Date With the Devil (22 page)

Authors: Don Lasseter

BOOK: Date With the Devil

5.28Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub

C
HAPTER
26

“H
E
W
ASN
'T
H
IDING IN
G
UATAMALA
”

The Los Angeles County district attorney, ready to move ahead on the case against David Mahler, agreed with the superior court to set a preliminary hearing date of June 29.

Mahler needed to make a crucial decision.

With so much at stake, he would need the best defense attorney he could find. Would that be from a list of local top-notch defenders, or could he look closer to homeâin a mirror?

In New York and New Jersey, he had successfully represented defendants charged with narcotics offenses and prostitution. However, he had never attempted to take on a murder case. Still, he held himself in high esteem for his courtroom tactics and skills in swaying a jury. So, should he risk it all by defending himself in court? Or should he take heed of an old axiom? “He who represents himself has a fool for a client” has convinced countless defendants to hire an attorney. Acting in pro per, the Latin term from
propria personaâ
meaning “for one's self”âmay offer a few advantages but is loaded with dangerous traps. (In many states, the term “pro se” is used, instead.)

On the plus side is the opportunity to spend time in the jail law library, a welcome refuge from the noisy cell block. Other benefits include having a runner on the outside to bring documents and items supposedly for the preparation of the case. Pro per defendants often have use of computers for the preparation of their motions.

A defendant made world-famous by Joseph Wambaugh's book
The Onion Field
tried to use his pro per status to set up an escape attempt. Long before the advent of personal computers, Gregory Powell required the use of a typewriter. He persuaded a woman on the outside to buy one for him. It was delivered to the jail, but two small guns were found inside and the typewriter was confiscated.

During the trial, the prosecutor used the typewriter as a piece of evidence to convince jurors that Powell deserved the death penalty. One day, when the typewriter was placed on a counsel table, an attorney noticed a sprinkling of powder beneath it. He complained to the detective in the front row that they should have cleaned off the fingerprint powder. The indignant cop said they didn't dust the typewriter. Eventually it turned out the powder was cocaine placed in the roller by an outside accomplice for Powell's personal pleasure.

David Mahler had already experimented with defending himself in an earlier hearing. Unfamiliar with California law, he made motions without citing the correct code sections and seemed lost in regard to following proper procedures. A judge had recommended at one of the hearings that he needed an attorney. It probably rubbed his ego raw, but Mahler soon realized that even small errors in a murder trial could be disastrous. Without a doubt, the judge had been correct. A good lawyer might be essential in guiding him through the most important trial of his life.

One lawyer had already upset Mahler and been fired. He had lost a hearing that might have allowed Mahler to be released on bail.

Considering the matter of new legal representation, he weighed his options. Should he plead indigence and ask for a public defender, or seek a private attorney?

Private criminal defense attorneys sometimes like to perpetuate the myth that public defenders are only interested in selling out their clients because they aren't highly motivated by a large retainer. Public defenders, in reality, are trained and have a great depth of experience, since they handle so many more cases than the busiest of independent lawyers. Also, because of the high volume of cases, public defenders can be more knowledgeable of the court system.

Fearful of being stuck with a young greenhorn, or perhaps a veteran defender close to retirement age, Mahler decided to seek hired help. Through his various contacts, he heard about an aggressive criminal defense attorney named Andrew Reed Flier.

The handsome, superbly dressed, and well-coiffed Flier sported dark, wavy hair and handsomely chiseled features, giving him a remarkable resemblance to the late John F. Kennedy Jr. Headquartered in Encino, another San Fernando Valley community, Flier knew his way around the legal system and demonstrated willingness to defend a broad spectrum of clientele, from celebrities to crime lords. He had recently completed a court case in which he represented Victor Paleologus, who had murdered a young woman. His crime bore eerie similarities to charges faced by David Mahler. Paleologus killed a young woman named Kristi Johnson. Mahler had allegedly killed Kristin Baldwin, nicknamed Kristi. The murder of Kristi Johnson took place in the Hollywood Hills, less than a mile from Mahler's residence, where Kristin had apparently been shot. And Kristi's body, exactly like Kristin's remains, was missing more than two weeks before being accidentally discovered.

Paleologus had lured Kristi to the site by persuading her to “audition” for a role in a promotional film for an upcoming James Bond thriller. Flier neither won nor lost the courtroom battle because Paleologus decided, halfway through the proceedings, to change his plea. Fearing a possible death penalty, he negotiated a lesser sentence by pleading guilty to first-degree murder (see
Meet Me for Murder,
Pinnacle, 2008).

The financial agreement between Mahler and Flier was a private matter between the two of them, but it's a good bet that Mahler paid well for the lawyer's services. It has been suggested that it used up a significant portion of his wealth.

Preliminary hearings are held to determine if there is probable cause to bind an accused defendant over for trial. Unlike a full trial, there is no jury. The process requires the presentation of only enough testimony to convince a magistrate that sufficient evidence exists to proceed to the next step. The standard of proof is quite low, and hearsay evidence is allowable. Discovery rulesâin which the prosecution must turn over to the defense, in advance, evidence they plan to presentâdo not apply. At the end of the hearing, the judge must decide if the defendant will be “held to answer.” If so, he or she must next face an arraignment hearing and is subsequently tried by a jury.

The preliminary case of
The People
v.
David A. Mahler
came before Judge Daniel B. Feldstern on Friday, June 29, 2007, at 1:45
P.M.
Prosecutor Cathryn Brougham would call only three witnesses: Donnie Van Develde, Karl Norvik, and Detective Larry Cameron. Detective Tom Small joined Brougham at the prosecution table.

Van Develde's nerves seemed tighter than banjo strings as he swore to tell the truth and took the witness stand. His eyes darted back and forth as if he expected to be attacked any minute. He identified the defendant as David Mahler, the person sitting at the end of the defense table and wearing a blue jail-issued jumpsuit. Machine-gunning his answers to Brougham, Donnie described the house on Cole Crest, the tenants' living arrangements, and his relationship with Mahler.

Brougham asked Van Develde to tell what happened in Mahler's bedroom early Sunday morning, May 27. He spoke of his wife being away on a trip, of his expecting to be paid by Mahler for some work, and being summoned up to David's room. There, he saw Kristi and recognized her from three or four previous meetings. Just as he had informed Tom Small and Vicki Bynum in the frenetic interview, Donnie delivered his story of David's displayed anger, being dismissed, and then summoned again, as well as David rambling around with an open robe, displaying his nudity. He told of David waving a gun, loading it with a single bullet, and clicking it in the faces of Kristi and himself. After exiting in panic, he had heard a single gunshot.

The testimony from Van Develde lasted nearly two hours, including cross-examination by Andrew Flier.

Detective Larry Cameron came next and recounted his experiences at Cole Crest on the first day of June. He described blotches on the master bedroom's carpet and a trail of spots leading to the garaged Jaguar. Criminalists, he said, had processed the suspicious stains and concluded they were human blood. Also, an assortment of cleaning materials and fluids indicated someone had tried to eradicate the stains. Cameron's turn lasted only twenty minutes.

Karl Norvik stepped up, obviously reluctant and nervous. He avoided eye contact with the defendant, David Mahler, while speaking of their relationship and his own shock at the events of that Sunday morning. Expressing himself in a vocabulary reflecting exceptional intelligence, Karl told of seeing Kristin's body, believing she had been shot in the face by Mahler, and refusing to comply with David's requests for help. He seemed apologetic that he had not called the police until several days later.

Norvik's testimony consumed the remainder of that Friday. Judge Feldstern ordered him to return on Monday morning.

It took another two hours on that day for Karl Norvik to answer questions from Cathryn Brougham and Andrew Flier.

With testimony concluded, the judge granted Andrew Flier's request to speak. The attorney stood and stated, “I have two issues. One is insufficiency of evidence, and the other is the bail status.” Addressing the evidence first, he said, “They find a body (in the desert), but it is the defense position that there is no connection to that body and Mr. Mahler.” Flier alluded to the circumstantial nature of the remains being identified as Kristin Baldwin. Partial fingerprints made from the Microsil process had been compared to her known prints, and that had shown strong similarities. A blue dolphin tattoo had also been noted. But none of this conclusively meant these remains were those of Kristin Baldwin, at least by legal standards, according to Flier.

Neither of the two witnesses who had lived in the residence, Flier asserted, offered any evidence that a murder had transpired. “Even if we accept that there was a dead body, there is no evidence about malice. There are no specific intent issues. And if you believe the first witness, Donnie, it is clear this happened over an argument or maybe even Russian roulette, which I think could mitigate this matter over to manslaughter... . There is no sufficient evidence to show that the body found is the same body that everyone is talking about ... that it is the same person who presumably is on the [floor] in Mr. Mahler's bedroom.”

Cathryn Brougham disagreed. First, no real doubt existed about the body identification. Second, “Donnie basically told us that the defendant had a gun, that he loaded that gun, and that the defendant was in a rage ... toward the victim, Kristin Baldwin. Moments after he left the room, he heard the gun go off. And we have the fact that he received phone calls from the defendant in which he was basically admitting to the murder and saying that it was in self-defense.” She also cited Karl Norvik's testimony. “The defendant comes to his room after [Norvik heard] loud thuds ... and, in fact, asked him to dispose of a body.” Norvik had actually seen the dead victim.

In addition, said Brougham, Detective Cameron had testified about bloodstains in the bedroom, the discovery of Mahler hiding in a closet ... “And finally we have the identification of Kristin Baldwin's body. As the court may know, this was originally filed as a no-body case.” She expressed relief that the body had been found prior to the preliminary hearing, and confidence that it added enough weight to the charges for the court to find against the defendant.

Andrew Flier briefly restated his opposition and then moved on to the issue of bail. In three previous hearings, Mahler's arguments to be released on bail had been unsuccessful. Judge Feldstern gave Cathryn Brougham the opportunity to speak first and explain why Mahler shouldn't be granted his request.

In the first hearing, Broughham said, the prosecution had faced the possibility of trying a no-body case, and the defendant had asserted in a police interview that he was the only one who knew where the body and the gun were located. If he had been released, he conceivably could have made certain the body could never be found. Then he had concealed the gun where it could never be found. “He also had told a third party that he wanted a gun to eliminate any witnesses in this case if he could get out on bail.” The second and third hearings had relied on this same information to rule against allowing Mahler to go free.

Other books

Destroy Me by Laura Bailey

Sunset Pass (1990) by Grey, Zane

Cannibal Reign by Thomas Koloniar

To Mervas by Elisabeth Rynell

Home Ice by Catherine Gayle

La mejor venganza by Joe Abercrombie

Glitsky 02 - Guilt by Lescroart, John

The Best Mistake by Kate Watterson

Party Games by Carnegie, Jo

Prospero's Children by Jan Siegel