Opinion ID: 848709
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: subsequent testimony regarding the bicycle accident

Text: The cousins testified again at the Ginther hearing, and their testimony at the Ginther hearing contradicted much of the testimony given previously at the hearing regarding the motion for a new trial. [4] The older cousin testified that the bicycle was like a unicycle and that it was not possible to ride it. Instead, people ran behind the bicycle holding the handlebars. Contrary to his testimony at the motion for a new trial, the older cousin testified,  But I didn't see her get hurt on the bike, though.  (Emphasis added.) He further testified, I didn't see the bike part hit her, but I knew where she was hurt at. He also testified that the older sister did not walk up the hill as he had previously testified, but instead that her mother and an aunt went down the hill and got her. The older cousin testified that the hill was over fifty feet long and that he was at the top of the hill at the time of the accident, not at the bottom of the hill as he had previously testified. He testified that he talked to his mother about the accident shortly after it happened, but later said he didn't remember whether he talked to her or not. Finally, he also testified that on the morning of the hearing he was talking with his mother and grandmother about how the jury screwed up. He stated: Q. Okay. You chatted with somebody this morning about this? A. Just about  well, rumor  well, what I heard about the jury and how they messed and that was about it this morning. Q. Your mom told you what this was all about? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. She told you why you were here? A. Um hm. Q. Yes? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And she told you what to say? A. No. Q. Okay. What did she tell you? A. She told us that we re going here to see if we can help Bill. [Emphasis added.] The younger cousin testified, contrary to his brother's testimony, that both he and defendant actually rode the bicycle the day of the accident. This testimony placed defendant at the scene of the injury and directly contradicted with the testimony of all of the defense witnesses at trial, who had testified that defendant was not at the scene when the older sister was injured. He testified that the bicycle had both a seat and pedals, again contrary to his brother's testimony. He testified that, contrary to his previous testimony, the older sister was riding the bicycle and not running behind it. He stated that he was at the top of the hill with his brother at the time of the accident, and that the older sister was injured by the handlebars on the bicycle, not by the pile of metal at the bottom of the hill as he had previously testified: Q. Okay. So [the older sister] didnt run into a pile of metal at the bottom of the hill? A. No. Q. That didnt happen? A. Right. That did not happen. Finally, when the younger cousin was questioned about the older sisters clothes, the following exchange took place: Q. [The older sister] was wearing clothes? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember if she had on long pants or short pants? A. She had on long pants. Q. Okay. A. And I only know that they were blue. I don't know if they were sweat pants or jeans. I have no idea. Q. What made you say that about sweat pants or jeans? A. Because she had a pair of sweat pants and she had a pair of jeans and I know they were both blue. Recall that, at the motion for a new trial, the younger cousin had insisted that the older sister was wearing sweat pants and not jeans, and that he knew the difference between the two. He was the only person to testify that the older sister was not wearing jeans. His spontaneous statement that he no longer knew if the older sister was wearing sweat pants or jeans prompted the following exchange: Q. Okay. Did your mom or anybody in your family talk to you about what you were going to testify to today? A. Only my mom. Q. Okay. What did your mom talk to you about? A. She said I was testifying to see if I could get Grant-Bill Grant out. Q. Get Bill Grant off? A. Um hm. [Emphasis added.] Thus, the boys' testimony gave no coherent explanation of whether they actually saw or remembered the alleged accident, how the alleged accident occurred, where the alleged accident occurred, or who was present when the alleged accident occurred. Given the numerous inconsistencies in the boys' testimony regarding the bicycle accident and the boys' testimony that they were trying to help defendant or get [defendant] out, the boys' testimony on retrial will be subject to impeachment. Given the inherent problems in using this testimony, it will be difficult on retrial to establish with any certainty any details surrounding the alleged bicycle accident.