The Defense Calls…

Now back to the action. Let’s see how the defense approaches things…

The Defense Calls… Police Officer #2. Why is this guy #2? Isn’t he the first police officer we’ve heard from? Yes he is, but as you’ll soon see he is #2 in terms of importance to the case. He and his partner were the ones who responded to the scene on the evening of the incident. His partner is the one who spoke with the victim and the witnesses. His partner is the one who wrote up the police report. This guy doesn’t remember much about the incident, but he thinks he spent some time looking for a bullet and he didn’t find anything. Great witness defense team.

In the defense’s defense, apparently they tried to contact #2 several times in advance of the case. #2 informed us that the police department’s policy does not require them to talk with defense attorneys (unless summoned to court), so he opted not to. Thanks for stopping by #2.

The Defense Calls…The CSI Lady. Sure, it’s true that we already heard from one member of the CSI team and I could opt to call this woman CSI #2, but that would just be confusing. This woman had worked for the CSI group for 14 years, and she was being brought in because she examined the car (the Infiniti), and this inspection took place a month after the incident.

She was asked to inspect the vehicle for glass fragments and bullet casings, and she didn’t find any of either. She was not asked to look inside the door to see if there were any glass fragments inside. She also was not asked to try to determine if the rear passenger window was new (replaced), so she didn’t. She only did what was requested, and essentially found nothing.

Interestingly, there was no cross examination of this witness by the prosecution. If I were him, I probably would have tried to make the point that CSI doesn’t have endless time and resources to do every investigative technique you see on TV. But I was also content to keep things moving.

The Defense Calls… Staffing Agency Lady. Oooh, this was something I hadn’t anticipated before now in the case. I was wondering where this was going to go. I’ll switch back to bullet points to highlight what we learned from her:

  • Staffing Agency Lady (SAL) brought with her records that said the defendant swiped into work at 10:00 hours, swiped out for lunch at 15:00 hours, swiped back in from lunch at 15:30 hours and swiped out for the day at 18:30 hours (that’s 6:30 PM to us civilians). All times were exact.
  • These records came from a company that is a client of the staffing agency, both of which are located in the defendant’s hometown which is about 90 miles away from San Francisco. The defendant was working at the client company, not the staffing agency itself.
  • SAL joined the staffing company around November of 2006 – a year and a half after the date in question.
  • The client company where the defendant was working on the date in question was no longer a client of the staffing company when SAL started.
  • SAL said their company had very strict policies and procedures for all of their client companies to make sure they are correctly tracking how much work is being done. When new clients are set up, SAL goes to the client to help them get set up.
  • Employees are supposed to clock in and out with a swipe card at their own computer station with their own swipe card, so it is conceivable that they could sit at their station to wait to clock in and out at exactly the “00” of each hour.
  • Since this client company no longer worked with this staffing agency, SAL had never personally been to this client company to observe their time-keeping procedures. (The prosecution made sure to articulate this point).
  • If there was any information about what type of work the defendant was doing, or who her supervisor was, it was not presented at this time. It sounded like information about her supervisor was obtainable, but SAL did not bring it to court.
  • The incident occurred on a Monday, and that is the day for which this employment information pertained. However, Monday was the only day (or the last day) of this week that the defendant worked.

So in case you’re a little slow, the above bullet points describe “the alibi.” I just found it surprising that I don’t even remember the defense attorney mentioning this alibi in the opening arguments (but my memory could be faulty on this point).

The Defense Calls…Police Officer #1. This is the guy who seemed to be in charge of the response effort on the scene on the evening of the incident. He answered a lot of questions about the night of the incident, but I’ll only share the new and noteworthy information here.

  • When they arrived, he briefly spoke with all 3 men on the scene to ascertain what had happened. He then tried to separate them to get each of their versions on what had happened.
  • While he was testifying, he was often asked if referring to the police report would “refresh his memory.”
  • He was the one who wrote this police report. He said he always documents things the same way – he listens to a person tell the story. He then takes a break to write notes in a notebook on what the person has said, and then reads back what he has written to make sure it is accurate. As soon as possible after the incident, he uses his notes to generate the formal police report. I believe in this case he said he finished the report later that night, but it could have been a day later.
  • He said he no longer had the notebook in which he took the notes on this incident.
  • Not much was mentioned about his questioning of the victim, but it was clearly implied that the victim identified the shooter. When asked about the other two witnesses, #1 commented briefly that for both (Neighbor and Deputy) they claimed that they “heard the shot but didn’t see it.”
  • We also learn that the Victim requested an Emergency Protective Order as a result of the incident, and he (Victim) went down to the police station later that evening to pick up this EPO.

That’s what I took down in my notes while #1 was on the stand. His testimony will be revisited later though.

Next Post: More defense witnesses including a surprise witness!

Comments are closed.