Jury deliberates fate of Limongello slaying suspect

Thursday, July 29, 2004 | 9:42 a.m.

After two full days of testimony in the murder trial of a 20-year-old man, a Clark County jury today was expected to decided if Aaron Daniels is guilty of killing a man or of simply being a witness to a killing planned and carried out by others who have gone uncharged.

The jury on Wednesday night was left to deliberate whether Daniels was part of a conspiracy to rob and murder 40-year-old jewelry kiosk owner Anthony Limongello.

Daniels is charged with murder with use of a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery with use of a deadly weapon and first-degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon. He could face the death penalty if found guilty of murder.

In their closing arguments, Daniels' lawyers, Pete Christiansen and Christopher Oram, told the jury that four to five other people who to date have gone uncharged actually planned and carried out the murder.

"Don't make him (Daniels) pay because the state hasn't brought the others to justice," Oram said.

Christiansen and Oram contend Limongello's robbery and slaying was the result of planning done by the ex-boyfriend and friends of 20-year-old Joanna De Los Reyes. Limongello had used methamphetamine with Reyes and had let her move into his home a week before his death.

The defense argued Daniels only witnessed the murder and that Reyes, her boyfriend Justin Brown, her friend Natasha Barker, Barker's boyfriend, Bobby Harwood, and Daniels' friends Tyrel Rodgers and Julius Bradford are the true culprits.

Specifically, Oram and Christiansen argued Bradford was the shooter.

Metro Police homicide Detective Phillip Ramos shared their suspicion, testifying although no "scientific evidence" supported it, he too believed Bradford was the shooter.

Bradford remains uncharged, but he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in the killing of Benito Zambrano-Lopez.

The plot allegedly consisted of Barker calling Reyes asking for a ride, knowing that Limongello would be forced to drive since Reyes neither owned a car nor had a driver's license. Limongello and Reyes agreed to pick her up and were eventually led to the back of a strip mall where they were carjacked by a man. Reyes escaped from the vehicle and Barker chased after her.

Limongello was found the next day, shot in the head. His wallet and car were missing.

Prosecutors agreed with the defense in how the act was planned, with the exception that they said Daniels was the man who carjacked Limongello at gunpoint.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Giancarlo Pesci said the independent corroboration of evidence needed to prove Daniels was the man who carjacked Limongello's car was provided Reyes' testimony.

Reyes had identified Daniels as being the man who carjacked Limongello's car after looking at a photo line-up conducted by police, but in her testimony at the preliminary hearing and during the trial had been unable to say for certain the man was Daniels.

Pesci said Reyes' testimony was supported by the location of Daniels' palm print, which was found on the door of Limongello's car.

Christiansen said Daniels' prints on Limongello's car could have been placed there at anytime, based on the testimony of a latent fingerprint expert's testimony a day earlier, who said there was no way to prove when the prints were left. Christiansen said since the car was found mere blocks from Daniels' home, he could have touched the vehicle after the murder occurred.

Pesci said although the defense wanted to disregard Reyes' testimony because she was a "crackhead, meth-head that had been up for five days straight," they had no problem using portions of her testimony when it supported Daniels' defense.

"If it's good for one, it's good for the other," Pesci said. "The defense wants you to take anything (evidence or testimony) that points to him (Daniels), and just throw it away."

Pesci said the defense embraced Reyes' testimony regarding others who were involved, but discounted it when she testified Daniels was the man who carjacked Limongello.

Pesci said Daniels' guilt could be seen in the evidence, namely the palm print. Pesci told the jury they shouldn't be swayed by the defense's "speculations" as to how the print wound up on Limongello's luxury SUV.

"If we don't focus on the testimony, but instead on the speculation as to how the fingerprints showed up on the car later (after the murder) than you've (the jury) missed the ball."

Oram argued the "ball" had never been "thrown" by the prosecution. He wondered aloud why none of the other people involved in the robbery and murder were ever called to stand trial. He said by failing to allow the testimony of Barker, Bradford, Tyrel Rodgers, Justin Brown and Harwood from being heard the prosecution kept the whole story from the jury.

"You know a good prosecutor, a good one I know, always says, 'Keep your eye on the ball,' " Oram said. "He was a baseball fan and said defense attorneys are always going to argue for the defendant and try and put up a smoke screen. I have a question: How is the jury supposed to see the ball when you (the prosecution) don't even throw it?"

Christiansen said while prosecutors could place Daniels at a 7-Eleven near the scene of the crime at 3:03 a.m. following the killing, they failed to produce any evidence aside from the testimony of an admitted methamphetamine user as to what Daniels had done before and during the murder.

Video surveillance tapes from the 7-Eleven played in open court showed Daniels and another unidentified man entering the convenience store roughly four hours after Limongello was killed. While Daniels makes a purchase, the other man goes to the back of the store and uses the ATM machine. According to bank records, the man Daniels was with was using Limongello's ATM card.

The same surveillance tapes also showed footage of Limongello and Reyes in the 7-Eleven before the victim disappeared and also showed Barker on a pay phone outside the store standing with several men.

Christiansen said the prosecutors couldn't prove who those men were and had no evidence to prove where Daniels was before the early morning footage from the 7-Eleven.

Before closing arguments, the prosecution had played several segments from jailhouse phone calls Daniels made to his mother, grandmother and girlfriend.

On the tapes, Daniels says: "They are trying to put it all on me, I just witnessed it." He goes on to discuss whether his fingerprints would be found in relation to crime saying, "If they (the police) had my fingerprints, I'd be done."

Daniels seemingly realized while he was making the statements on the phone they might later come back to haunt him, saying "the only thing that can get me is talking on the phone."