Daniel’s Comments on Comments

There probably won’t be much to blog about Daniel and his case for the next eight weeks, because he’s not scheduled to be sentenced until September 23rd. This doesn’t mean I’m going to abandon the blog or anything, but the posts might be fewer and farther in between (as you possibly have already noticed – so sorry).

I want you guys to know that I truly value the blog readers. It doesn’t matter if you like what I write about or not, I just think it’s great that people take time to read anything I’ve written at all. I’m especially appreciative when comments are left. I know it takes me FOREVER to reply to comments. I will be honest with you, I need to be in a certain state of mind to tackle comment reading and replying. I have to be feeling “thick skinned,” I guess.

I have mentioned writing a book about this topic more than once in the blog. Some of you think it’s a great idea and some of you think I’m fame seeking and money grubbing. That’s cool. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. My dad used to say “Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.”

I’m not calling you folks assholes. So please re-read the quote before you get all “typey typey” on the comments page.

I think I do need to shift my focus into figuring out what kind of book I want to write. Because I’m not exactly sure yet. I do know it won’t be your regular “true crime” book. Which is funny, because that’s what I’d set out to write in the first place.

As for this current post, I’m letting Daniel help me “write” it.

I always send him copies of my posts after they are made public. I want to get his take on what I wrote, and find out if he agrees or disagrees with any points I’ve made. I also send him your comments.

He started writing a few replies to the comments for me because:

  • He felt compelled to reply to some of you.
  • He wanted me to know his thoughts and feelings about some of the readers’ opinions.
  • He didn’t want me to have to assume his answers to readers’ questions.

Admittedly, Daniel was really only writing his comments for me. He didn’t mean for me to put his words all over the blog. I talked to him about it, though.

I explained that a lot of what he says is thought provoking, and conveys the Daniel I see and have befriended. I asked for permission to share a bit of what he wrote to me. He agreed and was fine with me paraphrasing or editing him (for clarity of understanding and fluidity of language).

Unfortunately, Daniel didn’t start at the very beginning.

Which is a very good place to start.

I have been reading this from start to finish since watching Dateline, which I saw by chance.

I am curious.

How much cash did Daniel get from Sam’s account?

Was it Worth it? ~ j.n., February 4, 2016, commenting on the post “Guilty – Part 4”

Daniel’s response:

“I believe the entire amount taken was $1500 (from three days of ATM withdrawals). But the amount is of money is only worth bringing up if you choose to believe the prosecution’s theory of a financial motive. Either way, no amount of money is worth a person’s life.”

Is there an official transcript of the police report in which Rachel said she saw the “phantom” hooded friend? Since the whole case against her is circumstantial, her wording is crucial. In interviews (like Dr. Phil) she says it’s doubtful that she used the words “I saw…”, and that she thinks she put it more like “there was…” (presumably because Dan had told her of a third party and at that point she had no reason to disbelieve him). Everyone’s arguing, but so far, nobody that I know of has come forth and just shown what it is she EXACTLY said.

Also, where is she now? Does she have to go to trial too? I heard she was arrested with $1M bail. Has she been in jail all this time? If not, how much time has she spent behind bars? ~ Scott, January 31st, 2016, commenting on the post “Guilty – Part 5”

First Daniel made a joke about how he hopes this wasn’t his defense attorney, Scott Sanders.

“You can find a copy of Rachel’s statement by reviewing her interrogation interview.”

Ummm, and how might we obtain that, Daniel?

Daniel continued, “The first time Rachel talked to the Costa Mesa Police Department was at the apartment of Rachel’s brother, Noah. During that initial contact, Rachel said she ‘saw’ the third unknown guy who was with Sam on the day of his murder. At her first official interrogation, Rachel again stated that she ‘saw’ the guy.

“After that,” Daniel continued, “Rachel’s story changed. Then she claimed what she meant to say to the police is that she had just ‘heard’ there was a third man from Daniel. She believed it to be fact and she was trying to give detectives all the information without having any omissions.

“It’s tricky to determine what she said and what she meant, but why would she choose to say that she actually ‘saw”’ this man originally? Rachel has been very careful when making statements, so what reason / benefit would there be for her to tell the police that a third man was present?

“Likewise, remember that Rachel failed to say that Chris Williams was with Rachel at her and my apartment when Sam was murdered. Why make one person vanish (especially someone who can be your alibi), and yet make up the existence of a third unknown mystery man? You will have to ask her that yourself, but if she had nothing to hide, why lie?

“Also, Rachel is out on bail currently. It wasn’t a million dollars. Maybe closer to $3,500. She spent four days in jail during Thanksgiving of 2012.

“Rachel was offered a plea bargain a while back for testifying against me. She refused.”

 I am fascinated as to Daniel’s thinking process by planning these two murders and the disposal of the one body. I feel that he is much like all the rest of us but he faltered that one time. Had he not he would be free today. I am curious as to what his specific plans were in committing the murders and what he imagined the outcome would be????? ~ R. Harris, February 1st, 2016

(You and me both, R).

 Daniel’s response:

“Well Mr. Harris, let me just say there wasn’t much planning in this tragedy. Things happened and it became a ’what to do’ situation as a result. I’m human, like the rest of you. We all fuck up sometimes. I never had any criminal background, and I lived a very typical life. I know it may be difficult to believe, but there was no specific plan in Sam’s murder. Everything fell apart in trying to ‘clean up’ a horrible mistake. If anyone deserves to be in jail, it’s me.”

Seems unlikely that he faltered once, and then went on to kill two innocent people, laughing while dismembering one. At the very least, he “faltered” twice. ~ Bill, April 2, 2016

 Daniel’s response:

“Hi Bill. I have faltered way more than twice. But this was my worst. This situation is so emotionally painful. Life is irreplaceable. Death is so final. And so many people are affected by it. I never felt my actions would cause so much damage. It is difficult to think of the future when you’re so caught up in the moment. I let emotion get the better of me and now so many people are suffering the consequences as a result. I would gladly give up my life if it meant I could bring back Sam and Julie.”

That’s it for this post. I hope you found Daniel’s responses interesting. If you’re anything like me, you probably have a slew of new questions now as a result. If so, I hope you share them in the comments. And if you have any thoughts on the direction you like to see the book take, I’d welcome those as well.

Waiting for the Punishment

For the last little while my blog has been all about the trial. I’ve been studying, questioning, and dissecting everything I’ve seen and heard and noticed. I took tons of notes. At some point I’m just going to suck it up and pay for the entire court transcript, though, because there is no way I caught it all.

I find it extremely interesting to see a trial unfold. What steps did the police take to solve the case? Was it the forensics? DNA? Maybe some video footage from a nearby security camera? And then there are the lawyers. Can I just tell you how cool I thought it was that I’d get to watch Matt Murphy in action? (I’d seen him on Dateline.)

Just from a courtroom junkie’s point of view, Daniel’s trial had it all. That’s why the media was always there in full force. But watching a court case on 48 Hours or 20/20 is a very different experience from being there in person. I wasn’t on the couch in my jammies. (I did sometimes eat snacks, though. Very quiet snacks.)

I had a personal interest in this case. This was my friend on trial. My friend who did some terrible and unforgivable things (and he’s the first to admit that), but still my friend.

You know, basically I do write this blog for myself. It’s a creative outlet, and it gives me a way to really scrutinize and investigate my friendship with Daniel, especially now that he is a convicted murderer.

I felt wound up and nervous when I sat in that courtroom. It was easy for people to figure out  I was there to support Daniel. He’d glance around and smile at me when he was walked in, and I’d see people turn around and try to figure me out. I knew that some of the principal players were reading my blog and I always felt this urge to explain myself. I wanted to tell people that I don’t think Daniel is innocent.  I don’t feel sorry for him that he’s in jail. I don’t doubt that he is a murderer, but I know he isn’t a monster.

I can already hear some of you typing your comments.

The jury did not agree with me. It took them less than an hour to decide Daniel should die.

When they went into deliberations at around 3:30, I don’t think anyone was expecting a verdict that day. Just in case, I had decided to hang around until 5:00 because that’s when the jury would go home for the day. A number of other people seemed to be doing the same thing.

Earlier that day, during the lunch break, I’d approached Mike the Bailiff to make a request.  I really wanted to be present when the jury came back with the verdict. Whether you believe Daniel deserves to have a friend or not, I was determined he’d have one in court when he learned his fate. So I wanted to know how I could get on a list of people who are notified when a verdict comes in.  The media people always seemed to know when things were happening and I thought there might be some kind of computerized contact list I could get on. I didn’t want a phone call or anything. I was just hoping for a group text.

I asked Mike if he knew who I was (Daniel’s friend). He smiled and said, “Hey there, blue hair.” Him quoting my blog made me laugh and helped me feel a little calmer (thanks, Mike).

Mike explained to me that there was no contact list. If I wanted to be notified, I would need to ask lead defense attorney Scott Sanders about it.

Gulp.

It’s ironic that even though I was there to support Daniel, I’d had virtually no contact with Scott. I wasn’t sure about his feeling on having a blogger write about his client at the same time he was trying to save the guy from the death penalty. The idea of approaching Scott made me nervous, but I was determined to not miss the reading of the verdict.

Remember, this was happening during the lunch break when I still thought the jury might actually take longer than 45 minutes to decide if Daniel should die.

So, I decided to muster my courage and try to talk to…Tracy LeSage Scott’s way-less-intense second in command.

When I saw the defense team getting off the elevator after lunch, I figured this was my best chance to get on that “group text” list I hoped existed. They all went into the courtroom, and I slipped in right after them.

Scott and Tracy were deep in discussion and pouring over paperwork, so I thought maybe I could get away with asking one of the young assistant lawyer guys about contacting me. I hoped I could discreetly give him my cell number and sneak away.

NOPE.

Scott stopped talking and looked up at me from his papers. As I choked out my request, I felt a tad out of place with my blue hair and tattoos. And I’m so short, I felt like a little kid standing in the middle of this sea of suit-wearing real grownups.

Scott Sanders looked perplexed. Then, he said that was fine, and to give my number to the other lawyer guy, who would call me when the verdict was in.

Calling. Old school.

Later, Daniel told me that Scott Sanders had asked him if it was okay for me to be contacted.  Daniel did want me called, but it turned out to be a moot point anyway.

I was one of the few people still in the courtroom when the phone rang on Mike the Bailiff’s desk. I figured it would just be the jury asking a question.  Maybe they needed a part of the transcript read back to them.  Perhaps they wanted some clarification on the specifics of a law.

Even Mike looked surprised when he announced that the jury already a verdict.

I stayed in my seat while the news spread to the people in the hallway. No one needed to be called on the phone.

I was more worried than I’d thought I’d be. I had always expected the jury would choose the death penalty, but inside me there was still a little battle going on between hope and fear. Admittedly, fear was kicking hope’s ass because of how fast the jury was coming back. There wasn’t nearly enough time for them to get all existential and decide that “an eye for an eye” might not be the way to go.

Sam’s and Julie’s loved ones sat all together in the center section in an obvious showing of solidarity. People  clung to each other and held hands.

I was surprised how quickly the water works came on me as soon as the verdict was announced. Lots of people were crying and wailing. It seemed more like tears of relief than of happiness, with an underlying feeling of heartbreak.

When it was all finished, the jury members smiled at the Herrs and the Kibuishis while they filed past them down the aisle. Eventually everyone had left the courtroom except me and Mike. I asked him if I could hang out for a few minutes and he obliged. I just couldn’t bring myself to go out in that crowded hallway quite yet.

I sat there with my face in my hands, crying for everyone.

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: Detective Jose Morales

When I learned Detective Jose Morales would be the last witness called by Daniel’s defense team, I was particularly curious to find out how one of the lead detectives against Daniel was now supposedly going to help him.

I knew we weren’t going to get some kind of bombshell moment. Things like that happen during the guilt phase of a trial, and I didn’t expect Det. Morales to say anything that would call Daniel’s guilt into question. At this point, Scott Sanders was just trying to save Daniel Wozniak’s life.

During the guilt phase of the trial, Lead Detective Lt. Ed Everett made it abundantly clear he believes Daniel’s former fiancée, Rachel Buffett, should be facing the same murder charges as Daniel.

However, during Det. Morales’ time on the stand, Scott Sander’s didn’t ask any questions about Rachel during his cross-examination.

Still, I was anticipating a, “hey look over there at Rachel Buffett” approach now that we were in the penalty phase.

I was right.  First thing out of the gate was a question about Rachel’s own police interview.  Det. Morales was asked if he’d been part of Rachel’s questioning.  He had.

Rachel, Rachel, Rachel…

In fact, Detective Morales interviewed Rachel many times between 2010 – 2012.  I got the impression that he doesn’t have the same access to Rachel now.  Maybe a lawyer put the kibosh on her talking to the police?

…On When She Found Out About Julie

During questioning, Rachel had been repeatedly asked when she had found out about Julie’s murder. She always claimed to have learned about Julie death when everyone else did: after Steve Herr found her body in Sam’s apartment on May 22.

But Detective Morales confronted Rachel with the fact that there had been people at the theatre who’d heard Rachel speak about Julie’s murder earlier on that weekend.

…On What She Knew About Daniel’s Money Problems

During his testimony, Det. Morales revealed that Rachel lied to the police about her knowledge of Daniel’s money issues. She’d claimed not to know who’d loaned Daniel money.  She thought he’d borrowed from a loan shark and that Daniel was afraid of “having his legs broken” if he didn’t pay it back.

Scott Sanders led Det. Morales to tell the jury that he’d confronted Rachel. He knew it was Chris Williams who loaned money to Daniel, and he knew she knew. Why did Rachel not tell the police about Chris Williams loaning money to Daniel? Early in the investigation, Rachel stuck to the story that some “bad people” were involved in loaning Daniel money and Rachel was afraid of them.

In a 2012 interview, Rachel told the police that she’d kept Chris Williams’ identity a secret in order to protect his name.  But during Williams own testimony, he told the jury that Rachel knew there were no loan sharks.  So why had Rachel lied to the police about having a fear of them?

Scott Sanders questioned Det. Morales about Chris Williams’ cell phone movements on the day of Sam’s murder.  Williams left Rachel and Daniel’s apartment soon after Daniel, having just murdered Sam, arrived home that day. The jury was reminded that Rachel called Chris Williams not long after he left the apartment, and she was very upset, but didn’t say why.

…On Internet Use

Next, Det. Morales was questioned about the timing of internet activity at Daniel and Rachel’s apartment that day. I think the purpose of this was to show that Rachel was online when Daniel wasn’t home.

Scott Sanders didn’t link this to any of the incriminating searches that were used as evidence during the guilt phase. So why is it important that she was on the computer when Daniel wasn’t home? Oh, and by the way, the reason the police know Daniel wasn’t home: because that was when Sam was being murdered.

More Red Flags

Detective Morales had other suspicions about Rachel:

  • Rachel originally said she didn’t know what time she went to bed on the night of Julie’s murder. But later, she gave an exact time.
  • Rachel signed on to Daniel’s Facebook account during the weekend of the murders. He didn’t seem to believe her when she said this was common for her to do.
  • Rachel claimed she didn’t notice Daniel using a flip phone to send texts to Julie on the night she was murdered, even though Daniel owned a smart phone.
  • Some of those texts were “eerily similar” to statements Rachel made to the police during interviews.

Why All The Attention On Rachel Buffett?

So what was the point of all this, and did we learn anything new? At one point it was mentioned Daniel had made three calls to Rachel from jail (only one was played for the jury). I don’t think I knew that before, but I don’t know if it’s important, either.

I think Scott Sanders was trying to remind the jury that the police have doubts about Rachel. What did she know and when did she know it? Did she help cover up Sam’s murder? Was she directly involved in Julie’s murder?

And was any of it going to make a difference in determining Daniel’s fate?

When it was Matt Murphy’s turn to cross-examine Detective Morales, it felt like Murphy was giving Morales the opportunity to finish his sentences… as though Scott Sanders had been cutting him off.

I liked that little twist where a prosecution witness was now being cross-examined by the prosecutor – even if it did feel like they were still on the same side.

Murphy wanted to clear up any question the jury might have about the charges against Rachel Buffett. She is accused of lying to the police and being a murder accessory after the fact. Murphy asked Morales if he had anything to indicate that Rachel was involved with the planning of either murder. The answer was no.

Det. Morales was questioned about some of Daniel and Rachel’s computer searches. But they weren’t incriminating, so I’m not sure of the point of bringing them up.  They were all seemingly related to wedding and honeymoon planning: party rentals, cruise ship information, and Sandals Resort in Mexico. The searches were all done on Daniel’s laptop, not on the shared desktop.

That sounds like Daniel was doing a lot of the planning, but on Dateline, Rachel said he wasn’t interested or involved with the wedding plans.  I think either she or Josh Mankiewicz referred to him as a “typical guy.”

Detective Morales admitted that he doesn’t buy Daniel’s confession story, but pointed out that Daniel has always maintained that Rachel had nothing to do with the murders of Sam and Julie.

Det. Morales personally believes that Daniel told Rachel about the murder of Sam and the two of them planned to cover up Sam’s murder by killing Julie.  His theory is that Rachel had knowledge but she did not participate.

Matt Murphy was quick to point out that no matter what Det. Morales believed, there’s no proof that Rachel did anything but “echo Daniel’s lies.”

That was the end of it.  There would be no more witnesses and the jury was told to report the following Tuesday at 9 AM to hear the closing arguments.

In the next post: the beginning of Matt Murphy’s closing arguments. Matt and Scott Sanders each spoke for about six hours.  I have lots of notes.

Penalty Phase: Daniel’s Character Witness

We were down to the last two defense witnesses, including a character witness, and I don’t know if it would have been possible to find individuals on more opposite ends of the justice spectrum.

The first was Daniel Munoz, who met Daniel Wozniak when they were housed together at the Orange County Jail Intake and Release Center. They were like next-door neighbors… only in cells. The other defense witness was one of the lead detectives on the case: Det. Jose Morales of the Costa Mesa PD.

The Character Witness: Daniel Munoz

Okay, I’m going to admit it: my first reaction to seeing Munoz on the stand was, “WTF?” (I actually wrote that in my notes.)

I mean, I’m Daniel Wozniak’s friend, but no, I did not have an immediate positive reaction to Mr. Munoz being the one character witness the defense decided to put on the stand.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not badmouthing Munoz as a person, but him having a rap sheet as long as my arm probably didn’t do much to impress the jury. Matt Murphy made quick work of besmirching Munoz’s reputation during his cross-examination.

For me, it ended up being rather ironic, because when Daniel Munoz described our friend Daniel Wozniak, it didn’t sound much different from how I would describe him.

He told the jury that everybody liked Daniel Wozniak and he was always willing to help anyone who needed it. Daniel Wozniak was cheerful, honest, and generous.  He would share anything he had.  Daniel Wozniak never got into any fights. He never got angry or confrontational with anyone. Munoz even credited Daniel Wozniak for helping him get his own life back on track when he helped Munoz find religion.

Yes, I know the “finding religion” business is a prison cliché, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be true.  God and religion are very important in Daniel Wozniak’s life, so it doesn’t surprise me that these topics would come up in conversation. 

Munoz told the jury how you meet a lot of different types of people when you’re in jail. It seemed like he was saying this life experience gave him an ability to be a good judge of character.

It’s not as illogical an argument as it might sound. Making friends in jail must have its challenges, and the inmates in Orange County are even more wary after all the information that came out in the past year.

Oh, and Munoz also said that even the deputies at the Orange county jail like Daniel Wozniak.

This is actually true. I’ve seen it. He gets along really well with the deputies. He doesn’t cause trouble. He doesn’t get write-ups. He’s basically a model prisoner.

Cross-Examining Daniel Munoz

Matt Murphy’s cross of Munoz went exactly how I expected. There was a lot of talk about Munoz’s criminal record. Murphy asked questions about Munoz’s tattoos, suggesting that Daniel Wozniak might have been afraid of Munoz because he looked scary and had a bunch of “prison tats.”

 Matt Murphy, that just seems like a nonsensical argument considering the large proportion of inmates who have ink.  Tattoos are pretty common these days, both in prison and in “the real world.” I have seventeen myself.  Daniel Wozniak is probably one of the only inmates  without any tattoos.

 I wonder if any of the jury members have tattoos..?

Determined to discredit Daniel Munoz as a character witness, Matt Murphy hammered away at Munoz’s criminal record, to the extent that at one point Munoz even complained to the prosecutor, “You’re making me feel like I’m on trial here.”

Oh yeah? Try writing a blog about Daniel Wozniak…

When it was time for Scott Sanders to re-cross, he asked Munoz if there was benefit in coming to testify for Daniel Wozniak.  No, there wasn’t.  No deals were made. Munoz just insisted on testifying because he wanted to show the jury another side to Daniel Wozniak… the side he knows… the same side I know.

Why Didn’t I Testify?

That brings us to a question I’ve been asked more than once: Why didn’t I testify for my friend?

I’m an upstanding member of society; wouldn’t my opinion mean something to the jury?

My answer is: if I had been asked, I would have.  Daniel didn’t want those close to him to testify.

My personal gut feeling is that Scott Sanders might have wanted to call Daniel’s parents or other relatives to the stand.  Aside from me, Daniel has numerous people who are still close to him. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if there were other people willing to testify on Daniel’s behalf.

That didn’t happen, though, and I’m pretty sure it was because Daniel wanted to spare his friends and loved ones from being cross-examined.

More questions for any jury members who are reading this:

  1. What did you think of Daniel Munoz’s testimony?
  2. Did you wonder why no one else testified for Daniel’s character?
  3. Would it have made any difference to you if there had been other character witnesses?

Coming Up: Detective Jose Morales

It was an interesting choice to call one of the CMPD officers in charge of the entire case as the last defense witness.

During the penalty phase, when the prosecution called Detective Morales to the stand he was mostly questioned about locations related to the crime.  He’d shown the spots on a map. Morales was also the officer who took the photos of the texts on Julie Kibuishi’s phone, the ones displayed during the guilt phase.

At that point in the trial, Scott Sanders didn’t even cross-examine Det. Morales when he was on the stand.

Now, the officer would be the final witness in an attempt to convince the jury not to execute Daniel.

I was intrigued.

That testimony will be up next on DWIMF.

Penalty Phase: The Defense Witnesses

In the last post, we started day two of the penalty phase and saw the last of the prosecution witnesses. We left off with the moving testimony of June Kibuishi, the mother of murder victim Julie. When June’s testimony was finished, the jury was allowed to take a break.

When the jury was brought back into the courtroom, it was time for the very first defense witness of the entire trial.

Krystin Bergamasco

It didn’t take long to realize that the defense wanted to show the jury that maybe Daniel Wozniak wasn’t a cold, calculating mastermind who committed double murder on his own.

Since the guilt portion of the trial was long over, Scott wasn’t trying to convince anyone that his client was innocent.

But if the DA didn’t have the true story, and if Daniel didn’t do everything he was accused of doing, did he deserve the death penalty?  If Daniel Wozniak was influenced, cajoled, and, most importantly, assisted, then maybe he didn’t cook up this premeditated and confusing scheme to commit murder for money.

Two innocent people were dead, and Scott was not denying Daniel’s involvement in their murders. But now the defense was going to point a finger in another direction: directly at Daniel’s fiancée at the time, Rachel Buffett.

If the jury was going to believe that Rachel could be directly involved in the murders, then the defense had to paint her as both dangerous and manipulative. Enter, stage left: Rachel’s friend and fellow thespian, Krystin.

Around 2006, Krystin and Rachel were both students at Long Beach City College when they were cast in the play Antigone.  When asked if Rachel was well liked, Krystin said no, and that everyone actually avoided Rachel whenever possible.  She described Rachel as “very narcissistic, cold, calculating,” and willing to “do anything to get what she wants.”

Krystin Bergamasco told of an incident where Rachel set up a situation to embarrass another acquaintance just for fun.

Rachel was dating a guy named Kyle Ruebel (we’ll hear from him later).  Another actress in their theatre community was unaware of the relationship between Kyle and Rachel. Unfortunately, she confided in Rachel that she had a crush on Kyle.  According to Krystin’s story, Rachel convinced the other girl to admit her feelings to Kyle. The young woman was humiliated when Kyle admitted to already being in a relationship with Rachel.

Why would Rachel do this? Because she “loved the attention,” explained Krystin.

This might all seem a little “high school mean girl,” but Scott wanted the jury to see that Rachel had a history of spinning webs and being cruel just for sport. And when Krystin told of a conversation between the two of them while headed to Starbucks one day, it made sense why she felt the need to talk to the Costa Mesa Police about Rachel after she learned of the murders of Sam and Julie.

Rachel and Krystin had been talking about auditions for an upcoming production of the Greek tragedy Media.  While discussing two of the central themes of the play, revenge and murder, Rachel asked Krystin a rather odd question.

She wanted to know, “if you could murder someone, and you knew you could get away with it, would you?”  Krystin replied that she would definitely not murder someone.

You guys already know where this is going, right?

Rachel, however, said she would murder someone if she could get away with it, and Krystin believed that her friend was not kidding around.

This event stayed with with Krystin, and after she found out about the murders, she sat down and wrote four pages of notes (to “keep herself organized”) and headed to the police station to let them know they should be looking carefully at Rachel Buffett.

So, not only was Krystin Bergamasco the first defense witness, she was also the first witness to be cross-examined by Matt Murphy.  He didn’t spend much time questioning her.  He asked if she had any hard evidence to prove that Rachel was involved in the murders.  She said no.  That seemed sufficient for Matt to make his point that proving Rachel is mean isn’t quite the same as having DNA evidence or fingerprints.

Side note: So far, I have yet to speak with a theatre person who liked Rachel.  All the people I’ve met who worked with her describe her the same way Krystin did.  But hey, if anyone reading this knows her personally and actually likes her, I would be very interested in hearing about a different side of Rachel. 

Kyle Ruebel

The next defense witness was Rachel’s boyfriend in 2008 / 2009.

With the previous witness, Scott Sanders painted Rachel as a callous narcissist. Now, it was time to show her manipulative, law-breaking side.

Kyle talked about how he often witnessed Rachel stealing from stores at Disneyland (where she and Kyle worked) and how she would convince her younger cousin, Rebecca, to steal with her.  Rachel would defend her actions with the explanation, “they don’t care. It’s a million dollar business.”

Ummm, more like billions, but that doesn’t make it right, Rachel.

Scott Sanders asked Kyle how he felt about Rachel’s stealing.  He said it rubbed him the wrong way, but he’s a passive guy, so he didn’t say anything.

During his cross-examination, Matt Murphy wanted to know if Rachel had ever tried to convince Kyle to break the law.  He said not really, and he pointed out that “you make your own decisions,” and it doesn’t matter if your girlfriend tries to talk you into doing something.

Matt also asked Kyle if being immature, “makes you a criminal mastermind.”

Good one, Matt.  I’m not sure what makes Kyle an expert on this topic, but I’m guessing it was more of a rhetorical question.

Then back to Scott. Why did Rachel and Kyle break up? He said she was manipulative and she caused problems with his friends. She also bragged to him about having sex with another man because she was trying to “egg (him) on” to get into a fight over her (it didn’t work).

I think Matt Murphy got in the last word, though. He asked if these Rachel stories had anything to do with Daniel Wozniak. Kyle said nope, and that was it.

So, did Scott Sanders make his point with these two witnesses?  And what was his point?

Neither of these witnesses said anything that would cause the jury to doubt Daniel’s guilt, but this wasn’t the guilt phase. Maybe throwing a little shade Rachel’s way might cause them to wonder if she had some influence over Daniel’s actions?  That wouldn’t make him innocent, but perhaps they could see him as “life without the possibility of parole” guilty.

Side note – at no point in this trial did the prosecution put forth anyone from Daniel’s pre-Rachel past who had anything bad to say about pre-Rachel Daniel.  

We have two more defense witnesses, and closing arguments, coming up in future posts.

Penalty Phase Prosecution Witnesses: Day Two

Day two of the penalty phase in the trial of Daniel Wozniak started with a ruling about bringing up the criminal background of defense witness Daniel Munoz, who would vouch for Daniel’s character later that day. Judge Conley used what he called a “quick and dirty approach” to go through the rather long rap sheet of this witness, and told Matt Murphy to “make (him) an offer” about what priors he wanted to mention to the jury. Munoz met Daniel when they were both in jail.

While Matt Murphy discussed Munoz’s numerous “scary” tattoos, I couldn’t help feeling that this man might not impress the jury that much.  I think his crimes were all theft related… maybe some gang stuff… I’m not sure.  Either way, I’m not knocking Mr. Munoz as a person, but as a character witness. He probably wasn’t up there with church pastor, you know?

After this business was settled, the bailiffs brought Daniel Wozniak into the courtroom.  You always know when they are bringing him into the courtroom because you can hear the cell doors clanking open and slamming shut right before he enters. It’s like a sound cue.

In spite of being on trial for murder, Daniel has a natural bounce in his step even when chained and handcuffed.  That probably rubs some people the wrong way.

There was a short wait before the jury was brought back in. One of them was running late. In that person’s defense, it had been seriously pouring rain that morning and there was flooding and traffic jams everywhere.  Give us Californians an earthquake and we’re fine, but when water falls from the sky, it causes problems.

Once everyone was in their spots, it was time for the prosecution to continue with witness testimony.

Emi Kibuishi

The next person up was Emi Kibuishi, the youngest of the Kibuishi children.  She described her big sister, Julie, as a loving protector with a big personality.  She, and a cousin, looked up to Julie and the three of them were always together.  They loved to dance.

At one point, Murphy put up a picture of the girls from Halloween.  Emi was a bunny and Julie was Jasmine from Alladin.

Julie’s murder happened on the day of Emi’s senior prom. The next morning, Emi was scheduled to try out for the spirit squad at the University of California, Irvine.  The family decided to keep her sister’s death from her until after.

Emi thought it was strange When the entire family came to pick her up after the tryout. But when she saw that her mother was crying, she immediately realized that Julie wasn’t in the car, and she knew something terrible had happened.

There was no cross-examination. Another good decision for Scott.

June Kibuishi

Julie’s petite and soft-spoken mother, June Kibuishi, was the final prosecution witness.  When I was going over my notes from the trial, I noticed that I didn’t have that many for Julie’s mom.  I don’t think she was on the stand for that long, but I still felt like my notes might have been lacking.

There were a lot of times that I cried during this trial, and I suspect that was the reason my notes are choppy.

When June Kibuishi had been pregnant with Julie, she was told she was having another boy. But on Valentine’s Day in 1987, the Kibuishi family was thrilled to welcome their first girl.  On the stand, June described her daughter as a bubbly and athletic tomboy who balanced playing softball with her love of dancing.  Her voice cracked as she told the jury about little girl’s fondness for skirt spins and curtsies.

Julie was accepted into the Commercial Dance Conservatory at the prestigious Orange County School of the Arts (OCSA) in the eighth grade.  June Kibuishi proudly explained that this was when the school had first started accepting junior high students.

OCSA held a memorial for Julie at the ten-year reunion of her high school graduation. A plaque in her honor was put up at the school with the words: Juri “Julie” Kibuishi. Always in our hearts. Next to the message is an inlaid image of a dancing young woman.

Various photographs were displayed on the video screen during June Kibuishi’s testimony. We saw a picture of the plaque, one of the Kibuishi extended family in front of a Christmas tree, and another Julie and June together.  The two of them looked so happy in that image; June’s head resting on Julie’s shoulder.

At the end of her testimony, a sobbing June Kibuishi held up the tiara her daughter Julie was wearing when she was murdered.

And again, there was no cross-examination.  Phew.

The jury was sent out for a break, and an agitated Scott Sanders had a point to make with the judge.

The Tiara

There had been no disclosure to the defense that the clearly inflammatory tiara would be brought into court. It hadn’t been previously introduced as a piece of physical evidence.

Matt Murphy insisted that he had no idea what June Kibuishi had planned to say on the stand that morning, and that up until then, he thought the tiara had been cremated.

Scott countered that there was no way he could address the tiara with June—or question any of these grieving witnesses—without (I can’t remember exactly how he phrased it, but this is what I wrote in my court notes, so I’m not quoting here) looking like a dick.

Next time: the very first defense witness of the entire trial.

Penalty Phase – Opening Arguments

The penalty phase of Daniel’s trial started on January 4, 2016. Court began at 10:30 that day, and I was bundled up while walking to the Orange County Courthouse. I’d even broken out gloves and a scarf for this Californian’s version of a winter morning (I think it was 60 degrees Fahrenheit, so, brrrrrr).

Or, it’s possible that heading up to the eighth floor to watch twelve people decide if my friend should be put to death made me feel cold from the inside out.

The guilt phase of Daniel’s trial was all about facts. But, in the penalty phase, emotions would dominate.

Before the jury could be brought into the courtroom, the judge made some rulings on whether or not to allow certain photographs relating to Sam Herr’s funeral into evidence:

• A photo of Sam’s parents being handed a folded American flag: Allowed.
• Soldiers carrying Sam’s casket: Not allowed.
• Sam’s former fiancée crying over his casket: Allowed.
• Umm, I think there was one of Sam with a puppy he adopted while serving in Afghanistan: Not allowed.

Don’t get me wrong, I certainly didn’t want the jury to give Daniel the death penalty, but was one “puppy picture” going to tip the scale? Of course, people do love puppies. I love puppies. Would it have taken the jury even less time to decide on death if they had seen the puppy picture?

Then there was discussion about the Google searches found on the computer from Daniel and Rachel’s apartment. The jury had already seen the searches during the guilt phase, but Scott Sanders didn’t want them to be reminded that inquiries about cruise ship amenities coincided with questions about hiding bodies. Judge Conley said the law was strict where the death penalty applied, and he ruled that the jury didn’t need to see certain information twice.

I am pretty sure that no one could forget those searches anyway.

Judge Conley gave the jury additional instructions when they were finally brought in at 10:50 AM: “Nothing the attorney says or asks is evidence. Only what the witness says is evidence.”

Okay! Everyone… ignore the lawyers!

Next, there was an explanation about the difference between mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances should lean the jury away from choosing the death penalty; aggravating circumstances are the “let’s fry him” details.

So far, there hadn’t been much in the way of mitigating circumstances, so I wondered if we could expect some from Scott during this phase of the trial.

The penalty phase is almost its own mini trial. It starts with opening arguments. Then there’s the questioning and cross-examining of witnesses, and it ends with closing arguments.

An interesting little side note: Normally the prosecution has an opportunity to give a rebuttal after the defense closes. However, because of a previous ruling in this case by Judge Conley, the defense would actually have the last word during the penalty phase. This caused a great deal of contention for Matt Murphy, who continuously tried to fight this motion up until the end of the trial.

Then, it was time to get started. Everyone was in their place. Matt Murphy was raring to go.

Another side note (sorry, but this one is directed to Matt, Scott and Tracy): As a theatre director I need to tell ALL the attorneys to SPEAK UP. My goodness, you folks need to learn how to project and enunciate. Seriously. This is not meant as an insult. It’s just constructive criticism. Maybe you’re trying to make a more intimate connection with the jury. If that’s the case, you can accomplish this without dropping your volume. I’d even be willing to rehearse with any of you if you’d like. As an example, remember on Monday when we were all waiting around in the courtroom for that other case to finish? Well, I had no trouble hearing those attorneys, and they had their backs to the audience. So, just sayin’.

And back to court.

Matt Murphy was up. He started by talking about Daniel’s life. He directed the jury to his first PowerPoint slide.

But, in a rare move for the defense in this case, Scott Sanders actually piped up with “Objection,” and said he needed to address the court in chambers.

MMTVL was intrigued.

Daniel was left alone at the defense table. Usually, he would just stare forward. Maybe he was making anagrams out of the letters on the seal of California.

When everyone was back, Matt Murphy went back to the PowerPoint and BAM, Scott was objecting again. Some spectators scoffed at his request to return to chambers.

Daniel even turned from the table to give me a quick confused glance.

They returned from chambers, and the judge explained what was causing the commotion. The first objection was to some information about Daniel’s life and background contained on one of the PowerPoint slides. During the first trip to chambers, the slide was ruled inadmissible.

BUT…

It turns out that slide was still up on the screen when the machine was turned back on. This meant that the jury could have easily seen the inadmissible information.

Hence Scott’s second objection.

Oops?

This could have turned into a huge ordeal, but Judge Conley wasn’t going to stop the trial quite yet.

In addressing the jury, he wanted to know if any of them had seen the information on the slide. Show of hands? Then each of those jury members were brought into chambers to be individually questioned by the judge and the attorneys. After all was said and done, it was agreed that everyone could just forget whatever they saw and we could get on with our trial.

Phew?

So, what was on that slide? Really, it was just information about how Daniel’s background had been pretty normal. Maybe Matt wanted to point out that Daniel had no excuse for his actions, having been raised in stable family environment.

And why should the defense want to want to keep this from the jury? I know that Daniel wants to protect his family’s privacy as much as possible, but it seemed like such a fuss over something apparently fairly innocuous.

Rachel Buffett was next on Murphy’s agenda. He was pretty sure that Rachel would be a much-discussed topic during the defense’s arguments (she was), and if the jury was going to have any doubts about Daniel’s level of guilt, he wanted to nip them in the bud now.

Matt admitted that there are plenty of reasons to suspect Rachel of being involved with Daniel and the crime:

• Some people don’t like her (specifically certain police officers).
• She was living with Daniel, and they were always together. So she must have known what he was doing.
• If Daniel gained financially, then so would Rachel.
• She cried onstage (during a crying scene).
• She lied to the police about seeing a third man with Sam and Daniel on the day Sam was murdered.

But then Matt Murphy went on to defend Rachel’s claims of having no involvement whatsoever:

• None of Rachel’s DNA was found on the murder weapon.
• Her DNA was not found on the backpack
• Rachel didn’t borrow any money from Chris Williams.
• She told Chris that Dan was a pathological liar and not to trust him.
• Rachel called Detective Morales and turned over evidence to him.
• She’s had steady employment at Medieval Times and hasn’t been in any trouble since the murders happened.
• During his confession, Daniel himself insisted that Rachel wasn’t involved.

I think that Matt wanted to try to cover all the bases and be ready for whatever the defense was going to say. It appeared that he wasn’t taking any chances that the jury might blame Rachel and possibly not choose death for Daniel.

Will the Orange County D.A.’s office emphasize Rachel’s good qualities when they have her on trial?

Daniel's Google search (courtesy of ABC7)
Daniel’s Google search (courtesy of ABC7)

Next, the prosecution went on to remind the jury about a few of those Google searches, including the “making sure a body isn’t found,” and “head gunshot.” Matt wasn’t allowed to talk about the search for “Sirius” (This is probably because the brightest star in the night sky, also known colloquially as the “Dog Star” isn’t likely an important issue in this case).

Then Matt summerized the testimonies of witnesses Chris Williams and Wesley “ATM kid” Frielich. The prosecution did not want the jury to forget about how emotional each of them had been on the stand. They both talked about feelings of betrayal and fear as a direct result of Daniel’s actions.

All of this was Matt’s argument proving that Daniel Wozniak doesn’t deserve to live. The jury should see he is callous, self-serving, and that friendship means nothing to him. Murphy connected Daniel to his ironically similar character Guido Contini, in the musical Nine. The jury heard that while Daniel and Rachel were singing and dancing onstage, Julie’s and Sam’s families were in a panicked search for their loved ones.

Matt Murphy went through the timeline again. He reminded the jury of Sam’s murder in the theatre attic. After that, Daniel started taking out some of Sam’s money. And to make it look like Sam was on the run, there was the plot to lure Julie to Sam’s apartment in order to kill her and frame Sam.

Matt claimed Daniel knew that Julie and Sam were good people. He was aware they both had friends and family members who loved them, but he didn’t care. As he finished his opening arguement, Murphy wanted to convey to every one in the courtroom that today was for those friends and family.

It was time for the defense’s opening arguments. Once again, Tracy LeSage took the stage.

She started by telling the jury that the defense appreciated and respected the thoughtful consideration they used during the guilt phase. She also admitted that the defense was in no way trying to excuse or justify Daniel’s actions. However, she asked that they be fair to both sides, to please keep an open mind and look deep inside themselves, and to bring justice to the process.

That was it. She didn’t really cover any more ground than she had in her closing for the guilt phase.

As far as Daniel avoiding the death penalty, well…let’s just say I wasn’t hopeful (good thing, right?).

Next up: The Prosecution’s witnesses and victim impact statements. You might want to have a box of tissues nearby.