Key Points from Statement of Facts

Christopher Coleman

Key Points from Statement of Facts

Key Points from Pretrial Motions starting on May 5, 1997:

Taken from Testimony of Able Casas--D.A. investigator

Line 18--State's witness Prado making comments about hair of No. 1 (in suspect line-up)

Line 19--Says hair was an issue...making hair an absolute issue in the line up.

Line 25--He says nothing was mentioned about hair of No. 1, but in line 18 he said just the opposite.

Testimony of Jaime Escalante--homicide investigator

Line 32--He says he started work on the case on December 25, 1995.

Line 40--He did not write a supplement saying Prado identified the defendant.

Line 42--He did not take any written statements from Prado but his supplement made no reference to Prado identifying the defendant in photospread.

Line 44--He says she showed photospread to Prado December 23, 1995. If he did not start working on the case until December 25 then how could he have shown photospread to Prado on December 23?

Line 47--He made no indication or supplement pointing out that Prado or co-defendant identified the defendant. This means the testimony is fabricated--if he had shown photospread to Prado, then he would have had paperwork stating that it was done and defendant was identified. Since he confirms that he never wrote a supplement or made any formal indication that the photospread ever took place, then it should not be allowed. It is their own policy that they are always to write supplemnets of any investigation and especially in a Capital murder case.

Taken from Testimony of Elsie Prado--surviving witness

Line 54--She did say something about person in No.1 position (in line-up). She also said that No.2 had bigger hair. (Remember this point that she mentions hair as an absolute issue in line-up.)

Line 60--She says she does not remember talking to Prosecutor Julian Ramirez or ever going into a courtroom in that building and the D.A. point the defendant out to her.

Line 62--She does not remember going to the line-up two times and not having it the first time. (Remember this point also.)

Line 74--She says she identified photo in photospread. (If she did, then why did Escalante not make a report of it?)

Taken from Testimony of Vanessa Valasquez--Prosecutor

Line 80--Handed Prado photograph. (This occurred after the line-up took place)

Line 81--She says Prado immediately says it is No.2. (The D.A. did this so that they could use Valasquez in trial to help their case by her testimony saying Prado identified the defendant in photo line-up. But this occured after the line-up had already taken place, so if the line-up produced a possitive ID, then why would they need to show Prado more photos? It is obvious that they did this to help bolster their case because they knew there was no positive ID to take place)

Line 83--At the line-up, Prado said it was No.2 face but No.1 hair. (This contradicts what investigator Able Cases testified to saying Prado never made reference to No. 1)

Line 85--Admits that no possitive identification had been made. Said she was shocked by this assessment.

Taken from Testimony of Randy McDonald--Defendant's former lawyer who attended the line-up and was a witness to the proceedings

Line 128--Mentions his objections to D.A. trying to hold a line-up without him being present.

Line 131--Talks about everyone present at the line-up on the day it occured: Able Cases, Elsie Prado, and her lawyer, Gilbert Villareal.

Line 132--He took notes during the entire time of the line-up.

Line 133--Did not recall anything in offence report about Prado identifying the defendant.

Line 136--Because of audio malfunction the defendant was was standing out in front of the group in the line-up for a long period of time.

Line 137--Prado made no identification during the line-up. She wanted to know if they could take some out of the line-up and leave some. This was interpretted back to him.

Line 138--Prado made comments about No.2 hair being bigger, but made no mention of the face and wanted to view the line-up again.

Line 139--After looknig at No.1, Prado was talking, and her lawyer said she was just talking to herself. She did not say anything as No. 2 was in front.

Line 140--Prado said No.2 looks like him but hair was alot longer. Then she said that it was between No.1 and No.2. He made a note that D.A. Davidson said, "Not Possitive". Able Casas then said, "No 2", and McDonald then said or made a note, "even people who speak Spanish know what number two means"

Line 141--No.1 and No.2 did not look anything alike.

Line 142--He was never sure whether there had been an identification made, tentative or not because no one had said anything other than what D.A. Davidson had said. ("Not Possitive")

Line 143--Said prosecuter felt tentative ID drew a hearsay objection that was sustained. (This is the reason the D.A. had to change the line-up to later say it was an ID when it was not.)

Line 146--Had a conversation with Prado's lawyer who said that he agreed the line-up would be tentative.

Line 147--D.A. Luci Davidson said line-up was not possitive. (there was no ID)

Line 151--D.A. Luci Davidson makes hair an issue. D.A. makes comment about No.1.

Line 153--The word "possitive" was never mentioned by anybody.

Line 154--Paperwork was marked as tentative by Able Casas.

Taken fron Testimony of Gilbert Villareal--Prado's attorney

Line 177--He says part of the problem with the line-up was hair. (once again hair is made an issue in the line-up)

Key Points from Trial--May 28, 1997, Day 1:

Taken from Opening Statments

Line 4--None of the opening statements made by D.A. Nassar concerning the upcoming testimony of witness Derry Scott are accurate. He never testified to any of the things she said he was going to tell the jury.

Taken fron Testimony of Joseph Burrell--Investigator

Line 72--Said all shots came from the left of the victim's vehicle and it would be difficult for there to be more than one shooter. (Ballistics tests will show, as well as testimony, that all shots were not fired from the same side--the victims wounds were not consistant with this.)

Taken from Testimony of Alan Brown--Homicide Investigator

Line 308--No prints from the defendant were found on or in the victims car.

Line 310--One of the paramedics had spoken to the female complaintant (Prado), but he did not put this in his report. (Prado makes a contradiction about this having occured-Lines 489 and 502)

Taken from open talk in the courtroom while the Judge inquires about a witness

Line 334--Asks whether the Scotts have been charged with any crime.

Line 335--The Scotts were told by the NAACP that they had the right to plead the 5th Amendment which protects against self-incrimination.

Line 340--Scott says his testimony may be a little different if he testifies truthfully, which is why he wanted to plead the 5th Amendment.

Line 355--Judge asks the mother of the Scotts if she talked to the NAACP.

Line 358--Judge wants to know the name of the NAACP who told her that her kids could plead the 5th Amendment and gave her bad advice.

Taken from Testimony of Curtis Blount--State Witness

Line 362--Said he saw one guy standing outside of the victims car.

Line 363--Said he(the man he saw) was talking to an occupant in the victims car. Gives description of the person he saw. (which is the co-defendant Mosquera wearing the blue jogging suit he was arrested in)

Line 364--The time was between 1a.m. and 2a.m.

Line 365--He left and came back about 30 min later and they were still talking.(Mosquera and occupant(s) of the car)

Line 366--Says he got home about 30 min later and then he heard gunshots.(The total time in which he describes covers a span of over an hours time)

Taken from Testimony of Douglas Beal (Smith)--State Witness

Line 389--He was on probation and had a pending murder case and was in prison bootcamp at the time. He said he felt the D.A. reinstated his murder case (it had been dismissed) in order to coerce him into testifying against the defendant.

Line 390--Said the Prosecutor threatened him with aggravated perjury if he did not testify. (He had four conversations with prosecutors--said he felt they did not beleive him.)

Line 403--Did not feel he had the freedom to leave the police station because he was handcuffed.

Line 404--He did not see any money that night.

Line 399--Said he felt he was coerced into giving statement.

Taken from Testimony of Derrick (Derry) Scott--State Witness

Line 414--Does not recall any conversation between the defendant and the co-defendant, Derrick Graham. (This is what D.A. Nassar's opening statement was about--she said Derry Scott would testify to all of this but he did not.)

Line 415--Does not recall defendant asking Derrick Graham anything about money.

Line 418--Judge allows Derrick Scott to give his opinion from what the Judge said he heard. (Derry Scott just testified that he did not hear any so-called conversation as D.A. Nassar claims--so how can he offer an opinion?)

Line 440--Said his testimony might differ from what he previously said.

Taken fron Testimony of Elsie Prado--victim/witness

Line 467--Said they made stop to get something to eat around 10:30 p.m.

Line 470--First said another car showed up and then turns around and said it was already there. (Which is it?)

Line 471--She said a man came up to the right side of car.

Line 472--Siad that the car was low--could not see the mans face, only his body.

Line 474-- She describes the events as they occured as soon as they stopped the car. (This contradicted what State witness Curtis Blount testified to in line 362-366.) Ballistics also contradicts her version of events (that the shooter was on the right side of the car).

Lines 477--She said one persone did the shooting.

Line 489--She sais she remembered talking to hispanic nurse. (Remember this point!)

Line 498--Said the shooting happened in short time. (Remember: They got there a little after 10:30 upon leaving the resteraunt but the shoothing occured between 1:30 a.m. and 2:00 a.m.)

Line 499--Said after they stopped their car someone ran up and started shooting. (Testimony of Curtis Blount contradicts this in lines 362-366.)

Line 500--Told the investigators she could not see the face because she was in the backseat sitting behind her brother who was a large man. (Contradicts earlier testimony.)

Line 501--Said they were wearing bandanas and were darkskinned males. (defendant is a light skinned male)

Line 502--Said she does not remember telling investigator that there was a 4th person in the car. She said she told the paramedic there were only three black males. (This is a contradiction of line 489 where she testified that she did not tell the paramedic anything)

Line 503--Told investigators that suspect had large handkerchiefs or bandanas over their faces and the one doing the shooting had something over his head. ( If hair was covered up, then it shows she was lying at the line-up hearing when she said that hair confused her or hair was different etc.)

Line 510--Said only one person was doing the shooting.

512--There was a house right in front of the crime scene, but she did not go to this house for help when she got out of the car after the crime took place. (Why not?)

Taken from Testimony of John Swaim--Investigator

Line 568-- Found out Prado had spoken with paramedic and made a statement to him. The paramedic spoke Spanish. (This again contradicts Prado's earlier testimony that she did not talk to the paramedic.)

Line 569--Paramedic told him that Prado said a red car cut off their car. (Contradicts Prado's earlier testimony of events.)

Line 577--Found out Prado spoke to nurse in hospital.

Line 579--Said Derry Scott said Mosquera was driving a red car.

Taken from Testimony of Ernesto Moreno--Paramedic

Line 636--Spoke to Prado in Spanish. She said a maroon or red car cut them off.

Taken fron Testimony of Eva Aviles--Nurse

Line 644-- Said Prado told her that men had bandanas covering their nose and she could only see their eyes and hair.(Contradicts earlier testimony that the shooters head was covered.) Said faces were covered. (If faces were covered, how could she ID anyone?)

Taken from Testimony of Leroy Benavidez--Homicide Investigator

Line 660--Said Prado told him she could not see anyone because she was in the backseat. She could not see faces, and she said they were wearing dark bandanas covering hair. He speaks Spanish.

Line 661--Had no problem talking to Prado.

Line 664--Prado said bandana covered complete head and hair.

Line 669--Prado said there was 4th person in the car.

Taken from Testiomony of Jose Selvera--Investigator

Line 680--Prado said there was only one person shooting.

Line 681--She did not see him with the gun.

Line 682--She thought there was a 4th person in the car.

Line 684--Prado said the men were wearing dark bandanas covering hair. (If hair was covered up as she has said, then how could it have been an issue at the line up??)

Line 695--She said she was in the back seat and could not see any faces.(Major Key Point: Cant see faces, have bandanas on their heads covering their hair, faces covered--how could she ID anyone?)

Closing Arguments

Line 722--Said the defendant can be convicted under law of parties. (No evidence was offered at trial under this scheme as my lawyers objected to this inclusion in the Jury Charge as well as Conpiracy Language they included where no evidence was offered to support this theory.)

Line 724--Said things that no one in the trial ever testified to.

Line 725--Said things that were not testified to at all during the trial.(Distortion of Evidence)(See line 4 and also line 414)

727--Said more things which no one testified to during the trial. (Where the D.A. gets this from has yet to be seen.)

Line 733--D.A. Nassar admits Mosquera was dressed in a blue jogging suit.(This is what State's witness Curtis Blount said the man who was seen standing at the car talking for an hour was wearing.)

Testimony of Randy Mc Donald--Defendants former lawyer (He had to remove himself from the case in order to be a witness for the defendant. The judge would not allow him to testify in front of the jury in guilt/innocence phase of the trial.)

Line 1056--Jury sends out note saying they are at an impasse--ask judge what they should do. They are divided 8-4 and have been deliberating for 12 hours.

The judge sends them back to deliberate some more. Jury sends out another note and they are still at an impasse. They are divided11-1.The judge sends them back in. Hours later they come back with death sentence. (Seems like they were given no choice from the judge who repeatedly sent them back for more deliberation. (15 hours total))