Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Larry Millete murder trial could see another delay

Danielle Dawson
3 min read

CHULA VISTA, Calif. (FOX 5/KUSI) — The trial for the Chula Vista man accused of murdering his wife, May “Maya” Millete, could be delayed again after multiple months-long delays last year over issues funding his defense.

During a hearing on Thursday, the attorneys for the 42-year-old Larry Millete, who were appointed to his case by a judge in October, said they would not be prepared for the August trial date as they are currently engaged in trial for another case and do not know exactly when it will end.

The judge presiding over the case, Enrique Camarena Jr., appeared to be annoyed by the hold up before setting a final hearing on April 2 to schedule when the trial will begin.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Timeline: The disappearance of Chula Vista mom Maya Millete

“We have to pick a date, soon. We put it out eight months at the last continuance and so we need to know,” Camarena said. “If we don’t get a date that we can realistically try this case, I’m just going to pick one and then we’ll go from there.”

The date comes nearly three years after Millete was arrested at his home in October 2021 — nine months after Maya, then-39 years old, was reported missing. He pleaded not guilty to all charges and was deemed eligible to stand trial after a 10-day preliminary hearing in January 2023.

While Thursday’s hearing was intended to provide an update on trial readiness, prosecutors also used the time to ask the court to reaffirm the protective order placed on Millete that prevents him from making any calls from jail to people other than his attorney.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The order was issued shortly after his arrest to protect the three children he had with Maya. In-person visits from family members other than his children were not prohibited.

However, deputy district attorney Christy Bowles said that between Feb. 2 and Feb. 27 Millete had made 11 video calls through the San Diego County Sheriff’s video visit system to people other than his attorneys — something she said was a clear violation of the court order.

“At that hearing, the court was in very clear, no uncertain terms with the defendant present stated those visits — the video visits — were prohibited,” Bowles said, adding that the calls were hard to monitor for possible contact with his children since they operate like a FaceTime.

“For whatever reason, he was given the opportunity to conduct these video visits and he took advantage of that opportunity,” she continued. Bowles also said she would be also be speaking with jail personnel about the issue later Thursday.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Millete’s defense attorney Colby Ryan pushed back, saying the violations were “not necessarily Mr. Millete’s fault” and had more to do with the sheriff department’s recent switch to a new communication system.

“I don’t believe he had any intent to violate this court’s order, because he actually asked us and it was our understanding that this is how the jail is going to do it,” Ryan said. “Moving forward, we will make sure that Mr. Millete only does social visits and that the jail is made aware that he cannot do these video visits.”

The judge ultimately confirmed the restraining order blocking Millete from making jail calls applied to the video visits, although he disagreed with his defense attorney’s argument.

Suspected prowler turns himself in: SDPD

Advertisement
Advertisement

“The one that makes the decision on who gets the phone call and accepts the phone call is you,” Camarena said. He added that Millete’s multiple requests to modify the protective order to allow for more outside contact “did not help.”

“Maybe someone made a mistake, but it’s on you to make a decision whether or not to make that phone call or make that video visit and frankly I think the DA’s office could charge you, if they wanted to,” he continued. “We’re not there … but violating a restraining order is a violation of a court order, which is a new crime.”

When the trial may begin is unclear at this time, but prosecutors say testimony will likely take upwards of four to six weeks.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to FOX 5 San Diego & KUSI News.

Advertisement
Advertisement