Legal Skirmishes Precede Trial Over Officer’s Slaying

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

Not even his lawyers dispute that. But little else in this death penalty case is uncontested as his trial is set to begin.

Tuffree is charged with first-degree murder for shooting Clark, and prosecutors are asking that he be executed.

Though jury selection is scheduled to start Tuesday, the battle for the jury’s attention began more than eight months ago when Tuffree, 49, pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and several lesser charges. Since then, lawyers for both sides have argued their case before two judges in more than three dozen pretrial hearings, fighting over 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 back yard 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 got onto his property.

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

Meanwhile, 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.

They say Clark panicked and fired his gun first, prompting Tuffree to return fire. Tuffree’s life should be spared because he was 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.”

She 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 LAPD partner.

“You always want to blame somebody when things like this happen,” said Carl Oschmann, who still patrols Hollywood. “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.”

Oschmann 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.”

The day of the shooting, Tuffree, a 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 officers went into his back yard. A gunfight erupted, and Clark died.

Hours after his arrest, Tuffree admitted pulling the trigger. The jury must decide why--and what crime he may have committed.

*

Depending on how the trial shapes up and the final instructions of Superior Court Judge Allan L. Steele, they can decide Tuffree is guilty of murder or a lesser charge such as involuntary manslaughter (meaning Clark’s death was accidental) or second-degree murder (meaning Tuffree did not plan Clark’s murder, but meant for Clark to die when he fired his .40-caliber Glock handgun).

And even if they agree that Tuffree killed Clark in the first degree, they must still decide whether he should face death or life in prison without parole.

Prospective panelists will be quizzed on everything from their political views to their opinion of “Dead Man Walking,” a film chronicling a death row inmate’s march to execution by lethal injection.

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.

That fight has incensed Clark’s widow.

“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 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.

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

By most accounts, he is 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 wears his wavy gray and black hair worn down to his shoulders.

He is intelligent--he holds two master’s degrees, obtained by correspondence--but police had been to his home several times in the three years before the shooting.

Sometimes it was neighbors calling to complain. Sometimes it was Tuffree calling to complain about being stalked and harassed by a co-worker at Grant High School in Van Nuys--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 had mental problems. The police officers who went into his back yard should not have had their guns drawn, they maintain.

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

Prosecutors decline to discuss details of the case outside the courtroom. But their arguments before the Ventura County grand jury and in pretrial hearings 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,” Murphy told the grand jury.

Tuffree’s run-ins with Simi Valley police hark back to the day police confiscated his handgun after being called to his house, Kossoris said. The gun was returned when no criminal charges were filed, and Tuffree used it to kill Clark.