GERHARD BECKER PRELIMINARY HEARING WITNESS LIST - QUICK LINKS

Preliminary Hearing Testimony Witness List  11/13/12 - 11/28/12
Gerhard Becker Quick Links - (Main Quick Links Page)

CASE # BA39394001
Gerhard Becker: Arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter on February 15th, 2012.

Glenn Allen: 38 year veteran LAFD firefighter.  Injured on February 16th, 2011, responding to a massive fire at Becker's recently completed luxury home in the Hollywood Hills. A ceiling collapsed on Allen. Allen succumbed to his injuries on February 18th, 2011.

Prosecution:
DDA Sean Carney
DDA Frances Young - (Removed from case.)

Defense:
Donald Re

Part I, Day 1, November 13th, 2012
1. GREG STECK 
(Owner Hearth Products Construction Company, Katerina Ohio. Manufacturer of the  "HWI Fire pit trough," an outdoor fire pit, that was installed in the Becker property. Describes the device, it's safety's and how it should be installed.)
 
2. CAPTAIN EDWARD WATTERS (LAFD firefighter who arrived on the scene to battle the fire. Described the scene, the fire, where it spread and what the strategy was to fight the fire.)

Part II, Day 2, November 14th, 2012
2. CAPTAIN EDWARD WATTERS (continued)

3. BRAD BESCOS (City of Los Angeles Building Mechanical Inspector - Monitored the construction of the Becker house. Testified he never approved a fireplace and never saw one being built in the Becker property.)

Part III, Day 3 & 4, November 15th, 2012; November 19th, 2012

(No testimony was presented on Day 3.)

4. WILLIAM THOST (LAFD Fire Investigator and sworn peace officer - Investigated the fire and Glenn Allen's death at the Becker property.  Testified about how Allen was found and recovered in the structure; testified about the construction of the house, fireplace and inadequate 'fie blocking.')

Part IV, Day 5, November 20th, 2012
4. WILLIAM THOST (continued)

Part V, Day 6, November 26th, 2012
3. BRAD BESCOS (cross examination continued)

Part VI, Day 7 November 27th, 2012
3. BRAD BESCOS (redirect examination)

5. DALE FEB (Independent Fireplace Inspector/Consultant - Gave an expert opinion as to the quality of construction and code requirements followed/not followed of the fire pit/trough installed in the Becker property.)

Part VII, Day 8, November 28th, 2012
6. GREG STEARNS (LAPD Detective, Robbery Homicide - Investigated the fire and death of Glenn Allen)

Michael Gargiulo Case: Pretrial Hearing 4

 Michael Thomas Gargiulo tattoos, 
arrest photo, date unknown

EXCLUSIVE GARGIULO CASE COVERAGE HERE
 

Previous pretrial hearing 9/26/12
UPDATE: Added next pretrial date.
October 29th, 2012
I finally get on the 9th floor at 8:27 AM after missing two elevators.  Out on Broadway, just as I'm about to enter the the rear entrance to the Criminal Justice Center, I see Lois Goodman's defense attorney Alison Triessl.  She doesn't know who I am, but maybe remembered my face from her clients hearings, so I smiled and said hello.

Out in the hallway, DDA Akemon arrives on the 9th floor and greets another attorney-like looking man seated on a bench across the hall from me.  Akemon is wearing a gray suit, white shirt and a mustard looking tie with a pattern.

When I get inside Dept 108, there are several counsel already here.  There are people in the gallery, most likely from another case.  The defense investigator Christian Filipiak is not here.  There are defense counsel set up at the defense table and it's a good bet there is a trial in progress.  I see an attorney rolling in a cart with several boxes of case files.

Akemon has a very dark, black looking briefcase that opens like a clam shell or purse at the top.  The unknown counsel in the well introduces themselves and someone asks if there's any settlement.  It's possibly a multiple defendant case.  Akemon is now over at the court clerks desk with counsel from another case.  He's handing papers to the court clerk.  I see the clerk Gloria, stamp the single page of the prosecution's paper.

The well is full of counsel. Some turn and wave to new people who have entered and are sitting in the gallery.  A female prosecutor arrives and sets up her things at the prosecution table.

Judge Ohta comes out from the back-chamber area. He's not in his robes.  He's wearing a solid blue shirt with a tan tie.  More counsel in the well exchange handshakes.

8:43 AM  Several Asian clients from the gallery step up into the well beside their counsel.  We go on the record. The case is 355055, Yang & Kim.  The DA's daily calender lists the case as Chan Hee Yang and Andrew Kim, a worker's comp insurance fraud scheme and the DDA is Terrance Terauchi. (Chan Hee I think is the woman at the defense table who also has an interpreter.)  The case is set at zero of 60 today.

One of the defense counsel (possibly for Mr. Kim) tells Judge Ohta that his law partner of 22 years died two weeks ago, and he is asking to push the case back.  Judge Ohta asks the name of his law partner. (I looked up the name I thought the defense counsel said but I must have it wrong. I couldn't find anything.)

Judge Ohta puts it on the record that Ms. Yang is on her fourth attorney.  A Mr. Kawata (sp?) (investigator?) has been on the case since the beginning.  Ms. Yang's attorney is now asking for more records.  They are now saying two and a half years later, they don't have all the insurance documents from the department of insurance.  They are asking for copies of ledgers.  The defense believes these ledges will be instrumental to the defense.

Akemon is in the well, sitting off to the side in front of the jury box.  He appears to be reviewing files as he waits.  This is one thing I've noticed about many prosecutors. They appear to continue to work while they are waiting for their case to be heard.

Judge Ohta mentions the case was filed in April 2009.  Ms. Yang has an interpreter.  Judge Ohta tells the parties to return in one month and to make sure all discovery issues have been resolved.  A date of December 6th is chose for the return date.  Judge Ohta states the Korean interpreter is ordered back on that date.  That's it for this case and the counsel and defendants file out.

There's another attorney here with Akemon.  I have a feeling he will be added to the case.

I have in my notes that Filipiak was not ordered to be here.  More counsel arrive.  It's 9:00 AM and there's still quite a bit of bustle in the well.

9:02 AM Judge Ohta speaks to his bailiff. "John, do you think we can get Gargiulo out?"  "Yes," he replies as he takes clothing to the back for the current defendant in trial.

Judge Ohta is speaking to (I think) the current case prosecutor in the well.  "Do you think it's that simple Mr. Kim? ... You need to research some legal issues. ... Due diligence is separate than the issue of whether the testimony is admissible."  Judge Ohta is speaking off the record. I believe the current case prosecutor says something about "common sense. and Judge Ohta replies, "We don't do 'common sense,' because sometimes the law isn't common-sensical."  The defense attorney says something to the effect of, they are "...relying on Justic Scalia for right of confrontation."  Otha addresses that and says, "This isn't Crawford."

Akemon goes over to the defense table and places a single sheet or paper where the defendant will likely sit.

9:08 AM the defendant is brought out.  His hair has gotten a bit longer but still very short and close to his scalp.  The other prosecutor is introduced on the record, Garrett Dameron.  Dameron appears to be a bit younger than Akemon. He spells his name for the defendant.  He will be co-counsel with Akermon.  The case is at zero of 90 today.

Judge Ohta addresses the defendant about the motion the prosecution filed today.  "Have you received the document the prosecution prepared?" "No I haven't your honor."  Akemon speaks up and tells the defendant, "I placed a copy on the table in front of you."  "Oh, thank you. I didn't see that.  I didn't know it was for me," he replies.  "This is to memorialize what the people have given to you and will be a part of the case file."

Judge Ohta asks the defendant, Mr. Gargiulo, what do you want to do?

The defendant asks the court to receive a copy of the entire court file minute orders and more time to meet with his investigator.  Judge Ohta states right off, that he's not going to agree to give the defendant copies of all the minute orders from from the beginning of the case file.

The defendant states he doesn't know what other motions his prior attorney(s) have filed in the past.  Judge Ohta tells him it doesn't matter what motions have been filed in the past.  "You have a right to file any motion. ... I know (the prior defense attorney) was going to file a 997 ... but I don't think any motions have been filed. ... The only motions filed are ones related to discovery. ... If you want a specific minute order, (from a specific court date) that I will grant.  ... But I will not (authorize) a blanket order. (for the court minutes)"

The defendant states that at the last court date, minute order (he would like).  It wasn't clear about what discovery papers he was allowed to have.  Judge Ohta will grant giving the defendant a copy of the last minute orders.

A new pretrial hearing date is selected and the defendant is asked if that date is agreeable.  Gargiulo asks if that date is a Monday.  Judge Ohta answers him, "It's not a Monday."  The defendant agrees to the next pretrial date, and that's it.

At this point it is a waiting game for the defendant to be ready for trial.  It's my understanding that the case cannot move forward until the defendant states he is ready.  I think the biggest challenge the prosecution faces at this point is just getting the case to trial.

Next pretrial hearing is November 28th, 2012

Kelly Soo Park Pretrial 8; Lonnie Franklin, Jr., Pretrial 3

 Defense attorneys George Buehler, Mark Kassabian with 

defendant Kelly Soo Park, July 11th, 2012

October 24th, 2012
Two hearings in the same courtroom on the same day: Kelly Soo Park & Lonnie Franklin, Jr., aka "The Grim Sleeper."

Kelly Soo Park
Right when I'm about to leave for court, Mr. Sprocket decides he needs to check some fluid levels in the car.  This is why I'm fifteen minutes late for court.  I finally get into Dept. 109 at 8:45 AM.  I’m a bit discombobulated from being late and trying to get myself oriented to take notes as to who is here.

Virtually everyone is already here.  Kelly Soo Park is already in the gallery with, her large support group. Also here are Park’s defense attorneys, and Park's court assigned independent counsel, Franklin Peters, so she can sign away her rights.

Moments after I arrive, Park gets up out of the gallery and goes up to Franklin Peters.  He has a single sheet of paper in his hands.  He’s going over the document with Parks and she signs the paper.  Peters says something to Parks when she’s finished signing the document.  She gives him a big smile back and then takes her seat in the gallery.

Prosecutor Stacy Okun-Wiese and the defense counsel are in a polite conversation in the well.  There is a new camera crew of two to my right, but it’s not anyone I recognize. 

I believe it’s Kassabian who asks Peters, “Ready to go?” Peters replies, I guess so.”

Defense counsel Louisa Pensanti is here for Lonnie Franklin, Jr.  I saw her in the elevator lobby earlier.  More counsel arrive for other cases.  The deputy quickly wolfs down a banana at his desk and then takes clothing for a defendant into the jail area.

More people arrive, stop by the greet and hug Kelly Soo Park and her boyfriend Tom Chronister who are sitting in the row behind me, off to my left.

I think I recognize Ronnie Chase in the gallery sitting beside Tom Chronister, but I'm not positive.

At 8:55 AM, the court reporter starts to set up her equipment.

George Beuhler hands a single sheet of paper to prosecutor Stacy Okun-Wiese. There’s more chatter in the well.  Peters and Park’s defense team chat.  Okun-Wiese sits in the well chairs directly in front of the jury box.  More of Park’s supporters arrive.

The camera crew sets up to film the Lonnie Franklin, Jr. hearing.  More Park supporters arrive.  The courtroom gallery is a bit more packed than usual. I think there is another case that also will be heard this morning, and that's why I'm seeing so many unfamiliar faces.

Park’s case is called.  Kassabian and Buheler and Peters identify themselves for the record.  Stacy Okun-Wiese for the prosecution.

Judge Kennedy states she has in her hand a conflict of interest waiver dated today.  She identifies the document, stating there are ten items listed and after each one there are initials.  She asks Parks directly if these are her initials.  Parks replies, “Yes.”

Over and over, Judge Kennedy asks Park a series of direct questions.  It obvious from her tone she’s quite concerned about Park signing this document. She asks independent counsel Franklin Peters if he advised Parks about the conflict of interest issues.  He answers yes.

At some point Judge Kenned asks Parks if that's her signature at the bottom of the document.  She acknowledges she signed the document.

Judge Kennedy addresses Park. “You have the right to have conflict free counsel.  ... The conflict is real. ... (It) seems there’s no way around (this).”

Judge Kennedy addresses the issue of Park having counsel paid for by an unindicted co-conspirator. “That conflict exists. ... By waiving (your rights?) you’re not going to be at (?) ... You will not be able to claim conflict of counsel. ... Do you understand?”

Parks answers, “Yes.”

Judge Kennedy asks, “You discussed this with counsel?”

Parks answers, “Yes.”

I believe Judge Kennedy asks who prepared the document.  (The prosecution did.)  Okun-Wiese tells the court that the defense originally prepared a document.  Peters states that the last time he was in court he filed a document. Then he tells the court, “I was confronted with (an?) opposition and that (this document, prepared by DDA Eric Harmon) it wasn’t sufficient and that’s (why the new document is?) what was filed.”

 Okun-Wiese informs the court, “The people are not seeking any other documents (to be signed?) ...”

Then Judge Kennedy brings up a prior issue, that the defense will be seeking, a 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence. (I believe this is related to the 1101(b) witnesses, motion of prior defendant conduct, the prosecution introduced at a previous hearing.)

November 27th, 2012 is indicated as a return date to hear that motion and the pending discovery motion by the prosecution.

Judge Kennedy asks if there will be testimony.  I’m not sure who responds but I believe the defense states only moving papers will be presented. Judge Kennedy asks how long the defense feels they will need on that date.  One of the defense attorneys responds, “Fifteen to twenty minutes. (maybe) ... Perhaps an hour.  The court calendar is set at zero of 60 on November 27th.

Judge Kennedy asks Park, “Do you waive time?”  Park answers, “Yes.”  She’s ordered back on that date.

And that’s it for Park’s hearing, and most of the people in the gallery filter out.

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., aka "The Grim Sleeper" 

at a prior court hearing

Lonnie Franklin, Jr.
There are people in the gallery for a sentencing hearing.  And I’m wondering if that hearing might go first before Lonnie Franklin, Jr's hearing.

Beth Silverman arrives.  She’s wearing a lovely dark gray suit.  She hands papers to defense attorney   Pensanti. A tall gray haired man looks over Pensanti’s papers.  I’ve not seen him before.  He could be an investigator.

In the well, Beth Silverman is showing the court reporter some photos that are on her pink cased smart phone.  A few moments later, I can hear snatches of conversation Beth is having with Pensanti about potential return dates.  Beth then leaves the well and enters the gallery to sit and chat with a handsome suited bald-headed black man.

ABC 20/20’s Lisa Tomaselli arrived late and totally missed the Park hearing.  Franklin defense attorney Seymour Amster goes to the back chambers, possibly to use the restroom.

Sitting to my left is a Latino looking man with his mother.  He tells me his brother’s killer is being sentenced today.

Beth Silverman checks in with several family members to see how they’re doing.  The Franklin case will be held to first deal with the sentencing hearing.  The defendant who is going to be sentenced is brought out.

That defendant’s attorney makes a motion for a new trial.  The mother of the victim, “Paco,” shakes her head, sighs, as the defendant’s attorney argues points of evidence for a new trial.  The prosecutor on that case gets up to counter the defense arguments.  This goes on for some time, with questions back and forth between Judge Kennedy, the prosecutor and the defense attorney.  Kennedy tells the parties she needs to reread the entire trial.  It occurred some time ago and she’s had several trials since. “I’m really concerned about the proficiency of the corroboration (evidence).”

It looks like there won’t be a sentencing today.  The sentencing is held over until January 18th, 2012.

Judge Kennedy asks, “Are we ready on Franklin?”

The parties identify themselves for the record.  There’s a 1050 (document?) from the defense faxed to the court.

Silverman tells the court her concern is that she’s not convinced (trial) preparation is going on.  She explains to the court that there were procedures set up for the defense to test (ballistic) evidence. “None of that has taken place,” Sliverman tells the court. There’s been “...no attempt to start testing the firearm (evidence) in this case.”

I believe it’s Silverman who states that she’s assuming the the defense would want to test other evidence, such as the DNA, in the case.  Silverman is also concerned about witnesses, waiting to testify.

(Motions (to?) continue to be filed by the defense under seal to document what they are doing.)

Judge Kennedy asks the defense what’s going on.  Amster states that they’ve dropped the ball.  That they “...will take responsibility on that.”

Amster mentions what the defense still needs to do, and that it involves not one piece of evidence, but several.  Supposedly, they’ve had experts on the case from the beginning on the ballistics. Amster states “The DNA, (we) will be a bit more cautions on (testing?). ... (Currently) doing research on DNA.”

Amster explains that one of the delays that they could not control is the defense’s penalty phase investigator got another job.  It was not their fault and they didn’t see this coming.  The biggest aspect of their case will be the guilt phase. The defense states they are still getting evidence from the prosecution as far as evidence goes.  Not the defense fault this is an old case.

Judge Kennedy asks when is the ballistic evidence going to be analyzed by the defense. 

I believe Amster answers, “When people approve the order and will be assigned by the court.”

Silverman responds, “I was informed by the lab nothing had been done.”

I believe the parties discuss the same procedures again for each piece of ballistic evidence to be taken out, the order signed by Judge Kennedy and then that evidence tested by the defense. 

Judge Kennedy advises the defense that the DNA testing takes longer than the firearm testing ... She asks Amster, “When Mr. Amster, will you know you will be seeking to retest?”  Amster responds, “I know we’ll be seeking to retest .... Will seek to retest in January. ... The delay is caution, and to ensure doing the right testing.”

Judge Kennedy, with a bit of frustration in her voice tells the parties, “I want to move this forward, but (I'm aware?) of a lot of evidence... you know more about that than I do. ... It’s time consuming. ... I don’t want you to ignore that.”

Apparently, the funds for the DNA testing by the county and the analyst assigned by the court is controlled by another judge.

Judge Kennedy continues, “But you need to get moving on that.”

The 987.9 motion, of getting experts appointed, that’s not an issue.  The hold up is, the defense states they are being cautious about the testing.

The defense wants to come back in January, on the 25th.  Judge Kennedy tells the defense, “We should come back in early December.  That’s time enough to get your experts appointed."  The next pretrial date is December 14th, and the case will be set at zero of 60 on that date.

Unfortunately, there's also a hearing in the Cameron Brown case on that date in Dept 107.  I'll probably go to that hearing because there are several motions that are going to be argued on that date.

That’s it.  I make my way back to the parking lot to drive home.