Date With the Devil

by Don Lasseter

  At Grace’s request, the witness pointed out David Mahler and stated they had been acquaintances for “roughly about a few years.”

  “Would that be more than two years?”

  “Yeah.”

  One of the prosecutor’s assistants, Armine Safarian, entered the courtroom at that moment, bringing some documents for Grace. Even if her high heels clicking on the hard floor hadn’t caught the attention of most men in the gallery, her exceptional beauty and figure would have. Nearly every day of the trial, she had been running errands for Grace. His assistant had recently graduated from law school and worked for the DA’s office in preparation for a bright future. Among the men who stared at her was the witness Michael Conoscenti.

  It would later be revealed that during the preceding break, Conoscenti had cornered Safarian in the hallway. Knowing that he would be the next witness, she maintained a courteous demeanor. He seemed somewhat flirtatious, and then he got to the point. “How would you like to be in a movie? I could arrange it.”

  Of course, Safarian knew exactly who this guy was, and what type of movie he meant. Her duties in helping the prosecution included advance work with witnesses. She had spoken to Conoscenti several times by phone, and had arranged his transportation to and from the court.

  Safarian smiled, maneuvered her way around him, and said she would not be interested.

  Directing attention to the screen on which a picture of Kristin Baldwin’s smiling face appeared, Bobby Grace asked if Michael Conoscenti had known her. “Yes,” he said. “It’s Kristi.” He acknowledged meeting her sometime in 2006 and guessed they had been friends for about a year.

  “At some point in time, did you introduce Kristi to the defendant, David Mahler?”

  “Yes.”

  “During that time frame, were you renting and using a property as a film place in Los Angeles?”

  “Yes, it was in the San Fernando Valley.”

  “Did you see the defendant during the last week of May 2007?”

  “I did, at my house in the valley.”

  “Did Mr. Mahler say anything to you about requesting your help, or if you knew anyone who could help him with a service?”

  “He asked me if I knew anybody that will do a disposal job.”

  “Was that on a day that you were filming?”

  “Actually an evening. He came a little bit after the filming was over, and everybody was running back and forth. I didn’t understand what he was talking about at first, and he wasn’t being very clear about it. Every time I asked him, he just ... he seemed like he was in a daze, you know. I never had seen him in that state. I was already upset with him because of something he did.”

  The gate-crashing incident to which Michael Conoscenti referred had no relevance in the trial, so Bobby Grace didn’t give the witness an opportunity to explain what he was upset about. Instead, he asked, “Are you sure those were the words he used?”

  “Yes, I am.”

  “After that date, did you become aware that he had been detained on these proceedings?”

  “Yes.”

  Grace turned Conoscenti over to the defense.

  In movie terms, Larry Young cut to the chase. “Did you sometimes use drugs with David Mahler?”

  A shadow crossed the witness’s face. He hesitated a moment and then said, “I’ve watched him use drugs.”

  “I don’t mean to embarrass you,” Young said apologetically.

  “No, that’s quite all right,” replied Michael Conoscenti.

  “What kind of drugs did you see him do?”

  “Cocaine, but mainly he consumed a lot of alcohol.”

  Once again steering arrow-straight toward the destination of showing his client’s possible incapacity to behave normally due to narcotics and booze, Young asked, “Have you seen him act in an unusual manner at all?”

  “Yes, I’ve seen him irate lots of times, just out of control, completely out of control.”

  This answer seemed tailor-made to observers. Some guessed that Larry Young had probably interviewed Conoscenti earlier, and knew exactly what he was likely to say. He asked, “Did he sometimes fly off the handle with no apparent reason?”

  “Yeah.”

  “Did he exhibit mood swings?”

  “Yeah, I’d say that would be a close enough description.”

  “Did his actions seem to be of an extreme nature?”

  “Uh-huh.”

  Usually, when witnesses use this colloquial affirmative expression, attorneys ask if they specifically mean “yes,” but Young seemed happy to accept it. He moved on. “Now, you were doing some filming at one of your residences?”

  “Yes.”

  “Was that when you were in the porno business?”

  Michael seemed to stiffen briefly. “Uh, yes. I’m in the adult-film industry.”

  Larry Young had meant no disrespect. “Well, I meant the adult—”

  The witness relaxed and said, “I’m actually in the entertainment business, which covers adult and—”

  Interrupting, Young inquired, “Are you an actor in the adult business, or are you a producer or director?”

  With a slight smirk, Michael replied, “All of the above.”

  The answer seemed to surprise Young. “Oh, you are an actor too?”

  “Uh-huh.”

  “What’s your stage name?”

  “It’s Damien Michaels.”

  Young’s cheeks appeared to be slightly more crimson. He commented, “Maybe the young people in my office have seen you.”

  Conoscenti frowned. “I’m sorry?”

  Leaping from the tangential digression, Young asked, “When Mr. Mahler flew off in an unusual manner, did he direct it at any person, or was it just in general?”

  “Well, it’s a pretty broad question. But it was just ... depending on the situation, he directed his anger at certain people, including myself.”

  “Have you seen that happen more than once?”

  “Yes, many times.”

  “Was it in connection with the drugs he was doing, or was it without drugs, if you know?”

  “Actually, I don’t think ... I mean, I’m sure drugs had something to do with it, but think it was ... I’ve seen him act like that with drugs or without drugs.”

  Grateful for the witness’s help in tilting the scales toward his theory, Young said he had no further questions.

  Bobby Grace wanted to rebalance the tilt. “Mr. Conoscenti, the times that you saw Mr. Mahler mad, was he mad because of a specific reason?”

  “I mean, you know, he was always like that with mood swings. It would be a specific reason or a reason he thought was important enough for him to get upset about. A lot of times, it wasn’t.”

  “So, would he get mad in a business context?”

  “Yeah.”

  “In those two years you knew him, did you see him use drugs during that entire period?”

  “Yes.” The answer might have been interpreted by jurors as confirmation of consistent erratic behavior for a long period of time. But Grace pulled an ace from his sleeve.

  “And was he still conducting business, whatever business he was involved in, during that entire time?”

  “Yes. Well, he said he did, but yes.”

  The implication was clear to spectators. If David Mahler had been using drugs for two years, and still carried out successful and profitable business transactions, his behavior could not have been as destructive as the defense wanted to portray.

  Larry Young leaped up to repair the damage. “Did you ever see him associate with a girl named Cheryl?” The witness said he had. “Were you aware that at some point, they broke up their association?”

  Michael said, “You know, she tried to do that quite often.”

  “Did you notice whether or not he used more drugs after that relationship ended?”

  “I couldn’t say for sure, you know. I know he was just using drugs on a constant basis. I don’t know if it was a little more or a little less
. I wasn’t constantly with him. I’m sorry.”

  Perhaps disappointed, Young could only ask what kinds of drugs he had observed Mahler using. The witness repeated that he had seen cocaine, but mostly alcohol and “some kind of pills.”

  “Do you know whether or not he was doing methamphetamine also?”

  “I mean, I’ve seen him doing it. I don’t know if it was his main drug. Like I said, the cocaine was constant, and the alcohol was constant.”

  “Thank you,” said Larry Young, with possibly feigned enthusiasm. Good lawyers know never to let the jury see them disappointed.

  Neither attorney had any more questions for the witness. Judge Wesley excused him.

  When Michael Conoscenti walked out of the courthouse on that warm afternoon of September 1, with smoke still soiling the sky from rampaging fires in hills, he had no idea that he would be dead within two months. On Tuesday, October 27, 2009, someone stabbed him to death in a motel on Ventura Boulevard in Woodland Hills. Investigators speculated that it had resulted from a drug deal gone bad. No one had been arrested for the murder as of August 2011.

  The trial resumed on the following day, Wednesday, September 2, but not until one forty-five in the afternoon. Other matters had occupied the judge and lawyers all morning.

  The first order of business involved a discussion between Judge David Wesley, Bobby Grace, and Larry Young, with the jury in their conference room. Wesley asked Grace if he still planned to pursue a verdict of first- or second-degree murder. The prosecutor affirmed those goals. Young stated that the evidence would certainly support nothing more than manslaughter, probably involuntary.

  Wesley said they would proceed. David Mahler interrupted, asking if he could say something. The judge allowed him to speak, and Mahler thanked him aloud for arranging the change of jail cells away from an inmate who had made threats.

  The first witness of the afternoon, Ralph Chung, a youthful-appearing man, told of his profession as an electrical contractor specializing in video equipment for both residences and businesses. He had installed eight security cameras at the home next door to Mahler’s Cole Crest house. At the occupant’s request in June 2007, Chung had transferred the hard drive’s content to a disc and given it to an officer from the LAPD. His testimony lasted only five minutes.

  A San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputy, Eric Morales, came next. He filled in a few more details about the body discovery, and also spoke no more than five minutes. During his brief testimony, a photograph of David Mahler showed on the big screen, with some printed information below it. Larry Young hastily scribbled notes on a yellow pad.

  At two o’clock, LAPD officer Bill Wilson, of the Hollywood Station, took the stand. He told jurors of being dispatched to a house on Cole Crest Drive at four o’clock in the morning. Along with other officers, he had entered the residence, invited in by a tenant named Jeremy Moudy. Wilson had glanced into the garage, illuminating it with his flashlight, and observed what appeared to be bloodstains. He had also noted additional spots on some stairs.

  Later he and another officer descended to another level in the house while conducting a “protective sweep.” Wilson said he noticed some movement behind material on an upper shelf inside Jeremy Moudy’s closet, and then he discovered David Mahler hiding up there. They took Mahler into custody and placed him in a patrol car.

  Wilson stepped down after fifteen minutes.

  The next witness would amaze everyone.

  CHAPTER 35

  “HE’S BEEN TRYING TO COVER UP THE CRIME”

  Detective Wendi Berndt replaced Bill Wilson in the hot seat, and turned out to be one of the most impressive witnesses ever seen by the jurors, spectators, and even lawyers.

  Professionally and attractively dressed in a black suit, with a white blouse, minimal makeup and jewelry, she looked as if she had been sent by filmdom’s Central Casting.

  Answering Bobby Grace’s first question, Berndt said, “I’m a police officer for the Los Angeles Police Department. I’m a detective supervisor with the rank of D3, assigned to the Hollywood Homicide Unit.” Her excellent voice and crisp delivery further solidified the image of a star doing an important movie role. Berndt informed jurors that she had been with the LAPD almost twenty-eight years.

  On June 1, 2007, she had arrived at the Cole Crest house soon after the discovery of Mahler’s hiding place. “My job is to make sure that I have the resources necessary to process the crime scene. In this case, it was a very large residence with multifloors. First I made sure that we thoroughly searched it and collected evidence. I directed specialized people we asked to come assist us. We asked for criminalists because any time we have such an involved crime scene, we need their meticulous skills. They really are most important at that point in the investigation.”

  Responding to Grace’s inquiries, Berndt said, “We had our photographers come to make pictorial records of evidence collected. In this case, I also requested a cadaver dog to go through the residence to see if any human remains had been concealed in there.” Three teams of detectives, she recalled, had been assigned to search every inch of seven levels.

  Grace asked, “When you did your walk-through of the residence, can you give us the highlights of what you observed?”

  “When I first arrived, I noticed that you step down a walkway that leads to the front door, and from there I could see two vehicles parked in the garage. One of our officers, Bill Wilson, had seen what turned out to be spots of blood in front of the black Jaguar and more stains on the back of the car. Once you enter into the residence, and go down a few steps into the living room, we could see a blood smear near the bathroom going in almost a semicircle onto the carpet. Down those stairs, which lead to Mahler’s bedroom, we saw what appeared to be more blood on the steps.”

  As Berndt spoke, Grace used a laser pointer to indicate, on projected color photos, the bloodstains to which the detective referred. Next he advanced the sequence of pictures to one of the garage interior where two Jaguars were parked. Berndt explained exactly where each trace of blood had been collected by criminalists.

  Showing another photo, this one of Mahler’s bedroom, Grace asked Berndt to explain. She said, “When we stepped into the bedroom, we saw a large spot on the red carpet that looked darker. Closer examination revealed that it was probably blood near the fireplace. We also noticed containers of cleaning fluids on the fireplace mantel and a plastic bag containing more cleaning materials. There was a robe hanging in the hallway, near the bathroom, and we found a bloodstain on it. On the sink in the bathroom, I recall seeing scrubbing sponges with red fibers stuck to them. It was our opinion that Mahler had used them in attempts to clean the carpet.”

  More photos showed the bedroom interior and a closet. Berndt said, “We found a holster concealed in a boot inside that closet. Regarding the bloodstains in that room, I was with the criminalist when we lifted the entire carpet to check underneath to see if blood had soaked through. It was apparent that some efforts had been made to eradicate the blood spots. Pulling up the carpet enabled us to see what had been impossible to wipe away with cleaning fluids and sponges.”

  Numbered placards could be seen at various spots on the carpet, and Grace asked Berndt to comment on them. “Those are placed by our Scientific Investigation Division people. When they collect evidence, they have to mark it. The numbers correlate with property reports of collected evidence and itemized explanations on police reports.”

  After a few more questions and answers in which Berndt identified the various brand names of cleaning products found in the house, Grace turned her over to the defense for cross-examination. Wendi Berndt knew exactly how to respond.

  Larry Young asked, “In the exhibit on the screen, you have red dots showing what appears to be like a pathway of blood droppings on those stairs?”

  Wendi Berndt answered, “The blood I saw on the stairs went from the living room down to the level where the office is and then down the stairs to Mr. Mahler’s bedroom.
” Using the laser pointer, she said, “If you go up to the living room, the garage would be around the corner and down a hallway to a door that leads into the garage.”

  “Were you able to form an opinion if there had been a body in the bedroom, how it was removed from the house, based on what you saw?”

  “It’s my opinion that the body was dragged out of the bedroom, feetfirst, up the stairs to the landing where the office is, and then up the stairs to [the] living-room area, up another short flight of stairs into the hallway and the front door. There is a smear near the bathroom, so it appears that the body was apparently in the bathroom area at some point, but I cannot explain why.”

  “And is it correct, from all that you’ve seen, you could form an opinion that there’s no way this was a careful, planned event that took place that night?”

  Berndt raised her eyebrows, wrinkling her forehead. “I don’t think I can make that opinion.”

  Undiscouraged, Young asked, “It certainly wasn’t a careful, planned removal, was it?”

  “Well, again, I don’t think I could make that opinion because people make mistakes. And it’s good for us, as detectives, when they do make mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I would necessarily say that it’s planned or unplanned.”

  “Does the mere fact that cleaning equipment is in a large house mean any inference can be drawn?”

  With a little smile teasing the corners of her mouth, Berndt replied, “Well, yeah, it tells me he’s been trying to cover up the crime.”