Showing posts with label Robert Blake. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Blake. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 16, 2024

Murder Trial Starts for Socialite Rebecca Grossman

 Socialite Rebecca Grossman's life changed forever on the evening of September 29, 2020. Prosecutors allege Grossman's Mercedes, driving at a high rate of speed, struck and killed two young boys who were in a crosswalk on Triunfo Canyon Road in Westlake Village, Ca. It was a visual horror for the Isklander family. Jacob, 8, and Mark, 11, Isklander were in the crosswalk with their mother, Nancy when she witnessed her children struck by the speeding vehicle. One child died at the scene; the other died at the hospital.

Grossman is charged with two counts of second degree murder, two counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence and one count of hit-and-run driving resulting in death. From shortly after her arrest, Grossman posted the 2M bond and was released from custody.

There are several excellent reports on this case in The Acorn and the Los Angeles Times. Some are listed below. Grossman's booking photo has not been released. You can see photos of Grossman at the various links.

On the bench is Superior Court Judge Joseph Brandolino. Deputy DA's Jamie Castro and Ryan Gould are prosecuting. Goldman's defense is led by attorney Tony Buzbee.

I had started following the news reports on this case over a year ago. I had hoped to attend the trial at the Van Nuys Courthouse, located close to where I live. It would have been an easy drive. This is the very same building where I attended my first trial, the Robert Blake murder trial, which started in December, 2004. Back then, I wrote about attending the case on Internet message boards. The Grossman case is interesting because I can see both sides having horrific consequences of this tragic event. The Isklander family lost their two oldest children right before their eyes. Rebecca Grossman, co-director of The Grossman Burn Foundation with her husband, Dr. Peter Grossman is also a mother. She is facing decades in jail away from her children, family and the life she knew. But unfortunately, I can't attend.

There are times when life changes your plans. As most of you know by now, I've been on a cancer journey since being diagnosed February 2, 2021 with Stage IV Urothelial Carcinoma, also known as "Bladder Cancer." There is no cure. In October '23, my care was transferred to a Bladder Cancer specialist at USC. I've been on a new drug since then with a rare side effect of over-histamine production. There isn't a drug that I've tried that dries up my overactive sinuses completely. This in turn, means I have post-nasal drip and a chronic cough. There's no way a judge would allow me to sit in a courtroom in the gallery with a chronic cough. I've had too much experience covering high-profile trials to know I'd be told to leave.
 
I'll be following this case in the LA Times.

FYI Note: Trials & Tribulations has always been, based on my long-time interest in why people commit murder and a deep love of the law. I would sit in a courtroom and listen to motion arguments or testimony all day if I could. Attending high-profile murder trials has always been a free service of giving back to the community. There is no advertising and there are no membership fees to read T&T content. T&T has received small donations over the years from our readers to cover my travel costs to court and purchase court documents. See my ABOUT page.

Sprocket Note: I've been working on an update post on my cancer journey since last September. Hopefully, I'll get everyone up-to-date soon. Here's a short recap. The good news is, I'm here, on the planet. I'm still on two feet, I can still take care of myself, drive, grocery shop, get to USC, etc., all on my own. However, I have lots of fatigue. I don't have the energy I used to have. I have to rest a lot. The neuropathy that developed in my hands (around late July from the chemo drugs) has made my sewing projects take much longer to complete.

Media Articles
01-16 2024 LA Times
11-21-2022 Los Angeles Magazine - Interview with Rebecca Grossman



Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Dinner Shopping Beside Robert Blake

I procrastinated going out today until later afternoon. I was totally out of the herbs I use in my Hot/Cold Packs and needed to stock up again. I really didn't want to drive to the NoHo Arts District to The Herb Company store because it's starting to get hot again here in Cali. I finally got it together and left the house around 4:00 pm. Just as I expected, the price of lavender had jumped up quite a bit since my last purchase well over a year ago. I picked up three pounds of lavender flowers and three 1/4 pound bags of peppermint leaves and headed back home.

Mr. Sprocket (who normally does all the cooking in our house is recovering from surgery on his right arm and has been the patient from hell, his half dressed butt permanently cemented to the sofa these past two weeks) asked me to pick up something to eat on the way home. I wasn't really interested in his favorite meal, Thai food again, so I thought I would stop in at Gelson's in Sherman Oaks and get a turkey thigh from the carving station. Gelson's is an upscale grocery chain in Southern Cali. It's not as good as the Wegman's Mr. Sprocket took me to back in New Jersey, but it does have some nice features. One of them is they have a carving station where you can get freshly cooked tri-tip, turkey and prime rib at $20.00 a pound. Since we are Gatherers on the new GenoType Diet we are eating quite a bit more turkey these days.

When I entered the store I stopped off at the carving station and put in an order for a turkey thigh. The chef told me a new bird would be out in about five minutes, so I went off to roam the isles and shop for a few things.

Soon after I returned to the carving station, an elderly man was standing to my left and he had just placed an order for well over a pound of prime rib. The chef must have had this customer before because without saying anything, he not only sliced the beef, he cubed it for him. The chef did ask if he wanted the fat trimmed off, and when the man said, "No, give it all to me," I finally looked at his profile and realized who it was. I almost didn't recognize him because he wasn't wearing one of those exquisite suits he wore every day when he was on trial for the murder of Bonnie Lee Bakley.

I have followed criminal trials on TV for many years but the Robert Blake criminal trial was the first trial I attended and wrote about my observations. It's where I first met the tiny Beth Karas and Steve Mikulan, staff writer for the LA Weekly. (I also met Dominick Dunne at that trial for the first time and like a typical star-struck fan, I asked him to autograph one of his books for me.)

Blake was dressed in dark chocolate jeans, a nondescript belt and a fresh looking white t-shirt. His body looked almost anorexic he was so rail thin. He was wearing what appeared to be a straw cowboy hat the same color as his jeans, with some sort of filmy, deep burgundy wrapping around the bottom crown of the hat. As I tried to watch him inconspicuously out of the corner of my eye, as he was paying for his prim rib ($26.00) I noticed he added a piece of prepackaged garlic bread for the checker to ring up.

After I picked up my turkey thigh, I stopped by the bakery to get Mr. Sprocket his favorite cookies, walnut meringues. I then proceeded to the checkout register and told the clerk that I just saw Robert Blake. The cashier replied, "Oh yeah. He's a regular. He's in here all the time." And when she said that I was thinking, I'm in here all the time too and I never see him. And then I remembered that during his trial, he had rented (or purchased; I had never found out for sure) a condominium in Sherman Oaks to be closer to the courthouse. I wondered, did Blake sell that run down property he had in Studio City years ago and is now living just a stone's throw or two away from me?

I then told the cashier, "I attended about 90% of his criminal trial." She was quite surprised and asked me, "Oh? How was that?" "Well, he got off you know," I said. And she kinda laughed and asked again, "Yeah, but how was that?" There was so much I wanted to say, but I stopped myself from responding and just smiled back.

As I was driving home, I thought back to another day I had run into Blake. It was the day the verdicts were read in his case and Blake walked away a free man. Later that afternoon, I was waiting in line at Trader Joe's, and there the little guy was I saw at the defense table all those months, standing there in front of me with a short plump lady friend, buying some wine. He was obviously quite nervous and had trouble figuring out how to slide his credit card through the card reader machine. I'll have to keep my eyes peeled for future Blake sightings in and around Sherman Oaks.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Hung up on "Reasonable Doubt"

Updated!
I went down to the courthouse this afternoon, but I didn't get in. (I will expand on this entry later tonight, to flesh out my story.) Alan Parachini let in virtually any media that showed up, even when they showed up late, and even if it didn't appear that they were on the court's media list. That left a SINGLE SEAT for the public. One of his staff, Meredith, let in an single trial watcher who had been there in the morning on jury watch. The accredited press will always get preferential treatment over the public, and this was clearly the case this afternoon. In my opinion, that stinks.

After the proceedings, I talked to several reporters. One in the know reporter (who asked not to be quoted) said that there were seven jurors grouped together that they thought were possibly in a "guilty" group. That was their guess. I don't know when this reporter observed this, but they did. #2, #4, #7, #8, #9, #10 (Unfortunately, I can't remember the number the reporter told me of the 7th juror in the group.)

This reporter said that even though #9, did say (when questioned by the Judge) that a clarification of doubt verses reasonable doubt might help, the reporter felt the verbal pausing when responding as well as their body language indicated that it wasn't juror #9 who needed that information specifically, but likely other jurors did and this was their opinion as to what might help.

What follows is my opinion on several issues. Sadly, again, Californians have shown the world that when they enter a jury box to determine guilt or innocence, their brains turn into melted cheese. California is known for its' cheese, and now it's confirmed that our brains are made of it too. This washed up former music producer is so guilty, I could tell it from opening statement. Sadly, though, we have melted cheese in that jury box, and melted cheese is what it is, not much use for anything other than ham sandwiches.

I believe that members of the jury had a hard time understanding second degree murder and implied malice, in addition to being totally confused about the difference between reasonable doubt and "all doubt." Crap. Everybody has doubts. This jury though had melted cheese for brains and couldn't tell the difference.

To me, it is very suspicious what appeared on the Team Spector MySpace page late in the evening of September 17th. Very suspicious. Spector has several investigators who are in his deep pockets. What goes through my mind, is, did any of these investigators, during this trial, follow jurors home just like that white haired guy followed CCA all the way to his stop on the Metro Red Line, and question him? Here is the link for you to reread the entry on that event and then ask yourself, Is it possible?

Update: 9:10 pm.
Some Court TV posters appear to be upset with my "generalizations" of Californians, indicating that it's only celebrity trials that have this problem and citing other trials where a just verdict was reached. OF COURSE I'm talking about celebrity justice! Did I really need to clarify that? I attended about 90% of the Blake trial. Blake was guilty, but that jury found him not guilty. Afterwards, we found out their brains were made of melted cheese when they were interviewed on the John and Ken Show on KFI640. Mark my words. When the Spector jury is interviewed, we will discover the same thing.

But back to the anger and pain and shock that most are feeling. All I can really think of at this moment is Mrs. Clarkson and her daughter Fawn. An absolute hell they must be going through right now. It makes me so sad to think that 4.5 years later, they still don't have justice for their daughter. I urge everyone to keep them in your thoughts and prayers. They need us now to be strong for them.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Waiting for a Verdict: Day Five

Since I'm always looking for the latest news by the mainstream media on Rachelle Short, here is an article in the TimesOnline UK edition.

Even though I really need to get cracking on some sewing orders, I had thought that I would go visit 106 today, to drop off some printed materials for Mr. Dunne but I kept getting delayed at home. It was either one more kitty hair ball mess to clean up off the floor, or some other chore that couldn't wait until I got home. I did finally get out the door in the early afternoon and arrived on the 9th floor a little after 2:00pm.

I went directly up to the 9th floor and peeked in but I didn't see Dominick. So I trekked all the way down to the Court TV filming area to ask Beth Karas if she had seen him since I didn't see him in the courtroom. She indicated that if he wasn't in the courtroom, he might be on the 18th floor media room. Then it finally dawned on me that I could just call him, lol! When I got him on the phone, he said he was back in the courtroom so I headed back into the building, past the first floor security and past the 9th floor security once again.

The courtroom is virtually empty, with reporters and a few public people I recognized sitting here and there. It's so quiet even the slightest noise reverberates throughout the room. As I sit down beside Dominick I notice that he looks very tired, and he tells me that he's completely exhausted. It's just a little after 2:00pm, and he's already given about ten on air interviews so far. Not only that, he has agreed to do a few more before the day is over.

Peter Y. Hong of the LA Times is in the back row on his laptop, as well as John Spano, but Spano is getting ready to leave and takes off. There are a few whispers and one could hear a pin drop. I see an older gentleman who I originally met at the Robert Blake trial that I named at that time "Mr. Cane." He is in deep conversation with Mick Brown. Mick catches my eye, smiles, and I wave back. Mr. Cane has been at this trial quite a bit, sitting in the back row against the wall in the plastic chairs near the door. The Court TV camera operators are here and sitting next to them in Beth Karas's regular seat is Gary Spector. He looks exactly like he did in the interviews on TV. He has a great smile. Michael Christian is in the back row, working away on his laptop. There are a handful of reporters that I don't recognize. I do see Harriet Ryan and our regular bailiff in her Plexiglas box but thats about it.

I leave the courtroom to go to the 13th floor snack room and get a Vitamin Water. In the hallway I run into Sandi Gibbons who smiles and gives me a hello.

It's 3:10 pm now, and the ticking of the clock is the noisiest thing in the room. Dominick steps outside to make some calls and Alan Parachini has been in and out with one his his staff several times. I finally turn around and introduce myself as "Sprocket" to Gary. He tells me that he goes home today. He can't stay any longer it appears. He tells me that every time the jury comes out he gets nervous, and that maybe it's a good thing that he's going home. I wonder if he ever got to even see his father. How sad, if he didn't. He said that he brought flowers for Rachelle and Mrs. Clarkson when he arrived at the courthouse on Monday afternoon, but I tell him that they had already left the courthouse by the time he arrived. I ask him if he's been able to spend some time with Louis and his companion and he indicated that they've been together every day.

I can hear someone in the back row whispering. The interviews that Dominick has done have all been on the recent events in Las Vegas. It's totally ironic that O.J. Simpson is being investigated for robbery on the very same day that the book he wrote, If I Did It, is being released. Dominick says, the OJ debacle has overshadowed this trial. That's all anyone wants to talk about. We talk about his appearance on Star Jones's show on Court TV, and I tell him that I thought he did very well on that interview. I also tell him that all the Court TV posters thought he did a great job too, and the members were very pleased that he corrected Jones for calling him "Nick," and also stating very clearly that she was on "the opposite side" of the O.J. case than him. Apparently, the ratings for her show are not good. I'm sure that will be good news for the Court TV posters.

It's 3:17 pm, and the Laloya law professor Stan Goldman comes in to sit beside someone I don't know over on the far right of the courtroom. I had seen him in the hallway, earlier. Alan Parachini is in the back row talking to the camera operators and a reporter sitting in the far left corner. I start and stop and start and stop reading Mick Brown's book, Tearing Down the Wall of Sound. That's so I can take some notes as to what is going on around me.

A large, bald sheriff with a big white mustache exited a bit earlier and now comes back in. He sits in a chair right beside the regular bailiff. His chair is directly in front of the little door to the waiting cell area where Spector will be quickly whisked if he is convicted. That will be a very frightening time for Spector, who has difficulty being alone.

3:25 pm. Even I can hear a few words of the bailiff as she makes a phone call, all the way on the other side of the room.

3:27 pm. Another female sheriff enters and stops off to chat for a moment with the regular bailiff. Another officer enters and stops to chat with his fellow officers, too. Then the new female bailiff heads towards the back past Wendy's desk, and I'm under the impression she heads into Judge Filder's chambers (I find out later how wrong I am about that).

3:29 pm. The male deputy who just entered now leaves. I finally see Wendy. She's been in the courtroom all this time. Her short frame was hidden behind the wall surrounding her desk area. I could barely see her. The phone on the half wall shelf, strategically hid her face. Another young, pretty Indian looking woman reporter enters and sits in the front row with two other young looking female reporters. Many people are reading books, or talking softly. But even in this mostly empty room, the sound echoes loudly. Mr. Cane leaves and comes back in again.

3:35 pm. The bald sheriff with the mustache exits the room again, and returns about four minutes later. Rachelle is discussed a bit, and where it actually was that she was working when she met Spector.

3:45 pm. Harriet Ryan reenters the courtroom. Reporters start to file back in to watch the jurors exit the jury room. Dominick is still outside on a phone call. Another male deputy enters to chat with the two already in the room. Just like I remember during the trial, I can hear Wendy on her computer and the clacking of the keyboard. The court reporter emerges from the rooms behind Wendy's desk, and stands to talk with her and the sheriff who just entered the room.

3:48 pm. Peter Hong reenters the courtroom, also waiting for any glimmer of expression or manner in the jurors when they emerge from deliberations. It's pretty quiet, and we can hear laughter in the hallway outside the courtroom.

3:55 pm. Miriam Hernandez comes in to also wait for the jury to appear, and Mr. Cane also comes back in. Verdict watch is pretty boring and these cold hard benches don't make it any easier. It's no different than how bad they were during the trial.

3:58 pm. We hear a single buzzer from the jury room. A silver haired man and a blondish middle aged woman in a black dress enter the courtroom. Alan Parachini immediately gets up when they enter to go talk to the woman.

The jury starts to exit, but the clerk tells them to wait. Juror #5 is out the door, then back in and then across the room very quickly to the area behind Wendy's desk. I have to tell you that this is the first time that I am observing the jury exit the jury room during deliberations. At the time I'm observing this, I was unaware that the procedures for them leaving the building are different than when the trial was ongoing. During the trial, the jurors exited through the gallery into the hallway. So, from what I'm seeing, I think that Juror #5 has gone into the Judge's chambers. (That wasn't the case, but it was what I immediately thought.) Another group of jurors exits the jury room but not all of them, and they head on back to the area behind Wendy's desk. I write in my notebook, The Judge's chambers! But not all the jurors have exited the jury room. From when the door opened, I can still see Juror #9 inside. There are more jurors still inside the jury room.

4:02 pm. Now Wendy gets up from her desk and goes over to enter the jury room. Four more jurors finally exit. Juror's #7, #12, #6, #9. They all head back over to the area behind Wendy's desk. As I look over my shoulder towards the back of the courtroom, there are several more reporters, including Beth Karas and Ciaran McEvoy who had entered and observed the exit. As I see Beth, she mouth's the words to me, "What do you think?" Erroneously thinking that the jurors are all in the Judge's chambers, I mouth back, "Hung jury." Beth shakes her head no, and mouths the words, "Too early." Right afterwards, the bailiffs make everyone exit the courtroom.

Out in the hallway, I ask Beth why we were asked to exit, because I think the jurors are all in with the Judge. It's why I thought there was a hung jury. Beth gives me a smile and explains to me that the exiting of the jurors has changed to this hallway (that I didn't know about) that is behind where Wendy's desk is, but is before where the Judge's chambers are. It's how the Judge enters and exits the courtroom. Having been enlightened, I now realize that Beth is right. It is way to early for a hung jury. I say goodbye to Dominick and head back to the budget parking lot.

There has been quite a bit of discussion on the court TV message boards about juror #5 exiting the room rather quickly, and the expression on her face. It's also been coupled with Mick Brown's latest piece in the
London Daily Telegraph. There is a lot of worry that juror #5 could be a long holdeout for a not guilty vote. Here is a brief excerpt from the Telegraph article:

There is a belief among the press that the defence - who of course have their own jury consultants even more highly trained, and paid, than the journalists - targeted number five as being most sympathetic to their case. It was she - or so it is speculated - that was in the back of their minds when they pressed for the introduction into evidence of Miss Clarkson's show reel, Lana Unleashed, one segment of which featured her in excruciating black face essaying a Little Richard impersonation.
Watching it, juror five's demeanor froze in fury. Was it merely coincidence that shortly afterwards when the defense's key forensic expert Michael Barden took the stand, he spent an inordinate length of time pointing out that his credentials included investigating the murders of Martin Luther King and the civil rights worker Medgar Evers, and name dropping OJ Simpson's black attorney Johnnie Cocharane and Oprah Winfrey? Clearly, here was a man who had been primed.
Yesterday juror five was the first to leave the jury room, a minute or so before the others. Some in the audience thought she looked unhappy. Evidence of some dissent behind the wooden door? Or perhaps she was simply running late for a hairdressing appointment.
I did not notice a "clenched jaw" (as one trial watcher posted on the Court TV forums) or an unhappy expression on juror #5's face. That's because I was startled when she exited the jury room so quickly, and really didn't get a good look at her face when she bolted across the room. I will also say, that when Spector's defense team chose to play Lana Unleashed, I could not take my eyes off of Lana's sister, Fawn's face. She was sobbing throughout the entire playing of the video, and I started to cry, too watching her. So, I can not verify if what Mick Brown reported about juror #5's demeanor during the Little Richard impersonation is accurate or not. I will say that he is a professional, and if he's reporting it, most likely a reporter did observe her expression and interpreted it in that manner.

Meanwhile, over on the Court TV message board, there were a few posts that just had me laughing, and these specific entries stood out.

flea_bailey:
new book coming out !
a collabaration by o j simpson and phil spector.
title:
i did it, he did it .........we both did it

MyrnaTurner:
Book by Dr. Michael Baden on OJ alleged (roflmao) incident:
"Now That's What I Call A Vegas Nerve!"

Thank you flea_bailey and MyrnaTurner for making me laugh.

Thursday, September 6, 2007

A Quick Return Visit to 106

Just got back from a quick trip to the downtown courthouse. I had made a little gift for a few of the reporters who had befriended me (Beth, Dominick, Ciaran, Steven) and the family & their legal counsel, just as a sort of "Thank You," for how kind and supportive they all were to me, so I went down to deliver them. I'd recently learned how to use the rolled hem foot on my serger, and that's what I've been working on the last several days in between going back to work, housekeeping and posting on the Court TV Spector Forum. I've been making fine linen handkerchiefs and name embroidering them for gifts.

As I was walking up the street from the budget parking lot, this edgy nervousness came over my stomach as the courthouse came into view. I dreaded going back into this building. I stopped in the cafeteria first to get a drink and write out little note cards to go with the gifts. That didn't help. I still felt nervous. Up on the 9th floor, the hallway was virtually empty. There were a few police officers in casual clothes chatting it up with two attorneys. Finally 106 starts to empty, and one of the first people out the door is this one individual who I first met at the Blake trial. They have posted on another forum that they "do not care" for Sprocket and was one of the people in deep conversation with my other set of detractors when I had returned back to court on August 21st. I avoid looking at this person, and wait for my friends to emerge.

The first one I see was Fawn, who was surrounded by several friends I did not recognize. I waved her over so that I could give the bag of gifts to her and her mother. She greeted me warmly, and told me it was so great to see me back there. A bit later, Mrs. Clarkson came over to where I was standing with Dominick, Ciaran & Steven. She said she didn't see me at first, and then leaned in to touch me cheek to cheek, and thank me for the gifts I brought.

I got Mick Brown to autograph a copy of his book for me. Steven and Ciaran of course asked if I was going to stay for the afternoon session. "No," was my reply. Miram Hernandez was hovering around while the guys opened their gifts, wanting to see what the gifts were, and asked to feel the linen. Dominick and I were supposed to have lunch but the deadline for the November issue got unexpectedly moved up a day, and he had to spend lunch with his editor, fact checking and going over the final draft. So, we've rescheduled lunch for another time.

On my way up to the 18th floor to where Sandi Gibbon's office is ~ she has some amazing artist sketches on her walls from the Manson trial, that she covered as a reporter~ Alan Jackson and Pat Dixon were in the elevator with me. They also greeted me warmly, and Mr. Jackson asked if I was going to stay for the afternoon session. I gave a half smile, and rolled my eyes, telling him not likely.

My last stop was the CTV tent in the parking lot to see Beth. Harriet Ryan was there, along with another CTV producer I got to meet. We chatted a bit about the defense closing arguments, and talked "off the record" as to how long the jury might be out, as well as what the verdict might be. After we said our goodbyes, I headed back down Broadway to where I parked my car. Mr. Sprocket, hearing that I was still in downtown, tried to send me off on an errand to Koreatown, to pick up some specialty sesame pastries he had tracked down. I told him he was out of luck because I was exhausted from the heat and headed home. Besides, I was not going into an area of town I'd never been to before to find a little hole in the wall bakery. He'd have to stop by and pick those up, himself.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Blogs & Crime Forums

UPDATED Sept. 16th, 2012  I misidentified PIO employee Pat Kelly, as Pat Jackson. Sprocket.
UPDATED
I've posted on crime forums for over four years, following several high profile cases. This is the second trial that I've actually had the opportunity to attend and write about, and the first time where I've written in a blog format. I know there have been other posters on the Court TV message boards who have attended a high profile trial in their area and posted about it, but today was the first time that I had ever heard of any negative consequences stemming from their trial coverage.

Recently, an article by Rick Malwitz came out in the Home News Tribune Online, about a Court TV poster, SummerMadness (a trial watcher just like me) who attended the Melanie McGuire murder trial, and wrote about what she observed in the courtroom, including the jury box. According to Malwitz, there is an "imaginary line" that professional journalists never cross (that supposedly SummerMadness did), and that is describing jury behavior. Evidently, the defense in that case tried to use her writings as a motion for a new trial. Judge Frederick DeVesa denied the motion. Malwitz wrote in his article that SummerMadness lacked an editor (I'm guessing to "guide her" on not crossing that "imaginary line") and didn't use a spellchecker since she misspelled the word "testosterone." For the record, SummerMadness was writing on an internet crime form, and not a "blog" as he labeled her writing in his article. Maybe this picky journalist could use a fact checker at his office, since blogs and crime forums are two totally different mediums. And regarding that "invisible line" he says exists for MSM, I didn't see anything in her posting that was any different than what the talking heads were saying on national television. I believe since SummerMadness wasn't a part of the MSM, she was an easy target for the defense in that case, and for Malwitz to criticize as well.

Another Court TV member told me that a trial watcher who was writing about the Susan Polk murder trial, was somehow identified by Susan Polk, forced to stand up in open court, and, I'm assuming, identify herself. (I don't know if the poster had to state their name for the court or not, but from what I understand it wasn't a pleasant experience for that trial watcher.)

At the Blake trial I covered, Pat Kelly, one of the court's media liaison officers took my name, and the web address of the forum I was posting on at the time. Many of the same officers I got to know at the Blake trial are in the courtroom gallery daily. In thinking about what happened to the poster at the Susan Polk trial, I can just imagine the laughter that would most definitely erupt in this courtroom if I was forced to stand up and identify myself.

Your Honor, my name really is, Betsy Ross. I don't think it could get any funnier.

Incidentally, I checked with my attorney, to see if they thought anything I was writing concerning the jurors could become a problem. They were pretty certain that everything I am saying was totally legal to do. Regardless, they did say, that they would check with their cousin, a Superior Court Judge in a neighboring county, for another opinion.

UPDATE: 6-23-07, 8:45 am.
I knew in my gut that Malwitz's "imaginary line" pretty much resided in his own imagination, and I didn't have to go far to prove it. Below is an entry posted April 25th, by the very professional Harriet Ryan, who is in the courtroom covering the trial via the Court TV blog.

Tryptophan proof
- When prosecutor Jackson resumed his opening after the lunch break, he made a joke about jurors who ate turkey sandwiches falling asleep. So far, it seems like he was worrying needlessly. The nine men and three women appear to be intensely interested in what he has to say. One panelist, Juror No. 4, is literally on the edge of his seat. He's leaning forward and staring hard at whatever Jackson puts on the screen, even enlarged photos of blood spatter, which is what Jackson’s talking about now. His jury box neighbor, Juror No. 6, is also riveted. She's the one whose estranged husband was convicted of murder. She has her eyes fixed on the prosecutor and smiles every time he cracks a joke.
Meet the jury. -- Harriet Ryan
Posted at 5:22 PM
A few things to point out. SummerMadness, in her coverage of the Melaine McGuire trial, did not write anything different about juror behavior than Ms. Ryan did. And in fact, Ms. Ryan's blog entry has the number wrong of the woman juror. It should be #5 instead of #6. And, if you check out the link in Harriet Ryan's blog, "meet the jury," you will read a weath of information about the jurors gleaned from their very detailed jury questionaires.

The truth of the matter is, regular individuals, trial watchers just like SummerMadness and myself, can and do cover high profile trials with the same ethics of keeping the identity of the jury anonymous. Whether the MSM will ever acknowledge that is another issue entirely.


Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Trial Notes, 5-2-07

On the Orange Line, the bus gets packed with standing passengers at the Van Nuys station. A young black woman with red and yellow dyed hair sitting next to me gets up to offer her seat to an elderly black woman who got on the bus at Van Nuys. I immediately felt guilty that I didn’t notice the elderly woman get in. Standing by the exit door is a short disheveled man with a hole in the top of his tennis shoe, carrying a coat and a big binder full of worn and wrinkled papers. He’s an interesting character, and I’m continually drawn to looking at that hole in his shoe.

The bus breaks very hard just past the Laurel Canyon exit and several passengers barely keep their balance. I reached out to stable a man in front of me. Several of the passenger exchange looks and gasps of exclamation, and nervous laughter. At the North Hollywood hub, I really push myself to try to lengthen my stride and walk as fast as I can to keep up with the other passengers. I don’t want to miss a train, but I’m also really feeling my years and the extra pounds I’ve put on since getting married. Downstairs, I’m fortunate I find a seat in the car I enter.

Each time I ride the train, I’m always trying to look out the reflective type windows and peer into the tunnels. I’m curious about the whole construction and design. On one trip, I count the number of tunnel lights, and look for the tiny service walkways that line the walls of the tunnels. I find the whole construction fascinating. I really pay attention this time when the train leaves the station, and I can feel it switching to the south bound track. A few stations down the line, a man in a nice gray suit with a battered leather briefcase gets on and takes the seat next to me. He’s reading a book about Thurgood Marshall. I ask him if it’s any good. He replies, “Yes, it’s by the same author who wrote “Eye on the Prize.” I kick myself for not bringing a book today. I purposefully removed as much as I possibly can from my tote to keep my handbag as light as possible, because of all the walking I’m doing taking the metro.

At the courthouse, the public security screening lines are pretty long today. It’s then that I notice that one of the security scanners is not being used. Usually there are three public lines, and a separate one for employees. Today, only two public scanners are in operation. (I always set off the alarm bells and have to lift up the cuffs of my jeans for the sheriffs. I think it’s something in my shoes that triggers them.) As I clear the 9th floor security station and round the corner, I don’t see the usual rush of reporters. I don’t know if I’ve come down here in vain. No Linda Deutsch; no Dominick Dunne; no Eric Leonard, or many of the other familiar faces that I’ve come to recognize, but just don’t know their names. I know I saw Russ in the parking lot, but he’s not up here.

A woman I saw flash a badge and breeze by security downstairs and rode up on the elevator beside me is waiting in the hallway along with several other unfamiliar faces. In the elevator, she was juggling holding several manila envelopes in the elevator, and I glanced over to read what it said on the outside of her leather billfold she had flashed to security: “Drug Enforcement Agency,” I see her enter Judge Fidler’s courtroom, and I wonder if what she’s delivering relates to Spector’s case, or some other case entirely.

I finally see a reporter, David K. Li, and two other female reporters I’ve seen before. It’s 9:15 am, and I see several people entering and exiting Fidler’s court, but no one I recognize or have seen before. I finally see Linda Kenny Baden arrive. She’s with another blond woman, possibly an associate, and they are both dressed in black. Kenney Baden doesn’t look that great in black, I’m sorry to say. It appears there is some sort of delay, that is being talked about by the other people with Kenney Baden. I over hear one of the group say to a reporter, “We were all asked to be here at 9:30 am.”

The prosecution’s clerk, Ed, and DDA Alan Jackson arrive, with a rolling cart that has their many files on the case. A reporter asks Alan a question I miss writing down and Alan replies, “I don’t know.” The few reporters that are here, and the public are allowed inside the courtroom, and I try to watch the interplay between individuals I don’t recognize. I observe two suited men who might be attorneys talking. One introduces the other to “...one of our investigators...” a man dressed very casually. The first thing that comes to my mind is, the man looks like he works under cover. It’s 9:28. What’s going on? Several people are here. The female DEA agent is sitting in the courtroom, waiting. Patrick Dixon arrives. I overhear Dixon talking to the Judge’s clerk saying that he called Roger Rosen....that’s all I can hear.

I’m sitting on the right side of the benches, and a black female sheriff comes over to me, asks if I’m with the defense. I tell her I’m a member of the public, and she motions to me to sit over on the left side of the courtroom benches. I move to sit beside this female reporter and David Li. The woman turns to me and asks, “Outside in the hallway, earlier, were you writing down everything I said? I reply, “I don’t even know who you are.” She introduces herself and says, “I’m paranoid Harriet.” I introduce myself and explain that I’m writing about the trial for the crime forums.

Shelly Samuels! I didn’t recognize her! Her hair is much shorter, and it’s been highlighted. She’s wearing a great suit. She ran into the courtroom, dropped something off, said hello to to her attorneys and left just as quick. I see Brunon has arrived. The Judge is asking the defense to...” update me as to Mr. Cutler’s health...” but, the defense isn’t even prepared to answer this. They don’t know if he will still be out, and just assumed that court would start on Monday, as “..to the matter of record...” One of the attorney’s spoke to him. He didn’t feel good yesterday, but he’s feeling better today. The attorney said that they could call him to find out the status of his health. Dixon jumps up and the people, “ask that that be done as soon as possible...” In other words, call him, find out if he’s going to make court on Monday. The Judge orders the defense to get on that. Call him now, I think. Then the Judge says “I need to see counsel in chambers.”

The Court TV guys who control the cameras are still are not here. It’s now that I remember that I hadn’t turned off my cell phone yet. Carp! I turn it off and it makes a huge noise shutting off. The same, black female sheriff yells at me to turn off my cell phone. I tell her that’s what I’m doing. I’m totally embarrassed! The court’s young media relations person arrives. The original press release it appears, was for 1:30 pm, and that’s why several of the reporters left. Dateline came and left. Eric Leonard came and left. She’s telling Harriet and David that she called as many people as she had in her cell phone. The cameramen finally arrive.

The reporters talked about why it’s not on record, why didn’t they announce the reason the judge and counsel went into chambers. They both think that’s unusual. 9:52 am, court comes back in session. The Judge talks about what’s going to go on this afternoon, and it will depend on time. There are two separate matters. This is where the judge talks about “....possibility at some point, that a piece of evidence should have been turned over to the prosecution....” There are lots of ifs, and’s and buts... ”The second issue appears to be concerning sanctions against the defense. The Judge just received the reply motion from the defense this morning and he hasn’t read it yet. And that appears to be it. Court appears to be over for this morning. It’s barely 10:00 am.

It’s now that I notice that there are now three black camera boxes mounted on the wall. I see the judge, out of his robes, opening envelopes from the DEA agent and the other “investigator” (the one that was being introduced to someone else) is there, observing the envelope opening, too. It is regarding another case, and not Spector.

The reporters are all struggling with what to do. It’s 3.5 hours before court resumes. There is literally nothing to do in the immediate vicinity. There’s not that much in the way of good eating... besides, it’s 10 am... and, there isn’t any shopping near buy. It’s the one day that I really wish I had brought a book. If I had a book, I could just go down to the cafeteria on the ground floor and read. But I get what I think (at the time) is a “great” idea, lol...(oh boy) and that’s to take the train back and exit or two, and see if I can spot a shop or something to occupy me for the next 3.5 hours. I take the train back one station to Pershing Square, and that drops me off at Hill and 5th Street. There’s a newspaper vendor right at the entrance to the subway, and I buy an Los Angeles Times and a Daily News. But looking around, there’s virtually nothing in the way of shopping. I think at first I’ll go to Pershing Square to read the papers, thinking there might be some food vendors there or something. Nada. And, the place is virtually deserted. Those that are there are in sleeping bags or under newspapers. That’s when I have my idea to walk down to the garment district, and see if I can shop for some new fabric. I still have about three-quarters of a mile to reach the heart of the fabric district. If I paid more attention to the Dash system, I’m sure I could have just hopped on any bus to get me closer, but I don’t take the time to find a map. I decide to walk.

I head east on 5th Street to Broadway and turn south. I’m now entering the jewelry district. Virtually every store is either a jewelry/diamond store or a fast food asian restaurant. The air is very muggy, and I really start to feel the weight of those two newspapers in my chenille tote. When I finally reach 9th street, I head east again. Coming up on Los Angeles street, I’m passing in front of the California Mart Building. Looking across 9th Street, I see the “New Mart” has completely taken over the entire building. As I pass, I’m transported back in time to 1979 and my first job here in California. I was working in the internal audit department of Manufacturer’s Bank, which used to be on the ground floor of the New Mart Building. This was the bank that was started to serve the specific needs garment industry. Years later, the bank was purchased by a Japanese Bank, and “Mitsui” was added to it’s name. The bank was sold again and the Mitsui was taken off. Sometime within the last few years, the original main branch was closed, and the Figueroa “Corporate Office” became the main branch of the bank.

Across Los Angeles street from the New Mart Building, a film crew is in full swing in front of the 860 Cooper Building. It doesn’t appear to be a big film production, but they have taken up the entire corner in front and on the side of the building. I finally reach Michael Levine’s. Imagine a moderate sized grocery store where you can see from one end of the store to the other. And virtually the entire store is filled with isle after isle of fabric. Directly across the street from the main store is Michael Levine’s Home Decorating store. A little bit smaller than the main store, but filled to the brim with upholstery and drapery fabric. I’m headed for the main store today, because I’m always looking for unusual cotton prints for my “Market” line of bags, and for the hot/cold packs I make. I find two great asian prints and get six yards or each. On my way back to the court house, it feels like I’m walking two miles instead of the three-quarters it really is back to the Metro subway station. On top of the newspapers, I feel even more weighted down by 12 yards of fabric. As I wind my way back up the streets, I notice several buildings have big signs posted on them that say “FILMING” and a phone number to call.

Finally back on the 9th floor, I see Alan Parachini and Pat Kellyhttp://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2007/05/trial-notes-4-30-07.html from the court’s public relations department. They are waiting for the throng of reporter’s to arrive. LKB and and her blond assistant arrive, and they head down to the other end of the hall. Linda Deutsch and a very tall gangly reporter I only know by sight arrive. Another reporter, Michelle Caruso, makes it back from lunch, and this whole group chat with a short, elderly woman they know who appears to be wearing an employee badge of the courthouse. (I later find out her name is Jeanne.) It’s obviously someone from the court or possibly the DA’s office that they haven't seen in a while. It’s a waiting game in the hallway, and as reporters arrive back from lunch they all check in with the court’s public relations office woman. Eric Leonard from KFI arrives and talks to Linda Deutsch. Dominick Dunne greets Linda Deutsch. I think it's around 1:15 pm, and reporter David K. Li has been wondering to several who will listen, why this “show” isn’t getting started.

The group of defense lawyers heads down toward this end of the hall, but stop at the elevator hallway, apparently waiting for the rest of the defense team to arrive. I notice that I have ink all over my hands, and I want to get up to wash them but I wait just to make sure I’m going to be able to get a seat in the courtroom. The stone bench I’m sitting on outside the court is uneven and wobbly. A juror from another trial is sitting on the same bench with me, and wonders out loud, why they can’t design something more comfortable besides these stone benches. The defense team starts to move again down this way. Phil is not in the group, but there are lots of unknown faces hanging out in the hallway.

A quite elderly woman (apparently a friend of Jeanne) I barely recognize from the Blake criminal trial approaches me and asks if I post on WebSleuths. “Not any more I reply.” She then asks me if I post on Court TV. “Yes, I reply. She then says, “I heard that you were going to be here.” And that’s it. No polite reintroductions; she just walks back over to her friend, who was the older woman chatting it up with several of the reporters. Ed, the prosecutions assistant arrives. There are a lot more individuals from the public who arrive, and I wonder if I’m going to get a seat. Nothing to worry about. I finally get in.

It’s Shelly Samuels! Shelly Samuels is here, along with several other individuals who appear to be attorneys. Is that LESLIE ABRAMSON!!!!???? She’s milling around with the defense attorneys. What in the world is she doing here? I over hear someone whisper that she represented Phil for nine months. So this must be a big discovery issue. The judge finally takes the bench. Spector is not here, taking advantage of hs 977 waiver. The judge starts to explain why everyone is here. Sometime within the last 10 days, someone contacted the district attorney’s office who was a former law clerk for Mr. Shapiro. Robert Shapiro was the first attorney that that Phil Spector hired. This set off alarm bells with the district attorney’s office, and they immediately contacted the judge.

The judge, sought the intervention of LAPD (who was not involved in the case) for discovery, and he appointed a Special Master, Professor Lori Levinson at Laloya University to conduct an investigation. This was to determine if the information this individual wanted to pass on was privileged information, or if it did concern some information that was not privileged. Professor Levinson kept in verbal communication with the judge, giving him updates. And within those discussions, Professor Levinson determined that there was something about some possible evidence that had been moved. The judge said he had an informal meeting with parties, and asked the prosecution if they had seen this “evidence.” They had not. So that’s what we’re here to find out if any of this information exists. Some have been subpoenaed; some are here voluntarily.

Mr. Brunon: “This appears to be...” He goes on that he’s concerned about the fact that conversation between referee and witness... that there’s a potential for prejudice against Phil Spector..... We don’t know anything. Just seems to me that we shouldn’t have this in a public forum. We ought not to air all this in a public forum.

Brunon wants this special hearing all in camera.

Judge: I believe this is no more than.... Ms. Abramson! Don’t shake you head at me...”

Leslie Abramson starts to talk, and one of the defense attorney’s stands up and says, “She’s assisting us....”

The judge speaks again. He appointed a Special Master. “If any evidence is moved, concealed, tampered with, not turned over...”

There’s more attorney’s talking and Leslie Abramson lifts up her arms, and/or makes a gesture and the judge says directly to Ms. Abramson, “Easy on the gestures.” Abramson replies, “You want me not to be Jewish?” The attorney for the witness who has come forward, wants to confer in camera with the judge. All the attorneys want to go in, but the judge says no. Two attorney’s from each side, the witness and his representative. Abramson wants to know if she can stand in the hall and listen, the judge says no.

They all meet in the judge’s chambers for the in camera meeting.

So this is why Shelly Samuels and all these attorneys from the DA’s office are here. It’s a tricky part of law. There may be officers of the court who have done something illegal. Sitting next to me in the back row, are three young journalism students from a local college. They are so young looking, I’m surprised they are in college; they look like they are in high school. In the morning session, they were in another courtroom listening to the Chester Turner case. This is a case where Turner is charged with killing (I believe) eleven women from 1987 to 1996. With the last killing Turner was caught, and he’s now finally on trial.

During the in camera meeting, I discuss today’s proceedings with the journalism students, and try my best to explain what’s going on, even though I’m a little confused myself. The in camera meeting is over and the judge takes the bench. This witness is in the courtroom and you can tell right away he does not want to be there. He is trying everything he can, to get out of testifying today. The judge says to the witness and his attorney, “That’s why you are here. There’s no criminal liability on your behalf. I’m not giving him immunity. If he chooses not to testify.....” The witness’s attorney tries to get his client out of taking the stand and says to the judge, “So, calling this an ordinary witness is not the case. We were misled as to why we were brought here today. I don’t think that is fair to Mr. Diamond (this is the witnesses name). Diamond’s attorney says to the judge, “I was never called by Lori Levinson...” And the judge immediately snaps back, “Don’t impugn Professor Levinson....!” The judge goes onto say, “We have decided there are no fifth amendment issues here.” (for his client)

You can tell the judge is getting somewhat exasperated. “You approached (the DA’s office). You said you have information! Take the stand and be sworn in! Fidler is irritated with this witness.

The prosecution starts to question the witness, Greg Diamond. Even a simple question about was he working for Bob Shapiro he can’t seem to answer without tap dancing around the question. At that moment in time, were you working in some capacity? Prior to that date, were you a law clerk of Bob Shapiro? Diamond finally answers, “Yes. I was a clerk and an intern.” He’s asked to name all the defense team at the time, and Diamond looks to the judge and asks, “Can I take the fifth?” The judge replies no. And Diamond is asked if, Sara Caplan, Dr. Michael Baden, Dr. Henry Lee, and other individuals, I think they ask if Bill Pavlic (sp?) was a member of the “defense team.”

Patrick Dixon: Who was Sara Caplan? Was she an employee of the bar?

Diamond: Yes.

Alan Jackson: Was it your understanding that Robert Shapiro represented Phil Spector?

Diamond: Yes.

Diamond is asked who all was there at Phil Spector’s house, right after the crime scene was released by the police to the defense.

Dixon: Did law enforcement leave there, and leave the defense team alone?

Diamond: Yes.

Dixon: Did you call the District Attorney’s office?

Diamond: Yes.

Dixon: Did you have a conversation with Alan Jackson?

Diamond: Yes.

Dixon: How long were you there with the defense team?

Diamond: I can’t recall.

Dixon: Three hours? Four hours?

Diamond: It was throughout the evening.

Judge: Were you doing anything to help Mr. Shapiro?

Diamond: I was not in a working capacity mode.

Judge: We have to hold... determine, why he was there; what his role was.

Getting this witness to answer questions is like pulling teeth from an pissed off cat. It’s unbelievable how much he is squirming on the stand, and being evasive. The witness is stalling in any way he can. Mr. Brunon interrupts and says something to the effect, “We need to know... get to evidence... if the people are conceding...

Judge: What was your understanding as to why you were there?

Diamond: I was an observer.

Judge (or Dixon?) Did Shapiro ask you to observe?

Diamond: No. I was there to observe. I was just there to observe. I was originally asked to go to Mr. Shapiro’s office.

Judge: We will assume he was there in a privileged capacity.

Diamond says that he did receive paychecks (from Bob Shapiro). More discussion as to whether or not what he observed or whatever was done in his presence is privileged.

Dixon: How long were you there?

Diamond: An estimate only... it could be three hours; maybe more.

Dixon: Did you see anyone pick up anything.

Now the witness is really getting squirmy on the stand.

Diamond: Your honor, may I ask again to my fifth amendment rights?

Judge: Certainly. There is no fifth amendment issue here.

Diamond: Can I have a continuance in this matter?

Judge: No sir.

Diamond confers with his attorney. He appears to be afraid to say what he needs to say. Maybe he’s afraid he’s going to be charged at a later date? Everyone is waiting on pins and needles to what he is going to say. Mr. Brunon addresses the judge, and the judge, with a bit of a smirk on his face makes the comment of Mr. Brunon’s concern for him. It’s funny because Mr. Brunon doesn’t represent Greg Diamond. Something is said and I miss it, all except the judge’s reply:

Judge: Any part of a rat’s anatomy. We are trying to approach real carefully.

The judge now gets tough with the witness.

Judge: Did you observe (someone pick up an item?)

Diamond: There was an item. (snip) It was whitish, white and quite small.

Dixon: Where were you when you saw this item picked up?

Diamond: I ws in the entry way, where (it) was found.

Inside, my mind is whirling. If this is all true, this could be huge.

Dixon: Who picked up this item?

Diamond: One of the members (of the defense team, who’s an attorney)

Dixon: Who picked it up?

Diamond: It was Ms. Caplan.

Dixon: After you saw this, what happened next.

Diamond: The item was turned over......

Dixon: to whom?

Diamond: Dr. Baden.

Dixon: Was there any conversation between the two?

Diamond: I don’t recall. (snip) He looked at the item.

Dixon: What happened next?

Diamond: As far as the item?

Dixon: Yes.
Dixon is now asking about the private investigator, Bill Pavlic, and if Diamond saw the private investigator take the item.

Diamond: I don’t recall.

Dixon: Were you contacted by officers of the LAPD?

Diamond: Yes.

Dixon: Did they interview you?

Diamond: Yes.

Mr. Brunon objects. He says something like, “based on questions...” but the judge shuts the defense down.

Dixon: Didn’t you tell detectives... during your interview with robbery~homicide, you saw Bill Pavlic take possession of the item?

Diamond: I don’t recall.

Dixon: didn’t you tell LAPD officers that he, (Pavlic) placed it in his pocket?

Diamond: No.

Judge: You heard words?

Diamond: Yes (snip) I observed that it was identified.

Judge: Somebody talked about what it was?

Diamond: Yes.

Dixon: When was the last time you saw it?

Diamond: I don’t recall.

Dixon: At some earlier time, did you tell someone...

Judge: You have no present recollection?

Diamond: I’m trying to answer as truthfully as I can.

Judge: Tell me everyone that you can recall who (may have touched the item)

Diamond: At this time... it’s a little cloudy...
 It was seen and it was observed. <--- can="" from="" my="" nbsp="" notes="" p="" said="" t="" tell="" this.="" who="">Diamond: I would like to answer; it’s a very serious question.
Judge: All my questions are serious. Just tell me who. Answer this question.

The witness doesn’t answer.

Dixon: Why can’t you answer. Please tell us.

There is a break or something. I can’t tell from my notes, and I’m vaguely remembering at this point, but at some point there is a break, or another in camera conference, and the Judge says that although the witness can’t claim the fifth as privilege, the judge did check case law, and he is required to offer to the witness to go in camera, to hear from the witness in camera to see if there is an issue of fifth amendment. So the judge and the witness, his attorney and the court reporter all go in camera.

 It’s 3:15. There is quite a bit of whispering and waiting in the courtroom. The judge emerges from in camera and says, “There is no basis to claim privilege. So, the witness has to continue to answer questions.

 Dixon: can you describe to the best of your ability.....
Diamond: An item was found lodged between the carpet and the staircase. (snip) The room is not very large.

I’m trying to make sense of my notes here, and also from memory. More questions are asked.

Diamond: Dr. Baden made mention that it was a fragment of a tooth.

More questions, and the witness testifies about Dr. Baden identifying the object as tooth material.

Dixon: Your memory was fuzzy?
Diamond: no.
Dixon: Didn’t you tell them.... (LAPD????)
Diamond: It was passed around.

Dixon asks more questions.

Diamond: Everyone had seen the item. I know Sara, Dr. Baden, Bill... all had seen it.

Dixon tries to get the witness to pin down the path of the item from person to person. But Diamond can’t precisely say who got it after Dr. Baden. Just that it was passed around. Dixon asks who on the defense team, who all had it?

Diamond: Everyone was mulling around as to what it was.
Dixon: Could you tell us was it passed? Were there other statements? What was alleged to be a piece of tooth?
Diamond: That’s the only statement that stays in my mind.
Dixon: Did you tell LAPD....
Diamond: No.
Patrick Dixon is trying to get the witness to say that Bill Pavlic had the item last. But he’s saying the detectives asked him that, but he’s not sure if Bill ever had it.
Dixon: When was the last time you saw the item? Who had it last?
Diamond: I don’t recall who might have had it the last time. Sara found it. Dr. Baden identified it. Bill Pavlic......
Dixon: Do you have any idea what happened to it?
Diamond: No.
Dixon: Do you know who has it?
Diamond: No.

There must be a break here, or something, because I have in my notes that Leslie Abramson says something. The attorney’s are conferring with the judge. It’s now that I’m able to lean forward to see the name on the badge of the elderly woman who was so friendly to the reporters. The attorneys want to ask the witness questions in another direction. Someone says, “I think this came out in the Vanity Fair article.

Dixon: Nothing further at this time.

Now, one of Spector’s defense attorney’s questions the witness. I find out later that this attorney is Plourd or Flourd.... I’ll have to check the online articles for his exact last name and the spelling.

Plourd: What is your current occupation?
Diamond: Paralegal secretary
Plourd: When did you pass the bar exam?
Diamond: I never showed up to take the exam.
Plourd: Do you have any projects you are trying to sell?
Diamond: I’m a writer, and I do have a project I sold to CBS.
Plourd: Any (projects that are) legal matters to entertainment?
Diamond: That one I did was a legal show.
Plourd: How did you get to the Alhambra property?
Diamond: I was in Sara’s car.
Plourd: Who else was in the car?
Diamond: In that car? Just us.

 Plourd then asks him about other vehicles on the property, and if there was a limo present.

Diamond: Yes, there was a limo present.

Plourd then asks him about what other individuals were there and/or how they got there.

Diamond: I’m certain there were other people... I just don’t recall.

As I’m listening to this testimony, I don’t know what to believe. Is this all some guys need for attention? Is this all just the idea of some guy looking to sell a story for a show? ??? Another individual, Stan White is brought in to stand in the gallery.

Plourd: Do you recognize this individual? 
Diamond: I don’t recall.

It appears for right now, they are done with this witness. Diamond says to the judge that he won’t be in town tomorrow. The judge tells the witness that he can’t leave the Los Angeles area, that he is subject to recall. He will be available to the court. The defense asks to bring in Baden, and the prosecution agrees. Dr. Baden had flown in from New York, and they wanted to try to get him back to New York as soon as possible, and not hold him over in Los Angeles another day. Dr. Baden is brought in, and Plourd starts asking him some questions.

Plourd establishes through questions who Dr. Baden is and where he is employed. If I’m reading my notes correctly, Dr. Baden is employed by the New York State Police as their chief pathologist. Plourd then has Baden go over his credentials, and some of the famous cases he’s worked on, such as John Belushi.

Plourd: In your career, how many times have you been to a death scene?
Baden: Thousands of times.

Dr. Baden says that Robert Shapiro hired him to work on the case. Dr. Baden states that he remembers Sara Caplan being at the scene, along with Dr. Lee and Bob Shapiro.

Plourd: Did you collect anything at the scene?
Baden: (very emphatically) No.
Plourd: Did you observe Sara Caplan (pick something up, or) give you anything to look at?
Baden: No.
Plourd: Did you make a comment, on anything, to make a determination (of anything) being tooth material?
Baden: No. That is beyond my scope.
Plourd: Did you see anybody else pick up an object.
Baden: No.
Plourd: Did you see Mr. Pavlic (with something)?
Baden: No. I didn’t see anyone pick up anything. I did not. I was just there to observe the death scene.

Alan Jackson then questions Dr. Baden.
Jackson: When were you contacted (hired by Robert Shapiro)?
Baden: Shortly after the death occurred.
Objection! Sustained!
Jackson: How much were you paid?
Baden: I don’t recall. My secretary would have (that information). I was called. (I’m currently paid) approximately about $7,500 to observe an autopsy. It was less then.

Just then, Leslie Abramson’s phone goes off. She yells out to the judge, “Sorry!!” and then leaves the courtroom. The prosecution then brings in Greg Diamond and asks Dr. Baden if he recognizes him. Same with Stan White. Dr. Baden did not recall either of these individuals at the crime scene and says he doesn’t recognize either of them.

Baden: They could have been there, but I don’t recall.
Jackson: Do you remember if members of the defense team (were there), Robert Shapiro, Sara Caplan, Investigator Bill Pavlic, Dr. Lee?
Baden: They may have. I just don’t remember.

Dr. Baden does remember Dr. Lee being at the crime scene. Dr. Baden denies what was claimed to have been found, and denies ever having identified something as part of a tooth.

Baden: (It) “never happened. Because I'm not a forensic dentist and I don't have that expertise.”

Jackson is blown away by this answer. He doesn’t have the expertise to identify possible tooth material? Isn’t he a medical examiner? Baden says that, “I can recognize and intact tooth (at autopsy) but a fragment? No. Not a piece at a scene. That’s Dr. Lee’s area of expertise. But certainly at the autopsy.”

Jackson then asks him about the broken nail, and Baden says that he couldn’t determine a broken nailat a death scene, but at an autopsy, yes. The two sides now argue to the judge about a specific point, and Jackson want to show that something “goes to bias.” I think it’s here that Baden says, (and I’m not sure from my notes), “I assume she didn't have a broken nail at work.” Jackson is done questioning and Plourd takes over.

Plourd: Ever been accused of mishandling evidence?
Baden: No.
Plourd: Did you ever find evidence?

Baden talks about finding a bullet at the scene when “Christian Brando died.” This is clearly a misstatement by Dr. Baden because Christian Brando was not the individual who died. Christian Brando was the individual who killed his sister’s boyfriend.

Baden: In my examination (of the Brando case) I found a bullet under a rug. I didn’t collect the item. I notified law enforcement.

Plourd: Do you recognize Leslie Abramson?
Baden: Leslie Abramson, yes.

Baden is asked when was the first time he was asked to put his conclusions on paper. I think this question is by Jackson. I believe from memory, it is here that Baden is asked about his conclusions about the crime scene. Baden is adamant that Lana Clarkson killed herself, and one of the things he is using to come to that conclusion is her broken thumb nail. He’s adamant about that, even though Jackson raises some good questions as to how he came to that conclusion.

It’s getting very late, probably past 4pm. Several individuals who have been waiting out in the hall, Robert Shapiro, Sara Caplan and others. The judge orders Stan White and Greg Diamond back to court tomorrow at 9:30am Sara Caplan and Robert Shapiro would be on 1 hours call/notice to appear. Bill Pavlic would be ordered to be at court at 10am tomorrow.

Outside the courtroom in the hallway, Linda Deutsch, Dr. Baden and the woman “Jean” all chat and catch up. In the elevator down, reporter John Spano tries to question Stan White about what he knows about what went on today. Spano was not in court all day, and missed most of what went on.

As I leave the courthouse, I’m really, really wanting to come back the next day to see what the next witnesses have to say about this supposedly found “tooth material.” But I can’t. I have clients I have to see. I’ll just have to find the time to watch Court TV Extra on the internet, and see how the questioning will unfold that way.

I hope you have enjoyed my trial notes. Please understand that my notes should not be used in place of a more exact transcript of the trial. Although I tried to be as accurate as possible when I was quoting someone, I’m sure you will find some statements that do not exactly match Court TV’s Extra coverage.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Trial Notes, 2-16-07

It's a fact of life with me. I don’t plan my time well, or remember to get everything done to be fully ready. All week I knew I needed to research the trip route by bus and rail into downtown LA, but there I was, minutes ticking away Friday morning, trying to find out how much money I would need for the bus and rail, and, what station I would get off at in downtown LA to be closest to the courthouse. I wanted to get to the station by 8:00am, and I needed to leave a few minutes ago, to meet that deadline. I knew from the beginning that if I decided to attend this trial, I would be taking the train. Finding inexpensive parking in downtown LA near the court would be difficult to near impossible. A one way trip would cost me $2.50 to take two different lines into Downtown, and a day pass is even less for only $3.00. I could probably save even more buying a monthly pass, but it will just depend on how many days a week I’ll be able to attend the trial.

Although light rail lines are not new to Los Angeles, subway lines are relatively new compared to New York. There was quite a bit of controversy building subway lines in an area of the country where earthquakes are a regular occurrence, and I was one of the skeptics when the idea was first proposed. I knew someone who worked on the construction of the “Red Line”, right around the time there was a construction death that occurred while the North Hollywood section was being created. I think OSHA was called in and a big investigation occurred. It definitely affected my friend at the time. It took over six years to extend the subway connection from Hollywood into the two San Fernando Valley stations. One station is located across from Universal Studios, and the other in North Hollywood.

On October 29, 2005 the 14 mile Orange Line was opened to the public. The Orange Line is not a light rail line, like most of the other metro lines into downtown Los Angeles. It’s a dedicated road strictly for busses that was built (for a significant section) on land that used to be abandoned train track. It spans almost the entire San Fernando Valley, making a connection with the Red Line in North Hollywood. I remember soon after the line opened, there was a serious accident where a car collided with one of the busses, injuring at least 11 people. Soon afterwards, at every intersection neon signs were installed that flashed a bus image and the word “BUS” when the bus was approaching. It took time for people to get use to the fact that there was another intersection they had to stop at.

It had been years since I’d taken a metro bus, and at least over 20 since I took a local rail trip. The Orange Line has a station and a generous parking lot about a mile from my house and it's very easy to get to. I loaded up my pockets with dollar bills and quarters. The Orange Line Station stops are quite state of the art, with neon signs that tell you the current time, how many more minutes it will be until a bus comes, and an automated voice over a speaker system telling you that the bus is arriving.

I get on the bus only to discover that the driver does not take your money. I felt like a total idiot. I had to purchase a ticket at one of the kiosks. I got off the bus and away it went without me. So much for trying to be on time. I went up to the kiosk, but for the life of me I couldn’t figure out which button I should push to bring up a screen for ticket buying options. Luckily, a kind, elderly gentleman named Jiles, stepped up and helped me with the kiosk. I was fortunate that another bus came right after the one I had stepped off. Jiles was very familiar with the transit system, and during the trip we chatted a bit about why I was taking the bus to begin with, and where I was going. Jiles indicated that he knew Spector’s wife. When I asked if that was Ronnie, he said no; it must have been one of his other wives.

I was amazed at this bus! I kept checking everything out. There was a neon ticker sign in the front of the bus over the windshield that flashed the date every few seconds. They had two nice sized 17” LCD computer/tv screens (one near the front and the other just after the back door opening) with news coverage. The little emblem at the bottom of the screen said Transit News. When I told my husband about the bus features and screens he speculated that it was probably selected news coverage that would not include train derailments or bus accidents. Always the realist my husband.

Jiles led the way when we reached the eastern end of the Orange Line at the North Hollywood Station. It was easy, and I really didn’t need any help. The Orange Line ends on the west side of Lankershim Blvd., and the Red Line Station entrance is directly across the street. We took the escalator down, and this time I was prepared in how to work the kiosk for purchasing my ticket for the Red Line. In retrospect, I could have saved two dollars if I had planned ahead and bought an all day pass.

We only had to wait a few minutes for our train to arrive. I tried to make a phone call, only to discover I had no cell service the entire time I was under ground. It made me think about how can people get a call out if there is a problem or an emergency. There were no seats available, so I had to stand. I was quite surprised at how fast the train went and made a guess that the train was traveling close to 60 mph. I wasn’t far off. Later research I found on the web said the trains reached speeds of 70 mph.

At the next stop, The Universal City Station, a scraggly looking couple got on, panhandling everyone near them for spare change for a day pass. Jiles exited the Red Line just a few stops later, but I made sure to get his e-mail address to write him a thank you, and let him know where on the net he could find my write ups about the trial.

When I exited the Red Line at the Civic Center Station, I saw the huge stairway to the top and opted for the escalator. I counted those steps right beside me as I rode to the top. 76 steps. I thought that the stairs would be a great way to get some exercise in when I traveled down here several times a week, but skipped them today because I wasn’t sure about how much time I had before the hearing would start.

It’s a full two city blocks from the underground station entrance to the rear entrance of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, and one of those blocks is an uphill climb. After passing through the initial security screening process, I looked for a directory. Not finding one, I went up to the security station and asked which floor would I find Judge Fidler’s courtroom on. I speculated it would be the 9th floor, because that’s were most of the murder trials are held, and I was correct. Judge Fidler’s courtroom is Department 106, on the 9th floor. When you reach the 9th floor, there is a second security screening process. I was familiar with this from my last jury duty experience. I almost was chosen to be a juror on a murder trial in the famous Judge Ito’s courtroom, but was kicked by the defense attorney on the second day. It was quite a relief at the time.

Outside Judge Fidler’s courtroom, I immediately recognized Alan, P. the head of the court's Public Relations Dept. His last name escapes me right now. All I can remember is it’s an Italian sounding last name. I recognized a still photographer who took photographs outside at the Blake trial, but I’ve never been introduced to him. There’s not one familiar face in all the reporters that I see. On the bench I’m sitting on, I’m trying to be polite by not obviously listening in on a reporter’s phone conversation. I hear her say that the new prosecutor is Alan Jackson; the prior assigned prosecutor has been promoted to a judgeship. There is a cameraman from local ABC ch7, and I overhear Alan mention that KTLA did not show. There’s maybe, 6-8 reporters total waiting in the hallway when I arrive.

The courtroom is finally opened, and I have an opportunity to check out the courtroom. The walls are wood panel sheets all the way to the ceiling. The jury box is on the left as I enter the room, the elevated witness box/chair area, situated between the Judge and the jury. The court reporter is at a small desk below and in front of the witness chair. The gallery doesn’t have individual seats, but these very long wooden benches that almost go the length of the room, with just as long thin blue cushions on top. There is only a single break in them for an isle, creating very long benches on the left and shorter benches on the right.

I take a quick guess of how many people could possibly fit in this room based on the people who are sitting in the rows so far, and guess that maybe 50 people (and I think that figure is high) could be crammed into these benches and a few chairs. Most of the reporters take seats in direct line with the Judge. Since there is also a portable screen set up to the left of the reporters, I take a seat in the row of benches on the right. I’m joined by a young reporter from the Los Angeles Daily Journal, Andrew.

In speaking to a reporter, I overhear Alan Parachini say that during jury selection, only one reporter from a pool will be allowed to observe. No one from the public will be allowed in. I’m disappointed, but I’m not surprised at the decision. I ask Alan if there will be public seats for trial. He said there would be, but how many remains unknown at this time. It could end up being the same situation that happened at the Blake trial where 20 individuals showed up for five public seats, and a lottery is pulled each day.

The Ch 7 cameraman and still photographer set up their equipment in the jury box to cover the proceedings. The table for the prosecution and defense is one long continuous table with six chairs. Everyone is waiting for all the players to arrive. An elderly gentleman with a full beard and little hair on his head arrives first. Since he sits virtually in the middle of the table, Andrew and I are not sure which side he represents, but it’s a good guess he’s part of the defense team. (In my research to write up my notes, I learn that this is Robert Blaiser, who was involved in the Simpson trial.) The next individual to arrive is a balding man in a tan suit. Andrew speculates that a prosecutor probably wouldn’t wear a tan suit, and he’s right. This turns out to be Roger Rosen.

I note that almost all the reporters are relatively young, dressed very nice, clean cut and presentable. Another man walks in past the gallery and says, “Oh boy! Why does this not surprise me.” Andrew whispers to me, “This must be a defense attorney,” and he’s right. I later learn that this is Bradley Brunon, although when his name is mentioned, it sounds like people are calling him “Bruno” and I wonder when I find out the currect spelling of his name if the last “n” is silent. While I wasn’t noticing, the famous AP reporter, Linda Deutsch enters and sits in the front row. Andrew asks me if it's true she's retiring this year, and I tell him that I don't know. Linda is wearing a pale green colored suit jacket that I remembered from the Blake trial. Linda smiles at Roger Rosen, and while shaking her hand Rosen mentions to her about the defense's “11 page brilliant motion that Brunon drafted” against having cameras in the courtroom. Linda asks Rosen if she can get a copy of the motion.

Sandi Gibbons, media relations from the District Attorney's office arrives and also sits in the front row. Two prosecutors arrive with Sandy, and I’m guessing that one is Alan Jackson. He appears pretty young, with jet black hair and pale skin. I could almost detect rosy cheeks. I’d take a wild guess that he’s in his mid thirties. The older, taller more distinguished prosecutor I’m almost positive I saw at the Blake trial, and I’m right. This is Head Deputy DA Patrick Dixon.

As I try to get comfortable on the wooden bench with the very thin cushion, I find it interesting to watch the interplay between all the individuals in the courtroom. The Judge finally arrives and takes the bench. He’s very interesting looking. He's totally bald, but still young looking in some respects. He has very few lines in his face. You can just see in his face that he’s very alert, very sharp.

The Judge is asking the status of other outstanding issues, and there is some back and forth between the prosecution team and the defense attorneys about some discovery issues, and how soon these remaining CD’s and witness lists, etc., will be turned over. More reports will be turned over by next Monday.

The defense team mentions that they have not yet received some type of videos, X-rays from the coroner’s office, and are specifically asking for 95 photographs that were taken by Dr. Lee and Dr. Wecht. Alan Jackson tells the Judge that they are not going to use those photographs as part of their case. That there’s "no prejudice; the images are not in his case in chief." The Judge and the defense responded so fast, I wasn’t able to determine if the prosecution had to turn these over or not, but I’m guessing they didn’t have to. Maybe I can find out next time I'm in court.

The prosecution mentions that they received a massive amount of paperwork from the defense team “800-1,000 pages” in relation to witnesses, but they feel that they shouldn’t have any problem getting through it by March 19th, when the trial starts. The Judge responds that if they need more time during trial, that it would be no problem taking a break to assist them with that. The prosecution also mentions that the defense “still owes us a complete witness list” and that they would “need it during voi dire.” The list is promised, “ASAP.” The defense mentions something about a “nonappearance return date of March 6th. It has to do with several subpoenas for documents from various LE agencies that are still winding their way through the system. I think it’s the defense attorney who says something about the Alhambra PD didn’t know if they needed to actually appear..... I'm frustrated at this point. I’m just not able to hear everything as clearly as I did in the Blake trial, and I’m actually sitting closer than I did in that trial.

The Judge then talks about the jury, and needing to protect the jurors as much as possible. The judge rules that all jurors will remain anonymous. No names will be used at all. Everything will be arranged by the last four numbers of the jurors badge number. The Judge rules that to further protect the jurors, the court will provide lunch that they will eat in the jury room. This will solve other security issues so that no one bothers them. The caterer is someone the court and members of the court have used before, so he feels that will be fine.

In the Blake trial, I often saw many of the jurors eating in the basement cafeteria, and I always made a point to steer clear of them whenever possible. During jury deliberations, a People Magazine reporter, her first day on the job, approached some jurors at lunch, asking for interviews. The jurors notified their bailiff, who in turn notified the Judge. She was hauled up in front of the Judge and was read the riot act, and how she almost jeopardized the entire trial! Judge Schempp threw her out of her courtroom. So, I totally understand the Judge’s ruling about the court providing lunch and to me, it makes perfect sense.

The Judge goes onto say that to further protect the jurors, neither the prosecution or the defense will get the jurors names, just their badge numbers, and he goes onto explain how the process of picking the next juror is a random process generated by a computer.

One of the defense attorneys, I believe it’s Roger Rosen, delicately asks that, since the court will be providing lunch for the jury every day, it might be a reasonable question to include in the jury questionnaire to ask if there are any dietary restrictions since they will be limited to either bringing their own food or eating the catered food. The Judge didn’t see anything wrong with adding in that question.

The Judge goes onto explain that there would be an initial pull of 300 random names. 75 would be pulled in on Monday morning, and 75 in the afternoon, and the same process on Tuesday. Once they weed through those who have hardships, then the remaining jurors would be given the questionnaires to complete. Once they receive them all then the prosecution and defense team would have time to go through the questionnaires.

Now the Judge moves on to the big issue of the day, cameras in the courtroom and whether or not it will be televised in part or in whole. The defense mentions that their objection is all written out in their motion, but the Judge wants to hear from the defense attorney, and I think (I can’t tell from my notes) it’s Judge Fidler who says, “What are you trying to tell me?” Bradley Brunon replies, “I thought it was well written.” The Judge smiles and replies, “I didn’t say it wasn’t well written.”

The defense goes onto present that they based their motion arguments on the same criteria that the Judge in the Scott Peterson trial used to exclude cameras. Rosen says, “Public trials don’t mandate that.” Again, I can’t tell from my notes if it’s the Judge or the defense who says, “...balance between the first and sixth amendments...” Roger Rosen mentions that cameras are “...sensationalism. Networks make money......there are other ways the content can be disseminated to the public.” The “presence of the press and public at trial will be adequate.” Roger Rosen says, “Everybody behaves differently, everybody acts differently in front of a camera. It’s a slippery slope. I think it’s a slippery slope. There are some factors that just can’t be measured.” Rosen goes onto say, “And when a man in his 60’s is facing life in prison....” It “creates a dangerous atmosphere for both sides.” We, “don’t want that added burden. However, if it leans in that direction...” the defense would then propose a compromise to “Limit TV coverage to opening statements, closing arguments and the verdict.” Rosen then brings up the issue, “What is it going to do to witnesses who have to testify over several days, and having witnesses watch their own testimony that night...” (on television). “Cases like this, were we have jurors with a lengthy trial (of) 3 months, jurors passing by TV...” when they are “in and out and about with family.” (Implying they can’t avoid seeing coverage of the trial.)

The DA’s steps up and says that they “Don’t oppose cameras. They have complete confidence in the court.” This of course, is sort of implying that the defense doesn’t have that same confidence in the court, and the defense attorney jumps back up and mentions that they have the same confidence...it was actually quite funny even though it happened so fast I missed writing down the rest of the defense attorneys comment.

The Judge then goes on to talk about the Blake trial being the gold standard...and then catches himself and says, “Well maybe that’s not the right medal.” The Judge then mentions the Simpson trial. Judge Fidler says, “Spector has been out of the limelight for some time.” Whereas “Simpson was an icon at the time.”

The Judge talks about, “While 99% of other judges might oppose or say, what’s in it for me,” he says that “anyone can satirize anyone we want.” It’s here that he mentions his good friend Judge Ito, and how he’s sure Ito never dreamed that he would turn on the Tonight Show and see dancing Ito's. Judge Fidler says he’s, “Not too concerned that I’m going to see the Flying Fidlers." Judge Fidler was more concerned about commentators. "Commentators brazenly tell what has gone on in my mind,” (with statements like) “ “The judge did this because...” "What no one wants is another Simpson." Judge Fidler does not believe that TV coverage caused the outcome of that trial. “I don’t see anyone here playing to the camera, and if I see it, I’ll call them on it.”

Judge Fidler said, “If you don’t allow cameras then the camera covers anything else outside the courtroom.” (And you) “Can’t control who is interviewed outside. One of the of the misconceptions is, people don’t understand what goes on in a courtroom. It’s one of the things that amazes me when I interview jurors.”

“TV shows are grossly inaccurate. During voi dire, jurors are grossly uninformed. They think it’s like TV. (That there is only) one and a half minute closing.”

Judge Fidler said he was “Proud of what we do here in California (regarding the court system). The Judge also said that if he chooses, he can pull the plug at any time. If I think it’s being done wrong, that’s it. No more. He said that there won’t be cameras on the audience (or the jury). At this point, the Judge mentions where he turned down cameras on a prior case. He said, “We are a public office. We represent the public.”

There were some comments about the US Supreme Court, and how cameras have never been allowed in there, but that California’s Supreme Court now allows them. “Public scrutiny is a good thing. There are people who think, have a perception that celebrity status gets them preferential treatment” (inside a courtroom). “I’m in the minority. I don’t see them as evil,” the Judge said.

The Judge also said that if I do, they will be on the wall and small. (They don’t call attention to themselves. Not like the huge camera we have here today does.

Roger Rosen went onto argue that “We all have a different set of assumptions. If the court does decide, will the court black out any witness names or faces?” The Judge responded that, If it warrants it, but it would be decided on an individual basis.” Rosen asked about, “Witnesses who interject themselves” into the trial. “Stealth witness.” Judge Fidler responded, “If you think that’s happening...” then bring it to my attention. Rosen said, “This case has ben a magnet for publicity.” It was “not desired by the defendant.” In response to one of the Judge’s earlier statements about teaching the public what our legal system is all about, and letting the world see how we do things here, Roger Rosen argued, “I don’t think this courtroom is to teach a civics’ class..... US Supreme Court cases lack witnesses. It’s all argument. It’s just judges and attorneys...” (presenting arguments)

I made a comment in my notebook right here that this judge is very likable.

Judge Fidler then says, “I have struggled with this decision.....because of what happened in the Simpson trial. If it’s having a negative impact I can pull the plug. It’s my belief, that it will eventually become common place. I have no criticisms of Judge Ito. Even if we didn’t have cameras, I’d still allow a still photographer.”

Robert Blazer then stands up to speak. “We may not be able to detect the effect (of the cameras).” Judge Fidler responds, “We do have a recognition that times have changed. I think that if we didn’t have Simpson, we would have cameras now. I appreciate all the comments that were made. I think it’s unfair to treat one form of media differently. If it’s done appropriately, it can be controlled.”

So, at this point, it appears the judge has ruled. But Robert Blaizer is not finished. “You’ll have the interplay of the commentators.” Judge Fidler replies, “You’ll have that anyway. That’s going to happen anyway.” Blaizer responds, We “...just want the court to be aware.....(and he mentions something about being “there” )....I was a participant in the Simpson trial.” Fidler acknowledges that and says, “I will monitor this on a daily basis. And if I see it’s affecting the outcome, I will end it.”

The Judge then makes a ruling that at trial, he wants to limit the number of attorneys that approach the bench at sidebar to two attorneys for bench conferences. I’m guessing that means one attorney from each side. The Judge then says that CTV will be allowed to cover the trial.

As we all leave the courtroom, the Media Relations representative, Alan Parachini, is on his phone issuing a statement about today's pretrial hearing: “The Judge issued a provisional order to provide gavel to gavel coverage of cameras in the courtroom. CTV.”

And that was the end of the pretrial hearing. I didn’t hear anything said in court about another hearing date, so I headed back to the Civic Center subway station. While I waited for my train, I had a bit of time to take in my surroundings. Looking up, I saw hung from the ceiling larger than life-sized models of what appear to be children, flying through the air. The one that was right above me, had a long random number written on the front of a black shirt. The first think I thought of, was a jail house, prisoner number lol! I had a few minutes sitting there to read and take a few bites of my lunch that I brought.

I didn’t have to wait long for a train. This time, I was able to grab a seat. When I reached the North Hollywood Station, I decided to climb the steps out of the subway instead of taking the escalator to the street. There were two sets of steps. One set of 30 steps right near the train, and then down the corridor a ways, another set of 72 steps. I was out of breath, but I felt good about tackling the stairs. The Orange Line Bus I caught was not equipped with the LCD video displays that the first bus had, and I was a bit disappointed. Finally back home, I fired up the computer to try to get some initial reporting about the ruling written out, but I didn’t get much done. I finally finished transcribing my notes Saturday evening, around 8pm.