Hearing Transcript for Accused Golden State Killer Joseph James DeAngelo Jr.

Judge: (00:00)
This is an effort to assist the court reporter to make sure we have a complete and clear record. I would also remind everybody we’re still in court. So no talking in the audience. No recording. And no videotaping unless previously authorized by court. We’ve taken a break at approximately 10:45, for 30 minutes. Let’s proceed.

Judge: (00:23)
Calling the case, people of the State of California versus Joseph James DeAngelo, case 19… excuse me. 18FE008017. Joseph James DeAngelo, is that your true and correct name, sir? Is that your true name, sir?

Joseph DeAngelo: (00:48)
Yes, Your Honor.

Judge: (00:50)
Thank you. Can I have the attorney state their names for the record, please? Starting with the defense.

Alice Michel: (00:57)
Alice Michel, on behalf of Mr. DeAngelo.

Judge: (00:59)
Thank you.

Joe Cress: (01:00)
Joe Cress, representing Mr. DeAngelo.

Judge: (01:02)
Thank you.

Diane Howard: (01:03)
Diane Howard, on behalf of Mr. DeAngelo.

Judge: (01:06)
All right, thank you. Can I have please, the elected prosecutors from each county, please stand and identify themselves?

Anne Marie Schubert: (01:13)
Good morning, your honor. Anne Marie Schubert, Sacramento County District Attorney.

Judge: (01:18)
Good morning.

Greg Totten: (01:18)
Good morning, Your Honor. Greg Totten, Ventura County District Attorney.

Judge: (01:21)
Thank you.

Joyce Dudley: (01:23)
Good morning. I’m Joyce Dudley, Santa Barbara County’s District Attorney.

Judge: (01:27)
Thank you.

Diana Becton: (01:30)
Good morning. Diana Becton, Contra Costa County District Attorney.

Judge: (01:34)
Thank you.

Todd Spitzer: (01:36)
Good morning, Your Honor. Good morning, Your Honor. Testing. Good morning, Your Honor. Todd Spitzer, District Attorney Orange County.

Judge: (01:50)
Thank you.

Tori Verber Salazar: (01:52)
Good morning, Your Honor. Tori Verber Salazar, on behalf of the people of San Joaquin County.

Judge: (01:58)
Thank you.

Jeff Reisig: (01:58)
Good morning. Jeff Reisig, Yolo County District Attorney.

Judge: (02:00)
Thank you.

Nancy O’Malley: (02:02)
Good morning, Your Honor. Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County District Attorney.

Judge: (02:05)
Thank you.

Tim Ward: (02:08)
Good morning, Your Honor. Tim Ward, Tulare County District Attorney.

Judge: (02:10)
Thank you. The attorneys, the prosecution team that’s going to be speaking to on the record as well, please introduce themselves.

Dave Alavezos: (02:23)
Good morning, Your Honor. Dave Alavezos, Assistant District Attorney, Tulare County, for the people.

Judge: (02:28)
Thank you.

Deborah Lloyd: (02:30)
Good morning, Your Honor. Deborah Lloyd, Assistant District Attorney for the County of Orange, for the people of the State of California.

Judge: (02:35)
Good morning.

Amy Holliday: (02:38)
Good morning, Your Honor. Amy Holliday, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney from Sacramento County, on behalf of the people.

Thien Ho: (02:45)
Good morning, Your Honor. Thien Ho, Assistant Chief District Attorney Sacramento County, on behalf of the people. Thank you.

Judge: (02:51)
Thank you.

Kelly Duncan: (02:54)
Good morning, Your Honor. Kelly Duncan, Chief Deputy District Attorney Santa Barbara County, for the people of the State of California.

Judge: (03:01)
Thank you.

Cheryl Temple: (03:05)
Good morning, Your Honor. Cheryl Temple, Chief Assistant District Attorney for the County of Ventura, for the people of the State of California.

Judge: (03:13)
Thank you.

Venus Johnson: (03:18)
Good morning, Your Honor. Venus Johnson, Chief Assistant District Attorney for the County of Contra Costa, on behalf of the people of the State of California.

Judge: (03:25)
Good morning.

Todd Spitzer: (03:25)
Good morning, Your Honor. Todd Spitzer, District Attorney Orange County, on behalf of the people of Orange County and the people of the State of California.

Judge: (03:36)
Thank you, sir. My understanding, there’s a change of plea and disposition in this matter. My understanding is Deputy District Attorney Amy Holliday, would you please state the terms of the proposed agreement? The sentences agreed upon, as well as the people’s recommendations.

Good morning, Your Honor. Amy Holliday, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney for Sacramento County, on behalf of the people of the State of California. It is our understanding that there will be a change of plea this morning. The terms of the proposed agreement and the agreed upon sentence are as follows.

The defendant, Joseph DeAngelo, will enter a guilty plea to all charged counts and special circumstances, allegations and enhancements. As to the murders, the defendant will plead guilty to 13 counts of first degree murder. He will say “guilty” to the charged offenses, and “I admit” to the special circumstances, allegations and enhancements.

In regard to the uncharged acts, the defendant will make admissions to each incident alleged. The defendant will say “I admit” to all the uncharged offenses that have been alleged. These uncharged offenses occurred in Sacramento, Yolo, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Contra Costa, Alameda, and Santa Clara County. As a result of the defendant’s admissions for these uncharged offenses, the above listed counties have agreed to abstain from charging the defendant with any offenses related to those specific incidents for which he admits responsibility.

All victims and victims’ family members of charged and uncharged offenses will be able to give victim impact statements at the judgment and sentencing without limitation to time or content.

The people of the State of California are prepared to remove the penalty of death as an option based on the following reasons. The defendant has expressed a willingness to resolve the charges against him prior to proceeding with preliminary hearing and trial. The defendant is admitting wrongdoing at a relatively early stage of the legal proceedings. The defendant is admitting to all of the murders alleged against him as first degree murders. The defendant is admitting to all other charged crimes and uncharged crimes that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that are known at this time, alleged against him.

The wishes of the victims and their next of kin. In exchange for his guilty pleas and admissions, the defendant will be sentenced to state prison or life without parole, pursuant to penal code 190, subsection A, 190.1, 190.2, and 190.3. In addition, he will be sentenced to 11 consecutive counts of life without possibility of parole, with 15 concurrent life sentences, with weapons allegations to run concurrent or consecutive by law.

The defendant will hereby withdraw his pending motions as of today, June 29th, 2020. With approval from the court, both sides hereby way of referral of the matter to the probation department for a formal report pursuant to California penal code section 1203 subsection B, subsection four. And in its place, request a penal code 1203C report. The defendant will be required to register as a sex offender for the remainder of his lifetime. The defendant will be prohibited from owning, purchasing, receiving, possessing, or having under his control any firearm for the rest of his life. The defendant shall pay all requisite fees, fines and restitution, including restitution to the victims in an amount to be determined. The defendant will be ineligible to receive work-time credit and shall submit blood and saliva samples, thumbprints and palm prints pursuant to penal code section 296. The defendant shall submit to a blood test for AIDS, pursuant to penal code section 1202.1. Finally, the defendant shall enter a waiver of all appellate rights.

Judge: (08:17)
Thank you, counsel.

At this time, Your Honor, would you like the reasons for the disposition?

Judge: (08:21)
Yes, please.

Your Honor, the reason for the disposition is as follows. The defendant’s known crimes stretch over a 10 year period, from 1975 through 1986. His identity was not discovered until 2018, and he was subsequently arrested on April 24th, 2018.

Today, all of the crimes alleged are between 34 and 45 years old. During the time we have waited for the identity of this person who committed these crimes to be discovered, many of the victims, witnesses, and law enforcement personnel involved have passed away.

Now, as we wait for the legal proceedings to move forward, many of the victims, witnesses, and law enforcement are in their 80s and 90s. Many of these people, all deeply affected by these crimes, may not be with us at the time of jury trial. The family members of the murder victims have waited for decades for justice for their loved ones. The sexual assault victims have waited decades for justice. The men whose wives or girlfriends were sexually assaulted, have waited decades for justice.

The final resolution of this case at this time will allow the remaining victims and family members of the victims to hear the defendant admit that he committed these acts and crimes, and will allow them to be heard at the time of sentencing.

The current state of the Covid-19 pandemic has also contributed to the reasons for this disposition. The preliminary hearing was scheduled to have started this past May. It had to be postponed because of court closures and the dangers of bringing elderly or high-risk individuals into the courtroom in a public setting. The pandemic has also caused the availability of courtrooms and jurors to be limited because of social distancing requirements.

All of this has contributed to extending the timeline for the preliminary hearing and the jury trial, and may further impact the availability of our victims and witnesses in the future. They deserve the opportunity, the victims and the next of kin, to be present when the verdicts are finally read.

The time for justice stands in front of us now. In the interest of justice for the victims, the families and the communities which we serve, this plea at this time is in the best interest of the people of the State of California.

Judge: (10:57)
Thank you, counsel. Defense counsel, is that your understanding of the agreement?

Joe Cress: (11:02)
Yes, Your Honor.

Judge: (11:03)
Thank you. You waive a full reading of the charging document?

Joe Cress: (11:05)
Yes, Your Honor.

Judge: (11:06)
Mr. DeAngelo, at any time during this hearing, if you do not understand what is taking place or if you have any questions, please stop and the court will either answer your questions or I’ll ask counsel to answer any questions that you have. Do you understand, sir?

Joe Cress: (11:20)
He asked if you…

Yes.

Judge: (11:36)
Thank you, sir. Do you understand, Mr. DeAngelo, that you’ll be entering guilty pleas to 13 counts of murder in the first degree, admitting special circumstances enhancements as well as admitting to uncharged acts. Do you understand that, sir?

Yes.

Judge: (11:52)
It’s anticipated that you receive 11 consecutive life without the possibility of parole sentences, with 15 concurrent life sentences. Additional time for weapon enhancements will be imposed as mandated by law. Do you understand that as well, sir?

Yes.

Judge: (12:10)
The aforementioned uncharged acts that you will be admitting to, having occurred in Sacramento County, Yolo County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Contra Costa County, Alameda County, and as well as Santa Clara County. As a result of these admissions to these uncharged acts, the above listed counties have agreed to abstain from charging you with any offenses stemming from or related to those specific events for which you will be admitting responsibility.

Judge: (12:42)
All victims and victims’ family members of the charged as well as the uncharged acts, will be able to give a victim impact statement at judgment and sentencing, without limitation as to time and without limitation as to content. At the time of judgment and sentence, you will receive 11 consecutive life without the possibility parole sentences, with 15 concurrent life sentences. Additional time as stated for the weapon enhancements will be imposed as mandated by law. You will not be considered for any other sentence. Do you understand, sir?

Yes.

Judge: (13:19)
In addition, you agree to withdraw all pending motion as to today’s date, June 29th, 2020. As a condition of this plea, you will agree to waive any and all appellate rights. Do you understand the terms of this plea, Mr. DeAngelo?

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge: (13:37)
Sir, have you had enough time to speak to your attorneys and discuss this case and this plea, as well as have all your questions answered?

Yes.

Judge: (13:49)
Have you had time to speak to your attorneys about the elements of the charges against you, the possible defenses to those charges, and the consequences of this plea?

Yes.

Judge: (14:02)
Because this is a felony, this plea can be used against you in later civil proceedings as if you were found guilty after a jury trial. You cannot change your mind after I accept your pleas today. Do you understand, sir?

Yes.

Judge: (14:19)
Is that what you’re prepared to do today, sir?

Yes.

Judge: (14:27)
Mr. DeAngelo, before I take your plea and admissions, the court must be satisfied that you understand the possible consequences of this plea of guilty, as well as your admissions to any special circumstance… element of enhancement, excuse me, or uncharged acts.

Judge: (14:44)
First, you are pleading to serious or violent felonies, which are strikes under the California Three Strikes law, which could result in an additional and separate life sentence for any new offense. You will be ordered to pay restitution to the victim or victim’s family in an amount to be determined by the court, as well as any fees and fines as mandated by law. If you dispute the amount of restitution ordered, you may request a hearing. Any restitution requested by the victims will be submitted to the probation department. You will be directed to the counsel for prosecution, as well as Alice Michel and Joe Cress on behalf of the defense.

Judge: (15:24)
You will be required to register with law enforcement in any city or county in which you reside as a sex offender. That registration is a lifetime requirement, pursuant to penal code section 290. If you’re not a citizen of the United States, this plea can result of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denied naturalization.

Judge: (15:44)
A sample of your DNA, fingerprints and palm prints, will be taken and included the California Department of Justice DNA database. You will be prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm or ammunition for the rest of your life. And due to the nature of these charges, you will be ineligible to receive work-time credits. Do you understand, sir?

Yes.

Judge: (16:06)
Do you further understand and agree that the court may consider any dismissed charges or admissions to any uncharged acts in deciding your sentence, including ordering restitution?

Yes.

Judge: (16:23)
RV waiver is entered. Do you understand the consequences of this plea as I’ve explained it so far, sir?

Yes.

Judge: (16:37)
This is a condition of plea that we’re discussing today. That means that the sentence we are discussing today is proposed. Your case will be set for judgment and sentence at a future date. At that judgment and sentence hearing, the court’s approval of indicated sentence we’re discussing today is not binding on the court. That means the court may withdraw its approval in light of further consideration.

Judge: (16:59)
If this court withdraws its approval of today’s plea agreement, you will be permitted to withdraw your guilty pleas if you desire to do so. And if so, this case will be rescheduled for a preliminary hearing. However, you will be bound by this plea today unless the court, after further consideration, rejects this plea agreement. In other words, you do not get to change your mind after I accept your plea. Do you understand, sir?

Yes.

Judge: (17:27)
Mr. DeAngelo, before I can accept your plea and accept any admissions, it must be clear to the court that you understand and give up and waive certain rights. You do have a right to a preliminary hearing, where the people are required to prove there’s probable cause to believe a felony has been committed and that you are the person who committed it.

Judge: (17:46)
You have the right to speedy and public jury trial, where the prosecution has the burden of proof of proving you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You have the right to a jury trial on the charges against you, including attached enhancements and including any special circumstance allegations. A jury is made of 12 members of the community. Through your counsel, you would have the right to participate in jury selection. All 12 jurors must unanimously agree in order to render a verdict on the charges against you, including enhancements. Also, including any special circumstance allegations.

Judge: (18:25)
If this matter were to go forward to jury trial at the penalty phase, all jurors would have to agree unanimously that you agreed to a sentence of death or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Do you understand the rights as I’ve explained them so far, sir?

Yes.

Judge: (18:45)
Also at this preliminary hearing and at your jury trial, including the penalty phase, you would have the right through your attorney to see, hear, and confront the witnesses against you, to have them testify under oath and have your attorneys question those witnesses against you. You have the right to present a defense, to present-

Judge: (19:03)
… Against you. You have the right to present a defense, to present your own witnesses and evidence, the right to use the court’s subpoena power, to bring in witnesses on your behalf and to testify on your own behalf. You also have the right to remain silent and not to incriminate yourself. This means you have the right, not to say anything against you, that includes pleading guilty to these charges. Mr. DeAngelo. , do you have any questions as to the rights you’re giving up, including your right to a jury trial?

No.

Judge: (19:31)
Have you discussed these rights with your attorney?

Yes.

Judge: (19:40)
Do you understand that pleading guilty and making these admissions will be giving up all these rights?

Yes.

Judge: (19:48)
Is that what you wish to do?

Yes.

Judge: (19:58)
You understand and give up each of these rights, including your right to a jury trial?

Yes.

Judge: (20:06)
You also have a right to a jury trial and the same rights we just discussed on the special circumstance allegations. In other words, the people would be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed murder during the course of a rape and violation of penal code section 190.2 (A)(17)(3), murder during the course of a burglary, violation of penal code section 190.2 (A)( 17)(7) and that you committed multiple murders in violation of penal code section 190.3(A)(3). Do you understand and waive your right to a jury trial on the special circumstance allegations as well, sir?

Yes.

Judge: (20:49)
Mr. DeAngelo, you also have a right to appeal your case. And do you understand that unless you’d give up that right to an appeal, the law would permit you to appeal to a higher court, following your plea of guilty in order to raise reasonable, constitutional jurisdictional, or other grounds of the legality of the proceedings against you or any ruling that’s already been made in your case, or to challenge a search and seizure ruling made in a motion to suppress evidence? Do you hereby waive your right to an appeal on this case, sir?

Yes.

Judge: (21:27)
Sir, has any promises been made to that we’ve not stated here in open court?

No.

Judge: (21:35)
Has any member of your family or yourself and threatened or coerced in any way for you to enter this plea?

No.

Judge: (21:47)
Are you entering this plea and admission freely and voluntarily after fully discussing it with your attorney because it is what you want to do and you believe it is in your best interests?

Yes.

Judge: (22:00)
Are you at this time under the influence of any alcohol, drug or medication that could affect your judgment or ability to enter this plea?

No.

Judge: (22:10)
Have you taken any medication, drugs or pills or alcohol in the last 24 hours?

No.

Judge: (22:19)
Counsel, have you discussed the consequences of this plea with Mr. DeAngelo and are you satisfied that his plea is knowing, intelligent, voluntarily and he is competent to enter this plea?

Speaker 1: (22:28)
Yes, your honor.

Judge: (22:31)
Counsel, have you discussed the elements of the charges against your client, all the possible defenses to those charges and the consequences of this plea?

Speaker 1: (22:37)
Yes, your honor.

Judge: (22:38)
And do you feel he’s competent to enter this plea?

Speaker 1: (22:40)
We do, your honor.

Judge: (22:41)
And do you consent to the entry of this plea?

Speaker 1: (22:44)
Yes, your honor.

Judge: (22:45)
Are the terms of the pleas I’ve explained them thus far, accurate?

Speaker 1: (22:48)
Yes, your honor.

Judge: (22:49)
And do you join in the waivers, including the defendant’s right to a preliminary hearing as well trial, right, by a jury trial? Excuse me. Excuse me.

Speaker 1: (22:57)
We do, your honor.

Judge: (22:58)
All right. Can each attorney from each county, could you please state whether or not you waive your right to a preliminary hearing, as well as your right to a jury trial? Let’s start with the representatives from Talare County.

Talare County Rep: (23:17)
Yes, we do, your honor.

Judge: (23:18)
Thank you. Santa Barbara County.

Santa Barbara Rep.: (23:22)
Yes, we do. Your honor.

Judge: (23:23)
Ventura County.

Ventura County Rep.: (23:26)

Judge: (23:28)
Contra Costa County.

Contra Costa Rep.: (23:31)
Yes, your honor.

Judge: (23:32)
Orange County.

Orange County Rep.: (23:36)

Judge: (23:37)
Sacramento County.

Sacramento County Rep.: (23:40)

Judge: (23:41)
San Joaquin County.

San Joaquin County Rep.: (23:48)

Judge: (23:49)
Stanislaus County.

Stanislaus County Rep.: (23:51)

Judge: (23:53)
Yolo County.

Yolo County Rep.: (23:55)

Judge: (23:56)
Santa Clara County.

Santa Clara County Rep.: (23:58)

Judge: (23:59)
Alameda County.

Alameda County Rep.: (24:01)

Judge: (24:01)
Thank you. Mr. DeAngelo, do you have any questions before we proceed further?

Alameda County Rep.: (24:04)
No.

Judge: (24:10)
Thank you. Deputy District Attorney, [inaudible 00:05:12], it’s my understanding the people wish to provide an introductory factual basis that applies to all counties? All right, this would be the time

Counsel: (24:42)
The scope of Joseph DeAngelo’s crime spree is simply staggering, encompassing 13 known murders, and almost 50 rapes between 1975 and 1986. His monikers reflect the sweeping geographical impact of his crimes, The Visalia Ransacker, the East Area Rapist, The Original Night Stalker and the Golden State Killer.

Counsel: (25:06)
Each time he escaped, slipping away silently into the night, leaving communities terrified for years. For over 40 years, the biggest question remained unanswered, who was this serial killer and rapist? Detectives from counties throughout the state poured endless resources into answer that one question. Even after retiring, detectives continued to investigate the case that haunted them.

Counsel: (25:35)
Generations of law enforcement never gave up and neither did the prosecutors from those counties. In June 2016, the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department partnered with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, by offering a $50,000 reward for information leading to the identification of this person.

Counsel: (25:54)
This announcement came at a press conference held 40 years after the first known rape in Sacramento. Within months of that press conference, Sacramento District, Attorney Anne Marie Schubert, convened a meeting of all involved counties, including the elected district attorneys, asking each to dedicate more resources to answer that question.

Counsel: (26:16)
Those DA’s offices responded, Ventura, Orange, Santa Barbara, Talare, Alameda, Contra Costa, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Santa Clara and Sacramento answered the call. In the fall of 2017, Contra Costa Assistant Chief Investigator, Paul Holes, asked District Attorney Shubert to assist in using a new DNA tool, investigative genetic genealogy, IGG possibly developed a lead in the case.

Counsel: (26:47)
Investigator Holes collaborated with the Ventura County District Attorney’s office, which had located an unopened sexual assault kit collected from the homicides of Lyman and Charlene Smith, in which Charlene was sexually assaulted. In January 2018, semen from the vaginal sample in Charlene’s kit was used to develop a specialized DNA profile, intended for investigative genetic genealogy.

Counsel: (27:17)
The DNA profile can be uploaded to a publicly available genetic genealogy database, where a list of names of potential relatives of the killer was provided. No DNA and no other genetic information from these potential relatives was shared with law enforcement. A working group comprised of Paul Hose, Steve Kramer Division Counsel for the LA Field Office of the FBI, genealogist Barbera Rae-Venter and Sacramento District Attorney’s Office, Lieutenant Kirk Campbell and investigative assistant Monica [Jakowski 00:27:50] began the laborious process of building family trees.

Counsel: (27:56)
On March 18, 2018, Sacramento DA Investigative Assistant Jakowski notified the team, “Oh, we just found another guy.” And the answer to that one question that has gone unanswered for over 40 years, revealed itself. This investigation uncovered the following about Joseph DeAngelo.

Counsel: (28:18)
He grew up Rancho Cordova. He served in the military. He was engaged to a woman named Bonnie, a name uttered during an ear sexual assault in Yolo County. He was employed as a police officer near Visalia during the sacking series. He left Talare County after the Officer McGowan shooting. And then he worked as an Auburn police officer during the same the time period as the East Area Rapist series, but was fired for shoplifting dog repellent.

Counsel: (28:49)
DeAngelo then moved to Southern California before returning to Sacramento. The Sacramento Sheriff’s Department began following Joseph DeAngelo. On April 23, 2018, using an empty garbage truck, detectives collected trash discarded by Joseph DeAngelo from his garbage can, which was placed on the public street for collection.

Counsel: (29:11)
The Sacramento County District Attorney Crime Lab tested tissue found in that trash and developed the DNA profile that matched not only the defendant, but also matched the DNA profile of the perpetrator in three Contra Costa rapes and eight murders in Southern California. On April the 24, 2018, Joseph DeAngelo was arrested, while standing on the driveway of his residence in Citrus Heights.

Counsel: (29:38)
Detectives interviewed the defendant after his arrest, confronting him with the sexual assaults in the East Area Rapist series and the murder of Brian and Katie Maggiore. They mentioned the overwhelming DNA evidence against him, regarding the murder of the Smiths in Ventura and Cheri Domingo and Greg Sanchez in santa Barbara.

Counsel: (29:59)
Just a few hours before the interview, detectives observed DeAngelo vigorously working on his yard, jumping in and out of his truck and lifting heavy objects. Just a week before, he was seen racing his motorcycle on the freeway at high rates of speed, weaving in and out of traffic and performing sophisticated counter surveillance maneuvers.

Counsel: (30:21)
Now sitting in the interview room, he feigned feeble incoherence, but this wasn’t the first time he did so. When store security detained DeAngelo in 1979 for shoplifting dog repellent and a hammer, he pretended to suffer a heart attack and then fought with them to the point where they had to tie him down to a chair. When the deputies arrived, he rolled around in his chair, talked in circles and screamed incoherently.

Counsel: (30:49)
Later that day, DeAngelo admitted to the just pretended to act crazy to avoid getting in trouble. A short while later, while sitting alone in the interview room on April 24, 2018, Joseph DeAngelo began to talk to himself. And among other things said, “I did all that. I didn’t have the strength to push him out. He made me, he went with me. It was like, in my head, I mean, he’s a part of me. I didn’t want to do those things. I pushed Jerry out and had a happy life. I did all those things. I’ve destroyed all their lives. So now I got to pay the price.” So today 45 years after it first started, both the people and the defendant are prepared to proceed to a resolution in these cases.

Judge: (31:48)
Thank you, counsel.

Counsel: (31:49)
Your honor, now we have a factual basis for Talare County.

Judge: (31:53)
All right. Very good. Let me ask defense counsel, first of all, as to the initial factual basis, do you wish to be heard?

Speaker 1: (31:59)
No, your honor.

Judge: (31:59)
Thank you.

Speaker 2: (32:18)
The factual basis on count one. Claude Snelling was a journalism professor at College of Sequoia in 1975 and the father of 16 year old, Beth Snelling, who would become a target of the Visalia Ransacker in the months and weeks leading up to September 1975.

Speaker 2: (32:37)
Around 2:20 AM on September 11, 1975, Beth Snelling woke up to a man covering her nose and mouth with his hand, whispering in a low raspy voice, “You’re coming with me, don’t scream or I’ll stab you.” The man then pulled Beth from her bedroom using his right hand and pulled a revolver from his back, using his left hand.

Speaker 2: (33:02)
She described the man as 5’8 to 5’11, a white male adult with a stocky build and a round face, wearing a ski mask with the eyes and nose cutout. Joseph DeAngelo was 5’11 at that time, weighed 205 pounds and was left handed.

Speaker 2: (33:21)
DeAngelo took Beth from her bedroom and into the family room, where he pointed the revolver at her and said, “Don’t scream or I’ll shoot you.” DeAngelo force Beth from the residence using the rear door, located between the kitchen and the family room. At this point, Beth heard her father, Claude Snelling, yell out, “Hey,” and began running towards her and DeAngelo.

Speaker 2: (33:50)
Beth witnessed DeAngelo shoot her father twice from a distance of 10 feet, using his left hand. DeAngelo then turned and pointed the revolver in the direction of Beth and kicked her three times in the face, before running out of the family’s backyard. A bullet collected from Claude Snelling during the autopsy matched bullets fired from a .38 Miroku Revolver stolen from Patrick Mano residence on August 31, 1975 during a prior ransacking.

Speaker 2: (34:22)
Mr. Mano identified Joseph DeAngelo from a photo stack in 2018. From a face-to-face contact that he had with DeAngelo, When he had interrupted him during a prowling and chased him afterwards, he’d gotten a look at his face. That prowling took place on November 23, 1975.

Speaker 2: (34:50)
Beth Snelling also identified DeAngelo from a photo stack in 2018, from an incident where she had observed him peeking into her bedroom window, approximately one month prior to the murder of her father. Five other witnesses also identified DeAngelo in 2018 from photo stacks based on individual face-to-face contacts with DeAngelo during prowling and ransacking events occurring around Visalia in 1975.

Judge: (35:18)
Thank you, counsel. Defense counsel, wish to be heard of the factual basis as stated?

Speaker 1: (35:22)
No, your honor.

Judge: (35:24)
Regarding count one, the charge of murder of Claude Snelling, that count currently charges and open- ended murder to the allegation that you willfully deliberately, and with premeditation, when you unlawfully and with malice of forethought murdered Claude Snelling, which occurred September 11, 1975 in the County of Talare, a violation of penal code section 187(A) murder of the first degree, how do you plead?

Guilty.

Judge: (35:58)
There’s also an allegation that you personally used a firearm in the course of that murder in violation of penal code section 12022.5. Do you admit or deny?

Guilty,

Judge: (36:07)
Do you admit or deny, sir?

I admit.

Judge: (36:17)
Regarding the uncharged act of kidnapping with intent to commit rape of Elizabeth Snelling, having occurred on September 11, 1975, in the County of Talare, a violation of penal code section 209, do you admit or deny?

I admit.

Judge: (36:39)
Thank you, counsel.

Speaker 2: (36:42)
The factual basis for the uncharged attempted murder of detective William McGowan. The Visalia Ransacker committed over 100 burglaries between April 1974 and December 1975 in the city of Visalia. Although, in the murder of Claude Snelling, efforts to apprehend the Rand sacker increased and included a plan to trap him during a prowling incident based at locations where he might be expected to return.

Speaker 2: (37:08)
On the evening of December 10, 1975, in an area that had recent Ransacker activity, the Visalia Police Department set up a perimeter and set out to wait and see if the Ransacker would return. Detective William McGowan held a position in the garage of a residence where he believed the Ransacker might make an appearance, based on prowling incidents that had occurred at that residence in the recent past.

Speaker 2: (37:34)
While positioned the garage, detective McGowan observed a subject walk down the side of the garage towards the rear of the residence. Detective McGowan described the subject as a white male adult, 5’10 with light blonde hair, a round baby face. Based on his observations, McGowan later assisted in the creation of a composite sketch that clearly resembled Joseph DeAngelo. Detective McGowan approached DeAngelo from behind with a flashlight. When DeAngelo turned, Detective McGowan-

Speaker 2: (38:03)
… Flashlight. When DeAngelo turned, detective McGowan observed that he was wearing a black ski cap that was rolled up. Detective McGowan had his firearm out and announced himself as a police officer stating police, what are you doing here? DeAngelo began screaming, “Oh my God. Don’t hurt me. Oh my God. Don’t hurt me.” DeAngelo removed the ski cap and started running through the backyard of the residence towards the fence. Detective McGowan shot into the ground as a warning, but DeAngelo continued to run.

Speaker 2: (38:36)
Eventually, DeAngelo stopped on the other side of a slate fence and detective McGowan illuminated his face. DeAngelo stated, “I give up, see, see, I’ve got my hands up.” Detective McGowan observed DeAngelo’s right hand and demanded DeAngelo raised his left hand that was out of view. Detective McGowan began to climb the fence to detain DeAngelo. DeAngelo pulled a revolver from his left jacket pocket and shot at McGowan who was hitting his flashlight. DeAngelo then ran off into the dark. Detective McGowan received several cuts to his face that required medical attention.

Judge: (39:14)
Thank you. Defense wish to be heard as the factual basis. Thank you. Regarding the uncharged act of attempted murder of officer Bill McGowan, having occurred on December 10th, 1975 in the County of Talaria. Violation of penal code section 664 slash 187, do you admit or deny, sir?

Speaker 3: (39:39)
I admit.

Judge: (39:41)
Court finds that Mr. DeAngelo has made a knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver of his rights to a jury trial, confrontation and against self incrimination. Court further finds this plea and admissions are voluntary and with the understanding of the nature of these charges and the uncharged crimes, as well as the consequences of this plea or finds the factual basis for the plea and the admissions. Do the people accept the plea and the conditions stated on the record?

Speaker 2: (40:05)
We do, your honor.

Judge: (40:07)
[inaudible 00:40:07] conditions stay on the record and based on the guilty pleas, as well as the admissions, as alleged in count one, court finds Mr. DeAngelo guilty, murder Claude Snelling violation of penal code section 187, print a, murder in the first degree. Court further finds your personal use of a firearm to be true in violation of penal code section 12022.5, based on his admission. The people waive referral of this matter to probation department for a formal report pursuant to California penal code section 1203, print B, print 4, in its place request a 1203 C report.

Speaker 2: (40:47)
We do.

Judge: (40:48)
The defense likewise waive?

Speaker 4: (40:51)
Yes, we would join in that.

Judge: (40:52)
All right, thank you. Anything else on this matter before we proceed?

Speaker 2: (40:55)
No, your honor.

Judge: (40:55)
Thank you, counsel. And the representative from Santa Barbara, please approach.

Thank you, your honor.

Judge: (41:16)
Thank you.

The following is a factual basis for counts four and five. On the weekend of December 29th and 30th, 1979, Debra Manning was staying at Robert Offerman’s condominium located in the city of Goleta in the County of Santa Barbara. Debra and Robert had planned a tennis match with friends on the morning of December 30th. Their friends, William and Joan, arrived at the Offerman residence just after 11:00 AM and there was no answer at the door. William found an open sliding glass door leading into the living room. He entered the home and discovered Debra and Robert in the bedroom, both deceased.

In the early morning hours of December 30th, 1979, the defendant, Joseph DeAngelo, climbed a fence and entered the back patio area of Robert’s condominium. The defendant peered into a bedroom where he could easily see down the hallway and into the master bedroom where Robert and Debra lie asleep. The defendant then pried open the rear sliding glass door that led into the living room. When the defendant entered the locked Offerman home, he did so with the intent to rape and murder Debra Manning, to murder Robert Offerman, and to take items from the home.

The defendant found Robert and Debra asleep in bed. He tied both their wrists with white nylon cord, inserted his penis into Debra’s vagina without her consent and raped her. After raping her, the defendant fired his handgun into the back of Debra’s head. The bullet entered the back of her head and lodged in her brain. The defendant left Debra lying face down on the bed with her arms behind her back and her wrists bound with the white nylon cord. When the defendant fired this fatal shot, he did so unlawfully and with malice of forethought. The defendant’s decision to kill Debra Manning was willful, deliberate, and premeditated as evidenced by him firing his handgun at a vital part of Debra’s body as she lay with her hands bound.

Robert was able to remove the bindings from his wrists and stood to confront the defendant. The defendant fired his handgun four times at Robert. Three bullets hit Robert. The first struck his lower neck and upper right chest and exited through his upper right back. As he started to fall, a second bullet struck Robert in the upper left chest area, lacerating his aorta, penetrating his right lung, and lodged in the right side of his chest. This was a lethal wound. A third bullet struck Robert in the left, lower back area and exited through his left buttocks. The defendant then fired a fourth bullet, but missed Robert and it lodged in the clothes dresser. Robert was found on the floor of the master bedroom with the nylon cord clutched in his left hand.

When the defendant fired at Robert, he did so unlawfully and with malice of forethought. The defendant’s decision to kill Robert Offerman was willful, deliberate and premeditated as evidenced by firing multiple gunshots at vital parts of Robert’s body. The defendant rummaged through the refrigerator at Robert’s home and ate leftover turkey he found wrapped in plastic. A discarded turkey bone was located just inside the sliding glass door where the defendant broke into the home, and a plastic bag containing scraps of cooked Turkey was found on the patio, just outside that same sliding glass door.

The defendant stole a Minolta pocket camera and a doctor’s medical bag from the home. The defendant also broke into an adjoining condominium, which was vacant at the time. He left similar nylon cord as the kind he used to tie Debra and Robert’s wrists in the master bedroom and bathroom next door. The defendant also left similar nylon cord on the patio of another nearby condominium.

Judge: (46:02)
Thank you counsel. Either defense counsel wish to be heard as the factual basis on counts four and five?

Speaker 4: (46:07)
No, your honor.

Judge: (46:08)
Thank you. Regarding count four, the charge of murder of Debra Manning, that count currently charges an open ended murder to the allegation that you acted willfully, deliberately and with premeditation when you unlawfully and with malice of forethought murdered Debra Manning, which occurred December 30th, 1979 in the County of Santa Barbara, a violation of penal code section 187, print a, murder in the first degree. That charge, sir, how do you plead?

Speaker 3: (46:43)
Guilty.

Judge: (46:45)
There’s also an allegation that you personally used a firearm in the course of that murder, a violation of penal code section 12022.5. Do you admit or deny that allegation?

Speaker 3: (46:58)
I admit.

Judge: (47:00)
It’s further alleged as a special circumstance to the murder of Debra Manning that that murder was committed in the commission of rape within the meaning of penal code section 261 and pursuant to penal code section 190.2, print C, print three, print three. Do you admit the special circumstance of murder in the first degree?

Speaker 3: (47:53)
I admit.

Judge: (47:53)
Further alleged as a special circumstance that the murder of Debra Manning was committed in the commission of a burglary within the meaning of penal code, section 459 and a violation of penal code section 190.2, print C, print three, print five. Do you admit the special circumstance to murder in the first degree?

Speaker 3: (47:55)
I admit.

Judge: (47:55)
Regarding count five and the charge of murder of Robert Offerman. That count currently charges an open ended murder to the allegation that you acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation when you unlawfully and with malice of forethought murdered Robert Offerman, which occurred December 30th, 1979 in the County of Santa Barbara, a violation of penal code section 187, print a, murder in the first degree, how do you plead?

Speaker 3: (48:25)
Guilty.

Judge: (48:27)
Further alleged that you personally used a firearm, the course of that murder violation of penal code section 12022.5. Do you admit or deny?

Speaker 3: (48:39)
I admit.

Judge: (48:39)
Further alleged is a special circumstance in the murder of Robert Offerman, that that murder was committed in the commission of a burglary within the meaning of penal code section 459 and in violation of penal code section 190.2, print C, print three, print five. Do you admit the special circumstance to murder in the first degree?

Speaker 3: (49:03)
I admit.

Judge: (49:03)
Thank you, counsel.

Thank you. The following is factual basis for counts six and seven. On the evening of July 26, 1981, Cheri Domingo was house sitting for a relative at a home on Toltec Way in the city of Goleta in the County of Santa Barbara. The home was listed for sale and there’d been an open house earlier that day. Greg Sanchez, Cheri’s friend, came over to spend the night on July 26th. The home on Toltec Way is located approximately half a mile from the Offerman residence. San Jose Creek, a heavily wooded dry creek bed, runs alongside both properties.

In the late morning on July 27th, 1979, a realtor arrived at the home on Toltec Way to show the house to a potential buyer. The realtor tried to use his pass key to open the front door, but the security chain was still engaged from the inside. The realtor walked around the house and found a rear sliding glass door open. He went inside and saw Greg on the bedroom floor, obviously deceased, and called 911. In the early morning hours of July 27th, 1979, the defendant, Joseph DeAngelo, removed a screen from an unlocked bathroom window at the home where Cheri and Greg were asleep in the master bedroom.

The defendant reached inside the window and unlocked the door that leads into the bathroom from the rear yard. When the defendant entered the locked home on Toltec Way, he did so with the intent to rape and murder Cheri Domingo and to murder Greg Sanchez. As the defendant entered the master bedroom, he encountered Greg Sanchez who was still in bed. The defendant fired his handgun at Greg. The bullet struck Greg’s left cheek. This was a nonfatal wound. Greg, bleeding from the gunshot wound to his face, stood up to encounter the defendant. The defendant then forcefully beat Greg in the head with a blunt instrument, delivering 24 wounds and tears.

None of these wounds was instantaneously lethal and Greg later died due to massive brain damage and hemorrhaging from the blunt force trauma. After beating Greg to death, the defendant emptied the hanging clothes from the closet on top of Greg to conceal his body. When the defendant savagely beat Greg 24 times in the head, the defendant did so unlawfully and with malice of forethought. The defendant’s decision to kill Greg Sanchez was willful, deliberate and premeditated as evidenced by beating him in the head at least 24 times causing massive brain damage and bleeding after shooting him once in the face was unsuccessful in killing him.

The defendant forced Cheri onto her stomach in bed. He tied her wrists together, then brought her ankles to her wrists and bound them to her wrists. The defendant inserted his penis into Cheri’s vagina without her consent and raped her. The defendant then beat Cheri in the head more than 10 times with the same weapon he used to kill Greg. One of the blows to Cheri’s head caused a large aping wound and massive skull fracture on the right side of her head, which would have caused instantaneous death. The defendant removed the bindings from Cheri’s wrists and ankles and covered her body with a blanket from the bed. A short length of hemp twine was found on the floor next to where Cheri lie.

The blanket covering Cheri’s body was later tested for biological evidence. Semen stains on the blanket were analyzed. The major male DNA profile from the stains was determined to be consistent with the defendant’s DNA profile. The probability that another person randomly selected from the population will have the same DNA profile is approximately one in 530 quintillion African Americans, one in 2.8 quintillion Caucasians, and one in 3.4 quintillion Hispanics. This provides strong evidence that the defendant, Joseph DeAngelo, is the source of the DNA from the semen stains on this blanket.

When the defendant savagely beat Cheri more than 10 times in the head, the defendant did so unlawfully and with malice of forethought. The defendant’s decision to kill Cheri Domingo was willful, deliberate, and premeditated as evidenced by tying her wrists and ankles together and beating her in the head at least 10 times with a blunt instrument.

Judge: (54:41)
Thank you, counsel. Either defense counsel wish to be heard as the factual basis on counts six and seven?

Speaker 2: (54:46)
No, your honor.

Judge: (54:48)
Thank you. Regarding count six, the charge of murder of Cheri Domingo, that count currently charges an open ended murder to the allegation that you acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation when you unlawfully and with malice of forethought murdered Cheri Domingo, which occurred July 27, 1979 in the County of Santa Barbara, violation of penal code section 187, print A, murder in the first degree, how do you plead?

Speaker 3: (55:18)
Guilty.

Judge: (55:20)
Further alleged is a special circumstance for the murder of Cheri Domingo, that that murder was committed in the commission of rape within the meaning of penal code section 261, pursuant to penal code section 190.2, print A, print 17, print three, do you admit the special circumstance to murder in the first degree?

Speaker 3: (55:46)
I admit.

Judge: (55:47)
Further alleged is a special circumstance for the murder of Cheri Domingo, that that murder was committed in the commission of a burglary within the mean of penal code section 459, a violation of penal code section 190.2, print A, print 17, print seven. Do you admit that special circumstance to murder in the first degree?

Speaker 3: (56:08)
I admit.

Judge: (56:10)
Regarding count seven and the charge of murder of Greg Sanchez, that count currently charges an open ended murder to the allegation that you acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation when you unlawfully and with malice of forethought murdered Greg Sanchez, which occurred July 27th, 1979 in the County of Santa Barbara, the violation of penal code section 187, print A, murder in the first degree, how do you plead?

Speaker 3: (56:43)
Guilty.

Judge: (56:44)
There’s also an allegation that you personally used a firearm in the course of that murder, violation of penal code section 12022.5. Do you admit or deny that allegation?

Speaker 3: (56:53)
I admit.

Speaker 2: (56:58)
Further alleged is a special circumstance to the murder of Greg Sanchez, that that murder was committed-

Judge: (57:02)
… Stands to the murder of Greg Sanchez, that that murder was committed in the commission of a burglary within the mean penal code section 459 and a violation of penal code section one 90.2, Print A, Print seven. Do you admit the special circumstance, a murder in the first degree?

Speaker 5: (57:18)
Admit.

Judge: (57:18)
The court finds that Mr. D’Angelo Has made a knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver, his rights to jury trial, to confrontation and the right to self-incrimination. The court further finds a plea was made voluntarily. And with understanding the nature of these charges pending as well as the consequences of the plea, the court does find is the factual basis for the plea and admissions to the people [inaudible 00:57:41] the conditions stated on the record?

Speaker 6: (57:43)
We do, your honor.

Judge: (57:43)
Thank you. The court accepts the plea and the condition stated on the record. As to count four, the court does find Mr. D’Angelo guilty of murder in the first degree of Debra Manning. The court also finds true that Mr. D’Angelo personally used a firearm with a mean of penal code section 12022. 5 based on his admission. The court further finds that the murder was committed in the course of a rape within the mean of 190.2, Print C, Print three, Print three, based on his admission. The court further finds that the murder was committed in the course of a burglary within the mean of penal code section 190.2, Print C, Print three, Print five, based on his admission.

Judge: (58:26)
As to count five, the court does find Mr. D’Angelo guilty of count one violation of penal code section 187, Print A, murder in the first degree of Robert Offerman. The court further finds true that Mr. D’Angelo did personally used a firearm within the mean the penal code section 12022.5 based on his admission. The court further find that that murder was committed in the course of a burglary within the mean of penal code section 190.2, Print C, Print three, Print five based on his admission.

Judge: (58:58)
As to count six, the court finds Mr. D’Angelo guilty of murder in the first degree. Violation of penal code section 187, Print A of Sherry Domingo. The court further finds true that that murder was committed in the course of a rape, within the mean of penal code section one 190.2. Print A, Print 17, Print three based on his admission.

Judge: (59:20)
The court further finds that murder was committed in the course of a burglary. Within the mean of penal code section 190.2. Print A, Print 17, Print seven based on his admission. Count seven. The court does find Mr. D’Angelo guilty of murder in the first degree, violation penal code section 187 of Gregg Sanchez.

Judge: (59:40)
The court further finds the allegation that he personally used a firearm in violation of penal code section 12022.5 to be true based on his admission. The court further finds a murder was committed in the course of a burglary within the mean of penal code section 190.2. Print A, Print 17, Print seven based on his admission. The people waive a referral to this matter to probation department for a formal probation report pursuant to California penal code section 1203, Print three, Print four and in its place request a 1203 point C report.

Speaker 6: (01:00:14)
Yes we do, your honor.

Judge: (01:00:15)
Defense like to waive as well?

Speaker 7: (01:00:17)
Yes, your honor.

Judge: (01:00:18)
Is there anything else on this matter before we proceed?

Speaker 6: (01:00:20)
None.

Judge: (01:00:20)
Thank you, council. Representative from Ventura, please approach the podium.

Amy Holliday: (01:00:25)
There is one thing, your honor, on counts six and seven, the correct date. And I apologize for missing this. July 27th, 1981.

Judge: (01:00:50)
Very good. I saw the charging document was 79, but I also heard it was 81. So I followed your lead.

I apologize for that.

Judge: (01:00:57)
Right. 1981.

1981 for counts six and seven.

Judge: (01:01:01)
The defense wished to be heard as to the date. I thank you for that correction.

Thank you.

Speaker 8: (01:01:05)
Good morning, your honor.

Judge: (01:01:22)
Good morning.

Speaker 8: (01:01:24)
Following is a factual basis for counts eight and nine from Ventura County. On March 16th, 1980, a 43 year old Lyman Smith was a former deputy district attorney for the County of Ventura and his 34 year old wife, Charlene Smith were found tied up bloody and dead in their bed at their home located at 573 High Point Drive in Ventura.

Speaker 8: (01:01:56)
They were last known to be alive the evening of March 13th when Charlene Smith had a conversation with her former mother-in-law, Isabelle, about getting ready for dinner and taking the children skiing. Isabel said that Charlene sounded the happiest she had ever heard her. Three days later on the afternoon of Sunday, March 16th, 1980, Lyman Smith’s 12 year old son, Gary, rode his bike to his father’s and stepmother’s home to do chores. You knocked on the door, got no answer. Then entered through the unlocked front door.

Speaker 8: (01:02:39)
Gary saw couch cushions on the floor in the living room. Drawers were opened and the Smith’s normally well-kept home had been ransacked or as Gary described it, made to look as though it had been ransacked. A carton of milk and a box of crackers were out and open. Dirty dishes and a knife were on the counter near the sink. Gary walked to the master bedroom where an alarm clock was still beeping.

Speaker 8: (01:03:10)
There, he found his father and his stepmother bloody and still lying underneath the cover. Young Gary called the police and waited outside for help. A massive investigation led by the Ventura Police Department, which later included the Ventura Sheriff’s Office, the Ventura County District Attorney’s Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has determined that this defendant, Joseph D’Angelo, entered and burglarized the home of Lyman and Charlene Smith some time between the late night hours of March 13th, 1980 and March 16th, 1980.

Speaker 8: (01:03:55)
This defendant accosted the Smiths in their bedroom and either he tied Lyman Smith’s wrists together behind his back and his ankles together with Draper Record or he forced Charlene Smith to do so. And then the defendant tightly tied Charlene Smith’s wrists together behind her back. And at some point, also tied her ankles together, again with drapery.

Speaker 8: (01:04:28)
That night, while her husband was tied up, the defendant raped Charlene Smith against her will by means of force violence, duress, menace, and fear of unlawful bodily injury to herself and her husband. The defendant left his semen inside of Charlene’s vagina. Two samples of which were later collected by Dr. Klaus Beth during her autopsy. One of those samples ultimately led to the identification of this defendant as her rapist and killer.

Speaker 8: (01:05:08)
That night, the defendant also ransacks the Smith’s home and he stole jewelry that Charlene Smith was known to wear. During his commission of burglary that night, the defendant murdered Lyman Smith while Mr. Smith was lying face down nude on the right side of the master bed. This murder was willful, premeditated, deliberate, and committed with malice of forethought.

Speaker 8: (01:05:39)
Both of Mr Smith’s wrists and ankles were still bound. His wrists behind his back. He was unable to move. The defendant struck Mr. Smith with a log of firewood, pausing blunt force injuries to the back right portion of his head and a depressed skull fracture and extensive tearing of the scalp. Mr. Smith also suffered at least one massive blow to his left leg.

Speaker 8: (01:06:12)
During his commission of burglary and during his commission of, or immediately after the rape of Mrs. Smith, the defendant also willfully with premeditation deliberation, and malice of forethought, murdered Charlene Smith while she was lying in bed next to her husband, nude from the waist down. Charlene’s wrists and ankles were also still bound. Her wrists tied behind her back. The defendant struck Charlene Smith with the same log of fire wood he used to murder her husband, causing extensive subdural hemorrhaging and tearing of her scalp and a massive depressed skull fracture across the base of her skull. The defendant left his murder weapon, the firewood log laying on the bed near his victim’s feet. Atop the covers. Similar logs of firewood were stacked just outside the north wall of the Smith’s home. It’s a few feet away from their master bathroom window, which gave a clear view into their bedroom.

Speaker 8: (01:07:24)
The semen detected from the vaginal swab collected during the autopsy of Charlene Smith was analyzed for DNA. A single source DNA profile was generated from the sperm cell fraction of this vaginal swab. This DNA profile is identical to the DNA profile of the defendant, Joseph D’Angelo. The probability than another person randomly selected from the population will have the same DNA profile is approximately one in 4.7 octillion Caucasians. one in 1.5 octillion Hispanics, and one in 1.1 nonillion African-Americans.

Judge: (01:08:10)
Thank you, counsel. Either the defense counsel wish to be heard as the factual basis?

Speaker 7: (01:08:14)
No, your honor.

Judge: (01:08:15)
Thank you. Regarding count eight on the charge of murder of Charlene Smith, that count currently charges an open ended murder through the allegation that you acted willfully, deliberately and with premeditation when you unlawfully and with malice of forethought murdered Darlene Smith, which occurred on or about March 13th, 1980 through March 16th, 1980 in the County of Ventura. A violation of penal code section 187, Print A, murder in the first degree. How do you plead?

Speaker 5: (01:08:52)
Guilty.

Judge: (01:08:53)
It’s further alleged as a special circumstance to the murder of Charlene Smith, that that murder was committed in the commission of rape within the penal code section 261 and pursuant to penal code section 190.2, Print A, Print 17, Print three. Do you admit that special circumstance to murder in the first degree?

Speaker 5: (01:09:14)
I admit.

Judge: (01:09:17)
Further alleged as a special circumstance or the murder of Charlene Smith was committed in the commission of a burglary within the mean of penal code section 459 and a violation of penal code section one 190.2, Print A, Print 17, Print seven. Do you admit that special circumstance to murder in the first degree?

Speaker 5: (01:09:42)
I admit.

Judge: (01:09:44)
Regarding count nine and the charge of murder of Lyman Smith, that count currently charges an open ended murder and to the allegation that you acted willfully, deliberately and with premeditation when you unlawfully with malice of forethought murdered Lyman Smith, which occurred on or about March 13th, 1980 and through March 16th, 1980 in the County of Ventura, a violation of penal code section 187, Print A. Murder in the first degree. To that charge, how do you plea?

Speaker 5: (01:10:17)
Guilty.

Judge: (01:10:18)
It’s further alleged as a special circumstance to the murder of Lyman Smith was committed in the commission of a burglary within the mean of penal code 459 and a violation of penal code section 190.2, Print A, Print 17, Print seven. Do you admit that special circumstance of murder in the first degree?

Speaker 5: (01:10:37)
I admit.

Judge: (01:10:39)
The court finds that Mr. D’Angelo has made a knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver of his right to a jury trial to confrontation and against self incrimination. The court further finds a plea was made voluntarily and with the understanding of the nature of these charges pending as well as the consequences of the plea. The court does find as a factual basis for the plea and the admissions. Do the people accept the plea and the condition stated on the record?

Speaker 6: (01:11:03)
We do, your honor.

Judge: (01:11:05)
Thank you. The court accepts the penal conditions stated on the record. As to count eight, the court does find Mr. De’Angelo guilty. Violation of penal code section 187, Print A. Murder in the first degree of Charlene Smith. The court further finds that murder was committed in the course of a rape within the mean of penal code section 190.2, Print A, Print 17, Print three. The court further finds that that murder was committed in the course of a burglary within the mean of penal code section 190.2, Print A, Print 17, Print seven. As to count nine, the court does find Mr. D’Angelo guilty. Violation of penal code section 18, Print A, murder in the first degree of Lyman Smith.

Judge: (01:11:18)
The court further finds that that murder committed in the course of a burglary, within the mean of penal code section 190.2, Print A. Print 17, Print seven based on his admission. The people waive referral of this matter to probation department for a formal report pursuant to California, penal code section 1203, Print B, Print four and in its place request a 1203 C report.

Speaker 6: (01:12:13)
Yes we do, your honor.

Judge: (01:12:14)
The defense wave as well.

Speaker 7: (01:12:15)
Yes, your honor.

Judge: (01:12:17)
Anything else from either counsel on this matter?

Speaker 7: (01:12:20)
No, your honor.

Judge: (01:12:21)
We’re going to go ahead and take our morning recess. It’s approximately 10:45 and we will start back up at a quarter after. Thank you and recess.

Speaker 9: (01:12:32)
Water?

Speaker 10: (01:12:32)
No.

Speaker 11: (01:12:38)
I’m going to go ahead and break. [inaudible 01:12:50]. I’m on one right now. It’s still a half hour. [inaudible 01:12:57]. (silence)

Hearing Transcript for Accused Golden State Killer Joseph James DeAngelo Jr.

Other Related Transcripts

Stay updated.