October 1st, 2013
Continuing with the afternoon session of day two. Latiana Collins just got off the stand and Detective Carreon is recalled to the stand.
1. VINCENT CARREON.
Judge Marcus asks DDA Brazil if she is recalling the witness. "Yes, I am," she replies. Ms. Brazil presents the witness. Judge Marcus reminds counsel they are responsible for turning off the overhead projector light at night since the bulb costs $300.00. "What can I say," Judge Marcus adds. "The court has no money."
DB: Regarding (the) May 18th interview with Ms. Collins, when you interviewed her, did you record the entire interview?
VC: Yes, it was.
DB: Did any detective, in your presence, did you or any of your colleagues threaten her with murder if she didn't testify?
VC: No, we didn't.
DB: Was she upset during the interview?
VC: Yes.
DB: Did she tell you she wanted to go home?
VC: Yes.
DB: Did she tell you she didn't know anything about the iPhone?
VC: At one point, yes.
DB: Did you tell her at any point what you wanted her to tell you?
VC: No.
DB: Did you tell her that you wanted her to tell the truth?
VC: Yes.
DB: Did you tell her at some point she was holding back?
VC: Yes.
DB: Now to the firearms, briefly. Did you have a conversation with William Moore, (sp?), the firearm's expert? ... Did you ask him that during the analysis of the firearm, casing related to the DR numbers, did you ask him what the caliber was?
VC: His opinion was they were fired through a 9 millimeter, semi-automatic Glock.
Ms. Brazil reads three DR numbers that the firearms expert linked the 9 millimeter casings.
DB: Turning again to the investigation that occurred on May 14th, 2012, at that point in time, there was a wiretap in place for two target telephones?
VC: Correct.
DB: And those were associated with (Bryan) Barnes and Javier Bolden?
VC: Correct.
DB: Do you see Bryan Barnes in court today?
VC: Yes.
Detective Carreon identifies the defendant Barnes.
DB: Do you recognize Javier Bolden in the courtroom?
VC: Yes.
Again, the detective identifies the other defendant, Bolden.
DB: On May 14th, 2012, as the detective in charge of the investigation (of the?) murders of Mr. Qu and Ms. Wu, did you dispatch law enforcement officials to conduct surveillance of the Simple Mobile store on Compton Blvd?
VC: Yes.
DB: Prior to those individuals undertaking surveillance, did you provide them with photographs?
VC: Yes.
DB: What were you asking them to surveil?
VC: (Photo of Mr. Barnes?)
DB: Did you have a contact with Ruben Holguin, a member of the surveillance team?
I believe the witness states that Holguin, an LAPD officer is assigned to the major crimes task force.
DB: What did he tell you?
VC: He said that he had seen Mr. Barnes enter (the Simple Mobile store).
(Unknown) Objection! Lacks foundation. Move to strike Mr. Barnes.
Defense attorney for Javier Bolden, Andrew Goldman states, "He's testifying that another detective saw Mr. Barnes." Judge Marcus has an initial reply that I miss. He then adds, "Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with it."
DB: You told us that you provided a photo of Bryan Barnes to surveillance teams is that accurate?
VC: Yes.
DB: Did you also instruct the surveillance team of this individual....?
VC: Yes.
DB: So you provided a name and photograph?
VC: Correct.
DB: Did that information also include height and weight and so forth?
VC: Yes.
DB: When you had (a) conversation with Holguin, did he tell you that he saw someone that matched the description?
VC: Yes.
Holguin told Carreon that he saw Barnes walk into the Simple Mobile store located at (address) South Compton. Officer Lee and Detective Lait were dispatched there to try to intercept Bryan Barnes.
DB: You were present when Detective Lait booked evidence item number 49 as the phone he received from Simple Mobile?
VC: Correct.
Ms. Brazil presents photos to the witness.
DB: That would be the cell phone that was recovered from the proprietor of Simple Mobile?
VC: Correct.
DB: Did you instruct any officers to make contact with Bryan Barnes after he left the Simple Mobile store?
VC: Yes.
DB: Who did you instruct?
VC: I don't remember their names, but they were uniformed officers.
DB: What was your purpose?
VC: To detain them.
DB: Was Bryan Barnes detained at that point?
VC: Yes.
DB: Was he arrested?
VC: Yes.
DB: What was he arrested for?
VC: Misdemeanor warrants.
DB: Is it standard that they book property on them that they have at the time of the arrest?
I miss the answer. Ms. Brazil asks the detective to list the items that were booked when Barnes was arrested.
VC: $218.00. A green sweater. Four memory cards in a plastic case. One other item.
DB: Would it refresh your recollection to look at your notes?
VC: Yes. ... A black backpack with a USC logo on it.
DB: Did you have any contact with Bryan Barnes after he was arrested at the Simple Mobile Store?
VC: No.
DB: Was Bryan Barnes released shortly after he was arrested on those warrants and those property items?
VC: Yes.
DB: What was the next day that you saw Bryan Barnes after ... ?
VC: May 15th. ... He came into 77 Station to recover his booked items.
DB: Did you speak to him?
VC: Yes.
DB: What did Mr. Barnes say to you when you met with him?
VC: That he would like his items returned to him. ... I told him that there was one item I could return to him, the other items at another date.
Ms. Brazil asks the witness what Bryan Barnes said.
VC: He said that he had sold a black iPhone with a cover to a man at the Simple Mobile store. ... He said he sold it for $200.00.
DB: Did he say what he was paid in?
VC: He was paid in cash.
DB: What did Mr. Barnes say to you (about the iPhone)?
VC: He said he found it.
DB: Did he say in any other detail?
VC: He said he found it in the area of Imperial and Crenshaw.
DB: Any other details?
VC: He said it was behind Burlington Coat Factory, lying in a grassy area.
Barnes has his eyes closed for a bit.
VC: He said it was locked.
DB: Did Barnes say that he had any additional phones that he sold to the Simple Mobile store?
VC: He said he also had a white iPhone.
DB: Did Barnes say he asked the proprietor (of the Simple Mobile store) for any assistance for the white iPhone?
The phone store was able to unlock the white iPhone. The witness states that Barnes said that he obtained them (the phones) in a park.
DB: Did you tell him what items would be returned?
VC: We were going to return his white iPhone to him and everything else would be detained.
DB: Was that the phone and phone number that was authorized and wire tapped?
VC: Yes.
DB: And you told him the other items such as the backpack and the case .... ?
VC: Yes.
DB: Did you tell Mr. Barnes why they were (investigating?) at the Simple Mobile store?
VC: I told him that we were conducting surveillance on that store because we (thought?) that store was buying stolen cell phones.
DB: Did Mr. Barnes tell you what plan he had when ... ?
VC: He said the plan was to sell that cell phone.
DB: Did he tell you where Mr. Barnes said he got the white iPhone?
VC: He said he bought it from a Hispanic guy in Hawthorne.
DB: Did you ask Mr. Barnes how he came to know about the Simple Mobile store?
VC: He said his girlfriend 'Lottie' had directed him.
DB: What did Barnes say in respect to that?
VC: He said she knew the person there as Mike.
JM: The person as the proprietor of the store?
VC: Yes.
DB: Did you also have contact on May 15th when he was retrieving his property? ... Did you also talk to Ms. Collins?
VC: Not at that same time.
I believe the witness is asked why he asked for Ms. Collins name and address.
VC: I just wanted to verify the information we had on her. ... Her name, address. ... I believe that was it.
DB: Was she cooperative at that time?
VC: Yes.
DB: Was Mr. Barnes cooperative with the information he provided at that time?
VC: Yes.
DB: Did it seem that Mr. Barnes accepted your explanation that you provided about the surveillance?
VC: Yes.
JS: Objection! Relevance.
JM: Somewhat speculative. Objection sustained. ... I want to know why he came to that conclusion.
DB: When you explained to Bryan Barnes about the surveillance at the Simple Mobile store, describe to me how that exchange went.
VC: He was kind of wondering how we were able to be in contact with him. And we told him that we had been conducting surveillance on that store. I guess he believed what he was told.
JM: Objection sustained. Answer stricken.
DB: Detective Carreon, so it's your testimony that, Bryan Barnes was questioning you about why he was contacted and arrested on his warrant, correct?
VC: Yes.
DB: And in response to his questions about why he was arrested at Simple Mobile ... you explained that the police were conducting an operation, a sting, related to stolen phones?
VC: Yes.
MD: Objection! Leading. Compound.
Judge Marcus stops to reread the transcript.
JM: He's already answered this so it's not leading. I'm going to allow the answer.
DB: You retained all his other belongings except for his white iPhone?
VC: Correct.
DB: I have a CD that I'd like to be marked People's next in order, number 22 and People's 23 (a transcript).
Ms. D'Onofrio asks to approach as to this CD. Judge Marcus wants to know if there is a reason they cannot do this in open court. Ms. D'Onofrio responds, "Yes." The transcript is a 10 page transcript. Judge Marcus replies, "I'll look at it and then we'll have counsel approach." Counsel approach. I step outside the courtroom to check my phone. The side bar is over and we're back.
DB: Detective Carreon, prior to coming to court today, did you listen to People's 22?
VC: Yes.
DB: Did you listen to the voices on the CD?
The witness identifies the voices as Bryan Barnes and Javier Bolden. He's asked how he's certain of their voices.
VC: Because I'd spoken to Mr. Barnes at least twice and I spoke to Mr. Bolden for an hour on the 18th.
JS: Objection. (I miss Seng's reason.)
I believe Judge Marcus responds, "The only reason I'll allow the discussion... If you read the conversation very carefully, it also reveals the relationship between (Barnes & Bolden) .. I'm going to over rule ... that he can identify the voices."
DB: In addition to capturing the voice on the wire tap...
I think there is an objection and Judge Marcus tells Ms. Brazil, "I think you need to lay a foundation."
DB: Detective, you were in charge of this investigation, correct?
VC: Correct.
The witness verifies that he is familiar with the target lines of the wire tap and who they belonged to. He knew this because he was advised by Detective Lait what the target numbers were. Ms. Seng makes an objection but it's over ruled. Brazil asks for a moment. She's trying to get the audio to play. Judge Marcus addresses the prosecution, "I believe you usually bring speakers." He's smiling as he says it. Ms. Brazil responds, "I believe Mr. Akemon has a speaker. We just didn't have it out." Judge Marcus responds, "Big speaker. Usually they have little speakers." The LA Times reporter enters and sits with City News reporter Terri Keith. We go back on the record. Judge Marcus asks all the attorneys to stipulate that the court reporter doesn't have to take down the CD. Ms. D'Onofrio and Ms. Seng stipulate. I try to listen.
Hello.I cannot understand or even hear what they are saying on this audio clip. There's lots of static on the recording.
Hello.
Where you at?
I'm in Palmdale.
So I snatched the iPhone.I believe they're talking about the phone store and the subsequent arrest.
So I'm like...
They searched all over...I later hear,
When I go to get my property....
They said that the phone you sold him was hot....
Somebody got shot.There's more talk about the surveillance on the building. I think they're referring to the phone store.
Remember the day I left, he also had his shirt off.The recording ends.
DB: Detective Carreon, you recognize the voices of Bryan Barnes and Javier Bolden on that recording we just heard?
VC: Yes.
The witness gives the dates and addresses for where the defendants were arrested. A search warrant was conducted on the residence where Barnes was arrested on 91st Street. Detective Carreon testifies a cell phone was recovered at that location. Ms. Brazil introduces the next item, People's 24, a photo of a cell phone and an envelope. It's a black, HTC phone. The detective who recovered the phone in the search told Detective Carrion he recovered it inside a bedroom inside a drawer. People's 25 is a photo of the back of the cell phone. It's the same HTC phone, a close up.
DB: Have you seen this item in person?
VC: Yes.
DB: What color is it?
VC: Black.
The detective adds that he thinks it's also gray. Another photo, People's 26 a photo of the back of the HTC phone with the cover removed and the battery.
DB: Detective Carreon, as part of your investigation, did you ask Detective Sean Hansen to research the owner of (the HTC phone)? ... What did Detective Hansen tell you of this, ... the gray HTC cell phone?
Defense: Objection. Foundation.
JM: Lay foundation.
Judge Marcus hears another question and then reverses himself. "Objection is over ruled. I remember now so objection is over ruled."
DB: Do you know Detective Sean Hansen?
Detective Carreon has known Detective Hansen over 10 years. He's also a detective and a colleague at the LAPD. Detective Carreon spoke to Detective Sean Hansen regarding his education, experience and training regarding cell phones. He is the department's expert and he's also trained by the FBI. Detective Carreon has seen Detective Hansen testify in court.
DB: Is there a significant amount of cell phone evidence related to this offense?
VC: Yes.
DB: Who was responsible for the bulk of that investigation?
VC: Detective Hansen.
DB: Did Detective Hansen tell you whether or not he examined this exhibit previously marked People's 24, the black and gray HTC recovered from Bryan Barnes residence?
VC: Yes.
MD: Objection. Being Mr. Barnes residence.
I miss the ruling.
DB: The location where Bryan Barnes was arrested (address). Was that Latiana Collins' residence?
VC: Correct.
DB: She testified and also told you that he was staying with her?
VC: Yes.
JM: I don't need any more foundation.
Detective Hansen told Detective Carreon that the cell phone recovered from Collins' residence when Barnes was arrested on May 18th, actually belonged to victim Mr. Qu.
The afternoon break is called. The gallery empties out. Barnes defense attorney has a friendly chat with DDA Akemon and DDA Brazil. Andrew Goldman goes back to speak to someone in the gallery, a pretty woman in a print dress and a black jacket. The prosecution's law clerks are introduced to Ms. Seng. Judge Marcus comes out from his chambers and announces to the room, smiling, "We still have four minutes." Jokingly, counsel ask the judge to go back to his chambers. Judge Marcus leaves and then comes back out and pours a few glasses of water. Detective Carreon takes one. DDA Akemon and Sztraicher chat. The break ends.
DDA Akemon tells the court, "We have a witness named Timothy Hall who will be a witness tomorrow. He was arrested for a robbery." There is a question as to whether or not Mr. Hall needs use immunity. Judge Marcus asks who is representing Hall on the robbery. DDA Akemon tells the court that the robbery case is a DA's office reject. Andrew Goldman, Bolden's attorney tells Judge Marcus, "What I'm reading is, that it's been referred back to the detectives for further investigation to determine the three individuals in the robbery." September 13th, it was referred back.
I believe it's Judge Marcus who states that he thinks the court needs to appoint him a lawyer. He will get the advice of counsel and he gets the choice (to testify) or exercise his fifth amendment rights. Then you would have to get him immunity if he wanted to testify. Judge Marcus indicated he wanted to mention this because he had this come up in another hearing regarding selective use of the fifth amendment. Judge Marcus asks that the witness be brought up. Ms. D'Onofrio states he can't be brought in because the defendants are in the courtroom.
Judge Marcus checks with his clerk about calling for an attorney for Mr. Hall. The clerk tells Judge Marcus that they will send someone shortly. There are a few arguments among counsel about the cell phone recovered in Barnes' possession actually being linked to victim Mr. Qu. Judge Marcus asks the prosecution, "Can you connect this phone up to the victim?" Ms. Brazil responds, "Yes, I'm attempting to do that." Detective Carreon testifies that a black and gray HTC cell phone was collected and entered into evidence as evidence item number 96.
DB: Once that cell phone that was recovered from the location where Barnes was arrested, did you have a conversation with Detective Hansen about that phone?
VC: (Yes.)
DB: Where did that conversation take place?
VC: At 77th Station.
DB: Did you have it in your possession, the cell phone...
VC: Yes.
DB: Did Detective Hansen make an identification of the number to the back of the cell phone? ...
An exhibit is put up on the screen.
DB: Do you recognize this to be the back of the cell phone that Detective Hansen examined in your presence?
VC: Yes.
DB: What did he tell you in respect to the HTC cell ... in relation to the victims that were shot?
I believe there is an objection but I missed getting who made it.
VC: He told me that the IMEI number matched the cell phone record of Mr. Qu's phone.
MD: I think it's multiple hearsay. ... I believe we are dealing with multiple hearsay.
(Unknown) I see it as an issue which, he's speaking to a person as a police officer, whose also an expert witness, who gives his opinion as to who the cell phone belongs to.
Ms. Seng makes an objection.
JM: What can be more accurate than that, as to the number on the phone?
Judge Marcus continues as to why he thinks this is enough foundation for prelim purposes. Mr. Goldman states that he thinks at this point, Ms. Brazil is going into an area related to non-counts one and two, but as to counts four (and five?). That Ms. Brazil is going to seek to solicit from Detective Carreon information taken from the wire tap of Mr. Javier Bolden's phone, short excerpts but not play the tape. Goldman states that he read the excerpts. His objection is to the first excerpt. Goldman states he believes it is irrelevant. Goldman asks that perhaps the court needs to look at the transcript. Goldman continues that, if he knows what he's talking about, he believes it's about a party at 74th and Western, that may or may not have happened. Goldman then mentions the second excerpt, and that it's related to a shooting at a party. Another conversation is with an unknown male, who talks about a shooting at 51st and Western. Goldman states that he believes for these purposes it would be hearsay. The unknown speaker is just relating what's on the tape.
JM: Let me here what (is) the offer of proof. ... My copy of the complaint has nothing; ... doesn't have anything related to Bolden in count four.
DB: There is an amended complaint your honor.
DDA Brazil states she's seeking to introduce evidence of two intercepted telephone calls that Detective Carreon listened to and he recognizes Javier Bolden's voice, and the target line is Javier's line. The calls are on May 15th. Brazil goes onto explain Carreon intercepted calls on Javier's line. Javier's voice is talking to an unknown female. Carreon would testify that a female asks if Javier was at the party. He replies, "The last time I partied on Western I had to kill somebody." That would be the extent that Detective Carreon would testify to.
Judge Marcus asks if there is a link to anything that happened. Brazil tells the court the testimony is linked to shootings that occurred on Western. She adds that the witnesses will be testifying to a shooting that occurred on Western and they will identify Bolden as the shooter. I believe it's Andrew Goldman who adds that if it's read by itself, you have to go onto the entirety of the conversation. Goldman thinks it more about the entirety of the conversation.
Ms. Brazil states she has no problem introducing the entirety of the conversation. She adds that this is a prelim, not a trial and they are seeking to introduce relevant information. Judge Marcus states, "Let me look at the conversation for a minute."
Judge Marcus rules he's going to allow it. That particular small portion there, he's admitting to some individual of a shooting on Western, and they are going to put on witnesses who were shot at. Goldman points out another spot in the transcript that he's marked. Ms. Brazil asks if the court wants an offer of proof for the second part. It's an unidentified caller that's making the statement. And there are "uh-ums" It's not Mr. Bolden speaking. Judge Marcus asks if one of the shootings took place at 51st and Western. Brazil says yes, and asks the court if the court wants an offer of proof. I believe Judge Marcus comments that he's (Bolden) not saying it and that he's not making any denial or what that is about.
Ms. Brazil continues. What she's seeking to illicit from Detective Carreon is an unknown male told Bolden that they knew about the shooting and it's about No Respect. Bragging, "I don't even talk about that shit. That shit old." The unknown male said, he's just letting him know.
Judge Marcus states, "If someone told you someone has accused you, and people are looking for a shooting, and he doesn't say, 'No, that's not me,' I believe that has relevance for prelim. Regarding the other issue, the court will make it clear at all times if the court found an issue more prejudiced than probative, the court will announce that. The audio tapes come into the prelim over defense objections.
DB: Did you review a wire tap recording that (happened?) on May 15th, 2012?
Brazil reads the track recording number.
DB: Did you listen to that audio recording?
(Unknown) Objection. Foundation.
JM: Over ruled.
DB: Did you listen to the recording prior to testifying?
VC: Yes.
DB: Whose voice did you recognize?
VC: Javier Bolden.
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: Over ruled!
DB: Was he speaking to a male or female voice?
VC: Female.
DB: Did you recognize the (female?) voice?
VC: No.
DB: What, if anything, in the beginning of the conversation did the female say to Javier Bolden during that call?
VC: She was talking about a party.
DB: What did she say about the party?
VC: She asked if he was there.
DB: What, if anything, did he say in response?
VC: He doesn't party on Western. ... She asked him why.
DB: What did he reply?
VC: He said that the last time he partied on Western he had to kill somebody.
DB: And the conversation was longer than just that point?
VC: Correct.
DB: But a short conversation total?
VC: Correct.
DB: Did you listen to the second conversation? ... Did that recording also occur on target line 1?
VC: Yes.
DB: Was the date May 15th, 2012?
VC: Yes.
DB: Was that recorded on track number ..... ?
VC: Yes.
DB: Did you listen to that second recording?
VC: Yes I did.
DB: Did you recognize a voice?
VC: Yes.
DB: Whose voice?
VC: Javier Bolden.
DB: Did you recognize the voice speaking to him?
VC: No. ... It was a male.
DB: During the call, did he discuss any shooting? ... What did the unknown man say?
(Unknown) Objection!
JM: Over ruled!
VC: He said that they had found out about the shooting at 51st and Western.
DB: Did the unknown male say anything about a party crew you recognized?
VC: He said that No Respect was involved.
DB: Did the unknown male say anything else to Javier Bolden regarding the shooting at 51st and Western?
VC: He said...
(Unknown) Continuing objection.
VC: He said that they knew it was him and that they were looking for him.
DB: The unknown man tells him, "They know who you are and they are looking for you?"
VC: Yes.
DB: What else?
VC: They said that they heard that he was bragging about it.
DB: What did he say in response to the unknown male?
VC: He said, "Who am I bragging to whom? I didn't brag about that."
DB: Would it refresh your memory to look at a transcript of the call?
VC: Yes.
Detective Carreon reads a section of transcript of the wire tapped phone call.
DB: What did you hear Javier Bolden say to the unknown male?
VC: "Bragging? Bragging to who? I don't even talk bout that shit any more. I don't talk about that shit. That shit old."
DB: What did the unknown male say at that point?
VC: The unknown male said, "I'm just letting you know."
Direct is finished and cross begins with Ms. D'Onofrio.
MD: With respect to the surveillance that was being conducted at the location where Mr. Barnes was detained, were you present at that location?
VC: No.
MD: So everything you heard, was given to you by others, persons that were there?
VC: Yes.
MD: Was that in real time?
VC: Yes.
MD: Where were you when you were receiving that information?
VC: I was at 77th Station.
MD: Mr. Barnes was arrested on May 14th on some type of failure to pay a ticket?
VC: It was some type of warrant.
MD: When he came on May 15th to retrieve property at that point, was Mr. Barnes a person of interest in the homicide case?
VC: Yes.
MD: In fact, he was under surveillance?
VC: Correct.
MD: You believed that he was involved in that homicide?
VC: Yes.
MD: Did you advise Mr. Barnes of his rights?
VC: No.
MD: You're certain that it was the white iPhone that was authorized for the wire tap?
VC: Yes.
MD: With respect to the item, the black and gray iPhone in People's 24 through 26 that you saw, were you present when that item was recovered?
(DB?) Objection! Misstates testimony.
MD: The HTC phone, from (address) West 91st Street? Detective, Carrion, were you present?
VC: No.
MD: It was recovered within a bedroom drawer?
VC: I don't know where it was. He just indicated it was in a bedroom drawer. (Another detective told him.)
Ms. D'Onofrio is finished and Mr. Goldman crosses the witness.
AG: Turing your attention to the telephone conversation that you were testifying to ... on direct examination. When was the first time you listened to that conversation? When was the first time you listened to that conversation?
VC: Right around the time it happened.
AG: What was the most recent time you listened to it?
VC: This morning.
AG: Turning your attention to the conversation where you say you identified Mr. Bolden's voice speaking to an unidentified female, that was the first conversation, correct?
VC: Correct.
AG: And in that conversation, Mr. Bolden mentioned that he doesn't party on Western anymore?
VC: Correct.
AG: And this conversation took place on May (15th?), correct?
VC: Correct.
AG: Also in that conversation with the unidentified female, there's a reference to a party for his brother, his brother BJ. Did you listen to that part of the conversation?
VC: Yes.
AG: In the course of your investigation, did it come to your attention that Mr. Barnes goes by the designation BJ, and they referred to each other as brothers?
Detective Carreon confirms.
AG: In the course of this investigation, did you find out any (investigation?) for a party for Mr. Barnes, for his party?
(Unknown) Objection! Relevant.
Goldman argues his position, regarding how the prosecution is presenting the conversation that Javier allegedly had. The court responds, "For what it's worth, although evidence may be admissible, the weight it may be given..." I believe Judge Marcus sustains the objection.
AG: If you know, was there a party for Mr. Barnes on Western?
VC: I don't know sir. I don't remember a party.
AG: In the course of the investigation, was anybody (relaying?) to these individuals, was anyone killed on Western?
VC: Killed? No.
AG: In turning your attention to the second conversation you listened to, ... when was the first time you listened to that conversation?
VC: Also around the time it occurred.
AG: When was the last time?
VC: This morning.
AG: In this conversation, an unidentified male talks about a shooting on 51st and Western, when speaking to a person that you believe that was Mr. Bolden?
I believe Goldman reads from the transcript with the following statements.
They know it was us, it was from No Respect.I'm confused. I don't believe I'm getting what Goldman is reading correctly.
He said, They know who you are.
They're looking for anybody, that wears the No Respect shirt.
AG: Then later in the conversation, the caller talks about someone named (Donte?) not being around any more.
DB: Page number?
AG: 78. .. Because it's like, ... really looking for them and all that, No Respect, and people looking for No Respect.
VC: Yes.
AG: And this is when the caller then says, "You were bragging about shooting old (by?), I don't know." And the person who you identified ... "Bragging. Bragging to who, I don't even talk about that shit."
DB: Objection! Incomplete statement.
AG: Okay, I'll repeat. "Bragging. Bragging to who? I don't even talk about that shit. That shit old." Correct Detective?
I miss the answer.
The attorney arrives to represent Mr. Hall for the fifth amendment issue. I've seen this counsel before. He was one of a group of attorneys that were representing several defendants in a hearing in Judge Ohta's courtroom, on September 27th, when I was there for a hearing in the Gargiulo case.
I believe Judge Marcus states, "Your representing this witness." Goldman states he has nothing further. Ms. D'Onofrio wants to recross and ask another question.
MD: Detective Carreon, do you know whether or not Mr. Bolden's foster father has son by the name of BJ?
(DB?) Objection! Not relevant.
JM: Based on cross by Mr. Goldman where he references a birthday party for BJ, I'll allow it.
VC: I don't remember that, No mam.
Ms. Brazil has no more questions.
I believe Ms. D'Onofrio is asking that the defendants be taken out of the courtroom when Hall is brought in regarding whether he will ask for an attorney, take the fifth, or testify.
JM: Normally, they would be permitted ... by the witness here by you don't want them here because of identification issue?
MD: Correct.
Judge Marcus want to get a waiver from both defendants to be excluded, that it might affect the witness if he gets to see them. "While you're here, do you agree not to be present while we discuss witness and fifth amendment rights?" Goldman asks the court to reopen cross of the detective. He asks, "I forgot to ask the detective something about the tape, so can he retake the stand before we get to this?" The court responds, "I'll let you reopen tomorrow. The defendants agree to the waiver, not to be present in the courtroom. The court instructs, "Okay, you can take them out."
Judge Marcus asks the prosecution to get the witness. Mr. Hall is a slender young black man. He's dressed in black. The court addresses Hall. "Mr. Hall, Good afternoon. I have a lawyer...." The counsel identifies himself for the record. "Robin Yates."
JM: Did you have a chance to talk to him Mr. Hall?
AH: Yes sir.
RY: He's going to assert his fifth amendment rights. ...
The parties discuss the problem. There is a pending robbery case out there that Hall could incriminate himself if he answers questions. If Hall is asked about that on cross, he feels it could incriminate him. DDA Akemon tells the court the prosecution would offer Hall use immunity. Akemon presents to the court a document.
DA: This is a signed copy for the court and a signed copy for the attorney for Mr. Hall.
JM: Mr. Hall, they apparently are going to offer you immunity. ... Did your lawyer explain to you, anything you say here cannot be used, to be used against you against that (impossible?) robbery charge.
I don't get the next sentence completely. I believe Judge Marcus added, "It also can force you to testify."
JM: The thing you got to think about, that you have to keep in mind that you could be charged with perjury. ... I will sign the order granting immunity.
Hall evidently took the use immunity deal to testify and he is ordered back at 9:00 AM tomorrow morning. Judge Marcus addresses Mr. Goldman, "Let's do the thing that you didn't do with the detective and then we would be done for the day." There is a discussion about ordering back the other witnesses.
JM: Let the record reflect that Mr. Hall signed that in the presence of the court. ... You understand the court order, and you accept it?
AH: Yes sir.
Three witnesses who have been waiting most of the day are brought into the courtroom. The court orders back the witnesses for specific days and time. Judge Marcus then asks that the defendants be brought back so they can say this on the record. The attorney for Mr. Hall is ordered back tomorrow for 10:45 AM. For the record, Judge Marcus states that the defense had indicated that they were going to call back the previous witness but then decided they were done, subject to recall. Judge Marcus orders everyone back at 9:00 AM tomorrow.
And that's it for the second day of the preliminary hearing.
Continued on Barnes & Bolden Prelim, Day 3.....
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment