The prosecution called one of the witnesses who called 911. He testified that he heard a single shot from a block away and witnessed the white car zooming down the street out-of-control and then crashed. According to testimony, his car sustained approximately $10,000 worth of damage. This witness testified that he saw no one else on the street at the time he heard the shot. This witness also testified that he saw no one running on the block at the time shot was heard or the car screeching down the block.
Crime Scene Unit detectives testified that they arrived on the scene after the victim was removed to the hospital. The CSU detective Beelitz testified that he only took pictures of the car and did not process the outside of the car for fingerprints as he did not believe they would have any probative value (It would stand to reason that the detective would have dusted the exterior of the car for prints since no warrant was necessary to gather any potential prints from the outside). However, he did swab the passenger door where there was a blood smear on the door. That swab was sent for DNA testing. It was learned at trial that this CSU detective was not able to process the inside of the vehicle because the person who’s name the car was rented in, the victim’s girlfriend, refused to give consent to search the car. As a result, detectives had to obtain a search warrant to search the inside of the vehicle.
The car was towed and later processed by a different CSU detective. Det. Mulvernaty testified that he recovered 6 soft drink bottles, 5 cell phone charges and one black berry cell phone. All of which, was swabbed for DNA. His paperwork stated that these items were sent to the lab as it was believed the suspects were in the car at the time of the shooting.
The Medical Examiner testified that the victim was shot in the chest on the right side and the bullet traveled from right to left, front to back and downward, exiting his back. The Medical Examiner testified on direct that he visually examined the clothes of the victim and did not see any soot or gun power residue that would indicate a close range shot. However, upon cross examination, it was revealed that he had not tested these items at all and that there in fact COULD be soot and gun power residue on the clothing, especially a black shirt. Thus, he could not rule out that the shot came from inside the car!
The first officer on the scene did not remember much. He testified that he safe guarded the car and saw it processed by CSU. However, upon cross examination, he revealed that he did not see CSU process the vehicle!
A number of items were sent to the lab for DNA testing and profiles were created, however, those profiles were never compared to anything or anyone. How could that be? In a murder trial, that there is untested DNA evidence? It happens all the time!
The Detectives testified that the read Mr. Carter his Miranda rights and he voluntarily agreed to talk to them. They admitted that they fed him details before he ever uttered a word to them and that he initially denied any involvement in the crime or even knowing the victim.
The issue at trial was squarely before the jury – Is the statement a product of Mr. Carter’s free will and if so, is it reliable?
Mr. Carter did not testify. While he desperately wanted to tell his side of the story, upon advice of counsel, he exercised his right to remain silent.
Attorney Al-Shabazz requested a number of instructions be given to the jury during the Court’s charge. In addition to the Court’s standard charge, the Ms. Al-Shabazz requested a Missing Witness charge. For whatever reason Judge Schwartz denied her request for this particular charge and from the look on Ms. Al-Shabazz’s face, she was not happy about it at all.
During the third week of trial, the prosecution disclosed that it did not have its cooperating eye-witness. He was nowhere to be found. The Judge denied the request but granted the defense request to strike all references made about this witness as he is not available for cross examination. See a person has a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him and since this witness decided to absent himself, his information should not be considered.
Then Ms. Al-Shabazz contended that Mr. Carter was nowhere around the shooting. She also argued that all the evidence and lack thereof, suggest that the victim was shot by someone riding in the passenger seat. Maybe it was an accident, maybe it was a hit, but it certainly wasn’t Mr. Carter. At least one eyewitness testified that at least 2 male blacks jumped out of the car after it crashed and fled the scene. None of those people called 911.
Ms. Al-Shabazz argued that there was plenty of reasons to doubt both the voluntariness of the statement and the guilt of Mr. Carter. The trial lasted three weeks with the prosecution presenting 9 witnesses. The defense presented none.
During the Court’s instruction on the law, the Court excluded a key part of the Reasonable Doubt charge. The Court instructed the jury that the prosecution must prove every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court neglected to read the very next sentence of that charged which states “including that the defendant is the person who committed the crime”. Upon objection by the defense, the Court refused to give the full charged reasoning that the substantive counts covered the matter. Attorney Al-Shabazz was livid! It was obvious she believed that someone was trying to pull a card from the bottom of the deck. Afterwards, Judge Schwartz charged the jury on Murder in the 2nd degree as well as lessor charges of Manslaughter in the 1st degree as well as Manslaughter in the 2nd degree.
Within moments the case was in the jury’s hands and they went into the jury room to decide what was the fate of Mr. Carter. Within an hour after they received the case they had already decided a verdict in the case.
