SALINAS – Jurors who will resolve if a former Cal Poly scholar is chargeable for the demise of Stockton teen Kristin Good in 1996, heard from among the investigators who took on the case 26 years in the past.
San Luis Obispo County prosecutors say they are going to show Paul Flores killed Good in his dorm room, throughout an tried rape, and his father, Ruben, helped cover her physique.
On Friday, Decide Jennifer O’Keefe addressed jurors in regards to the COVID-19 outbreak, as categorised by California Division of Public Well being protocols, resulting from three optimistic circumstances of the virus amongst folks linked to the trial within the final week. She reiterated to the courtroom, what CBS Sacramento reported earlier this week, that there isn’t a proof something was transmitted inside the courtroom.
“Everyone knows what a sacrifice it’s so that you can be right here,” mentioned O’Keefe, who added that the well being and security of everybody within the courtroom was a “prime precedence.”
The trial is anticipated to final into October and jury choice started again in July.
The primary witness on the stand Friday, a continuation from Wednesday, was Richard Neufeld, a San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Deputy. After a brief cross-examination by Robert Sanger, Paul’s legal professional, Neufeld took questions from San Luis Obispo County Deputy District Legal professional Chris Peurvelle.
Peurvelle requested Neufeld about proof he collected from Paul’s dorm on the Cal Poly campus, particularly, about two items of proof taken from a portion of the mattress cowl. This element, essential on this line of questioning, as the way in which during which Neufeld processed and submitted the proof got here beneath query by Sanger.
Peurvelle established that Neufeld correctly packaged the gadgets and booked them into proof.
This, then beneath query by Sanger once more: “You indicated it was your behavior to do that appropriately?”
Neufeld responded that he had been on the crime lab since 1989, this, in 1996. Sanger added that processing a criminal offense scene was a “pretty well-established observe.”
Sanger doubled down on questions on Neufeld’s background and expertise by asking if he was conscious that, for a correct forensic analysis the scene should be preserved “as pristinely as attainable.”
Neufeld responded, “sure.”
Additional on, he’s requested if he was a forensic DNA analyst, and Neufeld responded he was not in 1996 and remains to be not a forensic DNA analyst. His job, he defined, was to gather proof in order that it may very well be analyzed by different folks. He additionally did detective work, however for probably the most half, he would clarify from the witness stand, he had particular coaching on the right way to protect and course of a scene for scientific evaluation.
Sanger continued his line of questioning, centered on the preservation of the dorm room, as a result of by the point investigators have been capable of accumulate proof, he instructed, neither Paul or his roommate nonetheless lived there and the room was “considerably altered.”
This setup, for jurors, was Sanger’s alternative to introduce the truth that Flores’ dorm room was cleaned after his transfer out, unrelated to the investigation.
Sanger requested Neufeld if he agreed that if a 3rd occasion, unrelated to the case, had come and gone in a room over a time frame, that it might have an effect on what proof is retrieved. After an objection, Sanger wouldn’t get the reply to this particular query however requested Neufeld if he knew how many individuals got here into the dorm room from Might twenty fourth to when he did the inspection. To this, Neufeld answered, “No.”
Neufeld didn’t reply if he agree with Sanger’s query in regards to the third occasion disturbance to a scene, due to an objection that was sustained.
He added he didn’t know if beds have been moved and didn’t recall finding the fridge.
Finally, Peurvelle introduced the road of questioning again to the proof taken from what would have been Flores’ mattress. A managed pattern of the proof taken from the mattress led cadaver canine to alert on.
In 1996, Neufeld responded to the Cal Poly dorm the place Flores lived when Good disappeared to seek out hint proof and fingerprints. He was knowledgeable earlier than he began what mattress belonged to Flores and what mattress belonged to his roommate.
Days after this primary search, Neufeld would return for extra particular work that included an alternate gentle supply to find hint proof.
Jurors then heard from a mom of two Arroyo Excessive College graduates, Karen Corridor, who filmed Flores after Good disappeared asking in regards to the “lacking lady.”
This query “most certainly” requested “sarcastically” Corridor would inform Sanger through the cross-examination. At a commencement occasion at Corridor’s dwelling in June, she went across the room to mess along with her son’s mates and recorded the occasion.
Corridor requested Flores if he knew something in regards to the lacking lady as a result of she knew Flores was a Cal Poly scholar on the time. At this level, Corridor was unaware Flores was linked to any investigation about Good’s disappearance.
Corridor mentioned, in response, Flores put his head down and “by no means talked to me after that.”
Jurors see the video taken 26 years in the past and listen to Corridor ask Flores: “Do you’ve any info on that lacking lady, what’d you do along with her?” Flores’ response to this query is unintelligible, which Sanger would later be aware to the courtroom.
After the courtroom noticed this video, Harold Mesick, legal professional for Ruben Flores, requested Corridor if she was “asking foolish sarcastic questions anticipating a foolish sarcastic reply” and he or she responded, “Almost certainly.”
The day ended with a witness who jurors have heard from earlier than, J.T. Camp, a DA investigator.
Peurvelle instructed the courtroom they have been “forward of schedule” and proceedings will resume Monday at 8:30 a.m.