TheAgitator.com
The Ryan Frederick Trial, Days Four and Five
Monday, January 26th, 2009Ryan Frederick is the 28-year-old Chesapeake, Virginia man facing murder charges for killing a police officer during a drug raid (see this wiki for more on Frederick’s case). Prior coverage of his trial here.
(Note: My analysis of the trial is based on coverage by the Virginian-Pilot and by local blogger Don Tabor.)
On Friday, the jury heard more testimony police officers who were on the raid. It’s notable that the testimony from the various officers varied about which and how many announcements individual officers heard. One officer who was with the second raid team that hit Frederick’s garage, for example, says he only heard one announcement, from a female officer. This, even though he was outside with the other raid team, only a short distance away. Frederick, meanwhile, was sleeping, separated from the officers by walls, and distracted by barking dogs and likely his own paranoia from having just been burglarized.
The second raid team was also slowed down by a fence, and entered the garage after the other team began taking down Frederick’s door. That means the garage raid team’s announcements wouldn’t have been a factor in determining whether or no Frederick should have known the people invading his home were police.
One thing I neglected to mention from Thursday’s proceedings that’s worth rehashing: Just as they did at a preliminary hearing last March, the police again said they moved to break into Frederick’s home after one officer peered through a window and saw a moving human figure. If the purpose of the knock-and-announce requirement is to give the home’s occupant time to answer the door and avoid a violent confrontation, a figure moving toward the door shouldn’t be a reason to commence with the battering ram. Doing so renders moot the whole point of knock-and-announce. If the cops see you move to answer the door, they invade because you’ve blown their cover. Of course if you don’t answer the door, they’ll also be taking down your door.
The other two notable items from Friday involved more shenanigans from the prosecution. During opening statements, prosecutor James Willett told the jury Frederick was “stoned out of his mind,” and “in a blind rage” when he shot Det. Jarrod Shivers the night of the raid.
During his own opening, Frederick attorney James Broccoletti showed video of an interview with CPD Det. Edward Winkelspecht, who said Frederick didn’t appear high after his arrest. Despite the fact that his name was on the prosecution’s witness list, when Broccoletti said in court Friday that he’d like to hear from Det. Winkelspecht, the Virginian-Pilot reports,
“…prosecutors told Judge Marjorie T. Arrington that the officer was unavailable to testify because he was in Georgia for training and was expected to be there for weeks, if not months.”
Seems odd that the prosecution wouldn’t have ensured that such an important witness would be around for questioning—or, if you’re sufficiently cynical, it isn’t odd at all.
At Broccoletti’s request, the judge compelled the officer to come back. Det. Winkelspecht then testified today that Frederick was coherent and responsive the night of the raid, that his eyes weren’t bloodshot, and that he had no concerns about Frederick not understanding or comprehending his rights. The police also apparently either didn’t give Frederick a drug test, or they did and the results either weren’t positive or weren’t conclusive.
All of which means Willett had zero evidence for the “stoned out of his mind” and “blind rage” description of Frederick he made to jurors in his opening statement. I’m not sure what Broccoletti can do about that, other than to remind the jury during his closing, and to take note of it all for the appeal should Frederick be convicted
The other major detail from Friday involves a videotaped reenactment of the raid conducted by police and prosecutors that the state has fought vigorously to keep the defense from seeing. From Tabor’s report:
Though the video was the product of a search warrant, the prosecution has maintained it was an internal ‘work product’ of the prosecution crafted to help them develop their theory of the case and not subject to discovery by the defense. They admitted that the defense was entitled to any measurements, drawings, photos or graphs resulting from the search, but not the video. But they also claimed they made no measurements, photos or drawings, only the video.
The problem is that the prosecution then entered a still from the video into evidence, which one of Frederick’s attorneys noticed included a string used to measure the trajectory of the fatal bullet. That’s pretty clearly a measurement, which means the prosecution wasn’t telling the truth about what’s in the video, and hasn’t given the defense all of the evidence it’s required to turn over. The judge ruled that the defense be allowed to view the video, and ordered the prosecution to look again to be sure it wasn’t holding any evidence that could be relevant to Frederick’s lawyers.
According to the Virginian-Pilot, the police also revealed today what they found in Frederick’s home—lights, tubing, and some books about growing marijuana. None of those things are illegal, though they do indicate—as Broccoletti conceded in his opening statement—that Frederick was likely growing marijuana. Broccoletti told the jury Frederick grew solely for his own use, and so far the prosecution has provided no evidence of selling or distribution. The police found no plants in the house or garage on the night of the raid, but did find misdemeanor amount of dried marijuana. Still, it looks like this will all boil down to whether this jury can look at the holes in the state’s case long enough to get beyond “growing pot + shot a cop.”
The jury was supposed to view Frederick’s home this afternoon (over the objections of the prosecution), but that visit was cancelled. The reports I’ve seen don’t say why.
thanks for the update!
regarding the prosecution, where do they rate on the ‘mary beth dipshit meter’? I’d give ‘em an 8…
Re: the prosecution’s opening statement, the general theory amongst lawyers is that you do not help your case by stating things in your opening that you later fail to prove. I’ve always learned the notion that you better be sure you can prove what you say in your opening or your opponnt will bury you on it when they give their closing (e.g. “you heard [lawyer] say [XYZ] but you never heard ANY evidence of that, in fact you heard the opposite!”).
It’s almost certainly not something you can ever win an appeal over. Hopefully Broccoletti buries this clown when the time comes.
Well, you never know. There might be someone on the jury who has, in the past, suffered ill treatment by one of America’s Finest. Lord knows their numbers are increasing daily. Unless, of course, they weed out victims of police misconduct during voir dere.
It sounds like this case is becoming a rather good example of law enforcement and prosecutors working hand in hand, not to dispense justice, but to win at any cost. If you’re unable to recognize your own lies (as I suspect is the case for many cops), it’s because you’re so used to it that you don’t even know you’re doing it, and would be offended by the mere suggestion.
Let’s see….. Lights. Tubing. Books on growing pot. I own all those things. Only one problem. I don’t grow or use it. Tried to grow it once a couple decades ago in my misguided youth. Found out I had a brown thumb and that every plant I ever touch dies.
I hate it when people are judged on what books they own. This happens often–usually in the press before anything ever comes to trial.
The pigs could paint any picture they want of me by disclosing carefully selected books from my library.
Of all the pictures they could have used of the detective for the va pilot article…
http://media.hamptonroads.com/cache/files/images/245881.jpg
Er, I have a very old copy of The Anarchist’s Cookbook around here somewhere…..
Seems like the number one rule in law enforcement is “Protect Law Enforcement!” No matter what.
I have a copy of the Constitution in my house. No, it doesn’t contain instructions on how to grow marijuana, although it does contain evidence that the federal government has no justified power to make it illegal.
I took notes today for Dr. Tabor – he was unable to attend – I wrote them up and sent them to him – pretty detailed, wasn’t sure how much info he needed, so I used a big shovel…
I haven’t seen his version of what I sent yet – if you’re interested plug into tidewaterliberty.com
Gee, I hope the cops don’t start calling me names again – I’m just SO HURT!
http://tidewaterliberty.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/ryan-frederick-trial-day-five/
Why did the defense admit that Frederick grew pot? There was no evidence of it, it was up to the prosecution to prove that he did. Why on earth would they bring something like this up?
Why did the defense admit that Frederick grew pot?
If the prosecutor alleges something in the opening statement, and it’s likely that they’ll be able to prove it, jurors may react more negatively to attempts to deny or ignore the allegation than to attempts to suggest that the alleged behavior doesn’t support the rest of the prosecution’s case. If the defense argues about whether the defendant had grown any pot and the prosecutor convinces the jury that he did, the jury would view the defendant in a negative light when considering the other charges.
What isnt clear to me and i cant recall reading it is whether ryans attorney is admitting he was growing pot at the time of the burglary or just that he had grown marijuana b4? Keep in mind this was in mid january in a detached garage in virginia. Was the garage heated?
No, the garage isn’t heated – and nothing that the police found was hooked up and ready for use – they didn’t even know for certain if the lights and ballasts worked…
This “garage” is more of a large shed (about 10 x 10) with a 12 pitch (45 degree angle) roof – it has a small attic, where most of the “grow op” equipment was located…
Unless they can prove not only that the police announced themselves but that Frederick heard and understood them, without any “reasonable doubt”, what case do the cops have?
I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but what possible justification do the cops have for this tactic? How could it have possibly gone any worse had they either raided his house during the day, or god forbid, knocked and waited for him to come to the door? What’s he going to do, flush the lights, tubing and books down the toilet along with the pot he’s been growing?
Also, just how does someone who smokes enough pot that he grows his own end up “stoned out of his mind”? I’ve smoked a fair amount of weed in my life, and there are only a handful of occasions where I would say I was “stoned out of my mind”, the first several times I smoked and after I’d taken a break of at least a couple weeks, and I certainly don’t smoke as much as your typical recreational grower. Even if he was “stoned out of his mind”, wouldn’t that make it more likely he didn’t realize he was dealing with the police? Does marijuana make one more likely to knowingly shoot a cop in a situation where you’d immediately be apprehended?
For me to vote guilty the prosecution would have to prove that this guy had no intent on doing anything for the rest of his life or that he has an IQ so low that he’s borderline not fit for trial.
“I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but what possible justification do the cops have for this tactic?”
Gregory, here’s the shocker…
The Police ACTUALLY BELIEVE that a shock and awe campaign during the breach phase of a raid will actually result in LESS risk, not more.
The reason they believe this… as far as I can tell, is that the Police Culture reinforces this delusion through constant reaffirmation.It’s almost like a cult of some kind.
The ironic (?) home page article on http://www.hamptonroads.com :
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/01/chillin-garage
“Some homeowners in Hampton Roads have transformed their drafty carports into cozy entertainment parlors. Check out folks like The Futtrells who have tricked-out their garage with heaters, air conditioners and cushy carpeting to host weekly merrymaking…”
Broccoletti should use this point to make it clear to the jury that prosecution has actually lied to them. He really needs to do his best to make the jury believe that the prosecution would do anything, say anything to make this man go to prison.
“No, the garage isn’t heated ”
Thanks John. Of course now comes the dreaded follow up question… How can he be growing weed in an unheated garage in january in virginia?
Oh boy…
“On Monday, jurors could be seen smiling and smirking as prosecutors passed around books, such as “The Best of Ask Ed: Your Marijuana Questions Answered,” and “Spliffs 2: Future Adventures in Cannabis Culture.” (Spliff is a slang term for a marijuana cigarette.)
Magazines titled High Times and Skunk also were shown.”
(va pilot article)
Regarding the admission, I wonder if defence counsel has two ideas in mind:
First: To demonstrate overall that they always tell the “unspun” truth to the jury whereas the prosecution lies or misleads them. Has anybody here served on a jury? I’d imagine that they don’t like being lied to any more than the next person.
Second: To deal with the chance that the prosecution knew that Frederick had grown pot once, and was waiting for the denial to trap him with that proof. A subset of that is the need to preserve and demonstrate Frederick’s honesty for the inevitable cross-ex on his own testimony.
A very great deal hangs on whether or not Ryan Frederick is a liar, or is to be perceived as one. If they believe his story then he can go free. If they think he is lying in court then he will be found guilty. A great deal of effort, therefore, must go into maintaining his credibility.
RB,
The visit to RF’s home wasn’t cancelled, it was postponed, largely to accommodate the officer coming back from training. They will visit later, in spite of the prosecution’s vigorous objections.
You know it seems to me that when a prosecution has so many objections to the jury seeing evidence it should be obvious they’re hiding something.
Oh you don’t need to see the actual house where it happened.
Oh you don’t need to see our video taped re-enactment.
Just be a good rubber stamp and vote guilty like you’re supposed to!
Pray that this jury has thinking people on it.
Pray that this jury has thinking people on it.
My gut feeling is that the case is going to result in a hung jury; you’ll have some jurors who will discuss the merits and facts of the case and whether the elements of the crime have been proven by the state (and will likely conclude they haven’t), vs. the law and order “did drugs, shot cop, no further questions” types who you won’t ever be able to convince.
I’ll say. Bring this up every time you can to reinforce with the jurors that the prosecutor is someone they cannot trust. Whatever he says is then tainted by that opening lie.
He had magic marijuana seeds obviously.
When I was in there on Friday, I saw a few occasions when the jury appeared to have a hard time swallowing the contradiction, if the looks on their faces were any indication.
Unfortunately, they did not get to see the exchange between Broccoletti and Ebert about getting the detective back from Georgia. Ebert fought that as hard as I’ve seen him fight anything. If the jury had been able to see that, it really would have made them wonder why he doesn’t want this guy around.
I managed to get my notes typed up (for Tuesday’s court session) and sent to Doc Tabor – he’s going to post them on Tidewaterliberty.com and write up a synopsis of his own, in case anyone is interested…