Lonnie Franklin, Jr., Pretrial Hearing 13

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., 2/6/15

Photo credit: Nick Ut, Associated Press

The previous post on this case can be found HERE.

January 5, 2016
9:11 AM
I arrive to the hearing late. I did not leave the house in time. Los Angeles is in the middle of a rain storm and I took the train to avoid the often panicked Southern California drivers who have no experience driving on slick streets. I'm originally from Ohio, where I rode my '68 BMW R60/2 on snow covered streets for years before I ever owned a car, so I'm not concerned about my own driving skills.

When I arrive, the hearing is well underway.  I quickly take a seat in the last bench row beside Arlene from the Public Information Office. Usually, I try to sit close, in the second row but since I'm late, I don't want to make a lot of noise while the court is speaking. I catch the eye of Judge Kennedy's bailiff, who is kind enough to give me a smile.

At the defense table from left to right is defendant Franklin, new bar attorney Kristen Gozawa, lead defense attorney Seymour Amster, and new second chair, defense attorney Dale Atherton. I don't know the exact date Altherton was appointed by the 987.9 Judge. It's my understanding this is his first appearance in Judge Kennedy's court.

Over at the prosecution table are DDA Marguerite Rizzo and DDA Beth Silverman. Sitting in chairs behind or beside the people's table are LAPD Detective Daryn Dupree as well as two other deputy DA's, Paul and Jamie, who are assisting with the case.

In the gallery are two journalists, one is People Magazine investigative reporter Christine Pelisek. The other young woman I've seen before, but I don't know her name. Also in the gallery are several young law clerks with the DA's office that have been on the case for some time.

As I open my laptop and try to get my cold fingers moving, it appears Amster is giving some preliminary argument to the people's opposition to his ballistics expert being allowed to testify in the defense case.

The people have filed motions opposing several defense witnesses from testifying. They were successful in blocking the defense DNA expert Dr. Lawrence Sowers from testifying. The court ruled that Dr. Sowers was not an expert in DNA analysis and his theories and analysis that he did would not be presented to the jury. That pretrial hearing took seven days. Besides their opposition the the defense ballistics expert, the people have filed motions objecting to a metallurgy expert as well as a former LAPD officer, who the defense wants to testify about police practices.

As I start taking notes, it's clear Amster has yet to formally respond to the people's opposition to his ballistics expert. It's why the case has not had a hearing to argue those points. I come in in the middle of this argument. Amster tells the court "The tactics that the people are utilizing are going on across the nation."

Judge Kennedy, with a slightly puzzled expression on her face responds, "I don't quite understand you." Amster tells the court, "Ballistic testing is being challenged in federal court and [the testimony] thrown out." Amster adds that the people are taking just bits and pieces of what the scientific community says and not the entirety of the information.

Amster argues that the defense doesn't have to present anything until the time when the defense puts on its case. I believe one of Amster's issues is, he hasn't yet obtained copies of transcripts from other cases, where his ballistics expert testified. The people have paid the fee to the various court reporters to obtain these transcripts, but from my understanding, Amster has not. Supposedly, the defense ballistics expert was barred from testifying in other cases as an expert. At the same time, Amster argues he doesn't know if the people will even use the transcript material to impeach his expert.

Jurors are not set to return for voir dire until January 25. Amster asks the court for a return date of January 11. By that time he will have filed his opposition to the people's motion.

Judge Kennedy asks Amster to clarify. "You are in [the] process of preparing a written opposition that you feel will be completed by Friday ... assuming we will go forward next week ... assuming [the expert] is available to testify?"

Amster tells the court that he is assuming his expert is available. "I haven't asked that question. I have no reason to believe he is not and certainly I will make an inquiry when we leave."

Judge Kennedy states, "Last month, the [prior pretrial hearing] took seven days of court time." Judge Kennedy goes onto explain that she never expected that hearing to take that long. "I don't want to have to be in the middle of a trial and send a jury home in the middle of trial. .... So I do prefer to handle motions that have the potential of being lengthy before we get in trial."

Judge Kennedy then goes to great length to explain how the jurors are a big part of her concern. Stopping a trial for an out of jury hearing completely disrupts a jurors life and possible work schedule, if they are in the middle of a trial and suddenly they are sent back to work for several days or a week.

The court adds, "When they don't come in for two or three days, it moves the end [of the case] further out. They don't get paid for those days and they have to go back to work. ... It creates havoc to their plans and [their] employer's plans, when all of a sudden, they show up and they [the employer] don't know in advance they go back to work. We don't pay jurors if they do not appear. ... It's [also] an issue with regards to jurors that work a graveyard shift where it's hard to go back and forth." The court states that they have had this happen in the past.

Amster replies that he is empathetic. "We have our position and we'll state our position and we'll make our ruling and go forward."

They anticipate arguing this motion next week. Amster reminds the court that they don't have copies of the [other cases] transcripts.

DDA Silverman informs the court that they still have two other motions that were filed two months ago and those need to be heard also.  Amster tells the court that in regard to the two other motions, those two witnesses are "... pure rebuttal.  [Whether those witnesses testify or not] will be based on cross examination in the people's case. ... So any ruling the court makes, it's against the defense. We are going to ask to revisit it based on the testimony presented by the people's witnesses. ... If the people's witnesses don't go in a certain direction, we're not going to go in that direction. ... I believe those other two motions are an exercise in futility..."

Judge Kennedy asks, "Other than those motions and the pending review of the jury questionnaires, there are no additional motions, correct?" Amster responds, "Not that I can think of post [sic] verdict."

DDA Rizzo informs the court that the people have a couple of motions that are going to be filed. One will be filed before penalty phase and one filed after penalty phase. The motion related to guilt will be filed by the end of the week.

Amster tells the court, "Depending on what's in those motions, we may be filing a continuance." The court responds, "We'll, we'll get to that point." Amster brings up another motion, that he may bring up before the penalty phase.

DDA Silverman tells the court that they've already identified multiple jurors that should be excused for cause, or an inability to speak and comprehend and read. The people also have a draft of their exhibits by the end of the week.

DDA Silverman tells the court, "The people are prepared to offer stipulations if the defense is."

Judge Kennedy adds, "There's a deputy DA in the panel. He should be excused. ... There are some people who are [not] illiterate, ... but they [don't have] sufficient knowledge of English language and a few people, through their comments, are so strident one way or the other ... and to remove some of them as well."

Amster states the defense will agree to stipulations, but they haven't gotten to that point yet. The court asks the people if they've sent their [jurors to excuse] list to the defense yet. DDA Silverman responds, "I sent him an email and we've identified multiple people..." I believe the people tell the court that they haven't received any response yet.

DDA Silverman comments that it doesn't look like this issue will move along outside of the court's time. The court reprimands DDA Silverman that her comments "...doesn't help move the case along." DDA Sliverman responds, "I tried."

The court makes a comment about a positive attitude. Smiling, almost joking, Amster interjects, "It's always good to remain positive."

Judge Kennedy then asks the parties for a sidebar. After a few minutes, the court states that the parties will return on January 12 regarding the pretrial motion.

And that was it for today's hearing.

The next post on the case can be found HERE.

Mark D. Jensen, Convicted of Antifreeze Poisoning of Wife Julie, to be Retried

1/5/16 Screenshot of Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections 
web page of Inmate Mark Jensen

UPDATE 1:22 PM
Fox6Now.com reporting Jensen's bail set at 1.2 million.

January 6, 2016
Mark Jensen, convicted in 2008 of killing his wife by antifreeze poisoning will get a new trial.

Do any of you remember this case? This was a trial that T&T covered, by watching it online.

Mark Jensen's wife Julie died on December 3, 1998 from antifreeze poisoning. Jensen's defense argument was Julie committed suicide.

Jensen was convicted of her murder in February 2008. The prosecutor was Robert Jambois. Jensen was defended by Craig Albee.

One of the unique pieces of evidence in this case was a letter the victim had given to neighbor Ted Wojt (along with a roll of film), instructing him to give it to police in case of her unusual demise.

That letter was the main basis for Jensen's appeal. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court's decision to overturn Jensen's conviction on the grounds that statements Julie Jensen made before her death should never have been admitted into evidence.

Jensen was scheduled to have a bond hearing today. I will update as soon as I hear any news of his custody status.

T&T Mark Jensen Quick Links Page
Our Sister Julie Website (With Timeline Information)
Mark Jensen Legal Defense - Support Website

Michael Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 33

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, in custody; date unknown.

The previous post on this case can be found HERE.

December 15, 2015
8:45 AM
Inside Dept. 108, on the 9th Floor of the downtown Los Angeles Criminal Justice Center.

Defense attorney Dale Rubin is here, chatting off the record with Judge Ohta about where he [Rubin] is in the case and what he needs to present to the 987.9 judge for his case proposal. It's not in my notes, but I believe defense investigator Chris Nicely arrives soon after.

I’m sure I’ve talked about what the 987.9 judge is in the Grim Sleeper case. When a defendant is provided counsel by the court (not public defender; not alternate public defender’s offices), a judge, seperate from the trial judge, reviews and approves or denies, expenses that the defense attorney requests, to defend his case. The law that covers that is 987.9 in the California Penal Code. The 987.9 Judge in the Gargiulo case is Dept. 123, Judge Scott M. Gordon’s courtroom.

There’s more off the record chatter about whether or not Mr. Rubin needs to go in camera with the court to discuss where he is with the 987.9 judge.

Judge Ohta glances around and asks, “Where is my staff?” A moment or two later, Judge Ohta’s clerk takes her desk. There is a discussion about the LA Unified Schoold District.

At some point, DDA Akemon arrives. Judge Ohta asks DDA Akemon, ‘Where is your partner in crime?” referring to DDA Garrett Dameron, Akemon’s co-counsel on the case. Judge Ohta then asks, “How did you rope him into it?” DDA Dameron is not assigned to the same unit, Major Crimes, as DDA Akemon, but another unit.

8:47 AM
Judte Ohta’s pretty court reporter comes out and starts to set up her equipment.

There’s more off the record chatter in the well. It appears Rubin and DDA Akemon chat off the record about Rubin’s issues in front of the 987.9 judge.

Rubin may have a different strategy to defend Gargiulo than former counsel Charles Lindner did, and those costs could be more. I don’t know.

Here is a hypothetical to consider. Suppose Gargiulo is convicted and sentenced to death. Could his appellate attorney successfully argue ineffective counsel, on the grounds that the 987.9 judge did not approve adequate funds for Gargiulo’s attorney to defend the case? I’ve heard that there is such an appellate case, that argued these similar points and was successful in overturning a conviction. I just haven’t found it yet. T&T readers who know the law better than I do, if you know of such a case, please post a link to the published decision or email me privately.

Judge Ohta gets into his robes and soon after Gargiulo is brought out. Gargiulo is much the same as I last saw him. He’s completely bald and clean shaven. He appears more filled out, muscular, that his 2008 booking photos. He’s carrying a large dark green bag or sachel of some kind.

Gargiulo is handed a package of yellow lined note pads.

The court goes on the record in the Gargiulo case. I believe the court states that the last time Mr. Rubin was before the court, the case was in limbo, and he had not presented a proposal to the 987.9 judge yet.

Rubin explains that he’s having a problem getting his proposal together. A lot of the proposal is privileged. 

The court replies that it understands, and that there’s a lot for him to put together. Judge Ohta tells Mr. Rubin that he doesn’t need to hear the details. 

Rubin goes onto explain that he’s received 15 banker’s boxes from Mr. Lindner, [Gargiulo's former counsel]. He also tells the court that a lot of information is also electronically produced. I believe he tells the court he’s received that information from the DA.

Rubin adds that he’s been in trial since October. It’s been hard to work on that proposal. He  also tells the court that because of Mr. Lindner’s position he’s taken in the past, it’s made things [harder?].

Judge Ohta asks the people what has been turned over to the defense. DDA Akemon responds 30, 880 pages of discovery.

Mr. Rubin tells the court he doesn’t intend to review all of that prior to presenting his proposal to the 987.9 judge. But it will require some time.


I believe the court responds, “I don’t know all that happened outside [referring to Dept. 123] but Mr. Lindner does have some knowledge. ... It’s not as if he’s [Judge Gordon?] totally blind.”

The problem is in the past, but Judge Ohta needs a requested return date.

Rubin’s suggestion is to put the case at zero of 90 and return on January 25th. He’s hopeful that at that time, his proposal to Judge Gordon will have been submitted.

A different date is bounced around and all parties agree to January 27, 2016.  DDA Akemon offers to Rubin if there is anything he can do, he’s there to help.

Gargiulo is asked if the January 27th date is fine with him. He shrugs his shoulders and replies, “Sure. That’s fine.

The January 8 trial date that was set last year is vacated.

Before Gargiulo leaves there is a quick exchange with his counsel that indicates how markedly different his relationship with Mr. Rubin is verses Mr. Lindner. Gargiulo says to his attorney, “Happy Holidays.” Rubin replies, “You too.”



And that’s it.

The next post on this case can be found HERE.