Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEBRASKA
2
3 THE STATE OF NEBRASKA,
Plaintiff, 4
vs. 5
SRANNON E. WILLIAMS, 6
7 Defendant.
) DOC. 138 NO. 847
1
; ) 1
1 PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT ) OF PROCEEDiNGS
8
9 TRIAL heard before THE HONORABLE GERALD E. MORAN AND
10
11
A JURY on April 27, 28, 29, 30 and May 1, 4, and 5, 1998 at
Omaha, Nebraska.
12 APPEARANCES
13
14
15
16
17
For the Plaintiff: Robert F. Cryne Tim Dolan Deputy County Attorneys 428 Hall of Justice 1701 Farnam Street Omaha, Nebraska 68183
18
19
20
For the Defendant: Steven J. Lefler Attorney at Law 318 South 19th Street Suite 700 Omaha, Nebraska 68102
21
22
23
For Quincy Hughes: Marcena Hendrix Assistant Public Defender 306 Hall of Justice 1701 Farnam Street Omaha, Nebraska 68183
24 Also Present: Kathryn Hearn and Sheryl Briley
25
1 INDEX
2
3 WITNESSES: Direct Cross Redirect ReC?ZOSS
4 (Trial - 4129198)
5
6 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: . ,~,
7
a Charles A. Peters ,419 428 --
433 --
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE
I, Lori A. Greckel, official court reporter in the
District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, do hereby certify
that the within and following partial transcript contains all
of the evidence requested to be transcribed by me, and the
rulings of the Court thereon, from the proceedings had in or at
the trial of the foregoing cause in said court: that said
partial transcript is a correct and complete transcription of
the evidence requested to be transcribed from the record made
at the time of said proceedings or trial; and that said partial
transcript has been previously transcribed by order of the
Court in the foregoing cause and was certified to as a correct
and complete transcription of the evidence requested to be
transcribed from the record made at the time of said
proceedings or trial on August 5, 1998.
Dated this?* day ofc"yh,&i .> , 1998.
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
419 rRAl?T,RS A, PRTl?RS - Examination IThe Court1
THE COURT: tie we ready to bring the jury out then?
MR. LBFLER: Yesc sir.
THE COURT: You were going to call Mr. Peters first?
MR. CRYNE: Yes, sir.
(On April 29, 1998, with counsel for the parties
present, and the Defendant present, and with the jury in the
boxl the following proceedings were had:) Y-T, . (Exhibit Nos. 65 - 73 were marked for identification*) c i_
TEE COURT: Mr. Cryne?
MR. CRY-NE: State calls Mr. Charles Peters. Sir,
would you please state far the record your full name?
THE COURT: Hold on just a second. I want to Swear
him in in front of the jury. You can stay seated.
CHA.RLES A. PETERS called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiff, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
TEE COURT: I$. Cryne-
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CRYNE:
Q- Sir, would you please state for the record your full
name and spell your name for the record?
A. Charles A. Peters, P-E-T-E-R-S.
Q* What is your business, occupation, or calling?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
420 CHARLES A. PETERS - Direct (Cryne)
A. I am a physical scientist.
Q. By whom are you employed?
A. The FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Q. How long have you been so employed?
A. For approximately the last 23 years.
Q. Can you briefly state what your work is?
A. I am assigned in the laboratory,,~division to the .
scientific analysis section to the materials and devices unit
to the elemental analysis group. My duties there are to do
compositional analysis of items that are submitted to the FBI,
in particular, what we call comparative bullet lead analysis.
This is where we have a case where firearms can identify a
bullet as coming from the barrel of that gun. There are
reasons why that may be. Maybe there is no firearm recovered.
Maybe the bullet is too mutilated and they can't make marks of
identification or sometimes the bullets are so fragmented that
you can't even tell it's a bullet. That's when we are called
in.
And what we'll do is we'll analyze -- chemically
analyze the lead for its, trace elements such as copper,
antimony, tin, bismuth, silver. We'll look for those elements
chemically in the bullet head and we'll compare them to
cartridges that are known to be associated with the suspect.
so, say, for instance, they develop a suspect and he
has a partial box of ammunition in his possession, we'll
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I.7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
421 CHARLES A. PETERS - Direct (Cryne)
1 compare the bullets from those cartridges to bullets from the
victim or crime scene and if they are analytically the same,
they match in composition, we can then say that they came from
the same' source or melt of lead at a manufacturer and that puts
it at a particular manufacturer and they would have been made
on or about the same day. So what -- we have found out here
out of the nine billion or so bullets thatare manufactured in
the United States, we have narrowed it down to several hundred
thousand bullets manufactured on or about the same day at one
of the manufacturers here in the United States. So it's a
narrowing down process that we are asked to do.
Q. Would it be fair to say that basically what you are
simply doing is saying that the lead in bullets from Place A
and the lead in bullets from Place B either do or do not have
the same lead composition?
A. Yes.
Q. Briefly state what your educational background is,
sir.
A. I have a bachelor of science in chemistry from Marion
College in Indianapolis, Indiana and I attended graduate school
also in chemistry at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Q. And what professional experience have you had?
A. Professional experience, I have studied many years
under other qualified examiners at the FBI. I have gone to
many courses in instrumentation given by the manufacturers that
1
2
3
4
5
6
make the type of instrumentation we use. I continually go to
scientific seminars and symposiums and I keep current by
reading the scientific journals.
Q. And do you belong to any professional associations?
A. Not at this time.
Q. Eave you previously testified as an expert in lead .~~
7 core analysis in the courts of the United.States government or
a several states?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Many times.
MR. CRYNE: At this time, Your Honor, by prior
discussions with counsel for the defense, State offers Exhibits
57, 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69, all of which are items recovered
from the crime scene at 2913 T Avenue as Exhibits 57, 65, 66,
67, 68 and 69 respectively.
MR. LEFLER: So stipulated, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Exhibits 57, 65, 66, 67, 68,
and 69 will be received.
Q. (By or. Cryne) Sir, handing you what have been marked
as Exhibits -- please bear with me -- 65, 66, 67, and 68. Are
your markings on any of these envelopes, sir?
A. They are on all three of the envelopes. 0U.T
laboratory number is signified by the 60212042. GK is initials
given to me by the FBI laboratory. And my initials are the
CAP. They are on each one of these.
Q. So that would include Exhibits 66,,67, 68, and 69?
422 CHARLES A. PETERS - Direct (Cryne)
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And with respect to Exhibit 65, I suppose I would
3 have to open that.
4 A. I don't think I looked at 65.
5 Q. Okay. You have your EV references?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could you get them?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Specifically, you looked at -- I am sorry, sir, I
10 neglected to ask you, did you also look at the contents of
11 Exhibit 507
12 A. Yes, I did. Here again, the laboratory number is on
13 there with my initials.
14 Q. And I mentioned Exhibit 65, but I don't see your
15 markings on that. I am showing you Exhibit 73 for
16 identification. I believe that also contains your markings?
17 A. Yes. Here again, the laboratory number, our sample
18 designations and the samples as packaged by me and heat sealed
19 with all of our markings and my initials on them.
20 Q. And would it be fair to say that from the
21 representations that were made to you prior to examining these
22 exhibits, the contents of Exhibits 50, 66, 67, 68 and 69 are
23 bullets that came either from the crime -- bullets and shell
24 casings that came either from the crime scene or the victim's
25 body and that Exhibit 73 would be the other ammunition
423 CHARLES A. PETERS - Direct (Cryne)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
424 CBAP.LES A. PETERS - Direct (Cryne)
associated with the suspect that you were asked to examine?
A. That's how it was represented to me in the incoming
letter.
Q. So for purposes of the illustration we gave to the
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, all of the exhibits that we
referred to as 50 and 66, 67, 68, and 69 came from Source A and .‘.
Exhibit 73 came from Source B?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. With respect to that, can you please explain
to the Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury what your findings
were?
A. First of all, we would take these samples in,
photograph them, prepare them for analysis by -- if it's a
jacketed type of bullet, which a lot of these were, by remov
the copper jacketing from the bullet with -- we use a
luminoxide (phonetic) type of drill tool to cut off the
,ing
jacketing. Then we use wire snippers to cut the lead off. We
take three representative samples of that. We clean it up with
a clean scalpel -- a new scalpel knife between each specimen
and we analyze triplicate samples of the bullet lead in our
analyzer. The lead is dissolved in 20 percent nitric acid. It
becomes a clear solution. It is then introduced into an
instrument called an inductively coupled plasma - atomic
emission spectroscopy or ICP for short. This solution is
brought up into this very hot torch about 5,000 degrees. When
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
426 CHARLES A. PETERS - Direct (Cryne)
completely different source of lead. They could not have come
from the same source of lead as the suspect-associated
cartridges.
Q. Now, with respect to that, the only -- the only
material other than crime scene material that you examined was
that which is in Exhibit 73; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. LEFLER: Did he say crime scene?
MR. CRYNE: Exhibits 66, 67, 68, and 69 which are all
marked as coming from 2913 T Avenue I have collectively
referred to and Exhibit 50 which came from the remains of the
decedent I have referred to collectively as crime scene items.
MR. LEFLER: I am sorry, I thought you associated
I,.
MR. CRYNE: No, I said that 73 are the ,only items
that he compared to the crime scene items.
Q. (By Mr. Cryne) Is that correct, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. So if there is other 9 millimeter bullets involved in
this case, you haven't looked at them?
A. That's correct.
Q. And from -- with respect to the items contained in
Exhibit 73, you can state conclusively that these came from
different sources of lead than the items contained in Exhibits
50, 66, 67, 68, and 69; is that correct?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
427 CHARLES A. PETERS - Direct (Cryne)
A. Yes.
Q. And with respect to that, I have marked as Exhibit 72
a copy of your report. Is this a copy of your report, sir?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Does this reference the EV numbers that are contained
on Exhibit 73, which is EV 24, and the EV numbers that are
marked on Exhibit 66, which is EV number S2, 67, which is EV
number 13, 68, which is EV number 10, and 69, which is EV
number 11, and Exhibit 50, which is EV numbe; 17? Is that
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Does this report contain a fair and accurate set of
your conclusions in this case?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Does it properly cross-reference the numbers between
these exhibits?
A. I believe so.
MR. CRYNE: State offers Exhibit 72 for
identification as Exhibit 72.
MR. LEFLER: I would object as cumulative, Your
Honor.
TEE COURT: All right. 1'11 sustain the objection,
but as to hearsay as to Exhibit 72.
Q. (By Mr. Cryne) Just so that I'm clear on this point,
sir, one of the things you testified to is the fact that you do
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.~ .,.
428 CHARLES A. PETERS - Direct (Cryne)
these analyses at times, for example, when weapons are missing;
is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. If you had information that there were two weapons
that were present at the time that Exhibits 50, 66, 67, 68, and
I think 69 were developed and that all of those came from the
same weapon and that you had no rounds fr'om the other weapon,
could you make any comparisons with respect to the contents of
the other weapon? Do you understand what I am saying? My
question is poorly framed. I want to correct it. Do you
understand what I am saying?
A. Maybe you should repeat it one more time.
Q. Okay. The bottom line is you can only compare what
you have before you; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So if other bullets were disposed of by a suspect or
thrown out by a suspect or otherwise never brought to your
attention, you would have no way to make any comparison on such
bullets; true?
A. True.
MR. CRYNE: No further questions.
THE COURT: Cross-examine?
MR. LEFLER: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEFLER:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
429 CBARLES A. PETERS - Cross (Lefler)
Q. Good afternoon, sir. We had the pleasure of just
meeting a few minutes before you came in to testify; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I assume that because you have been trained by
the FBI, you have been trained to look at the jury when you
answer the questions? .‘~ .
A. Yes _
Q. Okay. Nothing wrong with that, but that's part of
the training7
A. Pardon?
Q. Nothing wrong with that, but that's part of your
training7
A. That's what I am here for.
Q. Right. And is it true that the reason why this whole
scientific inquiry has developed is because if a suspect in a
crime has a weapon, fires the weapon, and thinks that ha, ha,
ha, I am throwing away the guns, there is no way they can tie
up the bullets in the gun to the crime scene, is that now you
can go to where the suspect might live or where the suspect
might have control over some ammunition, find that ammunition,
and then do this lead core analysis and if, in fact, it -- the
lead core analysis of the crime scene or the body bullets
matches up identically with the lead core analysis of the
bullets that the suspect might have, then you can say ha, ha,
J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
430 CBARLES A. PETERS - Cross (Lefler)
ha, see, it's bought on the same day?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. NOW, can you tell me how it is that you can
determine where the bullets were made? I mean, I think you
said on Direct Examination that you could actually determine
not only the manufacturer, but maybe even the day it was
manufactured.
A. In some cases, yes.
Q. Bow do you go about doing that, sir?
A. Basically if it compares to a known cartridge, you
have the head stamp of that cartridge, so you can go back, you
know that it was made by that manufacturer and we know through
the manufacturing process how they manufacture bullets, we can
pretty much say that out of one mill of bullets would have been
manufactured on or about the same date all of the bullets from
that one pot of lead. If we have a partial box of ammunition,
the manufacturers actually stamp them with a lot number and
that lot number gives -- has the information on it when that
was manufactured at the plant.
Q. Thank you. And I assume that as a result of this
technology that has been developed of comparing lead core
examination of the bullets from a crime scene with the lead
core analysis of the bullets that were taken from the suspect
at maybe his home or something like that, people -- it's
actually resulted in convictions, even though you didn't have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C
t
c
n
f
f
t
0
431 HAP&ES A. PETERS - Cross (Lefler)
he gun?
A. I would not like to think it, in itself, would be a
onviction. It's another piece of circumstantial evidence in
arrow&g down, putting pieces together, another piece that
its the puzzle.
Q. But in this particular case, there isn't a piece that .~,
its in the puzzle; correct?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. Because you had to exclude the bullets that were
ound in Exhibit 73 based on your scientific lead core analysis
rom the bullets found at the crime scene and in the victim's
ody; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And would I be safe in assuming that you do all of
his at the crime lab for the FBI?
A. Yes, it's done in Washington, D.C. at the one and
nly crime lab we have.
Q. With regard to Exhibit 73, the bullets that were
ompared to the bullets found at the scene, again, that's not
nformation that you requested or that's not the number of
ullets that you requested; it's what, in fact, has been sent
o you from the local authorities here? Is that also correct?
A. Yes.
MR. LEFLER: Now, may I approach, Judge?
THE COURT: Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
432 CHARLES A. PETERS - Cross (Lefler)
MR. LEFLER: Thank you. Judge, we would have a
stipulation by and between the parties that Exhibit 57 that was
found at 2913 T Avenue at the home of Caina Whiters was not
sent to this particular expert.
MR. CRYNE: So stipulated.
Q. (By Mr. Lefler) I am going to hand you -- what do you
call this, sir?
A. That's the inside box holder of a box of cartridges.
Q. And I am going to pull one ~of the bullets out. Could
you just explain for the Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury what
the different markings are on the bullet, please, that help you
to determine identification?
A. Well, this is -- by the head stamp on this one, it's
a 357 Magnum. It has NR on it. I believe that means -- I'm
not sure what exactly it means. It means that CCI, a
manufacturer out of Lewiston, Idaho makes this. It's an
aluminum cartridge case. You don't want to reload it. No
reload, I think is what NR stands for. No reload. It's a
special process. I believe they are the only manufacturer that
uses this kind of -- type of -- can make this type of cartridge
case. It is loaded with a semijacketed hollow point. By
semijacketed you have the copper jacketing halfway down and the
lead protruding and hollow point is that the inside lead is
hollowed out.
Q. And if you could, sir, could you explain to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
433 CEiARLES A. PETERS - Cross (Lefler)
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury what the purpose of a hollow
point bullet is?
MR. CRYNE: Objection. May I voir dire the witness?
May I voir dire the witness?
TEE COURT: Yes.
FOUNDATIONAL EXAMINATION
BY MR. CRYNE: .~, .
Q- Sir, are you an expert in firearms examination?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are you an expert in ammunition construction and
design?
A. Yes.
MR. CRYNE: Okay. I withdraw my objection.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'dl
BY MR. LEFLER:
Q. Go ahead, sir.
A. Can you repeat the question?
Q. You bet. What is the purpose of a hollow point
bullet like that, sir?
A. The hollow point is -- when it hits, it flares out to
give greater kill.
Q. Okay. And have you been told that these are the
bullets that were recovered at the scene of the crime, but they
belong to the victim, Dennis Rufus Jones?
A. I haven't been told anything.
,, , ;. ,,?.,> ,.,, :,,:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
434 CHARLES A. PETERS - Cont'd Cross (Lefler)
Q. Okay. Now, in addition to the lead core analysis
that you performed, are you aware that the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms also conducted an examination of the
bullets that were found at the crime scene with bullets that
are suspected to be associated with the Defendant, Shannon
Williams? .~,
A. I was only aware of that aboutten minutes ago.
Q. Okay. Unfortunately because we are not going to call
somebody back from Washington from the ATF, you become the guy
we get to talk to about this particular document. Is that your
understanding?
MR. CRYNE: Objection, motion.
TEE COURT: I'll need to see both attorneys.
MR. LEFLER: I'm sorry, Judge. I'll withdraw the
question. Thank you. I'm sorry.
Q. (By Mr. Lefler) But are you able to tell us what
bunner (phonetic) marks mean?
A. I know what bunner marks mean, yes.
Q. Could you explain that for the folks on the jury,
please?
A. Keeping in mind what I told you about what I do,
another type of exam that has become popular over the last
several years is bunner mark exams which is done by a firearms
examiner in the tool marks of our laboratory.
And basicalLy what they can do if a cartridge case is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
435 CHARLES A. PETERS - Cont'd Cross (Lefler)
left at a scene on the ground and they -- can we compare that
cartridge case to known unfired ammunition from a suspect, sort
of the same thing I am doing with the bullet lead to the
cartridges -- unfired cartridges, can you do it with a fired
cartridge case from a crime scene to a partial box of
ammunition7
And the bunner mark is the stamp that the
manufacturer uses to make the -- like the .357 Magnum,
Winchester, the stamp that hits that. They Iook for -- under
the microscope for characteristics of that stamp to see if it
leaves marks of value that they can identify that one stamp.
So if there is enough marks of value that are unique to that
one mold, that stamp that they use there and those transfer
from one cartridge case to the next as they are being made,
they can say those cartridge cases were made from the same
bunner.
Now, firearms examiners and -- or the instrument --
or not the instrument manufacturers, but the ammo manufacturers
know how long their bunners last, so maybe Winchester's bunners
last for five and a half million cartridge cases, so they can
say that that came from -- was made at the same -- this
cartridge case and this cartridge was made from the same bunner
which represents like a half million cartridges in the
production.
Q. Thank you. And prior to coming here today, you
-, .., _
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CRARLES A. PETERS - Cont'd Cross (Lefler) 436
didn't know that, in fact, the ATF had been requested to do
this bunner evaluation; correct?
A. Well, I'm not really sure. That's what --
MR. CRYNE: Objection, argumentative, motion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LEFLER: That's all I have, Judge.
MR. CRYNE: No Redirect. ..~ .
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You are excused.
THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. '
