Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Today, defense attorneys for Walter Budzyn ended their case by focusing
on discrediting the testimony of prior state witness Teresa Pace. The
defense has continued to try to undermine Pace's credibility by showing
that investigators may have given her preferential treatment in trying
to build their case against Budzyn -- and may have influenced her
testimony by giving her an usually high amount of "witness fees" that
totaled hundreds of dollars.
Two former police officers in the homicide division at the time of the
investigation into the Malice Green case were brought to the stand to
answer questions about alleged police attempts to destroy copies of a
statement given by Pace that would have damaged the state's case against
Budzyn. Vernon Humes, a former sergeant in Detroit homicide, refused to
admit under oath that he had had a conversation with investigators about
destroying Pace's statement.
Humes admitted that he was asked by his supervisor to see that several
prosecution witnesses with outstanding arrest warrants (including Ralph
Fletcher, Teresa Pace and Robert Knox) had their trials adjourned.
However, he would not admit that the judge knew these were prosecution
witnesses in a pending trial, or that they received any special
treatment.
Stanyar then questioned Humes about an alleged meeting between Pace and
Humes's supervisors after another officer had taken her first statement
in early November of 1992. Humes was evasive, saying that he was not
present if the meeting took place. Humes did admit that his supervisors
later asked him to take a second statement from Pace but vigorously
denied that they asked him to destroy Pace's first statement.
During cross-examination, Humes said that everyone involved with the
investigation was aware Pace made the first statement. He reiterated his
claim that Pace did not receive any special treatment for testifying for
the prosecution.
Stanyar's redirect focused on conflicting statements between Pace's
first and second statements. Humes admitted that the first statement was
more favorable to Budzyn. He also denied that he had anything to hide,
even though he did not sign the second statement.
In a direct contradiction of Humes's testimony, former officer and Humes
colleague Daniel Maynard said that there was discussion about discarding
Pace's statement. "He [Humes] said that they wanted him to take a second
statement from Miss Pace, 'Redbone,'" Maynard said. "Then he said, 'They
want me to get rid of the first statement.' I said, 'Vern, I'm not so
sure that's a good idea.'" (In the end, the Pace's statement was not
destroyed.)
During his cross examination, Maynard acknowledged that it is not
particularly uncommon for police to get a follow-up statement from a
witness, particularly if there is a point of confusion. But the witness
ended his testimony on a strong point for the defense, telling defense
attorney Carole Stanyar on redirect that he believed police and
prosecutors had targeted Walter Budzyn and Larry Nevers in the days
following the death of Malice Green. When asked why he did not approach
his superiors with this attempted tampering with the investigation,
Maynard said, "There was a pervasive mood at the time to get these guys
(Budzyn and former partner Larry Nevers) no matter what...I told them,
'Listen, we can't do this...this is wrong'"
Jurors also were shown two recreations of the alleged actions of Budzyn
on the night in question. On Monday morning, prosecutors surprised the
defense by having Malice Green's 1984 Topaz towed to the courthouse, and
announcing that they intended to reenact Green's beating within the car.
The defense strenuously objected. However, after Judge Jackson indicated
that he would allow the demonstration, defense attorneys decided to
include it within their case. So jurors were escorted outside and
allowed to walk about the car while two different scenarios were played
out.
The first scenario, staged by prosecutors, depicted "Budzyn" straddling
"Green" and beating him on the head with his flashlight. The second,
staged by the defense, put two different players in the same position --
but this time, the flashlight wielded by "Budzyn" kept banging into the
Topaz's ceiling or windshield.
Jurors were not addressed during the demonstrations, merely allowed to
observe the scene. Ultimately, the entire endeavor may have been for
naught.
Judge Jackson throughout the trial has allowed jurors to send him notes
on questions that they would like to have answered. Following today's
demonstration, one juror wrote, "Was the person swinging the flashlight
supposed to be Budzyn or Nevers?"
It is unclear whether the defense succeeded in undermining Teresa Pace's
credibility, especially since witnesses Humes and Maynard contradicted
each other. The defense for Budzyn rested its case at the end of the
day. Court will reopen Wednesday when a rebuttal case by the
prosecution and closing arguments may occur.
--
Kathy E
"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow
isn't looking too good for you either"
http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
