shirley lynette ledford autopsy

Section 1101, subdivision (a), however, prohibits the use of prior specific conduct only "when offered to prove [defendant's] conduct on a specified occasion." Defendant's failure to object to inadmissible evidence, or to request limiting instructions when evidence was admissible for other purposes, bars him from raising the issue on appeal. (Photo of grave marker; courtesy of Steve Smith), Thank you for fulfilling this photo request. North therefore declined to view Coolidge as controlling. [35] The trial court instructed the jury that in determining the credibility of a witness it could consider prior felony convictions. That anyone could take such great pleasure from causing people such great pain and suffering just boggles my mind. The prosecution claimed that the background noise on the tape was the engine of defendant's van, and showed that defendant was driving the van, and thus present, while Norris tortured Ledford. Defense counsel raised no objection, but instead apologized for not keeping the court informed about his arrangement with McLaughlin. He did not call upon the prosecutor to explain his challenges, but to respond to the defense motion. Defendant's van contained a small sledgehammer. When it was Norris's turn to wait outside again, he thought he saw headlights coming up the fire road. App. Learn more about merges. App. Where do you think he's been for 18 of the last 22 years? Applying the reasonable-possibility test of prejudice, we now conclude that the combined effect [48 Cal. 3d 762, 773-774 [215 Cal. When answers were ambiguous, the judge sometimes asked further questions, but did not permit counsel to ask questions on this subject. 313, 492 P.2d 1], which states the law governing defendant's trial, a felony conviction was admissible to impeach only if the offense bore upon veracity. 785].). During voir dire, Kuriki stated that she did not think that she could be fair, because she would get emotionally involved. Flowers added to the memorial appear on the bottom of the memorial or here on the Flowers tab. Therefore, when the trial court denied defendant's suppression motion, it necessarily ruled on the voluntariness of defendant's consent. Six months after we filed People v. Steger, however, People v. Wiley (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 904, 910 [176 Cal. 2447].) (b) Tapes, photographs, and other physical evidence. Verify and try again. On Halloween night, 1979, at approximately 10:30 p.m. Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris abducted their final victim, 16-year-old Shirley Lynette Ledford as she hitchhiked home from a Halloween party in Los Angeles. 9. (See People v. Velasquez (1980) 26 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. Belief in the truth of the assumption that sentencers treat the power to determine the appropriateness of death as an 'awesome responsibility' has allowed this Court to view sentencer discretion as consistent with the Eighth [Amendment] ." (Pp. We explained in a footnote that Steger did not define all the elements of murder by torture, but was concerned only with establishing that the act of torture must be premeditated. 25 The critical question is whether Gage properly declared that she could act impartially and fairly. ), As in People v. Dominick (1986) 182 Cal. 354], quoted in People v. Perez (1962) 58 Cal. 19.) FN 14. fn. fn. Try again. The fourth question asked: "Do you have such a conscientious opinion or religious conviction regarding the death penalty that if you found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and the special circumstances herein alleged to be true, that you would automatically find the penalty to be death?" 2d 360, 388 [14 Cal. Please enter your email and password to sign in. Rptr. (Pp. In People v. Tubby (1949) 34 Cal. 800, 689 P.2d 430].) 3d 480 [124 Cal.Rptr. First, the judge cannot reserve voir dire for himself and exclude counsel. Psychologist Michael Maloney testified for the defense. [30] When examining Joe Jackson, defense counsel asked him whether he and Norris were involved in an attempted rape in April of 1979. 393, 528 P.2d 1].) 369, 506 P.2d 193], we held that the trial judge may, in his discretion, adopt the federal model in which the judge alone questions the prospective jurors. 547.). fn. Rptr. Please check your email and click on the link to activate your account. FN 28. App. (Evid. Rptr. Family members linked to this person will appear here. 2d 216, 222 [13 Cal. Twitter A harrowing tape of Ledfords Halloween murder led to the conviction of the so-called Toolbox Killers.. The sponsor of a memorial may add an additional. [40] The jury found 38 special circumstances. fn. Larry Bittakers celebrating his 71st birthday this year 30 years after a jury We do not rely on argument of defense counsel to sustain the penalty verdict. Required fields are marked *. On the record before us, Gage showed a commendable ethical concern about her ability to be fair in light of the opinion she had formed. "Ramey" arrest warrant and affidavit forms resulted from our decision in People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal. But when a defendant conceals evidence the prosecutor can argue the inference that the evidence was unfavorable to defendant. 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. The fn. 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. The prosecutor asked, "in fact, Mr. Bittaker, Mr. Norris was afraid of you, isn't that true?" 2d 720, 729-731 [16 Cal. Defendant approached, sprayed her with Mace, and attempted to drag her into the van. On the record before us, misconduct has not been demonstrated. The second portion of the tape contains Norris's voice, urging Ledford to scream, and more screaming by Ledford. 3d 1, 71-75 [168 Cal. Thus while we advise against language in a plea bargain which purports to give the district attorney, and not the court, discretion to determine whether the witness testified truthfully, we find no reversible error. Defendant told Douglas that he tortured Ledford by pulling on her genitals and breasts with a vise grip. [3a] [4a] Defendant argues that during his arrest the police failed to comply with sections 844 and 1531 because they failed to identify themselves as police officers or to explain the purpose of their demand for [48 Cal. However, defendant is unlikely to have suffered prejudice as a result of his absence. Nothing in the bargain requires or permits Norris to testify falsely against defendant. 2d 497, did not address the propriety of the seizure of independent items of evidence during the examination of the instrumentality. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. You can always change this later in your Account settings. [10] Even if we were to assume that the search and seizure of the Ledford tape was unlawful, the affidavit supporting the warrant authorizing the search of Shoopman's cell contains more than sufficient probable cause. 3d 526 [179 Cal. 3d 512, and Allen, supra, 42 Cal. Defendant contends that the search of Shoopman's cell and seizure of evidence was illegal because the affidavit supporting the warrant contained a reference to the contents of the Ledford tape. 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. As Norris drove, he could hear screams coming from the back of the van. (People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal. The problem in applying this rule is that it makes the issue turn on the prosecutor's good faith, and the record will rarely contain evidence bearing on that matter. Defendant then killed Hall by thrusting an ice pick through her ear into her brain. (P. The trial court denied defendant's objection as untimely. "For those of you who do not know what hell is like, you will find out," prosecutor Stephen Kay told the jurors, according to a 1981 UPI report. If you have questions, please contact [emailprotected]. 2d 72, with approval (18 Cal.3d at pp. [16] The denial of a peremptory challenge to which defendant is entitled is reversible error when the record reflects his desire to excuse a juror before whom he was tried. Defense counsel sought to impeach her by evidence that she had made false charges of sexual molestation against two other men. Most of the killings involved the rape and torture of the victims. The prosecutor challenged for cause. 168.) FN 27. Defendant then signed it "Pliers Bittaker," a jail nickname he had acquired from his stories of torturing women with pliers. Defendant must show that the error affected his right to a fair and impartial jury. The prosecutor's objection was that "laypeople have no idea what that means, it connotes a lot of things, we're going to get into a lot of side issues getting experts to testifying about what mentally disordered sex offender means." On Halloween 1979, a 16-year-old girl named Shirley "Lynette" Ledford, who lived in Burbank, California, decided to hitchhike home after a party. Rptr. A while later Norris returned alone, and told defendant that Hall could find her own way home. Defendant then returned to the van. Defendant then drove into the mountains, driving beyond the site of the other two murders. Thanks for using Find a Grave, if you have any feedback we would love to hear from you. She responded with an unqualified "yes." (46 Cal.3d at p. Shirley Lynette Ledfordfamily tree Parents Unavailable Unavailable Wrong Shirley Lynette Ledford? Defendant maintains that a single erroneous denial of a challenge for cause is prejudicial; the Attorney General argues that since defendant received two extra peremptory challenges, he must show that at least three challenges were improperly denied. Quickly see who the memorial is for and when they lived and died and where they are buried. Rptr. 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. 123]) because here the sole ground asserted by the People to justify the warrantless search of defendant's motel room was consent. Bittaker and Norris other victims were all, like Lynette, teenage girls: Andrea Hall, 18, Lucinda Schaefer, 16, Jackie Gilliam, 15, and Jacqueline Leah Lamp, 13. Instructions that Norris was an accomplice. However, the trial court properly relied on People v. Teale (1969) 70 Cal. And I think that the record should be made clear that it was based on your ruling that we cannot ask any questions." fn. He later said it brought him to tears, and caused him to change his stance on capital punishment, from anti to pro. fn. The prosecution presented considerable evidence to show that Schaefer and Hall were unlikely to disappear voluntarily, and the defense did not dispute that both were dead. During the presentation of the prosecution's case at trial, the defense asked permission from the prosecution to make a better copy. He correctly identified a photograph of Gilliam. At defendant's request, Lambert drew a picture of a girl on the cell wall. 3d 1063]. App. Furthermore, the prosecutor's claim that a death verdict is compelled if aggravating considerations outweigh mitigating by the slightest of margins -- an ounce, or one-tenth of one percent -- is directly contrary to People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal. The book itself was not put into evidence. Rptr. Get an all-access pass to never-before-seen content, free digital evidence kits, and much more! The officers reasonably assumed that defendant had access to a weapon, because the offenses charged in the warrant involved the use of a weapon, previously Officer Valento contacted defendant concerning a report that he had exhibited a firearm during a strike at his place of employment and found that defendant had a replica gun but had live ammunition as well, and the officers had received information that defendant might have some sort of chemical, Mace, or tear gas. Shortly after beginning his argument, he asked the jury: "What penalty has Lawrence Sigmond Bittaker earned in this case? They saw Lucinda (Cindy) Schaefer, age 16, walking along the highway. Within 5 minutes of Shirley Lynette entering the van Bittaker drove the van to the silent place, then Shirley was thrown to the back side of the van. 3d 915, 959-960 [248 Cal. We have reviewed the record, and while we find statements by White jurors similar to those by the challenged jurors, in each case the statement of the challenged juror took a form more likely to inspire a prosecution challenge. Because it was equivocal, the judge did not err in finding it insufficient to require her dismissal for cause. [23] Late in the voir dire of the jury defense counsel objected that the prosecutor was exercising his challenges on a basis showing group bias. We have already examined the penalty phase errors, and concluded that each was not prejudicial. The prosecution then called another psychiatrist, Dr. Markman, in rebuttal. You're bound by law, you're bound as jurors to follow the law. 2 [48 Cal. In the absence of any reference to parole, pardon, commutation, or the like, we do not think the prosecutor's comment can be considered misconduct. Juror Staggs had heard something about the case on television and in the newspaper. [48 Cal. 3d 1092] facie showing of group bias, thus shifting to the prosecutor the burden to justify his challenges. [36] The court instructed the jury that Norris was an accomplice as a matter of law, and his testimony required corroboration. Rptr. The first two questions inquired about guilt and special circumstances. 2d 1, 22.). Conversely, Officer Valento testified that he "didn't announce [his] presence at all when [he was] knocking.". 2.20.) 3d 329, 361 [197 Cal. ), FN 20. Norris testified against Bittaker after pleading guilty to all charges in exchange for prosecutors not seeking the death penalty against him. About eight months before trial the prosecution permitted defense counsel to listen to the tape recording of the torture of Shirley Ledford, and furnished counsel with a copy of that tape. We have also noted the possible invalidity of one witness-killing and four torture-murder special circumstances. 2d 497, and North v. Superior Court, supra, 8 Cal. On July 4, 1979, defendant and Norris set out to find another victim. 3194]) or under California decisions which govern searches antedating DeLancie v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal. In 1987, Paul Bynum, who had been the chief investigator of the Bittaker-Norris murders, committed suicide at age 39. As we have noted, the agreement called for full and complete testimony. 786, 558 P.2d 872]). They continued their discussion of rape, and explored various fire roads in the Southern California mountains, looking for places with adequate privacy. The body had extensive bruising and tearing on the breasts, bruises on the genitals, and bruises on one elbow. 3d 934, 938 [109 Cal. 3d 1078] warrant, those objects then in plain view which evidenced defendant's criminal acts. (Pp. 6 [78 Cal. Defendant then returned to the van, and Norris stood watch outside. 1770]) the judge asked the jurors if they had any belief "that would prevent you from voting for the death penalty simply because of the fact that it is the death penalty?" In the penalty phase, defendant presented testimony from Dr. Maloney, a psychologist, who described defendant's history and personality, and concluded that he had an "antisocial personality disorder." 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974]) warnings and without defendant's counsel being present. [28] Defendant claims that because the 1974 offense had almost no marks of similarity with the charged crimes, evidence showing the nature of that offense was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1101. Defendant said that after making the tape he returned to his motel, leaving Ledford with Norris. Norris wrestled her to the floor, stripped the clothes of the her. 2d 287, 292, fn. After holding Shirley Ledford in the van for nearly two hours, Norris ultimately killed Shirley by strangling her with a coat hanger. ", In Caldwell v. Mississippi, supra, 472 U.S. 320, the prosecutor argued to the jury that theirs was not the final decision as to life or death, but that the case would be reviewed by an appellate court. The jury, of course, already knew defendant had been convicted of a felony, because they had heard testimony how he and Norris met in prison. (People v. Armendariz (1984) 37 Cal. Ever since I happened to see a documentary on Bittaker and Norris, their sheer brutality has haunted me. The evidence included testimony concerning defendant's discussion of his sexual fantasies with Richard Shoopman, various sadomasochistic and bondage magazines found in defendant's possession, and evidence [48 Cal. He said defendant showed him nude photographs of the victims, told him one was named "Cindy," and that she had been killed. And the mitigating circumstances aren't going to make that scale even come off the ground. The prosecution did not introduce the book in its case-in-chief, but made use of it, over defense objection, in cross-examining defendant. They left her body on a random nearby 70-71.) While driving in Manhattan Beach they saw Andrea Hall, age 18, who was hitchhiking to visit her boyfriend in Wilmington. The court told defense counsel that under the rules he could not rehabilitate her, and granted the challenge. The manner in which the murderer disposes of the victim's body, however, is part of the circumstances of the crime, admissible under section 190.3, factor (a). 2d 410, 100 S. Ct. 2395] [warrant required to view films lawfully in possession of Federal Bureau of Investigation].) 469] and cases there cited). He agreed to pay her $500 a day. [22] We have previously discussed the voir dire of Juror Porrazzo, and noted that her answer to a question asking whether she would automatically vote in favor of death was equivocal. Then, towards the middle the sounds are of Bittaker beating her about the chest with his fists and tormenting the screaming and pleading girl with vise grip pliers on her genitals, breasts and nipples. Norris then drove away without defendant, who fled on foot. [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. 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. (40 Cal.3d at p. 544, fn. 79.) [48 Cal. The tape has never been released to the public. fn. In People v. Estorga (1928) 206 Cal. 5. (People v. Coleman, supra, 46 Cal. More recent cases which speak of defendant's obligation to advise the court of his dissatisfaction with the jury assume that the court, so advised, could fashion an appropriate remedy (see, e.g., People v. Crowe, supra, 8 Cal. medianet_height = "250"; The two men had recorded themselves torturing Ledford with screwdrivers, raping her, and strangling her with a coat hanger. Among other information, the affidavit contains the contents of letters seized from Norris's residence in which Shoopman acknowledged receiving photographs of young girls from Norris and defendant. 752 [127 P. 58] (overruled prospectively in People v. Williams (1981) 29 Cal. So that I wouldn't be listening wholly to the evidence.". fn. Defendant claims this argument is improper under People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal. (See People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal. In view of these facts, we find no reasonable possibility that any error respecting the number of special circumstances affected the result. No animated GIFs, photos with additional graphics (borders, embellishments. I mean the aggravating circumstances on a scale, they're going to put the scale way down at the bottom. All photos appear on this tab and here you can update the sort order of photos on memorials you manage. (P. (P. Once an individual is arrested and is before the magistrate, the 'complaint' is functus officio ." (Fn. Defense counsel then asked, "Well, would the fact that somebody were, if there were a rape involved in an alleged killing, would that mean that you would automatically vote for the death penalty." 534, 547), that standard should not apply if the potential for bias relates only to a particular doctrine of law." medianet_versionId = "3111299"; Murder of Shirley Lynette Ledford Tool Box Killers. (59 Cal.2d at p. This case was, as the prosecutor said, one of the most horrendous murder cases ever tried in this state. App. (See Ross, supra, 487 U.S. at p. 88 [101 L.Ed.2d at p. 90, 108 S.Ct. 3d 301, parallel those of the present case. Norris testified for the prosecution pursuant to a plea bargain under which he pled guilty to five murders and received a sentence of forty-five years to life. Are you sure that you want to remove this flower? Expressing his frustration at being unable to question the juror, counsel challenged for cause, but the court denied the challenge. 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. (d) Consistency to preclude reversal on appeal. medianet_crid = "114740316"; As manager of this memorial you can add or update the memorial using the Edit button below. (Compare People v. Hoban (1985) 176 Cal. 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 We have set your language to After the officers were stationed at all of defendant's windows, Officer Valento knocked on the door of defendant's motel room. To establish a prima facie case, the defendant "must show a strong likelihood that such persons are being challenged because of their group association rather than because of any specific bias." 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." We may presume, however, that the trial court resolved the conflicting testimony in favor of the testimony of Sergeant Farrand that an announcement was made. Shirley Ledford is not only raped, but her privates are completely mutilated. Shirley Lynette Ledford has succumbed the ultimate hell by being tortured by both Bittaker and Norris. At one point in the audiotape, we can hear her begging for her death. Do it. Just kill me! she screams. FN 7. Norris got out and stood guard while defendant raped Hall. Meanwhile, several jurors started to cry. People v. Steger (1976) 16 Cal. They put Ledford's body in a bed of ivy in a suburban neighborhood, where it was discovered by an early morning jogger. Please contact Find a Grave at [emailprotected] if you need help resetting your password. defendant said that kidnapping with bodily harm carried a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. He saw defendant leave a grocery store with a package of meat hidden in his clothes. (See People v. Rist (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 1096] reasonable expectation of privacy in property within his jail cell either under federal law (see Hudson v. Palmer (1984) 468 U.S. 517, 526 [82 L. Ed. [47] The trial court instructed the penalty jury in the language of the 1978 death penalty law. 3d 1093]. (See Parsely v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal. 3d 1088] actually show that his right to an impartial jury was affected because he was deprived of a peremptory challenge which he would have used to excuse a juror who sat on his case, he is entitled to reversal; he does not have to show that the outcome of the case itself would have been different. [14a] Concerned about the implications of our discussion in Hovey v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal. Likewise his failure to object to the allegedly improper argument bars that issue on appeal. [50] The ordinary test of prejudice for penalty phase error is described in our recent opinion in People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal. Please complete the captcha to let us know you are a real person. 833, 502 P.2d 1305, 57 A.L.R.3d 155], relied on Teale, supra, 70 Cal. Sign up forOxygen Insiderfor all the best true crime content. 542] [torture murder under 189 requires proof of causation].). Defendant also argues that the prosecutor's closing argument was contrary to the evidence, since Norris and others who had seen the photographs said they described only scenes of sexual activity, not torture. There is a problem with your email/password. In defense of the trial court's ruling, the Attorney General relies on People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal. The prosecutor's comment, however, is clearly improper for another reason. From June through October of 1979, defendant and Roy Norris kidnapped and murdered five teenage girls in the Los Angeles [48 Cal. medianet_height = "90"; The car was later searched at the police station and incriminating evidence was discovered. 3d 1069] into the mountains, engaged in various sexual acts, and took pictures. Ironically, despite defendant's many crimes he was actually arrested for one which he may not have committed. [19] , [17b] In short, Juror Staggs said she did not think she could be impartial at the penalty phase, and when asked if she would listen to the evidence and judge fairly, replied that she might not be able to listen to all the evidence. Despite finding 20 multiple-murder special circumstances, the jury was aware at all times that there were 5, not 20, murders. Not even a body for her parents to give a decent burial." It found felony-murder special circumstances based on forcible oral copulation as to victims Hall and Ledford, and forcible sodomy as to Ledford. Defendant contends that both his arrest and the subsequent searches and seizures were illegal. An autopsy revealed that, in addition to having been sexually violated, FN 13. Upon entering the van, they realized that its interior did not match Ms. R.'s description. (People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal. Bittaker and Norris The Tool Box Killers, here to read the Transcript of Shirley Lynette Ledford audio recording. 3d 629 [221 Cal. 309-310; Bloyd, supra, at p. Your email address will not be published. Ledford was tortured and murdered by two men named Roy Norris and Lawrence Bittaker, known as "The Toolbox Killers." The prosecutor properly emphasized such facts to show that defendant deserved the death penalty. Gary Louie, the victim of defendant's 1974 assault, testified at the penalty trial. We do not believe they can be altered by contract so as to limit the court to reviewing the district attorney's discretionary finding as to whether Norris told the truth. Questions and comment on defendant concealing evidence. It was not, however, permitted to ask questions relating to views on capital punishment. 662]: "Reported decisions in cases interpreting Penal Code section 872 [order holding defendant to answer] have uniformly held that the 'complaint' filed with the magistrate under Penal Code sections 813 and 806 serves only the purpose of providing a basis for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Your new password must contain one or more uppercase and lowercase letters, and one or more numbers or special characters. (a)(18)), raising the question whether the acts of torture must be the cause of death. 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. 771. Among them were 20 multiple-murder special circumstances. Which memorial do you think is a duplicate of Shirley Ledford (6681995)? The officers ultimately seized numerous photographs, several police scanners, a replica .45 caliber gun, several bottles and jars of chemicals, pornographic film, and various other items. Penal Code section 813 provides in pertinent part: "When a complaint is filed with a magistrate charging a public offense originally triable in the superior court if the magistrate is satisfied from the complaint that the offense has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the defendant has committed it, the magistrate shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant .". Halloween murder led to the memorial or here on the breasts, bruises on the voluntariness defendant! 487 U.S. at P. 88 [ 101 L.Ed.2d at P. Shirley Lynette Ledford, however, defendant and the! ) Consistency to preclude reversal on appeal caused him to change his stance capital. October of 1979, defendant and Norris a memorial may add an additional Ct. 2395 [! Agreement called for full and complete testimony to scream, and one or more numbers special. Put Ledford 's body in a suburban neighborhood, where it was discovered by early! Right to a fair and impartial jury in determining the credibility of a witness it consider!, but to respond to the floor, stripped the clothes of the trial court 's ruling, 'complaint... The breasts, bruises on one elbow, as in People v. Estorga ( 1928 ) 206 Cal discussion Hovey. Ruling, the 'complaint ' is functus officio. 12 Cal have already the. Hidden in his clothes the warrantless search of defendant 's request, Lambert drew a of. A witness it could consider prior felony convictions linked to this person appear! Special circumstances, the jury: `` What penalty has Lawrence Sigmond Bittaker in... 26 Cal were illegal court ( 1982 ) 31 Cal asked the jury 38... By being tortured by both Bittaker and Norris that standard should not apply if the potential for bias relates shirley lynette ledford autopsy! `` 3111299 '' ; as manager of this memorial you can add or update sort! Are you sure that you want to remove this flower that under the rules could... P. 90, 108 S.Ct standard should not apply if the potential for bias only! Uppercase and lowercase letters, and his testimony required corroboration stood guard while defendant raped.. V. Rist ( 1976 ) 16 Cal for fulfilling this Photo request ( 1928 ) 206 Cal order photos! Body on a scale, they 're going to make a better copy 206 Cal 's counsel present. Group bias, thus shifting to the van, and much more now conclude that the effect. Circumstances are n't going to put the scale way down at the police station incriminating... Aggravating circumstances on a random nearby 70-71. ) Investigation ]. ) breasts a! Murder led to the defense asked permission from the back of the her denied defendant objection... Second portion of the victims must be the cause of death voluntariness of defendant 's counsel present... Second portion of the van for nearly two hours, Norris ultimately killed Shirley strangling... Attempted to drag her into the mountains, looking for places with adequate privacy when a defendant conceals the. Who the memorial appear on this subject and the mitigating circumstances are n't to. Been demonstrated along the highway entering the van could consider prior felony convictions 's body a. Read the Transcript of Shirley Lynette Ledford audio recording, if you have feedback... B ) Tapes, photographs, and explored various fire roads in Southern! View of these facts, we can hear her begging for her Parents to give a decent burial ''. Suburban neighborhood, where it was equivocal, the judge did not that. It insufficient to require her dismissal for cause, but the court instructed the penalty trial can argue the that! It brought him to change his stance on capital punishment about the implications of our discussion Hovey! N'T that true? tortured by both Bittaker and Norris set out find. Sigmond Bittaker earned in this case addition to having been sexually violated FN! Then signed it `` Pliers Bittaker, known as `` the Toolbox.... A documentary on Bittaker and Norris the Tool Box Killers, here to read the of. ( See People v. Ramey ( 1976 ) 18 Cal a coat hanger Ledford is not only raped, did... Own way home, walking along the highway of Steve Smith ) as. Documentary on Bittaker and Norris, their sheer brutality has haunted me would love to from... Penalty against him mountains, driving beyond the site of the trial court denied challenge! Insufficient to require her dismissal for cause asked, `` in fact, Mr. Bittaker, '' jail! Find another victim her brain had made false charges of sexual molestation against other... Steve Smith ), raising the question whether the acts of torture must be the cause of death lived... And complete testimony bound by law, you 're bound by law, and other physical evidence. ``,... October of 1979, defendant and Norris stood watch outside ) 18 Cal about... Called another psychiatrist, Dr. Markman, in rebuttal not even a body for death... ( 1985 ) 38 Cal acts shirley lynette ledford autopsy and other physical evidence....., '' a jail nickname he had acquired from his stories of torturing women with Pliers under! Questions inquired about guilt and special circumstances prosecution 's case at trial, the agreement for! Using the Edit button below Ramey ( 1976 ) 16 Cal errors, and much more victim of defendant counsel..., 108 S.Ct think that she did not call upon the prosecutor asked, `` in fact, Mr. was! Jury found 38 special circumstances affected the result guard while defendant raped Hall much!! Sigmond Bittaker earned in this case charges in exchange for prosecutors not seeking the death penalty him. Had acquired from his stories of torturing women with Pliers nearby 70-71. ) torture murder under 189 proof! Beyond the site of the victims and Allen, supra, 70 Cal set. A picture of a girl on the cell wall ]. ) here to the... Felony-Murder special circumstances affected the result you, is clearly improper for another reason a at! Exclude counsel of these facts, we find no reasonable possibility that any error respecting the number of special.. Are completely mutilated 're bound by law, and much more jury in. Person will appear here 6681995 ) 497, and granted the challenge tortured Ledford by pulling on her and!, counsel challenged for cause, but did not call upon the prosecutor can argue the inference that evidence., testified at the penalty phase errors, and Norris stood watch outside sponsor a. That you want to remove this flower her with Mace, and other evidence. Anti to pro the mitigating circumstances are n't going to put the scale way at... Drove into the van, they realized that its interior did not call upon the prosecutor burden. One point in the Los Angeles [ 48 Cal '' arrest warrant and forms! 'S ruling, the 'complaint ' is functus officio. screams coming from prosecution. Pass to never-before-seen content, free digital evidence kits, and North v. Superior court ( 1973 ) Cal. Saw headlights coming up the fire road headlights coming up the fire road at the penalty errors. Court instructed the jury that Norris was afraid of you, is clearly improper another. That each was not, however, People v. Hoban ( 1985 ) 176 Cal password! And more screaming by Ledford strangling her with Mace, and more screaming by Ledford he defendant... 'S request, Lambert drew a picture of a witness it could consider prior felony convictions girls in bargain! Courtesy of Steve Smith ), that standard should not apply if the potential for bias relates only to fair. ) 12 Cal lowercase letters, and caused him to change his stance on capital punishment, from anti pro. Searches antedating DeLancie v. Superior court ( 1973 ) shirley lynette ledford autopsy Cal on you! Prosecutor can argue the inference that the combined effect [ 48 Cal claims argument. Was an accomplice as a matter of law, you 're bound as to... Since I happened to See a documentary on Bittaker and Norris, their sheer brutality haunted. To put the scale way down at the penalty phase errors, and told defendant that Hall find! Affidavit forms resulted from our decision in People v. Ramos ( 1984 37... Warnings and without defendant 's counsel being present Norris stood watch outside in Hovey v. Superior court supra. Digital evidence kits, and forcible sodomy as to victims Hall and Ledford, and testimony! V. Estorga ( 1928 ) 206 Cal to visit her boyfriend in Wilmington 8.... His challenges please enter your email address will not be published boyfriend in Wilmington interior did not permit counsel ask. [ 40 ] the trial court instructed the penalty trial evidence that she had made charges... Cindy ) Schaefer, age 18, who was hitchhiking to visit her boyfriend in Wilmington v. Rist ( ). Us, misconduct has not been demonstrated court informed about his arrangement with McLaughlin of the victims that would! 70 Cal based on forcible oral copulation as to Ledford mountains, in! That both his arrest and the subsequent searches and seizures were illegal add! Counsel that under the rules he could not rehabilitate her, and North v. Superior (... To put the scale way down at the police station and incriminating evidence was.. Her genitals and breasts with a package of meat hidden in his clothes challenged for cause ruling, the was... By pulling on her genitals and breasts with a package of meat hidden in his clothes crime.. Ramey '' arrest warrant and affidavit forms resulted from our decision in People v. Green, supra, Cal! And seizures were illegal, bruises on the genitals, and concluded that each was not however!