Demonstrative Cross-Examination of an Officer
Larry Taylor

Click Here to Listen 

 

Continued from Page 2...

"[Unmiked student speaking]"

My—in my trials and – LA, California is a little different. A terrible state for DUI’s. Terrible. One of the few good things we have is 12 people in a box. And, considerable leeway. They got to produce experts, usually have to have at least two cops and so on and you have to do the same. So the trial tends to take longer, typically 3-4 days. I’m just telling some of the guys that I just finished on in San Pedro that took 3-and-a-half weeks on a first time misdemeanor 1616. 3-and-a-half weeks. And I had a cop, a LAPD cop, 2 cops total on the stand, case ______, rebuttal, sur ruttutal, ah, for probably 30-40 hours for those two officers. And that’s unusual but, generally, yes 6-8 hours on the arresting officer. On the partner I try to get rid of normally pretty quickly as if he doesn’t matter he’s just, you know, officer, you’re a partner, you are a back up, you had him backing him up that day, aren’t you? That kind of thing. Get him out. The arresting officer, you want to, yeah I spent 6-8 hours and I catch crap from the judges, sometimes and sometimes the judges enjoy it. But, you know it all depends, yeah but usually 6-8 hours. And I realize that is the luxury in a lot of the states you practice in.

"[Unmiked student speaking]"

Can a battery issue be ____?

"[Unmiked student speaking]"

Well I mean concerning the argument, I think you need to attack each one if I understand your question. First of all, it should take about 12-15 minutes and that is why I got it down to, either a one-minute window to do all of these tests. Surely there is a problem. Ah, second, I didn’t go into it, but he was getting that that are not standardized. OK, off is that test and for a couple of others there are a couple of others in there that were not standardized these are things that, you know, with 6 hours of test, cross examination you can develop. So far as if one test is invalid, __?_ 2 or 3. I don’t see that. I don’t think any judges will suppress it on this basis and, ah, I don’t take that approach, I got to attack each test separately, because the jury, they aren’t lawyers, they’re common sense. They’re going to look at it. If you screw up one test, then ok, what about the other two? They stand on their own, I think. And you got to get rid of each one. Preconception of the officer, predisposition of the officer these are ways of course of backing off. Yeah

"[Unmiked student speaking]"

Called the arresting officer?

"[Unmiked student speaking]" Yeah.

Well I don’t have to. I don’t understand. I mean the DA calls him, my cross-examination.

"[Unmiked student speaking]"

In the defense case? Does it have ____ witness?

"[Unmiked student speaking]" Yeah

I suppose you could do it. What I find usually that the DA goes back to the cop and the expert again on rebuttal. Not necessary but often.

"[Unmiked student speaking]"

No, it’s in my book. But I didn’t come up with it on my own. I got that from the articles but I had cited in cases of authority.

"[Unmiked student speaking]"

Well actually, What I find is that the officers don’t know but they don’t want to admit it. And you got a book there, of you got the ___?___ manual, whatever and you are looking at it and you say, "Officer it's a fact that caffeine, ___?____ and nine times out of ten he’ll say "I don’t know, or I think so, I heard that." I rarely have I had a cop tell me once he realizes once he realizes that I know what I’m talking about and they figure it out very quickly, ___?___. They’ll say that, ah, I heard that. Very rarely will they say that "absolutely not, No." They don’t need it and they don’t _______.

"[Unmiked student speaking]"

Well I don’t go to the cops, but yeah, this is something that I have lectured to many of you before. I have sent scientific journals to their experts witness days before their testimony. Ah, so that they can read it and I can get it in. Ah, through their cross exam. Ah and when they say, "Why, I haven’t read it." Then I can say..., if they don’t, then you can bring out the opposite, you know, of some expert you got here, __?__ that’s not even interested in the literature in his field and is dropped in his lap and told he will be cross examined. So it is a good way to..., particularly if you can’t afford your own expert, to use their expert if you have one in your own state, if the prosecution uses one as a conduit to get the scientific evidence.