Larry Millete's attorneys battle to question investigators about Maya's alleged lover

The ninth day of Larry Millete’s murder trial started with fireworks outside the presence of the jury, with testy exchanges between attorneys on both sides as well as between the judge and one of the defense attorneys. The heart of the rapid-fire 45-minute argument: whether the defense should be allowed to question investigators about what they did or didn’t do regarding the man Maya reportedly had an affair with, Jamey Laird.

Larry Millete is on trial, accused of murdering Maya and hiding her body. He’s maintained his innocence, and her body has never been found.

Before the trial began, Judge Enrique Camarena ruled that third-party culpability would not be allowed. Essentially, defense attorneys wouldn’t be allowed to even suggest that another person was responsible for Maya’s disappearance or death.

However, defense attorneys Liann Sabatini and Colby Ryan believe they should have a right to ask investigators if they fully looked into Laird’s alibi over the time period that Maya was last seen alive. The defense has been pushing a narrative that investigators had their blinders on and only pursued evidence that could connect Larry Millete to the case.

That played out on Monday when former Chula Vista Police Department Detective Jesse Vicente was on the stand. Three of Sabatini’s questions were tossed out after objections during cross-examinations.

Tuesday morning’s sidebar discussion had Deputy District Attorney Christy Bowles raising her voice at times, saying that investigators had fully done their job looking into Laird. 

“So the defense pulling that thread is to say police didn’t investigate someone responsible for the crime,” Bowles exclaimed. “We have a whole argument and the court ruling…and we keep rehashing the same argument! It’s frustrating!”

The defense asked the judge to draft a special limiting instruction for jurors that they should only be allowed to consider evidence for the purpose of impeaching the investigation, and not to consider anyone else as a potential suspect.

“Nothing we are doing is related to third-party culpability,” Sabatini said. “This is about the impeachment of the investigation. Yes, it involves Jamey Laird. That’s why we want a limiting instruction. The whole purpose is to adhere to the court’s ruling, while maintaining our legal and ethical obligations are kept in regards to Mr. Millete. It’s about how investigations are conducted.

The jury should be allowed to scrutinize that.”

The judge said he’d never heard of any other ruling like that, but said he would look into it and speak with court research attorneys. But for the time being, he said he would rule on individual objections as questions are asked.

He also told Sabatini he didn’t appreciate the way she was looking at him and that it felt like finger-pointing. She said that wasn’t the case; she only wanted to be able to impeach the investigation.

At the end, both sides agreed that Vicente would be subject to being recalled to the stand at a later date to potentially be questioned about the issue that was so hotly debated this morning. 

California is among 45 other states that require approval from judges before a trial to use third party culpability as a defense. Attorney Eugene Iredale believes that requirement is unconstitutional. He told NBC 7 he believes it’s immoral and unfair – especially in murder trial like this one – where police don’t have a body, don’t have a crime scene, and don’t have any direct evidence. 

“But the defendant should have the right, in such an important case, with so much at stake, to be able to bring up all the relevant evidence and to let the jury decide who committed the crime; not to be handcuffed when he is brought into court, and then handcuffed in the presentation of his defense,” Iredale said.

During a previous sidebar conversation, prosecutors revealed that Laird and his wife are on the list of potential witnesses that could be called.

Witness testimony begins

Vicente, who now works as an investigator for the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, returned to the stand afterward, and Sabatini finished cross-examining him. She didn’t touch questions about Laird, but did get Vicente to acknowledge inconsistencies about what two of Maya’s siblings testified about.

That includes the fact that Jay-R Tabalanza never mentioned to Vicente during a police interview that he said Larry told him he “would get that guy” during a previous family outing. Family members testified they believed that meant Larry wanted to kill Laird.

Similarly, Vicente acknowledged that Maricris Drouaillet told him during a police station interview that Larry was trying to do everything he could to save the marriage, including giving in to whatever Maya wanted. Previously, Drouaillet testified that she didn’t remember telling Vicente that, even after defense attorneys showed her a written transcript of Vicente’s police interview notes.

Sabatini also questioned Vicente about Larry’s cooperation with the investigation. That included his consent to search the home and his vehicles, providing digital devices to investigators, and even allowing them to photograph his body.

The defense showed the jury photos of Larry undressing for detectives four days after Maya was last seen alive, showing that he had no visible injuries anywhere on his body. Vicente acknowledged that Larry even voluntarily took off all his clothes.

Police body camera video of that was also shown, with Larry covering up his private parts with the shirt he’d taken off. Several members of the jury appeared to look uncomfortable at the display.

After Vicente was excused, the prosecution called its next witness. Neighbor Heather Toudle testified about the video evidence her home’s surveillance cameras recorded on January 7, 2021, the night Maya disappeared from her San Miguel Ranch neighborhood.

Toudle testified about the loud bangs that were heard that night; bangs that investigators have never been able to identify as gunshots. Toudle said she never heard the sounds that night, only when she reviewed the video after Maya disappeared.

“There were very loud bangs that took my breath away,” Toudle said.

She said she does remember hearing her dogs barking, which was odd for that time of night. The same is true for more sounds that were recorded a half hour later, which she said were children playing in the Millete backyard.

Toudle told the jury that was also unusual to her, because it was late on a very chilly January school night.

Digital evidence and testimony fill the remainder of the day

Just before the lunch recess, San Diego County District Attorney investigator Cameron Laudermilk took the stand. Without objection from the defense, Bowles had the court regard him as an expert in digital forensics.

Laudermilk testified that he was tasked with going through a MacBook seized from the Millete home. He said he discovered that emails were likely deleted from the laptop just minutes after other detectives had met with Larry on January 13, when they seized his cell phone.

“My opinion is that the user that he’s more likely than not, potentially deleting email,” Laudermilk said.

Next, the prosecution called Jacqueline Barajas, a digital forensics analyst with the Chula Vista Police Department. Her time on the stand was brief, where she quickly revealed that she was the person who extracted the data from Larry’s iPhone in 2021 and then ran it through a program to make it readable by a human being.

Finally, Bowles called Peter Villaver to the stand. He works as a crime analysis administrator for the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office. He spent the remainder of the day testifying as an expert about the Milletes’ cell phone usage.

Through maps and charts, Bowles walked Villaver through explanations of how cell towers and cell sites work to connect to phones. While investigators can’t pinpoint exactly where a cell phone user is located, they do know which of these sites were used to connect to phones.

Villaver testified that this happens during phone calls and when certain kinds of internet usage require location services. Maps were shown of cell site activations, which effectively could track where Maya’s phone was located at the end of 2020.

That included a family trip to Orange County over Christmas, a longer stint near her Chula Vista home, and then the trip to Glamis to ring in the new year. Time was called for the day before testimony could delve into where Maya’s phone was on the evening of January 7, 2021, the night she disappeared.