A Special Gift

Close-up: Sprocket & Matthew McGough

Background: DDA Shannon Presby, Judge Perry, Mark Overland

© by artist Thomas Broersma, all rights reserved.

March 1, 2020
Last Friday, I had dinner with friends and author Matthew McGough. After dinner, Matt surprised me with a special gift.

Eight years ago at the Stephanie Lazarus trial, Thomas Broersma, a young art student came to the trial sat in the back of the gallery and sketched what he saw. Some of his drawings ended up in my daily posts on the Lazarus trial. Unbeknownst to me, Matthew asked Thomas to sketch the both of us. The photo is the drawing that Thomas made for Matthew.

This is a special gift in memory of our time covering the Lazarus trial together. It is hanging in my dining area, along with another special surprise.

Stephanie Lazarus Criminal Appeal, Oral Arguments

 

Ronald Reagan State Office Building

300 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA

UPDATE 6/6/19 edited for spelling
UPDATE 7:15 PM edited for grammar, spelling, clarity
June 11, 2015
When I arrive at the state building where the local appellate court is held, I stop at the security station to see if it’s possible to photograph the catwalks inside the atrium space. I've tried to describe this space before, but there's nothing like a photo to give readers a sense of what one is talking about. The building’s security manager is kind but says that because of “security” I cannot take photographs. I thank him for his time then head to the second floor cafeteria to get a bottle of water.

The courtroom is one floor up. I talked about the Ronald Reagan State Office Building back in April 2001, when I was here for the oral arguments in the Phil Spector appeal. The center of the entire building is an atrium space for the first four floors.  There are open catwalk bridges that crisscross back and forth for the second and third floors. On the ground floor are trees, huge murals and animal statues.

As I exit the cafeteria, I look up and there are Jayne and Michael Goldberg right outside the courtroom on a catwalk, one floor up. Jayne is giving me a big wave. I can see her smile.

Jayne comes down one floor to greet me and we take the stairs back up together. We both marvel at how beautiful the space is. To me, the atrium space is very serene and peaceful this early in the morning.

8:22 AM
The Rasmussen family arrive. Nels, Loretta, and their two daughters Connie and Teresa, are with them. Hugs are exchanged all around. Jayne tells everyone that her daughter Mollie is graduating from college in a few days with a degree in Film & Digital Media, with an emphasis on production. Her senior film is titled The Fifth Stage, and cover the topic of grief and the myth of closure. It will be screened Friday and will be up on VIMEO soon. Once it’s on the web, T&T will link to it.

8:43 AM
We’re inside the courtroom. There’s seating along the back wall facing the judges. There is also seating along the two side walls, but those are roped off at the moment. As the back area fills, the court staff open up additional seating areas.

Directly to my right are a group of five interns. An older woman arrives and asks me to move my bag so she can sit beside her interns.

The appeals court does not utilize court reporters. The proceedings are tape recorded. Attorneys start to arrive.

A few moments later I see Lazarus’ mother Carol, her sister Judi arrive. With them is a blond woman who I saw attend the trial.

A tall, sleek looking man with a long gray ponytail gets up from the well area and goes over to speak to Judi. This is Donald Tickle, Lazarus’ state appointed appellate attorney.

Sometime in early 2014 Lazarus moved from the Central Valley Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, California, to the California Institution for Women,  in Corona, CA. This location is much closer to her family members in Los Angeles.


Many people have asked me about Lazarus’ marriage. Lazarus’ husband filed for divorce Feb 13, 2013. The divorce is not finalized yet.


A large group of young people arrive. With them is a familiar female DDA face I’ve seen around the criminal court building. This group is directed to sit in the seats on the right side of the well of the court.

8:50 AM
Matthew McGough arrives. His hair is quite short. He must have gotten it cut since I last saw him.

Court staff continue to direct late arrivals to the remaining seats. It’s a mix of older suited men and young intern-looking men and women. Now, almost every seat in the gallery is taken. 

I note the carpeting and seats. It’s a medium green with hints of teal. More people continue to arrive.

9:03 AM
Detective Greg Stearns, and DDA Paul Nunez arrive. Stearns, along with his partner Dan Jaramillo, interviewed then arrested Lazarus; DDA Nunez co-prosecuted the case along with DDA Shannon Presby. I count only 3 or 4 empty seats left in the entire gallery.

The large bench has seats for four justices. The lower part of the bench is a matching tile/marble to the carpeting and seats with the top of the bench a polished dark wood.  The wall behind the justices is the same color of stone.  There is a dropped ceiling over the three gallery seating areas. Subdued light comes in through high mission style windows.

About a minute later, the four justices come out and take the bench. The Presiding Justice, Norman L. Epstein, states this is District Four. Justice Epstein informs the gallery he is not part of the three judge panel. The three judges consist of:

Associate Justice Thomas L. Willhite, Jr.
Associate Justice Nora M. Manalla
Associate Justice Audrey B. Collins 



This is not the same panel that heard the appeal of Nels & Loretta Rasmussen in their suit to sue the LAPD over the investigation into their daughter's death.

The panel will call the shorter time cases first. The panel calls People v. Lazarus. I’m relieved. We won’t have to wait here through several other cases.

Appellant attorney is Donald Tickle. The respondent for the state is Deputy Attorney General IV, Michael A. Katz.

Tickle starts off arguing the pre-accusation delay and which standard the defense argues should apply. The trial court ruled the federal standard should apply.  Tickle tells the panel the trial court said [California] Prop 8 didn’t have the independent force and effect.  Tickle argues that even negligent delay is sufficient.  The state, didn’t do any testing for 23 years after the crime. Funds were not allocated for a cold hit data base. Tickle cites Nelson to support his argument.

The justices respond that they don’t second guess a department [organization’s?] decisions on the allocation of funds, to get around to doing it [testing DNA]. One of the justices proposes, “Let’s say, if they did have the technology. ... she had 20 years of freedom. ... How is that prejudicial?”

Tickle comes back with arguing the profiler and mini filer testing. He also argues that the delay [in testing] must be for a valid police purpose. Tickle argues that several individuals identified her as a suspect after the crime. [I miss how this is relevant to Tickle’s argument.]

One justice asks, "Frankly Mr. Tickle, .... was any legitimate [explanation] ever offered at trial for the defendant’s DNA found on the victim at or near the time of death?" Tickle replies that the burden is not on the defense to show identity.

I believe the trial court answers that they balance the [?] for delay against the evidence. “What is the prejudice?” Tickle argues that the only evidence that there was a bite mark was on the envelope. The dentist could not say definitively it was a bite mark.

[I want to raise my hand and and say, What about the coroner’s testimony!!! She testified it was a bite mark! What about Jennifer Francis who testified  she saw a good deposit of amylase in the swabbed sample? Amylase is an enzyme and a component of saliva.]

One of the justices responds, “So what if it was a hickey? ... It’s her DNA.”

Tickle then goes on to argue that the defense position is, that it’s an error to match random match equivalency. The result is the jury will under estimate the possibility of another person.

I believe a justice asks, how does that get to the delay that causes prejudice. How does the delay, ... verses what the evidence proves?

Tickle brings up the fact that male DNA, not attributable to the victim’s husband was on the wall [of the stairs leading down to the garage]. There was male DNA on a blanket. The justices respond, “But none of that goes to explain your client’s DNA on the victim.”

Tickle argues something to the effect that she would have been injured in a fight and that not a single witness stated that Lazarus had any marks on her. Justice Manalla replies, “There were witnesses who testified about her physical superiority.”

Tickle and the justices go back and forth as to whether or not Lazarus could have had an accomplice Tickle argues that random match probability is not equivalent to no other person.  The justices come back that what Tickle is arguing is purely speculation.

I believe it’s Justice Manalla who states, “I get back to the common sense notion here. What is the prejudice here? ... That your client’s DNA was found in the struggle. ... You’re not arguing insufficiency, given what that argument was. Surely the jury was entitled to conclude she was there beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Tickle states the defense is not arguing insufficient evidence.  It’s whether there is a reasonable possibility that the jury [could have seen the evidence a different way?].

The court responds: It seems to me inescapable that your client was present at or near the time of the murder. It seems irrelevant that there was DNA on a stereo wire or elsewhere.  ... There were no chain of custody issues claimed at trial. Tickle states he is not claiming [chain of custody?] ..

[Given the state of the victim’s body .. the bite mark was at or near the time of death.]

The justices state, “It's not as if your client is claiming she showed up there, they had a fight, she bit her there and someone else killed her."

Tickle still argues that the expert could not say it was a bite mark. “The court is accepting the prosecution’s fallacy.  ... That goes to the weight of how you weight the evidence.” Tickle cites [Brown v. McDaniel?], a US Superior Court decision.

I believe the court responds that, [the case cited], that goes to the DNA did not belong to the defendant.

Tickle argues there is reason to believe there were male burglars in the neighborhood at the time of the incident. He also agues that no witness said that Lazarus remained obsessed with the victim’s husband after their last meeting.

A justice asks, “Is it your argument that irrespective of DNA percentages [the justice does mention the DNA numbers, the one in so many billions of random probability] .... the jury could conclude, find ...”

Tickle responds, “Could find reasonable doubt of the prosecution’s theory. ... Is there reason to believe there’s reasonable doubt? ... The 3rd party culpability evidence was not admitted. Tickle brings up the testimony of former FBI profiler Mark Safarik.

[Did Mr. Tickle just say, “If this is going the way I think....”?]

Tickle argues with the court that regarding the bite mark, no witness testified that wound was inflicted at the time of death.

Tickle’s time is up and Mr. Katz gets up to argue the respondent position.

Katz starts off by offering to counter Mr. Tickle’s last argument about the bite mark.

"Page three of the respondent’s brief. ... The coroner identified the pattern injury was consistent with a bite mark. ... The coroner looked under the wound and saw hemorrhage but no inflammation." She testified the wound occurred on or about the time of death.

Katz brings up the DNA under the fingernails.

He mentions [Bradley? Brown? v. McDaniel] and then moves onto the merits of pretrial delay and that the federal rules apply.  He argues the federal standard regarding the delay. 

I’m totally lost because up until this point, I’ve only had a copy of the appellant’s brief. I’ve not seen the respondent’s reply brief yet.



Lazarus’ brother Steven arrives.

Justice Willhite brings up the issue that the state standard was not statute, but legislation passed by the voters, to essentially over rule a series of [?] by the Superior Court ...

I become further lost in the legal complexities as the justices and Katz cite prior case law rulings.

The issue Katz and the justices are going back and forth on is the federal law verses the state Prop 8, and which applies. The justices do say that, at the end of the day, does it make a difference in this case? [Basically not really because where's the prejudice.]

Justice Manalla adds, “There is modest prejudice at best ... not just for delay. .. They [police] don’t have to test every case as soon as they get it.”

Katz is finished. The justices tell Tickle that even though he went over on his allotted time, they will allow him five minutes for rebuttal.

Tickle goes back to arguing the pre-accusation delay again.  He also mentions that there is equally substantive evidence of DNA of others that engaged in a violent struggle.  He backs of off the bit mark. Tickle is back to the burglary theory.

And that’s it. Arguments are over. We get up and make our way outside. 


I believe Mr. Katz greeted Nels and Loretta after the oral arguments.

Outside the courtroom on the third floor catwalk, DDA Nunez and Detective Stearns speak to the Rasmussen family, Jayne and Michael Goldberg, Matthew and myself. DDA Nunez tells the family that he did not hear anything that would cause him any alarm.

It appeared to me that the justices were leaning towards agreeing with the trial court decision.

Nunez tells Nels and Loretta that DDA Shannon Presby would have been here, however, he just finished a trial and obtained a conviction of an LAPD officer [Mary O'Callaghan], and he was taking a few days off.  Someone said that was good news. There is a short discussion of Presby's case. Detective Stearns responded, something to the effect of, the officer went a little bit overboard. This LA Times story gives the relevant details of what happened to Alesia Thomas.

Appeal: What Happens Next
We then talked about how long it will take for the justices to publish their opinion. It could be as quickly as a few weeks or it could take closer to 90 days.

If Lazarus’ appeal is denied, she could appeal to the California Supreme Court. However, that appeal isn’t paid for by the state. She would have to pay for that appeal herself. The other issue is, even if the appeal is submitted to the California Supreme Court, they are not obligated to review it. 

The California Supreme Court rejects cases all the time. I've been told that they don't review cases where the facts are similar to other cases they've already reviewed. Additionally, I've been told that appeals at that level can be political.

After the California Superior Court, Stephanie’s last recourse is a federal habeas corpus appeal. Those take a very long time; many years.

What About Parole
The next discussion was parole. Because the crime occurred in 1986, Lazarus serves her time under the sentencing laws in effect at that time. This means she gets good time credits for every day she served in county as well as in prison. Convicted murderers under today's sentencing guidelines must serve 85% of their sentence.

I remember right before the verdict, sources indicated to me that Lazarus' first opportunity at parole would be around 15 or 16 years after sentencing.

The next item discussed is what would happen when she is before the parole board. It would be a very rare thing indeed if Lazarus is granted parole the first time before the board. It's pretty much a given that won't happen. It's my personal opinion that she would probably have to serve at least the 27 years before the parole board would consider her for parole.

It's possible she would need to admit to the crime, however, that's not necessarily the case. There are instances of parole being granted without assuming responsibility. At this point, she is still pursuing an appeal. If she pursues an appeal to the California Supreme Court and then onto Federal Court, that might not be looked upon favorably by the parole board.

After all the questions are answered, everyone says their goodbyes and makes their way to the elevators. Looking over the catwalk as I start to head home, I see Lazarus’ family speaking to Mr. Tickle in the cafeteria.

I hope to have an audio file and transcript of the oral arguments uploaded soon.

Appellant Opening Brief
Respondent's Reply Brief
Appellant's Reply Brief

Mary O'Callahgan Trial - Verdict Reached

Friday June 5, 2015

Earlier Today
While I was waiting in the 9th floor hallway for a Marsden hearing in the Michael Gargiulo case to be over, a bailiff came out of Dept. 108 and asked people in the hallway where the counsel went to in the Mary O'Callaghan case. The bailiff then indicated that a verdict had been reached.

Someone in the hallway informed the bailiff that counsel left a few minutes ago.

DDA Shannon Presby prosecuted Mary O'Callaghan. Coincidentally, today is the sixth year anniversary of the interrogation/arrest of Stephanie Lazarus, that DDA Presby, along with DDA Paul Nunez also prosecuted.

I went inside the courtroom once the defense and DDA Presby had made it back to the 9th floor. Counsel went into chambers with Judge Ohta. I overhear that the verdict would be read at 2 PM.

I decide to stay and go over to the Federal Courthouse to grab a lunch.

1:25 PM
There's quite a bit of press here in the hallway.  I see Marisa Gerber from the LA Times. She gives me a little wave. Eric Leonard from KFI is here, along with local ABC reporter Carlos Granda. There's a long time camera operator that I recognize but I don't remember his name.

There's a young photographer with an LA Times lanyard around his neck.

I don't know at this time if I will be able to report live from the courtroom or not.

1:36 PM
More bailiffs arrive and enter Dept. 108.

1:42 AM
I'm inside Dept. 108.

I'll write up detailed notes later. I'll save this window open to report the verdict.

GUILTY of ASSAULT under color of authority. (Penal Code 149)

Note: The detailed notes of what happened in Dept. 108 right before the verdict was reached can be found in this post on Michael Gargiulo's Marsden Hearing. Scroll down to June 5. Sprocket

Stephanie Lazarus Criminal Appeal - Oral Arguments Set

Stephanie Lazarus prison intake photo.

I just received notice that oral arguments for Stephanie Lazarus' appeal for her conviction of first degree felony murder in the death of Sherri Rae Rasmussen have been set for Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 9:00 AM. The appeal will be heard by the California Courts of Appeal, Second District, Division Three.

Lazarus was convicted of Sherri's murder on March 8, 2012. She was sentenced on May 11, 2012 to 27 years to life.

Oral arguments will be heard at the Ronald Reagan State Office Building, 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, Ca.  If you plan on attending the oral arguments, understand that no electronic equipment is allowed inside the court. However, during the Spector appeal, Harriet Ryan with the Los Angeles Times petitioned the court to use her laptop to cover the proceedings. That request was granted.

Lazarus' appeal was fully briefed on December 10, 2013. Once the California Courts of Appeal rules on her case, then the wrongful death suit filed by Nels and Loretta Rasmussen can move forward to trial.

Mary O'Callaghan Trial - Day 2, Jury Selection

T&T full trial coverage can be found HERE.

LAPD Officer Mary O'Callaghan with her attorney Robert Rico

at a pretrial hearing. Photo courtesy KTLA website.

UPDATE 10:30 PM spelling of Judge Bork's name; I blame my dyslexia
UPDATE 8:37 PM spelling, clarity
UPDATE 6:26 PM see below

Thursday, February 26, 2015

10:25 AM

A few minutes after I arrived this morning it appears there has been a big wrench thrown into the trial. At this point, I can't say specifically what it is. The court has had two in camera discussions with attorneys.

As soon as the court goes on the record about what has happened I will give an update as soon as possible.

11:20 AM

Judge Bork apologizes to the jurors. There is an issue that the court is dealing with right now, and I’m asking for your patience. The court tells the jurors they are to return at 2 PM.

This happens sometimes, where the selection process is slowed.  The court then tells jurors about some places they may want to go. Judge Bork mentions Chinatown, Grand Central Market and Little Tokyo, where there are museums and several restaurants where they can get sushi. Judge Brock also mentions the Eli Broad museum west of the courthouse. He also encourages the jurors to walk the new Grand Park. He tells them that the park has a waterfall and Starbucks. “They’re worth seeing,” Judge Brock adds.  He asks them to accept his apologies for the delay and to, “Roll with it. ... Return at 2pm today.”

One juror is asked to stay behind. This juror is excused for just cause.

Once all jurors had left the courtroom, Judge Bork goes on the record. “Counsel approached [this morning]. Mr. Presby brought to the court’s attention that he was notified about other possible evidence out there, if indeed it exists, may be relevant.” The court then tells counsel he will ask them to make a brief record. “Tell me what [it is] you can that’s out there at 1:30pm.  ... What is out there so I can consider if there is good cause to continue or not. ... It’s [hard?] if you know something is out there, as to what it is or how extensive it is in the absence of that evidence. ... Get out there as promptly as you can, find out as much as you can and report back to me at 1:30pm.”

The court then tells DDA Presby to make his record. 

(I have decided at this point, not to mention any officer’s names that were mentioned in court until a decision has been made by the court about this potential new evidence. Sprocket)

DDA Presby states he was approached by Sgt. “A” assigned to a division within LAPD that prosecutes, administrative actions against police officers. Sgt. A advised DDA Presby that there had been a Board of Rights hearing regarding another officer, Officer B (related to the July 22, 2012 event). During the course of the incident, Officer B testified at a Board of Rights hearing that he advised the defendant, Ms. O’Callaghan, after there had been some application of force, words to the effect of, “Stop it, that’s enough, or cut it out.”

Officer B testified he told Ms. O’Callaghan that on the evening of the event. The criminal investigation discovery into the death, by the Force Investigation Division is a separate department. In the criminal investigation transcribed interview of Officer B, those questions were not asked and there were no statements. Sgt. A also told Mr. Presby that another officer, Officer C, testified at another Board of Rights hearing that he heard Officer B say, “Stop it; cut it out.”

DDA Presby tells the court that as soon as he heard this, he directed his IO, Mr. Stone to conduct an interview [with?] about [this testimony?] in front of the Board of Rights. DDA Presby also asked that Sgt. A get those transcripts from the Board of Rights hearings.

After DDA Presby gave those instructions to Mr. Stone and Sgt. A, he saw Mr. Rico in the hallway and informed him of what he just discovered and then brought it to the courts attention.
Sgt. A., who is the person who has access to that material [Board of Rights transcripts] he is attempting to obtain the report of the transcripts of Officer B and Officer C’s testimony, and preparing some kind of statement form with respect to the content of that material or the circumstances surrounding this disclosure this morning.

DDA Presby states that he is going to ask that Mr. Stone contact Sgt. A, that all the transcripts from all the Board of Rights hearings [related to this incident] be provided to the DA’s office so they can then be provided to the defense [via discovery].

In closing, DDA Presby adds, “And as I told your honor, there may be some legal impediments to providing that material. We may need judicial guidance from your honor or another court with production of that material.”

Judge Bork states that before he turns it over to Mr. Rico for his record, he tells counsel, “We are in trial and I’ve got 55 plus jurors to excuse from this problem. I don’t know yet how much of a problem it is and what is out there, and I don’t know what independent or inconsistent statement, or is it ... and it’s hard to judge what’s out there before we have some greater certainty.”

DDA Presby tells the court he will get with the parties to try to provide the material so a decision can be made.

Then Mr. Rico makes his record. He states that around 10:25am he was approached by DDA Presby who informed him about being approached by Sgt. A. Mr. Presby advised Mr. Rico that he was informed that there was a statement made by Officer B at his own Board of Rights hearing, that he had told or made a statement to Officer O’Callaghan to stop or something. Officer C, testified [at a Board of Rights hearing] under oath and that he had supported Officer B of that position and also told her to stop.

Mr. Rico tells the court that in the past 14 months he has been given voluminous discovery. DDA Presby has been more than candid with discovery. My issue is with the due process and the fairness to Ms. O’Callaghan. I know that what ever testimony that has been given [at these Board of Rights hearings] would have been taken down, just like we have a court reporter here and those statements would be transcribed if not already transcribed. 

Mr. Rico’s position is clear, that this is rather Brady, discoverable. It is a prior inconsistent statement to be used for impeachment purposes. Mr. Rico closes with, “I’ll leave it at that, your honor.” I believe Mr. Rico adds that it greatly impacts his clients right to a fair trial. It greatly impacts the jury in this matter. Mr. Rico also mentions something to the effect that it cannot be reviewed overnight. Mr. Rico will ask for a continuance of the proceedings if that evidence does exist.

The trial has until 2pm when jurors come back.

Judge Bork again instructs counsel that he needs their help in determining what is out there. Is the information out there? Is it transcribed? Is it in fact inconsistent statements? How does the court get it into your hands. Judge Bork requests that Sgt. A be present at 1:30pm. I believe the court adds that he knows there are issues as to what can be turned over .... and when personnel protections that must be  made there. The court states he needs to know what is out there, and the defendant has a right to a speedy trial. The judge again requests that Sgt. A be present. If he needs a city attorney, the court is sure one could be present. The court states he needs St. A’s assistance and everyone’s assistance to see if there is a good cause basis for continuance or not.

Counsel ordered back at 1:30pm with as many answers as they can get.

1:35 PM
Back on the record. DDA Presby tells the court that he has received a single page document from Sgt. A. However, because the information contains personal information regarding LAPD officers, he may be committing a misdemeanor if he turns this document over to the defense. DDA Presby is willing to present the document to the court under seal. The court then could read the document to see if the information in the document gives the court guidance on how to proceed. DDA Presby states that the only method to turning this information over to the defense is through Pitchess motions.

There's more discussion that I'll detail later. In closing, Mr. Rico moves for a 1050 motion for a continuance of the trial to preserve his client's right to a fair trial. DDA Presby joins in that 1050 motion. Judge Bork asks the parties to hold on. He's going to consider this for five minutes.

1:58 PM
Back on the record.
Is the matter submitted?  Court finds itself in a most unfortunate situation a panel of 60 jurors sworn, most of whom are out in the hallway so to speak. But it has come to the courts attention there is probative material that cannot be obtained by a simple court order. There is the Pitchess process that must be followed. Based on what has been presented to me, there is evidence that must be disclosed to both parties. It's very possibly Brady evidence. And it must be litigated for it to get to the defense.

As much as I'd like to move forward, I have no alternative but to declare a mistrial, because there is evidence to declare a mistrial and continue the case.  He will excuse the jury first then they will set up a new date.

3:35 PM
T&T readers. I'm back home. Over the next few hours I'll be transcribing my rough notes from the afternoon session and posting in a few hours.

Judge Bork set the next pretrial hearing date in the O'Callaghan case for April 2nd in Dept. 131.

UPDATE 6:26 PM
Below are my updated, detailed notes for the afternoon session as promised. Sprocket.

Around 1:30pm I enter Dept. 118. Counsel are already at their respective tables. Off the record Mr. Rico asks the court how he feels about water on the table. Judge Bork replies, “If it’s in a small, discreet container, I’m okay with that.”

 Judge Bork says, “Back on the record. No jurors are present. Thank you for your promptness counsel.”

DDA Presby addresses the court. “I have been provided with a one pager report from Sgt. A, who is also in court. ... I believe I may be committing a misdemeanor if I turned that over. ... I think we need to go through the Pitchess process before we turn this over.  ... While the people may obtain these protective personnel records ... we are prohibited from disseminating those records absent a court order.”

DDA Presby continues that he has a one page memorandum from Sgt. A. “I can provide that to your honor under seal. ... Your honor can review that. ... Maybe that would be enough in respect of the 1050 motion.”

Judge Bork asks, “Are you able to tell me what that is without ... jeopardizing it’s possible confidentiality?” DDA Presby responds, “It is a memorandum to Detective Pete Stone from Stg. A dated today regarding a Board of Rights [Hearing].”

Judge Bork responds, "So your suggestion is that I view it ... that it may give me additional insight whether or not there is discovery evidence out there that would need to be turned over or sought, and could constitute good cause for a mistrial and a continuance?”  DDA Presby replies, “Yes.” 

The court asks but Mr. Rico does not want to be heard at this point.

Judge Bork states, “Since I’m aware of Pitchess and his prodigy as to confidentiality as to personnel records ... I will review that and seal it. ... If I determine that it does not need to be under seal then I will either offer it back to you and or unseal it.”

DDA Presby states, “We offer it under seal.” He also adds that he does believe that it contains protective personnel records.

Judge Bork reviews the document then addresses counsel. “Without revealing what is in the memorandum, there is an indication that there was an attachment.” DDA Presby tells the court that he did not receive an attachment with the single page document.

Judge Bork tells the parties that he is striking through that information on the document that states there is an attachment. “I have not read any transcripts and read the one page memo only,” Judge Bork adds.

Judge Bork addresses DDA Presby, “So your review would state that Board of Rights needs Pitchess?” DDA Presby replies, “Not necessarily for the DA’s office but certainly for dissemination to the defense.”

That hearing could contain Brady material.

The court expresses “great frustration here.” Judge Bork adds, “I’ve got 55 jurors that will be back in 22 minutes and have interrupted their lives for two days. If there ever is a time that we should have information relevant to a defendant ... but we’re faced with the possibility of [continuance?].”

Mr. Rico addresses the court. “I share the court’s frustration. I believe the fair rights of my client and due process supersedes the concerns of both myself, the counsel and the court and believe the 1050 should be granted.”

Judge Bork states, “I have every reason to believe that both counsel are acting in good faith. At some token, it is beyond me how we could have gotten to this state. ... That a person is charged with a crime where that person could go to prison and we don’t have full discovery.”

DDA Presby adds, “I understand the court’s frustration in this area. ... This area is a very complex area and the privacy rights afforded to police officers is a significant challenge to both sides.” Judge Bork replies, “One or both of you, tell me what each of your motions is. But I want to know so our record is clear.”

Mr. Rico puts his motion first. “On behalf of Mary O’Callaghn, to continue this matter according to section 1050. There is impeachment material [that?] exists, and those statements were given at a protective, private hearing, that can only be disclosed via Pitchess. ... [My client] could not have a fair trial if there is Brady material that exists. ... The people have been candid in their disclosure. This has not been at the error of the defendant.” Mr. Rico asks for a motion to continue the case and to declare a mistrial.

DDA Presby states, “The people join in the motion to continue. I don’t believe jeopardy has attached. I don’t know if the proper remedy is to declare a mistrial or to quash the [voir dire?]. ... I do apologize to the court to derailing these proceedings at this point. ... Only discovered [this material today]. ... Given the privileges that are given to the officers and to the City of Los Angeles, they are the only ones that can waive the Pitchess process.” 

Judge Bork asks, “Why can we not get someone from the city attorney’s office to determine if there is a willingness to waive?”  DDA Presby answers, “It has to be on a written motion and it has to be 21 days notice. ... And besides, they are going to gather the material and make any objections themselves. ... The officer that’s involved, Officer B needs to be [involved/notified].”

Judge Bork tells counsel, “We have 18 minutes until our jurors get back. I’ll take [this] under submission for about five minutes.”  Presby then tells the court that he does have the citation where, he could be committing a misdemeanor. I miss getting the correct citation number. Presby reads from the citation, “Hold in essence that disclosure of peace officer police records can constitute a misdemeanor crime according to the government code. ... The proper method to disclosing that material is through Pitchess.”  Judge Brock rules the one page memo be sealed and takes this under submission. He tells counsel, “Don’t go too far.” Judge Bork leaves the bench and goes back into chambers.

It seems like less than five minutes goes by and Judge Bork is back on the bench.

It’s 2pm. The jurors file in. I have to stand against the wall while the jurors take all the available seats. It’s difficult to near impossible to hold my laptop and type, but I do my best.

Judge Bork thanks the jurors and hopes they were able to enjoy the noon lunch hour. He informs the jurors that there is a piece of potential evidence that he can’t get and that counsel can’t get. He can’t move forward with the trial and it’s deeply frustrating. He tells the jurors that everyone has acted in good faith. There is no other remedy but to declare a mistrial. I’m going to excuse the jury. Everyone has done their duty, but we are unable to move forward with the trial. I apologize, but I’m grateful for your service.

Judge Bork then talks about the the jury system in the US.

“For well over 200 years, we have solved our disputes by trial by jury. ... It was brought over from England well over 200 years ago. ... For all that time, rather than fight it out in an alley, ... we ask folks like you to come forward and decide the case. ... But that’s how we solve our problems in this country, trial by jury. ... They know their case will be decided by folks like you.”  Judge Bork mentions the inconvenience that the jurors have endured, and that many of them are not being paid. He then tells the jurors that the only time that we did not have trial by jury was in [1765?] when the sovereign, King George suspended that, then we had the Revolutionary War. ... I’m grateful for your time and patience but my hope is that you will have another opportunity to do that [serve on a jury].”

He tells the group to turn in their orange tags and go back to the 11th floor jury room, not the fifth floor jury room and turn in their other badge to get credited for their jury service.

After the courtroom clears, I get to sit back down on a bench. Judge Bork states, “All jurors have now left and all parties are now present.” The next date on this matter, will be set back to Department 131. Counsel spoke earlier about an April 2 return date. Mr. Rico wants the April 2 date for a return. DDA Presby agrees.

Judge Bork addresses the defendant. “Ms. O’Callaghan, do you agree that we can set your next date as April 2?” She agrees. She is ordered back to Dept. 131 on April 2.

And that's it. I do not know at this time if I will be able to attend any future hearings in this case. It’s my understanding that the Cameron Brown trial is scheduled to start in mid March or early April of this year. I’ve tracked the Cameron Brown case since the second trial in 2009.

Mary O'Callaghan Trial - Day 1, Jury Selection

T&T full trial coverage can be found HERE.

LAPD Officer Mary O'Callaghan with her attorney Robert Rico

at a pretrial hearing. Photo courtesy KTLA website.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

I'm at the downtown Los Angeles Criminal Court building. I got a notice a few days ago that the case against LAPD Officer Mary O'Callaghan was going to trial in a few days.

Mary O'Callaghan is charged with assault under color of authority in connection with the July 22, 2012 arrest of Alesia Thomas. Media reports indicate Ms. O'Callaghan is facing up to three years in state prison if convicted.

While in police custody, Ms. Thomas lost consciousness, went into cardiac arrest and died. The investigative report prepared by the DA's Justice System Integrity Division describes the events and the conclusions that were reached.

O'Callaghan was charged on October 10, 2013 and arraigned on October 15. Interestingly, O'Callaghan waived a preliminary hearing. It is unknown why the defense made this decision. Waving a prelim is not unusual; it happens.

When I arrive at the elevator bay in the lobby, I spot Pat Kelly from the Public Information Office. I ride the elevator up with her to the 13th floor. Pat is handling media requests for another case that is being heard in Dept. 100, the Olivia Cullbreath case. Cullbreath is charged with multiple counts of murder in a wrong-way car crash. I tell Pat I'm here for the O'Callaghan case.

Once inside Dept. 100, master calendar court, I see Deputy District Attorney Shannon Presby in the gallery. DDA Presby and his co-counsel Paul Nunez successfully prosecuted Detective Stephanie Lazarus of first degree murder in the death of Sherri Rasmussen. DDA Presby is sitting with another gentleman, whom I'm guessing is a co-counsel or his investigating officer. When DDA Presby sees me, he comes over to say hello. I tell him I'm here for his case.

I keep checking the gallery for other prosecutors I might know but I don't see anyone. I do see a familiar defense attorney, Kelly Gerner.  Gerner was part of the team that represented Lois Goodman.

Over in the seats to the right of the bench are a couple of cameramen. Pat Kelly heads over to them. They are here to video Cullbreath.

In the back of the gallery on the right side, I spot Ms. O'Callaghan and her attorney Robert Rico. A female friend is sitting beside O'Callaghan.

The O'Callaghan case is the second case called when Judge Scott Gordon, the Assistant Supervising Judge, takes the bench. The case is transferred to Dept. 118 on the 11th floor.  DDA Presby takes the court's case file and packs up. I also head towards the 11th floor. 

Dept. 118 is at the end of the left wing on the right side. On the door it states Anne H. Egerton, but when I step inside a man is on the bench, Judge Terry A. Bork.  Judge Bork has several cases on his calendar. There are two people at the prosecution table and a couple defense attorneys in the well. There are a few people in the gallery.  It looks like the court is quite busy at the moment.

I sit in the third bench row. Behind me are Ms. Callaghan, her friend and her counsel.  The courtroom is almost a mirror image of Dept. 108, Judge Ohta's courtroom. The only difference is, the jury box is slightly smaller. There are only 14 seats in the jury box instead of 18. This means the front row of the gallery seating is longer.

I note something different in Dept. 118 than any other courtroom I've been in on the 9th floor. There are no signs in the front row that say, "Do Not Sit Here" or "No Seating Without Permission."

I've seen seen Judge Bork's clerk before in other courtrooms, but I don't know her name. There is a small plant on the far corner of her desk. She has beautiful hair, that seems like it changes color. I'm really drawn to how the fluorescent light bounces off of her hair. First I think it's light brown, then it looks like it's dark blond, then it looks like there is a hint of red. I have to force myself to check out the rest of Judge Bork's courtroom. The court reporter is a tall, elegant black woman. Her hair is pulled back in a tight bun and she's wearing gold loop earrings. Judge Bork is a white man with balding hair. I'm also struck by the bailiff. He is almost the spitting image of actor Domineck Lombardozzi, who played “Herc” in David Simon’s HBO series, The Wire. The only difference is, this bailiff is slimmer and has a much more handsome cut to his jaw.

9:30 AM

DDA Presby arrives. He hands a witness list to Mr. Rico. DDA Presby heads over to the clerk's desk getting various papers logged in. She is stamping every document and it makes a loud sound each time.

More attorneys file in that I saw in Dept. 100, their cases transferred to this courtroom. One of them is Kelly Grerner.

I overhear DDA Presby and the defense attorney chat about the possibility that they will pick a jury at 1:30 pm. I hear the clerk tell counsel that the Judge will speak to them off the record. I see both attorneys introduce themselves to Judge Bork who shakes both their hands. I hear DDA Presby explain to the court the filings that he’s already made.

After they step away from the judge’s bench, DDA Presby confirms to me that they are back at 1:30 PM. At some point in the morning, DDA Presby told me that the man with him is his investigating officer, Pete Stone, with the LAPD's Force Investigation Division. In the elevator down, I mention to Officer Stone that I met another officer in his unit, Thomas Townsend. Townsend was the IO on the Rafael Martinez case.

I head down to the cafeteria to start writing.  The cafeteria is ice cold so I decide to take a walk outside to try to warm up. I walk to a cafe past LAPD Headquarters to get a cup of tea and find a warm, outside seat where I can write.

1:32 PM

Back inside Dept. 118, DDA Presby sets up his files. I note that there are many seats in the well in front of the jury box and along the dividing wall. The seats all have papers on them. Judge Bork asks counsel back in chambers.

1:50 PM

We're still waiting in the gallery. The clerk is very busy. She's sorting papers and inserting them into various case files.

1:55 PM

Judge Bork comes out and asks his clerk how long it would take for them to get jurors. Then all parties come out. The judge states that he's going to order a panel for 2:30 PM. They will get 60 jurors. Ms. O'Callaghan leaves the gallery and joins her counsel at the defense table. Judge Bork goes on the record. The parties state their appearances for the record.

The court states that the case was transferred from Dept. 100 to this court for jury trial. A panel has been ordered. Trial is estimated to take 10 days.

The judge addresses media requests. An independent journalist requests permission to live tweet the trial via either phone or computer. There are also two media requests to film the trial.  The defense objects to all the media requests due to prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial. The defense also objects to the impact the media coverage might have on the jury.

The people's position is no objection to the media coverage. The trial is an open proceeding and there is public interest.

Judge Bork rules on the request from an independent journalist, whose name is Thandi. (Thandi's twitter feed can be found HERE.) The request is granted as long as the laptop makes no audible noise in the courtroom.  I'm surprised. I've never covered a case downtown where the court allowed live tweeting from inside the courtroom. Judge Bork rules there is to be no audio recording and no photography. 

The media requests from KTLA and KCAL are granted but limited to opening statements, closing arguments and verdict. Judge Bork mentions the risk of jurors being shown. The cameras must be set along the back wall of the courtroom.

Judge Bork then makes a disclosure on the record. Prior to taking the bench in 2007, when he was Deputy District Attorney, he spent approximately 1-2 years in the JSID unit. "My time was 16 years ago. ... Then in the late summer of 2007, ... appointed to the bench." Judge Bork also mentions his prior work in private practice. Judge Bork feels his prior assignments do not merit recusal. He believes he can be fair to both sides. He asks counsel if they wish to be heard. No one wishes to be heard on his ruling.  Judge Bork also states that 12-15 witnesses may be called. 

Judge Bork then talks about how voir dire will go. Each side will get 10 peremptory challenges. He explains that he packs the well with 24 potential jurors. They will seat 12 in the box and the rest in the other chairs in the well. Counsel will get 1 minute each to question each juror, after the court has asked some preliminary questions. He tells counsel to budget their time accordingly. The court asks if counsel has a jury instruction draft. DDA Presby has a draft pattern for instruction 149.

The court then explains that once they get their panel today, he will conduct hardship questioning on the first 60 jurors. Tomorrow, they will start with voir dire.

2:15 PM 

There is a break until the jurors arrive. I take the time to contact the PIO to get approval to live blog the trial. After some back and forth, the court clerk comes over to me. I introduce myself and explain what I'd like to do. I agree to no audio or video recording. 

3:05 PM

Jurors arrive in Dept. 118.  The court asks the media to leave the benches and stand against the wall. I try to type with one hand while holding my laptop. 

Once all the jurors are seated Judge Bork tells the jurors about the case and introduces his court staff. He explains that everyone who works in the court takes an oath. Witnesses take an oath, and jurors are expected to take an oath as well.  Jurors are asked to stand and the oath is administered.

Judge Bork explains that if any juror has a question, they are to write it on a piece of paper and give it to the bailiff. He also explains to them about speaking in full words, and the difficulty of transcribing Uh-huh and Um. He also talks about asking and answering questions in a way that's understood.

The court has counsel introduce themselves and then reads the charges against Ms. O'Callaghan. He explains the time frame of the trial and that they will start about 10:30 AM or 10:45 AM each day and end at 4;15 PM. Possibly start even earlier on Friday's, by 10 AM.  The judge then goes on to explain financial hardship excuses. He will only excuse for extreme financial hardship at this time.

He tells the gallery that if they do not want to be heard on financial hardship at this time, then they can leave now and report back tomorrow at 10:30 AM.  If they want to be heard on hardship, they will call each juror one at a time and he will hear them. He then tells the potential jurors that there are media outlets in the courtroom and there may be media interest. He tells them that if they are watching the news and the case comes on, the court requests that they immediately turn the channel. No media, no Internet, no Twitter. He tells them they need to restrict what they hear about the case to sworn testimony and sworn evidence.

The court will now hear hardship cases. About 12-15 jurors hold up their hands to plead hardship. All the jurors exit the courtroom. Those who want to plead hardship line up in the hallway in number order. Eighteen jurors line up and are called before the court one by one.  Judge Bork is not sympathetic to people who state they will have trouble paying their rent or student loans. A few people misunderstood that this was only for financial hardship, and not because they don't understand English very well.  All of those jurors, he orders back. After the last juror is heard, court is adjourned until tomorrow at 10:30 AM.

To be continued in Day 2.....

Mary O'Callaghan Quick Links Page

MARY O'CALLAHGNAN TRIAL- QUICK LINKS

 Mary O'Callaghan, left and counsel Robert Rico,

at a pretrial hearing. Photo courtesy KTLA website.

Case: BA417095
Defendant: Mary O'Callaghan, LAPD Officer
Victim: Alesia Thomas, 35
Prosecution: DDA Shannon Presby
Defense: Robert Rico 
Event: July 22, 2012

Short Synopsis:
Mary O'Callaghan, an LAPD officer with over 18 years on the force and a former marine has been charged with assault under color of authority.

Media reports indicate the victim, Alesia Thomas abandoned her children ages 12 and 3 years old at a police station. Officers tracked Thomas back to her home and arrested her for child abandonment. One media report indicated the children told police that their grandmother would be picking them up.

O'Callaghan is alledged to have kicked a handcuffed Thomas seven times in her lower body area while in the backseat of a police car before she lost conciousness. Thomas died in police custody. The autopsy revealed Thomas had cocaine in her system. The cause of death was ruled "undetermined." The coroner could not rule out the assault as a factor in Thomas' death.

The Police Commission, a civilian oversight board, reviewed the July 22, 2012, incident and issued a report concluding that O'Callaghan used unreasonable force on Alesia Thomas, 35, when she was restrained and in the backseat of a cruiser.

Timeline:
10/10/13 Charges filed on Thursday
10/15/13 Arraignment on Tuesday
02/25/15 Trial begins with jury selection
02/26/15 Judge Bork rules mistrial due to potential new evidence

T&T TRIAL COVERAGE (Initial Trial- case continued)
02/25/15 Mary O'Callaghan Trial - Day 1, Jury Selection
02/26/15 Mary O'Callaghan Trial -  Day 2 Jury Selection Continues

T&T TRIAL COVERAGE  (Second Trial)

06/05/15 Mary O'Callaghan Verdict Reached
07/23/15 Mary O'Callaghan Sentencing 
10/15/15 2.5 Million Settlement Reached With Children of Alesia Thomas

DOCUMENTS
DA's JSID Investigation Report

Twitter
@idabeewells (Ida B. Wells) is live tweeting the trial

Mainstream Media Reports
LAPD Online Incident Report
10/10/13 LA Times - Video of LAPD Officer Kicking Woman should be public
10/11/13 HuffPost - LAPD Officer Charged 10/15/13 KPCC Officer Pleads Not Guilty to Assault 10/10/13 LA Times - LAPD Officer Charged With Assault
02/26/15 LA Times -Mistrial in LAPD Officer Assault Case
05/20/15 LA Times - Trial to Start for LAPD Officer Accused of Kicking Woman who Later Died

Under the Weather

A short note to T&T readers.

On Monday, December 3rd, along with my friend Matthew McGough, I attended the swearing in ceremony of Jackie Lacey, Los Angeles County's first female and first black District Attorney.  It was a very nice ceremony held at USC's Galen Center.  USC is where Lacey graduated from law school.

By chance, Matthew and I saw DDA Shannon Presby who asked to sit with us. Before I had time to write up my notes on the ceremony, I started to feel under the weather.  It's now Friday, and I'm in full flu mode with muscle aches, clogged sinuses, a scratchy, inflamed throat, a fluctuating temperature and clogged lungs.  The sofa is where I've been spending most of this week, trying to rest.

The last time I had the flu, it developed into a form of viral-induced asthma, which left me with a horrible cough that lasted for over four months. I've never been diagnosed with asthma, but I believe with the way things are going, I am susceptible to developing the lingering deep cough again.

Unfortunately, this means I missed the Lonnie Franklin, Jr., pretrial hearing this morning, and I might also miss the next Kelly Soo Park hearing on December 11th.

I hope T&T's loyal readers will be patient with me.  I'll do my best to get well as soon as possible so I can get back down at the courthouse and report on the cases you're interested in.

Sprocket.

Los Angeles Magazine, Stephanie Lazarus Case: 'In Plain Sight' by Steven Mikulan

September 2012 issue of Los Angeles Magazine

UPDATED 5/13/19 Corrected old broken links to Mikulan's story. Sprocket
UPDATED 11/1/13
For those die hard fans that are still interested in Stephanie Lazarus, there is a new article out in Los Angeles Magazine's September 2012 issue, by my good friend Steven Mikulan.  The eight page article is now online.

Along with writing for Los Angeles Magazine, Steven is the editor of Frying Pan News, an online web site that describes itself as “a blog on the current economy” providing, “...original content on politics, business, labor, jobs, the environment, culture...”

I initially met Steven Mikulan back in December 2004, at the Robert Blake trial.  He was the first journalist that I got to know while attending a trial, and has always been most kind, supportive and encouraging of my trial coverage efforts.  Steven was instrumental in saving a space for me in the second row at Phil Spector’s first trial and it’s how I got to know the late writer Dominick Dunne.  The four of us, myself, Steven, Dominick and the Daily Journal's Ciaran McEvoy became a tight knit group during that long drawn-out trial. Ciaran, Steven and I have been friends ever since.

Steven wrote for the LA Weekly for 25 years, mostly covering the local theater scene.  It was later in his career there that he also covered the criminal beat and local politics for the weekly paper.  Steven has a style of putting words together like I’ve rarely seen another writer do so successfully.  For example, he labeled the Lazarus story “media crack.”  I know that Dominick loved reading Steven’s pieces that I printed out for him during the Spector trial.  I’ll never forget when one of Spector’s defense attorneys, Bradley Brunon came over and complimented Steven on the latest story he wrote and asking him about a German term he used in the piece, verfremdungseffekt. Steven’s striking wit is often insightful and at the same time, he has an ability to capture what's most important in a way that can pluck at your heart strings.

What I found refreshing about Steven’s reporting is, he attended some of the trial, did original research on the case and reveals information we haven’t heard about the LAPD’s secret preparations in the hours before Stephanie's arrest.  He also brings new information about Lazarus via interviews with her former partner, Detective Don Hrycyk in the Art Theft Detail Unit, as well as from Stephanie's younger brother, Steven Lazarus. In addition, Steven also scored key interviews with DDA Shannon Presby,  Sherri’s father Nels Rasmussen, and a friend of Lazarus’s who attended UCLA with her.

It’s my opinion that it’s difficult to tell the Lazarus story and do it justice in a magazine article, where others control how may words you get to write.  I thought the article was very good considering the limited amount of space Los Angeles Magazine gave Steven. I should note there are a few errors in the printed magazine version.  However, I believe Steven’s editor is in the process of making corrections to the online version.

I spoke to Steven about his article and he gave me this response:

“Reporting on a story this complex was difficult, because as a writer I know that what got published would become part of a public archive that will be consulted by people in the future. Such readers must always trust a writer to be accurate, they have little choice but to rely on his or her story to be historically true, and yet making sure every factual rivet of any story is secure is no easy task. Throughout this effort I knew that no matter how many times I played back an interview, read a transcript, studied a Thomas Guide, deciphered my trial notes or looked at weather reports from 26 years ago, some little thing could escape my attention." 

 (Note: To view the article online, click on the link in the bottom of the online excerpt that says "subscribe now" and from that page, click on the link to preview a digital copy of the magazine for free.  The article begins on page 152. Sprocket.)


LA Magazine - In Plain Sight

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.

Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Curious Vanity Fair Article on Stephanie Lazarus, Part III

Editorial cartoon © 2012 by Thomas Broersma (thomasbroersma@yahoo.com). All rights reserved by the artist. Full disclosure: This drawing is satire, not investigative journalism. It is unknown if CA inmate # WE4479 is a Vanity Fair subscriber.

Complete Series on Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Article HERE.

Continued from Part II...

I am not a famous writer. I don't have an editor, a fact-checker, or an unlimited budget.

I'm just a semi-retired housewife with a blog. However, I attended every hearing in the Lazarus case since February 2011. Watching the trial and getting to know many of the people impacted by Sherri Rasmussen's murder was an extremely intense and heart wrenching experience. I have such respect for the Rasmussen family, the attorneys, and all the LAPD detectives who worked on this case.

Since I published Part I and Part 2 of my review of Mark Bowden's article on the Lazarus case in the current issue of Vanity Fair, several T&T readers have asked if Mark Bowden attended the trial. As far as I know, Bowden did not attend a single court hearing between Stephanie's arrest in June 2009 and her sentencing in May 2012.

Robbery-Homicide Division Detectives Gregory Stearns and Dan Jaramillo are the stars of Bowden's article.  As anyone who's watched the video knows, their interrogation of Stephanie Lazarus was masterful and truly one for the textbooks. Reading the article, I found it strange that Bowden repeatedly got inside Stephanie's head, but not Stearns or Jaramillo. Bowden does not quote either RHD detective, except off the video tape which Judge Perry released to the public in November 2010.

Given the curious absence of Stearns and Jaramillo's personal perspectives, I had to wonder: Did Bowden interview them about their experience that day? So I made a few calls.

I began with Detective Stearns. I can confirm that he was not interviewed for the Vanity Fair article.

I then decided to dig a little deeper, and can report to my readers that none of the following people were interviewed by Bowden:

• Robbery-Homicide Detective Dan Jaramillo.

• Detectives Rob Bub, James Nuttall, Marc Martinez or Pete Barba (the Van Nuys Homicide Unit that solved the case).

• Retired LAPD Detective Phil Morritt (who apparently checked out physical evidence in 1993).

• Anyone in the Rasmussen family: Nels, Loretta, or Sherri's sisters, Teresa and Connie.

• John Ruetten, Sherri Rasmussen's widower.

• Jayne Goldberg, Sherri's closest friend.  

• Deputy District Attorneys Shannon Presby or Paul Nunez.

• John Taylor, the Rasmussen family attorney.

• Stephanie Lazarus' defense attorney Mark Overland.

• Stephanie Lazarus.

Since Bowden didn’t attend the trial, and didn’t interview any of the principals above, it begs the question: What did Mark Bowden base his article on?  The article doesn't say, and this Vanity Fair reader would love to know.

....Continued in Part IV....

Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Curious Vanity Fair Article on Stephanie Lazarus, Part II

Cover of Vanity Fair's July 2012 issue.

Complete Series on Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Article HERE.
UPDATE June 27th, 2012: for correction of rebuttal date

This has been a busy month for news in the Stephanie Lazarus case.
First, Mark Bowden’s long rumored article on the Lazarus case was published in the July issue of Vanity Fair.  The full article went up on VanityFair.com on June 14th. On June 2oth, I obtained Stephanie's prison booking photo.  Later that same day, I posted Part I of my review of Bowden's Vanity Fair article, in which I set the record straight on numerous factual errors.

Reading the Vanity Fair article, I had to wonder about some of Bowden's more subjective descriptions of Stephanie Lazarus.

I can hear it now that some people will say that these criticisms are not nearly as black and white as the factual errors and deviations from the official transcript of Stephanie's interview. However, having sat through the entire trial, a few passages made me scratch my head in puzzlement. For example:

Stephanie Lazarus’ LAPD Career
Here is the second paragraph in Bowden’s article, where he describes Stephanie's career:

Vanity Fair Article Page 124:

Deputy District Attorney Shannon Presby has been involved in the prosecution of the case ever since Lazarus’ arrest in June 2009.  It would be my guess that during the nearly three years of extensive preparation the prosecution conducted in this case, Presby and his co-counsel, DDA Paul Nunez, probably better than anyone, had a deep understanding as to who Lazarus was and what her colleagues thought of her. On March 5th, 2012, in his closing rebuttal argument at the end of the trial, DDA Presby described Lazarus’ LAPD career for the jury with these words:

"You've heard she was a police officer, she was well liked by her family and friends. That's it. You haven't heard anything about the defendant that makes her exceptional in any way. You have the defendant's personnel file. It's been marked in evidence, introduced by the defense. Look at it. Look at her commendations. What are they? Does it say anywhere in there, 'Oh, Stephanie Lazarus caught a serial killer'? No. 'Solved a murder case?' No. 'Stephanie Lazarus helped out with a barbecue. Stephanie Lazarus helped out with a golf tournament.' I don't want to be cruel, but at best she was a B, nothing exceptional..."

During the trial, numerous LAPD officers (both on-the-job and retired) who were reading my coverage of the case contacted me. I was also contacted by several T&T readers outside the LAPD who knew Stephanie and shared with me their impressions. Her LAPD colleagues described her to me as dedicated and hard working. One told me Stephanie was “like a dog with a bone," when it came to working her cases. Several officers told me about her hyperactive personality, which was reflected in her nicknames: "Crazy Steph" and "Snacks."  Not a single LAPD officer described her to me as anything like "legendary," "perfection," or “a privilege to know.”

My question is, who did Bowden speak to that described Stephanie Lazarus in this way?  The article doesn’t say.

Inside Stephanie Lazarus' Mind
In numerous places in his Vanity Fair article, Bowden ascribes thoughts and feelings to Lazarus during her pre arrest interview.  Here are a few:

Vanity Fair Article Page 124:

Vanity Fair Article Page 125:

Vanity Fair Article Page 128:

Vanity Fair Article Page 129:

How did Bowden get inside Stephanie Lazarus’ head? Is it possible he scored an interview with Stephanie? The article leaves the impression he did, but it doesn’t say either way.  I for one, would love to know.

Continued in Part III....