Cameron Brown Prosecution Motion To Exclude Testimony of Defense Witnesses
Cameron Brown Prosecution Motion To Exclude Testimony of Defense Witnesses
Cameron Brown Prosecution Motion To Exclude Testimony of Defense Witnesses
4
5
ns
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
io
at
12
13
14
15
ib
11
)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAMERON JOHN BROWN,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
Tr
10
ul
&
16
18
19
LAUB:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 18, 2015, or as soon thereafter as this motion
ia
20
ls
17
may be heard, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA will move this honorable
22
court to exclude the testimony of defense witnesses Dr. Joel Burdick, Dr. Bruce Beckwith, Dr.
23
Nadim Karim, and Steve Schliebe. This motion will be based upon the attached Points and
24
Authorities, and any other files, documents or other materials related to this case, as well as any
25
Tr
21
1
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES
I.
Relevant Factual Summary
On March 12, 2015, the defense provided the People with a list of potential witnesses.
ns
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
at
io
prior testimony of Dr. Burdick at the retrial is attached as Attachment 2. A transcript of the prior
11
12
Dr. Karim is attached as Attachment 4. A transcript of the testimony of Steve Schliebe at the
13
first trial is attached as Attachment 5. A transcript of the testimony of Steve Schliebe at the
14
Tr
ib
ul
10
II.
The Testimony of Each of These
Witnesses is Irrelevant
15
&
16
17
Evidence Code 210 defines relevant evidence as evidence, including evidence relevant to the
19
credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove
20
any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. The People submit
21
that the testimony of the cited potential defense witnesses is irrelevant as the testimony does not
22
have any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the
23
24
//
25
//
Tr
ia
ls
18
2
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES
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.
io
at
ns
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
11
ib
12
ul
10
14
15
(a) Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the
16
17
(b) Based on matter (including his special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and
18
19
or before the hearing, whether or not admissible, that is of a type that reasonably may
20
be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which his
&
ls
testimony relates, unless an expert is precluded by law from using such matter as a
Tr
22
ia
21
Tr
13
23
In the second trial, Dr. Bruce Beckwith, a retired pediatric pathologist and expert in
24
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, developmental abnormalities in children, and renal tumors in
25
children, testified that in April 2006, he was contacted by LASD Detective Jeff Leslie. Detective
3
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES
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.
io
ns
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.
at
Beckwith is irrelevant because he does not possess the requisite special knowledge, skill,
11
ib
12
ul
10
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:
14
I was unable to get to a comfort zone that I felt would provide me with the ability to give
15
legitimate testimony in this case. [Reporters Transcript of Retrial, hereinafter RT2, 8168:4-6.]
16
Dr. Beckwith further testified on direct examination: [The question] fell into an area of
17
knowledge that I dont consider a strong point in my own experience. And there was nothing in
18
my knowledge or experience that allowed me to feel able to be a reliable witness for the truth.
19
[RT2, 8170:1-5.] He also stated: But the nature of the blunt force trauma involving a fall from
20
a considerable height onto a surface of unknown detailed structure didnt fall within anything
21
that Id experience in all those six thousand plus autopsies. And I just wasnt comfortable
22
Tr
ia
ls
&
Tr
13
23
Dr. Beckwith further testified on direct examination that he had informed Detective
24
Leslie in 2006 that he did not feel comfortable testifying on this issue for either side. In fact, Dr.
25
Beckwith was only persuaded to testify for the defense in the retrial because the defense misled
4
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES
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.
ns
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
at
io
ul
The testimony of Dr. Beckwith, by his own admission, is irrelevant as he is not qualified
10
to offer an expert opinion on this topic. As Dr. Beckwith himself states under oath, he does not
12
believe he has the ability to give legitimate testimony in this case; he wasnt comfortable
13
swimming in those waters; he didnt feel comfortable offering an opinion because this wasnt
14
[his] particular area of expertise; and that there was nothing in my knowledge or experience
15
that allowed me to feel able to be a reliable witness for the truth. The purpose of a jury trial is
16
to show the jury the truth. This testimony should be excluded as irrelevant and an improper
17
expert opinion.
&
Tr
ib
11
ls
18
In the second trial, Dr. Nadim Karim, a clinical and forensic psychologist, testified
20
for the defense that different people react differently with regard to a traumatic event. [RT2,
21
8833:7-10.] Dr. Karim also testified that, in his opinion, and without having had any contact
22
with the defendant, the defendant exhibited clear textbook symptoms of disassociation. [RT2,
23
8834:22-25.] The People submit that the testimony of Dr. Karim is irrelevant because Dr. Karim
24
is not qualified to offer such an opinion and has no basis on which to offer such an opinion.
25
//
Tr
ia
19
5
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES
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
at
io
ns
psychological perspective. [RT2, 8777:5-11.] He testified that his research focused on the
11
traumatic effect of incarceration. [RT2, 8779:1-8780:25.] Finally, he testified that, in his private
12
practice, approximately 80 percent of the time I do psychological testing and assessment. The
13
Tr
ib
ul
10
On cross-examination, Dr. Karim admitted that he had not done any testing on the
14
defendant and in fact did not have any conversations with the defendant in which [he was]
16
17
Interestingly, although Dr. Karim testified that his primary area of focus was post-traumatic
18
stress disorder, he was not alleging that the defendant suffered from post-traumatic stress
19
ls
&
15
In summary, the opinion of Dr. Karim that, from the material he had read, the defendant
ia
20
was exhibiting clear textbook symptoms of disassociation on the night of the murder is
22
irrelevant because Dr. Karim does not have the proper expertise needed to form such an opinion.
23
Nothing in the background, training, education, or experience of Dr. Karim, as outlined at the
24
prior proceeding and his curriculum vitae, evidences the necessary expertise for offering such an
25
//
Tr
21
6
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES
opinion. The People further incorporate all of the arguments made with respect to Dr.
ns
assigned to the trace evidence section. One of his duties is to examine photos and casts of
io
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
at
testified that he examined photographs of the impressions and could not determine if they were
11
footprints or if they had any comparison value. He asked Detective Leslie to provide him with
12
the cast impressions but was not provided with those cast impression. He thus could not offer an
13
opinion as to whether or not the impressions were footprints or had any evidentiary value.
ib
Tr
14
ul
10
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
16
17
ls
18
&
15
photographs, he does not know if the impressions at the scene were in fact footprint impressions.
20
This testimony adds nothing to the case and does not have any tendency in reason to prove or
21
disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.
ia
19
23
III.
The Limited Probative Value, If Any, of the Proffered Testimony
Is Outweighed by the Prejudicial Effect
24
Under Evidence Code 352, the court has the discretion to exclude evidence if its
Tr
22
25
probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a)
7
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES
necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of
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
at
io
ns
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
11
Schliebe, is irrelevant. The testimony should also be excluded under Evidence Code 352. For
12
all the foregoing reasons, the People respectfully request that this honorable court exclude the
13
Tr
14
15
ib
ul
10
Respectfully submitted,
JACKIE LACEY
District Attorney
By:
&
16
17
ls
18
19
21
Tr
22
ia
20
_______________________
CRAIG W. HUM
Deputy District Attorney
23
24
25
8
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES