Lawyers for Tuffree Say Simi Officer Fired First

Daniel Allan Tuffree shot and killed Simi Valley Police Officer Michael Clark on a hot August afternoon in 1995.

Even his attorneys agree to that much.

But as Tuffree’s retrial on murder charges got underway Tuesday, defense attorneys argued that Tuffree did not intend to kill the 28-year-old Clark.

They said Clark fired first, and Tuffree, a 49-year-old former Chatsworth schoolteacher, shot back in self-defense.

He might have been wrong in shooting at a police officer, but Tuffree is not guilty of murder in the first degree, Deputy Public Defender Robert Willey said in his opening statement.

“Officer Clark fired first,” Willey said, adding that Clark fired because Tuffree was armed and appeared to be making a threatening move. “[Clark] was reasonable in doing so, but he fired first.”

Tuffree faced a possible death sentence in his first trial, which ended in October after a jury deadlocked 9 to 3 in favor of conviction, forcing Superior Court Judge Allen L. Steele to declare a mistrial.

The jury convicted Tuffree on two lesser charges of armed assault and attempted murder for firing at another officer during the shooting.

Tuffree will not be sentenced on those charges until the retrial is completed.

In early December, prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty in Tuffree’s retrial.

In exchange, defense attorneys agreed to waive a jury trial and let Steele decide whether Tuffree is guilty of murder in the first or second degree or guilty of manslaughter.

*

Tuffree’s previous trial took six weeks and filled more than 7,000 pages of transcripts, but prosecutors and defense attorneys expect the retrial to take only a fraction of that time.

As during the previous trial, Clark’s family was at Tuesday’s proceeding and plans to attend the rest of the retrial.

Tuesday, prosecutors argued that Tuffree was clearly guilty of first-degree murder.

They say Tuffree--motivated by his hatred of police and his fear that officers would again take away his cherished Glock semiautomatic handgun--intended to kill Clark that Friday afternoon.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Peter Kossoris argued that when Clark and two other officers came to Tuffree’s house to check on his welfare, the first thing Tuffree did was get his gun.

“We’re not saying that he planned this a day in advance or hours in advance, but the law does not require that to show premeditation,” Kossoris said in his opening statement.

Clark was struck twice, once in the elbow and once in the upper back.

Kossoris said that Tuffree’s behavior before the shooting and his statement to investigators and police officers after the shooting showed that he was upset about perceived police harassment.

*

After Tuesday’s opening statement, the prosecution called its first witness, Officer Michael Pierce, who was one of two officers with Clark that afternoon.

Pierce recounted the events that led up to the shooting, describing Tuffree’s speech as slurred and angry.

He said Clark, who was on the back patio of Tuffree’s home, spoke with calm authority, telling Tuffree that the officers just wanted to talk to him.

At some point, Pierce heard Clark say, “Let me see your hands,” and then heard Clark say, “He’s got a gun.”

Soon after, Pierce heard four muffled pops of gunfire and saw Clark fall, mortally wounded.

In cross-examination by Deputy Public Defender Richard Holly, Pierce said he could not say who fired first.

The retrial is set to resume Monday.