Opinion ID: 844204
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant’s defense case

Text: Defendant presented no evidence at the Ricky Byrd murder trial. To cast doubt on the prosecution‟s evidence regarding the crimes at the Pepper Steak Restaurant, the defense called a number of the investigating officers who had interviewed prosecution witnesses. For example, to undercut the evidence that defendant left Winkler‟s apartment with Rogers at approximately 6:00 to 6:30 p.m. and returned alone and worried about his “homeboy,” the defense elicited from Sergeant Mark Owens discrepancies in Winkler‟s various accounts of these events. Specifically, Winkler had told the officer that on the night of the crimes, defendant said only that his friend got shot while trying to commit a robbery and that it was not until the following day that defendant mentioned that one of his “homies” either killed somebody or got [himself] killed” by “some gang bangers.” The defense also emphasized the lack of physical evidence linking defendant to the crimes. Sergeant Owens informed the jury that in his search of clothing associated with defendant he never found a ski mask or black cap, gloves, dark running suit, or any other article of clothing described by the eyewitnesses. He confirmed that Winkler told him defendant had about $20 in $1 bills and coins either on the night of the robbery or the day after, and that he knew that only $5 and $10 bills had been taken from the restaurant‟s cash register. The defense also elicited from Officer Leroy Valadez that Harold Lewis reported to him that there was approximately $500 hidden inside the wallet that defendant took from him. 11 Testimony by other officers highlighted discrepancies in the eyewitnesses‟ descriptions of the robber‟s clothing and firearm. The defense also elicited from the officers that several of the eyewitnesses were unable to provide them with a description of the robber‟s facial features because his face was covered by a ski mask during the incident. The defense further challenged the prosecution‟s identification evidence by presenting testimony by an eyewitness identification expert. Robert Shomer, Ph.D., described the various factors that reduce the accuracy of an identification, including life-threatening, unexpected and traumatic circumstances, age and racial differences between the eyewitness and the perpetrator, the manner in which the identification procedure is conducted, and the precision of the eyewitness‟s initial description. According to Dr. Shomer, the more stressors present, the more difficult it is to later identify a person. He also explained that the accuracy of an identification is further reduced when any substantial part of a person‟s face is covered, and that eyes are not a good feature for identifying a person because unlike ears, the mouth, the nose, and the hairline, eyes typically are not that distinctive.