 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Garrett12/1/2005
you kick this or .
A: No, sir.
Q: . . . did that spread get pushed up there by the fire department or was that where it was all the time?
A: I did not interview the firefighters in reference to that.
[From the second trial:]
Q: During the course of your coming to a conclusion, or opinion, in this situation, did you attempt to interview any of the firemen that were there?
A: I did interview the firemen. I was particularly concerned about the latch system on the door where Ms. Lance was found behind.
Q: Do you remember who you spoke to?
A: I talked to the captain. Basically - I made observations that if the door was locked that door wouldn't be standing there. In other words, they would have taken that door down with a fire ax. They already know that we have Ms. Lance back there somewhere in the house. They are going in there to do a rescue. So, they know there is a human being back there, so they've got to get there. Time is crucial. But, if it was locked the door would have been taken off.
I talked to Captain Jenkins. . . .
[Later in Mr. Cooper's testimony, the following colloquy transpired:]
Q: So what is your understanding of the position of that when Ms. Lance was found? Was it latched or unlatched?
A: Again, talking to Captain Jenkins, it was latched. He had to use two hands to unlatch -
The defendant posits that these testimonies reveal that Mr. Cooper testified falsely when he reported that he interviewed Captain Jenkins and that the state sponsored what it knew or should have known was false testimony. The state counters that the two testimonies do not conflict because in the first trial, Mr. Cooper testified that he did not interview any firefighters who suppressed the fire and may have damaged the house, whereas in the second trial, Mr. Cooper testified that he interviewed Captain Jenkins regarding whether the utility room door was latched. Captain Jenkins's role at the fire was to locate the victim, rather than extinguish the fire. Accordingly, the state argues that the two testimonies are consistent. We conclude that when viewed as a whole, the trial transcripts do not conclusively demonstrate that Mr. Cooper testified falsely at the second trial. Accordingly, we conclude that the defendant has not demonstrated that the state knowingly introduced false testimony by introducing Mr. Cooper's testimony.
C. David Miller
Finally, the defendant argues that Detective David Miller testified falsely at the second trial, as revealed by the inconsistencies between his first and second trial testimonies. Specifically, the defendant notes that Detective Miller testified at the first trial that the kerosene-soaked bedspread was "laying longways . . . in front of the utility room door," whereas at the second trial, Detective Miller testified that the bedspread draped from the edge of the refrigerator to the door between the kitchen and the living room, forming the basis for his conclusion that the arsonist's intent was to spread the fire from the fire's origin in the front room to the kitchen. The defendant further asserts that in the first trial, Detective Miller testified that he collected evidence under Mr. Cooper's direction and that this statement was supported by Detective Mike Roland's testimony that Detective Miller was "doing the actual collection of evidence" at the crime scene. The defendant asserts that this testimony from the first trial contradicts Mr. Cooper's testimony at the second trial that he was collecting evidence, not Detective Miller. The defendant presents the following testimony of Mr
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 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|