Judge Mudd Says Sequestering Of Jury Possible: Van Dam case has jurors facing more Mad-Dawgging!!

Judge William D. Mudd chastises the media and threatens to cut off video and still-photo coverage David Westerfield's murder trial Thursday, July 25, 2002, in San Diego. Mudd said the problem was due to a security breech when an unnamed person followed some jurors to their vehicles and wrote down license numbers. Westerfield is accused of the kidnapping and murder of seven-year old Danielle van Dam. (AP Photo/Dan Trevan,POOL)

The judge in the David Westerfield trial rejected another defense request to sequester the jury but said he still considers it "a possible option."

Superior Court Judge William Mudd said he didn't think it was necessary at the moment but has asked the county to prepare "a back-up contingency plan" just in case.

Westerfield's lawyers have asked several times for jury sequestration, and they renewed their request yesterday. Lead defense lawyer Steven Feldman said he worried that the jury might be affected by the publicity in the Samantha Runnion kidnap-murder case in Orange County.

Feldman cited comments made by Samantha's mother about Alejandro Avila, the man charged with kidnapping and killing the 5-year-old girl. In an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Erin Runnion blamed her daughter's death on a jury that acquitted Avila of child molestation charges two years ago.

Feldman said he worried that jurors in the Westerfield case might hear about the interview and feel pressured to convict his client, who is charged with kidnapping and killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam of Sabre Springs.

The judge said he would remind jurors about news coverage they should avoid. He also said he talked to them about sequestration last week after receiving reports that someone in the media followed some of the jurors to their cars and wrote down their license plates.

"They're a hearty group and they didn't appear to be intimidated by what occurred, and I continue to believe in their integrity," the judge said yesterday.

With the trial in recess for a day, lawyers spent yesterday discussing legal instructions to give to the jury before they begin deliberations. It seems likely that testimony will continue into next week.

Prosecutors are expected to finish their rebuttal evidence today, at which point the defense will put on evidence to rebut the prosecution's rebuttal. One possible defense witness probably won't be called until Monday, Feldman told the judge yesterday.

I'm still waiting for that testimonyThis was about the Van Dam boy having to be helped across the street.

I don't believe you will hear the testimony. The reason is that the WITNESS started giving that TESTIMONY,and the Prosecution OBJECTED and got it struck.

So, the NEIGHBOR (in all probability) did have to help the boy, who was unsupervised, but it isn't ON THE RECORD, because the prosecution didn't want it there. The defense tried but was struck down by MUDD.

I SEE THE WRITING ON THE WALL. The Judge, the Prosecutor, Especially the SDPD and the DA have a LOT TO LOSE if DW gets NOT GUILTY. For them to admit that the other recent FEMALE CHILD RAPE/KILLINGS in the same DAMN AREA have anything to do with Danielle would make them look like they JUMPED THE GUN, ARRESTED THE WRONG MAN, and they won't admit that. You can bet you last dollar on it.

IF DW did it, Then FINE. But there is so much reason to believe he didn't. There reasonable explanations for the measly evidence the LE's managed to scrape up.

All of the important evidence that could have Proven DW absolutely DID/DID NOT do it were ignored. They were ignored because they would have proved HE DIDN'T and they ALREADY HAD MADE THE ARREST and TOLD EVERYONE THEY GOT THE KILLER. NOT ALLEDGED KILLER, but THE KILLER.

I Hope, if DW is not guilty of being involved in Danielle's death, that he gets off and SUES THE ASS OFF the SDPD and the DA, AND WINS !

That is how strongly I feel about this case, how strongly I feel that he is being railroaded, and how obvious it is to anyone that takes the time to review all the information ,all the evidence, all the testimony, and come to a conclusion.

Everyone has their own mind, their own point of view and comes to their own conclusion.

NEW info can change your point of view, just like the info about Daneille going to the park unescorted, even though Brenda says SHE WATCHED her.

The testimony about the orange fibers, and the various items worn by LE, searchers, helpers, dog trainer, etc. were interesting.

Two things I noticed were they still did not prove what the source of them was, or whether there was enough of a rarity to prove the ones on Danielle could positively link to the ones in DW's house or MH.

The second thing was that when the person that evaluated the fibers/garments was asked if the ones she had been given to be tested were the same as the ones the dogs were wearing in the pictures, she said "I DON'T KNOW".

Also, only one dog vest was given for testing, and there were two dogs, each in his own orange vest. Perhaps they thought that if they tested one, the other would be moot.

And IIRC, the blue-gray SUV fibers weren't collected until June, after the trial began. How long had they been there, and who had been in there in the interim? Someone or something (like a police jacket) that was common to the Danielle recovery site? Detectives sat in the back of his SUV for hours. Detectives wearing jackets were at every single site where all these fibers were found. It's not inconceivable that an innocent searcher or forensics collector could have carried and shed these fibers.

It's the lack of a SOURCE that invalidates the fiber testimony, in my own personal evaluation of the evidence.

Don't you think that Goff should come to the same conclusions as Haskell?

Wasn't Goff brought in because he and Haskell have been on same cases before and provided counter testimony. I.E. They are known to DISAGREE with each other. I believe it was obvious that GOFF was being brought in specifically to disagree with whatever HASKELL said, no matter what it was. If Haskell says YES, GOFF says NO, kind of thing.

It is possible GOFF's analysis might be more accurate. Why Didn't DUSEK call him in from the beginning? Why did he only beg to do so after the people he USUALLY USES and RELIES ON, didn't give the answer that would benefit the prosecution's case?

DUSEK makes it obvious.

I now call GOFF because he will say everyone else if wrong. It is what he does. That is why I had to go get him.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Judge says sequestering of jury possible