Testimony in Tuffree Trial Ends

After six weeks and nearly 60 witnesses, testimony in the Daniel Allan Tuffree murder trial ended Thursday with a law enforcement expert who strongly rebutted earlier statements criticizing the tactics of Simi Valley police.

Tuffree, 49, is charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of Officer Michael Clark 13 months ago after police came to the substitute teacher’s Simi Valley home to check on his welfare.

The case will go to the jury in early October after jury instructions are drawn and lawyers make their closing arguments. Tuffree faces a possible death sentence.

Clark was one of three police officers sent to Tuffree’s home Aug. 4, 1995, after reports that the former Chatsworth High School teacher had been drinking alcohol, taking Valium and was possibly suicidal.

A gunfight began shortly after police walked into Tuffree’s backyard and started asking him questions.

Defense attorneys have argued that Clark fired on Tuffree first and that police acted improperly. They called expert witnesses who testified that police should have walked away once they realized that Tuffree was not hurt or suicidal.

Trying to get the last word, prosecutors Thursday called their third expert witness on police procedure.

Joe Callanan, a police training consultant and retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, told jurors that Simi Valley officers did nothing wrong when they came to Tuffree’s house. “I subscribe to what they did as being proper police procedure,” he said.

And he criticized suggestions that police could have left after briefly talking to a man who was a possible danger to himself.

“I don’t see that backing away does anything,” Callanan said. “It is a matter of resolving the situation. You wouldn’t want to leave, wondering what happened to the person after you left.”

Callanan’s resonant voice dominated the courtroom for much of the day as prosecutors called rebuttal witnesses before resting their case.

At one point, Callanan dismissed a question by Deputy Public Defender Howard Asher as ridiculous, saying that yelling from a bullhorn at Tuffree’s house would have aggravated the situation. The lawyer had suggested that using a public address system might have been a better way to talk with Tuffree than entering his backyard.

“I am trying to respect you,” Callanan told Asher, “but that is so laughable.”

Attorneys are scheduled to begin their closing arguments Sept. 30 after Judge Allan L. Steele decides which instructions on the law will be given to the jury.