Nicholas Sheley...He Is, He Isn't, He Is, He Isn't, He Is Going To Stand Trial On August 29, 2011, Isn't He?

Nicholas Sheley at Stateville Correctional Institution

Nicholas T. Sheley is 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.


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.

This post and the timeline linked here  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.

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......

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?

He is...He isn't?
The Arrest and Indictment...

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.


He is.... 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.

He isn't....At the start of a hearing on September 29, 2009 Nicholas Sheley said, “Your honor, I would like to change my plea to guilty.”

He is.....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.

He isn't.... 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.

( This is just my opinion, but I think Mr. Randall's truck 'may' have been the most important piece of
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 from various victims found in Mr. Randall's  truck  when it was recovered in St. Louis, MO.)

 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.

He is... facing the death penalty. 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.

He isn't.... 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.

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.

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......

 He is....He isn't?
Sheley's Counsel....musical chairs?

 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, Sheley asked to address the court. Sheley told the court he doesn't want a continuance of any kind. He went so far as to say if it is necessary to fire his attorney's then so be it.

 ~ He wants to represent himself round one ~ 


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 .

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 withdraws all motions to remove his attorneys. Another He is....He isn't....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 ~

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.


~ He wants to represent himself rounds 2 and 3 ~ 


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.
   
In April 2009 Nicholas Sheley was charged 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.
At a hearing scheduled to hear argument on Sheley's motion to represent himself, on May 15, 2009, Nicholas Sheley  informed the court he had changed his mind and decided to accept Public Defender James Harrell as his attorney in the jail assault case....geesh.... 

He is, He isn't...

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.

He is, he isn't...

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.....

~ He wants to represent himself round four ~ 

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 my report from that hearing.,

He is....
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.

Before Stewart made his decision, both prosecution and defense argued against Sheley’s motion.
Defense Attorney Jeremy Karlin warned Sheley’s temper could hamper his ability to get a fair trial.
“My greatest concern, your honor, is my client’s ability to maintain his temper,” he said.
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.

 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:
Knox County prosecution requests delay in Sheley trial
Sheley trial a go, for now
Sheley trial pushed back to August
Sheley says IDOC impeding his defense
Prosecutors want Sheley returned to Knox County County spends $1,000 on computers for Sheley
Sheley, accused of murder, stays put in Joliet
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!

He isn't...

On July 10, 2011, Nicholas Sheley once again had a change of heart 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.

 

 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.

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

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.

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." 

 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.

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?

Sphere: Related Content

THREE YEARS CLOSER TO JUSTICE

Sphere: Related Content

Stacey Barker Sentenced Today! updated 7/6/2011

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! 


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.

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:


Count 1, First Degree Murder = 25 years to life

Count 2, Assault on Child causing death = 25 years to life (stayed)

child abuse = 6 years

child abuse = 6 years

special enhancement / allegations  = 4 years.

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.

Here is a CBS 9 Los Angeles news report of the sentencing hearing and case:

Sphere: Related Content

STACY BARKER FOUND GUILTY ON THREE COUNTS!

Emma Leigh Barker RIP

A Lancaster CA jury convicted Stacey Barker today on 3 counts:

1ST - DEGREE MURDER!!!!!! 

ASSAULT ON A CHILD CAUSING

GREAT BODILY INJURY OR DEATH!!!! 

CHILD ABUSE ON CHILD UNDER 8 YEARS OF AGE!!!

Sentencing for Barker will take place on June 17, 2011

Here is a list from the California penal code:

California - First-degree Murder

Title 8, Ch. 1, Sec. 187; 188-190

PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199

187.  (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
   (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
   (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
   (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
   (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
   (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.


188.  Such malice may be express or implied.  It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature.  It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
   When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought.  Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice.

189.  All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison,
lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,
burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable
under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree.  All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree.
   As used in this section, "destructive device" means any
destructive device as defined in Section 12301, and "explosive" means
any explosive as defined in Section 12000 of the Health and Safety
Code.
   As used in this section, "weapon of mass destruction" means any
item defined in Section 11417.
   To prove the killing was "deliberate and premeditated," it shall
not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully
reflected upon the gravity of his or her act.

189.5.  (a) Upon a trial for murder, the commission of the homicide
by the defendant being proved, the burden of proving circumstances of
mitigation, or that justify or excuse it, devolves upon the
defendant, unless the proof on the part of the prosecution tends to
show that the crime committed only amounts to manslaughter, or that
the defendant was justifiable or excusable.
   (b) Nothing in this section shall apply to or affect any
proceeding under Section 190.3 or 190.4.

190.  (a) Every person guilty of murder in the first degree shall be
punished by death, imprisonment in the state prison for life without
the possibility of parole, or imprisonment in the state prison for a
term of 25 years to life.

 Assault on a Child Causing Death

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. 

 

Child Abuse

273a.(a) Any person who, under circumstances or 
conditions likely to produce great 
bodily harm or death, willfully causes
or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts 
thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental 
suffering, or having the care or custody of any child,
willfully causes or permits the person or health
of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or 
permits that child to be placed in a situation 
where his or her person or health is endangered. 
 
A child abuse charge in CA is considered a "wobbler"
(can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony
 depending on the facts in the case) if prosecuted
as a misdemeanor shall be punished by 
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 
one year and a $6000 fine, if prosecuted
as a felony and there is a conviction the
penalty is  in the state prison for
two, four, or six years.
 
Last but not least, another great big thanks to 
Tori, Ange, Gabe,
 Tiff, Anurse, and LCM for 
taking time from your busy lives to attend 
these hearings the last 2 years and this 3 week trial! 
You are Emma's Angels!
 

Thanks to LCM for this sweet picture of Emma!

Sphere: Related Content

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 - First Day Testimony

First Witness - Sue Barker

 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. :)
I'll use abbreviations as follows 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
"Sue" for Sue Barker
"SB" for Stacey Barker

KC - You were served a subpoena to appear today. Do you want to be here? Sue - No, I don't want to be here.

KC - Would  you identify Stacey Barker if you see her in the courtroom? Sue - Points at Stacey at the defense table.

KC - Would you tell the court your kids names and birth dates? Sue - Matt, Stacey 01/02/1985, and Nick (I listed in birth order but didn't note birth date for the boys.)

KC - How long has Stacey been living with you? Sue - 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.

KC - Who cared for Emma when Stacey went back to work? Sue - 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.

KC - Who took care of Emma the most? Sue - 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.

KC - Why delayed speech? RD - objected, speculation. JZ - Overruled, she can answer if she knows.  
Sue - Yes, because she was spoiled.

KC -  How was Emma treated? Sue -  Like a princess.

KC -  How was Stacey treated? Sue -  Like a princess. She was always a Daddy's girl.

KC -  Who did Stacey start dating New Years Eve? Mike from work? Sue -  I can't remember the other guy's name
.
KC - Was Stacey often focused on new relationships? Sue - Yes, sometimes, but Emma came first.

KC - Did she ever date a Hispanic guy, dye her hair black, tan and shave her eyebrows and then draw them on with liner? Sue - Yeah...she lived with that guy.

KC -  Did Stacey try and take on whatever persona or role she thought a guy wanted her to be? Sue - Yes.

KC -  Was she treated bad by men? Sue - Yes.

KC - Did she approach her relationships with such intensity that she drove them away? Sue - I can't remember.

KC - Since Mr. Dager brought it up, are you an alcoholic? Sue - Yes.

KC - Have you drank today? Sue -  It's been 12 days since I drank alcohol. I drank before Emma died, but after she died I drank everyday.

KC - Do you have depression? Sue - Yes. KC -Does the depression or medications cloud your memory? Sue - No.

KC - Who did you sit with at Emma's funeral? Sue - I sat with Nick, Stacey and my sister at the viewing. I sat with my son and my sister at the funeral.

KC - Why didn't you sit with Stacey? Sue - I don't know.

KC - Was there anything that you did after the funeral that you didn't do before? Sue - No.

KC - Did you lock your bedroom door? I can refresh your memory with a transcript from your police interview, Who were you afraid of ? Sue - Stacey

KC - Not trust her? Sue - Yes. KC - Did you think she was capable of murder? RD - Objection! JZ - Over ruled. Sue - No.

RD - Objection! Opinion! JZ - In 2009, did you think she was capable of murder and now you don't? Sue - No response given

KC - 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)
Sue - Yes.

KC - 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. RD - Ask to strike as hearsay! Was last question and answer striked?

KC - Did Detective Nava ask you did Stacey do this? Sue - Yes, I did tell Nava that

KC - Do you believe she is capable of killing Emma? Sue - Yes

KC - Was Stacey going to Long beach to see Anthony on the 18th of March? Sue - No. KC -Going for money? Sue - No, she was due to get several thousand dollars back in income tax, she didn't need money.

KC - Did Stacey express any regrets? Sue - I asked her if she tried to save Emma and she said no.

KC - Did Emma have an incident with an allergic reaction to peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Blotchy itchy lips? Sue - Yes, Stacey took Emma to the emergency room right away.

KC - Did you and Stacey have fights before March 18 about caring for Emma and threaten to kick her out of the house? Sue - No

KC - Did you ever argue with Stacey about you coming home from work and needing to find someone to watch Emma? Sue -  I can't remember.

KC - Did Brendon back track to your house on March 18 to pick up Nick? Sue - Yes, I didn't know then.

KC - Did Stacey get a new cell phone after law enforcement took her phone? Sue - When the box came I thought it was some DVD and toys that I had ordered for Emma but didn't come until after...

KC - Who bought things for Emma? Sue - 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.

KC - What happened to Binky? Sue - I  don't know. KC - Did you put Bear Bear in Emma's casket? Sue - Yes, when I asked Stacey where Binky was she said she didn't know. KC - To put in the casket too?
Sue - Yes

KC - On March 18, 2009 you argued with Stacey about coming straight home from work, was this the first time?  Sue -  Coming home on time? KC - Only time? Sue - Only that day. I had an appointment at 3:30 that was only 5 minutes away so I wanted to take a nap before.

(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.")

KC - Was Stacey neat or a slob? Who cleaned Emma's room? Sue - We both straightened Emma's room but the maid cleaned.

KC - Was Stacey a good student? Sue - She got some A's and B's mostly C's.

KC -  What did Stacey tell you about the baggy in her purse ? Sue -  I saw the baggy. She had Girl Scout cookies in it, Thin mints. KC - What kind of a baggy was it? A real ziplock baggy or another type?
Sue -  real

KC -  Did Stacey keep a neat purse? Sue - Yes.  KC - She wasn't like me...bag stuffed with every receipt?  Sue - No. KC - Did you ever see Emma play with Stacey's purse? Sue - Yes. KC -  Did you lie to Detective Nava about that? Sue - I was in shock. KC - Is your memory better now than then? Sue -  People remember important things.

KC - When is dinner time for Emma? Sue - I don't know I went to work at 5:30.

KC - How coordinated was Emma? RD- Objection, calls for speculation! JZ- It's first hand information. (The question wasn't answered although it sounds as though JZ permitted it. KC moved on.)

KC - Did anyone give Emma Benedryl ? Sue - No  KC - Was Emma teething? Sue - No, but we used Tylenol and a teething ring when she was.

KC - asked some  questions about the Lunchable that Emma had for dinner that night, where it was bought and what was in it. RD- objected, relevance ? JZ must have over ruled the objection .Sue- 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.
 
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. Here is a link to the opening statements from earlier in the day. 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