Difference between revisions of "Sample Cross-Examination Transcripts"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 17: Line 17:
 
*[[Media:Clements_Kimberly_CSI_2006_05_05_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Direct Examination of Crime Scene Investivator]]
 
*[[Media:Clements_Kimberly_CSI_2006_05_05_Muhammad.pdf|Sample Direct Examination of Crime Scene Investivator]]
 
==Direct Examination of Gang Expert==
 
==Direct Examination of Gang Expert==
 +
 +
'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Jose Portillo-Chicos
 +
'''Summary''': The Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of a police detective (at a preliminary hearing, not a trial), qualifying him, without objection, as an expert in “gang activities” specifically in “MS-13 activity in Northern  Virginia”.  The purpose of the testimony is to establish that the murder at issue was committed “in furtherance of gang activity” – an element of capital murder as charged in the case.  The qualification section of the direct is minimal, most likely because it was conducted only to establish probable cause, and not at a jury trial.
 +
Of note is that the testimony is not of a scientific or forensic nature, but based on the detective’s  hand-on experience in working gang cases. It technically meets the standard for expert testimony in that it concerns a matter outside common experience. However, such testimony should be viewed by defense counsel with suspicion, and limited as much as possible, as it essentially amounts to a police officer giving an opinion based on an extensive collection of hearsay.
 +
 +
 +
Mr. Portillo-Chicos did not receive the death penalty.
 
*[[Media:Farrell_John_Gang_2006_10_20_Portillo_Chicos.pdf|Sample Direct Examinationn of Gang Expert]]
 
*[[Media:Farrell_John_Gang_2006_10_20_Portillo_Chicos.pdf|Sample Direct Examinationn of Gang Expert]]
 +
 
==Direct Examination of Entomology Expert==
 
==Direct Examination of Entomology Expert==
  

Revision as of 10:11, 11 May 2011

Following are sample direct examination transcripts.

Direct Examination of Crime Scene Expert

Case: United States v. Wilfred Montoya-Baires

Summary: The Assistant United States Attorney conducts a direct examination of Forensic Scientist Gary Arntsen to establish that certain shell casings that were connected to a shooting scene. The scientist’s qualifications are substantial and uncontested. Of note during the qualification section is that the prosecutor admits into evidence, without objection, the scientist’s curriculum vitae. While technically relevant, some judges may not allow a CV into evidence over objection, particularly when the expert has discussed the vast majority of his or her qualifications already, and when such qualifications are not contested. The scientist discusses how cartridges are compared with known samples fired from a gun, and how a comparison between samples of known and unknown origin can yield the opinion that a particular cartridge was indeed fired from a particular gun. As to the case at hand, the scientist is able to identify some of the tested cartridges as matching, while others are “inconclusive.” Defense counsel Lana Manitta makes several points on cross examination, including, but not limited to, that the scientist cannot determine when any particular cartridges were fired, that any particular cartridges were fired on the same day as each other, and whether any of the cartridges actually passed through a person.

Direct Examination of Firearm Tookmark Expert

Direct Examination of Homicide Detective

Direct Examination of Crime Scene Investigator

Direct Examination of Gang Expert

Case: Commonwealth of Virginia v. Jose Portillo-Chicos Summary: The Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of a police detective (at a preliminary hearing, not a trial), qualifying him, without objection, as an expert in “gang activities” specifically in “MS-13 activity in Northern Virginia”. The purpose of the testimony is to establish that the murder at issue was committed “in furtherance of gang activity” – an element of capital murder as charged in the case. The qualification section of the direct is minimal, most likely because it was conducted only to establish probable cause, and not at a jury trial. Of note is that the testimony is not of a scientific or forensic nature, but based on the detective’s hand-on experience in working gang cases. It technically meets the standard for expert testimony in that it concerns a matter outside common experience. However, such testimony should be viewed by defense counsel with suspicion, and limited as much as possible, as it essentially amounts to a police officer giving an opinion based on an extensive collection of hearsay.


Mr. Portillo-Chicos did not receive the death penalty.

Direct Examination of Entomology Expert

Case: Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Joseph Rogers

Summary: Defense counsel and Capital Defender for Northern Virginia Joseph T. Flood conducts direct examination of Dr. Neal Haskell in a death penalty case where the defense was an alibi, and the issue presented by Dr. Haskell’s testimony was time of death. The qualification section of the direct is extensive, and Dr. Haskell is eventually qualified as an expert in forensic entomology, decomposition, and time of death. Forensic entomology is the science of analyzing the presence and past signs of insects on a dead body to establish time of death. Dr. Haskell ultimately tested that based on the presence of certain insect eggs, the state of decomposition of the body, and other factors, the victim’s body must have been exposed to the elements for at least eighteen hours before it was found – a fact which, if true, established that the defendant could not have been a principal in the first degree to the murder. The prosecutor conducts minimal cross-examination. Mr. Rogers did not receive the death penalty.

Direct Examination of Fingerprint Expert

Direct Examination of Pathologist

Case: State of Maryland v. John Allen Muhammed

Summary: The State’s Attorney conducts a direct examination of Dr. Carolyn Revercomb, a medical examiner, to establish two points. First , that the cause of death of the murder victim was a shot to the head. Second, that the shot came from a “high velocity rifle” as opposed to some other kind of firearm, such as a pistol. The direct examination is effective, the expert’s qualifications to give the opinion are substantial and contested. Because a state medical examiner is called in almost every murder case to establish cause of death, or sometimes time of death or other relevant points, state medical examiners testify often and are almost universally considered qualified to give such opinions.

Here, the medical goes a step beyond the garden-variety medical examiner testimony by giving an opinion about what general kind of forearm was used in the murder. The Defendant, DC Beltway sniper John Muhammed, was representing himself. He did not contest the medical examiner’s qualifications to give opinion testimony concerning firearms, but did conduct cross examination on the point. He also pointed out that while the absence of gun powder stipling on the body indicated the victim was not killed at close range, it did not necessarily mean the victim was killed at long range.

John Allen Muhammed was executed in 2010 for the 2002 murder of a man in Prince William County, Virginia – an alleged part of the beltway sniper killing spree.

Direct Examination of Medical Examiner

Direct Examination of DNA Expert



See Cross-Examination