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.
DUSEK specifically told the jury they are not allowed to think. They are not to consider each individual piece of evidenc on it's own, then add them up.
They are just to vote, as a unit, GUILTY, because everyone knows DW did it.
I have never heard of him before...but as someone has previously noted, he sounds like a career politician - someone who follows the polls and media to form his conclusions.
You have spinned this to know end....You still deny that someone elses opinion you agreed with.
Now you have resorted to BRAIN FART....keep going...
Coming from little miss innocent, when all reasonable arguments fail "try God", Kim...Queen of the Baiters herself, that is the biggest BAWHAHAHA I've had all day!
Must you always turn something postive into a negative, Kim? I was being most serious. It's obvious that what I posted must be real..look at you, tsk, tsk. Be nice...sw
They left me alone, and found the perp three months later.
Both of you are very productive contributors to this thread. As someone else said, "how did we get off topic?"
Say, Alisa, did you ever go to that link I had on post 371 ?
I never said that the PRIOR POST made me think the congressman was clueless with regard to this case...the congressman's OWN STATEMENTS were sufficient for me to form my own opinion.
Are you James Carville?
Good for you! Sometimes the best way to deal with bullies is to call their bluff! Especially if the bullies carry BADGES, which an astonishing number of bullies seem to do these days.
One of us has irrefutibly demonstrated his ignorance today.
You are the kind of self-destructive fool that I would pitch out of my office on his ear.
I've been called self destructive often enough, but rarely a fool. And I would probably not find myself in your office, unless I needed someone to grandstand and speak falsely on my behalf. Maybe my presence in your office would indicate both foolishness and self-destructive tendencies.
Have you read any of the rest of the thread? The transcripts? If so, then by now you know that your post was both foolish and, since the esteem of intelligent freepers seems to matter to you, self-destructive.
I am not "well-connected
Regarding your candor, filing amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in Gore v. Bush .... not well connected ... hm.
enjoyed your post.
I doubt you enjoyed reading it as much as I have enjoyed posting it. And this one has been even more fun.
I noticed you didn't "refute" -- for lack of a better word -- the parts about the lynch mob @sshole and the facts of the case and all that....
I am not a "crook lawyer."
I actually meant to replace crook with well-connected, but I see that I erred and they both got through. I have no reason to believe that you are a crook, other than the fact that you are a lawyer in the first place.
I will restrain myself, unless challenged.
Even if it is a cloth headboard, there is something solid behind it, which would have caused bruising.
There is bug witness testimony about bugs being drawn to damaged tissue. IF there was bruising on the head, the flies would have been drawn there.
IF the flies were drawn to a damaged tissue on the head, there would be no way they would miss the openings into the skull to infest the brain cavity. Per testimony in the trial, there was little to no fly/larvae infestation in the brain cavity.
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.