Stacey Barker Murder Trial - Day Two

RIP Emma Leigh Barker 9/2007 - 3/2009

Day two (Thursday, April 28 ) 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 serious 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. (Sorry missed reporting this yesterday)

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.

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 here giving her impressions of the day.

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 :(  

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 wonder if he will wait until after trial to make a ruling?)   

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.

( 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?)  

Here is the abbreviation key I will use for the defendant and those speaking in court today....

"JZ" for Judge Hayden Zackey

"KC" for Deputy District Attorney Kelly Cromer

"RD" for Deputy Public Defender Roberto Dager

"SB" for Stacey Barker

"Sue" for Sue Barker

"Hoyt" for Detective John Hoyt

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.

Direct Examination- Sue Barker
KC - Who are the people out in the hall ? Sue - My husband and my sister. KC - The husband you told Detective Nava that you didn't want to lose? (No response noted.)

KC - Who came into the courtroom yesterday after the second break?  Sue - I don't know. KC - No one came in ?  Sue - I was. KC - Did your son Matt come in ? Sue - Yes. KC - That was the same time that you seemed to have some lapse in memory. Is it hard for you to testify? Sue - Yes. KC - Why? Sue -  It just is. KC - Do you feel guilt because of the argument you had with Stacey?  Sue - Yes

KC -  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? Sue - I don't know. KC - Did you know that interview was recorded? Sue - I didn't see a recorder.

KC - Did you tell Detective Nava that Brendon Borrelli might be a suspect? Sue - Yes  KC -  Did Det. Nava say that if Brendon had told her to do it it was still her decision? Sue - I know it was Stacey's doing.

KC - Anyone in the family in the legal profession? Sue - Not that I know of. KC - Any relation, not just immediate family? Sue - Gary's sister is a para-legal but I haven't talked to her about this.

KC - 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. Sue - Yes, but...

KC - Did you ask Stacey why she didn't leave the blanket with Emma's body? Sue - Yes, but she didn't answer.

KC - Did Stacey keep granola bars in her purse for Emma?    Sue - Yes, that was standard.

KC - Whose idea was it for you to have a conversation with Detective Nava at the station?
Sue - Don't know.

KC - 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? (no response noted)

KC - (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? Sue - Yes  KC -  (shows Sue exhibit 1e, an envelope from the pack with butterflies drawn on it.) Wasn't that on Emma's Binky? Sue - Yes, there were butterflies on Emma's Binky.
KC -  No more questions.

Cross Examination - Sue Barker

RD - Mr. Dager greets Sue Barker....How are you?  Sue - Fine. RD - You never wanted to talk to me before? Sue - No RD -Do you want to now? Sue - Yes.

RD - Stacey attended Quartz Hill High school, and handed Sue some papers to look at. Sue - These two pages I have never seen. The third page I have seen. RD - When did you see this? Sue - Sometime near graduation. RD - What does it say? Sue - Academics RD - What does it say? Sue - 3.5 RD - Say the whole number. Sue - 3.055 (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 !)

RD - Did Stacey have any history of street fights? KC - Objection, speculation. JZ - Rephrase. RD - have you seen her come home with any bumps, cuts, or bruises? Sue - No. RD - How many physical fights have you seen her have with her brothers? Sue - Once in her whole life.

RD - When did Stacey move back home? Sue - When she found out she was pregnant at age 23. She moved out when she was 18. At 18 she had her own apartment. RD - How many jobs did she have to work to afford her own apartment? Sue - Two. RD - Kind of hard to work two jobs when pregnant?
Sue - Yes, because she couldn't keep the pizza job. RD - Did she go to college? Sue - No. RD - Why? Sue - Because she worked two jobs , she didn't have time.

RD - Has she always been emotionless? She never cried before Emma died? Sue - No, she has only cried 10 times in her whole life. she was never an emotional person.

RD - So, are you an alcoholic? Sue - Yes. RD - Did you drink daily before Emma died? Sue - No, just a couple days a week. RD - Did you drink Jose Quervo tequila? Sue - Yes, shots of Jose Quervo. RD - Were you taking depression medication at the same time? Sue - Yes. RD - Pills and alcohol? Sue - Yes.
RD - Did you know that could kill you ? Sue - No. RD - You've been sober 13 days? Sue - Yes.

RD - When did Stacey move back home? Sue - Immediately when she found out she was pregnant.
RD - How long was that? Sue - She was a month or two.

RD - What if anything did Stacey tell you about Anthony? (Emma's Dad) Sue - Nothing. RD - How many times did you see Anthony at the house? Sue - Once at her house. RD - Did you ask he3r why she didn't live with him? Sue - No. RD - What did you say to Stacey about Anthony? Sue - That he didn't seem to be concerned about being a dad.

RD - How many bedrooms are there in your home? Sue - Four, one room was an office that we turned into a bedroom for Emma when she was about 3 months. RD - So where did Emma sleep the first 3 months?
Sue - In Stacey's room. RD - Who suggested changing the office into a room for Emma?  Sue - I did.

Court broke for lunch here and returned at 1:30 pm.

RD - What was the daycare when Stacey went back to work? Sue - Emma went to daycare for one day.
RD - Why only one day? Sue - 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. RD - What was Stacey's demeanor when you told her about the conditions at daycare? Sue - She cried. RD -  Why did she cry? Because her daughter wasn't being cared for?  Sue - 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.

RD - You went to see Stacey at Linwood (Detention center) once and called her only once. Why? Sue - I wasn't happy with Stacey. RD - Do you want to see her now? Sue - Yes.  RD - Did anyone tell you what to say? Sue - No. (◔_◔)

(Tori made a note before this question was even asked, that it did appear that Sue had been coached compared to her testimony yesterday.)
 
RD -  These are defense exhibits, pictures A-G. Who is in the pictures and what is she wearing?
Sue - Emma. RD - Who bought the dress she is wearing? Sue - I did. RD - Dager showed Sue photos B-G and each picture asked, "Who bought this dress she is wearing?" Sue - Each time asked, Sue responded, "I did".

(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. )
 
RD - This receipt is defense exhibit (#?), it's a Target receipt dated March 17, 2009. Junior - ears are purchased, is that familiar? Sue - Yes. Stacey bought it. RD - What is it? Sue - 2 pairs shorts, 2 shirts, sandals and tennis shoes. RD - Where did the receipt come from? Sue - I gave it to the defense investigator. I found it on top of Emma's dresser.
 
RD - This next item is is defense exhibit H, a Baby Blender Cookbook. Why did Stacey have this book?
Sue - because she didn't want Emma to have processed food. Stacey herself ate healthy after she became pregnant. RD - Did she use these recipes? Sue - Yes, she made them and froze them for Emma. RD - Do you recognize this book?  Sue - Yes, it was in Emma's room too and I gave it to the investigator. RD - You did? Sue - Well...Gary did. (Sue's husband, Stacey's dad) RD - So she blended meat and vegetables and fruit? Sue - Yes, to freeze for future use.
 
RD - Did Stacey tell you she was going out for St. Patricks ? Sue - no, she didn't say.
 
RD - When was the last you saw Stacey and Emma? Sue - On March 18, when Stacey came home from work. RD - At 3:15, did you argue? Sue - Yes. RD - How long did it last? Sue - 5 minutes. RD - Was there screaming?  RD - Stacey was screaming she couldn't make anyone happy. I told her she needed to come home on time so I could rest.
 
RD - When did you find out what happened? Sue - 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.
RD - Who was there? Sue - Stacey, Nick and Brendon. We stayed a few minutes. RD - Why only a few minutes? Sue - Stacey was being loaded into the ambulance so we went to the ER. RD - Did you leave the hospital and go to the Palmdale Sheriff station? Sue - Yeah, that was morning March 19.
 
RD - Any law enforcement contact you? Sue - 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. RD - Did they ask for any suggestions of potential suspects? Sue - 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?
 
Sue - 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.  RD - Were you recorded? Sue - I didn't know we were recorded.

Sue - 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. RD - Were you recorded? Sue - I didn't know we were being recorded. RD - During that conversation did Detective Nava tell you something? Sue - Yes, she said pink fibers were found in Emma's throat. RD - How did that make you feel? Sue - I was devastated. RD - Did you know that Det. Nava was lying and no fibers were found? Sue - No. RD - Is that why you were mad at Stacey? Sue - Yes, after a half hour conversation Stacey went to live at Larry Barker's home. ( Gary's Dad ) RD - That was an interrogation technique. Detective Nava didn't have fibers. Sue - No, I didn't know. RD - How did Nava know the blanket was pink? Sue - I don't know. RD - You didn't know she was lying at that time?Sue - No.


RD - What do you know about a drinking game? Was there drinking going on during the mourning period?

Sue - Yes. RD - Was there a party? Sue - Not a party the night before but people were coming in and out.

RD - When you had dinner were all of Nick's friends there? Sue - Yes, that's when we played beer pong.

JZ - Can you explain what beer pong is? Sue - 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. RD - Did Stacey play? Sue - Stacey only played 45 minutes, at my request. I was trying to cheer her up. She was quiet the whole time.

RD - How did you feel when you found out Detective Nava lied to you? Sue - Mad. JZ - Strike that, that's for the jury to decide what is the truth. RD - How they dealt with grief. (WTH, this is what we meant about questions jumping around.)

Cross Done - Re-direct Starts

KC - Why did you only visit Stacey once at Linwood? Sue - I was hurt. KC - Why, Did you think Stacey killed Emma? Sue - I did, yes. KC - So, when after 3/19 did you have a lot to drink? Had you drank alot when you were interviewed by Detective Nava? Sue - No, after. KC - Did you tell Detective Nava you knew Stacey was guilty and say I want you to prove it? Sue - Yes.

KC - You said you didn't go to the doctor with Stacey when she was pregnant? Sue - Yes, I didn't go with her. KC - But Anthony did go to the Stacey's doctor appointments when she was pregnant? Sue - Yes

KC - I thought he had no interest in being a dad? Sue - I don't know.

KC - When did Stacey start dating again after Emma's birth? Sue - 3 months, she had 2 or 3 boyfriends before she met Brendon.

KC - Did Stacey have any significant injuries when growing up? Sue - One. She hurt her shoulder in gymnastic, but she didn't cry.

KC - So you drank daily before Emma died? Sue - uuhh....yeah. KC - What? Sue - Shots of Jose Quervo, 4 to 5 shots in the evening a couple days a week. KC - How much do you weigh? Sue - 195 lbs.

KC - Do you know Colleen B.? (Colleen is Anthony's mom.) Sue - I met her after Emma's birth.

KC - How long ? Sue - 4 or 5 months. KC - Her daughter? Sue - One time, only.

KC - Defense exhibit H, the baby food book, Is this is the book that Stacey used? Are you sure ?
Sue - Yes. KC - This book doesn't look as though it's been opened much, pages stick together. Sue - I don't know, but she did use it. KC - 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. Sue - I don't know. KC - Huh (Not said as a question but rather an opinion aka mild equivalent of BS.)

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.

                                                                           

KC - The photos, defense exhibit A-G, what ages are they? Sue - (went through pictures) This is 3 months, this is Stacey with Emma at 3 months, this is 3 months, this is Emma newborn. KC - She looks awfully good for newborn? Sue - C- section, picture C is between 3 and 6 months. D is Thanksgiving, uhh...about 2 1/2 months. JZ - Who cooked it? Sue - I did. Emma had a bib that said 1st Thanksgiving. 

Judge Zackey is such a nice guy, but this is Kelly's direct and she has a job to do, sooo.....

KC - You said when you and Stacy were fighting on March 18, she was screaming "I CAN'T MAKE ANYONE HAPPY!" What did she say? Sue - I can't make anyone happy, work, you.... Emma's never happy and I can't make my boyfriend happy!

KC - You made several statements to detectives, each statement to Detective Nava was after she had died, had Emma had an Autopsy yet? Sue - No. KC - What were you told? Sue -Not for 3 weeks. KC - So the day you spoke to Nava, you knew Emma didn't have an autopsy. Sue -No. KC - 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.

(Tori notes here that Kelly Cromer is on fire today!)

KC - Did Stacey ever shed a tear for Emma? Sue - No. KC - Remorse or regrets? Sue - No.

KC - 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? Sue - Yes. KC - How many times had Stacey taken Emma to Long Beach? Sue - None. KC - Stacey herself to Long beach? Sue - When she was pregnant she spent a weekend with Anthony in Long beach.

KC - What was the one major injury that Stacey had growing up? Sue - she dislocated her shoulder during gymnastics. KC - She didn't cry? Sue - No, but had to heal, it took a couple weeks to heal.

KC - Defense exhibit I, is the Target receipt. You said this was new clothes, how do you know they are new? Sue - I saw them, tags still on them. KC - What are ears? Sue - I don't know. KC -I thought you saw the stuff, what was it? Sue - 2 shorts, 2 shirts, sandals and tennies. KC - The receipt time is 5:10 pm from Target in Lancaster.

(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.)

Re cross examination

RD - She had this blender book. Tori notes as Dager holds the book he is flipping through the pages and bending the binding. Sue - yes, she used it. RD - I JUST DONT LIKE MISS CROMER SAYING THERE WAS NO FLOUR....RD is standing right behind Kelly Cromer as he screamed this. KC - Objection! Personal Attack...and screaming in my ears! JZ - Mr. Dager.... RD - 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.

JZ - Want to ask more? (asks KC) KC - no, but I'm thinking. JZ - You can have her recalled. KC - My next witness won't be short so I want to change the witness order. JZ - OK.

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.

Direct examination - Detective John Hoyt

KC - Did you go to the crime scene? What did you see? Hoyt - A silver Mazda parked with all 4 doors open. Both front seats were in a reclining position....reclined all the way back. KC - Did anyone move them? Hoyt - Protocol doesn't allow moving anything. KC - What is this? Hoyt - An adults brown sandal and a child's tennis shoe with a red and white bottom.

KC - Did you stay with the car? Hoyt - 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) KC - What did she say to you? Hoyt - Her eye hurt, the back of her head and her ribs hurt. KC - Did she ask about the baby? Hoyt - No KC - What did you notice about her? Hoyt - Clean feet, hands and fingernails. KC - In this informal interview not once asked about Emma. (More of a statement than a question.) Direct exam finished.

Cross examination - Detective John Hoyt

RD - If you are a detective, why are you wearing a Sheriff's deputy uniform? Hoyt - With budget cuts we dress for the street. RD - Did you stay with the car? Hoyt - No. RD - Did you touch the car? Hoyt - No

RD - When did you get called? Hoyt - About 11:40 pm. RD - What were you doing when called? Hoyt - Trying to sleep. RD - Got there about Midnight? Who was there? Hoyt - The Crime Scene Unit was there. RD - How do you know no one else touched the car? Hoyt - That's not protocol, so I doubt it.

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)

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.


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.


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 .


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.

Sphere: Related Content

STACEY BARKER MURDER TRIAL - Opening Statements



Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Superior Courthouse



Judge Hayden Zackey

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 Superior Court Judge Hayden Zackey presiding. ( Tori reports Judge Zackey seems to be a very pleasant man...and I think he's pretty easy to look at as well!)

Stacey and Emma Barker

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.

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.

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.

( A side note: Witness X commented on an earlier post at katfish ponders through a third party in response to some comments made by members of the Barker family.)

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.

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 Snidely Whiplash. From Tori's description of the day, it seems Mr. Dager came loaded with "Snidely's"swagger today as well.

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.

The State's Opening Statement

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.

Kelly Cromer rises to begin her opening for the state. ( 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...) 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.

 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.


 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.
 
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.

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.

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 (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). 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.

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.

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.


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. (Tori noted the next picture was harsh.) 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. (UGH!)
 
(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.....)

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.
 
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 (was this an interrogation tactic or a real finding?), 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.
 
Dr. Ribe (Deputy Medical Examiner who conducted the autopsy on Emma) 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.
 
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.

The Defense Opening Statement

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. 

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."


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.

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.

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.
 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.

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.

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.....

(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.) Sphere: Related Content

Stacey 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, "Stacey Barker Hails the Massiah!" 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.

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 ( that were consistent with an attack )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.( Just one more thing in this case that makes you go hmmmm.)

It was nearly a month after Emma's death, before Barker was arrested on April 23, 2009. The charges filed against the Stacey Barker included one count of Second-degree murder, one count of Assault on a Child Causing Death and one count of Child Abuse. 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.

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 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!)

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.

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 ( that we are aware of ) 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 Witness X  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.

Most US citizens know that law enforcement must give a  Miranda warning  before subjecting someone to any interrogation when being arrested ( taken into custody and are not free to leave, a situation the court ruled was inherently coercive ).  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. 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.

Just as Miranda gives us Fifth Amendment protection after an arrest, according to the Massiah Doctrine, 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.

The difference between Massiah and Miranda 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. Miranda 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 Miranda.

However, the Massiah 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. 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.

In order for a court to determine that a Massiah violation has occurred two conditions must exist:

1) There must have been an indictment, preliminary hearing or arraignment already held when the violation   occurred..
 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.

The line between “active” and “passive” agents—between eliciting incriminating statements and merely listening—is an exceedingly difficult one to draw.

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 (United States v. Henry, 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 (Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S. Ct. 2616, 91 L. Ed. 2d 364 [1986]). In Kuhlmann, 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."

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 X reportedly testified for the state against, in his own words, " a local street gang that I was trying to get out from under...."  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.

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.

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.

Dager tried repeatedly to get Aragon to admit that X asked for benefits in exchange for his testimony (and convince the court?) 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.

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.

Preliminary hearing coverage

read more about Miranda and Massiah at answers.com

Sphere: Related Content

Will Witness X "Melt" Stacey Barker's Defense ? Chances Of A Forecasted Plea Deal Diminishing....Blizzard Hits The AV !

When last reporting to you about the Stacey Barker murder case, 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.

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," 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." The next day's headline of the Antelope Valley Press (AVP) was much more blunt, reading,  " Baby Barker's Mom Seeks Plea Deal !!"
 

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.

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.

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'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.)

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.)

Several of the witnesses to testify at this hearing were law enforcement who have also been present at the last several hearings.....apparently in anticipation of being called to testify. 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 (Both Detectives had testified at the preliminary hearing so they were familiar)...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.

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 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!
A note of interest....January 2 is Stacey Barker's birthday........hmmmm....... is that blizzard an omen or coincidence?

Here is Tori's report from the December 17 hearing:

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.

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."



Men's Central Jail

 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.

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!

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

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!

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 (admittedly, no one else was really there in the gallery) 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.

Judge Zackey tells the inmate he will be identified as Witness X from now on.

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.

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.

Next Cromer asks Witness X if he works for the Government in any official way? NO was his answer.

Kelly asked," Are you a Agent for the Government?" Again, X replied NO.

 "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." 

Cromer asked a few other questions and then PD Roberto F. Dager is on cross....

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."

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."

Dager then asked X some (allegedly ) dumb questions.8D 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

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."

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!"

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.

Dager kinda smirked like sure buddy.....

"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?"

Dager then asked  X how long he has been in the system.  X said, "Since 1993."

PD Dager- "How long was your first stint in prison?"

Mr.X-..."About 4 years."

PD Dager-"And the second time?"

X-" About 5 years, I don't know something like that."

PD Dager- "So you know the system and know how to work it...

DDA Cromer Objects..argumentative! Judge Zackey, "Sustained."

PD Dager moves on..."How many times have you been to court here?"  Mr.X replies,"A lot."

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!"

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."

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."

Dager asks/states,"So you gave information on the MEXICAN MAFIA?" X replied," No, I gave information on the gang I was in ( that was affiliated with the Mexican Mafia)." 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...."

Dager asks X if he has Agent status? X says, "No, I'm not a Agent." 

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..." 

 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."

Apparently Mr. Dager has a hearing problem, he asks again," 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."

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.

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.

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......

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...

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...

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."

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 got 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. 

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.

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.

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."

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......

Sphere: Related Content

Stacey Barker Murder Trial Now Set To Begin Late September

At the end of September in Lancaster, CA, the scorching temperatures and wicked winds of the high desert should be morphing into pleasantly warm and breezy days; however, things may be heating up in the Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse.

In a hearing held at the Lancaster courthouse on June 28 Superior Court Judge Hayden Zackey has again changed the date for the murder trial of Stacey Barker to now start on Monday, September 20, 2010.

Stacey Barker mugshot

Emma on her  first and only birthday

Barker is a 25 year old Lancaster, California woman accused of smothering her 18 month old daughter, Emma Leigh Barker, before dumping her body in tall grass at the side of a freeway on March 18, 2008.

Our friends, Tori, ANurse and  Ange have again taken time out of their day to attend the hearing and share the details with us. ~ thanks again ladies ~  Tori said the hearing was late getting underway. For almost an hour it seemed as though Deputy District Attorney Kelly Cromer and Public Defender Roberto Dager were playing cat and mouse, every time DDA Cromer came in the courtroom, PD Dager had just left and so she would leave to do something and he would walk in. LOL! Of course they weren't playing games, there were 3 inmate buses at the courthouse today and they have to search each one every time all the inmates get off so this took a while.

 Judge Zackey didn't seem to feel well today, he may have allergies, he's blowing his nose, holding his head and seems in a bit of a mood.....hope he feels better soon, he's a good guy. The attorneys finally settled in and defendant Stacey Barker is brought in. Barker seems subdued again today (Tori used the term lackluster) yet she has her hair up in a braid , it looks like someone helped her with it, it's very neat.

As soon as court is under way, Cromer hands Dager a disc. She says there's a wire tap conversation on the disc ( it isn't clear whose line was tapped) there are also taped phone calls  the defendant made and (most interesting IMO) are letters she has exchanged with an inmate Sutton. Judge Zackey asks, "Is that the Erin Sutton who was in my courtroom?" Cromer, Dager and another attorney (unidentified) all respond, " Yes it is your honor." Judge Zackey looks puzzled and maybe a bit shocked when he finds out it was the same guy. (Evidently he didn't make the connection at the last hearing when this was mentioned.)

Our friends actually made the connection  at the last hearing, but I didn't include the following in that post because we didn't know his first name so we weren't positive it was the inmate Sutton who had been in Zackey's court before.  Judge Zackey wasn't the only one surprised to learn that the inmate Barker has been corresponding with was someone we have talked about before. He has no relationship to this case (before now) but was in court the same day as Stacey back in September 2009. Our friends TD and Anurse nicknamed him "Devil Dude" when they saw him back then, here is how they described him at that time:

Devil dude was a very creepy guy covered in tattoos ( I love tattoos) but they were all over his bald head, on his face all over his hands and arms, he had a very evil look to him, his eyes were seriously creepy...He was brought in to the courtroom and we were all asked to clear the room...He was all shackled up, he had the handcuffs, the chain around his waist, and the bracelets around his ankles...There were I think like 3 or 4 guards in the room....I don’t know what he did, but as we were allowed back in the courtroom, he looked at everyone in the eyes, like he was getting a image of us in his head...He was just creepy, we all had shivers when he looked at us...

Erin Sutton's MySpace profile picture

It turns out they weren't too far off with the nickname. On his MySpace page , he goes by the name "Vampire". 
I want to go on record saying that you can't always judge a book by it's cover and we don't know exactly what this guy did; however, he makes mention on his MS that he was arrested and is facing life in prison because of something he "allegedly" did to a guy he took guitar lessons from, after he found out the guy was a convicted sex offender and this guy had been trying to get Vampire to allow him to give Vampire's 12 year old daughter "private lessons". He claims he is falsely accused.....but that's a story for another day. 
 Update: After further investigation we find that Sutton is in jail for felony robbery with a $2 million bail. Perhaps a third strike felony?The RSO "Vampire" mentions on his MySpace is still living in Lancaster and is listed on the Megan's law website as a child molester.

The bigger question is, how did Stacey Barker meet him and why did she choose this guy for a friend? Our guess is she met him on the bus ride to court, it's 90 miles each way. We know of at least twice that they were in court on the same day. Some think it's a protection thing. She may think other inmates won't mess with her if they are friends. I tend to think they are commiserating with each other because they are both "falsely accused and can relate", who knows??? It seems something from their communications will be used in the trial anyway. We'll see......

Ok, back to the hearing....Judge Zackey says he has spoken with both parties and everything is complete in the discovery process. He learned from Cormer and Dager that  both they and some of the witnesses and investigators have commitments near the proposed July 26 trial date, so that date will now be a pre-trial hearing.The trial will be the week of September 24. Monday the 20th will start the trial.(We're not sure if that is when jury selection starts, we'll know more after July 26.)

Zackey was very clear that there will be no more delays. Zackey addressed the lawyers," You both want it to stay in this court right? " They both said, "yes".  He 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?" They both said," Yes" and that was it the hearing was over. Sphere: Related Content