Isauro Aguirre Sentencing

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Each juror, a prospective juror, as well as followed up by oral inquiry into that matter. And the other thing that makes this case different, it's completed. It's over. It is in the midstream of the trial where I think you have a better argument and a better position to argue prejudice in this matter. If, for some reason, the reviewing courts grants a new trial in this matter, the prospective jurors will be an inquiry made as to what media exposure they've been exposed to, including the documentary in question. I think that the number of jurors that we had in this matter, when we selected the jury initially, most of them had heard something about this case, had been exposed in some fashion or other to some story or article with respect to this matter. If that is the case, because I'll tell you right now, the court is not inclined to issue a prohibition against the publication of the documentary in question. And so, if that happens, then the prospective jurors, if a new trial occurs, the court will inquire extensively and appropriately of those jurors that have been exposed to media articles and so forth, including the documentary in question. If they have, to the point that they cannot be fair or it will affect their impartiality, the court will excuse those jurors. With respect to those jurors that can state to this court, represent to this court, that they can put that aside and be fair and weigh this case based on the evidence presented. And then the court will certainly consider them for, you know, to preside over this case's trial or fact or for the new trial or in the new trial at that point. And they'll be appropriately admonished, as was the first panel. And so, that is the court's order. It will not issue a prohibition against the publication of the documentary in question. All right. [00:02:02] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you for bringing this up. [00:02:03] Speaker 1: All right. Very good. Thank you. Counselor, you wanted to state something about your request. You made a request that your client not be filmed exiting the custody module. Also, that he be allowed to be dressed in civilian clothing. You want to make a record with respect to that? [00:02:21] Speaker 3: Certainly, Your Honor. Your Honor just stated that it was our request that we're able to wear civilian clothing in the court's day rather than kind of a jumpsuit. [00:02:32] Speaker ?: And also that he would not be filmed in to come into the courtroom along with what that gets allowed at recess. [00:02:42] Speaker 1: All right. And you know what, you made that, during the course of this trial, whether it be in the guilt phase and the penalty phase, that request was made of this court. And the court abided by that. It did instruct and admonish all news agencies not to film that part of it, whether it be, I think it was for both defendants. This case has been completed. In fact, the defendant upon a guilty verdict was ordered remanded without bail. And so the court doesn't see any compelling reason that would justify him being brought out in civilian clothing and or that he not be filmed in that capacity. So but you've made a record for purposes of preserving the record. Now, the court is going to now address the issues and motions filed by Mr. Aguirre. The first one being a motion for new trial. And let me state, before I ask for a comment from counsel, defendant Isario Aguirre has filed a motion for new trial pursuant to Pino Code section 1181, specifically subsections 1, 5, 6, and 7. In particular, the motion sets forth over 100 violations and or errors committed by the court and the prosecution, as well as a challenge to the weight of the evidence. This court will not enumerate each of the 103 alleged violations, as they are too numerous. However, the overall contentions can be categorized as falling within one of the following areas. And I'll get to that in a moment. I'll ask, first of all, from the defense, as I did with respect to the first motion, is there anything, and I went through this motion and there were a lot of contentions made, anything that you'd like to add that is not incorporated in your respective motion? I'll ask the defense. [00:04:38] Speaker 3: Yes, Your Honor. No, the court, I too, will not go through each of the multitude of contentions that we have in our moving papers. The court correctly stated that there are five broad categories under Pino Code section 1181. If the court, my thought is that if the court wishes any elaboration or has any questions, I am quite happy and hopefully able to respond, but otherwise, no matter. [00:05:11] Speaker 1: All right. I'll ask Mr. or at least the prosecution. I did reach your opposition. [00:05:17] Speaker 4: Thank you, Adam. People would just ask, if we're respectful of it, if they can I defend and hear his motion for new trial, and we submit on our required reason. [00:05:26] Speaker 1: All right. As I stated, the 103 violations, alleged violations, can be basically characterized into five categories. The first thing is that the trial court erred in conducting certain proceedings in the defendant's absence, and the defense cites 1181, subsection 1. Specifically that, A, the court purportedly conducted certain proceedings involving juror issues outside the presence of the defendant. B, the court in the defendant's absence conducted various proceedings regarding the exclusion of co-defendant Pearl Fernandez's hearsay statement, the admissibility of evidence code 1101B, prior acts, the issuance of body attachments regarding certain witnesses, discussions regarding recorded jailhouse conversations, discussions regarding relational testimony from a conditional examination, as well as discussions pertaining to rebuttal witnesses during the penalty phase. The second category, it can be said to state purported errors by the court regarding decisions as to questions of law involving the following. A, the denial of defense motions to dismiss pursuant to penal code section 995 and 939.71. B, denial of defense motions to continue. C, denial of a motion to exclude in the DA's guilt phase PowerPoint hearsay statements by co-defendant Pearl Fernandez. D, denial of defense objections regarding various slides contained within the DA's guilt phase PowerPoint. E, denial of defense motion to preclude the testimony of several witnesses regarding the painfulness of the injuries suffered by the victim. Expert opinions regarding the existence of cat litter in the victim's stomach. Certain photographs of the victim's injuries, as well as the court's denial of precluding the prosecution from seeking the death penalty due to DA Mario Trujillo's Facebook comments. Another category, F, denial of defense motion to provide jurors with more accurate transcripts of defendant Aguirre's recorded statements. A denial to exclude hearsay statements contained in various text messages. The court's denial to admit 1101B evidence regarding Pearl Fernandez's prior acts of violence and or her statements regarding her feelings about her children. G, the court's denial to exclude the testimony of various witnesses, including that of Antonio Romero, Gloria Nieves, Elias Juarez, Yolanda Jacobo, and others. H, denial of the defense request to present evidence regarding the defendant's intellectual impairment. I, the court's denial of a defense motion made pursuant to section 1118.1 and for the granting of a mistrial. J, denial to preclude certain evidence in the penalty phase regarding the victim's impact, evidence pertaining to the victim and or evidence relating to the defendant. K, denial to preclude evidence of various witnesses on the victim's injuries and the impact of his death. A denial to recuse the DA's office following a press conference given by the prosecuting attorney. The court's decision to preclude testimony regarding the circumstances of the defendant's mother's upbringing, as well as the parameters of the questions posed to prison conditions expert, Will Adams, and L, the court's purported refusal to answer a question posed by the jury during the penalty phase deliberations. The third category, our purported prosecutorial misconduct, consisting of the following. The DA's purported misconduct of mentioning hearsay statements contained in text messages by the defendants. B, the prosecution's misconduct in eliciting evidence that the defendant never requested to write in the ambulance, displaying a photograph to the jury of the defendant's booking photo with the word, quote, evil, end quote, superimposed, and other purported inappropriate comments made by the prosecution in his closing argument, and C, the prosecution's publication to the jury of a document regarding the prison costs of housing inmates and of issues relating to the lack of a mental and an emotional disturbance on the part of the defendant. The fourth category is the contention that the verdicts in the guilt phase were contrary to the evidence. Here the defense maintains that the word, excuse me, here the defense maintains that the evidence, quote, failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of theory of first-degree murder advanced by the prosecution, as well as the special circumstance allegation, period, end quote. And finally, a fifth contention, a contention that the verdict in the penalty phase was contrary to the evidence. Again, here the defense motion for a new trial contends that the decision on a penalty was contrary to the evidence as the aggravating circumstances were not so substantial in comparison to the mitigating circumstances that the death penalty was appropriate and justified. Now, this court has had the opportunity to carefully consider the numerous contentions raised in the defendant's motion for a new trial, and all supporting points and authorities, as well as the prosecution's opposition brief. Following review of the overall record of the underlying trial, the court finds no basis upon which to grant a new trial in this matter. On the contrary, following examination of the state of the evidence, the rationale of the various court rulings rendered, the prosecution's overall conduct, as well as considering the manner that both the guilt and penalty phases were conducted, the court finds that the trial record clearly reflects that there was substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence presented to the trial of fact to entirely support the rendered verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, a number of the issues raised in the defendant's instant motion pertaining to the admissibility, preclusion, and or defense objections to certain evidence has been previously ruled upon by the court in the course of this trial. This court stands by its prior rulings and rationale expressed therein regarding these issues in contention. Accordingly, the court will incorporate all prior rulings in this ruling here and today in relation to the defendant's motion for a new trial. The trial record is void of anything to support the defendant's numerous contentions as referenced in his motion. The fact remains that the defendant received a fair and equitable trial in both phases of the proceedings. Therefore, the court is not inclined to grant a motion for a new trial. Now, with regard to the defense's motion to preserve evidence, exhibits, files, and other items related to the appeal process, it goes without saying that this is an automatic legal requirement. With regard to the defense's motion to reduce the penalty to one of life without the possibility of parole, this issue has already been addressed to some extent and the court's ruling and rationale expressed with regard to the defense's motion for new trial and will be further and more fully addressed in its ruling pertaining to the automatic motion for a modified sentence pursuant to Penal Code Section 190.4. And that is the next issue that the court is going to address, and that is the automatic motion for a modified sentence required under Penal Code Section 190.4. I want to ask the defense if they have any comments with respect to this. Do you want to be heard on anything? Yes, just briefly... Yes, go ahead, Mr. Scott. [00:13:06] Speaker 5: As the court pointed out, we filed a motion on behalf of Mr. Edgarie's pursuit to appeal to discussing the court's allegations and repeal of a exception to the court. [00:13:20] Speaker ?: I would just like to emphasize, as pointed out, in our paperwork, [00:13:24] Speaker 5: that the court is required to determine the vote whether the jury's decision of death is appropriate that under all the circumstances is adequately supported. But the court's also required to make an independent determination in the way the court himself puts on the aggravating and mediating factors to make an independent determination on whether the court believes the evidence deserves a death sentence. I would conclude by stating, as pointed out in my motion, that the court, in ruling on its independent determination under 190.4, must set forth reasons with sufficient particularity to allow Dr. LePellet review on that. I would submit unless the court has any specific question. [00:14:18] Speaker 1: Prosecution? [00:14:19] Speaker 4: Your Honor, the people would respectfully ask that the court deny the defendants' 190.4 motion, also deny their proportionality motion, uphold the jury's verdict of death and sentence of the defendant to death, and we would submit upon our reply, Your Honor. [00:14:38] Speaker 5: Briefly, Your Honor, just so there's no confusion, I just addressed the 190.4 motion. I would also like to be heard on the disproportionality motion. My understanding is that the court is addressing just that, and I just wanted to be clear that I do want to be heard whether the disproportionality motion is heard if necessary. [00:14:56] Speaker 1: Yes, I plan to address the automatic motion for modified sentence under penal code section 190.4, though I alluded to it in my motion for new trial briefly on it. In any event, with respect to the 190.4 requirement, this court has independently considered all of the evidence presented at trial and all of the arguments of counsel. It is not the court's intention to list every item of evidence and all arguments presented. For the purpose of clarifying the court's reasoning, the court will now recite the principal factors which most powerfully influence the decision at hand, addressing first the factor A, circumstances of the crime and special circumstance allegation. The defendant stands convicted of the murder of a seven-year-old Gabriel Fernandez in violation of penal code section 187A. It was also proven that the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture over a period of several weeks within the meaning of penal code section 190.2, subsection A18, consisting of conduct which featured the repeated beating, binding, burning, and starving the child victim herein. All said conduct was done, to some extent, in concert with co-defendant Pearl Fernandez and at times in the presence of other family children. In my almost 20 years on the bench, this court is without a doubt, and I'll be on the bench 20 years next week, this case is without a doubt the most aggravated and egregious case of torture this court has ever witnessed. The weight of this factor alone is simply enormous. B, considering the next factor, past violent activity by the defendant, there is none. C, prior felony conviction, there are none. D, influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Considering the overall evidence presented at trial, this court concludes that there was no persuasive evidence evidence presented on this issue. Although there was some evidence presented that the defendant may have had a learning disability when he was younger, this court's independent view of this evidence finds that it was not persuasive and or impactful in the decision rendered herein today. E, participation or consent by the victim, there was none. F, defendant's reasonable belief in moral justification or extenuation, there was none. G, extreme duress or substantial domination of another. Considering the overall evidence presented at this trial, this court concludes that there was no persuasive evidence presented on this issue, although counsel for Mr. Aguirre intimated that in some respects, co-defendant Pearl Fernandez may have exerted a certain degree of influence over defendant Aguirre, in this court's independent view, this evidence and or inference was not persuasive. Specifically, the evidence presented on this issue was not persuasive that Mr. Fernandez dominated the defendant to the point of lessening his moral obligation or capacity to avoid the torturous and homicidal conduct that brings him to judgment today. Based upon the overall evidence presented to the jury, defendant Aguirre was by no means a passive participant in the crime. A common sense reading of the evidence leaves this court convinced that his participation was major, personal, and active. H, moving on to the next element, capacity of defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. Here again, considering the overall evidence presented at trial, this court concludes that there was no persuasive evidence presented on this issue, although there was some evidence and argument that the defendant's physical conduct against the victim may have been the result of a sudden burst of rage attributed to his leasiness control over his temper, which resulted in the death on the date in question. This evidence by no means establishes that he was unable to understand the criminal wrongfulness of his conduct. H, the age of the defendant at the time of the crime. This factor is, at best, neutral. He was neither especially old nor young. J, whether defendant's participation was relatively minor. As previously addressed under factor G, this court is not persuaded that the defendant was by any means a minor or passive participant in this crime. On the contrary, the overall evidence indicates that he was a major participant who inflicted substantial and extreme physical injuries upon the child victim. K, other factors extenuating the gravity of the crime. While the defense evidence covered several points, the three principal ones in this court's eyes was, number one, that he has been and will in all probability be a model prisoner. Two, the defendant's family and loved ones will be impacted by his death as the defendant contributed to their well-being in some fashion by certain good deeds rendered by him during his lifetime and interaction with them. Consequently, his loved ones would be devastated by his death. And three, the defendant's good deeds demonstrated acts of compassion in past employment as well as in his interaction with family members. This court will accept all of these factors as true. Now, the court's ruling is the following. Based upon this court's careful review and independent re-weighing of the evidence, the court finds that the weight of the evidence clearly supports the jury's verdict of death. Again, although there were a number of factors presented at trial, the court only addressed those factors it considered as having a major impact on the decision rendered herein this morning. Consequently, the motion for modification of sentence is hereby denied. Now, you want to address, if you will, the disproportionality of the sentence imposed. You may do that at this time. I'll turn to the defense. [00:21:05] Speaker 5: Thank you, Your Honor. In this motion, through this motion, Mr. Deary is asking the court to conduct an inner case proportionality of the view. Our motion begins, with points and authorities, in argument, arguing that a verdict of death can be so grossly disproportionate to individual culpability as to constitute a violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments. The motion continues arguing that the jury's verdict of death for Mr. Aguirre in this case is grossly disproportionate to his individual culpability in violation of his 8th and 14th Amendment rights to the United States Constitution as well as corresponding state law rights obligating this court to set it aside. The motion continues with an inner case comparative analysis between the two defendants in this matter. Defendant Pearl Fernandez, whom the people, it's my understanding, made an offer to receive life imprisonment without parole by waiving her constitutional rights to a trial. I conclude by arguing, after that comparative analysis is done, that there can be a no more pragmatic example of disproportionate penalties than a case in which two persons have participated in the same murder, yet one perpetrator receives life without parole, and the second perpetrator receives death. The disparate treatment of equally culpable defendants, I would argue, strongly suggests that the defendant's crimes, Mr. Aguirre's crimes, did not demand a death sentence. Furthermore, and in conclusion, the prosecutor's failure to pursue death against the co-defendant, we argue, in our motion, indicates that the murder was not so egregious as to justify a death sentence. Submit on that. [00:23:15] Speaker 1: Anything? Oh, well, you're not in this here. Prosecution. [00:23:18] Speaker 4: Thank you. If you would respectfully say that we disagree with everything that Mr. Schuilar said, that being said, I won't argue each individual point with the exception of, I would just ask the court respectfully to follow the Calvary Supreme Court, which states that courts don't entertain an inter-case proportionality review regarding multiple defendants in a death penalty case. [00:23:40] Speaker 5: Thank you. [00:23:40] Speaker 6: All right. [00:23:41] Speaker 5: In a brief response, if I may, Your Honor, I did receive the People's Opposition and I had an opportunity to review it. In the event that what I would argue is that people cited authority on the Fourth Circuit of California authority in support of a case law that supports a proposition by the Fourth Circuit that a plea by a co-defendant for life imprisonment would not be admissible for a defendant in a, for a co-defendant in a death penalty trial. Their case law, by the way, which is opposite to the case law cited by the defense by the United States Supreme Court. In any event, that's not actually the issue in this case. That case doesn't stand for the proposition, the case cited by the People doesn't stand for the proposition that an inter-case comparative analysis is not done until it's going to stand for the proposition that I addressed. And I would emphasize that the case law that the People cite following the case law that says that the fact of the co-defendant's plea would not be admissible is a case that actually goes through an inter-case comparative analysis contrary to the belief of the prosecution as to what that case stands for. I believe they poked the case in doing an inter-case comparative analysis. In any event, I would be asking the court to conduct that inter-case comparative analysis to determine whether the sentence would be so disproportionate as to violate Mr. Geary's aid in the 14th Amendment rights as well as corresponding state constitutional laws [00:25:35] Speaker ?: or rules. [00:25:36] Speaker 1: All right. Well, I can tell you at this point, the court having been privy to the entire trial proceedings involving both the guilt and the penalty phase that the defense motion to reduce the penalty of death to one of life without the possibility of parole is hereby denied. Considering all of the foregone reasons cited by the court coupled with consideration of the overall evidence which this court independently weighed that the evidence presented during the entire proceedings, the court finds that it is not inclined to reduce the penalty in question. The court is not persuaded by the disparate treatment argument set forth by counsel. And that's all the court's going to state with respect to that. And so I think it's been memorialized sufficiently to have a review occur by the reviewing court. Now addressing the issue of sentencing, I understand, first of all, I'll turn to the prosecution. Are there impact statements to be made? Yes, Your Honor. All right. You may proceed. [00:26:44] Speaker 7: I believe You've got it where we're going to do the publicity first. Can we do the cards first? [00:26:50] Speaker 1: Sure, we can do that. [00:26:53] Speaker 7: We're going to need a moment just to make some arrangements. [00:26:56] Speaker 1: All right. [00:27:10] Speaker ?: All right. [00:27:40] Speaker 1: And you will introduce each individual. All right. [00:28:10] Speaker 4: Mr. Hitomi. In Your Honor, this is Bernalvo Contreras, Gabriel's father. Biological father. [00:28:38] Speaker 1: All right. You may proceed whenever you're ready, sir. You want to explain it to them? I will. All right. [00:29:00] Speaker 4: Yes, we have a mechanism [00:29:24] Speaker 1: where he can be privy to the proceedings from his cell. Is that correct? Yes, Your Honor. We do. All right. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Contreras. You may call your next... [00:29:34] Speaker 8: the people's next contact witnesses is Emily. [00:29:43] Speaker 1: All right. We're going to have to get a microphone to that individual here. [00:29:54] Speaker 4: If you're looking at the floor, [00:29:56] Speaker ?: if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, [00:29:56] Speaker 4: if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, [00:29:58] Speaker ?: if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, [00:29:59] Speaker 1: if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, [00:30:01] Speaker ?: if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, if you're looking at the floor, [00:30:32] Speaker 9: your son, your girlfriend's son, and an innocent child, who didn't deserve the views you endured on him. Gabriel had unconditional love for you, and you took advantage of that. Knowing he will never turn you in. Pearl, you need to know that Gabriel loved you, and all he ever wanted was acceptance from me. Your actions have impacted our lives and changed many because of the hate you had for your own son. You taught the world to love and to want to be their parents. The world fell in love with Gabriel as their own. Why could it be you? There were many sleepless nights and what if questions, nothing we say or do will change our actions. Gabriel's death cannot be done, but this life is the story we live on. After five long heartbreaking years of sitting and listening and seeing every gruesome thing we both did to Gabriel, it's finally over. For the both of you, your sentence will be handed down as you hear your jail cell slam. The rest of us will go on with our lives and pray that one day we'll forgive this wooden branching. for the rest of us. [00:32:38] Speaker 4: Next is Jennifer Garciuri I'm going to talk about [00:32:46] Speaker 10: how Gabriel's murder has affected my life. I feel strange even talking about me because I'm living and he's dead. I've experienced having my first job, buying my first car, going to college, getting the career I wanted, going to my first date, getting married, finding my first home and having children and Gabriel will never have the chance to do any of that. All of that was taking from him in the most savage and unthinkable way and worst of all, by the people who should have loved him and protected him at all costs. After I learned Gabriel had been killed, I was constantly nauseous and it would not go away. I actually went to my doctor and ended up taking medication. Time has helped, but I can honestly say there isn't a day that goes by that I don't think about Gabriel. I carry around a lot of guilt. I think about him most when I am alone with my thoughts on my way to work or trying to fall asleep. I replay over and over again what happened and what I could have done differently, what I should have said, what I should have done. And then I ask myself if it would have made a difference. And then I get a horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach and I realize I'm doing it again and I try to think about something else. I go back and forth between sadness and guilt and anger and then I just remember that no matter what, I can't bring it back. I can't change what happened. And so I push those thoughts down as far as I can to be able to sleep and live my life and be a good wife to mom, to my sons, and a good teacher to my students. I feel like nobody around me knows about these thoughts and feelings that go on in my head but me. I think many people close to me are just tired of hearing about Gabriel. My own school district thinks since my testimony is over that this is over and done. But for me it will never go away. This will always be a part of me and something I will think about until the day I die. But I know who is truly to blame. We can blame different people for what should or should not have been done. And when it comes down to it, the defendants are the ones that ended his young life at just seven years old. Instead of dwelling on what I or anyone else could have done differently, I try to think about how Gabriel, even after his death, is still helping others. In the classroom, he liked to help me file papers and state homework packets and help his classmates with their reading. But now he has made changes in how child abuse cases are handled by the Department of Children and Family Services and by the police. His story has touched the lives of so many people that didn't even know him. I'm humbled by the many Gabriel supporters who have helped me because they, having just read his story, are also experiencing his loss and want to talk about him. Talking about Gabriel helps them and it helps me to come to grips with my own grief. I'm deeply grateful for that. Gabriel's story has spread not only across the country, but across the world. I hope people are more aware of child abuse and how far it can go. And with this awareness, other children will not suffer the same fate as he did. As much as it hurts, I don't ever want to forget about Gabriel. I want to remember what a good boy he really was. I want to remember his kindness in helping other students and me. I want to remember his enthusiasm for learning and what a good writer he was. I want to remember funny moments like when he wanted to help another student really didn't want to be helped. I want to remember how strong he really was. I definitely know he was stronger than me. For the last five years, Gabriel has been number 28 in my classroom. I don't assign number 28 to another student, because I feel like it's only his number now. And it's a way for me to honor him in my classroom. It almost makes it like he's still here. I find comfort in believing he is now at peace. He cannot be harmed anymore. And I know that unlike him, his abusers will never have peace. They will have a lifetime of suffering to endure. And I know I'm not alone in hoping that they experience the same abuse in their lifetime and worse. They are evil people for what they did. And despite how I feel, I know that if Gabriel had survived, he wouldn't have wanted his mom and the sorrow to be punished for anything they did to him. Because that is the kind of person he was. He just wanted to be loved by his mom and his family and to be accepted and to just be a kid. [00:37:27] Speaker 1: I'll ask a council for Ms. Fernandez. And council for Ms. Fernandez, would you like to make any statements? All right. [00:37:50] Speaker ?: Hello, Your Honor. [00:37:51] Speaker 1: Good morning. And everybody in the department. [00:37:57] Speaker ?: I am the chaplain, one of the chaplains, volunteers at Twin Towers. I'm sorry, I'm very nervous. It's all right. [00:38:04] Speaker 1: It's all right. [00:38:07] Speaker 2: I have worked, prayed, and studied the Bible with Carl Fernandez. The first thing I would like to say is my heart and my prayers go out to Gabriel. I know how much hurt and pain. I can't even comprehend it. I'm sorry, ma'am. Can you turn this to me? Oh, I'm sorry. I know how much hurt and pain. [00:38:30] Speaker ?: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I know how much hurt and pain in myself. [00:38:33] Speaker 2: And after this, may God help all of your wounds. What happened was horrendous. It should have never happened. [00:38:45] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:38:46] Speaker 2: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:38:53] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:38:54] Speaker 2: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:39:02] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:39:03] Speaker 2: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:39:56] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:39:57] Speaker 2: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:00] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:02] Speaker 2: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:08] Speaker 1: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:10] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:11] Speaker 1: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:17] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:18] Speaker 1: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:19] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:20] Speaker 1: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:21] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:40] Speaker 6: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:42] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:46] Speaker 1: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:51] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:40:58] Speaker 11: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:41:29] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:41:30] Speaker 11: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:41:33] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:41:33] Speaker 11: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:41:53] Speaker ?: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. [00:41:54] Speaker 1: I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I know how much hurt and pain in my heart. I've been on the bench. Generally, I have imposed a lot of sentences in the course of those 20 years. And generally, it is my practice not to comment on a lot of cases. But, you know, I was privy to this case. I sat through it. I heard the evidence. I was privy to the photographs, coroner's photographs, the extent of the injuries and what have you. And this almost demands that comment be made about this case. It goes without saying that the conduct was horrendous, inhumane, and nothing short of evil. The repeated beatings, burnings, starving, binding. Shooting Gabriel with BBs that were embedded in different parts of his body. Knocking his teeth out with a bat. Locking them in a dark cabinet while he's bound. And starving this poor child. It is unimaginable the pain that this child probably endured. And from what I heard, Gabriel was a kind, loving individual who just wanted to be loved. And so, you know, you want to say that the conduct was animalistic, but that would be wrong. Because even animals know how to take care of their young. Some to an extent that they will sacrifice their own lives in caring for their young. I remember saying years ago, a report on the news that -- and this at least sent the point home to me about animals. And there was this cat who had given birth to a litter of cats. And the house where the kittens were in was on fire. And that's what I think it made the news. Because the fire department was trying to put the fire out. But each time the mother went in to retrieve a kitten. And she would emerge from the house by the scruff, holding the kitten by the scruff. And would manage one by one to bring her to safety. And the last time, the house was lost. And the fire department tried to keep this cat from going into the house. But it managed to elute them, went into the house. And they thought, well, she's lost. And I never forgot thinking -- she made it out of the house. She had the cat by the scruff. Except that she was singed and burning her face. But the thing that really struck me was the cat was not blind. The intensity of the heat burned her eyes. But she never let go of that kitten. And so when you want to say -- first instinct is to say, you know what, this is animalistic. No, it's beyond animalistic, because animals know how to take care of their young. You know, I can only wish -- I really do -- that you both, in the middle of the night, you wake up and you think of the injuries that you subjected this poor young man, this poor seven-year-old, and that it tortures you. I rarely say that. I rarely say that. It'll be a different type of torture because you won't be in pain, physical pain. But I'm not sure that you're capable of doing that. But that's my wish. Moving on to the issue of sentencing. Let the court state at this time that it has the opportunity. It has had the opportunity to review the probation reports prepared by the probation department. I'm holding both up. I don't know if the council has copies of this. But it did consider it. It did read it. And so, keeping that in mind, I'm going to move to this. I'm going to move to the issue of sentencing with respect to Cynthia Fernandez. And I'll ask counsel for Ms. Fernandez, Pearl Cynthia Fernandez, if you want to be heard on anything further. No, Your Honor. [00:45:45] Speaker 9: We would submit on the report. All right. [00:45:48] Speaker 1: Do the people wish to be heard on anything further? They are. All right. Does counsel for the defendant wave time for arraignment for judgment and sentencing? Yes, Your Honor. [00:45:55] Speaker ?: No equal cause. Thank you. [00:45:57] Speaker 1: Thank you. On February 15, 2018, the defendant Pearl Cynthia Fernandez entered a plea to murder in the first degree and further admitted the special circumstance of intentional murder by torture. pursuant to Pinnacle section 190.2, subsection A18, the defendant having waived all appellate and habeas rights as part of the plea agreement. The court ultimately finding that the defendant's plea and waiver of all of her constitutional and statutory rights were made knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and further that she understood all the consequences of her plea. Moreover, the record reflects that the defendant confirmed that she was intellectually capable of entering and understanding her plea agreement. Accordingly, it is the judgment and sentence of this court that the defendant shall be sentenced to a term of life in prison without the possibility of parole for the underlying murder charge coupled with the special torture, special circumstance, allegation under Pinnacle code section 190.2, subsection A18. With respect to Mr. Isario Aguirre, I'll ask counsel, do you waive arraignment for judgment and sentencing? Yes. Any legal cause where judgment should not be pronounced? [00:47:15] Speaker 5: None other than previously addressed. [00:47:17] Speaker 1: All right. It is the judgment and sentence of this court that for the crime of murder in the first degree committed under the special circumstance, that the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture. Defendant Asadio Aguirre shall be put to death within the walls of the California State Prison at San Quentin, in a manner and means prescribed by law, upon a date to be fixed by this court and a warrant of execution. The defendant is ordered remanded to the custody of the sheriff of the county of Los Angeles without bail, to be delivered by him within ten days from today's date, June 7th, 2018, to the warden of the State Prison of the State of California at San Quentin. The defendant is to be held in custody there pending the final determination of the defendant's automatic appeal and pending further order of this court. Upon the final determination of the defendant, the defendant, and the issuance of the death warrant by this court, the defendant shall be transported to the California State Prison at San Quentin for the death sentence, where the death sentence shall be executed. At this time, the court is going to sign the commitment and judgment of death. On the record, it will affix its signature and today's date, June 7th, to be attested by my clerk. Now, aside from the sentence that the court has imposed on each defendant, each defendant will also be subjected to the following terms and conditions, and that is that they are not to own or possess any firearms to the extent that they are in possession of any firearms in their household. They are to be confiscated and surrendered. They are to provide all appropriate DNA samples and palm prints, impressions pursuant to Penal Code Section 290 and 296.1. Each is to pay a restitution fine of $300. The court will stay the parole revocation fine of $300. Each is to pay a court security fee of $40 and a criminal convictions assessment fee of $30. We need the credits also. [00:49:32] Speaker 2: 1,841. [00:49:34] Speaker 1: There's one? It's $300. Yeah, right. Right. Okay. I'm sorry? [00:49:42] Speaker ?: 1,841. [00:49:43] Speaker 1: Is that the same for both? Yes. Give it to me again. 1,000. [00:49:48] Speaker ?: 841. [00:49:49] Speaker 1: Actual time. Okay. Anything further from either side? I have one. [00:49:54] Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. The court ordered Mr. Adhiri to be transported within 10 days, and there's a matter of, any matter of correcting the record, and I'm wondering if the timing of that and if Mr. Adhiri's presence is required for that. [00:50:14] Speaker 1: I don't think so. If he wants to waive his presence, with respect, all we're going to do is settle a statement. Most of which I advised you that my reporter is still working on it, but she's had an opportunity to go to the substantial part of it, and that what you've requested is going to be modified, and they're well taken, in other words. If he wants to waive his presence to just that formality, why don't you -- Maybe we just have one more. Absolutely. Christine, do you need these? David, do you need these too? [00:50:39] Speaker 6: Make sure you give it all back to me, other than the motions you can keep. And the probation reports I'll put over here. Okay. [00:50:58] Speaker ?: Sure. Yep. [00:51:00] Speaker 12: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:51:03] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:51:03] Speaker 12: Sure. [00:51:04] Speaker ?: Yep. Thank you. Just actually. Okay. Just actually. Okay. Just actually. Okay. All right. [00:51:12] Speaker 12: All right. [00:51:13] Speaker ?: All right. [00:51:14] Speaker 12: Mr. Aguirre, we're going to set a date in the future to correct the record just with certain [00:51:16] Speaker 1: transcriptions of, uh, uh, uh, uh, statements and, uh, uh, during the proceedings of, uh, testimony and so forth just to correct the statements that were made. Uh, as I said to your, uh, counsel, most of them are, are well taken. And we're just going to set a date to address those. And you have a right to be present if you wish. I understand you're waiving that right. Counsel concur. [00:52:01] Speaker 3: Your Honor, I -- I'm sorry. Your Honor, I think I may have miscommunicated the court. Mr. Aguirre has indicated that he does not wish to waive his presence. All right. [00:52:15] Speaker 1: So you want to be present. All right. We'll order him out for that date. All right. Very good. We'll set a date. [00:52:21] Speaker 5: It's a matter of setting that date. [00:52:22] Speaker 1: Yeah. We'll set a date. What were you looking for? I think my reporter will be ready to address this fairly shortly. Is that correct? Yes. Is that correct? Is that correct? We're off next week. That's right. Two weeks. Two weeks. Two-week time period is going to take you to about June 21st. [00:52:38] Speaker 5: If I could inquire, Your Honor, what we were hoping is that we could receive something indicating to us what's in dispute. If that requires more time, setting a date further away, we would agree to a further date. It would run much smoother if we received some kind of notice, either in opposition or what's that issue? [00:53:05] Speaker 1: Why don't we do this? We'll set it for three weeks in the interim in a week. The reporter will provide both sides with the proposed changes and the status and so forth. And then on the third week, which will take us to the 28th of June, we'll address the settle statement. How's that? Very good. [00:53:26] Speaker 7: Your Honor, I'm sorry if I may. I believe it's the Sheriff Department policy that all convinced inmates to death or immediately forthwith transferred over to state prison. A short turnaround such as that, I don't know if it would be time to get to state prison and come back to the county system in that time. [00:53:41] Speaker 1: All right. Well, let's do this. We'll set it for that date nonetheless. I'll look into that matter and we may have to continue it if that is it, you know, the policy or that's logistically what's -- you're going to need additional time. And I'm also going to look into whether the defendant has to be present at all for the settled statement. But certainly we may need to continue the date of the 28th. We'll see. All right? [00:54:04] Speaker 3: All right. If we learn, Your Honor, that Mr. Uri has been transported, we'll bring that to the court's attention as well. Very good. [00:54:09] Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you all. [00:54:11] Speaker 4: Yes, you want to address something? Your Honor, just so I'm clear, even though Prop 66 passed and it doesn't indicate that the court needs to appoint Mr. Uri appellate counsel, my understanding is the law Senator Superior Court as of right now does not. [00:54:23] Speaker 1: Well, that issue has been mulling around. And in fact, we have Judge Ryan who's the head of the Ritz Center. He personally contacted the clerk of the Supreme Court at this point. That is still up in the air. And so for habeas counsel and appointment of habeas counsel, someone needs to be appointed down the road. I am not going to do that at this time. And ultimately someone's going to be appointed, but we don't know who at this point. Okay. All right. Anything further? [00:54:49] Speaker 5: All right. So just if the court, as I said before on this issue, if the court changes its mind and, for instance, the issue's going to be raised in the 28th when we're next here or any other day, if we could be notified in advance, because I would like to file paperwork on that. We, of course, also would like counsel appointed for Mr. Aguirre. Our concern is that the implementation of a system of standards for those attorneys has not been created. There is no payment system created yet, nor is there any funding for investigative and ancillary services. And so I believe that Prop 66 expects the creation of those. And absent that, Mr. Aguirre would not be provided competent counsel, nor would his counsel be funded. So -- [00:55:50] Speaker 1: And I think that those -- you've touched on some of the issues which are trying to be ironed out with respect to Prop 66, and that's why the Supreme Court clerk was contacted. It may turn out that the resource center may be appointed. We don't know. But certainly someone's going to be appointed. We have to find out where that's going to come from, including the funding for that. Very good. All right? Very good. So we'll see everybody on the 28th unless you hear something before that. Not you. Not you. You're finished. All right. Thank you. [00:56:19] Speaker 7: Thank you. Any audience, please. I can't see it until we get to the fitness. [00:56:22] Speaker 1: Alex? David, do you want this first or she wants it first? Okay. Okay. All right. Make sure I get this back. Okay. Thank you. All right. [00:56:33] Speaker ?: Okay. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.