Opinion ID: 2006639
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: ) The Defense Strategy

Text: Despite knowledge that the People were prohibited from eliciting the chronology of the confession or defendant's demands to have his family released, and despite the trial court's repeated warning that the preclusion order would be revisited based on what ensued at trial, the defense opened with its own theory explaining the Matos statement: that defendant was motivated to confess in an obvious and elaborate ritual to cover for his wife. In the opening, defense counsel told the jury that defendant's statement was nothing less than Mr. Mateo taking everything his wife did onto his shoulders. Disregarding his own earlier assurance that he would not exploit the time gaps, counsel also urged the jurors to pay close attention to the circumstances and chronology of the statements. Through the cross-examination of police witnesses, defendant's strategy emerged. Questions about the extent of his leg injury, the timing of events in the interrogation and his concern for his family (which the People had been barred from explaining) began painting a picture that defendant, in significant pain throughout a very protracted nighttime interrogation, confessed to Matos' murder in an unreliable manner. By contrast Sheridan, the People's main witness on the Matos murder, testified in the truncated fashion directed by the pretrial order. Sheridan testified that defendant first admitted to shooting Matos himself, then changed his story and claimed Monica did it, then went back and forth several times, and even claimed that Monica did it, but he would take the blame because he was a king and wanted the death penalty. After these various oral admissions, defendant again asserted in his written statement that he pulled the trigger. By contrast, he never wavered from his assertions that he decided to execute Matos and that Monica was following his orders. Sheridan also explained that after he completed taking the Matos statements, his partner Sergeant Gropp took defendant's written statements about Avenue D. When the People finished their direct examination of Sheridan, the defense sought rulings from the trial court about eight areas of cross-examination of the investigator concerning: 1) the time gaps in the interrogation, 2) alleged promises that defendant's family would be released, 3) alleged promises that police would reduce Victor's charges, 4) alleged promises about Monica's charges, 5) defendant's concern for his family's safety, 6) the substance of what defendant learned about Monica's statements, 7) the substance of defendant's taped telephone call to his mother (in which he said he took four bodies), and 8) defendant's physical condition during the interrogation. The trial court advised defense counsel that, in light of this plan of attack: I think that the redactions that have been agreed to up to this point by the People on the direct would not continue through the cross-examination. If I'm going to be telling the jury that in evaluating the testimony of Investigator Sheridan concerning the statement attributed to the defendant, one of the things I'd be telling them is they should be looking at the totality of the circumstances, everything that happened. And in this case, . . . the picture is a picture of a defendant who is attempting to take control of the interview process and asserting very vigorously conditions that he requires as conditions precedent to his talking to the officers from the moment of calling Investigator Sennett and telling him to get somebody in there to talk to him, setting conditions for his family's release, setting conditions for what charges would be placed against his family, specifically Victor Cordero. The court agreed to allow defense counsel to ask general questions about the time gaps and defendant's injury, but again warned that if counsel strayed into the areas of voluntariness and reliability, then the door would open to the entire confession. Defendant's demands for the release of his family, the court determined, were ongoing negotiations and their unveiling would open the door to the People's rebuttal. Defense counsel could ask general questions about Victor's role at Avenue D, but any questions about negotiations about either Victor's or Monica's charges would open the door to rebuttal. Indeed, the court reminded defense counsel that Monica had told investigators that defendant was responsible for several other bodies. Inquiry about defendant's meetings with Victor and Monica, the court concluded, would also require explaining defendant's motivation for making admissions, and the jury would then need to consider the full circumstances of the confession to evaluate voluntariness and reliability. [24] The court again warned that if defense counsel was not careful, the doors could fling open. On cross-examination, defense counsel quickly returned to the themes of the time gaps and defendant's injury, reiterating that the interview began at 5:45 P.M., that a meeting with Victor took place at 8:00 P.M., and a second meeting with him was much, much later, and that defendant was limping. Cross-examination was then interrupted because defendant developed the flu. When the trial resumed, defense counsel asked for three more rulings. Specifically, counsel asked if he could cross-examine the investigator about: 1) defendant's meeting with Monica, 2) defendant's second meeting with Victor and 3) the phone call. The court repeated that the phone call was still off limits because of its reference to four bodies, but determined that the defense could ask generally about the meeting with Monica, although not its substance. The defense withdrew the request to ask about the second meeting with Victor, because during that conversation, defendant told Victor that he would take the rap for these murders. Yet immediately after those rulings, defense counsel asked Sheridan about the second meeting with Victor, and whether defendant had confided that this stemmed from his personal relationship with Janette and Monica; is that correct? Was there anything of that nature discussed? The investigator answered, I don't believe so. The defense also questioned Sheridan whether the written Matos statement was typed out in a single session or whether there was a break before it was finished. Counsel persisted, asking, But the narrative was done and then you asked him is there anything else you want to say? And then he added a final sentence or two? The investigator responded, Yes. That's it. Defense counsel additionally established that defendant added a second, handwritten addendum to that statement at approximately 2:00 A.M., more than eight hours after the interrogation began. He further elicited that defendant expressed concern for his family members throughout the interrogation. Defense counsel completed cross-examination and offered to withdraw his request for a voluntariness instruction after the People argued that any such request would open up the questioning of Investigator Sheridan to the entire contents of the interview on redirect. The court asked defense counsel for clarification, noting that it had: some concerns about the questions that have been asked up to this point about the physical condition of the defendant, because it's not asked presumably just to be out there. It's asked to perhaps give the impression to the jury that Mr. Mateo was under such a physical disability because of the wound to his leg that he spoke with the officers. And certainly the time of the interview is left hanging here. The time of the statement being signed. And all that that [sic] goes to it. I think we're asking the jury to speculate. Defense counsel claimed that he had assiduously avoided reference to physical condition in my cross-examination of Sheridan. The court, however, pointed out that [e]verybody that had a passing view of your client was asked if he was limping or seemed to be bothered by a wounded leg. Defense counsel then promised not to get into the classic voluntariness issues. As for a truthfulness charge, the court observed: This issue about truthfulness of the statement, reliability of the statement, any issue that could be phrased to the jury as asking them to, members of the jury, try to read between the lines about what's going on here, those are issues that I'm very concerned about, and I guess I want to alert all of you to that. If the defense is really withdrawing this and that these issues are not going to be asked of Investigator Sheridan or any other officer, then I would expect they not be referenced either. Is that clear to everybody? [THE PEOPLE]: Yes, Your Honor. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor. On redirect, the prosecutor posed a few questions about defendant ordering Monica and Victor to follow his commands, and about the decision to kill Matos. On re-cross, defense counsel asked about defendant's assertion that he was going to take the []rap for this or take the blame for this. Counsel asked whether Sheridan pressed him on the matter and finally, asked whether defendant stated it was because he wanted [the] death penalty. The prosecutor objected on the ground that the questions were beyond the scope of the redirect. The court asked counsel to approach, and after a 15-minute recess in which it reviewed Sheridan's report on the interrogation, observed: I think all of this goes to truthfulness of the statement and negotiations on the statement. If you are going to be arguing that to the jury, on the issue of whether the statement itself is truthful and the motivation for changes, this is what it's about it seems to me. It is so interwoven, at least the setting of this police report, the way that it's couched in this police report, it starts out from the moment the rights are read that Mr. Mateo is setting the agenda for how the statement is going to be taken, under what conditions, and even what subjects are going to be covered. I can understand, based on what your defense is  and I guess this is one of the things that we all talked about at various stages in the case  that we wouldn't know until we were here completely what tenor the case would take. I understand also why you haven't, up to this point, up to the requests for the charge, really indicated what it was that you were going to be saying at the trial, but now we are here and if there is an issue about the truthfulness of the statement and the motivation for the defendant to give the various versions that have been described by the witness, then I think it all comes in, the entire testimony about the other homicides, the contacts with the family, the belief that others may have been informing on him, I think that all comes in. To say that it doesn't, I think, again, asks the jury to determine the truthfulness of the statement without knowing what all the circumstances surrounding the taking of the statement were. The court concluded that defendant's motivation for making the written statement involved other criminal acts that he faced and was interwoven with his desire to see that members of his family were released from police custody. [25] Aware of the potential prejudice to defendant, the court acknowledged that it would: inform the jury that the information concerning other homicides is not offered as an indication that the defendant committed this homicide for which he is charged or any of the crimes for which he is charged, but it's offered on the issue of the truthfulness of the statement and what motivation, if any, Mr. Mateo may have had to alter his description of the events. Sheridan then testified concerning defendant's full confession, followed by an instruction warning the jury that the testimony was admitted for a very limited purpose. The trial judge explained that the statements about other homicides were not to be considered as any indication of defendant's propensity for committing crimes. Rather, the court charged, the jury should consider the probability or improbability of the Matos statements and what motivation, if any, defendant had to make them, and should reflect on the interrogation as a whole to assess the truthfulness of the Matos statements. In its final charge, the court repeated these instructions to the jury.