From the San Francisco Chronicle:
"He was charged with molesting six former patients in his private, soundproof office under the guise of giving them medical exams."
I was trying to recall if the "soundproof office" was brought out in the first trial.
I know they did discuss the fact that ayres was the first person listed in the Peninsula Psychiatric Associates partnership. And that the group hired an architect to design the layout of their building and the offices. But I don't recall if they specifically discussed the isolated waiting area with "airlock" style entry hall, and wood paneled soundproof office area, with "exam" table hidden behind matching wood panel doors, about which ayres said: "inside was a play area, where I could do a physical."
[EDIT 08/13/2009: John Coté originally reported on the "soundproof office" for the Chronicle way back here]
Lots of interesting quotes in the San Mateo County Times:
"Overall, (jurors) thought the case was very strong," McKowan said of her post-trial conversations with members of the panel. "They were as disappointed in the outcome as we were."
Jurors voted 11 to 1 for conviction on six counts and between 10 to 2 and 7 to 5 in favor of a guilty verdict on the other charges, prosecutors said.
Defense attorney Doron Weinberg said Monday that the prosecution is misreading the meaning of the jurors' votes.
Weinberg said he has not yet discussed the new trial with Ayres or whether he will continue to represent the former head of the American Association of Child Psychiatrists.
McKowan said she would try to get proceedings moving as quickly as possible, adding that she will ask the court to set a date in January or February of next year.
Weinberg hasn't discussed a new trial with ayres? Prosecution is misreading the jurors' votes? Hmm.. Good thing I've cinched-up my hip-waders. Weinberg seems to be exuding ca-ca-del-toro from his very pores.
January or February of next year for re-trial? Sounds like they're going to give a little extra time for ayres' new attorney to come up to speed. (Just a postulation.)
And finally, in discussing the possibility of a plea bargain, from San Mateo Daily Journal:
Defense attorney Doron Weinberg, speaking after Judge Beth Freeman declared a mistrial June 27, didnt preclude the possibility but said it would only be for battery because Ayres regrets if his touching during medical exams upset his young patients and would be willing to accept responsibility for having upset them."
Well, I guess I AM pretty upset. (It's dark sarcasm, in case you're not clear.)
I overheard Weinberg telling the press in the courthouse hallways about being willing to accept the battery charge. That was just spin on his part. The DA will never agree to it.
ReplyDeleteVery strange that he hasn't discussed the retrial with his client.I wouldn't think he would want to retry this case, particularly with Ayres' financial situation.
Well discussion costs money, in attorney time that must be broken down by seconds.
ReplyDeleteHow much is 1 second of Doron Weinberg's time?
I am just speculating but Ayres may running a tab in the negative.
On Doron's invoice it says:
"For waking up at night and thinking about your case: $2,500'."
Now of course that is just intended to be lawyer humor.
Some lawyers charge $30 for one email, minimum.
ReplyDeleteEwww. "Soundproof office." Chilling connotations.
ReplyDeleteHaving done a work for divorce lawyers in the past, the going rate per hour a few years ago was a minimum $250 per hour for in- office work, research etc. Court days were minimum $2500 per day just for the attorney, not counting assistants etc. An expert witness, a doctor in a mold case I saw, testified that he charged $8000 per day for his expertise. It would be interesting to find out how much Elizabeth Loftus gets and if prosecutions ever can or want to afford her.
ReplyDeleteThe business of "expert witnesses" is in my opinion extremely lucrative. I am still wondering what will happen to James Pex, who basically perjured himself in the Spector trial, where the expert witnesses I believe contributed to the guilty verdict rather than helped Mr. Weinberg.
Ten to one the defense doesn't use Gil Kliman again. Odious and unctuous in manner, and Weinberg barely mentioned him in his closing arguments
ReplyDeleteTen to one the defense does not use Weinberg again.
ReplyDeleteAt least Kliman was good for a laugh. I loved the pauses while he dreamed up interestingly twisted phrases to get out of conceding anything.
I think it's going to take whoever the affordable defense is awhile to come up to speed.
I bet there's a lot of haggling going on right now over how many prison years to serve.
La'a, da ghaali awy!