Lead detective in Maya Millete's disappearance testifies in Larry's murder trial
The lead detective who investigated the disappearance of Maya Millete took the stand on Monday, the eighth day of the murder trial of her husband, Larry. He has always proclaimed his innocence in the case; her body has never been found.
In 2021, Jesse Vicente was the primary investigator assigned to the case, his first homicide. After an 18-year career with the Chula Vista Police Department, Vicente now works directly for the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office as an investigator.
Millete murder trial coverage
Much of Monday morning’s testimony focused on surveillance video that investigators obtained from neighbors of the Milletes’ home in the San Miguel Ranch neighborhood. Most lived on that same Paseo Los Gatos street.
Vicente testified that the video helped investigators piece together a timeline of the last time Maya was seen alive on Jan. 7, 2021, as well as Larry’s actions the following day.
Video from the afternoon of Jan. 7 shows Maya leaving the home with her children to take her Jeep to a car wash. She was also recorded returning to the neighborhood a little before 5 p.m. that day and was seen re-entering the home.
Vicente said no video camera in the neighborhood recorded Maya leaving her home that night, nor the next morning. However, Vicente said, a camera did record Larry that next day.
Jurors watched a video of the Millete family’s black Lexus SUV being repositioned just before 6 a.m. on Jan. 8. The vehicle is seen pulling forward into the street and then backing up to the home’s garage.
Roughly 45 minutes later, the SUV was recorded leaving the neighborhood. Vicente said the next time cameras recorded it back in the neighborhood was when it returned about 12 hours later.
Larry’s whereabouts on Jan. 8 have long been a key point of contention in this case. Larry has maintained that he took his son to the beach that day. Investigators say they’ve never been able to confirm that.
Defense attorney Marc Carlos told NBC 7 that the video timeline of Larry’s whereabouts is a major piece of evidence for the prosecution.
“They’re basically establishing opportunity — opportunity for him to commit the crime,” Carlos said. “Although a defendant doesn’t have to take the stand and testify, what they do when they present this type of testimony, this type of evidence, puts the defendant in the position of having to explain something.”
Evidence that has been previously presented includes details that Larry’s phone was turned off during the span of time he was gone. His vehicle’s navigation system also didn’t record GPS coordinates.
But, Carlos said, the evidence being presented is still circumstantial.
“It’s like, ‘So what? Did you see a body anywhere?’ ” Carlos said “Was there any indication that he put a body into the vehicle? Did they follow, did they chart the vehicle driving anywhere? He basically did things that a lot of people do with their cars at night. So the prosecution, although it looks good for them, it’s an uphill battle for them establishing that this is, in fact, circumstantial evidence intending to show that he actually committed this crime.”
Loud bangs and visitors
Jurors on Monday were also played surveillance video from a neighbor’s home that was recorded in the evening of Jan. 7, 2021. Around 8:45 p.m., a single loud bang is heard.
Then just before 10 p.m., a series of eight more loud bangs were recorded. Vicente testified that investigators were never able to identify what those were. And during cross-examination, the investigator confirmed that the FBI were also called in to review the noises but couldn’t say what they were.
According to court documents, Larry owned nearly two dozen firearms, including several illegal guns that did not have serial numbers.
During testimony, Vicente revealed one piece of new information: The Millete home had a visitor in the evening of Jan. 7, 2021, a tutor of one of the Millete children was there between 5:12 p.m. and 6:15 p.m.
It’s unclear if that person will be called to testify about potentially having seen Maya that evening. Attorneys for both the prosecution and defense have declined to release a full list of witnesses to the media.
Defense attorney targets Maya’s lover during cross-examination
It wasn’t video evidence at the forefront of the conversation when defense attorney Liann Sabatini began her cross-examination of Vicente, though. Instead, she began heavily focusing on his experience and training as an investigator in an apparent attempt to show he may have had blinders on during the investigation.
A narrative the defense wants to get in front of the jury relates to how much time and effort investigators put into looking at Maya’s lover, Jamey Laird, as a potential suspect. Testimony so far revealed that Maya was having an affair with a subordinate co-worker named Jamey.
Before the trial even began, Judge Enrique Camarena made it clear that the defense wouldn’t be allowed to imply to the jury that Laird potentially had something to do with Maya’s disappearance. The judge said third-party culpability — essentially, accusing another person of the crime — wasn’t an option for the defense.
During a tense discussion outside the presence of the jury, Sabatini said she should have the right to question Vicente about how hard investigators looked at Laird. That includes vetting his alibi or other information he gave the police.
The judge said that line of questioning was off-limits. When Sabatini began questioning Vicente to that effect, it resulted in three rapid-fire objections from Deputy District Attorney Christy Bowles.
All three objections were sustained by the judge, and Sabatini moved on to another line of questioning after requesting a 20-minute sidebar. Vicente’s time on the witness stand will continue Tuesday morning.
