GUILTY CA - Fabio Sementilli, 49, renowned hairdresser, murdered in LA, 23 Jan 2017 *Arrests, 1 guilty*

[Kavya01]

I am just now listening to that as well. Glad the judge is stating D's argument is not relevant.
I do have to say I am a bit worried.

 

[Kavya01]

Just pondering if perhaps it does after all mean that yes they find her guilty, but are on fence of adding financial gain and lying in wait as additional circumstances she is also guilty of?
It's going to be interesting. Hope it comes down today, like @Niner predicted!!!

 

[geevee]

A mistrial motion because the defense doesn't like the truth in the answer?? So good to see the judge slap that down without delay, let them use it as an appeal issue but it won't get them anywhere, Baker pleaded guilty to both special circumstances, no matter how he tries to fashion it now. If that implicates Monica, and baby it sure does, that's not the judge's or prosecution's fault, and certainly not grounds for a mistrial.

 

[Kavya01]

Just thinking of that kind man, who loved his kids so much. Freaking horrific waste of a good soul.

 

[rebelchild]

Just pondering if perhaps it does after all mean that yes they find her guilty, but are on fence of adding financial gain and lying in wait as additional circumstances she is also guilty of?
It's going to be interesting. Hope it comes down today, like @Niner predicted!!!

From what I gathered with the Defense argument to the jury's question, all they really need is one special circumstance? Is that correct?

 

[rebelchild]

A mistrial motion because the defense doesn't like the truth in the answer?? So good to see the judge slap that down without delay, let them use it as an appeal issue but it won't get them anywhere, Baker pleaded guilty to both special circumstances, no matter how he tries to fashion it now. If that implicates Monica, and baby it sure does, that's not the judge's or prosecution's fault, and certainly not grounds for a mistrial.

I didn't catch that part! Did they seriously mention a mistrial motion? I need to go back and listen again.

 

[Kavya01]

From what I gathered with the Defense argument to the jury's question, all they really need is one special circumstance? Is that correct?

seems like I remember that from the Jury instructions? but not 100 % sure now.

 

[Kavya01]

I didn't catch that part! Did they seriously mention a mistrial motion? I need to go back and listen again.

Yes, he did. He hadn't done that yet during this trial so I guess he still had to get it in for appeals?

 

[geevee]

I didn't catch that part! Did they seriously mention a mistrial motion? I need to go back and listen again.

Yes, defense dragged the judge back into court to ask for a mistrial, that his answer to the jury's question seriously hurts the defendant. Facts are facts, the judge couldn't answer any other way.

 

[geevee]

Oh, the jury has gone home for the evening.

 

[clearskies1]

From what I gathered with the Defense argument to the jury's question, all they really need is one special circumstance? Is that correct?

The statute says you only need one. BBM.

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 190.2

"(a) The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more of the following special circumstances has been found under Section 190.4 to be true:

(1) The murder was intentional and carried out for financial gain.

(2) The defendant was convicted previously of murder in the first or second degree. For the purpose of this paragraph, an offense committed in another jurisdiction, which if committed in California would be punishable as first or second degree murder, shall be deemed murder in the first or second degree.

(3) The defendant, in this proceeding, has been convicted of more than one offense of murder in the first or second degree.

*******

(15) The defendant intentionally killed the victim by means of lying in wait."

 

[Kavya01]

pfffff, whew. Wonder what they'll have to sleep on....

 

[clearskies1]

I'm recalling from the State's rebuttal closing that the State argued that you know Monica did it for financial gain because Baker pled guilty to the special circumstance of financial gain, and the only way he could have gained financially from the death is if Monica had gained financially from it. JMO.

 

[cujenn81]

I'm recalling from the State's rebuttal closing that the State argued that you know Monica did it for financial gain because Baker pled guilty to the special circumstance of financial gain, and the only way he could have gain financially from the death is if Monica had gained financially from it. JMO.

That’s a very good point. I think I’ll go watch that rebuttal closing.

 

[Luna20]

pfffff, whew. Wonder what they'll have to sleep on....

It’s concerning at this point. As far as the over hears could it be that the jury thinks that she was afraid of the affair being revealed and not the murder? I’m referring to the whispering between them.

 

[rebelchild]

The defense did come back for a 2nd quick argument with the judge .. this was before they came back a 3rd time to ask for a mistrial and when they were leaving I heard the female defense attorney tell Monica to cheer up. Timestamp 5:07:33

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[rebelchild]

It’s concerning at this point. As far as the over hears could it be that the jury thinks that she was afraid of the affair being revealed and not the murder? I’m referring to the whispering between them.

If I am understanding what you are saying (please let me know if this is not what you meant) but the jury did not ask for the overhears, they asked for the transcript or video of Christopher Austins perkins operation, which was never entered into evidence.

 

[Curious Me]

...when they were leaving I heard the female defense attorney tell Monica to cheer up. Timestamp 5:07:33

Don't soar too high only to fall, Monica.
Remember, tomorrow's another Jury deliberation day.

 

[Niner]

Friday, April 11th:
*Trial continues (Day 45) - VERDICT WATCH! (Day 3) (@ 10am PT) – CA – Fabio Sementilli (49) (Jan. 23, 2017, Los Angeles) – *Monica Sonia Crescentini Sementilli (45/now 53) (wife) arrested (8/18/17), indicted (8/31/17), charged (8/18/17) & arraigned (8/31/17) with capital murder with special circumstances of murder for financial gain & conspiracy to commit murder. Plead not guilty. Held without bond. DA will not seek DP. LA County
Jury Selection began on 1/21/25 & ended 1/22/25. No info on jurors. Juror #2 was replaced by an alternate on 3/19/25. Juror #2 [new one] was replaced by an alternate on 3/20/25.
Jury Deliberations: Day 1 [4/9/25]: 10:15am to ~4pm [minus 1 hour lunch/~5 hours & 45 mins]. Day 2 [4/10/25]: 10am-4pm [minus hour lunch/~5 hours].
Total deliberations: 10 hours & 45 minutes.
Trial began on 1/24/25 & on 3/12/25 Prosecutors rested their case. Defense began their case on 3/12/25 & rested their case on 4/2/25. Closing arguments began with the State on 4/3/25 & went thru Monday, 4/7/25 with defense closing on 4/7 & 4/8/25 with rebuttal closing by State. Dark on Fridays (sometimes).
Trial: 38 days of testimony with 44 state & 13 defense witnesses.
Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Coen. Deputy DA Beth Silverman, Ryan Heath Erlich, Dep. DA, Melissa Hannah Opper, Dep. DA, & Heather Joy Steggel, Dep. DA.. Defense attorneys Leonard Levine & Blair Bernholz Berk.
Court hearings from 6/5/18 thru 1/28/25 & Jury Selection Days 1-2 (1/21-1/22/25) & Trial Day 1-43 (1/24 & 1/29-4/8/25) reference post #926 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...a-23-jan-2017-arrests-1-guilty.327994/page-47
4/8/25 Additional info: Rebuttal argument was done by Deputy District Attorney Heather Steggell.
4/10/25 Thursday, Trial Day 44/Verdict Watch Day 2: Jury continues deliberate @ 10am PT & ended about 4pm PT. Trial continues on Friday, 4/11/25 with jury deliberations.
*Christopher Austin (38/now 39) – Plead guilty on 1/17/25. Sentencing hearing on 4/30/25.
*Robert Louis Baker (55/now 62) (wife’s BF) plead no contest/guilty on 7/7/23 & sentenced to life without parole.

 

[Niner]

And Thank you for giving me the correct time the jury starts deliberations!