Oct. 5
CALIFORNIA:
Witness describes threats against racer Thompson
In Pasadena, a former business partner of auto racing legend Mickey
Thompson threatened to have him "wasted" not long before Thompson and his
wife were killed outside their home in 1988, a prosecution witness
testified Monday.
Gregory Keay, a cousin of Michael Frank Goodwin, told a judge that
Goodwin, who's charged with double murder, appeared riled when he
discussed Thompson and their soured business relationship at a family
gathering in late 1987 or early 1988.
Goodwin said that "before Mickey Thompson gets all his money, (Goodwin)
would have him wasted," Keay said.
The testimony came on the 1st day of Goodwin's preliminary hearing, after
which the judge will decide whether there is enough evidence to order
Goodwin to stand trial.
Goodwin, who was 1st arrested in 2001, has pleaded not guilty to two
counts of murder with the special circumstances of multiple murder and
lying in wait. The district attorney's office has not decided whether to
seek the death penalty.
Thompson, who was inducted into the Motorsports Hall of Fame of America in
1990, set hundreds of speed and endurance records. He was the 1st person
to travel more than 400 mph on land, and built and drove racing's 1st
slingshot dragster.
He and his wife, Trudy, were leaving for work in March 1988 when they were
shot by 2 men in the gated San Gabriel Valley community of Bradbury.
The gunmen, who fled on bicycles, were never caught.
Goodwin, 59, split with Thompson in 1985 after legal disputes left Goodwin
bankrupt.
**********************
Prosecutors Try to Show Peterson As Liar
In the weeks before he was arrested, Scott Peterson bought a car using his
mother's name and lied about why his hair had turned from brown to blonde,
according to testimony at his double-murder trial.
Prosecutors preparing to wrap up their case against Peterson are again
trying to portray the former fertilizer salesman as a liar who might have
been preparing to flee.
Michael Griffin took the stand Monday to testify about how he sold
Peterson a used Mercedes in April 2003, shortly before Peterson's arrest.
He said Peterson purchased the car under his mother's name -- Jacqueline
Peterson.
"When I saw the name Jacqueline, I said, 'Are you buying this for your
wife?' And he said, 'No, that's my name,'" Griffin testified. "I said,
'Are you French?' He said, 'No, it's kind of a 'Boy Named Sue' type of
thing ... I go by Jack.'"
Peterson was arrested April 18 in the San Diego area in the Mercedes.
Defense lawyers have suggested Peterson was attempting to elude media
scrutiny, but prosecutors claim he was trying to dodge police and might
have been preparing to flee.
Longtime Peterson friend Mike Richardson also testified, saying that
Peterson had bleached blond hair and a goatee in April 2003.
Richardson said Peterson told him the chlorine in a friend's pool had
bleached his hair. But the friend, Aaron Fritz, testified Peterson had
never been in his pool.
Prosecutors allege Peterson killed his eight-months pregnant wife, Laci,
in their Modesto home on or around Dec. 24, 2002, then dumped her body
into the bay. Her badly decomposed remains -- and that of her fetus --
washed up in April 2003, not far from the marina where Peterson launched
his boat that Christmas Eve morning for what he said was a solo fishing
trip.
Defense lawyers maintain someone else abducted and killed Laci, then
framed their client after learning of his widely publicized alibi.
An expert on tides and currents testified Monday that the bodies of Laci
Peterson and her fetus may have been dumped into San Francisco Bay near
the spot where her husband claims to have gone fishing the day of her
disappearance.
Ralph Cheng, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, said that
based on wind and tidal information, the fetus' body -- whether still
inside the mother or not -- was put in the bay between Brooks Island and
the Berkeley Marina.
Cheng cautioned that that was the "highest probability" location.
"Can you predict with any certainty within inches or feet where these
bodies would have started from?" asked prosecutor Dave Harris.
"No, I'm afraid not," Cheng replied.
He also acknowledged that he could not reproduce the trajectory for Laci
Peterson's body, only a possible path for the fetus. Cheng said the fetus'
path was easier to determine because it was lighter and unencumbered.
He did not elaborate. But prosecutors believe that the fetus was expelled
after the mother's death while her body lay weighted to the bay floor with
concrete anchors.
On cross-examination, defense attorney Mark Geragos attacked Cheng's
findings as "assumptions."
"Most scientific information is based on assumptions," Cheng said.
Geragos also got Cheng to acknowledge that this was the 1st study he had
ever done involving San Francisco Bay and objects as big as bodies.
Geragos noted that one of Cheng's own theories for how the bodies could
have washed up apart from each other is that they were placed into the bay
separately, supporting the defense theory that the fetus was born alive
after Laci disappeared. Such a theory, they say, proves Peterson could not
be the killer, given Laci's Feb. 10 expected due date.
(source for both: Associated Press)
VIRGINIA:
Sniper Case Unsettles Usual Police Procedure
The police teletype was a routine one, sent from one county to another
asking that a prisoner be held. That simple action led to the dismissal of
a case that was anything but routine.
A Fairfax County homicide detective sent the teletype Jan. 6 to the Prince
William County jail, requesting that recently convicted sniper John Allen
Muhammad be detained. Virginia police and prosecutors have long thought
that a detainer serves merely as a request for a phone call -- "Let us
know when you're ready to release him" is how many prosecutors
characterize it -- and not as an arrest.
Wrong, a Fairfax judge said Friday. A detainer is equivalent to an arrest
when it is sent from one Virginia county to another and starts the state's
5-month speedy trial clock for jailed defendants. For Muhammad, it meant
the dismissal of his capital murder case in Fairfax in the Oct. 14, 2002,
slaying of Linda Franklin.
The ruling by Fairfax Circuit Judge M. Langhorne Keith wasn't catastrophic
for the overall sniper prosecution, because Muhammad has already received
two death sentences in Prince William. He also faces a host of murder
charges in four other jurisdictions for sniper shootings that left 12
people dead in September and October 2002.
But it may make life much harder for Virginia prosecutors in such urban
areas as Northern Virginia, where defendants regularly are accused of
crimes in more than one county. Keith's ruling reinforced a little-noticed
1993 Virginia Court of Appeals decision that said detainers start the
speedy trial clock, and it may force prosecutors to devise new ways of
monitoring defendants who are being held in other counties.
The ruling in the Muhammad case may also inspire legislation in the next
General Assembly session to define detainers more clearly and separate
them from arrests for purposes of the speedy trial law, Prince William
Commonwealth's Attorney Paul B. Ebert said yesterday.
Prosecutors said that Keith's interpretation was new to them. Defense
lawyers said the judge was simply following an 11-year-old precedent, the
now famous Funk v. Commonwealth case from Fauquier County.
"Maybe they've just been getting away with it for years," said Jonathan
Shapiro, one of Muhammad's attorneys. "If they just want a phone call,
then they shouldn't send the papers" for a detainer, he said. Shapiro
acknowledged that he hadn't researched the issue before Muhammad's case,
"but you'd think prosecutors would have."
James E. Plowman, the Loudoun County commonwealth's attorney and a former
assistant prosecutor in Fairfax, said: "When you send a detainer, that
basically says, 'When you're done with 'em, we want 'em.' That happens all
the time."
Plowman added: "There has to be some administrative way to let a
jurisdiction know you've got pending charges without an arrest. Otherwise,
people are going to walk out of jails and it's left to other jurisdictions
to find them again." He said that Keith's dismissal of Muhammad's case
"seemed like he's taken Funk farther than what it actually says." The Funk
case involved an escapee from the Fauquier jail. In January 1991, he was
picked up in Hanover County on unrelated charges. Fauquier immediately
sent a teletype detainer to Hanover. But Fauquier did not put Funk on
trial until late August 1991. The appeals court ruled that the January
teletype constituted arrest authority and that Fauquier could have
retrieved Funk from Hanover at any time. Funk's conviction in Fauquier on
the escape charge was dismissed by the appeals court in 1993 because he
wasn't tried within 5 months.
Muhammad was arrested with Malvo on Oct. 24, 2002, in Maryland. Fairfax
Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. obtained an indictment against
him Nov. 6, 2002. The next day, Muhammad was transferred from Maryland to
Prince William; Malvo was sent to Fairfax.
Fairfax didn't send a detainer to Prince William at that time. Horan said
last week that it was because Muhammad was in the middle of the Prince
William case.
But Spotsylvania County sent a detainer to the Prince William jail in
November 2002, both Horan and jail officials said. If a judge there
accepts Keith's interpretation of the Funk case, the only other Virginia
murder case against Muhammad could also be thrown out.
After Muhammad's conviction in Prince William, Fairfax sent its detainer
for him in January 2004. But Horan, mindful of the speedy trial rule,
specifically instructed Detective Chris Flanagan to call the jail and tell
them not to arrest Muhammad.
"We wanted to make sure they didn't ship him to another state," Horan said
last week.
Jail officials testified last month that they did not arrest Muhammad. And
when he was slated to be transferred to prison after his sentence, Prince
William called Fairfax in March, per the detainer's request. Fairfax
decided not to take Muhammad, and he was sent to death row in Sussex, Va.
A Fairfax detective served him with an arrest warrant in late May, and a
trial date was set for early October.
Too late, Keith ruled. Fairfax could have obtained Muhammad from Prince
William, as neighboring counties often do in lesser cases.
"A detainer says 'Keep him until we come for him,' " said John L.
Costello, a George Mason University criminal law professor and author of a
textbook on criminal procedure. "And if that ain't an arrest, I personally
don't know what is."
Marvin D. Miller, a veteran Alexandria defense lawyer and former head of
the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said Fairfax law
enforcement officials "misunderstood what the rules were. I think they
made a mistake. You can't exempt the rules because this guy's really bad.
It's unusual, but it's real clear."
********************
Va. Out Front In DNA Tests Of Old Cases
Virginia's top forensic scientist was skimming through a convicted
rapist's file trying to confirm that all the evidence in the case had been
destroyed. Almost by accident, he ran across a yellowed old cotton swab
taped to the bottom of a testing chart.
The DNA on that swab led to the exoneration of a Virginia man who had
served 15 years in prison. And the fluke of its discovery set in motion a
chain of events that resulted in Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner's
extraordinary decision last week to reexamine dozens of old criminal cases
to determine whether new technology could exonerate more prisoners.
Warner (D) ordered the state's DNA laboratory to initiate testing in about
40 cases, mostly sexual assaults, after examining about 10 % of cases on
file in state archives from the 1970s and '80s. Experts yesterday called
the move unprecedented.
"This is the 1st time a state has ordered a review of a class of cases
where the inmate has never even requested any DNA testing," said Peter
Neufeld of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
"Other states will be keeping an eye on what Virginia does."
Normally, it is up to inmates to request testing for DNA evidence, a
process that has triggered the exoneration of more than 100 prisoners
across the country in recent years, including at least three in Virginia.
Until recently, Virginia had blocked inmates from seeking DNA testing
unless they made the request within three weeks of their conviction.
Now, in a state that had been known for its strict post-conviction rules,
staff members are poring through as many as 600 boxes of evidence looking
for cases in which the DNA is still testable. The results of those tests
could have far-reaching implications nationwide, regardless of what is
found, lawyers and others said. If they determine that all the inmates are
imprisoned properly, then some people might have more confidence in the
criminal justice system. If the tests find innocent defendants, then
justice would be served, the experts said.
"What this points to is the wonderful ability of DNA evidence to assist
the triers of fact to determine guilt or innocence," said Paul Ferrara,
director of the state's division of forensic science, whose office is in
charge of the testing. "We're as happy to exonerate an innocent person as
we are to identify a serial rapist."
Ferrara said the 40 samples would be chosen from about 150,000 cases by
his staff and sent to a private lab for the testing. Warner should get the
results in 4 to 6 months.
Alexandria Commonwealth's Attorney S. Randolph Sengel said yesterday that
he supports Warner's goal of exonerating the innocent but is worried that
the directive might worsen an already steep backlog of cases awaiting DNA
testing at the state lab.
"I've always supported the idea that if there is a reasonable chance
someone has been wrongfully convicted . . . government has an obligation
to do what it can," Sengel said. "But I would hope that if the state is
going to commit funds to review old cases, they can redouble their efforts
to keep up with current ones."
Defense lawyers have also expressed mixed views over Warner's order, with
some calling it a significant step forward but others urging the state to
go further by testing all of the old cases in which biological samples
exist.
It was Ferrara whose discovery in fall 2001 led to Warner's announcement
last week. Ferrara was in his office in Richmond, scanning the file of
Marvin Lamont Anderson of Hanover County, who had been convicted of rape.
Anderson's attorneys had been seeking old evidence, but the police already
had told them all evidence had been destroyed. They asked again, so
Ferrara pulled the file.
He said that when he came across the yellowed cotton swabs, he thought,
"Well, heck, we could possibly still get some DNA results from this."
It turned out that some technicians in Ferrara's office had been attaching
what are known as "cuttings" -- swabs from their testing -- to their test
notes that were in the state lab's files. It wasn't the lab's policy, and
Ferrara said he had been unaware of it.
But only some technicians had kept the swabs, and even then, the cases
involved were only those between 1973 and 1988. In 1989, the lab became
accredited by a national agency and began enforcing what was supposed to
be its policy of returning all evidence to law enforcement agencies.
Until 2002, when the legislature passed a law requiring that biological
samples be kept for 15 years, most agencies threw out samples after the
appellate process had ended, Ferrara said.
The DNA testing triggered by Ferrara's discovery led to the exonerations
of Anderson; Julius Earl Ruffin of Virginia Beach, who spent 21 years in
prison for a rape he did not commit; and Arthur Lee Whitfield of Norfolk,
who spent 23 years in prison for two rapes he did not commit. The
Whitfield exoneration in particular, Ferrara said, caused the state to
consider wider testing.
The files from 1973 to 1988 are contained in 400 to 600 boxes in the state
library in Richmond. For the past several weeks, three staff members have
been combing through boxes in Ferrara's office seeking cases in which the
evidence was not discarded or degraded. The vast majority of them will be
sexual assault cases, though officials expected to examine some homicide
cases as well.
Ferrara said there are myriad complications, including samples that are
too old to be adequately tested and the amount of time it takes his staff
to pull the samples.
Warner, ultimately, will decide whether the testing is conclusive enough
for clemency or whether additional testing is needed.
(source for both: Washington Post)
*********************
Jury gets death penalty case
Jurors began deliberating Monday evening the fates of 2 men accused in an
Albemarle County ambush killing, after hearing a debate about whether the
defendants should have been charged with federal crimes at all.
In closing arguments, defense attorneys argued that their clients
committed crimes punishable in state court, but indictments handed down in
federal court were unconstitutional. Prosecutors said they have proven
their case against Shawn A. Breeden and Michael A. Carpenter beyond a
reasonable doubt.
"The wrong government brought this case alleging the wrong crimes in the
wrong court," said Carpenters lawyer, J. Lloyd Snook III, in his final
argument to jurors.
Breeden and Carpenter are charged with possession with the intent to
distribute cocaine; crossing state lines with the intent to commit robbery
in furtherance of the drug conspiracy; crossing state lines with the
intent to kill, injure, harass or intimidate the victim, Kevin Lee Hester;
and 3 counts of firearms charges that each carrying the death penalty.
2 other men who were charged in the same 6-count indictment already
pleaded guilty and testified last week for the government. Defense
attorneys have called into question the credibility of Robbie D.
Outterbridge and Kevin T. Cassell, who will not receive the death penalty
and still hope for less than life behind bars in exchange for their
testimony.
If the 10-woman, 2-man jury finds either of the men guilty, the trial will
move into a punishment phase, where jurors will decide whether to
recommend that a death sentence be imposed.
In his closing argument to jurors, Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy J.
Heaphy argued that greed motivated the conspiracy and that all 4 men made
depraved decisions to acquire money.
The prosecutor addressed defense claims that Cassell and Outterbridge are
not to be trusted because of their deal with the government.
"We can't deny there aren't incentives," but physical evidence
corroborates the bulk of their "insider testimony," Heaphy said. A
cigarette butt at the scene of Hester's death containing Breedens DNA,
ballistics evidence, an autopsy report, cell phone records and a stream of
urine and a bag of cocaine found at the crime scene all support testimony
from the men, the prosecutor said.
The government has alleged that Breeden, Carpenter, Outterbridge and
Cassell - each of them drug dealers - traveled from Washington to
Charlottesville the night of Aug. 8, 2002, to rob other drug dealers. The
men robbed at gunpoint a man at an apartment complex and a couple at an
automated teller machine before ambushing Hester, the government alleges.
Hester, who was Breeden's friend, met Breeden at the Meadows at
Mountainwood apartments. There, he was ambushed by Carpenter, armed with a
shotgun, prosecutors have said. Hester was shot in the leg, stabbed 7
times in the neck and chest, and shot in the back of the head with a 9 mm
pistol.
Heaphy walked through each count of the indictment with the jury and
explained why the government has met its burden of proof.
Cassell and Outterbridge had no contact with one another once they were
arrested, Heaphy said, and would not have been able to concoct similar
lies to implicate Breeden and Carpenter.
Lawyer Steven D. Rosenfield, who represents Breeden, said that in the
state court system, the case would be charged as robbery and murder, "but
this is a federal case, and to federalize it, it is not really a murder
case."
"These are state offenses," Rosenfield said. "You ought to acquit on each
of these 6 counts."
Both Snook and Rosenfield attacked the credibility of not only the 2
alleged co-conspirators, but of Shelly Holland, Breeden's ex-girlfriend
who testified that he had planned to rob Hester in Washington after losing
her car payment money in a game of back-alley craps.
Holland was a drug user at the time of Hester's death, Rosenfield said,
and is bitterly angry with Breeden, blaming him for losing the custody of
her children.
The defense also picked apart the government's theory of the killing,
illuminating contradictions in testimony and physical evidence. Contrary
to the government's theory that Carpenter shot Hester in the leg with a
shotgun, Breeden stabbed him in the neck and chest and Outterbridge shot
twice at Hester's head, Rosenfield said testimony from the medical
examiner suggested that Breeden panicked and stabbed Hester only after
Outterbridge shot him in the head.
Snook recalled a portion of Outterbridge's testimony, and a statement
Cassell gave to police within weeks of the killing suggesting that
Carpenter's shotgun discharged only after Hester pushed the barrel
downward. He further argued that Outterbridge crafted his incriminating
statements to authorities a full 9 months after Hester's death and had
opportunity to learn what the other defendants were saying before
providing his version of events.
Snook said the government has tried to show jurors, "Don't hold us to a
higher standard - because its druggies and it's murder and its nasty
business." It's all right, Snook said, to find that the elements in each
count were not proven, but not all right to say "let's go ahead and
convict them" because it was such a brutal crime.
"It might be unpleasant, but it's the law," Snook said.
On rebuttal, Heaphy pointed out that Holland was obviously hesitant to
testify against her ex-boyfriend, Breeden. He said Cassell showed "genuine
emotion, genuine remorse," when he cried on the witness stand describing
Hester's slaying, and that little inconsistencies in his or Outterbridge's
testimony about an incident that took place more than 2 years ago were
part of human nature.
The prosecutor further argued that even if the shotgun discharged on
accident, Carpenter would still be guilty of felony murder, or murder in
the commission of a robbery.
"This was a conspiracy committed by four criminals," Heaphy said. "Don't
think about the 9th Amendment or the 10th Amendment. This isn't a civics
class. Apply the law to these facts and hold these men accountable for
their choices."
(source: Daily Progress)
