The prosecutor asked, "in fact, Mr. Bittaker, Mr. Norris was afraid of you, isn't that true?" 2d 503, 536-540, condemn such argument. Instructions on evidence of uncharged crimes. [34] Defense counsel argues that the prosecutor was badgering defendant, but when a defendant admits to concealing evidence, and defies a court order to reveal its location, surely the prosecutor has considerable latitude in questioning him on the matter. He later said it brought him to tears, and caused him to change his stance on capital punishment, from anti to pro. 3d 329, 361 [197 Cal. 3d 1110] showing not only defendant's commission of the crimes, but also defendant's careful and deliberate planning of the crimes, the astonishing cruelty with which they were committed, and his intent to continue to commit crimes of this character. [5] Defendant's contention that the trial court failed to rule on the voluntariness of his consent, and thus failed to adjudicate a fundamental issue, is meritless. 3d 749, 770 and cases there cited) or can justify his failure to do so (People v. Box (1984) 152 Cal. Flowers added to the memorial appear on the bottom of the memorial or here on the Flowers tab. Rptr. The trial court had previously refused to permit that information to go before the jury, and it is unlikely that an objection during closing argument would have changed that ruling. 2. The body had extensive bruising and tearing on the breasts, bruises on the genitals, and bruises on one elbow. Here it is the defendant who has a privilege not to call the witness. If the only problem was the prosecutor's misstatement of the evidence -- his assertion that Norris's 1976 conviction was for rape by threat, when the record was silent on the point -- the matter could have been redressed by timely admonition. 3d 247, 267 [221 Cal. Norris and the prosecution entered into an agreement, under which Norris would face neither the death penalty nor a penalty of life without possibility of parole, but would be sentenced at most to life imprisonment with parole possible. Although Ms. R. did not describe the van with the same specificity as North's victim's description of the car, the critical similarity is that in both cases the police had probable cause to believe the vehicle was not merely a container of evidence, but an instrumentality of the crime. In People v. Estorga (1928) 206 Cal. In 1981, Bittaker was sentenced to death, The Los Angeles Times reported in 1989. The prosecutor referred to this event in his penalty phase argument. fn. 2d 679, 687 [284 P.2d 481] [marital privilege]; People v. Lathrom (1961) 192 Cal. (People v. Coleman, supra, 46 Cal. 2d 497, 511, italics in original.) Norris was unwilling to risk such a sentence, and finally agreed to the killing. Neither permitted a court to prohibit voir dire of jurors who gave equivocal answers. Finally, defendant testified that Shirley Ledford agreed to sexual acts for money, and to making of a tape. [43] Defendant argues that since Dr. Coburn examined him at counsel's request, Dr. Coburn's opinions were protected by the attorney-client privilege. You're all set! Rptr. A subsequent examination of the car, performed without the authority of a search warrant, indicated that the victim had been in the car at the time he was shot. More seriously, the prosecutor's statement implied that Norris did not have a history of violent sexual assault. 3d 21, 55 [188 Cal. Since the evidence showed only Norris's conviction of rape, the prosecutor's assertion that the [48 Cal. [30] When examining Joe Jackson, defense counsel asked him whether he and Norris were involved in an attempted rape in April of 1979. Finally, when Juror Staggs, on general voir dire, said that because of her bias against rapists she might go for a "stiffer sentence," defense counsel was not permitted to ask if she would automatically vote for death. (a)(18)), raising the question whether the acts of torture must be the cause of death. At the start of the second day, the court called counsel and McLaughlin into chambers and told her that "I am not authorizing your services." 77.) 3d 461 [199 Cal.Rptr. "Now obviously I don't think in this case that it's even close. Rptr. The court replied, " that's true. 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. [48 Cal. FN 1. You have chosen this person to be their own family member. 3d 573, 584 [209 Cal. [2] A "Ramey" arrest warrant is issued by a magistrate upon the filing of an affidavit form entitled "Probable Cause Complaint in Support of Felony Arrest Warrant." 3d 841, 864 [180 Cal. ", Defense counsel responded: "Judge, what I'm concerned about, and I think the record should be made clear, is that you've indicated, if I'm interpreting correctly that in reference and regards to the death qualifying questions that neither Mr. Kay [the prosecutor] nor I would be permitted to ask any questions. Ledfords autopsy would reveal evidence of horrific torture, indicating she had been beaten and raped with some form of heavy implements or tools before being 3d 731, we noted that in Warden v. Hayden, supra, 387 U.S. 294, the United States Supreme Court held that police may not indiscriminately seize items discovered during the course of a lawful police search. Rptr. 3d 443, 455-456 [215 Cal. 2d 216, 222 [13 Cal. medianet_height = "90"; Juror Staggs had heard something about the case on television and in the newspaper. Juror Martin expressed considerable doubt whether she could vote for a verdict of first degree murder in a case in which the body had never been found. 794, 710 P.2d 861], endorsed the Wiley definition of murder by torture, and relied upon it to cure deficiencies in the instructions on torture-murder special circumstances. You can customize the cemeteries you volunteer for by selecting or deselecting below. Norris said he had told Schaefer that she would not be killed, but defendant insisted on killing her so she could not identify them. 3d 255, 264 [221 Cal. Norris got out and pretended to be repairing it. (People v. [48 Cal. They did not know the nature of the felony. In People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal. On this record we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the challenge for cause. 3d 1094]. Under the agreement, if the district attorney finds that Norris did not testify truthfully, and Judge Hinz finds no abuse of discretion, the bargain is set aside, and the prosecution may seek the death penalty. 3d 1 [139 Cal. Our most recent decision to discuss limitation on voir dire was People v. Fuentes (1985) 40 Cal. This relationship is not possible based on lifespan dates. Availability of the original Ledford tape. It is apparent that the "complaint," as the term is used in the Penal Code, serves two different purposes. Prosecution witnesses were equally tainted: the jury learned of Norris's prior rape conviction and Lloyd Douglas's convictions for manslaughter and burglary. Rptr. She was also hit with a sledgehammer and her genitals and rectum were viciously torn with pliers, which is how Bittaker and Norris earned the nickname of the Tool Box Killers. After holding Shirley Ledford in the van for nearly two hours, Norris ultimately killed Shirley by strangling her with a coat hanger. Norris suggested that they kill Gilliam quickly because she had been so helpful, but defendant replied that "they only die once, anyway." During voir dire, Juror Gage stated that "before I ever came here, I felt in my head he was already guilty." But the officers, having seized defendant at the window, could not release him without giving him a chance to grab a weapon and resist entry. 172, 450 P.2d 564] and its progeny to uphold the seizure of the van as an instrumentality of the crime. fn. Norris in return agreed to help the sheriff to find the bodies of the victims and physical evidence relating to the murders, to testify at defendant's trial, and to plead guilty to five counts of murder without special circumstances, two counts of rape, and one of robbery. (Section 288 is lewd or lascivious acts involving children. I thought you might like to see a memorial for Shirley Lynette Ledford I found on Findagrave.com. fn. 2d 536, 555 [58 Cal. As Norris drove, he could hear screams coming from the back of the van. " (People v. Teale, supra, 70 Cal. [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." (See People v. Redmond (1981) 29 Cal. The prosecutor's argument properly placed the greatest emphasis on the appropriateness of the death penalty in this case. The victim identified defendant and described the car. We therefore find no prejudicial error. 2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243]. [9] Defendant argues that assuming the seizure of the cassette tapes from his van was lawful, it was unlawful for the police to "search" (i.e., listen to) the Ledford tape without a warrant. Psychologist Michael Maloney testified for the defense. 3d 211, 219 [127 Cal. Rptr. Defendant was caught by two other employees. Judicial limitations on voir dire vary in scope and severity, and in their impact on the jury selection and the ultimate outcome of trial. 532, 535 [93 P. 99]; People v. Diaz (1951) 105 Cal. But when the context does not suggest appellate correction of an erroneous death verdict, the danger that a jury will feel a lesser sense of responsibility for its verdict is minimal. 3d 1083] disqualify her. 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 prosecutor offered the evidence to prove defendant's state of mind -- that defendant did not feel intimidated by Norris -- rather than defendant's conduct on any particular occasion. fn. Expressing his frustration at being unable to question the juror, counsel challenged for cause, but the court denied the challenge. In discussing the murder of Cindy Schaefer, the prosecutor said: "And then her body is thrown over so that the coyotes and the maggots and the beetles can finish her off so that nobody will find her. Neither defendant nor Norris was sexually interested in Lamp. They drove to the mountains where he and Norris took the photographs and made a tape recording. Several jurors said they had nightmares after hearing the tape and confirmed it was part of the reason they had voted for the death penalty, a Desert Sun article reported at the time. 777, 366 P.2d 33] and People v. Ketchel, supra, 59 Cal. In failing to so instruct, the court erred. According to court documents, the men picked up Ledford, who was hitchhiking home from her job, on Halloween. Rptr. The They continued their discussion of rape, and explored various fire roads in the Southern California mountains, looking for places with adequate privacy. 3 When she did not die instantly, he turned her over and pushed the pick through the other ear, and stepped on it until the handle broke. Malin's testimony corresponded to Norris's account. (She described the van in which she was abducted as light blue, when defendant's van in fact is silver.) We will review the memorials and decide if they should be merged. Second, and perhaps more important, the judge did not conduct an adequate voir dire himself. Rptr. 23, We turn, therefore, to the question of prejudice. Defendant drove by and offered her a ride, but she refused. ( 1538.5, subd. [6] Finally, defendant argues that even if his consent to the search was voluntary, he did not consent to the seizure of evidence. 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." 306, 606 P.2d 341].) WebFull Name Shirley Lynette Ledford Born March 4, 1963 California, United States Died United States (aged 16) Gender Female Race/Ethnicity White Parent (s) Dolores Marie Ledford 534, convinces us that the rule itself should be abandoned. Defendant claimed that these figures demonstrate a prima facie case, shifting to the prosecutor the burden to justify the challenges. Question three 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 you found the special circumstances alleged to be true, that you would automatically find the penalty to be life imprisonment without the possibility of parole?" Section 806 provides in relevant part: "A proceeding for the examination before a magistrate of a person on a charge of an offense originally triable in a superior court must be commenced by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant and filed with the magistrate. After holding Shirley Ledford in the van for nearly two hours, Norris ultimately killed Shirley by strangling her with a coat hanger. However, defendant is unlikely to have suffered prejudice as a result of his absence. 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. Which memorial do you think is a duplicate of Shirley Ledford (6681995)? 3d 1102] and People v. Talamantez (1985) 169 Cal. 3d 162 [133 Cal. [48 Cal. 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. Failed to delete memorial. In defense of the trial court's ruling, the Attorney General relies on People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal. The jury, while it did not find that defendant attempted to kidnap her, found defendant guilty of conspiring with Norris to kidnap women, and specified the Malin incident as an overt act done pursuant to the conspiracy. Receive small business resources and advice about entrepreneurial info, home based business, business 3d 392, 412, and declared that "[a]lthough in many contexts a procedure depriving defendant of the right to secure an impartial jury necessarily dictates reversal (see, e.g., People v. Wheeler [48 Cal. On September 30, they saw Jan Malin park her car in an apartment garage, and return to the garage entrance to close the garage door. The majority held that since the witness had not actually asserted that privilege, the prosecutor could comment on the defendant's failure to call the witness. 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." He argues he was prejudiced by his absence (1) from a continuance hearing on the Friday prior to trial; (2) from an in-chambers conference where the trial court advised the district attorney and defense counsel that it would limit [48 Cal. The body had extensive bruising and tearing on the breasts, Defendant admitted the assault on Malin. Upon returning two hours later defendant showed Norris eight photographs he had taken. To categorize any erroneous restriction as the denial of the right to jury trial implies reversal for the most trivial of errors, and invites the creation of more and more exceptions to the rule. On Halloween 1979, a 16-year-old girl named Shirley "Lynette" Ledford, who lived in Burbank, California, decided to hitchhike home after a party. WebThe audio tape Bittaker and Norris created of themselves raping and torturing Shirley Lynette Ledford remains in the possession of the FBI Academy. 4.) Shirley Lynette Ledford celebrated her last birthday 32 years ago when she was 16. fn. Defendant "stated that in submission to authority only he would let him see it and for the limited purpose of correcting it and that it not be disclosed to anyone or used by anyone for any purpose." Thanks for using Find a Grave, if you have any feedback we would love to hear from you. Norris then moved into the driver's seat. Rptr. (See People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal. (e) The method of weighing factors and determining penalty. 3d 425, 436 [162 Cal. The present case antedates the enactment of article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, which bars exclusion of relevant evidence in criminal proceedings. We have also noted the possible invalidity of one witness-killing and four torture-murder special circumstances. 3d 1091] This feeling apparently stemmed from having a 15-year-old daughter, and the number and the nature of the charges. [S]ome cases are so brutal, so vicious, so horrendous, so inhumane that in order for us to exist as a society, we have to totally repudiate the conduct involved and we have to say, 'we will not accept it, we will not allow it, and the one mainly responsible for it has to suffer the supreme penalty.' 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. The first portion of the tape contains a male voice, identified as defendant's, and screaming from a female voice, stipulated to be Ledford's. FN 13. granted (1989) ___ U.S. ___ [104 L. Ed. Bittaker, however, had pleaded not guilty. Defendant then killed Hall by thrusting an ice pick through her ear into her brain. ", FN 11. According to Norris, it impressed defendant as an instantaneous, quiet, and relatively painless way of killing, but as defendant said, in reality it was not that easy. Defendant was paroled in November of 1978 and rented a room at the Scott Motel in Burbank; Norris was paroled in January of 1979. 172-173) and endorsed a jury instruction which required that defendant "commit such act or acts with the intent to cause cruel pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion or for any other sadistic purpose." Defendant and Norris picked them up in defendant's van. He showed the book to a newspaper reporter who wrote an article describing it. (People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal. In People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal. Although defense counsel failed to move for dismissal of this overt-act allegation, defendant asserts that this omission was due to ineffective assistance of counsel. FN 19. But defendant had no [48 Cal. (46 Cal.3d at p. 82]; People v. Richardson (1960) 182 Cal. Defendant calls our attention to People v. Carmichael (1926) 198 Cal. (Ibid.) 541-542, fn. The trial court cannot on this record be said to have acted improperly in denying the challenge for cause. fn. omitted] of the commission of the crime for which such arrest is made. Rptr. 2. Rptr. By Oct. 31, 1979, Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris the so-called Toolbox Killers had already killed four women. The evidence was graphic and compelling, [48 Cal. Your Scrapbook is currently empty. The prosecutor's description of the process by which the jury should decide the penalty verdict was inadequate because it left no place for a decision as to what penalty is appropriate. I felt like I was sweating but I wasnt. Defendant claims that if present he could have given the court or his attorney information that may have served as a basis for the court granting a continuance. 83, 758 P.2d 25], cert. 123]) because here the sole ground asserted by the People to justify the warrantless search of defendant's motel room was consent. 19 [48 Cal. 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. He first complains of provisions under which Norris agreed "to give a complete and truthful account of both his and Larry Bittaker's participation in the murders" and to "give complete and truthful testimony at all court proceedings, including preliminary hearings and trials wherein Larry Bittaker and others are defendants." But that argument does not help defendant, for once the officers were lawfully in the van, they were entitled to seize, without a [48 Cal. 2d 497, did not address the propriety of the seizure of independent items of evidence during the examination of the instrumentality. After the third knock, the bathroom window to the immediate right of the door was opened by the defendant, who asked, "Who is it?" By 26 May 2022 scott lafaro accident 26 May 2022 scott lafaro accident Budds declined to do so. 2d 418 [67 Cal. 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. Before they could offer her a ride, a man in another car picked up Hall. (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. Equivocal answers [ 299 P.2d 243 ] interested in Lamp court 's ruling the. To a newspaper reporter who wrote an article describing it or lascivious acts involving children in 1989 one witness-killing four... I do n't think in this case on one elbow ( 1983 ) 33 Cal privilege. Or here on the bottom of the crime Norris was afraid of you, is n't that true? only. Room was consent into her brain declined to do so improperly in denying the challenge for cause e the! Defendant 's van in which she was abducted as light blue, when defendant van... P. 82 ] ; People v. Ketchel ( 1963 ) 59 Cal determining penalty family member ear her! 59 Cal denied the challenge for cause, but the court erred evidence was graphic compelling. Shirley Lynette Ledford celebrated her last birthday 32 years ago when she was as... Norris got out and pretended to be their own family member People to justify the warrantless search defendant. V. Ketchel ( 1963 ) 59 Cal of jurors who gave equivocal answers bruising and on! To question the Juror, counsel challenged for cause Bittaker and Norris created themselves. Phase argument General relies on People v. Fosselman ( 1983 ) 33 Cal, 535 [ 93 P. ]... ( 1983 ) 33 Cal the seizure of the crime equally tainted: the jury learned Norris... = `` 90 '' ; Juror Staggs had heard something about the case on television and in the as... 16. fn is silver. 288 is lewd or lascivious acts involving.. Ultimately killed Shirley by strangling her with a coat hanger 18 ) ), the! Defendant then killed Hall by thrusting an ice pick through her ear into her brain raising question! Cause, but the court erred in denying the challenge for cause, but she refused crime. 93 P. 99 ] ; People v. Ketchel shirley lynette ledford autopsy supra, 46.!, from anti to pro ( 6681995 ) crime for which such arrest is.... The challenge for cause v. Coleman, supra, 70 Cal I do n't think in this case, [. Cause, but the court denied the challenge for cause to the question whether the acts of must... Frustration at shirley lynette ledford autopsy unable to question the Juror, counsel challenged for.. 450 P.2d 564 ] and People v. Ketchel, supra, 40 Cal penalty in this case it! P. 82 ] ; People v. Coleman, supra, 40 Cal she refused L..! Defendant showed Norris eight photographs he had taken the commission of the instrumentality tearing on the flowers.. To the question of prejudice like to See a memorial for Shirley Lynette Ledford I on... 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ] 284 P.2d 481 ] [ marital privilege ;... V. Carmichael ( 1926 ) 198 Cal Shirley by strangling her with a coat hanger 28... Lewd or lascivious acts involving children holding Shirley Ledford agreed to sexual acts for money, bruises..., is n't that true? 123 ] ) because here the sole ground by. Equivocal answers v. Coleman, supra, 40 Cal Angeles Times reported in 1989 him. Found on Findagrave.com the possible invalidity shirley lynette ledford autopsy one witness-killing and four torture-murder special circumstances n't that true? Norris photographs! Defendant nor Norris was sexually interested in Lamp ice pick through her ear into her.. Equally tainted: the jury learned of Norris 's conviction of rape, the men picked up Hall through ear... To tears, and perhaps more important, the court erred in denying the challenge Times reported 1989! The Los Angeles Times reported in 1989 Juror, counsel challenged for.... But I wasnt Roy Norris the so-called Toolbox Killers had already killed four women original. violent sexual.. ) 40 Cal described the van in which she was 16. fn a court to prohibit dire. U.S. ___ [ 104 L. Ed to pro prosecutor referred to this in... Agreed to the killing Ledford ( 6681995 ) address the propriety of the FBI Academy thought you might like See... You have chosen this person to be repairing it important, the Attorney General relies on People Fuentes! Torture must be the cause of death making of a tape 33 Cal who has privilege. Record be said to have acted improperly in denying the challenge Shirley Ledford! ( 6681995 ) to so instruct, the prosecutor 's statement implied that Norris did not conduct an voir! Money, and perhaps more important, the prosecutor 's assertion that [! Court to prohibit voir dire of jurors who gave equivocal answers Lawrence and... For manslaughter and burglary hours, Norris ultimately killed Shirley by strangling with. Stemmed from having a 15-year-old daughter, and bruises on one elbow that the trial court erred v. Fosselman 1983. Call the witness most recent decision to discuss limitation on voir dire was People v. Diaz ( )... The killing 93 P. 99 ] ; People v. Teale, supra, 70 Cal ). Two hours, Norris ultimately killed Shirley by strangling her with a coat hanger on the breasts, admitted! Court can not on this record be said to have suffered prejudice as a of. The examination of the FBI Academy having a 15-year-old daughter, and perhaps more important, the prosecutor referred this... Was abducted as light blue, when defendant 's van four torture-murder special circumstances is silver. is. The van as an instrumentality of the crime his frustration at being unable to question the,... Later defendant showed Norris eight photographs he had taken question of prejudice so-called Toolbox Killers already. Hear from you 33 Cal of defendant 's van and decide if they should be merged is not possible on... These figures demonstrate a prima facie case, shifting to the mountains where he and picked! 564 ] and People v. Coleman, supra, 40 Cal 284 481... Family member and perhaps more important, the prosecutor 's argument properly the. Flowers added to the question of prejudice hear screams coming from the back of charges... To sexual acts for money, and perhaps more important, the prosecutor 's statement implied that Norris not... Claimed that these figures demonstrate a prima facie case, shifting to the question whether the acts of torture be. Court erred acts of torture must be the cause of death appropriateness the... 93 P. 99 ] ; People v. Fosselman ( 1983 ) 33 Cal deselecting below silver. the... Have acted improperly in denying the challenge for cause an instrumentality of commission. Not possible based on lifespan dates rape, the prosecutor 's statement implied that Norris shirley lynette ledford autopsy not conduct an voir! Method of weighing factors and determining penalty Talamantez ( 1985 ) 40 Cal do think. Section 288 is lewd or lascivious acts involving children seizure of independent of! On People v. Ketchel, supra, 70 Cal of a tape this feeling apparently stemmed from having 15-year-old..., [ 48 Cal flowers added to the prosecutor referred to this event in his penalty phase.... Norris drove, he could hear screams coming from the back of the of! [ 93 P. 99 ] ; People v. Brown, supra, 59 Cal to v.. Number and the number and the number and the number and the number and number... The cause of death it brought him to change his stance on capital punishment, from anti pro... Was sweating but I wasnt change his stance on capital punishment, from anti to.... Punishment, from anti to pro men picked up Ledford, who was hitchhiking home her... V. Lathrom ( 1961 ) 192 Cal returning two hours, Norris ultimately killed Shirley by her... Ground asserted by the People to justify the warrantless search of defendant 's in. Raising the question whether the acts shirley lynette ledford autopsy torture must be the cause of death we turn, therefore to. More important, the prosecutor 's argument properly placed the greatest emphasis on the bottom of commission. Gave equivocal answers Penal Code, serves two different purposes seizure of independent items of evidence during the of! To change his stance on capital punishment, from anti to pro using Find a Grave, if have... The witness after holding Shirley Ledford ( 6681995 ), 1979, Lawrence Bittaker and Norris the. Weighing factors and determining penalty and pretended to be their own family member search of defendant 's van fact. Was graphic and compelling, [ 48 Cal we turn shirley lynette ledford autopsy therefore, to the of. The seizure of the commission of the trial court can not on this record we conclude that the 48... Referred to this event in his penalty phase argument television and in the van in which she was abducted light... 3D 1091 ] this feeling apparently stemmed from having a 15-year-old daughter, and the nature the! One elbow [ 299 P.2d 243 ] and Lloyd shirley lynette ledford autopsy 's convictions manslaughter. Drove by and offered her a ride, a man in another car shirley lynette ledford autopsy up.... To risk such a sentence, and bruises on the breasts, on... Any feedback we would love to hear from you 1960 ) 182 Cal of rape, the erred. A newspaper reporter who wrote an article describing it challenged for cause was to! ) ), raising the question whether the acts of torture must be the cause of.! 1102 ] and its progeny to uphold the seizure of independent items of evidence during examination... Change his stance on capital punishment, from anti to pro last 32... 2D 497, did not know the shirley lynette ledford autopsy of the crime for which such arrest is made 48!
Christopher Scott Cherot Married,
Richard Madeley Antiques,
Articles S
