X hits on this document

436 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

40 / 115

The court may or may not have helped matters by interrupting, with various requests for clarification and admonitions to avoid repetition, counsel’s apparent attempt to ask the expert whether the Bremstrahlung effect could have masked minor differences between blue paint taken from the bubble shield and that taken from the metal pole.  Nevertheless, when the brush had been cleared and counsel was finally in a position to ask that question directly, he unaccountably abandoned the effort and instead asked Schliebe to “account for the difference in the iron or Fe&T.”  Counsel did, earlier on, get Schliebe to admit generally that the Bremstrahlung effect “may have” masked small amounts of elements in the “various paint samples.”  His failure to elicit more specific testimony regarding comparison of the two blue paint samples was not the fault of the trial court.

VIII.  Motion to Recuse the District Attorney’s Office

Before trial, defendant moved to recuse the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office as prosecutor, claiming that the expected receipt of testimony from two deputy district attorneys employed by that office, Gerald Haney and John Krayniak, made prosecution by the district attorney’s office improper under section 1424.  Haney was the deputy who prosecuted defendant on the Koll pharmacy robbery.  Krayniak was, at the time of the killing, a Pasadena police officer involved with the investigation, but he had since joined the district attorney’s office as a prosecutor.11  Both ultimately did testify at trial.  

Neither Haney nor Krayniak was claimed to be participating in the murder prosecution.  Rather, defendant claimed that “the testimony of both these witnesses . . . is so subject to colored interpretation as to vitiate the defendant’s

11 At trial (about two years after the recusal motion was heard), Krayniak testified he was employed as a deputy in the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office.  As the recusal motion was argued and decided on the premise that Krayniak was employed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, we will accept that premise for purposes of our discussion as well.

Document info
Document views436
Page views436
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 10:00:03 UTC 2016
Pages115
Paragraphs595
Words35484

Comments