Friday, October 18, 2013

Bryan Barnes & Javier Bolden Prelim Day 3, Part II, USC Chinese Grad Students Murers, Ming Qu, & Ying Wu

Continued from Day 3.....

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
I somehow accidentally deleted all my morning notes before court went on the record. DDA Akemon presents the next witness.

LAPD patrol officer with 11 years on the force. He was working the 77th Street area. He now works downtown at OAS.  He works counter-terrorism now. (I believe I have an error in my notes. I have that DDA Akemon asked about the date, April 11th, yet, Officer Nielson responded to a radio call on December 3rd, 2011. Sprocket.)

DA: Did you receive a call?
BN: Yes sir.
DA: Were you alone or with a partner that morning?
BN: With Officer Martin (sp?). He was driving.
DA: What did you do?
BN: Responded to the location and radio call.

Nielson states that the area is mostly commercial structures, barber shops and local businesses. People's exhibit #27, an overhead photo of a street. It's Western Avenue with 89th Street to the north and 91st Street to the south.  With a laser, the witness describes the streets and points them out. Near the corner of 89th and Western, there is a grocery, Superior Market on the northwest corner. Traveling north, that's toward downtown.  South on Western is the Compton area.   The address 8927 S. Western Avenue would be about mid-block. The witness points to the location on the exhibit.

DA: It's on the west side of the street?
BN: Correct sir.
DA: When you arrived at the location, what was the first thing you noticed, if anything?
BN: It looked like a large party had broken up. There were numerous people on the sidewalk. We were directed to a person that was on the sidewalk who had been shot.

New photo, People's exhibit #28, a street view. Nielson explains the photo and points to a business in the middle of the block on the left side of the photo.

BN: This is a photo looking northbound up Western Avenue just south of the location.

DA: When you first arrived, where was the person who was shot?
BN: He was seated in the doorway of 8927 Western.

New photo, Peoples' exhibit #29, a photo of a rolling office chair.

BN: When we first arrived, Mr. Hall was seated in that chair.
DA: Did you look... withdraw. The person in that chair, did you later identify that person as Mr. Timothy Hall? ...
BN: (Yes sir.)
DA: Did you see any injuries on his body?
BN: It immediately captured my attention. ... It appeared he had a gunshot wound (GSW) to his head and to his abdomen.
DA: Was he transported to a hospital?
BN: Yes sir. ... There was bullet casings and some expended bullets that were in the vicinity of the sidewalk at 8927.

New photo, People's exhibit #30, car on the street. It's a photo of the street in front of 8927 and a Ford Expedition parked out in front.

DA: Was the vehicle in front of Mr. Hall, seated outside?
BN: It was very close to it sir.

There were some 9 mm casings and some expended bullets just beside the area. New photo, People's exhibit #31, with red circles already on the photo. It's the same photo as before with the added red circles.

DA: What is in those red circles?
BN: Expended casings and expended bullets.
DA: Did you recover and book into evidence those casings?
BN: Thirteen cases were recovered. ... There were nine, 9 millimeter casings and there were ... the 9 millimeter were in the southbound street. And the 40 millimeter casing were at the entrance way of the door to 8927 S. Western.

Detective Carreon arrives and takes a seat in the well. 40 millimeter casings were directly in the doorway of the business at 8927 S. Western.

Another photo (People's #32?). I can see the placards on the ground near the chair. The witness explains:

BN: Those are "FI" cards placed over the cartridge casings on the sidewalk of S. Western Avenue.

Nielson took the casings into evidence and booked them into evidence all under the same DR number (DR 11 12-27926). The 9 millimeter casings were booked into evidence as item number 1.  40 millimeter casings as item number 2.

Direct is finished and defense attorney Gustavo Sztriacher gets up to cross the witness on behalf of defendant Bryan Barnes.

GS: Good morning officer Nielson.
BN: Good morning.
GS: You prepared a police report in this matter?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: Does it accurately document the investigation?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: Did you review the report to this day? ... Would you like to make any corrections to that report before we proceed?
BN: No sir.

Nielson was one of the first patrol officers to arrive. He was in a black and white. He and his partner secured the scene. He took the photos that they saw and he personally recovered items that were just shown.  He searched the areas for possible evidence.

GS: How many officers responded to that location when you were there?
BN: I'd say, maybe fifteen or twenty, sir.
GS: How long did that investigation take before you packed up and left?
BN: Hour; hour and a half.
GS: Did any other officer search for evidence?
BN: Like get evidence and hand it to me sir? .. No sir.
GS: You find nine shell casings that were 9 millimeter. Where those Remington?
BN: I believe they were just R-P sir.
GS: Those were found in the street by the Ford Exposition?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: You also found four, 40 caliber. Those were Smith & Wesson shell casings?
BN: I believe they're marked S&W.

They were found by the front door.

BN: Recovered ... not sure if lead projectile or copper jacket. They were, one by the chair and two others were in the vicinity of the gray Expedition.
GS: Did anyone tell you how many guns that were involved that night?
BN: The information we got was that there were two different people that fired guns that night.
GS: When you arrived, Mr. Hall was sitting in a chair outside the business?
BN: Yes.

Nielson interviewed Mr. Hall.

GS: At first he said he was shot by someone that was unknown to him?
BN: Yes sir.

GS: He told you that he didn't know he knew the shooter? ... He did not tell you he did not know the shooter's mother? ... He did not know the shooter's sister?

DA: Objection! This is beyond the scope. (miss ruling)
GS; Mr. Hall never told you that he knew Javier Bolden?
BN: No sir.
GS: Did Mr. Hall ever tell you that he had partied (with?) Mr. Barnes (previously?)?
BN: No sir.
GS: Did Mr. Hall ever tell you he had partied with Mr. Bolden?
BN: No sir.
GS: At some point in time, LAFD rescue ambulance arrived?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: And they transported Mr. Hall to the hospital?
BN: That's correct.

Bryan Barnes' mother arrives and takes a seat in the gallery.  She sits in the second bench row, far to the left.

I believe Mr. Sztraicher tells the court that there's a line of questioning he intends to ask Mr. Nielson regarding interviews conducted by other officers that went to the hospital with Mr. Hall.  However, given this officer's status, Sztraicher tells the court he believes it will be inconsistent to testimony that will be elicited later that is inconsistent. And from officer to Mr. Nelson and come in under Prop 115.

JM: Do the People have anything to say?
DA: It's definitely hearsay.
JM: The first one would be an inconsistent statement. I have to take that on faith; I haven't heard Mr. Hall testify yet.  Assume that's correct, then the second (proffer? proof?), the actual ... what he told him, that would, would be under Prop. 115.  It appears to meet all exceptions to the hearsay law. I think  you're sort of agreeing, so you may continue. (Akemon agrees.)

GS: Officer Nielson, did you speak with officer (Hyre?) and or (Digangi?) prior to your police report?

I believe Judge Marcus states the court reporter needs the spelling of the names. Chairez; Digangi. (I believe I have those spellings correct. Sprocket.)

GS: Officer, did you have an opportunity to speak to Chairez and or Digangdi prior to preparing your police report? ... Did they inform you of their interview with Mr. Hall? ... Did they tell you they went to the hospital and interview Mr. Hall? ... Did they tell you that Mr. Hall tol them that he did not know the suspect who shot him?
BN: Correct.
JM: I have to interject. It's not a big deal to me. We're not going to ... who told ... who actually said what.

GS: Who is it you spoke to regarding the interview?
BN: Officer Chairez.
GS: Officer Chairez told you of the substance of that interview? ... Mr. Chairez told you that he did not know the suspect who shot hm? ... Officer Chairez told you that Hall had no other information about the person who shot him? ... Is that correct?
BN: Correct.
GS: Officer Chairez never told you that Hall told him that he knew the shooter's family?
BN: That's correct, sir.
GS: Officer Chairez told you that Hall never said he knew the shooter's mother? ... Officer Chairez told you that Hall never said he knew the shooter's sister? ... Officer Chairez never indicated Hall knew Javier Bolden in any way?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: Officer Chairez, he did not, ... never indicated that Hall said that he had ever partied with Mr. Barnes? ... And during your conversation with Officer Chairez, he never indicated that Hall ever indicated that Hall ever partied with Mr. Bolden? (miss answers)

Mr. Sztraicher continues.

GS: The following I'm going to ask Officer Nielson regarding an interview conducted with a witness who has not testified yet. May I attend to extract statements prior to..
JM: Who is that, this witness?
GS: Ms. ABC. (This witness has contacted me and requested her name be removed from T&T. I have chosen to honor that request. Sprocket.)

JM: And your thinking that the statements may be inconsistent? Others are offered pursuant to Prop 115.  ... Problem is, you don't get to offer it if the witness doesn't testify. So I need a better explanation. If she isn't going to testify.
GS: I can limit my examination to those items that will be inconsistent with testimony.

Judge Marcus makes notes that if there's a problem, he will strike the testimony an it will not be part of the prelim.

GS: Were you present when Ms. ABC was interviewed on December 3rd, 2011?
BN: Yes sir. ... I spoke with Ms. ABC, sir.
GS: Ms. ABC, did you refer to her as Ms. ABC-D?
BN: That's how she identified herself to me.
GS: She indicated she was present at the party?
BN: Yes sir.

Judge Marcus asks to check the date of December 3rd, to ensure he has the right date.  Someone answers, "You did, your honor."

GS: She indicated to you that, um, by way of foundation, that she was inside the party?
BN: That's correct. ... She said that a fight broke out inside the party?
GS: More than one person was fighting inside the party?
BN: That's correct.

GS: She indicated to you that she had gone out from the outside the party for reasons altogether different  from the fight?
BN: I don't recall her telling me why she left the party.
GS: She was outside when the shooting occurred, is that correct?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: She told you that it looked as though the shooter and the person who was shot appeared to be about to engage in a fight?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: And she told you, Ms. ABC told you that, the suspect walked to a red Camaro, is that correct?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: The person walked to a red Camaro prior to any shooting occurred?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: After it appeared, the suspect and the person who was shot, appeared to engage in a fight and then, and only then did the shooter walk to a red Camaro?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: Ms. ABC told you she couldn't tell you what type of gun it was?
BN: Correct sir.

GS: She told ... Ms. ABC told you subsequently, she saw some shooting?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: When you interviewed Ms. ABC, she never told you the name of the shooter?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: She didn't tell you ... told you she had ever been contacted by the shooter prior to December 3rd, 2011?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: Ms. ABC never told you that she had been in Facebook contact with the shooter prior to December 3rd, 2011?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: Ms. ABC never told you that she'd ever received a text message from the shooter prior to December 3rd, 2011?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: Ms. ABC never told you she ever had contact with the shooter prior to December 3rd, 2011?
BN: That's correct.
GS: Officer Nielson, Ms. ABC provided a description of the shooter to you?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: She told you the shooter was a male, black?
BN: Correct.
GS: The shooter's height was five feet, five inches?
BN: That's correct.
GS: Ms. ABC told you he was approximately 16 to 18 years old?
BN: That's correct.
GS: Ms. ABC told you he was wearing a gray hooded sweater?
BN: Correct, sir.
GS: He was wearing long dark pants?
BN: Yes sir.
GS: She told you she could provide no further information regarding the shooter?
BN: That's correct sir.
GS: And sir, Ms. ABC told you she observed, she observed a second shooting from the doorway?
BN: Yes sir.

Mr. Sztraicher pauses then tells the court, "No more questions."  Ms. Jana Seng gets up to cross the witness on behalf of Javier Bolden.

JS: Following off on Officer Nielson ... Ms. ABC told you that she did not know the man who was firing from the doorway?
BN: That's correct, mam.
JS: The only thing was, it was a male, no other description?
BN: Correct mam.
JS: Ms. ABC also told you that or she made it clear to you that there were two shooters involved?
BN: Correct mam.
JS: She never indicated that there was a third shooter? ... She never indicated that, she only mentioned two? ... She never mentioned the name Javier Bolden?
BN: Correct mam.
JS: She never indicated ... she saw anyone shooting from a red Camaro?
BN: That's correct mam.
JS: she told you that the red Camaro was parked directly behind the SUV, is that correct?
BN: I'm not sure about directly behind. It was in the vicinity of that.
JM: Vicinity of what?
BN: I'm sorry, sir. Your honor, it was in the vicinity of the rear of the Expedition.

JS: I want to redirect you to People's 30. ... Is that a photo of the SUV?

Ms. Seng approaches the witness with the actual photo. DDA Akemon gets up to stand by his witness to observe everything Ms. Seng shows the witness.

BN: Yes mam.
JS: Can you tell me where the doorway of 8927 S. Western Avenue is?
BN: I believe it is the doorway by the left side of the scene.

The witness identifies where the door is in the photo in relation to the SUV.

JS: The doorway appears to have light coming out of the window is that correct?
BN: Yes mam.

DDA Akemon returns to the prosecution table.

JS: Officer Nielson, what time did you arrive to the location of 8927 S. Western?
BN: Approximately 0030 hours.
JS: Can you tell me how much time it took you to arrive at that location after receiving the regular call?
BN: I'm not sure mam.
JS: Can you give an estimate for the time you received the radio call to the time you arrived? ... Was it within minutes?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: So it was very quick?
BN: I believe so.

There is a question about where the yellow crime scene tape was placed, and what areas were closed off.

BN: I don't know if we closed all of Western, or if we closed just the south bound lane.
JS: But you did close some of Western?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: You said that you observed on ... several casings directly in front of the doorway of 8927 S. Western, is that correct?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: And where those 40 caliber casings you observed?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: And you observed one expended bullet as well on the sidewalk?
BN: Yes mam.  There was one expended bullet from where the 40 caliber casings were.
JS: And the casings you observed were in the vicinity of the SUV Expedition, previously shown in People's 30?
BN: Yes mam.

JS: It was ... you indicated it was a 9 millimeter casing on the ground in addition to spent bullets as well? .. And that those were discovered to the rear of the SUV, the back of the SUV?
BN: To the rear and to the side.
JS: Not in the front of the SUV?
BN: I don't believe so, mam.
JS: Not to the right of the SUV?
BN: I don't believe so, mam.

JS: Did you find bullet casings that a (third?) gun had been involved in the shooting?
DA: Objection! Speculation. (miss ruling)
JS: You didn't find any other casings other than the 9 millimeter and the 40 millimeter? ... You didn't find any other type, other than those two types?
BN: That's correct.
JS: You didn't find any other casings towards the north area of Western Ave?

This would be 89th Street.

BN: No mam.
JS: All the casings you observed on the scene that night you had secured by placing your FI cards over them?
BN: Yes mam.
SJ: You did not notice or did not see any strike marks in the SUV did you?
BN: I don't remember if the SUV had strike marks or not.
SJ: You did not see it?
BN: I don't recall, mam.
SJ: That would have been something that you had noted if had seen bullet holes?
BN: I'm not sure mam.
JS: That (?) would be relevant to (?) shooting if there was a bullet strike on the car?
BN: I'm not sure mam.
JS: Would you consider that to be evidence of a shooting?
BN: I think the evidence of the shooting is the cartridge casings and the bullets.

JS: I'm not asking about (?) I'm asking about strike marks. You were trained at the academy?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: You were trained to collect evidence in (investigations?) ... ?

Another question about what he didn't find. I stop taking notes for a bit. My fingers are tired.

JM: He hasn't indicated if he looked at the truck to see strike marks. Did you?
BN: I don't recall sir.
JS: In those photographs you took, it shows the Expedition, is that right?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: In your report, you didn't note any strike marks in the Expedition?
BN: That's correct.
JS: You didn't notice any strike marks on buildings?
BN: That's correct.
JS: Thank you. Nothing further.

DDA Akemon redirects his witness.

Akemon directs his witness to People's 27, the aerial photograph.  It's a Google® map photo. Officer Nielson did not take that photograph. People's 28 is a Google® map street view photo, that Officer Nielson did not take either.

DA: When you interviewed Mr. Hall, where did that take place?
BN: I spoke to him while he was seated in the chair.
DA: What was his condition?
BN: His medical ... ?
DA: Lets start with that.
BN: His medical condition was poor. He was kind of laid back, semi conscious. Not talking and just looked like he was in a lot of pain.
(Unknown) Objection! Motion to strike, "He was semi conscious," Lack of foundation.
JM: I'll allow it. ... It goes to weight.
DA: Did you ask Mr. Hall who shot him? ... How did he respond to that?
BN: I don't remember if he verbally said, or if he shook his head.
DA: What was his level of cooperation?
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: Sustained.

DA: Was he doing back springs?
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: Sustained.
DA: How long have you been assigned to 77th?
BN: Ten years.
DA: How many shootings? ... you've been involved in ... those shootings?
BN: A lot sir.
DA: What is the level of cooperation of shooting victims?
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: Sustained.
DA: Were there other people present when you interviewed Mr. Hall?
BN: There were people who were trying to administer aid to him ... apply pressure ... two or three.
DA: How long was the interview?
BN: It was brief.

DA: Where did the interview with Ms. ABC take place?
BN: She was waiting next to a vehicle, a police vehicle ... Her interview was brief. ... I think she had a friend that was with her.

There are more questions about what Ms. ABC said about the red Camaro, or whether her friend could hear her interview conversation.  Redirect ends and Mr. Sztraicher gets up to recross.

GS:Was Ms. ABC ... appear to be intoxicated?
BN: I don't remember if she appeared to be intoxicated.
GS: Did Mr. Hall appear to be intoxicated?
BN: I could not tell.
GS: Did she tell you the color of hair of the shooter?
BN: No sir.
GS: How many people would you estimate were outside of the shooting when you arrived?
BN: Um, outside? I'd say probably 25 to 50 sir.
GS: Would you describe the lighting conditions when you arrive?
BN: It was dark sir.
GS: How close was a street lamp to 8927 ... ?
BN: I don't know sir.

My notes are not clear, but I believe Ms. Seng performs the following recross.

JS: During your time at the crime scene, did you receive information to look out for two suspects  in a (?)... ?
BN: I'm not sure mam.
JS: Would looking at an instant recall report assist your recollection?
BN: Yes mam.

A document is handed to the witness. Judge Marcus instructs the witness that he doesn't want him to read the document into the record. He explains the purpose of reading the document back is only to refresh his memory.  "Does that make sense?" Judge Marcus asks the witness, who replies, "Yes, your honor."  DDA Akemon reads the document presented to his witness.

JS: Does that instant recall report refresh your memory?
BN: Yes mam.
JS: do you recall the (?) case that there was two suspects?
DA: Objection! Hearsay.
(JS?) Goes to state of mind.
JM: It doesn't go to the truth of the matter. The only way it goes in is to help explain what he may have done. ... If you're not using for that purpose then it's wasting the courts time.

JS: One of the descriptions was an individual (?) ... Want to ask him if he asked for an individual ...

There is some argument among the parties as to what Ms. Seng can ask.  Judge Marcus muses, "But if you didn't look for anybody..."

JM: Did you go look for anybody?
BN: No, your honor.
JM: At the scene, were you looking for any suspects?
BN: At the scene, we have to be careful of anyone trying to shoot us.
JM: I'm going to change my ruling. I'm going to sustain the objection.

JS: Where were you when you interviewed Ms. ABC?
BN: I'm not certain, but I believe we were in the street by a police vehicle.
JS: Was it by her vehicle?
BN: I'm not sure mam.
JS: Did she indicate where her vehicle was?
BN: I'm not sure.  ... I can't remember where Ms. ABC's vehicle was.
JS: Nothing further.

JM: Any further redirect? ... Is there anything you can tell me about the demeanor of Ms. ABC when you were interviewing her? Was she hysterical or calm?
BN: She was calm. She was pretty manner of fact about what she was telling me.
JM: May witness be excused?  ... Is it detective?
BN: It's Officer.

Andrew Goldman asks for a break.  There is another reporter I don't recognize on their laptop and the young reporter with the Times is to my left.

JM: Who is our next witness?
DA: Timothy Hall.

The witness, a young black man, is wearing a white shirt, black pants and what might be diamond looking earrings in both ears. He has very close cropped hair.  There is a discussion as to whether or not the court appointed counsel needs to be here or not.  I'm not sure if my next note is correct. I have Judge Marcus saying, There could be a possibility in the (stars?). He says he will just wait in case he gets a call.

DDA Akemon presents the witness, Timothy Hall.

Judge Marcus instructs the witness.

DA: How old are you?
TH: 22.
DA: December 3rd, 2011, were you at a party ... 8927 S. Western, in the county of Los Angeles?
TH: Yeah.
DA: Did you go to the party with anyone?
TH: I partied ... my cousin.
DA: What's your cousin's name?
TH: Bam.

The cousin's real name is Solomon Barnett.

DA: What time did you get to the party? ... About what time?
TH: If I can remember exactly, about 10. It was close to midnight.
DA: How did you get there?
TH: My cousin's car. ... I rode with him.
DA: When you arrived did you go inside?
TH: Yes.
DA: When you were there, did something unusual happen?
TH: My chain came up missing. ... Someone must of taken it. ... I was in a circle of conversation. ... they crept up to me and snatched it at my neck.

The witness states there were more than 100 people at the party.

DA: When your chain got snatched (what did you do?)?
TH: I got ready to leave. ... I was angry because someone had pulled my chain out. ... I was walking out. .. I was going to the car. ... I start hearing shots.
DA: Where were the shots coming from?
TH: Behind me. .. At first, ... only heard about two, three shots.
DA: What happened after that.
TH: I took off running.
DA: Where did you run?
TH: In the street. ... I kept heading ... the street ... I just played possum. .... I thought everything was over. ... I started to walk back to the party. That's when I realized I got shot.
DA: How many times did you get shot?
TH: Eight.

DDA Akemon stops the witness and asks him to go over all his gunshot wounds, starting at the head.
The first gunshot wound the witness talks about is the right side of his head, in his temple area.

DDA Where were you?
TH: I was in the midst of running. ... I don't know when the bullet hit my head. ... I know it just hit me. ... It grazed my head but it gave me a slight concussion.
(Unknown) Objection! Hearsay. ... that it gave him a concussion. (miss ruling)

DA: Did you get stitches or (sutures?)
TH: How many? I don't know. I just know it was a lot.

The next injury that's discussed was to his right shoulder.

DA: Please describe the injury to your right shoulder.
TH: There was just a big chunk missing.

This wound was like a graze. Hall got stitched, but he doesn't remember.  There were two gunshot wounds to his stomach.

JM: Pointing to the right side, four inches from his waist line.
DA: That's accurate.
JM: Lower quadrant of his stomach, right side.
DA: So you had two bullet wounds to your right side.

These bullets were removed. They didn't exit the body. The next injury is to his rib.

JM: Pointing to his right side and ribcage.
DA: By the way, when the two (gunshot wounds) to the stomach. Where were you when you were running?
TH: I was on the sidewalk.
DA: When you came out of the club, when was the first time you knew (you were hit?)?
TH: I didn't know I was hit until all the shooting was over. ... When I got up and all the adrenaline was rushing. ... When I hear someone said someone got shot in the head.

There's an objection. Judge Marcus allows the statement to stand.

DA: You indicated right side (of your?) rib. Did that bullet go inside your body?
TH: They had to remove that one also.
JM: I'm going to allow that one. Objection over ruled.

DA: What was the next gunshot wound?
TH: One to my back.
DA: Please stand up and show. 

The witness points to his right side, very close to the waist, right lower back, possibly right kidney area.

JM: I'll accept that.
DA: What was next?
TH: My right upper thigh. ... On the inside.
DA: Did that bullet go inside your body?
TH: That was removed also.
DA: What was the next gunshot wound your suffered?
TH: My (anus?).
DA: Did that bullet go inside you ... ?

This bullet was also removed during surgery. DDA Akemon adds up the injuries and Hall verifies those are all eight of his wounds.

DA: When you were shot, and you're (laying? down?) ... you were shot, what did you do?
TH: I panicked. ... The first think I did was to try to call 911 because I had blood running down my face, I couldn't see good. ... I didn't want to sit down. ... My adrenaline was running. I was scared. I was scared for my life. ... Someone called 911 and I heard the ambulance ... everything ... coming up  Western.
DA: Did the ambulance come and help you? ... Did you get into the ambulance?

TH: I went into surgery.
DA: How long were you in the hospital?
TH: I can't be exact, but it was about a week.
DA: Do you have anything left over from your gunshot wounds today?
TH: Yes sir.
DA: (What's that?)
TH: I have to go to the surgery last year around this time for a bowel obstruction because the (?) had ripped up the colon, and my intestines they had to remove 16 inches of my colon. ... What I was eating caused a bowel obstruction.
DA: Are you walking okay?
TH: Yes.
DA: Any other problems?
TH: Just my back.
(Unknown) Objection!  Your honor. (miss ruling)
(Unknown) So he has some back pain.
TH: It's just me bending, since I work now, so standing for long periods of time, it would cramp up or tighten up when it's also real cold.

DA: Who shot you?
TH: My back was turned. ... Social media told me... My back was turned because I was running.
DA: Did you see any part of the person who was shooting?
TH: No.
DA: Did you see what race that person (was?)?
TH: Most of the party was black, so...
DA: Did you see...
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: I'll strike that answer.
DA: Did you see what sex that person was?
TH: No.
DA: When you went to the hospital .... When you were seated in that chair .... Did you sit down in a chair in front of the party?

The witness denies sitting in a chair in front of the event, or he doesn't remember.

DA: Did you at any time, sit in a chair in front of the party?
TH: No.
DA: ... Direct your attention to a photograph. Do you recognize whats in the photo?
TH: Yes. Those are my clothes that were ripped off. ... If I'm not mistaken, that's my T-shirt that they cut off of me. ... Yeah, that's my t-shirt.

DDA Akemon zooms in on the image of the chair to see the clothing better.

DA: Were you seated in that chair?
TH: Yeah, that's when they cut my clothing off me. ... I didn't want to sit down. They forced me to sit down.
DA: That's when they ....

TH: I told them I wasn't sure who shot me because my back was turned.
DA: At that party, do you see anyone here that was also at the party? ... Is there anyone that you recognize besides me?
TH: Javier Bolden. ... We went to school together.

The witness identifies Javier Bolden for the record.

DA: When did you first meet Mr. Bolden?
TH: Years ago ... I don't remember. ... We've known each other for a while.
DA: Can you give me an estimate for the number of years?
TH: I'd say about three or four.
DA: When did you first meet Mr. Bolden?
TH: High school.
DA: What grade were you in?
TH: I had just left high school.
JM: What grade were you in when you met him?
TH: I was a junior in ... He was a year behind me. (So he was a year younger?)
DA: When inside the party, where did you first see Mr. Bolden?
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: Sustained! He didn't say that yet.
DA; Did you see him at the party?
TH: No.
DA: Did you see anybody inside the party that had any tattoos?
TH: Everybody had tattoos.
DA: Did you see anyone that had a tattoo on his knee? ... Do you recall someone in the party that, someone had a tattoo on his knee?

I believe the witness answers no to all of the above questions.

DA: Have you heard the term FUCK NAPS? ... Do you know what it means?
TH: Yes.
DA: Did you see anyone at the party that had that tattoo on their knee?
TH: No.
DA: Did you tell ... Do you remember you telling the police officer when you were in the chair ... (talked to a police officer?
TH: I don't remember.

The witness does remember talking to a police officer. It was a few days later, when he was under medication.

DA: Do you remember talking to officers who were in standard blue uniforms?
TH: I remember police officers coming into the hospital, but they were not in uniform.
DA: Did they appear to be detectives?
TH: Yeah.
DA: Did they come to interview ... after you had surgery?
TH: Yeah, the ones ...
DA: How long after surgery did the detectives come to talk to you?
TH: About my second or third day after surgery ... because I was rushed into surgery from the ambulance.
DA: When you discussed ... with those detectives, was it at the hospital? ... Was it in the hospital room?
TH: Yes.
DA: Did you know your conversation was being recorded?
TH: Yes.

DA: Did you give them some information...?
TH: Yes.
DA: Was your father and mother present?
TH: Yes.
DA: Were two detectives present?
TH: Yes.

The detectives had asked questions about what happened at the party and who was present.

DA: At that time, did you tell them anything about what you knew who shot you?
TH: I told them that I was told who shot me from multiple sources, who could have been the shooter.
DA: After that interview, a couple of months later, did a woman detective show you some Facebook photos to see if you could identify who shot you?
TH: Yeah.
DA: Did you give her some information at that point?
TH: I really don't remember what I told her. It was so long ago. ... I don't.
DA: After you were with that detective, and you looked at photos, and gave you some information, did she come back with more Facebook photos ... ?
TH: Just one.
DA: Did you give her some information about who shot you?

DA: How do you feel about testifying in this case?
TH: Nervous.
DA: Why are you feeling nervous?
TH: I've never ha to do anything like that. It's not normal for me.
DA: Are you concerned at all ... concerned about being a snitch?
(Unknown) Objection! Leading.
TH: Snitch? No.
JM: I'll have to sustain the phrasing.

DA: When you were interviewed in the hospital room, you were interviewed ... You were interviewed in the hospital, do you recall that?
TH: Yes.
DA: There were two uniformed officers who interviewed... do you recall that at all?
TH: No.

The witness states he only remembers the second time, when there was a female detective and his parents were there.

DA: You told them that your chain ... Didn't you tell them that the shooter went to school with you?
(Unknown) Objection! Leading.
TH: I don't remember that.
DA: Do you run with a gang or party crew?
TH: I used to but not any more.
DA: What was that.
TH: Inn Ink.

(I had this spelling verified. Sprocket. Inn Ink Facebook Page.)

DA: You said that you weren't concerned about being labeled a snitch ...

It was Hall's father that didn't want him to be involved in this case.

TH: I mean, he has to do what .... I have to do what is right for me. So...
DA: So when you were issued (a subpoena) to be at court last week, .... because your dad told you not to come ... so it was out of fear?

The morning break is called. After the break is over, Hall explains why he ignored a subpoena to be at court on September 25th.

DA:  ... left off with being afraid...
TH: Because for one my dad didn't want me to participate and two because I was fearful for myself.
DA: Why are you fearful for yourself?
TH: Just personal reason. The thought of the name the snitch will come to mind and I had never really had to deal with nothin' like this.

When the witness didn't show up at court he was picked up and put in jail for a little while.

DA: Going back to the shooting. Did you see the person who shot you?
TH: No. I was running.
DA; when you were interviewed by detectives in the hospital, did you give them information about the shooter?
TH: I don't know. I told them I was told.
DA: Did they give you names from high school?
TH: They gave me names.
DA: Do you recall talking to them about someone from your high school days?
TH: No, I don't remember that.
DA: Would it help your memory if you looked at the transcript of the recording of that conversation? Page 6 of the interview with Mr. Hall, with Detectives Mendoza (sp?) and Mansillas.

GS: Objection! You're going to start on page 5?
DA: Why don't we start on page 5, line 28, and see if that refreshes...

Judge Marcus appears to be reading the transcript.  I think that's what we are waiting for.

DA: Do you recall telling the detectives as knowing the man who shot you was from your high school days?

Hall states he has no memory of that. Akemon asks him if going over the transcript will help him remember.  There's an objection by both defense teams.  Same problem.

DA; I asked the witness if he remembered saying "The dude, whomever he was, I knew in high school." Does that refresh your memory about what you told detectives?
TH: I don't remember saying (that?).
DA: So did you say that to police?

Looking at the transcript does not refresh his memory.

TH: No.
DA: Do you remember saying that the man who shot you was someone who was in tenth grade when you were in eleventh?
TH: I don't remember saying that.
DA: You do remember the shooting. ... You remember telling them that someone snatched your chain off.  .. When you came out of surgery, how many people told you about what happened?
TH: I don't remember. There were so many.
DA: When you were talking to detectives, do you remember telling (them?) you knew the shooter?
TH: No.

He doesn't remember.

DA: Do you... you don't recall saying that?
TH: No.

The transcript does not refresh his memory.

DA: You said there were people in your hospital room that told you who shot you. ... ?
TH: There were so many people there, who said they were there, who saw the shooter.
DA: And those conversations happened in your hospital room?
TH: Yes.
DA: How many people in your ... hospital room told you who shot you?
TH: It was many.
DA: Can you tell me, was it less than ten or more than ten?
TH: I don't remember. ... I had countless people.
DA: What were the names of the people who told you in your hospital room who told you who shot you?
TH: I don't remember.
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: Sustained.
DA: How long (have?) you known Mr. Bolden?

The witness shrugs his shoulders.

TH: Three or four years.
DA: During that three or four year period have you seen Mr. Bolden before?
TH: (At) parties.
DA: On about how many occasions have you seen Mr. Bolden?
TH: Three or four times. We don't mess with the same people.
DA: During those times, did you get to know him?
TH: We was friends, we didn't....
DA: During that time frame, did you come to know who his brother was?
TH: No.
DA: Did you know if he had a foster brother or not?
TH: No.
DA: Did you come to know the names of his family?
TH: No.
DA: When you were in the hospital room, do you remember telling detectives that you were shot with Javier's brother's gun?
TH: No sir.
DA: Did you tell police in the hospital room that you know his brother and that he always had a gun?
TH: I never knew that he had a brother.
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: If you're going to object, you must give me the evidentiary reason. (miss ruling)

DA: When you were talking to detectives...
JS: Objection! He already testified that he learned form friends and social media.
JM: I don't know that the DA has to accept that. Objection over ruled.
DA: When talking to detectives in your hospital room do you remember telling them you were shot with his brother's gun?
GS: Objection!
JM: Over ruled.
DA: You testified earlier that you ... unable to tell us what the shooter was wearing?
TH: I don't know who the shooter was. My back was to him and I was running.
DA: Do you recall telling detectives in the hospital, information about what the shooter was wearing?
TH: (No.)
DA: Would it refresh your memory if you looked at a transcript?
TH: It's been too long. I was in the hospital and under medication.

I believe there is another objection. Judge Marcus responds, "I don't see anything about clothing. Am I missing something here?"  Judge Marcus is informed that there is a problem with the pagination of this transcript too.  The court is given a corrected copy.

JM: This is quite different. Thank you.
DA: May I attempt to refresh his memory?
JM: Sure. You want to show him something?
DA Page 21 line 19.

Judge Marcus instructs the witness to pleas read the transcript to himself.

DA: Does that refresh your memory about what you told the detective about what the defenant was wearing?
TH: No.
DA: When you were interviewed by police in the hospital room, do you recall telling them about where the shooter was when you got shot?
TH: No. Like I said, that whole thing was pretty much a blur. I was so doped up under the medication, I don't remember most of it.
DA: So if I show you your transcript and show you line by line will that assist you in your meory or not?
TH: No.

The bailiff tells a woman in the gallery to put her phone away.

DA; When you were in the hospital room with detectives, you told them that when you walked outside the shooter was waiting for you?
TH: No. I don't rememer that.
DA: You told detectives in that interview, the shooter chased you around and you ran. (miss answer)

DA: Do you remember telling the detectives that the shooter chased you around and shot you? ... You told the detectives that you were shot in the stomach?
TH: Yeah.
DA: You told the detective that the shooter went to school with you?

The witness shakes his head no.

DA: You told the detective that the shooter was present at the party with his brother and that his brother had a tattoo on his knee that said: FUCK NAPS.

I believe the witness either says no or has no memory of that.

DA: You told the detective that the shooter and his brother were always together?
TH: No.
DA: You told detectives in that interview that the shooter's brother always has a gun?
TH: No, I don't remember that.
DA: You told detectives in that hospital ... in that interview, that you know the shooter's brother from parties?
TH: I don't know anything about a brother.
DA: But you told detectives that you knew the shooter's brother from parties?
TH: No, I don't remember. ... The whold interview was a blur, it was so long ago.
DA: You told detectives in that interview that the brother goes by (Actie or something Active?)?
TH: No.
DA: You told the detectives that you went to Hamilton with the brother?
TH: No.
DA: I thought you testified earlier that you went to Dorsey? Did you go to Hamilton or Dorsey?
TH: I went to both.
DA: You told detectives that you were in the 10th grade and the shoother was in the 9th grade?
TH: No.
DA: Your father was in the interview and do you remember your father telling detectives...?
TH: No, I don't. ... I just remember him going off on the detective.

DA: In that interview in that hospital room, did anyone give you the name of the shooter?
TH: No.
DA: Nobody gave you that name?
TH: No.

DA: After that interview, were you interviewed again, a couple of months later, by a woman detective?
TH: Yes.
DA: Do you know what that detective's name is?
TH: I don't know her name. I just know she's from the 77th Division.
DA: When that woman detective interviewed you, did she show you some photographs?
TH: (Yes.)
DA: Tell us what the officer showed you.
TH: It was group photos.
DA: Where were you when she showed that to you?
TH: I was at home.
DA: Did she ask you wheter you could identify who  was involved in the shooting?
TH: I told her that nobody in the photo looked familiar to me.

DA: Did you tell her that you recognized Javier Bolden?
TH: No, not from that photo.
DA: You don't remember telling her whe you looked at the group photo, you identified Javier Bolden?

I believe the witness tells the judge it was two groups of photographs and that he identified (Bolden?) in another photo.

People's exhibit #32. Photograph. It's a group photo of about 12 people in the photo.  DDA Akemon directs his attention to the photo on the overhead screen.

DA: Do you recognize the photo?
TH: That's the photo she showed me.
DA: That's the photo that the woman detective showed you at your house that day?
TH: Did you tell her anything about that photo?
TH: This is the photo where I told her I knew Javier.
DA: Javier Bolden?
TH: Yeah.

The witness is asked to point out Javier Bolden in the courtroom.

DA: Mr. Hall sir, I'm going to put this group photo in front of you. Please put a circle around where Mr. Bolden is in this photograph.

Judge Marcus states for the record that the witness circles the man.  The witness clarifies that the circled person in the photo is Javier.  The witness is asked if that's the person he identified in court today.  Hall replies, "Yes."

DA: Did you tell the detective that you knew Mr. Bolden and you pointed him out to her? ...Do you remember telling her about what the person's relationship was to the person who shot you?
TH: No.
DA: During the interview with the woman detective, do you remember telling her that Javier was the brother of the shooter and that you knew him as 'BJ?"
TH: No.

DA: Do you recall saying anything to her about knowing about being familiar with the shooter and his family?
TH: No.
DA: After you looked at this group photograph, and you pointed at Mr. Bolden, did the detective leave ... ?
TH: Yes she did. She only came to the door.

DA: Did she ask you if you recognized anybody else? ... Did you recognize anybody else?
TH: No.
DA: Did the detective come back the next day?
TH: No.
DA: Did the detective come back at all?
TH: Not that I recall. ... No, I just remember her coming once. ... I think it was February, I'm not sure.

DA: The detective came to your house on February 21st, does that sound familiar?
TH: I don't know the date.
DA:You don't remember the detective coming back the next day?
TH: No.
DA: You don't remember that at all?
TH: No.
DA: You just remember her showing you two photographs, but you don't remember if it was on two different days?
TH: No.

People's exhibit #33. It's a photo of a man. I can't see it well from where I'm sitting.

DA: Mr. Hall, ... direct your attention to the photograph. Can you see that sir?
TH: Yeah.
DA: Can you recognize the person in that photograph?
TH: No.
DA: At the top of the photo there are some initials.  Do you see that sir?
TH: Yeah.

DDA Akemon zooms in, a close up of the image of the man.  I recognize that it's defendant Bryan Barnes.

DA: Left side are initials that say BJ. Who put those initials here? ... Did you put those initials there?
TH: No
DA: Do you remember putting those initials there when you wit with the detective?
TH: No.
DA: In the upper right corner, ... the corner .. "TH." ... Who put those initials there?
TH: No. ... Not that I remember that.
DA: Do you remember putting those initials there?
TH: No.

DA When the detectives showed you a photograph, did you know that you were being recorded?
TH: No.
DA: When the detective showed you a photo, you didn't know that you were being recorded?
TH: She didn't stay long. ... I don't remember that photo(s). I just remember two group photos.

DA: Would it refresh your memory to read a transcript of when the Detective Mansillas ... ?
TH: I don't know.
DA: When the detective came to your residence, the detective showed you some photographs?

The witness reads the six page transcript. He is instructed to read the transcript to himself.  The witness states he doesn't remember or know that he was being recorded because the detective didn't stay long.

DA: Mr. Hall, you had a chance to read that. Does that refresh your memory?
TH: No. I don't even remember that interview.

DDA Akemon and DDA Brazil whisper for a moment.

DA: Mr. Hall sir, you do recall the detective coming to your house?
TH: Yes.
DA: You recall how many times she came to your house?
TH: I only recall once.
DA: And that was bout two months after you were shot?

Hall was talking to the detective at his home.

DA: ... Was anyone in the house?
TH: My mom, I think.

Hall was inside, and then he went outside on the porch with the detective.   I believe Hall is asked if his mom came out onto the porch or not.  Hall states he recalls seeing that group photo, but he doesn't recall seeing People's exhibit #33, the photo of Bryan Barnes.

DA: You don't recall that at all?
TH: No.
DA: In your interview with, ... at your residence with detective Mansillas, she brought one photo to look at?
TH: Yes. But it was the two group photos that she (showed?) me.

DDA Akemon tells the court, "I'm going to play a recording. I'm almost done."

DA: And when the detective came to your house, is it true that she showed you that photo with the single person?
TH: Not that I know.
DA: Isn't it true that you looked at the photograph, People's 33, and told the detective the person was 'BJ' who shot you? .. And isn't it true that the detective asked you to initial the photograph?
TH: I don't remember.
DA: Isn't it true that you looked at this photo and put your initials TH.... ?
TH: I don't remember.
DA: With the court's permission, can we play a prior recording of this interview?
JM: Is that the one involve with this photo?
JS: Objection!
JM: Over ruled. This is basically a green situation. ... They are allowed to put on his previous statements and the court gets to decide which one to believe.

People's exhibit #34, a transcript of an interview with the witness. People's exhibit #35, a CD of that interview.  Akemon explains to the witness that he's going to play the recording, then stop it at certain points and ask the witness questions about the recording.  Hall replies, "Okay."

My notes on the recording:
Female Detective: February 22nd. I'll only take five minutes of your time. I want you to look at one picture today. I only brought one picture today. That's because you said you knew this guy from high school.

DA: I'm pausing the tape now sir. Do you recognize voices on the tape?
TH: That's the detective but I can't recall that day. ... But I do know the detective's voice, but I don't recall that day.
DA Please listen to the male voice.

... the (vine?) officer saw you at the hospital ... was tell Timothy since these people are kind of familiar ... he now ... who they are ... from that would be able to show.  Yeah ... That, ... it's going to take five minutes.  We had that conversation yesterday that you knew him and his brother.

DA: Stopping the recording at 2 minutes and (?)
TH: Yeah, that's my voice.
DA: And you just heard yourself talk to the detective. Do you remember any part of that?
TH: No.

This Javier brother ... Bryan ... I just need you to initial here really quick okay? We're just going to take this one step at a time. He's not in custody. We kind of have to put this case together. I don't want to take it to court with (?) a piece of a paper like that. If you could just write your initials, just yours. But you know, it's like we need a bunch of stuff. We need a whole bunch of papers. We have other people who are talking to me because of retaliation and stuff.  ... Okay, it's all basically we're doing today.  ... I think he just.... I'm going to rec...

JS: I'm going to object to this part of the recording.

I believe Judge Marcus states that it creates content.

That's always a common fear with victims. Don't want to make you do anything you don't want to do. We have those emergency funds, just take care of him that's all I want to do. I don't want to take up any more of your time.

JS: Objection.

I'm not sure if it's the court of Ms. Seng who talks about the tape and whether it's showing context, which set of statements is true. It's not "352." Mr. Sztraicher crosses the witness for Bryan Barnes.

GS: The fear of the (mother?) and him being present... Is the court is about to consider his credibility with the officer on the other day?  (miss response)

GS: Sir, do you know Ms. ABC?
TH: No.
GS Sir do you know Ms. ABC-D?
TH: No.
GS: Directing your attention to the night you got shot. Your evening started on December 2nd, is that correct?
TH: Yes.
GS: And you were shot somewhere, (in the?) early morning hours of December 3rd?
TH:No, it was late Friday night.
JM: Do you understand after midnight?
TH: No, it was Friday.

GS: Fair to say you were at the party about one hour prior to getting shot?
TH: I don't know if it was that long.
GS: You arrived somewhere between 10 pm and 11 that night? ... time when you woke up that day to the time you left the party. ... Did you drink any alcohol?
TH: No.
GS: Did you smoke any marijuana?
TH: No.
GS: When you arrived at the party, did you drink alcohol?
TH: Yeah.
GS: How much alcohol would you say you drank?
TH: I don't remember.
GS: What was your drink of choice on that evening?
TH: I don't remember that either.
GS: Would it  be fair to say you drank a significant amount of alcohol before the night ended for you?
TH: No.

GS: You were taken to the hospital?
TH: Yes.
GS: And they gave you medical treatment?
TH: Yes.
GS: And they took a blood alcohol analysis?
TH: Yes.
GS: Did they tell you what the results of that blood alcohol was?
TH: Yes.
GS: Would it be fair to say that prior to being shot you were feeling intoxicated?
TH: Yes.
GS: Would it be fair to say you had consumed alcoholic beverages?
TH: Yes.
GS: Did you smoke marijuana?
TH: No.
GS: Did you use any other drugs?
TH: No.

GS: Is it your testimony that you attended high school with Mr. Bolden is that right?
TH: Yeah.
GS: And you went to both Hamilton and Dorsey?
TH: Yeah.
GS: Did you go to any other (school)?
TH: South Bay Lutheran. It's a private school in Inglewood.
GS: You don't recognise anyone in this courtroom ... The only one in blue that you recognize is Javier, is that right?
TH: Yeah.

GS: You've been asked a lot of questions in this court about a transcript.  ... You said you can't identify the person who shot you because you had your back turned?
TH: Yeah.
GS: In fact this is not the first time you said that (right?) ... You were interviewed in the hospital by Ms. Mansillas on that day?
TH: Yes.
GS: And she asked you about who the shooter was?

The page and line number is asked for.

GS: Page 3 of the December 5th, lines 12, 13.  ... on December 5th, the events that occurred on the night of the shooting were fresher in your mind than they were told previously ... ?
TH: Yes.
GS: (Prior?) to the people that came to your hospital room and they were telling you things that you didn't have first hand knowledge of, is that correct?
TH: Yeah.
GS: And they were telling you things that they said?
TH: Yeah.
GS: You knew for a fact that some of the people who talked to you, that they didn't have first hand information?
TH: Yeah.
GS: Your father, was he at the party?
TH: No.
GS: And he was giving you information?
TH: My father was told the same things that (they?) reported.
GS: He was told some tings second, third hand, you don't know?
TH: Yeah.

GS: You said on that date, who was it, honestly, my back was turned and my cousin told me to run. Is that the truth?
TH: Yes.
GS: And you testified early this morning that there were lots of people inside that party, is that correct?
TH: Yes.
GS: Would it be fair to say the party was crowded?
TH: Yes.
GS: Was it dark in the ...
TH: Yes.
GS: Was there loud music?
TH: Yes.
GS: Do you know what a strobe light is?

The witness pauses. He appears confused to me.  Another question about the party.

GS: Were the colored lights strobe lights?
TH: No.
GS: You said there was more than 100 people inside that room?
TH: Yeah.
GS: Since I wasn't there and no one inside this courtroom was there, was.. could you move around without bumping into people?
TH: Not really.
GS: And it's your testimony that at some point ... that it appeared your chain got snapped?
TH: Yeah.
GS: And you have no idea who snatched your chain is that correct?
TH: Yeah.
GS: And in fact you have on previous occasions during an interview with police you told them it was very difficult to know who was the ... and what people were doing?
TH: Yeah.
GS: Is that correct?
TH: Yeah.

GS: Same transcript, page 3, line 26.  Isn't it true that... regards to the party and who was there, and you said, "Well the party was so messed up with so much .. (going on in there?)..."
(TH?) Yeah.
GS: "You couldn't really tell who was banging on who and who was gettin' on who, I (could?) name a few of the hoods that were in there, but I know I got my chain snapped." ... Is that what you said?
TH: Yeah.

GS: You testified you had some lingering back injuries?
TH: Yeah.
GS: The other time you were shot, previously, what part of your body was that?
TH: Both feet.

I believe there's a startled response to that by counsel. There are very few people here today. One reporter left before court even started.  Jill from the LA Times is here.

GS: Your testimony that ... isn't it true that ... did you just hear an audio tape of a transcript that was recorded on February 22nd?
TH: Yes.
GS: And you heard what sounded like your voice on that tape?
TH: Yeah.
GS: And Officer Mansillas on that tape ...?
TH: Yes.
GS: And she's the officer that came to your house?
TH: Yeah.
GS: Did you recall that tape?
TH: No.

Counsel asks the court if they can break at this point. It's a good moment to decide whether or not he has any other questions.  The court agrees. I believe Judge Marcus asks the witness a few questions of his own.

JM: Mr. Hall, you said earlier that you still consider Mr. Bolden as a friend today is that correct?
TH: Yeah.
JM. When people came to tell you who was the shooter...
MD: Objection! The court is asking for third hand or fourth hand (information?)!
JM: I'm not asking for the truth of the matter. ... Did they give you any names about who the shooters were?
TH: No.

The lunch break is called. Hall's testimony isn't finished yet.  Hall appears to be mumbling, or speaking under his breath when he walked past the two detectives in the well. I couldn't understand him, but he didn't appear to be happy.

1:17 PM
I'm on the 9th floor, waiting for the courtroom to open. I've not covered a case where there are two defendants, both facing the death penalty.

When a defendant is facing the death penalty, they must have two defense attorneys. One counsel represents the defendant for the guilt phase while the other will represent them in the death decision phase. One of those reasons is the US Supreme Court has adopted the American Bar Association's recommendations for death penalty cases. According to this ACLU document [PDF], those requirements state that the judge, counsel, and jury, all must be "specially qualified as capable and experienced."

The document also states:  
Defense costs in death penalty trials are also significantly higher than in other cases because of the greater obligations imposed on the defense. The United States Supreme Court has used the ABA [American Bar Association] Guidelines for Death Penalty Representation to establish the appropriate “standard of care” in defending death penalty cases. ...
The guidelines prescribe a four-member defense team in every potential death penalty case: two attorneys and two investigators. This is twice the usual defense staffing in a murder case and is required because there may be a separate penalty phase trial. 
It's my understanding that one of the reasons there are two defense attorneys is that they argue different phases of the case. The reasoning for that appears to be, you would not want the jury to hear arguments from the same attorney (who just lost the case on the guilt phase) also arguing to the jury to save the defendant's life.  (If there are legal eagles out there who have a different understanding of the law, please leave a comment or drop me a line. Sprocket.)

To be continued in Day 3, Part III.....