1-13-2015: Witnesses' Testimonies

Throughout this week, I will be attending a trial in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas for a rape case with Judge Zmuda presiding. This is the second in a series of multiple posts about the trial. Each post will document that day's proceedings and what I learned.

The trial continued today with the prosecution calling witnesses to testify. Witnesses ranged from the three victims, to individuals in the household, to a physician who examined the victims, to a detective. When witnesses were called, they were first asked who they were, and questions moved closer and closer to what happened. Anything that a witness says is a response to a prosecutor's question or the defense's cross-examination.

The three victims are brothers, all under the age of ten at the time of the offenses, living in the same household with three younger siblings. The defendant is indicted on six counts of rape (two counts per victim), a cousin of the victims' father, and was living in the victims' family home for a short period of time in 2013.

The first witness of the day was the mother of the victims. The victims reported the abuse to their mother some months after the rapes occurred, which prompted her and her husband to immediately call 911, leading to a police officer being immediately dispatched to the family home. She became emotional when the prosecutor asked her to relive the day the victims came forward with the allegations. For reasons I do not know, many questions were met with objections from the defense, most of which were overruled and others that were sustained. The mother continued her testimony in stating that her children were extremely scared to report the abuse. She was extremely emotional throughout the entire duration on the witness stand.

After this, the defense lawyer cross-examined her, asking further questions, such as asking for more specific details when the police officer came to her house after calling 911. The defense lawyer also asked about the layout of her house, such as where specific rooms in the house were, such as the rooms where the abuse allegedly took place, in relation to the front door and the living room. When this was done, the prosecution called the next witness. The same process of the prosecution calling witnesses, asking questions, and allowing the defense to object to questions and cross-examine continued for the entire day.

There were many instances during the testimonies of other witnesses during which the defense objected to the questions asked, but I assume this is because the defense believes that the questions are inappropriate or irrelevant to the state's goal of proving the defendant guilty.

It was very difficult listening to the each of victims being individually questioned by the prosecutor, all brothers who were only nine, seven, and five years of age. I felt awful when they all said that the defendant had done something strange or bad to them. The oldest boy was almost trembling when he was explaining how the defendant took off his clothes, molested him, and warned him of the presence of consequences if he were to report the abuse. The nine year old's recount of the words that the defendant told him during the alleged acts were sick and frightening. He also told the court of when the defendant forced him to watch pornography on the living room couch with him. When the prosecutor asked the nine year old why he didn't report the abuse to his parents sooner, he said that he was afraid of the consequences.

The defense cross-examined all victims after their testimonies regarding topics ranging from when the victims' mother would leave the victims home by themselves to be babysat by the defendant, to the types of pets in their home, to once again, the floor plan and layout of the family home.

When a victim was testifying in the courtroom, there was a victim advocate sitting in the gallery at all times. She was always very supportive and patient of the victims, and escorted them in and out of the courtroom. I feel that this is an extremely important job when victims are needed in the courtroom because victims need to feel at ease and have a person they can trust so their time in the courtroom isn't as painful when they are asked to sift through horrible memories in front of others.

An interesting witness was a detective from Toledo Police assigned to this case, but he wasn't involved in the sex crimes unit. He was asked about his education and training, but after that, the prosecution then seemed to become more concerned of getting information about the capabilities of police to retrieve information from media storage devices, such as cell phones and computers. It seemed to me as if he didn't do much investigative work in talking to the victims, but instead did more work in trying to gather information from the defendant by electronic means. I will discuss this more at the end of this post.

An important witness that the prosecution called was a physician who specialized in pediatrics, child physical abuse, and child sexual abuse. The lead prosecutor asked him about his education, current job, and certifications. He also asked him about his other medical work and time in practice. The physician explained that he does medical examinations on children who have had physical and sexual abuse. The prosecutor went on to ask about what happened during the examinations of the victims, such as what the victims said and how they reacted during the examinations. The physician also described how such an exam would be performed. Another question the prosecutor asked was how a child abuse professional makes judgments on whether or not a child has been abused. Finally, the physician was asked to explain some psychological phenomena that go through the minds of victims of abuse.

One thing that I learned today is that prosecutors are very deliberate in their work and actions in the courtroom. They ask the witnesses questions that seem to have been carefully thought out and considered. They move at a relaxed pace and are not pushy in trying to get to the scene when the crime took place. They are extremely patient with witnesses and are able to get what they want in a nonaggressive way. I think that a difficult part of this trial is that the prosecutor had to ask questions to three victims that were so young. Nevertheless, she was good in getting the victims to relax by asking questions such as who was their teacher, what they wanted to do when they grew up, and their favorite school subjects. The younger her victim witnesses were, the more patient she became with them.

I have more unanswered questions today. During testimony from the police detective, there was discussion about the defendant's phone and pornography that was on it, but what was the importance and relevance of that content to the trial? A deputy sheriff was also called as a witness to give some testimony about a phone call that the defendant made from the county jail to another individual about the confiscation of his own cell phone, but I didn't understand why the prosecution wanted her testimony. What is the importance of the phone call from the county jail? These are questions two in my mind for which I will find answers tomorrow.