You are on page 1of 4
10271 CASE NUMBER: SA034837 CASE NAME: PEOPLE VS. KRATZ, JASON SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 2000 DEPARTMENT WE "M" HON. LESLIE W. LIGHT, JUDGE APPEARANCES: (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.) REPORTER: FELIPE F. CARRILLO, CSR NO. 9555 TIME: P.M. SESSION APPEARANCES: (THE DEFENDANT, APPEARING WITH HIS COUNSEL, DANNY DAVIS, ESQ.; THE PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY GINA SATRIANO, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.) THE COURT: SA034873. THE PEOPLE VERSUS KRATZ. THE RECORD WILL INDICATE DEFENDANT PRESENT TOGETHER WITH HIS COUNSEL, THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED, ALL MEMBERS OF THE JURY AND THE ALTERNATE IS PRESENT AND IN THEIR PLACES. MR. DAVIS, YOU MAY RESUME YOUR ARGUMENT, SIR. MR. DAVIS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YES, I AM GOING TO CONCLUDE SHORTLY. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT TERMS MEANS, BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN ABOUT 15 OR 20 MINUTES. AND I DID SOME THINKING OVER THE NOON RECESS AS TO HOW, WHEN YOU GET THROUGH AS JURORS, ALL THE WORDS OF THE LAWYERS THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE TRIAL SORT OF FADES, AND YOU MIGHT PANIC AND SAY, "MY GOSH, WHERE DO WE GO TO? WHERE DO WE START?" I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU WHERE 10272 YOU GET DOWN TO IT. THE BENEFIT OF TWO ATTORNEYS SHOULD BE THAT THE CRITICAL ISSUES ARE SORT OF PUT IN FRONT OF YOU, AND THEN THE CRITICAL FACTS ARE PUT IN FRONT OF YOU, SO THAT WHEN YOU GO BACK, IT'S AT LEAST A PLACE THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER. I MEAN IS IT THAT SIMPLE? CAN YOU BELIEVE THE CHILDREN TO FIND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND THEIR PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPUTER EVIDENCE? $0 I'M GOING TO TRY AND FOCUS ON THAT. AND IN DOING THAT, LOOK AT THE THREE GIRLS BRIEFLY AND SOME OF THE THINGS YOU MIGHT THINK ABOUT. ONE THING WE'VE LEARNED IN LOOKING AT THIS ACCUSATION OUT OF THE 14TH AND THE 15TH IS THAT WE HAVE SOME STUFF, WE HAVE SOME EVIDENCZ, WE HAVE SOME PHYSICAL STUFF. I MEAN D.N.A. PERHAPS TO LOOK AT A PACE OF PAPER THAT HAD SEMEN ON IT -- TO BEGIN WITH, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED BY MORE THAN ONE PERSON. DOES THAT BECOME AN ISSUE ANYMORE, WHOSE SEMEN IS ON THERE? IT'S HOW DID IT GET THERE? THE ISSUE SEEMS TO BE, WAS THIS AN EVENT OF ORAL COPULATION, OR WAS THIS AN EVENT OF MASTURBATION? AND THAT'S HOW YOU FOCUS, I SAY, ON THE ISSUE THAT ARISES ON THE 14TH AND THE 15TH. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT YOU CAN AGREE ON. ONE, T OON'T THINK ANY VARIATION OF DESCRIPTIONS WOULD DISAGREE BUT THAT THERE WAS A HISTORY OF SOME KIND OF MARITAL DISCORD, THIS IS NOT LEAVE IT TO BEAVER, THIS HOUSEHOLD, THERE ARE PROBLEMS GOING ON WITHIN THAT PERIOD ane 10273 OF TIME. SECONDLY, REALTIME. WHICH EVENT HAPPENED THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT? THIS MUST HAVE BEEN AROUND 9 O'CLOCK OR 8:30, WHATEVER VARIATION, WHEN REBECCA LEAVES. AND BROUNO 1 O'CLOCK, CERTAINLY, OR 1:08 WHEN THE POLICE COME IN OR GET THE CALL AND THEREAFTER ARE IN THE MODE OF INVESTIGATING AND ARRESTING. SO 9:00 TO L:00, GIVE OR TAKE. THAT SEEMS TO BE A RANGE WE CAN SAY. WHAT HAPPENED DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, AND WHAT DO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT WE KIND OF AGREE ON? YOU HAVE BOXER SHORTS. DO WITH THEM WHAT YOU MAY, BUT THEY'RE THERE. THEY'RE PART OF THE STORY. THEY RELATE SOMEHOW TO SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED. YOU HAVE A COMPUTER BEING OPERATED, IF YOU BELIEVE MR. KRATZ, IF YOU BELIEVE THE ESSENCE OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE COMPUTER REPORTS, A COMPUTER WAS OPERATED ALL RIGHT. AND YOU HAVE IT IN THERE. YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT REBECCA KRATZ LEFT THE APARTMENT. NOW, HOW MANY TIMES SHE CAME BACK OR WHAT TIMES THEY ARE OR WHAT HAPPENED 1S NOT AS CLEAR, BUT SHE DID LEAVE THE APARTMENT. AND WHEN SHE LEFT THE APARTMENT, MR. KRATZ REMAINED. AND AS BEST WE CAN TELL, WHEREVER THEY ARE SLEEPING, WHATEVER HAPPENED, FOUR KIDS WERE IN THAT APARTMENT. ALSO, THE DOOR WAS UNLOCKED. NOBODY'S COME AND SUGGESTED THAT THE DOOR WAS LOCKED. THE DOOR WAS UNLOCKED. MAYBE AMONG YOURSELVES YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT MEMORY, RESOLVE TT. I THINK THE EVIDENCE IS THE DOOR WAS