P
R O C E E D I N G S
[In the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
Lawrenceville,
Georgia; 9:00 a.m., Saturday, August 26,
1995; STATE OF GEORGIA v. MICHAEL HAROLD CHAPEL, 93-B-1818-6; Criminal Jury
Trial, Judge Fred A. Bishop, Jr., Presiding.]
THE
COURT: Would you approach the bench,
please?
[Counsel
approached the bench and the following conference ensued.]
THE
COURT: The court reporter indicated
this morning that she thought there was a discrepancy in one part or one
paragraph of the transcript from the tape.
At what part is that, Mary?
THE
REPORTER: The phrase that's missing is
on Page 76, Line 19. The sentence in
which it starts is on 18, 'But as they proceed up the road.' The phrase that's missing is, I think it's
'a patrol car pulled out.'
MR.
DAVIS: It's on the tape but not on the
transcript?
MR.
PORTER: It's labeled as unintelligible
on the transcript.
MS.
ROGAN: No. This is the transcript.
We're on 76.
THE
REPORTER: No. No.
THE
COURT: All right. And that's on Page 76, Line --
MR.
DAVIS: 19?
MS.
ROGAN: Line 19, yeah.
THE
REPORTER: 'Up the road' comma, and
since I don't have the video, it was something like 'a patrol car pulled
out.' It's on my original disk unless
something was lost in the conversion process.
If I could check --
THE
COURT: Okay.
THE
REPORTER: -- someone's transcript of
the statement.
MR.
DAVIS: It may have been that when we
created draft one, there was some stuff that got taken out of the transcript
that when I went back and compared transcripts, one of the rulings the Court
had made before, it had not been ordered out by the Court, so when we were
creating draft 2, we attempted to put all that stuff back into the transcript
that had not been ruled out.
THE
COURT: Okay.
THE
REPORTER: That's the portion I think I
saw that had been retyped or somehow --
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, does it fit between
on Line 19 between 'road' and 'whips up on' the transcript?
MS.
ROGAN: Uh-huh. Right.
MR.
PORTER: -- and the words you think
aren't there are --
THE
REPORTER: It's like 'a patrol car
pulled out' or pulls out, and I could go check my disk.
THE
COURT: But you're saying it goes like
'up the road, a patrol car pulls out and whips up' from there.
THE
REPORTER: Comma a patrol car pulls out
comma whips up the road.
THE
COURT: What's there is right but it's
like pulls out is missing?
THE
REPORTER: No.
MS.
ROGAN: 'The patrol car pulls out' is
what's missing.
THE
REPORTER: The phrase 'the patrol car
pulls out.'
THE
REPORTER: Yeah.
MR.
DAVIS: I think -- my guess is that what
happened was that when I put the material back in to draft two that had not
been ordered out by the Court, we probably did not put that line back in. I think it was probably removed on draft
one.
THE
COURT: Is there one line missing or two
or three words?
THE
REPORTER: One phrase, like maybe six
words, four, five, six words, something like that.
THE
COURT: Okay.
THE
REPORTER: And when we take a break, I
can get those words.
THE
COURT: Okay. Well, let's see --
MR.
PORTER: We're past there, Judge, I mean
--
THE
REPORTER: If you have a copy of your
transcript --
MR.
PORTER: But the point of it is that the
Court's given instructions that the transcript is only for the purpose of
assisting them in listening to the tape.
THE
COURT: All right. Yeah.
Why don't we, at this point, proceed on with it. At the next recess, pull a copy of it and
let's see what's there and if it's -- I mean, they're listening and they're
reading and if it's anything that needs to be addressed, fine. If not, fine. It sounds innocuous to me.
MS.
ROGAN: Right. It also sounds like it's along the lines of material that we've
previously requested to be redacted and that has been redacted because the
evidence didn't actually reflect that that's what the witnesses said they saw.
MR.
MOORE: It was clear on the tape. I heard it and remember thinking at the time
that it wasn't anything important.
THE
REPORTER: I just felt like I needed to
say something.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, if anything, its
removal or inclusion probably at this point may work to the detriment of the
state to a certain extent, and I'm willing to waive that defect in the
transcript.
THE
COURT: Well, why don't we, at the next
recess, pull a copy of the -- or pull the unredacted transcript and see what's
missing, and then we'll just come back to it.
MS.
ROGAN: Okay.
THE
COURT: Okay.
[Bench
conference concluded.]
MR.
PORTER: There is one other matter I'd
like to put on the record.
THE
COURT: Yes, sir.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, this morning, and I
have already made disclosure of this fact to Mr. Moore and Ms. Rogan, but based on Mr. Moore's request
yesterday and our discussions afterwards, the gist of the defense request is
based -- is that if the state has documents or evidence which is of a original
nature as opposed to the derivative nature which I described as trial
preparation that the defense cannot get access to, then I've agreed to provide
that.
And
in light of that conversation, I have made the following disclosure this
morning. In preparation of a witness
for potentially calling to trial, we interviewed Officer Brian Reddy. During that conversation, we inquired of him
about any firearms that he owned. And
at the time, he indicated he only owned certain firearms; and, Your Honor, I
don't recall the specifics.
But
at a later date, he informed us that he owned an RG .38. He was requested to bring that weapon to us,
to my office, and it was immediately delivered to the crime lab, where it was
compared with the bullets in this case.
It was conclusively excluded as the murder weapon in this case by Kelly
Fite. No written report has been
generated.
Your
Honor, I agreed -- and this was within the last five to six days, and I have
disclosed this information. It is not
within the ability of the defense to get in any other way, and I feel that we
had no intention of introducing the evidence.
As far as we were concerned, it was not exculpatory. But given the events of the last few days
and the fact that Mr. Moore has questioned witnesses about the whereabouts of
Brian Reddy, in the interest of full disclosure, I am making that disclosure on
the record. There is no
documentation. There is no written
report that I can give.
THE
COURT: Okay. Is Kelly Fite going to -- is he going to testify?
MR.
PORTER: He's going to testify about
evidence that we have, yes, sir.
THE
COURT: All right.
MR.
PORTER: I also -- I have the weapon in
the evidence room at my office. I will
make it available to any experts for the defense that wish to analyze it. Your Honor, I feel that I'm disclosing as
fast as I can disclose once I receive the information.
THE
COURT: All right. Okay.
Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, Mr. Porter did
disclose that to us this morning.
THE
COURT: All right. Is there any further request from the
defendant?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we had discussed
this yesterday. I believe Mr. Porter
indicated he has no other evidence that we didn't have access to also.
THE
COURT: All right. And Kelly Fite will be here and you'll have
the opportunity to cross-examine him.
All right. Anything else, Mr.
Porter?
MR.
PORTER: Not that I'm aware of.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore, anything else this
morning?
MR.
MOORE: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: All right. Are we ready to proceed on with the tape,
then?
MR.
PORTER: Yes, Your Honor. I believe the tape is cued up and ready to
go.
THE
COURT: Okay. And that's going to be a couple of hours or so, you anticipate?
MR.
PORTER: I believe it's about two hours
worth of tape.
THE
COURT: Okay. And then we'll have witnesses to continue on with the balance of
the day?
MR.
PORTER: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, there may be some
technical problems along the -- not problems, but things we have to work out
between tapes two and three related to the evidentiary questions that we dealt
with yesterday.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: And we are also preparing the
remainder of the transcript with the, at this time, redactions, which, if the
case goes to the penalty phase, what we'll do is prepare another transcript of
just those portions of tape number three, and those relate to the possession of
the M-16 rifle.
THE
COURT: All right. Let's see now. Do we have -- insofar as the transcripts the jurors have, at this
point, do they have everything to follow?
We removed a portion. Of course,
that didn't include the reference to the M-16, I believe.
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your
Honor. We removed from Page 124 to 136.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: We are in the process of
preparing substitute pages with the reference to the M-16 deleted, and we would
deliver those to the jurors.
THE
COURT: All right. Okay.
MR.
PORTER: At the appropriate time, we
will reintroduce the transcript of just that language that we're going to --
THE
COURT: At what point in time do you
contemplate providing those to the jurors?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I should have those
well before tape three starts. We're in
the process of making them now.
THE
COURT: All right. How long will it be before we come to tape
three, do you think?
MR.
PORTER: An hour and a half.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: Almost two hours.
THE
COURT: Okay. All right. We'll just
take a recess at that point, then, and get the tapes ready and also add the
transcripts so that those are complete, then.
All right.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, to give you an
idea, I wasn't really paying attention to the time, but we covered in tape one
77 pages of the transcript, and I'm looking for where my note says that tape
three begins. We may not have it in
here, but that will give the Court at least an idea.
THE
COURT: Okay. All right. Anything
else, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: No, sir. We're ready to go.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: We're ready, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Bring the jurors back, please.
[The
jurors were escorted to the courtroom.]
THE
COURT: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Everybody okay this morning?
I believe we'll be commencing at Page 77 of the transcript and
continuing on with the tape. We have
about two hours or so left on the tape, and then we'll be proceeding with the
other witnesses as part of the state's case this morning and then the balance
of the afternoon. Go ahead, please.
[Whereupon,
playing of the videotape two commenced.]
THE
COURT: At this point we'll take about
ten minutes to give the jurors a chance to stretch their legs. If you'll leave your pens, pads, and notes,
your transcripts in your seats, then we'll recommence -- would you approach the
bench, Mr. Allen
[The
bailiff approached the bench and a brief conference was held off the record.]
THE
COURT: I think what we'll do at this
point is take a fifteen minute recess and get a cup of coffee if you like and
smoke a cigarette if you like, and then we'll be pushing on until about noon
without any lengthy break. We'll take
fifteen minutes at this point. If
you'll go with the bailiff, please.
[The
jury was excused from the courtroom for the recess.]
THE
COURT: Anything else at this
point, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: We'll take fifteen minutes.
[Break
taken]
THE
COURT: The notes from jurors, I've
given to the court reporter, and they're being marked as R-1, 2, 3, 4, and so
on. They're part of the record, and you
can take a look at them if you'd like, miscellaneous notes, like speak up or
whatever, I can't hear or whatever. But
anyway, they're all part of the record. Is the state ready?
MR.
PORTER: The state's ready, Your
Honor. I would -- I don't know how far
we are from the end of this tape. I
really haven't been keeping track of the counter.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: At the time this tape ends,
because tape three is going to require some manipulation in terms of fast
forward and we have to provide another transcript, we're going to request
another break.
THE
COURT: All right. Whenever we get to that point, we'll just
take a recess for however long it takes and, hopefully, that will be short and
then we'll proceed on.
MR.
PORTER: Hopefully, it will be short.
THE
COURT: Okay. Anything else at this point, Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: All right. Bring the jury back, please.
[The
jury returned to the courtroom and proceedings resumed, as follows.]
THE
COURT: We're going to have to change the
tapes shortly. I'm not sure exactly how
long that's going to be, but we'll proceed with the next tape change. At that point, we'll take as short a recess
as it takes in order to change the tape.
We'll can set back after the third tape and then that will complete the
tape. Go ahead, please.
[Whereupon,
playing of videotape two recommenced.]
THE
COURT: We'll take ten minutes or soon
thereafter as we have the equipment set back up to recommence with the next
tape. If you'll leave your pens, pads,
and notes in your seats, they'll be waiting on you when you return along with
the transcripts. If you'll go with the
bailiff, please.
[The
jury was excused from the courtroom for the recess.]
THE
COURT: How long do you think tape three
will run, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, there's about
twenty-three minutes of actual playing time.
Mr. Davis informs me that based on the situation with the evidence that
is not to go the jury at this point, we have -- since it has not been edited
out of the tape, there's a sixty-four second delay at five minutes into the
tape that runs to six minutes and ten seconds.
And then at eight minutes and twenty-two seconds into the tape, there is
a sixty-seven second delay. There is no
counter on the edited version so it's going to be very, very difficult in the
presence of the jury to actually stop the tape, fast forward it, and restart
it.
THE
COURT: All right. These are not edited out. These are where you want to stop, cue it up
to the next spot, and then play it.
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: How far apart are those, do you
know?
MR.
PORTER: They're about two minutes
apart. They're five minutes into the
tape, then two minutes apart, and then --
THE
COURT: All right. And I don't suppose we'll do that without
sending the jury out.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, we can find no
practical way this morning, between eight o'clock this morning and noontime
today to do that.
THE
COURT: All right. We'll just send them out for a couple of
minutes and cue it up. Just make sure
it's in the right place.
MR.
PORTER: Yes, sir. Then, Your Honor, there's approximately a
five-minute delay -- excuse me, twenty minutes and eleven second delay which we
propose to fast forward through.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: Then there's an eighteen minute
and fifteen second delay which we propose to fast forward through. Those are relatively easy to identify
because -- and we can do that while the
jury is here.
THE
COURT: Okay. So we'll need to send the jury out twice. And the others, we'll just pause while you
turn the volume off and fast forward.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, the volume doesn't
work while it's being fast forward, so all we have to do is fast forward.
THE
COURT: Well, I know, but if you stop
anyplace along the way, then it's --
MR.
PORTER: Well, that's why I said that we
can tell, Your Honor, -- the reason we're fast forwarding through, and it's by
agreement of counsel, is there are silent photographs of the defendant seated
in a chair.
THE
COURT: Okay. So if you stop, it won't matter.
MR.
PORTER: We can wind through because as
soon as you see the other person come in, you can go back to regular speed.
THE
COURT: Okay. But you'll probably have overshot it, in which case you'll need
to back up. My point is if you go too
far, then you'll have to back it up, and if you're backed up to where you don't
want to play, then all you're going to have is that silent picture?
MR.
PORTER: That's correct.
THE
COURT: In which case, it won't matter.
MR.
PORTER: It won't matter. That's correct.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
DAVIS: Your Honor, one point of
clarification. On tape three, there is
no video whatsoever. There is only
audio. And for the two longer pauses,
there's absolutely nothing going on during the time of the pauses, so even if
we stopped in the wrong place, they will hear nothing.
THE
COURT: Okay. All of the next twenty minutes or so is going to be pure audio;
is that what you're saying?
MR.
PORTER: Yes, sir. That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: That's based on the previous
ruling of the Court because it has to do with the portion where the defendant
changed clothes.
THE
COURT: All right. Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, that's correct and
what we agreed.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MS.
ROGAN: Is there still a time?
MR.
DAVIS: No.
MS.
ROGAN: If the time's not there, how are
you going to know where on the tape?
MR.
DAVIS: I'm going to try to make the
counter on the tape on the VCR work.
MS.
ROGAN: Okay.
MR.
DAVIS: If I can get the counter up and
running on the VCR, then I'll attempt --
MS.
ROGAN: Okay. I just didn't know how else you'd tell where on the tape you
wanted to be.
THE
COURT: During the portion that you're
fast forwarding where the jury is in, is any of that --
MR.
PORTER: There's no --
THE
COURT: -- if there is a pause, a stop,
such that sound comes on, the jury hears it, is there anything -- any of that
that's objectionable or is all of that being fast forwarded, simply a picture,
just a picture of somebody sitting there?
MR.
PORTER: There is no picture, Your
Honor.
MS.
ROGAN: There's no picture and no audio.
MR.
PORTER: There is no sound.
MR.
DAVIS: There is no picture. Any sounds that we came to if I did not stop
in the right place that would be admissible under the Court's previous rulings.
THE
COURT: Okay. All right. My concern is
if we stop somewhere along the way and there's parts ruled out that then come
in by virtue of either sound or --
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor, we don't --
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
DAVIS: As long as we can get by the two
short deletions early in the tape, then we will not have that problem.
THE
COURT: Okay. Mr. Moore, do you plan on using any of the tape during
cross-examination of the witness?
MR.
MOORE: I don't intend to play it again,
Your Honor, but I do intend to use the transcript to cross- examine the
witness.
THE
COURT: Okay. Well, my question is once we get through with this and we remove
the equipment, you won't be needing -- the state won't be needing it insofar as
any cross-examination or replays?
MR.
MOORE: No, Your Honor. I don't intend to replay it.
THE
COURT: Okay. All right. We'll take --
how long do you think we need?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, we have to
distribute the corrected transcripts also.
THE
COURT: All right. Mr. Allen, if you'll do the transcripts
insofar as -- we're going to add, let's see.
At this point, it's purely a matter of addition to the back of each
transcript; right?
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: All right. Let's do that now. Mr. Allen, if you'll add those to each of the transcripts.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, we have given
defense counsel the three pages that were changed to replace and they're a
complete set, but what we have for the jury is a new set of Pages 124 through
136.
THE
COURT: All right. So replace pages of Page 124 through 136 --
MS.
ROGAN: 120 --
MR.
PORTER: 124.
THE
COURT: 124 through 136.
MS.
ROGAN: 136, okay.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor --
THE
COURT: All right. And that should be through the end; correct?
MR.
PORTER: That's through the end, Your
Honor.
THE
COURT: All right. Mr. Allen, if you'll look -- there ought to
be a -- we have -- the last page in the transcripts in the jury box should be
Page 123; correct?
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: So --
THE
BAILIFF, MR. ALLEN: Page what?
THE
COURT: 123.
THE
BAILIFF: Okay.
THE
COURT: The last page in each of those
books ought to be 123, and then we're going to add 124 through 136.
THE
BAILIFF, MR. ALLEN: All right.
THE
COURT: All right. Mr. Moore, do you want to take a look at
them; and, Mr. Porter, if you'll hand them to Mr. Allen and add them to each
book, please.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, for the Court, we
have done the same thing as defense counsel, is just provided the substitute
pages that were changed.
THE
COURT: All right.
MR.
PORTER: And we would provide to the
court reporter for inclusion in State's Exhibit Number 96 the appropriate pages
for substitution for the deleted pages as we did yesterday.
THE
COURT: All right. Let's add them to the books first and then
let's come back and perfect the record as far as exhibits go. All right.
We have one added, Mr. Allen; is that correct?
THE
BAILIFF, MR. ALLEN: Pardon?
THE
COURT: Do we have one added?
THE
BAILIFF, MR. ALLEN: We don't have any
yet.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: I'm providing them to Mr. Allen
now, Your Honor.
SERGEANT
PARR: Your Honor, may we put the
defendant up while you're doing this?
THE
COURT: Well, we're going to be transacting
some business here with these. He needs
to be here.
MR.
DAVIS: Your Honor, if I may, I'm going
to put tape two back into the machine and see if there's any more on it. I'm going to make sure we did not stop it in
the middle of a deletion and it's right at the end.
THE
COURT: All right. Go ahead, please.
THE
BAILIFF, MR. ALLEN: It's going to take
me a while, Judge.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
DAVIS: I was looking at the machine
when it went blank and I wasn't following the transcript at that point. I'm not sure we got to the actual end of it.
MR.
PORTER: Yeah, we did because the next
words are, 'I'll gather all this stuff up for you,' so we're at the end.
MR.
DAVIS: Your Honor, there's also four
minutes and twenty seconds at the beginning of tape three where nothing is
taking place. There is no audio, there
is no video, and with the Court's permission and Mr. Moore in agreement, I will
fast forward to that point in tape three so that's where we would start on that.
THE
COURT: All right. Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: That's correct, Your Honor. There's nothing there.
THE
COURT: All right. So stipulated. All right. That completes
first through sixth, the six jurors on the front row in the jury box insofar as
the transcripts go. Before we begin, I
want to get the transcripts changed, then we'll take five minutes, and then
we'll come back and perfect the record.
MR.
PORTER: Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: And then if we're ready, we'll
proceed on. Are those --
THE
BAILIFF, MR. ALLEN: All replaced,
Judge.
THE
COURT: All right. We'll come back to -- on the record
then. It appears that all eighteen
transcripts in the box have the changes made to them with the additions to
them. We'll come back and perfect the
record in a moment. You want five
minutes, Mr. Porter? Is that sufficient?
MR.
PORTER: I would think five minutes,
Your Honor. We'll notify the Court if
there's a problem.
THE
COURT: All right. We'll take five minutes. If you'll return Mr. Chapel. We'll take five minutes and then we'll
return to perfect the record.
[Break
taken]
THE
COURT: Where do we stand, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, if I may, with the
fact that there is no video, it makes it much more difficult for us to locate
the appropriate times and plus the counter that we use on this video is
different from the VCR in the room where we were working. It's now 12:20. We would request that we take the lunch recess now. That will give us an hour. I realize we've already had about twenty
minutes to get it squared away, but that will give us the opportunity to get
squared away so that we can play the twenty-three minutes immediately after
lunch. We have witnesses. We're prepared to go forward. If we can have this time, I believe using
the counter on this machine, we will not have to have the jury step out. We can just go -- we can fast forward
through tape to take care of the portions and it won't require moving the jury
in and out.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, that's fine. I think that would be a good suggestion. Probably the jury is ready to go to lunch
anyway.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, the state has no
objection if the Court just wants to excuse them without bringing them in and
have the bailiffs take them to the lunchroom.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: That's fine, Your Honor. We don't have any objection.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, there is one point
that unlike Monday through Friday, my information is that except for feeding
the jurors, the cafeteria is not here -- it's not open.
THE
COURT: I believe that's a fair
statement.
MR.
PORTER: So with the weather today, I
think that there may be some -- I know where at least some of my people are
going to be, but there may be a little bit more delay in getting lunch today.
MR.
MOORE: And, Your Honor, if you would,
I'd ask you to maybe consider giving us a few extra minutes, too. We'd like to go down and look at this new
piece of evidence that Mr. Porter has told us about this morning.
THE
COURT: All right. 1:45.
How does that sound?
MR.
PORTER: That's fine.
MR.
MOORE: That would be fine, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: All right. If you'll have the jurors -- just go ahead
and take them to lunch. Take them down
to the cafeteria, and we'll bring them back up at 1:45. Okay?
Before we recess for lunch, let's perfect the record insofar as the
transcripts.
I
believe the Pages 124 through 126, the revised version -- well, let's see, I've
got 124 through 126.
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: I thought it was 136.
MS.
ROGAN: Well, there were no changes.
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor, there were no
changes from Page 126 through the end, which is at 136. I've provided to the Court and the court
reporter three changes for inclusion in their complete copies.
THE
COURT: All right. The additional 124 through 126 represents
what?
MR.
PORTER: The changes to the original
transcript which is State's Exhibit Number 94.
THE
COURT: All right. So those three pages as they presently stand
are the -- that's the original or the redacted version?
MR.
PORTER: Well, Your Honor, State's
Exhibit Number 94 is a transcript of the redacted tapes. As the pages stand in State's Exhibit Number
94, before the substitution of these pages, they are the original pages.
THE
COURT: Okay. Well, let's -- let me make sure I understand. We have added this morning Pages 124 through
136 to the transcript which were not present this morning in the jurors' books.
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: And that includes a redacted
version; is that correct?
MR.
PORTER: That includes the redacted
version of Pages 124, 125, and 126.
THE
COURT: All right. And so State's Exhibit 94, as it presently
stands, the transcript, is the redacted version of the tape, the total redacted
version.
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: It includes every redaction that
has been made that the jury's going to hear through Page 136. That's State's 94 at present.
MR.
PORTER: State's 94 was the original
transcript of the redacted tapes. We
made one substitution yesterday and documented that by State's Exhibit Number
95 on Page 38, I believe. Today, we are
substituting into State's Exhibit 94 Pages 124, 125, and 126. If the Court follows the same procedure it
did yesterday, the court reporter will remove Pages 124, 125, and 126 from
State's Exhibit 94, substitute the new pages, and mark the pages which have
been removed as State's Exhibit Number 96.
THE
COURT: It's still not clear to me, and
I want to make sure it's totally clear on the record. State's 94 as it stands now is a transcript of the defendant's
interview with a redacted Page 38.
That's where we started this morning.
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: And State's 95 is the original
Page 38, which is no longer in the transcript which the jurors have.
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Okay. Now, then, we have added Pages 124 through 136 this morning.
MR.
PORTER: Not to 94, but to the jurors'
transcripts.
THE
COURT: Okay. The jurors' transcripts now have 124 through 136, which is a
redacted -- which is the --
MR.
PORTER: The final redactions, yes, sir.
THE
COURT: Okay. And --
MR.
PORTER: All we're talking about now is
--
THE
COURT: 124, 125, and 126 is what?
MR.
PORTER: Those were the changes regarding
the statements about the M-16 rifle.
THE
COURT: All right. And State's 94 has or does not have the 124,
125, and 126?
MR.
PORTER: Right now, it has it. It has it in State's 94. If we follow the procedure we followed
yesterday, the court reporter will remove Pages 124, 125, and 126, substitute
the new pages and then --
THE
COURT: Let's mark them as an exhibit so
we know what we're talking about.
MR.
PORTER: -- and then mark -- Your Honor,
what we did yesterday was mark the pages that have been removed as exhibits.
THE
COURT: All right. What is the separate 124, 125, and 126? Is that going to be added? That's State's Exhibit 96? Is that what that's going to be?
MR.
PORTER: Well, Your Honor, the Court
will have to explain -- if we use the procedure yesterday, we would mark Pages
124 and 125 and 126 as a single State's Exhibit of 96.
THE
COURT: That's my question.
MR.
PORTER: And we would substitute the new
pages into State's Exhibit Number 94 so that 94, as we move along, maintains as
a current copy of the transcript that is in the possession of the jurors.
THE
COURT: Well, to be consistent with
yesterday, what we need to do is pull out Pages 124, 125, and 126 from the
State's 94 which has the original, mark that as State's 96, and then replace it
with a redacted 124, 125, and 126 --
MR.
PORTER: That's correct.
THE
COURT: -- in which case the transcript
then of State's 94 has all the redactions, but with the original separated out
and kept as an exhibit, which in this case would be State's 96?
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: That's correct, Your Honor. I think that's a good way to do it. To have a transcript of what the jury
actually saw, you know, rather than having different --
THE
COURT: I believe so. All right.
So we're going to pull out pages -- what at this point is State's 94 and
pull out Pages 124, 125, and 126, and those three pages will be marked as
State's 96 and that will be the original transcript. Those three pages will be what was the original transcript and
replaced with the redacted pages which will be part of State's 94.
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: All right. Mary, has that change been made in State's
94?
THE
REPORTER: That change has been made.
THE
COURT: And the transcript, which the
jurors have, is consistent with State's 94?
MR.
PORTER: As the most recent changes have
been made.
THE
COURT: Including the change designated
to State's 96.
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Okay. We'll make the change as designated State's 96, that makes the
transcript the jurors see with the additional Pages 124 through 136, that
includes the redacted pages 124, 125, and 126 --
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: -- which have been, the
originals removed as State's 96.
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: And State's 94, at this point,
matches the transcript which the jurors have.
MR.
PORTER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: All right. Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: I agree with that, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: So stipulated. Anything else at this point, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: We'll be in recess until 1:45.
[Lunch
recess]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4377
AFTERNOON SESSION
[Proceedings
resumed following the lunch recess with the jurors not present.]
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, may we approach the
bench?
THE
COURT: Yes, sir.
[Counsel
approached the bench and the following conference ensued.]
MR.
PORTER: The tape will take about
twenty-three or twenty-four minutes to play.
MR.
MOORE: Did y'all determine you don't
need to send the jury out now?
Elizabeth said or --
MR.
PORTER: We don't have to send the jury
out during the playing of the tape.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: Then do you -- since we're
going to go back to live witnesses, do you want to take a few minutes to tear
this down and get it out of here?
THE
COURT: I'm about broke out. I think it's time to move on.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, we're going to have
three TV's sitting right here.
THE
COURT: Do we have a place for them over
here?
MR.
PORTER: Well, I mean, when I say tear
down, I mean just pull the cables up and roll them outside the courtroom, and
I'll get them taken care of from there.
THE
COURT: That won't take but a couple of
minutes, will it?
MR.
PORTER: No, sir.
THE
COURT: I'm inclined just us all sit
here and take a pause and if you've got somebody from your office to unplug
them and tow them out and call your witness.
MR.
PORTER: That's fine with me.
MR.
DAVIS: It's going to require the TV
people, too. They've got some of their
equipment hitched into it.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: Let's do this. Just unplug it from the floor while they're
-- they've got a microphone in there.
THE
COURT: Okay. My concern is we're going to spend the rest of the day on the
last twenty minutes of the video.
MR.
PORTER: Well, I understand that, Judge,
but I'm --
THE
COURT: Okay. Well, about how tell your video folks to be ready; otherwise,
let's just shove this stuff in the corner and crank it up.
MR.
PORTER: Well, I'm going to just wheel
it out, but they've got to get their microphones pulled out from there and
reset.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: And they've got some cables that
are hooking the two things together.
THE
COURT: Okay. Well, put them on notice to be ready and let's get it out.
MR.
DAVIS: I will go do that now.
THE
COURT: Okay. And get it out and get rid of it and bring on our witnesses and
let's proceed on.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, we've got plenty of
witnesses to fill the rest of the day.
THE
COURT: Not if we're running out of
time, if we keep -- this last twenty minutes is going to take a half a day at
the rate we're going.
MR.
PORTER: It's like after the two-minute
warning in a football game, I guess.
THE
COURT: Yeah. Okay. Ready otherwise?
MR.
PORTER: Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: As soon as Mr. Davis gets back.
THE
COURT: Okay.
[Bench
conference concluded.]
THE
COURT: Is the state ready?
MR.
PORTER: The state's ready. Are you ready, Mr. Davis?
MR.
DAVIS: Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: Is the defendant ready?
MR.
MOORE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Are they ready to unhook the
cables and move them on when we take a short recess?
MR.
DAVIS: I just let them know.
THE
COURT: Okay. We're going to need to expedite that. And we don't need to send the jury out; is that correct?
MR.
DAVIS: No, sir.
MR.
MOORE: No, sir.
THE
COURT: All right. Do we have any problem with -- is there an
inadvertent stop along the way? Is
there anything that's been excluded coming up?
MR.
DAVIS: On the first two, Your Honor, we
could get a word or two that we technically have redacted from the transcript.
THE
COURT: Okay. Maybe what you ought to do is before you fast forward or move it
forward is just turn the volume down on the TV, the jury's, on one or both of
them. They've got a volume switch,
haven't they, volume knob? Just turn
them down to zero, that way, with no sound coming out.
MR.
DAVIS: Put both on the little speaker
there and on the TV.
THE
COURT: All right. When it comes back up, it may not be in the
right place and you can kind of know where to turn them.
MR.
DAVIS: Well, we're having to turn them
both wide open for the third tape anyway, so that's not a problem.
THE
COURT: Okay. Just turn them down and that way if there's an inadvertent stop,
we don't have an issue or corrective instructions and all that for an
inadvertent broadcast. Okay. Is the state ready?
MR.
PORTER: The state's ready, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Is the defendant ready?
MR.
MOORE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Bring the jury back, please.
[The
jury returned to the courtroom and proceedings resumed, as follows.]
MR.
DAVIS: We're at Line 21, Page 123.
THE
COURT: Thank you. I assume it's all audio from here on in.
MR.
PORTER: All audio.
THE
COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we have
about twenty or twenty-five minutes, I believe, left of the tape. From here on in until we conclude, the tape
will be audio only, and we are about to commence on Page 123, Line 7; is that
about where we are?
MR.
DAVIS: I think Line 20, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Line 20 on Page 123. And we're going to have some pauses along
the way to proceed to the proper portions of the tape at the direction of the Court,
so we'll be pausing along the way to commence on to the correct portions and it
won't be necessary to take any recesses during that time.
Go
ahead when you're ready.
[Whereupon,
the playing of videotape three commenced.]
MR.
PORTER: We're going to collect the
transcripts --
THE
COURT: Do you want a few minutes to
remove your equipment?
MR.
PORTER: Yes, Your Honor, I do.
THE
COURT: All right. If you'll leave your transcripts along with
your pens, pads, and notes in your seats, and they'll be waiting on you when
you return, except for the transcripts.
And at this time, we'll take five minutes. If you'll go with the bailiffs, please.
[The
jury was excused from the courtroom for the recess.]
[Break
taken]
THE
COURT: Ready, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Ready, Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Yes, Your Honor.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, before the jury
comes in and since the defendant is in the courtroom, the state intends to
introduce an exhibit which is the leather gear or the belt of Officer Chapel
that was removed the night of his arrest.
In examining that, we discovered there were two full clips of .45
caliber bullets, and they are not necessary to the state's case or for the
reason that we're entering it, and I'm going to turn those over to the deputy
sheriffs at this time.
THE
COURT: Okay. Are they marked as any kind of exhibit or you just want to
identify them?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor. I just wanted to remove them from the belt.
THE
COURT: Okay. Restate it again so I understand. What is it?
MR.
PORTER: When we were examining the belt
and the clip cases that were still clipped, there are two automatic pistol
cases and a number of what would appear to be .45 caliber rounds that are live.
THE
COURT: All right. Is it two magazines; is that correct?
MR.
PORTER: Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: All right. And that's a .45? Is that what they are?
MR.
PORTER: They appear to be, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Okay. And along with several live rounds of .45 ammunition.
MR.
PORTER: Yes, sir. And I don't intend to introduce them as
evidence. I'm going to turn them over
to the deputy sheriffs, and they can remove them from the courtroom or return
them to my office. I wanted to bring
them to the courtroom so that I could show them to defense counsel and assure
them that there had been no material alteration to the belt itself.
THE
COURT: Okay. And what do you intend ultimately as the disposition of the
magazines and the rounds?
MR.
PORTER: I don't have any intention as
to the ultimate disposition, but I don't intend to introduce them into
evidence.
THE
COURT: Okay. Are you going to keep them or are you releasing them?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I can either
release them to my investigator to take back or give them to the deputy sheriff.
THE
COURT: Okay. You're retaining them in the possession of the district
attorney's office?
MR.
PORTER: Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: Okay. All right. I
understand. Mr. Moore, anything for
the record?
MR.
MOORE: No, Your Honor. As far as I
know, they have no relevance to this case and it seems to me it's appropriate
to store them outside the courtroom.
THE
COURT: Okay. All right. Anything
else, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: We'll be going until about five
or shortly thereafter today, and we'll find a good place to recess along about
five o'clock, between five and 5:15 preferably.
Okay. Bring the jury back in, please. And I believe we have the transcripts
removed and those are stored?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, they're under --
they're right behind the court reporter under the ledge on the bench.
THE
COURT: Okay. Those ought to be preserved as part of the record in the case.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, we're going to take
them back down to the office and store them in a box.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore, do you have any
objection to the district attorney retaining the transcripts which the jury has
seen?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I would think maybe
one of them ought to be entered into the record and made part of the
record. I mean, I know we've got the
original, but I would think maybe one of the ones that went to the jury, too,
just to examine it.
THE
COURT: I don't have a problem with
that. Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: I don't have any problem with
that, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: At recess or at the end of the
day, Mr. Moore, we'll just select one at random or you can pick one out if you
like and we'll make it a part of the record.
MR.
MOORE: Thank you, Your Honor.
[The
jury returned to the courtroom and proceedings resumed, as follows.]
THE
COURT: Everybody find their pens and
pads okay? All right. Call your next witness, please.
MR.
PORTER: The state would call Captain
John Latty to the stand.
[The
witness was called to the courtroom and stepped to the witness stand.]
THE
COURT: Go ahead and be seated,
please. Mr. Porter, if you'll
administer the oath.
MR.
PORTER: Yes, sir. Can you raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're
about to give in this matter now pending shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE
WITNESS: I do.
Whereupon,
having
been called as a witness and duly sworn, was examined and testified, as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY
MR. PORTER:
Q. Can you state your name and spell your last
name for the record?
A. John Latty, L-a-t-t-y.
Q. And how are you employed, Mr. Latty?
A. With the Gwinnett County police department.
Q. What are your duties there?
A. I'm a captain. I'm the commander of the crimes -- the criminal investigation
section.
Q. All right.
How long have you been employed with the Gwinnett County police
department?
A. Seventeen years.
Q. And at the time of the murder of Emogene
Thompson in April 1993, were you employed with the Gwinnett County police
department?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were your duties at that time?
A. At that time, I was a lieutenant and I was a
watch commander in charge of the day watch of the criminal investigations
section.
Q. Captain Latty, could you describe, not in
this particular case, but in a general case how the assignment of
responsibility in conducting an investigation is done?
A. The investigation section is divided up into
squads who specialize in certain types of crimes, so the crime is categorized
and assigned accordingly. In the case
of a homicide case or an armed robbery, it would go to the crimes against
persons section to the homicide assault unit.
Q. All right.
And is it then assigned to one particular investigator to direct?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. All right.
Does that investigator essentially have authority to direct the
investigation and follow it up as he sees fit?
A. Yes, sir, he does. He has quite a bit of leeway in making those decisions.
Q. All right.
And who was the lead investigator assigned to investigate the death of
Emogene Thompson?
A. Jack Burnette.
Q. And did you work with Jack Burnette during
the investigation of that death?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. In fact, did Jack Burnette ever give you
tasks -- well, first of all, what is Jack Burnette's rank?
A. He's an investigator and --
Q. Did he assign you tasks during the course of
that investigation that he wanted you to perform?
A. Yes, sir, he did.
Q. And even as a lieutenant, would you perform
those at his direction?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you also -- were you also responsible
for the supervisory aspects of the case into the death of Emogene Thompson?
A. Yes, sir, I was.
Q. Now, I'd like to call your attention to the
evening hours of April 22, 1993, and the early morning hours of April 23,
1993. Were you present with
Investigator Burnette when the defendant, Michael Chapel, was interviewed by
the Gwinnett County police department?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you describe generally where that
interview took place within the police department?
A. It took place in an interview room just off
the criminal investigations section. We
have a series of rooms that are just down from the section where the
investigators' work places are.
Q. Now, Captain Latty, the jury has already seen
the videotapes of that interview, but could you just describe generally the
events that led up to that evening, particularly to Chapel coming to the police
station?
A. Yes, sir.
We had gotten to the point where he was the suspect in the case. We then began to plan, because he was a
police officer, along with the division commander, the police chief, the
district attorney's office, on how we were going to proceed. We felt like we had reached the point where
we had to confront him and to question him about his knowledge of this
case. So during the course of the day,
several things had occurred. We had
consulted with an expert on how we should proceed, who should interview him, those
type things. The thing that moved us to
the point of actually conducting the interview when we did was the
identification from the photographic lineup.
Q. All right.
And was Officer Chapel called to the police department that evening
after his work shift ended?
A. Yes, sir.
He was working the evening watch that day, so he was simply called. We decided the simplest way to do it would
be to call him in on his radio and ask him to meet with us at police
headquarters.
Q. What, if any, arrangements were made within
the detective division prior to his arrival?
A. Well, we attempted throughout the
investigation to keep this information, the fact that Mike Chapel was a
suspect, from as many people in the police department as possible to protect
him if it was not him. So as we reached
the point of bringing him in to do the interview, the division commander sent
the -- all the other employees home from the -- from the criminal
investigations section so that they would not be present when he came in.
Q. And when Chapel arrived, how was he dressed?
A. In his uniform. He was on duty.
Q. Was he armed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you make -- is it normal practice to
interview suspects who are armed?
A. No, sir, not at all.
Q. All right.
And did you make arrangements for him to turn over his weapon?
A. Yes, sir.
When he came into the building, he was on duty, in uniform, he had his
weapon. We have gun lockers situated
just outside the interview room for that purpose. We never have a weapon in an interview, so we moved to the gun
lockers, and I asked him to place his weapons in the gun locker, as I did.
Q. All right.
Did he have any response when you told him or when you asked him to put
his gun in the gun locker?
A. Yes, sir.
As we approached the gun locker, I made some comment about, 'Let's
secure our weapons. That's
procedure.' He then looked at me and
said, 'Yeah, you can't have armed suspects in an interview, can you?' And I said no. Q. All right. What was his demeanor at that time?
A. He -- he looked like he was a little bit
apprehensive at that point.
Q. Now, when -- did you go directly from the gun
lockers to the interview room?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you went into the interview room, did
Chapel appear to be under the influence of any drugs or alcohol?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did he appear to understand the rights that
were given to him on the videotape?
A. Yes, sir, he did.
Q. Did he indicate verbally that he understood
them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he appear to be suffering from any mental
or physical defect that would have prevented him from understanding his
situation?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did he agree to speak with you after the
advisement of his rights?
A. Yes, sir, he did.
Q. And did he do so voluntarily without any
threats from you or without any promises from you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, later in the investigation, Captain
Latty, you also came into possession of a certain item of evidence; is that
correct? Particularly, a briefcase.
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. All right.
Q. I'd like to show you what has been marked as
State's Exhibit Number 97. Can you look
at that and identify it, please?
A. Yes, sir.
That's a briefcase that was taken out of Mike Chapel's car on the
morning of the 24th during the execution of a search warrant.
Q. And who did you receive that evidence from?
A. Sergeant Steve Cline.
Q. And what did you do with it once you received
it?
A. I was in my office in the criminal
investigations section. Cline was
outside overseeing the execution of the search warrant on the patrol unit. He had several things that he was trying to
accomplish, so he brought the briefcase to me in my office and asked me if I'd
take custody of it and look through it to see if there was anything in it that
might be relevant to this case and then place it in the property room for him.
Q. All right.
And did you in fact look through the briefcase?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Did you inventory its contents at that time?
A. No, sir, I didn't.
Q. Did you remove anything from it?
A. No, sir, I didn't.
Q. And what did you do once -- when you put it
into evidence? What did you physically
do?
A. Filled out the necessary forms, put some tape
around it, as you see this here, and then placed it in the evidence room.
Q. Did you have any further contact with the
briefcase directly in terms of looking at it or looking in it?
A. No, sir, I didn't.
Q. Now, I'd like to call your attention to the
night -- or the morning of the 23rd.
Did you have occasion on that night to take certain items of evidence
from the possession of Mike Chapel?
A. Yes, sir, I did. I took his uniform and his leather gear, along with a leather
tool that he had in his pocket.
Q. I'd like to show you what's been marked as
State's Exhibit Number 98. Can you look
at that, please, and identify it? First
of all, identify what's been marked, which is the back.
A. Yes, sir.
It has my handwriting on it where I filled out the necessary information
to place it in the evidence room.
Q. All right.
Is that a Gwinnett County evidence bag?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. And did you place the contents in that?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Could you examine the contents and remove
them from the bag?
A. [Witness complies]
Q. And if I could have those, I'll have them
marked.
THE
COURT: What is 98? Is that the bag itself?
MR.
PORTER: The evidence bag itself.
THE
COURT: Okay.
[State's
Exhibit Number 99 was marked for identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. PORTER:
Q. Captain Latty, if you could examine what has
been marked as State's Exhibit Number 99 and identify that, please, sir?
A. This is the police issue leather gear that I
took from Mike Chapel that night at the end of the interview or toward the end
of the interview.
Q. Captain Latty, have you yourself been issued
leather gear like that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are you familiar with that type of
leather gear?
A. Yes, sir, I am.
Q. What hand or what side would the holster be
worn on?
A. On the right side. This is for a right-handed person.
Q. All right.
Now, Captain Latty, I'd like to call your attention specifically to the
interview itself. What is a signal 24?
A. It's police jargon or code that we use for a
person who's mentally disturbed.
Q. All right.
And what is an 86?
A. A domestic dispute.
Q. Now, finally, I'd like to call your attention
to the days immediately following the death of Emogene Thompson. Are you aware, of your own knowledge, that
Mike Chapel was instructed to prepare a supplemental report on the burglary
call that he had responded to on April 3, 1993?
A. Yes, sir.
That was -- we learned that early in the investigation that Ms.
Thompson, once we had identified her as the victim, we learned that she had
reported a burglary, according to some of the people who knew her. We began to try to locate that burglary
report and could not find one. When we
couldn't find the incident report pertaining to the burglary, then we checked
other records, dispatch cards and that type of thing, and to identify the
officer who had been dispatched to the burglary, if one had been, and we
discovered it was Mike Chapel. So,
therefore, we contacted him and instructed him to write a report, not an
incident report, but a supplemental report explaining his actions and his
contact with Ms. Thompson prior to her death.
Q. All right.
At the -- and was that report subsequently turned in to you, the report
he was ordered to write?
A. Around five o'clock on the evening of the
16th, he came in and turned it over to Captain Davis in my presence. I was present when that happened.
Q. Now, Lieutenant Latty, on April 16, at the
time that he was ordered to write this report, had the investigation focused on
Mike Chapel as a suspect?
A. No, sir.
Q. Thank you.
MR.
PORTER: That's all the questions I
have. Mr. Moore, if you'll just give me
a minute, I'll clear off the witness stand for you.
THE
COURT: Is there anything else
contained in --
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor. It is empty.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
MOORE: I examined it, Your Honor. There's nothing inside of it. There were items in it that have been
removed.
THE
COURT: All right. Okay.
MR.
PORTER: And, Your Honor, at this time,
they have been identified but we are not prepared to tender them. We would tender State's Exhibit 98 and 99.
MR.
MOORE: 98 and --
MR.
PORTER: And 98 being the evidence bag
and 99 being the leather gear.
THE
COURT: Any objection?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, normally, I wouldn't
object, but there's been so much -- because of the things in this case and
everything, I'm not going to consent to anything until he connects up all the
chains of custody and proves everything, so I'm just not going to consent.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, there is no chain
of custody requirement. Captain Latty
has testified that he removed it from Mike Chapel's waist, and he has
identified it here in court.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor --
MR.
PORTER: And the evidence bag has his
writing on it.
MR.
MOORE: It may very well be admissible,
but I'm -- all this physical evidence, I'm not going to consent to it.
THE
COURT: All right. State's 98 and 99 are admitted over
objection.
MR.
PORTER: I have no other questions for
Captain Latty, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Officer Latty, I believe you know me. I have a few questions to ask you. Now, on the night that the interview took
place -- the jury's seen the taped interview, the one that was conducted at the
police department. You know the one I'm
referring to?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On the night that was conducted, in fact,
Officer Chapel was ordered to come to headquarters. He was on duty. Is that
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
Chief Doss called him on the radio and ordered him to come in?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And you were one of his ranking superior officers; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Not directly his chain of command, but I was superior to him in rank,
yes, sir.
Q. Even though he worked -- you were day watch
commander and somebody else was his night watch commander, he would have had to
respond to your orders; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir, he would have.
Q. Okay.
Was there any discussion about the fact of having a ranking officer that
he had to respond to question him and interrogate him?
A. Yes, sir.
All of those things we considered prior to the interview. Yes, sir.
Q. So that was intentional; right?
A. Jack Burnette and I were the two people
selected to do the interview. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And it was obvious that Mike Chapel respected that authority, because
throughout the interview he referred to you as Lieutenant. He didn't call you by your first name, John,
or anything like that, did he?
A. He knew my rank, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
But he never referred to you as an equal like John?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay.
He referred to you as his ranking officer, Lieutenant?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Porter brought out some of the codes
there, and I'm not very familiar with them, and the jury may not be either, so
I wanted you to -- 24 is that what's called a demented person. Is that the technical name that they use on
this code?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. Okay.
And 86 is a domestic call; is that --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And what is a 44?
A. An armed robbery.
Q. And what is a 78?
A. A BOLO or be on the look out for this
particular person or vehicle.
Q. Okay.
And a 10-7?
A. Out of service or out of call.
Q. Okay.
And a 10-8?
A. In service.
Q. Okay.
And a 10-46?
A. A stranded motorist.
Q. Okay.
So when 10-8 has been used that's -- when an officer went 10-8, that means
he left a call somewhere.
A. He's gone into service, yes, sir.
THE
COURT: What was the number for the
BOLO? I did not understand that.
MR.
PORTER: It's a 78, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: All right. Let me ask, insofar as Mr. Moore, Mary, as far as the exhibits, we
have a -- I show no D-46 and 47 or 52.
Are those intentional blanks or does it matter?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I'm not sure. I'd have to go back and check.
THE
COURT: Well, you can number them how
you please.
THE
REPORTER: D what -- what was that
again?
THE
COURT: I just want to make sure we
don't have a number 46, 47, and 52.
THE
REPORTER: 46 is Michael Thompson's
deposition, 47 is Michael Thompson's statement, and what was the other
number? 46, 47, and --
THE
COURT: 52.
THE
REPORTER: 52, the transcript of Dolores
Burel's interview, April 16.
THE
COURT: Okay. I just missed them when we were talking about them, then. Okay.
Go ahead, please.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Now, Officer Latty, when Mike Chapel came
into the headquarters up there, he came in, I believe, there's a back door
there where you park outside, you go through the gate, and you park outside,
and you can come in through the detective division; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
He parked right outside the door and come directly into the detective
section. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And, normally, there would be detectives in there working on their job,
wouldn't they?
A. Up until at that time, I think it was eleven
o'clock. Yes, sir.
Q. And there weren't any that night when he came
in, were there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Because everybody had been sent home?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you were talking about him looking
apprehensive. Everything was very
strange, him being called in, nobody working at the police department, you're
the only people there in that division?
A. Could be, yes, sir.
Q. And anybody that was called in under those
circumstances when they know that you're investigating a police officer from
the northside precinct, you thought it was from the northside precinct, would
be apprehensive, wouldn't they?
A. Probably, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And you've probably been called in by your supervisor before, not for
that kind of thing, but for various things, and you're always a little
apprehensive, aren't you?
A. Still am, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
Describe that room to us if you would where you did the interview.
A. It's a room that's designed specifically to
conduct interviews. It's about eight
feet by eight feet in size, I believe, maybe a little bigger than that, but
it's a private, small, confined room, and it has gray carpet-like material on
the walls. There's a small table and,
depending on the number of people in there, two or three chairs to sit in.
Q. Okay.
Like you said, it's a very small room, isn't it?
A. Small, yes, sir.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked
Defendant's Exhibit Number 56, 57, and 58, and ask you if you can identify each
one of those by number.
A. Number 56 is a photograph of an interview
room and showing the table and a couple of the chairs from it, looks like, from
just outside the door. 57 shows the
door entered into the interview room which is 166, numbered 166. And 58 is another photograph of the interior
of the room. It looks like it may have
been taken from just outside the door, showing another chair, the table and the
chair, where the questioning took place.
Q. Okay.
Are all those interview rooms substantially the same?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are those photos a fair and accurate
representation of the way those interview rooms looked?
A. Yes, sir, the are.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I would tender
Defendant's 56, 57, and 58 at this time.
THE
COURT: Are they the Gwinnett County
police department interview rooms?
MR.
MOORE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Is that --
THE
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: All right. Any objection?
MR.
PORTER: No objection, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Defendant's 56, 57, and 58 are
admitted without objection.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I'd like to publish
these to the jury at this time.
THE
COURT: Go ahead, please.
[Presenting
to the jury]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Now, Officer Latty, when you were speaking to
Mike Chapel on the videotape, I'm calling your attention back to the night you
interviewed him with the videotape --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- toward the end of it, you and Jack
Burnette were acting like you were very concerned about him and his family and
everything. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Okay.
And you told him that you were going to go out and tell his family where
he was so that they'd know, they wouldn't be worried about him and they'd know
what happened --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- and nobody ever did that, did they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who did it?
A. Chief White, I understand, met with them
later that morning and met with his wife.
Q. Okay.
Was that after the family had been calling around everywhere to find out
where he was?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Do you know whether or not the family called
his supervisor, D. E. Stone, the next morning to find out where he was?
A. No, sir, I don't know.
Q. So it's your testimony that Chief White went
out there and did that?
A. As I recall.
I remember some discussion of contacting his wife or -- particularly his
wife and some of his family members about meeting with them in person to
explain to them what was taking place, yes, sir.
Q. Would it surprise you if that didn't happen?
A. It would surprise me if it didn't happen,
yes, sir. That was the plan.
Q. Okay.
Now, when Officer Chapel was brought into -- ordered into headquarters up there, you had your photo lineup
at that time; right?
A. The photo lineup had been shown to one or two
witnesses, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
At the time he was brought into the headquarters up there, the decision
had already been made to arrest him, hadn't it?
A. It depended on what took place during the
interview. It depended on what he told
us. We were still holding out hope that
he was going to explain these actions suitably so that we could eliminate him
as a suspect in this case.
Q. Officer Latty, the truth is there's nothing
he could have told you when he came up there that he would have walked out of
there a free man, is there?
A. Probably.
I mean, I can't imagine what it would be right off, but I think there's
possibly something he could have told us.
We certainly hoped that there was something he could tell us.
Q. Okay.
But your goal was to get a confession out of him when you called him in
there, wasn't it?
A. Our goal was to find out the truth about his
involvement in this case, and if that led to a confession, then that was our
goal, yes, sir.
Q. But your goal was to get him to confess,
wasn't it? That's my question.
A. If he committed the crime, and we believed at
that time that he had, yes, sir, we hoped he'd confess it.
Q. Do you remember testifying at a pre-trial
hearing? Remember when I asked you that
question, and you responded 'absolutely'?
A. Yes, sir.
After some discussion, as I remember, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And Mike Chapel was under arrest once he walked in that police
department door and gave you his gun, wasn't he?
A. No, sir.
In my opinion, he was not.
Q. Okay.
When a person is not free to leave --
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to
object. This is a legal conclusion that
this officer cannot put before the jury.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I believe I can
question him about whether the person was free to leave or not.
MR.
PORTER: That's not the way the question
was. 'When a person is not free to
leave --'
THE
COURT: Ask the question as to --
inquire as to the facts as you wish.
MR.
MOORE: Okay.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Once Officer Chapel walked in and you
introduced yourself or -- you didn't need to introduce yourself, he knew who
you were -- and you put your guns up and everything, he was not free to leave
at that point, was he?
A. Had he refused the interview at that point or
refused to cooperate, no, he would not have been allowed to leave.
Q. Okay.
And he wasn't free to leave at any time during that interview, was he?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay.
If he had gone in there and you told him what you were doing and what
you were investigating and he told you like he did in the beginning, 'I don't
know what you're talking about, I didn't do it,' and time came for him to get
off of work and he said, 'Lieutenant Latty, I'm going home,' what would you
have done?
A. We would have kept him there.
Q. You would've arrested him. You'd have told him he was under arrest at
that point, wouldn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
You didn't tell him earlier, but you would have told him then if he
said, 'I want to go home. It's time for
me to get off from work.'
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And y'all called him in there to interrogate him. What time was it, about 10:30?
A. I don't know exactly what time he was
called. It was around that time. He arrived there and the interview began, as
I remember, around 10:40, 10:40 p.m., yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And you were aware that he had his Iron World Gym, weren't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And you were aware that his routine was that he got up every morning and
went to the gym and did stuff there and then came on to work at the police
department?
A. No -- I wasn't aware of it. He explained that to us during the
interview, as you saw.
Q. Okay.
Now, he comes on duty at what time?
A. That shift begins at 2:30 in the evening.
Q. Okay.
2:30 in the afternoon?
A. Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: Would you approach the bench,
please?
[Counsel
approached the bench and the following conference ensued outside hearing of the
jury.]
THE
COURT: Does this witness know about the
excluded portions and the M-16 and all that?
MR.
PORTER: Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: Okay. So we're not going to have any problem with that?
MR.
PORTER: No, I don't think so, Your
Honor. There is one matter. I can't see it because I can't turn around. There's a fair amount of noise coming out of
the family and the jurors are looking over there. I have a feeling that they're either disagreeing with points --
THE
COURT: I'll keep an eye on it.
MR.
PORTER: If you would, that's all I
have, but I can't turn around.
MS.
ROGAN: I haven't heard anything.
THE
COURT: Okay. I just wanted to make sure since he wasn't here at the video,
about the excluded portions and that sort of thing.
MR.
PORTER: He's been made aware of that.
THE
COURT: Okay. Then we don't have a problem with him --
MR.
MOORE: I'm not going to ask him anything
that would bring it out, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Okay. All right.
MR.
MOORE: Not on purpose.
THE
COURT: Okay.
[Bench
conference concluded.]
THE
COURT: Go ahead, please.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Officer Latty, I'm trying to remember where I
was now. When Mike was brought in
there, he'd been on duty for how long?
A. Eight hours.
Q. It was just about time for him to get off,
wasn't it?
A. About -- very close, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And he was questioned then for almost five hours, wasn't he?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he was visibly tired on the videotape,
wasn't he?
A. He didn't appear tired to me.
Q. Didn't appear tired to you. And do you remember at one point in the
video telling him that it would be easier on his family if he'd tell you about
it?
A. I don't remember saying that
specifically. I remember -- I certainly
remember discussing with him the impact it was going to have on him and his
family and all the rest of us, too.
Q. Now, this briefcase that Mr. Porter --
MR.
MOORE: What was the number on
that, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: 97.
MR.
MOORE: Okay.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. -- State's Exhibit Number 97, the briefcase
that you examined with Mr. Porter a few minutes ago, you didn't inventory the
contents of that?
A. No, sir, I didn't.
Q. Okay.
You didn't think it was necessary?
A. Not at the time. I was looking for specific items at that point and, no, I did not
inventory it. There was -- there were
quite a few articles in it, and I had other things to do, so I placed it in the
property room.
Q. Okay.
And what specific items were you looking for?
A. .38 rounds, phone numbers, anything
pertaining to Ms. Thompson. Anything
that might be relevant.
Q. Money?
A. Money.
Q. Did you find any?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you search it thoroughly?
A. Not real thoroughly, no, sir.
Q. And could you explain why you didn't search
it thoroughly?
A. Well, not thoroughly enough to find concealed
bills, no, sir.
Q. Did you assign anybody else to search it
thoroughly?
A. No, sir.
I placed it in the property room and that's the last I had to do with
that. Later on, Investigator Burnette
went back to it a couple of times to more thoroughly examine it.
Q. Okay.
And when was that; do you know?
A. Some days later. I think May 10, May 17, along there.
Q. Okay.
So how many times did people go in that briefcase; do you know?
A. Two or three times that I'm aware of.
Q. Okay.
And where was it secured in between those times?
A. In the property room. You always have to sign it out and get it
from the property room custodian. You
have to sign for it. When you take it
-- you know, they sign, you take it back, you sign again.
Q. Okay.
A. It's carefully tracked.
Q. Okay.
But there can be problems, can't there?
A. I suppose there can always be problems, yes,
sir.
Q. Y'all have had thefts in that evidence room
since the time that briefcase was put in there and the time of this trial,
haven't you?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object
to this. This is irrelevant.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I think it's
relevant that the --
THE
COURT: Objection's overruled. Go ahead, please.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Y'all have had thefts out of that evidence
room since the time that briefcase was placed in there and the time this case
has come to trial?
A. No, sir.
We had a theft that I'm aware of sometime prior to that time, '91, '92,
but it was prior to this case.
Q. Wasn't there an incident involving Bodie
Hurst?
A. Yes, sir.
That's what I'm referring to.
Q. There's another incident, wasn't there,
involving Ms. McDaniels?
A. I'm not familiar with Ms. McDaniels.
Q. And over the years, there's been other
problems in that evidence room, too, hasn't there?
A. The evidence room has been moved from one
place to another on occasion. As time
goes by and as you improve your procedures and you improve your technique, you
change things, yes, sir. And sometimes
you discover that you need to make those changes because errors occur, yes,
sir.
Q. Okay.
Now, when you were interviewing Mike Chapel, you made a reference in
there that you'd been -- kicked up enough dust or something. What were you referring to?
A. That I had kicked up enough dust?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I don't remember the context of that
statement.
Q. It had something to do with you going to
detectives down to the westside precinct.
You said you'd kicked up enough dust and you never did come back up.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know what I'm talking about now?
A. Yes, sir.
I was referring to the -- yes, sir, I was referring to the Robert Wall
lawsuit. I got transferred over it.
Q. Okay.
You got transferred out of detectives over that?
A. I got transferred out of detectives, yes,
sir.
Q. Okay.
Did you lose any rank over it?
A. No, sir, I didn't. I was transferred because I didn't go along with what I was told
to do because it was wrong. They're
gone and I'm still here.
Q. So you got transferred for doing things
right?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Did you think that was fair?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you following proper police procedures
in what you did?
A. Yes, sir, I was.
Q. Then I don't understand exactly why you got
transferred, then.
A. I got transferred because when I spoke out on
it, I discredited the chief.
Q. Now, there's references in your interview
there to the Sugar Hill city marshal.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He was a suspect in this case at one time,
wasn't he?
A. I don't know that I'd call him a
suspect. What occurred was, as we began
to realize that the witnesses on PIB had seen a patrol car there, and we
established that it was actually a patrol car, then we could not at that point
imagine it being one of our officers. I
mean, we kind of had tunnel vision, so we were thinking of the Sugar Hill city
marshal because we didn't know him very well.
He hadn't been around very long.
Q. You never did say that you thought that it
was him to begin with?
A. When we first began to get the information
from the witnesses that they had seen a patrol car there, this kind of
evolved. Initially, we thought maybe
someone impersonating an officer had stopped Ms. Thompson. But as the witnesses increased and as the
detail of their information became clearer, we established that it not only was
a bona fide police car, but it was one of ours. Prior to us determining it was definitely one of our cars, the
Sugar Hill city marshal was one of the people we thought about because he has
an issued police vehicle and we couldn't account for him all the time.
Q. Okay.
And do you know what hours he worked, what his shift was at the Sugar
Hill precinct -- or not precinct -- that was his jurisdiction, Sugar Hill?
A. Yes, sir.
I don't remember exactly, but I think that he worked -- I can't
say. I don't remember exactly now.
Q. Do you know if he worked that night that Ms. Thompson was killed?
A. As I recall, he didn't, but I'm not certain.
Q. And he was the first officer on the scene the
next morning; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir, he was.
[Defendant's
Exhibit Number 59 was marked for identification by the court reporter.]
THE
COURT: Just a moment, Mr. Moore. [To a juror] You okay?
[No
verbal response]
THE
COURT: Okay. Go ahead, please.
MR.
MOORE: Okay.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you Defendant's Exhibit
Number 59 and ask you if you can identify the person in that photograph and if
you can identify the scene where it's taken.
A. This is a black and white photograph of the
Sugar Hill city hall with the Sugar Hill city marshal in front of his unit.
Q. Okay.
And is that Chris Robertson, the Sugar Hill city marshal in 1993?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. Okay.
A. I don't know when it is, but that's Chris
Robertson.
Q. Okay.
Is that a fair and accurate representation of him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I don't guess it's necessary, but is that a
fair and accurate representation of the city hall and the police car, also?
A. Yes, sir.
MR.
MOORE: I would tender Defendant's
Exhibit Number 59 at this time, Your Honor.
MR.
PORTER: No objection.
THE
COURT: Defendant's 59 is admitted
without objection.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Okay.
And now you told Mike Chapel on the -- he asked you, when the arrest was
taking place in the video, were y'all going to continue to investigate; do you
remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And you assured him that you would.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did y'all go ahead and continue to check out
things?
A. We continued to investigate this case right
up till now, yes, sir.
Q. He gave you some names of some people that might
have known where he was or might could provide some help. Somebody named Van Parker and somebody named
Bland Wright. Did you ever interview
either one of those?
A. No, sir, I didn't.
Q. Did anyone else from the Gwinnett County
police department?
A. To my knowledge, they did not.
Q. And you'd told him you would, though, when he
gave you those names?
A. Yes, and that was the intent. Yes, sir.
Q. But you didn't do it?
A. There was -- I don't recall why that did not
occur, but there was some confusion, and it was not done, no, sir.
Q. Okay.
A. I think that one -- I think that Investigator
Burnette thought that one of the DA's investigators was handling that or -- no,
I recall. Mr. Britt, his first
attorney, was going to arrange it for us and never did. Never got back to us on it. That's how it happened. So we, in all of this tremendous amount of
information, witnesses had got overlooked eventually, when Mr. Britt never
provided that opportunity for us.
Q. But you knew how to find these people without
Mr. Britt, didn't you?
A. Probably, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And no effort was made to do it?
A. Simply because we were expecting him
initially to arrange it for us, and then when he failed to do that, it was
overlooked, yes, sir.
Q. At that point, you'd made up your mind and
y'all were waiting for him to prove himself innocent, weren't you?
A. No, sir.
I thought the evidence was quite compelling at that time, and we
continued to seek evidence and witnesses and to document that and go where the
evidence took us.
Q. There's approximately twenty-nine other male
officers in the Buford precinct up there, are you aware of that, at the time
this occurred?
A. That sounds about right, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And how many uniformed officers were there in Gwinnett County at that
time?
A. In excess of 300.
Q. Okay.
And --
A. Well, 300 sworn. Around 200 of those or so would be uniform officers assigned to
uniform duties.
Q. Okay.
And when you first knew that you had a Gwinnett County police officer
involved, you'd had a number of witnesses that had identified a Gwinnett County
police car in the road checks --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
At that time, you understandably focused your attention on that area of
the northside precinct; is that a correct statement?
A. Yes, sir, it was. We -- we checked with other agencies. We initially -- we initially thought that -- that this had to be
a police officer doing some function or maybe he'd stopped a car earlier there,
that type of thing, so we -- when we could not get -- when we could not
identify one of our officers as having been there, then we checked with other
agencies to see -- state patrol and others to see if they could put a patrol
officer in that area. We were never
able to do that.
Q. Okay.
After you focused on the officers in the northside precinct, you
probably -- and tell me if I'm wrong -- you probably focused on people that
were on duty that night first.
A. We -- as I recall, we did check to see who
was working that night, but by that time, you know, it had pretty much focused
on Chapel by that point based on other evidence that we had. Good evidence.
Q. And when did it first focus on Mike
Chapel? When did it turn to him?
A. About -- just before two a.m. on Saturday,
the 17th, the day -- we had continued to investigate the case from that morning
when we had discovered the body. We had
done the first road check that night beginning around eight or 8:30. A number of interviews were being done. A tremendous number of interviews. And when one of the friends, and I believe
it was Ms. Burel, I'm not certain, but when Investigator Tkacik interviewed her
and she told us those things --
Q. Officer Latty, let me ask you to stop a
minute. There might be a problem here.
MR.
MOORE: Could we approach the bench?
THE
COURT: Yes, sir.
[Counsel
approached the bench and the following conference ensued outside hearing of the
jury.]
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, my question was when
it first focused on him and he's about to get into, I think, hearsay that may
be inadmissible.
THE
COURT: Well, I mean, everything -- half
the stuff he knows is hearsay.
MR.
MOORE: I don't want to elicit things,
though, that can't come in, that's been ruled it can't come in, and I don't
know if he knows what the Court's rulings are or not. You know, I'm afraid he's about
to --
THE
COURT: Well, if in fact the focus --
you said when did it focus --
MR.
MOORE: I said when.
THE
COURT: Well, I know but --
MR.
PORTER: Well, Your Honor, in any cross-
examination situation, the witness is allowed to explain him answer.
MR.
MOORE: Well, I don't think he can
explain the things the judge has ruled inadmissible if I didn't ask that
question.
THE
COURT: Well, I'm not so sure. I mean, if you ask him, well, what did you
base your opinion on, why did you go get a warrant? Well, I mean, most of the stuff he knows it's stuff other
officers had told him as a result of coordinating the investigation and
supervising. So I don't know how you ask
him, well, how do you do these or how do you know this or when did you -- on
what basis did you do this without opening the door of the hearsay upon which
he acted.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, what I'm concerned
about is him volunteering stuff that's not responsive to my questions. I'll try to keep my questions where I don't
ask things that --
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
MOORE: -- but I'm afraid if he doesn't
know there's been rulings about hearsay, he's going to inject an unresponsive
--
THE
COURT: Well, if your question calls for
it, then I think it comes out regardless of the ruling.
MR.
MOORE: Well, but I don't think --
THE
COURT: I mean, if you ask him a
question that calls for hearsay, whether it's been ruled out or otherwise or
not, I think, if it comes out, it comes out, if you ask him.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, when I asked him
when he focused on it, that's not asking him who he talked to and how --
THE
COURT: Okay. Restate your question and I'll tell him to respond to it.
[Bench
conference concluded.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Officer Latty, my question is not who you
talked to or anything, my question is when did the investigation focus on Mike
Chapel, the time?
A. After receiving that information, it focused
on him at that moment.
Q. Now, are you aware that the photo lineup that was showed to Mr. Kautter only had
one officer from the northside precinct in it?
A. No, sir.
I don't recall who was in it.
Q. Okay.
A. Other than Chapel, I don't remember who else
was in it.
Q. Do you know the reason why there was nobody
else that worked at the northside precinct in that photo lineup?
A. Well, when you do a photo lineup, what you're
after is somebody -- you know, when you put them in there with your suspect,
you want people who look very similar to him.
That's required. In this
particular case, we used police officers, and the police officers we selected
were officers that we felt resembled, and I say we, I think Greg Thompson or
somebody put that together. He selected
police officers that looked similar to Mike Chapel. There was no thought given to who those officers were, just that
they fit within the photo lineup in an acceptable way.
Q. So it wasn't because Mike was your suspect
that he was included in there and none of the other northside precinct officers
were?
A. Well, he was a suspect, but the selection on
who went in there with him was made based on the appearance of the officers,
not where they worked or what their name was or anything.
Q. Weren't there other officers in the northside
precinct that appeared similar to him?
A. Probably, but there probably are a number of
officers that appear similar to him, particularly if you're just looking at a
shot of his face.
Q. Before Mike
Chapel's arrest, how many officers had been interviewed at the northside
precinct?
A. To my knowledge, none had been interviewed
about him as a suspect. We had talked
to those officers repeatedly about information they were receiving or about
what their thoughts on this -- on this case was, who might be responsible, who
that might be, but we never -- we did not do an official interview with any of
the officers prior to the night that we interviewed Chapel.
Q. So you never went to any of those other
officers and said, 'where were you on the night of the 16th, what were you
doing?'
A. No, sir.
No, sir. We couldn't. We -- my primary concern that night -- I'm
referring to the night of the first day of the investigation when this
information was received that pointed us to Mike Chapel. After several minutes of stunned silence
there with the other officers -- we were in a car outside the precinct, four of
us. I was the ranking officer
there. At that point, I instructed
those officers that -- I gave them orders that they were not to discuss this
case with anybody until we had talked to the chief and got direction on it, because
if he was not responsible for this case, we'd destroy his reputation. We'd hurt him, and we didn't want to do
that.
Q. So you didn't know at the time you arrested
him where any of the other officers were or what they were doing on that night?
A. I think we'd gotten bits and pieces of what
was going on that night. We knew who
was working, and we knew about the storm, and we knew of some of their general
activities, yes, sir.
Q. And did you check the log sheets like you
told -- like you told Mike you did on the tape?
A. I'm sure we did, yes, sir.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 60 and ask you if you can look at it and if you can
identify it. It's not the same size as
it was originally, but see if you can identify that.
A. This is a police department daily patrol
activity summary or what we call a log sheet, for short. And it has the officer's name, what zone
he's assigned to, the shift he works, the date, and the calls that he is
dispatched to his activities during the night.
Q. Okay.
And who's that log sheet for?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object
to this. He can't go into contents
until it's been identified. He has to
--
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I'll --
MR.
PORTER: He has to ask this witness if
he's ever seen it before and can identify it.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Just keep it there. Officer Latty, have you ever seen that log sheet before?
A. I don't know if I've seen this particular
one, no, sir. I don't know.
Q. What's -- looking at the date on that --
A. 4/15 --
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, if I may, Mr. Moore
--
MR.
MOORE: I didn't ask him to tell me what
date. I just asked him --
MR.
PORTER: Mr. Moore cannot go into the
contents of the document until it's been identified.
THE
COURT: I understand. Restate your question, Mr. Moore.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Would you look -- without telling us what it
is, look at the date on it, Officer Latty.
Does that date have any significance in relation to the crime, without
saying what it is?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you said you checked the log sheets with
the people up there at the Buford precinct?
A. Yes, sir.
At some point we checked them, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
Now, was Officer Reddy one of the
people --
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object
to this. Mr. Moore's going into the
contents of this document when it has not been properly identified through the
manner of questioning.
THE
COURT: I don't know if he has or not.
MR.
MOORE: I'm not going into the contents.
THE
COURT: What's your question?
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. My question is, was Officer Reddy's log sheet
one of those that was checked?
A. As far as I recall, yes, sir.
Q. Did you check it?
A. I remember looking at them and discussing
them. I don't specifically remember
when, but certainly this was a very -- very relevant issue, and it was something
that was discussed, and I'm sure it was checked. But being able to tell you specifically when and what I saw, I
can't say that. But I probably saw it
at some point.
Q. Do you recall telling Officer Chapel in the
interview, the taped interview, that you had looked at the log sheets up there
before the interview?
A. I don't specifically remember, but I very
well may have.
Q. Okay.
Do you know whether or not you ever looked at that log sheet in front of
you?
A. I can't say for certain that I did. I remember that we checked log sheets. If I didn't, someone else did. We would have shared that information. I can't tell you that I've ever seen this
log sheet for certain, no, sir.
Q. Are log sheets kept in the ordinary course of
business at the police department?
A. Yes, sir.
They're done daily. Yes, sir.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, this witness is not
the custodian of records. Mr. Moore's
trying to get this in as a business record.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I haven't tendered
it as a business record. Mr. Porter's
jumping ahead with what I'm going to do.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I've been doing
this long enough that I understand the foundation questions.
THE
COURT: I'll allow the question.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. So your testimony is you can't identify that
log sheet?
A. I can't tell you for certain I've ever seen
it before, no, sir.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we've got some
subpoenas. I'll get this in through
another witness.
THE
COURT: All right.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Okay.
You told Mike Chapel that you had checked the log sheets up there at the
precinct up in Buford of the other officers?
A. Apparently, I did. I don't specifically remember it. I said a lot of things, but I probably did.
Q. Were there any of the other officers up there
that were in that same area that night about the time of the murder?
A. There were other officers working that were
on duty on that shift that night, and one of the things that we have done is
try to determine where they were during the course of that night, yes, sir.
Q. Did you find any officer that was within a
mile or so of there about 9:30 that night Ms. Thompson was killed?
A. Within a mile? No, sir.
Q. A mile or two on his log sheets?
A. No, sir.
The only officers that I know were the closest to that were probably at
the precinct there at 20 and 23.
[Mr.
Moore presenting to Mr. Porter]
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, we've stipulated to
this as an accurate map of the city of Buford.
THE
COURT: What exhibit number is it?
MR.
MOORE: It's not numbered yet, Your
Honor. I'm about to get it numbered.
THE
COURT: It's going to be 61?
[Defendant's
exhibit was marked for identification by the court reporter.]
MR.
MOORE: It's Defendant's Number 61, Your
Honor, and the state has agreed to stipulate that this is an accurate map of
the city of Buford and the surrounding areas, Sugar Hill, and some other areas.
THE
COURT: Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: Yes, Your Honor, we've
stipulated to that.
THE
COURT: Defendant's 61 is admitted.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Officer Latty, could I get you to come down
off the stand, please.
A. [Complies]
Q. Could you point out on the map, if you would,
to the jury, and you need to stand aside so the jurors can see --
A. Let me study it first so I can get my
bearings.
Q. Okay.
Sure.
A. Okay.
Q. Can you point out to the jury where the
murder occurred on the map, if it's on there.
A. Let's see.
Here's Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, North Avenue, Alton Tucker. Right in this area here, south of 20 on
Peachtree Industrial Boulevard.
Q. Now, if you would, show the jury where North
Avenue is in relation to that.
A. North Avenue?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I don't remember where North Avenue is. Okay.
I always think of it as Nelson Brogden.
Right here.
Q. Are you familiar with it now that I've
pointed it out to you? I don't want to
be trying to testify before the jury.
Are you familiar with that road?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And how far away -- are you familiar with North Avenue now that I've
pointed it out to you?
A. Yes, sir.
Right there it is.
Q. Okay.
And how far away is that from the crime scene?
A. North Avenue? About -- probably three-quarters of a mile.
Q. Okay.
Are you familiar with the Circle K convenience store there on North
Avenue?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how far away is that?
A. It's right here on the other side of Sycamore
Road. I don't know exactly how far that
is. It's probably about a mile, a
little over a mile, a mile and a half, maybe, from there to Peachtree
Industrial Boulevard, and then -- you say to the scene down here?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Probably a couple of miles, a mile and a half
to two miles total.
Q. Okay.
Thank you.
[The
witness returned to the stand.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. And from looking at those log sheets, before
you interviewed Officer Chapel, can you tell the jury whether or not another
officer was at the Circle K at around 9:30 by his log sheets on the night of
Ms. Thompson's murder?
A. The information that we had was that those
officers were in the fire station at the precinct because of the storm, the
severe storm that night at that time, which Chapel stated himself.
Q. Okay.
Now, on the tapes, you told Officer Chapel that Brian Reddy had said he
was not at the fire station?
A. That's right.
Q. And I believe Brian Reddy gave a written
statement to that effect; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was delivered to you at
headquarters, wasn't it?
A. Yes, sir, it was. During the course of the interview, yes, sir.
Q. And who took that statement?
A. I don't remember. I think a detective went out and talked to him. There were a number of interviews going on
simultaneously as we had planned. I
don't remember who took the statement.
I remember that somebody -- we sent somebody out to take the statement,
and as soon as we got it back, we wanted -- we were wanting to know what they
had to say about what was going on that night at that time.
Q. Okay.
And do you know the reason why Brian Reddy lied?
A. Well, I don't think he lied. I think he was confused. He was off duty that night, and I'm told
that he had folks visiting him from New Jersey. It was some of his relatives.
And that he had drunk some beer that night, which Brian has been known
to do a time or two, and I think he got confused. I don't think he lied at all.
I think I said to Mike on the tape he must have panicked or something
when we approached him with this.
Q. Now, when did you find out that he had not
told you the truth?
A. During the course of the interview when we
got statements from some of the other officers, and they confirmed that they
had been at the firehouse and that Chapel had been at the firehouse up to a
point. Then we realized it was a
mistake.
Q. Was a subsequent statement taken from Officer
Reddy that was correct?
A. I don't know. I don't know if that was done that way or not. I'm sure he was talked to about it.
Q. Did he talk to you about it?
A. No, sir, not -- I don't think I talked to him
about it.
Q. Do you know whether or not his supervisor
ordered him to write a report about it and he said he wanted to talk to you
personally?
A. Yes, sir.
That's what I was told, but that was about another issue.
Q. And what was it he wanted to talk to you
personally about?
A. His knowledge of some other of Chapel's
activities.
Q. And he never did write a report, did he?
A. He never did write an incident report. He wrote a -- he wrote a supplemental report
on the 16th as to what he claimed he remembered about that night.
Q. And these people that were interviewing
people up there at the Buford precinct, were they -- after Mike was arrested,
were they asking them where they were and what they were doing on the night of
the 15th?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are there written statements from them to
that effect?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And were those provided to us?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, this officer
wouldn't know that. Those were provided
through the district attorney's office.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I'll withdraw the
question. That may not be a fair
question because -- Mr. Porter is right that --
THE
COURT: I believe so.
MR.
MOORE: -- he wouldn't have knowledge
necessarily of whether we were provided those.
THE
COURT: That's a matter you can take up
otherwise if you wish.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. But your information is that there were
written statements taken from, for instance, Officer Byers?
A. Well, I may be making an assumption that
there was written statements on all of them.
Normally, I mean, procedure is if you go and interview a witness about
critical information, you put it in statement form of some type. On that night, so many of them were being
done that involved officers, and we had some high ranking officers helping us
with that, then it may be that some of them didn't write -- didn't write out
supplements. I can't say for certain,
but I do know that the information was forwarded to us on what they were being
told as they conducted interviews.
Q. But police procedure says when you interview
somebody like that you ought to give a written statement, though?
A. If they have important relevant information,
absolutely, yes, sir.
Q. And this was an important case at that point
for the Gwinnett County police department?
A. The most critical one I've been involved in,
yes, sir.
Q. And do you know whether or not, for instance,
Officer Winderweedle was interviewed regarding his whereabouts or what he was
doing on the night of the 15th when Ms. Thompson was killed?
A. I can't say specifically. He was on another shift, I believe, but I
can't sit here and tell you exactly who all was interviewed at that stage. There was so much going on, I could only
keep up with so much of it. I can't
tell you who interviewed who on every case and whether or not statements were
written on every case. We covered every
base we possibly could.
Q. Okay.
And do you know if anybody other than Reddy and Chapel were asked their
whereabouts on the night of the 15th and the morning of the 16th?
A. I'm sure that -- I'm sure they were, that
they were asked to respond to where they were or what they were doing, what
they knew about what was occurring that night, yes, sir.
Q. In other words, you would believe that all of
the officers that worked for Sergeant Stone would have been interviewed?
A. As far as I know, yes, sir. Certainly, the ones who were on duty that
night, but as far as I know, they would have been, yes, sir.
Q. Sergeant Stone was the shift supervisor that
night up there in Buford, wasn't he?
A. He's a --
Q. I don't know if I'm using the right
terminology when I say shift supervisor.
He was the sergeant in charge of the --
A. He was -- yes, sir, he was in charge of a
rotation, as we call it, that night, which consisted of, I don't know, maybe
half a dozen patrol officers.
Q. Okay.
And do you know whether or not any of those officers that were working
for him that night were interviewed as to their whereabouts or what they were
doing on the night of the murder?
A. Are you talking about the night that the
interview was going on or later down the road?
Q. Anytime.
A. The night that we were doing the interview, I
know that Stone was interviewed. Reddy
was interviewed because the confusion came in there. Lieutenant Knight was interviewed and a couple of other
people. That's who I remember that
night. The people who supposedly were
there at the firehouse with him or were on duty that night. Later on, we talked to a large number of
people. I can't sit here and name every
one of them.
Q. Okay.
You and Mike Chapel both in the interview, the videotaped interview,
used the term to eliminate people and exclude people. Do you recall that?
A. Probably.
I don't recall it specifically, but I probably did.
Q. And when the people were interviewed up at
the Buford precinct, Officer Stone, for example, do you know whether or not the
police department was seeking to exclude them by asking where they were and
what they were doing that night of the murder?
Or were they just asking for information about Mike Chapel and about
what he might have done?
A. The primary focus was Chapel. We had not been able to do -- normally, in
an investigation of any kind, you want to interview the witnesses as quickly as
possible because, you know, people forget things and they get confused about
things, and you want the information as early as you can for an effective
investigation. In this particular
instance, however, we felt like that it was appropriate to hold off on
interviewing the officers because we suspected an officer and
--
Q. After he's arrested, though, it's all out
then?
A. After his arrest, then, you know, you talk to
everybody. I mean, once he was called
into headquarters and the interview was under way and he was not going to be
forewarned that that was coming, then we had people ready to interview the
other officers that had not been formerly interviewed, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
After he was arrested, anytime from that time until the time of this
trial, have you seen statements from the other officers up there as to where
they were or what they were doing on the night of the murder?
A. I've seen statements. I've seen a number of statements. I can't tell you exactly who, no.
Q. Do you recall any of them?
A. I don't specifically recall them. Burnette was the chief investigator, so part
of the job of being the lead investigator on an investigation is to keep up
with the volumes of paperwork and information that comes in. And it gets quite overwhelming at times, so
that's one of the reasons you have a lead investigator so that all the
information can be centralized with him.
My
duties consisted of a number of things.
I had primary responsibility to oversee the investigation and see that
it got done, but I also had administrative duties in planning who was going to
work and who was going to do what, and I also actually engaged in the
investigation because there was so much to do.
So
for that reason, I can't possibly say that I saw every statement or that I
handled every statement. We would have
investigative briefings where the investigators involved would come in. We'd all sit down at one place at one time
and make sure that everybody was up to date and was up to speed on what was
taking place. That didn't involve
reading statements very often. That
involved the investigator giving you an overview or hitting the high points, so
to speak, on what had occurred in the investigation, things that we needed to
know as we continued the investigation and continued to focus the
investigation.
Q. Okay.
Now, during the course of the investigation, did you have occasion to
run any polygraphs on anyone?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object
to this. Admission of a polygraph --
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I'm not asking for
results. I'm asking about investigative
techniques. I don't intend to ask for
any results. I'm just asking if he ran
any.
THE
COURT: Objection's --
MR.
PORTER: Even the inference of
inadmissible evidence would be improper to place before this jury. Polygraphs are not admissible unless
stipulated to by both parties.
MR.
MOORE: I'm not seeking, Your Honor, to
introduce any results. I don't intend
to ask him names of anybody he gave them to.
I'm just asking him if they did any.
THE
COURT: Objection's overruled.
BY
MR. MOORE:
A. I think there might have been one done at
some point, but it was kind of a peripheral issue, as I recall, if it's the one
I'm thinking about.
Q. Was that on a police officer?
A. No, sir.
Q. My question was -- I guess maybe I didn't
narrow it down, but were any police officers given polygraphs in connection
with this investigation?
A. No, sir.
Q. And that's an investigative technique that's
used regularly by the police department, isn't it?
A. You're talking about polygraphs?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I don't.
Q. But it's used regularly by the police, is my
question.
A. They're used, yes, sir, but I don't use them.
Q. Okay.
And, in fact, internal affairs uses them regularly when their -- some
officer is accused of some misconduct, don't they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, do you recall that after the murder
occurred, the road checks were going on up there? Do you recall that?
A. Yes, sir.
I was there.
Q. Were you up there at the road checks?
A. Yes, sir, I was.
Q. Okay.
Where were they taking place at?
Where were the officers located?
A. Directly in front of -- on Peachtree
Industrial directly in front of Gwinnco Muffler Shop right there at the
driveway where the car had been found.
Q. And Mike Chapel was one of those officers up
there at the crime scene that was conducting the road checks, wasn't he?
A. The first night he was there, yes, sir. On Friday night, he was there.
Q. Do you recall seeing him up there in the
driveway with Burnette on the night of the 16th doing road checks?
A. Yes, sir, I recall seeing him there. I probably spoke to him there.
Q. Now, in the videotape, at one point, Officer
Chapel takes his keys and puts them up on the table. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. They were on some kind of a heavy weight or
something on them that was attached to the keys?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who took possession of those keys?
A. I don't remember. I think -- I think -- I don't recall who took them.
Q. Did you keep them?
A. No, sir, I didn't.
Q. Did you turn them over to the property room
or evidence room?
A. I didn't.
I don't know who took them. I
don't recall who took them. I think
there was some discussion about some of them being his and some of them being
departmental keys or car keys or something like that so --
Q. Okay.
Who went out to his car and got the briefcase?
A. Sergeant Steve Cline.
Q. Okay.
And so he had the keys at that point to unlock it?
A. Yes.
He had the car keys at that point, yes, sir. We took possession of the car keys that night, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And where was the car stored at for the next few days?
A. The car was where he parked it that night
when he came in, which was in a parking space in the parking lot just off the
entrance to the investigation section there.
THE
COURT: Is this the patrol car, Mr.
Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. This is unit 197, Mike Chapel's patrol car,
is what I'm referring to.
A. Yes, sir.
It remained where he parked it and secured it until during the day on
Saturday when the search warrant was executed on it. After the search warrant was executed, it was secured and, as I
remember, it stayed in that spot. I
don't -- I don't know exactly. I
believe it stayed in that spot for some time after that.
Q. Who got the search warrant?
A. Burnette signed it because he was the chief
investigator. He signed all the
warrants as the --
Q. Did you ever see it?
A. The one for the car?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I don't recall seeing it. I had another one that I executed, and I saw
that one. I don't recall seeing the one
for the car, no, sir.
Q. Okay.
In fact, there wasn't any search warrant on the car, was there?
A. That morning there was a search warrant, as I
understand. There was a search warrant
for the house, the car, the gym, and his lockers at the precinct. That's my understanding, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
Now, do you know what date the car was searched again?
A. You're talking about when the blood was
recovered?
Q. Well, whenever -- if it was searched again
before then, I want to know about that, too.
I've got a calendar here that might help you.
A. No, sir.
I don't -- I don't recall. I was
never involved in any of the searches of the car, so I can't tell you.
Q. Okay.
So you don't know about that?
A. Not exactly, no, sir.
Q. You know it was several days later though?
A. As I recall, it was several days later, yes,
sir.
Q. Who released the car back into service; do
you know that?
A. I -- I guess it was an administrative
decision. It's county property, and it
was a good car and it needed to be used, so at some point it was returned to
the fleet.
[Pause
in proceedings]
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore, while we're pausing,
I think now will maybe a good time to take ten minutes and then we'll proceed
on until about five or 5:15 at a good stopping point. We'll take ten minutes at this point.
[The
jury was excused from the courtroom for the recess.]
THE
COURT: You can come down if you like,
Captain Latty. We'll take ten minutes.
[Break
taken]
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, with the Court's
permission, we're going to call a couple of witnesses out of order because
they've traveled some distance to get here today, and we'd like to get them in
before -- today.
THE
COURT: Any order you wish. You want to put them up this afternoon, is
that what you're saying?
MR.
PORTER: That's the key, Your Honor. There are three witnesses after Investigator
Latty. They have to do with the chain
of custody and a document identification.
THE
COURT: Is that a matter of just
identification for chain of custody?
MR.
PORTER: They're chain witnesses. Yes, sir, it's a matter of identification.
THE
COURT: Let me ask -- would you approach
the bench, please?
[Counsel
approached the bench and the following conference ensued outside hearing of the
jury.]
THE
COURT: How much longer do you think
you're going to be, Johnny?
MR.
MOORE: Depending on his answers, Judge,
maybe another half an hour.
THE
COURT: My concern is if we continue on
with this witness at this point, maybe then along about five, 5:15, we've got
things set up for the juror's supper and all that. It's set up and in gear and if we stay until seven or eight
o'clock tonight, that's not good.
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor. What I anticipate is these are three
witnesses -- the nurse that drew the defendant's blood, and it's just part of
the chain, but the problem is he's --
THE
COURT: Well, what we might do is
interrupt this witness, if nobody objects, and get them out of the way as far
as the chain of custody goes and get them on out of the way and then however
long this goes, if we don't get through with Captain Latty, which we may not do
anyway, then recommence on Monday with his cross or his redirect or whatever.
MR.
PORTER: That's entirely up to Mr. Moore
and Ms. Rogan, Your Honor. They have
him on cross. I don't want to -- that's
up to them. I can't --
MR.
MOORE: How long do you think your
witnesses are going to take?
MR.
PORTER: It's Kathy Murray who drew
Mike's blood, it's Kathy West who received it at the crime lab and it's Tammy
Hobbs, Gwinnett evidence.
THE
COURT: All right. So you probably got altogether five minutes
worth of direct on them. And I guess --
I don't know about the cross. Is that
likely to be a lengthy cross or not, do you think?
MR.
MOORE: I don't think so, Your Honor,
but, you know, depending on what they answer, you never know what's going to
come out.
THE
COURT: Yeah.
MS.
ROGAN: Ms. Hobbs isn't from out of
town, is she?
MR.
PORTER: No. No. We want to get --
THE
COURT: Why don't we do this. Why don't we go for about a half hour and if
we're not -- if it looks like we're going to be pushing five --
MR.
MOORE: I may be finished with Latty by
that time.
THE
COURT: If we're through, it's not a
problem. And if we're not through, then
I'll entertain your request to take them out of order, and we'll see where we
are.
MR.
PORTER: And then, Your Honor, the only
thing -- the one that I can't -- the one that has to testify is Jackie Kinlaw
who will identify the pawn document. He
does not remember the transaction, but he's the custodian of record.
MS.
ROGAN: Which one, the rifle?
MR.
PORTER: Yeah.
MS.
ROGAN: Okay.
THE
COURT: Okay. Well, we'll proceed on another thirty minutes or so and then
we'll see where we are.
MR.
MOORE: Okay.
THE
COURT: Okay.
[Bench
conference concluded.]
THE
COURT: Bring the jury back, please.
[The
jury returned to the courtroom and proceedings continued, as follows.]
CROSS EXAMINATION -- Resumed
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Officer Latty, you discussed the photographic
lineup with Mike Chapel the night you interviewed him on the videotape, didn't
you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you recall telling him that if a
witness looked at a photographic lineup and said, 'Well, I just don't know,
but, you know, if I had to pick somebody, this one's the most likely.' And you said, 'You know, that ain't worth a
lot.' Do you remember saying that?
A. I remember talking about the photo lineup,
yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
Well, what I just read to you; do you remember that?
A. I remember saying something about if they had
difficulty picking the person out and it was a process of elimination, that's
what I had in mind, that, yes, that's usually not very good.
Q. Let me show you the transcript and see if
that will refresh your memory. Let me
point you to here, Line 22 on Page 75.
A. Uh-huh [affirmative].
Q. Okay.
Now, when you gave your -- when you said that, in reference to showing
it to somebody, if a witness said, 'Well, I just don't know, but, you know, if
I had to pick somebody, this one's the most likely,' and you said, 'You know,
it ain't worth a lot,' was that you true opinion?
A. If they picked one by the process of
elimination, I don't think that's very good, no. I was -- people react to photographic lineups in different ways,
and that's one of the things that you watch when they make an identification is
to -- is to how good they -- how well they do it, how quickly they recognize
the person. I mean, if they immediately
respond to one, that's better than if they study it a long time, in my
opinion. Some other people might see it
differently.
Q. Okay.
So if they studied it for a couple of minutes and said, 'If I had to
pick somebody, that's him,' is that worth a lot?
A. It depends on -- I guess it depends on the
person and how deliberate they are and that sort of thing, but what I had in
mind was if they have difficulty picking one out and they'll -- they go through
a process of elimination and say, 'Well, it ain't him because of this or it
ain't him because of that,' and they're left with one, well, then, that must be
him, if they're making an assumption that the person's on there when they can't
identify him was what I had in mind.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Number D-38. It's a photograph. Would you see if you can identify that?
A. It's a photograph of Officer or Corporal
Stratameyer. Jeff, I believe. I'm trying to think of his first name. Jeff Stratameyer.
Q. Okay.
If a person had looked at a photo lineup and said, 'If I had to pick
somebody, it's that person,' and picked a particular photograph, and then when
they were shown the photograph in front of you, Number D-38, and they said they
couldn't be sure it wasn't him, would that affect your concern about the
lineup?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to
object. This is asking Investigator
Latty to comment on the credibility of another witness, and I don't think that
Investigator Latty can comment on that.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I'll withdraw the
question.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Officer Latty, D-38, doesn't Officer
Stratameyer look a lot like Mike Chapel?
A. Not to me, but then I know him. He don't look a lot like him to me. Certainly not in person.
Q. Does this photograph look a lot like him?
A. It looked enough -- it's similar enough that
you can put it in a photo lineup, but to say it looks like him, I wouldn't -- I
wouldn't say it looks like him. There
are similarities.
Q. Would that be a good picture to put in a
photo lineup with Mike Chapel?
A. A very good one, yes, sir.
Q. Now, are you familiar
with a .38 caliber shell casing that was recovered up at Buford by Weldon Seay?
A. By who?
Q. Weldon Seay.
A. No, sir, I'm not.
Q. Are you familiar with a .38 caliber gun that was
recovered from the American Inn around 1993, December 1993?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was that gun ever tested?
A. No. I
believe that gun was all rusty when it was found.
Q. Was it ever taken to the crime lab to
determine if it could be tested?
A. I can't remember specifically. If you're referring to the one that the
fellow who was the son of the manager found that behind a Dumpster or something
and turned over to officers; is that the one you're referring to?
Q. It was Mike Plunkett that found it up at the
American Inn in Buford.
A. Yes, sir.
As I recall, that gun was rusty and it had been -- had been out for a
very long time. It was all rusted up.
Q. My question is was there any attempt made to
take it to the crime lab to see if they could learn anything from it?
A. I don't know, but probably not because it was
in such horrible condition.
Q. Who made the decision that it was in such
horrible condition?
A. Well, I don't know. If a gun has been out so long that it's rusted up and you know
that the bore's rusted out, you can get a pretty good idea that probably you're
not going to be able to do much with it.
Q. Did you ever see that gun?
A. I don't recall seeing it, no, sir.
Q. Were you told about that gun by the -- the
officers that found it?
A. Yes, sir.
I went and talked to the manager when we got -- when we got that piece
of information, I went and talked to the manager, the lady who worked there,
and got all that information and we tracked it down and found out who had
recovered the gun, the circumstances.
It had all been handled and documented by the officers. And as I recall, after we identified the
officers and got the information, it was something that was of no value to us
in the investigation.
Q. And who made that determination that it was
no value to you?
A. I suppose we did as the investigators.
Q. Who is we?
A. Me, Burnette, that it was -- and I don't
know. I don't know for sure the gun
wasn't sent. I don't think it was. As I recall, the gun was -- was old and
rusted out if we're talking about the same gun.
Q. Okay.
Did anybody ever -- did any investigators ever see that gun, to your
knowledge?
A. I can't -- I can't say for sure. I -- all I remember is getting the
information, and initially it sounded like it was something we needed, and we
went through the process of getting all the information on it. I don't really remember what -- what
happened to the gun.
Q. What does it mean if it says on a report
'forward to CID' and that's checked?
A. Well, we normally, if we have found property,
we get those reports or get copies of those reports and, particularly, if it
might be related to a case, a gun is something that if we -- if an officer
recovers a gun, for instance, then that's something that they write a report on
for -- a recovered property report, and then it's forwarded to us for us to
look at in case it might be somehow related to some case we're working on or to
try to find the owner in some instances.
Q. Okay.
My question is, the term 'forward to CID,' what does that mean? If an officer puts that on his incident
report --
A. It means forward the report to CID for -- so
that we'll have the information.
Q. To the criminal investigation division?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And what happens to the gun then?
A. It varies.
You know, there's an awful lot -- there's an awful lot of found
property, lost property. Usually on
guns, we attempt to locate the owner. I
think one of the procedures is we send them to the crime lab, and they test
fire the ones that they can against -- to try to match them up to other crimes
just in case those guns may have been used in other crimes and can be matched
up. Standard procedure.
Q. Now, getting back to the interview there at
the interview room at the police department, the night you arrested Mike
Chapel, that's an extremely small room for three big men, isn't it?
A. It's pretty small. It's intended to be.
Q. And that's to intimidate people, I mean, to
get them to confess, isn't it?
A. That's -- the design of the interview room is
so that you're close to that person, they can't get away from you. That's -- police departments learned a long
time ago, I guess, as other businesses did that that's the best environment to
conduct an interview about serious matters, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
It's a psychologically intimidating situation?
A. It can be, yes, sir.
Q. I mean, you've got two officers there. You put the person back in the corner by
themselves on a chair with no arms or anything, a very small chair, a very big
person like Mike Chapel, and that chair's very uncomfortable to sit in for five
hours, isn't it?
A. Any chair can be uncomfortable if you sit in
it for five hours, yes, sir.
Q. And that's just a little chair with very
little padding in it, isn't it?
A. It's just a standard chair, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
A. We sit on the same chairs.
Q. The chairs you had were exactly the same as
the chair he had?
A. I don't think they're exactly the same, but
you know, the chairs gets interchanged -- they get interchanged in there.
Q. Now, Mike made a comment in the videotaped
interview, 'I may beat the rap, but I ain't beating the ride.' Do you know what that term means?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you explain to the jury what it means?
A. It's a police expression that, you know,
quite often when you arrest people, they usually proclaim their innocence, and
it's an expression meaning, well, you know, you may get out of the charge, but
-- you know, when it comes to court, but we're going to make the charge is
basically what it means.
Q. And police use it to mean when they can't
make a case sometimes, when they arrest somebody and they know there's not
going to be a conviction, that you're going to take the ride whether you get
convicted or not?
A. That's not how I interpret it. I interpret it as, you know, only a small
percentage of cases that police officers make ever make it to court. They get plea bargained, they get dismissed,
some deals are made, policemen get frustrated by that. We always tell them go ahead and make the
case. You do your job, you do the right
thing, and what the lawyers do and judges do, we're not responsible for. So it makes -- it means that we're going to
go ahead and make that case and make that arrest because the probable cause is
there and it needs to be done and what happens after that is beyond our
control.
Q. But the police use the term, and you've heard
it used, to say to somebody, you're going to take the ride, you may beat the
rap, but you're going to take the ride to a defendant?
A. Yeah, we're going to charge you. We don't know what will happen with it, but
we're going to make the charge, yes, sir.
Q. And that's a very common term? It's not something that's unusual?
A. It's been around as long as I can remember,
yes, sir.
Q. Now, on the night of the murder, there was
radio calls from Mike to Danny Smith; is that correct?
A. That's what I understand, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
You mentioned that on the videotaped interview that there were radio
calls there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
Are there records kept of those?
A. That was a radio call. Yes, sir.
That's recorded. I had to think
about that a minute. They're recorded,
have been for a long time.
Q. And how long do they keep those records?
A. I think thirty days.
Q. Did you obtain the records in Mike's case to
determine what radio traffic he had that night?
A. I remember we checked the MDT traffic, and I
-- as far as I know, we checked the radio traffic.
Q. Okay.
Did you get copies of it?
A. I don't recall. I don't recall hearing any.
Q. Okay.
And MDT is something different than radio calls, isn't it?
A. It's a data terminal that's in the patrol
cars where you can do computer checks of tags and wanted persons and you can
communicate from car to car and with dispatch.
Q. Okay.
And you checked Mike's MDT's for that night?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And what did it show?
A. As I recall, they weren't -- we didn't have
the record of them. They were not being
recorded or -- no, I'm inaccurate on that.
Let me think a second. I know we
checked them. It's something we talked
a lot about because he had run a check -- he had run a check on a car that
night, I remember we talked a lot about, and we were trying to determine who
that person was and that sort of thing.
Yes, we checked that and we didn't -- we didn't have anything. That's correct.
Q. Okay.
A. I mean -- and let me clarify that once
again. We did not find where he had run
anything but that one tag.
Q. Now, when Officer Reddy was interviewed after
the arrest or before the arrest, either one, I presume it was after the arrest
when he was interviewed, did anybody ask him about what kind of weapons he
owned?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Okay.
Are you aware of the fact that he owned an RG .38 caliber pistol?
A. I understand that he did. I just learned that recently. I don't have personal knowledge of it, but
I've heard that, yes, sir.
Q. And where did you learn that from?
A. Burnette or somebody, I guess, we discussed
it.
Q. And when did you learn it?
A. In the last couple of days, I guess.
Q. Okay.
A. Very recently. Or maybe last couple of weeks.
Fairly -- very recently. I don't
remember exactly.
Q. So you and Burnette have been discussing the
case since the trial started?
A. No.
We've been preparing for the case.
I remember the discussion on the RG about getting it to the crime lab
and getting it checked by Kelly Fite to make sure that it, you know, we could
preclude that it could have been used in this crime, yes, sir.
Q. And Burnette's working up in the DA's office
now, isn't he?
A. Yes, sir.
He's been assigned to the DA's office to prepare for this case, yes,
sir.
Q. Okay.
And do you know when the existence of that RG .38 that Mike [sic] Reddy
owned was discovered?
A. Just -- I don't know the date. It was very recently. I think that Reddy just blurted it out or
something, and we didn't know about it till that time.
Q. So you and none of your investigators back in
April 1993 asked anybody up there whether they owned the kind of gun the crime
lab report showed was used to kill the woman?
A. I remember a lot of discussions and questions
about guns. I don't specifically
remember if every officer -- we went down the line and asked, 'Do you own this
type of gun,' no, sir.
Q. You said they interviewed Reddy. Did anybody ever ask Reddy what kind of guns
he owned?
A. Apparently nobody ever asked him about that
one.
Q. Okay.
And that's exactly the kind of gun that was used to kill Ms. Thompson,
isn't it?
A. A Charter Arms .38 is what I understand was
used.
Q. Doesn't the crime lab report say either that
or an RG?
A. That's probably correct, but I can't -- I
can't say for sure. I know that Charter
Arms is what -- is what we've talked about and sought throughout this
investigation.
Q. And the reason you talked -- and the reason
you talked about Charter Arms is because you thought Mike owned one, didn't
you?
A. No, because we believed that was the kind of
gun that was used to kill Ms. Thompson.
Q. If the crime lab report says that either a
Charter Arms --
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I'll object to
this. This is hearsay by this officer,
if the crime lab report says.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, if he is a lead
investigator on this case, he should -- he presumably has examined the crime
lab report and knows what's in it and what he's looking for.
MR.
PORTER: It doesn't make it any less
hearsay.
THE
COURT: Restate your question. What's the question?
MR.
MOORE: I forgot, to tell you the truth,
but I'll try again, Your Honor.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. If the crime lab report -- have you examined
the crime lab report?
A. Yes, sir.
I'm familiar with what's on it.
Q. Do you know what's on it?
A. A .38 caliber --
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to renew
my objection. It's still hearsay.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, if he's relying on
it to explain his conduct in conducting his investigation, that's an exception
to the hearsay rule.
MR.
PORTER: He hasn't established that.
THE
COURT: Objection's overruled. Go ahead, please.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Do you know what's on the crime lab report?
A. What I know that's on the crime lab report is
a .38 caliber Charter Arms, and, I think, RRG.
Q. RRG?
A. But I can't say for sure. I believe that's correct. I know that we were interested in RG's, and
I know that we were interested in the RG that Brian had once we learned he had
one. And steps were taken or I
understand steps were taken to have that gun examined and compared to make sure
that it couldn't have been used.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 62 and ask you if you can identify that.
A. It's a GBI, Division of Forensic Sciences --
THE
COURT: What number is that, Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: D-62, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Thank you.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Just tell us if you can identify the
document?
A. Yes, sir. It's what we call a crime lab report.
Q. Okay.
And is it in the case of Mike Chapel?
A. Suspect Mike Chapel, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
Would you look on there, if you can, and find where the crime lab
reported what type of weapon it was?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does that report refresh your memory as to
what type of weapon you were looking for?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And what type of weapon were you looking for?
A. A RG or Charter Arms .38 or .357 magnum
revolver.
Q. Okay.
And you said you were looking for a Charter Arms. Can you explain why you were given more
weight to a Charter Arms than you were to an RG?
A. I don't remember specifically, but I think
probably Kelly Fite, and I don't want to speak for him, but I think that he may
have indicated that he would lean more toward a Charter Arms than an RG. Kelly Fite, as you know, is the best -- the
best there is at this, and we rely heavily on what he says, and he -- as I
recall, he said he would lean more toward a Charter Arms than an RG, and so we
tended to look more at that because of his expertise.
Q. And did you remember that a minute ago when I
asked you?
A. No, I didn't remember that specifically.
Q. Okay.
Now --
A. You have to think about these things. It's been over two years, and I have to
think about these details.
Q. And there's nothing in his report, though,
that indicates it leans one way or the other?
A. Nothing in the report, no, sir. One of the things that we have done
throughout this is try to eliminate any weapon that we could identify. If another officer owned it, we tried to
obtain that gun and have it checked -- you know, to rebut. You saying that some other gun could have
been used, that some other officer could have done it, as far as I know, that
either has been done or will be done with this RG of Brian Reddy, not because
we suspect him, but to, you know, preclude you claiming that that's the gun.
Q. How many other guns have you gotten from
officers up there that you've sent to the crime lab?
A. I don't remember getting any other gun from
an officer.
Q. Have you asked anybody else up there if they
owned an RG or a Charter Arms?
A. I can't tell you specifically whether that's
been done or not. I know that we've
obtained --
Q. The answer is you don't know, isn't it?
A. The answer is I don't know whether that
specific question has been asked of every officer. No, sir, I don't.
Q. What else have you and Officer Burnette
discussed besides this RG that Reddy had?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object
to this. There's no basis. The officer's testified that they haven't
discussed it.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, he testified he
learned about this RG .38 in the last few days. I'm prepared to show that that was since the trial started and
that there's been a violation of the rule of sequestration here.
THE
COURT: Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, there has no been
violation of the rule of sequestration.
He can inquire how he found that out.
THE
COURT: Objection's overruled. Go ahead, please.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. What else about the case have you and Officer
Burnette talked about since the jury started to be struck, and that would be
August 4th of 1995?
A. I asked Investigator Burnette to supply me
with a copy of his original investigator's report which was filed over two
years ago and which has been a matter of record since that time. I also asked him to supply me with copies of
my supplemental reports and those reports that would be relevant to anything
that I anticipated being asked about.
Any information that I'm testifying to is information that I've known
about, for the most part, for over two years.
I have refreshed my memory in preparation for this -- this testimony by
reading those reports and going back over those reports, but --
Q. Were your -- excuse me, go ahead.
A. -- I've not discussed testimony, no, sir.
Q. And were you refreshing your memory when you
were discussing this RG .38 that Reddy owned?
A. I don't -- I don't remember specifically how
that came about. Whether I overheard
it, I don't know. I can't remember
specifically. I just remember hearing
-- hearing about it at some point, and I would consider that to be new
information that I didn't know about on this case. I didn't --
Q. Did you think it was significant?
A. I knew that -- I knew that it was something
that we were going to have to check.
Otherwise, you would be in here trying to say that Brian Reddy committed
this crime with this gun, which we know is not the case, and we have to do
those tests --
Q. How do you know it's not the case? How do you know it's not the case?
A. Because the evidence shows it.
Q. What evidence?
A. The evidence that we're in the process of
presenting.
Q. Who told you it didn't show it?
A. Didn't show what?
Q. Didn't show that it was the gun.
A. I'm saying that we -- the idea here is to test
these things and exclude these things so that we can answer to that. Part of the -- part of the process in
preparing a case, particularly a case of this magnitude from our standpoint, is
not only to present the evidence --
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I'm going to object
to him making a speech and ask him to answer the questions.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, Mr. Moore has
opened this door.
THE
COURT: I'll allow him to continue to
respond. That's not a license for a
long dissertation, but go ahead and respond to his question. Complete your response.
BY
MR. MOORE:
A. [Continuing]
Part of the process is not only to provide the positive, if you will,
evidence that proves the case, but to be able to anticipate what you might have
to overcome that's presented by the defense.
And that's a part of any investigation that you are able to anticipate
and be able to answer these questions when they arise.
Q. Okay.
Do you know whether or not the gun's been excluded?
A. I don't know.
Q. And you knew that the rule of sequestration
had been invoked, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you knew that any new information that
might have been acquired by anybody was not supposed to be discussed before you
testified here in court?
A. It's not -- I can't -- I can't --
Q. You can answer me yes or no, and you can
explain it, but first answer me yes or no that you knew that.
A. Yes, I know that, but I can't stop up my ears
and not overhear things, discussions and things that happen in the course of
everyday events. I'm a critical part of
this case, and I'm involved in the operation of the Gwinnett County detective
division every day. I can't stop my
ears and not hear -- not listen to something if I overhear it.
Q. Did you and Burnette ever have a discussion
about manufacturing evidence in this case?
A. Of course not.
Q. Of course not.
A. Oh. I
know what you're referring to. Are you
referring to --
Q. I'm asking -- you tell me if you did.
A. No, of course not. We didn't.
Q. Okay.
A. I think you're probably referring to Agent
Stone in preparation for the interview, but to make an inference that we've
discussed manufacturing evidence is -- is ridiculous.
Q. How long have you worked with Officer
Burnette?
A. For over seventeen years.
Q. Do you recognize his handwriting when you see
it?
A. Yes, sir, I do. It's very distinctive.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, the state will
stipulate that that is the handwriting of Investigator Jack Burnette and those
are from his notes which were previously provided to the defendant.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, it's very nice the
state wants to stipulate, but I think I've got a right to have it marked and
ask questions about it. If you'll
stipulate to the document into evidence, then that's --
MR.
PORTER: I'll stipulate to its
authenticity, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Mark it as an exhibit.
[Defendant's
exhibit was marked for identification by the court reporter.]
MR.
MOORE: It's been marked as Defendant's
Exhibit Number D-63, Your Honor, and I'd tender it into evidence at this time.
MR.
PORTER: No objection, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Is this a -- well, when you say
admitted, is there any objection to it going out? Is this one that's for the record only or not?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, the state --
THE
COURT: I mean, if we've got a number of
exhibits which are going to be for the record only, used in the course of trial
that won't be going out. Is this one of
those or not?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, there are portions
of that document that are hearsay that I don't believe would be admissible to
go out with the jury. It's in the
nature of a police report, and in that fact I don't believe it would be
admissible to go out with the jury. I
don't have any objection to Mr. Moore questioning about it or going into the
contents and it being admitted for the record, but it's in the nature of a
police report.
THE
COURT: All right. It's admitted for the record at this point,
and we'll come back to the other matter.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you Defendant's Exhibit
Number 63 and draw your attention to 'A' right here. Is that Officer Burnette's handwriting, first of all?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. Okay.
And you're positive of that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And what does 'A' say?
A. 'A' says 'may want to -- may want to
manufacture a witness' or abbreviation for witness. That was a -- that was an -- that was an interview with Agent
Ralph Stone of the GBI who's an expert in psychological aspects of
interviews. We met with him and
discussed this with him prior to doing this interview, in making preparation
for it. He suggested a number of
possible ways to proceed, approaches to use.
He suggested to us that we might want to use that approach. We said we didn't want to use that approach
and did not use it.
Q. But you discussed manufacturing witnesses?
A. We discussed -- Agent Stone discussed --
sometimes in the course of an interview, you mislead those people you're
interviewing, common practice accepted by the courts, to reach certain
points. That was one of the
possibilities he suggested to us, among many others. You only let me read 'A'.
There were a number of others below 'A'. And he suggested you might want to, in the course of the
interview, suggest, imply or suggest or in his word 'manufacture' a witness in
hopes of leading him to believe that he had been seen, and, therefore, maybe
leading him to tell us that he had been there.
We did not use that approach. We
never told him anything that we did not believe to be the truth during the
course of that investigation.
Q. Officer Latty, that's not true. The jury's seen that videotape. You went in there, and you and Burnette led
him to believe all kinds of evidence that you didn't have, made it better than
it was, told him it was better than it was, in an effort to try to -- your friend
and colleague -- in an effort to try to get him to confess, didn't you?
A. The -- the things we told him in there, to my
knowledge, at that time, were true.
They were true. As a matter of
fact, one of the things you didn't point out in there was that Agent Stone
suggested that the best approach with Mike Chapel was to be factual, to hit him
with the facts. We told him what we had
up to that point. And he said, 'The
best way to approach him is to hit him with the facts. He's not going to buy off on some
story.' You heard me say that in there. 'He's not going to buy off on something
you've manufactured. Tell him what the
facts are.'
Q. You did not tell him that the eyewitness
said, 'I'll have to say it's number three,' did you?
A. No, I didn't. And I did not know at that point specifically what the witness
said. I just had been told that he had
identified him and that it was a good identification.
Q. You didn't know at that time, and you
characterized it as a good identification --
A. Certainly, I did, yes, sir.
Q. -- to Mike Chapel?
A. Yes, sir.
And I believe it was a good identification.
Q. But you characterized it to him, and you
didn't tell him that person hesitated, they said, 'I'd have to say it's him,'
did you?
A. I didn't know that. I didn't know that at the time.
Q. You didn't know much of anything at that
time; you'd just zeroed in on Mike Chapel, hadn't you?
A. I knew quite a bit at that time, and I shared
it with him.
Q. That's all I have.
MR.
MOORE: That's all I have. Thank you.
THE
COURT: Would you approach the bench, please?
[Counsel
approached the bench and the following conference ensued outside hearing of the
jury.]
THE
COURT: How long is your redirect going
to be?
MR.
PORTER: I don't have any redirect.
THE
COURT: Okay. We'll proceed on with the other witnesses, then. Do you think a half hour will get them in
and out?
MR.
PORTER: I feel fairly certain, Your
Honor. I have the three witnesses that
we've discussed.
THE
COURT: Okay. We'll proceed with those, then, until 5:15 or so.
MS.
ROGAN: We may have cross-examination that --
MR.
MOORE: We'll try, Your Honor. We just don't know.
THE
COURT: Okay. Well, however.
[Bench
conference concluded.]
THE
COURT: Redirect, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: No redirect, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: You can come down. Call your next witness, please.
[The
witness stepped down from the stand.]
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, Mr. Smeal will be
handling this portion of the state's case.
THE
COURT: All right. Who do you call?
MR.
SMEAL: The state calls Kathy Murray.
[The
witness was called to the courtroom.]
MR.
MOORE: Excuse me, Your Honor. We're trying to figure out what I did with
the document that Officer Latty had.
THE
COURT: All right. Did you find it okay? Everything squared away?
MR.
MOORE: I haven't yet, but --
THE
COURT: Ms. Murray, if you'll take the
witness stand up here, please.
[The
witness stepped to the stand.]
THE
COURT: You can be seated up here. Mr. Smeal will administer the oath.
MR.
SMEAL: Please be seated, ma'am. Would you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're
about to give in the matter now pending before the Court, will be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE
WITNESS: I do.
Whereupon,
having
been called as a witness and duly sworn, was examined and testified, as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY
MR. SMEAL:
Q. Please state your full name and if you'd
spell your last name for the court reporter, please.
A. Kathy Collier Murray. And the last name is spelled M-u-r-r-a-y.
Q. And how are you employed, ma'am?
A. I work at Northeast Georgia Medical Center in
Gainesville as a lab assistant.
Q. And do you live in that same area, ma'am?
A. I live in White County.
Q. And have you received training in the area of
being a laboratory assistant?
A. That was on the job.
Q. What are your duties there with the medical
center?
A. I draw blood, I work in specimen processing,
and also front desk.
Q. All right.
And were you working there back in May 1993?
A. Yes.
Q. I want to hand you what's been previously
been marked as State's Exhibit 100, and I would ask you if you can identify the
contents of this paper bag.
A. Yes.
This is two of the four purple top tubes I drew from Mr. Chapel at that
time.
Q. Okay.
And that was on -- do you recall the date, ma'am?
A. May 12.
Q. Okay.
THE
COURT: Of what year?
THE
WITNESS: 1993.
BY
MR. SMEAL:
Q. Who was present when that was done? Do you recall?
A. There were two investigators and one deputy,
myself, and there was a EMT student observing me that day, so he was also
there.
Q. Okay.
And the person that you drew blood from that day, do you see that person
in the courtroom today?
A. I really couldn't be sure. I don't remember exactly what he looked
like. It's been so long ago.
Q. Okay.
How many samples of blood have you drawn since that time in the last
couple of years?
A. Oh, gosh, I don't know. Four or five thousand.
Q. And at that time, did you -- in drawing the
blood, if you recall, did you follow your standard procedures for drawing blood?
A. Yes.
Always.
Q. Okay.
And what would those consist of, briefly?
A. First of all, gloving up, getting out my
supplies, alcohol, gauze, Band-Aid, my tubes, needle, tourniquet, tying the
tourniquet, prepping the area with alcohol, inject a sterile, brand new needle,
inserting the tubes, drawing the blood.
Q. Are those purple-stoppered tubes -- are they
designed for the drawing of blood samples?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
And were those new tubes that you used on this date?
A. Yes.
Always new tubes.
Q. All right.
I believe you've testified that you drew blood into four tubes; is that
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And following that, what did you do with those tubes?
A. I wrote Michael Chapel's name on here,
initialed it, and put the time in which I drew it, and then I turned them over
to the investigator.
Q. Do you recall which investigator you turned
it over to?
A. I've got his name right here. Investigator Jack Burnette or -- this is
with the Gwinnett County police.
Q. Okay.
And, ma'am, did you place anything other than the defendant's blood in
those tubes?
A. No.
Q. For what length of time would you estimate
you actually had custody of those tubes of blood?
A. Three minutes.
Q. How is the blood actually inserted into the
tubes? Are those -- those are essentially
self-sealing tubes?
A. Those are -- yes, the tubes actually have a
vacuum in them. When you insert the
needle in the person's vein, it actually draws the blood into the tube. You pull the tube out of the little holder
and that's all you do. You don't --
Q. All right.
And you've testified this is your handwriting on these tubes?
A. Yes, it is.
MR.
SMEAL: I have no further questions at
this time, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Ms. Rogan's going to handle it,
Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY
MS. ROGAN:
Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Murray. Who was it that made the request for you to
draw the blood that day?
A. The -- this Investigator Burnette.
Q. Mr. Burnette did?
A. Uh-huh [affirmative].
Q. Did he have any kind of document with him, a
warrant of any kind, to your knowledge?
A. Not that I've seen. My supervisor just sent me to the room to draw the blood, so I
don't know.
Q. Okay.
So you were requested or ordered --
A. Yes.
Q. -- by your supervisor to go do whatever was
-- had been requested?
A. Right.
Q. And I believe you said that you work in
Gainesville, Georgia?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. That's in Hall County; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. That's not Gwinnett County?
A. No.
Q. Thank you.
MR.
MOORE: That's all I have.
THE
COURT: Redirect?
MR.
SMEAL: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Do you wish this witness
released or on call or what do you wish?
MR.
SMEAL: She could be released, Your
Honor.
THE
COURT: All right. Do you wish her released altogether?
MR.
SMEAL: Well, I'll guess we'll keep her
on call, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: All right.
MR.
SMEAL: I don't anticipate that we'll
recall her.
THE
COURT: You can come down. You'll remain on call.
THE
WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
[The
witness stepped down from the stand.]
THE
COURT: Call your next witness, please.
MR.
SMEAL: The state calls Kathy West.
[The
witness was called to the courtroom.]
THE
COURT: If you'll take the witness
stand, please, Mr. Smeal will administer the oath.
MR.
SMEAL: Please be seated, ma'am. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're
about to give in the matter now pending before the Court will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
Whereupon,
having
been called as a witness and duly sworn, was examined and testified, as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY
MR. SMEAL:
Q. Please state your full name and if you would
spell your last name for the court reporter.
A. Katherine M. West, W-e-s-t.
Q. And how are you employed, ma'am?
A. I'm employed by the City of Griffin Police
Department.
Q. How were you employed back in May 1993?
A. I was employed by the GBI crime lab.
Q. Okay.
And what were your duties with the crime lab?
A. I was an evidence technician with the GBI
crime lab.
Q. Directing your attention to May 13, 1993, and
I would ask you to examine State's Exhibit 100, can you tell the members of the
jury whether you had contact with that item on that date?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Okay.
Would you describe the circumstances of that contact, please?
A. Yes, sir.
I received this brown bag sealed with evidence tape. I put the Numbers 93-10770, Item 21, on this
bag.
Q. Do you recall who you received that from?
A. P. T. Swanson of the Griffin -- I mean, of
the Gwinnett police department.
Q. Is 93-10770, is that the crime lab number
that was assigned to this case?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. Okay.
And after receiving that item, what did you do with it?
A. I signed that item over to Jennifer Wilson, a
serologist upstairs.
Q. Okay.
And do you recall when you transferred that item to Ms. Wilson?
A. The same day, sir.
Q. Same day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And during the time that item was in your custody and control, did you
do anything to alter the contents of those tubes?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay.
You did not perform any sort of analysis or do anything with the actual
tubes of blood?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
MR.
SMEAL: No further questions, Your
Honor.
THE
COURT: Okay. Ms. Rogan?
MS.
ROGAN: Just one.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY
MS. ROGAN:
Q. Ms. West, do you have any personal knowledge
as to who it was those vials of blood were drawn from?
A. Yes, sir [sic]. On the -- no personal knowledge, no.
Q. That's my question.
A. No.
Q. No personal knowledge?
A. No personal knowledge.
Q. Okay.
Thank you.
MS.
ROGAN: That's all I have.
THE
COURT: Redirect?
MR.
SMEAL: None, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Do you wish this witness to --
do you wish her to remain on call?
MR.
SMEAL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: All right. You can come down. You'll be subject to being recalled. Call your next witness, please.
MR.
SMEAL: Your Honor, I'm not sure at this
status whether there is another witness available or not.
THE
COURT: You can come down, Ms. West.
[The
witness stepped down.]
MR.
PORTER: We call Jackie Kinlaw to the
stand. Jackie Kinlaw.
[The
witness was called to the courtroom.]
MR.
PORTER: Mr. Kinlaw, could you take the
witness stand, please.
[The
witness stepped to the stand.]
MR.
PORTER: Could you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're
about to give in this matter now pending shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE
WITNESS: I do.
Whereupon,
having
been called as a witness and duly sworn, was examined and testified, as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY
MR. PORTER:
Q. You can have a seat, please. Could you state your name and spell it for
the record?
A. My name is Jackie Kinlaw, J-a-c-k-i-e,
K-i-n-l-a-w.
Q. Okay.
And Mr. Kinlaw, how are you employed?
A. I'm the president of Quick Cash Pawn Shops.
Q. How many locations does Quick Cash Pawn Shops
have?
A. Four in the metro Atlanta area.
Q. Are you the custodian of records for all four
locations?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Are you the president of that corporation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Kinlaw, I'm going to show you State's
Exhibit Number 101, a copy of which has been previously provided to the
defense. Can you identify that
document, please?
A. Yes, sir.
This is a pawn agreement. It was
entered into between my company and a Michael Keith Thompson on the 22nd day of
April, 1993, at our location on Highway 20 in Sugar Hill, and it's numbered
2868.
Q. Let me ask you, is that a document that is
kept in the regular course of your business, Quick Cash Pawn Shops?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. And is that document made in the regular
course of business at the same time as the transaction takes place?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. And, in fact, is that required by law to be
filled out?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of the
transaction that's described in that document?
A. No, sir, I do not.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, at this time, we
would tender State's Exhibit Number 101 as a business record.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: No objection, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: State's 101 is admitted without
objection.
BY
MR. PORTER:
Q. Mr. Thompson [sic], I would like you to look
at State's Exhibit Number 101, and can you tell us the items that were pawned
on that date according to that record?
A. Yes, sir.
It was a Winchester 30-30 rifle, Model 94, Serial Number 4551044.
Q. And how much did you give the person, Michael
Thompson, for the rifle?
A. $60 was the loan amount.
Q. Thank you.
MR.
PORTER: That's all the questions I
have.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Mr. Kinlaw, there's nothing else significant
on that document except what you've already testified to, is there?
A. No, sir, I don't believe so.
Q. And you don't have any personal knowledge
about it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay.
MR.
MOORE: That's all the questions I have,
Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Redirect?
MR.
PORTER: I have no redirect, Your
Honor. We would ask that Mr. Kinlaw be
allowed to leave. He can be reached,
but he has pressing engagements next week, early next week. I guess on call, but with some consideration
for his schedule.
THE
COURT: All right. Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I don't have any
problem with that. I can't see why he
would need to be recalled. I can't
imagine any reason.
THE
COURT: All right. You'll be potentially subject to being
recalled, but not likely. I guess
that's the instruction at this point.
You can come down.
THE
WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
[The
witness stepped down.]
THE
COURT: Any other witnesses at this
point?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, we have another
chain of custody witness available.
THE
COURT: Call him.
MR.
SMEAL: The state would call Tammy
Hobbs. Tammy Hobbs.
[The
witness was called to the courtroom.]
THE
COURT: If you'll be seated up
here, Ms. Hobbs.
MR.
SMEAL: Please raise your right
hand. Do you solemnly swear the
testimony you're about to give in the matter now pending before the Court will
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE
WITNESS: I do.
Whereupon,
having
been called as a witness and duly sworn, was examined and testified, as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY
MR. SMEAL:
Q. Please state your full name.
A. My name is Tammy Hobbs.
Q. Would you spell your last name for the court
reporter, please.
A. H-o-b-b-s.
Q. Ms. Hobbs, where are you currently employed?
A. The Gwinnett County solicitor's office.
Q. Where were you employed back in May 1993?
A. The Gwinnett County police department.
Q. And during May 1993, what were your duties
with the Gwinnett County police department?
A. I worked in the evidence room as an evidence
technician.
Q. Directing your attention to May 12, 1993,
ma'am, I'm handing you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 100. Can you tell
the members of the jury whether you handled that item on that date?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Would you please tell the members of the jury
the circumstances of that?
A. It was two vials of blood turned in to me
on May 12 from Investigator Burnette.
Q. All right.
And what did you do with those items once you received them from
Investigator Burnette?
A. They were placed in the refrigerator in the
evidence -- the locked evidence room.
Q. Okay.
And is any of this writing on this -- on this envelope your writing?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay.
Is that the Gwinnett County police case number?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
Would you read that just for the record, please?
A. Uh-huh.
It's 93-012445.
Q. Okay.
And after marking that, you put it into the evidence room at the
Gwinnett County police department?
A. Yes.
Q. During the time that item was in your
possession and control, did you do anything to alter the contents of those
tubes of blood?
A. No, I did not.
MR.
SMEAL: No further questions at this
time, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: What day did you -- what was the
date you received that from Officer Burnette?
THE
WITNESS: That was May 12, 1993.
THE
COURT: Cross-examination?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. How many vials of blood did you say you
received, Ms. Hobbs?
A. Two vials, but it was in a bag, so I'm just
going by what it says on the -- my property sheet.
Q. Okay.
So if there were four drawn somewhere else, you don't have any
information as to what happened to the other two?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
There's just two in the bag there; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.
Now, was the evidence room in the same place in April or May 1993 as it
is now?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay.
I know it's moved at some time and I didn't know when it was done.
A. It was before then.
Q. Okay.
And what was your job at that time?
A. To maintain evidence under lock and key and
keep the chain of custody.
Q. Did you sit at that desk there next to where
the halfway door is where --
A. Uh-huh [affirmative].
Q. -- people would sign stuff in and out?
A. Yes.
Q. And what hours did you work, what shift?
A. We rotated shifts, evenings and days, and at
this time, I imagine I was working evening shift.
Q. So in April 1993, you'd been working the
evenings?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
Any evidence that came in between -- what was the evening shift
then? What were the hours?
A. That's three to eleven or three to 11:30.
Q. And who relieves you when you take breaks on
the evening shift?
A. No one relieves me. I lock it up and just, you know, go take my break.
Q. And who all has keys to that door?
A. That would be myself, Mireya Middleton --
well, not myself anymore, but at that time, myself --
Q. Yes, ma'am.
I mean at that time.
A. Okay.
Mireya Middleton, P. T. Swanson, and John Vincent, that I know of.
Q. Okay.
And what was the extension number there where you worked at in 1993?
A. That would be 5260.
Q. Was there more than one telephone back
there? Just one person at a time
working back there?
A. Just one telephone.
Q. Okay.
MR.
MOORE: Nothing further.
THE
COURT: Redirect?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY
MR. SMEAL:
Q. Do your records show approximately what time
you received that item from Investigator Burnette?
A. Yes, they do. It was at 17:15 hours, which I believe is 5:15 in the evening.
MR.
SMEAL: Nothing further.
THE
COURT: Recross?
MR.
MOORE: Nothing further, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Do you wish her to remain on
call?
MR.
SMEAL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: You can come down. You'll be subject to being recalled at a
later time, but you can come down.
[The
witness stepped down from the stand.]
THE
COURT: Any other witnesses?
MR.
PORTER: That completes the presentation
of evidence for today.
THE
COURT: All right. Would you approach the bench, please?
[Counsel
approached the bench and the following conference ensued outside hearing of the
jury.]
THE
COURT: How do you think we're doing
time-wise?
MR.
PORTER: About Tuesday to wrap it up.
THE
COURT: Morning, afternoon?
MR.
PORTER: It's hard to say, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
SMEAL: Probably afternoon.
MR.
PORTER: Probably afternoon.
THE
COURT: Okay. What do you think, three to five days or what?
MS.
ROGAN: It could be longer.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, he hasn't called a
lot of people we thought he might, so it could be longer. We checked our witness list last night, and
we have potentially, I don't know if we'll call them all, but we have
potentially about forty witnesses.
THE
COURT: Okay. You might run more than a week you think?
MS.
ROGAN: Yeah, unfortunately.
MR.
MOORE: Unfortunately.
MS.
ROGAN: We were hoping we would wrap up
by the end of the week, but we're not optimistic.
THE
COURT: Okay. All right. Well, we'll
just be in recess until nine o'clock Monday morning. We'll see how we go. I might give some consideration to extending
the days and let them -- and push on until six or seven or something if need be
and get things going.
MS.
ROGAN: That presents a bit of a problem
for us, Your Honor, because we're having to prepare our case.
MR.
MOORE: We've been working until nine
o'clock here and then going home and working until eleven and twelve at night.
THE
COURT: I understand. I understand.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I can understand
the Court's concern. We do have a
sequestered jury, but I don't think on the part of either of the parties you
can say that there hasn't been due diligence in keeping this jury as busy as
we've been keeping them.
THE
COURT: Well, I understand. I understand.
MR.
PORTER: I understand if the Court
wanted to work until seven or eight, then that puts us all at a severe
disadvantage, plus we have a serious problem of jury attention as the time goes
on. It's been my experience that if you
keep the jury in here until ten or eleven at night, then you've got --
THE
COURT: Well, I wasn't thinking ten or
eleven. I was thinking about, you know,
maybe along about seven or so.
MR.
SMEAL: Another consideration, Your
Honor, might be that we're getting into some technical testimony next week with
experts in DNA and that sort of thing, so the attention span of the jurors
might be affected.
THE
COURT: Well, we'll just see how it goes.
MS.
ROGAN: All right.
MR.
MOORE: We'll try to move it as fast as
we can, Your Honor. We want to finish
the trial, too.
MS.
ROGAN: But we need the evenings to meet
with our witnesses and get things lined up and it's really going to put a
burden on us.
MR.
PORTER: Yeah.
MR.
MOORE: We met with Mike last night
until eight o'clock and then we worked until about eleven, you know, after
that.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I think one thing
is to look at it from the perspective of the jury. This jury has seen, and I'm sure you'll see it from the defense,
an essentially seamless presentation except for the video today, an essentially
-- I think everybody would agree that the case has moved in an orderly manner.
THE
COURT: I'm not suggesting it's
not. I'm just -- I don't want to see it
-- you know, everything adding another week here, a week there, or whatever,
and lined up with a, you know, a double time span that's just taking longer
than everybody estimated. I mean, if it
starts taking longer than we estimated, then the days may start getting
longer. I just, in the long run, I
think everybody may be better served with that, but we'll see. We'll see.
MS.
ROGAN: Okay.
THE
COURT: All right.
[Bench
conference concluded.]
THE
COURT: Ready to call it a day? Okay.
We're going to stop here and call it a day or call it a week, I guess,
and we're going to be in recess at this time until nine o'clock Monday morning.
One
of the instructions I would like to give you at this point is there will be
spouses, significant others, or whatever, coming to join you for lunch
tomorrow, and would just like to restate, reiterate, re-emphasize that there
should be no discussion -- of course, we'll have bailiffs present and that sort
of thing -- but just to re-emphasize to you that there ought not to be any
discussion on your part or on the part of any visitor as to this case, any
publicity with respect to this case.
They shouldn't volunteer anything and you shouldn't ask them. If, perchance, any discussion heads in that direction,
tell them you can't hear it, can't listen to it, and that's the direction of
the Court. So I would instruct you to
assist in ensuring that we don't have any of those kind of problems in the
case.
I
remind you at this point that you have seen and heard a good portion of the
case, but not all of it. You ought to
continue to keep an open mind, you ought to continue to wait, look, and listen
and not make up your own mind or commence any discussions or deliberations
amongst yourselves or with anybody else or allow anybody else to discuss the
case with you or in your presence.
At
this point, I'll ask you to leave your pens, pads, and notes in your
seats. They'll be waiting on you when
you return Monday morning. And we'll
see you Monday morning at nine o'clock.
If you'll go with the bailiff, please.
[The
jury was excused for the evening and retired from the courtroom at 5:10
p.m.. Proceedings continued, as
follows, with the jury not present.]
THE
COURT: Anything else at this
point, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Insofar as securing the
exhibits, same procedure we've used during the course of the week; is everybody
prepared to do that?
MR.
MOORE: Yes, Your Honor, I've got mine
and I assume Mr. Porter has his.
THE
COURT: All right.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I think -- I don't
know whether the courtroom is going to be locked. I know it's cleaned under some supervision, and the large
exhibits I propose to leave here, whether they're defense or state. We've been doing that for the last
week. I'm fine with mine up here.
THE
COURT: All right. Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, most of the
exhibits, if I leave here, they're just minor things. It could be reproduced if anything happened to them.
THE
COURT: Okay. All right. Anything
else, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: No, sir.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: We'll be in recess until nine
o'clock Monday morning.
[Off
the record]
THE
COURT: Let's go on the record with
this. And this was on Page 79 of the
transcript which the jurors had possession of, and on Page 79, I believe, the
tape had on it, 'but as they proceed up the road,' comma and then the words,
'the patrol car comes out,' and then the next words were, 'whips up to where
they are at the light at First Avenue,' and so on with the words, 'the patrol
car comes out,' being omitted from the redacted transcript which the jury had;
is that correct? That's correct. Okay.
So
my question is, has anybody viewed the material or request anything with
respect to the transcript, what the jurors saw in their transcript were the
words, 'a patrol car comes out,' so that the -- was omitted such that it then
read, 'But as they proceed up the road, whips up to where they are at the
traffic light at First Avenue, stops, and they looked over.'
MR.
PORTER: On behalf of the state, Your
Honor, we don't feel that it's any material deletion and we have no objection
to the transcript remaining as it is in State's Exhibit Number 94.
THE
COURT: All right. Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we don't have any
objection either. This was a question
by Officer Latty, I believe, and the Court had already instructed the jury that
they weren't to consider the questions as any evidence anyway, and I don't see
it materially changing his question.
THE
COURT: All right. So stipulated. Thank you. We'll be in
recess until nine o'clock Monday morning.
[Proceedings
were recessed for the evening at 5:15
p.m. on August 26, 1995.]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reporter's
certificate this page
4408