DEPOSITION OF DETECTIVE
DATE TAKEN: APRIL 2, 2012
TIME: 3:10 P.M.
Q is the defense attorney. A is the Detective
Q You also acquired the phone records of Mr. Ajoloko. Can you walk us through how you did that or the process?
A I believe I used a subpoena for that. And, um — no, I got an order, a court order –
A — to produce. And I’m just waiting for the results to get here.
Q Did you turn over that order to — as a part of your discovery?
A Should have.
Q Because I don’t see it. I don’t see it in my package.
A Okay. I can get it to you guys.
The following is Taken from the arrest affidavit written by the Detective
May 23, 2011
I wrote an Order to Produce Records for Charles Ajoloko cell phone and had it signed by Judge XXXXXX. These records will determine if Ajoloko was in the area during the time of the robbery.
June 4th 2011
I received the results from the Order to Produce for Charles Ajoloko phone. I looked at the dates the Robberies occurred to see if Ajoloko was in the area. It appears Ajoloko cell phone was not used near the Robberies.
Please note the dates.
On the sworn deposition of the police detective, taken on 4/2/2012, the detective said that she did not have the results of my son’s cell phone records.
She had the results on 6/4/2011.
The results were favorable for my son. She never turned it over as part of her discovery. The prosecutor was aware of this. If it had benefitted the prosecutor, I bet it would have been turned over.
Juries usually honor the word of police officers and favor their testimony over the testimony of civilians; that is until the police officers are caught in a lie. A thorough cross examination by an ethical attorney would have uncovered these inconsistencies.
We didn’t have an ethical attorney.