Opinion ID: 1269987
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cox's Trial

Text: Cox's jury trial began on November 5, 2007. The State presented the evidence obtained by the police crime scene investigators, the forensic analysis of this evidence, and the evidence recovered in the search of S.T.'s apartment. The State also presented Cox's statements to the police. The Blue & White taxi cab driver testified about picking up a woman and two men at the Brunswick Zone in the early morning on February 4, 2007. The driver said he was acquainted with the woman, S.T., but did not know either of the men. The passengers asked to be driven to S.T.'s apartment complex. Because of his concern that he would not be paid, the driver asked for payment of the fare in advance. One of the men became angry and said, [T]hat is why they be shooting the other cab driver then. S.T. paid the fare, and all three passengers were dropped off at S.T.'s apartment complex. Midway through the trial, the State moved to admit S.T.'s grand jury testimony as substantive evidence against Cox. The State advised the district court that it was making this request because S.T., who had been subpoenaed to testify, was afraid to testify as a result of threatening statements made to her. The court ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Cox had waived his right to confront S.T. The hearing was held in a closed courtroom and out of the presence of the jury. At the evidentiary hearing, the State introduced an audio tape from an October 27, 2007, telephone call made by Cox from the Hennepin County jail to R.J., the mother of Cox's child. During the conversation, Cox gave R.J. the address to S.T.'s apartment, and asked her to get directions to that address using MapQuest. At one point during the conversation, Cox said, You gotta f____k with . . . but did not finish his statement. Cox testified at the evidentiary hearing and stated that he asked R.J. to look up S.T.'s address because he did not trust his attorney. He said he suspected his attorney was lying to him about S.T.'s address, and specifically, about her availability to testify. Two days after receiving Cox's call, R.J. and Cox's mother visited Cox at the jail. Jail records confirm the visit, but there is no evidence regarding what was said during the visit. S.T. also testified at the evidentiary hearing. According to S.T., at some point after testifying before the grand jury, she moved to a new address. The State subsequently provided S.T.'s new address to Cox's attorney. S.T. testified that on October 25, 2007, she received a letter from Cox at her new address, instructing her to call someone. S.T. stated that she did not feel threatened by the letter. Two days after receiving the letter, S.T. said that she was approached by R.J. and Cox's mother in the parking lot of her new residence. S.T. testified that both R.J. and Cox's mother were in tears and that Cox's mother told her that Cox was not going to be able to do the time. She said they were basically asking me not to testify. S.T. also recalled R.J. saying that Cox cannot be without his kids, and, He's not about to do this time. According to S.T., Cox's mother said that she would do whatever she had to do. S.T. testified that R.J. and Cox's mother stood about 5 feet away from her during the conversation. During the hearing, Cox's attorney and the State provided statements from R.J. and Cox's mother in which both women denied ever visiting S.T. at her home. S.T. told the district court that following this visit, she was concerned for her safety and the safety of her child, and that she believed testifying at Cox's trial would put her in danger. The court asked S.T. whether she took anything said by R.J. or Cox's mother as a threat, and S.T. responded that [i]t's not justyou can simply ask somebody something like that, but to actually come to somebody's house and tell that somebody is not about to do it, is a threat to me. S.T. added: So by telling me he's not about to do this time, it's basically telling me that with or without you he is not about to do this time. So you have a choice, and if I don't make the right choice, then they not coming out saying what the possibility of something happening, but that's just how I took it. The district court then discussed with S.T. the possibility of holding her in contempt if she did not testify, including the potential of S.T. going to jail. S.T. responded, It's not my thing that I just don't feel [like] testifying. It's really a simple fact that I don't feel safe testifying. S.T. also stated that the encounter with R.J. and Cox's mother was the only reason she did not want to testify. At the end of the State's direct examination of S.T., the State asked S.T., If the judge says today that he wants you to testify in front of this jury, will you testify? S.T. responded, I don't want to. The State then said to S.T., I know you don't want to. If the court ordered you to, would you testify or would you not? S.T. responded, I don't know. Following the hearing, the district court issued a written order granting the State's motion to introduce S.T.'s grand jury testimony and released S.T. from the subpoena to testify at Cox's trial. The court determined that the State had proved that Cox forfeited his confrontation rights and that S.T.'s grand jury testimony was admissible under the catch-all hearsay exception, see Minn. R. Evid. 807. In its findings of fact, the court characterized S.T.'s disposition as extreme reluctance . . . to testify. The court found that even though there was never an explicit threat to her, [S.T.] was clearly distressed by the situation and appeared to be legitimately in fear. The court also noted that S.T. would likely not testify before a jury because she fears that, in the event she testified at the trial of Defendant, either she and/or her child will be harmed. Although the court recognized that there is a possibility that [S.T.] would appear and be somewhat responsive to questions, the court found that [S.T.] would be very reluctant to testify on any point, and likely less than forthcoming in the knowledge of the events of the weekend of February 3-5, 2007. In its order, the district court declared S.T. unavailable to testify as a practical and legal matter. Further, the court found S.T.'s grand jury testimony credible and concluded that Cox had engaged in wrongful conductsingl[ing] out [S.T.]. . . specifically because of her importance as a witness against himthat was the proximate cause of [S.T.'s] unavailability at trial.