Exclusive T&T case coverage can be found HERE.
Day 4, Part II......
January 29, 2015
Defense Opening Statement
Mr. Burns steps up to the podium. Up on the ELMO is a photo. It’s of a young, smiling man with longish hair. Mr. Burns tells the jury, “[A] photo of Mr. Martinez when he hadn’t been punched in the face, and not a booking photo.”
I did not recognize the photo as the defendant. He looks quite different. He's got a big smile on his face.
“And now it’s all drugs. It’s all drug related.”
Murder is ugly, and you’ll see ugliness. It’s sad. “God told Cain he could hear his blood pouring out. .. The DA will try to capitalize on every detail of this [crime?]. ... My client is innocent. He did not do these crimes. ... There’s no evidence...”
All this case is, is DNA. That’s all it’s about. Everything else is to take your focus away from that. He’s [Martinez] a very convenient fall guy. We’ll prove that Mr. Martniez knew Nancy Boehm. Let’s give a better photo of Nancy. ... That’s what she looked like at the time of her death. (I don’t notice that much difference from the prosecution’s photo of Nancy to the defense. Both photos look much better than the photo from the press conference on the FLICKR account.)
She [Nancy] was like a second mother [to Mr. Martinez]. Like an aunt. Shawn was autistic. He was not an idiot. He was slow but he was a friend of my client. He [Shawn? Martinez?] knew him since he was a kid.
He [Martinez] lived basically right across the street from the Boehm’s. His cousin lived right around the corner, and they [all of them?] kind of grew up together.
[Anthony?] and Nancy ... was a drug house. Everyone knew it was a drug house. Mr. Martinez went on in his adulthood to associate with Nancy and his cousin. He’s been in that house a lot. He drank from bottles, used the bathroom; the kitchen; used ... wiped his hands on the towels .... chairs, because he’s there [very?] often. We do not dispute that his DNA was all over that house. They found one [palm print?] ...
Mr. Burns has a short pause then starts again.
Sometimes he went over there to do drugs with Nancy. Sometimes he went over there to play video games with Shawn. He wasn’t a customer; [that’s] wrong. He was like extended family. I believe Mr. Burns mentions the unusual spelling of Nancy and Shawn’s last name, but that it’s pronounced “beem.”
“She was a drug dealer. She was a good woman. My client loved her. He mourned her,” Mr. Burns tells the jury. He tells them it was 1997, the “sex, drugs and rock and roll days.” Back then, it was powdered cocaine. Mr. Burns states that it was wrong, incorrect that no drugs were found in Nancy’s residence. They did find something that this year, that we only found out this year were [not?] drugs, a white powder. There were valuables and money left behind. “A crazy junkie looks for the next high. ... This is not a drug related crime.”
In 1997, September 1997 he hadn’t seen the Bhoem’s for a week because they were pretty much homebodies. He called them several times. Unfortunately, the police did not preserve the voice mail so we can’t show them to you.
Nancy was one who was a phone person. [On the phone a lot?] Then she’s not answering her phone. People got suspicious. On a warm Saturday night after some other friend came over and became concerned. There was a lot of police action and Mr. Martinez came back on his bicycle and he saw the action at his friend’s house and he came over.
That night, as the evidence will show, he told detectives [?] what [he thought?] happened. He tells [officers?] all about his relationship with Nancy, and [that] probably a drug relation did it. He doesn’t know who. Police are asking him did this and he speculates. That he gave them a story to screw up their investigation and told them a story, that’s ridiculous. He would never have shown up there, especially if he had had scratches from a struggle. He would never have shown up there.
DDA Akemon: Objection! Argument!
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Burns continues. As you’ll see from the evidence, his presence here, presented a great deal of contamination. Someone who had DNA knowledge would not show up there. You’ll see a lot of evidence of the other case, for intent. You have to ask why. We don’t dispute that.
There is no issue of intent here. In fact, it’s part of, we intend to show here, these murders were done very professionally. These were not crazy murders here. These were done professionally. [There had to be more than one person] ... to immobilize the victims somehow.
The only victim in this case .... [does the?] DNA prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Martinez did these murders. ... There’s no DNA on Shawn’s fingernails.
Mr. Burns then talks about that the amount of DNA that was found under Nancy’s fingernails was very “molecular,” a very small amount. Mr. Burns tells the jury that the perpetrator is still at large. Burns states that the defense will show that there are great gaps in DNA technology. This was 1997.
“Let’s put this in context,” Mr. Burns tells the jury. “Just to bring you back there. ... President Clinton has begun his first term, before we had learned of Monica Lewinsky. ... Mike Tyson bit an ear in a fight. ... Microsoft was the most valuable corporation and Apple was losing money. ... Princess Diana had died. ... All the water under the bridge since then. ... And remember the technology back then. .... [The most advanced phone?] ... a Motorola flip phone. ... DVD’s had come back just then. ... A new computer [operating system?] was Windows 95. ... [If you?] wanted to connect to the Internet, connect with AOL or Prodigy. ... Google was not a word.”
1997 technology ... so was DNA. Back then, when you found DNA on someone’s fingernails you could see it. It was particles. It was a hunk of skin you could actually see it. Not so today. You weren’t worried about contamination as we’re worried about it today. DNA testing [today?] was not your daddy’s DNA.
Mr. Burns briefly explains to the jury what DNA is. I’m not positive, but I believe he slightly pauses over ‘deoxyribonucelic acid’ the full, scientific name of DNA. He tells the jury that 99.9% of your DNA is the same. Mr. Burns adds, “However, scientists have learned how to focus on locations, loci on the molecule that have something called a polymorphism. .. That 1.1 percent that’s different. Short random repeats, that repeat different, at different lengths. No one knows what they do yet, but people have different lengths of them. ... They have machines that can measure the different lengths of them.”
PCR, amplifies DNA that you can grow more of them. ... Grow enough DNA to test it in machines. Amplify it. Cool machines that distinguish the different length of the genes.
This technical talk that Mr. Burns is engaged in is slightly different than what I’m used to, hearing from criminalist DNA testimony, so it’s a little difficult to follow. I try to pick up from where I stopped typing.
“It’s actually a revolution, finding traces of DNA on bullets, on firearms. It’s revolutionized the way we look at DNA.”
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m not going to dispute that molecular DNA was found on the fingernails of Nanch Boehm. We actually tested it ourselves and we put it to harder testing than the prosecution did. We found a ... we found Shawn’s DNA on Nancy as well. We found Nancy’s DNA on Shawn. I don’t think anyone’s going to say that Nancy had a [hand in Shawn’s death?].
Neither experts will be able to tell you where this DNA comes from. Whether it’s skin, blood, saliva, snot or whatever, or the many body fluids that have DNA. They’re not going to tell you how it got there without speculating. Nor will they be able to tell you how much is on these nails, whether it’s billions of a gram or trillions of a gram. And no one will be able to tell you if it came directly from Mr. Martinez or transferred from something else.
These are also not your usual fingernails and not your usual environment. [I believe Mr. Burns is referencing the messy and cluttered nature of Nancy’s home.]
The noon lunch break is called.
1:36 PM
The defendant is brought out. We go back on the record. Judge Speer calls for the bailiff to bring in the jury.
1:37 PM
The jury files in. The prosecution and detective stand. Burns continues with his opening statement.
“Afternoon folks,” Mr. Burns greets the jury. “Afternoon,” they reply.
“I was talking about the revolution in DNA and molecules and DNA that could fly all over this house.”
These were not regular fingernails, and where these fingernails are, on a daily basis. Mr. Burns puts up a photo of Nancy Boehm’s right hand. “None of these nails were broken,” Mr. Burns points out to the jury. Then a photo of Nancy’s left hand is shown to the jurors. Mr. Burns points out the length of the nails. “Obviously, she took some time to grow them." ... Now here’s the environment that these nails are always in.”
Mr. Burns puts up a photo of the living room. It’s very cluttered, packed with things.
“Look closely. You can see dust lying all over the place. ... A very cluttered, packed house. ... My client’s palm print was found on that coffee table.”
Another photo, I believe of the dining room. It’s also crammed with stuff. I can’t even see a dining table. There is a printer. I see food that has dropped on the floor. Another photo of the kitchen. I see empty beer and alcohol bottles stacked up in the kitchen. The hallway was filled with stuff, too.
“My client’s DNA would be all over their house. ... They touch their hands, DNA all over the place.”
Mr. Burns now gives examples of how DNA is transferred to objects. He puts up photos of people crying. Now a photo of a person’s sweaty palm. Now, photos of people touching their face, eyes. One of the photos is of Simon Cowell, from the American Idol TV show. While the photos are being shown, Mr. Burns is explaining the examples of how DNA is spread to objects, surfaces. DNA could be left on fingernails, or left on surfaces.
The defense states that, they are saying that, this is not evidence, given the fact that Mr. Martinez came into this residence on many instances. He went to the bathroom. He washed his face. This is not evidence. This is circumstantial evidence. There are a million reasons why this is not evidence. This house was not under ideal laboratory conditions.
“We agree DNA is a means of identifying people. We’re challenging the conclusion that DNA found under the fingernails [indicates?]...”
This the 1990’s. It’s not this century where we know DNA can be transferred from a touch, a sneeze, a hand.
“They were killed like lambs. ... There was no struggle. ... There’s no evidence there ever was a struggle.”
In the other case, the individuals had defense wounds. In the Boehm case, the victims were in separate rooms. How could this be done? Could one person do this? There’s no evidence that a struggle took place at all. ... There may have been someone else holding the victims.
What does the DNA evidence show? It shows nothing more than what it shows. Mr. Martinez told police he was in their house all the time. He was their friend. It’s what he told them.
I hate to talk about this other case, because it’s on the [intention?] of intent, so I have to talk about it. I submit that what happened was what my client said on that tape. He turned himself in on that matter. She [Luz] left the apartment walking and talking. It’s different from the Boehm case, where they were professionally killed. The knife wounds were all in a cluster.
Mr. Burns talks about the wounds to Luz Nieves neck. “You can imagine two people struggling for a sharp object. It’s what my client said, is what happened.”
I see that Martinez watches his counsel give his opening statement.
“That all happened in a minute, two minutes. The neighbors heard an argument, and then, bam! Boom! It was over. That was a lot different. There’s no intent to kill in that case and there was no intent to kill in this case. So whatever evidence that they have in the Boehm case ...
They have Mr. Callahan. Maybe, accuses Mr. Martinez now; [we first heard this from] him in April 2014. He always takes the side of detectives; their most promising suspect. He’s previously given statements in 1997, he said in ... that Nancy was [afraid] ...
DDA Akemon: Objection! [We litigated this.]
I believe Judge Speer rules in the prosecution’s favor. The defense requests a sidebar. Judge Speer takes a sidebar.
1:56 PM
Back on the record. The court rules. The objection was sustained and the last statement by counsel was stricken.
Mr. Burns continues. Mr. Callahan was interviewed twice in 1997 and once in 1998 and never mentioned Mr. Martinez as a possible suspect. Mr. Burns then mentions the mental gymnastics, that he mentioned in voir dire, when he was asking the jurors if they can do it.
“You’re going to ... like I said, the mental gymnastics here, is to disregard that other crime for no other purpose than intent. The intent is not in dispute. You should disregard completely that other crime. This man is innocent. He’s a very convenient fall guy. Once you see the DNA evidence you should acquit him.
The defense is finished with their opening statement and the people call their first witness.
More to come......
Day 4, Part II......
January 29, 2015
Defense Opening Statement
Mr. Burns steps up to the podium. Up on the ELMO is a photo. It’s of a young, smiling man with longish hair. Mr. Burns tells the jury, “[A] photo of Mr. Martinez when he hadn’t been punched in the face, and not a booking photo.”
I did not recognize the photo as the defendant. He looks quite different. He's got a big smile on his face.
“And now it’s all drugs. It’s all drug related.”
Murder is ugly, and you’ll see ugliness. It’s sad. “God told Cain he could hear his blood pouring out. .. The DA will try to capitalize on every detail of this [crime?]. ... My client is innocent. He did not do these crimes. ... There’s no evidence...”
All this case is, is DNA. That’s all it’s about. Everything else is to take your focus away from that. He’s [Martinez] a very convenient fall guy. We’ll prove that Mr. Martniez knew Nancy Boehm. Let’s give a better photo of Nancy. ... That’s what she looked like at the time of her death. (I don’t notice that much difference from the prosecution’s photo of Nancy to the defense. Both photos look much better than the photo from the press conference on the FLICKR account.)
She [Nancy] was like a second mother [to Mr. Martinez]. Like an aunt. Shawn was autistic. He was not an idiot. He was slow but he was a friend of my client. He [Shawn? Martinez?] knew him since he was a kid.
He [Martinez] lived basically right across the street from the Boehm’s. His cousin lived right around the corner, and they [all of them?] kind of grew up together.
[Anthony?] and Nancy ... was a drug house. Everyone knew it was a drug house. Mr. Martinez went on in his adulthood to associate with Nancy and his cousin. He’s been in that house a lot. He drank from bottles, used the bathroom; the kitchen; used ... wiped his hands on the towels .... chairs, because he’s there [very?] often. We do not dispute that his DNA was all over that house. They found one [palm print?] ...
Mr. Burns has a short pause then starts again.
Sometimes he went over there to do drugs with Nancy. Sometimes he went over there to play video games with Shawn. He wasn’t a customer; [that’s] wrong. He was like extended family. I believe Mr. Burns mentions the unusual spelling of Nancy and Shawn’s last name, but that it’s pronounced “beem.”
“She was a drug dealer. She was a good woman. My client loved her. He mourned her,” Mr. Burns tells the jury. He tells them it was 1997, the “sex, drugs and rock and roll days.” Back then, it was powdered cocaine. Mr. Burns states that it was wrong, incorrect that no drugs were found in Nancy’s residence. They did find something that this year, that we only found out this year were [not?] drugs, a white powder. There were valuables and money left behind. “A crazy junkie looks for the next high. ... This is not a drug related crime.”
In 1997, September 1997 he hadn’t seen the Bhoem’s for a week because they were pretty much homebodies. He called them several times. Unfortunately, the police did not preserve the voice mail so we can’t show them to you.
Nancy was one who was a phone person. [On the phone a lot?] Then she’s not answering her phone. People got suspicious. On a warm Saturday night after some other friend came over and became concerned. There was a lot of police action and Mr. Martinez came back on his bicycle and he saw the action at his friend’s house and he came over.
That night, as the evidence will show, he told detectives [?] what [he thought?] happened. He tells [officers?] all about his relationship with Nancy, and [that] probably a drug relation did it. He doesn’t know who. Police are asking him did this and he speculates. That he gave them a story to screw up their investigation and told them a story, that’s ridiculous. He would never have shown up there, especially if he had had scratches from a struggle. He would never have shown up there.
DDA Akemon: Objection! Argument!
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Burns continues. As you’ll see from the evidence, his presence here, presented a great deal of contamination. Someone who had DNA knowledge would not show up there. You’ll see a lot of evidence of the other case, for intent. You have to ask why. We don’t dispute that.
There is no issue of intent here. In fact, it’s part of, we intend to show here, these murders were done very professionally. These were not crazy murders here. These were done professionally. [There had to be more than one person] ... to immobilize the victims somehow.
The only victim in this case .... [does the?] DNA prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Martinez did these murders. ... There’s no DNA on Shawn’s fingernails.
Mr. Burns then talks about that the amount of DNA that was found under Nancy’s fingernails was very “molecular,” a very small amount. Mr. Burns tells the jury that the perpetrator is still at large. Burns states that the defense will show that there are great gaps in DNA technology. This was 1997.
“Let’s put this in context,” Mr. Burns tells the jury. “Just to bring you back there. ... President Clinton has begun his first term, before we had learned of Monica Lewinsky. ... Mike Tyson bit an ear in a fight. ... Microsoft was the most valuable corporation and Apple was losing money. ... Princess Diana had died. ... All the water under the bridge since then. ... And remember the technology back then. .... [The most advanced phone?] ... a Motorola flip phone. ... DVD’s had come back just then. ... A new computer [operating system?] was Windows 95. ... [If you?] wanted to connect to the Internet, connect with AOL or Prodigy. ... Google was not a word.”
1997 technology ... so was DNA. Back then, when you found DNA on someone’s fingernails you could see it. It was particles. It was a hunk of skin you could actually see it. Not so today. You weren’t worried about contamination as we’re worried about it today. DNA testing [today?] was not your daddy’s DNA.
Mr. Burns briefly explains to the jury what DNA is. I’m not positive, but I believe he slightly pauses over ‘deoxyribonucelic acid’ the full, scientific name of DNA. He tells the jury that 99.9% of your DNA is the same. Mr. Burns adds, “However, scientists have learned how to focus on locations, loci on the molecule that have something called a polymorphism. .. That 1.1 percent that’s different. Short random repeats, that repeat different, at different lengths. No one knows what they do yet, but people have different lengths of them. ... They have machines that can measure the different lengths of them.”
PCR, amplifies DNA that you can grow more of them. ... Grow enough DNA to test it in machines. Amplify it. Cool machines that distinguish the different length of the genes.
This technical talk that Mr. Burns is engaged in is slightly different than what I’m used to, hearing from criminalist DNA testimony, so it’s a little difficult to follow. I try to pick up from where I stopped typing.
“It’s actually a revolution, finding traces of DNA on bullets, on firearms. It’s revolutionized the way we look at DNA.”
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m not going to dispute that molecular DNA was found on the fingernails of Nanch Boehm. We actually tested it ourselves and we put it to harder testing than the prosecution did. We found a ... we found Shawn’s DNA on Nancy as well. We found Nancy’s DNA on Shawn. I don’t think anyone’s going to say that Nancy had a [hand in Shawn’s death?].
Neither experts will be able to tell you where this DNA comes from. Whether it’s skin, blood, saliva, snot or whatever, or the many body fluids that have DNA. They’re not going to tell you how it got there without speculating. Nor will they be able to tell you how much is on these nails, whether it’s billions of a gram or trillions of a gram. And no one will be able to tell you if it came directly from Mr. Martinez or transferred from something else.
These are also not your usual fingernails and not your usual environment. [I believe Mr. Burns is referencing the messy and cluttered nature of Nancy’s home.]
The noon lunch break is called.
1:36 PM
The defendant is brought out. We go back on the record. Judge Speer calls for the bailiff to bring in the jury.
1:37 PM
The jury files in. The prosecution and detective stand. Burns continues with his opening statement.
“Afternoon folks,” Mr. Burns greets the jury. “Afternoon,” they reply.
“I was talking about the revolution in DNA and molecules and DNA that could fly all over this house.”
These were not regular fingernails, and where these fingernails are, on a daily basis. Mr. Burns puts up a photo of Nancy Boehm’s right hand. “None of these nails were broken,” Mr. Burns points out to the jury. Then a photo of Nancy’s left hand is shown to the jurors. Mr. Burns points out the length of the nails. “Obviously, she took some time to grow them." ... Now here’s the environment that these nails are always in.”
Mr. Burns puts up a photo of the living room. It’s very cluttered, packed with things.
“Look closely. You can see dust lying all over the place. ... A very cluttered, packed house. ... My client’s palm print was found on that coffee table.”
Another photo, I believe of the dining room. It’s also crammed with stuff. I can’t even see a dining table. There is a printer. I see food that has dropped on the floor. Another photo of the kitchen. I see empty beer and alcohol bottles stacked up in the kitchen. The hallway was filled with stuff, too.
“My client’s DNA would be all over their house. ... They touch their hands, DNA all over the place.”
Mr. Burns now gives examples of how DNA is transferred to objects. He puts up photos of people crying. Now a photo of a person’s sweaty palm. Now, photos of people touching their face, eyes. One of the photos is of Simon Cowell, from the American Idol TV show. While the photos are being shown, Mr. Burns is explaining the examples of how DNA is spread to objects, surfaces. DNA could be left on fingernails, or left on surfaces.
The defense states that, they are saying that, this is not evidence, given the fact that Mr. Martinez came into this residence on many instances. He went to the bathroom. He washed his face. This is not evidence. This is circumstantial evidence. There are a million reasons why this is not evidence. This house was not under ideal laboratory conditions.
“We agree DNA is a means of identifying people. We’re challenging the conclusion that DNA found under the fingernails [indicates?]...”
This the 1990’s. It’s not this century where we know DNA can be transferred from a touch, a sneeze, a hand.
“They were killed like lambs. ... There was no struggle. ... There’s no evidence there ever was a struggle.”
In the other case, the individuals had defense wounds. In the Boehm case, the victims were in separate rooms. How could this be done? Could one person do this? There’s no evidence that a struggle took place at all. ... There may have been someone else holding the victims.
What does the DNA evidence show? It shows nothing more than what it shows. Mr. Martinez told police he was in their house all the time. He was their friend. It’s what he told them.
I hate to talk about this other case, because it’s on the [intention?] of intent, so I have to talk about it. I submit that what happened was what my client said on that tape. He turned himself in on that matter. She [Luz] left the apartment walking and talking. It’s different from the Boehm case, where they were professionally killed. The knife wounds were all in a cluster.
Mr. Burns talks about the wounds to Luz Nieves neck. “You can imagine two people struggling for a sharp object. It’s what my client said, is what happened.”
I see that Martinez watches his counsel give his opening statement.
“That all happened in a minute, two minutes. The neighbors heard an argument, and then, bam! Boom! It was over. That was a lot different. There’s no intent to kill in that case and there was no intent to kill in this case. So whatever evidence that they have in the Boehm case ...
They have Mr. Callahan. Maybe, accuses Mr. Martinez now; [we first heard this from] him in April 2014. He always takes the side of detectives; their most promising suspect. He’s previously given statements in 1997, he said in ... that Nancy was [afraid] ...
DDA Akemon: Objection! [We litigated this.]
I believe Judge Speer rules in the prosecution’s favor. The defense requests a sidebar. Judge Speer takes a sidebar.
1:56 PM
Back on the record. The court rules. The objection was sustained and the last statement by counsel was stricken.
Mr. Burns continues. Mr. Callahan was interviewed twice in 1997 and once in 1998 and never mentioned Mr. Martinez as a possible suspect. Mr. Burns then mentions the mental gymnastics, that he mentioned in voir dire, when he was asking the jurors if they can do it.
“You’re going to ... like I said, the mental gymnastics here, is to disregard that other crime for no other purpose than intent. The intent is not in dispute. You should disregard completely that other crime. This man is innocent. He’s a very convenient fall guy. Once you see the DNA evidence you should acquit him.
The defense is finished with their opening statement and the people call their first witness.
More to come......