Joshua Woodward Prelim Day 1, Part III

Joshua Woodward, after his arrest in 2009.

Continued from Day 1, Part II.....

October 21st, 2013
1:30 PM
The people call Dr. Jessica Kingston.  DDA Rizzo presents the witness. Ms. Kingston is a trim looking blond. She's wearing a black pant suit with a navy and white print blouse.  She looks like she might be in her late 30's or early 40's at the most.  Judge Pastor instructs the witness on testifying.

Dr. Kingston is a physician. She works for UC San Diego.  She's had the position since 2002. She starts to give her CV.  She graduated from Yale Medical School. She started her residency program at UCSD and completed that in 2002. She was offered a job afterwards.  She is an Obstetrician and Gynecologist.

The CV is lengthy and detailed in this specialty. I will not repeat it all.  She has testified as an expert witness several times before. She was state licensed in 1999 and board certified in OBGYN in 2003.  Both of these licenses come from the state. She is also licensed to prescribe DEA controlled medications.  She's involved in teaching and supervising on a daily basis. She gives lectures to 3rd year residents every six weeks. She's the course director for first and second year medical students.  She does very little research. She's not primarily a researcher; primarily, she's a clinician. She keeps up with the literature.

About 2.5 days a week, she sees her own personal patients and supervises residents with their patients. She spends 1.5 days a week on deliveries and 1.5 days a week in surgery.  She delivers anywhere from 100 to 150 babies a year.  She assisted in pregnancy termination as part of her residency.  She gives statistics on approximately how many pregnancies she terminates in her practice and the methods used in the first trimester and the second. Pregnancy termination can be either medically (with drugs) or surgery. She explains a D&C (dilation & curettage) can be done in office or a medical room with some type of anesthesia.

Medical termination of a pregnancy can be done by prescription medications that will expel the pregnancy. These are usually done at home. She names the drugs that are most often used:  Misoprostol and Mifepristone.  Misoprostol is a prostaglandin that causes contractions. It is sometimes used by itself but most often it's used in combination with Mifepristone.  If the fetus is viable, then they use the two medications.  If the pregnancy is non-viable then they use Misoprostol alone.  Mifepristone is an anti-progesterone. It acts to prepare the uterus to be more (receptive?) to Misoprostol.  It causes the death of the lining of the uterus. It's also known as RU-486.

Misoprostol was mainly originally designed to treat ulcers. If a patient is taking Motrin, it prevents ulcers in the stomach.  Off label, in obstetrics and generally out in the world, it's used for the purpose to end pregnancy, to cause contractions. It's used very commonly. There are literally hundreds of published articles related to its use, dosage and to improve patient care. It is widely available by prescription in tablet form. Dr. Kingston uses it in her practice for the management of failed pregnancy in the first trimester and to induce (miscarriage?) in the second trimester. She also uses it to induce labor in the third trimester.  The tablets are round or hexagon shaped. People's exhibit #9, an enlarged photo of two tablets.  (I found a similar photo on Kaiser Permamente's web site. This image looks similar to People's exhibit #9. Sprocket)

100 micrograms tablet

The trade name for the drug is Cytotec. Dr. Kingston is not aware of the drug being available in powder form in the US. She has never prescribed it in powder form.  Her practice is to first prescribe Mifepristone followed by a day or two later, Misoprostol.  This is the best an safest method. The first drug prepares the uterus.  Misoprostol can be used alone in the first trimester. It is dose dependent.  The more doses given, the more effective it is. As dosage increases, the potential for side effects increases. In the second trimester, the two drugs is the best way.  Dosage depends on the gestational age of the fetus. Typically, 400 micrograms is taken every three hours.

(In the second trimester?), she would not recommend it be done at home.  Typically done at the hospital. There is a risk of bleeding. The patient also may need surgical intervention.  It's risky for the mother to do at home.

MR: Are there differences in gestational age as for as effectiveness?
JK: It depends on the dosage and the time frame administered .... medically. ... As gestation advances ... use smaller doses.

In the second trimester, medical termination is not common.  Surgical procedures are 80 to 90%.  Medical termination is 10- 20%.  In the third trimester it's used to induce labor and help treat hemorrhaging and stopping bleeding.

Dr. Kingston is given a series of hypothetical questions about a patient pregnant at four weeks, twelve weeks and thirteen weeks, and how effective Misoprostol would be if given alone.  At four weeks: Dr. Kingston states that without knowing the dose, it's hard to answer.  But it the patient was given a dose that's effective, then there's 40 to 80% chance it will be effective (cause miscarriage).  800 micrograms would be more effective than 200 micrograms. A lower dose could be given, but the percentage of causing a miscarriage would be closer to 40%.  A higher dose, a higher percentage of success.

A patient at 12 weeks in their pregnancy, a low dose may not be effective, or it could take longer.  A low does could be effective. It either wouldn't work or take longer.  A higher dose is more likely to work and take less time.

A patient at 13 weeks in their pregnancy would probably be very similar. It's dose dependent and the success rate would depend on the amount of the dose.  The other issue is how often would it be given.

The medication could be given orally, vaginally or rectally. It's also been given to be absorbed into the gums. Some studies say give the medication orally; some say vaginally.  Some studies say vaginally is better, other studies contradict that.  It depends on patient care.  Age is not a factor. The factors are gestational age, amount of dose and frequency.  Orally, pill by mouth. Buccal, tablet places sublingually.  Vaginally, placed vaginally.  Rectal, placed rectally.  The entire pill is placed in these areas.  Some centers have gone away from vaginally, possibly because of infection.

Dr. Kingston prescribes to her patients vaginally.  With vaginal insertion, side effects are less.  Side effects are nausea, fever, diarrhea and abdominal cramping.  This is seen in 5-10% of patients. Higher doses cause more side effects.  Another possible side effect is wooziness, malaise. The process is faster with vaginal placement verses oral. Dr. Kingston has seen that in her practice as well as in the literature.  Dr. Kingston states that if a patient experiences side effects, they would occur one to two hours after administering the medication. The timing would be dose dependent as well.

Dr. Kingston is asked about ultrasound and how it's used in monitoring pregnancy. She testifies she has performed approximately thousands of ultrasounds. One of the uses is to determine gestational age.  Lots of information about pregnancy can be determined with this test. Dr. Kingston explains the nuchal translucency test which is part of an ultrasound screening.  It refers to a measurement that's taken during an ultrasound in the later part of the first trimester.  It's used to identify a patient or fetus risk of chromosome abnormality.  There are other measurements taken; it's just a part of an ultrasound.

Dr. Kingston reviewed Ms. Doe's medical records.  The defense will stipulate to the Cedar Sinai medical records.  The court accepts the stipulation for the preliminary hearing only.   Dr. Kingston reviewed 51 pages of medical records, presented as people's exhibit #10.  Another packet of images, people's exhibit #11 consist of 33 images in all. (Ultrasound images. Sprocket.)

Dr. Kingston reviewed the documents before today.  She is asked to look at a particular page of the report, stamped EVID 1627, an ultrasound report. She's seen this type of report in her practice many times.  She goes over several of the notations and code words in the report.  To date a pregnancy, the method is to use a combination of the ultrasound and date of the last menstrual period. It helps physicians determine how far along a pregnancy is.

An ultrasound conducted on Ms. Doe on October 8th, 2009 calculated the gestational age as 11 weeks, 5 days.  The estimated due date from that ultrasound was April 24th, 2010.  A program is used to calculate the age and estimated due date. The notations and programs used in the ultrasound are standard in the OBGYN community.  If the ultrasound is done well that estimate could be within a week of the actual due date.

Another page of Ms. Doe's medical records, EVID 1611.  This is the ultrasound that also included the nuchal translucent test on October 13th, 2009.  I believe Dr. Kingston states there were no abnormalities noted in the test.  Dr. Kingston is asked to go over the ultrasound images, people's exhibit #11.

I look over at the couple on the defense side whom I believe are Woodward's parents.  The woman is sharply dressed in a gray and black suit with what looks to be a light gray sweater and a burgundy necklace. She's wearing tortoise looking glasses and black knee high boots. Her gray hair is nicely styled in a type of wedge cut that comes down around her jaw line. The man has longish gray hair, a full beard and a bit of a portly belly.

I believe there are many images in people's #11, and the prosecution presents about six or seven of them. Dr. Kingston points out the features in the images that show the parts of the baby.  The basic anatomical features are outlined in this fetus.

From the report of October 13th, 2009, based on all the measurements taken, the gestational age of the fetus was 12 weeks and 2 days. The fetus was in the second trimester.  After a review of the report and a review of the images, Dr. Kingston agrees that the gestational age on that date was 12 weeks and 2 days.

MR: Based on the images and review of the report, did there appear to be any fetal abnormalities?
JK: There are no fetal abnormalities documented on the report. .. All documents ... as being within normal limits.
MR: And your opinion, based on your review of this report, so far, was the pregnancy proceeding normally and viably?

I believe the witness answers "Yes."  Judge Pastor interrupts the proceeding to take the afternoon break.

Afternoon Break
At the break, Judge Pastor's court reporter, Mavis, is kind enough to give me the correct spellings of the two medications as well as names of the defense counsel. Mavis is an excellent court reporter. I first got to know her during the retrial of Cameron Brown back in July and August 2009.

2:59 PM
I see Woodward going over a legal notepad he had been writing in earlier.

3:01 PM
Dr. Kingston retakes the stand. A minute later, Judge Pastor retakes the bench.  Detective Shafia is excused and ordered back at 9:00 AM tomorrow.

DDA Rizzo presents Dr. Kingston with a hypothetical.  A pregnant female is given a 'Jamba Juice.' She drinks half the drink.  A half hour later, the female begins to experience vomiting, diarrhea, cramping.

MR: Is it consistent with consuming Misoprostol?
JK: Yes.

Continuing with the hypothetical.  A man inserts his fingers into the woman's vagina over several hours during foreplay.  At 8:00 AM, she experiences chills, vomiting, diarrhea, cramping. Going to the bathroom, she sees blood on the toilet paper.  She feels pressure in her abdomen area. Sitting on the toilet, she expels water, clots and then her fetus.

MR: Is that consistent with vaginal exposure to Misoprostol?
JK: Yes.

This is her expert opinion based on onset of symptoms, her background and experience.  Dr. Kingston states that most spontaneous miscarriages (those without medical intervention) usually occur before the 10 weeks of gestational age.  Five to ten percent of pregnancies miscarry. 80 to 85% occur prior to the 10 week period.

JK: It is rare to see spontaneous miscarriages .... in the second trimester ... based on a normal pregnancy.
MR: What are some medical reasons for spontaneous miscarriages?
JK: If the fetus is chromosomally abnormal ... if infection ... (the patient has) undergone amniocentesis ... accident ... or the mother is exposed to a toxin.
MR: Would Misoprostol ... could be considered a toxin?
JK: If it's not expected.
MR: After reviewing Ms. Doe's medical records ... do you have an opinion (if?) she suffered from (chromosome abnormality?)?
JK: The possibility of that was low.
MR: ... Cystic Fibrosis... ?
JK: ... no indication ...
MR: ... illicit substances ... ?
JK: (Ms. Doe was?) ... screened for it after (the miscarriage?). ... no indication.

There was no evidence of infection or injury to Ms. Doe.

MR: After a review of her medical records, was Ms. Doe healthy?
JK: Yes.
MR: Was the fetus healthy?
JK: Yes.
MR: (Based on your background?) ... In your opinion was the miscarriage of Ms. Doe's in fact a natural event?
JK: Highly unlikely.
MR: (Please) list your reasons.

The pregnancy was normal. The gestational age. I believe there are more reasons listed that I miss. Dr. Kingston is asked as to the chance the miscarriage being a chance of spontaneous abortion.

JK: For this patient, based on patent's history, ... the chance that this was a spontaneous miscarriage would be less than one percent possibility. ...

The patient experienced vomiting. A woman who has a spontaneous miscarriage doesn't typically have chills, vomiting, nausea, diarrhea.

There is an objection to one of the questions and the objection is sustained.

MR: Assume the patient experienced nausea, vomiting. .. In your experience, would this be a spontaneous event?
JK: No.

In Dr. Kingston's opinion, Ms. Doe's miscarriage was due to an abortifacient specifically Misoprostol.

3;15 PM
Direct is finished and Kelly T. Currie steps up to cross examine the witness.  Mr. Currie takes the podium over to the defense table prior to his cross. Mr. Currie takes out several files.  In a slow, even monotone, Mr. Currie introduces himself to the witness. He also tells the witness if there is any question that they don't understand, to let him know and he will repeat it.

Dr. Kingston is asked when she was first contacted by the prosecution.

JK: I can't remember the specific date. Probably 1.5 to 2 years ago.
KC: Who was it (who contacted you?)?
JK: Ms. Rizzo.
KC: (You were?) retained by the District Attorney?
JK: Yes.
KC: What was it you were asked (to do?)?
JK: To review reports and render an opinion.

Previously, Dr. Kingston worked for the Medical Board of California as an expert, similar to today. She's testified five times before.  Her work for the medical board involved medical malpractice.  The type of cases were standard of care cases; a doctor being sued for malpractice in cases over $30,000.  She is being compensated today for her work. She's never been retained in a criminal case before.  Dr. Kingston is asked if she is a pharmacologist or a toxicologist.  No, she isn't. Ms. Doe was never Dr. Kingston's patient. She never examined Ms. Doe. She never spoke to Ms. Doe by phone or had any conversations with her before.

Dr. Kingston prepared a report for the District Attorney.  She reviewed medical records and investigative reports.

JK: This is the complete set of medical records I reviewed.
KC: You said you looked at witness statements?
JK: I believe they are police reports.
KC: (I'm) going to ask you to look at a documents to see if they are the basis of your opinion today.

Mr. Currie hands the witness a 3-ring binder with divider tabs. Counsel also gives a copy to the court. The people have no objection. Judge Pastor indicates the binder contents are alphabetically marked.

The first document in the file is EVID 31-32. A (continuation?) sheet and injury report.  Dr. Kingston states it looks familiar. She can't tell for certain. In preparing for her testimony today, she reviewed her report she prepared.   I believe the next document presented is a statement by Ms. Doe. Dr. Kingston states she can't be 100% certain, but that it looks familiar.

KC: Did you look at crime lab reports?
JK: Yes.
KC: EVID 62-63. Request by Detective Shafia ... reviewed in this case?
JK: Yes.
KC: EVID 64 (is this one document you reviewed?)?
JK: Yes.
KC: EVID 65 (is this one document you reviewed?)? ... Inter-department correspondence?
JK: Yes.

And it went on. Questions about several documents and if she reviewed this document to form her opinion. EVID 66, report of drug property collected.  EVID 67, receipt from DEA.  EVID 68, DEA lab report. EVID 69 LAPD lab report reviewed. EVID 70 US DEA, report, drug property collected. EVID 71 receipt for cash or other items. EVID 72 lab report from Dept. of Justice.

KC: Did you review any other criminal or lab report?
JK: No, not that I recall.
KC: EVID 79-82, appears to be an investigative report, related to Ms. Doe.
JK: Yes.
KC: These are all the documents the prosecution provided to you?
JK: Yes.
KC: EVID 88-89, another follow-up, LAPD investigative report?
JK: Yes.

She reviewed a statement that appears to be from Ms. Doe on 10/27.

KC: EVID 96-101, report about interview of Ms. Doe on 10/24/10. ... Is that a document you reviewed?
JK: Yes.
KC: Tab 17, Defense exhibit A, ... appear to be EVID 493-517 ... is that a document ... appears to be a transcript of Mr. Woodward's (statement?)
JK: Yes.
KC: Do you remember seeing any other interview reports/
JK: No other interview reports.
KC: (Did you?) Review any recording of ... interview (of Ms. Doe?)?
JK: No.
KC: You ultimately prepared a report for the (DA? prosecution?) ... March 29th, 2012 ... ?
JK: I don't remember the exact date.
KC: (It?) was in June 2012 you prepared a report?
JK: Yes.

Mr. Currie would like to mark for identification, defense B, purports to be communication between the district attorney and Dr. Kingston.  EVID 518, a letter to Dr. Kingston from DDA Rizzo, dated March 29th 2012.  It's related to her being retained by the prosecution.   EVID 529, a letter that Dr. Kingston wrote to Ms. Rizzo related to this case. Dr. Kingston's report is three and a half pages long. EVID 530, 531, 532, 533.

KC: In preparing this report, did you speak to any witnesses?
JK: No.
KC: Speak to any med(ical? personnel?) reviewed in (these reports?)?
JK: No.
KC: Speak to detectives who prepared reports?
JK: No.
KC: Speak to lab technicians in regards to ... lab work or testing?
JK: No.
KC: Do you remember ... Did you keep track ...  how many hours ... working on this matter?
JK: The time from reading the records and literature review ... approximately five hours.

Dr. Kingston listed in her report, reference literature.  She believes she looked at more literature beyond what she listed in her report, but only listed the literature she thought "were the most authoritative." She did not prepare any other drafts of her report.

KC: Did you speak to the prosecutors about what should be included?
JK: No.
KC: ... report .. summary of facts ... you thought were most relevant to your opinion?
JK: Yes.
KC: Is (there?) anything in the report that's based on (other information?)?
JK: No.

Mr. Currie then asks Dr. Kingston, based on her experience, about the information she gathers for a patient, the questions she would ask about the patient history and lifestyle. This is to determine the patient health and to determine unhealthy behavior that could impact the pregnancy.  The reason to ask specific questions is to determine the risk factors. There are certain things Dr. Kingston would look for.

KC: Spontaneous miscarriage refers to loss of pregnancy without outside influence or interference?
JK: Yes.

Ms. Doe's age, 39 was the only identifiable risk factor Dr. Kingston considered.  When the mother's age is above 35, there is a risk for chromosomal abnormalities.  If the fetus has chromosomal abnormalities, that's a risk for pregnancy loss.  It's recommended that pregnant women have their first OBGYN appointment within the first trimester.  Risks for pregnancy increase with advanced age.

KC: Cigarette smoking, is it a risk?
JK: It's controversial.

More than a pack a day (would be risky) but it's hard to say based on the evidence.  Dr. Kingston would not recommend continuing to smoke to her patients. It could cause constriction of blood vessels. It could also cause blood clots that could get to the fetus.  It has not been definitely proven.  Mr. Currie asks about second hand smoke.

JK: I can't recall if I saw ... but the literature doesn't support that it's a direct cause.

If Ms. Doe was Dr. Kingston's patient, she would definitely ask if she was a smoker. EVID 1621, documentation of a visit with Dr. Timothy Tsui, half way down the page it states tobacco use "non-smoker."

JK: I don't believe I considered it at all ... considering it said (Ms. Doe?) non-smoker.

Defense exhibit C is presented to the witness. It's a medical record obtained from Cedar Sinai that was not part of the documentation introduced by the prosecution.  I'm not sure if thee is an objection, but I believe DDA Balian stipulates to the chain of custody of the records. DDA Balian who adds that the documents appear to be, ... not a complete set of records.  It's an imaging report on Ms. Doe. An examination from April 27th, 2009, approximately three months before she became pregnant.  It appears there were two views of her chest that were taken.  The report says the patient was a smoker.

KC: Is it your opinion that (medical?) information is provided by the patient?
JK: It's elicited in the course of taking a history.
KC: It April 2009, it appears patient was a smoker?
MR: Objection!
JP: Sustained. (As to the form of the question.)
KC: Dr. Kingston, if you were Ms. Doe's obstetrician, and (she is?) a 39 year old expectant mother, would you want to know if she was a smoker for pregnancy risk?
JK: From the point of overall health ... The records I reviewed said she was a non-smoker.

Mr. Currie asks about alcohol use. The word teratogen is introduced.  It's a substance or medication that can cause abnormalities.

KC: Is alcohol use something that could cause spontaneous abortions?
JK: Yes.

Dr. Kingston would recommend to her patients to abstain from drinking.

KC: Do you see anything in the medical reports where (the? her?) doctor asked about alcohol use?
JK: There is a question about caffeine and other drugs but I don't see alcohol asked specifically. ... I don't see it specifically documented.
KC: Do you see anything in the police report where the police asked about alcohol use?
JK: No.

I believe Dr. Kingston states she would not have considered it since she didn't have the information in the medical reports.

KC: Did you know she worked as a bartender?
MR: Objection!
JP: Sustained!
KC: Is caffeine consumption something you would consider as a risk for spontaneous abortion?
JK: ... more than 300 mg per day. ... (That's) two 8 oz. cups of coffee.
KC: Is it considered a risk in spontaneous abortions?
JK: Yes, in amounts more than 300 mg. per day.

Mr. Currie presents people's 10, EVID 1623. The report indicates Ms. Doe had caffeine about once a day, and asked if there was evidence that Ms. Doe consumed more than that.

JK: The evidence (in the literature?)  is that it's a risk for first trimester loss.

If there was evidence (of more consumption?) she would consider it.   Other drugs are mentioned.

KC: Is cocaine use a risk factor for pregnancy loss?
JK: Yes.
KC: Ms. Doe was asked about drug use?
JK: Yes.
KC: ... and that other drug use (on a history form) is usually refers to illicit drugs?
JK: That's a fair assumption.
KC: Did you see anything in ... police report whether or not she used illegal drugs?
MR: Objection!
JP: Sustained.
KC: If there was in the police report ... Is there any information in your review that ...
JK: there was a test done on her after losing the pregnancy. ... test for cocaine use and that test was negative.
KC: Would you know about a test on hair for cocaine use?
JK: I'm not familiar. ... don't typically test (hair?). ... The test we use is urine.

Mr. Currie asks Dr. Kingston about the fact that Ms. Doe had an elective abortion in 2003. He directs her to her report, page 2.

KC: You write ... "her past history ... one pregnancy terminated in 2003 without complications?"
JK: Yes.
KC: Did I read that correct?
JK: Yes. ... I made an assumption that it ... based on how it was documented in the chart ... a doctor will document more in the second trimester ...
KC: So the absence of notation ... like you described ... as to how the procedure was done ... and that was the basis of first trimester?
JK: Yes.

The risks to have an elective abortion are reviewed. Infection, ongoing bleeding, damage to the cervix. Dr. Kingston states these risks are less than 1 per 1,000.  In the second trimester, the complications are more severe. It is less than 1 per 1,000 that it could affect future fertility.

JK: The lack of information leads me to believe it (the elected abortion) was in the first trimester.
KC: Were the records to 2003 made available to you?
JK: No.
KC: do you know if 2003 records were made available to her doctor?
JK: It was based on ... there was no information in her medical records that documented complications (of the elected abortion).
KC: Are you familiar with reports that show a link between elected abortions and risk of miscarriage?
JK: Yes.
KC: Did you consider that her pregnancy ...
JK: There's no consistent reports in the literature to support that.

There are other studies that refute that. Dr. Kingston states there are more studies, a preponderance of evidence supports that there is not an increased risk that having an elective abortion increases the risk of miscarriage in the future.  I believe Dr. Kingston is asked about if she considered infection and it's risks in her opinion.  Infection can affect the fetus and cause malformations. There are questions about penicillin and allergies to penicillin.  There is a notion in Ms. Doe's medical records that she became aware of an allergy to the drug on July 25th, 2007.  The patient had a past medical history of chronic UTI's (urinary tract infections).

KC: Did you consider that (UTI's?) in her risk?
JK: It's only a problem if she has a current infection.

Ms. Doe's medical records indicate that she was prescribed Cipro for a bladder infection in her first month of pregnancy.

JK: I recall seeing previous records from previous (doctors?) that treated bladder infections.
KC: When was that?
JK: When she saw Dr. Crystal (sp?) on August 21st.

4:10 PM
EVID 1631, documents the lab result for that day.  She had acute visit with Dr. Crystal EVID 1637 on August 20th.

KC: She was having frequent urination? ... Is it associated with being pregnant?
JK: It can be.

The medical reports indicate she was prescribed medication. The result of the urine analysis was negative.  Dr. Kingston states that sometimes physicians prescribe if they have a suspicion, so it's hard to say.  It appeared in Ms. Doe's medical records as being prescribed.

JK: It's on her list. ... but there's no chart note that she's actually taking it.

Ms. Doe's medical history indicated that she was sexually active. Her current form of contraceptive indicated "None." There are more questions about Ms. Doe's medical history and medications she was prescribed in the past and whether or not those medications are a risk for miscarriage.

Judge Pastor interrupts the cross examination to ask counsel about picking a future date for this witness to come back.  Tomorrow the prosecution has Detective Shafia back on the stand as well as two other expert witnesses: the toxicologist who tested evidence and Dr. Tsui, Ms. Doe's doctor.  There is an agreement that tomorrow they will begin with the experts and finish with the detective, but picking a date for Ms. Kingston to come back becomes problematic.  The court tells counsel Dept. 51 is dark on Friday and Monday.  The week of November 4th, Ms. Levine has jury duty, and another time frame Ms. Levine is out of town.  November 11th is a court holiday.  They could tentatively set for November 4th, but Mr. Currie is in NY and would have to arrange travel .  The defense states they have about another 30 minutes of cross of Dr. Kingston.  Monday's are best for Dr. Kingston, so the date for her to return is November 18th at 1:30 PM.

However, there is another serious issue that Judge Pastor informs counsel. It has to do with a lapse in the preliminary hearing proceedings that goes beyond 10 days. That would violate the defendant's rights. There are consequences without a waiver from the defendant.  The defendant is out on 4 mil bond.  If a waiver is not received from the defendant, the court would be obligated to release the defendant on his own recognizance.  Joshua Woodward waived his right to have his preliminary hearing within the 10 day time frame, and the long break between today and November 18th.

And that was it for the first day of the prelim.

Joshua Woodward Prelim Day 1, Part II

 Joshua Woodward, after his arrest in 2009.

Continued from Day 1.....

October 21st 2013, Morning Session.
(Continuing with Detective Shafia's testimony under Prop 115 regarding what Ms. Doe told him. Sprocket.)

Ms. Doe thought that the whole process of Woodward reaching into the backpack, putting his fingers inside her and then going to the restroom afterwards was Woodward masturbating. She did inquire as to what he was doing. (I miss the detective's answer.)  The last time he reached into his backpack his phone lit up.

Ms. Doe stated that one time, between the third and fourth time, she felt like Woodward was hurting her, and she asked him to stop.  He was pushing his hand and fingers insider her vagina too hard. Before he left that night, she grabbed his hands, and her hands immediately started itching.  One of them asked the other if they were okay, and then Woodward left, around 7:00 AM.

Ms. Doe told Detective Shafia that the issue was the phone light coming on. (He?) moved away from the bed. Ms. Doe said he was down there with his phone, with his backpack. She saw this and said, "What the fuck are you doing?"  Ms. Doe said that Woodward replied that he was checking his emails.  Ms. Doe demonstrated for Detective Shafia what Woodward was doing. He was on his knees and had something in his hand, moving around inside the back pack.

Around 8:30 to 9:00 AM, she started to have severe cramping. At 10:00 AM, her cramping was more severe and she was throwing up, nauseous. "She was describing cramps like she had never felt before."

HB: Did she tell you how long?
JS: Until around 2:00 PM.

She was able to get to sleep then woke up around 5:30 PM.  Ms. Doe was still throwing up.  She moved to the bathroom and found spotting in her underwear. Ms. Doe's cramping was in her lower abdominal area. She took off that pair of thong underwear and changed to a larger turquoise pair.  She was still cramping. At some point, she noticed spotting in the turquoise underwear. She also noticed a white powder in her turquoise underwear. She went and looked at the thong underwear, and thought she found a similar powder.

She continued to have abdominal cramps. They got more severe and she started to have more blood come out. She called her sister and best friend McKell (sp?) for advice about what was happening.  She put tissue paper in her underwear.  The advice she received was that her symptoms were not a miscarriage.

Detective Shafia testifies, "She told me that she felt some excess come out of her."  Then she saw the baby come out of her ... the head, arms, and legs. ... Her demeanor changed. she was crying." 

Eventually her friend McKell showed up. Ms. Doe and her friend called the doctor at Cedar's Sinai Hospital.  The doctor told her there was nothing they could do.  The doctor recommended flushing the baby down the toilet.  Ms. Doe couldn't do it. Her friend couldn't do it.  Eventually her friend's husband flushed the baby.

On October 25th, Detective Shafia spoke to a Dr. Barry Brock.  "He told me it was an unusual phone call he received. ... He told them to flush the baby."

Ms. Doe went to the doctor on Monday at 2:00 PM.  After the 19th, 2:00 PM, she was no longer pregnant.  Detective Shafia had a discussion with Ms. Doe on whether or not to tell the defendant about the miscarriage.   Ms. Doe brought the topic up. She was very upset. She didn't want to tell him about the miscarriage.  She talked about Dateline and those shows.  She wanted to withhold the information from the defendant and have an investigation progress.

Detective Shafia's position was that she was upset, very emotional. It would have to be a choice that she made, if she did that.

Detective Shafia had another contact with Ms. Doe on October 21st. Ms. Doe called him about getting video from her apartment building and who she needed to call. She also told Detective Shafia that the defendant would be in Los Angeles on October 24th.  At that point in time, and the next day, Detective Shafia was able to do research and call the District Attorney and had formulated a plan to deal with the case.

Detective Shafia told Ms. Doe his plan and asked if she would participate and pretend she was still pregnant. Detective Shafia asks Ms. Doe to tell Woodward about her severe cramping that happened. That the doctor told her that if she ever did that again, she would miscarry and not have the baby.

The following day, Detective Shafia confirmed the defendant would fly in the next day. Ms. Does understood the information and relayed it to the defendant.

On October 25th, 2009, Detective Shafia took the lead role in the case. On October 25th, he went to the area of Ms. Doe's apartment building.  He arrived in the area around 1 AM.  He had Officer Javier Hernandez with him. He went to the parking lot of a Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), which is across the street from the building.

11:35 AM
People's exhibits #2, #3 and #4, are photos of the area.  People's #2 is an aerial photo of the apartment complex. Detective Shafia identifies where the apartment is in the photo, and marks on the photo where he parked in the KFC parking lot.  People's #3, more close up photo, that shows the buildings around the KFC.  KFC is on the NE corner of Hauser and 3rd Street.  People's #4, photo of KFC parking lot. This photo was taken at a different time than Oct 25th.  Detective Shafia marks on the photo the original position where he was parked.  The car he was driving was a 2007 Ford Crown Vic, 4 Door, dark gray with emergency equipment inside.

People's exhibits #5, people's #6, and people's #7, more photos.  People's #5 is another photo of the intersection of 3rd and Hauser.  People's #6, street view facing west bound.  People's #7, gate entrance directly across the street of the apartment complex.  The gate referenced in the photo is directly across the street from a portion of the KFC.  The handicap ramp at KFC is identified. There is a direct, diagonal line from (the gate?) to the handicap ramp outlined in the people's exhibits.

People's exhibit #8, another photo of Fuller and 3rd Street at the KFC.

On that day, Detective Shafia was not wearing his police uniform.  He was parked in that location because it was the best observation point where the victim said Joshua Woodward commonly entered the building.

The detective is asked to describe the neighborhood and the types of businesses.  Above 3rd Street, there's primarily residential buildings.  South of 3rd street, there are a number of multi-story buildings.  The only business on the north side is the KFC and a few others.

Detective Shafia and his partner were still in the vehicle at 3:00 AM. There were no businesses open. Detective Shafia doesn't recall seeing any foot traffic at that time in the morning.  At approximately 3:15 AM on October 25th, Detective Shafia and his partner observed a person.

Defense attorney Janet Levine states the defense will stipulate that it was Mr. Woodward.  DDA Balian would still like to have the defendant identified.  Detective Shafia states he recognizes the defendant. "He's waring a brownish-green suit and a blue tie."

Detective Shafia is asked were 8 oz Burger (aka Table 8) is located in relation to People's #2.  "It's somewhat northeast of this location."  People's #4 is presented.

HB: When you first observed the defendant, where was he?
JS: He was walking westbound on the sidewalk.

Detective Shafia places an X with an arrow on the exhibit.  Detective Shafia had already pulled forward and out into the drive. His headlights were on the defendant.  Mr. Woodward continued to walk westbound on the sidewalk. After he passed him, he pulled into the street westbound and ultimately made his way to the handicap ramp.  Detective Shafia pulled his car into blocking the back of the handicap ramp to block Woodward's line of travel.  Detective Shafia shows where on the map the movements he just described.  It appeared to Detective Shafia that Woodward was going to walk down the handicap ramp onto the street.  As he pulled up, the defendant kept walking. As the car blocked the ramp, he pulled up a bit so his partner could exit the vehicle.  Detective Shafia observed the defendant changed his direction.

Officer Hernandez quickly exited the car and addressed the defendant.

JS: I believe my partner said, "Are you Joshua Woodward?" ... He changed his direction to the car, walking northward.

Detective Shafia was still inside the car. He observed the defendant facing (his partner?) and asked if he was Joshua Woodward.  The defendant answered, "Yes."  He reached both hands into his front pockets of his pants, as if to get identification.

Then the defendant turned slightly to the right and pulled his hands out of his pockets.  He then observed the defendant rubbing, or grinding his right hand into his pants just below the pocket.  Detective Shafia didn't see anything in the defendant's hand at that time. He then observed a small piece of clear plastic fall to the ground out of the defendant's hand. To Detective Shafia, it appeared like the defendant was grinding something into his pants. Detective Shafia immediately grabbed Woodward's left hand. He then pushed Woodward back into Officer Hernandez. This move was to separate the defendant from the dropped item. Detective Shafia asked the defendant, "Joshua, what was that in your hand?"

There's an objection by the defense on Miranda issues.

12:00 PM
The lunch break is called. 

1:30 PM
I believe I am the only person in the gallery who is not related to or a part of the defense team.  There are quite a few here.  Ms. Levine and Mr. Currie are at the defense table.  There is another attorney of record on the case, Megan Weisgerber who is sitting in the chairs directly behind the defense table. There is a black gentleman who is sitting next to her.  This could be another attorney or the defense investigator.

In the gallery, there are three attorney's sitting in the front row, spread out. From memory, all of them have a legal note pad and are taking notes.  Sitting in the 3rd row directly behind me is a woman who I mostly saw work on a laptop and a man beside her who was often working his cell phone.

Over on the other side of the aisle, there was a youngish looking slender man with gray hair who is in the front row.  I believe he is also taking notes. In the row behind him are an older couple who, from the body language and from observing them communicate with the defendant, I believe they are most likely the defendant's parents. Sitting to the mother's right is a younger looking man who also has a notepad.

There are two men sitting in the third row far off to my left.  They are both all dressed in black. Black suits, black shirts black ties. At first, I thought they might be security for the defendant, but I've not seen them interact with the defendant.  They didn't act like Phil Spector's bodyguards did during his two trials. I have not seen them interact with the attorneys either.  My only guess is that they could be drivers for the family and/or the defense team.

When we go back on the record, Judge Pastor asks counsel if they wish to deal with the objection by the defense.  The people inform the court they wish to keep that issue pending and interrupt Detective Shafia's testimony to take the testimony of an out-of-town, expert witness.

To be continued in Day 1, Part III.....

Cameron Brown 3rd Trial, Pretrial 12

 Inspiration Point, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

UPDATED 10/26: 7:00 AM rest of the proceeding added
UPDATED 1:00 PM clarity, spelling
 
October 25th, 2012
8:20 AM
I’m back on the 9th floor of the downtown Los Angeles criminal court building, my ‘home away from home’ so to speak.  Already here on the ninth floor is Cameron Brown’s wife, Patty Brown.  I see she had one of her legs up on the cement benches, relaxing.

For new readers who are unfamiliar with the case, Brown allegedly threw his four-year-old daughter, Lauren Sarene Key, off a 120 ft. cliff in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA on November 8th, 2000.  Prosecutors believe Brown hated the child’s mother and killed Lauren to avoid paying child support. He is awaiting his third trial.  His first two trials ended in hung juries. Currently, the criminal proceedings are on a 1368 hold while Brown’s competency to stand trial is determined.  A few months ago, Brown informed the court he wanted to pursue representing himself.  His current court appointed counsel, Aron Laub wrote a declaration to the court, in an effort to block Brown from seeking self representation.


8:29 AM
I see Brown’s defense counsel clear security and head down this way. Laub heads directly to Patty and she hands him some papers that are from her husband.

At 8:30 the courtroom opens and I head inside. I'll have an update later this evening on today's proceedings.

8:37 AM
Before court opened, DDA Hum had arrived in the hallway with an attractive, younger assistant.  After Dept. 107 opened, we all went inside.   It appears there is another case that will be heard. There's a man in a wheelchair with tattoos on each side of his neck, just behind his ears. I don't know if he's a defendant or a witness.

8:39 AM
Judge Lomeli comes out and addresses counsel. "We're ready? Let's do it."  Laub and Hum head back to Judge Lomeli's chambers. I stand up to peek over the the prosecution table and see that the court reporter's equipment is still inside the courtroom. This tells me the in camera session with the judge is off the record.

Patty Brown is sitting to my left. She turns to me and says, "Excuse me. Do you know what date we were last here?"  I tell her I need to check my computer.  I open my laptop and look at the Quick Links page. I tell her, "September 20th." "Thank you," she replies.

There are a few counsel who have entered the courtroom.  A man from the DA's office comes in pushing a tall, stainless steel rolling cart.  He sets it by the prosecution table and then goes to the back of the courtroom to chat with another tall, bald headed defense attorney wearing a black suit and pink tie. At some point, the bailiff brings in a suit that is draped over one of the chairs at the defense table. I don't see any notebooks on the chairs in the jury box, so I'm wondering why a defendant would be getting into civilian clothes if there's no jury.  It could be for a sentencing.

Another prosecutor enters and sits at the people's table. Another defense attorney I've seen around the courthouse enters, greets the two counsel by the courtroom door then heads over to check in with the clerk.

8:50 AM
Judge Lomeli, DDA Hum and Mr. Laub come out from chambers. Judge Lomeli informs the bailiff to bring Brown out.  The bailiff tells the judge that he's on another floor and it will be another ten minutes.  Mr. Laub exits the courtroom. Judge Lomeli has a conversation with the prosecutor on the other case where he's reading to make a ruling on one of their motions.  Judge Lomeli then chats with the defense attorney in the black suit about a case he has in another courthouse.  Judge Lomeli comments, "It's an interesting case."

The man in the wheelchair is a witness. He's ordered back for another date.

9:00 AM
Mr. Laub reenters Dept. 107. Judge Lomeli goes on the record in the other case. The hearing is brief. Terri Keith from City News drops in. She had heard there was a 1368 hearing.

Judge Lomeli is having a friendly chat with his bailiff about the bailiff in the adjoining court, Dept. 108, Judge Ohta's courtroom.  It appears that Judge Ohta's bailiff is leaving the building and a new bailiff will be assigned. Judge Lomeli's bailiff tells the court he wants to make sure the new guy assigned is someone he gets along with.

9:10 AM
On the record with People v. Brown.  Counsel state their appearances for the record.  Judge Lomeli starts off by communicating directly to the defendant. "Mr. Brown, we have a real problem here."

It appears that Dr. Knapke went down to the jail a second time and Brown refused to talk to him.  Dr. Knapke can't make an evaluation without talking to the defendant. Brown's status as 1368 will not change without his cooperation. No one can declare that Brown is competent except the doctor. Judge Lomeli continues, "Without your cooperation you are going to remain in that status. ... To me, you seem to be pretty competent. ... Every time you are in front of me, you appear to be competent and know what is going on. ... What I can do is bring Dr. Knapke, bring him down to court so you can speak to him here."

Brown tells the court that the letter Mr. Laub wrote to the court some months ago is "erroneous. ... It's all false. .... It's all lies."  Brown even tells the court that he's never seen this doctor before.  (During the second trial.) That was made up also. At some point, I believe Brown states that's a conspiracy.

Judge Lomeli tells the defendant that the doctor is a professional, and only the doctor can make the determination if he is competent or not.  The court can't do that.  He repeatedly tells Brown that he has to talk to the doctor so the doctor can evaluate him.

Brown then starts talking about what Mr. Laub wrote in his six page declaration to the court. "He says he's going to block me ... going pro per...."   Brown filed a complaint against his attorney with the court. He continues complaining to the judge,  "I want to go over this with the court." Judge Lomeli replies, "I can't do that. I have no opinion, only a doctor can declare you competent."  Brown continues to complain about the six page letter Mr. Laub wrote, "There's different wording ... one filed in court and the one he gave me. ... The wording's different."

Brown then claims that he never met with the doctor that his attorney and the court says he met with.  "I never met with him before and he's saying I met with him."  Judge Lomeli tells him, "That's correct."  Brown replies, "I spoke to my former counsel and he told me he never heard about it." Judge Lomeli lights up.  "Who? ... Who was it? ... Who?"  Judge Lomeli asks Brown several times which of his attorneys told him he never met with Dr. Knapke.  Brown replies, "It's a conspiracy. ... I better not put this on the record."  Judge Lomeli replies, "You can't have it both ways."  Mr. Laub interjects something about the appointment.

DDA Hum tells the court the prosecution's position on the proper procedure. Brown believes the communication has broken down and wants another attorney, to file a Marsden motion.  "But that can't happen yet. The court must make an assessment on 1368 rule first.  ... The only way he can make a Marsden motion (is?) if the 1368 is resolved. ... But I do recall, Mr. Harris asked that Dr. Knapke to speak to the defendant. I don't .... Mr. Harris came into court ... I know the appointment order was signed. (Since I wasn't there) I don't know if actually happened.  ... The problem (resolved? itself?)."

Judge Lomeli tells the defendant, "I do have an order signed. ... July 30th. ... Apparently he did speak to you in the middle of trial."

(I don't have a memory of this being mentioned in open court in the second trial, but it could have happened in sidebar, at the bench. Sprocket)

Mr. Laub adds, "I believe it was before trial."  I believe it's Hum who adds, "If I remember it, it was not a 1368 (to the court). It was a report that was sent to Mr. Harris and not the court."  Mr. Laub tells the court, "As far as a Marsden motion goes ..."  Judge Lomeli responds, "Counsel (is?) correct. 1368 must be resolved before Marsden."

There is a mention of another doctor, a Dr. (Kareem? Kasmin?) who was possibly also on the case.  Judge Lomeli asks counsel to approach the bench.

Brown tells the court.  "It's all lies.  ... I'll only tell the doctor, it's all lies." That he won't cooperate with the doctor.

9:20 AM
Judge Lomeli in a stern voice tells the defendant, "Mr. Brown, I'm going to bring Dr. Knapke down to the next court date. ... It's up to you to cooperate. ... You seem competent to me. ... Only way this (is going to be resolved)."  I have a memory of Judge Lomeli telling the defendant that if he doesn't cooperate with the doctor, "I'm going to reinstate criminal proceedings and this case will move forward!"  Brown responds, "... line 19. ... It says, (I can?) no longer rationally communicate with counsel..."  Judge Lomeli replies, "That may well be, but that can't be heard until Marsden. ... It doesn't matter sir, to even hear that out ... before the issue of that ... competency has to be resolved. "  Judge Lomeli adds more and then Mr. Laub tells the court, "Every word of the declaration was filed under penalty of perjury and I would testify to that if called."

Mr. Laub tells the court, "... I believe (what his client is saying), are not lies on his part but are due to his current mental difficulties. ... His ability to rationally cooperate with (his defense) is no longer there."  Mr. Laub adds, "(I?) ... don't believe communication has been broken down. ... It's that we are not ..." on the same page as to the direction they need to go.  Judge Lomeli tells the parties he'd like one last shot for Brown to meet with the doctor.  Judge Lomeli warns Brown, "If you don't talk... "  Brown replies that, "I'd rather have it on the record."  Brown wants his meeting with Dr. Knapke in open court on the record. Judge Lomeli responds, "You can't have it on the record." The meeting must be in private, in the jail area.  Brown asks the court, "You don't think this is a ploy to shut me down?"  Judge Lomeli responds, "I can't address that..."

There is discussion among counsel as to how the scheduling is going to go. I believe Mr. Laub is tasked with arranging a date for Dr. Knapke to come down to court and evaluate the defendant at the courthouse.  I believe the date that was arranged for everyone to return after that is Friday the 13th, which would be December 13th.

Brown brings up one last issue with the court. "I'd like to know if (anyone?) spoke to you (about?) an incident of this month?" It happened on the 4th.  I'm not positive if Judge Lomeli asks Brown what happened, or if Brown just continued talking.  "Someone tried to spear me. ... The deputies are hiding it."  Judge Lomeli asks, "You mean shank you?"  No, Brown is insistent it was a "spear."  Judge Lomeli tells the defendant that his attorney needs to file the proper documents for that, "That's not a part of the trial."

The date is mentioned again that everyone is to come back. Friday the 13th. (December).

And that's it for this hearing...