Reader comments
Judge scolds lawyer in kidnapping trial

Legal Scholar in AZ | 12:54 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

I guess the lesson every person in Utah can learn from this is to not help children or you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

re | 1:00 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

i might have missed it but i don't recall how much time elapsed with the children in the custody of bell---i also wonder why they were in his bedroom---why did he not know where they belonged if they were frequent visitors to the property---if he was just looking out for them they should have still been outside while he watched over them---the assault was also wrong and i hope those involved are held responsible in some fashion---it certainly occurred after the children were safe and thus unneccessary to retrieveing them---must have been retribution---

Don't help the unsupervised... | 1:06 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

...kids, or you'll be taken to court.

BUT, if you back over one of them, you're considered a victim.

Good old Utah.

Comments continue below

Hello? | 1:08 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

Once again, if these family members were REALLY concerned with the saftey of their children, would they have held an all night party, with unlimited booze and poker in the first place? With no regard of what their children would be doing when they were too drunk to care? The only thing DJ Bell is guilty of is being a concerned neighbor! Shame on this family!!!!

I am LDS & Conservative | 1:11 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

I am against the state reckognition of same-gender unions.

HOWEVER, I see NO problem whatsoever in this attorneys actions. JUSTICE is NOT being served because of the D.A. who was reelected.

I am against this couples beliefs as much as anyone could be but I CERTAINLY believe in their rights to life and am disgusted with their treatment.

I hope justice is served. I hope that all parties involved with serve time in jail as if they had beaten someone from a 'different' group.

Had it been a bishops wife or a general authority the DA would have made sure that they would have been in prison for years. Why do these men deserve better than that? They do not!

It's one thing to act while upset, it's another thing to return to the house later and beat someone half to death.

This is the problem with our justice system. (And I am NOT talking about the hate-crime issue now) We are so perverted in our logic today that you see the innocent jailed and the criminals free.

Again, I am LDS. I am Conservative. - Please do not re-elect this D.A. again.

No, the lesson is... | 1:18 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

When you see children in an unsafe or abusive environment you should take immediate action AND call the authorities. Stay on the phone with the 911 operator until police arrive.

These men appear innocent of attempting or causing any harm to the children and I expect the jury to acknowledge that.

burned of proor | 1:24 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. So far all they have had is a bunch of drunks and felons testify.
How can these people in their inebriated state know anything that happened.
The only clear crime was the beating of David.

C'mon | 1:29 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

Get real.....if you find children running around at night when the parents are no where to be found....YOU DON"T TAKE THEM INTO YOUR BEDROOM!!

Or you too will end up accused of kidnapping or worse....

Call the cops!! Even if you are gay!

Straight advice | 1:52 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

Here is a little straight advice for GAYS.....the next time you see unsupervised children walking around at night.....DO NOT TAKE THEM INTO YOUR BEDROOM....Or someone is bound to confuse you a PEDOPHILE!!

Why? | 1:56 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

Why where the children in his bed room? The people who beat this guy did go to far. However, Bell needs to take some heat as well. There is a good possibility he had those children in his bed room for reasons that where not in their best interests.

Oh my | 1:57 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

The "Only in Utah" nut cakes are out in full force again.

Conservative Mormon... | 2:35 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

... who doesn't understand why the family wasn't charged with assault. Once the children were out of the home, they should have just called the police if they were so concerned.

Monkey see, monkey do | 2:38 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

Looks like those commenting are also having trouble understanding that "Mr. Bell is here as a defendant, not as a victim". The actions of the neighbors' retaliation has zero bearing legally on this case. It's a separate issue, as the judge said. And why would he say "Let's go try to find your mommy" when they live next door? The party was at their house, it wouldn't have taken an effort to find her.

Bedroom | 2:38 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

The children were NOT IN THE BEDROOM. again- NOT IN THE BEDROOM. That is false iformation that has been passed around and has been turned into fact somehow...

Anonymous | 2:47 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

Stop making this about the way this person chooses to live his life. Here is the evidence, two kids who were not his were found in his home. This kids did not have permission to be there and he did not have permission for them to be there, that is kidnapping. If he had found two kids walking around in the middle of the night he should have first called police that there were kids wandering around the neighborhood in the middle of the night, should have left them outside instead of bringing them into his house.
It is unfortunate if he was beat in the process, and the persons responsible should be prosecuted. The judge had it right, that is not part of the current trial, what is part of the current trial is why he had the kids in his house, kids that did not belong to him.

LDS Conservative (cont.) | 3:03 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

I want to now comment about two issues which have been brought up: The burden of proof and the 'don't have kids in the bedroom' points which are being made.

First, as much as I am a firm believer in avoiding situations (ie, avoid being alone with a women other than your wife, so you aren't tempted or accused of wrong doing) I will still say something in defense of these guys.

There is a serious problem with the sensational nature of accusing without justification. Suspicion is the farthest thing from fact and plays on peoples bias and emotion, this is a logical fallacy.

Children were in their bedroom - They must be guilty of kidnapping or misconduct. This is illogical. If children were in the bedroom, this does nothing to prove the intent of actions or even what actions may have taken place.

The burden of proof IS on the prosecution. So far a man has a horrific picture (post-'beating') which does more to support his cause rather than the parents.

We have very few solid premises. A beaten man, children up WAY too late, a party with alcohol, the 'beaters' were drinking.

Simple logic.

@2:38 | 3:18 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

What the defense is trying to establish is that the credibility of the parents is in question. It is a completely valid legal strategy.

They are trying to catch them in lies so they can disprove their story. I am sure they want to family charged with attempted murder or assault as well, but from I have read, the defense attorny is doing her job.

@ Monkey see, monkey do | 3:26 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

I'm just guessing here, but I am betting the children's house is more than one room - hence the "try."

Please | 3:27 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

If this guy had called the cops on his neighbors it would have been awful to have to continue to live next to them after they found out. Can you imagine the harassment he would've gotten from his angry neighbors when they found out he'd called the cops about their kids? We already know how they react when they are angry...

the judge is right | 3:44 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

the beating is a separate question from Bell's guilt or innocence. That is an issue for a different trial. (which I do hope the prosecutors will pursue). When they do press charges against the family members who beat Bell, the judge should tell the family members' lawyer to remember that the alleged kidnapping is also a separate issue, because the children had been safely returned before the assaults.

To Please | 3:59 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

Your right going and getting the children was a much better solution?!?!

@ Monkey, from LDS Conservative | 4:13 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

I want to add that in my first comment I stated that I had a problem with the D.A.'s choice in who to prosecute. I certinaly agree with the judge but I don't blame the attorney as we are wasting an innocent mans time.

Have they moved from their home!? Please tell me that they are living elsewhere! Anyone know? I could only imagine how this would play out if both parties lived in the same location still.

I also don't know that nothing happened with the children. Though I believe that evidence is evidence and I do not know enough of the facts, I certainly think that IF they were in the bedroom(referring to the bedroom comment earlier) that it would have been unwise.

America needs to accept responsibility. The parents are the SOLE, I will repeat this... SOLE people responsible for their childrens whereabouts if the children were not forcibly taken. If there is no evidence that these guys took them by force, drop the charges and prosecute the violent criminals that returned in anger.

Heaven help us all | 4:50 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

I don't see that what this guy did was kidnapping. I think the DA suffers from a great lack of common sense and decency. He is a menace to the community.

BobLotta | 4:59 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

The only real way we will find an answer is wait a couple of years or so. Pedophiles don't just stop. They will be in the court room soon enough if they are guilty.

geedub | 5:00 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

Thank God the children were found before they were harmed. Maybe it was wrong to beat the neighbors up but if I found my kids in the neighbor's bedroom I would have done the same thing. If you're worried about someone else's kids take them back to their parents, call the police, but don't take them to your bedroom. It's mighty suspicious to do anything else. Remember that little girl down by Liberty Park who was murdered by her neighbor.

Silly Bell | 5:07 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

Judge scolds Bell's Attorney.......I scold Bell, this is what you get(15 years) when you hire a gay activist ACLU attorney to defend you instead of a trial lawyer experienced in criminal law! Expensive mistake trying to make yourself a gay martyr....

Use common sense people | 5:14 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

I have had neighboor kids come into my room while I am on my computer, I'd hate to think as this happend the police or their parents busted in and I was questioned on why they were there.

The answer would be they had to be somewhere so this is where they were.

Its virtually certain if any hanky panky had gone on, this would be known by now, but it isn't alleged, therefore I consider the bedroom thing a non issue.

Was at the trial | 5:24 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

David's ability to defend himself was taken away today by the judge. The judge required his testimony to be so narrow - that taking the stand became useless. David was looking forward telling his side of the story but has been effectively muzzled by the judge. About all David would have been able to say about that night was his name and that he was there.

The children were not in the bedroom.

They have moved a couple of times since this and still have post traumatic distress nightmares.

I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION AND THIS JUDGE COMES UP FOR "RENEWAL"-

At the Trial | 5:27 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

Hey there "Silly Bell" The defense attorney has NO affiliation with the ACLU. He is a practicing trial lawyer. Who's the "Silly" looking one now?

You don't want a Utah | 5:46 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

Attorney. First off they do not know the law. 2, They are dirty.
Quite clear this Judge is the same, He wants to fry a man that was maybe helping children, I don't know the real story on him. Neather does the Judge and Prosecutor.

@at the trial | 5:47 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

I guess that would be the one on trial facing 15 years????

David's defense was useless? I guess the guy is guilty then.....How can that be the Judge's fault, what is his name?..I am going start a campaign for him!

Credibility | 8:28 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

I think the line of questioning is valid. The videotape is called into question so the only other witnesses are those at the party. If they lie under oath, it will call into question the credibility of the witnesses. I am not saying that they did lie under oath, but a jury has the right to weigh all of the evidence and decide if they think the testimony is true.

The Whole truth. | 3:59 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

Just as witnesses must tell the whole truth, the courts should also be interested in the whole truth, including events that led up to the accusations.

If DJ Bell is acquitted of kidnapping will the prosecutor then go after the parents for child neglect? This is good motive for the parents to lie and twist the facts and motive of DJ Bell for what he did.

Motive is just as important in this case as it is in all criminal cases and without it most cases are dismissed. So DJ's motives are important evidence in his defense just as in all cases of children being helped in cases of neglect or abuse.

All evidence is crucial regardless of the accusations or criminal charges. I feel this judge and prosecutor are wrong to deny DJ his full defense and motives. Otherwise the next time a child is being molested, abused, or in danger the public will not be so willing to help them as they can be prosecuted for kidnapping.

U help by returning or call 911 | 5:20 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

Legal Scholar in AZ

"I guess the lesson every person in Utah can learn from this is to not help children or you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

The lesson to be learned is that YOU DON'T BREAK THE LAW and if you do then you don't argue that you were helping the children that you kidnapped.

If you were a legal scholar you would know that the law defines kidnapping as detaining or restraining a child without the consent of the parent or guardian when that child is under the age of 14.

Bell doesn't deny taking or having the two children in his home and does not argue that he had received the consent of the parents to keep them in his home therefore the law defines his actions as kidnapping. Plain and simple.

A kidnapper can't argue after the fact that he was being a Good Samaritan because if that is a defense then every kidnapper can provide that as a defense. Kidnap a child and plan to rape them but get caught then claim you found them wandering around alone and were only trying to help.

Citizens arrest or assault? | 5:42 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

RE:Anonymous @ 2:47 p.m.

"Stop making this about the way this person chooses to live his life. Here is the evidence, two kids who were not his were found in his home. This kids did not have permission to be there and he did not have permission for them to be there, that is kidnapping. If he had found two kids walking around in the middle of the night he should have first called police that there were kids wandering around the neighborhood in the middle of the night, should have left them outside instead of bringing them into his house."

Finally there is someone with common sense and an clear understanding of the law who is posting here.

"It is unfortunate if he was beat in the process, and the persons responsible should be prosecuted."

That depends on their state of mind.

It would be difficult for a prosecutor to prove that all of them knew the children were safe and weren't simply trying to make a citizens arrest.

It's possible that a prosecutor may be able to prove the elements of assault but a good defense attorney would argue citizens arrest and probably win

If I believe X I will arrest you | 5:49 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

RE: @ Monkey, from LDS Conservative

"America needs to accept responsibility. The parents are the SOLE, I will repeat this... SOLE people responsible for their childrens whereabouts if the children were not forcibly taken. If there is no evidence that these guys took them by force, drop the charges and prosecute the violent criminals that returned in anger."

The law doesn't require someone to take a child by force for it to constitute legal kidnapping.

Parents don't have to stay awake 24-7 watching their children for fear that someone may kidnap them while their child is sleeping in another room only to have their child's kidnappers argue that they found them wandering around outside alone.

The prosecutor does not have to prove that they were taken by force either on the burglary or kidnapping charge. All Bell had to do was detain the children without parental consent for the kidnapping to have taken place or to enter a home (with or without the use of force) to commit a felony for a burglary to take place.

Can you name the crime the parents committed. I can name one that they exercised. A citizens arrest.

Assault or citizens arrest? | 5:55 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

RE: Conservative Mormon...

"... who doesn't understand why the family wasn't charged with assault. Once the children were out of the home, they should have just called the police if they were so concerned."

Almost every state recognizes the right of citizens to make citizens arrests when they believe a felony has been committed and to detain a person, under the authority of law, until police arrive.

They may also use whatever force they deem necessary except for the use of deadly force which they can only exercise if the person they are attempting to arrest poses a risk to their or another's safety. If any of these people believed that Bell still had the children or that he had just committed the felony of kidnapping they would have been within their legal rights to apprehend him before he could enter his house, get a gun, come over to their house and blow their brains out before they could call 9-1-1 and report him for kidnapping.

They can only be charged with assault if there is sufficient proof that they weren't attempting to make a citizens arrest but he broke the law so thats hard

Their crebility is irrelevant | 6:03 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

Credibility

"I think the line of questioning is valid...I am not saying that they did lie under oath, but a jury has the right to weigh all of the evidence and decide if they think the testimony is true."

The jury doesn't have a right to weigh all of the evidence and decide if they think the testimony is true.

The role of a Judge is to decide what is admissible under the law and to prevent testimony that would be prejudicial and has no bearing on the case. Whether Bell was assaulted or whether the family attempted to make a citizens arrest has no bearing on whether Bell a) detained the children without the parent's permission (kidnapping), or b) entered the home with the intent of taking the children from the property (burglary).

His testimony about being beat up would not refute a) the presence of the children in his home or b) his taking the children. The jury's job in this case is to determine whether Bell detained the children without parental permission and/or took them from their home.

If his defense was he had their permission then their credibility would matter.

Vote based on your buddies | 6:11 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

Was at the trial | 5:24 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

"David's ability to defend himself was taken away today by the judge."

How does accusing someone of beating him up have anything to do with whether he a) took the children from their home and into his house or b) found the children wandering around outside and instead of returning them to their home or calling the police chose to take them into his house both of which constitute legal kidnapping.

It doesn't have anything to do with his alleged crimes and thus is an invalid defense attempting to garner sympathy.

"David was looking forward telling his side of the story but has been effectively muzzled by the judge."

What did he want to say a) he didn't have the two children in his custody or b) he had their parents permission.

If he wasn't going to say either of those two things but attack the victims to garner sympathy then it is inadmissible. The family was not on trial. He was!!!

"I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION AND THIS JUDGE COMES UP FOR "RENEWAL"-"

That's justice for you.

You lack common sense | 6:19 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

"I have had neighboor kids come into my room while I am on my computer, I'd hate to think as this happend the police or their parents busted in and I was questioned on why they were there."

If those children are under 14 and you don't have their parents consent then you should be arrested, charged and convicted of kidnapping.

"The answer would be they had to be somewhere so this is where they were."

That doesn't matter and your failure to see that indicates a) that you have criminal intent or b) you are too stupid to be allowed to live in civilized society and should be put in prison since we can't read your mind.

"Its virtually certain if any hanky panky had gone on, this would be known by now, but it isn't alleged, therefore I consider the bedroom thing a non issue."

The bedroom is an issue. Not because of some "hanky panky" but because it proves that he broke the law and he admits to detaining the children without the parent's consent. Thats backed up by finding them in his bedroom and not the front porch.

Beating reveals motive, bias | 6:50 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

The accused should be permitted to testify about his beatings at the hands of his accusers.

Bells' accusers have conformed their testimony to minimize or evade their roles in their vicious attack of Bell and his partner.

Bell's testimony would allow jurors to understand why the defense is alleging that the Latu family and other partygoers who beat Bell and his partner are biased in their testimony and have a motive to give testimony that is not accurate or reliable, and worthy of reasonable doubt.

The Latu family and other partygoers who beat Bell are seeking to avoid accountability for their vicious attack by pointing fingers of blame at Bell.

Shame on Salt Lake County District Attorney Lohra Miller for authorizing this unjust prosecution ... she is appealing to Pacific Islanders in the county to win their political support when she runs for re-election next year.

JB | 7:15 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

"How and where the injuries occurred is not relevant to the kidnapping and burglary case, according to the judge." - That's absolutely correct because the alleged kidnapping and burglary happened before the beating. The jury heard evidence about Bell's injuries that would explain why Bell gave rambling and inconsistent statements, but how or why those injuries happened are simply not relevant to the charges.

L. G. KIRKPATRICK | 8:18 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

Just want to check in and put in my 2 cents to commend the Judge for laying it out on the line for the Defense team.

And to you bleeding heart liberals who are defending Mr. Bell, you are way, way out of order. If Mr. Bell wants to castigate the parents, he needs to save it for when the parents are prosecuted (or persecuted) for trying to give Mr. Bell an abject lesson in how NOT to "rescue" little children.

One thing that both Prosecution and Defense need to pay a little more attention to is "What is OBVIOUS on the face of the issue?" It is very seldom necessary to dig deeper than the facts obvious to a non-involved observer.

Finally, Mr. Bell and his boyfriend need to go to whichever church they believe in, and kneel and pray fervently thanking their God that I was not one of the parents, and at that party.

P.S.: I wish more of you would proof-read your comments for spelling and grammar before you hammer on the "Add your comment" button. It would make it a whole lot easier to understand what you're trying to communicate.

SimonSays | 8:20 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

If they weren't gay and the parents weren't irresponsible none of this would have happened. I am LDS and do not agree with same sex unions/attraction etc., but would these irresponsible parents have even pressed charges if the couple was a man and a woman? Just because you don't agree with someone's lifestyle, it doesn't give you have carte blanche to persecute them!

Anonymous | 9:03 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

Funny that someone should mention being a good Samaritan in here somewhere because there ARE laws pertaining to that EXACT thing. Yes the most commonly known law is that EMT's who stop to help at the scene of the accident are not liable, HOWEVER if you look up Good Samaritain laws and do read 63-30b-2 it, in my opinion, covers this situation.
You will see that it is a section for VOLUNTARY (which is EXACTLY what Mr. Bells actions were) service stating that unless malicious intent can be proven they are not liable.

I personally feel that Mr. Bell has been grossly misrepresented by the accusers based on witness testimony that the kids were NEVER in the bedroom and the accusers are simply trying to find a way out of being in the wrong here. I'm sorry to hear that he is still struggling with this, it really bugs me how quickly some Pacific Islander families will resort to violence for no reason (and no I DO NOT believe they were making a citizens arrest because a cop using that kind of force would result in a law suit, they have no excuse!

Truth.... | 10:39 a.m. Sept. 25, 2009

1. Was there criminal intent on Mr. Bell's part?

2. Was his intention good, but his actions unwise?
Did he do the right thing the wrong way?

3. If 1. is correct, prosecute him.

4. If 2. is correct, release him. Did he harm the kids? Did he intend to harm the kids?

5. Are the parents guilty of neglect? If so, prosecute them.

jane | 1:35 p.m. Sept. 25, 2009

It is so laughable that some people here are claiming it was a 'citizens arrest.' Yes, beating someone to a pulp is certainly a citzen's arrest. Only not. You people have a disgusting view of right and wrong. Your bigotry is showing bright and clear.

MBP | 3:08 p.m. Sept. 25, 2009

I find it interesting that if someone finds a crying child, there first response is not to take that childs hand and say to them.."Let go find your mom". That has always been my response when seeing a child lost in a store, or at a park, or neighborhood around my home. Never has it EVER crossed my mind to take them into my home, or car.(whether I knew the child or not.) Parents 99% of the time are close by. My first instinct if I would have found a child and knew where that child came from would to take the childs hand and walk them to there own front door...and knock. Calling the police would not be my first action. But to find a child and to lead them into your own home, and not attempt to first to look for the parents at there own home......it just is really fishy. That is not a normal persons line of thinking. I believe there is more to this then just "A Good Samaritan", wrongly accused. I don't think any rational person would have made there first action to take them in your own home.

@Assault or citizens arrest? | 3:11 p.m. Sept. 25, 2009

Really? Are you being serious or just an idiot. They had been neighbors. The children were safe and out of harms way. There was ZERO justification in what they did and no reason to believe that bashing someone's skull in or dropping a TV on someone's head is reasonable force in this matter.

Patrick R | 3:49 p.m. Sept. 25, 2009

DJ Bell was just found not guilty on all counts. Justice prevails. I bet a civil suit is on the way. I hope so.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

3 photos

Tom Smart, Deseret News

David James Bell, a South Salt Lake man who is accused of kidnapping two children on the night of July 4, 2008, in 3rd District Court with attorney Andrew Deiss in the background.

Gallery (3 photos)