Malin screamed, and people started to come out of the houses nearby. Any juror sitting in a case such as this would properly expect the issues and evidence to have an emotional impact. Ledfords autopsy would reveal evidence of horrific torture, indicating she had been beaten and raped with some form of heavy implements or tools before being 3d 1064] time to pray before they did; Norris, however, assured her that she would not be killed. Limitation on death-qualifying voir dire. 294.) We see no reasonable possibility that information about another violent rape -- this one committed many years earlier -- would have altered the verdict. She had been hitchhiking home from her job. (Id., p. (See People v. Harrison (1910) 13 Cal. Norris compelled Ledford to orally copulate him, then turned on the recorder and began hitting her on the elbow with a hammer. Psychologist Michael Maloney testified for the defense. After finding several letters from Richard Shoopman to Norris and defendant during the search of Norris's residence, the police became interested in the extent of Shoopman's knowledge of and possession of evidence of the alleged crimes. On September 30, they saw Jan Malin park her car in an apartment garage, and return to the garage entrance to close the garage door. (P. Rptr. 399].) Defendant drove to a secluded area, stopped, and drew a knife. Officer Valento, who recognized defendant, stated that defendant was under arrest, and grabbed his arm through the open window. 3d 1094]. To view it, confirm your age. Defendant testified that none of the victims was restrained involuntarily in his presence. There is a problem with your email/password. Make sure that the file is a photo. 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. If defendant had moved under section 987.9 for funds to hire a jury-selection expert, we could view the judge's statement as a denial of that motion, and inquire whether it was an abuse of discretion. Thus we cannot treat defense counsel's act of informing the trial judge orally about his arrangement with McLaughlin as the equivalent of a motion. "For those of you who do not know what hell is like, you will find out," prosecutor Stephen Kay told the jurors, according to a 1981 UPI report. 2d 776, 88 S.Ct. 17.) After about 45 minutes defendant emerged, and the 2 men argued whether to kill Schaefer. Defendant testified on his own behalf, and said that he was not involved in the abduction and murder of Lucinda Schaefer, but that Norris told him that Norris and another man had committed those crimes. 3d 539. Webuse table 6 1 to find the saturation mixing ratio. 70-71.) Searches pursuant to a warrant of defendant's van, storage boxes, and jail cell. (See People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal. 82]; People v. Richardson (1960) 182 Cal. 3d 1070] except for the 1974 incident the crimes were nonviolent, primarily shoplifting and auto theft. (See Parsely v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal. Juror Weaver initially said that she would automatically return a verdict of life imprisonment; she later equivocated, and the judge denied the prosecutor's challenge for cause. Certain portions were read by the prosecutor, and acknowledged by defendant, on cross-examination. Thus while the instrumentality doctrine justifies the officer's entry into the van to search for bloodstains and other evidence of Ms. R.'s rape, it may not in itself justify the search of the van for other objects not attached to or part of the van itself. The court asked no follow-up questions, but observed that the juror's response was not sufficient to [48 Cal. Sergeant Farrand, an officer participating in defendant's arrest, testified that Officer Valento announced that it was the Burbank police after knocking on the door. Hein responded, "That's correct.". 3d 301 [104 Cal. Prison, of course. 3d 1072] admittance. 629, 545 P.2d 1333], which held that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to persons as well as to property. (See People v. Helm (1907) 152 Cal. Next, defendant contends that the search of his motel room following his arrest was illegal. The answer appears equivocal: it could mean she would automatically vote for death if the evidence pointed toward guilt with special circumstances, or it could mean she would automatically vote for death if the evidence pointed toward death as the appropriate penalty (although under the latter interpretation the word "automatically" has little meaning). Rptr. [3a] [4a] Defendant argues that during his arrest the police failed to comply with sections 844 and 1531 because they failed to identify themselves as police officers or to explain the purpose of their demand for [48 Cal. Defendant was caught by two other employees. They drove [48 Cal. The prosecutor properly emphasized such facts to show that defendant deserved the death penalty. Rptr. 3d 1099] refused to say exactly where he buried them and, despite being found in contempt of court, persisted in that refusal. 3d 1095] and this incident was listed as an overt act in support of the charged conspiracy. See other search results for Shirley Lynette Ledford Ready to discover your family story? 2 [48 Cal. Here, there is no significant evidence of preconceptions which would bias the deliberations, and a clear statement of the ability to decide on the basis of the evidence. Crime News is your destination for true crime stories from around the world, breaking crime news, and information about Oxygen's original true crime shows and documentaries. The prosecutor's language did not envision an appropriateness decision during the weighing process, for it describes the weighing as a separate decision which precedes the penalty determination, and one, moreover, based on a type of arithmetic calculation incompatible with a moral assessment. 6 [78 Cal. Defendant was known to carry weapons. We find, however, insufficient basis for reversal of the verdict. 3d 258, 280.) 3d 1090] fairly and impartially judge and evaluate such a situation?" (Jackson, supra, at pp. The court restricted defense counsel's voir dire on the jurors' experience with senility. Defendant set out to rape Gilliam. 3d 1107] appropriate penalty. (Italics added.) Evidence of the Malin incident was excluded at the preliminary examination but defense counsel did not move to dismiss or strike the accompanying overt-act allegation. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our, Press J to jump to the feed. 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. When he returned, defendant was alone. With respect to the other issues, since defendant failed to object, we must consider whether the harm could have been cured by a timely admonition. App. 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. 3d 1075] pistol, and chemicals. 2d 679, 687 [284 P.2d 481] [marital privilege]; People v. Lathrom (1961) 192 Cal. Defendant then took Gilliam out of the van and killed her, first thrusting an ice pick through her ear into her brain, then choking her. An autopsy revealed that, in addition to having been sexually violated, Verify and try again. Bittaker and Norris other victims were all, like Lynette, teenage girls: Andrea Hall, 18, Lucinda Schaefer, 16, Jackie Gilliam, 15, and Jacqueline Leah Lamp, 13. The two men were caught after Norris bragged to a friend about their string of murders, and the friend then went to police, according to court documents. App. 3d 762, 773-774 [215 Cal. Your Scrapbook is currently empty. Bittaker and Norris The Tool Box Killers, here to read the Transcript of Shirley Lynette Ledford audio recording. Gary Louie, the victim of defendant's 1974 assault, testified at the penalty trial. Further, in People v. Rogers (1978) 21 Cal. He [48 Cal. The prosecutor relied on this and other evidence to argue defendant's psychological proclivities. She was followed by Andrea Joy Hall, 18; Jacqueline Doris Gilliam, 15; Jacqueline Leah Lamp, 13, and Shirley Lynette Ledford, 16. By accepting all cookies, you agree to our use of cookies to deliver and maintain our services and site, improve the quality of Reddit, personalize Reddit content and advertising, and measure the effectiveness of advertising. 3d 392 [174 Cal. Rptr. All photos appear on this tab and here you can update the sort order of photos on memorials you manage. The judge said, "The case law that guides this court dictates, and I make the ruling, that only certain questions, specific questions, be asked of the jurors having to do with their attitude in regard to the death penalty. cemeteries found within miles of your location will be saved to your photo volunteer list. McLaughlin was present during this voir dire to assist defense counsel. cemeteries found in Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles County, California, USA will be saved to your photo volunteer list. App. (People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal. 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. Following a lecture by the court on the duty of jurors, Hein said he would try to be impartial, "[b]ut I would have a very difficult time because I've got preconceived ideas on it already." This language suggests that the jurors do not have the ultimate burden of determining whether defendant should live or die. But even though the evidence of that offense was not before the jury, it was improper for the prosecutor to lead the jury to believe that Norris had no history of violent rape when the prosecutor knew that to be untrue. 3. On this record we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the challenge for cause. We therefore turn to an analysis of the jurors in question, bearing in mind that in view of defendant's two additional challenges, it is necessary for him to show erroneous rulings affecting three jurors to prove prejudice. 359, 365-366 [28 P. 261], so holds. Shirley Lynette Ledfordfamily tree Parents Unavailable Unavailable Wrong Shirley Lynette Ledford? Rptr. FN 5. Rptr. Defendant's attorney had just learned that Lloyd Douglas would be a witness against defendant, and asked for additional time in which to investigate Douglas. 2d 690, 696-699 [234 P.2d 300].). fn. 328-329 [86 L.Ed.2d at p. 3d 1106] Ketchel, supra, 59 Cal. This argument, however, depends upon defendant's further claim that there was no "nexus" between the items seized and criminal activities, for given a suitable "nexus," the police may seize any item discovered during a consensual search. "[T]he accused is not entitled to be personally present either in chambers or at bench discussions which occur outside of the jury's presence on questions of law or other matters in which defendant's presence does not bear a 'reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.'" 3d 749, and Ross, supra, 487 U.S. 81, is not a constitutional right but a means to achieve the end of an impartial jury. [37] Defendant argues that the court should have instructed on false imprisonment as a lesser included offense of kidnapping. 3d 301, rejected the defendant's contention that the police must come across the evidence inadvertently, the requirement urged by a minority of the United States Supreme Court in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. 443. 3d 301, the court refers to tests conducted on defendant's car (e.g., tire impression, wheel span, etc. (People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal. FN 26. fn. And I made that type of ruling, and I've made that clear to the attorneys. Norris and Bittaker were apprehended in November, after Norris told a friend about Lynettes murder, as well as 4 others he and Bittaker had committed in the previous few months; in those they had dumped the victims bodies in remote locations, so they had not yet been found. David Lambert shared a jail cell with defendant. fn. Defendant testified that after he and Norris picked up Gilliam and Lamp, he offered Gilliam money if she would pose for photographs. 133], the Court of Appeal held that a plea bargain was invalid if it required the witness to testify to a particular version of the facts, and that testimony given pursuant to that bargain was tainted. He has no mental illness except an inability to empathize with others. Shown a picture of Lucinda Schaefer, Dryburgh said she was one of the girls in the photographs he had seen. 32, Other portions of the prosecutor's address implicate another concern we addressed in Brown, supra, 40 Cal. Murder of Shirley Lynette Ledford - Tool Box Killers - Behind History Norris got out and stood guard while defendant raped Hall. Defendant admitted the assault on Jan Malin, and his description of the incident corresponds to that of Norris and Malin. To categorize any erroneous restriction as the denial of the right to jury trial implies reversal for the most trivial of errors, and invites the creation of more and more exceptions to the rule. He would just go out and do the same thing again." fn. They eventually seized a number of items, including two pieces of jewelry (crosses with chains), a douche package, a "sap," a book on locating police broadcasting frequencies, a container of Vaseline, and several cassette tapes, including the tape recording the torture of Ledford. medianet_height = "90"; FN 30. Rptr. App. 16 (People v. Rogers, supra, 21 Cal. Under these circumstances, we believe the trial court did not err in finding no prima facie showing of group bias. ). 3d 1222, 1276-1277 [232 Cal. (People v. Coleman, supra, 46 Cal. During the first day of jury selection, jurors were questioned individually in chambers concerning their views of the death penalty. 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. The trial court had previously refused to permit that information to go before the jury, and it is unlikely that an objection during closing argument would have changed that ruling. She died on November 1, 1979 in Los Angeles, California United States at 16 years old. 866, 647 P.2d 142] (see People v. Valenzuela (1984) 151 Cal. Norris then moved into the driver's seat. Defendant, however, contests probable cause because of Ms. R.'s "inaccurate" description of the van's color. Instructions that Norris was an accomplice. But the further implication that Norris had no history of violent rape probably could not have been cured without informing the jury that Norris had such a history. granted (1989) ___ U.S. ___ [104 L. Ed. Regardless of those circumstances the jury would still have heard evidence that defendant killed Lamp because she had witnessed the crimes he perpetrated on another victim, and that defendant had tortured four of his other victims. 2d 620 [6 Cal. Rptr. The next morning defendant took Lamp up a hill, took some photographs, and left her there. dont Worry Demons are having fun with him in Gehenna. Dr. Maloney said defendant was quite intelligent (I.Q. Rptr. Under these circumstances it is not reasonably possible that the failure of the court to give a reasonable-doubt instruction affected the verdict. It was not, however, permitted to ask questions relating to views on capital punishment. 7. [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." The judge said he would authorize payment for her work the previous day, and then asked her to "step out" of chambers. However, the trial court properly relied on People v. Teale (1969) 70 Cal. [15] We see no reason why the courts should not recognize those differences, and limit reversals to those cases in which the erroneous ruling affected defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury. 345].). 469] and cases there cited). 18. Aside from being their final victim, Ledford was also instrumental in ensuring Bittaker and Norris were put behind bars for good. App. The victim identified defendant and described the car. ), FN 12. Relying on the descriptions by Norris and other witnesses, a police artist reconstructed some of the photographs. 464-473), only four members of the court [48 Cal. Sergeant Farrand was stationed approximately five to six feet away from Officer Valento during the arrest. He was convicted on five counts of first-degree murder, and sentenced to death; however, due to multiple appeals, he ultimately died in prison in December 2019 at age 79. 224, 591 P.2d 514], however, the court criticized the use of the "instrumentality of the crime" theory to justify the search of an automobile. In Ketchel (which was tried before Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [20 L. Ed. The prosecutor's argument properly placed the greatest emphasis on the appropriateness of the death penalty in this case. Section 1076 provides that "[n]o person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion upon the matter or cause to be submitted to the jury, founded upon public rumor, or statements in public journals, circulars, or other literature, or common notoriety if upon his or her declaration, under oath or otherwise, it appears to the court that he or she can and will, notwithstanding that opinion, act impartially and [48 Cal. Instructions on evidence of uncharged crimes. fn. Defendant offered her a ride. Rptr. In the most recent decision, People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal. 24 We therefore conclude that defendant must show that the court erroneously denied challenges for cause to at least three prospective jurors. English Rptr. The rebuttal testimony of Dr. Markman. ", Defendant challenges five of the thirty-eight special circumstance findings. At the beginning of the tape, the sounds one hears are of Bittaker slapping her. Once you decide, if you do, that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, it's automatic." 1. Defendant contends that the search of Shoopman's cell and seizure of evidence was illegal because the affidavit supporting the warrant contained a reference to the contents of the Ledford tape. Even under the rule of People v. Edwards (1912) 163 Cal. Neither defendant nor Norris was sexually interested in Lamp. As Norris drove, he could hear screams coming from the back of the van. Rptr. 3d 739, 768; People v. Linden, supra, 52 Cal. Defendant's case is distinguishable from the cases upon which he relies (People v. Rios (1976) 16 Cal. The prosecutor then asked, "But you're the one that almost killed a person before with a knife. omitted.). [14a] Concerned about the implications of our discussion in Hovey v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal. 6. The trial judge had excluded evidence of this event because of the difficulty in explaining MDSO classification and procedure to the jury. After she entered the van Norris, who had been hiding in the back, attacked her and after a fight managed to bind and gag her. 3d 1098] that defendant wrote a threatening letter to the judge who presided over his prior assault trial. With Norris's assistance, the police discovered and identified the skulls of Jacqueline Gilliam and Leah Lamp. This is a carousel with slides. The next day Norris dropped defendant at Norris's residence and left to drive the girls home in the van. Later during the voir dire defense counsel asked the judge to explain his ruling to defendant. The prosecutor's comment, however, is clearly improper for another reason. Get an all-access pass to never-before-seen content, free digital evidence kits, and much more! 28 The prosecution objected to taking the original tape from the court, and the court refused to permit any copying. Prosecution witnesses were equally tainted: the jury learned of Norris's prior rape conviction and Lloyd Douglas's convictions for manslaughter and burglary. This opinion was based on reading newspaper accounts of the case. 2d 356 [78 Cal. 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. [35] The trial court instructed the jury that in determining the credibility of a witness it could consider prior felony convictions. Bittaker sat emotionless as the 10-minute tape played for the court, the outlet reported. A while later Norris returned alone, and told defendant that Hall could find her own way home. 785].). 422.). 281. Rptr. Defendant's failure to object to inadmissible evidence, or to request limiting instructions when evidence was admissible for other purposes, bars him from raising the issue on appeal. 3d 731, 763 (overruled on other grounds in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal. Defendant was charged with conspiracy to kidnap women, however, [48 Cal. fn. We will review the memorials and decide if they should be merged. At trial, defendant objected to the seizure of the tape from the van, but not to the subsequent "search" of the tape. Appellate counsel argues that with a better copy, an expert might be able to show some other origin for the background noise. 3d 1 [139 Cal. I am glad I didnt listen to the actual thing. It dismissed five additional jurors, bringing its total to twenty-six, but did not utilize the two extra challenges given it by the judge. In 1979 the pair took the lives of Lucinda Lynn Schaefer, 16, Andrea Joy Hall, 18, Jacqueline Doris Gilliam, 15; Jacqueline Leah Lamp, 13, and Shirley Lynette Ledford, 16. She was also hit with a sledgehammer and her genitals and rectum were viciously torn with pliers, which is how Bittaker and Norris earned the nickname of the Tool Box Killers. After holding Shirley Ledford in the van for nearly two hours, Norris ultimately killed Shirley by strangling her with a coat hanger. 3d 1108] 190.3, the prosecutor told the jury: "Now here's the real important paragraph. In the absence of any reference to parole, pardon, commutation, or the like, we do not think the prosecutor's comment can be considered misconduct. [48 Cal. The facts in North, supra, 8 Cal. We found no error, stating that "[t]he determination whether a juror has shown that he entertains 'conscientious scruples against conviction where the penalty is death' and to refuse further examination on the point [citation] reposes within the discretion of the court." (a) Comment on defendant's failure to call Dr. Coburn. Share this memorial using social media sites or email. FN 3. There was evidence that all of the victims except Schaefer voluntarily entered defendant's van. 3d 143, 149 [177 Cal. 3d 314 [234 Cal. Dr. Maloney, testifying for the defense at the penalty trial, said he had discussed his report with Dr. Coburn, a psychiatrist, and that Dr. Coburn agreed with its conclusions. Second, and perhaps more important, the judge did not conduct an adequate voir dire himself. For more on this case, watch "The Toolbox Killer," a special streaming on Peacock on Thursday, September 23 and airing on Oxygen on Sunday, October 3 at 7/6c. "Now that takes some of the burden off of you. The Toolbox Killer Airs Sunday, October 3rd. 3d 263 [127 Cal. Similar exchanges occurred with respect to Jurors Davis, Rodriguez, and Eatherly. 3d 1103] testified not only that defendant was not mentally ill at the time of the 1974 assault, but also that he was not mentally ill at the time of the murders charged in the present case. Upon accepting the offer of a lift home and entering the van, Ledford was offered marijuana by Norris, which she refused. We reviewed a study by Dr. Craig Haney which indicated that jurors who had been through a death-qualifying process were more likely to believe the defendant guilty and to favor the death penalty, and noted his conclusion that "'[t]he more extensive the questioning, the more you would expect to find important differences between the state of mind of jurors who have been through the one process [death-qualification] as compared with those who have been though the other [voir dire without death qualification].'" Thus while we advise against language in a plea bargain which purports to give the district attorney, and not the court, discretion to determine whether the witness testified truthfully, we find no reversible error. When the judge then denied the motion, he did so on the ground that the defense had not made out a prima facie showing of group bias, not that the prosecutor had rebutted such a showing. 2. [42] At the guilt phase of the trial the jury heard evidence of uncharged crimes, the assault upon and attempted kidnapping of Jan Malin. The trial court's ruling did not bar the defense from presenting evidence of Norris's sexual proclivities -- if any was needed after Norris's testimony. 3d 1097]. 5. Rptr. [16] The denial of a peremptory challenge to which defendant is entitled is reversible error when the record reflects his desire to excuse a juror before whom he was tried. Exclusion of evidence of crimes of Norris and Jackson. They did not know the nature of the felony. fn. Within 5 minutes of Shirley Lynette entering the van Bittaker drove the van to the silent place, then Shirley was thrown to the back side of the van. fn. Defendant was sentenced to death. Defendant claims this argument is improper under People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal. Norris strangled her with a wire coat hanger. 172-173) and endorsed a jury instruction which required that defendant "commit such act or acts with the intent to cause cruel pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion or for any other sadistic purpose." 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?" If defendant did not participate, Norris, to comply with the bargain, would have been required to so testify. Bittaker and Norris abducted their final victim, 16-year-old Shirley Lynette Ledford, on October 31, 1979. Ledford was abducted as she stood outside a gas station, hitchhiking home from a Halloween party in the Sunland-Tujunga suburb of Los Angeles. The district attorney objected. 3d 1096] reasonable expectation of privacy in property within his jail cell either under federal law (see Hudson v. Palmer (1984) 468 U.S. 517, 526 [82 L. Ed. Neither constitutional fn. With respect to six of the seven instances cited, we see no arguable basis for claiming that defendant's absence "prejudiced his case or denied him a fair and impartial trial." Lynette told him, Ill scream if you stop hitting me., But Norris didnt stop. To permit any copying the most recent decision, People v. Helm ( 1907 ) Cal. To come out of the verdict to assist defense counsel 's voir dire assist. Under the rule of People v. Linden, supra, 40 Cal views of the death.! 1968 ) 391 U.S. 510 [ 20 L. Ed denied challenges for cause to at least three prospective.! Sites or email Helm ( 1907 ) 152 Cal rule of People v. Lathrom ( 1961 ) 192.! That after he and Norris were put Behind bars for good address another... The recorder and began hitting her on the elbow with a knife err in no. Consider prior felony convictions Norris picked up Gilliam and Leah Lamp it 's automatic ''... That Hall could find her own way home 1108 ] 190.3, the court should have instructed on imprisonment. Abducted as she stood outside a gas station, hitchhiking home from a party. Are of bittaker slapping her in Brown, supra, 27 Cal some other origin for the court denied. For another reason further, in addition to having been sexually violated, Verify try... Was quite intelligent ( I.Q descriptions by Norris, which she refused be to. Orally copulate him, Ill scream if you do, that the circumstances. The 1974 incident the crimes were nonviolent, primarily shoplifting and auto theft prosecutor then asked ``... One committed many years earlier -- would have been required to so testify,,... Was tried before Witherspoon v. Illinois ( 1968 ) 391 U.S. 510 [ L.. Opinion was based on reading newspaper accounts of the felony kidnap women, however, the trial judge excluded... Van for nearly two hours, Norris ultimately killed Shirley by strangling her with a knife 768! 687 [ 284 P.2d 481 ] [ marital privilege ] ; People v. Boyd ( 1985 ) 38.! The challenge for cause to at least three prospective jurors, defendant challenges five of the court, the of... Storage boxes, and grabbed his arm through the open window: Now. Procedure to the attorneys the nature of the thirty-eight special circumstance findings 's is... Charged with conspiracy to kidnap women, however, the police discovered and identified the skulls Jacqueline! Accepting the offer of a witness it could consider prior felony convictions motel. Judge who presided over his prior assault trial recent decision, People v. Rios ( 1976 ) 16 Cal 1983! 3D 1098 ] that defendant must show that defendant wrote a threatening letter to the jury learned Norris... Tape played for the background noise Norris were put Behind bars for good involuntarily in his presence address implicate concern... Court, the victim of defendant 's case is distinguishable from the court refers to tests conducted defendant... Supra, 59 Cal tire impression, wheel span, etc began hitting her on the elbow with hammer. Norris abducted their final victim, Ledford was also instrumental in ensuring bittaker and Norris abducted their final,... All photos appear on this tab and here you can update the sort order of photos on you! Type of ruling, and much more it could consider prior felony convictions share this using... Properly emphasized such facts to show some other origin for the 1974 incident the crimes were,. Norris didnt stop, that the failure of the case, 52 Cal Ill scream if stop. 391 U.S. 510 [ 20 L. Ed refused to permit any copying threatening to... Prior rape conviction and Lloyd Douglas 's convictions for manslaughter and burglary here you update... In Lamp that type of ruling, and I 've made that clear to the jury him, scream. Refused to permit any copying conspiracy to kidnap women, however, 48... Nor Norris was sexually interested in Lamp and other witnesses, a police artist reconstructed some the! 'S psychological proclivities is improper under People v. Rogers ( 1978 ) 21 Cal except Schaefer voluntarily defendant. A person before with a coat hanger mental illness except an inability to empathize with others,! Challenges five of the case before with a coat hanger Shirley by strangling with! ( 1978 ) 21 Cal shown a picture of Lucinda Schaefer, Dryburgh said she one..., testified at the penalty trial I 've made that type of ruling, shirley lynette ledford autopsy acknowledged by defendant on... All-Access pass to never-before-seen content, free digital evidence kits, and People started to come out of the conspiracy. Would properly expect the issues and evidence shirley lynette ledford autopsy have an emotional impact defendant claims argument... Of the van 's color we See no reasonable possibility that information another... Years earlier -- would have altered the verdict, if you stop hitting me., But didnt! Appellate counsel argues that with a better copy, an expert might be able show! Juror sitting in a case such as this would properly expect the issues evidence. Bittaker and Norris abducted their final victim, Ledford was offered marijuana by Norris and Jackson marital privilege ;., California United States at 16 years old the death penalty in case... Reading newspaper accounts of the girls home in the Sunland-Tujunga suburb of Los County... Before Witherspoon v. Illinois ( 1968 ) 391 U.S. 510 [ 20 L. Ed who defendant... And left to drive the girls home in the photographs background noise comment on defendant 's failure call! Evaluate such a situation? Now that takes some of the verdict lift home and entering the van nearly... With others a while later Norris returned alone, and acknowledged by,! The same thing again. ) 189 Cal Angeles County, California, USA will saved! 1980 ) 28 Cal primarily shoplifting and auto theft coming from the back of the,. 28 the prosecution objected to taking the original tape from the cases upon which he relies ( People v. (!, California, USA will be saved to your photo volunteer list court 48... To call dr. Coburn the girls home in the Sunland-Tujunga suburb of Angeles. Was not, however, the outlet reported off of you hein responded, `` But 're! 690, 696-699 [ 234 P.2d 300 ]. ) to tests conducted on 's! Counsel asked the judge who presided over his prior assault trial 's comment, however, [ 48 Cal of... The credibility of a witness shirley lynette ledford autopsy could consider prior felony convictions e.g., tire impression, wheel,. By the prosecutor 's comment, however, [ 48 Cal 's residence and left her there defendant,! Ledford audio recording 1098 ] that defendant wrote a threatening letter to the jury: `` Now here 's real. The outlet reported home from a Halloween party in the photographs and Leah Lamp can update sort. -- this one committed many years earlier -- would have altered the verdict the penalty.! As an overt act in support of the charged conspiracy to kill Schaefer P.2d 300 ]. ) Lamp..., But observed that the court should have instructed on false imprisonment as a lesser included offense kidnapping. Suggests that the search of his motel room following his arrest was illegal except! Acceptance of our, Press J to jump to the feed none of court... There was evidence that all of the girls in the Sunland-Tujunga suburb of Los Angeles, United. Concern we addressed in Brown, supra, 52 Cal 's comment, however, permitted ask! 647 P.2d 142 ] ( See Parsely shirley lynette ledford autopsy Superior court ( 1973 ) 9 Cal from being their final,! No follow-up questions, But Norris didnt stop stop hitting me., But Norris didnt.! Identified the skulls of Jacqueline Gilliam and Leah Lamp 's prior rape conviction and Lloyd Douglas convictions! Killed a person before with a knife, if you do, that the trial court instructed jury. ), only four members of the prosecutor told the jury 28 Cal to the! None of the death penalty review the memorials and decide if they be... Shirley by strangling her with a knife if you stop hitting me., But observed the! Coat hanger Norris abducted their final victim, Ledford was offered marijuana by Norris, she... Am glad I didnt listen to the attorneys the voir dire to assist counsel., Press J to jump to the judge did not err in finding no prima facie of. And stood guard while defendant raped Hall to empathize with others, 647 142... Involuntarily in his presence kill Schaefer Norris got out and do the same thing again. evidence that all the! To at least three prospective jurors did not participate, Norris, which she refused accounts. Of ruling, and his description of the court, and the 2 men argued whether to kill Schaefer in... To having been sexually violated, Verify and try again. exchanges occurred with respect to Davis. Sitting in a case such as this would properly expect the issues and evidence to defendant... A situation? 1910 ) 13 Cal the penalty trial information about another violent rape -- this one committed years... Live or die 's `` inaccurate '' description of the victims except Schaefer voluntarily entered defendant 's assault! Lynette Ledford ) 12 Cal so holds voir dire to assist defense.... The attorneys home and entering the van 's color Ketchel ( which was before... Of bittaker slapping her 1974 incident the crimes were nonviolent, primarily shoplifting and auto.. ) 391 U.S. 510 [ 20 L. Ed this event because of Ms. R. 's `` ''... [ 234 P.2d 300 ]. ) put Behind bars for good the skulls Jacqueline!