[In
the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Lawrenceville, Georgia; 9:00 a.m.,
Thursday, August 31, 1995; the STATE OF GEORGIA v. MICHAEL HAROLD CHAPEL,
93-B-1818-6; Criminal Jury Trial, Judge Fred A. Bishop, Jr., presiding.]
THE
COURT: Ready Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Ready, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: The state's ready, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Bring the jury in, please.
[The
jurors were escorted to the courtroom.]
THE
COURT: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen.
[Jurors
respond]
THE
COURT: Everybody doing okay this
morning? Good.
Mr.
Moore, call your first witness, please.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, the first thing I
would do is, I've shown this to Mr. Porter, I would tender Defendant's Exhibit
Number 98, which is an affidavit from Windy Howe of the Law Enforcement
Technology Center from the U. S. Department of Justice certifying the
Defendant's Exhibit Number 99, which is a 1992 Model Year Patrol Vehicle
Testing done by the Michigan state police, and we would tender Defendant's
Exhibits Number 98 and 99 at this time.
THE
COURT: What is 99?
MR.
MOORE: 99 is a -- it's a booklet put
out by the U. S. Department of Justice, 1992 Model Year Patrol Vehicle Testing.
THE
COURT: Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, the state would
agree that it is a true and correct copy.
We do not agree that the data is accurate, and it has not been
established, or we don't know whether the data is accurate, and I don't think a
proper foundation has been laid for the admission.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I would tender it to
the Court and let the Court look at it and make that determination.
MR.
PORTER: We stipulate that it is an
official publication of the United States Department of Justice. We stipulate that it is, in fact, what it
says it is, but I don't think, number one, the accuracy of the data has been
found. And second of all, I think it's
only admissible for the record.
THE
COURT: For what purpose is the
affidavit offered?
MR.
MOORE: The affidavit and the booklet
put out by the Department of Justice are offered for the purpose of having an
expert witness, Your Honor, testify regarding the performance of that vehicle
and various distance and time computations.
Now, we have a witness standing by that we can fly in if necessary.
THE
COURT: Well, in this instance, what's
been marked as Defendant's 98, the affidavit, it would not appear to be a -- I
mean, it would appear to me that that affidavit would not make it a certified
document admissible on the basis of being a certified document. And if it's an affidavit, it seems to me
there's an issue as to whether or not what does it say can it be cross-examined
as is it inadmissible. Would you
approach the bench, please.
[Counsel
approached the bench, and a conference was held outside hearing of the jury, as
follows]
THE
COURT: I guess my question is, where
are we headed with it?
MR.
MOORE: Well, I have an engineer, Your
Honor, who is going to testify, based on the performance of that vehicle, about
times and distances and everything.
I've got a witness from Michigan that we can fly in. It's probably going to cost about a thousand
dollars to do it, but I mean he's standing by to come in if necessary.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I think in this
circumstance if the witness testifies and he uses that document, then that's
fine. That's admissible testimony just
like any other expert who testifies to the basis of his opinion using certain
data, and if I have the opportunity to attack that. I'm standing here today, I don't have any real objection to that
going into the record as the basis of the expert opinion, but I can't -- I'm
not going to agree to the accuracy of the data. I think that's a subject for cross-examination. That's a subject for verification by the expert.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I'm not contending
it ought to go out to the jury or anything, merely that the expert could use
that --
MR.
PORTER: I'm not quibbling that it's an
authentic document.
THE
COURT: Okay. All right. So, well,
maybe we can reach a stipulation here that satisfies everybody. What you want is the document used in
conjunction with the testimony of the expert.
MR.
MOORE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: And you want to be able to --
you don't have any problem with that document going in as an exhibit for the
record only, and then you use it on direct or cross-examination, but you're not
stipulating to the --
MR.
PORTER: Content.
THE
COURT: -- to the accuracy of the
contents.
MR.
PORTER: That's correct.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, that should be fine.
THE
COURT: Okay. So stipulated.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we'd call Mary Ann
White to the stand.
THE
COURT: Let me ask, with respect to
Defendant's 98 and 99, the affidavit and the document marked Defendant's 99, I
believe the stipulation is that those both be admitted for the record to use in
conjunction with examination of your witness or on cross-examination or with
respect to any witness the state may wish to call in rebuttal. Is that correct?
MR.
MOORE: That's correct, Your Honor. We intend to offer an expert who will give
opinions based on matters in the booklet there, Defendant's Exhibit Number 99.
THE
COURT: All right. But there is no stipulation as to the
accuracy or the contents in Defendant's 99?
MR.
PORTER: That is correct, Your
Honor. We agree that that is a true and
correct copy of that particular document, and it may be the basis for an expert
opinion, but we reserve the right to question the basis of that opinion, and we
do not stipulate that those are true and correct numbers as they apply to the
defendant's vehicle.
THE
COURT: All right. Mr. Moore, is that the stipulation?
MR.
MOORE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: So stipulated. Which witness do you call next?
MR.
MOORE: Mary Ann White.
[The
witness was called to the courtroom.]
THE
COURT: Ms. White, if you'll take the
stand up here.
[The
witness stepped to the stand.]
THE
COURT: I believe you've been sworn, and
you remain under oath.
THE
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I've had this
plastic bag marked as Exhibit Number 101.
It contains various miscellaneous papers. At this time we intend not to get the various papers inside
marked individually, but if we do cross-examine anybody about them or use those
papers individually, Mr. Porter and I have agreed we'll take them out and have
them marked as we use them.
THE
COURT: All right. What's the -- what are the documents? What are they about?
MR.
MOORE: It's various documents that were
taken from Mr. Chapel's car.
THE
COURT: All right. So the plastic bag is marked as 100, and the
documents --
MR.
MOORE: D-101, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: All right, D-101. Is that -- restate what 101 is, please.
MR.
MOORE: That's the plastic bag
containing the various miscellaneous documents. It's labeled 'miscellaneous papers.'
THE
COURT: All right. Collectively it's 101?
MR.
MOORE: Yes, your Honor. And if we use any of them individually we'll
get them marked as we take them out.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
MOORE: You were already sworn, I
believe, but would you hold up your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're
about to give before this Court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
THE
WITNESS: I do.
Whereupon,
having
been called as a witness and duly sworn, was examined and testified, as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Would you state your name, please?
A. Mary Ann White.
Q. Okay.
And Technician White, I'm going to show you what's been marked as Defendant's
Exhibit Number 101 and ask if you can identify that.
A. These are miscellaneous papers that I got
from Unit 197, and this is my handwriting.
Q. And you gathered those on what date?
A. 4/29/93, I believe.
Q. And you gathered all those various items and
placed them in that plastic bag which is labeled Defendant's Exhibit 101?
A. Yes.
Q. And each of them came out of Unit 197?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. I'm going to show you two other documents,
Defendant's Exhibit 72 and 73, and ask you if you can identify those.
A. No.
I don't remember these.
Q. You don't know whether those were in the
plastic bag or not?
A. No, I don't know.
Q. Okay.
MR. MOORE:
Your Honor, we have two exhibits here, Defendant's Exhibit 72 and 73,
which were removed from Mr. Chapel's car, and Mr. Porter and I have agreed to
stipulate that these were removed from the plastic bag that Technician White
has. And we would tender those at this
time, Defendant's Exhibits 72 and 73.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, that is
correct. We would stipulate that those
documents were removed from the bag recovered by Technician White, and they
were removed to show them to defense counsel, I believe, outside the Gwinnett
County police department on July the 25th of 1995.
THE
COURT: Any objection to Defendant's 72
and 73 being admitted?
MR.
PORTER: No. We have no objection.
THE
COURT: Defendant's 72 and 73 are
admitted without objection.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Technician White, without reading what's in
those, could you identify what Defendant's Exhibit 72 and 73 are?
A. They're incomplete incident reports.
Q. And is that the type of incident report
that's normally filled out by an officer when he goes out on a call?
A. As far as I know it is, yes.
Q. And those, it appears, have never been
filed; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, when you gathered up the papers and
everything out of Officer Chapel's car, did you gather up everything in there?
A. As far as I know I did, yes.
Q. And you placed it either in that plastic
bag, or else some of the items were in a briefcase; is that correct?
A. I didn't see the briefcase.
Q. You never did see the briefcase?
A. No.
Q. It had already been removed at the time you
---
A. Yes.
Q. Did you gather any other items up? I believe you removed the seat, you
testified earlier; is that correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you gather up any other items to be sent
to the crime lab?
A. From -- from Unit 197?
Q. Yes, ma'am.
A. Just the seat and the arm rest.
Q. That's the only thing you gathered and sent
to the crime lab?
A. That's correct.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 76 and ask you if you've ever seen that item before.
A. I don't remember it.
Q. Would you have any knowledge as to how it
got into a briefcase in the car?
A. No.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit 102 and ask if you can identify that. There's a tag on the side there.
A. This is the pursuit pack that I took out of
Officer Chapel's car.
Q. And tell the jury what is a pursuit
pack? What's it for?
A. It's for holding papers and forms. It fits over the seat and you can keep blank
forms and ticket books and that sort of thing in it.
Q. Could you come down and show the jury how it
fits over the seat?
A. [Witness complies]
Q. Is that the way it was in Officer Chapel's
car in Unit 197 when you retrieved it?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And did it contain anything at that time
when you went into his car?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was in it?
A. Papers, ticket books, ink pens, just
miscellaneous personal items.
Q. And you did the Luminol of the car; is that
correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay.
Did you Luminol the pursuit pack or any of the things there?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. So none of that was checked or sent to
the crime lab? A. No.
Q. Okay.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, at this time I
tender Defendant's Exhibit 102.
MR.
PORTER: No objection, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Defendant's 102 admitted without
objection.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you Defendant's Exhibit
Number 103 and ask you if you can identify this.
A. It looks familiar to me. I believe I got it from Unit 197.
Q. Technician White, I'm going to show you a
couple of property records and let you look at it and see if they refresh your
memory regarding --
A. Yes.
I listed a plastic figurine on the property sheet.
Q. And do you remember where you removed that
from in the car?
A. No, I'm sorry, I don't.
Q. Was it up on the dash of the car?
A. I don't remember. I don't remember if it was sitting on the dash or not.
Q. If you look at it on the bottom it's got a
Velcro type strip here where it sticks onto something?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. And you don't recall that sitting up on the
dash of the car?
MR. PORTER:
Your Honor, he's leading the witness.
It's his witness.
THE
COURT: [No response]
BY
MR. MOORE:
A. [Continuing] I'm sorry. I don't
remember where it came from out of the car.
Q. Okay.
But you did take that out of Officer Chapel's car?
A. Yes.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, at this time we'd
tender Defendant's Exhibit 103.
THE
COURT: Any objection?
MR.
PORTER: No, your Honor.
THE
COURT: Defendant's 103 is admitted
without objection.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you Defendant's Exhibit
Number 104 and ask you if you can recognize that.
A. Yes. I listed a shoulder holster that was made out of cloth on my
property sheets.
Q. Okay.
And did you remove that from Officer Chapel's car?
A. Yes.
MR.
MOORE: At this time, Your Honor, we'd
tender D-104.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, at this time we
would object. There's been no -- the
only evidence is that it's been removed from the patrol car. There's been nothing to connect it to this
defendant in terms of ownership.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, if it's removed from
this patrol car by this technician, there's a presumption that things that are
in the vehicle in Georgia belong to the person in possession of that vehicle,
and we would contend that it should be admitted.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, that only applies
to the owner of the vehicle. It does
not apply to someone who has a vehicle assigned, particularly in the case of a
police officer who may have evidence, who may have items that belong to someone
else. I don't think a patrol car fits
under that exception of the ownership presumption.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we'd just tender it
to the Court.
THE
COURT: Defendant's 104 is admitted over
objection.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Now, Technician White, did you remove a gun
belt like that from Officer Chapel's car?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay.
Was that gun belt sent for any testing or anything?
A. No.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 105 and ask you if you can identify that.
A. Yes.
I believe that's the Living Bible that I removed from Officer Chapel's
car.
Q. And was that removed on the date -- the same
date as the other items in 1993?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And do you know where in the car that was
removed from?
A. No, I'm sorry, I don't.
Q. But you did remove that from his car?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm going to show you Defendant's Number 106
and ask if you can identify that.
A. Yes.
I listed a pair of -- let me find it -- leather and mesh fingerless
gloves that was -- that I removed from Officer Chapel --
Q. Did you remove those from Unit 197, Officer
Chapel's car, in 1993?
A. Yes, I did.
MR. MOORE:
Your Honor, at this time we'd tender Defendant's Exhibit 105 and 106.
THE COURT:
Would you approach the bench, please?
[Counsel
approached the bench, and a conference was held, as follows.]
THE
COURT: Let me ask, insofar as the
contents of the car, I'm not anxious to refuse things that may have some
relevance. I guess my question is, is
the fact that everything that came out of that car, including the lint from the
glove compartment or something, does the fact that it's in the car make it
admissible?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we believe that
particularly the gloves and everything are going to be relevant. There's going to be other testimony
regarding those at a later time.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I think there's two
questions, particularly about 106, the Bible.
We've already had a discussion about the Bible and the access of jurors
to Bibles, and the defense is putting in a Bible. We'd argue that it's not relevant.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I'm not contending
the Bible should go out to the jury.
I'm not asking it go out, just the fact that it was in his vehicle. They've gone into the contents of the
vehicle in detail.
MR.
PORTER: In relevant -- for the relevant
portions of testimony.
THE
COURT: Well, that's my question, I
guess. The fact that it's in the
vehicle, it seems to me -- it sure makes me inclined to liberally construe
what's relevant if it comes out of the vehicle. But I think the simple fact that anything comes out of the -- out
of the vehicle doesn't in and of itself mean it ought to be admitted into
evidence.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, they selectively
tested certain things in the vehicle and didn't test other things, and I think
we have a right to show what they didn't test as well as what they did. I mean the state showed what they did test.
MS.
ROGAN: Yeah. I mean their allegation is that there was blood inside the
car. I think we're entitled to show the
number of other things that were inside the car that don't have blood on them.
THE
COURT: What other items are we going to
be looking at?
MS.
ROGAN: How many, did you say?
THE
COURT: What other items are we going to
be looking at out of the car?
MS.
ROGAN: Well, there's quite a list. There was a lot of stuff in that car.
MR.
PORTER: Well, Your Honor, there's been
no testimony regarding the location of those items and their relevancy as to
the testing. Maybe the pursuit pack. But they haven't said where the gloves
were. If it was in the glove
compartment, what relevance is it that it wasn't tested? If it was in the trunk, what relevance is it
that it wasn't tested?
THE
COURT: Well, that's my question.
MR.
PORTER: I mean particularly --
MS.
ROGAN: We think there is some
relevance.
MR.
PORTER: Well, I understand they think
that, but they haven't shown it.
THE
COURT: Well, I think my inclination is
let's go ahead and identify them, where they came from, and then when you have
some connection, when there's some relevance demonstrated, then we will rule
whether or not they're coming in or not.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor --
THE
COURT: It seems to me -- it just seems
to me that if we have 500 items that came out of the trunk or out of the wheel
well or out of the glove compartment or anyplace else, just the simple fact
that they're in the car doesn't make them admissible.
MS.
ROGAN: Well, but her testimony, Your
Honor, is that she just removed the stuff from the interior of the car on the
seats. She didn't go into the trunk,
she'd said previously, and I don't believe she ever said she went into the
glove compartment, so that's not even an issue. This is stuff that was on the seats.
THE
COURT: Well, I mean I don't know what's
-- that's what I'm asking. I don't know
where we're going.
MR.
MOORE: Well, Your Honor, I don't know
whether I can ask her whether or not she conducted any tests on them if they're
not in evidence. I mean I'm not going
to be allowed to question her about whether tests were run on them --
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, the state would
object to this parade of stuff in front of the jury if it -- particularly if
it's going to be subsequently ruled out.
I think if we're going to -- if we're going to follow that procedure, we
ought to ask the jury to step out, let Mr. Moore make his proffer with Mary Ann
White --
THE
COURT: Well, on one hand, you know, I
don't want to handcuff the defendant from putting up their case. On the other hand, if it's not relevant and
it's not admissible, then it ought not to be piled up in front of the
jury. So, you know, that's sort of my
quandary.
MR.
MOORE: But, Your Honor, I can't very
well cross-examine the witness about whether they tested it or not unless --
MR.
PORTER: He's not cross-examining this
witness, Your Honor. This is his
witness.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, she's a police
department witness, and we believe we'd have the right -- she's not a friendly
witness to the defense.
MR.
PORTER: I don't think there's been any
--
THE
COURT: At this point she's your
witness. At this point.
MR.
MOORE: I understand.
THE
COURT: What other items are you going
to have her identify? Where are we
going? What other kinds of items are we
talking about?
MS.
ROGAN: Well, she removed probably
thirty items from the patrol car, much of which was returned because the state
didn't think it was relevant to its case.
That doesn't mean we don't think it's relevant to our case. And we have it here in court and we'd like
her to identify the items that are on her inventory sheet that she removed from
the interior of the car.
THE
COURT: Well, the fact that -- the fact
-- maybe he's got the key to his house or his apartment and that was removed
from him or removed from the car and given back to his folks, does that make
that relevant evidence to put here in front of the jury just because they took
it from the car?
MS.
ROGAN: It is, under our theory, if they
didn't test it for blood, and it was in a location in the car that it could
have -- we're going to have other witnesses testify as to where in the car
these things were even though she doesn't remember.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, that only gets --
that only moves further to necessitate the offer of proof outside the presence
of the jury. This is prejudicial,
particularly evidence they can't get in.
The car had to be cleaned up and returned to the fleet.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I don't have any
problem with doing it outside the presence of the jury if the Court wants to,
but we do feel like --
THE
COURT: I think that might be good. Let's just see where we're going and then
just sort of get the lay of the land and lay out some boundaries here, what
we're about to do. And I think maybe
that will -- maybe that will help everybody.
Okay. Let's do that.
[Bench
conference concluded]
THE
COURT: We're going to take up a matter
that won't require the presence of the jury.
Mr. Allen, I'm going to ask you to take the jurors out for a few
minutes. We'll recommence in a moment.
[The
jurors were excused from the courtroom.]
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore, where -- where are we
going with the items in the car?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, the state has put
forth before the jury a theory that blood was -- somehow got into Mr. Chapel's
car as a result of Ms. Thompson being killed.
We intend to show that there were numerous items that were located in
close proximity to the area where they claim the blood was, and we intend to
question witnesses about whether or not any of these items were tested.
The
state's been allowed to put in evidence of tests which they selected a certain
area they wanted to test. We think we're
allowed to put in items in close proximity to show whether or not they tested
those items, whether any tests were conducted on them which might have -- might
have excluded Mr. Chapel or might have shown that -- in fact, we don't know
what it would have shown because we don't believe they tested them, and we
think we have a right to question about that.
And
furthermore, Your Honor, the evidence in this case, certain items, for
instance, the gloves that we had there, we intend to present evidence that Mr.
Chapel wore those all the time, particularly when it was a rainy time, and it
was a rainy night when this occurred, and determine whether or not the state
ever tested those gloves or not, whether or not any tests were ever conducted
on them.
THE
COURT: What other items are we talking
about offered in that vein?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, my proposal would be
we've got a plastic container here of various items, and to save time, my plan
was to have the plastic container marked and then have Technician White see
which, if any, items she could identify, and then we can -- if she can identify
them, then we can discuss whether or not they're admissible. All these were removed from Mr. Chapel's car
when she did the --
THE
COURT: All right. Do you want to go ahead and do that now?
MR.
MOORE: Yes, sir.
DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED - JURY OUT
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Technician White, I'm going to show you
what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit Number 107 and ask you if you would
look through that and see which, if any, items in there you can identify. And if you'd tell us when you find one you
can identify, I'll get it marked, each one, as you -- if there is anything you
can identify in Defendant's Exhibit 107.
A. Okay.
First of all, the box is listed on the property sheet. This -- and I know where this was. It was in the trunk.
Q. So you did remove Defendant's Exhibit Number
107 from Mr. Chapel's car?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you use that as a storage container
to put other items in?
A. Yes, I think I did. I don't see these listed separately. This is the metal clipboard.
Q. Is that something you can identify? If it is, I'll get it marked.
A. Yes.
[Defendant's Exhibit 108 was marked for
identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. The metal clipboard that you just referred
to, that's Defendant's Exhibit Number 108, can you identify that?
A. Yes.
I removed it from Officer Chapel's car. This is the metal ticket book holder. [Presenting]
Q. Now, D-108, that's the metal clipboard. Do you remember where you removed that from
in the car?
A. No, I don't.
Q. You had picked out Defendant's Exhibit --
[Defendant's Exhibit 109 was marked for
identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. You had picked out Defendant's Exhibit 109 as
something you could identify, too.
Could you identify that?
A. Yes.
That's the metal ticket book holder.
THE
COURT: Okay. What number is that, Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: 109, Your Honor.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. And did you remove that from Unit 197, Mr.
Chapel's car, in 1993?
A. Yes, I did.
And here's the $6.31.
[Presenting]
MR. MOORE:
Let me get that marked.
[Defendant's Exhibit 110 was marked for
identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Okay.
Showing you Defendant's Exhibit Number 110 that's been marked now, could
you identify that?
A. Yes.
That's $6.31 that I removed from Officer Chapel's car.
Q. Okay.
Do you remember where you removed that money from?
A. No, I -- I don't remember. I think it was just scattered around. It wasn't all together. This is a book of raffle tickets that I
removed from the vehicle. [Presenting]
Q. Okay.
The book of raffle tickets, Defendant's Exhibit Number 111, could you --
is that the raffle tickets you're referring to?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you remove that from Officer
Chapel's car, Unit 197, in 1993?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay.
We'll get that marked. A.
Yeah, that's a -- that's the TV set I removed.
[Defendant's
Exhibit 112 was marked for identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 112. Is that
the TV set you referred to?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you remove that from Mr. Chapel's
car, Unit 197, in 1993 when you searched it?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And do you remember where Defendant's
Exhibit Number 112, the TV set, was located?
A. I believe it was in the trunk.
Q. It was in the trunk.
A. Let's see.
This is the glasses case that I removed.
[Defendant's Exhibit 113 was marked for
identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Okay.
Now, the glasses case has been marked as Defendant's Exhibit Number
113. Is that the glasses case you're
referring to?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the one you removed from Mr.
Chapel's car, Unit 197, in 1993 when you searched it?
A. Yes.
And here's a box of two cigars.
[Defendant's Exhibit 114 was marked for
identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Okay.
The two cigars you referred to in a box, Defendant's Exhibit Number 114,
is that the same ones you're referring to?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you remove those from Mr. Chapel's
car, Unit 197, when you searched it in 1993?
A. Yes, I did.
This is a cup holder, and I removed it, also.
[Defendant's
Exhibit 115 was marked for identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. The cup holder you referred to, Defendant's
Exhibit Number 115, consists of two pieces; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that the cup holder you removed from
Mr. Chapel's car, Unit 197, in 1993?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was it located? Was it in the car or --
A. I don't recall. I don't -- I don't think it was hanging up. Okay.
Here's two right-hand gloves that I recovered.
[Defendant's Exhibits 116 and 117 were marked
for identification by the court reporter.]
THE COURT:
Is that 116?
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. There's two separate gloves, so I'm going to
show them to you separately.
Defendant's Exhibit Number 116, could you identify that?
A. Yes.
That's one of the gloves that -- one of the right-hand gloves that I
removed.
Q. Okay.
You removed that from Mr. Chapel's car, Unit 197, in 1993 when you
searched it?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Defendant's Exhibit Number 117, would you
look at that, please?
A. Yes.
That's another right-hand glove.
Q. And did you remove that from Mr. Chapel's
car, Unit 197, in 1993 when you searched it?
A. Yes, I did.
[Presenting] Coffee mug that I
found in the car.
[Defendant's Exhibit 118 was marked for
identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Okay.
I'll show you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 118 and ask you
if you could identify that.
A. Yes.
That's the coffee mug that I removed from Officer Chapel's car.
Q. Okay.
And that's when you searched Unit 197 in 1993; is that correct?
A. That's correct. And these are two pairs of sunglasses.
[Defendant's
Exhibits 119 and 120 were marked for identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'll show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 119. Can you
identify that?
A. Yes.
That's a pair of sunglasses that I got out of Officer's Chapel's car.
Q. Okay.
And that was Unit 197 which you searched in 1993?
A. Unit 197, correct.
Q. Defendant's Exhibit Number 120, could you
identify that?
A. That's the other pair of sunglasses that I
got out of Officer Chapel's car.
Q. Okay.
And was that also in 1993 when you searched it?
A. Yes.
There's a clipboard.
[Defendant's
Exhibit 121 was marked for identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I show you Defendant's Exhibit Number
121. Is that the clipboard you referred
to that you removed from Officer Chapel's car in 1993 when you searched it?
A. Yes, it is.
And a Crown Royal bag.
[Defendant's
Exhibit 122 was marked for identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Defendant's Exhibit Number 122, which is a
Crown Royal bag, is that the bag you removed from Officer Chapel's car in 1993
when you searched it?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Do you remember where it was located?
A. No, I don't. I'm sorry. This is the
miscellaneous personal items and papers, and I believe that this may have
fallen out. It has been opened. Looks like a light bulb -- a little -- a
light bulb.
Q. Okay.
Did this --
A. Yeah, I believe they -- I believe they came
out of there. Mr. Moore?
Q. Yes?
A. This may have come out of it, too, because I
don't see it listed separately. It's a
cigarette lighter.
Q. Do you know whether it did or not?
A. No, I don't. The bag's been opened, and I really don't know.
Q. If you don't know then, I won't try to put
it in. Just leave it.
A. Okay.
[Defendant's
Exhibits 123 and 124 were marked for identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 123, which is a plastic bag containing some
things. Could you identify that?
A. This is what I listed as miscellaneous
items, personal items on when I first -- that I got out of Officer Chapel's
car.
Q. Okay.
And that was in 1993 when you searched it; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. I show you Defendant's Exhibit Number 124
and ask if you can identify that.
A. I got this out of the -- Officer Chapel's
car. I believe it came out of here.
Q. You believe that originally was in
Defendant's Exhibit Number 123, the plastic bag?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that's an envelope containing what?
A. It looks like a light bulb, like a flash
light bulb. There's a hand mirror.
[Defendant's
Exhibit 125 was marked for identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Okay.
Showing you Defendant's Exhibit Number 125, what's been marked, is that
the hand mirror you're referring to?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
And did you remove that from Officer Chapel's car in 1993 when you
searched it?
A. Yes, I did.
A package of soup.
[Defendant's
Exhibit 126 was marked for identification by the court reporter.]
THE
COURT: Do we have a 124?
MR.
MOORE: That was 124, Your Honor, the
envelope containing a light bulb.
THE
COURT: What was 123?
MR.
MOORE: 123 was a plastic bag of
miscellaneous papers, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Okay. You marked the white bag separately as 124 [sic]?
MR.
MOORE: Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
MOORE: Yes, sir.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Showing you Defendant's Exhibit 126, is that
the package of soup that you just referred to?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And was that removed from Officer Chapel's
car when you searched it in 1993?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And is that all the items that you --
A. I found two packs of gum. I don't see them listed. And these are not listed, I don't believe,
on either one of these sheets, but I remember listing them. There's probably another sheet.
Q. I'm going to give you another property
sheet. That will perhaps refresh your
memory. And let you look at it before
you --
A. Here's the two packages of gum.
[Defendant's Exhibits 127 and 128 were marked
for identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Defendant's Exhibit Number 127, is that one
of the packages of gum that you're referring to?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. Is that -- did you remove that from Officer
Chapel's car in 1993 when you searched it?
A. Yes.
Q. And Defendant's Exhibit Number 128, that's
another package of chewing gum. Did you
remove that from Officer Chapel's car in 1993 when you searched it?
A. Yes, I did.
Apparently I miscounted these. I
listed ten brown envelopes, and now I'm counting eleven.
Q. So the brown --
A. They're -- right.
[Defendant's
Exhibit 129 was marked for identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to hand you what's marked as
Defendant's Exhibit 129, which is a group of brown manila envelopes. And I've added a paper clip here, which is
not on there, to hold them together.
But other than the paper clip, can you identify those?
A. Yes.
I believe these are the envelopes that I removed from Officer Chapel's
car.
Q. Okay.
Were they removed in 1993 when you searched the vehicle?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. Is that everything you can identify,
Technician White?
A. Yes.
THE
COURT: Are these items that were
retained by the state after the taking of these items that were returned over
to the defendant? Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: I'm sorry, Your Honor?
THE
COURT: Were these items given back to
the defendant or --
MR.
MOORE: They were returned to the
defendant, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Okay. These have not been in the custody of the police department since
his arrest or at least shortly after?
MR.
MOORE: They were in the custody of the
police department up until the time of the hearings and the search warrant, and
at that time a number of items were returned to the family.
THE
COURT: All right.
MR.
MOORE: The state, at that time, decided
they were not going to use the items so they were returned.
THE
COURT: That includes all of these that
we're in the process of marking now?
MR.
MOORE: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Okay. All right. Go ahead,
please.
[Defendant's
Exhibit 130 was marked for identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 130 and ask if you can identify that.
A. This is an evidence tag that I filled out.
Q. Okay.
Do you know what that was used for?
A. I believe it was tied to the box.
Q. Okay.
You pointed to Defendant's Exhibit 107, which is a plastic box. Was that tied to the box?
A. Yes, I believe it was.
Q. Okay.
And was that attached when you searched the car in 1993?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Technician White, why did you remove
all those items that we've talked about, from D-107 up through D-129, all these
items spread out in front of you? Why
did you remove those from Mr. Chapel's car?
A. Because they were -- most of them were
personal property.
Q. Okay.
Were you looking for anything that might be evidence?
A. No.
Q. What were your instructions when you
searched the car?
A. To search for a car wash receipt and do
presumptive blood tests.
Q. And were your instructions to -- did you
have any instructions about what to seize or what not to seize?
A. No.
Q. Nobody gave you any instructions?
A. No.
Q. Then tell us why you decided to take these
items in?
A. Because they were personal property, and I
was just getting the rest of the stuff out of the car.
Q. Did anyone discuss with you whether or not
to have any of these items tested?
A. No.
Q. And did you make a list of these and make it
available for the investigating officers in the case?
A. Yes.
Q. And that would have been -- who did you turn
that over to?
A. Well, actually, when I turn in the property
sheets, these, they make copies. I mean
they're -- sorry. I can't think of the
word. It's this kind of paper that
makes copies. And they get a copy back
from the property room.
Q. Do you know whether or not any tests were
conducted on any of the items, D-107 through D-129?
A. No.
Q. Particularly with respect to D-106, which
are gloves, were any tests conducted on those, to your knowledge?
A. No.
Q. And did you at any time use the chemical
Luminol on any of those items in front of you there --
A. No.
Q. -- D-106 through D-129?
A. No.
THE
COURT: What is 107, Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: I thought it was, too, Your
Honor, but the gloves apparently had been marked before the box, and D-106 is
the gloves.
THE
COURT: But 107 is the box?
MR.
MOORE: It's the box.
THE
COURT: Okay. I just did not know.
MR.
MOORE: I didn't realize the gloves had
been marked earlier, but the other items did come out of the box.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Did you perform any other kind of chemical
test on any of the items D-106 through D-129?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did anyone request that you perform any
tests on them?
A. No.
THE
COURT: Were all these items taken from
the -- where in the car were these items removed?
THE
WITNESS: Some of them were in the
trunk, and some were in the pursuit pack in the front seat.
THE
COURT: Do you know which was taken from
the trunk and which from the seat?
THE
WITNESS: No, sir. I know that this was in the trunk and the
coffee mug and the TV set.
THE
COURT: All right, that's fine. Go ahead, Mr. Moore.
THE
WITNESS: I'm sorry.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Now, when you first observed Mr. Chapel's
car, did you have to remove a number of items that are in front of you from the
seat before you could test it with Luminol?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
Do you remember which items you removed from the seat?
A. Well, of course I removed the pursuit pack
and all the papers that were in it. I
don't remember everything that was in the front seat.
Q. Was the front seat neat and clean or was it
cluttered or what did it look like when you got the car?
A. It was -- I mean it had some papers in it,
but it wasn't -- it wasn't extremely cluttered.
MR.
MOORE: That's all we have at this time,
your Honor.
THE
COURT: Mr. Porter?
CROSS EXAMINATION - JURY OUT
BY
MR. PORTER:
Q. Mary Ann, I just want to ask you some
questions to complete the record. In
regard to the gloves which have been labeled State's Exhibit Number 107 -- 106,
do you recall where in the car you found those?
A. No, I don't.
Q. And going to the Bible, which is 105, do you
recall where in the car you found that?
A. No, I don't.
Q. What about the shoulder holster, which is
D-104; do you remember? That's that cloth
shoulder holster.
A. No.
I'm sorry, I don't.
Q. All right.
You've already talked about 107, which is the box that was in the trunk;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the metal clipboard which is D-108, you
indicated you don't recall where that was found?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Now, what about 109, which is the metal
ticket book?
A. I don't recall.
Q. All right.
You've already said that the money was scattered throughout the car; is
that correct?
A. The change was, yes.
Q. Do you remember where the five dollar bill
was?
A. No.
Q. What about the raffle tickets, which are
D-111?
A. No.
Q. You've already said the portable TV was in
the trunk in the box; right?
A. I don't recall if it was in the -- in the
box, but it was in the trunk.
Q. What about the glasses case, which are
D-113?
A. I don't recall for sure.
Q. And what about the box with the two cigars?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Now, you also said there were two
right-handed gloves that you found, there on the sunglasses. Do you remember where those were?
A. No.
Q. You said D-118, which was the coffee mug,
was in the trunk; is that correct?
A. It was in the trunk in the box.
Q. The two pairs of sunglasses, which are 119
and 120, do you recall where they were?
A. No.
Q. Defendant's Exhibit 121, which is the
clipboard, the fiberboard clipboard, the brown clipboard, right --
A. I know it's here. Oh, yes.
Q. Do you recall where that was?
A. No, I don't.
Q. You've already testified you don't recall
where the Crown Royal bag came from; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. What about the miscellaneous papers and
items that are contained in the plastic bag in D-123 and 124?
A. I don't recall. I just --
Q. You said there was a hand mirror, which was
Defendant's Exhibit 125.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember where that was?
A. No.
Q. What about the soup packet?
A. No.
Q. And what about the envelopes, which are D --
what did we mark all those envelopes -- D-129?
I'm sorry.
A. No, I don't remember.
Q. What about the two packs of gum, which are
27 and 28?
A. No, I don't remember.
Q. And you say that the evidence tag, which is
D-130, was tied to the box. Was that
tied after you conducted your search?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I'd also like to ask you on these
items, you Luminoled the entire vehicle; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you find any evidence of blood other
than the indications which have been marked here on the car seat which you've
previously identified?
A. No.
Q. Did you find any indications or splatter
anywhere around on the seat?
A. No.
Q. Would that have shown up with Luminol?
A. It should have, yes.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, that's all the
state would have.
THE
COURT: All right. Mr. Moore, what's your argument at this
point, and what do you want to say with respect to --
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, two points. There's some Polaroid photographs -- let me
ask her first where I think they are, if I could.
THE
COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION - JURY OUT
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Technician White, were Polaroid photographs
taken of all the items in the car before they were removed?
A. No.
There were some photographs taken, but I believe I had removed most of
the personal items.
MR.
MOORE: Mr. Porter, do you have those
Polaroids that were taken?
MR.
PORTER: They're down in my office, Mr.
Moore. It will take a minute to get
them.
THE
COURT: Let me ask, Mr. Moore, what do
you propose to do with these exhibits or -- does this -- are these the exhibits
that you want to offer in?
MR.
MOORE: These exhibits, Your Honor, we
would offer them for the purpose of showing that the police did not do a
thorough investigation, that they did not test these other items, that they
tested certain items and did not test others, and there was no reason to test
one item and not test another item. They
just arbitrarily chose certain items and tested them, and did not test other
items that were equally relevant.
THE
COURT: Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, we argue on two
points. Number one, this witness cannot
bring -- this witness cannot bring those items in. She has no recollection of where the items were; so, therefore,
their argument about whether or not it's relevant can't be supported by this
witness.
Second
of all, the state, through the questioning of Mary Ann White, if the defense
theory was true, there would have been indications of blood spatter somewhere
else on the seat, and it would have shown up on the Luminol, which would have
then made those items relevant. The
only evidence of blood that we have is the one small spot in the entire
vehicle, the one small spot on the armrest.
THE
COURT: All right. Well, I --
MR.
PORTER: And, Your Honor, that goes
particularly for the items that were in the trunk.
THE
COURT: Well, I believe they may have
some -- I think they may have at least some -- may provide some benefit to the
jury, and I think they're at least collaterally relevant, and I'm going to
allow them in if you can lay the foundation to put them in. So I'll allow --
MR.
PORTER: But, Your Honor --
THE
COURT: -- at least I'll allow that line
of inquiry.
MR.
PORTER: Is this witness sufficient to
lay that foundation?
THE
COURT: Well, she said she got them
either from the inside or the trunk, one or the other, and I think that's -- I
think that's a matter for the jury to take up what that's worth to them, if
anything. So I'm going to allow you to
inquire into it, and you can offer them, and we'll hear any objection at that
point.
Anything
else, Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I would like to have
a look at those photographs that Mr. Porter sent for.
THE
COURT: Well, is that matter you're
entitled to them? Does Mr. Porter have
any objection to producing them?
MR.
PORTER: No. I have to look at the photographs. I don't know which one he's referring to.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: I have original Polaroid
photographs. The witness has
testified. I can't make my objection
until I see what he wants to do.
THE
COURT: Well, I'm inclined at this
point, let's proceed on. Let's take
about five minutes, take a short recess, and we'll bring the jury back and you
can proceed on with the line of inquiry that you want to, Mr. Moore.
MR.
MOORE: Thank you, Your Honor.
[Break
taken]
MR.
MOORE: Mr. Moore, we have -- this is a
witness who has testified before. Are
you going to be calling other witnesses that have already been to the stand?
MR.
MOORE: There's going to be a couple of
them, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Okay. Do you want to re-swear them or not? I don't really care. I
don't think it makes any difference.
MR.
MOORE: I don't think it makes any
difference either, Your Honor. I just
didn't know how the Court wanted me to proceed. We had somebody re-sworn the other day, so I didn't know if you
--
THE
COURT: Yes. It makes no difference to me.
If you want to re-swear them, that's fine. All right. Are you ready?
MR.
MOORE: Yes, Your Honor. Let me get these marked.
[Defendant's
Exhibits 131, 132, 133 and 134 were
marked for identification by the court reporter.]
THE
COURT: All right. Bring the jury back.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, does the Court want
me to elicit the foundation testimony again in front of the jury or do you want
me to just go ahead and --
THE
COURT: Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: I'm sorry, Your Honor?
MR.
MOORE: My question was do you want me
to elicit the foundation testimony again in front of the jury or just go into
the items that she found in the car?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, we object to the
foundation. We think the foundation's
been laid, but we -- given the Court's ruling, I don't think it's going to be
necessary to go into the foundation for those items.
THE
COURT: All right. I think if he repeats those questions and he
offers them, they're coming in.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, you've already made
your ruling and the state has -- I except to that ruling, but I can -- I live
with it.
THE
COURT: All right. What exhibit numbers are those photographs
going to be, Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: D-131, 132, 133 and 134, Your
Honor.
THE
COURT: All right. Thank you.
[The
jurors were escorted to the courtroom.]
THE
COURT: Proceed when you're ready, Mr.
Moore.
DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED - JURY IN
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Now, Technician White, have you had occasion
-- did you have occasion to search Unit 197, Mike Chapel's car, in 1993?
A. I inventoried it.
Q. You inventoried the vehicle?
A. Yes.
Q. And in the course of that inventory, did you
take possession of certain items?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Looking at Defendant's Exhibit 107 which is
a plastic container --
A. Yes.
Q. -- did you use Defendant's Exhibit 107 to
store those items in?
A. Yes, I did.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we'd tender
Defendant's Exhibit Number 107.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore -- or Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, the Court's already
ruled on that over our objection.
THE
COURT: It's admitted.
MR.
MOORE: Has 106 already been admitted,
your Honor?
THE
COURT: No, sir.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you Defendant's Exhibit
Number 106 and ask if you can identify those.
A. It's a pair of fingerless gloves.
Q. And where did those gloves come from?
A. Inside Unit 197.
Q. And was that in 1993 when you took
possession of those?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And did you take possession of this property
all on the same day?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And do you know approximately what day or
month that was?
A. It was 4/29/93.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we would tender
Defendant's Exhibit 106.
THE
COURT: Same objection, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, we stated our
position as to all these items.
THE
COURT: All right. Do you want to -- we'll go ahead. Defendant's 106 is admitted.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm showing you Defendant's Exhibit Number
105 and ask if you can identify that item.
A. Yes.
It's a Living Bible that I removed from Unit 197.
Q. Okay.
And this was on the same date when you retrieved all the other items in
1993?
A. That's correct.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we'd tender
Defendant's Exhibit Number 105, for the record. We understand it will not go out to the jury.
THE
COURT: All right. Mr. Porter, anything you wish to add?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: It's admitted.
MR.
MOORE: I believe Defendant's Exhibit
Number 103 was previously admitted; is that correct, Your Honor?
MR.
PORTER: That's correct, Your
Honor. It's been admitted without
objection.
THE
COURT: And 103 is in.
MR.
MOORE: And Defendant's Exhibit Number
104, which is the gun belt and everything, we would tender that if it hasn't
been previously admitted, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: It's been admitted.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit 109 and ask if you can identify that.
A. Yes.
This is the metal ticket book holder that I removed from Unit 197.
Q. Okay.
And that was in April of 1993?
A. Yes, it was.
MR.
MOORE: We'd tender Defendant's Exhibit
109, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Anything else, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: It's admitted.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 110 and ask if you can identify that.
A. This is $6.31 that I removed from Unit 197.
Q. And was that in April of 1993 that you
removed that from Officer Chapel's car?
A. Yes, it was.
MR.
MOORE: We'd tender Defendant's Exhibit
Number 110, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Anything you wish to add, Mr.
Porter?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: 110 ten is admitted.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I show you Defendant's Exhibit Number 111
and ask if you can identify that.
A. This is a book of raffle tickets that I
removed from Unit 197.
Q. Was that in April of 1993 that you removed
that?
A. Yes, it was.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we tender
Defendant's Exhibit Number 111.
THE
COURT: Anything else from the state?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: 111 is admitted.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to ask you to look at Defendant's
Exhibit Number 112 and ask if you can identify that.
A. That's the Bentley TV set that I removed
from Unit 197.
Q. Okay.
And was that in April of 1993 that you removed that?
A. Yes, it was.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we'd tender
Defendant's Exhibit 112.
THE
COURT: Anything else from the state?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: 112 is admitted.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 113 and ask if you can identify that.
A. This is the glasses case that I removed from
Unit 197.
Q. Okay.
And was that in April of 1993 when you removed that April 29th?
A. Yes, it was.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we'd tender
Defendant's Exhibit 113.
THE
COURT: Anything else from the state?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: 113 is admitted.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you Defendant's Exhibit
Number 114 and ask if you can identify that.
A. It's a box containing two cigars.
Q. Okay.
And where did you get that from?
A. Unit 197.
Q. And was that in April of 1993 that you took
possession of it?
A. Yes.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we'd tender
Defendant's Exhibit 114.
THE
COURT: Anything else from the state?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: 114 is admitted.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you Defendant's Exhibit
Number 115, which consists of two pieces.
Can you identify that?
A. It's a cup holder for a vehicle.
Q. Okay.
And where did that come from?
A. Unit 197.
Q. Was that in April of 1993 that you took
possession of it?
A. Yes.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we'd tender
Defendant's Exhibit 115.
THE
COURT: Anything else from the state?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: 115 is admitted.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you Defendant's Exhibit
116 and ask if you can identify that.
A. Yes, it's a right-handed glove.
Q. Okay.
And where did that come from?
A. Unit 197.
Q. And was that in April 1993 that you removed
that?
A. Yes, it was.
MR.
MOORE: Okay. We'd tender Defendant's Exhibit 116, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Anything else from the state?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: 116 is admitted. Would you approach the bench, please?
[Counsel
approached the bench, and the following conference ensued.]
THE
COURT: With these all coming in, if you
want to --
MR.
MOORE: Do them collectively.
THE
COURT: -- zip through them and, you
know, lump them together as coming from the car. And you're not going to -- aside from that you're not going to
discuss them with her anyway, are you?
MR.
MOORE: Just that they didn't test them
or anything.
THE
COURT: Just that that came from --
MR.
MOORE: The car, and as far as she knows
they didn't test them.
THE
COURT: As far as putting them in, if
you want to lump them together, I don't have a problem. Mr. Porter, do you have a problem?
MR.
PORTER: I don't have a problem, Your
Honor. As a matter of fact, I think
it's somewhat prejudicial to go through them one at a time and make me have a
statement that I object to them.
MS.
ROGAN: Uh-huh.
THE
COURT: Yeah. If you want to offer them together and put them in --
MR.
MOORE: I'll put them together.
THE
COURT: It'll just help expedite things,
it seems to me.
MR.
MOORE: Okay.
[Bench
conference concluded]
THE
COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Moore.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Technician White, you've had a chance to
examine all these items that are exhibited here in front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
And you've identified each of these items. I believe we have D-108, D-117, D-129, D-122, D-127, D-126,
D-124, D-123, D-125, D-121 and D-128.
Have you had a chance to examine all --
A. [Indicating]
Q. Excuse me.
You're right. Also, D-119 and
D-118 and Defendant's Exhibit Number 130.
Have you had a chance to examine each of those items?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And did you remove each of those items from
Officer Chapel's car in 1993 when you searched it?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we would tender
those items I just went through at this time.
THE
COURT: I believe that's Defendant's 107
through -- sequentially through D-130.
MR.
MOORE: I believe that's correct, Your
Honor. Some of them may have already
been admitted, but that's the -- they're included.
THE
COURT: I believe those are the ones
that have not been admitted yet.
All
right. Anything else from the state?
MR.
PORTER: No, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Defendant's 107 through 130 are
admitted.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Now, Technician White, those items that you
just examined, D-107 through D-130, which are in the blue plastic container,
were any tests run on any of those items, to your knowledge?
A. No.
Q. Were you requested to perform any sort of chemical
tests, Luminol or anything like that, on any of those items?
A. No.
Q. I'm going to show you three photographs,
Defendant's Exhibit Number 131, Defendant's Exhibit Number 133 and 134, and ask
if you can identify any of those. If
you can identify them, identify them by number.
A. There's four.
Q. Was it four? I'm sorry.
A. Yeah.
Two of them were stuck together.
Q. What was the number on the other one?
A. Sorry, I didn't hear your numbers. It's 131 through 134.
Q. Defendant's Exhibits 131 through 134. Would you examine those and see if you can
identify any of them?
A. I didn't take any of these pictures, and
they don't have the unit number written on them.
Q. So your testimony is you can't identify
them; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I believe we've
previously tendered Defendant's Exhibit 101, which is a bag of miscellaneous
papers.
THE
COURT: I show it as being identified in
some manner, but I don't show it being offered or admitted.
MR.
MOORE: We would offer it.
THE
COURT: And I'm not sure -- I'm not sure
it was identified by the witness.
MR.
MOORE: I'll ask her again.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Defendant's Exhibit 101, could you identify
that for us, Technician White?
A. These are miscellaneous papers that I removed
from Unit 197. This is my handwriting
on the back.
Q. Did you remove those in April 29th of 1993?
A. Yes.
Q. And how do you know that?
A. Because that was the night that I did
everything to his car.
Q. But is there anything on that exhibit that
allows you to identify it? Is there any
markings or anything you've placed on it?
A. No.
I mean I have the date on here that I put it into the property room, and
I have the case number, and I have where I collected it from.
Q. Okay.
Is that how you identify the writing on it?
A. Yes.
MR.
MOORE: We would tender Defendant's
Exhibit 101 at this time, Your Honor.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, the agreement of
the state in the stipulation was that those were authentic documents, but I
have not reviewed each individual document.
There are blank reports, there are blank pieces of paper, there are pay
stubs from the defendant, there's any number of miscellaneous personal papers
which may --
THE
COURT: Issue of relevance, is that what
you're saying?
MR.
PORTER: There's an issue of relevance,
and there's a significant issue of hearsay in regard to the contents of the
documents.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, if any individual
documents are going to be gone into and have testimony about them or going out
with the jury, I will state to the Court I will take them out and have them
individually marked and allow the Court to make a ruling at that time whether
or not the individual documents --
THE
COURT: Okay. You're offering -- you're offering Defendant's 101 at this point
for the record only?
MR.
MOORE: Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: Well, Your Honor, even for the
record, I have no objection with the procedure described by Mr. Moore that the
documents themselves -- and I've stipulated that it is authentic, but I don't
think it needs to be admitted. It can
be drawn from as long as it's been properly identified.
THE
COURT: I'm inclined to agree, Mr.
Moore. It's refused at this point.
MR.
MOORE: Okay. No further questions of this witness, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY
MR. PORTER:
Q. Ms. White, I want to talk about some of the
items that were removed from the vehicle, and I'm going to refer to them by the
same defendant's exhibit numbers. When
we talk about the pursuit pack, you've already stated that it fits on the car
seat like that, and is that where you removed it from?
A. Yes.
Q. The doll or the figurine?
A. Yes.
Q. You don't recall where you removed that
from, do you?
A. No.
Q. And the shoulder holster, do you remember where
you took that from?
A. No.
No.
Q. What about the Bible? Do you remember where that was from?
A. No.
Q. And the mesh gloves, do you remember where
that was from?
A. No.
Q. So they could have been anywhere in the car?
A. That's right.
Q. And I believe you testified outside the
presence of the jury that the box itself, the blue box, came out of the trunk;
is that right?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. And what about the big metal clipboard? Do you know where that came from?
A. No.
Q. And the metal ticket book?
A. No.
Q. What about the $6.30 in the -- with the five
dollar bill and various change?
A. No.
Q. You also described Defendant's Exhibit
Number 111 as the raffle tickets. Do
you know where that came from in the car?
A. No.
Q. And 112, which is the portable TV, I believe
you said that came from the trunk; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the glasses case, D-113, do you know
where that came from?
A. No.
Q. And the box with the two cigars, do you
remember where that came from?
A. No.
Q. The -- let me just list them out. The cup holder, do you remember where that
came from?
A. No.
Q. The two right-handed gloves?
A. No.
Q. The coffee mug?
A. It was in the trunk.
Q. Do you remember the two pairs of sunglasses,
where they came from?
A. No.
Q. The clipboard?
A. No.
Q. The Crown Royal bag?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember where the miscellaneous
items and papers that were contained in the plastic bag were from?
A. No.
Q. What about the hand mirror?
A. No.
Q. And what about the packet of soup?
A. No.
Q. What about the two packages of gum?
A. No.
Q. And the brown envelope, do you remember
where that came from?
A. No.
Q. And then D-130 was an evidence tag that you
tied to the box once you collected all this stuff up; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, let me ask you, you testified earlier
that you Luminoled the entire vehicle of the car -- the entire interior of the
vehicle; is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. And the only spot that indicated blood was
right here; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Was there any blood anywhere indicated by
the Luminol test anywhere else on the seat?
A. There was a glowing on the back, just
adjacent to the armrest.
Q. Right here?
A. Yes, coming down, and then on the armrest.
Q. All right.
So it was right here?
A. Right.
Q. Okay.
Now, when you do a Luminol test, do you begin with the lowest level of
the substance and then work your way through whatever may have been piled on
it, or do you just do it as it is?
A. [No response]
Q. Well, let me rephrase my question. Was there anything about -- was there
anything about or there wasn't anything about what you saw in the results of
your Luminol that would have indicated that any blood got on anything that
you've testified to here today, was there?
A. No.
Q. And if there had been anything that
indicated that blood had gotten anywhere else in that patrol car, you would
have Luminoled it, wouldn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. So all of this stuff that was taken out of
the car, was it in police custody when you took it?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was taken the same night you did the
Luminol; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if you had done the Luminol and said,
'Gee, it looks like there's the outline of a clipboard here,' wouldn't you have
thought maybe some of the blood went on the clipboard?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. And wouldn't you have Luminoled the
clipboard if you had seen what I just described?
A. Yes.
Q. So -- and you didn't do any of that, did
you?
A. No.
Q. Now, all of this stuff was eventually
returned to the defendant, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's been in his custody?
A. That's correct.
Q. And do you have any idea -- can you look at
it and see if there's any indication of any scientific tests that have been
done on it? Does it look like it's been
sprayed with Luminol, based on your examination?
A. No.
Q. Now, you can buy Luminol almost anywhere,
can't you, from the proper chemical houses?
A. Yes.
Q. It's not a secret chemical that's hidden
away, is it?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. And, as a matter of fact, the Gwinnett
County police buy it in big barrels, don't they?
A. Well, we buy it in bottles.
Q. Yes.
So it's not hard to find?
A. No.
MR.
PORTER: Thank you. That's all the questions I have.
THE
COURT: Redirect?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Yes, ma'am.
Technician White, Mr. Porter asked you about did you see any blood
anywhere. Did you see any blood
anywhere in that vehicle when you first went and looked at it?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Wasn't that the reason for using the
Luminol?
A. Yes.
Q. Because you can't see blood a lot of times;
it's not visible?
A. Right.
[Defendant's Exhibits 135 and 136 were marked
for identification by the court reporter.]
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 135 and 136 and ask if you can identify those.
A. This is a photograph of --
Q. Would you identify it by number so we know
which one you're talking about?
A. Oh, I'm sorry. Defendant's Number 136 is a photograph of the pursuit pack, and
135 is a photograph of the inside of the trunk.
Q. And do you know who took those photographs?
A. I did.
Q. And are both those photographs, Number 135
and 136, are they a true and accurate representation of the scene that they
depict?
A. Yes.
The pursuit pack had been removed from the vehicle.
Q. And were those taken in December -- I mean,
excuse me, in April of 1993?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. Was that at the time that you conducted the
search where you removed all these other items?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Porter asked if you'd Luminoled the
entire car, and I don't recall, did you Luminol the trunk?
A. No.
Q. Did you Luminol the back seat of the car?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Okay.
And did you Luminol the pursuit pack, which was on the seat right beside
where you did find blood?
A. No.
MR.
MOORE: I would tender Defendant's
Exhibits 136 and 135, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: No objection, Your Honor. The foundation's been laid.
THE
COURT: Defendant's 135 and 136 admitted
without objection. Go ahead, please.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you Defendant's Exhibit
Number 135 again. That's a photograph
of the trunk of the car?
A. Yes.
Q. And it shows the container, the blue
container. It's that plastic container
that's here on the floor of the courtroom, isn't it?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Okay.
Had the TV set already been removed at that point or do you know?
A. I don't believe it had. It doesn't show the entire trunk. I don't remember. I don't think it was in this box. I think it was laying on the floor of the trunk, if I recall
correctly. I'm not --
Q. Okay.
I'm going to show you D-136 and ask -- that's the photograph that you
identified as being the pursuit pack?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the same pursuit pack that's here in
the courtroom?
A. It appears to be, yes.
Q. And does it have anything additional that
this one doesn't have?
A. It looks like it has a billy club.
Q. A billy club or a night stick?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the night stick that was in that
photograph, was it with the pursuit pack when you photographed it?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
And was it tested in any way, the night stick?
A. No.
Q. Does the night stick that's in the pursuit
pack, did you put that on the inventory sheets anywhere?
A. It's not listed on these. These are only the personal items.
MR.
MOORE: No further questions, Your
Honor.
THE
COURT: Recross?
MR.
PORTER: I have no other questions for
Technician White, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: You can come down. Call your next witness, please.
[The
witness stepped down from the stand.]
MR.
MOORE: We'd call Sergeant D. E. Stone.
THE
COURT: Sergeant Stone, if you'll take
the stand up here. Mr. Moore, if you'll
readminister the oath.
[The
witness stepped to the stand.]
MR.
MOORE: If you'll hold up your right
hand, please. Do you solemnly swear the
testimony you're about to give in this case will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE
WITNESS: I do.
Whereupon,
having
been recalled as a witness and duly sworn, was further
examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. State your name, please.
A. Donald E. Stone.
Q. Okay.
Sergeant Stone, how long have you been a Gwinnett County police officer?
A. Twenty-one years.
Q. And how long have you worked in the Buford
area or Buford precinct, the northside precinct it is now?
A. Approximately eighteen years.
Q. Now, during the eighteen years that you've
been a police officer, how long have you -- are you Mike Chapel's -- were you
Mike Chapel's supervisor?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
And how long were you his supervisor?
A. The majority of the time he's been
here. He worked at other precincts when
he first arrived, went through the academy, made his rounds through the other
precincts, then transferred to Buford, and since he's in Buford I was his
supervisor most of the time there.
Q. And did you get to know Mike Chapel?
A. Yes.
Q. And how well did you get to know him?
A. I was good friends with him, yes.
Q. Now, during the time that he worked for you
as a police officer, how would you evaluate Mike Chapel's abilities as a police
officer?
A. I would give him --
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object
to this. This is in the form of good
character reference, and there is a statutory method of introducing evidence of
good character, which is required by law, and is of a limited value. To go into Officer Michael Chapel's
evaluation as a police officer is, in effect, good character evidence through
the incidents of specific good acts, which is forbidden by law.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, we believe Mr.
Porter's opened it up because he's gone into the fact -- he made a big deal out
of the fact that he may have violated procedures by not turning in reports, not
doing various police procedures that were supposed to be done, that he didn't
follow them, and we believe we're entitled to go into with his supervisor as to
whether or not he, in fact, did follow police procedures.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, that is relevant to
the issue of motive and intent to commit the crime, and as long as
cross-examination is limited to that, but here we have an attempt that was done
earlier through cross-examination of this witness, and now through the direct
of this witness to introduce evidence of good character.
THE
COURT: The objection is sustained to
the questions as posed, Mr. Moore.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Over the years, did Officer Chapel ever fail
to turn in any reports?
A. Not that I'm aware of. He would hold some reports till the next day
gathering information, but far as I know he's always turned in reports.
Q. Did you ever have to remind him?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Now, in this particular case, when did
Officer Chapel first tell you about going to Ms. Thompson's?
A. The day that he received the call to go to
her house on the burglary.
Q. And did you discuss it with him?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall what he told you?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did he tell you?
A. He told me that the -- he didn't believe it
was a real burglary, that it was probably an inside job, that burglars don't
operate going in and taking money from a residence and leaving significant
amounts of money still at the scene.
Q. And did you give him any advice?
A. I told him he should write a report. He said he would wait -- would like to wait
and see if Ms. Thompson could gather some more information from her son since
he said -- Chapel told me that there's only two people that knew where the
money was hidden, and it was Ms. Thompson and the son, and he was going to -- she
was going to talk to him and see if she could get more information.
Q. Do you know whether or not he talked to
anyone else about it?
A. That Officer Chapel talked to anyone else?
Q. Yes, sir, in your presence.
A. Not in my presence, no.
Q. Did anyone else mention to you that he'd
been out there?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, that would be
hearsay. We would object.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I'm not asking what
they said. I'm asking if they --
anybody said something to him.
THE
COURT: Objection's overruled. Go ahead, please.
BY
MR. MOORE:
A. [Continuing] Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Now, tell the jury what a Code 32 is.
A. Code 32 is a code the department uses for
when a victim calls for an incident and they don't want a report. It's stated on the -- on our log sheets, 'No
report requested.'
Q. Is it uncommon to have a Code 32?
A. No, not at all.
Q. In your opinion, based on what Mike Chapel
told you, was a Code 32 appropriate in this case?
A. It could be. Gathering -- the necessity to have more information, it could be.
Q. Did you -- did you suggest or did you order
Mike Chapel to write a report.
A. I suggested he write a report.
Q. Okay.
So that wasn't ordered?
A. No.
Q. There's an item laying there on the table in
front of you, Defendant's Exhibit Number 76.
Have you ever seen an item like that?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Do you know whether or not Mike Chapel had
an item like that to carry his keys in?
A. Not that I'm aware of. He had several different key rings. That could possibly be one of his key rings.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 103 and ask if you can identify that.
A. This is a figurine that Officer Chapel
sometimes carried on the dash of his patrol car.
Q. Was there a name for it?
A. I believe it's called the Terminator.
Q. And it's got some Velcro or something on the
bottom. How was it on his dash of his
car? How would it be carried on the
dash of his car?
A. It would be carried if -- a piece of Velcro
would be across the top and it would be stuck down like this.
Q. And where on the dash would it be?
A. As I recall, it would be somewhere in the
center of the dash.
Q. Was it visible from outside the car?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it visible from the side if you looked
in the side window of the car?
A. It could be, yes.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 106 and ask you if you've ever seen anything like
that.
A. These are gloves that appear to be the style
and nature that Officer Chapel sometimes wore.
Q. Okay.
When did you -- how many times did you see him wearing gloves like that?
A. Numerous times.
Q. Were there any occasions in particular when
he wore gloves like that?
A. No, not in particular.
Q. Were there any weather conditions or anything
that he would wear gloves like that?
A. If it was cold he would wear gloves, yes.
Q. Any other weather conditions that he would
wear them in you ever saw him wear them?
A. Probably when it was raining.
Q. Do you know why an officer would wear gloves
like that when it was raining?
A. It would probably help him on his grip.
Q. Okay.
And why would that be important?
A. If he had to secure someone and he wouldn't
slip away from him, he'd need all grip power that would be necessary for him to
--
Q. And if he had to use a weapon, would that be
-- could that be a reason for the gloves?
A. Yes.
If he was using a metal flashlight, that would probably keep the
flashlight from slipping out of your hands.
Q. Was Mike Chapel good friends with Officer
Reddy?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he talk to him about the things that
went on on the shift just like he did you?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Do you know whether or not he talked to
Officer Reddy about the call at Ms. Thompson's house?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Who all worked on the shift that you and
Mike Chapel worked on?
A. I'd have to see a roster to remember them
all exactly, but they would be Reddy --
Q. I'm talking about 1993, too. I'm not talking about 1995.
A. Yeah.
Yeah. It would be Officer Reddy
at that time, Officer Yonker, Officer Martin, Officer Geidner, I believe. That's all I can recall right off the top of
my head without seeing a roster.
Q. Now, Officer Chapel's car was Unit 197, back
in 1993?
A. His new patrol car, yes.
Q. That was his patrol car; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall if there was anything unusual
or unique about the dome light in his car?
A. No, I don't recall for sure.
Q. You don't know what color the lens was that
was in the dome light?
A. When it's issued to him it's -- it's white
or off-white color.
Q. Did the officers sometimes change it?
A. They sometimes do, yes.
Q. And why do they change it?
A. To cut down the glow in the car.
Q. Okay.
What color would they change them to?
A. Most of them would change them to red. That's been my experience.
Q. And do you know whether or not Mike Chapel's
car had been changed to red?
A. I don't recall if it's red or not.
Q. Now, on the night of April the 15th, 1993,
what was weather like that night?
A. April the 15th it was a thunderstorm,
lighting and rain. We had tornado
warnings issued by the National Weather Service that night.
Q. And what time did the weather start getting
bad that night?
A. Just before dark. I'd say around 8:30.
Q. And where were you when the weather started
getting bad?
A. I was on Main Street in downtown Buford at
the Methodist Church.
Q. Was anyone else there present with you?
A. Officer Chapel and Officer Reddy.
Q. And did y'all have a discussion about
whether you were going to continue patrolling or what you were going to do?
A. As the weather started getting bad, the
National Weather Service broke in on the radio and stated the warnings. I told Officer Chapel and Reddy I was going
to the fire station and watch the thunderstorms move on the radar.
Q. Was anybody wearing their rain gear
equipment at that time?
A. Not when we went to the fire station, I
don't believe, because it wasn't raining exactly then.
Q. At the church, back at the church, was
anybody wearing rain gear then?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. Now, what kind of rain gear did you have and
what kind did Officer Reddy have?
A. I have a -- it's yellow with a police mark
on the back, police lettering.
Q. Is it a full-length raincoat or is it a
jacket?
A. It's -- it's a jacket, probably three-quarter,
goes just below the waistline. It would
cover up your weapon.
Q. And what kind of rain gear did Officer Reddy
have at that time?
A. If he was issued one, that would be the same
kind he had.
Q. In other words, everybody was issued the
same type of raincoat?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number -- excuse me, State's Exhibit Number --
MR.
MOORE: Is it 129, Mr. Porter?
MR.
PORTER: 129 is the right number.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. -- State's Exhibit Number 129.
A. That's the same jacket that's issued by the
police department.
Q. And that's the standard issue that everybody
has?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything unique about Officer
Chapel's?
A. It has the badge pinned to the outside. That was his -- his style of putting his
badge on the outside.
Q. But other than the badge, is there anything
unique about his coat?
A. No, other than size.
Q. And Officer Reddy would wear about the same
size coat, wouldn't he?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after you left the church, what did you
and the other officers do?
A. We went to the fire station.
Q. And what did you do at the fire station?
A. We watched the weather on the TV.
Q. Was there a movie or anything on?
A. I don't recall one, but there probably was
when we arrived.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, at this time,
Defendant's Exhibit Number 137, which is a certified copy of microfilm of TV listings from the Atlanta
Constitution and weather statistics from local climatological data housed in
the Lawrenceville branch of the library here in Lawrenceville, Georgia, and
they're certified by Ms. Kathy Crone, and we would tender that into evidence at
this time.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, we would stipulate
that those are official documents within the -- within the custody of the library
and we stipulate to their admission.
THE
COURT: All right. Defendant's 135 is admitted without
objection.
MR.
MOORE: It's 137, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: 137, yes. Thank you.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit Number 137 and ask if you can look at those TV listings and
see if that refreshes your memory.
A. No, sir.
At that time -- at the time that's stated here, it doesn't bring back
anything.
Q. Okay.
So you still don't remember it?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
Now, did you have the occasion on the subsequent nights of April 15th,
16th and perhaps the 17th to participate in road checks up at Gwinnco Muffler
Shop?
A. Yes.
Q. Who all was participating in those?
A. There were several of the traffic cars. Lieutenant Latty, myself, Officer Chapel was
there. It seems like there was four or
five traffic cars. I wouldn't remember
exactly who they was.
Q. Who was stopping the motorists and talking
to them?
A. All of the officers there were stopping
them.
Q. Were the people stopping them in uniform?
A. Yes.
Q. And where were the detectives?
A. They was parked in the driveway away from
the road.
Q. And how far away from the road were they?
A. I'd say 20 or 30 feet, probably.
Q. Can I get you to come down from the stand
for a minute?
A. [Witness complies]
Q. This is State's Exhibit Number -- is there a
number in the corner there?
A. Two.
Q. State's Exhibit Number 2, which has been
admitted into evidence. It's a drawing
of the Gwinnco Muffler Shop. And the
vehicle here is magnetized. Would you
place the vehicle where the detective vehicle was parked?
A. I would say it was parked probably in this
area right here. The traffic was being
stopped up in here, in an area, say, below this intersection of the driveway,
down here. The officers were stationed
back and forth, north and southbound.
Q. Thank you.
A. [Witness returns to stand]
Q. Did you know where Ms. Thompson's car was
parked at when she -- when her body was found?
A. No.
Q. Now, in April of 1993, is there any kind of
hunting season open that time of year?
A. It might be turkey season.
Q. Did you and Officer Chapel ever discuss
turkey season and going turkey hunting?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall when you were making
business checks or checking for stolen property, did you ever look at anything
related to turkey hunting?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you look at?
A. We looked for signs.
Q. Was Officer Chapel looking for any kind of
gun for turkey hunting?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Now, up at the precinct there, there's been
testimony that Officer Chapel -- one of his lockers was locked. Do most of the officers lock their property?
A. Most of them do, yes.
Q. Okay.
And why do they lock their property up?
A. If they have uniforms, most of the time you
change clothes and uniforms in there, and you'd want to keep your uniform
secure.
Q. Okay.
And is there anybody that cleans up or works in the precinct there that
you'd have reason to believe might take clothes or anything?
A. The inmates clean the precincts.
Q. Would that be the trustees?
A. Yes.
Q. Those are inmates that are allowed to work
at the police station cleanup?
A. Yes.
Q. And if there are clothes in there, why would
the police department be concerned if they got hold of clothes?
A. They might could use -- possibly use them
for a change of clothes and maybe escape, possibly.
Q. Okay.
So as a supervisor, you approved of keeping those lockers locked?
A. It would be my practice. I kept mine locked, yes. Q. Do
you know what the term 'running the boo' means?
A. That would be a bluff on somebody.
Q. And have you ever observed Mike Chapel do
that kind of thing?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times?
A. Numerous times.
Q. Was that a standard practice of his?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he successful at it?
A. Most of the time, yes.
Q. Now, in your duties as a police officer,
have you ever had occasion to have an injured deer or dog that's been hit by a
car and you had to put them down?
A. Yes, many times.
Q. And how did you do that?
A. We used the service weapon, or sometimes
they'd use a shotgun if they wasn't proficient enough with their revolver.
Q. Was that for the purpose of putting the
animal out of misery?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you used a revolver, how would you
do that?
A. We would find the spot on the deer that
we're sure would kill it and go for that spot.
Q. Okay.
Would you get close to them to do it?
A. Yes.
Q. And why would you get close?
A. To make sure you wouldn't have a ricochet
from the round.
Q. Could you come down and demonstrate, maybe,
to show the jury how you would have done that?
A. [Witness complies]
Q. Assume that like this box here was a dead
animal and you were going to -- it had been injured seriously and you were
going to put it down. How would you go
about it with a revolver?
A. Okay.
If this was a deer on the side of the road and it was down, I'd walk up
just behind the neck, walk up like that and fire. [Demonstrating]
Q. Okay.
Thank you. You can go back up.
A. [Witness complies]
Q. Do you know whether or not Officer Reddy
ever had to do that?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Okay.
You didn't personally see it?
A. No.
Q. Would it have been unusual for something
like that to happen?
A. No.
Q. Are there a lot of deer in Gwinnett County?
A. There are many deer in Gwinnett County.
Q. Okay.
How frequently do they get hit by cars at night?
A. Sometimes it can be nightly, two or three
calls a night. It depends on the
weather and the time of day.
Q. Do you hunt deer? Do you know about deer?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
What time of day or night do deer come out and usually move around?
A. Usually at night.
Q.
Now, going back to the fire station
there, do you know what time Officer Reddy left the fire station?
A.
I would -- as I recall, it was probably around quarter till ten.
Q.
Sergeant Stone, I'm going to
show you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit Number 138 and, first of
all, without saying what's in it, can you identify what that sheet is?
A.
It's probably some type of printout.
Q.
Drawing your attention to -- in particular to this, would you look at that and
see if that refreshes your memory regarding any phone calls?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And did you make a phone call on April the 15th, 1993?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And what time was that phone call made?
A. I believe it's -- it says 22:17.
Q. That would be 10:17?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay. And who did you call?
A.
I called my wife.
Q.
Was that your routine, to call your wife before you leave for home?
A.
If -- not on a routine basis, but being in the weather that night, I did call
home.
Q.
And how long before you called your wife did Officer Chapel leave the fire
station?
A.
As I recall, he left sometime between twenty after and 9:30.
Q.
But how long -- when you made the phone call, working back, how long was it --
from the time he left to the time you made the phone call, how much time
elapsed?
A.
You lost me there. I didn't understand.
Q.
From the time he left until you called your wife, how much time elapsed?
A.
I would say about 45 minutes.
Q. Do you recall the conversation on Tuesday,
April the 20th, 1993, with Captain R. L. Davis?
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object
to this. This is cumulative. Mr. Moore questioned Sergeant Stone about
this on cross-examination. It's
cumulative of his previous testimony, which is not appropriate for recall of a
witness.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I questioned him
regarding a statement that was made to -- that was made to Chief Carl White,
but I don't recall questioning about the conversation with Captain Davis.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, Mr. Moore brought
that out through the testimony of Captain Davis, also, and that would also make
it cumulative, and that's not the purpose of the recall of a witness.
THE
COURT: Mr. Moore?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I believe I'm
entitled to ask this officer, since he was a party to that conversation with
Davis, what his recollection of it is.
THE
COURT: Would you approach the bench,
please?
[Counsel
approached the bench, and the following conference ensued.]
THE
COURT: I don't recall this document,
and I don't know what you're going to ask him.
What is this document?
MR.
MOORE: It's a -- Captain Davis talked
to Mike Chapel, and the state brought out that he thought it was unusual and
might have said something to the effect, 'I've got an alibi.' And then I went into, on cross, to the fact
that he also talked to Sergeant Stone about what time he left, and he noted the
time because he said it was -- he thought it was important at the time.
THE
COURT: Captain Davis's statement.
MR.
PORTER: Captain Davis.
MR.
MOORE: It's Davis, but I want to ask
him what his recollection of it is and use that document to refresh his memory.
THE
COURT: Well, was he present? What was -- what's Stone's connection with
Davis?
MR.
MOORE: Stone was talking to Davis. That's the one that Davis wrote it down in
his records. He recorded what his
conversation with Sergeant Stone was.
THE
COURT: With Stone.
MR.
PORTER: But Davis's document can't --
he can ask him about the conversation, but he can't refresh the collection of
this witness with Davis's document.
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I think you can show
a witness any document to refresh a memory.
They didn't have to make it themselves.
MR.
PORTER: It's got to be the witness's
own document. And, Your Honor, this is
also cumulative. This is evidence that
Mr. Moore brought out through the testimony of Davis.
THE
COURT: Well, it may be cumulative, but
I don't -- I'm not going to keep it out because it may be cumulative or it may
have been -- I won't keep it out on that basis. What is it you want to do with this witness? What do you want to do?
MR.
MOORE: I want to ask him about whether
or not he remembers the time that he told Captain Davis.
THE
COURT: Okay.
MR.
PORTER: Well, I think he can ask that.
THE
COURT: Yeah, I agree. But I think if -- I think if you show him
the document and he says, 'well, this is what Officer Davis said, ' is this the
truth -- you know, I --
MR.
MOORE: No. I'm not going to do that.
I'm going to ask him if his memory is refreshed by it and if he
remembers it after seeing the document.
MR.
PORTER: That's what we object to, Your
Honor.
THE
COURT: Well, it seems to me that's
tantamount to having a transcript, somebody else's transcript or something, and
saying, 'Well, here's what somebody else said.
Does this refresh your memory?'
Is that permissible?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I think I could use
any document to see if it would refresh a person's memory. I'm not going to ask him to read it. I'm not going to ask him to say what's in
it. If he says, 'No, it doesn't refresh
my memory,' I think that ends it.
THE
COURT: I'll allow it. Go ahead.
[Bench
conference concluded]
THE
COURT: Go ahead, please.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Sergeant Stone, do you remember a
conversation with Captain Davis on April the 20th, 1993, where you talked about
Mike Chapel?
A. I've talked with Captain Davis many
times. Specific dates and times, I
don't recall that.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Defendant's one hundred and -- don't read it out loud, and don't say what's in
it, but see if that refreshes your memory.
A. [Reading document] I remember -- vaguely remember this, yes.
THE
COURT: What's your question, Mr. Moore?
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. And do you remember what time you told
Captain Davis that Mike Chapel was at the fire station?
A. No, I don't.
Q. You would agree that your memory was fresher
then of events than it is now?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. And that whatever Captain Davis, if he
testified --
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, I'm going to object
to this. This witness cannot comment on
what another witness's testimony is.
MR.
MOORE: I'll withdraw that, Your Honor.
BY
MR. MOORE:
Q. Now, on the same night, April 15, 1993, did
you and Officer Chapel get a call to the Sugar Hill city marshal's office?
A. On April the 15th?
Q. Yes, sir, the night of the bad weather.
A. Sugar Hill city -- not that I'm aware of.
Q. There wasn't an alarm there that you went
out on a call?
A. The city hall was alarmed. I just don't remember going to the call, an
alarm there.
Q. You do remember the alarm going off, though,
at city hall that night?
A. Not -- no, I don't remember -- I knew that
-- the building is alarmed. I'd have to
see log sheets to answer that, if there was one there that particular night.
Q. Now, do you know what Mike Chapel's routine
was every night about -- around ten o'clock?
A. Around ten o'clock, he'd usually go and
check his gym, make sure it was locked up.
Q. Okay.
And where is that gym located at?
A. It's Moreno Street and Garnett Street in
Buford.
Q. Officer Stone, if I could get you to come
down again.
A. [Witness complies]
Q. I've got a map here I want to get you to --
if you would, take a look and get yourself oriented. Here's Peachtree Industrial Boulevard.
A. Okay.
Q. Okay.
Could you show the jury where the gym was located?
A. Here is Georgia 13, also known as Buford
Highway. Here's south Lee Street going
north into town. We have Lee Street
here. Starting right here is Moreno Street. Traveling -- I guess it would be northbound
through town, his gym would be in this area right -- right here, I believe.
Q. And where is that in relation to --
A. Basically, here's Garnett Street. It would be between Garnett Street and
Harris Street, right in this area here.
Q. And where would that be in relation to the
precinct, the northside precinct?
A. The precinct is --
THE
COURT: Sergeant Stone, I think the
jurors are having trouble hearing.
MR.
MOORE: Let me see if I can get a
pointer here, maybe.
THE
COURT: But I think the jurors are
having trouble hearing your voice. You
have a soft voice. If you'd make an
effort to speak up, please, so all the jurors can hear you.
MR.
MOORE: It will make it a little easier
if you stand to one side where the jury can see it.
THE
WITNESS: The trouble is I can't see it
that far away.
MR.
MOORE: I have that problem, too.
BY
MR. MOORE:
A. [Continuing] So here's Lee Street.
Going up Lee Street, the gym would be in this area right here, from
Garnett Street and Harris Street, right there in that area there. And the precinct would be in this area right
here, Georgia 20 and then 13. It would
be right in this area here.
Q. How far away is that in distance, in miles,
approximately?
A. I'd say approximately a mile and a half, two
miles.
Q. Thank you.
A. [The witness returns to the stand]
Q. How long have you lived in the -- where do
you live at, Officer Reddy [sic]?
A. I live in Cumming, Forsyth County.
Q. Okay.
And how far away is that from Buford?
A. That's approximately 22 miles.
Q. And how long have you lived in that area?
A. All my life.
Q. And how old are you?
A. Forty-six.
Q. Are you familiar with the Buford area up
there when the Bona Allen plant was operating?
A. Yes.
Q. And when did the Buford community start to
grow a lot?
A. Probably about seven years ago.
Q. And what was the Buford community like back
in -- when you were growing up back in the forties and fifties, or fifties and
sixties, whenever that was?
A. I would say it was a mill type town.
Q. And do you mean by mill type town that most
people worked at the Bona Allen plant?
A. As I recall, they did, yes.
Q. Were there a lot of people moving in and
out?
A. There wouldn't be not at that time. I wouldn't think so.
Q. Did most of the people who lived there live
there for a long time?
A. Yes, they tend to be -- do so.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. They tend to do so, live in that same area.
Q. Did children tend to stay there or did they
tend to move away?
A. It would be my opinion that they stayed in
town.
Q. So was that a closed type community?
A. Yes, it was.
MR.
MOORE: That's all the questions I have
for Sergeant Stone.
THE
COURT: Mr. Porter?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY
MR. PORTER:
Q. Sergeant Stone, let's talk about the figurine
that was on the car that you previously identified as the Terminator. Didn't the defendant often wear sunglasses
and cut his hair to sort of look like the figurine?
A. Yes.
Q. And with his size, didn't he sort of look
like the same thing as in the movie 'The Terminator'?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. What was the Terminator in the movie? It was a killing machine from the future,
wasn't it?
MR.
MOORE: Your Honor, I'm going to
object. I think this is getting pretty
far afield. Mr. Porter's trying to suggest
that some movie has some effect or influence on this trial.
MR.
PORTER: Your Honor, Mr. Moore has
opened that door.
THE
COURT: Objection's overruled. Go ahead.
BY
MR. PORTER:
A. [Continuing] Yes, I believe that movie is based on a killing machine from
outer space or whatever.
Q. And, in fact, that was one of Chapel's
favorite movies, wasn't it?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q.
Let me ask you specifically about Brian Reddy.
You said you got to fire station at about 8:30, 8:35; right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And Reddy walked in right behind you, didn't he?
A.
He -- Officer Chapel and Officer Reddy arrived about the same time. They would've come in behind me, yes.
Q.
And that was within, according to your previous testimony, about five minutes;
wouldn't you say that's right?
A.
I would think so, yes.
Q. And Reddy stayed with you the whole night,
didn't he?
A. He left a few minutes before I did.
Q. All right.
But that was around 10:15, 10:17, right after you called your wife;
right?
A. Yes.
Q. So Reddy didn't even walk out of the fire
station until after ten o'clock; isn't that correct?
A. That's probably correct, yes.
Q. Now, as a supervisor, it's probably not a
great idea for you to sit in a fire station from 8:30 at night till 10:15 at
night out of the weather, wouldn't you say?
A. Yes.