In internal documents for his staff, Spencer Lawton wrote that he provided the defense with everything it requested before the trial. Cpl. Anderson's police report contained "portions which had been whited out to exclude material to which the defense was not entitled under the law:" The complete unedited copy was provided to the judge but not the defense. The copy received by the defense was whited out to show only the defendant's statements to police, which is routine practice. Often police reports provided to defense counsel contain edited information, such as commentary from officers and other witnesses whose privacy is protected.
The following text had been whited out: "We did find a fresh gunshot in the floor and the victim [Hansford] was becoming disorderly. I arrested him…"
During the trial, Cpl. Anderson testified about the April 3 bullet hole. On direct (rebuttal) by the state to Jim's version of the events of April 3, Lawton questioned Anderson.
Q. All right, did Mr. Williams undertake to show you a bullet hole that Danny Hansford was alleged to have put into a floor of any place else in the house?
A. Yes, sir. In the bedroom on the right side, which is the south side of the bed, he pointed out that Mr. Hansford fired a weapon in the floor where the carpet's at. We made close observation of the carpet. There appeared to be a hole in the carpet and as we looked the carpet over, it appeared the bullet did strike the floor.
I could not determine if that was a new type of gunshot or was an old one. To my knowledge if the shot was fired, it would have been trapped into the floor and in the carpet, but we could not locate no bullet.
On cross-examination, defense attorney John Wright Jones questioned Anderson:
Q. And he told you that the suspect had discharged a pistol inside and out of the home; is that true, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you found signs of a bullet wound or bullet hole in the rug and in the floor itself on the second floor, did you not, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
According to Lawton, during the trial, in judge's chambers, Cook brought up the possibility of an inconsistency between the police report and Anderson's testimony regarding the "freshness" of a bullet hole found in an upstairs bedroom during the April 3 incident. Lawton answered spontaneously and from memory, saying that no inconsistency had occurred. Lawton suggested that Cook take a look at the unedited police report that was available in Judge Oliver's file, but Cook declined the offer. Later, however, Cook claimed in his appeal that he had been deprived of the report he had been offered in chambers. When asked under oath whether he'd ever had an unedited version of the report, Mr. Cook-instead of answering directly-said, "I don't know what you mean by an unedited version."
Despite Cook's opportunity to read the unedited police report, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the conviction, "citing a corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process." Later, when the court revisited the issue, it found: "…it is clear that no intentional 'corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process by the prosecutor has been established here."
When Lawton proposed in his closing statements that the April 3 incident was a hoax, the testimony about the bullet hole took on increased importance. However, whether the bullet hole was fresh or old was of little consequence. Jim could have made that bullet hole to stage a scene, or Danny could have created it in an angry rampage.
聚合中文网 阅读好时光 www.juhezwn.com
小提示:漏章、缺章、错字过多试试导航栏右上角的源