Tales & Trails of a Traveling Wiseguy

Hawk and I gave testimony this morning at the criminal trial stemming from the car crash we were involved in 4½ years ago. I've already written about why it took so long to get to this point. Now that the time finally came, and we traveled to Seattle at taxpayer expense for the trial, it's... anticlimactic.

We were at the courthouse in Seattle before 8am this morning, arriving in plenty of time for what we were told would be an 8:30am appearance in the trial. We waited in the offices of the prosecuting attorney. He came at around 8:15.

"Dang, he's a kid!" I chuckled to myself. He looked no older than 25. He probably gets carded 100% of the time. But it's common that lawyers in the district attorneys' s offices are young. It's one of the few places were young law school graduates can get jobs that routinely involve representing cases in court, as opposed to merely doing research all day to help make much more senior counselors look good when they appear in court.

The prosecutor spent 30 minutes or so reviewing with us the evidence he planned to present in conjunction with our testimony. For me it was a recording of the 911 phone call I made and a trio of photographs of the scene of the accident, two of which I recognized as pictures I took (and shared with the police detective investigating the case 3 days after the accident).

They took us up to the court room sometime after 9am. 8:30 testimony? Ha. Even after 9 "a few people weren't ready yet"— which included a few of the jurors, the defendant, and the judge. We sat on a hard wooden bench in the corridor until the court was ready.

As I sat waiting for the judge to come to work— and, to be fair, for the defendant in handcuffs with a police escort to arrive— I marveled at the contradictions of the courthouse building itself. It's an imposing historical building (built in 1916) with all the corridors swathed in polished stone but cheap old fixtures everywhere. For example a 1950s-ish water fountain emblazoned with the logo of a company long since bankrupt, clumsily retrofitted for 21st century expectations like filling water bottles.

Hawk was called in to testify first, then I was called in. I observed the 14 member jury was composed of 9 women, 5 men. 8 were White or appeared White. 6 were people of color, including 1-2 South Asian and at least 2 East/North Asian.

My testimony was brief, about 15 minutes total. Half of that time was spent sitting quietly while the attorneys struggled to get the IT and A/V setup working correctly to play my 911 call.

Dang, I sounded stupid on that 911 call. "I don't know where I am," I pleaded at one point. It might have sounded to jurors like I was disoriented. It wasn't that. It was <insert Apple Maps joke> because my phone's map app kept showing me a moving circle when I was trying to explain my location to the 911 dispatcher. If I'd had any chance to prepare I'd have been way smoother. 😅

The defense lawyer had no questions for me as a witness. I was surprised by that. I thought surely he'd want something on the record about my testimony. For example, he could have gently challenged my recollection of specific details— as it was 4½ years ago. He could have underscored my testimony that I didn't actually see the car hit us before it hit us. He also could have underscored my testimony that I didn't see who exited the driver's seat of the car that caused the accident. That's a common ploy in vehicular assault/reckless driving cases— "There no proof the defendant was driving the vehicle!"

Like I said, it was all anticlimactic. All this effort and expense at 4½ years out.

Over 4 years ago Hawk and I were involved in a car accident in Seattle. We were passengers in one of several vehicles that were struck by a person driving unsafely. Here's a picture of the vehicle we emerged from:



We were both in the back seat. Hawk was on the near side. You can see that the airbags deployed on that side of the car. Those kept her and the driver from smashing their heads through the glass.

The crash occurred on October 7, 2018. Police decided to charge the driver of one of the other cars with crimes including vehicular assault. Hawk and I would be summoned to appear as witnesses in the trial.

The wheel of justice turn slowly, though. The trial wouldn't be for months after the events in question. Then the Coronavirus pandemic came and scrambled everything. The jurisdiction of Kings County, Washington did not allow remote trials, so cases were delayed even more.

A little over a year ago, in October 2021, the trial got back on the court's docket. I sat for an interview (remotely) with defense counsel. It seemed like the trial would go forward, even if 3 years later. But then another form of delay occurred: the defendant failed to appear. The police wouldn't find him for at least 9 more months.

Police captured the fugitive a few months ago. He remains in custody awaiting trial. Apparently he has a long "rap sheet" of prior criminal convictions; these plus his proven flight risk undoubtedly helped a judge decide to confine him.

As for the trial? Well, it's still bumping with delay after delay. It was scheduled in October. Then early November. Then late November. Then late December. Our last notice from the county attorney's office, late last week, says the schedule is now late January.

The wheels of justice do turn slowly.

4 years, 2 months, and still counting.

Friday I had my interview with defense counsel for the case against the man charged in a multi-vehicle car crash that occurred almost three years ago. I was a passenger in one of the vehicles struck.

Long story, short: The interview went well. Defense counsel was impressed with the level of detail I was able to recall. But days beforehand I was worried it wouldn't turn out like that. Here's the longer story:

This accident occurred nearly three years ago. Just 6 days short of 3 years prior to the day of this interview, in fact. After so long my memory of specifics about the event was beginning to fade. Usually my observation of events and ability to recall them is vivid and detailed. This one was no different— at the time. Days after the accident a police detective interviewed me, and I gave a very detailed statement. Three years later... I couldn't recall as many details. What would happen to the prosecutor's case if, on the stand, I responded to every defense question with, "I don't know... I don't know... I don't recall anymore"?

Although Friday's interview wasn't testimony on the stand, just a pre-trial interview with defense counsel, I shared this concern with a paralegal for prosecutor a few months ago. She said she'd ask the prosecutor what was legit for me to do to refresh my memory. Sadly, she didn't follow through. As a side note, this office, Kings County in Washington, seems to rotate through paralegals who aren't the sharpest knives in the chandelier.

I turned to my brother-in-law, Don, for guidance. Don's a prosecuting attorney in a different jurisdiction. "What's legit for me to do to refresh my memory?" I asked. Don suggested three things:

1. Review any notes you wrote at the time
2. Review pictures you took
3. Ask the police for a transcript or recording of your interview with the investigator.

#3 especially was helpful. I asked the paralegal, and she came through with an audio file recorded of our telephone interview. I listened through it twice and wrote out notes on it to prepare for this interview nearly three years later.

As an aside, Don explained that if a witness on the stand does start saying, "I don't remember, I don't remember" to questions, he'll place a transcript of their interview with police (already entered into evidence) in front of them and, without telling them what it is, ask them to read part of it aloud. Then he'll ask them if they recognize what it is and if they made true statements at the time.

The interview went well. Defense counsel was impressed with the level of detail I was able to recall.

I shared this result with Don after the call. "Good, maybe they'll be able to work out the case, then," he said.

"Do you think the defense has being creating delays in an effort to diminish the evidence against them?" I asked. "Stretch out the time so witnesses can't clearly recall what they saw or move away and can't be found anymore?"

"As a defense tactic that's not unusual."

Not here. Not with me.