By Gustavo Arellano
By R. Scott Moxley
By Alfonso Delgado
By Courtney Hamilton
By Joel Beers
By Peter Maguire
By Charles Lam
By Charles Lam
According to Derby, I am making "an assumption" that Marino's $35,000 fee was just for work on the two Jessee trials. But my "assumption" isn't an assumption; it is based on Marino's unambiguous testimony. The prosecutor asked this witness multiple times if the fee applied just to this case, and she answered affirmatively.
To clear up any possible confusion, I asked Derby to reveal details of Marino's bills, her hourly rate and the terms of her contract. She declined. "The payment records are privileged," Derby said.
Translation: In her view, the public doesn't have a right to inspect these government-spending records.
I have no evidence that Derby is anything but an honest public servant. However, in a county with continual spending debacles, her anti-disclosure stance fuels suspicions of mismanagement or worse. Given the sensational size of the fee—an entire annual salary for some county workers—the public deserves to know the now-mysterious facts.
What's clear at this point is that, at least in the Jessee murder, you can make substantially more from a homicide as an accountant holding a calculator than an assassin armed with a blood-drenched hunting knife.
Note: This column was written as the lawyers made their closing arguments in the trial. For up-to-date coverage, visit our Navel Gazing blog.
This column ran in print as "Killer Fee: The odd case of an accountant who made a killing in an OC murder trial."