Legal Pad

Oxnard attorney David L. Shain and Westlake Village attorney J. Grant Kennedy offer their take on the Diana Haun trial. They will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today, they discuss the conclusion of the prosecution’s case and what tact the defense may take when it begins today.

DAVID L. SHAIN, Oxnard attorney

****

“As we know, the prosecution has the burden of proof. As with many murder cases, they have no one who saw the killing. The goal of prosecution was to piece together a plausible scenario incorporating specific items of evidence in such a manner that it would negate any possibility of coincidence. In other words, that any one of these items taken apart might be argued to be innocent in nature, but when put together in such a manner as the prosecution sought to do, might lead to another conclusion . . . Along those lines, obviously, they bring a few things to bear. The first is motive. There has been evidence that she sought to replace the victim, there is evidence that the defendants acted like a family a day after the killing . . . And then finally, we come back to one of the themes--the necessity of dehumanizing Diana Haun, who sits before a jury now nicely dressed with a pleasant face . . . Going to the defense side, the role is clearly different from that of the prosecution. They are not requried to prove anything. What they need to do strategically is plant the seed of reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury or at least one juror.

J. GRANT KENNEDY, Westlake attorney

****

“The prosecutors have the wig purchase, the car rental, the ax purchase and the defendant was seen in the vicinity of the scene where the body was found--big piece of evidence I thought . . . It is interesting that I don’t really recall any evidence about how she would have directly gained financially. Maybe Michael Dally would have, but there wasn’t any evidence about her--what is the proof that she was going to get any of the money? And with the lying in wait charge, there certainly is some evidence suggesting that it wasn’t her in the vehicle--nobody ever particularly identified her . . . All and all, with this incredibly important job of the jurors to decide the life or death of Diana Haun, they want more than innuendo and interpretation--they want hard evidence . . . With the defense, I think they want to open up strong with something that makes the jurors interested, something that makes them start thinking about the defendant’s case. That’s typically the Golden Rule. I would expect their major focus will continue to be to raise doubt and spin it like a diamond in the light--everytime you see something different. And they will probably attempt to villanize Michael Dally and show that he was a master of deception--not only to his wife but to Haun.”