|
McBride Trial -- Day 2, 11/27/01 Following is a lengthy summary of today's events. Keep in mind that I am writing this from the notes I scribbled down, but I couldn't write down everything, especially about photos that were shown to witnesses that I couldn't really see. If anyone else who was there wants to correct anything or add something I left out that would be great. The trial finally got started today at about 11:20 after some other cases were heard and a long unexplained delay, presumably for jurors' instructions. The ADA, Ms. Peters, presented a fairly brief opening statement saying that the evidence would show that Mr. Fitzpatrick "deliberately" chased and drove over Mr. McBride with the intent to injure or kill him. She said that paint from McBride's bike and his blood were found on the undercarriage of Mr. Fitzpatrick's SUV. She enumerated his injuries, and ran down the list of state witnesses. The defense's opening statement was made by Sam Adams. He started out by telling us that Mr. Fitzpatrick's nickname was "Corky." He said that the defense is not disputing that "Corky" hit Tom McBride with his SUV, only the state's assertion of intent. He stated that it was a "true tragedy" but that "accidents occur," that the SUV, which was registered to his grandmother, was a "big huge" vehicle that "just happened" to hit McBride. He said that Fitzpatrick turned onto Washington from Lorel looking for cars coming and "didn't see" the bike, and that "suddenly McBride was in front of him," and that Fitzpatrick tried to stop. He noted that "Corky" was not charged with leaving the scene, and that he "panicked," drove away, and didn't hear the scraping of the bike under his SUV for several blocks, at which point he stopped and discarded it. He then called his friend Demetrius, who is the son of Chicago cop Sidonia Terry. (I'm not sure of the spelling of some of these names.) Mr. Adams said that Fitzpatrick was distraught and had "defecated" on himself. Officer Terry then told him to go to a garage, where he was picked up by the police. He said that Fitzpatrick had only been going 25-30 mph and hit the bike no more than three or four seconds after turning the corner. The prosecution's first witness was Tom's mother, Mary Ellen McBride, who described going down to the Medical Examiner's office to identify her youngest son's body. There was no cross-examination. At this point it was noon and the trial was recessed for lunch. The second witness, Mr. Tyrone Hibbler, a 73-year old black man, took the stand at about 1:30. He stated that he was driving east on Washington and noticed a car "driving a little strange" and "changing lanes really fast" directly in front of him. He said that there were no cars parked in the parking lane due to rush hour restrictions, thereby leaving two lanes for traffic. He said he saw a "kid on a bike" in front of the SUV, and that the bike was close to the curb, with the SUV immediately behind. He said that the SUV swerved two or three times, and then it sped up and ran over the bike. He said that before the impact, he asked his wife, who was in the passenger seat but not paying attention, "Why's he messing around with that kid like that?" He said that after the hitting the bike, the SUV pulled up, went back and forth a few times, and then sped away. (I personally think that this going back and forth was an attempt to dislodge the bike, but the witness didn't say that.) He said that sparks were flying from underneath the SUV as it drove away. He then followed the SUV a couple of cars back but lost him. He flagged down a police car and returned to the scene. He also noted that the SUV had tinted windows. On cross-examination, the defense got Mr. Hibbler to admit that since he was in a smaller car, he couldn't see over the SUV. He said that he was two to three car lengths back when he noticed the SUV swerving, and that he didn't see the bike before then. He reiterated that the SUV moved right and left two or three times while traveling 20-25 mph for about three or four car lengths before hitting the bicycle. There was some discussion about exactly where the witness' car was when the "accident" occurred. He said that he was west of Lorel at the time and that the collision occurred near the middle of the next block. He said "it all happened in seconds" and that after he returned to the scene he stayed for 10 to 15 minutes. Mr. Adams started to question him about the statement that he gave to police that day. Then the attorneys took a short recess to the judge's chambers, presumably about admitting the statement to evidence. Before the recess, the witness had stated that he remembered the statement, which he had read that morning, as being handwritten, and Mr. Adams was quick to point out that it was actually typed. He said that the only saw the bike for a second and that he couldn't tell the intent of the driver, whether he was trying to hit the bike or avoid it. He said that the SUV backed up less than a car length after the accident, which was not in the police report. On re-direct by the ADA, Mr. Hibbler said that he slowed down when he saw the SUV, and didn't see the bike until the SUV swerved to the left, when he saw the bike near the curb in front of the SUV. He said that the SUV then swerved right to get back behind the bike and hit it. The defense then re-crossed and got the witness to admit that he couldn't remember when he crossed Lorel and some other details. The state's attorney then ended by asking him if, even though he couldn't remember all of the little details, if he would ever forget what the driver did to McBride. Mr. Hibbler answered no. My impression of Mr. Hibbler was that even though he didn't remember every detail, he was very honest about it and sincere in general. After a short recess, the third witness, Mr. Lionel Dixon, took the stand. He is a 43-year old black man. He said that he was driving west on Washington when "something struck my eyes." It was a pedestrian under a car, a green SUV. He pulled over about 15 or 20 feet away and noticed a couple of other people standing nearby. He said that the SUV was stopped initially, then drove off and turned left on Lockwood. He said that he turned around and followed right behind, and that the SUV turned into an alley, at which point he saw a black man get out, pull a bike from the undercarriage, and throw it against the alley wall. He wrote down the license number of the SUV and returned to the scene, where about a dozen people had gathered, but no police. He said that the victim was "balled up" and conscious but not talking. He then noticed the license plate lying next to the victim, and picked it up. He saw that it matched the number he had written down, and gave it to the cops who had just pulled up. He led the police back to the alley and the bike was still there. At this point the bike was brought out as evidence. It was missing its front tire and was very banged up. The front derailleur was destroyed, and the chain was unattached. Mr. Hibbler also noted that the SUV had tinted windows. He said that the body was initially lying half under the passenger side of the truck (SUV) and half in front of it. He said that he didn't remember the truck backing up, that it just drove over the body. He said he saw the front wheel of the bike on Washington. The defense only asked one question in cross-examination, whether the witness had seen any of the events leading up to the crash. He said no and was excused. This is when things really started to get interesting. The jury was recessed and the PA was turned off. Mrs. McBride told me it was because the next witness had had a change of heart about testifying. Sure enough, the witness, Jerry Carter, a.k.a. Jerry Howler, a thirty-something black man and ex-con, was brought before the judge and said that he didn't want to testify. The judge then ordered him to testify. After the jury was brought back in, Mr. Carter testified that he was jogging on Washington that morning, on the north side of the street, going east. He saw a man on a bike, also going east. He said he saw the SUV do a "roll stop" at the stop sign at Lorel, at which point the bike was three feet to the side of the SUV and was almost hit, then the bike went past the truck on the driver's side. The ADA then produced a signed police statement by the witness from the day of the incident. This statement was written in the third person with lines beginning "Jerry said." In the statement, he said that the bicyclist had slapped the hood of the SUV and called the driver a "stupid motherfucker," but he denied making this statement after it was read to him. The statement said that the bike swerved and the truck continued behind it, swerving with the bike, but he again denied making this statement. At this point the ADA showed Mr. Carter the statement, and he agreed that he had signed it on each page but didn't remember reading it first. Then she read more from the statement, which said that the bike tried to get away, but that the SUV sped up and hit it, then drove away dragging the bike underneath, but the witness again denied saying this. The statement said that the SUV hit the bike with its front axle and dragged it from behind, but Mr. Carter said he didn't remember saying that. Then the ADA brought out a transcript of Mr. Carter's sworn testimony to the grand jury a few months after the incident and read from it. In this testimony, he had repeated the statement about the bicyclist striking the hood and the "motherfucker" remark. He had also said that the SUV stopped behind the bike and that he thought more words would be exchanged, but then the SUV bumped the bike from behind, the bike wobbled, and then the SUV hit the bike again and rolled over it. But after hearing this grand jury testimony read back to him from the transcript, he said that he now can't remember the incident, although he does remember giving those answers. (What a character.) At this point, Bob Matter wrote "I think the Gangster Disciples got to him" on my notes. On cross-examination, Mr. Adams asked Mr. Carter if he thought the state's attorney who took the initial statement had wanted the statement in his own (the attorney's) words, and Mr. Carter said yes. He asked him what the weather was like on that day and he said it was cloudy, but Mr. Adams read from the statement where he had said it was sunny. Mr. Carter then said that he now can't remember any details. Then Mr. Adams set up a large aerial photo of the area and asked the witness to mark the locations of himself, the SUV, and the bike, but I couldn't see what he marked from my seat. He again stated that he saw the SUV take a "roll stop" on Lorel before turning onto Washington, but that the bike reached the intersection first. He said that cars were parked along eastbound Washington, and that the bike was on the driver's side of the SUV, in front of it. He said the bike was weaving in front of the SUV and that the SUV tried to go around it, and that this lasted for 40 to 50 seconds, at 15 or 20 mph. Mr. Adams then read from the grand jury testimony where Mr. Carter had said that it was three or four minutes, but once again, he denied saying this. After some further questioning, Mr. Carter said that after talking to his pastor, he called ADA Rogers, who was the attorney previously assigned to the case, and told him that his statements to the grand jury had been inaccurate. He recalled saying to Mr. Rogers that the bike had been on the right (passenger) side of the SUV. Mr. Adams then tried to introduce a videotape of Mr. Carter's statements to the former defense attorney Mr. Miller. He wanted to show it to the witness to "refresh his memory." The state objected, and both the jury and the witness were sent out for the legal arguments, which went on for about a half hour. I didn't follow all of this, but basically they were arguing about whether the videotape should be shown in front of the jury, and if so, whether it should be the whole thing or only the question and answer about which side of the SUV the bike was on. (Apparently in the tape he had said the it was on the right side, but he had testified earlier today that it was on the left.) The crux of the argument seemed to be whether the tape was consistent with his other testimony today and the other statements, in which case it could not be admitted as material evidence, or whether it was inconsistent and could be used to attack his credibility. The defense also argued that if the entire grand jury statement was admitted, then the entire videotape should be as well. After a lot of arguing and anecdotal citations of the law and other cases as precedents, the judge finally agreed that the witness could view the tape, but not in the presence of the jury. He also chastised both sets of lawyers for bringing up the issue in the middle of a witness' testimony, rather than in the pretrial discovery motions when there would be time to file briefs and do research on the appropriate law. The judge told them to bring out the witness and show him the tape. He then went to chambers and told the lawyers to get him when they were done, which brought a chuckle from the audience. So, they set up the TV and Mr. Carter watched the tape. They didn't patch it into the PA and the TV was facing away from the viewing area, so it was hard to make out what was being said. Afterwards, the judge and jury were brought back in and Mr. Adams continued with cross-examination. He asked Mr. Carter if his memory had been refreshed and he replied that it had. He then stated that the bicyclist had hit the car with his hand on the driver's side. The bike then went to the passenger side and was swerving in front of the truck, which was when it was hit, and then the truck left. He said the truck was going "normal speed" and did not speed up to hit the bike. He said that he went to help the bicyclist after the collision. He then stated again that contact was made prior to the SUV running over the bike, but in the videotape he said that there was no prior contact and that the truck only hit the bike once. He admitted making inaccurate statements to the grand jury and the state's attorney. He said that the reason he did this was because he was mad that the driver left the scene, but later had a change of heart after talking to his pastor. On re-direct, Mr. Carter said that he told ADA Rogers that the truck has tried to get around the bike, but that that wasn't put into the official statement. He was shown a map that he had marked during the initial police questioning but denied having made the mark. He then said that he saw the truck bump the bike before it was hit. The defense then re-crossed, and he said that there was only one hit, that the bump, which he had just said was before the fatal hit, was actually the fatal hit itself. ADA Peters then re-directed and asked him "You're calling that a bump?" and he replied yes. The defense than asked him if the truck had to bump the bike first before it was dragged under, meaning there was only one "hit," and he said yes. Finally, Mr. Carter was excused and we were done for the day at about 5:15. Whew! If you were confused by Jerry Carter's contradictory testimony, so was I, and presumably everyone else. He is probably about the worst witness I could imagine. Not only did he contradict himself, he was uncooperative and a poor speaker. Hopefully, the jury will consider that his initial statements to the police on the day of the incident, and his grand jury testimony a few months later, hold more weight than his lousy memory and recantations over two years later. Mrs. McBride assured me that there would be other witnesses whose testimony would be more reliable and just as useful to the prosecution. I hope she's right. The trial continues tomorrow. [Fitzpatrick] has about twenty supporters there, some of whom look like family but most of whom seem to be friends his age. On the other side of the aisle are the Tom McBride's parents, and I think his sister and brother (he was the youngest of five), plus some other friends of theirs and various other supporters like me and Bob. So, the more of us the better. Come on out for the rest of the week if you can. The judge still says the trial should be done by Friday. -- Dan Korn
|