By Sarah Abfalter
The trial resumed Friday in the case of Edward D. Hendrix, a Woodland man accused of molesting a 12-year-old girl when he was alone with her in the home he shared with his longtime girlfriend.
The alleged victim claims that, while she was alone with Hendrix on the evening of October 10, 2014, he kissed, hugged and groped her, and made several remarks regarding his intent to have sex with her. The alleged victim also claimed that Hendrix was drunk during the incident and had asked her to “pinky-promise” not to tell anyone what had happened.
However, defense for Hendrix has argued that none of these events actually transpired and that the alleged victim’s story is actually the result of her racial prejudice towards African-American men.
On the second full day of questioning the alleged victim on the witness stand, Deputy Public Defender Daniel Hutchinson began by showing the jury a string of messages between the girl and several of her friends on her Instagram profile. In the conversation, the alleged victim had appeared to take on the role of an African-American man, and she and her friends exchanged several sexually graphic messages ridiculing African-American men, discussing their large penis size, and repeatedly making use of the N-word.
Hutchinson painstakingly went over each line of the conversation with the witness, and several times throughout the questioning she admitted to lying about whether or not she understood her comments and responses. Despite repeated reminders from Hutchinson that her testimony needed to be truthful, the alleged victim continued to backtrack, and admitted to lying multiple times about the contents of her Instagram page.
Hutchinson then proceeded to show the jury the phone records from the alleged victim’s phone the night of the incident. Through his questioning and the phone records being shown to the jury, Hutchinson reasoned that the alleged victim and Hendrix were in the home alone together for approximately five minutes. He then pointed out that the timeline of events that had been agreed to by the alleged victim in previous testimony would have taken between 11 and 14 minutes. When Hutchinson asked the witness to explain how this was possible, she replied, “I don’t know.”
Hutchinson continued throughout the day to question the alleged victim’s credibility, pointing out several discrepancies between her original statements and her testimony in court. He also questioned the alleged victim on why she did not tell any adults about the incident when it occurred, but did tell most of her cheerleading squad and her friends, in an apparent attempt to demonstrate that the alleged victim’s story may have been fabricated for attention.
Hutchinson continued by questioning the girl regarding the text messages she sent right after the incident was alleged to have occurred. During this line of questioning, Hutchinson again found discrepancies in the alleged victim’s story regarding whom she texted and when, and once again she admitted to lying.
Hutchinson asked the alleged victim if there were any other lies she had told throughout her testimony that he hadn’t caught her in, to which she replied no.
“So you’re telling me I’m that sharp of an attorney that I’ve caught you in every single lie you have told today?” asked Hutchinson. “I’ll have to make a note for my supervisor.”
After Hutchinson concluded, Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin began her re-direct examination by attempting to reestablish her witness’s credibility. Serafin asked the alleged victim whether her day had been difficult and whether or not she wanted to cry during her testimony. Serafin continued questioning the alleged victim about whether she wanted to cry, but multiple defense objections were sustained and Serafin was forced to modify her questioning.
Serafin then tried to reestablish credibility by clarifying to the alleged victim the difference between a lie and a mistake. Serafin questioned her witness about whether her inaccurate answers were intentional lies or, in fact, just mistakes of memory and mistakes caused by stress. Serafin also questioned the witness about whether or not her memory was as sharp on that day in court as it was on the days she was interviewed, and whether bad memory has caused the discrepancies, as opposed to intentional lying as the defense suggests.
Serafin concluded her questioning by asking the alleged victim about her past use of the N-word. Serafin inquired about whether it was used derogatorily or just meant as a joke. The alleged victim replied that it was just a joke and that she no longer uses the term because she believes she had matured since then.
The alleged victim was finally excused from the witness stand after two full days of questioning, and the defendant’s girlfriend was called to the stand. She was asked some preliminary background questions and court was adjourned shortly thereafter.
The case will resume with testimony beginning at 9:00 AM on Monday, January 25.
Hello Sarah,
You may want to consider, in future articles, changing the term “alleged victim” to “alleged survivor”. IMHO. Thank you very much for your time, and your VG work.
That’s really our editorial policy – when a “victim” status is in doubt, we refer to them as an “alleged victim.” In this case, given that she was caught in some lies, I think that status is in question.
May I add that, unless and until the defendant is found guilty of the charge(s), the defendant is presumed innocent – that implies to me that the accuser must still be considered an alleged victim, not a victim.
I agree, “alleged victim” is the proper term.
I also like the word “accuser”.
sisterhood
“changing the term “alleged victim” to “alleged survivor””
Why would you make this word change suggestion ?
Hi Tia,
I’m no language expert but personally (friends) know over one dozen domestic violence survivors, in addition to the ones I worked with at a few different jobs over the years. Most of these folks consider themselves survivors, not victims. Regardless if this young woman is found guilty or innocent of lying, I prefer this word.
“So you’re telling me I’m that sharp of an attorney that I’ve caught you in every single lie you have told today?”
Shame on him.
Why shame on him? She admitted to lying on the stand.
Any clue if she’ll be charged for perjury?
David
““So you’re telling me I’m that sharp of an attorney that I’ve caught you in every single lie you have told today?” asked Hutchinson. “I’ll have to make a note for my supervisor.”
Although I would not have gone so far as to invoke “shame”, I feel that this comment on the part of an attorney is sarcastic, needlessly rude, and most importantly irrelevant. Having already demonstrated that she had lied on the stand, this kind of superfluous comment does absolutely nothing in my opinion to further the cause of justice which is after all what we are supposedly pursuing.
Maybe, but he’s also fighting for his client’s life here and they are not out of the woods.
The comment may have been sarcastic but it was not irrelevant. Though perhaps more appropriate for closing argument, it made the pertinent point that, based on the numerous admitted lies, one could reasonably infer that there were others that had not been exposed. As for terminology, rather than “alleged” anything, she could simply be referred to as the accuser. And depending on the outcome, she may face criminal or civil liability for making a false allegation, in which case the term “alleged” would more appropriately apply to her.
Hi David, Happy New Year to you & your family. I think the age of the alleged survivor is my reason for the use of the word “shame. ” I probably wouldn’t use such a strong word if this young woman was an adult over the age of 18…
Who is “Nicholas”
Our apologies, SODA…the Vanguard’s policy is not to name victims, alleged victims, or witnesses who are not law enforcement or expert witnesses. That was a name which was inadvertently included, and was edited out – but unfortunately not before you viewed it.
Hi again highbeam. I did not want to know who Nicholas was, was just confused as to who the author meant; came out of the blue. Totally agree with DV policy.
David
Fully understood. But in my opinion, if a jury is acting rationally, this bit of snark about a note for his supervisor is unlikely to further their path out of the woods.
Having said that, I think that this “she said” / “he said” when the she in question has already been determined to have been willing to lie under oath should be establishment of reasonable doubt in and of itself. But then, as we have seen in this county previously, sexually based charges do not seem to be based on rational consideration of facts and testimony. We have to look no further than the Dev case to see this.
Tia, I guess we should consider if cash for convictions played any part in this trial, also….
I assume the police/DA scoured any computers and found no adult porn or they would have tried to discredit this man by bring up that info, also. Or perhaps that info is no longer admissable. I hope so.
*bringing*
*admissible*
the defense attorney has to drive home the fact that she lied over and over again. this guy gets convicted, his life is ruined.
i’m sorry sisterhood, normally i agree with you, but your insistence on word choice is distracting the discussion from the fact that the accuser has lied. she has dragged this man’s name through the mud and he is potentially innocent. she had made racist comments and played it off as a joke at the aiding and abetment by the da. this is a disgrace. serafin has done this before. she should be less concerned about saving her case and more concerned about whether or not she is accusing an innocent man of crimes that could destroy the rest of his life. so given all that i don’t give a crap as to whether it’s victim or accuser, it’s f-ed up.
Hi DP. Happy New Year. I’m not insisting on anything. Just providing my word preference. And I agree with you, I do not want to distract from the trial info here. IMHO, her racist comments are abhorrent and they make me question her sincerity.
Slightly off topic, do you happen to know if lawyers are allowed to bring up adult porn as evidence in any and all sexual assault cases, or are there guideline as to when this info is admissable? Thank you.
We have on this blog seen folks blowing off racist comments as “just blowing off steam” and now we have a witness claiming ( probably as coached) that racist comments are just “joking”. I would put forward the assertion that racist comments are just that, “racist” and that any attempted excusing them as having other significance is a form of denial of the obvious.
So far what we seem to have established is that the accuser is a racist willing to lie under oath. I would see her age as a mitigating factor and would not want to see her punished. However, I also would not want to see the accused punished solely on the word of an individual who is apparently biased against those of his race and who is admittedly willing to lie under oath.
I wonder if he was offered a plea deal.
Her perjury and bigotry, while disgusting, may speak more to her youth and upbringing than the veracity of the charges, but they effectively destroy her credibility and cloud the “truth” beyond redemption. The accused should now be found “not guilty.”