|
Headlights Off
December 15, 2016
At 2:00 a.m. Sunday morning, December
7, 2014 the sky was clear and and the
moon was full in Stockbridge, so it is possible that the fleeing
white SUV could have had its lights off. Assistant Prosecutor
Jonathan Roth seems quite sure they were. The only evidence
presented in the trial that its
headlights were off is a video obtained from a camera attached to
the Samulak residence, a home on the pursuit route. The camera is
attached to the house, about 100 feet from the road.
Roth is questioning MSP Detective Sergeant James Young, an expert in
forensic video analysis:
| |
Roth: |
|
So 13 seconds
later we have the first patrol car, correct? |
| |
Young: |
|
That's
correct. |
| |
Roth: |
|
Fair to say that the overhead
lights -- headlights are very easily visible particularly in
this format? |
| |
Young: |
|
Yes. |
| |
Roth: |
|
Are there any lights visible
on the first vehicle? |
| |
Young: |
|
No. (V6-81) |
The video is far from clear, however. Earlier,
Young describes what he assumes is the pursued vehicle in the video
as "some sort of movement that travels in the . . . same plane as
what a vehicle would travel." (V6-79)
Before Sergeant Young is questioned
about the Samulak video, Roth interviews Deputy Hoekstra and plants
in the minds of the jurors the possibility that the
SUV's headlights were off:
| |
Roth: |
|
So taking that
into consideration, in combination with what you've observed
so far during this pursuit, when you get to this
straightaway on Dexter Trail, did you believe that this
white SUV posed a risk? |
| |
Hoekstra: |
|
Yes, I do. |
| |
Roth: |
|
To whom? |
| |
Hoekstra: |
|
To himself, to
myself, and to Grant, and anyone else that could possibly be
in the area. |
| |
Roth: |
|
Would his
headlights being turned off affect that as well? |
| |
Hoekstra: |
|
Absolutely. |
| |
Roth: |
|
Again, it's 2
o'clock in the morning, and there are no streetlights out
there. There is nothing to illuminate the roadway. (V2-105) |
In his cross-examination
of Hoekstra,
defense attorney Brian Morley doesn't let Roth get away with it:
| |
Morley: |
|
Did you ever
see -- see if I can ask it the right way -- the vehicle that
passed you when you were sitting at the Marathon station,
did you ever at any time see it with its headlights off? |
| |
Hoekstra: |
|
No, I did not. |
| |
Morley: |
|
Did Deputy
Whitaker ever convey that to you? |
| |
Hoekstra: |
|
No, he did
not. (V2-144) |
And in the
transcript of the conversation between Central Dispatch and the
two deputies during the chase, Deputy Whitaker says he sees its headlights:
Sgt. Every (5C1): Charlie 1, do
you have eyes on 'em?
Dep. Whitaker (A5): Adam 5, I got
headlights heading east on Catholic Church.
Some time after Roth questions
Detective Sergeant James Young, he cross-examines Charles
Funk, the defense's accident reconstructionist:
| |
Roth: |
|
All right. So
we've got a vehicle testimony in excess of 100 miles per
hour. It's an SUV. Testimony that the driver had been
drinking alcohol. Testimony that the lights were out. This
is not a trained police officer.
If I hadn't said it, front
headlights out. What risks does that vehicle pose, first of
all, to the driver of the vehicle? |
| |
Funk: |
|
Which vehicle
are you talking about, I'm sorry? |
| |
Roth: |
|
The suspect --
excuse me, the vehicle being pursued. Imagine for a second
headlights out, driver has had alcohol, in excess of 100
miles per hour on these same roads. Not a police trained
driver. |
| |
Funk: |
|
I don't know.
I don't have an opinion to that. |
| |
Roth: |
|
You couldn't
tell me if that poses any risk to the driver? |
| |
Funk: |
|
Poses a risk
to the driver? Any vehicle traveling that fast poses a risk
to the driver, yes. |
| |
Roth: |
|
What about if the driver has
been drinking? Does that risk go up? |
| |
Funk: |
|
I don't know. I don't have an
opinion to that. |
| |
Roth: |
|
You don't have an opinion if
drinking and driving makes it more dangerous than just
driving? |
| |
Morley: |
|
Well, I'm going to object,
Your Honor. He's already said he doesn't have an opinion.
He's been qualified as a mechanical engineer
reconstructionist. It's outside his expertise. |
| |
Roth: |
|
I don't think that's outside
of the realm of expertise at all. |
| |
The Court: |
|
I'll overrule the objection.
You can take the answer. |
| |
Roth: |
|
Thank you, Your Honor. You
don't have an opinion if drinking and driving is more
dangerous than simply driving? |
| |
Funk: |
|
I'm not a
toxicologist. I don't know the effects of -- I don't
understand the effects of alcohol on people. I don't pertain
to know anything about that. No, I don't have an opinion to
it. |
| |
Roth: |
|
You don't. All
right. What about headlights being out? Driving at night
without the headlights on. More or less dangerous than
driving with headlights on? |
| |
Funk: |
|
If the
headlights are off, that's -- I definitely would say that's
more dangerous, yes. |
| |
Roth: |
|
And a trained
driver, somebody trained in high speed pursuit and a
not-trained driver; more dangerous, less dangerous? Does the
training help? |
| |
Funk: |
|
Just training? |
| |
Roth: |
|
Yes. |
| |
Funk: |
|
Or are you
talking about training with headlights off? |
| |
Roth: |
|
Training and
driving a vehicle at high speeds? |
| |
Funk: |
|
Someone that's
trained at driving at high speeds? Sure. They would be more
likely to handle something like that. |
| |
Roth: |
|
Thank you. So
now let's talk about the risk that that vehicle poses to
other people on the road. I assume, again, you're going to
tell me that you don't know if this person being -- having
had alcohol in an unspecified amount, you don't know if that
poses a risk to other people on the road? |
| |
Funk: |
|
No. |
| |
Roth: |
|
You don't know
if that makes it any more dangerous to other people who
might be on the road? |
| |
Funk: |
|
No, I don't. |
| |
Roth: |
|
Okay.
And what
about headlights being out? Driving at night, headlights are
out. Does that pose other risks for people on the road? |
| |
Funk: |
|
Sure. If
you're driving with the headlights out, that does pose a
risk, sure. (V7-176) |
In Roth's closing
argument, he again speaks of the SUV's headlights being off as
though it was established beyond any doubt:
The deputies put on
their lights and sirens at the Marathon station. And in that moment,
the Defendant had a decision to make. As Sergeant Every told you,
people with nothing to hide don't run from the police. The driver of
that white SUV, the Defendant, obviously had something to hide.
We know he had been drinking that night quite a bit. We know he had
been smoking marijuana. We know that his driver's license was
suspended.
So taking into
consideration all of those things, he decided to flee. He decided to
run endangering the deputies, everybody in the community along that
path, and most importantly and most of all himself. Fled from the
police at speeds in excess of 100 miles an hour.
That risk went through
the roof when he turned off his headlights to try and avoid being
seen by the deputies. In the Samulak picture, you can see the
Defendant's vehicle. You can see the wheel wells and the pillars,
and most importantly you can see there are no headlights on . . . (V8-20)
How do we know that
the Defendant knew the police were chasing him trying to pull him
over? In a number of ways. He accelerated to more than 80 miles per
hour as soon as the police pulled out of the driveway. That he
passed his house on Morton Road and kept going. That he ran every
road (verbatim) until the end before he turned. Didn't stop at stop
signs. Turned off his headlights. And by the time he got to the Samulak residence, the officer -- excuse me, Deputy Whitaker was
only 13 seconds behind him. . . (V8-32)
So let's look at the
totality of what we know about this vehicle. Suspended driver. Drunk
driver. High driver. Turns his headlights off at some point. Speeds
in excess of 100 miles per hour crossing double lines tailgating the
Steins. (V8-59)
|