Trujillo’s body was found in June 2003, a few months after she was reported missing. She had been shot, crushed, burned post-mortem and partly encased in concrete in a hole at her family’s stone quarry business.
Lopez, a former employee, was reportedly the last person seen with her. According to grand jury testimony referred to in court proceedings, Trujillo got a ride with Lopez to Wal-Mart, where she purchased bullets.
|
Advertisement |
The district attorney’s office objected, saying Lopez’s attempt to implicate Trujillo’s former husband, Rick, did not meet legal standards, which include proving a direct connection between a specific alternate suspect and the actual crime.
Assistant District Attorney Jerry Montgomery said despite the picture painted by public defenders Harvey Palefsky and Amanda Hammond, Rick Trujillo had no motive or direct connection to the crime.
Rick Trujillo has not been charged in his wife’s death and he is a witness for the prosecution. He said after a 2006 court hearing that it had been hard knowing people in town falsely suspected him.
“There’s nothing to tie Rick Trujillo directly to this particular case,” Montgomery said. “(It’s) all hearsay and should not be admitted.”
Palefsky said the jury should be allowed to consider a full defense, including reasonable doubt as raised by the existence of “alternate suspects.”
“What’s at issue is whether Mr. Lopez is going to be allowed to present a defense,” he said. Lopez does not have to prove another person actually committed the murder in order to present an alternate theory, Palefsky said.
He attacked as “absolutely ridiculous” the prosecution’s argument that Lopez’ identity as the alleged killer was not at issue.
“If identity is not an issue, I don’t know what is. Identity is the only issue in this case. The jury should be allowed to listen to evidence about who (allegedly) had a motive,” Palefsky said.
He said it was unusual that the DA would call Trujillo’s estranged husband as a witness, yet seek to prevent the defense from examining his alleged motives.
“If the court does not permit (the alternate suspect defense), we do the jury an injustice in this case and we do injustice to Lionel Lopez in this case.”
Montgomery said Lopez’s motion was a ploy to delay trial and confuse the issue. All witnesses who testified to the grand jury claimed Lopez confessed to killing Irene Trujillo, he said.
Lopez’s defense earlier called public defender’s investigator Melissa Wilson to the stand. She told of witnesses, including a Trujillo family friend, who alleged Rick made “scary” statements about Irene “meeting her demise.”
Another witness, a relative by marriage to former coroner Mark Young, claimed Rick confessed, Wilson said.
The woman has convictions on drug charges; Montgomery later pointed to testimony indicating she was intoxicated at the time.
The defense also spoke of a divorce settlement, under which Irene was to receive more property than Rick, as was his friend and business partner, Bob Martinez.
Martinez, Wilson said, characterized Rick as “not a happy camper.”
During cross-examination, Montgomery pointed out that the divorce settlement was not signed and so, did not give Rick a motive. He also said the alleged statements about Irene’s demise looked to have been made years before her disappearance. It wasn’t enough, he argued, that Rick owned high-powered weapons.
“There must be a direct connection between Rick Trujillo and the death of Irene Trujillo and it’s not been shown. The only one who had the motive and (allegedly) said he did it is Lionel Lopez.”
Palefsky and Hammond also argued that Irene’s state of mind was an issue and, they said, caused her to change her stories about why she was buying the bullets the night before she went missing. Over objections, they were able to introduce as evidence documents demonstrating Irene’s supposed instability.
They also argued a friend of Irene’s said Irene told her she was going to meet with Rick and Martinez. They speculated she could have been buying the bullets for her own protection — and said she alternately told the witness she was buying them for Lopez, his brother, or both men.
Montgomery said the witness clearly indicated Irene was “upbeat,” and he also said if she was concerned for her own safety, she would likely have just said so. Irene, he said, did not have a gun and it wasn’t as if she was going to “throw the bullets at Rick Trujillo.”
He called the defense’s arguments “ludicrous” and said that no matter how it was parsed, Lopez was the common link in every theory about the bullets.
Montgomery argued for the inclusion of the witness’ statements concerning the purchase of bullets for Lopez and Irene’s “upbeat” demeanor. Palefsky and Hammond wanted those same statements excluded, and yet, Montgomery said, they wanted to admit statements about Rick Trujillo from the same conversation.
Herron said he would have to consider case law before issuing a ruling as to whether Irene Trujillo’s statements through the witness were admissible.
He said Lopez was entitled to raise the alternate suspect defense, but the evidence Lopez would rely on must be properly admitted.
“Identity aside, the (legal test) does require the other person to have committed some act directly connected with the crime,” he said.
In this case, Herron said, the possibility of a direct act was alluded to by the witness who claimed hearing Rick Trujillo confess.
“The evidence presented should go before a jury,” Herron said.
• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.
• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point.
• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!