Ka Pasasouk, Preliminary Hearing Day 3, Part IV

Ka Pasasouk, in custody 

Photo credit: Daily News

Continued from Day 3, Part III.....

UPDATED 11/19: Witness name changed per request
July 31, 2013
The people call Detective Dan Myers.

10. DAN MYERS

Myers has been an LAPD officer for twenty-five and a half years. He's been an investigator since March of 1994.  Myers is the lead investigator on the case.  Myers went to the Devonshire crime scene. When he arrived he saw four victims shot at that location on the west side of the property.

Myers is shown a photo of the victims at the scene.  In the top of the photo, Myers identifies victim Teofilo Navales (aka Jojo Burbank), lying on his back.  The the left in the photo is a male, David Calabia.  He then corrects himself and states the victim's name is Robert Calabia.  "David" is a misprint on the exhibit. The female on the left side is Amanda Ghossein.  The fourth victim, lying on her knees, resting on her elbows was identified as Jennifer Kim.

Myers testifies that he and his partner attended the coroner's examination for every victim. The defense states they stipulate to the coroner's findings.

On December 2nd, Amanda Ghossein, Jennifer Kim, Teofilo Navales and Robert Calabia were shot and killed at 11744 Devonshire Street in the County of Los Angeles.

Deputy coroner Brian Hutchins performed a post-mortem examination (2012-07957) on Amanda Ghossein.  Ghossein died immediately of a gunshot wound to the left parietal side of her head.  The bullet traveled back to front, left to right and downward.  There was no soot or stippling. The manner of death was homicide.

Deputy coroner Yulai Wang performed  a post mortem examination on Jennifer Kim (2012-07598). She suffered two gunshot wounds. One gunshot wound entered at the side of her neck. It was back to front, left to right and upward. There was no soot or stippling.  The second gunshot wound was a through and through. It entered Ms. Kim's back, entered the scapula and exited the neck. This wound was non-fatal.

As the details of the victims wounds are read in court, a low sound starts to permeate the gallery.  Many of the victim's loved ones are sobbing.

On December 4th, 2012 deputy coroner Jason P. Tovar performed the post mortem examination on Robert Calabia (2012-07959). Calabia died immediately from a gunshot wound to the head. A second gunshot wound to the back that was life threatening. The gunshot wound to the head was a "through and through"  The second wound exited the mouth.

(I apologize. During this section of testimony, my pen ran out of ink as I was writing and I couldn't find a replacement pen in my purse fast enough. Sprocket.)

Deputy coroner Ajay Panchal performed the post mortem examination on Teofilo Navales. Navales suffered a gunshot wound to the the head. It traveled from the back of the head to the front.  There was a second gunshot wound, through and through. It entered the abdomen, traveled front to back and left to right. It exited the right side of the back.

Again, the defense stipulates to the coroner's examinations for the preliminary hearing only.

Myers testifies that shell casings were recovered from around various points on the bodies.  People's exhibit 4 is presented. There are four red dots (circles?) outlining where the shell casings were found around the bodies.  Family members of the victims are sobbing behind me.  Myers explains where shell casings were recovered around the bodies.  All four casings were 40 caliber range.  All of the casings were booked into evidence by criminalists.

Myers is asked to explain what a casing is. Myers explains, "It's part of a cartridge. ... It's what is ejected from the weapon."

DA: In attending the post-mortem did you collect the projectiles from the bodies?
DM: Yes.

Myers testifies that he observed the recovery of all the bullets (by the coroner's) and collected them from the LA County Coroner's office. He then booked them into evidence. He observed the recover of the bullets from Jennifer Kim, Amanda Ghossein and Teofilo Navales.  For Robert Calabia, the bullet that entered his skull was recovered at the scene. It was recovered from a knit cap he was wearing at the time. Myers testifies as to the items and what numbers they were booked into evidence under.

Myers states an effort was made to recover the weapon. They served search warrants at the defendant's aunt's house. They brought in an archaeological team. They were unsuccessful. They never recovered the weapon.  They recovered a weapon from underneath the front passenger seat of a black Audi in Nevada.

DDA Akemon states there is one last brief area to review.

DA: In connection with the investigation, did you interview Christina Neal? ... Was she initially reluctant to speak to you?
DM: Yes.
DA: Did she eventually speak to you?
DM: Yes.

Akemon now reads from a transcript of Christina Neal's interview with Detective Myers.

DA: Did she say, "Like when if you if it's not true Ka. ... He told me that he shot people. ... He told me that he shot JoJo and a person named Robert."  Do you remember (that conversation)?
DM: Yes I do.
DA: Do you recall Ms. Neal saying, "He, he said that ... cause (caused him?) to shoot everybody. ... But Howard's gun was supposed to do it, but he got scared.  ... But for Howard to search (through?) the people but Howard didn't want to do it." Did you get that answer from Ms. Neal?
DM: Yes.
DA: Do you recall asking Ms. Neal, "Did he say head shots? (And she responded) "He said they were all shot in the head."  Myers then said, "He said that?"  (Ms. Neal responded) "He said that. He shot five times. H said he counted." Did you hear Ms. Neal give those answers?
DM: Yes, she did.
DA: Did you ask Ms. Neal, "You said it was four?" (Ms. Neal answered) "He started mentally counting bullets. 1,2,3,4,5. He said he shot JoJo twice." (Det. Myers asks) "Did he say any particular order?" (Ms. Neal answers) "No he didn't. He just said he shot JoJo twice."

Myers affirms those statements were made to him by Ms. Neal.

In the second interview with Christina Neal, more questions were asked about the weapon Pasasouk used.  Akemon goes over more of the transcript with Myers, identifying each speaker.

Myers: Did he say what he shot them with?
Neal: Just a gun.
Myers: Was he specific what.....
Neal: He said that Howard's gun was supposed to get used but it didn't get used.
(Another question and answer, and another question.)
Neal: He said that he shot them in the head.

Judge Giss has a question for the defense.  I believe it's James Goldstein who tells the court he doesn't believe those specific questions were asked of Ms. Neal.  Goldstein states he doesn't think it's his function to call Ms. Neal back to the stand.

JG: Those statements (by Detective Myers) are inadmissible.
Judge Giss: I don't remember any specificity. ... And I don't remember any inconsistent statement.

I believe the people state they have three (theories?) of admissibility.  Ms. Neal testified to it and all statements (and Myer's testimony) comes in under Proposition 115.  If at some point, she is not available. Akemon continues that, "Because at some point she was inconsistent so we did in an abundance of  caution."

Akemon states they put these statements in the record now in an abundance of caution if she's unavailable.  Goldstein states he cannot argue under 115 solely and that his recollection of Ms. Neal's testimony differs from the prosecution as to what she testified to.

I believe it's Judge Giss who states, "If it's that critical, then ask for a transcript."  But he agrees that under 115 the testimony comes in. "If at some point she's unavailable... and (Det. Myer's testimony about what she said) is ruled inadmissible under 240, ... you could go at it. ... I can't say it's a prior inconsistency without having the transcript."

(Let me explain here for those who are not familiar with this particular law. Proposition 115 allowed certain witnesses to testify to hearsay at preliminary hearings.  The issue regarding Detective Myers's testimony about what Ms. Neal said to him has to to with whether or not her statements when she was on the stand are inconsistent with her tape recorded interview with detectives.  If her testimony under oath was inconsistent with what she said to detectives, then it would be admissible for Detective Myers to testify as to what she said, previously.  

However, at the time that Detective Myers testified, the court did not have a ready copy of the court transcript of Ms. Neal's testimony, to verify that her statements were inconsistent with her prior interview with detectives.  Nor does the court have a copy of Ms. Neal's interview with detectives. If it's proven that her testimony was inconsistent, and Ms. Neal does not testify at trial, then it's my understanding that -along with Ms. Neal's testimony at the prelim- Detective Myer's complete prelim testimony would be admissible at trial. Sprocket.)

Judge Giss: Anything further from this witness?

Detective Myers testifies about Pasasouk's prior criminal record. Pasasouk had several prior felony convictions. On May 4th, 2006, Pasasouk was convicted of second degree robbery.  On November 17th, 2005, Pasasouk was convicted of assault by means to commit great bodily injury.  The people move to admit into evidence a two page document detailing the defendant's prior convictions.  The defense have no objection.

Judge Giss goes on the record about Detective Myer's testimony about Ms. Neal's prior statements.  At the time, Judge Giss would not have known that the court would need a transcript to verify... that the statements were from the recorded interview that the court does not have a copy of and would not be privy to.

3:00 PM
The afternoon break is called.
The courtroom is very busy, with other business going on during the break.

3: 20 PM
Back on the record. Detective Myers is still on the stand.

DA: Did you interview Wanito Mendoza?
DM: (Yes.)
DA: Did you ask him about a voice he heard outside of the house?
DM: Yes, I did.

Akemon reads a section of the transcript of the interview with Mendoza to the detective, identifying each speaker.

Myers: So what did you hear?
Mendoza: Raise your, raise your hands up.
Myers: Raise your hands up? .. Who says that?
Mendoza: Ka, of course.
Myers: It was Ka?
Mendoza: Yes. I assumed because I didn't see.
Myers: Don't assume.
Mendoza: I didn't see.
Myers: Did it sound like Ka.
Mendoza: It sounded like Ka.

DA: Did you ask those questions of Mr. Mendoza?
DM: Yes, I did.

Detective Myers is finished and the prosecution calls their next witness.
 

11. KATHLEEN ALVARADO

Ms. Alvarado is a criminalist with the LAPD, assigned to firearms analysis.  She is someone who responds to crime scenes, collects evidence, analyzes evidence then prepares a report.  She's been a criminalist for six years.  She gives her CV: education, training and background, that qualifies her as an expert witness.  She has a bachelors in biology and a masters in criminalistics. She is currently with the firearms examination unit.  She has also taken outside training. She's completed the competencies to do the work.  She's testified about ten times and performed about 100 firearms analyses.

Alvarado also explains that a cartridge is a piece of ammunition.  She explains all the parts that go into a cartridge casing.  She then explains the physics of a fired bullet.

Alvarado examined the evidence in this case.  She examined four projectiles; four bullets.

DA: Did you form an opinion?
KA: Yes.
DA: What is your opinion?
KA: ... is that they were all fired from the same firearm.

Alvarado testifies that she did a type and caliber. The bullets are consistent with a 40 caliber, six lands and groves with a right twist.  Her opinion is, all four bullets were fired from the same firearm.

KA: They were fired from a semi-automiatic firearm.

Alvarado also examined shell casings, evidence item numbers 116, 117, 118, 119. She performed an analysis on the shell casings.

DA: What is your opinion?
KA: These four casings were fired from the same firearm.

Alvarado explains she used the fire pin and fire breach to compare. All bullets and casings came from the same firearm.  Alvarado also examined a live round cartridge.  She compared it to the shell casings that were recovered around the bodies.  Alvarado's opinion is that the live round was cycled through the same weapon.  She looked at the "ejector mark" to make the comparison.  She came to the conclusion the markings on the live round matched the spent cartridge casings.

Alvarado also examined the recovered revolver.  She compared the revolver to the other firearm evidence.  It didn't compare because of characteristics.  The revolver was a 38 special.  That revolver has eight lands and groves.

DA: So that revolver was excluded as cycling those cartridges?
KA: Correct.

Alvarado tried to determine the different types of makes and models of weapons that could have fired the bullets.  She can do that on the bullets.  She came to the conclusion that a Ruger could have been used.

Direct is finished and cross begins.

JG: Ruger is a manufacturer?
KA: Yes.
JG: What about Smith and Wesson?
KA It is also a manufacturer.
JG: You also mentioned Smith and Wesson?
KA: That's in relation to a cartridge.
JG: Did you eliminate from your analysis a Smith and Wesson as the gun in this case?
KA: Smith and Wesson is not on the list that could have fired these bullets.

Alvarado explains what caliber is. She also explains "lands and groves" which are tool marks inside the barrel of the weapon, that help to move the bulled down the barrel. Alvarado explains the FBI's firearms database. She inputs the information (lands and groves, caliber) into an FBI database and it will come back with a list of weapons that could have been used to fire the bullet.

Testimony finished.

The people move that all the people's exhibits be moved into evidence. The people rest.

Judge Giss: Does the defense wish to put on a defense?
JG: No, your honor.

Judge Giss then goes over the charges, count by count. There are 10 counts against the defendant. Judge Giss discusses counts 6 through 10. These are victims John Doe (Pseudonym per witness request. Sprocket), Dandy, Ronald, Evelyn, Wanito.

Judge Giss explains the research he did last night, that describes "...crimes against persons.  Presenting a gun at a person is a (Penal Code) 245."  Judge Giss then goes over case law that he is relying on. The court describes the case and reads from the prior ruling. "Assault is a very sophisticated, elusive matter."  Judge Giss rules there is sufficient evidence for these counts against the defendant to stand.

Then Judge Giss goes onto count 5, attempted murder against Ms. Bax.  Judge Giss mentions the act of hitting Ms. Bax with the weapon. "Defendant used the gun to hit Ms. Bax, but that, I don't think, is sufficient evidence."  He then mentions the verbal threats, and that there's nothing that follows that.  There's no conduct that follows up on that verbal intent.  Judge Giss then reads from jury instruction, CALCRIM 600.  "A direct step is one that goes beyond.... an unambiguous step to get towards...."

Judge Giss continues. "It's close. I think there's enough evidence to support it."  The court mentions that there is another charge that could be filed, solicitation of murder, 653, sub section 'D'.  Judge Giss thinks the prosecution could file another count under 653, F.

(I don't understand Judge Giss mentioning 653.d but I understand 653f, which describes solicitation for various crimes, including assault. Sprocket.)

I look up from my notepad and take a glance at the defendant. He's nervously bouncing in place.

Count 1, murder of Teofilo Navales
Count 2, murder of Robert Calabia
Count 3, murder of Amanda Ghossein
Count 4, murder of Jennifer Kim

There is sufficient evidence to hold defendant to answer.  Sufficient evidence the defendant used a firearm.

Count 5, willful, deliberate premeditated murder of Ms. Bax, a human being, 187a.

Judge Giss mentions it's charged as murder. "That's an inadvertent error." It should be attempted murder, 664a.  Judge Giss corrects the document and states, "The court has made those amendments."

Judge Giss rules there is sufficient evidence to answer for assault with a firearm, (counts 6 through 10) with (spec?) named defendant on each of the counts.  The allegation that the defendant used a hand gun, Judge Giss finds that's true.  The ex-con with a gun allegation, there's sufficient evidence to hold with that count.  Judge Giss rules there will be no bail because it's a special circumstance case. The evidence to support the case is strong.  The arraignment will be held August 14th, 2013 in Dept. N.

Judge Giss then mentions that he appreciates the civility between counsel.  Sometimes it's very unruly, and he appreciates the civility.  Goldstein leans in to speak to his client before he's taken back into custody.

And that's it for the preliminary hearing.

KPCC's Rina Palta's report:
Ka Pasasouk, Northridge man accused of killing 4, to stand trial for murder

Ka Pasasouk Preliminary Hearing Day 3, Part III

From Ka Pasasouk's Facebook Page.

Continued from Day 3, Part II....

UPDATE 11/19: Witness name changed per request

1:00 PM
I ate my lunch quickly in the cafeteria and headed back to the fourth floor to plug in my laptop beside a hallway bench.  The woman sitting on the bench next to me turned out to be Robert Calabia's mother, Alejandra.  She sat next to me in the courtroom several times during the proceedings.

Normally, I do not approach victim's families when I cover a court proceeding. I prefer to give them their privacy.  But Ms. Calabia had spoken to me a day before inside the courtroom when we were seated next to each other.  She had shown me a photograph on her phone. At the time, I wasn't sure which victim she was referring to.  So this time, I ventured where I normally don't go. I asked Ms. Calabia if she was related to one if the victims.  She told me it was her son, Robert.  She showed me a photo on her phone of a smiling, handsome young man.

I asked Ms. Calabia to tell me about her son. Robert, her youngest child was an LVN, nurse.  He worked at Cedars Sinai Hospital, just like she did. So I could get the correct spelling of her first name, she showed me her employee badge, where she worked at Cedars as a certified nursing assistant.

Alejandra told me about her son. "He was a very popular nurse with the patients.  He took good care with the patients."  Robert was a kind person and people were always asking favors of him.  "Because my son had a car, they (friends) often asked him for rides to places." Alejandra also stated that the two women with Robert, "..often came with Robert to my house."

Alejandra told me why Robert drove to the Devonshire residence. "He was there to pick up Jun."  Jun supposedly had called Robert and asked for a ride.  Robert knew Jun because of an ex-girlfriend he dated named Ann (sp?) Ann is Jun's niece. "That's how they all knew each other," Alejandra said.

I do not know how much of this is accurate, regarding why Calabia and his passengers drove to the Devonshire residence. I do not know if the detectives verified if there were phone calls from Jun to Robert or not.

There has been very little in the news about the victims other than their names and photos. It's unknown why Kim and Ghossein were in Calabia's car at 3 AM on the morning of December 2nd. Other than what Ms. Calabia told me about her son, I don't know what the other victims did for a living, if the photos of the child with Ghossein is her daughter, or if she or Kim were married, etc.

Victim Amanda Ghossein's memorial fund Facebook Page shows a beautiful young woman with a young child that could be her daughter.  A similar photo of Ghossein with a young child was included in an LA Times article. Then, Ghossein's mother and aunt spoke to the press about their anger towards Van Nuys Judge Jessica Silver who agreed to let Pasasouk enter a drug program verses being sent back to prison. 

There appears to be a photo of victim Jennifer Kim on a Facebook Donation Page set up for her that matches a photo identified of her on NBC.com.

NBC.com has a photo of Robert Calabia online that looked similar to the photo his mother showed me.  There's also a photo on NBC.com of Teofilo Navales, aka "JoJo Burbank." I also found an Obituary page for Navales, indicating he was married and had three daughters.

July 31st, 2013
1:30 PM
I'm inside Judge Giss's courtroom, Dept. I. There is some friendly banter in the well between Detective Myers and defense attorney James Goldstein.  In the gallery are and older, petite woman and a handsome teen in a white shirt and tie.  I've seen DDA Akemon speak to them several times. I make a guess they are not victim relatives but could be friends or family of Akemon.

The defendant is brought out.  The next witness will be 'Jun' aka as Wanito Mendoza, Jr.  Mendoza will testify in his native language although he understands English.  The female interpreter joins him in the witness box.

8. WANITO MENDOZA, JR. (aka 'Jun')

Mendoza, (Jun) states he's 51 years old.

DA: Do you speak English?
WM: Yes sir.
DA: What is your first language?
WM: Tagalog.
DA: How long have you spoken English?
WM: The (medium?) language in Filipino is English.

Wanito states he spells his name "Jun."  Judge Giss states that the people's exhibit (with the photo of John Doe (Pseudonym per witness request. Sprocket) & Dandy's bedroom and the individuals who were there) has the spelling as "Joon."  The photo exhibit is corrected.

DA: Do you know a person by the name of Ka Pasasouk?
WM: Yes.

Jun is asked how many times he saw the defendant.  He pauses before he answers, as if to try to come up with a figure.  He saw the defendant "around a hundred times."

DA: What is your relationship? Is he a neighbor? A friend?
WM: I just know him.
DA: On December 1st, which was a Saturday, did you go to a residence, 17441 Devonshire St?
WM: Yes sir.
DA: (What time) Did you arrive at that location at?
WM: Approximately 9-10 PM.
DA: When you arrived, did you see Mr. Pasasouk?
WM: Yes sir.
DA: Is Mr. Pasasouk in the courtroom today?

Jun identifies the defendant.  I start to wonder if the interpreter is adding the word "sir" to the witnesses answers herself.  To me, it appears this witness and the last witness that used this same interpreter, their answers were often the same, "Yes sir."  When the male interpreter was being used, the witnesses sounded like they were using the same word for 'yes,' but the male interpreter did not add the "sir" in the English answer.

DA: Did you ever see Mr. Pasasouk with a gun?
WM: Yes sir.
DA: Where was Mr. Pasasouk when you saw him with a gun?
WM: At the second floor.
DA: Do you mean the apartment at the back on the second level?
WM: Yes sir.

Jun was visiting on that day. He knew Howard.

WM: I just know him (Howard), like an acquaintance.
DA: Did you see Mr. Alcantara with a gun?
WM: Yes sir.
DA: Where was Mr. Alcantara when you first saw him with a gun?
WM: Also on the second floor.
DA: Was Ka on the 2nd floor .....
WM: I saw them both together.

Jun is asked to describe the guns.  Jun describes Pasasouk's gun as a 45 mm, but then he wavers and says "It's a maybe 45 mm."

DA: What color was it?
WM: I don't remember.
DA: Where was Ka's gun when you saw it?
WM: In his hand.

Akemon asks about Howard's gun and what it looked like.

WM: That one, it's like a revolver.
DA: Where was Mr. Alcantara's gun?
WM: Also in his hand.
DA: When you saw them with gun, where were they?
WM: When they were on the second floor.  ... He was looking for Christina.
DA: Who was (looking for Christina)?
WM: Ka.

He understood Ka. Ka was speaking ordinary English.

WM: The first one I saw was Ka first. I only saw Ka. The second and third time I saw Howard.

The first time Jun saw Pasasouk, he came into the apartment by himself. He only saw Ka because Jun said, "I was inside the room."  Jun was in the "first room." Ka walked in the front door of the apartment.

DA: that's a living room area?
WM: Yes sir.

Now it's explained that Jun was in the first bedroom, not the living room of the apartment.

WM: The first time, I was in the first bedroom with Ronnie (Ronald) playing cards.

The first bedroom was Ronnie's bedroom. The second bedroom was where Mr. Doe and Dandy (were). The first bedroom was where he saw Ka with the gun.  The first time was when Ka was asking for Christina.

DA: Did he point the gun at you?
WM: No.
DA: Did he poin the gun at anyone?
WM: Yes. ... Ronald.
DA: What happened after ....
WM: Nothing.
DA: Nothing happened and then something was said?
WM: Yes. There was something said.
DA: Do you know what was said?
WM: I don't know exactly, but what I got was, "You also, you also." .... It was to Ronald.
DA: Did you see Ka do anything with Evelyn at that time?
WM: Yes sir. ... He pushed her from the living room.

Akemon asks if a gun was pointed at Evelyn.

WM: Yes sir. ... It was pointed at her and her back.
DA: After Mr. Pasasouk pointed the gun at her and at Ronald did he leave?
WM: Yes sir.
DA: Did he come back?
WM: Yes sir.
DA: When he came back, was he with Howard?
WM: Yes sir.

Jun explains what happened when Pasasouk and Howard came back.

WM: I said that we should get out of there, because Ronald's bedroom had no lock on the door.  .... It's better that I get in the room with a lock.

Jun left Ronald's room and Evelyn went with him. When he went to the other (bedroom) Ronald and Evelyn was with them.  Someone closed the door.  Once in Mr. Doe & Dandy's bedroom, they (Ka and Howard) arrived. Jun told them to open the door.

DA: Who opened the door?
WM: It was probably Ronald. ... I can't remember
DA: When Ronald or someone else opened the door, what did you see?
WM: Ka and Howard. ... They both had guns from before. ... He pointed the gun at Evelyn.

I believe Goldstien objects. He wants to know specifically who had the gun pointed at Evelyn.

DA: When Mr. Pasasouk was in the door, did you see Mr. Pasasouk point a gun at Evelyn?
WM: Yes sir.
DA: Please demonstrate.

Judge Giss describes what the witness does.  The witness used a left and and move it out and did a striking motion. Jun saw Ka hit Evelyn with the gun on the right side of her head.

When I look towards the back of the courtroom on my right, every seat is filled in the right side of the gallery with young Filipino men and women.

WM: Evelyn was able to evade it a bit so it didn't hit her hard.
DA: Did Mr. Pasasouk say anything at that time?
WM: I don't ... I don't know what was exactly going on.  ... Ka was blaming everyone. ... It's like, ah, he was looking for Christina and blaming everyone about it.
DA: Did he mention shooting (threatening to?) Evelyn?
WM: He mentioned that. ... He told Howard.
DA: What did he tell Howard?
WM: He said, "Shoot her. Shoot her."
DA: Did Ka say to shoot Evelyn in order to make an example of her?
WM: Yes, but he did not do it. ... The gun was pointed ... and then he hit Evelyn. ... And Evelyn was able to evade and then he left.
DA: Did Mr. Pasasouk tel Howard to shoot Evelyn?
WM: Yes sir.
DA: But Howard refused?
WM: Yes sir.
DA: Howard had his gun out. Did Evelyn say anything to Mr. Pasasouk when he was threatening her?
WM: Don't shoot me. Don't shoot me." ... Ka left after threatening Evelyn.

DA: After he left, did you hear any voices outside?
WM: No sir.
DA: Did you tell the detective when you were interviewed on January 2nd, 2013, that you heard Ka say, "Put your hands up," outside?
WM: I heard that, but I don't know who exactly.
DA: Did you tell detectives that it was Ka?
WM: I cannot say that because I did not see it. ... I heard something like, "Raise your hands." ... It's hard to say.

DA: After you heard, "Raise your hands," did you hear gunshots?
WM: Yes sir.
DA: How many did you hear?
WM: Five or six.
DA: On January 2nd, do you remember telling detectives that  it was Ka who said, "Put your hands up?"
WM: I can't recall, but I heard it.
DA: Do you recall telling the detective that, "Ka was using a really aggressive voice?"
WM: That was earlier, when he was upstairs.

Jun continues to backtrack on identifying the voice he heard outside as the defendants.

WM: But I don't know who it was really.
DA: Do you remember the detectives asking if you heard Howard's voice?
WM: It's really hard to say. ... Whomever in that position would not know.
DA: How do you feel about testifying today against Mr. Pasasouk?
WM: What do you mean? ... Nothing. ... I feel helpful. ... The truth. Nothing more, nothing less.
DA: Do you feel you know Ka's voice better then or now?

Akemon them moves to another topic.

DA: Have you had any issues in your life with substance abuse?
WM: Yes, there are issues.
DA: Please tell us about them please. ... Are you trying to get help for substance abuse?
WM: No sir.
DA: Were you using drugs on December 1st?
WM: Yes. I tasted it.
DA: What is the drug (you were using)?
WM: It's not my choice. I just tasted it.
DA: Were you doing drugs with Mr. Doe?
WM: No sir.
DA: What kind of drugs were you taking?
WM: No, I didn't take any.

Akemon asks the witness about how many times he's done drugs between the incident in 2012 and today.

WM: Around ten times.
DA: What type of drugs did you use.
WM: I don't know.

Judge Giss steps in to ask a question.

Judge Giss: Were you using drugs on the day of the shooting?
WM: Not at that very moment.
Judge Giss: Were you using drugs within the 24 hours before or after the shooting?
WM: I taste it when it's there.

I believe the court or the defense states the witness is not answering the question. The witness finally states he used meth.  Jun continues to insist that he just "tastes" the drug.  The witness is asked if he sometimes uses meth. " Jun answers, "Not now sir."

DA: Have you in your life used that drug?
WM: Yes sir. I tasted but I don't buy it.

Akemon now confronts the witness about leaving the courthouse yesterday, when he was supposed to be the next witness called.

DA: At some point yesterday did you leave (the courthouse)? ... Did you tell Detective Myers you were leaving?
WM: Yes, we talked on the phone.
DA: When you left the courthouse yesterday, did you do that with permission of Detective Myers or not?

Jun replies that he wasn't able to come back (after lunch) and he told Detective Myers he was coming back in late.

DA: Did you tell Detective Myers you didn't want to come back because you didn't want to be singled out?
WM: I was hungry. ... I was just downstairs, waiting. ... I decided to leave and I thought I would come back at 1:30.
DA: Did you tell Detective Myers that you ...
WM: I said I don't want to be singled out, but I don't know what to do. ... And I was about to be late so I called him. ... Even if I did not say that I told Detective Myers I would be there.

Jun explains that he was driving a bicycle.  He didn't want to be singled out. Judge Giss asks a question but then withdrawals it.  Akemon tries to get more answers from the witness.

DA: Do you remember speaking with Detective Dan Myers?
WM: Yes sir.
DA: When you spoke to him, were you being truthful?
WM: Yes sir.  .... Even now.

Akemon reads back to the witness the conversation he had with Detective Myers, and the statements he made.

DA: "Raise your hands."  Detective Myers asked, "Raise your hands up?" Detective Myers says, "Why says that?" (And you said,) "Ah, ah, Ka of course." Detective Myers says, "Yeah." (And you said, "I assume because I didn't see."  And Detective Myers said, "Don't assume." ... "Did it sound like Ka?" (And you answered,) "Yes. It sounded like Ka."

DA: Did you say that?
WM: But anyone could not be certain because they did not see him.
DA: Did you tell Detective Myers it sounded like Ka?
WM: What I heard was ... It was not a woman. It's not a big voice, or a (?) ... Something like that.
DA: Did you tell Detective Myers you did not hear Howard's voice?
WM: I did not hear.

Direct ends and cross begins. Judge Giss humorously asks defense attorney Goldstein, something to the effect of, "Do you feel up  to it?"  I believe Goldstien smiles in response to the court's question.

Goldstein asks why the witness is using an interpreter.  Jun answers that he's using an interpreter because he doesn't speak good English. Goldstein asks if he had an interpreter when he spoke to Detective Myers.

WM: But when I speak, they could understand me very well.
JG: Do you remember when the Judge asked if you needed an interpreter?
WM: Yes sir.

Jun explains he wanted an interpreter for "technical words."

Goldstien notes that when Jun was interviewed by detectives, it was right after the new year.

JG: Did you go out on New Years eve and do drugs?
WM: No sir. ... I'm just tasting it.
JG: Was that New Year's eve, you were just tasting it?
WM: I can't remember it. ... It's not important.

Judge Giss interrupts and directs a statement to the witness.  "It's important to us your ability to remember.

WM: I can't remember because ... I'm not a drug user.

To me, the testimony almost becomes comical.

JG: Were you using drugs that night?

Judge Giss clarifies for the witness, "He's talking about the night of the shooting."

WM: I just tasted it with Ronald. ... I saw drugs there, so I tasted it.
JG: Was that methamphetamine?
WM: Yes sir.
JG: Were you drinking alcohol?
WM: No, just playing cards.
JG: Was Ronald drinking?
WM: No sir.
JG: What about Evelyn? Was she doing drugs?
WM: I didn't see exactly.
JG: Was there a bottle of alcohol in the living room?
WM: I didn't see anything.
JG: Was there any alcohol?
WM: Maybe there was but I didn't see it.
JG: So you didn't see alcohol in the whole apartment that night?
WM: Maybe there was but I don't remember. ... I don't drink.

Jun states that he had just one interview with the detectives and that he understood the questions.

Cross is finished and there is no redirect.  Akemon and Goldstein exchange a few friendly words and Goldstein smiles.

9. JAMES KING

King is an LAPD detective with the Robbery Homicide unit.  He's been with the department since 1993.  He was one of the investigating officers who assisted in this case.  King has been investigating homicides since March 2001.

King went to the crime scene. He was tasked to search a certain bedroom.  The bedroom was on the first floor to the right of the front door. The front bedroom window was being used to enter and leave the room. That was one way into the room.

King searched a hamper in the bedroom.  He dumped the clothing out and then when through every item piece by piece. He discovered a live cartridge, an unexpended round.

DA: Do you remember what caliber?
JK: 40 caliber.

King told a criminalist at the scene, Bethany Streiffert.  Streiffert photographed the item and collected it.

JK: She told me she placed it in a coin envelope and then that envelope went into an evidence envelope. The item was item number 98 The case number was12-17-21117.

King observed that the closet had two full length mirrors for doors.  Written on the mirror with something red was "Ka call Tarzana treatment" with a phone number with a 310 prefix. There were male pants, a tan color pair of male jeans located in the hamper.

DA: Located in the hamper where the bullet was located?
JK: Correct.

King became aware that items were collected outside.  He became aware that cartridge casings were collected from around the bodies. The lead criminalist, Mandel Medina, told King while processing the scene he collected four casings and booked them into evidence.  These were evidence items numbered 116, 117, 118 and 119.

It's clarified for the record that Kings testimony about the criminalist's actions are coming in under Prop. 115.  Judge Giss states, "The court will take note."

Direct ends and cross begins.

JG: Are you sure the phone number was a 310 prefix?
JK: I'm not sure. I'd have to double check to be specific.

King is asked to give the case number again, the LAPD "DR" number. The detective rattles off the number. He's then asked to explain the breakdown of the number and what it signifies.  The first two digits are the calendar year. The second two digits explain the geographical division that responded to the investigation. The last five numbers are the next number that are assigned by the units (receiving?) unit.

King is asked to give a further explanation as to how those last five digits are assigned.  A data base assigns that part of the case number.  Detective King states he arrived at the crime scene at 19:30 PM, also known as 7:30 PM. Cross ends.

Judge Giss brings up that Pasasouk's other charge/case before Judge Silver trails this case.

DDA Akemon redirects his witness.  The witness clarifies that when he was asked the DR number by Mr. Goldstein, he was one number off. He is allowed to refresh his memory and look at his notes/file. King looks at the property report.  The case number is 12-17-21118.  That's it for redirect and the witness is excused.

To be continued in Day 3, Part IV....

Roger Rosen, Former Phil Spector Attorney's Law Career is Over

 Roger Rosen in 2007,

During the first Phil Spector murder trial.

UPDATE 8/16:
Rosen appeared in a Brooklyn federal courtroom on Wednesday and agreed to give up his law practice and return $22,500.00 in client fees.  Rosen made the deal to avoid prosecution on obstruction of justice charges. The New York Post reported:

Rosen asked the court to permit him to take a honeymoon abroad because he was married just five months ago.

August 2nd, 2013
Roger Rosen, who represented Phil Spector in his first murder trial in the death of Lana Clarkson, has agreed to never practice law again in order to avoid federal obstruction of justice charges.

The New York Daily News reports:

Brooklyn, N.Y., federal prosecutors agreed to defer indicting Roger Rosen for obstructing justice because he is seriously ill, according to documents filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Apparently, Rosen informed alleged drug dealers that his client was singing to the federal government.

In December 2010, when Rosen's then-client Henry Butler started singing to the feds about the drug operation, Rosen sent notes from Butler's talks with prosecutors to Rosemond and his brother Mario Rosemond and crew member Darron Lamont Bennett.

I recently saw Rosen in Judge Ohta's courtroom during a Michael Thomas Gargiulo hearing, but we didn't speak.

I'll never forget Rosen. Back in 2007, he made a complaint to Judge Fidler about my trial coverage.  Apparently, Spector and his new wife didn't like the fact that I was describing in detail the outfits that the trial bride was wearing to court. Rosen made his complaint immediately after Judge Fidler accused me of being the individual who spoke so loudly in court the jury heard me.  I received an apology from Judge Fidler the following week.