A CKNOWLEGMENTS
From the moment a lightbulb flashes on above a nonfiction authors head with the nucleus of an idea for a new book, the project becomes a matter of teamwork. Each members contributions ultimately determine whether or not the idea will finally reach the hands and eyes of readers. Our championship team of regulars, draftees, and volunteers couldnt have been better.
Michaela Hamilton, editor in chief, not only opened the starting gate, but also gave us her usual warm and welcome advice.
Susan Crawford, literary agent, connected the logistical dots for us.
LAPD detectives Vicki Bynum, Wendi Berndt, and Tom Small were absolutely terrific in friendly discussions, giving us a guided tour through the iconic Hollywood Station, and coming through with inspiration.
Robin Henson, Peter Means, and Robins twin brother, Rick, generously spoke to us about their beloved Kristin, as did her best friend, Jennifer Gootsan. They also provided photographs we desperately needed. Robin and Rick faced another devastating loss on November 9, 2010, when their mother, Marie Dionne, passed away from natural causes at age sixty-one. She sat next to the author during the trial on the day before her sixtieth birthday and shared personal memories about her family.
Bobby Grace, the prosecutor, gave us insight into the legal process and delighted us with his story of the elephant eating his jacket.
Larry Young, Mahlers defense attorney, graciously chatted during breaks at the trial.
Stacy Tipton overcame her fearful reluctance to provide essential background information.
Armine Safarian and Lea Malit-Crisostomo, assistants for Bobby Grace, filled in important blanks.
Sherry Quenga, court reporter, worked overtime to provide essential trial transcripts.
We are also grateful to the most colorful cast of characters ever to populate a true-crime book. We have changed a few of their names to protect privacy.
Finally, a particularly inspirational woman deserves our heartfelt acknowledgment. In the words of Ron Bowers:
In this story of Kristin Baldwin and David Mahler, my wife, Rosemarie, proved to be incredibly valuable. I talked her into accompanying me to the desert where Kristins body was found. She is accustomed to such adventures, but would prefer to avoid trekking through murder scenes where rattlesnakes, lizards, spiders, and coyotes might be lurking. Courageously, she joined me to explore the site near Daggett, and came up with a startling theory. We wondered how Kristins body had wound up mostly under the low bridge. Rosie surveyed the scene, noticed the gradual slope downward, west to east, and suggested that the corpse had been dumped on the other side of the bridge. In her theory, a flash flood had moved the body to its discovered location. We are still debating it, but she deserves admiration for not only this input, but for her many years of support in dealing with horrific crimes.
POSTSCRIPT
In September 2011, an unexpected and explosive decision in the David Mahler case changed everything. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, issued an opinion that stated: We are compelled to reverse the murder conviction because the trial court improperly instructed the jury on felony murder.... The conviction is reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court.
When Ron Bowers and I heard this, we were amazed. It had been our impression that Mahler had missed the deadline for filing an appeal and that any legal maneuvering would occur sometime in the future. I contacted several members of Kristin Baldwins family, her friends, and other individuals involved in the story to ask about their reactions to the reversal.
Robin Henson, Kristins sister, choked back tears as she said, Im stunned and sick to my stomach. I just pray that justice will ultimately come about.
Peter Means, Kristins stepfather, stated, Im dumbfounded and shocked. I certainly hope a new trial takes place soon and that Kristins killer is kept behind bars.
Jennifer Gootsan, the close friend of both Kristin and Robin, couldnt believe it. Im sick, appalled, and disgusted. I cant believe so many tragic things can happen to Kristin and her loved ones. This just makes it worse.
Dreading the specter of a new trial, or the possibility of Mahler being released, Karl Norvik said simply, Here we go again.
The courts decision made no mention of David Mahlers guilt or innocence, nor did it deny that he had shot and killed Kristin Baldwin. Instead, the three justices focused on an obscure provision in the instruction defining second-degree murder that Judge David Wesley had read to the jury before deliberations began.
The instruction is intended to define felony murder and to inform jurors that the defendant can be found guilty even if there is no evidence of malice aforethought. It points out that when the killing is accompanied by the commission of a felonysuch as rape, kidnapping, robbery, or assault with a firearmthese facts can supplant the evidence of malice, allowing the jury to reach a verdict of guilt even if the killing appears to be unintentional.
As observers of Mahlers trial had seen, the evidence left no doubt that he had used a handgun, and that Kristin Baldwin had been killed. So it appeared that Mahlers waving the weapon around, and repeatedly pulling the trigger while pointing it at both Kristin and Donnie Van Develde, could be interpreted as felonious assault with a firearm. This would certainly appear to meet the definition of felony murder.
In a twenty-two-page explanation of the courts decision, Associate Justice Laurie D. Zelon disagreed. She referred to a 1969 decision by the California Supreme Court that stated: [When] the felony merged with the homicide [it] cannot be the basis for a felony murder instruction.
Trial judge Wesley, regarded as one of the finest legal minds in the Los Angeles County court system, was no doubt familiar with the California Supreme Court ruling. He may have considered Mahlers pointing the weapon at Donnie Van Develde, and pulling the trigger, as a separate assault, not merging with the crime against Kristin Baldwin. The appellate court, however, rejected that logic.
As an experienced prosecutor, Ron Bowers was perplexed by the reversal. He noted, Bobby Grace did not argue the issue or even mention it to the jury. The defense attorney neither discussed the rule in his arguments, nor lodged an objection to it being read to jurors.
Regardless of any controversy, David Mahlers conviction was overturned. Several legal experts suggested that the reversal was unwarranted since the appeals court could certainly have classified the questionable jury instruction as harmless error.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney, along with the Superior Court, faced several options, including releasing Mahler, offering a plea bargain that would reduce the sentence but still keep him in prison for several years, or initiating a new trial.
The long, complex process began on January 5, 2012, with a pre-trial court hearing, indicating the District Attorneys intention to once again prosecute David Mahler for murder. Everyone involved in the case dreaded the forthcoming ordeal of endless hearings, another bruising court battle, and the possibility that a new jury could make an inexplicable decision.