Posted on 08/13/2002 10:12:33 PM PDT by FresnoDA
SIGNONSANDIEGO STAFF
and WIRE SERVICES
August 13, 2002
The fourth day of deliberations in the David Westerfield trial has ended with no conclusion by the jury. The jury will resume deliberations Wednesday morning at the San Diego County Courthouse. Earleir today, jurors asked to hear Westerfield's only recorded explanation of what he was doing the weekend 7-year-old Danielle van Dam was kidnapped.
Superior Court Judge William Mudd said he was granting a request from the jury for a tape recording and transcript of the taped interview Westerfield gave to police interrogation specialist Paul Redden on Feb. 4, two days after Danielle's disappearance.
During the interview, Westerfield makes a reference to "we" as he describes his meandering trip through San Diego and Imperial counties on Feb. 2 and Feb. 3.
"The little place we, we were at was just a little small turnoff-type place," Westerfield said.
Westerfield, 50, could face the death penalty if convicted of murder, kidnapping and a special circumstance allegation that the killing of Danielle van Dam occurred during the commission of kidnapping.
He is also accused of the misdemeanor possession of child pornography.
Jurors are in their fourth day of deliberations.
Mudd's disclosure came during a 10 a.m. open hearing on a request from KFMB-AM 760 to let River Stillwood, an assistant radio producer for talk show host Rick Roberts, back into the courtroom to cover the trial.
"She's out and will remain out and will not be permitted in for any live proceedings... because she is the representative of an individual who takes great glee and delight shoving it in this court's face," Mudd said.
Mudd ejected Stillwood from the courtroom on Thursday after asking her to tell him who told Roberts about the details of a Wednesday exchange between Mudd and the attorneys in the case during a sealed hearing.
Stillwood told Mudd that she didn't know who gave Roberts the information. On the air, Roberts later said he had received a call from a source in the courthouse.
The court is conducting an internal investigation, but cannot compel Roberts and Stillwood to name their source, Mudd said.
Stillwood can still sit in the pressroom and watch the video feed of any court activity, Mudd said.
KFMB was welcome to send someone else to sit in the courtroom, so long as the person was representing the radio station and not Roberts, he said.
KFMB's attorney Joann Rezzo argued that the disclosure did not violate the defendant's right to a fair trial. She also argued that Stillwood didn't give him "the source of the leak" because she didn't know who it was.
Before Mudd made his ruling, he invited comments from prosecutor Jeff Dusek, who managed only a wry remark.
"My inclination is to comment, but on advice of counsel, I I will submit," Dusek said, gesturing to his fellow prosecutor, Woody Clarke.
Defense attorney Robert Boyce told Mudd he was concerned about the integrity of proceedings. "They broadcast it, they knew what they were doing," Boyce said.
He called it "just another effort to sensationalize these proceedings."
Mudd told the media attorneys he welcomed the opportunity to make a "full and complete record" of his decision to eject Stillwood.
In his comments, Mudd made it clear he was still angry with KFMB television's decision to include a high school yearbook photo of Neal Westerfield during a telecast of the son of the defendant's testimony. Mudd had ordered that no television or print images of the adult, who is now 19, be transmitted.
The judge's inclination was to ban both the station's radio and TV representatives from the trial.
"Frankly, they seem to be the two networks in this community that just don't seem to get it," he said.
However, after his wife advised him to "sleep in it, " he gave the matter "serious thought," Mudd said.
He quoted a line from a Supreme Court decision in 1976 involving a press restraint issue in Nebraska.
" The extraordinary protections afforded by the First Amendment carry with them something in the nature of a fiduciary duty to exercise the protected rights responsibly--a duty widely acknowledged but not always observed by editors and publishers," Mudd said. "It is not asking too much to suggest that those who exercise First Amendment rights in newspapers or broadcasting enterprises direct some effort to protect the rights of an accused to a fair trial by unbiased jurors. "
Mudd said he was troubled by the host's decision to broadcast the information, knowing it was from a closed hearing.
The judge wasn't impressed by the host's justification that the general public was already aware of the issue, and that Stillwood was ignorant of the source.
He said the host wasn't conducting a search for the truth, but a grab for ratings. He also took the opportunity to lash out at "idiots from LA talk stations," who broadcast an afternoon program from a media compound outside the County courthouse. He said the members of the talk station were "acting like teen-agers" in front of the courthouse.
The judge acknowledged he could not control such behavior but could control his own courtroom.
The judge said officials from KFMB must be taking "great glee in shoving it in this court's face."
Fred D'Ambrosi, news director for KFMB-TV and Radio, said his television station showed only a high school yearbook photo of Westerfield's son.
"We didn't shoot him in court, which was the judge's order," D'Ambrosi said.
Regarding River Stillwood, D'Ambrosi said the issue was important because of the First Amendment and a free press. He added that he was not in charge of the Rick Roberts program.
"We're just trying to report the news and uphold the First Amendment," D'Ambrosi said. "If (Mudd) can ban River Stillwood, he can ban anybody." The news director suggested that the judge was angry because he didn't like the story that was reported.
D'Ambrosi said he had never spoken to Mudd, and called his reading of the situation "totally inaccurate."
Mudd said he had done a 180-degree turnaround on the issue of allowing cameras and reporters in the courtroom since deciding to allow Court TV to cover the trial live.
Radio Free Republic this week
Why do conservatives eat their own.
If I have time I intend to call in and use these Westerfield threads as my basis. I have never seen such horrible treatment of other long time members and activists of this great forum.
I also believe this is why your threads have been put into chat. Whenever someone new comes along and gives their opinion they are branded.
I am just glad I didnt waste over 6 months on one issue that in all reality is not going to change a damn thing when that verdict comes in.
Again for the record I believe DW is innocent and that the Van Dams ( both parents) while reckless are not responsible for the actual death of their child.
Also, hairs similar to the van Dams' family dog were found in Westerfield's house, his motor home and on a comforter he dropped off at a dry cleaner, criminalist Tanya DuLaney said.
DuLaney, who works in the San Diego Police Department crime lab, testified on a day when prosecutors used charts and blow-up photos in an attempt to show that traces of the 7-year-old girl were scattered throughout Westerfield's domain
You know, I'm sure that it's just a coincidence, but if the hairs were not Danielle's, and the fiber were not a match, and the dog hairs were not Layla's, these people might not be found guilty for perjury or falsifying evidence, because of the way it is phrased.
Kim, I can't tell you how happy I am to see you back(because I am trying to be polite after my last ranting post).
But all the defense lawyers do not want their client to testify and advise against it.
But I agree, he should have testified.
Worth repeating. This time in the congress-critters font:
Why won't cyncooper post here anymore?
Actually, in this particular quote, it doesn't even mean that. It just means blonde.
I can pick any given day any Westerfield thread and see it happen.
Sadly it appears to be happening on these threads the most.
How many got banned for posting on these threads ect?
There is debating in a logical manner and then what I have seen here. It is akin to the Rivero threads from the past.
Today for example, many of you had a chance to ask CBB questions in order to better understand his claim yet how many insulting posts were left to him but no other then the authorities who claimed they never heard of him before.
Are some of you grouping on FR just for Van Dam case?
Looking for a solution to the problem means I am castigating others?
Interesting argument.
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.