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.
Then if there is justice in this world (which there ain't: it comes in the next world) he will be freed.
I do think, however, that the good Congressman, Billy Bob, of whom I have long admired, gave an opinion about this case that was in direct opposition to mine...He made a couple of posts, and left...that's OK.
What is not OK, is for a flame-war to take place when others think the man can't defend himself, at least that is what it looks like, and that in and of itself is laughable!
The man can defend himself, no question about it!
So, everyone...I lost the "jury pool" today...Next!
sw
Wow! Y'all have an auto season to go along with rifle and bow down in Texas???
FRegards,
PrairieDawg (in CO where Archery Elk starts August 31st. I don't know when Oldsmobile Elk season starts :-) ).
Just to set the record straight, us DW sympathizers are properly called "Broccoli Heads".
Because that would have proved that the porn was fake. Or maybe you were sleeping that day in STAT513, when we went over the Minion/Dusek Theorem of 21....
It's simple, really... If Westerfield were truly innocent, some of the evidence against him would have been irrefutable. Since all of the evidence has gaping holes in it, he must be guilty.
Isn't it obvious? Good thing you aren't in SD law enforcement, otherwise the implications of DW's cooperation would have gone unnoticed.
The needle on your record is stuck. You need to go pick up the tone arm and move it slightly.
Your derogatory and ignorant post demonstrates only one thing: You are the kind of self-destructive fool that I would pitch out of my office on his ear. Other than that, really enjoyed your post.
Billybob
In complete honesty and a good 5 years of FR I really can honestly say that some on these threads have exhibited the worst of FR.
I have much more respect for BB then to sum him up on his gut feelings about this case even though they are completely opposite of mine.
Judy
thanks for your reply as well, I agree some have disrupted your threads on this case just as you stated and that is indeed sad. However, when a long time freeper like myself or BB or numerous others comes along who naturally has not went over this case with a fine tooth comb comes along they have been bashed.
I decided to continue to post to make sure my gut feeling was correct. I really can not recall a one of you who has asked me why I believe DW is innocent. Instead I have been called inane, ect...( I also have some freepmails from back in June from one of your regulars because I mistated something.)
In all honesty I can say I have never seen such hatred upon other freepers as seen in these threads.
I agree with you. This was the pond to fish in.
BZZZZZZ...wrong again, I made my own assessment, based upon CBB's post.
BTW, I am not familiar with the "works" of CBB, and to be honest with you, I don't need him to explain the First Amendment to me.
I was judging him/her on their knowledge of THIS case.
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.