SPM Responds (Part 8.d)

Continued from Part 8.c

Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs.48-54)

Judge: Does the Defense have anything else on this issue?

Chip: Just a little bit, Judge. I would ask Ms. Andrews a question - - just for the record, not in front of the jury. I’d like to supplement the record with what we talked about earlier.

D.A. Andrews: Am I under oath? Am I testifying, what?

Judge: You are an officer of the court.

D.A. Andrews: All right.

Chip: Yesterday afternoon per the Court’s conversation, Ms. Andrews and I had a conversation; is that right?

D.A. Andrews: Yes.

Chip: I called you a little after 4:00 and I was actually on hold and you said that you were just about to call me, right?

D.A. Andrews: Right.

Chip: Because you had just spoken to (Jane Doe).

D.A. Andrews: Within an hour, yes.

Chip: And (Jane Doe) - - you had asked the question - - you represented to me you had asked the question of (Jane Doe) had she seen “Scary Movie,” correct?

D.A. Andrews: Yes.

Chip: And her answer to you was, yes?

D.A. Andrews: Yes.

Chip: That’s all I have, Judge.

Judge: All right. Is there anything you want to add to the record, Ms. Andrews, or not?

D.A. Andrews: No.

Judge: Okay. So, the Defense is offering Defense 7 and what says the State?

D.A. Andrews: The same objection as before. I think only the part that this child actually watched would be relevant.

Judge: All right.

Chip: May I briefly respond?

Judge: Yes.

Chip: Your Honor, first of all, taking (Mary Doe’s) testimony at face value, which I’ve struggled with greatly and I’ll address that very briefly in a minute.

     The first 30 minutes of this movie, with the summary that I’ll be glad to provide the Court and the State, is full of very explicit sexual acts. In fact, the acts of oral sex – if the Court remembers watching the movie, the timing, I’ll be glad to give the exact times – have been repeated a few times by then. 

     More importantly, it does not strain at all this Court’s sense of reason to realize what’s happening here. We had an understanding yesterday that Ms. Andrews, who as I said in the Court’s presence I trusted to ask the question and deliver the answer that the child gave, and she did.

     It was unequivocal, yes. There was not, “Yes, but I didn’t see all of the movie.” And I trust exactly what Ms. Andrews has told this Court today. This is what she told me yesterday was the girl’s answer. Today the girl says her answer was, “Yes, but I didn’t see it all.” This is obviously a product of coaching on either her mother’s behalf or someone’s behalf because what happened was, Judge, after these movies were delivered, everybody found out what was in this movie – all of us that hadn’t seen it – and to say it is graphically sexual is an understatement, as this court is now very well aware.

     It’s extremely obvious with the inconsistencies in (Mary Doe’s) recall, that what is going on here is an attempt to obscure from the jury what should properly be before them. As this court very astutely pointed out yesterday when the objection was made by Ms. Oncken to, “Well, we don’t know if she’s seen the whole movie or what she’s seen.”

     It defies logic to assume when someone answers as she did with me on the stand and as she did with Ms. Andrews when asked the pointblank question that, yes, you’ve seen the movie. That’s the entire movie.

     Their argument goes more to weight. They’re perfectly entitled to do exactly what they just did, Judge, to offer either this young girl or her mother to make the point to the jury that they didn’t see this whole movie.

     And I think it’s obvious to this Court and all of its intuitive power with what you’ve seen going on here, that this entire movie should be played and their objection is not as to admissibility. It’s not legally sufficient. And this Court should not grant it as to relevance, certainly.

     It goes more to the weight of this evidence and they’re free and able – they’ve just proven they’re free and able to put their spin or explanation on it. But to backtrack and allow for this more than suspicious – I don’t believe in coincidences, Judge, -- I don’t believe in coincidences. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we’ve had a turnabout since 4:00 o’clock yesterday when Ms. Andrews and I spoke and she related the truth to me, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. She asked this girl the pointblank question. The girl said, yes, with no qualms, none.

     I think it is manifestly unjust to not play this video in its entirety to the jury as it is legally relevant. And the objection the State makes only goes to the weight, not admissibility, Your Honor.

D.A. Andrews: Judge, may I respond?

Judge: Okay.

D.A. Andrews: First of all, I think the Court in its own wisdom and common sense – I can tell you that we – I also did not ask the follow-up question not realizing at that moment, “Did you watch the whole thing?” She’s a ten-year-old child. You know how they answer questions. You see it all the time. And a lot of times if you don’t specifically ask the question they don’t volunteer the information. I did not realize until after I talked to her mother, you know, did y’all watch “Scary Movie”, and she volunteers the information. It’s just how it came about. 

     I don’t think that this is relevant in the part that the child did not watch. I don’t see how that is any way relevant and I don’t see how they have established any foundation for offering the jury – I mean, if that be the case, then why don’t we offer every rated R movie because she might have seen those since she can’t remember titles.

---

I’m going to interrupt Andrews to make a few points. First of all, the woman should’ve kept her mouth shut because everyone knows she’s in the middle of another low-down deed. But she decides to exploit the fact that the judge has a ten-year-old daughter of his own. That’s why she’s saying things like, “…the Court in its own wisdom” and “You know how they answer questions. You see it all the time.” She’s comparing Jane Doe to the Judge’s daughter to stab at his soft spot. It’s nauseating, but there’s no bottom to where these people will go. 

 Her biggest mistake, though, is how she puts herself in this plot. Listen to her last words, before I interrupted: “…since she can’t remember titles.”
     I want you to think about those words because nowhere in the transcripts, up to this point, does it say or suggest anything about Jane Doe not being able to remember titles. What Andrews did was, absent-mindedly, give us a piece of how they convinced the child that she only saw a part of the movie. 

     “No, Jane, you’re not remembering your titles correctly. You saw all of ‘Scary Movie Two’, not ‘Scary Movie One.’ Of Part One, you only saw about five minutes, remember?”

     “I think so.”

     “Good.”

I’ll continue from where I left off.

---

Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 54-56)

D.A. Andews: I mean, I think it’s just getting too far afield at that point. Certainly, you know, the one she’s seen, the Defense has argued they’re relevant and the Court has allowed that evidence in. But the part that she hasn’t seen I don’t believe are relevant.

Chip: Very briefly, tort, Your Honor. Ms. Andrews makes a point. This young girl has obviously been talked to. She’s obviously been coached. She can be led to say just about anything you want her to say. She’s a very intelligent young lady for ten years old. Especially when the question is asked unequivocally, the answer is given unequivocally. 

     The Court’s statement yesterday when we visited, “This is exactly right. It runs against common sense to suggest when I say I’ve seen a movie, I haven’t seen the movie.”

     Furthermore, one other very, very critical point that Ms. Andrews makes, we’re not offering the laundry list of movies. We’re offering the identifiable movies that we know have been seen for the specific purpose of supporting our theory that this girl did not get this idea of a sexual molestation from Carlos Coy from the act. She got it from a lot of different sources.

     And to prevent the jury from seeing this is really to hide the jury’s eyes from what is relevant and admitted exposure on the facts of this girl, Judge.

     I don’t think it at all should cause this Court any hesitation, that Ms. Andrews reported the answer that I thought we got from the stand. That’s what this whole circus became about is I made a representation to this Court that I was confident she had seen “Scary Movie” and that’s the question that she was answering.

     And I think to backtrack from that right now is to allow post - - activities to invade what the jury should have seen and keep them from seeing very relevant and probative evidence.
Judge: Anything else?

Chip: No, sir.

Judge: All right. I think this Court is required to make its decision based on fact rather than innuendoes. Having said that, I believe the jury is entitled to see the portion of the movie that the child saw. I believe that will be defined by the child herself.

     So, we need to put in - - and for purposes of the record - - that sorry movie and let her watch it until she tells us that that was the part that was cut off, whenever that is. And then whatever portion that is will be recorded in terms of figuring out where that is and I’m going to require that whatever the portion is that that be recorded on another tape so that there is no possibility that the jury, in it’s deliberations or otherwise, might view the balance of the tape which was not viewed by the child.

     In order to accomplish that, since I don’t have any video equipment, I’m going to request that the D.A.’s office, since they’re in this building, and since Gary Johnson has the equipment to accomplish this, who is an employee of the D.A.’s office, I’m going to request that the D.A.’s office accomplish that mission.

---

The judge is so confident that the child is going to stop the movie at around five minutes, that he’s already assigned a man, Gary Johnson, to record that short piece.

     He thinks he’s just fucking over us again, totally ignoring all that Chip said. He mentions that he’s required to make his decision based on fact not innuendos, but the fact is that Jane Doe said she watched the movie. 

     While he’s making arrangements to record this piece of the movie, Chip makes a heads-up request to keep anyone from telling the Child’s family about what’s about to happen. Being more than alert, Chip realized the possibility of Jane Doe actually believing she was telling the truth.

---

Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 58-59)

Judge: All right, since she’s already down here and I want to accomplish this today as opposed to disrupting tomorrow, my suggestion is when the jury finishes watching the first movie, then we can put on testimony to clarify the admission of the portion of – well, actually, in order to do that we need to get the tape itself. We need to have whatever we’re going to admit.

Chip: We have their copy.

Judge: But I mean the redacted portion is what I’m talking about.
 Do we have any other video machines besides the one that they’re looking at?

Bailiff: I can get one.

Judge: Can you round one up for us?

Bailiff: Yes, sir.

Chip: In the interim, Your Honor, I would ask the Court, in an abundance of caution, to not allow anybody to have contact or explain other than this Court what’s about to happen.

Judge: That’s fine.

---

Chip made sure the D.A.’s didn’t get a chance to talk to the family before the viewing of the movie, which was a brilliant move. But isn’t it sad how he had to guard them from even speaking to this family? Is it not sad what these people could do with just a few minutes behind closed doors?
    
     Before the girl comes in to watch the movie, let me verify what I said earlier, about the judge having a daughter the same age as Jane Doe. Next page:

---

Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 60-61)

Judge: …My instruction being to basically watch the movie until – up to the portion that you saw and to notify the Court when that portion ends. And then, obviously, if that is less than thirty minutes, if the Defense wants to offer additional information for purposes of the record, we can do that.
     And wherever we are – because one of the things about ten-year-olds that I have found from my own ten-year-old is the estimates of time are not very accurate. So, we’ll find out what she sees. It may be 30 minutes. It may be five minutes. And then we’ll take it from there. Okay?

---

On the next page, Jane Doe comes in to view the movie.

Continued in part 8.e