The trial- Victim’s examination by Prosector

Here is the prosecutor questioning the victim

Q Okay. Do you remember the night you were robbed on  April 16, 2011, at approximately 11:45 p.m.?

A Yes, sir.

Please note that our attorney did not object. The victim was not robbed. It was an attempted robbery.

Q Okay. And can you describe to the jury what this

person was wearing?

A It was all dark clothing, like, dark gray black or

it could have been denim. I didn’t really look from him

waist down. But I don’t think he was wearing shorts. His

wrist, I remember they were covered to about here, and I

could see the skin tone on his hands and what the gun looked

like. And he had a blue paisley bandanna, the really common

kind that you see, all through here. He had what I thought

were bifocals. And he did have a hood covering, I think,

most of his hairline. But there was just a tiny bit of a

shadow on his forehead from the street light behind him.

Q So the only portion of his face that you were able

to see were the eyes and the nose?

The prosecutor is leading her. He is reminding her to say that she saw the nose. Once again, no objection from our attorney. You would think that our attorney would be taking notes or something for when he cross-examines her. After call, her 911 tape said that she could only see the eyes. The incident report said that she would not be able to recognize the assailant. She said that he was wearing a mask that covered half of the face. Who wears a mask that leaves his entire nose out. Even a five year old playing cops and robbers knows  how to wear a mask. Why need a mask if your entire face is out?? Things that one would have brought up on the cross-examination.

A Maybe above his lip to maybe here to his forehead.

Q And his hands?

A I only remember seeing one of them.

Q So you weren’t able to see any other part of his

body?

A No.

I will now copy and paste directly from the deposition. This is from the victim’s sworn deposition. This is what our attorney should have put in discovery. This is what he should have had when he later cross-examined the victim.

—————————————————————————————————————————

Q Was the hood up over his head, covering his head?

 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.

She just said that she could make out what kind of glasses the assailant wore when she met up with the detective. I guess she could not know what kind they were before meeting with the detective.

Um, and I could tell, obviously he had darker eyes, like my color or darker, not blue or not anything bright stood out.

Q Could you see his forehead?

A Yes. Not the entire thing. I couldn’t see his hairline

Remember this statement. It will become important later on in the blog.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s