Justice for Gwen Araujo

Victory in Hayward

2005-09-14T23:53:00.000-07:00

Christopher Daley, Transgender Law Center

One thing was clear when the jury came back this week with second degree murder convictions against Micheal Magidson and Jose Merel for killing Gwen Araujo -- transgender panic strategies have no traction in Bay Area courtrooms.

Two juries in two years proved this by repudiating aggressive and ethically debatable arguments that Gwen, as a transgender teen, was responsible for her own murder. The take-home message for defense attorneys around the country is: relying on a juror’s bias against transgender people will get your clients no reprieve from being held accountable for the violence they commit against transgender people. For that reason alone, Tuesday’s verdicts have to be seen as a huge victory.

Some community members are disappointed that the jury didn’t convict either Magidson or Merel of a hate crime and were unable to agree on the culpability of Jason Cazares. Hopefully, this disappointment doesn’t overshadow the victories that this case has produced over the last three years. This is one of those moments in a community’s lifespan when it is especially important to look for the big picture and not let the failure to get the outcome we wanted diminish the outcomes we did get.

No group of people has accomplished as much over the last three years as Gwen’s family and friends. Sylvia, Imelda, David, Delilah, Tina, Pearl, and literally dozens of others have provided us with a vivid example of the powerful role that our families play in advancing LGBT civil rights. Each time one of these folks speaks out, they do more to protect transgender people than I can in a month at my job at the Transgender Law Center.

At the same time, the Alameda County District Attorney’s office has set a new standard for prosecuting transgender murder cases. You don’t have to look any further than Fresno County to see what the standard still is in many DA’s offices. Last month, a Fresno County DA accepted a four year plea bargain for a person who confessed to stabbing and killing a transgender person. In stark contrast, the Alameda DA’s office devoted their office’s full resources to this case not once, but twice. Along the way, they faced and beat down some of the most egregious uses of transgender panic tactics that many of us hope to ever see in a courtroom.

This year, we also saw media coverage that had once been sensationalistic and oftentimes disrespectful of Gwen’s identity evolve into coverage that correctly identified the defendant’s as the people on trial (not Gwen) and their actions as the thing being judged (not Gwen’s identity). This evolution is not limited to Bay Area print, broadcast, and internet journalists. I’ve spoken with journalists from around the U.S. who have said that the coverage of this case has sparked dialogues and changes in their newsrooms as well.

Finally, to be clear, two men have been convicted of crimes that carry a potential for life sentences. Neither of these men is likely to leave prison any time before 2035, if they are ever allowed to leave. A third man, the one who made it possible for Gwen’s family to recover her body, will soon begin serving an 11 year sentence for voluntary manslaughter. And, if the community keeps the pressure on, Jason Cazares will be held accountable, at least in part, for his actions that night.

Of course none of these victories erases the fact that, for many of us, Gwen would be alive if she were a non-transgender woman. For some, that fact eloquently ends the analysis of whether a hate crime was committed. The jury in this case had a different charge, though. They had to apply the evidence presented to them, evidence that was spread out over a two month trial and that often conflicted with itself, to the hate crime law. Everyone I know who attended the trial more than a couple of times is convinced that this jury took their charge seriously and dedicated themselves to reaching a just conclusion in this case. I have to believe that in the final analysis, that is what we got – a just verdict.

In assault cases or other crimes where the number of years a person will serve in prison are modest, a hate crimes conviction can serve as a deterrent to future offenders. However, in a murder trial, such deterrent is less important. In fact, I’m hard pressed to understand what serves as a better deterrent than two second degree murder convictions. And the victory of getting these convictions shouldn’t be lessened simply because they were not accompanied by hate crimes convictions.

I know that it is tempting to give in to disappointment. Our communities have plenty of examples to prove that we aren’t valued or respected in the same way that non-LGBT people are. I just don’t believe the result in this case is one of those examples. And I believe that celebrating these victories, even if they feel incomplete, is a necessary step in the maturing of a civil rights movement dedicated to equal treatment and fairness under the law.

Christopher Daley is the Director of the Transgender Law Center. In 2004, he represented Gwen Araujo’s mother in her efforts to get court recognition of Gwen’s change of name.

2 Verdicts, 1 Mistrial

2005-09-13T11:53:00.000-07:00

Septemeber 12, 2005:

Michael Magidson and Jose Merel were found guilty of 2nd Degree Murder, which carries a sentence of 15 years to life . Jason Cazares' case ended in a mistrial.

Magidson will be sentenced January 6, 2006 at 9 AM.

There will be a date to set a date for Merel's sentencing October 28, 2005 (perhaps due to his attorney's schedule conflicts.)

Cazares' (possible but unlikely) retrial is set for November 18 2005 9:55 AM in Dept. 513. Although it is too early to say, a plea bargain will probably be offered, as 3rd-time retrials are rare.

"2 juries, 2 verdicts--and (both times) total repudiation of the "trans-panic" defense."
--Chris Daly, TG Law Center

True enough, I guess, and I try to take heart in that, although justice was not wholly served. We all felt it.

But we heard Mr. Lamiero when he said--"Don't overlook the fact that this jury--(and the first jury)--rejected that defense," that because Gwen was transgender, that somehow explained or justified these men's crimes.

Although the jury voted 9 to 3 in favor of convicting Jason Cazares of murder, the 3 hold-outs felt there was not enough evidence to convict. "That is not to say they thought Cazares was innocent," Mr. Lamiero told family and supporters in the DA's meeting room.

And why no Hate Crime enhancement? Why did the jury not call this what it was--a horrendous Hate Crime? During the deliberations, the jury inquired, if they could not unanimously agree on the Hate Crime enhancement, "would that affect the verdict(s) overall?" The answer was no. This meant that some jurors understood and wanted the hate crime enhancement to accompany the verdicts, while others did not. Attorney Gloria Allred made several statements to the press that the idea, the definition of "Hate Crime" is new to juries, and that as people get a real understanding of what hate crimes are, this situation will change.

So we, as educators, have our work cut out for us.

As for the "15 years to life"---in California, people convicted of murder, rarely--if ever--get parole. Even though the symbolic verdict of First Degree Murder with a Hate Crime enhancement was not reached, Merel and Magidson will more than likely spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Regarding parole, Lamiero recounted a story about the DAs who prosecuted the Chowchilla kidnappers several years ago, who said: "You have to outlive the notoriety of your crime," in order to receive parole. In other words--when these men go up for parole after 15 years, if there are family and community members there to oppose it, they will stay in prison. That is how it is in California.

Most of us felt that Cazares, not Merel, should have received the harsher verdict. During this trial, the Merel family cooperated with the DA's office investigations. Jose Merel had taken the stand; many of us believed him when he stated that he cared about Gwen, and that it is likely that he was covering for his 2 big friends, Magidson and Cazares. But Merel had an opportunity to tell all he knew, and most of us felt that he did not. He continued to protect Magidson and Cazares, and now he will pay for it for the rest of his life.

When I arrived at the court house yesterday--Monday morning--it was pretty quiet. Gwen Smith, Zak Symanski, and Gloria Allred were there. The Cazares family was there, but otherwise, the hallway was mostly occupied with other court folks conducting their business, which was ordinairy yet strange. Shortly before noon, the clerk called folks into the court room, and the jury came in. Although we knew 2 verdicts were sealed, the jury was polled. They finally told the judge it was unlikely that they could reach a vercict on the 3rd. No one knew who the jury was deadlocked on, but we thought maybe it was Merel, or we hoped that was the case. The attorneys met in hushed voices, and it was agreed they would reconvene at 2:30 PM, and at that time, the verdicts would be read. The jurors had ordered lunch, and it was their intention to continue to deliberate.

It was after 3 PM when we came into court. It was a mobscene--media, of course, and so many people who work for the court. Family members from all concerned were there, it was warm and pretty claustrophobic. It was uncertain if there would be seats for everyone. Emotions were extremely high, the wait seemed very long. And then the verdicts were read.

In a murder trial, there are no winners. No one was happy or victorious. It just doesn't work or feel that way. You just sit there, wishing that this horrible thing hadn't happened period, in the first place, at all.

After the verdicts were read, we went up to a meeting room, and waited to hear from Mr. Lamiero. He arrived, and Sylvia thanked him for his dedication and hard work. A lot of questions were asked, and he did his best to answer them. After 40 minutes or so, folks went out to answer questions from the media.

The Alameda County DA's office gave unprecendented commitment, compassion, and resources to this case. The outcome might have been very different, had it not been for the efforts of Inspector Kathy Boyavich and ADA Chris Lamiero. They admittedly learned a lot from our community, and brought that knowledge forth. They valued Gwen Araujo's life, and made sure that the jury understood that.

Later that night, a vigil was held at the LGBT Center on Market Street in San Francisco at 6PM. Many folks--among them Cecilia Chung, Assembleyman Mark Leno, Shawna Virago, Julie Dorf, Gloria Allred, Gwen Smith, David Guerrero--were on hand to speak out and give their support. It was very moving.

It cannot be emphasized enough that Gwen Araujo was a 17 year old; she had her whole life ahead of her. Day after day in this courtwatch, I had to ask myself (because when I started my job at CUAV doing LGBT education, Gwen was 11 years old, and the men who murdered her were in high school)--what could we as a community have done--(what could I personally have done)--to prevent this from happening?

How could we have created a safer community Gwen?

The answer is education, but what does that mean?

Maybe for me, it means revitalizing our Speakers Bureau, expanding our relationships with other folks doing this work: working with transgender folks who want to educate youth, supporting Sylvia Guerrero and other trans-allied folks who also want to get involved, and expand these resources for schools and community groups. We have to speak out, we can't lose heart.

We have to stay involved.

DA Chris Lamiero’s final rebuttal (08/30/05)

2005-08-31T17:42:00.000-07:00

by P. Espinoza, CUAV

Today ADA Chris Lamiero made his final closing argument. He began by talking about Jaron Nabors’ answer to a question posed to him during cross-examination. He was asked to explain how people are supposed to know when he (Nabors) is telling the truth and when he isn’t. To this Nabors answered, “In the absence of predated confidence, all we’re left with is rational perception”. If you recall from yesterday’s closing arguments, Jose Merel’s attorney DuBois referred to this comment by Nabors as a “Jaronism”, a comment so out there and irregular, that it simply baffles folks… and that this is how Jaron talks in order to appear witty or smart.

Today the ADA went on to explain why Nabors answered in such a way. That it was a quote from a book by Ayn Rand that ADA Lamiero had recommended to Nabors during their one-time meeting in which they spoke. The ADA said he theorized that this was a way of letting on that he had read the book.

He went on to talk a little about a story in the book in which a millionaire, whose family made a fortune mining copper, had always had ‘the Midas touch’ when it came to investments. This man decided to invest in something that crashed horribly and suddenly he was a pariah when it came to investments, and he was told so by a fellow industrialist who owned a steel manufacturing company. The point of this story? The DA said, “well I don’t really know why I’m telling you this today”, but his point was well taken by this observer… people really like you until you do something wrong, then they turn their back on you because it doesn’t benefit them to know you and be around you. And I think that is what happened to Jaron, he was suddenly ‘persona non grata’ for telling the truth and saving his own butt.

But, you can draw your own conclusions. Thus the one point of all of this is, as the ADA put it, "You the jury must weigh testimony and witnesses not by predated confidence, but by your own rational perception… who seems honest to you, who doesn’t… what do you believe was physically possible and what you believe is not, based on your own judgment…" That is what the jury is being asked to do, judge these men based on their own criteria and the criteria of the letter of the law.

ADA Lamiero then brought out a blown-up picture of Gwen mounted on poster-board, put it on the easel directly in front of the jury, and told them he would be referring to the victim as Gwen, that he would be referring to her as ‘she’ and ‘her’, because that is who she was. He explained that he wasn’t doing it for the media, not for the family, not for himself, but because she was who she was… a young, beautiful woman who lived her truth.

He then went into talking about Serra’s closing argument (Cazares’ attorney), asking the jury to think about why Serra spent ninety minutes of his closing argument talking about manslaughter, when he has maintained that his client is not guilty of killing the victim. Why would he do that? Because he knows that there is a very good chance that his client will be found guilty. The ADA reiterated how Serra made a crucial slip-of-the-tongue during his closing argument in saying that either Jaron Nabors committed 1st –degree murder or aided & abetted. Here Serra admits that someone committed 1st- degree murder! Someone is guilty of that! (according to Serra) Who could it be! That’s up to the jury to decide.

Lamiero then spoke of the ridiculous assertion by Serra that his client “had been punished enough” serving two years in jail after being arrested… that this is enough and he should be given a break… poor guy! It was truly a sad thing to hear that Serra thought Gwen’s life was not worth much more. Lamiero continued asking the jury to really consider how ridiculous that was… how unjust that was to even consider cutting these guys some slack, since they’ve served a couple of years. Cazares is out on bail, he reminded folks… he gets to be with his family, but Gwen is never coming back, she’s never going to grow up and live her future potential as a human being on this planet… she was not given a chance to present her case for defense… she’s gone… she’s never coming back! But that we should feel sorry for these guys because they have been punished enough?! The ADA really made it clear how absurd that sounds… how unjust that is to Gwen.

He continued by asking an important question about Jason Cazares: when did his attitude change from being the one to pull Michael Magidson off Lida, to being the guy that turns to Jaron Nabors and asks him, “Jaron, are you down?” (meaning are you gonna go all the way with this, with us?) When did this sudden change occur? It occurred the minute Nicole Brown and Paul Merel left the house. That, the DA wanted to reiterate, is the kind of person Jason Cazares is. He also stated how during his closing, Serra seemed to want the ADA to “vouch” for Nabors (you can’t do that!), that Serra wanted to emphasize the importance of 12 individual verdicts… because he knows that the chances are bad for his client… that he may be seen by the jury as the violent, pathetic person who would do anything for his “brother” Mike (Magidson).

Mr. Lamiero reiterated that the reality is, attorneys are looking for the most favorable light for their clients, not a “search for the truth”… this is what these defendants get a chance to obtain--a favorable light that was never offered to Gwen (Her name has been trashed by these attorneys, both in last year’s trial and again in this trial). He brought up the Edgar Allan Poe story Serra used in his closing argument. The story published in 1838 tells of a prince who decided to have his privileged friends join him in his luxurious comfortable surroundings, wall themselves off from the outside world and avoid the plague, only to find out at the end of their lavish masquerade party that one of the guests had concealed his having the plague by wearing a mask at the party. When this was discovered is was too late, they had all been exposed. The ADA asked if this is how we are to think of Gwen, as someone carrying something contagious? This is what Serra wants the jury to believe, by comparing her genitalia being forcibly exposed, to the guest at that Masquerade party being discovered as a carrier of the plague. He turned to Gwen’s picture, and asked if that is what we are supposed to believe? That this young person who is dead is to be considered with contempt for exposing the defendants to some “contagion”? “How dare they”, he said. He asked the jury to look at the reality of what is going on here--they are being distracted with these obscene comparisons… that what is true is that the whole defense is like a mackerel a few days gone… it’s shiny and looks good, but when you cut it open, there is no meat to it… there is no meat to their story.

He went on to talk about how Serra is asking the jury to believe that this killing happened in a “heat of passion”. But Lamiero reminded the jury that a “heat of passion” killing is still murder. Someone died at the hands of another. And he pointed to Michael Magidson and stressed that he was a pathetic, weak, narcissistic (pause) person who “did the deed” and then wanted to “pass the buck” onto Jose Merel [at one point, before they got arrested, Magidson told Jose that if the cops came to the (Merel) house asking questions, that Jose should tell them that he and Jason weren’t there that night. What a friend!]

He further stressed that he does not believe for one minute the “blowjob in the bathroom” story that Magidson told police: that when he had dragged Gwen into the bathroom to check her genitalia by force, that she coaxed him into letting her give him oral sex so she could distract him from making her show him her genitals. The ADA said he firmly believed that Magidson was already convinced that Gwen was “a guy” and that he was angry about it, and he was going to expose her, and wherever that lead to, he was ready. The ADA also pointed out that he didn’t believe that Magidson was taking Gwen into the bathroom to expose her vagina so his “brother” Jose wouldn’t be upset. This was all B.S.

He also wanted the jury to know that Jaron Nabors was the only one of the four that came forward; he led police to the body… the body of a person who probably wouldn’t have ever been found. He allowed for the family to have closure.

A little later in his argument, Lamiero said that in his opinion Thorman, Magidson’s attorney, doesn’t find it an honor to know and represent Magidson as he had said in his closing. Lamiero didn’t believe it. At this point Serra objected, saying opinion of the DA is irrelevant and inappropriate in this case. The judge sustained the objection.

What it boiled down to, the ADA stated, is that the defense attorneys in this case want the jury to believe that Jaron Nabors admitted to killing Gwen… that he alone grabbed her, beat her, tied her up, strangled her. But more importantly, the DA stated that once this strategy backfired on the attorneys, they had Magidson testify that “he went blank” with rage, and “didn’t know why” he did it. (Did what?! Hmmmm….)

Another point the ADA made was that it was very interesting to know that Paul Merel does not recall standing outside the house that night, talking to Jason Cazares (as Jason testified to) about going to Lake Tahoe. This is what Cazares wants the jury to believe, that he was outside when Gwen was being beaten. That he didn’t play a role in that. Serra wants the jury to look at Nicole Brown’s testimony with regard to that time-frame when she and Paul were leaving the house, when the interrogation of Gwen had already started, to try and put his client Cazares out of the picture. But DA Lamiero encouraged the jury to look at Nicole’s testimony… she knew what was happening, she knew that everyone in that house would be seen a complicit in what was happening and whatever would happen. In other words, she knew what they were capable of, those of the four that she knew the best: Michael, Jason, and Jose. She didn’t know Jaron Nabors very well. (remember, he was the tag-along).

Mr. Lamiero also wanted to talk particularly about how the defense had criticized him for the way he treated Jose Merel on the stand. They stated how he was treated differently than Magidson and Cazares. They at different points asserted that the DA treated Nabors and Merel nicely, and treated the other two roughly. The DA said that he knew Nabors was lying, and we could all see that Merel was not telling us what he knew. He chose to dodge questions and give vague answers. The DA stated that he set Merel apart for a reason: the other defendants used his house as their own private bar, their playground where “they would do the shit they couldn’t do in their own houses”; they treated this house as their bachelor pad of sorts where they would drink, smoke out, bring girls over. This was their “safe haven” as one of the defense attorneys described… and this “safe haven” was disrupted by Gwen. And she had to be punished for that. The DA then looked again at Magidson and stated that he may have put the rope around the victim’s neck and strangled her, but (sarcastically) give him a break, he’s a good person. That is what the defense wants the jury to conclude.

In further response to the topic of the ADA being easier on Nabors and Merel, Mr. Lamiero wants the jury to understand that Jose was treated differently on the stand compared to Mike & Jason because what the he is requesting is an adequate distribution of responsibility for this crime. That is justice. And he is asking that the jury not be swayed by phony character witnesses like Efren, a gay guy from the Castro who came to testify about what a great guy Magidson is… asserting he’s not homophobic.

Then Mr. Lamiero spoke up a bit and said, “So then this must have been a suicide. She just have killed herself”. He sarcastically proclaimed that this must have been her wanting to die, that she wanted to die because she spoke up for herself as she was being beaten, and she knew she would die because of it. How dare she try and stop this!

The defense wants the jury to believe that there was no premeditation, no malicious aforethought, that Magidson is to be protected by casting reasonable doubt as to whether this was planned. So the ADA asked the jury to ask themselves: what motivates an advocate, a defense lawyer? They want to prevail, of course, but what motivates them more is the fear that they won’t be believed… that the jury won’t give them what they want.

In closing, Lamiero asked that Jason Cazares and Michael Magidson be convicted of 1st-degree murder, but that if they conclude that it’s 2nd –degree that they unanimously agree and bring back a murder conviction. The ADA wants to give justice to the victim and peace to her family. He further stated that he leaves the fate of Jose Merel up to them, that they have to weigh the evidence and decide his level of guilt in this crime.

Now we wait…

Case submitted to jury (CWD)

2005-08-30T20:27:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone -

this case is now in the hands of the jury. They should begin the meat of their deliberations tomorrow (8-30-05). It is impossible for me to predict how long the deliberations will take, but keep in mind that they have to review many weeks worth of evidence as well as the culpability (or lack thereof, I guess) of each of the three defendants.

Some quick notes on DDA Lamiero's rebuttal from this morning:

Lamiero spent approximately 90 minutes going back over the case with the jury this morning. He divided up his time between stepping up his comments on Jason's role, slapping down the arguments proffered by Mike and Jason's attorneys, and taking some uncharacteristically sharp jabs at Serra and Thorman.

Seemingly making up for any lack of focus on Jason Cezares in his initial closing statement, Lamiero definitely pointed his finger at Jason this morning. He spent a little bit of time elaborating on Jason's role and identified him as the one controlling the pace of events. Recognizing that Jason initially stepped in to stop Mike from harming Gwen, Lamiero attributed this to the presence of other people in the house rather than any concern for Gwen. Once those other people left, Lamiero theorized, Jason gave Mike the "go ahead" to do to Gwen whatever he wanted. Lamiero then told the jury that, to him, this kind of conduct is sufficient to meet the requirement for aiding and abetting a murder (and therefore qualifying for a murder conviction).

Making some additional comments about Mike's culpability, Lamiero spent a chunk of time taking apart the arguments of Serra (Jason's attorney) and Thorman (Mike's attorney). Recognizing that each of them is a skilled advocate, Lamiero made sure that the jury realized that each is an advocate for their own client and that neither is looking for the "truth" in this proceeding. Alternating between the two, Lamiero ridiculed their calls for leniency for their clients, the idea that the Merel home was a sanctuary, any argument that Jason was guilty of manslaughter, and their attacks on the prosecutions use of Jaron Nabors.

Finally, first the first time that I can remember, Lamiero went after Serrra and Thorman personally. He stated that Thorman was lying when he told the jury that he was honored to have represented a young man of Mike’s character. He accused Serra of sleeping through Jaron’s testimony and being way off in some of his philosophical meanderings about gender. I’m not sure what brought on these attacks or exactly where they played in his larger strategy, but after two years of dealing with these guys antics it’s not hard to understand if they were simply expressions of frustration and exasperation.

Lamiero closed his rebuttal by again asking for 1st degree murder for Mike and Jason. Just like last week, though, he told the jury that if all they could agree to was 2nd degree that they should come back with it to put some closure on this case. He again told the jury that he didn’t have a recommendation for Jose’s conviction, but reminded them that he thought Jose was less culpable than the other two.

It’s been a long re-trial. We could have a quick verdict or the jury could spend just as long as last year (let’s hope not). I hope everyone from the Bay Area who is reading this will make an effort to get to the SF LGBT Center (www.sfcenter.org) the day the jury comes down for a press conference and rally at 6pm.

Chris Daley
Transgender Law Center

Closing Arguments - August 29, 2005

2005-08-30T11:25:00.000-07:00

Written by P. Espinoza

Today defendant Jose Merel's attorney, DuBois, finished his closing arguments via a Power Point presentation in which he presented the jury with a barrage of legal definitions, including but not limited to, how a witness can be willfully false, and, what "the heat of passion" is, what voluntary and involuntary manslaughter is, and what constitutes "assault". His main argument was that everything that Jaron Nabors said about Jose Merel's involvement in the beating and the murder were complete fabrications, "Jaronisms" as he put it.

He included how the testimony of an accomplice (meaning Nabors) should not be taken at face value, that it must be corroborated by other evidence. He especially went into testimony from Nabors about the significance of the "Dee Dee" letter, a letter that Nabors had written to his girlfriend that made its way into the hands of the DA. In it Nabors had written his account of what happened, and wanted his girlfriend to know he was not a murderer. DuBois basically said that this letter was written as a way of making himself (Nabors) look innocent. He went on to assert that accomplices are self-serving, and that the jury should view Jaron Nabors with caution, because "accomplices" tend to lie. This does however beg the question of what, exactly, Mr. Nabors was an "accomplice" to, doesn't it?

As any defense lawyer would do, DuBois went over the role of the can of food and the frying pan that Merel used during the commission of the beating. DuBois points to his assertion that there was no can found in the house that was bent as Jaron Nabors had described when it was used to beat Gwen Araujo over the head. He also said there was no frying pan in the house that fit the description given by Nabors. Basically his point was that with these facts, coupled with the failed experiments conducted with other cans of food to try and duplicate the bending or denting of the can, it was impossible that Jose Merel beat Gwen with any can of food, and that by the way, the body showed no evidence of any wounds consistent with a can being used, but there were other wounds on the head of the victim.

Another interesting item in the power point presentation was the use of "Thug Algibra" (this was interesting, and rather classist and racist in my opinion). This "thug algibra" DuBois brought up as a way to illustrate his point went something like this:

A= letter to DeeDee
B= Testimony at trial
T= the Truth

If A=B, and B=T, then A=T

DuBois' basic point was that the DA believed Nabors, and that Nabors knew they would believe him, because they just wanted him to tell the truth.

DuBois went on to then describe Nabors further as a compulsive liar, who was known to make up fantastic stories in an attempt to pass himself off as a tough guy. He further stated that because Jaron Nabors had not had sexual relations with Lida, that he didn't have a "heat of passion" defense, therefore he was a cold-blooded killer.

He also went into how one is supposed to tell when Jaron Nabors is telling the truth, and when he's lying. For the purposes of this trial, the DA is asking the jury to believe either Jaron Nabors or Jose Merel (interesting!). DuBois asserts that Nabors was motivated to lie because of fear that Jose Merel would testify against him, thus needing to conceal his true involvement, and that this is consistent with the letter to DeeDee.

DuBois went on to state that Jose Merel cared for Lida (Gwen), and just wanted her out of the house once her anatomy was displayed. He didn't ever imagine killing her, yet DuBois asserts that his client was menacing with the can of food (never actually striking Gwen) and that the blow he struck with the frying pan was a "glancing" blow, that it did not do any damage. With this he led the jury into definitions of what aiding and abetting a crime is, and that they would have to consider Jose Merel's involvement to be simply an assault, because there was no premeditation, no knowledge or malice aforethought on his part toward murdering her; he simply became wrapped up in a sequence of events that ended in the foursome burying the body in the Sierra foothills; that aiding and abetting or assisting on its own is not criminal.

At one point DuBois did an imitation of what Jose probably sounded like when he was drunk the night of the murder, as they all sat around the kitchen table playing dominoes and he decided to ask Lida if she was a man or a woman. With this slurred speech imitation, he hoped the jury would see that Jose was voluntarily intoxicated and that he was not in the mental state required to consider his actions manslaughter, voluntary or involuntary.

Toward the end of his closing DuBois went into the issue of "Special Findings" that would be required to make this a hate crime. He asserted that this was not a hate crime because Jose Merel did not act personally, with intent to kill... that perhaps he may be an aider & abettor, but that since he didn't act with knowledge or intent to kill, this brought it down to the core differences between his client and the other defendants. He asked how you can compare a can of food and a frying pan used by his client, to a rope, a weight, and a shovel that were used by the other accused men? He simply finished up with a reminder to the jury that Jose Merel had asked "why did she have to die?".

After the lunch break Michael Magidson's attorney, Thorman, made his closing arguments. He started off by informing the jury that he has found it to be an honor to represent Magidson, and that he has found it a privilege to get to know Magidson and his family. He went on to compliment the jury on what a great job they had done of paying attention despite the boring, repetitive nature of the trial, and that he was impressed by them, saying they were the most attentive jury he has ever witnessed.

His next step was to point to ADA Lamiero's descriptions of his client Michael as not accurate. That his intention was to dehumanize his client, to paint him as a pathetic, weak person. He went on to ask the jury to remember each of the character witnesses he brought forth to testify on Magidson's behalf, about what a great, caring person he is, and especially pointing out a witness that came to testify from the Castro District of San Francisco, saying how nice Magidson is and that he would not consider him homophobic (hello! Gwen was not a gay man!) and that he would even have him as a roommate. Thorman went on to say how Magidson was always polite to Lida and that the events described were "out of character" for Magidson.

Thorman went on to say that DA Lamiero's opening statement was a point-by-point account of Jaron Nabors' testimony about Merel using a weight, a can of food, a frying pan to hit Lida, and that he had said he wanted to kick her again, while saying things like "She's not leaving" and "If that's a man I'm gonna kill him". Thorman was making a point that Jaron & Jose's testimony was contradicting each other, and that you couldn't believe both; he said that this is what the ADA was asking the jury to do, to believe both.

One of the many things that Thorman asserted that were pretty strong statements was that Nicole Brown helped create the turmoil that night, and that she was just as motivated to keep herself out of the picture, even though in her taped interview with the police, she had made statements like "I have been a victim of domestic violence & I'll be damned if I'm gonna let a man hit me again" (referring to the fist-fight she had with Lida). He described Nicole as having had an emotional reaction to Lida deceiving everyone and fighting with her, a guy beating on a girl.

Thorman went on to say how many of the points made by Nicole were physically impossible, such as her stating that she had seen Lida on the couch when she came back, two feet into the house, looking for Paul Merel so they could leave. The couch was not visible from that part of the house. He wanted the jury to understand that everyone in that house was set off when Lida's genitalia was forcibly exposed, and that they all played roles in what happened that night, and therefore they all have motivations to remove themselves from culpability.

Thorman also made a point that Jaron Nabors' testifying that they went to get shovels while Lida was still alive is untrue. (But, well, isn't everyone that was there that night motivated to remove themselves from culpability?) He also wanted to know if anyone would believe that Jason Cazares' attitude went from 'peace-maker' to "let's go get shovels" in a matter of minutes? This proves that Nabors cannot be believed. He also asserted that Nabors' testimony contradicts the entire timeline of events. As an example, he said that since blood was not found on the portion of the wall where Lida's head had hit as it snapped back from being knee'd in the face by Magidson, this proves that Nabors lied about when Lida was bleeding and when she was not.

To try and wrap up his argument, Thorman was adamant about trying to paint the victim as a person with no boundaries... she was a person with reckless sexuality, was a substance abuser... and that she forced herself onto Magidson and Merel and basically raped them. That she had put her mouth on Magidson's penis to convince him that she was a girl. He wants the jury to believe that she was culpable for what happened to her (blame the victim... again!). He even went into how Detective Lavano, who interviewed Magidson after his arrest, had basically agreed with the notion that "anybody would understand the anger and the rage one would feel if they discovered that the person they were physically intimate with had lied about their true gender" (this was very sad to hear that a police detective would speak this way to a suspect... in order to get him to talk?)

Thorman told the jury how Magidson had basically said that his mind went blank when he realized that Lida was biologically male, that his experience of having had anal sex with Lida was gross to begin with, even before he knew her gender status, and that this together with seeing his friend Jose Merel having a 'nervous break-down' made him react.

By the end of his arguments, Thorman pointed to several instances in which things in the trial didn't make sense if this was actually a premeditated, malicious killing... for instance the issue of why Magidson would have used such a long piece of rope to strangle Lida? He had Jaron Nabors' knife... why not cut a more manageable piece with which to proceed and strangle her? Why was Nabors' pager in the garage if he had testified that he did not spend any substantial amount of time in the garage?

Thorman also brought in multiple legal definitions to remind the jury of how they must proceed to make decisions about whether this was murder or manslaughter, and that the additional accusation of kidnapping must also be weighed carefully, since, according to Thorman, it was not a significant distance from the hallway and living room where they took turns beating the victim, into the garage where it is believed she was actually killed.

Thorman wants the jury to believe that Magidson did what he did in a "heat of passion" as well, since he had had anal sex with Lida. He wants the jury to conclude that any ordinarily reasonable person would have reacted the same way had this happened to them, because that is what is required to label this a "heat of passion" crime and thus not premeditated with malicious aforethought... because that would mean that his client had an intent to kill with a conscious disregard for another person's life.

Tomorrow the ADA will have his final rebuttal, then it will be handed over to the jury with instructions so they can begin deliberating. Then we wait for a verdict...

Final day of argument

2005-08-29T17:25:00.000-07:00

The DDA is wrapping up closing arguments/rebuttal tomorrow (8.30.05) morning.

Jury could have the verdict presented as early as this week.

The day the verdict is announced there will be a press conference at
the steps of Hayward Hall of Justice and a press conference and rally at the LGBT Community Center @ 6pm.

Lamiero's Closing Argument 8-24-05 (CWD)

2005-08-25T18:01:00.000-07:00

In his usual subdued style, with flashes of real emotion now and again, ADA Chris Lamiero began what will likely be three or four days of closing arguments. After spending several weeks putting on a case rich with detailed evidence, ADA Lamiero dispensed with subtlety and went after Mike Magidson and Jason Cazares as Gwen’s murderers.

Reminding jurors several times that they were the final arbiters of the facts in this case and what role each defendant played in Gwen’s killing, the ADA wasn’t shy about telling them that he thought. Several times, Lamiero looked directly at Mike and referred to him as “the murderer.” Less often, but still consistently, he referred to Jason as Mike’s accomplice and as someone equally guilty of murder.

Instead of walking back through the exhaustive evidence presented since the trial began on June 1st, Lamiero spent time explaining the relevant difference between California law on murder and manslaughter. In an efficient and compelling way, he made clear that Mike knew what he was doing that night and that he formed the intent necessary to have committed murder instead of manslaughter. Jason, Lamiero argued, was Mike’s right-hand man throughout the night and his actions, including likely hitting Gwen with a shovel, made him equally guilty of murder. In the end, he asked the jury to find them both guilty of 1st degree murder. But in a nod to last year, he conceded that if the jury couldn’t agree on 1st degree, they should convict the two of 2nd degree.

When it came to Jose Merel, though, Lamiero took a different tact. Many of the people to whom I’ve spoken thought that Jose’s testimony weeks ago was likely the most compelling and the most heartfelt of any of the four men who were present that night (including Jaron Nabors). Lamiero seemed to think so as well. Differently from last year, Lamiero did not ask the jury to bring back a murder conviction for Jose. While not asking the jury to find him innocent, Lamiero made clear that he thought Jose was less culpable than the other two and seemed to open the door for Jose being convicted of felonious assault.

Wrapping up his statement, Lamiero offered passing comments on the hate crimes charges leveled in this case. Just like in the trial itself, Lamiero spent little time proving that any of the three defendants acted out of hate for Gwen because she was transgender. However, focusing mainly on Mike, Lamiero made the most salient argument on this issue: had Gwen not been transgender, she would still be alive today. That statement alone is a powerful argument for finding justification for a hate crimes enhancement.

Sitting through Lamiero’s statement, I was reminded of how incredibly difficult the last three years have been for Sylvia, her family, and her and Gwen’s friends. I speak a lot about the courage and commitment of this family, but it is rarely on display as clearly as it was during Lamiero’s comments. For much of his 45 minutes, Lamiero focused on Gwen’s final moments. He spoke about her strangulation in clear and blunt terms that must have chilled her family and friends to the core. Yet each of them bore that pain in quiet dignity.

Of course, their pain could not have been lessened by the antics of Tony Serra. I’m in no place to judge the effectiveness of Tony’s style. To me, he looks like a buffoon, but his style has obviously been successful in the past. And if looking and acting like a cartoon character helps his client, than it is Tony’s duty to do so. However, his oftentimes incoherent and almost always overblown rhetoric couldn’t have done anything to help Sylvia and her family and friends believe that this courtroom was a place where Gwen’s murder was being taken seriously and given the necessary consideration. As of noon on Thursday, Mr. Serra’s closing performance continued unabated.

Once Mr. Serra concludes, Mr. Dubois and Mr. Thorman will give closing statements. Lamiero will be able to provide a rebuttal statement after that if he chooses to do so.

Chris Daley
Transgender Law Center

PS – a quick virtual “high-five” to Ms. Connie Champagne. Obviously, this blog would have been pretty empty without Connie’s commitment to this case. The last week has been particularly tough for her and all of us at TLC extend her the most sincere thanks for her dedication and example.

Closing Arguements today 1:30 PM

2005-08-24T08:52:00.000-07:00

Today will be my last day in court, most likely before the verdict. I am told ADA Chris Lamiero will begin his closing arguements; the other attorneys will follow suit. Then, the case will go to the jury.

I will be up north when the verdicts are in, but my colleagues from TG Law Center and CUAV will keep you posted.

It is everyone's fervent hope that the jury will render fair and just verdicts this time around. The DA's Office did a fantastic job with presenting the physical evidence provided by the Newark Police Department, the Medical Examiner, FBI-- especially in view of the limited budgets/resources it seems that small police departments apparently have. Presenting this evidence--the portion of the wall, the 35' rope, the blood-stained carpet, and the rest--this really brought home the violent nature of the crime--this was a murder. It was not self-defense, or what any reasonable person would do under the circumstances--so I just can't see how this crime could be manslaughter.

This process of the investigations, the preliminary hearing, the first trial which resulted in a hung jury, up to today--has gone on nearly 3 years. All the families and loved ones involved want resolution. Think good thoughts, and I will, too.

--Connie Champagne
CUAV Speakers Bureau Program Director
connie@cuav.org

No Court Today

2005-08-23T12:45:00.000-07:00

Court was postponed and will resume tomorrow. (Mr. Dubois had an absessed tooth.) Closing Arguements will begin tomorrow Wednesday August 24th at 1:30 PM.

One Last Thing

2005-08-22T23:39:00.000-07:00

I want to share with you something that has been bothering me for some time:

Michael Magidson stated that he put a gag in Gwen/Lida's mouth to keep her "from mouthing off, to shut her the fuck up." He then said he bound her wrists to keep her from pulling the gag out of her mouth, from making more noise.
He also bound her ankles.

But--why did he bind her wrists in the front, but not from in back? In front, it would be easy to pull a gag out (if she regained consciousness, as he claimed was his concern.)

If Magidson didn't intend to kidnap Gwen (i.e. transporting her against her will from place to place), why did he bind her feet?

Cos she wasn't going anywhere alive, and he knew it.

Jaron Nabors, Jason Cazares, Jose Merel, and Michael Magidson killed Gwen Araujo.
One of these people--Jaron Nabors--has taken responsibility for this crime. One of these persons-Jose Merel--has admittted remorse.

The responses to the blog have been amazing--thank you everyone.
I would encourage all to re-read this blog-- and respond again.
Love to all--especially Delilah, Imelda, David, John, Tina, Erin O, David, Sylvia G. ,Shelly, Karen, Chris L, and Kathy B.--and everyone at CUAV & TGLC.
It's almost over. Hang on.

Love,
Connie

Court Watch August 22nd (C. Champagne)

2005-08-22T23:00:00.000-07:00

Magidson concluded his testimony today. Merel's lawyer Dubois, called his client as a rebuttal witness. He disputed Magidson's claims that Nabors said he'd strangled Gwen.

Merel looked defeated. Magidson, to the end, failed to take responsibility for anything, in my opinion, despite his opening comments that he had intended to. All Michael Magidson seemed to really want to admit to--was that he wanted to "shut her the fuck up"--and he certainly achieved that.

"I don't remember...I couldn't say... I may have...."

Responsibility.

I am exhausted, so I can only imagine how the Guerreros feel, the families of the defendants, the laywers, the judge, court folks, bailiffs et.al. and jurors must feel.

My grandmother passed away last Friday night, so I need to go and take care of her affairs. I will be in court Wednesday, but I will more than likely be out of town when the jury returns with a verdict. I am relying on my excellent co-workers and allies from CUAV & Transgender Law Center to carry this blog on, and would request that all of you who can, be there at the courthouse in support of Gwen's family when those verdicts are read.

The case is likely to go to the jury next week, and I would not be surprised if verdicts were in prior to Labor Day.

--Connie Champagne

Court Resumes Monday August 22nd (C. Champagne)

2005-08-19T12:17:00.000-07:00

The case is nearly over.

Chris Lamiero concluded his cross-examination of Michael Magidson Thursday afternoon. Lamiero pointed out many inconsistancies. Magidson admits he went in to the bathroom that night, in an effort to determine--for his friend Jose-- Gwen/Lida's gender, although he claimed, he was "100 % sure Lida was a woman." He admitted she offered him oral sex, which he accepted, received, and enjoyed. Yet, after he was finished, it still wasn't enough.
Lamiero: "Well, why didn't you just walk down the hallway and say to Jose, it's cool--she's a woman?"
Magidosn: "Well, I wasn't gonna lie to my friend."

If there was any issue at this point, why did he accept the blow job? It just doesn't make any sense.

Lamiero persisted. He asked Magidson if he thought it might have been a desperate attempt to persuade him to let her go. "Do you think just maybe she might have been scared?" he asked. Magidson evaded the question, as he did most questions he was asked.

Magidson admitted he assaulted Lida, threw her to the ground, to pull her panties aside, "to make sure," yet stated that all the while he was sure she was "100 % woman." But according to him, he doesn't hit women, or assault women--he's a "good guy."

Lamiero boomed, "What gave you that right?"

Nothing gave him that right.

After the repeated assaults, when Magidson stated he heard someone say "Knock her out, " or Knock the bitch out," (as folks have testified), he did just that. Gwen/Lida lay face-down, according to his testimony, in front of the Merel's couch. But then, she's bleeding on the floor, so they move her to the couch. More bleeding. Now what? Ultimately, she ended up in the garage, with a gag in her mouth, bound with rope, bleeding and unconcsious.

Magidson admitted he was concerned that Lida might wake up, might make noise, attract attention from the neighbors or the police. Steps had to be taken. Magidson rambled," Maybe if she woke up, I don't know, we'd take her somewhere."

Lamiero: "If Lida woke up, do you think she'd want to go anywhere with you?"

No, they weren't going to let her get away, or and even if she were conscious, they weren't going to drive her home.

Very little of Magidson's testimony seemed truthful to me. I think the most bizarre statement Magidson made in court (and there were many) was that although he has admitted he strangled Gwen, he said that in his "heart of hearts," he knows he didn't kill her. And then he stated:

"Due to the gaps and memory lapses I guess there's a mere, slight chance I did do it."

Mere, slight chance that he did do it?

If this is some kind a strategy Thorman has concocted for him to confuse the jury, I really don't think it's effective.

Lamiero concluded by asking Magidson if he might be a little concerned that there is a law which states that if someone is killed during the commission of a serious crime like kidnapping, that's first degree murder. I am told that the jury will be given instructions to that effect.

Magidson restrained her, knocked her out, bound and gagged her ("to make her shut the fuck up" he testified repeatedly), tied her wrists and ankles and body with more than 35 feet of rope, and stated that it was his idea to take her in this unconscious, bloodied state, "somewhere"--not home or anywhere she might have wanted--needed to go--like maybe, to the hospital. Jose Merel testified earlier that Magidson said they needed to take her "further."

And when someone ties you up and forces you to go somewhere you don't want to go, isn't that kidnapping?

Serra had no questions for Magidson, apparently. Merel's attorney Bill Dubois will begin his cross-examination Monday at 9 AM. It should take most, if not all day. Presuming Thorman has no more witnesses for Magidson, they should go to closing arguements sometime this week, after which, it will go to the jury.

Court Watch Wednesday August 17th (C. Champagne)

2005-08-17T19:32:00.000-07:00

Magidson was still on the stand for most of the day; Merel's attorney Dubois did request to call a witness out of order, Dr. Van Meter, who performed the autopsy on Gwen. Dr. Van Meter is a brilliant woman, but the testimony had been mostly heard before--what caused the death, timeline, blood alcohol and so on. Though pressed, she did not waiver--Van Meter testified repeatedly that Gwen's death was caused by" asphyxiation due to strangulation, in association with blunt force trauma to the head." In association--both were serious enough to cause her death.

Magidson is being cross-examined by Lamiero, who is very effective. He asked in more detail about Magidson and Cazares' first meeting with Gwen. They were on their way to a billiard hall, to meet some other girls.

Lamiero: "She didn't flag you down, right?"
Magidson: " No, (it) took a little persuasion. She was a little nervous about getting into a truck with 2 guys she didn't know. We let her know we were good guys."
Lamiero: "Made her feel comfortable?"
Magidson: "Same thing I would do with any woman."
Lamiero: "And, you were 22 at the time?"

Lamiero asked Magidson what he expected from Lida, a young, attractive girl walking down the street with a beer in her hand--Magidson admitted she looked "like a party girl, likes to drink, like we do."

Lamiero: "Easy?"
Magidson: "You could say that."
Lamiero: "Requires less effort?...One should never turn down an easy piece of ass, right?"
Magidson agreed that was his thinking.
Lamiero: "(But), why didn't you go to the pool hall?"
Magidson: " Lida. Maybe cos we had a different girl."

So they had no use for the girls who were waiting for them.

Lamiero demonstrated with his questions how Magidson regarded women in general. Magidson stated that were he to share Lida with one of his buddies, he'd be open to that, that he "wouldn't turn it down."
Lamiero: "Both of you together?"
Magidson: "Sure."

Magidson testified one evening Lida "hounded" him not to leave the Merel house, and coaxed him into sex. He admitted that his only interest in Lida was sex--and that he was "irritated" with the attention she gave him, and didn't want to be teased. "I wasn't interested in that cuddly-duddly shit," he said.

Magidson insisted that Lida's gender never came up in conversation, not even with Jose and Paul. In view of others' testimony, this is difficult to believe, especially when Magidson was recounting that she had anal sex with Jose, using the same excuse that she was on her period. Magidson admitted having conversations with Jose and Paul about Lida being on her period for a very long time. Others testified that they were curious about Lida's gender.

Some fireworks occurred at the end of the day, when Lamiero was trying to get answers about how Magidson drove to the Merel house October 3rd, ending up sitting around the table playing dominoes. He called Magidson out on his frequent use of the word "Obviously."
Lamiero: " Why do you use that word in that fashion? There's no sarcasm in that, right?"
Magidson: "No!"
Lamiero: "Okay then, So obviously, you--"
Thorman objects.

The judge informed the court that we will have to wait until tomorrow to hear the rules for a game of dominoes, how it's played, how to keep score. It was 4 o'clock.

Recently, the headlines of a local paper read "Nabors Did It, Magidson Testifies." Magidson has blamed Nabors for nearly all of it--claimed Nabors hit Gwen with the shovel--in the driveway in full view before they left for Silverfork. Given their level of panic, that seems unlikely. He also claimed Nabors was the one who strangled Gwen--not him, even though he's the one who had the rope.

Magidson testified that he said he'd told his friends that he would take the blame, "cos they all have kids...but I never thought they'd take me up on it."

Magidson admitted he's the one who put a gag in her mouth, so "she'd quit screaming." Magidson admitted he's the one who tied her up, "to keep her from pulling the gag out, and start screaming." Lamiero asked Magidson if his plan was just to "drop her off somewhere," then why did he have to tie her ankles, and the rest of her body, too?

On her way out of the courtroom, Gwen's mom Sylvia spoke to Jaron Nabors' mom, who has come in support of her son and in turn, the Guerreros. Sylvia has a new grandson--and Nabors' mom has a grandson, too.

It's an incredibly difficult road that they are both on--not to mention, Gwen's Aunts Imelda and Emma, her step-dad John (who is there without fail every day), her Uncle David who loved her so, Delilah M., all the trans folks and allies who show up in support, Advocate Erin Osanna--we all seem to be part of a big, hurt family. Folks stick together, though, and seeing each others' faces each day seems to give us all strength.

Attonement, redemption, coming clean. It's something.

Court resumes tomorrow at 9 AM. There is no court on Friday.

Magidson Takes the Stand (C. Champagne)

2005-08-15T20:57:00.000-07:00

Monday August 15th, Michael Thorman, Mike Magidson's attorney, presented several character witnesses for Magidson. 3 witnesses were young women-- 2 girlfriends (both of whom said they had "gay friends" that knew Mike) and 1 childhood friend. The other 2 witnesses were the aforementioned "gay friends," who were actually friends of Magidson's girlfriends, neither of whom had known Magidson for any significant length of time.

The young women who took the stand all smiled and giggled at various times. Maybe they were nervous. Shabree Barton testified she had plans with Magidson the night of the murder. She tried to phone him that evening/early morning, 10 maybe 11 times. When she finally reached him, he said he couldn't talk. "Call me back in 5 minutes," she said. He did not call her back, she testified.

He did arrive at her house the following day, after burying Gwen, exhausted after the road trip, and all, needing a place to crash. He later described her nagging him, wanting to know where he'd been, why he'd stood her up. "Bugging" him, "nagging" him, he said. She testified he took a shower, ignored her, went to sleep.

On the advice of her attorney, they no longer communicate.

Another girlfriend Vivien Porter reminisced about their happy times, but admitted that although she lives in Dublin now (where Santa Rita Jail is located, where Magidson has been incarcerated for nearly 3 years), she doesn't visit him. "You know...I've been busy..."

The most unusual character witness was a co-worker of girlfriend Porter's, Ephren (sp?) Roman, who is a gay man, living and working "in the Castro, in San Francisco." He testified that he had written a letter to the judge in support of Magidson's bail.

Roman stated that he felt "safe" around Magidson, and wrote the judge that if Magidson were to secure bail, he would take him into his home.

Lamiero asked Roman on cross, "Did you really mean that?... I mean, you knew him-- how long? A total of 3 hours or so? A total of 2 or 3 lunches at work and a trip to buy hotdogs at Costco?" Lamiero asked , "How is that?"
Roman answered, "Well, there are many variables to this case."
Lamiero: "Like what?"
Roman: "Well, drugs and alcohol."
Lamiero: "In other words, Eddie/Gwen got what was coming (to her), right?"

Roman seemed flustered and answered "Incorrect."

Magidson took the stand in his own defense. He recounted early in his testimony a story about a sexual exchange he had previously, (prior to his involvelment with Gwen/Lida) with a trans woman, that Jason Cazares was aware of--that it was an old joke to them, smiling at the remembrance. I guess this was to tell us that he is/was not transphobic, and that these gay male friends of his girlfriends who testified are supposed to show us he's not homophobic.

Okay. Which is it? He attacks Gwen in a transphobic panic about his compromised straightness/masculinity, or because of his loyalty to his friends, or as he said over and over in his testimony and in his police interview--because his "mind just went blank."

I am reminded of when Magidson recounted his initial meeting with Gwen back in August 2002. He testified that he and Jason were on their way to meet some other girls, "one of them, "he said," had a little crush on Jason."

But when they saw Lida walking down the street, with a beer in her hand, they said "Hey! What's up?" Lida said she'd had a fight with her boyfriend, so they offered her a ride, and in Magidson's words, they "blew the other girls off" they were supposed to meet instead, to hang out with Lida, to take her to party at the Merel house. (Later, Magidson testified that Lida was reluctant to get in the truck with 2 guys she didn't know. But they reassured her they were "cool.")

Gwen's aunt, Imelda had to leave the court, as Magidson testified that Lida/Gwen" violated the sanctity of their place--the Merel home." The sanctity.

Magidson used language--after laughing about similar sexual behavior with others--that was hypocritical, and vulgar--and showed no remorse for his actions whatsoever. It was clear he did not/does not regard Gwen Araujo as a human being of any worth.

In light of his testimony, it is hard for me to believe that he was traumatized by his involvement with Gwen.

During the afternoon testimony, Thorman played the entire 2 hour + police interview with Magidson and Newark PD Detective Lovano. I wondered--is this supposed to make us feel sorry for Magidson? Is this another twinky defense? Why did Thorman make us--and the jury suffer through this?

It went on forever. Officer Lovano using every transphobic cliche in the book:
"Dude--did she have a weapon?"
"Dude--I'd feel the same as you, man."
"You know, those (transgender) prostitutes --they're always packing--did she have a knife, anything? Was it self-defense? You can tell me."

In my view, this went way beyond "Good Cop/Bad Cop." Folks wondered, "Who's side was he on anyway?" I had to ask myself, do all defendants in murder cases get this buddy-buddy treatment? I know that police use many tactics to gain the trust of a suspect, but it seemed like Lovano was suggesting ways Magidson could get out of his predicament.

Where was Bad Cop?

"You can tell me, man. Cos I undertstand. I put myself in all you guys' shoes."

I wondered if the officer put himself in the victim's shoes.

The videotaped interview finished at 4 PM.

Court Resumes This Monday Aug 15th 9 AM (C. Champagne)

2005-08-11T19:16:00.000-07:00

Court has not been in session. Last week, one of the jurors had some personal business to attend to and apparently asked to be replaced by an alternate. Instead, the judge postponed the trial until Monday August 15th 9 AM.

I know the delays have been stressful, and it is easy to become overwhelmed by this process.

William Dubois (who also just took on a new case-- that of a retired teacher in Berkeley who was recently arrested for his alleged role in the 1970 murder of an Oakland police officer) is expected to wrap up Jose Merel's defense. Mike Magidson's attorney Michael Thorman will then begin presenting his case. Thorman is expected to call Jaron Nabors' girlfriend Dede to testify (for what reason, we don't really know.) Magidson, like his co-defendants, is expected to take the stand sometime next week. It will be the first time Magidson's personal testimony will be heard.
Please come to court if you can.

Court Watch Thursday July 28th - Afternoon Session (B. Burgess)

2005-07-29T15:08:00.000-07:00

During the afternoon session both Serra and Thorman cross-examined Merel. Both lawyers seemed to be intent on disproving Merel's credibility by asking him a string of questions about drug use, his emotional state at the time of the murder, and the length of time that passed before he attempted to recall the events in detail with his lawyer.

Before he began his cross-examination of Merel, Thorman requested that the jury be removed from the court room. He then told the judge that he wanted to make an accusation of "inducements made to the witness". Thorman accused the D.A. of offering Merel a deal (that they would go easy on him) if he agreed to testify that Magidson was the one who tied the rope around Gwen/Lida's neck. He demanded an "evidenciary hearing" before the rest of the trial could proceed.

Both Lamiero and DuBois denied Thorman's accusation. The judge asked Merel a series of questions about the alleged D.A. offer and Merel answered no to all of them, firmly denying that any such offer had been made. The judge announced that he could make no findings and brought the jury back in so that the trial could continue.

Thorman will continue his cross-examination on Monday.

Court Watch Thursday July 28th (C. Champagne)

2005-07-28T22:15:00.000-07:00

Lamiero resumed his cross-examination of Jose Merel today.

Last night, I was talking to my niece Kadie. She lives in San Leandro; she's 20 years old, the same age Gwen would be today. I have talked with her about this case since CUAV first became involved back in 2002. She wanted to come to court with me in support of Gwen's family, so today was the day.

Because Jose Merel initially balked at testifying yesterday as to what Magidson had told him (about strangling Lida/Gwen in the garage), they are no longer in the same pod (jail area) and now must travel seperately to court. This caused a delay this morning. Merel's parents have moved to the left side of the courtroom now, so that he can see them and not have to look at Cazares' and Magidson's family members. This is where Gwen's family and supporters also sit. Jaron Nabors' mother also sat on the left with us when he testified. It seems to be not only a physical shift, but a symbolic one as well.

Merel's testimony seems very honest--sometimes a little too honest. I don't mean to say that he's not being truthful because I think he is. It's just that there's a disconnect there, and it's often disturbing to hear what he has to say.

When Lamiero asked Merel what he felt (during Magidson's beating of Gwen), he replied, "I didn't really feel anything I don't think." Lamiero: "Others were in control?"
Merel: "Yes."

Lamiero asked Merel if he cared that Lida/Gwen was hurt. He alluded to her being hit by a weight, although he also said he didn't see her get hit with any weight. He admitted matter-of-fact that he cared more about cleaning up the blood on the carpet, than about her injuries. When the judge called the morning break, we stood in the hallway. Kadie was alarmed by Merel's candor about his lack of feeling. Since I have been in court too many hours now, it was good to know that this is still truly shocking to someone else, especially a young person--that although we want to hear the truth, it is very unsettling, nonetheless.

I have read what has been written in the newspapers lately--and though I am glad there is renewed interest in the case, it bothers me that the tone some journalists use in their articles regarding Jose Merel's testimony has been sympathetic. So, he was "disgusted" by his involvement with Gwen? So what? So, he "questioned" his sexuality? So what? Is this what a reasonable person does in this situation? I don't think so. And although he has expressed some remorse, Merel stated that while the beating was going on--the testimony from the medical examiner stated that Gwen could have died from blunt force trauma alone--he admits not only did he do nothing to help her, it never even crossed his mind. To me, that is "depraved indifference to human life."

This is the thing--it's not enough to just say "She should never have been killed" for this. That does not let Jose Merel, or Mike Magidson, or Jaron Nabors, or Jason Cazares off the hook. And ultimately, it doesn't let Nicole Brown or Emmanuel Merel or Paul Merel--or anyone else who may have been in that house that night when this crime was being perpetrated-- off the hook either, even though they aren't charged with anything.

It's not enough--period.

Do the reporters understand what "depraved indifference to human life" means? Will the jury?

My 20 year old niece understands. I am beyond grateful for that.

The judge has stated that court will resume for 1 day on Monday, and then be off until Tuesday August 9th. He also told the jury they may be deliberating through September 1st.

Court Watch July 27th (C. Champagne)

2005-07-27T21:37:00.000-07:00

Mr. Lamiero began his cross examination of Jose Merel today. "You have a nice family...your mom, your dad--they've told you that smartest thing you can do is tell the truth?"
Merel: "They have."
Lamiero went on to question Merel about the last trial. Merel stated that he had wanted to testify, to tell his story.
"Do you remember meeting (after the murder)?...Did Mike (Magidson) ever tell you that he would accept responsibility for something he did not do?"
"No."
This line of questioning culminated in a tearful stand-off 10 minutes before the noon recess. Merel testified that Cazares was present (despite his testimony to the contrary) during prior discussions of Gwen/Lida's gender.
Lamiero asked Merel about the initial confrontation--
"Can you tell us what was funny about touching Lida's hair, asking her ' Are you a man or a woman? Why did you think your friends would be amused by your touching her hair, neck?"
"Well, it's not something you ask someone everyday..."
"What is so funny about that?"
"Maybe it's not funny...there may have been some smiles."

It seemed clear these guys were taunting her, and maybe teasing Merel.

Lamiero: "(Although) you were hurt by what Lida had done, you knew the better course of action was to let her go?"
Merel: "I did."
Lamiero: "When others made the choice to kill Lida, that hurt you?"
Merel: "Yes."

Then Lamiero asked Merel about the neighbors' party the three went to the night after the murder Friday October 4th. Merel said they went to the neighbors', so as not to provoke suspicion. They had always "kicked it" together on Fridays, so it might be suspicious if they did not attend.

Lamiero: "When you three--(Merel, Cazares, and Magidson)--attended the party, did you talk about what happened?"
Merel: "There was talk."
Lamiero: "Did Mike tell you that he strangled Lida in the garage?"
Merel: " I can't answer that... I don't want to answer that."
Lamiero: " Yes or no, did Mike tell you that he strangled Lida in the garage?"

Merel began to cry, repeating "I can't answer that, sir."

The judge directed him to answer the question.

Lamiero: " Your mom and dad are good people, I know that. They've told you to tell the truth."

But Merel still refused to answer.

Out of the presence of the jury, Lamiero then requested that Merel and Magidson be completely seperated, that they no longer travel together from the jail, that they be in seperate pods, and that they have no contact with one another.

They recessed for lunch.

Court Watch Tuesday July 26th (Connie Champagne)

2005-07-26T23:21:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Cazares' lawyer Serra and his co-counsel Mr. Cazwell concluded their defense with 3 witnesses --Cazares' boss at the construction business, a soccer coach, and his girlfriend Lisa's father. When the father was cross-examined by Lamiero, the witness revealed that even if he had heard Cazares call his daughter a "stupid bitch" and that he threatened to smack her, she may have deserved it--that his daughter can be difficult. This was shocking to many of us present. Cazares admitted on the stand previously that he "might have" spoken to his girlfriend this way.

This morning the courtroom was filled with people--lots of courthouse folks, community, Gwen's family--and for the first time in quite a while--media. Defendant Jose Merel took the stand, and his lawyer Mr. DuBois began his direct examination. Merel did not testify in the first trial, and it seemed like everyone wanted to hear from him. We had heard so much about him--from Nabors, Brown, his brothers and then co-defendant Cazares--we wondered whose version of events would be corraborated, what he would or would not admit to, what he was feeling, if anything.

It must not have been good news for Cazares. Merel's timetable and version of events stayed closer to Nabors' and others' testimony. Although Merel denied striking Gwen with the can, he did admit to threatening her with the can and then striking her with the frying pan. He said did not think the injury was life-threatening.

He stated that he had feelings for Gwen, that he enjoyed being around her, that no matter what, she did not deserve to be killed.

Although the testimony seemed detached to me, it was fairly believable. My friend Cecilia remarked to me that we have to bear in mind that these people are facing years, possibly life , in prison. The truth must lie somewhere in the middle.

As Nabors and others testified, Merel admitted to being "crushed" and in tears--that he was confused and distraught that he could be "attracted to a man." He said he was having serious questions about his sexuality. He admitted he was "ignorant."

Merel stated that after they had beaten Gwen, he thought they intended to "drop her off on the corner" in old Newark where they ususally picked her up. He stated that as Magidson was tying her up with the rope, Magidson said no, that they needed to take her out "further."

Eventually Merel said that he went into his room, crying. According to the testimony , when he came out, Cazares told him they had to get going. Merel stated that he did not know Gwen was dead.

Court resumes tomorrow at 9 AM.

Court Watch July 20th (Connie Champagne)

2005-07-20T22:54:00.000-07:00

Today, ADA Chris Lamiero continued his cross examination of Jason Cazares.

Cazares has stated that he didn't know gender was an issue for his "brother" Jose Merel, that he thought Merel was "joking around." Cazares claimed he didn't hear anyone except Nicole Brown shouting; however, other witnesses testified that Brown, Merel, and perhaps others were shouting; he claimed Jaron Nabors was a"tag-a-long" and an "exagerator"--yet Cazares stated that he definitely believed Nabors, when according to his own testimony, Nabors came in from the garage, "looking scared" and told them "She's (Lida/Gwen) dead." Cazares testified that Jaron Nabors exagerates things, that Nabors is a "fake"--yet Cazares testified he believed Nabors without any question when he told them that Lida was dead.

By his own admission, Cazares never checked Gwen, never took her pulse, never called police or ambulence, never took any action to revive Gwen, and never asked his buddies what happened--nothing.

This afternoon, from 1:30 PM until 4 PM today, when incriminating questions were asked-- at least 7 times he claimed he was too drunk to remember, 14 times he repeated the question back to Lamiero (as he did several times during his initial video-taped police interview which we saw early in the trial--"How did you feel?"--"How did I feel? Well..."), and over 50 times he stated "I don't know" or "I don't remember."

He did testify that when he and Nabors were in truck on their way to his house, that they did see Paul in Nicole's car, and said to them: "We're going to get shovels cos they killed her."

He denied repeatedly--despite so much testimony to the contrary--that gender was an issue--that he was aware of, that he thought they were just "joking around."

Lamiero did an excellent job, trying to get to the truth.

He closed with the question:
"And while Lida was being murdered inside (the house) you didn't hear anything?"
"No."
"While Lida was being killed, you just stood outside and smoked a cigarette?"
"Yes."
"Just enjoying a beautiful Newark evening you just--"
Serra: "Objection--argumenative!"
Judge: "Sustained."

At 3:30 PM, Jose Merel's attorney William Dubois was next to question Cazares.

Dubois may become an unlikely ally to the prosecution.

Dubois: "(So) what do you think Jose seemed to have a problem with?"
Cazares: "Lida."
Dubois: "Lida's what?"
Cazares: "Gender, I guess."
Dubois: "So, from the very beginning of that evening, you were aware that gender was an issue for Jose, one of your very closest friends, your brother...?"
Cazares: "Yes."

By 4 PM, Dubois had managed to get to the root of the matter.

If gender was no big deal, as Cazares claimed--why is Gwen Araujo dead?

Court Watch July 18th-19th (Connie Champagne)

2005-07-19T18:07:00.000-07:00

Since my last posting, ADA Chris Lamiero has finished presenting the prosecution's case and currently, defendant Jason Cazares is on the stand.

Recapping the prosecution: after Nicole Brown, both Merel brothers (older brother Paul and Emmanuel), several law enforcement officials, the psychiatric social worker at Santa Rita, a classification specialist from the jail who evaluated Jaron Nabors (and also monitored his mail), the forensic analyst, Cazares' other girlfriend Deanna (cell phone records show he spoke with her after 3 in the morning, and she testified hearing Jose Merel shouting), Jose Merel's father, Jaron Nabors' father, and lastly the DA's Inspector Kathy Boyovich offered testimony. Emmanuel Merel was recalled to the stand, due to some conflicts in his testimony regarding the direction of Nicole Brown's car. Defense attorneys motioned for a mistrial; it was not granted. They also motioned for reduced charges, elimination of the hate crime penalty etc. The judge denied all the motions. I am told this is standard in a murder case, and I do remember similar motions from last year.

Mr. Serra began direct examination of his client Jason Cazares. Just as he did last year, Serra tried to paint a picture of a salt-of-the-earth guy who dropped out of high school to go to work, a "family man." On the stand, Cazares was vague about the events that transpired the night of the murder, again repeating "I was drunk." He did say he remembers smoking cigarettes and discussing a trip to Tahoe the following Saturday with Paul Merel while the mayhem was going on inside the house.

Paul Merel testified he never had that conversation with Cazares.

At one point, Mr. Lamiero made an objection that Serra was leading the witness--
Serra: "Why didn't you want to be confronted by the media?"
Cazares: "Who does?"
Serra: "Yes, but weren't you afraid of retribution by the victim's family?"
Cazares: "Well, yes..."

This line of questioning went on for awhile until finally, Lamiero objected. The objection was sustained. Mr. Lamiero began his cross examination of Cazares during the afternoon--thanks to Cecilia, Patricia, and several other community folks for being there--and thank you Vanissar and Chris for your detailed blogs.

I am grateful that the LA Times wrote about this blog, and we're getting some amazing feedback. Although the writer quoted me somewhat out of context--I did not say that there's "none of the transphobia"in the trial this time around--I did say that:

I see the effect that education has had on our communuties, the compassion that folks have toward one another.
I see straight allies giving support to queer folks. And queer folks responding in kind.
I have heard from educators who want to invite trans folks into their classrooms, in an effort to educate their students--to try and prevent something this horrible from ever happening to anyone again.
I see slow but important change, which is evident especially in the language that educators, allies, parents, the press (thank you Oakland Tribune), and even law enforcement use--and I know it's because of the work that we have done and continue to do.

And, I did say that Merel's attorney Mr. Dubois and Mr. Serra, in their opening statements, seem to have changed strategies--(the differences in the defense tactics are outlined really well in Chris' posting.) However, Magidson's attorney Michael Thorman continues to use extremely transphobic rhetoric, and seems to hold Gwen responsible for her own murder. He implies that she "robbed" these men of their heterosexuality, and that somehow justifies their rage. That tactic has not changed, and I suspect Thorman will pursue that line of questioning passionately when his client takes the stand.

Court resumes tomorrow at 9 AM.

July 14th Court Watch Update (Chris Daly)

2005-07-19T10:58:00.000-07:00

Illnesses among some attorneys in the case slowed the trial down a bit. Since Connie’s last entry, illnesses have put the trial behind about one week.

However, when court has been in session, ADA Lamiero has been able to move the people’s case forward. In addition to eliciting testimony from Emanuel Merel, the ADA brought forth a great deal of physical evidence. As you can imagine, seeing this evidence presented was very difficult for Gwen’s family, friends, and the handful of community members who have been in attendance.

A detective from the Newark Police Department testified late last week about the investigation that was done in the Merel house. What became clear throughout his questioning is the lack of thoroughness of the investigation. A couple of the attorneys got frustrated trying to nail him down on whether particular areas of the house (including particular pieces of furniture) had been investigated for clues.

Not being at all familiar with police procedure, it’s possible that this kind of lack of attention to detail is a common occurrence. It is also important to simply note that police departments around the country have poor overall records in vigorously investigating the deaths of transgender people. However, it is also possible that the police doing the investigation considered this case to be an easy one to close and therefore only gathered the obvious evidence. After all, at this point they had a confession from one of the participants, they had recovered Gwen, and they had the other suspects in custody. I know I thought that convictions would be quickly forthcoming from what I was reading in the newspapers at the time. Now, nearly three years later, I know differently.

The Detective’s testimony also made apparent the continuing cracks in the cohesion among the defendants and their attorneys. In the 2004 trial, it was difficult to see which attorney was representing which client. In fact, Magidson’s and Merel’s attorneys seemed to be mostly Tony Serra’s assistance throughout most of the trial. Not so, this year. While Serra and Magidson’s attorney (Michael Thorman) still seem to be playing on more or less the same team, Merel’s new attorney, DuBois, is definitely not wearing their colors. In fact, at one point on the 14th DuBois blocked Thorman from introducing an FBI report as evidence. This block led to some words being exchanged between the two. And while I couldn’t hear what was being said and it may have been nothing, both attorneys seemed unhappy with the other.

It is worth noting that this split is one that is commonly seen in a trial with multiple defendants. What was abnormal was last year’s cohesion among the defense attorneys. The reason that each defendant is separately represented is to insure that an attorney is looking out for the individual interests of their client. Instead, last year, we saw the three defendants and their attorneys sticking close together by hoping that the jury would buy their arguments that Gwen was responsible for her own murder. So far, this year, we’ve seen that cohesion fall apart and that argument used by only one defendant and his attorney. The result is that this year we are seeing a more straight-forward murder trial rather then the circus that the defense tried to put on last year.

One of the pieces of evidence that the ADA presented to the Detective was a square piece of wall that the County cut-out of the living room of the Merel house. The cut-out contained a hole of the type that Jaron Neighbors suggested was made during the beating of Gwen. This evidence was not submitted in the first trial and its use here demonstrates the ADA’s beefed up case this year. In fact, Jose Merel’s father testified that the cut-out came from the living room wall and that he had not seen it prior to the night Gwen was killed (although, he was not living at the house for some time prior to the murder).

The ADA also had his chief inspector testify about the cut-out and the cell phone records she had obtained as a part of her investigation. She is likely to be on the stand on July 18th as well. Once her testimony is completed, the ADA is expected to rest his case (sometime this week, surely). At which time, Jason Cazares’s attorney, Tony Serra, will begin to make his case. Since all three defendants are expected to testify this year, it is unclear how long the defense teams will take before resting their respective cases.

Chris Daley
Transgender Law Center

July 14th Court Watch Update (Vanissar Tarakali)

2005-07-19T10:51:00.000-07:00

Courtwatch: July 14, 2005

Today was about physical evidence.

Four witnesses were called today. The first was a forensic scientist with "Forensic Analytical" (I didn't get her name). She was established by the court as an expert in DNA and Serology. She testified last year for the prosecution. The focus was on one of several weights taken from the Merel residence living room that she examined. She found what was probably a spot of blood, about 1/16th of an inch. It was probably blood (she was not 100% certain because the weight was too dark for her to see the true color of the spot, but the speedy reaction to the test she gave it strongly suggests it was blood), but she was never asked to analyze the DNA of this "blood," although she believes there was enough of it to do so. [As an observer, I wonder why she was not asked to?] Sera's cross-examination seemed designed to ridicule and discredit the witness, but to me she still came across as a credible, cautious witness.

The second witness was police detective Patrick Williams, who was present for the early portion of the October 18th 2002 autopsy of Gwen Araujo's body. He took pictures and observed. The condition of Gwen's body was described: her wrists knotted together with rope, rope around her ankles, rope around her knees, thighs, waist and neck. There were 1-2 loops of rope around her neck, and around 10 loops around her knees. There was a gag in her mouth and around her neck which was made out of a hairtie ("scrunchie") and something else.

[Here I remember Nicole Brown testifying that she saw Lida sitting on the couch with a gag made from a scrunchie in her mouth and around her neck.]

During Detective Williams testimony, pieces of the rope were displayed and the scrunchie was passed around. The rope around Gwen's body was very, very long.

[Court is hard. As they so casually pass around and display evidence, I am getting a picture of Gwen sitting on the couch, gagged. I wonder, "what was she feeling? Did she know they were going to kill her?" My feeling is, yes, she knew. I feel such grief and horror, and it seems really wrong that neither I nor Gwen's family (who must feel what I am feeling a thousandfold) can express feelings here in this courtroom. I wonder what it is like for the defendants to be faced with the rope they bound this vivacious young woman with. What are they feeling?]

One of the family members leaves the room, tears streaming down her face.

The autopsy photographs are circulated. Williams points to the blood stain on the part of the rope that was on Gwen's neck. Her head was "pretty bloody."

[Seeing the photos of the rope around Gwen's ankles, wrists, etc is really horrifying. How can the family bear to look?]

The bag with Gwen's clothes and a flannel sheet that she was wrapped in is produced. The sheet is taken out in a lump, and displayed. Then the defense lawyer changes his mind and it is put back.

The comforter Gwen was wrapped and buried in is taken out of the bag. There are bloodstains on the comforter, but the defense lawyer challenges detective Williams' assertion that they are bloodstains, because he does not have "scientific proof." The defense lawyer's tone and manner toward the witness is smart-ass, flippant. [This creates a flip, casual feeling in the courtroom which seems really disrespectful to the dead.]

A carpet sample the FBI cut from the Merel livingroom with blood on the underside is displayed.

Some tension and rivalry evident between Jose and Michael's lawyers.

There is discussion about the weights in the Merel livingroom having been moved around.

Next, the hole in the wallboard found behind a wicker shelf and cut out of the wall is passed around and discussed.

Jose's lawyer questions the witness in a very mocking, condescending, smart-ass way. Trying to put him on the defensive. The focus of this seems to be on Detective Williams not remembering seeing one end of the rope around Gwen's knees/thighs.

The next witness is Paul Merel Sr., Jose's father, and the leaseholder of the Merel house back in October 2002. He is also questioned about the hole in the wallboard, which Jaron Nabors had said was caused by Michael thrusting his knee into Gwen's head, and her head flying back into the wall. There is questioning about the typical location of the wicker shelf, which was blocking the hole from view when the house was first investigated after the murder. Merel Sr. says the hole was not there to his knowledge before October 2002. Merel Sr. was surprised that the hole had not been noticed at the time the carpet was cut.

The next witness was Kathleen Boyovich (sp?) the inspector with the D. A.'s office. She answered questions about 9 cell phone call reports she subpoenaed from the cell phone company, which tracked Jason's and Mike's cell phone activity as they drove. One or both of them had used their cell phones on October 4th, 2002 from 3 AM to 11:46 AM on a trip from Newark to the Livermore and then back again. This established that Mike and Jason were definitely up in the area of Gwen's grave.

Witness also testified she looked at the Merel house before the preliminary hearing and did not see the hole in the wallboard, because the wicker shelf, piled with stuff, was barricading the area.

After the prelim, she returned to the house, moved the wicker thing, and found the hole.

Kathleen Boyovich's cross-examination continues Monday, July 18, 2005.

-as observed by Vanissar Tarakali

June 29th-30th Court Watch Update

2005-06-29T23:15:00.000-07:00

The ADA Chris Lamiero continued to build his case. Last week, an investigator from the DA's office read into record the transcript of Jason Cazares' testimony in last year's trial. Cazares' story last year was that he smoked 2 cigarettes, had a long talk with co-defendant Jose Merel's older brother Paul about going to Tahoe the following Saturday (?) and then went back in the house. Cazares claimed that it was only after going back into the house after this conversation with Paul, that he was told that Gwen/Lida was dead, and it was then that he and Jaron Nabors went to get shovels in Magidson's truck.

However, no testimony so far has been able to corroborate Cazares' version of events.

After the testimony was read, a videotape of Cazares' initial interview with the police in October 2002, a few weeks following the murder, was played. He said many things--like that he went home at 3 AM, took the route by the railroad tracks, that he never knew anyone was seriously questioning Gwen/Lida's gender--things we know now, and that he has since admitted--were not true. And his demeanor/behavior pattern when he was telling these untruths is notably different than when he was telling the truth. I remember his testimony from last year, and I wonder if the jury will notice what I noticed.

The timeline of when they got the shovels is important, because if Cazares went to get shovels before the murder--that implicates him very seriously. Nabors has already testified that when they left to get the shovels, Gwen was sitting on the couch--injured but still alive. Nabors testified that Cazares' said they needed to go and get shovels because, "They're (Magidson and Jose Merel) gonna kill that bitch."

Following Cazares' interview, Paul Merel was called as a witness. He was very evasive, and now claims that he left the house because his girlfriend Nicole Brown was pushing him to leave. (Last year, he said he knew something bad was going down, and already being on probation himself, was worried the police were coming.) However, Merel testified again that he never had any conversation with Cazares about going to Tahoe that night--that they didn't talk until the next day.

Girlfriend Nicole Brown followed Merel and also testified that Paul never had a conversation of that nature with Cazares. Although she admits her memory was problematic due to alcohol and pot, she testified that she remembers events, if not the specific order. Last year, her testimony was erratic, due to her meth use at that time; however, she stated that she has been sober for a year, and seems credible this time around on the stand, despite the defense attorneys' efforts to discredit her. She and Merel both said they saw Gwen alive and sitting up when they left the Merel house. Moments later, she said they saw Magidson's truck. She testified although she couldn't see who was in the truck, she stated she heard Cazares' voice say, "We're going to get shovels."

A side note--I was told that Nicole Brown has apologized to Gwen's mom Sylvia for her role in this nightmare, and that Sylvia embraced her. These gestures are amazing to me for so many complex reasons. The process of healing and change is very powerful. I am always amazed and moved by it.

Brown's testimony continued through Thursday June 30th and is expected to conclude Tuesday morning July 5th. The younger Merel brother Emanuel is the next witness scheduled. Emanuel (aka Manny) lived in the house at the time, was present that night, and also left with Nicole and Paul. Emanuel was the only person sober (doesn't drink/use pot etc.) that night. It will be interesting to hear his testimony in that regard.

Thanks to Pablo, Vanissar, Oscar and Shane for making it to the trial last week. Community presence means a lot to the Gwen's family. Now that Pride Week is over, we hope to see more folks at Court Watch.

--Connie Champagne

June 20th Court Watch

2005-06-22T15:09:00.000-07:00

Court began Monday morning with the defense lawyers and the ADA discussing (out of the presence of the jury) which photographs would be admitted into evidence. Jose Merel's attorney Mr. Dubois wanted 6 photos; Cazares' attorney Serra wanted only one :"They (the photos) are too gruesome...will be prejudicial and have no probative value."

The photos are what they are, and they reflect the brutality of the crime--the savage beating and murder of a 17 year old. Dubois entertained a motion to sever--meaning that he might want seperate trial for his client Merel.

Ultimately, the judge ruled that most of the photos would be admitted. The jury came into court at 9:45 AM.

The medical examiner Dr. Sharon Van Meter took the stand. She has been a doctor of pathology for over 30 years, and as a member of the Western Medical Group, provides medical services to the Alameda County Coroner's office. Van Meter examined the body, and determined the cause of death to be "asphyxia (from strangulation) in association with blunt force trauma to the head." The victim was alive at the time of strangulation, and she may or may not have been conscious. The trauma alone could have been fatal.

Serra: "What instrument caused the trauma/lacerations? Could it have been a can?"
Van Meter:"Yes."
Serra: "Fry pan?"
Van Meter: "Yes."
Serra: "A shovel?"
Van Meter: "Yes."
Serra: "A weight?"
Van Meter: "Yes."
Serra: "You can't tell us exactly (what caused the trauma)?"
Van Meter: "No I can't."

Dubois, in his opening statement, described Merel's assault as "glancing" blows. But, Van Meter testified that there was no evidence of "scraping," so "glancing" blows would seem unlikely.

One of the distinct characteristics that define a hate crime is the over-kill factor--the extreme violence that perpetrators use. Van Meter testified that there were indeed a number of post-mortem lesions over Gwen's body: "Yes...a (large) number of areas--over the back, abdomen, knees, left-forward chest, right forearm and thigh and knee, back of left forearm..."

In other words, they were still beating the life out of her, after she was already dead.

Van Meter testified that nearly 4 feet of rope was used--that there were "numerous lengths of rope" used and that the free ends were knotted. Her wrists were bound multiple times; the rope extended down the side of her body, around her ankles, too, and her chest. Jaron Nabors testified she had been "knocked out" and was unconscious, and that Magidson asked him for his knife to cut the rope. But why all the rope, the intricacies of cutting the pieces of rope, and tying the pieces in such an elaborate way? Did Magidson have some weird rope fetish, some sociopathic fantasy involving rope/restriction--what? Gwen's predicament certainly presented a perfect opportunity to for him to act this out, were Magidson so inclined. It 's very disturbing.

Mr. Serra in his cross examination of Van Meter asked her to detail the toxicology report on Gwen's blood alcohol content and drugs found in her system. Although it is an allowable line of questioning, it feels like he is again blaming the victim for her cirmumstances and impunes her character. Gwen Araujo is not on trial for her own murder, so such questions should be irrelevant.

Next on the stand--the investigator from the DA's office who read Cazares' testimony from the last trial, then a sergeant/detective who interviewed Cazares a couple of weeks after the murder, and the videotape of that interview. But this courtwatch participant has a had a long day--I will update soon.

Court watch continues this Monday June 27th at the Hayward Hall of Justice, 24404 Amador Street, Hayward in Courtrroom 510, 2nd Floor. Please try and come to court and support Gwen's family when you can--thanks.

--Connie Champagne

Thursday June 16th--Nabors Testimony Concludes

2005-06-19T21:39:00.000-07:00

Court Watch Update-- Thursday June 16th, 2005

William Dubois (attorney for Jose Merel): "Why should we believe you?"
Jaron Nabors: "Well, in the absence of predated confidence, all we're left with is rational perception."

For 9 long days, Nabors testified for the prosecution. He held up well. The defense attorneys Thorman, Dubois and Serra took their turns alternately questioning and ultimately badgering him in a variety of creative ways--by pointing out pejorative terms he used, ugly language and slurs, avoiding eye contact with the jury, the deal he eventually received for taking police to Gwen's body and testifying against his former friends.

Dubois: "You had to move very quickly (before anyone else got a deal first) didn't you?
Nabors: "No, I wanted to move quickly...I don't think I could have gotten a deal any worse," (meaning he will serve the maximum sentence.)
Serra: "Isn't what you're doing called 'speaking with forked tongue'--agree?"
Nabors:"No. I'm not lying."
Serra: "In your next life, be a lawyer!" (Lamiero objects.)
Thorman (attorney for Michael Magidson):"Why don't you look at them (the jury)?"
Nabors: "In my circumstances, I think it would be inappropriate...I'm not a victim facing my attackers. And I'm not a defendant asking to go home. "

In the end, Lamiero asked the most important questions.

Lamiero: "You said all of you (Merel, Cazares, and Magidson) should have seperate trials--why?"
Nabors: "(Because) only 1 person killed Lida."
Lamiero: "At that time, you drew a distinction between the person who did the act (versus) those who helped?"
Nabors: "Yes."

Lamiero noted Nabors' lack of remorse over Gwen's death evident in phone calls he made from jail to his girlfriend, and tape-recorded by police shortly after his arrest.
Lamiero: "How do you feel about that today?"
Nabors: "It hurts. When I think back on it, I realize I didn't even care what happened to her. Everyone deserves at least that. I didn't even have enough character to. Not only did I not try, I didn't even consider trying...I could have stopped it."
Lamiero: "Mr. Thorman has asked you about not looking at the jury--have you testified truthfully?"
Nabors: "Yes."
Lamiero: "So, even if all three of these men walk out of this courtroom free, you'll still do 11 years?"
Nabors: "I know that."
Lamiero: "Want the jury to believe you?"
Nabors: "It doesn't really matter to me."
Lamiero: "Explain your answer."
Nabors: "Well, I don't want them to think I'm a liar. But, it's up to them."

Lamiero had no further questions; the defense attorneys excused Nabors with the stipulation that they may recall him for more questions later.

Although there were a couple of press people in court that morning, they left after lunch and missed what was probably the most important testimony we've seen in either trial thus far. The small coderie of folks who stayed for the afternoon meandered out the door. Gwen's mom Sylvia called an "emergency victims' meeting"--she was frustrated and upset with the tactics the defense attorneys used-- " Why did the judge let them badger him like that?" Whatever the reason, the more out of control the defense attorneys got, the less their version(s) of events seemed plausible. And the more we believed Jaron Nabors.

I don't know whether he was quoting someone else--Ayn Rand? (if anyone knows--tell me) but nevertheless, Nabors was pretty much right--"in the absence of predated confidence, all we're left with is rational perception."

Afterall, at this point--what more does he really have to lose?

--Connie Champagne

(Court resumes Monday June 20th @ 9AM--the medical examiner is expected to take the stand.)

Tuesday June 14th Court Watch

2005-06-14T23:31:00.000-07:00

Michael Thorman, attorney for Michael Magidson had begun his cross examination of Jaron Nabors. He was playing a video of Jaron Nabors' interview with the police.
On tape--
Detective Lovano--(and btw, I don't know how to spell his name, so apologies up front)--"If all you did was block the door, why on earth would you go with them (Magidson, Merel & Cazares) to Silverfork (to bury Gwen's body)?"
Nabors: "Loyalty... And, like ,'Holy shit, what if I'm too far into this to back out now?'"
Detective: "You know, there's DNA, trace evidence can be found on the body.."
Nabors: "I'm not worried about that--"
Detective: "Cos we'll find out--"
Nabors: "I want you to find out."
Thorman detailed the inconsistancies of Nabors' interview statements versus what he is destifying now (and in the first trial.) Nabors was upfront about the inconsistancies, and admits telling half-truths, trying to save himself and the others:

Description of his knife, how he came in possession of it
Left Jason out of initial report--said that" Jose and Mike took Lida in the garage" (when it was actually Magidson and Jason Cazares)

Thorman: "You were protecting Jason?"
Nabors: "Yeah."

And then, information from Thorman--(and this will most likely be a new tactic Thorman will use): "Do you remember a discussion, where Mike (Magidson) said that since all three of you--(Merel, Cazares, and Nabors)--have children and he (Magidson) doesn't have children--Mike offers, he says "I'll take the blame?"
Nabors: "I don't remember him making that statement at all."
Thorman: "Reason why you went along?--Loyalty? But you were in."
Nabors: "Yeah."

Thorman asked about Nabors' meeting with his lawyer--who objected--and the judge overruled. When they met, what they discussed.

Thorman then began to play the recorded phone call Nabors placed to his girlfriend. We all heard this in the last trial, and it is full of minutia and details about their personal lives which seem to be irrelevent to the case--and homophobia and transphobia and mysogeny.

What is different is Nabors' reaction to hearing himself and Dede on tape. He put his head in his hands.

The girlfriend Dede (again--apologies for misspelling her name if I am)--says: "They (referring to a vigil for Gwen) had some kind of prayer! It makes me mad! The aunt (Imelda Guerrero) said she (Gwen) was a "beautiful person." It's not fair! She was not...she was sick and disgusting...don't worry, it will all come out, the truth will come out."

And so it goes.

Well, Dede was right in a way. The truth is coming out. Not in a way Dede would have imagined at that time, but the truth nevertheless. Transgender awareness is everywhere--and transgender education is becoming more effective each day.

The first trial began the process. In this trial-there's been a turn-around in these defense lawyers tactics, the language they use, the language the press uses. Sylvia Guerrero and the rest of Gwen's family have taken up the banner, and as a result, so many folks are talking, learning, and their minds are broadening and changing. We are all--learning.

I had to leave at noon--I had a crisis line shift to cover at CUAV. I spoke to Gwen's mom Sylvia today as I was leaving. She thanked CUAV for being there with her and her family. She also believes that Jaron Nabors is telling the truth, which is a comfort to her. She shared with me that only Nabors' parents have expressed to her their condolences for her loss. And partly because of that, Sylvia has begun to find a way to heal.
--Connie Champagne

Monday June 13th Court Watch

2005-06-13T23:03:00.000-07:00

Trial began at 10:15 AM--an hour and 15 minutes late, due to a "transportation problem." William Dubois, attorney for Jose Merel, began his cross-examination of Jaron Nabors. He asked about Nabors' weight loss. Dubois seemed very interested, as if to imply that the weight loss was intentional--to illicit sympathy? Nabors testified that he weighed 150 lbs when Gwen was murdered, 205 lbs when he testified last year, and 170 lbs now.

Dubois is the new lawyer on the case, and he repeats questions over and over ( a tactic Mr. Serra seemed to realize might not have been effective last trial.) After deducing what Nabors weighed and when, he turned to Nabors' religious beliefs. Nabors' responded, "I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me because of my religious beliefs." Dubois-- (some sarcasm) "Are you living a 'Christ-like' life?" Nabors--"As much as can be possible...I don't expect it to mean anything to anyone else." Dubois then grilled Nabors for 30 minutes, with what seemed to most of us, a pointless debate about the meaning of the 23rd Psalm, his knowledge of it, and whether it refers to "a lost sheep, with a broken leg, who's strayed from God"--or not.

The questioning veered to what Nabors said to his lawyer, and several objections were made--most of which the judge sustained on the basis of attorney/client privilege. After this line of questioning went on for some time, DA Chris Lamiero asked if he could instruct the jury on the meaning of aiding and abetting, and what it means "to participate in a crime." The judge declined.

Dubois produced a small can of tomatoes, asks if it was similar to the can his client hit Gwen Araujo in the head with. Nabors said no, the can Merel used was bigger.

Interesting to note: Dubois always refers to Gwen as "Gwen"--not as "Lida," not as "Eddie." He is, after all, the new lawyer.

He questions Nabors about his testimony in the last trial, but Dubois only has a transcript "marked up" by his "predessor" (i.e. Merel's lawyer in the first trial.) It seemed odd to me that both Serra and Dubois don't seem to have any access to a copy machine, or admin assistants to make clean copies of transcripts for them...

The transcripts have Nabors testifying about the can and skillet used in Merel's assault. Nabors--"He (Merel) got a can and a frying pan from the kitchen, and that's what I'm still saying." Dubois brought out another prop--this time, a tiny frying pan. Again, Nabors notes that the pan is smaller than the one Merel used in the assault. Dubois seems to be laying groundwork to imply that Nabors struck her with something (a weight?) and not his client Merel.

Dubois moved on the describing Nabors' relationship with Merel as "commercial;" in other words, Merel sold him marijuana:
Dubois--"How often?"
Nabors--"Whenever the stars were alligned."
Dubois (apparently quoting from the musical Hair), --"You mean when the moon is in the 7th house?"
Nabors--"Something like that."
Dubois--"Grass brought you there?"
Nabors--"Yes."

Dubois stressed the affects marijuana has on memory, and how much he smoked over a 6 year period of time. Nabors acknowledged that pot affected his memory, "That's weed--there's something that you (used to) know, that you know that you know--but you can't remember it," but insisted, "...My memory was far from shot."

Dubois' main points, in short:

Pot affected Nabors' memory (was the can Rotel?) How far away was Nabors from Merel when merel struck Gwen?
Nabors promised his "friends" that he wouldn't tell what they had done to Gwen, but within hours, told someone--(another) friend Adam anyway. Why? Was he bragging? Was it his conscience? Both?) Ultimately, he led the police to Gwen's body, hoping for leniency, "a deal."
In his letter, Nabors didn't tell his "significant other" the real reason he went out that night (Nabors wrote his girlfriend that he was defending his buddies from"enemies," when, in fact, just wanted to "hang out.")

Although Dubois went on and on, and many objections were made, overruled or sustained, Nabors did well corraborating his original testimony. The props--the can of food and the tiny pan--seemed theatrically false--and they weren't the actual ones that Merel used to assault Gwen.

Does the jury know that?

Court recessed at 2:50PM, and I had to leave. I will be back tomorrow at 9 AM.
--Connie Champagne

Court Watch Update June 6th through June 8th

2005-06-10T10:57:00.000-07:00

June 6th through June 8th 2005
Monday, court resumed with DA Chris Lamiero's direct examination, Jaron Nabors still on the stand. Nabors recounted the events of October 3rd into the early hours of October 4th, 2002. The account was consistent with last year's-- the 4 going to the Elephant Bar, then to Mango's, then ending up at the Merel house, and the rest.

An important piece--did Jason Cazares and Nabors fetch the shovels before--or after--Gwen's murder?--was again corroborated by Nabors. According to his testimony, after Jose Merel's assault on Araujo with the can of food and then the "skillet," Araujo was still alive, sitting on the couch. Cazares asks Nabors "Are you down?" and Nabors nods in the affirmative. They get Magidson's car keys, drive to the Cazares house and fetch the shovels. This is a key piece of testimony, and when Merel takes the stand, his attorney Bill Dubois has indicated he will back that up. It's crucial to the case against Cazares, who arguably has a chance at manslaughter, or even of going free.

Much will be discussed about Nabors' jailhouse letter to his girlfriend--how much was true, how much was bragging. Was he trying to manipulate the DA, the police? And how did he hurt his elbow? Nabors has chronic inflammation in his elbow--was it from holding his arms inside the shirt he was wearing, borrowed form Merel, so he wouldn't get his other shirt dirty, on the cold ride to Silver Fork, or some other way?

Lamiero concluded by asking him about his life in jail, where Nabors has been in Administrative Segregation, " (I.e. relative solitary confinement) for the past 2 years and 8 months. What does he do? Spends time "reading, exercising, studying Spanish, college entrance exams..." Lamiero asks him again, "Are you telling the truth?" Answers, "Yes."

And, although I think there is still more to the story--I believe him.

The thing that is striking about Nabors' testimony this time around, is the change in his demeanor. He looks defeated. In the words of one Guerrero family member, "This is a different guy from last year." It's true that he's lost 35 pounds, and apparently is plagued by nightmares of that night, what happened, what he did. The arrogance of last year is gone--this person on the stand now has maybe begun to realize there is no way out, and the price to pay immeasurable.

Cazares' lawyer, famous Tony Serra, made a motion to lift the gag order. The judge partially relented, but reminded Serra that he cannot impune the "credibility of a witness" (meaning Jaron Nabors as well.) "Well, Mr. Serra, discretion is the better part of valour, " Judge Sheppard joked. It seems like it must be very difficult for Serra to not be able to talk to the media. I mean--and this is just me--for an attorney with such an illustrious social justice law career and an obvious flare for showbiz, what's in it for him this time around? Without being able to go on TV, what are his perks? Although I agree that everyone is entitled to a defense, his client was there, he particiapted--Jason Cazares got the shovels--they were HIS shovels! Why Serra took Cazares as a client in the first place is a mystery, and I guess we'll have to wait for True Believer Part II to find out.

Volunteers Needed for CUAV's Court Watch

2005-06-07T13:13:00.000-07:00

Interested in helping to ensure justice for Gwen Araujo? Please volunteer to participate on CUAV's Court Watch. By attending court during the course of the re-trial, court watch participants have a key role in being an emotionally supportive presence to Gwen's family. Additionally, your silent support and courtroom visibility sends a message to the judge, the jury, the attorneys, the witnesses, and sometimes even folks in political power that the case matters, and that its outcome will affect the community in a profound way. For more information, please contact Tina D'Elia at tina@cuav.org.

Court Watch Update by Connie Champagne

2005-06-02T19:37:00.000-07:00

Today is the second day of the murder retrial. D.A. Chris Lamiero, and all 3 lawyers for the defense have given opening statements. Tony Serra is again representing Jason Cazares, and Michael Thorman for Michael Magidson; Jose Merel has a new lawyer, William Dubois.

Lamiero methodically presented the events, culminating with a statement I felt really resonated—that these defendants “were not who they seemed” to be. Gwen Araujo thought these men were her friends, she didn’t know they were “pathetic, angry, weak…” Since the defense had attacked Gwen’s character relentlessly in the last trial, it begs the question—who was truly deceiving who?

Strategies for at least 2 of the defense attorneys will be very different from the last trial. Serra (an old-school activist lawyer, as many of you know) seems to be dismissing trans-panic, claiming his client Cazares had “no feelings for Lida (another name Gwen went by),” and that he was only involved in the cover-up out of misguided loyalty for his friends. Dubois is claiming that Merel “had feelings for Lida,” and only “menaced” her with a frying pan and can of food. He will try to convince the jury Gwen’s head injuries were caused by Jaron Nabors (the 4th perpetrator who will receive involuntary manslaughter conviction if he testifies truthfully) who allegedly hit Gwen with a weight. Although both lawyers seem to want to distance themselves from the trans-panic tactics they hoped would work last trial, they still use very sexist, transphobic inflammatory language in describing Gwen.

Thorman is back and bolder than ever with his uber-trans-panic defense, claiming his client Magidson with “zombie-like” with “rage.” “Deception and betrayal,” are words he uses frequently, and claims that Magidson “wants to take responsibility for the crime--of manslaughter, not murder.” (?) His is a classic “blame-the-victim for her own murder” defense. Thorman stated that her “reckless” behavior led to this tragedy. He asserts that his client believed that Lida/Gwen “was a gay man who enjoyed tricking straight men, possibly exposing them to HIV,” and when he “politely” tried to find out Gwen’s gender (politely--by assaulting her and pulling at her underwear?), she didn’t “apologize.” Wow. This line of rhetoric, though not a big surprise, was more offensive than ever, and I felt physically ill.

This afternoon, the prosecution’s case began. Gwen’s younger sister Pearl Serrano was the first witness to take the stand today; her testimony was heart-felt, and for the first time, the jury heard Gwen’s legal name—Gwen Amber Rose Araujo. When Lamiero showed her Gwen’s photo, she stated “That’s my sister.” She explained that Gwen had always been “feminine,” that when she was 12 or 13 began to transition, and that Gwen had been living “100%” out as female since she was 14 years old. This goes far to establish that Gwen was not deceiving anyone by identifying as female, and was, in fact, being her true self. The testimony was concise, and very moving. None of the defense lawyers had questions for her. Pearl had great support from her family---their grandmother, Aunt Imelda, Uncle David, Step-Dad John, several family friends, and of course their mom Sylvia Guerrero were all there in attendance today.

Jaron Nabors—the 4th perpetrator in the case—took the stand after Pearl at 2:10 PM. He has lost a lot of weight, and looked pretty gaunt. Lamiero began to question him about the events leading up to Gwen’s murder—how they met, who did what, and what his impressions of Lida/Gwen were. The testimony was consistent so far with the last trial.
The judge adjourned at 4PM; court reconvenes at 9 AM on Monday. The schedule generally will be Monday through Friday 9AM to 4PM, at the Hayward Courthouse, Courtroom 510, 2nd Floor Hayward, CA and is open to the public.

There is a gag order on this case which means that lawyers and witnesses can’t speak to the press. We also won’t be able to know in advance who/what order witnesses will take the stand. But Chris Daly from TG Law Center tells me it’s okay for me to write this out to you—so I am. I will try and attend court as often as possible, and try and keep this blog up to date. Thanks to Oscar, Tina, Chris Daly, Julie Dorf, Carolyn Laub, Shelly, and everyone who showed up to give support. It is powerful and appreciated.

The road ahead

2005-06-02T16:28:00.000-07:00

Gwen Araujo's second trial began yesterday on June 1, 2005. The following is a link to an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/02/BAGE9D25C31.DTL

A number of courtwatchers from CUAV, Transgender Law Center, and other community organizations plan to post a biweekly update on the trial's proceedings. Stay tuned!