sixth day of Corbett murder trial : AZ IMC

Tuesday morning proceedings began as expected at promptly 9:30 am, however, with the unexpected early testimony from Agent Nicholas Corbett. Defense Attorney Chapman began with a few cursory questions about Agent Corbett’s background and moved on to have Corbett describe what his duties were on the day of January 12, 2007. ImageHe described that his task was to patrol the border region along a road known as Border Road. It was here about 15 feet from the border that Corbett encountered the first 3 people he detained, meanwhile spotting the Rivera brothers and Sandra off in the distance. Chapman asked him how he detained the first 3, for which Corbett described how he got out of the vehicle and yelled in Spanish for them to sit down, but then explained that he drew his gun because the middle person was agitated and did not go down right away. He then described how he ordered for them to sit down on the ground, which they all did accordingly—or as Agent Corbett described they “sat on their butts,” which he then holstered his gun and put each person in his vehicle one at a time. Next, Chapman moved on to the crux of Corbett’s testimony as to how he came upon the Rivera brothers—driving across the rocky terrain, advancing on them to a distance of 25-30 feet, slowing down, then how he used his car to drive roughly a full circle around the group in order to corral the person in front—identified as Francisco Javier, in order to keep him from running. Corbett described that as he put the car in park he watched out the passenger window as Francisco bent over, his backpack flopping up, and picked up a rock the size of a softball. As Corbett exited his vehicle he said he saw Francisco rear back, causing Corbett to say, “hey” out of surprise. Corbett kept his head low, drew his weapon, went around the vehicle, confronted the group with his gun drawn and pointed in their direction, yelled for them to sit down in Spanish, for which Francisco allegedly disobeyed this order and continued walking towards Corbett with the rock in his hand. At this point, Chapman moved into evidence and then refers throughout the rest of Corbett’s testimony to a computerized image—made to look 3D with 2 figures, representing Corbett and Francisco, suspended in a grid-like matrix. Due to Francisco’s supposed forward movement, Corbett then had to restrain him with his left hand in a Heisman-like move, pushing Francisco back on his right shoulder while he wielded his gun in his right hand. Corbett described Francisco’s expression was filled with “hatred” as he continued to advance his hand with the rock, trying to reach over Corbett’s extended left arm to “smash his head in”, for which Corbett shot his weapon. After the shot, Corbett explained that he took a step back and told him to sit down—not knowing for sure if he had hit him, Francisco then turned slightly to face his family still not sitting down, which Corbett then said he pushed Francisco causing him to fall to his knees. Corbett told the jury that he walked in a clockwise pattern around the group so he could again see Francisco’s face, which had gone “blank” at this point, causing Corbett to first cut off Francisco’s backpack and then lay him on his back. He explained that he started to cut off his clothes to locate the wound, when Agent Burg arrived on the scene—for whom, as Corbett testified, he had not radioed to tell that shots had been fired. Chapman finished his questioning with a series of questions relating to the 3 eye-witness testimonies—whether Francisco had his back to him, if he was kneeling, or if Corbett was pointing his gun while driving—all of which Corbett answered, no.

Prosecutor Woods began his cross-examination by immediately recalling Agent Burg’s (the first Border Patrol agent on the scene) testimony that he first he a shot, and then was radioed by Agent Corbett that shots were fired, causing him to run to Corbett’s location—otherwise Agent Burg would not have known where to located Corbett. Woods asked Corbett if he recalled Agent Burg stating this in his testimony, for which Corbett replied rather surly, “if you say so”. Woods then reminded Corbett and the entire courtroom of the testimony given by John Maciulla, the criminalists and firearms expert for AZ DPS, in where he explained a phenomenon known as the “sympathetic squeeze.” The sympathetic squeeze occurs when a person who has their finger on or even near the trigger and uses their opposite hand to grab or push another object—the hand holding the gun will exhibit a similar gripping force used by the opposite hand and cause the person to advertently pull the trigger. Mr. Woods asked Corbett if part of his firearms training included learning of the “sympathetic squeeze”, which he responded, yes. He followed this up by asking if Corbett was then aware of the risk this entailed in his encounter with the Rivera brothers, which Corbett said that is something you are not conscious of in the moment. Woods asked if whether on January 12, 2007 at 12 pm (3 hours prior to the shooting) if, “I had the opportunity to ask you if you knew about the risk of the sympathetic squeeze, what would you say?” Corbett replied that, yes, he would have known of the risk at that time. Woods then quickly changed gears by asking Corbett if he had an anger problem, Corbett responded, “not as far as I can tell.” Woods further asked if he had ever been required to attend counseling for anger management, causing Chapman to quickly object and both sides approached the Judge for a sidebar. As it had been made aware last week, the prosecution was denied the chance to provide eye-witness testimony from a woman who had been threatened by Corbett, and that would provide the prosecution solid evidence that Corbett has a history and a propensity towards acts of unnecessary violence. Council retook their respective places as Woods rephrased his question by asking him to answer honestly as to whether he has “anger issues.” Corbett evaded the question by answering, “no, not in my opinion.” Woods, disgusted with Corbett, moved on to the actual details of Corbett’s prior testimony as given to his defense council. With the defense’s 3D image still on the screen, Woods demonstrated to Corbett by patting the corner of the podium located in front of Woods that that corner represented the right rear-bumper of Corbett’s vehicle, and then asked Corbett, referencing the image on the screen, to point out where that image of hand-to-hand combat played out exactly in relation to his vehicle (represented by the podium). Corbett responded with a series of “uh’s” and “um, well, I can’t actually say, I don’t know. Where is the back of the vehicle again?” This caused a person in the audience to scoff at Corbett, as Woods dropped his head and shook it from side to side, then walked over to the podium and decisively banged the corner he already had pointed out, and instructed him that that represented the back of the vehicle. Woods then referred Corbett’s attention to the 3D image and pointed to his back and said—“your back had to be facing something, what was it?” Corbett, rather thick-headedly, replied that “I don’t see my back facing anything in that picture.” The audience began to shift visibly in their seats at the ripple of awkwardness that Corbett’s almost simpleton remark created throughout the courtroom. Woods proceeded to ask Corbett the same question over and over again of where his positioning was at the time of the hand-to-hand combat—for which Corbett responded again with a series of “uh’s” and “um’s” before saying that he did not remember.

Woods finished his cross-examination by thoroughly going through all the officers testimonies, previously heard earlier in the week, that were the first ones to hear Corbett’s account of what happened that afternoon. Woods pointed out that each testimony varied drastically—where one involved Corbett telling them that he saw Francisco “throw” the rock, another agent testified that it was his impression after talking to Corbett that there was a “stand-off” for which the vehicle was used as cover. All 3 accounts by these agents varied from one another, including the account that Agent Corbett himself gave on the stand. Woods effectively ended by pointing out that there seemed to be 4 different accounts made by Corbett of what happened that afternoon—and only one consistent account from all 3 of the family members. Chapman’s redirect was brief, but nonetheless revealed another inarticulate answer from Corbett. When asked by Chapman why he shot in a downward direction, Corbett responded yet again with “uh, uh…really wasn’t looking, I uh, uh, I had center mass.” Corbett was then excused from the stand.

The following witnessed called was Elmer Pellegrino, the director of the Police Academy at Fuller College located in California. The main expertise Pellegrino provided was how officers in officer involved shootings may be susceptible to a certain 3-pronged phenomenon related to stressful situations—one, a person’s perception of the incident is seen in slow-motion, two—a person may be so zeroed in on the moment that they are unable to hear sounds as loud as their own gunshot. The defense and the witness spent most of their time discussing the 3rd type of perception distortion—that of tunnel vision, where the officer involved suddenly hones in on nothing but what is directly in front of him. While no direct postulations were made as to whether Corbett could have suffered from any of these was made by the defense, the implication was clear. Woods stood up for his cross-exam at the ready, presenting case-study after case-study that showed while officers may suffer from tunnel vision while in a stressful situation, there were several reports that show significant statistical findings that having an increased attention to detail occurs slightly less, if not, as frequently as tunnel vision. Woods ended his cross-examination by asking Pellegrino if he was a social scientist—or if he had only heard of this phenomenon anecdotally, for which Pellegrino responded, anecdotally. With this, the defense rested its case and the court was recessed for lunch.

The trial reconvened with the prosecution calling their first rebuttal witness, the Honorable David Morales—the Justice of the Peace for Cochise County and the presiding magistrate of the preliminary hearing of this case back in August of 2007. He was on the stand for no more than 10 minutes, for which he told the jury that he did not witness any hand signaling in his courtroom by the Mexican government, that his courtroom would fit 3 times in the courtroom the current trial is being held in, and that his admonition to the court to thwart any intimidation of the witnesses was merely out of giving the defense the benefit of the doubt that these signals were being made to the witnesses. Judge Morales was excused, as the prosecution recalled John Maciulla to the stand. The prosecution asked him questions concerning the bullet hole found on Francisco’s sweater in relation to the bullet hole found on the body, reiterating the fact that Corbett’s most recent testimony in no way addressed how the sweater could have moved that far over to Francisco’s armpit. With no questions from the defense, the state of AZ rested their case.

Closing Arguments

Closing arguments began with Mr. Woods giving an articulate and moving speech that highlighted the fact that the 3 witnesses—“kids” whom know nothing about forensic evidence, burnt fiber analysis, medical examiners, shell-casing trajectory—all that would have corroborated their story. He pointed out that the only person who has continually changed their story his Corbett—with a final story that moves itself closer to the forensic evidence at hand. He repeated over and over again how Agent Corbett’s testimony almost explicitly implies that the other agents sworn in to give their testimony, based on what they heard from Corbett, must have “gotten it wrong” because each ventured away from Corbett’s current testimony. Woods emphatically urged the jury that the sweater alone convicts Corbett—that that piece of evidence almost “insults” their intelligence. He ended by urging the jury to ignore the defense’s “red-herrings”—there insistence to focus on sloppy investigation, gloves, and rocks. Woods ended his closing by thoroughly describing the 3 different accounts they could charge Corbett with—2nd degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. He urged them to go with the highest, 2nd degree murder.

The defense council, to no surprise, highlighted once again the poorly led investigation, the underhanded involvement of the Mexican government, and most ridiculously and insensitive—stated that the 3 family members have motive to lie—that is because they were acting out in response to loosing all the money they paid to get across the border. Chapman said that they are lying because it was like, as they watched their brother being shot, “all of their money going down the drain.” Ultimately, he finished his closing by saying that because rocks and gloves, and other evidence was mishandled—that that should be enough to acquit Agent Corbett for not having a fair trial. In a flurry of emotion, Chapman choked up, asked the jury to find his client innocent.

Woods took the opportunity in his rebuttal to remind the jury again that there were several accounts of Corbett’s testimony, and drove home the point that it was incredulous to think that a 5’3” man would seriously consider taking on a 6’4’’, 250 pound man—that, “little Javi would walk up to the biggest man in town with a gun” with the intent to smash his head in with a rock. Finally, Woods came full circle in his closing by again reciting that, “all Men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”

The jury was read their extensive jury instruction, filed out of the courtroom to be cloistered in the jury room for the remainder of the evening until 6pm. While no definitive timeline was given, it is reasonable to expect a verdict sometime tomorrow, Wednesday.