Saturday, January 05, 2008

Text of indictment in Moore case

The Times-Standard has a couple of reports on Gallegos' indictments, including the text of the indictment

Humboldt County Superior Court
People of the State of California, Plaintiff, V. David Douglas, and Anthony Zanotti, Defendant
Case No. CR076157AS & BS



The Grand Jury of the County of Humboldt, State of California, hereby accuses DAVID DOUGLAS, and ANTHONY ZANOTTI, of a felony, to wit: a violation of Penal Code Section 192 (b), in that on April 14, 2006, DAVID DOUGLAS, and ANTHONY ZANOTTI, did willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and without malice, kill, CHERI LYNN MOORE, a human being, in commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; and in the commission of a lawful act which might have produced death, in an unlawful manner, and without due caution and circumspection, in violation of Penal Code Section 192 (b) of the Penal Code of the State of California.


Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1054.7, the People request that, within 15 days, the defendant and/his attorney disclose: (A) The names and addresses of witnesses at trial, together with any relevant written and/or recorded statements of those persons, and reports of the statements of those persons, including any reports or statements of experts made in connection with the case, and including the results of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons which the defendant intends to offer in evidence at the trial; (B) any real evidence which the defendant intents to offer in evidence at the trial. This request is a continuing request, to cover not only all such material currently in existence, but all material which comes into existence through the conclusion of this case.

Dated: December 3, 2007

(The indictment was signed by Paul V. Gallegos, district attorney of Humboldt County, and the foreperson of the grand jury, whose name has been blacked out to protect his/her identity.)

Key facts in Moore case
Timeline of Cheri Lyn Moore case
Key witnesses' past testimony
List of grand jury witnesses
Commanding police officers didn't testify before jurors


  1. When can we read the actual transcripts? So we can learn what information was provided to the grand jury ? What information they had to make their decision. And if all the exculpatory information was left out or ignored.

    I'd also be interested in who the grand jury members were? What kind of work or careers they are involved in. Since there is no defense attorney invovled in the process does that mean Gallegos gets to pick who he wants? or do they just seat the first 19 people picked?

  2. Rose, it is patently dishonest and unwise of you to call these Gallegos' indictments, then clumsily put a half truth in parentheses at the end of your post. Grow up. Quit trying to manipulate facts to fit your mentally unstable view of the world.

  3. You mean this?

    (The indictment was signed by Paul V. Gallegos, district attorney of Humboldt County, and the foreperson of the grand jury, whose name has been blacked out to protect his/her identity.)

    First off - I didn't put that part of the story in parentheses, that came directly off the Times Standard's site, from their article. Is it a half truth? Explain why. And complain to them.

    (The indictment was signed by Paul V. Gallegos, district attorney of Humboldt County, and the foreperson of the grand jury, whose name has been blacked out to protect his/her identity.)

    As to calling them Gallegos' indictments - I will stand by that. It came about by his hand.

  4. Looks like she shoved that one up your butt 2:23 PM !

    Gag's is the DA, Gag's presented the case to the Grand Jury so .... in your twisted mind do you think it's Arnie Klein's indictments?

    Then there is always " the buck stops here ". Face it jerkoff it's all on Gag's. I can't wait until the next hearing.

  5. Anonymous said: What a crock of nonsense. California has a justifiable homicide statute that expressly describes the killing of a person resisting arrest with deadly force as a justifiable homicide. Ms. Moore was killed lawfully when she pointed a deadly weapon at EPD. She did not therefore die as a result of an unlawful act or the result of anyone's negligence.

    Mark my words. This case is nothing more than a waste of government resources.

  6. Saw that on Eric's. Here's an interesting one from the Times Standard's comments on this article -

    Vidal Kiaztamach, Alameda, CA
    I have just recently received my Citizenship to this great Country where people are free to speak their heart without retaliation and many times brutal treatment from police agents. It is a wonderful thing to be allowed to question the actions of ones in authority and make them accountable.

    However, I have been following with much interest the news stories from your Humboldt County and I must confess with alarm in my heart that you have secret committees such as your Grand Jury who can accuse without accountability and bring ones up to public ridicule who are then judged on forums like this then condemned in the public eye before they are allowed to have, "with what I hold dear and love about the United States", DUE PROCCESS.

    I wish that all of you could have spent just one week in my old Country and then you would appreciate what you have here and learn to hold judgment until Due Process has run it's coarse. I also believe the Grand Jury Ideology should be reconsidered

    It's as good question, but one that goes to WHY are people afraid to speak out, voice their concerns, make complaints. We have whistleblower protection laws now, why DO we need secret proceedings?

    But especially in this case, where the facts have been aired publicly as a result of the Coroner's Inquest as well as extensive reporting.

  7. 0 Results matching "Kiaztamach, United States" or CA, however. :)

  8. When you see it in writing, that the indictment charges that the death was unlawful, when it was clearly officers facing a deadly weapon and lawfully shooting in self defense, the absurdity of the whole thing becomes obvious. The transcripts should be fabulous, reading how PVG bamboozles the gj into NOT indicting the actual shooters, but indicting the scene commanders. And doing so without explaing his own presence at the scene. You really could not make this goofball up.

  9. Why do cop lovers blindly assume that anything cops say is automatically the truth? You think they're going to admit that when they broke Cheri Moore's door down and filled her full of multiple bullets she wasn't pointing a flare gun at them?

    However if this mentally ill and emotionally distraught woman DID grab a weapon to try to defend herself from intruders, that might be lawful self-defense, right? The solution to violence is that everyone should be armed, right? The way to prevent tyrannical goverment is to buy a gun and learn to use it, right?

    Here's the point of the indictment, as I see it: if a police commander sends officers into a situation where they might be expected to use deadly force, it had damned well better be the last resort. Otherwise, they took an action that foreseeably put a human life in danger. They knew she was armed with a flare gun that they now call a "deadly weapon." Why wouldn't they expect her to defend herself from attack? They WERE attacking, weren't they?

    If the commanders sent in the officers recklessly and without using other means that might reasonably have resolved the incident without killing someone, then they might be guilty of manslaughter. That's for a jury to decide. A jury that has seen the evidence and heard legal arguments has decided the commanders should be indicted and tried.

    Police must get the message that they don't have impunity, but are responsible for their actions. That goes for the commanders who carelessly escalate situations by sending in a tactical squad to use deadly force when the situation might have been peacefully resolved by mental health workers or family members.

    Let's see what the evidence is and what the legal arguments are when this case comes to trial, if it does.

    By the way, the commanders were indicted by a randomly chosen criminal grand jury from the same jury pool from which trial jurors are chosen.

    Gallegos is brave to choose to prosecute this case himself and take the political fallout, when he could have left it to a deputy DA to prosecute.

  10. 2:15 is off his meds.

    The case will never get to trial because there is no crime involved here. Once she used deadly force, her death was legally justified.

    Please go back on your meds 2:15 -

  11. 2:15 also misses the fact that no, you don't get to provoke a stand off with the police and then use deadly force on them when steps are taken to prevent injury to life and property. 2:15 probably doesn't care, and doesn't agree with the law. Hmmm. Is 2:15 the DA?

  12. LOL! good one 11:29.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.