As it turned out, the Commonwealth had one more witness before resting its case in the matter of Commonwealth vs. Thomas Barrett. The afternoon session of the second day of this jury trial started off with testimony from a Lieutenant with the Chester County Sheriff's Office, who testified that he performed a records check on the defendant to verify if he had a valid permit to carry a firearm in Pennsylvania. He testified that a search of both county and state databases relating to firearms turned up negative. He also added that while Barrett did have a vaild firearm permit from Arizona, he did not have a valid permit in Pennsylvania; the reason given during testimony was that Arizona does not have a reciprical agreement with Pennsylvania regarding the honoring of firearms permits.
After the Commonwealth rested its case, two stipulations were read to the jury. The first was that both sides agreed to the PSP Lima Regional Lab reports that indicated the suspected controlled substances contained 3.7 grams of cocaine and 4 grams of marijuana. The second stipulation related to the DUI charges, in which both sides stipulated that the test results of the blood work inidcated (1) that the defendant recently used both marijuana and cocaine, (2) that both substances in the defendant's system combined to cause an impairment in his motor skills, and (3) that the defendant was unfit to operate a motor vehicle.
The defense's first witness was Sgt. Douglas O'Connor of PSP Embreeville barracks, who is the Mobile Video Recorder (MVR) custodian for the station. He testified that as of April 2006, all marked PSP patrol cars assigned to the Embreeville barracks were equipped with MVR, and that all but three of the units were "hot wired", meaning the system would've been activated once the ignition was turned on, including the car used by the troopers during the traffic stop at the center of the case. He had testified that there was no record of any MVR problems with that particular car on the night of the traffic stop and that at the time there was no specific directives regarding notification of maintenance issues with MVR's. Sgt. O'Connor also testified that there had been some mechanicial issues with the newer MVRs that were recently installed, including less than favorable audio quality with the wireless microphones and problems with at least 30 to 40 hard drives over the past year or so. He also pointed out that when properly functioning, the hard drives could save recorded incidents for up to 60 days.
Under cross-examination, however, Sgt. O'Connor noted that the defense had not made a request for a video copy of the traffic stop.
Emily Micco, the defendant's sister, was the next defense witness. She had testified that early in 2006, she had noticed that Barrett was disinterested in family functions and had started to lose weight. He had spent a month at a rehab center in Berks County and had seemed to pull himself together after he left the rehab center. However, in the time leading up to his arrest, he had missed a family barbeque and had not been doing well that week. It was apparent to her that he was using cocaine, she testified. She had also pointed out that the tinted windows were installed in the car after she sold the car to the defendant about 3 to 4 years ago. Under a brief cross-examination, she noted that the defendant did admit to her that he had been using cocaine at the time, but he had never discussed any marijuana use with her.
Finally, the defendant took the stand to wrap up the defense's case. During his testimony, Barrett admitted at the time of his arrest, he was "actively addicted" to cocaine and that since his arrest he had been clean and sober, attributing his sobriety to his attending NA and AA meetings. He did admit to owning the firearm in question and had purchased and properly licensed when living in Arizona while attending college.
On the day in question, April 30, 2006, Barrett testified that he had went to a shooting range in Delaware County earlier in the day after attending to some business with a client regarding a graphic design contract. When he left the shooting gallery, Barrett then went to the Thirsty Camel Saloon in West Goshen, and bought two baggies of cocaine and one bag of marijuana for $130.00. He then went into West Chester to visit a friend who was in the process of moving from his apartment. He admitted that he was using cocaine and smoking some marijuana over the course of the day.
When he left the friend's house, Barrett said that he was given a marijuana "bud" from his friend and stuck it in his pants pocket; he had the rest of his drugs in a sunglass case which he then placed in the center console of his car. He had then got into his car and drove to his parent's house in West Goshen. As he turned right onto Hannum Avenue off of Wayne Street, he observed the PSP cruiser heading eastbound; he had noticed the car in his rear view mirror because it's arrow-stick lightbar was activated. At that point, the troopers pulled him over.
Barrett admitted that he was "not in the best of shape at the time" of the traffic stop. He had testified that after Tpr. Cessna had informed him that his license was suspended, Barrett said he had presented a letter from PennDOT indicated that his license had been restored as of March 22, 2006. He had, however, testified that Tpr. Cessna could not have possibly seen the gun in the way the trooper had testified it was displayed, based on pictures that he and his defense counsel had taken earlier this week.
Despite Tpr. Cessna's testimony that he claimed that Barrett was delivering the drugs for a friend in Downingtown, the defendant insisted that the cocaine and marijuana was for his personal use and that he was planning to binge on the drugs that night.
During cross examination, Barrett had disputed Tpr. Cessna's version of the pat-down search, in which the trooper claimed that the defendant had pulled the marijuana bag out of his pocket; Barrett testified that the trooper reached into his pant pocket and pulled the suspected drugs out of his pocket. He further admitted that his drug use that night had affected his perception compared to his demeanor in court today. The Commonwealth continued to dispute Barrett's claims about the positioning of the weapon. The cross examination wrapped up when he admitted that he had put the marijuana bag he had gotten from his friend as opposed to putting it with the rest of his drug stash because he "didn't give it a second thought."
After a brief re-direct with no follow up from the Commonwealth, the defense rested it's case. Court then recessed for the day, with closing arguements scheduled to begin at 10:00, and jury instructions to be given about an hour later. Deliberations should start sometime around noon tomorrow. (Note: I will be at 15-1-04 for the weekly Criminal Day, so I will probably miss the morning session; if a verdict is returned tomorrow afternoon, I'll make every effort to post it here.)
Barring last minute changes from the Commonweatlh, Barrett faces the following counts:
Firearms Not to be Carried Without A License
Possession With Intent to Distribute
Possession of a Controlled Substance (cocaine)
Possession of Marijuana
Driving Under the Influence/1st offense (filed under four separate categories - Substantially Imparied Ability (generic charge), Generally Impaired or Incapable of Driving Safely, Controlled Substance/Schedule II or III, Controlled Substance/Metabolite)
Careless Driving
Driving While Operating Privileges Suspended/Revoked
Improper Sunscreening (tinting)
Based on the past two days, the one charge where Barrett seems most likely to be acquitted of is the Possession with Intent to Distribute. His version of why he had the drugs in his possession appeared far more credible than the Commonwealth's initial version as filed in the criminal complaint. The general possession charges and the weapons charge seems to hinge on whether or not the jury believes that the trooper's search was proper. There had been some previous attempts to supress this evidence at earlier hearings, however Judge Riley rejected the defense's motions. The DUI charge seems a little stronger, since both sides have stipulated to the drug testing results from the hospital on the night of the traffic stop.
All I can say is that the defendant's family is probably going to endure more stress tomorrow than on any other day in their collective lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment