Cameron Brown shank case dismissed
Prosecutors dropped a weapon posession charge today for a man jailed while waiting trial in connection to his 4-year-old daughter's Rancho Palos Verdes cliff death.
Cameron Brown, 46, was charged with one felony count of custodial posession of a weapon after a jailer found a razor blade in a book Brown borrowed from the jail library, according to Deputy District Attorney Dennis Lockfield.
Lockfield said the case was dismissed because he did not believe it could be proved that Brown knew about the razor.
Brown is being held without bail as he awaits a retrial for the Nov. 8, 2000, death of his daughter, Lauren Sarene-Key. Authorities believe Brown threw the girl over Inspiration Point to avoid paying child support payments. Brown maintains the girl slipped while throwing rocks over the cliff.
A Torrance jury deadlocked nearly two years ago on murder charges. Brown, whose case was transferred to a downtown Los Angeles courtroom, is scheduled for a pretrial June 30.
2 Comments
Leave a comment
About the Blogger
Larry Altman has covered crime in the South Bay since 1990. He's seen it all - the missing model who turned up dead in the desert, the wives found dead in trunks, the high-school coaches who get a little too close to their players. He drives his young colleagues nuts with his "I remember when" stories. He welcomes your tips and observations about the present, and you can mix in a little Lakers basketball talk if you like.
E-mail Larry at larry.altman@dailybreeze.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
|
|
About the Blogger
Denise Nix knew as young as grade school, when she spent every summer working on the camp newspaper, that she wanted to be a journalist. Denise has spent most of the last 12 years of her career in the courtroom. She joined the Daily Breeze in 2001, where she tracks and reports on hundreds of cases at every level of the justice system. And she's never, ever, seen a judge use a gavel.
E-mail Denise at denise.nix@dailybreeze.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
|
|
With all due respect, Ms. Nix is incorrect about the book having been borrowed from the jail library. In the April 30th Preliminary Hearing, Deputy Matthew Nawotny, who is the deputy who found the razor blade, testified (if memory serves correctly) that there is no jail library, that inmates receive books from the outside (whether through the mail, or from, say, a chaplain).
The problem with the book in question is that it was a hard-cover book, and inmates are not permitted to possess hard-cover books. Moreover, it was brought out in the Preliminary Hearing that when a book is received into the jail, there is a stamp placed on the inside cover and information is filled in listing such things as the date and time when the book was received, from whom it was received, and the name of the inmate to whom it is being sent. For these (and other) reasons, the book was important as an article of evidence.
In the Preliminary Hearing, under questioning from Cameron's attorney, Deputy Nawotny testified that the book was considered to be contraband and was therefore destroyed (presumably because it was a hard-cover book, though Nawotny wasn't specific about this).
In the interest of full disclosure, I am Cameron Brown's brother-in-law.
Another issue regarding evidence in the weapons case against Cameron Brown is the issue of the videotape. The cell in which Cameron is housed -- the cell where the book was ostensibly found -- is under 24-hour videotape surveillance. IMMEDIATELY after Cameron was charged in this case, Cameron's attorney subpoenaed the videotape of his cell for the time period in question when the book was found. He even offered to send someone from his office to the jail to pick up and/or copy the videotape, even at his expense if necessary. This offer was turned down, and he was assured that the videotape would be made available.
At a pretrial hearing held on May 27th in the weapons case, the prosecution revealed that they would be unable to produce the videotape because it had been recycled and taped over. The Judge rolled his eyes and suggested to Cameron's attorney that he could file a "Youngblood" motion.
In the June 18th hearing, before the case was called, Cameron's attorney informed us that the prosecution was dropping the case. As the Judge was ready to call the case, the prosecutor asked for a "sidebar," a conference with the judge at the bench with himself and the defense attorney. At the conclusion of the sidebar, the Judge called the case and then asked the prosecutor if he was ready to proceed. The prosecutor answered in the affirmative. He then asked the defense attorney if he had any motions. The attorney said "yes," that he was making a motion to dismiss. And with that the Judge declared, "Motion granted, case dismissed!" And that was it. The defense attorney didn't even need to present the Youngblood motion which he had prepared.
To me, this appeared as a thinly-disguised ploy in which the prosecution dropped the case, but did so in a way in which the record, if not closely examined, would indicate that the case was dismissed by the Judge in response to a motion by the defense. In my estimation, the prosecution had no choice. Because it seems virtually certain that the Youngblood motion would have been granted, as two pieces of vital evidence had been destroyed.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am Cameron Brown's brother-in-law.