UPDATED: 5/19/23 at 6:25PM

Judge Brehmer said the jury reached a verdict yesterday afternoon right around 4:40. Friday they announced their verdict to a packed courtroom.

Friday, a Kern County jury making a historic decision-finding Trezell and Jacqueline West guilty of five out of seven counts in connection to the deaths of their adoptive children 3-year-old Orson Wear and 4-year-old Orrin West.

Trezell and Jacqueline West were found guilty of five out of seven counts. The counts they were found guilty of were:

  • Count one-Second degree murder
  • Count two-Involuntary manslaughter
  • Count three-Willful cruelty to child
  • Count six-Willful cruelty to child
  • Count seven-False report of emergency to law enforcement
  • Count four-Conspire to commit a crime
  • Count five-Second degree murder

Counts one through three were related to Orrin and counts four through six were related to Orson. Count seven was concerning both boys. The jury voted eight votes guilty to four votes not guilty for count four and ten votes guilty and two votes not guilty for count five.

“The district attorney will decide what to do with those counts at the next hearing,” local Criminal Defense Mark Anthony Raimondo said. Raimondo was not involved in the case. “It would be unlikely they would probably go forward given they’ll get multiple life sentences for the charges that they were convicted of today,” Raimondo said.

Raimondo was in the courtroom when the verdicts were read.

“The second-degree murder carried a life sentence,” Raimondo said. “The willful cruelty to a child resulting in death also carried a life sentence,” Raimondo said. “It will be I believe most likely consecutive life sentences. So, those charges are much less serious, given the exposure on the other two counts they were found guilty of” Raimondo said.

Since the case is still under a gag order the DA’s office and attorneys for the Wests cannot comment.

The West’s sentencing will be July 13th at 8:30 AM. Prosecuting attorney Eric Smith requested counts 4 and 5 to be tried at the sentencing. There is no bail pending.

——–A Kern County jury has found Trezell and Jacqueline West guilty of 5 of the 7 counts they were charged with Friday morning in regards to Orrin and Orson West.

The jury did not find a verdict for two counts, second-degree murder and conspire to commit a crime. Those counts are in regard to 3-year-old Orson West.

The Wests reported the toddlers missing nearly two and a half years ago. On the night of December 21, 2020, the family was living at their home in California City at the time of the disappearance. They allege the boys were last seen playing in their backyard.

Lawsuit between bio father of Orrin and Orson West and Kern County.PNG

The Wests were each facing a total of seven charges including:

  • 2 counts of Murder: Second Degree
  • Involuntary manslaughter
  • 2 counts of willful cruelty to child
  • Conspire to commit a crime
  • False report of emergency

Jurors found Trezell guilty of:

  • Second-Degree Murder
  • Involuntary Manslaughter
  • 2 counts of Willful Cruelty to child
  • False report of emergency

Jurors did not find a verdict of Trezell in:

  • Second-Degree Murder
  • Conspire to commit a crime

Jurors found Jacqueline guilty of:

  • Second-Degree Murder
  • Involuntary Manslaughter
  • 2 counts of Willful Cruelty to child
  • False report of emergency

Jurors did not find a verdict of Jacqueline in:

  • Second-Degree Murder
  • Conspire to commit a crime

Full Story Here: https://bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/verdict-reached-for-5-counts-in-trezell-and-jacqueline-west-murder-trial-kern-county-bakersfield-california-city-orrin-and-orson-verdict-reached-homicide

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) — A 24-year-old man accused of attempting to rape a woman has the mentality of an 12-year-old and his actions may have been misinterpreted, an attorney said.

Anton Hill suffers from severe epileptic seizures and had a stroke when he was 12 in which his brain stopped developing, attorney Mark Anthony Raimondo said Tuesday during Hill’s arraignment. Raimondo entered a not guilty plea on Hill’s behalf and requested he be examined by a psychologist to determine if he understands the charges against him.

Attorney Mark Anthony Raimondo says sexual assault suspect Anton Hill has the mentality of an 12-year-old.

 

Superior Court Judge Colette M. Humphrey suspended criminal proceedings and set a competency hearing for March 7. Hill is being held without bail.

“I think this was some type of incident that he was suffering from some kind of mental stroke or some kind of mental epileptic seizure that resulted in some conduct that really scared somebody,” Raimondo said afterward. He said Hill can barely read and write and is cared for by his mother. No prior cases are listed against him on the Superior Court website.

There is no relation between Hill and the alleged victim, who reported she was exercising on Panorama Drive near Morning Drive on Thursday when she was attacked from behind and sexually assaulted, police said. A witness followed Hill and directed officers to him, police said.

full article here https://www.kget.com/news/crime-watch/attorney-sex-assault-suspect-has-mentality-of-11-year-old/

 

CNN’s Kyung Lah speaks to several Kevin McCarthy constituents in Bakersfield, California, as he battles for House speakership.

 

Full article here on CNN: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/01/03/kevin-mccarthy-bakersfield-constituents-house-speaker-lah-pkg-ebof-vpx.cnn

Attorney Mark Anthony Raimondo was asked about the Wendy Howard verdict. Read Below

 

Ink and headlines splashed Wendy Howard’s verdict across pages and screens after jurors acquitted her of first- and second-degree murder but deadlocked on voluntary manslaughter.

After a hung jury, the Kern County District Attorney’s Office could retry Howard for voluntary manslaughter, and a Friday hearing was held to determine Howard’s fate. During a 10-day trial, Howard testified she shot her ex-partner, Kelly Pitts, in self-defense after he sexually and physically abused herself and her children. Prosecutors said she sought vengeance and enacted “vigilante justice” when killing him.

But then defense attorney Tony Lidgett said during the hearing Howard has actually been acquitted of every charge, and prosecutors cannot relitigate the same facts. He then entered a “once in jeopardy plea” and Friday’s hearing concluded.

Lidgett’s response stems from various decisions made by attorneys and Kern County Superior Court Judge Charles Brehmer during trial and when instructing jurors about the case. These moves are uncommon and unique, said local defense attorneys.

“I’ve never seen it done before,” defense attorney Mark Anthony Raimondo said of Howard’s trial.

THE CASE

Howard was in a relationship with Pitts during which he strangled her, beat her and attempted to rape her, she previously testified in her own defense.

But she escaped, and didn’t encounter him again until 14 years later in 2019. That’s when she found out that their daughter, Bayley Frost, suffered sexual abuse from her father in her mid-teens.

The Tehachapi Police Department launched an investigation into Frost’s allegations about her father. They told Howard and her family to act nonchalant around Pitts to ensure he remained unaware of their investigation.

Pitts, who lived on the same street as Howard in Tehachapi, asked June 5, 2019 if he could bring his grandson to her house to play with her children. Howard said yes.

Prior to Pitts arriving, Howard testified, she learned about another victim who also endured sexual abuse by Pitts.

Howard and Frost discussed confronting Pitts with the evidence of his molestation of Frost, and Howard put a gun in her waistband. She met him outside, and eventually shot him.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Eric Smith said Howard’s anger at Pitts bubbled and overwhelmed before she shot Pitts. He showed text messages of her emotions prior to Pitts dying, and said she wanted to exact justice upon the man who abused her.

Howard testified she shot Pitts because she feared him after enduring abuse at his hands. She also testified she wanted to protect her children who were close by.

Jurors, after the 10-day trial, acquitted Howard on Oct. 21 of involuntary manslaughter in addition to first- and second-degree murder. However, jurors had two options when weighing voluntary manslaughter: they could find her guilty of that charge done in imperfect self-defense, or done in the heat of passion.

Seven jurors thought her guilty of voluntary manslaughter in the heat of passion, while five sought an acquittal. She was acquitted of voluntary manslaughter in imperfect self-defense.

A gag order bars attorneys from speaking on the case.

LEGAL PROCEDURE

It’s very uncommon for jurors to be allowed to weigh separately the components of voluntary manslaughter, local defense attorneys not involved in this case said.

Typically, jurors will consider voluntary manslaughter as one charge. But Brehmer dividing the charge is something defense attorney Raimondo has never seen.

”It doesn’t come up often,” agreed local defense attorney Jared Thompson.

The dual charge is what enabled Howard’s defense attorney, Lidgett, to enter a once in jeopardy plea.

Lidgett said during Friday’s hearing he’s been talking with defense attorneys and appellate lawyers about this case and Howard has been acquitted of voluntary manslaughter. That’s because jurors already returned with a not guilty verdict on that charge, and therefore the DA shouldn’t be able to relitigate the same facts, defense attorneys said.

A once in jeopardy plea stems from the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution, Raimondo said. It’s to ensure that defendants cannot be retried on the same charges when they’ve been acquitted of them, attorneys explained. Exceptions to this rule could happen if there’s jury tampering or bribery.

“It’s a very, very complicated issue,” Raimondo said.

A motions date was set for Feb. 21 for Lidgett to argue how a once in jeopardy plea should stick in this case. Brehmer said during the hearing the attorneys had an “extensive” conversation about a resolution to the case, but couldn’t come up with one. He didn’t address the issue further.

Lidgett could request the appellate court to step in if Brehmer denies the motion. He could argue how an open plea sticks to this case and 5th District Court of Appeal judges could vacate the trial court’s decision based on this argument, Thompson said.

If an appeal is filed, a trial wouldn’t happen until a decision is handed down.

But Raimondo also doesn’t see the DA trying to retry Howard for voluntary manslaughter — Howard could get on the stand and say the killing was planned, he said.

“The DA spends her whole career trying to prove people did not act in the heat of passion,” Raimondo said. “It would be very, very difficult for them to argue in the heat of passion.”

 

 

Full Story Here: https://www.bakersfield.com/news/uncommon-legal-questions-arise-in-wendy-howard-trial/article_1fafb584-72c2-11ed-bba5-37532466b6d6.html