Opinion ID: 2076369
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Officer Braswell's Cross-Examination.

Text: During his entire direct examination, the officer never mentioned that he could not see the traffic light which Mr. Eilers allegedly ran, or that Mr. Eilers was assaulting Ms. Shelley at the time, or that the implied consent form was signed in a van at the scene, or that Mr. Eilers was never taken to the Traffic Enforcement Branch at all. During his cross-examination, however, Officer Braswell was led into some startling disclosures regarding each of these subjects. With respect to the curious saga of the red light, the questioning began as follows: Q And did I understand that you said he went through a red light? A Yes, he did. Q How did you know it was red? A How did I know it was red? Q Uh-huh. A Because I could see it perfectly. It was dark. Q Yes. A And I could see that the light was red. (Emphasis added). A few moments later, however, the following transpired: Q Isn't it a fact, though, that the signals at Blues Alley face only northbound traffic? A No. Q They face A I'm sorry. Yes, they do. (Emphasis added). Following this admission, Officer Braswell abandoned his claim that he could see the traffic light itself, and insisted instead that he could determine that the light was red for cars travelling north because he could see a reflection of it in the window of a toy store, and because the other northbound vehicles had stopped. Following the revelation that the officer had intervened because of a red light violation when he could not see the light, the officer shifted his emphasis from the traffic signal to a previously undisclosed assault: At that time when the light changed, he kept going and then he stopped. There was like one or two cars that were stopped. They were obeying the light. He drove up and what really drew my attention to him is that he was slapping this girl around in his car, and that was wrong. (Emphasis added). Although Officer Braswell had initially testified that he could distinguish the red light and that it was dark, see page 680, supra, he now claimed that he was able to see the assault inside the vehicle, even though no interior lights were on, because Wisconsin and M is pretty well lit. [3] Officer Braswell had testified on direct examination that Mr. Eilers was taken to 501 New York Avenue, N.W. for his breathalyzer tests. When first interrogated on the subject on cross-examination, he stated that Ms. Shelley did not accompany Mr. Eilers to the station. He said that he believed that she went home, even though the weather was cold and she was without a coat. He testified that he did not recall what kind of vehicle he was driving on the night in question, or whether he had called for the alcohol van, which carries all of the necessary chemical testing equipment. As defense counsel pressed him, however, the officer suddenly indicated otherwise: A Okay. I'd like to change my statement. It was in the alcohol van. Q So you had the van? A Yeah. There it was, yes. I remember now.       A He's arrested and then he comes over to the van. Q You place them in the van? A Yes, in the van. Q And then is it your testimony that you offered him the breathalyzer in the van? A Yes. [4] Officer Braswell's revised testimony about the location of the activities was undoubtedly correct; the Breath Test Result Ticket which he issued to Mr. Eilers describes the location of test as Cruiser 432. Since the van with the necessary equipment was on the scene, there was no occasion to take Mr. Eilers to 501 New York Avenue, N.W. Officer Braswell acknowledged, however, that he was totally dependent on his notes, [5] which he said were taken in Mr. Eilers' presence at the New York Avenue station.