Recently in Cameron Brown Category

I get mail:

"I would like to comment about the October 6th story. On page A-13 2nd paragraph, it says: "before plunging face-down into the 'icy' Pacific Ocean."

Isn't that somewhat dramatic?  ICY PACIFIC OCEAN?  When was the last time there was ice in the Pacific Ocean in this area?  Come now Denise, your choice of words is ridiculous.

Dave Kingsley, Torrance"

 

Getting reports from City News Service out of Judge Michael Pastor's courtroom that Pastor found that almost all the jurors engaged in misconduct related to the use of an online definition for the word "malice," but he found that the misconduct was not prejudicial to the case and did not cause bias. He sternly admonished the jurors to follow his orders - especially the one about no outside research or consultation of reference materials - and sent them back in to deliberate.

Despite being told by the judge not to use anything outside of what was presented in court during their deliberations, Juror No. 9 in the Cameron Brown retrial says he didn't hear that instruction. So, in order to facilitate the group's progress during deliberations, he typed the word "malice" into an America Online search engine Thursday morning before court, printed up the one-page definition and took it to court.

Sometime Thursday morning, according to himself and 10 of his fellow jurors, he brought the paper out during a discussion of malice - an important concept in this case and a very difficult rule of law to understand. Juror No.12, though, raised an objection to their using the outside definition, and the foreman submitted a note to Judge Michael Pastor asking if they could. Which brought deliberations to a screeching halt.

This morning, all but one of the jurors (who had some kind of emergency and wasn't there) were questioned one-on-one by Pastor. The majority said they saw Juror No. 9 with the print-out, that it got passed around and that the foreman read it out loud. Not everyone saw it, though most did.

Pastor asked each if they could put aside what they saw or heard and continue delberations - and they all agreed they could. However, everyone got sent home anyway because the last juror needs to be questioned before the judge and attorneys can discuss how to proceed. That will happen Monday morning. The options include everything from just telling the 12 sitting jurors to carry on, replacing one or more of them or finding the whole group was contaminated and declaring a mistrial.

It may seem like no big deal to use a dictionary to look up a definition pertaining to case while you're deliberating. But you can't. You just can't. It's specifically mentioned in the jury instructions in every trial.

So, apparently, one of the jurors deliberating in the Cameron Brown trial may have done this. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for early Friday morning.

I don't know what the word that was looked up is.

It's been about a week since the late Friday announcement by the jury that they were deadlocked, although they've only deliberated about a two full days since that time.

Jurors in the Cameron Brown murder retrial indicated late Friday that they were deadlocked, but the judge told them to return on Tuesday to give deliberations another go.

While the Los Angeles Superior Court jury began deliberating on Sept. 17, their schedule was not full-time and they began anew late Wednesday when an alternate replaced a sitting juror.

Brown is charged with murder and the special circumstances of lying in wait and killing for financial gain for the Nov. 8, 2000, death of Lauren Sarene Key.

The 4-year-old died after going over Inspiration Point in Rancho Palos Verdes. Prosecutors contend Brown did not want to pay child support while the defense maintains that Lauren slipped while throwing rocks over the 120-foot cliff.

Jurors in a first trial three years ago deadlocked with two voting for first-degree murder, eight favoring second-degree murder and two finding involuntary manslaughter.

Jurors in this trial have sent notes to the judge regarding the law about malice

City News has learned that a juror had to stop deliberating today because he is scheduled for surgery, and he was replaced by a male alternate. That means deliberations, which began Thursday but has only been hit-and-miss due to schedules, will have to begin anew.

Still monitoring. Will keep you posted.

Want to know more, check out my seven-part series on the closing arguments and past entries here.

Part VI

Continuing defense attorney Pat Harris' closing argument:

• Regarding Key-Marer: "I can't in my wildest dreams imagine what she's going through." The pain has "got to be overwhelming." But Key-Marer wants Brown convicted, she is biased and willing to say anything, even stretch the truth.
• Regarding Brown's threats to call the INS and have her deported - the INS never came. What did she do after? She invited him to a Christmas party after she supposedly got these calls.
• Videos showed Lauren skating, in the ocean and in a lake. They show she is not as timid as the prosecution wants to paint her out to be. (I'm told the videos, which I didn't see, show her getting her feet wet at the beach, but not going in and swimming).
• The idea that Lauren was a "girly girl" came from when she was 2 years old.
• An expert on family law court said this case was nothing unique and "mild" and "run of the mill."
• Leslie should have recorded all his interviews with Brown.
• That Brown or Lauren was always in front or always behind during the hike is wrong to assume. It wasn't a "military doing marches." If Lauren was behind at all, she was always very close to Brown. "It's a hike, it's not a march to see who can be in front and who cannot."
• It was never a 50 minute hike.
• Involuntary manslaughter conviction would mean Lauren's death was the result of a "misjudgment" or "misadeventure."
• Neither first or second degree murder apply to Brown. They both require intent, a desire to see someone hurt. "That's not what happened here. I think we've shown this was an accident."
• You have to make a choice between involuntary manslaughter and not guilty. Involuntary manslaughter means there was no intent to harm, but no mistake that inattention occurred here. This is not a murder case.
• "This man did not go up there and throw his daughter off the cliff."
• Brown married Patti for money, but he had no access to her money.
• Brown's mother would have paid what he owed in child support if Brown would've asked.
• Brown was able to make extra money working overtime - up to $400 to $500 a week.
• More child custody does not make a better deal financially, since you have to pay more expenses, like entertainment, gifts, school tuition, clothes, etc.
• The idea that Patti wanted Lauren was fabricated by the prosecution to explain the adoption issue.
• (Harris starts to talk softly, almost in a whisper here). In our culture, somebody's go to pay. A young child died. It's an "emotional, horrible" situation. We expect now that somebody's got to pay for it.
• We appeal to hate and revenge - the worst of human nature. Seen a glimpse of that in the discussions on the Internet about this case.
• I know there's a grieving mother, a beautiful young girl who died. I understand they "muddied" him up.
• Harris said he wanted to appeal to the good in the jurors. Look at the evidence, not the emotions, not the fact that a 4-year-old girl died.
• I really believe, when you look at the evidence, not innuendo, not speculation, not the nasty stuff - you'll find "there's no way - it's just not possible - that he picked her up and threw her over the cliff."

That's it. I'm done. Jury resumes deliberations tomorrow morning. 

Hope everyone had a nice weekend. Picking up where I left off with Pat Harris' closing argument:

Part V

• The prosecution argued Brown "premeditated" Lauren's murder. Harris said the evidence showed Brown was supposed to go to his mother's with Lauren that day, but his mother canceled at the last minute. Instead, he took her to Inspiration Point. Is that a "plan?" Harris asked. "Use common sense here."
• If Lauren didn't want to go on a hike, or do anything, she wouldn't do it, her former babysitter testified.
• Inspiration Point is visible from the road - not a secluded place to committ murder.
• Why would he go there? He's got a boat - he could've taken her sailing and killed her with no chance of being seen. "It would've been easier."
• Why would he hurt Lauren? If he's so angry at Key-Marer, why not hurt Key-Marer?
• The most "bizarre" thing in the trial was the prosecution's theory that Brown "didn't care" after Lauren fell. Would he go to the trouble to "do all this and not take the next step to make it look real?" "How absurd is it? It makes no sense. It's like doing a bank robbery and not having a get-away car."
• There are so many possible places where she could have been thrown from, but the prosecution picked the point of departure to coincide with the trajectory that could have caused the injuries found on Lauren.
• Who didn't the jury see? Detective Smith (now retired, partner of Detective Jeff Leslie). He's a  major witness but they can't get him here? Maybe it has something to do with the phonebook comment "assholes?" (There was some notation Smith made about "phonebook assholes," but I'm not sure where or what it meant).
• One of the most telling points of the trial was the prosecution's assertion that it is a 50 minute walk from the Abalone Cove parking lot to Inspiration Point if you follow the path Brown said he and Lauren took. It was not treacherous. Smith had a video in which he walked it in 28 minutes.
• Leslie is trying to make you believe Brown didn't care and was "lollygagging around" (after Lauren went over the cliff). "Except I showed actual evidence when the phone call came in" when it was over and when the paramedics arrived. "Worst case scenario" was about eight minutes until Brown got to Lauren (not 15, which prosecution contends). Leslie said the time wasn't a big deal, but it was "superhuman" of Brown to get all that done in six to eight minutes. Brown was "running like crazy."