Michael Gargiulo Case: Pretrial Hearing 3

 Michael Thomas Gargiulo booking photo, date unknown

EXCLUSIVE GARGIULO CASE COVERAGE HERE

Previous pretrial hearing 9/5/12

September 26th, 2012
Mr. Sprocket needed the car today so he dropped me off in front of the downtown criminal court building quite early.  I passed the next half hour in the building cafeteria before I headed up to the 9th floor.

The hallway outside Dept. 108 was virtually empty.  Sitting across the hall from me was youngish looking bald man with black framed glasses, wearing a dark brown ill-fitting suit, blue striped tie and tennis shoes.  He had a large tattoo on his neck that was partially covered by his shirt collar.

Promptly at 8:30 AM the bailiff opens Dept 108.  I'm the first person inside the courtroom.  I take a seat in the second bench row next to the aisle.  The benches in Judge Ohta's courtroom are completely covered in cushions. Over on the counter by the clerk's desk next to the wall I notice there is a large plastic container of Red Vines® Licorice.

8:35 AM The pretty court reporter comes out from the area behind the bench and starts to set up her equipment.  A few moments later DDA Daniel (Dan) Akemon arrives and goes up to the clerks desk.  From the paper's he's shuffling around, I'm guessing he might be filing a motion.  Akemon is wearing a very dark colored suit, almost black with a white shirt.

Judge Ohta comes out from his chambers and goes up to the bench for a moment.  He's wearing a very light baby blue shirt with a striking pink tie with matching blue stripes. He's not in his robes yet.  DDA Akemon sets a copy of his motion on the table exactly where the defendant will be seated when he's brought into the courtroom.

DDA Akemon then passes where I'm seated in the well, smiles and says hello.  We introduce ourselves, and I make sure to check with him that I'm pronouncing his name correctly.   After I explain to him who I am, Akemon tells me, "I thought you were a witness." I tell him that I'm very interested in this case and that if he knows DDA Paul Nunez, Nunez knows about me and my work.  Right then the defense investigator Christian Filipiak arrives and Akemon asks him if he's met me.  I remind Filipiak that I met him two hearings ago when I asked for his business card.  Filipiak is wearing a very nice suit.  I can tell from where I'm sitting that the exact color is hard to describe.  When the harsh fluorescent lights hit the weave, it gives a hit of dark olive threads and occasional burnished gold.  He's wearing a geometric patterned tie that matches perfectly.

The counsel for the current case being tried in Judge Ohta's court arrive and set up their computers and files.  Judge Ohta's clerk, Gloria, comes out from the back area.  Judge Ohta casually chats with the current case attorneys about the problematic NFL call by the alternate referee's on the field.

Akemon and Filipiak continue to chat amicably in the well while now Judge Ohta reads a document related to his current case.  Judge Ohta says something to the effect that he doesn't think the document is a declaration against penal interest.

8:53 AM Judge Ohta, who is now in his robe, asks Akemon and Filipiak if they are ready for the defendant to be brought out.

8:57 AM  Gargiulo is brought out.  He's in waist chains and he's cuffed to the chair.  He's wearing an orange jumpsuit with white long johns on underneath. His hair is still trimmed short and he's wearing the new glasses that Filipiak had obtained for him. He's carrying the green canvas looking satchel again.

Gargiulo hands some papers to the deputy who looks over the papers and hands them back.  Gargiulo then hands the papers over to Filipiak.

As I take one last look around the courtroom I notice two suited gentlemen sitting on the right side of the gallery.  I make a guess they are detectives in the current case.

We go on the record in the Gargiulo matter.  Judge Ohta records who is present, Akemon, the defendant representing himself and his investigator Filipiak is sitting beside him.

Judge Ohta states the issue concerns discovery and whether or not limitations can be placed on what the defendant is able to have on his person, in his cell at the LA County, Men's Central Jail facility.

Judge Ohta states he has read the prosecutions motion to limit discovery.  He's taken a look at the defense opposition motion titled "Defense Demand for Discovery."  Judge Ohta has also read the (decision? letter? statement?) of the LA County Sheriff's Dept., dated September 21st.  He's also read the very first motion (and the?) people's discovery motion.

Judge Ohta states, "I am prepared to rule."  He also mentions a motion the prosecution filed under seal containing autopsy (and? crime scene?) photos.

Judge Ohta states that Mr. Gargiulo had received some discovery.  There was some black and white material (photos?).  "I've seen what he possessed."  The main question (is) whether those (documents?) contain (names?) and addresses of those victims.  "I went through the entire (?) in camera and (found that?) there were addresses given over to the defendant.. (snip) In those (thousands? of pages?) There were photographs... (snip) given over to counsel prior to pro per (status).

Akemon states his motion under seal was for the judge to review.... and Judge Ohta basically states that he's already seen the photos (via that review).

Akemon continues, "Our position..... if counsel turned over previous discovery... our position is he not have (that)."  Ohta responds, "I don't know what he's had previously."

Judge Ohta asks each side if there is any further argument.  Both Akemon and the defendant have no further argument.  Judge Ohta states his ruling in the matter before the court. The prosecution seeks to place a court order of.... Judge Ohta is now reading directly from the prosecution's opposition motion.

When I hear the words from the prosecution's motion, I stop taking notes.  Judge Ohta first addresses that his responsibility is not the policing of the jail facility.   His job is to supervise the trial.  He reads from trial court procedure his "inherent power to act" to supervise the trial, and whether or not it's appropriate to act (specific to?) the prosecutions motion.

Judge Ohta states that the protection of victim's rights "seems to fall under that parameter."  I believe he then reads from a prior court ruling and also states that the defense motion did not present any arguments as to why he needed the photographs "twenty-four seven."

Judge Ohta did mention that although the defendant is in a cell by himself, there was a possibility that the photos could be lost or stolen while in his possession.

Judge Ohta rules, "For those reasons.... the photos of victims will be kept in the possession of the (defense) investigator."  Mr. Filipiak will make the material available to the defendant as he needs it.

His order may be amended (in the future) if (I believe he says if other arguments are presented).

Judge Ohta states his order covers photos depicting victim's bodies.

Gargiulo asks a question whether this covered "all photos."  Judge Ohta replies, "Photos depicting victim's bodies."

DDA Akemon informs the court that they have made great strides in the discovery process.  They have turned over to Mr. Filipiak a hard drive containing most of the discovery.

The next item that's discussed is the subpoenaed discovery that has been delivered to the court.  He's asking for permission to open the discovery, make copies for the prosecution and defense and then return the discovery back to the court.  There are "132 items on the list" of subpoenaed discovery.

I believe Akemon states he has turned over digital media. "I don't know if Mr. Gargiulo has any other written discovery...."

Gargiulo then tells Judge Ohta that he objects to having all his discovery on yellow paper in his cell.  "The issue being.... it's very hard to see... hard to read through it."  As far as the deputies searching his cell.... "I'm the only person with yellow paper..."  Judge Ohta responds, "I don't know if it's an entitlement issue..." Gargiulo states, "There's no safety issue."  DDA Akemon informs the court, "The sheriff required the yellow paper. (snip) The (order was?) signed by the commander of (the jail)."  Judge Ohta responds, "Then the sheriff's office needs to come here."

Gargiulo tells the court that he's being singled out.  Other pro per's don't have their court documents on yellow paper.  Akemon tells the court he would stipulate to that.  I believe Judge Ohta asks a question and I believe Gargiulo responds that he doesn't see anything in the custody manual (about) having his court papers on 'yellow' paper.  Gargiulo states he's "...just trying to be treated like any other pro per."

Judge Ohta informs Gargiulo, "Unless you have a fundamental right at issue, or ... (snip) important interest at issue...."  (My notes are not clear, but I believe it's Judge Ohta that continues with) "So, if they have a reason with ... in your case.... they probably would be able to show a need..."

Judge Ohta states hes not ruling on that.

Gargiulo tells the court, "There is a rule in the manual.... we are to have all paper in a separate place at all times for search purposes. (snip) And all paper is bate stamped to be able to identify it as legal (court documents)."

Akemon interjects, "I think this is also something that protects Mr. Filipiak. (snip) Also designed to protect him as well."

Judge Ohta tells the parties, "I'm not here to sit over (the?) trial on every single little dispute that could arise. (snip) It should not (ought) to be before me. (snip) If you object to yellow paper (policy) .... then (the) sheriff deputy needs to come here ... if they are able to persuade me. (snip)  As I said in (the) ruling I made regarding.... (snip) This court is not the police over jail policy. (snip) I'm not a civil court. (snip) That's not my job. (snip) My job is to oversee aspects of this trial. (snip) What goes on in the jail regarding what color of paper is outside my duty.  (snip) So, I'm not here to deal with anything and everything to deal with this case."

Judge Ohta asks the defendant if there's another color of paper that he could have his discovery printed on.  The defendant asks for "white."  Then Judge Ohta comments on whether "white" is a color in the color spectrum.  After a bit more back and forth between all parties, Judge Ohta tells the defendant to do what he wants. Print his discovery on any color he wants, however, "you run the risk" that the Sheriff's Office will confiscate it again.

Akemon tells the court that he has conducted an inventory of the subpoenaed materials and if Mr. Gargiulo is in agreement to release the evidence.  Judge Ohta explains in painstaking detail to the defendant that the prosecution will take the subpoenaed documents, photograph them. The original will come back to the court file.  The prosecution will make copies and one for you.  Gargiulo agrees.

Now, they just need a new pretrial date to work on more discovery issues. Monday, October 29th is selected and the case calendar is set at zero of 90 on that date.

Mr. Filipiak asks the court his position for bringing photographs to the jail since he ruled the photos contraband.  Judge Ohta is clear to Mr. Filipiak.  He has not ruled the photographs as contraband.  My guess is, that Filipiak could get into trouble with the Sheriff's Office if the photographs were ruled "contraband."

Akemon asks that the photos in his motion today remain sealed.  Judge Ohta agrees.

Gargiulo asks Judge Ohta about the other motions he's filed that Judge Ohta said last time he would look at.  These were his requests to have one hand free in the attorney room at the jail and getting boxes to have in his cell to keep all his discovery separate.  Judge Ohta quickly looks over the motions.  Judge Ohta states he will take input on these issues from the Sheriff's Office to check on their policy.  Judge Ohta tells the defendant that they will address this at the next hearing and he will make a ruling on it.

And that's it.  I wait outside Dept. 108 in the hopes of speaking to DDA Akemon, but he exits the courtroom in deep conversation with Mr. Filipiak and then goes directly into Dept. 104, Judge Perry's courtroom.  Christian Filipiak and I take an elevator down together.  He asks me a few questions about my blog and how long I've been writing.  I find out that Filipiak usually works as an investigator in federal court where he has had the experience of being an investigator for defendants who decide to represent themselves.

Next hearing date is Monday, October 29, 2012

Stephanie Lazarus Case: Sherri Rasmussen Family Civil Suit, Part II

California Courts of Appeal, Second District

300 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA

UPDATE 9/25/12: spelling, clarity

September 20th, 2012
Continued from initial post....

When I first arrived at the building I cleared security pretty quickly. I was startled by the guards question asking if I was wearing a belt.  If I had a belt, it had to be removed before I walked through the security scanners.  Once you enter the plaza, you see that the building is structured with an open atrium center that has large animal statues, seating areas and trees.  There are open walkways around all four sides of the upper floors.  You can see the entrance to the third floor courtroom from the open plaza.

I headed up to the cafe on the second floor to grab something to eat.  I skipped breakfast since Mr. Sprocket had to get out the door early and I worked on household projects until it was time to leave for downtown.

As soon as I entered the seating area, I saw Nels and Loretta Rasmussen sitting with their attorney, John Taylor of Taylor Ring Law Firm. Also sitting at the table was a pretty blond woman, Holly Boyer.  John Taylor mentioned to me that Holly was "very sharp" and she would be the one presenting arguments to the court.  I exchanged smiles and hugs with Nels and Loretta and then went to get a banana from the cafe.

Holly told me that she has argued before the Courts of Appeal before, so this would not be her first rodeo.  Most of the conversation from Nels and Loretta centered around their great-grandchild, Hannah, 4, who I previously saw at the sentencing hearing.  (Hannah is the daughter of Rachel, who is the daughter of Connie, Sherri's older sister.  During the trial, we saw 1985 Christmas photos of Sherri with Rachel as young baby. Sprocket.)

This appeal that has been filed by Taylor Ring is not the typical sort of appeal in front of the court, since there has been no trial with a verdict.  I believe it is Holly who states that what the LAPD filed is called a demurrer.

There were seven cases on the court's calendar, and it was not listed when the Rasmussen case would be argued.  As it got closer to 1 PM, we made our way to the third floor and the single appellate courtroom.

Security to get inside the courtroom is tight.  No electronics whatsoever are allowed in without prior approval from the court.  (For example, during the Spector oral arguments, Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times received special permission to use her laptop to cover the hearing.) Once you pass through security, your electronic items are taken from you and you are given a plastic clip-on badge with a number.  Those numbers correspond to drawers in a special cabinet right outside the courtroom where they are stored by security.

You enter the courtroom from the very back of the gallery on the right.  The judge's bench is along the back wall.  In the center of the courtroom is the well area, with gallery seating on all three sides.   We are the first people to take a seat in the gallery and are able to get seats front row center.  Holly enters the well, checks in with the clerk and takes one of the several extra seats in the well, where only attorneys are allowed.

One of the officers demonstrates to all the waiting counsel how to raise and lower the podium so that the microphone is at the proper height for the individual presenting arguments.  There is no court reporter.  The arguments are tape recorded.  I do not know if it is possible to obtain an audio copy of the proceedings before a decision has been rendered, or even at all.

Four justices sit on Division Eight of the Second District.  Any three of the justices will be assigned a case for review.  A majority of two makes the decision.  The Justices are: Tricia A. Bigelow, presiding justice,  Laurence D. Rubin, Madeleine I. Flier and Elizabeth A. Grimes.  When the justices come out,  Justice Rubin is not with them.  Justice Bigelow explains that Douglas Sortino has been (temporarily) assigned by the court system to help out while Justice Rubin is away.  Justice Sortino is a former prosecutor.  He was the original prosecutor assigned to the Phil Spector trial.  DDA Alan Jackson took over the case when Sortino was appointed to the bench.  During the first Phil Spector trial, the defense called Sortino as a court witness to testify outside the presence of the jury.

Justice Bigelow advised counsel that the proceedings were tape recorded.  For those cases where Justice Rubin was one of the deciding voices, counsel had the right to have their case argued when Justice Rubin was available.  Otherwise, he would be listening to their arguments via the audio recording.  Bigelow also advised counsel that they have read all the briefs and issued for each case a "tentative opinion," so that counsel can tailor their arguments.

 The first case argued was an individual representing themselves, suing Kaiser Permamente over an emergency surgery performed on her.  The courts of appeal tentatively affirmed the lower court's verdict.

The second case argued was a divorce case where the husband was appealing the lower court ruling that he had to pay his ex-wife's legal fees.  The courts of appeal tentatively affirmed the lower court's ruling.

The third case, the courts of appeal tentatively reversed the lower court ruling.

The fourth case was the Rasmussen case, and it would be heard by Bigelow, Rubin and Grimes.  The tentative ruling was to affirm the lower court's dismissal on the basis of statute of limitations.  The court felt the latest the Rasmussens could have filed a claim against the LAPD was in 2000, since their last contact with the LAPD was in 1998.

Holly Boyer passionately argues the Rasmussen case, and against the court's tentative ruling.

Boyer argued there was no way for the Rasmussens to know the police conduct was intentional until the arrest.  They only learned in 2009 that the LAPD knew all along Lazarus was Sherri's killer.  Boyer argues the statute of limitations should not begin running until 2009.

Boyer states, "It doesn't become actionable until the motive behind it becomes known to the Rasmusssen family."

Then the Bane Act is discussed.  The Rasmussens allege they were intimidated by the LAPD to give up their pursuit of Sherri's killer, whom they suspected all along to be Stephanie Lazarus.

Not long after the Bane Act is discussed, Justice Bigelow reminds Ms. Boyer that these are only tentative rulings, and that's the purpose of oral arguments.  Justice Bigelow then expresses her condolences to the Rasmussen family, "I'm sorry for the loss that they have suffered."

There is some more argument about whether the operative date is when the plaintiff's knew. Boyer points out a section of the Bane Act regarding intimidation.  How can the statute of limitations begin when the LAPD was successful in intimidating the Rasmussens to give up their pursuit of justice for Sherri.  "These plaintiff's did not know the true facts," Boyer argues.

Boyer also mentioned to the Justices, something to the effect of, what would the family have sued the LAPD for back in 2000? They didn't know why the LAPD was intimidating them until 2009.

Then a slender, petite woman, Blithe S. Block, the attorney for the City of Los Angeles, addressed the court.  Probably because the Justice's tentative ruling was in the city's favor, her argument was brief.  Boyer had a few more minutes for rebuttal argument.  And that was it.  We left the courtroom and regrouped back in the second floor cafeteria for drinks.  Boyer was hopeful that her arguments were heard.

The California Courts of Appeal has ninety days from the end of this month to publish their ruling.  However, I believe Holly states they can request more time.

It's still amazing to me that Nels and Loretta, who just celebrated their 59th wedding anniversary, have not missed a single court hearing involving Sherri's case.  After the hearing, I walked the Rasmussens to their car, for their long drive back to Tucson.

Once I obtain copies of all the arguments, I'll put them up on T&T.

Rasmussen appeal filing on California Courts of Appeal web site.

Cameron Brown Pretrial 2, Third Trial

Updated 9/24/12 2:33 PM: Correct spelling of DDA Arisa Mattson's name, victim Rudy Delatorre's name, and add description of all six charged and convicted counts against defendant Giovanni Hernandez.

Updated 10:02 PM: add Lauren Sarene Key's name

September 21st, 2012
Today was Cameron Brown's 51st birthday.  In less than two months, he will have been in LA County Sheriff's custody for nine years, waiting for his third trial in the alleged murder of his four-year-old daughter, Lauren Sarene Key.

8:21 AM I'm in the hallway on the 9th floor.  The drive into downtown was slow but I lucked out when I got to the criminal court building; there was no security line and I was able to get an elevator pretty quickly.

After I arrived on the 9th floor, DDA Craig Hum arrived and we exchanged smiles.  There was a young, pretty Asian woman with a short pixie haircut sitting on the bench across from me.  She had a some sort of blue badge clipped to her shirt.  Hum went up and spoke to her.  From the way she is dressed, I'm guessing she is either clerking or interning on the case.

Dept. 107 opens up at 8:30 AM and we all trek inside.  Judge Pastor's clerk, Sammie Benson is at her desk and Pat McNeal is at the court reporter's desk.  There are two sheriff's looking over the courtroom and I overhear one say to the other, "They waxed our floors."  Craig Hum goes up to Mrs. Benson's desk to check in with her.  A few minutes later, Sammie and Pat talk about a CBS 48 Hours show.

Judge Pastor steps out into the courtroom as he's getting his robe on.  He's wearing a white shirt and a very dark tie.  It might be black.  He speaks to Mrs. Benson for a moment.  The other court reporter, Mavis, comes out and repositions her equipment.  There are a few people in the gallery and I make a guess that they are either here for the current trial in progress or for a sentencing hearing.  I overhear something about a death penalty case.

Another female deputy enters the courtroom so now there are three deputies besides the assigned bailiff.  I'm guessing there will be a formal sentencing.  The female deputy and another sheriff talk about the job and different assignments.

We're waiting on Mr. Laub who might be down in Dept. 102.  Mrs. Benson can't seem to get her computer to come up.

8:45 AM, DDA Hum chats with the Asian woman who is sitting in the well with him.  More people file into the gallery.  Now I'm certain it's a sentencing hearing, as more and more people show up.

There is a bit of bustle going on in the well.  Judge Pastor takes the bench.  It appears we will no longer wait for Mr. Laub, and go forward with the sentencing hearing.  A very young looking man is brought out. He's in a blue jumpsuit.

8:55 AM Mr. Laub shows up and he and DDA Hum smile and shake hands.  I observe Hum and Laub in the well.  Hum is listening to Laub and occasionally shaking his head or nodding his head.  At the bench, the defense counsel for the sentencing hearing defendant asks for an off the record conversation with the judge.  The prosecutor on that case and the defense attorney go up to the bench.

More people enter Dept. 107 for the sentencing.  DDA Hum leaves for a moment and Laub chats with Mrs. Benson as Judge Pastor and the other counsel privately conference at the bench.

Laub chats with the new female deputy, shakes her hand and then leaves the courtroom.  Mrs. Benson speaks to the deputies in the gallery.

Giovanni Hernandez
9:00 AM DDA Hum reenters Dept. 107.  The sentencing case is called to order.  The defendant is Giovanni Hernandez.  The court has reviewed a considerable sentencing memorandum.  Ms. Mattson  the prosecutor on the sentencing case tells Judge Pastor there are three individuals for the victims who wish to speak.

Gloria Ortiz (sp?) gets up to the podium to speak.  She starts off by saying, "Gary Ortiz is my grandson..."  But she could not continue.  She was too emotional.  Her sadness and crying affects me.

A young, sharply dressed woman (I believe the woman states her name is Patrica, and is a sister to one of the victims.) gets up to talk about a second victim, Rudy Delatorre.  Rudy suffered three gunshot wounds, one of them was to the head.  He is no longer capable to speak clearly or read.  He's now 19 years of age and has had eight surgeries.  She speaks about all of Rudy's health issues, and the fact that his health is still precarious, and he could die at any time.  He still suffers from seizures that affect his cognitive abilities.  It's quite sad to hear how disabled Rudy is from being shot in the head.

Another individual gets up to speak, a cousin of one of the victims. Then Mrs. Ortiz decides she can get up the courage to speak.  She states she didn't know about Felecia.  "I didn't know about that girl." (snip)  She heard that "someone got killed."

That's it for victim witnesses.

The defense counsel, Mr. Schwartz (sp?) introduces two letters to give to the court.  A Sister Claudia Romero (sp?) steps up to the podium to speak for the defendant. She got to know the family well.  I note that the defendant turns his head slightly toward the speaker, but he does not turn his head to look.  I don't know if that's because of the way he's shackled or not.

Sister Claudia states, "I knew him to be honest with me.... good with the staff. (snip) He did receive confirmation."  She goes on to talk about Hernandez's good qualities that she observed.

The next witness to speak on the defendant's behalf is his older sister, Jessica (sp?) Hernandez.  She speaks about juvenile hall.  "He was hanging around the wrong people.  That's true, but that's not been his (whole?) life." She talks about how Judge Pastor spoke at the first trial that this courtroom is a "temple of justice."  He was "fourteen-year-old kid...at the time of the crime. (snip) Especially when that fourteen-year old kid is innocent.  Hernandez's sister speaks for a long time on his behalf.  At one point, I remember Judge Pastor telling her that he does not wish to hear the evidence in the case.

I don't recall if it was his sister, or Sister Claudia that spoke about all the positive influences in Giovanni's life, and some of the good things he had done before the incident as well as while in juvenile hall.

 Then the defense attorney gets up to argue for leniency for his client.  The defense maintains this was a case of mistaken identity.  Schwartz speaks about how if Giovanni had been one year younger, he would not have been certified to adult court.  Hernandez is facing a sentence where it is a certainty that he will die in prison.  There were two victims in this crime.

DDA Mattson then gets up to argue sentencing.  "There are four other attempted murders that he was convicted of."  When I hear Mattson say that it shocks me.  She makes a recommendation about one of the sentences.  If I'm remembering correctly she states something to the effect that the defendant had many opportunities, many positive people in his life, but he still made a wrong choice.

Then Judge Pastor speaks.  "This is the most unpleasant part of being a judge.  Even though I may not like it, I must follow the law."  There have been US Supreme Court and California Courts of Appeal rulings that puts the court in the appearance of an actuary. "This is quite honestly, the most difficult sentencing I've ever done. (snip) I invite appellate sentencing in this regard."

Then Pastor rules on each count.  He rules on the murder, 25 years to life.  He mentions about (indetem?) that makes the sentence 50 years to life.  I'm betting this is either a gun use enhancement or a gang affiliation enhancement.

In regards to count two, three, four and five, "I want very much to sentence to (consecutive?) (snip) but I can't do it because of (prior court rulings?)...  Judge Pastor mentions what he would like to do in regards to these counts, but he states he can't do it.  For these charges, he sentences Giovanni to concurrent terms of 50 years to life.  Judge Pastor talks about the sixth charge but I miss the sentence.  He then stays that sentence.  "If it was up to me, (I'd sentence you) to 160 years to life."

There's a bit more about court costs the defendant owes and then it's over.  The deputies are ordered to get the gallery cleared one row at a time.  Judge Pastor makes it clear to those in the gallery to wait until they are out in the elevator bay to talk about the case since he has a jury out in the hallway waiting now and he doesn't want them contaminated by this (sentencing hearing).

Additional Note: The defendant was convicted of 1 count PC 187(a) first degree murder of Gary Ortiz; 4 counts of attempted murder,  PC 664/187(a), against Rudy Delatorre, Vanessa Garcia, Sophia Garcia, Victor Garcia; 1 count PC 246, shooting at an occupied vehicle. All special allegations were found to be true. Sprocket.

Cameron Brown
At 10:20 AM, Judge Pastor asks to see counsel on the Brown case.  They appear to be going over calendar dates.  Judge Pastor is behind.  His current case, counsel has arrived and he's 1/2 hour behind the scheduled start time for today. Pastor goes on the record, but Brown is not brought out.  He's received a (defense?) motion, (having to do with documents?) but he's not able to deal with it now. A new court date is scheduled, October 2nd at 8:30 AM.  (I'm bummed about that date since there is also a hearing for Kelly Soo Park in Dept 109.) On that date, Brown's case calendar will be set at 11 of 120.  He's signed an order for temporary release of exhibits so they can be digitized.   Judge Pastor will release the exhibits on September 25th.  Laub told the court that he had received many boxes from the firm of Geragos & Geragos, (I missed hearing how many)  but I believe he then said, there were "nineteen more" still to be received from the prior law firm.

This tells me several things.  Laub has probably not reviewed a single prior trial transcript on this case yet.  It's a good bet that this case will not go to trial until next spring at the earliest.  I don't know what I'm going to do about October 2nd.  I sometimes wish there was a way to clone myself when it comes to competing hearings.  On a side note, no one from Brown's family showed up for this court hearing or the prior one on July 27th.  I wonder if Patty Kaldis Brown is still married to Cameron, or if she has taken a job and couldn't get time off.