Closing Remarks in Tuffree Case Echo Those of Teacher’s 1st Trial

Leaning on the railing of an empty jury box, prosecutor Peter D. Kossoris began his closing argument Wednesday in the retrial of Daniel Allan Tuffree by warning a Ventura County judge that his summation would sound familiar.

“I know the court has heard a lot of this before,” Kossoris said, grinning at Superior Court Judge Allan L. Steele. “But the evidence is what it is.”

Tuffree, 49, is accused of intentionally killing Simi Valley Police Officer Michael Clark during an Aug. 4, 1995, gunfight with police.

Prosecutors failed to win a first-degree murder conviction in October when a jury deadlocked 9 votes to 3, forcing Steele to declare a mistrial.

Although Tuffree was convicted on lesser charges of attempted murder for shooting at another officer, the district attorney’s office decided to retry the former schoolteacher for murder in Clark’s slaying.

Tuffree opted for a nonjury trial in December when prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty, as they had during the first set of proceedings.

The second trial started Jan. 7 and neared conclusion Wednesday as prosecutors and defense attorneys made their final arguments. The lawyers plan to make rebuttal statements this morning.

Using a chart adapted from the first trial, Kossoris started Wednesday’s proceedings by touching on key pieces of evidence that he described as “extremely damning” to Tuffree’s defense.

He said Tuffree hated police because of a prior run-in with authorities in 1992 when they confiscated his Glock pistol, which was later returned.

Angered by what he perceived as continued harassment when he saw police officers entering his backyard Aug. 4, 1995, Kossoris said, Tuffree retrieved the gun loaded with bullets designed to inflict fatal injuries and shot Clark.

“We have extremely strong evidence all of which shows intent, deliberation and premeditation,” Kossoris argued.

Authorities were sent to Tuffree’s house after reports that the Van Nuys high school teacher had been drinking alcohol, taking Valium and had stopped answering his phone.

Clark was shot through Tuffree’s kitchen window after a brief conversation with him in which he asked Tuffree to step outside.

In his closing remarks, Kossoris also pointed to an admission Tuffree made during a taped interview after the shooting in which he said the confrontation turned out almost exactly as he thought it would.

“Short of a confession,” Kossoris told Steele. “It is hard to think of anything more devastating, more incriminating.”

Kossoris asked the judge to find Tuffree guilty of first-degree murder, which mandates a life prison sentence without the possibility of parole.

But in his closing remarks, Deputy Public Defender Howard Asher urged Steele to rule in favor of a lesser verdict of voluntary manslaughter.

He argued that Tuffree was unable to premeditate the shooting because he had been drinking alcohol and taking anti-depressants all day.

“I think we have significant evidence that Mr. Tuffree was intoxicated,” he said.

He described the shooting as an “impulsive act born out of poor judgment and intoxication,” and repeated a theme from the first trial: that Tuffree shot only after being fired upon by the police officer.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys sparred repeatedly over circumstantial evidence in the case that they say suggests who shot whom and when.

Defense attorneys say splintered glass in the kitchen window and trace amounts of metal on a bullet pulled from Clark’s arm suggest he started the shooting.

In an unusual role reversal, prosecutors suggested that the evidence has been tampered with and is unreliable. They maintain that Tuffree fired at Clark when it became clear the officer was not going to leave.

Both sides attacked the testimony of criminalists called to testify during the retrial, and attempted to sway the judge’s ruling using a medley of charts, graphs and bulky exhibits.

During the daylong summation, Tuffree, clad in his blue jail uniform, sat silently at the defense table with a thin stack of papers in his lap.

On the opposite side of the courtroom, about a dozen members of Clark’s family, including his parents and widow, Jenifer, listened to the closing statements from the same seats they occupied during the first trial.

Just before Steele entered the courtroom Wednesday morning, Kossoris welcomed Simi Valley Police Chief Randy Adams with a handshake and like his admission to the judge warned: “This is all going to sound familiar.”