The judge in the David Westerfield trial rejected another defense request to sequester the jury but said he still considers it "a possible option." Posted on 07/30/2002 7:13:26 AM PDT by FresnoDA
By Alex Roth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
July 30, 2002
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.
Of course he will to an extent but you don't realize that at this point it doesn't matter. All Dusek needed was an expert that would put the date at 2/2 and say this is the minimum time she was there. From this Desek has the testimony he needs.
It will be in his closing. Count on it.
The defense contends Westerfield could not have dropped the body where it was discovered because he was under intense surveillance by the police beginning Feb. 5.
Whether or not it literally applies to the bug evidence, the jury will be instructed that if two "reasonable" explanations are given, the one that favors the defendant must prevail.
They may choose to apply that principle to the whole sum of entomology expertise, although that isn't eactly what the instruction demands.
All of this testimony is leading up to providing a foundation so that the defense can connect all of the facts and create a picture of what happened.
It will have to based on what took place in the trial. After Goff finished, Dusek is now free to say that not only can the science not predict time of death accurately but based on the readings from Singing Hills the latest date she was dropped there would be 2/2 to 2/12.
That is why the STATE spent the money to fly in GOFF? Isn't it?
He wasn't on the witness list from the beginning. He was only called in at the last minute to counter Haskell's testimony.
Isn't that true ?
test
Yeah John ! What the heck is the matter with you ? <sarcasm>
So, GOFF is going to scientifically state that science cannot predict TOD, but it can predict when the body was dropped off. That Faulkner's science was wrong, but GOFF'S use of it is.
P.S. All of this testimony is leading up to providing a foundation so that the defense can connect all of the facts and create a picture of what happened.
Don't you mean Prosecution instead of Defense?
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.