 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Willis6/30/2003
ndant arrived at the bar, but he saw the defendant and the victim leave the bar sometime between 12:00 and 12:30. He said there was a fight at the bar around 1:00, but the defendant had left by that time. He said the victim came back around 2:00 that evening, after the fight, and then left again.
On cross-examination, Mr. Haynes said he did not see the defendant at the bar at closing time, but he did see the victim. He said the victim was wearing a black coat that covered almost everything. He testified he had a list of people that were not allowed into the bar and that the one name he could recall from that list was "Snake" Frazier. On redirect, he said he did not remember "Snake" Frazier being there that night and that he may have been confused as to the color of the victim's coat.
Johnny Hunter, a sergeant with the Identifications Division of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, testified that on September 17, 1990, he did some presumptive testing on a pair of shoes, a halter top, a jacket, a bra, some panties, and a skirt. He said he did not find any prints, but found some hair on the panties, the halter top, and the skirt. Additionally, he said he found a lot of hair on the jacket and a blue fiber in the panties. He then sent the evidence to the FBI. On cross-examination, he said that he was not asked to look for blood but that he would have collected any trace evidence that he found.
Cary Oien, with the Trace Evidence Unit of the FBI, testified that after analyzing the victim's clothing and reports from the police, he found the following: some blue nylon synthetic textile fibers in one shoe, some wool fibers from a jacket, some blue synthetic textile fibers in the panties, numerous different textile fibers in the bra and halter top, and numerous textile fibers including some blue nylon synthetic textile carpet-like fibers in a skirt and belt. He said there were positive comparisons to carpet samples taken from the defendant's vehicle.
On cross-examination, Mr. Oien testified that he did not do the original testing on these fibers, but examined all of them. He admitted to testifying 20 to 22 times on behalf of various prosecutions, and twice for criminal defendants. He said that during the original fiber testing in 1991, there were additional carpet samples submitted for testing, but when the evidence was resubmitted to him for testing in 1997, he received only carpet samples from the defendant's vehicle. Additionally, he said the only residential carpet samples he received were those from the defendant's residence. He said that based on his investigation where he found four fibers (from the victim) consistent with the defendant's vehicle carpet, it was impossible to say they came from the defendant's truck to the exclusion of all other similar trucks and there were certainly other vehicles that would have similar carpeting in them. Mr. Oien also said that eight items of debris, five vacuumings, two gloves, two vests, and a set of waders taken from the defendant's truck and compared with known samples from the victim had no connection.
Mr. Oien testified that while the area of soil comparisons was not his area of expertise, four soil samples taken from the area compared with a soil sample taken from the defendant's truck showed no connection. Additionally, approximately 127 carpet standard samples taken from the defendant's home showed no connection to the victim. He said no blood was found from some jeans and a shirt taken from the defendant.
Crystal Bickford was the defendant's neighbor on Ridgeway Drive in September 1990. She said they were cordial with each other, and on one occasion, the defendant told her that he "took all
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|