Fort Myers, Florida – The prosecution has rested its case in the Florida murder trial of Juan Mendez Jr.

Mendez, who is accused in the stabbing deaths of his wife and mother-in-law, has chosen not to testify. The defense says it has brief case to present. Stay tuned to In Session for details.

 – In Session staff

Fort Myers, Florida - The Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of Lee County, Dr. Robert R. Pfalzgraf, was back on the stand Wednesday afternoon in the case of Florida v. Juan Mendez Jr.

Dr. Pfalzgraf’s testimony had been abruptly halted earlier in the week when the forensic pathologist testified he had compared a knife found near the crime scene with the stab wounds on the victims. Defense attorney Gary Bass objected to this testimony by stating the medical examiner had told the defense during their deposition with him, that he had never before seen a knife connected to the case.

After much argument, it was finally determined by Judge Steinbeck that the state was responsible for a discovery violation. They never alerted the defense, as required under Florida law, to Dr. Pfalzgraf’s opinion that the half-circle, bent knife blade could have inflicted the victim’s wounds.

Following Judge Steinbeck’s final ruling that the discovery violation did not materially hinder the defense’s case, the prosecution put the medical examiner back on the stand.

Dr. Pfalzgraf not only testified the bent knife could have inflicted the wounds, but that the bent tip and knife blade may have come from the murderer intentionally stabbing into a victim’s skull.

On cross-examination, Gary Bass asked the forensic pathologist why he was handing the knife with his bare hands, instead of wearing gloves that professionals normally do on the stand. The doctor seemed to laugh and testify it wasn’t really any different from any knife in any home, and since prints had been processed, it didn’t really make a difference if he handled it with his bare hands.

Juan Mendez Jr. is facing life in prison for the stabbing deaths of his wife Whitney Mendez and her mother Lorena Stone.

– Jean Casarez, In Session Correspondent

Fort Myers, Florida - On the fourth day of testimony in the trial of Juan Mendez Jr., the former lead detective testified that mistakes were made in the initial investigation into the deaths of Whitney Mendez and her mother Lorena Stone.

“Regrettably, I did not.”   It was a phrase heard over and over in courtroom 7B of the Lee County Justice Center on Wednesday, as Sgt. Walter Ryan of the Lee County Sheriff’s department took the stand.

Ryan admitted that there are many things in the murder investigation that he wishes he had followed up on and done differently.

Among them:   he did not obtain phone records; he did not follow up on witness interviews; he did not check other possible leads.

As a result of the lack of evidence in his investigation, the case went cold.  One year later, Det. William Kalstrom, also of the Lee County Sheriff’s Office, was assigned to lead the investigation.  He had interviewed Juan Mendez Jr. twice in the days following the deaths of his estranged wife and mother-in-law.  Kalstrom testified the defendant was cooperative and calm, but also odd.

In July 2007, Kalstrom re-interviewed witnesses and interviewed new witnesses, including Whitney Mendez’s supervisor, who was on the phone with her before she was allegedly murdered.  Kalstrom also sought phone records but because so much time had elapsed, they were no longer available.

The medical examiner was called back to the stand.  He said that the knife found in the vacant lot next to the duplex where the women lived could have caused at least some of the wounds on the victims.  Dr. Robert Pfalzgraf also demonstrated to the jury how pieces of the knife – the knife with the broken handle, a piece of plastic, and a flat metal disc – fit perfectly together. 

Trial resumes today, the prosecution is expected to call two DNA experts to the stand.   

– Nancy L eung, In Session producer

Fort Myers, Florida - On the third day of trial against Juan Mendez Jr. , the last person to hear Whitney Mendez and Lorena Stone alive testified she heard Whitney Mendez tell her attacker he wasn’t supposed to be there because of a restraining order.

Moments later, Brandy Ayers heard Whitney Mendez scream. “It sounded like something from a horror movie,” she testified.

Prosecutors say Juan Mendez Jr. killed the Lorena Stone and his estranged wife and mother of his child, Whitney Mendez. Ayers, a key witness for the prosecution, also testified that she heard a male tell the young mother that she “wasn’t a good mom and that the baby wouldn’t be with her much longer.”

A welfare agent who used to work for the Department of Children and Families also testified that the defendant agreed with her request, one day before the women’s death, not to see his son that weekend.

Earlier in the day, a medical examiner detailed for jurors the numerous locations Mendez and her mother were stabbed. Both were stabbed and or cut more than 20 times, mostly to the head, neck, and upper torso. Some of the wounds, to the forearms and hands, were consistent with defensive wounds, the medical examiner testified.

The defense says Mendez is innocent. They believe police rushed to arrest Mendez despite not having any evidence linking the defendant to the crime. Ayers did not give a statement to police until one year after the killings.

– Nancy Leung, In Session Producer

WATERLOO, Iowa – The Florida attorney who defended Cynthia Sommer in 2007 against murder charges that she poisoned her Marine husband in San Diego was disbarred last Thursday by the Florida Supreme Court. His disbarment is unrelated to Sommer’s case.

Cynthia Sommer

Robert Udell, who is licensed in California as well, was initially hired by Sommer in Florida. She was arrested in November 2005 in Florida where she had moved with her four children after her husband’s death in 2002. Her January 2007 murder trial ended in a conviction of first-degree murder. She was facing life in prison without the possibility of parole. Sommer then hired a new attorney, Allen Bloom, to fight for her life.

The trial judge, Peter Deddah, ordered a hearing on Bloom’s motion for a new trial. In late 2007, Udell testified at that hearing and admitted that he erred at the trial by “opening the door” to Sommer’s conduct which the judge had previously ruled inadmissible. That conduct in the months after her husband’s death included spending a small portion of her husband’s life insurance money on breast implants, dating Marines on the base, and participating in a wet tee shirt contest in Mexico. Udell opened the door to the admission of that evidence when he elicited testimony from a friend of Sommer’s that she was a grieving widow and wasn’t receiving appropriate support from the Department of Navy.

Judge Deddah ordered a new trial on the grounds that Sommer received ineffective assistance of counsel by Udell. Months later and before a new trial was held, she was freed when the District Attorney tested additional tissues from her husband that were subsequently found to be arsenic-free. Those test results cast doubt on the source of the original laboratory findings of toxic levels of arsenic in other tissue samples. Sommer has always maintained her innocence.

Udell was disbarred from the practice of law in Florida for cases he handled in that state, not for his representation of Sommer. The allegations were that he improperly handled legal fees between 2004 and 2008. He reportedly voluntarily agreed to the disbarment without admitting any wrongdoing.

Beth Karas, In Session correspondent

WATERLOO, IOWA –The Miami judge in Damon Darling’s trial is considering a defense motion to interview the jurors who convicted him of manslaughter and aggravated assault last month to determine if there was juror misconduct. The motion, filed two weeks by attorney Jonathan Meltz, also requests that the three alternates be interviewed. The State has not responded, yet, to the motion.

Damon Darling

Darling was convicted of manslaughter in the shooting death of nine-year-old Sherdavia Jenkins and the aggravated assault of Leroy Larose. Darling and Larose shot at each other in a Miami housing project. One of Darling’s bullets from the AK-47 he fired struck Jenkins in the neck and killed her almost immediately. She died in front of her mother.

The day after the jury’s October 8, 2008 verdict, Meltz received an anonymous call at his office from a man. His receptionist spoke to the man and took notes about his message. The caller said that juror “number 27, John, and Jesse” (another juror was Jesse Glass) were lifelong friends. He also said that John said they were going to “convict whomever was being judged.” It’s unclear when that statement was made—before or after the verdict—but that’s what the defense wants to explore. The caller, who was correct that juror John was number 27, may have been an alternate. If so, it’s possible the statement was made before jurors began deliberations. That could constitute misconduct as it would be a violation of the court’s instruction that there be no discussion or prejudging of the case before jurors retire to deliberate. In the motion, the defense claims the two jurors “improperly formed a fixed opinion as to guilt before the close of evidence.”

Meltz’s investigator confirmed that the grandparents of juror Jesse Glass live next door to juror Jonathan Hicks. Thus, it’s possible that the caller was correct that John and Jesse know each other. If they are friends, they did not disclose it at jury selection, though that fact, alone, is arguably harmless.

Meltz’s investigator also discovered that Jesse Glass was not truthful in one of his answers in the juror questionnaire. Question #11 states: “Have you, or a close friend or family member, ever been the victim of a crime? If so, describe briefly.” Glass’s response was “No.” In fact, on November 13, 2008, Glass was the victim of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (one of the same crimes Darling was convicted of) in Homestead, Florida. Meltz filed Glass’s questionnaire and the Homestead police report with his motion to interview jurors.

Jurors take two oaths during the selection and trial process. The first oath is to answer all questions truthfully. That’s the oath that applies to the questionnaire and any answers during voir dire. The second oath is taken when the final panel is selected where they swear or affirm that they will follow the law and the court’s instructions in deciding the case.

Judge Tinkler Mendez has ordered a presentence report for November 10 with sentencing of Darling to follow at some later time. She could grant this latest request for a hearing. If so, sentencing will be postponed while potential juror misconduct is investigated. The best case scenario for Darling is that he is ultimately granted a new trial. The best case scenario for the Jenkins family is that the motion is denied and Darling is sentenced to prison for decades. If the hearing is denied, the matter of juror misconduct could be an issue on appeal.

Beth Karas, In Session correspondent

DURHAM, North Carolina–“Shoot me. Shoot me. You’ll love it.” Teenager Alvaro Castillo dared a deputy sheriff to shoot him minutes after Castillo opened fire at his former high school. It’s a tragic, frightening and sad story that emerged from opening statements and the first witnesses at Castillo’s first-degree murder, assault and weapons trial in Hillsborough, North Carolina.

Alvaro Castillo in court as prosecutors present their case

Testimony continues Tuesday morning. Castillo is charged with murdering his father, Rafael Castillo, just a few hours before opening fire at Orange High School. He left a note next to his father’s body that read: “Sorry I had to sacrifice him.” Police recovered more writings and recordings of Castillo that showed his fascination with the 1999 Columbine school massacre and other mass shootings.

It was 1:00 p.m. on August 30, 2006. Students were outdoors eating lunch at picnic tables. Castillo, 18 at the time, had graduated from Orange High the year before. He drove a van into the lot near the students, detonated something that created popping sounds and smoke, and then grabbed a rifle that witnesses mistook for an assault rifle. He pointed the rifle in the air, fired three times, then lowered it, pointed in the direction of the students and fired.

Inside the school, Andrew Hunt was frighteningly close to the spot where a bullet penetrated a window. He was spared serious injury though shards of glass cut his shoulder. Another student, Tiffany Utsman, was grazed by a bullet but, fortunately, no one was killed. The whole incident took about two minutes.

Deputy Sheriff London Ivey was assigned to Orange High School as its resource officer. He drew his weapon and ordered Castillo to drop his. Castillo complied and lay face-down on the ground. That’s when Castillo dared Ivey to shoot him, but Ivey told Castillo that he didn’t want to kill him. Aided by a retired highway patrol officer who taught drivers education, Ivey restrained Castillo until more police arrived.

Seated in a patrol car, Castillo tried to choke himself with the seat belt. He said: “This was sacrifice. It had to happen.” When asked what his rants meant, Castillo told the officers that he had killed his father. Police soon found the corpse of 65-year-old Rafael Castillo, shot seven times—six in the head–still on the couch in the Castillo home.

During the defense’s opening statement on Monday, Public Defender James Williams admitted his client committed the shootings but said he’s not criminally culpable because of his severe mental illness. He’s asserting an insanity defense. Williams spent the next 45 minutes describing a chaotic and dysfunctional home life, an abusive father, a mentally ill mother, and a young man who, by the age of 18, had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, psychosis, and schizo-affective disorder.

By the time of the shootings, Williams declared, Castillo’s illness was so severe that he thought he was chosen by God to sacrifice his father and the students.

In the early years of his parents’ marriage, Castillo’s mother, Victoria, had doubts about the man she married. Rafael had become controlling, demeaning and physically abusive. Castillo, born in 1987, was the first of three children and the only son. Arguably, abuse toward Castillo started in the first months of his life when Rafael forbade his wife from bathing the infant in warm water; he thought cold water cured anything.

When Castillo was five years old, his father told him that his childhood was over. He didn’t allow the child to have friends. By 2001, when the Castillo family moved to North Carolina from California, Castillo was totally subservient to his father. He’d do anything to please his father and keep peace in the home.

Within a few years of moving to North Carolina, Castillo was having self-hate and suicidal thoughts. He became paranoid, believing there were cameras in the vents, that a woman in a picture was watching him and that the FBI and CIA were monitoring him closely. He became compulsive about the order of things at home. Then his obsession with Columbine began. He studied it, wrote about it and researched it.

On April 20, 2006, the seventh anniversary of the Columbine shootings, Castillo decided to kill himself. He had already bought a gun and was perilously close to firing it that day when his father came home unexpectedly. His father wrestled the gun from Castillo and called the police. Castillo was committed to a psychiatric facility for seven days where he was diagnosed with major depression and psychosis. He continued periodic outpatient treatment until July 24, 2006 when he was also diagnosed with schizo-affective disorder. While he was getting treatment for his mental illness, Castillo managed to purchase a rifle and a shotgun. He used the rifle on August 30, 2006 to kill his father and to shoot at the students.

Expected to take the stand Tuesday are the two men who apprehended Castillo at the school, the student who was grazed by a bullet, other eyewitness students, and officers who gathered evidence.

Watch live coverage of this case on In Session, beginning at 9 a.m.

–Beth Karas, In Session correspondent

NEW YORK – When the jury declared Tyler Edmonds not guilty in the murder of his brother-in-law last year, the emotion on both sides of the courtroom was palpable. Behind Edmonds sat his mother and rows of friends his own age; tears flowed and the stunned teenager received a barrage of hugs before he walked out of the courtroom a free man.

Tyler Edmonds

Still sitting on the opposite side of the gallery were the mother, brother, and sister-in-law of his alleged victim Joey Fulgham – a 29-year-old father of three, whose life ended when a single bullet pierced his skull as he lay sleeping in his bed. I was struck by the severe look on the faces of all three as they stared straight ahead. I asked Joey’s brother Shannon Fulgham about it when we met for an interview a few weeks later; pain and disbelief, he said.

Edmonds, now 20, is working as a yard and pool keeper, and begins night classes at the local community next month with an EMT/Paramedic major. He has filed a suit against Oktibbeha County and the state for monetary compensation, to help with the $60,000 debt he says he and his mother have amassed since his legal troubles began. The complaint paints a stark picture of the teen’s time behind bars: “Tyler witnessed multiple instances of inmates attempting suicide by slitting their wrists and continuous threats by inmates to jump off the catwalk. Tyler was surrounded by gangs and gang wars at all times while incarcerated, an atmosphere that would be intolerable for any adult, much less a child of his age,” the document reads.

Edmonds has also filed a claim under a new Mississippi law that entitles wrongfully imprisoned individuals to up to $50,000 per year of incarceration; for Edmonds, this could add up to $200,000.

The case had dragged on since Joey’s death in 2003, when his wife Kristi allegedly recruited her 13-year-old half-brother Tyler Edmonds as an accomplice in her husband’s murder. All seem to agree Kristi is a masterful manipulator, but Tyler’s role – and level of responsibility – was left for the jury to determine. He was already convicted of the murder once, at the age of 14, but that verdict was overturned by the State Supreme Court. And here he was again at the defense table, at 19, hearing the words he’d been waiting for; the seal on his walking papers. “It is amazing how that much worry and pain can be taken away by two words,” he told me later. He’s prayed, he said, that the Fulgham family will realize he did not kill Joey – but has come to realize there is nothing he can do about it.

Shannon Fulgham says one of the most difficult things for the family has been watching the rallying of support for Edmonds based largely on his age. Few of the individuals and organizations to step forward know the facts of the case, he says; none have expressed concern for Joey’s essentially orphaned children, who now are in the care of Kristi’s mother.

In an update Edmonds sent me last week, he says it’s comforting to be able to look towards the future without worrying about going back to jail. “It's still hard sometimes, but considering all that I've survived thus far, something tells me I will be quite alright.”

Kristi, now on death row for the murder, has written him and apologized, he says; he has no intention of responding.

-Lena Jakobsson, In Session field producer

NEW YORK–In Session viewers may remember Richard Gagnon, who was convicted last year and sentenced to two life terms for the murders of a South Carolina couple.

Gagnon testified that he did not shoot Charles and Diane Parker and that he didn’t know who did, contradicting a cellmate who claimed he confessed to the murders.

Gagnon was living with Bambi Bennett, Diane Parker’s daughter. Investigators believed that Gagnon killed his girlfriend’s mother and stepfather to clear the way for her to inherit their estate, worth $700,000. Gagnon’s defense was boosted by crime scene evidence. There was blood at the home, the killer’s blood - but it didn’t belong to Gagnon.

Prosecutors have since found the mystery bleeder. DNA from the Parker crime scene has been matched to Bruce Hill, who is currently in a Tennessee Correctional Center.  Earlier this month, Hill was charged with two counts of murder and burglary in the Parker case. While investigators have not been able to establish the link between Hill and Gagnon, they do not believe it diminishes Gagnon’s involvement in the case.

“We suspect there’s a certain way they know each other,” said Lt. Jamie DeVari, commander of criminal investigations for the Horry County Police Dept. DeVari said it may take a more time to establish the connection, but remained confident in Gagnon’s guilt. “We believed all along there was more than one participant.”

–Grace Wong, In Session senior field producer

NEW YORK –Judge Marcelo Kopcow sentenced Allen Andrade to life in prison without parole this afternoon after he was found guilty of first-degree murder and bias-motivated crime in the beating death of Justin (Angie) Zapata.

Allen Andrade hangs head as guilty verdict is delivered

The jury deliberated for about two hours before finding Andrade, 32, guilty of beating 18-year-old Zapata to death last July in a rage after discovering that Zapata was biologically a male.  The two met on a social networking website.

The defense claimed Andrade was guilty of a lesser crime - second-degree murder, manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, but the jury disagreed.

Stay tuned to In Session for complete verdict coverage beginning at 9 a.m.

–Carolyn Purcell, In Session Senior Executive Producer