2d 690, 87 S. Ct. Defendant then parked the van a short distance down the street. Save to an Ancestry Tree, a virtual cemetery, your clipboard for pasting or Print. cemeteries found in Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles County, California, USA will be saved to your photo volunteer list. Further, in People v. Rogers (1978) 21 Cal. (P. [8] Defendant argues that the postimpoundment search of the van and seizure of the items inside exceeded the scope of a permissible examination [48 Cal. Defendant maintains that this statement improperly invited the jury to speculate on whether defendant might be released from prison despite a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. 3d 1066] (At this point, according to Douglas, defendant tortured Gilliam. Defendant then drove into the mountains, driving beyond the site of the other two murders. Rptr. But when a defendant conceals evidence the prosecutor can argue the inference that the evidence was unfavorable to defendant. Rptr. [14b] Here certain prospective jurors gave insufficient or ambiguous answers [48 Cal. [48 Cal. Arguably the mere mention of appeal is improper, since it rarely serves any constructive purpose and may lead the jury on its own to infer that their responsibility for penalty determination is diluted. [27] He maintains, however, that the objection was also based upon violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, because Sergeant Budds asked him for the manuscript without giving Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L. Ed. Nothing has made me react like this before. 3d 1082] It formulated four specific questions, which were put to all jurors, and refused to permit further questions from counsel. Norris strangled her with a wire coat hanger. He later said it brought him to tears, and caused him to change his stance on capital punishment, from anti to pro. There is no evidence that any victim went voluntarily to the place of her death, and only then was restrained against her will. 77.) On cross-examination the prosecutor asked him, "Isn't it a fact, Mr. Shoopman, that he [defendant] wrote you about the rape and killing of a girl in the mountains before September 14?" (See People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal. 2d 72, with approval (18 Cal.3d at pp. 3d 512, 538-544, we recognized that the wording of an instruction in the statutory language "leave[s] room for some confusion as to the jury's role" in determining the [48 Cal. 3d 826, 834 [164 Cal.Rptr. Oops, some error occurred while uploading your photo(s). 3d 1, 71-75 [168 Cal. Sergeant Farrand, an officer participating in defendant's arrest, testified that Officer Valento announced that it was the Burbank police after knocking on the door. On September 2, 1979, Jacqueline Gilliam, age 15, and Leah Lamp, 13, were hitchhiking in Redondo Beach. It does not appear that Gage formed any actual opinion based on the office conversation, but simply felt bad for the mother. App. Defendant claims that if present he could have given the court or his attorney information that may have served as a basis for the court granting a continuance. Disqualification for cause must ultimately rest on the existence of preconceptions which will prevent a decision from being reached based on the evidence and the instructions of the court. It is not the function of the jury to "appeal proof" its verdict. (Ibid.) App. (Rogers, at p. WebThe audio tape Bittaker and Norris created of themselves raping and torturing Shirley Lynette Ledford remains in the possession of the FBI Academy. It would provide me with closure. Regardless of those circumstances the jury would still have heard evidence that defendant killed Lamp because she had witnessed the crimes he perpetrated on another victim, and that defendant had tortured four of his other victims. 364.) Bittaker and Norris The Tool Box Killers, here to read the Transcript of Shirley Lynette Ledford audio recording. fn. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. His opinion thus falls under those covered by section 1076. Teale, supra, 70 Cal. fn. App. 8 that a complaint is a document which institutes a criminal proceeding, fn. They drove [48 Cal. [S]ome cases are so brutal, so vicious, so horrendous, so inhumane that in order for us to exist as a society, we have to totally repudiate the conduct involved and we have to say, 'we will not accept it, we will not allow it, and the one mainly responsible for it has to suffer the supreme penalty.' Defendant claimed that these figures demonstrate a prima facie case, shifting to the prosecutor the burden to justify the challenges. So I can't just sit here and tell you." Use the links under See more to quickly search for other people with the same last name in the same cemetery, city, county, etc. This attempt by the prosecutor to enhance his stature with the jury is arguably improper, but hardly prejudicial. The prosecutor's question concerning a letter to Shoopman. Instructions on the use of prior felony convictions to impeach. All photos appear on this tab and here you can update the sort order of photos on memorials you manage. (P. 545, fn. Prosecution witnesses were equally tainted: the jury learned of Norris's prior rape conviction and Lloyd Douglas's convictions for manslaughter and burglary. As we have noted, one of defendant's photographs of Andrea Hall and six of Jacqueline Gilliam were identified and introduced into evidence. 281. Although defense counsel failed to move for dismissal of this overt-act allegation, defendant asserts that this omission was due to ineffective assistance of counsel. 800, 689 P.2d 430].) After Norris also raped Gilliam, they retied the girls, and all remained in the van over night. Richard Shoopman, a convict friend of defendant and Norris, said Norris had told him many times of his desire to rape young women. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Bittaker and Norris offered Lynette a ride home in their van; she accepted because she recognized Bittaker as a regular customer at the restaurant she worked at part time. She was followed by Andrea Joy Hall, 18; Jacqueline Doris Gilliam, 15; Jacqueline Leah Lamp, 13, and Shirley Lynette Ledford, 16. 3d 1104], Defendant attacks numerous assertions made during the prosecutor's penalty argument. 3d 21, 55 [188 Cal. She screamed on cue for the tape, but was not tortured in his presence. In upholding the car's seizure, this court drew a distinction between seizure of a car which is itself evidence of a crime, and a car which is a mere container of incriminating articles. 172, 450 P.2d 564] and its progeny to uphold the seizure of the van as an instrumentality of the crime. FN 16. Juror Andry, asked if she would automatically vote for life imprisonment, answered, "Yes, I guess so." Rptr. fn. FN 34. You are only allowed to leave one flower per day for any given memorial. Please enter your email address and we will send you an email with a reset password code. 224, 591 P.2d 514], however, the court criticized the use of the "instrumentality of the crime" theory to justify the search of an automobile. On July 4, 1979, defendant and Norris set out to find another victim. Shoopman denied receiving such a letter, and the prosecutor did not mention the matter further. We affirm the conviction and sentence. Defendant now renews his claim that the court erred in denying the challenges for cause to five jurors. The prosecutor said that defendant "would never be rehabilitated. Our recent opinion in People v. Ford (1988) 45 Cal. When the judge then denied the motion, he did so on the ground that the defense had not made out a prima facie showing of group bias, not that the prosecutor had rebutted such a showing. The bodies of Lucinda Schaefer and Andrea Hall were never found. Rptr. fn. The United States Supreme Court reversed the penalty, holding 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." (Italics added. Lamp's skull showed the effect of the hammer blows. 2d 720, 729-731 [16 Cal. Among other information, the affidavit contains the contents of letters seized from Norris's residence in which Shoopman acknowledged receiving photographs of young girls from Norris and defendant. (18 Cal.3d at p. 173, fn. 3d 255, 264 [221 Cal. I am glad I didnt listen to the actual thing. Section 1531 provides in pertinent part: "The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or anything therein, to execute the [search] warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance. hell never hurt another & all that evil that was in him will be there to torture him for eternity plus judgement day will make his punishment greater. To establish a prima facie case, the defendant "must show a strong likelihood that such persons are being challenged because of their group association rather than because of any specific bias." 3d 1080] the death-qualifying voir dire to four questions; (3) when the court advised a jury-selection expert, who arrived in the court's chambers without prior notice, that it would not authorize payment of county funds for her fees; (4) from a hearing following the prosecution's subpoena requiring defense counsel to produce photographs allegedly given him by defendant; (5) from an ex parte communication with the jury where the court advised the jurors on the "gruesome" nature of the evidence and reminded them of their obligation to evaluate it dispassionately; (6) and (7) from at least two in-chambers conferences on the scope of cross-examination. FN 35. 19.) The court replied, " that's true. We conclude that the court should have sustained the challenge for cause. 354], quoted in People v. Perez (1962) 58 Cal. Since we have determined that the tape was properly seized, and defendant failed to object to the playing of the tape, the issue does not warrant further discussion. The prosecutor offered the evidence to prove defendant's state of mind -- that defendant did not feel intimidated by Norris -- rather than defendant's conduct on any particular occasion. Finally, defendant testified that Shirley Ledford agreed to sexual acts for money, and to making of a tape. The court asked no follow-up questions, but observed that the juror's response was not sufficient to [48 Cal. Close this window, and upload the photo(s) again. And I think that the record should be made clear that it was based on your ruling that we cannot ask any questions." If you notice a problem with the translation, please send a message to [emailprotected] and include a link to the page and details about the problem. The prosecutor mentioned his participation in the Manson prosecution. 3d 425, 436 [162 Cal. This principle requires us to uphold the ruling denying the challenge to Juror Gage. ", FN 11. Since the error is not of constitutional dimension, the appropriate test of prejudice is the "reasonable probability" test set out in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal. When Norris finished torturing Ledford, defendant told him to kill her. Rptr. As the Court of Appeal correctly found in People v. Case (1980) 105 Cal. The defense contended that Norris, not defendant, was responsible for the murders. For more on this case, watch "The Toolbox Killer," a special streaming on Peacock on Thursday, September 23 and airing on Oxygen on Sunday, October 3 at 7/6c. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. (See Parsely v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal. Defendant had mailed the photograph in evidence to Richard Shoopman, an inmate friend. Nothing in the bargain requires or permits Norris to testify falsely against defendant. Shirley Lynette Ledford was born on March 4, 1963 in California. App. Defendant kidnapped and murdered five teenage girls, raped four of them, and tortured at least one. The book, entitled "The Last Ride," contained a detailed account of the murder of Lucinda Schaefer by Norris and the author. That's true." Rptr. (Hill, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. Ledfords autopsy would reveal evidence of horrific torture, indicating she had been beaten and raped with some form of heavy implements or tools before being He said defendant showed him nude photographs of the victims, told him one was named "Cindy," and that she had been killed. [2] A "Ramey" arrest warrant is issued by a magistrate upon the filing of an affidavit form entitled "Probable Cause Complaint in Support of Felony Arrest Warrant." The tape has never been released to the public. 3d 1109] death verdict on the ground that the aggravating factors were not sufficiently substantial in comparison to the mitigating factors to warrant the death penalty. App. He didn't say that he couldn't do it." ), As in People v. Dominick (1986) 182 Cal. Both North and Rogers appear to suggest that the permissible examination following a warrantless seizure of an instrumentality of a crime includes the search and seizure of independent items of evidence contained within the instrumentality itself. FN 19. My only regret in this case, ladies and gentlemen, is that I can't ask you for more than the death penalty. Defendant's motion to suppress the seized evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 was denied by the trial court. (b) Tapes, photographs, and other physical evidence. Resend Activation Email. fn. 3d 410 [153 Cal. Defendant testified that none of the victims was restrained involuntarily in his presence. Rptr. App. We reviewed a study by Dr. Craig Haney which indicated that jurors who had been through a death-qualifying process were more likely to believe the defendant guilty and to favor the death penalty, and noted his conclusion that "'[t]he more extensive the questioning, the more you would expect to find important differences between the state of mind of jurors who have been through the one process [death-qualification] as compared with those who have been though the other [voir dire without death qualification].'" We do not believe they can be altered by contract so as to limit the court to reviewing the district attorney's discretionary finding as to whether Norris told the truth. Defendant indicated that he had no objection to a search. or don't show this againI am good at figuring things out. Defendant presumably could have given the court or counsel any information he had at that time. The district attorney objected. The final victim was Shirley Lynette Ledford, who was taken on Halloween 1979. 2d 503, 536-540, condemn such argument. 3d 480 [124 Cal.Rptr. When Norris returned, they drove to a new location. Warning Sensitive Content: Click here to read the Transcript of Shirley Lynette Ledford audio recording. ), This error, however, is of little significance. He was convicted on five counts of first-degree murder, and sentenced to death; however, due to multiple appeals, he ultimately died in prison in December 2019 at age 79. Defendant turned on his tape recorder. Juror Gwen Pico told the outlet she "tried keep an open mind but that the tape was very damaging, it stunned us all," while another juror said after listening to it, "I had a dream I was coming down an elevator at the courthouse and when it opened Bittaker was standing there and he threw cinders in my face.". (People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our, Press J to jump to the feed. [12] The only doubtful matter is defendant's absence from a hearing on his counsel's motion for a continuance the Friday immediately prior to the trial. Later in People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal. FN 14. The next morning defendant took Lamp up a hill, took some photographs, and left her there. Weve updated the security on the site. ", Defendant challenges five of the thirty-eight special circumstance findings. FN 22. Louie followed defendant outside and asked if defendant had forgotten to pay for anything. We see no reasonable possibility that information about another violent rape -- this one committed many years earlier -- would have altered the verdict. [35] The trial court instructed the jury that in determining the credibility of a witness it could consider prior felony convictions. He agreed to pay her $500 a day. All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. fn. 2d 72, 76 [207 P.2d 51], we defined murder by torture as requiring an intent to cause cruel suffering "either for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or to satisfy some other untoward propensity." Gary Louie, the victim of defendant's 1974 assault, testified at the penalty trial. 2d 503 [30 Cal. As explained in the latter case, "[t]he argument addresses the minds of the jury to the deterrence of designated 'potential killers' rather than the penalty to be adjudged to the defendants. 3d 1103] testified not only that defendant was not mentally ill at the time of the 1974 assault, but also that he was not mentally ill at the time of the murders charged in the present case. He also called Dr. Tronkman, a psychiatrist, who testified that defendant may have committed the 1974 assault while in an altered state of consciousness. 626] [torture-murder special circumstance does not require proof of causation] [48 Cal. The men recorded themselves torturing her before they eventually strangled her with a coat hanger and tossed her body in an ivy bed in a suburban town. Then they bound her hands behind her back. fn. FN 2. 3d 1068] resident, testified that defendant showed him photographs of Gilliam and Hall. 3d 1096] reasonable expectation of privacy in property within his jail cell either under federal law (see Hudson v. Palmer (1984) 468 U.S. 517, 526 [82 L. Ed. Within 5 minutes of Shirley Lynette entering the van Bittaker drove the van to the silent place, then Shirley was thrown to the back side of the van. 2d 503, 538-539.) Therefore, on December 27, Judge Woolpert of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court executed a warrant authorizing the search of Shoopman's cell in the California Men's Colony for letters or photographs sent to Shoopman from defendant or Norris. Defendant then signed it "Pliers Bittaker," a jail nickname he had acquired from his stories of torturing women with pliers. If the prosecutor had exercised the two additional challenges, however, we would face a quite different situation, since the prosecutor did not claim that the court had erroneously denied any of his challenges for cause. But defendant did not allege then, and does not now claim, that such an arrangement was feasible. fn. The present case antedates the enactment of article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, which bars exclusion of relevant evidence in criminal proceedings. Because the special circumstance finding was reversed on other grounds, we did not reach the question of prejudice. WebBy the time I finished reading about Shirley Lynette Ledford, I was physically disturbed. He claims that when the officers began seizing items contained in the van, rather than merely "examining" the van for its "evidentiary value," the officers went beyond the permitted examination. [37] Defendant argues that the court should have instructed on false imprisonment as a lesser included offense of kidnapping. She died on November 1, 1979 in Los Angeles, California United States at 16 years old. The prosecution then called another psychiatrist, Dr. Markman, in rebuttal. WebShirley Lynette Ledford passed awayon 1 Nov 1979in Sunland, Los Angeles County, California, USA. 14 Any delay would have allowed him to duck back inside the room and resist entry. People v. Barrett (1929) 207 Cal. 640, 640 P.2d 776].). They then drove to a remote area, and started to torture her, Bittaker immediately turned on the tape recorder and started slapping and beating Shirley. Laboratory examination showed sperm in her mouth, vagina and anus. All photos uploaded successfully, click on the Done button to see the photos in the gallery. 2d 231, 105 S. Ct. 2633] or People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal. "Ramey" arrest warrant and affidavit forms resulted from our decision in People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal. On October 31, 1979, 16-year-old Lynette was on her way home around 10.30 pm from a Halloween party in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles when she encountered two real-life monsters Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris, also known as the Tool Box Killers. Rptr. 3d 749 [251 Cal. VI, 13] of the constitution can be relied upon to sustain the judgment herein. 555 [110 P. We find it unnecessary to resolve these issues. In discussing the murder of Cindy Schaefer, the prosecutor said: "And then her body is thrown over so that the coyotes and the maggots and the beetles can finish her off so that nobody will find her. If you conclude that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, you shall impose a sentence of death. Caldwell v. Mississippi, supra, 472 U.S. 320, however, tells us that the sentencer must assume the full burden of deciding whether a defendant should live or die. Thanks for your help! We therefore turn to an analysis of the jurors in question, bearing in mind that in view of defendant's two additional challenges, it is necessary for him to show erroneous rulings affecting three jurors to prove prejudice. cemeteries found within miles of your location will be saved to your photo volunteer list. (P. Are you sure that you want to remove this flower? 534, convinces us that the rule itself should be abandoned. 1770]) the judge asked the jurors if they had any belief "that would prevent you from voting for the death penalty simply because of the fact that it is the death penalty?" The sponsor of a memorial may add an additional. An email has been sent to the person who requested the photo informing them that you have fulfilled their request, There is an open photo request for this memorial. Defendant admitted the assault on Jan Malin, and his description of the incident corresponds to that of Norris and Malin. WebShirley Ledford's body was discovered shortly after she was killed. Appellate counsel argues that with a better copy, an expert might be able to show some other origin for the background noise. Officer Valento explained this to [48 Cal. The prosecutor then put on further evidence of defendant's 1974 assault on a store clerk.

Pati Jinich Necklace, Articles S