But in the Court's view, any more extended cross-examination might have been as likely to result in these experts repeating and reinforcing their conclusions as it would have been in effectively impeaching them. Peter Himmelman. The People also called Mr. Schwoeble as an expert witness in Trial 2. He appeared to have a pre-determined goal: to say that he did not see the Defendant remove his jacket, while asserting that the remainder of his testimony had been truthful.
Ms. Lunde did in fact testify and Mr. Walters cross-examined her.
His recollection was that Mr. Davis was asked questions about what he had seen on the evening of the shooting. Footnote 37: Id., p. 1777, ll. He further stated that it was his opinion [*19]that the presence of tin came from the Glock.
Footnote 42: Transcript, September 27, 2010 ("Hearing Transcript"), p. 5, l. 11. Mr. Walters acknowledged on cross-examination that the preclusion motion would have been predicated upon his failure to receive the raw data underlying Mr. Schwoeble's fabric-to-fabric transfer studies and that there would have been no basis to move to preclude Ms. Lunde's testimony.
The Court does not believe Mr. Walters's representation was deficient because he failed to call Dr. Kubic as an expert witness for the defense. 17-19. It could be hairs. As discussed in more detail infra, the denim jacket was tested at the FBI laboratory and found to contain gunshot residue evidence (hereafter "GSR"). The first was that in her initial examination of the .40 caliber weapon she did not take the weapon completely apart so there may have been a small amount of tin in the weapon which she had not detected. Referring to Mr. Schwoeble, Dr. Kubic said: "I don't believe he qualifies as a scientist. Footnote 3:Id., ¶ 7.
He also admitted that his lab was not accredited by the American Society of Criminal Lab Directors.- He said that the presence of gunshot residue on the jacket would be consistent not only with a person firing a gun but a person standing right next to a person who was firing a gun.- He acknowledged that his analysis of the numbers of particles indicative of GSR on the jacket which Ms. Lunde and he had obtained differed materially. He said that Officer Anselmo recognized the Defendant only to the extent that he saw a black man. This raised continuity problems. Parlor Roller Pigeons For Sale In California, 15-16. 12-14. In the Court's view, given the strength of the People's case, the Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel under either the federal or New York state standard, even assuming that Mr. Walters's representation was professionally unreasonable in violation of the first Strickland prong.
Post College, a masters of science chemistry degree from Long Island University, a law degree from St. John's University and a Ph.D. in forensic science from [*36]the City University of New York.
You didn't testify that you saw a guy take off his jacket when you really didn't see that?A: Look, I am shaking my head in disbelief.
In beginning his argument in part by discussing the scientific method, he said that both Ms. Lunde and Mr. Schwoeble had testified that the GSR evidence found on the Defendant's jacket was consistent with someone who had fired a gun rather than consistent with contamination. Whenever there is contact, there is transfer. But the additional evidence presented by the People provided the jury with a firm basis to believe that his identification was wholly accurate. Footnote 78: Id., quoting, United States v. Wade, 388 US 218, 228 (1967). Moreover, once the People properly authenticated the underpants, any evidence that the DNA on the underpants could have been contaminated goes to the weight of the evidence, not to the admissibility of the evidence (see People v. Klinger, 185 Misc 2d 574, 586, 713 NYS2d 823; see also People v. Ko, 304 AD2d 451, 452, 757 [*48]NYS2d 561, remanded on other grounds 542 US 901 (parallel citations omitted)(emphasis added). Dr. Kubic stated that issues were also raised regarding the physical condition of the jacket throughout the chain of custody. He said the GSR evidence was important because it corroborated the testimony of the police officers and other evidence. He argued to Justice Torres that he did not "know what to make of this", that he could not make "heads or tails of this" and that his expert would not have the time to analyze it in a timely fashion. Officer DiCarlantonio described the Defendant as a male black, wearing a dark shirt, dark pants and a baseball cap. Documents purporting to be the standard operating procedures of how evidence was handled at R.J. Lee were also not provided to the witness until after the Defendant's conviction at Trial 3. After that, Sheldon, and by association everyone around him, "descend into madness" in Sheldon's words as Sheldon tries to figure out the song which he is continually humming.
Footnote 26:Id., p. 1091, ll. Ms. Lunde testified at trial that these particles are roughly one millionth of a meter in size. During his cross-examination at the hearing, it was also clear that he did not correctly remember Ms. Lunde's testimony at Trial 3.
Officer Anselmo fired his weapon and said the Defendant fell, got back up and continued running. Mr. Walters indicated his intent to seek [*29]preclusion of testimony regarding this study at Trial 3. He argued that Mr. Azziz had no possible motive to lie. The Court also does not agree with Defendant's view of the significance of Mr. Schwoeble's testimony or that it was irrelevant or misleading. On April 18th Dr. Kubic said he met with Mr. Walters and Ms. Robertson in his office for over 2 hours to discuss various aspects of GSR. People v. Williams, 11 AD3d 810 (2004), lv denied, 4 NY3d 769 (2005). Footnote 58:Id., p. 72, ll.
On voire dire by Mr. Walters the witness acknowledged that she did not memorialize her testing of the jacket by video or audio tape.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to … getting together, people getting together, fighting oppression".
Ms. Penn initially testified that the men who shot into the car wore dark clothes, but then on cross-examination admitted that she had not been wearing her glasses at the time, was groggy, was not sure what the shooters had been wearing and that her description of dark clothing might have been a silhouette. Her conclusions, however, were significantly impeached during her testimony at trial. He attributed those differences to the superiority of his equipment. He said that simply handling the jacket, even if that had been done by multiple people, would not have accounted for the amount of GSR he found.
He was given lesser sentences on his remaining convictions. He also said that he later saw an individual struggling to take his jacket off but was not sure if this was one of the same men he had earlier seen running from the police officer.
Given these facts, it is difficult to see how Dr. Kubic could have been an effective impeachment witness against Ms. Lunde (as opposed to Mr. Schwoeble). And therein suggests the real charm of the Code. He also said that all of the witnesses had testified consistently that there were no other people in the area of the shooting other than those identified during the trial and that the argument that there must have been lots of other people in the vicinity was unsupported by any evidence.
Footnote 77: New York Identification Law, The Wade Hearing/The Trial, Miriam Hibel, Lexis/Nexis, March 2010; Introduction, (citations omitted). In his sworn affidavit, however, while acknowledging that he had heard shots from his apartment, he recanted virtually all of the remainder of his trial testimony stating: "I was interviewed by Detectives to see if I had any knowledge of the events of the shooting.
[FN21], With respect to the origin of the tin found in the GSR, Ms. Lunde stated that she did not ask the District Attorney's office to provide the weapons fired by the police officers for testing.
Ms. Lunde did in fact testify and Mr. Walters cross-examined her.
His recollection was that Mr. Davis was asked questions about what he had seen on the evening of the shooting. Footnote 37: Id., p. 1777, ll. He further stated that it was his opinion [*19]that the presence of tin came from the Glock.
Footnote 42: Transcript, September 27, 2010 ("Hearing Transcript"), p. 5, l. 11. Mr. Walters acknowledged on cross-examination that the preclusion motion would have been predicated upon his failure to receive the raw data underlying Mr. Schwoeble's fabric-to-fabric transfer studies and that there would have been no basis to move to preclude Ms. Lunde's testimony.
The Court does not believe Mr. Walters's representation was deficient because he failed to call Dr. Kubic as an expert witness for the defense. 17-19. It could be hairs. As discussed in more detail infra, the denim jacket was tested at the FBI laboratory and found to contain gunshot residue evidence (hereafter "GSR"). The first was that in her initial examination of the .40 caliber weapon she did not take the weapon completely apart so there may have been a small amount of tin in the weapon which she had not detected. Referring to Mr. Schwoeble, Dr. Kubic said: "I don't believe he qualifies as a scientist. Footnote 3:Id., ¶ 7.
He also admitted that his lab was not accredited by the American Society of Criminal Lab Directors.- He said that the presence of gunshot residue on the jacket would be consistent not only with a person firing a gun but a person standing right next to a person who was firing a gun.- He acknowledged that his analysis of the numbers of particles indicative of GSR on the jacket which Ms. Lunde and he had obtained differed materially. He said that Officer Anselmo recognized the Defendant only to the extent that he saw a black man. This raised continuity problems. Parlor Roller Pigeons For Sale In California, 15-16. 12-14. In the Court's view, given the strength of the People's case, the Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel under either the federal or New York state standard, even assuming that Mr. Walters's representation was professionally unreasonable in violation of the first Strickland prong.
Post College, a masters of science chemistry degree from Long Island University, a law degree from St. John's University and a Ph.D. in forensic science from [*36]the City University of New York.
You didn't testify that you saw a guy take off his jacket when you really didn't see that?A: Look, I am shaking my head in disbelief.
In beginning his argument in part by discussing the scientific method, he said that both Ms. Lunde and Mr. Schwoeble had testified that the GSR evidence found on the Defendant's jacket was consistent with someone who had fired a gun rather than consistent with contamination. Whenever there is contact, there is transfer. But the additional evidence presented by the People provided the jury with a firm basis to believe that his identification was wholly accurate. Footnote 78: Id., quoting, United States v. Wade, 388 US 218, 228 (1967). Moreover, once the People properly authenticated the underpants, any evidence that the DNA on the underpants could have been contaminated goes to the weight of the evidence, not to the admissibility of the evidence (see People v. Klinger, 185 Misc 2d 574, 586, 713 NYS2d 823; see also People v. Ko, 304 AD2d 451, 452, 757 [*48]NYS2d 561, remanded on other grounds 542 US 901 (parallel citations omitted)(emphasis added). Dr. Kubic stated that issues were also raised regarding the physical condition of the jacket throughout the chain of custody. He said the GSR evidence was important because it corroborated the testimony of the police officers and other evidence. He argued to Justice Torres that he did not "know what to make of this", that he could not make "heads or tails of this" and that his expert would not have the time to analyze it in a timely fashion. Officer DiCarlantonio described the Defendant as a male black, wearing a dark shirt, dark pants and a baseball cap. Documents purporting to be the standard operating procedures of how evidence was handled at R.J. Lee were also not provided to the witness until after the Defendant's conviction at Trial 3. After that, Sheldon, and by association everyone around him, "descend into madness" in Sheldon's words as Sheldon tries to figure out the song which he is continually humming.
Footnote 26:Id., p. 1091, ll. Ms. Lunde testified at trial that these particles are roughly one millionth of a meter in size. During his cross-examination at the hearing, it was also clear that he did not correctly remember Ms. Lunde's testimony at Trial 3.
Officer Anselmo fired his weapon and said the Defendant fell, got back up and continued running. Mr. Walters indicated his intent to seek [*29]preclusion of testimony regarding this study at Trial 3. He argued that Mr. Azziz had no possible motive to lie. The Court also does not agree with Defendant's view of the significance of Mr. Schwoeble's testimony or that it was irrelevant or misleading. On April 18th Dr. Kubic said he met with Mr. Walters and Ms. Robertson in his office for over 2 hours to discuss various aspects of GSR. People v. Williams, 11 AD3d 810 (2004), lv denied, 4 NY3d 769 (2005). Footnote 58:Id., p. 72, ll.
On voire dire by Mr. Walters the witness acknowledged that she did not memorialize her testing of the jacket by video or audio tape.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to … getting together, people getting together, fighting oppression".
Ms. Penn initially testified that the men who shot into the car wore dark clothes, but then on cross-examination admitted that she had not been wearing her glasses at the time, was groggy, was not sure what the shooters had been wearing and that her description of dark clothing might have been a silhouette. Her conclusions, however, were significantly impeached during her testimony at trial. He attributed those differences to the superiority of his equipment. He said that simply handling the jacket, even if that had been done by multiple people, would not have accounted for the amount of GSR he found.
He was given lesser sentences on his remaining convictions. He also said that he later saw an individual struggling to take his jacket off but was not sure if this was one of the same men he had earlier seen running from the police officer.
Given these facts, it is difficult to see how Dr. Kubic could have been an effective impeachment witness against Ms. Lunde (as opposed to Mr. Schwoeble). And therein suggests the real charm of the Code. He also said that all of the witnesses had testified consistently that there were no other people in the area of the shooting other than those identified during the trial and that the argument that there must have been lots of other people in the vicinity was unsupported by any evidence.
Footnote 77: New York Identification Law, The Wade Hearing/The Trial, Miriam Hibel, Lexis/Nexis, March 2010; Introduction, (citations omitted). In his sworn affidavit, however, while acknowledging that he had heard shots from his apartment, he recanted virtually all of the remainder of his trial testimony stating: "I was interviewed by Detectives to see if I had any knowledge of the events of the shooting.
[FN21], With respect to the origin of the tin found in the GSR, Ms. Lunde stated that she did not ask the District Attorney's office to provide the weapons fired by the police officers for testing.
Ms. Lunde did in fact testify and Mr. Walters cross-examined her.
His recollection was that Mr. Davis was asked questions about what he had seen on the evening of the shooting. Footnote 37: Id., p. 1777, ll. He further stated that it was his opinion [*19]that the presence of tin came from the Glock.
Footnote 42: Transcript, September 27, 2010 ("Hearing Transcript"), p. 5, l. 11. Mr. Walters acknowledged on cross-examination that the preclusion motion would have been predicated upon his failure to receive the raw data underlying Mr. Schwoeble's fabric-to-fabric transfer studies and that there would have been no basis to move to preclude Ms. Lunde's testimony.
The Court does not believe Mr. Walters's representation was deficient because he failed to call Dr. Kubic as an expert witness for the defense. 17-19. It could be hairs. As discussed in more detail infra, the denim jacket was tested at the FBI laboratory and found to contain gunshot residue evidence (hereafter "GSR"). The first was that in her initial examination of the .40 caliber weapon she did not take the weapon completely apart so there may have been a small amount of tin in the weapon which she had not detected. Referring to Mr. Schwoeble, Dr. Kubic said: "I don't believe he qualifies as a scientist. Footnote 3:Id., ¶ 7.
He also admitted that his lab was not accredited by the American Society of Criminal Lab Directors.- He said that the presence of gunshot residue on the jacket would be consistent not only with a person firing a gun but a person standing right next to a person who was firing a gun.- He acknowledged that his analysis of the numbers of particles indicative of GSR on the jacket which Ms. Lunde and he had obtained differed materially. He said that Officer Anselmo recognized the Defendant only to the extent that he saw a black man. This raised continuity problems. Parlor Roller Pigeons For Sale In California, 15-16. 12-14. In the Court's view, given the strength of the People's case, the Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel under either the federal or New York state standard, even assuming that Mr. Walters's representation was professionally unreasonable in violation of the first Strickland prong.
Post College, a masters of science chemistry degree from Long Island University, a law degree from St. John's University and a Ph.D. in forensic science from [*36]the City University of New York.
You didn't testify that you saw a guy take off his jacket when you really didn't see that?A: Look, I am shaking my head in disbelief.
In beginning his argument in part by discussing the scientific method, he said that both Ms. Lunde and Mr. Schwoeble had testified that the GSR evidence found on the Defendant's jacket was consistent with someone who had fired a gun rather than consistent with contamination. Whenever there is contact, there is transfer. But the additional evidence presented by the People provided the jury with a firm basis to believe that his identification was wholly accurate. Footnote 78: Id., quoting, United States v. Wade, 388 US 218, 228 (1967). Moreover, once the People properly authenticated the underpants, any evidence that the DNA on the underpants could have been contaminated goes to the weight of the evidence, not to the admissibility of the evidence (see People v. Klinger, 185 Misc 2d 574, 586, 713 NYS2d 823; see also People v. Ko, 304 AD2d 451, 452, 757 [*48]NYS2d 561, remanded on other grounds 542 US 901 (parallel citations omitted)(emphasis added). Dr. Kubic stated that issues were also raised regarding the physical condition of the jacket throughout the chain of custody. He said the GSR evidence was important because it corroborated the testimony of the police officers and other evidence. He argued to Justice Torres that he did not "know what to make of this", that he could not make "heads or tails of this" and that his expert would not have the time to analyze it in a timely fashion. Officer DiCarlantonio described the Defendant as a male black, wearing a dark shirt, dark pants and a baseball cap. Documents purporting to be the standard operating procedures of how evidence was handled at R.J. Lee were also not provided to the witness until after the Defendant's conviction at Trial 3. After that, Sheldon, and by association everyone around him, "descend into madness" in Sheldon's words as Sheldon tries to figure out the song which he is continually humming.
Footnote 26:Id., p. 1091, ll. Ms. Lunde testified at trial that these particles are roughly one millionth of a meter in size. During his cross-examination at the hearing, it was also clear that he did not correctly remember Ms. Lunde's testimony at Trial 3.
Officer Anselmo fired his weapon and said the Defendant fell, got back up and continued running. Mr. Walters indicated his intent to seek [*29]preclusion of testimony regarding this study at Trial 3. He argued that Mr. Azziz had no possible motive to lie. The Court also does not agree with Defendant's view of the significance of Mr. Schwoeble's testimony or that it was irrelevant or misleading. On April 18th Dr. Kubic said he met with Mr. Walters and Ms. Robertson in his office for over 2 hours to discuss various aspects of GSR. People v. Williams, 11 AD3d 810 (2004), lv denied, 4 NY3d 769 (2005). Footnote 58:Id., p. 72, ll.
On voire dire by Mr. Walters the witness acknowledged that she did not memorialize her testing of the jacket by video or audio tape.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to … getting together, people getting together, fighting oppression".
Ms. Penn initially testified that the men who shot into the car wore dark clothes, but then on cross-examination admitted that she had not been wearing her glasses at the time, was groggy, was not sure what the shooters had been wearing and that her description of dark clothing might have been a silhouette. Her conclusions, however, were significantly impeached during her testimony at trial. He attributed those differences to the superiority of his equipment. He said that simply handling the jacket, even if that had been done by multiple people, would not have accounted for the amount of GSR he found.
He was given lesser sentences on his remaining convictions. He also said that he later saw an individual struggling to take his jacket off but was not sure if this was one of the same men he had earlier seen running from the police officer.
Given these facts, it is difficult to see how Dr. Kubic could have been an effective impeachment witness against Ms. Lunde (as opposed to Mr. Schwoeble). And therein suggests the real charm of the Code. He also said that all of the witnesses had testified consistently that there were no other people in the area of the shooting other than those identified during the trial and that the argument that there must have been lots of other people in the vicinity was unsupported by any evidence.
Footnote 77: New York Identification Law, The Wade Hearing/The Trial, Miriam Hibel, Lexis/Nexis, March 2010; Introduction, (citations omitted). In his sworn affidavit, however, while acknowledging that he had heard shots from his apartment, he recanted virtually all of the remainder of his trial testimony stating: "I was interviewed by Detectives to see if I had any knowledge of the events of the shooting.
[FN21], With respect to the origin of the tin found in the GSR, Ms. Lunde stated that she did not ask the District Attorney's office to provide the weapons fired by the police officers for testing.
p. 44, ll. Defense witness, Mr. Syed Rahmen, stated that he observed the white vehicle pull in front of the Sable.
He did not demonstrate that every one of the thousands of microscopic particles he recovered from the jacket came from the gun which was fired in this case and not from contamination. The transcript of that testimony was then introduced at Trial 3.
The People argue that they have been severely prejudiced by not having Defendant's Supplemental Motion decided by Justice Torres, who was obviously in the best position to rule on Defendant's motion, and by the additional passage of time which has resulted from these delays.
Officer Polstein at this point fell and injured himself. He further said that he had provided expert testimony on GSR about 70 times. With respect to Mr. Walters's failure to move to preclude Mr. Schwoeble as an expert witness because he was not a scientist and did not have the minimum educational credentials necessary to perform GSR analysis, in the Court's view, it is highly unlikely that such a motion would have been successful.
The only way in which Mr. Walters apparently would have been able to present his testimony to the jury would have been by reading it (assuming an application to do that would have been granted). (The testimony of Mr. Azziz at the second trial was read to the jury at the third trial because Mr. Azziz was out of the country during the third trial). Shortly thereafter during his hearing testimony, Mr. Davis denied that he had just made that same statement. 3-5. Footnote 2:Id, ¶ 4. People v. LeGrand, 8 NY3d 449, 454 (2007) quoting, 1 McCormick, Evidence § 2067, at 880 (6th ed 2006).The Defendant's conviction was based in large part on an eyewitness identification of a type which has many of the most important hallmarks of potential error. In the Court's view, any motion to preclude Mr. Schwoeble's testimony, like a motion to preclude any test done by his laboratory from being admitted into evidence, would have had little or no chance of success before Justice Torres.
Mr. Walters said he understood that Dr. Kubic would have agreed to assist him in analyzing Mr. Schwoeble's testimony at trial and agreed with Defendant's counsel's statement that it would have been "extraordinarily helpful to have [SIC] expert in GSR to assist you in that cross-examination"[FN44]. The more coarse the fabric the greater the likelihood that particles of GSR will be found on the fabric over time.
But in the Court's view, any more extended cross-examination might have been as likely to result in these experts repeating and reinforcing their conclusions as it would have been in effectively impeaching them. Peter Himmelman. The People also called Mr. Schwoeble as an expert witness in Trial 2. He appeared to have a pre-determined goal: to say that he did not see the Defendant remove his jacket, while asserting that the remainder of his testimony had been truthful.
Ms. Lunde did in fact testify and Mr. Walters cross-examined her.
His recollection was that Mr. Davis was asked questions about what he had seen on the evening of the shooting. Footnote 37: Id., p. 1777, ll. He further stated that it was his opinion [*19]that the presence of tin came from the Glock.
Footnote 42: Transcript, September 27, 2010 ("Hearing Transcript"), p. 5, l. 11. Mr. Walters acknowledged on cross-examination that the preclusion motion would have been predicated upon his failure to receive the raw data underlying Mr. Schwoeble's fabric-to-fabric transfer studies and that there would have been no basis to move to preclude Ms. Lunde's testimony.
The Court does not believe Mr. Walters's representation was deficient because he failed to call Dr. Kubic as an expert witness for the defense. 17-19. It could be hairs. As discussed in more detail infra, the denim jacket was tested at the FBI laboratory and found to contain gunshot residue evidence (hereafter "GSR"). The first was that in her initial examination of the .40 caliber weapon she did not take the weapon completely apart so there may have been a small amount of tin in the weapon which she had not detected. Referring to Mr. Schwoeble, Dr. Kubic said: "I don't believe he qualifies as a scientist. Footnote 3:Id., ¶ 7.
He also admitted that his lab was not accredited by the American Society of Criminal Lab Directors.- He said that the presence of gunshot residue on the jacket would be consistent not only with a person firing a gun but a person standing right next to a person who was firing a gun.- He acknowledged that his analysis of the numbers of particles indicative of GSR on the jacket which Ms. Lunde and he had obtained differed materially. He said that Officer Anselmo recognized the Defendant only to the extent that he saw a black man. This raised continuity problems. Parlor Roller Pigeons For Sale In California, 15-16. 12-14. In the Court's view, given the strength of the People's case, the Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel under either the federal or New York state standard, even assuming that Mr. Walters's representation was professionally unreasonable in violation of the first Strickland prong.
Post College, a masters of science chemistry degree from Long Island University, a law degree from St. John's University and a Ph.D. in forensic science from [*36]the City University of New York.
You didn't testify that you saw a guy take off his jacket when you really didn't see that?A: Look, I am shaking my head in disbelief.
In beginning his argument in part by discussing the scientific method, he said that both Ms. Lunde and Mr. Schwoeble had testified that the GSR evidence found on the Defendant's jacket was consistent with someone who had fired a gun rather than consistent with contamination. Whenever there is contact, there is transfer. But the additional evidence presented by the People provided the jury with a firm basis to believe that his identification was wholly accurate. Footnote 78: Id., quoting, United States v. Wade, 388 US 218, 228 (1967). Moreover, once the People properly authenticated the underpants, any evidence that the DNA on the underpants could have been contaminated goes to the weight of the evidence, not to the admissibility of the evidence (see People v. Klinger, 185 Misc 2d 574, 586, 713 NYS2d 823; see also People v. Ko, 304 AD2d 451, 452, 757 [*48]NYS2d 561, remanded on other grounds 542 US 901 (parallel citations omitted)(emphasis added). Dr. Kubic stated that issues were also raised regarding the physical condition of the jacket throughout the chain of custody. He said the GSR evidence was important because it corroborated the testimony of the police officers and other evidence. He argued to Justice Torres that he did not "know what to make of this", that he could not make "heads or tails of this" and that his expert would not have the time to analyze it in a timely fashion. Officer DiCarlantonio described the Defendant as a male black, wearing a dark shirt, dark pants and a baseball cap. Documents purporting to be the standard operating procedures of how evidence was handled at R.J. Lee were also not provided to the witness until after the Defendant's conviction at Trial 3. After that, Sheldon, and by association everyone around him, "descend into madness" in Sheldon's words as Sheldon tries to figure out the song which he is continually humming.
Footnote 26:Id., p. 1091, ll. Ms. Lunde testified at trial that these particles are roughly one millionth of a meter in size. During his cross-examination at the hearing, it was also clear that he did not correctly remember Ms. Lunde's testimony at Trial 3.
Officer Anselmo fired his weapon and said the Defendant fell, got back up and continued running. Mr. Walters indicated his intent to seek [*29]preclusion of testimony regarding this study at Trial 3. He argued that Mr. Azziz had no possible motive to lie. The Court also does not agree with Defendant's view of the significance of Mr. Schwoeble's testimony or that it was irrelevant or misleading. On April 18th Dr. Kubic said he met with Mr. Walters and Ms. Robertson in his office for over 2 hours to discuss various aspects of GSR. People v. Williams, 11 AD3d 810 (2004), lv denied, 4 NY3d 769 (2005). Footnote 58:Id., p. 72, ll.
On voire dire by Mr. Walters the witness acknowledged that she did not memorialize her testing of the jacket by video or audio tape.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to … getting together, people getting together, fighting oppression".
Ms. Penn initially testified that the men who shot into the car wore dark clothes, but then on cross-examination admitted that she had not been wearing her glasses at the time, was groggy, was not sure what the shooters had been wearing and that her description of dark clothing might have been a silhouette. Her conclusions, however, were significantly impeached during her testimony at trial. He attributed those differences to the superiority of his equipment. He said that simply handling the jacket, even if that had been done by multiple people, would not have accounted for the amount of GSR he found.
He was given lesser sentences on his remaining convictions. He also said that he later saw an individual struggling to take his jacket off but was not sure if this was one of the same men he had earlier seen running from the police officer.
Given these facts, it is difficult to see how Dr. Kubic could have been an effective impeachment witness against Ms. Lunde (as opposed to Mr. Schwoeble). And therein suggests the real charm of the Code. He also said that all of the witnesses had testified consistently that there were no other people in the area of the shooting other than those identified during the trial and that the argument that there must have been lots of other people in the vicinity was unsupported by any evidence.
Footnote 77: New York Identification Law, The Wade Hearing/The Trial, Miriam Hibel, Lexis/Nexis, March 2010; Introduction, (citations omitted). In his sworn affidavit, however, while acknowledging that he had heard shots from his apartment, he recanted virtually all of the remainder of his trial testimony stating: "I was interviewed by Detectives to see if I had any knowledge of the events of the shooting.
[FN21], With respect to the origin of the tin found in the GSR, Ms. Lunde stated that she did not ask the District Attorney's office to provide the weapons fired by the police officers for testing.
The People also, moreover, presented detailed facts supporting their contention that their witnesses provided more reliable identification evidence than Shane Kerr or other defense evidence.
