Sentencing
Later that summer Charles Stevens had his sentencing hearing before Judge McGuinnis. I was on vacation at the time and couldn't find anything about it in the local papers, so I called the prosecutor's office to get the news. Our recommendation had been upheld and Charlie was shipped off to San Quentin's Death Row.
Mr. Burr had told us at our post-trial meeting that Stevens would have appeals for the next few years and that the soonest we might see his name pop up on the execution list would be seven years. That was April of 1993. This is being written on October 12, 2010, and Charles Stevens is still awaiting his turn on the gurney. California declared a moratorium on executions while the lethal injection procedure was changed to make it more humane. That has always puzzled me, but the courts know best, I guess. Humane executions.
In the years since I sat on that jury my opinion on the efficacy of the death penalty has changed. I have researched its application to persons of lower economic status and minorities. I have read enough about prosecutorial misconduct in some cases to change my mind. The Innocence Project has helped to get 17 people off Death Row with DNA evidence. I shudder to think about the innocent people put to death before this organization came to be.
Yes, some folks, like our friend Charlie, are caught stone cold guilty. If we put them in a hole and feed them what little it takes to stay alive until they finally shuffle off, it will cost less than a full capital trial and execution. What then is left? Revenge. And what does that change? Does it truly provide "closure"? How? Many family members have come out against the death penalty, preferring to know that the individual will instead have a lifetime to contemplate how fucked up his or her life will be right to the end. The debate goes on.
One thing rises to the top for me: Innocent people have been executed. As of this writing there is a news story about Cameron Willingham, a man from Texas who was executed based on faulty science. What if that person was your brother, son, father?
Appeal
On June 4, 2007, the California Supreme Court heard Stevens' appeal of his conviction. He challenged many aspects of the trial, from the exclusion of some African American jurors to the murder of Leslie Noyer. It can all be found here.
Richard Clark
Within a month of the end of the trial I read in the paper that Clark had accepted a deal and copped to voluntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to 12 years and has served his time. I still wonder about just what was true in that jumble of lies. Were we who wanted to acquit just a bunch of suckers? The fact that Charlie is going to waste away in prison eases that in my mind. The real monster is in jail now, forever.
In the News
One day I was out walking the dogs when my cell phone rang. It was a reporter from the Oakland Tribune who wanted to get my story about the trial. Here's the link to that article.
After all that, I never wanted to participate in another trial. I was called to jury duty a couple of years later and wouldn't you know, it was a Brink's Armored Car robbery where a guard was shot and killed. When I told them I felt I'd already done my duty with the Stevens trial, they agreed and cut me loose.
What did I learn from all this? The guy was a psycho who got off on killing people. We put him away. End of story. I became a fan of law & order reality shows: Cops, Forensic Files, First 48 and the like. It never gets old seeing bad guys, mostly stupid, greedy people, get popped by the white hats. No matter what problems I've had with authority, a respect the hell out of the thin blue line and the people who help them put thugs away.
Let's start in on Current Events real soon!
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
The Trial: Deliberations
Day 1
So the now the whole enchilada was in our laps. Judge McGuinnis had instructed us to choose a foreman and begin deliberations forthwith. We all filed into the jury room, sat at the table and sort of looked at each other. Somebody piped up and said: "So who's going to be the foreman?"
Leigh, the young lady who had the problem with Mr. Selvin, said: "How about the umpire?", pointing at me. There was a general sound of agreement, some saying "yeah", or "sounds good". I guess my occasional requests to shut the hell up about the testimony earned me that position. They took a quick vote and I was in. Well. Now what?
Pete, the bailiff, brought in a bunch of papers. Each individual sheet represented a charge against either Stevens or Clark. It was really thick. Almost every one was for Stevens. We got started.
I could tell that Skip, the former Vietnam War helicopter pilot, was a little peeved at how quickly I had been chosen as foreman. It seemed maybe he wanted the post. I put that thought in my back pocket for later.
We wanted to do the "easy" charges first. We started with the Raymond August murder because that had the only credible eyewitness and loads of physical evidence. Guilty of murder there, no question. I put a little check mark on the list I'd drawn up.
Then came Lori Rochon. Not as easy to work out due to Clark being the only witness, but all the circumstances were the same as August and the forensic evidence all pointed to Stevens as well. Guilty. Check.
Loquann Sloan. Same gun, plenty of motive. Near the freeway. No way Charlie is giving that gun to anybody else. Besides, the bastard sat there grinning while the evidence was presented. He was proud of what he'd done, it was obvious. Guilty. Check.
Leslie Noyer. We had a lot of problems working out just who shot her. We referred to our notes and discussed the positions of each actor in this situation. Clark was definitely there. But again, no way Charlie is giving him the gun. Wish we could have heard from the other girl, if indeed there ever was one. Finally decided on Charlie. Guilty. Check
All the other charges, including the special circumstances - check, check, check.
Now for Richard Clark. All those stories, the manner in which he was interrogated, his general lack of smarts. What were we going to do with him? Was he guilty of murder as well, or did Charlie just set him up to take him down with him? We talked and talked about it. A couple of jurors were adamant that he actively participated in the crime and should be convicted. Others, including myself, could not make out the truth between all the stories. He knew something, he did....what? After a couple of days of hacking this out we took a Friday break. I skipped work, thanks to Pete's advice, and took my collie, Mickey, out into the woods for a long hike. I contemplated the consequences of sending a man to prison for something he may not have done, or at least for a specific crime that did not apply. I walked for hours and finally decided that I would vote Not Guilty.
When we met Monday to continue deliberations, the vote stood at 7-5 to acquit. The five who wanted to convict were implacable. So were we seven others. I signed all the papers on Stevens: Four counts of first-degree murder, six counts of attempted murder, and the three special circumstances of lying in wait, multiple murders and use of a firearm. I felt very disconnected as I watched my hand sign that familiar autograph on line after line, knowing this monster would be under lock and key until the state determined when to dispose of him.
While the judge and Mr. Burr were not happy about our deadlock on Clark, they proceeded on to Stevens. I handed the forms to the bailiff, who gave them to the judge, who handed them to the clerk of the court to read. Good. I don't think I could have read all that stuff in the now-packed courtroom. There were reporters, families, and other court-watchers jammed into every seat and standing along the back. The clerk read each charge and verdict, and as the families of each victim heard "Guilty", the reactions were emotional. Lori Rochon's son let out a "Yes!", others wept, the murmurs in the room got louder. I glanced at Charlie as the clerk read the papers. He was impassive until the one about Leslie Noyer. Then he frowned deeply and clenched his hands. That was as much emotion as I had seen from him for nearly two months. Judge McGuinness had to ask for order. Then it was done. The judge polled each one of us, asking if this was indeed our decision. "Yes", was the answer from each.
Penalty Phase
In California, the jury hears evidence in capital cases that will help determine whether the convicted murderer will be sentenced to death or life in prison without parole. The judge said that if we wished we could pick a new foreman. Nobody seemed inclined to vote me out, but I remembered Skip's disappointment. "If it's all the same to you guys, I think Skip would be a good leader during this part". They basically shrugged their shoulders and said Whatever.
This part of the trial took a week, but it was the most difficult part outside of the photos. One relative or friend after another got up to tell us about the emotional impact the murder of their loved on their lives. Ray August's father, a retired postmaster, was asked by Mr. Burr about the effect of this loss on his life.
"I have no life", he said, "It ended the day my boy was killed".
The defense was given the chance to offer mitigating evidence in order to spare Charlie the death penalty. It included a story about how his Mom was an alcoholic who died at the dinner table in a drunken stupor and a plea not to kill him out of the goodness of our hearts. Nobody came to stand for him, speak to his good qualities. We trooped up to the jury room after both sides rested. We sat looking at each other, then Skip suggested we take a preliminary vote just to see how we felt. Scraps of paper were passed out, filled out, and gathered up. Death, death, death....eleven for death and one question mark.
The one woman who had written the question mark was getting cold feet. She sensed the importance of what we were doing and didn't want to have his death on her conscience. I suggested we go around the room and talk about our reasons for voting the way we did. When it came to my turn I said: "This guy did not have a horrible childhood. No abuse, no mental defects. There were many times in his life where he came to that fork in the road. One way was right and good, the other took him closer to Hell. What we have heard over these last two months is that every time he came to that point he chose the downward path. Now he's in this place and all we're doing is opening the gate to the fate he's been running toward." She thought about the words and I told Skip that maybe we could get one more free lunch on the taxpayers.
We went to a Chinese restaurant and had a great feast. When we got back we voted again and it was unanimous: Death. I stuck my head out the door to tell the bailiff that we were ready. She got all jumpy and said that a lot of the court officers were still out. Phone calls had to be made. So we sat in the jury room for a couple of hours waiting for our last march down the stairs. When we got to the courtroom it was even more crowded than before. Same procedure, only this time the clerk simply read: "In the matter of the people of Alameda County versus Charles Arnett Stevens, we the jury set the punishment at Death."
The room was again buzzing. The judge polled us again, we answered in the affirmative, he thanked us and it was over. Charlie was led away, people were hugging, some family members came over to hug the jury. I was having trouble seeing well with the darn pollen making my eyes water so much.
Back up to the room to get our stuff, a few words with Mr. Burr. He told us that the one notation we never saw on the "score card" was the California Penal Code for murder of a peace officer. It had a zero next to it.
We went out for drinks at a local seafood place. On the way there I heard the live report from the courthouse about the verdict. Was that us? We had drinks, talked about other stuff, promised to stay in touch (which we did not do), and went home.
Yeah, there really has to be an Epilogue, huh?
So the now the whole enchilada was in our laps. Judge McGuinnis had instructed us to choose a foreman and begin deliberations forthwith. We all filed into the jury room, sat at the table and sort of looked at each other. Somebody piped up and said: "So who's going to be the foreman?"
Leigh, the young lady who had the problem with Mr. Selvin, said: "How about the umpire?", pointing at me. There was a general sound of agreement, some saying "yeah", or "sounds good". I guess my occasional requests to shut the hell up about the testimony earned me that position. They took a quick vote and I was in. Well. Now what?
Pete, the bailiff, brought in a bunch of papers. Each individual sheet represented a charge against either Stevens or Clark. It was really thick. Almost every one was for Stevens. We got started.
I could tell that Skip, the former Vietnam War helicopter pilot, was a little peeved at how quickly I had been chosen as foreman. It seemed maybe he wanted the post. I put that thought in my back pocket for later.
We wanted to do the "easy" charges first. We started with the Raymond August murder because that had the only credible eyewitness and loads of physical evidence. Guilty of murder there, no question. I put a little check mark on the list I'd drawn up.
Then came Lori Rochon. Not as easy to work out due to Clark being the only witness, but all the circumstances were the same as August and the forensic evidence all pointed to Stevens as well. Guilty. Check.
Loquann Sloan. Same gun, plenty of motive. Near the freeway. No way Charlie is giving that gun to anybody else. Besides, the bastard sat there grinning while the evidence was presented. He was proud of what he'd done, it was obvious. Guilty. Check.
Leslie Noyer. We had a lot of problems working out just who shot her. We referred to our notes and discussed the positions of each actor in this situation. Clark was definitely there. But again, no way Charlie is giving him the gun. Wish we could have heard from the other girl, if indeed there ever was one. Finally decided on Charlie. Guilty. Check
All the other charges, including the special circumstances - check, check, check.
Now for Richard Clark. All those stories, the manner in which he was interrogated, his general lack of smarts. What were we going to do with him? Was he guilty of murder as well, or did Charlie just set him up to take him down with him? We talked and talked about it. A couple of jurors were adamant that he actively participated in the crime and should be convicted. Others, including myself, could not make out the truth between all the stories. He knew something, he did....what? After a couple of days of hacking this out we took a Friday break. I skipped work, thanks to Pete's advice, and took my collie, Mickey, out into the woods for a long hike. I contemplated the consequences of sending a man to prison for something he may not have done, or at least for a specific crime that did not apply. I walked for hours and finally decided that I would vote Not Guilty.
When we met Monday to continue deliberations, the vote stood at 7-5 to acquit. The five who wanted to convict were implacable. So were we seven others. I signed all the papers on Stevens: Four counts of first-degree murder, six counts of attempted murder, and the three special circumstances of lying in wait, multiple murders and use of a firearm. I felt very disconnected as I watched my hand sign that familiar autograph on line after line, knowing this monster would be under lock and key until the state determined when to dispose of him.
While the judge and Mr. Burr were not happy about our deadlock on Clark, they proceeded on to Stevens. I handed the forms to the bailiff, who gave them to the judge, who handed them to the clerk of the court to read. Good. I don't think I could have read all that stuff in the now-packed courtroom. There were reporters, families, and other court-watchers jammed into every seat and standing along the back. The clerk read each charge and verdict, and as the families of each victim heard "Guilty", the reactions were emotional. Lori Rochon's son let out a "Yes!", others wept, the murmurs in the room got louder. I glanced at Charlie as the clerk read the papers. He was impassive until the one about Leslie Noyer. Then he frowned deeply and clenched his hands. That was as much emotion as I had seen from him for nearly two months. Judge McGuinness had to ask for order. Then it was done. The judge polled each one of us, asking if this was indeed our decision. "Yes", was the answer from each.
Penalty Phase
In California, the jury hears evidence in capital cases that will help determine whether the convicted murderer will be sentenced to death or life in prison without parole. The judge said that if we wished we could pick a new foreman. Nobody seemed inclined to vote me out, but I remembered Skip's disappointment. "If it's all the same to you guys, I think Skip would be a good leader during this part". They basically shrugged their shoulders and said Whatever.
This part of the trial took a week, but it was the most difficult part outside of the photos. One relative or friend after another got up to tell us about the emotional impact the murder of their loved on their lives. Ray August's father, a retired postmaster, was asked by Mr. Burr about the effect of this loss on his life.
"I have no life", he said, "It ended the day my boy was killed".
The defense was given the chance to offer mitigating evidence in order to spare Charlie the death penalty. It included a story about how his Mom was an alcoholic who died at the dinner table in a drunken stupor and a plea not to kill him out of the goodness of our hearts. Nobody came to stand for him, speak to his good qualities. We trooped up to the jury room after both sides rested. We sat looking at each other, then Skip suggested we take a preliminary vote just to see how we felt. Scraps of paper were passed out, filled out, and gathered up. Death, death, death....eleven for death and one question mark.
The one woman who had written the question mark was getting cold feet. She sensed the importance of what we were doing and didn't want to have his death on her conscience. I suggested we go around the room and talk about our reasons for voting the way we did. When it came to my turn I said: "This guy did not have a horrible childhood. No abuse, no mental defects. There were many times in his life where he came to that fork in the road. One way was right and good, the other took him closer to Hell. What we have heard over these last two months is that every time he came to that point he chose the downward path. Now he's in this place and all we're doing is opening the gate to the fate he's been running toward." She thought about the words and I told Skip that maybe we could get one more free lunch on the taxpayers.
We went to a Chinese restaurant and had a great feast. When we got back we voted again and it was unanimous: Death. I stuck my head out the door to tell the bailiff that we were ready. She got all jumpy and said that a lot of the court officers were still out. Phone calls had to be made. So we sat in the jury room for a couple of hours waiting for our last march down the stairs. When we got to the courtroom it was even more crowded than before. Same procedure, only this time the clerk simply read: "In the matter of the people of Alameda County versus Charles Arnett Stevens, we the jury set the punishment at Death."
The room was again buzzing. The judge polled us again, we answered in the affirmative, he thanked us and it was over. Charlie was led away, people were hugging, some family members came over to hug the jury. I was having trouble seeing well with the darn pollen making my eyes water so much.
Back up to the room to get our stuff, a few words with Mr. Burr. He told us that the one notation we never saw on the "score card" was the California Penal Code for murder of a peace officer. It had a zero next to it.
We went out for drinks at a local seafood place. On the way there I heard the live report from the courthouse about the verdict. Was that us? We had drinks, talked about other stuff, promised to stay in touch (which we did not do), and went home.
Yeah, there really has to be an Epilogue, huh?
Monday, August 9, 2010
The Trial - Last Journal Entry
Once I get these last few pages down I'll try to reconstruct the scenario in the jury room as we deliberated the fate of these two bad guys.
The Defense Concludes
Mr. Selvin got up to begin his closing argument. His position was that Mr. Burr had a preponderance of evidence, and he was afraid that that would cause us to neglect regarding each case separately. A difficult task, indeed! Mr. Burr used the physical evidence to show a killing pattern, a man who not only practiced, but perfected his techniques and only got caught due to his fascination with the destruction he had caused.
Logically, Mr. Selvin started with the Stokes/August case. He conceded that it would be foolish to try to deny TC did it. (Really!) However, let's just look at the facts, says he. Charlie carried the gun, but he didn't have a plan to kill anybody that night. Yes. it's terrible the way these people were shot at, but Charlie is sick. He simply pulled out the gun and shot without thinking, a cold act of unpremeditated murder.
Selvin tries to minimize the act to one of second-degree murder. He tries to cast Clark in the role of the shooter in the Rochon case. He discounts the theory that TC "loved" the Desert Eagle, having us consider it as "just another gun", which Charlie would have passed around his circle of criminal friends, one of which was probably the real killer of Laquann Sloan. He puts Clark at the Noyers scene with the Desert Eagle by himself, shooting the girl for whatever reason. He decries the violence of the attempted murders but states that we must judge for ourselves whether or not Charles did it. He says that Stevens' defense rested on the evidence, charging Mr. Burr with the task of proof of guilt against the assumption of innocence. He urges us to seek any shadow of a doubt and cultivate it, not being content to vote with the group.
He's really muddying the waters, and gets so frothy at the mouth and emotional that the spit literally flies out of his mouth. It's not easy to look at him. Leigh, a juror in the front row, was having a really hard time. She's particularly affected by Mr. Selvin's histrionics.
Clark's Conclusion
Mr. Zimmer re-hashed the argument that Richard was pressured into his confession bith by over-zealous cops and his need to comply with authority figures due to his childhood exposure to abuse. To his credit, he did not attempt to argue for a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter, taking the high road all the way in insisting that Richard was not even there.
Instructions
On Monday morning, March 22, the judge read us the instructions, defining our role as a jury, the definitions of first- and second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and special circumstances.
We went up to the jury room, and within minutes I was nominated and selected foreman of the jury by acclamation. Whew! Jan says it's just people seeing the light that shines from me. Well, I haven't tried to campaign for it but I've accepted their choice. I'll do my best. As we reach each verdict I will put my signature on the bottom of the sheet, indicating a unanimous opinion.
We spent the first day of deliberations speaking about each case in detail and in general. Outside of the Noyers case it looks as if we will be concurring with Mr. Burr as to the charges. I haven't tried to guess anybody's mind up 'til now, but it looks as if we're all in agreement about TC's guilt. This guy is in a lot of trouble. We'll be talking about the two most difficult cases tomorrow: Leslie Noyers and Laquann Sloan.
We had lunch at the expense of the taxpayers of Alameda County today, going to Jack's Bar & Grill at Jack London Square. Nobody's drinking alcohol, which is really for the best.
I don't think this part will take very long. The hard part will be the penalty phase. Really hard.
Thus concludes the journal of Juror #5 in the capital murder case against Charles Arnett Stevens. My memories of the events following these will continue the tale.
The Defense Concludes
Mr. Selvin got up to begin his closing argument. His position was that Mr. Burr had a preponderance of evidence, and he was afraid that that would cause us to neglect regarding each case separately. A difficult task, indeed! Mr. Burr used the physical evidence to show a killing pattern, a man who not only practiced, but perfected his techniques and only got caught due to his fascination with the destruction he had caused.
Logically, Mr. Selvin started with the Stokes/August case. He conceded that it would be foolish to try to deny TC did it. (Really!) However, let's just look at the facts, says he. Charlie carried the gun, but he didn't have a plan to kill anybody that night. Yes. it's terrible the way these people were shot at, but Charlie is sick. He simply pulled out the gun and shot without thinking, a cold act of unpremeditated murder.
Selvin tries to minimize the act to one of second-degree murder. He tries to cast Clark in the role of the shooter in the Rochon case. He discounts the theory that TC "loved" the Desert Eagle, having us consider it as "just another gun", which Charlie would have passed around his circle of criminal friends, one of which was probably the real killer of Laquann Sloan. He puts Clark at the Noyers scene with the Desert Eagle by himself, shooting the girl for whatever reason. He decries the violence of the attempted murders but states that we must judge for ourselves whether or not Charles did it. He says that Stevens' defense rested on the evidence, charging Mr. Burr with the task of proof of guilt against the assumption of innocence. He urges us to seek any shadow of a doubt and cultivate it, not being content to vote with the group.
He's really muddying the waters, and gets so frothy at the mouth and emotional that the spit literally flies out of his mouth. It's not easy to look at him. Leigh, a juror in the front row, was having a really hard time. She's particularly affected by Mr. Selvin's histrionics.
Clark's Conclusion
Mr. Zimmer re-hashed the argument that Richard was pressured into his confession bith by over-zealous cops and his need to comply with authority figures due to his childhood exposure to abuse. To his credit, he did not attempt to argue for a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter, taking the high road all the way in insisting that Richard was not even there.
Instructions
On Monday morning, March 22, the judge read us the instructions, defining our role as a jury, the definitions of first- and second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and special circumstances.
We went up to the jury room, and within minutes I was nominated and selected foreman of the jury by acclamation. Whew! Jan says it's just people seeing the light that shines from me. Well, I haven't tried to campaign for it but I've accepted their choice. I'll do my best. As we reach each verdict I will put my signature on the bottom of the sheet, indicating a unanimous opinion.
We spent the first day of deliberations speaking about each case in detail and in general. Outside of the Noyers case it looks as if we will be concurring with Mr. Burr as to the charges. I haven't tried to guess anybody's mind up 'til now, but it looks as if we're all in agreement about TC's guilt. This guy is in a lot of trouble. We'll be talking about the two most difficult cases tomorrow: Leslie Noyers and Laquann Sloan.
We had lunch at the expense of the taxpayers of Alameda County today, going to Jack's Bar & Grill at Jack London Square. Nobody's drinking alcohol, which is really for the best.
I don't think this part will take very long. The hard part will be the penalty phase. Really hard.
Thus concludes the journal of Juror #5 in the capital murder case against Charles Arnett Stevens. My memories of the events following these will continue the tale.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
The Trial - Countdown
My journal from the capital murder trial of Charles Stevens....
Last Witness
On Tuesday, March 9, Sgt. Art Roth took the stand for the DA to testify as to the conduct of Clark's questioning. For the entire day he answered questions from Mr. Burr. Here are some points that really shot holes in Clark's account:
- From the time Clark was picked up in Monterrey until the night/early morning of August 1st, no mention was made to him of where any crime took place or what it was. Clark supplied the street name "Chetwood" and first said that Noyers had been shot dead.
-The interview was conducted in a passive, re-directive way, relying on Clark to provide the narrative after encouraging comments like: "Tell me more about that" and "Let's talk about that". No threatening or stern behavior was shown at that extended interview, yet Clark still unwound the yarn about the Noyers killing and the Rochon incident with very little persuasion. Hardly the picture Clark paints.
-I trust the testimony of Sgt. Roth because he is a cop. If he's outright lying about this conduct at the interview, he;s in for really big trouble. He states that no sterner measures were taken with Richard until he had already told the story I call "I held her while Charlie shot her", and refused to change it even though the officers knew it was heavy with inconsistencies. It was only after that version was directly challenged by the physical evidence at ha
nd that Richard broke down in the sally port and confessed to shooting her himself.
I can hardly wait to see what Mr. Zimmer might ask (Sgt. Roth) on Thursday.
3/22/93
I've gotten away from writing in the journal but that's just a function of how busy I've been. Mr. Zimmer questioned Sgt. Roth extensively about the conduct of Richard's questioning. He wanted to characterize it as an "interrogation", while Sgt. Roth described it as an "interview", which only became more confrontational on the second day, when Clark stuck to his BS story about holding Noyers while Charlie shot her. Zimmer tried to impeach Roth's testimony by referring back to previous sworn statements the sergeant had made at a preliminary hearing. Specifically, Roth had said that a picture of Leslie Noyers was shown to Clark at one point in time, while on the stand he stated a slightly different point. It wasn't even important to the believability of the testimony, but Zimmer needed to show that the police fed Richard information which he simply "parroted" back to them. Zimmer wants us to believe that two seasoned cops who had a real suspect in custody (Chuck), were trying to get Richard to tell a story that they didn't even have the answers to by feeding him bits and pieces of information that may not even have told the true story. Richard supposedly put it all together exactly the way they said it, even though they hadn't gotten any information from Stevens.
Now the kicker - Richard says he shot Noyers. They would have railroaded Clark into saying that before trying to force him into confessing. I'll be more lucid about this when it's over.
Roth was the last witness. Then come the closing arguments.
The Prosecution Closes
Mr. Burr was first. Even though he took three quarters of one day and the entire day after, he was really just expanding on his case against Charlie. I didn't even take any in-court notes. I knew what he was trying to show. He described the law to us in his own terms, mostly dealing with first-degree murder. He wants us to convict TC on all four counts, alleging that Stevens had malice and predetermination. Second degree murder calls for malice without predetermination. Attempted murder is a situation where a person wishes to kill and acts on it unsuccessfully, something coming between the act and its completion outside of the design of the potential murderer.
Mr. Burr wants us to find the special circumstances in this case to be true as well. The first in the case of Leslie Noyers, where Burr believes TC lured her into a vulnerable position then aided and abetted Clark by giving him the weapon with the sole intent to kill.
In the Raymond August case, Rodney Stokes' testimony makes it clear that Charlie thought about what he did then sneaked up on him, taking him by surprise- "lying in wait" is the name of this special circumstance. If we find Charlie guilty of one first-degree murder as well as any other count of first- or second-degree murder, the special circumstance of "multiple murders" will apply.
Mr. Burr is not impressed by Dr. Cooper's theory on "coercive compliant" behavior. He pretty much reiterated his rebuttal to that theory. Zimmer tried to show places in Clark's testimony where he only fed back information given to him by the cops. Burr showed us the booking photo of Leslie Noyers, he played the tape where Richard describes her as having "sandy-blond" hair. The booking photo is a poor color rendition, and her hair looks almost black. The better photo of her, the one with her on the driveway of 541 Chetwood with her brains blown out, shows sandy blond hair. When Mr. Burr showed us that one, an older woman on the gallery began sobbing uncontrollably. It was a moving and difficult moment for all of us. All of us but Charlie, who was trying his best to stifle a laugh. The judge had us recess for five minutes, and the anger in the room was palpable.
One more round o' notes, then I gotta rely on memory....
Last Witness
On Tuesday, March 9, Sgt. Art Roth took the stand for the DA to testify as to the conduct of Clark's questioning. For the entire day he answered questions from Mr. Burr. Here are some points that really shot holes in Clark's account:
- From the time Clark was picked up in Monterrey until the night/early morning of August 1st, no mention was made to him of where any crime took place or what it was. Clark supplied the street name "Chetwood" and first said that Noyers had been shot dead.
-The interview was conducted in a passive, re-directive way, relying on Clark to provide the narrative after encouraging comments like: "Tell me more about that" and "Let's talk about that". No threatening or stern behavior was shown at that extended interview, yet Clark still unwound the yarn about the Noyers killing and the Rochon incident with very little persuasion. Hardly the picture Clark paints.
-I trust the testimony of Sgt. Roth because he is a cop. If he's outright lying about this conduct at the interview, he;s in for really big trouble. He states that no sterner measures were taken with Richard until he had already told the story I call "I held her while Charlie shot her", and refused to change it even though the officers knew it was heavy with inconsistencies. It was only after that version was directly challenged by the physical evidence at ha
nd that Richard broke down in the sally port and confessed to shooting her himself.I can hardly wait to see what Mr. Zimmer might ask (Sgt. Roth) on Thursday.
3/22/93
I've gotten away from writing in the journal but that's just a function of how busy I've been. Mr. Zimmer questioned Sgt. Roth extensively about the conduct of Richard's questioning. He wanted to characterize it as an "interrogation", while Sgt. Roth described it as an "interview", which only became more confrontational on the second day, when Clark stuck to his BS story about holding Noyers while Charlie shot her. Zimmer tried to impeach Roth's testimony by referring back to previous sworn statements the sergeant had made at a preliminary hearing. Specifically, Roth had said that a picture of Leslie Noyers was shown to Clark at one point in time, while on the stand he stated a slightly different point. It wasn't even important to the believability of the testimony, but Zimmer needed to show that the police fed Richard information which he simply "parroted" back to them. Zimmer wants us to believe that two seasoned cops who had a real suspect in custody (Chuck), were trying to get Richard to tell a story that they didn't even have the answers to by feeding him bits and pieces of information that may not even have told the true story. Richard supposedly put it all together exactly the way they said it, even though they hadn't gotten any information from Stevens.
Now the kicker - Richard says he shot Noyers. They would have railroaded Clark into saying that before trying to force him into confessing. I'll be more lucid about this when it's over.
Roth was the last witness. Then come the closing arguments.
The Prosecution Closes
Mr. Burr was first. Even though he took three quarters of one day and the entire day after, he was really just expanding on his case against Charlie. I didn't even take any in-court notes. I knew what he was trying to show. He described the law to us in his own terms, mostly dealing with first-degree murder. He wants us to convict TC on all four counts, alleging that Stevens had malice and predetermination. Second degree murder calls for malice without predetermination. Attempted murder is a situation where a person wishes to kill and acts on it unsuccessfully, something coming between the act and its completion outside of the design of the potential murderer.
Mr. Burr wants us to find the special circumstances in this case to be true as well. The first in the case of Leslie Noyers, where Burr believes TC lured her into a vulnerable position then aided and abetted Clark by giving him the weapon with the sole intent to kill.
In the Raymond August case, Rodney Stokes' testimony makes it clear that Charlie thought about what he did then sneaked up on him, taking him by surprise- "lying in wait" is the name of this special circumstance. If we find Charlie guilty of one first-degree murder as well as any other count of first- or second-degree murder, the special circumstance of "multiple murders" will apply.
Mr. Burr is not impressed by Dr. Cooper's theory on "coercive compliant" behavior. He pretty much reiterated his rebuttal to that theory. Zimmer tried to show places in Clark's testimony where he only fed back information given to him by the cops. Burr showed us the booking photo of Leslie Noyers, he played the tape where Richard describes her as having "sandy-blond" hair. The booking photo is a poor color rendition, and her hair looks almost black. The better photo of her, the one with her on the driveway of 541 Chetwood with her brains blown out, shows sandy blond hair. When Mr. Burr showed us that one, an older woman on the gallery began sobbing uncontrollably. It was a moving and difficult moment for all of us. All of us but Charlie, who was trying his best to stifle a laugh. The judge had us recess for five minutes, and the anger in the room was palpable.
One more round o' notes, then I gotta rely on memory....
Saturday, August 7, 2010
The Trial - Doctor's Orders
The journal of Juror #5 in the case of The People of Alameda County v. Charles Arnett Stevens and Richard Clark.
...Which brings us to today. Dr. Cooper came back to the stand to continue his testimony. Mr. Burr began by detailing all of the sources used by Dr. Cooper in formulating his opinion that Richard was inclined to be compliant in the face of authority. First, Richard met with Dr. Cooper on two occasions for three hours each. He was given the MMPI, the TAT, and a Rorschach at the first meeting and the MMPI-2 and a Babcock Story Recall test the second time. They only spoke about the circumstances of his arrest and questioning for an hour at most. The doctor "skimmed the notes" and transcripts of the interrogation. He read the reports of a private investigator from five people who had known Clark and he used the data from six published articles dealing with alleged false confessions.
From the articles, Cooper found that false confessors can be broken down into three groups: the "kooks", (a very scientific term), who call or come in to confess to high-profile crimes for attention; people who are essentially brainwashed, believing they in fact committed the crime after being programmed or forcibly coerced into thinking so; and finally the people who are "compliant passive", who will follow the flow of a perceived dangerous situation and do or say things against their best interests in order to avoid conflict or harm. As expected, he feels that Clark fits this mold due to the abuse suffered at the hands of his father, the father figure looming large in the mind of this good doctor as the atypical symbol of authority.
Mr. Burr began his attack on the credibility of this theory and its application to Mr. Clark by asking whether Dr. Cooper had studied the notes and transcripts from the actual questioning sessions of August 2-3, 1989. "I did skim them" was the reply. ("Skim" them!) Then Burr discussed the five people spoken to by the private investigator hired by Mr. Zimmer. Turned out that four of them had only known Clark in his per-adolescent years. He is now twenty-five, so they are no more than faint background noise. The fifth person was Richard's godmother, who lives over at 740 27th street, right at the scene of Loquan Sloan's death. She was the one who confirmed that Clark came to see her three or four times a week right up until his arrest, hardly something useful in the proof of innocence.
Then the real show began, One by one, Mr. Burr picked up the six articles used as research by Dr. Cooper and picked them apart. First, we found that only two of the articles were written and published in the U.S., one was the result of a French study involving their methods of interrogation, and the final three were written by the same author concerning a British study of false confessions.
Mr. Burr picked up the first U.S. study. It dealt with a 22-question test to determine a person's predisposition to falsely confess. Though over four hundred people were tested, only fifty of them were actual criminals. And of the fifty, none of them was found in a court of law to have given a "true" false confession, under duress or otherwise. The rest of the people were students, school faculty at UC Berkeley, student nurses, etc. So Mr. Burr held up the Xeroxed packet and said: "So this study really doesn't have any relevance to this particular case, does it?"
"No, I suppose not", said the doctor.
Mr. Burr deftly tossed the report to the side of his table with a soft "plop", like the showman he is.
The next article was. of all things, highly critical of the use of psychologists and psychiatrists in legal cases to determine predisposition to false confessions. It stated outright that "one should be skeptical of any claim of false confession, considering the nature of the criminal to recant in order to escape punishment." While there might have been some useful information in the study, I can hardly see why the doctor would use it to the extent that a copy would have to be provided to the DA. Didn't they suspect that any reasonable person would use its very words against them? I've given up second-guessing, preferring to be surprised...it's much more interesting.
Plop...as that one bit the dust.
Next Day
I'm a little rushed this morning, so I'm going to shorten up my notes here and expand on them later. Today I expect to hear the first closing arguments and I don't want to let this slip away with whatever else goes down'
(1) French - 48 hours limit
- sleep deprivation
- physical abuse
- American system geared against
"plop"
(3) British
- client tells barrister he committed the crime, must plead "guilty"
- British system the model by which we offset our system to counter exactly that
kind of coercion
- No evidence in these studies of somebody "true" false confessing
- Just theoretical model, not applicable to this case
"plop. plop, plop"
3/10/93
continued...
Mr. Burr then looked over the results of the MMPI and discussed the results with the doctor. Mr. Zimmer wasn't very happy about it, as none of the data were used in his claim of coerced confession. The independent analysis of the report indicated that Richard Clark was "prone to using others hedonistically for his own ends irrespective of their welfare." He has higher highs and lower lows than the norm and is said to have a "borderline" personality. Truth to tell, with all the objection to this line of questioning by Mr. Zimmer I didn't really change my opinion of Mr. Clark or his ability to kill. Mr. Selvin got a hold of Dr. Clark briefly, just long enough to imply that the part in the MMPI about using other people might lead to Clark accusing Stevens of crimes he himself had committed.
Mr. Zimmer tried to do some spin control to counter the damage done by Mr. Burr's cross. It wasn't very effective, given the masterful mix of theatrics and painstaking homework done by the man. He was able to converse intelligently and concisely in the language of the specialty to turn the testimony of this defense witness into a flaming wreck.
Judging by most of the reactions I observed amongst the jurors, (a lot of) doubt about the idea that the state of mind Clark was under was not adequately addressed was confirmed. In other words the "expert" helped shoot bigger holes in the defense than some of the prosecution witnesses.
Getting down to the wire....
...Which brings us to today. Dr. Cooper came back to the stand to continue his testimony. Mr. Burr began by detailing all of the sources used by Dr. Cooper in formulating his opinion that Richard was inclined to be compliant in the face of authority. First, Richard met with Dr. Cooper on two occasions for three hours each. He was given the MMPI, the TAT, and a Rorschach at the first meeting and the MMPI-2 and a Babcock Story Recall test the second time. They only spoke about the circumstances of his arrest and questioning for an hour at most. The doctor "skimmed the notes" and transcripts of the interrogation. He read the reports of a private investigator from five people who had known Clark and he used the data from six published articles dealing with alleged false confessions.
From the articles, Cooper found that false confessors can be broken down into three groups: the "kooks", (a very scientific term), who call or come in to confess to high-profile crimes for attention; people who are essentially brainwashed, believing they in fact committed the crime after being programmed or forcibly coerced into thinking so; and finally the people who are "compliant passive", who will follow the flow of a perceived dangerous situation and do or say things against their best interests in order to avoid conflict or harm. As expected, he feels that Clark fits this mold due to the abuse suffered at the hands of his father, the father figure looming large in the mind of this good doctor as the atypical symbol of authority.
Mr. Burr began his attack on the credibility of this theory and its application to Mr. Clark by asking whether Dr. Cooper had studied the notes and transcripts from the actual questioning sessions of August 2-3, 1989. "I did skim them" was the reply. ("Skim" them!) Then Burr discussed the five people spoken to by the private investigator hired by Mr. Zimmer. Turned out that four of them had only known Clark in his per-adolescent years. He is now twenty-five, so they are no more than faint background noise. The fifth person was Richard's godmother, who lives over at 740 27th street, right at the scene of Loquan Sloan's death. She was the one who confirmed that Clark came to see her three or four times a week right up until his arrest, hardly something useful in the proof of innocence.
Then the real show began, One by one, Mr. Burr picked up the six articles used as research by Dr. Cooper and picked them apart. First, we found that only two of the articles were written and published in the U.S., one was the result of a French study involving their methods of interrogation, and the final three were written by the same author concerning a British study of false confessions.
Mr. Burr picked up the first U.S. study. It dealt with a 22-question test to determine a person's predisposition to falsely confess. Though over four hundred people were tested, only fifty of them were actual criminals. And of the fifty, none of them was found in a court of law to have given a "true" false confession, under duress or otherwise. The rest of the people were students, school faculty at UC Berkeley, student nurses, etc. So Mr. Burr held up the Xeroxed packet and said: "So this study really doesn't have any relevance to this particular case, does it?"
"No, I suppose not", said the doctor.
Mr. Burr deftly tossed the report to the side of his table with a soft "plop", like the showman he is.
The next article was. of all things, highly critical of the use of psychologists and psychiatrists in legal cases to determine predisposition to false confessions. It stated outright that "one should be skeptical of any claim of false confession, considering the nature of the criminal to recant in order to escape punishment." While there might have been some useful information in the study, I can hardly see why the doctor would use it to the extent that a copy would have to be provided to the DA. Didn't they suspect that any reasonable person would use its very words against them? I've given up second-guessing, preferring to be surprised...it's much more interesting.
Plop...as that one bit the dust.
Next Day
I'm a little rushed this morning, so I'm going to shorten up my notes here and expand on them later. Today I expect to hear the first closing arguments and I don't want to let this slip away with whatever else goes down'
(1) French - 48 hours limit
- sleep deprivation
- physical abuse
- American system geared against
"plop"
(3) British
- client tells barrister he committed the crime, must plead "guilty"
- British system the model by which we offset our system to counter exactly that
kind of coercion
- No evidence in these studies of somebody "true" false confessing
- Just theoretical model, not applicable to this case
"plop. plop, plop"
3/10/93
continued...
Mr. Burr then looked over the results of the MMPI and discussed the results with the doctor. Mr. Zimmer wasn't very happy about it, as none of the data were used in his claim of coerced confession. The independent analysis of the report indicated that Richard Clark was "prone to using others hedonistically for his own ends irrespective of their welfare." He has higher highs and lower lows than the norm and is said to have a "borderline" personality. Truth to tell, with all the objection to this line of questioning by Mr. Zimmer I didn't really change my opinion of Mr. Clark or his ability to kill. Mr. Selvin got a hold of Dr. Clark briefly, just long enough to imply that the part in the MMPI about using other people might lead to Clark accusing Stevens of crimes he himself had committed.
Mr. Zimmer tried to do some spin control to counter the damage done by Mr. Burr's cross. It wasn't very effective, given the masterful mix of theatrics and painstaking homework done by the man. He was able to converse intelligently and concisely in the language of the specialty to turn the testimony of this defense witness into a flaming wreck.
Judging by most of the reactions I observed amongst the jurors, (a lot of) doubt about the idea that the state of mind Clark was under was not adequately addressed was confirmed. In other words the "expert" helped shoot bigger holes in the defense than some of the prosecution witnesses.
Getting down to the wire....
Thursday, August 5, 2010
The Trial - Psychoanalysis
The trial was becoming my life. No matter what else was going on, umpiring, family matters, what little time I spent at work, I was thinking about the testimony. We saw pictures, heard testimony, handled weapons, listened to tapes. The folks in the jury room got considerably less chatty and we tended to keep to ourselves. Now we would be hearing a lot of VERY dry psychobabble, but I vowed to myself I would hang in there. Not so for a couple of others, who sometimes went to a local bar on their lunch break and downed a couple of shots. Had to prod one of them several times one day just to keep him awake. This was important shit we were listening to and it upset me when any of the others didn't treat it seriously enough....
After Richard finally left the stand Tuesday afternoon Mr. Zimmer called Dr. Lowell Cooper, a clinical psychologist with about 30 years of experience in general psychology. After a rundown of his credentials he was acknowledged by all present as an expert in his field. Mr. Zimmer is counting on the testimony of this man above all else to prove that Clark made a false confession, not through any extraordinarily cruel treatment by the police, but through a more complex dynamic set up by past experiences in Clark's life. Through a continued pattern of physical and mental abuse, the doctor opines, Richard is inclined to read subtle and less threatening behavior and language to alter his story and avoid conflict with authority figures.
The doctor cites studies that back up the notion that a person might become so compliant that he will do or say anything to get out of a perceived threatening situation, even if it means losing sight of the long-term consequences of these actions. He compares Richard's situation to the nervous feelings that most people have when a policeman pulls us over. He's pretty convincing, stating that there are over one hundred documented cases of false confession on record. This is interesting. There might be a case here. I hear the doctor saying things that ring a bell within me about how abusive behavior can cause you later to become a peacemaker, a person who tries to avoid conflict by any means. I have something to think about as the evening recess is called.
3/3/93
On Wednesday Dr. Cooper had other commitments, so we heard from a few other folks. First was our old friend Tech Hutchinson. I don't understand why it was brought up, but a good 30 minutes was taken up by both Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Burr concerning the location of the lights at the Chetwood site and the relative quality of the lighting overall. That was it for him. Then came one of the more emotional moments of this trial (so far).
Mr. Zimmer called Leslie Noyer's Mom. The intent of this questioning seemed solely to be establishing whether it was normal for Leslie to carry a purse, whether she may have had any money or ID on her in any other location, and whether the mom saw Leslie carrying a purse out with her that fateful night. The worst part was when the mom had to explain that. She and Leslie had fought that night before the girl went out. Even though Leslie called her later to say "I love you. I'm coming home", I'm sure her Mom carries the memory of that fight with her even now. She was very upset and needed several moments to compose herself. She stayed in the courtroom afterward until the last recess that day.
Richard's sister, Kimberly Clark, came to the stand next. She was called up to confirm that Clark had pretty much broken off all contact with Stevens after Lori Rochon was killed. Then Mr. Burr began asking her about when she knew the details of Rochon's death. She was very uncooperative, saying that she did not recall anything she might have been told in 1989. Mr. Burr played back selected portions of a taped statement she made at the time, each time "refreshing" Kimberly's memory. The point here seemed to be that we are reminded of the consistencies in the story as told by Richard Clark. There was never enough time to line up all of the details of the story between the time Richard was arrested and the taped statement she gave. The only other alternative might have been intensive coaching by Clark of his sister.
To be honest I really don't think that's likely, given the rather simple mentality of the two. They aren't stupid or mentally deficient, but I don't get the impression that they would do that on the contingency that Richard would be arrested.
The last witness today was Terry Jones, the First Sergeant of Richard's platoon in the California National Guard. He described Richard as a good soldier, always ready to volunteer for extra duty; a meek acquiescent "gentle giant" who sometimes stepped into conflicts between fellow soldiers as a peacemaker. Mr. Burr tried to balance that testimony by presenting Clark as a good soldier who could kill on command. He tried to have us see this as the "job" of a soldier. Richard was in Communications Support, hardly a front-line position. He had a sharpshooter's qualification with the M16, but I knew that all military personnel are required to qualify in some category regardless of their specialty. Sgt. Jones wasn't very happy with Mr Burr but that's to be expected.
How many of us know somebody we could classify as a potential murderer?
Next: The beat drags on through the MMPI
After Richard finally left the stand Tuesday afternoon Mr. Zimmer called Dr. Lowell Cooper, a clinical psychologist with about 30 years of experience in general psychology. After a rundown of his credentials he was acknowledged by all present as an expert in his field. Mr. Zimmer is counting on the testimony of this man above all else to prove that Clark made a false confession, not through any extraordinarily cruel treatment by the police, but through a more complex dynamic set up by past experiences in Clark's life. Through a continued pattern of physical and mental abuse, the doctor opines, Richard is inclined to read subtle and less threatening behavior and language to alter his story and avoid conflict with authority figures.
The doctor cites studies that back up the notion that a person might become so compliant that he will do or say anything to get out of a perceived threatening situation, even if it means losing sight of the long-term consequences of these actions. He compares Richard's situation to the nervous feelings that most people have when a policeman pulls us over. He's pretty convincing, stating that there are over one hundred documented cases of false confession on record. This is interesting. There might be a case here. I hear the doctor saying things that ring a bell within me about how abusive behavior can cause you later to become a peacemaker, a person who tries to avoid conflict by any means. I have something to think about as the evening recess is called.
3/3/93
On Wednesday Dr. Cooper had other commitments, so we heard from a few other folks. First was our old friend Tech Hutchinson. I don't understand why it was brought up, but a good 30 minutes was taken up by both Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Burr concerning the location of the lights at the Chetwood site and the relative quality of the lighting overall. That was it for him. Then came one of the more emotional moments of this trial (so far).
Mr. Zimmer called Leslie Noyer's Mom. The intent of this questioning seemed solely to be establishing whether it was normal for Leslie to carry a purse, whether she may have had any money or ID on her in any other location, and whether the mom saw Leslie carrying a purse out with her that fateful night. The worst part was when the mom had to explain that. She and Leslie had fought that night before the girl went out. Even though Leslie called her later to say "I love you. I'm coming home", I'm sure her Mom carries the memory of that fight with her even now. She was very upset and needed several moments to compose herself. She stayed in the courtroom afterward until the last recess that day.
Richard's sister, Kimberly Clark, came to the stand next. She was called up to confirm that Clark had pretty much broken off all contact with Stevens after Lori Rochon was killed. Then Mr. Burr began asking her about when she knew the details of Rochon's death. She was very uncooperative, saying that she did not recall anything she might have been told in 1989. Mr. Burr played back selected portions of a taped statement she made at the time, each time "refreshing" Kimberly's memory. The point here seemed to be that we are reminded of the consistencies in the story as told by Richard Clark. There was never enough time to line up all of the details of the story between the time Richard was arrested and the taped statement she gave. The only other alternative might have been intensive coaching by Clark of his sister.
To be honest I really don't think that's likely, given the rather simple mentality of the two. They aren't stupid or mentally deficient, but I don't get the impression that they would do that on the contingency that Richard would be arrested.
The last witness today was Terry Jones, the First Sergeant of Richard's platoon in the California National Guard. He described Richard as a good soldier, always ready to volunteer for extra duty; a meek acquiescent "gentle giant" who sometimes stepped into conflicts between fellow soldiers as a peacemaker. Mr. Burr tried to balance that testimony by presenting Clark as a good soldier who could kill on command. He tried to have us see this as the "job" of a soldier. Richard was in Communications Support, hardly a front-line position. He had a sharpshooter's qualification with the M16, but I knew that all military personnel are required to qualify in some category regardless of their specialty. Sgt. Jones wasn't very happy with Mr Burr but that's to be expected.
How many of us know somebody we could classify as a potential murderer?
Next: The beat drags on through the MMPI
Monday, August 2, 2010
The Trial - Richard Clark Part 3
3/1/93
The main part of Mr. Burr's cross-examination was clear today. Once Richard found out that the DA had decided not to press charges when he told the truth abut Lori Rochon, why did he continue to lie about being the killer of Leslie Noyers?
"Because if I told them something completely false then they would figure out that I was not involved. I thought that Charlie would tell them, you know, that, well, 'Rich wasn't there, how could he say that?'"
Huh?
What kind of logic says the best way to get out of trouble is to admit that you killed somebody, using the facts you know the police already have?
Mr. Burr asked Clark why he didn't report the killing of Lori Rochon to the police.
"I didn't want to be a witness. I was afraid Charlie might hurt me or my family."
Alright. Given that Richard's family had very little (financial) support with him out of work, did he know about the $25,ooo reward for the arrest of the killer? It had been mentioned in the first article about the murder as well as radio and TV reports. No, he hadn't heard about it. Would he have claimed it if he had known?
"I would of tripped over something doin' it."
"So you just didn't know about it and that's why you never claimed it?"
"Yes."
"Perhaps you didn't know, or perhaps you just had something to hide..."
Over loud objections and the judge's order to strike the remark, we were sent to lunch knowing that Mr. Burr had just sunk a 40-foot 3 pointer.
March 8, 1993
Last Tuesday, Richard Clark was cross-examined by Mr. Selvin. (Stevens' attorney) He didn't take long, concentrating mostly on the testimony surrounding Lori Rochon's killing. After establishing that Richard was not being altogether truthful, he attempted to make the same impression stick that maybe Richard was trying to cover the fact that he himself was the shooter that night. Personally, I'm not buying it. It's an impression I get through the interview tape that can't be defined precisely. I wrote down in my court noted that the way Richard said "stupid" in the interview was enough to convince me he was being truthful.
As an aside here, let me get down an interesting observation I made. While the tapes of the various confessions to Noyer's killing were played, old Chuck Stevens seemed to be rather amused. It seemed like everyone else in the courtroom was intent on following the transcript, but I watched Stevens out of the corner of my eye. As we heard Clark describing all the different ways the murder went down, Charlie was smirking and shaking his head. Then we listened to the Lori Rochon tape. As Richard's voice intoned in that slow, dull way like in the other tapes, Stevens was intent, serious. He appeared to be following the transcript word by word, looking perhaps for any small inaccuracy. When that one tape finished, he was still solemn. I take that as a measure of his belief in the account. I've watched Mr. Stevens closely several times in order to gauge his reactions to testimony.
I'm no clinical psychologist, but after these many weeks I've seen a good cross-section of his behavior. I'm convinced he killed Lori Rochon. I think it is not yet firm in my mind whether this killing warrants the death penalty. However, there is no doubt so far for me that Stevens committed a capital crime in the murder of Raymond August. He was seen by Rodney Stokes as he (Stevens) raised a gun to shoot at him. I believe Stevens killed August because he went out that night to hunt humans on I-580. God help me if it is immoral to think it, but under the law as I know it, Stevens should be put to death for that.
Continuing on next time with Adventures in Psychology!
The main part of Mr. Burr's cross-examination was clear today. Once Richard found out that the DA had decided not to press charges when he told the truth abut Lori Rochon, why did he continue to lie about being the killer of Leslie Noyers?
"Because if I told them something completely false then they would figure out that I was not involved. I thought that Charlie would tell them, you know, that, well, 'Rich wasn't there, how could he say that?'"
Huh?
What kind of logic says the best way to get out of trouble is to admit that you killed somebody, using the facts you know the police already have?
Mr. Burr asked Clark why he didn't report the killing of Lori Rochon to the police.
"I didn't want to be a witness. I was afraid Charlie might hurt me or my family."
Alright. Given that Richard's family had very little (financial) support with him out of work, did he know about the $25,ooo reward for the arrest of the killer? It had been mentioned in the first article about the murder as well as radio and TV reports. No, he hadn't heard about it. Would he have claimed it if he had known?
"I would of tripped over something doin' it."
"So you just didn't know about it and that's why you never claimed it?"
"Yes."
"Perhaps you didn't know, or perhaps you just had something to hide..."
Over loud objections and the judge's order to strike the remark, we were sent to lunch knowing that Mr. Burr had just sunk a 40-foot 3 pointer.
March 8, 1993
Last Tuesday, Richard Clark was cross-examined by Mr. Selvin. (Stevens' attorney) He didn't take long, concentrating mostly on the testimony surrounding Lori Rochon's killing. After establishing that Richard was not being altogether truthful, he attempted to make the same impression stick that maybe Richard was trying to cover the fact that he himself was the shooter that night. Personally, I'm not buying it. It's an impression I get through the interview tape that can't be defined precisely. I wrote down in my court noted that the way Richard said "stupid" in the interview was enough to convince me he was being truthful.
As an aside here, let me get down an interesting observation I made. While the tapes of the various confessions to Noyer's killing were played, old Chuck Stevens seemed to be rather amused. It seemed like everyone else in the courtroom was intent on following the transcript, but I watched Stevens out of the corner of my eye. As we heard Clark describing all the different ways the murder went down, Charlie was smirking and shaking his head. Then we listened to the Lori Rochon tape. As Richard's voice intoned in that slow, dull way like in the other tapes, Stevens was intent, serious. He appeared to be following the transcript word by word, looking perhaps for any small inaccuracy. When that one tape finished, he was still solemn. I take that as a measure of his belief in the account. I've watched Mr. Stevens closely several times in order to gauge his reactions to testimony.
I'm no clinical psychologist, but after these many weeks I've seen a good cross-section of his behavior. I'm convinced he killed Lori Rochon. I think it is not yet firm in my mind whether this killing warrants the death penalty. However, there is no doubt so far for me that Stevens committed a capital crime in the murder of Raymond August. He was seen by Rodney Stokes as he (Stevens) raised a gun to shoot at him. I believe Stevens killed August because he went out that night to hunt humans on I-580. God help me if it is immoral to think it, but under the law as I know it, Stevens should be put to death for that.
Continuing on next time with Adventures in Psychology!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The Trial: Richard Clark Part 2
Finally back to the blog. Thanks to a couple of loyal readers for poking me to get back to it...
Richard Clark Continues
Can I see the logic of Richard Clark's mind? Not really...He has made four taped statements, two of them sharply differing accounts of the night of April 2, 1989. In between he has woven a tapestry of lies. Now he is being escorted back to his cell and he has a new revelation: After the "final" statement by Clark, which puts TC behind the RX7, shooting Noyers as Clark held her, he was led from the interrogation room to the OPD sally-port by Sergeant McKenna. On the way down McKenna was saying that they knew he wasn't being truthful. He told Clark that Sgt. Roth was Clark's only friend, and that once Richard was in that cell all bets were off. As they reached the sally-port Richard became very emotional. I'm trying to picture this. Calrk is six foot seven and must weigh 230 pounds at least. Now he's breaking down, sobbing like a baby and telling Sgt. McKenna that he is the gunman, the shooter. He killed Leslie Noyers. Sgt. McKenna takes him back up to the "blue room" to tape another version.
In this one Clark is sitting in the passenger side of the RX7. Stevens is in the driver's side. Two women approach the ca. Stevens tells Clark that they will be "gettin' busy" tonight, getting free sex from a couple of working girls. One girl is white, the other black. They both approach Stevens' side of the car. Stevens has already handed Clark a .38 caliber snub-nose revolver. Stevens tells the black girl to go over to Clark's side of the car. Both doors are opened. Stevens asks the white girl how much a blow job would be. She says about $50 for both. So now we have a girl on both sides of the car and Stevens pulls out the Desert Eagle, ordering the white girl to get down and do it. Clark takes the cue, doing the same with the black girl. They both go at it for a while, but according to Clark neither one of them has an orgasm for about 15 minutes or so, so Stevens tells the (white) girl to stand up. Clark does the same (with the black girl). The white girl starts getting pissed off at Stevens, yelling about "You motherfuckers ain't gonna rip us off!" TC says: "Handle it, Rich", and Richard gets out, crosses behind the car and hits Noyers a couple of times. Stevens tells him to get back in the car. When he does, Stevens hands him the Desert Eagle (!) and takes the .38 snub-nose from Clark.
Noyers is still mouthing off to Stevens, so he says: "Man, we got to kill these bitches." Clark is not too happy and says he won't do it. Stevens gets out of the car and stands in front of the left front tire, pointing the revolver at Clark, ordering him to shoot Noyers. Clark says no. Stevens raises his voice, getting a stern look in his eye. Clark fires at Noyers three times, knocking her to the ground. As she lays there moaning and writhing, Stevens orders him to finish her off. He fires two or three more times, closing his eyes as he does. Stevens steals her purse and the two of them run back to Stevens' apartment house, hiding out for a couple of hours before splitting up.
The investigators heard this version and taped it for posterity. Richard Clark went to his cell at 1AM, having confessed to the murder, under duress, of Leslie Noyers. The next day he gave something called an Aranda statement. This is a taped statement in which only the actions of the person speaking are documented. Any reference to a partner is discussed obliquely, referring to them as "my friend". Richard is told that, based on his statements, the DA's office has decided not to press charges in the case of Lori Rochon. However, because of what he's admitted to in the previous tape the DA is continuing its pursuit of a murder charge against him. Now he is asked to tape the Aranda statement. He asks if his cooperation will ensure lenient treatment and he is told nothing special will ne done. "We'll see about that later."
He then tapes the statement which reiterates the previous night's story. At the end he says that he couldn't sleep the night before, thinking about how that girl died, her moaning in agony. "She didn't have to die. It was just stupid." I heard it again. That same tone in his voice. I'm getting the idea that he he probably did shoot Leslie Noyers and is afraid of going to jail for so many years. His testimony in court has been confused, contradictory, and confusing. He speaks clearly about most other events, but when the subject of the incident on Chetwood comes up he gets mixed up and contradictory, like a kid who doesn't want to get into trouble.
Mr. Burr's questioning continues...
Aaaannnd we're back.
Richard Clark Continues
Can I see the logic of Richard Clark's mind? Not really...He has made four taped statements, two of them sharply differing accounts of the night of April 2, 1989. In between he has woven a tapestry of lies. Now he is being escorted back to his cell and he has a new revelation: After the "final" statement by Clark, which puts TC behind the RX7, shooting Noyers as Clark held her, he was led from the interrogation room to the OPD sally-port by Sergeant McKenna. On the way down McKenna was saying that they knew he wasn't being truthful. He told Clark that Sgt. Roth was Clark's only friend, and that once Richard was in that cell all bets were off. As they reached the sally-port Richard became very emotional. I'm trying to picture this. Calrk is six foot seven and must weigh 230 pounds at least. Now he's breaking down, sobbing like a baby and telling Sgt. McKenna that he is the gunman, the shooter. He killed Leslie Noyers. Sgt. McKenna takes him back up to the "blue room" to tape another version.
In this one Clark is sitting in the passenger side of the RX7. Stevens is in the driver's side. Two women approach the ca. Stevens tells Clark that they will be "gettin' busy" tonight, getting free sex from a couple of working girls. One girl is white, the other black. They both approach Stevens' side of the car. Stevens has already handed Clark a .38 caliber snub-nose revolver. Stevens tells the black girl to go over to Clark's side of the car. Both doors are opened. Stevens asks the white girl how much a blow job would be. She says about $50 for both. So now we have a girl on both sides of the car and Stevens pulls out the Desert Eagle, ordering the white girl to get down and do it. Clark takes the cue, doing the same with the black girl. They both go at it for a while, but according to Clark neither one of them has an orgasm for about 15 minutes or so, so Stevens tells the (white) girl to stand up. Clark does the same (with the black girl). The white girl starts getting pissed off at Stevens, yelling about "You motherfuckers ain't gonna rip us off!" TC says: "Handle it, Rich", and Richard gets out, crosses behind the car and hits Noyers a couple of times. Stevens tells him to get back in the car. When he does, Stevens hands him the Desert Eagle (!) and takes the .38 snub-nose from Clark.
Noyers is still mouthing off to Stevens, so he says: "Man, we got to kill these bitches." Clark is not too happy and says he won't do it. Stevens gets out of the car and stands in front of the left front tire, pointing the revolver at Clark, ordering him to shoot Noyers. Clark says no. Stevens raises his voice, getting a stern look in his eye. Clark fires at Noyers three times, knocking her to the ground. As she lays there moaning and writhing, Stevens orders him to finish her off. He fires two or three more times, closing his eyes as he does. Stevens steals her purse and the two of them run back to Stevens' apartment house, hiding out for a couple of hours before splitting up.
The investigators heard this version and taped it for posterity. Richard Clark went to his cell at 1AM, having confessed to the murder, under duress, of Leslie Noyers. The next day he gave something called an Aranda statement. This is a taped statement in which only the actions of the person speaking are documented. Any reference to a partner is discussed obliquely, referring to them as "my friend". Richard is told that, based on his statements, the DA's office has decided not to press charges in the case of Lori Rochon. However, because of what he's admitted to in the previous tape the DA is continuing its pursuit of a murder charge against him. Now he is asked to tape the Aranda statement. He asks if his cooperation will ensure lenient treatment and he is told nothing special will ne done. "We'll see about that later."
He then tapes the statement which reiterates the previous night's story. At the end he says that he couldn't sleep the night before, thinking about how that girl died, her moaning in agony. "She didn't have to die. It was just stupid." I heard it again. That same tone in his voice. I'm getting the idea that he he probably did shoot Leslie Noyers and is afraid of going to jail for so many years. His testimony in court has been confused, contradictory, and confusing. He speaks clearly about most other events, but when the subject of the incident on Chetwood comes up he gets mixed up and contradictory, like a kid who doesn't want to get into trouble.
Mr. Burr's questioning continues...
Aaaannnd we're back.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Intermission
For the last several weeks I've been running myself ragged, what with softball/baseball season, my high school reunion and all that stuff. I will complete this story of Charles Stevens and Richard Clark as soon as I can get enough sleep and tidy up the yard. See you soon...
Saturday, March 20, 2010
The Trial: Richard Clark - Part 1
The murder trial of Charles Arnett Stevens and Richard Clark. From my journal...
2/25/93
On the morning of February 24th, we all assembled in the jury room and trooped down the stairs. I'd like to digress here momentarily to describe this up-and-down-the-stairs ritual: In the morning, one of our group (jury) is required to bring some sort of breakfast. Usually it is a type of pastry, but we've had bagels and variety breads as well. I've come to anticipate having breakfast now, and I'm sure my waistline will soon show it. After all, we don't really do much besides sit around all day listening. When we have our breaks, things get pretty noisy. There are a few men on the jury who are quite loud when they speak. When everybody gets going it can be pretty boisterous.
There is a buzzer system that serves as our communications link with the deputy sheriff down in the courtroom. His name's Peter, like my son, and we all appreciate his friendly manner. He makes coffee and transmits our requests and questions to the judge. When we are all present before session, somebody in the jury room pushes a button to indicate such. He will give us a single return buzz to acknowledge. When he buzzes twice, we all rise and assemble in numerical order at the head of the steps that lead down from the sixth floor to the fifth floor courtroom. When we have been dismissed for a recess, we all rise and file up the stairs. For some reason, due I suppose to my position on the steps, I relay the information from the head of the stairs to Peter that the door at the top is either open or closed. It has become mundane almost to the point of screaming routine. "Is the door open?" By the time this thing is over I won't want to hear that phrase ever again!
Whew...We strolled into the court and took our seats on Wednesday morning. The judge asked Mr. Selvin if he had anything further, to which he said: "Mr. Stevens' defense rests. For now."
Say what?
We all looked at each other. This wasn't really what we were expecting. Well, the prosecution once reopened its case, perhaps that would happen here, too. A strange and wonderful thing is this system. With that, Judge McGuinnis asked Mr. Zimmer if he would present his case for defendant Clark.
All along this Zimmer fellow has been somewhat facetious, asking rather pointless questions. With his opening statement, which lasts well over an hour, he discusses the circumstances of Richard Clark being charged with murder based on his confession. He said that we could go into a far-reaching discussion about whether a person who killed another under duress could be considered guilty of murder. He spoke about the techniques the police use to gather information during interrogations, never once claiming that the methods were truly improper or coercive. He claimed that Mr. Clark had been mentally and physically abused as a child, and that the mind-set Richard had had contributed to his completely fabricated confession. He said that we would hear testimony from a clinical psychologist verifying a mental condition that made the subject conducive to authority figures. He told them what he thought they wanted to hear, filling in the blanks as they were "cued" into him until he came up with a story that implicated himself as the shooter in a crime he was nowhere near.
Then Mr. Zimmer called none other than Richard James Clark, jr. to the stand in his own defense. Other than the one edited tape we had heard earlier in the people's case, no one had heard his voice. Now it was to be almost all we were to hear. The primary focus was on the chronology of the weekend Leslie Noyers died. He claims to have helped Charlie, or TC as he was known on the street, steal the tan Mazda RX7 on Friday night 3/31/89. He took the car home, the "first sports car stolen for me", that night and parked it next to his house. Saturday he drilled in Fairfield (CA) with the Army National Guard. Sunday, same thing. Sunday night he drove around with TC, drank some beer and went home in the RX7. Monday morning he got up late and drove the car to Mosswood Park in Oakland to abandon it.
What's wrong with this picture?
Leslie Noyers was killed on Monday morning at about 1:45 AM. The RX7 was in the impound lot at OPD by Monday morning. I'm writing this part two days later and I have to remember that I don't know just exactly what has really happened that night. Clark was picked up in Monterrey County jail after being held on a supposed bench warrant for car theft. Sergeant Roth and Sergeant Chenault escorted him to OPD and into an interrogation room. They started talking to him at about 1:30 in the afternoon and didn't stop until just after midnight. In the course of questioning, Richard Clark told many stories. He claimed then, and still does, that at first all he did abandon the RX7 on Monday morning. The officers challenged that, and the story began to change. Now he was with TC, Mario, a fictional character named Chuck, and they were all rifling through cars on Chetwood. The two women in the story approach TC and Chuck as Clark and Mario "hid down" behind cars. He sees TC and Leslie Noyers argue and he shoots her, standing right in front of her. Now he's challenged again, now the story has just TC and himself in it. He holds Noyers near the back of the RX7 while Charlie shoots her after an argument. Nope, the sergeants aren't buying that either. They sketch out a small diagram of the car, showing him where the casing were found in the car and where the body was found. Now he says he's in the car, he gets a little confused, he's with other people or he's not. Now he's just rambling and the investigators have to leave the room to let him calm down.
While Richard is being questioned, he starts volunteering information about another incident. This is something that takes all of us on the jury by surprise, as I expect Mr. Burr knew it would. Richard started telling them about a night when the two of them were out drinking, talking about stealing some cars. They went over to the south side of the I-580 freeway, eventually settling on an Olds 98, '79 model or so. They drove around, getting beer and later some burgers. Just goofin' around in a stolen car. After getting pretty drunk, Clark asks TC for a ride home. They get on the freeway at Park Blvd., and as they are entering the ramp TC starts rocking back and forth, saying "I got to shoot somebody". He unzips his jacket, revealing the Desert Eagle, and puts the gun in his lap. Richard says something to him about "What you talking about, man?" as they start to pull up next to a dark-colored car, a Ford Granada, driven by a black man. TC opens his window and picks up the gun. Richard says "Hey man, don't kill him. He's a brother, you don't want to do this". Stevens rolls up the window and keeps driving. He sees a white Mustang and pulls up beside it, matching its speed. As he opens the window Clark says "Hey man, you gonna shoot that white woman?" Stevens says "No, that's a man." Clark says "No, it's a..." Stevens fires one shot into the Mustang, shattering the passenger window and causing the car to "wobble" in its lane. Stevens turns to look at Clark, who is by his own testimony shocked by what's just happened. All he can think of to say is "Can I have one of those beers in the back?" Stevens says "Yeah", then they drive to TC's to drop him off, where Clark says TC threatened to harm him if he told anyone about the shooting.
Then Clark drives home, unloads the beer and goes out to Antioch to see a friend. The next day it seems the police have found the Olds 98 in Antioch and Clark has to get home somehow. When he does he makes sure to find out about the shooting on TV after telling his Mom and sisters about it. He talks to TC on the phone, asking him "Did you see on the television about last night?" TC is excited, agitated. That's pretty much the gist of this tape. Little side comment intrigue me here. I've heard a couple of the other tapes, listened to the tone of his voice while he rambled about different versions of the Noyers incident. While he related the Rochon killing he was steady, consistent, calm. While he described the chronology of Lori Rochon's murder he kept describing the feel of the draft of air when TC opened the window before shooting her. When he had finished the account, the sergeants summarized briefly and Richard seemed to get a little detached, saying the word "stupid..." in a sad, regretful way.
This would not be the last time I would hear him say this.
He also told them that he had been in the 27th and West neighborhood the afternoon before Laquann Sloan's murder. Nothing more on that now but I'm sure we'll hear more later.
Thursday ended with Mr. Burr questioning Richard Clark about various aspects of his taped statements. The defense wants us to believe that Clark was badgered and bullied into admitting his role in the killing of Leslie Noyers. We are expected to see that Richard did this in order to "give them what they wanted to hear" , to tell them stories so absurd, (his contention) that they will know something is wrong and stop questioning him. He thinks that TC will state that Clark wasn't even there, even though Clark has just implicated him in two murders.
(An aside here: I'm watching Judgment at Nuremberg. An interesting note while jotting down thoughts about a murder trial of lesser scale)
And the beat goes on.
2/25/93
On the morning of February 24th, we all assembled in the jury room and trooped down the stairs. I'd like to digress here momentarily to describe this up-and-down-the-stairs ritual: In the morning, one of our group (jury) is required to bring some sort of breakfast. Usually it is a type of pastry, but we've had bagels and variety breads as well. I've come to anticipate having breakfast now, and I'm sure my waistline will soon show it. After all, we don't really do much besides sit around all day listening. When we have our breaks, things get pretty noisy. There are a few men on the jury who are quite loud when they speak. When everybody gets going it can be pretty boisterous.
There is a buzzer system that serves as our communications link with the deputy sheriff down in the courtroom. His name's Peter, like my son, and we all appreciate his friendly manner. He makes coffee and transmits our requests and questions to the judge. When we are all present before session, somebody in the jury room pushes a button to indicate such. He will give us a single return buzz to acknowledge. When he buzzes twice, we all rise and assemble in numerical order at the head of the steps that lead down from the sixth floor to the fifth floor courtroom. When we have been dismissed for a recess, we all rise and file up the stairs. For some reason, due I suppose to my position on the steps, I relay the information from the head of the stairs to Peter that the door at the top is either open or closed. It has become mundane almost to the point of screaming routine. "Is the door open?" By the time this thing is over I won't want to hear that phrase ever again!
Whew...We strolled into the court and took our seats on Wednesday morning. The judge asked Mr. Selvin if he had anything further, to which he said: "Mr. Stevens' defense rests. For now."
Say what?
We all looked at each other. This wasn't really what we were expecting. Well, the prosecution once reopened its case, perhaps that would happen here, too. A strange and wonderful thing is this system. With that, Judge McGuinnis asked Mr. Zimmer if he would present his case for defendant Clark.
All along this Zimmer fellow has been somewhat facetious, asking rather pointless questions. With his opening statement, which lasts well over an hour, he discusses the circumstances of Richard Clark being charged with murder based on his confession. He said that we could go into a far-reaching discussion about whether a person who killed another under duress could be considered guilty of murder. He spoke about the techniques the police use to gather information during interrogations, never once claiming that the methods were truly improper or coercive. He claimed that Mr. Clark had been mentally and physically abused as a child, and that the mind-set Richard had had contributed to his completely fabricated confession. He said that we would hear testimony from a clinical psychologist verifying a mental condition that made the subject conducive to authority figures. He told them what he thought they wanted to hear, filling in the blanks as they were "cued" into him until he came up with a story that implicated himself as the shooter in a crime he was nowhere near.
Then Mr. Zimmer called none other than Richard James Clark, jr. to the stand in his own defense. Other than the one edited tape we had heard earlier in the people's case, no one had heard his voice. Now it was to be almost all we were to hear. The primary focus was on the chronology of the weekend Leslie Noyers died. He claims to have helped Charlie, or TC as he was known on the street, steal the tan Mazda RX7 on Friday night 3/31/89. He took the car home, the "first sports car stolen for me", that night and parked it next to his house. Saturday he drilled in Fairfield (CA) with the Army National Guard. Sunday, same thing. Sunday night he drove around with TC, drank some beer and went home in the RX7. Monday morning he got up late and drove the car to Mosswood Park in Oakland to abandon it.
What's wrong with this picture?
Leslie Noyers was killed on Monday morning at about 1:45 AM. The RX7 was in the impound lot at OPD by Monday morning. I'm writing this part two days later and I have to remember that I don't know just exactly what has really happened that night. Clark was picked up in Monterrey County jail after being held on a supposed bench warrant for car theft. Sergeant Roth and Sergeant Chenault escorted him to OPD and into an interrogation room. They started talking to him at about 1:30 in the afternoon and didn't stop until just after midnight. In the course of questioning, Richard Clark told many stories. He claimed then, and still does, that at first all he did abandon the RX7 on Monday morning. The officers challenged that, and the story began to change. Now he was with TC, Mario, a fictional character named Chuck, and they were all rifling through cars on Chetwood. The two women in the story approach TC and Chuck as Clark and Mario "hid down" behind cars. He sees TC and Leslie Noyers argue and he shoots her, standing right in front of her. Now he's challenged again, now the story has just TC and himself in it. He holds Noyers near the back of the RX7 while Charlie shoots her after an argument. Nope, the sergeants aren't buying that either. They sketch out a small diagram of the car, showing him where the casing were found in the car and where the body was found. Now he says he's in the car, he gets a little confused, he's with other people or he's not. Now he's just rambling and the investigators have to leave the room to let him calm down.
While Richard is being questioned, he starts volunteering information about another incident. This is something that takes all of us on the jury by surprise, as I expect Mr. Burr knew it would. Richard started telling them about a night when the two of them were out drinking, talking about stealing some cars. They went over to the south side of the I-580 freeway, eventually settling on an Olds 98, '79 model or so. They drove around, getting beer and later some burgers. Just goofin' around in a stolen car. After getting pretty drunk, Clark asks TC for a ride home. They get on the freeway at Park Blvd., and as they are entering the ramp TC starts rocking back and forth, saying "I got to shoot somebody". He unzips his jacket, revealing the Desert Eagle, and puts the gun in his lap. Richard says something to him about "What you talking about, man?" as they start to pull up next to a dark-colored car, a Ford Granada, driven by a black man. TC opens his window and picks up the gun. Richard says "Hey man, don't kill him. He's a brother, you don't want to do this". Stevens rolls up the window and keeps driving. He sees a white Mustang and pulls up beside it, matching its speed. As he opens the window Clark says "Hey man, you gonna shoot that white woman?" Stevens says "No, that's a man." Clark says "No, it's a..." Stevens fires one shot into the Mustang, shattering the passenger window and causing the car to "wobble" in its lane. Stevens turns to look at Clark, who is by his own testimony shocked by what's just happened. All he can think of to say is "Can I have one of those beers in the back?" Stevens says "Yeah", then they drive to TC's to drop him off, where Clark says TC threatened to harm him if he told anyone about the shooting.
Then Clark drives home, unloads the beer and goes out to Antioch to see a friend. The next day it seems the police have found the Olds 98 in Antioch and Clark has to get home somehow. When he does he makes sure to find out about the shooting on TV after telling his Mom and sisters about it. He talks to TC on the phone, asking him "Did you see on the television about last night?" TC is excited, agitated. That's pretty much the gist of this tape. Little side comment intrigue me here. I've heard a couple of the other tapes, listened to the tone of his voice while he rambled about different versions of the Noyers incident. While he related the Rochon killing he was steady, consistent, calm. While he described the chronology of Lori Rochon's murder he kept describing the feel of the draft of air when TC opened the window before shooting her. When he had finished the account, the sergeants summarized briefly and Richard seemed to get a little detached, saying the word "stupid..." in a sad, regretful way.
This would not be the last time I would hear him say this.
He also told them that he had been in the 27th and West neighborhood the afternoon before Laquann Sloan's murder. Nothing more on that now but I'm sure we'll hear more later.
Thursday ended with Mr. Burr questioning Richard Clark about various aspects of his taped statements. The defense wants us to believe that Clark was badgered and bullied into admitting his role in the killing of Leslie Noyers. We are expected to see that Richard did this in order to "give them what they wanted to hear" , to tell them stories so absurd, (his contention) that they will know something is wrong and stop questioning him. He thinks that TC will state that Clark wasn't even there, even though Clark has just implicated him in two murders.
(An aside here: I'm watching Judgment at Nuremberg. An interesting note while jotting down thoughts about a murder trial of lesser scale)
And the beat goes on.
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Trial: The Other Side of the Story
I wasn't spending much time at work. The trial was really stressful on all of us, and even though we regularly had Fridays off, not many of the jurors went to work, preferring a three day weekend. Our kindly bailiff, Peter, told us that if our bosses called, all he would say was: "I'm sorry, I cannot disturb jurors during the trial." This was, of course, before the advent of the ubiquitous cell phone.
The journal continues:
Mr. Selvin's opening remarks...
...were something less than spectacular. His client faces the possibility of a death sentence, and the remarks were nothing more than a mild reminder to remain objective, to "trust me", and that "you will see that things are not what they appear to be", referring to Mr. Burr's presentation. He has a strange manner, and it was affecting Juror #9, a woman named Leigh. She was on the verge of losing it with laughter. She thinks he's really buffoonish, a view shared to greater and lesser degrees by everybody, and she's finding it hard to contain herself. I told her that all she needed to do to calm down was to look into the gallery at the relations of Raymond August who have been there every day since the start. Maybe she won't find this so funny anymore after seeing the lines of pain on those people's faces. I'm not an altogether serious person by nature, but this is probably one of the most important things I'll ever do as a human being, and that helps keep my mind on the right track.
The first defense witness was a gentleman who had stopped at a traffic light at the corner of West and 27th St. on the night of Loquann Sloan's murder. He saw a "black male" come around the corner from West to 27th and proceed eastbound. He saw two more "black males" follow about 50 yards behind, coming from the same direction. A white "Chevette-type" vehicle came from the same direction on West, turning quickly onto 27th and through the red light. The next sequence of events is quick: The car stops as three shots are heard, the two "black males" run across the street behind the witness's car yelling "somebody's been shot!". The witness looks in his side view mirror, through glass that is "limo-smoked" tint, and sees the white car drive off. He takes off, returning later to give a statement. All this information is distilled from a fairly combative between him and Mr. Burr. The fellow seemed to be trying to keep from being "railroaded" by the prosecution. He was really defensive, unnecessarily so, and it was a little painful for us to listen to him when there really was no problem. I think he felt that Mr. Burr represented The System, the same one that held him for several hours the night of Loquann Sloan's murder. He was cooped up in an interrogation room at OPD, and he probably didn't enjoy it.
Next on the All-Star Chuck Stevens defense parade was Mrs. Ziegler. She was a real hoot! What is it with the old black ladies living on the 700 block of 27th Street? This lady got up there, she must have been seventy years old, and she was wearing a very shiny silver blouse with gold ornaments on it, along with several necklaces and intricately designed earrings. To be blunt, she looked like an aged madam. I don't know if these were her best clothes, or whether she always dresses this way. Anyway, she began her recounting of the events of the night Sloan was killed. She lives, still, in the house right above the murder scene. She was somewhat confused about the facts, but eventually Mr. Selvin was able to glean a certain chronology from her. She was in her bedroom that night, just about to get into bed. She heard three sharp sounds and assumed that her daughter was banging on the door, trying to get in. When she didn't hear any other sounds she looked out the window of her bedroom. She saw a male black man run from the area just behind her car into the street and jump into the passenger side of a vehicle which had pulled up there. (The earlier witness claimed that nobody had entered or left the vehicle he saw) She crossed from the bedroom to the living room. By the time she looked out of that window she saw the car pull away and a body was lying on the sidewalk. She then dialed 911. It was really funny watching Mr. Selvin struggle through this lady's testimony. He asked her specific questions about her position in the house, her angle on the scene, the position of her car in the driveway, the autos in the street, the number of steps the suspect took between one position and the next, what time it was, time intervals, so many things... She tried to answer as best she could, but it was apparent that Mr. Selvin had little experience with older people. He tried leading her through several sequences. only to have Mr. Burr object to the questions being leading. When he re-phrased the questions to suit the objection, Mrs. Ziegler couldn't answer the question properly. We got a fair picture of what she saw, and it wasn't much. Mr. Burr was able to exercise patience and tact with her, and his questions simply clarified in a matter of minutes what it had taken Selvin an eternity to accomplish. No doubt about it, if nothing else this guy is a master showman, using the defense's own witness against him.
We spent a lot of time in the jury room today, just waiting around. This doesn't even require speculation. It's obvious that certain items of evidence or questioning or procedure are being discussed out of our presence in order to present a proper case to us. It may be proper in the strictest legal sense, but it makes for some extremely tedious work. The other folks I share the jury room with are nice enough, but I have to admit that none of them would be particularly interesting to me as acquaintances save one: A fellow named Skip, a Vietnam War veteran helicopter pilot. He seems the closest to a kindred spirit, but there is a feeling there that I cannot explain. I don't think we would be friends on the "outside". Something stands in the way...Is he gay? He sends out cloaked signals. He is definitely a complex person. The dynamics of this jury are most definitely potentially explosive. We have both strong and weak personalities, and I see the possibility of sharp discord when the time comes (to deliberate). Meanwhile I survive, small talk, reading whatever book I check out of the library. So far I have checked out The End of Eternity by Isaac Asimov, The History of Western Civilization, or My Story by Joe Bob Briggs, and Rabbit is Rich by John Updike. Nothing inspirational yet, but we'll see...
I seem to say that a lot. Hmmm.
Next: Day to Day, or Now for Defendant #2.
The journal continues:
Mr. Selvin's opening remarks...
...were something less than spectacular. His client faces the possibility of a death sentence, and the remarks were nothing more than a mild reminder to remain objective, to "trust me", and that "you will see that things are not what they appear to be", referring to Mr. Burr's presentation. He has a strange manner, and it was affecting Juror #9, a woman named Leigh. She was on the verge of losing it with laughter. She thinks he's really buffoonish, a view shared to greater and lesser degrees by everybody, and she's finding it hard to contain herself. I told her that all she needed to do to calm down was to look into the gallery at the relations of Raymond August who have been there every day since the start. Maybe she won't find this so funny anymore after seeing the lines of pain on those people's faces. I'm not an altogether serious person by nature, but this is probably one of the most important things I'll ever do as a human being, and that helps keep my mind on the right track.
The first defense witness was a gentleman who had stopped at a traffic light at the corner of West and 27th St. on the night of Loquann Sloan's murder. He saw a "black male" come around the corner from West to 27th and proceed eastbound. He saw two more "black males" follow about 50 yards behind, coming from the same direction. A white "Chevette-type" vehicle came from the same direction on West, turning quickly onto 27th and through the red light. The next sequence of events is quick: The car stops as three shots are heard, the two "black males" run across the street behind the witness's car yelling "somebody's been shot!". The witness looks in his side view mirror, through glass that is "limo-smoked" tint, and sees the white car drive off. He takes off, returning later to give a statement. All this information is distilled from a fairly combative between him and Mr. Burr. The fellow seemed to be trying to keep from being "railroaded" by the prosecution. He was really defensive, unnecessarily so, and it was a little painful for us to listen to him when there really was no problem. I think he felt that Mr. Burr represented The System, the same one that held him for several hours the night of Loquann Sloan's murder. He was cooped up in an interrogation room at OPD, and he probably didn't enjoy it.
Next on the All-Star Chuck Stevens defense parade was Mrs. Ziegler. She was a real hoot! What is it with the old black ladies living on the 700 block of 27th Street? This lady got up there, she must have been seventy years old, and she was wearing a very shiny silver blouse with gold ornaments on it, along with several necklaces and intricately designed earrings. To be blunt, she looked like an aged madam. I don't know if these were her best clothes, or whether she always dresses this way. Anyway, she began her recounting of the events of the night Sloan was killed. She lives, still, in the house right above the murder scene. She was somewhat confused about the facts, but eventually Mr. Selvin was able to glean a certain chronology from her. She was in her bedroom that night, just about to get into bed. She heard three sharp sounds and assumed that her daughter was banging on the door, trying to get in. When she didn't hear any other sounds she looked out the window of her bedroom. She saw a male black man run from the area just behind her car into the street and jump into the passenger side of a vehicle which had pulled up there. (The earlier witness claimed that nobody had entered or left the vehicle he saw) She crossed from the bedroom to the living room. By the time she looked out of that window she saw the car pull away and a body was lying on the sidewalk. She then dialed 911. It was really funny watching Mr. Selvin struggle through this lady's testimony. He asked her specific questions about her position in the house, her angle on the scene, the position of her car in the driveway, the autos in the street, the number of steps the suspect took between one position and the next, what time it was, time intervals, so many things... She tried to answer as best she could, but it was apparent that Mr. Selvin had little experience with older people. He tried leading her through several sequences. only to have Mr. Burr object to the questions being leading. When he re-phrased the questions to suit the objection, Mrs. Ziegler couldn't answer the question properly. We got a fair picture of what she saw, and it wasn't much. Mr. Burr was able to exercise patience and tact with her, and his questions simply clarified in a matter of minutes what it had taken Selvin an eternity to accomplish. No doubt about it, if nothing else this guy is a master showman, using the defense's own witness against him.
We spent a lot of time in the jury room today, just waiting around. This doesn't even require speculation. It's obvious that certain items of evidence or questioning or procedure are being discussed out of our presence in order to present a proper case to us. It may be proper in the strictest legal sense, but it makes for some extremely tedious work. The other folks I share the jury room with are nice enough, but I have to admit that none of them would be particularly interesting to me as acquaintances save one: A fellow named Skip, a Vietnam War veteran helicopter pilot. He seems the closest to a kindred spirit, but there is a feeling there that I cannot explain. I don't think we would be friends on the "outside". Something stands in the way...Is he gay? He sends out cloaked signals. He is definitely a complex person. The dynamics of this jury are most definitely potentially explosive. We have both strong and weak personalities, and I see the possibility of sharp discord when the time comes (to deliberate). Meanwhile I survive, small talk, reading whatever book I check out of the library. So far I have checked out The End of Eternity by Isaac Asimov, The History of Western Civilization, or My Story by Joe Bob Briggs, and Rabbit is Rich by John Updike. Nothing inspirational yet, but we'll see...
I seem to say that a lot. Hmmm.
Next: Day to Day, or Now for Defendant #2.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The Trial: Deja Vu
It's yesterday once more...
2/23/93
This morning Mr. Burr reopened the case for the prosecution long enough to introduce some new evidence. I had been prepared to hear Mr. Selvin's opening remarks, but what we ended up seeing this morning hardened my view considerably toward Charles Stevens. Paul Fenn was brough to the stand again, and he identified lead fragments and two copper jackets that he had found around the inside of his van for a few days after being shot at on the Harrison Street/Oakland Avenue off ramp. Next, Lansing Lee, the OPD's criminologist, stated that the jacketing had been fired from a weapon with 6-right. polygonal rifling. Mr. Selvin got Lee to admit that a person could take the .357 mag bullet out of the casing, or buy it separately, and then reload it into a 9mm casing, firing it through another polygonal barrel. Sorry, doughboy. (I refer to Mr. Selvin in this way because of his pasty skin and The Ladyfingers Incident) I don't buy it. When a person could buy ammo of that type that was suited to that gun, he wouldn't go to the trouble to reload it just to save a few pennies per round. Besides, the 9mm is a .355 bullet; the .357 bullet reloaded into the 9mm casing would fit, but dangerously close, with a possibility for blowback in the breech. Not worth the trouble.
The last witness for The People was Sgt. McKenna. He explained that the jackets and lead fragments had been given to the OPD Property Section, only to be forgotten. He was pretty straightforward about it, as might be expected. He's a very sober fellow, never once cracking a rather grim facade. I can imagine that it must be tough being a homicide inspector for a happenin' town like Oakland.
The real bombshell came just before lunch. Sgt. McKenna identified an envelope that was found on Chuck's dresser the day of the search (and the death of Raymond August). On the back side of the envelope we saw a list of numbers and letters, followed by a dash at each number, and another number, like this:
Sgt. McKenna identified the first number as the designation under the California Penal Code for assault with a deadly weapon. The next dealt with auto theft Section 187 designates the crime of murder. The last is a violation of the forearms code. (There is also a mysterious gap in the list, and we don't find out until after the trial what was not shown to us that day) With no real fanfare, Mr. Burr has presented us with Charles Stevens' scorecard, listing in detail the crimes he has committed. This really dealt a hell of a blow to his case, even before we've heard it. I will be very interested in seeing how the defense explains what it means to them. We looked at pictures of the DaSilva shooting scene, Paul Fenn's van, and the neighborhood around Santa Clara Ave/Chetwood Ave/Jean Street. The prosecution makes a good case for itself, with all these assaults occurring in the same area at the same time with a unique weapon, no further assaults or physical evidence connected with the gun type since then. Tough stuff to overcome. We'll see...
Next Chapter: Doughboy makes the Case
2/23/93
This morning Mr. Burr reopened the case for the prosecution long enough to introduce some new evidence. I had been prepared to hear Mr. Selvin's opening remarks, but what we ended up seeing this morning hardened my view considerably toward Charles Stevens. Paul Fenn was brough to the stand again, and he identified lead fragments and two copper jackets that he had found around the inside of his van for a few days after being shot at on the Harrison Street/Oakland Avenue off ramp. Next, Lansing Lee, the OPD's criminologist, stated that the jacketing had been fired from a weapon with 6-right. polygonal rifling. Mr. Selvin got Lee to admit that a person could take the .357 mag bullet out of the casing, or buy it separately, and then reload it into a 9mm casing, firing it through another polygonal barrel. Sorry, doughboy. (I refer to Mr. Selvin in this way because of his pasty skin and The Ladyfingers Incident) I don't buy it. When a person could buy ammo of that type that was suited to that gun, he wouldn't go to the trouble to reload it just to save a few pennies per round. Besides, the 9mm is a .355 bullet; the .357 bullet reloaded into the 9mm casing would fit, but dangerously close, with a possibility for blowback in the breech. Not worth the trouble.
The last witness for The People was Sgt. McKenna. He explained that the jackets and lead fragments had been given to the OPD Property Section, only to be forgotten. He was pretty straightforward about it, as might be expected. He's a very sober fellow, never once cracking a rather grim facade. I can imagine that it must be tough being a homicide inspector for a happenin' town like Oakland.
The real bombshell came just before lunch. Sgt. McKenna identified an envelope that was found on Chuck's dresser the day of the search (and the death of Raymond August). On the back side of the envelope we saw a list of numbers and letters, followed by a dash at each number, and another number, like this:
Sgt. McKenna identified the first number as the designation under the California Penal Code for assault with a deadly weapon. The next dealt with auto theft Section 187 designates the crime of murder. The last is a violation of the forearms code. (There is also a mysterious gap in the list, and we don't find out until after the trial what was not shown to us that day) With no real fanfare, Mr. Burr has presented us with Charles Stevens' scorecard, listing in detail the crimes he has committed. This really dealt a hell of a blow to his case, even before we've heard it. I will be very interested in seeing how the defense explains what it means to them. We looked at pictures of the DaSilva shooting scene, Paul Fenn's van, and the neighborhood around Santa Clara Ave/Chetwood Ave/Jean Street. The prosecution makes a good case for itself, with all these assaults occurring in the same area at the same time with a unique weapon, no further assaults or physical evidence connected with the gun type since then. Tough stuff to overcome. We'll see...
Next Chapter: Doughboy makes the Case
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Trial: Second Wind
Real Life was weird around this time. Every day I walked out of the madness and mayhem and into school conferences, paying the rent, doing my job. It was like leaving a movie. It stuck with me, coloring my view on the day to day shit coming at me. My company had a bowling party one Saturday and I enjoyed the chance to get away from it all, drink some beers and knock over a few pins. One of my buddies had a friend with him. The dude heard that I was on the Freeway Shooter jury and came over to me. "Hey that's cool, man. Guy had a Desert Eagle, right? I heard that he..." "Hey!", I said, "I'm not supposed to talk about the trial. I'd be in deep shit if I did." He tried to just wave it off, like hey, nobody will know, but that just wasn't my style.
My journal from 1993 continues...
2/17/93 (One day after my birthday)
Today Mr. Burr concluded the case for the prosecution. We have heard from many witnesses concerning each individual scene, and here are my opinions so far:
-Leslie Noyer
From the taped statement it is obvious to me that Richard Clark murdered the woman. He admits to it directly, with no more emotion than he might display describing throwing out the garbage. I am appalled and angry at him for this act, though I will listen with whatever objectivity I can muster to his attorney, the ever-smiling Mr. Zimmer. Charles Stevens left a palm print on the RX7 found at the scene, and of course the Desert Eagle is his. No witnesses have been called to place him there, though Mr. Burr continues to imply his presence through photographs and testimony showing the proximity of Stevens' apartment house to the scene of the shooting.
The taped statement from Clark mentions a black prostitute (who) performed oral sex on him, but I suppose she hasn't been found or whatever. There is also the question of who Mario is, the mystery man in or not in the car around the night of the Stokes and August incident. But I get ahead of myself...
-Anderson/Lee
Eight casings found at the scene are positively matched to the Desert Eagle Exhibit #40 by ballistics criminologist Lansing Lee. The scene is just a couple of hundred yards from Stevens' apartment. Jenelle Lee gives a partial identification of Stevens himself, though she only sees him for a second or two before he starts firing. These were two lucky ladies.
-Loquan Sloan
As I have said, the boy was quite simply executed. The casings (3) at the scene are positively identified as coming from the Desert Eagle. This scene is the farthest West from Stevens' home, though it has been stated that the trip between them is only five minutes or so...I believe firmly at this point that this murder qualifies as one involving special circumstances, unless the defense admits to the responsibility and builds a case around the actual nature of the shooting. It won't be easy to change my mind right now.
-Fenn/Peters
This shooting scene bears all of the same method that is described by Stokes. There really isn't enough physical evidence to say with absolute certainty that Stevens did the shooting. Thing is, though, that just minutes later, after the "white sedan" in the Fenn/Peters (shooting) turns left on Pearl from Harrison...
-Upendra DaSilva
...is assaulted on Oakland Avenue, not far from the intersection with Santa Clara. That's a straight shot down to Jean Street. The casing found at the scene came from the infamous Desert Eagle. There are also the slugs and copper jackets which have become so familiar to me now.
-Lori Rochon
No casings found, but the slug that tore through that poor woman's body was quite well intact enough to be linked to a .357, polygonal, right-wound weapon; only the Desert Eagle fits that set of characteristics.The scene of the killing is within easy reach of Stevens' home, and no other murder or shooting has occurred using that type of weaponry or ammunition since. (Stevens was apprehended) The DA made a point, initially contested by Selvin, of telling us that nobody had offered any evidence since then leading to any other suspect, even though a reward had been offered.
-Rodney Stokes (and Raymond August)
No doubt about it, this is the most damning evidence against Stevens. We listened to his testimony for over two hours today, and his memory is impeccable. He remembers every detail with clarity, and identified Stevens positively in court and at the scene. He was a man involved in extraordinary and terrible circumstances, and he came through it with guts and courage.
(We discovered later that he had also been threatened with death if he testified by some of Stevens' lowlife friends)
He saw Raymond August murdered by Stevens; the physical evidence is clear in implicating the man. I have no doubt that Stevens should be severely punished for this crime. I will ponder just how far this severity needs to be carried.
The search of Stevens' home shows all the classic symptoms of the serial killer as seen on TV. Newspapers recounting each of the shootings, the cardboard wrapping for a dent-puller used to strip RX7 ignitions, all of the paraphernalia for the Desert Eagle, identical ammunition to that found at most of the crime scenes, some unidentified (though obviously important) 3x5 photos. The defense has so far laid down a patchwork plan, though I'm sure that will flesh out. Mr. Selvin has tried to cloud some inconsequential issues, though one stands out slightly. Technically speaking, the bolt from the Stevens Desert Eagle could be removed and used in another identical weapon, leaving the same identifying marks on the casings.
The probability or possibility that this happened is slim enough in my mind as to be out of the question. The gun is rare enough, much less would somebody ask to use the firing bolt alone, in exchange for what(?).
A brief word about Selvin and Zimmer. I am frankly not impressed. From the beginning they have seemed ineffectual, capricious, only semi-serious. Their questions have been without much point, except to interrupt. They asked me stupid questions while the jury interviews were going on, and they have asked frivolous questions about whether people have been to bakeries or whatever. I get the feeling that most, if not all of the jury had no respect for these two fellows. They'll have a lot of ground to make up with us before they're back even with Mr. Burr. He is self-assured and confident, with a businesslike manner. I have been impressed with his presentation.
On Monday, Part II of this act begins. Hold on tight...
My journal from 1993 continues...
2/17/93 (One day after my birthday)
Today Mr. Burr concluded the case for the prosecution. We have heard from many witnesses concerning each individual scene, and here are my opinions so far:
-Leslie Noyer
From the taped statement it is obvious to me that Richard Clark murdered the woman. He admits to it directly, with no more emotion than he might display describing throwing out the garbage. I am appalled and angry at him for this act, though I will listen with whatever objectivity I can muster to his attorney, the ever-smiling Mr. Zimmer. Charles Stevens left a palm print on the RX7 found at the scene, and of course the Desert Eagle is his. No witnesses have been called to place him there, though Mr. Burr continues to imply his presence through photographs and testimony showing the proximity of Stevens' apartment house to the scene of the shooting.
The taped statement from Clark mentions a black prostitute (who) performed oral sex on him, but I suppose she hasn't been found or whatever. There is also the question of who Mario is, the mystery man in or not in the car around the night of the Stokes and August incident. But I get ahead of myself...
-Anderson/Lee
Eight casings found at the scene are positively matched to the Desert Eagle Exhibit #40 by ballistics criminologist Lansing Lee. The scene is just a couple of hundred yards from Stevens' apartment. Jenelle Lee gives a partial identification of Stevens himself, though she only sees him for a second or two before he starts firing. These were two lucky ladies.
-Loquan Sloan
As I have said, the boy was quite simply executed. The casings (3) at the scene are positively identified as coming from the Desert Eagle. This scene is the farthest West from Stevens' home, though it has been stated that the trip between them is only five minutes or so...I believe firmly at this point that this murder qualifies as one involving special circumstances, unless the defense admits to the responsibility and builds a case around the actual nature of the shooting. It won't be easy to change my mind right now.
-Fenn/Peters
This shooting scene bears all of the same method that is described by Stokes. There really isn't enough physical evidence to say with absolute certainty that Stevens did the shooting. Thing is, though, that just minutes later, after the "white sedan" in the Fenn/Peters (shooting) turns left on Pearl from Harrison...
-Upendra DaSilva
...is assaulted on Oakland Avenue, not far from the intersection with Santa Clara. That's a straight shot down to Jean Street. The casing found at the scene came from the infamous Desert Eagle. There are also the slugs and copper jackets which have become so familiar to me now.
-Lori Rochon
No casings found, but the slug that tore through that poor woman's body was quite well intact enough to be linked to a .357, polygonal, right-wound weapon; only the Desert Eagle fits that set of characteristics.The scene of the killing is within easy reach of Stevens' home, and no other murder or shooting has occurred using that type of weaponry or ammunition since. (Stevens was apprehended) The DA made a point, initially contested by Selvin, of telling us that nobody had offered any evidence since then leading to any other suspect, even though a reward had been offered.
-Rodney Stokes (and Raymond August)
No doubt about it, this is the most damning evidence against Stevens. We listened to his testimony for over two hours today, and his memory is impeccable. He remembers every detail with clarity, and identified Stevens positively in court and at the scene. He was a man involved in extraordinary and terrible circumstances, and he came through it with guts and courage.
(We discovered later that he had also been threatened with death if he testified by some of Stevens' lowlife friends)
He saw Raymond August murdered by Stevens; the physical evidence is clear in implicating the man. I have no doubt that Stevens should be severely punished for this crime. I will ponder just how far this severity needs to be carried.
The search of Stevens' home shows all the classic symptoms of the serial killer as seen on TV. Newspapers recounting each of the shootings, the cardboard wrapping for a dent-puller used to strip RX7 ignitions, all of the paraphernalia for the Desert Eagle, identical ammunition to that found at most of the crime scenes, some unidentified (though obviously important) 3x5 photos. The defense has so far laid down a patchwork plan, though I'm sure that will flesh out. Mr. Selvin has tried to cloud some inconsequential issues, though one stands out slightly. Technically speaking, the bolt from the Stevens Desert Eagle could be removed and used in another identical weapon, leaving the same identifying marks on the casings.
The probability or possibility that this happened is slim enough in my mind as to be out of the question. The gun is rare enough, much less would somebody ask to use the firing bolt alone, in exchange for what(?).
A brief word about Selvin and Zimmer. I am frankly not impressed. From the beginning they have seemed ineffectual, capricious, only semi-serious. Their questions have been without much point, except to interrupt. They asked me stupid questions while the jury interviews were going on, and they have asked frivolous questions about whether people have been to bakeries or whatever. I get the feeling that most, if not all of the jury had no respect for these two fellows. They'll have a lot of ground to make up with us before they're back even with Mr. Burr. He is self-assured and confident, with a businesslike manner. I have been impressed with his presentation.
On Monday, Part II of this act begins. Hold on tight...
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The Trial: More Carnage
At some point during my commute to the courthouse I noticed what I thought was a bit of fuzz on my left eye. I kept trying to blink it out or dab at it with my finger, but it remained. I discovered later that I had a "floater". I was told by my doctor that these are usually not a problem, and can be brought about by stress. Hmm...what kind of stress had I been under recently? The journal continues.
2/10/93
Seemed like a pretty routine day. We heard from Evidence Tech Viglienzone three or four times today, for one crime scene or another. The testimony of a Tech seems to be designed to set the whole gruesome picture before us, warts, guts and all. We saw photos and physical evidence in the murders of Loquann Sloan and Lori Rochon. We also listened to Tech-man explain what he found at the attempted murder of Mr. DeSilva on Oakland Avenue. Lori Rochon's son gave testimony, mostly concerned with his Mom's normal routines and schedule the night she was killed. The boy was just 19 when this happened, and I'm sure that Mr. Burr had him up there mostly for emotional value. It worked.
A fellow named Critchlow got to the stand and described how he was reading about the car (owned by Upendra DeSilva) getting shot up by the bakery his daughter owned down near Santa Clara and Oakland Avenue. He got curious and went down to the scene. Lo and behold! He finds a Federal .357 Magnum shell casing just sitting in the street! When the DA asks him to indicate, on a photo taken the night of the shooting, where he found it, he draws a little "X" right under the rear bumper of a police car! What a guy...Well, the DA is finished with him and now we come to the cross-examination. We on the jury wonder if Mr. Selvin is going to try to get flip with this older gentleman as well. All he asks is what the name of the bakery is. Mr. Critchlow tells him that the place is called Ladyfingers. Doughboy says: "Excellent muffins she serves there..." We sit, wondering where this is leading, and Selvin says: "Thank you, no further questions." with a sly grin on his face. Everybody is looking at one another with astonishment. What the hell is this? Joking is one thing, but this guy couldn't have less tact or subtlety. He exacerbates the situation by offhandedly saying to the judge: "I eat there often, great place."
That's all I can take, and in a loud stage whisper I say: "Who cares?" This causes something of a buzz and I look at the judge, who is turning slightly red, with his hand over his mouth. Some of my fellow jurors are looking at me with amusement or astonishment, but I meant it. Levity has its place in some small measure, but goddammit there are people in the gallery who have lost loved ones to violent crime, and his client is the main suspect! Treat these proceedings with some decorum or you can just kiss off my sympathy vote...
"Loquann Sloan was executed." That phrase appears in my court notes, and it's just plain fact.
(A note here: We were not allowed to take our note journals home with us, so I had actually paraphrased. See image below.)
Somebody stepped out of a walkway, put a gun to his head and pumped two rounds into his left temple, with a third bullet grazing the back of his head. No matter what this kid was into, he didn't deserve this.
With each new packet of physical evidence we see, those same copper bullet jackets show up. The DA referred to them as "calling cards", and that's an apt description.
We parked our cars across the street at the Oakland Museum, the cheapest place we could find. $2 for all day parking and we were being "paid" $5 per day plus mileage one way. My "pay" came to just over $7 per day. I was lucky that my employer actually had a jury duty pay policy in place or I would have been screwed. I often used that short, (and sometimes dangerous) walk across 11th Street to pause and take in the picturesque beauty of Lake Merritt and surrounding trees. Then I'd take a deep breath and plunge back into Life, one direction or another.
Continued...
2/10/93
Seemed like a pretty routine day. We heard from Evidence Tech Viglienzone three or four times today, for one crime scene or another. The testimony of a Tech seems to be designed to set the whole gruesome picture before us, warts, guts and all. We saw photos and physical evidence in the murders of Loquann Sloan and Lori Rochon. We also listened to Tech-man explain what he found at the attempted murder of Mr. DeSilva on Oakland Avenue. Lori Rochon's son gave testimony, mostly concerned with his Mom's normal routines and schedule the night she was killed. The boy was just 19 when this happened, and I'm sure that Mr. Burr had him up there mostly for emotional value. It worked.
A fellow named Critchlow got to the stand and described how he was reading about the car (owned by Upendra DeSilva) getting shot up by the bakery his daughter owned down near Santa Clara and Oakland Avenue. He got curious and went down to the scene. Lo and behold! He finds a Federal .357 Magnum shell casing just sitting in the street! When the DA asks him to indicate, on a photo taken the night of the shooting, where he found it, he draws a little "X" right under the rear bumper of a police car! What a guy...Well, the DA is finished with him and now we come to the cross-examination. We on the jury wonder if Mr. Selvin is going to try to get flip with this older gentleman as well. All he asks is what the name of the bakery is. Mr. Critchlow tells him that the place is called Ladyfingers. Doughboy says: "Excellent muffins she serves there..." We sit, wondering where this is leading, and Selvin says: "Thank you, no further questions." with a sly grin on his face. Everybody is looking at one another with astonishment. What the hell is this? Joking is one thing, but this guy couldn't have less tact or subtlety. He exacerbates the situation by offhandedly saying to the judge: "I eat there often, great place."
That's all I can take, and in a loud stage whisper I say: "Who cares?" This causes something of a buzz and I look at the judge, who is turning slightly red, with his hand over his mouth. Some of my fellow jurors are looking at me with amusement or astonishment, but I meant it. Levity has its place in some small measure, but goddammit there are people in the gallery who have lost loved ones to violent crime, and his client is the main suspect! Treat these proceedings with some decorum or you can just kiss off my sympathy vote...
"Loquann Sloan was executed." That phrase appears in my court notes, and it's just plain fact.
(A note here: We were not allowed to take our note journals home with us, so I had actually paraphrased. See image below.)
Somebody stepped out of a walkway, put a gun to his head and pumped two rounds into his left temple, with a third bullet grazing the back of his head. No matter what this kid was into, he didn't deserve this.With each new packet of physical evidence we see, those same copper bullet jackets show up. The DA referred to them as "calling cards", and that's an apt description.
We parked our cars across the street at the Oakland Museum, the cheapest place we could find. $2 for all day parking and we were being "paid" $5 per day plus mileage one way. My "pay" came to just over $7 per day. I was lucky that my employer actually had a jury duty pay policy in place or I would have been screwed. I often used that short, (and sometimes dangerous) walk across 11th Street to pause and take in the picturesque beauty of Lake Merritt and surrounding trees. Then I'd take a deep breath and plunge back into Life, one direction or another.
Continued...
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The Trial: Grim Reality
After a three day weekend away from the trial of Charles Stevens and Richard Clark...
2/9/93
Looks like it was one day down, one day up. Yesterday we spent most of the day on Leslie Ann Noyer's case. The centerpiece of the day was Richard Clark's statement concerning the early morning hours of April 3, 1989. He recounts that he drove around town after getting home from Army Reserve training out in Fairfield. He stopped at the Quick Stop on Santa Clara at Harrison, bought beer and somehow got to 541 Chetwood. In the tape, several parts have been edited out. To maintain my objectivity, I don't think I'll speculate here what the judge ordered edited out. It's really tempting, though, and I'll write about it when appropriate. Clark is sitting on the passenger side of the stolen RX7, yeah, another one...He somehow gets one of the two women "on the street" to come over to his side of the car and perform oral sex with him at gunpoint. He has the Desert Eagle pointed at her as she does this.
He states that he couldn't "get off" because he just wasn't "into it" like that. Somehow an argument ensued between Clark and Noyers, and Clark pumps three bullets in her direction. She falls to the ground, moaning and twitching. Clark stands over her and shoots again. The pictures tell it all...my God, I'm really consumed with anger over the dumb animal thinking that this tape shows. Clark shows no real emotion about it at all. I really don't understand the cold-bloodedness of it. In my court notes I write:
I'm shaking with anger. I've had to sit here all day Monday, looking at the horribly mutilated skull of this young woman, brain tissue out of the body, a life of possibility cut short. That night I go home, turmoil bubbling inside of me like a cauldron. I'm really glad Jan is home. I give her a hug later in the kitchen while fixing dinner, and I shed some tears for this woman I never met. The terrible intimacy of her death forces me to view the possible demise of anybody close to me. Well, I need to chill.
2/10/93
Today was much easier to take. We had several interesting moments. The first two witnesses of the Anderson/Lee shooting came forward. Ms. Anderson is a Federal parole officer. She and her friend, Jenelle Lee, were driving back to Anderson's apartment on Jean. They were coming down the hill on Santa Clara and Lee truned briefly, noticing a man walking down the hill. He stopped, raised his hands, and shots pinged into the car, shattering the window. Ms. Anderson simply filled in the details as best she could. When her testimony was finished, she happened to be standing in front of an elarged map of her neighborhood. The DA had just walked back to his table without asking any further questions, so she just strolled off the stand. She hadn't been dismissed, and nobody noticed her leaving until she was past the gate into the gallery. The judge said something like: "Oh by the way, you are dismissed." It really cracked everyone up. Believe me, the tension of this case will create a funny moment whenever one tries to eke through.
The next witness, Jenelle Lee, brought us right back into the here and now. She recounted what she experienced that night, and it was obvious that it was difficult for her still. She bit her words off, becoming snappish with the defense attorneys even at the most innocuous questions. She barely saw the shooter, but gave a pretty fair general description of him. In the lineup that included Stevens held over three months later, though, she identified a different man. Tell the truth, I don't hold that against her. The weight of Stevens' other taped testimony convinces me so far that the gun used in the shooting at Anderson's car was wielded by Stevens. He sits there in court smiling and grinning while Jenelle Lee recounts possibly the worst night of her life. This doesn't help him in my eyes. I'm developing a certain hatred for him.
The last witness today was an older black woman named Mary who first called the police the night the 16-year-old boy was shot. (Loquann Sloan) She had been up late with a cold the night of 6/8/89, and she heard four shots ring out in short order. She went to the window. Seeing nothing, she went to the doorway onto the porch. She then went out onto the porch, leaning over to see the young man lying in a pool of blood on the ground. This woman seemed on the face of it to be a frail old woman, with occasional memory lapses and shaky mannerisms. When the defense doughboy got ahold of her, though, she just set him right in his place. He wanted to clear (muddy?) things up in the chronology of her actions just after the shooting. She corrected him several times, her voice taking on a stern tone whenever she felt he was leading her astray. We all got a kick out of her. It was a nice way to end this day.
We're all human beings here. Well, some only biologically I guess. That "certain hatred" I spoke of came from my reaction to Stevens' totally inappropriate reactions to the testimony. He did this time after time over the course of the trial. Obviously his attorneys didn't know, didn't care, or felt they could do nothing about this. His loss.
Movin' on...
2/9/93
Looks like it was one day down, one day up. Yesterday we spent most of the day on Leslie Ann Noyer's case. The centerpiece of the day was Richard Clark's statement concerning the early morning hours of April 3, 1989. He recounts that he drove around town after getting home from Army Reserve training out in Fairfield. He stopped at the Quick Stop on Santa Clara at Harrison, bought beer and somehow got to 541 Chetwood. In the tape, several parts have been edited out. To maintain my objectivity, I don't think I'll speculate here what the judge ordered edited out. It's really tempting, though, and I'll write about it when appropriate. Clark is sitting on the passenger side of the stolen RX7, yeah, another one...He somehow gets one of the two women "on the street" to come over to his side of the car and perform oral sex with him at gunpoint. He has the Desert Eagle pointed at her as she does this.
He states that he couldn't "get off" because he just wasn't "into it" like that. Somehow an argument ensued between Clark and Noyers, and Clark pumps three bullets in her direction. She falls to the ground, moaning and twitching. Clark stands over her and shoots again. The pictures tell it all...my God, I'm really consumed with anger over the dumb animal thinking that this tape shows. Clark shows no real emotion about it at all. I really don't understand the cold-bloodedness of it. In my court notes I write:
I'm shaking with anger. I've had to sit here all day Monday, looking at the horribly mutilated skull of this young woman, brain tissue out of the body, a life of possibility cut short. That night I go home, turmoil bubbling inside of me like a cauldron. I'm really glad Jan is home. I give her a hug later in the kitchen while fixing dinner, and I shed some tears for this woman I never met. The terrible intimacy of her death forces me to view the possible demise of anybody close to me. Well, I need to chill.2/10/93
Today was much easier to take. We had several interesting moments. The first two witnesses of the Anderson/Lee shooting came forward. Ms. Anderson is a Federal parole officer. She and her friend, Jenelle Lee, were driving back to Anderson's apartment on Jean. They were coming down the hill on Santa Clara and Lee truned briefly, noticing a man walking down the hill. He stopped, raised his hands, and shots pinged into the car, shattering the window. Ms. Anderson simply filled in the details as best she could. When her testimony was finished, she happened to be standing in front of an elarged map of her neighborhood. The DA had just walked back to his table without asking any further questions, so she just strolled off the stand. She hadn't been dismissed, and nobody noticed her leaving until she was past the gate into the gallery. The judge said something like: "Oh by the way, you are dismissed." It really cracked everyone up. Believe me, the tension of this case will create a funny moment whenever one tries to eke through.
The next witness, Jenelle Lee, brought us right back into the here and now. She recounted what she experienced that night, and it was obvious that it was difficult for her still. She bit her words off, becoming snappish with the defense attorneys even at the most innocuous questions. She barely saw the shooter, but gave a pretty fair general description of him. In the lineup that included Stevens held over three months later, though, she identified a different man. Tell the truth, I don't hold that against her. The weight of Stevens' other taped testimony convinces me so far that the gun used in the shooting at Anderson's car was wielded by Stevens. He sits there in court smiling and grinning while Jenelle Lee recounts possibly the worst night of her life. This doesn't help him in my eyes. I'm developing a certain hatred for him.
The last witness today was an older black woman named Mary who first called the police the night the 16-year-old boy was shot. (Loquann Sloan) She had been up late with a cold the night of 6/8/89, and she heard four shots ring out in short order. She went to the window. Seeing nothing, she went to the doorway onto the porch. She then went out onto the porch, leaning over to see the young man lying in a pool of blood on the ground. This woman seemed on the face of it to be a frail old woman, with occasional memory lapses and shaky mannerisms. When the defense doughboy got ahold of her, though, she just set him right in his place. He wanted to clear (muddy?) things up in the chronology of her actions just after the shooting. She corrected him several times, her voice taking on a stern tone whenever she felt he was leading her astray. We all got a kick out of her. It was a nice way to end this day.
We're all human beings here. Well, some only biologically I guess. That "certain hatred" I spoke of came from my reaction to Stevens' totally inappropriate reactions to the testimony. He did this time after time over the course of the trial. Obviously his attorneys didn't know, didn't care, or felt they could do nothing about this. His loss.
Movin' on...
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Trial: Further Testimony
My journal entries from the trial of The County of Alameda v. Charles Arnett Stevens and Richard Clark
2/4/93
Get tires from Bill Roberts
Dog & cat food/Other groceries
Equipment from Brian for clinic after 4:30
Call dentist to cancel Peter's appointment
Call printer about forms
Start calling to confirm clinic help
Confirm pitching machine availability
Things pile up when you're out of touch. I'm back to work tomorrow. Will each individual crime scene play itself out this way, day after day? I can see how we'll be here for some time. How do you really and truly disregard something you've heard in court, yet been told to forget?
We made the paper, the trial did...I was a good juror and didn't read any of it. So proud of myself.
2/4/93
We listened to Tech Rivers complete her report about what she found around the RX7. The prosecution focused on the fact that there was a regular house key stuck in the ignition of the RX7. I'm sure her job is tough. She has to take pictures at some pretty horrible crime scenes - blood and guts everywhere.
We heard from Officer Flynn, the cop who searched Stevens, finding an extra clip, loaded, and one live round in his jacket. Not much other testimony here, just substantiating the fact Stevens possessed the optional (?) equipment for the gun.
Next up: The coroner who autopsied Ray August. What struck me about the testimony here was that the DA had to structure his questions to prove it was the gunshot wounds that killed the man, not the accident. After viewing the photos of the man's head, it's pretty apparent to me that it was the bullet that did the job. The entrance wound was small and neat, the exit wound about the size of a half dollar, maybe larger. We got a detailed description of all the wounds, just to be sure that nothing there would have killed him outside of the bullets to his back and head. We also examined the slugs taken from his body, some aerial photos of the scene. The most sinister piece of evidence though, is the Desert Eagle. As it's passed around, all eyes are on it. It comes to me. I hold it with the barrel pointed at my left eye in order to see the rifling inside. What the DA said in his opening statement was accurate: Instead of the lans and grooves of a normal fire arm which are carved into the metal to spin the slug accurately, there were six smoothly polished, twisted ridges. This supposedly improves accuracy with such a powerful charge. Then I hold the weapon in my left hand to check the balance.Stevens is right handed, and I have wondered how easy it really was for him to steer a car with his "strong" hand while firing with his left.
The DA claims, and there is a statement later by Stevens himself, that he has practiced firing the Eagle with both hands. It is a well balanced weapon, semi-automatic. I could probably do the same kind of damage he did with a gun like this.
After lunch we're treated to the detective from Homicide who interviewed Stevens at the police station. We listen to his tape-recorded statement while following along with the transcript. Stevens admits to possession of the gun, practicing with it, driving around the area at the time of the shooting. He says that he had no idea why the officer pulled him over. He was with somebody named Mario earlier, and in the statement he thinks Mario is still around, either busted or running away. He claims to have had one 16 oz. beer earlier in the evening. He thinks he was turning onto 35th or MacArthur instead of the freeway when he was captured at the on ramp. He sounds tired, but lucid. So lucid, in fact, that either he is blocking out what he did or he's one hell of a liar.
There are moments where he mumbles or hesitates, and I don't know how to interpret these moments. I'll need more information all around this point before I get a clearer picture of his mental condition or personality. How much of this can I believe?
This seems to wrap up the main portion of the DA's case with respect to the night of 7/27/89. I'm sure we'll hear more about it later. Now the next fellow on the stand is another ordinary cop, the first one on the scene of the murder of Leslie Noyer. She is considered the first victim of the Clark/Stevens murder lesson. Clark is charged with being the trigger man, while Stevens supposedly lured Noyer to her death. The officer seems like a tired man. He's not too happy having to describe what he found on the driveway there on Chetwood, but he hangs tough. No need my describing here what he found. It was all covered in the opening statement. Time to chill out now. Time to go home...
I drove beneath the 35th Street overpass on Interstate 580 every day going to and from the trial from my home in Dublin. It was hard to pass the concrete pillar where Ray August died without feeling a pang of sadness and sympathy for his loved ones. I'm so glad I had a lot of other things on my plate at home to keep my mind off the horror I was seeing recounted every day.
Next: Keeps gettin' rougher...
2/4/93
Equipment from Brian for clinic after 4:30
Call printer about forms
Start calling to confirm clinic help
Confirm pitching machine availability
Things pile up when you're out of touch. I'm back to work tomorrow. Will each individual crime scene play itself out this way, day after day? I can see how we'll be here for some time. How do you really and truly disregard something you've heard in court, yet been told to forget?
We made the paper, the trial did...I was a good juror and didn't read any of it. So proud of myself.
2/4/93
We listened to Tech Rivers complete her report about what she found around the RX7. The prosecution focused on the fact that there was a regular house key stuck in the ignition of the RX7. I'm sure her job is tough. She has to take pictures at some pretty horrible crime scenes - blood and guts everywhere.
We heard from Officer Flynn, the cop who searched Stevens, finding an extra clip, loaded, and one live round in his jacket. Not much other testimony here, just substantiating the fact Stevens possessed the optional (?) equipment for the gun.
Next up: The coroner who autopsied Ray August. What struck me about the testimony here was that the DA had to structure his questions to prove it was the gunshot wounds that killed the man, not the accident. After viewing the photos of the man's head, it's pretty apparent to me that it was the bullet that did the job. The entrance wound was small and neat, the exit wound about the size of a half dollar, maybe larger. We got a detailed description of all the wounds, just to be sure that nothing there would have killed him outside of the bullets to his back and head. We also examined the slugs taken from his body, some aerial photos of the scene. The most sinister piece of evidence though, is the Desert Eagle. As it's passed around, all eyes are on it. It comes to me. I hold it with the barrel pointed at my left eye in order to see the rifling inside. What the DA said in his opening statement was accurate: Instead of the lans and grooves of a normal fire arm which are carved into the metal to spin the slug accurately, there were six smoothly polished, twisted ridges. This supposedly improves accuracy with such a powerful charge. Then I hold the weapon in my left hand to check the balance.Stevens is right handed, and I have wondered how easy it really was for him to steer a car with his "strong" hand while firing with his left.
The DA claims, and there is a statement later by Stevens himself, that he has practiced firing the Eagle with both hands. It is a well balanced weapon, semi-automatic. I could probably do the same kind of damage he did with a gun like this.
After lunch we're treated to the detective from Homicide who interviewed Stevens at the police station. We listen to his tape-recorded statement while following along with the transcript. Stevens admits to possession of the gun, practicing with it, driving around the area at the time of the shooting. He says that he had no idea why the officer pulled him over. He was with somebody named Mario earlier, and in the statement he thinks Mario is still around, either busted or running away. He claims to have had one 16 oz. beer earlier in the evening. He thinks he was turning onto 35th or MacArthur instead of the freeway when he was captured at the on ramp. He sounds tired, but lucid. So lucid, in fact, that either he is blocking out what he did or he's one hell of a liar.
There are moments where he mumbles or hesitates, and I don't know how to interpret these moments. I'll need more information all around this point before I get a clearer picture of his mental condition or personality. How much of this can I believe?
This seems to wrap up the main portion of the DA's case with respect to the night of 7/27/89. I'm sure we'll hear more about it later. Now the next fellow on the stand is another ordinary cop, the first one on the scene of the murder of Leslie Noyer. She is considered the first victim of the Clark/Stevens murder lesson. Clark is charged with being the trigger man, while Stevens supposedly lured Noyer to her death. The officer seems like a tired man. He's not too happy having to describe what he found on the driveway there on Chetwood, but he hangs tough. No need my describing here what he found. It was all covered in the opening statement. Time to chill out now. Time to go home...
I drove beneath the 35th Street overpass on Interstate 580 every day going to and from the trial from my home in Dublin. It was hard to pass the concrete pillar where Ray August died without feeling a pang of sadness and sympathy for his loved ones. I'm so glad I had a lot of other things on my plate at home to keep my mind off the horror I was seeing recounted every day.
Next: Keeps gettin' rougher...
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Trial: The Story Continues...
From my personal journal....
2/3/93
Although we only spend five hours, more or less, in the courtroom, everybody is feeling pretty fatigued toward the end of the day. Today we listened to the testimony of Deborah Rivers, a police civilian evidence tech; former captain Smith of OPD, (and) police evidence tech Hutchinson. These three people describe the events of 7/27/89, the techs (delving) into precise detail.
Hutchinson the gathering of evidence, physical and photographic, from the scene of Raymond August's final resting place in his Prelude. He took photos of the skid marks, the place on the 35th Street overpass pillar that the Prelude struck, the interior and exterior of the Prelude and the Blazer, and one shell casing found on the freeway. Some contention arises between the defense and the prosecution when the DA tries to get Hutchinson to interpret the blood spatter pattern on the Prelude windshield. The problem seems to be, only my opinion, maybe the defense wants us to believe that somebody else did the shooting or what? Jeez, I really don't know if they want us to think maybe Stokes did it or if it's a tactic to cloud the issue.
Captain Smith detailed his capture of Stevens, identifying him in the courtroom and identifying the weapon that fell out of Stevens' jacket. There was no real challenge to his testimony, only how long it took him to get from 14th (Avenue) and 35th (Street) to the overpass. Why? The details, as I've written them, were really immediate and exciting when listening to Smith tell them. It's only day two, but there's a hell of a lot of evidence already mounting up against this guy.
Rivers was the tech that that secured and collected evidence from the westbound 35th ramp. She collected the gun, clips and ammo. She photographed the interior of the RX7, showing a spent casing and a live round, .357 Mag load. She also notices scratch marks along the driver side of the RX7, consistent with glass shattering against the car.
It's eerie to project myself into that scene: the Mazda pulling up beside the Prelude, shots ringing out, the car skidding across the road, striking the center divide, pinballing across into the concrete abutment head-on, the driver probably already dead before the car stops skidding. The interior of the Prelude is showered with blood and brain tissue, Meanwhile the RX7 circles around and stops to watch. I will be objective, but it is really asking a lot of me.
I think I'll go to the library tomorrow and check out a book, just to distract me from this when I can.
The Oakland Public Library is just steps away from the courthouse and I take full advantage of my library cards privileges. Sometimes I walk around Lake Merritt. On one of the first days we jurors are packed into an elevator, descending to ground level to go out for lunch. The doors open on floor 4 and there are all three defense attorneys. We all stare at each other for a moment before Mr. Selvin says: "We'll wait for the next one...." Good idea!
More later.
2/3/93
Although we only spend five hours, more or less, in the courtroom, everybody is feeling pretty fatigued toward the end of the day. Today we listened to the testimony of Deborah Rivers, a police civilian evidence tech; former captain Smith of OPD, (and) police evidence tech Hutchinson. These three people describe the events of 7/27/89, the techs (delving) into precise detail.
Hutchinson the gathering of evidence, physical and photographic, from the scene of Raymond August's final resting place in his Prelude. He took photos of the skid marks, the place on the 35th Street overpass pillar that the Prelude struck, the interior and exterior of the Prelude and the Blazer, and one shell casing found on the freeway. Some contention arises between the defense and the prosecution when the DA tries to get Hutchinson to interpret the blood spatter pattern on the Prelude windshield. The problem seems to be, only my opinion, maybe the defense wants us to believe that somebody else did the shooting or what? Jeez, I really don't know if they want us to think maybe Stokes did it or if it's a tactic to cloud the issue.
Captain Smith detailed his capture of Stevens, identifying him in the courtroom and identifying the weapon that fell out of Stevens' jacket. There was no real challenge to his testimony, only how long it took him to get from 14th (Avenue) and 35th (Street) to the overpass. Why? The details, as I've written them, were really immediate and exciting when listening to Smith tell them. It's only day two, but there's a hell of a lot of evidence already mounting up against this guy.
Rivers was the tech that that secured and collected evidence from the westbound 35th ramp. She collected the gun, clips and ammo. She photographed the interior of the RX7, showing a spent casing and a live round, .357 Mag load. She also notices scratch marks along the driver side of the RX7, consistent with glass shattering against the car.
It's eerie to project myself into that scene: the Mazda pulling up beside the Prelude, shots ringing out, the car skidding across the road, striking the center divide, pinballing across into the concrete abutment head-on, the driver probably already dead before the car stops skidding. The interior of the Prelude is showered with blood and brain tissue, Meanwhile the RX7 circles around and stops to watch. I will be objective, but it is really asking a lot of me.
I think I'll go to the library tomorrow and check out a book, just to distract me from this when I can.
The Oakland Public Library is just steps away from the courthouse and I take full advantage of my library cards privileges. Sometimes I walk around Lake Merritt. On one of the first days we jurors are packed into an elevator, descending to ground level to go out for lunch. The doors open on floor 4 and there are all three defense attorneys. We all stare at each other for a moment before Mr. Selvin says: "We'll wait for the next one...." Good idea!
More later.
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Trial: Day One Part Two
My journal from 1993 continues. I italicize from time to time to keep things clear or smooth out choppy ideas. I wrote most of the entries the day they happened, trying to get down every detail from the proceedings.
Back in synch now...
Now the DA talks about the circumstances of the night of July 27, '89. A fellow named (Rodney) Stokes, in a red Blazer, is traveling westbound on 580 near the Harrison Street exit. A white RX7 pulls up close to him and Stokes sees a gun held in somebody's hand extending from the car. He
tries to outrun the RX7 unsuccessfully, then he slams on the brakes just as a shot is fired into the Blazer's lower-right windshield. The driver (extends his arm from the car) turns and pumps two more shots into the grill of the truck, then speeds away. Stokes recovers, unhurt, and follows the RX7 with his lights off. He sees the RX7 approaching a white Honda Prelude in the same manner he was approached. He begins flashing his lights and honking his horn to distract the (shooter) driver or warn the other motorist, but three shots are fired into the Prelude, one of which passes through the skull of the driver, killing him.
The car crashes into the center divider then caroms across the freeway, crashing into the bridge support of the 35th Street overpass. The RX7 has exited at 35th, crossed over the freeway, then down the entrance ramp on the other side to the halfway point, where a man gets out to view the damage. Stokes stops at the accident scene, seeing that he can't help the driver and noticing the suspect watching the action from the other side of the freeway. He gets into the truck and drives down the High Street exit to Walgreen's, where he calls 911. He then drives the opposite way up the freeway (off ramp) back to the Prelude. He sees people gathering at the car, sees people on the overpass, sees the suspect's car still on the ramp with a police car parked right behind it!
A watch commander, out on routine patrol on 35th Ave has gotten the call from dispatch about the shooting. As he turns down the ramp to get on the freeway to double back, he sees Stevens sitting in the RX7, watching the action. The officer gets out of the car with gun drawn and orders Stevens to get out of the car with his hands up. Stevens does this, turns around once completely, then begins slowly stepping backwards. The cop yells at him to stand still and Stevens makes a break for it, trying to hoist himself over a concrete retaining wall. The officer (Smith?) pulls him down, is struck by Stevens, and the officer hears the sound of a gun clattering to the ground. He manhandles Stevens to the ground away from the gun and cuffs him just as Stokes comes running up, shouting that Stevens "..is the guy the guy who shot at me and the other guy!"
Ballistics ties the weapon to the other killings and shootings by the tool marks (on the brass) and the hexagonal striations common to the Desert Eagle. Clark admits, according to the DA, to killing Noyers with the Desert Eagle. The DA wants us to convict Stevens of special circumstances, lying in wait for his victims, a consideration that would bring the death penalty.
Both defense counsel declined opening statements, deferring until their defense arguments began.
With that, the first witness for the prosecution took the stand. His name was Matthews, and he witnessed the incident between Stokes and the RX7 from about 30-40 yards away. He testified that he saw flashes of light and heard reports as if the car was backfiring. He said that it never entered his mind that he might be witnessing a shooting. The RX7 had moved close to the Blazer, and after the flashes the two vehicles swerved around each other, with the RX7 accelerating quickly away. The Blazer pulled over, turned off its lights, then sped after the RX7. Mr. Matthews lost sight of both of them, then came upon the Prelude crashed on the side of the road, with the Blazer stopped and (Stokes) trying to render aid. Matthews drove to a gas station, where the phone did not work. He went back to Walgreen's where Stokes was already on the phone. Matthews went home, calling the Homicide Department later, after hearing about the shooting.
The defense attorney for Stevens seemed to try to cloud the testimony somewhat by asking if Matthews could see how many people were in the RX7 or the Blazer, or whether he had seen the gun or identified the shooter. Matthews said that he could not make out details like that in the dark. The DA clarified things by asking the witness if he could see the actual bullets fired. The witness was excused. That pretty much took up the day.
The DA really put a hell of a lot in front of us. The thing I need to do most is maintain objectivity in the face of all this damning evidence before it is presented as actual fact. (What the hell did I mean by that?) It's snake-man's job to do just that, just as the two or three doughboys at the other end of the table will try to make me see it a completely different way. Well, one day down and (?) to go.
From my courtroom notes on that day:
"Note:
I wish the DA would get his names straight. He constantly confused street names and victim names. This doesn't help us keep track."
To Be Continued...
Back in synch now...
Now the DA talks about the circumstances of the night of July 27, '89. A fellow named (Rodney) Stokes, in a red Blazer, is traveling westbound on 580 near the Harrison Street exit. A white RX7 pulls up close to him and Stokes sees a gun held in somebody's hand extending from the car. He
tries to outrun the RX7 unsuccessfully, then he slams on the brakes just as a shot is fired into the Blazer's lower-right windshield. The driver (extends his arm from the car) turns and pumps two more shots into the grill of the truck, then speeds away. Stokes recovers, unhurt, and follows the RX7 with his lights off. He sees the RX7 approaching a white Honda Prelude in the same manner he was approached. He begins flashing his lights and honking his horn to distract the (shooter) driver or warn the other motorist, but three shots are fired into the Prelude, one of which passes through the skull of the driver, killing him.
The car crashes into the center divider then caroms across the freeway, crashing into the bridge support of the 35th Street overpass. The RX7 has exited at 35th, crossed over the freeway, then down the entrance ramp on the other side to the halfway point, where a man gets out to view the damage. Stokes stops at the accident scene, seeing that he can't help the driver and noticing the suspect watching the action from the other side of the freeway. He gets into the truck and drives down the High Street exit to Walgreen's, where he calls 911. He then drives the opposite way up the freeway (off ramp) back to the Prelude. He sees people gathering at the car, sees people on the overpass, sees the suspect's car still on the ramp with a police car parked right behind it!A watch commander, out on routine patrol on 35th Ave has gotten the call from dispatch about the shooting. As he turns down the ramp to get on the freeway to double back, he sees Stevens sitting in the RX7, watching the action. The officer gets out of the car with gun drawn and orders Stevens to get out of the car with his hands up. Stevens does this, turns around once completely, then begins slowly stepping backwards. The cop yells at him to stand still and Stevens makes a break for it, trying to hoist himself over a concrete retaining wall. The officer (Smith?) pulls him down, is struck by Stevens, and the officer hears the sound of a gun clattering to the ground. He manhandles Stevens to the ground away from the gun and cuffs him just as Stokes comes running up, shouting that Stevens "..is the guy the guy who shot at me and the other guy!"
Ballistics ties the weapon to the other killings and shootings by the tool marks (on the brass) and the hexagonal striations common to the Desert Eagle. Clark admits, according to the DA, to killing Noyers with the Desert Eagle. The DA wants us to convict Stevens of special circumstances, lying in wait for his victims, a consideration that would bring the death penalty.
Both defense counsel declined opening statements, deferring until their defense arguments began.
With that, the first witness for the prosecution took the stand. His name was Matthews, and he witnessed the incident between Stokes and the RX7 from about 30-40 yards away. He testified that he saw flashes of light and heard reports as if the car was backfiring. He said that it never entered his mind that he might be witnessing a shooting. The RX7 had moved close to the Blazer, and after the flashes the two vehicles swerved around each other, with the RX7 accelerating quickly away. The Blazer pulled over, turned off its lights, then sped after the RX7. Mr. Matthews lost sight of both of them, then came upon the Prelude crashed on the side of the road, with the Blazer stopped and (Stokes) trying to render aid. Matthews drove to a gas station, where the phone did not work. He went back to Walgreen's where Stokes was already on the phone. Matthews went home, calling the Homicide Department later, after hearing about the shooting.
The defense attorney for Stevens seemed to try to cloud the testimony somewhat by asking if Matthews could see how many people were in the RX7 or the Blazer, or whether he had seen the gun or identified the shooter. Matthews said that he could not make out details like that in the dark. The DA clarified things by asking the witness if he could see the actual bullets fired. The witness was excused. That pretty much took up the day.
The DA really put a hell of a lot in front of us. The thing I need to do most is maintain objectivity in the face of all this damning evidence before it is presented as actual fact. (What the hell did I mean by that?) It's snake-man's job to do just that, just as the two or three doughboys at the other end of the table will try to make me see it a completely different way. Well, one day down and (?) to go.
From my courtroom notes on that day:
"Note:
I wish the DA would get his names straight. He constantly confused street names and victim names. This doesn't help us keep track."
To Be Continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)