Kelly Soo Park: Pretrial 10

Short Synopsis: Prosecutors allege Park strangled Redding to death in her Santa Monica apartment on March 15th or 16th, 2008.

UPDATE: for spelling, clarity
Thursday, February 28th, 2013
It's 8:57 am when I finally get inside Dept 109.  I knew Judge Kathleen Kennedy rarely takes the bench before 9:00 am but I wasn't expecting the gallery to be this full.  I take a seat in the third row on the end near the door.  At first I think the packed house is because of the deliberating jury in the Bell City Counsel corruption scandal but I'm wrong. The second row is filled with victim Juliana Redding's family and friends.  Redding's parents, Greg and Patricia Redding are sitting directly in front of me.  Kelly Soo Park and Tom Chronister (reportedly recently married) along with many of Park's supporters are jammed into the third and fourth gallery rows. Over on the far right in the second row is the other blogger, Lonce LaMon. Behind me are Lisa Tomaselli from ABC's 20/20 and NBC Dateline's Luz Villarreal (who I first met at the James Fayed trial). 

I was late getting started and chose to drive into downtown today instead of taking the train.  I'm not even sure I can properly follow the proceedings today.  When I came down with a severe upper respiratory infection I missed two hearings and I don't feel prepared.

DDA Stacy Okun-Wiese is at the prosecution table with a gray haired DDA I've never seen before. As I squint to see what Stacy is wearing today (gray suit with patterned stockings) I note the harsh fluorescent courtroom lighting washes out her auburn hair. Behind Okun-Wiese is the slender Asian attorney for the City of Santa Monica. To my left is a pretty, dark-haired young clerk that I believe is with the DA's office.  She's sharply dressed in an all black pantsuit wearing black framed glasses.  Not long after I sat down she moved to the other side of the aisle, often called the 'defense side' and chats up a sharply dressed gentleman.

I note that Judge Kennedy's bailiff is still 'Sean' (sp?) and Lori (sp?) is still her clerk.  As we wait, deliberating jurors continue to file by us and disappear into the jury room.  George Beuhler and Mark Kassabian are not at the defense table, but in two chairs directly behind the table, back up against the wall separating the well from the gallery and directly beside the bailiff's desk.

A group of older robust, suited gentlemen enter and congregate around the chairs by the inner doors.  I'm making a guess that these are probably attorneys for the Bell City Counsel defendants.  More jurors file in.

Judge Kennedy steps out from her chambers and is speaking to her clerk.  She's wearing a black scoop necked top with a silver and black cardigan, buttoned up.  Is it possible she's lost even more weight?  Way to go Judge Kennedy.  The bailiff addresses the room to ensure that every one's cell phone is turned off.  I remembered to turn mine off in the hallway.  A defendant is brought out in a bright jail orange jumpsuit and at 9:06 am, Judge Kennedy takes the bench.  Judge Kennedy calls the case, People v. Pedrosa, (sp?) and asks counsel to state for the record.  The gray haired DDA sitting next to Okun-Wiese stands for the people.  There's a 1050 motion in the Pedrosa case.

And then Kelly Soo Park is called.  Park gets up from her seat in the back row to join her counsel at the defense table. I can see what she's wearing for the first time.  Black pants, a white blouse and the familiar hip length camel jacket.

Judge Kennedy states she wants to deal with the Pitchess motion first. I'm guessing this is where the defense believes they should be allowed to see documents from the City of Santa Monica and Santa Monica has been objecting to this request.  Judge Kennedy rules, "I'm inclined to go in camera with the city attorney [and the custodian of records? to] review documents and see... ... The law under Pitchess has gotten so liberal ... I think the defense has met it's burden."

For the record, Judge Kennedy states that her court reporter and the named parties will go in chambers for her to review the documents in camera.  At 9:11 am, Judge Kennedy is back on the bench and on the record.  Judge Kennedy rules that, "There are no records that fall within what the defense was seeking."  So, nothing falls within the Pitchess motion.  Judge Kennedy orders the court reporter that the transcripts for the in camera meeting are not to be transcribed. The Santa Monica attorney and the custodian of the records are excused.

The next issue that is litigated is the people's 1101b motion.  Judge Kennedy states she has reviewed the prosecution's motion, the defense rebuttal motion and the people's response to the rebuttal motion.  Unfortunately, I only have the initial motion, and not any of the others. I'm betting that Judge Kennedy has already made up her mind and these oral arguments are just a formality.

Okun-Wiese reads from the appellate ruling on People v. Spector as to the admissibility of 1101b evidence.  She adds that the defense motion calls for there to be a nexus link between the witnesses and acts charged.  "The defense position is that Dr. Uwaydah pulled out of the deal first. ... But the defense motion did not include the letter[s] from Greg Redding's attorney and Dr. Uwaydah's attorney."

Kelly Soo Park is turned towards Okun-Wiese and appears to be intently listening to her arguments.

Okun-Wiese continues, "What better way to get to someone than through their child."  Okun-Wiese mentions what was played out in the media, regarding Christopher Dorner. (Dorner, in retaliation against Randal Quan, shot and killed Quan's daughter Monica and her fiance Keith Lawrence.)

Buehler then argues the defense position. "First, it's all speculative that Dr. Uwaydah had any desire to retaliate against [Redding]. ... [Regarding] Jerry Lukiewski, I'm not aware of anybody, Kelly Soo Park or anyone else, did any threat or anything [threating] towards Mr. Lukiewski. ... The prosecution has a gap in it's evidence and want to take some conversations with Mr. Lukiewski and apply it to this case." Judge Kennedy fidgets a bit on the bench.  Buehler continues to argue that there are no similarities in these alleged prior incidents and this case. "In Spector, you had seven prior incidents where Spector pulled a gun. ... If prior uncharged acts are allowed in, then we should be allowed to all the evidence relating to the Jerry Lukiewski issue and Dr. Uwaydah. ... we're entitled to. ... So we should get all the evidence. ... The Aaron Kelly matter involves an alleged incident in 2006 .... doesn't involve Dr. Uwaydah but Kelly Soo Park. ... So, at minimum, we would be entitled to that evidence and the time to review it. ... I think that opens up [to the defense] all the evidence the people have in the Dr. Uwaydah matter. ... I think the people are way off base. .. I don't think the people should be able to bring this in ... in order to fill a hole. ... That's not appropriate."

It looks to me like Judge Kennedy is patiently waiting for Buehler to finish.  Okun-Wiese then argues one more time.  She mentions that the initial falling out of the business agreement was initiated via a letter from Mr. Redding to Dr. Uwaydah, calling him out on illegal activities.  Okun-Wiese continues arguing the facts of the Lukiewski issue and the actions of Ronnie Case.  Okun-Wiese tells the court that all the evidence regarding the Lukiewski matter has been turned over to the defense.  "The only link between the defendant and Juliana Redding is Dr. Uwaydah. ... The reason there wasn't another incident [Lukiewski]... Santa Monica Police arrested the defendant before she could get to him."

Judge Kennedy finally rules.  "I don't think the people have met their burden."  She adds however, that may change if (the defendant? defense witnesses?) testify or present evidence.  "It seems clear to me the people have not met their burden. ... The only other issue is renewal of the wiretap. ... The  Hobbs* material did not change anything about the wire tap and that issue continues to be denied."

Judge Kennedy mentions that she has another subpoena.  The defense states that it's theirs and asks that it be turned over. The prosecution has no objection.  Then Judge Kennedy speaks to the room about how disappointed she is that this case is still not ready to go to trial at the prior date they discussed.  "I don't know what shenanigans or foot dragging [the defense] has done..."  Buehler responds, "There has been no shenanigans..."

Buehler explains that another case in Federal court has delayed this case.  That case is going longer than originally scheduled. Buehler adds that the defense DNA testing reports have not come in yet.  In a very angry and irritated tone, Judge Kennedy tells the defense she doesn't understand 'why' the defense waited until this late date to test the DNA.  Buehler tries to explain that earlier they were trying to get a handle on the case and were doing a lot of investigation.

It seems to me like Judge Kennedy is getting more angry just listening to the defense excuses. Judge Kennedy tells the defense that their client changed counsel, and that's her right but that's not an excuse to delay.  Buehler wants to push the case back to April.  Okun-Wiese tells Judge Kennedy she has many witnesses she's subpoenaed. (I think she mentioned something like 65 witnesses.) She tells Judge Kennedy that the victim's family is in court today. 

In an accusatory voice Judge Kennedy tells Buehler, "I think you did this intentionally!"  Okun-Wiese offers to the court, "I was told the DNA reports would be in tomorrow. ... When Mr. Buehler and Kassabian took over the case, they said [regarding] the DNA ... they were not going in that direction."

Buehler is in trial across the street. (On Monday, I was in the Federal Courthouse, checking on something for a friend and had lunch there.  I happened to see George Buehler in the fourth floor cafeteria around lunch time.) Judge Kennedy blasts Buehler again. "You have come in [here] repeatedly [stating] you're ill ... another trial ... DNA!  ... I want this case to go to trial! ... [The defendant] changed lawyers three times! ... I don't think you ever wanted the case to go to trial."

It's obvious Judge Kennedy is angry, but it's just yelling, nothing more.  She doesn't lay any sanctions on the defense.

Okun-Wiese tells the court that their DNA expert is out of state from April 25th to May 10th. "The DNA is my case," she adds.  Judge Kennedy understand that the people are not willing to start their case without their star witness and asks her how soon she can start.  After a bit of back and forth and clearance with the clerk, Monday, May 13th is selected.  The case clock is set at zero of 10 on that date.  Jury selection will start on that date.  Judge Kennedy asks about pre-screened jurors.  If they do pre-screened jurors, May 13th is a firm date.

And that's it. Judge Kennedy is off the bench.  The bailiff goes over to the victim's family and explains the issue of limited seating during jury selection.  Another friend of the victim's family arrives late to court and many hugs are exchanged.  The court clerk calls the attorneys back to her desk before they try to leave. I clearly hear Lori tell counsel, "You can't change this date because the jury will be here."

When everyone slowly files out of the courtroom, a few in the media try to hand their cards to friends of the family but no one will take them.

Out in the elevator bay, it's a long wait for an elevator going down.  I try to stand back and give the family their privacy.  Juliana Redding's mother, Patricia, and some of the family supporters have left the hallway and are in the elevator bay, while others are still in the hallway.  Patricia, seeing her friends still in the hallway, heads back through the security exit door to speak with them.  A sheriff calls out to her, Mam!  Mam!  You can't go back there!  The sheriff tells her she had to go through the security checkpoint again, if she wants to reenter the hallway.  I don't know if she heard them or ignored them. The sheriff goes up to her, grabbing her hands and placing them behind her back.  I'm wondering if he's going to arrest the mother of a murder victim, but he doesn't.  Holding onto her arms, he guides her back to the elevator bay.

Note: This case is a DNA case. The 1101b evidence the people fought to introduce would have gone to show the jury the people's alleged position on motive, basically 'why' the victim was murdered. Although juries like to hear motive, it's not a requirement of law that the prosecution provide one.  In court documents, the prosecution alleges that Park's DNA was found in many areas of the apartment as well as around Juliana Redding's neck.  

It's entirely possible there may be more motions filed once the defense DNA reports come in.  I will periodically check with the court clerk to see if any more pretrial hearing dates have been scheduled. Sprocket.

*Hobbs To me, it appears Judge Kennedy was referencing the case, People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948, 973 -- in relation to earlier defense motions to get the people's wiretap evidence ruled inadmissible. Sprocket.

Stephanie Lazarus Case: Rasmussen Family Civil Suit

Photo © Loretta Rasmussen; used with permission.

Left to right: Teresa Lane, Nels Rasmussen, Sherri Rae Rasmussen, 

Loretta Rasmussen, Connie Rasmussen, on November 23rd, 1985, Sherri's wedding.

UPDATED 3//2 spelling, clarity, new link
On February 20th, 2013, the California Supreme Court declined the Rasmussen family's petition to review the lower court's decision in their civil suit against the LAPD. 

Here is the LA Times story on the decision.

In 2010, the Rasmussen's sued the LAPD for violation of civil rights, wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent concealment.

On Tuesday, I spoke to the Rasmussen family attorney, John Taylor, to find out what's next for the Rasmussen family.

T&T: Is this the end of the road for the Rasmussen family's lawsuit?

JT: No.

T&T: Are there any future appeals planned?

JT: The appeals for this specific lawsuit are over.  We're exploring other avenues of legal recourse.

T&T: How did Nels Rasmussen take the news?

JT: They're disappointed.  The Court of Appeal said that they should have brought an action [against the LAPD] by 1998.  If they had brought a lawsuit in 1998, what would the lawsuit have been?  What specific charge could they have made? It wasn't until Stephanie's arrest in June 2009 that the family's suspicions were confirmed.

T&T: You told the Los Angeles Times that the LAPD promised a full investigation into what went wrong in 1986.  Who made that promise?

JT: Several people within the LAPD.  More than one person, on more than one occasion, assured the Rasmussen family that there would be an investigation into the handling of the case in 1986.  As of today, we're not aware of any investigation into the handling of the case at the time of the murder.  The LAPD owes it to the Rasmussen family.  And also, you'd think they would do it for the future, to find out what went wrong so no other family would go through what these people did.

Twenty-seven years ago this past Sunday, February 24th, Sherri Rae Rasmussen was murdered by Stephanie Lazarus.  T&T will continue to follow any future developments in this case.

Initial Appellate Court Decision

Michael Gargiulo Case: Pretrial Hearing 6

 Michael Thomas Gargiiulo, date unknown

I don't know if I missed one or two hearings for this case while I was out with a serious upper respiratory infection. Sprocket.

EXCLUSIVE GARGIULO CASE COVERAGE HERE
Last pretrial hearing attended 11/28/12
 
Monday February 25th, 2013
8:20 am.  I'm back on the 9th floor and it's eerily quiet. Such a change from last Friday.  A young man is trying to get into Dept. 106 to file a motion but is quite disappointed when I tell him the courtrooms don't open until 8:30 am.  He asks if I know if they are accepting filings on the second floor right now, and I tell him that I honestly don't know.  (I've never filed a motion in a courthouse before.) Even though the doors don't open until 8:30 am, I'm betting that the courtroom clerks and support staff are there much earlier, getting set up for the day.

I tell the young man there most likely are staff inside already. I also ask if anyone knows he's coming.  He says, "No."  Fortunately, he is able to obtain the phone number for Dept. 106 and reach the clerk. Wendy comes and opens the door.  The young man is happy he didn't have to wait to get his motion filed.

It's 8:26 am. I'm not positive, but I 'think' I see DDA Deborah Brazil at the other end of the hall, pushing a large cart loaded with files into Dept. 101 or 102.  It certainly looks like her from here.

A few counsel arrive at this end of the hall, waiting for courtrooms to open.

8:33 am.  I see DDA Daniel Akemon quickly striding down towards this end of the hallway.  He gives me a quick smile and says hello.  Once inside Dept. 108 I take a seat in the second row. I'm in the gallery by myself.  Akemon goes over to the clerks counter, checking various files.  The pretty court reporter comes out and starts to set up her equipment.

When Akemon is finished going over files at the clerks he tells me that Judge Ohta is not here and won't be here until 10 am.  Akemon chats with the court reporter then spends a bit more time going over his files.  When he's finished, Akemon and I have a short chat about a friend we have in common, former DDA Alan Jackson. 

9:45 am. Gargiulo is brought out from the jail holding area.  He's wearing black framed glasses. His hair is still short, but his mustache appears to be larger, fuller, almost taking over part of his face.  It's a noticeable contrast against his white skin.

I believe Judge Ohta asks about discovery.  Akemon replies that discovery is almost completed from the people's perspective. He's audited the file and came up with another five hundred pages.  He tells the court the people will turn over to Mr. Gargiulo in the next couple of weeks.  "In the next month or so, we will have turned over all our discovery so far," Akemon adds.

Akemon then tells the court that he has filed under seal a list of witnesses and contact information that will be turned over to the defense via the investigator, Mr. Filipiak.  Then, the people will have fulfilled their obligation to turn over discovery. 

Judge Ohta goes over the documents Akemon just described.  Ohta states he has one sealed copy and one unsealed copy.  Akemon explains that the sealed copy is for the court and the unsealed copy is for the investigator, Mr. Filipiak.

Akemon also tells the court that he spoke to Mr. Filipiak last week over computer data files that were turned over.  Apparently, some of the files were corroded and he resent those files to Mr. Filipiak.

I'm not certain if Gargiulo then speaks up or if Judge Ohta addresses him first.  Judge Ohta asks Gargiulo, "Do you wish to be heard?"  Gargiulo responds, "Uh, yeah. ... I'm not sure ... (I have?) ... not received a complete audio (?) yet."  (My notes are not clear, but from memory, Gargiulo is indicating he doesn't believe he has copies of everything from the people.)

The court asks, "Did you ask Mr. Filipiak to be present?"   The court then explains to Gargiulo that, normally, the discovery process is an informal process.  Normally, there is not a court hearing for each time discovery is turned over to each side.  I believe Gargiulo then tells the court, "There are some other issues..."  I believe Judge Ohta asks Gargiulo, "Do you have any objections regarding (the) protective order on witnesses?"  Gargiulo replies, "No, I don't."  I think it's Akemon who offers, "His investigator will get copies."

Judge Ohta then states there are two additional items before him.  It appears Gargiulo has written two motions.  He is asking the court to order that he receive copies of the "... first few months of..." court transcripts.  Gargiulo is claiming that there "...seems to be an error on the court docket..." From what I'm gathering, Gargiulo has copies of the clerks notes of prior proceedings (court appearances that he was present for) and is claiming that there's an error on the clerks notes of what transpired in court.  Gargiulo would like to see the court transcripts from June (10th?) 2008 to May 2009.

The court appears surprised.  I believe Judge Ohta states.  "That's almost a year. ... That's a lot." I believe the court then asks, "What motions?"  Gargiulo tells the court, "There are fundamental errors..."

Ohta goes over the motions that are in front of him.  "You say there's some possible constitutional violation of rights ... of search and seizure .... and violation of that and .... you need transcripts ... I'd like for you to identify the specific dates, or series of dates ... for me to order trial (transcripts) for an entire year."

I believe Gargiulo responds that there are some issues between those dates, June 10th 2008 and May of 2009.  The court asks, "How many court appearances do you think were made between June 2008 and May 2009?"  Gargiulo responds, "Between nine or ten ... when I'm counting off the docket."  DDA Akemon offers, "I have at least five but my records are incomplete."

The court responds, "The suppression motion, we would not have anything that the court reporter took down."  Judge Ohta appears confused by what Gargiulo is claiming.  Gargiulo states this "... has to do with constitutional error."  Judge Ohta asks more questions.  Gargiulo makes it clear that this has nothing to do with Mr. Lindner.  Gargiulo clarifies that more than once and he then says it has to do with the public defender's office.  Judge Ohta responds, "How does that have to do with .... since you are representing yourself?"  Judge Ohta mentions more than once, that he doesn't understand how his sixth amendment rights have been violated since there hasn't been a trial yet.  There has been no trial.

Judge Ohta then goes in another direction.  "Let's say that's taken place.  What is your remedy? ... There is no remedy."  The court then explains court procedure to Gargiulo and asks, "What are you trying to undo?"  Gargiulo states, "There are fundamental errors that the court has made. .... Defendant was without counsel, which is a great error."  I believe Gargiulo tells the court he is trying to save the court's time by limiting the scope of transcripts.  Judge Ohta responds, "Not if you raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. ... What are you trying to undo?"

Does Gargiulo feels there was a nine month period where he was not represented?  I'm almost lost here.

Gargiulo then states that there was a violation of his sixth amendment rights.  Not only was there a violation of his sixth amendment rights, but also his fourteenth amendment rights. "There are many motions I'm going to have to file," Gargiulo continues.

Judge Ohta patiently explains court procedure to the defendant, and how court transcripts would typically be ordered.  "You are saying something happened way back when."  Judge Ohta continues with what he thinks Gargiulo is trying to convey about motions that were or were not filed back then and that the defendant needs the court transcripts. Ohta continues, "I'm ascertaining .... whether to grant that request."

Judge Ohta then gives the defendant a condensed civics lesson on the two amendments to the constitution that he claims were a violation in relation to him, and this court case.  "the sixth amendment is ineffective counsel, and there has not been a trial yet. ... the fourteenth amendment applies to the States Bill of Rights. .... to States, not individuals."

As a side note, people usually spend months and months studying amendments to the constitution to fully understand them and their application under the law.

The court continues, "If you can (particulate? articulate?) it down to less than that, based on what you're saying, I can then possibly (rule?) to (find) good cause ..." (to grant his motion).  Gargiulo states he needs the depositions in order to file a habeus corpus motion.  By requesting such a broad section of transcripts, Gargiulo tells the court, "I'm trying to save the courts time."  Judge Otha explains that it's not his responsibility to save the courts time.  Gargiulo states again that there has a been a violation of his rights to counsel.  Judge Ohta rules, "At this time, I would not be signing an order for transcripts today."  Gargiulo is asking for a medical order to be signed and I believe Judge Ohta agrees to that.

Then Gargiulo brings something up about sending mail over to Dept. 123 exparte.  I believe there's some problem with the defendant receiving his court funds in a timely manner. He's trying to file motions for funds.  Judge Ohta explains to Gargiulo the way it should be done and that he should ask his investigator, Mr. Filipiak to do it for him.

Gargiulo tells the court he hasn't been able to get speak to Mr. Filipiak for two weeks.  If my notes are correct, I believe Judge Ohta inquires about getting Mr. Filipiak to the courthouse today.  I'm not sure who mentions it, but it's revealed that Mr. Filipiak is in trial in Federal Court.  Akemon offers to contact him. He takes out his cell phone and sends a text to Mr. Filipiak. He tells the court that he texted Mr. Filipiak that Mr. Gargiulo needs to see him.

Mr. Filipiak calls the courtroom and Judge Ohta approves for Gargiulo to scoot over on his chair to the sheriff deputy's desk to take the phone call.  "I'm sorry to bother you. I"m trying to get a hold of you to get motions filed for funds. ... I'm sorry to bother you at this time."  The call ends.

Akemon tells the court he needs two weeks to get the discovery completed and asks for a return date of March 25th.  The court states they will be out that week.  March 20th is the next return date.

My thoughts.  I will be quite surprised if this case goes to trial by 2015.  As of this date, Gargiulo has not filed a single motion to have defense experts appointed to do their own DNA testing.  There will be many motions filed by the people to have evidence presented at trial.  Gargiulo will have to prepare opposition motions to those motions.

Next hearing March 20, 2013

MICHAEL GARGIULO QUICK LINKS PAGE