INTRODUCTION
In the case of The People of the State of California vs.
Cameron John Brown, Cameron Brown is charged with first degree murder,
accused of throwing his daughter, Lauren, off a cliff. As a result he has
been held without bail since 2003. There have two trials in the
matter. The first trial ended with a bona fide hung jury.
The second trial ended with an implied acquittal for the charged
crime of first degree murder, and a six-six spilt between second degree murder
and involuntary manslaughter. At that point the case took a bizarre turn
with antics from the prosecution that have never been seen in American
jurisprudence. One must go back to the days of Lord Mansfield, the
noted 18th Century reformer of English law, to find a parallel in a court
of law to what happened in this case.
The second trial was held in Department 107 of the Los
Angeles County Superior Court, presided over by the Hon. Michael E.
Pastor. It was prosecuted by Los Angeles County Deputy District
Attorney Craig Hum and Cameron Brown was represented by attorneys
Eugene “Pat” Harris and Lara Yeretsian, who were with the Geragos &
Geragos law firm at the time.
JURY RETURNS VERDICT OF IMPLIED ACQUITTAL ON CHARGED OFFENSE
After a lengthy trial (from July 27, 2009 to October 5, 2009)
in which prosecutor Hum presented a case with very little actual evidence, but
loaded with emotional appeal, character assassination, and the demonization of
Cameron Brown, the case went to the jury.
On the morning of October 5, 2009 the jury indicated they
had reached a unanimous verdict and simultaneously sent a note to the
Court. That afternoon, after examining the note the Court found the
jury was deadlocked. (Trial Transcript, page 13523, line 22 through page
13524, line 15). “Obviously there is a real misunderstanding of the
nature of a verdict,” the Court said. (Trial Transcript, page 13525,
lines 23-24) The jury’s confusion over what constitutes a verdict was
expressed several more times during that afternoon’s proceedings. (Trial
Transcript, page 13527, lines 21-24; page 13538, lines 11-12, 20-23; page
13535, lines 13 - 27; page 13540, lines 20- 22.) The transcripts
along with other court documents referenced herein can be found at: http://freecambrown.org/Outcome/
After the Court polled each member of the jury and
questioned the jury foremen, he found that the jury was split six-six between
some degree of murder and involuntary manslaughter. (Trial Transcript, page
13535, line 23 through page 13537, line 6) At that point, without
inquiring if the six votes were for first degree or for second degree, the
Court declared “legal necessity for a mistrial.” (Trial Transcript, Page 13540,
Lines 16-19)
During the questioning the foreman stated that the jury
voted on all the following possible option. The six-six spilt came from this vote.
Murder in the First Degree,
Murder in the Second Degree,
Involuntary Manslaughter, and
Not Guilty of All Charges.
(Trial Transcript, page 13535, line 28 through page 13536, line 7)
A sidebar followed where defense counsel insisted the Court
must ask if the six split was for first or second degree murder. The Court
tried to evade the issue by referencing CALJIC jury instructions and pointing
out that “it appears as though they are deadlocked. (Trial Transcript page
13536, line 24 through page 13538, line 2) Defense counsel pointed out
that the jury voted on only two permutations and one was involuntary
manslaughter; and again he insisted that it was necessary to find out if the
other permutation was for first degree or for second degree murder. (Trial
Transcript page 13538, lines 3-9) Once again the Court referred the CALJIC jury
instructions, again trying to avoid finding the answer to that question. (Trial
Transcript page 13538, line 10) Defense counsel prevailed, and the Court
continued to question the foreman.
The foreman said the split was six for second degree murder
and six for involuntary manslaughter. (Trial Transcript page 13540, Lines 20-27)
The Court then asked if they were deadlocked on the charged crime of
murder in the first degree. “No, the jury is not deadlocked on that,” the
foreman expressly stated. “Then I am confused,” the Court
responded. (Trial Transcript Page 13541, lines 3-8). This inquiry
revealed that the jury returned a verdict of implied acquittal on the charged
crime of first degree murder.
(In Blueford v Arkansas (2012) 566 U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct.
2044, 182 L.Ed.2d 937, the US Supreme Court held that, in a state which does
not have a partial acquittal rule, if a jury deadlocks on a lesser included
offense but doesn’t formally return a verdict of not guilty on the greater
offense, the defendant may be retried on both the greater and lesser offenses.
(Id., 132 S.Ct. at pp. 2048-2053.) The CA Appeals Court subsequently
upheld partial verdicts in CA in People v Aranda. Case No. E056708 (CA Dist. 4
Ct. App., Div. 2, Sep. 12, 2013); publication pending. Therefore,
according CA law, Cameron Brown was legally acquitted of first degree murder on
October 5, 2009. This is the first way double jeopardy attached in this
case)
Not one juror made any attempt to dispute the foreman’s
assertion that jury was not deadlocked on the first degree murder charge; nor
to correct the foreman on his representation that the jury was split six-six,
an assertion he made more than once. Two sidebars took place after the foreman
made these assertions and not one juror corrected the foreman during the
sidebars (Trial Transcript page 13537, line 6 – page 13538, line 24; page
13541, line 10 – page 13543, line 12)
In spite of the revelation that the jury was unanimous on
the first degree murder charge, Judge Pastor insisted on proceeding with a
mistrial, “I declared a mistrial. That is the current state of affairs.
So thank you,” the judge said. (Trial Transcript, Page13543, Lines
10-12) Thus he implied that he had no recourse once he declared a
mistrial despite his discovery of the jury’s unanimous vote. At that point, he
discharged the jury. However, what he actually declared was “legal
necessity for a mistrial.” Mere seconds later, the jury’s unanimous vote was
revealed, which nullified any legal necessity for a mistrial.
When Judge Pastor discovered that there were no guilty votes
for the charged offense of first degree murder, even after he declared “legal
necessity for a mistrial,” he had a duty to inquire further of the jurors and
instruct them to deliberate further on that charge, because he had an
obligation to receive the jury’s verdict on it, but instead he discharged the
jury. By doing so he aborted the trial before it had come to its final
conclusion. This is the second way double jeopardy attached in this case
(but I am getting ahead of myself).
Immediately after the trial there was a news conference in
front of the courthouse where several discharged jurors interacted with Sarah,
Lauren’s mother. (A picture of Sarah interacting with two of the jurors
can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/TimesArticleJuryPicture)
Defense counsel filed a motion to enter a judgment of
acquittal for the first degree murder charge or alternatively, to dismiss the
first degree murder charge on the grounds that prosecuting Cameron Brown again
is a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, and Article I,
Section 15 of the California Constitution, which protect a defendant from
Double Jeopardy. This was for the first way that double jeopardy attached to
this case. His rationale was stated as follows: the prosecution’s
“failure to muster even one vote for first degree murder is an undeniable
repudiation of the prosecution’s theory and clearly invokes the double jeopardy
clause.” (Defense Motion to Dismiss, Page 1) That motion was heard on January
28, 2010 by Judge Pastor.
JURY IMPEACHES ITS OWN VERDICT - WITH PROSECUTOR’S HELP
At the January 28th hearing, in conjunction with his
Opposition to the defense Motion to Dismiss, prosecutor Hum submitted a
“declaration” over his own signature, which is a sworn statement, in which he
asserted that former Juror 9 contacted him with a tale to tell. Juror 9
is the juror who committed misconduct during deliberations and led other jurors
to commit misconduct as well. (Trial Transcript Pg 13508, Line 28 to Pg 13509, Line 23;
Pg 13510, Lines 6-7; Pg 13510, Line 17 to Pg 13511, Line 9)
Former juror 9 allegedly called the prosecutor later in the
day on October 5, 2009, after the trial ended. This now-discharged juror
allegedly informed the prosecutor that the outcome as reported in the court
proceedings and recorded in the trial transcript was incorrect, and the correct
outcome was one vote for first degree murder, six for second degree murder, and
five for involuntary manslaughter. This discharged juror also volunteered
to contact the other discharged jurors, according to Mr. Hum, and instruct them
to call him as well. Subsequently, five more discharged jurors allegedly
called the prosecutor some time after they had been discharged.
Mr. Hum sent each of these discharged jurors a document that
he himself—the prosecutor—had prepared, and asked them to sign it and return it
to him. This document was a sworn statement, like the one that he submitted
in his own name. It stated that the six-six outcome as recounted in court
proceeding was somehow incorrect and that the “correct” outcome was
one-six-five. In this way the jury impeached its own verdict with the
prosecutor's help.
THE COURT’S “KING’S X” RATIONALE
Judge Pastor denied the defense’s motion. His denial was
based on two alternate lines of reasoning. First he accepted the
prosecutor’s “declarations at face value. (Hearing Transcript, Page 25, Lines
15-27) His alternate line of reasoning, he said, was because he
gave the jury the Stone instruction, which “made very clear to the fact finder
the protocol and procedure by which it would evaluate the charged offense and
any lesser included offense.” (Hearing Transcript, Page 26, lines
1-17) After making that statement he gave an account of
everything that happened in the courtroom up to, but excluding his asking about
the exact nature of the split. (Hearing Transcript page 26, line 20
through page 31, line 16)
The following facts were omitted from the judge’s account:
1) The jurors voted on the following
possible charges: murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree,
involuntary manslaughter, and not guilty of all charges. ( Trial Transcript,
Page 13535, Line 28 to Page 13536, Line 7)
2) The Court inquired about the
exact nature of the split.
3) The jury foreman reported that
there were six votes for involuntary manslaughter and six votes for second
degree murder.
4) The Court asked, “Did the jury
reach any verdict as to the charged count of murder in the first degree or is
the jury deadlocked on that.”
5) “No, the jury was not deadlocked
on that,” the jury foreman stated. ( Trial Transcript, Page 13540, Line
20 to Page 13541, Line 7
These omitted facts made the outcome crystal clear, since it
was stated orally in the courtroom exactly what happened and what the verdict
was. However, the Court excluded these facts from his alternative
rationale and pretended like they never happened. It was as if the judge
was saying, like children playing in the schoolyard, “King’s X, I didn’t mean
for that to come out, I take it back.”
Consequently, instead of dealing with the facts Judge
Pastor’s argument engaged in what could have been if—if he had stopped asking
questions sooner—and he pretended that’s what happened. He argued that he
wasn’t required to ask about the split. “The jury was provided with
Stone,’” he said. “I made my inquiry. As far this Court is
concerned that was all that would have been required. And I think it was
a solid basis for my simply saying, ‘Thank you, you are excused.’”
(Hearing Transcript, Page 27, Lines 9-18)
Even if the judge could have excused the jury at that point,
that is not what happened. The reality is that he continued his inquiry,
and that inquiry resulted in the following discovery.
1) The split was six-six for second degree murder or
involuntary manslaughter. (Trial Transcript, Page 13540, Line 25 to Page 13541,
Line 2)
2) The jury was unanimously on the charged crime of first
degree murder and they did not vote guilty. (Trial Transcript, Page
13541, Lines 3-7)
Although the jury never explicitly stated that they voted
“not guilty” on the charged crime of first degree murder, the foreman told the
Court that the jury voted it; they were not deadlocked on it; and the six-six
spilt was between second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Therefore
the only possible outcome for their vote on first degree must necessarily be
that they unanimously declined to vote “guilty”—which is an acquittal. Otherwise,
there would have been a conviction. While the jury also stated they had
not reached a verdict on that charge, their confusion over what constitutes a
verdict was confirmed by the Court, and it was well documented that
afternoon.
The actions by the prosecutor and judge at the January 28th
hearing resulted in the third way double jeopardy attached in this
case
DOUBLE JEOPARDY DUE TO COURT ABORTING TRIAL PREMATURELY
According to case law the Court had a duty to inquire of the
jurors the number of votes for first degree as opposed to second degree before
declaring a mistrial. Judge Pastor failed to do that. Nevertheless,
the law requires that when the Court believes the jury didn’t agree on any
verdict, and preliminarily announces his intention to discharge them, but then
discovers, before the jury leaves the box, that his belief is incorrect, as
occurred in this instance, the Court must rectify its misunderstanding and
receive the verdict the jury unanimously agreed upon. Moreover, the Court
is remiss in its duties if, before it loses control of the jury, it discovers
such a situation had developed and does not correct it. When not
corrected, a mistrial is deemed to be without legal necessity as to that
offense, and double jeopardy principles preclude retrying the defendant for
that offense. (People v Powell (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 178, 181-182;
Stone v Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 503, 519)
Thus, when Judge Pastor discovered no guilty votes for the
charged offense, after he declared “legal necessity for a mistrial,” he had a
duty to inquire further of the jurors and to instruct them to deliberate
further, as he had an obligation to receive the jury’s verdict on it. Instead
he discharged the jury, and in this way he aborted the trial before it had come
to its final conclusion. Thus double jeopardy attached.
Judge Pastor addressed the issue that the trial was aborted
prematurely when he stated the following about the six-six split, at the
January 28th hearing: “These are tentative expressions as part of the give and
take of the jury system. It is not at all unusual, but the key to it is it was
not a completed verdict … Any expression was a tentative expression, perhaps
out of frustration, wheeling and dealing, et cetera, but it was not a completed
verdict.” (Hearing Transcript, Page 29, Lines 15-18, 24-27)
That is precisely the point—it was not a completed verdict,
yet the jurors were unanimous on the charged crime of first degree murder.
That fact was expressed in open court, as it was clearly stated that they
had voted on all the possible options and they were NOT deadlocked on the first
degree murder charge. In that situation, Judge Pastor had a duty and an
obligation to instruct the jury to deliberate further on the first degree
murder charge and bring the verdict to completion. However, Judge Pastor
failed to do that. As a result he aborted the trial prematurely.
He tried to obfuscate that fact at the January 28th hearing
by pretending as if the omitted facts had never happened! Over forty
years ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Harlan II stated that once a trial
begins, a defendant has a legitimate interest in getting the trial over with
“once and for all,” (United States v Jorn (1971), 400 U.S. 470, 486) something
Cameron Brown was deprived of when Judge Pastor discharged the jury
prematurely. Consequently, he’s been incarcerated without bail for an
additional five years.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATION DUE TO BAD-FAITH CONDUCT BY
JUDGE OR PROSECUTOR
Another basis for a double jeopardy violation in this case
is on the authority of “the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrials where
‘bad-faith conduct by judge or prosecutor’ threatens the ‘(h)arassment of an
accused by successive prosecutions or declaration of a mistrial so as to afford
the prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict’ the defendant.”
(United States v Jorn (1971), 400 U.S.
470, 485;
91 S.Ct. 547, 557; 27 L.Ed.2d 543, 556 (plurality opinion); Downum v. United
States (1963), 372 U.S. 734, 736; 83 S.Ct. 1033, 1034; 10 L.Ed.2d 100.) Judge
Pastor’s premature dismissal of the jury fits this criterion, since the direct
result of declaring a mistrial and prematurely aborting the trial was to give
the prosecutor another opportunity to try to convict the defendant.
An additional matter that qualifies Judge Pastor for
“bad-faith conduct by judge” is his “King’s X” rationale, where he pretended
that some of the proceedings before him never happened and used that pretense
to deny the defense’s motion to dismiss. Surely Judge Pastor knew his
rulings and the final disposition of a case must be decided on the totality of
what's discovered through the testimony and court proceedings. The Court cannot
say, “King’s X, I didn’t mean for that to come out,” and pretend like some
court proceedings never happened. Yet that is exactly what Judge Pastor
did. The direct result of that was that it gave the prosecutor another opportunity to try to convict Cameron Brown.
Additionally, the prosecutor’s submission of the juror
“declarations” could be viewed as “bad-faith conduct,” given that they are not
only a violation of California case law (People v. Spelio (1970) 6 Cal. App.3d
685, 690 [86 Cal. Rptr. 113]; People v. Villagren (1980) 106 Cal. App.3d 720,
729 [165 Cal. Rptr. 470]; People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 1268, 1318 [248
Cal. Rptr. 834]) but also of statutory Federal Law! (18 U.S.C. § 242,
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) A case can also be made that
Judge Pastor was also involved in this “bad-faith conduct,” since Mr. Hum
should have referred the matter to the Court and not handled it himself. The
fact that Judge Pastor acted as if it were nothing out of the ordinary, and
accepted its results suggests that he cooperated with the scheme. Furthermore,
the fact that prosecutor Hum would even attempt such a stunt, with the
potential consequences against him, indicates that he must have had some
assurance beforehand that he could get away with it. This indicates and that
Judge Pastor must have been complicit in it, as well. The direct result of the juror declarations was to give the prosecution another opportunity to try to convict.
THE STATE BLOCKS CAMERON BROWN FROM FIGHTING THE MULTIPLE DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATIONS AGAINST HIM
The
basis for the defense motion heard on January 28 was
on the grounds of violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, and
Article I, Section 15 of the California Constitution, the first way double
jeopardy attached to this case. Subsequently defense counsel filed the motion with
the California Court of Appeal. The
motion was inexplicitly denied just a few days after it was received, inclining
one to believe that the Appeals Court denied it without reading it. (There were rumors that the
Appeals Court denied the motion because Judge Pastor contacted the Appeals
Court and told them that facts identified by the defense were erroneous, and
the scenario described by his “King’s X” rationale was what really happened. However, it should be noted that these rumors
are unsubstantiated.)
The
motion should have been filed with the CA Supreme Court, but unfortunately Cameron
Brown was financially devastated after two costly trials. As a result, he was
forced to rely on state appointed counsel.
The problem was that the state provided him with an attorney
to retry the case, but refused to provide him with one who would fight the
double jeopardy. This is exactly the
situation that the Double Jeopardy clause was intended to prevent.
Cameron
Brown had to turn to pro per status to continue fighting the double jeopardy
violation against him; however, the Court blocked him from completing that
endeavor. As a result double jeopardy due
to the court aborting trial prematurely and double jeopardy due to bad-faith
conduct by judge and prosecutor have never been litigated. Cameron Brown is now being tried again for a
charge he has, in fact, already been acquitted.