IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CADDO STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Transcription

1 IN THE FIRST JUDICIL DISTRICT COURT PRISH OF CDDO STTE OF LOUISIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SHREVEPORT POLICE OFFICER SSOC., et al VERSUS DOCKET NO., DLE G. COX, JR., et al * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PPERNCES: ON BEHLF OF THE PLINTIFF: PMEL N. BREEDLOVE ON BEHLF OF THE DEFENDNT: TOMMY JOHNSON SUZNNE WILLIMS TESTIMONY OF ED BLEWER PROCEEDINGS HD in the above-entitled matter before His Honor Craig Marcotte, Judge of the First Judicial District Court, in and for the Parish of Caddo, State of Louisiana, January,. Reported by: Pamela R. Crenshaw, CCR

2 Docket No., January, PROCEEDINGS.... * * * * * THE COURT: Let's go ahead and go forward. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Your Honor, we'll call Mr. Ed Blewer to the stand. (Previously sworn.) DIRECT EXMINTION BY MR. JOHNSON: State your name for the record. Ed Blewer. Your professional address, please. 0 Texas Street. Mr. Blewer, what is your current occupation? ssistant District ttorney, Caddo Parish, Louisiana. nd how long have you been an ssistant District ttorney? pproximately years. Now -- and as an ssistant District ttorney, tell me what positions you've held in that office. I was hired by Paul Carmouche as a misdemeanor assistant in Section. I did that for a couple of months, then I was promoted to felony assistant in Section. Then when the section chief was moved to a different unit, I was the section chief for Section. I did that for a number of years, then I went to the drug section. I was the head of the drug section for two, two and a half years. Thereafter Mr. Carmouche moved me to the homicide screening division, and I remained in that position from 0 until last year. PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

3 I'm sorry. When? 0 until last year. You say last year. You're talking about? In at the beginning -- January,, I was transferred to be the section chief of criminal Section where I'm serving now. nd in screening what do you do in that section? Kind of an open-ended job description. But the main function of the homicide screening division is the intake of homicide cases and review and investigation of officer-involved shootings. That being said, other tasks were assigned. nd were you ever assigned a task involving a case that we're here today on regarding pills missing from the Shreveport Police Department evidence locker? nd what would be the status of that file when it came into the office? I mean, is there a distinction between one that's ready for prosecution and one that's not? It came in as a D review for an investigative file. Files come into the office in a couple of different ways. One is post arrest. Then they'll either come through jail clearance or they'll bond out and we'll start them for trial. This case was investigated and forwarded to us for review. When you say investigated, that's by the Shreveport Police Department? ctually, it's by the Shreveport Police Department, a person employed by the Shreveport Police Department, and an FBI agent. PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

4 Okay. Now -- and I believe I forgot to ask you this. But you have worked under District ttorney Carmouche, Scott, Cox, and Stewart? Correct. Now, what was your approach in regards to how the District ttorney's office would try to handle this case? When the file came in, copies were made for myself, for an investigator, and for First ssistant Dale Cox. We each individually reviewed the files and had a meeting in Mr. Cox's office with the investigating officer. nd at that time what was the determination as to how to proceed forward? The determination at that time was that based on the information in the file, that filing a Bill of Information at that time was not appropriate. lthough there was probable cause existing in the file, there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, from the office of the District ttorney, it was not a provable case in court? That's correct. If we would have taken it to court, a probable cause determination would have been found and then we would have been sitting there with a two year time limit within which to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. nd have you ever had other files which you had to handle cases such as this one in that same manner to where you sit on it to watch it? Well, those cases -- well, with respect to your question, the term "sit on it," I don't agree that that occurred in this particular case. But there are cases that occur that cannot be proven at the time, but they are not closed. PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

5 s an example, there's a pending homicide investigation where a young child was killed. During the course of that, a suspect was developed. There may or may not be probable cause to proceed with that, but there's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. With that being said, that doesn't mean the case is closed. But in this case you were still looking for more evidence. Is that correct? That's correct. nd what did the District ttorney's office and you do in order to try to investigate or preserve evidence? In this particular case with respect to the preservation of evidence, there was argument earlier indicating that the packaging materials associated with the underlying crime were destroyed. When the property room transferred from its old location where it had been for years until -- to the new property room location, Sergeant Duddy was contacted and asked to document the layout of the property room so that it could be demonstrated in court what different positions were and such in regard to daily occurrences at the property room. dditionally, although I'm not going to speak with respect to any content, there were witnesses that were contacted over time at the Shreveport Police Department during the course of this case, an investigation, a number of interviews were done internally at SPD; and, as a result of those, certain officers were disciplined. That being said, there were a number of people inside in and around the police department that very likely have more information on this case. PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

6 I, along with Investigator Gryder, continued to make contact with persons that we know in the police department. I've been there years. Investigator Gryder retired from the police department. dditionally, there's different ways to skin a cat, so to speak, in this type of case. Information comes out through different sources that could include a mad girlfriend of the suspect, a mad wife of the suspect, other persons who are involved could get in trouble. Specifically there were persons in and around this investigation that apparently had some drug consumption issues. There are folks that were identified as people that were connected to the primary suspect. In connection with that, I made contact with a unit inside the Shreveport Police Department concerning an investigation along those lines, and I additionally contacted persons that are associated with a joint task force here locally. nd let's go back a minute. When it originally came in the office, did you review it for what potential charges may be available? Yeah. When cases come into our office, they all have different labels on them, particular charges that the investigators put on those. Those are not anything that we are bound by in any sense of the word. In that regard there's -- in most cases there are multiple ways to charge particular acts. In this particular case, the case came in as a theft, and that would have been theft of the pills. Having worked in the drug section, I thought a different explanation of that is possession with the intent to distribute those pills. Interestingly, the PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

7 primary suspect in this particular case was a sergeant at the police department who's responsible for different narcotics activities. nd he would be in a very good position to know how and where to get rid of such stuff. Now, were you ever at any time ever told by any District ttorney that you've served under to shelve this case? No. Were you ever told to not proceed and do nothing? No. Were you handling this case as you would any other case in the office? I was handling this case in the same way that I would have a case of this nature; that at that point is not provable beyond a reasonable doubt. s a practical matter, there are no other cases in the office specifically like this involving the Shreveport Police Department and a massive theft of pills from the property room, so it's a little bit different. nd what was your desire then insofar as trying to prosecute someone in regards to this case? My desire was then and now that the person that is suspected of this crime be prosecuted for possession with intent to distribute Hydrocodone. Now, was it your thought that the case was worthy of one that should be held open? bsolutely. To the extent that there is police corruption involved, it makes it that much harder for anybody, whether it be police officers or the District ttorney's office, to get juries to come back and convict where we have to put on the testimony of police officers. PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

8 It's important. Now, did the fact that you felt probable cause have any bearing on whether you would reasonably anticipate to proceed? Yeah. The -- this is a circumstantial case. With respect to circumstantial cases, I have to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Without direct evidence like somebody saying "I saw him in possession of the pills." "He told me about his plan." "This is how he got them." "He gave me some of them because I have a drug problem," without direct evidence I have to exclude things that based on the investigation done by Shreveport Police can't be done. With that being said, as I indicated earlier there are many ways that additional evidence can come in. nd with some direct evidence to change my burden with respect to proof in the case, yeah. nd what was your approach insofar as investigating this case? On time-wise did you -- tell us what you did. I mean, my question goes to the point, did you come back and go back over to the police department or do -- It was my hope that over time that the natural nature of criminal cases about people that know things may develop some incentive to come forward and testify or provide additional information. s an example, there's a person sitting in CCC right now that may have information on this case. The fact of the production of the investigative materials in this case during this time period is not helpful at all with respect to a prosecution. Clearly in this case materials were not being sought by the primary suspect. But in a criminal investigation PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

9 where we have not filed a Bill of Information against the person, the thought that a criminal could then do a public records request for our investigative file before it prescribes is silly. Did you become aware of a public records request? Regularly. nd did you meet with Suzanne Williams? bout that subject matter? nd did you meet with Mr. Cox about that subject matter? Did you convey to Ms. Williams in ugust or -- of or before that you were considering the charge of possession with intent to distribute? That from a trial standpoint is the preferable charge in this case. Does the D's office just convey information to people outside the office as to their mental impressions and what they think they want to consider charges to be? I don't. Did you convey to Mr. Cox that there was still the charge of possession with intent to distribute? nd was that before ugust? I don't know the particular dates of it, but the charging decision is always discussed when case files are reviewed. Did you take steps to preserve evidence in this case? Well, with respect to the packaging materials, it was quite surprising to find that that was no longer in PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

10 existence. With respect to the layout and ability to present the case to a jury by showing who had access when and where to the property room was requested based on the photographs and diagrams associated with the layout of the old property room. Did you request Mr. Gryder, who was a -- I believe Ronnie Gryder. He was the investigator helping you on this matter? Did you request him from time to time to circle back through the Shreveport Police Department to see what he could find out? Was there ever any intention not to prosecute this case within the period of the statute of limitations on the charge of possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance? When I had the case there was always a plan to prosecute the case as a possession with intent to distribute, if we could come over the hurdle associated with the difference between a circumstantial case and a direct evidence case. nd, again, you felt this was a case worthy of holding open? Because of the nature of the crime involving a Shreveport police officer? Mr. Blewer, you were aware in the summer of that the charge of theft had prescribed? PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

11 Theft is a with or without hard labor charge, which means it has a four year prescriptive period. nd what is the prescriptive period for possession with intent to distribute a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance? Six years. It's at hard labor, person jury, six year prescriptive period. nd is that charge still available? Is it fair to say that when you have a charge where you had what you considered to be probable cause, that it was worthy of holding this case open? I mean, there's a substantial difference between a case where somebody thinks somebody did something and a case where there's actually probable cause that a crime has been committed by a particular person. nd is it reasonable to anticipate that evidence could go forward in this case? The occurrence of witnesses showing up later in multiple cases happens regularly. It doesn't happen every single time. Occasionally there are cases involving prosecutions that are underway where additional evidence comes forward. Regularly we're made aware of jailhouse snitches and such. nd although a jailhouse snitch might not be something that would be directly valuable in itself, because calling somebody that has reasons to provide information for their own skin, they can provide information that will lead you to additional information. I believe you said there were photographs and diagrams of the Shreveport Police Department evidence locker? PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

12 I requested them, yes. Now, Mr. Blewer, you have, as an ssistant District ttorney and under the direction of the District ttorney, had the authority and discretion under rticle of Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure on how to handle a criminal prosecution or investigation. Is that correct? That's the case with every ssistant D and every District ttorney in the state. nd within that you have to be the one, as in this particular case, to determine whether the case should proceed, not proceed, or wait on additional evidence. Is that correct? Right. It's within my discretion as somebody who is handling a particular case to charge it. In this particular case it's a non capital crime, so the only thing needed to charge is to file a Bill of Information, close it and close my file or continue to keep the file open and look for other opportunities to prove it. I think it would be unreasonable of a case of this magnitude to foreclose that prior to the prescriptive date. Now, were you ever made aware of letters from Michael Carter, as president of the Shreveport Police Officers ssociation, requesting an independent investigation and Grand Jury? Were you ever made aware of that? I believe I reviewed a letter from Mr. Carter concerning that topic. I had had regular discussions with Eron Brainard concerning production of the materials. I explained to him it was ongoing and we wouldn't be doing that. t some point a letter came in from Mr. Carter. It was during the Charles Scott administration. Thereafter, PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

13 myself and Ronnie Gryder met with Sergeant Carter about the case. Sergeant Carter has a large number of contacts within the Shreveport Police Department and a lot of information about the goings-on there, and he would have potentially good information. Did you maintain your policy of not disclosing what action you may take in this case when you met with Mr. Carter? The purpose of meeting with Mr. Carter was to obtain information from him. nd did you act upon any of the information you obtained from him? What was done? Specifically there was information concerning a particular witness that Mr. Carter thought would be important. nd we thereafter made an effort to contact and interview that fellow. I'm sorry? We thereafter made an effort to contact and interview that fellow. nd was that done? Did you participate in that interview? No. Mr. Gryder handled that interview? Was there anything that came from that interview that would allow you to proceed forward? There was no direct evidence obtained as a result of that interview. MR. JOHNSON: I'll tender at this time, Your PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

14 Honor. THE COURT: Ms. Breedlove. CROSS-EXMINTION BY MS. BREEDLOVE: Mr. Blewer, you are familiar that there was a public records request made on behalf of Shreveport Police Officers ssociation. Correct? I was told by Mr. Brainard that there was a request for public records. re you aware that responses were put together in September of? I believe responses were put together with regard to each one of the requests. There were many. nd you understood they were -- you said were many requests or just many letters asking -- There were many letters from Brainard concerning the information that we're here about today. There's multiple requests. Seemed like an annual request or more often. nnual request about "I want these records unless you're going to" -- "you're not prosecuting; I want these records," pretty much. Right? Right. Well, requesting the public records. nd if they're public records, they're subject to production. If they're not public records, they're not subject to production. nd that's my explanation as to how come we're here today. When the records that were forwarded to the Shreveport Police -- by the Shreveport Police Department to your office, what was the -- what had Sergeant Davis believed that the crime that he was investigating was? MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor, I'm going to object. PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

15 That comes under the work product standard as to what's his mental impressions and -- MS. BREEDLOVE: We'll do it this way. I'll mark this as Plaintiff's Number, which is the public records response that Mr. Carter received in September. MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor, this is not the complete response. There's a letter that goes with that dated ugust th. MS. BREEDLOVE: Which is already in evidence, Your Honor. These are the documents that were attached. THE COURT: Well, this one is a response to the records request, absent the cover letter. Is that correct? MS. BREEDLOVE: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: ll right. MS. BREEDLOVE: We would offer this in to evidence at this time. MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor, I will reserve my objection to anything depending upon a right to cross-examination. I have not looked at it. I'm assuming it is everything we provided. THE COURT: In other words, if it is everything that was provided, you don't have an objection to it? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. BY MS. BREEDLOVE: Mr. Blewer, the first page of this production from is the beginning of the offense report by Sergeant Davis. Is that correct? That is correct. PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

16 What is the offense listed? Theft. nd have you reviewed all of -- in the first multiple pages are his ongoing of his report. Is that correct? That's correct. What are the dates that are listed as the occurrence of the theft? -- to May th,. nd I believe you testified earlier that the prescriptive period for theft is four years. Correct? That's correct. So the prescriptive period for prosecuting anybody for theft would have been in May of? Correct? So in ugust of if there were potential charges still pending, theft is one of those that could have been pending. Correct? That is correct. The documents that were produced by your office, they are redacted. Correct? Yes, they are redacted. nd the primary thing redacted is the names of the police officers. Correct? I don't know. I've not reviewed a redacted version of these reports. Do you know who did the redaction for these reports? Ms. Williams. If you look on page four, this right here, that's just the name of somebody in the property room that's been redacted. Correct? Let me read it. Lieutenant McFarland stated that the property room blank advised him that when the blank issue PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

17 came up. That would suggest that's a person. Do you know Lieutenant McFarland? nd back in do you know what department he was assigned to with the Shreveport Police Department? I know he's been in Internal ffairs. I don't know if that's -- if he was there then at that time sitting here right this second. Well, let's look at the last two pages of the documents that were produced by the District ttorney's office. Okay. nd that would be a memo from Lieutenant McFarland, who lists himself as being over Internal ffairs. Correct? It does. It says Lieutenant Gayle McFarland, Internal ffairs Bureau. nd you are familiar with Garrity versus New Jersey? re you familiar that police officers who report to IB are read their Garrity rights? Sometimes they are. It's not your understanding that happens to every officer every time they show up? I've never been in that process. I know we all know because this is a bench trial, but just for a record, isn't it true that the United States Supreme Court determining Garrity, that statements made to the Internal ffairs Bureau where officers are being compelled to answer cannot be used in a criminal investigation? I'm not familiar with the Supreme Court case that PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

18 you're referring to. But I know that there are limitations of the use of information obtained in a Garrity proceeding. nd you have -- you've had -- MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor, I would object as to the relevancy of this line of questioning. We're here on a public records request. nd while these records were produced to ask Mr. Blewer, who was not the custodian, Ms. Williams, these questions and the relevancy of -- we produced records, okay? These records were part of what we produced. I don't see the relevance to this line of questioning. MS. BREEDLOVE: Your Honor, Mr. Blewer is one of the top dogs at the District ttorney's office. Been there for a long time. nd the admissibility or even the use of information out of Internal ffairs Bureau because it cannot be used against officers, it is directly relevant to -- you're redacting stuff that you're not even entitled to use. How can that information be used in prosecution? Because this is prohibited. They shouldn't -- THE COURT: But the information gathered from that may be used. Right? MS. BREEDLOVE: Not -- these are talking about statements. This is talking about what people told Internal ffairs people and information. That's why it is relevant to whether or not -- THE COURT: In other words, that may not be used against that particular officer, but they can call a particular witness. They may not be able to refer to PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

19 that particular document, but that information garnered from that particular document may be used in order to bring that particular officer to the stand and ask him questions. Right? MS. BREEDLOVE: No, Your Honor. That's the fruit of the poisonous tree. You can't be using these documents against suspects and particularly police -- Police officers are ordered to be interviewed by IB. nd when I put my client back on the stand, he's going to tell you, and I -- THE COURT: Doesn't somebody have to object to that whether it's fruit of the poisonous tree or not? MS. BREEDLOVE: They certainly do, Your Honor. But -- THE COURT: nd if they don't object, what happens, Ms. Breedlove? MS. BREEDLOVE: If they don't object -- THE COURT: If they don't object, stuff comes in. MS. BREEDLOVE: Right. THE COURT: There you go. MR. JOHNSON: What's the relevance, Your Honor? My objection is to relevance. I don't -- THE COURT: I'm going to let them proceed. Go ahead. BY MS. BREEDLOVE: In this letter from IB from Lieutenant McFarland, the procedure said that the head of the IB asks somebody a question. That person's name has been blacked out. Correct? Procedure, I asked blank about procedures other than PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

20 the general orders, blank. there. Yes, that suggests that there was a person's name nd as you sit here, you're not the person who went through and redacted these to know how the redaction of the name given to Lieutenant McFarland in the middle of an IB investigation could hamper any potential criminal prosecution? Would that be accurate? Well, there's several parts to that. I was not involved in the specific redaction of these documents, because that is not an area that is my responsibility. I'm going to show you what I'm going to mark as Plaintiff's Exhibit. THE COURT: Tommy? MR. JOHNSON: I've got the front page of that. MS. BREEDLOVE: Well, this is the whole response. MR. JOHNSON: No, I'm talking -- I will substitute what I provided you. Hold on just a second. MS. BREEDLOVE: Well, you only put the letter in. This is all the documents. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. That's fine. THE COURT: P- is, I'm assuming, the second response? MS. BREEDLOVE: That's correct. These are the second set of documents that were produced in. THE COURT: long with the attached cover letter? MS. BREEDLOVE: long with the attached cover. BY MS. BREEDLOVE: re you familiar with this? PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

21 No. re you familiar -- first of all, are you still overseeing any potential investigation or prosecution in this case or is it assigned to somebody else? I am no longer responsible for this case. When did you quit being responsible for this case? When I moved out of the homicide screening division. That being said, thereafter I did make some effort on the case. You were present -- you were still overseeing things in September of. Correct? nd so this redacted interview by Mr. Gryder and some people, that would have been under your supervision? nd the last few pages of this production was the screening investigative report. Have you seen that document before? Let me look at it. The answer to your question is, no, I've not seen that document. But the content of that document was discussed in detail by myself and Investigator Gryder. Through December of you were still this case was still under you. Correct? Right. Right. MR. JOHNSON: You say -- I'm sorry, Ms. Breedlove. Did you say '? Because -- MS. BREEDLOVE: Yes, sir.. MR. JOHNSON: nd the question was? MS. BREEDLOVE: Was this case still under his direction. nd his answer is yes. Correct? PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

22 That's correct. BY MS. BREEDLOVE: nd as of December th,, you were advised that the property room -- that all the evidence related to this case -- bottles, evidence bags, and stickers -- had been destroyed. Correct? That's correct. nd you were also advised that somebody on that -- that's been blacked out, so I don't know who it was -- Right. -- you were advised that he had received an order from the SPD administration to destroy the evidence in this case? That's what I was told. nd you were told that in December? I don't recall when I was told that. t any time since then did you file any charges against anybody in administration for destroying evidence? No. No? Okay. Now, you were also -- been aware since at least that there were no logs about who went in and out of that property room? That's correct. In fact, when you got the case that was noted by the Shreveport police officer who investigated it. Correct? nd he also noted that the video camera of the system going into the property room hadn't been working. Is that correct? Uh-huh. That's a yes? THE WITNESS: Sorry, Ms. Court Reporter. That's PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

23 an uh-huh yes. BY MS. BREEDLOVE: nd with that -- knowing that there's no log of who and when went in and out of that property room and there was no video camera showing who went in and out of that property room, it would make it difficult to determine who, from a prosecution standpoint beyond a reasonable doubt, who removed those pills. Is that correct? Not necessarily. Contained in that report are the names of witnesses who could testify about accompanying this particular sergeant into the room. There's information in that report about the sergeant taking a backpack with him. There's information in the report about whether this particular sergeant would have been doing the photographs that he said he would be doing as part of a particular criminal investigation, which was not the case. There is direct evidence to show that he had access to these particular pills. There is direct evidence that shows that he had a drug problem. dditionally, as you are aware, instead of speaking with the Internal ffairs divisions, he quit and went away. There's a good bit of information establishing him as the primary person that would have taken those pills. That being said, probable cause is 0 percent plus a smidge. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is substantially more than that. nd without some direct connection of those pills associated with Skeesick after the taking of the pills, that case isn't going anywhere. nd, in fact, some of the last pages in this document was the IB complaint sustained against Sergeant Skeesick. Correct? PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

24 nd that was one of your primary suspects. Correct? He was the suspect. The police reports indicated he, on numerous occasions, made special efforts to go touch and open these particular items of evidence. nd yet still today no criminal charges have ever been filed against him? We've covered that. The reason that is the case is because there is a circumstantial case to show that he did. I cannot exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence based on the information you referred to associated with the logs and the cameras. In the event direct evidence of a connection between those pills and the sergeant in question after they left the Shreveport police property room would allow proof beyond a reasonable doubt and up until that prescribes, I would certainly hope that that case would go forward. ny claim for theft of those pills from the property room is prescribed. Correct? Sure. We covered that. nd in order to prove somebody had possession with the intent, you have to prove that they had actual or constructive possession. Correct? Correct. nd you have no evidence of his having actual possession. Correct? Correct. That's what we just talked about, the direct evidence associating the suspect with the pills after those pills' departure from the property room. nd if you -- if a Shreveport police officer or a Bossier cop or any other cop were to pull Mr. Skeesick over and find,000 pills in his vehicle, that would -- PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

25 just having those pills in his vehicle would be sufficient to prosecute him on possession with intent. Correct? No. The possession of those pills, if we can establish that they're likely the same pills we're talking about here, along with the testimony of the officers concerning the sergeant's multiple attendances in the property room, the fact that he opened packages and took out narcotics on the theory to photograph them on multiple occasions for an investigation that no one else in the department could document, would be very good evidence that he took -- in fact possessed with the intent to distribute those pills. Because if he had,000 of the same pills,,000 of them would have gone someplace else. But, Mr. Blewer, my question was more basic. If he found -- if he was pulled over with that many pills, you would be able to prosecute him based on him having those in his possession. Correct? you? You wouldn't have to prove where he got them, would No. But I would, because it's more evidence and tells a much better story, and that's the sort of thing you do. You put on all the evidence, just not part of it. Now, this screening section investigative report, is this something that your investigators would provide to you and others in your office regarding their assessment of the case? It would include information concerning work he had done on the case. nd you would expect any work he had done on this case to be written on here letting you know? PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

26 I absolutely would not. Would you expect a lot of what he had done to be listed here? bsolutely not in this case. Now, it does say that -- you acknowledge that y'all were provided this information sometime in from the Shreveport Police Department. Right? Whatever the date was. Sitting here now I don't know off the top of my head. nd if Suzanne from your office had acknowledged that this case was still -- if the public records request was sent in and the response was under investigation, would you have any reason -- No. No, I wouldn't argue with that. nd the first action listed in talking -- after discussing it with you was to make contact with police officers, and that was done in September of. Correct? That's what that report indicates, yes. nd then there was another conference with somebody on September,? Yeah. But I knew for a fact there was information that we did together and with others in our office that's not included in there. nd then in October you met with somebody else assigned to SPD. Correct? That's what the report indicates. nd again you and Mr. Gryder met with somebody else from SPD on October,? That's what it indicates. nd then in December you were advised that that's when -- you don't know when you were advised, but PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

27 on December th,, Mr. Gryder went to the property room and was advised that the evidence had been destroyed. Correct? MS. BREEDLOVE: We would offer in to evidence Exhibits P- and P-. THE COURT: Tommy? MR. JOHNSON: I don't have any objection if they're all the same. I'm going to introduce copies, too. THE COURT: Show P- and P- are introduced in to evidence without objection. MS. BREEDLOVE: Can I see D-? THE COURT: That would be the October,, letter? MS. BREEDLOVE: That's correct. BY MS. BREEDLOVE: Now, first do you know who in your office would be overseeing this potential investigation? Currently? Uh-huh. Well, the answer to that is no, because I know that this issue has been raised with respect to the current status of this investigation as a result of this litigation. So the answer to that would be, no, I don't. I want you to, if you could, read the first paragraph of Exhibit D-. Out loud. Letter dated October,, to Michael Carter and Eron Brainard from Tommy Johnson concerning public record request investigation in to SPD property room theft. Dear Mr. Carter and Mr. Brainard, in response to your PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

28 recent inquiry to Mr. Pryor concerning the status of the investigation of the captioned matter, it is my appreciation that the time limits for the possibility to investigate any aspect of a criminal case has lapsed without the availability of sufficient evidence to make a case for the prosecution of a party guilty of theft from the property room. Did Mr. Johnson talk to you about this case before he sent that information to my client? I absolutely am not going to tell you about what it is that we discussed between lawyers in the D's office about this case. Do you recall in talking to Sergeant Carter about this case? Well, I recall speaking to Sergeant Carter after he sent a letter to our office. I don't recall the date sitting here today. If Mr. Carter testified that it was sometime in, would you have any reason to dispute that? No. nd who all was present at that meeting? Mr. Carter, myself, and Investigator Ronnie Gryder. nd he was there for about two hours talking to y'all. Is that correct? I believe so. How long have you known Mr. Carter? Well, I've been working at the D's office from. I'm sure I came across Sergeant Carter in the days when he was a patrolman. So I don't have a specific recollection of a particular day that we met, but I'm sure I came in contact with him when I was in criminal Section prosecuting cases. PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

29 Did you have any contact with him when he was in the detective's office? I don't recall that. I'm not saying I didn't, but I don't recall that. MS. BREEDLOVE: That's all the questions I have of this witness. THE COURT: Mr. Johnson, any redirect? MR. JOHNSON: I don't have any further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: ll right. This witness may be released. I'm excused? Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: I don't think we're going to need you anymore. (End of proceedings.) PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER

30 STTE OF LOUISIN: PRISH OF CDDO: I, PMEL R. CRENSHW, Official Court Reporter in and for the State of Louisiana, employed as an official court reporter by the First Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana, as the officer before whom this testimony was taken, do hereby certify that this testimony was reported by me in the stenotype reporting method, was prepared and transcribed by me or under my direction and supervision, and is a true and correct transcript to the best of my ability and understanding; that the transcript has been prepared in compliance with transcript format guidelines required by statute or by rules of the board or by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and that I am not related to counsel or to the parties herein nor am I otherwise interested in the outcome of this matter. SUBSCRIBED ND SWORN to the nd day of May,. PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR CCR #0 PMEL R. CRENSHW, CCR OFFICIL COURT REPORTER