Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Lorenzo Cortez Sentenced to 80 Years in Prison in 2014 & 2015 CA Slaying of Isaac Lopez-Reid, Luis Perez and William Brown

  1. #1
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875

    Lorenzo Cortez Sentenced to 80 Years in Prison in 2014 & 2015 CA Slaying of Isaac Lopez-Reid, Luis Perez and William Brown


    Isaac Lopez-Reid




    Vallejo man, 25, charged with three murders, faces March trial in death-penalty case


    Lorenzo M. Cortez, accused of fatal shootings during a crime spree in late 2014 and early 2015 in Vallejo, ordered to return for a readiness conference on Feb. 2 in Department 7 in the Justice Building in Vallejo

    By Richard Bammer
    The Reporter

    A 25-year-old Vallejo man charged with three killings in the city over a three-month period in late 2014 and early 2015 will face a March jury trial, and, if convicted, possibly the death penalty.

    Lorenzo Mateo Cortez on Wednesday appeared in Department 7 of Solano County Superior Court for a readiness conference in the Justice Building in Vallejo.

    During the afternoon session, Cortez, shackled and clad in a striped jail jumpsuit, his black hair curly, his face bearded, listened to the discussions between his defense attorneys, Jon C. Weir of Martinez and Thomas Kensok of Napa, and Judge Tim R. Kam.

    Deputy District Attorney Mark Ornellas, substituting for Senior Deputy District Attorney Julie Underwood, who leads the prosecution, represented the people using a remote online connection.

    Weir asked if the current COVID-19 surge, brought on by the omicron variant, would affect the previously scheduled March 22 jury trial. Kam said it did not.

    Cortez is charged with the Nov. 3, 2014, murder of Isaac Lopez-Reid, 18; the Dec. 20, 2014, murder of Luis Perez, 18; and the Jan. 10, 2015, murder of William Brown, 20. All were shot in Vallejo.

    Vallejo police investigators, who arrested Cortez for the killings on March 2, 2015, while he was in Solano County on several other unrelated felonies, believe Cortez shot the first victim because Lopez-Reid had accused him of being “a snitch.” Investigators also believe the fatal shootings of Perez and Brown were execution-style killings, with both victims robbed of money and their belongings. Cortez was 19 when he committed the alleged crimes.

    The Solano County District Attorney’s Office filed its complaint against Cortez on March 2, 2015. He remains in custody without bail on the murder charges in the Stanton Correctional Facility in Fairfield.

    At one point during the Wednesday proceeding, Cortez told Kam that he is currently representing himself, but Kam also asked him if he wanted legal representation during the penalty phase, if convicted of the three murders.

    Cortez said he wished to represent himself during the penalty phase, prompting Kam to call it “an unwise move,” despite a defendant’s right of self-representation, given that court-appointed attorneys were “ready, willing and able” to represent him.

    Kensok told Kam he had filed a “discovery motion” on Jan. 7, asking the state for details of police reports, details about the victims, and circumstances surrounding the alleged crimes, among other things.

    Cortez and his attorneys will return to Department 7 for another readiness conference and to discuss the motion at 1:30 p.m. Feb. 2.

    Court records also show that there were, at one time, two co-defendants in the case, Jeman D. Baker and John Kevin Johnson, but it appears their cases have been dismissed.

    Typically, in death-penalty cases, two attorneys represent a defendant, and the penalty phase also is usually heard by the same jurors who convicted during the trial phase.

    https://www.thereporter.com/2022/01/...-penalty-case/
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

  2. #2
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    Defense attorneys in Vallejo death penalty case file motions in advance of March trial

    Facing a six-month trial scheduled for March, Loreznzo M. Cortez, tells Judge that he no longer wants to represent himself on three murder charges stemming from fatal shootings in late 2014 and early 2015 in Vallejo

    By Richard Bammer
    The Reporter

    A 26-year-old Vallejo man charged with three killings in the city over a three-month period in late 2014 and early 2015 told a Solano County Superior Court judge Wednesday in a death penalty case that he no longer wished to represent himself and that his two attorneys filed several motions in advance of a March jury trial.

    Lorenzo Mateo Cortez appeared in Department 7 in the Justice Building in Vallejo for a readiness conference and a motion for discovery during the afternoon.

    As he did last month during a previous proceeding, Cortez, seated in the jury box, his face masked, listened to the discussions between his defense attorneys, Jon C. Weir of Martinez and Thomas Kensok of Napa, and the lead prosecutor, Senior Deputy District Attorney Julie Underwood, and Judge Tim P. Kam.

    During the hourlong session, Kam acknowledged he had received from the defense attorneys a Pitchess motion, a motion to sever each of the three murder counts and conduct separate trials for each, and a discovery motion. (A Pitchess motion in a criminal case in a California court is a request by the defense to examine a law enforcement officer’s personnel record, typically for reports of using excessive force; a motion for discovery in a criminal case is the formal process of exchanging information about witnesses and evidence.)

    After some discussion, Kam and the attorneys scheduled another trial readiness conference and the discovery motion for 1:30 p.m. Feb. 16; the motion to sever and the Pitchess motion for 1:30 p.m. March 2; a trial management conference at 1:30 p.m. March 14. The jury trial had previously been scheduled for 8:30 a.m. March 22.

    At one point during the session, Kam and the court-appointed defense attorneys discussed the jury selection process, including the number of alternates, which may be as high as six or more, possibly 10, given the expected length of the trial, which Kam estimated to be six months.

    Kam told the attorneys, including Deputy District Attorney Mark Ornellas, who is assisting Underwood, that he may call as many as 200 prospective jurors, in large part because juror questionnaires will include inquiries about the death penalty and, in general, some jurors’ likely concerns about being in a courtroom during the ongoing pandemic.

    Weir wondered where the jurors would sit during the trial, and Kam told him that the 12 trial jurors would sit, socially distanced, in or near the jury box while all the alternates would sit, also socially distanced, in a section of the public gallery.

    After the proceeding, Underwood, Weir and Kinsock lingered in the courthouse hallway. Underwood told the defense attorneys she believed Cortez might consider a change to his not-guilty pleas and plead to the murders, a statement which Weir and Kinsock acknowledged to be true. The attorneys agreed to contact one another about any possible plea changes.

    During a brief interview, Kinsock explained the motion to sever meant that, if permitted, Cortez would be tried on the three counts by three separate juries. Should a jury find Cortez guilty of, say, a special circumstance, such as shooting from a vehicle in the first count, a jury could impose the death penalty.

    The death penalty is still legal in California, although Gov. Gavin Newsom suspended capital punishment in March 2019. On Tuesday, the governor ordered the dismantling within two years of Death Row at San Quentin State Prison, the largest condemned row in the nation, with nearly 700 people, nearly two dozen of them female.

    Cortez is charged with the Nov. 3, 2014, murder of Isaac Lopez-Reid, 18; the Dec. 20, 2014, murder of Luis Perez, 18; and the Jan. 10, 2015, murder of William Brown, 20. All were shot in Vallejo.

    Vallejo police investigators, who arrested Cortez for the killings on March 2, 2015, while he was in Solano County Jail on several other unrelated felonies, believe Cortez shot the first victim because Lopez-Reid had accused him of being “a snitch.” Investigators also believe the fatal shootings of Perez and Brown were execution-style killings, with both victims robbed of money and their belongings. Cortez was 19 when he committed the alleged crimes.

    The Solano County District Attorney’s Office filed its complaint against Cortez on March 2, 2015. He remains in custody without bail on the murder charges in the Stanton Correctional Facility in Fairfield.

    Court records also show that there were, at one time, two co-defendants in the case, Jeman D. Baker and John Kevin Johnson, but it appears their cases have been dismissed.

    Typically, in death-penalty cases, two attorneys represent a defendant, and the penalty phase also is usually heard by the same jurors who convicted during the trial phase.

    https://www.thereporter.com/2022/02/...f-march-trial/
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

  3. #3
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    Judge orders DA to provide defense with race-based data in Bay Area death penalty case

    To satisfy a planned defense motion, the DA must provide information on defendants’ and victims’ race over a 10-year period starting on Jan. 1, 2011

    By Richard Bammer
    The Mercury News

    A defense attorney in a death penalty case brought against a 26-year-old Vallejo man charged with three killings in late 2014 and early 2015 said the Solano County District Attorney’s Office is “not the gatekeeper” when it comes to providing the defense relevant information and evidence for a proposed discovery motion.

    Speaking during the Wednesday afternoon session in Department 7 in Vallejo, attorney Thomas Kensok of Napa told Superior Court Judge Tim P. Kam that the state Legislature settled the issue in 2020 with the passage of AB 2542, which added Section 745 to the Penal Code, declaring that sentencing on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin is unlawful.

    But the defense must first prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities or national origins who commit similar offenses, and that the evidence shows prosecutors more often sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin.

    Kensok, who along with Martinez-based attorney Jon C. Weir, represents Lorenzo Mateo Cortez, told Kam that he needs to make a case for his client not with largely state data but with a “statistical sample in Solano County.”

    Getting “raw data” to actually file a formal motion in court is necessary, added Kensok, who on Monday submitted a nearly 80-page rebuttal in response to the prosecution’s opposition to the data request, noting in his filing that Cortez is a mixed-race man, “born to a black mother and a Latino father.”

    In response, Deputy District Attorney Mark Ornellas, who is assisting the lead prosecutor, Senior Deputy District Attorney Julie Underwood, told Judge Kam that the defense had not established “cause” in its filing and that the three victims were racial minorities.

    However, Kam accepted Kensok’s argument and issued three orders: 1) The DA’s Office must provide defendants’ race information in murder cases filed between Jan. 1, 2011, and Feb. 16, 2022; arrest and detention forms about the facts of the cases; and 3) information on the race of the victims during the 10-year span.

    Kam then questioned the attorneys about jury selection for the trial, currently set for March 22 in the Justice Building in Vallejo. He also asked if jury selection would begin “with death penalty qualifications,” that is, questions about the fitness of jurors to serve on the case, depending on their views about capital punishment.

    Jury summons would “go out” on March 29, said Kam.

    Cortez who sat at the defense table, had told Kam weeks ago that he no longer wished to represent himself.

    During that Feb. 2 hearing, Kam acknowledged he had received from the defense attorneys a Pitchess motion, a motion to sever each of the three murder counts and conduct separate trials for each, and a discovery motion.

    The motion to sever, the Pitchess motion and a trial management conference is set for 1:30 p.m. March 2; another trial management conference at 1:30 p.m. March 14; and the jury trial at 8:30 a.m. March 22.

    Cortez is charged with the Nov. 3, 2014, murder of Isaac Lopez-Reid, 18; the Dec. 20, 2014, murder of Luis Perez, 18; and the Jan. 10, 2015, murder of William Brown, 20. All were shot in Vallejo.

    Vallejo police investigators, who arrested Cortez on March 2, 2015, while he was in Solano County Jail on unrelated felonies, believe Cortez shot the first victim because Lopez-Reid had accused him of being “a snitch.”

    Investigators also believe the fatal shootings of Perez and Brown were execution-style killings, with both victims robbed of money and their belongings. Cortez was 19 when he committed the alleged crimes.

    He remains in custody without bail on the murder charges in the Stanton Correctional Facility in Fairfield.

    Court records also show that there were, at one time, two co-defendants in the case, Jeman D. Baker and John Kevin Johnson, but it appears their cases have been dismissed.

    Kensok has explained the motion to sever meant that, if permitted, Cortez would be tried on the three counts by three separate juries. Should a jury find Cortez guilty of, say, a special circumstance, such as shooting from a vehicle in the first count, a jury could impose the death penalty.

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/02/...-penalty-case/
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

  4. #4
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    In Cortez death penalty case, arguments to sever murder charges continue

    After daylong proceedings Thursday, Judge Tim P. Kam ordered the attorneys to return to Department 7 in the Justice Building in Vallejo at 1:30 p.m. Friday for more discussion and possibly a ruling

    By Richard Bammer
    The Reporter

    Attorneys in a Solano County Superior Court death penalty case brought against a 26-year-old Vallejo man charged with three killings, two in late 2014 and one in early 2015, sparred over several motions Thursday morning, including the possible review of police officer personnel records and whether to try the murder charges in a single trial or separately in three trials.

    Lorenzo Mateo Cortez, shackled and seated at the defense table in Department 7 in Vallejo, listened with no outward emotion as the morning proceedings got underway.

    One of his two defense attorneys, Thomas Kensok of Napa, told Judge Tim P. Kam that having the City Attorney of Vallejo provide police officer records, especially any showing disciplinary action for “moral turpitude,” may “become part of the defense” and be relevant.

    So he earlier filed a Pitchess motion requiring the prosecutor, in accord with the Brady v. Maryland case, a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case, to turn over all evidence that might exonerate his client.

    After listening to Assistant City Attorney Katelyn M. Knight cite “Brady protocols,” Kam authorized the District Attorney’s Office to release the personnel records of some Vallejo police officers involved in the case. He will review them in confidence and told Knight he would make a decision at 9 a.m. Monday.

    In defense of his motion to sever the three murder counts, each to be heard by three separate juries, Kensok argued that the evidence was “cross-admissible,” that is, will figure into each charge, and, therefore, jury deliberations would be affected, if not skewed, by the jury verdict on the first count.

    He asserted that the prosecution’s claim that each victim “was lured out” before being shot was false, noting that one fatal shooting occurred during the course of a firearm transaction.

    Kensok told Kam that there was no similarity between the cases, adding, “This case is not going to rise and fall” on implied malice, or killings that occurred while a person was committing a felony, such as robbery.

    He said Cortez “can’t get a fair trial if all the cases are heard by one jury.”

    A jury cannot reasonably decide the first case without contemplating the other two cases during deliberations, Kensok added.

    “Trials are unpredictable,” he said. “We don’t know what evidence” will surface during the trial, citing cases in which juries cannot reasonably rule if the multiple charges are “grouped together.”

    In response, Deputy District Attorney Mark Ornellas, who is assisting the lead prosecutor, Senior Deputy District Attorney Julie Underwood, argued that “cross-admissibility” was relevant and that pieces of evidence are related to each killing in the Cortez case.

    The victims were close friends or well known to Cortez, he told Kam, and Ornellas did not see a valid legal reason to sever the charges into three separate trials.

    Underwood added that evidence would show that Cortez believed one of his victims was “a snitch” and “was angry about it.”

    Court records show that Cortez is charged with the Nov. 3, 2014, murder of Isaac Lopez-Reid, 18; the Dec. 20, 2014, murder of Luis Perez, 18; and the Jan. 10, 2015, murder of William Brown, 20. All were shot in Vallejo.

    Vallejo police investigators, who arrested Cortez on March 2, 2015, while he was in Solano County Jail on unrelated felonies, believe Cortez shot the first victim because Lopez-Reid had accused him of being “a snitch.” Investigators also believe the fatal shootings of Perez and Brown were execution-style killings, with both victims robbed of money and their belongings. Cortez was 19 when he committed the alleged crimes.

    Underwood contended that Cortez, using another person, lured his victims to a place, then shot them, and that separating the trials would mask “the context” of all three killings. If each charge is tried separately, “the court would hear three killings that are the same,” she added.

    She said there is evidence that shows Cortez and Lopez-Reid were in contact with one another via social media.

    But Cortez’s other defense attorney, Jon C. Weir of Martinez, speaking briefly, supported Kensok and challenged some of Underwood’s assertions.

    A search of court records after the noon recess included the March 1 filing of the prosecution’s witness list, 81 in all, including 41 eyewitnesses or people who had direct knowledge of Cortez’s alleged crimes; 16 lab experts and custodians of records, including forensic pathologist Dr. Arnold Josselson and two criminologists from the San Mateo County Crime Lab; and 24 law enforcement officers, most of them current or former Vallejo police officers.

    Court records also showed that Underwood on March 10 filed a motion that laid out part of her plan to introduce evidence she considers to relevant to the prosecution, among them 1) the right to require the defense to disclose a witness list; 2) exclusion of evidence not already disclosed; 3) a motion to admit crime scene photos; 4) a motion to admit evidence of a prior shooting in San Pablo to prove a motive to kill Lopez-Reid; 5) to admit a racially charged statement made before his fatal shooting; 6) a motion to admit witnesses to Brown’s murder; and 7) admission of photos of crime victims.

    The next day, March 11, Kensok filed a lengthy document that began by stating that the court’s denial of defense motions would deprive Cortez of his right to due process under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

    In his filing, Kensok sought to, among other things, exclude undisclosed evidence; compel prosecutors to disclose impeachment evidence of any witness for the prosecution; compel prosecutors to produce reports of any potential expert witnesses; exclude evidence that indicates Cortez is currently in custody; allow Cortez to be unshackled during trial proceedings; exclude crime scene and autopsy photos that might prejudice the jury; and exclude evidence of Cortez’s prior crimes.

    By end of day Thursday, Kam had not ruled on the motions or whether to sever the charges into three separate trials, ordering the attorneys to return to his courtroom in the Justice Building in Vallejo at 1:30 p.m. Friday.

    In a previous interview, Kensok explained the motion to sever meant that, if permitted, Cortez would be tried on the three counts by three separate juries. Should a jury find Cortez guilty of, say, a special circumstance, such as shooting from a vehicle in the first count, a jury could impose the death penalty.

    During a break in the morning session, Underwood told The Reporter that, although a court docket shows the Cortez trial is scheduled to begin Tuesday, it is unlikely to happen.

    Court plans are to issue summons and questionnaires to 300 prospective jurors in the coming days and the court will hear “hardship cases” beginning in late March, with jury selection, including determining if each seat juror is “death-penalty-qualified,” expected to last during most of April Attorney opening statements are likely to begin in late April or early May. The trial, once underway, is expected to last six months, Ornellas and Underwood said.

    Last month, Kensok successfully argued for Kam to order the prosecutors to provide the defense with race-based data in the case, noting the state Legislature settled the issue in 2020 with the passage of AB 2542, which added Section 745 to the Penal Code, declaring that sentencing on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin is unlawful.

    But the defense must first prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities or national origins who commit similar offenses, and that the evidence shows prosecutors more often sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin.

    At the time, Kensok told Kam that he needs to make a case for his client not with largely state data but with a “statistical sample in Solano County.”

    Getting “raw data” to actually file a formal motion in court is necessary, added Kensok, who submitted a nearly 80-page rebuttal in response to the prosecution’s opposition to the data request, noting in his filing that Cortez is a mixed-race man, “born to a black mother and a Latino father.”

    In response, Ornellas told Kam that the defense had not established “cause” in its filing and that the three victims were racial minorities.

    However, Kam accepted Kensok’s argument and issued three orders: 1) The DA’s Office must provide defendants’ race information in murder cases filed between Jan. 1, 2011, and Feb. 16, 2022; arrest and detention forms about the facts of the cases; and 3) information on the race of the victims during the 10-year span.

    Kam then questioned the attorneys about jury selection for the trial. He also asked if jury selection would begin “with death penalty qualifications,” that is, questions about the fitness of jurors to serve on the case, depending on their views about capital punishment.

    Cortez remains in custody without bail on the murder charges in the Stanton Correctional Facility in Fairfield.

    Court records also show that there were, at one time, two co-defendants in the case, Jeman D. Baker, who has accepted a plea deal and will be the first witness for the prosecution, and John Kevin Johnson. Their cases have been dismissed.

    https://www.thereporter.com/2022/03/...rges-continue/
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

  5. #5
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    In death-penalty case, judge rules there will be a single trial, not three

    Lorenzo Mateo Cortez, 26, of Vallejo charged with multiple murders

    By Richard Bammer
    The Reporter

    After some courtroom debate and legal filings by attorneys in a death-penalty case, a Solano Superior Court judge has decided to proceed with a single trial for multiple murder charges brought against a 26-year-old Vallejo man charged with three killings, two in late 2014 and one in early 2015.

    In a minute order issued Monday, Judge Tim P. Kam “confirmed” the single trial rather than separating them into three, a move sought by the two defense attorneys for Lorenzo Mateo Cortez.

    Court records show Cortez is charged with the Nov. 3, 2014, murder of Isaac Lopez-Reid, 18; the Dec. 20, 2014, murder of Luis Perez, 18; and the Jan. 10, 2015, murder of William Brown, 20. All were shot in Vallejo.

    Additionally, the minute order showed that the possible review of police officer personnel records, aka a Pitchess motion, would continue at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday in Department 7, Judge Tim P. Kam’s courtroom, in the Justice Building in Vallejo.

    During proceedings on Tuesday, Cortez, shackled and seated at the defense table, listened with no outward emotion as early-morning session got underway.

    One of his two defense attorneys, Thomas Kensok of Napa, requested that Kam allow Cortez to be unshackled during the proceeding, but the judge denied the request, adding that he may consider it at another time.

    As the proceedings continued, there was brief discussion about “in limine” motions, which are any motions, whether made before or during trial, to exclude expected prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.

    During a court proceeding last week, Kensok argued that having the City Attorney of Vallejo provide police officer records, especially any showing disciplinary action for “moral turpitude,” may “become part of the defense” and be relevant.

    So he earlier filed a Pitchess motion requiring the prosecutor, in accord with the Brady v. Maryland case, a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case, to turn over all evidence that might exonerate his client.

    After listening to Assistant City Attorney Katelyn M. Knight cite “Brady protocols,” Kam authorized the District Attorney’s Office to release the personnel records of some Vallejo police officers involved in the case. He will review them in confidence and apparently would make a decision afterward, possibly Wednesday.

    In defense of his motion to sever the three murder counts, each to be heard by three separate juries, Kensok argued that the evidence was “cross-admissible,” that is, will figure into each charge, and, therefore, jury deliberations would be affected, if not skewed, by the jury verdict on the first count.

    He asserted that the prosecution’s claim that each victim “was lured out” before being shot was false, noting that one fatal shooting occurred during the course of a firearm transaction.

    Kensok told Kam that there was no similarity between the cases, adding, “This case is not going to rise and fall” on implied malice, or killings that occurred while a person was committing a felony, such as robbery.

    He said Cortez “can’t get a fair trial if all the cases are heard by one jury.”

    A jury cannot reasonably decide the first case without contemplating the other two cases during deliberations, Kensok added.

    “Trials are unpredictable,” he said. “We don’t know what evidence” will surface during the trial, citing cases in which juries cannot reasonably rule if the multiple charges are “grouped together.”

    In response, Deputy District Attorney Mark Ornellas, who is assisting the lead prosecutor, Senior Deputy District Attorney Julie Underwood, argued that “cross-admissibility” was relevant and that pieces of evidence are related to each killing in the Cortez case.

    The victims were close friends or well known to Cortez, he told Kam, and Ornellas did not see a valid legal reason to sever the charges into three separate trials.

    Underwood added that evidence would show that Cortez believed one of his victims was “a snitch” and “was angry about it.”

    Vallejo police investigators, who arrested Cortez on March 2, 2015, while he was in Solano County Jail on unrelated felonies, believe Cortez shot the first victim because Lopez-Reid had accused him of being “a snitch.” Investigators also believe the fatal shootings of Perez and Brown were execution-style killings, with both victims robbed of money and their belongings. Cortez was 19 when he committed the alleged crimes.

    Underwood contended that Cortez, using another person, lured his victims to a place, then shot them, and that separating the trials would mask “the context” of all three killings. If each charge is tried separately, “the court would hear three killings that are the same,” she added.

    She said there is evidence that shows Cortez and Lopez-Reid were in contact with one another via social media.

    But Cortez’s other defense attorney, Jon C. Weir of Martinez, speaking briefly, supported Kensok and challenged some of Underwood’s assertions.

    Kam, in the minute order dated Monday, sided with the prosecution, however.

    Also on Tuesday, Kam and the attorneys began a discussion about jurors questionnaires and when prospective jurors would be summoned to court, where they will face questioning and perhaps challenges from the prosecution and defense teams, plus inquiries about whether they are “death-penalty qualified.”

    A search of court records showed prosecution’s witness list, 81 in all, including 41 eyewitnesses or people who had direct knowledge of Cortez’s alleged crimes; 16 lab experts and custodians of records, including forensic pathologist Dr. Arnold Josselson and two criminologists from the San Mateo County Crime Lab; and 24 law enforcement officers, most of them current or former Vallejo police officers.

    The trial is expected to begin in late April or early May and take six months to complete, Underwood said.

    https://www.thereporter.com/2022/03/...ial-not-three/
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

  6. #6
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    Jury selection underway in the death penalty case in Vallejo

    Questioning of prospective jurors in the Lorenzo M. Cortez triple-murder case expected to continue Tuesday in Department 7 in the Justice Building

    By Richard Bammer
    The Reporter

    Jury selection is underway in the death penalty case against Lorenzo Mateo Cortez, 26, of Vallejo, charged with three murders, two in late 2014 and one in January 2015.

    Attorneys and the judge in the pending jury trial in Vallejo return today at 9 a.m. in Department 7 to question more prospective jurors and to air “in limine” motions, requests by attorneys that certain testimony be excluded or included in a case.

    On May 5, Senior Deputy District Attorney Julie Underwood who is leading the prosecution with Deputy District Attorney Mark Ornellas, questioned a panel of three prospective jurors about their attitudes, beliefs and feelings regarding capital punishment if the case reaches the penalty phase after convictions.

    Underwood, standing at the lectern and facing the prospective jurors seated in the jury box in the Justice Building, said they would be making a moral judgment after hearing both “aggravating” and “mitigating” factors in the case and the factors’ “qualitative nature,” requiring them to weigh them “in the balance.”

    She polled the jurors, asking them to raise their hands, if they could still the consider the death penalty when the evidence will show that Cortez, seated at the defense table in a dark suit, allegedly killed three men, she noted, “just before he turned 19.”

    All three indicated they would not automatically reject the death penalty because of Cortez’s age at the time of the killings.

    If and when the case is handed over to the jury and they enter the deliberation room to decide Cortez’s fate, could they still follow the law, as read by Judge Tim P. Kam, and render the death penalty or life without the possibility of parole, Underwood wondered.

    One prospective juror, a man, said not every aggravating factor carries the same weight, but asserted he could make “a fair decision” about them after hearing all other aggravating factors.

    A second juror, a woman, told Underwood that the “ultimate decision” would be determined “by the evidence” heard in the courtroom.

    As the prospective jurors and Underwood spoke, Cortez, sporting a mustache and a goatee, a neck tattoo visible on his left side, cast an occasional glance toward the jury box but showed no visible emotion or reaction.

    At one point, Kam told the jurors that the law requires, in the penalty phase of a trial, to consider the defendant’s age.

    Kam asked one juror if they “would follow the law as given, even if it conflicted with personal beliefs.”

    Out of the presence of the jurors, Cortez’s lead attorney, Jon C. Weir of Martinez, told Kam he wanted to dismiss the female prospective juror for cause, saying he questioned the nature of her answers on the juror questionnaire when compared with her statements in open court.

    But Underwood countered, noting that the woman “could consider” life without the possibility of parole, depending on the evidence seen and heard in court.

    When the jurors returned for more questioning, Kam asked whether the jurors, if they found the murders to be “intentional and premeditated,” could vote for death.

    “Does that change your thinking at all?” the judge asked.

    Again, out of the presence of the prospective jurors, Weir was concerned the female prospective juror could reverse her decision about the death penalty.

    Kam referred to her questionnaire and called her oral and written statements “thoughtful” and denied Weir’s challenge.

    In previous proceedings, Kam ruled the case would unfold as a single trial rather than three trials on each murder charge, as desired by the other defense attorney in the case, Thomas Kensok of Napa.

    Kam also granted a defense motion to review the personnel records in his chambers and, upon review, ordered the City of Vallejo turn disclose information and records to Kensok by April 1. The disclosures, however, are confidential and subject to protective order but the officers’ names are not. Public court records show that they include those of Sgt. Jared Kaksch, Sgt. Mat Mustard, Cpl. Richard Botello, Cpl. Sean Kenney, Lt. Fabio Rodriguez, Officer Scott Yates, and Officer Terry Schillinger.

    At a previous hearing, Kensok argued that having the City Attorney of Vallejo provide police officer records, especially any showing disciplinary action for “moral turpitude,” may “become part of the defense” and be relevant.

    So he filed the Pitchess motion requiring the prosecutor, in accord with the Brady v. Maryland case, a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case, to turn over all evidence that might exonerate his client.

    After listening to Assistant City Attorney Katelyn M. Knight cite “Brady protocols,” Kam authorized the District Attorney’s Office to release the personnel records of some Vallejo police officers involved in the case.

    Of the case severance question, Ornellas, also at an earlier proceeding, did not see a valid legal reason to sever the charges into three separate trials.

    Underwood added that evidence would show that Cortez believed one of his victims was “a snitch” and “was angry about it.”

    Court records show that Cortez is charged with the Nov. 3, 2014, murder of Isaac Lopez-Reid, 18; the Dec. 20, 2014, murder of Luis Perez, 18; and the Jan. 10, 2015, murder of William Brown, 20. All were shot in Vallejo.

    Vallejo police investigators, who arrested Cortez on March 2, 2015, while he was in Solano County Jail on unrelated felonies, believe Cortez shot the first victim because Lopez-Reid had accused him of being “a snitch.” Investigators also believe the fatal shootings of Perez and Brown were execution-style killings, with both victims robbed of money and their belongings. Cortez was within a few days of turning 19 when he is alleged to have committed the last of the crimes.

    Underwood contended that Cortez, using another person, lured his victims to a place, then shot them and that separating the trials would mask “the context” of all three killings. If each charge is tried separately, “the court would hear three killings that are the same,” she added.

    She said there is evidence that shows Cortez and Lopez-Reid were in contact with one another via social media.

    Court plans are to issue summons and questionnaires to 300 prospective jurors, with jury selection, including determining if each seat juror is “death-penalty-qualified,” expected to last several weeks.

    It is unclear when attorney opening statements are likely to begin, but the trial, once underway, is expected to last six months, Ornellas and Underwood said.

    Cortez remains in custody without bail on the murder charges in the Stanton Correctional Facility in Fairfield.

    https://www.thereporter.com/2022/05/...se-in-vallejo/
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

  7. #7
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    Jury selection continues for 8th court day in Cortez death penalty case

    In Department 7 on Wednesday, Senior Deputy District Attorney Julie Underwood continued to press prospective jurors about their attitudes, beliefs and feelings regarding capital punishment if the case reaches the penalty phase after convictions

    A jury can make or break a case, and, as the legendary litigator Clarence Darrow famously said, “Never forget, almost every case has been won or lost when the jury is sworn.”

    And these days, attorneys, with laptops and tablets in their briefcases, are turning to social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to gather information on prospective jurors.

    But it’s not entirely clear if modern technology is at work during the jury selection process in the death penalty case against Lorenzo Mateo Cortez, 26, of Vallejo, charged with 3 murders, 2 in late 2014 and one in January 2015, just weeks before he turned 19.

    As jury selection continued Wednesday in Department 7 of Solano County Superior Court, attorneys relied on, it appeared, standard questionnaires and in-court statements by a series of prospective jurors in the Justice Building in Vallejo.

    The morning proceedings, which included 6 prospective jurors seated in the jury box in Judge Tim P. Kam’s courtroom, marked the 8th court day of juror questioning about their attitudes, beliefs and feelings regarding capital punishment if the case reaches the penalty phase after convictions.

    Senior Deputy District Attorney Julie Underwood, who, with Deputy District Attorney Mark Ornellas, leads the prosecution, asked the half-dozen prospective jurors, three women and three men, if they watched the TV program “CSI.” All raised their hands.

    She explained that the show sometimes deals with storylines that involve DNA technology and fingerprints, but the Cortez case will not have them, although, she added, “You will get some science.”

    Standing at the lectern, she polled the prospective jurors whether they could convict the defendant without DNA or fingerprint evidence. They agreed they could.

    At one point, directly questioning one of the women, Underwood asked if she would “automatically reject” death or life without the possibility of parole sentences based on the defendant’s age at the time of the alleged fatal shootings.

    The woman replied that she would reject the death penalty.

    “You will hear that age is a factor” in the case, added Underwood.

    Still, one prospective juror said he would not rule out imposing the death penalty after consideration of the defendant’s age.

    And another said he would be willing to be fair to both the prosecution and the defense attorneys, Jon C. Weir of Martinez and Thomas Kensok of Napa, giving “fair consideration to the process,” set aside inherent human prejudices, “and let the evidence speak for itself.”

    A key question for Underwood, as she continued questioning the panel of six, is whether if jurors found the case’s aggravating circumstances to outweigh its mitigating circumstances could they render a judgment of life without the possibility of parole?

    And, addressing one juror, could he set aside feelings about the death penalty and render a just verdict “based on the evidence and the law,” as given by the judge?

    Afterward, Kam asked the prospective jurors to step outside the courtroom for a few minutes while he questioned the attorneys and heard their concerns.

    With the panel in the courthouse corridor, Weir told Kam that one prospective juror’s questionnaire responses were “quite dark” and said the man was “unqualified.”

    But Underwood argued against Weir’s assertions, saying there was “no cause” for his challenge, but Weir disagreed, claiming he was “prejudiced against the defense.”

    Kam denied one of Weir’s challenges, then ordered the prospective jurors to return to the courtroom.

    One prospective juror told Kam she could “not vote for the death penalty,” but another panel member said “the number of murders” in the case would “push” him to consider the death penalty.

    Kam then excused 2 of the 6 prospective jurors, and told the 4 that they would be notified when to return to court for additional questioning.

    The judge also ordered the prosecution to comply by July 22 with a defense request for data about 10 years of serious felony convictions in Solano County that indicated the defendant’s race to determine if race may have been a factor. Cortez is biracial, the son of Puerto Rican and Black parents.

    Court records show that Cortez is charged with the Nov. 3, 2014, murder of Isaac Lopez-Reid, 18; the Dec. 20, 2014, murder of Luis Perez, 18; and the Jan. 10, 2015, murder of William Brown, 20. All were shot in Vallejo.

    Vallejo police investigators, who arrested Cortez on March 2, 2015, while he was in Solano County Jail on unrelated felonies, believe Cortez shot the first victim because Lopez-Reid had accused him of being “a snitch.” Investigators also believe the fatal shootings of Perez and Brown were execution-style killings, with both victims robbed of money and their belongings. Cortez was within a few days of turning 19 when he is alleged to have committed the last of the crimes.

    Underwood contended that Cortez, using another person, lured his victims to a place, then shot them and that separating the trials would mask “the context” of all three killings. If each charge is tried separately, “the court would hear three killings that are the same,” she added.

    She said there is evidence that shows Cortez and Lopez-Reid were in contact with one another via social media.

    Court plans were to issue summons and questionnaires to 300 prospective jurors, with jury selection, including determining if each seated juror is “death-penalty-qualified.”

    Jury selection likely will last 2 or 3 more weeks.

    It is still somewhat unclear when attorney opening statements are likely to begin, but the trial, once underway, is expected to last six months, Ornellas and Underwood said.

    Cortez remains in custody without bail on the murder charges in the Stanton Correctional Facility in Fairfield.

    Questioning of prospective jurors continues at 8:45 a.m. Thursday in Department 7 in the Justice Building in Vallejo.
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

  8. #8
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    Vallejo man sentenced to 80 years for three murders

    Lorenzo M. Cortez, 26 pleads no contest to killings in 2014 and 2015

    By Richard Bammer
    The Reporter

    He waived his rights, pleaded no contest to three murder counts, and admitted to enhancements for each murder, thus avoiding the possibility of the death penalty or life without parole at trial, the judge then found him guilty, jurors were excused, and the seven-year-old criminal case has more or less come to an end.

    But Lorenzo Mateo Cortez, 26, of Vallejo, who on Monday entered his no-contest pleas in Department 7 of Solano County Superior Court, will return to Judge Tim Kam’s courtroom for sentencing at 1:30 p.m. Aug. 4 in the Justice Building in Vallejo.

    Court records show that Cortez — charged with three murders, two in late 2014 and one in January 2015, just days before he turned 19 — pleaded to amended charges: one count of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder.

    By entering his pleas in the high-profile case, Cortez did not admit guilt but essentially stated he would offer no defense in exchange for an 80-year sentence.

    Chief Deputy District Attorney Paul Sequeira and Deputy District Attorney Mark Ornellas agreed to the amended counts as did Cortez’s attorneys, Jon C. Weir of Martinez and Thomas Kensok of Napa. Senior Deputy District Attorney Julie Underwood, for years the lead prosecutor in the case, was out on medical leave and did not appear in court on Monday.

    In a press statement issued Tuesday afternoon, Solano County District Attorney Krishna Abrams said her office “faced a number of unusual circumstances beyond our control and after careful consideration of all those factors, we agreed to a disposition that was in the best interest of the case and public safety.”

    She added that Cortez would receive 50 years to life in state prison for the first-degree murder, including time for the gun enhancements, and another, or “consecutive,” term of 30 years to life for the pair of second-degree murders.

    Weir did not respond immediately Tuesday to Reporter requests for comment, but Kensok, in an email, said, “Cortez was offered a deal of 80 years to life in state prison. This allowed him to avoid both a death sentence and life without the possibility of parole.

    Because he was only 18 at the time of the offenses, California’s youthful offender statute controls any parole hearings.”

    The Solano County District Attorney’s Office filed its complaint against Cortez on March 2, 2015. Those records show that Cortez was charged with the Nov. 3, 2014, murder of Isaac Lopez-Reid, 18; the Dec. 20, 2014, murder of Luis Perez, 18; and the Jan. 10, 2015, murder of William Brown, 20. All were shot in Vallejo.

    Cortez’s plea agreement comes on the heels of a lengthy jury selection process that began in May. It included not only standard questionnaires and in-court statements by a series of prospective jurors but also questions by prosecutors and defense attorneys about juror attitudes, beliefs and feelings regarding capital punishment if the case were to reach the penalty phase after convictions.

    During one proceeding of jury selection, Underwood polled a few prospective jurors about whether they could convict the defendant without DNA or fingerprint evidence. They agreed they could.

    At one point, directly questioning one of the women, Underwood asked if she would “automatically reject” death or life-without-the-possibility-of-parole sentences based on the defendant’s age at the time of the fatal shootings.

    The woman replied that she would reject the death penalty.

    “You will hear that age is a factor” in the case, added Underwood.

    Still, one prospective juror said he would not rule out imposing the death penalty after consideration of Cortez’s age.

    A key question for Underwood at the time, as she continued questioning the panel of six, is whether if jurors found the case’s aggravating circumstances to outweigh its mitigating circumstances could they render a judgment of life without the possibility of parole?

    And, addressing one juror, could he set aside feelings about the death penalty and render a just verdict “based on the evidence and the law,” as given by the judge?

    Earlier in the case, Kam ordered the prosecution to comply by July 22 with a defense request for data about 10 years of serious felony convictions in Solano County that indicated the defendant’s race to determine if race may have been a factor in those cases.

    Cortez is biracial, the son of Puerto Rican and Black parents, and it is unclear if the Solano County DA’s Office completed compiling the data before Cortez entered his no-contest pleas.

    Vallejo police investigators, who arrested Cortez on March 2, 2015, while he was in Solano County Jail on unrelated felonies, believe he shot the first victim because Lopez-Reid had accused him of being “a snitch.” Investigators also believe the fatal shootings of Perez and Brown were execution-style killings, with both victims robbed of money and their belongings.

    Underwood contended that Cortez, using another person, lured his victims to a place, then shot them and that separating the trial into three separate trials on each charge, as the defense wanted, would mask “the context” of all three killings. If each charge is tried separately, “they would hear three killings that are the same,” she added during one hearing. Kam later denied separating the trials.

    She said there was evidence that showed Cortez and Lopez-Reid were in contact with one another via social media.

    Cortez remains in custody without bail in the Stanton Correctional Facility in Fairfield.

    On the same Aug. 4 day, Cortez faces sentencing — or rescheduling of his sentencing date — court records show he also faces a readiness conference and a preliminary hearing setting in a separate case of five additional felonies: carrying a concealed weapon; carrying a loaded firearm in public; possessing a large-capacity magazine or magazines; drawing or showing a firearm to the driver of a vehicle; making a criminal threat.

    https://www.thereporter.com/2022/07/...three-murders/
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •