 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Roberts10/26/1999
tual background.
I can't elicit some portions of that probably both for the purposes of hearsay and other evidentiary rules. And although Mr. Knodell has been kind enough and willing enough to stipulate to the admissibility of the statement, it's not the kind of statement, in my mind, and I'm speaking as an advocate for Mr. Roberts, that I can offer or want to offer without the ability to cross-examine that witness. That's the problem I have. I can't cross-examine this sixteen-page statement. Quite frankly, that bothers me.
The prosecutor then offered to pay to fly Mr. Medina to Grant County from California to obtain his live testimony. Mr. Earl also declined this offer, stating: "I appreciate that, Your Honor, but I think our record's pretty clear. We're prepared to proceed." Mr. Medina's statement is not in the appellate record, so it is impossible to examine its relative merits to each party's case. At any rate, Mr. Earl's statement makes it clear he made a strategic decision not to present Mr. Medina's version of the events to the jury. On the record, Mr. Roberts has failed to demonstrate that decision was deficient.
Mr. Earl's allegedly "asinine" cross examination of a police detective : Detective Paul Harder testified at trial about what Mr. Valdez told him at the hospital after the stabbing. Mr. Earl also questioned Detective Harder about his report, which included statements from another officer about what witnesses had said. Mr. Roberts contends these statements, which were elicited by Mr. Earl, contradicted his own testimony that he had taken only a few steps back after the initial "bitch slap." Although he attaches great importance to the distances involved, the critical issue before the jury was whether Mr. Roberts reasonably and in good faith believed he was in danger, regardless of the distance or time involved. Even assuming Mr. Earl's performance was deficient, the error was not so serious as to deprive Mr. Roberts of a fair trial.
Mr. Earl's alleged failure to interview Gabriel Medina to determine his testimony was irrelevant: As previously pointed out, Gabriel's testimony was mostly cumulative. He did not see the incident begin and only saw Mr. Roberts make a gesture toward Mr. Valdez, after which Mr. Valdez was bleeding. Apparently recognizing the limited evidentiary value of Gabriel's testimony, Mr. Roberts now argues Mr. Earl should have interviewed Gabriel, learned that he never saw the critical events, and presumably should have moved to exclude the testimony. However, even assuming the testimony was irrelevant and Mr. Earl's performance was deficient in failing to exclude it, the failure was not so serious as to deprive Mr. Roberts of a fair trial.
Mr. Earl's alleged failure to impeach Billy Reyes with his prior drug convictions and his work as a police informant: We previously quoted Mr. Earl's statement regarding admissibility of Mr. Reyes' previous convictions, and we pointed out that Mr. Reyes admitted he previously had been convicted of tampering with a witness. Mr. Earl apparently concluded the drug convictions would be inadmissible under ER 609(a)(1). Mr. Roberts has not shown this Conclusion was unreasonable. Even if the convictions were admissible, moreover, it is impossible to conclude that Mr. Earl's failure to admit them was so serious as to deprive Mr. Roberts of a fair trial. The witness tampering conviction seriously damaged Mr. Reyes' credibility. The value of any further impeachment evidence was negligible.
As for Mr. Reyes' work as a police informant, the impeachment value of this information is not clear. Arguably, counsel could have concluded the evidence would have supported Mr. Reyes' credibility.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Washington DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|