Quantcast
Channel: Trials & Tribulations
Viewing all 440 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 42

April 26, 2018, 10:57 pm
$
0
0
Previous hearing can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, date unknown

April 26, 2018
What a long day today was. And it started off so well.

When I arrived on the 9th floor, I was greeted with the news that Gargiulo was not brought to court, again. I privately wondered if he refused to come out of his cell. DDA Daniel Akemon, DDA Garrett Dameron and defense attorney Daniel Nardoni are here. Lead defense attorney Dale Rubin is a no show.

As I listen to counsel chat with Judge Fidler's clerk Wendy in the well, my eyes fixate on the medium sized jar of candy on the corner of the clerk's counter, next to the wall. I had breakfast but eying that candy jar makes me long for a snack already. The reason Gargiulo isn't here is he had a doctor appointment unbeknownst to the prosecution.

As I sit in the gallery, I reminisce back to my first few months inside this courtroom during the first Phil Spector trial. The courtroom feels completely different than than it did ten years ago. My years in similar courtrooms have steeled me a bit. I'm still cognizant of the power a judge has in his courtroom and do my best to obey all the posted rules and bailiff's commands. However, a courtroom is not as frightening a place to me as it once was when I first stepped into Fidler's court in February 2007.

There are apparently three cases on Judge Fidler's calendar ready to go, and Gargiulo is one of them. There is a discussion as to how many days in advance the court requires to get the number of pre-screened jurors they will need for a death penalty case. Somewhere between 30 days and six weeks. The clerk and counsel toss around a new date to return. Possibly June 8. Gargiulo was arrested on June 6, 2008. He's been in custody ever since. I overhear that Gargiulo had an MRI today, making my mind wander as to what medical issue Gargiulo could have. Because of HIPAA laws, I know it's pointless to ask defense counsel what's going on with Gargiulo's health.

I hear counsel and the clerk have a bit of a discussion about how there is supposed to be a July date for a preliminary hearing in the Uwaydah/Kelly Soo Park, twelve defendant (or is it 13?) insurance fraud case, but it's not clear if that will really happen. I followed that case for a short time when it was in Judge Kennedy's courtroom. Lance LaMon of adjuster.com is still diligently reporting on that case. I imagine that preliminary hearing with all those defendants (and sometimes two counsel for one defendant), on three separate indictments will be a nightmare.

9:10 AM
Judge Fidler takes the bench. He states for the record the counsel present and that the defendant is not present. Mr. Nardoni informs the court that Mr. Gargiulo was taken for an MRI today. It's something they have been waiting on for some time.

I'm betting Gargiulo was taken to an LA County hospital for the MRI. I doubt the County Jail facility has an MRI machine.

The parties inform the court they are seeking a return date of June 8th for pretrial. DDA Akemon informs the court they are looking to (hopefully) have a trial start date at the end of August of this year.

The court responds, "So ordered."

And that took about a minute of on the record court time.

Next hearing is June 8, 2018. Hopefully on that date a firm trial date will be set.

After the Gargiulo hearing, I was sent to a few different departments to get copies of documents in the Robert Baker & Monica Sementilli case. I hung around for lunch and then headed over to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse to drop in on a civil case, related to the Lazarus case that my friend Matthew McGough is keeping tabs on. I hope to have a few notes up on that strange experience in a few days.

↧
Search

Jennifer Francis v. LAPD Civil Case

May 2, 2018, 8:34 am
$
0
0
Stanley Mosk Courthouse, downtown Los Angeles.

UPDATE 12:30 pm correction in speaker's name from Taylor to McNicholas
UPDATE 9:25 am minor spelling errors corrected. Sprocket
April 26, 2018
On Thursday, April 26, after the Gargiulo hearing in the morning, I stayed for lunch so I could drop in on an afternoon hearing in a civil case that my friend Matthew McGough has been following. For those of you who don't know, McGough is writing a book on the Stephanie Lazarus case.

This case is in Department 56 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse and relates to the Lazarus case. And let me tell you, from my perspective, it was a bizarro day for an afternoon court session. I've attended a few of the hearings in this case over the past few years but this is the first time I'm writing up my notes in detail. Civil cases can be just as complicated as a long cause criminal trial and I had a great deal of difficulty following what was going on.



For those of you who followed the Stephanie Lazarus murder trial, Jennifer Francis is the LAPD criminalist who developed the female DNA profile back in February 2005.

On October 30, 2013, Francis sued the LAPD alleging harassment and retaliation for alerting her superiors to a possible cover-up in the Stephanie Lazarus case. I highly recommend reading the complaint to get an understanding of what this case is about. 
The LA Times published a article when the lawsuit was filed and there was a write up by City News Service in My News LA.

Francis is represented by Courtney McNicholas and John Taylor of Taylor Ring. I first met John Taylor at the Phil Spector trial, when he represented the family of Lana Clarkson in their wrongful death suit against the music mogul. Taylor also represented the parents of murder victim Sherri Rae Rasmussen, Nels and Loretta Rasmussen in their lawsuit against the City alleging an LAPD coverup. That case was dismissed.

The Francis case is slated to go to trial October 1, 2018. Civil cases filed in California must be brought to trial in five years or the case is dismissed without prejudice. Section 583.310 California Code of Civil Procedure.



The Stanley Mosk Courthouse was renamed in 2002 after Justice Stanley Mosk. The courtrooms in this 1950's building are truly tiny, little square boxes. There are only 13 seats in the jury box and just a few dozen in the gallery.  And trust me, the old flip down style seats are not that comfortable if you have extra padding on your hips.



Inside Dept. 56, 1:30 pm
John Anthony is the attorney for the City (LAPD). McNicholas & Taylor work at setting up their files. McNicholas is wearing a nice black suit and Taylor, wearing a light gray suit looks like he just walked out of a Brooks Brothers ad. Matthew McGough is here. 

 It’s been about three weeks since I last saw Matthew at his 10th annual “Baseball Hot Stove Dinner,” and I almost didn’t recognize him in his white shirt, dark jacket and Dodger blue tie. I'm comforted that, despite wearing a jacket and tie, he is wearing jeans like I always do. I notice for the first time that Matthew is sporting some gray hair. Matthew has been keeping tabs on all things related to Lazarus since June 2009.


Before the hearing starts, Francis comes over to us and mentions something about the Golden State Killer. The news broke of an arrest in that 40 year cold case a day or two earlier. Joseph DeAngelo was a former cop who was fired for shoplifting in 1979. His DNA was never entered into CODIS.   Jennifer speculated if the arrest didn’t come through CODIS, did the investigators utilize a public DNA data base to nab their killer. Later that day, news broke that Jennifer’s theory was correct.


Judge Holly Fujie takes the bench.

Judge Fujie issued a tentative order denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions on the City for not complying with discovery demands, deposition subpoenas, and producing witnesses for depositions. Judge Fujie says she assumes the plaintiffs would like to argue the tentative order.

Taylor tells the court it’s not the sanctions they wish to argue it’s the outstanding issues with discovery and depositions. Taylor tells the court the City has not produced all the documents the plaintiff is entitled to.



Judge Fujie tells the parties, “I will go back and take a look at this. This case is...” 



McNicholas offers the description, “Unwieldy.”



Judge Fujie replies, “Yes.”



A bit of background on Department 56. Judge Fujie was only recently assigned to Dept. 56, within the last few months. The previous judge in Dept. 56 was Judge Michael Johnson. Incidentally, back in 2010, Judge Johnson was once assigned to the downtown criminal court, Dept. 108, where he presided over the Michael Gargiulo preliminary hearing. 



In the Francis case, because of prior discovery disputes, the parties agreed to split the cost of a discovery referee, a retired judge, Judge Cooper. McNicholas tells the court they’ve paid $60,000 to the referee in just three months (October, November and December 2017). That means the City has paid the same amount, in taxpayer money.



According to McNicholas, the discovery referee ordered the City to produce documents regarding Detective Cliff Shepard. 

Judge Fujie replies, “I came in at the end of the case.”


I’m amazed the court implied on the record that the court is not familiar with what’s been going on with this case. As a court watcher, I understand that our courts are overburdened. LA County has the largest court system in the US. However, it’s the court’s responsibility when they come in on a case, to get up to speed. Judge Fujie says she wants to see the transcripts of what the discovery referee said.



The upcoming schedule is discussed.


Judge Fujie tells the parties, “I’m going to go back and take a look at the documents with the issues the plaintiff has with discovery.” The court leaves the bench to look over the case file. 

When Judge Fujie returns, she tells the parties, “I’ve gone through everything in our files. I’m going to ask a few questions and I want short answers.” The court says, “The motion for sanctions ... the issues with that motion, two feet tall, still remain.”



Apparently, McNicholas filed a monster brief of all the problems they’ve had with the City not turning over documents or not providing witnesses for depositions.


To me, it seems Judge Fujie is frustrated with McNicholas. McNicholas explains they are still waiting for the City to produce several records including emails from an Internal Affairs Sargent who investigated the Rasmussen family allegation of a coverup.



Judge Fujie asks to see transcripts of what exactly the discovery referee said. The court then tells the parties, “I want to get this case to trial ... I want a minimum of drama.”



Anthony, the City attorney responds, “I don’t have a problem producing emails. ... I just need to see if we have them and if they’re privileged.”



Judge Fujie orders the plaintiff to produce a “very specific” chart of all items the plaintiff wants the City to turn over. Judge Fujie wants the parties to get the discovery done, so the case can go to trial.  



McNicholas tells the court she thinks it’s a two to three week trial from opening to closing. The court firmly tells the parties, “This case will go forward.”



McNicholas asks the court to order the City to provide a date for the deposition for Commander Rick Webb, the former commanding officer of Internal Affairs.

Judge Fujie informs Anthony the City must give a date for Webb’s deposition by May 3. Anthony hemmed and haws, saying Webb might be out of town or on vacation. McNicholas states she can provide Webb’s phone and home address if Anthony can’t get it. 



Judge Fujie further clarifies what she wants on the chart of the outstanding discovery request. The court schedules the deadlines for the plaintiff to produce the chart and the City’s response. 



McNicholas brings up the issue of Dorothy Tucker. Dorthy Tucker was the LAPD’s Behavioral Science Services psychologist that Francis was ordered to see by her superiors.

Tucker died in December 2017, before she could be deposed. McNicholas tells the court she knows of witnesses who were ordered not to appear at scheduled depositions, inferring this is what happened with Tucker. It’s my understanding the City notified Francis’s attorneys in 2015 that Tucker was deceased. After that notification, McNicholas discovered Tucker was still alive. Then Tucker actually did die before her deposition could be taken.

The City tells the court Tucker may have been too sick to sit for a deposition. Judge Fujie tells the City to produce documentation from Tucker’s doctor that she was too sick to sit for a deposition before she died.


My eyes had already started to glaze over about 45 minutes into this hearing. I don’t know how Matthew keeps any of this information straight. 



The court and counsel set up a schedule for briefs; they will discuss Tucker and other issues on June 29.  Judge Fujie says that her priority is that the parties are prepared for an “efficient trial.”



At the end of the hearing, the trial date is moved to October 1, 2018 at 9:30 am.  Final status conference will be September 15, 2018 at 8:30 am. And that’s it for this hearing. We slowly file out of the courtroom about 3:30 pm.



I’m wondering what will happen to this case if it doesn’t go to trial by October 30.


Complaint
LA Times article
My News LACalif.
Code of Civil Procedure 583.310
↧
↧

Monica Sementilli & Robert Baker, Pretrial 2

May 9, 2018, 5:08 pm
$
0
0
Previous post on the case can be found HERE.

Fabio Sementilli 

May 9, 2018
It was a very quick hearing today.

It's 8:15 am when I arrive on the 9th floor of the downtown Los Angeles Criminal Court. There was a line of 10 people at the security station. The sheriff's deputies are trying to figure out why alarms are going of on the scanner. As we wait, the line continues to grow. A technician shows up but the problem isn't solved. The deputies start to move people through the line, manually looking through bags. That lasts a few minutes and is eventually abandoned after I hear a sheriff deputy say something about jurors and that everyone went through a scanner when they entered the building on the first floor.

Before 8:30 am, Dept. 101 it's already open. Judge Coen is out of his robe and behind his clerk's desk. Baker's defense attorney, Michael  Simmrin is in the well and chatting with the court. I take my favorite spot at the end of the second bench row.

Sitting in the well of the court is a tall bald man wearing a black suit. With him is a very young boy, around three or four years old. The little boy looks around, sees me and smiles. I smile back. He's very curious, looking around at everything. I'm wondering if there is another case that will be heard before the Baker/Sementilli case. After a moment, I hear the bald man mention the word "chocolate". He then gets up, goes to the candy jar on the edge of the clerks desk. He comes back to his seat beside the young boy and opens up his hand, offering him a piece of candy.

8:30 AM
Leonard Levine and Blair Berk arrive. They greet Judge Coen and chat with Simmrin.

8:32 AM
DDA Beth Silverman arrives. Beth is wearing an outfit I've seen before. A black dress paired with a loose, gray and white flecked jacket. The jacket has tiny frills along the seams and several flairs at the hip.  A moment later Terri Keith from City News arrives and takes a seat in the row directly behind me. We exchange hellos.

8:34 AM
It happened quickly. Judge Coen is in his robe and on the bench, but I don't think he's called the case on the record yet. The defendants have not been brought out. DDA Silverman and Simmrin are in a conversation. Simmrin is signing a document for her, probably for receipt of discovery. DDA Silverman and the defense attorneys are talking evidence. I believe DDA Silverman is telling Levine that he needs to provide her with a drive to receive the next batch of evidence. DDA Silverman answers a question from one of the defense attorneys with, "You should have received that in discovery batch number four."

I believe counsel tells the court they are ready to go. Terri Keith leaves for a moment then comes back. The bald man with the young boy instructs the boy that they are going to move from the well of the court to the gallery. They take a seat where police officers often sit, in the front row of the short aisle beside the bailiff's desk. Levine is having a conversation with his tech expert.

The bailiff brings out Monica Sementilli first. As with all defendants I've seen brought into court, the bailiff handcuffs her to the chair. She sits in the same seat as the last time. Her attorney Berk is directly to her right and Sementilli leans to speak to her. Levine is to the right of Berk. Sementilli looks no different than the last hearing, wearing a blue jumpsuit. I believe there was some misunderstanding about my description of Sementilli's hair. She does not have gray hair. She has dark brown roots. The ends of her hair are a lighter, reddish blond color. On the LASD inmate locator website, at the time of her arrest, the color of Sementilli's hair was listed as BLN (blond).


Baker is brought out next and placed in the same seat as before, at the end of the table and facing the jury box. Simmrin is to his right. The case goes on the record.

DDA Silverman informs the court that copies were made of the SUNLIFE documents and given to the defense. The originals were returned to the court. She informs the court they are working on getting all the discovery to the defense and that the defense has asked for a second type of "extraction". I believe she means on other devices that were seized in the search warrant.

Judge Coen asks the parties "What do we do now?" The parties inform the court they would like to return on June 5.  Levine tells the court that they want the court to set a "cut off date" for the prosecution to get all the discovery to the defense.

DDA Silverman informs the court, "The court is aware ... counsel has asked for a different type of extraction on several devices." DDA Silverman tells the court the defense wants this on more than "30 items".  The people are still working on their standard, recommended type of extraction that they do. The last thing that they will do will be this extra extraction request for the defense.

Levine tells the court they are almost a year out from arrest and they don't have all the discovery yet. Simmrin tells the court that he is no way ready. He's only been representing his defendant for five months. "I need time to prepare." He has a DNA analyst who is asking for more information and more time. He also has a cell phone expert.

The court asks all parties if they agree to come back on June 5 and set the case calendar on that date as zero of sixty. June 5 is set for a discovery status update.

Levine brings up to the court that there are a number of items seized that were "outside the search warrant". He would like the court to order them returned.  The court answers, "I"m not going to do this like this."  Levine states that the executor of the estate informs him that the items seized were community property. Levine is asking if the items can be released to the estate.  The court informs Levine to write it up in a motion and he will sign it.

DDA Silverman states that, like she's mentioned to the court, she has discussed the discovery issues ad nauseam through emails to defense counsel.

And that's it for the hearing.

Note from Sprocket
I would like to point new readers to T&T's ABOUT PAGE. T&T is an independent journalism effort. There is no organization or grant, that pays for me to go to court, purchase documents and write a story on the court hearings I attend. T&T is supported 100% by reader donations. If you appreciate the stories that T&T provides with no advertising on the site, please consider clicking on the donation button. Thank you.

↧

Going to Court: Suge Knight, Artyom Gasparyan's Alleged Crime Spree Prelim, Alleged MS-13 Gang Death Penalty Case & Michael Thomas Gargiulo

February 3, 2018, 1:12 pm
$
0
0
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Potential New Cases
I wasn't really planning on going into downtown LA on Thursday since there is a Gargiulo hearing on Friday. However, once I got the sales taxes paid and the DA's calendar for the next day showed up, I thought I would take a look. I just wanted to see if there was anything interesting. There were several cases downtown that piqued my interest. Suge Knight was on the calendar for two courtrooms. A week ago, I was talking about the Knight case with my writing partner Katie. I haven't really followed the Knight case so I didn't know if that was a typo on the calendar or if he really did have two cases trailing each other in different courtrooms. The last news article I read said the murder trial was scheduled for January 8, 2018, but here it was February and the case was still in pretrial hearings. 

Also on the calendar was a listing for "continuing defense testimony" in Judge Fidler's courtroom. I was surprised. I thought the death penalty case that started in late October was supposed to be finished in early January, making way for the Gargiulo case. But again, here it is February and the defense is still putting on testimony. It is a cold case murder and alleged MS-13 gang affiliation. There are four defendants.


There was a preliminary hearing in Dept. 41, Judge Villar, that piqued my interest because of the Deputy District Attorney assigned. It's John McKinney with the DA's Major Crimes Division. I had heard good things about DDA McKinney but had never met him or followed one of his cases. This might be a good time to drop in and see what his case was about.

Best Laid Plans
I didn't sleep well Wednesday night. I did wake up in plenty of time to get to court, but I felt so out of sorts I debated with myself for almost an hour on whether to go or not. I got a late start out the door and didn't make it into downtown LA until after 9:00 am. I arrived on the 9th floor around 9:15 am.

Suge Knight, Dept. 101 Judge Coen
Full disclosure. I know very little about the case other than Knight has gone through a slew of attorneys. He is charged with murder, attempted murder in one case (TA136401 ) and charged with robbery in another (SA089020). Those cases are in Dept. 101. Knight is also charged with making criminal threats (BA452832). That case is in Dept. 120, Judge Richman.

When I arrive in Dept. 101, there are few people in the gallery. I make sure the Sheriff's Deputy sitting right by the door sees my press badge as I quietly enter. I know there probably are victim family members in the gallery because I see a familiar face from the DA's victim support staff sitting with them. I take a seat in the gallery beside another reporter with a camera man. Siting at the far end of the long benches I recognize Associated Press reporter Brian Melley. Anytime Melley covers a case you can expect an excellent story. Here is his write-up on the hearing today.

By the tone I'm hearing from the bench, it appears Judge Coen has lost his patience with one of the attorneys at the counsel tables. I'm not sure who. Judge Coen is a formidable presence on the bench. (I was briefly in his courtroom back in 2013, when I wrote about Coen's famous file boxes.) At this point, I don't know who any of the defense counsel are. In the well along with other DA staff I see Asst. Head Deputy of Major Crimes, Craig Hum. It appears it's DDA Cynthia Barnes, who impatiently tosses back a piece of paper handed to her by the defense. After a bit of back and forth, the next pretrial hearing date is set at February 14. I hear from other reporters that a trial date has already been set for April 19. And that's it. People start to file out. I get the chance to say hello to DDA Hum in the hallway. He is kind enough to tell me that Knight's other case is in Dept. 120, on the 13th floor.

Suge Knight, Dept. 120 Judge Richman
The reporter in the gallery of Dept. 101 that I didn't recognize was LA Times reporter James Queally, who has written several pieces on the Knight case already. Queally remembers me, and I apologized to him that I didn't recognize him.

Judge Richman is on the bench. There are a bunch of people in the gallery. There is a DDA at the people's table. It's clear he is hearing pretrial hearings in other cases. DDA Barnes is in the well along with two other DDA's that were in Dept. 101. There is a small child, no more than 18 months or 2 years, sitting alone at the end of the third bench row.  I take a seat in this row a little ways to the left of the child. After awhile, a slender black man comes and sits beside the child. He's either the dad or the guardian.

Judge Richman calls a different case than Knight's. The defendant is the man with the very young child. He leaves the child on the bench alone in the gallery and takes a seat at the defense table. Judge Richman mentions the case is a residential burglary. There's a prior fire arms conviction. I miss the next several statements in the well because the young child is making noises while he's sitting alone. There are several women sitting behind the detectives on the other side of the aisle. They are trying to shush the noisy child. Judge Richman appears to be finished with this defendant when he asks the man, "I'll ask you the most important question. Eagles or Patriots?" The man tells the court "Eagles."

With this case over, Judge Richman banters with DDA Barnes in the well. In reference to one of the DDA's with her, he asks, "Why is he here? He look comfortable." The court asks for the parties in the Knight case. It isn't until after the hearing I learn that the DDA on this case is not Barnes but DDA Stefan Mrakich. I find that the older black attorney sitting in the well is Thaddeus Culpepper. The black female attorney sitting beside Knight at the defense table is Dominique Banos. Ms. Banos is an attractive black woman. She's wearing a very form fitting suit over her ample bosom. The white female attorney, Rena Wallenius, is there representing Ms. Banos. Mr. Culpepper sits in the gallery for a short time before taking a seat in the well behind Banos.

Judge Richman tells Banos, "I think I read your declaration." The court tells the press photographer he is welcome to remain. DDA Barnes tells the court that they just set the cases in Dept. 101 for February 14, calendar zero of 60 for pretrial. She tells the court the murder trial has been set for April 9, 10 for jury trial. The robbery case is also set for February 14, calendar at zero of 60. Judge Richman sets Knight's case in his courtroom for the same date at zero of 30. DDA Barnes suggests the court sets the calendar in Dept. 120 the same as Dept. 101 (zero of 60 as of 2/14).

Judge Richman responds. He appears to be giving DDA Barnes a bit of friendly banter. "Judge Coen doesn't report to anybody. Judge Coen is a grade five. I'm just a grade three. I have to report to people." Judge Richman sets Knight's case at zero of 30 for February 14 and orders the defendant back at 8:30 am. The setting of the case calendar is all that DDA Barnes is here for. She then hands the presentation over to DDA Mrakish who presents to the court their conflict of interest allegation regarding Ms. Banos. The court comments that there are lawyers for the lawyers here. DDA Mrakish tells the court that he doesn't have a lawyer here.

Ms. Wallenius interjects on the conflict of interest allegation by the people by telling the court, "I am not a potted plant! The people have not filed a motion [regarding the conflict of interest] ... or on the perjury matter."

DDA Mrakish outlines for the court that sometime prior, Knight's phone privileges at the jail were restricted. He was only allowed to call his attorney. There were no 3-wall calls allowed. Mrakish tells the court [I believe] about a phone call between Ms. Banos, Knight and someone with a production company. Knight used the booking number belonging to another inmate to make the call, after the phone restrictions were put in place. DDA Mrakish states there is a potential conflict of interest between Ms. Banos and Knight. He is here to get a waiver from the defendant.

While this is going on, Knight has spun around in his chair. For a while there, Knight was spinning his chair a bit from side to side. Now he's turned it completely around, facing away from the judge and is speaking to a deputy sheriff standing behind him. Judge Richman stops the proceedings to ask if Knight is paying attention to what is going on. Knight spins back around and faces the court.

DDA Mrakish tells the court the production company may be paying Ms. Banos's fee. It creates a specter of conflict. Mr. Knight  has a "... right to have conflict free counsel" DDA Mrakish argues. Judge Richman tells the parties, "I'm just a small piece of a tail on a really big dog here." The court addresses the defendant. "Do you want Ms. Banos to continue to represent you?" Knight adamantly tells the court, "I'm not making a waiver." The court patiently continues to address the defendant. "Assume what the DA says is true. Do you want Ms. Banos to continue to represent you?" Knight replies, "Yes."

Judge Richman states that they are done here. There is no signed waiver, just a verbal waiver from the defendant. There's only one other question the court asks Knight. "Patriots or Eagles?" Knight makes his choice. There are a few more off the cuff comments from the court, something about Judge Ryan. Then Judge Richman addresses the defendant again. "Do you know the song, Drowning on Dry Land?" Knight replies, "Yeah." If I recall correctly, the court tells the defendant the song reminds him of Knight. There are a few more statements by the court that I miss.

Ms. Wallenius interjects and addresses the court. "What she [DDA Barnes?] did in the last courtroom is reprehensible! ... The people are suggesting Ms. Banos has broken  the law! ... I'm asking the court to make a finding she has not broken the law." Ms. Wallenius continues to argue with the court. The court responds, "You're bordering on contempt." Ms. Wallenius appears to back down from that and tells the court that the DA has made an allegation. The court responds, "I've not made any finding nor have I assumed anything." Judge Richman has had enough and that's it for the Knight hearing. Out in the hallway I get the names and correct spelling for all the counsel in this hearing.

Dept. 106, Judge Fidler
I head back down to the 9th floor to see if the trial in Judge Fidler's courtroom has resumed. Peeking through the window in the door, I see there's no one in the courtroom. I then head to the 3rd floor for Dept. 41.

Dept. 41, Judge M. L. Villar - Artyom Gasparyan preliminary hearing
I quietly enter Dept. 41. I make sure the bailiff sees my press pass. The courtroom gallery is almost completely empty except, I see Terri Keith from City News. Terri is one of my favorite reporters. She has a tough job and she does it quite well. Terri gives me a smile and scoots over so I can take a seat beside her. I note that Judge M. L. Villar is a woman.

Summary: Artyom Gasparyan is charged with 32 counts stemming from a crime spree that began August 5, 2015 and ended with the defendant being shot and apprehended on January 4, 2016. Gasparyan is charged with murder, several counts of attempted murder, robbery, and other crimes. This appeared to be a one man crime bonanza. A total of eight victims were shot, one fatal.

The parties are at the tail end of the preliminary hearing where the court is making their ruling. I've missed the closing arguments for both sides. For the moment, all I see is the back of the defendant. He hair is jet black, past his shoulders. Although the defendant is in a wheelchair beside his attorney, I can see from his body movements that he isn't paralyzed. He's able to move his lower body quite well.  DDA John McKinney is at the prosecution table. He is a tall, handsome black man. By the end of the prelim, the DA's office amended their original complaint, removing two charges and adding three. The court is detailing the evidence that was presented by the people. There were 133 exhibits presented in the course of the prelim and numerous witnesses. Judge Villar mentions GeoTime® mapping is a game changer. Not only place, but routes, times and place. It's illustrative to the court but not persuasive to the court. The court continues with the other evidence admitted that connects the defendant to the charged crimes. The court states, "Nine millimeter casings at crime scenes; multiple witnesses identified the defendant and vehicle." Judge Villar adds that the GeoTime® mapping [indicates the defendant?] to have been at these locations. "The forensic evidence, more than sufficient that ... [the defendant] will be held to answer."

That's it. Judge Villar rules that sufficient evidence was presented for the defendant be bound over for trial. There will be a hearing in Dept. 100 (Master Calendar Court) in two weeks. That's probably for assignment to a courtroom. When the defendant is wheeled out, I can see that his right arm is wrapped and in a sling. I can't remember if it was before or after Judge Villar adjourned the hearing when she specifically addressed the detective(s) by name and complimented them on their work.

Outside in the hallway, Terri Keith asked DDA McKinney several questions about the case and I listen in. The defendant's vehicle was equipped with a stand alone Garmond GPS. In was mounted on the dash. The crime spree occurred in neighborhoods all over Los Angeles County. Los Felitz, Glendale, West Hollywood, Burbank, Harbor, Mission, Woodland Hills, Wilshire, and Carson were some of the locations of the crimes. The murder victim occurred in the inner city and the motive isn't clear. He encountered the defendant for a short period, just seconds. It's possible that the victim was in the defendant's way. From December 29th, 2015 to January 1, 2016, the defendant had a co-conspirator (Daniel Ramirez? spelling?). Once together, they stayed together in the vehicle. The co-conspirator killed two people and then shot himself.

I asked DDA McKinney how long he's been with the Major Crimes Division. He tells me since 2011. After the chat with DDA McKinney, I head back up to the 9th floor.

Dept. 106, Judge Fidler - Alleged MS-13 gang murder case; 4 defendants, 2 juries
When I step into Dept. 106, the gallery is empty. The only person in the well is Judge Fidler's clerk, Wendy. The case that started in late October has gone long. The DDA on the case is Dayan Mathai. DDA Mathai is also leading the big insurance fraud case against Kelly Soo Park and a slew of other defendants, also pending in Dept. 106. Lonce LaMon at adjuster.com has been posting detailed reports on the insurance fraud case pretrial hearings.

For the murder case, the parties are still in the case-in-chief. No penalty phase has started yet. There are four defendants and two juries. The victim is Jacqueline Piazza, 13, who was raped and murdered in June 2001. One jury is hearing the case against Jorge Palacios, 39. The other jury is hearing the case against Santos Grimaldi, 35, Melvin Sandoval, 38, and Rogelio Contreras, 40. Grimaldi and Sandoval are facing the death penalty. If either one is found guilty, there will be a trial to determine penalty.

Wendy tells me they are in the defense case for one of the defendants. The parties and court are hopeful to start closing arguments on February 20. There will be separate closings for the defendants.

I ask Wendy about the Michael Gargiulo case. She tells me the parties passed on being the next case up on Judge Fidler's calendar. After so many courtrooms in one day, I head back home.

Previous hearing on the Gargiulo case can be found HERE.

Next hearing on the Gargiulo case can be found HERE.
↧

Monica Sementilli & Robert Baker Case, Pretrial 3

June 6, 2018, 8:20 pm
$
0
0
Previous post can be found HERE.

LAPD Booking Photos

June 5, 2018


I took the train into downtown LA today. Having a senior TAP card now makes a huge difference in my travel budget. 



The 9th Floor

It’s practically empty at this time. At the other end of the hall, there are five adults spread out and two children.

8:21 AM
DDA Melissa Opper arrives with the two LAPD RHD detectives.  Once they see me they back away to talk privately.

 Later, they greet Mr. Simmrin who arrived at the same time.  Mr. Simmrin says hello to me and asks, “How are you?”



DDA Silverman is not here. She may not be coming today.

DDA Melissa Opper is wearing a black skirt suit. She’s carrying a really nice over-sized black leather type bag on her left shoulder. She’s wearing a dull, cream colored heels. Melissa is an attractive petite woman. I have passing thoughts of envy on the tiny clothes petite women can wear.

8:28 AM
Semetilli’s defense team arrives. Levine, Burke and three other assistants. One of the party is a man that appears quite young. He stands back from the group. I see the phone expert and a man with gray hair. Simmrin approaches them and they meet and chat.

We are still waiting for the door to be opened. A court clerk comes out and opens the door. The defense team enters first.  DDA Opper and the detectives remain in the hallway. A moment later the prosecution team heads inside and I follow after.


Inside Dept. 101

This hearing was shorter than last week.

The detectives take seats in the well in front of the jury box. The gray haired gentleman who was with the defense team sits in the spot I usually sit in. I walk through the third bench row to get to the second row and sit beside him. 

He's wearing a blue shirt with a green tie. Defense counsel are conferring with DDA Opper in the well about their next hearing date. June 27th is suggested. After Mr. Simmrin chimes in the date is changed to June 28th for a discovery update status.



Levine asks DDA Opper, “Do you have a position on ....” I’m guessing it’s the Sementilli motion to release the estate items taken in discovery back to the estate.” All I catch of DDA Opper’s response is “She’s in trial right now.”

I don’t recognize the clerk over at the court clerk’s desk. The young man with the defense team sits in the gallery but on the opposite side of the aisle from where the older gentleman with gray hair is sitting.


Judge Coen is quick. He’s in his robe already. The court reporter is at her desk. Judge Coen asks DDA Opper if she is by herself. She replies, “... just me today.”

Levine is asking DDA Opper off the record if they want to come back next week on “...just this one issue.”  There is a short lull. We are obviously waiting for the sheriff’s to bring the defendant’s in.



Judge Coen asks DDA Opper, “Did you get their motion?” “No, I did not,” she replies. I believe it’s Simmrin who informs the court the DDA Silverman is in trial. I find out later that Beth is co-counsel with DDA Tannaz Mokayef in the Blake Leibel case at the Airport Courthouse. Jury selection started today. It’s a pretty gruesome case that you can read about in this Hollywood Reporter article.

Judge Coen wistfully asks, “Is discovery ever going to end?” Simmrin tells the court, “I still have another whole batch of DNA data...” Looking over at the jury box, the two detectives are having a conversation. DDA Opper and Levine chat. The bailiff comes out. Levine addresses the court. “Once they bring her out could we just have one minute?”

A young woman enters and sits in the row behind me. 



8:39 AM
We are still waiting on the sheriff’s to bring the defendant’s out. A bailiff gets a chair ready for Sementilli. This clues me that she will be brought out first, like before. 

Once Semetilli is brought out, her two counsel huddle around her. Levine and Berk are smiling when they greet her. Berk’s greeting sounds especially warm to her client.


Baker is brought out quickly after Sementilli. Since I was concentrating on the huddle, I did not see him walk into court. Simmrin and Baker chat. Because of how Simmrin is sitting, I cannot see Baker’s face from where I am sitting. His hair is still real short.

The court goes on the record that all parties are here except Ms. Silverman. The court indicates there is a motion by Sementilli to return property.  Ms. Silverman may have new discovery. The next hearing date is June 28 and the case calendar will be set at zero of 60 on that date, set a trial date and resolve all discovery issues.  Judge Coen mentions that Mr. Simmrin has DNA issues (which might delay all the discovery being resolved).

Then DDA Opper informs the court of all the items that they have recently turned over to the defense. I try to list all the items she talks about but I’m not fast enough. She mentions an LAPD DNA report from 5/15 of this year. The LAPD DNA file was all on CD and given to defense. There is a CD that was turned over from raw (electronic?) data; Number 2 and links to the bodycam (video?) and also provided a hard drive. (On the hard drive?) 126 folders to each counsel. 



DDA Opper continues. Folders 4-21 were raw data folders (requested?) by Sementilli counsel. There may be discovery in the folders that have already been received. Number 2 of discovery email sent to us. There is an item the defense as requested, Number 90. DDA Opper states number 90 is a computer mouse and they will not be providing that to the defense. Levine responds with something but I miss it and DDA Opper states she did not understand what counsel was talking about.



DDA Opper continues informing the court of the discovery the people have turned over. (Regarding) (evidence?) numbers 68 to 88, the extraction of those items not complete yet. The people will have an answer later this week. Item number 150 counsel (requested? provided?) on a hard drive. The people also provided every phone record ... (and I miss the rest of Melissa’s statement on this). DDA Opper tells the courts that items five and six, they may be password protected. She adds a bit more context that I did not catch.

Levine tells the court that they are “... trying to resolve as many items informally as possible.” I believe he tells the court item number 80, they are no longer seeking. Levine tells the court, “We’ve asked for extractions from Ms. Sementilli’s phone for some time now.”



Counsel go back and forth a bit more about discovery. Simmrin tells the court about (I believe) a disclaimer statement that accompanies the bodycam video, and it’s an issue that’s been litigated in other courtrooms/cases before.

And that’s it. When I get up to leave, I see 48 Hours producer Greg Fisher in the back row. He arrived late and asked me what he missed.  Ms. Berk addresses Fisher about something and I hear him say, “Sure. I’d love to.”



I wait a bit in the elevator bay for Greg so I can catch up with what he’s working on but I decide to head down to the cafeteria to write a bit and read my email. While I’m in the cafeteria, Ms. Berk, the gray haired gentleman and their phone expert sit at a table not far from me and start to chat. About a half hour later, they are gone. 



Next pretrial hearing is June 28, 2018.
↧
↧

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 43

June 18, 2018, 1:55 pm
$
0
0
Previous post can be found HERE.

Michael ThoamasGargilo, June 2008

June 8, 2008
8:30 AM The 9th Floor, Dept. 106
I'm in the gallery with two other reporters. CBS 48 Hrs. Producer Greg Fisher is here. Sitting beside Greg is a big cheese from Dateline, Susan, a supervising producer, who I met over 10 years ago in this same courtroom during the first Phil Spector trial.

There are attorneys in the well from another case that are having a loud discussion over by the counsel tables.

DDA Garrett Dameron & DDA Daniel Akemon are here along with lead defense attorney Dale Rubin. Rubin's co-counsel Dan Nardoni is a no show. All three of us are all listening as best we can with rapt attention to counsel speaking with Judge Fidler's clerk over at her counter. I hear "September trial date." And, "come back August 10 ... (or) August 4 ... with a zero of 30 calendar date."  From what I'm hearing, I believe it's Rubin's plan to have the case on a shorter leash. The feedback I think I'm hearing from the clerk is that the court may not allow it (the shorter leash). The idea with the shorter leash is that they can possibly swoop in and get a trial date before a potential seven-week preliminary hearing in a complicated insurance fraud case, if that case has any type of delay.


The conversation over at the clerk's desk is being drowned out by the other counsel chatting loudly in the center of the well. It's clear the banter between DDA Akemon and Mr. Rubin is friendly banter. Over the last several years, I've had the impression that Akemon and Rubin have known each other a long time and get along well. I hear Rubin say, "Let me approach it."

DDA's Akemon and Dameron leave the courtroom to chat.

While we wait in the gallery, the press talk about a couple cases. Convicted murderer Scott Peterson's appeal has been extended again. Scott Peterson made national news when his pregnant wife went missing on Christmas Eve in 2002.  He was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in 2004. His appeal still hasn't been completely adjudicated yet. Will Peterson get a new trial the Modesto Bee asked in August 2017 .

Another case that I thought was dismissed was Kelly Soo Park's federal lawsuit against Santa Monica PD Detective Karen Thompson, the lead investigator into the murder of Juliana Redding. Redding was strangled to death in her Santa Monica apartment in March 2008. At one time LE thought Redding's murder was the work of Gargiulo. Park, whose DNA was found around victim Redding's neck, on her T-shirt, on her blackberry, and other areas of the apartment -and a drop of Park's blood and fingerprint were lifted from a plate in Juliana's kitchen sink- was found not guilty of Redding's murder in June 2013. However, the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit  reinstated Park's lawsuit.

9:00 AM
Rubin goes back into the custody area to visit with Gargiulo. Not long after he comes out, Gargiulo is brought out into the courtroom. Gargiulo is in the high-risk orange jumpsuit, white long-john type shirt underneath. He's also wearing his black horn-rimmed glasses. As before, Gargiulo is completely bald, but he has a slight goatee during this visit. It's the first time that I see graying hair on Gargiulo's face.

While we wait for Judge Fidler to take the bench, former Suge Knight defense attorney Michael Fletcher -who has his own legal troubles stemming from his representation of Knight- stops by Dept. 106, has a short conversation with Judge Fidler's clerk, then quickly leaves.

9:14 AM
Rubin and Judge Fldler's clerk chat a bit. Three minutes later, Judge Fidler takes the bench and goes on the record. The court asks, "So where are we?"

DDA Akemon tells the court they are ready for trial, but are waiting on a report from Dr. Robert Schug, the people's medical expert, that will be issued in three to four weeks. "We hope to come back on August 10 for zero of 30 and get to trial in late August," DDA Akemon adds.

Judge Fidler asks the defendant, "Mr. Gargiulo, are those dates agreeable to you?""Yes, they are," Gargiulo replies. It's over that quickly. Judge Fidler is off the bench and Gargiulo is then taken back into custody.

And that's it.

There is one issue that could hold up Gargiulo's trial starting in late August: the backlog of cases on Judge Fidler's calendar. There is one case, the massive insurance fraud case with 12 or 13 defendants I mentioned earlier. For a couple weeks, that case has had an evidentiary hearing. It's unknown how soon the preliminary hearing could start, possibly delaying Gargiulo's case further.


↧

Monica Sementilli & Robert Baker, Pretrial Hearing 4

June 28, 2018, 5:27 pm
$
0
0
Previous post can be found HERE.

Fabio Sementilli 

UPDATE 7/1:Update on notes about a video and the manila envelope. Removed notes that were not clear.
June 28, 2018
7:40 AM
I get to court early today. I hang out on the 5th floor waiting until 8 am when the security station will be open. When I get on the 9th floor, there is only one sheriff at the station. He tells me the security station won’t open until 8:30 am. That’s new. I can’t imagine that will work for long since quite a few judges open their courtrooms at 8:30 am. So I go back down to the 5th floor to wait.



8:25 AM
I head back to the 9th floor. There are three sheriff’s and the station is open. When I get down to the far end of the hall, DDA’s Beth Silverman and Melissa Opper are sitting on a bench. Beth is wearing a long, blue print flowing dress, black jacket and nice black sling heels with an open toe. I go over and congratulate DDA Silverman on getting aconviction in the Blake Leibel case.  Rounding out the DA’s team are three young, eager looking interns.

The people’s LAPD RHD detectives are not here yet. 

Over on the other side of the hallway, Baker’s defense attorney Michael Simmrin is sitting by himself. Blair Berk is sitting with an attractive, nicely dressed woman wearing thin, black rimmed glasses.  It’s a good guess that this is a family member or friend of Berk’s client, defendant, Monica Sementilli. The woman is about 5’4” tall. She’s wearing skin tight white pants, black ballet type slippers, a black blouse with white dots and a black jacket to finish off the look. A tall slender-man, one of the defense counsel support staff is with them, along with the young intern looking man I’ve seen before. Levine arrives a moment later and eventually goes over to chat with Simmrin.



8:30 AM
Inside Dept. 101
I take my favorite spot next to the aisle in the second bench row. Two Spanish women sit in the gallery directly behind me. The DDA’s interns sit in the first row, right behind the prosecution’s table area. The nicely dressed woman in the black ballet type slippers takes a seat to my right.

Now Levine, Berk and the tall slender-man are over at the clerk’s desk.

Over at the prosecution table, DDA’s Sliverman and Opper and going over a document with their interns. At the defense table, the sheriff deputies in the well are arranging the chairs for the defendants. Defendants must be seated in chairs that do not have rollers. Levine will be seated next to Sementilli today and Berk to his right. Over at the clerk’s desk, there is a male clerk. The court reporter is at her station in front of the bench and my eye is drawn to the really nice bouquet of flowers on her desk.

Levine gets up to chat for a moment with DDA Silverman. Baker is brought out first, and the deputy places him in the wrong seat. It’s quickly corrected. Baker’s hair is short and he has a mustache.

The tall slender-man, who is sitting in the well chairs directly behind the defense table says (to I don’t know who): “That’s my mistake. I apologize.” DDA Silverman answers, “You don’t have to apologize.”



The two LAPD Robbery Homicide Division detectives on the case enter Dept. 101 and take seats in the well directly in front of the jury box. They briefly speak to DDA Silverman.

We are still waiting for Sementilli to be brought out. Simmrin chats with the big burly Sheriff’s Deputy, Sargent Westphal (sp?).

Baker faces the gallery and looks in the direction behind me. I don’t know if he’s looking at the two Spanish women behind me, or at the clock. 

Simmrin, Levine and Berk chat for a moment in a huddle. Sargent Westphal goes over to DDA Silverman then speaks to the two LAPD RHD detectives. 

The bailiff goes over to the clerk’s counter to speak to the judge. Sargent Westphal also comes over and both officers chat with Judge Coen. It’s quickly over and the regular bailiff goes back to the custody area.

8:42 AM
We are still waiting on Sementilli to be brought out.

Levine was about to have the woman that came with the defense team leave the room when his client is brought out and we go on the record.

I believe I saw Sementilli smile at the ballet slipper woman in the gallery. 

Judge Coen informs the parties that a document came back from ATT, labeled “for court eyes only". Levine informs the court that this document is from his subpoena. He wants to see the document and not share it with the people.

Judge Coen responds, “That’s not the way it works.” 

Judge Coen then goes over to one of his index card file boxes and after a few seconds, pulls out a card and reads from a prior court ruling on just this issue. Judge Coen tells the parties, “As it stands now (the subpoenaed documents), it’s open to all sides.” I believe Levine argues that he wants to see it first to determine if it will be used as work product. Judge Coen argues with the defense on the merits of his argument and Levine submits to the court’s ruling. Levine agrees to turn over a copy of the documents to the people. The people ask the judge for control of the document, maybe not feeling that the defense will actually make them a copy (or maybe even a full copy) of what they subpoenaed. Judge Coen turns down that request reminding the people that they are all officers of the court.

The motion by Sementilli's counsel to have property seized by the LAPD during the search warrant returned is addressed. Also attached to the motion is an “errata” page. The court asks, “Any objection by the people?” Initially, the people say no, but then DDA Silverman raises several objections to issues with the motion and order Judge Coen will sign. The motion is not within the LAPD guidelines. The motion must specifically state the item number of the property to be released. Additionally, DDA Silverman states the motion is requesting items #12 and #13. She informs the court and defense counsel that those items, laptop computers, were already released to the defense months ago.  DDA Silverman has one last item. The order must show the items are released to a particular person.



Levine states he will provide the correct numbers of the items and make the needed adjustments. Judge Coen states he will sign the original order and adjustments will be made to it. He is not going to sign several orders.



Then Simmrin addresses the court. My notes are not clear, but I believe Mr. Simmrin was speaking to the court for the following. When Mr. Baker came to court with him today, he had an envelope with personal writings in it. It was confiscated by the sheriff’s deputies.  Upon reviewing the tape of the last hearing ..

[I believe Simmrin is referencing video tapes from the jail custody area.]


[7/1: I believe Simmrin is referring to the Sheriff's review of the video tape. Sprocket]

Ms. Sementilli may have passed a yellow envelope to his client, Baker. Simmrin is not sure of the basics. He is not sure if that is the envelope that was passed (at the last hearing). 



Right after that I have a note that Judge Coen addresses the parties and states he “... knows very little ... Sargent Westphal seized the items.” 



Levine addresses the court and states he wants to see what was confiscated. Judge Coen rules, “I’m not going to order that. ... This is Mr. Simmrin’s game.” Judge Coen adds that it’s up to Mr. Simmrin if he wants to share the contents with Mr. Levine.



Simmrin asks the court, “How do we know that these are the items?” Judge Coen tells Simmrin, “You’re allowed to look at the items. ... It’s a sheriff’s issue.”

Judge Coen goes onto explain that there are certain procedures for clearing defendant documents that are brought to the courthouse. 



Levine brings up a discovery issue. Levine informs the court that the people turned over new discovery documents to the defense today. They want to come back in 30 days to set a trial date and urge the people to turn over all their discovery.  Levine appears to be pushing the court to force the people to turn over all discovery immediately.



Judge Coen reminds Levine that this is a two defendant case and that his concern’s are with Mr. Baker. Baker’s counsel may not be ready. Simmrin addresses the court and states he’s not even through all of his discovery. He has DNA analysis, phone evidence. Simmrin tells the court, “I don’t expect to be ready within a month.”



I believe Levine at some point mentions severing the cases (so his client can get to trial faster) and Judge Coen reminds counsel that we are far from that at this point. 

Then the parties try to come up with a return date that works for everyone, including the court. They will return on July 30, 2018 at 8:30 am.



That’s it for the court. Judge Coen leaves the bench. Both defendants are brought back into custody. However, all the counsel stay at their tables. No one is getting up. The prosecution team and the detectives are in conversation. 

I’m concentrating on the prosecution team, and I believe I hear DDA Silverman say, She’s in a whole ‘nother world. I’m not positive that’s correct, but I believe that’s what I heard her say.

8:58AM
Judge Coen is out of his robes and is standing at his clerk’s desk.  Levine comes over to DDA Silverman and says something. I hear DDA Silverman respond, “Absolutely.”

A few minutes later, the regular bailiff and Sargent Westphal come back into the courtroom. The regular bailiff is holding several blue latex gloves. Sargent Westphal and Simmrin both put on a pair of gloves. Afterwards, Sargent Westphal, properly gloved, I believe, pulls out an envelope from the bailiff’s desk. It’s a large 9x12 manila envelope that looks like it’s bulging a bit in the middle. It’s something much larger than I had originally envisioned. I was thinking of a simple, #10 letter envelope that may have been passed.

Simmrin starts to pull out whatever is in the manila envelope. As he does that, the prosecution team and their interns get up and leave the courtroom. I follow them out.  The form a huddle on the other side of the hallway. I sit across the hall, a polite distance away. I cannot hear what they are discussing.



9:09AM
Both defense teams leave the courtroom. Not long after, Sargent Westphal and the two LAPD detectives exit the courtroom. Sargent Westphal still has his hands gloved and is holding the envelope in one hand. The officers and the prosecution team leave together for the elevator bay.

Just as we are entering the elevator bay, DDA Silverman is stopped by a young Dateline reporter. DDA Silverman tells her she has no time to talk. I believe I hear DDA Silverman state to Sargent Westphal: I want to know how this went down and why. I believe that is what I heard. The wait for an elevator is long so Sargent Westphal takes the detectives and both deputy DA’s down the stairwell. The interns are left behind. 

And that’s it for today’s hearing.


Next hearing is July 30, 2018 at 8:30 AM
↧

Monica Sementilli & Robert Louis Baker, Pretrial Hearing 5

August 4, 2018, 10:47 pm
$
0
0
Previous post can be found HERE.

LAPD Booking Photos
July 30, 2018
I arrive on the 9th floor at 8:15 am. Baker's defense attorney Michael Simmrin is here sitting on the bench at the very end of the hallway.

There are a few public people here. No other press that I recognize. A young gentleman shows up at this end of the hallway wearing a jury badge. After a few minutes, I notice that the air is hot, almost sticky. The building AC may not be fully up to speed, which is not unusual on a Monday. I'm starting to sweat. I may have to tie up my hair.

8:24 AM
DDA Melissa Opper arrives. She's dressed like I've always seen her, in an all black, two-piece suit and black pumps. She goes directly to Simmrin and they chat about something. I'm too far away to listen in.

8:28 AM
Sementilli's full defense team arrives on the 9th floor. When they approach Simmrin as a group, DDA Opper politely steps away so they can chat. I overhear snatches of conversation this time. They appear to be trying to set a return date for the next hearing.

8:30 AM
Dept. 101 opens and everyone heads inside. I wonder if DDA Beth Silverman is busy with a pretrial hearing in another case or if she will arrive later. I take a seat in the 2nd bench row.

Judge Coen was at his bench out of his robe when I entered. Now Judge Coen is chatting with the gray haired gentleman on the Sementilli defense team at the clerk's counter. Now I wonder if this gentleman is a private investigator like I've guessed, or another attorney working on her case. Usually, when there are non-lead counsel working on a case, they still sit in the extra seats in the well. This gentleman sits in the gallery each time I've been here.

Although DDA Silverman has not arrived yet, the three defense counsel are trying to nail down a return date. Berk is asking DDA Opper a question about scheduling. "Melissa, does the 18th work for you?"

Berk is wearing a beautiful light brown jacket and I want one exactly like it. The jacket has nice lines and is gently tailored to her hip. It looks great on her. What I really like about it is, there is no collar or lapel. It's closed by a single, large button under the bra line.

Thankfully, Dept. 101 is noticeably several degrees cooler than the hallway. A second court reporter arrives. The court reporter was obviously sent to the wrong department because the regular court reporter for Dept. 101 is here.  The court reporter leaves to find where her fill in assignment is located.

I overhear someone, I think a bailiff of possibly Judge Coen himself say the defendants are not on the floor yet.

Back and forth, counsel are still trying to decide on a return date.

8:38 AM
DDA Silverman arrives with two interns.  Beth is wearing a black jacket paired over a black and white patterned dress with small splashes of color. 

Judge Coen asks the parties about time, meaning how long will the trial last. DDA Silverman tells the court that just their case alone will take six weeks. So if that's just the people's case, one wonders how long the defense will take.

I believe Judge Coen replies, "That changes things." He tells the parties, "I can give you four weeks in January. So now they are looking at March 2019.

Judge Coen and Levine chat. DDA Silverman and Simmrin chat about a hard drive sitting on the DA's desk.

Counsel are still trying to work out a return date. You have three different attorneys on the defense side, the court {Judge Coen's schedule} and the people. So five different groups need to find a return date that works for "everyone". The next dates Berk throws out are the 17th or 18th of September.

That doesn't work for everybody so they go back to August. August 24 works for everyone except DDA Silverman.  This is a tedious process with everyone checking their calendars to see how they can work this out.

Baker is brought out and and handcuffed to the chair at the end of the defense table. We are now waiting for Levine & Berk's client, Sementilli. Sementilli arrives. Judge Coen immediately goes on the record. Judge Coen states the parties that are present and that they are looking for a return date. Coen is looking to set the court calendar at zero of 60 on the next date. They are tentatively trying to set a return date which will be a discovery hearing update.

After a bit more back and forth among counsel the return date is set: October 2nd for a discovery hearing. I believe it is Levine who is asking if the court wants to set a trial date then (Oct 2) or now.

Judge Coen reminds Levine that his co-counsel's rights [representing Baker] trump California Penal Code 1382. Levine tells the court that they will file a motion to separate the cases. (In an effort to get to trial sooner I expect.) Judge Coen tells the parties that he has nothing available for trial until March 25, 2018. Coen wants to make the court calendar on this case zero of 60 on October 2. Coen states a tentative trial date will be drawn on that date.

DDA Silverman goes over a bit of housekeeping with the court regarding the 911 transcript and that the "SDT files" have not been returned to the court file. The court orders the DA is to take custody of the SDT files and make copies.

And that's it. The defendants are brought back into custody and the parties return date is October 2.


↧
Search

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 44

August 13, 2018, 12:28 pm
$
0
0
The previous post can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo 2008

August 10, 2018
I take the train into downtown Los Angeles. I think I have enough time to get a couple fried eggs in the cafeteria, but the line is too long. I head to the fifth floor snack bar and get a green Matcha tea and a hard boiled egg. That will have to hold me.

8:33 AM
Inside Dept 106. The courtroom is basically empty. The only people present are the bailiff, Judge Fidler’s clerk, Wendy, me and a pretty NBC reporter, Rebecca.



A suited gentleman arrives and sits in the first row. I’m in the second row. 
The only thing I hear is the tinnitus buzzing in my head. Sometimes it's strong like today. Other times I can barely hear it.

There are a quite a few boxes from Superior Document Services throughout the courtroom. A bunch stacked in front of the clerks counter. Some against the wall beside the jury box, some more against the low wall in the well of the court. 

There is some kind of hearing going on, because there are big binders on the prosecution and defense table and there are no notebooks on the seats in the jury box.

8:53 AM
Still very quiet inside 106. 

Judge Fidler's bench  has two tall stacks of papers. From where I'm sitting, one looks to be about 6” high and the other 8” high.

8:58 AM
Dale Rubin arrives. He wants to see his client,. The Gargiulo hearing is for 10 am. Everyone is real early. It's my understanding there is a hearing in another case that will go first before Gargiulo. There is a pool video camera here for that event.

I hear Mr. Rubin say to Judge Fidler's clerk, "It’s going to be easier if I see him now." Mr. Rubin adds, “I got a call.”

Judge Fidler's clerk responds to Mr. Rubin about the call he received regarding his client. She then tells him he might have to go to the14th floor to see Gargiulo. The 14th floor is a custody floor where detainees are held until they are needed for their court appearance. The clerk doesn't want Gargiulo brought down to the 9th floor until his hearing commences. I hear Mr. Rubin tell the clerk, "My main concern is that he gets out here and everything goes smooth."

The clerk tells the bailiff that the case will not be called until 10 am, so they don’t bring Gargiulo to 9th. He’s up on 14th in a holding cell area. Mr. Rubin leaves to go see Gargiulo on the 14th floor.

A few people arrive for the other hearing "Maxwell".  Deputy District Attorney Bobby Grace arrives for the Maxwell hearing. Although I've never covered one of his cases, I've heard wonderful things about DDA Grace's skills in the courtroom.

After the Maxwell hearing is over, I go out into the hallway to wait for a while and read the web.

On the 9th floor hallway, DDA Garrett Dameron is the first to arrive. I like Garrett. He and DDA Dan Akemon have always been kind to me. While exchanging hellos, second chair defense attorney Dan Nardoni arrives and says hello. He always states my full name. Then DDA Dan Akemon arrives. DDA Akemon brought two law clerks/interns with him. The last dozen times or so I've seen Akemon, he always has interns with him.

I inform Mr. Nardoni his compadre (Dale Rubin) is up on 14, speaking with their client.

We head inside Dept. 106. The pretty court reporter and I chat about both of us being here for Spector One. I was almost certain I first saw her in this courtroom during that trial and she confirmed it. She’s been a court reporter almost 20 years.  The first hearing I ever attended in the downtown criminal court building was in this very courtroom in February 2007. It was for a pretrial hearing in the Spector murder trial. The rest, is history.

9:52 AM
Dale Rubin is here. He reenters courtroom with DDA Akemon who has documents for the defense to sign. I see him place them on the defense table.   Now DDA's Dameron and Akemon are at the clerk’s desk, dropping off a document.

I really need to get my eyes reexamined and new glasses. I'm having to squint more and more now to see things.

Judge Fidler's clerk had gotten up from her desk and she saw that I was typing on my laptop. Judge Fidler was not on the bench but she made it clear in no uncertain terms that I had not gotten approval to use my laptop. Busted. I admit, I was pushing it. Usually, if the judge is off the bench it's not a problem but I was bad and did not wait for permission to use it. I immediately close my laptop and switch to hand notes.

Judge Fidler is the judge assigned to approve all wire tap requests in Los Angeles County. It's why he usually doesn't hold trial five days a week, only four.  Juge Fidler comes out to the clerk's counter area to speak with a detective dropping off (what I assume is) a wire tap warrant.

Over in the well of the court DDA's Akemon and Dameron chat. Then Judge Fidler's clerk talks with them about Judge Fidler's schedule and the "other case" that the Gargiulo case is competing with for being on Judge Fidler's schedule next.

Sprocket Note: This was the case that was supposed to have ended in January of this year, but went long. It's DDA Dayan Mathai's MS13 case that had more than one defendant. I know there was a hung jury on one or possibly more defendants.

DDA Dameron tells the clerk, "Dayan's not jumping ahead of me again. ... I've threatened his life over that." The clerk tells DDA Dameron about "...waivers ... So I'm just putting it out there." The clerk adds that one of DDA Mathai's defendants has gone pro per, so that would be better for DDA Dameron's case here.

And this is where I hear the next possible court date in the Gargiulo case. November 2, with calendar set at zero of 60. DDA Mathai's case and this case will both return to Dept. 106 on that date. On hearing that date, I know that the Gargiulo case will not go to trial until 2019.

Mr. Nardoni brings up the 995 motion with the clerk. "There's a 995 motion filed a long time ago," Nardoni tells her.

I have been waiting literally years for the Gargiulo 995 motion to be argued before the court. Mr. Rubin adds the possibility of arguing other motions in December.  The clerk asks the defense, "How much time do you need on that?"

Now the parties are debating if arguing the motions is too soon. What is so refreshing with this group of counsel, is how very respectful they are with each other. There's no animosity like I've seen in some other cases.

The clerk informs the defense that there is "nothing" available in December for motions to be argued. It's probably going to have to be the November 2 date. Mr. Rubin states, "[The] 995, we can do ... or we can do the Perkins...." The clerk asks, "What's the Perkins...?"  The parties explain the Perkins Operation to the clerk.

Other information about the 995 is discussed. The preliminary hearing transcript is 1500 pages. The 995 motion that was filed is about 100 pages. The parties feel the 995 motion needs to be argued so that Judge Fidler knows the case.

Sprocket Note: All of those page documents will have to be read by Judge Fidler before the 995 motion is argued before him.

10:05 AM
The bailiff goes to get the defendant. Gargiulo is brought out. He's still completely bald. Rubin leans in to speak to Gargiulo. I hear Mr. Nardoni ask his client, "How are you feeling? Any better?"

The clerk asks to speak to counsel for a second. I hear the clerk tell them, "...once you guys decide to go on that 995, it's going to go. No continuance."

Judge Fidler takes the bench. The parties state their appearances. DDA Akemon tells the court that their psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Schug has completed his review of the defendant. The people are turning over an additional 1500 pages of discovery with page numbers 37,822 to 39,352. The people
have given this material to the defense on DVD's.

Mr. Nardoni addresses the court next on the November 2nd date as a pretrial hearing as well as two motions.  They would argue the 995 motion on that date. He states the preliminary hearing transcript is 1400 pages. Mr. Rubin states the 995 motion is a "substantial motion".

Then Mr. Rubin adds something I do not recall ever hearing about the defendant. "Mr. Gargiulo has asthma. ... It's well documented. ... [an] inhaler.... up until recently [there's been] ... no problem with the showers. ... a week or two ago .... where he's getting his shower presently ... there's no ventilation .... he passed out .... [he] gets in [an] asthmatic seizure .... the steam ... I'm told [a]  Sargent or Lieutenant on the tier needed a court order for a better schedule."

Judge Fidler responds, "Just prepare [an order] for my signature and I'll sign it."

The next pretrial hearing is set for November 2nd with the case at zero of 60. I believe the court asks, "Is that all?" My notes are not clear as to who answered the court, but I believe it was the defense who replied, "Our hope is to commence trial in January." Judge Fidler responds, "Okay." Gargiulo is brought back into custody and that was it for the hearing.

↧
↧

Monica Sementilli & Robert Louis Baker, Pretrial Hearing 6, & Sprocket News

October 17, 2018, 7:42 am
$
0
0
Previous post can be found HERE.


Ocober 2, 2018
Fabio Sementilli
It's after 8:00 am when I arrive on the 9th floor. Mr. Simmrin arrives around the same time I do. I politely ask Mr. Simmrin if he expect the hearing to go long today. He's kindly tells me that it should be a short hearing today.

Sementilli's defense team (Berk, Levine, gray haird gentleman and the tall thin man) arrives and Monica's sister, Anna Larson is here with them.  This is the same woman I've seen at prior court hearings. The big burly Sargent Westphal arrives with his keys to open Dept. 101, Judge Coen's court.

There are several members of Fabio's family here in the hallway. Two very pretty women and three men who all flew in from Canada. They are all wearing black shirts with "Rest in Peace Beloved Fabio" printed on the back.

I rush into Dept 101 because I want to be sure I get the aisle seat where I can hear the best.

DDA's Beth Silverman and Melissa Opper arrive. Beth is wearing a red and white dress with a matching red jacket and read leather handbag. She has something on I've rarely seen her wear. Flats. They are gray and go quite well with the dress. Usually, Beth is in heels. Melissa is wearing as usual, a dark suit.

Beth comes over to greet the family and also ask how things are going with me. (see note below) Beth does one of the many things that she does best for the family, patiently answer their questions.

In the gallery I also answer questions for Fabio's family, pointing out who is who.

8:40 AM
Judge Coen takes the bench. A minute ago, chairs were being set up for the defendants. Defendants are put in chairs that do not have rollers on them. I point out to the family member beside me where each defendant will sit.

Mr. Simmrin comes out from the custody area. He must have been visiting with his client. Defendant Sementilli comes out first in the blue jumpsuit. Baker comes out quickly after and they are placed in the same chairs as the last few hearings.

Judge Coen goes on the record.  There are discovery items filed [by the people?] The letter seized from Baker at the last hearing. The parties discuss the discovery issue of the seized letter. Sementilli's counsel wants to see the letter. DDA Silverman tells the court that unless Mr. Simmrin has any [discovery] issues, DDA Silverman will give a copy to Sementilli's counsel.  Mr. Simmrin states he has no issues with the letter.

Judge Coen appears a bit miffed on the bench. He asks the people why this wasn't handled informally instead of bringing this in front of him. The court tells the parties that he doesn't need to be involved in these issues. That they should be resolved between the parties and not involve the court's time.

Levine brings up to the court [possibly a motion?] that deals with any other letters in the Sheriff's possession, involving communication between defendants.

Judge Coen brings up search warrant affidavits. DDA Silverman informs the court that many of the search warrants are sealed. The people have been asking for discovery from the LAPD. By October 9, the court orders all discovery turned over.  I'm not certain, but as of today's date, I don't believe the people have received a single piece discovery from either defendant.

Levine brings up something about the hard drives that are needed for the people's discovery. He asks if the prosecution knows when there will be an end to discovery. Levine tells the court, "We want to get to trial as soon as possible." Levine wants to know the end of [discovery?] inquiry.

Judge Coen informs the parties that at this time, because his calendar is getting tight, they should put in a trial date. No other reason to block out time.  Currently, Judge Coen only has 19 days in January 2019 [for a trial]. Mr. Simmrin shakes his head about being ready to defend his client for trial in January. Regardless, it's my understanding that the case will need much more time than that. Coen states the next available time is the last week of April.

DDA Silverman informs the court that there is an ongoing investigation by the LAPD, which she does not have in her hand.

Levine tells the court they want an earlier date for trial. "We are not waiving time." The court responds, "I know, but I will make [whatever?] findings I have to make." Judge Coen adds, I've known Mr. Simmrin for years.  Judge Coen rules. He states Mr. Baker's 6th Amendment rights trumps everything, even defendant Sementilli's right to a speedy trial.

Judge Coen sets a potential start date  for Wednesday, April 24, or the next week starting on the 29th. Coen states it will be a six week trial.  DDA Silverman mentions something about the time frame or length of the trial that I miss.

Simmrin tells the court that he just received a 2 Terabyte hard drive of people discovery that he has not seen yet. Levine tells the court that they have some discovery but the latest batch does not have something. They appear to be ahead of Simmrin.

The trial start date is selected. April 29th for a six week trial. The court clock will be set at zero of ten on that date.  Mr. Simmrin is okay with that date.

The court asks for the next question. Levine is not agreeable to that date. They do not waive time. They would file a motion. The court asks, "Motion to sever, correct? ... Since you're not waiving time?"

Judge Coen states he knows Mr. Simmrin to be a top lawyer. "...one of the best." Judge Coen asks Levine if he thinks he [Mr. Simmrin] is slacking off.  Judge Coen then rules. As I've seen him do before, he goes to one of those long black file boxes and reads from a ruling. There is "...good cause to continue. ... do find good cause to continue Sementilli case over counsel's objection." Judge Coen continues to read from the prior case law but he's too fast for me to get it all.

Levine requests a return date of December 13, and perhaps an inquiry of Mr. Simmrin [as to his readiness]. Levine question whether they should go to another court. Judge Coen states it is not his business to question Mr Simmrin.

Mr. Simmrin tells the court, regarding an earlier trial date, "...given all the discovery, ... I highly doubt that."

And that's it. It's over quickly. Defendant Sementilli's sister in the gallery stands as Sementilli is being led out of the courtroom. As she is led back into the custody area, Sementill looks at her sister and smiles.

The friends and family of Fabio who attended the hearing are: Fabio's sister Mirella Sementilli Rota and her husband Marco; Fabio's sister Loreta, her husband, Joe, and eldest son Anthony. The family shared with me one of Fabio's sayings: "Chin up and charge that mountain." Fabio's family cannot come to every court hearing, but they tell me their souls are here if not in body. The family asks if local friends of Fabio can attend these hearings to represent Fabio since they are unable to do so.

Next pretrial hearing is December 13.

Sprocket News
A little personal, bumpy ride here. I apologize to T&T readers that my notes on this hearing are over two weeks late. I hope you will forgive me when I share the reason why.

Over the past year, my life has changed dramatically. September 29, I sold my house. Escrow closes tomorrow. My last day on the property is October 28 where I will move into temporary housing. After 17 years of marriage, I am forging ahead on a new journey as a single woman again. Please do not be sad for me. My marriage was over many years ago. It wasn't until early this year that I realized I had to give up many things I appreciated about my life, being a wife, a homeowner, my hummingbird garden and possibly my trial reporting, to start again with a new life and new journey.

I don't know what the future holds for me or where I will be in six months. I'm hopeful that I will be able to stay in the area that I love and continue T&T for the next year, possibly two. Beyond that, it is unknown if T&T will continue operating.

If you have appreciated the eleven-and-a-half years of T&T's in-depth trial coverage, a donation to my trial reporting costs would be most appreciative and helpful at this time.You can click on the link to the right that says "Donate". Your bank statement will indicate a charge to "Betsy Ross Linens" which is the bank account I use for T&T and my sewing business.

A Personal Journey
T&T has not only a US readership but an international readership as well. T&T receives hits from people all over the globe dropping in to read the stories T&T has covered over the years.

I have been a some-what public person, at least on the web for over eleven years. In addition to covering high profile trials, I've also written briefly about more personal journeys. The retaliation that Phil Spector and his trial bride wife did to me during Spector's first then second trial; negative blog feedback; becoming friends with Dominick Dunne during Spector and his passing; my sewing business; a Thanksgiving disaster; my health; the antics of my cats; special honors; longtime friends, trial friends, and new trial friends; T&T fan mail; the loss of my beloved long-time companion, Sprocket Cat; my husband's various health issues; local wild fires; and my hummingbird nesting garden. I've shared quite a bit of my life on T&T.

I have been awed by all the women who have had the courage to come forward with their "Me Too" stories. But I also understand from a recent, very painful personal experience why many women remain silent. It is a very individual choice whether to go public or not against another person about a violation or betrayal of trust when that person may be powerful or a pubic personality. So from that, I also respect and honor those who choose to remain silent. You cannot judge someone who chooses to remain silent about an event that is overwhelmingly painful and raw.

On my own personal journey, I know my path has always been one of personal growth, and forgiveness of others, even those who have deeply wronged me. My journey has never been about causing pain to others. That is the path I walk.

The shortest and surest way to live with honor in the world,
is to be in reality what we would appear to be;
and if we observe, we shall find, that all human virtues
increase and are strengthened
by the practice and experience of them.
-Socrates (469-399 B.C.)
↧

Michael Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 45

November 15, 2018, 5:29 am
$
0
0
Previous post can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Arrested in June, 2008

November 2, 2018
Personal Update:
It's been a few days since I vacated my home of 21 years. I am in temporary housing until the end of December. Luckily, I chose a place where I can still take the Orange Line to the Red Line to get to the downtown Clara Shortridge-Foltz criminal court building.

The 9th Floor
8:31 AM
I'm the first person attending this case on the 9th floor. There are barely 8 people spread out along the long hallway. There are attorneys going into Dept. 106, Judge Fidler's court that I've never seen before. There must be another hearing beside Gargiulo's today. I suspect Gargiulo's hearing will not be first up on the schedule.

There is a pretty young girl on the floor obviously waiting for Dept. 106 to open. She might be a reporter or an intern with the DA's office.

8:45 AM
Second chair defense attorney Daniel Nardoni arrives in the hallway. I also see lead counsel Dale Rubin down at the center of the hallway, entering Dept. 103 or 104. Mr. Nardoni approaches a woman he recognizes on the floor and they chat.

8:50 AM
DDA's Dan Akemon and Garrett Dameron arrive on the floor. They stick their heads into Dept. 106 to check in with Judge Fidler's clerk, Wendy, to let her know they are here.  I overhear someone ask if Mr. Rubin is in Dept. 106. As always, Mr. Nardoni says hello to me, addressing me by name.  A few minutes later, Mr. Rubin comes down the hall from Dept. 103. The hallway is still very empty. Hardly any traffic. It doesn't appear that there is a single courtroom on the floor that is currently in trial.

8:52 AM
I head into Dept. 106 say hello to Wendy and take a seat. I pass the defense and prosecution teams having a very friendly chat in the ante chamber. It's very refreshing to see all the attorneys on both sides of a case treat each other with respect and deference. From what I've observed over the years, DDA Akemon and Mr. Rubin have known each other for some time and get along quite well.

There will be another hearing before Gargiulo's. Gargiulo's case will be heard at 10 AM.

9:10 AM
Mr. Nardoni enters and greets the court reporter. There are several other attorneys here for the other case, which is a multi-defendant case.  Mr. Rubin is in the courtroom. When he takes a seat, I notice his pink and blue large check-patterned socks.

9:27 AM
The other case, they are going to bring the defendant's out.

9:33 AM
Judge Fidler takes the bench. The three defendant case - possibly two trials or even three separate trials. The entire matter is held over to December 7th. And that's it. Judge Fidler is off the bench.

For the first time, I notice that there is a sanitary soap dispenser on the wall where the door to the custody area is. The dispenser is directly under the courtroom clock.

9:40 AM
There is a quick court review of a wire-tap hearing. For those of you who don't know, Judge Fidler hears and rules on, I believe, all the requests for a wire tap in Los Angeles County.

In the well of the court, I see DDA Akemon passing a document to Mr. Rubin and Mr. Nardoni. It appears the defense is officially receiving the document. Mr. Nardoni responds to DDA Akemon, "Thank you Daniel."  Mr. Rubin is mentioning something to Wendy about bringing a cart from home to place behind the defense table to hold all the files they will be working with on the case.

I see DDA Akemon dropping off a document at the clerks desk. I overhear a quick comment, "No rush." It has something to do with witnesses.

The chatter I'm overhearing at the clerks desk is a March start date for the Gargiulo trial. My heart sinks. One of the cases in the prior hearing is likely to be next up on Judge Fidler's calendar to start in January. Judge Fidler's calendar rules everything else. From what snatches of conversation I'm hearing now,and from what I believe I heard the clerk discuss with other counsel in the prior hearing, one of the three defendants in that case, is not in the greatest of health. The goal is to get his case to trial as quickly as possible. That's why Gargiulo will probably go after that case.

9:45 AM
Gargiulo is brought out. He is completely clean shaven except for a very small mustache. The green bag he carries with him is placed on the floor at his feet. He's wearing his black, horn-rimmed glasses. He looks much the same as he has in prior hearings.

9:48 AM
Judge Fidler takes the bench for the Gargiulo matter. The defense 995 motion is first mentioned. I've been waiting for the defense to present their 995 motion back in 2013, several attorneys ago. For those not familiar with a 995, it is a defense motion to dismiss the case. It's usually the first motion filed after the completion of the preliminary hearing. Judge Fidler asks if they wish to argue. Mr. Nardoni speaks for the defense on two motions by the people to admit evidence: the 1101b DNA evidence in the 1993 Illinois murder of Tricia Pacaccio and the People's Perkin's Operation. 

Mr. Nardoni briefly states that the court is well aware of Illinois v. Perkins (a ruling affecting Miranda when undercover agents are placed in a jail setting). Mr. Gargiulo was at the LA County jail (in LASD custody) when he was brought to another city jurisdiction, and placed in a cell with two undercover agents. Mr. Nardoni argues that this Perkin's Operationin Gargiulo's case was different than the usual encounters. "He was taken out of the cell and grilled. ... put back in the cell ... taken out again a grilled by LAPD and Downey police." In the people's response, they state Gargiulo had the benefit of a toilet and sleep.  Mr. Nardoni argues the People's Perkin's Operation goes beyond a Miranda type issue. Mr. Gargiulo was not given medication he required. "They took undue advantage of him." 

Mr. Nardoni then argues that, over counsel's objection, the Tricia Pacaccio evidence that was admitted in the prelim under 1101b. He argues that the Pacaccio case, as it is related to the other homicides, there is nothing that relates except the stabbing. Mr. Nardoni argues the evidence is not unique enough. 

Ashley Ellerin murder in February 2001. Nardoni argues, "Easy to say but for Pacaccio, he would [never?] been held to answer on Ellerin alone. ... There's no evidence on it's face. ... The last time [Gargiulo] was seen in the area [of Ellerin's murder] was around November 2000." From January 1st to her [Ellerin's] death he was never seen in the area. There was no DNA No footprint match. No hair fibers or anything to connect [Ellerin's murder] to Mr. Gargiulo.

With the Pacaccio evidence, they [people] are able to prove identity as it relates to Pacaccio, and they are trying to piggyback Ellerin case onto that.

Judge Filder asks to hear from the people. DDA Akemon informs the court that back in December, the people dismissed the burglary charges. I believe DDA Akemon informs the court that these issues were litigated before the prelim,  ruled admissible and it is not proper to relitigate them here. DDA Akemon goes over the basics of the preliminary hearing: 10 days long; 46 witnesses and 37 exhibits. There are over 1,221 transcript pages. In conclusion, the people had Gargiulo connected to three [attacks] and evidence of violence against three other women. Very compelling circumstantial case.

Mr. Nardoni tells the court that he thinks Mr. Akemon misspoke. We have DNA in Pacaccio. She was found at [her] doorstep at home, outside. Others, the attacker broke into apartment[s]. Mr. Nardoni mentions the Bruno case and that in the Murphy case, the same incident the attacker broke in. "Ellerin, that's not a break-in." Detective Small testified all the windows were secured and could not determine any point of entry of the residence or someone [had a] key to the entrance. Mr. Nardoni states that there were two other people who had keys to Ellerin's home: her roommate and the manager. The Ellerin case is unique. There's no DNA in Ellerin or any other physical evidence.

Judge Fidler rules. "I believe Judge Johnson had more that enough evidence..." The court mentions the 1101b and Perkin's Operation. The motion to dismiss is denied.

Mr. Nardoni tells the court, "We need a trial date." Then the case that has been in Dept. 106 for the past nine months is mentioned.  The 12 defendant preliminary hearing in the medical insurance fraud case is the one involving Kelly Soo Park. My notes are not clear on who makes the comment, 'That hearing has got to be coming to an end.'
The court tells the parties that another case will go before them in January. It's not a death penalty case. It will be tried in two separate trials and be six to eight weeks for each. There is one defendant that they need to get to trial first. The other defendant could possibly go after the Gargiulo case. Wendy reminds the court that Mr. Rubin is waiting to retire. I silently note that Mr. Rubin has been waiting to retire since 2017. The Gargiulo case will be Mr. Rubin's swan song.

A return date is finally selected: February 1, 2019 with the case calendar set at zero of 60 on that date. There is speculation that the other case could fall through and not go to trial in January. DDA Akemon, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Nardoni confer. They ask the court if there is a date in December that they can return. Wendy states there are no dates available in December. Judge Fidler's calendar is packed.

Mr. Rubin addresses the court. In 2016 Judge Gordon assigned the case over to him once Mr. Lindner was relieved. Mr. Rubin was assured the case would go to trial in 2017.

Judge Fidler tells the parties that the 12 defendant trial [prelim?] is a disaster.

DDA Akemon tells the court that they are in agreement with the defense. They are hoping not to lose their place in line.  The clerk tells the parties there is no November date available either. Judge Fidler asks to speak to Wendy for a second. DDA Dameron tells the court that whatever date, the February 1, 2019 date would be for arguing the 1101b and Perkin's motions. The February 1st date is locked down.

The court addresses the defendant. "Mr. Gargiulo, is that agreeable to you sir?" Gargiulo responds, "Yes."

The court states they will litigate both.

Then the issue of a jury questionnaire is discussed. Mr. Rubin informs the court that the defense does not want one. They want to have individual juror questioning in voir dire.  Mr. Rubin tells the court a name of the type of questioning, I have "...Hobi preferred" but I don't know if that's the correct term. Mr. Rubin wants to question jurors individually on their feelings on the death penalty vs LWOP. Mr. Rubin states again he is against a jury questionnaire. He prefers a capitol exam.

The court responds, "If you would like to make a formal motion.... I'm disinclined." Judge Fidler recommends to the parties to prepare a jury questionnaire.

And that's it. At 10:10 AM Gargiulo rises from his chair. The sheriffs pick up his green bag and hand it to him. Mr. Nardoni goes back into the custody area with him. About five minutes later, Mr. Nardoni comes back out of the custody area.

Outside in the hallway, I ask Mr. Rubin for a moment of his time. As polite as he has been over the past three years, he appears a bit irritated by my request. I explain that I am an independent journalist who has covered this case since 2012 and am hoping that he would be willing to share copies of his motions with me. 

I don't mention to him that I am hoping he will be willing to share copies of his motions because as an independent journalist, my budget to purchase them from the court is very limited.

Mr. Rubin flatly declines. He tells me I can purchase copies of his motions from the court. I then ask him if he and his co-counsel would be willing to sit for an interview. I make it clear to him that I would not be asking about the case but to do a profile on them as defense attorneys.

Mr. Rubin's tone changes. He is quite adamant in saying no. He tells me he never cooperates with the press. He does not speak to the press. He mentions several major networks by name that have contacted him on the case. Mr. Rubin tells me he never cooperates or sits for interviews. He says that I can go online and find out everything I need to know about him.

Mr. Rubin's response is disappointing since I will have to explore other avenues for getting copies of any defense motions. I know I will not be able to purchase them all. However from a defense standpoint, Mr. Rubin's policy of not cooperating with the press benefits his client the most.

Looking back, I find some irony in all of this. Over the years, I have been contacted by a few people who knew Gargiulo.  Some have shared information. Some have not.

In June of 2015, I was contacted by a woman who stated she was in phone and letter contact with the defendant. She knew him from high school. This was during the time that Gargiulo was represented by Mr. Lindner and it was clear from the pretrial hearings that Gargiulo could not stand his counsel, refused to cooperate, was trying to get a new counsel assigned and was unsuccessful in that endeavor.

The individual stated that Mr. Gargiulo wanted me to contact him via letter and possibly meet with him in the private attorney area to discuss the court proceedings with him. The individual stated that Mr. Gargiulo thought that the judge [At the time, this was Dept 108, Judge Sam Ohta] and his defense attorney were "...being deceptive in court and he feels that he is involved in a wrongful case." I respectfully declined.

As an independent journalist with limited resources, T&T has had a long standing policy of zero contact with potential trial witnesses or charged defendants while the case is pending. Anytime someone has contacted me on a pending case, I always check with the assigned Deputy DA's to see if the individual who has contacted me is on a witness list or someone on their radar.  Some journalists might ask, How could you pass up the opportunity to sit and talk to Gargiulo? To me, the answer is easy. My goal has always been to report on the story as an observer. I don't want to become a part of the story and end up on the witness stand myself.

Uncertain Future for Trial Coverage
I was hoping that the Gargiulo case would go to trial in January and take the estimated five months for three trials: guilt, sanity and penalty phases. I had originally hoped that I could continue reporting on T&T for another year, but things have changed for me. That's not going to be possible. I will need to return to employment much sooner than I had originally projected. I was hoping that in June after the case was finished, I could brush up on my computer skills and look for work in my prior field as a compliance auditor in the financial industry.

With this trial starting in March or even later means after covering the case since 2012, I probably will not be able to continue T&T and cover the Gargiulo trial without an additional source of income at the same time. Possibly a sponsorship if I can find one or trying to raise funds through a Go Fund Me campaign.

So unfortunately, at this time, things are uncertain for continued trial coverage into 2019.
↧

Monica Sementilli & Robert Louis Baker, Pretrial Hearing 7 & Sprocket News

December 17, 2018, 11:33 am
$
0
0
The previous hearing on the case can be found HERE.

Fabio Sementilli
Source: Hair Talk.com
December 13, 2018

Going to Court & Sprocket News
I'm trying to get used to having to spend more time getting to the Orange Line and also traveling a longer distance on the Orange Line than what I'm used to. I used to be able to get to court by 8am, if I left my house at 6:50 am. Now, I cannot leave any later than 6:30am. When I finally move in, it may take even longer than that.

It's official. My escrow closed on my new home December 3 and the court made me officially a single woman again on December 8. I hope to be fully moved in before the end of the year. Next year will be the daunting task of going back to school and finding work.

The 9th Floor
I arrive on the 9th floor a little after 8:00 am. In the center of the hallway on a bench are several people I don't recognize at first. It's CBS 48 Hours producer Greg Fisher along with Fabio Sementilli's sister, Mirella, her cousin and niece. Fabio's relatives all flew in from Canada for the hearing. Not everyone related to a case is able to attend these pretrial hearings. I'm thinking of the families of Pamela Fayed and Juliana Redding. The families of these victims all lived out of state and were not able to attend every hearing. If you were a friend of Fabio and are able to attend a pretrial hearing, I know his family would be grateful that you took the time to attend.

8:29AM
The Sementilli defense team of Leonard Levine and Blair Burke arrives along with their support staff. LAPD Robbery-Homicide Detective Barry Telis arrives.

Once Dept. 101, Judge Coen's courtroom opens, we all head inside. Greg and I take a seat in the third bench row, behind two of Sementilli's support staff. There are quite a few counsel in the well for other cases before Judge Coen. Almost every seat in the well is taken. There is a quick huddle of defense counsel in the well with the gentleman I believe is Sementelli's electronic data expert.

8:35 AM
Three extra sheriff's deputies arrive and cram into the well of the court. DDA's Beth Silverman and Melissa Opper arrive with two male law clerks. DDA Opper is wearing a very dark plum suit. It looks great on her.

A few moments later, Monica Sementilli is brought out and placed on the end of table seat, where Baker has sat in previous hearings. I note that Monica's hair is almost jet black now. There is only a small amount of reddish blond color left on the ends. She almost looks like she has a bit of makeup on and I'm wondering if she had access to makeup while in custody. Sementilli leans in to speak with Mr. Levine. Levine's co counsel, Blair Berk is in the very back row of the courtroom. A few moments later, she comes up to the well of the court to chat with her client then leaves. Now Berk is in deep conversation with Mr. Levine. Now Berk is walking around, almost pacing in the courtroom.

8:45 AM
Baker is brought out and Judge Coen is on the bench and quickly goes on the record. The court informs the parties that they are still scheduled for trial to start April 29, 2019 and the court calendar set on that date at zero of ten.

It appears the parties have all agreed on a return date of January 17. That's agreeable to everyone. Baker's defense attorney Michael Simmrin informs the court that he (just? recently?) received a 2 terabyte hard drive of discovery from the people. Because of the amount of discovery on this hard drive, Simmrin tells the court that the April trial start date is "...not going to work."

The court tells the parties that the trial date will stand for now and they can address it at the next hearing.

DDA Opper tells the court that the people handed over to the defense over 100,000 pages of additional discovery. The people add that this new material will add two weeks to the trial, making the trial approximately two months instead of the previous estimate of six weeks.

DDA Beth Silverman asks the court for permission to take custody of several SDT's, make copies for the people and defense and then return the originals to the court. The defense has no objection.

And that's pretty much it. The hearing is quickly over. Fabio's family flew in for a hearing that didn't even last ten minutes.

8:50 AM
Sementilli is quickly taken back into custody and the defense teams leave. Baker is still in the courtroom, waiting for the sheriff's to arrange his return to the custody area.  I see DDA Silverman is over by the clerk's counter, most likely picking up the subpoenaed documents. When Baker is finally taken back into custody, I note that he has a small book in his hand with a red cover.

Out in the hallway, DDA's Silverman and Opper patiently answer the family's questions about the status of the case and what lies ahead.

It is my understanding that the LAPD is still actively working this case and more discovery is expected to be turned over in the coming months.

The next hearing in the case is January 17, 2019.
↧

Monica Sementilli & Robert Louis Baker, Pretrial Hearing 8

January 18, 2019, 1:02 pm
$
0
0
The previous hearing on this case can be found HERE.

LAPD Booking Photos

January 17, 2018
It's been a very wet week in LA County. We've been hit by a heavy rainstorm for four days, threatening the hillsides from the devastating fires and even areas that did not get burned. Mudslides overtaking homes are always a big concern during a storm. The rains drench the unstable hills and home foundations can move.

Hopefully the rain will let up by this afternoon and we will have a dry weekend. I've been in my new home a little over two weeks but I haven't even started painting yet. I'm still adjusting to tin can living. I'm starting to doubt my memory at times and have been very forgetful about things. Friends tell me I'm just overwhelmed by all the change in such a short period of time. My purse was stolen about a month ago at a bus stop. I was taking the bus for a couple days while my car was in the shop. With my stolen bag, I lost my backup hard drive that had my work and photos going back 20 years. All gone, unrecoverable. A few days ago, I left my phone in a Target restroom that fortunately, someone turned in. I didn't lose that, thankfully. And today, I believe I left my umbrella on a bench in the North Hollywood subway train station. When I got downtown, luckily, there was only a light rain and I didn't get too wet on my walk from the station to the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center.

The 9th Floor
I make it to the 9th floor right around 8:30am.

I don't see anyone from the prosecution team and only one person from the defense team, the tall, slender man I believe is a data expert. A few minutes later DDA's Beth Silverman and Melissa Opper arrive with one of their clerk interns. Beth and Melissa are both wearing all black outfits, with Beth complementing hers with a black and white scarf. It's my understanding that a few interns that have clerked for Beth in the past have been hired by the DA's office as DDA's once they've passed the bar. Minutes later, the DA's victim advocate arrives.

Inside Dept. 101
The gray haired gentleman I believe is a defense investigator is at the clerks desk chatting with Judge Coen, who is not wearing his robe.

8:37am
Baker's defense attorney Michael Simmrin arrives. I hear DDA Sliverman address him with the question/statement, "Good news?" Simmrin responds, "Good news." DDA Silverman responds, "Let me guess. You're hiring a prosecutor to work in the office with you?" I have no idea what they are talking about but it's obviously something within the Public Defender's Office or Alternate Public Defender's Office. DDA Silverman and Simmrin appear to chat about more departmental news. Simmrin is also carrying a unique umbrella that he is showing Beth and Melissa. It looks like it might be this BetterBreta umbrella.  More news is being bantered about. The burly deputy sheriff I often saw around the courthouse and in cases I attended, Sargent Westphal has been promoted. He's a lieutenant now.

Judge Coen is now on the bench and asks the parties if they are ready to do this and to bring the defendant's out. But I don't see Blair Berk. She did not come today. It's only then that I see defense attorney Leonard Levine. He must have just arrived, since I did not see him come in.

While they are waiting for the deputies to get the defendants, Judge Coen and Levine chat off the record about a trial date. Then Judge Coen addresses Simmrin. The court says something to the effect of (I don't have this exactly correct), I hear we are waiting on [a motion?]. Simmirin tells the court that they are waiting, yes.  It's something about a motion Simmrin will be filing on behalf of his client. From what I heard, I gather Simmrin is still working on the motion. Baker is brought out. 

Judge Coen then asks Simmrin, "Did you tell anyone else?" Simmirn informs the court, "Yes."

I believe I hear Levine tell the court, "[Obviously?] I was informed."

Levine and Judge Coen continue to discuss the trial date that is still on the court's calendar. Judge Coen comments to Levine on the discovery, "...when you reach [over] 100,000 pages ..."

I take the court to be implying that going to trial this quickly with all the discovery being turned over is not practical.

Monica Sementilli is brought out. She is in an orange jumpsuit this time. That's different.  I also notice a blue barrette in her hair.

The parties tell the court that they have agreed to a February 21st return date. The April 29 trial start date will remain on the calendar for the time being. Judge Coen mentions a concern about that date. From what I'm hearing it's pretty much a given that date will be vacated soon.

DDA Silverman tells the court there is a new batch of discovery to pass onto Mr. Simmrin. They have been waiting for Simmrin to give them a hard drive. Mr. Levine has already received this batch that will also be passed on to Baker's defense.

DDA Silverman also informs the court that just this morning, the LAPD has provided her office with another hard drive of discovery. Her office will need more drives from the defense to pass on this latest batch. DDA Silverman informs Levine that there is [another] "...search warrant out there..."

I took this to mean the search warrant was related to the latest information the DA's office just received from the LAPD, but I could be wrong about that.

And that's it. The hearing was over in minutes. That's often how these things go.

The next pretrial hearing in the case is February 21.




↧
↧

Michael Connelly's Murder Book Podcast

January 23, 2019, 10:45 pm
$
0
0

On January 28, best selling author Michael Connelly launches his true crime podcast, Murder Book, highlighting murders the mainstream media mostly ignored. The podcast is free. The first podcast will be ten episodes and is about the 30-year investigation into the June 29, 1987 murder of 21 year old Jade Clark. Retired Detective Rick Jackson first investigated the case when he was a homicide detective at LAPD's Hollywood Station.

Rick Jackson
I first heard about Rick Jackson back in 2008, when then Deputy DA Alan Jackson was assigned the Kazuyoshi Miura case. Miura had been reapprehended in Saipan on February 22, 2008. Detective Jackson was assigned to bring Miura back to the US. I remember seeing images of Det. Jackson and Miura getting of the plane at LAX. T&T covered the case until Miura committed suicide in LASD custody. By this time, Jackson was working in the LAPD's Cold Case Unit and I had heard stories about the legendary detective.

It wasn't until I became friends with author Matthew McGough during the Stephanie Lazarus trial that I got to meet Rick in person. Matthew had gotten to know Rick when he interviewed him as part of his article on the LAPD's Cold Case Unit, and they became friends. I met Rick on March 24, 2012, just weeks after Lazarus was convicted of first degree murder. Matthew was speaking at the Pasadena library about his first book, Batboy. Rick, being a friend and big baseball fan, attended the event. I remember that Rick didn't have any business cards on him, but he did write out his email and contact numbers for me. 

I was lucky to be invited to Rick's retirement dinner on October 23, 2013. I wrote a detailed post about that memorable event.

Michael Connelly
I met author Michael Connelly in 2013, again through Matthew. Connelly and fellow author Miles Corwin did an event at the downtown Los Angeles Public Library on December 5, that year. Coincidentally, during the Robert Blake murder trial, years before I started T&T, I was in the courtroom when Miles Corwin took the stand and testified in that case. After the event, Matthew introduced me to Connelly.

Connelly decided on a career in journalism while in college at the University of Florida. (Coincidentally, around the time that Connelly was growing up in Florida, I lived in Pompano Beach.) Michael worked for newspapers in Daytona Beach and Ft. Lauderdale before landing a job covering crime at the LA Times, which is how he came to know and later befriend some of the detectives I've met covering murder trials. He is a crime novelist with 32 books under his belt. His works include the Harry Bosch and Lincoln Lawyer series, and one non-fiction anthology, Crime Beat: A Decade of Covering Cops and Killers. Many of Connelly's stories and characters are drawn from real life cases and detectives he's encountered. With the Murder Book Podcast, Connelly returns to his roots, journalism.

Murder Book
I actually know the case that Connelly's 10 episode podcast is about. I attended a critical pretrial hearing in the case back on February 22, 2013. A suspect, Pierre Romain, had been arrested years earlier in 2003. It was the first time I was back in Judge Fidler's courtroom after the second Phil Spector trial. Deputy DA John Lewin prosecuted the case. 

Rick Jackson on "Murder Book"
This is what Rick Jackson has to say about the new Michael Connelly true crime podcast series, “Murder Book” - “It’s a ten-episode dissection of a murder investigation that lasted thirty years, never stopping through a myriad of twists and turns.  The case didn’t make big headlines and few people heard about it.  However, when I told Michael Connelly about it in 2017, he knew he wanted to make the case his first podcast.  And, Michael Connelly adds, “This story is a deep exploration of our justice system, flaws and all.”  

Subscribe now for “Murder Book,” on your Podcast app or by Google searching “Murder Book Podcast.”  Debuting in January 28, 2019.  The FREE subscription will provide notifications as the air date approaches and allow you to listen to a two-minute trailer.  Again, listening to this podcast is free!

I can't wait to listen.
↧

Lana Clarkson 4/5/1962 ~ 2/3/2003

February 3, 2019, 7:52 pm
$
0
0
Sixteen years ago. Remembering Lana.

Photo courtesy Lana's sister, Fawn Clarkson Edwards.
All rights reserved.

She was kind, generous, talented and stop your breath beautiful. Killed by an egotistical, little man.

Story of visiting her niche at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery. Lana's plot is in the Chapel Columbarium, 2nd floor, south wall.
↧
Search

The Christian-Newsom Torture Murder Case Update

February 7, 2019, 1:16 pm
$
0
0
 Christopher Newsom, Channon Christian
Murdered January 2007

February 7, 2019
T&T is grateful to have guest contributor David in Tennessee provide an update on the Christian- Newsom case. Sprocket.

Guest Entry by David in Tennessee
I've been following major trials going back to Manson and Patty Hearst. The Christian-Newsom torture-murders are distinguished by the sheer horror, length of time, convoluted events, twists and turns.

KnoxNews.com details the horrific events. In January 2007, Channon Christian, 21, and boyfriend Christopher Newsom were abducted, tortured, raped (both of them), and killed in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Channon Christian's SUV was abandoned by the killers after wiping it down. However, a fingerprint was found on an envelope in the car. The AFIS database linked the print to one Lemaricus Davidson, with an address in Knoxville. When the police arrived, they found Channon Christian's body stuffed in a garbage can. 

Eventually five suspects were arrested. Four were tried in Knox County. One, Eric Boyd, was tried and convicted in Federal Court. More on Boyd presently. 

The four tried in state court were convicted. The "ringleader," Davidson, was sentenced to death. His half-brother, Letalvis Cobbins, to LWOP (life without parole). George Thomas was sentenced to life with parole after 50 years. The lone female, Vanessa Coleman, to 35 years. Thomas and Coleman had two trials. Why? Judge Richard Baumgartner was doing drugs and having sex with a woman who was a probationer in his court. The other defendants didn't get new trials due to rock-solid DNA evidence against them. 

In April 2018, KnoxNews.com reports a Knox County grand jury indicted Eric Boyd, who had long been suspected as one of the perpetrators. 

"The grand jury returned a 36-count presentment March 20 against Boyd, 46, including charges of first-degree murder, felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated rape in the January 2007 case."

Authorities previously thought they didn't have enough evidence to charge Boyd. There wasn't DNA from Boyd (at the time) on the victims and he was crafty enough not to admit being in the death house, unlike the others. 

Boyd did give a lot of details in his police interrogation, but claimed he heard them from Davidson. Boyd was convicted in Federal Court of hiding Davidson and sentenced to 18 years. 

Christopher Newsom's parents had pushed for Boyd's prosecution, whom they believed raped and murdered their son. 

"Two volunteer sleuths -Tom Hyman and Kevin Cowans- have helped the Newsoms piece together evidence to present to Knox County District Attorney General Charme Allen." 

The Knox County DAG has declined to say what new evidence resulted in the grand jury indictment. 

According to a KnoxNews.com story in June 2018, Cobbins and Thomas implicated Boyd in their interrogations, but those statements can't be used as evidence against him. The U.S Supreme Court ruled defendants "have the right to confront their accusers via the witness stand, not through unchallenged statements of co-defendants."

The witness list against Boyd indicates his own words will be used against him, something all suspects are told. Several corrections officers and investigators are on the witness list. 

Last week KnoxNews.com reported, Lemaricus Davidson, "ringleader" of the Christian-Newsom murders, was in Knoxville for a hearing requesting a new trial. 

One of the oddities of the whole case is Davidson and his lawyers insisting on a Knox County jury. In all the other trials, a jury was brought in from elsewhere in Tennessee. Judge Baumgartner in open court pleaded with them to have a jury outside of Knox County. He sighed when the defense lawyers still insisted on it.

Eventually, Davidson was convicted and sentenced to death. Supposedly, the defense can't use the Knox County jury as an issue for appeal. It sounds like they are doing just that.

Why did they call for a local jury? The answer is the defense talked themselves into believing 12 impartial jurors couldn't be found. And defense attorney Doug Trant suggested in testimony at the hearing, hoped not to. 

Trant said: "I told (Davidson) if we were not able to seat a jury, he could not be convicted."

The defense attorneys hoped jury selection would be "interminable" and the prosecution might offer Davidson a plea deal on a reduced charge. The District Attorney General's office had offered the defense a guilty plea to life without parole. Davidson said no, declaring he preferred death to life in prison.

After being convicted and sentenced to death, Davidson regretted his decision. 

Trant said: "I remember when he got the death sentence, he cried. He said it was one thing to anticipate a death sentence and another to actually get it."

The other defense attorney, David Eldridge, complained about the "level of publicity." 

The defense also said it was common knowledge in the legal community that Judge Baumgartner was a heavy user of painkillers. 

Davidson's conviction was nearly overturned because of Baumgartner's drug use on the bench, but the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled there was no "structural error." The defense is trying again. 

Most likely, they won't succeed, but with this case, you never know.

Eric Boyd's trial is currently set for August 2019.
↧

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, Pretrial Hearing 46

February 15, 2019, 1:07 pm
$
0
0
The previous hearing on this case can be found HERE.

Michael Thomas Gargiulo, booking photo
June 2008.

UPDATED 2/16: Edited for spelling errors, clarity. Sprocket
February 1, 2019
I was late getting out the door this morning. It now takes me a hour-and-a-half to get to court via public transportation. I arrive on the 9th floor of the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center about 10 minutes before 9 am. I know Judge Fidler's courtroom opens at 8:30 so I head inside.

Lead defense counsel Dale Rubin is in the well of the court. CBS 48 Hours producer Greg Fisher is in the gallery sitting in the back row with Christine Pelisek, People Magazine reporter. I debate on whether to sit with them. I like to sit in the second row. I hate sitting in the back row because I cannot hear as well. I decide to sit in the third row in front of them, so I can still chat.

There is a bit of conversation between the press and Mr. Rubin, who is quite reticent about talking to the press about his client. Anything but that. All he will mention is, when he was supposed to retire in 2017 -Gargiulo is his last case- and where he would like to move to, out of California. Over the last few years, I've observed Rubin to be a friendly man and have had a few conversations with him. He gets along very well with the prosecution. He also speaks and interacts with Gargiulo respectfully. I'm betting that goes a long way with the defendant.

8:55 AM
Deputy District Attorney's Dan Akemon and Garrett Dameron enter Dept. 106 with Retired Sheriff's Detective Mark Lillienfeld. I've known Detective Lillienfeld for a long time. I saw him testify in the first Phil Spector trial and the second. He gives me a big smile and says hello.

A few minutes later Defense attorney Dan Nardoni enters. There is now a huddle in the well between the two teams as they confer over documents. I note that Nardoni has on a nice black suit. My eye is drawn to the red and black handkerchief in his suit pocket.

Over at the clerk's desk, Wendy, Judge Fidler's clerk for as long as I've been covering trials is not here. There is a man who is sitting in for her. There are two extra deputies in the well besides the bailiff. Behind me, I listen in as Greg and Christine chat about other cases they are covering. Not a single one rings a bell with me.

9:07 AM
The court reporter comes out to take her seat in the well. I stand up to look in the jury box. There are no notebooks on the jury seats which leads me to believe Judge Fidler is not in trial at the moment. Attorneys come in for other cases.  A Judge in robes I don't immediately recognize strides into Dept. 106 rather quickly. He asks the stand-in clerk at Wendy's desk if he can have a few minutes with the judge. I know most of the male judges on the 9th floor. Judge Coen, Judge Marcus, Judge Perry, Judge Fidler, Judge Lomelli, Judge Pastor. If the Judge was from this floor, I'm thinking this is Judge Curtis Rappe, in Department 103 but that's just a guess.

9:13 AM
Another defendant is brought out. He's a smallish man wearing a blue jumpsuit.

9:14 AM
Judge Fidler takes the bench.

The first case is continued to another date. It's over quickly. Then a second case, with no defendant present that takes less than a minute.

Then the Gargiulo case is up. The clerk asks DDA Akemon if counsel wants to confer with the court first. DDA Akemon responds, "I think we need the defendant out."

Gargiulo comes out. He looks much like he did last time. His head is completely shaved bald, like it has been for several years now. He has a mustache that is still dark and a goatee that is almost completely white.

The first issue discussed is the defense 995 (Penal Code) motion to dismiss. Rubin tells the court it is a non-statuitory motion. There are documents attached. The motion has not been argued yet. That motion is set for Friday March 1. I have been waiting since 2012 for this motion to be presented and argued.

Next up, 1101b. DDA Akemon addresses the court. The people have several 1101b (Evidence Code) motions before the court and asking for rulings today. The first is a motion to introduce the Tricia Pacaccio murder that occurred in 1993 in Illinois. The motion was filed in 2013. This motion was also litigated at the preliminary hearing. It's a 55 page motion. The people have nothing to add to the motion at this time. The second 1101b motion is a knife attack on Ashley Green. It's a 20 page motion. The people have nothing to add to that motion. The third 1101b are statements made by the defendant during the Perkin's Operation [at the El Monte jail]. The people filed a 55 page motion.  Mr. Gargiulo filed a response. The people don't have anything further to add. 

The people's prior motion of introducing a signature expert, former FBI profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole is discussed. The people inform the court that they are not going to utilize Ms. O'Toole. The court asks the people what the basis for introducing her. DDA Akemon tells the court that the people believe they have ample [basis? argument?] to support this evidence.

Nardoni tells the court that the arguments in the people's motions 1101b motions come from Ms. O'Toole. 

I believe it's DDA Akemon that informs the court that in the Pacaccio murder, they have 19 points of similarity [to the California charges].

Nardoni argues that the 1993 murder of Tricia Pacaccio adds nothing to what the government already has to identity and intent.  "...but clear in this case that the Tricia Pacaccio case adds nothing further to the government case." Nardoni goes back to the Ashley Ellerin case. The defendant knew her and she lived close by. Maria Bruno, [they lived in] the same complex. The have a bootie found in the courtyard with the victim's blood and DNA and alleged epithelial [cells, touch DNA] to the defendant. Nardoni asks the court, "Is identity really an issue in this case?"

Nardoni continues with his arguments, shifting to victim Ashley Ellerin. Ellerin was stabbed 47 times. "Is that really an issue? [Maria] Bruno was stabbed 17 times. Her breasts were cut off. ... Is intent an issue?"  Nardoni then mentions Michelle Murphy. "The problem of introducing under the facts of this case ... unduly prejudicial on this case, particularly in the guilt phase. ... I believe the introduction of Tricia Pacaccio [murder] is evidence of propensity, all covered by 1101a."

Judge Fidler asks about the guilt phase. Judge Fidler mentions Pacaccio and Gargiulo, "...they grew up together."  Nardoni responds, "Killing [his] best friend's sister ... is really identity an issue? It isn't. ... [The] facts speak for themselves."

Nardoni then addresses the 1101b for Ashley Green. It was filed August 8, 2017. The Ashley Green incident occurred in 2002. Nardoni continues to argument that the facts of that incident don't fall under 11l1b. "He lived in the same complex. It happened in broad daylight ... by the door. ... Other incidents .... evening hours. ... He takes from his pocket, a 3" folding pocket knife. ... He gives it to her and she opens it up."  It's related to self defense. It may have been inappropriate but does it go, call for intent and identity. Nothing material. Nothing related. Nardoni adds, "Nonsense to talk about intent and identity on a pocket knife."

Judge Fidler asks the people to respond [for the record] and also address about admissibility.

DDA Akemon responds. "The 1101b issues were articulated [and litigated at preliminary hearing]. .. Nineteen similarities between Ashley Ellerin and Tricia Pacaccio attacks. ... We believe we met that burden under the [Dewalt?] analysis. ... We've met the standard of admission on Tricia Pacaccio. ... Mr. Gargiulo has pled not guilty by reason of insanity. So, 1101b is also relevant to his state of mind, in particular to plan and premeditate. ... I think we can add that as an area of relevance in the Ashley Green attack."

Judge Fidler asks, "How so?"

DDA Akemon responds, "So geographic ... lived near and around ... a knife to the throat. ... [There are] seven to eight similarities to other attacks to other women."

Judge Fidler asks the people to comment on Gargiulo's admissions. Judge Fidler brings up the alleged statement by the defendant, "They're looking for me for a murder in Chicago."

Mr. Rubin interjects and explains what he believes the court is referencing. Then DDA Akemon clears it up for the court. That there was an individual arrested in Chicago, regarding statements by Gargiulo here. The court asks, "Is that coming into evidence here?"

DDA Akemon responds that there are two individuals, a Temer Leary and Anthony Dilorenzo, former friends of the defendant who worked with him in 1998. Statements to the effect of, "I left that bitch for dead... or something similar. ... So the answer is yes, we plan to introduce [those witnesses at trial]."

Nardoni asks to add more to his rebuttal argument. He looked over the Ashley Green motion. "The people say that Mr. Gargiulo attacked Ashley Green. ... simply not true. ... She never reported to police, or assaulted by knife to police." Nardoni continues to argue that it does not go to intent.

Gargiulo is leaning forward, listening intently to Nardoni argue.

Nardoni argues that with the Pacaccio murder, "... we're talking about a trial within a trial. [The] relevancy is outweighed by the prejudice."

Judge Fidler asks for the spelling of Tricia Pacaccio's last name.

Mr. Rubin then steps up to argue against the 1101b motions. This is unusual. It's been my experience the court only allows one attorney to argue a motion, not two.  Mr. Rubin argues the point of the evidence as to the way the crime was performed, other than the fact that Ms. Pacaccio was killed with a knife. Ms. Pacaccio lived a couple blocks around the corner from the Gargiulo family. Her murder occurred outside the door to the house that leads to the driveway. "[The house] is on a corner. ... Anywhere you stand you can see what's going on in that area. ... It's not similar to other attacks. ... The one thing we really have, is to get in front of the jury another murder, what he's also charged for."

Judge Fidler asks, "Is [your argument] the set of similarities or any dissimilarities, you can't use it? Mr. Rubin responds, "I use a fingerprint, or you can't use it by the court. When [Gargiulo's?] case was investigated, ... there were a number of other cases that ... (he was not involved in) ... the prosecution said, a number of steps. I don't know what that means. ... But some circumstances could be related to any other murder of this type."

Mr. Rubin continues his argument that, if the Tricia Pacaccio case is brought in, that means another four weeks of witnesses. Then Mr. Nardoni gets up to continue arguing another point relating to the Pacaccio murder that is different than the other cases.

Again, to me, this is unusual that two defense attorneys are both presenting motion arguments on the same issue.

Mr. Nardoni states that it is believed at the time of the [Picaccio] murder, right across the street, there was a late hour party with alcohol. "That factor detracts from [a] signature." Nardoni adds, "There were several suspects in the Pacaccio case that ended up committing suicide."

DDA Akemon presents rebuttal statements about the "level of proof" in the Pacaccio murder. "His [Gargiulo's] DNA is on Pacaccio's fingernails ... and the witness statements." DDA Akemon references Mr. Rubin's comments about signature needing to be a "fingerprint." DDA Akemon continues, "... Tricia Pacaccio and Ashely Green ... the issue of intent. Those are admissible because they are sufficiently similar."

The court signals in it's first comment how it plans to rule. Judge Fidler responds, "[I] feel differently to Ashley Green. I'll let you introduce Tricia Pacaccio. ... What's sufficiently similar ... knowledge of [individual?] victims ...  proximity of victim and place ... and use of knife as a weapon. ... That satisfies the law. ... I don't think it's unduly prejudicial. ... Facts of crime ... even with DNA ... I've seen cases.

Judge Fidler then references the Juliana Redding murder that was in Judge Kennedy's court, alleged to have been committed by Kelly Soo Park, who is now in his courtroom on another case/charge.

Judge Fidler explains, "... there was DNA on a victim in a case in Judge Kennedy's court, and I have the [same] defendant in another case." (Kelly Soo Park was acquitted in the Redding murder.Sprocket)

DDA Akemon responds that he understands about Ashley Green. I believe he adds that he doesn't know if the defendant will testify. He doesn't know what the mental experts will say.

The Perkin's Operation motion is brought up by Mr. Rubin. "I reread the Perkin's motion. I think it's important to note in Perkin's, the Supreme Court decided ..." Mr. Rubin reads directly from the court ruling. I don't write all of this down. It's not new argument presented by Mr. Rubin, it's a published decision of the original Perkin's.

Gargiulo intently watches Mr. Rubin present the Supreme Court's ruling on Perkin's. Then Mr. Rubin goes on about what happened in the Perkin's Operation in Gargiulo's case. "Forty-eight hours of tape where Mr. Gargiulo is barraged by witnesses. ... [They said to him] Don't listen to your lawyer. You can talk to us! Gargiulo was not in his house. He was in a custodial situation so under pressure at the time. ... If we consider what the prosecution did in this case ... it is so far out side (the issue of Perkin's) ... Also, Gargiulo was on medication at the time."

Rubin states that Gargiulo was in custody, Perkin's was not. "I believe we have a fifth amendment violation and outside of Miranda. ... if not required to give Miranda because of custody setting and also because of outside of contact with his counsel."

DDA Akemon rebuts the defense oral arguments. "He [Gargiulo] did have contact with his counsel. ...I would emphasize, that Mr. Gargiulo was so comfortable ... he was sleeping and had food. ... There were two [officers with him]. ... He was so comfortable in that setting ... not only did he hatch a plan of escape ... he was trying to recruit the other deputies to go in with him."

Mr. Rubin responds. "I didn't hear anything from the prosecution about, Don't listen to your lawyer. You can talk to us." Mr. Rubin continues with more reading from the higher courts decision on Perkins. "The court has long held that there are certain interrogation techniques that are so offensive that they ..."

When Mr. Rubin is finished, DDA Akemon tells the court the people have nothing to add. Then Judge Fidler gives his ruling. "The defense did a good job pointing out specifics in this case. ... I don't see where they broke down the will. ... I don't see it. ... It may come close to the line ... but it didn't cross it." 

Judge Fidler rules the evidence from the Perkin's Operation will come into the trial. The court calendar is set as zero of 60 as of today's date.

DDA Akemon states they are asking for a trial date of March 18, 2019.  That date is agreed to by all parties. Judge Fidler does tell the parties that he has a hearing on March 15th, (I believe in the massive insurance fraud case) a motion to disqualify the prosecution in that case.

The jury questionnaire is discussed. The people and the defense have been working on that. It's about 99% completed. The court asks if they are going to have a  pre-screening of time hardship waiver for the jurors. The court brings up a motion filed by the people about the security of the courtroom.

DDA Akemon tells the court that they are looking at a three phase trial [guilt, sanity, punishment] lasting four months. To be conservative, four to six months. Mr. Rubin asks about possibly sequestering the jury. The court responds, "...probably not."

In conclusion, the 995 motion will be argued on March 1 and jury selection will commence on March 18.  And that's it.

Sprocket Notes
At the time of this posting (February 15, 2019), Gargiulo's birthday, he is 45 years old. He has been in custody waiting trial 10 years, 8 months. A future post will attempt to answer why it has taken this long to bring Gargiulo to trial.

Unfortunately, at this time I do not know if I will be able to cover this entire trial.  I hope to be enrolled in classes for the summer session.
↧
↧

Stephanie Lazarus In Her Own Words (Part I, 2/19/1985)

February 19, 2019, 8:32 am
$
0
0

T&T Exclusive
Stephanie Lazarus In Her Own Words (Part I, 2/19/1985)
In 1986, Sherri Rasmussen was murdered in her Van Nuys home. 23 years later, in 2009, LAPD Detective Stephanie Lazarus was arrested for the crime. Lazarus was convicted of first degree murder in 2012, a trial I covered from gavel to gavel.

Early in her LAPD career, Stephanie kept a diary of her daily patrol rounds. This diary entry is from February 19, 1985, 34 years ago today. 

At the time, Stephanie was a patrol officer assigned to the LAPD’s Hollywood Division. According to her diary, her partner that day was Stacy Koon. Koon later gained notoriety as one of the four LAPD officers involved in the 1991 videotaped beating of Rodney King.

Lazarus Diary
2245 – 0830
HWD
6A65
KOON
I wasn’t really looking forward to working with Koon, but it wasn’t too bad. At beginning of watch Koon apparently found a baggie of marijuana in the car so he was going to book it.

We were very busy with radio calls, nothing too exciting.

We did have one call which [was] a 459 susp there now. It turned out to be this lady's son. She didn't want him in the house. He had already left. Well this lady was kinda crazy. She wanted us to do something but she didn't want to have him arrested.

At about 0300 we had this 211 that just occurred at the House of Pancakes. Well we were a blk from the restaurant. We got there and it supposedly happened 10 min ago. No one in the restaurant seemed too concerned when we walked in. Well what had happened was some guys took the money out of the cash register.

Well we were driving by 6830 Sunset (stolen car from here). Koon saw this car with a male driving it with apparently 3 young girls. We started following it and the susp turned S/B on Mansfield and the chase was on.

I had to put the Rover in the convert-a-com to broadcast. At first I was rather nervous, then once we got going I was calmed down. We drove in the pursuit for 3.3 miles. I don't know how long we were in the pursuit, but it seemed like slow motion. We were driving all over. It seemed really weird, just like watching a movie. Koon threw everything in the back seat. We were putting on our seat belts. Other units were helping. We were E/B on Sunset past Highland and a unit was coming W/B on Sunset. The susp turned S/B on Seward then E/B on Leland Way and the street Dead Ended. The susp ran from the car through a long pathway. I watched the 3 people in the car. Koon looked up the pathway and didn't see the susp. There were units all around but the guy vanished into thin air. We think he ran into a apt building or to one of the hotels on Sunset.

The canine unit came out and we searched. The dog picked up no scent whatsoever. Luckily a TA unit came and took the traffic report. We had to write a Impound report and the recovery of the stolen plates. It was kinda good that we didn't arrest the guy, we really would have worked overtime. 

Everyone was telling me how good of a broadcast it was. It got better as time went on. It was a weird experience, like time stops.
End

My friend Matthew McGough's book, The Lazarus Files will be released on April 30, 2019. You can pre-order his book on Amazon HERE.
↧

Monica Sementilli & Robert Louis Baker Pretrial Hearing 9

February 21, 2019, 12:00 pm
$
0
0
Previous post can be found HERE.

Fabio Sementilli, murdered January 23, 2017.
Photo Credit: dearhairdresser.ca

February 21, 2019
8:28 AM
I arrive at the elevator bay of the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center at the same time as DDA's Beth Silverman, Melissa Opper and their clerk-interns. The two clerks working with the DDA's are young and bright looking. They have that sharp, aware look in their eyes.

We take an elevator up to the 9th floor together. DDA Silverman always says hello when she sees me. DDA Opper is wearing a sleek light chocolate coat. I want that coat. Not specifically her coat, since she is a tiny, petite person, but one just like it once I lose the rest of the weight I put on when I was with my ex. I'm envious of the sharp looking heels that Beth and Melissa are wearing. I've not been able to wear heels since I broke my left ankle in four places about 30 years ago.

8:30 AM Inside Dept 101, Judge Coen's Courtroom
DDA'sa Silverman and Opper take their places at the people's table and start arranging their files. I take a seat in the second bench row. The interns sit in the front row, near the people's table. Defense attorney Leonard Levine arrives with the gray haired man whose name I still don't know. Mr. Levine goes to DDA Opper and documents are exchanged. Blair Berk has not arrived yet.


There is a different court repoerter at the reporter's desk that DDA Silverman knows and they start to chat like old friends. Over at the clerk's desk, Judge Coen's clerk ask Mr. Levine if they are still waiting for Ms. Berk. I do not hear his answer. Ms. Berk does not come to the hearing today.

8:34 AM
Judge Coen comes out from his chamber to chat with his clerk. We are waiting on Mr. Simmrin, Baker's defense attorney. DDA Opper hands several pages to DDA Silverman and Beth asks, "Whose is this? I can't read it." She then says, "This is Lenny," referring to Mr. Levine. I'm guessing it's something Levine has filed on behalf of his client.

The gray haired man who arrived with Mr. Levine chats with Judge Coen at the clerks desk like he often does. It's clear the men know each other well. I note that Beth's necklace today are several, long fine strands of gold chain. The two DA interns chat while Beth talks about her new puppy. Beth and I both love animals but she is a dog person and I'm a cat person. I'm still not completely settled in my new place yet. Once I am I will be shopping shelters and rescue organizations for my next feline companion.

8:45 AM
We are still waiting on Mr. Simmrin, Baker's defense attorney to arrive.



8:47 AM
Judge Coen goes back to his chambers and puts on his robe. He then takes the bench and waits on the bench. Judge Coen has some papers in his hand that he appears to read. He appears contempklative. He gives out a heavy sigh that I can hear.

An Asian man enters and takes a seat in the far corner of the back row.  DDA Silverman reads a motion paper. The courtroom bailiff gets chairs ready at the defense table. Defendant Rober Louis Baker is brought out and places in the chair he usually sits in at the end of the defense table. His attorney is still missing.

Judge Coen and his female clerk chat. It appears to be about the case that is currently in trial in Judge Coen's court. The defendant is Francisco Cardenaz Guzman a hotel owner charged with murder. The handsome DDA John McKinney is prosecuting the case.

8:52 AM
Defense attorney Michael Simmrin arrives and apologizes to the court for his tardiness. Simmrin is in the transition stage of leaving the Alternate Public Defender's Office and (I believe) entering private practice.

Judge Coen goes on the record in this case. He states that defendant Sementilli missed the first bus. The court expects that there will be a motion to sever the two cases but nothing has been filed yet. Discovery is discussed. Mr. Simmrin states he is waiting on another batch of discovery from the people. DDA Opper holds up a file indicating she has what he is expecting in her hands. DDA Silverman states that what is on this drive is "... a lot of potential evidence."

Mr. Simmrin is pushing to move the already set trial date forward because he has no idea how much information is on the discovery drive he has not see yet.  The court states that there is nothing that you (Mr. Simmrin?) can do at this time. The court will leave the trial date to stand for now.

DDA Silverman informs the court that they have over 100 witnesses the people are going to have subpoena on this case. My understanding is she is indicating the current trial date is not nearly enough time to prepare for that. Mr. Simmrin states he does not know what is on the discovery he hasn't seen yet but he could not be ready for trial by the original trial date.

Judge Coen speaks quickly about Mr. Baker's six amendment rights. He knows that Mr. Simmrin has a lot of discovery to still review. He tells him, "I won't have an attorney unprepared for trial."

Then there is a back and forth discussion between the court, the people and the defense about the next court date. Several dates are thrown out until they finally settle on March 27th. The court states the matter is continued to that date for pretrial. The court adds that the trial date still remains.

DDA Silverman tells the court that they have subpoenas for multiple records for various financial institutions. The court clerk indicates that one subpoena did come in, from Proctor & Gamble.

DDA Silverman asks for permission to take the documents, copy and disburse copies to the defense. That's agreed. She then asks for a continuing stipulation that the people can come in and pick up these documents as they come in and make copies for disbursement. Mr. Levine is agreeable as long as the people tell them where the documents are from. Mr. Simmrin has no objection either. The amendment is agreeable.

8:57 AM
And that's it. They are off the record.

There is a bit of banter between the court and counsel off the record on unrelated subjects. Judge Coen asks Mr. Simmrin if he is out yet because his name has been removed off the website. Mr. Simmrin states that his last day is tomorrow, Friday.  DDA Silverman tell the defense attorneys that she will need another drive from each of them. Mr. Simmrin walks over to the DDA's interns and introduces himself.

An attorney enters Dept. 101 with files and a rolling cart. He's probably one of the counsel in trial at the moment in front of Judge Coen. Judge Coen tells the counsel that [?] is sick today and he's not sure if they will be in trial tomorrow.

As counsel start to gather up their things Judge Coen states he's getting an "...eighth box today..."  Judge Coen when he is in trial, or making rulings, has these long black boxes on his bench filled with index cards that hold all the Superior Court decisions. I've seen Judge Coen reach into one of these boxes and pull out a ruling to quote from it. DDA Silverman states that Judge Coen must get these boxes custom made.  There's more banter between DDA Silverman and the court and then everyone slowly heads out. As I leave I note that DDA John McKinney is in the well of the court -somehow I missed seeing him come in- speaking with the other attorney and Judge Coen.

I have a debate with myself on staying to listen to a bit of the current trial but ultimately decide to head over to the old Federal Building on Spring street for breakfast. The cafeteria in the criminal court, the line for service is out the door.

↧

Stephanie Laazrus In Her Own Words (Part II 2/24/1985)

February 24, 2019, 5:00 am
$
0
0
T&T EXCLUSIVE

Stephanie Lazarus In Her Own Words (Part II, 2/24/1985)

In 1986, Sherri Rasmussen was murdered in her Van Nuys home.

23 years later, in 2009, LAPD Detective Stephanie Lazarus was arrested for the crime. Lazarus was convicted of first degree murder in 2012, a trial I covered from gavel to gavel.

Early in her LAPD career, Stephanie kept a diary of her daily patrol rounds.

This diary entry is from February 24, 1985, 34 years ago today. 

At the time, Stephanie was a patrol officer assigned to the LAPD’s Hollywood Division. Her partner that day was Dave May. A year later, on February 24, 1986, Stephanie murdered Sherri.

2245 – 0730
HWD
6A67
MAY
2-24-85 

We had roll call training today in Hostage Negotiation. Sgt. Anderson gave the training. It was informative. 

This is the last night I work with May.

NOTE – This morning we had a qualifying run for the Vegas run. I ran 5 miles in 37 minutes. There were 8 people, me and 7 guys. I came in 7th. I beat May at the end.

First thing we did May wrote a ticket to a guy who had no license plate no registration. Then we were going back to the Station and 3 people walked across the don’t walk right in front of us. So we stopped them and of course they had no ID. So we took them to the Station and wrote them a ticket.
Then we went by Marathon and St. Andrews. First time we drove by we saw nothing, then we went by again and Dave saw a guy throw his bindles on the ground. We stopped the guy and Dave found the bindles and we arrested him. The susp looked like a real cholo, but he was rather truthful with us. He did admit that he was going to sell the marijuana. The guy was really funny. I kinda felt bad booking him. 

May wrote the report and booked the susp on the computer. He wanted me to write the report, but I didn’t see the guy dropped the stuff. So I don’t like writing reports that I have to lie on.
Then we tried to eat. I was really getting tired. But we got a call for 459 Susps. There were none at the location so then we got Code 7. We ate at Sunset and Vista, free. Not many units eat at this location because prostitutes and pimps hang out here. 

Then we answered a call 459 Susp breaking into a car at 1700 Gramercy. I was falling asleep. We got to the location and we saw the guy flagging us down. So we drove up to him and he told us we passed the Susps. Dave saw them run but I was so tired I didn’t see a thing. I got out of the car and ran to the apt. Well it was the wrong apt. So we lost him. I took a report and that was it for the day. Dave I think liked working with me and said someday he’d probably be working for me as Chief or something.

My friend Matthew McGough's book, The Lazarus Files: A Cold Case Investigation, will be released on April 30, 2019. You can pre-order his book on Amazon HERE.
↧
Viewing all 440 articles
Browse latest View live
Search
<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>