Testimony in Death Hearing Dwarfed by Lawyers’ Feud

Convicted murderer Cinnamon Brown’s dramatic testimony against her father was overshadowed Tuesday by an outbreak of hostilities between two lawyers, prompting the judge to reprimand the defense attorney for calling the prosecutor “a buffoon” and trying to run the courtroom.

Simmering tensions between defense attorney Joel Baruch and Deputy Dist. Atty. Jeoffrey Robinson broke into unrestrained antagonism on the second day of a preliminary hearing to determine whether David A. Brown should stand trial for murdering his wife more than 3 years ago.

Prosecutors claim that Brown, 36, who ran a profitable computer service in Anaheim Hills, orchestrated the murder of his fourth wife, Linda Marie Brown, 23, to collect $835,000 in insurance money. He then allegedly set up his 14-year-old daughter to take the blame for the crime, and later secretly married the dead woman’s sister, Patricia Bailey, who is accused of being an accomplice in the plot.

Brown’s preliminary hearing on the charges began Monday in Orange County Municipal Court in Westminster. After the hearing, which is expected to last several weeks, Municipal Judge Floyd H. Schenk will decide whether Brown should stand trial for murder.

In presenting their case, prosecutors are relying heavily on the testimony of Cinnamon Brown, now 18. She already has served 3 years of a 27-year-to-life sentence for fatally shooting her stepmother on March 19, 1985. She now claims she acted only under directions from her father.

It was defense attorney Baruch’s daylong attempt Tuesday to damage the credibility of the prosecution’s star witness that sparked numerous confrontations between Baruch, Robinson and Schenk, the presiding judge of the Municipal Court in Westminster.

The feuding, which already had slowed testimony at the preliminary hearing to a snail’s pace, could stall Brown’s pending murder trial indefinitely if Baruch is successful in seeking a new preliminary hearing for his client. Baruch claims that the courtroom encounters reveal the judge’s bias against him.

Tensions reached a peak Tuesday afternoon when Baruch sought to cast doubt on Cinnamon Brown’s mental health by introducing testimony about her “imaginary friends.”

When prosecutor Robinson’s objection to the topic was upheld by Schenk, Baruch became irate. “Would you let me explain! Would you let me explain!” Baruch shouted at the judge after Schenk gave his ruling.

When the judge instructed the defense attorney to control himself, Baruch--an attorney who has practiced in Orange County for a dozen years and who recently has won several high-profile cases--shot back: “Put me in jail!”

As Baruch complained that he was not getting a fair chance to put on his defense, Robinson accused his opposing counsel of “trying to intimidate the court. . . . This is the way Mr. Baruch tries to get rulings in his favor.”

And finally, as Robinson walked by Baruch to make an objection, the defense attorney turned and shouted at the prosecutor: “Sit down, Robinson!”

For Schenk, that was the final straw. The judge rose up in his seat behind the bench and issued a contempt-of-court citation against Baruch, telling the defense attorney: “I’ll guarantee you one thing; you are not running the courtroom, whether (or not) you think you are.”

“I’ve had it with you!” the judge told Baruch.

But at a late afternoon hearing, Schenk withdrew the contempt-of-court order, which could have meant a fine or time in jail for Baruch. The judge did, however, scold the defense attorney for his courtroom conduct and warned him that he would not tolerate similar behavior.

Schenk, calling the attorneys’ bickering “a mini-trial” in itself, said: “This is not going to get into a three-ring circus. I’ll guarantee that.”

Baruch said he hopes the hostilities will lessen now that the contempt charge against him has been dropped.

But Robinson said he fears the withdrawal of the contempt order may give the defense attorney more leeway in his courtroom conduct, to the detriment of the prosecution’s case. “When a judge has been accused of so many wrongdoings and one-sidedness, it’s only human nature that he may try and avoid that in the future.”

Indeed, tensions showed no sign of lessening even after Schenk reprimanded Baruch for his mid-afternoon outburst.

The defense attorney and Robinson, standing nose-to-nose outside the courtroom, continued their heated exchanges during a break in Tuesday’s proceedings.

Robinson, accusing Baruch of unethical tactics, told the defense attorney: “You’re the most unethical, dirtiest lawyer . . . I’ve ever seen.”

Baruch retorted: “You’re going to get your petard handed to you on this one.”

And back and forth went the accusations and name-calling. On Monday, Baruch called Robinson “a buffoon,” drawing a warning from Schenk. On Tuesday, Robinson scored a slam of his own in court, telling the judge that: “Mr. Baruch, like a spoiled child when he doesn’t get what he wants, goes off into a tirade.”

The lawyers’ acrimony succeeded in overshadowing the testimony of the witness herself, Cinnamon Brown.

She frustrated Baruch in his attempts to poke holes in her story, responding “I don’t remember” dozens of times in answer to questions about the night of the killing and her changing of accounts since that time.

Flustered by some questions, Cinnamon Brown said, “I’m nervous in the courtroom, having trouble concentrating,” and she blamed the difficulty on her father. “I feel intimidated (with) him staring at me.”

The young woman will take the stand again today for continued cross-examination. Her testimony will be followed by that of Patricia Bailey, 20, who faces a separate preliminary hearing on the murder charges.