updated 08/08/10
See also: Phillip
Baskerville Criminal Trial Deposition
See also: Phillip
Baskerville CFPD Report
See also: Phillip Baskerville
Civil Trial
(Page 354-402)
24 COURT: Mr. Wadding?
25 MR. WADDING: Thank you, Your Honor. The
355
1 state would call Phil Baskerville to the stand.
2 PHILLIP BASKERVILLE,
3 called as a witness on behalf of the state, being first
4 duly sworn by the court, was examined and testified as
5 follows:
6 COURT: Mr. Wadding?
7 DIRECT EXAMINATION
8 BY MR. WADDING:
9 Q. Would you state your full name and spell your
10 last for the record, please.
11 A. Phillip Baskerville, B-A-S-K-E-R-V-I-L-L-E.
12 Q. And your occupation, sir?
13 A. I'm a Black Hawk County deputy sheriff.
14 Q. And what do you do at the Black Hawk County
15 Sheriff's Department?
16 A. I'm a sergeant, which is a first line
17 supervisor assigned to the jail.
18 Q. And do you hold any other position with the
19 Black Hawk County Sheriff's Department?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. What is that?
22 A. I'm an accident investigator, accident
23 reconstructionist. In the event of a serious accident, I
24 get called in to -- to reconstruct the accident.
25 Q. How long have you been doing that?
356
1 A. I started going to specialized schools in
2 1986 and over the course of years developed the, through
3 different educational processes, the ability and the
4 recognition of an accident reconstructionist.
5 Q. And could you -- first of all, are you a
6 certified peace officer in the state of Iowa?
7 A. Yes. I graduated from the Iowa Law
8 Enforcement Academy in 1976.
9 Q. And could you describe your education and
10 training in the areas of accident reconstruction?
11 A. I have an associate of arts degree in police
12 science through Hawkeye, at that time, Institute of
13 Technology. Part of the curriculum there was accident
14 investigation through the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy.
15 There was accident investigation courses that were
16 taught. Again, in 1986 I started attending a series of
17 schools that totaled about 368 hours of classroom
18 education in accident investigation. Some of the schools
19 were advanced accident investigation, technical accident
20 investigation, accident reconstruction. I attended
21 Northwestern University on two different occasions
22 classes there. Arkansas State University, I attended a
23 class there also, and I have about 178 hours of
24 conference attendance that I have attended, and each of
25 these conference issues were specific areas within
357
1 accident investigation.
2 Q. And were you asked to, or did you become
3 involved in the investigation of an automobile accident
4 at Highway 58 and Greenhill Road on October 4th, 1996?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Okay. How did you become involved in that
7 investigation?
8 A. My first contact was through the County
9 Attorney's Office asking if I would be willing to be a
10 part of the investigation of this accident, and my
11 response was I would be if I was approached by the Cedar
12 Falls Police Department, and subsequently I was contacted
13 and did get involved in the reconstruction of that
14 accident.
15 Q. Okay. Do you remember who contacted you from
16 the Cedar Falls Police Department?
17 A. Sergeant Todd Wilson.
18 Q. Pardon me?
19 A. Sergeant Todd Wilson.
20 Q. And did you collaborate with him in the
21 accident reconstruction or accident investigation?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. And in what sense would you say? What kind
24 of information did you obtain from Sergeant Wilson?
25 A. Well, Sergeant Wilson supplied me with all
358
1 the reports that the Cedar Falls Police Department had on
2 hand at the time of our first meeting as well as
3 photographs of the accident scene, and I met with him at
4 the scene of the accident where he again gave me more
5 information, and ultimately at that point it became my
6 investigation to reconstruct.
7 Q. And is it fair to say that you have more
8 training and education in these areas than Sergeant
9 Wilson does?
10 A. I believe I have a better and more diverse
11 background than Sergeant Wilson does as well as I have
12 gone through an accreditation process as an accident
13 reconstructionist.
14 Q. And have you become accredited as an accident
15 reconstructionist?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And the -- and is Sergeant Wilson accredited
18 as an accident reconstructionist?
19 A. I don't believe he is.
20 Q. And when you say that you went out to the
21 scene of the accident, when would you have done that?
22 A. October 31st I met with Sergeant Wilson at
23 the scene. That was my first trip there.
24 Q. So you weren't out there when the cars were
25 in their positions after the impact or anything like
359
1 that?
2 A. No, sir.
3 Q. Okay. And could you describe what you did
4 during the course of your investigation or
5 reconstruction?
6 A. Well, the first thing that I did once I had
7 the information accumulated was I went to L & M
8 Transmission on University Avenue where the two vehicles
9 were stored at and went through an examination process of
10 the vehicles measuring their dimensions, the locations of
11 the damage, the damage deformation to the vehicles and
12 just generally recorded the vehicle information that was
13 at the transmission -- L & M Transmission.
14 Q. Now -- and that would include the Oldsmobile,
15 the vehicle that's identified as the Farrell vehicle?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Okay. And did you make any observation about
18 the speedometer on the Farrell vehicle?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Could you describe what observation you made
21 on the speedometer on the Farrell vehicle?
22 A. The speedometer needle was in the area of
23 67 miles-per-hour, and it was held in place there by
24 the -- what I'll call the dust cover, the plastic plate
25 that is over the speedometer, as well as the speedometer
360
1 needle had been damaged in the collision, and as the
2 pieces of the dust cover went into the speedometer needle
3 and face plate, it held the needle in place in that 67
4 miles-an-hour area.
5 Q. Now, have you ever heard of the term or the
6 phrase needle slap?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Okay. What is that?
9 A. Needle slap is, I guess, something that
10 doesn't happen as frequently as what it used to by the
11 designs of the speedometer needles when they were made o
12 more of a fluorescent paint. If I can use my hands as an
13 example, being the speedometer numbers that you would
14 read in front of you, my right hand being the speedometer
15 needle in front of it. If it's in this area somewhere,
16 once in a collision, once the front of the car would
17 abruptly stop, that speedometer needle is going to be
18 going the same speed as the car until it hits something
19 and it too will abruptly stop. In the case of a needle
20 slap, it's going to stop in the area where the needle was
21 at before it would typically slide down to zero. Needle
22 slap is something that you can look for. I typically try
23 to look for it in collisions where I suspect it may be
24 possible but have never been able to find any evidence of
25 needle slap on a speedometer face plate.
361
1 Q. Did you find any evidence of needle slap on
2 the Farrell vehicle?
3 A. No, I did not.
4 Q. Okay. And you said that the -- the
5 speedometer needle indicated at 67 miles-per-hour when
6 you observed it; is that correct?
7 A. In that area, yes.
8 Q. Okay. Do you know why that was?
9 A. The reason why it was at that location is
10 because of the impact forces. The collision was pushing
11 the car damage from the left side to the right side, and
12 that was the -- the crushing or damage effect of the
13 speedometer dust cover, the clear plastic plate as it
14 crushed. It also pushed into and broke down into the
15 speedometer, and as soon as I -- I at one point removed
16 that. The speedometer needle went right back down to the
17 zero area.
18 Q. What did you remove?
19 A. Pardon me?
20 Q. What did you remove?
21 A. The -- the piece of a dust cover that was
22 holding the speedometer needle in that position.
23 Q. Is it broken?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The -- did you go -- after your examination
362
1 of the vehicles, what did you do?
2 A. Probably the next thing I did was -- would be
3 meeting with Sergeant Wilson at the scene of the accident
4 where Sergeant Wilson showed me the impact area, the
5 collision area and the marks that were on the road as he
6 saw them or found them on the -- at the time of the
7 accident.
8 Q. And did you find anything -- were you able to
9 rely on that information in forming your reconstruction?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And what did you do then?
12 A. The next step would have been to prepare a
13 scale diagram of the intersection. If I maybe go back a
14 little bit. While I'm at the scene of the accident with
15 Sergeant Wilson and subsequently even after he left, I
16 measured the location of the gouge marks that were on the
17 road, the tire marks that were on the road, as well as
18 the geographical design of the road, and I made two or
19 three trips back to the scene of the accident just for
20 the geographical portion of it because it was a -- it was
21 a very complicated intersection as far as the design of
22 it.
23 Q. Why do you call it a complicated
24 intersection?
25 A. It's complicated for me and an assistant to
363
1 be out holding tape measures trying to measure the angles
2 of the road without -- if I -- if I had survey equipment,
3 for example, it would have been a much easier job to do.
4 Q. Why is that? Why do you say that?
5 A. My measurements of the intersection are based
6 upon steel tape that you would have around your house, a
7 hundred foot tape or 300-foot tape, and I have
8 responsibility or concern with vehicular traffic in the
9 area, and it's just a difficult thing to do.
10 Q. So you're dodging cars?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. Okay. The -- you indicated that you made a
13 diagram of the intersection; is that fair to say?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And I'm going to show you what's been marked
16 as State's Exhibit "G", marked for identification.
17 MR. WADDING: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Do you
18 mind if I approach?
19 COURT: That's fine.
20 Q. And ask you if you recognize that?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. What do you recognize that as?
23 A. This is a scale diagram of the intersection,
24 the post-impact situation of the night of the accident.
25 Q. And is this something that you -- you
364
1 yourself have prepared?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And did you review it prior to your testimony
4 today?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And does this fairly and accurately depict
7 the intersection, your measurements of the intersection?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And the markings of the vehicles involved in
10 this accident?
11 A. Yes. The vehicles, their final rest
12 positions are based upon the information that Sergeant
13 Wilson supplied me with, the measurements that Sergeant
14 Wilson gave me. The other items on here are measurements
15 that I took myself.
16 MR. WADDING: Ask that State's Exhibit "G" be
17 entered into evidence.
18 COURT: Any objection, Mr. Correll?
19 MR. CORRELL: We have no objection to "G".
20 We do object, however, to any of the language, the
21 language regarding the description of the intersection.
22 I think that that is objectionable to as a conclusion.
23 We have no objection to the exhibit to the extent that it
24 portrays to the best of this witness' ability the
25 intersection.
365
1 COURT: "G" is admitted. I guess just so
2 your record is clear, Mr. Correll, what language were you
3 referring to that you have a problem with?
4 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, the language over
5 here on the lower right, where it -- he describes post-
6 collision situation, I think is objectionable to --
7 regarding the date and the time. The record speaks to
8 the date and the time. That is what we object to. The
9 language in the lower right-hand corner includes hearsay.
10 COURT: Thank you. I won't consider that
11 language for the truth of the language referred to in the
12 lower right-hand corner.
13 MR. CORRELL: Thank you.
14 Q. And could you just simply describe what this
15 intersection is depicting on -- the markings that you
16 have on that -- on that exhibit?
17 A. Yes, sir. May I --
18 (At which time the witness approached the
19 chalkboard.)
20 A. This is Greenhill Road. The top of this
21 diagram is going north. This would be to the east. This
22 would be to the west. This would -- if I said Greenhill,
23 I meant this is Highway 58 running north and south. This
24 is Greenhill Road running east and west coming across.
25 The marks that are in the bluish color are gouge marks
366
1 that were in the -- that I measured, and the black marks
2 are tire marks that I measured.
3 Q. And the -- let me ask you, the markings that
4 you have -- are you indicating that these are color-
5 coded, that the blue marks would be gouge marks and that
6 the black marks would be actual tire marks?
7 A. Right. The blue marks are the gouge marks
8 that are created by the -- the metal portion of a
9 vehicle, some sort of body damage collapse to it. The --
10 this vehicle right here, the right front tire was broke
11 off of it, so the assembly in that portion of the car was
12 the only thing that was there with the tire missing, so
13 that's going to dig into the road as its decelerating
14 after the impact.
15 Q. And how do you position those two vehicles?
16 Can you identify which vehicle you're positioning where?
17 A. This vehicle right here would be Mr. Rokes'
18 vehicle, and this vehicle would be Ms. Farrell's vehicle.
19 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, before you sit down,
20 and I think just follow-up, you indicated this was
21 somewhat of a complicated intersection. Is it just
22 because of the fact that it's, you know, you had to go
23 out and do measurements while traffic is free flowing
24 through there, or is there anything else that makes it
25 more complicated?
367
1 A. Well, there are several factors. Each one of
2 the sections of road are in the area of 80 some feet wide
3 with five lanes of travel and any direction from the --
4 that they would be coming from as well as an angular
5 intersection. It's not a true right angle. A typical
6 intersection, if you will, is a right angle. This is --
7 has an angle to it, and trying to establish that angle
8 helps enhance the degree of difficulty, if you will, in
9 trying to take proper measurements.
10 Q. And is it -- would you need to know what the
11 angle of that intersection is in order to make some
12 conclusions that are conclusions that you drew in this
13 case?
14 A. It's certainly helpful.
15 Q. And were you able to make that determination?
16 A. The -- the angle approach of this
17 intersection I was able to obtain through engineering
18 diagrams from the city of Cedar Falls.
19 Q. And so you were able to have that information
20 available to you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And what did you -- just out of
23 curiosity, what is the angle of that intersection?
24 A. According to the Cedar Falls Engineer's
25 Office, it would be 81 degree. It would be an 81-degree
368
1 approach angle going from west to east -- going from the
2 east to the west, I'm sorry.
3 Q. And you describe this intersection as
4 Greenhill Road -- excuse me, Greenhill Road running east
5 and west right here; is that correct?
6 A. Right. East to west.
7 Q. And what -- are you depicting four lanes on
8 Greenhill Road, or what are you depicting?
9 A. There would be four lanes in the eastbound --
10 I'm sorry, the westbound portion of Greenhill Road and
11 two lanes in the eastbound portion in this particular
12 area.
13 Q. Okay. Now, in that particular area why are
14 there four lanes, do you know?
15 A. Why are there four here?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. No, I don't know.
18 Q. Is there a turning lane or anything like
19 that?
20 A. Yes. There -- the outside/inside lanes here
21 are both turning lanes.
22 Q. Okay. I'm sorry, there was one other
23 question I wanted to ask you about the vehicles and their
24 examination. Did you examine the vehicles to determine
25 whether or not lights were operational or were operating?
369
1 A. Somewhat, yes.
2 Q. Okay. Did -- was that anything that really
3 came into play for you?
4 A. No, it did not.
5 Q. And why not?
6 A. Through all the information that I had
7 received in the accident, there wasn't a question as to
8 whether either one of the vehicles had their lights off
9 at the time. There was really no indication that they
10 did, so I limited what I did to -- in the examination of
11 the vehicles to, I guess, confirm that, yeah, they
12 probably were on and never went further with it.
13 Q. And can you describe what your focus was in
14 your accident reconstruction then?
15 A. Speed determination of the two vehicles.
16 Q. And were you able to come to that kind of
17 conclusion?
18 A. Yes, I was.
19 Q. And could you describe -- just describe
20 generally how you would have arrived at your conclusion?
21 A. The concept that I used to determine the
22 speed is a physics equation called a conservation of
23 linear momentum or conservation of momentum. And what
24 conservation of momentum is, is the weight and speed of a
25 vehicle, or, rather, two vehicles when they collide will
370
1 transfer to one another, and as the two vehicles depart,
2 their momentum will be the same in the departure.
3 If I can perhaps say that again and give an
4 analogy. A 3,000 pound car going 20 miles-an-hour is
5 going to have 60,000 units of momentum. If it strikes
6 another vehicle that says -- that perhaps that's 50,000
7 units of momentum, the two of them will have a combined
8 momentum of 100,000 ten units, and as they collide these
9 110,000 units of momentum reach an impulse area, and this
10 impulse is where they're pretty well equaling out now
11 and starting to separate, and now after the collision
12 they will also have 110 units of momentum, and that's the
13 concept behind linear momentum.
14 What's needed to put into this formula is the
15 weights of the vehicles, their approach angle to one
16 another when they collide, the departure angle of each
17 one of the two vehicles as well as their after-impact
18 speeds to the point where they stop, and once these
19 things can be put together mathematically, the
20 conservation of linear momentum can determine the speed
21 of vehicles.
22 Q. And did you employ that theory in this
23 instance?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. And were you able to draw a conclusion as to
371
1 the speeds of the vehicles at the time of impact?
2 A. Yes, I was.
3 Q. And what were the -- what were your
4 conclusions?
5 A. The Rokes vehicle was going between 36 to
6 45 miles-per-hour at the time of impact. Ms. Farrell's
7 vehicle was going 49 to 63 miles-per-hour at the time of
8 impact.
9 Q. And when you give that range of 36 to
10 45 miles-an-hour for the Rokes vehicle and that range of
11 49 to 63 for the Farrell vehicle, how do they relate to
12 each other?
13 A. If Mr. Rokes' vehicle was going at 36 miles-
14 per-hour, Ms. Farrell's vehicle would be going at
15 49 miles-per-hour -- I'm -- yeah, 49 miles-per-hour. And
16 if Mr. Rokes was at 45 miles-an-hour, Ms. Farrell would
17 have been going at 63 miles-per-hour at the time of
18 collision.
19 Q. And when -- is that the -- is that what
20 you're able to do with regard to the conservation of
21 momentum?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Is to give a range of the speeds?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. To give a high end and a low end?
372
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And as they relate to each other?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. WADDING: That's all the questions I
5 have. Thank you.
6 COURT: Mr. Correll?
7 MR. CORRELL: Thank you.
8 CROSS-EXAMINATION
9 BY MR. CORRELL:
10 Q. Mr. Baskerville, when were you first
11 contacted? Do your notes show that, when you were first
12 contacted by anybody in law enforcement?
13 A. No, they don't.
14 Q. The first time you did any actual work on
15 this case, was that going to the scene the first day?
16 A. No. The first thing that I did, the first
17 physical work would have been to L & M Transmission to
18 where the vehicles were stored at.
19 Q. And was that on October 30th?
20 A. No. October 19th.
21 Q. And you went to the scene on October 30th or
22 31st?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Some time prior to the end of October were
25 you contacted by a local attorney on behalf of the
373
1 parents of any of the people in that vehicle?
2 MR. WADDING: I guess I would object to that,
3 Your Honor, as to relevance.
4 COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
5 A. Yes, I was.
6 Q. And was that Mr. Dunakey?
7 A. Yes. Mr. -- I was contacted by two
8 attorneys. Mr. Dunakey was the second one.
9 Q. And would that have been prior to the time
10 you went to the intersection itself?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Would it have been near the time that
13 you would have gone to the intersection on about
14 October 30th?
15 A. In that time of the year, yes.
16 Q. And at that time was it apparent that they
17 knew -- or he knew that you were the accident
18 investigator for this case?
19 A. Yes, he would have.
20 Q. And was there an effort to employ your
21 services on behalf of the civil aspect of this case at
22 that time?
23 A. That was our original conversation, so, yes.
24 Q. Okay. And is that what he asked you to do?
25 A. Yes.
374
1 Q. And at that time did you decline him?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. With regard to the time when you went to the
4 scene, did you go with Mr. Wilson or -- and anybody else
5 on October -- was it October 31st?
6 A. Yes. The first time I went to the scene was
7 I met with Sergeant Wilson there, and I had another
8 deputy with me. I believe it might have been Deputy
9 Steve Haas, H-A-A-S, went to the scene of the accident
10 with me on that day.
11 Q. Did your notes say how long you were at the
12 scene that day?
13 A. No, they don't.
14 Q. Did you ultimately turn your investigative
15 notes over to Mr. Dunakey?
16 A. Personally, no.
17 Q. Were they turned over -- did your office turn
18 those over to him?
19 A. Yes. I'm sorry. Did you ask for my -- if my
20 notes were?
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. No, my notes were not.
23 Q. Was your report turned over to Mr. Dunakey?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. And you did not complete your report until
375
1 approximately February 9th; is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. And really prior to February 9th you hadn't
4 made any determination of the speed of these vehicles,
5 had you?
6 A. Prior to the 9th I would have, yes. As far
7 as documentation, no.
8 Q. Would it have been shortly prior to
9 February 9th when you prepared or made your calculations
10 relative to speed?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Within a couple of weeks of that date?
13 A. Probably.
14 Q. We can use this -- this Exhibit "G" any time
15 you want to, but let me set it down for now. I'm going
16 to set up here for you, Mr. Baskerville, what has been
17 marked and received into evidence as Exhibit "A". Have
18 you seen that before?
19 A. This particular photograph right here, no, I
20 have not.
21 Q. Okay. Let me ask you, do you recognize that
22 Exhibit "A" as a photograph of the intersection in
23 question?
24 A. I believe it is, yes.
25 Q. Okay. Let me orient you a minute. I believe
376
1 the record would indicate that the line going across,
2 that road would be Greenhill Road going -- this being to
3 the east, the top being to the north. Does that look
4 right, now that you've had a moment to kind of adjust it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. And that shows a little larger portion
7 of the roadway than your Exhibit "G", doesn't it?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And on Exhibit "A", I believe you indicated
10 that today that the -- where those two intersect that
11 it's an 81-degree angle?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And when I took your deposition, did you tell
14 me it was a different angle?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. And were you mistaken in the deposition?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And when did you realize that?
19 A. This morning as I was going through --
20 through my notes and looking at the engineer's diagram of
21 the intersection.
22 Q. And did you think I might be asking you about
23 that?
24 A. Pardon me?
25 Q. Did you think I might be asking you about
377
1 that?
2 A. No.
3 Q. During the course of the deposition, you told
4 me that the roads did not meet at a 90-degree angle but
5 that it was seventy -- that it was 77 degrees, didn't
6 you?
7 A. I thought it was 77 degrees.
8 Q. Okay. And would you show by using your
9 marker, if it were a straight -- or a 90-degree angle,
10 with your marker how would those roadways run?
11 A. Well, it would be depending upon how you
12 would orientate the -- the X or the Y axis of this -- if
13 you wanted to turn Hudson Road, you would turn it to --
14 to, I guess as I can best see it, to this area for
15 90-degree.
16 Q. I think you misspoke. I think you called it
17 Hud -- or Highway 58?
18 A. Highway 58. I'm sorry.
19 Q. Okay. And when you are saying that it is
20 77 degrees, it -- is that the roadway you were measuring?
21 Is that the way you were turning it? Excuse me. You
22 said at one point in time in our deposition that it was
23 77 degrees, and today you're saying it is 81, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And are you saying that that is the angle for
378
1 Highway 58 relative to its intersection with Greenhill
2 Road?
3 A. Right. I'm saying Greenhill intersects at
4 a 81-degree angle.
5 Q. Okay. So is what we would do, if we had a
6 protractor and we would measure from here to here, that
7 would either -- that would measure 81 degrees as opposed
8 to 90 which would be perpendicular; is that correct?
9 A. That's correct. Perpendicular 90 degrees
10 would be indicating --
11 Q. So when you say 77, 81, you're talking about
12 this angle here, correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. When the -- go ahead and have a seat, please.
15 A. (Complied.)
16 Q. When the investigation was going on, did you
17 attempt to as part of that investigation, use the
18 coefficient of friction?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And is that done basically by a tire drag?
21 A. There are several different ways to do it.
22 That's the form that I chose.
23 Q. Okay. And did you do a tire drag in this
24 situation at the point of impact or very near there?
25 A. Yes.
379
1 Q. And was that in an effort to determine how --
2 what kind of resistance the tires would have as the
3 vehicles were moved from the point of impact to their
4 post-impact positions?
5 A. Would you say that again, please?
6 Q. The purpose of the tire drag and to determine
7 the coefficient of friction is to determine how rough or
8 how smooth the surface that the vehicles will be
9 traversing after impact; is that a fair statement?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And that is a bit of a subjective
12 determination, isn't it, by you?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And with regard to another element is the
15 weight of the vehicles; isn't -- is that a fair
16 statement?
17 A. Element of what, sir?
18 Q. That go into the formula?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And with that you rely on something other
21 than weighing the vehicles, don't you?
22 A. In this particular case, yes.
23 Q. And would you agree that one of the -- the
24 probably most accurate way to do it would be to actually
25 weigh the vehicles themselves?
380
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. And in this case that was not done, was it?
3 A. No.
4 Q. In this case you relied on published
5 information regarding particular vehicles and came up
6 to -- in getting information regarding their weight; is
7 that a fair statement?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And also as part of that determination of
10 speed it makes a difference as to the occupants of the
11 vehicle and their weights; isn't that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And in this information -- in this case you
14 didn't speak to -- directly to any of the individuals to
15 get their weight -- their weights at this time; isn't
16 that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you used information either indirectly
19 from such things as driver's licenses or talking to the
20 parents of one of the -- of the girls; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And during the course of making your formula,
23 you did not in any fashion attribute any weight to the
24 contents of either vehicle; is that a fair statement?
25 Miscellaneous contents?
381
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. So you basically assume that the vehicles
3 weighed what their manufacturer said they weighed and
4 used numbers given to you for weight and that was the
5 totality?
6 A. The passenger weight, yes.
7 Q. Now, in addition to the speed, did you also
8 pay attention to, sir, the momentum of these vehicles
9 post-impact?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And did you look at the area immediately
12 prior to impact, the paths for both vehicles?
13 A. In my analysis, no, I did not.
14 Q. Did you look -- did you make an effort, as
15 part of your accident reconstruction analysis, to
16 determine if either car made any evasive moves
17 immediately prior to their collision?
18 A. When I was at the scene of the accident with
19 Sergeant Wilson, I was relying upon Sergeant Wilson to
20 show me what he had found when he was at the accident as
21 well as I was looking for myself to see if perhaps there
22 was something that he had missed, and prior to the impact
23 there was no evidence of any marks on the road for either
24 vehicle.
25 Q. Okay. Did you then, when you looked at the
382
1 vehicles themselves, was there an indication there as to
2 whether or not either of the two vehicles took evasive
3 action?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Was there not marks on one of the vehicles
6 that indicated to you that Mr. Rokes had turned his
7 vehicle?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Do you know -- do you know basically what I'm
10 asking you, sir?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And am I not correct that the Farrell
13 vehicle, there was no indication of the Farrell vehicle
14 taking any evasive action immediately prior to this
15 collision?
16 A. No, there was not.
17 Q. I'm correct in that, aren't I?
18 A. I believe so.
19 Q. And there was an indication that the Rokes
20 vehicle did take evasive action immediately prior to the
21 impact, isn't there?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And would you tell this court how you drew
24 that conclusion?
25 A. The damage deformation to both vehicles,
383
1 matching the damage of the Rokes vehicle up with the
2 damage of the Farrell vehicle, indicates that the Rokes
3 vehicle approached the other vehicle at a 68-degree
4 angle, and with a 68-degree angle being different than
5 the natural 81-degree approach angle is where I would
6 assume that there was a turn made prior to impact.
7 Q. Now, does the -- the different angles between
8 77 and 81, does that make any difference in the
9 calculation you made relative to the degrees that Mr.
10 Rokes' vehicle would have turned?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Mr. Rokes' vehicle, by your calculation,
13 turned to the left or to the south immediately prior to
14 the accident; is that a fair statement?
15 A. He approached the difference of 68 as opposed
16 to 81 degrees to the south, yes.
17 Q. So -- you take 68 from 81 and you find -- is
18 that the format?
19 A. It would be a 13-degree difference, yes.
20 Q. And when you gave me your deposition, you
21 thought he only turned nine degrees, didn't you?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And so it does make a difference, doesn't it?
24 A. As to the approach angle?
25 Q. Yes.
384
1 A. No.
2 Q. Was the fact that now you're saying that he
3 turned his vehicle at even a sharper angle than what you
4 told me in the deposition, do I understand your testimony
5 correctly there?
6 A. I don't understand what you're asking.
7 Q. In your deposition, at page 27, line 11,
8 didn't -- do you have your deposition in front of you?
9 A. Yes, sir, I do.
10 Q. Did I not ask you this question, "If we put a
11 protractor to this and we have a line where what would
12 would have happened had he continued to go straight as
13 opposed to what he actually did, would we have that he
14 turned his car how many degrees?" Question. Answer, "I
15 the approach is 77 degrees, he would have turned his car
16 nine degrees." That was your answer?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now that we know that the approach is
19 81 degrees and not 77 degrees, doesn't that make --
20 reflect itself on the number of degrees that he turn
21 his vehicle?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So he, in fact, turned his vehicle more than
24 nine degrees, he turned his vehicle 13 degrees?
25 A. Yes.
385
1 Q. And he turned his vehicle 13 degrees to the
2 left, which would be in the southerly direction, correct?
3 A. From the natural approach path of the
4 roadway, yes.
5 Q. And at the same point in time there was no
6 indication either at the scene nor on either of the
7 vehicles that the Farrell vehicle was doing anything
8 other than proceeding straight down the roadway; isn't
9 that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you prepare a drawing, sir, that shows
12 the angles of the cars when they struck?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And do you have that with you there?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Could you hand that to me, please.
17 A. I'm sorry?
18 Q. Could you hand that to me, please.
19 A. (Complied.)
20 Q. I'm going to hand this back. Yours is the
21 one that has the holes punched into it.
22 MR. CORRELL: I'm going to ask our reporter
23 if she would mark this as Defendant's Exhibit "1",
24 please.
25 (At which time Defendant's Exhibit "1" was
386
1 marked for identification.)
2 Q. I'm going to hand to you, sir, what has been
3 marked by the reporter as Defendant's Exhibit "1", and I
4 ask you if that is a enlarged diagram of the item that
5 you have --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- in your file?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And is that a schematic drawing that you
10 prepared yourself?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. And is that a diagram that I received from
13 you during the course of your deposition?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. Does this Defendant's Exhibit "1" or the
16 original which you have in your possession, does that
17 reflect the angle of approach at 77 or 81 degrees?
18 A. Neither.
19 Q. What does it re --
20 A. The 68 degrees.
21 Q. Okay. So is this the correct angle?
22 A. The angle at impact was 68 degrees.
23 Q. And that is -- is that the correct angle at
24 this time?
25 A. Yes.
387
1 Q. And does -- does this reflect the 13 degrees
2 of turn that Mr. Rokes' vehicle would have been making at
3 the time of the impact?
4 A. Had he been following 81 degrees of an
5 approach angle of the natural approach, yes.
6 Q. So this is -- it's your testimony this is --
7 does not have the misstatement that the deposition has,
8 relative to the approach angle?
9 A. The approach angle in deposition is in
10 reference to the design of the road. This is the
11 collision as it happened based upon the physical evidence
12 of the accident, which is 68 degrees.
13 Q. Okay. So does Exhibit "1" then accurately
14 reflect the angles of these two vehicles in your opinion
15 as of their points of impact?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay.
18 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, we'd offer what's
19 been marked and identified as Defendant's Exhibit "1".
20 MR. WADDING: No objection.
21 COURT: Exhibit "1" is admitted.
22 Q. Relative to the speed of the vehicles with
23 regard to the speed limit on Greenhill Road, do you know
24 what that speed limit is?
25 A. Yes, I do.
388
1 Q. And do you -- did you read the statement of
2 Mr. Rokes that was taken by Mr. Wilson?
3 A. Months ago if -- I don't remember reading it,
4 but I'm sure I did.
5 Q. Do you -- do you remember how fast it was
6 reported by Mr. Rokes that he was traveling down
7 Greenhill Road?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And what is your understanding of that?
10 A. That he was traveling 45 miles-per-hour.
11 Q. And would the damage that you saw to these
12 two vehicles be consistent with his vehicle having
13 traveled 45 miles-per-hour at the time of impact?
14 A. I would have no reason to dispute that based
15 upon the damage. The damage analysis and speed are very
16 difficult things to do by design of vehicle. One vehicle
17 is going to crush easier or less than another vehicle.
18 Q. And that's why I'm just asking you, is it not
19 true that the damage that you observed from both vehicles
20 would be consistent with his vehicle having been driven
21 at a speed of 45 miles-per-hour at the time of impact?
22 A. Excuse me. I -- the form -- would you say
23 the question again, please?
24 Q. Isn't what you observed and the damage to the
25 two vehicles consistent with Mr. Rokes' vehicle having
389
1 been driven at 45 miles-per-hour at the time of impact?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And if Mr. Rokes' vehicle was being driven at
4 45 miles-per-hour, he would have been driving within the
5 speed limit, would he not?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And under no scenario of calculations that
8 you've made was Mr. Rokes ever driving over the speed
9 limit; isn't that a fact?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Now, so I understand your calculations, it is
12 a fact that if Mr. Rokes was driving 45 miles-per-hour,
13 the Farrell vehicle would have been traveling 63 miles-
14 per-hour at the time of impact; is that not correct?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. Did you travel more than one time either up
17 or down Greenhill Road, sir?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In the vicinity of between South Main and
20 Highway 58?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And do you feel you're generally familiar
23 with that roadway that is shown on Exhibit "A"?
24 A. Generally, yes.
25 Q. Okay. And would you agree that Exhibit "A"
390
1 accurately portrays the fact that this is not a straight
2 road, that that photograph shows that there is a bow or a
3 bend first to the north and then back slightly to the
4 south and Greenhill Road?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Would you agree that there is a hill that is
7 located, a crown of a -- an upgrade or a hill that is in
8 the immediate area of the intersection of South Main and
9 Greenhill Road?
10 A. There's a hill in that area, yes.
11 Q. Did you ever take any measurements as to
12 where, how far back from this intersection you are when
13 you can first see the stoplights that are down here?
14 A. No.
15 Q. At 45 miles-per-hour would the Rokes vehicle
16 have been traveling 66 feet per second?
17 A. I believe that would be in the area, yes.
18 Q. Okay. And can you make that calculation, or
19 can I -- isn't that what you told me in your deposition?
20 A. I didn't have the luxury of a calculator at
21 that time.
22 Q. If you turn to your deposition, page 44,
23 line 11, maybe that would refresh your recollection and
24 help you.
25 A. (Complied.) At 45 miles-an-hour 66 feet per
391
1 second.
2 Q. And at that time did you also tell me that
3 the Farrell vehicle, if it were traveling 63 miles-per-
4 hour would be traveling 92.4 feet per second?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you make any calculation as to the
7 distance between South Main Street and Greenhill Road?
8 A. No, sir.
9 Q. Would you agree that the way you would mak
10 the determination as to how many seconds it took the
11 Rokes vehicle to go from that intersection to the
12 intersection of 58 and Greenhill, if you assume 45 miles-
13 an-hour, you just met -- multiply the number of feet, by
14 66 feet, the number of seconds -- excuse me. You would
15 multiply the number of feet by 60 feet per second, 60 --
16 COURT: I know how you do that.
17 Q. Okay. And if you do that and if it's three-
18 tenths of a mile, it would take about, whatever that
19 would come out to, but it would take about 25 seconds to
20 go from Greenhill and South Main to Greenhill and Highway
21 58; wouldn't that be the fact?
22 A. Without calculating it out myself, I would
23 agree with you that that's probably a good range.
24 Q. Okay. And that's consistent with what you
25 know the geography to be out there too, isn't it?
392
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. With regard to your familiarity with this
3 intersection, there is not a uniformity in alerting the
4 drivers of vehicles out there to that intersection; isn't
5 that a fair statement?
6 A. I don't have any idea what you're talking
7 about.
8 Q. Okay. Let me first say, it is uniform
9 because neither -- in one way because neither flows of
10 traffic are alerted by rumble strips or highway cuts; is
accurate?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And is it not also correct that one of those
14 roads, specifically the road that is approaching,
15 Highway 58 road, as it approaches that intersection,
16 there is signs back there that alerts the driver that
17 they are approaching in an electrically controlled
18 traffic signal?
19 A. If you're asking me if there is a sign there
20 that warns people that, I don't know.
21 Q. Are you familiar with the -- the warning
22 signs that the Iowa Department of Transportation puts up
23 to alert drivers to certain situations?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And is there a specific sign that has a
393
1 depiction of a stoplight on it that would be designated
2 the signal ahead -- a signal ahead sign?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You're familiar with that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And at this point in time is it fair to say
7 that you're not aware or do not know of any that would be
8 in that section between South Main and Greenhill Road --
9 South Main and Highway 58? I misspoke. I'm sorry.
10 A. I don't have any knowledge of any signs in
11 that area, because I didn't look. I don't know.
12 Q. You -- you apparently didn't consider that
13 part of the accident reconstruction, you're more
14 concerned with speed, I take it?
15 A. Or the -- in an accident like this there are
16 multiple people doing different things. My concern is
17 coming in and reconstruct the accident to determine the
18 speeds.
19 Q. Are you familiar with Mr. Junker from the
20 city of Cedar Falls?
21 A. I met him this morning for the first time.
22 Q. Okay. And if he identified back here where
23 this yellow mark is that there was at least one of those
24 signal ahead signs for the southbound traffic, do you
25 have any knowledge of that?
394
1 A. No, I don't.
2 Q. Would you have any reason to question that?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Would it be fair to say you just don't know?
5 A. I don't know.
6 MR. CORRELL: That's all the questions I
7 have. Thank you.
8 COURT: Mr. Wadding?
9 MR. WADDING: Thank you.
10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. WADDING:
12 Q. You indicated that you are somewhat familiar
13 with that intersection; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Because of your investigation in this case?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you have any personal experience with it
18 or -- other than outside of this case?
19 A. Nothing outside of this case.
20 Q. Have you ever driven down Highway 58?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. Do you know that when -- have you ever
23 driven down 58 to get to -- go to Waverly?
24 A. Since it's been reconstructed like this, no.
25 Q. Did -- are you -- does this connect up with
395
1 218 that goes to Waverly?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you know what the next intersection is up
4 here?
5 A. I believe it's University Avenue, isn't it?
6 Q. Okay. Is there -- do you know, up on Highway
7 58, is there a controlled -- control device up on the
8 highway itself at that intersection?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. Or do you have to get down off the highway?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Okay. Do you know if there's traffic
13 controls or traffic signals on South Main and Greenhill?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. Do you know that there's -- do you
16 know if there's traffic signals at Cedar Heights Drive
17 and Greenhill?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. There is?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. You indicated that there's been some
22 discussion about the 77 degrees and the 81 degrees and
23 the 68 degrees. At the time of the collision, what
24 were -- you talked about 68 -- 68 degrees at the time of
25 collision; is that correct?
396
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And does that ever change?
3 A. No.
4 Q. So when Mr. Correll talks about the
5 77 degrees and the 68 degrees, he's really talking about
6 two different things; isn't that fair to say?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. One would be the angle of the roadway, and
9 the other is the angle of the collision?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. And the angle of the roadway being
12 actually 81 degrees, right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And the angle of the collision being
15 68 degrees?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So he talks about the -- I believe that his
18 question was whether there was any evidence of evasive
19 action. Is that the word that he used?
20 A. I believe so.
21 Q. Okay. And you indicated yes; is that fair?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And that was because of that angle at the
24 time of collision?
25 A. That's correct.
397
1 Q. Okay. And you attribute that change in the
2 angle -- if he's -- let me put it this way. If both cars
3 are driving on -- driving at the angle of the roadway
4 itself, they would have collided at 81 degrees, correct?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. Now, you indicate that -- that angle of
7 collision is 68 degrees. Correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And that you attribute the change in the
10 angle to the Rokes vehicle?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. How -- how is it that you attribute
13 that change in angle or that difference from 81 to 68 to
14 the Rokes vehicle?
15 A. Well, I believe that was the answer. There's
16 13 degrees difference between the normally traveled
17 portion of the roadway as opposed to the angle at the
18 time of collision. Somewhere in the course of that
19 travel path the direction of travel of his vehicle is
20 changed by 13 degrees.
21 Q. Okay. Now, you say somewhere in the course
22 of that travel path. What -- where is the travel path?
23 A. The distance or the -- the path of Greenhill
24 Road.
25 Q. Okay. So, in other words, when you talk
398
1 about the travel path and the change of the angle of the
2 impact, I mean, you could talk about this whole area
3 right in here, right?
4 A. It would be possible.
5 Q. Greenhill Road?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So when we talk about that 13 degrees, right,
8 we're not talking about -- you don't know if it's a jerk
9 or if it's just a floating or lilting of an impaired
10 driver?
11 A. It could have happened just prior to the
12 accident, or it could have happened seconds to minutes
13 before the accident, yes.
14 Q. Now -- and would you agree with me that a
15 person who is impaired sometimes does swerve down the
16 roadway?
17 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm
18 going to object to that. That is beyond the scope of the
19 examination, and it is leading.
20 COURT: Sustained.
21 Q. What else can you attribute the -- the
22 difference in the -- or the difference in the angle of
23 the point of collision and the roadway, aside from
24 evasive action?
25 A. The turning of the vehicle.
399
1 Q. Okay. Could it be a sudden movement?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Could it be a swerve?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could it be drifting?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You said that you examined the vehicles
8 themselves; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And did you observe anything in the vehicles
11 that would cause you to attribute any significant
12 additional weight to their contents?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Were you made aware of, or did you know
15 anything inside the vehicles that would attribute or make
16 any significant difference in the weight of the vehicle?
17 A. No.
18 Q. And is it unusual for an accident
19 reconstructionist to use information off a license to
20 determine a person's weight?
21 A. No.
22 Q. And is the manner in which you determined the
23 weight of the vehicles an unusual thing to do for an
24 accident reconstructionist?
25 A. No. It's not -- the variables of what -- you
400
1 could vary the weight of a vehicle by several hundred
2 pounds, and it's not going to significantly change any of
3 the findings.
4 Q. And you indicated that you had been contacted
5 by some attorneys prior to investigating this incident;
6 is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you also indicated that you declined
9 opportunity for employment?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you do some private employment; is that
12 correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And why did you decline the employment?
15 A. Because I was contacted either by the County
16 Attorney's Office or Cedar Falls Police Department prior
17 to the attorneys that called me.
18 Q. And what's more lucrative?
19 A. The private investigation would be.
20 Q. And did you, at the county attorney's request
21 and Cedar Falls' request, engage in the investigation in
22 this instance?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And did you have any control over the fact
25 that your report was turned over to Mr. Dunakey?
401
1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. It was placed in a -- in your case
3 file?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And who -- do you know who turned it over?
6 A. One of the clerical staff records person. I
7 prepared it and then gave it to the clerical person to
8 bill out and package up and call or send, whatever it was
9 that they did.
10 Q. Do you know why it was turned over?
11 A. I'm sorry?
12 Q. Do you know why it was turned over, why it
13 was given to Mr. Dunakey?
14 A. Our office is under a subpoena -- a subpoena
15 that had been served on the office.
16 MR. WADDING: That's all I have. Thank you.
17 COURT: Mr. Correll?
18 MR. CORRELL: I have nothing further, Mr.
19 Baskerville. Thank you.
20 COURT: Thank you. Mr. Wadding?
21 MR. WADDING: Call Mr. Mowery.
22 (At which time a brief pause was taken.)
23 MR. WADDING: He's putting some money in a
24 parking meter right now, Your Honor. If we could have
25 two or three minutes, I guess.
402
1 COURT: Sure. Why don't we take until 2:45.
2 (At which time a recess was taken at
3 2:40 p.m., May 14, 1997; and proceedings commenced at
4 2:53 p.m., May 14, 1997, with the court, counsel and
5 defendant present.)
updated 08/08/10