tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76110614556629110412024-03-08T05:33:41.546-06:00Katfish....Ponders...........Innocent Until Proven Guilty -
First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.comBlogger150125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-60865332012227261352011-08-31T23:20:00.000-05:002011-09-03T00:52:34.055-05:00Nicholas Sheley Murder Trial - Day One August 29<b><span style="font-size: large;">THE MORNING SESSION</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Katfishponders...did not attend the morning session of day one in the murder trial of Nicholas Sheley. I did follow from home via Twitter from 2 members of the mainstream media</span></span>, <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/jenmwheeler">Jennifer Wheeler </a><span class="bio">cops/courts reporter at The Register-Mail.</span><i>(a Galesburg paper)</i> and<a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/TaraBecker_SVM"> <span class="bio">Tara Becker </span></a><span class="bio">cops/courts reporter for Sauk Valley Media in Dixon-Rock Falls-Sterling <i>(publication in Whiteside County, IL, Nicholas Sheley's home stomping grounds and where 5 of the alleged murders took place). </i></span><br />
<br />
<span class="bio"><i>For those not familiar with "tweeting" you can follow either of the links above to each reporters page. You can just follow on their page as you "land" there or if you wish to be able to follow both or more "peeps" tweets at one location (recommended) you can easily create an account. Creating an account doesn't obligate you to do anything other than read but you can "tweet" if you wish, even if just asking questions of whomever you are following.</i></span><br />
<span class="bio"><i></i></span><b style="font-weight: normal;"><i><a href="http://twitter.com/">Twitter</a> is a social networking and microblogging service that allows, for example, you to answer the question, <i>"What are you doing?"</i> by sending short text messages 140 characters in length, called "tweets", to your friends, or "followers." Note: I call my friends/followers "peeps" just because it seems appropriate ...haha....I do have a Twitter account <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/katfishponder57">here</a> but to date I haven't done much but follow....you may have noticed I have a problem with brevity. </i></b>(◐.̃◐)<b style="font-weight: normal;"><i>Please "follow" me if you like, you never know when I might get a tweet up my_</i></b><('.'<)<b style="font-weight: normal;"><i>_. Please follow me here at katfishponders too....the widget for that is on the right of this page. Now down to business....</i></b><br />
<br />
<span class="bio">Before the first group of potential jurors were brought in, the prosecution advised the court they will be dropping 7 of the 17 counts Nicholas Sheley has been facing for the last 3 years in this case. The counts dropped were:</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span class="bio"><b>three of the first-degree murder counts</b></span></li>
<li><b>two counts of aggravated kidnapping</b></li>
<li><b>one count of armed robbery and one count of robbery. </b></li>
</ul>
The counts remaining against Sheley are <b> </b><br />
<ul>
<li><b>7 counts of first-degree murder including the aggravating factors </b><i>(carries a penalty of 20-60 years or natural life if </i><i>the jury finds </i><i> aggravating factors apply)</i></li>
<li><b>2 counts of aggravated vehicular hijacking</b><i>( class X felonies punishable by six to 30 years in prison, 60 years if </i><i>the</i><i> included</i><i> aggravating factors are applied)</i></li>
<li><b>1 count of possession of a stolen vehicle,</b> a Class 2 felony with punishment ranging 3-15 years, a $25,000 fine and 2 years supervision after release. <span class="bio"><br /></span></li>
</ul>
<i>(When I came for the afternoon session, I was told that the charges were dropped in order to streamline the case for the jury)</i><br />
<br />
<span class="bio">Ninth Circuit Judge James Stewart then admonishes Nicholas Sheley of his rights at trial. <i> </i></span><br />
<br />
<span class="bio"><i>(Nicholas Sheley knows his rights better than your average defendant, but there are rules of procedure and this is one of them. IMO, in a case like this one ,where there is a LOT of evidence against the defendant, his lawyers main focus is most likely to create a record and hold the court's feet to the fire on procedure.)</i></span><br />
<br />
<span class="bio"><b>THE JURORS</b></span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIJYW4ljcT8QcFHoJpzyyp7R2bzy6m_rspjXGgA5i2PgSrC-PLM3AHA5EZ3yaEBTQBYtVd1IPMdbXqPYhW5CGD9pHJjTcMxuNlT2QIGGCZi8ud4r0WNtlcZqJGoMFTJl-N2312iGHf_JFP/s1600/knox.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIJYW4ljcT8QcFHoJpzyyp7R2bzy6m_rspjXGgA5i2PgSrC-PLM3AHA5EZ3yaEBTQBYtVd1IPMdbXqPYhW5CGD9pHJjTcMxuNlT2QIGGCZi8ud4r0WNtlcZqJGoMFTJl-N2312iGHf_JFP/s1600/knox.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Knox County Courthouse in Galesburg, IL</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span class="bio"> Close to a hundred citizens of Knox county were summoned to the Knox County Courthouse today to begin the process of jury selection. The potential jurors were brought into the largest courtroom in the 125 year old courthouse to receive orientation by Judge James Stewart.</span><br />
<span class="bio"><i></i></span><br />
<br />
<span class="bio">The attorneys from both parties </span><span class="bio">introduced themselves to the </span><span class="bio">potential jurors </span><span class="bio">before Judge Stewart began his orientation. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="bio">Some of the things noted on Twitter that were included in the orientation are as follows:</span><br />
<br />
<div class="tweet-image">
<img alt="Tara Becker" class="user-profile-link" data-user-id="360138450" height="48" src="http://a3.twimg.com/profile_images/1510520665/avatar_normal.JPEG" width="48" /> </div>
<div class="tweet-content">
<div class="tweet-row">
<span class="tweet-user-name"><a class="tweet-screen-name user-profile-link" data-user-id="360138450" href="http://twitter.com/#%21/TaraBecker_SVM" title="Tara Becker">TaraBecker_SVM</a> <span class="tweet-full-name">Tara Becker</span> </span><br />
<div class="tweet-corner">
<div class="tweet-meta">
<span class="icons"></span><br />
<div class="extra-icons">
<span class="icons"><span class="inlinemedia-icons"></span></span></div>
<span class="icons"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="tweet-row">
<div class="tweet-text pretty-link">
Knox Judge James Stewart is reading the facts of the case to potential jurors at the <a class=" twitter-hashtag" href="http://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23Sheley" rel="nofollow" title="#Sheley"><span class="hash">#</span><span class="hash-text">Sheley</span></a> trial.</div>
</div>
<div class="tweet-row">
<a class="tweet-timestamp" href="http://twitter.com/#%21/TaraBecker_SVM/status/108191419369402369" title="9:56 AM Aug 29th"><span class="_old-timestamp" data-long-form="true" data-time="1314629819000">29 Aug</span></a> <span class="tweet-actions js-actions" data-tweet-id="108191419369402369"><span class="tweet-action action-favorite"><a class="favorite-action js-action-fav" href="http://twitter.com/#" title="Favorite"></a></span><span class="tweet-action action-retweet"><a class="retweet-action js-action-rt" href="http://twitter.com/#" title="Retweet"></a></span><a class="reply-action js-action-reply" data-screen-name="TaraBecker_SVM" href="http://twitter.com/#" title="Reply"></a><a class="reply-action js-action-reply" data-screen-name="TaraBecker_SVM" href="http://twitter.com/#" title="Reply"></a></span></div>
</div>
<div class="tweet-content">
<div class="tweet-row">
<span class="tweet-user-name"><a class="tweet-screen-name user-profile-link" data-user-id="360138450" href="http://twitter.com/#%21/TaraBecker_SVM" title="Tara Becker">TaraBecker_SVM</a> <span class="tweet-full-name">Tara Becker</span> </span><br />
<div class="tweet-corner">
<div class="tweet-meta">
<span class="icons"></span><br />
<div class="extra-icons">
<span class="icons"><span class="inlinemedia-icons"></span></span></div>
<span class="icons"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="tweet-row">
<div class="tweet-text pretty-link">
Knox County Judge James Stewart is talking to jurors about giving the proper weight to witnesses who will testify at <a class=" twitter-hashtag" href="http://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23Sheley" rel="nofollow" title="#Sheley"><span class="hash">#</span><span class="hash-text">Sheley</span></a>'s trial.</div>
</div>
<div class="tweet-row">
<a class="tweet-timestamp" href="http://twitter.com/#%21/TaraBecker_SVM/status/108195402989322240" title="10:12 AM Aug 29th"><span class="_old-timestamp" data-long-form="true" data-time="1314630768000">29 Aug</span></a> <span class="tweet-actions js-actions" data-tweet-id="108195402989322240"><span class="tweet-action action-favorite"><a class="favorite-action js-action-fav" href="http://twitter.com/#" title="Favorite"></a></span><span class="tweet-action action-retweet"><a class="retweet-action js-action-rt" href="http://twitter.com/#" title="Retweet"></a></span><a class="reply-action js-action-reply" data-screen-name="TaraBecker_SVM" href="http://twitter.com/#" title="Reply"></a><a class="reply-action js-action-reply" data-screen-name="TaraBecker_SVM" href="http://twitter.com/#" title="Reply"></a></span></div>
</div>
<div class="tweet-image">
<img alt="Jennifer Wheeler" class="user-profile-link" data-user-id="25840660" height="48" src="http://a1.twimg.com/profile_images/663413754/twitter_pic_normal.jpg" width="48" /> </div>
<div class="tweet-content">
<div class="tweet-row">
<span class="tweet-user-name"><a class="tweet-screen-name user-profile-link" data-user-id="25840660" href="http://twitter.com/#%21/jenmwheeler" title="Jennifer Wheeler">jenmwheeler</a> <span class="tweet-full-name">Jennifer Wheeler</span> </span><br />
<div class="tweet-corner">
<div class="tweet-meta">
<span class="icons"></span><br />
<div class="extra-icons">
<span class="icons"><span class="inlinemedia-icons"></span></span></div>
<span class="icons"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="tweet-row">
<div class="tweet-text pretty-link">
Jurors will not be sequestered during trial. However, jurors cannot discuss the case, contact witnesses/lawyers or read the news. <a class=" twitter-hashtag" href="http://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23sheley" rel="nofollow" title="#sheley"><span class="hash">#</span><span class="hash-text">sheley</span></a></div>
</div>
<div class="tweet-row">
<a class="tweet-timestamp" href="http://twitter.com/#%21/jenmwheeler/status/108196358296567808" title="10:16 AM Aug 29th"><span class="_old-timestamp" data-long-form="true" data-time="1314630996000">29 Aug</span></a></div>
<div class="tweet-row">
<span class="_old-timestamp" data-long-form="true" data-time="1314630996000"> </span> <span class="tweet-actions js-actions" data-tweet-id="108196358296567808"><span class="tweet-action action-favorite"><a class="favorite-action js-action-fav" href="http://twitter.com/#" title="Favorite"></a></span><span class="tweet-action action-retweet"><a class="retweet-action js-action-rt" href="http://twitter.com/#" title="Retweet"></a></span><a class="reply-action js-action-reply" data-screen-name="jenmwheeler" href="http://twitter.com/#" title="Reply"></a><a class="reply-action js-action-reply" data-screen-name="jenmwheeler" href="http://twitter.com/#" title="Reply"></a></span></div>
</div>
<div class="stream-item " data-item-id="108196358296567808" data-item-type="tweet" media="true">
<div class="stream-item-content tweet js-actionable-tweet stream-tweet " data-item-id="108196358296567808" data-screen-name="jenmwheeler" data-tweet-id="108196358296567808" data-user-id="25840660">
<div class="stream-item-content tweet js-actionable-tweet stream-tweet " data-item-id="108195402989322240" data-screen-name="TaraBecker_SVM" data-tweet-id="108195402989322240" data-user-id="360138450">
<div class="stream-item-content tweet js-actionable-tweet stream-tweet " data-item-id="108191419369402369" data-screen-name="TaraBecker_SVM" data-tweet-id="108191419369402369" data-user-id="360138450">
<div class="tweet-content">
<div class="tweet-row">
From experience I know that the jury pool is advised how our court system works, the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof, which is the state's. The defense does not have to prove anything.<br />
If the jury isn't seated today I will try to attend a morning session so I can give you a more in depth account of the orientation for the jurors. As you can see from the sample tweets above, they just try to highlight what is happening. Do keep in mind that they are doing this "live" so they don't have the opportunity to verify facts.....IL doesn't allow cameras in the courtroom, so Twitter is the closest we have to live reporting from the courtroom....it is what it is. I just noticed that Jennifer Wheeler addressed her followers as "tweeps", love that!<br />
<br />
The potential jurors are sent to the basement to fill out the 16 page questionnaire with the witness list attached <i>(so they can be supervised to avoid collaboration). </i>The questionnaires assist the lawyers and judge in the voir dire process <i>(saves time)</i> and the witness list assists the court so they know of any relationships jurors may have to witnesses <i>(again, saves time and ensures neither side has a "leg up")</i>, after they are done they are dismissed and a number of the group will be asked to return tomorrow at 1:30 PM for the first round of questioning. At 2:00PM today court will resume to hear a defense motion in limine to limit the photos that the state intends to use at trial. I am attending this, but first.....</div>
<div class="tweet-row">
<br /></div>
Here is the jury questionnaire and the witness list for this trial.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/63662456/Juror-Info-Sheet" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 14px Helvetica, Arial, Sans-serif; margin: 12px auto 6px; text-decoration: underline;" title="View Juror Info Sheet on Scribd">Juror Info Sheet</a><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="0.770780856423174" data-auto-height="true" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_22643" scrolling="no" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/63662456/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-1yqqwlqhbjoyuq6iu6dd" width="100%"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">
(function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();
</script> <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/63662458/Sheley-Witness-List" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 14px Helvetica, Arial, Sans-serif; margin: 12px auto 6px; text-decoration: underline;" title="View Sheley Witness List on Scribd">Sheley Witness List</a><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="0.76375" data-auto-height="true" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_93536" scrolling="no" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/63662458/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-10hu9nqrtvl22eu3ajc8" width="100%"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">
</script> <br />
<script type="text/javascript">
</script><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE AFTERNOON SESSION</b></span><br />
<br />
I arrived at the courthouse at about 1:30PM which was in plenty of time for the 2PM hearing. I was glad to see the parking lot was open. The lot was closed in the morning to anyone but the potential jurors. Parking can be an issue on a normal day because the lot isn't very big. There is on the street parking on 2 sides of the courthouse but it is all parallel parking so it's limited. There is parking on a third side but there is a city park (Standish Park) in between the courthouse and the next street. I don't mind parking there because it's a nice walk through the arboretum, but sometimes I'm running late.....The judge ruled at the beginning of this case once they start no one is allowed in or out of the courtroom...I missed by 1 minute a while back and had to wait for a break to get in.<br />
<br />
Well...so much for feeling confident about the time....after I make my way through security and climb the 2 flights of stairs I see the doors are closed and an officer it standing in front of them. Thankfully I know this officer (from my many visits to Sheley's hearings), evidently he sees the dismay on my face and smiles before saying," You're welcome to go right in young lady." <i>(I love people who enjoy their work AND call me young lady!)</i><br />
<br />
When I come into the courtroom Sheley's attorney Jeremy Karlin is sitting at the defense table. The only other people in the room are the family of the victim, Ronald Randall, sitting in the front row <i>(behind the state's table) </i>with retired Knox County Victim's rights advocate Shirley Pringle and the current victim's advocate Stacy Dutton. Over the last three years Randall's family have consistently been the first ones here and there is someone from the family at every hearing to represent Mr. Randall. <br />
<br />
Today is a difficult day for anyone in the courtroom because the issue at hand is the arguments over what photos from Mr. Randall's autopsy and the crime scene where his body was found will be allowed at trial.<i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>(It's alleged that Nicholas Sheley killed Mr. Randall on June 28, 2008 at a car wash on Main Street, 5 or 6 blocks West Interstate74, before he dumped Randall's body among the dumpsters behind a HyVee grocery store a couple blocks West of the interstate and stole Mr. Randall's 2007 Chevy Silverado pick up and wallet so he could continue on his killing spree. Mr. Randall wasn't found until June 30, 2008, by then Sheley had allegedly killed 6 more people. )</i><br />
<br />
Of course it's the pictures more than the arguments that is most difficult, but hearing the discussion is no walk in the park either. Out of respect for Mr. Randall and his family I will not go into much detail about the photos except to say they were projected onto the wall directly across from the jury box and adjacent to the gallery. <i>(Nicholas Sheley and two of his guards were closest of anyone in the courtroom to the projection on the wall ...but now I'm getting ahead of myself.)</i><br />
<br />
Within minutes more people are in the courtroom and the front row behind the defense is filled with media. All of the attorneys are present and a great deal of security is around when Sheley is brought in. The guards from the DOC are dressed in khaki pants and black polos with the DOC emblem on the left chest...they have their guns holstered in back. The Knox County Sheriff's detail are dressed in slacks and a jacket and the courthouse security is in full uniform. <i>(This mode of dress was decided at the security hearing I reported earlier so the jury isn't prejudiced against the defendant as was his status to be unshackled with a stun belt on his leg and street clothes.)</i><br />
<br />
When Nicholas Sheley came in the courtroom he looked much different than he had just 4 days earlier. Of course he had on street clothes instead of the bright yellow "escape suit " issued by the DOC but the same white 3/4 top sneakers. His lawyer had purchased him some khaki pants and a blue (almost denim blue) button down shirt. The shirt looked as though it had just come out of the package but was starting to get wrinkly <i>(no doubt he had been kept in a holding cell between when the jury pool was sent downstairs and now)</i>and he had rolled the sleeves up to the forearm where you could see some of his tattoos. The gel and spikey hair was replaced by a close cut and his face was clean shaven. When he is brought in he has on leg shackles and hand cuffs. He knelt on the seat of the wooden chair at the defense table and his leg shackles were removed then he stood up and his <i>pink</i> handcuffs were removed. You can tell he has a stun belt on his leg<i> </i>under his pants.<i> (Or do I just notice it because I know it's there?)</i><br />
<br />
Defense Attorney Jeremy Karlin began his argument by saying that when he was reappointed to the case, 3 weeks ago, he was told he would receive a list of evidence from the state. Karlin conceded he and Assistant Attorney General Bill Elward did have a meeting last week and he was shown a disc of photos from both crime scenes <i>(Southards Car Wash and the back of HyVee grocery store)</i>. Karlin told the court, " Mr. Elward narrowed it down a bit<i> (sarcasm)</i>....didn't think the state would use both discs, adding Michael Atterbury just handed him a list, which he appreciates but he has to go through them now."<br />
Mr. Karlin continued, "The legal principles are clear...offer should be allowed if probative but not if prejudicial, cumulative, repetitive or just plain inflammatory."<br />
<br />
Having said that Karlin started to Que up the photos on a laptop sitting on the table in front of the court clerk. before he turned on the projector, Jeremy Karlin addressed the court, saying he realized the court had ruled once a session started only the media would be allowed to enter and leave, but asked the court if Mr. Randall's family would be able to leave if the photos upset them too much. Of course Judge Stewart agreed.<br />
<br />
As each photo was shown Bill Elward addressed the relevance of the photo and why the state felt it was necessary to use at trial. Most often the relevance had to do with what element of a charge(s) the photo would support or why the state's pathologist had requested to use the photo to describe a particular injury. Jeremy Karlin would then make his objection to the particular photo. It seems as though they had narrowed down the photos to those that were being contested by the defense.<br />
<br />
The Dr. who did the autopsy on Ronald Randall is Dr. Violette S. Hnilica MD. Doctor Hnilica is a Forensic Pathologist who practices in Peoria, Il. She is trained in the areas of Forensic Pathology, Chemical Pathology, Radioisotopic Pathology, Clinical Pathology & Anatomic Pathology. (WOW! That's a lot of education.) Shirley Pringle told me she has seen Dr. Hnilica testify and she is quite good on the stand.<br />
<br />
<i>(More often than not Medical Examiners or Pathologists can be very tedious testimony but when they are good they are captivating. I'm looking forward to her testimony. ) </i><br />
<br />
Wouldn't you know it, after the second photo the screen went blank. <i>( No fancy stuff here, when I say "screen" I mean the picture being projected on the wall. The Knox County board is notorious for refusing to spend a dime on this courthouse but that's a whole other blog.) </i>Bill Elward jumped up to switch over to his laptop and Jeremy Karlin quipped, " Redundancy is a good thing."<br />
<br />
While the attorneys worked on getting the photo presentation back up, Sheriff David Clague approached the family about not putting themselves through seeing this, but they opted to stay. <i>(I do understand their stance but have been praying today they are doing ok. While viewing the photos it didn't bother me but I definitely dreamed about it last night.</i>) After I had moved over in my row so I could observe Sheley's demeanor during the presentation,Stacy Dutton moved to my seat where she was closer to the family. Shirley Pringle was already on the other end in their row so they had the family "blanketed". These 2 women are awesome and Knox County is fortunate to have them as victims advocates, I'm certain the families they work with are appreciative. <i>(My family was in that position years back and Shirley was a great help. Now that Shirley has retired [but still sits in for this case] she will be missed, but Stacy seems like a good fit for the job)</i><br />
<br />
Speaking of Sheley's demeanor during the photo presentation....at first he didn't look up but then he started looking without expression. When the attorneys got to the autopsy photos, Sheley chose to take some notes then picked up a book, “ The Trial Handbook for Illinois Lawyers”, off the defense table to read...the index....(◔_◔). <br />
<br />
The court took a one hour recess to allow Jeremy Karlin time to go through a disc of pictures he hadn't known the state planned to use, they included crime scene photos and photos from the Russell Reed case. <i>(The state contends after allegedly killing Russell Reed, Nicholas Sheley went on the run to avoid apprehension for that case and ended up here in Galesburg with a stolen van and only $3 for gas before he met up with Ronald Randall.)</i>After the break the lawyers narrowed it down to 6 more pictures for the judge to rule on.<br />
<br />
<b>THE JUDGES RULING</b><br />
<br />
Judge James Stewart said some photos may be admitted to establish any fact relative to the case, however he told the state to make some choices between some repetitive photos. There are no stipulations between the parties to any facts of the case. He also said that something excluded may be admitted for another reason such as rebuttal.<br />
<br />
Stewart said he didn't know if there would be witnesses to contradict the state's witness's conclusions. It would be different if two pathologists were arguing about the cause of death and needed to point out specific injuries in the photograph. However, he said these graphic images would be highly prejudicial.<br />
<br />
“These are ultimately some of the most gruesome photos that I’ve seen in a long, long time... I’d have to say in 24 years I’ve seen some pretty bad, gruesome photos. If I can say that and other court personnel can say that and have a similar opinion, we have to be considerate about people who may be viewing them for the first time,” Stewart said.<br />
<br />
Judge Stewart ruled specifically on 6 photos that cannot be used at trial. The most gruesome images of Randall will not be shown to the jurors. Stewart said, "If a lay person saw these and barfed we would have a mistrial or if one of them even made an audible gasp we'd have a mistrial". The state will not be able to show photographs of Reed either and must limit the number of crime scene images. One crime scene photo from HyVee in particular can be used but the image of Mr. Randall must be blurred or obscured in some way....adding he just wasn't sure of the probative value of that picture. <br />
<br />
Stewart said if the prosecution wanted a witness to explain the injuries further, the person could use diagrams or draw pictures to illustrate.<br />
<br />
Judge Stewart asked that that an order be submitted by the defense to reflect his rulings.<br />
<br />
Court will resume at 9AM on Tuesday, August 30 for orientation with the second group of prospective jurors. The first 20 from today's group of jurors will be called back at 1:30 PM on Tuesday to begin the first round of questioning. I will attend the afternoon session.<br />
<br />katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-49867234779474195092011-08-30T02:15:00.000-05:002011-09-01T10:48:51.597-05:00Nicholas Sheley Trial...Let's Get A Move On....August 12 and 25th HearingsThe last two weeks have been quite busy in Knox County, IL with preparation for the murder trial of 32 year old Nicholas T. Sheley. The last couple weeks have been busy for me as well, but not with blogging, so I find myself trying to catch up now. <br />
<br />
The trial officially got started today with an orientation for the first group of approximately 100 prospective jurors this morning and a motion hearing this afternoon. I'll get to that in my next post, but first I want to talk about the hearings in preparation for the trial and share some pictures I had an opportunity to take after the final case management conference on August 12, 2011. There was also a hearing called to hear a defense motion about security issues for trial on Thursday, August 25.<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: large;">August 12 hearing</span></i><br />
<br />
From the beginning this looked like this could be one of the more interesting pre-trial hearings to date. I learned there would be some witnesses testifying on behalf of the state, one of those witnesses being Holly Sheley (Nicholas Sheley's wife).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqGdn7PWYTzl2LQazabFHVlXi6dy8MbUaWJGIjiWzDqXvStyu-sWlIl670wcKk3ahEGWNmDrSUuo-oSXpATRzAc6rNSXH6hgovsKDqdTorLgYrZOgmGhKrVkKwd2rbV1p7uhrMrR97RBSV/s1600/sheley+side.BMP" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqGdn7PWYTzl2LQazabFHVlXi6dy8MbUaWJGIjiWzDqXvStyu-sWlIl670wcKk3ahEGWNmDrSUuo-oSXpATRzAc6rNSXH6hgovsKDqdTorLgYrZOgmGhKrVkKwd2rbV1p7uhrMrR97RBSV/s200/sheley+side.BMP" width="200" /></a></div>
When Sheley came into the courtroom I was somewhat surprised to see he had his hair spiked up and the makings of a strange little thin mustache and goatee started. He changes his look frequently but just a few weeks ago he was clean shaven and had a buzz cut....and I didn't know inmates had access to "gel". I think it's gel...if not gel maybe we don't want to know. (◐.̃◐) Of course he had his bright yellow prison jumpsuit (aka escape suit) and was fully shackled at the feet, wrist and waist. I had heard at a previous hearing <i>(that I missed)</i> it had been decided that his hands would be free when in front of the jury, but was a little taken aback when Judge Stewart ordered his waist and hand cuffs be removed today. Not really anything to worry about though, the guards that accompany him from the DOC are pretty fierce looking dudes and there are Knox County Sheriff deputies and court security as well.<br />
<br />
To start off the hearing Jeremy Karlin was given packages from the Circuit Clerk that were return of subpoena's from several media outlets. Oh oh? What's next...Change of Venue Motion? Someone had left a comment here that this motion would be filed today, but no one I spoke with knew anything about it. As it turns out there was no COV motion....but the defense did request funds to take another phone survey in Knox County to see what the "climate" was towards his client because of pretrial publicity. <i>( The defense did an extensive phone survey, back in late 2008 early 2009 and requested a COV based on the results, at that time the judge denied without prejudice because it was too early in the case.)</i><br />
<br />
Bill Elward, Assistant Attorney General objected, on behalf of the state, to another survey being done stating there has been practically no media given this case in 2011 and stated that jurors can know about a case but still be fair and impartial.<br />
<br />
Karlin raised his eyebrows and pointed out the stack of responses from media the clerk had just given him as a response to Elward's claim of no media and cited <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/366/717/">Irwin V Dowd</a> which is case law that basically states a potential juror who has been prejudiced by inflammatory media can't be trusted to be candid about their ability to be impartial in Voir Dire. Karlin added there would be no harm or prejudice to the state, he is not asking for a Change of Venue....at this time (◔_◔) but was just trying to make a record.<br />
<br />
Judge Stewart denied Karlin's request for a new survey. Stewart said that pretrial publicity doesn't mean a biased jury, adding if the defense had asked for this back in May or June he may have considered it, but we are now 2 weeks from trial and over 700 people have already been summoned. The motion is not timely<br />
and under Supreme Court Rules Voir Dire is the best way to determine if potential jurors have preformed opinions. Deny request, not timely.<br />
<br />
<i>( This wasn't said in court but should be noted, this untimeliness does not reflect on Jeremy Karlin; responsibility for that falls squarely in Nicholas Sheley's lap. Karlin was removed from the case on April 25 and reappointed to the case on July 19 because of Sheley's desire to represent himself (Pro Se). IMO, He is damn lucky the court let him have Jeremy Karlin back.....and that Karlin was willing to come back on. I also want to note the discussion about the survey came in at the end of the hearing but was more "fluid" to present it together here together with return of subpoena info.)</i><br />
<br />
The next issue was a defense motion for individual jury sequestration during voir dire (questioning). Karlin argued that questioning the jurors individually prevents spoiling the rest of the jurors if one should say something inflammatory or prejudicial concerning the other crimes in the alleged killing spree.The judge denied this request, individual voir dire would slow things down too much, they will be done in groups.<br />
The discussion segued into preparation of the jury questionnaires and how they will be handled. Most of the preparation was done earlier by the attorneys from both parties. Today it was decided instead of mailing them out to prospective jurors, each day a group would be brought in for an indoctrination <i>(basic facts of the case, admonitions about not watching any coverage of the case or talking to anyone about it, etc.)</i> and then will be taken downstairs to the basement to fill out the questionnaires where they can be supervised so as not to collaborate and review the witness lists <i>(this is a small county need to be sure not related to each other....just kidding....kinda LOL)</i> and then they can leave for the day. The attorneys will review the questionnaires and the court will call back a number of them for the actual Voir Dire the next afternoon. <i>(The next morning a new group will come in for indoctrination, etc....there are 4 groups available if needed to seat a jury.)</i><br />
<br />
The defense has a motion to quash a video taped deposition because the transcript of the video wasn't signed. The state asked the court to look at the video adding they have the videographer here to certify the tape. Bill Elward told the judge this is vital relevant evidence, she waited on him, saw the video and verified it was accurate. He said the defense is being hyper-vigilant in wanting to quash because the transcript isn't signed. Jeremy Karlin made a comment, " Since we strolled into argument on this motion is it possible to address...(objections made during deposition)" Judge Stewart told him to wait until after the video is shown.<br />
<br />
The reason for video taping the deposition was the witness was terminally ill and would not be alive by the time this case made it to trial.<i>(Evidently she didn't live long enough to sign the transcript)</i> This witness is a woman who waited on Sheley at the HyVee gas station on the evening of June 28, 2008. She "allegedly" sold Sheley a six pack of Bud-light, some cigarettes and a lighter at about 8:30 pm. She could testify to Sheley having blood on his face and his hands. She noticed it mainly because his hands were shaking which prompted her to look closer at him.(This was allegedly right after Ronald Randall was killed and his body was thrown next to a dumpster behind the grocery store) In her deposition she pretty much narrated the in-store video of Sheley's transaction and identified him. She was cross examined by Jim Harrell (onetime lead defense) She didn't see the vehicle Sheley was in, but the Mobile station across the street picked it up on their video when Sheley drove Mr. Randall's truck into and left the parking lot at Hyvee gas. The Mobile video also captured Sheley when he stopped at that station for $3 of gas in the stolen van when he came into town off the interstate at 8 pm.<br />
<i>(observation...Sheley not looking at the video...reading papers, taking notes, twiddling thumbs)</i><br />
<br />
After the video was shown Elward said the video is accurate and reliable...(which is why the witness would have signed the transcript ) and it's essential to the state's case. He then presented the court with the witness's death certificate (died 2 weeks after the deposition was taken).<br />
Karlin countered that he stands on the motion. Supreme Court rule 414- rule 207. He again points out that objections were made contemporaneously and the court needs to address the objections.<br />
Judge Stewart said something about the entire subsection and scrivener rules <i>(sometimes this judge talks fast and barely opens his mouth when he speaks so I have trouble catching all he says)</i> the signing requirement is only to verify the statements. Stewart rules under the circumstances shown by the state and assuming a foundation is laid first at trial he will not prohibit the video.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7-MsXOgU_Tn1u1CGAIQjIDxN2P2tAhmVb0_8nfDli0jhKiT60oDeYI7nvYd_4lhyphenhyphendTnZn8OF0saO5B1iGZ_7y9525ZpHqUno-96GsjXQFCPZnDTRZkRZ8oFCUpIynlE0yzygNZzZlIzDg/s1600/dog+and+pony+show.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7-MsXOgU_Tn1u1CGAIQjIDxN2P2tAhmVb0_8nfDli0jhKiT60oDeYI7nvYd_4lhyphenhyphendTnZn8OF0saO5B1iGZ_7y9525ZpHqUno-96GsjXQFCPZnDTRZkRZ8oFCUpIynlE0yzygNZzZlIzDg/s1600/dog+and+pony+show.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">sorry, couldn't resist</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Court takes a ten minute break. When we come back Bill Elward calls a witness to the stand that installed the cameras at the Mobile station across from the HyVee station. After the witness is sworn in, Jeremy Karlin rises and says, <b>" This isn't a dog and pony show"</b> and asks the court, " Is it appropriate to use demonstrative exhibits when they still must lay a foundation during trial?"<br />
<br />
Elward responds they should be able to refer to the digital video in opening statements.<br />
<br />
<i>(JMO, I think that would be powerful to use the video showing Sheley coming into and leaving town in their opening statement.)</i><br />
<br />
Judge Stewart says he is not prepared to make foundational rulings.<br />
Karlin says he objects to this testimony, this hearing is about the evidence deposition. Stewart sustains Karlin's objection. Elward rose and interjected, " Can I say this witness is very ill and came here today."<br />
Karlin says we are not here for this purpose and the judge agrees with Karlin. No witnesses today. Holly Sheley was supposed to testify that she saw a lot of blood in Randall's truck when Sheley returned to Sterling the night of June 28 and a man was here from RockIsland who owned the stolen truck Sheley allegedly drove here and the clothes Sheley had on in HyVee.<br />
<br />
There was some other cryptic discussion between Michael Atterbury, for the state, and Jeremy Karlin, for the defense, about a state's motion for pretrial determination that should be a motion for clarification of course of conduct (prior bad acts)evidence. Karlin says this type of evidence is risky...we won't take a position, it's inappropriate as it comes in referencing inadmissible evidence in pleading and open court. We are not the ones bringing it up. Karlin addressing the court, " I think the state overstates your ruling". Atterbury says the motion is filed under seal and we are not using specifics.<br />
Bill Elward rises and says something about a motion regarding post arrest statements made by Sheley. Elward says, this is a voluntary statement made by a fairly sophisticated defendant after his arrest. Allegedly Sheley said to an arresting officer, "Are you a Christian? I have done things...."<br />
Judge Stewart says he will not make predeterminant rulings, but will rule that is a voluntary statement.<br />
<br />
Court is recessed........we thought until August 29 when jury selection started, but as I said above, a hearing was scheduled for August 25 at the last minute to hear a motion about security issues.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container"><tbody>
<tr></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-size: large;">August 25 hearing</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-size: large;"></span></i><span style="font-size: small;">I won't go into great detail about this hearing because all of that stuff is fluid and probably best left unsaid. In order to not prejudice the jury it was decided during trial Nicholas Sheley will wear dress clothing purchased by his attorney. Sheley's attorney wanted him to be totally unshackled but conceded to a stun band on his leg so he can approach the bench for side bars. The state wanted him shackled at the feet to a ring in the floor and either have the jury taken out for sidebars or have the sidebars near the defense table. The judge decided that he would be unshackled with the stun belt so he can approach on sidebars. He will be well guarded by officers in plain clothes and uniform....they will be everywhere! Stewart felt any other way would be too prejudicial, but admonished Sheley ANY behavior issues he will waive the lenient custody status and the jury would be advised of the custodial status change...so it's on Sheley.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">After court was over, I hung around in the parking lot with my camera until they brought Sheley out. These pictures are just one example of the security measures taken when transporting Sheley the 2 hours each way from Stateville.</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0mdnZU41gIT_fLrLO3qU7IT-sI8DoXQ9j0_3KQZxGj2PNeCQgv_43XkYl_dpDNJ470RxYNWUNgS9n7Fy2kJSljjjklwsMk8knRLv8ulaiV6U4bre7bVyK5dQKw9wBIBgHjtPHiBRlHlwJ/s1600/big+gun.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0mdnZU41gIT_fLrLO3qU7IT-sI8DoXQ9j0_3KQZxGj2PNeCQgv_43XkYl_dpDNJ470RxYNWUNgS9n7Fy2kJSljjjklwsMk8knRLv8ulaiV6U4bre7bVyK5dQKw9wBIBgHjtPHiBRlHlwJ/s400/big+gun.jpg" width="238" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Big Guy, Bigger Gun</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiakj1HPIKts8AUQ4AA5RYoSifOIYhxGQD2cu0kaL9r4c5zeKtFsHm9fvwwRyHVzre5MxANsVPn6qBpV5uih-sNF9Xjoq8cFtoUR4xZswtAuksruvFEvBKLCLrCd74dXTIeTuiZsEfk8ViC/s1600/coming+out.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiakj1HPIKts8AUQ4AA5RYoSifOIYhxGQD2cu0kaL9r4c5zeKtFsHm9fvwwRyHVzre5MxANsVPn6qBpV5uih-sNF9Xjoq8cFtoUR4xZswtAuksruvFEvBKLCLrCd74dXTIeTuiZsEfk8ViC/s320/coming+out.jpg" width="207" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">coming out</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMAw58py_peUthaxLNYyAflr33mdvijlg8hetHnrSUwI3CTHC7RkXyemECsK0dsLGW1lilRDz68hpA554JzEcAlAjVsyrDwOZeqVVF_Y2xBH2OjE1PRxvge_1OEMBXArr9AP6bztUv6QGn/s1600/escorts.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMAw58py_peUthaxLNYyAflr33mdvijlg8hetHnrSUwI3CTHC7RkXyemECsK0dsLGW1lilRDz68hpA554JzEcAlAjVsyrDwOZeqVVF_Y2xBH2OjE1PRxvge_1OEMBXArr9AP6bztUv6QGn/s320/escorts.jpg" width="294" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">with some of the big boys</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXnPn4zr0Z_tC_AGLKcHGsA5fNin2lT01pM67AQp-4gfjKifT8AkfUCc1AQBvpnyoI87IulWXgsioSMlT08Zn5UPwTZBrmwmV4Ra4JM1eiLQCxzOlEDcHJkhM-pXJUwtoPWML2ZRMo_EfX/s1600/climbing+in+the+pen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXnPn4zr0Z_tC_AGLKcHGsA5fNin2lT01pM67AQp-4gfjKifT8AkfUCc1AQBvpnyoI87IulWXgsioSMlT08Zn5UPwTZBrmwmV4Ra4JM1eiLQCxzOlEDcHJkhM-pXJUwtoPWML2ZRMo_EfX/s320/climbing+in+the+pen.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Climbing into the cage for transport</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXmmS6qXLq8MpFsZamIqdKBLWQx4PRF_r9Z4jxWY7Qc5r6uj6a6ZG4rUyTAybiXKj8YUldXT-fUnMYdh4jGNOa9E3gGTcGtySIGhmSnhBSFTu8mSimr6gOjkQZJtpjYCJkyvsEuz7xKhAJ/s1600/big+gun+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXmmS6qXLq8MpFsZamIqdKBLWQx4PRF_r9Z4jxWY7Qc5r6uj6a6ZG4rUyTAybiXKj8YUldXT-fUnMYdh4jGNOa9E3gGTcGtySIGhmSnhBSFTu8mSimr6gOjkQZJtpjYCJkyvsEuz7xKhAJ/s320/big+gun+2.jpg" width="177" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Big Gun</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-62839412713894519032011-08-28T17:43:00.000-05:002011-08-28T21:51:43.598-05:00Fall Out Continues From The Murder Of Emma Barker<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifvzzpVhxdbXLm43irpZrAtGvAlKOsDFoIZnAhX1urAG8ToUpBwmSVMVSjCg6W0WdIyFyBJDbTT6PEZ1rwwGxQylIfuoj5-2ZIbPHPFwpJtyCzTIMj_V1VZm5TBiUD2T7pK40Dp8tmfSy8/s1600/emma+with+rose.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="273" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifvzzpVhxdbXLm43irpZrAtGvAlKOsDFoIZnAhX1urAG8ToUpBwmSVMVSjCg6W0WdIyFyBJDbTT6PEZ1rwwGxQylIfuoj5-2ZIbPHPFwpJtyCzTIMj_V1VZm5TBiUD2T7pK40Dp8tmfSy8/s400/emma+with+rose.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Emma Barker was an adorable 18 month old baby girl who lived at the home of her grandparents in Lancaster, CA with her single mother Stacey Barker when she was reported missing on March 18, 2009. Emma's uncle Nick and Stacey's boyfriend Brendan Borrelli reported to police that Barker had been attacked and said her daughter was missing. Barker claimed that she had been attacked and knocked unconscious while loading Emma into her car seat after playing at a Lancaster City Park. Barker said when she "came to" 6 hours later at a Park ~N~ Ride, 10 miles down the road, she found herself only partially dressed and Emma was gone. The community was horrified, was there a psycho attacking mothers and stealing their babies in Lancaster?<br />
<br />
The next day when the "truth" came out it was just as horrifying. Stacey Barker led police to the spot on the side of the highway where she had dumped Emma's body after changing her story to one (of many) that Emma had died accidentally after suffocating on a plastic baggy she found in her mother's purse when they were driving on the highway. Barker said she panicked when she dumped Emma and made up her kidnapping story because she didn't want to be blamed for Emma's death or thought of as a bad mother . This scenario garnered attention of national media....why would a mother do this to her child? The evidence didn't support any of Barker's accounts and she was eventually charged with murder for the death of her daughter.<br />
<br />
Two years later a Los Angeles County jury convicted Stacey Barker of the first-degree murder of her daughter, along with one count of assault on child causing death and 2 counts of child abuse with special enhancements/ allegations. On June 17, 2011, Superior Court Judge Hayden Zackey sentenced 26 year old Stacey Marie Barker to 25 years to life. She is serving her time at Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, CA.<br />
<br />
I won't go through the whole story here, if you aren't familiar with the case or need a refresher, you can follow the link <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/search/label/Stacey%20Barker">here </a>to the previous coverage at Katfishponders.... be sure to read the comment sections too because several friends of Katfishponders attended the pre-trial hearings and trial, they provided most of the information posted on this blog about the case, but they also added additional details in the comments. As always (can't say it enough), thanks to Tori, Ange, Tiffney Diamond, A nurse, and LeftCoastMom (LCM) for taking the time to attend court and sharing the details!<br />
<br />
This is a case where, in this writer's opinion, justice was done....unlike that FLORIDA case of a murdering mommy, Casey Anthony.....but that's another story. This post is about the continuing quest for justice in the murder of Emma Barker....evidently justice isn't finished.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghLbDh00RiX804hyphenhypheneuzTD_amySs73XSRettoOBxVTkIoARnDydfn8uqN_660h0nCQOuOGi3UrTVqfMI9AIRRbVRtEnyI1-OuYUHVPBJ4yxg0k39kJjL2AQrvu4WGmvqZdJtPULzOirnVIl/s1600/Borrelli+and+Barker+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghLbDh00RiX804hyphenhypheneuzTD_amySs73XSRettoOBxVTkIoARnDydfn8uqN_660h0nCQOuOGi3UrTVqfMI9AIRRbVRtEnyI1-OuYUHVPBJ4yxg0k39kJjL2AQrvu4WGmvqZdJtPULzOirnVIl/s1600/Borrelli+and+Barker+2.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Borrelli and Barker in happier times</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
During Stacey Barker's trial her boyfriend and loyal supporter Brendon Borrelli testified on her behalf. As the trial progressed evidence was submitted that contradicted much of Borrelli's testimony. A warrant was issued for Brendon Borrelli's arrest for charges of perjury (for lying in court) and conspiracy (to file a false police report) on August 19. Borrelli turned himself in to law enforcement on August 23, 2011. At his custody hearing Borrelli was released on his own recognizance by a Judge Steven D. Ogden.<br />
<br />
Borrelli's arraignment is scheduled for 9/8/11 in Dept A1 at the
<span class="titleMain"><span id="lblTitle">Michael D. Antonovich </span></span>Antelope Valley Courthouse at 8:30am....<br />
According to the CA Penal Code, if Borrelli is convicted on the perjury charge he could face 2 - 4 years in state penitentiary. The penalty for the conspiracy charge is not as clear in the code as it is for perjury, there are many variables, but we do know both counts Borrelli is charged with are felonies. We will watch this case and let you know.
katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com53tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-31983018989926229372011-08-28T02:00:00.000-05:002011-08-28T14:17:19.899-05:00Nicholas Sheley...He Is, He Isn't, He Is, He Isn't, He Is Going To Stand Trial On August 29, 2011, Isn't He?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAn3M75Dm_e3qjQo8txJHfQmb4E7APzbyK6bQ7ZSsCZEpzWT_8GvI672CyK6Sr2ZXWjLGLSpOl_YaO4mh9_3baaCQkEMM55fkCfuVDEN2I7wZkkO9LRVTv29MPPp0d73IFl5OIJyF7ZZB2/s1600/Sheley.BMP" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAn3M75Dm_e3qjQo8txJHfQmb4E7APzbyK6bQ7ZSsCZEpzWT_8GvI672CyK6Sr2ZXWjLGLSpOl_YaO4mh9_3baaCQkEMM55fkCfuVDEN2I7wZkkO9LRVTv29MPPp0d73IFl5OIJyF7ZZB2/s200/Sheley.BMP" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nicholas Sheley at Stateville Correctional Institution</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Nicholas T. Sheley<b> </b>is<i><b> </b></i>a 31 year old man from Whiteside County, IL who is accused of engaging in a week long killing spree at the end of June 2008. The alleged killing spree resulted in the bludgeoning deaths of eight people in IL and MO, with victims ranging in age from a 2 year old boy to a 93 year old man.<br />
<br />
<br />
Jury selection for the first murder trial related to this alleged 2008 killing spree, for the death of Ronald Randall, 65, of Galesburg, IL is scheduled to begin on August 29, 2011 in Knox County, IL. As we are on the eve of trial, this seems like a good time to look back at the progression of this case the last three years. <br />
<br />
This post and the timeline <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2008/10/sheleys-trail-of-terror.html">linked here</a> can also serve as an introduction to the case for those who might not be familiar with the case but would like to follow the trial here at Katfishponders...This timeline is compiled of information from news reports made in 2008 as this case was unfolding. Even though some of the details included in these reports may come into the trial for the case we will be discussing here, many will not, because what was reported in the media isn't evidence (actually much of what will be admitted remains to be litigated), but more so because Nicholas Sheley is charged and being tried for the death of the one victim in Knox County, not all 8 victims.<br />
<br />
In earlier posts here at Katfishponders, I've referred to the progression of this case as a long and winding road because of the many twists, turns and delays this case has taken over the last three years. Many of the twists and turns can be attributed to choices made by Nicholas Sheley, but not all...... <br />
<br />
At the final pretrial case management hearing on August 12, the court sat a tentative date for opening statements to begin on September 6.....but the question is, given the history of this case.....Will it?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i><b>He is...He isn't?</b></i></span> <br />
<i><span style="font-size: large;">The Arrest and Indictment...</span></i><br />
<br />
Nicholas Sheley was arrested in Granite City, IL on July 1, 2008. Even though it's alleged by authorities that Sheley's killing spree started in Whiteside County and ended in Festus, MO, it was decided that Nicholas Sheley would be charged in Knox County, IL first. On July 2, 2008 Sheley was transported to Galesburg, IL and charged for the murder of Ronald Randall.<br />
<b><i></i></b><br />
<br />
<b><i>He is.... </i></b>pleading not guilty to the charges against him and is being held on a 10 million dollar bond in the Knox County Jail to await trial. Sheley is accused of kidnapping, killing, and robbing Ronald Randall 65, of Galesburg on June 28, 2008. He is also accused of stealing Randall's 2007 Chevy Silverado pickup truck. <br />
<br />
<i><b>He isn't....</b></i>At the start of a hearing on September 29, 2009 Nicholas Sheley said, “Your honor, I would like to change my
plea to guilty.”<br />
<br />
<b><i>He is.....</i></b>By the time the hearing came around for Sheley to officially change his plea to guilty he had changed his mind again and let his not guilty plea stand.<br />
<br />
<b><i>He isn't.... </i></b>being held in the Knox County Jail anymore....Sheley awaited trial in the Knox County Jail until he was convicted and sentenced to prison for 7 years in October 2009 for assaulting corrections officers at the Knox County Jail. After a stint in Pontiac Correctional Center, Sheley was moved to Stateville Correctional Center this Spring.<br />
<br />
<i>( This is just my opinion, but I think Mr. Randall's truck 'may' have been the most important piece of</i><br />
<i>evidence that law enforcement had to tie all of the deaths together, which 'may' also explain why Sheley is being tried in Knox County first. The 2007 pickup is equipped with OnStar which assisted in tracking the vehicle and based on the discovery addressed in various motions that I've seen, there was (figuratively) a truck load of DNA evidence </i><i>from various victims </i><i>found in Mr. Randall's truck when it was recovered in St. Louis, MO.) </i><br />
<br />
<i><b> </b></i>A Knox County Grand Jury handed down a 17 count Bill of Indictment against Nicholas Sheley in August 2008. Counts 1-10 are first-degree murder charges. The indictment alleges that on June 28, 2008 Sheley caused blunt-force trauma to the head of Ronald Randall that resulted in Randall's death. Counts 11-17 allege that on June 28 Nicholas Sheley kidnapped Ronald Randall, robbed him and stole his 2007 Chevy pickup. Three of the murder counts listed in the indictment include aggravating factors that made this a death penalty eligible case. The aggravating factors listed allege the blunt-force injuries to Ronald Randall were the result of heinous behavior and wanton cruelty to someone age 60+. Sheley was informed that the state has 120 days to decide if they will seek the death penalty.<br />
<br />
<i><b>He is... </b></i>facing the death penalty<i><b>.</b></i> The state filed the necessary paperwork on September 4, 2008 to seek the death penalty in this case. For 2.5 years this was litigated as a capital murder case.<br />
<br />
<b><i>He isn't</i>.... </b>facing the death penalty.....In March of 2011 the Governor of Illinois, Patrick Quinn, signed legislation to abolish the death penalty in IL. The new legislation actually didn't take effect until July 1, but the state withdrew their intent to seek the death penalty shortly after Governor Quinn signed the legislation.<br />
<br />
As we head into this trial, the minimum sentence for a 1st-degree murder conviction in IL is 20-60 years. If the aggravating factors included in the indictment are found to be present by the jury, Sheley will face natural life in prison. The possible penalties if convicted for the other counts in the indictment are as follows: counts 11-15, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated vehicular hijacking and one count of armed robbery — all Class X felonies punishable by six to 30 years in prison (60 years if aggravators are found ). Counts 16 and 17 are one count of robbery, a Class 1 felony; and one count of possession of a stolen vehicle, a Class 2 felony with punishment ranging 3-15 years, a $25,000 fine and 2 years supervision after release. <br />
<br />
Nicholas Sheley will be represented by court- appointed attorney Jeremy Karlin in this trial, but many of the twist and turns (and delays) in this case so far have revolved around choices made by Nicholas Sheley about his representaion......<br />
<br />
<i><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">He is....He isn't?</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><i>Sheley's Counsel....musical chairs?</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span>After Nicholas Sheley was declared indigent by the court, Knox County Public Defender James Harrell, was appointed to represent him. When the state announced their intent to seek the death penalty, Sheley became 'qualified' to have two attorneys that are members of the Capital Litigation Trial Bar to represent him . Jeremy Karlin, a private local attorney, was appointed as co-counsel on the same day the state filed their intent to seek the death penalty, September 3, 2008.When James Harrell requested a one week delay to allow Mr. Karlin to read all the discovery, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Sheley</span> asked to address the court. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Sheley</span> told the court he doesn't want a continuance of any kind. He went so far as to say if it is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">necessary</span> to fire his attorney's then so be it.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-size: small;">~ He wants to represent himself round one ~ </span></i></b><br />
<b><i><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></i></b><br />
Within weeks (actually 9 days) Nicholas Sheley informed the court he wanted to fire both of his attorneys because of conflict in trial strategy (for one, they were dragging things out against his wish for a speedy trial), he also claimed they were ineffective counsel and dishonest. Because he couldn't afford to hire a private attorney, Sheley requested to represent himself (Pro Se). Harrell and Karlin contested Sheley's request, first based on a bonafied doubt of his fitness to stand trial and then on his inability to intelligently waive his right to counsel. After four months of fitness hearings and evaluations by state and defense mental health experts, Sheley was found fit to stand trial .<br />
<br />
On January 31, 2010, the court found there was no conflict with counsel or evidence of ineffective counsel or dishonesty which left the issue of Sheley's Pro Se motion. Judge Stewart told the state they would be entitled to depose the mental health experts before he made a ruling as to the defendant representing himself. When the state requested the experts be advised of recent incidents at the jail involving the defendant and asked that incident reports be submitted to the experts before they were deposed, Sheley requested a 10 minute recess to consult with his attorneys. When court reconvened the court was advised by Jeremy Karlin that Mr.Sheley<i> withdraws all motions to remove his attorneys</i>. <b>Another He is....He isn't.</b>...that one week delay Sheley didn't want had just set the trial back five months....hmmm....makes this writer wonder, just what did he really want? ~ sigh ~<br />
<br />
<i>At the Jan 31 hearing John Hanlon attempted to enter his appearance with the court per Supreme Court rule 416, but was not allowed until the state was able to get clarification as to the rule. (Hanlon is from the Office of the State Appellate Defender in the Capital Trial Assistance Unit in the Springfield office. The Capital Trial Assistance Unit is staffed with attorneys who provide trial assistance in death penalty cases in which the defendant is indigent.) Hanlon later became a member of the defense until March 2011 when the death penalty was abolished in IL.</i><br />
<br />
<i><b></b></i><br />
<b></b><b><i><span style="font-size: small;">~ He wants to represent himself rounds 2 and 3 ~ </span></i></b><br />
<b><i><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">While these 2 attempts to represent himself weren't for the trial related to the 2008 alleged killing spree, I include them here because they also represent choices made by Nicholas Sheley in his dealings with the Knox County judicial system.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">In April 2009 Nicholas Sheley was charged </span>with three counts of aggravated battery to a correctional officer, one count of aggravated assault and one count of criminal damage to governmental property stemming from the April 17 incident at the Knox County Jail where Sheley has been held awaiting trial for the 2008 murder charge. At an April 23 custody hearing for these new charges Sheley told Judge Dwayne Morrison he doesn't want James Harrell to represent him and would file a motion to represent himself.<br />
At a hearing scheduled to hear argument on Sheley's motion to represent himself, on May 15, 2009, Nicholas Sheley informed the court<i> he had changed his mind and decided to accept Public Defender James Harrell as his attorney in the jail assault case</i>....geesh....<i><b> </b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>He is, He isn't...</b></i><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #b6d7a8;"> </span></b><br />
<br />
At a case management conference on September 8, 2009, after James Harrell filed a motion for a continuance, Sheley presented a prepared statement to the court, he said,“At this time, I’m going to challenge the effectiveness of my counsel.” Sheley went on to say he was dissatisfied with his counsel’s direction and wanted nothing to do with the motion considered at the conference, which was to delay the trial’s beginning to give the defense more time to look at the state’s evidence.“If my counsel makes an error, I suffer the blight, I do the time. I do not need a continuance,” said Sheley. This time around the court denied Sheley's latest request to represent himself based on the court's finding that Jim Harrell was providing effective counsel and given the previous mental health examinations as well as the fact the outcome of the battery case may be allowed into the trial for the 2008 murder case it would be improper to allow him to represent himself. <br />
<br />
<b><i>He is, he isn't...</i></b><br />
<br />
As it turns out, Nicholas Sheley did get his way and got rid of James Harrell....at least for the murder case. In January 2010 the Public Defender filed and was granted a motion to be released from the case, citing a “total breakdown in the
attorney-client relationship” that would prevent him from effectively
representing the defendant.(This was shortly after Sheley's conviction on the battery charges. IMO, Harrell did the best he could with that case given the fact the state presented a video of the Knox County jail incident.) At the same hearing, Judge James Stewart appointed Jeremy Karlin as lead attorney and Anthony Vaupel (another private attorney) was added as co-counsel to Jeremy Karlin. Vaupel remained on the case until March 2011 when the death penalty was abolished and Sheley was no longer entitled to 2 attorneys. As I mentioned earlier, John Hanlon left the case at this time as well........leaving Jeremy Karlin alone to represent Nicholas Sheley...but not for long.....<br />
<br />
<b></b><b><i><span style="font-size: small;">~ He wants to represent himself round four ~ </span></i></b><br />
<br />
March 29, 2011 was the first hearing since the state had abolished the death penalty. John Pepmeyer informed the court the state is
filing a motion to "de-certify" the death penalty in this case, adding
the death penalty is no longer an available remedy in this case. Pepmeyer also informed the court that counsel for both
parties met prior to the hearing and agreed to September 19, 2011
for a trial date. When Judge Stewart attempted to confirm that date with defense counsel, Karlin replies he has no authority to set a trial date because of the document Mr. Sheley has just handed him....a 59 page handwritten Pro Se Motion that requests he be allowed to fire his attorney and represent himself. He also asked the court to block defense counsel from responding or objecting to his motion and to block any attempts at further mental health evaluation. The links to that motion can be found in <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2011/04/motion-of-dayonce-again-nicholas-sheley.html">my report from that hearing</a>., <br />
<br />
<i><b>He is....</b></i> <br />
On April 25, 2011, Judge James Stewart ruled that he would allow Nicholas Sheley to represent himself in his murder trial.Judge Stewart also set a trial date for June 20, 2011.<br />
<br />
Before Stewart made his decision, both prosecution and defense argued against Sheley’s motion. <br />
Defense Attorney Jeremy Karlin warned Sheley’s temper could hamper his ability to get a fair trial.<br />
“My greatest concern, your honor, is my client’s ability to maintain his temper,” he said.<br />
The prosecution noted Sheley will have only limited access to
certain documents necessary for his trial because he is being housed at
the Illinois Department of Corrections. Sheley, for instance, doesn’t
have access to a computer at the prison. Stewart concluded by saying it wouldn’t be in Sheley’s best interest to
represent himself. But he added defendants have an “absolute,
Constitutional right” to relieve their defense counsel and because of the ruling, Jeremy Karlin was removed from the case.<br />
<br />
I was on vacation much of May and June so I missed some hearings but here are links to the reports of the hearings from Galesburg.com:<br />
<a href="http://www.galesburg.com/archive/x600908864/Knox-County-prosecution-requests-delay-in-Sheley-trial">Knox County prosecution requests delay in Sheley trial</a><br />
<a href="http://www.galesburg.com/archive/x157793123/Sheley-trial-a-go-for-now">Sheley trial a go, for now</a><br />
<a href="http://www.galesburg.com/archive/x556419365/Sheley-trial-pushed-back-to-August">Sheley trial pushed back to August</a><br />
<a href="http://www.galesburg.com/archive/x1293703005/Sheley-says-IDOC-impeding-his-defense">Sheley says IDOC impeding his defense</a><br />
<a href="http://www.galesburg.com/archive/x437339890/Prosecutors-want-Sheley-returned-to-Knox-County">Prosecutors want Sheley returned to Knox County</a><a href="http://www.galesburg.com/archive/x1388113670/County-spends-1-000-on-computers-for-Sheley"> County spends $1,000 on computers for Sheley</a><br />
<a href="http://www.galesburg.com/archive/x1336431635/Sheley-accused-of-murder-stays-put-in-Joliet">Sheley, accused of murder, stays put in Joliet</a><br />
I think it's fair to say the state and the county have went to great expense to ensure that Sheley was able to prepare for representing himself at trial. I'm sure they do not want to have to try this case again!<br />
<br />
<i><b>He isn't...</b></i><br />
<br />
On July 10, 2011, Nicholas Sheley once again <i>had a change of heart </i>and wrote the court the following letter. I included the letter here because it is only 2 pages and speaks for itself. You can click on each letter to enlarge it.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWvM07Fpr5DJFdXjcWmQWAtWR41MUXQem44y5ZWknoNcKcF5rKk5o5_d0UveJMrGMQP2YMPADUaXpffYoDShl-UYCZBo8u5Kyd5ANXxo0WBIK2Fgbi7zrbdcrlIILXEU0lLdGboJTF6nZK/s1600/scan0007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWvM07Fpr5DJFdXjcWmQWAtWR41MUXQem44y5ZWknoNcKcF5rKk5o5_d0UveJMrGMQP2YMPADUaXpffYoDShl-UYCZBo8u5Kyd5ANXxo0WBIK2Fgbi7zrbdcrlIILXEU0lLdGboJTF6nZK/s400/scan0007.jpg" width="290" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqSjyu-mbKn3qLXvcEeZ_Ot9zYBjBSp5XxfCQFXzrQdpU1lVLVZHDBXdXPrsHWTqVF2hJgXjfptoFhDBo8oieQG5FNYl_cF7Ml54Y4OC32qUhfDG_SgIlQZx2D4Bmey0W8paJMh_s3VMWA/s1600/scan0009.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqSjyu-mbKn3qLXvcEeZ_Ot9zYBjBSp5XxfCQFXzrQdpU1lVLVZHDBXdXPrsHWTqVF2hJgXjfptoFhDBo8oieQG5FNYl_cF7Ml54Y4OC32qUhfDG_SgIlQZx2D4Bmey0W8paJMh_s3VMWA/s400/scan0009.jpg" width="290" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
A hearing was scheduled for July 19 to decide on Sheley's request for Jeremy Karlin to be re-appointed as his counsel. During that hearing Judge Stewart said he would recognize the letter from Sheley as a Motion.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Bill Elward from the IL Attorney General's office told the court it's the state's position that this was gamesmanship. In his letter to the court, Sheley said a series of lock downs at the Stateville Correctional Center have
denied him access to materials needed to prepare his case. Elward said he spoke with the </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Illinois Department of Corrections and learned there
was an altercation on July 8, which caused a lock down through July 11,
however, it did not prevent Sheley from obtaining materials. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Elward said he had spoken with Jeremy Karlin both on the phone and in person. Elward said that Karlin told him he could be ready for trial on August 29 if the prosecution agreed to provide a list of witnesses and
evidence well before the trial, as well as advise him which witnesses
prosecutors intend to call each day. Elward said the position of the state is, "If he wants to have a trial, he can have a trial. If he wants a trial
with counsel, he can have one ... let's decide this issue today." </div>
<br />
Judge Stewart made a comment about legal gamesmanship and case law that I didn't catch entirely, however I did hear him say that because the state doesn't oppose the request for Mr. Karlin to be reappointed, he would allow it, adding it's against his better judgement because Sheley had knowingly and voluntarily waved his right to counsel.<br />
<br />
Jeremy Karlin approaches Nicholas Sheley and shakes his hand. As Sheley was led from the courtroom we made eye contact for a few seconds. I couldn't tell for sure if he was happy or mad....he had a look on his face much like the one in the mugshot above but his lips were pulled into a circle as if he was trying to whistle....he didn't look particularly happy. If his goal is to get to trial he should be happy....Judge Stewart said he expects a jury to be seated and opening statements started on September 6, 2011. Ya think?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-35179494613557611462011-07-01T20:42:00.000-05:002011-08-26T20:11:36.669-05:00THREE YEARS CLOSER TO JUSTICE<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYAMkUltm7WO7UUL8s3VGiD5qsrlT3t9cFKNBZCE1r4Fj2XCUeFC_zNiYgp3xy-e4WMZw7_FQCHXAyZFfvqOhH6qatjUNZnGE5dbc3JYhKTNSvfSrgn2I04sZjaVQcjbCG9auDdB-4JfQ2/s1600/1gAaf-10d-3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="295" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYAMkUltm7WO7UUL8s3VGiD5qsrlT3t9cFKNBZCE1r4Fj2XCUeFC_zNiYgp3xy-e4WMZw7_FQCHXAyZFfvqOhH6qatjUNZnGE5dbc3JYhKTNSvfSrgn2I04sZjaVQcjbCG9auDdB-4JfQ2/s400/1gAaf-10d-3.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-73084683031722685562011-06-22T12:29:00.005-05:002011-08-26T20:11:36.710-05:00My Visit To The Casey Anthony Murder Trial On June 8, 2011- Part 1<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfubL04ikw9OTgZpFua3NeC7Crc45zeK-n2N3d8QrOOn9Y4UD6xXOBWBg-lQx1sFtVFNbBcwFUOhmnTNL1zaANfbaNpcisdgbBdToDe2_1Lj_1uKOWCacsoaII5voeISqgI_LHUgvqg1Ov/s1600/JUSTICE+FOR+CAYLEE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><b>Will this trial be the final chapter in the Quest for Justice for Caylee Marie Anthony?</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfubL04ikw9OTgZpFua3NeC7Crc45zeK-n2N3d8QrOOn9Y4UD6xXOBWBg-lQx1sFtVFNbBcwFUOhmnTNL1zaANfbaNpcisdgbBdToDe2_1Lj_1uKOWCacsoaII5voeISqgI_LHUgvqg1Ov/s1600/JUSTICE+FOR+CAYLEE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfubL04ikw9OTgZpFua3NeC7Crc45zeK-n2N3d8QrOOn9Y4UD6xXOBWBg-lQx1sFtVFNbBcwFUOhmnTNL1zaANfbaNpcisdgbBdToDe2_1Lj_1uKOWCacsoaII5voeISqgI_LHUgvqg1Ov/s1600/JUSTICE+FOR+CAYLEE.jpg" /></a></div> Mr. Katfish and I are here in Florida to visit family in Tampa for a couple weeks. We have been having a nice visit, but for me, the trip wouldn't be complete without a stop at one of the hottest Summer attractions (<i>obsession?)</i> in FL.....no....not Disney World or Universal Amusement Parks, Busch Gardens or even the Kennedy space Center....my "hotspot" is the Casey Anthony capital murder trial taking place in Orlando. Most people reading here at Katfish....Ponders already know that I'm a trial junkie and this blog is devoted to cases of true crime and missing people, most of which eventually end up working their way through the American criminal justice system, my true "passion". <br />
<br />
I intend for this post to be an in-depth account of my visit to the Casey Anthony murder trial in Orlando, FL on Wednesday, June, 8, 2011. I don't plan on giving an "entire account" of the testimony given today because there has already been so much reported <i>(by people more qualified than I )</i>; however, if you have any questions just ask, I took copious notes. The entire day was also streamed online, by various outlets as well as televised by HLN and TruTv's " InSession" and at least one local station, all live. I'll be sure to include links to the coverage at the end of the post. What I really want to share with you is my personal experience...so here we go......<br />
<br />
My husband and I are staying at <a href="http://on.com/en_US/dt/hotel/MCOODDT-DoubleTree-by-Hilton-Orlando-Downtown-Florida/index.do">The DoubleTree Hotel</a> (very nice) on Ivanhoe and Orange Avenue, approximately a mile north of the Orange County Courthouse....My Mr. has little interest in trials so he plans on doing some "sightseeing" around downtown Orlando and hanging out at the hotel while I attend court. I hope to be able to get into the trial on Wednesday for the whole day and Thursday for a half day so our reservations are for Tuesday and Wednesday nights. We decided to stay over in Orlando because the court is allowing people to start lining up at 5:30 am to get the coveted 50 seats available to the public. Tickets are handed out between 8 and 8:30. I'm not even going to drive 1.5 hours to get in line at 5 am. LOL<br />
<br />
Our plan is for Mr. Katfish to drop me off in front of the courthouse a little after 5, maybe come back and meet me for lunch, and then come and pick me up when court was over for the day. We planned it this way so that he would have a vehicle if he decided to get out in Orlando. After seeing there was plenty to do right at the hotel and realizing that DoubleTree <i>by Hilton</i> has some of the most comfortable beds we've ever encountered at a hotel, at about 4 am on Wed, Mr. Katfish decided he really didn't need the truck <i>(LOL),</i> so I drove myself that .8 mile South on Orange Avenue to the Orange County Courthouse <b>;)</b><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF1V6DaWxVu_e3tmQ9lBvHMOKfuEPnxZ4ptYSWV3F5bH9clh9k4IoQkyJ_pe4pTy_CviQakc8W4DY-Yv0mTBrQQH23Rs6pR3r1xwPbkCp0FpWzXQdD-T8d8hvbFvBua3bE4pc2T8SZE_ii/s1600/caseytown2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="187" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF1V6DaWxVu_e3tmQ9lBvHMOKfuEPnxZ4ptYSWV3F5bH9clh9k4IoQkyJ_pe4pTy_CviQakc8W4DY-Yv0mTBrQQH23Rs6pR3r1xwPbkCp0FpWzXQdD-T8d8hvbFvBua3bE4pc2T8SZE_ii/s320/caseytown2.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Casey Town</td></tr>
</tbody></table>As I enter the block in front of the courthouse, I can see "Casey Town" on my right, a mass of tents and awnings (I learned there were over 700 requests for media credentials and about 600 were issued). Across the street from Casey Town and directly in front of the courthouse building is a large media truck marked with COURT TV on the side. There doesn't seem to be a lot of activity yet in the media areas so I turn my attention to finding a spot to park and notice all of the parking meters on the block are covered to prevent parking.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPY538AmV1Lk11Z1vzxYqONo1TYUa1PRQMcFlvl9Nh8Vn1D0T5KtT4mN38k4au5h-3QbK9XBm77l2Vps_vJnFBei6hXhaZbbTOo9BsK4CSXf7faDd9rOye92IZT0M-tfkUi6p11PUv9QJq/s1600/cths90.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="307" i$="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPY538AmV1Lk11Z1vzxYqONo1TYUa1PRQMcFlvl9Nh8Vn1D0T5KtT4mN38k4au5h-3QbK9XBm77l2Vps_vJnFBei6hXhaZbbTOo9BsK4CSXf7faDd9rOye92IZT0M-tfkUi6p11PUv9QJq/s400/cths90.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">L-R parking garage, administrative building, 23 floor Orange County Courthouse, and another administrative building with a courtyard in front of the OCC and in between the 2 administrative buildings .</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div> Immediately on my left is the parking garage that I used when I attended a pretrial hearing on December 20, 2010 (We were in FL for Christmas with family). I see some lights are on in the parking garage and there are a few cars already parked....there is also a car at the entrance that I assume is stopped to grab his parking ticket ( I think it's $15 max for the day) just as I pull in I notice a line of about 20 people are standing on the Orange St. sidewalk in front of the administrative building (between the parking garage and the courthouse).<br />
<div style="text-align: right;"></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuZe3LUylFgMPKD2QQnF4FZmK7w1IHyOk3FkFx6MaI-OHvvb68nIF3T6fEC9zsEfLArXgmWqRr2qsuvmUPlbrNbCoTjXbishDj_nULiQgo2776Js5rdMzjf0LsK559jdmiXFnty3qPd8Us/s1600/orange+ave+administration.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuZe3LUylFgMPKD2QQnF4FZmK7w1IHyOk3FkFx6MaI-OHvvb68nIF3T6fEC9zsEfLArXgmWqRr2qsuvmUPlbrNbCoTjXbishDj_nULiQgo2776Js5rdMzjf0LsK559jdmiXFnty3qPd8Us/s320/orange+ave+administration.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Orange Ave sidewalk where the early birds gather</td></tr>
</tbody></table>I'd heard the court had allowed the lineup to move from across the street to this spot on the sidewalk that passes the courthouse complex at the street.<i> (I assume to eliminate some of the stampede at 5:30)</i> I'm starting to feel pretty excited about being here.....that and the caffeine is starting to kick in. WooHoo!<br />
<br />
I pulled right behind the car entering the garage and notice out of the corner of my eye some more people are being dropped off to join the line. I'm regretting not having Mr. Katfish drop me off and the car ahead of me isn't moving....<i>WTH</i>? I honk my horn and immediately I regret my impatience...not my normal MO....so I get out and approach the car. I smiled at the man in the car to soften the sting of my horn and ask if he plans on parking. I notice the man has on a uniform and realize he is some type of courthouse employee, <i>thankfully</i>, he smiles back at me before pointing out the cone blocking his entry....he tells me the garage opens at 5:30 (it's about 5:15 now) and then asks if I'm here to get a ticket for the trial. When I tell him yes, he suggests I go ahead and park on the street behind the courthouse so I can get in line, adding the meter maids don't start patrolling until 9am. I thank him for his kindness and get back in my truck and back out to go around the block. I find a parking spot with no problem, feed the meter for the maximum allowed, 2 hours <i>(I don't want to chance our only transportation being towed off. LOL)</i> and cut through the back of the courthouse entry/courtyard.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>~Time to get in line ~</b></span><br />
<br />
When I get to the front of the courthouse there is a OCSO deputy/bailiff standing in the courtyard near the corner of the administration building, I smile and tell him I'm here to get a ticket for a seat, the officer points to a roped off area under the awning on the administrative building and I see the people from the line are being allowed to come on the courthouse property now (Basically just turning the corner of the building and the line begins at the opposite end up near where the bailif was standing.). To my relief there is no running or inappropriate behavior that I can see so I take my place in line. It looks like 30-40 people in front of me...drats...I hope I get a seat! <br />
<br />
One thing I notice right off is the number of young people around me in line. Directly behind me is a group of 3 girls who appear to be early to mid twenties. In line in front of me are 2 guys in their early twenties, and in front of them are 3 more girls in their very early twenties. The first 30 or so people in line ahead of us look to be in their 40's and 50's for the most part, and there he is....right at the front of the line, <i><b>neck brace guy</b></i>. LOL! Most of the people who show up in the next 15 minutes or so are older women, hopefully they will get in. By about 6 am it's obvious there are way more people here than will be able to get in, regardless, everyone stays in line and remains pretty civil, some young adults at the end are getting a little loud but really they are just acting goofy, not belligerent. <br />
<br />
The guys in front of me <i>(since we end up sitting with each other all day, at the risk of sounding like Casey Anthony, I'll call them "my boys" from here on out.)</i> have attended the trial another day so they are "sharing their knowledge" about the workings of this ticket system with the pretty young girls ahead of us and behind me. Of course, I'm all ears and learn after a while, that when everyone is pretty well established in line, people can step out and use the restroom <i>(located in the building we are lined in front of)</i> or move their cars. I'm relieved to hear this...I was just thinking about calling Mr Katfish and ask him to either ride his electric wheelchair here or get a ride from the hotel shuttle to pick up the truck. I wait until some around me have ran their "errands" and then go move my truck into the parking garage at about 7 am. Good! Now I don't have to worry about that.<br />
<br />
All morning there have been camera crews taking still shots and video up and down the line. A few of them are taking head counts too, after several tell me I'm number 40-42 I feel comfortable I'll get a seat. <i>My boys</i> tell me the first 20 are seated on the main floor in the courtroom and the rest are seated in the balcony with the media. <br />
<br />
Jim Lichtenstein, a producer for the Today show is trying to find who in line has traveled the farthest to be here. Everyone near me was from FL. I'm not sure who Lichtenstein came up with...perhaps he should have checked among his colleagues....there was a reporter from Japan trying to interview people in line. A reporter I spoke with from the Miami Herald told me the Japanese reporter doesn't speak English but his camera girl does, so she is pulling double duty. Can you believe with everything going on in Japan, they would send someone here to report this case? I suppose it's a diversion. <br />
<br />
I found the reporter from the Miami Herald, <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=Audra+D+S+Burch&form=AARTDF&pc=MAAR&src=IE-SearchBox">Audra D.S.Burch</a>, to be a very interesting person. After I told her I have a true crime blog and have occasionally written about this case she asked me to leave the line for a few minutes and sit down on a nearby bench to talk. <i>(A welcome break after standing for hours, many have sat on the sidewalk but I was afraid if I got down there I would have trouble getting up with these knees ~ o ~ mine. LOL) H</i>ere is a<a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/11/2262579/casey-anthony-case-a-morbid-sensation.html"> link to the story</a> Audra wrote about the trial and those attending for the Miami Herald. It's very interesting, she was here all week and interviewed a lot of people...I also did a search on Ms. Burch and linked<i> (with her name above)</i> the results, she has written some very interesting pieces and won some prestigious rewards. I'm glad I had the chance to meet her.<br />
<br />
At about 8 am , staff from the court comes and hands out laminated sheets with rules of conduct for the courtroom. The energy is increasing in the line now, those who didn't receive a sheet will not get in this morning, but most stay anyway. <i>My boys</i> tell me there are usually a few people who get kicked out for sleeping or some other infraction and some people don't come back for the afternoon session so it's possible these people could get those seats. At 8:15 the court personnel take back the laminated rules sheets and at 8:30 return to hand out the actual seat tickets. Here is my ticket:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjXZxD_ER-1pir9A0IfmqMSDsnkEClk0Y7Z-hrMixG-hUuRFq-zbU-Ov00xFSJqAzBFXgxkYM-DmytyLJTHyf050yNJ1fRjWQSsXs7q2meLi1BzhxcfsBnk47gvzwavjW-FI_YAbiHGeYa/s1600/ticket+to+trial.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="161" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjXZxD_ER-1pir9A0IfmqMSDsnkEClk0Y7Z-hrMixG-hUuRFq-zbU-Ov00xFSJqAzBFXgxkYM-DmytyLJTHyf050yNJ1fRjWQSsXs7q2meLi1BzhxcfsBnk47gvzwavjW-FI_YAbiHGeYa/s400/ticket+to+trial.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
Once the tickets are handed out people disperse from the line. I head straight over to the main entrance of the courthouse and get in line again. This line is for everyone coming to the courthouse <i>(for whatever reason)</i> to go through a security checkpoint.Surprisingly, this only takes a few minutes so I make a "pit stop" up on 23 before I go into the courtroom. In the ladies room I speak with a woman who also has her husband stashed at their hotel....they are from Tennessee and came specifically for her to attend the trial. She said her husband had retired recently and hadn't been able to pry her from the TV watching the trial so he finally told her, "Let's just go to Orlando!" I thought that was a hoot!<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">~ Let's head into the courtroom ~</span></b><br />
<br />
I make my way into Judge Perry's courtroom on 23 and a bailiff checks my ticket and directs me to a stair well on my left to go into the balcony. When I get up to the balcony another bailiff tells me which row to go to....I'm kind of bummed when I realize my seat is smack dab in the middle of the row. Once everyone is seated I look around and realize my whole row is made up of the same people I was right in line with. The 3 girls behind me and another woman have the 4 seats behind me and my boys are right next to me with the 3 girls ahead of them seated before them at the beginning of the row. There are 5 rows of seats, the first 2.5 rows are media seats. There are monitors across the front row that are showing split shots from various cameras throughout the courtroom being manned by people who aren't familiar.<br />
<br />
The first person I recognize in the media section is Dave Knechel aka <a href="http://marinadedave.com/">Marinade Dave.</a> Dave is a blogger from Orlando that has been closely following this case and was hired by the <a href="http://orlando.godengo.net/Blogs/Casey-Anthony-Trial/June-2011/A-Velvet-Glove-on-an-Iron-Fist/">Orlando Magazine</a> to cover the trial for them. He is seated in the row in front of me at the far end. I'm happy for Dave to have received the media credentials so he can attend daily. Once Dave sees me he smiles and indicates we will meet in the hall at the morning break. I have followed Dave's blog for a long time but had the opportunity to meet him in person last December when I attended a hearing in this case.....it's funny how you can meet someone on the internet and become friends but not even know what each other looks like and then when you do meet feel like you have known them forever. It's like that with Dave and me but I have also had the same experience with others. I met another "trial buddy", Karental, for lunch in Tampa and it felt the same...like I had known her forever. Life is good :) I look forward to meeting up with many more of my online friends in the years to come!<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>~ A Little "Starstruck</b></span><b><span style="font-size: large;">" ~</span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></b>Back to the trial....court will start in a few minutes so I look around to see if I see any "big names". Throughout the day I saw, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jean-Casarez/123583917496">Jean Casarez</a> <i> InSession Correspondent / Attorney</i> sits in the front row keeping an eye on one of the monitors and a producer from InSession named Mike who does some on air reports sits right behind her. <a href="https://www.facebook.com/TVAshleigh">Ashleigh Banfield</a> is here, <i>now a reporter for ABC, formerly of CTV / In session.</i> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=134956929756&set=a.448016024756.246724.134954519756&type=1&theater">Judge Jeanine Pirro</a>, <i>former District Attorney and County Court Judge who now hosts a tv "court show" with her name,</i> is here and seated with a couple people. <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Aphrodite-Jones/219287071419680">Aphrodite Jones</a>, <i>Author and TV host of "True Crime with Aphrodite Jones" on Investigation Discovery,</i> came in and takes a seat that in a few minutes turns out is <a href="https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_56082781370">Natisha Lance</a>'s seat, <i>Nancy Grace Producer. </i>The first witness was on the stand when Natisha entered the balcony so she tells Aphrodite to stay in her seat and takes an empty seat next to Dave; however, Natisha immediately reclaims her seat when Aphrodite leaves later in the day. I thought Aphrodite looked a little tired when she came in this morning but much more so now as she leaves, hope she's not sick that's all everyone squished in this balcony needs◔_◔ . Another woman takes the seat that Natisha just left next to Dave and stays there for the remainder of the day. <i>(I assumed she was a reporter, but later learn her name is <a href="http://susanconstantine.com/">Susan Constantine</a>, after seeing her make a couple appearances on HLN to speak as a body language specialist.)</i> I should note that the bailiff is very strict about people remaining in their seats assigned by the court seat ticket for media and public....I'll talk about this more in a bit. I didn't note when Beth came in; however, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/BethKarasInsession">Beth Karas</a>,<i> InSession Correspondent / Attorney</i> comes in later in the afternoon and replaces Jean Casarez in the front row.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaYA8RUQXAEPIVzXEh4LexAk4-_fEfcOKIStvW96kDaNg08yULSUBFm5f7lMTjx71ibXsTa4-yg3FdBl7x-9CnPz5IlHOhYfJm6wPWmjEfcAinXjxQYzeHY6Bvgs_Jd4-zJOqmNARhjI3O/s1600/casey+and+jose.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="128" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaYA8RUQXAEPIVzXEh4LexAk4-_fEfcOKIStvW96kDaNg08yULSUBFm5f7lMTjx71ibXsTa4-yg3FdBl7x-9CnPz5IlHOhYfJm6wPWmjEfcAinXjxQYzeHY6Bvgs_Jd4-zJOqmNARhjI3O/s200/casey+and+jose.JPG" width="200" /></a></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQm5WQ1Pr2aHI6S2kDQohr9-jRgge1Ggf03HatHQpKabJjF49KwQvDIJPVAF-LLJZo41ydp4sQTxY6mUhKyEoxeUwdv743_VakWzjyxrDvTzufjJvwfpil51NjXsmVcGBKMiAIS3QaKPoi/s1600/Casey-Anthony-Trial_Perr_20110608070645_320_240.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="129" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQm5WQ1Pr2aHI6S2kDQohr9-jRgge1Ggf03HatHQpKabJjF49KwQvDIJPVAF-LLJZo41ydp4sQTxY6mUhKyEoxeUwdv743_VakWzjyxrDvTzufjJvwfpil51NjXsmVcGBKMiAIS3QaKPoi/s200/Casey-Anthony-Trial_Perr_20110608070645_320_240.JPG" width="200" /></a><br />
<br />
Here are a few pictures I grabbed off the internet of Baez and the Anthonys. I can't really say I'm starstruck by any of the Anthony family but without a doubt they are the "stars" of this case. I barely caught a glimpse of George and Cindy when coming into the entry of the courtroom to reach the balcony. The lower gallery is dismissed before the balcony is allowed to disperse when court breaks so the Anthonys and other people in the gallery are gone before I reach the hallway or the elevator. Casey and her defense team are in full view from the balcony <br />
and her "mug" is plastered all over the media's monitors in front of us.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> ~ Order is the rule of the day ~</b></span><br />
<br />
The bailiff get's <i>everyone's</i> attention in the balcony and reminds everyone of court decorum. He says anyone caught sleeping or being disruptive (chewing gum, talking, etc) will be asked to leave and not allowed back in the courtroom for the day. He reminds everyone to silence their cellphones and says that nobody can have out their cellphone, IPad, etc unless they are wearing media credentials. <i>I already turned my phone off before I came up the elevator....I do not want to risk the ire of Judge Perry. </i>The bailiff also reminds the accredited media they are restricted to texting on their devices. This is definitely Judge Parry's court nothing is left to chance.<br />
<br />
All day the bailiff on the balcony kept a very close eye on everyone in the balcony and the gallery downstairs. I noticed that a bailiff downstairs also monitored the balcony and the gallery, it seemed like a very structured procedure. I'll talk about this more in a bit, but the Honorable Judge Belvin Perry has entered the courtroom and things get underway for day 13 of the trial.<br />
<br />
After the court officially recognizes both parties. <i>(I count 3 attorneys at the state table adjacent to the jury box and facing the court and 6 attorneys at the defense table directly across and facing the jury box, there is someone sitting at the table the defense would have normally been seated at that I think might be an investigator for the state or possibly another attorney.)</i> Jose Baez is on his feet. The defense wants to renew their previous objections on the record about evidence coming in pertaining to the cadaver dogs. Judge Perry says," As for the video training, the trier of fact can determine the credibility but they must know the training.Objections denied." <i>The videos weren't shown today, maybe yesterday(?), at any rate, the videos are part of the evidence so the jury will have access to them. Being on vacation I've missed a lot of the trial so far....I try and hit some blogs and news outlets to keep up as much as I can but I'm sure I've missed some things.</i><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">~ The State's Case in Chief continues Day 13 ~</span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-size: small;">First Witness</span></b> - <b>Sargent Kristin Brewer</b><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6LEBtTqZoTm-k3SBpMsyuPkv1CEuK2VjDui_ec_3Pe89JAm7VyxyT7yu3HfQo-sI4NaokVTpPhFEfqIxuoSAOzCd2MQHb3eclvggbOeZWTyg3WFQqPHlWdq8yMXfYcxMeo1o9b8LvCnzd/s1600/picture+of+spot+that+bones+alerted.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6LEBtTqZoTm-k3SBpMsyuPkv1CEuK2VjDui_ec_3Pe89JAm7VyxyT7yu3HfQo-sI4NaokVTpPhFEfqIxuoSAOzCd2MQHb3eclvggbOeZWTyg3WFQqPHlWdq8yMXfYcxMeo1o9b8LvCnzd/s200/picture+of+spot+that+bones+alerted.png" width="196" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sgt Brewer's mark</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Assistant State's Attorney Linda Drane Burdick (LDB) calls the state's first witness for the day, Kristen Brewer of the Osceola County Sheriff Department. Sgt. Brewer reported her own work history and background with search dogs before she testified to the training and history of her cadaver dog, Bones, as well as the logistics and results of Bone's search of the backyard at George and Cindy Anthony's home ,on Hopespring Dr., on July 17, 2008. LDB showed Brewer a photo of Caylee Anthony's playhouse in her grandparents' backyard, Brewer circles the area indicating where her dog was in the yard when he alerted.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2dxuuRbnc_rv12cXjmW9dIm7oCwglwxQ2KdISNB-Sk123Ptj6tlBVg77TPcnS1N3jG1QHDrc9Uds32w5epf5KGvzWGhiTNBfEPPcOhejYJwjWON1v0LT5ajZMo2i0dpZIOM2-ZmEHZeLT/s1600/GerusAlertAnthonybackyard+alerted+by+gerus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2dxuuRbnc_rv12cXjmW9dIm7oCwglwxQ2KdISNB-Sk123Ptj6tlBVg77TPcnS1N3jG1QHDrc9Uds32w5epf5KGvzWGhiTNBfEPPcOhejYJwjWON1v0LT5ajZMo2i0dpZIOM2-ZmEHZeLT/s200/GerusAlertAnthonybackyard+alerted+by+gerus.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Deputy Forgey's mark</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Brewer's testimony follows up yesterday's testimony of Deputy Jason Forgey of the Orange County Sheriff's Office about his dog, Gerus, who searched and alerted on both the Anthony's backyard and Casey's Pontiac Sunfire. Brewer told LDB that after Bone's first search and alert, Deputy Forgey told her "Gerus" had alerted "within" 6 - 8 feet of "Bone's" alert in the back yard. Here is the picture Forgey circled of the same area of the backyard in previous testimony....looks pretty close to me. Hopefully the jury will have access to both pictures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsppHXbWDczYVdt89UpJjgoSrDBTThJk3pmobA7hbC5jDAkvFwq1laP5pHFJYcYlMHMRrijMw-exMWiIiBOrlb9iznHeAfpYAhy6reRcU5303_aouRcmrDi9DMRgsen-RApUfJiQZFl3fL/s1600/baez+artwork.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="261" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsppHXbWDczYVdt89UpJjgoSrDBTThJk3pmobA7hbC5jDAkvFwq1laP5pHFJYcYlMHMRrijMw-exMWiIiBOrlb9iznHeAfpYAhy6reRcU5303_aouRcmrDi9DMRgsen-RApUfJiQZFl3fL/s400/baez+artwork.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jose Baez arrows on Brewer's mark</td></tr>
</tbody></table> During his cross examination of Sgt. Brewer, Jose Baez went to great lengths to get her to admit that 6 - 8' from where she had circled was over by the pool which is out of range in these pictures the red arrows are Baez artwork. <i>(You can see the direct and the cross of Sgt. Brewer in parts 1 and 2 below.) </i><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib1r4UFdpSABtbimiznu8gQVru3BSRTUvkFGWHAKcDs5Fm8qsj8qRLiqm_ohMrvLRk5O9HOZoR8cy_V2wv9whK12kXy64VdWawwyZWUfTULhk8tF3uHjW8eG2ETUTVRIcfi9diekU03911/s1600/hopespring+dr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib1r4UFdpSABtbimiznu8gQVru3BSRTUvkFGWHAKcDs5Fm8qsj8qRLiqm_ohMrvLRk5O9HOZoR8cy_V2wv9whK12kXy64VdWawwyZWUfTULhk8tF3uHjW8eG2ETUTVRIcfi9diekU03911/s400/hopespring+dr.jpg" width="400" /></a><i> </i><br />
<br />
I finally found a picture of the Anthony's yard.....check out the distance from the playhouse to the pool....wayyy more than 6-8' for sure,<br />
they are on total opposite ends of the house! The arrow in this particular<br />
picture is pointing at the shed but you can see the roof of the playhouse<br />
at the corner of the house.<br />
<br />
<i>I've noticed the prosecution team has worked their way through the specific timeline of this case when presenting their case in chief, down to presenting this testimony in the same order as their dog's searched the Anthony home.</i><i> Hopefully the state presenting their case in this manner will make it easier for the jury to focus on the timeline when they deliberate as well as go through the evidence.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>I'm going to break right here because this is the point in the testimony that I had to leave my seat and go to the ladies room and take a pain pill. I have bad knees and while the seats themselves are padded and comfortable I have long legs and there is NO room to move my legs....to even attempt to cross them creates a hazard of kicking someone in the head. I'll be back with part 2.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Links to YouTube Video of day 13 of the testimony<span style="font-size: small;">. </span></b></span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Thanks to Sierra for posting these!</span></b></span></i><br />
<br />
<b>June 8, Day 13</b><i> - <a href="http://youtu.be/-htWQBriBDE"><b>Part1</b></a></i><br />
<i> <b> <a href="http://youtu.be/crFIWx_7Hnc"> Part 2</a></b></i><br />
<i><b> <a href="http://youtu.be/Mo_6kcVbiVo"> Part 3</a></b></i><br />
<i><b> <a href="http://youtu.be/dudbFmyz3yk">Part 4</a></b></i><br />
<i><b> <a href="http://youtu.be/dJTJ9ckZQ1k"> Part 5</a></b></i><br />
<i><b> <a href="http://youtu.be/AqV436aX7gs"> Part 6</a></b></i><br />
<i><b> <a href="http://youtu.be/AqV436aX7gs">Part 7 </a></b></i><br />
<i><b> <a href="http://youtu.be/EHcXyFih_kA">Part 8</a></b></i><br />
<i><b> <a href="http://youtu.be/iUXtA1hQkaQ">Part 9</a></b></i><br />
<i><b> <a href="http://youtu.be/_TYraug81yo">Part 10</a> </b></i><br />
<i><b> <a href="http://youtu.be/QtUs1tf5DU0">Part 11</a> </b></i>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com29tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-8505436957163448662011-06-17T12:35:00.021-05:002011-08-26T20:11:36.724-05:00Stacey Barker Sentenced Today! updated 7/6/2011<strong><span style="font-size: large;">update: Stacey Barker has been transfered to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. She was transfered on 7/5. It usually takes a week before the inmate's reception is listed. Will let you know when we find out! </span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
Superior Court Judge Hayden Zackey sentenced Stacey Marie Barker, 26, of Lancaster, CA today, June 17, for her May 24, 2011 convictions related to the death of her 18 month old daughter, Emma Leigh Barker, on March 18th, 2009. <br />
<br />
Katfish...ponders originally reported the dispositon of the sentence will end up as 62 years, however after further investigation I've learned that may not be accurate. Here is my current understanding of the sentence:<br />
<br />
<br />
Count 1, First Degree Murder = 25 years to life<br />
<br />
Count 2, Assault on Child causing death = 25 years to life (stayed)<br />
<br />
child abuse = 6 years<br />
<br />
child abuse = 6 years<br />
<br />
special enhancement / allegations = 4 years.<br />
<br />
It's our understanding the sentences are to be served consecutive, credit for time served (2 years) will be given and Barker is not eligible for any good time off her sentence. We are not certain what the actual disposition of the sentences will be, but we can say pretty confidently that Barker should be well past the age of being able to conceive another child before she is free again. At this time neither the booking record from the LA county Jail or the LA County Superior Court's Online records are showing the sentence or disposition other than to show Stacey Barker is now under the jurisdiction of the state prison system. As soon as we learn the actual minimum time she will be serving we'll update this. <br />
<br />
Here is a <a href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video-news-on-demand/?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=5968300">CBS 9 Los Angeles news report</a> of the sentencing hearing and case:<br />
<br />
<script src="http://video.losangeles.cbslocal.com/global/video/videoplayer.js?rnd=937581;hostDomain=video.losangeles.cbslocal.com;playerWidth=580;playerHeight=465;isShowIcon=true;clipId=5968300;flvUri=;partnerclipid=;adTag=News;advertisingZone=CBS.LA%252Fworldnowplayer;enableAds=true;landingPage=;islandingPageoverride=false;playerType=STANDARD_EMBEDDEDscript;controlsType=fixed" type="text/javascript">
</script>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com65tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-86763403187677221892011-05-24T19:16:00.002-05:002011-08-26T20:11:36.734-05:00STACY BARKER FOUND GUILTY ON THREE COUNTS!<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOx29gdnFpaIOIclGWXaqyFvAPdaYZ5H66dEb9syjoP4Zpa1K0pUSFoQJr8XIu5ihKqiC7Kh_MMP7pPu-m7VbpfNL_4jhyphenhyphenx-E8NwRQ5JObj-yVTKgewimfU4wx1JMFgsm5jnh5AtImkqSM/s1600/Emma+Barker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOx29gdnFpaIOIclGWXaqyFvAPdaYZ5H66dEb9syjoP4Zpa1K0pUSFoQJr8XIu5ihKqiC7Kh_MMP7pPu-m7VbpfNL_4jhyphenhyphenx-E8NwRQ5JObj-yVTKgewimfU4wx1JMFgsm5jnh5AtImkqSM/s320/Emma+Barker.jpg" t8="true" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Emma Leigh Barker RIP</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
A Lancaster CA jury convicted Stacey Barker today on 3 counts:</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>1ST - DEGREE MURDER!!!!!! </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>ASSAULT ON A CHILD CAUSING</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>GREAT BODILY INJURY OR DEATH!!!! </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>CHILD ABUSE ON CHILD UNDER 8 YEARS OF AGE!!!</b></div><div style="text-align: center;">Sentencing for Barker will take place on June 17, 2011</div><div class="title" style="text-align: center;">Here is a list from the California penal code: <b><br />
</b></div><div class="title" style="text-align: center;"></div><div class="title" style="text-align: center;"><b>California - First-degree Murder</b></div><div></div><div class="subtitle" style="text-align: center;">Title 8, Ch. 1, Sec. 187; 188-190</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="editortext" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">PENAL CODE <br />
SECTION 187-199</span> </span></b></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">fetus, with malice aforethought.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">106 of the Health and Safety Code.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">more likely than not.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">mother of the fetus.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">show an abandoned and malignant heart.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">such awareness is included within the definition of malice.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">189. All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">kinds of murders are of the second degree.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> As used in this section, "destructive device" means any</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">destructive device as defined in Section 12301, and "explosive" means</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">any explosive as defined in Section 12000 of the Health and Safety</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Code.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> As used in this section, "weapon of mass destruction" means any</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">item defined in Section 11417.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> To prove the killing was "deliberate and premeditated," it shall</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">reflected upon the gravity of his or her act.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">189.5. (a) Upon a trial for murder, the commission of the homicide</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">by the defendant being proved, the burden of proving circumstances of</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">mitigation, or that justify or excuse it, devolves upon the</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">defendant, unless the proof on the part of the prosecution tends to</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">show that the crime committed only amounts to manslaughter, or that</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">the defendant was justifiable or excusable.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> (b) Nothing in this section shall apply to or affect any</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">proceeding under Section 190.3 or 190.4.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">190. (a) Every person guilty of murder in the first degree shall be</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">punished by death, imprisonment in the state prison for life without</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">the possibility of parole, or imprisonment in the state prison for a</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">term of 25 years to life.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<pre><b><span style="font-size: medium;"> Assault on a Child Causing Death</span></b>
273ab. Any person who, having the care or custody
of a child who is under eight years of age,
assaults the child by means of force that
to a reasonable person would be likely
to produce great bodily injury,
resulting in the child's death, shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state
prison for 25 years to life.
Nothing in this section shall be
construed as affecting the applicability
of subdivision (a) of Section 187
or Section 189. </pre><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> </span><b><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></b></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><pre><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Child Abuse</span></b>
273a.(a) Any person who, under circumstances or <pre>conditions likely to produce great </pre><pre>bodily harm or death, willfully causes</pre><pre>or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts </pre><pre>thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental </pre><pre>suffering, or having the care or custody of any child,</pre><pre>willfully causes or permits the person or health</pre><pre>of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or </pre><pre>permits that child to be placed in a situation
where his or her person or health is endangered. </pre><pre> </pre><pre>A child abuse charge in CA is considered a "<i>wobbler</i>"</pre><pre>(can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony
depending on the facts in the case) if prosecuted</pre><pre>as a misdemeanor shall be punished by </pre><pre>imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding </pre><pre>one year and a $6000 fine, if prosecuted</pre><pre>as a felony and there is a conviction the</pre><pre>penalty is in the state prison for</pre><pre>two, four, or six years.</pre><pre> </pre><pre><strong>Last but not least, another great big thanks to </strong></pre><pre><strong>Tori, Ange, Gabe,
Tiff, Anurse, and LCM for </strong></pre><pre><strong>taking time from your busy lives to attend
these hearings the last 2 years and this 3 week trial! </strong></pre><pre><strong>You are Emma's Angels!</strong></pre><pre><strong></strong> </pre></pre><div style="background-color: transparent; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>Thanks to LCM for this sweet picture of Emma!</em></span></div><pre> </pre></div>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com48tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-67475794453216676682011-05-24T03:24:00.000-05:002011-08-26T20:11:36.695-05:00Stacey Barker Murder Case - The Jury Has the Case!The murder case of Stacey Marie Barker,26, of Lancaster, CA was given to the jury today, Monday, May 23rd. Deputy District Attorney Kelly Cromer presented her first closing argument on Friday, May 20th. Today, Stacey Barker's Public Defender Roberto Dager presented his closing argument before Kelly Cromer wrapped up the trial with her second closing.<br />
<br />
The jury only had the case for 2 hours today so there isn't a verdict yet...maybe tomorrow will be the day we learn the fate of Stacey Barker? Will she be spending the rest of her life as an inmate of CA Department of Corrections or will she get the minimum 25 years if she's convicted of the top charges? To keep it real, there is also the possibility she will be acquitted. Many think Stacey hurt her chances for that acquittal by taking the stand on her own behalf, against her lawyer's advice no less. Personally, I would be satisfied with either of the first 2 options, I think it would be Justice for Emma if Stacey Barker never has the chance to procreate again...she blew her chance to be a good parent for her beautiful little girl. I have felt for sometime that Stacey killed her daughter Emma and the things that have come out during this trial have only confirmed my opinion.<br />
<br />
Wednesday will be exactly the 3rd week of this trial. I can say without any reservation if they want to cut the trial to 1 day short of 3 weeks that wouldn't bother me one bit. The jury will decide what is Justice for Emma Leigh Barker.<br />
<br />
Hopefully, today, the jurors were able to select a jury foreman and review the instructions given to them by Judge Hayden Zackey so they can come in tomorrow and start reviewing the evidence. They must understand the elements of each charge before they can decide what has been proven beyond a reaonable doubt, if anything. Roberto Dager reminded the jury today that the law says, if they find there are 2 plausible theories, they must select the theory most favorable to the defendant. What he said is true but 2 things come to mind...to be plausible there must be no "reasonable" doubt and it is possible there could be no theories that benefit the defendant.<br />
<br />
If you have been trying to follow the case here, you know that things didn't go as planned with our coverage. LeftCoastMom aka LCM had planned on going to Lancaster for at least a part of the trial and we were going to share our coverage. Unfortunately, things didn't work out for LCM going to CA. <br />
There are some things in life more important than being a trial junkie............ <br />
<i>(hehe, there...I said it....we are trial junkies and if you are reading this <strong>and</strong> following any other </i><br />
<i>case(s) you are possibly a trial junkie too </i>٩(͡๏̮͡๏)۶<i> whoot! )</i>. <br />
I'm glad LCM made the decision to take care of her own needs first. LCM has been able to get out and about to some of the boards, such as Reality Chatter, with some of the details she gathered from Tori. That's great, and I'm sure very much appreciated! <br />
<br />
Tori was giving me extensive notes through the 7th or 8th day of trial via a 3 hour phone conversation each night. After the I realized <i>(finally accepted the fact)</i> there was no way I could catch up with the Q&A, play by play coverage that Tori was providing, I quit taking extensive notes and we just chatted...but it was still a 2-3 hour conversation. I just love that girl, she has a sharp wit, a kind heart, and a near total recall memory .... a perfect combination.for blogging, but for one thing...she doesn't like to write. LOL! In Tori's own words, "Girl, I'm not a writer, I'm a storyteller!" I on the other hand love to do both, but time has been my enemy ๏̯͡๏.<br />
<br />
The mainstream media has been pretty much non existent beyond the first month or so after Emma's death, that is except for Craig Currier of the Antelope Valley Press, he has attended most of the pretrial hearings over the last 2 years. Tori said the court allowed Craig to take still photos in the courtroom today and the media will be able to bring television cameras into the courtroom so that they can record when the verdict is read.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thankfully, Tori has been kind enough to come in each day and leave a summary of the day in court in the comments section. I hope you have read her updates. Here are links to the posts she commented on.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2011/04/we-will-provide-coverage-of-stacy.html#comments">We will provide coverage of Stacey barker murder trial</a></b><br />
<br />
<b>Day one, Wednesday, April 27 - <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2011/05/stacey-barker-murder-trial-opening.html">Opening Statements </a></b><br />
<b> <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2011/05/stacey-barker-murder-trial-first-day.html">Sue Barker's testimony</a></b><br />
<br />
<b>Day two, Thursday, April 28 - <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2011/05/stacey-barker-murder-trial-day-two.html">Day two of testimony</a></b>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-64064338978813843662011-05-06T02:04:00.003-05:002011-08-26T20:11:36.685-05:00Stacey Barker Murder Trial - Day Two<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-Aj8o0Ap8jBIGXbpg-E0iwbNATHLN3nrr9VFAT1hBORwGtqSzNW5_yV2LB-eqvW6JzYiaRjejdwiy7i8l0E0U1LGwr8zTgkytrtxGbfiN0H1pKyightLOfmYF_3161PZ62ROzktUXd8Hx/s1600/20090323_155346_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-Aj8o0Ap8jBIGXbpg-E0iwbNATHLN3nrr9VFAT1hBORwGtqSzNW5_yV2LB-eqvW6JzYiaRjejdwiy7i8l0E0U1LGwr8zTgkytrtxGbfiN0H1pKyightLOfmYF_3161PZ62ROzktUXd8Hx/s320/20090323_155346_0.jpg" width="294" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">RIP Emma Leigh Barker 9/2007 - 3/2009 </td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>Day two <i>(Thursday, April 28 )</i> of the Stacey Barker murder trial was a frustrating day pretty much all around. Sue Barker, the defendant's mother, was back on the stand for more direct questioning by Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Kelly Cromer. The day was frustrating for DDA Kelly Cromer because Sue Barker seemed to have developed a <b>serious</b> case of the "I don't recall" syndrome....the state had requested the court to declare her a hostile witness yesterday.....and the court agreed. <i>(Sorry missed reporting this yesterday)</i><br />
<br />
The day was also frustrating for our friends, here is what Tori had to say about Sue's testimony, " I felt so sorry for her I could feel her pain and she looked like she was in a daze...this has taken a toll on her, Ange commented that she felt like she just wanted to hug her and tell her it was NOT her fault, that she felt heartsick for this woman she did not know...a husband that would leave her in her greatest pain for thoughts and words she said about her daughter. A daughter that had killed her only grandchild, she is in great fear of losing her husband now...how sad she loses her granddaughter, her daughter and if Stacey is convicted because of her testimony she may also lose her husband, because Stacey Barker is a "Daddy's girl" and always has been.<br />
<br />
Just hearing Tori's description makes Sue's pain palpable for me. Does it you? No doubt, this was one of the more frustrating days of Sue's life. She learned she was recorded in an interview with the homicide detectives when she said of her daughter, " I know she did it, and I want you to prove it". Her gut instinct was justice for her granddaughter, not of making up lies to protect her daughter. If you haven't seen them already, Tori very kindly made several comments<a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2011/04/we-will-provide-coverage-of-stacy.html#comments"> here</a> giving her impressions of the day.<br />
<br />
There was something worrisome that happened in court after the jury was dismissed yesterday. Our friends learned today that Judge Zackey advised both parties that he wants Sue Barker examined and her testimony is to be recorded in case something were to happen to her. The court didn't expand on that, but I think we can read between the lines :( <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>There's a lot to say so I'll get to reporting the court business and testimony. Before the jury was brought in for the day's testimony, DDA Cromer had some things to say about the first day of trial and Stacey Barker's Public Defender, Roberto Dager. Kelly made it clear to the court that she was mad at things PD Dager had said in his opening statement. Cromer felt that that Dager's concentration in his opening on condemning the state and detectives including making personal attacks against them for recording X's conversations with Barker was misconduct. Judge Zackey agreed with the state. Zackey said if it was misconduct, it will not be tolerated, adding he will read the transcripts of the defense opening and would rule later. <i>(I wonder if he will wait until after trial to make a ruling?) </i><br />
<br />
There is a few other issues for the court to discuss before testimony could start, Judge Zackey advised both parties that someone had called the LA County Sheriff's Office to report that Sue Barker was heard talking about her testimony in the hallway in front of some jurors. Judge Zackey had the jury brought in and questioned them whether they had overheard anyone talking about the case in the hallway during break. No one on the jury had heard anyone talking about the case, so the judge reminded them of the admonishment not to talk to anyone about the case or allow anyone to talk to them about it. If this did happen he advised them to talk to Johnnie, the court's bailiff who would let him know.<br />
<br />
<i>( An interesting side note is Tori had mentioned she saw and heard Brendon Borrelli's mother talking to Gary Barker and Brendon in the hallway about Sue's testimony during a break . Seems important enough to mention now....did someone else witness the same and get confused who was who and reported it, or was the incident reported with Sue a different incident?) </i><br />
<br />
Here is the abbreviation key I will use for the defendant and those speaking in court today....<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>"JZ"</b> for Judge Hayden Zackey</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>"KC"</b> for Deputy District Attorney Kelly Cromer </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>"RD"</b> for Deputy Public Defender Roberto Dager</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>"SB"</b> for Stacey Barker</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>"Sue"</b> for Sue Barker </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>"Hoyt"</b> for Detective John Hoyt</div><br />
Testimony started at 11:20 today with more direct examination of Sue Barker by DDA Kelly Cromer. I'll use the same Q&A format as yesterday.<br />
<br />
<b>Direct Examination- Sue Barker</b><br />
<b>KC</b> - Who are the people out in the hall ? <b>Sue</b> - My husband and my sister. <b>KC</b> - The husband you told Detective Nava that you didn't want to lose?<i> (No response noted.)</i><br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Who came into the courtroom yesterday after the second break? <b>Sue</b> - I don't know. <b>KC</b> - No one came in ? <b>Sue</b> - I was. <b>KC</b> - Did your son Matt come in ? <b>Sue</b> - Yes. <b>KC</b> - That was the same time that you seemed to have some lapse in memory. Is it hard for you to testify? <b>Sue</b> - Yes. <b>KC</b> - Why? <b>Sue</b> - It just is. <b>KC</b> - Do you feel guilt because of the argument you had with Stacey? <b>Sue</b> - Yes<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Did you tell Detective Nava that you and Stacey had argued in recent weeks before Emma's death and you said something about kicking her out? <b>Sue</b> - I don't know. <b>KC</b> - Did you know that interview was recorded?<b> Sue</b> - I didn't see a recorder.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Did you tell Detective Nava that Brendon Borrelli might be a suspect? <b>Sue</b> - Yes <b>KC</b> - Did Det. Nava say that if Brendon had told her to do it it was still her decision? <b>Sue</b> - I know it was Stacey's doing.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Anyone in the family in the legal profession? <b>Sue</b> - Not that I know of. <b>KC</b> - Any relation, not just immediate family? <b>Sue</b> - Gary's sister is a para-legal but I haven't talked to her about this.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - You don't recall searching the house for Emma's binky (pink blanket) ? Yesterday you said didn't remember looking for it but today you remember asking Stacey, who said it was in the car. <b>Sue</b> - Yes, but...<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Did you ask Stacey why she didn't leave the blanket with Emma's body?<b> Sue</b> - Yes, but she didn't answer.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Did Stacey keep granola bars in her purse for Emma? <b>Sue</b> - Yes, that was standard.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Whose idea was it for you to have a conversation with Detective Nava at the station? <br />
<b>Sue</b> - Don't know.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Yesterday you said that you remember Emma playing with Stacey's purse. Did you tell detective Nava that it was unusual for Emma to play with her purse?<i> (no response noted)</i><br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - (Gets out the letters alleged to be written by Stacey to Witness X and pulls out 4 of them) Sue, is this Stacey's writing? <b>Sue</b> - Yes <b>KC</b> - (shows Sue exhibit 1e, an envelope from the pack with butterflies drawn on it.) Wasn't that on Emma's Binky? <b>Sue</b> - Yes, there were butterflies on Emma's Binky.<br />
<b>KC</b> - No more questions.<br />
<br />
<b>Cross Examination - Sue Barker</b><br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - Mr. Dager greets Sue Barker....How are you? <b>Sue</b> - Fine. <b>RD</b> - You never wanted to talk to me before? <b>Sue</b> - No <b>RD</b> -Do you want to now? <b>Sue</b> - Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - Stacey attended Quartz Hill High school, and handed Sue some papers to look at. <b>Sue</b> - These two pages I have never seen. The third page I have seen. <b>RD</b> - When did you see this? <b>Sue</b> - Sometime near graduation. <b>RD</b> - What does it say? <b>Sue</b> - Academics <b>RD</b> - What does it say? <b>Sue</b> - 3.5 <b>RD</b> - Say the whole number. <b>Sue</b> - 3.055 <i>(Tori noted that Dager seemed pretty pleased with himself after Sue read all the digits. DOH! That makes her GPA 3.1 not 3.5 !)</i><br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - Did Stacey have any history of street fights? <b>KC</b> - Objection, speculation. <b>JZ </b>- Rephrase. <b>RD</b> - have you seen her come home with any bumps, cuts, or bruises? <b>Sue</b> - No. <b>RD</b> - How many physical fights have you seen her have with her brothers? <b>Sue</b> - Once in her whole life.<br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - When did Stacey move back home? <b>Sue</b> - When she found out she was pregnant at age 23. She moved out when she was 18. At 18 she had her own apartment. <b>RD</b> - How many jobs did she have to work to afford her own apartment? <b>Sue</b> - Two. <b>RD</b> - Kind of hard to work two jobs when pregnant? <br />
<b>Sue</b> - Yes, because she couldn't keep the pizza job. <b>RD</b> - Did she go to college? <b>Sue</b> - No. <b>RD</b> - Why? <b>Sue</b> - Because she worked two jobs , she didn't have time.<br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - Has she always been emotionless? She never cried before Emma died? <b>Sue</b> - No, she has only cried 10 times in her whole life. she was never an emotional person.<br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - So, are you an alcoholic?<b> Sue</b> - Yes. <b>RD</b> - Did you drink daily before Emma died? <b>Sue</b> - No, just a couple days a week. <b>RD</b> - Did you drink Jose Quervo tequila? <b>Sue </b>- Yes, shots of Jose Quervo. <b>RD</b> - Were you taking depression medication at the same time? <b>Sue</b> - Yes. <b>RD</b> - Pills and alcohol? <b>Sue</b> - Yes.<br />
<b>RD</b> - Did you know that could kill you ? <b>Sue</b> - No. <b>RD</b> - You've been sober 13 days? <b>Sue</b> - Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - When did Stacey move back home? <b>Sue</b> - Immediately when she found out she was pregnant. <br />
<b>RD</b> - How long was that? <b>Sue</b> - She was a month or two.<br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - What if anything did Stacey tell you about Anthony?<i> (Emma's Dad) </i><b>Sue</b> - Nothing. <b>RD</b> - How many times did you see Anthony at the house? <b>Sue</b> - Once at her house. <b>RD</b> - Did you ask he3r why she didn't live with him? <b>Sue</b> - No. <b>RD</b> - What did you say to Stacey about Anthony? <b>Sue</b> - That he didn't seem to be concerned about being a dad.<br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - How many bedrooms are there in your home? <b>Sue</b> - Four, one room was an office that we turned into a bedroom for Emma when she was about 3 months. <b>RD</b> - So where did Emma sleep the first 3 months?<br />
<b>Sue</b> - In Stacey's room. <b>RD</b> - Who suggested changing the office into a room for Emma? <b>Sue</b> - I did.<br />
<br />
Court broke for lunch here and returned at 1:30 pm.<br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - What was the daycare when Stacey went back to work? <b>Sue</b> - Emma went to daycare for one day.<br />
<b>RD</b> - Why only one day? <b>Sue</b> - Because I went to daycare to pick up Emma and it wasn't good, she wasn't being cared for as she should have been. <b>RD</b> - What was Stacey's demeanor when you told her about the conditions at daycare? <b>Sue</b> - She cried. <b>RD</b> - Why did she cry? Because her daughter wasn't being cared for? <b>Sue</b> - Yes, I suggested going back on nights so that Emma could be cared for in the day without daycare. Nick cared for Emma during the day until I could get back on nights. That took about a month, I cared for Emma from 4 to 18 months. Stacey started out working an eight hour shift, the eight am to five pm. Stacey asked to go in earlier and earlier so I could sleep.<br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - You went to see Stacey at Linwood <i>(Detention center)</i> once and called her only once. Why? <b>Sue</b> - I wasn't happy with Stacey. <b>RD</b> - Do you want to see her now? <b>Sue</b> - Yes. <b>RD</b> - Did anyone tell you what to say? <b>Sue</b> - No. (◔_◔)<br />
<br />
<i>(Tori made a note before this question was even asked, that it did appear that Sue had been coached compared to her testimony yesterday.)</i> <br />
<i></i> <br />
<b>RD</b> - These are defense exhibits, pictures A-G. Who is in the pictures and what is she wearing? <br />
<b>Sue</b> - Emma. <b>RD</b> - Who bought the dress she is wearing? <b>Sue</b> - I did. <b>RD</b> - Dager showed Sue photos B-G and each picture asked, "Who bought this dress she is wearing?" <b>Sue</b> - Each time asked, Sue responded, "I did". <br />
<br />
<i>(Tori notes that yesterday Sue testified she bought all the toys for Emma and Stacey bought her clothes....guess one or the other response is false. She also noted some jurors looked back in their notes after this round of Q&A. )</i> <br />
<i></i> <br />
<b>RD</b> - This receipt is defense exhibit (#?), it's a Target receipt dated March 17, 2009. Junior - ears are purchased, is that familiar? <b>Sue</b> - Yes. Stacey bought it. <b>RD</b> - What is it? <b>Sue</b> - 2 pairs shorts, 2 shirts, sandals and tennis shoes. <b>RD</b> - Where did the receipt come from? <b>Sue</b> - I gave it to the defense investigator. I found it on top of Emma's dresser. <br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - This next item is is defense exhibit H, a Baby Blender Cookbook. Why did Stacey have this book? <br />
<b>Sue</b> - because she didn't want Emma to have processed food. Stacey herself ate healthy after she became pregnant. <b>RD</b> - Did she use these recipes? <b>Sue</b> - Yes, she made them and froze them for Emma. <b>RD</b> - Do you recognize this book? <b>Sue</b> - Yes, it was in Emma's room too and I gave it to the investigator. <b>RD</b> - You did? <b>Sue</b> - Well...Gary did. <i>(Sue's husband, Stacey's dad) </i><b>RD</b> - So she blended meat and vegetables and fruit? <b>Sue</b> - Yes, to freeze for future use. <br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - Did Stacey tell you she was going out for St. Patricks ? <b>Sue</b> - no, she didn't say. <br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - When was the last you saw Stacey and Emma? <b>Sue</b> - On March 18, when Stacey came home from work. <b>RD</b> - At 3:15, did you argue? <b>Sue</b> - Yes. <b>RD</b> - How long did it last? <b>Sue</b> - 5 minutes. <b>RD</b> - Was there screaming? <b>RD</b> - Stacey was screaming she couldn't make anyone happy. I told her she needed to come home on time so I could rest. <br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - When did you find out what happened? <b>Sue</b> - On March 18 at 11 pm, I got a call at work from Gary to tell me what happened. Gary picked me up from work and we went to the Park n Ride on Avenue S. <br />
<b>RD</b> - Who was there? <b>Sue</b> - Stacey, Nick and Brendon. We stayed a few minutes. <b>RD</b> - Why only a few minutes? <b>Sue</b> - Stacey was being loaded into the ambulance so we went to the ER. <b>RD</b> - Did you leave the hospital and go to the Palmdale Sheriff station? <b>Sue</b> - Yeah, that was morning March 19. <br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - Any law enforcement contact you? <b>Sue</b> - No, we spent several hours at the Sheriff's station and then went home. At some point Detectives Nava and McCarthy and told us they had found Emma. We had a half hour conversation with them. <b>RD</b> - Did they ask for any suggestions of potential suspects? <b>Sue</b> - Yes. Do you think Brendon Borrelli could be a suspect? Nava asked that, and do we think Brendon and Stacey could have conspired to get rid of Emma? <br />
<br />
<b>Sue -</b> On March 20, LE took us<i> ( Gary and Sue)</i> to the Sheriff's station because they needed to question us. I sat in the lobby until Detective Nava joined me and said she wanted to speak to me alone. We only had 3 conversations in all. <b>RD</b> - Were you recorded? <b>Sue </b>- I didn't know we were recorded.<br />
<br />
<b>Sue</b> - On March 20, LE took us ( Gary and Sue) to the Sheriff's station because they needed to question us. I sat in the lobby until Detective Nava joined me and said she wanted to speak to me alone. We only had 3 conversations in all. <b>RD </b>- Were you recorded? <b>Sue</b> - I didn't know we were being recorded. <b>RD</b> - During that conversation did Detective Nava tell you something?<b> Sue</b> - Yes, she said pink fibers were found in Emma's throat. <b>RD</b> - How did that make you feel? <b>Sue</b> - I was devastated.<b> RD</b> - Did you know that Det. Nava was lying and no fibers were found? <b>Sue </b>- No. <b>RD </b>- Is that why you were mad at Stacey?<b> Sue</b> - Yes, after a half hour conversation Stacey went to live at Larry Barker's home. ( Gary's Dad ) <b>RD</b> - That was an interrogation technique. Detective Nava didn't have fibers.<b> Sue</b> - No, I didn't know.<b> RD</b> - How did Nava know the blanket was pink? <b>Sue</b> - I don't know.<b> RD</b> - You didn't know she was lying at that time?<b>Sue</b> - No. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - What do you know about a drinking game? Was there drinking going on during the mourning period?<br />
<br />
<b>Sue -</b> Yes. <b>RD</b> - Was there a party? <b>Sue -</b> Not a party the night before but people were coming in and out.<br />
<br />
<b>RD -</b> When you had dinner were all of Nick's friends there?<b> Sue -</b> Yes, that's when we played beer pong.<br />
<br />
<b>JZ -</b> Can you explain what beer pong is? <b>Sue -</b> Beer cups are set up on a ping pong table like bowling pins, each person bounces a ping pong ball trying to get it in a cup, those who make it drink the beer. <b>RD</b> - Did Stacey play? <b>Sue -</b> Stacey only played 45 minutes, at my request. I was trying to cheer her up. She was quiet the whole time.<br />
<br />
<b>RD -</b> How did you feel when you found out Detective Nava lied to you?<b> Sue</b> - Mad.<b> JZ </b>- Strike that, that's for the jury to decide what is the truth. <b>RD -</b> How they dealt with grief. (WTH, this is what we meant about questions jumping around.)<br />
<br />
<b>Cross Done - Re-direct Starts</b><br />
<br />
<b>KC -</b> Why did you only visit Stacey once at Linwood? <b>Sue </b>- I was hurt. <b>KC </b>- Why, Did you think Stacey killed Emma? <b>Sue </b>- I did, yes. <b>KC</b> - So, when after 3/19 did you have a lot to drink? Had you drank alot when you were interviewed by Detective Nava? <b>Sue</b> - No, after. <b>KC</b> - Did you tell Detective Nava you knew Stacey was guilty and say I want you to prove it? <b>Sue </b>- Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- You said you didn't go to the doctor with Stacey when she was pregnant? <b>Sue</b> - Yes, I didn't go with her. <b>KC </b>- But Anthony did go to the Stacey's doctor appointments when she was pregnant? <b>Sue</b> - Yes<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - I thought he had no interest in being a dad? <b>Sue</b> - I don't know.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- When did Stacey start dating again after Emma's birth?<b> Sue</b> - 3 months, she had 2 or 3 boyfriends before she met Brendon.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Did Stacey have any significant injuries when growing up? <b>Sue -</b> One. She hurt her shoulder in gymnastic, but she didn't cry.<br />
<br />
<b>KC -</b> So you drank daily before Emma died?<b> Sue</b> - uuhh....yeah. <b>KC -</b> What? <b>Sue </b>- Shots of Jose Quervo, 4 to 5 shots in the evening a couple days a week.<b> KC</b> - How much do you weigh? Sue - 195 lbs.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Do you know Colleen B.? (Colleen is Anthony's mom.) <b>Sue -</b> I met her after Emma's birth. <br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - How long ? <b>Sue </b>- 4 or 5 months. <b>KC </b>- Her daughter?<b> Sue</b> - One time, only.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Defense exhibit H, the baby food book, Is this is the book that Stacey used? Are you sure ? <br />
<b>Sue </b>- Yes. <b>KC </b>- This book doesn't look as though it's been opened much, pages stick together. <b>Sue </b>- I don't know, but she did use it. <b>KC -</b> Hmmm...nothing spilled on it, no pages pressed down, doesn't seem to want to open to any one area...like it's been used. <b>Sue</b> - I don't know. <b>KC</b> - Huh (Not said as a question but rather an opinion aka mild equivalent of BS.)<br />
<br />
<i>The pictures here are not what are part of the defense exhibit but may be close in age to the ones the jury are seeing.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibgnQgu0z7gjETTeJBPIT8Q1SNAJ0laz9lMby7E3ZCtS_6HU3XQrE3-CLV8e0a-_TEOPqj8yrLZkX2blX8oxsAUI4x8ZMPdsRcTQV9klMm0wzvm5hupaYmKeANDkcGBvl3Vmz58nTn7mpg/s1600/th_l_c7d533d56903450a8148bbb3a42eddc0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibgnQgu0z7gjETTeJBPIT8Q1SNAJ0laz9lMby7E3ZCtS_6HU3XQrE3-CLV8e0a-_TEOPqj8yrLZkX2blX8oxsAUI4x8ZMPdsRcTQV9klMm0wzvm5hupaYmKeANDkcGBvl3Vmz58nTn7mpg/s320/th_l_c7d533d56903450a8148bbb3a42eddc0.jpg" width="256" /></a></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYLwxlvgWeKcEvwSa9UXL3eSn7Pgax7iw-IyRg8wfzsGiejcWKXqaHpAqxqhvsox-Tb9eeQCxxlAmUAhUpaziP7pWeGVFwEQPVgFENc7qN6Mx1-HN7wRjdEWxcNcOwWJq3ma1eX4RHhELi/s1600/20090323_151207_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><b><br />
</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYLwxlvgWeKcEvwSa9UXL3eSn7Pgax7iw-IyRg8wfzsGiejcWKXqaHpAqxqhvsox-Tb9eeQCxxlAmUAhUpaziP7pWeGVFwEQPVgFENc7qN6Mx1-HN7wRjdEWxcNcOwWJq3ma1eX4RHhELi/s1600/20090323_151207_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYLwxlvgWeKcEvwSa9UXL3eSn7Pgax7iw-IyRg8wfzsGiejcWKXqaHpAqxqhvsox-Tb9eeQCxxlAmUAhUpaziP7pWeGVFwEQPVgFENc7qN6Mx1-HN7wRjdEWxcNcOwWJq3ma1eX4RHhELi/s320/20090323_151207_1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqkGqCqd8yk_hBlZli5qmieb-K4ER-0SHoyNRG3iZO8zZyA1__Xph2KTWV_h3InYlSoU861Eme9JCcCB-VFat0PkaXL88cvVpU6kUK3k9lODARBAVxWk4XOH1kPTDqzsgH2bGkmRrnp9ay/s1600/emma+park.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqkGqCqd8yk_hBlZli5qmieb-K4ER-0SHoyNRG3iZO8zZyA1__Xph2KTWV_h3InYlSoU861Eme9JCcCB-VFat0PkaXL88cvVpU6kUK3k9lODARBAVxWk4XOH1kPTDqzsgH2bGkmRrnp9ay/s320/emma+park.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRv4MYPBVh93owKnfpnjC32vXWPoJ9Jp8HiSjNnQ_UCxpwkPs_JDCH9Kx3L6zou92k4lcFZ_Xyj21VJ7BWNrAu3PEFIku5V3CcbZOCjI9YO1aIPBFrvFsarjUniPMxiLq8yBqy_zLwsMrh/s1600/20090323_151207_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="227" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRv4MYPBVh93owKnfpnjC32vXWPoJ9Jp8HiSjNnQ_UCxpwkPs_JDCH9Kx3L6zou92k4lcFZ_Xyj21VJ7BWNrAu3PEFIku5V3CcbZOCjI9YO1aIPBFrvFsarjUniPMxiLq8yBqy_zLwsMrh/s320/20090323_151207_0.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><b>KC</b> - The photos, defense exhibit A-G, what ages are they? <b>Sue </b>- (went through pictures) This is 3 months, this is Stacey with Emma at 3 months, this is 3 months, this is Emma newborn. <b>KC</b> - She looks awfully good for newborn? <b>Sue </b>- C- section, picture C is between 3 and 6 months. D is Thanksgiving, uhh...about 2 1/2 months. JZ - Who cooked it? <b>Sue</b> - I did. Emma had a bib that said 1st Thanksgiving.<i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>Judge Zackey is such a nice guy, but this is Kelly's direct and she has a job to do, sooo.....</i><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><b>KC </b>- You said when you and Stacy were fighting on March 18, she was screaming "I CAN'T MAKE ANYONE HAPPY!" What did she say? <b>Sue </b>- I can't make anyone happy, work, you.... Emma's never happy and I can't make my boyfriend happy!<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - You made several statements to detectives, each statement to Detective Nava was after she had died, had Emma had an Autopsy yet?<b> Sue</b> - No. <b>KC</b> - What were you told? <b>Sue</b> -Not for 3 weeks.<b> KC</b> - So the day you spoke to Nava, you knew Emma didn't have an autopsy<b>. Sue</b> -No. <b>KC</b> - The 1st day you talked with Nava, the autopsy wasn't done, and you made the statement that Stacey killed Emma, you knew no autopsy, no fibers. When you said Brendon might have helped was before the pink fibers were mentioned or you should have known Nava was lying.<br />
<br />
<i>(Tori notes here that Kelly Cromer is on fire today!)</i><br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Did Stacey ever shed a tear for Emma? <b>Sue</b> - No. <b>KC</b> - Remorse or regrets? <b>Sue</b> - No. <br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Why was Stacey going to Long Beach? You told Nava she had plenty of money. Did you say you thought she killed Emma in Palmdale and was going to Long beach to pin it on Anthony? <b>Sue</b> - Yes. <b>KC</b> - How many times had Stacey taken Emma to Long Beach?<b> Sue</b> - None. <b>KC </b>- Stacey herself to Long beach? <b>Sue </b>- When she was pregnant she spent a weekend with Anthony in Long beach.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - What was the one major injury that Stacey had growing up? <b>Sue -</b> she dislocated her shoulder during gymnastics. <b>KC</b> - She didn't cry? <b>Sue</b> - No, but had to heal, it took a couple weeks to heal.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Defense exhibit I, is the Target receipt. You said this was new clothes, how do you know they are new? <b>Sue</b> - I saw them, tags still on them. <b>KC</b> - What are ears?<b> Sue</b> - I don't know. <b>KC</b> -I thought you saw the stuff, what was it? <b>Sue</b> - 2 shorts, 2 shirts, sandals and tennies. <b>KC </b>- The receipt time is 5:10 pm from Target in Lancaster.<br />
<br />
<i>(Tori noted that takes at least 15 minutes to go from that Target to Barkers and Sue had to leave at 5:30.....either the times don't add up or someone else was watching Emma.)</i><br />
<br />
<b>Re cross examination </b><br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - She had this blender book. Tori notes as Dager holds the book he is flipping through the pages and bending the binding.<b> Sue</b> - yes, she used it.<b> RD</b> - I JUST DONT LIKE MISS CROMER SAYING THERE WAS NO FLOUR....<b>RD</b> is standing right behind Kelly Cromer as he screamed this. <b>KC</b> - Objection! Personal Attack...and screaming in my ears! <b>JZ</b> - Mr. Dager.... <b>RD</b> - Just because there isn't any flour or food on this doesn't mean it wasn't used! As Dager said this he was manipulating the book and threw it down on his table and picked up a few times to the extent our friends thought he might be trying to age that book a little...just saying. Re-cross done. Brendon Borrelli is told to stand by before re-direct.<br />
<br />
<b>JZ</b> - Want to ask more? (asks KC) <b>KC </b>- no, but I'm thinking.<b> JZ</b> - You can have her recalled. <b>KC</b> - My next witness won't be short so I want to change the witness order. <b>JZ</b> - OK.<br />
<br />
Detective John Hoyt is called to the stand. Hoyt says he is employed with the LA County Sheriff Department assault and crime unit. He is dressed in a uniform.<br />
<br />
<b>Direct examination - Detective John Hoyt</b><br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Did you go to the crime scene? What did you see? <b>Hoyt</b> - A silver Mazda parked with all 4 doors open. Both front seats were in a reclining position....reclined all the way back.<b> KC</b> - Did anyone move them? <b>Hoyt</b> - Protocol doesn't allow moving anything.<b> KC</b> - What is this? <b>Hoyt </b>- An adults brown sandal and a child's tennis shoe with a red and white bottom.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Did you stay with the car? <b>Hoyt </b>- No, I went to the hospital to talk to SB.I asked her what happened and she didn't know but thought she was knocked out at the city park. (Lancaster)<b> KC</b> - What did she say to you? H<b>oyt</b> - Her eye hurt, the back of her head and her ribs hurt. <b>KC</b> - Did she ask about the baby? Hoyt - No <b>KC</b> - What did you notice about her? <b>Hoyt</b> - Clean feet, hands and fingernails. <b>KC</b> - In this informal interview not once asked about Emma. (More of a statement than a question.) Direct exam finished.<br />
<br />
<b>Cross examination - Detective John Hoyt</b><br />
<br />
<b>RD </b>- If you are a detective, why are you wearing a Sheriff's deputy uniform?<b> Hoyt</b> - With budget cuts we dress for the street. <b>RD</b> - Did you stay with the car? <b>Hoyt</b> - No. <b>RD</b> - Did you touch the car? <b>Hoyt </b>- No<br />
<br />
<b>RD</b> - When did you get called? <b>Hoyt </b>- About 11:40 pm. <b>RD</b> - What were you doing when called? <b>Hoyt</b> - Trying to sleep. <b>RD </b>- Got there about Midnight? Who was there? <b>Hoyt</b> - The Crime Scene Unit was there. <b>RD</b> - How do you know no one else touched the car? <b>Hoyt </b>- That's not protocol, so I doubt it.<br />
<br />
Cross Examination was finished and the day is over. JZ - instructed the jury to be in the jury room by 10:30 am tomorrow and he will try to have them up here by 10:45. ( Day 3, tomorrow is, Friday, April 29)<br />
<br />
<i>There is a detail that I hadn't mentioned yet. On the first day of trial Tori had noted an attractive young woman with short (pixie cut) with blond over black hair, that she didn't know, speaking with one of Stacey Barker's grandfathers. After speaking with him for a few moments she moved away to her own seat and took notes. We discussed her that night and concluded she may be a cousin or friend. </i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Today the same young woman was in court but this time she had a woman with her. After a few moments Tori realized the woman with her was Anthony's mother. Later on a break Tori and the young woman spoke and we learn the young woman is Susan, Anthony's sister and the other woman is indeed Anthony's mother, Colleen B. </i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Susan asked Tori...are you guys the bloggers? Tori, replied , yes...I suppose you hate us too. (It seems as though Stacey Barker's family blame every vile thing that has been said about Stacey out on the web on us.) Susan said, no...we love you guys, extended family and friends are able to follow the case through our blogging. Susan and Colleen did ask us not to use their last names and we agreed. Tori assured them we have been following this case for Emma and are here for Emma . </i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>The reason I bring up Colleen and Susan at all is because "reportedly" Gary Barker pointed Colleen out to Dager who said he has been trying to contact her. Dager wants Colleen added to the witness list and tells Judge Zackey that. Kelly Cromer said she would like to talk to her as well. Evidently, Kelly added Colleen to the state's witness list because she will be the first witness on the stand tomorrow for day 3.</i> <br />
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com49tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-69443310959442188152011-05-03T14:16:00.000-05:002011-08-26T20:11:36.702-05:00Stacey Barker Murder Trial - First Day TestimonyFirst Witness - Sue Barker<br />
<br />
Stacey Barker's mother, Sue Barker, was the first witness to be called in the state's case in chief. I plan to write this in a question and answer format. Sometimes it seems as though the questions are all over the place. Kelly Cromer told the jury not to try to read anything into the questions she and Dager ask or how they are asked so I'll take her word for it. :)<br />
I'll use abbreviations as follows for the defendant and those speaking in court today....<br />
<br />
<b>"JZ"</b> for Judge Hayden Zackey<br />
<b>"KC"</b> for Deputy District Attorney Kelly Cromer <br />
<b>"RD"</b> for Deputy Public Defender Roberto Dager<br />
<b>"Sue"</b> for Sue Barker <br />
<b>"SB"</b> for Stacey Barker<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - You were served a subpoena to appear today. Do you want to be here?<b> Sue</b> - No, I don't want to be here.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Would you identify Stacey Barker if you see her in the courtroom? <b>Sue </b>- Points at Stacey at the defense table.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Would you tell the court your kids names and birth dates? <b>Sue</b> - Matt, Stacey 01/02/1985, and Nick (I listed in birth order but didn't note birth date for the boys.)<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- How long has Stacey been living with you? <b>Sue</b> - Stacey got her own apartment when she turned 18, but she moved back home as soon as she became pregnant with Emma. She lived back at home for 27 months. She continued working while pregnant but took a month off work before delivering Emma by C-section and then 3 months after Emma was born. <br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Who cared for Emma when Stacey went back to work? <b>Sue</b> - When Stacey went back to Bank Of America (BOA) she went on the 5:30 am to 2:30 pm shift and I went to the 6 pm to 2:30 am shift so that I could watch Emma while she worked. She paid me $100 a week for babysitting.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Who took care of Emma the most? <b>Sue</b> - I did, but everyone had their own room. Emma slept in with Stacey until she went back to work and then we converted an office into Emma's room. We gave her a crib for a gift. Emma was a normal baby but she had delayed speech.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Why delayed speech?<b> RD </b>- objected, speculation.<b> JZ </b>- Overruled, she can answer if she knows. <b> </b><br />
<b>Sue</b> - Yes, because she was spoiled.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- How was Emma treated? <b>Sue</b> - Like a princess.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - How was Stacey treated?<b> Sue </b>- Like a princess. She was always a Daddy's girl.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Who did Stacey start dating New Years Eve? Mike from work? <b>Sue</b> - I can't remember the other guy's name<br />
.<br />
<b>KC</b> - Was Stacey often focused on new relationships? <b>Sue</b> - Yes, sometimes, but Emma came first.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Did she ever date a Hispanic guy, dye her hair black, tan and shave her eyebrows and then draw them on with liner? <b>Sue </b>- Yeah...she lived with that guy.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Did Stacey try and take on whatever persona or role she thought a guy wanted her to be?<b> Sue </b>- Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Was she treated bad by men? <b>Sue</b> - Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Did she approach her relationships with such intensity that she drove them away?<b> Sue </b>- I can't remember.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Since Mr. Dager brought it up, are you an alcoholic? <b>Sue</b> - Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Have you drank today? <b>Sue </b>- It's been 12 days since I drank alcohol. I drank before Emma died, but after she died I drank everyday.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Do you have depression? <b>Sue</b> - Yes. <b>KC</b> -Does the depression or medications cloud your memory? <b>Sue</b> - No.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Who did you sit with at Emma's funeral?<b> Sue </b>- I sat with Nick, Stacey and my sister at the viewing. I sat with my son and my sister at the funeral.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Why didn't you sit with Stacey? <b>Sue </b>- I don't know.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Was there anything that you did after the funeral that you didn't do before?<b> Sue </b>- No. <br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Did you lock your bedroom door? I can refresh your memory with a transcript from your police interview, Who were you afraid of ? <b>Sue </b>- Stacey<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Not trust her? <b>Sue</b> - Yes. <b>KC </b>- Did you think she was capable of murder? <b>RD </b>- Objection! <b>JZ </b>- Over ruled. <b>Sue </b>- No. <br />
<br />
<b>RD </b>- Objection! Opinion! <b>JZ </b>- In 2009, did you think she was capable of murder and now you don't?<b> Sue</b> - No response given<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- On 3/19/2009, did you think Stacey killed Emma? Didn't you tell Detective Nava if the things you were saying about Stacey got back to your husband, Gary, that you would lose him? (Showed transcript)<br />
<b>Sue</b> - Yes.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - When Stacey told you what happened to Emma on 3/20 what did she say? Sue - An accident with a baggy playing peek a boo and the blanket got caught on the car seat. She was worried people would think she was a bad mother. Brendon came and stayed that night. She wasn't crying when telling the story but after she was confronted, she cried. <b>RD</b> - Ask to strike as hearsay! Was last question and answer striked?<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Did Detective Nava ask you did Stacey do this? <b>Sue </b>- Yes, I did tell Nava that<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Do you believe she is capable of killing Emma? <b>Sue</b> - Yes<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Was Stacey going to Long beach to see Anthony on the 18th of March? <b>Sue</b> - No. <b>KC </b>-Going for money?<b> Sue </b>- No, she was due to get several thousand dollars back in income tax, she didn't need money.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Did Stacey express any regrets? <b>Sue</b> - I asked her if she tried to save Emma and she said no. <br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Did Emma have an incident with an allergic reaction to peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Blotchy itchy lips?<b> Sue</b> - Yes, Stacey took Emma to the emergency room right away.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Did you and Stacey have fights before March 18 about caring for Emma and threaten to kick her out of the house? <b>Sue</b> - No<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Did you ever argue with Stacey about you coming home from work and needing to find someone to watch Emma?<b> Sue</b> - I can't remember.<br />
<br />
<b>KC -</b> Did Brendon back track to your house on March 18 to pick up Nick?<b> Sue</b> - Yes, I didn't know then.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Did Stacey get a new cell phone after law enforcement took her phone? <b>Sue</b> - When the box came I thought it was some DVD and toys that I had ordered for Emma but didn't come until after...<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - Who bought things for Emma? <b>Sue </b>- I bought most of her toys and Stacey bought her clothes. Emma had a stuffed animal she called "Bear Bear" and a blanket she called "Binky" that she like to take with her in the car and she always she slept with.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- What happened to Binky? <b>Sue</b> - I don't know. <b>KC </b>- Did you put Bear Bear in Emma's casket? <b>Sue</b> - Yes, when I asked Stacey where Binky was she said she didn't know. <b>KC</b> - To put in the casket too?<br />
<b>Sue</b> - Yes<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- On March 18, 2009 you argued with Stacey about coming straight home from work, was this the first time? <b>Sue </b>- Coming home on time? <b>KC</b> - Only time? <b>Sue </b>- Only that day. I had an appointment at 3:30 that was only 5 minutes away so I wanted to take a nap before.<br />
<br />
<i>(Tori notes here that Sue seems flustered with these questions, possibly because she didn't want to say they argued because Stacey hadn't got home the night before until 2:30 am. When asked in the preliminary she said she wouldn't know what time Stacey got home because she was at work. Remember, Sue told Detective Nava that she was afraid of losing her husband if she said anything against Stacey. Court breaks here for 15 minutes. back at 3:15. When court reconvened Stacey Barker's brother, Matt, came into the courtroom....after the break, Tori noted many of Sue's answers to any "hard" questions was "I don't recall.")</i><br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Was Stacey neat or a slob? Who cleaned Emma's room?<b> Sue</b> - We both straightened Emma's room but the maid cleaned.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Was Stacey a good student? <b>Sue </b>- She got some A's and B's mostly C's.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- What did Stacey tell you about the baggy in her purse ?<b> Sue</b> - I saw the baggy. She had Girl Scout cookies in it, Thin mints. <b>KC </b>- What kind of a baggy was it? A real ziplock baggy or another type?<br />
<b>Sue </b>- real<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Did Stacey keep a neat purse? <b>Sue</b> - Yes. <b>KC </b>- She wasn't like me...bag stuffed with every receipt? <b>Sue</b> - No. <b>KC</b> - Did you ever see Emma play with Stacey's purse? <b>Sue</b> - Yes. <b>KC </b>- Did you lie to Detective Nava about that? <b>Sue </b>- I was in shock. <b>KC </b>- Is your memory better now than then? <b>Sue </b>- People remember important things.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- When is dinner time for Emma? <b>Sue</b> - I don't know I went to work at 5:30.<br />
<br />
<b>KC</b> - How coordinated was Emma?<b> RD-</b> Objection, calls for speculation! <b>JZ</b>- It's first hand information. (The question wasn't answered although it sounds as though JZ permitted it. KC moved on.)<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- Did anyone give Emma Benedryl ?<b> Sue</b> - No <b>KC -</b> Was Emma teething? <b>Sue</b> - No, but we used Tylenol and a teething ring when she was.<br />
<br />
<b>KC </b>- asked some questions about the Lunchable that Emma had for dinner that night, where it was bought and what was in it.<b> RD</b>- objected, relevance ? <b>JZ</b> must have over ruled the objection .<b>Sue-</b> answered it was bought at Stater Brother's Market. I didn't get Sue's answer about the contents of the lunchable. Court recessed for the day. Sue Barker will be back on the stand tomorrow, Thursday April 28.<br />
<i> </i><br />
<i>It was a long day in court for everyone. Thanks to Tori for taking such in depth notes...it was much more than I expected. Kudos to Tiff, ANurse, Ange and Gabe for helping to fill in some blanks as well.<a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2011/05/stacey-barker-murder-trial-opening.html"> Here</a> is a link to the opening statements from earlier in the day.</i>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-69624156088444932012011-05-02T00:43:00.017-05:002011-05-02T20:29:28.478-05:00STACEY BARKER MURDER TRIAL - Opening Statements <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQMAJz_5m8Tl8chsRYgJy_mzS_LHspi0adrkvWdErLI1g0GwYBIrt4bnJqs3wRJeC0G74CxSXFsct5tr-OjIeVyEy_YD03Lf7saO_pex4ZMOziUXG2r9Tsc3Pv-NJMV1thh72SpRxeQhWv/s1600/Los+Angeles+Superior+Court+in+Lancaster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQMAJz_5m8Tl8chsRYgJy_mzS_LHspi0adrkvWdErLI1g0GwYBIrt4bnJqs3wRJeC0G74CxSXFsct5tr-OjIeVyEy_YD03Lf7saO_pex4ZMOziUXG2r9Tsc3Pv-NJMV1thh72SpRxeQhWv/s320/Los+Angeles+Superior+Court+in+Lancaster.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Superior Courthouse</td></tr>
</tbody></table> <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGTNvT6vJcm14gcf6ZpdcMZJVztmKq1ktz8lV64gOH5OPKSDF9D2L7DmwMPEbWTyPqg_p4eNcWozW5f6UL04aQPw2rD8FF4O24qK8PQV-be0OzKXeFXvnrBg0vyAYfbSt-czSJkd5pijgp/s1600/zacky_h.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGTNvT6vJcm14gcf6ZpdcMZJVztmKq1ktz8lV64gOH5OPKSDF9D2L7DmwMPEbWTyPqg_p4eNcWozW5f6UL04aQPw2rD8FF4O24qK8PQV-be0OzKXeFXvnrBg0vyAYfbSt-czSJkd5pijgp/s1600/zacky_h.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Judge Hayden Zackey</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
The murder trial for Stacey Barker, 26 got under way on Wednesday April 27, 2011 in Lancaster, CA at the Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse, with <a href="http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/la/vote/zacky_h/bio.html">Superior Court Judge Hayden Zackey</a> presiding. ( Tori reports Judge Zackey seems to be a very pleasant man...and I think he's pretty easy to look at as well!)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: right;"></div><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2O0FT3lDRuRfmhSA90OYLqurqlrfPoK7BtwCm3qGX1_DqQQUX-wo3nIo2K9MznltBYi-VseOAZngSpnorg2KoHTbxCE2Pvzc3TEWbqd4-7h4EMXdbbQt0MNrkiGUX0-eYgrvk16zishQL/s1600/th_l_85a6a809c7724597851a9e9b49e4cc68.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2O0FT3lDRuRfmhSA90OYLqurqlrfPoK7BtwCm3qGX1_DqQQUX-wo3nIo2K9MznltBYi-VseOAZngSpnorg2KoHTbxCE2Pvzc3TEWbqd4-7h4EMXdbbQt0MNrkiGUX0-eYgrvk16zishQL/s200/th_l_85a6a809c7724597851a9e9b49e4cc68.jpg" width="148" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Stacey and Emma Barker</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Stacey Barker is accused of killing her 18 month old daughter, Emma Leigh Barker, on March 18, 2009. Barker was arrested on April 27, 2009 and the charges filed against her include Second Degree Murder, Assault On A Child Causing Death and Child Abuse. The complaint alleges that Barker willfully caused and permitted the child to be injured and harmed and that injury resulted in death. If convicted on either of the top charges Barker may face 25 to Life. Barker formally entered a not guilty plea to all counts on August 12, 2009. <br />
<br />
After selecting from a jury pool of over 80 venires,12 jurors and 3 alternates were finally selected on Tuesday. Tori said the jury consists of mostly women, 7 women and 5 men with 3 women alternates. They appear to range in age from 30 to 50 and a sidenote: 1 of the women juror is pregnant. We will update you more about the jury, this first day a LOT is going on. None our friends who have been attending the pre-trial hearings were able to attend the voir dire so we're not able to tell you what type of occupations the jurors have or much about them. Tori did mention that some are dressed nicely and more than she expected came dressed super casually...jeans and t-shirts.<br />
<br />
Court started at 10:30 am without the jury present so that Deputy District Attorney S. Kelly Cromer (KC) and Deputy Public Defender Roberto F. Dager (RD) could present their arguments to the court on several outstanding motions. One of the motions argued was over Witness X and the Massiah Motion to exclude his testimony. The defense would still like to have him declared a government agent. Judge Zackey ruled recently that X can testify to any conversations he had with Stacey Barker before he contacted the sheriff's department with an offer to assist them in this case. Zackey stopped short of ruling on the entire Massiah motion at that hearing because Kelly Cromer told the court she will only use X's testimony about the independent conversations with Barker and the letters Barker wrote to X herself (24 letters over a one month period of time!). Roberto Dager wants to use Witness X's prior criminal history at trial, the extensive amount of time he has spent incarcerated and what his convictions are (A couple Robbery and a burglary) . Dager also calls X a liar and a thief. <br />
<br />
<i>( A side note: Witness X commented on an <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2010/08/stacey-barker-august-11-hearing.html">earlier post at katfish ponders</a> through a third party in response to some comments made by members of the Barker family.)</i><br />
<br />
A Defense Motion to Exclude was argued as well. This motion asked the court to prohibit the state from presenting the evidence found in Stacey Barker's car. We haven't seen the motion but the defense argues it was irrelevant and prejudicial. The state said the evidence should be admitted because there were morning after pills found in Stacey's glove box that show state of mind, that she didn't want kids and the pink baby blanket that Emma kept close and called her "Binky" wasn't found in the car, with Emma's body or in the Barker home. The evidence (and lack there of ) from the car is coming in.<br />
<br />
Seated at the table for the state are the Prosecutor, Kelly Cromer and Sheriff Department Homicide Detective Sandra Nava. For those interested in the "full picture" Kelly Cromer is a woman in her early 60's, dressed in a light blue suit, Jacket and skirt. Detective Nava is about 40, she is wearing a maroon colored pant suit. At the defense table Stacey Barker(SB) is wearing a dusty violet colored pants and knit shirt, her attorney, Roberto Dager (early 40's) has on a black suit with a blue shirt. Our friends in court have described Dager as looking like <a href="http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/2355/1056071-1000px_villainc_svg_super.png">Snidely Whiplash</a>. From Tori's description of the day, it seems Mr. Dager came loaded with "Snidely's"swagger today as well.<br />
<br />
Opening arguments were scheduled to begin at 11 am. Things didn't get started on time though, because it was between 11:30 and 12:00 before one of the alternate jurors made it to court. After giving the late juror a severe abmonation about being late and holding up the court, Judge Zackey recessed for lunch.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The State's Opening Statement</span></b><br />
<br />
Court reconvened from lunch at 1:30 pm. Before beginning opening statements the court announced that anyone who is on the witness list for either side must leave the courtroom until after they are released from testimony by the court. The Barkers were all seated in their "normal seats" although more of the family are present than at the pre-trial hearings. Stacey Barker's parents, Gary and Sue Barker, get up and leave, as does Sue's father. Barker's other three grandparents and an aunt and a brother remain in the courtroom. Brendon Borrelli, Stacey's boyfriend at the time of Emma's death, also leaves the courtroom. Brendon normally sits with the Barker family but today is seated with his mother off to the side in front of our friends in court. <br />
<br />
Kelly Cromer rises to begin her opening for the state. <i>( FYI, Tori noted that for the most part the information in the state's opening is a rehash of the testimony given at the Preliminary hearing, but there are some extra things...so hear we go...)</i> After introducing herself to the jury, Cromer informed the jury that what she or Public Defender Dager say to them in court is not evidence and is not to be viewed as such. She also told the jury not to try and "read anything" into the questions they ask.<br />
<br />
Cromer said that what should be considered evidence is witness testimony and the exhibits, it is up to the jury to give the weight to the evidence that they deem appropriate. Roberto Dager objected and said a witness is not evidence. Judge Zackey overruled the objection.<br />
<br />
<br />
Kelly Cromer began talking to the jury about the state's theory of the case and what they intend to prove....The state will show this "mother", after fighting with her own mother, took her 18 month old daughter Emma and killed her. <br />
<br />
Stacey Barker's mother, Sue, changed her work hours to the night shift, 6pm to 2:30 am, so she could take care of Emma from 5:30 am to 2:30 pm, while Stacey worked. The arrangement seemed to work out at first, but things began to change with Stacey wanting to spend her time on the party scene after she began dating Brendon Borrelli in December 2008....just 4 months before Emma died. Stacey and Brendon did know each other before that from high school. <br />
<br />
Evidence will show that on March 17, 2011 Stacey and Brendon celebrated St. Patrick's Day drinking at Coaches late into the night. Stacey didn't arrive home until 2:30 am but she still got up and dressed as if going to work for her 5:30 am shift. Stacey actually spent the day hanging out at Brendon's and they went out for lunch. Later in the day Stacey returned home like she had worked. When Stacey got home from "work" on March 18 she was late again, so her mother was mad. Her mother had an appointment and wanted to get some rest before leaving, something Stacey knew, but was late anyway. Thus the argument ensued. Sue Barker told Stacey to make other childcare arrangements and threatened to throw Stacey out of the house. Sue was feeding Emma a "Lunchable" when Stacey got home, so Stacey finished feeding Emma and said she was going to see Anthony for some money. Sue left for her appointment. Stacey then went to her brother Nick's room and told him she was taking Emma to the park. He was the last person besides SB to see Emma alive.<br />
<br />
Cromer said phone records will show Stacey was sending text messages to Brendon at work from the time she left home all the way to Sylmar. Cellphone pings show that while she was texting Brandon that she was at the Lancaster City Park with Emma Barker's phone was pinging in LA. Later records show that Stacey called Brendon from the Park n Ride in Palmdale and said she needed him <i>(At this point we haven't been told yet exactly what she said to Brendon but we do know she wanted him to stop and pick up her brother Nick from their home in Quartz Hills). </i>The 911 call came in at 10:50 pm. Nick made the call from the car on the way to the Palmdale Park n Ride. <br />
<br />
When law enforcement arrived at the Park n Ride three minutes later, Brendon and Nick were there outside of the car. Stacey was reclined in the front seat of her car, half naked and moaning over and over, "They took my baby". The sheriff's deputy asked Brendon and Nick to cover Stacey, so they both took off their shirts and covered her. She did have bruises on her forehead and ribs so an ambulance was called and an Amber Alert was issued for Emma. Barker reported at the ER that she thought she had been raped, so at 12:19 am the SART, Sexual Assault Response Team examined her and did find bruising injuries in her vaginal area. None of her injuries were serious so Barker was released at 5:30 am on March 19.<br />
<br />
At 8am Barker came to the sheriff's department for her first formal interview with detectives. Police records show the interview lasted one-hour forty-seven minutes and 7 seconds. By this time, LE were already noticing some inconsistent statements from SB and had gathered her phone records. From the start of the interview they confronted SB with phone records and said they have other evidence that doesn't line up with her story of being attacked. After being confronted, Barker admitted she hadn't been attacked, she said Emma was chewing on the baggy and choked. SB said she made up the story and hid Emma's body because she was afraid people would think she was a bad mommy. At that point, Detective Nava begged Barker to tell detective Marsh (March?) where she hid Emma's body. Emma's body was found at 9:30 am after Stacey finally told LE where she had hid her daughter off the highway in Sylmar.<br />
<br />
<br />
At this point Kelly Cromer (KC) began showing some photographs on an overhead projector. The first picture was of a grassy field...the prosecutor pointed out if you look closely you can see Emma's raised leg. The next picture was closer and you could see that both of Emma's legs were raised and bent at the knees. The third picture was even closer and you could clearly see that Emma, dressed in blue shorts and a pink shirt, was in the position as if sitting in a baby car seat with her legs bent and her arms raised in front as if they were resting on the cushioned restraint bar. Cromer said Emma's body wasn't propped like that....that is rigor mortise. <i>(Tori noted the next picture was harsh.)</i> The fourth picture was a close-up of Emma's dirty face with blood in her nose. Cromer said this suggests that SB did something to Emma before she died and told the jury that Emma had triple the normal dose of Benedryl in her system at autopsy as well. The last picture shown to the jury was a shot from the roadway, KC pointed out that where SB left Emma, she couldn't be seen by anyone driving by, adding that Emma was left to be eaten by animals. <i>(UGH!)</i> <br />
<i></i> <br />
<i>(Tori reported that Stacey Barker looked directly at these pictures of Emma with no emotion. Barker's family that were still in the courtroom didn't show any visible emotion either. Were they coached not to show their emotions? It's possible. Back to the rest of the state's opening.....)</i> <br />
<br />
My notes show here that Brendon Borrelli told detectives that he didn't want a family, he couldn't afford a family financially and isn't ready emotionally. He said he only met Stacey's parents one time, after Stacey was let out on March 19.<br />
<br />
At her next interview with homicide detectives, on March 20, Barker stuck with the first account that she had told the day before, that Emma died accidentally by choking on a baggy that the baby got out of her purse. It seemed that Barker began changing her story to 'fit' what LE was telling her. Another account was that she was playing peek-a-boo with Emma with a plastic baggy. Detective Sandra Nava asked SB, "Why a plastic bag?" SB replied, "Well, it wasn't tight." When told that pink blanket fibers were found in Emma's airway <em>(was this an interrogation tactic or a real finding?),</em> SB changed her story again to say she was playing peek-a-boo with Emma using the baggie and the blanket. SB said she didn't hold that long, she was just entertaining Emma, adding, "I guess that wasn't the best option". After not hearing anything from Emma for two minutes, SB told detectives she looked back and saw the blanket over Emma's face, she knew Emma was dead and panicking took the next exit. Stacey claimed she put her hands over Emma's heart and face for signs of life, but there were none. <br />
<br />
Dr. Ribe <i>(Deputy Medical Examiner who conducted the autopsy on Emma)</i> concluded that Emma was asphyxiated but said it took force to cause the nose bleed. Benedryl is often used as a sleeping aid.Was the triple dose of Benedryl a chemical restraint to fighting? There was no baggy or pink blanket found in the car or with Emma when she was found. <br />
<br />
Cromer moves on to wrap up her opening statement, that lasted over a half hour. She told the jury they will hear testimony from an inmate referred to in court as Witness X, a 3 strike felon who is covered in tattoos. When X first befriended Stacey Barker he thought she was innocent so he tried to help her. He told her not talk to anyone about her case or put anything in writing. Despite the advice from X, SB started writing him letters, she obsessed about tattoos and her plans to get some too. Her letters became sexually explicit and she was even trying out X's last name. In the 24 letters that SB wrote to X over the course of 1 month, Barker admitted Emma was dead before leaving Palmdale. DDA Cromer ended her opening statement by saying that Stacey Barker asked X to help her come up with a plausible story, adding she has been practicing in her cell for court, but needs help to make the story fit.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Defense Opening Statement</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Roberto Dager began his 20 minute opening statement by telling the jury that after Emma died, his client Stacey Barker did some stupid things, but she had no reason to kill Emma. Emma was basically a miracle baby because Stacey had been told she may not be able to bear children. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Dager actually dares the jury to find someone who will say Stacey Barker was a bad mother. Kelly Cromer rose and said, "objection!" Before she could even get the basis for her objection out, Mr. Dager says, "withdrawn."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><br />
</i></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Dager said all of the Sheriff Detectives and the District Attorney conspired to pin Emma's death on Stacey Barker. They gathered evidence to make SB look to blame. They used interrogation tactics to get Barker to say what they wanted, leading her....such as, no, this is how it had to happen. You will never hear Stacey say she did it, she is just agreeing with them.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Stacey Barker was a good student, she got all A's and B's in school. Stacey came from a dysfunctional family that looked normal from the outside, but her mother, Sue, is an alcoholic and on depression medicine because she was abused. Sue was a controlling mother, she didn't want Stacey to go out and have fun, she just wanted her to stay home with her baby.</span></span><br />
<br />
Stacey was dating others besides Brendon, she had dated Mark before Brendon even came along and at the same time she was seeing Brendon she was having a sexual relation ship with Sheriff's Deputy Villa Lobo.<br />
Dager continued, Stacey did make up a cockamamie story, but he has a real problem with detectives Nava, McCarthy and Marsh. They are trying to make the story that Brendon Borelli and Nick Barker helped kill Emma and conspired to cover it up.<br />
<br />
Dager told the jury when they see Witness X take the stand, they will see a manipulating snitch who is a liar and a thief. Kelly Cromer says objection and asks for a sidebar. When they return from the sidebar Dager moves on. <br />
<br />
Roberto Dager wrapped up his opening statement by telling the jury they will see that Emma was always well dressed, Stacey supplied what her baby needed and cared for her baby...her love. She had no motive to kill her, she just used bad judgement.....<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>(Dager didn't say what type of abuse Sue allegedly suffered. Tori said she looked at Sue's family when he said this and saw no response.)</i></span></span>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-66069133648659181282011-04-29T15:53:00.002-05:002011-04-29T16:02:00.882-05:00We Will Provide Coverage Of The Stacy Barker Trial...Stay tuned!As most of you know the murder trial of Stacy Barker, 26 of Lancaster, CA started Wednesday, March 27. Barker is accused of smothering her 18 month old daughter Emma on March 18, 2009 before dumping her body in tall grass off the highway in Sylmar, CA. This trial is expected to last a couple weeks.<br />
<br />
I have been spending a couple hours on the phone with Tori each night after court as well as touching base throughout the day. Unfortunately, yesterday after working on an article about the first day of trial for 6 hours.... the opening statements and the beginning of the direct testimony of Sue Barker, I was typing away and my screen went black. When I was able to get things going I found I had lost almost 3/4 of what I had written, (•̪●)=ε/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿”” my computer is lucky to be alive I was so disappointed. I've never had this happen before...blogger usually auto saves every minute or two so if something happens you don't lose everything, well......IDK why it wasn't saved I didn't notice any problem as I was working....all that was saved was what was done on my little netbook. ◔_◔<br />
OK, I'll quit whining but I just want to let you all know that I'll start working again tonight (it's the first sunny day in over a week so I'm in the yard working today). We are forecasted with rain again this weekend and Mr. Katfish is already on notice : <strong>I will be at the computer all weekend.</strong> My goal is to be caught up before court starts back up on Monday. Tori has been taking great notes and our other friends Tiff, ANurse, Ange and Gabriele are attending and helping to fill in the blanks. Let me tell you....this is an interesting but disturbing case!!!!<br />
<br />
I need to get back outside but I wanted to take a minute to let you know what's going on. Oh, one more thing! LCoastMom hopes to be in CA on Monday and she will be adding reports as well. (✿◠‿◠) Big Hugs and Love to our friends in the courtroom! Hope you've have a great day in court today! Katkatfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-16972664535588468822011-04-24T00:55:00.004-05:002011-04-24T01:07:39.949-05:00Stacy Barker- It's Time To get This Trial Under Way- Guest Entry By LCoastMom<em>LCoastMom (LCM) is a friend of katfishponders and I'm pleased she has allowed me to bring this post here to share. LCM isn't from the Antelope Valley (AV), but she has made a point to attend a couple pre-trial hearings in this case and has plans to attend some of Stacey Barker's murder trial...whenever / wherever it finally starts. Look for future posts from LCoastMom here at Katfish...ponders once the trial starts. Tori and I will still be doing our collaboration too....between us we should have pretty good coverage. Check back for updates and trial coverage!</em><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoPOWgKXlqonEUPRobBIy2Jf17RnQpLZFKbno0njoLgZiQ0jpu8NhWA9QabhyphenhyphenDNCY4KqfcCTBehAueqY7GrtfEf-qpMjsAp4oP7wYtmYnp4oaNlqrxuk6LyHqUb3OCEnDtphoLx7I7HwHF/s1600/Happy+Easter+Emma.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" i8="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoPOWgKXlqonEUPRobBIy2Jf17RnQpLZFKbno0njoLgZiQ0jpu8NhWA9QabhyphenhyphenDNCY4KqfcCTBehAueqY7GrtfEf-qpMjsAp4oP7wYtmYnp4oaNlqrxuk6LyHqUb3OCEnDtphoLx7I7HwHF/s200/Happy+Easter+Emma.jpg" width="150" /></a></div>Emma, only 18 months old when she died, had just one Easter celebration. If she lived, Emma would now be 3 1/2. Old enough to go to church, if her family so wanted - in a cute new dress, with a bonnet, ruffled socks, little purse and matching shoes - old enough to have an Easter Egg Hunt - an Easter Basket with a chocolate bunny that would have melted into a fine mess and maybe a new stuffed toy to snuggle at night.<br />
<br />
Instead, if the family celebrates Easter with Emma - it will be at the Joshua Memorial Park & Mortuary, where her little grave sits - a marker displaying a picture of a toddler with a smile that would melt your heart.<br />
<br />
While Emma waits for Justice - her 26 year old mother, Stacey, waits in the Central Regional Detention Center - in lieu of $1,000,000 bond. On April 18 - jury selection began in a case that is now 25 months old. Rumor has it that a jury has yet to be seated. Her attorney, Roberto Dager is still requesting a Change of Venue. As if taking the trial out of the AV is going to make a difference. The citizens of Los Angeles are all feeling, thinking individuals - just like their contemporaries in Lancaster. If Mr Dager is only interested in jurors who won't care that Barker is accused of murdering her daughter, this trial will never start.<br />
<br />
Barker is entitled to a fair trial, with a jury of her peers - those peers are the folks she went to school with, worked with, shopped with, and passed by on the streets in the town where she lived. <br />
<br />
It's time to get this trial underway! No more stall tactics, no more delays.katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-65413241730973093442011-04-21T05:05:00.009-05:002011-04-22T03:15:49.800-05:00Stacy Barker Murder Trial Set To Get Under Way? Will it be April or Will It Be May?<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEji5dP3FHrpz7HNnmpa7ISy3S6m8b1XRmKu28LW3TzShLtu_Hc1b1qczZqgS30VXEOJQxS2y177GwyibML3wQ64nbx2KV_WeCyrYS2w-WF18RGYntjFFPcMCJ0MvCIHD0AqPT4VjOMm6LGu/s1600/stacy_barker_001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEji5dP3FHrpz7HNnmpa7ISy3S6m8b1XRmKu28LW3TzShLtu_Hc1b1qczZqgS30VXEOJQxS2y177GwyibML3wQ64nbx2KV_WeCyrYS2w-WF18RGYntjFFPcMCJ0MvCIHD0AqPT4VjOMm6LGu/s1600/stacy_barker_001.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Stacey Barker 2009 booking photo</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Stacey Barker is a 26 year old Quartz Hills, CA woman accused of killing her 18 month old daughter 2 years ago. During this time, friends of Katfish....Ponders have been attending the pretrial hearings and sharing what they see and hear. Once again I want to thank these caring women Toria, Ange, Tiffany Diamond, ANurse, and LeftCoastMom for taking time out of their busy lives to attend the hearings.<br />
<br />
Anyone who has been following this case will understand the reason I wrote the title to this post as a question, there has been <u>a lot of delays</u>...trial dates set and postponed, failed plea deal negotiations, and <u>more, more, more delays</u>. I'm to the point that I won't believe this trial is happening until I know that a jury has been seated. What I want to do in this post is update you on some recent hearings and what we do know about the <i>(alleged)</i> upcoming trial. :)<br />
<br />
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></b></i><i><b><span style="font-size: large;"> ~ Case Background</span> </b></i><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>~</i></b></span><br />
<br />
On March 18, 2009 at about 11:00 P.M., Stacey Barker's brother Nick made a 911 call to report his sister was at a Park n Ride (PnR) in Palmdale, CA and needed assistance. He reported his sister had called him for help. We don't know exactly what Stacey told her brother when she called him, but he and her (then?) boyfriend Brendon were already at the PnR when police arrived 3 minutes after the 911 call.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6KA1mNriAuVNGh2c-0Y1jeOCuyk6A1rI37JLVKw9MKaMOcQPpmG9AzCHpBIqvt_WxaCvgjWzEF5M5uIz1qbxeI1C9_aUyt5V67tm67ObaMg9l5u1M4SCS4nSwbjGMMh26fogLflQGBan4/s1600/emma+standing+tutu.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6KA1mNriAuVNGh2c-0Y1jeOCuyk6A1rI37JLVKw9MKaMOcQPpmG9AzCHpBIqvt_WxaCvgjWzEF5M5uIz1qbxeI1C9_aUyt5V67tm67ObaMg9l5u1M4SCS4nSwbjGMMh26fogLflQGBan4/s320/emma+standing+tutu.jpg" width="252" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Precious Emma Leigh Barker</td></tr>
</tbody></table> Stacey Barker told police she was attacked as she was loading her 18 month old daughter, Emma Leigh Barker, into her car at the Lancaster, CA city park (after playtime). Barker reported the next thing she can recall was "coming to" 6 hours later at the Palmdale PnR about 15 miles from the Lancaster park, and realized she was injured, only partially clothed, and her baby,, Emma, was missing....Detectives said that Barker did have injuries consistent with a struggle, including bruises on her head and was taken to the hospital for treatment.<br />
<br />
Authorities say after making various inconsistent statements, Barker finally admitted making up the abduction story and inflicting the wounds on herself. She said Emma died accidentally, but fearing she would be blamed for Emma's death, she panicked and left her daughter's body in some tall grass near a freeway. Some 12 hours later, Barker led police to Emma’s body, where she had dumped her, in a grassy lot near the Golden State Freeway in Sylmar, CA.<br />
<br />
On April 23, 2009 Barker was arrested at her grandparents home, where she had reportedly began staying sometime after Emma's death. She has been incarcerated at the Central Regional Detention Center since her arrest. Barker was appointed a public defender, Roberto F. Dager(RD). Her bail was set at 1 million dollars. The charges filed against the young mother include <b>Second-Degree Murder, Assault on a Child Causing Death </b>and <b>one count of Child Abuse</b>. The complaint alleges that Barker willfully caused and permitted the child to be injured and harmed and that injury resulted in death. The state of California alleges that Barker suffocated her daughter. Stacey Barker(SB) formally entered a not guilty plea to all counts on August 12, 2009. Representing the state in this case is Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney S. "Kelly" Cromer(KC). The judge overseeing this case is Superior Court Judge Hayden Zackey (JZ). <br />
<br />
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;"> ~ Recent Case Developments</span></b></i> <span style="font-size: large;"><b>~</b></span><br />
<br />
Even though there has been a number of hearings in the last month in preparation for trial, there really hasn't been much new to report until last week. To be honest the hearings have mainly consisted of a lot of bickering between the state and the defense over discovery, witnesses and outstanding motions....normal trial stuff although I'm surprised a lot of this wasn't completed long ago. Judge Zackey has been more than liberal...in my opinion ...especially with the defense. If Stacey Barker is convicted, she shouldn't have grounds to appeal based on ineffective counsel. Mr Dager has provided her with a very vigorous defense and filed every kind of motion you can think of. As a true crime and trial junkie, Katfish ponders has often wondered if law school includes a course on whining...if that course is offered, Roberto Dager was probably his teacher's pet. LOL!<br />
<br />
This is what Tori had to say about the hearing on <b>March 24</b>, "Another slow ride on the Justice train, although Kelly makes it worth the wait, she is Awesome!"<br />
I don't think Ms. Cromer would mind if I referred to her as a bulldog <i>(She is a dog breeder and active in dog shows in her personal life)</i>. From what the girls tell me, Cromer doesn't give Dager an inch, and if she has to bark loud to be heard over Dager's whining she lets it rip. Perhaps a more tactful way to put it is they are both "passionate" about their adversarial roles. LOL!<br />
<br />
The "debates" between the state and defense at this hearing were primarily about expert witnesses for both parties. Kelly Cromer asked Roberto Dager<i> (once again)</i> about getting a report from Dr. Harry Bonnell.<br />
<br />
Dager told the court that Cromer has talked to Bonnell and she knows what he is going to say.<br />
KC said "Dr. Bonnell was supposed to be here for a "<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule402.htm">402"</a> your honor"<br />
JZ asks RD, " Where is he?"<br />
Dager replied, " I am not going to have him come here from San Diego just for this special occasion".(We didn't understand that remark??) RD continued," I want to know why you are singling me out. I thought you were going to do a 402 with Ribe too? She knows everything I know!."<br />
KC said, " Your honor, does he expect this court to believe he does not know what his own witness is going to testify to? He is just trying to stall the case and drag his feet again and I would ask the court that if I don't have what Dr.Bonnell is going to testify to, that he be excluded as a witness.<br />
JZ said, "Mr. Dager, just have Dr. Bonnell write a small report and give it or email it to KC."<br />
<br />
<i>(According to my notes, KC was asking RD for Dr. Bonnell's report as far back as February 2010.</i><i> At that time RD told the court, that Dr. Bonnell, a Forensic Pathologist will testify there are tests that Dr. Ribe (<i>Los Angeles County</i> Deputy Coroner <i>James</i> K. <i>Ribe</i>) failed to perform on Emma that would change the cause and manner of death but wouldn't elaborate.) </i><br />
<br />
Next RD said something about KC talking to Dr.Ribe about the mistakes she said Dr. Ribe made<b>...oooooohhhh</b> she (KC ) yelled," I DID NOT SAY HE MADE ANY MISTAKES! YOUR HONOR WHAT I SAID WAS I FOUND SOMETHING IN THE REPORT THAT I MISSED, BUT IT WAS THERE THE ENTIRE TIME! I do not want it in the press that I said Dr. Ribe made a mistake! RD knows that is not what I said, but he wants to say that in court so people will think that is what was said, and no, I have not talked to the Dr. at this time.<br />
<br />
There was some other discussions about discovery and another witness but what I have told you so far should give you an idea about how this hearing went. Cromer and Dager did not agree on ANYTHING!<br />
Judge Zackey told the parties he has a trial the rest of the week so the next hearing will be on 4/1, then he'll rule on the motions that were brought up earlier in the case. (<i>?) </i>The judge said he wants to set the trial date for the week of April 4th, noting that might change if the trial he has in progress goes longer and the hearing was over.<i> </i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
The <b>April 1 </b>hearing started out with Judge Zackey telling Roberto Dager and Kelly Cromer that today they <b>will all act professionally</b>......adding he was glad he had DECAF today. <i>( Emphasis mine.This judge has been very lenient IMO )</i><br />
<br />
Kelly Cromer told the court that Dr.Bonnell still hasn't given his statement and he's not here today as the court ordered, so she asks that Dr. Bonnell be excluded as a witness. Judge Zackey told Dager to call Dr.Bonnell and ask him to submit the report.<br />
<br />
RD said " I AM NOT GOING TO CALL HIM". The state knows what I know. They have talked to him, they know what he is going to say. I am not going to call him.<br />
JZ asked RD, "So...are you going to be calling him as a witness?" RD said, " I can't say yet."<br />
JZ told RD, " It sounds like you are not going to use him as a witness."<br />
JZ then asked if Dr. Bonnell was going to say something different then Dr.Ribe?<br />
RD told the judge," Dr. Bonnell will say the same thing as Dr. Ribe, that there is no conclusive cause of death." <br />
<br />
KC said, "I am tired of him misstating the facts your honor! Dr.Ribe has a cause and manner of death and it's in the the Coroners report." <br />
RD said, " Dr.Ribes opinion was influenced by the Sheriff's office and they led him to conclude the manner of death was a homicide."<br />
JZ told RD he will have to give KC a statement from DB by 1:30PM today or he is going to start imposing sanctions per sec 1054..he goes on to outline sanctions that can be imposed.....<br />
<br />
We don't know what RD objected to but he said he vigorously OBJECTS to that! JZ said," I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll have my reporter put it in the Record in BOLD and UNDERLINED that you OBJECT! (Yep, good thing he had decaf )<br />
<br />
We're not sure who brought it up, but the conversation shifts....there are two 6 pack photo line ups that a witness has made an ID on. The person(s) who was identified in the photo line ups was reportedly at the Park n Ride on March 18. RD said something about a conspiracy and asks why is this just being brought up now? Dager tells the court he wants copies of the 6 packs and some phone records. The state contends there was a flurry of text messages they want in at trial. JZ said that he would sign a order for the phone company to give Dager the records within a week. <br />
<br />
Tori said she doesn't know if BB (Stacey's boyfriend) got a phone call or had to use the restroom, but he got up and left the courtroom when this discussion about PnR was brought up, he did, however, come right back. There will be more discussion about this photo lineup at a future hearing.<i>(BB hasn't attended another hearing since....which wouldn't necessarily be remarkable, except that he has attended nearly every hearing up to this point.)</i><br />
Discussion returns to Dr. Bonnell. Judge Zackey tells both sides they will go "In Camera". The judge, the court reporter, and both sides leave for a bit. When they come back, JZ asks RD," OK, so you will not be calling Dr. Bonnell as a witness, is that right?" RD said, " No, I will not be calling Dr. Bonnell.....<br />
<br />
JZ said that the next court date is 4/11 adding they have 10 days to start the trial from that date. JZ thinks that jury selection may take more than the 1 or 2 days ( the norm?) , but the trial he is in right now is going at a snails pace so he doesn't mention an actual date for the trial to start..(T, did I get this right from your notes?)<br />
<br />
JZ is about to wrap up the hearing when RD said, " There are 2 defense witnesses in the court today." JZ asked them to stand and state their names and spell them for the court reporter. One is Amber Barela, a friend and co-worker of Stacey. We don't know why she is on the witness list. Earlier in the case she commented at a few forums in defense of Stacey, but made it clear she has absolutely no idea what was going on with Stacey around the time Emma died.(We've heard they were fighting) The other witness is Jennifer Goodnight, a supervisor over Amber and Stacey at Bank Of America.<br />
Kelly Cromer said, " I want to state for the record the witnesses are seated with the Barker family...so Roberto Dager shoots back...."I want to note one is wearing Gray and one wearing black." Dager then told the court that he hasn't spoke to these witnesses yet and he wants to talk to them after the hearing is over. KC said she wanted to speak with them as well. This hearing is over....minus one expert, for sure...plus 2 defense witnesses? who knows...were they expected to testify to something today? and no trial date....yet.<br />
<br />
The <b>April 11</b> hearing was short and sweet in more ways than one. Short because it didn't take long, sweet because it was short, but more notably because Kelly Cromer and Roberto Dager were being nice to each other...<i><br />
</i><br />
JZ calls the attorneys to the bench and they have a talk for about 10 minutes. After the attorneys returned to their tables, JZ calls "going on the record" and right away confirmed with both attorneys that the trial is going to be assigned to his courtroom and he would be the judge on the trial. Is that correct RD? Yes! Is that correct KC? Yes! Okay so we have established that it will be here. (Hmmm...can't tell you what that was about, whether there was an issue or if this is just procedure?)<br />
<br />
JZ said that the bus from the jail is having problems, so we have no inmates yet. Dager agreed to waive his client's right to be present. Zackey said "We'll come back on 4/13 to finish up on the motions, 402's and discovery. I want to start jury selection by the 18th adding, I think it will take a few days and a lot of jurors will be dismissed so I am ordering 60 to start with."<br />
<br />
JZ told RD to give the Massiah Motion (that you have written up) to KC today. KC said she will be in her office until 6 tonight, so if RD could get it to her before then it would be great, adding he tends to come in at 4:30 on the dot to give her things...JZ said you both know each others office numbers so you can get in touch by calling...RD said he would give her his cell # as well.( Several days were spent questioning witness and arguing the Massiah Motion. The only reason I can think of for giving it to the state now is that they agreed to some revisions. ??)<br />
<br />
KC said that she still hadn't gotten some of the defense witness's statements so she will ask to exclude them at next hearing.<br />
<br />
RD wanted to confirm the court would be ruling on his Change Of Venue, Media Exclusion and Massiah Motions at the next hearing..(The judge ruled against the COV motion earlier in the case, so the defense must have made another COV motion, but given the statements at the beginning of today's hearing that this case would stay it Zackey's court... it is confusing)<br />
<br />
Judge Zackey said....so everyone is ready for trial? Mr.Dager? Yes. Ms.Cromer? Yes. Zackey replied, "OK, see you here on the 13th." This hearing was over<br />
<br />
There was a lot of information covered in <b>April 13 </b>hearing. The state has 7 or 8 and the defense 38 motions (402) not including the defense Massiah Motion that the court needs to make rulings on.Many of the motions were to include or exclude photographs.<br />
Some interesting information came out but it wasn't always clear which or whose motions the information was related to, so I'll just share the information and each sides stance as we understand it.<br />
<br />
1) It was disclosed that 2 people were identified by a witness at the Palmdale Park n Ride where Emma was first reported missing by Stacey Barker. The two 6 pack line up photos were introduced at the hearing on April 1 and clarified further today. Identified were Brendon Borelli (Stacey's boyfriend at the time Emma died) and Nick Barker (Stacey's brother). Before now, in our posts we have usually identified Brendon Borelli as just Brendon or BB, but now that his name is a part of the public record, if we use initials it's for convenience.<br />
<br />
Nick Barker was positively identified, but the witness had trouble doing a 100 % ID of BB from the 6 pack line up alone....What this witness (female ParknRide security) said was that she saw Stacey Barker and a man pull into the PnR in the same vehicle. The witness said that soon after they arrived, she noticed the male was gone and a red car was leaving the lot. She was certain that the man who had arrived with Stacey was the same man who returned later with Nick Barker Brendon Borelli).<br />
<br />
2) The State wants to use photos of Emma in the location her body was left/dumped, because they show the state of Rigor that Emma was in. KC said they go to show that SB had driven around with Emma dead in the car for HOURS. (ugh! use your imagination) The defense wants any and all pictures of Emma's dead body excluded. I'm not sure what the state's stance is on the autopsy photos, but I would be surprised if they didn't want at least a few in for the jury's eyes only. <i>(Perhaps one of our intrepid court reporters can clarify.)</i> The defense also wants a drawing excluded that allegedly depicts hand marks on Emma's nose and forehead.<br />
<em>UPDATE- The state is not requesting to use any autopsy photos! Thanks T!</em><br />
<br />
3)Another defense motion attempts to exclude testimony from Detectives Nava and McCarthy about their interview / interrogation of Stacey Barker after she was released from the hospital on March 19, 2009. Dager just wants the state to use the audio tapes of the interview to present the evidence of Barker's statements to law enforcement. Cromer argued against that saying that the detectives could better convey Barker's demeanor to the jury and if Dager wants to use the tapes to try and impeach them, fine. The defense doesn't want barker's booking photo used at trial either.<br />
<br />
4) Earlier in the case we heard mention of an incident in the holding area at the courthouse. We learned what this is all about....one of the officers allegedly called SB a BABY KILLER and RD objects to her being called names like that by law enforcement. KC said the incident was unsubstantiated. RD said it shows that all LE are against SB and that they are all trying to turn everyone against her, but he concedes he thinks if these deputies get on the stand that they will not confess to saying anything that would get them fired. KC says this has no relevance to Emma's death so doesn't belong in this case to begin with. KC did say if Barker wants to get on the stand maybe they can get it in.<br />
<br />
5) Barker was treated by a SART (sexual abuse response team) at the hospital because she said that she had been raped, RD does not want repetitive statements from the Dr.s, Nurses and anyone else she talked to at the hospital...KC said it is relevant because SB claimed she was raped and did have moderate vaginal bruising....<i>(personally I think RD might be right on this one, it should definitely come in that the "rape" was part of her "story" but unless she made incriminating statements they don't need to "elaborate" they know she wasn't raped. kat)</i><br />
<br />
6)The defense wants a large number of pictures and hours of video admitted to show that SB was a loving mother and how clean the house was and nice Emma's room was decorated . KC said it was a room in Stacey's parent's home and since the parents and other family members were with Emma more then SB, they may have had as much or more than SB to do with the design of room and the up keep of the home and Emma's room.<br />
<br />
7) RD wants evidence and testimony about a party the night before Emma's funeral excluded. Dager said the family had a dinner/get together the night before Emma's funeral...KC called it a party and wanted everyone to know that at this party they played BEER PONG. Dager said it was a just a get together, not a party and the younger people did play Beer Pong but not SB, he said...her Mom even played ...JZ looked amazed and said wait...Emma's Mom or SB's Mom? RD said SB's Mom.<br />
<br />
8)The defense wants Barker un-cuffed and un-shackled in front of the jury. They should prevail on this motion because defendants are normally allowed to wear street clothes and are un-cuffed in front of a jury so the jury won't be prejudiced by the defendants appearance. I have seen shackles left on defendants with the tables for both parties skirted so the jury doesn't see the shackles but those have been cases of violent inmates.<br />
Judge Zackey said that the 13th was a fact finding hearing and he still has to rule on the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule402.htm">402's</a> and the Massiah Motion (related to witness x) on the 14th. JZ said he will even take the hearings into Friday if needed because he wants all this stuff done before 4/18, the day he is going to start jury selection and the trial will start once the Jury has been selected...on that day or the day after.....<br />
<br />
Before the court went on the record for the<b> April 14 </b>hearing Kelly Cromer gave Roberto Dager a time-stamped copy of the police report from the security guard at the Palmdale Park n Ride. Tori mentioned it was obvious the attorneys were going to be nice to each other again today. Think they had a pep talk from the judge? We can only wonder.<br />
<br />
Once on the record, Judge Zackey said that he had went through the 402's at home last night and reviewed the tapes of Detective Sandra Nava's interviews with Witness X and had made some rulings.<br />
<br />
JZ ruled that before X went to law enforcement he was NOT a Government Agent, therefore he would be allowed to testify to what he and SB talked about before X contacted the Sheriff's office. At that time X was not infringing on Barker's rights, so there's no need to address Massiah for that. JZ added if the state is going to use any of the recordings made after X was in contact with, they will have to talk about this Massiah Motion again for that. KC said that she did not think she was going to use the tapes but she would listen to them and see if there was anything she wanted to use and let JZ and RD know so they could talk about it.<br />
<br />
<br />
They talked about pictures again, 2 photo albums full, KC only wants some photos allowed, RD said they need to have both full albums to prove what a good Mother SB was to Emma, How in all the pictures that she was well dressed and matched in colors of clothing, blanket, socks etc....she was not just a kid in a teeshirt and diaper. KC said something about most people do dress their kids well for pictures. Then she talked about how the Barker's parents took care of Emma for the most part and her brother also took care of her for SB. Kelly Cromer told the court that Barker's mother had Emma in the day while SB worked and SB's father had her at night when she was out partying...<i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>(Stacey Barker's family were shaking there heads....as if to say NO we did not watch Emma...in early interviews Barker's father had said the family adjusted their work schedules to be available to care for Emma. In defense of Stacey, Amber B. told some of us that if SB was out and they called her that Emma woke up, she would go home right away...so how can they say no they didn't watch her when SB was OUT...will they testify differently? That remains to be seen.)</i><br />
<div style="background-color: transparent; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><i>Whew were almost done here folks.</i> No one from our group was able to attend the hearing on Friday the 15th. Tori said her daughter was at the courthouse on Friday and checked in on Judge Zackey's courtroom during a break in the case she was attending, but the courtroom was locked. None of the local media reported anything on Saturday so we don't even know if there was a hearing Friday. <br />
<br />
On Monday, April 18 Tori went to the courthouse to see if she could sit in on the Jury Voir Dire, but no one was in the courtroom. On Tuesday, Tori again went to Judge Zackey's courtroom and the calendar on the outside of the door was FULL but nothing for Stacey Barker was on the list...She said she saw RD but no KC, so she went home and called someone she knows that would know the scoop. She was told that something like 70 Jurors had been asked for and 57 did come to the courtroom at about 10:30 they had gave the questionnaires to the potential jurors and told them to fill them out and come back on Thursday. JZ is in downtown on Wednesday so his court is dark.<br />
T's friend said that they will start polling the Venires on Thursday, 4/21 and maybe go into Friday (no doubt, that is a lot of people) then if a panel is picked they will allow a couple of days for opening statements to be prepared by both sides. So...it looks like the trial could start as early as April 25th or as late as May 2nd....<br />
We still don't know what most of Judge Zackey's rulings were or if he ruled on allowing cameras in the courtroom...I guess we will just have to wait for trial to find that out.<br />
<br />
<strong>Here is the only media report we have came across so far about jury selection (<i>Thanks LCM)</i>:</strong><br />
<br />
<a href="http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Flos_angeles&id=8079284"><strong>Jury selection starts in Palmdale child death</strong></a><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: transparent; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-25621048623482020542011-04-17T14:59:00.003-05:002011-04-17T18:50:49.207-05:00Motion Of The Day...Once Again Nicholas Sheley Wants To Go Pro Se- Updated<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Updated 4/17/2011 at bottom of post</span> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><u> original post April 4</u><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizZDs61RoiEod4K6faFCj5gEtk0dSOhLr0ZvVZoEqwkuzV6nzJWLOt09YxEXjn_xYHISoi4uXtavH7ne7KPsQd4yxlXBZL_QxGa3_DnoHB47kZJK1fIATBmudD8cVhBLc3gax8nCEKdqP6/s1600/pub_showfront.asp.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizZDs61RoiEod4K6faFCj5gEtk0dSOhLr0ZvVZoEqwkuzV6nzJWLOt09YxEXjn_xYHISoi4uXtavH7ne7KPsQd4yxlXBZL_QxGa3_DnoHB47kZJK1fIATBmudD8cVhBLc3gax8nCEKdqP6/s200/pub_showfront.asp.jpeg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Newest mugshots at Pontiac Correctional Center</td></tr>
</tbody></table>When I left home on March 29, 2011 for the Knox County courthouse to attend a case management hearing in the capital murder case of Nicholas Sheley, accused of killing Ronald Randall,65, in Galesburg, IL., I told Mr. Katfish not to expect me back for several hours as this might turn out to be a long hearing.<br />
<br />
This will be the first trial that Sheley faces related to the June 2008 killing spree of eight people that he is accused of. He also faces first degree murder charges in Whiteside County, IL for the deaths of 5 people and Festus, MO for the death of 2 other people. You can read about the killing spree<a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2008/10/sheleys-trail-of-terror.html"> here</a> if you aren't familiar with the case.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure what to expect today because this is the first hearing since IL Governor Patrick Quinn signed off on legislation to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/08/illinois-death-penalty-ab_n_833250.html">abolish the death penalty in IL</a> on March 9. That legislation doesn't take effect until July 1, 2011, so unless the state decides to take the DP off the table before then, this will continue as a capital murder case until the legislation takes effect. At the last hearing, on February 4, there was discussion of discovery and evidentiary issues that may be argued at today's hearing, March 29. I wasn't able to blog about that hearing but<br />
will reference it some in this post. <br />
<br />
At a hearing on February 4, both parties argued a<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=75314073">DEFENSE MOTION TO VACATE COURT ORDER AND FOR OTHER RELIEF</a><br />
and<br />
<a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=75314110">THE STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION TO VACATE COURT ORDER AND FOR OTHER RELIEF.</a><br />
<br />
According to the Defense Motion To Vacate, There was a closed hearing on September 14, 2010 where the parties argued the State's First Motion in Limine to Admit Course Of Conduct Evidence and the Defense Response. After the Court reviewed the written and oral arguments of both parties, the court made a ruling as to what evidence would be allowed and ordered the state to prepare an order reflecting the court's ruling. On December 15, 2010 the state presented the order to the defense for review and the next day the state submitted the order to the court. The defense argued they had not been given sufficient time to review the order and the court allowed 2 weeks for resolve the issue with the state. It seems when the defense responded to the office of Bill Elward on December 28th so they could resolve any disputes to the language in the order, he was out of the office and he didn't return until January 2. On January 3 the court issued the ruling without further input from the parties; therefore, the defense sought to have the order vacated and reissued.<br />
<br />
I can't tell you much about the order because it was under seal along with the original briefings. It was disclosed in the Defense Motion To Vacate that during the closed hearing the state conceded that even though they previously had stated in open court that they would seek to admit every prior bad act in Sheley's history, they had decided they would not seek to use every prior bad act, but just those relevant to this case....that is unless the defense opens that door at trial.<br />
<br />
On February 4 Judge James Stewart said he held the order for 2 weeks and no one objected or let him know there was a problem so he issued the order on January 3. The state contends they tracked the court's ruling from the transcript of the September 14 hearing word for word. Judge Stewart ordered both sides to file a redacted motion in limine with an offer of proof and a defense response within 2 weeks to be placed in the public record.<i> (redaction's to eliminate any course of conduct evidence not allowed to be used).</i> If I understand it correctly in the defense motion to vacate they contend, on September 14, the judge didn't make a ruling on the evidence but would tailor the courts ruling to was what specified in the the hearing by the state.<br />
<br />
Last week I picked up the redacted copies of the motions and pleadings<b>, </b>however I didn't see a new order<b> </b>in the file<b>. </b>It's possible I missed it, that is a heavy file. I linked all of the motions and pleadings mentioned in this post that aren't sealed on my docstock account so you can read them. As it turns out the course of conduct evidence wasn't even discussed in the March 29 hearing but I have been told it will be dealt with in the future.<b><br />
</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=75310123"><b>PEOPLE'S OFFER OF PROOF IN SUPPORT OF ITS FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT COURSE OF CONDUCT EVIDENCE</b> </a><br />
and the <b> </b><br />
<b><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=75312593">DEFENSE RESPONSE TO THE PEOPLE'S FIRST MOTION OF LIMINE AND OFFER OF PROOF</a>.</b><br />
<br />
I was expecting an interesting hearing....and man ~ o ~ man interesting is an understatement. <br />
<br />
Here is my in the courtroom report from the March 29 hearing:<br />
<br />
When I came into the courtroom I wasn't surprised to see there were several from Ronald Randall's family here, they always arrive early and sit in front row behind the prosecution. In the second row behind them is Shirley Pringle, the Knox County Victims Rights Advocate and a woman I have seen in court with Shirley before although I have never met her. The front row behind the defense table was reserved for the accredited press and there were already three members of the press seated.<br />
<br />
In the second row behind the press was lead defense attorney Jeremy Karlin's administrative assistant and another young woman who looked familiar but I couldn't place.(<i>I later learn she is Marissa Pendergrass from the CBS channel 4 (WHBF) in the Quad Cities. I embedded Marissa's video of Sheley leaving the courthouse and interviews with the State's Attorney, John Pepmeyer and Lead Defense Counsel, Jeremy Karlin at the end of my "in the courtroom" report...be sure to check it out.)</i><br />
<br />
I went behind Shirley and the other woman to my regular seat against a pole at the farthest end of the second row. After I took my seat, Shirley introduced me to the woman with her, her name is Stacy Dutton. Stacy is a very pleasant woman. I learned that Stacy is Shirley's replacement as Knox County Victim's Rights Advocate. Shirley tells me she retired last Fall. How the heck did I miss that? I did miss some hearings in November and December but the Shirley has been at every hearing I have attended so I didn't realize she was gone. LOL! Congratulations to Shirley and to Stacy!<br />
<br />
The attorneys for both sides are standing at their tables. On the far right going left for the state is Michael Atterberry Assistant Attorney General, then Knox County State's Attorney John Pepmeyer, and closest to the defense is Bill Elward Assistant Attorney General. At the defense table right to left is court appointed Lead Attorney Jeremy Karlin and next to him is Co-counsel Anthony Vaupel, there is an empty chair next to Vaupel for the defendant.The court reporter and clerk are in place. It looks like everyone is ready to go to work. All we need now is the defendant and the judge. The clock is gone in the courtroom so I won't be able to track time. I see the Bailiff get confirmation they were ready for Sheley and shortly after he is escorted into the courtroom by several IL Department of Corrections officers and several Knox County Sheriff's deputies and bailiffs.<br />
<br />
Nicholas Sheley is wearing a white button down short sleeve shirt and black pants. His hair seems to have grown out even since the latest mugshot at Pontiac shown above and is slicked back reminiscent of a 60's greaser. I wonder why his clothing has changed ? He used to wear a tan scrubs when coming from Pontiac. Has his status changed at the prison or have they just had a uniform change? If anyone knows I would like to hear. Last I knew he was in protective custody....has he been moved to general population? The waist and ankle shackles are louder today as he walks in and they look a little heavier...another hmmm. As soon as Sheley gets seated he says fairly loud, "What the fuck you looking at?" Vaupel touches his arm as if to say calm down. Sheley's comment seems to be directed at Bill Elward. For some reason Mr. Elward seems to be on Sheley's 'list'. He wrote a long scathing letter to the Ninth Circuit Judge James Stewart on Christmas Day 2009 about Bill Elward that was made a part of the public record. I have the letter posted <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2010/03/merry-christmas-letter-from-nicholas.html">here</a>. Sheley motions for Jeremy Karlin to come over and then Sheley, Karlin and Vaupel go back to the holding area outside of the courtroom with the security detail.<br />
<br />
Judge Stewart enters the courtroom and calls court to order then notices that the defense table is empty so we wait, the attorneys and those of us in the gallery go ahead and sit down.. It didn't take long before Sheley, his security detail and attorneys come back in. Sheley doesn't look happy. I can't see either attorney's face.<br />
Stewart acknowledges both parties for the record and says," This case management hearing has been scheduled per Supreme Court rules." He mentions that the new law passed by the Governor takes away the death penalty, effective July 1, and notes that will effect this case.<br />
<br />
John Pepmeyer stands to address the court and says that counsel for both parties have met prior to the hearing and agreed to September 19, 2011 for a trial date. That lightens the atmosphere in the courtroom a bit....it's about time. When Judge Stewart confirms that date with Jeremy Karlin, it's apparent Mr. Karlin is frustrated.<i> (I don't think he even rose to address the court, which is unusual for him) </i>Karlin replies he has no authority to set a trial date because of the document Mr. Sheley has just handed him. <i></i><br />
<br />
John Pepmeyer once again addresses the court and says the state is filing a motion to "de-certify" the death penalty in this case, adding the death penalty is no longer an available remedy in this case.<i> (So it's official this is no longer a death penalty case as of today.) </i>Judge Stewart makes sure the defense has a copy from the state. Pepmeyer also said he wants to make a record the people have tendered discovery labeled 14, contains enumerated fingerprint evidence. <i>(Anthony Vaupel brought up this fingerprint evidence at the February hearing. I also remember Vaupel saying something about a deposition but I can't remember if that had to do with the fingerprints. My notes do say the state response was if the Governor signed the legislation the defense would not be entitled to the deposition. Moot point now I guess.)</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
Jeremy Karlin approached the bench and presented the court with a motion handwritten by Sheley stating his intention to represent himself. This motion seems to have caught defense counsel by surprise as much as everyone else. Karlin gave the thick stack of papers to the judge and said they have not even read the motion yet<i> </i>and Sheley had advised the court this was the only copy<i>.</i> Karlin continued speaking as he returned to the defense table.....Mr. Sheley has instructed by his Pro Se Motion to bar any court appointed defense or any further mental health evaluation.<br />
<br />
Bill Elward stood and said, " If he wants to play lawyer let him, and he can follow the rules. I apologize, this is just one more tactic from this defendant. If he wants to represent himself he must follow procedure. In order to file a motion he must provide copies to all parties, the court should not accept the motion until then."<br />
<br />
Sheley is whispering to his attorneys. Judge Stewart says he will give 30 days for the defense to read the motion and decide how they will proceed. Stewart gets a date from the clerk and says April 25 at 9:30 a.m. adding there already has been an expert who has filed a report.<br />
<br />
Elward addresses the court again, "For the record two Doctors evaluated and filed reports. <i>(He says something about funding that I missed.) </i>At what point do we get a copy? We are abundantly aware this is a delay occasioned by the defendant."<br />
<br />
Sheley asks to address the court. Judge Stewart tells him he can't at this point. One of his attorney speaks for Sheley, " There are no copies because the exhibits included with the motion are under seal. There is no expectation of privacy in the DOC library anyone could see them. Not trying to play a game." <br />
<br />
<i>(My notes say he still has the obligation. It is what it is - remains un-filed.</i><i> Sorry this is so cryptic, my notes don't say who said this, whether it is the judge or the state, likely it was Mr. Elward because my notes do show he spoke next.) </i><br />
<br />
Elward addresses the court again, " Ask Mr. Sheley if he is aware of the consequences? (of filing the motion) We will be able to read and review."<br />
<br />
Sheley then acknowledges that he understands.<br />
<br />
<i>( I have a few cryptic notes again with no mention of who spoke....about a Motion to Extend, a Motion to Compel, additional discovery or affirmative defenses, trial testimony from his brother's trial. I believe these are issues that would have been addressed today until Sheley dropped his latest bombshell. I drew an arrow to the April 25 date, so evidently these issues will be addressed then.)</i><br />
<br />
<i> </i><br />
Judge Stewart says," We do still have to address this change in the law as to Mr. Vaupel. This should end Mr. Vaupel's services. "<i> </i>Stewart then ended the hearing.<i><br />
</i><br />
<i> </i><br />
Jeremy Karlin stands and asks the court to go back on record. Once we are back on record Karlin says<i>, </i><br />
" Those documents were filed under seal to preserve the jury pool."<i></i><br />
Elward is on his feet my notes just say NO<i>.</i><br />
<b>Judge Stewart says he will not protect Mr. Sheley from his decisions</b>, most were filed under seal because this was a capital case .<i>(Emphasis mine)</i><br />
John Pepmeyer asks the court to make copies of Sheley's motion....<i>(which makes the motion public record).</i><br />
<i>I honestly didn't hear the judge end the hearing again...my thoughts were more along the lines of <b>I want a copy of that motion</b>. And $73.00 later I have it! I will address Sheley's motion and the exhibits he included in another post...this is long enough. A few thoughts from skimming the motion is that Sheley says over and over again how well he has conducted himself in court....well...except for that one time when he wasn't allowed to represent himself earlier in the case. I guess starting out this hearing with "What the fuck you looking at " just might count as a second example where he couldn't control himself. Included in the exhibits with Sheley's motion are his psych evaluations....it is noted he has impulse control problems....well yeah, ya think?! Stay tuned and be sure to watch Channel 4's video under this paragraph.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<br />
****************************************************************<br />
<br />
<script src="http://www.WHBF.com/global/video/videoplayer.js?rnd=680276;hostDomain=www.WHBF.com;playerWidth=420;playerHeight=320;isShowIcon=true;clipId=5705406;flvUri=;partnerclipid=;adTag=News;advertisingZone=;enableAds=false;landingPage=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.whbf.com%252FGlobal%252Fcategory.asp%253FC%253D190186;islandingPageoverride=true;playerType=STANDARD_EMBEDDEDscript" type="text/javascript">
</script><br />
<br />
UPDATE 4/17- Here is are links to Nicholas Sheley's handwritten Pro Se Motion. I am having trouble loading it on Docstock as a whole document, so I have split it into 3 parts. Be advised that on part 1 page 22 shows up first because I missed it when scanning. I can get page 22 in it's proper spot as a whole document but not when separated as Docstock is requiring. grrrr...I WILL figure this out!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=76922495">Nicholas Sheley Handwritten Pro Se Motion part 1</a><br />
<a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=76935885">Nicholas Sheley Handwritten Pro Se Motion part 2</a><br />
<a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=76936270">Nicholas Sheley Handwritten Pro Se Motion part 3</a>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-68419779149730749972011-04-12T20:53:00.009-05:002011-07-20T02:32:26.518-05:00Nicholas Sheley's Spring Makeover....New Address, New Mugshot, New Look !<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
</div>
<br />
<b>Nicholas Sheley Moved Again... Goodbye Pontiac, Hello Stateville.</b> <br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;">
Katfish....ponders has learned that accused spree killer Nicholas Sheley, 31, was moved up to Stateville Correction Center from the Pontiac facility on April 11, 2011. I haven't heard the reason for the move yet, but would love to hear if any readers know why he was moved. Pontiac and Stateville are both Level 1 Maximum Security Adult Male facilities. Stateville is further than Pontiac from Galesburg, so apparently, the move wasn't made to put him closer to the murder trial that is expected to begin in early Fall. The trial in Galesburg will be Sheley's first murder trial related to the 2008 week-long killing spree he is accused of that left eight dead. He is expected to face at least three more trials after the Knox County case.<br />
<br />
In October 2009, Knox County Circuit Court Judge Stephen Mathers sentenced Sheley to seven years in prison for a September conviction on charges resulting from an incident at the Knox County Jail in April 2009 where he was being held on a 10 million dollar bond for murder charges . Sheley was convicted on 3 counts of Aggravated Assault, 1 count of Aggravated Battery and 1 count of Criminal Damage to Government Property. Sheley broke apart a metal chair and threw the legs at peace and correctional officers causing them injury. He also punched one of the officers. Sheley was actually sentenced to three 7 year sentences and a 1 year sentence for the Knox County Jail incident; however; Judge Mathers ruled the sentences will be served concurrently and the DOC determined Sheley is eligible for 50% time...that is why it is listed on DOC records below that his projected parole date is 10/2012. <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2009/10/nicholas-sheley-sentenced-to-seven.html">Click here</a> to read about that incident and trial.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnRJBsRbR8JJQ5J8dXPM5YGbUXIdJOhKFZe1tN3cWg6BwVDFPQ63QVSkc1WuqwNBw1wJMcwwgUZkWcgyUtY2I4XBBVBSlT0I9ycEEOtwOFymsNa-LEIm55lD_hXSGPE-PqGnY8uF1juZ1p/s1600/pub_showfront.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnRJBsRbR8JJQ5J8dXPM5YGbUXIdJOhKFZe1tN3cWg6BwVDFPQ63QVSkc1WuqwNBw1wJMcwwgUZkWcgyUtY2I4XBBVBSlT0I9ycEEOtwOFymsNa-LEIm55lD_hXSGPE-PqGnY8uF1juZ1p/s320/pub_showfront.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnNCBw55vypuyJSIxJPMUOkMgYB_bw81u5vejai0nsNMmAnb1z-OcFeeJJ0FJ7vEL-GhkL15f9tbkUUNY2ZRyaNB7NphTVUAI50bKiWFZ1xk1vD94v2kfOEKY_ywS4ALEsQEoUQJCPp6OR/s1600/pub_showside.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnNCBw55vypuyJSIxJPMUOkMgYB_bw81u5vejai0nsNMmAnb1z-OcFeeJJ0FJ7vEL-GhkL15f9tbkUUNY2ZRyaNB7NphTVUAI50bKiWFZ1xk1vD94v2kfOEKY_ywS4ALEsQEoUQJCPp6OR/s320/pub_showside.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;">
K77192 - SHELEY, NICHOLAS T.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Parent Institution: STATEVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Offender Status: IN CUSTODY </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Location: STATEVILLE </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>PHYSICAL PROFILE </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Date of Birth: 07/31/1979 </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Weight: 180 lbs. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Hair: Brown </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Sex: Male </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Height: 5 ft. 10 in. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Race: White </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Eyes: Blue </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">MARKS, SCARS, TATTOOS </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">TATTOO, CHEST - SPIDER, WOMAN,"MONICA" </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">TATTOO, ARM, RIGHT - REAPER, WIZARD, DRAGON, CRYSTAL BALL </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">TATTOO, ARM, LEFT - CROSS, RIBBON, SUN W/ FACE </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">TATTOO, ABDOMEN - "SHE" ; L FINGER: "NICK" </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">TATTOO, LEG, LEFT - NIKE SYMBOL/"JUST DO IT" </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>ADMISSION / RELEASE / DISCHARGE INFO </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Admission Date: 11/06/2009 </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Projected Parole Date: 10/17/2012 </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Last Paroled Date: </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Projected Discharge Date: 10/17/2014 </span></div>
<br />
<b> ABOUT STATEVILLE FACILITY:</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;">
The facility sits on a total of 2,264 acres of land with a 33-foot wall with guard towers surrounding it. This adult male maximum-security facility consists of a 22-bed infirmary in the health care unit and three living units that house general population, segregation, protective custody and temporary writ inmates.<br />
Stateville facility Opened: March 1925 </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
*Operational Capacity: 3,868</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;">
Level 1 Maximum Adult Male</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;">
*Current Population: 3,599</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Average inmate Age: 34</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;">
Average Annual Cost Per Inmate: $32,693.00</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRTuOR_Fp1k5g9LKu6HN2rq0twIobTOJEPs7nPInBkQlsiT5zd9BLhmeL1yr_Hv544qNoz5jeSq5p0zLJw6mBVVx3fxyUasmcsYoxA1mSHiHydyFhtPLjLQxw-I3zPY_6xg7w51xrwoln5/s1600/thumbnail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRTuOR_Fp1k5g9LKu6HN2rq0twIobTOJEPs7nPInBkQlsiT5zd9BLhmeL1yr_Hv544qNoz5jeSq5p0zLJw6mBVVx3fxyUasmcsYoxA1mSHiHydyFhtPLjLQxw-I3zPY_6xg7w51xrwoln5/s1600/thumbnail.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
I'm still working on getting Sheley's 59 page handwritten motion reviewed and scanned so I can share it here. Nicholas Sheley presented the Pro Se Motion at his last pre-trial hearing (March 29) requesting to fire his court appointed attorney and represent himself in his upcoming murder trial for the 2008 death of Ronald Randall in Galesburg, IL . Including attached exhibits, the motion is nearly 300 pages so it is taking some time to digest it all. Check back :)<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
The next hearing is scheduled for April 25.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/search/label/Nicholas%20Sheley">Prior postings about this case at katfish...ponders </a></div>
katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-4005592946080177132011-03-15T01:09:00.003-05:002011-03-16T23:21:38.194-05:00Nicholas Sheley Murder Case - IL Governor Abolishes The Death Penalty<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div> <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHtqUbGiY0Sd8bLVhooNguaJ0HpsJidzsQYr24Fs8jNM0Z16Jov9hywzDeOJciWAJk752l-gCzICXcO8RQkV9TcXyziA4ItUeiZQtLzJq1fT5XDlsIIOixEDwTYMZXLQ1qQENhQJN4UHjU/s1600/pub_showfront.asp.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHtqUbGiY0Sd8bLVhooNguaJ0HpsJidzsQYr24Fs8jNM0Z16Jov9hywzDeOJciWAJk752l-gCzICXcO8RQkV9TcXyziA4ItUeiZQtLzJq1fT5XDlsIIOixEDwTYMZXLQ1qQENhQJN4UHjU/s1600/pub_showfront.asp.jpeg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nicholas T. Sheley at Pontiac Correctional Center 2011</td></tr>
</tbody></table> It has been quite some time since I have written about the capital murder case of Nicholas Sheley who is accused of killing Ronald Randall, 65, in Galesburg, IL on June 28, 2008. I sure didn't plan to get so far behind, but Mr. Katfish has been quite ill the past several months and of course that is my main priority. I recently found out I can tap into the hospital's WiFi connection on my netbook, so here we go......<br />
<br />
Although there have been a number of hearings since my last report, not much happened during these hearings to actually progress this case towards trial, rather things have been pushed back...several times. The "wheels of justice turn slowly" is not just a cliche, it's a reality. When I last wrote about this case the court was planning for the trial to start in early 2011. Now we are looking at the Summer or possibly Fall of 2011 before this trial gets under way.<br />
<br />
<br />
When I started writing this post back on February 5 (after attending a hearing on the 4th), I had planned to try and work backwards to catch up on this case but it's just not going to happen. I'll just pick up from the most recent development that effects this case, and it's a big development !<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"> On</span><span style="font-size: small;"> March 9, 2011, </span>Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed legislation <b>abolishing the death penalty in Illinois</b>, more than a decade after the state imposed a moratorium on executions out of concern that innocent people could be put to death by a justice system that had wrongly condemned 13 men. Quinn also commuted the sentences of all 15 inmates remaining on Illinois' death row. They will now serve life in prison with no hope of parole. I'll address the effect of this legislation on Nicholas Sheley's case in this entry.</span><br />
<br />
For readers not familiar with this case, Nicholas Sheley is accused of killing eight people<i> </i>( including Randall ) in a week long killing spree during the last week of June 2008. Five of the other seven people were killed in Whiteside County, IL, a 20 year old woman, her 2 year old son and three men ages 25, 29 and 93<i>.</i> (Whiteside County is where Sheley is from.) An Arkansas couple, both age 54,visiting the St. Louis, MO area were Sheley's last 2 (alleged) victims and were killed in Festus, MO. You can learn more about the week of Sheley's alleged killing spree and the weeks leading up to to it by <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2008/10/sheleys-trail-of-terror.html">clicking here</a> to see an early post titled " Sheley's Trail of Terror".<br />
<br />
<span class="content">With the death penalty abolished in IL, the maximum penalty Nicholas Sheley (if convicted </span><span class="content">for the death of Ronald Randall </span><span class="content">) can face is a life sentence without the possibility of parole (LWOP). From what I understand, the trial should start sooner, be shorter and less expensive (if convicted, no penalty phase to decide the death penalty).</span><br />
<br />
<span class="content"></span><br />
<span class="content">Nicholas Sheley's defense most likely will consist of one lawyer instead of the three or four he has now. Jeremy Karlin is lead attorney on Sheley's defense team and would remain so. </span><span class="content">I'm not sure if the Office of the IL Attorney General would still assist the prosecution of this case, but wouldn't be surprised if they did because of the gravity of the alleged crimes. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="content">Because this is a capital case, Knox County has not been responsible for the costs of this case, funding has come from the <a href="http://www.treasurer.il.gov/programs/capital-litigation-trust-fund/capital-litigation-trust-fund.aspx">Capital Litigation Trust Fund</a>, that burden will now shift to the county and</span> the unspent money in the Capital Litigation Fund will be reallocated to pay for services for victim’s families and law enforcement training.<br />
<br />
<span class="content"></span><br />
<span class="content">In the mean time this case is status quo and will proceed as a death penalty case until the new legislation takes effect on July 1, 2011, unless the state files a motion to withdraw the death penalty before then.</span><br />
As of the February 4 hearing the next scheduled hearing in this case is a case management hearing on March 29, 2011. We should learn more then.<br />
<br />
<span class="content">A final note, Missouri has not abolished the death penalty, so Nicholas Sheley may still face death if he is convicted for the deaths of Tom and Jill Estes.....whenever his case makes it's way there.</span><br />
<span class="content"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span class="content"></span><a href="http://www.galesburg.com/editors_pick/x904834781/Death-penalty-repeal-raises-questions">Galesburg.com</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><a href="http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2011/03/quinn-signs-death-penalty-ban-commutes-15-death-row-sentences-to-life.html">Chicago Tribune</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"></div>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-61280776338503875182011-01-24T19:34:00.595-06:002011-01-25T21:22:19.164-06:00Stacey Barker Hails The Massiah!Today was another pre trial hearing in the murder case of Stacey Barker, 26, at the Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse in Lancaster, CA. Barker is accused of killing her 18 month old daughter, Emma Leigh Barker, on March 18, 2009. When I titled this story, "<b>Stacey Barker Hails the Massiah!</b>" I'm not referring to her praising the lord, Messiah, I have no idea what her religious tenets are. I'm referring to a motion her defense has filed that claims that the State of CA has violated her 6th amendment rights. I'll get into that soon, but first a little background to a case that seems to get stranger and stranger.<br />
<object height="268" id="otvPlayer" width="400"><param name="movie" value="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/static/flash/embeddedPlayer/swf/otvEmLoader.swf?version=&station=kabc§ion=&mediaId=6783557&cdnRoot=http://cdn.abclocal.go.com&webRoot=http://abclocal.go.com&configPath=/util/&site=" ></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><param name="allowNetworking" value="all"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed id="otvPlayer" width="400" height="268" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" allowfullscreen="true" src="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/static/flash/embeddedPlayer/swf/otvEmLoader.swf?version=&station=kabc§ion=&mediaId=6783557&cdnRoot=http://cdn.abclocal.go.com&webRoot=http://abclocal.go.com&configPath=/util/&site="></embed></object><br />
Barker originally reported to police that she was loading her daughter into the car after playtime at the Lancaster City Park, when she was attacked and rendered unconscious for several hours before she came to and realized her daughter was missing. After a trip to the hospital to treat her injuries, Stacey Barker was taken to the sheriff's department for questioning. Eleven hours after Emma was reported missing, Barker led law enforcement to her daughter's body that she had left in tall grass on the side of the freeway. Barker claimed her daughter's death was an accident, but because she was afraid of being blamed she disposed of her baby's body then inflicted injuries <i>( that were consistent with an attack )</i>on herself, removed and hid parts of her clothing and reported the kidnapping claim. It should be noted that Barker didn't call 911, she called her brother who made the 911 call to law enforcement. When LE arrived at the scene her brother and boyfriend were already there.<i>( Just one more thing in this case that makes you go hmmmm.)</i><br />
<br />
It was nearly a month after Emma's death, before Barker was arrested on <i>April 23, 2009</i>. The charges filed against the Stacey Barker included <u>one count of Second-degree murder</u>, <u>one count of Assault on a Child Causing Death</u> and <u>one count of Child Abuse.</u> Barker has been held at the Century Regional Detention Facility on a one million dollar bond since her arrest. Stacey Barker pled not guilty to all counts at her formal Arraignment on August 12, 2009.<br />
<br />
The proceedings today, January 24, 2011 lasted only about a half hour. Stacey Barker's case wasn't called until 11:30 a.m.. The court lists her hearing as starting at 8:30 so Tori and our other friends did have to wait a while. <i>( I know that sometimes it can be an interesting wait because the court hears other cases in the mean time, but just the same.....Thanks again guys for your time and sharing what you see and hear!)</i><br />
<br />
Defendant Barker didn't look so good when she came in today. Her hair looked like she had been wearing braids that she just took out and hadn't brushed, no makeup today either. Barker's mood seemed to match her appearance, she didn't make eye contact with her family or boyfriend in the courtroom.<br />
<br />
I almost feel like I'm putting the cart before the horse by talking about the hearing before explaining the Massiah motion the defense has filed. I'll do that and then go back to the hearing.There have been no issues raised <i>( that we are aware of )</i> regarding "Miranda" warnings in this case, but as I said above the defense has filed a "Massiah" motion to suppress any testimonial evidence gathered by <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2011/01/will-mr-x-melt-stacey-barkers-defense.html">Witness X</a> and the content of the hearing was related to the motion. Let's go over both because the Massiah doctrine supplements Miranda, even though it is a separate and distinct rule.<br />
<br />
Most US citizens know that law enforcement must give a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning" title="Miranda warning">Miranda warning</a> before subjecting someone to any interrogation when being arrested <i>( taken into custody and are not free to leave, a situation the court ruled was inherently coercive )</i>. The purpose of the warning is to ensure the accused is aware of, and reminded of, their rights under the U.S. Constitution. The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present at anytime during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him. <b>A person must clearly waive their fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and the right to an attorney before any evidence gathered in the interrogation will be considered admissible in court.</b><br />
<br />
Just as Miranda gives us Fifth Amendment protection after an arrest, according to the<i> </i><a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/massiah-v-united-states#ixzz1C0vLZwL">Massiah Doctrine</a>, after the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings (by indictment or by information, preliminary hearing or arraignment), the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to rely on counsel as the “medium” between himself and the government. Thus, once adversary proceedings have begun, the government cannot bypass the defendant's lawyer and deliberately elicit statements from the defendant himself.. Massiah is based on the right to counsel. It's application turns not on the conditions surrounding police questioning, but on whether, at the time the government attempts to elicit incriminating statements from an individual, the criminal proceedings against that individual have reached the point at which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.<br />
<br />
The difference between <i>Massiah</i> and <i>Miranda</i> is underscored by the “jail plant” situation, the case where a secret government agent is placed in the same cell with a person and instructed to induce him to implicate himself in the crime for which he has been incarcerated. <i>Miranda</i> does not apply, for the inherent coercion generated by custodial police interrogation is not present when a prisoner speaks freely to a person he believes to be a fellow inmate. Coercion is determined from the perspective of the suspect. Therefore, unless a person realizes he is dealing with a government agent, the government's efforts to elicit damaging admissions from him do not constitute “police interrogation” within the meaning of <i>Miranda</i>. <br />
<br />
However, the <i>Massiah</i> doctrine would prohibit the government from using such tactics if adversary proceedings had already been initiated against the person. But the secret government agent was not completely passive in that case; he stimulated conversations about the crime charged. <b>The Court, however, has permitted the government to place a completely “passive listener” in a person's cell and use the statements acquired by such an agent even though adversary proceedings have commenced against the person.</b><br />
<br />
In order for a court to determine that a Massiah violation has occurred two conditions must exist:<br />
<br />
1) There must have been an indictment, preliminary hearing or arraignment already held when the violation occurred..<br />
2) The informant has to be acting as a government agent, he had to have acted under the direction of the government and there is a preexisting arrangement between the informant and the police. <br />
<div style="background-color: transparent; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div>The line between “active” and “passive” agents—between eliciting incriminating statements and merely listening—is an exceedingly difficult one to draw.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court held that when an inmate working for the government actively prompts an accused to make incriminating statements, this involves active interrogation and is a violation of the accused's Sixth Amendment right to counsel (<i>United States v. Henry,</i> 447 U.S. 264, 100 S. Ct. 2183, 65 L. Ed. 2d 115 [1980]). However, when a government agent passively listens to the accused's incriminating statements, there is no violation of the accused's Sixth Amendment right to counsel (<i>Kuhlmann v. Wilson,</i> 477 U.S. 436, 106 S. Ct. 2616, 91 L. Ed. 2d 364 [1986]). <b>In <i>Kuhlmann,</i> </b><b>the Court held that, to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment, "the defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks."</b><br />
<br />
Deputy District Attorney Kelly Cromer presented one witness today. Her name is Ellen Aragon. We learn she was the DA in the case which Witness<b> X </b>reportedly<b> </b>testified for the state against,<i> in his own words</i>, " a local street gang that I was trying to get out from under...."<b> </b> Aragon said that Witness X was subpoenaed to testify in that case, it wasn't voluntary and his life and family had been threatened so he was placed in witness protection. I'll spare you a play by play of the questions Ms. Aragon was asked by DDA Cromer and Stacey Barker's Public Defender, Roberto F. Dager, because the questions were repetitive and in some cases vague, but the jest of it is....the state is trying to show that Witness X is/was NOT a government agent and the defense is trying to show that he IS/WAS.<br />
<br />
The burden is the defendants to show that a Massiah violation has occurred and to be fair their efforts have been hampered somewhat by the fact that the case, X admits testifying in, is under seal. The state gave the defense transcripts concerning X's testimony in that case and recordings of Witness X interviews with the state about testifying. Judge Zackey made it very clear that no one except Dager and his investigator are allowed to see the information and neither are allowed to even talk about the contents with anyone else, including the defendant and her family.<br />
<br />
<i>Evidently the receipt of a benefit for testifying for the state implies an informant is an agent for the state ??? It's confusing because jailhouse snitches testify all the time for benefits, I guess the question is when was the agreement for benefits made.</i> <br />
<br />
Dager tried repeatedly to get Aragon to admit that X asked for benefits<i> </i>in exchange for his testimony<i> (and convince the court?) </i>that when Witness X was put into the Witness Protection Program that was the same as receiving a benefit. Judge Zackey said that Dager's use of the term "benefits" was vague and he didn't agree that entering a witness protection program is a benefit. The next hearing is February 7, hopefully at that hearing we will learn how the judge rules on the defense Massiah motion, if Witness X will be allowed to testify and regardless of his decision a trial date will be set. Judge Zackey stated again he wanted no more delays unless for an important reason adding that this delay caused by the introduction of Witness X to this case is very important.<br />
<br />
<i>Superior Court Judge Hayden Zackey has his hands full with this decision. No one wants a do-over in the event of a conviction in this case. Constitutional violations are definitely a consideration of an appellate court. </i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2009/07/judge-continues-preliminary-hearing-in.html">Preliminary hearing coverage</a><br />
<br />
<div style="color: purple;"><a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/massiah-v-united-states#ixzz1C1GVMfsK">read more about Miranda and Massiah at answers.com</a></div><div style="color: purple;"><br />
</div><div style="color: purple;"><br />
</div>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com38tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-50727187415589742652011-01-09T01:47:00.007-06:002011-01-09T18:08:54.009-06:00A Visit to Orlando For A Hearing In The Casey Anthony Murder CaseI was fortunate to be able to spend 10 days in Tampa (Brandon), FL with family over the Christmas holiday. It was a fantastic trip....a lot of wonderful family memories were made :) However, one memory is not of time spent with my family, but a little side trip I made to Orlando, on December 20, to attend a hearing in the Casey Anthony case. Although the experience was interesting for me, the hearing ended up being pretty short and uneventful, so I decided not to take more time from my family to write about it. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWISI_BbXqB_1IShyLNOczf9ZcS3BLnGbKObxDQYusTNhuarcNzIBP5o-fA4WIfCR-FFzKbIoDIWCDoPoA5NCdu7BtcluO7VIIqyotUhJQmZHZAR9LCqsJOdEv2AyRcf87dACJr3n0jBfn/s1600/caylee+with+wings.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWISI_BbXqB_1IShyLNOczf9ZcS3BLnGbKObxDQYusTNhuarcNzIBP5o-fA4WIfCR-FFzKbIoDIWCDoPoA5NCdu7BtcluO7VIIqyotUhJQmZHZAR9LCqsJOdEv2AyRcf87dACJr3n0jBfn/s1600/caylee+with+wings.jpg" /></a></div>Casey Anthony is charged with first-degree murder in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie. She has pleaded not guilty, claiming a babysitter kidnapped her toddler. Caylee was last seen in June of 2008, but she was not reported missing until a month later. Her remains were found in woods near the family's home in December 2008. <br />
<br />
Now that we've been home a few weeks and I'm caught up on some other cases I've been following, it seems like a good time to share my Orlando experience. Before leaving IL, I had printed up directions on Mapquest with directions from my nieces home to the Orange County courthouse in Orlando. The route was a pretty direct shot, but I'd be remiss if I didn't give kudos to Mapquest for their helpful directions... for example step #10. Take the 2nd LEFT onto E LIVINGSTON ST. If you are on N ORANGE AVE and reach E ROBINSON ST you've gone about 0.1 miles too far. <i>(When you've never been to a location before, those extra details really help and Mapquest offers them through-out :)</i> <br />
<br />
Even though I drove between 70-80 mph <i>(keeping up with traffic....honestly)</i> most of way, the 90 mile trip took about 1 1/2 hours. Once I completed step 10 on my directions I noticed a sign that said "Juror Parking" leading into a parking garage, I took the turn and found a spot to park. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX0g9LJGECsgqd966Zfo4QDF51vTDPnto9U313st3zoeIgiQ9IMr9jkNeob0yd7YNS6yY0YQZQczlVQMX-uMpFcIkyIgENI6Frn78ddeScMV6lqeLQRATN_JYOzm9jRu-asRCZWj6wT0My/s1600/cths90.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="245" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX0g9LJGECsgqd966Zfo4QDF51vTDPnto9U313st3zoeIgiQ9IMr9jkNeob0yd7YNS6yY0YQZQczlVQMX-uMpFcIkyIgENI6Frn78ddeScMV6lqeLQRATN_JYOzm9jRu-asRCZWj6wT0My/s320/cths90.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Orange County Courthouse complex Orlando, FL</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Coming out of the parking garage<i>(building on left in picture)</i> on ground level, I notice the <a href="http://www.ninthcircuit.org/about/courthouses/orange/downloads/TourGuide.pdf">courthouse</a> is right in front of me (it's huge). I follow signs directing to the main entrance, right before entering, I pass Jose Baez heading in the other direction. I assume the attorneys have a different access but make a mental note that Baez has that "Dennis the Menace" type smile on his face that many <i>(including me)</i> have referred to as a "smirk".....seems that's his regular look. LOL, I bet he was an ornery kid.<br />
<br />
I head on into the courthouse through the main entrance and see a long line of people going through security. Before taking my place in line, I ask at the information desk, "Where is Judge Belvin Perry's courtroom?" Without even looking up, the employee tells me, "Up on 23". It took just a few minutes to go through the security line and then I head for the far bank of elevators that will go up to 23. Once on the 23rd floor I see Judge Perry's chamber on one side and the courtroom is on the other side of a waiting area. There are several people sitting and standing around. No one looks familiar until I notice the back of Dave Knechel <i>(aka <a href="http://marinadedave.com/">Marinade Dave</a>)</i> speaking to someone behind a pillar. I stand back until I have a chance to catch Dave's eye so that I can introduce myself to him. I then notice the person Dave was speaking with is Casey's attorney for the penalty phase, Ann Finnell. She appears to be looking for something in her briefcase so I'm not really interrupting. Right after we shook hands, a man with a walker called Dave over to him and introduced himself and his wife to Dave. Evidently a fan of Dave's blog. That's nice :). <br />
<br />
There were a dozen or so people standing and sitting around the waiting area when Jose Baez got off the elevator and says hello to Ann Finnell and Dave. Baez says the hearing is down on the 19th floor and heads back to the elevator, everyone in the waiting area follows him. Dave and I end up on the same elevator as Ann Finnell and Jose Baez, there were others but I can't tell you who because no one is familiar. From the conversation, I learned one was local media and another was Cindy Anthony's current attorney, Mark Lippman. I don't remember who said it <i>( probably JB</i> ) but there was work being done on Judge Perry's courtroom so the hearing will be held downstairs. Dave told me the courtroom on 19 is the smaller courtroom where Judge Strickland presided over the hearings in this case before he recused himself. (<i>I guess I should have asked the information guy where </i><i>Casey Anthony's hearing was instead of</i><i> Judge Perry's court. Oh well, it was an interesting ride down.)</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>When we get off the elevator, Jose Baez, Ann Finnell and Mark Lippman head on into the courtroom.<br />
Evidently the rest of us have to wait :( Moments later Cindy Anthony appears, peaks into the courtroom and is allowed in. Cindy is alone today. I wonder to myself if Cindy isn't single these days....pure speculation of course.....but the way she is dressed seems to be trying to lean towards a " younger, sexy ? " look and she may just be trying to hook up with a biker dude.. She is wearing gray jeans that are "muffin top tight". The legs of her jeans are tucked into boots that have buttons or buckles on the side. I remember them as a charcoal color with a felt or knit shaft, but have heard them referred to as black leather.<i>(I could be wrong)</i> She also has on a gray sweater with an black and purple argyle print on the front and a purple knit shirt underneath. It seems she has toned down the jewelry <u>a bit</u>, but just an FYI from one 50ish gal to another....too tight boot cut jeans do not take the place of the current trend to wear skinny jeans tucked in boots and matchy matchy gives our age away every time.he..he... I don't want to seem too harsh on Cindy because I doubt she has money to keep up with the clothing trends, just saying.... If ya can't do it right......<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
I'm pretty sure I'm not alone to speculate that Cindy's attempt at a "tight younger look" and George's repeated absence from court may be an indicator of trouble in Anthonyland. I noticed after the hearing that George Anthony authorized Lippman Law Offices, P.A. to issue a<a href="http://www.prlog.org/11159810-orlando-attorney-mark-lippman-issues-media-statement-regarding-legal-representation-in-casey-anthony.html"> media statement on December 17, 2010</a> rebutting statements George's "alleged" girlfriend, Krystal Holloway <i>(aka River Kruz)</i> made to the Sheriff department, in a February 2010 interview. The interview was released as a <a href="http://www.wftv.com/video/26174673/index.html">2 part audio</a> as part of a document dump on December 17. Who knows? The state of the Anthony's marriage really isn't relevant to the criminal case...personally, given what we know about their "history" I would have dumped him long ago. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ2qjE4JLz-s7AHZ42FXTxU3Iqe0FSmDoQDVTZmUd3iLEeWdJpdzidvszU387UDl9AYClNKQWVHgzo75la0ekdaOx_9ATXUvABf-YgbBPXqt5eZzqepQm0m2-kt1SLJp7Bpbg_aQdCcCtT/s1600/122010case-cindy+and+attorney-in-court_0008.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="193" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ2qjE4JLz-s7AHZ42FXTxU3Iqe0FSmDoQDVTZmUd3iLEeWdJpdzidvszU387UDl9AYClNKQWVHgzo75la0ekdaOx_9ATXUvABf-YgbBPXqt5eZzqepQm0m2-kt1SLJp7Bpbg_aQdCcCtT/s320/122010case-cindy+and+attorney-in-court_0008.jpg" width="320" /></a>When we<i> (the public)</i> are allowed into the courtroom Casey has already been brought in. The prosecution side <i>(on the right)</i> is pretty empty but behind the defense in the front row is Kathy Belich from WFTV, at the end of her row is a huge television camera. There are people from various media working with electronics in each row on that side as well. In the second row behind KB is Cindy and her attorney. There was another couple behind them......until they moved over to my row.....later I read the couple came down from NY for the hearing and she is a regular over at <a href="http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/12/20/caylee-anthony-case-hearing-today-on-penalty-phase/">The Hinky Meter</a>. I'm disappointed I didn't know who they were. (Waving at Kathy now!)<br />
<br />
There is a tall bald man (accompanied by a short blond woman), that Dave had spoke with earlier out in the hall, sitting in the second row behind the state. I assume he is with the media because he got into the courtroom ahead of us. Later I learn he is Jim Lichtenstein, a producer from NBC for the Today show. I've had heard this guy usually sits with Cindy Anthony in the courtroom, but not today. Dave K. took the aisle seat in the third row behind them. I take a seat in the back row <i>(after checking to make sure I have a good view of Casey if she turns to the side). </i><i><br />
</i><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi9MFW8Tibd2i5XUhWxmm1RBuU2KdVZNIIKH9J7Zao7yFLW1C9aUAKhtNUcsD9VvhRdVTRSZr2QggIUGy03YCSqrbwgxOkgfzzsKZY7X1OtAATHjFpoU4f4fzX2vhXFq0zlT-fTlBwe_Gk/s1600/casey+dec10.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="204" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi9MFW8Tibd2i5XUhWxmm1RBuU2KdVZNIIKH9J7Zao7yFLW1C9aUAKhtNUcsD9VvhRdVTRSZr2QggIUGy03YCSqrbwgxOkgfzzsKZY7X1OtAATHjFpoU4f4fzX2vhXFq0zlT-fTlBwe_Gk/s320/casey+dec10.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">December 10</td></tr>
</tbody></table>For the most part, I can only see Casey Anthony from behind, but I noticed at the hearing a week or so ago, Dec 10, that Casey seems to have lost the weight she gained during her first year or so in jail. Wonder if <a href="http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/local/Copy_of_FLJail-Insects_71046294">this</a> is a factor in her weight loss? <i>(I came across that article looking for a photo online of the courthouse. ew!)</i> I've never followed much on Casey's commissary purchases, beyond her own account in her letters to Robyn Adams, but it seems she has options beyond the meals served to prisoners at the jail, so the weight loss must be intentional.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4nJx7e43N1UfXArJrOoKLs78c6D7gm8Q7VMNQMYaK3J2Y5-cBDoBkQ-xn3z5cMurtXOJ7LT2KUKuSV5yaNSVzMbEQesspgdvNCw2YrFedNuA7b3Yc92GwxXAIuNithPOwVBI-QzO2JJej/s1600/122010case-anthony-in-court_0024.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4nJx7e43N1UfXArJrOoKLs78c6D7gm8Q7VMNQMYaK3J2Y5-cBDoBkQ-xn3z5cMurtXOJ7LT2KUKuSV5yaNSVzMbEQesspgdvNCw2YrFedNuA7b3Yc92GwxXAIuNithPOwVBI-QzO2JJej/s320/122010case-anthony-in-court_0024.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">December 20</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
Right away, I notice Casey has on the same shirt she wore at the last hearing, a long sleeve blue and white pinstripe oxford with ruffles along the buttons. Honestly, it looks like she has been sleeping in it for the past 10 days. Today Casey has a multi-level ponytail that looks thrown together. Did she even plan on attending court today? Within minutes the gallery is filled behind the state and the hearing is ready to get under way. Judge Perry calls the case at 1:31 p.m. Jeff Ashton is the only representative for the state today (<i>He looks very tired). </i>. The attorney for the Orlando Sentinel, Rachel Fugate is sitting in the well behind the state's table.<br />
<br />
This hearing was scheduled to hear a motion filed by Ann Finnell on November 23, seeking to seal the defense witness list for the penalty phase from public and media view. The motion couldn't be heard on the 10th because the media hadn't been noticed in the original motion.<i>(oops Annie, don't let Jose rub off on ya)</i> Judge Perry agreed to put a temporary seal on the list until the media had an opportunity to respond on sealing any part of the record.....and that brings us to today.<br />
<br />
This is a video of the hearing:<br />
<br />
<object data="http://www.myfoxorlando.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=6994" height="377" id="video" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450"><param value="http://www.myfoxorlando.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=6994" name="movie"/><param value="&skin=MP1ExternalAll-MFL.swf&embed=true&adSizeArray=300x240&adSrc=http%3A%2F%2Fad%2Edoubleclick%2Enet%2Fadx%2Ftsg%2Ewofl%2Fnews%2Fdc%2Fdetail%3Bdcmt%3Dtext%2Fxml%3Bpos%3D%3Btile%3D2%3Bfname%3D122010%2Dcasey%2Danthony%2Dhearing%3Bloc%3Dembed%3Bsz%3D320x240%3Bord%3D5694133974798026%3Frand%3D0%2E2539853617915743&flv=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxorlando%2Ecom%2Ffeeds%2FoutboundFeed%3FobfType%3DVIDEO%5FPLAYER%5FSMIL%5FFEED%26componentId%3D133987890&img=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2%2Emyfoxorlando%2Ecom%2F%2Fphoto%2F2010%2F12%2F20%2F122010casey%2Dhearing%2EMyFoxOrlando%5Fthumbs%5Ftmb0002%5F20101220153908%5F640%5F480%2EJPG&story=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxorlando%2Ecom%2Fdpp%2Fnews%2Fanthony%5Fcase%2F122010%2Dcasey%2Danthony%2Dhearing%3Fa&category=news&title=122010casey%2Dhearing%2Emov&oacct=foximfoximwofl,foximglobal&ovns=foxinteractivemedia&headline=Casey%20Anthony%20returns%20to%20court" name="FlashVars"/><param value="all" name="allowNetworking"/><param value="always" name="allowScriptAccess"/></object><br />
<div style="width: 450px;"><a href="http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/anthony_case/122010-casey-anthony-hearing?a">Casey Anthony returns to court: MyFoxORLANDO.com</a></div><br />
Since I included the video of the hearing and it has already been heavily covered, I won't go through a play by play of the hearing but rather just provide a summary and some highlights.<br />
<br />
Ann Finnell gave a 10 minute presentation to the court of her <a href="http://www.wesh.com/pdf/25912035/detail.html">"MOTION TO SEAL PENALTY PHASE DISCOVERY RESPONSE"</a> . Basically the defense stance is that with the excessive publicity making these witness' names public would impede Ms. Anthony's right to a fair trial and furthermore would result in a chilling effect with some witnesses being unwilling to come forward with information for fear of harassment and stalking. When Ms. Finnell was finished Judge Perry asked if there was a response from the state. Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton said no.<i>(The state already has access to the witness list so they have no stance on the sealing of the penalty phase witness list) </i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCDAlZ-KQ5E11Lhv0TZcT6DmIEhCSBRqvlZ38ni6Tuw3Q_xDRolBDcaBwMBonEddvd-ZnqXt2y6MtkCxQVAjV0MTbRgF6ilP0tQhwHBxjyjWhQDKBK8jdkpTfplp_u9WtDqxRiQY6OAmH7/s1600/122010case-anthony-in-court_0016.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="193" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCDAlZ-KQ5E11Lhv0TZcT6DmIEhCSBRqvlZ38ni6Tuw3Q_xDRolBDcaBwMBonEddvd-ZnqXt2y6MtkCxQVAjV0MTbRgF6ilP0tQhwHBxjyjWhQDKBK8jdkpTfplp_u9WtDqxRiQY6OAmH7/s320/122010case-anthony-in-court_0016.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Rachel Fugate came to the podium to argue the Orlando Sentinel's <a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/66841139/20101215-Sentinel-Motion-to-Intervene-Defense-Motion-to-Seal-Penalty-Phase-Discovery">motion to intervene</a>. Fugate argued that there should not be a blanket seal, but that the defense should argue to have certain witness's information sealed on a case-by-case basis adding the burden to prove a predjudice exists is the defense burden, not the court's.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIA88S2iM2mAkx4QNrg_FhLvbM4kJKU8d77xdJm1cak9dGlkds5SSCl514Hrm7cQXO3sZaXaxhE_eYUBe7X94xAw7Jy3iZ_H2VTS3wYXIuK5td2SylpDx4ORfHMI4buAVEZkEyeyYTfqAq/s1600/122010case-anthony-in-court_0020.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="193" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIA88S2iM2mAkx4QNrg_FhLvbM4kJKU8d77xdJm1cak9dGlkds5SSCl514Hrm7cQXO3sZaXaxhE_eYUBe7X94xAw7Jy3iZ_H2VTS3wYXIuK5td2SylpDx4ORfHMI4buAVEZkEyeyYTfqAq/s320/122010case-anthony-in-court_0020.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Oops...no talking out of turn Jose</td></tr>
</tbody></table> Just One and a half minutes into Ms. Fugate's argument, Jose Baez rose from his seat to object to the still photographer zooming in on notes his client was writing.<i> (20.33 on the video above)</i>. Immediately Judge Perry stopped Baez and reminded him court procedures 101....by pointing out that only one lawyer has the floor....and it wasn't him.! Ann Finnell quickly stood and objected. “Well,” the judge added, “unfortunately, the objection will be noted and overruled.” Ms. Fugate not only picked up her argument where she left off, she also made statements in defense of the court photographer who is a seasoned pro and challenged the defense to find an example where something like that has been published. Judge Perry gave Ann Finnell the opportunity to rebut Ms. Fugate's argument, particularly the part of her argument that the claims the defense motion is too broad.<br />
<br />
After Ms. Finnell's short rebuttal, Judge Perry says he will reserve ruling on the motion to seal penalty phase witnesses, adding the list will remain temporarily sealed until his ruling is made . <br />
<br />
Perry also reminded defense attorney Jose Baez that he has until Thursday <i>(December 23)</i> to file a motion to pursue meter reader Roy Kronk as a possible suspect in Caylee's death. Kronk found Caylee's body in a wooded area on Suburban Drive near the Anthony home. Perry said he assumed Baez had given up on that defense strategy, but Baez said he misunderstood his deadline and thought he has until December 31 to file. Judge Perry makes it clear that deadline was for motions to be heard not filed.<br />
<br />
Jose Baez was on his feet again about an issue regarding a previous sidebar ruling. Perry called the attorneys up for a short sidebar. I'm not certain, but I think the sidebar had something to do with Dr. Henry Lee. The judge told Baez to supply him with some info he needs re Dr. Lee and the hearing was over.....all 26 minutes of it. :)<br />
<br />
I almost forgot to mention....the guy sitting next to me had a small camera/video recorder in his hand throughout the hearing. Several times I thought he was going to sneak a picture of Casey, when the defense went to the stand for the sidebar he made his move. I don't know if he got the shot, but a bailiff came over and told him to knock it off.<br />
<br />
I rode down in the elevator and walked out in front of the courthouse with Dave Knechel. I met Dave for the first time in person today, but as a long time reader of his blog, I feel like I have known him for a long time so I felt comfortable enough to give him a big ole hug before I left the courthouse. Just for the record, Dave doesn't smell like dirty laundry, but very much like Polo cologne.Nice! LOL<br />
<br />
On January 7, 2011 Judge Perry issued a ruling that denied the defense motion to seal that was argued on December 20th. The order states that arguments made by Casey Anthony's attorneys fell short of the standards required to seal the list of witnesses who will be called if Casey is convicted and there is a sentencing phase.I couldn't find the order itself but here is the article that appeared in the <a href="http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-01-07/news/os-casey-anthony-sentinel-ruling-20110107_1_penalty-phase-amy-huizenga-casey-anthony">Orlando Sentinel.</a><br />
<br />
<span data-jsid="text">This case is expected to go to trial on May 9, 2011. If convicted of 1st degree murder of her daughter Caylee, Casey Anthony may face the death penalty.</span><br />
<span class="text_exposed_show"></span>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-85733927255393375672011-01-05T17:29:00.014-06:002011-01-06T22:55:51.292-06:00Will Witness X "Melt" Stacey Barker's Defense ? Chances Of A Forecasted Plea Deal Diminishing....Blizzard Hits The AV !<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQkZfhfqlYF0Wjy1grz4XS_XaH7cQamw1-pG9EPYyjmUo_G-_O2UDZc8EkQUpZKDx1-Zu8cSHLb0QMgjm19DcLf6o5YzajjOvYEv3cAnCL1Mt7R4H0smKhmHnYFbpsv-rcrkuGcjI88K4T/s1600/th_l_85a6a809c7724597851a9e9b49e4cc68.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQkZfhfqlYF0Wjy1grz4XS_XaH7cQamw1-pG9EPYyjmUo_G-_O2UDZc8EkQUpZKDx1-Zu8cSHLb0QMgjm19DcLf6o5YzajjOvYEv3cAnCL1Mt7R4H0smKhmHnYFbpsv-rcrkuGcjI88K4T/s200/th_l_85a6a809c7724597851a9e9b49e4cc68.jpg" width="147" /></a></div>When last reporting to you about the <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/search/label/Stacey%20Barker">Stacey Barker murder case</a>, we told you about a storm that was brewing in the case of the 26 year old Lancaster, CA woman who is accused of killing her 18 month old daughter, Emma, dumping the baby's body along the freeway and falsely reporting she was attacked and Emma kidnapped, on March 18, 2009. Barker has been held on a $1 million bond, in the Central Regional Detention Center in Lynwood since her arrest on April 23, 2009.<br />
<br />
There have been several delays since this case was first scheduled to go to trial last Summer. The trial is now expected to take place early 2011. The "storm" that's been picking up momentum this winter involves an inmate who exchanged written and recorded communications with Barker during their 90 mile transport each direction to Lancaster for court hearings.Over the last couple months, during the exchange of discovery some 'flurries' with potential to develop into a plea deal have blown in concerning these communications. On December 3, 2010, when Superior Court Judge Hayden Zackey scheduled the hearing for December 17, he said<i>," It's my understanding the parties are having an ongoing discussion regarding this case....we'll see if those discussions are fruitful on December 17th" adding, "Kelly will make a motion......you will make a motion, right?" DDA Cromer agreed. Zackey continued," If an agreement can't be reached and this goes to trial, January 7 will be a pre-trial hearing that will start 0 of 59." </i>The next day's headline of the <a href="http://draft.blogger.com/goog_2096510819">Antelope Valley Press (AVP)</a> was much more blunt, reading, <b> " Baby Barker's Mom Seeks Plea Deal !!" </b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCF2hZHe6zQFUbJdOZ-RiEFSS7r2oEYSqwTsBSWp_6btzdkFqdToisAaYQJwIGLWBgOoRX6ou7TAwhea-ykN0ShYG7ABL2ygCMYZE2TvMfeI4_qAn8RHbTV6ZKjFYZYoWaJmXLRXum6mOX/s1600/x+melts+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCF2hZHe6zQFUbJdOZ-RiEFSS7r2oEYSqwTsBSWp_6btzdkFqdToisAaYQJwIGLWBgOoRX6ou7TAwhea-ykN0ShYG7ABL2ygCMYZE2TvMfeI4_qAn8RHbTV6ZKjFYZYoWaJmXLRXum6mOX/s320/x+melts+2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Well...The hearing was held on December 17 at the Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse in Lancaster, CA....... One of the rulings by the court, early on in the hearing, is in reference to the inmate who may testify of his communication with the defendant. From here on, the court ruled, in court this witness will be identified as "Mr. X" or as "Witness X". Neither the content or time line of the communication between Witness X and Stacey Barker has been disclosed in open court, but when the state told the court there are 4 Audio recordings, Barker's Public Defender, Roberto F. Dager shook his head and said I only have one.....so we learned from this hearing that the winds of discovery are still blowing. <br />
<div><br />
Even though there wasn't a plea agreement reached between the parties and a court date wasn't set, this proved to be a very interesting hearing. Afterward, some are forecasting this case will develop into a full blown trial instead of a plea agreement.<br />
<br />
For some reason the next hearing is scheduled for January 24, 2011 instead of on the 7th as Judge Zackey had eluded to on December 3.<i> (I'm not sure how this affects the count? Does 0 of 59 now start on the 24th? Anyone know? That would take us into March, if so.) </i><br />
<br />
It sounds as though our "friends in the courtroom" had a long day in court on the 17th, not just because there was testimony from several witnesses, but because this case didn't come up until almost lunch time. (Again, all of you who attend, thanks so much for using your time to attend the hearings and especially for sharing what you see and hear with us.) <br />
<br />
Several of the witnesses to testify at this hearing were law enforcement who have also been present at the last several hearings.....<i>apparently in anticipation of being called to testify</i>. Detective. Sgt. Sandra Nava, Detective Sgt.Walls and a uniformed Sheriff's officer, whom we have seen in court before, but didn't know either his name or relevance to the case <i>(Both Detectives had testified at the preliminary hearing so they were familiar)</i>...The uniformed officer's name is Sims and he is a module officer in the 'high power' section of the Men's Central Jail . We'll hear more from him in a bit.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikP4lemi4Bygz2IEMv3z-BVYpywfsLh0mm2-xZRvOrponbW0aOzUTxVyxpmXp8DCgaJPSUyvCuqotf4JH040LDp2UyjuCZIC8QjLOmehDb7MYqMqm1WiGr6IN3y5pwyacg4YCS1HitH4gw/s1600/Desert+snow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikP4lemi4Bygz2IEMv3z-BVYpywfsLh0mm2-xZRvOrponbW0aOzUTxVyxpmXp8DCgaJPSUyvCuqotf4JH040LDp2UyjuCZIC8QjLOmehDb7MYqMqm1WiGr6IN3y5pwyacg4YCS1HitH4gw/s320/Desert+snow.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Tori took some very extensive notes from the testimony in this hearing. She commented that she couldn't keep up with the pace the hearing was moving. I think you'll agree, she did a great job of capturing the "climate" in the courtroom. It was a blizzard! <i></i><br />
I wanted to share this picture T sent, this is taken looking out her window in the Antelope Valley on January 2, 2011. It was a blizzard.....certainly not a common occurrence in the desert!<br />
A note of interest....January 2 is Stacey Barker's birthday........hmmmm....... is that blizzard an omen or coincidence?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="color: black;"><b>Here is Tori's report from the December 17 hearing:</b></div></div><br />
<div><div style="background-color: transparent; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">When Stacey Barker came into the courtroom, she had her hair in a pony tail, all curled with full make up on in contrast to her yellow scrubs.We were about the only ones in the gallery (the usual people) besides the defendant's family. SB came into the courtroom with a half smile looking at her family behind the defense table before she sat down next to Dager and looked straight ahead.<br />
<br />
First called to the stand is Officer Sims. Before Sims is sworn in, PD Dager asks Judge Zackey to make Detective Nava and Detective Walls leave the courtroom during Sims testimony. Dager says they going to testify and he doesn't want them to hear what Sims has to say....so they can't change their testimony. DDA Cromer told the court she needs Nava to help her with questioning. Judge Zackey announced it was his understanding Detective Walls wouldn't be testifying (Walls agreed) and decided to allow Detective Nava to stay. PD Dager said he wants it on the record that he does not like it. Judge Zackey said " Detective Nava will be under oath and I don't feel she will change her testimony based on Sims testimony." </div></div><div> <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg800VW7W1ZWddfH9ZJbz2dmwadli8PlZqNAEe3NEe_SvZ-B_CcPFTRbQoR9nyBO5gY2tXqrLOJSNymiKjdnV5GKcIpyj5galCDByWtfXTLjTSVRgd5Xk1sGhIlbHj4cma-Ko7D8iXj_Tw6/s1600/central+jail+LA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg800VW7W1ZWddfH9ZJbz2dmwadli8PlZqNAEe3NEe_SvZ-B_CcPFTRbQoR9nyBO5gY2tXqrLOJSNymiKjdnV5GKcIpyj5galCDByWtfXTLjTSVRgd5Xk1sGhIlbHj4cma-Ko7D8iXj_Tw6/s200/central+jail+LA.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Men's Central Jail</td></tr>
</tbody></table><span style="color: black;"> Officer Sims is sworn in and takes the stand. Cromer asks him about his job, then she asks him how he knows Mr.X. Sims said he is an officer in the unit that housed Mr.X in Men's Central Jail. The unit is a Protective custody unit and Mr.X is classified as a "High Power Inmate". Next, Kelly Cromer asked Sims why Mr.X contacted him? Sims said X told him that he had information on a case and wanted him to contact the homicide detectives working the case for him. Sims said he told X ok, he wasn't sure what he could do, but he would try.</span><br />
<div style="background-color: transparent; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br />
<span style="color: black;">Now it's the defense' turn for cross examination. Roberto Dager asked Sims if he and X are friends? Sims replied, " There is a line of separation between an inmate and officer " adding," I don't cross that line with any inmate." Dager asked, " Well do you have friendly conversations with him? " Sims said, "What do you mean?" Dager continued," Like do you talk about football and stuff?" Sims said "Football ?....No..it's just a inmate/officer relationship sir!</span><br />
<br />
Dager asks Sims," Do you trust Witness X? Sims said "I trust no one sir." Next, Mr.Dager asks the officer if X has discussed the reason he is in jail with him? Sims said," Not really." Dager makes several attempts to ask Sims a question, but NO one can understand what he's asking....evidently Judge Zackey understood where the attorney was trying to go....he asked the question in a way that the officer and the rest of us understand...Dager wants to know how was it that every time SB and X had to go to court, they always seemed to be next to each other on the bus? Sims said," I don't know, X may have asked the transport driver or the bus officer if they could sit next to each other." Dager replies, "Oh, so you get to pick your own seat on the bus?" Sims said," NO." Dager asked, " Then why was HE allowed to pick where he sat?" Sims told Dager he didn't know, adding he wasn't the bus officer. Now PD Dager asks Officer Sims, "Did you put X in contact with Detective Nava at some point ? " Sims said, Yes, he set up the call between the detective and X. Dager asks," How many calls did he get from Nava? Sims said, "A few." Dager gets in a few more questions (didn't note) and then we're told to go to lunch and be back at 1:30pm</div></div><br />
While having lunch we discussed the possibility that Witness X is at the courthouse and going to be on the stand today. We heard X mentioned and someone said "You can ask HIM that question yourself" but don't remember what question it was or who asked it because things were going fast!<br />
<br />
Sure enough, when we go back after lunch, the Judge asks everyone in the front rows to move back 2 rows....then they bring out Mr.X... He is in chains so tight that his hands look deformed in front of chest....he is wearing glasses and doesn't look as evil as he did the first time we saw him....I think he knows that we are the 'bloggers' because he looks right at us and SMILES a broad smile <i>(admittedly, no one else was really there in the gallery)</i> We noticed when X came in, he and SB also shared looks, he had a joker grin on his face and she just had a sour look on her face. Witness X has been housed at The California State Prison at Lancaster since entering into the 10 year plea agreement with the state.<br />
<br />
<div style="color: black;">Judge Zackey tells the inmate he will be identified as Witness X from now on.</div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;">DDA Kelly Cromer starts the questioning of this state's witness, " How did you meet Ms.Barker? Mr.X said he "conversated" with her on the bus ride to court, she was in the CAGE next to his cage. He said that she started talking about her case and at first, he thought she was innocent.</div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;">Kelly asks X, " How did you come to talk to with Detective Nava?" Mr X replied he no longer believed Stacey Barker's story of what happened because she had told him so many different stories of what happened on every bus ride. Mr.X emphasized that he just wanted justice for a dead child.....so no matter how much drama he had to go through it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. </div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;">Next Cromer asks Witness X if he works for the Government in any official way? NO was his answer. </div><div style="color: black;">Kelly asked," Are you a Agent for the Government?" Again, X replied NO.</div><div style="color: black;"> "Did you get any special deals for your testimony against Ms. Barker?" X replied," No I didn't , I did not ask for anything in return." </div><div style="color: black;">Cromer asked a few other questions and then PD Roberto F. Dager is on cross....</div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;">Dager starts, "WITNESS X, How did you come in contact with Detective Sandra Nava?" Witness X relies, " I had been talking with Stacey Barker......she loves to talk about her case......I started not believing her story and asked to talk to the Detectives working her case."</div><div style="color: black;">Dager questioned X further, "So you talked to Nava and told her that you had information from Stacey Barker about this case and you wanted to try to get more out of her?" Witness X answers,"Yes." Mr. Dager asked X, "What did Sandra Nava say during your phone call?" X said, "She wasn't interested in this information , but she said she would contact the District Attorney and ask if they needed what he knew or thought he could get from her." </div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;">Dager then asked X some (<i>allegedly )</i> dumb questions.<i>8D</i> Witness X ( and others) looked dumbfounded as to what Dager was asking. Judge Zackey asked the question another way and X, without missing a beat, said OH, Ok and answered the question, then shook his head and said "This guy is making me dizzy" ....Judge Zackey asked X if he wanted some water and X said "Yes, please". LOL</div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;">Dager started questioning X about how he got next to SB on the bus. Witness X answered," Because I asked and you know......they know I don't see girls that often, so it was nice."</div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;">Dager asked X, "Why did you want to get information from Ms. Barker? X answered, " Because, like I said before, I started to think she was guilty and if she was, I wanted her to spend the rest of her life in jail!" </div><div style="color: black;">Next, PD Dager asked witness X," Why were you in love with her? " Kelly Cromer said, "OBJECTION!" ...X answered anyway, laughing, he said, " NO WAY. " Dager fired back, " Then why did you want her in jail for life?" X said, " Because I thought it was the right and moral thing to do for this child. I am against abuse and murder of women and children. </div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;">Dager kinda smirked like sure buddy.....</div><div style="color: black;">"So you get what you want, huh?" Mr X said," No." Dager asks X if the Bus driver knows he is trying to get information from Stacey Barker?" This time X said," Yes." Dager says, "Oh.... so that is why you got the seating?"</div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;">Dager then asked X how long he has been in the system. X said, "Since 1993."</div><div style="color: black;">PD Dager- "How long was your first stint in prison?"</div><div style="color: black;">Mr.X-..."About 4 years."</div><div style="color: black;">PD Dager-"And the second time?"</div><div style="color: black;">X-" About 5 years, I don't know something like that."</div><div style="color: black;">PD Dager- "So you know the system and know how to work it...</div><div style="color: black;">DDA Cromer Objects..argumentative! Judge Zackey, "Sustained."</div><div style="color: black;">PD Dager moves on..."How many times have you been to court here?" Mr.X replies,"A lot."</div><div style="color: black;">Next Dager said to X, "So you have a friend in lock up that can do things for you? X replied," I have no friend here. I think all the officers don't really like me." Dager continues, "What about (? ), a lock up officer at the court that is a woman. You say on tape to Stacey Barker that you can get special treatment from her." Witness X said, "What... like extra lunch or what kind of special things??"? Dager said, "Sure." X said, "No, nothing special, I eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a apple, just like everyone else!"</div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;">Mr.Dager seems to finally come to the point he is trying to make when he says, "Do you know what a SNITCH IS?" Mr.X said, "Sure." Kelly spoke up and said, " DEFINE Snitch....I am sure Mr.Dager can."</div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;">Barker's Public Defender, Dager, then asks X, " Are you a jailhouse informant and have you testified as an informant in other cases? X said, " I testified in one other case." Dager asked X," Did you get anything special for that testimony?" Witness X answered,"No." Dager asks," What about the apartment and money? Mr.X replies," Oh. Well, I was in the witness protection program that is why."</div><div style="color: black;">Dager asks/states,"So you gave information on the MEXICAN MAFIA?" X replied," No, I gave information on the gang I was in (<em> that was affiliated with the Mexican Mafia</em>)." Dager asks X, "What kind of gang was that?" Witness X told Dager, "It was a local street gang that I was trying to get out from under...."</div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;">Dager asks X if he has Agent status? X says, "No, I'm not a Agent." </div><div style="color: black;">Dager said," Then why on the tape do you ask, 'Do I get a badge'? and one of the officers said," Ok, you'll get a badge?" X laughed and said, " That was a joke..." </div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;"> PD Dager now asks, "Who suggested you wear a wire? X said he did. Dager said, "Who wired you?" Witness X says, " It wasn't really a wire, it was a tape recorder that was in my pocket." Dager, "Did they tell you how to question her?" X said," The only thing they told me was to let her talk, do not question her about her case, just let her do the talking and if she goes on to other things just guide her back to her case."<br />
</div><div style="color: black;"><em>Apparently Mr. Dager has a hearing problem, he asks again," </em>So they told you what to ask her?" Witness X said,"NO, They me NOT to question her, just let her talk, she does talk a lot." Dager asked X, "Who wrote who first? X said, "She wrote me first."</div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;">Next, Dager asked X about his other case. X said his first trial hung and when it was going to go to trial again he was offered 10 years...Dager asks," How does a 25 to life 3rd strike felon get a deal for 10 years? X told Dager, he was offered that and it was 'sweet' so he took it.</div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><i>Obviously, Dager is wanting to know if (or imply that) the DA on that case gave X a sweet deal in the other matter because he was working Stacey Barker for the state. X was relaxed on the stand and did not get mad at the questions asked. He kinda laughed at a lot of them asked by Dager. When X answered some of the questions, SB would make a look and lean in to Dager's ear and tell him things. X did not give Dager an INCH...he stood his ground, it's obvious he knows his way around the court.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<div><div style="background-color: transparent; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><div style="color: white;"><span style="color: black;">Detective Sandra Nava is next on the stand. The state only has a few questions for Nava, just foundational things like credentials, involvement with the case......</span></div><br />
When Dager does cross, he asks Nava most of the same questions he asked X.... about the wire, how many times was X on the bus when he had no hearing (6 to 8 times)...Nava was only on the stand for a short time...<br />
<br />
The last witness called was Ted Swanson, again, the state just laid out the foundation for Swanson's testimony. He was the prosecutor on X's most recent criminal case. Swanson was asked by Dager if he had given X any reward for ratting on Barker? Swanson said, No, he didn't. At that time he didn't even know what or who X had information about, he was just working X's case from the file...<br />
<div><div style="background-color: transparent; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">Dager asks Swanson how does a 25 to life felon get a 10 year sentence? Swanson said that the 3rd strike law is based on the merits of the case..(3 strikes law has changed since it's inception) Dager asks Swanson why X said "he got a sweet deal" and Swanson said, "Well, anything other then life is a sweet deal, I would guess."<br />
<div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;"><i>Dager is taking X's words and phrases as a man of 45-50 or so would, some of the things that X said are in street terms and young adult lingo. I am sure Dager doesn't know that. Sweet deal to Dager means X g</i><i></i><i>ot some type of consideration for ratting SB out....To X it means....hell yeah, sweeeettt (good) I don't have to do life behind this POS child molester. </i></div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;"><i>For those who don't know about X's 3rd strike, it was a charge of robbery from an incident with a registered child molester who had tried to arrange private guitar lessons with Witness X's daughter. According to X, a new trial could have gone either way because witnesses were caught in lies and other things. Reportedly, the jury was hung in a 7 to5 split to convict...when they went to the table the state may have thought it better just to make a deal with him given almost half of the last jury was ready to acquit X. </i></div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black;"><i>Again, Dager seems to think ( or imply) that Swanson's boss made a deal with X for the information against SB but as Swanson said " I knew little or nothing about what information X had " so Dager is going to interview Swanson's boss to see if he might have made a deal with X. As desperate as this may seem, the defense really must try to discredit this testimony.....particularly if it supports statements Barker made to law enforcement before she was arrested.</i></div><div style="color: black;"><a href="http://my.nowpublic.com/culture/stacey-barker-wants-make-deal#ixzz1A8G2g6Li"></a></div></div></div><br />
Dager told the court he wants to talk to X's Public Defender on the that case, the DDA Swanson's boss and he also wants to revisit previously filed motions.....Change Of Venue, Excluding media, etc... Judge Zackey said that can all be done on the 24th.... this was just a fact finding hearing and that he would offer a ruling next month. Should he find the inmate was acting as a government agent, Zackey said he suspects his only order would be that all audio tapes be given to Dager before trial.. ( Perhaps the state has just turned over the one audio recording they plan to use at trial ?) " The reality is, the information gathered by this witness was recorded " Judge Zacky said adding, "The documents and recordings speak for themselves."</div></div><div><div style="background-color: transparent; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br />
We should learn more at the hearing on the 24th.....Will witness X 's testimony and communications with SB be allowed at trial? Will there be a trial?.....Or, once the blizzard has blown over will this case result in a plea deal? If only we knew a weatherman who could predict this for us......</div></div>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-14751216502913685512010-12-29T22:04:00.002-06:002010-12-29T22:16:10.809-06:00Mark Jensen 2008 Murder Conviction Affirmed !<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvKUdeeSVvzA-8xMQT6yCAXFRTzeK5DH69VmSwgLnnsrZZZhMYjmJwwSleYup5LO5HZXbr4k3YWeIGQ5UL7IkSPRmy04dJLQIRz31wWnZcbW8yCqyIn3kr5n4ImlVqFYZbyP0Wo34njQ9J/s1600/gavel+pounding.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvKUdeeSVvzA-8xMQT6yCAXFRTzeK5DH69VmSwgLnnsrZZZhMYjmJwwSleYup5LO5HZXbr4k3YWeIGQ5UL7IkSPRmy04dJLQIRz31wWnZcbW8yCqyIn3kr5n4ImlVqFYZbyP0Wo34njQ9J/s1600/gavel+pounding.gif" /></a></div>On December 29, 2010 the Wisconsin Supreme Court of Appeal filed their <a href="http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=58315">decision </a>in Mark Jensen's appeal of his 2008 conviction for the 1998 murder of his wife, Julie Jensen.<br />
<br />
In it's decision the court stated, "Mark D. Jensen appeals from a judgment of conviction for the first-degree intentional homicide of his wife Julie Jensen contrary to <span style="text-transform: uppercase;">Wis. Stat. </span>Jensen presents many arguments on appeal, none of which persuade. We affirm."<br />
<br />
I included a link to the court's decision above for those anxious to read the decision for themselves. I do intend to write more about the ruling, after pondering it a few more times. It is lengthy. I just wanted to let you know that Mark Jensen's conviction and life sentence stands!<br />
<br />
This case's status is now listed as PR,<i> </i>Pending Remittitur<i>,</i> due by January 28,2011.<br />
<i>(PR is case status indicating that a decision has been issued and the case is waiting for the case record, where one was filed, to be returned to the circuit court, or the file to be closed, if there is no case record.)</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>Given that the loss of Julie's life so outweighs any victory this ruling provides to Special Prosecutor Robert Jambois and his co-counsel Angelina Gabriele or Julie's loved ones, I don't know if congratulations are appropriate, but I hope that they all will have a long earned respite from the stress of this quest for justice that's been battled for over a decade. You have all done Julie's memory justice!<br />
I will never forget the statement given by the prosecution after Jensen's conviction in 2008 and want to share it with you:<br />
<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sm3QxwYYZqQ?fs=1&hl=en_US&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sm3QxwYYZqQ?fs=1&hl=en_US&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
. <br />
The <a href="http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/112609539.html">Associated Press</a> reports that Mark Jensen's attorney, Christopher Rose, says he'll ask the state Supreme Court to take the case.....<i>not a big surprise</i>.katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-89015243428368168292010-12-10T03:02:00.006-06:002010-12-10T20:43:40.264-06:00Will It Be a Cookie or a Kookie Defense? Continuing.... The Justice For Caylee Anthony Saga- UPDATED<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWeO6gUUDFWTEEaSbSCqOELjphmihooX3hsPZY6AQqBB3Pn7MvVBPNyepcCU5TcVafMes9YYWbPaoJOXgmYQQunC2GnNljxt1ZzTqDUwUQaVd3qhdBD1RDjFeSuDnzHh4Psw4Xl5bZierF/s1600/knight+w+bride.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWeO6gUUDFWTEEaSbSCqOELjphmihooX3hsPZY6AQqBB3Pn7MvVBPNyepcCU5TcVafMes9YYWbPaoJOXgmYQQunC2GnNljxt1ZzTqDUwUQaVd3qhdBD1RDjFeSuDnzHh4Psw4Xl5bZierF/s1600/knight+w+bride.jpg" /></a></div>There has been talk throughout the kingdom in the mainstream media and on the internet about what defense strategy <i>Casey's 'Ever Changing' Defense Dream Team</i> plans to use when / if this case goes to trial in May 2011. I personally don't envision Casey Anthony agreeing to any plea bargain, but for those that do, just for the purposes of this post, let's assume this case is going to trial. <b>:)</b> Because of FL's Sunshine laws, the media's extensive coverage of the discovery, and Casey's media-shy defense team we've been given more than a few clues as to possible strategies that might be used to defend <i>"Princess Casey" from the state's evil henchmen.</i><i><br />
</i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
It's so ironic that even though neither Cheney Mason or Jose Baez seem to miss a chance to 'court the press' from the courthouse steps, they don't like the media and public speculating about their case...... screw that.... I haven't ventured into the Anthony kingdom for a while so it's time to check in.....and I have some thoughts I want to share about Casey Anthony's possible defenses based on what we know from all those clues :)<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-size: 100%;">Princess Casey's newest minion er.. advocate, Ann Finnel</span></span>l, filed a motion<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-size: 100%;"> </span></span>on November 23 that attempts to seal the names of the defense' mitigation witnesses (those who they would call to testify in the penalty phase if Casey is convicted of capital murder). Judge Perry ruled at the hearing on November 29 that the penalty phase witness list would be temporarily sealed until December 20, when the media could respond as they had not been served a notice of hearing . <span style="font-size: 100%;">Ann Finnell </span>noticed the media in her Amended Notice of Hearing, so her motion to seal can be heard on December 20, at 1:30 PM. <i>I personally have no position as to how Judge Perry rules on Miss Finnell's motion, but I do hope to be able to attend that hearing in person :)</i> <i>I hear it's a popular Florida tourist attraction.</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhah4G_JiGAIbrlVRR0DD4t0HtBu_gphoa1B2S7WT_9StWDD37xK-_0Icb3aYKvQGZKEf_ZORpHzOsRx16eMPA0tjQYg7GI_zIjIxi_yLGI_BqiRTqUbj_55s8ed832tsdYxepbgOdJSvob/s1600/B+dancing+man.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="143" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhah4G_JiGAIbrlVRR0DD4t0HtBu_gphoa1B2S7WT_9StWDD37xK-_0Icb3aYKvQGZKEf_ZORpHzOsRx16eMPA0tjQYg7GI_zIjIxi_yLGI_BqiRTqUbj_55s8ed832tsdYxepbgOdJSvob/s200/B+dancing+man.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div>This past week, Jose Baez has been dancing around Judge Perry's recent <a href="http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Motion-1203.pdf">order</a> for them to disclose information to the state about their expert witnesses. Jeff Ashton felt it necessary to file<a href="http://www.wftv.com/pdf/25996756/detail.html"> A Motion For Clarification/To Compel Compliance With Order For Additional Discovery </a> after Jose Baez e-mailed him a list of their expert witnesses with just their mailing addresses and "field of their anticipated testimony", purporting to Ashton he was in compliance with the court's order. The judge's ruling, in response to the state's original Motion To Compel Additional Discovery, <a href="http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Motion-1203.pdf"><u>ordered the defendant to provide, as to it's expert witnesses, " the subject matter of what they will be testifying to and their area of expertise."</u></a> Ashton's motion includes a stream of e-mails exchanged between him and Baez over the course of an hour from the time he received the first e-mail from Baez until Jose eventually wrote some snarky comments on the original email prompting Ashton to write the new motion to clarify/compel. I recommend reading the motion for yourself but here is an example from the list:<br />
<b> </b><br />
<b> DR HENRY LEE (criminalist: He inspected the car and was at the evidence</b><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b> inspection and inspected the scene.ALL OF WHICH YOU ALREADY KNOW)</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">University of New Haven</div><div style="text-align: center;"> Forensic Science Program</div><div style="text-align: center;">300 Orange Avenue</div><div style="text-align: center;">West Haven, CT 05616</div><br />
Despite Jeff Ashton's efforts to remain professional in the e-mails, Baez comes off as making boyish taunts. My interpretation of what Baez is <i>really</i> saying , " <i>nanabooboo......I know something that you don't and I'm going to stretch this out as long as I can because I like to see you squirm.</i>" Whatever....not the first time a lawyer acted childish, I do give kudos to Mr. Ashton for staying on task. One more thing....does anyone else find it hysterical that Dr. Lee's address is Orange Avenue? Cracked me up when I saw that, life can throw out some funny shit! (see update below for how the court resolved this issue)<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-size: 100%;"></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz1stKQyVgjbq0IqIT8ODLhap4XNZ1r94EfJ2o1SQLe8L8YaJNBq9wQsF9YXgF0aUU0hhevfwhW2Xj62Ndzo9xlp9AYRQ1qabMWhaTXBRGl1jzwqfIFc43Aw5oTTjAPtc9-fKsSsLDRoyI/s1600/fighting+a+losing+battle.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="169" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz1stKQyVgjbq0IqIT8ODLhap4XNZ1r94EfJ2o1SQLe8L8YaJNBq9wQsF9YXgF0aUU0hhevfwhW2Xj62Ndzo9xlp9AYRQ1qabMWhaTXBRGl1jzwqfIFc43Aw5oTTjAPtc9-fKsSsLDRoyI/s200/fighting+a+losing+battle.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div>Of course the defense has no obligation to put on a "defense" of any kind. It's the prosecution's burden to prove the capital murder charges against Casey Marie Anthony, 25, for the 2008 murder of her two year old daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony. Some say the "best defense" would be to try to raise doubt about the credibility of as many of the state's witnesses as they can, whether it be the experts, law enforcement or civilians and stay away from too much of the "Casey's innocent" jazz or trying to defend her lies, that's a losing battle. <br />
<br />
I see the defense also filed their <a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=64604166">Amended Defense Expert Witness List</a> last week. Strangest thing......it looks just like the list Baez sent to Jeff Ashton except instead of their area of expertise in parenthesis next to their names, on this list, it just says (EXPERT). Goodness.....they put a lot of effort into complying with the judge's order, didn't they? At any rate, It looks like Casey should have a mighty enough round table to wage this battle without having to blame someone else for killing Caylee......although I won't be the least bit surprised for the defense to go there. Their main goal should be to save Casey's life. But rumors are swirling that Casey Anthony's defense may want a win bad enough to forsake another for their beloved princess. ~ alas we shall see what the future holds ~<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=64604166"></a></b><br />
From the civilian portion of the state's witnesses, George, Cindy and Lee are most likely to be thrown under the bus. Actually, if damaging the Anthony's credibility is part of the strategy, gauging from the things Casey said about her family to her pen pal Robyn and Cindy Anthony's behavior in the courtroom along with the letters she's written to Casey in jail, "the plan" has already been implemented. I do have sympathy for the Anthonys, they have suffered great losses, but regardless, I don't believe much they have to say. I just don't buy, even for a second, that Cindy believes Caylee is still alive.<br />
<br />
I also don't see any benefit to the defense for Cindy to say that under oath other than to hurt her own credibility.....although the thought crossed my mind that the damage to her credibility may be just a bonus of claiming Caylee is alive.<i> It seemed to me she may have even caught the defense off gaurd with that one. </i>What occurred to me is Cindy was awarded disability payments through her job over 2 years ago because of the emotional trauma she was going through. <i>I want to be clear it's not for me to judge whether Cindy's current mental disposition qualifies her for disability or not, that's for her doctor and whoever pays her the benefits to decide. </i>Private LTD insurance companies usually evaluate clients at least once a year to determine ongoing eligibility for benefits.....if they don't believe her by golly, she can just direct them to the tape of that hearing....the whole world knows she's crazy. LOL just saying...<br />
<i></i><br />
<br />
Enough catching up, I'd like to talk defense strategy. For your convenience (and mine) I separated these defense strategies into two categories, the <b>Cookie Defense Category and </b><b><b>Kookie Defense</b> </b><b>Category</b>.<br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<b> </b>Defenses<b> </b>falling<b> </b>into the<b> Cookie Defense</b> <b>Category</b> are ones that were brought up in Casey's jailhouse letters to 'Cookie' aka Robyn Adams.<br />
They are really excuses more than defenses but they're possibly very helpful to the defense team when preparing mitigation. I know we're supposed to believe this correspondence with Cookie is nothing more than the result of boredom and the need for human contact, but it may also be Casey's way of taking control, writing these contraband letters. I'm not saying these letters were 'intended for release' but she is smart enough to know it's a possibility......besides if they did get released.....at least she gets to talk, something Casey complained about during the last jailhouse visit with her parents. "NOBODY IS LETTING ME TALK!" A lot of the stuff Casey wrote did seem to be just bored chatter, but oddly enough, out of the many letters that Casey wrote to 'Cookie' she managed to condense most of the 'good stuff' into one eleven page letter. How convenient :) From here out I'll just refer to those 11 pages as <a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=66051152">'the cookie letter'.</a> <br />
<br />
Even though <b>"the nanny did it"</b> defense has been a leading 'contender' for a Casey Anthony defense since the first day Caylee was reported missing, the defense have been kinda stuck with this defense since the princess came up with that fable before she thought she "needed" a lawyer. For some reason the cookie letter seems to let the nanny off the hook.....kinda....so Zany kidnapped Caylee but according to Casey she wasn't responsible.....for something??? : ( On page 10 of the cookie letter, Casey wrote, <i>"You want to know something? I know that Caylee's nanny, the "real" Zenaida, the girl who was my friend for 4 years, I know in my heart that she's not responsible and I don't blame her for not showing her face.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Casey continued rambling to Cookie, </i><i>would you be wanting to sit here with me for something you didn't do?</i><i> Considering the circumstances, you technically are and it sucks and I know this goes without saying, but outside of myself and my legal team, not a soul knows this. I was going to take Caylee and move away. Unfortunately, my plans got beyond tangled when Zany wouldn't tell me where she and Cays were. I had asked her to take Cays for a few days so I could put the rest of our stuff together, money I had saved, new clothes, new everything. <b>That's why I waited to report her missing, because she was and she wasn't. </b></i><br />
<br />
See...maybe Casey wasn't lying about a Zany (She just wasn't willing to give all of the details to help get her missing daughter back?) and see.....there was a reason for not reporting Caylee missing. Jose said there would be compelling reasons for that. NOT!<br />
<br />
Another 'Casey clue' to a cookie defense are the <b>sexual abuse allegations</b> Casey made against her brother Lee and father George on pages 8 and 9 of the cookie letter. Once again, I don't think these allegations are helpful as a defense in the guilt phase, but may come in handy for mitigation. Here are some exerpts from those pages:<br />
<br />
Anthony stated in the letters that she's an emotional wreck and said she was sexually abused.<i>"I woke up night after night with my sports bra lifted over my chest or if I had a regular bra, it would be unhooked," </i>Anthony wrote. She claimed her brother would walk into her room at night and feel her breasts.<i>"This went on for over three years before I finally stood up to Lee and told him if he ever came in my room again, I'd kill him,"</i> Anthony said she informed her mother about the incidents, but that Cindy Anthony turned on her.<i>"When I told my mom about it two years ago, she made excuses, saying that he was sleepwalking. Not only did she say I was lying, but when I explained everything, her reaction was literally like a knife in my chest: So that's why you're a whore?" </i> <br />
<br />
Anthony also claimed she thought her father, George Anthony, did the same things to her when she was much younger. She wrote," <i>Over the past few months, I've been having really vivid dreams, and it's obvious that they are dreams of things that have already happened. I think my dad used to do the same thing to me. I can see him in my room, exactly the way it was when I was in elementary school and everything gets fuzzy. But I wake up feeling both sore and sick to my stomach, the way I used to feel growing up. Maybe that's part of the reason I have so much anxiety with my parents."</i><br />
<br />
I think the content of these jailhouse letters do reflect some mental illness issues but not to the legal definition of insanity. While being sexually abused as a child doesn't excuse killing your child, this little tidbit could be compelling evidence if there is a penalty phase. Childhood sexual abuse could go a long way in mitigating Casey's promiscious behavior before and after Caylee's disappearance, an explanation that might 'soften' the defendant a bit.....make her life worth saving. Having said all that, IMO, the abuse allegations Casey made against George and Lee seem contrived to me......but then I can't think of a single instance where Casey Anthony has told the truth. Can you? It's all the world as Casey sees it.<br />
<b></b><br />
<br />
The second category is the<b><b> Kookie Defense</b> </b><b>Category</b><b>.</b>The defenses in a Kookie Defense category are those that are well....kookie!<br />
<br />
The most popular Kookie defenses is the <b>"Somebody Else Did It Defense"</b>. Roy Kronk has been a strong contender for blame since he reported finding Caylee's skull and ultimately her remains on Suburban drive. At the last hearing when asked about their pending Motion in Limine, defense counsel advised the court they would make a decision that day whether they would withdraw it and refile it closer to trial. In Judge Perry's order on his rulings from the hearing on November 29, the court advised the defense to carefully consider before withdrawing their Motion in Limine to Introduce Prior Bad Acts and Other Circumstantial Evidence pertaining to Roy Kronk, reminding them of the established deadline for hearing motions. It's all malarky anyway. I tried without success to look up the date of deadline for hearing motions. Anyone know off hand?<br />
<br />
When asking the court for more investigative hours, Casey's defense was forced to admit they have spent over $8,000 on a investigation (fishing expedition) to find a searcher from TES who will say they searched the exact spot on Suburban that Caylee's remains were found. If they can get someone to say they searched that area when Casey was in jail and Caylee wasn't there ....they would prove Casey couldn't have put her there.....but that doesn't mean she didn't kill her and someone else put her there. This all goes back to the battle of the experts....not some anonymous searcher.<br />
<br />
According to <a href="http://www.wftv.com/news/26035088/detail.html">WFTV</a>, <i>On December 6, Casey Anthony's defense received more evidence from prosecutors in her murder case. Among the 119 pages of documents are Texas EquuSearch documents from volunteer Laura Buchanan. Buchanan is under investigation by the Orange County Sheriff's Office for allegedly falsifying documents to help Casey. She claims she and others searched the woods, three months before Caylee's remains were found there, and found nothing.</i><i> Investigators say the area was under water at that time.</i><br />
<br />
Judge Perry has ruled the defense must give the state a list of witnesses, as a result of the EquuSearch document review, by December 31 and any depositions of those witnesses must be completed by March 2011. Casey Anthony's defense team claims to have found 150 new EquuSearch witnesses who searched the exact area months before where Caylee Anthony's remains were found and sent its private investigator, Jeremy Lyons, to talk to them. Yep,that's where that $8,000 went, and get this.....Assistant State's Attorney Linda Drane Brudick told the judge the number of new possible witnesses was greatly exaggerated publicly by the defense."When I asked Mr. Mason about that he told me he believed there would be 6 to10 individuals that may qualify as having relevant information." More malarky!<br />
<br />
Another person who is a strong candidate ( and Cindy Anthony's personal favorite) for scapegoat is Jessie Grund, Casey's onetime fiance and suspected baby daddy. I think he has been on Cindy and Casey's shit list ever since he had a DNA test done that proved he wasn't Caylee's father.....some think the reason Casey went to the Grund's home, before anyone realized that Caylee was missing, was to try and get some evidence to plant and incriminate Jessie for Caylee's death. In the Cookie letter Casey mentioned that Jose had tried to get some DNA from Jessie.....wisely he didn't comply. There are rumors swirling about other attempts to gather DNA and finger prints from Jessie but I'll leave that subject be for now, until we see what comes of the allegations. If Jessie's DNA or prints are found on the shorts and blanket (?) that the defense sent out for testing recently we will likely hear more, until then........<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWeJXulSxmLMrK7wgwIDl9tfWIE0olh_rbsNcZHc9Agn_x-BoSaGaOu-zQDUWF82xDUB99KW-uE3pLsJgquBKn0o0lbM7mGChDx2MSJvAdoRHsHumQLc5JP5t6JuGZRac1LA12CL17o5_h/s1600/rupunzel.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="140" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWeJXulSxmLMrK7wgwIDl9tfWIE0olh_rbsNcZHc9Agn_x-BoSaGaOu-zQDUWF82xDUB99KW-uE3pLsJgquBKn0o0lbM7mGChDx2MSJvAdoRHsHumQLc5JP5t6JuGZRac1LA12CL17o5_h/s200/rupunzel.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div><br />
<i>The princess is growing her hair....</i><br />
<i>a back up plan in the making....</i><br />
<i>lest </i><i>the jury of her peers doesn't buy....</i><br />
<i>the kookie defense her dream team is tak</i><i>ing. </i><br />
<i> </i><i> </i><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>update 12/ 10</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">There was a hearing at 5pm est for the court to clarify it's order of November 29 which directed the defense to share more information with the state about their expert witnesses. The hearing was scheduled to respond to the state's motion to clarify/compel filed by ASA Jeff Ashton yesterday, after an hour of back and forth emailing with Jose Baez. Judge Perry was a few minutes late....<i>made them wait</i></span></span>. He's a man of few words, he just asked a few questions and made a new ruling and the hearing was over.. His ruling, as your can see below was short and sweet:<br />
<br />
<i>"Since ya'll can't seem to agree and can't seem to understand what I meant the last time. This is what I'm going to do," Judge Perry said less than 15 minutes into the hearing. "Where experts have not prepared reports of examinations or tests, both the state and the defense are required to provide the following … the expert's curriculum vitae, qualifications of experts, the expert's field of expertise or medical specialty, a statement of the specific subjects upon which the expert will testify and offer opinions, the substance of the facts to which the expert is expected to testify, and last but not least, a summary of the expert's opinion and grounds for each opinion … All of this must be completed by 3pm on December 23."</i><br />
<br />
Those questions the judge asked said it all.......he made certain it would be clear who had the most homework to do....and did so without engaging in the tit for tat of the matter. Kudos to the court! Why is it that every step this defense team takes turns out to be just plain 'kookie' ?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-29433087227925290372010-12-07T18:33:00.010-06:002010-12-10T21:13:41.586-06:00Stacy Barker Wants To Make A Deal......As I'm writing, snuggled up in a blanket in front of the computer, I can hear the wind howling outside, bringing us our first Midwest snowstorm for the Winter of 2010/11. The forecast isn't for a big storm, but you never "really" know what the wind is going to<i> 'blow in'</i> until <i>after it has blown</i>. For anyone not familiar with Midwest Winter, the wind doesn't have to bring new snow to be devastating, the accumulation of snow drifts caused by the wind are often harder to overcome than fresh fallen snow. Even so, my mind isn't so much on the storm outside, but the "storm" that seems to be brewing out in Lancaster, CA in the <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/search/label/Stacey%20Barker">Stacey Barker murder case</a>.<i> </i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirJXZ0fqHtiRg13OhApHw5K4wEG3frD6bGxe-9TZJYFwESx6901Ppv8kQ3lHpslNbrLCWgifXf6LBG57TcaBtriEzgs0G7WZGqikX30E9Lqq3LmwhZlGjzZsQYH81K4cEAyN1yXYPqKonb/s1600/Snowstorm.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirJXZ0fqHtiRg13OhApHw5K4wEG3frD6bGxe-9TZJYFwESx6901Ppv8kQ3lHpslNbrLCWgifXf6LBG57TcaBtriEzgs0G7WZGqikX30E9Lqq3LmwhZlGjzZsQYH81K4cEAyN1yXYPqKonb/s400/Snowstorm.gif" width="385" /></a></div>Stacey Barker, 25, is charged (2nd degree) with murdering her 18 month old daughter Emma on March 18, 2009. She is also charged with one count each of <i>(273ab.) </i>assault on a child causing death and (273a). felony child abuse. Barker has pled not guilty to all of the charges.<br />
<br />
Even though this case is being played out in the CA high desert the storm outside seems relevant, because following a<br />
criminal case reminds me of the uncertainty of watching a winter storm in progress....You can try to "forecast" what the outcome of a criminal case might be (through the discovery and case law), but you never know for certain what the result will be until it's over. Much like the wind continuing to blow throughout a storm, the criminal investigation can continue until the case is settled either by trial or a plea bargain. The investigation may not uncover new evidence, but like the wind blowing that old snow (and possibly new) to make a drift, the accumulation of evidence that supports each other can be as damaging as a single admission. This scenario may well be what determines the outcome of the Stacey Barker murder case......it seems the defense may have realized they are stuck in a drift and are trying to dig themselves out.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqoFdcXnaU4v8IPorRPjbb7VKmErS4pOuU2n0gzta5JIhY0cptcZB7rwoKE9O5DtGaK-4RP2HRuWlFt3lAN7fuQDoILSJ3vRukJQBITbMfdD-Ytj7L61h4x78kPhm0utuQVdMzB2iIkr6W/s1600/keyhole.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqoFdcXnaU4v8IPorRPjbb7VKmErS4pOuU2n0gzta5JIhY0cptcZB7rwoKE9O5DtGaK-4RP2HRuWlFt3lAN7fuQDoILSJ3vRukJQBITbMfdD-Ytj7L61h4x78kPhm0utuQVdMzB2iIkr6W/s1600/keyhole.jpeg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">if only.....</td></tr>
</tbody></table>The hearing on December 3 was short. Once again, after confirming with both parties that they agree to stay in his court,<a href="http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/la/vote/zacky_h/bio.html"> Superior Court Judge Hayden Zackey</a> allowed for another continuance. Judge Zackey said, " The next hearing will be on December 17..... adding....for what we were to do today ". <i>Sorry, I can't tell you WHAT they were supposed to do today because recently much court business has been conducted in chambers .....kind of makes it hard to forecast anything.</i> A couple detectives (Nava was one) and a uniformed sheriff' deputy were in court today and were told to return on the 17th. <i>A note of interest... we haven't seen or heard anything more about the defense experts that required the trial to be delayed in September. What's up with that? </i>Well anyway.....Zackey continued, " It's my understanding the parties are having an ongoing discussion regarding this case....we'll see if those discussions are fruitful on December 17th" adding, "Kelly will make a motion......you will make a motion, right?" Cromer agreed. If an agreement can't be reached and this goes to trial, January 7 will be a pre-trial hearing and Zackey said it will start 0 of 59. <br />
<br />
The Saturday morning headline of the<a href="http://www.avpress.com/"> Antelope Valley Press (AVP)</a> reads," <b>Baby Barker's Mom Seeks Plea Deal!" </b>Craig Currier of AVP reports that Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Kelly Cromer declined to comment about the specifics of the deal; however, she said she was approached before the hearing on December 3, by Stacy Barker's Public Defender, Roberto F. Dager, about the possibility of resolving this case without a trial. Cromer also told the AVP the state has until December 17 to decide whether they will negotiate with the defendant's attorney or take this case to trial. If a plea agreement isn't reached, Cromer said this should go to trial in early February.<br />
<br />
<i>The state is under no obligation to accept a deal....word on the street is..... the state has already turned down the defense offer.....we've also heard, <b>but can't confirm,</b> that Stacy Barker is willing to plead guilty to Involuntary Manslaughter and one of the 273 (we assume that is the felony child abuse charge 273a) in exchange for a twenty year sentence with 2 strikes and time served (subtract 20 months and don't forget good-time) . I only bring up the unconfirmed deal (consider it scuttlebutt) as a jumping off point to start a discussion....Do you think the state should negotiate or take this case to a jury? What type of deal do you think the state could make that would be justice in this case? </i><br />
<br />
According to Wikipedia, "Plea bargains are so common in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Courts_of_California" title="Superior Courts of California">Superior Courts of California</a> that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Council_of_California" title="Judicial Council of California">Judicial Council of California</a> has published an optional seven-page form (containing all mandatory advisement required by federal and state law) to help prosecutors and defense attorneys reduce such bargains into written plea agreements. <a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/cr101.pdf">Click here</a> to see a PDF of the form, it's interesting<i>.(Thanks LCM)</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
This isn't the first discussion of a plea.<a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2010/04/will-there-be-justice-for-emma-barker.html">Earlier this year, there was mention of an offer to settle</a> and Deputy District Attorney Kelly Cromer was overheard saying in the courtroom, " The only deal I'll accept is 15 to life." Obviously, there wasn't a deal made. I wonder....was Dager just blowing smoke up DDA Cromer's skirt to see how strong of a case the state felt they had or was he just trying to see what color her panties were? LOL jk We will never know that answer for sure, but <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2010/06/trial-date-set-for-stacey-barker-murder.html">at the next hearing </a> DDA Kelly Cormer presented through the discovery process some CD's that consist of taped visits with civilians that went to see Barker in jail and some letters to and from another inmate at the jail....<i>can you hear the whistling wind?</i> <i>I can and it's whistling "Erin Sutton".</i> <i>Whoooweoooo.....the wind can blow from all directions.</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>Did PD Dager forget to forecast a warning to his client........prisoners have no rights to privacy....or did she just not heed his warning? The content of the communication Barker has engaged in with her visitors or fellow inmates hasn't been made public, but I'd think it can't be good for the defense if the state intends to use it at trial. Is it a coincidence that a week or so after Erin Sutton proffered his testimony <i>in camera</i> Barker's visitor status changed to no visitors? What seems most telling is the defense making a plea offer following an order signed by Judge Zackey on November 17 to allow Dager and Barker a face to face visit with his laptop.<br />
If the state has Barker on video or letters she has written making comments that are consistent with her admissions to law enforcement she may have undermined her own defense.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, even though we've been aggravated and sometimes amused by Roberto Dager for things he has said and done in this case, such as, <i>" There is no proof his client 'SUFFERCATED' her daughter </i>" or when he argued his motion for a change of venue<i>,” These dumb, stupid, idiotic, moronic people blog on things they don’t know or things they think they know in an effort to turn people or potential jurors against my client.”</i>........he does seem to be providing Stacey Barker a vigorous defense. If the state decides to take this case to trial I'll write a post about possible defense strategies based on information we have learned during the pre-trial hearings and the motions filed so far.....in the meantime I'm going to put another log on the fire and call it a night......it's cold out there.katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-52887901376755413662010-11-13T16:00:00.011-06:002010-11-14T20:36:45.994-06:00Delays Push Stacey Barker's Murder Trial Into 2011<div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtMuwLdOBF3RbV_5FgkScwvm9gQjAaEKTj9yK9NT5Ai7WbJbT39cMM-_vKvayu5lS7yFASozSftyGUhCgrVhNPBc4vYewh5b0RMo0mderyjUMCBcoU1YUIwuPeqNa2K1OOfp9cKkRtNopE/s1600/emma+park.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtMuwLdOBF3RbV_5FgkScwvm9gQjAaEKTj9yK9NT5Ai7WbJbT39cMM-_vKvayu5lS7yFASozSftyGUhCgrVhNPBc4vYewh5b0RMo0mderyjUMCBcoU1YUIwuPeqNa2K1OOfp9cKkRtNopE/s200/emma+park.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Emma Barker</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div style="text-align: right;"></div><div style="font-family: inherit;">In this entry I want to give an update on the pre-trial hearings of a murder trial that has been in the making since April 23, 2009 when Stacey Barker was arrested and charged for the death of her daughter, Emma Leigh Barker. After the update on the hearings and a little review, I want to take another look at the charges filed against Barker and what the <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=pen&codebody=&hits=20">California penal Code</a> says about the elements of those charges that apply to this case.</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; font-family: inherit; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6uEs66ZyTMuvAmZblgs1oBIwKpxG_Hf1cv1nXQlfcn9m-tuB4sjnGqXXwvWsotfEQaz8hqEoh-HbrGRfeLIkUiNI8rG5Ms6wZCva8IFLofAiO8B_AFeG6CFMpj6RF_4qh3HAP8u8CiTtw/s1600/stacy_barker_001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6uEs66ZyTMuvAmZblgs1oBIwKpxG_Hf1cv1nXQlfcn9m-tuB4sjnGqXXwvWsotfEQaz8hqEoh-HbrGRfeLIkUiNI8rG5Ms6wZCva8IFLofAiO8B_AFeG6CFMpj6RF_4qh3HAP8u8CiTtw/s1600/stacy_barker_001.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Stacey Barker</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div style="font-family: inherit;">For those who may not be familiar with the case, Emma Barker was 18 months old forever when her mother, Stacey Barker, led police to where she had disposed of Emma's lifeless body the day before, along side the Golden State Freeway in Sylmar, CA, . When Emma was first reported missing at about 11 pm on March 18, 2010, Stacey Barker claimed she had been attacked and knocked unconscious as she was loading Emma into the car after playtime at a Lancaster, CA Park. Barker claimed when she came to, Emma was gone, evidently taken by her attacker(s). Later Barker admitted she had made up the story of the attack and kidnapping, she said Emma had died accidentally and she feared being blamed so she dumped her daughter’s body, removed some clothing and injured herself to support her kidnapping claim. </div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">On April 23, 2009, when Barker was arrested, nearly a month after Emma's death, the charges filed against the young mother included <u>one count of Second-degree murder</u>, <u>one count of Assault on a Child Causing Death</u> and <u>one count of Child Abuse.</u> The complaint alleges that Barker willfully caused and permitted the child to be injured and harmed and that injury resulted in death. Authorities have accused Barker of smothering her daughter. Stacey Barker pled not guilty to all counts on August 12, 2009. She has been held at the Century Regional Detention Facility on a one million dollar bond since her arrest.</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">Rather than give the "in the courtroom report" of the hearings, I'll just hit on some of the highlights; however,I still want to thank our friends from the AV for taking the time to attend the hearings and share with us what they see and hear. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by many who are trying to follow this case through the justice system.</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">For many, this murder case seems to be dragggging on.....<i>(A July 26 trial date had been set but because the court was informed at a June 28th hearing that both sides and a witness(s) had a conflict with that schedule the judge agreed to another delay.) </i>At the end of the June 28th hearing, as Judge Hayden Zackey set a new date for the trial to start, during the week of September 26, he was very clear that there would be no more delays.....</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">Judge Zackey addressed the lawyers for both sides,<i>" You both want it to stay in this court right?" They both said, "yes". Zackey then said, "Alright then, there will be NO more delays unless I am in a trial, then you both agree to wait until I am finished to start the trial...the only delays will be from ME, agree?" Both Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Kelly Cromer and Public Defender(PD) Roberto F. Dager said," Yes".</i></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><i> </i> </div><div style="font-family: inherit;">Well.....there have been more delays......no trial yet and we are almost half way through November, at this point we don't even have another tentative trial date. There have been several hearings since I wrote about the <a href="http://katfishponders.blogspot.com/2010/08/stacey-barker-august-11-hearing.html">August 11 hearing</a> in this case, yet there really isn't much to say beyond delay, delay, delay. ~sigh~ </div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">No doubt the judge's admonition when he set the trial for September was sincere, but Mr. Erin Sutton aka "Vampire" had just surfaced in an exchange of discovery on June 9 and the investigation was ongoing.....Sutton is an inmate who reportedly has had communication with Stacey Barker while they have been incarcerated. It wasn't until August 11 that Sutton appeared before the court "in camera" to answer questions. The information from that hearing remains under seal for now. Undoubtedly more time has been needed to investigate Sutton's claims.</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">The hearing on August 26 was scheduled to wrap up discovery and hear some previously filed defense motions. Judge Zacky told the defense," All the other motions you want to file at that time will be heard", and then asked," You will be bringing in expert witnesses right?" - During the August 26 hearing we learned the defense needed more time for consulting an expert witness....which meant no September trial......just another hearing scheduled for September 15......</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><i>This is speculation, but because of the timing, it seems the proffer of Sutton's testimony in chambers on August 11 may have changed or shifted the strategy of the defense compelling the judge to grant another delay.....do they need a new expert to support a motion(s) to keep Sutton's testimony out, or rebut it in some way? It's possible the expert witness is for something unrelated to Sutton, there are other issues. Whatever the reason, it must be compelling for Judge Zackey to allow another continuance. I guess we'll have to wait for trial to find out.</i></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><b> </b></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">The hearing on September 15- There was another Public Defender in court for the defense, because PD Dager had a family emergency. I don't know if the defense expert witness was there or not, but the judge said the hearing is rescheduled for October 8 and all witnesses are to come back on that date, adding with no explanation, the hearing will be held<i> </i>in camera <i>(on the record with both parties but in judges chambers and under seal ).</i> Sheriff's Homicide Detective Sandra Nava was at this hearing, accompanied by two men in suits, who appear to be LE.</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">Detective Nava testified during the preliminary hearing that when she questioned Stacey Barker, she changed her story several times blaming Emma's death on a variety of accidents in the back seat of her car on the freeway before "admitting" she had held her hand over Emma's mouth knowing that Emma had a baggy in her mouth. It seems likely this "admission" will be a focus of contention for both sides during trial. Will there be a video shown of LE questioning Barker, particularly if she was making admissions? At the Preliminary hearing Judge Carlos Chung didn't allow the tape to be played, citing length, but let Detective Nava testify to it before he ruled Stacey Barker would stand trial. Judge Chung didn't make a ruling about the admissibility of the video at trial and as far as we know Judge Zackey hasn't made any rulings. Was this an issue before the court during some of the recent meetings in camera as well? Sounds feasible.</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">October 8- "In Camera hearing" There was no explanation from the court for having the hearing<i> in camera.</i></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
October 13- This was a short but contentious hearing.....DDA Cromer asked Judge Zackey if they could go in camera to discuss some problems she found with paperwork. After returning to the courtroom, Judge Z. announced that he found the state's request to be reasonable and that things need to redacted from records, such as witness information.<br />
As the judge was speaking, Mr. Dager appeared to be furiously reading some papers, Ms.Cromer asked the judge, "Make him stop reading!".<i> (Hmmm</i> do you suppose he was trying to get a good look before the redaction was done?) The judge told Dager to go get his papers. On Dager's way out of the courtroom he was overheard saying some very non-professional things about the DDA.....I won't go into it, but will say both sides have engaged in name calling.<br />
When Dager returned, Judge Zackey said he has the reports from both parties and they will be redacted per <a href="http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/pen/1054-1054.10.html">discovery rule 1054</a>. Dager added he also wanted some redaction per 1054 in the first or second subpoena, adding he wants to interview everyone who has had contact with Barker since May (09 or 10 ?) Something was said about a government agent and Kelly Cromer said, "He's not a government agent!" <i>(We know this refers to Erin Sutton, Dager announced in open court on June 28 that Sutton had identified himself as such to Barker</i>.) <br />
Discovery rule 1054 specifically requires that discovery be conducted informally between and among the parties before judicial enforcement is requested.....<br />
Zackey says again he will redact and asks how long it would take them to read it? They agree to one week and made plans to return to court on the 20th. Zackey told the defense it wasn't necessary for the defendant to attend that hearing (exchange of paperwork). Court was recessed.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"> The next court hearing is scheduled for December 3, 2010. Craig Currier reported in the Antelope Valley News(AVN) that the prosecution said the trial should begin within 45 days of that date. DDA Kelly Cromer told the AVN, "We're pretty much ready to go" adding, " The trial should begin in January." When asked if this was the last continuance, Cromer replied, "I'm hoping so." <i>I think a lot of people would agree with that hope. </i>Cromer also told the AVN, when asked, she couldn't comment about the delays or the closed hearings.<i><br />
</i></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
<div style="font-family: inherit;"></div>I noticed on the LASD website that as of August 20th, Stacey Barker's visitor status has changed from a Y to a N. Does anyone think it's a coincidence her visitor status changed 9 days after her attorney questioned Erin Sutton / Vampire in the judges chamber? It came out through discovery, that the state has some CD's consisting of taped visits with civilians that went to see Barker in jail and some letters to and from another inmate at the jail, <i>Vampire</i>. Have things been said during visits with others that could hurt the case? Why else shut off visits? Once again we'll have to wait for the trial, until then it appears inmate Barker won't be getting her twice weekly visits.</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">Because so much of the recent court business has been conducted<i> </i>in camera and there seems to be a number of motions and records that are sealed, there isn't a lot of court business to report<i>.</i> During this lull in the case it seems a good time to take a look at the California Penal Code and revisit the charges filed in this case.</div><div style="font-family: inherit; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: inherit; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"> The California murder law</span></b></div><div style="font-family: inherit; text-align: center;"><pre><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">
187.(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.</span>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">Malice is "express" when there is clear evidence that
someone intended to kill another person.
Malice is "implied" when the person acted with a
reckless disregard for human life. And while there
are two degrees of murder…that is,
first-degree murder and second-degree murder…<i> </i>
<i>both</i> require that the defendant
acted with malice.
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">189. All murder which is perpetrated by means </span>
<span style="font-size: small;">of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of </span>
<span style="font-size: small;">mass destruction, knowing use of ammunition </span>
<span style="font-size: small;">designed primarily to penetrate metal </span>
<span style="font-size: small;">or armor, poison, lying in wait, </span>
<span style="font-size: small;">torture,or by any other kind of willful,</span>
<span style="font-size: small;"> deliberate, and premeditated killing, o</span>
<span style="font-size: small;">r which is committed in the perpetration of, </span>
<span style="font-size: small;">or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, </span>
<span style="font-size: small;">carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem,</span>
<span style="font-size: small;"> kidnapping, train wrecking, or any murder </span>
<span style="font-size: small;">which is perpetrated by means of discharging</span>
<span style="font-size: small;"> a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally </span>
<span style="font-size: small;">at another person outside of the vehicle </span>
<span style="font-size: small;">with the intent to inflict death, </span>
<span style="font-size: small;">is <b>murder of the first degree.</b></span>
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><b>All other kinds of murders are of the second degree.</b>
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Second-degree Murder</span></b>
</div><div style="font-family: inherit;">In cases where child endangerment leads to a
child's death and thus murder charges,
prosecutors generally charge it as a
second-degree murder. This is because
criminal negligence and lack of care
usually invoke implied malice rather
than an actual intent to kill.
Prosecutors can charge second-degree murder
charge in connection with child </div><div style="font-family: inherit;">endangerment charges in one of two ways:
1)through the <a href="http://www.shouselaw.com/felony-murder.html">California felony-murder rule</a>,<i> </i>
<i>or</i>
(2) by demonstrating implied malice.
These are two separate "theories" upon which
prosecutors can base their second-degree
murder charges. This means that a jury can
convict a defendant of second-degree murder so long
as it agrees with <i>either</i> of these theories.
And, under certain circumstances, a jury may actually
agree with <i>both</i> theories.
Every person guilty of murder in the second degree
shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison
for a term of 15 years to life.
<i>There are longer terms possible for second-degree murder, </i>
<i>but they don't apply in the Barker case.</i>
<b><span style="font-size: large;"> Assault on a Child Causing Death</span></b>
273ab. Any person who, having the care or custody
of a child who is under eight years of age,
assaults the child by means of force that
to a reasonable person would be likely
to produce great bodily injury,
resulting in the child's death, shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state
prison for 25 years to life.
Nothing in this section shall be
construed as affecting the applicability
of subdivision (a) of Section 187
or Section 189.
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Child Abuse</b></span>
<pre>273a.(a) Any person who, under circumstances or </pre><pre>conditions likely to produce great </pre><pre>bodily harm or death, willfully causes</pre><pre>or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts </pre><pre>thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental </pre><pre>suffering, or having the care or custody of any child,</pre><pre>willfully causes or permits the person or health</pre><pre>of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or </pre><pre>permits that child to be placed in a situation
where his or her person or health is endangered. </pre><pre> </pre><pre>A child abuse charge in CA is considered a "<i>wobbler</i>"</pre><pre>(can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony
depending on the facts in the case) if prosecuted</pre><pre>as a misdemeanor shall be punished by </pre><pre>imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding </pre><pre>one year and a $6000 fine, if prosecuted</pre><pre>as a felony and there is a conviction the</pre><pre>penalty is in the state prison for</pre><pre>two, four, or six years.</pre><pre> </pre><pre></pre><pre></pre><pre><pre>Sorry for the lapse in updates, my personal life called.</pre><pre>I love blogging, but this is a hobby so occasionally</pre></pre></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="text-align: center;"><pre><i>I have to take a break. I am also not a lawyer, so I
interpret as best I can. I included the link to the
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=pen&codebody=&hits=20">California Penal Code</a> so anyone so inclined can look
for themselves. I found the penal code section</i>
<i>1054 - 1054.10 very interesting. </i></pre></div><pre> </pre></div></div></pre></div>katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com25