Last Friday, Franc Cano, 27, and Steven Dean Gordon, 45, were arrested in Anaheim.  On Monday, they were both charged with four counts of special circumstances murder and four counts of felony rape.   If they are convicted, they will face a minimum of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and could face the death penalty.  

Background

Both men were previously charged with lewd and lascivious acts with a child under fourteen and were believed to have met in 2012 when they both cut their ankle bracelets and boarded a grey hound bus to Las Vegas.  They were apprehended two weeks later by federal agents and were returned to CA where they were charged and convicted for failing to register as sex offenders.  After the conviction, both reported monthly and were ordered to wear government issued GPS devises. 

Meanwhile, four women went missing.  Santa Ana Police Chief Carols Rojas reported that the two men “were not on our radar whatsoever.”  He explained that three of the women missing from Santa Ana, went completely off the grid.  They had been searching everywhere when the body of Jarrae Nykkole Estep was found on a conveyor belt at an Anaheim trash-sorting plant.  Once authorities realized that Jarrae had been murdered, and that she shared a similar profile with the other three missing women, they shifted the focus of their investigation. 

The ankle bracelets worn by the accused helped police identify Cano and Gordon as suspects and authorities suspect that there are more victims.

What are Special Circumstances Murders?

“Special Circumstances” are sentencing enhancements that can be used to increase a murder sentence and qualify it for the death penalty.   In 1972, in Furman v. Georgia,the United States Supreme Court found that applying the death penalty without any limitations was a violation of the 8^th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.  In response, California enacted Penal Code 190.2.  This section sets out the “special circumstances” that qualify a first degree murder conviction for the death penalty.  The list is a bit all over the place because it is comprised of both legislative additions, and voter additions.  Some of the circumstances include; murder of police, murder of a judge, murder’s involving torture, driving by shootings, bombings and more.  In this case, the special circumstances include murder during the commission of rape, multiple murders, and lying in wait.   

“Swatting” is when people call the police to report a fake crisis, usually a shooting or a fire, currently going down at another person’s house. Police then send out SWAT teams and helicopters, only to find out the report was but a hoax. (Oops!) Lately, Los Angeles is being bamboozled with incidents of swatting, including at the homes of regular citizens and those belonging to celebrities Justin Timberlake, Miley Cyrus, and yesterday, actor and comedian Russell Brand.

I have to admit: it is kind of funny to picture SWAT teams surrounding the homes of some of the more annoying celebs. (Other “victims” include the Biebs, Chris Brown and Simon Cowell, all of whom I think could use a little messing with.) HOWEVER, the ridiculous price tag on each call is anything but funny. According to LAPD, each incident can cost up to $10,000 depending on the number of officers and helicopters dispatched, leaving taxpayers to bear the burden of these annoying shenanigans.

New Anti-Swatting Law

California lawmakers are eager to crack down on the $10k pranks, and have already pushed a bill through the Senate Public Safety Committee to crack down on the swatting. Championed by Senator Ted Lieu, if passed, the bill would authorize judges to make perpetrators of swatting fit the bill for costs incurred by the responding law enforcement. In the case of children making the call, the bill would also allow imposing the fine on the parents of the accused, regardless of their knowledge of or participation in the stunt. Ashton Kutcher’s house was the target of swatting back in 2009; a 12-year-old boy was charged and later admitted to orchestrating the prank, along with another call-out to a Los Angeles bank.

Other anti-swatters are trying to make it a felony to falsely report a crime, creating the potential for real prison time if convicted. In 2008, a Washington state swatter was sentenced to two and a half years in federal prison for his participation in an elaborate swatting hoax intended to discombobulate law enforcement. In that case, there were some 250 “victims” and about $250,000 worth of damages.

Bystanders Beware!

Along with the ridiculous price tag, police here claim that swatting is also extremely dangerous and have repeatedly warned that “it’s only a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed as a result.” At first I thought this was a bit melodramatic, but the more I think about it, the more I agree. Why? Because LAPD is maybe the most trigger-happy law enforcement around! Imagine how easily one of them could mistakenly fire on a dog-walker or other innocent bystander while responding to one of these swatting calls. Remember the Deadly Dorner Drama? During the manhunt, police shot two WOMEN in a car that they thought looked like Dorner’s without making any attempt to verify their suspicions whatsoever!

Boy Who Cried Wolf-Much?

Perhaps the most damaging impact of the swatting shenanigans is the future action – or, inaction – of LAPD, as a result of all the pump fakes. I actually heard it on the news (ABC Local News) that police will no longer send out full SWAT teams based on phoned-in reports. Rather, they will only send “a few deputies” to check it out first. In other words, next time there is a serious crime in progress, a couple of lambs (pigs?) will first be sent to slaughter and THEN we will bring out the big guns. Hopefully there is no one on the brink of death, in need of an ambulance and full emergency response or a house burning down, right? Awesome plan. I mean, I get it – Los Angeles certainly does not have the extra money to spend on these little shithead pranks – but I would still rather err on the side of safety when it comes to emergency response.

The current bill won’t see the California Senate floor until at least June or July and if approved, will go into effect as early as September. Stay tuned for developments in anti-swatting laws and ensuing shenanigans!

I can no longer resist the urge to write about this Casey-Anthony look alike murder trial in the case against Jodi Arias. Earlier this week, Juror #5 was dismissed and escorted out of the courthouse in tears. This, after the defense made a motion to dismiss the miscreant juror for alleged misconduct and a motion for mistrial. The former was granted and the latter denied.

There were a total of 18 jurors hearing the trial, including alternates. Ultimately, a panel of 12 will make the decision. Arias could face the death penalty if convicted. She is accused of killing her ex-boyfriend back in 2008 and claims she did so in self-defense.

Why Was Juror #5 Dismissed?

Juror #5 has been described as being a particularly attentive juror who took copious notes throughout the trial. So what did this errant Arias juror do? She made statements that showed bias, or her inability to be impartial, in the presence of other jurors. The records are sealed, so we are left to fill in the blanks as to what was actually said. (At least until the gag order is lifted and Juror #5 releases her “exclusive” interview with every news station that will take her.) Anyway, Judges are not quick to dismiss jurors, especially those who have already spent three months serving on a long cause trial. In other words, Juror #5’s statements must have been pretty egregious to have led to such a ruling.

Prosecutor’s Publicity Parade

What troubles me is the manner in which this misconduct was revealed to the defense. Counsel for Arias was questioning the Prosecutor, Mr. Juan Martinez, about his signing autographs and posing for pictures outside the courthouse. It was during that publicity melee that prosecutor Martinez overheard Juror #5 make the statements indicating her bias, he told defense counsel. The defense also made a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct. The motion was denied but as a result, jurors were called into court one by one to be questioned about what they had seen of Martinez’s tryst with the press.

Not only do her actions form the basis for her own dismissal, but what Juror #5 pulled will also be scrumptious grounds for an appeal on the grounds that other jurors, who were present at the time of the statements, were likewise biased and unable to render an impartial verdict. That, coupled with the prosecutor’s participation in the whole charade, would certainly give me pause before accepting the validity of this jury’s verdict.

A breakdown of the evidence in the Jodi Arias trial coming soon!