Jurors begin deliberation in Koloto murder trial

The defense attorney for a man accused of murdering 27-year-old Philip Lacy during a robbery in downtown Palo Alto two years ago reiterated to jurors Tuesday morning the crime was not a random, opportunistic act of violence and that his client killed Lacy in self-defense.

In his closing argument in the trial of 23-year-old Otto Emil Koloto, of Gilroy, defense attorney Andy Gutierrez contested the prosecution’s assertion that Koloto robbed Lacy of his gold chain necklace before shooting him. He said Koloto shot Lacy in self-defense after Lacy stepped out to attack Koloto because he refused to buy drugs from Lacy.

Koloto is facing a murder charge for the death of Lacy, a South San Francisco resident, early the morning of July 13, 2008, near Palo Alto City Hall. He faces an enhancement for use of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

Testifying in his own defense last week, Koloto claimed he had been carrying a 9mm semi-automatic handgun for protection. He said he and his friend Donald Lee had just driven out of the Civic Center parking garage early that morning after they tried to go to the Blue Chalk Cafe but found it was closed. He said he told Lee to pull over so that he could relieve himself.

Koloto said he heard a group of men he thought were calling out to him and approached them to see if he knew them. He said after greeting the men, Lacy, who was just getting into the back of a gold Lexus, asked him if he wanted to buy drugs from him. Koloto said he was offended and declined, but asked for a cigarette. Tensions escalated when Lacy refused to give him a cigarette, Koloto said.

He said Lacy then took off his necklace, a gold chain bearing a diamond-encrusted cross, and lunged at Koloto with the necklace in his hands, and that’s when the chain got caught in Koloto’s sweatshirt. Gutierrez maintained Tuesday that Koloto’s explanation, while inarticulate, was an “unvarnished … raw account of what happened.”

“My client did not intend to rob or go back and look for evidence of corroboration,” Gutierrez told jurors.

The crime was not a pre-planned robbery, Gutierrez asserted, because it happened in the vicinity of City Hall and the police station, at a time of night when many police officers are on patrol. He said had it been planned, Koloto would have been more careful and would not have dropped his driver’s license near the scene of the shooting, a key piece of evidence later recovered by police.

Gutierrez displayed a photo depicting a friend of Lacy’s talking to an acquaintance of Koloto’s in the parking garage prior to the shooting, an indication that something had transpired between the two groups earlier in the evening. Gutierrez appealed to the jury to put aside their emotions and evaluate the merits of the case. He asked the jury to consider that Koloto had consumed drugs and alcohol the night of the shooting, which impaired his judgment.

“Young males are not hard-wired to just walk away from a confrontation if drugs or alcohol were involved,” Gutierrez said.

He said Koloto’s expression of shock and bewilderment following the shooting indicates that he is not a “cold-blooded murderer,” but a man concerned with protecting his own life.

“In the end, you’ll have to ask yourselves two questions: Do I have areas of doubt and are these doubts reasonable?” Gutierrez told jurors.

In his closing statements Monday, prosecutor Matt Braker held up a photo of Lacy’s necklace and stated that Koloto had not reasonably explained how the flashy and expensive piece of jewelry ended up in his pocket.

“That’s the heart of the case,” Braker said Tuesday.

He claims Koloto had ordered Lacy at gunpoint to give him his chain. When Lacy lunged at him, Braker said, Koloto shot him in the forehead. Braker said Koloto’s explanation that the chain had snagged on his sweatshirt was implausible. He said Koloto had planned the robbery after seeing Lacy several times earlier that night outside the Blue Chalk Cafe.

Witness testimonies from Lacy’s friends Faramarz Maleki and Ken Walker and Koloto’s friend Lee were consistent throughout the trial and matched physical evidence, Braker said. He said the details of Koloto’s story were not reasonable.

He questioned why Koloto would tell his friend to pull over and then walk around a corner at the convergence of four intersections to urinate. He said Koloto’s decision to take his gun with him after leaving it in the car all night and wearing a beanie in the middle of July did not add up.

Braker wondered why Koloto walked down the street and past the passenger door to the rear of the gold Lexus, where Lacy was sitting, to ask for a cigarette from a group of men he claimed he did not know.

He said it didn’t make sense that Koloto would be offended by Lacy asking him to buy drugs from him, when Koloto had admitted to drinking and taking ecstasy pills that night. Most telling, Braker said, is Koloto’s demeanor after the incident. He questioned if the shooting was an accident, why Koloto didn’t immediately confide in his best friend or his closest cousin.

Jurors began deliberating Tuesday afternoon.