Did you hear the one about the gang member, the journalist and a bunch of attorneys?

But I still had the problem of the subpoena. In California, a Shield Law protects journalists from being forced to disclose sources, and then there's all those other protections afforded to the press courtesy of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. So we had a decision to make: Although I'm not really protecting a "source" by refusing to testify, am I compromising my journalistic integrity by taking the stand?

There were other things to consider too. Private attorneys are expensive, and, as I'm sure you know, newspapers like the Daily Breeze aren't exactly swimming in cash these days. We also had to consider what would happen to me if I refused to testify, with the possibilities including Christmas behind bars.

In the end, we decided to fight with a motion to quash the subpoena - basically, a 22-page document arguing all the many ways I was protected from testifying. This included the answer to the apparent question of how did I know Sisneros' criminal history? Anything filed in court is fair game for journalists to publish as protected information.

Tuesday morning at 8:30 a.m., I showed up, along with my attorney AJ Thomas and fellow reporter Larry Altman, who would report on the courtroom happenings that I couldn't be there for. As life in the courthouse goes, we learned the hearing would be at 1:30 p.m.

We returned at 1:30 and I went straight to the cafeteria. Where I waited. And waited. I finished an entire Real Simple magazine, then wandered to the hallway to people watch. It had been more than two hours and I hadn't heard a word from anyone.

Finally, around 4 p.m., Larry and Thomas rounded the corner. They looked shell-shocked.

From both, I learned that Van Sicklen deferred ruling on our motion to quash, which was unexpected and unusual, until after starting the motion for new trial hearing. During the hearing, Harper called several people to testify - it seemed mostly about a couple of trial spectators who were questioned by the Torrance Police Department, and her contention that that incident was jury tampering and hampered her client's right to a fair and open trial.

She called to the stand people who knew the people who were questioned, a couple baliffs and Stodel.

Despite being told not to go there, Harper questioned Stodel about what he gave me regarding her client's criminal history. Stodel said I made the inquiry, and he gave me the public document. (At this point, Larry notes that it was an hour and 25 minutes into the proceeding before this issue was raised ... while he, Thomas and I were waiting around).

She also questioned Stodel and a baliff about an incident during a break in the trial in which she claims several baliffs surrounded her at Stodel's behest.

Sgt. Andrea Stella said during questioning by Stodel about the incident, "You were baffled by her behavior - we all were." Stella said Harper was "flustering" the clerk by asking her to change some forms without the judge's consent. Stella described Harper as "very emotional."

At this point, Van Sicklen added that this was when he came into the courtroom and heard several lawyers in the packed courtroom "talking about your bizarre behavior."

The hearing didn't conclude, and we were all ordered back for 8:30 this morning.

Outside the courthouse, while I was speaking with Thomas, Harper approached us and said she hadn't seen Stodel's declaration explaining that the prior convictions were on the public document before she served me in my driveway. With a wave of her hand and a mention about it being Christmas Eve, she said she'd withdraw the subpoena. She might have been waiting for me to say thanks, but I didn't say anything.

No longer a participant int he case, I was once again free to just do my job and cover Sisneros' case. I relieved Larry, and came back at 8:30 this morning.

Harper then tried to call to the stand The Honorable Steven Van Sicklen.

"That request is denied," Van Sicklen replied.

Harper argued that, by interjecting what he saw, he was in fact testifying about some "semi-defamatory information" about herself, and she felt she deserved the opportunity to ask him more about it.

Thwarted in that effort, Harper, for the first time in nearly three hours, discussed evidence presented at Sisnero's trial to the jury regarding Sisneros' son refusing to answer some questions for fear of incriminiating himself, and his possible relation to the weapons found in the home.

She mentioned that there are no jurors willing to testify about these alleged "tamperings" because, "after reading about" him and his convictions and gang ties, they're too afraid (she turned to me while making that statement). Van Sicklen responded that her statement was "inappropriate."

"You keep calling it jury tamperings," Van Sicklen said. "There's no jury tampering here."

Van Sicklen then went on to list the ways in which he disagreed with Harper, but stopped short to reprimand her for what he termed a "sarcastic" expression. "Your grinning at me, Ms. Harper, doesn't help."

Harper said she "painted a smile" on her face so she wouldn't frown and that he was "misreading her."

"I apologize that your honor feels that way," she said.

"Motion for new trial denied," Van Sicklen abruptly replied.

Everyone returns Jan. 23 for Sisneros' sentencing hearing.

According to evidence presented at trial by Stodel, Sisneros, 46, was the shot caller of a Torrance gang and was arrested March 14, 2007, during a traffic stop after officers say they saw him leaving a home in which they later found guns, drugs and ammunition. The jury convicted him of being an ex-felon in possession of firearms. They also found true allegations that the crimes were gang-related. 

According to the Information, Sisneros has prior convictions for shooting at an inhabited dwelling, assault with a  deadly weapon, residential burglary and possession of a controlled substance and weapons.

Harper called the newsroom today to voice her concerns about my still covering this case, expressing fear to my editor about a "biased" reporter who she served with a subpoena and made wait around all day doing an inadequate job of covering her client's case.

He assured her that I am, indeed, a professional.