Accusation of Prosecutorial Misconduct Highlights Closing Arguments

by Antoinnette Borbon

Testimony continued Thursday with more lengthy testimony by both California Highway Patrol Officer Charles Anderson and Dr. Juliana Rohrer in the case of (a defendant) being charged with felony evading a police officer and battery and assault on a police officer.

Officer Anderson is one of the officers who apprehended the defendant, and who had sustained a back sprain in the struggle to gain control of the defendant. (a defendant) faces seven counts, a few of which pertain to the injuries to Officer Anderson and Nurse Darrell Turner. It was the defense’s contention that the injuries did not result in treatment and that officers may have used excessive force on (a defendant).

Earlier in the week, Deputy DA Rob Gorman opened his case, stressing the seriousness of the felony charges. But in Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson’s opening, it geared more toward the state of mind of the defendant.

Under direct examination by Mr. Hutchinson, the defense witness, Dr. Rohrer. testified to the delusional behavior of (a defendant). She reiterated that she did not probe the defendant with questions so as not to distress him further. She explained his diagnosis to be that of a person who has delusions stemming from meth, alcohol and marijuana abuse.

She further testified that the defendant honestly believes his delusions, and pushing him to answer questions about them could potentially do more harm. It was noted (a defendant) was, in fact, under the influence of meth, but had nothing else in his system, at the time of the arrest.

DDA Gorman was not buying into the defense’s contention that (a defendant) suffered from delusions. He hammered questions about why, after diagnosing him, the doctor did not advise (a defendant) to stay away from meth, given that his delusions are caused by drug usage. She replied, “I gave my report to his attorney.” Defense, during re-direct asked, “Aren’t attorneys often called counselors?” The doctor answered, “Yes.”

Dr. Rohrer talked about how she came to the conclusion of his mental health diagnosis. She had given several different types of tests before reaching this conclusion. Her testimony was questioned regarding its validity and because she was not the regular doctor of the defendant.

Mr. Gorman implied that she had been paid to say what the defense wanted for this case. He argued that the defendant was trying to fool jurors and the defense about his mental health issues.

After completing her lengthy testimony, CHP Officer Anderson returned to the stand to testifiy about the night in question. The officer talked about his injury and how the defendant had caused it.

He went over his report written on the night of the events, explaining that it was (a defendant) who had become out of control after being blood tested at Woodland Memorial Hospital. He said (a defendant) had drawn his hands back into a “fighting stance,” but this seemed more like a defense mechanism when the defendant was asked to turn around so they could put handcuffs back on him.

Officer Anderson stated (a defendant) had to be tased but said it was a “dry Taser.” According to his testimony, (a defendant) struggled with the officers and nurse until they were all on the floor of the ER room.

Finally gaining control, through the help of the other officer, the nurse and the Taser, Officer Anderson was able to put (a defendant) in cuffs and escort him to the cop car. There was no seat belt placed on defendant (a defendant).

Officer Anderson testified that it was impossible to put one on him. On the way back to the jail, (a defendant) tried to kick Officer Anderson and threw his body into the officer. Officer Cornell of the Highway Patrol was driving and had to pull over and make sure the situation was in control.

Officer Anderson stated he had to use the Taser gun with the defendant while in the back seat of the cop car to regain control. He said (a defendant) begged him to stop and professed to be “God,” telling the officer that he loved him.

Officer Anderson was asked by the defense why he wrote in his police report that (a defendant) used “blasphemy,” which is to speak against God. Officer Anderson told Mr. Hutchinson that he was not a religious man. It was unclear why he used that term.

Officer Cornell was the state’s final witness. He also works for the CHP and was on duty the night (a defendant) was taken into custody. He testified to the events leading up to the arrest and the incidents between Officer Anderson and (a defendant). He witnessed a type of blabbering, delusional speaking which he said led him to believe (a defendant) suffered from mental health issues.

Officer Cornell testified about the struggle to get (a defendant) under control, both at the hospital and in the back of his patrol car. Officer Cornell’s testimony appeared to corroborate that of Officer Anderson.

During closing arguments, Deputy DA Gorman argued that the defendant used willful intent and had a lack of concern while driving at the excessive speeds of 105 mph for more than 21 miles. He stated the defendant knew the cops were there, knew they were trying to stop him and he did not care. (a defendant), he argued, kept on driving with wanton recklessness, putting others on the road in danger.

Mr. Gorman said the explanation given about the delusions had changed from what (a defendant) had told to police to the story given by the defense’s hired doctor. He told the jurors not to be fooled by the defendant’s story. He directed them to read the testimony of the officers and that of the doctor, pleading with the jury, “Do not be fooled.”

Mr. Gorman talked about the proof of injury on the officers, arguing that the defense was implying that Officer Anderson was merely trying to get a worker’s compensation case.

Mr. Gorman stated, “Defense’s line of questioning was geared to make you think it was an attempt to claim compensation by Officer Anderson.” Mr. Hutchinson boldly objected to strike this part of the closing, demanding, “This is prosecutorial misconduct, your honor!”  Judge Mock agreed that it was improper argument and ordered it stricken from the record.

During his closing argument, Dan Hutchinson began with a kind apology to the jurors for the mishaps and slow start, and thanking them for their patience.

Mr. Hutchinson told the story of a man who had been up for three days, coming down off a meth high, and because of this, he became delusional. Mr. Hutchinson says (a defendant) was not evading the officers, but rather fleeing from people he believed were in pursuit to kill him.

(a defendant), he argued, was an owner of a heating/air conditioning business but made some poor decisions.  The prosecution contended (a defendant)’s story is not “true,” but Mr. Hutchinson countered, going into the testimony of Dr. Rohrer and her findings after doing a lengthy evaluation on the defendant.

He noted that the doctor had testified about administering specific tests to properly diagnose the defendant, and that she had concluded it was a drug-induced delusional disorder.  Mr. Hutchinson asked the jurors, “Why didn’t the state hire their own expert if they did not believe the findings?”

Mr. Hutchinson then proceeded to attack the closing arguments by the prosecutor, arguing that the state “wants you to believe the delusions are fake but the stories told to both the doctor and CHP officers that night are really not that different.”

He explained the term “malingering,” and how it was not possible for (a defendant) to have done this during the chase or the actions after being arrested. He brought up the low-level IQ of the defendant and noted the testimony by Dr. Rohrer, who testified that there was no way (a defendant) could be faking, as prosecution contends.

Mr. Hutchinson used the words of Bob Dylan to say, “You don’t need a weather man to know which way the wind blows,” to point out how we can use common sense to figure a few things out.

Mr. Hutchinson depicted two very annoyed officers who were driven to the point of aggression, using excessive force on (a defendant) to gain control. However, he pointed out that the two officers were still seemingly reasonable calm men.

Backing up his statement about who the aggressor really was, Mr. Hutchinson used testimony given by Dr. Rohrer about her written notes taken during an evaluation on (a defendant).

In her report, she wrote that (a defendant) told her it was Officer Cornell who had become aggressive with him after the defendant asked for a drink of water.

Mr. Hutchinson said, “It’s like trying to put a child to bed but they keep asking you for something until you get fed up, annoyed and have to be stern.” What happened that night was that the officers used unnecessary force to detain (a defendant), tasing him several times. Mr. Hutchinson states that the only flailing from (a defendant) was a direct result of the reaction to being tased.

The nurse who drew blood from (a defendant) was previously an officer with the highway patrol and acted out as though he were still charged with that duty, rather than that of a nurse, making it unlawful.

He also told jurors the nurse was never brought to testify because the prosecution did not want them to see just how big he was in contrast to the defendant, which would have rendered the theory, of Nurse Turner being assaulted, unbelievable.

In conclusion, Dan Hutchinson argued that the sprained back of Officer Anderson happened in the back of the cop car as (a defendant) had tried to push the officer with his shoulder, forcing Officer Anderson to pull out the Taser, turning himself in a way that strained his back. He stated it was not willful or intentional. It happened as a result of turning his back to the Taser.

During his rebuttal, Deputy DA Rob Gorman reiterated that he believed that the defendant was exaggerating his delusions.

Mr. Gorman began boldly with the charge of felony evading. He told the jurors, “Mr. Hutchinson wants you to believe (a defendant) had temporary delusions, only when being chased?” He added, (a defendant) was “crazy like a fox, this story is and the evidence shows it.”

Mr. Gorman told the jurors, “The delusions changed over and over, which lead us to believe they are false.” He continued, “(a defendant) put the public’s safety at risk when he evaded police.”

Mr. Hutchinson objected to Gorman’s statement, and it was sustained by Judge Mock. It was the second time Mr. Gorman had an objection sustained against him.

Mr. Gorman argued, “What is it, he is only delusional while being chased but at the hospital, (a defendant) acts like a choirboy?” “Really?” Gorman says to jurors.

Rob Gorman reminded the jury of the testimony from Officer Anderson regarding the fight stance and states it was indeed a fight stance, not out of fear as the defense would like you to believe. He then brought up the hospital incident and defense’s claim.

He asks, “Did the two officers just wait after being annoyed to give (a defendant) a physical tune-up?” and “after (a defendant) threw his tantrum at the hospital, really?” he says to the jurors once again.

DDA Gorman hammered home the whole story being nothing but a made-up defense by (a defendant), convincing his counsel he was delusional to get out of the charges. He states, “It is a fake, crazy like a fox,” he contends. He pleaded with the jurors not to be fooled.

Mr. Gorman concluded by telling the jurors to read the transcripted testimony of witnesses and to use their common sense in deciding on a guilty verdict.

Deliberation began on Friday, after jury instructions were read, and will resume on Monday morning.

Categories: