matt murphy – Daniel Wozniak Is My Friend?

Sentencing Day Part Two: Victim Impact Statements

Judge Conley made quick work of striking down defense attorney Scott Sanders’ motion for the removal of the death penalty in Daniel Wozniak’s sentence.

Conley explained why he planned to go along with the jury’s decision to choose death:

Daniel had no previous crimes or signs of violence in his past. The jury had seen Daniel’s performances in Nine on the weekend of the murders and Daniel appeared fine. The jury rejected any argument that Daniel had been manipulated by Rachel Buffett. Judge Conley also stated there was no evidence from Daniel’s family to support him. His strongest reason for following the recommendation of the jury was that Daniel murdered two of his own friends so he could “get married and honeymoon in style.”

At this point in the sentencing hearing, Jude Conley hadn’t actually said the words “death sentence,” but there was no doubt in anyone’s mind Daniel was about to be sent to San Quentin.

Victim Impact Statements Prior To Sentencing

When court resumed after lunch (I ate crackers, cheese, an apple and a chocolate protein bar), it was time for the victim impact statements.

Now was the opportunity for those who loved Sam and Julie to speak, unhindered, on how the murders directly affected them. Considering the number of people who came to court that day, I was expecting a lot more people to speak, but only four family members ended up giving statements.

Sam Herr’s Family Victim Impact Statements

Sam’s cousin Leah was up first.

She talked of how she and “Sammy” were more like siblings than cousins. She described Sam as kind, loving and generous. She acknowledged Sam’s “difficult” time as a young adult, but her cousin had redefined himself in the Army and was trying to “pay society back” for his mistakes.

Leah imagined her own nine-year-old daughter speaking directly to Daniel Wozniak, and how the child would tell him that her uncle was only trying to help him and would have loaned Daniel the money.

Sam’s aunt Miriam spoke next. She said she should be able to speak for seven hours, one hour for each year the Herr family waited for justice.

Miriam’s anger toward defense attorney Scott Sanders was palpable. She accused Sanders of trying to gain his own glory from Daniel’s trial. Sam’s aunt finished her statement with a hope that Sam and Julie would be guarding the gates of heaven to keep Daniel from entering when he dies.

Steve Herr’s Statements

The final member of Sam’s family to speak was his father, Steve Herr. His wife Raquel stood next to him.

Steve made a request of all of Sam’s fellow veterans who’d come to court that day. He wanted them to join him and Sam’s mom at the podium. I think there were eight of Sam’s Army friends flanking the Herrs and supporting them during Steve’s statement.

He began by thanking Judge Conley, Matt Murphy, and the Costa Mesa Police for all their hard work. He expressed sympathy for the Kibuishi family.

Steve Herr said he could speak for hours about his son Sam, who he and Raquel loved with all their hearts.

A letter was read from Army Capt. Benjamin Kilgore, Sam’s troop leader in Afghanistan. Capt. Kilgore praised Sam’s character and bravery as a U.S. soldier.

Steve Herr looked at Daniel and reminded him about the man he’d murdered, stating that Daniel Wozniak is the “poster boy” for the need of a death penalty in California.

At the end of his victim impact statement, Steve Herr voiced that his “only regret” was that the state of California wouldn’t let him “kill this coward” himself.

Do you think it would make Steve Herr feel a little better if he could punch Daniel in the face really hard just one time? Daniel is my friend, but I certainly wouldn’t begrudge any of Sam’s or Julie’s people the opportunity to punch him in the face. I don’t think Daniel would even complain about that. I really don’t.

You know what though? I think some of them would trade the chance to punch Daniel if there was an opportunity to punch Scott Sanders in the face. I’m not saying it’s deserved, but there is a lot of anger aimed at Scott.

Julie Kibuishi’s Family Victim Impact Statements

The final victim impact statement was made by June Kibuishi, Julie’s mother, while her husband Masa stood next to her at the podium. She looked directly at Daniel and began, “On May 22, 2010, you took my beautiful precious daughter’s life,” by murdering Julie and then disgracing her to use her as a decoy.

June Kibuishi talked about how her family came from Japan more than thirty years ago so they could give their children a better life. The Kibuishis taught their kids to be good people with loving hearts, but June’s own heart was, “ripped apart when (she) found out what happened to (her) baby.”

Julie’s mother sobbed as she asked Daniel Wozniak how he could “take away (her) baby.” She berated Daniel for showing no remorse or guilt in the courtroom, instead smiling and enjoying being the center of attention, and “if anyone deserves the death penalty, it’s him.”

June may have been the only Kibuishi family member to speak, but she packed enough of an emotional wallop for her entire family.

I’ve wondered how the families made the decision of who would talk at Daniel’s sentencing hearing. Were there some family members who knew they wouldn’t be able to even get words out, or others who though they might explode with anger if they looked at, and spoke directly to, Daniel Wozniak?

It makes me think of footage from the Jeffrey Dahmer trial. A woman who was the sister of one of his victims had to be restrained by deputies when she came at Dahmer screaming, “Jeffery, I hate you!” No, I am not comparing Daniel to Jeffrey Dahmer in any way. I’m just contemplating the level of anger a person must feel in that situation, and how challenging it would be to keep your calm.

Daniel did look directly at the speakers during their statements. Well, actually I couldn’t see him during Steve Herr’s statement because of all the Army guys (Not that I’m complaining about the view at that point).

Daniel Wozniak’s Response To The Victim Impact Statements

I know many people probably saw Daniel as expressionless because of what appeared to be a lack of emotion on his face. One journalist asked me if I think Daniel is a psychopath. I said no. I don’t.

I think he was just really listening, and probably trying not to have any expression on his face. If he cried, people would think he felt sorry for himself or, worse yet, he was “acting.” I saw a man who is genuinely contrite, but that’s probably because I know he is.

Judge Conley Sentences Daniel Wozniak

It was 2:15 PM on September 25, 2016, when Judge Conley read the official sentencing.

Daniel Wozniak was given two sentences of twenty-five years to life (the extra sentences were unexpected), and the death penalty.

He was to be sent to San Quentin State Prison and placed in California’s only death row facility within ten days of the sentencing.

Before court adjourned, Judge Conley set one final hearing for the following Friday. This was to settle the specifics of the financial restitution that Daniel Wozniak will pay to the Sam’s and Julie’s families.

Prosecutor Matt Murphy was so enthusiastic about getting Daniel on his way to San Quentin, he suggested Daniel be driven the over four hundred miles right away and then be driven back to appear in court the next week. Judge Conley turned down that plan, but I suspect Matt Murphy would have offered to drive Daniel to San Quentin himself.

Let’s just take a moment to imagine Matt Murphy behind the wheel of what I’d imagine would be a black Mercedes M-class, a shackled Daniel Wozniak riding shotgun. What station would be on Matt’s radio? I’d like to imagine him picking an old standards station. I can just see the two of them on the open highway, both singing along to Frank Sinatra’s “Strangers in the Night.”

Daniel Wozniak Leaves The Orange County Jail For San Quentin’s Death Row

Today I received my last letter from Daniel at the OC Jail. He’d written it just after I left on Sunday night. He said that as soon as our visit ended, the deputies told him to prepare to leave or “roll up,” if you’re using the vernacular of the incarcerated. That probably means they drove to San Quentin in the dark. I wonder if Daniel slept at all. I think he was planning to stay awake and see as much as he could see.

Some of you won’t be happy to learn this, but Daniel isn’t scared or worried to be going to death row. He has a pretty good sense of what it will be like in there and already has friends “on the row” who he met when he was in the OC Jail.

Also, once a person is actually in prison, there is access to a lot more creature comforts. So, he’s not really worse off. He did say he’d miss seeing me every Monday, but he’s pleased to have access to the San Quentin law library where he can find information for his own case, but more so, to help other inmates with their legal issues.

Daniel Wozniak will never be able to make up for what he took from the Herr family and the Kibuishi family, but all he can do now is try to move forward, and be his best self from here on out. I think that’s the most anyone can do.

Side Post – A Court Update

Daniel was in court again on Monday June 13. This time, I was able to go.

You might be thinking, “Hey, I thought the jury already gave him a death penalty verdict. Why isn’t he languishing away in San Quentin by now?” There’s a big difference between a jury’s recommendation and actually being sentenced. Until Judge Conley makes his final decision, Daniel will remain in the Orange County Jail.

If you’re wondering what’s holding up the decision, I’d say it’s the tenacity of Daniel’s defense attorney, Scott Sanders.

The Inmate Informants Controversy

Throughout this entire process, Scott Sanders has claimed the Orange County Sheriffs and the Orange County District Attorney’s office hid evidence from the defense, and this evidence was a result of an illegal use of inmate informants at the OC Jail.

From the beginning, all the accusations were denied. But when Sanders dug up proof of an informant network, Matt Murphy claimed that it was a moot point anyway because he wasn’t going to use the information during Daniel’s trial. There was nothing relevant learned about Daniel’s case.

I’m pretty sure Scott Sanders would respond with a “Let me be the judge of that.” Especially since he ended up finding proof of what he’s been claiming all along.

But Sanders isn’t the judge, so he needs to convince Judge Conley that the defense has the legal right to see ALL the information that was collected on his client. Matt Murphy does not agree, and so, even though his trial ended over four months ago, Daniel still hasn’t been sentenced.

Now, before you get all pissy at Scott Sanders and blame him solely for the seemingly endless delays in Daniel’s sentencing, you should know that Sanders has repeatedly stated the defense is not trying to free Daniel or contest the guilty verdict. Sanders does want the death penalty removed, and he wants to make sure Daniel got a completely fair and legal trial.

That is his job, after all.

Obviously Matt Murphy has a job to do as well, and it’s a damn important one: get justice for the victims. With Daniel’s sentencing repeatedly delayed, it’s no surprise the victims’ family members are frustrated and angry.

In recent weeks, though, new revelations pointing to information being hidden has surfaced. Sanders has learned of the existence of over 1,000 pages of records kept by OC Sheriff’s deputies who were in a “special handling” unit in charge of those previously non-existent jailhouse informants.

Matt Murphy and the DA’s Office have stated that they were unaware of this “blog” kept by the Sheriffs. Murphy still stands behind his assertion that none of it is relevant in Daniel’s case.

But if Scott Sanders is a tad doubtful, and he wants to look at this “blog” for himself, then he should get to look at it… and he shouldn’t be blamed for the time taken to do so.

How Does The Informants Controversy Matter In The Wozniak Case?

You know what? There probably isn’t a damn thing in those notes that will change the outcome of Daniel’s sentence. That’s not the point.

Murphy is asking for the death penalty, so doesn’t it make sense to at least confirm that Daniel’s rights weren’t violated? For those of you who want him dead, think about it this way: do you want Daniel coming back on appeal?

While I was sitting in the courtroom Monday, listening to the back and forth between Murphy and Sanders, a ridiculous analogy popped into my head.

A couple is having an argument because the woman thinks the man is cheating on her. By the way, for the purpose of this example, I’m using a male / female couple to simplify my pronoun use.

Anyway, he profusely denies cheating, but she just doesn’t believe him. She asks to look at his texts. He says he doesn’t have any texts on his phone. She still doesn’t believe him. She’s heard rumors that he cheated on past girlfriends.

She points out that his clothes smell like another woman’s perfume, and he explains that he was attacked by one of those scent sprayers in Macy’s. He promises that there’s nothing tawdry to be found in his texts, and it would be a waste of everyone’s time for her to read them.

Wait a minute. Did he originally say there weren’t any texts at all?

Then she points out a lipstick stain on the collar of his shirt. He tells her that it’s from his grandma hugging him when he picked her up from the old-folks home to take her to lunch. She doesn’t believe him. She wants to see the texts and she’s not giving up.

So he lets her see two of his texts. One is from his boss and one from his sister. He tells her that all the texts are that innocent, and there is no need for her to look at the rest of them. But there were hundreds more texts, and she refuses to believe they are all from bosses and sisters. “Who’s Brittany? Your sister’s name isn’t Brittany.”

It’s not impossible that the guy has a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of it. Brittany might even be grandma’s caretaker, for all we know. He even has a logical reason why there was a receipt for the No Tell Motel in his pants pocket. But with all that explaining, why not just let her read the texts?

I know it’s a silly comparison, but also I think it’s a silly argument.

Judge Conley (Would he be the couples’ therapist in my scenario?) decided today that Scott Sanders would not get to see the rest of those secret “blog” notes.

Not much of a surprise there. Conley decided that since the DA didn’t know about the notes, there was no way they could have used them against Daniel during his trial.

Judge Conley did set a new sentencing date. On September 23, he will decide whether or not to uphold the jury’s recommendation to send Daniel to death row.

That’s the schedule for now, at least…

It’s worth noting that Californians will vote on whether or not to repeal the death penalty this November.

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 26^th,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 27^th, 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..!

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.

Closing Arguments

When closing arguments in Daniel’s trial started on December 16, 2015, I was feeling… I guess the best word is anticipatory. The defense had rested the day before after barely questioning the prosecution’s witnesses and calling none of their own. So far Scott Sanders and his team hadn’t put forth much of a defense (at least not in front of the jury), but I figured we were all about to see some fancy-schmancy lawyering now that we were in the closing stretch of the guilt phase.

A Secondary Verdict?

Before the jury was brought back into the courtroom, there was some discussion about the possibility of a secondary verdict. There was an option to find Daniel guilty of second-degree murder instead of first-degree. Like anyone thought that was going to happen.

Then, Scott Sanders brought up something I never would have considered. Some of the camera footage taken during the first days of trial showed Daniel being escorted by deputies into the courtroom, and it was easy to see that he was handcuffed.

If you remember, the jury wasn’t supposed to ever see Daniel in cuffs. Jury members are told to avoid media coverage of the trial, but stuff happens. It wouldn’t be impossible for one of them to accidentally catch a glimpse of that footage on the nightly news.

Judge Conley asked the camera operators to wait until Daniel was seated and no longer handcuffed before they filmed him from now on.

But, HEY JURY MEMBERS! Now that the trial is over, I would LOVE to talk to you. I have a few thousand questions I’d like to ask you. Let’s start with: Did you know that Daniel was incarcerated during the trial?

Matt Murphy’s Closing Argument

When the jury was brought in, the judge explained that the “party with the burden of proof” gets to speak first and last. This meant that Matt Murphy would get a rebuttal after the defense finished its closing argument – like a Scott Sanders sandwich.

Matt started off by telling the jury that during this, the guilt phase of the trial, they are only responsible for deciding if Daniel Wozniak broke the law. Did he commit murder and was it a calculated decision to kill? This was a time for a sterile examination of the facts. This was not the time to consider punishment. Was he guilty of first degree murder?

Murphy then went on to remind the jury of the “cornucopia of evidence” in this case (Thanksgiving of murder?). He said that the amount of evidence was so overwhelming, he wished he “could borrow” some of it for his other cases.

(“Oh, Matt. You jokester.” Slaps own knee.)

I’ll tell you something, if someone hurt me or one of my loved ones, I would want Matt Murphy to prosecute them. You know what I’m sayin?

That black backpack alone easily connected Daniel to Sam’s murder. Daniel’s DNA and Sam’s blood were all over Sam’s personal items found in the bag.

Matt talked about how the evidence didn’t need to eliminate all possible doubt, though, because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

Murphy didn’t have to prove who made the implicating Google searches found on the computer in Daniel and Rachel’s apartment. The searches themselves were “very powerful evidence.”

Unanswered Questions

He admitted that there were still some unanswered questions. Like: how did Daniel get Sam’s PIN number? The prosecution didn’t know, but Murphy said it was okay for the jury to just “guess” a way that Daniel could have acquired it. He suggested that Daniel had glanced over Sam’s shoulder at some point when Sam was taking out money.

My guess… I think Sam willingly gave his PIN to someone he trusted.

Murphy told the jury that Daniel had started working on his murderous “plan” months before the killings took place. That was why Daniel reconnected with Wesley (ATM kid). But during Wesley’s testimony, questions came up about when this all took place. Not all of the answers Wesley gave worked with the prosecution’s timeline. So during his closing, Murphy suggested that the teen was probably just confused.

Money The Real Motive?

Even though the prosecution is not obligated to provide a motive, Matt Murphy knew exactly what the motive was in this case: money.

Daniel was in debt. On the PowerPoint, Murphy showed two overdrawn bank accounts. The thing is, the total was under a $1000. Yup, that’s not a typo. I didn’t forget a zero. And because Daniel was estranged from his family, he had no one to help him with the $1000. Also, he’d recently gotten a DUI (incurring more debt).

And the most crucial need for money: Daniel and Rachel’s impending wedding / honeymoon.

Side note – On Dateline, Rachel said her parents were traditional and they were planning to pay for the wedding. So that expense was actually covered.

Matt Murphy wondered, if Daniel needed money so desperately, why didn’t he just stick to “good old identity theft?” That is a good question, MM!

Hey, I just realized that Matt Murphy and Murder Musings have the same initials.

Here’s why I don’t believe the “murder for financial gain” motive:

First, Daniel had to know that it would take some time to clean out Sam’s bank account, especially if he was planning to do it by maxing out an ATM every day. I would think that Daniel would want as much time as possible, so as to collect as much money as possible. But Daniel didn’t have any time, because the police started looking for Sam right away.

Why did they start looking for Sam? It wasn’t because his father was worried about him. The police wanted to find Sam because Julie’s body was in his apartment. That brought them into this case immediately. And that didn’t help Daniel’s plan.

Also, Daniel had Sam’s checkbook and credit cards. Why weren’t they used? Why didn’t he just forge a check to himself and get a much larger sum than the $400 ATM limit?

And seriously, that amount of debt was so paltry. It’s certainly not insurmountable. Get a job. Come up with a creative sign and panhandle on the offramp. Hell, you could probably make $1000 selling plasma and semen.

But, in his confession, Daniel said he did it for the money. So that must be the motive, right?

Matt Murphy finished up his closing with a PowerPoint list and a restating of the evidence against Daniel. Then it was all wrapped up in Daniel’s confession. The one where he finally stopped lying and told the true story… right?

Hey blog-reading juror: how important was that confession to you guys? Would you still have found him guilty without it?

The Defense’s Closing Argument

The prosecution finished and I got myself ready to watch Scott Sanders jump into action. What was he going to say? Was there any possible defense? Would there be a Perry Mason moment?

Spoiler alert – there wasn’t.

That is when Daniel’s other lawyer, assistant defense attorney Tracy LeSage, stood up to address the jury. Well, I did not see that one coming. Why wasn’t the man Daniel calls “Fearless Leader” taking the lead here?

I started coming up with theories in my head. Maybe the defense team thought Tracy would be more likable than Scott. Perhaps Scott was saving his energy for the penalty phase. Did he have a sore throat and no one offered him a Ricola? I don’t know.

The soft-spoken LeSage put forth a very simple request to the jury: Try to see the whole picture. She wanted them to really study the facts. Tracy said that nothing in life is black and white. She just wanted them to keep an open mind. That was the gist of it, and she was done.

Matt Murphy made one last comment. It was some kind of analogy about Daniel driving a car. Sorry, my notes are sketchy on this part. I was getting hungry.

Lunch break!

Final Instructions

Judge Conley gave the jury final instructions before they started their deliberations. One point he made was that they were to ignore that Daniel did not testify. They shouldn’t guess or assume any reasons for this.

Unfortunately, I think most of us believe that if a person doesn’t testify, he’s guilty? I’m sure that Daniel and the defense team are well aware of that.

Then, the jury was ushered into the deliberation room by Deputy Mike (who is a really nice guy by the way). I think everyone knew that a guilty verdict wouldn’t be long in coming.

And I think that EVERYONE in the room agreed that Daniel was guilty of something.

I’ll be digging into the penalty phase of the trial next. I’m also planning a post of my thoughts and reactions to that Dateline episode.

Guilty – Part Six

On December 15, 2015, Matt Murphy called Michael Anthony Cohen of the Costa Mesa Police Department back to the stand and continued to show the jury Daniel’s interview with the police.

The police continued to work on Daniel for a confession as they tried to locate Rachel. They made comments like, “your world has crashed down,” ”just try to right a wrong,” and “I’m not a dentist. I don’t pull teeth.”

Daniel was crying. Face buried in his hands, he said, “I did not murder anyone.”

Then, Rachel showed up at the police station and was brought into the interrogation room with Daniel. He was supposed to tell Rachel what his role had been in Julie’s murder. He was quiet and mumbly on the recording. The jurors had the advantage of being able to follow along on a paper transcript.

Daniel admitted to Rachel that he’d been involved in an ATM scam with Sam. He told her about Sam coming to their apartment on Saturday morning. How Daniel had seen the body and helped Sam get away.

Before leaving the room, Rachel asked when she could talk to Daniel again. She was told she could call from jail.

Daniel whispered, “I fucked up.”

“Yeah you did,” she whispered back as she left.

The questioning continued. Daniel stuck to his current story. The police asked Daniel to give closure to Julie’s family. When they got nothing else, they booked him.

That’s where the video stopped for now. The jury would next hear an audio recording of a telephone call between Rachel and Daniel. It was a game changer.

Rachel knew the call was recorded. Daniel knew the call was recorded. So when Rachel told Daniel that his brother Tim had a murder weapon, they both knew the police had heard this.

Rachel said she was going to call the detective. When he heard all this damning information, Daniel told her, “I’m going to tell them everything… I have to do something now.”

He asked her to come to the police station right away, and told her, “Now I’m dead.”

“Baby, you are already dead,” said Rachel Buffett to her fiancé right before he confessed to murdering two people.

The Confession

We went back to the video and the now-familiar interrogation room scene.

This is when Daniel admitted to being the murderer of not only Julie, but Sam as well. Daniel told the police about shooting Sam at the Liberty Theatre, and how he eventually went back to dismember the body.

They learned that Julie’s murder was part of a devious plan to frame Sam. Daniel told them it was all for the motive of “money and insanity.”

During this confession, Daniel went from weeping to hysterical laughter and back to weeping again. He repeatedly reminded the police that it was “all (him) and no one else,” who committed these horrendous acts.

The video was finally turned off, and Scott Sanders now had the opportunity to cross examine Cohen.

He asked if there was a formal interview with Rachel Buffett at the time of Daniel’s confession. Cohen didn’t know.

MMTVL just has a few questions to add:

Was there any DNA actually found on Julie’s body? Are there any more recorded phone calls between Rachel and Daniel? Is there more video of Daniel’s interrogation the jury was not shown?

Next Witness: Detective Larry Fettis

Detective Larry Fettis was in charge of the search scene at the El Dorado Nature Center. He testified that he found the skeletal remains of a human hand. He had marked it as evidence.

No cross examination.

MMTVL (sound effect of shivering)

Next Witness: Detective Jose Morales

Morales was the second to last witness for the prosecution. He was asked to explain how he’d gone through Julie’s cell phone. He told the jury about taking screen shots (the ones that were used in court).

Morales also identified locations on a map displayed on the overhead screen. He pointed out the Hunger Artists Theatre, Orange Coast College, the Camden Apartments, etc.

MMTVL Oh hey are you the officer who interrupted my rehearsal that one time? We were on a break anyway. Hunger Artists isn’t there anymore, by the way. This has no relevence to the case, it’s just too bad the place closed.

Final Witness For The Prosecution: Dr. Anthony Juguioun

Dr. Anthony Juguioun is the CMPD Chief Forensic Pathologist. He did not actually perform the autopsies on Sam and Julie, but he had the notes from the doctor who was given that assignment.

Dr. Juguioun showed a diagram of a skull while he explained Julie’s bullet wounds. Next, a diagram of a male body was shown on the screen as the doctor discussed Sam’s bullet wounds and how his body had been decapitated. He said that Sam’s right hand was never found.

There was no cross examination of Dr. Juguioun.

After this final witness, the prosecution rested.

After calling no witnesses at all, the defense rested.

Up next: Closing arguments.

Guilty – Part Five

And continued…

Some time has passed since I began writing the play by play of the trial. We all know how it ends, but people reading this are probably keen to learn all the details. That’s how I am. That’s why I went to the trial in the first place.

The “character” Murderer Musings TV Lawyer (MMTVL) is more from the point of view of an analytical jury member asking the questions one might want answered if given the task of deciding a death penalty case.

People are curious about the specifics. I’ve had friends ask me about my opinion on the defense put on by Scott Sanders. I’ll give you more of my thoughts on that when we get to the penalty phase of Daniel’s trial.

More Witnesses For The Prosecution: Anthony Celeste, Continued

In “Guilty Part Four,” we left off right after the lunch break on December 14, 2015, and Anthony Celeste was on the stand.

Anthony filmed each and every performance of the production of Nine, the play Daniel and Rachel were performing in on the days of the murders. Anthony was very familiar with the play.

Matt Murphy played the opening scene from each of the shows to see if there were any variations in the performances from night to night. Murphy pointed out that Daniel did a great job onstage and there was no difference in performances even though he had just committed two cold-blooded murders.

But during cross-examination, Anthony Celeste said Daniel’s performance was “off” on the night of Friday, May 21st. Anthony described him as sweating profusely, looking flush, and missing cues. The audience that night probably didn’t notice, but Anthony saw the show every night, and normally Daniel was “spot on.”

Anthony also answered questions about Rachel Buffett’s performance that night. He noted that, unlike her other performances, Rachel shed actual tears during her crying scene that night.. It wasn’t like her to be able to cry on cue.

MMTVL doesn’t really have any questions, but I want to say that Anthony Celeste did fine work filming the show. It looked great. And the stuff about crying on cue was pretty funny, but in Rachel’s defense, it is not easy to do that.

Witness Michael Anthony Cohen

Michael Cohen was one of the Costa Mesa Police Department officers who interviewed Daniel and eventually took his confession. It was during Cohen’s testimony that Matt Murphy showed the jury segments of the video of Daniel’s interrogation.

The Interrogation Video

The time stamp on the video showed that this was an edited version of the questioning. Who knows what was left out or why? But we saw Daniel change his story repeatedly before he gave his confession… and don’t think the detectives didn’t notice the discrepancies.

Some of you may have seen snippets of the video on the Dateline episode. Just so you know, I have made fun of him repeatedly for the Tommy Bahama shirt he wore. He was arrested at his bachelor party. I feel like this wasn’t a classy event.

The police brought Daniel in because they connected him to Sam Herr’s ATM card through Wesley. They are searching for Sam at this point: They still think he murdered Julie and is on the run. They even thought they might find Sam at the bachelor party.

Early on, Daniel owned up to being involved with Sam in a plan to defraud Sam’s bank. Sam gave Daniel his ATM card and PIN. Daniel would arrange for money to be taken out of Sam’s account. Sam would claim that he didn’t take the money out, and the bank would replace the “stolen” money. That was it. Daniel didn’t know where to find Sam. He didn’t know anything about Julie’s murder.

Story changes…

He admitted that he lied to the police (that happens a lot on the video). He knew more than he originally told them. Sam had come to Daniel and Rachel’s apartment early Saturday morning. Sam was “freaked out” and told Daniel that there was a body in his apartment. He’d shot Julie the night before during a drug and alcohol fueled fit of rage. He needed help getting away. He asked Daniel to take his laptop and get rid of it. Daniel dropped Sam off in Long Beach on Saturday afternoon. He didn’t know anything about the murder weapon. He hadn’t even seen it.

The CMPD wanted to know why Daniel agreed to help a murderer escape.

Daniel claimed he was afraid for his and Rachel’s safety. Sam had threatened to kill them both if Daniel didn’t help him. In return for helping Sam get away, Daniel would take all of Sam’s money out of his bank account. Some of the money would get to Sam. Daniel would keep the rest. He insisted that Rachel didn’t know anything about any of it.

The CMPD wanted to know how Daniel was going to get the money to Sam.

Now Daniel acknowledged that Sam had purchased a burner phone. Sam would eventually call Daniel with information on how to get him money.

The police ask Daniel for a DNA sample to “eliminate” him. He obliged, but remembered that he had been in Sam’s apartment on Friday night. He had used the bathroom.

At this point, Daniel agreed to tell the officers everything ; anything he could do to get out of jail for his wedding that Friday.

The officers were not buying Daniel’s story. He wasn’t going anywhere.

He was being charged as an accessory to murder.

Daniel was in a lot of trouble. The police suggested he cooperate. Tell them everything. Lead them to Sam. That would look better for him in court. He should “man up.” The officers asked him what they should tell his fiancée. “Tell her I’m sorry,” he quietly mumbled.

Things continued to get worse for Daniel. The police tried a perfectly legal but dishonest tactic.

They told Daniel about finding his DNA at Julie’s crime scene.

His story changed again.

Sam had taken Daniel up to his apartment and Daniel had seen “the goddamned body.” He said he saw the bullet holes in Julie’s head.

Things really unraveled for Daniel after that. Officers said that seasoned detectives weren’t able to see the bullet holes because of Julie’s position and her hair. Daniel tried to talk his way out of this error by saying Sam had told him that there were two shots. This didn’t work.

Now they were sure that Daniel was part of this murder. Maybe he even shot Julie. They tried to convince Daniel to “let it go” and that he would “feel much better,” once he told them the truth.

Daniel wanted to talk to Rachel.

That is where Judge Conley ended for the day.

Next up – The last witnesses

I Went to Court!

Daniel Wozniak has had many court appearances in the past 5 years, and the way things are going, there will be many more.

Today, for the first time, I was in the court room to watch it happen.

Here’s a simplified version of the legal mumbo-jumbo covered today:

Daniel’s lawyer, Public Defender Scott Sanders, had previously filed a motion to remove the Orange County District Attorney’s office from prosecuting Daniel’s case.
Sanders is also the Public Defender for Scott Dekraai, a man facing trial for the deadliest mass killing in Orange County history: The Seal Beach salon killings.
In both cases, which are constantly being linked together by the press, Scott Sanders is claiming prosecutorial misconduct specifically linked to the Orange County Sherriff’s office and the secret misuse of jailhouse informants.
In Daniel’s case, there is also the issue about the TV show LockUp Orange County, which featured Daniel and other inmates in an episode called “Extended Stay – Unholy Trinity.” Sanders claims that the O.C. Sheriffs and the D.A.’s office aimed the show’s producers in Daniel Wozniak’s direction (this has been denied by the producers of LockUp, who say they were just randomly drawn to Daniel and his “actor’s smile.”)
It is my understanding that a similar motion was approved by a different judge in the Scott Dekraai case when the Orange County D.A. was removed from his murder trial this past March.
Today’s hearing was so D.A. Matt Murphy could argue against the motion to dismiss the D.A.’s office (and Murphy) from prosecuting in Daniel’s case. It was a motion to stop Sander’s motion.

Okay, that’s the legal stuff. Let’s talk about me.

A Personal Account

I arrived late. The hearing was set for nine in the morning, and because I got a little turned around in the courthouse (my friends will tell you that this is no surprise; my sense of direction is awful), I didn’t get to Judge Conley’s courtroom until 9:20.

There was a big CLOSED sign in the window, so I was worried I’d messed it all up and wouldn’t be able to watch. But then, three people who looked like “law people” got off the elevator. They had suits and briefcases and one of them was pushing a dolly that was stacked with cardboard file boxes. I decided they looked like they knew more than I do, so I just asked them about the “closed” sign. Together, we came to the conclusion that since I wasn’t a witness or juror… what the hell, go for it!

I quietly sneaked in the first set of doors and peeked through a window. I still couldn’t see if Daniel was even the defendant, so I opened the second set of doors and slipped into the closest seat, in the back row. A deputy looked up at me, but seemed unconcerned by my presence, so I figured it was OK.

I saw Daniel sitting next to his lawyer at the defendant’s table. His back was to me and he wore his usual orange jumpsuit with “Orange County Jail” written across the shoulders. The tag was sticking up from his collar, and I wanted so much to walk right up to him and tuck it in. It’s just a thing I’d do for any of my friends.

I restrained myself.

Although we had talked briefly on the phone over the weekend about me possibly coming to the hearing, Daniel had no idea I’d come in. I’d wondered if he was hopeful that I would show. He probably figured I’d changed my mind or just couldn’t bring myself to wake up that early. Now I was sitting about ten rows behind him. I hoped my friend would somehow realize I had come to support him.

The Families

Just two rows behind Daniel sat the parents of murder victim Samuel Herr. I had seen their pictures many times in print, and I’d watched Steve Herr when he appeared with Rachel Buffett on the Dr. Phil Show, so I recognized him and his wife immediately. There were two other people sitting with them—a couple about the same age as Steve Herr’s parents—who I suspect were also relatives.

The four of them were the only people wearing headsets during the entire proceeding. Why? No idea. If you know, leave a comment!

Directly behind Mr. Herr sat a man who may have been the father of Julie Kibuishi.

Seeing these people in person made my stomach hurt.

As the D.A. mentioned during the proceedings, Sam Herr’s parents have attended every court hearing related to this case over the past five years.

I think I heard: one hundred and four times.

Other Observers

Aside from the family, it looked like the twenty or so other people sitting around the courtroom were likely a mix of law students (young people in business suits) and reporters.

Then there was me. Most of my tattoos were hidden by clothing, but my hair color is always noticeable. Also (and I know it was just in my head) I felt like you could read it on my face: I’m here because I’m friends with “the killer.”

District Attorney Matt Murphy Off Camera

The next hour consisted of the two attorneys arguing for and against the motion to remove the O.C.D.A. from the case.

A side note: Since I’m such a fan of Dateline and other true crime shows, it was pretty cool to see D.A. Matt Murphy in person after seeing him so many times on television.

Truth is, I was a little disappointed. It seems like he tries harder to be interesting when TV cameras are on him. Today? He presented a thirty minute PowerPoint presentation to illustrate his argument against the motion.

To me, he came off like he was cranky. He seemed personally bothered by the accusations against the D.A.’s Office. It was like he really wanted to make sure his own name and reputation would not be smeared. He complained about the many articles written about him and his office and their possible misconduct, claiming that the coverage has been “bitingly negative” against the prosecution.

Even he must have realized how he sounded, because he repeatedly pointed out that he wasn’t concerned about himself or his career. This was “all about the case.”

Eye Contact

When the Judge called for a fifteen minute break, I decided to move to a different seat, where I could see better. Steve Herr stood up at the same time, and he happened to look at me.

I’m sure it was just a “you’re a random human in my eye line” look, but inside it felt like a “how could you possibly be friends with the man who murdered my son” look.

When Daniel was brought back into the court after the break ended, he finally saw me. His eyes lit up and a huge smile appeared on his face.

I almost felt a bit guilty. I would hate for Daniel’s reaction to my presence to cause an observer to think he was flip about the gravity of this situation. It’s like I could read the headline: “Brutal Killer Smiles During Court Proceedings.” It’s no wonder he doesn’t want his parents there.

It was great that he was happy to see me, but I was hoping he’d have a bit more of a poker face. Did the victims’ family members notice? Did they now connect me with Daniel, and see me as someone “on his side?” From then on, I made sure to avoid looking at them for fear of eye contact.

There was another hour of back and forth with the lawyers. During that time, I’m pretty sure Daniel made sure to get a couple more glimpses in my direction. I’m guessing it gave him moral support, and that was good, because he is my friend.

My friend who possibly murdered two people (or at the very least, was involved).

Obviously, there is much more to learn about this case. I hope information will come out showing that Daniel isn’t responsible for the deaths of these people, because the idea that he could be a murderer is painful for me. The man I know is much more than just this heinous act, and I believe that I can hate the sin, but still love the sinner.

Wrapping Up

In the end, Judge Conley denied D.A. Murphy’s motion. So, I guess Daniel’s side “won” this little battle.

When Daniel stood up, he made sure to look at me again before he was taken out of the courtroom. He smiled and winked. I think he mouthed something about trying to call me later. Then, hands cuffed and feet shackled, he was shuffled out by two deputies.

Keeping my head down, I hurried out the courtroom and went directly to the elevators.

Then, I did some nice normal grocery shopping.