2d 497 [75 Cal. Defendant presumably could have given the court or counsel any information he had at that time. 3d 1092] facie showing of group bias, thus shifting to the prosecutor the burden to justify his challenges. 22. The prosecutor's description of the process by which the jury should decide the penalty verdict was inadequate because it left no place for a decision as to what penalty is appropriate. He has no mental illness except an inability to empathize with others. 3d 1075] pistol, and chemicals. Late in the evening on October 31, 1979, defendant and Norris picked up Shirley Ledford, age 16, who was hitchhiking home from Limitation on death-qualifying voir dire. Neither can we determine whether the prosecutor, at the time he asked the question, intended to prove the fact at issue. medianet_height = "90"; Defendant must show that the error affected his right to a fair and impartial jury. Brown stated specifically that "to return a death judgment, the jury must be persuaded that the [aggravating factors are] so substantial in comparison with the [mitigating factors] that it warrants death instead of life without parole." (See People v. Velasquez (1980) 26 Cal. (See People v. Rist (1976) 16 Cal. Barring mention that Norris had been adjudicated a mentally disordered sex offender. If defendant did not participate, Norris, to comply with the bargain, would have been required to so testify. [33] Defendant invokes the rule that it is "improper to ask questions which clearly suggested the existence of facts which would have been harmful to defendant, in the absence of a good faith belief by the prosecutor that the questions would be answered in the affirmative, or with a belief on his part that the facts could be proved, and a purpose to prove them, if their existence should be denied." In People v. Crowe (1973) 8 Cal. [14a] Concerned about the implications of our discussion in Hovey v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal. This page may contain sensitive or adult content that's not for everyone. 546.). If the only problem was the prosecutor's misstatement of the evidence -- his assertion that Norris's 1976 conviction was for rape by threat, when the record was silent on the point -- the matter could have been redressed by timely admonition. The prosecutor offered the evidence to prove defendant's state of mind -- that defendant did not feel intimidated by Norris -- rather than defendant's conduct on any particular occasion. 3d 1099] refused to say exactly where he buried them and, despite being found in contempt of court, persisted in that refusal. In view of the jury's guilt phase verdict finding 38 special circumstances -- a verdict which necessarily rejected all the defense arguments -- and its subsequent verdict imposing the death penalty for each of the murders, it seems apparent that defense argument was not very persuasive. Sunland, Los Angeles County, California, USA. They would get together on weekends, and go to the beach where defendant would photograph teenage girls. The two then opted to dump her body on a random lawn in the Sunland neighborhood, because they wanted to see the press reaction to its discovery. (Bittaker subsequently earned the nickname Pliers from his desire to twist and tear girls nipples with his pliers he had used them in the torment of at least one previous victim.). Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. (Rogers, at p. Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430].) FN 5. WebHe had served less than three years. Rptr. 638-639.) A portion of an ice pick was lodged in Gilliam's skull. Remove advertising from a memorial by sponsoring it for just $5. Receive small business resources and advice about entrepreneurial info, home based business, business 534, 547 [246 P. 62], which appeared to find improper limitation on voir dire reversible per se. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, we find no reasonable probability [48 Cal. Sergeant Farrand was stationed approximately five to six feet away from Officer Valento during the arrest. On cross-examination the prosecutor asked him, "Isn't it a fact, Mr. Shoopman, that he [defendant] wrote you about the rape and killing of a girl in the mountains before September 14?" Rptr. 359, 365-366 [28 P. 261], so holds. [48 Cal. This argument is inconsistent with our opinion in People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal. He would just go out and do the same thing again." After one to two hours, defendant turned off the recorder and changed places with Norris. 161, 546 P.2d 665, 83 A.L.R.3d 1206], however, omitted mention of the purpose of the torture, and defined it as "murder conmitted with a wilful, deliberate, and premeditated intent to inflict extreme and prolonged pain." FN 9. (Section 288 is lewd or lascivious acts involving children. We affirm the conviction and sentence. 364.) 2. He claims that when the officers began seizing items contained in the van, rather than merely "examining" the van for its "evidentiary value," the officers went beyond the permitted examination. fn. Norris testified, however, that all were immediately subdued, and then transported a considerable distance against their will. 2d 497, and North v. Superior Court, supra, 8 Cal. 13 After defendant responded in the negative to Officer Valento's inquiry whether anyone else was present in defendant's room, the officer directed another officer to kick in the locked door so that the officers could enter the room and take defendant completely into their custody. As we have noted, the agreement called for full and complete testimony. (Pp. Defendant set out to rape Gilliam. He is currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. In such circumstances the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate the juror's actual capacity to act impartially, and the trial court's determination is binding on an appellate court. Instructions on evidence of uncharged crimes. 532]), and that he was dissatisfied with the jury as selected. English (Pp. Rptr. ", FN 11. (See Warden v. Hayden, supra, 387 U.S. 79.) Rptr. After two hours of torture toward the end of which Lynette was begging them to just kill her. 2d 503, 536-540, condemn such argument. He [48 Cal. [31] Christina Dralle testified that when she rejected defendant's advances, he pulled a gun and said, "you wouldn't argue if I pulled the trigger." FN 2. 2d 776, 88 S.Ct. Not even a body for her parents to give a decent burial." 17 We have held, however, that the Ledford tape was properly seized, and that defendant's failure to object bars him from attacking the police's listening to the tape. It does not appear that Gage formed any actual opinion based on the office conversation, but simply felt bad for the mother. All photos uploaded successfully, click on the Done button to see the photos in the gallery. Murder of Shirley Lynette Ledford - Tool Box Killers - Behind History Robin R. was unable to identify defendant in person, her description of the interior of the van where she was held did not match defendant's van, and the manner of her kidnapping and rape differed from defendant's characteristic mode of operation. Gage remembered hearing some conversation that included the fact that a victim's mother worked in the building, but recalled no other details of the conversation. His opinion thus falls under those covered by section 1076. Further, the affidavit recounts a conversation between defendant and one of his fellow inmates, in which defendant admitted that he had sent Shoopman three photographs which show where defendant and Norris had dumped the bodies of the girls. In the present case, there is evidence that Shoopman received letters from defendant which he destroyed, but we have no information as to the contents of those letters, or what the prosecutor knew of their contents. She agreed. [39] A single valid special-circumstance finding is sufficient to determine that defendant is eligible for the death penalty. 3 When she did not die instantly, he turned her over and pushed the pick through the other ear, and stepped on it until the handle broke. Since Budds could have seized the manuscript without asking for or receiving consent, the issues defendant raises are immaterial to the validity of the seizure. Which memorial do you think is a duplicate of Shirley Ledford (6681995)? The coat hanger was still wrapped around her neck. 354], quoted in People v. Perez (1962) 58 Cal. Norris suggested that they kill Gilliam quickly because she had been so helpful, but defendant replied that "they only die once, anyway." The prosecution requested two additional challenges also, to which the court agreed. 3d 1077] to determine the van's "evidentiary value" as is permitted by the Teale (supra, 70 Cal.2d 497) line of cases. Since we have determined that the tape was properly seized, and defendant failed to object to the playing of the tape, the issue does not warrant further discussion. Although the plurality opinion of Justice Stewart concluded that a seizure could not be justified on the theory that the vehicle was itself the "instrumentality" of the crime because the plain-view doctrine applied only to inadvertent discovery of incriminating evidence (id., at pp. People v. Steger (1976) 16 Cal. On this record we can declare that there is no reasonable possibility that had the errors not occurred a different verdict would have been rendered. Rptr. Thus the court should either have limited its instruction to convictions bearing on veracity or, when admitting the evidence, admonished the jury that it could not be used to impeach the credibility of the witness. Malin screamed, and people started to come out of the houses nearby. Neither constitutional fn. Defendant and Norris had seen a gangster movie while in prison in which the villain killed his victims in this fashion. fn. They saw Lucinda (Cindy) Schaefer, age 16, walking along the highway. (b) Tapes, photographs, and other physical evidence. During voir dire, Juror Gage stated that "before I ever came here, I felt in my head he was already guilty." over 130). Norris then drove away without defendant, who fled on foot. Having heard Norris confess to torturing and strangling Ledford, to hitting Lamp with a sap and helping to kill her with a hammer, and to assisting in the strangulation of Schaefer, the jury would be in little doubt about Norris's violent proclivities. Defendant suggests that these provisions required him to testify that defendant participated in the murders, even if that testimony were untrue. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. 1770]) the judge asked the jurors if they had any belief "that would prevent you from voting for the death penalty simply because of the fact that it is the death penalty?" We conclude that the court should have sustained the challenge for cause. 504, 455 P.2d 432]. (Greven v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal. Rptr. Defendant drove to a secluded area, stopped, and drew a knife. Once an individual is arrested and is before the magistrate, the 'complaint' is functus officio ." (Fn. In Ketchel (which was tried before Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [20 L. Ed. As explained in the latter case, "[t]he argument addresses the minds of the jury to the deterrence of designated 'potential killers' rather than the penalty to be adjudged to the defendants. This would have enabled his attorney to research Douglas's background, prepare for his testimony and assess whether they should have modified the defense strategy in light of Douglas's expected testimony. That anyone could take such great pleasure from causing people such great pain and suffering just boggles my mind. Flowers added to the memorial appear on the bottom of the memorial or here on the Flowers tab. Even if the court had already reached a tentative decision, it could have reconsidered on the basis of any new information presented. The Supreme Court reasoned that the right of peremptory challenge is not itself of constitutional dimension; it is a means to protect the constitutional right to an impartial jury. He told defendant, and they agreed that thereafter they would act together in all their criminal activities. The prosecutor referred to this event in his penalty phase argument. People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 1088] actually show that his right to an impartial jury was affected because he was deprived of a peremptory challenge which he would have used to excuse a juror who sat on his case, he is entitled to reversal; he does not have to show that the outcome of the case itself would have been different. Create your free profile and get access to exclusive content. Upptck. We note also that considerable time elapsed between the date of the motion and Douglas's actual testimony, during which defendant could have investigated Douglas. 440, 710 P.2d 240]. Upon rehearing, we approved a jury instruction to the same effect. The officers lawfully seized defendant's van when "incidental to a lawful arrest, [they seized it] in the reasonable belief that such object is itself evidence [fn. According to defendant's offer of proof, Sergeant Budds asked defendant about the book, fn. FN 3. The prosecution claimed that the background noise on the tape was the engine of defendant's van, and showed that defendant was driving the van, and thus present, while Norris tortured Ledford. Share this memorial using social media sites or email. 3d 255, 264 [221 Cal. Defendant returned to the van, aroused Lamp (who had been forced to take tranquilizers to keep her quiet), and as she stepped out of the van, struck her with a sledgehammer. He argues that the testimony was improper under Evidence Code section 730 because defendant did not put his mental state in issue. Perhaps so; one can argue that evidence that a defendant has been in jail most of his life and has an antisocial personality disorder is not likely to sway a jury in his favor. FN 22. [50] The ordinary test of prejudice for penalty phase error is described in our recent opinion in People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal. The evidence in mitigation, by contrast, was particularly weak; it established only that defendant was reasonably civil to persons who were not his victims, and that he had an antisocial personality disorder. Try again later. 3. The prosecutor, as we have noted, told the jury that their task was not so much to determine what penalty defendant should receive -- the law "takes some of [that] burden off of you" -- as simply to determine whether aggravating factors outweigh mitigating. 3d 512, and Allen, supra, 42 Cal. FN 19. Richard Shoopman, a convict friend of defendant and Norris, said Norris had told him many times of his desire to rape young women. The judge then announced that, although he was satisfied with his rulings on challenges for cause, "I have decided to give you two additional peremptories in addition to the 26 based on an abundance of caution." The court, however, failed to instruct the jury at the penalty phase that before it could consider these crimes as aggravating factors, they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the crimes. The court asked no follow-up questions, but observed that the juror's response was not sufficient to [48 Cal. 6 [78 Cal. ), Thus, defendant must show that he used a peremptory challenge to remove the juror in question, that he exhausted his peremptory challenges (see Coleman, supra, 46 Cal. Defendant admitted the assault on Malin. [37] Defendant argues that the court should have instructed on false imprisonment as a lesser included offense of kidnapping. App. Availability of the original Ledford tape. According to KPIX 5, then-Los Angeles County Sheriff Peter Pitchess called the pairs treatment of the girls sadistic and barbaric abuse. An audio recording was played at the trial which contains the voice of a young girl screaming and begging for mercy while she is being raped and tortured, according to court documents, KPIX reported. Gage's own testimony is conflicting. Drag images here or select from your computer for Shirley Lynette Ledford memorial. (40 Cal.3d at p. 544, fn. Defendant told Douglas that he tortured Ledford by pulling on her genitals and breasts with a vise grip. The judge also excused several jurors whose responses suggested an automatic vote for a life sentence, without questions to probe whether the juror was really disqualified. Denial of defendant's challenges for cause. This browser does not support getting your location. 3d 512 [220 Cal. Rptr. On this record we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the challenge for cause. 2. 752 [127 P. 58] (overruled prospectively in People v. Williams (1981) 29 Cal. Budds declined to do so. 3d 1066] (At this point, according to Douglas, defendant tortured Gilliam. ". Thanks for using Find a Grave, if you have any feedback we would love to hear from you. Defendant not only demonstrates, but glories in his readiness to commit murder, rape, and torture. They then threw the body into the bushes. While driving in Manhattan Beach they saw Andrea Hall, age 18, who was hitchhiking to visit her boyfriend in Wilmington. fn. 732, 579 P.2d 1048], we relied on Teale, supra, 70 Cal. Or has he earned the lesser penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole? The prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges. Neither permitted a court to prohibit voir dire of jurors who gave equivocal answers. 399].) Upon returning, he arranged for Norris to take a series of photographs of him with Gilliam, beginning with them clothed, then nude, then during intercourse and oral copulation. With Norris's assistance, the police discovered and identified the skulls of Jacqueline Gilliam and Leah Lamp. He was eligible for parole in 2010, but he died in prison on February 24 of this year, age 72. Finally, defendant testified that Shirley Ledford agreed to sexual acts for money, and to making of a tape. FN 15. The Attorney General points to People v. Hendricks, supra, 44 Cal. The officers ultimately seized numerous photographs, several police scanners, a replica .45 caliber gun, several bottles and jars of chemicals, pornographic film, and various other items. (See People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal. WebFind a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/6681995/shirley-lynette-ledford: accessed ), memorial page for Shirley Lynette Ledford (4 Mar 19631 Defense counsel agreed, but again objected that vague answers to the court's questions did not really reveal the views of the jurors, and the court's ruling did not give attorneys latitude to explore the matter. Defendant said that after making the tape he returned to his motel, leaving Ledford with Norris. 866, 647 P.2d 142] (see People v. Valenzuela (1984) 151 Cal. Thus, the trial court correctly upheld the van's seizure based upon People v. Teale, supra, 70 Cal. 6. But we did not endorse the prosecutor's arguments in Hendricks, Guzman or Boyde. 3d 150 [98 Cal. Aside from being their final victim, Ledford was also instrumental in ensuring Bittaker and Norris were put behind bars for good. 3d 441 [99 Cal. The present case antedates the enactment of article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, which bars exclusion of relevant evidence in criminal proceedings. Defendant claims such instructions are incomplete because they omit the purpose of the torture. But whether or not counsel was ineffective in this regard -- an issue which cannot be decided upon the present record -- in light of counsel's failure to move to strike the overt-act allegation, the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. The important point, and one defendant concedes, is that probable cause was shown to support the issuance of the arrest warrant; it is immaterial whether that same document initiated criminal proceedings against him. Upon their return, defendant took additional nude photographs of Gilliam.

Orographic Turbulence Can Be Associated With What Type Of Terrain, Jogee: Not The End Of A Legal Saga But The Start Of One, Nando's Long Stem Broccoli Recipe, Yasmin Wijnaldum Height, Articles S