Opinion ID: 46
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony as to Existence of Probable Cause and Credibility of Ramos and Rivera

Text: At the trial of Appellants' subsequent civil suit, Appellees elicited testimony as to the credibility of Ramos and Rivera, as to whether they had probable cause to arrest and prosecute Cameron and Higgenbottom, and as to whether certain evidence strengthened or weakened Appellants' case. This testimony came through three witnesses: ADA Pangilinan, who was the trial prosecutor for Cameron's criminal trial; ADA Brandon, who prepared the complaint for Rivera; and Lieutenant Peterson, the superior officer who arrived at the scene of the incident after the arrests.
Appellees called Pangilinan, who was an ADA from September 2004 until April 2008. She testified to the content and tone of Cameron's tape-recorded 911 calls, and to Cameron's appearance in her arrest booking photo, as neither the tape-recordings nor the photo were any longer available. She also testified that the 911 calls, the booking photo, and the time-lapse security camera photos all corroborated Ramos and Rivera's account, and that nothing in them led her to consider dropping the prosecution. J.A. 504-05. Furthermore, she said, the surveillance photos actually strengthened [Cameron's] prosecution. J.A. 504. Pangilinan also testified extensively about her communications with Rivera and Ramos. She testified that nothing Rivera or Ramos said led her to consider dropping the case; that she had no reason to believe anything they said was inaccurate; that they did not encourage her to continue the prosecution or have any role in trial strategy; and that she and her supervisors, rather than Rivera or Ramos, decided whether or not to continue Cameron's prosecution. Appellants objected to nearly every question in the relevant portions of Pangilinan's testimony.
Appellants called Brandon, primarily to inquire about the procedure for filing a criminal complaint and to confirm certain ways that Rivera's and Ramos's accounts had changed since the day of the arrests. On cross examination, Brandon testified over objection that she decided whether or not to initiate proceedings against Cameron, and that she would not have decided to prosecute Ms. Cameron if [she] did not believe there was probable cause to believe that [Cameron] had committed a crime. [3] J.A. 272.
Appellants also called Peterson, primarily to refute Ramos and Rivera's testimony concerning Ms. Cameron's allegedly disheveled appearance and strange behavior. Appellants' Br. 42. On cross, Appellees elicited testimony that, after speaking with Ramos and Rivera, Peterson thought that probable cause existed to arrest Cameron and had no reason to doubt the officers' account of the facts that day. J.A. 353. (Appellants did not object to this testimony.) He also testified that he saw the security camera photos [a] long time after the arrest, and said over objection that they did not change his opinion about the arrests. J.A. 359. Appellees also asked Peterson a second time if there was probable cause to arrest Cameron for the crimes she was charged with, but the District Court sustained Appellants' objection and the question went unanswered.