Interesting Evidentiary Issue in Manasquan Murder Trial

Posted on April 13, 2009 by Travis Tormey

There is currently a murder case being litigated before the Honorable Ira E. Kreizman in the Monmouth County Superior Court. The Defendant, Alan J. Stoedter, is charged with murdering his wife, Donna Stoedter, on December 14, 2005.

Judge Kreizman has yet to rule on whether a videotaped statement made by the Defendant on the day of the murder is admissible in his upcoming murder trial. Ordinarily these statements would be admissible under one of the exceptions to the hearsay doctrine known as statements against interest or admissions of the Defendant. Essentially, the Defendant makes statements on the tape which give him a motive for killing his wife. He made statements such as "[i]f I was 17 years older than my wife, and she lost 100 pounds, and she's training with some guy, I'd be worried,'' and "[t]o say that I never had a concern would be a lie, but to say I got to the point where I was jealous or thought about following her around... that occurred a couple of times." If the judge allows the video into evidence, it will be shown to the jury at trial.

However, the defense is moving to suppress the video because the video quality is not good and and some of the statements on the tape are inaudible. Further, the tape is filled with static from radio transmissions at Wall Police Headquarters. For additional information, please see "No Ruling Yet on Video Statement in Manasquan Murder Trial".

It will be interesting to see how Judge Kreizman rules on this issue. I have not seen or heard the tape but my gut instinct tells me that the tape will be allowed and the jury will see it. This is essential to the State's case in order to show motive for the murder.

Tags: , ,

The system makes mistakes: Eyewitness Identifications and DNA Evidence

Posted on March 9, 2009 by Travis Tormey

I watched an interesting story on "60 Minutes" last night concerning eyewitness identifications and the reliability of this evidence. Since the inception of DNA evidence, more than 220 criminal defendants in the United States have been exonerated because their DNA shows that they were not the individual that committed the crime for which they were convicted. More than 75% of these false convictions were based on faulty eyewitness identifications.

An eyewitness identification is considered essential evidence at trial. First, the victim or third person was present at the scene and is able to identify the individual that they believe committed the crime. Second, these witnesses (most times) have no reason to lie so the jury considers these identifications very persuasive. However, history and science has proven that these eyewitness ID's are not always reliable.

The biggest problem has arisen when the witness is shown a photo array or a lineup in which the actual perpetrator is not included. Many times the witness identifies someone who looks similar to the actual perpetrator and then their mind convinces them that this new individual was actually the person that committed the crime. To start, as human beings we always like to be right and we typically rely on our first instict. As a result, in the witnesses mind, they actually see this new individual's face as the person who committed the crime rather than the actual perpetrator. In fact, even when DNA evidence exonerates the innocent person, the witness or victim has a hard time believing that they were wrong. Further, the witness or victim should be able to identify the actual perpetrator right away in the photo array or lineup. If they have to take more than a minute and even several minutes to examine each individual then there is a very good chance that the actual perpetrator of the crime is not included in the lineup or photo array.

Therefore, it is important to consider eyewitness identifications along with all the other evidence before determining, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged. If there is other evidence such as a weapon or other circumstantial evidence to support the eyewitness ID, then there is an extremely solid case against the defendant. However, if the case relies solely on an eyewitness ID and there is little other evidence to support a conviction, the jury must remember that these eyewitness ID's are not infallible and that these human beings do make mistakes. It is a real shame when a person loses years of their life in prison for a crime they did not commit. We shouldn't have to rely on DNA evidence down the road to exonerate them.

Tags: , , ,

Interesting Exception to the Hearsay Rule

Posted on January 16, 2009 by Travis Tormey

     I found an interesting article in the Asbury Park Press which concerns the hearsay doctrine. A 27 year old Hazlet woman is currently on trial for murder at the Monmouth County Superior Court. Judge Anthony Mellaci ruled that prosecutors will be able to confront the Defendant with a prior statement in which she denied being at the scene of the crime. The reason for this is an exception to the hearsay doctrine known as "prior inconsistent statements".

     Let me give you a brief explanation of the hearsay rule. The definition of hearsay is a previously made statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. If you are offering the previously made statement for the purpose of proving that the statement is true, this is classic hearsay and should not be permitted. For example, the prosecutors could not ask the Defendant, in this case, "On [date], didn't you say that you weren't at the scene of the crime?". The reason for this is they are asking her about a prior statement in order to prove that she wasn't at the scene of the crime when the murder took place. That is the definition of hearsay. However, in this case, the prosecutors are not offering the statement to prove that she wasn't at the scene of the crime. They are offering the statement because she first told detectives that she wasn't at the scene of the crime when the murder took place and now, in her attorney's opening statement, he said that she was in the apartment when the murders took place but that she wasn't involved. As a result, if the Defendant takes the stand and testifies that she was at the scene of the crime at the time of the killing but she wasn't involved in the murder, the prosecutors will be permitted to offer her prior statement that she wasn't at the scene of the crime. This is known as a prior inconsistent statement and is an exception to the hearsay doctrine. For the entire article on this Monmouth County Murder Trial, see the Asbury Park press website.

     Thanks to Denis McLaughlin, professor at Seton Hall University School of Law, for being the best evidence professor in history and teaching me the intricacies of evidence and the hearsay rule. You wouldn't believe how many attorneys do not understand the Rules of Evidence and this proves to be a great advantage for myself and my classmates when doing trial work.

Tags: , ,