Jury in Death Penalty Case Must Decide if Teacher Fired Out of Hatred or in Defense

Daniel Allen Tuffree killed Simi Valley Officer Michael F. Clark on a hot and smoggy afternoon last August.

Nobody, not even his lawyers, disputes that. But little else in this death penalty case is uncontested.

Now, nearly a year after the shooting, Tuffree’s trial is set to begin.

Tuffree is charged with first-degree murder for shooting Clark, and prosecutors are asking that Tuffree be executed because Clark died while in the line of duty.

Jury selection is scheduled to start Tuesday.

But the battle for the unpicked jury’s attention and votes began more than eight months ago when Tuffree, 49, pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and several other related, but lesser charges.

Since then, lawyers for both sides have argued their case before two judges in more than three dozen pretrial hearings, trying to influence what the jury will and won’t hear.

The arguments have ranged from an unsuccessful defense motion to drop the charges to a battle over how long each side was entitled to examine the fatal bullet. And their versions of what happened in Tuffree’s Aztec Court backyard have been clearly spelled out during these pretrial arguments.

Prosecutors Peter D. Kossoris and Patricia M. Murphy say Tuffree harbored a grudge against law enforcement and planned to shoot any cop who came onto his property.

The grudge dates back three years, prosecutors say, to when Simi Valley police confiscated a handgun that Tuffree owned. The gun was later returned, and Tuffree was never charged with a crime. But that experience left him with a hatred of the department that culminated with Clark’s death, prosecutors argue.

Tuffree and his attorneys see it differently. Defense attorneys Howard Asher and Richard Holly maintain that poor tactics and decisions by the Simi Valley Police Department are partly--if not completely--to blame for Clark’s death.

In fact, they argue, Clark panicked and fired his gun first, prompting Tuffree to return fire. Tuffree’s life should be spared because he is not completely at fault for Clark’s death, his attorneys maintain.

Clark’s widow has a third view.

“Regardless of who shot who first, my husband is dead and my son does not have a father,” said Jenifer Clark. “Michael was just doing his job. He did everything he could.”

Jenifer Clark said she will attend every day of the trial so “that monster can see my face.” She, too, wants Tuffree to die.

Then there is Clark’s best friend and former partner when both were with the Los Angeles Police Department.

“You always want to blame somebody when things like this happen,” said Carl Oschmann, who still patrols Hollywood for the LAPD. “It’s not always that black and white. From everything that I know--and I wasn’t there--mistakes were made. But it is also ludicrous for Tuffree to claim he was firing in self-defense. Reasonable people don’t respond to police at their door with a gun.”

But Oschmann said he is not angry with Tuffree. He said Tuffree’s fate is inconsequential.

“No matter what happens, Mike is still dead,” Oschmann said. “I don’t really care what the verdict ends up being, it won’t bring Mike back.”

Hours after his arrest, Tuffree admitted to pulling the trigger.

The substitute high school teacher was upset because a pharmacy would not refill his Valium prescription, so he called his insurance company and bitterly complained.

Workers there, believing Tuffree was drunk and drugged, called police. But when he refused to answer his telephone or open his front door, three police officers went into his backyard.

A gunfight erupted, and Clark died.

The jury will have to decide why Tuffree shot Clark.

The 12 could acquit Tuffree of all charges. Or, depending on how the trial shapes up and Superior Court Judge Allan L. Steele gives final instructions, they can decide Tuffree is guilty of a lesser charge of murder. Those range from involuntary manslaughter (meaning Clark’s death was purely accidental) to second-degree murder (meaning Tuffree did not plan Clark’s murder, but he meant for Clark to die when he fired his .40-caliber Glock handgun).

They could even agree that Tuffree did, in fact, kill Clark in the first degree but still vote to spare Tuffree’s life and send him to prison without parole.

“Jury selection is the most important part of the trial,” defense attorney Holly said.

The impaneling is expected to last through the end of the month. In picking a jury, lawyers and judges will move as slowly, deliberately and cautiously as they have during the last year. Panelists will be quizzed on everything from their political views to their taste in cinema.

They’ll be asked their opinion of the movie “Dead Man Walking,” which chronicles a death row inmate’s march to execution by lethal injection--the same fate facing Tuffree if he is found guilty of first-degree murder. They’ll be asked their views on capital punishment, police and guns.

The couple of hundred potential jurors who will be called into Steele’s courtroom over the next three weeks will be whittled to 12 and two alternates.

The trial promises to be contentious.

Already, Holly has been cited for contempt of court after he refused to return the fatal bullet to prosecutors when promised.

“I’m fighting best as I can for my client,” said Holly, who was fined $250.

That fight has incensed Clark’s widow, who is upset with defense tactics and is angry with the media for portraying her husband as anything other than a good cop.

“I’m angry with the news media and papers for printing the defense side of things,” Jenifer Clark said. “They’re trying to portray him as some trigger-happy cop. That was the first time in his career that he fired his gun.”

Clark, who was told of her husband’s death while working at a Thousand Oaks optician’s office, said the last year “has been pure hell” for her and her 1 1/2-year-old son, Bayley. She has not worked since the shooting.

“Every time I read or hear that Michael was a bad cop, it just tears this family apart,” she said from the Moorpark condominium she and her husband shared. “He was an excellent cop.”

At the same time, Tuffree wears the displeasure of his predicament on his face often and without subtlety. He fights with his attorneys when they seek delays or don’t explain something to his liking.

By most accounts, he is unpleasant and prone to fits of rage. He leans menacingly on his thick forearms and scowls during court proceedings, something his attorneys hope they can stop before the jury is seated.

He has put on weight since his arrest and has grown and shaved a beard in that time. He is now cleanshaven, and his wavy gray and black hair is down to his shoulders.

He is intelligent--he holds two master’s degrees, obtained by correspondence--but he is troubled. He becomes irrational quickly and obsesses over things. Police had been to his Aztec Court home several times in the last three years.

Sometimes it was neighbors calling to complain about Tuffree’s behavior. Sometimes it was Tuffree calling them to complain about being stalked and harassed by a co-worker at his Valley school--a claim that was never substantiated.

And that will be part of the defense strategy. Holly and Asher will argue that the police knew Tuffree and that he had mental problems. Clark and the two police officers who entered Tuffree’s backyard should not have had their guns drawn, the attorneys argue.

Further, Holly argues that Clark fired his weapon first and that Tuffree thought he was defending himself when he returned fire.

To bolster their case, they point to the fact that no internal investigation of the shooting was done.

Internal investigations are conducted almost every time someone is wounded or killed in a police-related shooting, Holly said. Either the Simi Valley Police Department or the Ventura County district attorney’s office conducted internal investigations into the five Simi Valley police-related shootings preceding the Clark slaying, records show.

Prosecutors decline to discuss details of the case outside the courtroom.

But their arguments before the Ventura County Grand Jury and during the dozens of pretrial hearings leading up to the trial make clear their position: “He had an obsession with the Simi Valley Police Department. He had nothing but contempt for them. He felt he was being victimized by them,” prosecutor Murphy told the grand jury when she successfully argued for a first-degree murder indictment.

Tuffree’s run-ins with Simi Valley police over the last three years hearkened back, Kossoris claims, to the day police confiscated his handgun after being called to his house. The gun, the same one used to kill Clark, was ultimately returned to Tuffree, and no criminal charges were filed.

Prosecutors plan to show the jury a letter that Tuffree wrote in 1994 addressed to Sen. Dianne Feinstein complaining about his treatment by the Simi Valley Police Department.

“He refers to the Simi Valley police officers in his letter sarcastically,” Murphy told the grand jury. “He has, in quotes, ‘Simi’s Finest Officers,’ end quote.”

The trial is expected to last more than three months.