Videotapes of Murder Trial Sought

In an extraordinary motion, the public defender’s office has asked a Superior Court judge to turn over videotapes of a recent murder trial on grounds that defense attorneys did not know the proceedings were being recorded and that the court may have illegally eavesdropped on private conversations.

Claiming that the defendant’s rights may have been violated, Public Defender Mike Judge’s office requested that Judge Curtis Rappe produce all tapes made in the trial of Robert Gauchi. The unemployed 35-year-old from Van Nuys was sentenced last month to life in prison after being convicted of second-degree murder for killing his 4-year-old stepdaughter during a fit of rage.

Rappe declined to comment on the matter, his clerk said, because he has not ruled on whether to turn over the tapes. Rappe’s courtroom is one of nine on the Criminal Courts Building’s ninth floor--the highest security floor and the only one that includes a metal detector, other than the ones located on the first floor entrance of the courthouse. It the same courtroom where O.J. Simpson was tried for murder in 1995.

Among the questions swirling around the taping are where and when the cameras were installed and how they were controlled.

In an eight-page motion pending before Rappe, the public defender’s office said the existence of the videotapes in Gauchi’s trial came to light only after his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Vera Bradford, unsuccessfully sought to correct what she believed were mistakes in the reporter’s transcript of the trial.

“In ruling on that motion, this court announced that videotapes of the trial had been made, that the court had reviewed those videotapes and that based on those videotapes, the motion was denied,” Bradford and Deputy Public Defender Albert J. Menaster said in their April 15 motion seeking the tapes.

Bradford and Menaster said in their motion that a copy of a videotape shared with them includes footage that focuses on the defense table during “apparent conversations” between them and their client. And while the conversations are difficult to hear, the motion adds, the tape is a duplicate of an earlier recording--one that might have better sound quality.

“The issue is whether the court may have eavesdropped on, or whether the original tape recorded, the audible conversation between defense counsel and the defendant, as well as whether notes of defense counsel, the defense paralegal, or the defendant may have been seen and even captured on the original recording,” the motion says, arguing that recording the conversation on videotape could be a felony.

Asst. Public Defender Robert Kalunian said the office took the unusual step of seeking a court order to collect all the tapes because attorneys so far have only been allowed to view about six to eight minutes of excerpts from the trial. Without the complete tapes, he added, there is no way to determine if Gauchi’s rights to a fair trial may have been compromised.

“I see no legitimate reason for a judge to control a camera and videotape a trial when there is already an official court reporter there and for security purposes, the [office of the] sheriff is already electronically monitoring the proceedings,” Kalunian said.

Moreover, Kalunian added: “It is our fear that other cases tried in that courtroom [also] could have been videotaped . . . and it is possible it could have occurred in other courtrooms. We just don’t know.”

Kalunian’s concerns were echoed by other attorneys contacted about the case.

“Frankly, I am just totally puzzled why a judge would do it. And if he did want to videotape [a proceeding], why he wouldn’t disclose that to all parties. It just doesn’t make sense,” said legal analyst and UCLA law professor Peter Arenella.

Added well-known defense attorney Jill D. Lansing: “It seems to me that any of us, in any situation, have a right to know that we are being filmed and recorded, particularly in a setting where confidentially can be critical.”

Not all attorneys contacted about the videotaping found it that worrisome.

“I know the public defender’s office is trying to articulate privacy concerns, but quite frankly anything you do in a courtroom is public,” said lawyer Marcia Morrissey, a former public defender.

But other legal experts said the law insists that attorney-client discussions be held sacred even if they are in the often wide-open atmosphere of a courtroom.

“It’s troubling,” said attorney Laurie Levenson, associate dean of Loyola Law School. “I don’t think anyone likes being spied on . . . and if you already have a security camera [in the courtroom], what is the reason for another one?”

Added defense attorney Harland W. Braun, whose clients have included one of the officers charged in the beating of motorist Rodney King: “As long as a camera is in there, I should know about it. . . . The judge does not have a right to privileged materials. Period.”

While deputy public defenders Bradford and Menaster could not be reached for comment, Kalunian said the public defender’s office was disturbed not only with the existence of a videotape camera but the precision of its capabilities to record courtroom proceedings.

“It was apparent someone had the ability to control the camera and in fact even zoom in and possibly even control audio volumes at different mikes [in the courtroom]. So that raised some very serious concerns.”