1. stand; assuming that person does what victim advocates always

2. do, which is nothing?

3. MR. BAMIEH: Because it's -- why is this person treated

4. differently than all other witnesses?

5. THE COURT: I don't know that she would be.

6. MR. BAMIEH: Well, no other witness will be up there, as

7. I know it, with a support person. And we don't typically

8. allow people to go up on the stand with support people. So,

9. it's acknowledging tacitly at the very least that somehow this

10. woman has been traumatized and needs extra support, which

11. prejudices my client.

12. MR. ROMERO: Your Honor, I believe the spirit of the law

13. is that victims of sexual assault offenses, such as this, who

14. request the presence of a victim advocate, who might bring

15. some kind of --

16. COURT REPORTER: Could you speak up a little bit, please?

17. MR. ROMERO: Sure -- some kind of calming or soothing

18. quality to her so that she can testify, I believe that's what

19. the spirit of that penal code section is.

20. THE COURT: Well, I don't really follow the defendant's

21. argument that he is prejudiced in some way because there is a

22. person up there with this witness even if she is the only

23. witness who has such a person with her.

24. Why is a weakness on the part of a witness -- why

25. does that become a prejudice to the defendant?

26. MR. BAMIEH: Because the inference was that the weakness

27. was caused due to some trauma she received due to the hands of

28. my client.

1. THE COURT: Well, that may be an inference, but not the

2. only one that can be drawn.

3. MR. BAMIEH: It's the one that's most dangerous to my

4. client, and it's the one that concerns me. And at the

5. preliminary hearing, she testified by herself without problem,

6. and now when there's a jury present, all of a sudden when

7. there's a chance of prejudice that occurs, I just -- I believe

8. it's prejudicial to my client and should not be allowed.

9. THE COURT: I see. Any case authority on this,

10. gentlemen? Just skimming through the statute, it looks like

11. the People are correct; looks like that although the statute

12. is found that govern preliminary hearings, the legislator

13. talks there about juvenile proceedings that... wouldn't be

14. much reason to do that unless there was a statute that

15. generally covers all. This is a court proceeding. I'll take

16. a quick look at some authorities I have to refer to in

17. chambers before I decide that.

18. Any other pretrial issues?

19. MR. ROMERO: There was the issue of excluding witnesses.

20. And also, in my moving papers, I asked that the defense be

21. precluded from asking any questions regarding Ms. White's

22. commitment to a mental health facility, I believe, in the

23. early nineties.

24. THE COURT: That's true, you did.

25. Any theory of relevance or admissibility for any

26. mental health treatment on the part of White?

27. MR. BAMIEH: Uhm... that she is an unstable woman, who is

28. prone to exaggeration and has had extensive treatment for

1. mental health issues; will go towards her credibility.

2. THE COURT: Are you going to be calling a witness that

3. will offer some testimony that having been treated for a

4. mental health issue permits the inference that the person's an

5. unstable, incredible witness?

6. MR. BAMIEH: No, your Honor.

7. THE COURT: You would be inviting the jurors to speculate

8. on that point, wouldn't you?

9. MR. BAMIEH: No, your Honor. I believe some of it is

10. based on the fact that the issues that occurred with her

11. former husband would be relevant in this case, and she made

12. allegations against him and then was committed to a mental

13. hospital. And so, the -- the inference would be that those

14. allegations were false as these allegations are false.

15. THE COURT: I see.

16. Further argument for the People?

17. MR. ROMERO: Submitted, your Honor.

18. THE COURT: What if the allegations in the earlier case

19. weren't false? How does it -- how does making the allegation

20. that in the prior instance the allegations were false prove

21. anything?

22. MR. BAMIEH: That she -- she's prone to make false

23. allegations against men in her life.

24. THE COURT: I'm asking you: What if they weren't false?

25. How do we determine they were false for purposes of this

26. trial?

27. MR. BAMIEH: I believe that her prior statements as to

28. the description of those events and their inconsistencies

1. establish they were false. And there's some statements that

2. relate directly to this case in terms of -- she knew what to

3. say to be considered a battered woman because after that

4. incident, she went to a battered women's shelter, and she got

5. fully educated on what the syndrome was and how to react and

6. how to behave.

7. THE COURT: I haven't heard a motion to exclude any

8. evidence that she was previously battered. The motion is to

9. exclude evidence that she was treated by a psychologist or

10. psychiatrist or an inmate of a mental institution at some

11. point. That's the motion. Not a motion to exclude some

12. evidence of some prior history on the part of the witness of

13. being a battered woman or allegedly so. So we are talking

14. about two separate things.

15. MR. BAMIEH: Also goes to the medication she was

16. prescribed and is taking, which may affect her testimony.

17. THE COURT: All right. Any other rationale for the

18. admission of this evidence?

19. MR. BAMIEH: That's the basis.

20. THE COURT: As to any medications that any witness may be

21. taking during the time of testimony or perhaps was taking when

22. some events occurred that the witness might be testifying

23. about, those could be quite relevant, and I'm not saying that

24. the witnesses can't be examined about those things.

25. My conclusion is I haven't heard anything that

26. satisfies me that getting into White's history of mental

27. treatment has any relevance in this case. Sounds like all it

28. would do is further allow the jurors to infer that a person

1. has been treated for mental problems; therefore, the person is

2. not a reliable witness. That inference does not necessarily

3. follow, in the absence of some sort of testimony from a

4. credible witness, such as an expert, who is reliable, showing

5. that that inference makes some sense. The jurors would just

6. be invited to speculate because the person had mental

7. problems, therefore, the person shouldn't be believed.

8. I'll revisit the question of the admissibility of

9. White's history of mental treatment if and when the time comes

10. once I'm satisfied that there would be some evidence that

11. would support the inference you would be asking the jurors to

12. draw, Mr. Bamieh, but until such time, you are ordered not to

13. go into it with the witness or any other witness.

14. As far as the motion to exclude witnesses, what's

15. the defense position on that?

16. MR. BAMIEH: Your Honor, the only witness we would ask

17. the Court to consider is Katia Anedda. A-N-N-E-D-A?

18. A-N-E-D-D-A. My client's -- she came from Italy to be with my

19. client. She's a significant other, and I believe she should

20. be allowed to be in the courtroom.

21. I know Mr. Romero recently gave her a subpoena. She

22. is going to back to Italy on the 11th. She would like to, at

23. least. And as to -- she doesn't speak much English here. So,

24. she's Italian, by the way, and there's no interpreter sitting

25. with her. It's not like she's going to garner much from the

26. proceeding, but to sit here for support.

27. THE COURT: Let me find out, first of all, if Anedda is a

28. witness the People are seeking to exclude. Is she?

1. MR. ROMERO: She is, your Honor.

2. THE COURT: And she was subpoenaed by the district

3. attorney a couple of days ago here in court, right?

4. MR. ROMERO: That's correct.

5. THE COURT: What role would she play in the trial?

6. What's she expected to testify to?

7. MR. ROMERO: She is going to testify that she had

8. communicated with Ms. White before and after the charged

9. incident. And that after the charged incident, Ms. White told

10. her that she had been beaten by the defendant, and that

11. Ms. Anedda had contact with the defendant in Europe and talked

12. to the defendant. And it's going to the fact that the

13. defendant circumstantially knew -- by circumstantial evidence

14. that he knew that Ms. White had reported the conduct to the

15. police and did not return to the United States, did not make

16. any attempt to contact the police, and it goes to his

17. consciousness of guilt and his flight from the United States.

18. THE COURT: I see.

19. Anything else on question of whether the witness

20. should be excluded?

21. MR. BAMIEH: Yes, your Honor. This witness was not put

22. on the official witness list. We had no notice she was going

23. to be called. She flies to Italy (sic) in good faith, so she

24. could sit through the trial, and she's handed a subpoena the

25. day she shows up, which just -- in court of equity, it's just

26. not fair to her now to say that she flew all the way out here

27. to be with him and now we are going to exclude her.

28. Secondly, the relevance of her testimony in terms of

1. the hearsay statements from Ms. White to her about being

2. beaten, there's a question as to that. And also, drawing the

3. inference that somehow if my client was already in Italy and

4. knew there was allegations in the United States that he has a

5. duty to return to the United States, not knowing -- she said

6. lots of things, by the way, in her e-mails to Ms. Anedda. So,

7. that inference is to somehow justify a flight instruction is a

8. stretch at best.

9. THE COURT: Let's stay with the issue at hand.

10. When do you expect to call witness Anedda in the

11. trial?

12. MR. ROMERO: Your Honor, I understand that she has to

13. leave by the 11th, and I intend to do my best to get her on

14. the stand before the 11th so that she can go back to Italy. I

15. can probably take her as soon as Ms. White is done.

16. THE COURT: All right. And there wouldn't be any

17. objection remaining and observing after her testimony is

18. concluded?

19. MR. ROMERO: If she is excused as a witness, no.

20. THE COURT: All right. Anything else?

21. MR. BAMIEH: No, your Honor.

22. THE COURT: The People's motion is granted. I'm

23. sympathetic to Ms. Anedda's situation. I understand she's

24. come a long way to attend the trial, but the integrity of the

25. fact-finding process of the trial is paramount, and she will

26. be excluded until after her testimony has been completed. And

27. I will ask the parties to do that as early as possible in the

28. trial so that she's able to attend as much of the trial as she

1. can so that she can accomplish the things she came here to do.

2. MR. ROMERO: Just on that note, your Honor, I did inform

3. Denise that Ms. Anedda -- actually, I think Denise informed me

4. that Ms. Anedda is going to need an Italian interpreter.

5. THE COURT: Right.

6. MR. ROMERO: And I believe Denise might have called and

7. made arrangements for next week.

8. THE CLERK: I did, your Honor. Monday, first thing in

9. the morning. That's the soonest.

10. THE COURT: Okay. Is Katia Anedda in court? Is that

11. you, ma'am? Would you, please, stand.

12. Ms. Anedda, I'm told you don't speak much English.

13. MS. ANEDDA: Little.

14. THE COURT: Probably a lot more than I do Italian.

15. MS. ANEDDA: No. I can read, but don't speak.

16. THE COURT: All right. I'm sorry to tell you this, but

17. you will be excluded. You will be forced to wait outside

18. during the trial.

19. Is there someone that can explain this to

20. Ms. Anedda for me?

21. MR. BAMIEH: Yes. The Italian Consul is here.

22. THE COURT: You are from the consulate, sir? Sir.

23. THE BAILIFF: State your name.

24. MR. BRASIOLI: Diego Brasioli. My name is Diego

25. Brasioli.

26. THE COURT: Mr. Brasioli, you are from the Italian

27. Consulate?

28. MR. BRASIOLI: I am the Consul General of Italy.

Pag.17

1. THE COURT: All right. I can see that you speak English

2. quite well. Would you mind explaining, please, for me to

3. Ms. Anedda the fact that I'm sorry that she can't attend the

4. trial, but that she will not be permitted to attend the trial

5. as a witness until her testimony is concluded, and the

6. earliest we can get an Italian interpreter here will be

7. Monday. So, it will be no sooner than that unless an Italian

8. interpreter becomes available to us sooner. We will be using

9. an official court interpreter, but if there's some other way

10. that the interpreting can be done before that time and the

11. witness can get on and off the stand, then we can do it

12. sooner, but we are making arrangements for an Italian

13. interpreter now.

14. And I'm sorry that's the ruling, but that needs to

15. be the ruling so that the trial is as fair and accurate as it

16. can be. And once she's no longer needed as a witness, she can

17. watch. If you wouldn't mind summarizing that for me.

18. MR. BRASIOLI: I will explain that.

19. THE COURT: Thank you.

20. MR. ROMERO: There is one other thing, your Honor, and I

21. was just reminded by my investigator, Leslie Robertson, who is

22. a potential witness, and she conducted many interviews of

23. witnesses on this case. I would like to have her designated

24. as my lead investigator because she will be coming and going

25. out of the courtroom assisting me in making sure witnesses get

26. here and scheduling, and I would like her to have the ability

27. to come and go as needed.

28. THE COURT: Any objection?

Pag. 18

1. MR. BAMIEH: I just want her ordered not to go to Hawaii

2. during the course of the trial.

3. THE COURT: And remain an employee of the District

4. Attorney's Office?

5. MR. BAMIEH: Yes.

6. THE COURT: Investigator Robertson, will be there any

7. issues in that respect?

8. MS. ROBERTSON: No.

9. THE CLERK: What's her first name?

10. MR. ROMERO: Leslie.

11. MR. BAMIEH: Your Honor, I'd also request Mr. Eugene

12. Thayer, who is working with me as my investigator. He's in

13. the audience.

14. THE COURT: You are asking he be allowed to remain as

15. well?

16. MR. BAMIEH: Yes.

17. THE COURT: He may also be a witness?

18. MR. BAMIEH: He may also be a witness.

19. THE COURT: Any objection?

20. MR. ROMERO: No objection.

21. THE COURT: Both investigators in the case can come and

22. go at will; not subject to the witness exclusion order.

23. Any other pretrial issues to take care of?

24. MR. ROMERO: No, your Honor.

25. THE BAILIFF: I have an issue, your Honor. I had an

26. interaction with the victim. She's exceedingly uncomfortable

27. seeing and being seen by the defendant. I have cautioned her

28. that the monitor will be adjusted where she can kind of

Pag.19

1. conceal herself from him and not have to make eye contact, but

2. I want the parties to be aware of that.

3. And Mr. Bamieh, if I sit there, will you be able to

4. see her if she sit -- are you good with this so you can see to

5. interview?

6. MR. BAMIEH: I'll move -- I'll adjust accordingly, I

7. guess.

8. THE COURT: Okay. Well, the fact is, the way the

9. courtroom is laid out, that screen is exactly where Marty

10. said, and your witness can sit wherever she likes.

11. You had asked, Mr. Bamieh, to be able to conduct the

12. images on this wall, and I said yes, but I see it's set up

13. over here.

14. MR. BAMIEH: Mr. Certa, from my office, is here, and I

15. don't know what Mr. Romero's intentions were.

16. THE COURT: Any issues with Power Point, folks? We're

17. already 15 minutes late. We have the jurors here. I want to

18. move this along.

19. MR. ROMERO: I'm not going to be using the Power Point in

20. my opening statement. I'll probably be using the ELMO during

21. my direct examination.

22. THE COURT: Okay. Any issues as far as using Power Point

23. during the opening statement? Anything to sort out

24. beforehand?

25. MR. ROMERO: I don't believe so.

26. THE COURT: Okay. Well, then let's get the projector

27. changed around. I want to take a look on the authorities of

28. witness advocates.

Pag.20

1. THE BAILIFF: Your Honor, unless these cords are long, I

2. think they have to come in.

3. MR. BAMIEH: I think they will be okay. I've done it

4. before. Yeah, we are fine.

5. ///

6. (Off record.)

7. ///

8. THE COURT: Okay. Back on the record, again, outside the

9. presence of the jury. And seems like the issue is really

10. answered -- hold it down, please, folks -- within the statute

11. itself. I overlooked it as I was skimming through it.

12. In 865.5, although it's buried among the sections

13. that govern preliminary hearings, apply to trials by its own

14. terms. So, I haven't heard anything that would cause me to

15. think that a victim advocate acting as they normally do would

16. really prejudice Mr. Parlanti.

17. The victim advocate, who is going to be with witness

18. White, is this an experienced individual?

19. MR. ROMERO: It is, your Honor. Her name is Mayela

20. Ramirez. She's in our office.

21. THE COURT: She's done this kind of thing before?

22. MR. ROMERO: My understanding, yes, she has.

23. THE COURT: Just a reminder, please, she's in no way to

24. participate other than to be present with White on the witness

25. stand, and I don't think we will have any issues.

26. MR. BAMIEH: Couple issues. Just -- well, how are you

27. going to describe the victim advocate to the jury? What --

28. you are not going to say anything?

Pag.21

1. THE COURT: I usually don't. Normally, the person

2. calling the witness would ask if the victim advocate can stay

3. with the witness, and that way the jury gets who it is. I can

4. do it or you folks can do it. Doesn't matter with me.

5. MR. BAMIEH: I would like -- I would like the Court to

6. explain to the jury that the penal code allows, in cases where

7. this allegation is made, for a charged victim, at the request

8. of her -- of the charged victim to come to court with the

9. victim advocate, who is an employee of the District Attorney's

10. Office.

11. THE COURT: Any objection to that?

12. MR. ROMERO: I have no problem with the law being told to

13. the jurors.

14. THE COURT: I have never given such an instruction

15. before. So, I'll just wing it.

16. MR. BAMIEH: Yeah.

17. THE COURT: So, you're going to be stuck with whatever I

18. say.

19. MR. BAMIEH: I trust you to comply with the law. So,

20. I'll be okay with that.

21. THE COURT: If you tell me what the law is, I certainly

22. will, but I'll just tell the jurors the penal code allows the

23. victim advocate be present at the request of the alleged

24. victim in a case of this type.

25. MR. BAMIEH: That's fine.

26. MR. ROMERO: That's fine.

27. THE COURT: Although, I may not be my usual, eloquent

28. self when I say that.

Pag.22

1. Okay. Any other issues?

2. MR. BAMIEH: If I understand the Court's order, she is to

3. be allowed to stay for opening or also excluded for opening?

4. THE COURT: Well, there was no discussion about that.

5. Ordinarily, a witness would not observe the opening statement.

6. Any objection, though.

7. MR. ROMERO: I would object to her being present at the

8. opening statement.

9. THE COURT: The whole purpose of exclusion is the witness

10. won't be influenced by testimony. I can see the witness might

11. be influenced by a description of the testimony of the

12. witnesses. So, Ms. Anedda will be excluded for opening

13. statements as well.

14. MR. BAMIEH: Okay.

15. THE COURT: Let's bring the jurors in and begin to work.

16. Marty, can you switch off the projector while I'm

17. talking with the jurors, please? Thanks.

18. ///

19. (Prospective jurors enter the courtroom.)

20. ///

21. THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome

22. back. Sorry about the late start. We will try to keep those

23. to a minimum, but it couldn't be helped this morning.

24. We are back on the record now in the matter of

25. People versus Parlanti. We have all of our jurors, both

26. counsel and the defendant.

27. In a little while, we will commence with opening

28. statements and the presentation of evidence. Before we do, as

Pag.23

1. I mentioned yesterday, I will go over with you some of the

2. rules that we need to follow in the course of this trial. The

3. things I'm going to tell you are pretty straight forward.

4. They are also quite important; that everybody abide by them.

5. First of all, as I mentioned, members of the jury

6. are to have no contact or conversation with either counsel or

7. anyone that you know to be a witness for either side or

8. involved in the case in any way. It's okay to say "good

9. morning" or "good afternoon." Do not let it go beyond that

10. point. The parties -- counsel know they can't talk with you.

11. They won't talk with you. Just puts everybody in an awkward

12. spot if jurors are trying to talk with the lawyers or other

13. people, and they have to say, "I can't talk with you." Nobody

14. who is trying a case wants to appear to be rude to the people

15. who are deciding it, and you need to not create that kind of

16. situation.

17. The reason for this rule has to do primarily with

18. the law of evidence. The admission of evidence in the trial

19. is governed by a body of law found almost exclusively in

20. what's called the Evidence Code, appropriately enough. In

21. California, the Evidence Code is a codification by and large

22. of common law rules of evidence that have been applied in

23. trials for the last several centuries, both here and in

24. England.

25. The reason that those rules exist, the ones that

26. we're mainly concerned with in trial, has to do with the

27. reliability of information that you get as jurors to decide a

28. case. And the hearsay rule is a good example of that.

Pag.24

1. Hearsay is generally defined as an out-of-court statement,

2. which is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted by

3. the statement itself. It's a fairly simple definition, but

4. it's -- can be difficult to apply sometimes to get your mind

5. wrapped around that in different situations.

6. Further, compounding the complexity of it, is the

7. fact that there are a myriad of exceptions to the hearsay rule

8. that are found in the Evidence Code. There are lots of

9. statements that even though they are made up out of court,

10. even though they are offered to prove the truth of what's

11. being said, they have been determined to be reliable enough

12. for jurors to consider in deciding a case. Doesn't mean

13. jurors necessarily will believe them, but they are admissible.

14. In other words, they can be considered by the jury.

15. If a juror were to go outside of court and talk with

16. people about the case in an informal setting, none of these

17. rules will be followed. In other words, we wouldn't be

18. applying the rules of evidence to the information the jurors

19. would be getting, and that conversation is a casual

20. conversation, either with counsel or somebody else that you

21. come into contact with that tells you that he or she knows

22. something about this case.

23. Also, one of the most important trial rights that a

24. party has in a case like this or any other is the right to

25. have these rules of evidence followed, the right to be present

26. in court while the jurors are receiving information about the

27. case, to know what's being offered, the chance to object if

28. what's being offered does not meet the rules of evidence,

Pag.25

1. okay. All of that would be brushed aside and be defeated if

2. the jurors were to talk to someone outside of the courtroom

3. about this case.

4. You can't really talk to somebody in the courtroom

5. about the case. You get your information to decide the case

6. from evidence received in court in the presence of both

7. parties so that they know what's being asked, what's being

8. offered, and they have a chance to object if they need to do

9. it. And that's the biggest reason for this rule.

10. There are lots of other rules in the Evidence Code

11. that we apply in a trial, things like privileges and whatnot,

12. that don't have to do with the reliability of evidence. They

13. have to do with the protection of relationships and

14. confidences and things like that. But the one we're mainly

15. concerned with in trial have to do with this reliability

16. checking process that we find in the Evidence Code. And so,

17. that adherence to that rule helps us to make sure that the

18. rules of evidence are followed.

19. One of my main jobs in the case is to apply the

20. rules of evidence to the case and rule on objections and

21. things like this. And while I'm on the subject of objections,

22. you need to understand that objections are just a shorthand

23. way of lawyers communicating with me, asking for a ruling on

24. whether a question is proper or whether an answer is proper or

25. whether an item of evidence is admissible, okay.

26. If you watch television and movies, we talk about

27. things a little bit in voir dire in the sense of technical

28. evidence, but also whenever you see a courtroom scene on

    ---

    Pag. 26

     

1. television or in movie, the way they write it is clever

2.  lawyers use the rules of evidence to interpose a timely

3. objection to keep truth from coming out. In other words, the

4. rules of evidence are used to kick dirt over the truth and

5. keep jurors from finding things out about a case they ought to

6. hear, right? Always makes for an interesting screen play.

7. And the judge usually sits there like a bump on a log. And

8. the judges are interesting in TV and movies. They have a role

9. to play; that they're dunderheads that sit there at the head

10. of the courtroom and watch what's all going on; may be the

11. only accurate thing that you see, okay.

12. But the fact is, in real life, in court, objections

13. are not a way of concealing the truth, okay. There's nothing

14. wrong with an objection. I don't want you to hold it against

15. a party if there is an objection. There will be some

16. objections in this trial. Bound to be. All right. Just like

17. there are bound to be some out-of-court statements that are

18. offered one way or the other. From talking with the lawyers,

19. knowing a little bit about the case, I expect that, okay.

20. An objection is just a request by the party for a

21. ruling from the Court on whether something is a good question,

22. whether it's a proper question, whether it's an answer which

23. appears to reflect, for example, that the witness has personal

24. knowledge about something that he or she is talking about, or

25. whether a piece of evidence meets the rules for admission. It

26. is not an effort to keep something from you that you ought to

27. hear. An objection is, instead, an effort to make sure that

28. what you are getting is what you ought to hear; that it meets

Pag.27

1. these tests that have been established and have withstood the

2. test of time to make sure the quality of the evidence you are

3. getting is good enough to be considered in the trial.

4. So, don't hold it against the lawyers if there is an

5. objection. You know, it's part of the job with lawyers to

6. object when they think they should. It's not an effort to

7. conceal anything from you. It's quite the opposite. It's an

8. effort to make sure what's admitted here in trial is the sort

9. of thing that ought to be heard by the jurors in deciding the

10. case.

11. Any questions about anything I've said? If you have

12. a question, feel free to ask.

13. Sometimes I over explain things. And I may be doing

14. that now, but my experience has been that if people understand

15. the reason for the rule, it's a lot easier to follow, okay.

16. In the same vein that I'm talking about, and I'm not speaking

17. to people outside of court about the case, you don't do your

18. own legal research about the case, you don't -- if you hear

19. evidence where things happen, you don't drive out to the

20. scene, look it over for yourself, that sort of thing. All

21. right.

22. The lawyers and I have actually already begun

23. working on jury instructions, and we will be working on them

24. throughout the trial off and on to make sure that I correctly

25. explain the law to you at the end of the case.

26. Sometimes, though, in a trial, jurors will hear a

27. term that they get interested in something they may not be

28. familiar with, and they may want to go look that up because

Pag.28

1. they get curious about it. Please do not do that. All right.

2. The reason that that's against the rules is not that we don't

3. want you to find out what's going on. As I said, we are

4. already starting to work on making sure that the explanation I

5. give you at the end of the case of the law is correct. The

6. problem with that is sometimes jurors will go out, and there

7. have been cases where they have done that, and they will do

8. their own legal research or other research, bring that in,

9. share it with the other jurors, and they are wrong, okay. A

10. murder case is a good example of that.

11. In a murder case, in almost all cases, except for

12. one kind that we don't need to be concerned with here, a jury

13. will be concerned with the presence of something called malice

14. aforethought. Malice aforethought is, generally speaking, an

15. element of the crime of murder, and without malice

16. aforethought, there is no murder; may be manslaughter, which

17. is another kind of unlawful killing, but not murder.

18. Well, a juror may hear that term "malice" and think,

19. "Well, you know, I wonder what that really means," and go look

20. it up. If you look up the word "malice" in a dictionary, it

21. will mean "hatred" or "ill will." You will see something like

22. that. If one person hates another has a feeling of malice.

23. But it will be a huge mistake to do that in a murder case

24. because the term "malice aforethought" has nothing whatever to

25. do with the emotional state of the killing. All right. It

26. has to do with a mental state, an intention unlawfully to kill

27. another human being. That's all.

28. Mercy killings are invariably murders to the first

Pag.29

1. degree. They always involve the presence of malice

2. aforethought because there is the intention unlawfully to kill

3. another human being. Mercy killings are done because there

4. are deep feelings of love or affection that exist between the

5. one who kills and the one who is killed, all right, but those

6. are murders. And for a juror to bring in a dictionary

7. definition of "malice" in a case like that, to think you have

8. to have that emotional state, would be a serious, serious

9. mistake, and that's one of the reasons we ask jurors not to do

10. that. You will get complete and correct jury instructions at

11. the end of this case that define all of these terms for you.

12. Please don't feel you have to go look them up for yourself.

13. Having said that, legal research is not rocket

14. science or, as my kids would say, not rocket surgery. If I

15. can do it, anybody can, but it's important that the jurors all

16. be working with the same information; that you not go out on

17. your own and sort of piecemeal this; that you work with the

18. information given to you by the Court, and it's a very strict

19. rule.

20. If the jurors were to violate the rules I've talked

21. about so far, talking to people outside the court about the

22. case or even talking with each other outside of court about

23. the case or deliberating on the case before it's submitted to

24. you or going out and researching things, it could cause a

25. mistrial. In other words, the case would have to be re-done.

26. It's a very wasteful process. Trials of this type are very

27. expensive. They are very taxing on everybody concerned. So,

28. please don't violate these rules. They are very important.

Pag.30

1. Any questions about it? All right.

2. I mentioned yesterday about taking notes. Marty

3. probably already passed out the note pads and pens. Yeah, I

4. see. Okay. You can take notes or not as you see fit during

5. the trial. Your notes are for your own personal use. Any

6. time you are not in the courtroom, your note pad needs to stay

7. on your chair because it's in the custody of the bailiff. And

8. the reason for that is because nobody gets to see what your

9. notes are all about unless you share it with them, okay. Your

10. notes only come into play if at the time you're deliberating

11. on the case, you want to talk to the other jurors about your

12. thoughts or impressions that you developed during the trial.

13. There is a downside to taking notes that you might

14. not have thought about if you haven't been through this

15. before, and it's this: If you're hunched over your note pad,

16. trying to scribble down kind of a verbatim record what every

17. witness says, it's very hard to look at the witness. At least

18. if you are like me, I can't read my writing even when I am

19. looking, but it's especially bad when I'm not, okay. And if

20. you are looking at your pad instead of looking at the witness,

21. you're depriving yourselves, as a juror, of the kind of

22. information that we all use, as people, to evaluate things

23. other people are telling us. One of your jobs as jurors is to

24. do that, is to listen and observe witnesses, take in what they

25. say. You do that a lot by looking at the people. So, please,

26. don't let your note-taking distract you from doing that. If

27. you don't take any notes at all, that's okay. If you take a

28. ton of notes, that's okay too.

Pag.31

1. At the end of trial, you will have the chance to

2. take your notes with you if you want. If you don't do that,

3. they will be shredded. Nobody gets to know what you think

4. unless you share that information with the other jurors.

5. Enough said about that.

6. Our court reporter, Ms. Sjoquist, is taking a record

7. of the trial as we go. My policy in working with jurors is

8. very straightforward. If you are deliberating on a case, and

9. you tell us that you need a readback of testimony to reach a

10. just decision, you will get it. So, please, don't feel that

11. there's any pressure on you to take notes because there isn't.

12. There's a record being made of everything every witness is

13. saying.

14. Having said that, we will ask you not to request

15. that unnecessarily because there's a great deal of time and

16. energy that's expended in preparing a readback, but the whole

17. reason for having a record is to have it as a tool for you to

18. use if you need it during deliberations. So, the note-taking

19. is something that you need to make sure that you understand

20. there's no pressure on taking notes, and certainly don't let

21. it distract you from the evidence in the case.

22. In just a minute or two, we will commence with

23. opening statements. That will be a chance for counsel to talk

24. to you and tell you what they expect the evidence to take you

25. here in this case. It's very important you understand that

26. statements of counsel are not evidence. It's important you

27. not confuse them with the evidence. That doesn't make them

28. unimportant because the statements of counsel can give you a

Pag.32

1. good head's up as to where we are going in this trial, and the

2. evidence, as it unfolds, will make more sense because you will

3. know where the parties expect to be taking you.

4. Counsel, do we have a stipulation that unless it's

5. otherwise brought to my attention, all parties are in their

6. places, and further, that the usual admonition will be given

7. in all breaks?

8. MR. BAMIEH: By the defense, yes.

9. MR. ROMERO: So stipulated by the People.

10. THE COURT: All right. Then Mr. Romero, you can make

11. your opening statement.

12. MR. ROMERO: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

13. THE JURY: Good morning.

14. MR. ROMERO: Before I start, I cannot stress enough or

15. emphasize that what I'm about to say is not evidence. This is

16. just an opportunity for me to tell you what I believe the

17. evidence is going to show at the trial. And I'm going to try

18. my best to present it to you in a chronological order.

19. However, that -- that may not happen completely because of

20. scheduling with witnesses, who will be coming out of the area.

21. And the best way I can analogize this to you is right now I'm

22. going to be giving you the top cover of a puzzle box where it

23. has the complete picture. You can see it, and then at the

24. trial, you may be given pieces a little out of order, but you

25. will know exactly where they fit by knowing the top cover of

26. the puzzle box.

27. Now, the evidence in this case is going to show that

28. the defendant is a very troubled man, who has -- who had an

Pag.33

1. understanding of love and relationships where his girlfriend

2. was required to worship him. She was required to pamper him

3. and literally, at times, to baby him.

4. Now, Ms. Rebecca White is not without her issues.

5. She is not without her shortcomings, but she brought to the

6. relationship -- she is an insecure woman, dependent on the

7. defendant, dependent on him for affection, dependent on him

8. for his love, and dependent on him for validation.

9. Ms. White loved the defendant. She loved him

10. blindly. And in so loving him, she put up with mental and

11. physical abuse throughout their relationship, and she did so

12. hoping that the defendant would love her more, hoping that she

13. could prove how much she loved him.

14. They met in Monterey in 2001, where they began their

15. relationship, and then they moved down to Ventura County and

16. moved into the Westlake area. And in that relationship, the

17. defendant dealt with his personal troubles by abusing her.

18. And Ms. White let him and, in fact, tried even harder to

19. please him.

20. And the abuse that the defendant inflicted was not

21. limited to emotional or physical abuse, there was sexual

22. abuse. And the abuse peaked on June 29, 2002. The defendant

23. that evening got drunk on wine, his drink of choice. He

24. slapped Ms. White. He pounded the back of her head into the

25. walls of their apartment. He kicked her on her ribs, and he

26. zip-tied her hands and her feet together, and he raped her

27. while she was zip-tied.

28. And why did he do this to Ms. White? Because the

Pag.34

1. defendant likes the power and control over his girlfriends.

2. He likes to exercise power and control over his girlfriends.

3. After that incident on June 29, 2002, did Ms. White

4. call the police? No, she didn't. Did she have an opportunity

5. to call the police? Yeah, she did. She had many

6. opportunities, but she chose not to. She chose to try and

7. stay in that relationship, but she thought about what she

8. might do because the defendant had never been that violent

9. with her before. And while trying to determine what to do,

10. she took pictures of herself of the injuries on her face, and

11. it was not until well over two weeks later that she reported

12. this incident to the sheriff's department. And she reported

13. it to the sheriff's department when the defendant had left on

14. a business trip to Gulfport, Mississippi.

15. Now, the defendant, through his employment, traveled

16. extensively for business. And on this occasion, when he left

17. to Gulfport, Mississippi, Ms. White believed that, while

18. there, he was going to be seeing another woman named Cecelia.

19. I believe her last name is Howells, and that he was probably

20. having a relationship with her, but that is nothing knew.

21. During her relationship with the defendant, she believed he

22. had been unfaithful, and that was part of their dysfunctional

23. relationship.

24. When Ms. White finally reported the incident to the

25. sheriff's department, she spoke to several deputies, and she

26. gave her statement several times. And the first day, I

27. believe, was July 18, 2002 that she contacted the sheriff's

28. department, and she gave -- she told them what happened to

Pag.35

1. her. I believe she told the initial deputy about two or three

2. times what had happened, and she was photographed by another

3. deputy, I believe a Jody Keller, and she had still two -- over

4. two weeks later, she still had some bruising on her. And you

5. will get those photographs, and you will get the photographs

6. that she took of herself.

7. She complained that two-and-a-half weeks later, her

8. ribs still hurt from where she was kicked by the defendant.

9. And in telling the deputies this on the first day she

10. reported, she got some dates confused. I think she initially

11. said the incident happened on July 6th. She went home and

12. looked at a calendar -- a calendar that she kept and realized

13. it was actually June 29th, and the very next day told the

14. deputies that she had made a mistake, that the incident

15. actually happened on June 29th, and that very next day, July

16. 19, 2002, her daughter helped her move. They rented a car,

17. packed up her items into that rental car, and headed north to

18. Monterey where she had friends and where she initially lived.

19. She had a friend by the name of Kanika Smith, who

20. lived up in Monterey. And this friend worked for a medical

21. clinic called Doctors On Duty. And on July 22, 2002,

22. Ms. White went to Doctors On Duty for treatment, and she was

23. treated by a Dr. Troy Manchester. And she told Dr. Manchester

24. what happened, and Dr. Manchester took x-rays and found that

25. she did, in fact, have cracked ribs.

26. Again, what I am telling you is not evidence. The

27. evidence you will receive during the trial. That's just a

28. general outline of what I believe it's going to show, and I

Pag.36

1. want to conclude with this. When she testifies, you will see

2. that several years later, Ms. White still has unresolved

3. feelings for the defendant. Thank you.

4. THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Romero.

5. Mr. Bamieh, you may make an opening statement.

6. MR. BAMIEH: Couple minutes to set up the Power Point,

7. please. And your Honor, I need to delete some things from the

8. Power Point, just if I have a couple minutes to do that.

9. THE COURT: How long do you think?

10. MR. BAMIEH: Five minutes, I think. I found them where

11. they need to go, and I can fix them pretty quick, I think,

12. with this system.

13. THE COURT: All right.

14. MR. BAMIEH: Court's permission?

15. THE COURT: Go ahead.

16. MR. BAMIEH: Hello everybody. You guys made it through

17. voir dire. The trial is starting. As you know, I'm Ron

18. Bamieh. I represent Mr. Carlo Parlanti.

19. Mr. Parlanti is an Italian citizen. In late of

20. nineties and the early 2000s, he came to America to work for

21. Dole. He's a computer technician, works with computers. He's

22. considered top notch in his field, actually. And when he came

23. here in 2000, he was living up -- around 2000, he was living

24. up in Monterey. And in early 2001, he met Rebecca White.

25. Now, as Mr. Romero said in his opening statement,

26. how the opening statement's like a puzzle. Well, it is

27. because they are going to be putting the pieces together. In

28. this case, you are going to find you can't put this case

Pag.37

1. together. You are going to find that the case will not --

2. cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And the reason

3. for that, which you will see in this case, is that the main

4. issue in this case will be the credibility of one Rebecca

5. White. You are not going to believe her. You are not going

6. to believe her because of the evidence.

7. In order to put this in context so you see where we

8. are going because, as you will see, the defense -- the People

9. have the burden. They will call the witnesses, and then I'll

10. get to cross-examine them as they are called. And so, to put

11. this in context, what I would like you to do in my opening is

12. to focus on the issues they will probably be raising, the

13. issues that will concern you, and the issues that you will not

14. be able to resolve and will lead to the ultimate verdict you

15. will have in this case, which will be not guilty.

16. To do that, I want to go through a time line of

17. events to put them in context so you will know what was

18. happening when and who the people were involved at the time.

19. Starting off with -- says 2000, 2001, because it was

20. late 2000, I think early 2001, just to -- safety net there

21. because, as I said, we will wait to see what they say, but

22. Rebecca White and Carlo Parlanti started dating.

23. Now, what you will know about this time is at this

24. time, Mr. Parlanti was ending -- had ended a relationship with

25. his former therapist, a Ms. Sandra Hollingsworth.

26. Ms. Hollingsworth made allegations against Mr. Parlanti. She

27. made serious allegations, actually. Part of it, you will

28. find, was attributed to the fact she committed a criminal

Pag.38

1. offense when she engaged in a sexual relationship with

2. Mr. Parlanti. She was his therapist, and the law says that a

3. therapist, a therapist like Ms. Hollingsworth, cannot have sex

4. with her clients. Pretty understandable law. And she had

5. committed that violation. When she committed that violation

6. and Mr. Parlanti told her he was leaving her, she went to the

7. police and made allegations again him.

8. Now, the police sorted it out and everything, and

9. eventually, it ended up that none of the allegations of

10. violence were substantiated against Mr. Parlanti, and he