cameron brown prosecution motion to exclude testimony of defense witnesses

MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESSES 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

TO THE HONORABLE GEORGE G. LOMELI, JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED

COURT, DEFENDANT CAMERON JOHN BROWN AND ATTORNEY OF RECORD ARON

LAUB:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 18, 2015, or as soon thereafter as this motion

may be heard, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA will move this honorable

court to exclude the testimony of defense witnesses Dr. Joel Burdick, Dr. Bruce Beckwith, Dr.

Nadim Karim, and Steve Schliebe. This motion will be based upon the attached Points and

Authorities, and any other files, documents or other materials related to this case, as well as any

argument presented at the hearing on this motion.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CAMERON JOHN BROWN,

Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO.: BA255206 PEOPLES MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF CERTAIN DEFENSE WITNESSES; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES DATE: MARCH 18, 2015 TIME: 8:30 AM DEPT: 107

Trials & Tribulations


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I.

Relevant Factual Summary

On March 12, 2015, the defense provided the People with a list of potential witnesses.

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

prior testimony of Dr. Burdick at the retrial is attached as Attachment 2. A transcript of the prior

testimony of Dr. Beckwith is attached as Attachment 3. A transcript of the prior testimony of

Dr. Karim is attached as Attachment 4. A transcript of the testimony of Steve Schliebe at the

first trial is attached as Attachment 5. A transcript of the testimony of Steve Schliebe at the

retrial is attached as Attachment 6.

II. The Testimony of Each of These

Witnesses is Irrelevant Pursuant to Evidence Code 350, No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.

Evidence Code 210 defines relevant evidence as evidence, including evidence relevant to the

credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove

any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. The People submit

that the testimony of the cited potential defense witnesses is irrelevant as the testimony does not

have any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the

determination of the action.

//

//



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Testimony of Dr. Joel Burdick

At both prior trials, Dr. Joel Burdick, a professor of bioengineering at the California

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.

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

light on any issue in the case. This testimony should be excluded.

B. Testimony of Dr. Bruce Beckwith

Evidence Code 801 states: If a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in

the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is:

(a) Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact; and

(b) Based on matter (including his special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education) perceived by or personally known to the witness or made known to him at

or before the hearing, whether or not admissible, that is of a type that reasonably may

be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which his

testimony relates, unless an expert is precluded by law from using such matter as a

basis for his opinion.

In the second trial, Dr. Bruce Beckwith, a retired pediatric pathologist and expert in

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, developmental abnormalities in children, and renal tumors in

children, testified that in April 2006, he was contacted by LASD Detective Jeff Leslie. Detective



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

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.

Beckwith is irrelevant because he does not possess the requisite special knowledge, skill,

experience, training, and education to offer this expert opinion.

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:

I was unable to get to a comfort zone that I felt would provide me with the ability to give

legitimate testimony in this case. [Reporters Transcript of Retrial, hereinafter RT2, 8168:4-6.]

Dr. Beckwith further testified on direct examination: [The question] fell into an area of

knowledge that I dont consider a strong point in my own experience. And there was nothing in

my knowledge or experience that allowed me to feel able to be a reliable witness for the truth.

[RT2, 8170:1-5.] He also stated: But the nature of the blunt force trauma involving a fall from

a considerable height onto a surface of unknown detailed structure didnt fall within anything

that Id experience in all those six thousand plus autopsies. And I just wasnt comfortable

swimming in those waters. [RT2, 8170:19-24.]

Dr. Beckwith further testified on direct examination that he had informed Detective

Leslie in 2006 that he did not feel comfortable testifying on this issue for either side. In fact, Dr.

Beckwith was only persuaded to testify for the defense in the retrial because the defense misled



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

Dr. Beckwith testified on cross-examination by the People as follows: [Question:] And

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

area of expertise, correct? [Answer:] Right . . . Correct. [RT2, 8184:13-25.]

The testimony of Dr. Beckwith, by his own admission, is irrelevant as he is not qualified

to offer an expert opinion on this topic. As Dr. Beckwith himself states under oath, he does not

believe he has the ability to give legitimate testimony in this case; he wasnt comfortable

swimming in those waters; he didnt feel comfortable offering an opinion because this wasnt

[his] particular area of expertise; and that there was nothing in my knowledge or experience

that allowed me to feel able to be a reliable witness for the truth. The purpose of a jury trial is

to show the jury the truth. This testimony should be excluded as irrelevant and an improper

expert opinion.

C. Testimony of Dr. Nadim Karim

In the second trial, Dr. Nadim Karim, a clinical and forensic psychologist, testified

for the defense that different people react differently with regard to a traumatic event. [RT2,

8833:7-10.] Dr. Karim also testified that, in his opinion, and without having had any contact

with the defendant, the defendant exhibited clear textbook symptoms of disassociation. [RT2,

8834:22-25.] The People submit that the testimony of Dr. Karim is irrelevant because Dr. Karim

is not qualified to offer such an opinion and has no basis on which to offer such an opinion.

//



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

psychological perspective. [RT2, 8777:5-11.] He testified that his research focused on the

traumatic effect of incarceration. [RT2, 8779:1-8780:25.] Finally, he testified that, in his private

practice, approximately 80 percent of the time I do psychological testing and assessment. The

other 20 percent, I would do therapy. [RT2, 8788:3-5.]

On cross-examination, Dr. Karim admitted that he had not done any testing on the

defendant and in fact did not have any conversations with the defendant in which [he was]

trying to do an evaluation or assessment of any condition. [RT2, 8814:25-27; 8831:17-20.]

Interestingly, although Dr. Karim testified that his primary area of focus was post-traumatic

stress disorder, he was not alleging that the defendant suffered from post-traumatic stress

syndrome. [RT2, 8843:3-5.]

In summary, the opinion of Dr. Karim that, from the material he had read, the defendant

was exhibiting clear textbook symptoms of disassociation on the night of the murder is

irrelevant because Dr. Karim does not have the proper expertise needed to form such an opinion.

Nothing in the background, training, education, or experience of Dr. Karim, as outlined at the

prior proceeding and his curriculum vitae, evidences the necessary expertise for offering such an

//



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

opinion. The People further incorporate all of the arguments made with respect to Dr.

Beckwiths testimony in their objection to the testimony of Dr. Karim.

D. Testimony of Steve Schliebe

Steve Schliebe is a criminalist with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department

assigned to the trace evidence section. One of his duties is to examine photos and casts of

impressions in an attempt to make a comparison of an impression to an exemplar.

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

testified that he examined photographs of the impressions and could not determine if they were

footprints or if they had any comparison value. He asked Detective Leslie to provide him with

the cast impressions but was not provided with those cast impression. He thus could not offer an

opinion as to whether or not the impressions were footprints or had any evidentiary value.

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

determined that they appeared to be adult-sized footprints. He further testified that he

documented the impressions with photographs and casted the impressions.

The testimony of Steve Schliebe is irrelevant. Mr. Schliebe can testify that, based on

photographs, he does not know if the impressions at the scene were in fact footprint impressions.

This testimony adds nothing to the case and does not have any tendency in reason to prove or

disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.

III. The Limited Probative Value, If Any, of the Proffered Testimony

Is Outweighed by the Prejudicial Effect Under Evidence Code 352, the court has the discretion to exclude evidence if its

probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a)



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of

confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.

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

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

Schliebe, is irrelevant. The testimony should also be excluded under Evidence Code 352. For

all the foregoing reasons, the People respectfully request that this honorable court exclude the

proffered testimony of these defense witnesses.

DATED: March 17, 2015

Respectfully submitted, JACKIE LACEY District Attorney By: _______________________ CRAIG W. HUM Deputy District Attorney


cameron brown prosecution motion to exclude testimony of defense witnesses

Documents