ONE OF THEIR OWN

ards from outside vendors, but those supplies are limited and expensive, he said. So analysts bring in their own. And if they run out they borrow from each other.

Under cross-examination by Richardson, Stam said he had no proof that Kevin Brown brought his own sperm into the lab. No logs were kept documenting the practice But everybody did it, he said. He also acknowledged that he wasn’t in the room when the Claire Hough evidence was examined in 1984 by then he was a supervisor, working on a different floor so he didn’t know exactly what might have happened.

But somebody else did.

John Simms looked haunted as he walked to the witness stand. The retired criminalist was the one who first worked the Hough murder He had no recollection of the testing Thirty-six years and lots of cases had gone by since then. After Kevin Brown’s DNA was found on the vaginal swabs in 2012, Simms was “mortified” to learn that he had been the original analyst and that he might accidentally have done something to contaminate the evidence. He initially told his bosses he didn’t think he would have made such a mistake.

Now he wasn’t so sure.

Responding to questions from Iredale, Simms said the crime lab in 1984 didn’t know yet about DNA testing and didn’t have the safeguards in place today to prevent contamination. The analysts worked at large tables in the same room They cleaned their tools with water or alcohol, not bleach, which is used now.

Analysts kept their semen standards in small envelopes in a refrigerator in the lab, he said He couldn’t remember if or how they were labeled, or if they were kept separate from each other in any particular way.

Then he offered this possible scenario:

When he was preparing to examine the Hough evidence, he went to the refrigerator and grabbed what turned out to be Kevin Brown’s semen standard He cut out a piece of it to check the testing chemicals. He cleaned his scissors, but not enough to remove all the sperm cells, and used them again to snip the vaginal swabs for analysis.

It was a remarkable, fall-onyour-sword moment in the courtroom, a breathtaking shift from a vague theory about contamination to a blow-by-blow descrip- tion. The jurors seemed riveted, several of them writing furiously in their notebooks.

Richardson tried to walk back the testimony She pointed to a sworn deposition and a signed declaration Simms had given three years earlier that said it was his usual practice to use his own semen standard, and that he was careful with his tools while working a case scissors to cut the semen standard and a scalpel on whatever evidence he was analyzing. Now Simms said he could no longer be certain what he did. He couldn’t recall if he ever borrowed someone else’s semen standard, but they were available for “general use” in the refrigerator so he might have

His 1984 notes from the Hough case don’t say whose standard he used Nobody thought to write down that kind of information back then. It was a different world, pre-DNA.

But Simms also couldn’t point to any other case in his career in which he fouled evidence in the manner he was now suggesting.

That led Richardson to ask, “So when we went through the scenario of how you might have contaminated the Claire Hough vaginal swabs with Kevin Brown’s DNA, you don’t believe that you did that?” Simms replied, “I want to believe that I didn’t make a mistake, but I have to admit that it is possible.”

In courtroom comments to the judge, outside the presence of the jury Richardson and her colleague Erin Kilcoyne brought up what they saw as a “dramatic” change in Simms story.

They suggested he had done it because Kevin Brown was a friend. They also knew Simms had been talking to other criminalists who were in the lab back in the 1980s, some of whom were upset that their DNA profiles supposedly in the database to be used only in case of contamination were being looked at in murder investigations.

Richardson tried to shift the jury’s focus away from whether contamination happened to whether Lambert knew it was possible. That proved a difficult line to walk. Now retired after 28 years with the department, Lambert was on the stand for parts of three days, called first by Iredale as he presented his case and then by Richardson as she built hers.

He testified that he was new to the cold-case team when Sgt. Frank Hoerman assigned him the Hough murder By then, the DNA results had come back, and he was told that crime lab managers had ruled out contamination (Hoerman got on the stand and verified that’s what he’d said.)

Eugene Iredale, right, told Rebecca Brown, left, that suing the police over her husband’s death would be an uphill battle. But the civil-rights attorney also thought she had a winnable case.

TOP, clockwise from upper right: Detective Michael Lambert in a deposition with portions of a search warrant and inventory list. Depiction of a rose with part of an email Rebecca Brown sent to relatives after her husband died Murder victim Claire Hough with a portion of the toxicology report.

Vacation photo of Rebecca and Kevin Brown with a background of family photos, portions of Kevin Brown’s journal, a search warrant and part of an interview transcript.

Family photos and personal items taken by police during a search of the Brown home with parts of a handwritten inventory list and the search warrant.

But several lab managers testified that they weren’t there in 1984, and that they told Hoerman and Lambert to talk to the criminalists who were if they wanted to know what went on back then.

Lambert did talk to some of the analysts, but he was mostly focused on stories about Kevin Brown’s interest in nude photography and porn movies. He never interviewed Simms.

He never interviewed Jennifer Shen either who was lab manager as he began his investigation, even though he quoted her in a search-warrant affidavit as saying contamination “is not possible” an assertion she denied when she took the stand

The affidavit loomed large during the trial. It had convinced ajudge to approve the search which brought detectives to Kevin Brown’s door in the first place, and then to everything that happened after.

Iredale peppered Lambert with questions about information he omitted from the affidavit facts that would have been favorable to Brown and might have led the judge who authorized the warrant to wonder about probable cause.

Chief among them: that criminalists had their own semen in the lab.

Lambert said he didn’t learn that until late in his investigation, about a month before Brown killed himself. He heard about it from some of Brown’s relatives and didn’t believe it was true until he called a lab employee who confirmed the practice (The lab employee also testified, and said Lambert appeared shocked by the news.)

Iredale pointed to numerous interviews Lambert did and never wrote reports about, suggesting the detective had blinders on regarding contamination because he had made up his mind Brown was guilty and was intent on getting a confession.

The attorney brought up statements the detective made to police colleagues about “sweating Brown and tipping him over emotionally by showing him photos of the murder victim. He accused Lambert of feeding Brown’s relatives damaging and misleading information that he knew would make it to the suspect’s ears.

“The fact of the matter is,”

Iredale said, “that you deliberately wanted to put pressure on Kevin Brown, psychological pressure, because you wanted to see if you could crack him, did you not?”

“No, sir, that is not the case,” Lambert said.

Iredale zeroed in on what the lawsuit alleged was a major source of pressure: the seizure of thousands of items from the Brown home, all but a handful not authorized by the warrant, and Lambert’s refusal to return them, even after he found nothing of evidentiary value.

Apsychologist who had testified earlier said that was a “substantial factor in Brown’s suicide because he equated the continued seizure as an indication that he might be arrested and jailed.

One by one the lawyer showed Lambert 50 photos of items taken in the search First up was a

One Of Their Own

painting of the VirginMary. “Did youthink that that in some way wasevidence of acrime, sir,that required youtokeepthisuntil the death of Kevin Brownbefore yougaveitback?” “No,” Lambertsaid. This went on for morethan15 minutes. Acookbook.Old photo albums. ABible.Anewspaper clipping about baseball slugger Roger Maris. Abrochurefroma Royal Caribbean cruise. Aphotograph of Ronald Reagan. Asongbook. AHalloween mask.

“They were not evidencein the case,” Lambertadmitted.

Iredale asked him about the news release the Police Department issued afterBrown died. It claimed “preparations were being made” to arrest him.

Lambertsaidthat wasincorrect. “It had been discussed, but we hadn’t made formal plans to go out on aparticular day and go arrest him,” he said. “Weweren’t there.” When it washer turn,Richardson took Lambertthrough his role in the search of the Browns’ home. Although he wrotethe warrantthatconvinced ajudgetoapprovethe search,he wasn’t therewhen the items were seized. He said he didn’t know whatwas in the boxesuntil he examined them later

As for holding on to the items, Lambertsaid he was waiting for the District Attorney’s Office to decide whether Brownwould be charged—and that if the Browns were so desperatetoget them back, they could have gone to courtand asked ajudgetoorder it. He also denied misleading anyone in the affidavit, or in his interviews with Brown’srelatives, and said he had nothing to do with the posthumous news release about the former criminalist.

“Atthe time the press release wasissued,” Richardson asked, “did youbelieve that Kevin Brownhad involvement in Claire Hough’s murder?” “I did,” Lambertsaid.

Rebecca Browntook the stand to tell the jury about her life with Kevin Brown.

Julia Yoo, Iredale’spartner, did the questioning. She displayed aseries of photos of the couple throughout their marriage.

“He wassogentle, and kind, and humble,”Brown said.

“Rather not likeotherpeople I had been with.”

She said he spoiled her,took careofchores around the house, greetedher at the end of work days with aglassofwine.

She wasn’t alarmed when cold-case detectives firstcame to the house, asking to talktoher husband about an old murder.It had happened before, she said. She sat in on the interviewfor a while, and then went to her high schoolteachingjob In the afternoon, the detectives called her out of the classroom to tell her they were searching the house.

Thingswentdownhill from there, she said, detailing the escalating tensioninthe house as the items police took were not returned. That upset her 80-yearold mother,who lived in the home with the couple and cried about not being able to look at photographsand other mementos.

“This washer life,” Brown said Her husband’s mental health deteriorated, too, as the investigation continued,she said. He wasn’t sleeping. His hands shook. He wasdistracted. He droveinto aparkedcar,hit abus. Her health wasaffected as well. Her skin brokeout in several places, infections that required antibiotics.

She detailed her husband’s final weeks, his disappearance the discoveryofhis body Brownwent back to work a month later,tofinish the school year.She taught another year but then retired, earlier than planned.“It wastoo difficult to keep going intoworkevery day,” she said.

The

People thereknewabout her husband and assumed he was guilty, she said. The U.S. government classesshe taught had lost their meaning. “I didn’t believe (the system) waseffectiveand working in this countryanymore and Icouldn’tteachit,” she said. She sought help from therapistsand griefcounselors. She trieddating.But she wasstill angry.“Iused to trust everyone,” she said. Yooasked, “What do youmiss most about Kevin?”

“I misshaving someone who wasinmycourtand Iwas in their court, and we were able to spend our days,and planning afuture and alife with. Just someone who waskind and Icouldtrust andI could love,and they could do the same back for me.”

“And in those 21 years of marriage, wasKevin Browntherefor youevery night?”

To read anyprevious part of this three-part series, or to listento audio clips, scan the code above or go online to sandiegouniontribune. com/cold-case

“He wastherefor me every night.”

“Who sleeps next to younow?”

“My cat and my teddybear.”

Richardson started her cross-examination by asking questions designed to showthattherewas already stress in the Brownhousehold beforethe police investigation started, stress related to Rebecca’smother and brothermoving in withthem. She also went throughproblems Kevin Brownhad with anxietyand othermental-health issues that predated the detectives knocking on his door

Then she triedtoupend the characterization of the Browns as aloving couple who shared the same bed every night. She displayed aseries of photos taken duringthe police search that were of the closet in the master bedroom. The photos showedamakeshiftnightstand, across on the wall, pillows, an iPad,a lamp and a clock radio.

“Atthe time of the search,” Richardson asked, “you were actually sleeping in your closet, weren’tyou?”

Browndenied that. Because of her husband’s insomnia, he wanted lights out by 10 p.m.,soshe madea“makeshiftcozyspot where she could grade school papers, watchmovies, and pray her rosarywithout disturbing him,she said. Richardson turned to the search and challenged the idea thatthe Browns were harmed by police holding ontotheir possessions. (She later called apsychologist who also downplayed the search as asourceofthe couple’storment.)

“Are youclaiming that you were damaged because for 10 months youcouldn’t go intothe garageand look at your baby outfit?” Richardson asked.

“I didn’t have access to anything that had been taken, that had no righttobetaken, that was mine,” Brownsaid.

“Are youclaiming that you were damaged because for 10 months youcouldn’t go and look at your copy of the Declaration of Independence?”

“It wasmine,” Brownsaid. In asimilar vein, to challenge the lawsuit’s allegationsthat Lamberthad beenreckless about contaminationand Kevin Brown’smental health, Richardson asked several questions regarding information the couple neversharedwith the detective. They didn’t tell himKevin Brown had his ownsperminthe crime lab,for example.

“I assumed he knewit,” Brown shotback. “He is an investigator.” Richardson displayed acopy of the email Rebecca Brownsent her sister afterthe suicide,a note thataccused variousunsupportiverelatives and “the police investigation itself”ofpushing him over the edge. It doesn’t mention Lambertbyname or the items seized duringthe search “I wasblaming everyone, and myself,” Brownsaid. “I wasn’t writing alegal document here.”

The courtroom was packed for closing arguments. Iredale spokefor almost 90 minutes.

He startedout highlighting the Constitutionand its Fourth Amendmentprotections against unreasonable search and seizure.

“In ourcountry, the reason why we hopeand believe that we areexceptional as acountryand as apeople is becauseweliveour constitutional values,” he said.

“Because the Constitution, if it is to exist, mustexist in the hearts and the minds and the lives of the people of the United States.”

The attorneycriticized what he calledLambert’s“course of conduct that wasdeliberately designed,overtime, to bully,to intimidate, and ultimately to drive Kevin to what he thought he wanted, whichwas aconfession. But when aman is innocent, but so frightened,you don’t geta confession —you getasuicide.” He suggested the jury award Rebecca Brownbetween $3 million and $4 million, and another $8 million for her husband’sestate.

“What is it worth?” Iredale asked. “What is it worthtobe alone, and youhad somebody you lovedfor 21 years and they could be with you, but they aren’t?

“What is akiss worth? What is asong worth? What is asmile worth? Youdecide.” Richardson, who spokefor morethananhour, startedher closing argument by talking about the murder victim.

“Hopefullywhat is not lost in all of this is the fact that a14-yearold girl,ClaireHough, wassexuallyassaulted, mutilated and murdered,” shesaid. “And that the goal of DetectiveLambert, and all of the police detectives who investigated her murder,and the lab personnel,was to get somemeasureofjustice and closurefor the Hough family,and to bring the perpetrator or perpetrators to justice.”

She said Lambert“had no preconceived notions” during his investigation,whichled him to lab workers whotalked about “Kinky Kevin,” and to the suspect himself, who made incriminating statements in interviews with detectives.

“What arethe detectives supposed to do if not to investigate?”

Richardson said. “Mr.Brown is giving them the material for them to investigate.Sothat’s what they did.” She made her ownsuggestion about monetarydamages.

Sabrawhad ruledbeforethe trial startedthat Lamberthad violatedthe Browns’ constitutional rights by seizing items beyond the scope of the warrant, and it wasuptothe jury to decide how muchthe harm wasworth. Richardson suggested $2.

The jury arrived the next morning ready to begin deliberations,but therewas aproblem.

The CityAttorney’s Officehad sent in the wrong evidence exhibits. Instead of providing selected snippets of the police interviews with Kevin Brownthathad been talked about duringthe trial, it submittedthe entiretranscripts— and the transcripts included mentions of alie-detector test, informationnot allowedtocomein. Iredale asked for amistrial.

“If it wasdonedeliberately,itis outrageous,” he told Sabraw. “Inadmissibleevidenceofa highly prejudicial kind was placedbeforethe jury.”

Thethumb drivewith the transcripts waspulled from the jury room. Apparently only one exhibit had been viewedand it didn’t involvethe interviews. Sabrawdenied the motion for a mistrial. Richardson blamed it all on amisunderstanding and haste.

Theproblem took three hours to sortout.Jurors sent word that they were nothappy.Neither was thejudge. “This is the firsttrial where this has happened, and I just don’t understandit,”hesaid.

“I have hadwellover300 jury trials. Ihavenever had this experience.”

Oncethe correctexhibits went in to the jurors,theytookless than four hours to reachaverdict. They ruled that constitutional violations by Lambertrelated to the search harmed theBrowns to the tune of $3 million. Andthat Lambert’s“deliberateindifference” had caused theloss of societyand companionship to RebeccaBrown, and that was worthanother$3million.

Rebecca Brownput herhead in her hands and sobbed briefly Lambertwiped at hiseyeswith a papernapkin

Jurors,itturnedout,had taken to heartRichardson’s repeated statement that the heart of the casewas what Lambertknewas he did his investigation. During their deliberations, theyfocused on his claim thathe didn’t earn about criminalists having their ownsperm in the lab until shortly beforeKevin Brown killed himself.

“How,”juror William Fleck said to reporters afterward,“did younot know?”

The jury also found that Lamberthad acted with “malice oppression orin reckless disregard”ofthe Browns’ rights, which set the stagefor ahearing on punitivedamages. It washeld four days later Lambert wasthe only witness.

He described the jury verdict as “a gutpunch” andsaid, “I spent a good portion of my life in law enforcement, and Ihavenever hadmyintegrityquestioned before. Let’s be honest —Iama prideful person, and Ithink most people are, and this certainly damaged my pride

“I fear that it is forevergoing to hurt my reputation as acop, becauseIworkedveryhardin this profession. And so that’s the biggest thing for me.”

Iredale asked him whether he thought he had done anything wrong during the investigation. “I believedwhat Iwas doing was correct,” Lambertsaid. That didn’t sit well with the attorney “I wanted to be prepared to come heretoday with aspirit of generosity andtosay that in order to askfor justice, as Idid,I must be prepared to render justice, and that in consideringthe appropriatepunitivedamage, youmay consider notonlythe bad but the good,” Iredale told thejury. “(Lambert’s) testimony makesmehesitateinmaking thatrequest of you, because he has learned nothing “What he learned from this case is not the lesson that should have been imparted: Idid wrong, and my wrong has caused aterrible harm that caused one person to lose their life,and one person to lose almostall thejoy in that ife for sixyears.”

Richardson countered that Lambert gotthe jury’s message, andrespected it. “Nopunitive damageaward is going to punish him morethan the verdict that yourendered, because that verdict told him thatyou believehis actions caused Mr.Brown’s death,” she said. “You don’t need to punish him further because that’s something hewilllivewith for the rest ofhis life.”

Jurors began deliberating and sent the judgethree questions that indicated they didn’t want to hit Lambert toohard.

They wanted to knowifthe $6 million verdict they’ddelivered earlier would be paidbythe city. They wanted to knowifLambert would be on the hook personally for any punitivedamages. And they wanted to knowiftheycould recommend community service instead of amonetary award.

“Common-sense questions,” Sabraw said to the attorneys, but also aminefield. If the jurors knewthat Lambertwas indemnified for the $6 million —which he was— would they be morewilling to hammer him on punitivedamages? If theythought he had to pay the $6 million himself, would they go easy?

Sabrawsent back this answer: “The verdicthas been rendered.

This issue is thereforenot before you.”

He told them that Lambert would be liable forthe punitive damages, whichwas technically true.(TheCityCouncil could also vote to coverthose costs.)

Communityservice? No

The jury deliberated for another40minutes andcame back with this: $50,000

Onacrispautumn daylast year Rebecca Brown went to her husband’sgravesite.She placed a pinkrose on the marker, snipped from abushinthe yardathome. Her husbandused to takecareof the roses. Themarkerhas hername on it next to his. It’s whereshe’ll go too, when it’s time.

In the center is an engravingof aCladdaghring, the traditional

Irish designthat denotes love friendship, loyalty.That lastone means alot to RebeccaBrown, whichiswhy formorethanfive years it wastoo hardfor her to visit the grave, she said. There wasunfinished business.

Vindicated by the jury’s verdicts, she said she feels moreat peace in the cemeterynow

“Unless Icould makepeople understand what happened, Kevin’s soul couldn’t rest,” she told the Union-Tribune. “Now it can.” Brownreceived acheck with twocommas in it from the cityin May. It cameafter around of motions andappeals by the city, and thenmediation. The fina agreement shavedoff partofthe financial compensation. It wasneverabout the money, she said. She split the proceeds in half with her attorney and has startedgiving away some of her share. She’screated atheater scholarship at the high school whereshe used to work.She’s donated to theblood bank, the humane society, her church

She said she gotaneducation in human nature she never wanted, one that’s lefther more skeptical of lawenforcement and government in general. Sheno longer reads“DNAevidence”or “confession”inanewsreportand thinks“end of story.

Somepeople,Brown knows, still think her husband hadsomething to do with what happened to ClaireHough on that August night in 1984. She’sstopped hoping for apologies or admissions of wrongdoing.

She also knows that actions can speak louder than words.

In the wake of the Kevin Browninvestigation, the police crime labchanged its procedures. Criminalists no longer use their ownsemen for testing. This installment is the last of the three-part series.

Editor’snote: This storywas compiledfromthousandsof pages of policereports, court filings,sworn depositions and trial transcripts. Unless otherwisenoted,the quotes used are from thoserecords john.wilkens@sduniontribune.com