The Trial

August 5, 2009 Wednesday

Wow, it has been a long time since I wrote. So where did I leave off.... oh the trial. Here's a catch up since it has been so long. Last week, the last week in July, was my week to fully experience a trial from beginning to end. The whole week I drove to and from Lander so I could get a better understanding of how a trial worked and how coroner staff testified to present evidence in a court of law. I was lucky because on Wednesday, July 29, 2009, my Mom drove to Lander to help me better understand what was going on. I'm very lucky she was willing to do that because I learned a whole lot more.

Trial Day 1- Tuesday

The morning was interesting for me because it was jury selections. There were around 45 people seated, in an order understood by the judge and attorneys but not me, in the rows of pew like seats in the courtroom. They all answered questions asked by the prosecution and then by the defense. All morning questions were asked of the group and those that had to respond in the affirmative were asked to raise their hands or stand up and describe what had occurred, and then, if after that experience they favored either the prosecution or the defense. In other words they had to say if they could judge the trial fairly. There were a lot of instances where potential jurors had to approach the bench to discuss a particular situation in private. One question that was asked was if any of the jurors knew the witnesses including Ed and/or Mark. A sweat hog, who is a person who joins in Indian sweats with Roni and Ed regularly, by the name of Daryl stood up for this question and stated that she knew both Ed and Mark well. In the end she was not chosen to be a part of the 13 person jury.

It took all morning for the questions to be asked and for each person to answer and/or approach the bench. After lunch the 12 jurors were announced along with an alternate, making a 13 person jury panel. What was neat is that after lunch the attorneys had to deliberate between which people they wanted for the jury, so during that time, to keep everyone occupied, the judge read some trivia about Wyoming. Did you know that biggest wooden boat ever made was named the Wyoming? Or that for luck rodeo girls wear non-matching socks? There was also clues to guess the Wyoming city. For example: A pilot always has to do this with a plane: Land her- Lander. It was really fun. I did feel bad for a lot of the potential jurors that weren't picked because they had taken the whole day off and, in the end, didn't get to hear the case. I don't know if they felt the same way though.

The court took a recess and then it was time for opening statements. The prosecution repeatedly stated that they had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt. Which means that they have to provide enough evidence to convince jurors that the man was guilty of two counts of vehicular homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense stated that there was no way the prosecution could prove that the defendant was driving the vehicle or was to blame for the crash.

The next three witnesses were called by the prosecution. I enjoyed hearing these people testify because it set the scene of what exactly had occurred that night. All of them really go with the each other so I won't repeat what occurred; I'll just help set the scene for you. The first person called was the bartender who was working at the bar the defendant was drinking at on the night of the collision. This man was clear in stating that the bar was full that night and he was the only one working. He was the one who served the defendant and also the one who cut the defendant off when he began to get sloppy. The bartender offered to find a ride for the defendant but he refused and left the bar for 20-40 minutes, returning later to ask the bartender for a jump. Not knowing if the defendant was sober enough to drive, the bartender apprehensively asked his mechanic friend, who had just entered the bar and was still sober, to go and help get the truck started. The friend agreed, and he and the defendant left the bar.

The second witness for the day was a female who had also been at the bar that night. The night in question was in December and the bar was busy because the town had gathered to go Christmas caroling and then to the bar afterwards. The woman stated that she had been drinking in the bar when she heard that the defendant needed a jump. She and another man, (the bartender's friend) went outside to do the jump. She was making her way to the driver's seat when one of the victims by the name of Colleen came up to her saying "don't be scared my son is asleep in the backseat". The witness stated she did see the form of the 28 year old boy, by the name of Zate, in the back when she walked around the vehicle. The witness continued to the driver's seat and popped the hood. The mechanic pulled up and parked his vehicle in front of the truck to perform the jump when both he and the woman noticed that the light came on under the hood, indicating the battery was working and there was no possible way the vehicle needed a jump. The mechanic moved his truck back to its parking spot and the woman got back into the driver's seat and started the vehicle. She said she believed the defendant couldn't start his truck because he was intoxicated and the truck was a standard transmission, meaning he had to remember to push in the clutch before the truck would start. The defendant then switched places with her taking the driver's seat and he proceeded to drive out of the parking lot. She then went back inside the bar.

The third witness was the mechanic, and boy was he nervous. I found out later when I met his daughter at the rodeo that night that he had been incredibly nervous for days, which I can understand. It is easy to be seated in the witness stand and to take what appears to be the wrath of several attorneys. His statement just seconded what the second witness' from before had already testified about.

Day 2- Wednesday

In the morning the prosecution called the man who was the first person on the scene. He was a truck driver and saw the vehicle on the side of road as he was driving past on the highway. He turned his rig around, called EMS, parked on the side of the road and went to help. He grabbed a couple coats as he left the cab of his semi and went to the scene to evaluate and provide help. He noted that there was an alcoholic smell near the defendant. This man was thanked by the defense and the family of the deceased multiple times for stopping and offering help to those in wreck, although the defendant he didn’t say a word.

The next witness was a Wyoming Highway Trooper who was asked to go to the hospital to talk to the defendant. The defendant had been transported in an ambulance by EMS to the hospital. While at the hospital the Trooper was given a blood sample from the defendant which would later be sent in to the Crime Lab for tests. They also took a sample of blood at the hospital and it showed that the defendant had a BAC of .26% when he arrived at the hospital.

The third witness of the day was our own Mark Stratmoen, the Chief Deputy Coroner. He was there because he had transported both bodies to the funeral home. While at the funeral home he and another deputy coroner took pictures of the bodies, which is standard procedure to document the trauma and markings for later identification. In this case the two bodies were referred to as Jane Doe and John Doe for a while. He was asked to describe the pictures that he took to the jury during his testimony. These were way too graphic for the family to see and that explains why I’m not showing them either.

The next witness was Highway Trooper Badura,the lead investigator and the big witness for the prosecution. He had to testify about the interviews he conducted with the witnesses and the defendant, the pictures that he took of the scene and the truck, and the surveillance video he got from a gas station that showed the defendant's truck passing by in the background. His testimony was long so the important points were that his examination of the tire tracks on the road showed the vehicle moving off the road once, then the driver over corrected causing the vehicle to go into a sideways skid. When it hit the side of the road it began rolling. Another important point was the video from the gas station which showed the truck passing by in the background. This was too fuzzy to see the truck's occupants but it did allow the trooper to figure out when the truck passed this location and compare the time to when the first 911 call came in. This helped him develop a very important time line for the relative time the truck rolled over. The last important point was the condition of the truck and the evidence it gave about the positioning of its passengers that night. The vehicle was crushed in on all sides except the driver's seat, which still had an intact window and very little blood. The only person that would have walked away from that crash was whoever had been in the driver's seat. This supported the prosecution's theory that the defendant was in the driver's seat because he walked away with only a cut on his left hand, a bump on the back of his head, and some bruising on his side.

The last witness for the day, and they had to postpone the trooper’s cross examination to fit this witness in, was the general surgeon who was on call the night/morning that the defendant was brought into the hospital. He didn’t really have much contact with the defendant so his testimony wasn’t all that vital in my opinion.


Day 3- July 30, 2009 Thursday

The morning started out with the cross examination of Trooper Badura, followed by three witnesses from the crime lab who had taken samples from the truck and had tested them to determine if they were human or non-human and for DNA. These witnesses were taken in as expert witnesses which means that their testimonies are given more credibility because they have extensive experience in their field. They testified that there was one sample of biological matter that wasn't human, which fit with the testimony of some of the witnesses. Some stated that the defendant had a dog with him at all times, and others acknowledged the dog's presence at the scene but not in the bar leaving you with the impression the dog must have been in the vehicle during the roll over.

Ed was the very last witness for the prosecution. He was there to tell the jury about the scene. There were multiple photos of how Zate and Colleen's bodies had fallen during the roll-over causing their deaths. Zate had been decapitated from just above the chin while he was still in the vehicle. There was lots of blood in the vehicle and the crime lab techs had determined it was Zate's blood. Then his face, and this is interesting, his face was skinned off in one complete piece, and it fell out of the truck landing upright, still intact on the ground. Amazing! Colleen had been thrown out the passenger side of the vehicle as it was rolling, and was thrown up into the tree that the truck eventually landed up against. She was thrown 18 feet above the ground in the tree and the blood showed that she had slid down the tree, only to stop with her feet dangling approximately 2 feet off the ground. Ed was very calm as he testified and he gave clear answers. In fact, the defense did not do a cross examination with him but instead thanked him for his time and even shook his hand when he got off the stand and left. Mom and I don't think this was a good move on the defense's part but I can't think of what they would have gotten out of him seeing as he never saw the defendant.

Day 4- Friday July 31, 2009 (The final day)
The prosecution rested and the defense did the same. We were hoping that the defendant would be put on the stand but that didn’t happen. Too bad. For closing arguments the prosecution went through the whole timeline and what had occurred according to each witness’s testimony. The defense had a board stating the inconsistencies he noted between the witnesses’ testimonies. The prosecution was able to readdress the jury which they used to justify the inconsistencies. In the end, the jury came back about 2 hours later with the unanimous decision that the defendant was guilty. Which is what Mom and I believed would happen. We had already left town to head home, but Ed called and told us the verdict.

What I learned from the trial, mostly because my Mom was there to explain things to me:

1. When an attorney is questioning a witness and attorney on the other side objects to a question, this lets everyone know that the attorney that objected will be doing the cross-examination of that witness.
2. The short wooden wall between the lawyers and the public is called the bar. It is a courtroom hierarchy marking the point at which only those who have passed the bar can go beyond. Members of the public and non-attorneys are all seated in that area of the room before the bar, and only attorney, witnesses as they are going to the witness stand, and actual jury members ever sit beyond the bar.
3. The court reporter in this trial uses a special typewriter that is quiet and prints letters that depict sounds, not full words. It places these letters on rolls of paper like sale receipt rolls that you get at the grocery store. It is connected to a computer that puts the phonetics back into words and full sentences. The judge also had a computer with the notes the reporter was taking in front of him so he could review what was said for objections. I believe it takes a lot of training and practice to do this. A lot more work than I would think is fun, but it is really neat to watch.
4. Everyone stands for the jury and the judge when they enter the courtroom.
5. Attorneys are taught how to dress on certain days. On the first day they wear their most formal outfit, such as a black colored suit, and as the trial progresses, they dress in lighter colors to portray the concept that the trial is getting easier or going in their favor. On the last day they often wear some red which is aggressive for their closing arguments.
6. Only two potential witnesses are allowed to view the whole trial and testify. These would be the lead investigator and the defendant. All the others or prohibited from talking to other witnesses and they can’t go to the trial until they have given their testimony. This is to make sure each witness testifies to what they know, and not change or flavor their testimony based upon what they have heard another witness say from the stand.
7. The attorneys are kind of putting a show on for the jury in that the judge and the attorneys always treat each other, all the witnesses, and the jury with great respect so that one side doesn’t look like the “bad” side and sway the jury’s vote. The legal issues are resolved before the jury is brought in and certain arguments are taken to the bench, away from the jury so that they can't hear was is being discussed.