Criminalist for SID for over 20 years. For the past 17 years, she is a DNA analyst. In September 1997, she responded to the crime scene to document and collect evidence. She gives her CV and training in criminalistics.
Through a continuing series of photographs and diagrams, DDA Akemon takes the witness through the crime scene and what she documented. She describes the photos taken outside the home, and in various rooms of the home, as well as the victim's bodies and their orientation within the rooms. It's clear from the photographs that the Boehm residence was very cluttered, packed with stuff. One could easily call the home similar to a hoarder's home. Literally every room was over loaded with items. The most normal looking room was the bathroom.
The witness is presented with photos of Shawn as he was found. Next, we are shown photos of Nancy as she was found with lots of paper, bags and purses piled on top of her body. Rinehart describes the procedure to remove all of this debris off of Nancy.
Everything was first photographed in place with standard placard markers before it was removed, layer by layer. A sequence of photos are shown with numbered placards on items that might contain physical evidence such as fingerprints, etc. Once the first layer is removed, new placard numbers are placed on the items below and the entire scene is photographed again. This is repeated. I note the placard numbers on items in the last photo are in the 20's.
When the clock hit's 4:00 PM, Judge Speer calls an end of the court day. The witness will be back on the stand tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM.
Continued on Day 7.......
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Rafael Martinez, Jr., Trial Day 4, Opening Statements, Part III
Exclusive T&T case coverage can be found HERE.
Day 4, Part II......
UPDATE 2/13 added testimony from this days witnesses
UPDATE 2/3 added testimony from first witnesses
January 29, 2015
Defense Opening Statement
Mr. Burns steps up to the podium. Up on the ELMO is a photo. It’s of a young, smiling man with longish hair. Mr. Burns tells the jury, “[A] photo of Mr. Martinez when he hadn’t been punched in the face, and not a booking photo.”
I did not recognize the photo as the defendant. He looks quite different. He's got a big smile on his face.
“And now it’s all drugs. It’s all drug related.”
Murder is ugly, and you’ll see ugliness. It’s sad. “God told Cain he could hear his blood pouring out. .. The DA will try to capitalize on every detail of this [crime?]. ... My client is innocent. He did not do these crimes. ... There’s no evidence...”
All this case is, is DNA. That’s all it’s about. Everything else is to take your focus away from that. He’s [Martinez] a very convenient fall guy. We’ll prove that Mr. Martniez knew Nancy Boehm. Let’s give a better photo of Nancy. ... That’s what she looked like at the time of her death. (I don’t notice that much difference from the prosecution’s photo of Nancy to the defense. Both photos look much better than the photo from the press conference on the FLICKR account.)
She [Nancy] was like a second mother [to Mr. Martinez]. Like an aunt. Shawn was autistic. He was not an idiot. He was slow but he was a friend of my client. He [Shawn? Martinez?] knew him since he was a kid.
He [Martinez] lived basically right across the street from the Boehm’s. His cousin lived right around the corner, and they [all of them?] kind of grew up together.
[Anthony?] and Nancy ... was a drug house. Everyone knew it was a drug house. Mr. Martinez went on in his adulthood to associate with Nancy and his cousin. He’s been in that house a lot. He drank from bottles, used the bathroom; the kitchen; used ... wiped his hands on the towels .... chairs, because he’s there [very?] often. We do not dispute that his DNA was all over that house. They found one [palm print?] ...
Mr. Burns has a short pause then starts again.
Sometimes he went over there to do drugs with Nancy. Sometimes he went over there to play video games with Shawn. He wasn’t a customer; [that’s] wrong. He was like extended family. I believe Mr. Burns mentions the unusual spelling of Nancy and Shawn’s last name, but that it’s pronounced “beem.”
“She was a drug dealer. She was a good woman. My client loved her. He mourned her,” Mr. Burns tells the jury. He tells them it was 1997, the “sex, drugs and rock and roll days.” Back then, it was powdered cocaine. Mr. Burns states that it was wrong, incorrect that no drugs were found in Nancy’s residence. They did find something that this year, that we only found out this year were [not?] drugs, a white powder. There were valuables and money left behind. “A crazy junkie looks for the next high. ... This is not a drug related crime.”
In 1997, September 1997 he hadn’t seen the Bhoem’s for a week because they were pretty much homebodies. He called them several times. Unfortunately, the police did not preserve the voice mail so we can’t show them to you.
Nancy was one who was a phone person. [On the phone a lot?] Then she’s not answering her phone. People got suspicious. On a warm Saturday night after some other friend came over and became concerned. There was a lot of police action and Mr. Martinez came back on his bicycle and he saw the action at his friend’s house and he came over.
That night, as the evidence will show, he told detectives [?] what [he thought?] happened. He tells [officers?] all about his relationship with Nancy, and [that] probably a drug relation did it. He doesn’t know who. Police are asking him did this and he speculates. That he gave them a story to screw up their investigation and told them a story, that’s ridiculous. He would never have shown up there, especially if he had had scratches from a struggle. He would never have shown up there.
DDA Akemon: Objection! Argument!
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Burns continues. As you’ll see from the evidence, his presence here, presented a great deal of contamination. Someone who had DNA knowledge would not show up there. You’ll see a lot of evidence of the other case, for intent. You have to ask why. We don’t dispute that.
There is no issue of intent here. In fact, it’s part of, we intend to show here, these murders were done very professionally. These were not crazy murders here. These were done professionally. [There had to be more than one person] ... to immobilize the victims somehow.
The only victim in this case .... [does the?] DNA prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Martinez did these murders. ... There’s no DNA on Shawn’s fingernails.
Mr. Burns then talks about that the amount of DNA that was found under Nancy’s fingernails was very “molecular,” a very small amount. Mr. Burns tells the jury that the perpetrator is still at large. Burns states that the defense will show that there are great gaps in DNA technology. This was 1997.
“Let’s put this in context,” Mr. Burns tells the jury. “Just to bring you back there. ... President Clinton has begun his first term, before we had learned of Monica Lewinsky. ... Mike Tyson bit an ear in a fight. ... Microsoft was the most valuable corporation and Apple was losing money. ... Princess Diana had died. ... All the water under the bridge since then. ... And remember the technology back then. .... [The most advanced phone?] ... a Motorola flip phone. ... DVD’s had come back just then. ... A new computer [operating system?] was Windows 95. ... [If you?] wanted to connect to the Internet, connect with AOL or Prodigy. ... Google was not a word.”
1997 technology ... so was DNA. Back then, when you found DNA on someone’s fingernails you could see it. It was particles. It was a hunk of skin you could actually see it. Not so today. You weren’t worried about contamination as we’re worried about it today. DNA testing [today?] was not your daddy’s DNA.
Mr. Burns briefly explains to the jury what DNA is. I’m not positive, but I believe he slightly pauses over ‘deoxyribonucelic acid’ the full, scientific name of DNA. He tells the jury that 99.9% of your DNA is the same. Mr. Burns adds, “However, scientists have learned how to focus on locations, loci on the molecule that have something called a polymorphism. .. That 1.1 percent that’s different. Short random repeats, that repeat different, at different lengths. No one knows what they do yet, but people have different lengths of them. ... They have machines that can measure the different lengths of them.”
PCR, amplifies DNA that you can grow more of them. ... Grow enough DNA to test it in machines. Amplify it. Cool machines that distinguish the different length of the genes.
This technical talk that Mr. Burns is engaged in is slightly different than what I’m used to, hearing from criminalist DNA testimony, so it’s a little difficult to follow. I try to pick up from where I stopped typing.
“It’s actually a revolution, finding traces of DNA on bullets, on firearms. It’s revolutionized the way we look at DNA.”
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m not going to dispute that molecular DNA was found on the fingernails of Nanch Boehm. We actually tested it ourselves and we put it to harder testing than the prosecution did. We found a ... we found Shawn’s DNA on Nancy as well. We found Nancy’s DNA on Shawn. I don’t think anyone’s going to say that Nancy had a [hand in Shawn’s death?].
Neither experts will be able to tell you where this DNA comes from. Whether it’s skin, blood, saliva, snot or whatever, or the many body fluids that have DNA. They’re not going to tell you how it got there without speculating. Nor will they be able to tell you how much is on these nails, whether it’s billions of a gram or trillions of a gram. And no one will be able to tell you if it came directly from Mr. Martinez or transferred from something else.
These are also not your usual fingernails and not your usual environment. [I believe Mr. Burns is referencing the messy and cluttered nature of Nancy’s home.]
The noon lunch break is called.
1:36 PM
The defendant is brought out. We go back on the record. Judge Speer calls for the bailiff to bring in the jury.
1:37 PM
The jury files in. The prosecution and detective stand. Burns continues with his opening statement.
“Afternoon folks,” Mr. Burns greets the jury. “Afternoon,” they reply.
“I was talking about the revolution in DNA and molecules and DNA that could fly all over this house.”
These were not regular fingernails, and where these fingernails are, on a daily basis. Mr. Burns puts up a photo of Nancy Boehm’s right hand. “None of these nails were broken,” Mr. Burns points out to the jury. Then a photo of Nancy’s left hand is shown to the jurors. Mr. Burns points out the length of the nails. “Obviously, she took some time to grow them." ... Now here’s the environment that these nails are always in.”
Mr. Burns puts up a photo of the living room. It’s very cluttered, packed with things.
“Look closely. You can see dust lying all over the place. ... A very cluttered, packed house. ... My client’s palm print was found on that coffee table.”
Another photo, I believe of the dining room. It’s also crammed with stuff. I can’t even see a dining table. There is a printer. I see food that has dropped on the floor. Another photo of the kitchen. I see empty beer and alcohol bottles stacked up in the kitchen. The hallway was filled with stuff, too.
“My client’s DNA would be all over their house. ... They touch their hands, DNA all over the place.”
Mr. Burns now gives examples of how DNA is transferred to objects. He puts up photos of people crying. Now a photo of a person’s sweaty palm. Now, photos of people touching their face, eyes. One of the photos is of Simon Cowell, from the American Idol TV show. While the photos are being shown, Mr. Burns is explaining the examples of how DNA is spread to objects, surfaces. DNA could be left on fingernails, or left on surfaces.
The defense states that, they are saying that, this is not evidence, given the fact that Mr. Martinez came into this residence on many instances. He went to the bathroom. He washed his face. This is not evidence. This is circumstantial evidence. There are a million reasons why this is not evidence. This house was not under ideal laboratory conditions.
“We agree DNA is a means of identifying people. We’re challenging the conclusion that DNA found under the fingernails [indicates?]...”
This the 1990’s. It’s not this century where we know DNA can be transferred from a touch, a sneeze, a hand.
“They were killed like lambs. ... There was no struggle. ... There’s no evidence there ever was a struggle.”
In the other case, the individuals had defense wounds. In the Boehm case, the victims were in separate rooms. How could this be done? Could one person do this? There’s no evidence that a struggle took place at all. ... There may have been someone else holding the victims.
What does the DNA evidence show? It shows nothing more than what it shows. Mr. Martinez told police he was in their house all the time. He was their friend. It’s what he told them.
I hate to talk about this other case, because it’s on the [intention?] of intent, so I have to talk about it. I submit that what happened was what my client said on that tape. He turned himself in on that matter. She [Luz] left the apartment walking and talking. It’s different from the Boehm case, where they were professionally killed. The knife wounds were all in a cluster.
Mr. Burns talks about the wounds to Luz Nieves neck. “You can imagine two people struggling for a sharp object. It’s what my client said, is what happened.”
I see that Martinez watches his counsel give his opening statement.
“That all happened in a minute, two minutes. The neighbors heard an argument, and then, bam! Boom! It was over. That was a lot different. There’s no intent to kill in that case and there was no intent to kill in this case. So whatever evidence that they have in the Boehm case ...
They have Mr. Callahan. Maybe, accuses Mr. Martinez now; [we first heard this from] him in April 2014. He always takes the side of detectives; their most promising suspect. He’s previously given statements in 1997, he said in ... that Nancy was [afraid] ...
DDA Akemon: Objection! [We litigated this.]
I believe Judge Speer rules in the prosecution’s favor. The defense requests a sidebar. Judge Speer takes a sidebar.
1:56 PM
Back on the record. The court rules. The objection was sustained and the last statement by counsel was stricken.
Mr. Burns continues. Mr. Callahan was interviewed twice in 1997 and once in 1998 and never mentioned Mr. Martinez as a possible suspect. Mr. Burns then mentions the mental gymnastics, that he mentioned in voir dire, when he was asking the jurors if they can do it.
“You’re going to ... like I said, the mental gymnastics here, is to disregard that other crime for no other purpose than intent. The intent is not in dispute. You should disregard completely that other crime. This man is innocent. He’s a very convenient fall guy. Once you see the DNA evidence you should acquit him.
The defense is finished with their opening statement and the people call their first witness.
UPDATE 2/3 added testimony from first witnesses
#1. Hugh Martin. LAPD firefighter-paramedic. Currently on assignment on Mulholland Drive, above Encino. He’s been on the job since 1984; 30 years. He’s been a paramedic approimately 22 years. He’s asked what his assignment was on May 10, 2001.
HM: I was working overtime, on fire station 60 as a paramedic on the rescue. ... That day I was working over time. ... The other paramedic was a guy, Barocas.
They received a call at 1:30 in the morning and they were dispatched to the Bonner address. People’s exhibit #1, an overview map of the streets of that area. The witness identifies the star on the map where the Bonner Avenue address was where he responded to the scene. He recalls the nature of the call. “We were dispatched to an incident where there was a stabbing, Martin answers.
Station 60 is in North Hollywood on Cahuenga. It took about 7-8 minutes to arrive at the location. There was a male patient out in front of the location on the ground. He was bleeding profusely. That was Martin’s number one concern. They immediately administered medical treatment. The victim had stab wounds on the top part of his body. There was so much blood, you couldn’t tell how many.
Photo of an apartment building, people’s exhibit #2. There is an arrow pointing to a window on the top floor that says, “Apartment #6.” The witness identifies the photo and states they parked right beside the telephone pole in the photo. Using the laser pointer, he identifies an area in the street directly in front of the building. This is where they saw the first victim.
They were told that there was a second patient upstairs. Firefighter Barocas went upstairs and he informed the witness they had a much more serious patient upstairs. Another fire station paramedic unit responded to the scene. Martin and his partner asked the second crew to look after the man in the street and they went upstairs to find the second patient.
Martin testifies that when he first encountered the second victim, “She was still lucid; somewhat hysterical,” Martin states. Her wounds were all in the upper torso, the upper neck. Another firefighter was assisting her. She was upstairs in a unit. Martin states the paramedics were afraid she would “bleed out” so they did what they call a “scoop and run.” They transported her to the hospital. [A man from?] Engine 60 was driving and there was an LAPD officer inside the “RA” [ambulance].
HM: It was hard because we were in the ambulance driving as fast as we could and she would say something.
The uniformed LAPD officer would ask, “Who did that to you?” It took them about 12 minutes to get to Holy Cross Hospital. Martin acted as a translator for the LAPD officer. He told the officer, She said, “Junebug. Junebug did this.” Towards the end, Martin testifies she was going in and out of consciousness. The other man, Mr. Santos was brought to the hospital. After he turned the patient over to Holy Cross, he had no more contact with the female victim.
HM: Without immediate help, she was going to die.
TB: Objection!
JS: Sustained! Lack of foundation.
DDA Akemon lays the foundation with the next set of questions. He asks Martin about his training as a paramedic. Martin has seen approximately 150 people stabbed. Approximately 200 people shot.
DA: How many people have you seen die?
HM: Three or four hundred.
I believe Mr. Burns still objects and is allowed to question the witness on his knowledge and ability to diagnose. Eventually, I believe the court over rules Mr. Burns’ objection.
Burns continues with cross.
TB: Did Ms. Nieves say, and I quote, Junebug stabbed me and Mr. Santos?
HM: She just mentioned one person.
TB: She didn’t mention anyone else being stabbed?
HM: No.
She was lucid to name, place and orientation. He [Santos?[ was hysterical that she was hurt very badly. By the time Martin got to Luz she was lying down in a period of treatment.
My stomach is growling. I hope I make it to the break.
Unfortunately, I do not believe I accurately documented when the direct was finished and when cross began for this witness.
#2. Raffi Djabourian - Senior Deputy Medical Examiner (ME) for Los Angeles County. He’s been a deputy coroner about 16 years. He’s experienced in forensic pathology. He’s a licensed doctor in the state of California. A deputy ME is another name for a forensic pathologist. It’s someone who examines dead bodies, and determines the manner of death.
On May 15, 2001, he performed the post mortem examination on Luz Nieves, coroner case number 2001 03585.
UPDATE 2/13/15
Continuing with the ME's testimony.
It was clear that she had been hospitalized and that she had sustained injuries to her body. She had sharp force injuries, stab wounds that penetrated into the body. She had 14 sharp force injuries.
The ME goes through her injuries, outlining which injuries were non-fatal and which were not. A wound labeled #2 was fatal and #3 (connected because of the surgical intervention) was not. Wound #2, to the neck, cut the left jugular vein and a portion of the left carotid artery. Wound #3 cut muscle but did not cut major blood vessels in the neck. There were strokes of the brain as a result of hypoxsis, lack of oxygen. The ME explains a stroke. Lack of enough blood to the brain is a major cause of stroke.
There are more questions about stroke, and treatment, etc. Other injuries are discussed. Wound #6, a fatal wound the left arm, was significant because it cut across a major vein and caused bleeding. Wounds numbered 9 through 14 on the hands were considered defensive wounds.
Manner of death is homicide. Cause of death is multiple stab wounds.
Direct is finished and Cross begins.
The date of death was May 10, 2001. Toxicology screening was done. The blood tested negative [for cocaine?]. The result for other tissues was positive for cocaine. Mr. Burns asks about the injury to the hands [The injuries to the hands] ... “are they also consistent with the subject grabbing a hold of the knife, and also consistent with someone pulling it out?” The ME agrees, “That could be also consistent with that scenario.”
At some point, Nieves doctor’s considered her stable. It looks like the effects of lack of oxygen started affecting the brain. People can be operated on, people can be stable, but eventually you can die of a complication. The carotid artery was not cut all the way through, it was basically nicked.
There are questions about specific stab wounds and which direction they traveled and which wounds were superficial.
Cross is finished and no more redirect. The afternoon break is called.
3:00 PM
Back on the record, outside the presence of the jury. A juror has a question. Are they allowed to know if the defendant was convicted. Counsel had not reached a formal stipulation. The defendant pled to manslaughter and assault. Counsel and the court discuss the resolution. Counsel stipulate that they [jury] are informed the defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and assault. The people stipulate to that but request that it should be more accurate. It was a plea agreement and he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Martinez leans into his attorney to chat. He smiles. Martinez often looks back into the gallery. He watches the back of the courtroom as the jury files in. Judge Speer tells the jury the stipulation.
The prosecution calls their next witness.
#3. Sean Anderson, LAPD Officer assigned to Southwest Division. On May 10, 2001 assigned to North Hollywood Division, patrol. He responded to a radio call of an ambulance cutting. He was with a partner, in a black and white. He was the passenger. His partner was Officer Guthrie. He assisted his partner in guiding to the location. He responded Cod 3, which means lights and sirens.
He he arrived he noticed a male Hispanic, covered in blood, on Bonner towards the street. He spoke to that individual very briefly. Anderson’s concern was whether a suspect was still at the scene. He and his partner went to apartment #7 where there was an additional victim at the scene. Officer’s advised Anderson that there was another victim up there. Anderson identifies the building in an exhibit.
Officer Guthrie had been Anderson’s training officer. Anderson had been on the job 8 onths. He had just gotten out of the academy. There were other officers with him, as well as firefighters, paramedics.
Anderson observed lots of blood on the ground. Upstairs, observed a female Hispanic sitting on the [couch?], also covered in blood. She had numerous stab wounds. Anderson was not able to communicate with the woman. Paramedics were working on her. He stood by until getting ready to transport the victim.
He rode in the ambulance with the victim. During the ride he made attempts to communicate with Ms. Nieves. He tried to inquire as to who had done this, who had stabbed her. She responded, but Anderson wasn’t able to hear. What she said was relayed through the firefighter. He documented that the victim said, “Junebug did it.
Direct is finished and cross begins.
The defense presents the witness with a report of the incident. It’s not clear to me who wrote the report. Anderson remembers that the victim relayed that “Junebug had stabbed her.” Mr. Burns confronts Anderson with the report written by another officer. He replies, “I don’t recall Francisco. I just remember ‘Junebug.’ He did not go inside the apartment where the stabbing occurred.
Cross is finished. The next witnessed is called.
#4 Alan Solomon, LAPD detective, currently assigned to gangs and narcotics. 26.5 years on the force, 16 years as a detective. In May 2001, he was one of the two lead investigators on the Nieves and Santos’ case. Martin Pinner was the other.
He arrived at the Nieves and Santos stabbing crime scene around 9 AM. He may need to refresh his memory with the follow up report. The follow up report is dated May 15, 2001. The report states he arrived at the location at 9:00 AM. He was there to check the crime scene. His role was to be in charge of processing the crime scene. The apartment was at the top floor of an apartment building. Identifies through exhibits where the crime occurred, as the residence of the murder victim and the attempted murder victim. And, it was the crime scene.
People’s exhibit #6, photo of the top of the stairs, right out side the front door of apartment #6. He noticed blood around the front door, on the door and on the staircase itself.
Solomon is shown people’s exhibit #9, the floor plan of the apartment and describes various areas of the apartment. On the map, the hallway closet door is directly across from the door to the master bedroom. Solomon states blood was found in various spots in the living room. There was blood in the hallway around the entry door to the bedroom.
People’s exhibit #10, photo depicting the coffeetable that was in between two sofas. On the coffee table Solomon found blod droplets. The witness points out other areas where blood was found in the photo.
People’s exhibit #11, two photos. Hallway on the south side facing toward the living room area. Placards #1 and #2 can be seen attached to the wall, on the door jam into the master bedroom. I note that there is quite a bit of smeared blood on this door and door jam. People’s exhibit #12 photos of the broken door jam to the master bedroom.
I take a short break from typing as the detective points out various items in the photos.
Direct ends and cross examination begins.
Money with blood on it was found along with small rocks of cocaine. 6.68 gross grams, in apartment #7 with the victim.
TB: When you interviewed Mr. Martinez, Ms. Vienes was still alive?
AS: That’s correct.
TB: As far as you knew, she was still stable at that time>
AS: I don’t recall. She was in serious condition. I don’t recall if she was still stable or not.
Solomon states drugs were found in the bathroom of Apt. #6 in the sink and on the toilet bowl.
Cross ends and the witness is excused, subject to recall.
Judge Speer orders the jury back at 10 AM tomorrow.
As the jury files out, I note that Martinez starts biting his nails. He then turns around and looks back at the gallery and smiles. Detective Martin Pinner enters. Detective Pinner is a tall, well built man. As court winds down, I get the opportunity to talk to Detective Townsend about some of the other cases he’s worked on.
Continued on Day 5........
Day 4, Part II......
UPDATE 2/13 added testimony from this days witnesses
UPDATE 2/3 added testimony from first witnesses
January 29, 2015
Defense Opening Statement
Mr. Burns steps up to the podium. Up on the ELMO is a photo. It’s of a young, smiling man with longish hair. Mr. Burns tells the jury, “[A] photo of Mr. Martinez when he hadn’t been punched in the face, and not a booking photo.”
I did not recognize the photo as the defendant. He looks quite different. He's got a big smile on his face.
“And now it’s all drugs. It’s all drug related.”
Murder is ugly, and you’ll see ugliness. It’s sad. “God told Cain he could hear his blood pouring out. .. The DA will try to capitalize on every detail of this [crime?]. ... My client is innocent. He did not do these crimes. ... There’s no evidence...”
All this case is, is DNA. That’s all it’s about. Everything else is to take your focus away from that. He’s [Martinez] a very convenient fall guy. We’ll prove that Mr. Martniez knew Nancy Boehm. Let’s give a better photo of Nancy. ... That’s what she looked like at the time of her death. (I don’t notice that much difference from the prosecution’s photo of Nancy to the defense. Both photos look much better than the photo from the press conference on the FLICKR account.)
She [Nancy] was like a second mother [to Mr. Martinez]. Like an aunt. Shawn was autistic. He was not an idiot. He was slow but he was a friend of my client. He [Shawn? Martinez?] knew him since he was a kid.
He [Martinez] lived basically right across the street from the Boehm’s. His cousin lived right around the corner, and they [all of them?] kind of grew up together.
[Anthony?] and Nancy ... was a drug house. Everyone knew it was a drug house. Mr. Martinez went on in his adulthood to associate with Nancy and his cousin. He’s been in that house a lot. He drank from bottles, used the bathroom; the kitchen; used ... wiped his hands on the towels .... chairs, because he’s there [very?] often. We do not dispute that his DNA was all over that house. They found one [palm print?] ...
Mr. Burns has a short pause then starts again.
Sometimes he went over there to do drugs with Nancy. Sometimes he went over there to play video games with Shawn. He wasn’t a customer; [that’s] wrong. He was like extended family. I believe Mr. Burns mentions the unusual spelling of Nancy and Shawn’s last name, but that it’s pronounced “beem.”
“She was a drug dealer. She was a good woman. My client loved her. He mourned her,” Mr. Burns tells the jury. He tells them it was 1997, the “sex, drugs and rock and roll days.” Back then, it was powdered cocaine. Mr. Burns states that it was wrong, incorrect that no drugs were found in Nancy’s residence. They did find something that this year, that we only found out this year were [not?] drugs, a white powder. There were valuables and money left behind. “A crazy junkie looks for the next high. ... This is not a drug related crime.”
In 1997, September 1997 he hadn’t seen the Bhoem’s for a week because they were pretty much homebodies. He called them several times. Unfortunately, the police did not preserve the voice mail so we can’t show them to you.
Nancy was one who was a phone person. [On the phone a lot?] Then she’s not answering her phone. People got suspicious. On a warm Saturday night after some other friend came over and became concerned. There was a lot of police action and Mr. Martinez came back on his bicycle and he saw the action at his friend’s house and he came over.
That night, as the evidence will show, he told detectives [?] what [he thought?] happened. He tells [officers?] all about his relationship with Nancy, and [that] probably a drug relation did it. He doesn’t know who. Police are asking him did this and he speculates. That he gave them a story to screw up their investigation and told them a story, that’s ridiculous. He would never have shown up there, especially if he had had scratches from a struggle. He would never have shown up there.
DDA Akemon: Objection! Argument!
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Burns continues. As you’ll see from the evidence, his presence here, presented a great deal of contamination. Someone who had DNA knowledge would not show up there. You’ll see a lot of evidence of the other case, for intent. You have to ask why. We don’t dispute that.
There is no issue of intent here. In fact, it’s part of, we intend to show here, these murders were done very professionally. These were not crazy murders here. These were done professionally. [There had to be more than one person] ... to immobilize the victims somehow.
The only victim in this case .... [does the?] DNA prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Martinez did these murders. ... There’s no DNA on Shawn’s fingernails.
Mr. Burns then talks about that the amount of DNA that was found under Nancy’s fingernails was very “molecular,” a very small amount. Mr. Burns tells the jury that the perpetrator is still at large. Burns states that the defense will show that there are great gaps in DNA technology. This was 1997.
“Let’s put this in context,” Mr. Burns tells the jury. “Just to bring you back there. ... President Clinton has begun his first term, before we had learned of Monica Lewinsky. ... Mike Tyson bit an ear in a fight. ... Microsoft was the most valuable corporation and Apple was losing money. ... Princess Diana had died. ... All the water under the bridge since then. ... And remember the technology back then. .... [The most advanced phone?] ... a Motorola flip phone. ... DVD’s had come back just then. ... A new computer [operating system?] was Windows 95. ... [If you?] wanted to connect to the Internet, connect with AOL or Prodigy. ... Google was not a word.”
1997 technology ... so was DNA. Back then, when you found DNA on someone’s fingernails you could see it. It was particles. It was a hunk of skin you could actually see it. Not so today. You weren’t worried about contamination as we’re worried about it today. DNA testing [today?] was not your daddy’s DNA.
Mr. Burns briefly explains to the jury what DNA is. I’m not positive, but I believe he slightly pauses over ‘deoxyribonucelic acid’ the full, scientific name of DNA. He tells the jury that 99.9% of your DNA is the same. Mr. Burns adds, “However, scientists have learned how to focus on locations, loci on the molecule that have something called a polymorphism. .. That 1.1 percent that’s different. Short random repeats, that repeat different, at different lengths. No one knows what they do yet, but people have different lengths of them. ... They have machines that can measure the different lengths of them.”
PCR, amplifies DNA that you can grow more of them. ... Grow enough DNA to test it in machines. Amplify it. Cool machines that distinguish the different length of the genes.
This technical talk that Mr. Burns is engaged in is slightly different than what I’m used to, hearing from criminalist DNA testimony, so it’s a little difficult to follow. I try to pick up from where I stopped typing.
“It’s actually a revolution, finding traces of DNA on bullets, on firearms. It’s revolutionized the way we look at DNA.”
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m not going to dispute that molecular DNA was found on the fingernails of Nanch Boehm. We actually tested it ourselves and we put it to harder testing than the prosecution did. We found a ... we found Shawn’s DNA on Nancy as well. We found Nancy’s DNA on Shawn. I don’t think anyone’s going to say that Nancy had a [hand in Shawn’s death?].
Neither experts will be able to tell you where this DNA comes from. Whether it’s skin, blood, saliva, snot or whatever, or the many body fluids that have DNA. They’re not going to tell you how it got there without speculating. Nor will they be able to tell you how much is on these nails, whether it’s billions of a gram or trillions of a gram. And no one will be able to tell you if it came directly from Mr. Martinez or transferred from something else.
These are also not your usual fingernails and not your usual environment. [I believe Mr. Burns is referencing the messy and cluttered nature of Nancy’s home.]
The noon lunch break is called.
1:36 PM
The defendant is brought out. We go back on the record. Judge Speer calls for the bailiff to bring in the jury.
1:37 PM
The jury files in. The prosecution and detective stand. Burns continues with his opening statement.
“Afternoon folks,” Mr. Burns greets the jury. “Afternoon,” they reply.
“I was talking about the revolution in DNA and molecules and DNA that could fly all over this house.”
These were not regular fingernails, and where these fingernails are, on a daily basis. Mr. Burns puts up a photo of Nancy Boehm’s right hand. “None of these nails were broken,” Mr. Burns points out to the jury. Then a photo of Nancy’s left hand is shown to the jurors. Mr. Burns points out the length of the nails. “Obviously, she took some time to grow them." ... Now here’s the environment that these nails are always in.”
Mr. Burns puts up a photo of the living room. It’s very cluttered, packed with things.
“Look closely. You can see dust lying all over the place. ... A very cluttered, packed house. ... My client’s palm print was found on that coffee table.”
Another photo, I believe of the dining room. It’s also crammed with stuff. I can’t even see a dining table. There is a printer. I see food that has dropped on the floor. Another photo of the kitchen. I see empty beer and alcohol bottles stacked up in the kitchen. The hallway was filled with stuff, too.
“My client’s DNA would be all over their house. ... They touch their hands, DNA all over the place.”
Mr. Burns now gives examples of how DNA is transferred to objects. He puts up photos of people crying. Now a photo of a person’s sweaty palm. Now, photos of people touching their face, eyes. One of the photos is of Simon Cowell, from the American Idol TV show. While the photos are being shown, Mr. Burns is explaining the examples of how DNA is spread to objects, surfaces. DNA could be left on fingernails, or left on surfaces.
The defense states that, they are saying that, this is not evidence, given the fact that Mr. Martinez came into this residence on many instances. He went to the bathroom. He washed his face. This is not evidence. This is circumstantial evidence. There are a million reasons why this is not evidence. This house was not under ideal laboratory conditions.
“We agree DNA is a means of identifying people. We’re challenging the conclusion that DNA found under the fingernails [indicates?]...”
This the 1990’s. It’s not this century where we know DNA can be transferred from a touch, a sneeze, a hand.
“They were killed like lambs. ... There was no struggle. ... There’s no evidence there ever was a struggle.”
In the other case, the individuals had defense wounds. In the Boehm case, the victims were in separate rooms. How could this be done? Could one person do this? There’s no evidence that a struggle took place at all. ... There may have been someone else holding the victims.
What does the DNA evidence show? It shows nothing more than what it shows. Mr. Martinez told police he was in their house all the time. He was their friend. It’s what he told them.
I hate to talk about this other case, because it’s on the [intention?] of intent, so I have to talk about it. I submit that what happened was what my client said on that tape. He turned himself in on that matter. She [Luz] left the apartment walking and talking. It’s different from the Boehm case, where they were professionally killed. The knife wounds were all in a cluster.
Mr. Burns talks about the wounds to Luz Nieves neck. “You can imagine two people struggling for a sharp object. It’s what my client said, is what happened.”
I see that Martinez watches his counsel give his opening statement.
“That all happened in a minute, two minutes. The neighbors heard an argument, and then, bam! Boom! It was over. That was a lot different. There’s no intent to kill in that case and there was no intent to kill in this case. So whatever evidence that they have in the Boehm case ...
They have Mr. Callahan. Maybe, accuses Mr. Martinez now; [we first heard this from] him in April 2014. He always takes the side of detectives; their most promising suspect. He’s previously given statements in 1997, he said in ... that Nancy was [afraid] ...
DDA Akemon: Objection! [We litigated this.]
I believe Judge Speer rules in the prosecution’s favor. The defense requests a sidebar. Judge Speer takes a sidebar.
1:56 PM
Back on the record. The court rules. The objection was sustained and the last statement by counsel was stricken.
Mr. Burns continues. Mr. Callahan was interviewed twice in 1997 and once in 1998 and never mentioned Mr. Martinez as a possible suspect. Mr. Burns then mentions the mental gymnastics, that he mentioned in voir dire, when he was asking the jurors if they can do it.
“You’re going to ... like I said, the mental gymnastics here, is to disregard that other crime for no other purpose than intent. The intent is not in dispute. You should disregard completely that other crime. This man is innocent. He’s a very convenient fall guy. Once you see the DNA evidence you should acquit him.
The defense is finished with their opening statement and the people call their first witness.
UPDATE 2/3 added testimony from first witnesses
#1. Hugh Martin. LAPD firefighter-paramedic. Currently on assignment on Mulholland Drive, above Encino. He’s been on the job since 1984; 30 years. He’s been a paramedic approimately 22 years. He’s asked what his assignment was on May 10, 2001.
HM: I was working overtime, on fire station 60 as a paramedic on the rescue. ... That day I was working over time. ... The other paramedic was a guy, Barocas.
They received a call at 1:30 in the morning and they were dispatched to the Bonner address. People’s exhibit #1, an overview map of the streets of that area. The witness identifies the star on the map where the Bonner Avenue address was where he responded to the scene. He recalls the nature of the call. “We were dispatched to an incident where there was a stabbing, Martin answers.
Station 60 is in North Hollywood on Cahuenga. It took about 7-8 minutes to arrive at the location. There was a male patient out in front of the location on the ground. He was bleeding profusely. That was Martin’s number one concern. They immediately administered medical treatment. The victim had stab wounds on the top part of his body. There was so much blood, you couldn’t tell how many.
Photo of an apartment building, people’s exhibit #2. There is an arrow pointing to a window on the top floor that says, “Apartment #6.” The witness identifies the photo and states they parked right beside the telephone pole in the photo. Using the laser pointer, he identifies an area in the street directly in front of the building. This is where they saw the first victim.
They were told that there was a second patient upstairs. Firefighter Barocas went upstairs and he informed the witness they had a much more serious patient upstairs. Another fire station paramedic unit responded to the scene. Martin and his partner asked the second crew to look after the man in the street and they went upstairs to find the second patient.
Martin testifies that when he first encountered the second victim, “She was still lucid; somewhat hysterical,” Martin states. Her wounds were all in the upper torso, the upper neck. Another firefighter was assisting her. She was upstairs in a unit. Martin states the paramedics were afraid she would “bleed out” so they did what they call a “scoop and run.” They transported her to the hospital. [A man from?] Engine 60 was driving and there was an LAPD officer inside the “RA” [ambulance].
HM: It was hard because we were in the ambulance driving as fast as we could and she would say something.
The uniformed LAPD officer would ask, “Who did that to you?” It took them about 12 minutes to get to Holy Cross Hospital. Martin acted as a translator for the LAPD officer. He told the officer, She said, “Junebug. Junebug did this.” Towards the end, Martin testifies she was going in and out of consciousness. The other man, Mr. Santos was brought to the hospital. After he turned the patient over to Holy Cross, he had no more contact with the female victim.
HM: Without immediate help, she was going to die.
TB: Objection!
JS: Sustained! Lack of foundation.
DDA Akemon lays the foundation with the next set of questions. He asks Martin about his training as a paramedic. Martin has seen approximately 150 people stabbed. Approximately 200 people shot.
DA: How many people have you seen die?
HM: Three or four hundred.
I believe Mr. Burns still objects and is allowed to question the witness on his knowledge and ability to diagnose. Eventually, I believe the court over rules Mr. Burns’ objection.
Burns continues with cross.
TB: Did Ms. Nieves say, and I quote, Junebug stabbed me and Mr. Santos?
HM: She just mentioned one person.
TB: She didn’t mention anyone else being stabbed?
HM: No.
She was lucid to name, place and orientation. He [Santos?[ was hysterical that she was hurt very badly. By the time Martin got to Luz she was lying down in a period of treatment.
My stomach is growling. I hope I make it to the break.
Unfortunately, I do not believe I accurately documented when the direct was finished and when cross began for this witness.
#2. Raffi Djabourian - Senior Deputy Medical Examiner (ME) for Los Angeles County. He’s been a deputy coroner about 16 years. He’s experienced in forensic pathology. He’s a licensed doctor in the state of California. A deputy ME is another name for a forensic pathologist. It’s someone who examines dead bodies, and determines the manner of death.
On May 15, 2001, he performed the post mortem examination on Luz Nieves, coroner case number 2001 03585.
UPDATE 2/13/15
Continuing with the ME's testimony.
It was clear that she had been hospitalized and that she had sustained injuries to her body. She had sharp force injuries, stab wounds that penetrated into the body. She had 14 sharp force injuries.
The ME goes through her injuries, outlining which injuries were non-fatal and which were not. A wound labeled #2 was fatal and #3 (connected because of the surgical intervention) was not. Wound #2, to the neck, cut the left jugular vein and a portion of the left carotid artery. Wound #3 cut muscle but did not cut major blood vessels in the neck. There were strokes of the brain as a result of hypoxsis, lack of oxygen. The ME explains a stroke. Lack of enough blood to the brain is a major cause of stroke.
There are more questions about stroke, and treatment, etc. Other injuries are discussed. Wound #6, a fatal wound the left arm, was significant because it cut across a major vein and caused bleeding. Wounds numbered 9 through 14 on the hands were considered defensive wounds.
Manner of death is homicide. Cause of death is multiple stab wounds.
Direct is finished and Cross begins.
The date of death was May 10, 2001. Toxicology screening was done. The blood tested negative [for cocaine?]. The result for other tissues was positive for cocaine. Mr. Burns asks about the injury to the hands [The injuries to the hands] ... “are they also consistent with the subject grabbing a hold of the knife, and also consistent with someone pulling it out?” The ME agrees, “That could be also consistent with that scenario.”
At some point, Nieves doctor’s considered her stable. It looks like the effects of lack of oxygen started affecting the brain. People can be operated on, people can be stable, but eventually you can die of a complication. The carotid artery was not cut all the way through, it was basically nicked.
There are questions about specific stab wounds and which direction they traveled and which wounds were superficial.
Cross is finished and no more redirect. The afternoon break is called.
3:00 PM
Back on the record, outside the presence of the jury. A juror has a question. Are they allowed to know if the defendant was convicted. Counsel had not reached a formal stipulation. The defendant pled to manslaughter and assault. Counsel and the court discuss the resolution. Counsel stipulate that they [jury] are informed the defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and assault. The people stipulate to that but request that it should be more accurate. It was a plea agreement and he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Martinez leans into his attorney to chat. He smiles. Martinez often looks back into the gallery. He watches the back of the courtroom as the jury files in. Judge Speer tells the jury the stipulation.
The prosecution calls their next witness.
#3. Sean Anderson, LAPD Officer assigned to Southwest Division. On May 10, 2001 assigned to North Hollywood Division, patrol. He responded to a radio call of an ambulance cutting. He was with a partner, in a black and white. He was the passenger. His partner was Officer Guthrie. He assisted his partner in guiding to the location. He responded Cod 3, which means lights and sirens.
He he arrived he noticed a male Hispanic, covered in blood, on Bonner towards the street. He spoke to that individual very briefly. Anderson’s concern was whether a suspect was still at the scene. He and his partner went to apartment #7 where there was an additional victim at the scene. Officer’s advised Anderson that there was another victim up there. Anderson identifies the building in an exhibit.
Officer Guthrie had been Anderson’s training officer. Anderson had been on the job 8 onths. He had just gotten out of the academy. There were other officers with him, as well as firefighters, paramedics.
Anderson observed lots of blood on the ground. Upstairs, observed a female Hispanic sitting on the [couch?], also covered in blood. She had numerous stab wounds. Anderson was not able to communicate with the woman. Paramedics were working on her. He stood by until getting ready to transport the victim.
He rode in the ambulance with the victim. During the ride he made attempts to communicate with Ms. Nieves. He tried to inquire as to who had done this, who had stabbed her. She responded, but Anderson wasn’t able to hear. What she said was relayed through the firefighter. He documented that the victim said, “Junebug did it.
Direct is finished and cross begins.
The defense presents the witness with a report of the incident. It’s not clear to me who wrote the report. Anderson remembers that the victim relayed that “Junebug had stabbed her.” Mr. Burns confronts Anderson with the report written by another officer. He replies, “I don’t recall Francisco. I just remember ‘Junebug.’ He did not go inside the apartment where the stabbing occurred.
Cross is finished. The next witnessed is called.
#4 Alan Solomon, LAPD detective, currently assigned to gangs and narcotics. 26.5 years on the force, 16 years as a detective. In May 2001, he was one of the two lead investigators on the Nieves and Santos’ case. Martin Pinner was the other.
He arrived at the Nieves and Santos stabbing crime scene around 9 AM. He may need to refresh his memory with the follow up report. The follow up report is dated May 15, 2001. The report states he arrived at the location at 9:00 AM. He was there to check the crime scene. His role was to be in charge of processing the crime scene. The apartment was at the top floor of an apartment building. Identifies through exhibits where the crime occurred, as the residence of the murder victim and the attempted murder victim. And, it was the crime scene.
People’s exhibit #6, photo of the top of the stairs, right out side the front door of apartment #6. He noticed blood around the front door, on the door and on the staircase itself.
Solomon is shown people’s exhibit #9, the floor plan of the apartment and describes various areas of the apartment. On the map, the hallway closet door is directly across from the door to the master bedroom. Solomon states blood was found in various spots in the living room. There was blood in the hallway around the entry door to the bedroom.
People’s exhibit #10, photo depicting the coffeetable that was in between two sofas. On the coffee table Solomon found blod droplets. The witness points out other areas where blood was found in the photo.
People’s exhibit #11, two photos. Hallway on the south side facing toward the living room area. Placards #1 and #2 can be seen attached to the wall, on the door jam into the master bedroom. I note that there is quite a bit of smeared blood on this door and door jam. People’s exhibit #12 photos of the broken door jam to the master bedroom.
I take a short break from typing as the detective points out various items in the photos.
Direct ends and cross examination begins.
Money with blood on it was found along with small rocks of cocaine. 6.68 gross grams, in apartment #7 with the victim.
TB: When you interviewed Mr. Martinez, Ms. Vienes was still alive?
AS: That’s correct.
TB: As far as you knew, she was still stable at that time>
AS: I don’t recall. She was in serious condition. I don’t recall if she was still stable or not.
Solomon states drugs were found in the bathroom of Apt. #6 in the sink and on the toilet bowl.
Cross ends and the witness is excused, subject to recall.
Judge Speer orders the jury back at 10 AM tomorrow.
As the jury files out, I note that Martinez starts biting his nails. He then turns around and looks back at the gallery and smiles. Detective Martin Pinner enters. Detective Pinner is a tall, well built man. As court winds down, I get the opportunity to talk to Detective Townsend about some of the other cases he’s worked on.
Continued on Day 5........
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Rafael Martinez, Jr., Trial - Day 4, Opening Statements Part II
Exclusive T&T coverage can be found HERE.
Day 4, Part I.....
Thursday, January 29, 2014
10:30 AM
I move up to the second row, directly beside the large screen in the gallery. The bailiff makes it clear to me that if my laptop typing becomes a distraction to the attorneys, I will not be able to use it. I tell her I understand that I may have to switch to hand notes.
Dept. V
Let me describe the courtroom. Many of the courtrooms in the Van Nuys West Courthouse are mirror images of each other. Like the courtrooms at the downtown criminal court building, this room is not very deep but it is wide. The gallery consists of approximately 61 fix individual stadium type folding seats. There are also a few comfortable portable chairs in the gallery. I sat in one by the back courtroom door during jury selection so I could charge my laptop while writing.
There are three sections of seats in the gallery. On the far left and far right, there are five rows of four seats each. The row of seats directly in front of the jury box are used as jury seats 15 through 18.
There are two long rows of 9 seats in the center, and behind that, one short row of about four seats. The empty space to the right of the third row is currently taken up by the video screen where exhibits will be shown to the jury.
Separating the gallery from the well of the court is a low, half wall. There are two little swinging type doors in this wall, one on the left beside the bailiff's desk and one on the right near the jury box. The little door in the left, it looks like it's been replaced at some time in the past because the wood is a completely different color than the wood desk and the courts bench.
The back wall behind the bench is a beautiful yellow oak color. The small walls and desks closely match this color. The side and entry walls are covered in a light green [I believe] wallpaper, while the folding gallery seats are covered in a dark green material. There is a large, half round, yellow oak chair rail that runs around the side and entry walls of the courtroom that matches the wood desks.
The Well
On the far left, right next to the first row of gallery seats is the bailiff’s desk. It is not surrounded by plexiglass like the 9th floor courtrooms. Moving towards the back on the left side wall is the door to the custody area. This is where defendants who are in custody are kept and how they enter the courtroom.
There are large file cabinets next to the bailiffs desk. There is also a low credenza for file trays and there’s a copier and other office things in this far left corner area. Beyond that, moving to the right and against the back wall is an exit door to a private hallway. I expect this hallway leads to Judge Speer’s private chambers as well as the back hallway that connects to private elevators and other courtrooms.
To the right of this door, and forward, directly beside Judge Speer's bench is the court clerk’s desk. There is a short walkway with steps between the back wall and the clerk's desk for Judge Speer to get to the bench. The clerks desk is attached to and faces the side of the bench. The clerk's laptop is on a desk arm to her left, so when she's using it her back is to the gallery. There are cabinets with files and things piled high that sort of surround the clerks desk, so it's difficult to see her from where I sit.
In the center of the courtroom back wall is the bench. Right behind the judge to the right (judge’s left) is a tall, palm type plant. Moving right from the bench and slightly forward like the clerk's desk is the witness box. The witness box sits higher than the well but lower than the bench. Just right of the witness box on the back wall is another door that exits out to the back hallway. This is the door that I expect the jurors will go through to reach the jury room. On the far right of the well, is the jury box. there are 14 seats in the jury box.
I’m looking for candy dishes but I don’t see any at the clerk’s desk. There is a small, bamboo type plant on the bailiff’s desk.
Waiting
In the gallery to my left, there are four people who by their dress and lanyards appear to be clerks or other types of staff with the court. I ask and the young people confirm to me that they are interns, working for the court.
A woman that DDA Akemon and I seem to recognize enters and sits in the front row. She hands a business card to the deputy. Defense attorney Burns recognizes her and they chat. I believe this woman was at one point, a prospective juror that was excused by the prosecution. If memory and my notes serve me right, I believe she was at one point, potential juror #16. She indicated her occupation was “life coach” and she had at one time worked for law firms as a paralegal.
10:39 AM
The defendant is brought out. Judge Speer takes the bench. There is a tall man sitting directly in front of me. I can’t see the judge but I can see the witness box. That’s what I’m most concerned about.
10:40AM
The jury is brought in. The noise from the projection unit is making enough noise to cover the sound of my typing.
DDA Akemon begins.
Prosecution Opening Statement
A photo of the defendant is put up on the screen. It’s the same photo that is on the Flickr site.
“This is a case about the defendant Rafael Martinez blood thirsty and deadly quest for drugs, and the trail of bodies that he left behind.
Mr. Burns interrupts. “Objection your honor. That’s against, contrary to all our prior [motions? rulings?]".... The court rules, “Over ruled.”
DDA Akemon continues, “What you will learn in this case ... when defendant Martinez doesn’t get the drugs he wants he goes for the throat. ... The carnage began in the summer of 1997, 17 years ago. Nancy Bohem, who was 57 years old, lived in North Hollywood with her 23 year old son Shawn.”
Nancy was laid off from her job at General Motors and started to sell cocaine. Shawn had the mental capacity of a 13 year old child and he competed in the Special Olympics. What Nancy didn’t know, was that her fateful decision to do drugs would bring her and her son face to face with a killer.
Rafael Martinez was a cocaine addict who would stop at nothing to get a fix. Saturday, September 20, 1997 at about 9 PM, police officers from LAPD were sent to Nancy and Shawn's residence. They had not been seen or heard from for some time. When officers entered the home, they were met with the overwhelming smell of death. They found Nancy and Shawn stabbed, their bodies decomposing. Nancy was stabbed 14 times in the neck. In a bedroom down the hall they found Shawn. He had been attacked in his bed and stabbed around 15 times in the upper body and neck.
Detectives started their investigation immediately. Martinez showed up immediately at the residence. He told police he was a concerned friend of the family. And he told police that maybe a gang called the Mexican Mafia or maybe a gang called the Aryan Brotherhood, or maybe is was a Colombian drug dealer. Martinez told detectives he had not seen Nancy or Shawn in a week. Turns out, he was actually the true killer. He went to Nancy and Shawn’s home on a quest to get high and lied to police to cover his tracks.
The people will prove that he intended to mislead detectives and find out what detectives knew in order to cover his tracks in case someone pointed to him as the killer. The investigation will show that it was someone Nancy knew.
Nancy had a very strict policy and procedure about who was allowed to come and go from the home. Anyone who came to the home would first have to come to the gate and ring the bell. Shawn would have to know the person to be allowed to let them in. Martinez lived 1/2 mile away. Friends of Nancy will testify they had seen him in the home prior, purchasing cocaine. Evidence will show he was searching for drugs.
While Nancy slept in a back bedroom, she did her transactions in another bedroom where drugs and her body were found. Police did not find a drug stash in the house. Several of Nancy’s purses were dumped out and scattered around her body. Personal valuables were left at the scene and not taken.
No cocaine stash was found at at the scene, indicating that the murder was a dope rip-off, and not to take other valuables. Nancy’s friends observed Martinez grow increasingly aggressive towards her. Robert Callahan (sp?) will testify he was friends with Nancy and Shawn. Nancy sometimes granted his [witness? Martinez?] request to have cocaine on credit, and pay later. Mr. Callahan will recount when he saw Rafael throw a tantrum and scream at Nancy. Christine Salmas was also a friend of Nancy’s and she will testify that she saw the defendant come into Nancy’s home, buy cocaine, throw a tantrum and Nancy hand to calm him down.
It wasn’t until 2005 that detectives uncovered evidence. DNA experts found the defendant's DNA under Nancy’s fingernails. A DNA expert will testify for the prosecution in this case that evidence found under the fingernails is evidence of a violent struggle. The prosecution will prove that the defendant's DNA under the victims fingernails, proves that Nancy was grabbing at the defendant, and attached while she was being stabbed to death and struggling to save her own life. The defendant knew that Shawn would be able to identify him as the attacker. The defendant stabbed Shawn to death.
As detectives began to focus their investigation on defendant Rafael Martinez, they found out that four year after the killings, that Mr. Martienz struck again. He killed his new drug dealer under similar circumstances.
On May 10, 2001, Rafael Martinez was back to buying cocaine, from Luz Nieves, who also goes by the name of Nellie. Mr. Martinez again tried to get his cocaine on credit. When she refused he returned to her home a few hours later wearing a bullet proof vest and stabbed her to death. Defendant Martinez stabbed her 14 times. Evidence will show that was the same number of stab wounds as suffered by Nancy.
The crime differs in one critical aspect. When defendant Martinez turned his knife on her roommate, Francisco Santos, Mr. Santos fought back and survived. Mr. Santos will testify that after hearing Luz Nieves scream, ‘Why are you doing this to me!’ and seeing Nieves holding her hands to her neck, he was attacked by Rafael Martienz and stabbed in the head and arms. He was able to fight off Mr. Martinez who then fled, just as he did after killing Nancy and Shawn.
He again tried to cover his tracks. He told police that it was Luz who attacked him with the knife. The evidence will show the exact opposite. Martinez was on a quest to get high and angered that he had been refused to get cocaine on credit. He stabbed his dealer then stabbed the roommate. He was convicted of the attack on Luz and Santos.
Nancy Boehm. Francisco Santos. Luz Nieves. Rafael aka ‘Junebug’ aka Junior.
DDA Akemon then reviews the timeline of events for the jurors. I believe there is an overview map up on the ELMO of the North Hollywood streets. There are markers to show where Nancy and Shawn lived, where the defendant lived with his grandmother and where Luz and Francisco lived. It shows how close Martinez lived to all the victims. Also included are photos of the victims and the defendant attached to the named residences. I note that the photo of Shawn shows a happy, smiling young man.
During the time of both attacks, Martinez was living at his grandmothers house. That residence was equal distance between the two crime scenes. The photo of Nancy that's by her residence is a much younger photo of her than what’s on the Flicker page. The photo of Shawn is of a smiling, happy looking young man.
1997
Nancy and her son Shawn are discovered stabbed to death in their residence, approximately 1/2 mile from Martinez’s residence. The investigation goes cold.
2001
The defendant went to buy drugs from a female drug connection Luz Nieves on credit and is denied. He returned hours later wearing a bullet proof vest and stabbed Luz to death and stabbed her male roommate, Francisco Santos, multiple times.
2001
Defendant Rafael arrested for Nieves and Santos knife attacks.
2005-2006
Detectives reopen the Boehm investigation and order DNA testing of Nancy and Shawn’s fingernails. Foreign male DNA was detected under Nancy’s fingernails. The samples were sent to a private DNA lab, CELLMARK, in Texas (in addition to the LAPD lab), to see what they can find.
During that time frame is when the lab in Texas reported back to LAPD that in testing Nancy's fingernail clippings they detected a male DNA profile. It was from somebody, they just didn’t know who.
2009
With the male DNA detected, an LAPD analyst started working on the DNA profile to get a match. Because of her work, she will tell you all about it, she matched the DNA to the defendant.
2009
Martinez was arrested and charged with the murders of Nancy and Shawn Boehm.
1997 Crime Scene
DDA Akemon shows the jurors photos of the outside of Nancy & Shawn’s home. It’s at night and there is crime scene tape in front. A family friend found the bodies. Nancy Boehm probably had some emotional problems. Her house was very much in disarray. It was not a clean residence. A close up photo shows the Boehm residence. There were old junk cars in the driveway [I counted four.] In the lower right of the photo, there is a gate and walkway leading up to the front door.
The iron gate is right beside the edge of the garage near the street. There is another photo. You can see the gate and that there is foliage and plants growing up the side of the garage, and up high on the other side of the narrow walkway. “This is a drug dealer’s home. So who comes and goes is governed pretty strictly,” DDA Akemon tells the jury.
We are presented with diagram showing the floor plan of the home and outlines of where Nancy and Shawn were found in the home. Next, we see photos of how Nancy and Shawn were found. It’s quite sad. Shawn was on his knees, a face down position beside the bed. He was directly beside his bed. Nancy is on her back, on a small bed. Nancy's face is blocked out in the photo.
“Some would consider her [Nancy] a hoarder. You’ll see photographs of the living room. It’s packed with junk,” DDA Akemon explains.
Nancy was found in a bedroom, but not the bedroom she slept in. It’s clear from the photos, Ms. Boehm’s body, she is face up with her hands out. She was in a condition of decomposition. When her body was first found, it was covered with junk mail and documents. The room and her things appeared to be ransacked.
It’s now that I note that the defendant is turned around in his seat and looking at the photos. The defendant’s right elbow is resting on the arm of the chair and his right hand is covering his mouth. Martinez stares at the screen with the information on the screen and the photos of the victims. Martinez doesn't show any emotion looking at the photos.
Shawn’s bedroom was very cluttered. His body was in the middle of the room. He’s in a head down position. More photos are shown of the bed, and the bloody bedspread. DDA Akemon explains to the jurors what they are seeing. The blood on the bed spread, that blood pooling is probably where the attack started. Shawn was probably attacked while he was in bed. The close up photo of his body; it’s a very bloody scene with blood all over Shawn and on the floor.
More photos are shown of Nancy and the condition she was in when she was discovered. There are numerous bags and purses around her and at her feet. In the photo, DDA Akemon points out the drug paraphernalia; the plates for drugs with straws and a scale.
The defendant keeps looking at the photos. Close up photo is presented of the left side of Nancy's neck and the multiple stab wounds. There is a fatal wound to the upper left side of her neck. The other 13 stab wounds were clustered on her neck, just under the chin.
Shawn was stabbed 11 times. Now another photo of Shawn’s body, showing the stab wounds in the back of his neck and under his right ear. On the right side of his neck, wound #10 was a fatal wound.
DNA
DDA Akemon tells the jury they will hear from numerous DNA experts but in the end, the bottom line, the DNA is his [defendant’s]. In 2005-2006 the DNA expert took Nancy's fingernail clippings from each hand, combined them and then tested them and came up with defendant Rafael Martinez’s DNA under Ms. Boehm’s nails. That’s indicative of a violent struggle.
A colored chart is put up of the DNA results. The defendant’s DNA, Nancy’s DNA and then the mixture DNA that was found under Nancy’s fingernails. When they did the statistical analysis, they would have to look at 1 in 3.297 billion people, before they had another two people that would look like that mixture profile.
2001 Knife Attacks
The jury may compare the 2001 attack with the 1997 attack for the limited purpose of determining the defendant’s intent.
Photo of the apartment building of Nieves and Santos. There is a photo of Nieves’ neck wound. It’s not the way it looked when it happened. The photo is after surgeons tried to repair the damage. DDA Akemon shows the jury a succession of photos involving the 2001 attack. Photos of the surviving victim, Francisco Santos. The defendant turns around to look at the images on the ELMO. I don’t see any emotion on his face. As I watch the defendant, he keeps looking back at the screen and looking back at the gallery.
The opening is interrupted while a juror takes a restroom break, then we’re right back on the record.
Martinez turns around. He keeps his fingers over his mouth, his elbow resting on the arm of the chair.
“[We] expect you will hear testimony in this case that after he attacked, he fled. The fire department arrived very quickly, and some of the first responders found Mr. Santos bleeding in the middle of the street. ... As soon as they realized there was someone else in the house, they broke off [from treating Mr. Santos] and went in to assist Ms. Nieves.”
The attack started in apartment #6. The victim was able to run down the hallway and ended up in apartment #7. The neighbors were assisting her when she ran for help. Photos of the interior of the apartment are put up on the screen. It was a chaotic scene. A diagram sketch of the apartment floor plan is put up on the ELMO. There are red lines on the sketch, showing the major blood trail, investigators found. Martinez's blood was there also. He may have been injured in that attack. There’s a blood trail on the stairs, into the living room, on the coffee table and then into the bedroom. More photos of the 2001 attack showing the blood trail. Akemon explains to the jurors the orientation in the photos. One photo shows a significant amount of smeared blood on the walls in the hallway and around the master bedroom door jam.
Mr. Santos retreated into this bedroom when he was attacked. Mr. Santos comes out of the bathroom while the attack on Luz is underway and that’s when Martinez attacks Mr. Santos.
More photos of where Luz ended up in apartment #7 and the blood trail. Firemen and police found her in apartment 7. Luz was taken to the hospital, where she died of a stroke related to blood loss. She had 14 stab wounds. One to the eye, a total of three to the neck and just under her chin. Two injuries in her neck were opened to save her life. There were numerous, defensive wounds on her right hand.
Francisco Santos had approximately 15 stab wounds. Photos of him and his wounds all over his face are put up on the ELMO.
LAPD Detectives Pinner and Solomon investigate the case and they quickly identify Martinez as a suspect in this case.
A person named ‘Junebug,’ short for a person named junior. The detectives interview Mr. Santos. Santos’ interview is played for the jurors, and the text of the conversation appears on the screen. It goes so fast I can barely catch half of the conversation.
Santos tells detectives that the defendant came and got the rock and he didn’t pay. He got it on credit. He left. He came back again. He was wearing a bullet proof vest and something similar on his legs also.
Detective: How did he seem to you?
Santos: He looked like he was on speed or something. A lot different from when he came over and acted before.
[...]
Santos: I went into the bathroom. ... When I flushed the toilet, I heard [her?] cry.
Detective: So you heard her say in Spanish, Why are you doing this and why are you doing this to me?
Santos:(Yes.)
Santos ran into Nellie’s room and tried to reach the metal bat, and Martinez broke the door down.
Santos: He was stabbing me, stabbing me on my back head and stabbing me on my face. ... I was too weak and my arms started hurting too much. ... So I faded out ... lost control of my arm. I would just fade out. ... So somehow, I managed to push his ass out of [the apartment and onto the] stairs and he held onto my shirt and kind of .... then he stabbed me behind my head...
After detectives interview Santos, they arrest him [Martinez] and they interview him. He gave a statement. DDA Akemon plays an audio of the interview of the defendant by Detectives Pinner and Solomon. I try my best to take notes from the audio but I don’t do so well. This is just a small snippet of the dialog on the recording.
Martinez: To be honest with you ... I went over there and ... and the first thing out of his mouth was, You’ve got my money. ... And then she started in with me. ... She started telling me how she wanted her money. ... That she can’t [pay her bills?] ... So I’m watching her ... she went into the kitchen ... he went [the other way?] ... she comes out of the kitchen with the knife.
Detective: What are [you] saying? ... She came straight out of the kitchen.... ?
Martinez: Then she come ... I kind of ... and that’s where she had stabbed me ... there... she stabbed me and she was going to stab me again. ... I just grabbed her and Francisco started kicking me, so I'd get off of her ... and you know, I turn around ... I don’t know what happened to that knife.
Martinez gives a story to the detectives that they attacked him. Martinez claims that Santos had a weapon.
Martinez: I’m looking at what he had ... He had a potato peeler or something like that.
Detective: What did you have in your hands?
Martinez: Nothing man. ... I actually punched him. ... As soon as he came out, I actually punched him.
Detective: When she ran out of the apartment, did you notice any injuries on her?
Martinez: I don’t know. ... I never did. ... I had her hand, you know ... and in the mix of us rolling around ...
Detective: Did you at [any] point ever have the knife in your hands? ... Did you ever stab Nellie?
Martinez: Not that I know of.
Detective: So the answer is no?
Martinez: No.
Detective: Did you ever stab Francisco?
Martinez: No.
The prosecution will argue that that is a bold face lie. In connection with this case, compare the similarities. The jury may compare the 2001 attack with the 1997 attack with the limited purpose of intent.
Akemon presents a new overview image of the streets and the closeness of the two locations to Martinez’s grandmother’s residence.
The Drug Connection
There is a drug connection in this case. The victims did not not each other. Both were cocaine dealers, selling to Martinez. Two men and two women. The type of location is similar. These are residences as opposed to businesses, parks or public area. At both scenes we have broken doors. A door was broken down in the Santos residence. And the same thing in the Boehm residence. The door with the yellow sign on it, that’s where Ms. Boehm’s body was found. There is a close up of the door broken into as well. Both are frenzied knife attacks.There’s evidence of similarity as to the number of stab wounds. Nancy 14; Shawn 11; Luz 14; Santos approximately 15. Another area of similarity is the left side of the neck. A knife; a sharp instrument as opposed to a gun or a club. And very similar injuries.
When you’ve heard all the evidence in this case, for the defendant’s blood thirst quest for drugs, that in September 1997, that Rafael with malice and forethought, deliberately and with premeditation, murdered Nancy Boehm and her son and he did it all for drugs.
The prosecution is finished with their opening statement and the defense steps up to the podium.
To be continued in Day 4, Part III.....
Day 4, Part I.....
Thursday, January 29, 2014
10:30 AM
I move up to the second row, directly beside the large screen in the gallery. The bailiff makes it clear to me that if my laptop typing becomes a distraction to the attorneys, I will not be able to use it. I tell her I understand that I may have to switch to hand notes.
Dept. V
Let me describe the courtroom. Many of the courtrooms in the Van Nuys West Courthouse are mirror images of each other. Like the courtrooms at the downtown criminal court building, this room is not very deep but it is wide. The gallery consists of approximately 61 fix individual stadium type folding seats. There are also a few comfortable portable chairs in the gallery. I sat in one by the back courtroom door during jury selection so I could charge my laptop while writing.
There are three sections of seats in the gallery. On the far left and far right, there are five rows of four seats each. The row of seats directly in front of the jury box are used as jury seats 15 through 18.
There are two long rows of 9 seats in the center, and behind that, one short row of about four seats. The empty space to the right of the third row is currently taken up by the video screen where exhibits will be shown to the jury.
Separating the gallery from the well of the court is a low, half wall. There are two little swinging type doors in this wall, one on the left beside the bailiff's desk and one on the right near the jury box. The little door in the left, it looks like it's been replaced at some time in the past because the wood is a completely different color than the wood desk and the courts bench.
The back wall behind the bench is a beautiful yellow oak color. The small walls and desks closely match this color. The side and entry walls are covered in a light green [I believe] wallpaper, while the folding gallery seats are covered in a dark green material. There is a large, half round, yellow oak chair rail that runs around the side and entry walls of the courtroom that matches the wood desks.
The Well
On the far left, right next to the first row of gallery seats is the bailiff’s desk. It is not surrounded by plexiglass like the 9th floor courtrooms. Moving towards the back on the left side wall is the door to the custody area. This is where defendants who are in custody are kept and how they enter the courtroom.
There are large file cabinets next to the bailiffs desk. There is also a low credenza for file trays and there’s a copier and other office things in this far left corner area. Beyond that, moving to the right and against the back wall is an exit door to a private hallway. I expect this hallway leads to Judge Speer’s private chambers as well as the back hallway that connects to private elevators and other courtrooms.
To the right of this door, and forward, directly beside Judge Speer's bench is the court clerk’s desk. There is a short walkway with steps between the back wall and the clerk's desk for Judge Speer to get to the bench. The clerks desk is attached to and faces the side of the bench. The clerk's laptop is on a desk arm to her left, so when she's using it her back is to the gallery. There are cabinets with files and things piled high that sort of surround the clerks desk, so it's difficult to see her from where I sit.
In the center of the courtroom back wall is the bench. Right behind the judge to the right (judge’s left) is a tall, palm type plant. Moving right from the bench and slightly forward like the clerk's desk is the witness box. The witness box sits higher than the well but lower than the bench. Just right of the witness box on the back wall is another door that exits out to the back hallway. This is the door that I expect the jurors will go through to reach the jury room. On the far right of the well, is the jury box. there are 14 seats in the jury box.
I’m looking for candy dishes but I don’t see any at the clerk’s desk. There is a small, bamboo type plant on the bailiff’s desk.
Waiting
In the gallery to my left, there are four people who by their dress and lanyards appear to be clerks or other types of staff with the court. I ask and the young people confirm to me that they are interns, working for the court.
A woman that DDA Akemon and I seem to recognize enters and sits in the front row. She hands a business card to the deputy. Defense attorney Burns recognizes her and they chat. I believe this woman was at one point, a prospective juror that was excused by the prosecution. If memory and my notes serve me right, I believe she was at one point, potential juror #16. She indicated her occupation was “life coach” and she had at one time worked for law firms as a paralegal.
10:39 AM
The defendant is brought out. Judge Speer takes the bench. There is a tall man sitting directly in front of me. I can’t see the judge but I can see the witness box. That’s what I’m most concerned about.
10:40AM
The jury is brought in. The noise from the projection unit is making enough noise to cover the sound of my typing.
DDA Akemon begins.
Prosecution Opening Statement
A photo of the defendant is put up on the screen. It’s the same photo that is on the Flickr site.
“This is a case about the defendant Rafael Martinez blood thirsty and deadly quest for drugs, and the trail of bodies that he left behind.
Mr. Burns interrupts. “Objection your honor. That’s against, contrary to all our prior [motions? rulings?]".... The court rules, “Over ruled.”
DDA Akemon continues, “What you will learn in this case ... when defendant Martinez doesn’t get the drugs he wants he goes for the throat. ... The carnage began in the summer of 1997, 17 years ago. Nancy Bohem, who was 57 years old, lived in North Hollywood with her 23 year old son Shawn.”
Nancy was laid off from her job at General Motors and started to sell cocaine. Shawn had the mental capacity of a 13 year old child and he competed in the Special Olympics. What Nancy didn’t know, was that her fateful decision to do drugs would bring her and her son face to face with a killer.
Rafael Martinez was a cocaine addict who would stop at nothing to get a fix. Saturday, September 20, 1997 at about 9 PM, police officers from LAPD were sent to Nancy and Shawn's residence. They had not been seen or heard from for some time. When officers entered the home, they were met with the overwhelming smell of death. They found Nancy and Shawn stabbed, their bodies decomposing. Nancy was stabbed 14 times in the neck. In a bedroom down the hall they found Shawn. He had been attacked in his bed and stabbed around 15 times in the upper body and neck.
Detectives started their investigation immediately. Martinez showed up immediately at the residence. He told police he was a concerned friend of the family. And he told police that maybe a gang called the Mexican Mafia or maybe a gang called the Aryan Brotherhood, or maybe is was a Colombian drug dealer. Martinez told detectives he had not seen Nancy or Shawn in a week. Turns out, he was actually the true killer. He went to Nancy and Shawn’s home on a quest to get high and lied to police to cover his tracks.
The people will prove that he intended to mislead detectives and find out what detectives knew in order to cover his tracks in case someone pointed to him as the killer. The investigation will show that it was someone Nancy knew.
Nancy had a very strict policy and procedure about who was allowed to come and go from the home. Anyone who came to the home would first have to come to the gate and ring the bell. Shawn would have to know the person to be allowed to let them in. Martinez lived 1/2 mile away. Friends of Nancy will testify they had seen him in the home prior, purchasing cocaine. Evidence will show he was searching for drugs.
While Nancy slept in a back bedroom, she did her transactions in another bedroom where drugs and her body were found. Police did not find a drug stash in the house. Several of Nancy’s purses were dumped out and scattered around her body. Personal valuables were left at the scene and not taken.
No cocaine stash was found at at the scene, indicating that the murder was a dope rip-off, and not to take other valuables. Nancy’s friends observed Martinez grow increasingly aggressive towards her. Robert Callahan (sp?) will testify he was friends with Nancy and Shawn. Nancy sometimes granted his [witness? Martinez?] request to have cocaine on credit, and pay later. Mr. Callahan will recount when he saw Rafael throw a tantrum and scream at Nancy. Christine Salmas was also a friend of Nancy’s and she will testify that she saw the defendant come into Nancy’s home, buy cocaine, throw a tantrum and Nancy hand to calm him down.
It wasn’t until 2005 that detectives uncovered evidence. DNA experts found the defendant's DNA under Nancy’s fingernails. A DNA expert will testify for the prosecution in this case that evidence found under the fingernails is evidence of a violent struggle. The prosecution will prove that the defendant's DNA under the victims fingernails, proves that Nancy was grabbing at the defendant, and attached while she was being stabbed to death and struggling to save her own life. The defendant knew that Shawn would be able to identify him as the attacker. The defendant stabbed Shawn to death.
As detectives began to focus their investigation on defendant Rafael Martinez, they found out that four year after the killings, that Mr. Martienz struck again. He killed his new drug dealer under similar circumstances.
On May 10, 2001, Rafael Martinez was back to buying cocaine, from Luz Nieves, who also goes by the name of Nellie. Mr. Martinez again tried to get his cocaine on credit. When she refused he returned to her home a few hours later wearing a bullet proof vest and stabbed her to death. Defendant Martinez stabbed her 14 times. Evidence will show that was the same number of stab wounds as suffered by Nancy.
The crime differs in one critical aspect. When defendant Martinez turned his knife on her roommate, Francisco Santos, Mr. Santos fought back and survived. Mr. Santos will testify that after hearing Luz Nieves scream, ‘Why are you doing this to me!’ and seeing Nieves holding her hands to her neck, he was attacked by Rafael Martienz and stabbed in the head and arms. He was able to fight off Mr. Martinez who then fled, just as he did after killing Nancy and Shawn.
He again tried to cover his tracks. He told police that it was Luz who attacked him with the knife. The evidence will show the exact opposite. Martinez was on a quest to get high and angered that he had been refused to get cocaine on credit. He stabbed his dealer then stabbed the roommate. He was convicted of the attack on Luz and Santos.
Nancy Boehm. Francisco Santos. Luz Nieves. Rafael aka ‘Junebug’ aka Junior.
DDA Akemon then reviews the timeline of events for the jurors. I believe there is an overview map up on the ELMO of the North Hollywood streets. There are markers to show where Nancy and Shawn lived, where the defendant lived with his grandmother and where Luz and Francisco lived. It shows how close Martinez lived to all the victims. Also included are photos of the victims and the defendant attached to the named residences. I note that the photo of Shawn shows a happy, smiling young man.
During the time of both attacks, Martinez was living at his grandmothers house. That residence was equal distance between the two crime scenes. The photo of Nancy that's by her residence is a much younger photo of her than what’s on the Flicker page. The photo of Shawn is of a smiling, happy looking young man.
1997
Nancy and her son Shawn are discovered stabbed to death in their residence, approximately 1/2 mile from Martinez’s residence. The investigation goes cold.
2001
The defendant went to buy drugs from a female drug connection Luz Nieves on credit and is denied. He returned hours later wearing a bullet proof vest and stabbed Luz to death and stabbed her male roommate, Francisco Santos, multiple times.
2001
Defendant Rafael arrested for Nieves and Santos knife attacks.
2005-2006
Detectives reopen the Boehm investigation and order DNA testing of Nancy and Shawn’s fingernails. Foreign male DNA was detected under Nancy’s fingernails. The samples were sent to a private DNA lab, CELLMARK, in Texas (in addition to the LAPD lab), to see what they can find.
During that time frame is when the lab in Texas reported back to LAPD that in testing Nancy's fingernail clippings they detected a male DNA profile. It was from somebody, they just didn’t know who.
2009
With the male DNA detected, an LAPD analyst started working on the DNA profile to get a match. Because of her work, she will tell you all about it, she matched the DNA to the defendant.
2009
Martinez was arrested and charged with the murders of Nancy and Shawn Boehm.
1997 Crime Scene
DDA Akemon shows the jurors photos of the outside of Nancy & Shawn’s home. It’s at night and there is crime scene tape in front. A family friend found the bodies. Nancy Boehm probably had some emotional problems. Her house was very much in disarray. It was not a clean residence. A close up photo shows the Boehm residence. There were old junk cars in the driveway [I counted four.] In the lower right of the photo, there is a gate and walkway leading up to the front door.
The iron gate is right beside the edge of the garage near the street. There is another photo. You can see the gate and that there is foliage and plants growing up the side of the garage, and up high on the other side of the narrow walkway. “This is a drug dealer’s home. So who comes and goes is governed pretty strictly,” DDA Akemon tells the jury.
We are presented with diagram showing the floor plan of the home and outlines of where Nancy and Shawn were found in the home. Next, we see photos of how Nancy and Shawn were found. It’s quite sad. Shawn was on his knees, a face down position beside the bed. He was directly beside his bed. Nancy is on her back, on a small bed. Nancy's face is blocked out in the photo.
“Some would consider her [Nancy] a hoarder. You’ll see photographs of the living room. It’s packed with junk,” DDA Akemon explains.
Nancy was found in a bedroom, but not the bedroom she slept in. It’s clear from the photos, Ms. Boehm’s body, she is face up with her hands out. She was in a condition of decomposition. When her body was first found, it was covered with junk mail and documents. The room and her things appeared to be ransacked.
It’s now that I note that the defendant is turned around in his seat and looking at the photos. The defendant’s right elbow is resting on the arm of the chair and his right hand is covering his mouth. Martinez stares at the screen with the information on the screen and the photos of the victims. Martinez doesn't show any emotion looking at the photos.
Shawn’s bedroom was very cluttered. His body was in the middle of the room. He’s in a head down position. More photos are shown of the bed, and the bloody bedspread. DDA Akemon explains to the jurors what they are seeing. The blood on the bed spread, that blood pooling is probably where the attack started. Shawn was probably attacked while he was in bed. The close up photo of his body; it’s a very bloody scene with blood all over Shawn and on the floor.
More photos are shown of Nancy and the condition she was in when she was discovered. There are numerous bags and purses around her and at her feet. In the photo, DDA Akemon points out the drug paraphernalia; the plates for drugs with straws and a scale.
The defendant keeps looking at the photos. Close up photo is presented of the left side of Nancy's neck and the multiple stab wounds. There is a fatal wound to the upper left side of her neck. The other 13 stab wounds were clustered on her neck, just under the chin.
Shawn was stabbed 11 times. Now another photo of Shawn’s body, showing the stab wounds in the back of his neck and under his right ear. On the right side of his neck, wound #10 was a fatal wound.
DNA
DDA Akemon tells the jury they will hear from numerous DNA experts but in the end, the bottom line, the DNA is his [defendant’s]. In 2005-2006 the DNA expert took Nancy's fingernail clippings from each hand, combined them and then tested them and came up with defendant Rafael Martinez’s DNA under Ms. Boehm’s nails. That’s indicative of a violent struggle.
A colored chart is put up of the DNA results. The defendant’s DNA, Nancy’s DNA and then the mixture DNA that was found under Nancy’s fingernails. When they did the statistical analysis, they would have to look at 1 in 3.297 billion people, before they had another two people that would look like that mixture profile.
2001 Knife Attacks
The jury may compare the 2001 attack with the 1997 attack for the limited purpose of determining the defendant’s intent.
Photo of the apartment building of Nieves and Santos. There is a photo of Nieves’ neck wound. It’s not the way it looked when it happened. The photo is after surgeons tried to repair the damage. DDA Akemon shows the jury a succession of photos involving the 2001 attack. Photos of the surviving victim, Francisco Santos. The defendant turns around to look at the images on the ELMO. I don’t see any emotion on his face. As I watch the defendant, he keeps looking back at the screen and looking back at the gallery.
The opening is interrupted while a juror takes a restroom break, then we’re right back on the record.
Martinez turns around. He keeps his fingers over his mouth, his elbow resting on the arm of the chair.
“[We] expect you will hear testimony in this case that after he attacked, he fled. The fire department arrived very quickly, and some of the first responders found Mr. Santos bleeding in the middle of the street. ... As soon as they realized there was someone else in the house, they broke off [from treating Mr. Santos] and went in to assist Ms. Nieves.”
The attack started in apartment #6. The victim was able to run down the hallway and ended up in apartment #7. The neighbors were assisting her when she ran for help. Photos of the interior of the apartment are put up on the screen. It was a chaotic scene. A diagram sketch of the apartment floor plan is put up on the ELMO. There are red lines on the sketch, showing the major blood trail, investigators found. Martinez's blood was there also. He may have been injured in that attack. There’s a blood trail on the stairs, into the living room, on the coffee table and then into the bedroom. More photos of the 2001 attack showing the blood trail. Akemon explains to the jurors the orientation in the photos. One photo shows a significant amount of smeared blood on the walls in the hallway and around the master bedroom door jam.
Mr. Santos retreated into this bedroom when he was attacked. Mr. Santos comes out of the bathroom while the attack on Luz is underway and that’s when Martinez attacks Mr. Santos.
More photos of where Luz ended up in apartment #7 and the blood trail. Firemen and police found her in apartment 7. Luz was taken to the hospital, where she died of a stroke related to blood loss. She had 14 stab wounds. One to the eye, a total of three to the neck and just under her chin. Two injuries in her neck were opened to save her life. There were numerous, defensive wounds on her right hand.
Francisco Santos had approximately 15 stab wounds. Photos of him and his wounds all over his face are put up on the ELMO.
LAPD Detectives Pinner and Solomon investigate the case and they quickly identify Martinez as a suspect in this case.
A person named ‘Junebug,’ short for a person named junior. The detectives interview Mr. Santos. Santos’ interview is played for the jurors, and the text of the conversation appears on the screen. It goes so fast I can barely catch half of the conversation.
Santos tells detectives that the defendant came and got the rock and he didn’t pay. He got it on credit. He left. He came back again. He was wearing a bullet proof vest and something similar on his legs also.
Detective: How did he seem to you?
Santos: He looked like he was on speed or something. A lot different from when he came over and acted before.
[...]
Santos: I went into the bathroom. ... When I flushed the toilet, I heard [her?] cry.
Detective: So you heard her say in Spanish, Why are you doing this and why are you doing this to me?
Santos:(Yes.)
Santos ran into Nellie’s room and tried to reach the metal bat, and Martinez broke the door down.
Santos: He was stabbing me, stabbing me on my back head and stabbing me on my face. ... I was too weak and my arms started hurting too much. ... So I faded out ... lost control of my arm. I would just fade out. ... So somehow, I managed to push his ass out of [the apartment and onto the] stairs and he held onto my shirt and kind of .... then he stabbed me behind my head...
After detectives interview Santos, they arrest him [Martinez] and they interview him. He gave a statement. DDA Akemon plays an audio of the interview of the defendant by Detectives Pinner and Solomon. I try my best to take notes from the audio but I don’t do so well. This is just a small snippet of the dialog on the recording.
Martinez: To be honest with you ... I went over there and ... and the first thing out of his mouth was, You’ve got my money. ... And then she started in with me. ... She started telling me how she wanted her money. ... That she can’t [pay her bills?] ... So I’m watching her ... she went into the kitchen ... he went [the other way?] ... she comes out of the kitchen with the knife.
Detective: What are [you] saying? ... She came straight out of the kitchen.... ?
Martinez: Then she come ... I kind of ... and that’s where she had stabbed me ... there... she stabbed me and she was going to stab me again. ... I just grabbed her and Francisco started kicking me, so I'd get off of her ... and you know, I turn around ... I don’t know what happened to that knife.
Martinez gives a story to the detectives that they attacked him. Martinez claims that Santos had a weapon.
Martinez: I’m looking at what he had ... He had a potato peeler or something like that.
Detective: What did you have in your hands?
Martinez: Nothing man. ... I actually punched him. ... As soon as he came out, I actually punched him.
Detective: When she ran out of the apartment, did you notice any injuries on her?
Martinez: I don’t know. ... I never did. ... I had her hand, you know ... and in the mix of us rolling around ...
Detective: Did you at [any] point ever have the knife in your hands? ... Did you ever stab Nellie?
Martinez: Not that I know of.
Detective: So the answer is no?
Martinez: No.
Detective: Did you ever stab Francisco?
Martinez: No.
The prosecution will argue that that is a bold face lie. In connection with this case, compare the similarities. The jury may compare the 2001 attack with the 1997 attack with the limited purpose of intent.
Akemon presents a new overview image of the streets and the closeness of the two locations to Martinez’s grandmother’s residence.
The Drug Connection
There is a drug connection in this case. The victims did not not each other. Both were cocaine dealers, selling to Martinez. Two men and two women. The type of location is similar. These are residences as opposed to businesses, parks or public area. At both scenes we have broken doors. A door was broken down in the Santos residence. And the same thing in the Boehm residence. The door with the yellow sign on it, that’s where Ms. Boehm’s body was found. There is a close up of the door broken into as well. Both are frenzied knife attacks.There’s evidence of similarity as to the number of stab wounds. Nancy 14; Shawn 11; Luz 14; Santos approximately 15. Another area of similarity is the left side of the neck. A knife; a sharp instrument as opposed to a gun or a club. And very similar injuries.
When you’ve heard all the evidence in this case, for the defendant’s blood thirst quest for drugs, that in September 1997, that Rafael with malice and forethought, deliberately and with premeditation, murdered Nancy Boehm and her son and he did it all for drugs.
The prosecution is finished with their opening statement and the defense steps up to the podium.
To be continued in Day 4, Part III.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
