Pellicano Trial: Bert Fields Will Not Testify

BREAKING:
Turns out that Mark Arneson's attorney, Chad Hummel, has decided not to call Bert Fields as a witness. So, turns out that the jury will not get to hear any testimony from Mr. Fields on anything related to Mr. Pellicano's alleged wiretapping on behalf of many of Mr. Fields' clients.

The Judge has agreed to allow former Sgt. Mark Arneson's attorney, Chad Hummel, to ask F.B.I. agent Stan Ornellas questions about the nature of his investigation. That's actually a big deal because Mr. Hummel wants to show that the government just decided that Mr. Arneson wasn't telling them the truth when they questioned him and never bothered to verify Mr. Arneson's assertion that he'd done real security work for Mr. Pellicano.

When we last left off on Wednesday, F.B.I. agent Stan Ornellas was testifying on the stand. When Mr. Hummel, attempted to ask Mr. Ornellas questions about whether he investigated Mr. Arneson's assertion that he'd done security work for Mr. Pellicano, the judge basically shut him down. She generally told the defense lawyers that this case wasn't going to turn into a trial on whether the F.B.I. properly investigated the case against Mr. Pellicano and friends. But based on case authority presented by Mr. Hummel today, the judge changed her mind and is going to allow Mr. Hummel to get into the details of Agent Ornellas' investigation.

So, there may be not Bert Fields, but tomorrow could get interesting as the defense puts the F.B.I. investigation under the microscope.

More soon...

Read all the coverage from inside the Pellicano courtroom

Comments

[GenRom]

I guess Tom Cruise is breathing a sigh of relief.

[Emerald3232]

"Mr. Arneson's assertion that he'd done real security work for Mr. Pellicano."

Most major cities ban police officers from working in off-duty security because of the obvious appearance of impropriety that goes with it. For example, if an off-duty police officer is parked outside your house tasked with getting dirt on you, the intimidation factor of having a city official out to get you at the behest of an enemy is very high. So most major cities ban off duty security work for cops reasoning that the attempt to serve two masters always leads to corruption. Not so in LA.

[sparkykelly]

I am confused here.....if the officer is off-duty he/she is not in uniform or a marked car. How would the person be intimidated? They wouldn't know they were being watched. Wouldn't you pay someone to make sure that your child was safe?

[Emerald3232]

Most major cities ban it because it often leads to corruption and abuse, but you can think whatever you want. In fact the police unions have lots of additional good reasons why it should go on so just pick one. But for the ones you included, you don't have to be in a squad car in uniform to send an intimidating message to some potential witness in a civil case or criminal rape trial. Police detectives wear suits and often drive umarked cars. If someone like that wants to project the cop-aura while sitting outside your house you'll get the message and if they adopt an official on-the-job tone while asking fu#@ed up questions about you to neighbors or co-workers that's what getting smeared is. Or if the cop sitting in that car purposely glares at you whenever you leave your house, then who knows how worried you might get, maybe dropping the case would be better than getting drugs planted while you're out. So of course they will know an off-duty cop is watching them or asking about them, that's the whole point.

Which is why most cities ban letting off-duty police work in security because of the temptation to abuse authority by intimidating people in order to get results for clients who pay like they want great results... like having problems go away.

Most cities ban it. In LA they don't. But LA doesn't have corruption problems so you're probably right.