If our attorney had played the 911 call, my son would have been acquitted.
On her 911 call, the victim said that the assailant’s face was covered with a bandana and wore a hoodie. Her written report says that she could only see the eyes. She said that the assailant was left-handed
The police officer at the scene of the crime said that the victim said that she would be unable to identify the assailant. He also said that the victim said that she could only see the eyes.
By the time we got to trial, the victim said that she could see his nose, cheeks, top of lip and eyebrows. She also said that his forehead was not smooth like a young child. What the crap does that mean? She then said that she could see the hairline. Now that quite the balancing act. The assailant would have to hold his head a certain way for the hoodie to not fall off
She was manipulated by the prosecutor and police detective. I feel sorry for her. She was a victim of an attempted robbery and a victim of the justice system.
Who wears a bandana and leaves his face exposed? And in the heck, do you wear a bandana that exposes the top of your lip. How is that even possible?
Even a five years old playing cops and robbers knows to cover the nose and wear a hat leaving only the eyes exposed
“society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.” Conversely, “intentional wrongdoing in court by perhaps the most critical member of the government law enforcement team [the prosecutor] calls into question the fairness and integrity of the trial”.
Prosecutor – Okay. And can you describe to the jury what this person was wearing?
Victim – 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 I24 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.
Prosecutor – So the only portion of his face that you were able to see were the eyes and the nose?
Victim – Maybe above his lip to maybe here to his forehead.
Prosecutor – And his hands?
Victim – I only remember seeing one of them.
There weren’t any objection by my son’s defense attorney. He should have objected that the prosecutor was leading the victim.
Prosecutor – Okay. How do you know that this person who sits here today is the person who robbed you back in April of 2011? Or does he look the same as the person who robbed you April of 2011?
Victim – A Yes.
Prosecutor – Are there any slight differences, and can you tell he jury what they are, if there are any?
Victim _ Of course, he looks a little older and, perhaps, maybe more heavyset. But thinking about how loose the clothing was on him that night, he could have been hiding something. Or if he was thinner, he could have layered. But his face, his cheeks, his nose, his eyebrows, his forehead wasn’t perfect and smooth, you know, like a very young child, but it did have some, you know, age in it. And that’s all that I saw in the pictures.
Prosecutor – So at the risk of making myself look silly, if you basically saw his face as I’m covering my face right now from the top part of the lip upward to the — kind of the crown of his forehead?
Victim – Yes.
Prosecutor – Okay. I’m sorry. You have to say yes or no.
Prosecutor – And that’s the part that you saw pretty clearly of his?
Victim – Yes.
Prosecutor – Okay. I’m sorry. Part of his face that you saw pretty clearly?
Victim – Yes.