Tuffree Was Remorseless After Simi Officer’s Slaying, Jurors Told

After shooting Simi Valley Police Officer Michael Clark to death, Daniel Allan Tuffree fretted less over killing a policeman than over his own wounds and the damage done to his kitchen in the ensuing SWAT raid, a prosecutor told jurors Monday.

Tuffree told detectives afterward, “My whole house has been trashed” and complained bitterly that he had feared he would die of wounds suffered in the shootout with police, Deputy Dist. Atty. Patricia Murphy said during closing arguments in Tuffree’s murder trial.

Drunk and hostile before the gunfight on Aug. 4, 1995, Tuffree drew a large-caliber pistol and Clark drew his own, so “it should not be a surprise that someone was killed,” Murphy said.

Witness testimony and evidence show that Tuffree fired the first shot, then fired four more, Murphy said. And after hitting Clark once, she said, Tuffree “tracked him like a wild animal” and shot him again as he fell bleeding.

Murphy’s closing arguments signaled the beginning of the end of a murder trial that has spanned six weeks, with often graphic testimony, more than 50 witnesses and hundreds of bits of evidence.

Tuffree, a former Chatsworth High School teacher, stands accused of first-degree murder and killing a police officer. He is also charged with attempted murder and armed assault on Officer Michael Pierce in the gun battle. If convicted, Tuffree could be sentenced to death.

Deputy Public Defender Howard Asher is scheduled to argue today on behalf of Tuffree, who has insisted that he shot Clark in self-defense.

On Monday, it was the prosecution’s turn to offer jurors answers to the deceptively simple question at the core of the Tuffree case: Did Tuffree intentionally murder Clark or did he shoot in self-defense?

Tuffree definitely killed Clark--that much is undisputed, Murphy said.

But prosecution evidence attempted to show that he thought about it ahead of time--an essential element in proving that it was not just manslaughter, but premeditated, first-degree murder.

Clark arrived on Tuffree’s property that afternoon to do nothing more than his job--to check on reports that Tuffree had been taking Valium, drinking alcohol and had stopped answering his phone, Murphy said.

Tuffree, on the other hand, already had a deep-seated hatred of police. It was born in a 1992 search of his house, when police seized his .40-caliber Glock semiautomatic pistol, and it intensified as Tuffree pestered police monthly for the next six months until they gave the gun back, Murphy said.

Tuffree’s personal files were filled with pamphlets on gun owners’ rights and copies of laws regarding home invasion and privacy rights.

“He was aggressive, confrontational and hostile from the get-go,” Murphy told jurors.

*

But Clark persisted in talking to him. “When an officer confronts an angry, intoxicated and hostile man, we don’t expect he’s going to turn around and run away and give up,” she said. “We expect that he does what he reasonably can do to resolve the situation peacefully.”

Tuffree would have none of that: He had already barricaded the front door with furniture and plucked the Glock--loaded with especially deadly bullets--from his gym bag, Murphy said.

Tuffree approached the kitchen counter to talk with Clark through the closed kitchen window, which was hard for Clark to see through because it was tinted like “a funhouse mirror,” Murphy said. And only after Clark repeatedly ordered him to show his hands did Tuffree raise the gun and begin firing, she said.

Clark ducked for cover and fired back, falling to the concrete patio, fatally wounded. Tuffree went back to the gym bag and traded the Glock for a .44-caliber magnum revolver that he felt had more stopping power, then began firing at Pierce, who was crawling on hands and knees to try to rescue Clark, Murphy said.

During her six-hour summation, Murphy tore at the defense proposition that Tuffree shot only because he believed Clark would kill him. By law, she said, Clark had the right to draw his weapon and shoot to kill when suddenly confronted by a gunman.

And because Tuffree first brought a loaded gun into view, Murphy criticized a defense argument that the killing falls to the level of manslaughter on the grounds that Tuffree shot “in the heat of passion.”

Murphy also attacked defense witnesses who said the officers used improper tactics when they entered Tuffree’s yard rather than using a bullhorn or simply walking away when they saw him moving around inside the house.

The poor-tactics argument does not negate Tuffree’s guilt of murder charges, Murphy said.

*

And she slammed criticism of Clark’s team by defense expert Lou Reiter, saying he is a former LAPD deputy chief who has barely three years’ patrol experience and is paid high fees--$10,000 in this case--to testify against cops.

“You know, when somebody kills a police officer, they have struck a deadly blow against society,” Murphy told jurors as she concluded, her voice breaking with emotion.

“The actions of the defendant are as horrific as they seem,” she said. “The People ask that you find the defendant guilty of the premeditated murder of Michael Clark, who was simply a police officer doing his job.”