Wednesday
Aug262009
Testimony of victims due when Dunbar Village juries reconvene
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 12:01PM The Blogmother
C.B. Hanif for WAOD:
Avion Lawson's Walker's testimony concluded with Robert Gershman, attorney for Nathan Walker, trying to establish, as he told this reporter, that all his client had "was a blow job."
Walker replied "Correct," to a series of quick questions to the effect that Nathan never kidnapped, or inserted his penis in, or stuck a gun in anus of, or used a condom with, or had a condom, or hit mother, or son, correct?
"In fact, the only gun associated with Nathan is the one (co-defendant Tommy Poindexter) pointed at Nathan, correct?"
"Correct."
On redirect examination, Assistant State's Attorney Aleathea McRoberts added:
"You never did much of what Mr. Gershman said either, did you?"
"No ma'am."
Gersham, said later, explaining is strategy, "I simply didn't ask about the oral sex" that Lawson yesterday testified Walker and several others forced the victim to perform.
The state hopes Lawson's testimony, the first by any of the participants, helps convict the two co-defendants in this first trial in the heinous attack on the mother and her son two years ago.
Lawson hopes his testimony yields him less than a life sentence on the 14 counts to which he pleaded guilty in agreeing to testify.
The end of his testimony earned the Walker jury an early lunch, before they and Poindexter's jury return to hear testimony from the victims.
Asked about it, Gershman said: "I don't think the mother's testimony will good for her, for the defense. Although she can't identify anyone, listening to the incident I think will be negative."
Before the break, Gershman also provided case law that he hopes will convince Circuit Court Judge Krista Marx to let him introduce evidence aimed at challenging the mother's credibility.
Among the defense witnesses, he plans to call the mother's boyfriend.
Poindexter's attorney, Public Defender Carey Haughwout, also is expected to call defense witnesses at some point.
Please Donate
Our Dunbar Village reporting is supported by the generous contributions of WAOD readers. If you would like to support this original reporting by CB Hanif, then you can make a donation by clicking on the CHip-in Widget in the sidebar to the right or by clicking this link.
Avion Lawson's Walker's testimony concluded with Robert Gershman, attorney for Nathan Walker, trying to establish, as he told this reporter, that all his client had "was a blow job."
Walker replied "Correct," to a series of quick questions to the effect that Nathan never kidnapped, or inserted his penis in, or stuck a gun in anus of, or used a condom with, or had a condom, or hit mother, or son, correct?
"In fact, the only gun associated with Nathan is the one (co-defendant Tommy Poindexter) pointed at Nathan, correct?"
"Correct."
On redirect examination, Assistant State's Attorney Aleathea McRoberts added:
"You never did much of what Mr. Gershman said either, did you?"
"No ma'am."
Gersham, said later, explaining is strategy, "I simply didn't ask about the oral sex" that Lawson yesterday testified Walker and several others forced the victim to perform.
The state hopes Lawson's testimony, the first by any of the participants, helps convict the two co-defendants in this first trial in the heinous attack on the mother and her son two years ago.
Lawson hopes his testimony yields him less than a life sentence on the 14 counts to which he pleaded guilty in agreeing to testify.
The end of his testimony earned the Walker jury an early lunch, before they and Poindexter's jury return to hear testimony from the victims.
Asked about it, Gershman said: "I don't think the mother's testimony will good for her, for the defense. Although she can't identify anyone, listening to the incident I think will be negative."
Before the break, Gershman also provided case law that he hopes will convince Circuit Court Judge Krista Marx to let him introduce evidence aimed at challenging the mother's credibility.
Among the defense witnesses, he plans to call the mother's boyfriend.
Poindexter's attorney, Public Defender Carey Haughwout, also is expected to call defense witnesses at some point.
Please Donate
Our Dunbar Village reporting is supported by the generous contributions of WAOD readers. If you would like to support this original reporting by CB Hanif, then you can make a donation by clicking on the CHip-in Widget in the sidebar to the right or by clicking this link.
Don't forget to like our Facebook Page. We shut down our NING network. My book More Than Words is now available for download for $3.99 | 25 Comments | Share Article
25 Comments | Share Article
Reader Comments (25)
Just so I get all the names correct, in the first sentence, Avion's last name is Lawson, correct? Nathan (or Nathaniel) Walker and Tommy Poindexter, is that correct?
As I said before, though one or both victims did not actually see the attackers, if they can remember certain words, phrases, a young male voice said this or that, will that not still be helpful to helping to identify who said what, who was actually present? If the victims can remember what they were ordered to do at gunpoint, at threat of death, will that still be helpful, over and beyond the horrorific nature of these crimes? And if they can remember who many different voices they heard over the course of the attack, is that at all helpful? It's sad they will have to recite the details, but I hope they remember enough to help convict these "brothers." Especially the son, who I heard on a tv news report is, as can be expected, really still having a difficult time, even with counseling. :( :(
Attempting to discredit the victims is a common tactic to break down the victim's testimony/will or even prevent them from giving a complete testimony.
I hope the mind games backfire and all the evidence puts these DBR brothers in lockup so they can experience coerced sexual violence up close and personal....
Discrediting a witness in a rape case is a tricky proposition. In a date rape case, it can work for the defense. In a crime like this one, not a great idea. The facts on this case are the nightmare rape scenario that everyone thinks about when you say the word rape. Guns, multiple attackers, a home invasion. And that doesn't even get to the forced involvement of the victim's child. The defense lawyers better be pretty damn sure they want to go after this victim. If they beat up on the woman, and she ends up looking re-victimized, it can really disturb the jury. They can irritate the jury into a quick convicition.
(From a former criminal defense lawyer)
The mother is now on the stand:
"All of them were laughing," she said.
"I was crying and praying at the same time," she said, adding that some assaulted her as many as three times."
"The men asked her for a lighter to set her on fire, she said, and she lied, saying she had none."
"They didn't see it. Thanks God," she said.
"Both of the defendants, who had wached the woman testify earlier, now have their eyes turned to the floor."
Can this get any worse? I'm done. :( :( :(
Challenge the mother’s credibility?
Did I miss something?
Why is her credibility an issue?
AroundHarlem: I think one of the defense attorneys is trying to claim the mother is untrustworthy because (he says) she claimed on her Housing Authority application papers that she had no money while she had received a $50,000 settlement in a slip and fall claim, and (2) she supposedly got a $1 million settlement from the Housing Authority (although since this would have been after the rape/attack I don't see how this could challenge her credibility even if it were true). Another defense attorney claims there was some prior improper sexual relationship between the mother and son (yeah, right). This all seems like the usual defense attorney tactics - throw lots of crap at the jury to try to plant seeds of doubt in their minds even if none of it is true or can be proven. The judge has so far been refusing to allow the defense attorneys to introduce any of this testimony to impugn the mother's credibility. And even if any of these defense claims were true, none of these claims can challenge the son's credibility, and he will presumably give the same testimony that his mother did.
From my point of view, if she stole a million dollars and slept with her son every night, that has nothing to do with the crime that was committed.
@aroundharlem.com, regarding your last comment, I totally agree.
Don't believe its, you aren't gonna get 1 million from the Housing Authority and be able hide it, they verify income.
I don't think degree of guilt should matter in this case, who forced what act on whom and how many times. How can anyone expect victims to keep track of such detail?
I have been involved in very, very minor trauma and know how the mind works to fade memory and blur detail. It is part of our survival mechanism.
All of these (boys? men? not sure what to call them as they are not recognizable as human to me) should be charged and sentenced equally. They acted together as one to achieve the same result. None protested, none resisted or refused.
Quote from article: "all his client had “was a blow job.”
WTH? Let's pretend that's even true...ALL HE HAD WAS A BLOW JOB!!! Is this real? This is presented as no biggie.
This is outrageous. He shouldn't have been there in the first place.
For purposes of establishing rape, a coerced "blowjob" is still sexual conduct which gets you convicted. That's a very stupid defense lawyer, if s/he thinks somehow that's a distinction.
If the defense is trying to damage the vicim's credibility with financial misconduct, they are trying to hang their hat on the idea that the jury will hold it against the victim and it will lessen the defendant's action against her. Frankly, I don't see it. The defendant's could be pushing their attorneys to present it, but in the end, it's not going to change the level of their misconduct.
You go against the victim when there's a question of consent or malice on her part. Again, this is an ugly, gang rape with weapons. That dog ain't gon' hunt.
Ive had bad cases where there wasn't a good defense, but this one is scrapping the bottom of the barrel for one.
@ TaharkahX - Quote: "This is outrageous. He shouldn’t have been there in the first place."
I know, right!!!
Two years later, I'm still shocked that none of the gang rapists said, "Let's stop, this is a bad idea" or decided not to participate and left. As mentioned before, this was probably not these rapists' first crime. This is so sad.
That whole million dollar settlement thing harkens back to the Welfare Queen stereotype of the 80's. What person in their correct or incorrect mind would be a millionaire and live in the projects? How could you hide those kinds of assets from the housing authority?
BTW, Andrea I totally agree: [They] should be charged and sentenced equally. They acted together as one to achieve the same result. None protested, none resisted or refused.
Quote: "That whole million dollar settlement thing harkens back to the Welfare Queen stereotype of the 80’s."
My thing is...even if that was true AND I don't think it is...how does this change what they did to her and her son.
I mean even if she did win some kind of settlement...it doesn't change one thing in my mind about these individuals.
She may have received a million dollar settlement from the housing authority as part of an agreement not to sue them after the rape occurred. I read an article where they said before this attack the crime rate was very high in Dunbar Village. After the attack they housing authority made some changes, increased security, etc. and the crime rates went down. The housing authority may have been partially responsible for this attack occurring, so perhaps they reached some type of settlement with the victim?
A million dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to what was done to this woman and her child. They’ll need that money for a lifetime of rehabilitation and counseling.
Partially Responsible? COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE! THey knew crime was out of control. Had money for camera and didn't install them. Let violent criminals and those harboring them lounge around. Built an unnecessary city hall, despite protests from voters. Hired an incompetent housing authority director who reportedly was fired from a previous position. They are lucky they got off with 1 million dollars.
I basically agree with Khia213.
I'm surprised that the defense attorneys are taking this approach---I think that what they're doing is an extremely bad strategy for this kind of case. I wonder if their clients are pushing them to take this approach.
I think it would be better for them to approach this from the standpoint of cross-examining and arguing that the victims' testimony is mistaken as opposed to dishonest.
It sounds better to argue that (under the terror and stress of a horrific attack ) a victim could and did confuse/mistake which attackers did which particular grisly detail.
Or that as a result of this terror and stress, the victim was completely mistaken in identifying the client as one of attackers (if there's no DNA).
Or in a really bottom of the barrel defense, arguing that the client came to the crime scene and masturbated after the other defendants had finished committing the attack. Ehhh.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Quote: "Let violent criminals and those harboring them lounge around"
I think this is key...criminals living with grandma, momma, and baby momma. Perhaps, we need to start locking up the harborers.
I was disturbed by Avion Lawson saying on the stand to the question "why did you do it?"..."I don't know I wasn't in my right mind".
This was at best a cop out and at worse staged and prepared by the defense as a possible excuse for the rest of them.
And stop all this talk of locking up the parants for being bad parants and mass sterization pograms of the poor. That the kind reactionary stuff the right-wing republicans would love to exploit.
Quote: "And stop all this talk of locking up the parants for being bad parants"
No, I don't think I will. I think parents used to have a vested interest in raising children who weren't menaces to the society at large. I'm not trying to lock you up for your 30 year old selling drugs in another state, but now the one selling drugs out of your house....I don't know.
For the repeat offender living under your roof, so he gets to live in close proximity with me and my kids...that's getting a bit iffy for me right now. Maybe you're harboring a criminal and you know it. Maybe that's how your bills are being paid, and you're quietly giving approval by turning a blind eye.
I'm not even talking about incarcerating a parent, whose child goes off the deep end and commits a horrible crime. But, let's say a parent who has an open door policy, who knows their child is out wrecking havoc every night and every where they go, because their neighbors, teachers, and police officers have told them so.
Parenting ain't easy. Most of us are doing it right now. It's tough. There are things I won't catch my children doing. They'll lie to me and do sneaky things. But, I can stand in front of that door at night and dare you leave my house at a certain hour. Dusk, buddy.
If these "children" are in school during the day AND in their own homes at night, they're getting into less mischief. A lot of this roving and rioting happens at night. AND, if I can't control your access to the street, you need to leave. That's what my parents told me, that's what I tell mine. I don't care who gets to roam around with no purpose. I need to know where you are and what you're doing as often as I can. And, if I can't know, you can't go.
It "ain't" a perfect system, but it's one of the few tools that actually works. It may not always work...but doing nothing never works.
As for Avion...he did it, because he knew he could.