Seventeen Years Ago Today ...

This is an update of a post from 2009. Sprocket

Lauren Sarene Key, summer 2000.

Seventeen years ago today, in the early afternoon of November 8th, four-year-old Lauren Sarene Key ended up dead at the bottom of Inspiration Point, a 120-foot sheer cliff face in Ranch Palos Verdes. That day, Lauren was on a court-ordered visitation with her biological father, Cameron Brown, who drove her to the Abalone Cove parking lot where they set out on an approximate one-mile hike. The hike was along trails that hugged a steep, ocean cliff. They traveled down to the beach tide pools, back up the cliff to the main road, then out to the tip of Inspiration Point.

To this day, only two people know what really happened to cause Lauren to lose her life in such a dangerous place. Her father, Cameron Brown and Lauren.

Much later that night back at the Sheriff's station, Brown was interviewed by LA Co. Sheriff's Homicide detectives for approximately three hours. According to Detective Jeffery Leslie, Brown gave three slightly different versions as to what happened to Lauren on the southeast section of Inspiration Point. That single interview would be the one and only time Brown cooperated with authorities investigating the death of his daughter.

Brown was arrested on first degree murder charges in 2003. Because of the special circumstances of lying-in-wait and murder for financial gain bail was denied. Brown remained in the custody of LA Co. Sheriff's. Brown's first two trials ended in hung juries. All jurors from both trials agreed that Brown was guilt of something, however, they couldn't decide on what charge.

In November 2013, Huffington Post wrote:

Nov. 16 is Cameron Brown's 10th anniversary in jail, even though he’s never been convicted of a crime.

Brown's third trial started on March 18, 2015 with juror pre-screening. Opening statements started a week later on March 25th.

On May 13, 2015 the jurors reached a unanimous verdict. Brown was convicted of first degree murder. They also found true the special circumstances of lying in wait and murder for financial gain. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole on September 18, 2015. Brown is currently serving his sentence at the CDCR's California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in in Corcoran, California.

 Screenshot of CDCR's inmate locator page for Cameron Brown

Recently, the California Courts of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision on Brown's conviction. Seventeen years later, this case has finally been put to rest for Lauren's family.

Cameron Brown's Appeal for Murder Conviction

Lauren Sarene Key, 4

UPDATE 7:30 PM - See below
October 18, 2017
Today, the California Courts of Appeal affirmed the conviction of Cameron Brown on first degree murder charges in the death of his 4-year-old child, Lauren Sarene Key.

Prosecutors argued and the jury agreed that Brown premeditatedly threw his daughter off of a 120ft cliff, Inspiration Point in November 2000 because he did not want to pay child support.

The court docket on the case states the justices "affirmed with modifications." Here is Brown's CA Courts of Appeal docket listing:

Interestingly, if you read the docket, on July 27, 2017, Brown waived the oral argument hearing and the state agreed four days later.

As soon as I am able to get a copy of the published decision, I will post it.

UPDATE:
Below is a screenshot of page two of the Appellate Court ruling. The full 94 page document can be found HERE.

Lauren Sarene Key 8/29/1996 - 11/8/2000

Lauren Sarene Key, date unknown

Lauren Sarene Key was murdered a few months after her 4th birthday. She would have been 20 years old today. 

Lauren was thrown off of Inspiration Point, a 120ft cliff in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, by her biological father, Cameron Brown in November 2000. Fifteen years later, Brown was convicted of Lauren's murder on May 13, 2015. He was sentenced to life without parole on September 18, 2015.

Even in her short time on earth, Lauren was a delight to those who knew and loved her. Her mother Sarah, her step-father Greg, step-brother Josh, her teachers, and close friends.

Lauren could best be described as a girly girl. She played with dolls, believed in fairies and enjoyed playing house under the dining room table. Her mother's best friend Annette said, "It was easy to fall in love with this baby,"

At Brown's sentencing, her brother Josh described what she was like. "Her personality would brighten up the room. She would dance, sing and tell jokes. She would draw everyone in. She enjoyed making people happy. She had a fascinating imagination and she loved playing pretend. ... She would have me play, too."

During the two trials, I got to see photos and video clips of Lauren playing, walking on the beach, and learning how to roller skate and use a skateboard.

Photos of Lauren in happier times:

Lauren and her mother, Sarah

I have my own little remembrance of Lauren that I see everyday. It was given to me by her family. It sits on my desk, right beside my ring cup and laptop. The medallion says, "Always Remembered, Lauren."

Complete Cameron Brown murder trial case coverage HERE.

Cameron Brown Sentenced to Life Without Parole

Lauren Sarene Key, 4, murdered 11/8/2000.

Photo Copyright © Sarah Key-Marer, all rights reserved.

UPDATE 9/27: Correction. Previous version had Sarah Key-Marer approaching Patty Brown and asking Patty Brown a question.

UPDATE 9/23: In Loving Memory of Lauren
UPDATE 9/22 7:30 am: spelling, clarity, accuracy

September 18, 2015
Friday Morning
Mr. Sprocket had a project in Long Beach, so he dropped me off at the downtown courthouse. As usual, he was running late. I was afraid I wouldn’t get on the 9th floor of the downtown criminal justice center until after 8:30 am.

The 9th Floor
I make it onto the 9th floor with a few minutes to spare. At the end of the hallway I see Sarah, Lauren’s mother, Sarah’s best friend, Detective Jeff Leslie, DDA Craig Hum and defense attorney Aron Laub. I greet Sarah and give her and her friend a hug. Sarah’s husband Greg and her stepson are not here yet.

There are several media people here and cameras. Marisa Gerber from the LA Times, Terri Keith with City News, Miriam Hernandez with local ABC and Randy Paige with local CBS.

The courtroom is opened and the bailiff (one of my favorites) lets the pool cameras inside to set up in the jury box. A few moments later, the media files in.

Inside Dept. 107
8:38 AM
I don’t see Patty Brown, the defendant’s wife or anyone else from his family.

At the end of the first row, right inside the well, the podium is set up. The bailiff explains to the family members where they will stand to give their victim impact statements.

Judge Lomeli’s kind court reporter comes out from the back rooms. There are very few people here from the general public. There is a male juror from the second trial, and another female juror, I believe from the third trial. There are four reporters to my left, Miriam to my right and next to her Terri Keith. Kathy from the court's PIO is here. There are last minute preparations.

In the well of the court, there are several extra tables set up for a large number of three ring binders, many of them five inches thick. One of the reporters mentions that it has to do with Judge Lomeli’s case in trial, and defendant Dr. Lisa Tseng.  From what I understand, each juror gets three of these thick binders.

Now the bailiff is giving the admonition to the gallery to maintain their composure during sentencing. If they can’t maintain their composure, they will be escorted out. The video camera and still photographers are set up in the jury box. KFI’s Shannon Farren is in the third row. DDA Hum and Mr. Laub are back in chambers with Judge Lomeli.  There are a few people in the gallery sitting on the benches behind the bailiff’s desk, but they could just be staff from the DA’s office or other people who work in the building. 

Along with Judge Lomeli’s bailiff, there are four additional deputies in the courtroom to help maintain order. One of the deputies is a Sargent.

8:45 AM
Patty Brown still hasn’t arrived yet. I’m not aware of any other members of Brown’s family in the gallery.  Detective Leslie is chatting with the Sargent deputy. Seated at the prosecution table, I see Detective Leslie has a very colorful pair of striped socks on. His socks put a smile on my face for a short moment.

Brown is brought out. His goatee and mustache have grown out and his hair is touching the jail jumpsuit. The court goes on the record and asks the parties to state their appearances. Judge Lomeli addresses the court, then Mr. Laub. “We’re here for sentencing. Before I get to the actual sentence, .... defense ... [does] the defendant wish to be heard?”  Mr. Laub responds, No. 


The people have several victim impact statements. DDA Hum calls Sarah Key-Marer to the podium.

Sarah Key-Marer
On behalf of myself and my family, thanks to Detective Leslie and Craig Hum for their dedication and hard work for the last [fifteen?] years, and the court and jury members through all three trials. My heart felt appreciation is given to the various witnesses, some who didn’t know Lauren, to recount their parts in her short life.

I thank my friends and family who encouraged me over these years and fought hard for justice and bring the truth to light for Lauren.

As painful as this is for me to read, and do this for myself, and what is in my heart for the last 15 years, there comes a point in your life ... that letting go is the best option. [I’m grateful?] for this opportunity to find these unspoken words.  My family and I are relieved that we can now have a long awaited peace now that the trial is ended ... and know what Lauren was to us without reliving all the tragic circumstances.

I’m here to be Lauren’s voice and to [share?] who she was, ... and the suffering she endured in her short life. It didn’t need to end this way for her or for us. Considerations and [accomodations?] could have been made if Mr. Brown so wished. It would have been so simple if he was willing to make [some?] changes ... taking part in the reality that she was part of both of our lives.

She was caught up in a conflict between Mr. Brown and the happy state of our family. ... This isn’t any way that any child should have to live. ... We watched the sparkle fade in the last months of her life. ... She tried to understand. ... None of it made sense to her. ... She didn’t deserve to be rejected by anyone especially her own flesh and blood. She just wanted to be loved no matter what [?] differences are.

As time went on, it became hard to console her worries. Her smile faded each time Mr. Brown entered her life. She became withdrawn and became so sad. The happy child that I knew was fading.

The impact on my life has been so [hard?] to explain. My heart is broken from losing the one thing that I treasured [the most]. This all took a toll on me. It created emotional pain and physical sickness that manifested in advanced stage cancer.

My family also suffered. We are all so broken without her and the dreams that we had for Lauren are taken. I imagined she would have impacted the world with her beautiful personality, her kind-hearted spirit and her great love of people.

[There’s more here that I miss. As Sarah is speaking I can’t help it. Tears well up in my eyes and I try to wipe them and type at the same time. Sarah talks about Lauren's personality. ]

I shall miss the special times we could have had ... grade school performances, graduation ... and a betrothal of her own. But more than that, ... I will miss the warmth of her skin, her crystal blue eyes, her gentleness, her loving nature that filled everyone she knew with so much joy.

I miss tickling her tummy and she would laugh so hard that tears would run down her cheek. ... I miss nuzzling her face against mine and her whispering in my ear, “I love you Mummy.”

She thought that she would catch a fairy someday and keep it in her pocket, a friend to have to tell all her secrets and things she struggled with.  It was a comfort to her in a scary confusing situation. She feared Mr. Brown and didn’t tell us ... and protected us ... in spite of the agony he caused her.

My faith in God reassures me I will be reunited with her again. This allows me a future beyond the pain. I know she waits for us in heaven to be with her again. I know ... know she’s free from the painful turmoil ... and will be protected from the turmoil and is at peace. I thank God for protecting me from [revenge?] and his grace has allowed me this freedom. She did not show any hatred towards the people that caused her pain.

I tried to believe Mr. Brown’s accounts of that day were true and that it was an awful accident. I wrestled with this over and over. It would have been easier to accept. It took this time to come to the truth and justice prevailed. I’ve come to terms with the verdict. It’s not only my family, but Mr. Brown’s family. ... It affected us all.

I have learned that the way to heal is forgiveness. It releases me and allows God to be the ultimate judge. It has been my wish that Mr. Brown take responsibility for her death. I wish him no harm. I have some [relief?] from the court proceedings and the freedom to speak out [now?]. Mr. Brown, you’ll never take her memory from us.

Sarah’s statement was three or four typed pages, single spaced.

The people call Greg Marer
Words cannot fully express the pain and agony that we experienced. He took the life of a human being with no regard for the effect that it would have on others. ... There would be no more birthday parties or holiday celebrations. ... No academic celebrations, or a potential wedding. ... Lauren has been robbed from the opportunity to experience all that life awards. ... All these things are forever gone. Our family is broken. The effect on our family has been devastating. ... We had to endure 15 years of emotion, turmoil, court proceedings, ... three jury verdicts.

The pain of having to relive and the grief of such a horrendous act brought our grief to perpetuity. ... How do we displace the [anger?] that will not bring us peace and healing. Fortunately we have a loving God. We are called to forgive. [? of guilt ... I cannot say?] All these years since he selfishly murdered her, our little girl.

[The defendant and Mr. Laub stare straight ahead.]

I pray that some day, Mr. Brown will repent and ask his creator for mercy and grace. It is my belief that Cameron can be forgiven ... he must fully face the consequences of his actions.

Greg extends his gratitude to the court. He thanks everyone for Lauren.

The people call Josh Marer [Lauren’s stepbrother].
I remember when I met Lauren. I was six and it was past her first birthday. My parents would fall in love and I would be her big brother. We even had our beds pushed next to the wall so we could pray together.

Her personality would brighten up the room. She would dance, sing and tell jokes. She would draw everyone in. She enjoyed making people happy. She had a fascinating imagination and she loved playing pretend. ... She would have me play, too. 

She was never angry or sad until she met Cameron Brown. She knew my dad was not her father. It began with Lauren coming home from visits being agitated and upset. ...Afterwards ... she would come home crying and scared. Before, she would open up to me because I was her big brother. After [Cameron Brown?] she seemed distant, confused and angry. Things I had never seen in Lauren. I wanted the Lauren I knew back. It hurt me that she was hurting inside.

Josh mentions the impact Lauren had on his life.

The night before she died, we were playing her favorite board game. During the game, she was angry and not playing the game right. She stood up and kicked all the game pieces over and then ran to her room. ... I tried to hold her and tell her it was okay. ... She made me promise not to tell anyone. I agreed. She said, “I think I’m going to die tomorrow.”

I was shocked. I asked her why and she [wouldn’t? couldn’t?] tell me. I told her to go to bed and she would feel better in the morning. I told Sarah. Sarah said she was going through a lot. I never thought that after she went to school ... I never thought I would never see her again. I was ten.

My father worked more and more to drown himself in his work. I took it out on Sarah. How many times I would close my eyes ... and that it would all go away like a bad dream. ... I had problems in school and ran away. I became addicted to drugs. I wanted to be with my sister again. ... I thought I could [have done?] more [to save her?]. I beat myself up for many years that God had taken her and not me. I was too young to know who I was and how I would fit in. I thought I was a [puzzle piece?]. I tried .... I turned to drugs. I went in and out of rehab and jail. Until ... Lauren had become my guardian angel.

[This testimony is so difficult to hear. My heart breaks for this young man.]

I got off drugs and free from the chains that put me down. I have a wife and child that I knew Lauren would want for me. There’s not a day that goes by that I don’t wonder what she would be like today.  I know she watches and protects me and I’m truly grateful. I’m not as forgiving for Lauren as the rest of my family.

The lives that he damaged [tricked down?] like a stone. Our family today is closer and stronger [than?] ever.

Josh then thanks the district attorney, Detective Leslie and the witnesses and the friends and family that kept by his side.

The people call Annette Watling
[I’m pleased that Judge Lomeli has let Sarah’s best friend give an impact statement. Some judges only allow the immediate family to speak.]

Sarah [is] my best friend for over 20 years. She is my sister. She is Auntie Sarah to my children. ... During Sarah’s pregnancy, I listened in shock to what she was going through. ... Sarah had a tremendous faith in God. It was difficult to watch.

[After Lauren was born] it was easy to fall in love with this baby. My husband knew her decision to be a single mother. He reached out to her ... to be Lauren’s godparents.

Lauren was my daughter’s first ever friend. ... My two daughters made play dates, shared holidays and vacations [with Lauren]. [It was like?] having a new family away from home.

Sarah asked my opinion ... to get in touch with Mr. Brown. I was Mr. Brown’s champion. Without hesitation, I encouraged her to do so. This cuts deep and torments me every day.

I listened to the frantic details through the summer of 2000. I listened to the terror in her voice.

[I believe Annette is referencing the charges where Brown accused Sarah of abusing Lauren.]

[I told her] ... these lies will be proven, I promise you.  It was hard to see Sarah face this uphill challenge.

When Sarah returned from England, she could tell me how fantastic that trip was. She explained how much trouble she had with Mr. Brown. The court battle that was weeks away. ... That was the last time I spoke to Sarah, just days before. ...

[That was?] one day that was etched permanently in my mind. I didn’t know what I was listening to. I was shaken up ... uncontrollable ... and my legs buckled. My husband caught me as I was falling. My daughter witnessed me shaking uncontrollably, trying not to vomit. I relive that day in my head daily. I’ve been by Sarah throughout this whole ... even the whole time ... helping her to prepare ... the whole step. I put my family on hold for three long trials ... even my work, so I could be there for Sarah and Lauren.

It’s fair to say it took a tremendous toll on my own family. The guilt I will carry is tremendous, for Sarah to contact Mr. Brown ... as Mr. Brown maliciously tied her hands.

I tried to shield Sarah, ... to this day, that my two daughter’s call on Sarah and share in her grief. ... Seeing her through these excruciating hearings. Having to see her battle for cancer through the first trial. ... Lauren touched so many people through all these years.

Not only did he take my daughter’s first best friend, there’s always a huge void. There always will be. ... I hang onto the times we had with Lauren.

[I recently] dropped my own daughter off at college, and we won’t get to experience that with Lauren.

Annette states she hopes that Brown will take responsibility.

DDA Hum tells the court that he has a few letters from family members that he would like to read. DDA Hum reads the letters. [Sarah mentioned to me after the hearing that the authors did not want their letters made public, so I have not transcribed the notes I took.]

After reading the letters, DDA Hum speaks to the court.

I never knew Lauren. My descriptions of her would never be as vivid. I do want to thank Detective Leslie for his devotion to this case. For never giving up on this case. It would have been easy for him and his partner to have accepted the defendants story and write this off as an accident and gone home. They never did that. Detective Leslie devoted a good portion of his life ... investigating people and ensuring that justice would have been done for Lauren.

DDA Hum thanks the court and the court staff. He thanks Sarah and her family for their kind words, then turns to address them.

I can’t imagine what you’ve been through for the past 15 years, but you bore it with strength and dignity and never lost faith that someday this moment would come.

DDA Hum turns and looks at the defendant when he speaks next.

But there are some crimes that are so horrendous, that are so senseless, that they just boggle the mind and make you question your humanity.

Hum raises his voice. He’s almost yelling. “She was four years old!”  DDA Hum appears to break up emotionally.

Lauren would be 19 now. She never hurt or done anything to anybody and never experienced what it would be like to grow up. And justice will never bring back this four year old girl. Justice will never bring back this 19 year old woman. After 15 long years, it’s time for justice to be served.

9/18/15 Brown remains silent and stares straight ahead during 

the sentencing hearing. Photo: Pool Camera

Sentencing
Judge Lomeli indicates he received letters from Lynne Brown and Robert Brown. Judge Lomeli states, “I did read those and considered those.” He does not read these letters into the record. Judge Lomeli asks, “Anything to add Mr. Laub?” [Nothing to add.] Counsel waives time for sentencing.

“On May 15 the jury convicted the defendant of first degree murder, also the special circumstances of financial gain and by means of lying in wait. ... Respectfully .... judgement and sentence of this court, as prescribed under the law ... shall receive a life sentence without the possibility of parole. In view of the jury’s finding ... the total [commitment?] shall be life without possibility of parole. ... The defendant has provided DNA samples ... “

The court continues with the specific costs of a restitution fine, court fine and security costs. The court asks if there’s any restitution. I believe DDA Hum indicates no. The court addresses Mr. Laub, “I know that you have prepared a notice of appeal.” Then the court addresses the defendant. “If you wish to appeal, you must file your appeal in 60 days. ... The notice must be in writing and signed by you or your attorney or both of you. ... If you appeal and do not have the financial ability to represent yourself ... the appellate court will appoint an attorney to represent you. ... Nothing further from either counsel? ... We stand in recess.”

After that, Judge Lomeli asks Mr. Laub about Brown’s credits [for his time in LA County Men’s Central]. 4,338 days. The court states again the court is in recess.

DDA Hum and Detective Leslie shake hands. I did not see it, but during the victim impact statements, the media cameras caught Detective Leslie with tears on his face. Brown gets up and he’s taken back into custody. I note that the defendant and his counsel both stared straight ahead during the entire sentencing and not once looked at the individuals who gave their victim impact statements.

It wasn’t until the reading of the defendant’s credits that his wife, Patty Brown finally arrives at court. I see her try to hand a paper to Mr. Laub, possibly a statement. I'm not certain. I don’t hear Mr. Laub’s answer but I hear Patty Brown reply, “Outrageous.” I don't know what Patty expected since she was quite late to her husband's sentencing.

It was near the courtroom doors, or just outside in the hallway, I don’t remember, when Patty Brown’s brother, Ted Kaldis approached me. Kaldis says to me, “I would hope that you would write about something other than my wardrobe.” I’m surprised this is what Ted feels is important to say to me. 

Out in the hallway, it’s full of media and family. Everyone is lingering. Ted has a plastic bag and he is pulling out homemade CD’s and handing them to the reporters. He asks me if I want one.  As Ted speaks to the reporters in the hallway, Patty and Mr. Laub chat.

CBS reporter Randy Paige approaches Ted to talk to him. Ted asks Paige if he is “local or national.” I hear Ted talking about Sarah to the media. He says something to the effect that, the Sarah they were presented, is not the person she really is. I don’t have his exact words since I had put my notepad away at that point. 


Patty was speaking to reporters, telling them about her belief in her husband’s innocence. Patty approaches Sarah, saying something to the effect that she was sorry for Sarah's loss of Lauren. Sarah replies something to the effect of, 'Was there anything you wanted to say to me?' I quickly grabbed my notebook. Patty responded, “You know as much as anyone this was not a homicide.” Patty continues, “I don’t think this is the final outcome by any means.”

DDA Hum intervenes. In a loud, angry voice, Hum proclaims, “You don’t have to listen to this crap!”  DDA Hum then tells Ted Kaldis and Patty in a forceful tone to “Back off! ... Step aside!” Sarah quickly leaves the hallway for the safety of the women’s restroom. Several support staff from the DA’s office follow Sarah into the restroom to help console her. Patty and Ted are still on the floor, and Sarah and her family would have to walk past them to get to the elevators. DDA Hum offers to Sarah’s family to have the bailiff get them off the floor through a private elevator. 


Sarah and her family go back to the end of the hallway and enter a courtroom to take a private elevator to the 12th floor, where the media is set up for a press conference.  I attended the press conference and audio taped it. As soon as I get that audio up on the web, I’ll publish the link.

Commentary
T&T started covering the Brown case in 2008, after the first Phil Spector trial ended in a hung jury. I reported on pretrial hearings and most of the second trial until I came down with a serious flu. During the second trial, I visited Abalone Cove, as well as Inspiration and Portuguese Points. I took photos of the cliffs and shot video. To say this case haunted me is an understatement. I never knew Lauren, but I had a strong desire to know what really happened to her, and report on her case.

Thanks to Mr. Sprocket, I'm grateful that I was able to attend many of the pretrial hearings and report on every day of the third trial.

Sadly, Mr. Sprocket and I had a personal loss In the middle of the trial. Our 10 month old kitten, Rudy Rocket, was diagnosed with FIP, a deadly illness. He was a total joy and a daily entertainer. Rudy Rocket was Mr. Sprocket's favorite fur child who followed him all over the house. We said goodbye on April 25, and tried to grieve while I continued to report on the trial.

I will never forget Lauren. I will continue to report on when Brown is transferred out of LA County and into the custody of CDCR, as well as what happens with his appeal.

 Lauren, blowing a kiss.

Photo Copyright © Sarah Key-Marer, all rights reserved.

Media Reports on Sentencing
AP via Yahoo News
Daily Breeze
LA Times
ABC 7
KTLA
KTLA Interview with Detective Jeff Leslie
CBS
NBC 4

LAist
Daily Mail, UK article
Daily Mail, Video

Video: In Loving Memory of Lauren

Cameron Brown: Pretrial Hearing 1, Third Trial

 Cameron Brown, at his second trial in 2009.

Short Case Background
Sometime after 12 Noon, on November 8th, 2000, Cameron Brown picked up his four-year-old daughter Lauren Sarene Key from preschool earlier than usual.

Lauren Sarene Key, 4.

It was a regularly scheduled, court ordered visitation.  Hours later, Lauren ended up dead at the bottom of Inspiration Point, a dangerous 120 foot cliff in Rancho Palos Verdes, California.

Side view of Inspiration Point where Lauren fell.

Brown was arrested three years later on November 16th, 2003 and charged with 187, felony murder.  He's been in the custody of LA County Sheriff's ever since.  He's had two trials that ended in hung juries and is awaiting his third trial. The first trial was held in the Torrance courthouse and ended in August 2006. The second trial was in downtown, Judge Pastor's courtroom that ended October 2009.  In each trial, every juror voted guilty, however they could not agree on the degree of Brown's guilt (first degree, second degree or involuntary manslaughter).

The prosecution alleges Brown, a baggage handler for American Airlines, threw his daughter off a cliff for several reasons: he hated Sarah Key, Lauren's mother; he never wanted children --tried to pressure Sarah into an abortion-- and for financial gain.  The monthly court ordered child support, amounting to 40 percent of his salary was crippling him.

The defense contends that this was a tragic accident and Brown did not kill his child.  Brown's defense says he loved his daughter and wanted to spend more time with her.  The defense presented in his previous trials has been that he was sitting down near the cliff edge when Lauren accidentally fell to her death.

On the last day of her life, little Lauren Key started crying inconsolably when she learned that her biological father would be picking her up from school.  Her continued crying so alarmed her teachers that after a few hours, they called Sarah so that Lauren could talk to her.  It didn't appear to help.  A few minutes after that conversation, Sarah decided to ignore the court order and take her daughter home.  When she called the school back to tell them she was coming to get Lauren, she was told it was too late.  Brown had arrived early for his daughter and they were already gone. 

Friday, July 27th, 2012
There was a pretrial hearing in the Cameron Brown case in Judge Pastor's courtroom this morning. I had been keeping my eye on this case for some time, watching the LA County Sheriff's Inmate Information Center for the next time Brown was scheduled to appear in court.  I covered the second trial, but became ill during the start of the defense case and missed many of their key witnesses.  I have always been disappointed that I wasn't able to provide for T&T readers both sides of that trial. Sprocket.) This case was originally scheduled to go for it's third trial in late February 2011, but  right before that, Dr. Conrad Murray did not wave his right to a speedy trial, and that caused a massive hiccup in Judge Pastor's schedule.

On my walk up Broadway from the parking lot, construction workers were putting the finishing touches (more benches) on the section of Grand Park behind the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center.  I ran into DDA Craig Hum in the building lobby and rode the elevator up to the 9th floor with him.  (Hum was the sole prosecutor on the past two trials and is still on the case.)

On January 20th of this year while covering the Lazarus case, I had bumped into Hum in the elevator bay and asked him if Brown was being represented by a public defender.  Hum told me that the court appointed Aron Laub.  In the first trial his defense attorney was Mark Geragos.  Second trial was Mark's long-time associate Pat Harris.

When I enter Dept. 107, I get my first glimpse of Aron Laub, who is in a jovial, yet respectful conversation with DDA Hum.  There is a new sheriff at the deputy box speaking to the tiny female sheriff, Parra.  Mrs. Benson, Judge Pastor's clerk is not here today.  (I'm hoping she wasn't part of the recent layoffs at the end of June.)  Mavis Theodorou is the court reporter, already working at her desk.  I really like Mavis.  She's always been kind to me and she's got a very pleasant voice.

Laub is wearing a light gray suit.  It goes well with his salt and pepper mustache and nicely trimmed beard.  Cameron Brown's wife, Patty Brown and her brother Ted Kaldis are not here. I'm not surprised about that.  They probably know when this case will get closer to trial, and if there were no important motions to be argued, why drive in from Ventura County (if Patty still lives there).

There are several other attorneys waiting in the well area of the court for their cases to be called.  A man with weathered-looking tattooed arms, who looked like he just came off a difficult bicycle ride, came into Dept. 107 carrying a backpack and headed for the back door beside the jury box.  The attorneys in the well all seemed to know who he was, and at first I thought he was a juror on a current trial.  But several minutes later he emerged from the back area of the courtroom.  His hair was combed and he was nicely dressed in pants, long sleeved shirt and a tie.  The three women attorneys in the well are chatting with him and I realize that he's an attorney also.

Brown is finally brought into the courtroom from the jail area wearing an orange jumpsuit. His starting-to-gray light brown hair is long, falling down his back to about in between his shoulder blades.  His mustache and beard reminds me of the ZZ Top band members.  I had heard from a reporter at the Raul Lopez press conference that Brown looked like a wild man, and one of the reasons I wanted to drop in on this case was to see Brown in person, three years later.  I had hoped that artist Thomas Broersma might be able to come to this hearing so he could sketch the defendant but unfortunately for me and fortunately for Thomas, he's been busy with several projects.

Before the hearing starts, Brown appears to be going over some papers with his counsel.  Judge Pastor takes the bench and wants to know where this case stands.  Loeb wants to set the next hearing date for September 21st, 2012.  He has two other big cases he's involved in.  One in Department 102, Judge Marcus' courtroom, the "Subia (sp?)" case and the other in Department 108, Judge Otha's courtroom the "Burns" case.  Loeb tells Judge Pastor that both judges have indicated they will not allow any more continuances on those cases.  The case in Dept. 108 had 8 defendants but it's now down to four, and it's a multiple event case.  The case in Dept. 102 is three years old and has two defendants.

Judge Pastor inquires about the age of the other cases, and how they compare to this case.  I believe Judge Pastor clarifies, meaning how long from the actual crime to today.  Loeb responds he thinks Brown is the oldest case (the superior court? in Judge Pastor's court?).  Judge Pastor replies that they have older cases (cold cases) that occurred in the 1980's.  Pastor asks the prosecution where they stand.

Hum states that his trial schedule has become more complicated as well.

Judge Pastor wants to keep the trial on a shorter leash, but Loeb asks for 120 days.  He states something to the effect of, '..once it gets to zero of 60, the pressure is on both counsels to be prepared."  The pressure is on him and on his five other cases, and apparently, both of those other two cases mentioned are supposed to start sometime in September.

Judge Pastor then outlines the concerns that he has regarding his upcoming schedule.  Without naming names, Pastor indicates that in January 2013, he has a big case, a three-month case scheduled to begin.  Judge Pastor also mentions something about how they do things in the state of Massachusetts, "out-of-town attorneys" that come in his courtroom stating they want a specific date to start a trial, and that's not the way things work here, in his courtroom.

Hum tells the court, "My concern is, this was not a case to go over the holidays."

Judge Pastor then addresses Brown about waiving his right to a speedy trial and to return to court on September 21st.  Brown replies in a clear voice, "That's a fine day. That's my birthday."  Judge Pastor inquires again, "Do you want it on that date?"  "Sure," Brown replies.

Judge Pastor orders the court calendar to be put at 0-120 on September 21st.  Right after that, Brown speaks up and addresses Judge Pastor. He asks for "...a court order to see a doctor. I need to renew my medication."  Judge Pastor replies, "Sure," and then adds something about Brown (or his counsel) filling out the proper paperwork.  And that was it.  Over before 9:00 AM.

My take is, the reason this case has taken so long to get to a third trial has been both counsel's schedules in other trials.  It's just the nature of an over-burdened court system in LA County.  It's my understanding that when a case is set at 0-120, that gives counsel four months to review the case right before trial.  Is it possible this case will go to trial 120 days after September 21st?  Anything's possible, but I would not be surprised if there are more delays in store for this case.

As I was walking down Broadway back to my parking lot, I happened to see DDA Shannon Presby, deep in conversation on his cell phone, walking across the mid-street cross walk towards CJC.  He gave me a big smile and waved.

Nine Years Ago Today....

Lauren Sarene Key, late summer, 2000.

Nine years ago today, in the early afternoon of November 8th, four-year-old Lauren Sarene Key ended up dead at the bottom of Inspiration Point, a 120-foot sheer cliff face in Ranch Palos Verdes. That day, Lauren was on a court-ordered visitation with her father, Cameron Brown, who drove her to the Abalone Cove parking lot where they set out on an approximate one-mile hike. To this day, only two people know what really happened to cause Lauren to lose her life in such a dangerous place. Her father, Cameron Brown and Lauren.

Much later that night back at the Sheriff's station, Brown was interviewed by LA Co. Sheriff's Homicide detectives for approximately three hours. According to Detective Jeffery Leslie, Brown gave three slightly different versions as to what happened to Lauren on the southeast section of Inspiration Point. That single interview would be the one and only time Brown cooperated with authorities investigating the death of his daughter.

Brown was arrested on first degree murder charges in 2003. Because of the special circumstances of lying-in-wait and murder for financial gain bail was denied. He's been in the custody of LA Co. Sheriff's ever since. Two hung juries later, (all jurors from both trials agreed that Brown was guilty of something, they just couldn't decide on what charge) Brown is still waiting to find out if DDA Craig Hum will bring this case to trial a third time.

On October 29th, Brown's defense team missed a court ordered date to file motions to argue for Brown to be released on bail and/or to have the case dismissed all together. Judge Michael Pastor ordered a new date of December 17th, 2009, for the filing of defense motions.

People who knew Lauren described her as a bright light who talked up a storm. She enjoyed going to church and being around other people. She was a very sociable child who enjoyed connecting with others. Lauren was a "girly-girl" who also enjoyed playing dress-up and playing with her dolls. She was not a tomboy who played rough-house with other children or knew how to swim. Supposedly, Lauren did not like to go on hikes. Please take a moment to light a candle in remembrance of little Lauren today.

Quick links to T&T's coverage of Brown's retrial.

Cameron Brown Retrial: Aftermath

Monday, October 5th, 2009 This is an unedited, draft entry.

I almost didn't make it to court on time this morning. Mr. Sprocket had jury duty at the Metropolitan courthouse so we car-pooled. Whenever he drives we are always getting out the door many minutes later than we originally planned. The goal was to get me in front of the Criminal Court Building at 8:15 am and he would then have time to get to the other courthouse on South Hill Street.

More than two-thirds of the way downtown, I come to find out that Mr. Sprocket forgot to bring his jury summons. This is what gets him into the parking lot for free as well as speed through signing in. He's thinking he needs to drop me off at the nearest train station and go back and get the form. I told him it's better to show up without it (serve) verses spending an hour or more going back to get the form and being late for service. He did tell me later that he had a drama with the parking lot attendant because he didn't have the form to get his free parking. Fortunately, everything worked out for him, and for me too.

When I arrive around 8:35 am in Department 107, the hearing hasn't started. Dr. Adams is there and he tells me that the sheriff's are short staffed. They need two people to get Brown transferred, and one of them has to be a supervisor to film the defendant being transported with the camcorder. So we wait, and wait. When I arrived, DDA Craig Hum was at the prosecution table. Pat Harris and Lara Yeretsian as well as their clerk were in the courtroom. Mavis is the court reporter up. At 8:47 am, Brown is finally brought into the courtroom. Patty is in the second row, sitting in the aisle. She's wearing a nice gray jacket and matching pants with an orange scoop neck top.

Brown comes out, smiling but he's not wearing his jacket or tie. Judge Pastor addresses him. "Mr. Brown, take a moment to put on your coat and tie and then we'll begin."

As Judge Pastor begins to voir dire Juror #1, Brown's parents enter the courtroom and sit beside Patty Brown. Judge Pastor asks Juror #1 about the situation that prevented him from coming to court on Friday.

There was a bar fight and a shooting on his street and LE closed off several streets declaring it a crime scene. The street ended up being closed until 6:00 pm that evening. With the first question about the paper being brought into the courtroom the juror states he has no idea who brought in the paper. He states that since he was the one holding the door for everyone, he was the last one inside 108's jury room and it was already out and on the table by then.

Juror #1 states that he thinks it was read out loud by the jury foreman.

JP: You saw it?

J#1: Yes.

JP: Did you see it highlighted by anyone?

J#1: No.

JP: Did you see it passed around?

J#1: I believe so. [...] I think it was dropped (the issue of malice) after that. [...] I think one of the jurors said we shouldn't be bringing in (things) from the outside.

Judge Pastor then in very strong terms asks the juror that if he was instructed to disregard anything he heard, may have heard or read, could he disregard. The juror replies, "Of course."

JP: The court does admonish you in the strongest terms... [...] Do you understand and accept that?

J#1: Yes I do.

He orders him not to discuss what they talked about with the other jurors.

I believe at this point Judge Pastor talks about about what he believes happened. He believes there was clear jury misconduct.

JP: I'd like counsel's thoughts.

CH: I don't think there's necessity for any more inquiry. I think the court has admonished the jurors in the strongest terms. [...] I think any prejudice that may have risen from that was successfully cured of that. [...] Except for extremely [?]... I think we need to bring them in a s a group and admonish them again.

JP: Mr. Harris?

Harris states he agrees with the prosecutor that there was jury misconduct and that he doesn't believe further investigation is necessary. However, he states that he doesn't believe that it's been cured. I believe Harris states, "I feel like a mistrial is warranted." (I think this is just proforma to secure the appellate record.)

Judge Pastor then goes into a lengthy description as to all that had happened since last Thursday. He describes the jury misconduct in detail and reads what was done to investigate it.

JP: The court finds (the following?) [...] Juror #9 did in fact conduct misconduct. He violated repeated admonishments of this court.

Judge Pastor then clearly states for the record that the definition that was brought into the jury room from the Columbia University Dictionary is a ".....complex intermingling of civil and criminal (law) definitions of malice. [...] Quite frankly, it's wrong. [...] It does not reflect the law (or) CALJIC, 8.10 or 8.11. [...] Juror #9 committed misconduct. [...] Juror #7 committed misconduct by reading it out loud.

Judge Pastor then reads the numbers of the jurors who read the paper on their own.

JP: Number one said they heard it. Number three said they "turned it off." [...] There's some ambiguity as to who may have highlighted the document. It may have been (number 6? or number 5.?) [...] Number 2 did not hear it. Number 8 did not read it but heard it. [...] Number twelve was the juror who was the one who instigated the inquiry. [...] The (?) is, what to do. [...] There is a presumption of prejudice. [...] I do not believe the exposure was lengthy or extensive to this (? incorrect ? definition). [...] There wasn't much deliberation at all. [...] It appears that after the material was read, the discussion was cut off at an (earliest time?) [...] And that's significant. [...] I do believe all the jurors that spoke to us. [...] I found them to be candid and honest as I observed them. [...] Was exposure to the online printout inherently prejudicial? [...] I do not find that that exposure was so prejudicial that it will prejudice the case. [...] I do not find that.... [...] I do not find that it is substantially likely that any juror is biased from the insertion of this information. [...] I am satisfied at this point. [...] If the individual jurors are prepared to continue, [...] if there isn't [....] then I will..... (I missed the rest of the sentence.)

JP: Mr. Harris and Ms. Yeretsian requested several times [the jurors be told the information is incorrect] and I am prepared to say that it is absolutely incorrect and inaccurate and wrong. [...] I'm totally prepared to do that. [...] I will strongly instruct the jury to disregard...

Judge Pastor then brings in a case to cite for his rulings. People V. Barton, 37 Cal Ap. 4.....

CH: I think that's the appropriate response.

I believe I have a note that says (Harris no additional...)

JP: Motion for mistrial is denied.

Judge Pastor then references other cases he had mentioned last week. Harper, Barten (sp?) vs Vasques, Harris.

The jurors are brought back in.

Judge Pastor addresses the jurors in the strongest terms.

JP: There was misconduct in this case. No one should have brought in information from the Internet into this case. [...] From the onset, I admonished you not to access the Internet. I admonished you not to utilize a dictionary. [...] We talked to all of you. [...] I believe what you told me. [...] Not only was there a violation, but a significant number of jurors didn't think it was significant enough to bring it to my attention. [...] The bottom line ladies and gentlemen, whatever you may have read from that is wrong, and that is precisely why we tell you not to consult (information off the Internet). It's garbage. It's full of inaccurate information. [...] When a person needs surgery, you don't do it on yourself.

Judge Pastor admonishes the jurors very forcefully that the information is wrong.

JP: The only law that is applicable is the law I have given you. [...] I am no admonishing you in the strongest possible terms you must not consider anything you read, may have read or heard, from this document.

The jurors are excused to go deliberate again. As I was leaving the courtroom, I ask DDA Hum if there were any specially worded instructions like there was in the first Spector trial. He said there were a few word changes, but they were minor and they did not have anything to do with malice. The instructions for malice were the standard instructions. I decide to take the train home. Once I get off my stop on the Orange Line I decide to get in some exercise and walk home, about a mile and a half. As soon as I got home and got into comfortable clothes, I received a call that a verdict had been reached. I immediately got dressed again and started searching for people that could give me a ride. I was lucky, I was able to arrange a ride into downtown from a friend about fifteen minutes later. When I get back downtown, I run into Dr. Carroll Adams in the cafeteria and he kindly bought me a salad since I forgot and left my lunch back home in the fridge.

At 1:25 pm, I get into 107 and sit in the front row beside Carroll. The room quickly fills up with the accredited press. Denise Nix is here along with Greg Risling from the Associated Press. I see Claudia from KFWB and Terri Keith from City News. There are several camera operators and still photographers here that I've never seen before. Brown's parents are here sitting with Patty in the second row, aisle seat. They look solemn.

It's now that I notice for the first time, these exquisite figurines on top of the court reporter's desk. Normally, there is a computer there but this time, it's just Mavis and her reporting machine and that's how I noticed them. There's a metal elephant, and two interesting pieces out of carved wood, a second elephant and the other looks like a rhino. There's also a uniquely painted wood monkey head finished with a fabric dress. Carroll tells me that Judge Pastor brings his staff various items from the trips he takes.

Vania Stuelp from the courts Public Information Office (PIO) arrives and so does Jack Leonard from the Los Angeles Times. PIO Department Head Alan Parachini's here also. Lots more reporters and cameramen. Doug Kriegel from local NBC Channel 4 is sitting in the front row next to the gentleman sitting next to me.

Harris and Yeretsian come out from the holding cell area. More and more press show up. Hum paces in the well, something I've seen him do often. Jane Robison, the press secretary for the DA's office is here sitting next to Kriegel. Alan Parachini comes out of the Judge's chambers and right afterwords, Vania makes an announcement to the press that there will be no texting during the hearing. All cell phones and blackberries must be completely turned off.

I then ask the man next to me what's his name and what news agency is he with. He's with the local Channel 11, (FOX) and his name is Chris. He states that his station covered the first trial. I introduce myself and tell him I covered most of this case until I got sick during the defense case. I also mention my coverage of the second Spector trial. Doug Kreigel then says he's heard of me and asks if I would be willing to talk about the case after the verdict. I tell him that I'm not interested in appearing on camera. He tries to cajole me into doing an interview but I stand firm. The courtroom is now almost completely filled with reporters.

At 1:40 pm, Ms. Benson says, "Ms Theodora (Mavis, the court reporter) and counsel, we need you to come in chambers please."

For the next ten minutes a buzz goes around the courtroom. The camera men are told to leave. I don't see this; Carroll tells me. I look back a few rows at Katie and Lisa (my trial watching friends I met during Spector 2). Katie tell me that it's going to be a hung jury. Katie saw that DDA Hum came over to Sarah and overheard him give her the news. Sarah and her supporters, (her husband Greg and other friends) appear to be in shock. And the tone among the defense attorneys is changed. Yeretsian is smiling. Harris is quite happy, too. I'm in shock too and confused because the message was clear that there were three buzzes by the jury in courtroom 108.

At 1:50 pm we are on the record. Judge Pastor starts out by explaining what happened. Late in the morning he was notified by the bailiff in 108 that the jury had buzzed three times. That's the signal that they had reached a verdict. The bailiff inquired if they had reached a verdict and the response was "Yes."

The jury had regrouped and #7 sent a note to the judge. The note said (this is not exact) We feel that further deliberations will not be (fruitful?). We feel there [...] that the jury is deadlocked. Judge Pastor asks which alternates are here. Alternate #2 and #5. Alternate #4 is not here. It's officially a hung jury. The defense team looks joyful. Sarah is on the verge of tears. I have no idea why she isn't bawling her eyes out by now. Now I get the full note.

We the jury unanimously feel that further deliberation will not sway us from a ununanimous verdict.

When the jury is brought in, Judge Pastor questions the foreman, Juror #7.

JP: NO unanimous verdict?

J#7: No sir.

JP: Do you feel anything further by the court ....

J#7: No sir.

JP: Is this jury hopelessly deadlocked?

J#7: Yes.

One by one, Judge Pastor addresses each juror and asks them a series of questions.

JP: Is there anything the court could do, further reading of testimony, further jury instructions or further argument by the attorneys?

He goes onto to ask them if they are deadlocked and one by one they all agree.

Juror #7, when asked why they buzzed three times, states that since they couldn't reach a verdict, that "was" a verdict. (I'm visibly shaking my head at this answer when he gives that explanation.)

Judge Pastor then tries to ask the foreman what was the split. After a few questions, the juror still doesn't understand what Judge Pastor is asking him. The accredited press beside me is astounded that this juror doesn't get it. Judge Pastor resorts to telling the juror that there were four options. First degree, Second degree, Involuntary and not guilty. I'm having a hard time not laughing because this is a serious matter but the juror is quite slow. I tell Chris beside me that this juror is a medical doctor.

We then learn that the split is six to six. Six for second degree and six for involuntary. I'm in major shock. They all thought he was guilty, but could not agree on what charge.

Judge Pastor finds that there is nothing further that the court could do.

JP: Court further finds the jury is hopelessly deadlocked. There is no unanimous decision to any crime that is [alleged?] or lesser crime. [...] ... good cause to call a mistrial.

Judge Pastor asks the foreman about the first degree charge. The juror states the jury was not deadlocked on first degree, but they did not fill out the jury forms and sign that as a verdict.

Judge Pastor asks to see the attorneys. Afterwords, Judge Pastor addresses the jurors and their right to talk to anyone they want to or not talk to anyone from the prosecution, defense or media. It was there call.

The jury is excused. Judge Pastor tells Brown that he's entitled to a retrial in 60 days. That clock starts now. There will be a hearing in 15 days for motions. Judge Pastor and the attorneys go over their calendar for motion dates. He tells the defense that they need to file their motion (to dismiss I believe) by 4:00 pm on October 13th. The People have until 4:00 pm on October 26th to file their reply to the defense motion. The defense then has two more days after that to respond to the People's motion. They are looking at October 29th, to hear motions, and that day would be day 24 of 60. (Denise Nix of the Daily Breeze in her report of the hearing states it will be on October 28th.)

Outside on the Temple Street plaza, Juror #7 speaks to the press and tells the press that at one point, there was a single juror who voted for first degree. He also stated that it wasn't so much "how" Lauren ended up at the bottom of the cliff, but they could not agree on intent. Afterwords, Pat Harris speaks to the press.

Several jurors met with Sarah to apologize to her that they could not reach a verdict. Juror #9 was crying and hugging Sarah and Sarah's friend. I heard him state that it was the younger jurors that did not get it, that they did not have the life experience (to see this case as murder). Juror #4 also spoke to Sarah. I saw Juror #2 come over and it appeared he had tears in his eyes also. Juror #8 came over to speak to Sarah and I also saw this juror speak to the defense attorneys after that.

By the time this was all over, it was 3:00 pm. Mr. Sprocket was still on jury duty and I thought I would get in another walk and head down to the fabric district at 9th and Wall Street, since I need to price out a 60 yard roll of fleece for my upcoming fleece and flannel blanket sale. I got some good price offers from several different wholesalers. Around 4:30 pm, Mr. Sprocket picks me up and I tell him everything that happened. We are both very sad for everyone involved in this nine year old case.

When I got home, I realized that Judge Pastor may have used the old jury instructions (CALJIC) instead of the new, CALCRIM, because he referred to "8.10 and 8.11" during the morning hearing.

A comparison of CALJIC to CALCRIM at this link, text copied below with the added commentary from the link.

CALJIC 8.10 MURDER--DEFINED (previous instruction; alternatives relating to felony murder and killing of fetus have been omitted for clarity of presentation)

[Defendant is accused [in Count[s] _______] of having committed the crime of murder, a violation of Penal Code section 187.]

Every person who unlawfully kills a human being with malice aforethought is guilty of the crime of murder in violation of section 187 of the Penal Code.

A killing is unlawful, if it is neither justifiable nor excusable.

In order to prove this crime, each of the following elements must be proved:
1. A human being was killed;
2. The killing was unlawful; and
3. The killing was done with malice aforethought.

CALJIC 8.11 "MALICE AFORETHOUGHT"--DEFINED

"Malice" may be either express or implied.

[Malice is express when there is manifested an intention unlawfully to kill a human being.]

[Malice is implied when:
1. The killing resulted from an intentional act,
2. The natural consequences of the act are dangerous to human life, and
3. The act was deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life.]

[When it is shown that a killing resulted from the intentional doing of an act with express or implied malice, no other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice aforethought.]

The mental state constituting malice aforethought does not necessarily require any ill will or hatred of the person killed.

The word "aforethought" does not imply deliberation or the lapse of considerable time. It only means that the required mental state must precede rather than follow the act.

CALCRIM 520. Murder With Malice Aforethought (new instruction)

The defendant is charged [in Count __] with murder.

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

1. The defendant committed an act that caused the death of (another person/ [or] a fetus);

[AND]

2. When the defendant acted, (he/she) had a state of mind called malice aforethought(;/.)

[AND

3. (He/She) killed without lawful excuse or justification.]

There are two kinds of malice aforethought, express malice and implied malice. Proof of either is sufficient to establish the state of mind required for murder.

The defendant acted with express malice if (he/she) unlawfully intended to kill.

The defendant acted with implied malice if:

1. (He/She) intentionally committed an act;

2. The natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life;

3. At the time (he/she) acted, (he/she) knew (his/her) act was dangerous to human life;

AND

4. (He/She) deliberately acted with conscious disregard for (human/ [or] fetal) life.

Malice aforethought does not require hatred or ill will toward the victim. It is a mental state that must be formed before the act that causes death is committed. It does not require deliberation or the passage of any particular period of time.

COMMENTS: Note the very impersonal phrasing (and passive construction) in the CALJIC instruction: "Malice is express when there is manifested an intention unlawfully to kill a human being." In other words, the defendant must have intended to kill the victim. I suppose that this is becoming my mantra: if that is what you mean, why not just say so?
Also, observe again the abstact quality of the CALJIC instruction. It requires the jury to decide whether "a human being" was killed, and that the killing was done with malice aforethought. Of course, what the jury has to decide is whether the defendant killed a human being, and whether the defendant killed with malice aforethought.
The new instruction continues to use the distinction between express and implied malice, even though it seems to me that this is burdening the jury with unnecessary terminology. I can see no reason for the jury to decide whether malice was express or implied--this unnecessarily complicates their task. All they have to decide is whether the defendant killed intentionally, or intentionally did an act that he knew was dangerous, etc. But the distinction is so ingrained that--after receiving public comment--the committee decided to retain it.

LA Times article by Jack Leonard

Associated Press article by Greg Risling

CBS 2 News Video Report

KABC Video Story

Cameron Brown Retrial: VERDICT!

UPDATE Monday, 9:30 pm, PT.

Sprocket here. I'm quite tired. I didn't get home until 7:30 pm. I stayed in downtown LA and fabric shopped until Mr. Sprocket got off from jury duty and could pick me up. Came home, had dinner and then started writing. I'll finish writing up my notes on today's proceedings tomorrow, with a new entry. Outside the courthouse on the Temple Street plaza after the foreman gave an interview to the press, several jurors came over to Sarah, the victim's mother, to give her their condolences. At least one of the jurors was openly sobbing while hugging her.

UPDATE!

I just got a call from Sprocket. The news of a verdict was a miscommunication with the jury. There has been another mistrial. The final vote was 6 for 2nd degree and 6 for manslaughter. Sprocket will fill in the details when she gets home from court.



A verdict has been reached in the retrial of Cameron Brown for alleged murder of his four-year-old daughter, Lauren.

The verdict will be read at 1:30 pm in Department 107.

I won't have my laptop with me, but I will try to arrange an update as soon as possible.

Cameron Brown Retrial: Still in Limbo

The quick news is, Judge Pastor did not make a decision today because one juror did not make it to court due to an unavoidable emergency. Consequently the juror could not be interviewed. That juror, Juror #1 has been ordered back to court at 8:30 am, Monday October 5th.

I arrive on the 9th floor and see that Dr. Carroll Adams has rearranged some appointments and made it to court early to find out what's going to happen with the Brown jury today. Dr. Adams told me that in all the time he's spent in Pastor's courtroom, he didn't think he's ever seen Judge Pastor look as upset as he did yesterday, once this latest note from the jury came to light.

Dr. Adams and I talk about the Polanski case and the latest drama about the retired DDA David Wells who is now admitting he stretched the truth so to speak, to the HBO documentary film producers. Dr. Adams reminds me that when he spoke on camera in that documentary, he wasn't under oath. I mention the statements Polanski made in an interview several years ago, where he defends his actions of raping a 13-year-old girl by stating something to the effect of, everyone wants a young girl. Jurors want a young girl. Judges want a young girl. Again, Dr. Adams reminds me that Polanski wasn't under oath when he made those statements.

Harris and the woman working as the defense clerk arrive and go into 107. Patty is sitting at the very end of the hall. She's dressed a bit more casual today than what I've seen in the weeks I attended the trial. As Dr. Adams and I chat, DDA Hum and Deputy Leslie arrive. Sarah, her husband and a friend are here. Soon after, Denise Nix from the Daily Breeze arrives. After pounding on the door, DDA Hum and Leslie get admitted to 107.

The proceedings started before 8:30 am, but the courtroom is not opened to the public before that time. So as Carroll and I enter, I hear Harris in the middle of making an argument. Mavis is the court reporter up. There are several other attorneys in the courtroom, waiting to have their pretrial discussions put on the record.

PH: (It's) ...very clear there is misconduct.... [...] Appears to be the way it was phrased, they (the juror) consulted a dictionary but did not bring it (up? further?)

Judge Pastor then states he agrees with both counsel that they don't know the facts and they need to speak to the jury foreman. Judge Pastor also wanted to add that they received the note at around 10:30 am and after that the jury was excused.

JP: That has some meaning here as far as any (likelihood) [...] like Mr. Harris said, of infiltration [...] of the virus [...] and any other....

Judge Pastor asks Ms. Benson to get Juror #7, the foreman and direct him to his seat.

The juror is brought in and Judge Pastor starts to question him. The juror gives a bit of background on the malice discussion. I believe he states that one juror (unknown) asked if the group could use a dictionary definition for the word "malice." Juror #9 (the former alternate #2), states that if people would like I have the dictionary definition.

Some jurors were interested; some were not. The foreman then states that Juror #12 said no, we're really not supposed to use that. Then Juror #5 asked if they could at least submit it as a question to the court.

Judge Pastor clarifies some points with the foreman. He asks if it was Juror #5, but it's clarified that it was Juror #9 who voided this point, "If people would like I have looked up the dictionary definition."

JP: He looked it up on the Internet and printed it and some how it came up that is was the Columbia Dictionary?

J#7: He did have a copy. [...] He proposed passing it around.

(I'm not sure if the foreman states this or Judge Pastor asks: "But number 12 objected."

It's clarified that a piece of paper was brought into the jury room, and he (#9) said, "Here it is."

It was a few minutes later that people cleared it up. (A few minutes later that Juror #12 objected.)

JP: Was the info from the form read, disclosed by Juror #9?

J#7: No.

JP: Was any definition of malice...

Juror #12 objected. The foreman decided to write a note when another (juror inquired).

The foreman states he did not see what Juror #9 did with the paper.

It's 8:43 am. The foreman is excused and Pastor asks to see counsel at sidebar.

There is a lengthy sidebar and Judge Pastor then asks Ms. Benson to get Juror #9.

Juror #9 is brought in. Judge Pastor starts off by saying something to the effect, "I'm advised a dictionary (was used?) yesterday morning, in part..... [...] Did you volunteer.

J#9: One of the jurors asked for the definition. [...] Wednesday, ... sometime, there was a mention.

Under extensive questioning, Judge Pastor asked the juror what he did and it was finally clarified that Thursday morning before court, Juror #9 accessed the Internet. He used a search engine. "I have AOL." He went to the AOL home page and typed in the word malice. He printed it out and gave it to Juror #7. He gave Juror #7 a piece of paper. Juror #9 states that, that morning he was in a rush and didn't read it.

J#9: I glanced at it. I didn't really read it. [...] We just talked about malice. [...] Juror #7 read the paper out loud. [...] Juror #6 asked about it. [...] The paper was passed to Juror #6. [...] Juror #12 opposed it right off the bat.

JP: Juror #7 read it out lout to...

J#9: Yes he did.

(Juror #9 has the paper on him and it's brought out and handed to the court I believe at this time.)

Juror #9 then clarifies that some of the information is highlighted but he didn't do it. Juror #6 did that.

Juror #9 is then asked to go into the jury room while the court and counsel go over the paper that was brought into deliberations. Terri Keith from City News Service arrives. At 8:55 am, Cameron Brown's parent arrive and the sidebar is still going on.

The stories between Juror #7 the foreman and Juror #9 are different. Dr. Adams reminds me that the jurors take an oath. They are sworn in. Everything they say in court is under oath. So either a juror is lying or their memories of events are different. I overhear at the sidebar they are trying to get a color copy of the piece of paper, since the highlighting is causing a problem with copying the document.

Pat Harris brings up a point and wants the Judge to ask Juror #9 another question so he is brought out again.

JP: In looking again at the copy, the page number says "one of two."

The Judge asks if there was another page. The juror states that he thinks it was blank. He states that this was the only page he brought in.

Judge Pastor then confronts the juror about his actions and the juror states he'd like to explain himself.

JP: Do you recall my jury instructions and specifically stating (not to use the Internet or access a dictionary)?

(I remember much earlier in the trial that this was the juror that Judge Pastor mentioned in open court that they were having trouble staying awake.)

J#9: Honestly, your honor, I don't remember. [...] I apologize to the court.

Judge Pastor then asks the juror, "Candidly, would you be able to disregard anything you read or heard, especially about (malice?) [...] not reading the dictionary?

J#9: When it was read out loud, it was read so softly....

The juror is excused and Judge Pastor says, "Mr. Hum? Some thoughts?"

CH: I think we are going to have to inquire (of the other jurors). [...] It would seem there's a possibility that some have heard. [...] I don't see anything around it.

Harris agrees and he wants to add that when Judge Pastor questions them, I believe he asks that the jurors are questioned, they can be told that's an incorrect definition. Pastor states he doesn't have a problem with that, "If it gets to that point."

Judge Pastor then works with attorneys from another case to go over scheduling for the next hearing while Ms. Benson is instructed to grab another juror. They are going to be polled individually and questioned. Judge Pastor informs counsel that they will pick juror numbers randomly. "That's how we do it so nobody has any rhyme or reason to it."

Judge Pastor asks Ms. Benson to get Juror #5. He then addresses the court and states that Juror #1 will not be here for several hours. I believe it's at this point he states that it's an emergency and a safety transportation issue.

Juror #5 is brought in and Judge Pastor starts to question him.

J#5: There was some slight mention. They were confused about the definition.

I believe Judge Pastor asks if someone objected.

J#5: Yeah, I think somebody did say that.

He's asked what juror number it was, and Juror #5 doesn't remember. Juror #5 states he did read the paper and that it was passed around. He states that the jurors were talking about it.

Judge Pastor then asks the Juror a serious question. "If the court directs you in the strongest terms to disregard this extra information, can you follow my instruction?"

J#5: What ever you say, I'll follow.

What happens next is kind of confusing, since Judge Pastor wants to make it clear what is being said and what is understood. The Juror then says, "I never saw it," with a smile on his face. The Judge appears to be confused for a moment, asks him again, the juror states the same thing, "I never saw it," and then I think Judge Pastor gets it.

JP: Don't go all Soprano on me.

The juror explains that he was trying to make a joke. Judge Pastor clarifies that when the record is read (back) that (innuendo) won't be understood.

Harris asks for a sidebar and afterwords, Judge Pastor asks the juror one more question.

JP: Did you suggest to any of the other jurors that we should perhaps bring it to the attention of the court?

J#5: No.

That's it and he's excused.

Juror #6 is called into court. This is the black woman who injured her foot weeks earlier. Judge Pastor politely asks her how her foot is doing and I believe she replies, "Much better."

Juror #6 identifies it as Juror #9 who brought the paper into the jury room.

JP: What did he say?

J#6: He said he looked up the word malice and pass it around. [...] Juror #7 read it out loud.

JP: Did someone object?

She has trouble remembering which number.

J#6: I think it was number eleven.

JP: Are you sure?

J#6: I'm not sure.

JP: If the court directs you to disregard completely what you read [...] can you do it?

J#6: Yes sir. [...] Yes I can.

Juror #10 is brought in. This is a tall Asian man with a heavy accent.

Judge Pastor starts in with describing what he understands happened inside the jury room but the juror obviously isn't understanding the question at first. He thinks Juror #7 brought the paper into the jury room. He states that he did read the paper.

JP: Did #7 read it out loud?

The juror is not sure; he's vague about that.

Judge Pastor then asks him if he orders him to disregard anything he may have read from the paper, and tell you to disregard anything... [...] Do you think you can do that?

J#10: Yes sir.

JP: I'm ordering you to do that.

He's excused and Juror #2 is brought in. This appears to be a middle ages, very slender, tall black man with glasses.

Judge Pastor begins his questioning. The juror thinks that Juror #9 brought the paper in. He states the paper never got to him but it was passed around.

JP: Was it read out loud?

J#2: Yes. [...] I'm not sure.

JP: Did you hear the reading of it?

J#2: Yes, your honor.

JP: Did another juror ask for it to be stopped?

J#2: There was a question about submitting the question to you, about it's meaning.

JP: Who was that?

The juror states he can't remember. He states that he didn't read the paper but he did hear it.

Judge Pastor then goes on to ask the juror in strong language that if he directs him to disregard everything he heard and/or read, could he do that. He orders him not to consider (what was brought into the deliberations). The juror agrees that he can.

The juror is excused and Juror #11 is brought in. This is another Asian man.

The juror states he doesn't remember who brought in the paper. He can't remember if it was male or female. He states that he read the paper. It was passed around. He also states that the foreman read it out loud. The juror states that he thinks it was Juror #6 who said that it should be brought to the judge's attention.

Judge then asks him if he can disregard what he might have read/heard.

JP: Can you do that?

J#11: Yes.

Juror #3 is called in. This is an Asian looking woman. Her face is quite round. She now has a cast on her left arm that she is holding up and Judge Pastor asks her several questions about how her arm is feeling. Judge Pastor asks her which juror brought in the paper. I miss whether or not she knew.

J#3: It started off with the foreman so I didn't hear.

She states that she didn't read the paper and she doesn't believe she heard the paper read.

J#3: I don't believe so.

She states that she knows someone read it but she, "...turned it off, because she knew from other instructions they received, the material given to them...." that she was not to consider anything that didn't come from the court. She tells the court that she can disregard the information because she already tuned it out.

She's excused and Juror #12 is brought in.

Juror #12 states that Juror #9 brought in the paper. He states that, "Yes, the paper was passed around. [...] I didn't want to read it."

JP: Did you suggest that this be brought to my attention?

J#12: No. I objected. I said we weren't supposed to use it. [...] #7 read it out loud.

The juror states he recognizes the instructions and he will be able to follow the judge's orders.

The upset juror from a few days ago, an older black man with a barrel chest, Juror #4 is called in. He comes in and sits in Juror #5's chair.

JP: Hi Juror #5.

The juror gets up and moves to his chair, #4. I believe he states that he doesn't know who brought it in.

J#4: We all looked at it. [...]I read it. [...] I looked at it. [...] It was the consensus that one person read it and that was #7.

At first he doesn't remember the number of which juror didn't want the jury to use it. After questions by Pastor, he describes the juror as the young oriental man.

The judge asks him the same closing question in stern terms if directed, can he disregard what he read in the paper. He states that he can. The judge so directs him.

J#4: Yes sir.

The last juror called is Juror #8. The juror is asked if someone brought in some paper to the jury room.

J#8: I think it was #7. I'm not sure.

JP: Was the paper passed around?

J#8: Yes, I think so.

The juror states he didn't read the paper but he heard it read.

JP: ...Another juror asked that it be brought to the attention of the court?

J#8: Yes, but I don't recall (the number of the juror).

Judge Pastor asks this juror if he can disregard the information he heard and follow his instructions. He says that he can.

The juror is excused and Judge Pastor and the counsel agree that they need to recall Juror #7, the foreperson.

Juror #7 is called in and he is instructed to sit in the back row. All during the hearing outside the jury's presence, Judge Pastor is aware of the time, his other trial that was being held up and how long this is dragging on. After a few jurors were called, he asked Ms. Benson to have them lined up outside to speed things up. Having the juror just step inside 107 and sit in the plastic chairs against the back wall near the door was in Judge Pastor's words, "...to save a few steps..." to the jury box.

JP: At some time did you actually read out loud (the piece of paper)?

J#7: No. [...] It was first brought in...

He explains something that I miss about it being brought in and then contradicts himself by saying, "[...] What happened was.... [...] I might have read the first few lines...."

The juror is excused and Judge Pastor explains that they still have Juror #1 to interview. They will come back Monday morning to finish with Juror #1. Judge Pastor asks counsel if it's okay to inform the jury what's going on with Juror #1. I believe Ms. Benson chimes in and states that they already know. Two of the alternates are here, but Alternate #4 is at work. Judge Pastor states he's going to request that the jury get here on Monday at 8:45 am.

The jury is brought in and Judge Pastor painstakingly explains the instructions to them again.

JP: I've been ordering you, every chance I got, ordering you [...] giving you instructions not to [?] the case. He gives them the detailed instruction again. " [...] Not to perform experiments. Not to consult references, site resources, legal definition. [...] Don't access the Internet, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. [...] You must only follow the legal instruction I give you. [...] Have we heard this before?

Jury in unison: Yes, your honor.

JP: Are we clear?

Jury in unison: Yes, your honor.

The jury is told when to report back and then they are released until Monday. Judge Pastor tells the courtroom that Juror #1 will be here at 8:30 am on Monday.

JP: (If anyone has...) any particular legal citations let me know and we'll go from there.

That's it; until Monday.

I chat with Carroll about his thoughts on what Judge Pastor might do. He's seen Judge Pastor in action through many trials but he's not sure what the remedy is. During the proceeding, I noticed that Katie and Lisa had shown up. As I was leaving I stopped by the third row to say hello to them. They said they were staying because they had started to follow the current case before Judge Pastor. I ask them what they thought. Katie said that they were here yesterday when this all happened and that Judge Pastor mentioned while on the bench that this type of stuff, of bringing in dictionary definitions happens quite often.

We won't know what he decides until Monday. At this point I don't think that anyone wants a mistrial. Certainly the state doesn't because they're broke. I doubt Brown does, because a retrial might take at least a year or more to get back on the calendar and Judge Pastor may retire before that would happen.

I certainly think this is an appellate issue the defense can bring up if Brown is convicted. However, I don't think it is a serious error that would cause irreversible prejudicial harm to the defense. We'll just have to wait and see what happens on Monday.

Denise Nix from The Daily Breeze wrote an excellent synopsis of what happened in court as well as detailing malice and the legal definition.

(I don't know this for a fact but I think that Denise Nix knows the old fashioned "shorthand" which is why she is able to take such articulate notes.)