Month: May 2016

Penalty Phase: The Defense’s Closing Argument

“He will die in custody,” stated defense attorney Scott Sanders during his closing statement in the penalty phase of Daniel Wozniak’s trial. “He deserves the strongest punishment.”

Did I mention that this was the defense?

Here’s the thing: I’m sure Sanders wanted the jury to know they didn’t need to recommend the death penalty. Daniel wasn’t going anywhere and he wouldn’t be a danger to society.

Daniel had no criminal past, and before this he’d never been convicted of a violent crime. Daniel has been a model prisoner during his incarceration. So do these terrible acts represent Daniel as a person, or did he take a horrible detour?

Scott Sanders was very clear. He was not trying to diminish what Daniel did or the suffering he caused to all the people who loved Sam and Julie.

But he did want the jury members to make decisions for themselves and ask “what happened” to Daniel.

Also, Scott Sanders wanted to answer that question: Rachel Buffett happened to Daniel Wozniak.

The Rachel Buffett Question

Is Rachel an integral part of this story? No doubt about it. But is she a reason to commit murder?

When I tell someone about my blog and explain the details of the crime, I end the explanation by saying that, according to the prosecution, all of this happened because Daniel and Rachel were getting married, and he needed to pay for the wedding.

I don’t believe the money motive. You guys know that. But it’s the only one the prosecution gave us.  Technically, that means no wedding equals no murders, right?

Furthermore, Rachel wasn’t just Daniel’s unwitting fiancée, asserted Scott Sanders, she was cruel, conniving and crafty. Sanders wanted the jury to view Rachel as the catalyst. He reminded them of the details about Rachel that came out during the trial:

  • Rachel had a history of causing conflict. She would stir up problems with those around her just for the “thrill of it.”
  • The police do not believe Daniel’s claim that Rachel had no knowledge of the murders.
  • Rachel didn’t tell the police about Chris Williams and how he had loaned them money.
  • Rachel knew there were no “loan sharks,” and that Daniel wasn’t in any danger if he didn’t pay back the money.
  • When questioned by the police, Rachel claimed to still be in fear of loan sharks.
  • Rachel lied to the police about seeing a third man with Daniel and Sam on the day Sam was murdered.
  • Police have testified that they believe Rachel was directly involved in the murders.

Yes, we’d heard all that before, but Scott Sanders did make a couple of new points I found interesting.

The Text Messages Question

First, he talked about those texts sent from Sam’s cell phone to Julie. Sanders scrolled through the texts for the jury and pointed out how their tone and wording changed dramatically as soon as Daniel was home with Rachel. When Daniel was alone, the texts were joking and casual.  He suggested that their only purpose was to make it seem as though Sam was still alive. But when Daniel got home to Rachel, suddenly the texts were about asking Julie to come over. They became serious and emotional.

Interesting point. I hadn’t noticed that before. It sounds like Sanders was saying that Rachel came up with the plan to murder Julie.

The Calendar Question

Scott Sanders also talked about a “calendar problem” with Rachel’s account of the crime:

  • On May 26th,2010 she lied to the police about seeing a third man with Sam and Daniel on the day Sam was killed. Ostensibly this was to help Daniel with his alibi.
  • But on May 27th, Rachel was brought into the police station to hear Daniel’s confession. This was supposedly the first she learned about the murders at all.

Why would she be lying for Daniel if she didn’t yet know Sam was dead?

The Confession Question

Rachel also told the police she was afraid loan sharks, but she knew there were no loan sharks because Chris Williams had told her.  During that confession, Rachel hadn’t seemed shocked or upset, even though she was learning that her fiancé had just confessed to double homicide.

Side note: Scott’s impersonation of Rachel during the confession was hilarious. Here was this super-serious attorney guy trying to sound like… umm… a vapid Barbie doll?

Was Daniel Manipulated?

Scott Sanders wanted the jury to get a different image of Daniel Wozniak. He wasn’t the monster described by the prosecution. Daniel was manipulated.

Rachel was Daniel’s entire life and he would do anything for her. Daniel was going to protect Rachel, and Rachel was going to protect Rachel. So Daniel took the blame for everything.

Daniel had asked that Rachel be brought in to hear his confession so she’d know the story she should stick to. Daniel even made himself look as horrible as possible (claiming that hiding the murders was “borderline fun”), so they would focus on him entirely.

Sanders was telling the jury Rachel is smarter than Daniel, because she didn’t get caught, and she made sure the police would have evidence against Daniel.

Rachel just “walks through the rain drops,” Sanders announced to the jury.

Does Daniel Deserve To Die?

It seemed like Scott Sanders was saying that Daniel Wozniak shouldn’t be given the death penalty because there is good inside him. The murders of Sam and Julie are inexcusable, but Daniel could still be a useful member of society (well… ok… prison society).

Scott Sanders doesn’t think Daniel is the worst of the worst. He reminded the jury about Edward Munoz, who in-spite of having a criminal past, was telling the truth about who Daniel is behind bars. “To me,” Munoz had told the jury when he was on the stand, “he is a good person.”

Scott Sanders spoke plainly: Daniel Wozniak “will never make it up to the families, but don’t we want him to do his best now?”

One Last Push From Prosecutor Matt Murphy

By the way, during Scott Sanders’ entire closing, Matt Murphy still didn’t give up on the “one/one” argument. He was determined to get another opportunity to speak after Sanders’ closing. There was discussion that the jury might have problems recalling the details of the prosecution’s closing.

Scott Sanders did not stop fighting to have the judge stick to his decision to end the trial with the defense’s closing. He pointed out that the prosecution’s opening argument was longer than the defense’s entire case.

Judge Conley continued to reluctantly side in favor of Sanders, but before he could give the final jury instructions, he would see council in his chambers one more time.  Matt Murphy looked pissed when they came back out, and I knew that one “one/one” fight was done.

Finally! That just got annoying, Matt. I’d admire your tenaciousness, but jeez, it was enough already. Trust me – you talked plenty.

The Jury Deliberates

The judge told the jury they needed to have a unanimous decision in order to give Daniel the death penalty.  So, Mike the bailiff escorted them into the deliberation room, and those of us in the courtroom readied ourselves for a long wait.

They were back in less than an hour.

Next…

In the next post, I will tell you what it’s like to watch a jury recommend that your friend be put to death.

Penalty Phase: The Prosecution’s Closing Argument Part Two

District Attorney Matt Murphy was half-way through his closing argument in the penalty phase of Daniel Wozniak’s trial. He had thoroughly pondered, then criticized, what he hoped would be Scott Sanders’ defense. He’d written off the testimonies of defense witnesses, negated Rachel Buffett’s importance in the murders and reviewed the prosecution’s case against Daniel in his effort to remind the jury why Daniel should be put to death.

One of Murphy’s prime points: So many people were hurt by the murders of Sam and Julie. Lives were changed forever.

Many Different Kinds of Victims

Murphy brought up Wesley Frielich, the young man Daniel persuaded to take money out of Sam’s account using his ATM card. Wesley didn’t actually testify during the penalty phase of Daniel’s trial, but the prosecution didn’t want the jury to forget about this young and impressionable kid who had his life changed because he trusted Daniel Wozniak.  Wesley went from having no criminal record to having the FBI handcuff him on his front lawn.

Next, Murphy wanted to talk about Sam’s friend Lester James McKinney, and how he and Sam had been friends since they were teens.

A Challenge From Scott Sanders

That’s when Scott Sanders asked Judge Conley for a sidebar.

I heard a few scoffs from members of Sam and Julie’s families who appeared annoyed at Sanders for delaying matters.  People looked at each other with confused expressions. Was Scott Sanders actually objecting to a victim impact statement from one of Sam’s closest friends? No. The problem here for Sanders was the portrayal of Sam Herr as a loyal and trustworthy friend.

Just as Matt Murphy’s sticking point was not getting to speak last in the penalty phase, Scott Sanders had his own issue he wouldn’t let go.  He was still determined to have the jury hear about Sam’s past with his own murder trial.

Sanders didn’t think it was acceptable to paint teenage Sam as a good guy. He wanted to call witnesses who would talk about Sam lying to a close friend and leading that man to his death. Judge Conley explained that Lester McKinney would only be describing how he himself “saw Sam,” so there was no need for the jury to hear any witnesses that would contradict that image.

Matt Murphy then tried to remind the jury about Chris Williams and how emotionally scarring it was for him to be involved in this case. Scott Sanders objected to Williams’ victim impact being referenced since Williams didn’t actually testify during the penalty phase (neither did Wesley, actually). But Sam’s friend Miles Foltz, who had testified, got to tell the jury that Sam was everyone’s best friend.

Then there was Julie Kibuishi, who Matt Murphy called, “the victim who did not have to die.”

(Sorry to be nitpicky, but obviously neither or these victims had to die.)

Murphy added that Julie was a daughter, sister, dancer and friend, but Daniel Wozniak only saw her as a decoy. He lured Julie to her death on the same night he sang and danced on stage.

The demonized image of Daniel Wozniak was the last one Murphy wanted the jury to remember.  The Daniel who described Julie as the “God dammed body” at one point, and who planned this intricate plot to rob and murder, was a cold-blooded killer and betrayer of friends.

Matt Murphy ended his closing and hoped he’d covered all the bases. Was there anything Scott Sanders would bring up that Murphy hadn’t effectively already shut down? In the next couple of posts, I’ll be giving you the details of Scott Sander’s closing argument. Will he be able to sway the jury to choose life in prison instead of death?

Spoiler alert: No.

But he sure did put in a valiant effort.

Coming Soon…

I’m almost finished with the detailed trial coverage. My apologies to anyone who doesn’t find the minutiae of the case as interesting as I do, but I’m betting some of you are fellow trial junkies who binge watched The Making of a Murderer, too.

Why So Much Detail on the Trial?

And maybe, it feels “safe” to focus so much on the trial specifics. I was genuinely surprised by the large quantity, and the severity, of negative comments I received on social media just because I’m friends with Daniel.

Sometimes I’m a little nervous about putting too much of myself in my writing. After all, people can’t hold it against me if I’m just re-telling what happened in the courtroom, right? Also, if I post everything I’m thinking in the blog, what will be left to put in a book?

An Orange County Judicial Scandal Could Prompt More Delays

Last week, Daniel’s sentencing was postponed for the second time.  A new date will be set in June. This happened because the Orange County snitch scandal has been heating up again.

Through a completely separate case, another lawyer came across some informant notes that had Daniel’s name all over them. The DA’s office claims they didn’t even know about the existence of these notes.

(So, why would the OC Sherrif’s Office even collect informant notes if they aren’t for the District Attorney to aid in prosecution?)

Daniel and Scott Sanders have been in court all week. Unfortunately, I couldn’t be, but Daniel has been taking lots of notes for me, and The LA Times and The OC Register have been doing thorough coverage of the story.

The informant scandal has nothing specific to do with the murders of Sam Herr and Julie Kibuishi, but it could have a big influence on how Daniel’s case plays out.  Other murder cases are going back to trial because of evidence hidden from defense attorneys.

On Friday, Sam’s dad and Julie’s mom spoke in court.  They asked that there be no more delays in sentencing Daniel.

I can’t help wondering: Would this case have been over long ago if the people in charge had just followed the law? Would the families have justice by now? As is, do you think they are worried that all this deception could lead to a re-trial for Daniel?

Because it could.

Penalty Phase: The Prosecution’s Closing Argument

It was January 7, 2016 and Deputy District Attorney Matt Murphy was soon to begin his closing argument in the penalty phase of Daniel’s trial.  Judge Conley’s courtroom was packed.  The victims’ family members filled many of the seats. There were also quite a few young lawyer types in suits probably there to observe the battle royal about to take place between Murphy and Daniel’s defense lawyer, Scott Sanders.

One / One / One

The action started even before the jury was brought into the courtroom, when Matt Murphy contested a previous ruling in the case.

Normally, the prosecution gets to have the final word with the jury. The prosecution speaks first and last… a defense attorney sandwich, you might say. This “one/one/one” order is a way for the prosecution to rebut any statements made by the defense.

However, in an earlier hearing, Judge Conley ruled that in the penalty phase of Daniel’s trial, there would be a “one/one” order for the closing arguments, which meant that Scott Sanders would get to have the last words to the jury. It wasn’t exactly clear why Judge Conley had made that decision. It almost seemed like he’d done it in error and Sanders wasn’t going to let him just switch it back without a clear legal reason.

Matt Murphy was not happy about this, and he fought more than once to have the decision reversed. Scott Sanders was not backing down, though, and in the end he “one/one/won” the right to talk last.

This meant Matt Murphy would have to guess what Scott Sanders was going to say in his closing, and he wanted to counter any and all possible arguments Scott Sanders might bring up to defend Daniel’s life.

Murphy started his closing with the goal of making a personal connection with the jury. He said he felt he knew each of them from reading their questionnaires, and they would know in their own hearts what they should do. But, a moment later, he called upon the jury members to “put (their) feelings aside” and recommend death for Daniel.

Which is it? Use their hearts or put their feelings aside? These seem like mixed messages.

 Matt Murphy was going to say whatever it took to convince the jury that my friend Daniel Wozniak is irredeemable and deserves to die. Murphy suggested that there could be some situations where society might understand why a person committed murder.  The example Matt Murphy used was a revenge killing of a child molester. That’s the kind of situation where “well, maybe we would kill that guy.”(The child molester.)

But Daniel’s motivation, according to the prosecution, was money.  If Scott Sanders was planning to suggest anything else, Murphy wanted to knock out that idea before it could even be brought up.

Knocking Down The Defense Witnesses

Continuing with his closing, Murphy began to demean some defense witnesses.  He claimed Krystin Bergamasco’s testimony was insignificant, and what she had to say reminded him of when “he watched Glee” because of how much it sounded like high school drama.  Kyle Ruebel‘s testimony wasn’t to be taken seriously, either. Murphy acquiesced that Kyle is a nice guy, but he didn’t understand how he “got all the ladies.”

Dealing With Rachel Buffett

Next up, Murphy dealt with the Rachel card. He knew Scott Sanders would talk about Rachel during his closing, but what would he say? Murphy started listing possible topics Sanders might use in an attempt to throw some blame Rachel’s way:

  • The defense needs a villain to blame.
  • People don’t like Rachel.
  • Rachel was living with Daniel.
  • Rachel would also benefit from any financial gain.
  • Rachel was near Daniel while the texting to Julie was happening.
  • Rachel cried on-stage for the first time on the night Sam was murdered.
  • Rachel lied to the police about seeing a third man with Daniel and Sam on the day Sam was murdered.
  • She didn’t tell the police about Chris Williams.
  • She “echoed” Daniel’s lies about Sam having family problems.
  • Everett said that Rachel should also be on trial for murder.

Murphy didn’t argue against any of the Rachel accusations. In fact, he admitted that he “would love to bring (Rachel) to trial for murder,” but he didn’t have the evidence to do it. Murphy told the jury that he believes Daniel lied over and over when he said Rachel wasn’t involved, but Daniel wouldn’t “sell her down the river.” So, Matt Murphy decided to make it simple for the jury: “If you think she may have done it, just assume she did, but that doesn’t negate what Daniel did.”

That is a valid point. But it makes me wonder. How can the prosecution sell the jury on Daniel’s confession when they don’t believe it?

Murphy then proceeded to insult defense witness Daniel Munoz, calling Munoz an “idiot” and a liar, and claiming he was surprised “that guy didn’t get arrested on his way out of the court.”

I don’t believe it was necessary to be that rude. I think Murphy could have discredited Munoz’s testimony without it being such a personal attack on the guy.

A Reminder Of Motive

Then Murphy’s closing jumped back to the aggravating circumstances that make this a death penalty case: financial gain and multiple murders. He referred to this not being the olden days of Charles Dickens and A Christmas Carol, and how it was disgusting to have wanted money for a “silly wedding.” He wondered why Daniel’s computer didn’t contain Google searches on ways to make money such as selling a kidney or becoming a male prostitute.

Uh…? Charles Dickens? Male prostitute? What?

Obviously, he was trying to make the point that stealing  money to pay for a wedding is a sickening motive for murder, but his analogies were a bit peculiar to say the least.

Also, if Scott Sanders was planning to suggest that Daniel might have a more emotion-based reason for committing murder, Murphy was going to cross that bridge before Scott could come to it. The prosecution wasn’t going to get a rebuttal and had to make sure Daniel was painted as evil, not insane or intoxicated. After all, Daniel hadn’t done any Google searches about “hearing voices,” and no drug evidence was found.

I wasn’t sure if that meant there was no drug evidence found in any of the locations related to the case, or just in Daniel and Rachel’s apartment.  Either way, it surprised me. Early on in our correspondence, I got the impression that Daniel had been abusing drugs at the time of the murders. I don’t think that I misinterpreted this, but I did expect there to be signs of  drug use in Daniel’s  apartment. That is something I’ll want to ask him about. Hmmm…

I’ll finish with the prosecution’s closing argument in my next post.  We’ll start with why Scott Sanders called a sidebar in the midst of it..!