02071 – July 2nd 2002 – Transcript of David Westerfield Trial Day 15 – morning 1

TRIAL DAY 15 – PART 1 – morning 1
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2002, 8:58 A.M. morning 1


WITNESSES:
Jim Frazee (Volunteer canine handler, testified about Hopi, cadaver dog searching for Danielle’s scent in Westerfield’s RV – Continued)
Rosemary Redditt (volunteer reserve lieutenant of the canine unit, testified about Cielo, cadaver dog searching outside Westerfield’s RV -Examination and cross-examination)


–O0O–
(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)
(END OF PROCEEDINGS OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY.)
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME BACK.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY. SOME FOLKS HAVE ANALOGIZED THIS JOB AS TRYING TO CONTROL A HERD OF CATS. AND THAT’S SORT OF WHAT WENT ON THIS MORNING BEFORE YOU GOT HERE.
LITTLE DID I KNOW AFTER WATCHING THE PADRES FOR THE LAST COUPLE DAYS THAT IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE HARMFUL TO YOUR MENTAL HEALTH MANDATING YOU WATCH THEM. HOPEFULLY THE ROAD TRIP WILL GET BETTER. AND FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT WANT AN OPTION OTHER THAN THAT, I’M A GOLF FAN MYSELF, LOVE PLAYING THE GAME AND LOVE WATCHING IT, ALTHOUGH MY WIFE THINKS IT’S THE GREATEST CURE FOR INSOMNIA THAT SHE’S EVER SEEN. BUT, ANYWAY, THERE’S A GREAT GOLF MATCH ON TONIGHT. SO IF YOU NEED SOMETHING, . . .
I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE, AND THE REASON I TELL YOU THIS IS THERE’S A LOT OF INFORMATION OUT THERE RIGHT NOW THAT, NUMBER ONE, IS WRONG, AND, NUMBER TWO, OBVIOUSLY YOU FOLKS ARE GOING TO MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED ON WHAT YOU SEE AND HEAR IN THIS COURTROOM ONLY. SO IT’S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO SELF-POLICE AS YOU HAVE BEEN DOING.
A COUPLE ANNOUNCEMENTS. ONE OF YOU HAS REQUESTED THAT WE ADJOURN EARLY TODAY FOR PERSONAL REASONS. AND SO WHAT WE’RE GOING TO BE DOING IS TAKING ONLY A ONE-HOUR LUNCH BREAK TODAY. SO WE WILL BE ON LUNCH TODAY FROM 12:00 TO 1:00, AND WE WILL BE LEAVING AT 4:00.
I WANT TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP. THIS MAY OR MAY NOT COME TO PASS, BUT IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT WE MAY NEED TO USE FRIDAY, JULY 12TH, AS A COURT DATE. I’M JUST GIVING YOU A HEADS UP RIGHT NOW. AS SOON AS I KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT, I WILL LET YOU KNOW. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY I’VE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL ALONG FRIDAYS ARE OFF. BUT THERE’S A VERY GOOD POSSIBILITY THAT WE MAY NEED THAT DAY. SO I’LL KEEP YOU POSTED AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
ALL RIGHT. MR. CLARKE.
MR. DUSEK: ACTUALLY MR. DUSEK WILL —
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. DUSEK: RECALL JIM FRAZEE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
YES, JUROR 18.
JUROR NUMBER 18: IT’S HOT, JUDGE.
THE COURT: HOT?
JUROR NUMBER 18: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. WE WILL GET MAINTENANCE ON IT AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
ALL RIGHT. YOU’RE STILL UNDER OATH, MR. FRAZEE.

JIM FRAZEE,
RECALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF, PREVIOUSLY HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: MR. FRAZEE, I THINK WHEN YOU WERE HERE LAST WEEK YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS BY THE DEFENSE REGARDING AN E-MAIL THAT YOU HAD SENT SOMEONE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A.: YES, I DO.
Q.: WERE YOU ASKED TO GET THAT E-MAIL?
A.: YES, I WAS.
Q.: BY WHOM?
A.: BY YOU.
Q.: DID YOU GET IT?
A.: YES, I DID.
Q.: WHAT DOES THE E-MAIL INDICATE? WHO DID YOU SEND IT TO?
A.: TO CIELO’S BREEDER.
MR. DUSEK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HAD MARKED AS COURT’S EXHIBIT 153 THIS ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT. IT LOOKS LIKE AN E-MAIL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(E-MAIL MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 153 FOR
IDENTIFICATION.)
/ / /
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT, MR. FRAZEE?
A.: YES, I DO.
Q.: WHAT IS IT?
A.: IT’S THE E-MAIL I SENT TO CIELO’S BREEDER.
Q.: ARE THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE YOU SENT IT TO AT THE TOP OF THE E-MAIL?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHERE ARE THEY LOCATED?
A.: NEW MEXICO AND JAMUL.
Q.: DOES THE E-MAIL INDICATE WHEN YOU SENT IT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHEN DID YOU SEND IT?
A.: FEBRUARY 22ND, 2002.
Q.: AND DID YOU INDICATE IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH SOME CONSEQUENCES THAT MIGHT BEFALL YOU BY SENDING THAT E-MAIL?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT DID YOU SAY?
A.: I SAID I WOULD PROBABLY GET IN TROUBLE.
Q.: WOULD YOU READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH FOR US.
A.: “I COULD GET IN TROUBLE FOR TELLING YOU THIS, BUT I’M KIND OF BURSTING WITH PRIDE OVER CIELO, AND I HAVE TO TELL –”
MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU MAY CONCLUDE YOUR ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: ” — AND I HAVE TO TELL SOMEBODY BESIDES JAN WHAT HE DID. SHE’D CERTAINLY ADMONISH ME IF SHE KNEW I WAS WRITING YOU ABOUT THIS.”
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: WHO’S JAN?
A.: MY WIFE.
Q.: WHY WERE YOU GOING TO GET IN TROUBLE BY WRITING ABOUT CIELO?
A.: BECAUSE WE’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DISCUSS WHAT HAPPENS ON SEARCHES.
Q.: AND THERE ARE SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS IN THIS E-MAIL. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: DID YOU ALSO INDICATE IN THAT E-MAIL WHAT CIELO DID WHEN HE WAS GOING AROUND THE MOTOR HOME?
A.: YES, I DID.
Q.: AND DID YOU INDICATE AT THAT — HE REACTED AS YOU TESTIFIED HERE IN COURT?
A.: YES.
Q.: DID YOU WRITE ANY REPORTS REGARDING THE INCIDENT?
A.: YES, I DID.
Q.: HOW LONG A REPORT?
A.: IT WAS VERY LIMITED BECAUSE IN KEEPING WITH THE FACT THAT WE’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DISCUSS THE CASE, ALL I REPORTED WAS WHAT I WAS ASKED TO DO AND MY MILES AND HOURS.
Q.: AND DID YOU PROVIDE US WITH A COPY OF THAT REPORT?
A.: I DON’T THINK I DID.
Q.: DID I SHOW YOU A COPY OF THAT REPORT?
A.: YES.
MR. DUSEK: I HAVE HAD MARKED, YOUR HONOR, AS COURT’S EXHIBIT 154 WHAT LOOKS LIKE A ONE-PAGE INCIDENT REPORT.
(ONE-PAGE INCIDENT REPORT OF JIM FRAZEE MARKED
TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 154 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT, MR. FRAZEE?
A.: YES, I DO.
Q.: WHAT IS THAT?
A.: THIS IS A REPORT I FILED DESCRIBING WHAT I WAS ASKED TO DO. AND IT INCLUDED MY MILES AND HOURS FOR THAT PARTICULAR ASSIGNMENT.
Q.: IN THAT REPORT DO YOU INDICATE ANYTHING REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY?
A.: OH. I WAS ASKED TO FILE A DETAILED REPORT, AND I STATED THAT I HAD BEEN ASKED PRIOR TO THAT NOT TO DISCUSS THE CASE.
Q.: IN THE REPORT YOU INDICATE “I WAS ASKED TO KEEP THE RESULTS OF ANY SEARCHING I DID AT THE REQUEST OF THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT CONFIDENTIAL.”
A.: YES.
Q.: AND THEN YOU INDICATED YOUR MILEAGE AND TIME INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WITHOUT THE RESULTS.
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT GAVE YOU THE IMPRESSION THAT YOUR RESULTS WERE TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL?
A.: BASICALLY TRAINING THAT WE’VE HAD.
Q.: DESCRIBE THAT FOR ME. WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
A.: WE’VE — PERIODICALLY WE HAVE TRAINING ON HOW TO PRESERVE A CRIME SCENE. AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS DISCUSSED.
Q.: AND YOU WERE OPERATING UNDER THAT TRAINING WHEN YOU DID NOT WRITE A REPORT IMMEDIATELY AND WHEN YOU SENT THE E-MAIL?
A.: YES.
Q.: THE REPORT THAT YOU HAVE THERE IN FRONT OF YOU WAS WRITTEN WHEN?
A.: 2/19/02.
Q.: HOW DID IT — HOW DID THE WORD GET TO YOU THAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO WRITE A REPORT?
A.: THAT CAME THROUGH OUR UNIT LIEUTENANT.
Q.: WHO’S THAT?
A.: ROSEMARY REDDITT.
MR. DUSEK: THANK YOU, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BOYCE:
Q.: LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND, MR. FRAZEE. YOU WERE ASKED ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2002, TO HELP FIND DANIELLE VAN DAM, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: A MISSING SEVEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL.
A.: YES.
Q.: AND YOU WERE AWARE OF THE INTENSIVE SEARCH BY LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THAT GIRL, WEREN’T YOU?
A.: YES.
Q.: YOU WERE AWARE THAT ALL THE MAJOR NETWORKS AND TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR NEWS CHANNELS WERE COVERING HER DISAPPEARANCE, WEREN’T YOU?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND YOU WERE AWARE YOU COULD LOOK ON WEB SITES TO FOLLOW THIS SEARCH, WEREN’T YOU?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND IN FACT YOU HAD WORKED ON LOOKING FOR THAT GIRL SEVEN DIFFERENT DAYS, HADN’T YOU?
A.: YES.
Q.: YOU HAD BEEN TO THE SABRE SPRINGS AREA, HADN’T YOU?
A.: YES.
Q.: YOU SAW THE POLICE CARS EVERYWHERE, HADN’T YOU?
A.: YES.
Q.: YOU WERE AWARE OF THE MEDIA TRUCKS AND MEDIA COVERAGE IN THE SABRE SPRINGS AREA.
A.: YES.
Q.: YOU WERE AWARE OF HELICOPTERS OVERHEAD.
A.: NO, I WAS NOT.
Q.: WELL, YOU WERE AWARE OF AN INTENSIVE SEARCH, THOUGH, RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND THEN ON FEBRUARY 6TH YOU WENT TO THE — YOU WERE ASKED TO GO TO THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT IMPOUND FACILITY, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: YOU WERE ASKED TO GO WITH YOUR DOGS.
A.: YES.
Q.: AND YOU WERE ASKED TO SCENT AROUND THE MOTOR HOME AT THE REQUEST OF THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT.
A.: YES.
Q.: AND YOU HAVE TOLD US THAT YOUR DOG ALERTED BY SITTING AND BARKING ONE TIME AT YOU. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND SNIFFING A SHOVEL IN ONE OF THE COMPARTMENTS, CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND ON FEBRUARY 6 YOU DIDN’T TELL ANYONE AT THE IMPOUND YARD THAT YOUR DOG HAD ALERTED, HAD YOU?
A.: I DON’T RECALL WHAT I TOLD THEM. HOWEVER, I’M HERE, SO THEY MUST HAVE KNOWN.
Q.: AT THIS POINT IN TIME YOU DON’T RECALL EVER TELLING A POLICE OFFICER ON FEBRUARY 6TH THAT YOUR DOG ALERTED, DID YOU?
A.: I DON’T RECALL WHAT I TOLD THEM.
Q.: HAVE YOU BEEN SHOWN ANY REPORT BY A POLICE OFFICER THAT YOU TOLD —
A.: NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q.: CAN I FINISH MY QUESTION?
A.: I’M SORRY.
Q.: HAVE YOU BEEN SHOWN A POLICE REPORT THAT STATES THAT YOU TOLD ANYONE ON FEBRUARY 6TH THAT YOUR DOG ALERTED?
A.: NO.
Q.: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION WHETHER YOU TOLD A POLICE OFFICER ON FEBRUARY 6TH THAT YOUR DOG ALERTED?
A.: DOES WHAT REFLECT? REFRESH MY —
Q.: THE FACT THAT YOU WERE SHOWN NO POLICE REPORT.
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. VAGUE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
BY MR. BOYCE:
Q.: YOUR RECOLLECTION IS THAT YOU DO NOT RECALL AT THIS POINT TELLING ANY POLICE OFFICER THAT YOUR DOG ALERTED.
A.: THAT’S CORRECT. I MAY HAVE. I DON’T RECALL.
Q.: AND YOU’VE TOLD US BEFORE THAT YOU DON’T RECALL TELLING A DETECTIVE, DETECTIVE TOMSOVIC, TO BE PRECISE, THAT YOUR DOG DID NOT ALERT.
A.: NO, I DON’T RECALL THAT.
Q.: ON FEBRUARY 7TH, THE DAY AFTER, DID YOU TELL ANY POLICE OFFICERS THAT YOUR DOG ALERTED?
A.: NO.
Q.: ON FEBRUARY 8TH DID YOU TELL ANY POLICE OFFICERS THAT YOUR DOG ALERTED, GAVE A CADAVER ALERT —
A.: NO.
Q.: — AT THE MOTOR HOME?
ON FEBRUARY 9TH DID YOU TELL ANY POLICE OFFICERS?
A.: NO.
Q.: ON FEBRUARY 10TH.
A.: NO.
Q.: ON FEBRUARY 11TH.
A.: NO.
Q.: ANY TIME BEFORE FEBRUARY 22ND DID YOU TELL ANY POLICE OFFICERS?
A.: I HAVE NOT TOLD ANY POLICE OFFICERS TO THIS DATE.
Q.: YOU DIDN’T TELL ANYONE UNTIL FEBRUARY 22ND THAT YOUR DOG ALERTED, DID YOU?
A.: NO.
Q.: YOU DIDN’T TELL ANYONE UNTIL YOU LEARNED THAT THERE WAS BLOOD IN THE MOTOR HOME, DID YOU? THIS WAS AFTER YOU HAD LEARNED BLOOD WAS IN THE MOTOR HOME.
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: THIS WAS AFTER YOU LEARNED THAT MR. WESTERFIELD HAD BEEN ARRESTED, CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND AT THAT TIME YOU SENT AN E-MAIL TO THREE FRIENDS OF YOURS, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND THIS E-MAIL WAS ENTITLED “SUBJECT: SECRET MESSAGE.”
A.: YES.
Q.: AND YOU SENT THIS E-MAIL TO A MARIA ZUCCONI, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: A MELISSA THOMAS.
A.: YES.
Q.: AND A SUSANNE GLASGOW.
A.: YES.
Q.: AND YOU TOLD THEM IN THAT E-MAIL THAT “I WASN’T SURE, BUT I THOUGHT CIELO WAS GIVING ME HIS CADAVER ALERT.”
A.: AS HE DID IT, THAT IS CORRECT. AND I ALSO ADDED THAT THE REASON THAT I WENT AROUND THE REST OF THE MOTOR HOME WAS TO CONFIRM IT.
MR. BOYCE: YOUR HONOR, NO QUESTION PENDING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. BOYCE:
Q.: THE QUESTION IS DID YOU MAKE THIS STATEMENT IN YOUR E-MAIL: “I WASN’T SURE, BUT I THOUGHT HE WAS GIVING ME HIS CADAVER ALERT.”
A.: THAT WAS PART OF THE STATEMENT THAT I MADE, YES.
Q.: THE ANSWER IS YES, YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND THEN YOU STATED IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE WAS “I THOUGHT HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN DOING THESE BEHAVIORS JUST TO PLEASE ME.” IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: “SO I TOOK HIM AROUND THE REST OF THE MOTOR HOME BUT GOT NO FURTHER ALERTS.” IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND YOU RECALL YOU EARLIER TOLD US THAT YOU KNOW WHAT HANDLER BIAS IS, RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE HANDLER’S EMOTIONS CAN AFFECT THE DOG, CORRECT?
A.: I UNDERSTAND THAT IT CAN, CORRECT.
Q.: AND THEN YOU STATED IN THE E-MAIL THAT “IT WAS CHILLING. SITTING THERE IN PLAIN SIGHT WAS A SMALL SHOVEL,” CORRECT?
A.: YES.
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE E-MAIL.
THE COURT: I DON’T HAVE IT, SO LET’S HAVE DIRECT QUOTES.
MR. DUSEK: OR DIRECT SENTENCES.
BY MR. BOYCE:
Q.: WELL, THE DIRECT QUOTE IS “I THEN ASKED THE
DETECTIVE –” CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: YOU USED THE WORD DETECTIVE, RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: “– TO OPEN THE COMPARTMENT CIELO HAD ALERTED ON. AND WHEN HE DID, IT WAS QUITE CHILLING.” CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND THAT’S BECAUSE YOU SAW SITTING IN PLAIN SIGHT A SMALL SHOVEL, RIGHT?
A.: I THOUGHT THAT THE SHOVEL MAY HAVE BEEN USED TO BURY A BODY.
Q.: THAT’S CORRECT.
AND THEN YOU SAID “CIELO SNIFFED THE SHOVEL,” CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND THE REASON YOU HAD THE DETECTIVE OPEN THE COMPARTMENT IS THE COMPARTMENT WAS LOCKED, CORRECT? IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: IT WOULDN’T HAVE MATTERED WHETHER IT WAS LOCKED OR NOT, I WOULD HAVE ASKED HIM IF IT WAS OKAY TO OPEN IT.
Q.: SO YOU ASKED THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DETECTIVE THAT WAS THERE TO OPEN IT.
A.: YES.
Q.: AND AFTER SNIFFING THE SHOVEL AND THIS CHAISE LOUNGE THAT WAS ON A SHELF ABOVE THE SHOVEL, CIELO DID NOT ALERT AGAIN, DID HE?
A.: NO.
Q.: AND THEN YOU TOLD THESE THREE PEOPLE THAT YOU SENT THE E-MAIL TO “I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF WHAT CIELO DID.” DIDN’T YOU MAKE THAT STATEMENT?
A.: (NO RESPONSE.)
Q.: DID YOU MAKE THAT STATEMENT?
A.: COULD YOU TELL ME WHERE I SAID THAT?
Q.: THE SECOND-TO-LAST PARAGRAPH FROM THE BOTTOM OF OUR
E-MAIL. “I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF WHAT CIELO DID.” DO YOU SEE THAT? REFERRING TO —
A.: YES. I SEE IT.
Q.: — EXHIBIT 153.
“I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF WHAT CIELO DID.” YOU SEE THAT STATEMENT, DON’T YOU?
A.: YES, I DO.
Q.: AND THEN THE NEXT STATEMENT IS “AND HAD TO LEAVE THE SCENE WONDERING.”
MR. DUSEK: PERHAPS COUNSEL COULD BACK AWAY A LITTLE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE WITNESS: I SAID THAT.
BY MR. BOYCE:
Q.: AND THEN IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT YOU SAID “TODAY, HOWEVER, CAME NEWS OF THE SUSPECT’S ARREST. AND IT WAS REVEALED THAT THEY HAD FOUND A BODY IN THE MOTOR HOME. THEY HAD FOUND BLOOD IN THE MOTOR HOME.”
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND THEN YOU SENT THIS E-MAIL, RIGHT?
A.: I SENT THIS E-MAIL, YES.
Q.: AND YOU THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY COOL.
A.: THE E-MAIL I THOUGHT WHAT CIELO DID WAS COOL.
Q.: YOU’VE TOLD US THAT YOU DID A REPORT ON FEBRUARY 19TH, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHEN WERE YOU SHOWN THIS REPORT?
A.: THIS MORNING.
Q.: AND WHERE IN THIS REPORT DOES IT SAY THAT YOU WERE ASKED TO FILE A DETAILED REPORT?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?
THE WITNESS: YES.
IT DOES NOT SAY THAT.
BY MR. BOYCE:
Q.: IT DOESN’T SAY THAT, DOES IT?
A.: NO.
Q.: OKAY.
THIS REPORT, YOU WROTE THIS ON 2/19.
A.: YES.
Q.: IT STATES THAT YOU ARRIVED AT THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT’S IMPOUND FACILITY AT 7:09 AND WAS LATER ASKED TO SCENT MY TRAILING DOG. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: IS CIELO YOUR TRAILING DOG?
A.: NO.
Q.: IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH YOU STATE “I WAS ALSO ASKED TO KEEP THE RESULTS OF ANY SEARCHING I DID AT THE REQUEST OF THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT CONFIDENTIAL.” DO YOU SEE THAT?
A.: I SAID THAT, YES.
Q.: “ACCORDINGLY, I HAVE NO WRITTEN NOTES OR RECORDS CONCERNING THIS INCIDENT.”
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: “OTHER THAN MY HOURS, THREE, MY ROUND-TRIP MILES, SIXTY-FOUR, AND MY ESTIMATE OF THE TIME MY DOG SPENT ACTUALLY WORKING ON THE SCENE, THIRTY MINUTES.” CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S WHAT IT SAYS.
Q.: YOU SAY MY DOG IN THE SINGULAR, CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND IN THE OTHER EARLIER PARAGRAPH YOU WERE REFERRING TO YOUR TRAILING DOG HOPI, CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHERE DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT CIELO IN THIS REPORT?
A.: IT DOES NOT.
Q.: WHAT ELSE DID MR. DUSEK SHOW YOU BETWEEN THE TIME YOU FINISHED TESTIFYING LAST THURSDAY AND TODAY?
A.: MY E-MAIL. THIS REPORT. AND A SECOND REPORT. THAT WAS SIMILAR TO THIS ONE.
Q.: AND THAT CONCERNED OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT YOU HAD ENGAGED IN, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: IT WAS FOR ANOTHER DATE. I DON’T RECALL WHAT IT CONCERNED.
Q.: WHEN DID MR. DUSEK CONTACT YOU AFTER YOUR TESTIMONY ON THURSDAY?
A.: BILL REICH LEFT A MESSAGE WITH MY WIFE. I DON’T REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS.
Q.: AND YOUR WIFE IS JAN, RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: NOW, JAN IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL CHAPTER OF CARDA, ISN’T SHE?
A.: SHE’S THE PRESIDENT OF CARDA.
Q.: SHE IS THE PRESIDENT OF CARDA?
A.: IT’S STATEWIDE.
Q.: THAT’S YOUR ORGANIZATION, CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: THIS IS A CIVILIAN ORGANIZATION, CORRECT?

A.: YES.
Q.: AND SO YOUR WIFE ESSENTIALLY CERTIFIED CIELO AS A TRACKING DOG OR AN AREA SEARCH DOG, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S A BIT OF A STRETCH.
Q.: WELL, SHE’S THE PRESIDENT OF CARDA, CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: YOU HAVE A NICKNAME ONE-EIGHTY FRANK, DON’T YOU?
A.: NO. NEVER HEARD THAT.
Q.: NO ONE’S EVER CALLED YOU ONE-EIGHTY FRANK BECAUSE WHEN YOU AND YOUR DOGS —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: JUST A MINUTE. I WILL HEAR THE QUESTION.
BY MR. BOYCE:
Q.: ONE-EIGHTY FRANK MEANS WHEN YOU AND YOUR DOGS GO IN ONE DIRECTION, EVERYBODY’S TO SEARCH IN THE OTHER DIRECTION, DOESN’T IT?
A.: I’VE NEVER HEARD THAT TERM.
MR. BOYCE: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE ONE MORE AREA I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH SIDEBAR ON.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BOB.
(SIDEBAR DISCUSSION, OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY,
AS FOLLOWS:

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(END OF SIDEBAR DISCUSSION.)
THE COURT: MIGHT BE MY IMAGINATION, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, BUT I THINK I FEEL SOME COOL AIR COMING IN. ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY TURNED IT ON.
ALL RIGHT.
BY MR. BOYCE:
Q.: MR. FRAZEE, YOUR DOGS ACTUALLY WENT TO THAT MOTOR HOME ON ONE EARLIER OCCASION, DIDN’T THEY?
A.: YES, THEY DID.
Q.: AND THIS WAS ON FEBRUARY 4TH, CORRECT?
A.: I DON’T REMEMBER THE DAY, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY DID.
Q.: THIS WAS WHERE THE MOTOR HOME WAS STORED, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: THIS WAS AN AREA CALLED HIGH VALLEY.
A.: YES.
Q.: AND YOU RAN THE DOGS AROUND THE MOTOR HOME, AND THEY DID NOT DETECT ANY SCENT, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES.
MR. BOYCE: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ANY REDIRECT?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: WHICH DOGS DID YOU HAVE ON THE 4TH?
A.: I HAD BOTH.
Q.: BOTH BEING WHAT?
A.: CIELO AND HOPI.
Q.: WHAT DOG DID YOU RUN FIRST?
A.: HOPI.
Q.: DESCRIBE WHAT HE DID.
A.: HE MOVED AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE MOTOR HOME.
Q.: DID YOU SEE ANY REACTION OF HIM AT ANY LOCATION GOING AROUND THE MOTOR HOME?
A.: NO.
Q.: CIELO, DID YOU RUN THAT DOG AROUND THE MOTOR HOME ALSO?
A.: YES.
Q.: DID YOU SEE ANY REACTION FROM CIELO AT ANY PARTICULAR LOCATION AROUND THE MOTOR HOME?
A.: HE WAS A LITTLE MORE INTERESTED IN AREAS LIKE THE MUD FLAPS AND THE TIRES.
Q.: DESCRIBE WHAT YOU SAW.
A.: WELL, HE WOULD JUST SNIFF THEM FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME THAN OTHER AREAS.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU RUN HIM AROUND THE MOTOR HOME AT THAT TIME?
A.: I DON’T RECALL.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
THEN ONTO THE 6TH IS WHEN YOU WENT TO THE MOTOR HOME WHEN IT WAS AT IMPOUND, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: MR. BOYCE WAS CITING SOME SENTENCES IN YOUR E-MAIL, WASN’T HE?
A.: YES.
Q.: DID HE CITE THEM ALL?
A.: I WASN’T KEEPING TRACK.
Q.: LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN TO THE START OF THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH. DO YOU HAVE IT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT DID YOU WRITE IN THAT FOURTH PARAGRAPH? READ IT SLOWLY SO THE REPORTER CAN GET IT.
MR. FELDMAN: SORRY, YOUR HONOR. VAGUE. THERE’S NO SHOWING THAT IT’S RELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. THIS WHOLE REPORT IS OPENED UP.
YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION, SIR.
THE WITNESS: ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE PARAGRAPH THAT BEGINS WITH “I CAN’T SAY”?
MR. DUSEK: YES.
THE WITNESS: “I CAN’T SAY AT THIS TIME WHAT HIS REACTION WAS.” SORRY. I’M GOING TOO FAST. “BUT AFTERWARD, JUST FOR CURIOSITY’S SAKE, I ASKED IF I COULD WORK CIELO AGAIN AROUND THE OUTSIDE. I HAD WORKED BOTH OF THEM EARLIER IN THE WEEK AT THE LOCATION WHERE THE MOTOR HOME WAS NORMALLY PARKED. STARTING AT THE PASSENGER’S FRONT TIRE, I GAVE HIM THE CADAVER COMMAND BONES AND HAD HIM CHECK OUT ALL THE SEAMS IN THE STORAGE COMPARTMENTS ALONG BOTH SIDES.”
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: WHAT DID YOU WRITE IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH?
A.: “WHEN WE GOT TO THE SECOND COMPARTMENT, HE SHOWED ME
— HE SHOWED INCREASED INTEREST, INTENSE SNIFFING AND TAIL-WAGGING, ON THE FRONT SIDE, AND AT THE BACK SIDE MADE EYE CONTACT WITH ME, SAT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ME, AND BARKED. I WASN’T SURE, BUT I THOUGHT HE WAS GIVING ME HIS CADAVER SCENT.”
Q.: WHY WEREN’T YOU SURE AT THAT TIME, MR. FRAZEE?
MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH SOME DOGS IS THAT THEY WILL DO WHAT WE CALL FALSE ALERT. AND THEY WILL GIVE THEIR ALERTS WITHOUT DETECTING WHATEVER SCENT IS WE’RE ASKING THEM TO LOOK FOR.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: SO WHAT DO YOU DO TO DETERMINE IF IT’S A FALSE ALERT?
A.: HAVE THEM LOOK SOME MORE AND SEE IF THEY DO IT AGAIN.
Q.: BASICALLY YOU WEREN’T TRUSTING YOUR DOG AT THAT POINT, WEREN’T YOU?
A.: THAT’S TRUE.
Q.: WHAT DID YOU SAY IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH?
A.: DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH?
Q.: YES, PLEASE.
A.: “I THOUGHT HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN DOING THESE BEHAVIORS JUST TO PLEASE ME, SO I TOOK HIM AROUND THE REST OF THE MOTOR HOME BUT GOT NO FURTHER ALERTS. I THEN ASKED THE DETECTIVE TO OPEN THE COMPARTMENT CIELO HAD ALERTED ON. AND WHEN HE DID, IT WAS QUITE CHILLING. SITTING THERE IN PLAIN SIGHT WAS A SMALL SHOVEL. CIELO SNIFFED THE SHOVEL AND A PAD OF SOME KIND, A FOLDING CHAISE LOUNGE, ON THE SHELF ABOVE THE SHOVEL QUITE HEAVILY BUT DID NOT ALERT AGAIN. THERE WASN’T ROOM FOR A BODY THE WAY IT WAS LOADED, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE –”
MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. THE REST OF THIS IS SPECULATION ON HIS PART, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I WILL SEE ALL OF YOU AT SIDEBAR.
BOB.
(SIDEBAR DISCUSSION, OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY,
AS FOLLOWS:

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(END OF SIDEBAR DISCUSSION.)
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: SIR, WOULD YOU CONTINUE WITH THAT PARAGRAPH.
A.: I’M NOT SURE WHERE I LEFT OFF. COULD I HAVE THAT READ BACK TO ME?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE ATTORNEY WILL DIRECT YOU, MR. FRAZEE. THE WITNESS: OKAY.
MR. DUSEK: I THINK YOU LEFT OFF “THERE WASN’T. . .”
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
“THERE WASN’T ROOM FOR A BODY THE WAY IT WAS LOADED, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE SUSPECT COULD HAVE MOVED THINGS AROUND OR SCENT COULD HAVE BEEN ESCAPING FROM INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME.”
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: CAN YOU READ THE NEXT PARAGRAPH DOWN THROUGH THE SENTENCE ENDING WITH CIELO’S ALERT.
A.: “REMINISCENT OF HIS WATER FIND, I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF WHAT CIELO DID AND HAD TO LEAVE THE SCENE WONDERING. TODAY, HOWEVER, CAME NEWS OF THE SUSPECT’S ARREST. AND IT WAS REVEALED THAT THEY HAD FOUND A BODY IN THE MOTOR HOME. (I’M SORRY.) FOUND BLOOD IN THE MOTOR HOME. NOTWITHSTANDING MY SYMPATHY FOR THE LITTLE GIRL AND HER FAMILY, THIS WAS PRETTY COOL, GIVEN THAT IT BACKS UP CIELO’S ALERT.”
Q.: THANK YOU, SIR.
DID YOU THEN GO ON TO SAY HOW PROUD YOU WERE OF THE DOG?
A.: YES.
MR. DUSEK: THANK YOU, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. BOYCE?
MR. BOYCE: BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BOYCE:
Q.: THIS E-MAIL WAS WRITTEN FEBRUARY 22ND, WASN’T IT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND YOUR COMMENTS IN THE E-MAIL REGARDING THAT THE SUSPECT COULD HAVE MADE — MOVED THINGS AROUND IS BASED ON SPECULATION, ISN’T IT?
A.: YES.
Q.: YOU’RE GUESSING, RIGHT?
A.: YES. THAT THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY.
Q.: AND THAT SCENT WAS ESCAPING FROM INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME, THAT ALSO WAS A GUESS, WASN’T IT?
A.: I HAVE MORE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS WHAT HAPPENED THAN I DO THAT THE SHOVEL WAS USED.
Q.: BUT YOU DON’T KNOW, DO YOU?
A.: I KNOW — I’M REASONABLY CERTAIN THAT THAT WAS WHAT HAPPENED.
Q.: BUT AGAIN YOU DON’T KNOW.
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE WITNESS: THERE’S A POSSIBILITY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
COMPLETE YOUR ANSWER, SIR.
THE WITNESS: THERE’S A POSSIBILITY THAT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
BY MR. BOYCE:
Q.: AGAIN, SIR, YOU ARE GUESSING, AREN’T YOU?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: REPHRASE IT, AND I WILL ALLOW IT.
SUSTAINED.
BY MR. BOYCE:
Q.: YOU’RE GUESSING, CORRECT?
MR. DUSEK: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SAME RULING.
REPHRASE IT.
BY MR. BOYCE:
Q.: THESE OBSERVATIONS THAT YOU MADE CAME AFTER YOU LEARNED OF MR. WESTERFIELD’S ARREST, CORRECT, IN THIS E-MAIL?
A.: THE OBSERVATIONS HAPPENED AT THE TIME. MY INTERPRETATION OF THEM WAS — I WAS MORE CONFIDENT IN IT HAVING HEARD OF THE ARREST.
Q.: SIR, THE QUESTION IS: DID YOU WRITE THIS E-MAIL AFTER MR. WESTERFIELD’S ARREST?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND AFTER YOU LEARNED THAT THEY HAD FOUND APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER-INCH OF A BLOODSTAIN OR LESS IN THE MOTOR HOME, CORRECT?
A.: I DID NOT HEAR HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND.
Q.: OKAY.
BUT AFTER YOU LEARNED THAT BLOOD WAS FOUND IN THE MOTOR HOME, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND THAT WAS WHEN YOU WROTE THIS E-MAIL, CORRECT?
A.: YES.
MR. BOYCE: I DON’T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER?
MR. DUSEK: NO, THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. FRAZEE, YOU ARE STILL SUBJECT TO RECALL, AND YOU’RE UNDER THE ADMONITION NOT TO DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY. IF YOU WOULD KINDLY HAND THOSE TWO EXHIBITS TO MR. DUSEK ON YOUR WAY BY, HE WILL TAKE CUSTODY OF THEM.
ALL RIGHT.
THE WITNESS: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A —
THE COURT: YOU HAVE A WHAT?
THE WITNESS: I HAVE A POSSIBILITY OF GETTING A JOB SOON.
THE COURT: YOU CAN TALK TO MR. DUSEK ABOUT ALL OF THE CONTINGENCIES OF ABOUT MAYBE HAVING TO COME BACK.
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(THE WITNESS WAS EXCUSED.)
MR. DUSEK: ROSEMARY REDDITT.
/ / /
ROSEMARY REDDITT,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: MA’AM, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: ROSEMARY REDDITT. R-O-S-E-M-A-R-Y
R-E-D-D-I-T-T.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: GOOD MORNING, MISS REDDITT.
ARE YOU EMPLOYED, MA’AM?
A.: I’M RETIRED.
Q.: FROM?
A.: GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT. I WAS A HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER.
Q.: HOW LONG AGO DID YOU RETIRE?
A.: I RETIRED IN ’89. THIRTEEN YEARS.
Q.: DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT KEEPS YOU BUSY NOW?
A.: YES, I DO.
Q.: WHAT TYPE OF WORK DO YOU DO NOW?
A.: I AM A VOLUNTEER RESERVE LIEUTENANT WITH THE SHERIFF’S SEARCH AND RESCUE BUREAU, RESERVE LIEUTENANT OF THE CANINE UNIT.
EXCUSE ME.
Q.: READY?
A.: YES.
Q.: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE SHERIFF’S RESERVE?
A.: I’VE BEEN WITH THE SHERIFF’S RESERVE JUST OVER TWENTY-FOUR YEARS.
Q.: HOW OFTEN DO YOU HAVE TO GO WORK WITH THEM? WHAT’S THE FREQUENCY?
A.: WELL, THE FREQUENCY IS VARIABLE. WE OBVIOUSLY ARE LOOKING FOR MISSING — MISSING PEOPLE. CHILDREN, HIKERS, ALZHEIMER’S. WE MIGHT HAVE TWO CALLOUTS A MONTH; WE MIGHT HAVE FOUR; WE MIGHT GO TWO MONTHS WITH NO CALLOUT.
Q.: HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE SEARCH AND RESCUE THE ENTIRE TIME YOU’VE BEEN WITH SHERIFF’S RESERVE?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND YOU HAVE A RANK WITH THE SHERIFF’S RESERVE NOW.
A.: YES. I’M A RESERVE LIEUTENANT.
Q.: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A LIEUTENANT?
A.: SINCE ALMOST FOUR YEARS.
Q.: IN YOUR DUTIES WITH THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, DO YOU KNOW A JIM FRAZEE?
A.: YES, I DO.
Q.: WAS HE THE FELLOW WHO JUST LEFT?
A.: YES, HE IS.
Q.: HOW DO YOU KNOW HIM?
A.: JIM IS ONE OF OUR DOG HANDLERS.
Q.: IS HE INVOLVED WITH SEARCH AND RESCUE?
A.: JIM IS INVOLVED WITH SEARCH AND RESCUE, YES. HE’S WHAT WE CALL A RESCUE VOLUNTEER.
Q.: ARE YOU ALSO INVOLVED WITH DOGS?
A.: YES, I AM.
Q.: HOW SO?
A.: I — WELL, I’M THE RESERVE LIEUTENANT OF THE CANINE UNIT. BUT I ALSO HAVE A SEARCH AND RESCUE DOG. THIS IS MY SECOND DOG.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO FEBRUARY 6TH OF THIS YEAR. WERE YOU ASKED TO ACT AS A SHERIFF’S RESERVE LIEUTENANT ON THAT DAY?
A.: WELL, I — WE HAD THE REQUEST FOR A DOG TEAM TO RESPOND. AND I WENT AS AN OBSERVER, SUPPORT.
Q.: DESCRIBE WHO WAS ON THE DOG TEAM.
A.: I BEG YOUR PARDON?
Q.: WHO WAS ON THE DOG TEAM?
A.: THE HANDLER WAS JIM FRAZEE. AND HE HAD HIS SCENT-SPECIFIC DOG HOPI. AND HE HAD HIS AREA SEARCH DOG CIELO.
Q.: DO YOU RECALL WHERE YOU WENT?
A.: YES. WE WENT TO THE IMPOUND YARD ON AERO DRIVE.
Q.: AND WHAT WAS HE ASKED TO DO?
A.: THE ACT WAS FOR THE HANDLER TO UTILIZE HIS DOG IN CHECKING THE MOTOR HOME THAT WAS PARKED AT THE IMPOUND YARD.
Q.: DID YOU TAKE YOUR DOGS?
A.: NO, I DID NOT.
Q.: WHY NOT?
A.: BECAUSE THEY HAD REQUESTED A SCENT-SPECIFIC DOG.
Q.: DID YOU WATCH WHAT MR. FRAZEE DID WITH HIS DOGS?
A.: I WATCHED HIS PREPARING THE DOG.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
A.: BUT I COULD NOT SEE THE DOG WORK IN THE MOTOR HOME.
Q.: ONE DOG WENT INTO THE MOTOR HOME?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND YOU DIDN’T SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN THERE?
A.: NO, I DID NOT.
Q.: I’M CONCERNED WITH CIELO, THE DOG THAT WAS WORKING OUTSIDE.
A.: OKAY.
Q.: DID YOU SEE WHAT THAT DOG WAS DOING OUTSIDE?
A.: YES.
Q.: HOW CLOSE DO YOU GET TO THAT DOG WHEN IT’S WORKING?
A.: MYSELF?
Q.: YOU.
A.: PROBABLY I WAS STAYING FIFTEEN FEET, AT LEAST FIFTEEN FEET BACK, NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE DOG.
Q.: WHY THAT FAR BACK?
A.: I DON’T CONSIDER IT FAR. IN SOME PLACES WHERE I’M, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, DISTANCES IN THE FIELD, BUT IN THE AREA WHERE WE WERE, THAT GAVE THE DOG OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE WHERE IT WAS GOING TO MOVE WITHOUT MY BEING IN THE WAY.
Q.: CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THE DOG DID ONCE IT STARTED TO WORK? CIELO I’M TALKING ABOUT.
A.: YES. STARTED ON THE PASSENGER SIDE, MOVED DOWN THE SIDE. AND AS IT WENT PAST THE DOOR TO THE MOTOR HOME, JUST PAST THE DOOR THERE IS AN I CALL IT LIKE A STORAGE BIN, LOW, WITH THE EXTERIOR DOOR TO IT, WALKED BY, AND HE GOT LIKE JUST WALKING BY IT, AND HE TURNED AROUND REAL FAST AND LOOKED. AND WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL A TRAINED ALERT. EACH HANDLER MAY — SOME HAVE SIMILAR TRAINED ALERTS. JIM’S FOR CIELO THE DOG SITS AND BARKS.
Q.: WHAT DID YOU SEE CIELO DO?
A.: LOOKED BACK AND IN FACT GAVE A — ALWAYS LOOKS AT JIM LIKE, YOU KNOW, MASTER.
Q.: SO IT SAT AND LOOKED AT JIM?
A.: YEAH.
Q.: DID IT BARK?
A.: M-HM.
Q.: IS THAT A YES? YOU HAVE TO ANSWER WITH WORDS.
A.: YES. YES. ONE WORD.
Q.: THEN WHAT?
A.: THEN WENT ON AROUND THE MOTOR HOME, CONTINUED ON. THE DOG ALWAYS PRECEDES THE HANDLER. AND CAME BACK AROUND, AND THEN THEY OPENED THE STORAGE AREA.
Q.: IS THAT WHERE THE DOG HAD ALERTED?
A.: THAT’S WHERE THE DOG HAD ALERTED.
Q.: WHAT DID YOU SEE CIELO DO AT THAT POINT?
A.: THE DOG WENT TO THE AREA. AND I USE THE WORD ANIMATED. THAT MEANS THE BODY LANGUAGE —
MR. FELDMAN: RELEVANCE. OBJECTION.
THE COURT: JUST DESCRIBE WHAT YOU SAW.
THE WITNESS: WHAT DID HE DO?
MR. FELDMAN: I’M SORRY. MOTION TO STRIKE, PLEASE.
THE COURT: AS TO THE DESCRIPTION. SHE’S GOING TO BE PERMITTED TO TELL YOU WHAT THE DOG DID, NOT HER IMPRESSIONS OF WHAT IT MEANT.
OKAY.
THE WITNESS: RIGHT. RIGHT. I WON’T GIVE ANY IMPRESSIONS. NO.
THE DOG SNIFFED AND WENT — MAY I PROCEED, THEN? IT WENT TO THE OPEN DOOR AND WENT IN, PAWS IN, AND SNIFFED.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT POINT, MA’AM?
A.: THEN HE CALLED THE DOG. THE DOG CAME BACK OUT. THAT WAS —
Q.: THE DOG WAS DONE?
A.: THE DOG WAS DONE.
Q.: WAS THERE ANY CONCERN REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY OF WHAT WAS GOING ON THAT DAY WITH YOU AND MR. FRAZEE AND HIS DOGS?
A.: WELL, WE KNOW THAT WE DON’T EVER DISCUSS WHAT’S BEING — OUT IN THE PUBLIC OR THE FRIENDS OR OTHER TEAM MEMBERS, JUST, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAD GONE ON. IN FACT, I DID NOT DISCUSS THAT DAY EVEN WITH JIM FRAZEE AFTER, AFTERWARDS.
Q.: DO YOU KNOW IF HE DISCUSSED IT WITH ANYONE THAT DAY?
A.: HE — I LEFT TO GO TO THE CAR TO GET SOME CARDS, THINGS OUT OF THE CAR, AND I WOULD — I CANNOT SAY WHAT JIM DID.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
DID THERE COME A POINT IN TIME WHERE YOU HAD SOME COMMUNICATIONS WITH HIM REGARDING A REPORT OR WRITING A REPORT?
A.: YES.
Q.: DESCRIBE THAT FOR US.
A.: OUR SARD COORDINATOR KEEPS ALL THE SITUATION BUREAU RECORDS, AND ON NORMAL SEARCHES WE TURN IN REPORTS ON SCENE BEFORE WE LEAVE. THIS PARTICULAR ONE, BECAUSE WE ARE TOLD, YOU KNOW, CONFIDENTIALITY, SHE ASKED FOR A REPORT. AND I PASSED THE WORD ON TO JIM. AND JIM FAXED HER A REPORT, WHAT HE CALLED, HE SAID CONFIDENTIALITY WAS NOT TO TALK ABOUT THE CASE. AND HE GAVE HIS MILES AND HOURS WHICH IS OUR STANDARD PROCEDURE ALWAYS.
Q.: DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO SEE THE REPORT THAT HE SUBMITTED?
A.: YES. I DID GET A COPY OF IT.
Q.: LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT’S BEEN MARKED AS 154. DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE THE REPORT THAT HE SUBMITTED?
A.: YES. THIS IS, M-HM, MILES AND HOURS.
Q.: THANK YOU, MA’AM.
DO YOU RECALL ABOUT WHEN IT WAS IN RELATION TO THE SEARCH AND THE DATE OF THE REPORT WHEN YOU ASKED HIM TO WRITE THE REPORT?
A.: IT WAS EITHER THAT DAY OR THE DAY BEFORE.
Q.: THAT DAY MEANING THE DAY OF THE SEARCH OR THE DAY OF THE REPORT?
A.: I’M SORRY. WHATEVER THE DATE IS ON THE REPORT.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
THERE APPEARS TO BE A DATE AT THE VERY TOP.
A.: OKAY. IT SHOWS THE FAX. OH, YEAH. HE WROTE IT ON THE. . .
Q.: DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FEBRUARY 19TH?
A.: YES. IT’S KIND OF SMUDGED. YES.
Q.: AND IT WAS JUST A DAY OR TWO BEFORE THAT THAT YOU HAD ASKED HIM TO WRITE THE REPORT.
A.: CORRECT. IT WAS EITHER — LIKE I SAID, HE RESPONDED IN A TIMELY FASHION.
MR. DUSEK: THANK YOU, MA’AM.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
/ / /
/ / /
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: GOOD MORNING, MA’AM.
A.: GOOD MORNING.
Q.: DID YOU PREPARE A REPORT OF YOUR OBSERVATIONS?
A.: NO. I DID OTHER THAN THE NAME OF THE DOG TEAMS THAT WENT, WHERE WE WERE TO GO, AND THE — MY MILES AND HOURS.
Q.: SO, IN OTHER WORDS, BILLING INFORMATION.
A.: I BEG PARDON?
Q.: KIND OF LIKE BILLING INFORMATION.
A.: YES.
Q.: OTHER THAN BILLING INFORMATION, MA’AM, DID YOU PREPARE A REPORT?
A.: NO. LIKE I SAID, THE — YOU KNOW, PEOPLE PRESENT, MYSELF.
Q.: SO THERE IS NOTHING YOU DID CONTEMPORANEOUSLY TO RECORD AS THE EVENTS WERE OCCURRING, CORRECT?
A.: NO.
Q.: WHEN YOU SAY NO, DO YOU MEAN TO AGREE WITH ME?
A.: I’M SORRY. I AGREE WITH YOU. I DID NOT KEEP RECORDS.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
AND THEN THE FIRST TIME ANYBODY TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THIS CASE, WAS THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE THE 28TH?
A.: I’M TRYING TO THINK OF THE DAY. WAS THAT —
Q.: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN —
A.: — FRIDAY?
Q.: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN LAST FRIDAY.
A.: YES.
Q.: ARE YOU TELLING ME, MA’AM, I’M SORRY, THAT BETWEEN WE’LL SAY THE 6TH OF FEBRUARY AND THE 28TH OF JUNE, OTHER THAN THAT SINGLE E-MAIL ON THE 19TH FROM MR. FRAZEE, NOBODY FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNICATED WITH YOU CONCERNING ANY ASPECT OF WHAT YOU SAW?
A.: NO.
Q.: YOU NEVER RECEIVED A COPY OF MR. FRAZEE’S E-MAIL, DID YOU?
A.: NO. E-MAIL? YOU MEAN THE —
Q.: NOT THE INCIDENT REPORT.
A.: NO. I DIDN’T.
Q.: I’M SORRY, MA’AM.
A.: NO. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED —
Q.: JUST FOR THE RECORD I WANT TO SHOW YOU, PLEASE, WE’VE HAD MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT, I’M TELLING YOU IT’S 153 IF YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR GLASSES ON.
A.: I WILL PUT MY GLASSES ON. THANK YOU. I WILL JUST LEAVE THEM ON.
Q.: WHATEVER YOU’RE COMFORTABLE WITH.
I’VE JUST SHOWED YOU A COPY OF 153. YOU’VE NOT SEEN THAT BEFORE, HAVE YOU?
A.: NO.
Q.: OKAY.
I’M NOT ASKING YOU TO READ IT. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU HAD SEEN IT BEFORE.
A.: NO. CORRECT. I HAD NOT.
Q.: WITH REGARD TO THIS NOTION OF DOG ALERTS, —
A.: YES.
Q.: — YOU’RE TRAINED IN THE AREA OF DOG ALERTS, AREN’T YOU?
A.: MY TRAINING AREA?
Q.: YES. ARE YOU TRAINED IN HOW TO RECOGNIZE A DOG ALERT?
A.: YES.
Q.: ARE YOU A DOG HANDLER?
A.: YES, I AM.
Q.: HAVE YOU RECEIVED TRAINING IN BEING A DOG HANDLER?
A.: YES.
Q.: AS PART OF YOUR TRAINING HAVE YOU BEEN TRAINED IN, I DON’T KNOW, A SCENT DOGS AND CADAVER DOGS?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHEN YOU’RE — AND HAVE YOU ACTUALLY TRAINED DOGS?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHEN YOU TRAIN A DOG, DO YOU TRAIN THE DOG TO ALERT IN A PARTICULAR WAY IF THAT’S THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TRAINING THE DOG?
A.: ACTUALLY WE — WE UTILIZE THE DOG’S NATURAL ALERTING THAT SOME DOGS ARE BARKERS AND THEY — MY DOG DOES NOT BARK. SO I DON’T USE A BARK ALERT.
Q.: BUT REGARDLESS, WHEN YOUR DOG ALERTS, IT’S CLEAR, IT’S UNAMBIGUOUS, AND IT’S EXPLICIT, RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: THERE’S NO MISTAKING WHETHER OR NOT ONE OF YOUR DOGS IS ALERTING, RIGHT? IF THE DOG IS ENGAGED IN AN ALERT, THERE’S NO QUESTION IN YOUR MIND ABOUT IT, IS THERE?
A.: NO. THERE SHOULDN’T BE.
Q.: AND YOU WOULDN’T EXPECT THAT A HANDLER WHO CLAIMS THAT HIS OR HER DOG ALERTED WOULDN’T BE SURE WHETHER OR NOT THE DOG ALERTED, YOU WOULDN’T EXPECT THAT, WOULD YOU?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
YOU NEED NOT ANSWER, MA’AM.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: IF YOUR DOG WAS HYPOTHETICALLY TRAINED TO ALERT IN A PARTICULAR WAY AND THE PARTICULAR WAY WAS TO SIT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU AND BARK, AND YOUR DOG ENGAGED IN THAT BEHAVIOR, WOULD THERE BE ANY CONFUSION IN YOUR MIND AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS AN ACTUAL ALERT?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO.
THE WITNESS: WILL YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE, SO I CAN MAKE THE CORRECT ANSWER.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: IF YOUR DOG WAS TRAINED IN A PARTICULAR WAY TO ALERT, AND THAT PARTICULAR WAY TO ALERT WAS TO SIT DOWN, MAKE EYE CONTACT, AND BARK, AND THE DOG DID THAT, WOULD THERE BE ANY QUESTION IN YOUR MIND AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE DOG WAS ALERTING?
A.: THERE WOULD NOT BE A QUESTION IN MY MIND.
Q.: AND SO IF A HANDLER HAD A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HIS OR HER DOG WAS ALERTING, WOULD THAT SURPRISE YOU?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
YOU NEED NOT ANSWER.
MR. FELDMAN: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR.
/ / /
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: BASED ON YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, WOULD YOU EXPECT DOG HANDLERS WHO TRAIN DOGS TO ALERT TO BE CONFUSED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEIR DOGS HAVE ALERTED?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
YOU NEED NOT ANSWER, MA’AM.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU TOLD US THAT — WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MA’AM: DID YOU ACTUALLY ACCOMPANY MR. FRAZEE TO THE AREA WHERE HE WAS RUNNING HIS DOG OR DOGS?
A.: ON THE DATE IN QUESTION?
Q.: YES, MA’AM.
A.: YES, I DID.
Q.: AND WAS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WAS THAT MAN’S NAME DETECTIVE JAMES TOMSOVIC OR TOMSOVIC? MIGHT BE SAYING IT WRONG.
A.: I DON’T KNOW THE NAME.
Q.: OKAY.
DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT — IT WAS A MALE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: MALE.
Q.: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER THE MALE WAS IN A UNIFORM OR IN PLAINCLOTHES?
A.: NO, I DON’T AT THIS POINT.
Q.: WHEN YOU TALKED TO — I’M SORRY. YOU TOLD ME LAST FRIDAY WAS THE FIRST TIME ANYBODY TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THIS CASE SINCE JUNE, I’M SORRY, SINCE FEBRUARY. WHO WAS IT THAT TALKED TO YOU, DO YOU REMEMBER?
A.: YES. WHEN I RECEIVED THE SUBPOENA.
Q.: UH-HUH.
A.: RICHARD COOKSEY.
Q.: A MAN NAMED COOKSEY TALKED TO YOU?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND WAS YOUR COMMUNICATION TAPE-RECORDED?
A.: WAS THE COMMUNICATION WHAT?
Q.: TAPE-RECORDED.
A.: NO, IT WAS NOT.
Q.: WAS IT — DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT QUESTIONS WERE ASKED OF YOU BY MR. COOKSEY?
A.: YES.
Q.: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT MR. COOKSEY WAS WRITING YOUR ANSWERS AS YOU WERE SPEAKING TO HIM?
A.: HE TOOK NOTES.
Q.: DID HE SHOW YOU THE NOTES TO MAKE SURE, TO ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT HIS NOTES WERE ACCURATE?
A.: NOT AT THAT TIME.
Q.: AT ANY TIME?
A.: I DID SEE A COPY OF THE NOTES THIS MORNING.
Q.: OKAY.
I’M SORRY, MA’AM. NOTES OR A TYPEWRITTEN REPORT?
A.: I’M SORRY. I’M SORRY. YES. A TYPEWRITTEN REPORT.
Q.: AND WAS THE TYPEWRITTEN REPORT THAT YOU WERE SHOWN ACCURATE?
A.: YES.
Q.: ISN’T IT CORRECT THAT AT LEAST ON THE DAY THAT MR. FRAZEE RAN THOSE DOGS NO ONE SUGGESTED THAT EITHER YOU OR MR. FRAZEE KEEP THE EVENT CONFIDENTIAL?
A.: NOT — NO, NOT IN DIRECT ORDERS.
Q.: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT MR. FRAZEE SPOKE TO ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONCERNING HIS OBSERVATIONS ON THE DATE OF THE OBSERVATIONS?
A.: WELL, I DID NOT OBSERVE THAT.
Q.: SO YOU DON’T HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE?
A.: CORRECT.
Q.: WAS THERE A GENTLEMAN NAMED LIEUTENANT R-O-T-H-E PRESENT?
A.: YES.
Q.: I’M SORRY. IS THAT ROTHE?
A.: I THINK IT’S ROTHE, THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT GENTLEMAN?
A.: I BY PHONE CONVERSATION REQUESTING THE DOGS. I MET HIM BRIEFLY ON ONE OF THE SEARCHES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
SO WAS HE PRESENT AND OBSERVING THE EVENTS OF THE DOG RUNNING THAT MR. FRAZEE WAS DOING?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION IF HE WAS OBSERVING.
THE COURT: WELL, YOU CAN ANSWER WHETHER HE WAS THERE OR NOT.
THE WITNESS: LIEUTENANT ROTHE WAS PRESENT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WELL, DIDN’T YOU TELL MR. COOKSEY THAT LIEUTENANT ROTHE OF THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS THERE AND OBSERVED THE EVENTS?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION IS WHAT SHE SAID.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
TELL US WHAT YOU SAW, MA’AM.
THE WITNESS: WELL, OBVIOUSLY IN MY OPINION HE WAS WATCHING WHAT WE WERE DOING.
MR. FELDMAN: ALL RIGHT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: AND YOU TOLD THAT TO DETECTIVE — YOU TOLD THAT TO MR. COOKSEY, DIDN’T YOU?
A.: WELL, IF THE NOTES SAY THAT, THAT’S WHAT I SAID.
Q.: AND YOU SAW IT IN THE REPORT, DIDN’T YOU?
A.: YES, I DID.
Q.: WITH REGARD TO THE COMPARTMENT, I’M SORRY, DID YOU TELL US THAT YOU THOUGHT THE DOG MAY HAVE ALERTED TO A PARTICULAR COMPARTMENT?
A.: YES.
Q.: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT COMPARTMENT, PLEASE.
A.: IT WAS A COMPARTMENT IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE PASSENGER, ON THE PASSENGER SIDE. IT’S A COMPARTMENT JUST PAST THE MAIN DOOR TO THE MOTOR HOME.
Q.: OKAY.
A.: AFT.
Q.: AFT. I’M SORRY. I’M NOT GOOD ON BOATS.
A.: TO THE REAR. TO THE REAR. TO THE REAR OF THE DOOR. Q.: AND YOU SAID THE MAIN DOOR. I’M SORRY. DO YOU
MEAN —
A.: I’M SORRY. THE ONLY DOOR ON THE — THAT SIDE OF THE MOTOR HOME.
Q.: THE PASSENGER SIDE?
A.: THE PASSENGER SIDE.
Q.: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THE CABINET OR THE CONTAINER, COMPARTMENT, WAS OPEN OR SHUT WHEN YOU MADE YOUR OBSERVATIONS?
A.: WHEN THE DOG GAVE ITS FIRST ALERT, THE DOOR WAS CLOSED.
Q.: OKAY.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD AMONG THE DEFENSE.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DID YOU SEE WHETHER OR NOT AT SOME POINT THAT COMPARTMENT WAS OPENED AND THE DOG WENT BY IT?
A.: WELL, IT WAS OPENED AFTER HE HAD INVESTIGATED AROUND THE EXTERIOR OF THE MOTOR HOME FOR HIM TO DO AN INTERNAL CHECK WOULD BE MY OBSERVATIONS.
Q.: OKAY.
AND DID YOU SEE THE DOG GO BACK TO THE COMPARTMENT ONCE IT WAS OPENED?
A.: WELL, HE WAS HEADED THAT DIRECTION, YES. AND IT WAS OPEN. I’M NOT SURE WHAT YOU — LIKE HE DIDN’T COME RUNNING AROUND THE FRONT OF THE MOTOR HOME AND RUN TO THE DOOR. HE WAS WALKING AND CAME TO THE DOOR. IT WAS OPEN. AND HE — HE WENT IN. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HE PUT HIS PAWS IN.
Q.: I’M SORRY. I’M TALKING ABOUT THE COMPARTMENT. I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MOTOR HOME. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I’M ON THE SAME PAGE WITH YOU, MA’AM.
A.: THAT’S RIGHT.
Q.: SO YOU ARE TALKING TO THE COMPARTMENT?
A.: I’M TALKING ABOUT THE COMPARTMENT, YES.
Q.: WHEN THE DOG WENT TO THE OPEN COMPARTMENT, IT DID NOT ENGAGE IN ITS TRAINED ALERT, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?
A.: NO, YOU’RE CORRECT. IT DID NOT GIVE AN ALERT. IT HAD PREVIOUSLY GIVEN AN ALERT, AND THEN IT MOVED IN TO FOLLOW, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY AND INVESTIGATE IT, PURSUING IT.
Q.: SO ONE TIME THE DOG ENGAGED IN A BEHAVIOR WHICH MR. FRAZEE CHARACTERIZED AS — I THINK HE TOLD US HE WASN’T SURE.
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
NEXT QUESTION.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WHEN THE COMPARTMENT WAS ULTIMATELY OPENED, THE POINT IS, THE DOG DID NOT ALERT, RIGHT?
A.: IT DID NOT DO ITS TRAINED ALERT AT THAT POINT.
Q.: I’M SORRY. ON THE ISSUE OF TRAINING, MA’AM, THESE DOGS ARE TRAINED — WELL, AS THE DOG HANDLER, YOU RECOGNIZE THAT DOGS HAVE CERTAIN BEHAVIORS, RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: THERE’S — YOU ARE ALSO — WHEN YOU TRAIN THE DOGS, YOU TRAIN THEM WHEN THEY’RE GOING TO ALERT TO BEHAVE IN AN EXPLICITLY CLEAR WAY SO THAT THERE’S NO CONFUSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY’RE ALERTING, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND WHEN YOU — DO YOU ALSO TEACH HANDLERS HOW TO TRAIN THEIR DOGS?
A.: WE WORK — THE HANDLER TRAINS THE DOGS, BUT WE WORK — YES, WE WORK WITH THEM.
Q.: DID YOU TEACH MR. FRAZEE?
A.: I WAS ONE OF SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT WORKED WITH HIM.
Q.: AND DID YOU TEACH MR. FRAZEE THAT IF THE DOGS ALERT, IF A DOG ALERTS, IT’S NOT SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, IT’S VERY OBVIOUS?
A.: YES. YOU READ YOUR DOG.
MR. FELDMAN: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: DID YOU HAVE ANY TROUBLE READING THE DOG’S ALERT THERE AT THE MOTOR HOME?
A.: NO.
Q.: WAS THAT AN ALERT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY, WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE SPECIFICALLY SAID KEEP THIS CONFIDENTIAL. AND YOU SAID NOT SPECIFICALLY. WHAT WAS CONVEYED TO YOU OR WHAT WERE YOU AWARE OF?
A.: ACTUALLY THIS COULD BE MY — MY KNOWLEDGE OF CONFIDENTIALITY.
Q.: EXPLAIN THAT, PLEASE.
A.: AND FROM PREVIOUS INVOLVEMENT WITH —
Q.: WHAT?
A.: NOT TO TALK. EVEN WITHIN OUR OWN DEPARTMENT WHEN WE DO CASES WHERE WE HAVE A CRIME SCENE, THEN WE ARE TOLD NOT TO DISCUSS IT OUTSIDE, YOU KNOW, NOT A FAMILY TALK, TABLE TALK, OR FRIEND TALK.
Q.: I THINK YOU TOLD US THAT MR. COOKSEY CAME BY AND INTERVIEWED YOU. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES, HE DID. ON FRIDAY.
Q.: HAS ANYONE ELSE INTERVIEWED YOU?
A.: NO.
Q.: HOW ABOUT OVER THE PHONE?
A.: YES.
Q.: SOMEONE INTERVIEWED YOU OVER THE PHONE?
A.: YES. I HAD A CALL YESTERDAY.
Q.: FROM WHOM?
A.: FROM A MARION TASAS.
Q.: PASAS?
A.: TASAS, T-A-S-A-S.
Q.: YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT SHE LOOKS LIKE.
A.: NO, I DO NOT.
Q.: DO YOU KNOW IF SHE TAPE-RECORDED THE CONVERSATION?
A.: I DO NOT KNOW THAT.
Q.: DO YOU KNOW IF SHE KEPT ANY NOTES?
A.: I DON’T KNOW THAT SHE DID. IT WAS A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION.
Q.: DO YOU KNOW IF SHE WROTE ANY REPORTS OF WHAT YOU SAID?
A.: I DO NOT KNOW.
Q.: DO YOU KNOW IF SHE GOT IT DOWN RIGHT?
A.: I DO NOT.
Q.: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE HER REPORTS?
A.: YES.
MR. FELDMAN: RELEVANCE. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: DO YOU KNOW WHERE IT IS?
A.: WHERE HER REPORT IS?
Q.: YES.
A.: NO.
MR. FELDMAN: THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. DUSEK: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER?

RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DO YOU KNOW WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CRIMINAL CASE, MA’AM?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE NOT GOING TO ARGUE IT NOW.
ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. FELDMAN?
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU, NO.
THE COURT: IS THIS WITNESS TO BE EXCUSED?
MR. DUSEK: YES, PLEASE.
MR. FELDMAN: SUBJECT TO RECALL, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MA’AM, YOU ARE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO RECALL, WHICH MEANS THEY MAY CALL YOU BACK. BUT IN THE MEANTIME YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE TODAY.
PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYONE UNTIL YOU’RE CALLED UPON AND UNTIL THIS MATTER IS OVER.
OKAY?
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: WOULD YOU KINDLY HAND THOSE TWO REPORTS TO MR. DUSEK ON YOUR WAY BY.
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
(THE WITNESS WAS EXCUSED.)
THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO GET STARTED OR DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THE MORNING BREAK?
MR. CLARKE: COURT’S PLEASURE.
THE COURT: WE HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS READY TO GO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SO THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD SEGUE INTO THE MORNING BREAK.
PLEASE REMEMBER THE ADMONITION OF THE COURT NOT TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY AMONG YOURSELVES OR WITH ANY OTHER PERSONS. AND ALSO REMEMBER NOT TO FORM OR EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS ON THE MATTER UNTIL IT’S SUBMITTED TO YOU.
PLEASE BE BACK OUTSIDE THE DOOR AT TWENTY-FIVE MINUTES ‘TIL. THAT WILL BE 10:35, PLEASE.
(THE JURY RECESSED AT 10:21 O’CLOCK, A.M.)
(THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE
JURY:
THE COURT: OKAY. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE JURORS AND ALTERNATES HAVE LEFT THE COURTROOM.
MR. CLARKE, USE YOUR BEST EFFORTS TO GET AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THAT’S PENDING.
MR. CLARKE: I SHALL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(END OF PROCEEDINGS OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY.)
(RECESS, 10:22 O’CLOCK, A.M., TO 10:35 O’CLOCK, A.M.)
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
??

6848

02072 - July 2nd 2002 - Transcript of David Westerfield Trial Day 15 - morning 2
09074 - July 9th 2002 - Transcript of David Westerfield Trial Day 18 - afternoon 2