UPDATE 10:57 AMclarity
January 3rd, 2014
After German national Gerhard Becker was sentenced on January 3rd, 2014 in the death of career firefighter, DDA Sean Carney spoke to the media.  Becker was sentenced by Judge Robert J. Perry to 1 year in LA County jail and 3 years probation.

After DDA Carney spoke, retired firefighter Captain Kevin Mulvehill addressed the media, and spoke about fallen firefighter Glenn Allen.

 Matthew McGough kindly shared with T&T his audio and photos of the presser.  Special thanks to T&T contributor Days Like This for combining the audio and image files.

Full case coverage on T&T.

I obtained a copy of the lawsuit that Kelly Soo Park filed against Detective Karen Thompson of the Santa Monica Police Department.



You can also read the document on T&T's SCRIBD account HERE.

Continued from Day 4, Part II....

December 9th, 2013

1:33 PM
The lunch break is over and I'm inside Dept 51.  I got a confirmation that the November 18 date was just a discovery hearing and not considered a part of the preliminary hearing. The clerk asks counsel to let her know when they are ready.  Ms. Levine, who is now at the podium states she is ready.  I notice that the gray haired man is wearing a Picasso-like tie.

1:35 PM
Detective Shafia retakes the stand. Levine asks the detective whether he considered Ms. Doe's apartment a crime scene. He answers, "... could have been. Correct."  Levine states he took no steps to secure the crime scene. Detective Shafia states he never went into that apartment.  He doesn't know if (Ms. Doe?) there was a prescription for Misoprostol at that apartment.

JL: Sometime later, were you aware  photos were taken of that apartment?
JS: No.

The chrono log reflects that the initial officers appeared anxious to make an arrest. The initial report listed Ms. Doe as a homicide victim.  Initial searches (Det. Shafia performed?) were for a probable drug based on what the initial officers told him.

Defense F is introduced. Judge Pastor asks, "Did we misplace Defense E?"  It's explained that Defense E is a lab report.  Defense F is not put up on the overhead screen. Defense F is described as a Wikipedia search.

JL: Is this the search you did?
JS: (He thinks so) It doesn't have a complete date on the document.

Levine asks if the search result told him Misoprostol could be applied as a powder.  Shafia looks over the document.

1:47 PM
Shafia is asked if he knew Ms. Doe told detectives she found powder in her panties?

JS: No.
JL: (Did you) search online line for women using powder?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

Shafia states he looked through a number of search engines and this was the most comprehensive so he printed it out. Shafia is asked about documentation on his search history. There is none.

Shafia called Ms. Doe and had her come to Wilshire Station to be interviewed.  She came with her friend McKell (sp?).

JL: Were you aware that McKell had been at Ms. Doe's house when she claimed to have miscarried?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

JL: Were you aware that McKell had been in the vicinity of (where?) Mr. Woodward was when he was arrested?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

Ms. Levine asks if McKell was in (present?) on Ms. Doe's interview?

JS: No.

There are many questions Levine asks that are objected to and sustained by Judge Pastor. Shafia states that Ms. Doe came in for an interview and that interview was taped. The video portion of the interview ends before the interview actually ended. Shafia states he learned of it a couple of months later.

JP: Did you do that on purpose?
JS: No.

Shafia had other discussions with Ms. Doe, but that was the only interview that was taped. Ms. Levine wants to question Shafia off of the defense copy of the interview transcript, bu there is a pagination between that copy and the prosecution's copy. Ms. Levine states there is no difference of any substance.

The discussion began of Ms. Doe's relationship with Mr. Woodward and that they were friends and that they had dated off and on.  Shafia states he did not do any investigation to determine if that was true.

JL: Did you interview any friends ... or ask to see any photographs of her and Mr. Woodward?
(miss answer)

Ms. Doe sent Detective Shafia (a text she wrote Woodward?) after the miscarriage.  "Just got back from doctor. Everything okay." It appears Ms. Doe showed Detective Shafia that text at that first meeting.

JL: Before your sting or snare, ... you knew that she, later she sued Mr. Woodward?
JS: No I did not know (that).

(JL: You asked her to pretend to still be pregnant but she had already decided to do that?)
(JS: Correct.)
JL: So, she was using you?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

Shafia directed Officer Hernandez to take photos of Ms. Doe's cell phone but Shafia doesn't recall what day the photos were taken (of the phone).

Defense H. Detective Shafia's chrono log, about 29 pages.

Detective Shafia does not know if Officer Hernandez took photos of all the messages on that phone.

Defense I. (Photo?) of a package? There are no BATE stamps. There's a blackberry on top in a photo. Appears to be photos of text messages. Shafia is asked to review them to determine if there were any not contained in this group.

JS: These appear to be all the photos that Officer Hernandez took. ... I did not look at the phone. I just looked at the photos.


There are more questions about what Ms. Doe told Detective Shafia she told Woodward about her pregnancy being "okay."

I believe Shafia repeats that Officer Hernandez told him that Hernandez took photos of everything on Ms. Doe's phone.

JL: In that meeting you told her not to erase anything on that phone?
JS: Correct.

Levine crosses Shafia on more of Ms. Doe's interview.  Shafia is asked if he knew if the District Attorney got phone records.   There are questions about another text of Ms. Doe's, but that text was (apparently) not on the phone when it was photographed.

JL: Did she tell you he (Woodward) was wealthy?
JS: I believe she talked about bankruptcy issues.
JL: Did she tell you he came from a wealthy family?
JS: Not sure. I don't recall.
JL: Look at page 79 of the transcript, line 7. She suggests Mr. Woodward comes from a family with money.  ... and talks about Mr. Woodward's mother and father having some money.
JS: (Yes.)
JL: And them traveling to a private island?

Detective Shafia doesn't recall that part of the conversation.

JL: Did you look into Ms. Doe's finances?
JS: No.
JL: (Do you) remember she told you that her hands itched?
JS: Yes.
JL: At any time, did she tell you that her vagina itched?

I believe Levine asks if Ms. Doe told him something that she didn't tell other detectives. She directs him to Page 32, line 17.

JL: She's talking about some meeting around mid September, is that right?
JS: Yes.
JL: And she claims that she and Woodward had sex in late August 2009?
(miss answer)

There's a question about what Ms. Doe said about when the "dates" were that Woodward and the victim got together. Levine continues to question Shafia about this interview. October 17, she went to restaurant but there was "too much smoke."  The "Jamba Juice" occurrence had to occur in September, before she saw the doctor on October 8th. (I'm not sure if this last statement is from the interview or Ms. Levine questioning Detective Shafia.)

Levine asks what Detective Shafia did to look at Ms. Doe's computer.  Shafia states he never seized her computer. The Jamba Juice incident. Ms. Doe felt sick 30 minutes later. Detective Shafia testifies that he just let her talk about the incident.

Jamba Juice incident, she described vomiting, nausea. Of the (October) 18 incident, she described as cramps and somewhat sickness.

JL: In the course of the interview, she watched 20/20, Dateline and Oprah and she learned how to deal with things according to those shows?
S: Yes.

Detective Shafia did not test her for drugs or cocaine.  He did no ask her if she smoked, drank or any behavior that would lead to miscarriage.

JL: You did not see any (office? official) records that pinned down the date of the miscarriage?
JS: No, I did not.
JL: As she put it to you, they had sex that one time?
JS: Correct.

She didn't expound on it, just that she didn't hear from him in the last year. There are questions about prior abortion and that it scarred her. Ms. Doe said that he (Woodward) suggested to her that she use a pill. (Late August, early September.)

Ms. Doe said he mentioned this to her early on.   After the miscarriage, she noticed powder in her undies.  (At that time, McKell was already in the apartment.

JL: You (discovered?) they (Ms. Doe & McKell) looked u on the Internet. Did Internet searches?

2:30 PM
JL: But she knew there was a pill, back in August ... there was a pill she could take?
JS: Yes.

JL: At some time during the interview, she was upset and cried. ... did you do any investigation of her?
JS: No.
JL: Were you aware that she was an actress?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

JL: When Mr. Woodward (& Ms. Doe) spent the night together, the Saturday .. it was at 2 AM?
JS: Yes.
JL: So the evening began late?
JS: Yes.
JL: She said they spent Friday night together?
JS: Yes.
JL: She didn't mention anything about symptoms on that night?
JS: Yes.
JL: She said it could have happened on Friday night, too?
JS: Yes.

JL: She did not complain of no cramping on that Saturday?
JS: Correct.
JL: Didn't complain about diarrhea?
JS: Correct.
JL: Didn't complain of any symptoms that could have been caused by Misoprostol?
JS: (Correct.)

JL: Did you search police records to see if she had made any other complaint about anyone?
DDA Objection!
JP: Sustained!
JL: Did you get into the mechanics as to how the powder got into her vagina?
JS: I did not get specific, but she offered details.

There are questions if:
he asked her if she knew how powder got on his hand.
he asked her how much.
he asked her if she felt anything unusual.

I believe there are questions about if there was a discussion about this might be a difficult case to prove.  Would it be difficult to prove without the fetus.

JL: You told her that you would need to speak to the coroner?
JS: Yes.

JL: This was said in the context that you said this case would be difficult to prove?
JS: Yes.

I believe there is a question that Detective Shafia told Ms. Doe that he would have to speak to her doctors.

2:40 PM
I'm watching the time because I want to get to the break, and I'm wondering how much more Levine will be questioning the detective.

JL: Page 79, line 2. Well you said it would be an accumulation of details ... going to end up (?) talking to coroner.

Levine then asks about something from Detective Shafia's notes, not his interview of Ms. Doe.

Defense J.
JL: If you look at this (BATE/EVID stamp 1873) ... Are these your notes?
JS: Yes.
JL: Is this your handwriting?
JS: Yes.
JL: Meeting with Dr. Young, correct?
JS: Yes.
JL: And that doesn't have anything to do with the case?
JS: Correct.
JL: What coroner did you meet with in this case?
JS: None.

Defense K (BATE/EVID stamp 1821)
JL: Is this your handwriting as well?
JS: Yes.
JL: Met with coroner ... People v Davis.  People v. Taylor.  ... Those are both cases .... ?
JS: Yes.
JL: What do those have to do with (this case?)?

I don't have it in my notes, but from memory, I believe Detective Shafia may have filed papers in the wrong case and/or wrote his notes on another case inside this case file.

Shafia asked about a Deputy District Attorney (Shiller?), about cases similar to this.  In Shafia's chrono, DDA Shiller is listed there.  Chrono page 10.    He called (Lomis?) at LAPD SID. Talks might have coroner ... better response.

JL: Does that relate to this case?
SJ: Yes.

2:48 PM to 3PM
Afternoon break.

During the break, there is a discussion in the well between the prosecution and the defense having to do with getting electronic inner-departmental communication of the LAPD. The LAPD keeps electronic records, not in an archival form, but keeps back-up tapes. I'm not really getting the whole gist of the conversation of what the defense is looking for.  Possibly something to do with conversations with other potential witnesses.  The prosecution will have to figure out how long it might take to do this type of search of LAPD inner-department communications and if it's even possible.  However, this discussion may have to do with Brady material and not potential witnesses.

DDA Balian disagrees. "We don't know what's ... anything there. ... It is a fishing expedition. We don't accept that. At this point, it's beyond the scope of our duties. ... This would be information we don't know if it does or doesn't exist. ... only to verify if what (the) detective told us. ... Would we have to go through file cabinets or go to their homes?"

Judge Pastor, who is part of the conversation states they are not on the record.  "If you want to brief it, brief it."  Judge Pastor tends to agree with the people. I believe Ms. Levine responds, "I expect we would do something like that. (Brief their request.)

Balian states the people's position is to conclude the hearing as scheduled. On December 16th, they are going to return.  There is a discussion about the days needed for he brief, the people's response and then the defense rebuttal to that response. I believe Judge Pastor responds, "I'm telling you right now, I'm not going as far as the defense wants me to go."

Judge Pastor now goes on the record and describes what just happened. "The people have a Brady obligation, but don't believe they have free range... "  There are discussions about the date and time the filings and responses will be done by.

Detective Shafia retakes the stand and Judge Pastor states he's still under oath.

Levine is going over notes Detective Shafia put in the chrono that refer to a different case. Then it's back to the interview transcript with Ms. Doe, page 17.

JL: Another reference of Mr. Woodward  coming from a wealthy family is that correct?
JS: Yes.
JL: So that (interview?) ends with what you refer as "the sting" then afterwards, you wrote a summary report?
JS: Yes.
JL: (You?) asked security at her building to burn a video of Mr. Woodward leaving the apartment?
JS: Yes.
JL: She asked her security to do that before she met with you is that correct?
JS: Yes.
JL: Did you ever get that video?
JS: I don't recall.
JL: (You) never asked for any other video, from Table 8?
JS: No, I did not.
JL: Do you know if she searched on her computer for someone elses' for abortion pill?
JS: I do not.

JL: (You? She?) ... talked about what happened in the bedroom, about scooting around and about a backpack. Do you know if that was ever possible?
JS: No, I did not.
JL: Do you know if she used contacts or glasses?
JS: No, I do not.

There are questions about Ms. Doe's computer and land line that are objected to and sustained.

Questions about snare verses sting.
JL: ... but in the police report you referred to it as a snare?
JS: I don't recall using the word snare.

Ms. Levine has the witness look over a document.

JL: Did you review the arrest report?
JS: Yes.
JL: Did you refer to "snare" ... Mr. Woodward?
JS: Yes.

3:22 PM
JL: The (interview?) tape with Ms. Doe ends around the time you talk about a snare ...
JS: Don't know how long it took, but was trying to find out what she wanted to do as far as (the LAPD) investigating.
JL: the tape ends where you talk about what steps she wants to take, to do next.
JS: Yes. ... The bulk of (the discussion?) was I to notify her doctors and she had to decide what she wanted to do next as to Joshua Woodward.  ... The interview ended with she had options and what she wanted to do next. ... It was mostly to give me time to determine if any of this even happened.

Shafia states he did not meet with Ms. Doe and Ms. McKell after the tape ends.

JL: Did you put in place plans to next speak to her?
JS: No.
JL: What happened next between you and Ms. Doe?
JS: At some point I informed her I was comfortable in making a decision and wanted to know how she wanted to handle it.
JL: Where is that in your log?

Defense exhibit H?  Defense exhibit L.

Several evidence pages BATES/EVID stamp 1774, 1775, 1825, 1821, 1822, 1823, 1824 are presented to the witness.

JS: These was the notes I had written down before the prelim date to get myself ready for testimony.
JL: So this was not a log created at the time ...

The first two pages he created, put together in advance to help him testify. 1774, 1775. More questions about which pages were created at the time he first investigated the case. 1821 - 1825. Pages 1774 and 1775 are pages that consolidate other pages in the investigation.

JL: Let me know what it is that shows you next communication with Ms. Doe.
DDA: Objection. Relevance.
JP: Sustained.

JL: When did you next talk to Ms. Doe?
JS: I believe it was after I obtained a search warrant for Mr. Woodward.
JL: You spoke to her on October 20 ... then spoke again after (you) obtained a search warrant?
JS: Yes.

Defense M. First page.

JL: Court order sealing search warrant?
JS: Yes.
JL: Bottom EVID 2235. Is that (the?) search warrant you're referencing?
JS: Yes.

DDA Rizzo asks for the BATES/EVID number. 0233? 0238?

Ms. Levine asks about something specific on the search warrant. Judge Pastor asks a question. There is another question that has an objection with the ruling as 352.

Another question about the powder in Ms. Doe's underwear.

JS: She told me she didnt' use any products that would leave a powder.
JL: When did she say this?
JS: (Not that I recall.)

After the search warrant was obtained, Detective Shafia called the victim and she was willing to help in the "snare." That phone call was after October 23. Shafia told Ms. Doe to tell the defendant she had a bad episode.

The phone call was on the date of the search warrant.

JL: Did she tell you that she had communicated with Mr. Woodward on the phone?
JS: No.

Ms. Doe usually communicated with Mr. Woodward by text.

JL: Did you ask her to tape conversations on the phone?
JS: No.
JL: Did you monitor her calls?
JS: No.

There are many, many questions about what he did and did not say and do in his investigation of this case.

JL: Do you and Mr. Hernandez have the same number reflected at the station?
JS: Homicide has a main number and five other lines assigned.

Levine asks about a specific number.

JL: Did you speak to her (Ms. Doe) two times that day?
JS: I don't recall.

Now there are questions about how he left the case.  I believe Levine asks if on October 26 he was told the case would be transferred to child abuse.

JL: Is that normal, usually?
JS: It happens on occasion.

Shafia was not notified on that date.

JS: I was told that I had to share for those few days and on November 2, totally transferred.
JL: (Did you) communicate with Ms. Doe after that date?
JS: Yes.
JL: When communicating with Ms. Doe, did you notify Ms. (Detective) Fairchild?

Ms. Doe was upset about the transfer. Ms. Doe called him and was upset about it.  Now Detective Shafia is asked about an entry on the log dated 10/27/09: Victim came to station to deliver medical records.

JL: that's what facilitated Detective Hernandez taking the shots (photographs)?
JS: Not on that day.

That's the day that Ms. Doe came to the station to object to the transfer. Detective Shafia spoke to her on other occasions.

JL: Did you contact Detective Fairchild about those communications?
JS: I don't remember.

Ms. Levine asks about other communication beyond the calls in April.

JL: Do you know prior to that date if Detective Fairchild was going to seize (?) computer?
JS: I think she may have told me.
JL: Did you tell Ms. Doe that her computer would be seized?
JS: No. ... It was more along the lines of how long the case would take.
JL: the materials turned over to Ms. Fairchild .. .was that everything?
DDA: Objection!
(352)

JL: (You?) spoke with Ms. Doe on October 23. ... Do you know if Officer Hernandez spoke with her that day?
JS: No.
JL: But do you know how many times ...

The next time Shafia spoke to Ms. Doe was the 25, about when Mr. Woodward was coming into town.

JL: (You?) don't remember if Ms. Doe told you on the 23 or the 25?
JS: I'm not positive what day it was that Mr. Woodward came into town.

There are questions about a note on a supplement log that Ms. Doe called Detective Shafia on October 21 but it's not on the original log.  Ms. Levine questions if in fact, there is no record of Detective Shafia ever speaking to Ms. Doe on October 21.  There are more questions about the chrono log and I'm so confused here.  Ms. Levine is making a statement or question that Detective Shafia's memory is not accurate about when he spoke to the victim.

Now there are questions about what Detective Shafia told Ms. Doe to tell Mr. Woodward.

JL: What was that?
JS: (I?) told her to tell him she was still pregnant. ... Stay home, answer texts and to let me know when he (Woodward) was on his way.

Ms. Doe had information that Woodward was going to come to her after (he closed?) the restaurant on October 25. Detective Shafia did not write it down.

JL: Did you tell Officer Hernantez?

I believe he answers that it was Detective Carillo (sp?).

JL: When did you tell them this detective?
JS: (On the night of the sting.)
JL: Do you know when you got that information?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained. Asked and answered.
JL: Did you get any other communication?

Detective Shafia doesn't recall if it was a text or message.

JL: Where did you write that down detective?
JS: I did not write it down.
JL: Where were you when you got that information?
JS: I was parked behind the KFC.
JL: How long ... there? ... What time (did you) arrive?
JS: I got there a little after eleven.

Now there are many rapid fire questions and I can't keep up.

JL: Did she tell you that her friend McKell was watching (from) the street as well?

Shafia states he was told that later by someone else.

JL: If there was a car circling, would you have been able to see it?
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

JL: (Well?) You set yourself up as to what you could see .. the cars on the street and what businesses were open. I want to understand where you were. ... I want to be sure that we're in the same area, because that area is very busy (busiest?) in the city...
DDA: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

The Grove shopping center is mentioned as being near by.

JS: Well, it would depend on what you want to consider (is) close.

Ms. Levine asks where Cedars Sinai hospital is.

JP: Now we're going to the beach.

Ms. Levine argues about where Cedars Sinai was and why Ms. Do didn't go there. It's about two miles from where Ms. Doe lived. Now Judge Pastor over rules his own comment. I note that the defense attorney (or staff person with the defense) has left the courtroom.

Judge Pastor interrupts the questioning to go over again when motions will be due for the next hearing.  The target issue on scope, anything on Brady. He's asking to keep on schedule for Monday.  Court will resume at 9:00 AM on December 16th.

DDA Balian asks for a redirect questioning of Detective Shafia, if he recalled any email communication for the purpose of this motion (that's yet to be written).

HB: Do you have any email communications with Ms. Doe describing the facts of the case?
JS: No.
HB: Did you ever interview her via email?
JS: No.

There are new questions, but I believe it's Ms. Levine doing the questioning.

JL: Detective, there's at least one email or text that has to do with the facts of this case.
JS: The only email that I remember .. .is one in (the) murder book and put in evidence. ... Any other email/texts had to do with scheduling of this case. ... I don't talk about cases that are not my case.

I believe Detective Shafia continues...

JS: I remember her having concerns over the years about the case.

Detective Shafia did not keep records of those communications.

JS: I don't know what media; ... I just have memory of her (calling? asking?).

DDA Balian asks a question.

JS: To the best of my knowledge, it was her calling asking about timeliness.

And that's the end of my notes for Day 4.

December 16, 2013

8:48 AM
I'm on the 7th floor of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, waiting for Judge Pastor's courtroom, Dept. 51 to open.

Judge Pastor's court clerk and his court reporter, Mavis, arrive around the same time. Mavis says hello.

Once inside Dept. 51, I see Woodward take a seat in the last gallery row on the defense side of the room. He's hard at work on his cell phone.  It's another day with a cold courtroom. The defense has their materials all set up. I think this is a new bailiff in the room. I don't recognize him.

The clerk goes right to work and Mavis starts setting up her desk. Mavis is wearing a very nice gray and black outfit with a long jacket. It's freezing, freezing cold in here. As Mavis and the clerk chat, I overhear the clerk say that she's comfortable. I'm amazed because she's wearing a short sleeved top. I hear that the back rooms behind the courtroom are warm, stifling, but the courtroom is freezing.

8:58 AM
Detectives Shafia and Fairchild arrive. Greetings are exchanged in the well. Detective Fairchild sits at the prosecution table and Detective Shafia takes a seat in the jury box. Clerks from the DA's staff arrive to set up the overhead screen.

9:00 AM
DDA Rizzo and Balian arrive. Ms. Rizzo is wearing a lovely cream trench coat. It has these very large tortoise-shell  looking buttons down the center of the back. I love this coat. The defense team works with moving the overhead projector device to use for exhibits during cross.

Marguerite Rizzo sets up the prosecution's files. DDA Balian is at the clerk's desk, going through a stack of files, possibly the exhibits.  The clerk asks the room, "Are we ready?  People, are we ready?"  Habib Balian answers, "Yes."

There are two defense attorneys in the gallery row in front of me and 2 directly behind me.

9:05 AM
On the record in People v. Woodward.  Appearances are stated for the record.

Judge Pastor starts off by stating there was a telephonic conference last week to defer (arguing of the motions).  I believe either Judge Pastor states or DDA Balian states that the people are researching more electronic documentation.  They will return on January 23 for argument.

Ms. Levine gets up to continue her cross examination of Detective Shafia.

There are questions about screen shots on Ms. Doe's blackberry.

JL: Was that a direction you asked Mr. Hernandez?
JS: Yes. ... I directed him to take photos of what he thought were relevant.
JL: So he made a decision?
JS: (Yes.)

Questions about the names of the other detectives in the Wilshire Homicide Unit in 2009.  Detective Wong: Director of the unit. Detective Carrilo (sp?) is D3, supervisor of Homicide Unit.

JS: He's one step above me.

JL: (?) returned to Ms. Doe's apartment next day?
JS: Yes.
JL: (?) Retrieved some items?

Detective Shafia was appraised of that and items were collected afterwards.  Now there are questions about phone calls between him and Ms. Doe.

JS: She was complaining about how long it was taking.
JL: Do you recall an email from Detective Fairchild inquiring about those calls in 2012/
JS: Yes.

Detective Shafia states he wrote her back that he didn't remember the conversations and he has nothing else to help him remember. Shafia states he's never been inside Ms. Doe's apartment that she had in October 2009. Detective Shafia states he had no personal knowledge of what her view was from her apartment.  People's exhibit 2 is put up on the overhead screen.

Judge Pastor asks for a moment. He leaves his bench for a moment to turn on his computer.

JL: Detective, do you recognize this?
JS: yes.
JL: ... and this is the area where you arrested Mr. Woodward?
JS: Yes.
JL: This photo has (indications?) of what's north?
JS: Yes.
JL: He was arrested on the northeast corner of 3rd & (Houser?)
JS: Arrested in a cut-out area for wheelchair (access?).

Woodward was arrested with the assistance of Officer Hernandez. There are questions about where his car was parked and what direction it was facing.

Defense N. Photo of parking lot of KFC and apartment building where Ms. Doe resided.

Detective Shafia points out in the image where a white car is parked, that his car was in the approximate same position but his car was facing out (not in).

JL: The photo is a fair depiction of what his view was like?
JS: Yes.

Detective Shafia states he could not see how or when Woodward arrived in the area.

JL: Do you know if any time elapsed between the time Mr. Woodward arrived in the area and time he arrived...
HB: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

Question about the direction Woodward arrived walking when he was arrested.

JS: He was walking from Pointsetta towards Fuller.

Detective Shafia had pulled out from the spot when he first saw Woodward. He pulled out as if exiting to the street.  The KFC was completely closed there was no staff inside.

JL: Did you see a taxicab drop Mr. Woodward off?
JS: No.
JL: In direct, you said Mr. Woodward dropped a substance in a plastic bag?
JS: Yes.
JL: And Detective Hernandez swabbed the item?

(Exhibit 18 - photo of swab tube against pants).

JS: (Yes.)

There are questions about the swab tube and it's description.

JL: Did you see Mr. Woodward earlier that day or was that the first time you saw him?
JS: First time.
JL: Nothing further.

Cross ends and redirect begins.

HB: Prior to taking the swab, did Detective Hernandez touch the defendant?
JS: Yes.
HB: Describe (that).
JS: He took a tactical position and searched him for weapons.

The witness is asked to describe the tactical position.

JS: Got him ready to be handcuffed.
HB: Did you observe Detective Hernandez touch Mr. Woodward's hands?
JS: Yes.

There are questions about the underwear. Detective Shafia did not examine the two pairs of panties for powder.

HB: Why?
JS: Those items had already been booked into evidence.
HB: (Regarding the incident at) Jamba Juice. I believe you testified about what Ms. Doe told you. Did she ever tell you in the October 20 interview ... Did Ms. Doe tell you whether the nausea she experienced, compared to other times?
JS: Yes.
HB: What did she say?
JS: She said she had only been nauseous a few times. ... This was much more violent ... of puking.

The questions about alleged incident on October 18th, in reality were late ... Sunday AM. 

HB: During her description to you of symptoms, she had with the defendant during that incident, did she tell you she experienced any vomiting?
JS: Yes. ... That she had been puking.
HB: Now, late Friday, early AM Saturday, October 17th. ... She did not tell you about any symptoms she had? ... On that interview and that date, she did not tell you about any symptoms she experienced?
JS: Yes.

Detective Shafia did not ask her any questions or follow up questions. He didn't really ask her any questions at all. "It was more an informal interview. ... I just listened." Shafia is asked about the reference in the file to coroner Dr. Young.

The clerk interrupts to speak to Judge Pastor. It's a quick exchange.

HB: Does that note have anything to do with this case or investigation?
JS: No.

This is a hand written log that he made up to try to remember the case as well as other cases. He also responsible to other death investigations.  Those other notes were turned over that had nothing to do with this case.

Now questions about LAPD SID employee, Dan Anderson (Anderson testified in the Lazarus trial as well as the two Spector trials.) and inquiring about the potential of the coroner's lab testing Misoprostol.  The lab did not have the blanks for the Misoprostol to test.  Dan Anderson gave Detective Shafia the contact of another person to help him with the case.  Anderson is a toxicologist at the lab.

The chrono log, Defense exhibit L, is a log he prepared in relation to his testimony. He did not prepare it while investigating the case. It's what he prepared, in order to get ready for the case. Detective Shafia testified on cross there was no record of the conversation with Ms. Doe.

HB: Didn't you in fact document that in ..  You did document that contact in the original arrest report?
JS: Yes.
HB: Which report did you document?
JS: The original arrest report.
HB: Regarding the 2010 calls he received from Ms. Doe, I believe you testified on cross they were case related?
JS: The calls received ... were inquiries from Ms. Doe.  (Such as) Who was the DA. What could she do to speed things up.

There are questions about the calls. Detective Shafia doesn't remember. It was about the content of the calls.

HB: Questions about how you were parked in KFC. What were you focused on?
JS: We were in a stand down position; waiting.  ... call from Ms. Doe that Woodward was in route.

Detective Shafia wasn't looking at traffic or particular cars.

HB: Why were you there on that night?
JS: I had information from Ms. Doe that Woodward would be in town. That he would be coming there after he closed the restaurant, and that Ms. Doe told him that he usually would come through that north gate.

HB: The final incident.  Did she tell you how long after the final incident she started experiencing cramps?
JS: 8:30 AM ... The intensified to extreme hard cramps. Enough to notify her doctor and sister.

DDA Balian asks the detective to go to Page 28 line 20 of Ms. Doe's interview to refresh his memory.  Detective Shafia reviews the transcript then testifies.

JS: That the cramping symptoms were in full swing. The worst she ever felt. Nothing like it.
HB: What was her exact words?
JS: They were just full on. Like I'd never felt.
HB: Experienced when? What time?
JS: 10 AM.

Redirect is finished and Ms. Levine recrosses the witness.

JL: Communications with Detective Fairchild, about calls (from Ms. Doe), you could not remember the calls or the content?
JS: Yes.

There's no more redirect.  Judge Pastor asks, "Should Detective Shafia remain on call?"  The defense replies, "Yes."

Detective Shafia is ordered back on January 23 at 9 AM. There is a discussion about a health issue Detective Shafia has scheduled to address on January 24 and the stress of being in court the day before.

JL: Maybe we don't need Detective Shafia.
JP: That would be great.

Detective Kimberly Fairchild is called to the stand. She's still under oath. 

DDA Balian presents the witness.

9:50 AM
Detective Fairchild is currently assigned to LAPD Robbery Homicide - Special assault section. She's been a detective for 12 years. Her assignment in 2009 was to the Juvenile Division, Abused Child Unit. She investigated deaths of children under 11 years of age.  She was officially assigned the case on November 2, 2009. This is the type of case she would routinely handle.

She handled and booked (evidence?) under case number 09-0719880. She also wrote reports under 09-0719173. 

On January 29, 2010, she interviewed Cheryl Will (sp?), supervisor for LAPD narcotics lab, who was overseeing the analysis of evidence collected in the case.  Those were items #15, #16, #17, #18 and others.

HB: What did she tell you?
KF: Their labs were not equipped to do the testing.
HB: February 3, 2010, what action did you take with respect to this case?
KF: Transported items to the DEA lab in Vista, CA.

Detective Fairchild thinks the individual she handed the evidence items over to was a supervisor named (Cheche? sp?).

HB: Did you participate in an interview with Ms. Doe and Ms. Rizzo in this case/
KF: Yes.

Detective Fairchild identifies a photo of Ms. Doe. (The photo is not put up on the overhead screen.)

HB: What was her demeanor?
KF: She was very upset at times, crying and (other times) would be angry.
HB: Did it appear to you ... recalling information...
JL: Objection! Calls for conclusion.
(missed ruling)
HB: Did you ask her ... were questions asked of her?
KF: Yes.
HB: That asked for specific information?
KF: Yes.
HB: Based on questions asked, did she ever indicate to you, even though she was upset, crying, did she...
JL: Objection!
JP: Sustained.
HB: Given her demeanor, did she ever indicate to you she had difficulty remembering events?
KF: No.

Ms. Doe related events regarding (her interactions?) with Woodward. Also spoke to her afterwards. Ms. Doe identified a photo of Woodward. Detective Fairchild also identifies the defendant for the record.

HB: June 24, 2010, you interviewed Ms. Doe on that date. Did she tel you when she met the defendant?
KF: She said she met him in 2000. ... At the time she was a bartender at Saddle Ranch and she had met him there.

Detective Fairchild has been to Ms. Doe's apartment. She's also been to Jamba Juice; it's in The Grove mall.

HB: Interview on June 24, 2010. Did she at some point, she told the defendant she wanted to know the baby (due date?)/
KF: She said that he became very angry. (He told her) "You can't keep this. It would ruin me." ... I think she said that he threw himself on the floor and he was so angry.
HB: Did she tell you he did anything else while on the floor?
KF: That he would buy her a real estate business if she would abort.
HB: No, I mean, what else he did?
KF: No, I don't recall.

(Question or answer) He was crying and he told her it would ruin his life and she couldn't have it.

HB: Did she talk to you about the Jamba Juice incident at The Grove?
KF: Yes.
HB: Did she give you a specific date?
KF: She didn't give a date.
HB: ... went through steps to give an approximate time line?
KF: Yes.

Questions about Ms. Doe having (interview? meeting? with defendant?) at 8 Ounce Burger to, (possibly) a friend buy (her?) a business.

KF: Approximately in September. .. Her impression was, they were going to talk about the baby but they talked about his bankruptcy problems.

Another meeting Ms. Doe had with Woodward is discussed.

HB: Approximately when was the next time?
KF: She said weeks later ... would be in October 2009.


I believe the entire answer to the last question is stricken.

KF: She said next meeting was weeks later, after the 8 Ounce Burger meeting.
HB: The meeting at The Grove (Jamba Juice) was before that meeting? (Before Oct 18th?)
KF: It was before.  ... She said she received a text message from Joshua telling her to meet him at The Grove. ... She met him there. He had a Jamba Juice ready for her. It was watered down. ... She did not ask him to order it. She accepted it. ... As they were shopping, she started to feel ill. ... They were talking about the baby and he seemed to be more accepting. ... She told him it tasted funny. ... He grabbed it; tasted it and said nothing was wrong.  ... She continued to gt ill and went home. Twenty minutes to an hour later, her symptoms .... violently ill. She was vomiting and had diarrhea ... about five times during that period.

HB: During the interview on June 24, 2010, did she talk about the incident on October 17th, early morning ... Saturday?
KF: Yes.
HB: Did she tell you about what time he arrived?
KF: ... they are together and ended up in bed. She was describing the foreplay.

They began kissing. He reached down to his pants, then reached into a back pack. Then he put his fingers insider her. It was the same hand. He penetrated her vagina with his hand for about five minutes. It was very hard and uncomfortable. That was something out of their ordinary, in their sexual routine. He had never done that before.  He stayed for a little while and left after seven or eight AM.

KF: She said she experienced abdominal cramping, fatigue and sweating, ... feeling out of it. She called the on-call doctor at Cedars.  ... She called her work and called in sick.
HB: (What work?)
KF: She called into her bar tending and also her real estate (job).
HB: Did you write into your report Saddleback Ranch? ... Did you write into your handwritten notes?
KF: I would have to refer to my notes.

I am freezing in this courtroom. I don't know how I am going to last through the morning.

KF: It's not in my notes.
HB: Did you participate in an interview with Ms. Do, Ms. Rizzo and myself (on) December 12, 2012/
KF: Yes.
HB: (What was the purpose of the interview?)
KF: For Ms. Doe to meet you and also clear up what phone she used to make calls, and if she used a land phone.
HB: What was her response?
KF: She said she never called a doctor at Cedars in 2009.
HB: Did I confront her? ... Did I ask her if she had told you and Ms. Rizzo?
KF: She said, "I never said that, and you must be mistaken."

There are questions about Ms. Doe and the October 17 event.

KF: She then said, "I never said that. I never said there was cramping. I just said I was out of it and tired." Like she was in a fog.
HB: How adamant was she that she didn't experience cramping on the 17th?
JL: Objection! Conclusion!
JP: Sustained.

She was upset and very forceful that she had never called the on-call doctor and was very certain that she had never said (about) the cramping. (In relation to Oct. 17.)

HB: What was her demeanor when she said she never called the doctor?
KF: She was very sure, very forceful that she had never had that call. ... She was again very forceful that she had never called Saddleback Ranch. ... She said she didn't work at Saddleback. She worked at another location.

Detective Fairchild called Saddleback Ranch and spoke to a Mr. Pollack. He said Ms. Doe worked there from 2000 to 2002. She was not employed there in 2009.

10:30 AM
I'm watching the clock like a hawk since I am so cold.  (They keep saying Saddleback however online it states the restaurant is Saddle Ranch. Sprocket.)

HB: June 24, 2010 interview ... where you said in your report where you report Ms. Doe experienced cramping. Is it possible that Ms. Doe did not tell you? ... How quickly, during that interview was Ms. Do speaking/
KF: She spoke very quick, very fast.


HB: She was speaking quickly?
KF: Yes.
HB: Was it hard to take notes?
KF: It was hard to follow. ... She would skip around on events, between October 17, October 18. Back and forth between dates.

10:32 AM
The morning break is called. I get up and move around to get some blood circulating again. Several of the attorneys are shivering like I am and commenting on the cold courtroom.

10:52 AM
HB: June 24, 2010 interview. Did you speak to her about the alleged incident that occurred on October 18, 2009?
KF: Yes.
HB: Did she discuss with you symptoms she experienced after Mr. Woodward left her apartment?
KF: Yes. ... She said that almost immediately after he left, she had cramps, feeling feverish, sweating and diarrhea.

DDA Balian ask her about a follow up investigation (report? chrono in log?) dated August 9, 2010.

KF: She said that she got chills. She began sweating and started violently vomiting. ... This was around seven to eight in the AM. ... Cramps like she never experienced before. ... She then laid down. ... She contacted the on-call doctors at Cedars. ... At 10:15 AM, she was still feeling sick, cramping and called in sick to her real estate job. ... She still was feeling sick, ... some cramping.

She said at about two to three PM, she went to the toilet to urinate and noticed spotting from her vagina when she wiped herself. ... She was concerned so she called the on-call doctor. At five PM she started to feel a little bit better.  At six PM she was still feeling (okay?). Not a lot of symptoms. No symptoms in report. She said she still felt pressure in her abdomen.

At nine PM she stood up and water came out of her vagina. She went to the bathroom; there was more gushing out of her vagina, blood clots. She then looked in the toilet and saw her baby in the toilet. She wiped herself, called McKell, (sp?) her friend, and told her about it.

(A date, May 6, 2011 is discussed. This is possibly an interview with "McKell" (sp?). My notes are not clear. Possibly the interview was also with Ms. Rizzo present. Sprocket.)

McKell went to Ms. Doe's apartment. (Ms. Doe?) knew that it was Woodward's baby because she had not had sex with anyone for about a year.  She had never seen a black backpack before.

McKells husband, Jay (Cremin? sp?) is mentioned. I believe Detective Fairchild interviewed him also. He was married to McKell.  While Ms. Doe was miscarrying her baby, she called McKell.

Now there are questions about what Mr. Aremis said his wife said to him. There are several questions and then there's an argument about what Detective Fairchild can testify to.

HB: In interview with Jay Cremin, did he tell you what if anything ...
KF: He said that McKell received a phone call from Ms. Doe.  ... He was present in the home. ... McKell left the apartment. ... The car ride from his apartment (to Ms. Doe's?) was about five to seven minutes. He had contact with mcKell, five to seven minutes after.
HB: Did he tell you that McKell asked him to do something?
KF: Yes.

There are lots of objections with this testimony.

KF: First, he went to Ralph's (grocery store) to pick up gloves and maxi pads. ... When he arrived (at Ms. Doe's apartment) Ms. Doe was out of it, upset and crying. McKell was there. ... He saw blood on the floor and on a towel.  He opened the toilet lid and saw blood and saw a baby that was smaller than his fist and looked normal. ... He said he got some toilet paper and cleaned up and flushed the contents of the toilet. It took several attempts. ... He then went into Ms. Doe's bedroom. ... McKell was there. Ms. Doe was upset.

HB: Did he tell you whether he looked into a pair of turquoise underwear?
KF: Yes. ... He saw white powder on the turquoise underwear. ... He said that the police should be notified.

According to Jay, Ms. Doe did not want to call the police. She was not out to get the defendant. She had to be talked into it.

There is argument between counsel as to if this is relevant. Judge Pastor rules that he is going to allow it.

KF: Jay said that Ms. Doe told him that she didn't believe that Joshua would do that to her and she wasn't inclined to call police.
HB: Did Jay tell you whether Ms. Doe ... willingness to go and call police?
KF: He said at one point McKell Googled white powder. ... He observed McKell on the computer Googling white powder.

JP: In regards to Ms. Doe, evidence code 1250.

KF: Ms. Doe was present (as?) to McKell's Google search. ... Sometime after that, Ms. Doe (? prayed?) together.
JL: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

Gail became angry and decided to go to the police.  Direct is finished and cross begins by Ms. Levine.

Ms. Levine asks about the Google search. The name "Google" was given to Detective Fairchild.
JL: Who's computer was it? ... Who told you which computer? ... Who searched what computer when and was the search for "white powder" and abortion?
(miss answer)

11:20 AM
October 5, 2012. Detective Fairchild verified that M.s Doe told her she searched "white powder & abortion."  Detective Fairchild never searched Ms. Doe's work computers. A roommate named Sam, Detective Fairchild never interviewed.

JL: Do you know if Sam had a computer that was on the premises?
KF: No.
JL: When did you first obtain Ms. Doe's computer?
KF: I don't recall.

She first seized it in April 2010 and seized it again in 2012. There are questions about Detective Fairchild's training. She's been an officer 23 years and a detective 12 years. Ms. Levine asks the witness if she ever asked someone if they could slow down, or ask to repeat. Detective Fairchild is asked if she has ever taped interviews and about her experience in interviewing subjects before.

JL: Did you expect if Detective Shafia had spoken with Ms. Doe, he would tell you about it?
KF: Only if it was relevant to the investigation.
JL: You are aware that there were two calls in 2010 that lasted at least 20 minutes? (Between Shafia & Ms. Doe?) ???
HB: Objection!
I believe Judge Pastor rules 352.

Ms. Levine asks about an interview I believe in May, 2011. Detective Fairchild has been in Ms. Doe's apartment five or six times in the last three to four years.  Detective Fairchild has interviewed Ms. Doe three times. During those different interviews (and /or visits to Ms. Doe's apartment), Detective Fairchild took photos, Ms. Do identified Mr. Woodward from photos and she returned Ms. Doe's laptop to her.

11:30 AM
JL: Did you ask Detective Shafia about the tape not working of the first interview?
KF: He just said that the tape just shut off.

In a question about missing photos when the file was transferred over:

KF: When I got the murder book, I thought everything was there?
JL: In conversation with Ms. Doe, did you ever have a conversation that (wasn't?) recorded on notes or?

The dates she interviewed Ms. Doe: April 2010; June 2010; May 2011; Sept. 2012.

JL: Did she ever call you ...
KF: (She would complain about the case.)
JL: Did you ever ask her any questions?
KF: No.

KF: She had mentioned that she was going to sue Mr. Woodward civilly.

Detective Fairchild didn't write that in any notes or logs.

JL: Did you inquire what she was suing him for?
KF: No.
JL: In that interview in Ms. Rizzo's office, was there some time limit?
KF: No.

After the interview, she wrote notes contemporaneously.

JL: Written contemporaneously? ... We you taking notes as Ms. Doe was talking?
KF: Yes.
JL: then you went back and wrote a report?
KF: Yes.

Defense exhibit P, her report (dated October 9, 2010?).

JL: Did you write this based on your memory and your notes? ... Did you ask Ms. Rizzo or did you do it all by yourself?
KF: I did it all by myself.

Detective Fairchild reviewed all the reports in the file and was aware of prior interviews.

JL: Were you present at a November 11, 2009 interview?
KF: It was conducted at Ms. Doe's apartment.
JL: You did not do an inventory of Ms. Doe's ...?
KF: No.
JL: Do you know if there were any drugs or alcohol ... in her apartment?
KF: No.
JL: Any Misoprostol?
KF: No.

Detective Fairchild was not present during the "sting." In the first interview with Ms. Doe with Ms. Rizzo, it went from topic to topic.

JL: You knew that she was an actress and taking acting lessons?
HB: Objection!
JP: Sustained. 352.
JL: At the time you interviewed her in 2010, you heard testimony that Mr. Hernandez was (authorized? with?) to take photos of text message of what he determined was relevant?
KF: ... first saw those .... can't remember. ... did not have those with me when questioning Ms. Doe.

Defense exhibit I. (I miss rewriting what this document is. It might be a list of text messages.)

Going over the photos of the texts dated October 7, 2009. The text messages mention Jamba Juice.

"I almost puked on you that's why I left."

JL: So that means the Jamba Juice took place before the first visit with Dr. Tsu.

More questions about the text messages.  Part of the report said Ms. Doe accused Woodward of poisoning her. There's a question about the missing text messages that Ms. Doe deleted (off of her phone).  Now there are questions about the first time Detective Fairchild saw the panties and the powder in the panties.

The first time she viewed the panties was at the property room and viewed the underwear.

JL: September 2013 about right/
KF: That's correct.

JL: Was the first time Ms. Doe told you you were wrong, was when Mr. Balian and Ms. Rizzo were all together?
KF: Yes.

The September 2012 meeting was to determine if she used a land line in 2009. That was the first time she asked Ms. Doe if she used a land line. Detective Fairchild never asked Ms. Doe for her phone bills.  Detective Fairchild obtained Ms. Doe's phone number. She had two cell phones.

JL: She had two physical cell phones?
KF: Yes. ... I believed she used one and then it stopped. And then used another.
JL: Did she have more than one cell phone number?
KF: (No.)
JL: did she have more than one text address?
KF: No.
JL: Did you know that she communicated with Detective Shafia by email?
HB: Objection!
JP: Sustained.

JL: In the September 2012 interview with Ms. Doe, you were asking if she communicated with Mr. Woodward by cell or land line?
KF: I think that was to determine which phone she used to call in sick and to call the doctor.

JP: Did she indicate she had more than one bartender job in 2009-2010?
KF: No.

Detective Fairchild did not interview her boss at the bartender job. She did not interview him to verify Ms. Doe called in sick.

JL: Did you ask for information to show they dated?
KF: She said they had known each other for ten years and had communicated on and off.
JL: (She said?) she hadn't spoken to him in over a year in August 2009?
KF: Yes.

I believe Ms. Levine asks if Ms. Doe first told the detective she called in sick on October 17 but in a later interview she said she hadn't.  Fairchild is asked abut the date of when she went to Table 8. Detective Fairchild's report says they were all drinking alcohol. Detective Fairchild states that Ms. Doe was referring to Joshua and the friends.  Her report doesn't say that.

Cross is not finished yet.

1:30 PM
There are four defense attorney's in the well and four defense staff in the gallery. Woodward takes his seat at the defense table. Thankfully, the courtroom is much warmer.

1:33 PM
The clerk asks, "Counsel, are you ready?"  DDA Balian replies, "Yes."

Judge Pastor takes the bench. He apologizes to Detective Fairchild for addressing her with an incorrect name.   She retakes the stand.

There is some discussion about photos that had not been in the murder book in print form but were on disk. There's a question about cell phone numbers of Ms. Doe's phone and if it was used to obtain cell phone records.  Detective Fairchild also had Mr. Woodwards' cell records by search warrant.

Cell records were obtained from August 2009 to October 26, 2009 for Ms. Do and Mr. Woodward.

JL: Did you compare photographs from Officer Hernandez photographing (the texts) to cell phone records obtained via subpoena?
KF: No.

There are questions about who did a computer search for "white powder" and "abortion" and who didn't.

KF: Ms. Verde (sp?) (This must be McKell's last name. Sprocket) said that she and Ms. Doe did the computer search.

Detective Fairchild talked to Ms. Verde about what she saw that evening.

JL: That she saw Mr. Woodward on the street.
HB: Objection! Beyond scope.
JP: Sustained.

JL: .... asked Ms. Verde about the 18th and the 25th?
HB: Objection about the 25th.
JP: Sustained on the 25th.

I believe the defense argues to get this information before the preliminary hearing.  I believe it's Ms. Levine who makes an offer of proof to the court.

JL: Ms. Verde was parked on fuller on the 25th. She was waiting outside. She saw him get out of a cab. ... get out walking around ... on cell phone smoking.
HB: All of this testimony what she saw, would have been out of Detective Shafia's view.

I have in my notes more questions, and it appears that these questions were allowed by Judge Pastor.

JL: She (Ms. Verde) was parked on Fuller?
KF: Yes.
JL: She saw him walk up and down the street?
KF: Yes.
JL: She saw him make several phone calls?
KF: Yes.
JL: She saw him arrested?
KF: Yes.
JL: Did he walk around the block?
KF: Yes.

Now a question about the October 17th incident. Ms. Doe discussed the mechanics of the placement (of the white powder).  Detective Fairchild went into Ms. Doe's apartment. The bed is higher than the floor.  Ms. Doe was simply watching what Mr. Woodward was doing.

JL: Did you ask her if he used a lubricant? ... How the powder got off her hand ... got into her vagina?
KF: She said that she was excited and that the powder would have adhered to her.

Apparently, Detective Fairchild had not told that to anyone before today.

JL: Where is that in your reports?
(miss answer)

Ms. Levine goes over the sequence of events that Ms. Doe claimed happened on October 17 and 18.  On the 17th, it happened once (insertion of powder into her). On the 18th, several times.

JL: Did you ask about (lighting?) conditions of ... room?
KF: No.
JL: Did you ask Ms. Doe if the light was on?
KF: She didn't specify.
JL: Did you ask Ms. Doe if she used glasses or contact lenses?
KF: No.

Cross ends and redirect begins.

HB: During the June 24, 2010 interview with Ms. Doe, did she say whether she saw the defendant before early 2008 - 2009?
KF: She said she didn't see him.
HB: Counsel asked you on cross examination whether Ms. Doe told you she was drinking alcohol when she was (drinking at the restaurant with friends & Joshua) ... that would have been .... do you recall that?
KF: Yes.
HB: Counsel said in report ... In your hand written notes, did you write: "Entered restaurant and sat down with friends that were drinking?"
KF: I meant that Josh and his friends were the ones that were drinking.

Question about an interview with McKell Verde (sp? on September 7, 2012.

KF: Yes, they were friends.
HB: Did she tell you about her relationship with Mr. Cremins?
KF: Yes. Her husband was Jay.
HB: Regarding the arrival of the suspect on October 25, 2009. Where did she (McKell) tell you she parked her car?
KF: She parked it on Fuller.
HB: Where did she tell you she parked?
KF: I believe it was on the west side.
HB: Could you look at your report?

Detective Fairchild takes out her report and reviews it.

KF: She said she had parked her car across from Kentucky Fried Chicken facing the apartment complex.

She (Ms. Verde) said Woodward arrived via taxi, just est of Ms. Doe's complex. He began walking down Fuller towards his car and he walked right past her.  She observed him smoking a cigarette and talk on his cell phone. He was walking back and forth, pacing. Then he took off down the street and walked around the (corner?).

People's exhibit 3. Overhead view of the streets. DDA Balian asks the witness to indicate where.

KF: He walked past her car northbound.

The witness is asked to place an X on Fuller and a cross street.

She saw him go right. ... He left her view, eastbound. The next time she saw him, she saw him walking west bound on 3rd Street. That was toward KFC.   This would be consistent with walking around the block.  The cab dropped off Woodward in a spot that would be blocked (from Detective Shafia's view).

Ms. Levine has no more recross.

People would move all of people's exhibits into evidence. Ms. Levine asks that they hold on that until the 23rd of January. Then Ms. Levine asks for a few minutes as to whether or not they will decide to go over the exhibits now and decide on which ones to accept into evidence.

There is a short break. They go off the record.

2:07 PM
The prosecution returns.  Ms. Levine asks to withdraw Detective Shafia's notes, informally 24A.

2:10 PM
Back on the record. Exhibit 24A is withdrawn.  People's 1-24 are (received?) for in evidence.  At this juncture, contingent on the upcoming (1/23).

I believe Judge Pastor asks, "Do you ... an affirmative defense?" Ms. Levine responds that it will depend on the results of the search (of records?) they are doing today.

I believe Judge Pastor asks, " Do you want any defense exhibits admitted?" I believe the prosecution offers, "If they want to let us know..." Judge Pastor responds, "I'd just would have as much notice as possible."  I believe Ms. Levine states she would let the people know by January 10th.

Judge Pastor tells counsel, "If there is something else by (discovery?) standpoint, I'd like to be notified."  I believe he then asks, "When can the defense have motions filed?"

The rest of the discussion is when motions and responses are due.  Defense motion due by Jan 13th. Peoples response by 4 pm Friday 17th. That will give Judge Pastor time to review all motion documents.

Mr. Woodward remains on bond. He is ordered to come back January 23rd at 9 AM Thursday.  There is a question about a telephonic conference and Woodward gives his waiver that his attorneys can represent him at that conference.  And that's it.

UPDATE 4:45 PM
January 23, 2014
A few moments ago, Judge Michael Pastor ruled that the prosecution has met their burden for Joshua Woodward to stand trial on all four counts of attempted murder of a fetus. His arraignment on those charges is scheduled for February 6 in Dept. 111.

I will have a detailed report of the proceedings later tonight.

4:45 PM
After arguments from both sides on a defense motion to dismiss the case, Judge Pastor ruled as follows:

"The court is aware of it's duty ... to establish probable cause. The court does not have to find if the defendant is guilty. ... The court only has to find probable cause. ... I've done so. ... Based on the evidence presented, ... the people have met their burden on counts one through four. ... [They have] met their burden to establish each one of these instances: That the target was a fetus. That he had an intended specific intent to kill."

The court did not find, (as the defense argued in court that for the first count -Jamba Juice incident- the defendant must know the fetal age was beyond the embryonic stage) that the defendant must have known at the time of the attempt the fetus age.  "However, if required [by law], I'm satisfied the defendant knew the development ... of the fetal age."

Friday, January 31, 2014
I'm in the cafeteria of the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center.  A long-time girlfriend has come to court today to sit in on the hearing. Like some people might be, she's curious as to how Gargiulo looks, since he's been in custody for over five years. After court, we'll take in a film at the ArcLight.

When  re-entered the deserted lobby I was pleasantly surprised to see a long-time fellow colleague clearing security. I had not seen them in over two years. We had a great time catching up on cases in the elevator to the 9th floor.

After clearing 9th floor security, I see Gargiulo's two private investigators, Christian Filipiak and Chris Nicely.  Filipiak is the investigator on the guilt phase of the case. Nicely is Gargiulo's investigator on the penalty phase. Filipiak is friendly and engaging. Nicely doesn't speak.

8:50 AM
When I see DDA Daniel Akemon, DDA Garret Dameron and LASD Detective Mark Lillienfeld coming down the hallway, my girlfriend and I follow them inside Dept. 108.

We take a seat in the second row. DDA's Akemon and Dameron are chatting with Filipiak. They brought two brown file boxes with them. This is either discovery or something else.

Judge Ohta comes out from the back area but he's not in his robes. I point him out to my friend.  Lillienfeld takes a seat in the well in front of the jury box. In the gallery behind me are two women. They are either reporters or clerks for either side.

Now the DDA's and Filipiak are going over several large, brown envelopes.  I'm guessing these are SDT's otherwise known as subpoena duces tecum. Counsel can issue a subpoena to a person but a SDT is a subpoena for documents.  When documents are subpoenaed, they are delivered to the court. They are not opened unless the opposing side agrees the requesting side can see the information.

Judge Ohta is currently in trial, and the counsel involved in that case start arriving and setting up their equipment and files.  The parties in the Gargiulo case are still going over the subpoenaed documents.

More deputies start entering Dept. 108.  The bailiff from Dept. 107 and an attractive, black female deputy I've seen many times before.

9:10 AM
Judge Ohta's pretty court reporter comes out and starts to set up her equipment.  The bailiff sets up the chair for Gargiulo to sit in.  Since he has two investigators sitting with him, he places the chair without wheels at the end of the table.  This means those of us in the gallery will be able to see Gargiulo face on, instead of from he back.

A bit later, Judge Ohta, has taken the bench asks DDA Dameron, "Who's taken over Brazil's spot?" I miss hearing the name that Dameron answers. "Brazil" former DDA Deborah Brazil, who was sworn in as a judge on December 11th. At some point, Filipiak asks Judge Ohta if he can have a few minutes with his client before the proceeding starts.

We are waiting for Gargiulo to come out. She asks me if he will be handcuffed. I tell her he will be handcuffed and he will have a waist chain on. I point out the door to my friend to watch where Gargiulo will be brought into the courtroom. He's finally brought inside the courtroom, and I'm surprised. He looks even more gaunt and pasty than the last time I've seen him. He doesn't look anything like the photo at the top that was probably taken when he was arrested.

Gargiulo has completely shaved off his dramatic mustache. He has grown a goatee on his chin that's about two inches wide and three inches long. The goatee is mostly black but there are very noticeable gray hairs on one side. He's also not wearing the black, horn-rimmed glasses.  Without the glasses to break up his face, it appears longer, thinner.

9:30 AM
On the record in the Gargiulo matter. The DDA's state their names for the record. Judge Ohta states that Gargiulo is present and requests that his investigators state their names.

Judge Ohta stats off by stating there have been court appearances for the exchange of regular discovery. There is a document from the people stating this is the 13th set of discovery turned over. Judge Ohta asks the defendant, "Mr. Gargiulo, you have (discovery?) about that?""Yes, your honor," Gargiulo replies.

Judge Ohta asks DDA Akemon if all the discovery has been turned over to the defendant.  "Not yet. ... expecting a report in the next couple of weeks. ... that's the bulk ... still some odds and ends."  Judge Ohta responds, "That's the nature of the process."

Then Judge Ohta asks the defendant, "What would you like to do Mr. Gargiulo?"  Gargiulo submits a new date, March 7th, for a return to court.  That date works for the DA. Judge Ohta asks the defendant, Mr. Gargiulo, you want that at zero of 90? "Yes, your honor," he replies.  Gargiulo has stated in prior hearings that Fridays are preferable for him. The reason is unknown.

Judge Ohta asks the parties if there is anything else that needs to be addressed.

DDA Akemon tells the court about SDT's that Gargiulo issued to the El Monte PD. The DA's office filed a motion to quash. If it's not going to be quashed, it needs to be dealt with.  The prosecution also issued subpoena's for records.  DDA Akemon explains the documents they subpoenaed. First, they subpoenaed Gargiulo's visitor records at the jail. (These are not public documents. Not anyone can request to see them.)

The other documents are Gargiulo's medical records.  That's what the two brown files boxes are. DDA Akemon is requesting to open the visitation records. The DA's office doesn't need to open the medical records at this time. The DA's office would simply like to lodge them with the court.

Judge Ohta replies, "Thank you for increasing the amount of boxes in this trial."  Judge Ohta then asks the defendant, "Mr. Gargiulo, were you aware that the prosecution issued a motion to quash?""Yes, I got it yesterday. ... and because of the phone issues ... What I plan on doing is withdrawing the subpoena and agree with the DA, .... if (they?) are willing to hand over (the claimed? ?) discovery. ... I don't wish to make it difficult."

Judge Ohta tells Gargiulo, "You don't have to cede to the DA. It's your decision." Gargiulo says something to the effect that the DA has been very open and helpful in making documents available. He gets along with him. My notes are not clear, but I believe it's Gargiulo who adds, "Thing is, I have nothing to hide."  Smiling, Judge Ohta addresses DDA Akemon, "He's saying you're a nice guy."

DDA Akemon tells the court that they are not willing to hand over the documents in the specific El Monte PD subpoenas. Gargiulo plan now is to issue an informal SDT request. DDA Akemon states they plan to litigate.  Judge Ohta asks Gargiulo if he understands. Gargiulo states he does.  Judge Ohta then states for the record that Gargiulo is going to withdraw those specific SDT's at this time.

DDA Akemon states that they are requesting to open the visitation logs. Gargiulo doesn't appear to understand. He thinks that these logs were already turned over many times already.  I believe he asks if it's all the same stuff. DDA Akemon explains that it's additional visitor records. New logs.  Once that's explained, Gargiulo agrees that the prosecutor can open the subpoenaed records. They will be copied and given to the defendant.

DDA Akemon also tells the court, "Mr. Gargiulo has subpoenaed other records I'm not privy to."  Akemon doesn't know what they are and doesn't know if he as grounds to object.  "Without knowing what's there, I have an objection to [Gargiulo] opening. Akemon requests that the court view the documents in camera.

I believe Gargiulo is asked, or Akemon offers to the court that there are two SDT's. One is for the LA County Sheriff, and the other is for the City of Monterey Park. I believe Gargiulo offers, "It's for impeachment evidence."

Apparently, no one has spoken with the legal departments of LA County Sheriff or the City of Monterey Park. Representatives of those entities would need to be here.  DDA Akemon tells Judge Ohta, "We're objecting to Mr. Gargiulo opening and looking. ... A defense subpoena to any law enforcement agency, ... must go through a DA review." 

Judge Ohta doesn't agree with all of Akemon's argument. He agrees they have to go through the DA, but he's not sure he agrees with the entirety of Akemon's statement. Judge Ohta needs to get started with his trial. He has a jury coming in. He suggests they put this matter over to another day where they can spend all day on the issue.

Filipiak wants to make it clear to the court that the only subpoena's that are being withdrawn are the ones to El Monte PD. All that needs to be decided is a date to return to argue about the other subpoenas.

February 21st is the date chosen to return to take up the matter of the SDT's.   And that's it. Right before Judge Ohta leaves the bench, he tells Gargiulo, "I've signed your medical order." Gargiulo replies, "Thank you, your honor. ... (May?) you have a good day."

After Gargiulo is taken back to the holding area, I ask my friend what she thought of Gargiulo. She was surprised at how engaged he was in the court process, but that's understandable since he is representing himself. She was surprised by how he looked, and that he didn't look like his photo in news articles.

GUEST ENTRY by KZ, a CRNA.

 I asked KZ to share some of her thoughts on what might be happening to Jahi's body.  This is Part I of a two-part series. Part II will be posted next week, covering three more topics. Sprocket.

Jahi McMath: Frequently Asked Questions - Part I
by guest writer, KZ

The very sad saga of Jahi McMath continues on. Last week, a Facebook posting put out the information that she is “doing great”, “responds to her mother’s touch”, “healing”, but is “not awake yet.” A brief video clip showing her feet moving was posted, then abruptly pulled off Facebook, but was reposted on YouTube.

1. If those really were Jahi’s feet in the video originally posted on Facebook, how is it possible, if she has brain death, that her feet could move when ice is rubbed on the soles?

Stimulating soles of the feet can produce something called “spinal reflexes”, which are mediated by the spinal cord and peripheral nerves, and does not require higher brain function. Here are some examples.

Changes in spinal reflex excitability in brain-dead humans.

The excitability of proprio- and exteroceptive spinal reflexes was monitored electrophysiologically and clinically during the occurrence of brain death (BD) in 8 patients. After a period of total reflex unresponsiveness, the soleus H reflex attained a steady-state excitability level in 2-6 h. The recovery cycle of this response regained its normal shape at 10-20 h.



Digital responses to mechanical stimulation of the foot sole were evident after 6-8 h.

It is concluded that the human spinal cord reacts to BD with a spinal shock, characterized by sequential recovery of reflex transmission. The overall timing of this process appears to be much shorter than that previously described for the spinal shock following traumatic transection of the cord, but the latter was never studied in the earliest phases.

Changes in spinal reflex excitability in brain dead humans

KZ note, the area that they are stimulating in the video is L5- S1 dermatomes- quite low in the spinal column.

Dermatome (anatomy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Lessons From the Pithed Frog

And this shows what muscles in isolation can do, given the right stimuli

If one were to apply a peripheral nerve stimulator to Jahi's body-- the hand and wrist area, for example, it would be quite easy to induce muscle twitching in response to electrical impulses. If you put the stimulator in certain positions, you can even induce a whole joint to flex or contract (like a wrist). This type of stimulation and response is independent of brain function. It would not be a "reaction" to pain, even though someone who isn't knowledgeable might be tempted to interpret it as "withdrawal to painful stimuli."

Here is a quick example. Train of Four 



2. What could happen if Jahi’s heart stops?

I think it is probable that Jahi's heart will stop while she is still on the ventilator. I don't see them taking her off the vent, and letting her heart stop. Mrs. Winkfield has said many times that she will not remove the ventilator until her heart stops. And it is definitely possible to have cardiac arrest, and also have a ventilator still cycling and blowing air into her lungs.  



If Jahi's heart stops while she is on the ventilator, it depends on "how closely" she is being monitored, how quickly this is detected, and whether or not they have decided to try to do anything about it.



It is "possible" that her heart and other functions (like pulse oximetry) are not being monitored continuously, if she is in a long term care facility. We have no idea what they are monitoring, and the capabilities of the staff and the facility. Particularly if Mrs. Winkfield has decided not to try to do anything medically if her heart enters an abnormal rhythm-- for instance, if she is on palliative care, she may not be on typical ICU monitoring, but just have the ventilator cycling.

If she is receiving heart monitoring and pulse oximetry, and if appropriate alarm limits are enabled and audible, then if her heart enters an abnormal rate or rhythm, the alarms will sound as the limits are violated. Then the staff would have to decide if they are going to attempt to treat whatever is going on (with drugs, and intravenous fluids, and/ or electricity), or "let her go", or call 911, etc. I have no idea what they have decided to do.

If, for example, they have decided to "let her go", hopefully they will silence alarms, allow family to sit quietly with her body, hold her hands, etc, and at some point an appropriate staff member will quietly turn off the ventilator. 



Very seldom does a heart go from a normal rhythm to complete stand still (asystole) abruptly-- it's more likely her heart would experience rate and rhythm abnormalities as a prelude to the final pings of electricity that precede asystole (standstill). That could be minutes, or hours. Often, the final bits of electricity can kick out for 15-20 min or more, once a rhythm has ceased. The other situation, is that the heart continues to put out electricity, but there is no "squeeze" to produce a pulse that can be felt. This is called “pulseless electrical activity.” That is a common ending, too, with that rhythm deteriorating to remnants of electricity that eventually stop. PEA is typically only treatable when there is an obvious thing to fix right away—medical folks call these the “Hs and Ts”, from the ACLS algorithms. Otherwise, it’s a sign that the end has come for the function of a heart.

When I was a young nurse in ICU many, many years ago, I was privileged to see a number of hearts “die” on the monitor, in patients on a ventilator, who were “do not resuscitate” status. We had to leave the vent on and cycling until the doc or resident came up and pronounced them dead. Those patients, in their last minutes, taught me a lot of lessons that have helped me anticipate declines in my patients for my entire career. I feel very privileged to have been able to witness those dying hearts, and learn what I was seeing, without the typical hustle and rush of resuscitation.



There is no suffering for someone with brain death whose heart stops. Their color will become pale (most noticeable in the lips and inner mouth, and the palms, in someone with darker complexion), and the skin takes on an ashy or waxy, pale color as circulation ceases.

 Jahi’s body wouldn't gasp or convulse.

In fact, if she is not on a heart monitor or a pulse oximeter, the staff might not notice that her heart isn't beating well for quite some time. The vent will continue to cycle, even if her heart isn't beating well enough to circulate blood effectively, or if her blood pressure is very, very low.

I want to add that if she is in a home care, or long term care facility, that the monitors themselves are not as sophisticated as an ICU setting. They may not have any central telemetry monitoring-, but may have a type of transport bedside monitor- meaning, only when someone is in the room looking at her monitor would they be evaluating what is going on. We cannot assume what kind of monitoring her body is receiving, or not receiving, since there is really no "standard of care" for the level of care her body is receiving. Basically, they are free to do whatever monitoring they want, or are capable of doing. I doubt she has continuous arterial blood pressure monitoring, for example-- so may be on intermittent blood pressure cycling using an external cuff (such as a dynamap). They might set that to go off every one minute, or set it to go off every 15 min, or longer, etc. Or just manually cycle the automatic BP when they are in the room.I doubt they have noninvasive cardiac output capability (which uses the ventilator circuit to calculate cardiac output). All of this monitoring is dependent on having staff who understand how to do it, and how to interpret it. We just have no idea what the capabilities are where she is.

While Jahi isn't capable, thankfully, of feeling any distress when her heart stops, the living people around her certainly are capable of feeling distress. Whether or not Jahi's family has a peaceful experience when Jahi's heart stops (which it most assuredly will, at some point), depends on the decisions they have made/ are making about what they want to do when that time comes. From what they have demonstrated over the past 6+ weeks, they are in denial about her brain death, and continue to use social media to proclaim her improvement and that she will fully recover. Perhaps they are saying and feeling differently in their private, family moments together. I'm sure we will never know, nor should we.

If Mrs. Winkfield has decided that Jahi's heart is not a "DNR" (do not resuscitate), they she may have made arrangements with the staff and facility to do whatever they are capable of doing to keep her heart going. That means it could be a very emotional, chaotic situation, as well, if they decided to jump on her chest and do CPR, and attempt ACLS maneuvers. As it has been told that she is in a long term care facility, and given that she is legally dead with a death certificate, it is extremely doubtful 911 would transport to any ER. The capabilities of a nursing home, even one with ventilator and IV capability, are extremely limited, when it comes to providing ongoing "ICU" type support during and following cardiac arrest. They might get her heart back for a few minutes, or a few hours more, but there is a limit to how much you can "flog" a dying heart in a brain dead body.

And keep in mind that if Jahi is in a long term care facility, the capability of the nurses (and physicians) is definitely not the same skill level and knowledge level as that of ICU nurses and pediatric intensivists. In other words, most LTC, LPN's and RN's nurses are very good at what they do, but they are not ICU trained and skilled. They would have a very limited ability to know how to run vasoactive IV drips and monitor them, if they even had access to vasoactive drugs in their facility, etc. Long term care facilities don't have the kind of pharmacy support that acute care hospitals do. There is probably no physician in house 24/7 to tell the nurses what to do (if the doc even knows what to do), beyond BLS, (basic life support) and possibly some ACLS interventions. 



What I am getting at is that the stopping of Jahi's heart could indeed be a very chaotic event, and it is also possible that Mrs. Winkfield might "blame" them for not being able to resuscitate Jahi's heart when it happens.

I genuinely hope that the staff "there" is preparing the family for the inevitable, and talking about how to make Jahi's cardiac arrest be as peaceful as possible for the family. I hope this, but I also strongly doubt that anyone is willing to do the intervention with the family that is necessary to get them to the point where they will face reality. Anyone who doesn't speak their party line that Jahi will recover, is summarily dismissed as being "negative", and a "hater", and not trusting God to resurrect her.

All that means is that when cardiac arrest does happen, the family's emotional coping will be hampered even more, and for much, much longer. I wouldn't want to be one of the staff caring for Jahi's body-- I wouldn't trust this family's reactions, based on their conduct over the last 6 weeks. To be continued in Part II, when KZ will address the following questions:

3. Where is Jahi? Could she be in someone’s private home getting care?

4. What kind of care would Jahi’s body need, wherever she is? Is she just laying there like she is asleep? Does she look normal?

5. Are there any odors because she has been dead so long? Is her body decomposing?

February 5, 2014
There was a hearing in the Cameron Brown case that I was unable to attend. At the last moment, I heard that Bryan Barnes, one of the alleged shooters in the USC Chinese graduate students murders would be pleading guilty to two counts of first degree murder in exchange for the death penalty being taken off the table. After Barnes' sentencing, I did my best through sources to find out what happened at Brown's hearing.

Between the last hearing on November 15th, 2013 and today, Brown refused to speak to the court ordered psychiatrist, so no report was generated.

Judge Lomeli then ruled Brown competent to stand trial and the criminal proceedings reinstated.  It's my understanding Judge Lomeli made that ruling based on the fact that defendants are presumed competent to stand trial.

I believe Brown was asked if he was still interested in representing himself. Brown said something to the effect that he hadn't thought about it. He was waiting for the outcome of today's hearing. It's my understanding that Judge Lomeli told Brown to let him know if he decides to go the route of pro per status.

Judge Lomeli also ordered Brown's former defense attorney Pat Harris to court to ensure that all discovery had been turned over to Brown's new counsel.

If there are no other bumps in the road, this case may get to trial by early summer, or most likely by late fall.

GUEST ENTRY BY KZ!


This is an opinion piece, by guest write KZ, CRNA. KZ is commenting on a new post by Dr. Paul Byrne on February 7, and a post Friday, on the Keep Jahi McMath on Life support Facebook Page. 

After you read the article, I would like readers to weigh in on this question. Is what Dr. Byrne doing, worse than Jahi's mother's denial? It's quite possible that Mrs. Winkfield is in clinical denial. 

KZ's entry, Jahi McMath, Frequently Asked Questions, Part II, originally slated to post today, will be posted tomorrow. Sprocket.

Jahi McMath: Emotional and Spiritual Predators - by KZ

The Jahi McMath case, by nearly every description, is a violent collision of faith, delusion, manipulation, science, and medicine. The public’s attention was captured with the original headlines decrying the tragedy of a “child” undergoing a “routine” minor surgery, who is now brain dead and going to be “taken off life support” by the big, bad hospital, over the emotional pleas and disagreement of her mother and family. The manipulation of the facts by the mainstream media guaranteed that the public would pay attention to this collision. The public’s attention, over the ensuing 8 weeks, has morphed from sympathy, to confusion, to disgust, to anger, and pity.

In the beginning, there were a lot of people and groups that showed up to manipulate this vulnerable family. In turn, the family was, and is, all too willing to listen and be manipulated, in order to enable their ideas that their tragically brain dead daughter is healing, and improving every day. As of February 7, 2014, the family (or their supporters), continues to proclaim, via Facebook, that they expect a full recovery/ resurrection. They, and their supporters quote Dr. Paul Byrne. Dr. Paul Byrne continues to post essays every week or so about Jahi McMath on his site, and likewise reinforces the family’s ideas that Jahi is not dead, does not have brain death, and will recover.

Remember the mail order psychologist who popped up a few weeks ago? The one with the purportedly Ariel Sharon tested “brain wave machine”, who, incidentally, has been fired from pretty much every reputable job he ever had? So, he started his own “brain wave” institute. (You can’t be fired from your own institute, right?)

Remember the hair stylist in New York, who pretends that she runs an inpatient “facility” for brain injured patients? The one who has no “automatic doors” in her rental space building, and can’t raise the $5000 needed to buy them? The hair stylist who rents space in a building to other independent therapists, who could only be described accurately as providing services to outpatients?  The one who is in the very early process of raising money to continue renovating an old house, that someday she may rent out to residents as a group home? The same stylist who was giving lots of interviews, and willing to “admit” Jahi’s body for care into her “facility”?

Is a snake oil salesman ignorant, or delusional? Is a charlatan opportunistic, cunning, and manipulative? Or is a charlatan simply a misunderstood genius?  Perspective is everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quacker

Dr. Paul Byrne is a now-elderly man who trained as a physician 6 decades ago. He has spent the bulk of his career alternately denying the existence of brain death, with proselytizing that brain death was created as a profound evil, to fuel the bigger evil of enabling lifesaving organ donation. He strongly disagrees with organ donation, according to his prolific writings. He is also, in my opinion, an opportunistic emotional and spiritual predator. He has glommed on to Jahi McMath’s sad situation, and every 2 weeks or so puts out another essay about how much Jahi’s mother loves her (true, I am certain), and how Jahi is not really dead. Because her heart beats. And for some reason, he assumes her hypothalamus is “working”, because her body hasn’t yet assumed complete algor mortis. Does he understand the concept of brain death and poikilothermia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algor_mortis

Paul Byrne’s ideas are peculiar in the extreme among mainstream scientists and medical professionals. This is a man who professes to be a medical doctor, who appears to not understand what is routinely taught in basic high school level biology classes and labs. This is a MEDICAL DOCTOR, who denies the existence of  brain death, and spinal reflexes, and reinforces to Jahi’s family that these reflexes are a sign of brain function, healing, and improvement. This is a medical doctor who presumably does not understand that a heart can continue to beat OUTSIDE the body of its owner. This is a medical doctor who apparently believes that the affinity of hemoglobin for oxygen across a semipermeable membrane is more mystical than scientific, and that the inflating of dead lungs by a ventilator is equivalent to “life,” because oxygen exchange can take place. For more than 25 years blood substitutes have been researched, and even a synthetic artificial hemoglobin molecule is capable of exchanging oxygen. That doesn’t make it alive.


As profoundly odd as all that is on a personal level, it pales in comparison to what Paul Byrne has done preying upon the tragedy of Jahi McMath. In my opinion, he is an opportunisticemotional and spiritual predatorwhich is far worse than simply having personal ideas that clash with the mainstream. His peculiar and singularly personal blend of pseudo science, intermingled with his own personal brand of mysticism and Catholicism, denies biological certainties, and has enabled the voluntary delusions of a large mass of people who support Jahi’s mother’s delusions that Jahi will be resurrected.

I would pity this man’s delusions, if I were not so disgusted by his predatory and opportunistic exploitation of the emotionally and intellectually vulnerable. If he were simply a regular member of public, or even a faith-based personality, I might cut him some slack. But this man proclaims his non-scientific based beliefs, while simultaneously cloaking himself with the mantle of his MD degree to attempt to lend validity to his beliefs. And while posting regular essays about Jahi McMath—and THAT is a whole different ball game. That is exactly the line where he has crossed from simply “holding” his beliefs, into predatory exploitation of a vulnerable family, and those intellectually vulnerable people who support the family’s delusions.

Paul Byrne is actively enabling this family to avoid scientific and medical reality. I personally don’t believe he is doing this for money, or out of a sense of compassion. He has glommed onto this sad and disturbing situation as a public way to further his own odd and peculiar beliefs, and to continue to exploit a vulnerable family. For any health care professional to do that, is, in my opinion, profoundly unethical, immoral, and despicable.

Paul Byrne has a right to proclaim his beliefs all he wants as a private citizen, but in my opinion, he needs to leave Jahi McMath’s family out of his proselytizing. Enough people have exploited this unfortunately brain dead 13 year old, and her family. We don’t need someone with an MD degree, who definitely knows better, to continue to exploit her—there are enough other charlatans and manipulators in line to do so. Paul Byrne, I call on you to look inside yourself and be an ethical man, and stop talking and writing about Jahi McMath. Stop giving this mother, and this family, and their supporters false hope. Your words are only making the entire situation much worse for the family, and their supporters. Jahi McMath is gone, and has been for 8 weeks, and will never wake up. That is what you need to tell Jahi’s mother, DOCTOR Paul Byrne.

GUEST ENTRY by KZ!

This is Part II, of a two part series by T&T's guest writer, KZ, a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist. I asked KZ to share some of her thoughts on what might be happening to Jahi's body. Part I covered questions 1 and 2. You can find Part I HERE. Sprocket

Jahi McMath: Frequently Asked Questions, Part II

3. Where is Jahi? Could she be in someone’s private home getting care?

I haven't ruled out a private home setting either. Or perhaps a church building, etc.

They have a large following of supporters. Some of them are bound to be nurses aides, LPNs, or RNs. It is possible that they have accepted donated machinery, hospital bed, and supplies, and donated volunteer nursing services. That would keep costs down. And keep things very quiet and away from the media. The grandmother is an LPN-- she probably has a lot of connections to people who know how to do physical care. A small cadre of dedicated volunteers, who agree to keep quiet, could accomplish the task for a while.



I've cared for people on ventilators in the back of transport military planes, in the back of trucks, in tents, etc. If you know how to set up some equipment, oxygen, meds, IV's, and work out the electrical and oxygen issues, etc, it wouldn't be hard to set up a place to provide custodial care to a body, especially if it were classified as a home care situation. That is essentially what the "facility" in New York was going to do. I imagined that they were going to put her in an empty office space at their main building (the one without automatic doors, lol!) if she ever arrived there.



I do think the coroner knows where they took Jahi's body. I think that was almost certainly part of the arrangement to release her body to Mrs. Winkfield. It's standard procedure when a body is released to family members for transport, or for religious/ cultural rituals, etc. Basically, the receiving person has to fill out forms and disclose what they intend to do.



I think we will continue to hear occasional social media reports of "She's doing great! She's healing every day, and responds to her mother's touch", right up until the day that it is announced that she has been called home to be with God. I expect there will be an enormous funeral, eventually, with thousands in attendance. They do have a really amazing number of supporters, whatever we may think about that. Since everything they are doing is framed within their faith, there is no way for them to lose face within their religious community of supporters, IMO. If she rises up and lives, prayer worked. And if she doesn't, then God called her home, and they will continue to praise God. Their supporters will be there for Mrs. Winkfield's emotional needs when the time for the funeral comes, I think. 



But then I think that they will immediately become immersed in the process of litigation, which will go on and on for years on end. I really hope the other kids are having their needs attended to, and have returned to some kind of regular routine. Sadly, instead of mourning their sister, I think that this atmosphere of prolonged "conflict", followed by litigation, will define their childhood. I feel like their identity has been buried in all this, with all of the adults around them focused on prolonging the "conflict". Jahi might actually BE the only one in this whole mess who is "healing". JMO.

4. What kind of care would Jahi’s body need, wherever she is? Is she just laying there like she is asleep? Does she look normal?

Just a guess, as I have no earthly idea what they really are doing, or hope to accomplish.



My best guess is that Jahi's body is not receiving the same level of care and monitoring that is "possible" in an ICU setting, or even a med surg bed in an acute care hospital. If I had to generalize, I'd say what they may be doing could be classified as "custodial care" or possibly palliative care (though palliative is an odd descriptor for a patient who is deceased).



There is an adage in palliative health care that you don't do a test if you don't want to know the answer (meaning, you don't intend to treat).



I could be wrong , but I think any labs potentially being done would probably be "bedside" labs, such as a urine dipstick, urine specific gravity, or a fingerstick blood glucose. As far as "send out" labs to monitor kidneys, liver, etc, I doubt that they are doing this. A LTC center would not have an in house lab, so would have to send out. (And may not have in house ability to draw labs into the proper tubes, etc.) If she is at a private home, same. And whose name would be put on the send-out lab tubes? The bigger question is what would be done with abnormal results? It's not like they are going to put her body on peritoneal or hemodialysis if her kidney function is wildly abnormal. I think they probably have a very limited ability to correct electrolyes. I suspect her liver function tests would be pretty abnormal at this point.



I know a body has diabetes insipidis for a "while" following brain death, but I have no idea if it continues beyond 6 weeks to 2 months duration? If she is still having DI symptoms, they might "chase" it with vasopressin to slow down how fast she is losing fluids, and try to keep her BP up, but if her kidneys are in the process of shutting down, I could also see retention of fluids and low urine output. They might be giving her thyroid hormones, but the dose wouldn't necessarily be dependent on a lab value. All this is dependent on a doc to write a prescription, and a pharmacy able to fill it.



Her heart is only 13 years old, and even with the cardiac arrest, must still be in good enough shape to pump regularly and sort of effectively without too much intervention. Pre load and after load is a big issue, as her body has lost the ability to regulate the expansion and contraction of her peripheral circulatory system. I doubt they have ability to do hemodynamic monitoring beyond external BP (blood pressure) cuff pressures. 



She may or may not have a central IV access line, but I doubt they would use it for central venous pressure monitoring. I seriously doubt she has an arterial line for BP monitoring and blood gas analysis, so any ventilator setting changes would be based, probably, just on physical symptoms, perhaps end tidal CO2, and pulse oximetry. And "guesswork". 



I suspect her body is refractory (less able to respond) to a number of vasoactive drugs at this point. She may no longer be responsive to vasopressin. Who knows? There aren't too many health care providers who are "experts" at caring for brain dead patients 2 months out from brain death.



I highly doubt she would be a candidate to receive blood products, so monitoring those labs might be kind of pointless.



I think they probably provide hygiene care, skin care, turning, bathing, mouth care, lubricating eyes, trach care, peri care, etc. All that is fairly straight forward, and doesn't require a high level of skill, except trach care. I think she probably has lots of lung issues at this point-- even with antibiotics. Lots of atelectasis (small airway collapse) fluid filled areas, "pus" and either dried out thick secretions, or soupy secretions. She has no ability to mobilize secretions, so is dependent on suctioning, aerosolized humidification and medications, and maybe lavage (fluid instilled to thin secretions). They might be dripping some tube feed solution into a PEG. They might be giving IV vitamins or hyperal (TPN), and/ or lipid solution. Who knows what their capability is?

I do know that she will progressively deteriorate. Her periphery, in particular, is vulnerable to dehydration (tip of nose, lips, ears, fingertips, toes), as well as poor circulation. Eyes are vulnerable to drying out and becoming gummy on the surface, and would need protection and frequent lubrication. Her gums and the lining of her mouth may slough. Fungal infections, like thrush, are a constant issue, and she may have a coated tongue (white patches), or it could be blackened if her mouth is open all the time, or may look sort of normal. (There is only so much you can do with a sponge on a stick and a toothbrush.) Areas of skin compression may not have circulation restored just by turning her in bed. (I don't want to think too much about perineal care issues, but things like fungal infection is a realistic issue down there, too, along with urinary tract infection, etc. She may have a urine foley catheter, or be diapered. There may, or may not be bowel issues.)

And then you also have issues of contractures from immobility. Hands and wrists would need to be splinted, in normal position, as well as have range of motion. Needs heel protectors, and foot drop splints, in addition to the sequential compression devices seen in the video. All of the physical care that would ordinarily be given to someone with PVS or comatose condition.



From CHO report, she was very unstable just with turning. I can't imagine doing upper and lower body range of motion twice a day or so, with all of the issues. She may be quite stiff in her limbs, joints, and spine. (Not rigor mortis, just stiffness from immobility.)



I would be very curious to know the date of the video posted on Facebook, then abruptly pulled. If it was recent, her feet look to be in better condition (better hydration, no foot drop) than I would expect. My strong suspicion is that the video wasn't from last week. Why would anyone go to such measures to conceal the embedded data? Almost seems like it was baiting for some kind of response, but unwilling to provide details to authenticate. They could have posted it as a private video, and given the access code to people they approved-- but didn't.



The way that video was posted, altered in the embedded data, then abruptly pulled, seems very manipulative, IMO.



Organ systems will shut down. How long that will take is any one's guess. 



The above is my best guess. I'd be interested in hearing any other health care professionals opinions, too.

5. Are there any odors because she has been dead so long? Is her body decomposing?

One thing that is a bit of a blessing about "odor control" is that Jahi's body is on a ventilator. The breathing circuit is "closed"-- meaning, both the inhalation and exhalation takes place inside of hoses that are not open to room air. The lung secretions are likely to be a dominant source of bad odors at this point, very icky and infected smelling. The circuit on her trach will somewhat contain these odors.



When someone on a ventilator has a breathing tube inserted through the mouth, or as a tracheostomy, the suction catheters can be contained within this closed circuit, with a type of sterile plastic sleeve over the catheter. This is usually the method used in a hospital situation. This way suctioning can occur without disconnecting the circuit every time, thereby the patient has decreased exposure to infection, as well as the staff having less contact with secretions.



There are also suction catheters which require the circuit to be removed from the trach every time, and a clean or sterile catheter is used. A lot of people with long term home ventilator care situations don't need to practice "strict" sterile technique, but instead use "clean" technique.



For those interested, here are some pics of suction catheters, and a guide to "home care" suctioning of pediatric trachs. The procedure is pretty much the same for kids as well as adults. There are some risks with suctioning-- and prolonged or inappropriate deep suctioning can cause low oxygen conditions, as well as serious and abrupt slowing of the heart rate, with abnormal rhythms. Jahi's body can't cough up or mobilize secretions, so she would have to have deep suctioning to get the gunk out. She also can't cough or react to suctioning, so while she may have heart slowing or oxygen issues, it wouldn't cause her distress. Long term scarring of her lungs from deep suctioning probably isn't much of a concern, since she is deceased, and we are waiting for her heart to finish.



http://www.tracheostomy.com/care/suction

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=suction+catheter+for+trach&qpvt=suction+catheter+for+trach&FORM=IGRE

Her PEG probably isn't all that smelly, unless the insertion site has infection. AFAIK, she has no major sources of open infection, like deep bedsores, or infected surgical wounds. Her mouth has no "breath" going in and out, so it may be somewhat smelly if you are close enough, and her mouth is open. (We have a saying in anesthesia that "bad breath is better than no breath at all".) 



We can all imagine the types of odors produced "down below". Many of the odors of the bed bound can be controlled with scrupulous hygiene of the body, prompt changing and replacing of soiled linens, prompt removal of medical equipment containing secretions and body fluids, and odor masking things like scented body lotion, air fresheners, etc. This is a great deal of work, by the way, and requires very dedicated caregivers.



In my experience, comatose patients do have a type of "sickness" odor emanating from the skin itself, but if you are motivated enough, you can manage (but not eliminate) all of the odors associated with a comatose, bed bound patient. It is a lot of work, though. (IMO!)

February 21, 2014
8:04 AM
I’m on the 9th floor of the downtown Criminal Justice Center. The hallway at this end has a scattering of people.  There are more people down at the other end of the hall including media. I think I see the famous AP reporter as well as Miriam Hernandez from local ABC 7. I also see Terri Keith from City News. Terri is the most talented reporter covering the criminal courts. She often juggles 40 cases at a time.

I see the media head into Dept. 109 so I’m betting it’s for the Bell corruption fiasco that’s still ongoing.

There is also a Woodward hearing in Dept. 100 on the 13th floor that I will miss. I will try to find out when the next hearing date is and where the case gets assigned.


Shortly after I arrived Chris Nicely, one of Gargiulo’s private investigators (Nicely will handle the death penalty phase) arrives. I note that Nicely is left handed, like myself.

There are several people here from the general public that have children with them. There are also several attorneys. It’s not too difficult to tell who is a DDA and who is a defense attorney. There’s also the regular bunch of court appointed defense attorneys that I usually see in Dept. 30, arraignment court.

I see Judge Lomeli, (Dept. 107) out of his robes and wearing a short sleeve navy shirt, unlocking his front door. A few attorneys try several of the doors on this end of the hallway but Dept.’s 108 and 106 still remain locked.

8:31 AM
DDA Akemon is usually here by now, and I’m wondering if he has a hearing in another courtroom.  I see Mark Werksman, who defended James Fayed on murder for hire charges. It looks like he has a hearing in Dept. 108 this morning.  He’s currently chatting with a few other attorneys.

A quick glance at the entrance to the security station, and I see DDA Habib Balian who is prosecuting Woodward. I’m wondering if the Woodward case got transferred already. It looks like he went into Dept. 103 with another attorney I don’t recognize.

Dept 108 opens and I debate going inside or stay watching the activity in the hallway.  I decide to go inside.

Inside Dept. 108
There are a few people already inside.  There is another case that will also be heard today, and it will probably go first. I hear Mr. Werksman, who is over at the clerk's desk, state that they are here for the Yang/Kim matter.  When Werksman see me, he smiles, but I get the sense that he doesn't remember who I am.

A few moments later DDA Daniel Akemon, DDA Garrett Dameron and LA Co. Sheriff's Detective Mark Lillienfeld (pronounced Lilly-field) enter.  I get a quick greeting smile from everyone. Dameron leaves the courtroom a moment later.

Akemon goes over to the clerk's desk to check in. Afterwards, he places a short stack of papers at the defense table. Werksman and Detective Lillienfeld enter into a lively conversation in the well.

Ka Pasasouk
I ask DDA Akemon about the Ka Pasasouk case. There was a pretrial hearing in that case yesterday in the San Fernando courthouse. He tells me that the case was transferred downtown to Judge Larry Fidler's courtroom.  I have no idea why the case was transferred. The next hearing is February 28 and will most likely be short.

Akemon and Nicely are having a quick chat. I catch a few words of their conversation and it appears they might be talking about whether or not Gargiulo received the DA's latest motion filings.

DDA Garrett reenters.

8:50 AM 
Judge Ohta's pretty court reporter sets up. Chris Nicely has moved from the last row of the gallery to the well of the court. I note that Judge Ohta's hair looks a little fuller today. Maybe it's just tossed up a bit higher.

8:53 AM
Judge Ohta enters the courtroom, putting on his robe as he approaches the bench. He addresses counsel in the well. "Counsel on Yang & Kim, approach please."

After a discussion at the bench the court goes on the record to set the case over to April 11th. Ms. Kim's court approved Korean interpreter is also ordered back on that date.

9:00 AM
Gargiulo is brought out. He still has the gray and black goatee. His hair looks like it's been recently trimmed. He's not wearing his glasses. To me, he doesn't look anything like the booking photo at the top of the page. He's lost his color from being incarcerated for so long, and he appears like he's lost weight.

Judge Ohta asks the defendant if he's ready, or if he wants some time to talk to his investigator.  As Gargiulo and Nicely chat, Gargiulo puts on his glasses.

Judge Ohta goes on the record and documents the appearances. "The last time we talked about SDT's issued for police records." Judge Ohta mentions the filing motions he has in front of him, most likely from the DDA. There are four motions filed, three responses and a motion to compel. Judge Ohta tells the parties he needs to read through them. He asks Gargiulo if he has received them and if he needs to read through them.  The court also indicates that there are four envelopes here (subpoenaed documents). "I don't know what they are. ... I think we should come back ..."

I believe Gargiulo is asked what he wants to do. Gargiulo replies, "My understanding ... that I didnt' want the prosecution (interfering?) in (my defense?) ... I think I'm being (?) ... I'm asking the SDT's to be held ex parte ... "

Judge Ohta tells the defendant, "They (DA) say they have standing to quash."  Gargiulo replies something to the effect that what he is requesting is the Sheriff's Dept. medical disbursement procedures, that they have no objection and that they handed over the SDT.  The court replies, "So respond to it and give me authority that they are prohibited from (participating?) from this process." Judge Ohta is basically telling Gargiulo that he needs to give him case or code law to support his position that the DA has no standing to quash the SDT's he's sent ut.

Judge Ohta also tells Gargiulo that just because he's issued an STD, that doesn't mean the party being served can't appear.  Gargiulo tells the court that his understanding is that party he's serving would be the one's challenging his subpoena.  The court tells Gargiulo that the DA believes they have standing to challenge.

The next court date is March 7th, and Gargiuo is asked if that will be sufficient time for him to write a response. Gargiulo responds, "That should be okay."  Gargiulo then adds, "The last time [he was here] I withdrew the subpoenas. ... I went under informal request. ... It's a protocol to determine who is authorized to disburse medication."

Gargiulo at some point, believes that the DA is trying to get inside his defense, his work product by trying to quash these SDT's. 

Judge Ohta replies. "I have no idea what you are talking about. ... I understand the procedure. I just don't understand the content."

It appears Gargiulo is looking for policies and procedures for "who" at the LA County Sheriff's is authorized to disburse medication to detainees at the jail. Gargiulo then goes into this long ramble about how he was told by a deputy that he was ordered to take a medication.  "Now the prosecution says I'm not allowed to have that, quoting 105.4.1. ..."

Judge Ohta responds, "You speak specifics and then you go global on me and I'm trying to follow you."

At the last hearing, Gargiulo withdrew some SDT's he issued, requesting the protocol and procedures of disbursing medication. He was supposed to request this information informally of the DA. On February 9, 2014, hi filed (an SDT?) for LA County Sheriff's protocol for disbursing medication at the Men's Central Jail for June and July 2008.   Gargiulo points out that there was a typo in the DA's response (they quoted criminal procedure 104.5.1 and it should be 105.4.1) saying this information is not discoverable. Gargiulo states something about this material being exculpatory.

Judge Ohta interrupts Gargiulo and tells him to stop. The court says something to the effect of kudos to Gargiulo for finding that error in the DA's motion. He then explains the standard procedures these requests need to go through.  It depends on each and every item, the specific item, what steps will be followed. "The item dictates what happens, " Judge Ohta explains.  Gargiulo is allowed certain information under an umbrella. That's the discovery process.  There is other information that he can obtain, that's outside the umbrella. "Not everything you ask for are you entitled to." The court explains that the opposing party can contest the other side gets this information. "The prosecution says they have standing to quash. ... It must be resolved individually. ... Are you with me so far?" Gargiulo responds, "Yes, yes."

Judge Ohta continues, "I haven't read this motion to file and motion to quash. " DDA Akemon explains that the motions he filed today are related to the SDT's that were discussed at the last hearing. Akemon believes they target law enforcement.

Gargiulo asks if he can make a suggestion, if it's convenient for both parties.  Juge Ohta tells Gargiulo, "How you want to hand this is completely up to you. ... If you want to let the DA know what it is (the SDT's) that's completely up to you.  ... We all don't know what's in there."

DDA Akemon adds, "One of the remedies that I suggested, it seems it would be appropriate for the court to look at the documents to see if it's discoverable." Akemon adds that, "I'm not in a position to argue on the SDT's ... I don't know what' in the envelopes." Akemon's position is, "... we can't litigate in the dark. ... People's rights may need to be protected."

Judge Ohta tells Gargiulo, "I'm going to hand you the envelopes. You are not to open them. This is to determine if these are the matters that you issued SD'Ts for."

While Gargiulo is looking over the envelopes with his investigator, a man with a badge on his belt comes in to speak to Detective Lillienfeld. I see Lillienfeld hand the officer his parking stub. The deputy quickly leaves.

Judge Ohta addresses the parties, "What's that code for in camera procedures regarding SDT's? Is it 1326c?"  After Gargiulo looks through the envelopes, the court asks, 'Are all these documents here, documents you issued an SDT for?"  Gargoulo states that there is one envelope with the name of his other investigator, Christian Filipiak. He's not sure what that one is, because all the SDT's he issued under investigatory Nicely.

Judge Ohta asks the prosecution if they would like to look over the envelopes. The two prosecutors and their detective look over the envelopes. DDA Akemon tells the court that all the envelopes appear to be SDT's issued by Gargiulo, with the exception of the UCLA Medical Center envelope. He believes that envelope is his subpoena.

Gargiulo thinks that might be his medical records.

Akemon tells the court, "I believe those are records for a victim. ... This is a prosecution subpoena. ... One of the victims was treated at UCLA."  Judge Ohta explains to Gargiulo that this is the prosecution's subpoena.  The court asks Gargiulo if the prosecution can open the envelope, copy the information, give the defense a copy and return the original documents to the court."  I believe Gargiulo agrees.

Judge Ohta continues, "That leaves seven big envelopes. I think some of these contain smaller envelopes."   I believe Gargiulo asks, "If there's no objection the the DA's behalf, ... okay if the court opens [his] the subpoena's and identifies each of the items." 

Judge Ohta tells Gargiulo, "Doing that bypasses the motion to quash. ... but if some one's quashing, I need to deal with that." There is a bit more explanation about the quashing process.

DDA Akemon states he's going to object to the court opening the subpoenaed documents without first knowing who what subpoenaed. Judge Ohta tells the parties he is not going to open them at this time.  The next step then, is Gargiulo needs to respond the the motion to quash the subpoenas. Gargiulo is asked again if the next scheduled hearing date, March 7, is enough time to respond to the prosecution's motion.  Gargiulo agrees that this is enough time.

DDA Akemon then tells the court that there is one last housekeeping matter. The DA's office has turned over discovery pages 28,697 through 28,775 of the murder book to the defense.  The court asks if Gargiulo received the documents. He did. The court signs the receipt as does Gargiulo. And that's it for today's hearing.

Here is my understanding of what's going on with the case at this point.

Basically, just because Gargiulo issued a subpoena for documents doesn't mean he has the right to see the material he's requesting. What if Gargiulo issued a subpoena for my phone records and the carrier  turned them over? Does Gargiulo have a right to that material?  How relevant would it be?  The prosecution's position is, they will question any subpoena Gargiulo issues, when they don't know 'who' he is issuing a subpoena for.

Joshua Woodward
After the hearing, I head to Dept. 100 on the 13th floor to see if I can find out where the Woodward case was sent. A sheriff's deputy kindly told me that Woodward was transferred to Dept. 103, Judge Curits Rappe. I've never been in his court before. The next hearing date is March 21.

Today I received a copy of the prosecution's motion to quash Gargiulo's subpoenas duces tecum (SDT's) he served on the LA County Sheriff's and the City of Monterey Park.  You can read the full motion HERE.

The next Gargiulo pretrial hearing is March 7, 2014.

There is a pretrial hearing this morning in the Michael Gargiulo case. The prosecution filed their motion to quash Gargiulo's subpoenas to (I believe) law enforcement agencies and the City of Monterey Park. Gargiulo will either have a response to the prosecution's motion, or he might be presenting something in camera with Judge Ohta today, supporting his right to serve these subpoenas.

I will have an update after the hearing today.

UPDATED
March 14, 2014
7:25 AM
I’m on the Red Line train heading into downtown Los Angeles for a pretrial hearing in the Michael Gargiulo case. Mr. Sprocket dropped me off this morning on his way to check on a parts order. Today’s hearing is a continuation of the issue of Gargiulo’s SDT’s (subpoena duces tecum) that he issued to various entities, and whether or not he has a legal right to the information he’s subpoenaed. When one side issues a subpoena for documents, those documents are sent to the court. In the presence of the court, the other side either agrees or disagrees that the opposing side has a right to the documents requested.

As many of you already know, Michael Gargiulo is an alleged serial killer, facing the death penalty. His status is currently “pro per.” In California this means he is representing himself. 

Some T&T readers may be wondering how long is it going to take for Gargiulo’s case to get to trial. To partially answer that question, I recommending reading LA Weekly’s Christine Pelisek’s latest story on Lonnie Franklin, Jr., the alleged “Grim Sleeper” killer. Franklin, who was arrested in July 2010 is not pro-per, but he is another alleged serial killer who is facing the death penalty.

In the Franklin case, Pelisek reported that the defense hasn’t completed their testing of the state’s evidence yet. Franklin has two attorneys, and that case is taking quite some time to get to trial.  There is a hearing in the Franklin case this morning in Dept. 109. That's at the opposite end of the long hallway and it's not likely that I can cover that hearing and Gargiulo's hearing at the same time.

In the Gargiulo case, because he decided to go pro-per, the discovery process starts from scratch. As of last week, the state still has one piece of discovery, an expert report they are waiting on to turn over to the defense. The discovery process goes both ways in California. It’s my understanding that Gargiulo has yet to turn over a single piece of discovery to the prosecution.

8:10 AM
I'm on the 9th floor of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center. One of Gargiulo's investigators, Chris Nicely is already here.  I haven't seen Gargiulo's other investigator, Christian Filipiak for several hearings.

I will have an update after the hearing.

8:30 AM
DDA Daniel Akemon arrives on the 9th floor.  He stops to chat a bit with Instigator Nicely.  The floor is busy at this end with about two dozen casually dressed people.  I don't notice a single one wearing a juror badge.

After Nicely chats with Akemon, Nicely leans over and rubs a bit of shine into his leather shoes.  DDA Akemon waits down by the security station. A few minutes later, DDA Garrett Dameron arrives. Akemon and Dameron take a walk down to the other end of the hallway. I squint to try to see where they went. Akemon looks like he dropped in on Dept. 102 (his case against Javier Bolden is in Judge Marcus' court) and Dameron went into Dept. 109.

Back down at this end of the hallway, I say hello to Akemon and Dameron and follow them into Dept. 108. Akemon and I have a brief conversation about the missing Maylasian flight 370.

8:53 AM
A few moments later, Detective Mark Lillienfeld arrives. Investigator Nicely takes his seat at the defense table. Gargiulo is brought out. He looks much the same as last week.  Gargiulo still has the goatee (it appears to be getting a bit longer) and has the same jail pallor he's had for some time now.  Gargiulo and his investigator start to chat.

9:02 AM
The pretty DDA who was trying a case in Judge Ohta's courtroom arrives and greets Akemon and Dameron.  Investigator Nicely comes over to Akemon. It appears Gargiulo wants to tell him something or ask a question.   I try to listen in but I don't catch much. I believe I hear Gargiulo say the words "stamped ... no one will tell me."

Another reporter I met through a friend arrives. I motion for them to come sit up next to me so I can say hello.

9:05 AM
On the record in the Gargiulo matter. As expected, Judge Ohta starts off by summarizing what happened last week.  He mentions the SDT's and whether or not the defendant is to receive any of the documents he subpoenaed.

It appears the people filed another motion, documenting more of their concerns about Gargiulo's subpoenas. It was filed on March 11th.  Gargiulo hasn't received it yet.  There's a bit of a confusion for a moment. It's apparently in the Sheriff's custody. The bailiff has the document and it's given to Gargiulo.  Gargiulo starts to go over the document.

While he's looking that over, the clerk gets Judge Ohta's attention and whispers to him.  I think I hear Judge Ohta say, "It's fine." A few moments later, what looks like a 6" x 9" manilla envelope is handed to the bailiff who gives it to Gargiulo.

Gargiulo is reading the people's motion he's been handed. "Your honor, this is the first Iime I've seen it. I don't want to take too much of the courts time to go over it."  Judge Ohta replies, "Just focus on page 3, line 15. I think that gets to it."  Judge Ohta appears to be reading the same document at the bench.  Judge Ohta then addresses the people. "I do have some questions Mr. Akemon."   Apparently, the people's motion mention's "Marsy's Law." Judge Otha says something to the effect, "I can't raise that privilege ... I don't know how that can be done." He goes onto explain that the language is written in broad strokes and there is no way to get to specifics. He does at that Megan's Law protects victims. It does not protect witnesses.

DDA Akemon brings up his concerns about open investigations, and the defendant issuing subpoenas for people or LE agencies in those investigations.  Judge Ohta does mention that this is going to involve a lot of research on his part. He mentions that he's already done quite a bit of research on the issue of quashing subpoenas.  "There is a prodedure for quashing subpoenas. ... It's very specific as to how it's done.  ... You want to protect witnesses and protect any future investigations going on."

I believe it's DDA Akemon who replies that he "... understands where the impetus lies ..."  Judge Ohta continues, "The court provieds a remedy that ... individuals [who were subpoenaed] come forward to quash. ... There is a rule how a 3rd party can quash. ... And when 1054 does not apply [to discovery] the prosecution is not required to provide [documents]. ... The defendant must go outside 1054. The law (rec?) the defendant has a right to SDT's."

Someone comments (Akemon? Judge Ohta?) that we're in a murky area, what's inside the SDT documents.  I believe Judge Ohta asks about the Monterey Park subpoena. He asks DDA Akemon if they are involved in this case.  Akemon responds that they are not one of the investigating agencies in this case.  Akemon mentions the Santa Monica PD, the LAPD, the LA Co. Sheriff's, and Chicago, relating to the 1101b testimony.

As Judge Ohta is looking over the list of subpoenas, he mentions Mark Monitor. "What is Mark Monitor?" Gargiulo responds, "It's a social website."Gargiulo also offers that the subpoena to the LA County Sheriff's is to the medical division.  Judge Ohta comments, "So that could arguably be under 1054."  Judge Ohta also asks Gargiulo 'when' he issued his subpoenas.  Those issued before 1/1/14 would not fall under the new local rule. Three of the subpoenas were issued before that date, and one issued after.  "Which one did you do after?" Judge Ohta asks the defendant.  That one is to the LA Co. Sheriff's. That one will fall under the ammended local rule, the other three do not.

Judge Ohta then starts off by saying, "I'm not saying this is my ultimate ruling ... I have my viewpoint. ... Nothing in the local rule gives the prosecution the power to quash. ... only ruling is ... loss of pro per status. ... I'm not sure that local rule gives the prosecution the right to quash."  Judge Ohta then references a point in their motion.

Judge Ohta mentions that the LA Co. Sheriff's is about the county's medical personnel.  He cannot figure out the (applicability?) of Marsy's Law; it's too broad. He doesn't know where the line is. He mentions something in the law that states 'any material to harass.'  Judge Ohta muses, "If the defendant says, here is the reason I need it ... and here is why I need it at trial, then it falls outside..." He then continues, addressing the people. "You don't know what it is so you don't know how to make [your objections] it specific." Akemon responds, "I know that the La County jail has said they will not turn over policies [manuals]."  Judge Ohta then comments that he's had cases where defendant's did receive that or similar information.

Judge Ohta then rules. He addresses Gargiulo. "The easiest way to do this ... tell me why you need this and you can do that under seal."  Gargiulo tells the court that they can put the other subpoenas aside for a moment (the three issued before 1/1/14) but he needs the medication/LA Co. Sheriff's one. Gargiulo then mentions that he could write his motion.

Judge Ohta tells Gargiulo that he doesn't want to put anything aside. He then tells him, "You don't have to write a motion. You just need to tell me why. ... If it's something that might fall under one of these items [in the prosecution's motion] then they [people] can tell me to further articulate."  He then addresses the people on their motion. "I can't do 1040. I can't do that. I can do everything else."

Gargiulo tells the court that the protocol for medication policy, "They [people? jail personnel?} said it falls out of 1040." Gargiulo then mentions his concerns about taking up so much of the court's time.  Judge Ohta addresses that concern. "Don't you worry about it consuming my time."  Gargiulo replies, "I'm just tryng to get this as quickly as possible." Judge Ohta asks, "Have you SDT's those policy manuals?"  (I miss the answer.)

Judge Ohta states that this will be a two step process.  Gargiulo is to present in writing, why he needs what he's subpoenaed. Once he receives that, he will review it in camera on the record and the record will be sealed. "I will not immediately reveal to you [contents]. ... We'll come back to court, and [I'll?] tell the prosecution if any items trigger any of their (concerns?)."  Judge Ohta will then give the prosecution the opportunity to fine tune their objections.

Judge Ohta then tells the defendant that the prosecution also filed a request for discovery compliance by the defense. The defense has not filed any discovery with them under 1054.3.  Since the request has been made, Judge Ohta is asking the defense if they have any discovery.

Gargiulo tells the court, "We don't have anything yet. ... biggest struggle is to get a hold of witnesses."

Judge Ohta then mentions that he wants each side to develop a timeline of where the case is going.  Once that's done, then you [defendant?] file pretrial motions to contest anything.  Judge Ohta tells the parties, "It's a good idea to have an idea of an end date." He wants to set a time for return to court. 

Gargiulo responds, "I think issue is being able to interview witnesses." He mentions something about an investigator going to Las Vegas and not being able to get a hold of anyone. Judge Ohta responds, "I'm not asking you to justify ... What I said is, lets set some time frames. ... If I agree with them we will begin to set marks on dates."

There is then discussion about when/how Gargiulo will get his document to the court explaining why he needs the information in his SDT's. He's told that he doesn't have to have a court date, he could mail in the document. Amazingly, Gargiulo then tells the court, "I do have those all finished. I just didn't bring them (today?)."  He then tells the court that he will give them to his investigator to give to the court.  Judge Ohta again tells Gargiulo that he will look over everything on the record and that the record will be sealed.  If it's necessary, he will alert the DA if there are issues.

April 18th is selected as the return date. On that date, they will set timelines and a schedule on that date. And that's it for the hearing.

10:45 AM
I'm down in the cafeteria getting a bite to eat before I write up my notes.  Lately, I've been staying down at court to finish my write up before I head home. After I get settled, I get a call from Mr. Sprocket. He tells me he only had a short window of time to pick me up from the train station, so I will need to head towards home as soon as possible.

One of his customers had an emergency and Mr. Sprocket was picking up parts to fix the problem right away.  Note to small business owners. When you decide to try to clean your refrigeration system condenser coil yourself (that cools your reach-in freezer), make sure you really know what you’re doing. You could potentially damage your coil beyond repair. The cost of a new coil will guaranteed be much more expensive than the money you thought you’d save by cleaning the coil yourself.

UPDATE 3/28/2014
LA Times Now Article - Mother of brain dead Jahi McMath says daughter is "still sleeping"


March 26, 2014
I want to thank the many T&T readers who have emailed me, to keep me up to date with the latest postings from Jahi McMath's family.  I apologize if I have not responded to you personally. Real life responsibilities to Mr. Sprocket's business, my own business, and lastly, the several Los Angeles County murder cases I'm covering have been taking up all of my time.

Reality check: there is no news on this case. Jahi McMath is still brain dead. We don't know where she is (buried or hooked up to machines in a health facility) or what is the current condition of her body.

Anything the family (mother, uncle, aunt, siblings, friends) says at this point -on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc.,- about brain dead Jahi McMath is not credible information.  Even if the family issued a statement via a public relations firm or an attorney, those statements would not be credible either. They cannot be believed. Many of the statements are shocking and draw lots of commentary, but they are meaningless in light of the brain death diagnosis and issuance of a death certificate in December 2013. I believe the statements by the family are self serving and need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Back to reality. There has not been an independent evaluation of Jahi McMath since her medical condition was tested by a court ordered physician. End of story.

Also keep in mind that nothing we say or do, will have an impact on the family's behavior at this point.

I went over the comments in KZ's last post, and have added all the links to news articles that readers provided to the Jahi McMath Quick Links Page. If there is an article I've missed, please leave it in the comments on this story and I will add it as soon as I can.

In the comments, T&T reader Jenny McLelland offered to write "...a guest post addressing what trach and trach-vent kids really are."  Jenny, if you're still reading, please contact me via email.

I have not forgotten about posting that timeline I mentioned last month. My reality is, I have not been able to devote any time to reviewing and verifying the accuracy of the timeline. I apologize.

UPDATE 5/18: edited for clarity, spelling

May 9th, 2014
8:05 AM
I’m on the 9th floor of the downtown Los Angeles Criminal Justice Center, sitting at the end of the left wing. It’s virtually empty in the hallway this early.

Backstory: Gargiulo's Last Pretrial Hearing
The last time I attended a court hearing was on April 17th at the Airport Courthouse. I have notes I still have to write up about the case of Dawn DaLuise, who is charged with attempted murder for hire.

After that hearing, I got home around noon and realized I had food poisoning. After 12 hours of pain, it left me flat on my back and out of sorts for almost five days, which is why I missed Gargiulo's last hearing on April 18th.

At Gargiulo's previous hearing on March 7th, stand-in defense attorney, Charles Lindner was ordered by Judge Ohta to appear on April 18th. My understanding is, Lindner did appear on the 18th. At that time, Judge Ohta still had not reviewed Gargiulo's subpoena's in camera.

May 9th, 2014
8:06 AM
A few minutes after I arrived, Gargiulo's defense investigator Chris Nicely arrived.  He’s wearing a nice dark suit jacket and slightly lighter gray pants. Most other times I’ve seen him, he’s worn sweater vests. It’s been a hot spring for Los Angeles so far this year, so I’m not surprised that Nicely switched to wearing a jacket.

8:19 AM
Down in the center of the hallway I see defense counsel for the Joshua Woodward case. Megan Wisegerber,  Kelly T. Currie are standing. It’s a guess that Janet Levine is sitting. I keep leaning forward to try to see if it’s her, but since she's on the same side of the hallway that I'm on, I can't tell from where I'm sitting.

The hallway is filling up with people at the other end.  It is Ms. Levine who was on the bench. She got up and I was able to see her face. They are waiting for Dept. 103 to open. I’ll miss that hearing this morning.  After Gargiulo, I’ll have to find out when the next pretrial hearing is for that case.  (Readers, you can always check the listing of 'Upcoming Pretrial Hearings' in the right column for cases you are interested in. Sprocket)

Nicely is sitting to my left. I glance over and see that he is reading some hand-written pages on lined paper. Looking back down the hallway, I can’t see as far as I used to. I’ll have to get my prescription updated.

One news event that I’ve been obsessed with the past two months has been the disappearance of flight MH370.

8:26 AM
The activity in the hallway has quieted down a bit.  I keep glancing left to see if the prosecutors from the Woodward case (DDA Marguritte Rizzo and DDA Habib Balian) have arrived yet. Woodward’s defense attorney’s are still in the hallway.

8:31 AM
I see one of the Woodward prosecutors, DDA Marguriette Rizzo walk this way.  She’s wearing that cream trench jacket with the big buttons down the back that I really like. She gives me a smile and heads into the ladies restroom.

Over at Department 107, Judge Lomeli steps out and unlocks his own courtroom door. Coffee cup in hand, he's wearing his standard suit vest.

8:39 AM
Down at the center of the hallway, I  see DDA Habib Balian has arrived. He's chatting with Woodward’s defense team. Then everyone steps into Dept. 103.

8:48 AM
LA County Sheriff's Detective Mark Lillienfeld arrives. He smiles and says hello. He then greets a man at the end of the hallway and they chat.

8:49 AM
Chris Nicely gets up and enters Dept. 108.

I unplug my computer from the wall outlet and close up my laptop. I follow him inside a few moments later.

8:50 AM
After I take a seat in the second bench row, investigator Christian Filipiak arrives. We exchange greetings and then he goes over to chat with Chris Nicely. Then the both step outside the courtroom.  Getting back into taking hand notes after I've been away for so long is hard.

I note that there is another deputy with Judge Ohta's bailiff at the bailiff's glassed in area. They both appear to be deeply focused on their cell phones. Judge Ohta's clerk comes out of the back area. She sees me, smiles and says hello.

8:55 AM
Detective Lillienfeld enters and takes a seat in the well.

A handsome bald man comes out from the back area carrying two soft sachels. It suddenly dawns on me that this is Judge Larry Fidler, who presided over the Phil Spector trial.  It's a good guess that he used the private elevator on Judge Ohta's side of the building. To me, Judge Fidler doesn't appear to be as tall as what I remembered when I sat in his courtroom through two trials.

Detective Lillienfeld heads out to the hallway. The clerk hands a package of juror notebooks to the bailiff. Wondering if Judge Ohta is in trial at the moment, I stand up to see if there are notebooks on the seats in the jury box. No notebooks on the seats.

9:05 AM
Another deputy arrives telling the other two about an event this Sunday.  Moments later, DDA Akemon arrives.  Detective Lillienfeld is back and Akemon compliments Lillienfeld on the deep green color of his suit.  I agree. It is a nice suit.

DDA Akemon and DDA Garrett Dameron leave the courtroom to have a private chat in the ante chamber.

9:08 AM
The pretty, black female deputy arrives. She has three stripes on her shoulder, but I don't know what rank that represents.  The four deputies are discussing a report about Gargiulo. Something happened on the way back to Men's Central Jail at his last hearing on April 18th.   I overhear one of the deputies say the DA wants to increase security involving Gargiulo.  They mention Gargiulo's pro per status.  Now the bailiff from Dept. 107 comes in and they share their information with him. Another statement I overhear is, "... apparently he's a trained boxer ... he has an issue."  Another says, "... so far ... he's pretty cooperative."  I hear them mention an escape attempt. The female deputy is reading a document and another deputy tells her about the El Monte jail incident. Another deputy with two stripes arrives.  I overhear statements that sound like, 'DA wants to increase security because of what happened when he came back from court ... and the handcuffs."  During this conversation about Gargiulo, I observed one of the deputies touch his fingers to his lips in describing the event.

9:16 AM
Judge Ohta's pretty court reporter comes out and sets up her equipment.

9:19 AM
DDA Akemon and Gargiulo's investigator chat at the defense table. Akemon places papers on the defense table and they appear to discuss them. There are three stacks of papers. One stack is over an inch thick.

I believe Akemon tells the investigator he laid out a timetable at the last hearing of a potential trial date of April 2015. There's one document that Filipiak asks Akemon if Gargiulo is entitled to have a copy of. I hear Akemon reply that he doesn't know but he'll find out.

DDA Akemon and Detective Lillienfeld leave the courtroom. I believe they left to make copies.

9:25 AM
Gargiulo is brought out. There are four deputies in the well, watching him. I have to move a little farther down on the bench row to get a clear view of Gargiulo.

Gargiulo chats with his investigators. Judge Ohta comes out in his robes. He sets papers and files on his bench and starts to go over some of the files.  Judge Ohta works on a file at the bench.  Gargiulo is still going over the papers at the defense table with his investigators.

9:30 AM
DDA Akemon returns and Judge Ohta goes on the record with People v. Gargiulo. The defendant is before the court, representing himself. He asks the investigators and the prosecutors to state their appearances for the record.  Judge Ohta tells the parties, "There are several things to take up today. ... One relates to (discovery?) [The SDT's] and one relates to pro per privileges. ... [We'll] take pro per status first. ... I received a document, filed on May 1. Before this document (was?) filed with the court ... (the) Sheriff's department faxed to the court notice that a Wilson hearing had taken place on (April 25th?)"

Based on the notice the court received and the documentation filed by the Sheriff's, it would appear that the Sheriff's Department proceeded with a Wilson hearing. The defendant was in violation and his pro per jail privileges were taken away.

Judge Ohta continues, "Before I go further, the allegation of jail (weapon? contraband?) is a crime. ... You have a right against self incrimination." Judge Ohta continues informing Gargiulo of all his rights with this allegation.  "You have a right to have the court review what happened. ... and (the?) basis of the sheriff's action against you. ... I don't know if a case will be filed against you regarding the 'shank' ..."

Judge Ohta then proceeds to read into the record the local rule 8.42, that requires certain things be done and note for the record what has been done so far.

Judge Ohta goes over what the documents he's read, appear to indicate what happened.

Gargiulo appeared in court on April 18, 2014. Apparently, on the way back to jail, Gargiulo was searched. Deputy (Pace?) found a metal object hidden in your mouth. On April 21, a (discovery?) hearing was conducted and you were found guilty."

Gargiulo was disciplined and put in "the hole."(I believe Gargiulo was put there for 10 days. Sprocket)

Judge Ohta continues, "Then you were given a Wilson hearing on April 25. The hearing officer found you were in violation of two sections of the pro per rules."

The first violation was possession of a metal object (or "shank" or "key").
The second violation is a duty not to infringe on the rights of other pro per status inmates.

Consequently, a notice to the court was faxed on April 28 of the action taken. The court filing was on May 1.

Judge Ohta goes over local rule 8.2. The court explains that the local rule is not legislative mandated. It sets forth certain procedural rights that need to be followed.  I believe Judge Ohta is reading a section of the local rule into the record.

1. Notice must be given to you (defendant) 24 hours in advance of a hearing.
2. You have a right to appeal within 48 hours.
3. You may call witnesses.
4. You must be given a copy of the evidence relied upon.

There are certain timing requirements, and this is after receiving notice.
There is a review of the sheriff's decision and then a calendar hearing scheduled to present evidence.

Judge Ohta tells the defendant, "That is what we're doing right now."

Gargiulo replies, "I'd like to speak on the record. The jail failed to follow all the rules. ... I can't prepare because (my?) privileges were violated. ... I filed an appeal and they failed to follow rules and reply in three days. ... There are so many rules they violated by taking me to segregation immediately."

Judge Ohta asks the defendant, "Are you saying that what's in this document is false?"

I miss Gargiulo's reply. Judge Ohta states, "What you're saying is, the notice given to you ... they failed to follow procedures (before?) the Wilson hearing?"

Gargiulo argues that they did not follow proper procedure. "They denied me the right to prepare. ... They did not give me documents until one day before the Wilson hearing. ... I filed a ton of complaints ... that have not been responded to."

Judge Ohta asks, "You're telling me you're not prepared?"  Gargiulo responds, "I have no privileges."

Judge Ohta explains to Gargiulo, "The way California court explains this is done, varies from county to county.  ... Once pro per status given ... the evidence hearing does not have to happen here. It can happen at the jail. ... Only at the point of court review of what happened and the court then determines modifying your privileges. ... What you say happened before ... may not have anything to do with the Wilson hearing. ... The Wilson hearing is separate. ... The memorandum on pro per privileges could be modified. ... They've already been modified by the sheriff's."

Judge Ohta asks Gargiulo what date does he want to return. "You're not going to get your pro per privileges ... You have no law library privileges, but you're entitled to have a hearing. ... You're entitled to present your (position? evidence?)"

I believe it's at this point that Gargiulo tells the court that he doesn't understand how there are two violations. He doesn't understand the second violation.

Judge Ohta patiently explains to Gargiulo, "The sheriff's position is this. If an inmate has a shank, who knows where that shank may travel. ... (It could be) taken to the law library. Other inmates are in jeopardy. ... Their rights are infringed upon."

Gargiulo responds, "That would be based on speculation..."  The court replies, "You could call it that if you like."  Gargiulo asks, "Where would I get the discovery? ... The DA's office?"  Judge Ohta replies, "Not the DA's office. It's the County Sheriff. ... If you're going to allege all things against the (sheriff?) ... I think we can do this in a week. ... The DA's office may not appear. ... You [the DA] can if you like."

A week from today, Judge Ohta will schedule a review of the Wilson hearing on May 16th.  Judge Ohta orders the counsel for the Sheriff's Office to be here on that date.

Judge Ohta then moves onto the other issue. He's gone in camera to review Gargiulo's SDT's (subpoena duces tecum). The DA asked the court to keep certain concerns in mind. I miss what Judge Ohta gives as the first concern, but it's probably personal witness information. The second concern is any material from members of the prosecution team; LA County Sheriff's, El Monte PD.  Judge Ohta looked at envelopes from AOL, Match.com, Monterey Police Dept., LA Co. Sheriff's Dept. He did not find anything from (Mark Monitor?).

The material from AOL and Match.com, nothing that triggered any of the DA's concerns. The defense investigator will be given the material, make copies and return one to the court.

LA County Sheriff's: Sent out five SDT's. Sheriff's department launched a letter from (their? counsel?) citing 1054. "This is discovery and you need to ask prosecution."

Monterey Police Dept. There was a tape given to the court. This is ostensibly ... one of the issues of DA Akemon ... but not for Monterey Park. The defense will be given the tape and make a copy and return to the court.

Judge Ohta concludes, "And that's everything with respect to the defense SDT's. ... I believe the DA filed a request for discovery from the defense. ... We talked about setting parameters ... a time frame. ... Right now, the pro per privileges are suspended at the end of the Wilson hearing.  ... If I go along with the Sheriff's Dept., and the defense is restricted, you have to make a decision if you want to continue to (represent yourself)."

Gargiulo asks about his phone privileges.  Judge Ohta responds that the court is not required to go along with every single one of the restrictions. ... I don't know if having a shank is necessarily ... You have a right to have a hearing. ... County counsel will be here." Gargiulo asks the court, "Are you expecting a motion?"

Judge Ohta replies, "I don't expect (a motion?).  You dont' have privileges. ... Anything connected to your ability to pro per (privileges), phone, pencils, paper ... is all a privilege."

I'm not sure if Gargiulo asked another question at this point or not.

Judge Ohta continues, "I don't see it (impending?) ... Depending, ... (you?) can possibly have phone privileges back. ... Jail security is (primary?) with the sheriff. They have complete power. Not me."

This review hearing will be next Friday.

Akemon then tells the court that he has turned over to Gargiulo another set of discovery.  I miss the first page number, but the last page number was 27,060.  Gargiulo has in his cell with him, 27,060 pages of discovery from the prosecution.

There's something mentioned about DNA results from SERI that was put on a CD and given to Gargiulo's investigators.

Based on the allegations by the LA County Sheriff's, the prosecution filed with the court a memorandum of manifest need to provide increased courtroom security.  (It's my understanding that the DA's move here is to protect the public. They need to have their position on the record. Sprocket)

Judge Ohta gives his thoughts on this issue. "...finding of manifest need ... pertains to (?) and fact finder (jury). ... We don't need to worry about this until time of trial ... and doesn't impede on Mr. Gargiulo's rights."

I have this exchange in my notes, but unfortunately, I'm not sure who says what. It's possible the court asked the question and Gargiulo responded, or it could be the reverse.

Do you have anything for me?
There's a lot on my plate.

Garguilo then tells the court, "I do have a (question?). I did file a motion with the court regarding defense turning over discovery, stating I didn't have any discovery at this time. Still trying to locate witnesses and interview witnesses."

I believe the court tells the parties, "See you back on Friday, May 16."

A general time waver is then brought up (I believe) by the prosecution. I believe the court explains to the defendant the general time waiver under the penal code and the right to a speedy trial.  A general time waiver means the defendant doesn't have to do the zero of 30.  Judge Ohta asks, "Do you want to keep putting it over?"  Gargiulo agrees to the general time waiver.  However under 1382.a paragraph 2 sub a, if at any time Gargiulo rescinds the general time waiver, he now falls under the requirements of a trial in 60 days.

Judge Ohta asks Gargiulo, "Do you have any questions about what I just read?""No, your honor," Gargiulo replies. It's on the record. Gargiulo has entered into a general time waiver.

I believe DDA Akemon tells the court that the document, Notice of Results of the LA Sheriff's Dept. hearing, he gave a copy of it to Gargiulo.

And that's it for the May 9th hearing.

It's my understanding that what was found in Gargiulo's mouth during the search on April 18th was the metal clip attached to a ball point pen. My understanding is, the sheriff's report called the piece of metal a "shank" and/or a "handcuff key."