Former Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner was found guilty of assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object.

The Case Against Turner

The incident occurred on January 18, 2015, outside of a Kappa Alpha fraternity party. Two bicyclists passing by found Turner on top of an unconscious and partially disrobed woman. The bicyclists said that when they confronted Turner, he backed away and tried to free himself when they tried to detain him. The woman’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was estimated at three times the legal driving limit and she did not wake up for at least three hours after the incident. Turner was arrested and charged with five felony counts, later reduced to three. He also withdrew from Stanford.

Throughout his trial, Turner maintained his innocence. He testified that the woman, a 23-year-old who did not attend Stanford, consented to all sexual activity.

However, the woman testified that she had no recollection of the event. She says that the last thing she remembers is drinking and dancing with her younger sister at the fraternity party. She does not remember meeting Turner or how she woke up in the Valley Medical Center in San Jose, where she was told that she may have been a victim of sexual assault. The woman did testify that she was “extremely intoxicated” and that she had blacked out from drinking on four or five previous occasions. She admitted to drinking about four shots of whisky before the party and then drinking vodka at the party.

Defense Expert’s Credibility Called Into Question

Defense attorney Mike Armstrong argued that while the woman may not remember the events, she may still have given her consent at the time. Armstrong retained expert witness Kim Fromme to give testimony on the effects of alcohol and blackouts.

Kim Fromme is a clinical psychology professor at the University of Texas in Austin and the Director of the Studies on Alcohol, Health, and Risky Activities. Her research focuses on prevention of alcohol abuse and risk-taking behaviors in young adults. Fromme described herself as an unbiased expert.

Fromme testified that a person who has been drinking may appear normal, but actually be experiencing a blackout, which she defined as a period of amnesia. The person is fully conscious and capable of making short-term decisions, such as driving a car or having sex, but not able to store long-term memories.

Under cross-examination, the prosecutor Aleleh Kiancerci asked Fromme whether she was biased. Kiancerci introduced several of Fromme’s emails to Armstrong into evidence. In Fromme’s emails, she expressed hope for an acquittal of “our client” and asked whether it was prudent to turn over communications between herself and defense attorney Armstrong.

Kiancerci’s attempts to assail Fromme’s credibility seemed to be effective. After Fromme’s testimony, the jury exercised its privilege to question witnesses and asked whether Fromme had ever seen a drunk person experiencing a blackout who appeared normal. Fromme responded that she had in her personal life, but not in the lab.

In the trial of Jimmy “Superfly” Snuka, expert witnesses are battling over the former professional wrestler’s competency to stand trial.

Snuka, 72, is charged with third-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter in the death of his former girlfriend Nancy Argentino. A 23-year old Argentino was found dead in 1983, after authorities were called to the couple’s hotel room. Argentino was later determined to have died of brain trauma. Prosecution alleges that Snuka fractured Argentino’s skull and then failed to call for help. The charges were brought against Snuka after the release of Superfly: The Jimmy Snuka Story and a 2013 investigative news story by The Morning Call uncovered a previously unreleased autopsy report indicating that Argentino’s death should be investigated as a homicide.

Prosecution’s Expert Testifies as to Snuka’s Competency

Snuka’s trial was scheduled to begin in March, but his attorney, Robert Kirwan II, filed a motion for a competency hearing. Arguing that Snuka’s mental health had declined steadily over recent months, Kirwan stated that Snuka “had no idea what charges he faced” and that “[h]e has no recollection of the incident.”

Judge Kelly Banach of Pennsylvania’s Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas scheduled a competency hearing. Attorney for prosecution, Chief Deputy District Attorney Charles Gallagher III, requested an independent evaluation of Snuka’s fitness for trial. Gallagher noted that Snuka “has had a career in entertainment.”

At the competency hearing, psychiatrist Dr. John O’Brien testified for the prosecution. O’Brien testified that Snuka’s demeanor was in contrast to the “level of dysfunction he’s alleged to have” and that he’s “very different than how he is described in medical records.” O’Brien stated that Snuka’s medical records do not support a diagnosis of dementia and that he doubted claims that he has a post-concussive disorder. He further noted that, while one report claims that the former wrester had hundreds of concussions, none of these claimed concussions were ever documented. O’Brien opined that Snuka was competent to stand trial.

Defense Expert Testifies Snuka Has Brain Damage

O’Brien’s opinion differed from that of defense expert, forensic psychologist Dr. Frank Dattilio. Dattilio testified that Snuka has permanent brain damage following a long professional career of taking numerous blows to the head along with a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Dattilio testified that he determined that Snuka wasn’t competent to stand trial before the grand jury hearing in 2015, and that Snuka’s mental health has declined since his initial report. Dattilio opined that Snuka suffers from dementia and post-concussive disorder, and that his treating behavioral neurologist determined that his condition was “worsening by the month.”

Snuka also took the stand during the hearings, spending more than an hour on the witness stand. Under Judge Banach’s questioning, Snuka spoke about his wrestling career and his signature attack, the “Superfly Splash,” but was unable to remember names of sports figures or politicians or even his own age.

This was the first time that Snuka has spoken in court in this matter. Snuka was previously summoned by the grand jury, but refused to testify, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The court’s ruling on Snuka’s competency is not expected for at least one month.

Photo Credit: Paparazzo Photography, Wikipedia Commons  [CC BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL].

Claiming that he was acting under duress when he located an informant marked for murder by a drug cartel, Jesus Gerardo Ledezma Cepeda supported his defense with the expert testimony of a documentary filmmaker. The filmmaker testified as an expert in drug cartel violence.

Juan Jesús Guerrero Chapa was gunned down in Southlake, Texas while sitting at the wheel of his Range Rover. His killers were able to locate him for two reasons. First, a GPS unit attached to the undercarriage of his Range Rover was broadcasting his position. Second, he had been stalked for weeks by Ledezma Cepeda and his cousin, Jose Luis Cepeda Cortes. Both men conducted surveillance of Guerrero Chapa and attached the GPS unit to his vehicle.

Guerrero Chapa had acted as an attorney for Mexican drug cartel leader Osiel Cárdenas Guillén. A cartel leader known as “El Gato” ordered Guerrero Chapa’s death because Guerrero Chapa chose to act as informant against his client on behalf of the U.S. government.

Law enforcement agents have not found the killers. They did find Ledezma Cepeda and Cepeda Cortes. Both men were charged with interstate stalking and conspiracy to commit murder for hire. Cepeda Cortes testified that he did not know why his cousin was tracking Guerrero Chapa, while Ledezma Cepeda testified that he was coerced into acting on behalf of El Gato.

Trial Evidence

Downplaying the role the government played in Guerrero Chapa’s death by failing to protect him after enlisting his services as an informant, a federal prosecutor told the jury that Ledezma Cepeda and Cepeda Cortes led the killers to Guerrero Chapa. The defendants agreed that they tracked Guerrero Chappa but denied that El Gato told them he intended to have Guerrero Chapa killed.

Ledezma Cepeda, a private investigator in Mexico, testified that finding people is his job. Portraying the evidence in a different light, the prosecutor argued that Ledezma Cepeda made a living hunting down men for El Gato, who then had them tortured and killed.

Cepeda Cortes testified that he was just doing a favor for Ledezma Cepeda and was in the dark about any plans El Gato had for Guerrero Chappa. Prosecutors asked the jury to infer Cepeda Cortes’ knowledge of the murder conspiracy from his decision to use fake names when he set up email and GPS tracker accounts, and from his expressed desire to work with his cousin again after the murder occurred.

The defense argued that the authorities should go after El Gato, a former Mexican federal agent. According to the defense, prosecuting the defendants was a face-saving measure, motivated by the government’s embarrassment about the death of Guerrero Chapa while he was under the protection of Homeland Security. The government may also have been embarrassed that U.S. Customs and Border Protection designated El Gato as a “pre-approved, low-risk traveler” who was entitled to expedited entry into the United States using Trusted Traveler lanes.

The Defense of Duress

Ledezma Cepeda testified that he was forced to find and follow Guerrero Chapa. He told the jury that El Gato would have harmed his family in Mexico if he had not performed the assignment.

The defense of duress is rarely successful in a criminal case. Judges typically conclude that no reasonable jury could find that the defendant met the legal standard required to establish the defense. For that reason, they typically refuse a defendant’s request to instruct the jury that it can acquit the defendant if the defendant committed the crime under duress.

A typical formulation of the jury instruction for duress tells the jury that if the defendant’s guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should find the defendant guilty unless the defendant proved that each of the following facts is probably true:

• First, that the defendant was facing an immediate, unlawful threat of death or serious bodily injury to himself or to others;
• Second, that the defendant had a well-grounded fear that the threat would be carried out if he did not commit the offense;
• Third, that the defendant’s criminal action was directly caused by the need to avoid the threatened harm and that the defendant had no reasonable, lawful opportunity to avoid the threatened harm without committing the offense (in other words, the defendant had no reasonable lawful opportunity both to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm); and
• Fourth, that the defendant did not recklessly place himself in a situation in which he would be forced to engage in criminal conduct.

Defendants who raise a duress defense usually falter when they encounter the third element of the defense. Unless a defendant has a gun pointed at his head at all times, a defendant usually has an opportunity to avoid harm by seeking the protection of the police.

Expert Evidence of Duress

Gary Fleming, a documentary filmmaker, testified as an expert witness for Ledezma Cepeda. Fleming gained expertise in drug cartels when he interviewed cartel members for a documentary. He testified that he has attended cartel meetings at which “green lights” were given to kill people.

Fleming testified that cartel members commonly use the expression “Lead is cheaper than silver,” meaning it is cheaper to kill people who refuse their demands than to pay them for their work. Fleming explained that cartels use fear and terror to induce compliance with their wishes.

In a moment of drama, Fleming pointed at Ledezma Cepeda and said, “That’s a walking dead man right there.” Fleming explained that he expects the cartel to kill Ledezma Cepeda whether he goes to prison or walks free.

The Verdict

The judge allowed the jury to consider the duress defense, but the jury rejected it. The prosecutor argued that accepting the duress defense would be like giving Ledezma Cepeda a “get out of jail free” card that could be played every time he commits a crime. Jurors evidently agreed. The jury found both defendants guilty.

Ledezma Cepeda and his cousin face the possibility of life sentences. The minimum sentence the judge is allowed to impose in each case is 25 years in prison.