Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Mudd Says Sequestering Of Jury Possible: Van Dam case has jurors facing more Mad-Dawgging!!
Union Trib ^ | July 30, 3002 | Alex Roth

Posted on 07/30/2002 7:13:26 AM PDT by FresnoDA

Judge says sequestering of jury possible

By Alex Roth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

July 30, 2002

Judge William D. Mudd chastises the media and threatens to cut off video and still-photo coverage David Westerfield's murder trial Thursday, July 25, 2002, in San Diego. Mudd said the problem was due to a security breech when an unnamed person followed some jurors to their vehicles and wrote down license numbers. Westerfield is accused of the kidnapping and murder of seven-year old Danielle van Dam. (AP Photo/Dan Trevan,POOL)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.


TOPICS: Local News
KEYWORDS: 180frank; danielle; kidnapping; molestation; threadjackals; vandam; westerfield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900901-920921-940 ... 1,021-1,023 next last
To: mommya
Sorry to be so out of the loop on this, but who seemed most anxious to have the jury told this; Dusek or Feldman? Will it be told right before deliberations?
901 posted on 07/30/2002 8:32:53 PM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 898 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
Oh I agree, I think she said that to get in the action. Hard to dispute LePage on the timeline since she had receipts. So why bother, unless he wanted to discredit her about the Dirty Dancing? Anyhoo, it flopped!
902 posted on 07/30/2002 8:36:25 PM PDT by gigi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 899 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the SDPD may in their early surveillance be in fact the ticket to setting DW free?

I'll bet Pfingst is watching the tube and consuming large quantities of alcohol right about now.

"Note to self: update and spell-check C.V. in the am."

903 posted on 07/30/2002 8:36:26 PM PDT by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 873 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis; All
I think my suspicion about the dog handler was off target. This is what I remember but it doesn't fit.

Q: BEFORE THIS CASE YOU'VE NEVER TESTIFIED IN COURT, HAVE YOU?
A: NOT BEFORE THE MOTION HEARING.
Q: YOU'VE NEVER QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS, HAVE YOU?
A: I HAVE NOT TESTIFIED AS -- IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL.
Q: YOU'VE NEVER QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT, HAVE YOU?
A: NOT THAT I RECALL.
Q: YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER YOU HAVE OR NOT?
A: WELL, IN MY PREVIOUS BUSINESS I WAS -- I HAVE TESTIFIED IN COURT. I BELIEVE I WAS TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME ABOUT.
Q: NO. I'M ASKING ABOUT DOGS.
A: I'VE NOT TESTIFIED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS REGARDING DOGS.

904 posted on 07/30/2002 8:42:52 PM PDT by Karson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
I think the judge was saying that he was ready to strike the testimony of a proven lier, but which one? The felon stuff seemed to be seperate.
905 posted on 07/30/2002 8:45:49 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
I think the judge was saying that he was ready to strike the testimony of a proven lier, but which one? The felon stuff seemed to be seperate.

Oh great.......we have to come up with two names????

906 posted on 07/30/2002 8:47:35 PM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
Could Neal be the proven lier??? That would help the defense quite a bit.
907 posted on 07/30/2002 8:47:41 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Brenda????
908 posted on 07/30/2002 8:48:30 PM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 907 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
That would be a block buster all right. If so, it would have to do with a past relationship with DW???
909 posted on 07/30/2002 8:50:36 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 908 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
Or, Damon ....... he went out that night and failed to mention it???
910 posted on 07/30/2002 8:51:28 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 908 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
I think I remember a discussion about Brenda's testimony being impeached a couple of weeks back......
911 posted on 07/30/2002 8:52:29 PM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 909 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
The sad truth is that we saw any number of proven liars. I guess it depends on what qualifies as "proven" in the court's eyes.
912 posted on 07/30/2002 8:54:19 PM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 907 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Maybe the speculation about activity in the back seat of DW SUV in the parking lot at DAD's is not that out of line....?
913 posted on 07/30/2002 8:54:54 PM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 909 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis; All
On another forum, it is thought to be Patrica LePage. hmmm
914 posted on 07/30/2002 8:55:51 PM PDT by Karson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 912 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
What was the speculation?
915 posted on 07/30/2002 8:56:08 PM PDT by gigi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 913 | View Replies]

To: Karson
What did she lie to and why would she lie?
916 posted on 07/30/2002 8:56:40 PM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 914 | View Replies]

To: Karson
Or maybe it was River trying to prove that Patricia LePage was lying. I dunno .. it's late and I'm brain dead.
917 posted on 07/30/2002 8:58:19 PM PDT by Karson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 914 | View Replies]

To: gigi
That the Brenda used the back seat of DW vehicle when she serviced some one in the parking lot....Therefore, her orange threads all over his car.
918 posted on 07/30/2002 8:58:24 PM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: Karson
Rich Brady, Keith Stone and some others on both sides are self employed. It's making me crazy trying to figure out who it is.

Do you REALLY want to know?

919 posted on 07/30/2002 8:58:57 PM PDT by alexandria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 870 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
I would think that the particular testimony would have to be material (important?) to the case.
920 posted on 07/30/2002 8:59:05 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900901-920921-940 ... 1,021-1,023 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson