Tuffree Defense Witnesses Rebut Key Testimony on Police Conduct

For a second day, defense attorneys in the Daniel Allan Tuffree murder trial sought to challenge the testimony of key prosecution witnesses while challenging the conduct of Simi Valley police.

Tuffree’s attorneys Tuesday called two expert witnesses to the stand--a lawyer specializing in police misconduct, and a psychologist who rebutted earlier witness testimony in the five-week trial.

Tuffree, 49, is charged with first-degree murder in the death of Simi Valley Police Officer Michael Clark on Aug. 4, 1995. Police went to Tuffree’s house to check on his welfare after reports that he had been taking Valium and drinking alcohol and was possibly suicidal.

In a one-two punch aimed at the prosecution’s case, Tuffree’s lawyers first called the lawyer, who handles nothing but police misconduct cases, to testify on police officers’ legal responsibilities.

Earlier statements by police experts suggested the officers dispatched to Tuffree’s home were legally obligated to follow through on the check-the-welfare call by making physical contact with Tuffree.

*

But Thomas E. Beck told the jury that Simi Valley police would not have been negligent if they had walked away from Tuffree’s house.

Defense attorneys have focused on the definition of police “duty,” since Tuffree faces a special allegation of killing an on-duty officer that would allow him to be punished by death if convicted.

“There has been testimony . . . that police have a legal obligation to make sure the person is all right,” Deputy Public Defender Howard Asher said. “Are the police liable?”

“The answer is no,” answered Beck, who said he has been involved in police misconduct cases for the past 13 years.

But on cross-examination, Deputy Dist. Atty. Pete Kossoris pulled out his law books and cited several cases in which police officers were found to be negligent for not taking actions to protect the well-being of individuals.

Kossoris then asked Beck how much money he makes on civil cases against police officers. Beck said he has earned millions in judgments for clients.

“Does your entire practice consist of suing police officers?” Kossoris asked.

“These days, yes,” Beck answered.

Later during Tuesday’s testimony, defense attorneys called their own psychologist to challenge the testimony of another psychologist who had testified last month.

Prosecutors called psychologist Roger M. Solomon on Aug. 27 to explain why Officer Michael Pierce may not have heard Clark firing during the shootout with Tuffree.

*

Pierce testified then that he heard four distinct gunshots. According to testimony by investigators, however, Clark had unloaded his 9-millimeter pistol during the gunfight, firing at least 16 shots.

Solomon testified that discrepancies in Pierce’s testimony could be attributed to the trauma of having his partner shot and killed.

But Robert Shomer, the psychologist called by the defense Tuesday, said Pierce’s focus would have been on protecting himself. Defense attorneys have argued that Pierce’s testimony is unreliable because he didn’t hear the shots.

“Our attention narrows,” Shomer said of people involved in critical incidents, “and we pay a lot more attention on how to save our skins.”

At issue is the question of whether Tuffree or Clark fired first.

Testimony in the trial is scheduled to continue today.