Ken P.

Ken P. had no criminal history before he was accused of molesting his two step-nieces. The accusations were made long after the alleged crimes took place. One young woman reported that he had molested her eleven years prior, and that she never told about it because she didn't want to cause trouble in the family. Her cousin reported that he had done essentially the same thing to her about seven years later. She did not explain why she had not reported it earlier.

Of concern for the defense was that these young women were the daughters of two of Ken's six step brothers and step sisters. His mother had married a man with six children, and she and their father, now Ken's step father, built a going business which they had sold to the eldest step son when they retired.

He and his wife were not making their payments to the parents in a timely manner. The brother asked for a copy of the family trust, claiming he needed it to refinance the business and pay off the parents. The terms of the trust were that Ken would receive one half of the trust (his mother's half), and the six step brothers and step sisters were to split their father's one half of the business. Shortly thereafter, the accusations were made by the eldest brother about his daughter, who accompanied him to the Sheriff's office in Arizona, and then his sister's daughter made her report. The case was filed in Riverside County. There is a special statute that allows cases of this kind to be filed in a venue where at least one of the crimes has been committed. The one niece claimed that in 1996, while at her aunt's house in Murrieta, Ken came into the room where she was sleeping and molested her. The other case allegedly happened in Los Angeles County, but the Los Angeles County District Attorney refused to file the case, so Riverside included it with the other case.

While preparing for trial in Riverside, Ken was arrested at his home in the Victorville area, and charged with molesting two other young ladies, daughters of his friends who had purchased the family business when the eldest step brother had failed in the business and gave it back to the trust.

While in the early stages of the Victorville case, two more young ladies were added to the list of victims of Ken, and San Bernardino County held Ken in custody with a bail of over one million dollars, and trial was going to proceed in Victorville before Riverside.

In Ken's Victorville case, the step nieces from the Riverside cases were brought in as 1108 witnesses (see Jack D.'s case, above). Thus, Ken had six young women testify against him at trial.

Each of the girls told their story at trial. There were deviations from their original stories, including one young woman claiming that Ken had molested her on a specific occasion--a national holiday. However, before trial we produced evidence that Ken was in another state on that date, with a woman friend, who we listed as a witness, and who testified for the defense. In response, the young woman remembered it was a year earlier. We produced another witness, a man, who remembered that he was sharing an apartment with Ken that particular year, and that they had been together at the beach in Orange County that particular night.

Each of the young women denied speaking with the others about the case. One denied knowing any of the others.

I produced copies of the MySpace pages for three of the young ladies. On their pages, they were discussing the case, and Ken. The last witness testified that she knew all of the other young ladies, and the one who claimed she did not know any of the others had attended birthday parties and barbeques with her on several occasions. Thus, each of the witnesses was caught in at least one big lie.

We called numerous character witnesses for Ken, including a young woman, about the same age as Ken's nieces, who told of her attraction to Ken when she was 14, and how she essentially propositioned him, and was going to run away from home, and wanted to live with Ken. This was a very attractive young woman. She reported that Ken had talked her out of running away, and had told her that it would not be appropriate for her to stay with him.

Ken also testified. He was an excellent witness. We had spent dozens of hours together while he was in custody, and a great deal of time together prior to his arrest on the Victorville case. We had been ready for trial in the Riverside case when he was jailed for the Victorville case.

Like all of my clients who might testify at trial, it takes time to help a person understand that their anger about what has happened to them will not be understood by the jury.

Jurors are new to the case, and know only what is presented by way of voir dire--jury selection; the Opening Statements of the parties, and then the evidence. Showing anger, or not being clear on the story, by assuming that the jury knows anything about the case, much less anything about who the client really is, can be a fatal mistake. It takes a great deal of time to prepare for a trial, and to assist a client in learning how to present him or herself to a group of people he has never met before the trial.

If this were a movie set, the actors would get as many "takes" as necessary to get their story out clearly, and with the proper affect.

In trial, the defendant gets only one chance to tell his/her story. Just one.

We were unable to get much of the financial motive information in at the trial because the step brother, although bold during his report to law enforcement about Ken--he was the first to make a report--never set foot anywhere in California where we could serve him with a subpoena. Getting an out-of-state subpoena served, then setting a hearing with the court of that jurisdiction for its enforcement is time consuming and very expensive, including hiring local counsel to proceed on your behalf. So, we did not pursue him.

In any event, the jury deliberated about a day, and found Ken not guilty on all counts. Had Ken been convicted, he would have been sentenced to life in prison for "multiple victims."

As noted above, Ken's was the case where the local newspaper had put his booking photo on the front page, and upon my insistence, put a small back page story about his acquittal. The story was inaccurate, and certainly did not get the attention to detail they had given his arrest and accusations.

There was still the case in Riverside. The prosecutor there was beginning a new investigation into the allegations of Ken's step nieces. I pushed to set the case for trial, and Ken was released on his previously posted bail.

The new evidence brought in by the prosecutor was extensive, with new witnesses, and new interviews. However, in the midst of all of that material was an interview with the former boyfriend of one of the nieces. She had told her boyfriend a completely different story. I suggested to the prosecutor that he had a problem with his witnesses. He also intended to call the step brother, and I demanded a copy of his video-taped interview. The new evidence was mounting, and even though we had set a trial date, I was receiving new discovery each week. When we came in for our trial date, both sides announced ready. I assured the prosecutor that I was going to object to the "new" evidence, as it was not timely, and it would otherwise compel my client to waive time for trial for us to investigate, which he refused to do.

In Riverside, when you announce ready for trial, you usually begin a "trailing" period of ten days. We agreed to return on day 8 of 10. That day, the prosecutor asked if I was going to announce ready for trial. I told him yes, I was ready. When the case was called, the prosecutor moved to dismiss. In that case, Ken was also facing life in prison for "multiple victims."