Opinion ID: 3065179
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: I personally interviewed [the victim] on more

Text: than one occasion. During the interviews, I was con14592 MCSHERRY v. CITY OF LONG BEACH vinced by her demeanor and language that she was describing what she remembered from her kidnap- ing, rather than from any coaching or outside influence. Based upon my experience with child victims of sexual assault, I further believed that her emotional state was such that it would have been virtually impossible for anyone to have coached her on what to say. 9. I personally interviewed . . ., [the victim’s] four year-old brother. There were no indications that anyone had coached him or otherwise inappropriately attempted to influence him. 10. I personally interviewed the adult witnesses, and clearly explained to them that they were to testify only to those things about which they had per- sonal knowledge, and not about anything they might have heard from other sources. Based upon my con- versations with the adult witnesses, I believed that they were recounting their personal experiences. 11. Based on my independent investigation, I con- cluded the photo lineups and the live lineups were not misleading or suggestive. I further concluded that the testimony of the witnesses was of their own recall, and not the result of influence by police officers. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 27, 2006, in Los Angeles, California. SIGNED Ken Lamb, Declarant MCSHERRY v. CITY OF LONG BEACH 14593 The prosecutor’s assertions that he personally made the decision to approve and to file a felony complaint against McSherry and to prosecute the case, and that he did so based solely upon his own independent investigation, were closely tested by McSherry’s counsel in lengthy depositions. We have scoured this record to uncover any facts or valid inferences uncovered in those depositions or elsewhere that materially undermine the credibility of Lamb’s assertions as to the independence of his judgment and have found none. It is not enough to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact simply to say, as McSherry has, “McSherry disputes Defendants’ factual premise that Lamb used independent judgment.” Summary judgment requires facts, not simply unsupported denials or rank speculation. Poppell, 149 F.3d at 954. McSherry’s statement of genuine issues in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment does no better. At most, the facts relied upon by McSherry take issue with the thoroughness of Lamb’s investigation, not the convincing evidence that it was entirely independent. Because this appeal is about the facts in the record, we array them in detail greater than our ordinary practice. For example, McSherry’s counsel asked Lamb, “[t]he circumstances of the original identification by [the victim] . . . as far as you know are based on what Turley said; isn’t that right?” Lamb’s answer was, “No, I interviewed [the victim] herself. I personally interviewed her.” Later, McSherry’s counsel pressed the same point, asking Lamb, “So what you know about that identification [of McSherry] is what has been related to you by Mr. Turley; correct?” Answer, “No, that’s not correct. I also know what’s been related to me [by the victim].” Lamb elaborated about the victim’s initial identification of McSherry in great detail: Q (by counsel for McSherry) And what was it that [the victim] said to you? 14594 MCSHERRY v. CITY OF LONG BEACH A (by Ken Lamb) Throughout various interviews? Q What do you remember about what she said to you? A That she referred to the individual who did these acts as “the stranger.” She was unable to recall sexual — a great deal about the sexual acts them- selves. She remembers going to a house, that in the bedroom there was a photograph of the stranger on the wall, that she was dropped off and went up to some other house, that — I think that would be her initial sort of description about what happened. Q Okay. Anything else that you remember? A At some point we talked about the photographic identification. Do you want me to go into that? Q Yeah. A Okay, I at some point — I don’t recall when — I explained to her that she’s not in any trouble, that no matter what she says, none of this is her fault. Kids frequently think that somehow when they get abused, when they get sexually assaulted, that they did something wrong, that it’s their fault. I told her you didn’t do anything wrong, it’s not your fault. I told her that whatever she said, that as long as it was the truth, it didn’t matter, she wasn’t going to get into any trouble. We would have had some conversation about — to make sure that she understood what it meant to tell the truth. In my mind — she was a child. When I interview kids, I rate them on a one to ten scale. On their ability to communicate her biggest problem was that she could communicate about portions of MCSHERRY v. CITY OF LONG BEACH 14595 things that had happened, but there were areas that she was totally blank on. The best example I can give of that is what I did in closing argument was I broke up a record album. You might be young enough that you don’t know a record album, but I broke it and I held up pieces. She was — it was like trying to put a record album back together. There were pieces that you could hear, but then there would be spots missing. She came across in that way. She was afraid. I told her that nothing was going to happen to her, that if she didn’t remember some- thing, it was okay. There were no wrong answers. We talked about — I tried to get some information about the stranger. She was really not very able to give information other than stranger. I asked her if she had seen photographs of which she said and that the stranger was one of them. I told her if she was guessing, that she didn’t have to guess. If there was nobody there, she could say that. There was no wrong answers. And she told me that she identified the stranger, that he was in a photographic line-up, that his picture had been on the wall in the house. I think that’s the extent of how the conversations would have gone. I don’t believe that they got — as we progressed through the conversations up to the trial, I don’t believe that they got much more in detail things.