Speaker 1 (00:00):
(silence)
Speaker 2 (33:00):
(silence)
Speaker 3 (01:06:00):
(silence)
Speaker 4 (01:39:00):
(silence)
Speaker 5 (01:39:00):
Superior Court, the State of Connecticut [inaudible 02:52:43]. Good afternoon, Your Honor.
The Court (02:52:47):
Good afternoon. [inaudible 02:52:47] have a seat. Can the parties identify themselves for the record please?
Mr. Watson (02:52:49):
Good afternoon, Your Honor. Chris Watson for the State.
Mr. Clifton (02:52:51):
Good afternoon, Your Honor. David Clifton for the State.
Mr. Minnella (02:52:52):
Martin Minnella for the Defendant.
Mr. Raad (02:52:54):
John Raad for the Defendant.
The Court (02:52:55):
Mr. Ouellette is present. Have a seat. Have a seat, detective. So yesterday afternoon during a direct examination question, Detective Slaby indicated he had some notes. A recess was taken for the Defense to review those notes. You did review those notes and I understand that they were luminous and you started reviewing them at nine in the morning, correct?
Mr. Minnella (02:53:18):
Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
The Court (02:53:19):
Or even earlier than that. And you have taken up to approximately one o'clock to review those, correct?
Mr. Minnella (02:53:26):
Yes, Your Honor.
The Court (02:53:27):
Did you have enough time to do that?
Mr. Minnella (02:53:28):
Yes, I did, Your Honor. Thank you.
The Court (02:53:31):
All right. Are we ready to proceed then?
Mr. Watson (02:53:33):
The only thing I will add to that, Your Honor, is those notes were scanned and sent via email to the Defense at 6:30 last night.
The Court (02:53:40):
I appreciate that.
Mr. Watson (02:53:42):
I just didn't want the Court to think that we just gave them to him this morning.
The Court (02:53:46):
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Watson (02:53:47):
Thank you.
The Court (02:53:48):
All right. All right. Let's bring the jury in.
(02:53:50)
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The parties stipulate to the presence of the jury?
Mr. Minnella (02:56:33):
Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Watson (02:56:33):
Yes, Your Honor.
The Court (02:56:34):
Have a seat. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, first and foremost, thank you for your patience in this matter. Thank you for changing your schedule for going through lunch, I appreciate that. Okay? We're ready to proceed. Detective Slaby is still under oath and Attorney Minnella was doing a direct examination.
Mr. Minnella (02:56:54):
Thank you very much, Your Honor. Detective Slaby, at my request you presented 195 pages of handwritten notes by yourself this investigation. Is that correct?
Detective Slaby (02:57:09):
I don't know the exact number, but I produced the documents, yes.
Mr. Minnella (02:57:13):
Pardon me?
Detective Slaby (02:57:13):
I don't know the exact number, but I produced the documents, yes.
Mr. Minnella (02:57:17):
And you produced them... I didn't receive them till 6:30 last night.
Detective Slaby (02:57:21):
Yes, correct.
Mr. Minnella (02:57:22):
All right. Is there a reason why you didn't give them to the State's inspector when he requested them before last night?
Detective Slaby (02:57:31):
I was just waiting to be asked for them. I brought them to court with me every day, just waiting for someone to ask for them and have them ready to-
Mr. Minnella (02:57:40):
Did you bring them yesterday?
Detective Slaby (02:57:41):
I'm sorry?
Mr. Minnella (02:57:42):
Did you bring them yesterday?
Detective Slaby (02:57:43):
Yes, I did.
Mr. Minnella (02:57:45):
All right. When did you turn them over to the State's attorney?
Detective Slaby (02:57:47):
When I was asked to after the court proceeding.
Mr. Minnella (02:57:51):
Okay. Now I'm going to try not to repeat what I asked you yesterday, and if I do, I apologize. What were your responsibilities as a lead detective in a fatal motor vehicle investigation?
Detective Slaby (02:58:05):
As a lead detective, I'm the primary scribe of the case, meaning the primary documenter. I'm also responsible for maintaining a global perspective of the investigation, monitoring efforts of people who are assisting me with the case, conducting my own investigative follow-up.
Mr. Minnella (02:58:23):
Does a lead detective, as an investigator, have to gather all information in the case?
Detective Slaby (02:58:32):
Um-
Mr. Minnella (02:58:33):
All pertinent information.
The Court (02:58:35):
Let him finish, yeah.
Detective Slaby (02:58:38):
We get assistance from other detectives, so we are not the sole gatherers of all that information. However, it comes to our attention with the other detectives, what their efforts produce.
Mr. Minnella (02:58:50):
So do you know what inculpatory evidence is?
Detective Slaby (02:58:53):
Yes, I do.
Mr. Minnella (02:58:53):
What is that?
Detective Slaby (02:58:55):
Inculpatory evidence would be evidence that lends toward guilt.
Mr. Minnella (02:58:59):
And how about exculpatory, do you know what that means?
Detective Slaby (02:59:02):
Exculpatory means evidence that would lend toward innocence.
Mr. Minnella (02:59:07):
So as an investigator, you're to collect both inculpatory evidence and exculpatory evidence. Is that correct?
Detective Slaby (02:59:14):
Of course.
Mr. Minnella (02:59:16):
And just to clear this up, you were subpoenaed by me as a Defense witness in this case, is that correct?
Detective Slaby (02:59:23):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (02:59:23):
Have you ever testified in a criminal case as a Defense witness?
Detective Slaby (02:59:28):
I don't believe so.
Mr. Minnella (02:59:31):
Now, you at some point obtained a search warrant for Cooper Ouellette's phone, is that correct?
Detective Slaby (02:59:40):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (02:59:42):
Do you remember when you obtained that search warrant?
Detective Slaby (02:59:46):
That was within the first week approximately of us being dispatched to investigate the incident.
Mr. Minnella (02:59:54):
Where did you go to serve that warrant on Mr. Ouellette?
Detective Slaby (02:59:58):
We responded to the Oliver Wolcott Technical School in Torrington.
Mr. Minnella (03:00:03):
And when you got there, where did you find Mr. Ouellette?
Detective Slaby (03:00:08):
We ultimately encountered Mr. Ouellette in the parking lot of the school as he was approaching his vehicle.
Mr. Minnella (03:00:13):
And did you handcuff him?
Detective Slaby (03:00:15):
Yes, I handcuffed him.
Mr. Minnella (03:00:17):
You yourself handcuffed him?
Detective Slaby (03:00:18):
Yes, I did.
Mr. Minnella (03:00:19):
All right. And then what did you do after you handcuffed him?
Detective Slaby (03:00:23):
Summarily, I advised Mr. Ouellette that we had a search and seizure warrant for his person, and we ultimately executed that search and seizure warrant.
Mr. Minnella (03:00:33):
And after you received his phone, what did you do with the phone?
Detective Slaby (03:00:40):
The phone was secured at the State Police Troop L Barracks as evidence.
Mr. Minnella (03:00:45):
And once the phone was secured, did the state police do anything with a cell phone that they received-
Detective Slaby (03:00:52):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:00:52):
... by way of a search warrant?
Detective Slaby (03:00:54):
Yes, they did.
Mr. Minnella (03:00:54):
And what was done with that phone?
Detective Slaby (03:00:57):
With a separate search and seizure warrant a forensic data extraction of the phone was conducted.
Mr. Minnella (03:01:03):
And did you do those extractions?
Detective Slaby (03:01:06):
I did not.
Mr. Minnella (03:01:07):
Did somebody do those extractions at your request?
Detective Slaby (03:01:11):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:01:12):
And what do you look for in a phone when you do extractions or you request an extraction?
Detective Slaby (03:01:18):
It's very case dependent what type of information and evidence we're searching for. It's evidence, of course, that's inculpatory or exculpatory, but related to the crime or the suspected crime at hand.
Mr. Minnella (03:01:33):
And you know the date of the expected crime was May 20th and 21st of 2023, is that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:01:45):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:01:47):
So would you look at that phone in accordance with those two dates, 20 and 21?
Detective Slaby (03:01:55):
Could you repeat that?
Mr. Minnella (03:01:56):
Yes. When you looked at that phone, did you look at the dates 20 and 21 on that phone, the information on that phone?
Detective Slaby (03:02:05):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:02:07):
Did you secure any voicemails?
Detective Slaby (03:02:11):
The cell phone extraction as a whole saves all the data, so I don't recall specifically securing voicemails, but it's contained within the extraction file.
Mr. Minnella (03:02:21):
What's the exhibit? Excuse me for a moment, Your Honor.
The Court (03:02:21):
Take your time.
Mr. Minnella (03:02:21):
May I approach?
The Court (03:02:21):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:02:55):
Can I have Exhibit 86? May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
The Court (03:02:56):
Yeah, you have standing permission of [inaudible 03:02:58].
Mr. Minnella (03:02:58):
Thank you, Your Honor. Are you familiar with this Exhibit number 86, the State's exhibit of a voicemail on a cell phone?
Detective Slaby (03:03:16):
I can't say I recognize it outside of state police packaging.
Mr. Minnella (03:03:20):
Okay. Let me ask you a question. As the lead investigator, did you listen to the voicemails of Cooper Ouellette?
Detective Slaby (03:03:30):
Yes, I did.
Mr. Minnella (03:03:33):
And did you listen to any other voicemails that were on his phone?
Detective Slaby (03:03:41):
I don't recall exactly what voicemails, but that would have been data that we would be interested in listening to.
Mr. Minnella (03:03:50):
And how about a week prior to May 20th? Would you be interested in any voicemails that would appear on his phone?
Mr. Watson (03:04:02):
Relevance?
The Court (03:04:03):
What is the relevance? I mean, we're getting into a question of law here.
Mr. Minnella (03:04:06):
It's very relevant to this exhibit.
The Court (03:04:12):
It's relevant to this exhibit.
Mr. Minnella (03:04:13):
Relevant to this exhibit.
Mr. Watson (03:04:15):
He's provided testimony that he secured a search warrant to search the contents of that phone from May 20th and thereafter, not before May 20th. And if the question pertains to evidence that was on that phone prior to May 20th, the detective would have no knowledge of that.
Mr. Minnella (03:04:31):
Did you hear anything-
The Court (03:04:32):
All right, that's sustained.
Mr. Minnella (03:04:38):
Okay. During the course of your investigation, did you talk to an individual named Christos Stergos?
Detective Slaby (03:04:47):
Yes, I did.
Mr. Minnella (03:04:48):
And how many times did you talk to him?
Detective Slaby (03:04:53):
I probably spoke with Christos approximately three times. Some of those were on the phone, others in person.
Mr. Minnella (03:05:03):
And did you receive a voicemail that he sent to Cooper Ouellette during this period of time, close to this period of time of May 20th?
Detective Slaby (03:05:17):
No.
Mr. Minnella (03:05:17):
You never did. That's your answer under oath?
Detective Slaby (03:05:20):
Yes, correct.
Mr. Minnella (03:05:21):
Okay. Now, when you received the cell phone, you went to Schultz, is that correct? Schultz Corporation?
Detective Slaby (03:05:33):
Can you repeat, when I received what?
Mr. Minnella (03:05:35):
After you received the cell phone from Cooper-
Detective Slaby (03:05:38):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:05:39):
Did you then go to the Schultz Corporation?
Detective Slaby (03:05:42):
I don't remember the exact date that we responded to that business.
Mr. Minnella (03:05:46):
Well, I'm not asking you for the exact date. I'm asking you after you received the phone did you go to the Schultz Corporation at some point in time?
Detective Slaby (03:05:54):
I can't say when one was in relation to the other. Without knowing the two dates of getting the phone and going there. I can't say.
Mr. Minnella (03:06:03):
Well, you got the phone on May 25th of 2023. You realize that, right?
Detective Slaby (03:06:12):
I don't remember the exact date.
Mr. Minnella (03:06:16):
You remember the date of this alleged incident?
Detective Slaby (03:06:19):
I remember it was within approximately a week of us being assigned to investigate the case.
Mr. Minnella (03:06:24):
So you got the phone and who was with you when you got the phone?
Detective Slaby (03:06:31):
I recall Detective Culler, Sergeant Hazen, and Detectives Bastos and Harrington.
Mr. Minnella (03:06:39):
So it took five... You have a search warrant for Mr. Ouellette's phone. Are you telling us that it took five of the state police to get that search warrant that you had for his phone?
Detective Slaby (03:06:51):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:06:57):
It did. Okay. Now, as an investigator, did you ever hear the expression revenge is best served cold?
Detective Slaby (03:07:09):
As an investigator?
Mr. Minnella (03:07:10):
No. Have you ever heard that expression?
Detective Slaby (03:07:13):
I have heard it, yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:07:14):
Now, as an investigator, isn't it important for you to get what you believe is pertinent information as close as you can to the incident that you're investigating?
Detective Slaby (03:07:28):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:07:29):
It is. So at some point in time in the early morning hours, you went to the home of Cooper Ouellette, would you agree with that?
Detective Slaby (03:07:43):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:07:44):
And who accompanied you there?
Detective Slaby (03:07:48):
When we responded to Mr. Ouellette's residence, it was myself, Detective Bastos, Detective Harrington, Sergeant McAlpin, Trooper Carriton, Trooper Caban, Sergeant Hazen ultimately arrived. There were probably several others too who assisted us.
Mr. Minnella (03:08:06):
So there was a number of officers, correct, when you went to his residence?
Detective Slaby (03:08:10):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:08:11):
But no one went to his residence before that to either offer him a DUI test or to even ask for a DUI test of Mr. Ouellette, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:08:23):
Correct.
Mr. Minnella (03:08:25):
And so he never refused to give you a DUI test, did he?
Mr. Watson (03:08:32):
It's been asked and answered.
The Court (03:08:32):
I'll let him ask that.
Mr. Minnella (03:08:32):
He never refused to give you a DUI test or a sample of his blood, did he?
Detective Slaby (03:08:38):
He did not, correct.
Mr. Minnella (03:08:42):
Now, you had a body cam on you on that occasion when you went to his house?
Detective Slaby (03:08:50):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:08:51):
All right. Who went into the house?
Detective Slaby (03:08:56):
I went into the home along with Detective Bastos and Detective Harrington.
Mr. Minnella (03:09:01):
And whose body cam was activated when you went into the house? Was it yours?
Detective Slaby (03:09:06):
All three of our body cams.
Mr. Minnella (03:09:08):
So all three of you had your body cams, and all three of you began to interview Cooper Ouellette, is that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:09:16):
That is not correct.
Mr. Minnella (03:09:18):
Okay. Clarify it for me if you can.
Detective Slaby (03:09:21):
Detective Bastos was the primary lead during that interview, so he primarily conducted the questioning.
Mr. Minnella (03:09:28):
He was the primary lead at that point, and then at some subsequent point, a few hours later, you became the primary or lead detective, is that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:09:38):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:09:40):
Okay. And who appointed you lead detective?
Detective Slaby (03:09:42):
Sergeant Hazen appointed me as the lead detective.
Mr. Minnella (03:09:45):
And correct me if I'm wrong, but at this point in time, you had only been in Major Crime as you testified one month?
Detective Slaby (03:09:53):
That is correct.
Mr. Minnella (03:09:55):
So at one month, would you agree this was a serious accident with a fatality?
Detective Slaby (03:10:03):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:10:05):
And it's your testimony that a sergeant... Is he a sergeant in Major Crime?
Detective Slaby (03:10:10):
Currently?
Mr. Minnella (03:10:11):
No, not currently. Then when you were appointed.
Detective Slaby (03:10:13):
At the time he was a sergeant, yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:10:15):
So how many other members of Major Crime at Troop L were there at that time, May 20th, 21st, 2023?
Detective Slaby (03:10:29):
At Mr. Ouellette's residence?
Mr. Minnella (03:10:31):
Pardon me?
Detective Slaby (03:10:32):
I'm sorry, I don't understand that question.
Mr. Minnella (03:10:34):
How many members of Major Crime were at Troop L on May 20th or 21st of 2023?
Detective Slaby (03:10:45):
I don't know.
Mr. Minnella (03:10:48):
Was there 10?
Detective Slaby (03:10:50):
I don't know.
Mr. Minnella (03:10:51):
Well, you just told us there was, I believe, seven or eight troopers that went to Mr. Ouellette's house, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:10:59):
Approximately.
Mr. Minnella (03:11:00):
Approximately. So there was at least seven or eight people that were involved in major crime at Troop L on May 21st, 2023. Would you agree with me?
Detective Slaby (03:11:14):
That was a Sunday morning, so Major Crime would not have been working during those hours until the call-out.
Mr. Minnella (03:11:20):
Well, my question is not who would be working during those hours. My question is, how many members of Major Crime were there at Troop L on May 21st, 2023?
Detective Slaby (03:11:35):
So at that time, it was myself, Detective Culler, Detective Bastos, Detective Harrington, Sergeant Hazen, and then the van investigators.
Mr. Minnella (03:11:55):
All right. Now, so that's 10 or less members of Major Crime?
Detective Slaby (03:12:00):
Approximately.
Mr. Minnella (03:12:01):
And you already agreed it's a serious fatal accident, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:12:06):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:12:06):
All right. And is it your testimony that the sergeant appointed you as lead investigator, a person with one month's experience?
Detective Slaby (03:12:15):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:12:18):
Okay. And when you went to Cooper's house, all three of you had your body cams on, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:12:30):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:12:31):
And you asked Cooper what happened, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:12:38):
Detective Bastos asked that.
Mr. Minnella (03:12:40):
Okay. But you were there also?
Detective Slaby (03:12:42):
I was there.
Mr. Minnella (03:12:43):
And it's on your body cam?
Detective Slaby (03:12:44):
Yes, it is.
Mr. Minnella (03:12:46):
Now, did Cooper ever mention the word during that interview of vomit?
Mr. Watson (03:12:51):
That calls for a hearsay response.
Mr. Minnella (03:12:53):
I claim it.
The Court (03:12:54):
That is hearsay and there's...
Mr. Minnella (03:12:56):
Did you observe-
The Court (03:12:57):
The [inaudible 03:12:58] sustained. Okay. There is evidence of his interview. There is-
Mr. Minnella (03:13:00):
It's in evidence.
The Court (03:13:01):
... in evidence of his interview.
Mr. Minnella (03:13:04):
It's in evidence. Did you ever hear the word vomit?
Mr. Watson (03:13:09):
That would be hearsay.
The Court (03:13:11):
That's hearsay, what he's saying. He's not a party opponent. That's sustained.
Mr. Minnella (03:13:17):
You have your film, your body cam, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:13:21):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:13:21):
All right. And that explains to you or would explain to a jury everything that was said by Mr. Ouellette, is that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:13:29):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:13:32):
All right. And then before that, you went to Bristol Hospital, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:13:37):
Correct.
Mr. Minnella (03:13:39):
And you met with Lynn and Scott?
Detective Slaby (03:13:42):
That's correct.
Mr. Minnella (03:13:43):
Do you remember what time you met with Lynn and Scott?
Detective Slaby (03:13:47):
Not exactly.
Mr. Minnella (03:13:49):
Was it about 4:00 or 4:05?
Mr. Watson (03:13:53):
This has all been asked and answered yesterday.
The Court (03:13:58):
I'll let him ask that. I don't recall.
Detective Slaby (03:14:01):
I would have to approximate.
Mr. Minnella (03:14:02):
Well, approximate.
Detective Slaby (03:14:04):
I would say approximately between 4:00 and 4:30 in the morning.
Mr. Minnella (03:14:08):
Do you have personal knowledge, if you don't, you don't, of when the call came in to Troop L or the state police that there was a fatality and the people were at Bristol Hospital. Do you remember?
Detective Slaby (03:14:23):
Can you rephrase that?
Mr. Minnella (03:14:25):
Do you know when the call came in to Troop L that there was a serious accident and the person involved in that accident had passed away, if you know?
Detective Slaby (03:14:38):
I don't know the exact time.
Mr. Minnella (03:14:49):
You don't remember when you went from the Schultz residence, Schultz Corporation rather, it's a residence also. Do you remember when you went with the cell phone and tried to track the route that my client traveled with Sophie?
Detective Slaby (03:15:11):
I don't understand that question.
Mr. Minnella (03:15:13):
Okay. The question is that you at some point in time attempt to track a route from Schultz's to Sophie's house?
Detective Slaby (03:15:24):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:15:25):
All right. And did you do that?
Detective Slaby (03:15:27):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:15:29):
And when you did that, for 10 months it was your investigation that told the medical examiner that Sophie exited the vehicle, left the vehicle on Route 72 at Reservoir 4. Do you remember that?
Detective Slaby (03:15:53):
I don't remember that.
Mr. Minnella (03:15:55):
So you don't remember telling the medical examiner that that's where she exited the vehicle. Is that your testimony?
Detective Slaby (03:16:04):
Ultimately, we determined that and shared that information.
Mr. Minnella (03:16:08):
So at some point in time, you shared the information that when Sophie got out of that vehicle, the first time that she got out of that vehicle and it was on Route 72 by Reservoir 4. Is that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:16:26):
We weren't sure initially where that occurred.
Mr. Minnella (03:16:30):
When did you tell the medical examiner that that's where she exited the car or walked out of the car?
Detective Slaby (03:16:39):
I don't recall specifically stating that, so I'm not sure.
Mr. Minnella (03:16:49):
Okay. I'm going to show you page... I'm going to ask you to look at this, see if this helps refresh your recollection. You can read that to yourself.
(03:17:02)
Reading that help refresh your recollection?
Detective Slaby (03:17:22):
I see that I had mentioned Locust Road to Dr. Vincent.
Mr. Minnella (03:17:27):
Not Locust Road, I'm talking about Route 72.
Detective Slaby (03:17:32):
The note as I just read mentioned-
Mr. Minnella (03:17:35):
I'm not asking you-
The Court (03:17:35):
Let him finish the question and then you can go back.
Mr. Minnella (03:17:41):
I'm asking you if that helped refresh your recollection. Not what you ultimately told him, but you ultimately told him it was Locust Road, correct?
Mr. Watson (03:17:47):
Your Honor, may the witness answer the question that was posed to him before another question is posed?
The Court (03:17:51):
That's sustained. So you asked him if it refreshed his recollection relative to what he told the medical examiner the first time she exited the vehicle.
Mr. Minnella (03:17:59):
What did you tell the medical examiner the first time?
Mr. Watson (03:18:03):
Your Honor...
Mr. Minnella (03:18:00):
... medical examiner the first time.
Speaker 6 (03:18:03):
Your Honor, the witness did not finish his answer.
Mr. Minnella (03:18:09):
What did you tell the medical examiner? Anything about the location?
Detective Slaby (03:18:15):
In which specific location?
Mr. Minnella (03:18:18):
The location of Route 72. Let me withdraw that. Your investigation for 10 months, you had an investigation that lasted at least 10 months; is that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:18:34):
Approximately.
Mr. Minnella (03:18:35):
Yeah. And your investigation up until 10 months, that Sophie got out of the vehicle on Route 72; is that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:18:53):
I don't recall specifically the timeframe you're referring to, but that information evolved over time.
Mr. Minnella (03:19:01):
So over time... So isn't it until 10 months later that you said it didn't happen on Route 72?
Detective Slaby (03:19:13):
No, not 10 months later.
Mr. Minnella (03:19:15):
May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
The Court (03:19:18):
You may.
Mr. Minnella (03:19:19):
I want you to look at this, see if this helps refresh your recollection about Route 72.
Detective Slaby (03:19:23):
Okay.
Mr. Minnella (03:19:48):
Did that help refresh your recollection?
Detective Slaby (03:19:51):
It refreshes my memory that we had explained we found a deviation from Route 72 onto Locust Road.
Mr. Minnella (03:19:58):
So for 10 months, Detective, you thought the first time Cooper stopped his vehicle and Sophie got out was on Route 72; isn't that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:20:12):
We weren't sure.
Mr. Minnella (03:20:13):
Well, didn't you tell the medical examiner that this first time she left the vehicle was on Route 72?
Detective Slaby (03:20:25):
Again, I don't recall saying that.
Mr. Minnella (03:20:31):
May I have a moment, Your Honor?
The Court (03:20:32):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:20:55):
I'm going to ask you to look at this and see if this helps refresh your recollection, Detective.
Detective Slaby (03:21:16):
Okay.
Mr. Minnella (03:21:17):
It does, right?
Detective Slaby (03:21:19):
Again, this refreshes my recollection that we learned Locust Road was a deviation from Route 72.
Mr. Minnella (03:21:26):
So for 10 months, this is the last time I'm going to ask you, your investigation was that this first time that Sophie got out of the vehicle was on Route 72.
Detective Slaby (03:21:41):
We were not sure.
Mr. Minnella (03:21:43):
But you told the medical examiner it was Route 72 on a number of occasions, didn't you?
Detective Slaby (03:21:50):
I don't recall that. I don't recall that.
Mr. Minnella (03:21:54):
Do you remember how many meetings you had with the medical examiner on this case?
Detective Slaby (03:21:59):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:21:59):
How many?
Detective Slaby (03:22:01):
We met three times.
Mr. Minnella (03:22:02):
Three times? And who did you speak to at the medical examiner's office?
Detective Slaby (03:22:07):
During the first meeting, we met with Dr. Vincent and Dr. Wayrock, and during the subsequent meetings with Dr. Vincent.
Mr. Minnella (03:22:16):
And the first meeting I believe was, did you attend the autopsy of Sophie?
Detective Slaby (03:22:22):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:22:22):
And who attended that autopsy with you?
Detective Slaby (03:22:26):
Detective Bastos and Detective Bronson at the time attended the autopsy with me.
Mr. Minnella (03:22:31):
And Detective Bronson, how was he involved in this investigation, if you can tell us?
Detective Slaby (03:22:39):
Detective Bronson was assigned to the CARS unit, our accident reconstruction team, and he was assigned at the scene on Fieldview Drive.
Mr. Minnella (03:22:47):
And did he do an accident reconstruction of this incident?
Detective Slaby (03:22:51):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:22:54):
Are you familiar with his accident reconstruction?
Detective Slaby (03:22:57):
Some of it, yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:23:00):
You said some of it?
Detective Slaby (03:23:01):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:23:02):
Are you familiar with the conclusion that he came to as far as how this accident occurred?
Speaker 6 (03:23:09):
What would be the relevance as to this witness?
The Court (03:23:11):
He was the lead investigator reviewing reports from detectives that reported back to him. I'll allow it. Overruled.
Mr. Minnella (03:23:18):
Can you answer that question?
Detective Slaby (03:23:19):
I can't speak to the technicalities of their work.
Mr. Minnella (03:23:23):
I'm not asking you the technicalities. I know you're not an accident reconstructionist. Is that correct, sir?
Detective Slaby (03:23:34):
Can you repeat that?
Mr. Minnella (03:23:34):
Yeah. You are not an accident reconstructionist.
Detective Slaby (03:23:38):
That's correct. I am not.
Mr. Minnella (03:23:40):
Detective Branson is. He is an accident reconstructionist, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:23:48):
At the time he was.
Mr. Minnella (03:23:50):
At the time of this incident, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:23:52):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:23:53):
And he, along with members of the CARS unit, did an accident reconstruction of what occurred on May 21st of 2023?
Detective Slaby (03:24:05):
That's correct.
Mr. Minnella (03:24:07):
And is it your testimony you did not read his accident reconstruction report?
Detective Slaby (03:24:13):
I read the report.
Mr. Minnella (03:24:14):
You read the report?
Detective Slaby (03:24:15):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:24:21):
And when you went to the hospital on the night in question of May 21st, 2023, you made an inquiry of Lynn about the medical condition of Sophie on the way to the hospital and...
The Court (03:24:52):
Well, there's a pause here. Somebody is standing. Can you finish the question?
Speaker 6 (03:24:55):
That's what I'm waiting for. I apologize.
Mr. Minnella (03:25:00):
Could you answer that question?
The Court (03:25:01):
I don't know what the question was Attorney Minnella. Can you rephrase it?
Mr. Minnella (03:25:04):
Oh, the question was, did you make an inquiry of Lynn if Sophie said anything on the way to the hospital concerning her medical condition?
Detective Slaby (03:25:14):
I don't recall making that inquiry.
Mr. Minnella (03:25:17):
Did anyone else who was with you make that inquiry?
Detective Slaby (03:25:21):
I believe it came up in conversation. I don't know if it was specifically asked.
Mr. Minnella (03:25:26):
And do you remember Lynn saying to you an answer to that question that when Sophie came to the hospital -
Speaker 6 (03:25:36):
Objection. Calls for a hearsay response.
The Court (03:25:38):
Sustained of what Lynn says.
Mr. Minnella (03:25:40):
Your Honor, may the jury be excused?
The Court (03:25:46):
Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, you know the rules. The rules and regulations, please don't talk-
Speaker 7 (03:25:52):
Court is now back in session. Good afternoon, everybody.
The Court (03:33:01):
Afternoon, everybody. All right. We met in chambers relative to statement.
Mr. Minnella (03:33:05):
I understand, Your Honor. [inaudible 03:33:06] It's already in evidence.
The Court (03:33:08):
It's going to be sustained.
Speaker 6 (03:33:09):
Thank you.
Mr. Minnella (03:33:10):
Thank you, Your Honor.
The Court (03:34:47):
You're welcome. Let's bring the jury in.
(03:34:47)
Will the parties stipulate to the presence of the jury?
Mr. Minnella (03:34:49):
Yes, Your Honor.
Speaker 6 (03:34:49):
Yes.
The Court (03:34:50):
All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Have a seat. Have a seat, Detective. Ladies and gentlemen, that last question, the objection is sustained. Attorney Minnella.
Mr. Minnella (03:34:57):
Did you conclude at some time that Sophie exited the vehicle the first time on Locust Road?
Detective Slaby (03:35:10):
Could you please repeat that?
Mr. Minnella (03:35:13):
Did you conclude at some time that Sophie exited the vehicle first on Locust Road?
Detective Slaby (03:35:22):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:35:23):
And how long was that after May 20th of '23?
Detective Slaby (03:35:30):
That was approximately within the early part of 2024.
Mr. Minnella (03:35:36):
That was approximately 10, 11 months?
Detective Slaby (03:35:40):
Approximately.
Mr. Minnella (03:35:42):
And who helped you with that location data?
Detective Slaby (03:35:49):
Analyst Mark Sanders from NESPIN helped.
Mr. Minnella (03:35:53):
So when did you call NESPIN to get involved in this case?
Detective Slaby (03:35:59):
I don't remember the exact date.
Mr. Minnella (03:36:02):
Was it a year after, 10 months after, 11 months? Not the exact date, approximately.
Detective Slaby (03:36:10):
I would approximate in the early part of 2024.
Mr. Minnella (03:36:14):
All right. And how did you reach out to NESPIN?
Detective Slaby (03:36:19):
I spoke with a representative to solicit their assistance in the case.
Mr. Minnella (03:36:25):
And who was that representative?
Detective Slaby (03:36:27):
To my recollection, Kara Graham, who's a case manager.
Mr. Minnella (03:36:31):
When was the first time you talked to Mark Sanders?
Detective Slaby (03:36:35):
I don't recall the exact date.
Mr. Minnella (03:36:37):
Not the exact date. Approximate date.
Detective Slaby (03:36:40):
If I had to approximate, within the early part of 2024.
Mr. Minnella (03:36:44):
And would you agree that this incident is May 21st, 2023, while we're here today?
Detective Slaby (03:36:51):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:36:53):
And did you and your team do an investigation of an area of Route 72?
Detective Slaby (03:37:02):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:37:04):
And as part of that investigation, did you find the vape?
Detective Slaby (03:37:08):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:37:11):
And what was the significance of finding a vape at that location on Route 72, if there was any?
Detective Slaby (03:37:18):
We weren't sure if it was related to the case or not.
Mr. Minnella (03:37:21):
Did you ever find out if it was related to this case?
Detective Slaby (03:37:25):
Conclusively, no.
Mr. Minnella (03:37:29):
Conclusively, no? What do you mean by that?
Detective Slaby (03:37:32):
I mean, we're not sure if it had anything to do with the case or not still.
Mr. Minnella (03:37:38):
Well, where you looked was before the turnoff to Locust Road; isn't that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:37:43):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:37:45):
So if you later found out through Mark Sanders's help, the location of the iPhone, it was a turnoff before the location that you searched on Route 72; is that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:38:01):
I'm sorry, can you rephrase that?
Mr. Minnella (03:38:03):
The location that you searched on Route 72 was by Reservoir Number 4; is that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:38:12):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:38:14):
And Locust Road is a turnoff before that location, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:38:19):
No.
Mr. Minnella (03:38:20):
Where is Locust Road on Route 72?
Detective Slaby (03:38:23):
Farther north.
Mr. Minnella (03:38:24):
Farther north. Did you go to Locust Road?
Detective Slaby (03:38:30):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:38:31):
All right. And whom did you go to Locust Road with?
Detective Slaby (03:38:36):
I forget which detective, but at least one other detective.
Mr. Minnella (03:38:40):
And what did you do when you were on Locust Road-
Detective Slaby (03:38:42):
We-
Mr. Minnella (03:38:43):
... as part of your investigation? I'm sorry.
Detective Slaby (03:38:45):
We canvassed the route that we determined to have been taken.
Mr. Minnella (03:38:51):
And when you say canvassed, what else did you do?
Detective Slaby (03:38:54):
What I mean by the phrase canvas is we look for witnesses, surveillance video, or any evidence by knocking on doors and examining the area ourselves.
Mr. Minnella (03:39:05):
And how many people or doors did you knock on, on Locust Road, if you can remember?
Detective Slaby (03:39:11):
I don't know an exact number.
Mr. Minnella (03:39:12):
Was it more than 10?
Detective Slaby (03:39:15):
I would have to estimate.
Mr. Minnella (03:39:17):
Well, estimate how many?
Detective Slaby (03:39:18):
I would estimate more than 10.
Mr. Minnella (03:39:20):
More than 10. And were you able to recover any data that helped in this investigation?
Detective Slaby (03:39:27):
We did not find any witnesses or video on the Locust Road area.
Mr. Minnella (03:39:32):
Were you able to, through the help of Mark Sanders, locate a point where Sophie on Locust Road got out of the vehicle and walked into the woods?
Detective Slaby (03:39:45):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:39:47):
And how did you do that?
Detective Slaby (03:39:50):
Could you rephrase that question?
Mr. Minnella (03:39:53):
How did you find out the point where my client's car stopped and let Sophie out of the vehicle if she walked in the woods?
Detective Slaby (03:40:03):
Through data analysis that Analyst Sanders conducted, we determined approximate location where that event occurred.
Mr. Minnella (03:40:09):
So you used Sanders to determine the location, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:40:13):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:40:14):
And were you able to determine how long she was in the woods?
Detective Slaby (03:40:22):
Approximately?
Mr. Minnella (03:40:23):
Yes, sir.
Detective Slaby (03:40:25):
There was an approximate timeframe that I don't recall the specific number.
Mr. Minnella (03:40:32):
Is it two minutes? Does that ring a bell?
Detective Slaby (03:40:35):
Approximately.
Mr. Minnella (03:40:36):
Okay. And when she was in the woods, were you able to, through the help of the iPhone or Mark Sanders, be able to determine if my client had driven away?
Detective Slaby (03:40:51):
The data indicated that there was distance between both phones.
Mr. Minnella (03:40:56):
So it's really not tracking... The data is really tracking the phone and not the truck; is that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:41:03):
That is correct.
Mr. Minnella (03:41:04):
So if Sophie's phone was out of the truck, that's how Mark Sanders would be able to say where she was located, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:41:14):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:41:14):
And did he do that?
Detective Slaby (03:41:17):
Did he do what? Can you please-
Mr. Minnella (03:41:18):
Did he locate her position where she was when she left the truck?
Detective Slaby (03:41:24):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:41:26):
And you already stated it was approximately two minutes she was in the woods, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:41:32):
I can't say exactly where she was.
Mr. Minnella (03:41:35):
Well, she was off the road, wasn't she? She wasn't in the road.
Detective Slaby (03:41:39):
I'm sorry?
Mr. Minnella (03:41:40):
She was not in the road when she exited, got out of that vehicle at that time.
Detective Slaby (03:41:47):
I don't know exactly where she was.
Mr. Minnella (03:41:49):
But didn't Mark Sanders pinpoint to you a point by the use of the phone where she was located in the woods?
Detective Slaby (03:41:59):
I can't say if it's a pinpoint, but an approximation.
Mr. Minnella (03:42:04):
So she wasn't on the road, she was in the woods; isn't that correct, Detective?
Detective Slaby (03:42:08):
I don't know.
Mr. Minnella (03:42:09):
You're the lead detective. You've prepared for this case for approximately two years, and you're telling us, and you don't know where she was located.
Detective Slaby (03:42:20):
It's an approximation.
Mr. Minnella (03:42:22):
She wasn't on the road, was she?
Detective Slaby (03:42:24):
I don't know. It's an approximation.
Mr. Minnella (03:42:29):
I'm not asking you for an approximation. I'm asking you, you consulted for Mark Sanders in NESPIN on location of the phones, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:42:38):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:42:40):
And that's how you determined that the phone was not on Route 72, or phones, but it was on Locust Road, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:42:52):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:42:53):
And then you enlisted NESPIN's help to locate where the iPhones were at that period of time on May 21st, 2023; isn't that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:43:05):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:43:07):
And the iPhones and Mark... I withdraw that. And you were able, through your investigation and the help of Mark Sanders, to determine that Sophie, her iPhone was not on the road, but in the woods.
Speaker 6 (03:43:22):
That would cause him to testify to something that he didn't do. Mark Sanders is the individual that did that animation. All he did was simply provide it to the detective, and this line of questioning is attempting to elicit questions that should have been addressed to Mr. Sanders, not to this gentleman.
Mr. Minnella (03:43:38):
He is the lead detective, Your Honor.
The Court (03:43:38):
I'll allow you to ask that question-
Mr. Minnella (03:43:38):
Thank you.
The Court (03:43:43):
But I think he's answered it. He does not know if she was in the woods or on the side of the road. You could ask it again.
Mr. Minnella (03:43:48):
Can you answer that question?
Detective Slaby (03:43:50):
Would you please rephrase or repeat?
Mr. Minnella (03:43:53):
As the lead detective, finding out that... And enlisting the help of NESPIN, right? You enlisted their help, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:44:04):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:44:05):
And you were able to determine that Sophie's iPhone was off the road?
Speaker 6 (03:44:13):
That would call for... He didn't determine that, Your Honor. That's why it's an unfair question.
Mr. Minnella (03:44:19):
I'll withdraw that.
The Court (03:44:19):
Okay.
Mr. Minnella (03:44:19):
You looked at a document that was prepared at your direction, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:44:25):
Which document?
Mr. Minnella (03:44:27):
A document on Locust Road that you asked NESPIN to provide.
Detective Slaby (03:44:35):
I don't know if there was a specific document for Locust Road.
Mr. Minnella (03:44:40):
Is that what you're telling us, that there is no document that was given to you by NESPIN as lead investigator? Is that your testimony?
Detective Slaby (03:44:48):
No.
Mr. Minnella (03:44:49):
What is your testimony?
Detective Slaby (03:44:51):
We were provided a report from Analyst Sanders.
Mr. Minnella (03:44:54):
And as the lead investigator, did you look at that report?
Detective Slaby (03:44:58):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:44:59):
And that report plotted certain points, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:45:05):
I don't recall if the report did that.
Mr. Minnella (03:45:08):
Well, what did that?
Detective Slaby (03:45:09):
The animation that was created with Analyst Sanders's assistance.
Mr. Minnella (03:45:15):
All right. The animation. Looking at that animation on Locust Road, were you able to be provided with relevant information?
Detective Slaby (03:45:26):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:45:28):
And looking at that animation as the lead investigator, were you able to determine if my client's car, for some point in time, left the vicinity of where Sophie's cell phone was located?
Detective Slaby (03:45:44):
The data indicated that was such.
Mr. Minnella (03:45:47):
And in the animation, I'm sure you're familiar with it, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:45:51):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:45:52):
At some point in time, my client's cell phone indicated that he came back to the site where Sophie left the vehicle.
Detective Slaby (03:46:03):
I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Minnella (03:46:06):
You looked at the animation, didn't you?
Detective Slaby (03:46:08):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:46:09):
You showed the animation to the ME, didn't you?
Detective Slaby (03:46:14):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:46:16):
And you showed the ME that animation before he was even able to conclude that this was a homicide; isn't that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:46:24):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:46:24):
All right. So at some point in time, you had direct knowledge that that phone turned around, that my client had, and came back to where Sophie's phone was located?
Detective Slaby (03:46:44):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:46:46):
And then Sophie got back into the vehicle; isn't that correct?
Speaker 6 (03:46:50):
Your Honor, he's asking the detective to testify to an animation that the detective didn't do. The animation is in evidence and Mr. Sanders has already testified. This would not be his bailiwick.
The Court (03:47:01):
Can Counsel approach?
(03:47:02)
Been sustained.
Mr. Minnella (03:48:16):
Now, Detective, at some point in time, did you secure the clothes that Sophie was wearing?
Detective Slaby (03:48:23):
I did not personally do that.
Mr. Minnella (03:48:27):
Under your direction, did you receive these clothes?
Detective Slaby (03:48:30):
Not under my direction per se, but they were seized by our unit.
Mr. Minnella (03:48:35):
All right. And you're the lead detective on that unit, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:48:39):
Of the case, I was.
Mr. Minnella (03:48:43):
So you're the detective on that, lead detective, and you, at some point in time, received Sophie's clothes, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:48:52):
I did not personally receive them.
Mr. Minnella (03:48:54):
I'm not asking you if you personally received them. Your unit received them, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:48:59):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:49:02):
And do you know, can you tell the jury as the lead investigator, if any pattern recognition tests were done on those clothes?
Detective Slaby (03:49:15):
We had looked into if that was a possibility.
Mr. Minnella (03:49:19):
No, that's not the answer. My question is, and I'll repeat it, I apologize. Do you know if any pattern... First of all, do you know what pattern recognition is?
Detective Slaby (03:49:31):
I have a familiarity with it, yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:49:33):
Well, tell the jury what it is.
Detective Slaby (03:49:35):
It would be comparing a pattern in question to a known pattern.
Mr. Minnella (03:49:40):
So you know a piece of the tire was taken off, a piece of Cooper... Or his tire was taken off by your unit and the state police from your investigator, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:49:50):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:49:52):
So wouldn't pattern recognition, if you claim a vehicle or a tire ran over somebody, wouldn't that be relevant in your investigation?
Detective Slaby (03:50:02):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:50:04):
And I'm asking you if a pattern recognition expert ever looked at the tire and the clothing that was seized from Sophie?
Detective Slaby (03:50:17):
I don't know if any experts per se did.
Mr. Minnella (03:50:23):
Is that your testimony? You don't know if any experts-
Detective Slaby (03:50:26):
We had requested it.
Mr. Minnella (03:50:28):
Did you request it?
Detective Slaby (03:50:30):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:50:31):
So you're the lead investigator, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:50:33):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:50:35):
And you requested it, and it's your testimony here, you do not know if a pattern recognition expert examined her clothes. Is that your testimony here under oath?
Detective Slaby (03:50:47):
I don't know who has any such qualifications at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, but we requested it from them.
Mr. Minnella (03:50:56):
Now, I'm not talking about the chief medical examiner. I'm talking about someone in your forensic department and-
Mr. Minnella (03:51:00):
I'm talking about someone in your forensic department from Marion or Middletown, somebody from the State Police Lab.
Detective Slaby (03:51:11):
They did not conduct any pattern comparisons at the State Forensic Lab.
Mr. Minnella (03:51:16):
As an experienced detective/police officer, if you were trying to prove that a certain tire that you have a print of ran over an individual's clothes, wouldn't it be important to have a pattern recognition expert examine those items?
Detective Slaby (03:51:38):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:51:40):
And as the lead investigator, and you're telling us you don't know if that was done?
Detective Slaby (03:51:47):
We had sought to have as much analysis of that sweatshirt completed as possible.
Mr. Minnella (03:51:54):
And who did that?
Detective Slaby (03:51:57):
The State Forensic Laboratory.
Mr. Minnella (03:51:59):
So they would give you a report, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:52:02):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:52:04):
Did you look at a report that they examined those clothes?
Detective Slaby (03:52:06):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:52:07):
Was there a report that they did a pattern recognition test?
Detective Slaby (03:52:14):
I don't recall that.
Mr. Minnella (03:52:15):
Because they never did one, isn't that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:52:17):
I-
Mr. Minnella (03:52:18):
They never tested that sweatshirt with the tire that they had. You had that car in your possession, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:52:28):
Correct.
Mr. Minnella (03:52:29):
And it was your conclusion, you, as the lead investigator, that my client's car ran Sophie?
Detective Slaby (03:52:42):
That was our investigative conclusion.
Mr. Minnella (03:52:45):
That was your investigative conclusion? What did you base that investigative conclusion on?
Detective Slaby (03:52:52):
Based upon information from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
Mr. Minnella (03:53:01):
Okay.
(03:53:01)
Now, who is Detective Bronson?
Detective Slaby (03:53:04):
He was assigned to the CARS Unit.
Mr. Minnella (03:53:06):
And he actually went to the autopsy, isn't that correct?
Detective Slaby (03:53:10):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:53:11):
And he also conducted an accident reconstruction [inaudible 03:53:16].
Mr. Watson (03:53:15):
This has been asked and answered now.
Judge Chris Pelosi (03:53:17):
We already know... that's sustained, what Detective Bronson did.
Mr. Minnella (03:53:21):
And his accident reconstruction, are you familiar with the results of that?
Judge Chris Pelosi (03:53:24):
Yes or no?
Mr. Watson (03:53:24):
Asked
Detective Slaby (03:53:24):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:53:33):
Okay. May I have a second, Your Honor?
Judge Chris Pelosi (03:53:35):
Take your time.
Mr. Minnella (03:53:41):
Who is Detective DeCosmo? Do you know him?
Detective Slaby (03:53:47):
Could you please repeat the name?
Mr. Minnella (03:53:50):
It says DeCicco here, but I believe it's DeCosmo. He's a sergeant in the CARS Unit. Are you familiar with him?
Detective Slaby (03:53:57):
Yes, DeCoco.
Mr. Minnella (03:54:00):
Are you familiar with his conclusion as far as what occurred?
Detective Slaby (03:54:08):
I don't recall that he made one.
Mr. Minnella (03:54:10):
Can I show you this and ask you, you can read this and see if this helps you refresh your recollection? Just these lines right here.
Mr. Watson (03:54:20):
What is the relevance of this? He can't testify to somebody else's conclusion.
Judge Chris Pelosi (03:54:23):
He's not, the question was, are you familiar with DeCoco's findings? That's cause for a yes or no.
Mr. Minnella (03:54:40):
Are you familiar with his finding? Just this line here, Detective. Read this line right here.
Detective Slaby (03:54:43):
Detective DeCoco-
Mr. Watson (03:54:44):
Excuse me.
Judge Chris Pelosi (03:54:44):
No, you're going to read it to yourself to see if refreshes your recollection...
Detective Slaby (03:54:47):
Oh, I'm sorry.
Judge Chris Pelosi (03:54:48):
... if you're familiar with Detective DeCoco's findings.
Detective Slaby (03:54:56):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:54:57):
You're familiar with it?
Detective Slaby (03:54:58):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:55:05):
Thank you.
(03:55:05)
Now, I don't know if I asked you this before, but how many times did you meet, not with the medical examiner, but with the reconstructionist?
Detective Slaby (03:55:30):
I don't recall the number of meetings.
Mr. Minnella (03:55:33):
Pardon?
Detective Slaby (03:55:33):
I don't recall the number of meetings.
Mr. Minnella (03:55:35):
Was there a number of meetings? Was it more than three or four?
Detective Slaby (03:55:41):
We collectively met together, so within the settings.
Mr. Minnella (03:55:46):
And why did you meet with him?
Detective Slaby (03:55:48):
To discuss the case.
Mr. Minnella (03:55:49):
To discuss the case. Okay. And did you rely on him to help you with this investigation? He was part of your team, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:55:59):
Who specifically?
Mr. Minnella (03:56:02):
Detective Bronson who did the accident reconstruction.
Detective Slaby (03:56:05):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:56:06):
He was part of your team.
(03:56:16)
And it's your testimony that you don't remember how many times you met with him?
Detective Slaby (03:56:22):
I don't recall, no.
Mr. Minnella (03:56:24):
Do you remember meeting with the Medical Examiner, Dr. Vincent?
Detective Slaby (03:56:29):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:56:29):
How many times did you meet with him?
Mr. Watson (03:56:32):
It's been asked and answered.
Judge Chris Pelosi (03:56:33):
It hasn't.
Mr. Minnella (03:56:34):
I'm getting into a different area.
Judge Chris Pelosi (03:56:35):
Okay.
Mr. Watson (03:56:35):
Get into the different area but he's testified he's met with [inaudible 03:56:42]...
Mr. Minnella (03:56:43):
And do you remember a three-hour meeting?
Mr. Watson (03:56:45):
... at least three times.
Mr. Minnella (03:56:46):
Do you remember a three-hour meeting that you had with Dr. Vincent, the Medical Examiner?
Detective Slaby (03:56:49):
I don't recall the length, but I remember the meetings.
Mr. Minnella (03:56:52):
And you don't recall the length, but you remember the last meeting you had?
Detective Slaby (03:56:57):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:56:58):
And when was that?
Detective Slaby (03:56:59):
That was approximately, that was April 30th of 2024.
Mr. Minnella (03:57:04):
So that was 11 months after this unfortunate incident, would you agree?
Detective Slaby (03:57:10):
Approximately.
Mr. Minnella (03:57:12):
Approximately. And who was at that meeting?
Detective Slaby (03:57:18):
At that meeting, I recall Dr. Vincent, myself, Sergeant Hazen, Detective Culler, Detective DeCoco, Detective Bronson, State's Attorney Watson, and Inspector Apicella.
Mr. Minnella (03:57:34):
And you were all at that meeting, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:57:36):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:57:37):
And at that point in time, Dr. Vincent had not come to a conclusion on the cause or manner of death. Isn't that true?
Detective Slaby (03:57:47):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:57:49):
And-
Detective Slaby (03:57:49):
I'm sorry. Manner of death, he had not.
Mr. Minnella (03:57:53):
Yeah, manner of death, he hadn't.
Detective Slaby (03:57:54):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:57:55):
And that was 11 months after the incident, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:57:59):
Approximately.
Mr. Minnella (03:58:01):
And do you know when he, Dr. Vincent, decided that the cause of death was a blunt force injury?
Mr. Watson (03:58:13):
That would call for a hearsay response.
Judge Chris Pelosi (03:58:14):
I'll allow that.
Mr. Minnella (03:58:14):
Can you answer that question?
Detective Slaby (03:58:18):
Could you please repeat it?
Mr. Minnella (03:58:21):
When did Dr. Vincent determine that the cause of this unfortunate incident was a blunt force injury?
Detective Slaby (03:58:35):
Dr. Vincent did not.
Mr. Minnella (03:58:37):
He did not?
Detective Slaby (03:58:38):
Correct. It was different doctor.
Mr. Minnella (03:58:40):
All right. Who was the doctor that opined?
Detective Slaby (03:58:40):
Dr. Wayrock.
Mr. Minnella (03:58:40):
Okay. Was Dr. Wayrock at all these meetings with you?
Detective Slaby (03:58:48):
Only one.
Mr. Minnella (03:58:49):
Only one?
Detective Slaby (03:58:49):
Yeah.
Mr. Minnella (03:58:49):
Which one was he at with you?
Detective Slaby (03:58:51):
The first.
Mr. Minnella (03:58:52):
The first meeting. Now I'm talking about, so there wasn't a... he did not assign the cause of death, did he, Dr. Wayrock?
Detective Slaby (03:59:04):
Yes, he did.
Mr. Minnella (03:59:05):
It wasn't Dr. Vincent?
Detective Slaby (03:59:07):
No.
Mr. Minnella (03:59:09):
And so Dr. Wayrock was at all your meetings?
Detective Slaby (03:59:13):
He was not.
Mr. Minnella (03:59:16):
How many meetings... he was only at the first meeting?
Detective Slaby (03:59:19):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:59:19):
And when was the first meeting?
Detective Slaby (03:59:21):
First meeting was, I would have to approximate.
Mr. Minnella (03:59:24):
Well, approximately.
Detective Slaby (03:59:26):
Approximately one month after the autopsy.
Mr. Minnella (03:59:31):
And how many other... you had a number of other meetings, but that was with Dr. Vincent, correct?
Detective Slaby (03:59:38):
The subsequent meetings, yes.
Mr. Minnella (03:59:41):
And who signed the death certificate?
Detective Slaby (03:59:45):
Ultimately, I believe Dr. Vincent did.
Mr. Minnella (03:59:48):
Dr. Vincent did. So wouldn't he then conclude the manner of death as homicide?
Detective Slaby (03:59:56):
He ultimately did conclude that.
Mr. Minnella (03:59:57):
He ultimately did. And how long was that after this unfortunate incident?
Detective Slaby (04:00:03):
I would have to approximate.
Mr. Minnella (04:00:04):
Yeah, approximate.
Detective Slaby (04:00:05):
So approximately one year after.
Mr. Minnella (04:00:29):
Did you ever conduct a telephone interview with Devin, do you remember a Devin Krol, K-R-O-L?
Detective Slaby (04:00:47):
Yes, I remember him.
Mr. Minnella (04:00:49):
And you remember conducting a interview with him over the telephone?
Detective Slaby (04:00:54):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (04:00:55):
Okay. And then did you have a subsequent interview with him?
Detective Slaby (04:00:59):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (04:01:01):
And do you know how old he was at the time?
Detective Slaby (04:01:04):
I do not.
Mr. Minnella (04:01:06):
All right. Was he 21? Does that help refresh your recollection?
Detective Slaby (04:01:09):
I don't remember, so.
Mr. Minnella (04:01:11):
And did he admit to you... I'll withdraw that.
(04:01:24)
So you got the arrest warrant, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:01:28):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (04:01:28):
And was that when your investigation ended?
Detective Slaby (04:01:32):
That was when we found probable cause to make an arrest.
Mr. Minnella (04:01:35):
You found probable cause?
Detective Slaby (04:01:37):
A court and a judge found probable cause.
Mr. Minnella (04:01:40):
And you were an investigator on part of the case, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:01:47):
Could you please repeat that?
Mr. Minnella (04:01:48):
You were the lead investigator as far as the investigation?
Detective Slaby (04:01:51):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (04:01:52):
You were the affiant on this arrest warrant, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:01:56):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (04:01:57):
What does it mean to be an affiant?
Mr. Watson (04:02:00):
What's the relevance of these questions?
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:02:00):
I don't know how it's relevant material.
Mr. Minnella (04:02:00):
Okay.
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:02:00):
Sustained.
Mr. Minnella (04:02:06):
I have nothing further.
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:02:06):
Okay.
Mr. Watson (04:02:10):
Detective, how are you?
Detective Slaby (04:02:11):
Good, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Watson (04:02:13):
You became the lead detective in this case on May 21st of 2023, is that correct?
Detective Slaby (04:02:19):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:02:20):
You were not the lead detective on this case when you were dispatched or told to go to the Bristol Hospital?
Detective Slaby (04:02:26):
Correct.
Mr. Watson (04:02:27):
And in fact, somebody else told you to go to Bristol Hospital and speak with the family, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:02:33):
Correct.
Mr. Watson (04:02:35):
And that person that told you to do that was Sergeant Hazen, I believe?
Detective Slaby (04:02:38):
Correct.
Mr. Watson (04:02:39):
And after you received the dispatch to go to the hospital, you arrived at the hospital on May 21st of 2023, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:02:47):
Correct.
Mr. Watson (04:02:49):
And you arrived there, I believe about 4:30?
Detective Slaby (04:02:52):
Approximately.
Mr. Watson (04:02:53):
Okay. And you knew before you arrived at the hospital that someone had passed away?
Detective Slaby (04:02:59):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:03:01):
You and Detective Bastos spoke with both Scott and Lynn while you were at the hospital, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:03:06):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:03:07):
And you received information from them about Sophie being out with Cooper, is that correct?
Detective Slaby (04:03:11):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:03:14):
And you received information from them about how Cooper brought Sophie home the night before, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:03:20):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:03:23):
And when you were at the hospital, Cooper Ouellette wasn't at the hospital, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:03:27):
Correct.
Mr. Watson (04:03:27):
And you were asked by the Defense if you could have obtained a search warrant for Cooper Ouellette's blood while you were at the hospital. You recall that question?
Detective Slaby (04:03:36):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:03:40):
Now, based upon your investigation, what time did Sophie separate from the truck Cooper Ouellette was driving on Fieldview Drive?
Detective Slaby (04:03:49):
Approximately 11:41 PM.
Mr. Watson (04:03:52):
So how much time had passed from when Sophie separated from that truck on Fieldview Drive to when you arrived at the hospital?
Detective Slaby (04:04:00):
Up to the time of arrival at the hospital, approximately four to five hours.
Mr. Watson (04:04:08):
And Cooper Ouellette arrived back at his house at 12:24 after leaving Sophie's, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:04:14):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:04:16):
And you went to Cooper Ouellette's house at about 6:30 on 05/21/23, and that would be in the AM, isn't that right?
Detective Slaby (04:04:23):
That's correct.
Mr. Watson (04:04:25):
And so now, how much time had passed from when Sophie separated from the truck to when you arrived at Cooper Ouellette's house?
Detective Slaby (04:04:32):
At that point in time, approximately six to seven hours had passed.
Mr. Watson (04:04:38):
Now, if you had asked Cooper Ouellette for a blood sample while you were at the house, would it have been relevant to know if he had any alcoholic beverages...
Mr. Minnella (04:04:45):
I object.
Mr. Watson (04:04:45):
... after he came home at 12:24?
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:04:45):
I need to hear him finish the question first. I was...
Mr. Watson (04:04:45):
That's fine.
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:04:45):
... repeat the entire question.
Mr. Watson (04:04:45):
Would you like me to repeat it?
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:04:45):
Yes, I would.
Mr. Watson (04:04:45):
If you had asked Cooper Ouellette for a blood sample while he was at his house or while you were at his house, would it have been relevant for you to know if he had any alcoholic beverages after he came home at 12: 24?
Detective Slaby (04:05:14):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:05:16):
Why would that have been relevant?
Detective Slaby (04:05:18):
That would've been relevant because then attempting or obtaining a blood sample from him would've provided information about his intoxication after the event of Sophie separating from the truck.
Mr. Watson (04:05:33):
And if he had drank after he got home, it would've affected his blood results, right?
Detective Slaby (04:05:37):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:05:40):
Now, based on your training and experience as a police officer, does the human body metabolize alcohol after it's consumed?
Detective Slaby (04:05:46):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:05:48):
And when we say metabolize, we mean how the body processes that alcohol, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:05:52):
That's correct.
Mr. Watson (04:05:54):
And the average person takes about one to two hours to process one standard alcoholic drink.
Mr. Minnella (04:05:58):
I'm going to object to that, asked...
Mr. Watson (04:05:59):
That's sustained.
Mr. Minnella (04:05:59):
... and answered.
Mr. Watson (04:06:06):
Now, seven hours had passed since Cooper Ouellette operated that truck when Sophie separated from it on Fieldview Drive while you were at his house, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:06:14):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:06:17):
And do you still believe you had probable cause to obtain a blood sample from him at that point?
Detective Slaby (04:06:21):
At that point, no.
Mr. Watson (04:06:24):
You were asked on direct examination, I believe it was yesterday, about the Schultz Corporation. Do you recall that?
Detective Slaby (04:06:30):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:06:31):
And you were asked on direct examination about securing a search and seizure warrant for camera footage at that Schultz Corporation, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:06:36):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:06:38):
Now, you indicated that you were told the camera wasn't working or recording, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:06:41):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:06:43):
And you also indicated it wasn't facing in the direction of where anyone was at during the relevant timeframe. Is that also correct?
Detective Slaby (04:06:50):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:06:52):
So in order to secure a search warrant, you need probable cause, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:06:55):
Correct.
Mr. Watson (04:06:56):
So armed with that information, did you have probable cause to secure a search warrant for that camera?
Detective Slaby (04:07:02):
I did not feel we had probable cause to do that.
Mr. Watson (04:07:07):
And if you don't have probable cause, you wouldn't attempt to get a search warrant, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:07:12):
No.
Mr. Watson (04:07:24):
Let's talk about Locust Road. When did you receive information that Cooper's truck had stopped on Locust Road?
Detective Slaby (04:07:34):
Within the early months of 2024 is an approximation.
Mr. Watson (04:07:41):
And when you received that information, were you aware of a video that was taken at Locust Road?
Detective Slaby (04:07:46):
Ultimately, we determined yes.
Mr. Watson (04:07:49):
Okay. And did you go to Locust Road and examine that area?
Detective Slaby (04:07:51):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:07:52):
And did you find any items of evidentiary value?
Detective Slaby (04:07:55):
No.
Mr. Watson (04:07:55):
Now you were asked some questions about Route 72. Do you recall that?
Detective Slaby (04:08:02):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:08:05):
And you were asked some questions as it pertains to a vape being found near the area of Route 72, and I believe it's Reservoir Road, is that correct?
Detective Slaby (04:08:12):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:08:12):
Okay. When you reviewed the animation and the information from Mark Nesbitt, did you ever find a time where Cooper Ouellette's phone or Sophie's phone stopped in the area of Reservoir Road in Route 72 where the vape was found?
Detective Slaby (04:08:36):
The data analysis did not show that.
Mr. Watson (04:08:40):
And that vape that you found, would you say that it was used and worn?
Detective Slaby (04:08:44):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:08:44):
Would you say it was weathered?
Detective Slaby (04:08:44):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:08:54):
And both Cooper and Sophie were stopped on Locust Road, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:08:58):
Correct.
Mr. Watson (04:09:00):
You were asked some questions about the state lab. Do you recall that?
Detective Slaby (04:09:02):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:09:04):
The state lab isn't a division of the Connecticut State Police, is that correct, sir?
Detective Slaby (04:09:10):
Under DSP, yes.
Mr. Watson (04:09:15):
Okay. And you were asked if, as it pertains to the clothes that Sophie was wearing, if you had made any requests to have them analyzed. Do you recall that?
Detective Slaby (04:09:23):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:09:24):
And in fact, when you spoke with the state lab, they referred you to the FBI Lab in Quantico, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:09:30):
Correct.
Mr. Watson (04:09:31):
And did you contact the FBI Lab in Quantico?
Detective Slaby (04:09:33):
I did.
Mr. Watson (04:09:34):
And you followed up and contacted the FBI Lab in Quantico on August 10th of 2023, is that right?
Detective Slaby (04:09:42):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:09:42):
And you spoke with them, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:09:45):
A representative, yes.
Mr. Watson (04:09:46):
And did they tell you that they could test the items that you were seeking to have tested?
Detective Slaby (04:09:52):
They explained what their capabilities were for some things and how they didn't have capabilities for other things.
Mr. Watson (04:09:58):
And did they have the capabilities to test the items the way that you wanted them tested?
Detective Slaby (04:10:03):
Ultimately, no.
Mr. Watson (04:10:05):
One moment.
(04:10:09)
I have nothing further. Thank you.
Mr. Minnella (04:10:12):
Now, isn't it true that you talked to Karen Lamey about testing that shirt, Sophie's shirt?
Detective Slaby (04:10:21):
I'm sorry, can you repeat the name?
Mr. Minnella (04:10:23):
Karen Lamey.
Detective Slaby (04:10:24):
I don't recognize that name.
Mr. Minnella (04:10:26):
Okay.
(04:10:28)
Let me show you this. See if this helps refresh your recollection, read your notes.
Detective Slaby (04:10:32):
Okay.
Mr. Minnella (04:10:32):
Now it's refreshed your memory?
Detective Slaby (04:10:55):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (04:10:56):
But you did ask Karen Lamey about testing that sweatshirt?
Detective Slaby (04:11:02):
About conducting a pattern analysis.
Mr. Minnella (04:11:04):
Okay. So you asked her, and why didn't you send that... you sent a lot of items to the FBI Lab in Quantico, is that correct?
Detective Slaby (04:11:18):
That is not correct.
Mr. Minnella (04:11:19):
No? Did you send any items in this case to the FBI Lab?
Detective Slaby (04:11:24):
Not to the lab, but to one of their field offices.
Mr. Minnella (04:11:27):
To their field offices?
Detective Slaby (04:11:28):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (04:11:28):
And what did the field offices do with it?
Detective Slaby (04:11:31):
They assisted with the investigation.
Mr. Minnella (04:11:34):
And they would send it to the lab, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:11:37):
No.
Mr. Minnella (04:11:38):
No. Okay.
(04:11:39)
Did you ever have that pattern analysis ever done by Connecticut State Police Lab or by the FBI? Did you ever have that done?
Mr. Watson (04:11:55):
It's been asked and answered.
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:11:56):
Overruled.
Detective Slaby (04:11:59):
Could you please repeat?
Mr. Minnella (04:12:01):
Yes. Sophie's sweatshirt that she was wearing on the evening of May 20th and 21st, did you ever send that shirt to a lab to be analyzed for pattern analysis?
Detective Slaby (04:12:23):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (04:12:24):
And who did you send that to?
Detective Slaby (04:12:25):
To the State Forensic Lab.
Mr. Minnella (04:12:28):
And did you ever get an answer from the state lab?
Detective Slaby (04:12:32):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (04:12:33):
And what was the answer you got?
Mr. Watson (04:12:34):
That would call for a hearsay response.
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:12:36):
That is hearsay.
Mr. Minnella (04:12:44):
Not what was the answer. Did you ever get an answer?
Mr. Watson (04:12:48):
Asked and answered.
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:12:50):
Yes or no, sir?
Detective Slaby (04:12:51):
Yes.
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:12:52):
Okay.
Mr. Minnella (04:13:01):
Now, you were asked on redirect a question about seven hours later being at my client's house.
Detective Slaby (04:13:11):
Approximately.
Mr. Minnella (04:13:12):
Yeah. So at 4:30 in the morning, someone dispatched the trooper to watch his car at his house, correct?
Detective Slaby (04:13:25):
It was before that time.
Mr. Minnella (04:13:27):
Before 4:30?
Detective Slaby (04:13:28):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (04:13:28):
What time was the trooper dispatched?
Detective Slaby (04:13:30):
I don't remember the exact time, but I know it was before that.
Mr. Minnella (04:13:34):
Isn't it possible that that trooper could have taken his blood with a search warrant?
Detective Slaby (04:13:44):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (04:13:45):
Isn't it possible that trooper could have gone in his house and asked him, "Are you willing to take either a breath, blood, or urine sample?"
Detective Slaby (04:13:55):
Yes.
Mr. Minnella (04:13:58):
And in your opinion, as a detective and as the lead detective in that case, is that a mistake that was made in this case?
Mr. Watson (04:14:08):
His opinion is irrelevant.
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:14:10):
That's not relevant.
Mr. Minnella (04:14:13):
You-
Mr. Watson (04:14:14):
I'm sorry, what was the Court's decision?
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:14:14):
Sustained.
Mr. Watson (04:14:14):
Thank you.
Mr. Minnella (04:14:16):
You were the lead detective in this case. Again for-
Mr. Watson (04:14:19):
Well, that's been asked and answered now more times that I can [inaudible 04:14:23].
Mr. Minnella (04:14:24):
As the lead detective in this case, you depended on children, 17 and 18 years old, to determine the level of intoxication in my client that evening. Is that correct?
Detective Slaby (04:14:42):
I don't understand that question.
Mr. Minnella (04:14:43):
I withdraw it. That's it.
Mr. Watson (04:14:51):
I have nothing further, Your Honor.
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:14:54):
Thank you. All right, Detective Slaiby, thank you very much.
Jon Raad (04:15:15):
Your Honor, can we ask for a 10- minute recess before our next witness?
Judge Chris Pelosi (04:15:19):
All right. 5:03, ladies and gentlemen. I apologize, we'll be back [inaudible 04:15:23]
The Court (04:27:06):
Good afternoon, everybody. Have a seat. Ready for the next witness?
Jonathan Raad (04:27:15):
Yes, Your Honor.
(04:27:15)
Can I go grab her from the hallway, Your Honor?
Speaker 8 (04:27:44):
Yeah.
Jonathan Raad (04:27:44):
This one's going to be hearsay.
The Court (04:28:02):
All right. Why don't you call her?
Jonathan Raad (04:28:03):
Okay.
The Court (04:28:04):
Just have a seat. Inspector Apostolo, can you assist a little bit?
Mr. Watson (04:28:09):
Yes, sir.
The Court (04:28:10):
Thank you. All right, that's good to hear.
Mr. Watson (04:28:10):
[inaudible 04:28:23].
The Court (04:29:05):
All right. Parties stipulate to the presence of the jury?
Jonathan Raad (04:29:08):
Yes, Your Honor.
The Court (04:29:08):
Have a seat. Defense?
Jonathan Raad (04:29:11):
Yep. The defense calls Haley King to the witness.
The Court (04:29:24):
Good afternoon. Thank you. I'm going to have you raise your right hand, okay?
Speaker 8 (04:29:26):
Do you solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm, as the case may be, the evidence you shall give concerning the case now in question shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God, upon penalty of perjury?
Haley King (04:29:35):
I do.
Speaker 8 (04:29:35):
And please state your full name, spelling your last name.
Haley King (04:29:37):
Haley King, K-I-N-G.
Speaker 8 (04:29:39):
And please state your town of residence.
Haley King (04:29:41):
Burlington.
Speaker 8 (04:29:41):
Thank you.
The Court (04:29:42):
Thank you, Ms. King. Have a seat. You're still comfortable. [inaudible 04:29:48].
Jonathan Raad (04:29:42):
Good afternoon, Haley.
Haley King (04:29:42):
Hello.
Jonathan Raad (04:29:50):
I understand this is a little nerve wracking, so I'll do my best to make it quick. But do you remember giving a statement on July 6th, 2023?
Haley King (04:30:00):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:30:00):
And when you did that, you met with the detective?
Haley King (04:30:02):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:30:03):
And you told him what you observed and he typed it, isn't that correct?
Haley King (04:30:08):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:30:11):
And then he showed it to you and you signed it?
Haley King (04:30:12):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:30:12):
And that was under oath?
Haley King (04:30:15):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:30:15):
Okay. I want to direct your attention back to May 20th, 2023. Do you recall that day?
Haley King (04:30:21):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:30:21):
And at some point were you in the Walmart in Bristol, Connecticut?
Haley King (04:30:23):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:30:23):
At the Walmart in Bristol, Connecticut?
Haley King (04:30:25):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:30:28):
All right. And what did you observe?
Haley King (04:30:31):
Well-
The Court (04:30:31):
Can we get a timeframe here? I know you're in Walmart on 5:20. What time?
Jonathan Raad (04:30:34):
Around 8:00 PM.
Haley King (04:30:37):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:30:37):
What did you observe?
Haley King (04:30:39):
Well, I sat in the truck with Sophie.
Jonathan Raad (04:30:42):
Okay. You sat in the truck with Sophie. Why were you there to begin with?
Haley King (04:30:46):
My parents were just running errands.
Jonathan Raad (04:30:48):
Okay. And at some point you ran into Sophie and my client, Cooper Ouellette?
Haley King (04:30:52):
Mm-hmm.
Jonathan Raad (04:30:52):
Were they with other friends?
Haley King (04:30:54):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:30:56):
Okay. And you sat in the truck with Sophie. What did you observe?
Haley King (04:31:00):
She just seemed pretty normal at that point.
Jonathan Raad (04:31:03):
Okay. Did she seem tipsy at all?
Haley King (04:31:06):
Maybe a little.
Jonathan Raad (04:31:07):
Okay. Did you see her drinking alcohol?
Haley King (04:31:09):
I saw one drink.
Jonathan Raad (04:31:11):
Okay. Thank you.
(04:31:16)
No further questions.
Mr. Watson (04:31:18):
I have no questions, judge.
The Court (04:31:19):
Thank you, Ms. King. Be careful.
Jonathan Raad (04:31:39):
Defense calls Juliana Albanese to the witness stand.
(04:31:41)
Can I have a moment, Your Honor?
The Court (04:31:41):
Sure. Ms. Albanese?
Jonathan Raad (04:31:41):
Ready for us?
The Court (04:32:06):
I think that's her right there, yeah. Can you just raise your right hand and get sworn in, okay?
Speaker 8 (04:32:23):
Do you solemnly swear, solemnly, sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that the evidence you shall give concerning the case now in question shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God upon, penalty of perjury?
Juliana Albanese (04:32:31):
I do.
Speaker 8 (04:32:32):
And please state your full name, spelling your last name.
Juliana Albanese (04:32:34):
Juliana Albanese, A-L-B-A-N-E-S-E.
Speaker 8 (04:32:38):
And please state your town and residence.
Juliana Albanese (04:32:39):
Terryville.
Speaker 8 (04:32:40):
Thank you.
The Court (04:32:41):
Thank you, Ms. Albanese. Have a seat.
Jonathan Raad (04:32:47):
Good afternoon.
Juliana Albanese (04:32:49):
Hello.
Jonathan Raad (04:32:50):
Hi.
The Court (04:32:50):
Ms. Albanese, you're soft-spoken.
Juliana Albanese (04:32:53):
Okay, sorry.
The Court (04:32:53):
That's okay. I appreciate it.
Jonathan Raad (04:32:55):
Just a few questions. Do you remember giving a sworn statement on August 2nd, 2023?
Juliana Albanese (04:33:01):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:33:02):
And when you did that, did you meet with the detective?
Juliana Albanese (04:33:04):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:33:05):
And you told him what you observed, and he typed up what you told him, and he showed it to you?
Juliana Albanese (04:33:10):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:33:11):
Okay. And at some point did you sign it under oath?
Juliana Albanese (04:33:13):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:33:13):
All right. I'm going to direct your attention back to May 20th of 2023. Do you recall that day?
Juliana Albanese (04:33:23):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:33:23):
Do you recall at some point in that day you were at Chili's?
Juliana Albanese (04:33:25):
We were passing Chili's, and saw everybody in the parking lot, and stopped by.
Jonathan Raad (04:33:29):
Okay.
Juliana Albanese (04:33:30):
Who's everybody? I can't really recall everybody, but Cooper and Sophie were there.
Jonathan Raad (04:33:37):
Okay. And what did you see them doing?
Juliana Albanese (04:33:39):
They were all just hanging out in the parking lot, drinking.
Jonathan Raad (04:33:42):
Okay. Did you see Sophie drinking at all?
Juliana Albanese (04:33:45):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:33:45):
Do you recall how many drinks you saw her have?
Juliana Albanese (04:33:48):
No.
Jonathan Raad (04:33:49):
Was she drinking Arnold Palmer iced teas?
Juliana Albanese (04:33:52):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:33:53):
What about shots?
Juliana Albanese (04:33:55):
I'm not sure if she was drinking shots at the time.
Jonathan Raad (04:33:59):
Did you observe little shots?
Juliana Albanese (04:34:01):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:34:02):
No further questions.
The Court (04:34:07):
Counsel. Or state.
Mr. Watson (04:34:11):
How you doing?
Juliana Albanese (04:34:12):
Good. How are you?
Mr. Watson (04:34:13):
Good. In May of 2023, your boyfriend was Tyler Schultz, right?
Juliana Albanese (04:34:17):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:34:18):
And in fact, you're engaged at this point, correct?
Juliana Albanese (04:34:20):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:34:21):
And on May 20th of 2023, you and Tyler met up with a few people at the Chili's parking lot, correct?
Juliana Albanese (04:34:28):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:34:29):
Because you were there beforehand, but you were going to go to Walmart and pick up a few things with Tyler, right?
Juliana Albanese (04:34:34):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:34:35):
And you saw some people that you knew in the parking lot at Chili's, right?
Juliana Albanese (04:34:38):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:34:39):
And in fact, you saw Aiden Zaheric, Crystal Sturgos, Cooper Ouellette, Sophie, and Brody Manuel in the parking lot, right?
Juliana Albanese (04:34:45):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:34:47):
And you all eventually leave the Chili's parking lot and went to the Walmart next door, right?
Juliana Albanese (04:34:51):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:34:52):
And everyone went inside, except for Sophie, correct?
Jonathan Raad (04:34:54):
I'm going to object, Your Honor. Beyond the scope.
The Court (04:34:57):
Overruled. We're at Chili's. I'll give you some leeway. It's cross-examination.
Juliana Albanese (04:35:04):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:35:04):
Okay.
Juliana Albanese (04:35:05):
And Sophie stayed in the car, correct?
Mr. Watson (04:35:07):
Yes.
Juliana Albanese (04:35:08):
And when you gave that statement to the police, you said when you saw Sophie at that time-
Jonathan Raad (04:35:14):
Object, Your Honor. This is hearsay at this point.
The Court (04:35:17):
Sustained.
Mr. Watson (04:35:19):
Okay. Did you see Sophie at that point?
Juliana Albanese (04:35:21):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:35:22):
And at that point, how did Sophie look?
Juliana Albanese (04:35:26):
Annoyed.
Mr. Watson (04:35:27):
Okay. May I have one moment?
The Court (04:35:30):
You may.
Mr. Watson (04:35:35):
And at that point, Sophie didn't have any injuries on her face, correct?
Juliana Albanese (04:35:38):
No.
The Court (04:35:39):
Anything else, attorney? I'm sorry.
Mr. Watson (04:35:44):
Nothing further. Thank you.
Jonathan Raad (04:35:44):
Nothing further, Your Honor.
The Court (04:35:45):
Thank you. I appreciate it. Step down, be careful, okay?
(04:35:48)
Okay. Next witness.
Jonathan Raad (04:36:09):
Defense calls Tyler Schultz to the witness stand.
The Court (04:36:11):
Okay, Mr. Schultz.
(04:36:11)
All right, Mr. Schultz, you're going to step up here. Just raise your right hand.
Speaker 8 (04:36:32):
Do you solemnly swear or solemnly sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that the evidence you shall give concerning the case now in question, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God, upon penalty of perjury?
Tyler Schultz (04:36:40):
I do.
Speaker 8 (04:36:41):
And please state your full name, spelling your last name.
Tyler Schultz (04:36:43):
Tyler Schultz, S-C-H-U-L-T-Z.
Speaker 8 (04:36:45):
And please state your town of residence.
Tyler Schultz (04:36:47):
Terryville.
Speaker 8 (04:36:47):
Thank you.
The Court (04:36:48):
Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Have a seat.
Jonathan Raad (04:36:48):
Good afternoon, Mr. Schultz.
Tyler Schultz (04:36:48):
Hi.
Jonathan Raad (04:36:56):
Do you remember giving a sworn statement on August 10th, 2023?
Tyler Schultz (04:36:59):
I do.
Jonathan Raad (04:37:00):
When you did that, did you meet with the detective?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:02):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:37:03):
When you met with that detective, did you tell him what you observed, and he eventually typed it up, and showed it to you?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:08):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:37:09):
All right. And then you signed it under oath?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:10):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:37:11):
I want to direct your attention back to May 20th, 2023. Do you recall that day?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:15):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:37:17):
Okay. Do you recall at some point you, Cooper Ouellette and a couple of other friends were at the Schultz Corporation?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:23):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:37:24):
And you guys were together for a little bit, correct?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:26):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:37:27):
At some point, did you see Cooper leave?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:29):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:37:29):
And how was his demeanor?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:31):
He seemed okay.
Jonathan Raad (04:37:32):
Did he appear drunk to you at all?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:33):
No.
Jonathan Raad (04:37:34):
Was he slurring his words at all?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:35):
No.
Jonathan Raad (04:37:37):
Was he able to walk fine?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:38):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:37:39):
Do you have any concern about his drinking as you saw him leave?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:42):
No.
Jonathan Raad (04:37:43):
Thank you. No further questions.
Mr. Watson (04:37:49):
Good afternoon.
Tyler Schultz (04:37:50):
Hi.
Mr. Watson (04:37:52):
So in May of 2023, you were in a relationship with Juliana Albanese, correct?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:56):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:37:56):
And you're engaged now, correct?
Tyler Schultz (04:37:58):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:37:59):
And you work at the Schultz Corporation, right?
Tyler Schultz (04:38:01):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:38:01):
And in fact, your family owns it, right?
Tyler Schultz (04:38:03):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:38:04):
And on May 20th of 2023, you had bought a new truck that day?
Tyler Schultz (04:38:07):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:38:09):
And later that day, after you bought your truck, did you receive a phone call from Crystal Sturgos?
Tyler Schultz (04:38:14):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:38:16):
And did you learn that people were going to be at the Chili's parking lot in Bristol?
Tyler Schultz (04:38:19):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:38:22):
And at that point, you and Juliana were going to the Walmart, right?
Tyler Schultz (04:38:24):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:38:25):
I'm going to object, Your Honor. Beyond the scope. It's nothing to do with Walmart, with Chili's.
The Court (04:38:31):
The direct examination was that he saw the defendant leave. He was okay. He was not drunk. He was not slurring. He had no concerns at the Schultz Corporation on that day.
Jonathan Raad (04:38:43):
We're getting into a hole.
Mr. Watson (04:38:50):
I apologize, Your Honor. I missed that.
The Court (04:38:53):
His direct testimony was that he was at Schultz that day. He saw the defendant leave, that he appeared okay. He was not drunk, not slurring his word, and he had no concerns. That was the extent of the direct examination.
Mr. Watson (04:39:08):
At any point during the time that Cooper Ouellette was at the Schultz Corporation, did you see him drinking?
Tyler Schultz (04:39:14):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:39:15):
How much did you see him drinking?
Tyler Schultz (04:39:17):
I'm unsure.
Mr. Watson (04:39:18):
Now, you arrived at the Schultz Corporation, correct? You and Juliana?
Tyler Schultz (04:39:24):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:39:24):
And when you arrived at the Schultz Corporation, you were the first people there, correct?
Tyler Schultz (04:39:28):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:39:29):
And you didn't invite anyone to the Schultz Corporation, did you?
Tyler Schultz (04:39:31):
No. No.
Mr. Watson (04:39:32):
No?
Tyler Schultz (04:39:33):
No.
Mr. Watson (04:39:34):
Did people just show up at the Schultz Corporation?
Tyler Schultz (04:39:36):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:39:37):
And Cooper Ouellette showed up at the Schultz Corporation, right?
Tyler Schultz (04:39:40):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:39:41):
And when he showed up, he came into the shop there, correct?
Tyler Schultz (04:39:43):
Yes. And when he came in, he came in with a Yeti cooler, correct?
Mr. Watson (04:39:48):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:39:48):
I'm going to object, Your Honor. Beyond the scope. I asked him specifically about Cooper leaving the Schultz Corporation, never when he got there.
The Court (04:39:54):
All right. That's overruled. You can ask about the Schultz Corporation, that he was at the Schultz Corporation, what happened at the Schultz Corporation.
Mr. Watson (04:40:00):
Thank you.
The Court (04:40:01):
Overruled.
Mr. Watson (04:40:03):
Did you see him bring a Yeti cooler into the shop?
Tyler Schultz (04:40:05):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:40:05):
And that cooler was full of alcohol, right?
Tyler Schultz (04:40:07):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:40:09):
And eventually at some point he put that cooler in the back of his truck, right?
Tyler Schultz (04:40:12):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:40:14):
And at 10:30 that evening, you saw Cooper and Sophie get into a fight, correct?
Tyler Schultz (04:40:22):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:40:24):
And you saw Sophie calling people for rides, right?
Tyler Schultz (04:40:27):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:40:33):
And at one point while you were in the shop, you saw Cooper grab Sophie's phone out of her hand, right?
Tyler Schultz (04:40:38):
Yes.
Jonathan Raad (04:40:39):
I'm going to object at this point. This is far beyond the scope.
Mr. Watson (04:40:43):
This is all things that occurred at the Schultz Corporation. He was asked about the Schultz Corporation.
Jonathan Raad (04:40:46):
I asked him leaving the Schultz Corporation. We're getting into a whole other area.
The Court (04:40:51):
All right, counsel, approach.
(04:40:52)
Okay.
(04:40:52)
All right. You can continue.
Mr. Watson (04:41:48):
Thank you. After that happened, did you hear Cooper Ouellette say, "Let's go to Sophie?"
Tyler Schultz (04:41:58):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:41:59):
In fact, you heard Cooper Ouellette yell, "Let's go to Sophie," correct?
Tyler Schultz (04:42:03):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:42:08):
And was Sophie distraught and upset when she left the shop?
Tyler Schultz (04:42:11):
I don't remember.
Jonathan Raad (04:42:12):
I'm going to object to that, Your Honor.
The Court (04:42:13):
His answer was he doesn't remember.
Jonathan Raad (04:42:15):
Oh.
Mr. Watson (04:42:17):
You saw Cooper drive away with Sophie that night, correct?
Tyler Schultz (04:42:20):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:42:21):
And he ripped out of that parking lot, didn't he?
Tyler Schultz (04:42:23):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:42:23):
He was driving fast out of that lot, right?
Tyler Schultz (04:42:25):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:42:26):
And after that, other people started leaving, correct?
Tyler Schultz (04:42:29):
Yes.
Mr. Watson (04:42:31):
One moment. I have nothing further. Thank you.
Tyler Schultz (04:42:36):
I have no follow up.
The Court (04:42:37):
All right. Thank you, attorney or Schultz [inaudible 04:42:40].
(04:42:39)
Is this the time to address-
Speaker 9 (04:43:09):
He has a motion.
Jonathan Raad (04:43:10):
Your Honor, we'll make our motion for judgment acquittal.
The Court (04:43:14):
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to excuse you for 10 minutes, okay? Have a-
The Court (05:02:37):
Ladies and gentlemen. We just finished with Mr. Schultz and we took a break to discuss relative to your client testifying or not testifying. Have you had enough time to talk to him about his decision to testify or not to testify?
Jonathan Raad (05:02:51):
Yes, Your Honor.
The Court (05:02:53):
Okay. And what is his inclination?
Jonathan Raad (05:02:55):
He is not going to testify.
The Court (05:02:56):
Okay. And relative to his decision not to testify, do you want me to canvas him?
Jonathan Raad (05:02:59):
Yes, please, Your Honor.
The Court (05:03:00):
All right. Can you please stand Mr. Ouellette? All right, Mr. Ouellette, I understand that you've elected not to testify on your own behalf. Is that correct?
Cooper Ouellette (05:03:09):
Correct, Your Honor.
The Court (05:03:10):
All right. I need to ask you some questions regarding your decision not to testify. All right? Have you had any alcohol, drugs, or medication today that would affect your ability to understand what's going on?
Cooper Ouellette (05:03:19):
No, I have not.
The Court (05:03:20):
All right. And how old are you?
Cooper Ouellette (05:03:20):
21 years old.
The Court (05:03:22):
All right. And how far did you go in school?
Cooper Ouellette (05:03:23):
I graduated high school.
The Court (05:03:26):
All right. And do you understand that you have the constitutional right to testify on your behalf, but you're not obligated to do so?
Cooper Ouellette (05:03:32):
Yes, I do.
The Court (05:03:33):
All right. And do you understand you may waive your right to testify?
Cooper Ouellette (05:03:35):
Yes, I do.
The Court (05:03:36):
And have you discussed this matter with your attorney before or attorneys before making this decision?
Cooper Ouellette (05:03:41):
Yes.
The Court (05:03:42):
All right. And do you understand or did your attorney explain to you the pros and cons of not testifying versus testifying on your behalf and do you fully understand them?
Cooper Ouellette (05:03:51):
Yes, I do.
The Court (05:03:53):
All right. Counsel, Attorney Raad, is that correct?
Jonathan Raad (05:03:54):
That's correct, Your Honor.
The Court (05:03:57):
All right. Attorney Minnella, is that correct?
Detective Slaby (05:03:57):
Yes, Your Honor.
The Court (05:03:59):
Okay, that's all right. Do you understand that the decision to testify or not testify is yours to make and yours alone? Do you understand that?
Cooper Ouellette (05:04:05):
Yes.
The Court (05:04:07):
All right. Mr. Oullette, is it your personal decision to not testify on your own behalf?
Cooper Ouellette (05:04:11):
Yes, it is.
The Court (05:04:12):
Has anybody forced or threatened you not to testify?
Cooper Ouellette (05:04:15):
No, they have not.
The Court (05:04:16):
Have you understood all my questions?
Cooper Ouellette (05:04:17):
Yes, I have.
The Court (05:04:17):
All right. Do you have any questions, sir?
Cooper Ouellette (05:04:18):
I do not.
The Court (05:04:20):
All right. Does either counsel have any questions or want to make a record?
Detective Slaby (05:04:24):
No, thank you.
Jonathan Raad (05:04:25):
No, Your Honor.
The Court (05:04:26):
All right, appreciate that. The court finds that defendant has knowingly and voluntarily made a decision not to testify. Thank you, Mr. Oullette. Have a seat. All right. And so you will rest in front of the jury, correct?
Jonathan Raad (05:04:39):
Correct.
The Court (05:04:41):
All right. I will instruct the jury about closing arguments and our updated scheduled and I'm going to tell them to come in here. Yes, Attorney Clifton?
David Clifton (05:04:54):
The state does not intend to present any rebuttal evidence, Judge.
The Court (05:04:57):
I was told that in chambers. Okay. Does 9:30 work for the state?
Jonathan Raad (05:05:05):
Yes, Your Honor.
The Court (05:05:06):
Attorney Minnella?
Detective Slaby (05:05:06):
Yes, Your Honor.
The Court (05:05:08):
Okay. Staff, Alexis?
Alexis (05:05:12):
Yes, Your Honor.
The Court (05:05:12):
All right. And Stephanie and everybody marshals? Okay, so we'll start at 9:30 tomorrow. I'll explain that to them and I'll bring that in, okay? I'll bring them in and explain it to them and then we'll meet after to discuss our final charge. All right, thank you. I apologize. Do you want to make your motion now or ...
Jonathan Raad (05:05:36):
After, Your Honor.
The Court (05:05:37):
After the, you sure?
Jonathan Raad (05:05:38):
Yes, Your Honor.
The Court (05:07:14):
Okay. All right. Bring them in.
(05:07:14)
All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Will the parties stipulate to the presence of the jury?
Jonathan Raad (05:07:16):
Yes, Your Honor.
Detective Slaby (05:07:16):
Yes, Your Honor.
The Court (05:07:16):
All right. Attorney Raad?
Jonathan Raad (05:07:21):
Yes, the defense rests.
The Court (05:07:23):
Thank you, Attorney Raad. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we have concluded the evidentiary portion of the trial. You are to decide the case based on the testimony and evidence you heard up to this point.
(05:07:34)
The next steps of the process are as follows. The court needs to meet with the attorneys and review the final instructions. After the final instructions are completed, the attorneys need to prepare their closing arguments. It was relatively a longer case and that may take some time. So rather than have you wait around for us to complete those tasks, we are going to adjourn the trial for today. We are on schedule still. Closing arguments will be here or will be delivered to you tomorrow. I will instruct you on the law also tomorrow.
(05:08:02)
By a show of hands, I know you've been really patient and considerate. Does 9:30 work tomorrow for everybody? All right. Affirmatively, yes, I appreciate that.
(05:08:14)
So then we'll come in around quarter after 9:00. We'll be brought down at 9:30. We'll proceed with closing arguments and the final instructions. After that, the case will go to the jury. I'll give you further instructions at that time. Again, you take as much time as you need to reach a verdict. Thank you for your patience again. Remember to abide by the rules of juror conduct, including that you are not to discuss the case with anyone, including the other jurors. Please don't look up anything on the internet, social media. Please leave your notebooks on the chair and have a great night.
Jonathan Raad (05:09:41):
... no reasonable jury can find that they met the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
(05:09:47)
As Your Honor knows, reckless indifference manslaughter, the evidence must reasonably permit findings that the defendant acted under circumstances convincing an extreme indifference of human life, recklessly engaged in conduct taking a grave risk of death to another person and thereby caused another person's death.
(05:10:09)
Directing your attention to State v. Brown Court, 180 Conn. 2009. "Extreme indifference to human life also identified accurately part as a high degree of disinterest to human life." Your Honor, that is not here in this case. There's been no evidence that supports that.
(05:10:32)
What the evidence has shown is that Cooper left the party with Sophie. At some point she exited from his truck. That's on video. He drives away and we know that she's on the side of the road or in the woods for a brief moment in time. He does come back and she gets back in the truck. So far there is absolutely no conduct that meets that level of extreme indifference to human life.
(05:10:57)
Directing your attention to State v. McCoy 91 Conn. 2005. In this case, Your Honor, a distraught boyfriend, ex-boyfriend visited his ex-girlfriend. He wanted to scare her. He took the magazine out of his pistol, went into her apartment, aimed it at her, and unfortunately there was still a bullet in that gun and it discharged and it killed her. That Your Honor, that act of aiming that gun, the court recognized that even though he believed that it didn't have the propensity in that situation to kill that person, that that's still acting in a extreme indifference to human life. And I don't think anyone in this room would disagree with that. Applying that to the case at hand, there's nothing at all through the evidence that we heard that even comes remotely close to that.
(05:11:50)
Picking up from where I left off, Cooper leaves after Sophie gets back in the truck and he's talking with her. There was testimony that they were arguing that night. Arguing is not a crime, Your Honor.
(05:12:03)
She had to throw up. She had to vomit. There was extensive testimony about that. We have her BAC. We heard from her own mother that she needed a towel to throw up. They're driving around. He's near her house, and at some point he does pass her house and they're still talking. There's nothing to show that he was putting her in any grave risk of death or bodily harm. Again, it's not against the law to drive and talk or argue. She was obviously in his truck. They were driving around her neighborhood. And at some point, unfortunately, she separates from that vehicle and that's when that tragic accident happens. So far, there has been no extreme indifference to human life, no grave recklessness. It certainly doesn't come close to the conduct in State v. McCoy.
(05:12:50)
Directing your attention to State v. Best, 56 Conn. App 1999. In that case, Your Honor, there was a mother, a distraught mother who had a 22-month-old newborn and the newborn was crying. And just as you've seen, I'm sure throughout your career, that mother didn't exercise care for that newborn. And eventually she snapped and she punched that newborn to what she admitted about five times. When she was meeting with the detectives, giving her statement, she pounded on the table five times and she said, because the police officer asked her to demonstrate and she said, "If I did it with all the force that I used, I'd break my hand." That, Your Honor, is an extreme indifference in human life.
(05:13:39)
Again, applying that to this case, there's nothing at all that rises to that level. Cooper driving around the neighborhood with Sophie in the car, intoxicated, sick, and say they're still arguing, and she separates from the vehicle. And then we heard testimony, it's in the evidence from the video that he slammed on the brakes. Where is the recklessness? Where is the grave recklessness in the indifference of human life? I don't believe the state has met their burden here with regard to that element, and I don't believe that any reasonable trier of fact can find that they met those elements through the evidence that was presented here.
(05:14:20)
Your Honor, there's a picture of a Snapchat with her with a bloody nose. That's as far as this goes, but there was no testimony explaining when that bloody nose occurred. There was testimony today that, let me backtrack. There's no testimony that supports that Cooper inflicted or caused that bloody nose. What the state is trying to do, just as Detective Slaby tried to do in his investigation, is elicit this some sort of teen abusive relationship, and that's what they're trying to do to meet their burden that when she separated from the vehicle is because she was scared of him.
(05:14:59)
There's nothing that suggests that. They had an argument that night. It does not rise to the level of him putting her in extreme indifference to human life, Your Honor. And I hope the court recognizes that, that the evidence that was presented here does not meet that burden, does not meet those elements, and no reasonable jury could find that.
The Court (05:15:20):
Counsel, do you want to be heard on count two?
Jonathan Raad (05:15:24):
Oh, yes. And with respect to count two, Your Honor, there was testimony that a cooler was in the back of his truck. There was also testimony that people would put their alcohol in that cooler, and that cooler was brought inside the Schultz Corporation or the shop. There was no testimony, from what I heard, that alcohol came out of that, Cooper took alcohol out of that cooler and handed it to Sophie. It's obvious that they went to a party that night, an after prom party. The 21-year-old testified about that. He testified himself that he brought alcohol there. We all know what happens. People bring alcohol at the parties. Just because he did doesn't mean that he supplied her with alcohol. Nothing proves that he handed her any alcohol.
(05:16:06)
So Your Honor, no reasonable jury could find from the evidence that was presented that they met the elements of that crime. So we would ask you to grant judgment of acquittal with regard to that.
The Court (05:16:16):
All right. A couple of questions. That Best case, what was the cite on that? 56 Conn?
Jonathan Raad (05:16:20):
56 Conn at 742, 745.
The Court (05:16:27):
Okay. And regarding extreme indifference to human life, according to the instructions, what convinces an extreme indifference to human life? Isn't that a question of fact for the jury and not for the court?
Jonathan Raad (05:16:46):
It is a question of fact, Your Honor. If I may have one moment.
The Court (05:17:02):
Take your time.
Jonathan Raad (05:17:11):
Your Honor, it is a question of fact, but the evidence that was presented, it doesn't meet or come close to meeting what our case law has consistently defined extreme indifference to human life.
The Court (05:17:24):
All right. In count two, the state charged Cooper delivered alcoholic liquor to a minor, not to Sophie. Is your argument just limited to Sophie or all the minors?
Jonathan Raad (05:17:38):
I would explain that to all the minors. Speaking about Sophie, yes. There's nothing that proved that he supplied her with alcohol, but as well as to anyone else. Again, it was a party. It was an after prom party. I believe there was testimony when it wasn't disputed that there was a fridge there where people would put their food and alcohol in. So it was like a free for all garage, from my understanding, that people would come and go. There was testimony about that too, that people would show up uninvited.
(05:18:05)
So it was kind of like a free for all hangout spot, and there's no question that people brought alcohol there, but there's nothing from the evidence that we heard that proves that Cooper himself supplied them with alcohol.
The Court (05:18:19):
Thank you.
Jonathan Raad (05:18:19):
Thank you.
The Court (05:18:19):
State?
Detective Slaby (05:18:19):
Thank you, Your Honor. Just to begin with count two, as the court pointed out, the state has charged that Cooper Oullette delivered alcohol. To deliver has its normal everyday meaning, which means to transport from one place to the other. So the completely uncontradicted evidence in this case is that Cooper Oullette transported that YETI cooler to that party. That is the only conduct that needs to happen as long as what is in that cooler is an alcoholic liquor, and as long as there are people that are minors. So he delivered it to where there were minors, that is sufficient conduct, and that is completely uncontradicted.
(05:18:53)
As it relates to count one, Judge, I also will cite State versus Best 56 Conn. App 742, specifically at page 752. "It is not one fact, but the cumulative impact of multiple facts which establishes guilt in a case involving substantial circumstantial evidence." 752 continues, "The relevant question is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." So essentially, the facts must be looked at in the state's viewpoint. So the defendant's claims are thrown out the window for the purpose of this inquiry. It is simply the most favorable inference to the state's set of facts.
(05:19:40)
753 notes, as we often noted, "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt." It continues. "We do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We instead ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the jury's verdict of guilty." 755, "No definition of extreme indifference to human life is found in the penal code." Also on 755, "What evinces an extreme indifference to human life is really a question of fact. It is also true that there is no specific definition to grave risk of death."
(05:20:21)
756, "We do know, however, that Webster defines the adjective grave as meaning very serious, dangerous to life." And importantly, if the court looks at page 756, "The defendant's state of mind at the time she assaulted her daughter may be proven by her conduct before, during, and after the assault." So it is not simply the moment that Sophie is run over by the defendant. It is the conduct before and after.
(05:20:52)
State v. Wade 106 Conn. App 467, a 2008 case details a number of cases which have talked about. There's a good history of the prior prosecutions of an extreme indifference to human life, and essentially it's what a layperson would believe would be dangerous to life.
(05:21:12)
I would cite State v. Brown 118 Conn. App 418 2000 case. In that case, there was a single stab wound to the neck of that victim and the testimony from the witnesses in that case, the court found that that was sufficient to evince an extreme indifference to human life. So what we have proven in this case, if the court is to look at the facts in light most favorable to the state, is that the defendant left the party drunk, was speeding through the streets, did not drop Sophie off at her residence. There is a bloody nose from which a juror could make a reasonable inference that the defendant struck her causing that bloody nose during this time period. The defendant ran over her with his truck, waited eight minutes, then took her home, and what he told Sophie's parents was, "I don't know what happened to Sophie. Something happened to Sophie."
(05:22:13)
If the court views the evidence that he ran over Sophie and did not tell her parents, that evinces an extreme indifference to human life. It is the conduct afterwards as well as before and during that the court must look at. I would cite the court to State v. Nival, 42 Conn. App 307 in 1996.
The Court (05:22:32):
What was that cite?
Detective Slaby (05:22:33):
42 Conn. App 307 from 1996, which is essentially a case that says that once something is deemed reckless, whether it is extreme is a question of fact for the jury, Judge. So if the conduct is deemed reckless, the conduct is deemed to create that grave risk of death, the extremity of that conduct has to go to the jury.
(05:22:53)
Based upon the evidence that the state has adduced in this case, I would ask the court to deny the motion. Thank you.
The Court (05:22:58):
All right, just a few questions for the state.
Detective Slaby (05:23:00):
Yes, Your Honor.
The Court (05:23:01):
Is there any inference the state is making from the Locust Road video?
Detective Slaby (05:23:05):
So again, that is something that the jury could draw an inference from. Obviously there is evidence that there was the separation. The video recording itself evinces a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant was kicking her out of his truck. There was that, "Ow," statement, so that is something which could be especially go as it relates to reckless conduct. In other words, knowing that it's dangerous and then does it again at a later time.
(05:23:31)
So the jury could make a reasonable and logical inference that what happened at Fieldview Drive was Locust Road version two, only he didn't stop. He simply slowed down this time.
The Court (05:23:41):
And in the state's information, you allege Sophie separated from the car, correct?
Detective Slaby (05:23:47):
Correct.
The Court (05:23:48):
What inferences can be made of how the defendant's conduct caused Sophie to be separated from that vehicle?
Detective Slaby (05:23:54):
So again, there's multiple theories that the jury could determine based upon reasonable and logical inference from those facts. There could be a reasonable and logical inference given the fear as expressed by Sophie, given the domestic violence that was occurring in the truck, as well as the videos that she felt it was the safest option for her to separate herself. Because of the defendant's violent conduct in the car, she felt it was safer to attempt to flee. If that is the case, it is still the defendant's conduct that caused that incident. Or again, the jury could make that determination that the defendant kicked her out of the truck, causing her to be run over.
The Court (05:24:33):
All right. Is there any inference that the defendant himself physically opened the door on FieldView?
Detective Slaby (05:24:38):
No.
The Court (05:24:38):
Okay.
Detective Slaby (05:24:39):
I would suggest that there's no evidence from which a jury could make the reasonable inference that the defendant opened the door.
The Court (05:24:44):
And relative to unlocking the door?
Detective Slaby (05:24:47):
The defendant's own statement is that he unlocked the door.
The Court (05:24:49):
All right. The first element, one of the elements the state has to prove is that the defendant engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of death, which I agree there is no definition. What is the conduct again alleging the circumstances of before incident, the circumstances on Fieldview and Polly Dan, as well as the circumstances after?
Detective Slaby (05:25:21):
Right. Exactly what I argued for the extreme indifference to human life is the same thing that evinces his conduct is a great risk of death to Sophie.
The Court (05:25:28):
All right. And the second element is that the defendant acted recklessly. I know in the information you included reckless operation of a motor vehicle.
Detective Slaby (05:25:36):
Correct.
The Court (05:25:36):
Anything else for recklessly?
Detective Slaby (05:25:39):
So again, the conduct being being drunk, speeding, domestic violence, and the inference of kicking her out of the truck while moving and turning the vehicle in the direction that she's exiting.
The Court (05:25:54):
And it's because of his conduct, the state is arguing that was the proximate cause of her death?
Detective Slaby (05:26:00):
That's correct, Judge.
The Court (05:26:00):
All right. Give me one second. All right. I appreciate it. All right. So we're going to meet at 9:00 tomorrow morning and I'll issue my decision and should we go to final argument, we will do that at 9:30. All right? So I'm going to have the attorneys take a five-minute break and we'll come back for the rest of the charging conference. I'll put it on the record again tomorrow, but the charging conference is just among the attorneys and myself. All right? We're adjourned for the day.
