New judge.
New courtroom.
Same old results — still no date for the Scott Ansman murder trial, which Judge Stephanie Sautner exasperatedly described this morning as “one of the oldest cases” in the Airport Courthouse.
Standing in for easier-going Judge James R. Dabney, who is on holiday this week, Judge Sautner ordered the attorneys to Judge Dabney’s next-door courtroom next Monday, his first day back.
By then, they will try to agree on a starting date.
In case they encounter any kind of roadblock — Judge Dabney also is presiding over a trial in progress — Judge Sautner directed them to report back to her courtroom the next morning.
One day or the other, she seemed determined to name a soon-as-possible trial date.
During this morning’s 15-minute hearing, wherein the long slippery trial date was to be set for the double homicide that occurred almost 2 years ago, the no-nonsense judge rebuked both attorneys.
Withering Criticism
But she reserved her stronger fire for the public defender Nan Whitfield, leavened by just a touch of compassion.
The judge showed only slightly more patience with Deputy Dist. Atty. Joe Markus, who continues to be visibly upset with the defense counsel and what he seems to regard as her incessant delaying tactics.
He re-issued two stern complaints:
• “We have been trying to set a trial date for 4 months.”
• “Ms. Whitfield never lets me finish a sentence.”
To which Judge Sautner not-so-wittily rejoined:
“Ms. Whitfield does tend to interrupt. She interrupts me, too.”
Turning to her target, Judge Sautner scolded:
“Cut it out.”
Ms. Whitfield ignited Judge Sautner’s fuse when she calmly explained that, contrary to numerous previous indications, she was not ready to agree on a trial date.
The peripatetic attorney uttered the magic words that many judges dread, that her side still was conducting “ongoing discovery.”
The Subject Was Timing
Even as they were conversing in the 8th floor courtroom, Ms. Whitfield said her newest expert was reviewing the hard drive on the computer of veteran National Guardsman Mr. Ansman at the Culver City Police Dept.
Staring at Ms. Whitfield, Judge Sautner snapped:
“Is this procrastination or what? You are appointing an expert now?”
Judge Sautner was not onesided in her treatment of Ms. Whitfield.
She stamped the plucky Ms. Whitfield “one of the busiest public defenders in this courthouse — for better or for worse.”
Conversely, Mr. Markus, always the first party to arrive in the courtroom, far in advance of his opponent, said that this very morning Ms. Whitfield had promised to hand over to him the list of witnesses she plans to call.
And I still don’t have the list, Mr. Markus said as the courtroom clock struck10:30.
Ms. Whitfield said the delay was understandable. She did not yet know who all of her witnesses would be.
This was not what either the judge or the deputy D.A. wanted to hear, and both bitingly said so.
Judge Sautner paused, judiciously, then ordered Ms. Whitfield to turn over the list before the end of the workday.
As the two attorneys and the judge argued what some regard as an unnecessarily strung-out case, Ms. Whitfield said it was unfair to place the thrust of blame on her because she was not appointed until the case was more than 8 months old, 11 months ago.
In the frosty words of Judge Sautner:
“May of 2008. May of 2009.”
No one in the nearly empty courtroom asked for an interpretation.
