Man convicted of killing daughter by throwing her from cliff

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Man convicted of killing daughter by throwing her from cliff

| May 13, 2015 | Updated: May 13, 2015 3:39pm

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Los Angeles jurors on Wednesday convicted a former airline baggage handler of first-degree murder for killing his 4-year-old daughter by tossing her off a sea cliff nearly 15 years ago.

The verdict came at Cameron Brown's third trial in the death of Lauren Sarene Key. Brown, who has been in custody for 12 years, showed no emotion after the verdict was read, but the girl's mother cried.

When asked about the sentencing date, Brown said, "Judge, I'm innocent, I have no comment."

Prosecutors say Brown killed the girl in November 2000 because he never wanted the child and was locked in a bitter dispute with her mother over child support and custody.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Verdict-reached-in-death-of-4-year-old-who-fell-6261347.php

---

[center]



?1

Cameron Brown[/center]

[gopiscrap]

1. What a fuckwad!

[giftedgirl77]

3. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Ms. Toad]

6. The bigger fuckwad in this case was the prosecutor

who left the jury with no reasonable choice (manslaughter or second degree murder) by forcing them to choose between guilty of nothing and guilty of a crime that two juries had rejected as overcharged. The prosecutor should have let go of the murder charge and just charged manslaughter. But that would be perceived as not being tough on crime.

(See this post for more detail: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1092886 ). It is becoming a standard way of obtaining a conviction the facts don't sustain, because juries are reluctant to let someone they believe did something wrong go free - even when they know the prosecution hasn't proven its case.

[geek tragedy]

7. You may want to re-evaluate your values if you think convicting

a guy who killed his own child is worse than killing the child.

[Ms. Toad]

14. Did you read the articles?

We don't know if he killed his child or not.

This is the third jury. The first two were given choices between a lesser crime and murder. Both deadlocked. The prosecutor in this third jury took away the lesser crime to force the jury to choose between letting him go and convicting him of a crime two prior juries could not convict him of.

This man - maybe - killed one child. The prosecutor plays a role in convicting many individuals. This tactic will result in the conviction of numerous innocent people. When you have an unpopular defendant, juries are reluctant to let them go - even when they are not convinced the defendant is guilty of the crimes charged. Prosecutors know this and are moving toward omitting charging the lesser offenses in order to force the juries to choose between the over charged crime and letting someone go - even when the prosecution didn't make the case.

With two prior juries which could not convict of murder, it is almost certain that there is not enough evidence to legitimately convict him of murder. Rather than charge him with manslaughter or nothing, the state charged him with murder - or nothing.

People who use this tactic do so repeatedly, impacting many innocent and many who were guilty-of-something-but-not-what-was-charged, by playing on the "tough on crime" posture - and juries' reluctance to call the state on the overcharging by refusing to convict.

So yes - I think someone who uses coercive tactics and the authority of the state to obtain artificially heavy convictions is worse than someone who may (or may not) have killed his child, particularly because of how many lives they have the ability to impact.

[geek tragedy]

19. Are you his defense lawyer?

You are blatantly lying about the doubt juries had as to his having killed her.

Jurors in 2006 and 2009 had decided the death was a crime, but they couldn't agree on the charge. Eight voted for second-degree murder at his first trial, and four remaining votes were split between first-degree and involuntary manslaughter. The second panel split, with half voting for second-degree murder and half for manslaughter.

READ FULL ARTICLE

The prior two juries split as to which degree of homicide he committed.

Not one juror--not one!--had reasonable doubt as to whether he killed the girl.

3/3 juries, 36/36 jurors found beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed her.

Your dishonest apologia for a child murderer is



Worthy.

[Ms. Toad]

22. You are being deliberately obtuse.

The fact that two juries believed him guilty of something is the problem. That is precisely why the lesser charges were removed - to force the jury to convict on the greater charge rather than let him go free.

How about going back and reading what I actually said, or perhaps a relevant Supreme Court case in which the Court pointed out how troublesome this kind of tactic is. The case I've pointed you to twice was authored by Justice STEVENS, J., and joined by BURGER, C.J., BRENNAN, STEWART, BLACKMUN, POWELL, JJ., BRENNAN, J.,and MARSHALL, J.

REHNQUIST dissented. Enjoy the company.

[geek tragedy]

25. You're the one who blatantly lied by claiming

that there was legitimate doubt as to whether he killed her. You made that explicitly false and misleading claim numerous times.


Also note the new evidence as to his mens rea, which makes that case inapplicable.

But, being biased in this thug's favor (god knows why) you insist on whining about justice being served on a man who murdered his own daughter.

[Ms. Toad]

26. I care about the the integrity of our judicial process.

It is far better for many guilty men to go free than to convict one innocent one. What this prosecutor did by removing the lesser charges corrupts the system by biasing it toward convicting the innocent. And - in case you don't know, it is already heavily biased toward convicting the innocent - or at least convicting people of crimes greater than they committed (particularly poor people of color).

The case is not inapplicable. The jury is free to believe, or not believe, a 15 year old memory which they couldn't find prior to now. If they don't believe it, the lesser charge is appropriate. They weren't given that option.

Please quote my blatant lies. I think you will have a hard time finding any, since you seem committed to reading things I haven't actually written.

[geek tragedy]

27. Asdf

We don't know if he killed his child or not.

This man - maybe - killed one child.

I think someone who uses coercive tactics and the authority of the state to obtain artificially heavy convictions is worse than someone who may (or may not) have killed his child

5. It isn't a matter of "who," it is a matter of whether there was any wrongdoing at all.

The man has been in custody for 12 years, and has not been convicted of anything

Not to mention your absurd insistence that juries where at least half the jurors voted for murder means that murder is a gross overcharge, even with the introduction of NEW EVIDENCE as to his intent.

That, and your moral idiocy in finding legal and ethical prosecutorial conduct (the jury easily convicted especially with the new evidence) WORSE THAN MURDERING A CHILD indicates you have a very strong bias in favor of murderers. Why men who murder little girls have such emotional appeal to you such that you spew falsehoods while bitterly whining about justice being served is not something I am qualified to diagnose.

[Ms. Toad]

34. None of those are lies.

We don't know if he killed his child or not. (And the second and third statements.) We don't know. What we do know is that he was finally, after three times, convicted - when the jury was given the stark choice between murder (previously rejected by two juries) and finding him not guilty. We also know that juries given that choice err on the side of conviction, even when the prosecution has not made its case. I assume you are aware of the innocence project - and that a conviction does not necessarily mean that the person convicted committed the crime. Which is precisely why I am concerned about the process.

It isn't a matter of "who," it is a matter of whether there was any wrongdoing at all. - that was a direct response to someone who expressed the hope that the right person was convicted. I was pointing out to them that there was not a question of identifying the right person - but of sorting out what happened. Context is important.

The man has been in custody for 12 years, and has not been convicted of anything So what, prior to serving those 12 years, was he convicted of? The crime occurred 15 years ago, and he has been incarcerated for 12 of those 15 years. The article recites two deadlocked juries (i.e. no convictions) in those 15 years (prior to the conviction under discussion)

Hmm...funny I don't see anything even remotely related to the lying you were accusing me of:

"You are blatantly lying about the doubt juries had as to his having killed her."

The fact that two juries have been unable to convict is pretty strong evidence that the case for murder is weak. The fact that everyone on two juries believed him to be guilty of something is the very reason the third jury should not have been forced to choose between "not guilty of anything" v. murder. It isn't that it is a gross overcharge, but it is clearly a reach which the prosecution has been unable to prove by fair means. (The "new evidence" is not legally significant. The fact that these remembered comments which are not directly connected to the event have not surfaced in 15 years, and two earlier trials, makes them virtually worthless from an evidentiary standpoint. It might be different if physical evidence had turned up, but remembered commentary is a joke, legally speaking.)

I have a strong bias in favor of a judicial system that treats defendants fairly - as do most progressives I know. And yes, I think prosecutors who are hell bent on getting a conviction, at any cost, are just as bad as murderers. Some are, in fact, responsible for taking innocent lives - those who put innocent people on death row by tactics like this. Others just destroy lives when their actions put innocent people in jail for years. Not all prosecutors use these tactics, but far too many allow their actions to be governed by the demands that we be "tough on crime," and - as this person did by anything I can see - continue to pursue charges that are not warranted in order to avoid appearing weak on crime so they don't lose the next election.

I have no idea whether this particular person is innocent or not. I do know that the means by which he was convicted makes it more likely that the verdict was not legally sound.

[geek tragedy]

36. Despite three juries unanimously concluding that he killed his kid, you're still stuck

Last edited Thu May 14, 2015, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

in WeDon'tKnowHeDidItland--with a population of three--you, the convicted murderer, and his defense lawyer.

A child is dead. The father has been found by 36/36 jurors to have killed her. So, yes, it is a fact that there has been wrongdoing.

He has been convicted of murder.

There is no one who doubts he killed the girl, except you.

The conversation introduced at trial is a 'joke' in YOUR PRO-MURDERER OPINION, not "legally speaking." Evidence that is a "joke" legally speaking gets excluded at trial. Also, it's evidence of mens rea/intent, precisely the difference between manslaughter and murder.

You have no idea whether he's innocent even though 36/36 jurors have said he is guilty of criminal homicide after viewing the facts? Willful blindness is still a form of deception.

Let's hear what his defense attorney said at his trial:

``Honestly, I have a hard time seeing a not guilty (verdict) ... I am looking for what is justice.’’

That was his defense lawyer, at trial.

His defense lawyer also

In wrapping up his closing argument Monday, Laub attempted to guide jurors toward a guilty verdict on a lesser charge of manslaughter, reading out the charge in full before saying it should be given ``serious thought.’’

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20150513/cameron-brown-found-guilty-of-throwing-daughter-off-cliff-in-rancho-palos-verdes

Yup, you read that right:

In a statement, defense attorney Aron Laub said he “argued for a verdict of involuntary manslaughter because I sincerely believe that is what happened in this case. I have great confidence in our jury system, but I cannot agree that this was a just verdict.’’

Not only were they allowed to consider it, the judge instructed them to consider it.

The jury for this trial, which is Brown's third, was instructed to consider not only first-degree murder, but also involuntary manslaughter. They will begin deliberation first thing Tuesday morning.

http://abc7.com/news/closing-arguments-heard-in-3rd-murder-trial-of-cameron-brown/714949/

http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20150513/jurors-in-third-trial-convict-cameron-brown-of-throwing-daughter-off-cliff-in-rancho-palos-verdes

So, you appear to be massively full of it, as the defense lawyer was allowed to argue for conviction on a lesser count.

[geek tragedy]

38. I forgot your biggest lie of all, that the jury had no option between murder and acquittal

The jury for this trial, which is Brown's third, was instructed to consider not only first-degree murder, but also involuntary manslaughter. They will begin deliberation first thing Tuesday morning.

http://abc7.com/news/closing-arguments-heard-in-3rd-murder-trial-of-cameron-brown/714949/

[marym625]

2. I hope the right person was convicted

Wouldn't be the first time a parent was wrongly convicted. But if it was him, good. Throw the book at him

[Ms. Toad]

5. It isn't a matter of "who," it is a matter of whether there was any wrongdoing at all.

The man has been in custody for 12 years, and has not been convicted of anything (unless there was a separate conviction for another crime not mentioned by the newspaper article).

Twice the jury has deadlocked when the choices given them were manslaughter/second degree murder & murder. All apparently agreed there was a crime, but couldn't agree on which. Twice. This is his 3rd trial.

This time, apparently, the prosecution tried a different tactic. Instead of giving them a choice of two crimes, they only charged murder. The jury - in essence - had a choice between letting someone two juries agreed had done something criminal go free (after 12 years in prison), or convicting him of a crime that two prior juries were unable to agree he had committed.

The fuckwad (reference to an earlier post in this thread) is the prosecutor who left the jury with no reasonable choice (manslaughter or second degree murder) by forcing them to choose between guilty of nothing and guilty of a crime that two juries had rejected as overcharged. The prosecutor should have let go of the murder charge and just charged manslaughter. But that would be perceived as not being tough on crime.

[geek tragedy]

9. You seem to be the only person who has any doubt that there was wrongdoing on the

part of this scumbag murderer.

Every single juror--in three trials--was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of criminal homicide.

Your anger at the prosecutor on this murderer's behalf is quite grotesque.

[Ms. Toad]

17. My anger is at the coercive overcharging.

After being smacked down by two juries, rather than charge a crime that he could reasonably expect the jury to convict on - he dropped that charge and upcharged.

Using precisely what you have noted. Even if the murder charge is grossly overcharging (as two juries have told him), a jury which is faced with the choice between finding him not-guilty and guilty of a crime he didn't commit is likely to do the latter. A prosecutor who uses this tactic is abusing the power of his office to artificially beef up his tough on crime image, without regard to the impact this tactic has on both innocent people convicted - and on people guilty of a lesser offense, who were convicted by a jury given no choice between the overcharged offense and letting them go.

From a capital case, where the jury was not given the option of convicting on lesser included cases were not charged:

[T]he nearly universal acceptance of the rule in both state and federal courts establishes the value to the defendant of this procedural safeguard. That safeguard would seem to be especially important in a case such as this. For when the evidence unquestionably establishes that the defendant is guilty of a serious, violent offense—but leaves some doubt with respect to an element that would justify conviction of a capital offense—the failure to give the jury the “third option” of convicting of a lesser included offense would seem inevitably to enhance the risk of an unwarranted conviction. Such a risk cannot be tolerated in a case in which the defendant’s life is at stake. Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980)

That seems to be precisely what happened here. Two juries agreed he was guilty of something, but rejected the notion that he was guilty of the most significant charge. So the prosecution took away the option of anything less than the most significant charge expecting, apparently correctly, that the jury would convict him of something he was not guilty of rather than let him go free.

[geek tragedy]

18. He wasn't overcharged. At least half of each of the prior

juries were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed murder.

Contrary to your protestations, he is not a victim.

[Ms. Toad]

20. You don't get a conviction with half a jury.

That is part of our criminal justice system. When the prosecution couldn't prove, beyond a reasonable doubt to the two juries that he was guilty of the greater offense, it decided to stop playing fair and remove the lesser included charge to force them to choose between letting him free, and charges they had twice failed to convince a jury on. A tactic, the Supreme Court has found constitutionally offensive in capital cases because of the risk of taking the life of an innocent person. Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980)

[geek tragedy]

23. New evidence:

Over about six weeks of testimony, jurors heard from most of the same witnesses as previous juries.

But this time Detective Jeffrey Leslie of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department found someone who said Brown said it would be "nice to get rid of Lauren" to get out of paying $1,000-a-month child support, Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum said after the verdict.

[geek tragedy]

40. Too bad you lied about the options before the jury

The jury for this trial, which is Brown's third, was instructed to consider not only first-degree murder, but also involuntary manslaughter. They will begin deliberation first thing Tuesday morning.

http://abc7.com/news/closing-arguments-heard-in-3rd-murder-trial-of-cameron-brown/714949/

[geek tragedy]

39. "coercive overcharging"= a blatant lie on your part

The jury for this trial, which is Brown's third, was instructed to consider not only first-degree murder, but also involuntary manslaughter. They will begin deliberation first thing Tuesday morning.

http://abc7.com/news/closing-arguments-heard-in-3rd-murder-trial-of-cameron-brown/714949

So, again, tell us why the prosecutor is a worse human being than the man who murdered his own child. Without lying.

[sendero]

28. Why would....

.. this be anything less than murder? I think you are way off base.

[Ms. Toad]

33. You don't think it is a little odd

That this is the 3rd trial, 15 years after the fact, with the man locked up for 12 years who has never been convicted of anything?

Two juries have already found it impossible to convict on murder, because several of the jurors (who heard all the evidence and had the elements of the law provided to them - unlike the sketchy details provided in the press) were not convinced that the prosecution had proven its case for murder.

The only difference this time is that someone - 15 years after the fact - has come up with a motive (which, by the way, is not an element of the crime), in statements they now recall he made that suggested to them that he might have wanted her out of his life. That, and the jury was not given the option of convicting on a lesser offense.

This is prosecutorial coercion to convict of a crime more severe than they have evidence to prove. Obviously they have evidence which jurors believe that he was involved in her death. Those same jurors do not believe he murdered her (or there wouldn't have been 3 trials). When you give the jury evidence that someone did something bad - and the stark choice between finding him not guilty and guilty of something he didn't do, jurors tend to err on the side of locking him up (even when the state didn't quite meet its burden). In death cases, is unconstitutional to do what the prosecution did because "death is different." The practice is so coercive it introduces unconstitutional bias which might deprive someone of their life, even though they didn't commit the crime they are accused of. In non-death cases the principle should still apply - convictions should not be obtained by distorting the process by removing the option of convicting of a lesser offense.

As to this particular case, the details are fairly slim. There were no witnesses. She could have been thrown off the cliff, or she could have run toward the cliff not realizing the danger and fallen over, or something between could have happened for which the father was being criminally stupid, but not murderous - which a significant portion of the two prior juries seem to believe. This jury should have been given that option, so they did not have to choose between setting him free and convicting him of a more significant crime that the first two were able to agree on.

The judicial process is increasingly stacked against defendants (guilty or not). This, and prosecutions like this, make it even more difficult to get a fair trial.

[sendero]

35. So how would manslaughter help?

You are basically saying "he didn't do it". If he didn't he deserves to go free. If he did is it murder. I don't understand how a lesser charge for something he "didn't do" helps anything.

[Ms. Toad]

42. I'm not saying he didn't do it.

I have no idea whether he did or not, since I haven't heard the evidence.

What I'm saying is that two juries could not agree that he murdered her. Some of the jurors believed he murdered her - others believed he was responsible for her death - but not to the level of murder. The jurors in the first two trials were given 3 choices: not guilty, guilty of something less than murder, and guilty of murder. Twice, they rejected not guilty - but couldn't agree on what level of culpability, with some jurors rejecting murder in each trial.

The third jury was given only two choices: murder or not guilty. If this third jury reached the same conclusion (guilty of something but not murder), which way do you think the jurors will vote if they only have two options: not guilty or murder?

It is a charging tactic which is designed to coerce jurors to vote for murder (or more generally a worse crime) even when the evidence doesn't support it - because the only alternative (in an up or down vote) is "not guilty." It is particularly dangerous in a situation like this, where the public outrage at a little girl allegedly hurled from a cliff by her father. Not getting a murder conviction would be political suicide, from a prosecutor's perspective. Why else would they try the case 3 times spanning 12 years? Can you imagine the kind of abuse you would receive as a juror who voted to let the father go because the state didn't prove murder? There is enormous public pressure to convict, even when the evidence isn't there. That is why this charging practice is so offensive.

After the first hung jury - and definitely after the second - they should have dropped the murder charge and gone with either manslaughter or 2nd degree murder (whichever the facts supported). Instead they dropped the lesser charge to coerce a murder conviction they had failed to get when jurors were allowed to vote for some level of culpability bellow murder.

[geek tragedy]

37. "motive (which ... is not an element of the crime)"

Intent is an element of most crimes. Which is why evidence of motive is admissible at trial--it's probative of intent.

More dishonest, pro-murderer spin from you:

As to this particular case, the details are fairly slim. There were no witnesses. She could have been thrown off the cliff, or she could have run toward the cliff not realizing the danger and fallen over

From the story:

Foreman Greg Apodaca said jurors were unanimous from their first discussions and it was a "relatively simple decision to make" after hearing nearly six weeks of evidence and visiting the scenic bluff about 30 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.

"The expert witnesses made it pretty clear and when we did the site visit it was clear to us, as well, that it didn't seem likely that a 4-year-old girl would be up there of her own volition," Apodaca said.

Prosecution experts said the girl's injuries were not consistent with an accidental fall because she couldn't have run fast enough to clear part of the cliff before either striking an outcropping or hitting the beach below. A defense witness said the death could have been an accident.

http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-0508-brown-trial-20150508-story.html

[geek tragedy]

41. Turns out the prosecutor isn't a fuckwad at all

The jury for this trial, which is Brown's third, was instructed to consider not only first-degree murder, but also involuntary manslaughter. They will begin deliberation first thing Tuesday morning.

http://abc7.com/news/closing-arguments-heard-in-3rd-murder-trial-of-cameron-brown/714949/

Go ahead and tell us why you think the prosecutor is a worse human being than the guy who threw his own little girl over a cliff.

[Helen Borg]

4. Poor little girl...

[SummerSnow]

8. Throw him off a really high cliff

[kairos12]

13. My thought too. Except, put him a suitcase and toss it in volcano.

[Thespian2]

10. Disgusting piece of non-humanity...

How could any sensible human throw a small child over a cliff?

[Bill USA]

11. High functioning psychopath. Future GOP Presidential candidate (well, would have been but for jail)

[Flying Squirrel]

12. Former baggage handler throws daughter off cliff

Now that's an image I wish had never come into my head.

[NBachers]

15. She'd be 19 years old now.

[Liberal_in_LA]

30. wow. that long ago

[Dont call me Shirley]

16. Cameron...

[rocktivity]

21. Why was manslaughter even an option?

Last edited Sat Aug 29, 2020, 02:27 PM - Edit history (6)

Brown told police the girl tripped and fell as she ran toward the cliff's edge...Prosecution experts said the girl's injuries were not consistent with an accidental fall because she couldn't have run fast enough to clear part of the cliff before either striking an outcropping or hitting the beach below...

Brown had wanted...the mother of Lauren Sarene Key...a British citizen, to get an abortion and he even tried to get her deported...

Manslaughter comes in two basic flavors: killing someone in the course of trying to injure them (voluntary); and engaging in recklessness or negligence that you either knew or should have known could result in death (involuntary). Voluntary manslaughter clearly doesn't apply, so did some jurors decide that it was reckless and/or negligent of Brown to have brought his daughter to a place where she could run toward and trip over the edge of a cliff?

On the other hand, ironically, if Brown had copped a plea for manslaughter, he could be getting on with his life by now.


rocktivity

[narnian60]

24. Look at her sweet, innocent face.

Heartbreaking.

[bobjacksonk2832]

29. What a sick, sick man

Hope he's never eligible for parole. He deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his pathetic life.

[7962]

31. Give him the needle. nt

[Jack-o-Lantern]

32. Scumbag. I don’t think child killers in prison have many friends if you get my drift.