Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Delays Push Stacey Barker's Murder Trial Into 2011
Share:
by katfish | November 13, 2010 at 02:26 pm
3013 views | 12 Recommendations | 59 comments
Photos
Videos
In this entry I want to give an update on the pre-trial hearings of a murder trial that has been in the making since April 23, 2009 when Stacey Barker was arrested and charged for the death of her daughter, Emma Leigh Barker. After the update on the hearings and a little review, I want to take another look at the charges filed against Barker and what the California penal Code says about the elements of those charges that apply to this case.
For those who may not be familiar with the case, Emma Barker was 18 months old forever when her mother, Stacey Barker, led police to where she had disposed of Emma's lifeless body the day before, along side the Golden State Freeway in Sylmar, CA, .
When Emma was first reported missing at about 11 pm on March 18, 2010, Stacey Barker claimed she had been attacked and knocked unconscious as she was loading Emma into the car after playtime at a Lancaster, CA Park. Barker claimed when she came to, Emma was gone, evidently taken by her attacker(s). Later Barker admitted she had made up the story of the attack and kidnapping, she said Emma had died accidentally and she feared being blamed so she dumped her daughter’s body, removed some clothing and injured herself to support her kidnapping claim.
On April 23, 2009, when Barker was arrested, nearly a month after Emma's death, the charges filed against the young mother included one count of Second-degree murder, one count of Assault on a Child Causing Death and one count of Child Abuse. The complaint alleges that Barker willfully caused and permitted the child to be injured and harmed and that injury resulted in death. Authorities have accused Barker of smothering her daughter. Stacey Barker pled not guilty to all counts on August 12, 2009. She has been held at the Century Regional Detention Facility on a one million dollar bond since her arrest.
Rather than give the "in the courtroom report" of the hearings, I'll just hit on some of the highlights; however,I still want to thank our friends from the AV for taking the time to attend the hearings and share with us what they see and hear. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by many who are trying to follow this case through the justice system.
For many, this murder case seems to be dragggging on.....(A July 26 trial date had been set but because the court was informed at a June 28th hearing that both sides and a witness(s) had a conflict with that schedule the judge agreed to another delay.) At the end of the June 28th hearing, as Judge Hayden Zackey set a new date for the trial to start, during the week of September 26, he was very clear that there would be no more delays.....
Judge Zackey addressed the lawyers for both sides," You both want it to stay in this court right?" They both said, "yes". Zackey then said, "Alright then, there will be NO more delays unless I am in a trial, then you both agree to wait until I am finished to start the trial...the only delays will be from ME, agree?" Both Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Kelly Cromer and Public Defender(PD) Roberto F. Dager said," Yes".
Well.....there have been more delays......no trial yet and we are almost half way through November, at this point we don't even have another tentative trial date. There have been several hearings since I wrote about the August 11 hearing in this case, yet there really isn't much to say beyond delay, delay, delay. ~sigh~
No doubt the judge's admonition when he set the trial for September was sincere, but Mr. Erin Sutton aka "Vampire" had just surfaced in an exchange of discovery on June 9 and the investigation was ongoing.....Sutton is an inmate who reportedly has had communication with Stacey Barker while they have been incarcerated. It wasn't until August 11 that Sutton appeared before the court "in camera" to answer questions. The information from that hearing remains under seal for now. Undoubtedly more time has been needed to investigate Sutton's claims.
The hearing on August 26 was scheduled to wrap up discovery and hear some previously filed defense motions. Judge Zacky told the defense," All the other motions you want to file at that time will be heard", and then asked," You will be bringing in expert witnesses right?" - During the August 26 hearing we learned the defense needed more time for consulting an expert witness....which meant no September trial.....just another hearing scheduled for September 15.
This is speculation, but because of the timing, it seems the proffer of Sutton's testimony in chambers on August 11 may have changed or shifted the strategy of the defense compelling the judge to grant another delay.....do they need a new expert to support a motion(s) to keep Sutton's testimony out, or rebut it in some way? It's possible the expert witness is for something unrelated to Sutton, there are other issues. Whatever the reason, it must be compelling for Judge Zackey to allow another continuance. I guess we'll have to wait for trial to find out.
The hearing on September 15- There was another Public Defender in court for the defense, because PD Dager had a family emergency. I don't know if the defense expert witness was there or not, but the judge said the hearing is rescheduled for October 8 and all witnesses are to come back on that date, adding with no explanation, the hearing will be held in camera (on the record with both parties but in judges chambers and under seal ). Sheriff's Homicide Detective Sandra Nava was at this hearing, accompanied by two men in suits, who appear to be LE.
Detective Nava testified during the preliminary hearing that when she questioned Stacey Barker, she changed her story several times blaming Emma's death on a variety of accidents in the back seat of her car on the freeway before "admitting" she had held her hand over Emma's mouth knowing that Emma had a baggy in her mouth. It seems likely this "admission" will be a focus of contention for both sides during trial. Will there be a video shown of LE questioning Barker, particularly of when she made any admissions? At the Preliminary hearing Judge Carlos Chung didn't allow the tape to be played, citing length, but let Detective Nava testify to it before he ruled Stacey Barker would stand trial. Judge Chung didn't make a ruling about the admissibility of the video at trial and as far as we know Judge Zackey hasn't made any rulings. Was this an issue before the court during some of the recent meetings in camera as well? Sounds feasible.
October 8- "In Camera hearing" There was no explanation from the court for having the hearing in camera.
October 13- This was a short but contentious hearing.....DDA Cromer asked Judge Zackey if they could go in camera to discuss some problems she found with paperwork. After returning to the courtroom, Judge Z. announced that he found the state's request to be reasonable and that things need to redacted from records, such as witness information.
As the judge was speaking, Mr. Dager appeared to be furiously reading some papers, Ms.Cromer asked the judge, "Make him stop reading!". (Hmmm do you suppose he was trying to get a good look before the redaction was done?) The judge told Dager to go get his papers. On Dager's way out of the courtroom he was overheard saying some very non-professional things about the DDA.....I won't go into it, but will say both sides have engaged in name calling.
When Dager returned, Judge Zackey said he has the reports from both parties and they will be redacted per discovery rule 1054. Dager added he also wanted some redaction per 1054 in the first or second subpoena, adding he wants to interview everyone who has had contact with Barker since May (09 or 10 ?) Something was said about a government agent and Kelly Cromer said, "He's not a government agent!" (We know this refers to Erin Sutton, Dager announced in open court on June 28 that Sutton had identified himself as such to Barker.)
Discovery rule 1054 specifically requires that discovery be conducted informally between and among the parties before judicial enforcement is requested.....
Zackey says again he will redact and asks how long it would take them to read it? They agree to one week and made plans to return to court on the 20th. Zackey told the defense it wasn't necessary for the defendant to attend that hearing (exchange of paperwork). Court was recessed.
The next court hearing is scheduled for December 3, 2010. Craig Currier reported in the Antelope Valley News(AVN) that the prosecution said the trial should begin within 45 days of that date. DDA Kelly Cromer told the AVN, "We're pretty much ready to go" adding, " The trial should begin in January." When asked if this was the last continuance, Cromer replied, "I'm hoping so." I think a lot of people would agree with that hope. Cromer also told the AVN, when asked, she couldn't comment about the delays or the closed hearings.
I noticed on the LASD website that as of August 20th, Stacey Barker's visitor status has changed from a Y to a N. Does anyone think it's a coincidence her visitor status changed 9 days after her attorney questioned Erin Sutton / Vampire in the judges chamber? It came out through discovery, that the state has some CD's consisting of taped visits with civilians that went to see Barker in jail and some letters to and from another inmate at the jail, Vampire. Have things been said during visits with others that could hurt the case? Why else shut off visits? Once again we'll have to wait for the trial, until then it appears inmate Barker won't be getting her twice weekly visits.
Because so much of the recent court business has been conducted in camera and there seems to be a number of motions and records that are sealed, there isn't a lot of court business to report. During this lull in the case it seems a good time to take a look at the California Penal Code and revisit the charges filed in this case.
The California murder law
187.(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
Malice is "express" when there is clear evidence that
someone intended to kill another person.
Malice is "implied" when the person acted with a
reckless disregard for human life. And while there
are two degrees of murder…that is,
first-degree murder and second-degree murder…
both require that the defendant
acted with malice.
189. All murder which is perpetrated by means
of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of
mass destruction, knowing use of ammunition
designed primarily to penetrate metal
or armor, poison, lying in wait,
torture,or by any other kind of willful,
deliberate, and premeditated killing, o
r which is committed in the perpetration of,
or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape,
carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem,
kidnapping, train wrecking, or any murder
which is perpetrated by means of discharging
a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally
at another person outside of the vehicle
with the intent to inflict death,
is murder of the first degree.
All other kinds of murders are of the second degree.
Second-degree Murder
In cases where child endangerment leads to a
child's death and thus murder charges,
prosecutors generally charge it as a
second-degree murder. This is because
criminal negligence and lack of care
usually invoke implied malice rather
than an actual intent to kill.
Prosecutors can charge second-degree murder
charge in connection with child endangerment charges in one of two ways:
(1)through the California felony-murder rule,
or
(2) by demonstrating implied malice.
These are two separate "theories" upon which
prosecutors can base their second-degree
murder charges. This means that a jury can
convict a defendant of second-degree murder so long
as it agrees with either of these theories.
And, under certain circumstances, a jury may actually
agree with both theories.
Every person guilty of murder in the second degree
shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison
for a term of 15 years to life.
There are longer terms possible for second-degree murder,
but they don't apply in the Barker case.
Assault on a Child Causing Death
273ab. Any person who, having the care or custody
of a child who is under eight years of age,
assaults the child by means of force that
to a reasonable person would be likely
to produce great bodily injury,
resulting in the child's death, shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state
prison for 25 years to life.
Nothing in this section shall be
construed as affecting the applicability
of subdivision (a) of Section 187
or Section 189.
Child Abuse
273a.(a) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered. This charge is considered a "wobbler" (can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony depending on the facts in the case) if prosecuted as a misdemeanor shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year and a $6000 fine, if prosecuted as a felony and there is a conviction the penalty is in the state prison for two, four, or six years.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
Crowd Power
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (59)
at 14:44 on November 13th, 2010
For some reason I couldn't get the pictures on here that I wanted to use.....I'll try later. Anyone feel free to add some :)
at 21:19 on November 13th, 2010
Thank you LCM for the pictures. The swinging wave is one of my favorites of Emma.
Thank you Caoimhin1 for posting the videos too.....the second one "The story of baby Emma Leigh Barker" is so sad.....you can see love was there.....but something surely went very wrong.
at 20:42 on November 13th, 2010
Hey Kat Thanks!
Do you remember early on the DA saying special circumstances? I have long wondered what happened about that - any thoughts?
(((HUGS)))
at 21:24 on November 13th, 2010
Hi LCM,
I think the 2 extra charges are what they were talking about, but I don't know that for sure. Did you catch the penalty for the Assault on a Child Causing Death charge? 25 to life!
I thought that was a lesser charge but I guess not. It sounds as though with this charge it's not necessary to prove malice. Any thoughts on that? I need to read more on this stuff.
at 11:03 on November 14th, 2010
I see the "Assault on a Child Causing Death" as getting around Murder 1 (like the super aggravated sexual assault charge in TX) giving a possible greater sentence than Murder and easier to prove. Murder 1 (premeditated and all that goes along with it) is often a tough sell, when there is no prior history or mitigating factors - this insures the perp will do some hard time.
IDK if you followed the Emma Thompson case at all - but the defense really pizzed off some folk when he reminded the evening news (and the court? can't remember) that this is not a homicide case! Really? And was 4 yr old Emma not deceased! The gall!! The SOB boyfriend got life w/o parole - Anyway for reasons I can't go into right now - I firmly believe that the DA did a soft sell during her egg donor's trial - she could have gotten life, had the jury decided she knew Emma's injuries were likely to be life threatening (Fx'd skull that she attempted to superglue, massive internal bleeding and 80 bruises) instead it was decided to be death by omission - 2 to 20 yrs, possible parol after 5 years! But her prison intake record says she's eligible for parole in 2012!! 2 fricken years for her baby's death!!!
There is another momster in Harris Co, found guilty, death by failure to seek medical care, 20 yr sentence - she was released after 7 months! The Texas parole board uses a release formula that includes an inmate's prison time, county jail time served, and credits earned for good behavior. jv served 30 actual months behind bars, most of it in the Harris County Jail prior to her conviction. The remaining 2½ years were earned in "good time" credits, (2 1/2 years credit in just 7 mos!) totaling five years served — enough to release her on parole.
The longer sb remains in county, the less time she will serve in prison. This has me concerned - I see this as one of the reason Dager is in no hurry to get her to trial...
at 12:07 on November 14th, 2010
I'm a little familiar with the Emma Thompson case but didn't follow it. Someone e-mailed me a while back about the Emma Thompson case inquiring whether I was going to try and follow the trial on my blog. That was when Mr. Katfish wasn't doing too well, so I didn't have time to follow anything. Like the last 2 months. Wasn't Emma's Mother a RN? Superglue, OMG! My Mom just fell last week, the Dr. said she just came close to fracturing her skull (huge bump) and she still ended up with a brain bleed. (She's fine.) That poor baby. I guess you could say Well.....eligible for parole doesn't mean she gets out and hopefully she won't, at least on the first try. Hopefully she has a conscious to bother her. What state was this in? I will check it out later. My time is still kind of limited.
SB has about 1 1/2 years under her belt now counting towards her time served. I guess if acquitted on the top charges and convicted on just the child abuse charge she could still walk free with time served.
Does anyone know what prison Stacey Barker would most likely go to if she is convicted on the upper counts? Just wondering
at 09:15 on November 18th, 2010
Hi Kat!
I'm sorry to hear about your mom and DH! (((HUGS))) Hope mom and DH are much better soon! (Glad mom is OK) I check your blog almost everyday, hoping you've had a chance to get there! I understand your not making it, tho, completely!
I did look into the possible prison situation and this seems likely:
Valley State Prison for Women - Chowchilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_State_Prison_for_Women
"The mission of VSPW is multi-fold. VSPW functions as a Reception Center (RC) and as a General Population institution providing education and vocational opportunities for inmates."
VSP is one of two women's prisons in Chowchilla - the other with some focus on inmates with special needs.--------------------------------
Here you go dear one, warning this is a graphic and horrifying story.
Emma Thompson's momster was tried in Harris County, TX - I followed and wrote on it daily. What a nightmare. Abigail Young moved her DH out and bf, Lucas Coe in, right around Easter of 2009. She was an RN (license voluntarily handed over, for at least one year - when the board asked for it - following her conviction) Very doubtful she would win an appeal to get it back, (as a felon) but she did mention in her letter - the ability to ask after 1 year!
No, this woman has no conscience. Nor heart or soul. I'm pretty sure even Auntie II would agree.
Coe, 28, was accused of raping Emma Thompson before she died of still unexplained injuries, including a fractured skull, lacerated scalp, severed pancreas, internal bleeding, blunt trauma and a horrific tear to the vagina, on June 27, 2009. She had just turned 4 years old. According to momster and Coe she "fell out of bed", "fell getting out of the pool", "fell off the toilet", "fell in the kitchen" "fell onto something" - causing the laceration to her vagina, just a very klutzy child in general, to hear her mom tell it.
Emma was found to have HSV II, just weeks before she died. Her pediatrician made a report of suspected sexual abuse to CPS - Emma was bruised on her waist with visible finger marks and told the doc "Luke holds me tight", Mom said this was her handy man who swung Emma by the arms, while playing with her and his daughter!
According to mom, Emma got the virus from a toilet seat at the local Y. Since mom claimed no men had access to Emma, CPS left her in the home. She (through CPS) took Emma for a SA exam - where a specialist was supposed to examine Emma, but was not available. The doc who did the exam found no evidence of SA - (well, except for IMO, the HSV II on her hands, mouth, throat, thighs, buttocks and vagina.)
Emma was ill the last day of her life. Momster spent the day shopping - coming and going, while Emma was further abused. Her fatal injuries occurred 12 to 24 hours before this baby died.
Emma was said to have taken a fall in the kitchen in the AM (while mom was shopping) this according to her 11 yr old sister, who did not witness the fall but heard a thwack and found Emma in Coe's arms - Emma was bleeding from a head wound. She was put back to bed to rest in the MST BDRM - when her sis came up to check on her, after playing in the pool, Coe was nowhere to be seen and she found the MSTBR door locked. (she went back outside).
AY was seen coming home (by a neighbor) mid afternoon, with groceries. AY said she came home, made dinner, cleaned house etc; etc; etc; without ever checking on 4 year old Emma, who was too sick to leave bed. (amazing how AY never checked on her baby all day, but Emma's 11 yr old sister tried to!!)
Emma (according to her momster) fell off the toilet seat, busting her lip, cutting her head, (FX her skull) in the afternoon or evening.
During Coe's trial - we discovered AY's phone records and video from a local grocery store proved the following:
AY placed 2 calls to Emma's pediatrician at 6:30 & 6:31 - from her home - she did not speak to the doctor.
At 7 p.m. AY was at a local grocery store, according to a surveillance video. The itemized list of her groceries was also shown - she bought Krazy Glue and multiple food items. In the pictures from the crime scene (her home), there is an opened package of Krazy Glue on the floor!
AY called the doc again 8:22 and 8:25 from her home - Dr Singh returned the call at 8:29 (for 9 - minutes) she was asking for medication for Emma c/o her having trouble urinating. She was told to take Emma to the ER.
8:54 - one block from home, AY stopped her car, laid Emma across the hood and called 911, "after Emma went unconscious". She did not attempt CPR, when a Good Samaritan stopped and performed CPR, AY said; "Stop, she's dead". The GS did not stop - when the Paramedics arrived, AY took her phone and stood in the middle of the street, talking to persons unknown (not Coe) - at the ER - AY stayed in the back of the ambulance, still talking on the phone.
At 9PM - Coe was at AY's former friend and neighbor, asking for a ride away from the neighborhood - while speaking on his cell phone he was heard to say "Mom, Emma is dead. She is gone!" Coe also has a 4 yr old daughter named Emma - who was with him at the time - apparently Gma knew her Gdaughter was still alive - as Coe didn't need to explain further.
Emma had a horrific vaginal tear, ruptured pancreas, 80 bruises all over her little body, internal bleeding, a Fx skull, a lacerated scalp, a busted lip, HSV II. The internal injuries/bleeding had caused her abdomen to be very swollen. Before taking Emma to the ER - her momster and Coe showered her, used Krazy Glue on the head wound, (per AY bleached the bathroom) she told told LE (and neighbors) that she jerked Emma out of the car, laid her on the ground and that is why she was so badly bruised in the thigh area.
This evilness disguised as a human, who had been described as a "gifted nurse" - was not charged with murder or even manslaughter - the DA claimed to want her to be convicted of injury to a child by omission - knowingly/intentionally, but instead she was found guilty of causing injury to a child by omission, recklessly - rather than knowingly and intentionally.
I have heard nothing from her trial that makes me believe they tried to get the max. She could have been given life w/o parole, but instead the reckless conviction is - two to twenty, eligible for parole in 5 years, which actually means two years with time off for good behavior - she was taken into custody at the end of her trial, in July, then sent to prison Sept/Oct - the prison originally said the 10/2012 date could have been a typing error - but it has not been remedied - so I started digging and sure enough found, she in fact could be paroled in 2012.
Yes, you are very correct that the parole board will need to decide she is ready. We can only hope that she will in fact remain locked up til 2030, her latest parole date. I have my letter to the parole board started - it will be completed soon!
Coe's 4 yr old daughter had been removed from her mother's care and was living with GMa Coe - with an order that specified he was not to spend any time alone with her. GMa Coe had not only let her go with Coe, but he had overnight stays with her. After Emma's death - Emma Coe was also found to have been sexually assaulted. She is now a ward of the state. Although Coe denied having HSVII it was revealed in court, of course he had the virus as well as AY. AY (through her attorney) said she may have contracted the STD from Emma!! (B!TCH)
Coe's sister and brother in law testified for the state, after having a conversation with Coe where he said to them, "That child had none of my dna on her body, when she got to the hospital." What an odd thing to say...
Emma Coe has a ten year old half brother (same mother) who Coe and the mother had also lost custody of. The child had been abused by Coe for years, and this brave little boy testified in person, at the sentencing hearing. He explained, how he once 'came to in the bath, while being scrubbed by Coe and his mother, before going to the ER' - he spent 11 days in the hospital.
During the victim statements at the sentencing hearing, Emma's daddy, Ben Thompson, gave a passionate statement - while doing so, Coe winked one of his little piggy eyes at him. When Ben's mother gave her amazing statement, she told Coe "I think there will be a lot of winking where you're going." The Thompson Family absolutely knocked me out with their incredible strength and class. Coe, who sat expressionless thru 99% of the proceedings - was sweating profusely during the statements. Nice to see he had an emotion in his body, even if it was only for himself!
Sorry to hi jack your newest post - I didn't realize this was going to be a novel when I started it!
at 23:22 on November 14th, 2010
Thanks for filling me in LCM! Was this trial you followed streamed on the internet? Did they try AY and Coe together?
Did you write about the Emma Thompson case here at NP? That is a really horrific case. The jury knew Ay was an RN, right??? God help whoever has her for a nurse should she get her license back someday. You didn't hijack my post. This post is about a little girl named Emma who died a horrible death, and so is your comment. :`(
Thank goodness Emma B. didn't have to go through the things that happened to Emma T..
at 10:56 on November 15th, 2010
Hey Kat!
Thank you! Bless both little Emmas.
I met someone who went to the trial - I guess this trial was just so horrific, while the AP picked it up, even the local news just barely touched on the details. I didn't put it on the front page here - I wrote about the happenings everyday of the trial, for WS.
I wrote to the Chron (Houston Chronicle), the DA, the Tx Nursing Board about the fact that a month after her trial, AY still had her nursing license - then later the DA, the Chron and the prison about the 2012 parole date.
AY went to trial in July on charges of injury to a child by omission - had the jury convicted her of "knowingly/intentionally" instead of recklessly - she could have gotten 25 to life, up to life w/o parole. Yes, the jury knew AY was said to be a "gifted nurse".
LCoe went to trial in Sept, charged with super aggravated sexual assault (on a child younger than 6) - he got life w/o parole - had they charged him (and found him guilty) of murder he would have been eligible for parole, at some point.
It was rumored the DA was "saving" murder charges in case for whatever the SA trial ended badly for the state.
One of my problems with the AY charges - Coe had lost custody of his own daughter and had 3 separate abuse charges pending from from the years he lived with the young boy - plus years worth of convictions for assaulting or injuring others, he was not supposed to be alone with any child - AY was aware of this - she paid off $40G in restitution to a former victim, for him - yet she left Emma alone, in his care while she worked (and went shopping)! She lied to everyone about her relationship with Coe - CPS, her family, Emma's doctor, other doctors, her husband, the police - she even got her husband to lie to CPS for her - telling him not to mention the boyfriend because it could complicate their divorce. Ben testified (at trial) that he had no knowledge that Coe had moved in - but he was aware she seeing him. She also told her kids what to say (and not to tell about Coe).
The boy testified that Coe brutalized him, this went on for several years, beginning when he was a pre-schooler - Coe told him if he ever "told" that he would kill his mother, so the boy kept quiet. Even blaming injuries on school yard fights, falling down, etc. - I'm just guessing that Coe threatened Emma in some similar way too, when she had the SA exam - she shook her head "no" when asked if she had been touched. Between AY coaching and that animal - poor Emma had no one.
at 12:42 on November 16th, 2010
Hi girls, I am having trouble signing in so..... As usual Kat Great write up with little or nothing to go on from the last few hearings! Hi LC glad to see ya back. There has been nothing said about the SCA charge since the first court date, I don't think they would drop that charge this late in the hearings althoughI don't know if they dropped them earlier, I have never heard a motion to drop them as of this date. I am wondering how they came up with 2ND degree though, after reading what you wrote from the PC I would have guessed it to be 1ST degree. Do you think JZ will dismiss any of the other charges? I am also thinking what a number of people have said also, why didn't they charge her with filing a false police report, lying to LE and a charge of concealment of a deceased body, Ca PC 152 (if it was accidental, Not sure of the charge if Intentional murder)(a) Every person who, having knowledge of an accidental death, actively conceals or attempts to conceal that death, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) For purposes of this section, "to actively conceal an accidental death" means any of the following: (1) To perform an overt act that conceals the body or directly impedes the ability of authorities or family members to discover the body. (2) To directly destroy or suppress evidence of the actual physical body of the deceased, including, but not limited to, bodily fluids or tissues. (3) To destroy or suppress the actual physical instrumentality of death. Anyway girls, I will come back later and blog some more have housework to do...how fun
at 12:43 on November 16th, 2010
Hi girls, I am having trouble signing in so..... As usual Kat Great write up with little or nothing to go on from the last few hearings! Hi LC glad to see ya back. There has been nothing said about the SCA charge since the first court date, I don't think they would drop that charge this late in the hearings althoughI don't know if they dropped them earlier, I have never heard a motion to drop them as of this date. I am wondering how they came up with 2ND degree though, after reading what you wrote from the PC I would have guessed it to be 1ST degree. Do you think JZ will dismiss any of the other charges? I am also thinking what a number of people have said also, why didn't they charge her with filing a false police report, lying to LE and a charge of concealment of a deceased body, Ca PC 152 (if it was accidental, Not sure of the charge if Intentional murder)(a) Every person who, having knowledge of an accidental death, actively conceals or attempts to conceal that death, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) For purposes of this section, "to actively conceal an accidental death" means any of the following: (1) To perform an overt act that conceals the body or directly impedes the ability of authorities or family members to discover the body. (2) To directly destroy or suppress evidence of the actual physical body of the deceased, including, but not limited to, bodily fluids or tissues. (3) To destroy or suppress the actual physical instrumentality of death. Anyway girls, I will come back later and blog some more have housework to do...how fun
at 14:25 on November 16th, 2010
Hi T ! Glad to see ya and thanks. If the judge had dropped any charges I'm sure that would be done in open court. As you have attended all of the hearings that were open to the public, I'd say the charges stand. Let me know if I have anything wrong in the post. ;)
I couldn't find whether the child abuse charge is being prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony. My thoughts about not charging the concealment of a body is the state didn't charge that because that would be like conceding Emma's death was an accident. They can't have it both ways.
Up thread, Coworker asked why the charge wasn't first-degree. I included the elements of first-degree in the story so we can compare that. The only element to 1st degree that seems could fit this case is the element of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. They have to have evidence to back that up.
IMO, the state plans to "up the ante" with the Assault on a Child Causing Death (ACCD) instead of going for first-degree..
I did a lot of reading for this post, even some CA defense attorney's sites. I'm not sure if the ACCD makes this case qualify for the California Felony Murder Rule. At one site,I read this:
http://www.shouselaw.com/felony-murder.html
California’s felony-murder rule creates murder liability for individuals who kill another human being during the commission of a dangerous felony. California courts have long relied on this rule, holding that someone who engages in reckless behavior shouldn’t be excused from killing someone just because it wasn’t part of their original plan.
The question is does the rule consider ACCD a dangerous felony?
I learned that in CA,
the judge, not the jury, must first determine whether the alleged felony
is inherently dangerous. In doing so, the judge looks to the legal
definition of the crime, not to the facts of the particular case.
Dang, I have housework too. Mr. katfish just got up and started cleaning so I better go. LOL
I'll bbl too :)
at 13:15 on November 18th, 2010
Hey Peeps miss posting with you daily.
Kat T & CW - I personally think this is where DA Cromer is heading -
Assault on a Child Causing - Death 25 to life
273ab. Any person who, having the care or custody of a child who is under eight years of age, assaults the child by means of force that to a reasonable person would be likelyto produce great bodily injury,
ETreA - I don't think it will take a great stretch for anyone to believe that slapping your hand over a baby's mouth is likely to cause great bodily injury (baggy or no baggy). Especially when you admit to holding it there until said baby stops fighting, hands fall away and head turns to the side. Wow - to me that sounds just like murder!
If juries were comprised of SA's we could get murder - but juries have a hard time sentencing "white bread - pretty girls" (their definition, not ours) with murder, they just can't believe it would happen "that way" even when the WBPG admits (like sb) that it happened "that way"! So to be safe they don't like to go there - I do believe they are getting better tho - too much in the news lately...
I believe that even the most disbelieving juror will see sb holding her hand over Emma's mouth is an assault on a child and in this case sb assaulted her daughter to death!!
Does the rule consider ACCD a dangerous felony? - I would hope when any assault causes death (or would likely cause grievous injury or death) it should be called a felony! What about you?
187.(a) Murder and / or Second-degree Murder - I'm not 100% convinced a jury will find her guilty of murder, but we don't know everything the state has and we know nothing about what the defense has put together (only what he has tried) - so we'll see - come January.
Murder in the second degree is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 15 years to life.
273ab. Assault on a Child Causing Death - This is what I see to be a no brainer with what we know today.
ACCD - shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to life.
273a.(a)Child Abuse - IMO in this case the Child Abuse was deliberate, intentional and intended to cause death - with the Felony ACCD this too would be a felony.
Felony CA - the penalty is in the state prison for two, four, or six years.
I'm not convinced a jury will hear this case - without knowing what the defense has discovered, if it is as little as it appears - I think Dager has spent 1 year, 9 months (come January) - that sb has been jailed, dragging his feet - burning up a chunk of the time that sb will spend in prison. Maybe this case is so blatant, that's all he can do for his client and that is what we are paying him to do - act in the best interest of his client. (Whether we like it or not.)
If the defense feels he has a good chance of getting an acquittal - I'm looking forward to hearing what he has - KWIM?
25 to life, with the 2, 4, or 6 years thrown in for good measure, will give sb lots of time to contemplate what she has done. I know I'm not the same person I was at 25. By the time sb is 50 years old she will have lost everyone close to her, (she has not lost already) - not that we can figure she will stay put for 25 years no matter what the sentence - but 2 life sentences if found guilty of murder might put her close.
Dager wants to interview everyone sb has had contact with in the last 6 to 18 months or those she contacted via phone or visitation? He's going to be a busy boy - January is fast approaching!
Wouldn't it have made sense for him to have been aware since day 1, or even explain to her who she should or shouldn't talk to?
at 18:35 on November 16th, 2010
273ab. Any person who, having the care or custody of a child who is under eight years of age,assaults the child by means of force that to a reasonable person would be likely to produce great bodily injury,
at 12:12 on November 18th, 2010
Wow this site is being unfriendly and I should have remembered to copy before posting - I get complacent when things have been going smoothly, but having had trouble signing in was a warning that the site is going through growing pains, my bad, I should have been alert.
Part of what I lost went to Kat's discussion on "California’s felony-murder rule"
I believe sb left the house knowing she was going to do something despicable - that's why she lied to her brother about taking Emma to the park and why she gave Emma a stiff dose of Dimetapp - hoping it would put her baby into a drugged stupor to make it easier for sb to carry out her plan.
This to me points directly to premeditation, so I would love to have Murder 1 on the table. Especially after researching the half life of the active ingredients of the OTC medicine and all of the news over the last few years of parents dosing their baby's to sleep - knowing sb had been out of the house long enough, that Emma may have been given more than just the double dose she still had on board when she succumbed to her assault.
But I won't be on sb's jury, no matter where her trial ends up being held. So I'm not at all of the mind set that your average juror is going to think this out the way we have and I doubt they are supposed to - they (if I understand correctly) are supposed to go where the evidence they are given takes them.
I have to admit Auntie 2 has drawn me in - I would love to know what they have been told that makes them think sb is innocent - because sb's own words are the state's most compelling evidence and you will not convince me (without video) that sb was water boarded into a false confession - nor that some nonexistent blow to the head made her forget what happened.
If sb was treated badly by OCSD, why was the State so hot to get the judge to watch the video tape of their discussion? The one when sb admitted she held her hand over her baby's mouth, while Emma beat on her arm with both hands, all her might went into trying to get sb to let go, until she could fight no more... Not a pretty picture for the jury to take with them into deliberations, but the image I see every time I think of this crime and why I pray DDA Cromer does her best to get sb the longest sentence possible. I believe she can and will be, Emma's Champion!
While I believe in our laws and Procedural Due Process it bothers me that the defense can use less than complete honesty to get a client off - while no one should be forced to implicate themselves - if you can't be found innocent without deception, there is a problem with your case - I feel the same about the state, but when the state lies, they are committing perjury - when the defense lies, they are serving their clients best interest (I call BS).
IMO Mr Sutter has already spoken - he was jailed for allegedly assaulting a convicted pedophile - he was not convicted by a jury, but copped a plea rather than go through a second trial - I'm guessing here, Mr Sutter took the law into his own hands and put a beat down on said CM - as many parents before him have wanted to do and now Mr Sutter is paying the price. It's comical, if not sad, that sb talked to Mr Sutter - "Secret Government Agent Man" (NOT says DDA Cromer) - If Dager's client was so dumb that she admitted what she did while being recorded - well poor boy, next time - defend a smarter criminal. but really, it changes nothing and PD Dager is grasping at straws; much like the Baez crew in OC -
at 00:46 on November 19th, 2010
LCM - I totally agree with you about Stacey knowing she was going to do something unspeakable before she left the family home, which also resulted in her lying to her brother. Like you, I think she premeditated this horrendous crime and I feel that her charge of 2nd Degree Murder takes away from the severity of the despicable horrors she carried out upon her own flesh and blood. I think Stacey should be tried for 1st Degree murder, but as Kat pointed out, the state probably doesn't have enough evidence to charge her with that. You made an excellent point about how Stacey knew what she was going to do to Emma before she left home - I think that qualifies as premeditation. Also, the very act of SMOTHERING somebody, in my opinion, is a premeditated crime. The reason I say this is because it took about 3-5 torturous minutes for baby Emma to lose consciousness and die. During the first minute Stacey could have said "what the hell am I doing?" and stopped. She could have removed her hand from Emma's nose and mouth after 2 or 3 or 4 minutes and stopped. After 5 minutes she could have performed CPR or called 911 - she elected not to. The fact that she held her hands over this precious child's face for a full 3-5 minutes (during this time poor Emma was scratching at her, wriggling, squirming and turning blue) required premeditation for that entire time. Stacey didn't remove her hands from Emma's face because, at that moment in time, she wanted her dead. It is sickening that any parent could commit such a hideous, heinous crime. More disturbing is that these types of crimes against children are becoming a commonplace in our society.
Stacey had a saying about regrets - that you shouldn't regret anything because at the time it was something you wanted. I get chills thinking of this now because I stop and think - at the time she murdered Emma she wanted her dead - so does she not regret having done so?
I think that Stacey's family believes she is innocent because that is the story she is telling them. In part, I'm sure they WANT to believe that Stacey is innocent, that it was just an accident and that their daughter would have never harmed Emma or committed such a hideous crime. She has probably told them that the cops scared her into a false confession and that is why she said the things she did.
at 11:30 on November 19th, 2010
CoWorker re the comment you made about sb's choice of method of death - I agree and had written that sentiment extensively - early in this case. 3 to 5 minutes is such a long time and sb had so much time to change her mind, yet she never did!!
A detective whose testimony once included his opinion that death by asphyxiation is so "up close and personal", he found it to be the most heinous manner of death - committed by the worst of the worst. We can only imagine Emma's terror as she fought for her life - looking into the eyes of the person she loved most in the world. sb had not only the time during the attack, but even a few minutes after - she could have reasonably reversed what she had done - makes me sick - reading your account, made me cry again for little Emma. GOD forbid she had screamed for help - it just might have worked!
Do you remember if it is true, that sb had removed the photos of Emma from her work space prior to Emma's death? Months ago someone who worked with sb made this revelation. How could she? I don't care what she and her mom went through or she and Emma's daddy... whoever - nothing IMO can ever make sense, when a mother murders her child.
You are probably right, I keep hoping there is something we don't know, that would change my mind about the possibility that this was an accident or committed by someone else (not that I have expected anything to be revealed) but hoping there is a reason why some members of her family believe her lies - it is because that is what they want to believe - as they believe, we want to think the worst about sb. That is actually far from the truth, we never cared who committed this crime, only that the guilty party was charged and brought to justice - but from day one, sb was the only person who was supposedly with Emma, that day after she left her parents home.
Like you, I see no regret in sb - possibly just being PO'd that Emma has caused her to spend time sitting around, not out playing the fun, single life again. sb's actions during the hearing when Det Nava spoke of sb's changing stories, flat affect and admission that "she did it so Emma wouldn't grow up like her - stuck in her parents home, with a kid too young and single" - everyone but sb was in tears - she sat there bored by the proceedings and by the revelation.
at 11:46 on November 19th, 2010
LCM, I got 9 notices in the e-mail for this one post you made, LOL that must have been how many times you tried to post it.
Co-worker, That is quite the saying about regrets that SB shared with you, " You shouldn't regret anything because at the time it was something you wanted." Sounds like something Casey Anthony would say. What it sounds like to me is a way to "justify" previous actions that didn't turn out well. What it doesn't take into account, is the "effect" that the "getting the something she wanted" may have had for others, it is ok as long as she really wanted it at the time....
Hope you all are having a good day!
at 14:21 on November 19th, 2010
Hey Kat - nope just once, but I'm also getting notified multiple times (I had 7 or 8 notifications myself!)
at 23:14 on November 21st, 2010
Hi Girls,
I went to the court on the 18th for something and thought I would get the last pages of the proceedings but all I was given was 1 page that said " orders granted for a face to face visit with laptop is signed and filed on this date" this date was 11/17/2010 no one was present, not SB not Dager or Cromer...I was just thinking that Dager has gotten around to taking the laptop into the Jail to show SB what the state has on her, I think a part of it is the recorded phone calls with Sutton and others.
The Dec 3rd date is for pretrial conference, I am hoping at that time that they will be interviewing a jury and trial will start soon after.
This guy shot his girlfriend because she was going to leave him and he has already been tried and convicted....50 yrs to life, and that just happened in May 2010....I have no Idea why this one has taking almost 2 years...
Hope everyone is staying warm...{{{warm Hugs}}} talk to you later T
at 23:33 on November 21st, 2010
Hi All,
Kat, LC and Co-worker,
I just looked on this minute order that I have from the 11/17/10 order and the charges are:
Count 01: 187(a) PC FEL
Count 02: 273AB PC FEL
Count 03: 273A (A) PC FEL
So all 3 counts are Felony counts.
Just thought I would let you know because I thought someone had asked the levels of the charges...
Penal Code 187 Murder
Prosecutors may charge California Penal Code 187 murder anytime someone kills another person with malice. "Malice" is defined as an intent to kill. With respect to murder, malice can be express or implied.
Malice is "express" when there is clear evidence that someone intended to kill another person.
Malice is "implied" when the person acted with a reckless disregard for human life. And while there are two degrees of murder…that is, first-degree murder and second-degree murder…both require that the defendant acted with malice.
In cases where child endangerment leads to a child's death and thus murder charges, prosecutors generally charge it as a second-degree murder. This is because criminal negligence and lack of care usually invoke implied malice rather than an actual intent to kill.
Prosecutors can charge second-degree murder charge in connection with child endangerment charges in one of two ways: (1) through the California felony-murder rule, or (2) by demonstrating implied malice.
These are two separate "theories" upon which prosecutors can base their second-degree murder charges. This means that a jury can convict a defendant of second-degree murder so long as it agrees with either of these theories. And, under certain circumstances, a jury may actually agree with both theories.
Below we will discuss each theory of child endangerment murder.
Second-degree felony murder
The second-degree felony murder rule applies to all felonies that are (1) inherently dangerous to human life, and (2) not specifically included under the first-degree felony murder rule. This includes child endangerment. The felony-murder rule imputes malice to the individual responsible for the death(s).
Thus when a child dies as a result of child endangerment, prosecutors could file charges for Penal Code 273a and second-degree murder.
Implied malice
Implied malice has two components:
Implied malice connotes an even higher degree of reckless behavior than criminal negligence. Using the same example from above, the mother performed an act that was dangerous to human life and…based on the fact that she had been operating her meth lab for years and understood the dangers inherent with the operation…she did so without regard for the safety of her children.
Based on these facts, the jury found her guilty of second-degree murder based on both the felony murder rule and by find that she acted with implied malice.
So this is how she was charged with Second Degree Murder.
TTYL T
at 13:24 on November 23rd, 2010
Thanks Tori!
You know I understand she has the right to see whatever the evidence is that they will use against her, BUT - they do not need to bring a laptop into the jail - You can buy a portable DVD player that is WAY cheaper than a PC and she could look and listen to the disk on that.
When a PC is introduced, there are too many other things that can be going on - not accusing Dager, but we know it happened in the Anthony situation - just sayin'.
This revelation of tapes from the jail is what makes me think there may end up being a plea - cuz we know she was not under any duress while having visitors - is this one on one (with a screen) or are they video visits?
Hey T; can you get the jail visitors list? How about her $ account - just NOSEY on my part - I admit it!
at 16:54 on November 23rd, 2010
Hi LC,
anyone can get on the list to visit as long as they fill out the forms and it is passed by the officials, concerning the Money anyone can add money to a prisoners "BOOKS" without any prior approval, shoot you can even send care packages from the LASD website if you like....anyone can!
Yeah, I am just thinking here that Dager is going to try for the 273 that carries a 2, 4 or 6 year term only...I have no Idea how you get more time for the 273 a and ab then for the actual 187 charge.
ttya later T
at 08:00 on November 24th, 2010
lol! Can you get the list of her visitors & her twinkie account balance (what she buys)? Not asking you to, just curious if it is available.
These are a couple of things that have driven the Baez crew in FL crazy - peeps following how many treats ICA buys (I've heard she likes cocoa) and how much money she has, or more often lately - how little money she has, in her account. KC lost her DL when she got way behind on her fines - like she needs it where she's going!!
I'm just curious if these things are public accessible, like they are in FL? I don't have any real need to see them, just nosey is all.
According to Kat, no one has been able to visit with sb since August (her visitor stat went from Y to N) - just days after her Secret Government Agent Man visits were made public - guess that's why GB wanted to see her at the court house, the day he showed up for the hearing and Dager was MIA.
Heck no! I'm not sending her any $ or care packages!!
So far Dager is going for NOT GUILTY! (it's not like she confessed or anything)!!
Many of us who were following the Emma T trial were very upset about the charges - this baby was dead and her murderer was only charged with rape. But he got life w/o parole for Super Aggravated - had they tried him for murder he would have been eligible for parole after 35 or 40 years. I agree it makes no sense, but if it gives a longer sentence, I guess we take what we can get...
at 18:10 on November 23rd, 2010
LC
I want to see how long he lasts when he gets to prison.....number one on the list of "Prison Justice" among Inmates is Child rape and/or Child murder, the prison knows this so he might be put in the "SHU" it's special housing unit for special needs offenders, only allowed out of cell for 1 hour a day. mostly guys trying to get out of the gangs or offenders that did something real bad to a child are held there.
I was so pissed that the friggen mother was a RN and didn't do anything to help her daughter before it was too late, SHE KNEW THE GIRL NEEDED ER HELP and did nothing! witch....
I wish you all a wonderful Thanksgiving and lots of LUCK if you brave the Black Friday events....tttl T
ps...no you can't see her visitors list, what she has on her books or what she orders from "canteen". I wonder why FL let's you see that...LOL
at 07:57 on November 24th, 2010
Hi T
Thanks! LOL, like I said, just idle curiosity on my part. In FL they have what they call the sunshine laws and everything (and I do mean everything) except autopsy pictures are up for public viewing - I'm guessing peeps only keep at ICA's stuff because it's driving her DT to distraction! Jose keeps taking it back in front of the judge who can only say, "That's the law - deal and oh BTW how are those depo's coming?" Which of course requires 20,000 poorly chosen words as to why they aren't done! May is coming!!
As for the perps in TX, we can only hope! They are both in prison now, but still in the transition phase. May they never know peace, after what they have done.
Happy Turkey Day my friends, thinking of you!
at 13:00 on November 24th, 2010
Hello everyone! Hope you're all ready for Turkey day :) To be honest I'm not ready, but I'll make it work. I have to.....I'm hosting and cooking.
Florida has the most lenient public record laws in the country, as LCM said, "The Sunshine Laws". All states have some sort of public records law under the Freedom of Information Act. The differences seems to boil down to what is classified as a public record and what type of public record are open.
Hope you all have a wonderful Thanksgiving and have much to be thankful for . {{{HUGS}}}
at 01:26 on December 3rd, 2010
Hi everyone,
Yes I am still here as most of you know, just more silent than usual...until now...but briefly due to the circunstances.
I have read most of the posts from here and the threads that have been recently closed. Forgive me if I repeat similar comments any of you made as I read thru the posts very quickly. First off, I am so sorry for the pain the Barker family is going through. That being said I am a little taken back by "aunties" postings....REALLY? she is concerned about Anthony's "tats" as she puts it? Wow tatoos have been in the American culture for decades and recently a very popular thing to do. I know Dr's and nurses who have tatoos. Precious baby Emma did not die at the hands of her "tatted" father...NO, she died at the hands of her mother....who to this day still shows NO EMOTION in court!!! I view that as a HUGE problem!..Wow, Anthony is not the problem...I hate to say this but maybe if Emma was solely taken care of by him, well she would still be alive. This being said, let me touch on something else.
"Auntie" wants so much to believe that one of her family members could not possibly be capable of commiting such a horrific crime... so, naturally, as the mind tries to process something so tragically unbelievable, it (usually) is kind enough to kick in our built in coping mechanisms which are intended to ease suffering and pain (along with many other things).. So, she tries to defend sb, and in a round about way seems to blame Anthony, and then she tries to blame someone else or something else (like an accident...or us blogging too much...Yeah right!) anyways, so this blame is placed on others which makes her feel better...It is her outlet/relief evienced by her lenghty and somewhat scattered posts. She is able to post these long messages to us, which in the moment gives her some sort of peace/release...which she may very well be deservant of. .
So Auntie,
I would like to say, most of us in one way or another have a personal interest in this case. We care deeply and are not threatened by the fact of this case leaving the AV.
God bless each and everyone of you.
at 19:39 on December 3rd, 2010
Great to see you here Nurse :) We know that you have been busy, but we haven't forgotten you friend! I miss your comments and input.
Thanks for chiming in on Auntie 2. She mentioned in her last comment here, that in her first post she unloaded a year and a half of hurt. I hope it did give her some kind of peace. Unfortunately things will probably get worse for the "Barker" family before they get better.
{{{HUGS}}}
at 01:44 on December 3rd, 2010
Very eloquently stated, ANurse. Stacey has another court date tomorrow, so I hope there will be no more delays (although I doubt that). As a community, we are outraged by the murder of this precious little girl and you are right - we do have a personal interest in this case whether the Barker family likes it or not! You're right about another thing -it wasn't Emma's tattooed Daddy, a criminal, or a sadistic pedophile that murdered this child - it was HER OWN MOTHER!!