Molestation Trial Resumes in Woodland

By Sarah Abfalter

Woodland resident, Edward D. Hendrix, appeared in court Wednesday in the second week of what has become a lengthy and complicated trial. Hendrix is charged with the alleged molestation of a 12-year-old girl when the girl was staying in the home that he shared with his girlfriend, the girl’s cheerleading coach.

Both the girl’s mother and the investigating detective in the case, Detective Maribel Cortes, were called to the stand to testify on Wednesday.

It is alleged by the prosecution that on the night of October 10, 2014, the young girl was in the home alone with the defendant when the defendant attempted to initiate sex with the young girl and inappropriately touched her.

Text messages shown to the jury that the alleged victim had sent to a friend on the evening of October 10 detailed what the girl claimed had occurred, describing the defendant as drunk and saying he had hugged and kissed her before groping her buttocks and then ultimately attempting to initiate sexual intercourse.

However, Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson has cast doubt on the timeline of events presented by the prosecution and is arguing that no part of the crime alleged against Hendrix actually occurred. Hutchinson has also presented evidence attempting to show the alleged victim’s racial bias toward African American men, and argued that may have been a driving force in the girl’s fabrication of the story. A part of the girl’s Instagram account, which included derogatory statements about black men and showed use of the N-word, was previously shown to the jury.

The alleged victim’s mother, however, denied her daughter having any racial bias toward African American men. She also claimed that, while her daughter may have lied about some things in the past, she would never lie about something as serious as this.

But, during cross-examination when questioned regarding use of the N-word in her home, the alleged victim’s mother admitted that her husband actually did use the word frequently within the home.

It was also exposed during cross-examination that the alleged victim’s mother had lied during her testimony at a preliminary hearing for the case regarding her past criminal history. She was also unsure of whether or not she was the alleged victim’s legal guardian, because she was not involved in the girl’s life until around age 7.

During cross-examination of Detective Cortes, Hutchinson also pointed out the somewhat limited investigation done in this case. Prior to arresting Hendrix, Cortes interviewed the defendant’s girlfriend (the cheerleading coach), another cheerleading coach, and the alleged victim’s mother. She also watched, from behind glass, an interview with the alleged victim.

However, Hutchinson pointed out that neither the alleged victim’s mother nor the cheerleading coaches actually witnessed the purported crime occur. The only two people present during the alleged incident were the alleged victim and the defendant. Cortes had made a previous statement that she was planning on contacting the defendant for an interview. But, when the defendant arrived for his scheduled interview, he was immediately arrested and taken into custody.

When questioned on why she never attempted to contact or interview the defendant prior to arresting him, despite conflicting evidence in the case, Cortes claimed that it wasn’t her normal way of conducting investigations and that she had sufficient probable cause to arrest Hendrix without needing to speak with him.

Hutchinson questioned Cortes further, asking, “Did it ever occur to you that this man, Edward Hendrix, could be innocent? Did that ever even cross your mind?”

But, at this point in questioning, Cortes began just repeatedly responding with “I don’t know how to answer that.”

Hutchinson asked further, “Your investigation was complete before you even talked to Mr. Hendrix? Did you even care what he had to say?” And again Cortes looked toward Prosecutor Michelle Serafin and responded, “I don’t know how to answer that.”

After questioning of the detective had concluded for the day, Hutchinson expressed his frustration with the obvious gamesmanship occurring during the detective’s testimony, and asked Judge David W. Reed to allow into evidence what was previously deemed inadmissible, in order to present evidence that could combat the detective’s side-stepping of questions.

Judge Reed would not initially allow it, but will potentially alter his ruling, dependent on further questioning and testimony.

Categories:

Tags: