Showing posts with label Nareg Gourjian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nareg Gourjian. Show all posts

Monday, October 3, 2011

Conrad Murray Trial Day 5



Dr. Conrad Murray and his defense team.


UPDATED October 4th, 2011
I incorrectly reported that Sade Anding testified yesterday. She is testifying Tuesday morning. Sprocket.

A recap of the witnesses today.

Monday's testimony continued with #11 Richelle Cooper returning to the stand. She testified much the same as she did in the preliminary hearing. In Session's Beth Karas reported on her Facebook page that defense attorney Michael Flanagan cross examined Dr. Cooper about her use of propofol in her medical practice as well as her knowledge of how long benzodiazepine and Lorazepam stay in the body.

AT&T Employee #12, Edward Dixon testified about Dr. Murray's AT&T phone, data and text message records. Dr. Murray was talking and texting all morning while treating Jackson.

Witness # 13, Jeff Strohm, Sprint/Nextel employee testified about more phone records much the same as his preliminary hearing testimony. DDA Deborah Brazil performed the direct of the phone records and Nareg Gourjian performed the cross examination.



Dr. Thao Nguyen

Witness # 14, Dr. Thao Nguyen, UCLA emergency room doctor is on the stand detailing her CV. She's smart as a whip. I believe DDA David Walgren presented the witness. She was on the CCU rotation at UCLA when Jackson entered the ER. Dr. Nguyen testified pretty much the same as her preliminary hearing testimony. She was the fourth witness the prosecution called that testified Dr. Murray did not mention propofol to her as a drug that he had given Jackson. Defense attorney Flanagan tried to shake her testimony but she had a response for him every time. Dr. Murray could not tell Nguyen a timeline of when he gave Jackson two doses of Ativan (aka lorazepam), when he arrested and how long before paramedics arrived. Murray told Nguyen, "I have no concept of time."

Witness #15, Dr. Joanne Bednarz-Prashad did not testify in the preliminary hearing. She called Dr. Murray the morning of June 25th to ask about a patient of his about to undergo surgery in a Houston hospital. Dr. Bednarz-Prashad was surprised that Dr. Murray had the information she needed immediately, and did not have to go check a patient file.




Antionette Gill


Witness #16, former Dr. Murray patient and friend, Antoinette Gill. Spoke to Dr. Murray on the morning of June 25th, 2009 and everything was normal.








Witness #17 Consuelo Ng, met the defendant through her grandmother in 2003 or 2004. He was treating her grandmother. After saving grandma's life, she began to work in Dr. Murray's office as a volunteer. Prior to that, she worked in a group home as a caregiver. In June, 2009, she volunteered in his office five days a week from 2004 to 2009. She is not a nurse.

CN: I would help in filing, answered phones, help in the front and the back room. I would take vitals and pulse rate.

Ng worked at Murray's Los Vegas office, on Flamingo Rd. She describes the layout of the office and the number of treatment rooms. She also testified about treating patients with specific cardiac equipment.



Bridgette Morgan



#18 Bridgette Morgan, one of three girlfriends to testify for the prosecution. Morgan called Dr. Murray on the morning of June 25th but did not speak to him. Prosecutors were prevented from asking questions about where she met Dr. Murray, (a Los Vegas nightclub) the nature of their relationship and that he gave her his number on a cocktail napkin.

Witness #19 Sade Anding, one of three girlfriends to testify for the prosecution. Anding was on the phone with Murray when she heard something strange. Here is an interview with Anding back in February, 2011.

(I listened to KFI's Eric Leonard's report regarding the various girlfriend's testimony.)

HERE is a link the the California Evidence Code. If you hear Judge Pastor make a ruling and cite a number (for example, 352), you can look up that number to have a better understanding of Judge Pastor's ruling.

FOX NEWS has a who's who list
(judge, all counsel, etc.) and a bit of history on the major players in the well of the court. Go to the link and scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the list.

Friday, September 30, 2011

Conrad Murray Trial: Day 4

Yesterday, the last witness was #6, Kai Chase, Michael Jackson's personal chef. She testified much the same as she did in the preliminary hearing.




Robert Johnson, Nonin Medical, Director of Regulatory Affairs

Today #7, Robert William Johnson, Nonin Medical employee, Director of regulatory affairs, clinical research and quality assurance. Johnson's responsibilities at the company are to get product approvals with FDA and world wide health ministries. Nonin medical makes physiological monitoring devices. Mr. Johnson testified about the pulse-oximeter (made by his company) that Dr. Murray was using on Michael Jackson, as well as other advanced models of equipment they sell. (I listened to a portion of Mr. Johnson's testimony on TV this morning.)

Prosecution is showing the witness a pulse oximeter sensor and circuitry all in one that can be worn on the finger, Model #9500. The witness states it does not have an audible alarm.

Johnson testifies that this model is designed for spot checking vital signs. It's not designed for continuous monitoring. The product manual/description included with the product is specifically labeled against that. Labeled against continuous monitoring in the warnings. Does come with instructions for use.

From warnings in directions of device:
This device has no audible alarms and is designed for spot checking. "Taking an instantaneous reading." Warning quote in package materials. The retail cost: $275.00.

Mr. Johnson also testified about another model of pulse oximeter, the Nonin 2500A.

Prosecution: What type of pulse oximeter is that?

RJ: It is a pulse-oximeter that displays the same functions but also has visual and audible alarms.

Prosecution: Is that an alarm that is designed to be heard in another room?

RJ: Yes.

Prosecution: It can be heard outside of a bedroom?

RJ: It is loud. And annoying.

Prosecution: In 2009 how much did that product cost?

RJ: It would be about $750.00 retail.






Robert Russell, former patient of Dr. Murray

Witness #8, Robert Russell, was a former patient of Dr. Murray . Dr. Murray told him he was leaving his Las Vegas practice to be Michael Jackson's full time physician. Russell's last two appointments with Dr. Murray were rescheduled then the last appointment, on June 22nd, cancelled. (I heard a recap of this testimony on the radio while driving.)

Next up was #9, Richard Senneff, Los Angeles Fire Department Paramedic, first on the scene. Testimony basically the same as during the preliminary hearing. Senneff testified that Jackson's skin was cool to the touch and his pupils fixed and dilated. During the paramedics treatment of Jackson at the scene, Senneff testified he was never able to feel a pulse or see a heart beat on the monitors. Dr. Murray did not not tell him that he had administered propofol to Jackson.

Following Senneff was #10, Martin Blount, fifth paramedic to enter the residence and care for Michael Jackson. Testimony basically the same as during the preliminary hearing. Blount never heard Dr. Murray mention the drug propofol.

Last witness of the day on Friday was #11, Dr. Richelle Cooper, UCLA ER physician who paramedics consulted with over the radio. Pronounced Jackson dead over the radio, and a second time when he was wheeled into the ER. Dr. Cooper was still on the stand at the close of the court day.

What are your thoughts on the prosecution's case so far?

Some more images.






DDA Deborah Brazil, co-prosecutor on the Murray case.












Nareg Gourjian, one of three defense attorneys representing Dr. Murray.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Conrad Murray Trial: Day 3




Dr. Conrad Murray, front, Attorneys J. Michael Flanagan behind him and Nareg Gourjian, right. Photo: Reuters

I've been watching a bit of the Conrad Murray Trial. I listened to opening statements, saw a bit of testimony on Tuesday, listened to some talking heads commentary yesterday and I've listened to some of Alberto Alvarez on the stand today.

So far for me, there has been very little difference in the prosecution's case from what I heard at the preliminary hearing back in January. The only startling information came in via the prosecution's opening statement with that tape recording of a clearly out-of-it Michael Jackson. The only additional witness (compared to the prelim) so far has been Paul Gongaware, AEG CEO who testified about how many concert dates there were, when they were added and how quickly they sold out.

Prosecution witnesses who have testified so far:

1. Kenneth Ortega (Co-director/creator THIS IS IT tour)
2. Paul Gongaware (AEG Live Co. CEO)
3. Michael Amir Williams (Personal assistant to Michael Jackson)
4. Faheem Mohammad (Head of Security for Michael Jackson)
5. Alberto Alvarez (Security Staff)

What are your thoughts on the trial so far? Was there any information that was new to you beyond what we learned at the preliminary hearing? For me, it was nice to see Judge Pastor's clerk, Mrs. Benson and his long-time court reporter, Mavis on camera. They are both lovely people.

Conrad Murray Quick Links

KZ's "Dr. Murray's Death Drip: Explained" Series

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial Hearing 10, Conrad Murray & James Fayed Pre-Sentencing Hearing

I am so behind in my real life responsibilities and sewing, I decided to make it easy on myself and combine the coverage of three cases. Sprocket.

September 15th, 2011
Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial 10

As I clear the first floor security checkpoint, I see Mark Overland and his daughter Courtney Overland in the lobby and heading for the elevator bay. On the 9th floor, I see that Lazarus' mother is here by herself. There's an older couple with gray hair sitting in the second row. The man is reading a paper and the woman is working on a crossword puzzle. It's a good bet that they are here for the case that's currently in Judge Perry's courtroom.

One of the detectives comes over to speak to Sherri Rae Rasmussen's mother, Loretta, who is sitting directly in front of me along with her husband, Nels. He tells her he is going to be in her neck of the woods soon and Loretta tells him to call her later. As I'm sitting behind Nels and Loretta, it's hard not to overhear snatches of their conversation. I don't quite grasp all of it. All I hear is, "They found out where she purchased...." and a reply, "Sounds like it." Usually, Nels and Loretta write each other notes back and forth on a little notepad, so this is a rare time that I hear something.

Jane Robson from the DA's office is here. Both parties go back into Judge Perry's chambers for an incamera discussion off the record. I squint and finally can read the first name on the court clerk's plackard. It's Melody. Melody is on the phone with a juror from the current case in Perry's court. From hearing half of the conversation, it appears the juror is feeling ill and feels she can't continue. Melody is telling her Judge Perry has asked that she come into court so she can be excused. She's in the parking lot, but reluctant to come in. She doesn't want to be embarrassed in front of her fellow jurors. Melody keeps assuring her that it's just a formality and that it won't happen in front of her fellow jurors.

Lazarus is brought into the courtroom. She's not wearing her glasses but she does have some type of cloth bag with something in it. I try to note the time on the wall clock behind me but it's wrong. It's about 50 minutes or so slow. Lazarus turns and gives her mother a big smile. There's something different about her hair but I can't pinpoint what it is. She has the long white thermal undershirt on under her orange jumpsuit.

Dateline isn't here. Neither is Greg from CBS. The defense investigator arrives and sits with Lazarus. He tells the clerk Melody, "I have something for you." Jurors for the current case file in and head to the jury room.

Presby and Nunez exit from Judge Perry's chambers along with Courtney Overland, but she quickly goes back in after retrieving something from her files. I believe Presby give some motion papers to Melody. Courtney and Mark come back into the courtroom from Perry's chambers.

Judge Perry takes the bench. "All parties present. (snip) We were in chambers chatting about some matters, part of discover and the investigation still ongoing. We're not going to start the jury questionnaire on the 17th. (October). The court hopes to start the trial on October 24th."

Judge Perry also states he's not confident that is going to happen. All parties will be ordered back on September 28th to check on trial readiness and other issues. Judge Perry mentions something I don't quite hear right. It's a defense "fictitious?" or "pitches?" motion that he is inclined to accept regarding Renay Brawning (sp?).

Judge Perry states both sides are not ready to go to trial on Onctober 17th. Judge Perry asks Lazarus about waiving her speedy trial rights and to set the trial calendar as 0-10 on October 24th. "Yes, your honor," Lazarus replies.

Judge Perry states he's ready to rule on the defense firearm motion regarding the "firearm transaction records." (I believe the records that document when Lazarus purchased the weapon she later reported stolen from her vehicle.). "I don't think it's a protected statement. It's not a violation. Motion denied," Perry rules.

Overland asks if at the Sept. 28th hearing they can talk about the jury questionnaire. "I know the court eliminated some questions..."

And that's all. It's over pretty quickly. I ride down the elevator with Shannon Presby to ask him about the "fictitious" motion and he explains to that it's a "Pitchess Motion." This is where the defense asks to access a police officer's personnel records for potential negative information. The records are reviewed by the Judge and if there is anything relevant in the file, the defense gets to see it.

I get all the way outside the building when I realize that there was a Conrad Murray hearing today and I could drop in and see if anything interesting is being ruled on.

(Note: I totally missed going to the Sept. 28th hearing this morning. I had it in my head the hearing was this Friday, on the 30th. I will update when I know when the next hearing is scheduled.)

Conrad Murray Pretrial Hearing
(The trial is now in progress since I stopped by this pretrial hearing.)

When I enter Dept. 107, Judge Pastor's courtroom, I was expecting a crowd but it's virtually empty. There are a few people in the gallery but less than a handful. I knew Dr. Murray would not be there but I thought there would be a few reporters (I later learn that the MSM had already left after hearing the major news). The court reporter up is Mavis and I smile when I see her. Nareg Gourjian is by himself at the defense table. Over on the prosecution side is the rugged David Walgren and the absolutely stunning Deborah Brazil. (She truly is a gorgeous, sophisticated looking woman. The cameras in the courtroom do not do her justice.)

I believe Gourjian is telling Judge Pastor that the attorney that is handling a specific issue is his co-counsel Mr. Flanagan, who has all documents related to it. Judge Pastor tells the defense that he wants (everyone?) "...to come back Tuesday or Wednesday and we'll add all the people concerning (to be excused) for cause..."

My notes are not clear, but I believe it's Walgren who asks Judge Pastor if they can come back tomorrow on another issue. Then I think they decide on Monday, the 19th. Also on Monday they will discuss any issues concerning Dr. Pustilnick.

Issues concerning Karen Faye's testimony need to be gone over, and Tim Lopez's testimony. Apparently, Lopez left the country and it's not clear if the prosecution will have to write a motion to introduce his testimony from the preliminary hearing via reading it into the record, or if he will be back in the US and take the stand.

There's also a Dr. Schafer the prosecution wants to call and the defense wants to block him from testifying. Judge Pastor instructs the defense to have Dr. Murray here on Wednesday, the 21st at 2 pm for Jury questionnaire cause issues and voir dire will start at 8:00 am on June 23rd.

I can't remember if it was the prosecution or not, but one side was questioning the 8:00 am start time, and Judge Pastor was firm on that time since the jurors were ordered to be back at that time.

I really didn't learn much at the hearing and besides, the MSM has kept up with every detail of this case. The only thing that surprised me was how Judge Pastor pronounced Gourjian's name. It's totally different than how I was sounding it out in my head. Anyway, the real reason I stopped by was to hopefully inquire with Mavis Theodorou, Judge Pastor's long-time court reporter about getting a copy of a transcript for a day or two of an old trial. She was so generous and kind in helping me make my first purchase of a trial transcript.

September 22nd, 2011

James Fayed Sentencing

When I get up on the 9th floor, I see Jason, the jury foreman and one of the female jurors and a male friend. The female juror tells me she wanted to contact me about my blog because she is writing a book. I tell her that all of my content is copyrighted. She say’s she’s not going to quote anything verbatim.

Then I see Marjorie from the Ventura County Star and I sit to chat with her and find out what she’s been covering. Unfortunately, she will not be covering the trial of the three co-defendants.

Pat Kelly and Arlene for the Public Information Office arrive.

Before we even get inside 109, the Bailiff, Shawn (sp?) tells us it’s not happening today. Lori the court clerk emerges from the bathroom. Several sheriff’s arrive. There is a camera man with large video equipment. Alan Jackson shows up. Alan introduces himself to to the new bailiff’s and there’s a bit of conversation among them.

Eric Harmon apparently is late. Alan Jackson jokingly says, “When he gets here tell him he’s fired”. Locat TV Station KTLA shows up and the camera man sets up in the jury box. Eric Harmon has arrived and is with AJ at the clerks desk. A Dateline producer is here. THe one dark haired woman whom I never met.

A few more people show up, casually dressed. They have lanyards around their necks so they are most likely reporters.

Marjorie and I are set up in the far right corner of the gallery on our laptops. Pat Kelly has given Marjorie a copy of one of the defense motions. James Fayed, case # BA346352. On September 12th, the defense filed a motion for new trial. When Marjorie is finished taking her notes from the motion, I try to type what I’m reading as fast as I can.

In their motion, the defense argues... (Note: Understand, there might be typographical errors and errors in my effort to copy as much of the motion as I could.)

“The court should not impose the death penalty in this case because the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors. James Fayed had no criminal record before this case. He was not the actual killer; his life was one of law abiding productive contribution to society; prior to the Fayeds’ bitter divorce, the family had been happy, and Jim Fayed was by the account of none other than Desiree Goudie a good father and good family man; the jury heard from long long time friends and colleagues of Mr. Fayed that they would be deeply hurt by Mr. Fayed’s death, that Mr. Fayed’s life was worth sparing, and that they could not connect the man they knew with the man who’d been convicted of murder. the penalty phase in this case took two court day to try and a day to argue; they jury deliberated penalty for five days. This fact alone shows that the present case is not “open and shut,” or so unassailably and deservedly a death penalty case that a jury did not even wrestle with what to do; clearly the jury did wrestle ever earnestly, for days longer than it took to try (the case? cause?).

The second reason the court should modify the verdict and impose LWOP is that the death penalty in California is unconstitutional, and Mr. Fayed should not be subjected to it.

California’s death penalty violates the federal constitution’s fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendment and the corresponding sections of the California Constitution. Although the California Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty against the challenges listed below, the Supreme Court is simply wrong. The challenges are meritorious and should the law change in the future and the Supreme Court come to see the error of it’s ways, defendant Fayed submits the following argument as to the unconstitutionally of the death penalty in this state.

Consistent with the ethical rule which requires counsel to alert the court to the existence of adverse authority, citations to cases overruling the defense position follow the specific challenges are now listed:

Calif death penalty statute does not (meaningly?) narrow the pool of jurors eligible for the death penalty

The breadth of the circumstance of the crime “ aggravating factor (Factor A of Penal code 190:3 results in arbitrary and capricious application of the death penalty. Over ruled by People v Smith (2005 35 cal . 4th 334).

The law unconstitutionally (?) excuses jurors from finding beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular factor in aggravation exists, that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigation factors and that death is the appropriate (?) penalty. Over ruled by People v. Burgener (?) (snip).

The law unconstitutionally excuses jurors from making written jury findings or achieving unanimity (?) as to the aggravating factors.

Prosecutorial discretion to determine which defendants merit the death penalty renders the statutory scheme invalid.

The jury should not be allowed to consider the unadjudicated criminal conduct in fixing the penalty.

The law unconstitutionally fails to require intercase proportionality be considered by juries and judges.

(snip)

The law fails to require “intercase” proportionality be considered by juries and judges. Here, Mr. Fayed’s culpability should be weighed against that of his co-conspirators, and the fact that all of the co-conspirators are facing only LWOP, while Mr. Fayed’s was a capital prosecution, should have been admissible and considerable by the jury.
END

The above is "not" the full motion, but all that I could copy before the hearing started.

9:31 am: James Fayed is brought into the courtroom. He’s in an orange jumpsuit.

Judge Kennedy takes the bench.

JK: Matter of People vs. Fayed. Mark Werksman (for the defense)
Eric Harmon and Alan Jackson for the people.” (snip) Now (the) mater is on calendar for sentencing and motion for reduction (in sentencing). I understand that neither side (is ready)?

There is a motion for a new trial and motion to modify the verdict.

JK?: Counsel joining in requesting us have a hearing on it?

(?) I would be ready to go except everyone needs time.

JK: Mr. Harmon or Mr. Jackson?

AJ: We agree. (snip) We need a little bit more time to respond to the two motions.

JK: (sounding a bit perturbed) I want to remind both sides to your obligation to the record. Within 15 days of receiving (the verdict) trial counsel must file corrections or directs stating... (they agree with the court reporter’s record or they are making recommendations to amend it). (snip) Neither side has done any of those things.

(It sounds like Judge Kennedy is sternly giving all counsel the riot act.)

JK: (snip) I want to emphasize how important that it is for attorneys to go thought the transcript. (snip) The record of this trial, con(versely?) could be dissected over the next 25 or 30 years. Having experts (?) of other cases, and thats assuming that’s a death penalty, but we have to proceed as if that’s whats going to happen in that.

JK: Appeal courts are going to come in here and they are go to come in for a (lot? long list?) of changes to the transcript and they were not present for the trial.

JK: They like to make changes to what they wish, but you are the people that were there. If you don’t take the time to go through the transcript and you’re not (going?) to have any request later on.

JK: And work together for changes and the court reporter has a lot of work to do on that.

And they need to be addressed by (you?) and you.

AJ: We will have gone though the record by the time it comes to argue motions.

(MW:?) We will have those corrections. (snip) But i will now endeavor to complete that particular requirement.

There is some discussion back and forth between the judge and the prosecution as to “when” they have to be ready with their response to the defense motions. October 31st is discussed and then Judge Kennedy moves that date to October 28th. Judge Kennedy was unmoved by Jackson's assertion that he would be out of the country until mid-October. The issue is that the defense has to have their rebuttal motion argument to the prosecution’s, ten days after that, and the court needs to have time to read all motions. That’s why the date is changed to October 28th. The defense response is due November 9th.

The date both sides will be ready for oral argument is November 17th.

Judge Kennedy asks Fayed if he is willing to have the sentencing continue until November 17th. I don’t hear him but he obviously agrees. And that’s it.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Dr. Conrad Murray Case Postponed 1 Month

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, February 14, 2011

Conrad Murray Adds New Lawyer

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

From the CNN article:
The decision rests on if Gourjian's work for Jackson was "substantially related" to the current case and if his work for the defense would require "Gourjian to attempt to discredit his former client directly or indirectly," Pastor said.
Updated 2/15/2011:
According to Radar Online, the new member of Murray's defense team could create a conflict of interest. Sprocket___________
According to this CNN article, Joseph Low IV left Murray's defense team and has been replaced by Nareg Gourjian. Gourjian, formerly an associate of high profile attorney Mark Geragos where he assisted in the defense of Scott Peterson, Kazuyoshi Miura, and Chris Brown.

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

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

Friday, September 18, 2009

Cameron Brown Retrial; Closing Arguments, Part II

Continued from Closing Arguments, Part I...

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

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

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

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

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

Harris steps up to give his closing argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harris mentions testimony of Lynne Brown again and then Sarah.

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

Harris brings up the testimony of Scott Simonson.

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

Harris puts up the transcript testimony of Scott Simonson.

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

Harris reads from the transcript some more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lynne Brown and Brown Senior enter 107.

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

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

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

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

(It was court ordered. He had to.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harris is showing the jury a defense exhibit photo.

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

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

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

PH: The trail looks like a U shape.

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

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

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

Harris now mentions Detective Brothers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harris now moves onto Dr. Chinwah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued in Part III....

Friday, September 26, 2008

Kazuyoshi Miura: Judge Rules Conspiracy Charge Can Go Forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Associated Press

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Scott Peterson Civil Trial & Cameron Brown Retrial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN.Crime

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Cameron Brown Pretrial Hearing: June 13th, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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