Arguing that media coverage was creating a "lynch mob mentality" that could pressure jurors to return a guilty verdict, the defense attorney for David Westerfield today asked the judge yet again to sequester the jury. Posted on 08/16/2002 6:39:20 AM PDT by FresnoDA
August 15, 2002
Arguing that media coverage was creating a "lynch mob mentality" that could pressure jurors to return a guilty verdict, the defense attorney for David Westerfield today asked the judge yet again to sequester the jury.
While the jury completed its first week of deliberations without a verdict, Superior Court Judge William Mudd denied the request and a related motion to "pull the plug" on television and radio coverage of the courtroom proceedings, but agreed to set aside a private room for jurors to take breaks. Defense attorney Steven Feldman had argued that reports suggested jurors felt like they were under siege, unable to leave their deliberating room, go to lunch or walk home without being watched or followed.
"We have no assurance that they are not be intimidated ... by the presence of the media," Feldman told Mudd during a morning hearing. "We can think of only one fair resolution to that: Get the jury out of harm's way."
Westerfield, 50, could face the death penalty if convicted of kidnapping 7-year-old Danielle van Dam from her family's Sabre Springs home on Feb. 2 and killing her. Jurors are in their sixth day of deliberations.
Lead prosecutor Jeff Dusek disagreed with Feldman's interpretations of the jury's complaints.
"Whether or not any guilty verdict in this case would be based on a siege mentality or the meida I think is pure speculation and utterly false in this case," Dusek said.
What the jurors had complained about was being watched all the time, he said.
"That hardly equates to being under siege," he said.
Media coverage has diminished since the jurors began deliberating, the judge said.
"The synopsis programs on the two local TV networks are not in place," he said. "The talking heads are doing nothing but speculating about what the jury may or may not be thinking."
Mudd said there were no signs that jurors were being harassed by the public, especially since their names and faces haven't been publicized.
"We've all sat here and picked this jury, know their makeup and know their dedication to this cause," Mudd said. "I would prefer to think that any verdict they make in this case would be based upon the evidence."
Sequestering the jury also wouldn't protect them from any public reaction to the verdict, Mudd said.
Mudd took aim at two radio program hosts from Los Angeles who he previously described as "idiots."
"I suppose it's entertainment out of LA. I hope it stays in LA," he said. "The shows those two gentlemen put on made the court incredulous as to what they were attempting to do."
Mudd also announced:
On July 9, Shen's testimony interrupted presentation of defense witnesses. Shen, a San Diego police criminalist, testified about re-examining a group of fibers she had collected from Westerfield's 4Runner in February.
The orange acrylic fibers, found in various places inside the SUV, were the same color and fabric as a fiber tangled in a plastic necklace that Danielle was wearing when authorities found her body in a hollow off Dehesa Road, Shen testified at the time.
All the fibers looked identical under a microscope and appeared to have the same chemical makeup when tested using infrared technology, she said.
Shen said the fibers seem "most likely to have come from something that was very loosely knit," such as a sweater or blanket.
"You folks are going to deal with my PR person. You're going to leave my bailiff and my clerk alone," Mudd told reporters in the courtroom. "One statement leads to 60 questions that they're not going to answer and neither am I."
Mudd decided to turn the daily updates over to the court's public information officer after deciding that an informal system set up to have a bailiff or court clerk provide updates had failed.
"There was a simple note that they started at 9, they left at 4 left you chomping on bit to get copies," He said. "You're welcome to them, they'll be available as soon as we gett the minute order."
Reporters and members of the public will not be informed immediately about notes passed by the jury, Mudd said. The judge said he had procedure to follow, that includes notifying the attorneys involved in the case about the note and determining the appropriate response.
"This is a capital case and you go by steps," Mudd said.
Has anyone else noticed that at some times fatima's posts use very simple sentence structure and contain many errors (which she blames on limited English) and at other times she is very coherent? I wonder who she actually is.
Then we have someone come onto the post and essentially tell us we are stupid, and that we should have to prove that Westerfield is guilty. I guess these type of posters have forgotten they live in the US. The burden to prove guilt is on the prosecutions head. It is not the burden of the accused to prove innocence.
So a hint to some of these type of posters would be to go thru past threads. Most of us who believe this case is weak at best, have laid out over and over the inconsistencies. And even though many of us feel that Westerfield is probably innocent, we have more than proven the reasonable doubt in this case.
You posted this earlier on this thread at #279:
And the "rape video" is animation which the US Supreme Court has ruled is not a crime.
On what do you base this assertion?
Why does Feldman argue in his closing that the rape videos are of real girls? Why does he tell the jury that the females in the videos are not under eighteen and therefore not illegal? Why would age enter into his argument if the videos were "only" animation?
From Feldman's closing argument:
THE SAME WITH THE MPEGS, FRANKLY. I'M SORRY, MY SLANG. THE RAPE VIDEOS THAT YOU ALL, ALL OF US HAD THE EXPERIENCE WITH. IF THOSE FEMALES ARE OVER 18, THERE'S NO CRIME. END OF DISCUSSION. GROSS, OKAY. DISGUSTING, OKAY. INAPPROPRIATE, OKAY. ENOUGH TO SHOCK YOU, OKAY. ENOUGH TO BIAS YOU, DEFINITELY. ENOUGH TO PREJUDICE YOU AGAINST MR. WESTERFIELD, ABSOLUTELY. THE PLAN. BUT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER BIAS, PASSION OR PITY OR PREJUDICE. OBJECTIVELY, THOSE PICTURES DON'T DEPICT FEMALES UNDER THE AGE OF 18. PERIOD. LOOK. AND I'M NOT ENCOURAGING TO LOOK FOR ANY PURINE INTEREST OR ANY INTEREST. THAT'S BAD ENOUGH. BUT WHAT THEY DID WAS TAKE TWO OR THREE VIDEOS OUT OF THOUSANDS AND CLAIM THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF MR. WESTERFIELD.
-SNIP-
WAIT A MINUTE. IN THE THOUSANDS OF DOWNLOADS WE FOUND A VIDEO OR TWO OR FIVE OR TEN THAT MAYBE PROVE THE POINT. SO BY THAT LOGIC, ANY OF US WHO MAY POSSESS ANYTHING LIKE THAT ARE GOING TO GO OUT AND KILL CHILDREN. RIGHT? ISN'T THAT THE LOGIC?
-End Excerpt-
Also note, it is not "rape video" singular, it is "rape videos" plural. Two or five or ten per Mr. Feldman.
But these same people have NO problem with the Van Dam's having living pornography in their garage's on the weekend.
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.