shirley lynette ledford autopsyshirley lynette ledford autopsy

", FN 10. Defendant met Roy Norris while they were inmates in state prison. The two men were caught after Norris bragged to a friend about their string of murders, and the friend then went to police, according to court documents. Rptr. 2. [38] The trial court instructed the jury that it could find first degree murder based on the infliction of torture if two requirements were met: "(1) the act or acts which cause the death must involve a high degree of probability of death, and (2) the defendant must commit such act or acts with a wilful, deliberate and premeditated intent to inflict extreme and prolonged pain." This flower has been reported and will not be visible while under review. All of these arguments fail if Dr. Markman's testimony was proper rebuttal to the defense penalty evidence. 85.) 3d 1081]. Shirley Lynette Ledford has succumbed the ultimate hell by being tortured by both 732, 579 P.2d 1048], we relied on Teale, supra, 70 Cal. Defendant claims this argument is improper under People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal. 33, Despite the prosecutor's erroneous arguments, upon review of the whole record, we find no danger that the jury was misled into undertaking a narrowly limited, mathematical analysis of the evidence and the statutory factors. 3d 1071] proceeding." 3d 162 [133 Cal. Under this language, it is clear that if a jury actually found a 50.1 to 49.9 percent balance in favor of aggravation, it could properly refuse to impose a [48 Cal. 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. 9 and thus that a document which says it does not institute criminal proceedings cannot be the basis for an arrest warrant. 855, 659 P.2d 1144].). The bodies of Lucinda Schaefer and Andrea Hall were never found. (See Ross, supra, 487 U.S. at p. 88 [101 L.Ed.2d at p. 90, 108 S.Ct. In determining whether the defendant has made such a showing, trial judges may "bring to bear on this question their powers of observation, their understanding of trial techniques, and their broad judicial experience." 3d 749, 770-771.) FN 3. FN 7. Since this case arose prior to the enactment of article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, defendant relies on the vicarious exclusionary rule established by earlier California decisions (People v. Martin (1955) 45 Cal. The prosecution did not introduce the book in its case-in-chief, but made use of it, over defense objection, in cross-examining defendant. He objects to the finding that Lamp was intentionally killed because she was a witness to a crime. (Ibid.) 3d 1077] to determine the van's "evidentiary value" as is permitted by the Teale (supra, 70 Cal.2d 497) line of cases. If any one out there can assist in obtaining them, please email. VI, 13] of the constitution can be relied upon to sustain the judgment herein. But evidence that they committed some other crime would ordinarily be inadmissible. 3d 865 [183 Cal. Heta poddar Populra shower idag. App. 538, 381 P.2d 394] and People v. Nye (1969) 71 Cal. People fled the court room, including the court room artist, according to "The Toolbox Killer.". While defendant drove away, Norris bound and gagged the victim. Brand's interviews with Bittaker during his final years in prison are the basis of the special. 3d 815 [106 Cal. 17 We have held, however, that the Ledford tape was properly seized, and that defendant's failure to object bars him from attacking the police's listening to the tape. After the arresting officers had notified the Hermosa Beach police department that they had defendant in custody, the officers were informed that defendant may have been involved in "some 187's [murders] of females, that there was Mace or some other type of chemical agent used in one of the attacks," and that some of the victims may have been photographed. Defendant approached, sprayed her with Mace, and attempted to drag her into the van. It would obviously be improper for the jury to return a death verdict with respect to one murder to protect the death verdict it returned for a different murder, and the prosecutor should not have suggested that the jury do so. We therefore find no prejudicial error. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, we find no reasonable probability [48 Cal. FN 13. On September 27, 1979, defendant and Norris attempted to abduct an unidentified woman, but she dodged behind the van and escaped. To add a flower, click the Leave a Flower button. He showed the book to a newspaper reporter who wrote an article describing it. WebShirley Ledford's body was discovered shortly after she was killed. 21 As we stated in People v. Hughes (1961) 57 Cal. [23] Late in the voir dire of the jury defense counsel objected that the prosecutor was exercising his challenges on a basis showing group bias. Some of these photographs came into possession of defense counsel, who turned them over to the police, and they were admitted into evidence. So that I wouldn't be listening wholly to the evidence.". 3d 739, 768 [239 Cal. ( 1538.5, subd. 2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243]. Under these circumstances, it is most unlikely that the jury would have been led by the prosecutor's explanation of the decisionmaking process to refrain from considering whether defendant's conduct warranted the death penalty, and induced instead to engage in a dispassionate analysis of the statutory factors to confirm that the aggravating predominate by at least 50.1 to 49.9 percent. [22] We have previously discussed the voir dire of Juror Porrazzo, and noted that her answer to a question asking whether she would automatically vote in favor of death was equivocal. [14b] Here certain prospective jurors gave insufficient or ambiguous answers [48 Cal. Defendant claims his purported consent to the search was vitiated by the allegedly illegal arrest (a contention we have already rejected), that the trial court failed to rule on the voluntariness of his consent, that if defendant did in fact consent to the search, he did not consent to the seizure of evidence, and that the items seized by the police officers failed to meet the "nexus" requirement of Warden v. Hayden (1967) 387 U.S. 294 [18 L. Ed. It was not, however, permitted to ask questions relating to views on capital punishment. Defendant drove by and offered her a ride, but she refused. Defendant's argument mistakenly assumes that his consent was essential to the validity of the seizure of the manuscript. They did not know the nature of the felony. When Norris finished torturing Ledford, defendant told him to kill her. The 7. On June 24, 1979, defendant was driving the van, with Norris as passenger, on the Pacific Coast Highway in Redondo Beach. Shirley Lynette Ledford Born March 4, 1963 in California She worked part time at a restaurant Theres hardly any information out there about her An autopsy was done and in addition to the strangulation they saw Not even a body for her parents to give a decent burial." He testified that he and Norris picked up Andrea Hall when she was hitchhiking, and offered her $200 for sex and photographs, to which she agreed. 3d 136 [207 Cal. arnold edwin corll shirley lynette ledford autopsy. 3d 889, 896 [135 Cal. You're bound by law, you're bound as jurors to follow the law. The prosecutor's language did not envision an appropriateness decision during the weighing process, for it describes the weighing as a separate decision which precedes the penalty determination, and one, moreover, based on a type of arithmetic calculation incompatible with a moral assessment. Defendant had mailed the photograph in evidence to Richard Shoopman, an inmate friend. In this case, as in most, our inquiry begins by examining the prosecutor's penalty phase argument. Defendant told Douglas that he tortured Ledford by pulling on her genitals and breasts with a vise grip. 281. GREAT NEWS! 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. 393, 528 P.2d 1].) We do not so interpret the judge's ruling. Found more than one record for entered Email, You need to confirm this account before you can sign in. Rptr. Photos larger than 8Mb will be reduced. Or life imprisonment without possibility of parole? We explained in a footnote that Steger did not define all the elements of murder by torture, but was concerned only with establishing that the act of torture must be premeditated. (People v. Lines (1975) 13 Cal. The victim identified defendant and described the car. "When you look at Lynette Ledford, it's showing this progression of sadism and how worse they're getting with each and every murder," Laura Brand, a criminologist, says in"The Toolbox Killer," a special streaming on Peacock on Thursday, September 23 and airing on Oxygen on Sunday, October 3 at 7/6c. Defendant not only demonstrates, but glories in his readiness to commit murder, rape, and torture. (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. 7 Thus, defendant does not allege insufficient probable cause; rather, he contends that the procedure and form used for the issuance of the warrant were illegal. This account already exists, but the email address still needs to be confirmed. With respect to six of the seven instances cited, we see no arguable basis for claiming that defendant's absence "prejudiced his case or denied him a fair and impartial trial." Defendant held Schaefer while Norris tried to strangle her, but when he changed his grip Schaefer and defendant fell over backwards. 800, 689 P.2d 430].) This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. A later decision, People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal. 2. If defendant had moved under section 987.9 for funds to hire a jury-selection expert, we could view the judge's statement as a denial of that motion, and inquire whether it was an abuse of discretion. Rptr. Neither can we determine whether the prosecutor, at the time he asked the question, intended to prove the fact at issue. ", This court has held that sections 844 and 1531 are "identical in principle,"so although section 844 does not expressly require notice of the arresting officer's authority, this type of notice is "an integral part of the rule stated in section 844." The judge said, "The case law that guides this court dictates, and I make the ruling, that only certain questions, specific questions, be asked of the jurors having to do with their attitude in regard to the death penalty. 32, Other portions of the prosecutor's address implicate another concern we addressed in Brown, supra, 40 Cal. 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. granted (1989) ___ U.S. ___ [104 L. Ed. The judge asked if she would be willing to listen to the evidence and be a fair and impartial juror; she said that "I could try, but I believe it would be difficult. Rptr. 3d 542 [146 Cal. Upon returning, he arranged for Norris to take a series of photographs of him with Gilliam, beginning with them clothed, then nude, then during intercourse and oral copulation. 467, 755 P.2d 917]; People v. Boyde (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 934, 938 [109 Cal. When Schaefer walked by, he grabbed her and dragged her into the van. (She described the van in which she was abducted as light blue, when defendant's van in fact is silver.) Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. 780, 633 P.2d 976].) Defendant admitted the assault on Malin. 81 [273 P. 575], the court affirmed a judgment, despite erroneous restriction of voir dire, because defendant confessed from the stand, "the result was just, and would have been reached if the error had not been committed." 861, 635 P.2d 455].) You are only allowed to leave one flower per day for any given memorial. 3d 392 [174 Cal. Which memorial do you think is a duplicate of Shirley Ledford (6681995)? When it was Norris's turn to wait outside again, he thought he saw headlights coming up the fire road. 3d 21, 55 [188 Cal. [48 Cal. App. (People v. Coleman, supra, 46 Cal. FN 19. 15 Holding that the doctrine did not permit the search of a closed container within a vehicle (p. 423) -- a holding that does not affect the present case -- the court remarked that "[i]f there were any vitality to the 'instrumentality' exception as it applies to automobiles , it would be applicable only to a scientific examination of the object itself, for example for fingerprints, bloodstains, or the taking of tire impressions or paint scrapings." In the most recent decision, People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal. Create a free profile to get unlimited access to exclusive videos, breaking news, sweepstakes, and more! After describing defendant's life in prison, the prosecutor continued: "Make no mistake about it, ladies and gentlemen, a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole for Lawrence Bittaker in this case would be a total complete victory for him. Louie followed defendant outside and asked if defendant had forgotten to pay for anything. Dr. Maloney, testifying for the defense at the penalty trial, said he had discussed his report with Dr. Coburn, a psychiatrist, and that Dr. Coburn agreed with its conclusions. A few days later, however, he asked defendant if he could read and review it. Most of the other items seized were not offered into evidence, and their seizure did not prejudice defendant. We find it unnecessary to resolve these issues. [29] The court refused to permit defense counsel to mention in his opening statement that Norris had been adjudicated a mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO). ", FN 11. 3d 1084] 617, 367 P.2d 33]: "[C]ounsel for a defendant in a capital case has the right to question the prospective jurors on voir dire for the purpose of ascertaining whether any would vote to impose the death penalty without regard to the evidence in the event of a conviction. The officers lawfully seized defendant's van when "incidental to a lawful arrest, [they seized it] in the reasonable belief that such object is itself evidence [fn. Defendant admitted the assault on Jan Malin, and his description of the incident corresponds to that of Norris and Malin. A declaration that he will try to be impartial, but doubts that he can succeed, is insufficient. Aside from being their final victim, Ledford was also instrumental in ensuring Bittaker and Norris were put behind bars for good. Gage remembered hearing some conversation that included the fact that a victim's mother worked in the building, but recalled no other details of the conversation. 849, 729 P.2d 115], because it depicts the weighing process as one involving the application of an arithmetical formula involving the assignment of weights to each of the factors, followed by an addition of the entries in each column to determine the balance. [45] The prosecutor argued, without objection, that the jury should impose the death penalty to deter felons from murdering their victims. 3d 1065]. 2d 216, 222 [13 Cal. Rptr. (North, at p. It's not a question of whether you like the death penalty or you don't like it or you're in favor of it or you're opposed to it. [20] , [17c] The trial judge denied a defense challenge for cause because the juror "just said he would have a difficult time. The present case antedates the enactment of article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, which bars exclusion of relevant evidence in criminal proceedings. Rptr. He later said it brought him to tears, and caused him to change his stance on capital punishment, from anti to pro. 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. In fact defendant helped throughout the search, pointing out photographs in a box, and opening his combination safe for the officers. They saw, however, a number of items in plain view which, they realized, might be evidence of other crimes they were investigating. 364.) Or has he earned the lesser penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole? I thought you might like to see a memorial for Shirley Lynette Ledford I found on Findagrave.com. That's true." Section 1076 is not directly in point, since Staggs was not so much prejudiced against the defendant as she was against the offense itself. It was never intended by this provision of the constitution to take from the defendant in a criminal action his fundamental right to a jury trial or in any substantial manner to abridge this right." Juror Mims was uncertain whether he could return a death verdict and told the judge, "If you ask me if I could kill somebody, I don't know. 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. FN 6. The prosecutor, as we have noted, told the jury that their task was not so much to determine what penalty defendant should receive -- the law "takes some of [that] burden off of you" -- as simply to determine whether aggravating factors outweigh mitigating. Miller v. Pate (1967) 386 U.S. 1 [17 L. Ed. The rebuttal testimony of Dr. Markman. She had been hitchhiking home from her job. After two hours of torture toward the end of which Lynette was begging them to just kill her. 3d 1105] rape was not forcible went beyond the evidence. They put Ledford's body in a bed of ivy in a suburban neighborhood, where it was discovered by an early morning jogger. Defendant's question to Jackson did not suggest any relationship between the attempted rape in April and the charged crimes that would render the evidence admissible, and when the court sustained an objection defendant made no offer of proof. Drag images here or select from your computer for Shirley Lynette Ledford memorial. 542] [torture murder under 189 requires proof of causation].). Defendant choked Lamp while Norris struck her with the hammer until she was dead. The trial court upheld an objection under Evidence Code section 352. 6 [78 Cal. The death penalty? Learn more about managing a memorial . Defendant testified on his own behalf, and said that he was not involved in the abduction and murder of Lucinda Schaefer, but that Norris told him that Norris and another man had committed those crimes. This relationship is not possible based on lifespan dates. Defendant, however, contests probable cause because of Ms. R.'s "inaccurate" description of the van's color. fn. 12. Your Scrapbook is currently empty. Six months after we filed People v. Steger, however, People v. Wiley (1976) 18 Cal. Translation on Find a Grave is an ongoing project. On Halloween 1979, a 16-year-old girl named Shirley "Lynette" Ledford, who lived in Burbank, California, decided to hitchhike home after a party. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. Defendant presumably could have given the court or counsel any information he had at that time. Bittaker and Norris abducted their final victim, 16-year-old Shirley Lynette Ledford, on October 31, 1979. Ledford was abducted as she stood outside a gas station, hitchhiking home from a Halloween party in the Sunland-Tujunga suburb of Los Angeles. In response to the fourth question, whether she would automatically vote for death if she found defendant guilty of first degree murder with special circumstances, she replied, "Well, if all the evidence pointed that way, yes.". Defendant then killed Hall by thrusting an ice pick through her ear into her brain. As we have noted, one of defendant's photographs of Andrea Hall and six of Jacqueline Gilliam were identified and introduced into evidence. Prosecution witnesses were equally tainted: the jury learned of Norris's prior rape conviction and Lloyd Douglas's convictions for manslaughter and burglary. Norris and Bittaker were apprehended in November, after Norris told a friend about Lynettes murder, as well as 4 others he and Bittaker had committed in the previous few months; in those they had dumped the victims bodies in remote locations, so they had not yet been found. Norris compelled Ledford to orally copulate him, then turned on the recorder and began hitting her on the elbow with a hammer. For example, during the general voir dire of Juror Staggs, she said that if defendant committed rape, "I think I would probably be more inclined to go for a stiffer sentence, possible." The record showed that the prosecutor challenged 5 of 6 Black jurors (83.3 percent) and 21 of 60 White jurors (35 percent). Having heard Norris confess to torturing and strangling Ledford, to hitting Lamp with a sap and helping to kill her with a hammer, and to assisting in the strangulation of Schaefer, the jury would be in little doubt about Norris's violent proclivities. [1b] Defendant contends that an arrest warrant can issue only upon a complaint, fn. The district attorney objected. Steven Eastman, a visitor at the motel, also heard the tape. Rptr. In the case at bar, the police were furnished a description of defendant's van by Robin R., who was allegedly kidnapped and raped by defendant and Norris in the van. The fourth question asked: "Do you have such a conscientious opinion or religious conviction regarding the death penalty that if you found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and the special circumstances herein alleged to be true, that you would automatically find the penalty to be death?" ", Defendant challenges five of the thirty-eight special circumstance findings. His opinion thus falls under those covered by section 1076. fn. 328-329 [86 L.Ed.2d at p. He agreed to pay her $500 a day. 1, 609 P.2d 468].). (People v. Ghent, supra, 43 Cal. App. Rptr. 2d 80, 108 S. Ct. 2273], which also involved the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause, compelling defendant to remove the biased juror by peremptory challenge. Nye observed expressly that the trial judge had excused only those jurors whose answers made their disqualification unmistakably clear, and said there was no need for further examination of those particular jurors. She screamed on cue for the tape, but was not tortured in his presence. She was followed by Andrea Joy Hall, 18; Jacqueline Doris Gilliam, 15; Jacqueline Leah Lamp, 13, and Shirley Lynette Ledford, 16. medianet_height = "90"; (Ibid.) Any process which can yield a conclusion that aggravating considerations prevail by 50.1 percent to 49.9 percentage is clearly not the kind of qualitative moral assessment required by our decisions. Rptr. 18. About eight months before trial the prosecution permitted defense counsel to listen to the tape recording of the torture of Shirley Ledford, and furnished counsel with a copy of that tape. Rptr. Defendant testified that none of the victims was restrained involuntarily in his presence. App. 3d 1 [139 Cal. Rptr. [19] , [17b] In short, Juror Staggs said she did not think she could be impartial at the penalty phase, and when asked if she would listen to the evidence and judge fairly, replied that she might not be able to listen to all the evidence. Norris then drove away without defendant, who fled on foot. Defendant set out to rape Gilliam. One said, "hitch-hikers welcome, females especially"; another said, "Norris did it." 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. Thanks for using Find a Grave, if you have any feedback we would love to hear from you. Christina Dralle, a 17-year-old girl staying at the motel, said defendant showed her photographs of Gilliam and four other girls, and said, "The girls I get won't talk any more." 849] and People v. Rousseau (1982) 129 Cal. Defendant must show that the error affected his right to a fair and impartial jury. To view it, confirm your age. (People v. Armendariz (1984) 37 Cal. McLaughlin was present during this voir dire to assist defense counsel. 3d 1088] 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, he is entitled to reversal; he does not have to show that the outcome of the case itself would have been different. Upon returning two hours later defendant showed Norris eight photographs he had taken. Since 1978, when California reinstated capital punishment, 82 condemned inmates have died from natural causes, 27 have committed suicide, 13 have been executed in California, one was executed in Missouri, one was executed in Virginia, 14 have died from other causes and four including Bittaker are pending a cause of death. The defense then filed a formal motion for copy and a continuance to permit testing of the copy; the court denied the motion. In the absence of any reference to parole, pardon, commutation, or the like, we do not think the prosecutor's comment can be considered misconduct.

How To Calculate Overage In Excel, Articles S