The 1st Trail that never took place -April 2012 Part2


New Followers, please note that you must read this blog from the beginning to fully appreciate what the story is all about. The first blog dated June 18, 2014 started with a quote, ” Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both. Eleanor Roosevelt”.

The attorney knew had all of the ammunition needed to zealously represent my son. Instead, she chose to serve the prosecutor’s agenda. A prosecutor who became vindictive after I told her that my son would not take the 13 year plea. A prosecutor who should not have never talked directly with me. A prosecutor who became vindictive. I had been already paid the attorney a $5000 deposit. I never missed my $200 bi-weekly payments. I paid for the depositions. Hotels, travel and other expenses were draining my household and causing a hardship for my family; yet, when she required an additional $3750 before going I found a way to get the money. How could she do what she was doing? How could she live with herself?

An attorney is suppose to go over everything pertaining to the case. She should have been trying to negotiate a favorable plea. She should have made an effort to have the case dismissed. She chose not to and I do not understand why. She was in possession of the charging document – reports prepared by the police agency. These reports should be scrutinized with great care, for often they contain assumptions that an experienced trial lawyer can exploit for the defense. I know that she was in possession of everything because she forwarded all emails and correspondence to me that the prosecutor sent to her. However, I truly believe that she did not read what she was given.

I read the following on an attorney’s online advertisement,”The key to success in the courtroom boils down to an aggressive investigation of your charge, meticulous preparation of your case and the courtroom experience to convince others of your defense. The more a seasoned lawyer prepares for a case, the stronger his or her arguments will be. The stronger the arguments in your defense, the more likely the jury will decide to acquit you of your charges. The stronger your defense, the more likely the prosecution will want to reasonably settle your case”.

I read every document that she emailed to me. Now you will see some of the information in which she possessed.
Q All right. Now Ms. Slater, you were involved in an incident that happened earlier this year?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q Okay. Can you tell us about that?
A I can’t remember the date.
Q It’s okay.
A Um, it was in the spring. Uh-huh.
A After my birthday, I was — got off of work around 11:30, 12 o’clock.
Q p.m?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q Uh-huh. 20
A It was very dark. I was driving to my boyfriend’s house. He lives off of XXXX XXXX Drive. And I was going over there with my dog, possibly to spend the night. After work I had parked my car. My phone wasn’t working. Normally, I call him. He usually meets me outside, to be safe. And it just wasn’t working. So I waited just a few minutes; a second, a minute or two. And it wasn’t working, so I decided to get out of my car. I opened up my door and there was standing a man, right outside my door, then just — I remember a large, like a semi-automatic gun, like right in my face, pointed. (If I was the attorney, I would question the fact that she said that she was coming from work, yet, she had her dog. I would investigate if she truly went to work that day. After all the defense should be looking to discredit the prosecutor’s witnesses).
Q When you saw it, could you describe the person that you saw?
A I didn’t stand up. I remained seated the entire time. I tried not to look at him just because of the weapons, but from what I got he was dark-skinned. (To me this statement is questionable. She said that she tried not to look at him. She then went on to say from what I got. Got from whom?  I guess the detective. I seldom hear a Caucasian person refer to an African-American as dark-skinned. Pershaps, he was a back man or a dark black man but never dark-skinned.)
Q Dark-skinned, like African American?
A Yes, African American, um, bifocals. He had on a white and blue paisley bandana covering half of his face. It was all dark clothing; long pants, not sure if they were jeans or sweatpants, a dark sweatshirt. He had a hood over his head and all the colors were either black or gray, very dark, nothing bright. So it was mostly half of his face and hands that are exposed. (Please note that she said a white and blue paisley bandana covering half of his face. In the same paragraph, she said half his face was exposed.
A To about his forehead. I could see some of his forehead; his eyes and his nose.
Q So you could see his eyes?
A There was a glare from the light on his bifocals, but I could almost distinctly make out when I met up with the detective which frames were his. Um, and I could tell, obviously he had darker eyes, like my color or darker, not blue or not anything bright stood out. (Is anyone reading this? She said that
Q So you could see his — that he was wearing glasses?
A Yes. Reading glasses, not bifocals but sunglasses.
Q Prescription glasses?
A Yes, prescription glasses. (How does she know that they are prescription glasses??)
Q Like these?
A Yes.
Q Prescription glasses. You could see his nose, you said? (on the incident report, she said that she could only see his eyes)
A Yes.
Q And what else?
A The top part of his face and his hands, but mostly just the color from maybe here to here of his hand —

Q Okay.
A Because the rest was long sleeves and he was holding the gun. (On the 911 tape, she said that he was left-handed. At trial, she said that he was right-handed).
Q Could you see his forehead?
A Yes. Not the entire thing. I couldn’t see his hairline. (At trial, she said that she could see his hairline).
Q Are you familiar with guns?
A My — the ones that my dad have, but none 25 other than those. He has a large rifle, older shotguns.(I always wondered if she wanted to say my boyfriend but changed her mind. I also wondered where was her boyfriend during this ordeal. A man whose name she didn’t know called 911 for her and then gave the phone to her. She was supposing to be spending the night with her boyfriend).
Q Okay. Uh-huh.
A Because he likes hunting.
Q Uh-huh.
A He has two very large handguns that he’s customized, but as far as the ones the police force uses, things like that, no not really.
Q So your dad has a rifle and then he has like customized guns?
A Uh-huh. He has a 40 caliber right now. He has a 44 and he has a really old, wooden shotgun. None of those resemble what I saw that night. So I had trouble identifying it.
Q And those are semi-automatics or revolvers?
A I couldn’t even tell you. (She changes her story. Keep reading)
Q Okay.
A I don’t shoot them. I just see him sometimes with them. (Here, she says that she doesn’t shoot them.)

Now the prosecutor is asking questions:

Prosecutor: Are they the kind where you would load them from the bottom of the gun
THE WITNESS: The one with the 40, it’s 23 an automatic, I think. The rifle is an 24 automatic, obviously not the shotgun. I believe, he’s had revolvers before. I know the difference. I’ve shot them both. (Here she says that she shot them both).
Prosecutor: Okay.
THE WITNESS: I’m not an expert.
Prosecutor: That’s okay. Trust me, you know more than a lot of people, so…
BY the attorney:
Q So you knew the difference between a semi-automatic and a revolver?
A Yes. I’ve shot both. But, just to  clarify, I wasn’t staring at the gun and I was trying  not to stare at the gun and I was trying not to stare  at his face. Even though, in the back of my mind, I  knew that I needed to for future reference, but I was  trying very hard not to, just for fear. I was  looking just, you know, at the front of, my car and  in my purse looking for money. (There’s no gun in her face now. Earlier she said that she did not know the difference between  a semi-automatic and revolver.)

Q Were you able to distinguish whether or not  what he had was a semi-automatic or a revolver?

A If I had to guess, I would say a  semi-automatic.

Q And what?

A I don’t remember anything sticking out the  back. But the few glances that I had were maybe just  half a second to a second each.

Q And when you say you don’t remember  anything sticking out the back, can you tell me more  about that?

A It was smooth, other than, I guess his  hand. And I remember the very end of it, with the  barrel and, I guess, the muzzle looked like — I  don’t remember anything. It wasn’t long like the  revolvers I usually see.

Q When you say it wasn’t long like the  revolvers you usually see, do you mean like what I  call the nose of it?

A Yes. When I think of revolver, I think of  the old westerns with the long stainless steel muzzle  with the guide on the end, I guess, and then the  thinner metal around the barrel. His was very — it  was just like a police officer’s gun; black, decent  sized barrel, a little detail under whatever that is,  you know. It’s like a rectangle and going back  black. I don’t remember seeing anything where you  would load it as a revolver in the back.

Q Okay. So your recollection is that it most  likely was a semi-automatic?

A Uh-huh.

Prosecutor: Is that a yes?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That’s what I  identified with the detective. (Of course. Unfortunately, she was the detective’s puppet).

BY the attorney:  Q Do you carry a gun?

A No, ma’am.  Q Okay. Does your boyfriend carry guns?

A No.

Q Does he own a gun?

A No. Just my father.

Q Can you describe the demeanor of the person  that was pointing the gun at you?

A I don’t want to say aggressive, but he knew  what he wanted. He was assertive. He had, I guess,  an aggressive tone in his voice. No, obviously he  wasn’t nice. He was practically yelling at me and  you could tell from the tone of his voice that he wasn’t an older man. He didn’t use proper language. (My son speaks proper English)

I am going to end this post here. Rehashing this makes me sick. I am very sorry for the trauma the lady victim experience. I am also sorry that she allowed herself to be manipulated by the prosecutor and police detective.

The police, prosecutor, or attorney should not be allowed to manipulate evidence, witnesses, suspects or victims to get the results they desire. The constitution guarantees us a fair and impartial trial.

This trial never took place. My son wasn’t to go to trial until one and a half years later. The beautiful attorney received all of that money for nothing.


2 thoughts on “The 1st Trail that never took place -April 2012 Part2

  1. Admiring the time and energy you put into your blog and detailed information you offer.
    It’s good to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same out of date rehashed information. Excellent read!
    I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m including your RSS feeds to my Google account.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s