maxine zazzara house address

In response to the court's question, Daniel Hernandez confirmed that he had done extensive work interviewing potential witnesses in El Paso, and had located witnesses who are willing to come forth, but explained that the defense had decided not to present these witnesses. The court instructed the jury, pursuant to CALJIC No. Defendant's motion in the trial court also urged that young persons, and low income persons were systematically excluded from the jury venire as well. It is beyond question, therefore, that there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, supports the inference that defendant's refusal indicates a consciousness of guilt. On November 7, 1989, the trial court sentenced defendant to death on his 12 convictions for first degree murder with special circumstances and a term of 59 years and 4 months on his 11 convictions of noncapital crimes. But the felony-murder rule and the burglary-murder special circumstance do not apply to a burglary committed for the sole purpose of assaulting or killing the homicide victim. (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1225, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 105 P.3d 487; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1180, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384; People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 68, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 481, 892 P.2d 1224. In the other bedroom, Florence L.'s wrists had been bound using an electric cord and her ankles were taped together. He argues nonetheless that [e]volving due process standards and requirements of reliability of the death sentencing procedure have undermined the Court's analysis in those cases.. As noted above, defendant was charged in an amended information with 43 offenses-including 13 counts of murder, five counts of attempted murder, 14 counts of burglary, and four counts of rape-arising from 15 separate incidents involving 24 victims during a 14-month period ending in the summer of 1985. Yes; the hair, the clothing, the glasses. I know that. A trial court should grant a mistrial only when a party's chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged, and we use the deferential abuse of discretion standard to review a trial court ruling denying a mistrial. (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 555, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 802, 58 P.3d 931.) As discussed above, defendant has failed to show any errors occurred during the guilt phase of his trial. [] [], For these reasons, the court is going to take the matter of the substitution of attorneys under submission until October 24, 1985, to allow the defendant to investigate the attorneys he now wishes to hire, if he so desires, and for him to have the contractual agreement looked at by an independent attorney. Two days after the attempted murder of Whitney B., on July 7, 1985, a neighbor of Joyce Nelson noticed that a screen had been removed from Nelson's bedroom window. She was comatose. The victim later identified defendant in a lineup and at trial and identified several pieces of jewelry that police had recovered from Felipe Solano, who had purchased the items from defendant. The court was interrupted by an objection from Arturo Hernandez, stating that he and Daniel Hernandez were not seeking appointment by the court but had been retained by defendant's family and terming the court's remarks out of order. The court continued, stating: Court is aware of that. Trending. She never saw defendant with a gun and never saw him act violently, even when provoked. The victim repeated her identification of defendant at trial. Whether defendant satisfied the second prong by showing that Hispanics were underrepresented in the jury venire depends in part upon how the community that serves as a basis for comparison is defined. The court instructed the jury that in determining the proper penalty it should disregard the instructions given at the guilt phase of the trial and consider any sympathetic or other aspect of the defendant's character or record, adding again, You must disregard any jury instruction given to you in the guilt or innocence phase of this trial which conflicts with this principle. The jurors further were instructed that they were free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all of the various factors you are permitted to consider.. 608-223-0017. Florence L. was taken to a hospital, where an examination revealed evidence that she had been sexually assaulted. The trial court did not err in admitting the challenged photographs of the victims. 81, 9, p. The Court: Mr. Ramirez, are you satisfied with the disclosures that have been made to you? 81, 7, p. Manuel Delatorre pursued and struck defendant on the head a second time, causing defendant to fall. On November 7, 1989, defendant Richard Ramirez was sentenced to death for the so-called Night Stalker murders following his convictions of 12 counts of first degree murder (Pen.Code, 187, subd. She He doesn't look the same as he looked that night? Defendant argues that the cumulative effect of errors in the guilt and penalty phases of the trial requires reversal of the judgment. [] []. 191, 800 P.2d 547, defendant argues that the trial court violated its positive, sua sponte duty under the Sixth Amendment of the federal Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution to ensure that appellant would be represented by qualified, effective counsel by granting defendant's request to substitute counsel. A person cannot be tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. ), Defendant argues that his motion for severance should have been granted because many of the incidents were dissimilar and, thus, not all of the evidence would be cross-admissible. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. (188.) It is something that you simply must not allow to interfere with your deliberations. The court added: And again, please do not expose yourself to any news media representation about this case., Shortly before 10:00 a.m. the following day, the court informed the jury that Juror Singletary had been shot to death for reasons unrelated to the present case. WebZazzara Vincent Charles Italian (Sicily): habitational name from the port of Mazzara del Vallo on the west coast of Sicily, which takes its name from the Mazzaro river. Defendant ordered her to get up and don't make any noise. He took her into the bedroom of her 12-year-old son, woke him up, and handcuffed her to her son. Gallegos stated he was concerned by a news report he heard on the radio indicating my client wanted to plead guilty to 14 counts of murder providing the district attorney's office would drop the counts involving minor children. The court noted that it previously had ordered a psychiatric evaluation of defendant at the request of the public defender, who then represented defendant. Gallegos identified defendant at trial. A shoe print from an Avia athletic shoe was found in the bedroom. We are all expendable for a cause, and no one knows that better than those who kill for policy, clandestinely or openly, as do the governments of the world which kill in the name of God and country and for whatever else they deem appropriate. Calif.Only that it has something to do with the Night Stalker and that was revealed in the courtroom by the judge.He's accused of a feloney [sic]., 6. The court then admitted into evidence the two coroner's photographs, stating: I think they are necessary, to identify the victim, and to indicate the wound The body [has] been cleaned up and the great masses of blood have been eliminated, and they are not pretty, either one of them, but I think they are necessary for the purposes of this trial.. I am beyond good and evil. 80.) [Citations. This exchange then continued as follows: The Court: You understand because your attorneys have a contract with you and with your family, those two contracts may at some point be in conflict; the contract with the family may present a conflict at some point with the contract with you? On the morning of July 19, 1985, the bodies of Maxon and Lela Kneiding were discovered in their bed by their daughter, who had come looking for them after they failed to meet her at a restaurant for breakfast as planned. (People v. Schmeck (2005) 37 Cal.4th 240, 305, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 397, 118 P.3d 451; People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1217, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130.). We have further determined that refusal to so instruct does not contravene any constitutional requirement. A hearing was held on August 31, 1989. Challenge for Cause to Juror Robert D. The prospective jurors were sequestered and individually questioned concerning their views on the death penalty as then required by our decision in Hovey v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 1, 80, 168 Cal.Rptr. Thats a pretty sick individual. Indeed, he would help himself to food and drinks in the kitchen after his crime. However, when Ramirez did come in and the alarm was pressed it didnt go off. The People correctly point out that defendant did not ask the trial court to sever the charges into these four groups, and the trial court had no sua sponte duty to do so. When asked in the juror questionnaire what, if anything, they had learned about the case, they indicated, at most, only the most general familiarity with the case.5 They all stated that this information did not make them favor either the prosecution or the defense. Trematodes are parasitic worms, found in the bodies of various animals, having a flattish or cylindrical form, with skin often perforated by pores, and usually furnished with adhesive suckers. (18 Oxford English Dict. In the past, other cases were decided under other laws which are no longer in effect. 1. Her eyes were never found. Defendant forced the victim to orally copulate him, then raped and sodomized her. L[.] Such rules shall govern the duties of the court and its attachs in the production and use of the juror lists. ), Defendant contends he was denied both the right to a fair trial by an independent tribunal and the right to the minimum guarantees for a criminal defense under customary international law as informed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (American Declaration). Defendant further asserts he suffered racial discrimination which constituted violations of customary international law., This claim fails because, as explained above, defendant was not denied a fair trial or subjected to racial discrimination. The foreperson replied, I feel that we can probably continue today, adding that [e]veryone appears to have put it behind them. The court stated that it was reasonably satisfied that the jurors are able to proceed with their deliberations and that upon further admonishment I propose that that is exactly what we do. Defendant objected. (c)), four counts of forcible sodomy (286, former subd. The court refused to give this instruction because it is argumentative. Defendant further argues that the trial court erred in failing to order a competency hearing sua sponte. Police showed Sophie D. the same photographic lineup not including defendant's photograph that had been shown to Maria Hernandez, and Sophie D. picked out the same person who, as noted above, was apprehended, questioned and released. The Whittier, CA, home was familiar to Ramirez as he had burglarized it one year earlier. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841.) The jury returned a verdict of death at 11:00 a.m. Nearly a year after his arrest, on July 21, 1986, following the preliminary hearing, defendant filed a motion for change of venue. In eight of these crimes, property later was recovered that had been stolen from the victim's residence. After defendant left, Yu crawled a short distance and then lay still. In essence, defendant's claim is premature. Defendant returned to the living room and brought Somkid K. into the bedroom, threatening to kill her children if she resisted. 113-114.) ] [Citation. Defendant compared that percentage to both the percentage of jury-eligible Hispanics living in the judicial district in which the trial was held (26.3 percent) and the percentage of jury-eligible Hispanics living within a 20-mile radius from the courthouse (17.5 percent). On May 9, 1985, an intruder entered a house in Monrovia by removing louvers from a kitchen window and climbing onto a patio chair that had been placed against the wall beneath the window. Defendant continued: Of course I did it, you know that I'm a killer. The Court: You may be waiving any conflict. 503, 781 P.2d 537, which was filed the year after the trial court ruled in the present case, defendant argues the trial court erred in using the area within a 20-mile radius of the courthouse as the relevant community. He found his mother, Jennie Vincow, dead in her bedroom. She was one of the few who actually had a good look at the Night Stalker. Select this result to 1708, fns. The next day, shortly after midnight on July 20, 1985, Somkid K. was sleeping on her living room couch when she was awakened by the sound of the sliding screen door opening. [Citation. Before MARKEY* , Chief Judge, and WALLACE and HUG, Circuit Judges. Several items taken from the residence later were recovered from Felipe Solano, who had purchased the items from defendant. Virginia Petersen later identified defendant at a lineup and at trial. ] (People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 153, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988.). [Citations. 191, 800 P.2d 547.) However, that lead would cause some issues down the line. An ambulance arrived and took him to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. ] (People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 447-448, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 21 P.3d 1209, fn. Mrs. Doi, who had suffered a stroke prior to this incident, was unable to testify at trial. [Defense Counsel]: Your honor, he has already made an I.D. In the docuseries, detective Frank Salerno says, he got comfortable after killing someone he would take the time to have a snack. With respect to that, there is no evidence upon which I might conclude so far that the defendant is in any way unable to understand and participate in the proceedings., Ten months later, on February 26, 1987, just prior to the weekend recess during a hearing on pretrial motions, the superior court judge sought time estimates from counsel regarding proceedings the following week and asked defense counsel: Are there any motions that you are considering as to other aspects of this case that should be filed or you are considering filing? Prospective Juror Robert D[. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600.) Explore. You can see Satan on my arm. Defendant moved his shirt sleeve to reveal a pentagram drawn on his left shoulder. The trial court overruled the objection, stating: I find that their probative value far exceeds any inflammatory nature, although again, they are not pleasant to look at, but this is a murder case, but they would be useful certainly for a doctor to use to give the cause of death, perhaps the manner of death. In order to preserve this issue for review, the defendant must object to the panel or move to quash the jury venire on this ground. (People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 634, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392.) These are the only aggravating circumstances that you may consider. His right to decide for himself who best can conduct the case must be respected wherever feasible. (Fn.omitted. I just want to make perfectly sure you understand. Because the record establishes a manifest need for some form of physical restraint, defendant cannot complain that a less visible form of restraint, such as a leg brace, should have been used rather than leg shackles. One juror made no response. HUG, Circuit Judge: Arturo Hernandez: Yes, we have. (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 409, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442.) 81, 9, p. In the present case, the determinate sentences were imposed for crimes that were committed separately from, or involved victims other than, the murders for which defendant was sentenced to death. ] (Burgener, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 856, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747, 62 P.3d 1.) Contrary to defendant's assertion, the trial court in the present case did not find that Daniel Hernandez and Arturo Hernandez were unqualified to be retained as counsel by defendant. Defendant objected to, and moved to quash, the master list of jurors drawn for use in the 1987-1988 fiscal year. A car driven by defendant apparently had forced a car driven by Tsai-Lian Yu to the side of the road, where it was forced to stop with its bumper against the bumper of a parked car. In People v. Melton, supra, 44 Cal.3d 713, 768, 244 Cal.Rptr. Maxine Zazzara The 44-year-old was killed as part of the same attack as her husband Vincent Zazzara on 27 March, 1985. Menu. We have our standard retainer agreement that we have used in many, many different felony cases, including murder cases. However, the factor relating to defendant's age, as set forth in these instructions, refers to any matter concerning defendant's age, maturity, and judgment which common experience or morality might indicate to be relevant to the issue of penalty. I understand. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231, which held that it is constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere. He also cites Woodson v. North Carolina (1976) 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 403, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 867 P.2d 757. When the door to the condominium closed behind defendant, Hernandez opened the garage door and fled. That guarantee mandates that the pools from which juries are drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive groups in the community. I'm disappointed, but I guess not exactly surprised. The trial judge remarked that he could not say the juror has slept, but he certainly has jerked his head up abruptly from time to time as if he were nodding off or had nodded off and was awakening, but I cannot say that I have ever found him to be asleep., The court conducted a hearing and asked the jury foreperson whether he had actually seen the juror asleep. IMDbPro Starmeter See rank. [Citation.] You are admonished in the strongest possible terms that your decision in this case must be based on the evidence that you have seen and heard in this courtroom and from no other source. The court then instructed the jury to begin its deliberations anew. He left Vincents body alone, though: He mutilated Maxine and infamously plucked out her eyeballs, placing them in a jewelry box, and leaving with them. The offenses with which defendant was charged occurred between June 27, 1984 and August 8, 1985. The court stated that it had conducted an extensive examination of the attorneys which the defendant desires to have substituted in as the retained counsel. Noting that defendant had the right to retain counsel of his choice, the court stated that it is important the defendant be fully informed regarding his choice of counsel at this point rather than to have serious questions arise later which could result in even greater delay. (2)), three counts of forcible oral copulation (288a, former subd. But one political figure would make a damming mistake later on. When Polo had not heard from Vincent Zazzara by the following morning, he and a fellow employee went back to the Zazzaras' house and found the door in the same position as the night before. 83, 759 P.2d 1260.) On October 22, 1985, Judge Soper noted that defendant had failed to provide a written agreement retaining attorney Gallegos. ] (People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 666, 280 Cal.Rptr. She raised her hand to shield her face and said something like don't or stop. Defendant approached within a few feet and fired the gun. At the end of the second court day of viewing these videotapes, the court allotted defendant one more hour on the following day, saying: This is all cumulative. According to defendant, this led the jury to treat the absence of mitigation as aggravation. If defendant believed the pattern instruction was unclear, he had the obligation to request clarifying language. (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1192, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1.) Deputy Public Defender Hall stated that the psychiatrist had met with defendant for approximately 10 or 15 minutes, at which point Mr. Ramirez refused to speak with him anymore. Based upon this short interview, and his observations of defendant before and after the interview, the psychiatrist concluded, according to Hall, that defendant was borderline in terms of his competence, but he couldn't say for sure. Hall added that the psychiatrist stated that, if forced to reach a conclusion, he would have to say [defendant] was competent but borderline so., Following a recess, the in camera hearing resumed, as noted above, with the prosecutor, defendant, Gallegos, Arturo Hernandez, and Daniel Hernandez present. A bucket had been placed underneath the window. Decided Aug. 25, 1980. Sandra Hotchkiss testified for the defense and acknowledged that she was incarcerated at the California Institution for Women serving a term for burglary. The photographs also clarified the coroner's testimony. And I beg you to remember that in your deliberations. The court then selected an alternate juror to replace Juror Singletary and released the jury for the day, ordering them to return the following day and repeating the admonition to not allow yourself any exposure to any media representation about this case.. As the four-part test is stated in the conjunctive, joinder may be appropriate even though the evidence is not cross-admissible (People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398, 423, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78.). 4. 630, 774 P.2d 659, defendant is entitled to relief only if he can actually show that his right to an impartial jury was affected because he was deprived of a peremptory challenge which he would have used to excuse a juror who sat on his case. Unless, in addition to exhausting his peremptory challenges, the defendant expresses dissatisfaction with the jury ultimately selected, we cannot know whether the earlier denial of the challenge for cause deprived the defendant of a peremptory challenge that he or she would have used to excuse a juror who sat on his case. In some cases, he would sexually assault a kid he came across in the house during a burglary. A torn portion of a $20 bill was on the ground. Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it must determine the proper penalty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a subsequent pleading, defendant argued the charges should be tried in eight different trials involving the following groups of victims: (1) Petersen and Elyas A. on August 5 and 8, 1985; (2) Okazaki and Yu, on March 17, 1985; (3) Zazzara and Chainarong K. on March 28 and July 19, 1985; (4) Higgins7 ; (5) Vincow on June 27, 1984; (6) Bell, Doi, Cannon, Whitney B., Nelson, and Kneiding on May 14 and 29, and July 2, 5, 7, and 19 of 1985; (7) Sophie D. on July 7, 1985; and (8) Carol K. on May 30, 1985. In view of the above facts, the court is ordering that both attorneys make full disclosure to Mr. Ramirez of any facts which might bear on their ability to effectively represent him in this case After this disclosure, if there are any made, the court will, if Mr. Ramirez desires, offer him independent assistance to check any information disclosed to him. To return a judgment of death, each of you must be persuaded that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that it warrants death instead of life without parole. We need not, and do not, decide whether the trial court was correct that these proposed special instructions on mitigating factors were argumentative because, in any event, the trial court properly denied the requested instructions because they duplicated the court's instructions. Give me your gun, I'll take care of myself. I think to give this instruction would be error and I'm going to ask you to withdraw it. March 25, 2023 the vscode server failed to start the vscode server failed to start [Citation. She screamed and her neighbor, Jose Burjoin, responded and ordered defendant to leave. [] Refusal to sever may be an abuse of discretion where: (1) evidence on the crimes to be jointly tried would not be cross-admissible in separate trials; (2) certain of the charges are unusually likely to inflame the jury against the defendant; (3) a weak case has been joined with a strong case, or with another weak case, so that the spillover effect of aggregate evidence on several charges might well alter the outcome of some or all of the charges; and (4) any one of the charges carries the death penalty or joinder of them turns the matter into a capital case. 503, 781 P.2d 537): Inasmuch as the basis for the decision of the Court of Appeal has been eliminated, no purpose is served by an extended discussion of the propriety of using the 20-mile-radius community in determining the population for cross-section analysis. (Id. We described the right of a criminal defendant to counsel and to present a defense as among the most sacred and sensitive of our constitutional rights and cautioned that the state should keep to a necessary minimum its interference with the individual's desire to defend himself in whatever manner he deems best. (Id.

Plymouth State University Shuttle, Order Of Convergence Calculator, Articles M