Monday, February 19, 2007
Solid
In my previous post, I used the word “solid” to describe a 2 X 4. I didn't mean by this that somehow plywood isn't solid, but that a 2 X 4 has a kind of iconic, essential quality. If the game "Clue" had, as one of its murder weapons, a piece of wood, this piece of wood would be a 2 X 4. A 2 X 4 would have embodied the kind of clarity that the prosecution would desperately seek throughout the trial.
The first witness was a police officer called by the prosecution to establish the provenance of the piece of wood. He recalled visiting Mr. Meza in the hospital and photographing the wound on Mr. Meza's head, which required 13 stitches. From there he went to the warehouse where Mr. Meza sustained his injury, interviewed a Mr. Segura, and recovered the stick, wet with blood. Later, Mr. Segura would testify to having given him two pieces of wood, but the officer said nothing of this.
“What did you do with the stick?” the defense asked, on cross examination.
“I put it in a paper sack,” replied the officer.
“You put a piece of evidence wet with blood in a paper sack?”
“Yes.”
“Is this what you were trained to do with wet evidence?”
“Yes.”
“Nobody ever suggested that you should put it in a plastic bag so that the wet stuff would stay wet?”
“No.”
Of course, the defense attorney batted that one around mercilessly, and went on to extract the fact that when the officer had submitted the item to the evidence cage, he had checked a box to get fingerprinting but not the one to test for blood.
”You handed them a stick wet with blood, you saw a box for a blood test, and you didn't check the box?”
“Yes.”
“Why not?”
“I figured it was blood.”
We got to see the stick, of course, the prosecution waving it around confidently. It had a brown stain in the corner that didn't look particularly like blood. It looked more like mohagany wood stain.
All this would not end up making a great deal of material difference, since both the witnesses, including Mr. Saucedo, would testify that Mr. Saucedo struck Mr. Meza with a stick that looked pretty much like the one entered into evidence as People's Exhibit #3. ¶ 9:23 AM
The first witness was a police officer called by the prosecution to establish the provenance of the piece of wood. He recalled visiting Mr. Meza in the hospital and photographing the wound on Mr. Meza's head, which required 13 stitches. From there he went to the warehouse where Mr. Meza sustained his injury, interviewed a Mr. Segura, and recovered the stick, wet with blood. Later, Mr. Segura would testify to having given him two pieces of wood, but the officer said nothing of this.
“What did you do with the stick?” the defense asked, on cross examination.
“I put it in a paper sack,” replied the officer.
“You put a piece of evidence wet with blood in a paper sack?”
“Yes.”
“Is this what you were trained to do with wet evidence?”
“Yes.”
“Nobody ever suggested that you should put it in a plastic bag so that the wet stuff would stay wet?”
“No.”
Of course, the defense attorney batted that one around mercilessly, and went on to extract the fact that when the officer had submitted the item to the evidence cage, he had checked a box to get fingerprinting but not the one to test for blood.
”You handed them a stick wet with blood, you saw a box for a blood test, and you didn't check the box?”
“Yes.”
“Why not?”
“I figured it was blood.”
We got to see the stick, of course, the prosecution waving it around confidently. It had a brown stain in the corner that didn't look particularly like blood. It looked more like mohagany wood stain.
All this would not end up making a great deal of material difference, since both the witnesses, including Mr. Saucedo, would testify that Mr. Saucedo struck Mr. Meza with a stick that looked pretty much like the one entered into evidence as People's Exhibit #3. ¶ 9:23 AM
