A Shameful Cross Examiantion of the Victim

CROSS-EXAMINATIONOF THE VICTIM By Our illustrious Defense Attorney

Q Okay. And you indicated to the prosecutor that he

was actually — I mean, directly when you turned to him,

there was a gun in your face?

A Yes.

Q And his hand up, I’m assuming — correct me if I’m

wrong — was straight out with a gun, like literally in your face?

A Yes.

Q And do you remember that — what hand that gun was in?

A I thought it was the right, but I never saw two

hands at — I never saw two hands, so it was hard to

determine which one it was in. If it was his left, he could

have just been holding it more to the right. But that was

something that because I wasn’t trying to look at him, I

couldn’t really determine. But if I had to guess, I would

say the right.

Q Okay. You believe it was in the right.

Could you — could it have been in his left hand,

though? You don’t know? (Her 911 call said that the perpetrator was left-handed)

Prosecutor: Objection; asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Defense Attorney

Q Okay. And you couldn’t see his — his hairline;

isn’t that correct?

A No. (Why didn’t our attorney further question that. She said No. she is saying that she could see the hairline)

Q Okay. You indicated that he was wearing some type

of hoodie and it was sort of pulled over his head or over his

forehead?

A A little bit, yes.

Q Okay. And so of his face, you indicated you could

see from the top of his lip, sort of up to, like, mid

forehead; is that correct?

A About here, yes. (is anyone following this? He is wearing a mask and she could see from the top of his lip. Then she said to mid forehead, yet she said she could see the hairline)

Q Okay. And you couldn’t directly see his eyes;

isn’t that correct?

A I could tell they were a dark color. There wasn’t

anything bright that stood out behind the glasses, but that

was it. No real detail. (She could tell they were dark even though she and the detective said the lenses were dark)

Q Okay. Do you remember actually seeing his eyes?

A I don’t remember.(She just said that she could see his eyes were a dark color)

Q Okay.

A If you had asked me in 2011, I probably could have

told you.

Q Okay. Because you gave a deposition in this case;

isn’t that correct?

A Yes, ma’am, I did.

Q And you gave a deposition on December 15, 2011;

isn’t that correct?

A Yes, ma’am.

Q And on that date, do you remember being asked if

you could see his eyes?

A I think they asked me, yes.

Q Okay. And do you remember talking about the glare

that was on his eyeglasses?

A There was a glare.

Q So that glare made it difficult to really discern

exactly what his eyes looked like?

A The glare and, also, just the darkness and because

the majority of the lighting was, I guess, the streetlights

were behind him and it was the smaller dimmer lights in the

apartment that were, I guess, in front of us. (Now she is saying that she could not see the eyes.)

Q And, I mean, just realistically, you had a gun in

your face. I mean, hello, you weren’t looking?

A Yes, I was trying not to look at him.

Q All right. And I understand that.

You indicated that he started kind of talking to

you and telling you that, you know, give me your money,

basically?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Was he doing that in, like, a yelling way or

how was he telling you that?

A I would say yelling. It was not how I would ever

talk to a person casually. It was very assertive and, I

would say, borderline aggressive. But his words, it was

short; it was to the point; and you could tell he was

determined and he knew what he wanted, which, obviously, much

more scary situation.

Q Okay. And when he was talking to you — you’re

very well-spoken, and I hope you think I am well-spoken as

well. But we’re well-spoken people. Would you categorize

his speaking to you in the same kind of talk that we’re

speaking to each other?

A No.

Q Could you say it was less of a proper language type

situation?

A Yes.

Q Would you have characterized it — I don’t know —

for lack of a better word, kind of ghetto? Would you

characterize it in that term?

A If it was — well, I don’t like using that word,

but —

Prosecutor: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I understand where you’re coming

from. And yes to some degree. But I have had — I have

heard different or, I guess, more, if that’s the scale

that we’re talking about. (My son’s has excellent and proper English as evidence by his video. Also, he has an accent which should have been noticed

Defense Attorney:

Q Okay. I understand. That’s fair enough.

And you indicated that — you said the gun that he

used appeared to be something similar to what the police

officer had?

A Yes.

Q Okay. But you’re not sure that it was the exact

gun the police officer had?

No, I wasn’t sure.

Q And you described the gun in sort of some general

terms that the police officer was potentially having a hard

time understanding?

A Yes. Or maybe he picked up that his was very

similar. And so I could properly ID it, he showed me his.

Q And you described the gun as black; is that

correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And you indicated that there wasn’t

anything, you know, unusual or shiny or anything about the

gun that gave it any other characteristics that you

specifically remember?

A No.

Q Now, during the incident, the entire time this

perpetrator was at your car, you never actually got out of

your car?

A No.

Q And you never stood up; isn’t that correct?

A No.

Q And pretty much the entire incident was — he had

the gun being literally pointed at you?

A Yes.

Q And you indicated that he was — his skin tone was

black; isn’t that correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And you said that you could see — you

couldn’t see the bottom half of his face because you said

that there was — he had a bandanna on it; isn’t that

correct?

A He did.

Q Okay. All right. And you said, too, that you

weren’t even sure, you felt like he was wearing dark

clothing, but you weren’t sure exactly what type of pants he

had on?

A No. If it was a very dark denim or sweatpants, it

probably would have seemed almost similar. It was baggie.

Nothing was tight fitting, obviously, so it was harder to see

his body shape under it, all I remember. But I do remember

seeing this dark going almost all the way down. I don’t

remember his shoes. I don’t think I ever really saw shoes

or, like, his ankles. Everything was kind of dark and

flowing together for the most part, but it was clear he was

wearing a hooded sweatshirt.

Q Okay. All right. Now, you’ve spoken with a police

officer on several different times since that incident on

April of 2011; isn’t that correct?

A Yes.

Q In regards to the incident?

A Uh-huh.

Q Isn’t that correct?

And the first time you spoke with the police

officer was that very night when somebody called 9-1-1?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And when that officer came out — I don’t

know if you remember his name, but when that officer came

out, you — you had the opportunity to tell him what had

happened; isn’t that correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And at that point, you told the officer that

you probably were not going to be able to identify who did

this to you. Do you remember that?

A No.

Q Okay. And at another point during this — this

investigation, you spoke with the prosecutor and you told the

prosecutor that you actually met with the Detective s and

she showed you a lineup around May of 2011, correct?

A Uh-huh.

Q Okay. And when she showed you that lineup, you

were not able to identify anybody in that lineup as well;

isn’t that correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And then a few weeks later the Detective

again asked you to come to the Orange County Sheriff’s

Office; isn’t that correct?

A Yes.

Q And at that point, you did say you circled somebody

in that second photo lineup and you put your initials there;

isn’t that correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And that day she actually had you also write

a statement in regards to you circling —

A Yes.

Q — her picture; isn’t that correct?

A Uh-huh.

Q And in that statement, you indicated to the Detective

that you were only 60 percent sure that that was the

person that had robbed you; isn’t this correct?

A If that’s what I wrote.

Q Would — I mean, I don’t want to put words in your

mouth. But would looking at your report refresh your

recollection of what you wrote on that day?

A It could have, yes.

Q All right.

Defense attorney: Judge, may I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

Defense Attorney:

Q And I’ll just let you look at that and then turn it

over when you get done.

A (Complying.)

Q Okay. Do you remember writing that you were only

60 percent sure that the person that you circled in that

photo lineup was the person that robbed you?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And you wrote that statement on the day that

you actually did the — or did the photo lineup

identification; isn’t that correct?

A Yes.

Q So, like, you did the lineup, then you wrote the

statement; isn’t that correct?

A (No response.)

Q Okay. So on that day, you weren’t sure that that

was the person — you weren’t 100 percent sure that that was

the person that robbed you; isn’t that correct?

A Out of those people in the lineup, I would have

chosen him every time over any of the other ones for specific

characteristics on his picture.

Q Okay. Because you said that there was a few

characteristics that resembled the person that robbed you;

isn’t that correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay. In terms of — one of the specifics was the

shape of the glasses; isn’t that correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And you also indicated that the nose on the

person was similar; isn’t that correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay. When you met with the Detective about

the incident, did — every time you meet with her, did she —

isn’t it true that she asked you to sort of recite to her the

facts of your case?

A She wanted my memory to — she wanted me to retain

as much information from the night as I could, and I was

trying to do that. So if she had shown me any lineups or

asked me further questions for trial, I would remember as

much as I possibly could.

Q Okay. And you also indicate — or at some point

you were also shown some pictures of some guns; isn’t that

correct?

A Yes, ma’am.

Q Okay. And when she showed you the pictures, they

were kind of a lot of guns that she showed you pictures of;

isn’t that correct?

A I don’t remember. I remember a few in particular

pictures, but I don’t remember how many it was.

Q Okay. And you were never able to specifically say

on any of those pictures that this was the gun that was used

to rob you; isn’t that correct?

A I don’t remember.

Q Okay. All right.

Defense Attorney: If I could just have one second,

Judge?

THE COURT: You may.

Defense Attorney: Judge, at this point, I have no

further questions.

It is obvious that our defense attorney did not take the time to read the incident reports, police reports, or even the depositions. They probably did not even listen to the 911 call. The defense had enough ammunition to discredit the victim. She was manipulated by the detective and prosecutor. They did not call her out on anything. This was shameful, absolutely shameful. Why didn’t our defense question her about the fact that she told 911 that she would be unable to identify the suspect. Why didn’t our defense play the 911 call where she also said that she could not identify the suspect? Why didn’t she play the 911 call where it said that the suspect was left-handed? Why didn’t she show the juror the police reports where the victim said that she could identify the suspect? She told the police that she could ONLY see the eyes. His face was covered with a mask. All of a sudden, she can recognize the nose? Come on. Give me a break. Our defense attorney should have done a visual aid. Ask a juror to put on a mask. Ask another juror to put on a mask with part of the top lip showing. A 5 year old playing cops and robbers knows to cover his nose and wear his hat to his eyes, so that only the eyes are exposed. Once our defense could prove that she was manipulated by the detective and prosecutor. It would be easy to prove that my son was also manipulated by the detective.

My son did not have a defense team. My son did not have a defense attorney. They didn’t care. It wasn’t a big enough case,. Their firm advertises to zealously represent their client. They Lied. They Lied.

 


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