Thread by @meghanncuniff

Jurors who listened to an unrepresented murder suspect’s 2-hour @FBI interview will start deliberating soon. This case highlights cruciality of trial judge decisions that almost never get public attention. If prosecutors had their way, there wouldn't have been two trials. ⚖️🧵⚖️

But when he’s not issuing #J6 Eastman rulings that get national pundits in a tizzy, U.S. Judge David O. Carter is issuing incredibly consequential decisions for people such as Sheila Ritze, a local alcoholic who her attorney says is guilty only of falling in with the wrong crowd.

42-year-old Ritze is accused of conspiring with Hoang “Wayne” Xuan Le to murder Tri “James” Minh Dao on her boat in the Pacific Ocean off the Dana Point Harbor in October 2019. A jury convicted Le of first-degree murder last December. lat.ms/3rdpUDN

Wayne Le’s trial could have doubled as a music video for the “Low Life” song by Future (c.c.: @thislouis). Not only was that song featured in a recording played for the jury, there was so much testimony about heavy drug use and all sorts of dumb gangsterism.

Because that trial, of course, was all about Wayne. If Judge Carter hadn’t severed case, Sheila would have been lumped in with him through all of that. Prosecutors opposed severance, citing “judicial economy,” but Carter ordered separate trials. bit.ly/3KKwiKF

Then after Wayne was convicted, in preparation for Sheila’s trial, Carter granted Sheila’s lawyer’s request to suppress statements Wayne made boasting about the killing that was key evidence in his conviction.

The motion to exclude said prosecutors basically wanted Ritze’s trial to “be little more than a director’s cut of its presentation in codefendant Hoang Xuan Le’s (“Le”) trial – the same movie with only a few added scenes focused on Ms. Ritze.” bit.ly/3jFNfKi

Judge Carter sided w/ defense, so needless to say, Ritze’s trial was different world than Le’s trial. We saw this Tuesday when prosecutors tried to get testimony from a convict who testified in Le’s trial that he’d heard him talk about plans to kill victim during a trip to Vegas.

Carter cut off the testimony, saying allowing it would “absolutely undermine the ruling the court made and reasons for severing this trial.” Prosecutors have to prove intent for both Le and Ritze. They can’t transfer Le’s intent to Ritze.

Doing so would amount to Ritze adopting Le’s statement “when she’s not even in the room,” Carter said.
So even with Ritze’s @FBI interviews serving as a master class for “don't ever talk to cops,” the rulings in this case have gone about as well for her as they can possibly go.

There is no question Ritze didn’t actually pull the trigger. Prosecutors are instead saying she knew full well Le planned to kill the victim when she took them out on her boat. (Their case is kind of like this @onion article, plus and minus a few details.) bit.ly/3KJbt21

This isn't to say there isn’t evidence against Sheila Ritze. Her ex mother in law is key, telling jury Ritze told her they planned to kill the victim. There’s a video of Sheila drunkenly bragging to coworkers at a Dana Point property management company about knowing hitmen.

But without Le’s statements, the case against her is so much thinner. Also, the defense has more than a few facts on their side to show Sheila wasn't planning anything other than a lobster fishing trip. She was, as her lawyer told jury in his closing today, a badass fisherwoman.

Update: The jury started deliberating about 8 a.m. today, and they wrote a note at 8:30 that, by any way you read it, is not bad for the defense. “Juror #9 is asking if the defendant potentially having a manic episode can or should be considered?”

I wasn't there when note was answered but defense said jury was basically told they can consider all evidence. And there's a lot to consider. Prosecutors closed strong, with a fact-filled argument and rebuttal that of course included a lot of references to Sheila’s FBI interview.

Here's verdict form, or at least the one prosecutors wanted. Sheila's FBI interviews led to three false statement charges. Prosecutors ended up dropping one mid-trial. But she's still got two and the murder charge, as well as lesser includeds. bit.ly/3jKMDmw

The jury went out for a break earlier, then got lunch brought in. (@SUBWAY. It's always Subway at this courthouse.) I couldn't tell who juror #9 is. Everyone seemed chatty and there were no obvious outcasts.

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1515052267908464644?s=20&t=y3wt6EJxaZQSuC6r-YtiOQ

No matter how favorable the judge's rulings, there's a lot about this case that favors prosecutors. Sheila's FBI interviews were terrible for her. And then there's the issue of the post-murder GPS tracker. She's charged with lying to the FBI about the tracker.

...which was placed on the victim's girlfriend's car in what prosecutors say was some sort of ill-conceived and ill-informed plan to get insurance money from the victim's death, as payment for money owed.

Sheila's defense lawyer David Weichert cast her as an abused woman and said in his closing argument that her actions in the weeks after the boat murder reflect that. He also tried to show jurors that she was confused and scared during the FBI interview.

"If she was thinking straight, all she would have done is raised her hand and said, ‘Folks, I just want to talk to an attorney,’" Weichert told the jury. But she didn’t.
Sheila didn’t testify, but jurors still hear plenty from her, not just through her voluntary FBI interview...

...but through videos of her drunkenly bragging to her coworkers at a Dana Point property management company about knowing hitmen and being able to disappear people from her boat. There was witness testimony about this, too.

There were many text messages. Shelia texting Wayne after the murder. Sheila sending him the GPS tracking info. Sheila just basically being totally infatuated with this wannabe drug gangster.
“Being stupid in love is not a defense to murder,” AUSA Greg Scally said in his closing.

There are also things about the lobster fishing trip that don’t work well for Sheila’s defense that she genuinely believed it was a true fishing trip. She usually goes out fishing earlier in day, but this trip was around midnight, and the boat went out much farther than usual.

But there's also something that seems to favor the defense: Sheila made everyone get fishing licenses. The victim was specifically instructed he needed to get a license for the trip. Defense says, why would she do that if she thought the trip was just a ruse for a murder?

Defense also pointed to fact that Wayne and Sheila invited Wayne’s friend and fellow meth addict Shawn Whalin on trip, but he didn’t go. AUSA Greg Staples had fun with that in rebuttal, which was kinda like him just shredding these loser drug addicts w/ one liners for 45 minutes.

Staples said the defense asks who takes Shawn Whalin on a death trip. “My answer to that is pretty much anybody who would want to kill someone,” Staples said, describing Whalin as a drug dealer “who gets loaded with them on crystal meth, marijuana and alcohol on a daily basis.”

“Shawn Whalin is not exactly a high-risk witness if you’re gong to go out and kill someone. It’s not like they’re inviting Mother Teresa or an off-duty police officer,” Staples told the jury.

Scally’s closing was pretty different from his closing in Wayne’s trial because evidence in Sheila’s case is different. But Staples’ rebuttal was a lot like his rebuttal in Wayne’s trial, including refutation of defense argument that murder plot was too ill-conceived to be real.

In Wayne’s case, Staples pointed out that jurors spent two hours listening to what an imbecile Wayne is, only then to be asked to believe he would have plotted a much better murder if he’d been plotting one.

In Sheila’s case, Staples went with “hot mess” instead of “imbecile.”

Staples had a simple explanation for why the murder plot wasn't exactly masterful.

“Of course it was no good. She partnered up with a dope dealer who uses too much of his own product and is a wannabe gangster...Of course they don’t come up with a perfect plan.”

Update: There's another note from the jury, so the lawyers are all sitting in court listening to @BillyIdol while we wait. No, really. Billy Idol plays a key role in the maritime murder saga because Sheila, Wayne and crew went up to Vegas to see him in concert before the murder.

A video of Sheila and her ex-mother-in-law at the Billy Idol concert was played for jurors, and for some unexplained reason it was playing on the scene when @semeryOCR went into court just now. No jury or defendant yet.

Amazingly, the @BillyIdol Las Vegas concert appears to be playing a key role in jury deliberations. New jury note asks to see the video exhibit from the concert, as well as the work video of Sheila again. Defense attorney is trying to say videos shouldn't be played in open court.

Defense lawyer complained about the victim's mother being in the courtroom. The lawyer even said his wife was upset about having to hear the victim's mother crying in court when she came in to listen to closings arguments yesterday. Judge Carter wasn't swayed.

"I disagree, counsel. I think it’s an open proceeding…They’re not in deliberation. They’re viewing evidence," Judge Carter said. So jury is in courtroom now watching video of Sheila bragging to her coworkers about knowing hitmen and dismissing her relationship with her daughter.

And now jury is seeing video of Sheila singing along w/ "Rebel Yell" at the @BillyIdol concert in Vegas. "Best concert everrrr!!" She's w/ mother-in-law, who is a crucial witness against her, telling jury that Sheila told of plans to kill the victim during this Vegas weekend.

Jury is obviously interested in the dynamics between Sheila and her mother-in-law, because the defense case is all about how the mother-in-law has to be lying as part of a vindictive crusade rooted in a messy child custody battle.

The maritime murder jury has gone home for the day. Here’s their second note. “May we also see the @BillyIdol concert video that includes audio?”

We have a new maritime murder trial watcher. 👀 Check back on Monday for more coverage, including the reason the jurors heard in the defense closing about that Backstabbers song by @themightyojays.

Update: The maritime murder jury has been deliberating since 8 am. They now have all recordings, so we won’t be seeing insightful notes like Friday when they asked to see @BillyIdol concert video. Here's one that was replayed, of Sheila and her mother-in-law turned state witness.

The Oct. 4, 2019, @BillyIdol concert is key in this federal murder case. That's the date prosecutors are telling jurors the conspiracy commenced between Sheila and Wayne Le to murder James Dao. And it's the center point of key testimony from Sheila's mother in law, Sandra Ritze.

Sheila’s lawyer David Wiechert told jurors in his closing that Sandra’s role in this case makes him think of the O’Jay’s song the Backstabbers. “Because it’s totally appropriate,” Wiechert said. bit.ly/37l0Bt3

Sandra testified in both trials that Sheila told her they would be “offing” James Dao soon. Defense lawyers in both trials have said Sandra is undoubtedly lying as part of a malicious attempt to push Sheila out of the picture so Sandra can spend more time with Sheila's daughter.

Sandra is the stepmother of Sheila's ex-husband, and her stepson wouldn't let her spend time with the girl, so she had to go to Sheila to see her. Her testimony is absolutely key to @USAO_LosAngeles prosecutors' premeditation case against Sheila. And there are many issues with it

Case exemplifies how when authorities say they can’t release info because investigation is ongoing, that's subjective based on their own needs. @USAO_LosAngeles issued a detailed news release after Sheila's arrest that Sandra read before talking to FBI. bit.ly/3MvKK9Z

Defense has emphasized how many times Sandra’s Internet history shows she read news release and the @latimes regurgitation of it, including before she met with the FBI in January 2020. That’s when she told them about Vegas and what Sheila supposedly said about a plan to kill Dao.

Wiechert says Sandra made up a story to fit the DOJ’s already publicized narrative. He also showed jurors messages between Sandra and @FBI agent in which agent sends her June 2020 @USAO_LosAngeles news release about Sheila being indicted for murder. bit.ly/3JSU9qe

Sandra replied to the agent, “It is good news. You guys did a good job” with a high-five emoji. 🙏
Sandra also tells the agent she's doing “great” and “had my granddaughter with me for two weeks.”

Wiechert also has a text from Sandra in which she tells a family member "keep the witch in jail!!!" referring to Sheila. Sandra said on the stand she regretted saying that.

Wiechert got testimony from prosecution witness Shawn Whalin, who was on the Vegas trip to the @BillyIdol concert, that Dao left @PalmsLasVegas shortly after arrival, which contradicts Sandra’s testimony about asking Sheila about him and being told they’re planning to kill him.

“If you don’t believe Sandra Ritze they have nothing that ties Shelia Ritze to this victim or intent to kill this victim,” Wiechert said. “In any universe could you ever believe Sandra Ritze beyond a reasonable doubt?”

Wiechert has another witness to point to for reasonable doubt, a prosecution witness who said Sheila called her at 11:45 p.m. the night of the fateful boat trip to wish her a happy birthday. This is an old friend of Sheila's who works as security guard at a Bakersfield casino.

The friend said Sheila said she was about to go lobster fishing, and she assumed it was with Wayne. Wiechert asks jury, why would Sheila volunteer that if this was a nefarious murder plot and not a real lobster-fishing trip? "You can have a reasonable doubt based on that call."

There is a 3rd jury note, and it's got the defense excited. The jury is asking about the definition of malice and forethought for 2nd-degree murder v. voluntary manslaughter, which indicates they may have moved past the first-degree murder charge at the top of the verdict form.

Here's another clip from murder defendant Sheila Ritze at the @BillyIdol concert in Las Vegas on Oct. 4, 2019, on or about the day federal prosecutors say the murder plot commenced. Jurors re-watched this video in court on Friday, along with the one posted above.

Reporters can get a lot of hate mail, so when we don't it's kind of a monumental experience. I thought I'd share this decisively un-hateful message I got from someone about my coverage of the Sheila Ritze trial. It really made my day. Thanks to everyone for following along!

Jury wanted to stay until 6 p.m. when they’d been here since 8 a.m., so everyone got excited because that means they must be on track for a verdict tonight, right? Those hopes were dashed a minute ago when we heard they’re now going home for the day. Back tomorrow at 8 a.m.

Judge Carter commented outside the presence of the jury that this “must be a very delicate part of the process” if they’re asking to stay late like that. He brought them to read standard admonishment: Don’t talk about case, or form opinions, just go home and let it go.

Ritze’s lawyer David Wiechert told Carter the admonishment should be read in private in the jury room, taking issue with the courtroom presence of the victim’s mother, who Wiechert described as “maintaining her vigil.” Carter seemed a little taken aback by this.

Judge brought up Wiechert “interjecting his wife” into the proceeding last week by complaining about her having to hear victim’s mother crying in court.
“I’ve been watching very carefully to make certain there’s no outcry of any kind. I’ve never seen it in this entire trial.”

Judge Carter said the victim’s mother has not behaved inappropriately in any way, and it’s a public courtroom and she has every right to be here. So the jury was brought into the courtroom and admonished before leaving for the day.

Interestingly, these jury admonishments were not done in the Southern District of New York when I watched Avenatti's Stormy Daniels wire fraud trial in Judge Furman's courtroom back in January/February. Jury was allowed to leave without going back into the courtroom at all.

Another difference in Southern District of New York: Alternate jurors were allowed to leave courthouse while regular jurors were deliberating. Here, they have to stay at the courthouse all day. Just sitting in a conference room doing anything but deliberating. Must be brutal.

Regarding jury staying until 6, one theory is they started listening to the FBI interview that’s about 2 hours and 15 minutes late in the afternoon and wanted to listen to it all the way through before they went home. I have no idea, but that seems like a decent theory.

The jury has reached a verdict in the trial of Sheila Ritze. Attorneys and Ritze are in court awaiting the judge and jury. Stay tuned.

Jury finds Sheila Ritze NOT GUILTY of first-degree murder but GUILTY of second-degree murder. She’s also convicted of two counts of making a false statements to @FBI. Defense will be happy with no first-degree conviction.

A different jury convicted Wayne Le (left) of first-degree murder in December. But as I explain above, this trial was different. The only real witness for pre-meditation against Sheila (right) was her mother-in-law for their Las Vegas weekend to see @BillyIdol.

A juror just told the defense the conviction was driven by the fact that Sheila was driving the boat and made no effort to get James Dao out of the ocean, or call for help. “There was nothing that indicated that she was going to try to save him.”

“It was extremely hard.”

“We debated a long time between voluntary and second-degree.”

(By the way, the jury foreman who wrote all the notes posted above is a man in his 50s.)

This is the 8th jury the foreman has served on. He’s 57 and 1st reported to jury duty when he was 19. His wife has been a juror six times. He said they think judicial system is incredibly fascinating.
“This is the most complicated case I’ve ever been on…I can’t even compare it.”

Here’s something for #lawtwitter: When do a court reporter’s outbursts (“I DIDN’T GET THAT!”) become so bad an intervention is warranted? How about when the jury foreman emphatically complains about it post trial? Because the foreman had a few things to say about it.

Jury foreman in the Sheila Ritze trial: “I don’t know that it made any difference in the outcome at all, but the court reporter’s disturbances - frequent disturbances - were very, overwhelmingly disruptive.”
(You should have heard how he emphasized the adjectives)

This court reporter's disruptions are not new. There actually is a Twitter account documenting some of the more prolific ones.

https://twitter.com/DGCourtReporter/status/1459207345041383429

Here’s @USAO_LosAngeles release about the jury verdict, which of course doesn’t mention that jurors rejected the main charge pushed by prosecutors - first-degree murder. It also says she was convicted of one false statements count when it was actually two. bit.ly/3JR8cMY

@threadreaderapp Unroll, please. Thank you! 🚀