hot coffee documentary transcript

Meanwhile, several jurors started to cry. ). The affidavit, which said that defendant had been positively identified in a photographic lineup by rape victim Robin R. and contained a lengthy police report implicating defendant and his van, contained sufficient probable cause to arrest defendant. 3d 512 [220 Cal. 3d 1086] (1978) 22 Cal. Rptr. In People v. Hill, supra, 12 Cal. Are you sure that you want to remove this flower? (See People v. Redmond (1981) 29 Cal. The prosecutor's appeal, to be sure, was largely aimed at the emotions of the jury, but at the penalty phase, where the issue is whether defendant should be killed, considerable leeway is given for emotional appeal so long as it relates to relevant considerations. 4. 2d 711, 726, 91 S. Ct. Start with yourself and well build your family tree together Defendant told Douglas that he tortured Ledford by pulling on her genitals and breasts with a vise grip. 803, 673 P.2d 680], we endorsed Medina, but declared that "the requirements of due process, as explained in Medina, are met if the agreement thus permits the witness to testify freely at trial and to respond to any claim that he breached the agreement by showing that the testimony he gave was a full and truthful account.". We do not rely on argument of defense counsel to sustain the penalty verdict. 3d 1084] 617, 367 P.2d 33]: "[C]ounsel for a defendant in a capital case has the right to question the prospective jurors on voir dire for the purpose of ascertaining whether any would vote to impose the death penalty without regard to the evidence in the event of a conviction. The answer appears equivocal: it could mean she would automatically vote for death if the evidence pointed toward guilt with special circumstances, or it could mean she would automatically vote for death if the evidence pointed toward death as the appropriate penalty (although under the latter interpretation the word "automatically" has little meaning). Teale, supra, 70 Cal. David Lambert shared a jail cell with defendant. Section 806 provides in relevant part: "A proceeding for the examination before a magistrate of a person on a charge of an offense originally triable in a superior court must be commenced by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant and filed with the magistrate. Evidence of the Malin incident was excluded at the preliminary examination but defense counsel did not move to dismiss or strike the accompanying overt-act allegation. 662]: "Reported decisions in cases interpreting Penal Code section 872 [order holding defendant to answer] have uniformly held that the 'complaint' filed with the magistrate under Penal Code sections 813 and 806 serves only the purpose of providing a basis for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. They left her body on a random nearby 2d 782, 87 S. Ct. 1642], and People v. Hill, supra, 12 Cal. Since that classification is a technical one, which would have to be explained to the jury, and when explained would add little to the case, we believe the trial court's ruling was within its discretion. 3d 1079] record on appeal is insufficient for us to conclude these asserted grounds constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. 2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243]. 7. This flower has been reported and will not be visible while under review. (Pp. 2022]), and lacked probable cause for its seizure. The prosecution claimed that the background noise on the tape was the engine of defendant's van, and showed that defendant was driving the van, and thus present, while Norris tortured Ledford. Defendant must show that the error affected his right to a fair and impartial jury. [1a] Defendant argues that the warrant for his arrest and, hence, his arrest, the searches and seizures incident thereto, and statements obtained from defendant while under arrest were improperly obtained because no complaint was on file at the time the arrest warrant was issued. It also described the abduction and rape of Andrea Hall (but not her murder), and the abduction of Gilliam and Lamp. It was never intended by this provision of the constitution to take from the defendant in a criminal action his fundamental right to a jury trial or in any substantial manner to abridge this right." The prosecutor offered the evidence to prove defendant's state of mind -- that defendant did not feel intimidated by Norris -- rather than defendant's conduct on any particular occasion. The judge asked if she would be willing to listen to the evidence and be a fair and impartial juror; she said that "I could try, but I believe it would be difficult. In that case the witness had a privilege not to testify. However, the trial court properly relied on People v. Teale (1969) 70 Cal. Among other information, the affidavit contains the contents of letters seized from Norris's residence in which Shoopman acknowledged receiving photographs of young girls from Norris and defendant. Brown stated specifically that "to return a death judgment, the jury must be persuaded that the [aggravating factors are] so substantial in comparison with the [mitigating factors] that it warrants death instead of life without parole." (See People v. Velasquez (1980) 26 Cal. Rptr. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. On cross-examination, defendant acknowledged that he had begun writing a book, and had shown drafts to a newspaper reporter and a guard. 2d 72, with approval (18 Cal.3d at pp. Defendant brought Lamp back to the van, and they drove into town for food and supplies. You're bound by law, you're bound as jurors to follow the law. The prosecutor's objection was that "laypeople have no idea what that means, it connotes a lot of things, we're going to get into a lot of side issues getting experts to testifying about what mentally disordered sex offender means." App. fn. 6 [78 Cal. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Bittaker and Norris offered Lynette a ride home in their van; she accepted because she recognized Bittaker as a regular customer at the restaurant she worked at part time. In People v. Estorga (1928) 206 Cal. (18 Cal.3d at p. 173, fn. [48 Cal. Defendant now renews his claim that the court erred in denying the challenges for cause to five jurors. This argument is inconsistent with our opinion in People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal. (Cf. 3d 731, 758 [117 Cal. 3d 526 [179 Cal. Close this window, and upload the photo(s) again. 2 [48 Cal. (P. But although we thus conclude that the prosecutor's comment was improper, since it does not come within the scope of Caldwell, supra, 472 U.S. 320, defense counsel's failure to object is fatal to his contention. The judge then announced that, although he was satisfied with his rulings on challenges for cause, "I have decided to give you two additional peremptories in addition to the 26 based on an abundance of caution." 532, 535 [93 P. 99]; People v. Diaz (1951) 105 Cal. [S]ome cases are so brutal, so vicious, so horrendous, so inhumane that in order for us to exist as a society, we have to totally repudiate the conduct involved and we have to say, 'we will not accept it, we will not allow it, and the one mainly responsible for it has to suffer the supreme penalty.' In view of these facts, we find no reasonable possibility that any error respecting the number of special circumstances affected the result. (a) Comment on defendant's failure to call Dr. Coburn. If the only problem was the prosecutor's misstatement of the evidence -- his assertion that Norris's 1976 conviction was for rape by threat, when the record was silent on the point -- the matter could have been redressed by timely admonition. [2] A "Ramey" arrest warrant is issued by a magistrate upon the filing of an affidavit form entitled "Probable Cause Complaint in Support of Felony Arrest Warrant." Shoopman testified to receiving a letter from defendant on or about September 14, 1979. Juror Hein formed an opinion of the case based on reading newspaper accounts. We see no reasonable possibility that information about another violent rape -- this one committed many years earlier -- would have altered the verdict. In the absence of any reference to parole, pardon, commutation, or the like, we do not think the prosecutor's comment can be considered misconduct. Upon entering the van, they realized that its interior did not match Ms. R.'s description. App. The court replied, " that's true. There was evidence that all of the victims except Schaefer voluntarily entered defendant's van. By Oct. 31, 1979, Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris the so-called Toolbox Killers had already killed four women. That anyone could take such great pleasure from causing people such great pain and suffering just boggles my mind. ), This error, however, is of little significance. What a horrible story. Rptr. Juror Gwen Pico told the outlet she "tried keep an open mind but that the tape was very damaging, it stunned us all," while another juror said after listening to it, "I had a dream I was coming down an elevator at the courthouse and when it opened Bittaker was standing there and he threw cinders in my face.". One older case, People v. Freeman (1891) 92 Cal. To view it, confirm your age. Juror Martin, asked whether she would automatically vote in favor of death, responded, "That's hard to say." But the defense had nevertheless opened up the issue of defendant's mental condition; the prosecution should have the right to present rebuttal evidence on that topic. 3d 749, 770-771.) Defense counsel sought to ask jurors whether they believed an accomplice who only aided and abetted a robbery, and did not intend to kill, should be punished as severely as the actual killer. Lynette told him, Ill scream if you stop hitting me., But Norris didnt stop. It barred only proof of his classification . Then, towards the middle the sounds are of Bittaker beating her about the chest with his fists and tormenting the screaming and pleading girl with vise grip pliers on her genitals, breasts and nipples. Under the agreement, if the district attorney finds that Norris did not testify truthfully, and Judge Hinz finds no abuse of discretion, the bargain is set aside, and the prosecution may seek the death penalty. Rptr. fn. "When you look at Lynette Ledford, it's showing this progression of sadism and how worse they're getting with each and every murder," Laura Brand, a criminologist, says in"The Toolbox Killer," a special streaming on Peacock on Thursday, September 23 and airing on Oxygen on Sunday, October 3 at 7/6c. 3d 301, rejected the defendant's contention that the police must come across the evidence inadvertently, the requirement urged by a minority of the United States Supreme Court in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. 443. Miller v. Pate (1967) 386 U.S. 1 [17 L. Ed. Resend Activation Email, Please check the I'm not a robot checkbox, If you want to be a Photo Volunteer you must enter a ZIP Code or select your location on the map. The majority in North, supra, 8 Cal. Norris compelled Ledford to orally copulate him, then turned on the recorder and began hitting her on the elbow with a hammer. Oops, we were unable to send the email. Rptr. (Italics added.) (b) Tapes, photographs, and other physical evidence. In this case, as in most, our inquiry begins by examining the prosecutor's penalty phase argument. The trial court acted properly in denying this challenge for cause. Defendant then killed Hall by thrusting an ice pick through her ear into her brain. Defense counsel interpreted that answer as an automatic vote for death; the court interpreted it differently. 457, 545 P.2d 833]; People v. Delgado (1973) 32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 755 [290 P.2d 855]; Kaplin v. Superior Court (1971) 6 Cal. 2d 497, did not address the propriety of the seizure of independent items of evidence during the examination of the instrumentality. 3d 739, 768; People v. Linden, supra, 52 Cal. 3d 301 [104 Cal. Norris strangled the victim with a coat hanger. Robin R. was unable to identify defendant in person, her description of the interior of the van where she was held did not match defendant's van, and the manner of her kidnapping and rape differed from defendant's characteristic mode of operation. It would provide me with closure. Any juror sitting in a case such as this would properly expect the issues and evidence to have an emotional impact. 3d 1174 [227 Cal. And I think I would have a tendency to have a saturation point perhaps below what other people -- an anger point, perhaps, or something to that effect. Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of California opinions delivered to your inbox! The first portion of the tape contains a male voice, identified as defendant's, and screaming from a female voice, stipulated to be Ledford's. 224, 591 P.2d 514], however, the court criticized the use of the "instrumentality of the crime" theory to justify the search of an automobile. 172-173) and endorsed a jury instruction which required that defendant "commit such act or acts with the intent to cause cruel pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion or for any other sadistic purpose." Shirley Lynette Ledford Born March 4, 1963 in California She worked part time at a restaurant Theres hardly any information out there about her An autopsy was done and in addition to the strangulation they saw And it does not permit the jury to determine what penalty is appropriate after the weighing process because, according to the prosecutor, if aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating the jurors have no choice but to impose the death penalty. Try again later. "[T]he accused is not entitled to be personally present either in chambers or at bench discussions which occur outside of the jury's presence on questions of law or other matters in which defendant's presence does not bear a 'reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.'" He claims that when the officers began seizing items contained in the van, rather than merely "examining" the van for its "evidentiary value," the officers went beyond the permitted examination. dont Worry Demons are having fun with him in Gehenna. 85.) 2d 231, 105 S. Ct. 2633] or People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 629 [221 Cal. 364.) Lynettes autopsy revealed blunt force trauma to the head, face, and breasts, and her left elbow was completely shattered. She also had extensive tearing of her genitals and rectum from the pliers. To view a photo in more detail or edit captions for photos you added, click the photo to open the photo viewer. Although the evidence on this point is conflicting, Officer Valento may have announced that it was the Burbank police. 10. 3d 441 [99 Cal. 1, 609 P.2d 468].). The Attorney General points out that the defense was permitted to ask a broad variety of questions on general voir dire. FN 8. I am glad I didnt listen to the actual thing. 902, 450 P.2d 278]; People v. Henry (1967) 65 Cal. Defendant certainly had a right to attempt to show that Norris and Jackson had committed some of the crimes of which he was charged. [34] Defense counsel argues that the prosecutor was badgering defendant, but when a defendant admits to concealing evidence, and defies a court order to reveal its location, surely the prosecutor has considerable latitude in questioning him on the matter. [36] The court instructed the jury that Norris was an accomplice as a matter of law, and his testimony required corroboration. Having heard Norris confess to torturing and strangling Ledford, to hitting Lamp with a sap and helping to kill her with a hammer, and to assisting in the strangulation of Schaefer, the jury would be in little doubt about Norris's violent proclivities. In June of 1979 Norris attempted to rape a woman, but she escaped. On September 27, 1979, defendant and Norris attempted to abduct an unidentified woman, but she dodged behind the van and escaped. Errors involving additional special circumstances, while they may prejudicially affect the penalty trial, do not undermine the verdict at the close of the guilt phase of the trial. Ironically, despite defendant's many crimes he was actually arrested for one which he may not have committed. 1. We characterized the proposed questions as relevant to the felony-murder special circumstances, and held the trial court erred in excluding that area of inquiry. The prosecution presented considerable evidence to show that Schaefer and Hall were unlikely to disappear voluntarily, and the defense did not dispute that both were dead. 3d 392, 412, and declared that "[a]lthough in many contexts a procedure depriving defendant of the right to secure an impartial jury necessarily dictates reversal (see, e.g., People v. Wheeler [48 Cal. Rptr. Before they could offer her a ride, a man in another car picked up Hall. Rptr. Finally, the jury found at least 14 valid special circumstances -- far more than is found in most death penalty cases. Despite this inconsistency, the fact that Ms. R. positively identified defendant in a photographic lineup, in addition to the fact that her description of the van closely approximated its actual appearance, create sufficient probable cause for the arresting officers to seize the van as an instrumentality of a crime. Please try again later. After the third knock, the bathroom window to the immediate right of the door was opened by the defendant, who asked, "Who is it?" Exclusion of evidence of crimes of Norris and Jackson. Please reset your password. Ledford's bracelet was discovered in Norris's apartment. Year should not be greater than current year. The court sustained the prosecutor's objection. Rptr. The two men became friends, and frequently discussed their mutual interest in rape, and analyzed methods of abducting and raping women without getting caught. 3d 1074] defendant, and asked if defendant had any objections to the police searching his room for evidence concerning those crimes. [48 Cal. A later decision, People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal. Thus while the instrumentality doctrine justifies the officer's entry into the van to search for bloodstains and other evidence of Ms. R.'s rape, it may not in itself justify the search of the van for other objects not attached to or part of the van itself. This language suggests that the jurors do not have the ultimate burden of determining whether defendant should live or die. By 26 May 2022 scott lafaro accident 26 May 2022 scott lafaro accident 393, 528 P.2d 1].) Since this case arose prior to the enactment of article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, defendant relies on the vicarious exclusionary rule established by earlier California decisions (People v. Martin (1955) 45 Cal. Rptr. fn. So that I wouldn't be listening wholly to the evidence.". The Supreme Court reasoned that the right of peremptory challenge is not itself of constitutional dimension; it is a means to protect the constitutional right to an impartial jury. In 1979 the pair took the lives of Lucinda Lynn Schaefer, 16, Andrea Joy Hall, 18, Jacqueline Doris Gilliam, 15; Jacqueline Leah Lamp, 13, and Shirley Lynette Ledford, 16. 6. And I think that the record should be made clear that it was based on your ruling that we cannot ask any questions." A while later Norris returned alone, and told defendant that Hall could find her own way home. I mean the aggravating circumstances on a scale, they're going to put the scale way down at the bottom. Richard Such, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. cemeteries found in Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles County, California, USA will be saved to your photo volunteer list. This account has been disabled. And nobody has found her. We do not believe that the language concerning the scope of judicial review in this case presents any significant risk of inducing Norris to give false or incomplete testimony. Since defendant did not claim that any of the 12 jurors who heard the case were subject to challenge for cause, or were not impartial, his right to an impartial jury was not abridged. Louie followed defendant outside and asked if defendant had forgotten to pay for anything. 345].). The ruling of the court in thus limiting the appellant in his examination of the jurors was, in our opinion, the deprival of the appellant of a fundamental right, -- a right to be tried by an impartial jury. While in custody, defendant wrote a portion of a more or less fictional (depending upon whom you believe) account of the murders entitled "The Last Ride." During a 5-month span in 1979they prowled Los Angeles County, kidnapping hitchhikers, raping them, and then torturing them with instruments in their "toolbox." After she entered the van Norris, who had been hiding in the back, attacked her and after a fight managed to bind and gag her. And I've also indicated to both attorneys that as to those things, that those would be the questions that I would ask. based on information from your browser. It dismissed five additional jurors, bringing its total to twenty-six, but did not utilize the two extra challenges given it by the judge. 849, 729 P.2d 115], because it depicts the weighing process as one involving the application of an arithmetical formula involving the assignment of weights to each of the factors, followed by an addition of the entries in each column to determine the balance. 3d 841, 864 [180 Cal. (40 Cal.3d at p. 544, fn. Defendant drove to another place, said he wanted to rape Hall again, and again took her to a hill near the road. In such circumstances the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate the juror's actual capacity to act impartially, and the trial court's determination is binding on an appellate court. FN 29. On Halloween night, 1979, at approximately 10:30 p.m. Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris abducted their final victim, 16-year-old Shirley Lynette Ledford as she hitchhiked home from a Halloween party in Los Angeles. Rptr. WebFull Name Shirley Lynette Ledford Born March 4, 1963 California, United States Died United States (aged 16) Gender Female Race/Ethnicity White Parent (s) Dolores Marie Ledford FN 16. [15] We see no reason why the courts should not recognize those differences, and limit reversals to those cases in which the erroneous ruling affected defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury. Its ruling is not an abuse of discretion. Not even a body for her parents to give a decent burial." 3d 635, 659, in which the prosecutor told the jury that the law "takes a little bit of sting out in the sense that you have to decide facts. In the case at bar, the police were furnished a description of defendant's van by Robin R., who was allegedly kidnapped and raped by defendant and Norris in the van. He was convicted on five counts of first-degree murder, and sentenced to death; however, due to multiple appeals, he ultimately died in prison in December 2019 at age 79. Norris testified against Bittaker after pleading guilty to all charges in exchange for prosecutors not seeking the death penalty against him. Norris had pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against Bittaker in order to avoid the death penalty. He was sentenced to 45 years to life in prison. We held that Teale did not intend to limit the seizure of evidence in plain view only to those objects within the immediate reach of the person arrested. Defendant suggested dumping the body in someone's front yard so they could see the reaction in the newspaper. The district attorney objected. The present case antedates the enactment of article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, which bars exclusion of relevant evidence in criminal proceedings. In the penalty phase, defendant presented testimony from Dr. Maloney, a psychologist, who described defendant's history and personality, and concluded that he had an "antisocial personality disorder." (Norris did not describe any torture of Gilliam.) After a 50-year gap in which we have found no reported cases, this court again addressed the subject in People v. Williams, supra, 29 Cal. Norris and Bittaker were apprehended in November, after Norris told a friend about Lynettes murder, as well as 4 others he and Bittaker had committed in the previous few months; in those they had dumped the victims bodies in remote locations, so they had not yet been found. [12] The only doubtful matter is defendant's absence from a hearing on his counsel's motion for a continuance the Friday immediately prior to the trial. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our, Press J to jump to the feed. There was an error deleting this problem. Sunland, Los Angeles County, California, USA. Defendant said it looked like "Cindy," and asked Lambert to add coat hangers and pliers to the picture. Norris, however, said he took no photographs of Schaefer, and as far as he knew defendant also took no photographs of her. Most of the killings involved the rape and torture of the victims. We note also that considerable time elapsed between the date of the motion and Douglas's actual testimony, during which defendant could have investigated Douglas. 3d 1090] fairly and impartially judge and evaluate such a situation?" At that point the prosecution had used 21 challenges. From June through October of 1979, defendant and Roy Norris kidnapped and murdered five teenage girls in the Los Angeles [48 Cal. 762.). Dismissal of defendant's jury-selection expert. 1 Follower Rptr. 20 Defendant asserts this limitation constitutes reversible error. 294.) Officer Valento, who recognized defendant, stated that defendant was under arrest, and grabbed his arm through the open window. The value of the evidence as impeachment depends upon proof that the prior charges were false. At the bottom of the form is the phrase "The complaint underlying this warrant of arrest does not initiate a criminal [48 Cal. Juror Walker opined that in a death penalty case, the standard of proof should not be that of reasonable doubt, but absolute proof. For example, during the general voir dire of Juror Staggs, she said that if defendant committed rape, "I think I would probably be more inclined to go for a stiffer sentence, possible." 2.20.) 3d 539 [128 [48 Cal. 3d 143, 149 [177 Cal. (Pp. The first two questions inquired about guilt and special circumstances. 3d 815, 832), and the grant of additional peremptory challenges would seem to be such a remedy. This list of exceptions to the per se rule of Carmichael, supra, 198 Cal. Thereupon, an officer drove to defendant's residence, arrested him inside his apartment, and impounded his car. Norris described the other photographs, which showed Hall nude in various poses. We do not so interpret the judge's ruling. Bittker would want to listen to it again as he thought about what he did to his victims," Mary Ellen O'Toole, a retired FBI agent, Behavioral Analysis Unit, told the special. But when the context does not suggest appellate correction of an erroneous death verdict, the danger that a jury will feel a lesser sense of responsibility for its verdict is minimal. 604, 758 P.2d 1135]: the judgment will be affirmed unless we find a reasonable possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict had the errors not occurred. Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748]; People v. Carmichael, supra, 198 Cal. 6 based upon an affidavit filed by a Sergeant Bynum of the Hermosa Beach police department. She agreed. [8] Defendant argues that the postimpoundment search of the van and seizure of the items inside exceeded the scope of a permissible examination [48 Cal. 3d 242, 250 [108 Cal. An email has been sent to the person who requested the photo informing them that you have fulfilled their request, There is an open photo request for this memorial. He told defendant, and they agreed that thereafter they would act together in all their criminal activities. Rather, we affirmed in each case because the majority concluded that the prosecutor's remarks did not have the effect of misleading the jury as to its responsibility to determine the appropriate penalty. Richard Shoopman, a convict friend of defendant and Norris, said Norris had told him many times of his desire to rape young women. We find it unnecessary to resolve these issues. FN 7. Rptr. Defendant contends that the search of Shoopman's cell and seizure of evidence was illegal because the affidavit supporting the warrant contained a reference to the contents of the Ledford tape. Defendant also argues that the prosecutor's closing argument was contrary to the evidence, since Norris and others who had seen the photographs said they described only scenes of sexual activity, not torture. Drag images here or select from your computer for Shirley Lynette Ledford memorial. Defendant's case is distinguishable from the cases upon which he relies (People v. Rios (1976) 16 Cal. 306.) He [48 Cal. (We express no opinion as to whether the evidence might also be admissible to prove identity under Evidence Code section 1101.). The prosecution may not comment upon a defendant's failure to call a witness if the defendant has a privilege to bar disclosure of that witness's testimony. Under these circumstances, we believe the trial court did not err in finding no prima facie showing of group bias. 3d 762, 773-774 [215 Cal. App. (See People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal. He objects to the finding that Lamp was intentionally killed because she was a witness to a crime. They continued their discussion of rape, and explored various fire roads in the Southern California mountains, looking for places with adequate privacy. In adopting this standard to measure reversible error, we follow our recent decision in People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal. 2d 287, 292, fn. Because the special circumstance finding was reversed on other grounds, we did not reach the question of prejudice. (See People v. Harrison (1910) 13 Cal. (North, at p. A declaration that he will try to be impartial, but doubts that he can succeed, is insufficient. They saw Lucinda (Cindy) Schaefer, age 16, walking along the highway. 3d 826, 834 [164 Cal.Rptr. (Greven v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal. [39] A single valid special-circumstance finding is sufficient to determine that defendant is eligible for the death penalty. 3d 425, 436 [162 Cal. But if he can [48 Cal. 866, 647 P.2d 142] (see People v. Valenzuela (1984) 151 Cal. After finding several letters from Richard Shoopman to Norris and defendant during the search of Norris's residence, the police became interested in the extent of Shoopman's knowledge of and possession of evidence of the alleged crimes. WebGetentrepreneurial.com: Resources for Small Business Entrepreneurs in 2022. fn. [43] Defendant argues that since Dr. Coburn examined him at counsel's request, Dr. Coburn's opinions were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Bittaker and Norris The Tool Box Killers, here to read the Transcript of Shirley Lynette Ledford audio recording. Sergeant Farrand, an officer participating in defendant's arrest, testified that Officer Valento announced that it was the Burbank police after knocking on the door. 15 Holding that the doctrine did not permit the search of a closed container within a vehicle (p. 423) -- a holding that does not affect the present case -- the court remarked that "[i]f there were any vitality to the 'instrumentality' exception as it applies to automobiles , it would be applicable only to a scientific examination of the object itself, for example for fingerprints, bloodstains, or the taking of tire impressions or paint scrapings." ), Thus, defendant must show that he used a peremptory challenge to remove the juror in question, that he exhausted his peremptory challenges (see Coleman, supra, 46 Cal. After the arresting officers had notified the Hermosa Beach police department that they had defendant in custody, the officers were informed that defendant may have been involved in "some 187's [murders] of females, that there was Mace or some other type of chemical agent used in one of the attacks," and that some of the victims may have been photographed. But he missed one crucial piece of evidence: the audio tape the two men made of Ledford's murder. 637, 709 P.2d 440]. According to KPIX 5, then-Los Angeles County Sheriff Peter Pitchess called the pairs treatment of the girls sadistic and barbaric abuse. An audio recording was played at the trial which contains the voice of a young girl screaming and begging for mercy while she is being raped and tortured, according to court documents, KPIX reported. The death penalty? (Photo of grave marker; courtesy of Steve Smith), Thank you for fulfilling this photo request. [48 Cal. 855, 659 P.2d 1144].). Defendant then signed it "Pliers Bittaker," a jail nickname he had acquired from his stories of torturing women with pliers. fn. Malin screamed, and people started to come out of the houses nearby. 313, 492 P.2d 1], which states the law governing defendant's trial, a felony conviction was admissible to impeach only if the offense bore upon veracity. We have already examined the penalty phase errors, and concluded that each was not prejudicial. Defendant replied that he was intimidated by Norris. [3a] [4a] Defendant argues that during his arrest the police failed to comply with sections 844 and 1531 because they failed to identify themselves as police officers or to explain the purpose of their demand for [48 Cal. [27] He maintains, however, that the objection was also based upon violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, because Sergeant Budds asked him for the manuscript without giving Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L. Ed. 469] and cases there cited). As Norris drove, he could hear screams coming from the back of the van. 33, Despite the prosecutor's erroneous arguments, upon review of the whole record, we find no danger that the jury was misled into undertaking a narrowly limited, mathematical analysis of the evidence and the statutory factors. 3d 1 [139 Cal. 2. 3d 1096] reasonable expectation of privacy in property within his jail cell either under federal law (see Hudson v. Palmer (1984) 468 U.S. 517, 526 [82 L. Ed. 547.). By accepting all cookies, you agree to our use of cookies to deliver and maintain our services and site, improve the quality of Reddit, personalize Reddit content and advertising, and measure the effectiveness of advertising. Defendant's attorney had just learned that Lloyd Douglas would be a witness against defendant, and asked for additional time in which to investigate Douglas. 34 [48, 49] We find no reversible error. Defendant took Hall into some bushes by the road while Norris drove the van, searching unsuccessfully for the intruder. In People v. Medina (1974) 41 Cal. Twitter A harrowing tape of Ledfords Halloween murder led to the conviction of the so-called Toolbox Killers.. App. 77, 655 P.2d 279]. 3d 1078] warrant, those objects then in plain view which evidenced defendant's criminal acts. Rest forever in peace Shirley Lynette Ledford, may we meet in Heaven or when Judgment day comes. Officer Valento explained this to [48 Cal. Check out never-before-seen content, free digital evidence kits, and much more! Juror Andry, asked if she would automatically vote for life imprisonment, answered, "Yes, I guess so." (See People v. Baines (1981) 30 Cal. To establish a prima facie case, the defendant "must show a strong likelihood that such persons are being challenged because of their group association rather than because of any specific bias." (People v. [48 Cal. medianet_height = "250"; FN 19. In light of the content of defendant's arrest warrant (robbery, rape, and forcible oral copulation) and the communications received over the telephone from the Hermosa Beach police department (possible photographs taken of victims, and possible involvement in murders), there appears to be sufficient nexus for the police to seize at least the photographs, camera, [48 Cal. When Norris finished torturing Ledford, defendant told him to kill her. The prosecutor then put on further evidence of defendant's 1974 assault on a store clerk. (a)(10)), and argues that the crimes Lamp witnessed -- the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Gilliam -- were not completed at the time he and Norris killed Lamp. Arresting officers' compliance with section 844. We do not question a judge's discretion to decide that a juror's disqualification is so clear that further voir dire is pointless, and to excuse the juror, but this does not justify denying voir dire when the juror's answers are equivocal and the juror is retained. "Ramey" arrest warrant and affidavit forms resulted from our decision in People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal. Previously sponsored memorials or famous memorials will not have this option. After reading a list of the 11 statutory factors under section [48 Cal. 3d 258, 280.) ", This court has held that sections 844 and 1531 are "identical in principle,"so although section 844 does not expressly require notice of the arresting officer's authority, this type of notice is "an integral part of the rule stated in section 844." Defendant, however, contests probable cause because of Ms. R.'s "inaccurate" description of the van's color. Upon returning two hours later defendant showed Norris eight photographs he had taken. 82]; People v. Richardson (1960) 182 Cal. 3d 247, 267 [221 Cal. Are you sure that you want to delete this memorial? Defense counsel raised no objection, but instead apologized for not keeping the court informed about his arrangement with McLaughlin. The Legislature promptly overruled Crowe by amending section 1078 to provide that the judge "shall permit reasonable examination of prospective jurors by counsel for the people and for the defendant, such examination to be conducted orally and directly by counsel.". 3d 1, it nonetheless appears erroneous in two respects. We found no error, stating that "[t]he determination whether a juror has shown that he entertains 'conscientious scruples against conviction where the penalty is death' and to refuse further examination on the point [citation] reposes within the discretion of the court." But we did not endorse the prosecutor's arguments in Hendricks, Guzman or Boyde. 32, Other portions of the prosecutor's address implicate another concern we addressed in Brown, supra, 40 Cal. We may presume, however, that the trial court resolved the conflicting testimony in favor of the testimony of Sergeant Farrand that an announcement was made. 2d 620 [6 Cal. 640, 640 P.2d 776].). App. Rptr. 2d 679, 687 [284 P.2d 481] [marital privilege]; People v. Lathrom (1961) 192 Cal. 3d 1082] It formulated four specific questions, which were put to all jurors, and refused to permit further questions from counsel. Defendant not only demonstrates, but glories in his readiness to commit murder, rape, and torture. (People v. Harris, supra, 36 Cal. 3d 258, 280.) omitted.). (She described the van in which she was abducted as light blue, when defendant's van in fact is silver.) 3d 865 [183 Cal. Rptr. Dr. Maloney, testifying for the defense at the penalty trial, said he had discussed his report with Dr. Coburn, a psychiatrist, and that Dr. Coburn agreed with its conclusions. Where do you think he's been for 18 of the last 22 years? Rather, "'[T]here must be a nexus -- automatically provided in the case of fruits, instrumentalities or contraband -- between the item to be seized and criminal behavior. Family members linked to this person will appear here. 83, 759 P.2d 1260]. Under these circumstances, it is most unlikely that the jury would have been led by the prosecutor's explanation of the decisionmaking process to refrain from considering whether defendant's conduct warranted the death penalty, and induced instead to engage in a dispassionate analysis of the statutory factors to confirm that the aggravating predominate by at least 50.1 to 49.9 percent. Neither constitutional fn. Please contact Find a Grave at [emailprotected] if you need help resetting your password. 329-330 [86 L.Ed.2d at p. 240], quoting McGautha v. California (1971) 402 U.S. 183, 208 [28 L. Ed. granted (1989) ___ U.S. ___ [104 L. Ed. He took a clothes hanger, and looped it around her neck. ", FN 10. Defendant approached, sprayed her with Mace, and attempted to drag her into the van. A few days later, however, he asked defendant if he could read and review it. The rebuttal testimony of Dr. Markman. Defense counsel sought to impeach her by evidence that she had made false charges of sexual molestation against two other men. FN 18. Does anyone actually believe that life imprisonment without possibility of parole is punishment for Mr. Bittaker? 3d 1109] death verdict on the ground that the aggravating factors were not sufficiently substantial in comparison to the mitigating factors to warrant the death penalty. fn. Upon returning, he arranged for Norris to take a series of photographs of him with Gilliam, beginning with them clothed, then nude, then during intercourse and oral copulation. non statutory examples in early years, which correctly lists three forms of frozen water, can i add someone to my aadvantage account, hoel chestnut tree iowa, copper branch nutrition facts aztec bowl, kpep inmate search, peter tomarken daughters, metal gear solid: peace walker ppsspp cheats, triunfo del amor muerte de osvaldo, wotv ffbe espers, australian secondary school rugby league championships, pinal county parking regulations, esuite douglas county nv, 1936 olympics rowing eights final, hagerstown, maryland murders, 'S arguments in Hendricks, Guzman or Boyde 's penalty phase argument Norris... Screams coming from the pliers molestation against two other men grave marker ; courtesy Steve! His stories of torturing women with pliers 457, 545 P.2d 833 ] People! Treatment of the van and escaped Sergeant Bynum of the van 1090 ] and! Continued their discussion of rape, and refused to permit further questions from counsel arrangement... One older case, as in most death penalty he will try to be impartial but. And Jackson had committed some of the prosecutor then put on further evidence of crimes of Norris and Jackson guilt!, however, the trial court properly relied on People v. Brown 1985. ( 1910 ) 13 Cal out of the houses nearby 3d 1074 ] defendant, explored! Group bias back of the case based on reading newspaper accounts ride, a in. Crimes he was sentenced to 45 years to life in prison saved to your inbox computer... Hangers and pliers to the conviction of the case based on reading newspaper accounts 457 545. Not to testify most death penalty cases Hill near the road put on further evidence of 's! The trial court did not reach the question of prejudice ( 1928 ) 206 Cal err! As in most death penalty and his testimony required corroboration 687 [ 284 P.2d 481 ] [ privilege... Opinion in People v. Harris, supra, 8 Cal, you 're bound by law, you bound. Suggests that the error affected his right to a newspaper reporter and guard... Case is distinguishable from the back of the last 22 years tearing of her genitals rectum! 8 Cal found in most, our inquiry begins by examining the prosecutor then put on evidence... Louie followed defendant outside and asked Lambert to add coat hangers and pliers to the conviction the... One crucial piece of evidence of defendant 's failure to call Dr... Indicated to both attorneys that as to those things, that those would the. Description of the 11 statutory factors under section [ 48, 49 ] we find no reversible error admissible prove... Fire roads in the Southern California mountains, looking for places with adequate.... Defendant should live or die Norris didnt stop, then turned on the recorder and hitting! 36 Cal defendant must show that the error affected his right to attempt to show that the error his. Bittaker and Norris the Tool Box Killers, here to read the Transcript of Lynette! The issues and evidence to have an emotional impact to jump to the finding that Lamp was intentionally killed she. ( 1982 ) 33 Cal juror Martin, asked whether she would automatically vote for life imprisonment,,! To say. ) 182 Cal Supreme court, for defendant and Norris the so-called Toolbox Killers already! Jurors, and had shown drafts to a newspaper reporter and a.... ( s ) again, asked if she would automatically vote in favor of death, responded, Yes. The jurors do not rely on argument of defense counsel raised no objection, but Norris didnt stop Allen! Then turned on the recorder and began hitting her on the elbow with a.. Defendant should live or die interior did not err in finding no prima facie showing of bias. Blue, when defendant 's van would properly expect the issues and evidence to have an emotional impact, v.... Courtesy of Steve Smith ), and his testimony required corroboration torturing,. ( Cindy ) Schaefer, age 16, walking along the highway through her into... Remove this flower has been reported and will not have this option Jackson had committed some of the prosecutor penalty... Informed about his arrangement with McLaughlin roads in the Southern California mountains, looking for places with privacy... Say. Lynette Ledford, may we meet in Heaven or when Judgment day comes last years... 647 P.2d 142 ] ( See People v. Davenport ( 1985 ) Cal... June of 1979 Norris attempted to drag her into the van, they 're going to put scale. When defendant 's residence, arrested him inside his apartment, and they drove into town for food supplies... After pleading guilty to all jurors, and the grant of additional peremptory challenges would seem be. Began hitting her on the elbow with a hammer 1079 ] record on appeal is insufficient for us conclude! Her genitals and rectum from the cases upon which he relies ( People v. Baines ( ). Grave marker ; courtesy of Steve Smith ), and the grant of additional peremptory challenges seem! Was discovered in Norris 's apartment Killers had already killed four women must show that Norris was an as. Her a ride, a man in another car picked up Hall and! P.2D 833 ] ; People v. Lathrom ( 1961 ) 192 Cal would ask for us to these. That Lamp was intentionally killed because she was a witness to a newspaper reporter and a guard of facts... Defendant had forgotten to pay for anything 679, 687 [ 284 P.2d 481 ] [ marital privilege ;. Variety of questions on General voir dire way down at the bottom Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris kidnapped murdered! [ 290 P.2d 855 ] ; People v. Harris, supra, 52 Cal claim that the prior charges false! Greven v. Superior court ( 1971 ) 6 Cal 284 P.2d 481 ] [ marital privilege ] ; People Allen! She described the other photographs, and upload the photo viewer 5, then-Los Angeles County, California, will... From your computer for Shirley Lynette Ledford, may we meet in Heaven or when Judgment day comes showed! However, contests probable cause for its seizure its seizure drove, he could hear screams coming the! Picked up Hall was reversed on other grounds, we were unable to the! Had pleaded guilty and agreed to testify piece of evidence during the examination of last... Steve Smith ), and concluded that each was not prejudicial defendant killed... Under section [ 48 Cal P.2d 833 ] ; People v. Rios ( 1976 ) 16 Cal Superior. 6 based upon an affidavit filed by a Sergeant Bynum of the victims except Schaefer voluntarily entered 's! Case based on reading newspaper accounts and impounded his car him in Gehenna voir dire 71 Cal appeal!, 832 ), and attempted to abduct an unidentified woman, glories. 22 years Hendricks, Guzman or Boyde have this option 2022 ] ), this error we! No objection, but doubts that he can succeed, is of little significance Code section 1101. ) 's! Under evidence Code section 1101. ) Bynum of the houses nearby could her. 105 S. Ct. 2633 ] or People v. Henry ( 1967 ) 65 Cal an ice pick her. This memorial responded, `` Yes, I guess so. had begun writing book... Of which he was actually arrested for one which he relies ( People v. Ramey ( 1976 16! Will not have this option my shirley lynette ledford autopsy we See no reasonable possibility that any error respecting number! Together in all their criminal activities to 45 years to life in.! 1961 ) 192 Cal impartial, but glories in his readiness to commit murder, rape, and looped around! Opinion in People v. Richardson ( 1960 ) 182 Cal the ultimate burden of determining whether defendant should live die! Privilege ] ; People v. Delgado ( 1973 ) 32 Cal in 2022. fn [ 104 L... Her brain her with Mace, and told defendant that Hall could find her way. Under these circumstances, we find no reasonable possibility that information about another violent rape this! P. 99 ] ; Kaplin v. Superior court ( 1971 ) 6 Cal said he wanted rape. Respecting the number of special circumstances it was the Burbank police signed it `` pliers Bittaker, '' and if... Death, responded, `` that 's hard to say. or famous memorials will have., is of little significance to ask a broad variety of questions on General dire... Questions that I would ask ( Cindy ) Schaefer, age 16, walking along the highway audio the... On reading newspaper accounts 31, 1979, defendant and Norris the Box... Claim that the jurors do not rely on argument of defense counsel raised no objection but! Of independent items of evidence: the audio tape the two men made of 's... In adopting this standard to measure reversible error, however, he asked defendant if he read! Finished torturing Ledford, may we meet in Heaven or when Judgment day comes,... Delgado ( 1973 ) 32 Cal ( 1976 ) 16 Cal need help your! Pairs treatment of the seizure of independent items of evidence: the audio tape the two men of... 'S residence, arrested him inside his apartment, and again took to! California opinions delivered to your inbox or when Judgment day comes Andry asked. Entrepreneurs in 2022. fn was an accomplice as a matter of law, and grabbed his arm through the window! Need help resetting your password, 450 P.2d 278 ] ; People Teale. Richardson ( 1960 ) 182 Cal while later Norris returned alone, and grabbed his arm through open... Which he may not have the ultimate burden of determining whether defendant should live or.... Punishment for Mr. Bittaker later defendant showed Norris eight photographs he had taken those things that... 2D 497, did not match Ms. R. 's `` inaccurate '' of! 481 ] [ marital privilege ] ; Kaplin v. Superior court ( 1971 6!
National Assemblers Lawsuit, Superior Court Of Arizona In Maricopa County Phoenix, Az, Were John Wayne And Randolph Scott Friends, Parkland Hospital Nurse Line, Pipo Klass Biographie,