Both sides discussed motions and set a new schedule Thursday in a hearing for the man charged with the murder of Deputy Ryan Clinkunbroomer, a Santa Clarita Valley man killed in the line of duty in a September 2023 attack.
Kevin Eduardo Cataneo Salazar, 30, is accused in the Sept. 16, 2023, shooting of Clinkunbroomer, an eight-year veteran working at the Palmdale Sheriff’s Station in what the Sheriff’s Department described as an “unprovoked ambush” at the intersection of Sierra Highway and Avenue Q.
Salazar has pleaded not guilty, and his defense attorney George Rosenstock has already tried to raise the question as to whether his client can obtain a fair trial at the L.A. County Superior Court in Lancaster, due to the press coverage and “the nature of the charges,” according to the minute order from last week’s hearing.
Judge Scott Yang continued the trial to Aug. 25 after hearing both sides, but he had a question for the defense regarding the announcement of its “exploring a motion to change venue.”
Deputy District Attorney Michael Blake, who was specially assigned to the murder case, said both sides anticipated a trial to start in November, which Yang agreed to per the minute order. Blake is a veteran prosecutor who has handled a number of high-profile cases, including crimes against officers and murder.
Both sides said they are still working on preparation for their case, with the prosecution stating there were “reconstruction-type efforts” still under way in terms of having an expert analyze the evidence, based on the hearing record. Yang also said Thursday he had questions about a May motion by Rosenstock regarding his venue questions.
“The question I have is that, generally, the court is more than willing to appoint whichever expert that the defense would need to prepare their defense,” Yang said, according to the hearing transcript. “The issue that I have is that you’re asking the court to expense a good sum amount of money for what I understand is a media expert to provide the defense with information that would be the basis for a change of venue.”
Yang had to question the “utility” of the request, he said.
“Because we obviously know this is a high-profile case. It did receive not only regional attention, but also I would say, in the early days of this case, it received some national attention,” Yang said.
So, what would the money provide that the court doesn’t already know, Yang asked.
Rosenstock said such a request is “customarily supported” because he wouldn’t expect Yang to rule on “general impression,” adding his expert goes through every newspaper clipping and streaming news service. And there was another benefit for the defense.
“I would hope the judiciary would be much more comfortable having the specifics in front of it as to just what was the media exposure within the jury pool,” Rosenstock said, in the minute order.
Blake replied that “none of this will matter unless and until we have a panel and jurors are asked specifically and individually whether any of this would influence them.”
Blake also said the community interest and court rules favor “leaving a case like this here to be heard in the community where it happened. The aforementioned “pervasiveness” of coverage could pose a challenge in another part of the county as well, he added.
Yang said he would not rule on the motion until both sides prepared briefs, but he asked if, in the interest of being a good steward of taxpayer money, the amount requested could be reduced from 30 hours to 15 hours, with the billed rate at $475 per hour.
Rosenstock also sought to have evidence returned; however, Blake stated that in such complicated matters, the investigation continues up until the end of the proceedings, to which Yang agreed.
