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.
One more time, Freepers, the Jury is most likely tuning into his show on the long commute home. They should have been sequestered.
Bye, Bye Rick...sw
So you take a lot over a little? What about a lie? Is it ok if you just lie a little to the police instead of a lot? Is it alright to leave your daughter alone in a dressing room for just a little while? Is just a little bit of pot ok? What about just a little bit of nooky with a man not your husband/woman not your wife? So, a little circumstantial evidence can convict but a lot of proof that the parents put their daughter and sons at risk is still not upsetting to you? A little bit of porn seems to hit your hissy button so what about that? Will a little bit of porn make you convict? Even though it may not even be proven without a reasonable doubt to belong to the defendant? Will you convict even though there is a lot of doubt? Isn't it really more to the point that you just want the guy convicted because you want to see the parents protected because they do a LOT of swinging? Other than that I cannot see a lot of logic in your thinking. Very little reason.
Uh......um....sure, Minnie. Whatever you say.
I think when it's all over, they will be lucky to have a show at all.
I was wondering why you didn't reply to my earlier posts about the pot..like when I said a video of a child being raped is WORSE than a joint. I was wondering where you were at when I wrote child porn alone is not enough evidence to convict. I wondered what your opinion was when you knew the jurors cried, but not over cartoons. I sure wondered what you thought when you found out the orange fiber defense turned out to be yet another..well NOTHING. I especially wondered what you thought about when you considered susan L's testimony about the closed curtains, the drinking problem and the serious change in personality....and I wondered what your opinion was on when she said he got 'forceful'. I wondered what you thought when she cried..
It is illogical to assume that all the compiled evidence is planted at this point and since neither you nor the defense can explain it all away...well logically, your defense of Dw is weak. I also couldn't wait to her your explanation of why her skin was mummified and I waited anxiously to hear your reaction to the now infamouse mummiologist.
Someone ?????? is having a hard time with self-control. LOL !!!!!!!!
Did your anxiety about Mummy Mouse cause you to pop a LOT of pills? Do you ever entertain doubt that Westerfield may not be guilty? Not even a little? No thinking about that? Not at all? Always so sure of yourself? Aren't you just a little bit bugged about the insect testimony?
And neither you nor the prosecution can explain how DW kidnapped and murdered Danielle...well not logically anyway! :-)
LOL!
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.