-
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JACKIE LACEY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CRAIG W. HUM DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY MAJOR CRIMES DIVISION 210 WEST TEMPLE STREET #17-1140 LOS
ANGELES, CA 90012 (213) 974-3800
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
TO THE HONORABLE GEORGE G. LOMELI, JUDGE OF THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED
COURT, DEFENDANT CAMERON JOHN BROWN AND ATTORNEY OF RECORD
ARON
LAUB:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 18, 2015, or as soon thereafter
as this motion
may be heard, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA will move
this honorable
court to exclude the testimony of defense witnesses Dr. Joel
Burdick, Dr. Bruce Beckwith, Dr.
Nadim Karim, and Steve Schliebe. This motion will be based upon
the attached Points and
Authorities, and any other files, documents or other materials
related to this case, as well as any
argument presented at the hearing on this motion.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAMERON JOHN BROWN,
Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO.: BA255206 PEOPLES MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF
CERTAIN DEFENSE WITNESSES; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES DATE: MARCH 18,
2015 TIME: 8:30 AM DEPT: 107
Trials & Tribulations
-
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I.
Relevant Factual Summary
On March 12, 2015, the defense provided the People with a list
of potential witnesses.
Included on this list were potential witnesses Dr. Joel Burdick,
Dr. Bruce Beckwith, Dr. Nadim
Karim, and Steve Schliebe. Dr. Burdick and Steve Schliebe
testified at the first trial in this case.
Each of these four witnesses testified at the retrial in this
case. The People object to the
testimony of each of these witnesses under Evidence Code 350 and
352. A transcript of the
prior testimony of Dr. Burdick at the first trial is attached as
Attachment 1. A transcript of the
prior testimony of Dr. Burdick at the retrial is attached as
Attachment 2. A transcript of the prior
testimony of Dr. Beckwith is attached as Attachment 3. A
transcript of the prior testimony of
Dr. Karim is attached as Attachment 4. A transcript of the
testimony of Steve Schliebe at the
first trial is attached as Attachment 5. A transcript of the
testimony of Steve Schliebe at the
retrial is attached as Attachment 6.
II. The Testimony of Each of These
Witnesses is Irrelevant Pursuant to Evidence Code 350, No
evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.
Evidence Code 210 defines relevant evidence as evidence,
including evidence relevant to the
credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any
tendency in reason to prove or disprove
any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of
the action. The People submit
that the testimony of the cited potential defense witnesses is
irrelevant as the testimony does not
have any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed
fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action.
//
//
Trials & Tribulations
-
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Testimony of Dr. Joel Burdick
At both prior trials, Dr. Joel Burdick, a professor of
bioengineering at the California
Institute of Technology, testified that he had received an email
in January 2001 from one of the
investigators in the case, Los Angeles Sheriffs Department
(LASD) Detective Danny Smith.
Detective Smith essentially asked Dr. Burdick if he could assist
in the investigation as Dr.
Burdick had assisted another LASD investigator in a case
involving an alleged fall from great
height. Dr. Burdick replied that he might be able to assist and
requested additional information.
There was no further contact between Detective Smith and Dr.
Burdick.
The People submit that this testimony is completely irrelevant
to any disputed fact that
is of consequence to the determination of the action. Nothing in
this email exchange sheds any
light on any issue in the case. This testimony should be
excluded.
B. Testimony of Dr. Bruce Beckwith
Evidence Code 801 states: If a witness is testifying as an
expert, his testimony in
the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is:
(a) Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common
experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of
fact; and
(b) Based on matter (including his special knowledge, skill,
experience, training, and education) perceived by or personally
known to the witness or made known to him at
or before the hearing, whether or not admissible, that is of a
type that reasonably may
be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the
subject to which his
testimony relates, unless an expert is precluded by law from
using such matter as a
basis for his opinion.
In the second trial, Dr. Bruce Beckwith, a retired pediatric
pathologist and expert in
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, developmental abnormalities in
children, and renal tumors in
children, testified that in April 2006, he was contacted by LASD
Detective Jeff Leslie. Detective
Trials & Tribulations
-
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Leslie met with Dr. Beckwith, provided him with various reports
related to this case, and asked
Dr. Beckwith for his opinion regarding the manner of death
(homicide versus accident) of victim
Lauren Key. Dr. Beckwith stated that he could not provide a
definitive answer to that question
and that, in his opinion, Lauren could have hit the cliff once
or multiple times and that her death
could have been caused by a slip or by being thrown from the
cliff. Dr. Beckwith further
informed Detective Leslie that he did not want to testify for
either the defense or the prosecution.
Initially, this opinion might appear relevant as it contradicts
the expert opinions of Dr.
Ogbonna Chinwah, the Deputy Medical Examiner in this case, as
well as Dr. Wilson Hayes, the
biomechanics expert in this case. Upon closer examination,
however, the opinion of Dr.
Beckwith is irrelevant because he does not possess the requisite
special knowledge, skill,
experience, training, and education to offer this expert
opinion.
The opinion of Dr. Beckwith is irrelevant because he is not, by
his own admission,
qualified to offer such an opinion. Dr. Beckwith testified on
direct examination by the defense:
I was unable to get to a comfort zone that I felt would provide
me with the ability to give
legitimate testimony in this case. [Reporters Transcript of
Retrial, hereinafter RT2, 8168:4-6.]
Dr. Beckwith further testified on direct examination: [The
question] fell into an area of
knowledge that I dont consider a strong point in my own
experience. And there was nothing in
my knowledge or experience that allowed me to feel able to be a
reliable witness for the truth.
[RT2, 8170:1-5.] He also stated: But the nature of the blunt
force trauma involving a fall from
a considerable height onto a surface of unknown detailed
structure didnt fall within anything
that Id experience in all those six thousand plus autopsies. And
I just wasnt comfortable
swimming in those waters. [RT2, 8170:19-24.]
Dr. Beckwith further testified on direct examination that he had
informed Detective
Leslie in 2006 that he did not feel comfortable testifying on
this issue for either side. In fact, Dr.
Beckwith was only persuaded to testify for the defense in the
retrial because the defense misled
Trials & Tribulations
-
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dr. Beckwith and assured him he was only being called to testify
about his prior contact with
Detective Leslie and not to testify about the case itself. [RT2,
8172:10-17.] Once on the witness
stand, Dr. Beckwith was questioned about the case itself in
direct contradiction of the defense
assurances.
Dr. Beckwith testified on cross-examination by the People as
follows: [Question:] And
I think that what you told us this morning essentially was after
you reviewed the materials and
you spoke with Detective Leslie, you essentially told him what
you told us here this morning in
court that you didnt feel comfortable offering an opinion
because this wasnt your particular
area of expertise, correct? [Answer:] Right . . . Correct. [RT2,
8184:13-25.]
The testimony of Dr. Beckwith, by his own admission, is
irrelevant as he is not qualified
to offer an expert opinion on this topic. As Dr. Beckwith
himself states under oath, he does not
believe he has the ability to give legitimate testimony in this
case; he wasnt comfortable
swimming in those waters; he didnt feel comfortable offering an
opinion because this wasnt
[his] particular area of expertise; and that there was nothing
in my knowledge or experience
that allowed me to feel able to be a reliable witness for the
truth. The purpose of a jury trial is
to show the jury the truth. This testimony should be excluded as
irrelevant and an improper
expert opinion.
C. Testimony of Dr. Nadim Karim
In the second trial, Dr. Nadim Karim, a clinical and forensic
psychologist, testified
for the defense that different people react differently with
regard to a traumatic event. [RT2,
8833:7-10.] Dr. Karim also testified that, in his opinion, and
without having had any contact
with the defendant, the defendant exhibited clear textbook
symptoms of disassociation. [RT2,
8834:22-25.] The People submit that the testimony of Dr. Karim
is irrelevant because Dr. Karim
is not qualified to offer such an opinion and has no basis on
which to offer such an opinion.
//
Trials & Tribulations
-
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dr. Karim testified that his private practice is primarily
focused on trauma and post-
traumatic stress disorder. [RT2, 8774:26-27.] He further
testified that he tries to help people
process their feelings through their recovery process, and that
part of his practice is to do
assessment and testing . . . pre-employment psychological
testing and assessment for the
Riverside County Sheriffs Department. [RT2, 8775:12-23.] He also
testified that he had a
doctorate in forensic psychology, and that a forensic
psychologist would be involved in doing
assessment and testing. They would be involved in doing therapy
on occasion or when
requested, and trying to deal with assisting individuals who
potentially may have been victims,
but also looking at the other side of the coin and doing
evaluations on offenders as well from a
psychological perspective. [RT2, 8777:5-11.] He testified that
his research focused on the
traumatic effect of incarceration. [RT2, 8779:1-8780:25.]
Finally, he testified that, in his private
practice, approximately 80 percent of the time I do
psychological testing and assessment. The
other 20 percent, I would do therapy. [RT2, 8788:3-5.]
On cross-examination, Dr. Karim admitted that he had not done
any testing on the
defendant and in fact did not have any conversations with the
defendant in which [he was]
trying to do an evaluation or assessment of any condition. [RT2,
8814:25-27; 8831:17-20.]
Interestingly, although Dr. Karim testified that his primary
area of focus was post-traumatic
stress disorder, he was not alleging that the defendant suffered
from post-traumatic stress
syndrome. [RT2, 8843:3-5.]
In summary, the opinion of Dr. Karim that, from the material he
had read, the defendant
was exhibiting clear textbook symptoms of disassociation on the
night of the murder is
irrelevant because Dr. Karim does not have the proper expertise
needed to form such an opinion.
Nothing in the background, training, education, or experience of
Dr. Karim, as outlined at the
prior proceeding and his curriculum vitae, evidences the
necessary expertise for offering such an
//
Trials & Tribulations
-
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
opinion. The People further incorporate all of the arguments
made with respect to Dr.
Beckwiths testimony in their objection to the testimony of Dr.
Karim.
D. Testimony of Steve Schliebe
Steve Schliebe is a criminalist with the Los Angeles County
Sheriffs Department
assigned to the trace evidence section. One of his duties is to
examine photos and casts of
impressions in an attempt to make a comparison of an impression
to an exemplar.
Mr. Schliebe testified in both prior trials that he was asked by
Detective Leslie, one of the
investigating officers in the case, to examine photos and casts
of footprints made at the murder
scene in an attempt to determine if they were of any evidentiary
value. Mr. Schliebe further
testified that he examined photographs of the impressions and
could not determine if they were
footprints or if they had any comparison value. He asked
Detective Leslie to provide him with
the cast impressions but was not provided with those cast
impression. He thus could not offer an
opinion as to whether or not the impressions were footprints or
had any evidentiary value.
Deputy Dale Falicon, an analyst whose duties included the
collection and documentation
of evidence at crime scenes, testified that he examined the
impressions at the crime scene and
determined that they appeared to be adult-sized footprints. He
further testified that he
documented the impressions with photographs and casted the
impressions.
The testimony of Steve Schliebe is irrelevant. Mr. Schliebe can
testify that, based on
photographs, he does not know if the impressions at the scene
were in fact footprint impressions.
This testimony adds nothing to the case and does not have any
tendency in reason to prove or
disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action.
III. The Limited Probative Value, If Any, of the Proffered
Testimony
Is Outweighed by the Prejudicial Effect Under Evidence Code 352,
the court has the discretion to exclude evidence if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability
that its admission will (a)
Trials & Tribulations
-
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial
danger of undue prejudice, of
confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.
In the instant case, as outlined above, the proffered testimony
of Dr. Joel Burdick, Dr.
Bruce Beckwith, Dr. Nadim Karim, and Steve Schliebe, is
irrelevant. Moreover, any marginal
relevance would be substantially outweighed by the undue
consumption of time and would
create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the
issues, or of misleading the jury.
IV. Conclusion
Testimony and other evidence must be relevant to be admissible.
As outlined above, the
proffered testimony of Dr. Joel Burdick, Dr. Bruce Beckwith, Dr.
Nadim Karim, and Steve
Schliebe, is irrelevant. The testimony should also be excluded
under Evidence Code 352. For
all the foregoing reasons, the People respectfully request that
this honorable court exclude the
proffered testimony of these defense witnesses.
DATED: March 17, 2015
Respectfully submitted, JACKIE LACEY District Attorney By:
_______________________ CRAIG W. HUM Deputy District Attorney
Trials & Tribulations