Motions in Limine in the long-awaited murder trial of Larry Millete began early on the morning of April 27, 2026 before San Diego Superior Court Judge Enrique Camarena. Motions in Limine are pre-trial motions by the prosecution and defense, requesting the Court to include, exclude or limit evidence. The judge will ultimately determine what evidence will be admitted into the trial. These are critical rulings in any murder trial, but even more so since this is a “no body case.” Here the prosecution must prove that Maya Millete is dead and that Larry is the one who killed her.
Maya Millete, only 39 years old and the mother of three children, disappeared from her Chula Vista home on January 7, 2021, and she remains missing to this day. The investigation revealed Maya wanted a divorce, but her husband, Larry, did not want to let her go. Did he kill her in response? A jury will soon determine that question.
Motions in Limine are often vigorously contested and, in this case, the proceedings lasted more than four days. Deputy District Attorney Christy Bowles led the prosecution, while Liann Sabatini and Colby Ryan represented the defense. Due to the lengthy proceedings, I cannot cover every decision, but here are the key rulings:
Judge Camarena Grants the Defense Request to Ban Cameras in the Courtroom
The hearing commenced with the defense objecting to cameras in the courtroom and broadcasting of the trial live, arguing that Larry Millete could not receive a fair trial with the extensive media coverage. I had heard this argument numerous times before in this case whenever there was a request to record, and I just expected Judge Camarena, who had always allowed cameras in the past, to quickly overrule the objection. But this time, Judge Camarena was about to render a big blow to the waiting media. He first stated under case law the media has the right to attend the trial, but not a constitutional right to record. He then ruled that recording and photography would not be permitted, shocking everyone. He said the media and public could be physically present only. I sat up in my chair unsure of what I had just heard. This was blockbuster news!
Judge Camarena went on to explain the basis for his ruling. He said recording may expose the jurors to harassment. He did not want them to feel intimidated to decide a certain way or later harassed because of their verdict. He cited the necessity of protecting the impartiality of the jury, stating jurors must be able to deliberate freely without fear, worry, or scrutiny. He emphasized this is “a solemn search for the truth” and the jurors must not be worried about the court of public opinion. After this ruling, all the cameramen with their large broadcasting cameras got up and left the courtroom. The remaining reporters and media were left sitting there with stunned looks on their faces. Three years before, the preliminary hearing had been livestreamed, providing instant access to everyone. Now what would they do?
Judge Camarena Addressed the Defense Request to Continue
Before the hearing went much further, Judge Camarena stated the defense had requested a continuance of the trial, which he had already denied. In their motion, the defense informed the Court their forensic expert had not gone through all the digital evidence and needed additional time. In response, the Court had granted funding, but the expert had only gone through 30%. After the denial, the defense filed a Writ, which Sabatini said was still pending. Sabatini further stated there were “major errors” in the system utilized and the defense needed the raw data.
Judge Camarena now ruled that if the expert found something, the defense could raise it at jury selection on May 11th. He noted the defense has had the case for over two years and nothing exculpatory has been found so far by the expert.
Defendant’s Statements
The prosecution sought to exclude statements made by Larry Millete that the defense may seek to introduce (the list was included in their motion). Sabatini contended that these statements demonstrated Larry’s cooperation and raised reasonable doubt as they show the investigation was unfair and a rush to judgment.
Judge Camarena stated the general rule is that the defense does not get to introduce the defendant’s statements. He ruled that they are excluded. He said the defense can add context when the investigators are on the stand and will address that in a sidebar conference during the trial.
Maya’s Journals and Letter to Daughters that Larry is Capable of Hurting Her
The prosecution wanted to enter Maya’s journal from 2002. Sabatini asked the Court to inquire as to the trustworthiness of this writing. She further objected, arguing the journal is 80 pages long, old, stale, and cumulative. She said the prosecution is trying to paint a picture of a woman victimized for years, but it really was not until 2020 that Maya began a campaign to get people on her side for the divorce.
Judge Camarena ruled that the journal is not being admitted for the truth (which is hearsay), but for Maya’s state of mind under Evidence Code Section 1250, which is an exception to the hearsay rule. He cited the California Supreme Court case, People v. Hobson.
Sabatini then argued that the jury will misuse the information and use it for the truth. There is no testing of the material, she stated. Judge Camarena responded People v. Hobson held that one cannot attack credibility because the statement is being used for a non-hearsay purpose. He emphasized it was the California Supreme Court who said you can’t attack the credibility of the declarant. That is the law. But he did acknowledge the defense had a point on relevance and on the journal being too remote.
Bowles then argued the journal showed Maya’s struggle to divorce and the years of mental struggle and abuse. In 2020, Maya started to break out. In her journal she wrote Larry hurt her before and she even wrote a letter to her daughters when they were babies that Larry is capable of hurting her. Sabatini said all this is hearsay.
Judge Camarena agreed with the defense that the 2002 journal was too remote and stated it was prejudicial. He said under an Evidence Code Section 352 analysis, the 2011 and 2012 journals would probably also be too remote, but the defendant made statements acknowledging the writings as true, which cuts down the remoteness. Larry had taken Maya’s journal and read it. He then sent her text messages about it, one stating that he would never make her feel that way again. Judge Camarena asked the defense, “You’re not acknowledging any domestic violence?” Sabatini responded, “Why do I have to answer that right now?”
Judge Camarena ruled he would permit the 2011 and 2012 journals and defendant’s texts admitting what happened. Maya’s letter to her daughters was excluded as the probative value outweighs the prejudicial value under Evidence Code Section 352.
Maya’s Statements to Her Friend Jasmine
The prosecution sought to admit statements Maya made to her friend, Jasmine, including: “Larry was spiraling out of control because of a made-up affair;” “If anything happens to me, it’s Larry;” and that Larry told her if she ever left him, no one would be able to find her.
Sabatini argued Maya’s statements are not reliable, as she is saying them with self-interest in mind. She’s not telling the truth. She was having an affair and here Larry was just trying to figure out what was going on.
Judge Camarena said statements like this carry great probative value and the probative value outweighs prejudice. The statements come in as state of mind. They do not come in as truth, but that Maya was in a state of fear and that she was trying to end her marriage.
Maya’s Statement To Friends: He Choked Me Until I Passed Out
Maya told two friends that Larry choked her until she passed out. Sabatini argued to exclude this statement as Maya downplayed it and was smiling when she said this. “She was not afraid,” Sabatini insisted.
Judge Camarena agreed with Sabatini, stating the witnesses were not clear that she was in fear. He found it does not fall within Evidence Code Section 1250 state of mind. He said there was a greater chance of prejudice, so it is also excluded under Evidence Code Section 352.
Maya’s Messages to Courtney Nixon About her Marriage and Divorce
The prosecution wanted to admit text messages between Maya and her friend, Courtney, from February 12 and 13, 2020 and June 3, 2020. Reviewing the messages, Judge Camarena asked Bowles what Maya’s state of mind was. Bowles responded, Maya felt guilty, anger at Larry, and was worried about how a divorce would affect the three children.
Judge Camarena said Maya was struggling because of her concern for the children, and the messages show she values them and is trying to protect them. The evidence comes in for state of mind.
Maya Told Kristeen She Locked Herself in a Back Room and Larry Drilled In
Judge Camarena allows the evidence in.
Maya’s Concerns About Being Monitored by Larry
Larry was monitoring Maya’s social media accounts, viewing messages, and unfriending people on Facebook. Sabatini argued Larry was trying to find out about the affair, not that he’s a controlling person who won’t leave Maya alone. Sabatini said, Maya is not telling the whole story to her friends. “This is 1109 evidence in 1250 clothing.” (Evidence Code Section 1109, allows the district attorney to introduce evidence of past domestic violence to show propensity. Evidence Code Section 1260 is state of mind).
Judge Camarena agreed it does go into propensity under Evidence Code Section 1109, but he allowed pages 12-16 regarding Maya’s concerns over being watched. He said this is circumstantial evidence of the defendant exerting control over Maya.
Larry Hitting the Door
Maya was on the phone with Kristeen while Larry was hitting the door. Afterward, Maya sent a photo of the door to Kristeen.
Judge Camarena says this gets into hearsay, as it is being offered for the truth. What happened to the door all comes from Maya. The photo is excluded.
Introducing Photos of Maya and Her Family
Maya’s sister, Maricris, will testify at the trial and the prosecution wanted to introduce photos of Maya and the family during Maricris’ testimony. The photos included taking the children on a trip to Europe, the Rose Parade, Glamis, and other events. Sabatini said we don’t need a slew of family photos as the witnesses can just testify about the event. The photos are more prejudicial than probative, she argued. She continued, the defense is not contesting Maya loved her family and was close to her family. Then Sabatini gave a glimpse into their defense: The defense theory is not that she walked away from her life but that someone took her, Sabatini said. She concluded by saying overwhelming the jury with photos is just emotional.
Bowles countered that since the defense is not conceding Maya is dead, she must prove that Maya is dead. The photos will help the witnesses remember the event.
Judge Camarena agreed there is an emotional effect, but Maricris is close to Maya and the family’s closeness is relevant. The family got together a lot. That’s an important fact and relevant. He said it was relevant what the family was planning leading up to her disappearance. There is no crime scene, he noted. He said the district attorney is entitled to prove Maya did not walk away from her life and to look at all the things she was walking away from, including walking away from parents with health issues. It’s all probative. Judge Camarena admitted all the photographs, but Sabatini objected stating, “It’s cumulative. It’s death by 1,000 paper cuts.” Judge Camarena agreed and ordered he would limit one photo per event.
Maya’s Sailormoon Instagram Account
Maya created an Instagram account named Sailormoon. She kept it on a private setting and posted to it like it was a journal. But it was also a place where she communicated with Jamey Laird, the married co-worker she was having an affair with.
Bowles said in the Sailormoon account, Maya also posted screenshots of her and Larry’s text messages. There was a discussion about Larry giving her vitamins and afterwards she would feel sick. Maya wrote, “I think my husband is poisoning me.” The screenshots show the steady decline of the marriage, and that Maya was looking forward to a life without the defendant, Bowles said. Maya also wrote about her misery in the marriage, and abuse, writing, “It’s easy for him to put his hands around me.” She talked about being chained in the marriage.
Sabatini argued this was all taken out of context. The couple was fighting about the affair, and then Maya raised you are poisoning me with vitamins. We only see the screenshots Maya decided to post, stated Sabatini, labeling it as cherry picking. They don’t show her state of mind, just conversations with her husband, Sabatini insisted.
Judge Camarena disagreed and ruled them admissible in various ways: for state of mind and for statement of a party opponent. Judge Camarena said Maya was not expecting the journal to be public. It was a journal, her thought process, which is exactly what state of mind is.
The Broken Door
Maya told her friend, Kristeen, she locked herself in the closet and Larry broke the door. But she told her friend, Suzanne, that they accidentally locked the door. Maya posted the photo of the broken door to Facebook, and Courtney saw it and called Maya. She was crying her eyes out and said she locked herself in the bathroom and Larry drilled a hole in. Sabatini said Maya has told different versions on the same day.
Judge Camarena stated it was an excited utterance (another exception to the hearsay rule) and would be admitted. In fairness to the defendant though, he would let all three versions in.
Sabatini agreed this was fair as it answers the question, “Why was the door patched?” She said there’s an individual out there who was misrepresenting what happened. Sabatini then said the name, “Billy Little.” Then they all agreed to stipulate that the photo would come in.
Maya’s Emails to Herself in Her Yahoo Account
The prosecution sought to admit emails Maya sent to herself from February 2020 through January 4, 2021. Sabatini objected to an October email where Maya wrote when she was dating Larry, he spit food at her. Sabatini said this becomes an 1109 issue.
Judge Camarena said just sharing thoughts or memories is not state of mind and excluded this evidence. Larry spit fries at Maya after she gave him mustard. Maybe he did not like mustard, Judge Camarena opined. But he admitted Maya’s statements, “He’s never going to change. Will never get over what happened in 2020,” under Evidence Code Section 1250 state of mind.
Maya’s Statement: If Something Happens to Me, It’s Going to Be Larry
The parties moved to Maya’s statement to her sister-in-law, Genesis, while in Glamis on January 4, 2021. “If something happens to me, it’s going to be Larry.” Sabatini said there is more context to this as when Genesis was interviewed, she said the conversation was that Maya was going to divorce Larry, it’s going to get messy, and to stop talking to him as anything said would be used as evidence. Sabatini said it was self-serving as Maya was telling her family they had to pick a side. She further argued that Genesis and Maricris both said at the preliminary hearing that Maya was not afraid, and they did not feel afraid for her when she said this.
Judge Camarena admitted this evidence and cited People v. Crew that this statement was relevant and probative to her disappearance. Maya’s disappearance did not come out of the blue.
Maya’s Therapy Records: She Was Concerned Larry May Become Angry or Violent
Maya told her therapist she contacted an attorney about a divorce and that “Larry seems to be in denial.” Maya said she was concerned Larry may become angry or violent. Sabatini argued the trustworthiness of this statement, stating Maya’s behavior defeated the concern of Larry being angry or violent. Maya continued to meet up with her lover. She continued to engage in risky behavior of continuing the affair.
Judge Camarena admitted Maya’s statements to her therapist.
Texts from Maya to Kristeen Timmers: Larry Called Jamey’s Wife
Maya sent texts messages to her friend, Kristeen, that Larry called Jamey’s wife and told her about the affair. Judge Camarena admitted this text string.
Emails of Desteny Johnson of Broaden Law
Maya emailed with Desteny Johnson of the Broaden Law firm to set up an appointment to start the divorce. Desteny felt Maya needed an urgent appointment the next day. Bowles said the timing shows how committed Maya was to getting a divorce. Judge Camarena admitted the emails.
Maya Setting Up a Tutor
Maya set up a tutor for her daughter for Thursday, a date which would have been after her disappearance. Bowles said, “Why plan Thursday if planning the great escape of her life?” Sabatini immediately bristled, and pointedly said, “The great escape of her life is NOT their theory!” Judge Camarena admitted the evidence.
Video of Maya Singing With Her Young Son Lazarus
The prosecution sought to admit a two-minute video of Maya singing with her young son Lazarus. Sabatini objected stating the video is not relevant and it is an emotional pull to inflame the jury.
Judge Camarena excluded the video, stating that it is not probative and that it is prejudicial under Evidence Code Section 352.
August 12, 2020 Texts between Maya and Her Brother Jay-R
In the August 12, 2020 texts, Maya is venting at her brother for getting involved in her marriage. Bowles gives context, saying the day started out with Maya discovering that Larry had placed their daughter’s phone in her car to track her. At home she locked herself in the bathroom and Larry drilled in. Jay-R texts Maya that Larry wants him to go to the house to calm her down. Maya is frustrated Larry gets her family involved.
Judge Camarena said it is a text string with no mention of the door or drilling. Sabatini stated this is spontaneous of anger and if probative of domestic violence, then there are 1109 problems. Judge Camarena responded Maya is not recounting the abuse but expressing extreme frustration. He sees it as straight 1250 evidence, state of mind. Judge Camarena ruled the texts come in to show Maya’s frustration over the whole day. Further, the conduct of the defendant falls under Evidence Code Section 1109, which code allows the district attorney to introduce evidence of past domestic violence to show propensity. Judge Camarena admits it as 1109 evidence as well.
After the ruling, Bowles went on to say it’s not just one incident but a course of conduct, coercive control. Larry continues his controlling behavior, and Maya feels alone and isolated. Bowles said the phone in the car, unfriending on Facebook, and the subliminals are 1109. Judge Camarena stated he could give the instruction on coercive control if the prosecution feels it is warranted. Sabatini responded the Court needed to be careful here as coercive control cannot be shown through state of mind. Judge Camarena agreed it could not.
Introducing Intimate Partner Violence
The prosecution’s expert prepared a report on intimate partner violence. Bowles said the expert will provide general testimony about the topic, and Bowles will present hypotheticals. Judge Camarena ruled that the expert can testify but can only give a general opinion, there can be no dangerousness assessment, and no opinion on the specifics of this case.
Why Larry Did Not Allow Investigators to Interview the Children
Judge Camarena said this is a fact for the jury to determine. Sabatini argued it infringes on Larry’s right to counsel and right to remain silent. Larry asked the children if they wanted to give an interview and they did not. Sabatini said Larry wanted to cooperate, but he was instructed by his lawyer not to let the children be interviewed. They could do an interview only if she were present. Sabatini argued the jury should not be able to consider Larry’s refusal as consciousness of guilt. Judge Camarena said he did not see a 4th Amendment issue but would do research about the lawyer issue.
Bowles said CPS did do an interview of the children at the home. But one daughter was interviewed while there were people in the house. The other daughter was upstairs sleeping and Larry said to wake her up. These were not good conditions for interviewing. (Sabatini said the son just talked about Christmas decorations). Bowles went on. After Larry’s continual refusals, CPS got an investigative search warrant to take the children to Rady’s for an interview. But by that time, it was August.
Judge Camarena said the CPS interview (at the home) was relevant. He ruled the CPS interviewer could testify about her personal observations. She could not testify though that the children were coached, but could say, “The responses were suspicious because…”
Larry’s Requests to Maya’s Brothers to Get Maya’s Boyfriend
The prosecution wants to bring in Larry’s requests to Maya’s brothers to get her boyfriend. In Glamis, on January 2, 2021, Larry asked Jaypie, “Do you know someone to get that guy for $20,000?” He said he could not stomach what Maya did. Larry previously had told Jay-R about the affair and said he wants to get the guy. To Peyote, Larry said, “I am going to get rid of the boyfriend, but I have to plan it well.” Larry said he would do it in the building.
Bowles said this was probative of premeditation and cited the Brooks case. Sabatini pointed out that Larry was trying to solicit violence, but these people never told Maya or warned her. She reminded the Court Larry did not resort to violence when he found Maya and Jamey in Jamey’s truck. Jamey said Larry was respectful. Sabatini argued this was not probative of killing his wife.
Judge Camarena disagreed and ruled all the statements would come in. He said they are threatening and shows Larry’s growing obsession. Larry contemplates violence against someone coming between him and Maya, which is the Brooks case. Judge Camarena said it shows premeditation and deliberation.
Two Vials of Toxic Coniine and Hemlock
Two vials containing toxic coniine and hemlock were found in the Millete home pursuant to a search warrant. The prosecution wants an expert to testify what hemlock will do to the body and another expert to testify that it is available in San Diego if you know where to look. Bowles said Larry searched, “What plant can you take to never wake up? In response to all this, Sabatini raised that Larry was also searching how to kill himself.
Judge Camarena ruled that a trace amount of coniine was found. He said it is relevant as ingestion can be fatal and admitted the evidence.
Dogs Did not Alert
The prosecution sought to exclude evidence that the dogs did not alert at the site where Maya’s cell phone pinged in the Rolling Hills Ranch area near her residence. Bowles said the dogs are search and recovery dogs (like someone lost in the woods) and not residual scent detection dogs. Sabatini completely disagreed, stating the dogs were trained to find remains and that this is reasonable doubt that they did not alert.
Judge Camarena ruled to exclude the evidence for now, but the defense can call the dog handlers as witnesses and then a 402 hearing will be held. (A California Evidence Code 402 hearing is held outside the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of contested evidence). Bowles said the defense stated they would call the handlers, so she wants a 402 hearing now. Judge Camarena agreed.
Motion to Exclude Portions of Maya’s Sailormoon Instagram Account
Maya used her Sailormoon Instagram account to communicate with Jamey Laird, the married co-worker she was having an affair with. The prosecution wanted to exclude the portions from November 24, 2020 and the week of January 4, 2021 to the time Maya went missing. Maya and Jamey had an affair starting January 7, 2020 until January 7, 2021. The communications were very private and very intimate. Bowles said the defense wants to make her look like a terrible person. These specific communications are not probative, she stated.
Sabatini said it was not probative to introduce the intimate videos but to introduce the constant communication. To show how intimate the relationship was without exposing the content. It was not casual a relationship and it got emotional.
Judge Camarena excluded the requested portions.
Maya’s Lover Jamey Laird Excluded for Third Party Culpability
Maya was having an affair with Jamey Laird, a married co-worker. Bowles said Larry called Jamey’s wife days before she was to give birth and told her about the affair and that Maya had an abortion. The next day, there was a heated exchange between Jamey and Maya on the Sailormoon Instagram Account, but their conversations calmed down before January 7th. They agreed they could continue the relationship no longer and Jamey wrote he was worried about Maya’s safety. On January 7, 2021, the day Maya disappeared, Jamey’s wife was admitted to the hospital to give birth. Bowles insisted Jamey had no involvement with Maya’s death.
Sabatini stated this information has a dual purpose: It is a defense that someone else could have committed this crime. And it is to impeach and attack the credibility of the investigation.
Sabatini then launched into a lengthy argument about Jamey Laird. She said, “He has a motive.” Jamey was angry at Maya that she told Larry about the affair after they agreed not to reveal it to anyone. He said, “I don’t know what to believe anymore.” Jamey was worried about the affair being exposed. He said, “I have so much to lose. My life is over.” Sabatini stated an investigation was conducted about the affair at Maya and Jamey’s workplace. They both denied the affair and signed a document that they could be fired or prosecuted if they were lying.
Jamey told his wife he had an emotional affair with someone other than Maya. It was not until Larry called her on January 5th that she learned it was a serious affair and that Maya had an abortion. She and her mother then began to harass Maya.
Jamey continued his lies. He lied to the investigators when he was interviewed. His wife, who is a deputy sheriff, called the next day and wanted to know about the investigation. Jamey continued his lies, denying the affair, even when he was confronted with the contents of the social media account, which included sexual videos and sexual photos.
Much was made over whether January 7th was Maya and Jamey’s anniversary. Sabatini insisted it was their anniversary. It was the first time they kissed. And the last time Jamey communicated with Maya. On January 7th Jamey’s wife was at the hospital giving birth and Jamey was present. There is a photo of Jamey at the hospital on January 8th at 1:22 a.m. Jamey said he never left the hospital, but later said he left to move his car. Sabatini seized upon this, stating, “There was opportunity.” Law enforcement did not follow up. They did not look at security footage.
Sabatini went on to say Jamey lied every single time. He never tried to reach out to Maya after January 7th. He was not emotional when he was told she was missing. Jamey got a new cell phone. His wife deleted his search history and deleted all the Instagram messages.
Judge Camarena cited People v. Hall, a Supreme Court case that set forth four essential elements that must be met to use third party culpability as a defense. There must be motive, opportunity, and direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third party to the crime. Maya was last seen at her home, and her cell phone pinged down the road. There is evidence Jamey was at the hospital. Judge Camarena said he does not see a circumstantial evidence link to allow the defense. He then ordered that Jamey Laird was excluded for third party culpability. Sabatini was very upset and instantly fought back, arguing for Judge Camarena to change the ruling. When it was clear he would not be swayed, Sabatini at last proclaimed, “The Court has gutted our defense.” Judge Camarena then said the defense cannot point the finger at Jamey Laird, but they can raise issues with the investigation.
Infotainment System
Bowles said on January 8, 2021, the day after Maya went missing, Larry left the house in the Lexus. At 3:29 p.m. he entered his home address on the vehicle’s Infotainment System. Bowles said they used a Chip-Off system to try to obtain more information but were unable to do so. As this was discussed, I was in the courtroom sitting beside a friend of Maricris. She told me to look at Larry. I did and his cheek was pulsating the entire time this information was being addressed.
Judge Camarena admitted this evidence saying it is relevant as the defendant gave a statement about what he was doing that day. “Is it consistent with driving to Torrey Pines?” asked Judge Camarena. (Larry said he took his son to the beach on January 8th. He said he went to Solana Beach, but when shown a map, he pointed to Torrey Pines State Beach).
Larry’s Google Searches
On January 10, 2021, three days after Maya went missing, Larry did Google searches of the Salt and Sea Basin. Bowles said Larry was searching in remote areas after Maya disappeared. This information was also used by investigators to look for the body, she continued. Judge Camarena said sometimes murders will look at the crime scene, but this seems tenuous at best. He excluded the evidence under Evidence Code Section 352.
The Geofence Warrant
Investigators tried to find evidence Maya’s phone was in the Rolling Hills Ranch area after her disappearance. They used a Geofence Warrant, which sis where the police define a specific geographic boundary (the “geofence”) and demand data from tech companies identifying all mobile devices located within that boundary. The investigators did not find evidence of Maya’s phone within the geofence. Attorney Colby Ryan of the defense objected to admitting this evidence stating the prosecution wants to show the absence as evidence. Sabatini jumped in and said it was a limited search and the phone they used for test purposes may not have connected to the Wi-Fi.
Judge Camarena denied it if it was a Kelly-Frye issue (which requires that a scientific method must be generally accepted in its field to be admissible) but admitted it as one aspect of confirming whether the phone was there or not.
Exclude Peter Villaver Denied
Peter Villaver is a Senior Crime and Intelligence Analyst with the San Diego District Attorney’s Office, specializing in cell phone analysis and cell tower locations. He analyzed all the Millete’s cell phones. He did a report and wrote Maya’s phone pinged in the Rolling Hills Ranch area. Later he did a phone experiment with the original data points and then concluded Maya’s phone was not in the Rolling Hills Ranch area.
Judge Camarena ruled the defense’s motion to exclude Villaver was denied. He said the information was relevant and the jury could decide.
Maya’s Recording of Her Argument with Larry
On October 30, 2020, Maya recorded an argument she had with Larry. They were fighting about her affair, and she said, “So that’s enough for you to wish death on me all the time?” Bowles said victims can record for domestic violence under Penal Code 633.5 and maybe Maya wanted a restraining order. Judge Camarena ruled it falls under 633.4 or 634.5(b) for a restraining order being injured or killed.
Sabatini then raised she had not presented her argument yet, to which Judge Camarena apologized. She argued that Maya was not seeking a restraining order, and, in the past, she stated she did not want one. Here Maya was gaslighting Larry (gaslighting is where a person makes another doubt their own reality, memory, or perceptions). She said Maya was sarcastic and that she was denying the affair (which she was having). She asked Judge Camarena to listen to the recording again before making a ruling. Judge Camarena agreed he would listen to the recording and reserved on making a ruling.
Exclude Prior Bad Acts
Judge Camarena granted the defense’s motion to exclude prior bad acts under 1109(a). He instructed Bowles to tell her witnesses they could not bring it up. Judge Camarena stated if witnesses testified however that there was no evidence of domestic violence, or if the defendant testified he was not violent, the prosecution could bring in Larry’s prior bad acts.
Defendant Wanted to Hire a Hitman
Judge Camarena already ruled this admissible (see above). He said it is probative if the defendant possessed an intent to kill at a time close to Maya’s disappearance.
Maya’s Statements: I Am Afraid of What Larry Will Do to the Kids
The prosecution wants to bring in Maya’s statement to her sister Maricris and Genesis, “If something happens to me, it’s going to be Larry.” And her statement to Courtney and Kristeen, “I am afraid of what Larry will do to the kids if I leave.”
Judge Camarena admitted the evidence not for the truth but as Maya’s state of mind under Evidence Code Section 1250.
Larry’s Statement: No One Will Ever Find Your Body
The defense wanted to exclude Larry’s statement to Maya, “If you try to leave me, no one will ever find your body.” Judge Camarena denied the motion and the evidence is admitted.
Can Witnesses Give Their Opinion if Larry Killed Maya?
Judge Camarena and Bowles both cited the Dalton case, which was a no body case. Bowles said Maya loved her kids and would not leave them. Witnesses could testify to this. Sabatini stated she wanted to brief the case to review the facts again. Judge Camarena said he will revisit this motion after Sabatini briefs the case. He said the district attorney has to prove Maya did not just leave her kids.
Video of Lazarus Doing a Throat Cutting Motion
The prosecution wanted to enter a video that was taken before Maya disappeared where Larry says to Lazarus, “What did daddy say he was going to do to mommy?” Lazarus then does a throat cutting motion. Judge Camarena granted the defense’s motion to exclude the video as too prejudicial.
Lexus Vehicle Scratched in the Desert
Bowles said on January 8, 2021, Larry took the Lexus to dump Maya’s body. The next day he told a neighbor he had to get the Lexus detailed because it got scratched in the desert. Previously, there had been a jeep trip to the Anza Borrego Desert and Bowles wanted to call witnesses who were on the trip to testify Larry did not take the Lexus. Sabatini said there was also a Glamis trip, and it was not clear which trip Larry was referring to.
Judge Camarena ruled that witnesses from the Anza Borrego jeep trip could testify that the Lexus was not on the trip.
Larry’s Statement that He Likes to Torture People and Cut Their Balls Off
The defense wanted to exclude testimony by Maya’s brother, Jaypie, that Larry said he wanted to get the guy Maya was having an affair with and that he could not let it go. He also told Jaypie he likes to torture people and cut their balls off.
Judge Camarena denied the defense’s request, allowing the statements in. He said it involves violence and there are other statements of violence by the defendant. It is a statement of a party-opponent.
About Aleida K. Wahn, Esq.
I am an attorney, award-winning true crime writer, and legal analyst of criminal cases. I cover criminal trials and write stories and books about compelling, gripping, and unforgettable cases that impact our world. I take you into the courtroom in high-profile murder trials, rape cases, crimes of passion, cases involving mental illness, deviant behavior, and more. I have a deep passion for true crime, criminal law, and all aspects of the criminal justice system. I have appeared as an expert on true crime shows, including “48 Hours,” “Snapped,” "Peacock TV's Tik Tok Star Murders," and “The Dead Files,” and provided legal analysis on high-profile criminal trials on Court TV, the Law & Crime Trial Network, Fox 5 News, ABC 10 News, and KUSI News. I also create and host shows with the Del Mar Television Producers Group, addressing criminal justice and social issues in recent criminal trials.
I provided my insight and legal analysis on Court TV and the Law & Crime Trial Network of the high-profile trial of former NFL star Kellen Winslow Jr. It was a trial that captured the nation as the heralded ex-football star with fame, fortune, and a famous name stood accused of multiple rapes and other sex crimes involving five women. As the trial delved into shocking facts, complicated legal issues, and unexpected twists and turns, I was there for every minute. After the trial, I wrote a book on the case, going behind the headlines to share the extraordinary details of what happened inside the courtroom. Judging Winslow Jr.: From NFL Star to Serial Rapist? Inside the Shocking Rape Trial of Kellen Boswell Winslow II is now available on Amazon.
I am passionate about telling true crime stories, as these penetrating stories have the power to move us all, while highlighting societal issues which need to be addressed. I have personally seen the human devastation which is present in each trial and believe there is a lesson to be learned in every single case. It is through awareness and examining critical issues society can effect change and even make new laws. To learn more, please visit: https://www.aleidalaw.com.
Read about the gripping and unforgettable trials that I have covered in my latest books:
