Over the past week in Santa Clara County Superior Court, jurors at the Shannon O’Connor trial listened to closing arguments about the Los Gatos mother who’s accused of hosting parties for local teens and encouraging them to hook up with one another for her own purposes.
And on Monday, defense lawyer Stephen Prekoski delivered a theatrical show as he sought to undermine the prosecution’s two-day summation, arguing the case relies on a “whackadoo theory” of how his client could be guilty for someone else’s sexual activity.
“She liked—maybe even loved—respected these kids,” he said. “Where was this evidence that she wanted them to get raped?”
O’Connor is accused of 63 offenses, including many counts of child endangerment and furnishing alcohol for a minor. She pleaded not guilty to all of the charges.
Prekoski, who did not call any witnesses, said he knows the jury has a lot of work ahead, given how much evidence has been presented.
“We’re talking 16 weeks of testimony. This is not an easy exercise,” he said. “I know that your notes are outstanding. I can tell from the quality of questions that you asked.”
(There was a juror who was dismissed, last month, for failing to avoid reporting about the case.)
O’Connor has been behind bars for years already, as her California Supreme Court bid for pre-trial release failed. Witnesses had testified they needed her to be locked-up in order to properly heal from the psychological wounds she inflicted on them.
Prekoski told the jury this passage of time affected witnesses’ memories. The DA’s Office overcharged O’Connor to create a sensational narrative, he contended.
“The District Attorney wants this to be a sex case,” he said.
That language got under the skin of Deputy District Attorney Joanna Lee, and she asked the judge if they could approach.
Judge Elizabeth C. Peterson heard Lee’s complaint—which began to rise above the hushed tones of a regular impromptu bench conference—and from Prekoski; she calmly responded, then sent them back to their positions.
Essentially, Prekoski argued, the prosecution says the teens engaged in sexual activity encouraged by his client, but that O’Connor somehow knew—beforehand—that rape would occur.
‘You owe it to this community, and the victims, to actually look at the evidence and apply it to the law’
—Deputy District Attorney Joanna Lee
The DA’s Office accused O’Connor of being a dupe or an “aider and abettor”—like an accomplice in a drive-by shooting—rather than a somewhat out-of-line parent, he said.
Prekoski clarified that he understands O’Connor’s behavior—such as frequent messaging with teens—wasn’t the norm. “I think it might have been weird or inappropriate.”
But, he said, O’Connor never told them to do anything without getting the go-ahead first.
“If I’m suggesting you go make out with a girl, and [something else] ends up happening … without her consent.” He asked jury members if that could have been foreseen. “Our suggestion is, absolutely not.”
The defense pointed to evidence of times where the kids engaged in sexual activity while unaware of O’Connor’s whereabouts, quoting statements from witnesses who, when asked, confirmed they didn’t say “no” to certain acts.
“The intoxicating substance did not prevent their resistance,” he said. “It isn’t true that these girls were prevented from resisting. They calculated what they wanted, and they didn’t resist because they didn’t want to.”
During the trial, some witnesses became emotional as they recalled how O’Connor stage-managed their social activities and orchestrated their sex lives.
Prekoski also said his client didn’t dissuade witnesses from testifying—another accusation—comparing what happened to telling his kids not to speak up while getting pulled over by the police.
“I say, ‘I got this. I’ll do the talking,’” offered Prekoski, making a reference to kidnapping that would later be criticized by Lee.
Prekoski’s theatrics included shouting towards the jury box, slamming his left hand on the podium, swiftly moving towards his client and pointing at her, and raising his left pinky.
He told the jury to expect the prosecution to denigrate him after lunch, on rebuttal.
“I don’t get to talk anymore,” he said. “I’m sort of like a DA sandwich. I’m the meat between the two (pieces of) bread that is Ms. Lee.”
A sigh followed from the prosecution table. He wasn’t wrong though. Lee attacked him right away.
“He doesn’t have the law; he doesn’t have the facts. All he did was yell at you,” she remarked. “You are smarter than that.”
Don’t forget, these are victims who have dealt with real trauma, Lee added.
“You owe it to this community, and the victims, to actually look at the evidence and apply it to the law,” she said, referring, among other things, to the time in June 2020 when a kid with a serious medical condition ended up vomiting at a party and O’Connor kept the situation under wraps. “She sees from the very beginning the risk, the risk of great bodily injury.”
Lee put up a presentation slide that featured a long list of the instances when she says the kids were in real danger.
“I wrote them all out—probably because I was upset,” she admitted. “These kids drink until their wheels fall off…until their bodies actually gave out.”
Another slide included the definition of consent, and Lee said she was irked by the defense’s “insane” statements on the topic.
“It is freely and voluntarily given by someone who knows the nature of the act involved,” she said, contrasting that with the evidence showing teens who are “unable to sit upright, heads are flopping, cannot walk and need to be carried, cannot keep a head above water.”
But, she added, it’s okay to still be confused about O’Connor’s motive.
“She is like some weird perverted mishmash of adult and child,” Lee said. “It will never make sense to you, like, if you’re a normal law-abiding citizen.”
The jury began deliberating on Tuesday.
