The Trial – The Witnesses

The first person the prosecution sent to the witness stand was the Drug Enforcement Agency’s Case Director. He explained how he was one of the undercover agents for a particular ring of drug trafficking/money laundering. He explained the basics of the undercover arrangement and then proceeded to show us a video of the particular night in question. The video showed the money drop in question. The defendant had no knowledge of the surveillance equipment because the video recorder was hidden from his view.

We also heard recordings and read transcripts of many conversations that happened around the particular money drop in question and others that seemed to be tied to this incident. Under cross examination by the defense, it became clear that a number of methods used in the investigation were sketchy or incomplete. This was something the defense questioned for every witness.

The second witness was an officer who was part of the surveillance effort that tracked the defendant from the money drop back to his place of residence. He explained what happens in general on car surveillance and how many cars track the ‘target’ (the person they are following) and then what happened on the respective night. The defense also tore him down in questioning. I watched a lot of this part of the trial as if I were watching a tennis match – fast serve from the lawyer and even speedier return from the witness.

The next two witnesses were cooperating witnesses (CW). They were arrested for committing crimes and their testimony could be used to lower their sentencing although that wasn’t a guarantee. The first CW seemed to be the master mind of the whole drug trafficking and money laundering ring. He explained how the money laundering worked. All of his testimony was translated by a court interpreter. I found this part fascinating because I was ensuring that the court interpreter was capturing each thing exactly as the witness was saying it and not making any changes. I was satisfied with the translations.
The second CW was linked to the case via a cell phone. The cell phone he used made calls to the cell phone in the defendant’s car the night of the money drop in question.
We looked at cell phone invoices and agreements that 2nd CW signed under an alias (a baseball player’s name). He explained how he used the phone and that he recognized some of the phone numbers.

The fifth witness was the arresting officer. He explained how the arrest ‘went down’. He told us about how he read the defendant his Miranda rights in Spanish. And he clarified what the rights were showing in ‘layman’s terms’. The defendant then began to explain his guilt for what had happened.

The last witness was the paralegal for the prosecution. She explained how she went about gathering information for the whereabouts of the cell phones in usage. She got GPS locations for the cell phone used to do the money drop in question. I found her evidence and presentation very convincing.

As the lawyers made their closing statements, I knew how I stood on one of the two counts. The closing statements were entertaining more than revelatory. I knew I would have to make my decision based on the witnesses and their testimony and how much I credit I gave their testimony.