Tweet
Author’s Note: This is a continuation of the Killer Cross that never happened because Crane Station’s lawyer, Chris McNeill, refused to use it. If you have missed the first two parts of the cross, which are in Part 3 and Part 4 of this series, follow the links. I recommend reading them before reading this post, for the sake of continuity.
All rise. Court is again in session.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. You may be seated.
Deputy McGuire, you may return to the witness stand. I remind you that you are still under oath.
Counsel, you may proceed with your cross examination.
Thank you, your Honor.
40. Q: On the way to the hospital, you never detected any movement in the back seat that caused you to believe that Mrs. Leatherman was attempting to hide anything, did you?
A: No.
Transcript Suppression, page 24, lines 15-18
41. Q: But you testified under oath to the grand jury that on the way to Lourdes Hospital “Of course, she’s cuffed behind her back, and she is trying to work it — work it down into the seat, and she dropped her watch with it,” didn’t you?
A: Yes.
Transcript Grand Jury, pages 4-5, lines 23-1
42. Q: You didn’t see anything that would suggest she did that, did you?
A: No.
43. You told another lie, didn’t you?
A: Yes.
44. Q: You also testified to the grand jury that the Kentucky State Crime Laboratory result of the alcohol content in Mrs. Leatherman’s blood wasn’t back yet, didn’t you?
A: Yes.
Transcript Grand Jury, page 5, lines 17-18.
45. Q: Please take a look at Defendant’s Exhibit A. It has been identified as a copy of the laboratory analysis of the alcohol content in Mrs. Leatherman’s blood by Examiner Neil K. Vowels. Do you recognize it?
A: Yes.
46. Q: He did not detect any alcohol in her blood, did he?
A: No, he didn’t.
47. Q: Please take a look at the bottom left corner of the exhibit. There is a notation that reads, “Date Completed.” What date appears next to these words?
A: 7/14/2006.
48. Q: You testified before the grand jury on July 28, 2006, didn’t you?
A: Yes.
49. Q: So, you testified 14 days after Examiner Vowels completed his report, correct?
A: Yes.
50. Q: Now take a look at the top line. It indicates that the report was faxed to the prosecutor’s office at 12:32 PM on July 24, 2006, doesn’t it?
A: Yes.
51. Q: That was 4 days before you testified before the grand jury, correct?
A: Yes.
52. Q: Now at the grand jury when the Commonwealth’s Attorney said, “We don’t have the blood results back?” and you answered, “I don’t believe so, blood or lab, yeah,” can you explain why you and the Commonwealth Attorney did not know the result of the alcohol analysis of Mrs. Leatherman’s blood sample — a test completed two weeks before and faxed to the Commonwealth’s Attorney four days before you testified before the grand jury?
A: No.
53. Q: You have testified that Mrs. Leatherman failed all six clues on the HGN test. You did not document the basis for your conclusion in your narrative report, did you?
A: No.
54. Q: We only have your word for that, don’t we? Just as only have your word that she told you that she was on all of her prescription medication?
A: Yes.
55. Q: For the sake of argument, let’s assume you did tell the truth when you testified that she failed all six clues. As a police officer certified to give the HGN test, you must know that NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, recommends that the test be administered to a suspect facing away from the police cruiser because the strobing lights will cause a false nystagmus, don’t you?
A: Yes.
Q: Yet, you positioned her facing your strobing police cruiser when you administered the HGN, didn’t you?
A: Yes.
in-dash video
56. Q: Metoprolol is one of the prescription drugs that Mrs. Leatherman had in her car when you pulled her over, correct?
A: Yes.
57. Q: Metoprolol is a drug used to control hypertension, or high blood pressure, correct?
A: Yes.
58. Q: As a police officer certified to administer the HGN test, you know that hypertension can cause nystagmus, don’t you?
A: Yes.
59. Q: You, Deputy Walters, and Officer Dawes thoroughly searched Mrs. Leatherman’s vehicle, including the trunk, her purse, and her personal belongings, correct?
A: Yes.
60. Q: Other than the three prescription drugs, you didn’t find any drugs, drug residue, or paraphernalia, did you?
A: No.
61. And Officer Dawes thoroughly searched Mrs. Leatherman by the side of the road before you placed her in the back seat of your police cruiser, didn’t she?
A: Yes.
62. Q: The search included a visual examination of her genital area, correct?
A: Yes.
63. Q: She also reached into Mrs. Leatherman’s back pockets, correct?
A: Yes.
64. Q: And before the search, you ordered Mrs. Leatherman to empty her front pockets by turning them inside out, didn’t you?
A: Yes.
65. Q: And Officer Dawes checked Mrs. Leatherman’s breasts to see if she might have hidden something in her bra, didn’t she?
A: Yes.
66. Q: She also checked around Mrs. Leatherman’s waist to see if she might have hidden something there, correct? And shoes?
A: Yes.
67. Q: No drugs, drug residue, or paraphernalia were found, right?
A: Correct.
The answers to questions 59-67 can be verified by the in-dash video.
68. Q: You didn’t arrest her for DUI Alcohol, did you?
A: No, I did not arrest her for DUI alcohol.
69. Q: You didn’t arrest her for possession of a controlled substance at that point either, correct?
A: Yes.
70. Q: You arrested her for DUI Drugs, didn’t you?
A: Yes.
Transcript Preliminary Hearing, page 8, lines 4-6.
71. Q: You didn’t advise Mrs. Leatherman that she was under arrest, did you?
A: No, I didn’t.
72. Q: You told her that you were taking her to Lourdes Hospital for a blood test, didn’t you?
A: Yes.
73. Q: A blood test that she offered to take, correct?
A: Yes.
74. Q: You didn’t tell her you were taking her to jail, did you?
A: Correct, I didn’t tell her I was taking her to jail.
Author’s Note: Questions 71-74 set up a point to be made during final argument; namely, that Crane-Station had no reason to attempt to slough a rock of crack behind his seat during the ride to the hospital. Assuming for the sake of argument that she had somehow hidden it so well that Officer Dawes could not find it and, given that we know that Crane-Station knew her blood test would come back negative for alcohol and drugs, we can reasonably conclude that she would have had no reason to think she would be searched again. Therefore, why risk attracting attention attempting to slough drug?
This illustrates another important point about cross examining effectively. Use it to set-up your final arguments during summation.
Judge: Excuse me Counsel. Let’s break for the day. Court will be in recess.
To be continued . . .
6 Comments
This is a heart-breaker, MiB, although I don’t think that is news to you. I don’t know what to say.
What was your connection to Crane Station’s legal defense at the time? (My apologies if you already answered this on another thread in this series.)
Appreciate your thoughts, thanks.
To have fought against corruption and injustice for so many many years only to have it come to this, in effect neutered, and have to stand by and helplessly watch the railroad run over my wife was almost more than either of us could take. But they picked on the wrong people because we have the right stuff and they don’t.
This is not about hate and it’s not about revenge. It’s about doing the right thing to correct a massive wrong that has been paralyzing the spirit of this community for many years.
There are many victims here who have suffered far more than we have and y’all are seeing some of their stories in Frog Gravy.
Crane-Station is my wife and I was a law professor and former felony criminal defense and death-penalty lawyer who turned whistleblower at the law school where I was teaching. The Dean and Assistant Dean were running a Ponzi scheme skimming student loan living expense proceeds.
Please review the comments to Part 3 for additional information. If you have more questions, come on back and ask away.
In your opinion what are the most effective ways to avoid jury duty, assuming there are no medical or health issues?
Thanks
I always feel uncomfortable telling people how to avoid jury duty because it’s a responsibility that we all have when we are summoned. I also would like to see more people like us serve on juries. That is, people who will presume the defendant innocent and hold the government to its burden of proof instead of assuming the defendant guilty, which is what a lot of people do.
That said, teachers and the self-employed are almost always excused for cause because they cannot afford to take the time off. People who won’t follow the jury instructions or who have already formed an opinion about a particular case (as in due to extensive pretrial publicity) or type of case (as in all defendants in drug cases are guilty) are typically excused for cause. Prepaid vacations are another excuse that usually result in being excused.
Economic hardship or having to care for someone who is sick or disabled will usually result in being excused.
I actually would love to have an opportunity to serve, but no prosecutor or insurance defense lawyer would ever let me on a jury, so there is little chance that I would make it on a jury.
Happy holidays, Stan.