Kelly Soo Park [Uwaydah et. al], Michael Gargiulo Updates

The previous post on this case can be found HERE.

UPDATE I 4/18/16  - edited for spelling, clarity; corrected number of counts dismissed on April 12; more coverage of Park case.
Friday, April 15, 2016
Hello T&T readers! After a two month absence, I am finally feeling well enough to go back to court and drop in on the latest Kelly Soo Park hearing.  If my coughing doesn't act up,

While the mainstream media was sleeping, on April 12, the defense in the Park/Uwaydah et. al case successfully argued their 995 motion to dismiss 20 counts of aggravated mayhem against 12 of the defendants. Adjuster.com posted this report on that hearing.

The parties are back in court today to revisit the issue of bail. Many of the defendants on the larger indictment were able to get their high bails reduced to 10 million. With the mayhem counts dismissed it will be interesting to see how Judge Kennedy rules on bail reduction for those defendants that are appearing today.


Also on the docket today is a 1368 hearing for defendant Albert Harutyunyan, also known as the "Little Armenia" case. Harutyunyan is charged with four murders. One of Harutyunyan's defense attorneys, Pete Waimrin is here. I believe there may also be third hearing on another case due to the  attorneys I see in the well and gallery.

After this hearing, I hope to stop by the Public Information Office and get a copy of the minute orders on the Gargiulo case .

Kelly Soo Park
8:48 AM
The bail hearings are set for 9:30 am. Park's husband, Tom Chronister just arrived. Defendant Tatiana Arnold is here. Several Park supporters are in the gallery.  A silver-haired woman is sitting with Chronister in the gallery. I believe it's his mother. When I entered the criminal court building, Paul Turley's attorney, Benjamin Gluck was several steps ahead of me.

8:53 AM
More Park supporters arrive that I've seen at previous hearings.

8:59 AM
Terri Keith from City News drops in to get updated.  About two minutes later, Park's sister Kim arrives and takes a seat in the gallery. The first row is almost filled with Park supporters. Park's mother and aunt are here. Co-defense on the Harutyunyan case, Gregory Apt arrives and gives a not to his co-counsel Waimrin.

Prosecutor Amy Ashvanian on the Harutyunyan case arrives. More attorneys shuffle in. Benjamin Gluck is her, chatting another defense attorney up in the well.

DDA Ashvanian and Apt step outside to discuss the latest developments in their case.

9:06 AM
DDA Mathai arrives and heads directly to the prosecution table to sit with the rest of the prosecution team.

More counsel arrive and sit in the well and the jury box. There are two sheriff's sitting near the door to my left. There are two other deputies sitting in the back of the courtroom to my right. Judge Kennedy's regular bailiff is at his desk.

I'm guessing there are about 20 people in the gallery for the Park [Uwaydah] case.

9:17 AM
Counsel on the Harutyunyan case reenter the well.

9:19 AM
One of the defense counsel, Mr. Moss, representing defendant Jeff Stevens is using a walker. He has a protective boot on his foot.

9:20 AM
Marissa Gerber from the LA Times arrives.  Mark Kassabian, Park's attorney arrives.

9:28 AM
Another Case
The bailiff tells counsel to take their seats and all defense counsel to sit in the jury box.
I was right There is a third case on the calendar and it will be up first. The defendant is brought out.

Tony Brooklier arrives. He represents defendant Leticia Lemus in the Park / Uwaydah matter.

Judge Kennedy takes the bench. The case is called. DDA Louis Avila is for the people. I recognize the defense attorney, but I miss his name and the defendant's name.

A stay has been issued by the court of appeals, so nothing can be done on the case until the court of appeals rules.  And the hearing is over quickly.

9:36 AM Albert Harutyunyan
Harutyunyan will be up next. They are ensuring they have an Armenian interpreter.

Now there are three sheriff's deputies to my left.

Hart is brought out. The interpreter is sitting with him, surrounded by his counsel.

The case is called. Appearances are stated. DDA Jonathan Chung is DDA Ashvanian's co-counsel.

Both reports from doctors feel the defendant is competent to stand trial. There is a disagreement whether he is competent to represent himself. Two doctors examined him. One report says yes, one report says no.

Apt: He wishes to represent himself.  Judge Kennedy states she needs to schedule a hearing on that issue.  Different case law is mentioned as to whether there needs to be a jury trial to determine competency as to representing himself.

Judge thinks there are some issues as to whether the defendant is competent to represent himself.

Even if he is found competent, Judge Kennedy doesn't think it is in his best interests. There's the language issue. She knows the defendant is distrustful of his two counsel, and the court system. She is requesting another report, to tip the scales. The court states there is definitely something going on (mentally).

The one doctor who does not feel he is competent, could not pin an exact diagnosis to back up their conclusion.

Defense suggest that they all meet, to suggest someone to interview the defendant for another evaluation.

The interpreter is talking in Armenian, translating what Mr. Apt is saying.

They will return in two weeks to update the court. Counsel will get together to arrange a third doctor. Criminal proceedings will remain suspended until a third doctor's report is received.

Kelly Soo Park et. al
Arnold case will be next. Ellyn Garafalo for the defendant.

[We are in the midst of 995 regarding Arnold and the single charge of mayhem against Arnold. This is on the smaller indictment.]

DDA Chon: There is probable cause to believe that Peter Nelson performed surgery on one of the victims.

[Note: At this point in the proceeding, my laptop died and my back-up battery was not working. I had to revert to hand notes.  I did not have time to transcribe these notes until 4/17. Sprocket]

UPDATE I
DDA Chon is continuing with her rebuttal argument that I believe was started on April 12.

DDA Chon references a document submitted in the defense brief. "Based on their [defense] own exhibit, a PA [physician's assistant; Chon is referencing Peter Nelson, who is alleged to have performed surgeries with no supervision] can only perform parts of a surgery he was trained on and that was not the case here," Chon contends.

Judge Kennedy asks, "[She's a direct aider and abettor to mayhem?"  DDA Chon replies, "Let me rephrase. She was a co-conspirator. ... She put her name on shell companies ... laundered money ... restructured companies. ... Rose Kelly testified these meetings would take place while surgeries were going on. ...."

She [Rose Kelly] testified at these meetings they would discuss the medical board's investigation and ways they could hide monies. The goal, as stated by Ms. Kelly was to push people to have surgery and make money.

"Ms. Arnold was a part of that. ... Ms. Arnold had knowledge because Uwaydah was in the meetings ... and [Peter] Nelson performed all parts of the surgery."

DDA Chon then references something in her moving papers and reads that into the record. The people are finished and Ms. Garofalo gets up to rebut the prosecution's argument.

This allegation was in regards to Ms. Pope [victim]. The court has already found that Peter Nelson [did not? specifically?] intend harm. 

Garofalo continues, "Not a witness testified in the grand jury other than Ms. Pope as to who performed the surgery. ... There was no extended testimony introduced at the grand jury to support this allegation [aggravated mayhem]. ... Dr. Brody testified at the grand jury that there was no way to determine when the tendon detached. ... [One] cannot infer aggravated mayhem from this scar. ... Ms. Pope was not referred by a capper ... no expert medical testimony in their grand jury or anything that comes close to aggravated mayhem."

Ms. Garofalo also argues that the co-conspirator theory fails.

Judge Kennedy rules. "As I indicated before where we talked about this count ... [there's] no evidence Ms. Pope was a capped patient.  ... According to her own testimony, she had a shoulder injury. ... The surgery was necessary. ... Apparently it wasn't performed too well and she and Ms. Arnold tried to settle a malpractice claim. ... It is unclear from the record who performed the cutting. Surgery notes say Dr. Uwaydah ... [other names are mentioned as being present] and Dr. Uwaydah was there ... Even though the nurse [stated? testified?] that it was impossible for all those doctors to be in there ... I don't see that testimony as helpful. ... It's not even clear the surgery was fraudulent. ... There no evidence that Ms. Arnold was present in surgery or that she ... Count number 75 is dismissed. ... The other counts remain."

The court asks what they want to do next.

Benjamin Gluck informs the court that the need to at least waive time. They need to address bail.

The court brings up a completely different issue that she feels needs to be addressed first.

Judge Kennedy begins, "You know that, ... lawyers working for the court ... and reviewed a lot of records and [this was done] prior to the case here and filed .... when it was with Judge Fidler. ... Are those records part of discovery turned over to the defense?"

DDA Ma answers, "No. ... Judge Fidler was going to go over that and determine ... nothing was ever told to the people ..."

Gluck responds, "Because the people chose not to disclose the search warrant ... in camera ... he said he would turn over to the defense and let them claim privilege."


[Note: I'm back covering the Lonnie Franklin, Jr. murder trial. I hope to have these notes complete much later tonight. Sprocket]

More to come........

Kelly Soo Park [Uwaydah et. al] Fraud Case, Pretrial Hearing 5

Kelly Soo Park, in custody, 2015

UPDATE 7/13 Label: Corrected DDA Ma's first name to Kennes
UPDATE 7:45 PM edited for clarity, spelling, grammar
Friday, February 19, 2016
8:24 AM
I drove into downtown today, parking in an affordable lot in Chinatown. I feel I’m needing the exercise of an extra block walk to court. Besides, all the parking close to court, costs about $20.00 per day. I'm starting to feel a little more like myself since my graceful trip and fall four weeks ago.

On my walk towards the criminal court building, I see Lonce LaMon from adjuster.com and I wait for her to finish parking to walk in with her. On the Temple Street Plaza one of Park's defense attorneys, Mark Kassabian enters the courthouse right when I do.

8:30 AM - The 9th Floor
In the elevator up to 9, I saw Michael Gargiulo’s new counsel Dale Rubin.

 Ariel Newman, who is co-representing Paul Turley is already here. The court clerk unlocks the door for counsel to enter but the general public and press are not allowed in yet. 

Also on the floor is DDA Amy Ashvanian who is prosecuting the "Little Armenian" murders. Albert Harutyunyan [aka Alberd Tersargyan] is charged with four counts of first degree murder. It looks like there will be a hearing in that case also this morning.

8:35 AM - Arrivals
More defense counsel for the Park case arrive and try the door. It’s still locked. A set of prosecutors I’ve never seen before arrives and tries the door. There may be a slew of cases this morning.

8:50 AM - Inside Dept. 109
There are several cases being heard this morning.

Two of the prosecutors on the Uwaydah et. all /Park Fraud case are here. DDA’s Catherine Chon and Karen Nishita. I see the bailiff is letting defense attorneys [on another case] back into the custody area to speak to their client[s].

First Case
The first case is called. No resolution has been made between the parties.  A return date is picked and the hearing is over very quickly.

Lonnie Franklin, Jr.'s co-counsel Dale Atherton arrives with a scanner to scan the people’s Franklin exhibits in the jury room.

I see Harutyunyan's two defense counsel in the courtroom, Pete Warmin and Greg Apt with the Alternate Public Defender's Office.

DDA Dynan Mathai, [who I believe is lead prosecutor on the Uwaydah/Park] case arrives.

Second case - Little Armenia murders, Albert Harutyunyan
On the record in the second case. The interpreter is sworn in to translate English to Eastern and Western Armenian for the defendant.

The court asks about reports being prepared. They are not back in from the medical doctors.

The court states that the proceedings are going to remain suspended. When I hear that, I'm thinking California Penal Code section 1368.  This section of the code has to do with mental competency of the defendant. Section 1368(c) states that court proceedings are suspended until the defendant's competency to stand trial can be determined. There may be some other reason the proceedings are suspended, but in my mind, this is the most likely cause.

The court asks the parties if they have a date [to return]. Judge Kennedy tells the parties, "I do need it to be on a Friday." March 18 for court and counsel. Further proceedings for March 18. And that’s it.


Third Case - First Defendant
I remember seeing these two defendants last Friday. One of the defendants in a two defendant case is going to plead. When Judge Kennedy hears that she asks the bailiff, “Can we get [defendant’s name] out right away?” Then the court says to counsel, “When I hear those magic words, I want to get it done right away.”

The defendant will plead to voluntary manslaughter. The court is asking for the specific counts and what would the defendant get on those counts. The high term of 11 years for the gang allegation and an additional 10 consecutively for the gun. The defendant was arrested in 2010.

The judge reads through all the specific language of the individual’s rights, that the defendant must say on the record that he is giving up. The court makes sure that the defendant understands each and every right he has that he is giving up. The defendant pleads no contest to the charges.

 2,320 days credit. So, about six and a half years credit on a 21 year sentence.

Fourth Case
There is a probation violation case. The DDA from the prior case is asked by the court to stand in for the people. It's over pretty quick.

Third Case - Second Defendant
Second defendant in the third case. This defendant is also taking advantage of the people’s offer. The court asks the people to outline the amended charges. Amended count two for voluntary manslaughter. Gang allegation and firearms allegation. This defendant would also get 21 years.

We have a repeat of the first defendant giving up each and every right before the court will accept the plea agreement. The defendant waives time for sentencing. They are about to conclude when the court realizes they don't have the original date the defendant was arrested. That needs to be tracked down before the court can rule on the number of days credited in custody. The court interrupts this case to hear the Uwaydah et. al / Park case.

Fifth Case - Uwaydah et. al / Park Fraud Case BA425397 & BA
The court starts calling out the names of the many defendants. Matter of people vs. Paul Turley and Peter Nelson, Marisa Nelson and David Johnson....

DDA Chon informs the court that the hearing is only for defendants Forgar, Park and Arnold.

Defense attorney Ellyn Garofalo for defendant Tatiana Arnold [the attorney]. Defense atttorneys Jeffrey Isaacs and Akili Nickson for defendant Tony Folgar. Defense attorney Mark Kassabian for defendant Park, and standing in for counsel [named] for defendants Case and Maria Turley. Defense counsel Ariel Newman for defendant Paul Turley. The people state their appearances. There's also a counsel here for a Mark Engle [an uncharged, alleged co-conspirator].

The court asks, "What are we doing today?"DDA Chon replies the [parties filed] two proposals. There are some issues that the defense and people do not agree on. 

I believe Chon states there is a 1050 filing for the people’s [response to defense] 995. The people have heard from all but one defense attorney.

Judge Kennedy asks, "Can we take up the order first and what the parties can't agree on?"

DDA Dayan Mathai updates the court. [First] the deadline set for defense mid March for privileged docs to be produced, people [still say it will be] 10-15 weeks for them to be produced. Seems they should be ordered to produce it.

Second, the defense proposal as is, paragraph 9 in it, meant to include understood agreement by DA’s office not to argue, is any party has waived privilege as described in the order.

Other than that the two orders are essentially identical. There's one issue about cell phones. Those are the two main issues.

The timeline [for turning over discovery and privilege discovery] when proposed in Jan, we said it would take 12-15 weeks. It’s still going to take us 12 to 15 weeks.

The court asks, "Why would you not do anything between Jan and now?" DDA Mathai replies, "Your honor, we have been." It’s not fair. ... We’ve said 12 to 15 weeks. The people have to process this. DDA Mathai continues, "They [the defense] want the court to put on paper a deadline for us. We are putting a deadline. It’s going to take 12 to 15 weeks. ... We’re telling you up front. The people who are doing the work, they started within the last week. Because we [had? didn't have?] a written email from the defense to start. ... The difference that we're talking about is about two weeks. "All we’re asking is that the court says, not be put on paper. ... To give us a hard deadline, it’s impossible. It’s binding our hands just seems unnecessary to include that deadline."

"Second issue. ... When we were here originally the [order the] court is now signing is very different. The original protocol, Both Ms. Garofalo and Mr. Gluck's firm getting all the discovery, whether it pertains to Ms. Arnold or Mr. Turley ... In that structure we were talking about .... look, Mr. Gluck may see items that relate to Ms. Arnold that he doesn't represent. ... If the people are going to be asked to produce that, two separate lawyers, that may violate privilege. ... that [they?] acknowledge that [they're] going to be seeing some other counsel's stuff."

There is further explanation from the people. On this point of privilege, Ms. Arnold may represent privilege, her clients hold the privilege. The court asks, "Wasn’t that the whole point of this thing?"

Ms. Garofalo will only receive items from the search of Ms. Arnold. Mr. Gluck will only receive things related to Paul Turley.

The people continue to argue, "Now there’s not an overlap, we’re not asking for that issue on the record. Now they want to have the court say, on the record, to limit the people from ever arguing in the future about this privilege. ... [I] don’t think the court should give a written order that I’m prevented from an argument."

The court asks, "What paragraph?" Mr. Newman answers, "Paragraph 9." After looking over the defense's proposal for the court order, Judge Kennedy rules, "In terms of paragraph 9, I don’t like the language the DA should not argue. I think that I like better, following the protocol outlined in this order does not constitute a waiver of privilege."

DDA Mathai replies, "That’s fine your honor. ... That’s more acceptable to us. Implicit in this idea, if they see their things they’re not waving." DDA Chon, tells the court there is another attached protective order. The court replies, "I’m not signing any [other?] order today."

I believe DDA Mathai continues, "With location 13, we did have extensive arguments as to what that will mean. Our position [still is?] ... has not established as a threshold issue, whose items are in there. ... That we still have our arguments that other people's privilege that knowingly .. that haven’t asserted at this point. ... And [they?] have argued that the court should turn them over to them."

The court decides. "What I’m going to order in the revised order that complying with this protocol does not constitute a waiver of privilege. If you have other arguments then your going to make those arguments."

There is a bit more back and forth between the court and DDA Mathai about removing specific language. Since the date to come back in two weeks doesn't work for Newman's firm, they are asking to come back in three weeks, on March 11.

The next issue is for defendants on the smaller indictment [Arnold et. al BA435339].

Attorney Issacs on Folgar. [The court] gave us permission to file [995?] motion just to the tax charges in the Arnold indictment. Would [like to put up?] a briefing schedule in the morning. We will come to an agreement, so I hope we will come to an agreement.

The court asks, "Ms. Garofalo you’ve filed something? "It’s about the mayhem  charge only for Arnold." The court informs Garofalo that she has now read all of the transcripts on the smaller indictment.

The court asks about the 995 scheduling. There's back and forth about when the replies will be filed and when they will argue. It appears argument for 995 will be set for March 25.

Mark Kassabian brings up a housekeeping matter having to do with the February 26 date. Kassabian wants that date vacated for his client to come to court because now there's no appearance set. The new date for defendant's to appear is March 25.

DDA Chon believes there might be other clients that still need to waive. She requests the court that, before they waive that date, the people will check and inform the court. If they need anyone on the 26th, they will let the court know.

Ariel Newman tells the court the 1050 issue is just about the defense reply. Judge Kennedy tells the parties, "I think we are finished."

Attorney for Mr. Engle approaches on the motion to squash the people's subpoena on his client, Mark Engle.

The court states, "I have no idea who Mark Ingle or who he is to the case. ... I don’t have [a] copy to the subpoena."

Mr. Engle is a third party. DDA's Mathai and Chon for the people. 

Counsel for Mr. Engle speaks. Mr. Engle had invested in a Venture Business bank. There was a lawsuit against the bank for, one, cooking the books and [two?] the investment for all those people. I don’t know if he’s involved in the case at all, so that’s why we’re moving to quash the bank records for that period.

I believe DDA Mathai explains to the court. "He is essentially an unindicted co-conspirator. ... Part of our conspiracy [theory] and several overt acts. And essentially the overt acts are alleged to have been part of an overall scheme for Uwaydah and Associates to get a controlling interest in this bank. ... What we plan to prove at trial, not only the charged conspiracies, but other[s] joining in [on] that scheme, include Mr. Engle, an associate of Mr. Uwaydah, to get a controlling share of the bank and make it easier to move money. ... That's the background of Mr. Engles. ... The court has heard his name. ... He supplied a letter to the court of behalf of Ron Case, to reduce his bail and give consideration. ... He is connected to the group and not formally charged."

The court considers, "I wasn’t there so I don’t know. Defense?"

Mr. Engle's counsel: "I don’t know if he asked for an indictment against Mr. Engle or not. But in any event, all I've heard so far is speculation on the peoples part that there may be something in these [bank] records that may tie him to the group. That [does? doesn't?] get him past the search warrant. ... If they want to drag him in as a defendant ... they just don’t subpoena third party records. ... Hey if you bank with that bank, they are trying ..." [I miss the last of counsel's argument. It's something about if individuals bank at the same bank, then there must be a conspiracy.

DDA Mathai counters. "The SDT is very limited. ... It’s only covering the time of 2009 and 2010. I have it laid out in court [documents]. ... I have told the court that he is considered part of the scheme. He does have a connection to the conspirators and the court has gotten notice of that. ... Unsolicited from any of us. He volunteered a letter, of his relationship to Mr. Case. ... He said in a letter, [he was a] very close friend of Ron case for, I think, he said for 19 years. [They] spent a lot of time together. ... All of that is in sharp contrast to statements he provided to state regulators that he doesn’t have any relationship to all the other defendants. ... [We] also have his statement to investigators about Ron Case that are in sharp contrast to his letter to the court."

There's a bit more back and forth about who has a copy of what and if DDA Mathai got a copy of the motion to squash the subpoena.

Judge Kennedy states, "I think he’s has read it."

Engles's counsel continues to argue to squash the subpoena. "Mr. Engles is not in the indictment. He's not in either one that’s of the charged defendants. ... [This has]nothing to do with Mr. Engle. ... When a family member comes to Dept. 30 [arraignment court] for ten years ..." The court interrupts his soliloquy and asks, "Are you saying he’s a family member?"

Counsel continues, "No. When someone is vouching to set bail ... now Mr. Mathai says he can now look at their bank records. ... It’s different if they filed under penalty of perjury that they didn’t know each other. ...That’s fine if they plan on prosecuting. ..."

I believe the court asks, "How does subpoenaing these records advance the prosecution of this case?"

DDA Mathai tells the court, "As I said, we have a very large conspiracy. I put in every brief that I field in this court, the defendants charged are just a portion of the conspirators." Judge Kennedy counters, "That doesn't answer my question."

DDA Mathai continues his argument to deny squashing the subpoena. "There are connections between other non-indicted conspirators that it’s still continuing. By showing the pattern of investment and the relation of these other unindicted co-conspirators. The actions of Mr. Engle ... If Mr. Case is in trial, and one of the charge is, he [Engle?] doesn’t know anyone."

What he [Engle] said to the FDIC [was] how much he invested and [the people would ask?] where did he get his funds, I’m going to prove all of that to the jury . It’s very narrow [the subpoena]. It’s a distinct portion of time. 

It’s one group of individuals ... about half of them are before this court."

The court rules. "I think that the people have articulated a reasonable [argument] for action for the subpoena so the motion to quash is denied."

Mr. Engle's counsel makes a request of the court. "When documents are delivered to the court, what I’d like is to come back with the people and go through those documents with the court. There's nothing in those documents. ... When were here and the court has a chance to see it, that what [was] just presented in court is not what actually the reality is. ... We’re not going to keep subpoena records from Mr. Engle from eight years ago."

The court doesn't appear to agree with that. "I’ve made my ruling so I don’t intend to go through those records."

And that's it for the Uwaydah et. al /Park Fraud Case hearing. They return on March 11 for more pretrial.

Note from Sprocket
Lonce LaMon has graciously agreed to share some of the motions filed by the defense that she's purchased from the court. Most interesting are the letters of support that were written for Park and other defendants to get their bail reduced. As soon as I receive copies, I will upload to T&T's SCRIBD account and post links.

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., Pretrial Hearing 6

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., in custody. Pool photo.

The previous post on this case can be found HERE.

UPDATE: 9/12 correct spelling of Daryn Dupree's first name
August 31, 2015
I’m on the 9th floor of the downtown Los Angeles Criminal Justice Center. Besides the cafeteria, it’s the floor that I’ve spent the most time on down here. I haven’t been to court in well over a month.

I’m waiting for Dept. 109 to open. I’m sorry I missed the last two hearings in the Lonnie Franklin, Jr. case. Fortunately, I’m almost completely over my lung congestion.

When I arrived, DDA Garrett Dameron was at the end of the hallway with a defense attorney. Both are waiting for Dept. 101, Judge Coen's courtroom to open.

There is also a hearing in the Albert Harutyunyan (aka Alberd Tersargynan) case in Dept. 109. Harutyunyan is charged with four counts of murder. I believe the DA’s office is seeking the death penalty in this case. DDA Daniel Akemon is prosecuting. Harutyunyan is on his second set of lawyers. I don’t know which hearing will be first.

DDA Akemon is here and my eyes are drawn to his shimmering, baby blue tie. With him are two LAPD homicide detectives, Greg Stearns, who worked on the Lazarus case, and Daniel Myers. Myers worked the Ka Pasasouk case and also testified in the Lazarus case. They go off to towards the other end of the hall to chat privately.

DDA Marguerite Rizzo arrives. She's wearing a sharp red jacket with a camel toned skirt. I've always been envious of Marguerite's trim figure. She takes a seat on a bench alongside her investigating officer, Daryn Dupree.

People Magazine investigative reporter Christine Pelisek arrives. 

There is a video cameraman here, but he's waiting for Dept. 101's current case in trial, the Tobias Dustin Summer case. I believe the victim will testify but since they are underage, no camera can record their image on the stand. Harutyunyan's defense team, Pete Waimrin and Gregory Apt arrive. DDA Akemon greets them and now they go off to chat privately.

8:31 AM
Dept. 109 opens and a few of the victim's relatives in the Franklin case head inside. After a little while, I head inside also.

8:38 AM
Inside Dept. 109. DDA Akemon is at the counsel table.  Defense attorney Louisa Pentsanti arrives. She's wearing a white jacket over a form fitting black dress.

In the Franklin case, the victim’s families start to enter the courtroom and greet the few people already here. Harutyunyan’s defense team goes back to the custody area to speak to their client. DDA Rizzo greets the victim’s families who are already here.

From the back row of the courtroom I briefly see Judge Kennedy pass by the open doorway. She’s wearing a black and gray print jacket. She comes out to greet her bailiff.  She’s asking the bailiff about a court clerk and a court reporter. Both desks are empty. They chat at the clerks counter for a bit.

Detective’s Stearns & Myers are in the gallery, first row behind the bailiff’s cubicle. Defense attorney Seymour Amster arrives.

8:44 AM
I wonder where DDA Beth Silverman is. Amster and DDA Akemon chat at the counsel table.

8:46 AM
The friendly court clerk from Judge Perry’s court comes in to sit in for the missing court clerk. I adore Judge Perry’s clerk. She was so nice to everyone in the media during the Lazarus trial. A few years ago, I got to have a nice chat with her while waiting for my friend Matthew. A court reporter I remember from the first Spector trial is sitting in for the missing court reporter.

Amster and DDA Rizzo appear to have a friendly chat about (I believe) some documents the prosecution is requesting.

It looks like the Harutyunyan case will go first. There is an Armenian interpreter for the defendant.

DDA Silverman arrives. She's wearing a black skirt and matching short sleeved suit jacket. I glance down to her feet. I can't wear heels, ever since I broke my left ankle in four places, but I always notice Silverman's shoes, since she has a great collection. On Beth's feet are black patent-leather, open toed high-heels with black bows. She stops to greet the victim’s families and ask how everyone is doing.

Harutyunyan is brought out. He’s a small, diminutive man with a gray and white beard. The court goes on the record in the Harutyunyan case. Defense attorneys Greg Apt and Pete Waimwrin from the Alternate Public Defender’s Office for the defendant. We learn that the defendant wants a Marsden hearing. This is at least the second Marsden hearing for Harutyunyan.

Judge Kennedy clears the courtroom. It’s like, Michael Gargiulo deja vous all over again. Everyone piles out into the hallway. DDA Akemon and his detectives, and everyone related to the Franklin case.

I find an empty bench seat and observe the little groups that form together.  Prosecution teams and their detectives, the Franklin defense team, support staff with the District Attorney’s Office and then the victim’s family members, who have come to know each other from attending the pretrial hearings.  Interspersed among all these groups are a few jurors on benches waiting to be called to their courtrooms.

Seymour Amster is wandering the hallway looking at his cell phone, then comes back over to his team, who are standing to my right. The jurors for Dept. 101 are called and the little groups seem to huddle closer.

9:14 AM
There are late arrivals for the Franklin case. They greet other family members already here.

9:37 AM
An older gentleman who was standing with the Franklin defense team walks over to where DDA Silverman is sitting and hands her a document. DDA Silverman signs for the document. Beth and Marguerite go over the document in detail.

9:53 AM
The Marsden hearing is over and I’m back inside Dept. 109.  Judge Kennedy is on the bench and making a ruling in the Marsden case. The hearing, which was transcribed by the court reporter, would be put under seal and not to be disclosed.  Judge Kennedy asks the parties about coming back for another hearing in about a month. The next court date in this case will be October 2, and the case calendar will be set at zero of 90.

Judge Kennedy asks if defendant waives time. The interpreter asks, and then answers for the defendant. “Yes.”  Judge Kennedy asks, “Counsel join?” Judge Kennedy then addresses the defendant. “I’m going to do what I told you I was going to do and your attorney’s are going to prepare [a document] for me. ... I hope you feel better.”

DDA Akemon documents the pages of discovery that are turned over, and that’s it for this case.  Defense attorney Apt asks about the document. Judge Kennedy states, “I don’t have anything to sign yet. ... I need you to prepare something.” Mr. Waimrim goes over to the clerk’s desk along with DDA Akemon. The Armenian interpreter leaves.

9:56 AM
We are waiting for things to start for Franklin.

The clerk is busy at her desk with Akemon and the two defense attorneys. Judge Kennedy is waiting on the bench. I think the collection of figurines on Judge Kennedy's bench appears to have gotten bigger since last year. The  abstract painting that looks like several "V" lines is still hanging on the wall behind her bench.

The Franklin case is finally called.

Mr. Amster addresses the court. “At the present time, as of this morning we turned over all report from all experts with the exception of Sorenson. She is prepared to represent to the court, there are three, categories of evidence that still has to be processed. ... Two of [the] three will be done this week and the third by September 11.”

The court asks, “When would they [prosecution] have reports?”

Seymour responds, “As soon as I get this stuff, It should be expeditious.”

Seymour continues. As soon as I get it I will get it to them as fast as I can. I can’t forward it [in an email]. It’s too big. It’s on CD. “They will have everything by September 14, ... Thirty days before trial. ... Sorenson will turn it into a CD or and ... [I’ll] make sure they get it. ... The two reports on the evidence that we will get this week ... I’ll have Dr. Sowers(? sp?) to have it within a week. ... And the second, the minute [I?] gets it, he does it.”

Again, September 14th.

The court asks the people if they acknowledge what the defense has turned over.

The people respond, “I don’t think so your honor.  We’re entitled to the raw data.”

The people go over with the court, the document that was given to them earlier in the hallway. They document with the court, how what they’ve received is incomplete. There are several experts, where they still have not received anything at all. 

I don’t get all the names that the people mention, of the potential defense expert witnesses, where the people have not received the reports.

DDA Sliverman tells the court, "A psychiatrist. we don’t have any of the data that went into his report
 which we are entitled to ... Same is true for Mr. Krout (sp?). ... received [Metallurgical?] effects expert and we received a, .. I’d like to say it’s a one line, hand lined piece of paper that constitutes a report fro Mr. Munos."

DDA Sliverman states she agrees with the general [parameters?] in the one line statement and the people also agree on the exception of the drug [?] bearing any [?]


Amster interrupts DDA Sliverman and asks, “Did you get the second page?” 


The court asks the people, “Did you get the second page?” DDA Silverman responds, “I wasn’t finished speaking.”

The second page and what it entails is discussed.

Amster interrupts again. “That report  is about the rebuttal. The second page is the summary of the phone conversation and mine.” The have in substance, the same thing I have.

The court asks, “Just so I can understand. ...You anticipate that the prosecution is going to present the drug recognition expert?”

Amster answers. "I believe at least one witness [?] these events under a drug, a controlled substance. We have to determine what she was under the influence of and how much. And then I bring in a drug expert to talk about it."

The court clarifies. "So being under the influence of a specific drug and being able to recall?" Amster responds. "And she’s someone who had a habit of drugs"

Judge Kennedy states, "And all of these are under 402." [402 meaning, that there will be a hearing, outside the presence of the jury, to determine if this witness can testify or not.]

DDA Sliverman asks. "Is there any reports, notes, in addition to this?" Amster responds. "I don’t think there’s anything in addition to this from Mr. Munos (sp?). ... I wanted to get the reports to the other side by August 31. ... The vast majority of these reports came in last night. This has not been the easiest situation , I wish it would be an easier situation with my experts."

DDA Silverman informs the court the people have not received [Mr. Paul, Schmitz, Tobin, George Reese, Gibson] (Sp?)

The court clarifies that what they are talking about are defense experts that may testify.

Amster adds. "With exception of Mr. Reese. ... Ibelieve we sent the 911 report of Mr. Gibson [already]. I thought we delivered that." DDA Sliverman tells the court. "We’ve received no notes, [reports?] from any of these people."

Amster replies. "One step at a time. The report from Mr. Gibson (sp?), we gave. ... As far as the other experts at this point, we don’t ...  [Mr. Paul, Mr. Jones, Mr. Reese Mr. Gibson?]  at this point, we don’t anticipate [calling them]."

Mr. Amster adds a bit more that I miss.

DDA Silverman asks. “Which individuals are those?” Amster answers, “Mr. Schmidt is off the list.”  DDA Sliverman asks another question. “How about Mr. Jones?”

I believe Amster responds that at this point, they don’t plan on calling him. DDA Sliverman asks, “Is there any report or notes that he’s created so far.?” Amster responds, “There are notes and reports that he’s made, but it depends on what the prosecution is going to present.”

DDA Sliverman tells the court, “The defense knows what the people’s case is. We’ve turned over 26,000 pages of documents.” Amster counters back, “I don’t agree, but I would be willing for this court to make a ruling.”

Judge Kennedy asks, “Based on the 26,000 pages that you have, you don’t anticipate calling this person?”

I believe the people continue. However, if they turn over ... they didn’t turn over until later, then we have a hearing demonstrating that fact, ...

The court asks, “And now this witness becomes relevant that you didn’t have at trial?” Amster responds, “At this point, unless something new occurs.”

DDA Silverman asks about a Mr. Paul. Amster responds, “Mr. Paul has not prepared a report. And again, it’s only if there’s a problem with an expert coming on the stand. I may bring him in on sur-rebuttal.”

“On what issue?” Judge Kennedy asks.  Amster answers, “Ballistics.”

DDA Silverman asks about defense witness George Reese. Amster replies, “At this point, [we’re] not anticipating [he will] get on the stand. ... I have a report I’m not disclosing. ... If something new, I will have to make the same showing as Mr. Schultz.”

DDA Silverman asks, “A report from Tim Williams that talks about improper handling but no specifics.”  Amster answers, “I’m sure there are notes to that effect.”

DDA Silverman clarifies,”We are still waiting for that.” Amster responds, “I’m not so sure I agree with that but I will try to get a hold with Mr. Williams.”

DDA Silverman adds, “There are a number of civilians, over 100, what we received from counsel. ... [We] did not receive the specifics of conversations. ... [There's] the same type of summary for each and every witness.”  Amster insists that they [have? don't have?] a witness statement from each and ever person.

The court asks the defense, “Does that mean that collection of people, but, that you don’t anticipate calling [them]because you haven’t take statement from them?”

Amster doesn’t agree with the court’s assessment. “That’s not what I’m saying. ... The vast number of people are on the movie. [HBO documentary.] We have not found them. We have not taken a statement from them. ... We have not [taken] statements. ... Some of them, they’ve turned over statements to us. ... We don’t have any statements, but then we’ve put them in the potential of witness.”

DDA Silverman, tells the court that they will have to build in extra time for this trial, to have 402’s for each of these witnesses. The court agrees, “We’re going to have many 402’s." DDA Sliverman asks about another witness, a Mr. Crawley (sp?).

This is the third party culpability motion that needs to be ruled on. Judge Kennedy tells the parties, “We need to specifically ... We need to have that handled on another date.”

Amster responds on this issue. “We are not presenting third party culpability in the guilt phase. Third party culpability will be lingering doubt in the penalty phase.”

DDA Silverman informs the court, “We’ve researched the law and the same law applies.”

DDA Silverman also asks for the test results and raw data from the clinic neuro-psychologist. The court asks the defense if they will have that ready on the 14th as well.  Then there is a bit of back and forth discussion about when to return and what will be decided on what date.  Judge Kennedy finally rules that they will return on September 9 four outstanding defense discovery and also on September 14 for argument on the third party culpability motion.

As a last issue, the court informs parties, “If there are any other briefs that you want me to consider get them in as soon as possible.”

DDA Rizzo has an issue about a protective order for an individual [I’ve not included the name].

And that’s it September 9 it is. This will create a conflict with the Gargiulo case. I still haven't decided which hearing to go to.

Commentary
There is a reason why the court and the prosecution stated there would be many 402 hearings. Although the defense was supposed to turn over all their discovery by today, they have not done so. From what I gathered today, there may be witnesses the defense decides to call at the last minute, depending on what the prosecution experts say. If the defense did not turn over discovery with that witness before trial, and during the trial decide to call them during their case, then the prosecution has the right to have a hearing, outside the presence of the jury to question the witness. The court then decides if the witness can testify before the jury.

The reason the court does not, at this time, bar these witnesses from testifying because the discovery was not turned over to the prosecution 30 days before trial, is the appellate court. It's pretty much guaranteed that a guilty verdict would be turned over on appeal if the court barred a witness because of a discovery violation.

I remember a 402 hearing in this very courtroom two years ago. It was a last minute defense witness right before the start of the Kelly Soo Park trial. The hand written, defense investigator's interview notes (on yellow lined paper) of this witness were turned over to the prosecution on a Friday, when the trial was to start on Monday. 

The next post on this case can be found HERE.

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., & Pretrial Hearings in New Cases

 Lonnie Franklin, Jr., at an earlier court proceeding.

Photo credit and date unknown.

UPDATE 9/26: punctuation, clarity, accuracy
UPDATE 9/26: links added at bottom of story
Wednesday, September 25th, 2013
I'm on the 9th floor of the Shortride-Foltz Criminal Justice Center.  Although it’s 8:20 AM, I’m not sure which cases I’m going to cover this morning.

When I checked the DA's calendar for this week, I saw that one of my favorite deputy DA's, Daniel Akemon, (prosecuting Michael Thomas Gargiulo and Ka Pasasouk) had a preliminary hearing that was scheduled in Dept. 102 on the same day as a pretrial hearing in Dept. 109 for the Alberd Tersargyan case.  Additionally, Lonnie Franklin, Jr. was also scheduled for a hearing in Dept. 109 this morning. I had not dropped in on the Franklin case for some time, so I thought I would see where it stood.

I had attended a couple pretrial hearings in the Tersargyan case back when former DDA Alan Jackson was assigned to it. Now that DDA Akemon had taken over the case, I'm considering adding it to the list of cases I'm tracking.

The preliminary hearing in Dept. 102, Judge Stephan A. Marcus’ courtroom, is for Bryan Barnes and Javier Bolden who are charged with 187 felony murder in the shooting deaths in April 2012, of two USC graduate students from China. Ming Qu and Ying Wu, both 23, were gunned down in their vehicle just a mile from the USC campus. Eighteen months later and the defendants still have not had their preliminary hearing yet.  In contrast, Stephanie Lazarus’ preliminary hearing occurred six months after she was arrested.

I’m hoping I can get a word with DDA Akemon before the courtrooms open to find out how long the preliminary hearing is expected to last. If it’s only a few days then Mr. Sprocket will be able to spare me from helping him on that year overdue nightmare project he’s been working on.



For those of you reading for the first time, Trials & Tribulations is an advertizing free, 100% reader supported web site. If you enjoy the one-of-a-kind, detailed reporting that T&T provides, please consider making a donation to cover my parking and court costs.

Already in the hallway, I see two Asian individuals waiting for Dept. 102 Judge Stephen A. Marcus’ courtroom to open.  Now, a third Asian man has arrived, and a fourth pretty woman, possibly a reporter.

 There are a group of three black ladies and a black gentleman (standing) who were here when I arrived on the 9th floor.  The elevator lobby was unusually empty today and the line to get through security very short.

 Now I see that the two young Asian peope might be from a news agency.  The woman has a rolling card and a lanyard around her neck. Another suited Asian woman arrives and checks the door to Judge Marcus’ courtroom.

 More people arrive looking to see if the courtrooms at this end of the hall have opened. An older gray haired gentleman with a court employee badge hanging from his neck checks the door to Dept. 109.

When DDA Akemon arrives I jokingly tell him I’m stalking him. He tells me that the prelim will be delayed until Monday or Tuesday of next week.



8:28 AM 
Mary Hearns from the Superior Court’s Public Information Office (PIO) arrives on the 9th floor.  I ask, but she doesn’t know how many days the prelim will go.  More Asian reporters come up to her and ask her questions.  I see another reporter with a tripod and camera, but they are going into Dept. 101, not Dept. 102. Another Asian man arrives. 

A fast walking suited man carrying a DA case file comes down the hall and quickly enters Dept. 101. I ask Mary if Judge Marcus allows reporters to use their computers for note taking.  She indicated she would find out.



8:35 AM
Bryan Barnes and Javier Bolden

I step inside Dept. 102 for the first time since the Anand Jon Alexander trial back in 2008. Back then, it was Judge David Wesley’s courtroom. Great news. Judge Marcus allows laptops for reporters. The seats in the second and third rows are almost full so I ask the bailiff if I can sit in the front row.  Most courtrooms on the 9th floor, the judges don’t allow seating in the front row for pretrial hearings but
Judge Marcus appears to be an exception.



8:36 AM


In the well, I see DDA Akemon’s co-counsel, the lovely DDA Debrah Brazil. Brazil is in conference with two defense attorneys. She’s wearing a black pantsuit, white blouse and disheveled pixie haircut. I envy the leopard print pumps on her feet. I haven’t been able to wear high heels ever since a 1991 mishap with a child on a moped knocked me to the ground and broke my left ankle in four places.

Along with her co-counsel David Walgren, Brazil successfully prosecuted Conrad Murray on involuntary manslaughter charges in the death of legendary music icon, Michael Jackson. Last year, Brazil and Walgren were honored for their work on the Murray case. Searching the web, I learned that Brazil is an adjunct associate professor at Southwestern Law School, her Alma mater. You can read an interview she gave here.

I did not attend the trial, but I was fortunate to attend Murray’s preliminary hearing.  Or rather, I watched the prelim on live feed from an adjoining courtroom with other journalists.  I admired Brazil’s work in the courtroom and was hoping a case would come up where I could experience her legal skills again.



DDA Akemon is over at the clerks desk. He’s receiving a slew documents that were most likely under subpoena.  There are two stuffed FedEx boxes and many bulging manila envelopes.

There is the standard black and brown name plate in the front of Judge Marcus’ bench but he also has a beautiful, dark green marble looking name plate on his bench.

 Akemon is going though the stacks of paper that were in the FedEx boxes. I hear friendly banter between Brazil and the two defense attorneys.  Over by the clerk’s desk there is a stuffed animal sitting on top of the covered over water fountain. (All the the water fountains in the building have been covered with plastic from around the time of the first Spector trial. Sprocket.) It’s green. Is it a lizard? A frog? I can’t tell.  Around the bailiff’s desk, there is a Plexiglas separation, but it’s not nearly as high as what I’ve seen in the other 9th floor courtrooms.
 

Judge Marcus comes out and takes the bench. He has a kind, welcoming face. He talks informally with counsel about calling them and rescheduling the preliminary hearing. Dept. 102 is still in trial so this will not kick off today. Prelim is expected to take 2 days. Judge Marcus asks counsel what they are hoping for in regards to a start time for the prelim.  Both defense attorney’s present indicate that Monday is not a good day for them Judge Marcus replies, “No, I got to do this on Monday.”

One defense attorney indicates there is a scheduling issue with her co-counsel, and the other defense attorney is explaining that her co-counsel is unavailable that day. .

Judge Marcus is adamant. “We’re staring this.” One of the defense attorneys ask if they can approach. Judge Marcus replies, “We’ll do all this on the record.” 

There are scheduling conflicts with co-counsel for the defense.

Marcus asks DDA Brazil about phone records in (it appears) another case she has before him.
We are waiting for the two defendants to be brought out. Marcus explains that the lawyer in his current case got sick, or they could have started today. Smiling, he tells counsel about the current trial, “We’ll be done by Friday, even though I lost two days, I drove them.”

 There’s more friendly banter from Judge Marcus with counsel.

A male defense attorney shows up. Akemon leaves the courtroom.

 One defendant, a young black man is brought out wearing jail blues. More gallery people arrive. The second defendant is brought out who is also in jail blues. The second black man, looks much younger than the first, although later I find out there is only a three month age difference between the defendants. They are both twenty-one years old. When the second defendant was brought out he looked into the gallery and smiled. I'm familiar with one of the female defense attorneys but I don't know her name. I saw her sitting in the gallery during several days of the James Fayed case. I believe she is with the public defender's office. 


Judge Marcus goes on the record with People v. Barnes and Bolden.  The court asks the parties to state their appearances for the record.  Marcus explains the delay, that he lost two days due to an attorney being ill in the case currently in trial.  Judge Marcus states the prelim will start on Monday, September 30th. “That is still my plan although I could start on Friday,” he tells counsel.

 The defense counsel explain their difficulties with starting the trial on Monday. The male defense attorney states he has a preplanned commitment on Monday afternoon at 4 PM (I believe he said on the west side).  Marcus offers that they will stop the proceedings at 3:30 PM so he could make that commitment.  The man counters that they stop at 3:00 PM. I believe Judge Marcus tells counsel that he will split the difference with him: 3:15 PM.

The other female defense counsel explains to Judge Marcus that she rearranged her personal matters for Monday. In addition, her co-counsel, Mr. Goldman is also unavailable on Monday. He will be in charge of their office on Monday and is involved in (I don’t quite catch this) some sort of training.

 Judge Marcus is firm. He tells counsel, “I’m afraid I’m going to start Monday.”  If Judge Marcus starts later, (Tuesday) that will upset the rest of his schedule for other matters. He adds, “I’ll shut down at 3:15 PM. ... want to get this going. ... With all do respect, I have cases after your case. I lost those two days myself.”



Judge Markus asks Brazil about DDA Akemon, and she tells him that Mr. Akemon will be here for the prelim. Brazil then tells the court that the prosecution has another matter. The people issued SDT’s in this case (I take the initials to mean subpoena duces tecum). They are medical records that will be related to the penalty phase. The defense has no objection that the people can take possession of the documents, Bates Stamp them and prepare copies for the defense.  Brazil adds that although the documents are relevant, they will not be presented at the prelim, so there will not be any surprises for the defense. Judge Marcus has no problem with that. 

And that’s it for this hearing.

Judge Marcus appologizes to all the people in the gallery that he wasn’t able to notify them that the prelim would not start today. After the hearing I step outside to get the names of the defense attorneys who appeared today: Marie D’Onofrio and Gustavo Sztraicher are with the Public Defender’s Office.  Counsel for the other defendant was Jena Seng. Her co-counsel is Andrew Goldman who was not present today. Unfortunately, although I can match the attorneys to the defendant’s I saw in court, I could not tell for certain which name went with which defendant. I apologize.

There are links to relevant stories about the grad student’s murders at the bottom of this entry. Sprocket.

Lonnie Franklin, Jr.

9:01 AM

I cross the hall and step inside Dept. 109, Judge Kennedy’s courtroom. I take a seat in the third bench row. There are people already here in the gallery, who I believe are family members of the victims in this case. There’s a new sheriff at the bailiff’s desk. It’s an older gentleman with a large mustache. Judge Kennedy’s clerk is at her desk and the court reporter is just starting to set up her equipment.

I have a feeling the Franklin case will be heard first and the Tersargyan case second.

 There are two gentlemen sitting on the left side of the aisle beside the bailiff’s enclosure.  This is where detectives usually sit, but their suits are more interesting than what detectives usually wear. I guess they are defense counsel, even though they are not sitting in the well.

DDA Beth Silverman entered a few moments ago. She stops to greet the family members in the gallery in the row in front of me before taking a seat in the well. A clerk brings Silverman a file then takes a seat in the gallery.

Defense counsel Seymour Amster and Louisa Pensanti were in the well of the court when I arrived.

 I note that the left side of Judge Kennedy’s bench is still covered in figurines and the painting that I noticed hanging behind her bench during the Kelly Soo Park trial is still there. Judge Kennedy comes out to speak to her clerk. She looks thinner to me each time I see her.  She’s wearing a black and white blouse with ruffles around the v-neckline.

 DDA Marguerite Rizzo, co-counsel to Beth Silverman arrives 9:06 AM. She’s wearing a sharp black and white check jacket . Silverman motions to her clerk in the gallery to speak to her.


9:07 AM
Franklin is brought out from the jail holding area. Judge Kennedy takes the bench and says “Good morning,” to counsel. She asks them to state their appearances. Then 

DDA Rizzo addresses the court. She is speaking pretty fast and I did not completely catch was she was saying. This is what I typed, but I'm not sure it's exactly what she said: We submitted a final order to squash. We are working on a review of orders for uncharged victims. Inez Warren, ... informed evidence in her case has been destroyed.  She then mentions two other individuals that I don’t quite catch but I believe she’s talking about Sharon Dismuke and Georgia Mae Thomas, who are all mentioned in this LA Weekly story from November 2011.

I’m not certain if it’s Ms. Rizzo or Judge Kennedy who suggests they come back in two weeks. Judge Kennedy tells counsel that jury selection in the Rizzo case (City of Bell, public corruption scandal) will start on October 7th.  There is a bit of discussion as to what time the jurors will arrive on that date, but that’s when they will come back. As of today, the case calendar is set at zero of 90. Judge Kennedy doesn’t take a waiver. The case will be at 12 of 90 on the 7th.

And that’s it. Silverman asks the family members in the gallery to head out into the hallway so she can update them. I stop Marguerite Rizzo to tell her what I thought about the DA’s Forensics Science Forum, that was held two weeks ago. Marguerite was the one who organized this year’s conference. This was the first year that the conference was under the direction of new District Attorney Jackie Lacey.

I told Marguerite that I didn’t get a chance to speak to her at the DA's Science Forum, but I wanted to tell her that I thought she did a fantastic job on organizing the conference. Like Matthew McGough mentioned last week to Judge Perry, during the Gerhard Becker hearing, I told her I thought all the presentations were excellent. The food was also a big improvement over last year.  I was also impressed that the cost was $10.00.  It was a packed room and an a great event. I hope to find time to write about it, soon. 


And that’s it for the Franklin hearing.

Albert Tersargyan
The older gentleman with the court employee badge I first saw in the hallway is in the gallery. Apparently he’s an interpreter, but he speaks Arabic, instead of what Tersargyan speaks, which is Armenian. Tersargyan is not yet on the 9th floor yet. He's in a different holding location.

The gentlemen in the gallery and the Arabic interpreter are now talking to Judge Kennedy. The two men must be Tersargyan's court appointed counsel. The interpreter is asked, "Can you speak Armenian?" No, only Arabic. They were sent the wrong interpreter. Judge Kennedy tells the man, "Well, we don’t need you. We need an Armenian interpreter. ... We’ve had an  Armenian interpreter every time. ...  I don’t understand."  

It will take some time to get the right interpreter here. The off the record discussion is to set the hearing over to October 11th, 2013.  The court clerk is not sure if they can "trail" the hearing because this is a death penalty case. One of the gentlemen gets up to speak to Judge Kennedy's clerk privately.



Judge Kennedy takes the bench. "In the matter of People v. Mr. Haroonian (sp?) ... Mr. Haroonian might be in the building now. The interpreter's office sent an Arabic interpreter for reasons I know not." Judge Kennedy states they are 0 of 90 today. On Oct 11th, they will be 16 of 90. And that's it.  The hearing is over and Tersargyan will not be brought to the courtroom.  And that's it for this hearing.  In the hallway, I ask the two gentlemen representing Tersargyan for the correct spelling of their names. They are Gregory Apt and Pete Waimrin from the Alternate Public Defender's Office.

After I got over my puzzlement of Judge Kennedy calling the defendant by a different name, I have a memory of a conversation with former Deputy DA Alan Jackson. Back in 2011, I believe Jackson told me there was an issue as to whether or not Tersargyan was the defendant's correct last name as well as the possibility that his age was about 15-20 years younger. So although Tersargyan is how the defendant is listed in the LA Co. Sheriff's inmate look-up web site, this is not the name that is being used in court.

Mainstream Media Stories on Barnes & Bolden Case
04/11/12 NBC Two Grad Students Shot Dead

04/11/12 LAT Slaying of Two Grad Students Stuns USC
05/02/12 LAT Arrests Made in Grad Student's Deaths 
05/22/12 LA Weekly Barnes & Bolden Possibly Catch Death Penalty
05/22/12 LAT Slaying Suspects Portrayed Themselves as Party Boys
02/15/13 LAT Lawsuit Against USC Dismissed

Facebook Photo Page of No RespectInc