Results tagged “Rancho Palos Verdes” from Crime & Courts

A couple of comments on the Brandon Manai murder trial story today caught my eye because they raised a very good question.

"Fasnionista" of Rancho Palos Verdes wrote: "I wonder what the point was of so vividly describing her outfit that night.... "

Julie Rosas was dressed up for a night-out-on-the town. What I didn't fit into this story is that, when she left her Norwalk home, she carried with her a grocery bag containing sweats or pajamas to change into after clubbing.

While the defense to the charge has still not been fully revealed, it's possible Manai's attorney may try to suggest to the jury that Rosas went to the Rancho Palos Verdes cliff voluntarily that night, and maybe slipped in a horrible accident.

The point, then, of describing her clothes is that most people would not go, in the dark, to a rocky and precarious cliff-top wearing three-inch heels, a mini-skirt and halter top. Also, that none of her belongings that she left home with, or her car, were found at the scene is, the prosecution believes, circumstantial evidence that Rosas did not go there voluntarily ... or maybe even alive.

Before beginning the process of weeding through potential jurors to find those who would serve on the Brandon Manai cliff death trial, Torrance Superior Court Judge James Brandlin read the would-be panelists a brief summary of the case. So as to avoid any confusion with another high-profile cliff-death case, Brandlin began by telling them this was not that one.

Manai, accused of killing his wife of 13 days, Julia Rosas, in July 2005, is charged with murder. At his preliminary hearing several years ago, it was revealed that he had confessed to his friend while sitting at a Redondo Beach Pier eatery and pointing to the cliffs to the south.

Opening statements are today, followed by the first witnesses. Check the Daily Breeze and dailybreeze.com later for my coverage.

                                                                         Hermosa Beach lawyer Albro L. Lundy III was honored as the Consumer Attorney's of California Trial Lawyer of the Year for an $11.6 million jury verdict he won on behalf of an elderly Rancho Palos Verdes resident who was seriously injured on a rural highway.

From a press release issued by Lundy:

Lundy, a partner in Hermosa Beach law firm Baker, Burton & Lundy,  received the award November 14 at the 48th Annual Awards Dinner of the Consumer Attorneys of California held at the Fairmont Hotel in downtown San Francisco.  The Consumer Attorney's award is given annually to a case that demonstrates how the civil justice system works to provide justice for victims, change behavior, remove dangerous products or conditions and hold wrong doers accountable.  

 

The Schmidt v. Caltrans case is a perfect example of how consumer attorneys help create a safer society. The case involved a single car automobile accident that occurred on the night of January 16, 2006. The accident occurred in the high desert at the T-intersection of Hwy 62 and Hwy 177 in a rural northeast corner of Riverside County. Rancho Palos Verdes Resident Clete Schmidt, age 77, was on his way to Lake Havasu when he was unable to see a stop sign in time to stop, thus crashing into a five-foot stoney embankment just beyond the T-intersection and crushing his Ford Crown Victoria. The accident placed Clete in intensive care for two months where he nearly died on several occasions. The impact left him a  ventilator dependent quadriplegic. 

As a result of an extensive discovery campaign by Albro and his team, evidence was discovered which demonstrated that the roadway was unsafe. Photographs were found hidden away in the Sacramento storage vault, verifying that rumble strips made out of Botts Dots had existed at the approach to the intersection 30 years ago. Caltrans knew the rumble strips were an important warning system approaching a stop sign in the desert and had even replaced them at least once in the 1990's. The Caltrans photographs documented the lack of maintenance. It was additionally discovered that a large double arrow "End of the Road" sign had originally existed and but disappeared and was not replaced.

Clete's injuries left him in a precarious condition and the slightest thing, even a cold, is life threatening. The jury verdict of $11.6 million dollars not only provided for Schmidt's medical costs, but also motivation for Caltrans to change its roadways.  Filing this case first resulted in a new "End of the Road" sign being put up at that intersection and the verdict triggered a review of all similar rural T-intersections throughout the whole state of California. In the 21 months before this case was filed, eight serious accidents occurred at this intersection. After the replacement of the End of the Road sign, no accidents had occurred in the 18 months up to the time of trial.

This case was highly rewarding for Lundy in a very personal way.  At age 11, Lundy lost his father in the Vietnam conflict in 1970. He was embraced by the Schmidt family following this tragic loss and Clete Schmidt became Lundy's surrogate father. Schmidt was actually the best man at Lundy's wedding.  Clete's comment after the trial was fitting. He stated haltingly "I took care . . . of him, and . . . now he took . . . care of me."   Winning the 2009 Trial Attorney of the year award further validates the impact of this case.

A Rancho Palos Verdes street was shut down Saturday afternoon while an ammunition box that a resident recovered while diving near Redondo Beach was examined, authorities said Sunday.

One item in the box, believed to be a flammable substance used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine, caused responding deputies to call arson and explosives experts to the scene, according to Sgt. Roger Digerlando of the Lomita Sheriff's Station.

The substance, red phosphorus, is used in matchbook strike plates and clandestine methamphetamine labs, according to the a Web site for the state Department of Toxic and Substances Control and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

The resident told deputies he went diving Saturday morning and found the box floating in the ocean. He retrieved it, put it in his boat and brought to his home on Littlebow Road.

He examined the box's contents and found a red powdery substance, a white spoon and red clay. Believing the substances may be explosive, he contacted deputies, who responded just before 5 p.m.

The street was closed for a couple hours before investigators left with the box.

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.

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

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."

The jury stopped deliberating today about 11 a.m. and won't return until Tuesday, FYI.

Now, we begin on defense attorney Pat Harris' closing argument. I have to admit this probably won't be quite as long as the prosecution's partly because I didn't know I was going to be doing this on Tuesday, partly because I already knew what issues or areas the story was going to touch on and partly because I was getting tired and my hand starts to hurt. Please don't read anything into it if Harris' points here are numerically less than Hum's. It means nothing.

Part IV

From Pat Harris:

• Harris began by asking the jury to "take a step back" and really think about the prosecution's theory that Brown picked up his daughter and threw her over a cliff. "Sometimes, issues get amplified in court. Perspective can be difficult." "You're being asked to believe that Mr. Brown, on Nov. 8, 2000, picked up his daughter, his 4-year-old daughter, and forcefully threw her over a cliff to her death for reasons and motives which are clearly undefined in this case."
• The very act of throwing someone off a cliff - "It's that incredible of an act and that is what you're being asked to believe."
• What kind of monster would do that? "In this case, the prosecution has spared no expense to tell you Cameron Brown is that kind of person."
• The trial was a like an episode of the old series "This is Your Life," in which old friends are brought out for Brown. "They had to go to various points of the globe" like Hawaii, Montana and Colorado, looking for any evidence that Cam Brown is the type of person who would go to the top of a cliff and throw his 4-year-old daughter off.
• For example, bringing up a fight over jealousy with a former girlfriend from when he was 22.
• There is no evidence that Brown acted violent toward anybody.
• One of the friends who testified by the prosecution listed four different occassions that Brown got angry over the years. The prosecution spent "thousands of dollars" to bring this information to the jury because they think it shows that Brown is capable of walking to a cliff and throwing his daughter off. An example of what made Brown upset one time was that his father was late for breakfast.
• Harris said he wanted to introduce his client to the jury, because he is a human being and not a monster. "His name is Cameron John Brown and he is a human being."
• Harris criticized the prosecution for only referring to Brown as "the defendant" and himself as "the defendant's lawyer."
• Showing a photo of Brown, shirtless with long hair standing among surfboards, Harris said sarcastically: "That, ladies and gentleman, is the monster."
• He then presented a series of photos showing Brown and Lauren at Lauren's birthday and blowing bubbles.
• Harris discussed Jon Hans letter, that said Brown was "extraordinarily thoughtful" and a man who "couldn't possibly do what he is accused of doing."
• Another friend testified Brown was caring, thoughtful and loyal.
• Another friend said Brown was the godfather to his child, and even though Brown lived in Ventura, he would drive to Riverside County to bring gifts and spend time with the child. "That's the kind of man Cam Brown is."
• Harris noted that the former girlfriend who had the abortion testified that Brown cried about it and the abortion was her decision.
• The other former girlfriend described Brown is very nice, thoughtful and fun.
• Brown's mother said Brown was an "exceptional" son and treated his grandparents very good.
• The best witness to attest to Brown's good nature was Key-Marer, who obviously saw something worthwhile in Brown to want to date him and to try to make the relationship work. She cared about him and had good thoughts about him. Even after visitations started with Lauren, she said in her journal that things were going well (at first).
• "Is this a horrible human being? I don't think so."
• The "very heart" of this case - which was only mentioned for about a minute of Hum's 2 1/2-hour closing - is Brown's relationship with his daughter, and how other people saw that relationship.
• What did he have, in terms of relationship with his daughter? The answer is - keep in mind this is a man the prosecution said his daughter wanted nothing to do with.
• One friend (the one who called to offer his condolences a week later) said Brown was "great" with his daughter, and brought her on his boat. They had a good relationship and seemed to really like each other. He said Brown really "took to" being a father. Reading from the transcript, Harris said Brown said being a father was "pretty cool" and he brought her around. After he learned Lauren was his, everything changed about Brown's attitude towards her, the friend said.
• When Key-Marer first got pregnant, Brown "absolutely did not think it was his child and wanted her to have an abortion. But when he learned from a paternity test that Lauren was his, a friend said he was "very excited."
• Harris said he's not going to dispute a lot of what Key-Marer said happened between her and Brown before the paternity test results were known. "But everything changed the day he got the paternity test back and found out it was his daughter."
• Another friend said he went trick-or-treating with Brown and Lauren. Brown arranged it so that Lauren would be with other kids so it would be more fun for her. This was approximately a week before her death. Patti was not there. (Key-Marer had testified about the same night where Lauren was excited and dressed up as a princess but when Brown picked her up for an overnight visit, Lauren's demeanor changed. Brown told Lauren to get in the front seat, and Lauren refused, knowing she was supposed to sit in back. Things were bad at this point between Key-Marer and Brown, and Key-Marer said she was trying not to cry as Lauren got in back. As they drove away, Patti yelled: "What else do you do when you're not smacking your kid around" and laughed).
• Brown "lived for that little girl, adored her."
• Lauren's school teachers said that when Brown picked her up (not clear if this refers to Nov. 8, 2000, or just in general), he calmed her down, "held her like a father and very calmly her, 'Daddy's here now.'"
• A friend testified how Brown would talk about he couldn't wait until the kids were older and they could do all the fun things they used to do. This showed Brown thought about the "future."
• The family law mediator said Brown wanted more time with Lauren and testified his relationship with Lauren was "strong and getting stronger."
• The prosecution's theory that Brown hated Key-Marer and was vindictive from the day she became pregnant - so angry that he was gonna throw their daughter off a cliff - has a "major problem" since once Brown found out Lauren was his daughter, he got along well with Key-Marer for three months. They went to the park together, he was invited to Key-Marer's home. "He had absolutely a very good relationship with her. How did that happen if he was so bitter and angry?"
• Brown was always asking in court for more time with Lauren.
• On the adoption issue, Brown didn't want to go through with it because he "wanted his daughter." That's "an amazing piece of evidence."
• His love for Lauren was shown by how he persevered in seeing Lauren even though he had to deal with Key-Marer, who he was angry with. He brought her gifts, including a doll from his mother's collection. There were nine framed pictures of Lauren displayed in Brown's home when detectives searched - including one on his nightstand. He had lots of opportunity for free travel though his job at American Airlines, but didn't travel as much and planned his vacations to coincide with Lauren's trips with her mother. He took the freeway from Orange County every week like clockwork, one-hour each way, to spend time with her.

Part II

Part III

• At the top of the cliff, there was no evidence of slipping, sliding or disturbance in the dirt.
• During Brown's interview with Leslie, he never used Lauren's name.
• When Leslie asked him about his lack of emotion, he noted how he cried during the 911 call.
• Brown's friend, Jon Hans (who had contacted prosecutors after he tried to get a letter of support he had written for Brown's Web site taken down), testified he called Brown a week later to offer his condolences. Brown got on the phone and said, "Hey dude, what's up?" He told Hans, "I can't dwell on it, I have to move on, I can't let this ruin my life." Hum said: "It's as if nothing happened."
• A former girlfriend said Brown called her and cried about getting someone else pregnant. Hum said this shows that Brown is, indeed, capable of showing emotion.
• Friends and co-workers testified he got angry (more emotion) over "nothing."
• Another former girlfriend (the one who he had the abortion) said Brown was very emotional over the pregnancy and abortion. She said he "stalked" her, he got mad about her going out with her friends and threw her belongings over a cliff. He smashed her parked car with his, and his mother paid for the damages. She said he broke into her apartment and wrote "bitch" all over the place. Hum said Brown was retaliating because he was angry.
• In response to the defense assertion that those acts were a long time ago, 1987, Hum noted that it was only 13 years before Lauren's death and eight or nine years before his negative treatment of Key-Marer.

So, the jury now has the case. Let's see if I can get through this before there's a verdict!

Part I

Part II

• When Brown picked Lauren up at school, he didn't go home to where his wife was (she was at home surfing the Internet for ways to get Lauren), but to Inspiration Point.
• The person working the guard shack at the Abalone Cove parking lot said Lauren looked scared and something wasn't right.
• Brown had a disposable camera with him on their trek, and took three photos of Lauren between the car and the playground on the beach, purportedly to show how "happy" Lauren was. Hum argued that was part of Brown's plan. "Does it really look like Lauren's having such a great time?"
• Brown's story: After 20 minutes of playing at the playground, Lauren takes off hiking, "and we all know that is a flat-out lie because Lauren doesn't hike." Lauren was leading and Brown was having trouble keeping up because she was much too energetic. However, witnesses who saw them said otherwise and that isn't true because we know Brown was an outdoorsman in grat shape who biked an skiied, yet Lauren was a 4-year-old who had spent the day crying and hadn't even had her lunch.
• One witness said he saw Lauren four to five feet behind Brown on the trail to Portugese Point.
• Another witness said Lauren was quiet and he didn't see them talking. That same witness said he heard a short, sharp scream coming from the direction of Inspiration Point around 2:30 or 2:45 p.m. as he sat on Portugese Point. He contradicts Brown and has no reason to lie.
• A third witness said he saw Brown and Lauren at the top of Portugese Point with Brown in front and Lauren trying to keep up. He sees them approximately three times. A regular to the area, the witness said he's never seen children in that area. "We've been out there, we know why."
• A fourth witness was driving on Palos Verdes Boulevard and reported seeing Brown in front with Lauren following behind as they hiked along the road between Portugese Point toward Inspriation Point.
• A defense witness said he saw Brown guiding Lauren up the trail as she struggled on all fours to get to Inspriation Point. "She didn't want to go up there. He directed her up there." The witness said "something's not right" to himself.
• "Because he lied about everything heading up to that cliff, why would we believe what he says about how she went over?" His story is refuted by physics, the evidence and Lauren's injuries.
• If Brown is lying about everything else, then we don't have to believe him when he says Lauren slipped and fell.

Continued from Part I

• Key-Marer sought child support from Brown through the Orange County District Attorney's Office. He ended up paying approximately $1,000 per month for "a child he didn't want." "And $1,000 a month is a lot of money to a guy like the defendant," who was working as a baggage handler, living on a boat, surfing, skiing and "having a great time."
• Brown told a friend he wanted to get the support reduced by asking for more visitation with Lauren. He askes for joint legal custody with 32 percent visitation - about four months per year. At that point, he still had not met Lauren. "How would he know what's in Lauren's best interests? He's never even met her." "We all know the reason he's doing this is to cut his child support and that's what he cares about - himself - and that's all he cares about." "It's all about the money."
• The initial visits with Lauren go OK until Brown begins telling Lauren that his own mother is an evil, bad person (Key-Marer had begun visiting Lynn Brown with Key-Marer and allowing the two to foster a grandmother-granddaughter relationship).
• Then, Key-Marer offers to have her new husband adopt Lauren, and Brown agrees. "Why would Sarah lie about that?" Brown tells his friend he's "happy" to give Lauren up for adoption because he and his fiancee, Patti, are planning to move to Utah. Brown insists the adoption goes through right away, and gives Key-Marer 30 days or "things are gonna get ugly." This was approximately one month before Brown got married.
• But, Patti wants a family and she is 47, so can't have kids. "There is no way she will give up Lauren; she wants her for herself." Brown didn't want that, so he knows he needs to finalize the adoption before he gets married.
• But when Key-Marer puts in court documents that Brown agreed to the adoption, he gets angry because everyone finds out. Brown threatened Key-Marer: "I'm gonna get you for this" and "what goes around comes around." "He sure made good on those promises, didn't he?" Brown is "vindictive, angry" because there is no way now he will get what he wants, so he becomes "despiteful, nasty."
• "He'll pay her back for this." "Clearly the defendant is using Lauren as a tool to punish Sarah."
• Meanwhile, Lauren refuses to talk about what happens during her visits with "Papa Cam." (that was the nickname Key-Marer made for him). She does, however, come home and say: "Papa Cam is gonna put you in jail for stealing my money" and "you're a bad mommy."
• Brown made "false accusations" of child abuse against Key-Marer in court documents. He lied and told a neutral court mediator that Lauren told him Key-Marer kicked her, threw down in the kitchen and grabbed her face with her fingers. "The defendant is using Lauren to hurt Sarah." "And the defendant also does things to try to torment Sarah through Lauren."
• (in response to the defense argument that some of the things Brown did was bad parenting - like trying to put her on his motorcylce without a helmet, throwing her in a pool when she can't swim, having her ride in the front seat - and without a car seat and telling her to get her suitcase from the middle of the street): "That's not bad parenting skills" but "designed to get back at Sarah." "It's calculated to terrorize Sarah when Lauren was out of her sight." It shows the lengths to which the defendant will go to hurt Sarah, and how much he hated her and how vindictive he was. "It's payback for messing up his life."
• (at this point, Key-Marer appears to be crying while sitting in the audience listening). "She was the perfect tool the defendant could use to hurt Sarah."

One of the most frustrating things about being a court reporter is that, more often than not, I can't possibly come close to including in my story all the things that are said in court about a case. Space, and readers' attention spans, just don't make it prudent. Thus, it's safe to say that on days like yesterday, where I listened to two attorney speaks for about five hours, there is more that didn't make it into my 25-inch story than did. And that's not even including the hour or so of prosecution rebuttal I missed at the end of the day in order to make my deadline.

This is even more frustrating when we're talking about a mostly circumstantial evidence case, like the one against Cameron Brown. So, here's what I'm gonna do - I'm going to try to dump here tid-bits, comments, slices of evidence and other information that didn't find a home in today's newspaper story. Also, if you have a question about something related to this case - the evidence, why or why not somebody did or didn't do or say something, etc., I will try to answer it. I can't promise I'll know all the answers, but I'll give it a shot.

Just don't ask me what I think about anything. I'm not going to tell you.

From Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum's closing argument:

• The jury has two duties: Decide the facts from the evidence, exhibits and site visit, then apply the facts to the law decide between guilty and not guilty. "You have to decide what happened on Nov. 8, 2000."
• Brown is charged with one count of first-degree murder plus special circumstance allegations of lying in wait and killing for financial gain. For first-degree murder, jury must find that the killing was willful, deliberate and premeditated and done with malice, which can be expressed or implied. Here, there is both. Under express malice, the question is: "Did the defendant intend to kill Lauren when he threw her off a 120-foot cliff into the ocean? Of course he did. There 's not other reasonable explanation." Under implied malice, the jury has to find the defendant knew throwing Lauren off a cliff would be dangerous, but did it anyway. "It really is that simple and straightforward."

Some of you may be wondering why you're not seeing as much coverage in the Daily Breeze of Cameron Brown's retrial, especially compared to his first trial three years ago, for the November 2000 cliff death of his 4-year-old daughter, Lauren Sarene Key, in Rancho Palos Verdes.

There are two reasons for this: 1.) It's kind of like reporting on a "rerun." Although I'm sure there are plenty of people who didn't catch the plethora of stories on the 2006 trial, many have. I'm trying to stay abreast of any new developments or other interesting trial occurrences, but that's kind of hard - especially because of my second reason. 2.) The retrial is in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom. That makes it difficult for me to pop in for shorter periods of time due to the 45 minute drive and all-around headache that is the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center (I've waited up to 20 minutes for an elevator some mornings).

At any time, I've got about 100 cases on my radar plus any number of long-term features and projects. Going downtown for a trial I've seen already takes me away from my other duties. Believe me, I wish I could do it all, and if I could clone myself, I would.

That being said, I did make it to the Brown trial late last week for the prosecution's last witness. Since there are people interested in this case who like to discuss it on the Internet, including one blogger who is trying to take down every word in her notebook, I took a peek over the weekend to see what the Interwebs are saying. Just so you know, I usually avoid it, since it seems a lot of the discussion centers on personal attacks of other commenters and players in the trial (myself included).

Some of what I saw raised some questions, so I called Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum to verify some points.

First of all, the trial is on a 10-day break until Sept. 2 due to Judge Michael Pastor's vacation. It will resume with the defense case, which has already started. Hum said he expects the jurors will do a "site visit" at Abalone Cove on Sept. 10, but that is subject to change.

I also asked Hum about some evidence that the blogger teased as "jaw dropping." He thinks she is referring sheriff's Detective Jeff Leslie testifying about a search he conducted at Brown's home, which he shared with his wife, Patty Brown, in Palos Verdes on Jan. 2, 2001. Leslie said that, under a bed, they found two cut-out photos of Lauren's mother, Sarah Key-Marer, in a suitcase - along with black candles and black ceramic figures. A follow-up question by Hum to Leslie about witchcraft books was objected to by the defense, and sustained by the judge.

While probably not a key piece of evidence in the overall case, my guess is the value of the information goes toward the animous Brown (and his wife) allegedly had toward Key-Marer during the heated custody and child support over Lauren. It's eyebrow raising, nonetheless. 

Torrance Superior Court Judge Eric Taylor sentenced Brian Foucher, 32, to 20 years and eight months, plus four life terms, this morning for kidnapping and raping one woman - and trying to do the same to three others - in the South Bay in 2002.

Foucher's history of mental illness, which did not come into play during his jury trial, was the focus of today's hearing.

We'll have a full story up later.

Previously:

Guilty verdicts in South Bay rape/kidnapping trial

How reading the Daily Breeze can get you into trouble

Mona Lisa makes a cameo in South Bay rape/kidnapping trial