See also: Accident Reconstruction
See also:
Technical Institute
See also:
Todd Wilson Civil Trial
See also:
Todd Wilson CFPF Report
See also:
Todd Wilson Criminal Trial Deposition

TODD WILSON
Criminal Trial Testimony


(Page 241-354)

241

 

1 (Proceedings recommenced at 9:25 a.m.

2 May 14, 1997, with the court, counsel and defendant

3 present.)

 

4 COURT: Are the parties ready? Mr. Wadding?

 

5 MR. WADDING: Yes, Your Honor.

 

6 COURT: Mr. Correll?

 

7 MR. CORRELL: Yes, Your Honor.

 

8 COURT: Mr. Wadding?

 

9 MR. WADDING: The state would call Todd

10 Wilson to the stand.

 

11 TODD WILSON,

12 called as a witness on behalf of the state, being first

13 duly sworn by the court, was examined and testified as

14 follows:

 

15 COURT: Mr. Wadding?

 

16 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

17 BY MR. WADDING:

 

18 Q. Would you state your full name and spell your

19 last for the record, please.

 

20 A. Todd Wilson, W-I-L-S-O-N.

 

21 Q. And your occupation, sir?

 

22 A. Police officer for the city of Cedar Falls.

 

23 Q. And how long have you been a police officer

24 for the city of Cedar Falls?

 

25 A. Fifteen years.

 

242

 

1 Q. And are you a certified peace officer in the

2 state of Iowa?

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. When did you receive your certification?

 

5 A. In 1982.

 

6 Q. And could you describe what your current

7 duties are with the Cedar Falls Police Department?

 

8 A. Currently I'm the acting captain of the

9 investigative unit.

 

10 Q. And how long have you held that position?

 

11 A. Since April 18th.

 

12 Q. What was your position prior to that?

 

13 A. Prior -- well, this -- January 1st I

14 became -- I went to the investigative unit. Prior to

15 that I was a sergeant in charge of training and community

16 service.

 

17 Q. And have you received any specialized

18 training as a law enforcement officer?

 

19 A. Yes, I have.

 

20 Q. Other than your general certification as a

21 law enforcement officer?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. Could you describe what types of training you

24 have received?

 

25 A. I've had numerous swat tactical team schools.

 

243

1 I was a swat team commander for eight years. I've had

2 numerous schools on accident investigation. I've been

3 through traffic investigation school and accident

4 reconstruction school. I've had OWI enforcement classes

5 and training. I've had numerous schools.

 

6 Q. And could you tell me, on October 4th, 1996,

7 what were your duties with the Cedar Falls Police

8 Department at that time?

 

9 A. At the time I was -- that particular evening?

10 Or that -- just that time?

 

11 Q. Just at that time.

 

12 A. I was assigned to the training and community

13 service.

 

14 Q. Okay. And did you have occasion to, or did

15 you become involved in the -- an accident investigation

16 at Greenhill Road and Highway 58 on October 4th, 1996?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. Okay. How did you first become involved in

19 that?

 

20 A. That evening I was working a part-time job,

21 security work, which requires us to wear our uniform and

22 carry our police radio, and I monitored -- I was

23 monitoring the radio traffic and heard it over the radio,

24 and eventually I was contacted by Captain Lashbrook.

 

25 Q. Okay. And what was the purpose of his

 

244

 

1 contacting you?

 

2 A. He stated at the time that there was a

3 serious personal injury accident and requested an

4 on-scene investigation.

 

5 Q. And why would he contact you for that?

 

6 A. Because I was advanced in accident

7 investigation.

 

8 Q. And were you one of the people with the Cedar

9 Falls Police Department that did that?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. And the -- did you go to that location then

12 at that time?

 

13 A. No, I did not. I returned to the police

14 station where I picked up some equipment, and then I

15 proceeded to the -- to the scene.

 

16 Q. And when you got to the scene, could you

17 describe what you first observed when you got to the

18 scene?

 

19 A. There were a couple of squad cars in the

20 intersection, two fire vehicles, and there was still one

21 ambulance at the scene, and the two vehicles that were

22 involved in the accident were still at the scene.

 

23 Q. And did you have any contact with any

24 civilian personnel at the scene?

 

25 A. No, I did not.

245

 

1 Q. And did you have any contact with any persons

2 at the scene?

 

3 A. I was met by Sergeant Liljegren and Officer

4 Venenga.

 

5 Q. And what were -- what was the purpose of

6 meeting with them?

 

7 A. Officer -- come to find out, Officer Venenga

8 had been assigned the accident itself, and I spoke with

9 her as to basically what had transpired in the

10 investigation up to that point.

 

11 Q. And what was your -- going to be your role in

12 that investigation?

 

13 A. Basically I do the technical. I plot the

14 accident scene and the evidence, and from the evidence at

15 the scene and we can -- it helps determine some factors

16 that may have caused the accident.

 

17 Q. You say when you first arrived the vehicles

18 were still present at the scene?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. And prior to your arrival, do you know, or

21 were the vehicles moved from their final resting spot

22 prior to your arrival?

 

23 A. They were not.

 

24 MR. WADDING: May I approach, Your Honor?

 

25 COURT: You may.

246

 

1 Q. I show you what's been marked as photographic

2 packet "E-1" through, I believe, "E-10", and ask you if

3 you recognize those photographs?

 

4 A. Yes.

 

5 Q. And did you have an opportunity to view those

6 photographs prior to your testimony today?

 

7 A. Yes, I did.

 

8 Q. And what do they -- what do they depict

9 generally?

 

10 A. Some of the photographs depict each

11 automobile in their resting position, and a couple of

12 them indicate the intersection.

 

13 Q. And is that -- are those accurate depictions

14 of what you observed on October 4th, 1996?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 MR. WADDING: And I'd ask that State's

17 Exhibit "E" through -- "E-1" through "E-10" be entered

18 into evidence, Your Honor.

 

19 COURT: Any objection, Mr. Correll?

 

20 MR. CORRELL: May I see the exhibits?

 

21 (Complied.) May I voir dire this witness briefly?

 

22 COURT: You may.

 

23 MR. CORRELL: Mr. Wilson, am I correct that

24 you did not take these photographs?

 

25 WITNESS: That's correct.

 

247

1 MR. CORRELL: And am I correct that Officer

2 Liljegren was the person who took those photographs?

 

3 WITNESS: Yes.

 

4 MR. CORRELL: And were these photographs --

5 do you know the time frame that -- that these photographs

6 were taken?

 

7 WITNESS: Approximately. I don't have the

8 exact time, no.

 

9 MR. CORRELL: Were they taken -- do you know,

10 were these photographs all taken prior to you leaving?

 

11 WITNESS: Yes, they were.

 

12 MR. CORRELL: There were more photographs

13 than these taken, were there not?

 

14 WITNESS: I believe so, yes.

 

15 MR. CORRELL: We have no objection, Your

16 Honor.

 

17 COURT: "E-1" through "E-10" inclusive are

18 admitted.

 

19 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

20 BY MR. WADDING:

 

21 Q. Could you describe what you did at the scene

22 of the accident then?

 

23 A. Basically at that point we plotted the

24 intersection. We measured it. There was some -- we

25 identified some scuff marks. We identified some skid

248

 

1 marks, and we plotted the resting position of the -- of

2 each vehicle and any physical evidence that was left at

3 the scene.

 

4 Q. And how long did that take?

 

5 A. Approximately an hour.

 

6 Q. And when you say we, who are you speaking of?

 

7 A. Officer Venenga and myself.

 

8 Q. And she assisted you in taking the

9 measurements and collection of evidence on the scene?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. And after you had taken the measurements at

12 the scene, what did you do?

 

13 A. Officer -- or Sergeant Liljegren then

14 photographed the scene, and upon his completion, Officer

15 Venenga and myself left the scene.

 

16 Q. And did -- where did you go from there?

 

17 A. To Sartori Hospital.

 

18 Q. Why were you going to Sartori Hospital?

 

19 A. To -- basically to check on the condition of

20 all the parties that were involved.

 

21 Q. And did you know -- did you know that -- did

22 you know the drivers to be at Sartori Hospital?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. Okay. And what did you do when you got to

25 Sartori?

249

 

1 A. I stopped in at the desk at first just to see

2 what the conditions of the people involved were, just had

3 a brief conversation with one of the nurses. I asked if

4 I could speak with Juli Farrell, and they said I could,

5 and then I went in and spoke with Juli for a few minutes.

 

6 Q. Okay. And after you spoke with Juli Farrell,

7 what did you do?

 

8 A. Then I spoke with Mr. Rokes.

 

9 Q. And where was Mr. Rokes at at the time that

 

10 you spoke with him?

 

11 A. In a -- in one of the E.R. rooms.

 

12 Q. And what was your purpose in speaking with

13 him?

 

14 A. Basically determined -- Officer Venenga and I

15 had been assigned to work the accident, so we wanted to

16 just get a brief statement from him as to what occurred

17 in the accident.

 

18 Q. And did -- did you make any inquiries of the

19 defendant?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. Could you describe how that proceeded?

 

22 A. Well, we -- we spoke about what had happened

23 in the accident. As we were speaking, he made a comment

24 that he had had too much to drink. Then he stated that

25 he wanted to state that he had been at Brooster's and had

250

 

1 had a couple beers and was on his way home. He described

2 his -- his wife being upset, that she apparently -- her

3 mother had been in the hospital, I believe, in Mason City

4 and that he was concerned -- she was crying and upset

5 about her mother and that he -- his attention was

6 diverted basically from driving, that he was consoling

7 her or talking to her while he was driving.

 

8 Q. And did he ever indicate to you at that time

9 about what he observed at the intersection accident?

 

10 A. Yes. He stated that he thought the light was

11 green.

 

12 Q. And how long a conversation did you have with

13 the defendant, Mr. Rokes?

 

14 A. It was pretty brief. It was less than five

15 minutes.

 

16 Q. And how did you leave it with Mr. Rokes?

 

17 A. Their vehicle obviously had sustained major

18 damage and had been towed from the scene, so I instructed

19 Officer Venenga to give Mr. and Mrs. Rokes a ride home.

 

20 Q. What -- did you make any observations about

21 Mr. Rokes at that time?

 

22 A. Yes, I did. As soon as I entered the room, I

23 detected a strong odor of alcohol in the room. It was

24 obvious that his face was flushed and he had real red,

25 watery eyes.

251

 

1 Q. Had he had any -- did he have any kind of

2 indications of medical treatment?

 

3 A. Yes, he did. He had received some stitches

4 in the face.

 

5 Q. Do you recall where that was at?

 

6 A. I think just above his -- on his nose and

7 maybe above his nose a little bit.

 

8 Q. And at the time that you spoke with him, were

9 those stitches in place?

 

10 A. Yes, they were.

 

11 Q. Now, after you spoke with Mr. Rokes at the

12 hospital and instructed Officer Venenga to take the

13 Rokeses home, did that complete your investigation for

14 that night?

 

15 A. Well, I did speak with Mrs. Farrell briefly.

16 Basically I had -- yeah, I think it was for that night.

17 We didn't -- I don't remember doing anything else.

 

18 Q. Okay. Now, when you had -- do you know

19 approximately what time -- how much time had passed

20 between the time of the accident and the time that you

21 had contact with Mr. Rokes?

 

22 A. It was close to two hours.

 

23 Q. And did there come a time when you requested

24 Deputy Baskerville to become involved in the accident

25 investigation?

252

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. And do you recall when that was?

 

3 A. A couple days later.

 

4 Q. And why was that?

 

5 A. Well, over the last few years I've had -- I

6 haven't had the opportunity to work too many accidents

7 because of my different assignments. I've been

8 assigned -- I was promoted and worked as a shift

9 supervisor, which I didn't work a lot of accidents, and

10 then I worked community service and training and then in

11 investigations, which I didn't work any accidents.

12 Sergeant Baskerville is much more advanced in accident

13 reconstruction, accident investigation, and he works with

14 it a lot more than I do, so I wanted to run everything by

15 him.

 

16 Q. And prior to his involvement in the accident,

17 did you have any further contact with Mr. Rokes?

 

18 A. Yes, I did.

 

19 Q. And could you describe how that came about?

 

20 A. Approximately seven -- excuse me. 5:15 the

21 following day I was contacted by Sergeant Olson, who was

22 the shift supervisor at the time, and I was notified that

23 Juli Farrell -- her condition had worsened, that -- what

24 he told me was that she had gone into cardiac arrest and

25 they were transporting her to Allen Hospital at that

253

 

1 time. And then a little while later I received another

2 call that stated that -- that she had died. So that

3 night I came back in, shortly after I was notified of Ms.

4 Farrell's death, that I came back in to do some more

5 follow-up on investigation.

 

6 COURT: When was this? I missed that date.

 

7 WITNESS: It would be the following day. I

8 think Saturday, the 5th.

 

9 COURT: Thank you.

 

10 Q. And when you came back in, did you have

11 intentions of making contact with the defendant again?

 

12 A. Yes, I did.

 

13 Q. And did you?

 

14 A. Yes, I did.

 

15 Q. And could you describe how you made contact

16 with the defendant?

 

17 A. I telephoned Mr. Rokes and asked him to come

18 down to the police station.

 

19 Q. And what was the purpose in having him come

20 down to the police station? What was --

 

21 A. Well, at that point our investigation had

22 changed obviously from a personal injury accident to a --

23 a death. The seriousness of the incident increased, so

24 we -- we thought that we'd better continue with the

25 investigation as soon after the accident as possible.

254

 

1 Q. And did Mr. Rokes comply?

 

2 A. Yes, he did.

 

3 Q. And did he come down to the Cedar Falls

4 Police Station?

 

5 A. Yes. Both Mr. and Mrs. Rokes did.

 

6 Q. And what did -- what happened once he got

7 down to the police station?

 

8 A. We went into a -- the investigative unit. At

9 that point I informed both the Rokeses that Ms. Farrell

10 had died.

 

11 Q. Anybody else with you at that time?

 

12 A. Diane Venenga was.

 

13 Q. And what was the reaction to the news?

 

14 A. They were upset. They were surprised.

 

15 Q. After you informed them of Ms. Farrell's

16 death, what did you do?

 

17 A. At that point I asked Mr. Rokes if he would

18 be -- if he'd give me a statement, which he indicated

19 that he would.

 

20 Q. And at that time did you take the statement

21 with Diane Venenga and Mrs. Rokes present?

 

22 A. No, I did not. I -- I took Mr. Rokes back to

23 my office, which was in the community service/training

24 section. At that point I read his rights per Miranda

25 and asked that he give a statement.

255

 

1 Q. And can you describe how you -- how you take

2 or a statement is given?

 

3 A. Basically what I do is I -- I sit down and

4 just have a conversation and talk for awhile, kind of get

5 an outline of what we're going to talk about, and then we

6 get -- and then I sit at a computer terminal, and we get

7 into more specifics, and then we go through the -- we

8 went through the prior day and evening and -- which is

9 typed out on a -- on a computer terminal.

 

10 Q. Okay. And is -- was Mr. Rokes aware that

11 you're recording the statement on the computer?

 

12 A. Yes, he was.

 

13 Q. I mean, sitting there it's in plain view of

14 his sight?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 MR. WADDING: May I approach, Your Honor?

 

17 COURT: You may.

 

18 Q. I show you what's been marked as State's

19 Exhibit "F", "F" marked for identification, ask you if

20 you recognize that?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. And what do you recognize that as?

 

23 A. The statement given by Mr. Rokes on

24 October 5th.

 

25 Q. And how do you recognize that as Mr. Rokes'

256

 

1 statement?

 

2 A. Because it's the one I typed out.

 

3 Q. And did he affix any identification himself?

 

4 A. Yes. He signed it.

 

5 Q. And is that something that you commonly do

6 when you take a statement from somebody?

 

7 A. Yes. What we do is, upon reading their

8 rights to them, we -- and filling out the statement, we

9 have them read over the statement and have them sign it.

 

10 Q. Okay. And if they -- are they given an

11 opportunity to make any changes to the statement then?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. And do you know -- do you recall if Mr. Rokes

14 made any changes?

 

15 A. I don't remember if he did or not.

 

16 Q. Are they given the opportunity to make the

17 changes prior to affixing their signature?

 

18 A. Yes, they are.

 

19 Q. And did Mr. Rokes indicate that this was an

20 accurate statement?

 

21 A. Yes, he did.

 

22 Q. And did he affix his signature to it?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 MR. WADDING: And at this time, Your Honor, I

25 would ask that State's Exhibit "F" be entered into

257

 

1 evidence.

 

2 COURT: Mr. Correll?

 

3 MR. CORRELL: No objection.

 

4 COURT: Exhibit "F" is admitted.

 

5 Q. And, Sergeant Wilson, could you read the

6 defendant's statement?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. I would

9 object to that. The document is in. It speaks for

10 itself. It would be inappropriate to -- to have the

11 admitted document read.

 

12 COURT: Exhibit "F" has been entered, and

13 I'll read it.

 

14 MR. WADDING: The -- I think that the --

15 well, okay. That's fine

 

16 COURT: If there's a particular portion you

17 want to bring his attention to and talk about the

18 specifics, go ahead.

 

19 MR. WADDING: Sure.

 

20 Q. Did you get an understanding of -- or did you

21 know who Mr. Rokes was prior to taking the statement?

 

22 A. I'd had never met Mr. Rokes before.

 

23 Q. Did you get an understanding of who he was at

24 the time you took the statement?

 

25 A. Yes.

258

 

1 Q. And what kind of understanding did you have

2 of Mr. Rokes?

 

3 A. I guess I misunderstand what you're trying --

 

4 Q. How -- was he employed?

 

5 A. Oh, yes. He was a self-employed contractor

6 in the city of Cedar Falls.

 

7 Q. And did you understand whether or not he was

8 successful in that business?

 

9 A. From my conversation, I assumed that he was.

 

10 Q. And do you recall why you thought so?

 

11 MR. CORRELL: Well, Your Honor, whether a

12 person is successful or not is irrelevant to the criminal

13 process, and I object on relevancy grounds.

 

14 COURT: Sustained.

 

15 MR. WADDING: Well, I ask for an opportunity

16 to be heard.

 

17 COURT: How is it relevant?

 

18 MR. WADDING: I believe that the -- it seems

19 to me that a person who is able to be successful in their

20 business certainly understands the premises of the

21 statement that they're giving, the implications of that

22 statement. It's not simply a person that would be

23 considered lacking in the ability to understand what is

24 happening to them at that time.

 

25 COURT: All right. Well, the witness has

259

 

1 testified that he understands the defendant to be

2 successful in his business.

 

3 Q. Did you get any indications from the -- that

4 he didn't understand what you were doing?

 

5 A. No.

 

6 Q. And how did he describe what he had done the

7 day prior to the accident?

 

8 A. He stated that he was working in Mason City

9 and that he had driven home late in the afternoon.

 

10 Q. And did he indicate when he had eaten?

 

11 A. Yes, he did.

 

12 Q. And when did he indicate that he had eaten?

 

13 A. Approximately 1:30.

 

14 Q. And did he indicate that he had eaten any --

15 at any other time?

 

16 A. He indicated that when he returned home late

17 in the afternoon, 5, 6 o'clock, that he ate some

18 French-fries off of his daughter's plate.

 

19 Q. And did he indicate whether or not he had

20 anything else to eat that night?

 

21 A. He stated he did not.

 

22 Q. And did he indicate as to -- did he speak of

23 his mother-in-law at all?

 

24 A. Yes, he did. He stated that -- that she

 

25 was -- that he was working in Mason City and that she

260

 

1 was -- was in a hospital, I believe, in Mason City, that

2 he had -- it seemed to me that he stopped and visited her

3 to see her condition.

 

4 Q. And that would have been sometime that

5 afternoon on October 4th --

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. -- according to the statement? You indicate

8 that he informed his wife of his mother-in-law's

9 condition?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. Did he indicate that when that had taken

12 place?

 

13 A. When he returned home.

 

14 Q. And after he returned home, he did indicate

15 that they went to Brooster's --

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. -- is that correct? And did you have the

18 impression that he informed his wife of his -- the

19 condition of his mother-in-law prior to going out to

20 Brooster's?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. And when -- it is fair to say he admitted to

23 drinking in his statement; is that correct?

 

24 A. Yes, he did.

 

25 Q. And that at the time of the accident, did he

261

 

1 provide any explanation as to his driving behavior?

 

2 A. Yes, he did.

 

3 Q. And can you describe what he explained -- how

4 he explained his driving behavior at that intersection?

 

5 A. He stated that his wife was upset, that she

6 wasn't acting herself, so they had left Brooster's and

7 were returning home. He said that she was crying, she

8 had her head down, she was upset about apparently her

9 mother, and he was -- his attention was diverted from

10 driving, and he was talking to her about -- about what

11 her -- her mother's condition.

 

12 Q. And the -- how does he describe his approach

13 to the Main Street -- Main Street intersection, Main

14 Street and Greenhill Road intersection?

 

15 A. He said he approached it and had a green

16 light.

 

17 Q. And how does he describe his approach to the

18 Highway 58 intersection?

 

19 A. He stated that there was little or no traffic

20 and that as he approached the intersection he saw a green

21 light and he had sufficient time to proceed.

 

22 Q. Okay. And in your experience, do you know

23 when that light changes to flashing?

 

24 A. It changed at 10 o'clock.

 

25 Q. And in this -- the scenario that the

262

 

1 defendant provided on that intersection, was that --

2 would that be accurate in your mind?

 

3 A. No.

 

4 Q. Could it have been green in your mind?

 

5 A. No.

 

6 Q. And did he indicate to you that he was

7 specific in his observation of the traffic control

8 devices after the impact -- or after the accident?

 

9 A. After the accident he said he saw the light

10 had -- was flashing.

 

11 Q. And did he indicate that with any kind of

12 significance at all -- or what did he say with regard to

13 that?

 

14 A. He said, "At the point the traffic lights

15 were then blinking red for east/west and yellow for

16 north/south. I made a distinct question in my mind as to

17 when did the lights change."

 

18 Q. And did he indicate in the line prior to that

19 what time he looked at his watch?

 

20 A. At 11:10.

 

21 Q. And he made that observation?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 MR. WADDING: That's all the questions I

24 have. Thank you.

 

25 COURT: Mr. Correll?

263

 

1 MR. CORRELL: Thank you.

 

2 CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

3 BY MR. CORRELL:

 

4 Q. Mr. Wilson, you have been on the Cedar Falls

5 Police Department, I believe you said, for 15 years; is

6 that correct?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. And have all of those 15 years been where you

9 have basically been out in the field doing various kinds

10 of investigative work?

 

11 A. A variety of jobs, yes.

 

12 Q. And did you have law enforcement background

13 or experience prior to joining the Cedar Falls Police

14 Department?

 

15 A. Yes, I did.

 

16 Q. And would you tell us what that is, sir?

 

17 A. I was a military police officer in the Marine

18 Corps for three years.

 

19 Q. And as part of that experience, were you

20 involved in the investigation of criminal activity?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. And did that include the investigation of

23 patrolling and breaking up fights from time to time?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. And did it involve investigation and

264

 

1 controlling of situations where there was intoxication?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. During the course of the 15 years that you

4 were involved with the Cedar Falls Police Department,

5 have you been involved in a variety of different kinds of

6 arrests including OWI or public intoxication arrests?

 

7 A. Yes, I have.

 

8 Q. Would it be fair to say over your career,

9 your combined law enforcement career of approximately

10 18 years, you would have made more than a hundred OWI --

11 alcohol arrests?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. And wouldn't it be accurate to say that most

14 all of those arrests were made, when you made those they

15 were made spontaneously at the time that you saw the

16 person?

 

17 A. Not spontaneous, no, usually after sobriety

18 tests.

 

19 Q. Usually at the scene though; isn't that

20 correct?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. Now, the situation in this particular case,

23 have you reviewed your report prior to your testimony

24 today?

 

25 A. Yes.

265

 

1 Q. Have you reviewed the reports of any of the

2 other officers prior to today?

 

3 A. Not really, no.

 

4 Q. Do you understand that the records indicate

5 that this accident took place sometime between 10:55 p.m.

6 and 11:01 p.m. on October 4th?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. And that's what the actual records reflect

9 is it not?

 

10 A. I believe so, yes.

 

11 Q. And that you -- if you look at those

12 photographs, there's -- is there one photograph, sir,

13 that shows near the Rokes vehicle an ambulance?

 

14 A. No. It's a fire vehicle.

 

15 Q. Okay. Is that a vehicle that can transport

16 people?

 

17 A. No.

 

18 Q. With regard to the time those photographs

19 were taken, do you know if the paramedics were still

20 there?

 

21 A. They were not.

 

22 Q. The -- were you there before the paramedics

23 left?

 

24 A. There was one ambulance still there when I

25 arrived, and they left shortly after my arrival.

266

 

1 Q. And was that an ambulance that contained Mr.

2 Rokes?

 

3 A. I couldn't say for sure. I don't know.

 

4 Q. If the records would indicate that the

5 ambulance with Mr. Rokes departed at 11:19 p.m., would

6 that be generally consistent with your recollection?

 

7 A. It would probably -- yes.

 

8 Q. Is it fair to say that you did not take any

9 notes specifically regarding your time of arrival at the

10 scene?

 

11 A. No, I didn't.

 

12 Q. And you didn't take any notes specifically

13 regarding the time you did anything at the scene

14 including leaving it; would that be correct?

 

15 A. Usually our -- we radio in, and those times

16 are supposed to be captured by dispatch.

 

17 Q. But in a notebook you didn't note that; is

18 that correct?

 

19 A. No, I did not.

 

20 Q. And have you checked to note what time you

21 got there and left?

 

22 A. No, I did not.

 

23 Q. When you were at the scene, you were there to

24 basically take some measurements and preliminary

25 measurements using a landmark, a given point; is that

 

267

 

1 correct?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. And what measurements generally did you take?

 

4 A. Well, the first thing we did was identify the

5 marks or evidence at the scene, and then we identified

6 those through plotting.

 

7 Q. And did you measure those?

8 A. Yes, I did.

 

9 Q. And did that take somewhere approximately a

10 half an hour to do that measurement?

 

11 A. It was probably an hour.

 

12 Q. Okay. As part of your at-the-scene

13 experience -- or work product, did you go examine the

14 vehicles?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. And the Rokes vehicle was a Toyota four-by-

17 four; is that correct?

 

18 A. 4-Runner I believe it's called.

 

19 Q. 4-Runner. And did you go and look inside

20 that car?

 

21 A. Yes, I did.

 

22 Q. And when you looked inside that car, did you

23 notice if there were air bags that had been exploded or

24 deployed?

 

25 A. Yes.

268

 

1 Q. And that was the case, was it not?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. And that was the case for both the passenger

4 and the driver, was it not?

 

5 A. I want to say it was, yes.

 

6 Q. Do you know, was it at least a situation for

7 the driver?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. Did you also look in that vehicle to

10 determine whether or not there was any indication of

11 alcohol containers half full, full, empty in the vehicle?

 

12 A. Yes, I did.

 

13 Q. And isn't it a fact that there was no --

14 there were no alcohol containers of any kind found by you

15 or observed by you in the Rokes vehicle?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. Then you would have left, and when you left

18 you went to Sartori Hospital, which would be maybe five

19 minutes away; would that be correct?

 

20 A. Five to ten.

 

21 Q. Do you recall, sir, when you -- first of all,

22 regarding Mr. Rokes' address, what is his address as

23 shown by his statement?

 

24 A. 2622 Ryan Drive.

 

25 Q. Do you know approximately where Ryan Drive is

269

 

1 in the city of Cedar Falls?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. And it is kind of over on the west side of

4 Cedar Falls off Hudson Road; is it not?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. And do you know where Brooster's is located?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. Would it not be accurate to say that the most

9 efficient route to get from Brooster's to his home on

10 Angie Drive (sic) would have been on Greenhill Road, take

11 a right at Hudson Road?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. There is no indication from any source that

14 he had been to any other establishment than Brooster's;

15 isn't that a fact?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. When you got to the hospital, if you would

18 have arrived at the scene at approximately 12:19, would

19 that be approximately the time you would have arrived at

20 the scene?

 

21 A. I really can't say for sure because I -- I

22 was notified of the accident probably ten minutes, 15

23 minutes after it occurred. I drove to the police

24 station. I was at the police station for just a few

25 minutes picking up my equipment and drove to the scene,

 

270

 

1 so I'm thinking -- I probably arrived to the scene 11:30

2 to 11:40.

 

3 Q. Okay. And if the call came in at 11:01, you

4 would have been at the scene within -- within

5 approximately a half an hour, give or take, from the time

6 that the dispatch -- you heard the dispatch on your

7 radio?

 

8 A. Thirty to 40 minutes.

 

9 Q. And you were only in the police department

10 getting your equipment two or three minutes, five minutes

11 at the most?

 

12 A. Five minutes at the most.

 

13 Q. And from the part-time job you had down to

14 the police department, that would only be about a five-

15 minute ride, wouldn't it?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. And from the police department back out to

18 the intersection would be no more than a ten-minute ride,

19 would it not?

 

20 A. True.

 

21 Q. And so it could have been a total of

22 15 minutes en route in the car and five minutes at the

23 police station?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. Okay. When you left the scene and went to

 

271

 

1 Sartori Hospital, you went in and first spoke with Juli

2 Farrell, did you not?

 

3 A. Yes, I did.

 

4 Q. And when you went in and spoke to her, she

5 was alert; isn't that a fact?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. And you were able to engage her in

8 substantive conversation?

 

9 A. It was obvious that she was in extreme pain.

10 I did have conversation with her.

 

11 Q. And you would have gone in to see Ms. Farrell

12 almost or immediately after your arrival at the hospital?

 

13 A. Shortly after, yes.

 

14 Q. And in the time you would have started

15 talking to Ms. Farrell, that would have been at

16 approximately 12:30, would it not?

 

17 A. 12:30 to 12:40.

 

18 Q. Not to quibble, but in your -- in your

19 deposition did you not tell me it was -- when you went

20 to -- "When you went in and spoke with her, would that be

21 something in the vicinity of 12:30?" And your answer

22 was, "Yes."

 

23 A. Okay. That's fine.

 

24 Q. When you went in and spoke with her, you

25 spoke with her for less than five minutes; is that a fair

272

 

1 statement?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. And when you spoke with her, did you -- did

4 she not indicate to you what she had been -- or what they

5 had been doing that day -- that evening?

 

6 A. That evening, yes.

 

7 Q. And did she indicate to you that she had --

8 why don't you tell us what she had indicated to you where

9 they had been.

 

10 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object, Your

 

11 Honor. Calls for hearsay.

 

12 COURT: Is there an exception, Mr. Correll?

 

13 MR. CORRELL: Yes. I think it's a res gestae

14 exception.

 

15 MR. WADDING: My response is that there is no

16 foundation for that.

 

17 COURT: Well, there is through other

18 witnesses who testified yesterday. I'll allow the

19 testimony.

 

20 A. The conversation -- she stated that she had

21 been at a friend's house and that they had driven up and

22 down University a few times, and they went over and

23 watched a movie at a friend's house, and then they were

24 going to head home.

 

25 Q. And did they say -- did she indicate that the

 

273

 

1 last -- before they went home, they were going to go

2 cruise up and down University one more time before they

3 went home?

 

4 A. They could have, yes.

 

5 Q. Did you not ask her why she did not -- if she

6 did not see the Rokes vehicle; didn't you ask her that?

 

7 A. Yes.

 

8 Q. And didn't she, in fact, indicate to you that

9 she did not see the Rokes vehicle? Did she not tell you

10 that?

 

11 A. She indicated she did not see it.

 

12 Q. And she indicated that she did not take any

13 evasive action therefor; isn't that a fact?

 

14 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object, Your

15 Honor. The -- calls for hearsay. It's also irrelevant.

 

16 COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

 

17 A. She indicated that she didn't see it until

18 she -- the vehicle until impact.

 

19 Q. And didn't she indicate, or didn't you ask

20 her if the reason she didn't see the other vehicle was

21 because she was chatting with her friends?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. And didn't she say yes, that that was the

24 fact, that that is the reason she didn't see the Rokes

25 vehicle is because she was turned chatting to her

 

274

 

1 friends?

 

2 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object, Your

3 Honor. I think that's just testimony.

 

4 COURT: Overruled.

 

5 A. She indicated that she was talking to her

6 friend.

 

7 Q. And that was the reason why she did not see

8 the Rokes vehicle; isn't that what she told you?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. When you were in the room with Ms. Farrell

11 and when -- excuse me. Strike that. Did you go and talk

12 to any of the medical people before you talked to Ms.

13 Farrell?

 

14 A. I just stopped at the desk for a moment to

15 see if it was okay if I could talk to -- talk to her.

 

16 Q. And did you talk to the nurse that was

17 treating her at that time?

 

18 A. Yes, I did.

 

19 Q. And did you attempt to get an understanding

20 of what her condition was?

 

21 A. From the nurse I did, yes.

 

22 Q. And based upon what the nurse said, was it

23 your understanding that she was going -- it was expected

24 that she was going to recover from these injuries?

 

25 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object, Your

 

275

 

1 Honor. Calls for hearsay.

 

2 COURT: Sustained.

 

3 Q. Mr. Wilson, was there ever anything that was

4 observed by you that indicated to you that Juli Farrell

5 was not going to recover from these injuries?

 

6 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object again, Your

7 Honor. This is outside the scope of this witness'

8 knowledge.

 

9 COURT: Sustained.

 

10 Q. Mr. Wilson, is it not a fact that when you

11 left that hospital you made an appointment -- or, excuse

12 me, that hospital room with Ms. Farrell, you had made

13 arrangements to see her at a future time later within the

14 week?

 

15 A. I had spoke with her mother, and I had

16 indicated to her mother that I would like to talk to her

17 at the end of the week when -- when she was feeling

18 better.

 

19 Q. And isn't it a fact that when you left her

20 room it was your belief that she was going to recover

21 from the injuries that she had received?

 

22 MR. WADDING: Objection, Your Honor.

 

23 Irrelevant.

 

24 COURT: It's obvious if he was making an

25 appointment later on that was his understanding. Go

 

276

 

1 ahead. Ask another question.

 

2 Q. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Wilson, it is your

3 opinion that had Ms. Rokes -- excuse me, Ms. Farrell

4 received medical care, different type of medical care,

 

5 that she would have recovered from the injuries which she

6 received?

 

7 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object, Your

8 Honor. This witness isn't qualified to make that kind of

9 a statement. It's irrelevant as well.

10 COURT: Sustained.

 

11 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, at the conclusion I

12 would like to make an offer of proof on that or --

 

13 COURT: That's fine.

 

14 Q. With regard to Ms. Farrell, you never did ask

15 her what her speed was, did you?

 

16 A. No.

 

17 Q. And with regard to the fact that you

18 concluded this conversation with her, did you then go

19 talk to her mother in the hospital?

 

20 A. I don't remember if I talked to Mr. Rokes

21 first or her mother first. I know I talked to them each.

 

22 Q. And did you tell her -- her mother that you

23 made the arrangements to see her at a future date?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. With regard to Mr. Rokes, when you had your

 

277

 

1 conversation with Mr. Rokes, was that in a treatment

2 room?

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. And if Ms. Venenga thought it was in the

5 hallway, would she be incorrect in that?

 

6 A. I -- we had -- the conversation occurred -- I

7 mean, we had conversations in both areas.

 

8 Q. Okay. Is the conversation that you're

9 referring to a conversation that took place in an

10 emergency treatment room where Mr. Rokes was?

 

11 A. That's where I recall having the

12 conversation.

 

13 Q. And when you went into that room, wasn't Dr.

14 Robitaille there?

 

15 A. There was a doctor in there -- yes, it was.

 

16 Q. And you do know that to be Dr. Robitaille, do

17 you not?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. And Dr. Robitaille was at that time -- had

20 been completing working on Mr. Rokes; is that correct?

 

21 A. I think he had just completed.

 

22 Q. And at that point in time did that treatment

23 include stitching his -- giving him stitches in his face?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. And were there two relatively deep

 

278

 

1 lacerations in his face in the areas that you described?

 

2 A. I mean, there was two areas that had been

3 stitched up, yes.

 

4 Q. And when you came in, isn't it a fact that

5 Mr. Rokes was being engaged in conversation by Dr.

6 Robitaille?

 

7 A. I don't recall a conversation, no.

 

8 Q. I know you don't recall the content of it,

9 but, I mean, wasn't there some conversation between Mr.

10 Rokes and Dr. Robitaille?

 

11 A. There would have been.

 

12 Q. With regard to Dr. Robitaille, was there

13 discussion about -- between Dr. Robitaille and Mr. Rokes

14 as to whether or not Mr. Rokes had had stitches before?

 

15 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object, Your

 

16 Honor. It's hearsay. It's irrelevant.

 

17 COURT: Sustained.

 

18 MR. CORRELL: It's not being offered for the

19 proof -- the truth of the statement. It's just an

20 offer --

 

21 COURT: How is it relevant?

 

22 MR. CORRELL: Well, I think it -- I think it

23 will be connected at a later time.

 

24 COURT: Go ahead. You may answer.

 

25 MR. WADDING: I -- I'd like to respond to

 

279

 

1 that, Your Honor. I believe that it is being offered for

2 the truth of the matter asserted. I believe it's being

3 offered as an explanation for Mr. Rokes' statement that

4 he had had one too many drinks that night, and I believe

5 it is being offered for the truth.

 

6 COURT: I'm not going to consider it for the

7 truth. You may answer the question.

 

8 A. Was there a conversation? Yes, there was a

9 conversation about -- I don't recall if it was about

10 stitches or not. I mean, I -- Mr. -- as soon as I

11 entered the room, Dr. Robitaille had basically completed

12 his work, and he was packing up to leave.

 

13 Q. Okay. And -- but it was during that time

14 that this conversation took place, comments took place

15 between Mr. Rokes and Dr. Robitaille; would that be a

16 fair statement?

 

17 A. There may have been a conversation. I don't

18 recall hearing it.

 

19 Q. With regard to the statement that you say you

20 heard that I had too many -- I had one too many to drink;

21 is that what you said it was?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. Is it fair to say that -- first of all, are

24 you sure it was one too many to drink, or I had one too

25 many?

 

280

 

1 A. Too many to drink.

 

2 Q. There was no statement about alcohol, was

3 there?

 

4 A. He did not say, I had one too many to drink

5 of alcohol, no. He just said, I had one too many to

6 drink.

 

7 Q. He didn't say he had one too many beers, did

8 he?

 

9 A. No.

 

10 Q. And, in fact, the statement that he made,

11 isn't it a fact that you did not consider that to be

12 equal to a confession? You didn't consider that to be a

13 confession by Mr. Rokes, did you?

 

14 A. I thought it was pretty incriminating at the

15 time.

 

16 Q. You didn't consider it to be any type of a

17 confession, did you?

 

18 A. I guess at that point in the investigation I

19 wasn't -- it wasn't my job at the time to investigate the

20 alcohol side of it. I was just doing the technical --

21 the investigation of the accident itself, so I didn't pay

22 a lot of attention to it.

 

23 Q. But I took your deposition on May 5, 1997,

24 didn't I?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

281

1 MR. CORRELL: May I approach the witness?

 

2 COURT: You may.

 

3 Q. Mr. Wilson, did I not, on page 29 of that

4 deposition, say, question, "And isn't it also correct

5 that you did not take this by him to be the equivalent of

6 a confession? You did not take that; is that not

7 correct?" Isn't that the question I asked you?

 

8 A. Yes.

 

9 Q. And wasn't your answer to me on May 5 of

10 1997, "That's correct?"

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. And was that correct when you gave me that

13 statement, that deposition on May 5?

 

14 A. From that question, yeah.

 

15 Q. With regard to the time you were in the room,

16 was Mrs. Rokes present in the room?

 

17 A. Yes, she was.

 

18 Q. And you were in that room for approximately

19 five to ten minutes; is that correct?

 

20 A. That's correct.

 

21 Q. Did Mr. Rokes or Mrs. Rokes, in fact, didn't

22 they both express concern over the other people in the

23 other car?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. They did not appear in any way to be self-

 

282

 

1 absorbed or indifferent to their condition; isn't that a

2 fair statement?

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. And at that point in time he could have

5 refused to speak to you, couldn't he?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. And he never did refuse in any way; is that

8 not correct?

 

9 A. That's correct.

 

10 Q. There were no questions that he ever declined

11 to answer, were there?

 

12 A. No.

 

13 Q. And he told you that he had been at

14 Brooster's; is that correct?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. And he told you that his mother-in-law had

17 been ill and that she had a heart condition; is that

18 correct?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 Q. Did he not also indicate on the way home from

21 Brooster's that he was trying to console his wife?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. And did he not also indicate that during that

24 time her -- his wife's condition was that she had her

25 head down and that she was crying?

283

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. And did he not tell you that the reason that

3 he went through the intersection was that he had been

4 distracted by his wife?

 

5 A. He indicated that he -- at first he indicated

6 that -- that it was that he was distracted by his wife,

7 but he also indicated that he had a green light.

 

8 Q. He did indicate both of those; is that

9 correct?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. And it could have certainly have been that he

12 was distracted and thought he had a green light; isn't

13 that a fact?

 

14 A. It could very well be.

 

15 Q. And didn't Mr. Rokes indicate to you

16 specifically while you were in that room that alcohol did

17 not have any impact or any role in this accident?

 

18 A. Did he indicate to me that night?

 

19 Q. Yes.

 

20 A. He felt it did not.

 

21 Q. That's what he told you, didn't he?

 

22 A. Yes.

 

23 Q. Was -- you've indicated that there was an

24 odor of alcohol in the room. Would some of that odor

25 have come from his wife?

284

 

1 A. Yes. She indicated -- or he indicated she

2 had been drinking also.

 

3 Q. Was that meeting that you would have had

4 by -- with Mr. Rokes, would have been -- could have been

5 as early as 12:30?

 

6 A. No.

 

7 Q. Between 12:30 and 1?

 

8 A. Between 12:30 and 1.

 

9 Q. With regard to that time, isn't it a fact

10 that he was not slurring his words?

 

11 A. From my conversations he was not.

 

12 Q. He was oriented, was he not?

 

13 A. He was upset. I mean, he had just been

14 involved in an accident where there was injury. He -- I

15 don't know if the word is disoriented.

 

16 Q. What was -- was he not alert and oriented?

 

17 A. He answered the questions that I had, yes. I

18 mean, he didn't have a problem communicating.

 

19 Q. And did he not appear to understand all of

20 your questions?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. And didn't he give you answers back that

23 indicated that he had mentally processed your questions

24 and was responding appropriately in kind?

 

25 A. He -- yes.

285

 

1 Q. He was not amiss to the day or where he was

2 or anything like that, was he?

 

3 A. No.

 

4 Q. And isn't it a fact, Mr. Wilson, there was

5 nothing that he said to you in his conversation with you

6 during that five to ten minutes at the hospital that

7 would indicate to you that his judgment was impaired at

8 that time; isn't that correct?

 

9 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object to the

10 form of the question, Your Honor, as compound. I think

11 it's -- and ask that it be rephrased. I think it's two

12 questions.

 

13 COURT: Would you read the question back,

14 please.

 

15 (At which time the requested portion of the

16 testimony was read back by the court reporter.)

 

17 COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

 

18 A. There was nothing that he stated to me that

19 indicated that he was unable to communicate, no.

 

20 MR. CORRELL: May I approach the witness,

21 Your Honor?

 

22 COURT: You may.

 

23 Q. Mr. Wilson, that same day when I took your

24 deposition, did I not specifically ask you this question,

25 "There was nothing in what he --"

 

286

 

1 MR. WADDING: Ask to be -- what the page --

 

2 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me. Page 36, line 1.

 

3 Q. Question, "There was nothing in what he said

4 in his conversation to you that would indicate to you

5 that his judgment was impaired at that time; is that

6 correct?" Answer, "At that particular time I was talking

7 to him?" Answer, "Yes." Your answer, "Yes." "Am I

8 correct?" Your answer, "Yes, you're correct."

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. So isn't it a -- isn't it accurate to say,

11 based upon the conversation that you had with him, this

12 five- to ten-minute conversation in the hospital, there

13 was nothing in his responses that indicated to you that

14 he was in any way impaired; isn't that a fair statement?

 

15 A. Impaired? I mean, from the indications, no,

16 he -- he -- no.

 

17 Q. At the hospital there were no photographs

18 taken of Mr. Rokes regarding his injuries; is that

19 correct?

 

20 A. That's correct.

 

21 Q. There was no tape recording taken, audiotape

22 recording nor video recording of him; am I also correct

23 in that?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. Based upon your experience, would you not --

 

287

 

1 isn't it a fact that if a person has a .087 blood-

2 alcohol, no accident and a red light violation, that that

3 person is not charged with OWI?

 

4 A. If a person is not involved in an accident?

 

5 Q. Correct.

 

6 A. That's correct.

 

7 Q. And isn't it a fact that what happened in

8 this case, Mr. Wilson, is when Juli Farrell died, that

9 that changed this investigation?

 

10 A. No. The alcohol -- the alcohol investigation

11 had -- had occurred prior -- or just -- just after the

12 accident. State Code requires that any time there's a

13 personal injury accident or a death and there's alcohol

14 involved that we have to follow up on the alcohol side

15 of it. The investigation -- I guess I misunderstood

16 the --

 

17 Q. Let me ask you -- try again. What really

18 elevated the attention to this case was the tragic death

19 of Juli Farrell and the injury to the other girl; isn't

20 that a fair statement, sir?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. And it -- had it not been for that, had it

23 only been the 0.87 and the accident, this would not have

24 typically been pursued as an OWI; isn't that a fact?

 

25 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object to that,

 

288

 

1 Your Honor, as being irrelevant.

 

2 COURT: Overruled.

 

3 A. If Juli Farrell had not died, this still

4 would have been pursued as an OWI. If she didn't --

5 if -- because there was a personal injury accident at the

6 time.

 

7 Q. If there had been no accident though --

 

8 A. If there had been no accident, we would not

9 have pursued it.

 

10 Q. Based on a .087?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. When you left the room of Mr. Rokes during

13 the early morning hours of October 5, isn't it correct

14 that you had not reached an opinion that he was operating

15 a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol? Isn't

16 that a fair statement, sir?

 

17 A. Again, my --

 

18 Q. No. Please -- can you answer that yes or no.

 

19 MR. WADDING: I think that he should be

20 allowed to answer the question, Your Honor.

 

21 COURT: You may answer the question.

 

22 A. My participation in this investigation was on

23 the accident side of it. I was not there to form an

24 opinion basically on Mr. Rokes' sobriety.

 

25 MR. CORRELL: May I approach the witness,

 

289

 

1 Your Honor?

 

2 COURT: You may.

 

3 Q. Mr. Wilson, I'm going to -- I'm referring to

4 the deposition, page 39, line 13. Were you not asked

5 this question during the course of your deposition by me,

6 "So when you left that room, you had not made any

7 determination that he was under the influence; isn't that

8 a fair statement?" Your answer, "I felt he -- that he

9 was operating a motor vehicle and that he had been

10 drinking, and that was my concern at that point in time."

11 Isn't that what the answer --

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. And then didn't I go on, I say, "And I

14 understand that, but in specific answer to my question,

15 when you left that room, you had not reached an opinion

16 that he was operating a motor vehicle under the influence

17 of alcohol. Isn't that a fair statement?" And your

18 answer was, "Yes."

 

19 A. That's true.

 

20 Q. And isn't it true, sir, when I took your

21 deposition on that day in May this year, that you told me

22 at that point in time, as you sat there during that

23 deposition, that you do not know whether Tracy Rokes was

24 under the influence of alcohol at the time of this

25 accident or not; isn't that a fact?

290

 

1 A. That's a fact.

 

2 Q. That was the fact on May 5, and that's the

3 fact again today; is not that true, sir?

 

4 A. But, again, it wasn't my position to

5 determine that. I -- it wasn't my job, so I -- I didn't

6 focus my attention onto that, so what you're saying is

7 true, yes.

 

8 Q. As you sit here today, you don't know that?

 

9 A. I did not form an opinion, no.

 

10 Q. You were by rank and experience the officer

11 in charge, were you not, of this investigation?

 

12 A. I was off duty. I guess Sergeant Liljegren

13 is the on-duty shift supervisor as well as Captain

14 Lashbrook. Captain Lashbrook's ultimately the person in

15 charge because he's the shift commander. Sergeant

16 Liljegren is the field supervisor, so he would be the

17 supervisor of the street. I was called in on off-duty

18 status, so I would imagine that one of those two would be

19 in charge.

 

20 Q. On that night you were the person there, and

21 the following day you were the law enforcement officer

22 doing interviews; is that not correct?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. Although you might not have been formally

25 designated as the person in charge, weren't you, in fact,

291

 

1 the person in charge of this investigation, Mr. Wilson?

 

2 A. Was I in charge of this investigation?

 

3 Q. Yes.

 

4 A. Any time there's an investigation, I -- I'm

5 called in on -- on -- particularly on this case, my duty

6 is to assist in the accident investigation. There's so

7 many different parts of an investigation like this,

8 there's many statements to be taken, there's vehicles

9 examination. I do the technical part of the accident

10 investigation. I couldn't even tell you who was

11 interviewed in this thing.

 

12 Q. But as you sit here today, you do not know

13 whether Mr. Rokes was under the influence of alcohol at

14 the time of the accident; that is, in fact, the case, is

15 it not?

 

16 A. As I sit here today? I have all the facts in

17 front of me today.

 

18 Q. When I took your deposition on October --

19 excuse me, on May 5, you told me that you did not know

20 whether Mr. Rokes was under the influence of alcohol at

21 the time of the accident or not; isn't that what you told

22 me?

 

23 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object to that,

24 Your Honor, because I don't think -- I don't know what

25 that is exactly, if that's impeachment. It sounds like

292

 

1 testimony to me. It's not a question. It's testimony,

2 and it's -- it sounds like a -- an attempt to impeach

3 when there's, in fact, nothing to impeach.

 

4 COURT: It's repetitive. I've heard that a

5 couple of times.

 

6 MR. CORRELL: Okay. Thank you.

 

7 Q. Mr. Wilson, you had a conversation with Mr.

8 and Mrs. Rokes the following day, Saturday, when --

9 relatively shortly after the death of Juli Farrell; is

10 that an accurate statement?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. And you called them at their home and told --

13 asked them if they would come down? Am I correct in

14 that?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. And by making reference to your statement, do

17 you have the statement that you identified in front of

18 you there?

 

19 A. I have the statement from Tracy Rokes.

 

20 Q. Do you know what time that statement would

21 have started?

 

22 A. At 7:54.

 

23 Q. Okay. And prior to that statement, did you

24 give Mr. Rokes his Miranda warnings?

 

25 A. Yes, I did.

293

 

1 Q. And the court will be well aware of those,

2 but are those the standard Miranda warnings that are

3 recognized by the United States Supreme Court and the

4 courts of Iowa?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. And do you understand those to -- was he told

7 that he didn't have to talk to you?

 

8 A. Do you have the form -- we have a regular

9 form that we read off and --

 

10 MR. CORRELL: May I approach the witness,

11 Your Honor?

 

12 COURT: You may.

 

13 Q. I'm not going to offer this into evidence,

14 but is this the form, just so you can refresh your

15 recollection, that you would have filled out and asked

16 Mr. Rokes to sign?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. And that -- that form indicates that that was

19 signed by him at 7:47?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. Prior to having him sign that form, had you

22 told him about the -- the death of Juli Farrell?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. And I believe you indicated that both he and

25 his wife were shocked; would that be a fair statement?

294

 

1 A. Yes. Upset.

 

2 Q. Upset. Would that be fair too?

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. And when you told him that, he agreed to go

5 ahead and give a statement, didn't he?

 

6 A. Yes, he did.

 

7 Q. He never said, I'm not going to give a

8 statement, I'm going to walk out of this police station.

9 He never gave you that kind of indication at all, did he,

10 sir?

 

11 A. No.

 

12 Q. He didn't say, let me call a lawyer and see

13 whether I should give a statement, did he?

 

14 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object to that,

15 Your Honor, as being irrelevant.

 

16 COURT: Overruled.

 

17 A. No, he did not.

 

18 Q. And once the statement started, he allowed

19 you and Ms. Venenga to separate he and his wife during

20 the course of the interrogation or statement?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 Q. And that was at your request and not their

23 request; isn't that a fair statement?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. And during the invest -- during your

295

 

1 questioning of him, he could have at any point in time

2 stopped talking or gotten up and, in fact, walked out,

3 could he not?

 

4 A. Yes, he could.

 

5 Q. And wouldn't it be fair to say that he was

6 cooperative during the course of that investigation, sir?

 

7 A. Yes, he was.

 

8 Q. And in that statement, which lasted from 9 --

9 excuse me, from approximately 7, what, 54, is that --

 

10 A. To 9:12.

 

11 Q. 7:54 to 9:12?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. There is no statement in there whatsoever

14 about him having one too many to drink, is there?

 

15 A. No. He did not state that to me that night.

 

16 Q. And you did not ask that, did you?

 

17 A. No.

 

18 Q. And his statement was not documented in any

19 way other than what we have here, I mean, it wasn't

20 recorded by a -- there's no tape anyplace that shows

21 exactly what you said and what he said; is that correct?

 

22 A. As far as this is concerned?

 

23 Q. Yes, sir.

 

24 A. No, there's not.

 

25 Q. And there's no video?

296

 

1 A. No.

 

2 Q. There's no other documentation, video, audio

3 or a court reporter; is that a fair statement?

 

4 A. That's true.

 

5 Q. Isn't it a fact, sir, that other people, if

6 you know, that he was -- he and his wife were with that

7 night were contacted?

 

8 A. My understanding is that it -- that's true.

 

9 Q. And were all the people that he indicated he

10 was with, were all those people contacted and

11 interviewed?

 

12 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object, Your

13 Honor. It's outside the scope.

 

14 COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

 

15 A. I can't say for sure if every single one was.

16 I know several people that there were statements from.

17 Q. Were there, in fact, three couples that he

18 said he and his wife were with, were those three

19 people -- were those three couples interviewed?

 

20 A. I don't know if every single person of those

21 couples were. I know that several of them were.

 

22 Q. Were those people -- did they come, do you

23 know, to the police station and give statements as

24 requested?

 

25 MR. WADDING: Object, Your Honor. It's

 

297

1 outside the scope, and I believe it's been asked and

2 answered.

 

3 COURT: Overruled.

 

4 A. I don't know.

 

5 COURT: You may answer.

 

6 A. I don't know whether the statements were

7 taken.

 

8 Q. Do you have any belief or opinion that any of

9 those people that he was with, he and his wife were with

10 earlier in the evening, did you have any indication that

11 those people were not cooperative with Cedar Falls

12 investigation?

 

13 MR. WADDING: Object again, Your Honor.

14 Irrelevant.

 

15 COURT: Overruled.

 

16 A. I don't know.

 

17 Q. So you have no indication of noncooperation;

18 is that a fair statement?

 

19 A. I don't -- either way I don't have any idea.

 

20 Q. With regard to your investigation in this

21 case, you didn't make any calculations regarding the

22 speed of the vehicles beforehand; is that correct?

 

23 A. That's correct.

 

24 Q. But you did, as part of your investigation,

25 go examine the Farrell vehicle; is that -- am I correct

 

298

 

1 in that, sir?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. And in conjunction with that, did you observe

4 the speedometer of the Farrell vehicle?

 

5 A. Yes, I did.

 

6 Q. And was that speedometer at its rest

7 position, or was it pinned or frozen in a speed position?

 

8 A. It was pinned.

 

9 Q. And at what miles-per-hour was the Farrell

10 vehicle speedometer pinned?

 

11 A. It was in the 60s.

 

12 Q. Okay. Somewhere between 60 and 69?

 

13 A. Yes.

 

14 Q. Can't be -- can you be more specific?

 

15 A. I'm thinking it was around 66 or 67.

 

16 Q. And if you would turn your attention, do you

17 recognize, sir, what's been marked and received into

18 evidence as Exhibit "A"?

 

19 A. Yes.

 

20 MR. CORRELL: May I stand here and refer to

21 the exhibit?

 

22 COURT: You may.

 

23 Q. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, but this

24 would be Greenhill Road going from the east towards the

25 west, and this would be Highway 58 coming from the north

299

 

1 going to the south. Have I correctly shown the correct

2 understanding of those two roads?

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. And with regard to Greenhill up here, there

5 are stop -- electric -- or automatic stoplights that

6 control Greenhill and South Main; is that not correct?

 

7 A. Yes, there is. There is traffic lights.

 

8 Q. And those are the, I guess, what, red/yellow/

9 green type of lights?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. They're the same type of lights, are they

12 not, the same type of fixture as the light fixture that

13 is down on the intersection of Greenhill and Highway 58?

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. With regard to those, during the course of

16 your investigation, did you not find that there is a

17 difference between the way those two lights are set?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. And is it not fair to say that the lights

20 that are down at -- on Highway 58 where the accident

21 occurred, those go to -- from the regular solid mode to

22 the flashing mode at 10 p.m. and then go back at either 6

23 or 6:30 in the a.m. to their regular red/green solid

24 lighting; is that --

 

25 A. Yes.

 

300

 

1 Q. Am I correct in that?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. And that's different for the time schedule

4 for the lights up at the next intersection up on South

5 Main, isn't it?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. And at South Main the lights go off the

8 regular solid basis an hour later to 11 o'clock, don't

9 they?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. So if the -- Mr. Rokes would have been going

12 through the intersection of Greenhill and South Main, is

13 that Greenhill, between those two intersections, is

14 Greenhill the dominant or primary road?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. And isn't it a fact that Greenhill primarily

17 has the green light as opposed to South Main?

 

18 A. I don't know.

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

20 A. I don't know.

 

21 Q. Do you -- and we've talked to Mr. Junker

22 about that. Maybe that would be more in his line is what

23 you're saying. But from your experience as a police

24 officer, which of those is the busier road, South Main or

25 Greenhill?

 

301

 

1 A. Greenhill would be.

 

2 Q. And the speed limit is faster on Greenhill,

3 isn't it?

 

4 A. Yes.

 

5 Q. And on South Main, when you go through this

6 intersection, if this picture was bigger, you go down

7 here to South Main, this about another block is a -- or

8 maybe two more -- three more blocks is a dead-end, isn't

9 it?

 

10 A. Yes.

 

11 Q. And this is a 35 miles-an-hour speed limit on

12 South Main both to the north and to the south of

13 Greenhill Road; is that correct?

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. Now, this doesn't have -- maybe it has -- I

16 guess it does, the scale, we don't have any foundation

17 for it, but from the distance between the intersection

18 here of South Main and Greenhill Road down to the

19 intersection down here of 58 and Greenhill Road, you

20 measured that, did you not?

 

21 A. Just on my speedometer.

 

22 Q. And that came to slightly more than three-

23 tenths of a mile, did it not?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. Now, during the course of your

 

302

 

1 investigation -- let me look at this. (Complied.) I'm

2 going to hand to you, sir, what has been marked and

3 received into evidence as State's Exhibit "7". Could you

4 take a minute to identify that.

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. Okay. And could you hand that to the court

7 so the court can see it.

 

8 A. (Complied.)

 

9 Q. Now, would you take -- would you stand by

10 Exhibit "A".

 

11 A. (Complied.)

 

12 Q. Maybe stand back enough so I -- this way so I

13 can see as well.

 

14 A. (Complied.)

 

15 Q. Is not "E-7" a photograph that is taken from

16 approximately this way, looking to the south primarily,

17 but to the south and the west?

 

18 A. No.

 

19 Q. Excuse me. Excuse me. It is taken this --

20 this way looking to the --

 

21 A. To the south.

 

22 Q. South, primarily to the south and a bit to

23 the west?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. I was just pointing -- I had the directions

 

303

 

1 right but the wrong road, right? And when you look that

2 way on that photograph, "E-7", it -- there are a number

3 of substantial tire skid marks shown in that photograph;

4 is that correct?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. And those tire skid marks you determined

7 through the course of your investigation had nothing to

8 do with this accident; is that not correct?

 

9 A. That's correct.

 

10 Q. And didn't you, in fact, determine that the

11 skid marks that are shown on Exhibit "E-7" were made the

12 previous day when there was another automobile accident

13 at that very intersection?

 

14 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object, Your

15 Honor, as to relevance.

 

16 COURT: Overruled.

 

17 A. That's true.

 

18 Q. And that was a situation where an individual

19 struck the back of another car who was waiting -- that

20 was waiting at the intersection?

 

21 MR. WADDING: Object again, Your Honor, as to

22 relevance.

 

23 COURT: Overruled.

 

24 A. It -- I don't know.

 

25 Q. Do you -- are you aware though that there was

304

 

1 a collision there, there were just not skid marks, there

2 was, in fact, a collision at this very intersection the

3 day before?

 

4 A. I just don't know of the circumstances of the

5 accident. I know there was a collision.

 

6 Q. Okay. And you're also aware that there was

7 no alcohol involved in that collision, aren't you?

 

8 MR. WADDING: Objection, irrelevant.

 

9 COURT: Sustained.

 

10 Q. Up here, sir, is -- we're going to the --

11 back up to the north. Is it not true that -- I think

12 they're just -- they're visible here. Do you see those

13 two marks there?

 

14 A. Yes.

 

15 Q. And isn't it a fact that on the approach from

16 the north to the south on 58 there are two signs, signs

17 that alert people to the fact, that are going on 58 from

18 the north to the south, that alert them to the fact that

19 there is a stop -- electric controlled stop device that

20 they are approaching?

 

21 A. I -- I don't know.

 

22 Q. Could be, you just don't know?

 

23 A. There could be. I'm not familiar with the --

24 I haven't been on the road for three years, so it's kind

25 of hard for me to remember all the intersections.

 

305

 

1 Q. Sure. Do you know the kind of sign I'm

2 talking about though? There are yellow signs that --

 

3 A. Yes.

 

4 Q. -- that have the -- let me finish. I don't

5 mean to interrupt you, but the yellow signs that have

6 the -- the kind of depiction of the red, yellow and green

7 traffic control device? You're familiar with that kind

8 of sign?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. And at this time you can't remember if there

11 are those for -- on Highway 58?

 

12 A. I don't remember right offhand.

 

13 Q. Is it true that there are no such signs that

14 you're aware of for cars proceeding from the east to the

15 west, from the east to the west on Greenhill?

 

16 A. I don't know.

 

17 Q. And there are no rumble strips or highway

18 pavement cuts either way on that road for Greenhill going

19 east to west, nor from -- on Highway 58 going from north

20 to south; is that not correct?

 

21 A. That's correct.

 

22 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, I think I'm about

23 done. I would like to have a moment to examine my notes

24 to see if we could take a --

 

25 COURT: Sure. We'll take the morning break

306

 

1 until 11 o'clock at this point.

2 (At which time a recess was taken at

3 10:53 a.m., May 14, 1997; and proceedings commenced at

4 11:05 a.m., May 14, 1997, with the court, counsel and

5 defendant present.)

 

6 COURT: You remain under oath.

 

7 Mr. Correll.

 

8 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

9 BY MR. CORRELL:

 

10 Q. Mr. Rokes -- excuse me. Mr. Wilson,

11 regarding the highway out there, Greenhill Road, is there

12 not a -- kind of a crown and a hill that is basically

13 right about at the intersection of South Main and

14 Greenhill Road?

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. And isn't it a fact that you are really

17 unable to see down to this intersection until you get

18 approximately to the intersection right at South Main

19 because of that hill?

 

20 A. Pretty close to the intersection, yes.

 

21 Q. Okay. And the -- this photograph, Exhibit

22 "A", shows that that -- the road actually goes down maybe

23 a certain two, 300 feet, maybe farther than that, and

24 then there's a slight bend in the road in Greenhill Road.

25 Does that picture accurately show that bend to the extent

 

307

 

1 that it exists?

 

2 A. Yes.

 

3 Q. And would you agree that the line of vision

4 is much -- is longer, the straight line of vision is

5 longer for people proceeding to the south on Highway 58

6 than it is on Greenhill Road because of that hill?

 

7 A. By a little bit, yes.

 

8 Q. Okay. And there is nothing really, that you

9 can't get the sense here, there is nothing in this area

10 here that would have obstructed the corner, I guess what

11 I'm referring to would be the northeast corner, there

12 would be nothing there that would really have obstructed

13 or caused the vision of either party to be obstructed; is

14 that a fair statement?

 

15 A. That's true.

 

16 Q. Now, isn't it a fact, Mr. Wilson, that there

17 are no other intersections in the city of Cedar Falls

18 that are 45 and 55 miles-an-hour intersections that get

19 controlled with a flashing signal?

 

20 A. I believe that's the only one.

 

21 Q. And the speedometer, when you have -- as part

22 of your investigation, is not where a speedometer needle

23 is trapped, I'm not saying that's the only method, but

24 that is one of the recognized techniques in determining

25 speed, is it not?

308

 

1 A. It's one, yes.

 

2 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, those are the only

3 questions. I do have the matter of the offer of proof

4 that I would like to take up that I referred to earlier

5 in my examination of this witness.

 

6 COURT: All right. Mr. Wadding?

 

7 MR. WADDING: Do you want me to redirect?

 

8 COURT: Please.

 

9 MR. WADDING: May I approach?

 

10 COURT: Yes.

 

11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

12 BY MR. WADDING:

 

13 Q. Sergeant Wilson, you indicated that from

14 South Main to Highway 58 it was approximately three-

15 tenths of a mile?

 

16 A. Just over three-tenths.

 

17 Q. Okay. And do you -- how far -- how long

18 would it take you to travel that distance?

 

19 A. At 45 miles-an-hour, I'd have to have a

20 calculator. I could figure it out. You're traveling at

21 45 miles-an-hour, you would multiply 45 times 1.466 feet

22 per second, so you're traveling six --

 

23 Q. Just ball park it for me.

 

24 A. Traveling probably -- better than 60 feet per

25 second, so you're talking three-tenths of a mile, a

 

309

 

1 thousand -- what is that -- my math isn't the greatest

2 without a calculator anymore. Maybe 2,000 feet at 60

3 feet per second, so --

 

4 Q. So at least we're talking better than

5 20 seconds?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. Okay. Anywhere from 20 to 35 seconds?

 

8 A. I don't know if it would stretch 35, but it

9 would -- if he was doing the speed limit.

 

10 Q. Okay. And what is your understanding about

11 the operation of a motor vehicle and what you -- what

12 you're doing when you operate a motor vehicle as far as

13 your vision is concerned?

 

14 A. The vision of the driver?

 

15 Q. Yes. What is he doing?

 

16 A. He's paying attention to the roadway.

 

17 Q. And is he focused on one particular thing at

 

18 any -- for a long period of time?

 

19 A. No. You have an obligation to drive

20 defensively, pay attention to all the signals and signs

21 and so forth.

 

22 Q. And what kind of things -- I mean, can you

23 describe what kind of things that a normal driver does?

 

24 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me. I think that's

25 irrelevant to the facts of this case. This is a specific

 

 

310

 

1 case, not what the normal driver does.

2 COURT: I'm not sure where you're going, Mr.

3 Wadding, but I'll allow it for a little bit here.

 

4 A. Basically I -- a driver has an obligation to

5 pay attention to what's around him. You have -- I guess,

6 you know, you drive for as many years as we've driven,

7 it's kind of hard to put it all into words, but you have

8 an obligation to pay attention to what's in front of you,

9 behind you. You have to check for stop signs, signals,

10 watch your speed, so forth.

 

11 Q. A variety of things while you're driving --

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. -- is that correct? And when -- do you think

14 that -- one of those things that we do when we're

15 driving, we're interpreting the road signs ahead; is that

16 correct?

 

17 A. Yes, we are.

 

18 Q. So when we go through South Main on a green

19 light, we're interpreting that as a green light; is that

20 fair to say?

 

21 A. That's fair to say.

 

22 Q. Would it be unusual to interpret the green

23 light at South Main as a green light at Highway 58 and

24 Greenhill Road?

 

25 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, I'm going to object

 

311

 

1 to that. That is now calling for this witness to

2 speculate, give opinion testimony.

 

3 MR. WADDING: I believe that Mr. Correll

4 asked this witness if he could be distracted and if the

5 defendant could be distracted and thought that he had a

6 green light at Highway 58 and Greenhill Road. I think

7 it's directly relevant to that.

 

8 COURT: The objection is overruled. You may

9 answer, if you're able to.

 

10 A. I guess my understanding of the question is,

11 is the traffic light that he saw at South Main carried

12 over to 58 and Greenhill?

 

13 Q. Right.

 

14 A. It would be very unusual.

 

15 Q. Do you think that would be unusual for a

16 driver to do that?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. Do you think that it could be as a result of

19 impairment?

 

20 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm

21 going to object to that as leading and as calling for

22 this witness to speculate.

 

23 COURT: Sustained.

 

24 Q. I believe that you testified that you had had

25 some training in OWI detection; is that correct?

312

 

1 A. Yes.

 

2 Q. And I believe Mr. Correll brought out some of

3 the facts that you've been involved in investigations of

4 intoxicated persons before; is that correct?

 

5 A. Yes.

 

6 Q. And in your training and experience, do you

7 have any concern about someone who is operating a vehicle

8 at zero-eight-seven?

 

9 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm

10 going to object to that. There's been no foundation laid

11 by this witness to have him answer that.

 

12 COURT: Sustained.

 

13 MR. WADDING: Well, I'm -- don't think that

14 that's correct, Your Honor. I think that he's asked him

15 specifically about whether or not he would prosecute an

 

16 OWI at 087 with no accident involved. I think I can ask

17 him at least if he has concerns about a person who is

18 operating a vehicle at that level in direct response to

19 that.

 

20 COURT: Well, if you can lay some foundation

21 for his testimony so that I can understand what he's

22 basing it on, perhaps he might be allowed to answer that.

 

23 Q. Have you received any training with reference

24 to levels of intoxication?

 

25 A. Yes, I have.

313

 

1 Q. And can you describe what kind of training

2 that you have received in that area?

 

3 A. Our sobriety testing is a class where we

4 place several individuals in various states of -- from

5 very intoxicated all the down to, say, a .06 or 07. And

6 our sobriety testing -- our education teaches us, or the

7 training teaches us to determine which are over the legal

8 limit and so forth. We've had numerous trainings on

9 this.

 

10 Q. And have you recognized any impairments at

11 zero-eight levels?

 

12 A. Yes, I have.

 

13 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm

14 going to ask that my objection precede the answer. There

15 is no foundation shown relative at all to the

16 circumstances of these tests, the amount of food that the

17 people ate. There is no showing of any foundational

18 basis under which these tests were conducted, by whom

19 they were conducted or any measurements nor the dates of

20 these tests.

 

21 COURT: Please lay some more foundation.

 

22 Q. Can you describe the circumstances in which

23 you underwent this training?

 

24 A. We were -- this was instruction. This

25 specific one was instruction on field sobriety testing.

 

314

 

1 It's -- the horizontal gaze nystagmus, the walk-and-turn

2 test and the one-leg stand. I -- we had five people in

3 various stages of intoxication. Each -- like myself, I

4 tested each individual, and we were to write out what we

5 thought of their intoxication, if they were -- if we

 

6 thought we would arrest them or not. And to get your

 

7 certification or pass the course, you have to -- you have

8 to determine alcohol, whether you would arrest these

9 individuals or not, and I passed the course.

 

10 Q. Now, do you remember who provided the

11 instruction, or what organization provided the

12 instruction?

 

13 A. It's through the Iowa Law Enforcement

14 Academy.

 

15 Q. And certified through the Iowa Law

16 Enforcement Academy?

 

17 A. Our instructors are certified through the

18 Iowa Law Enforcement Academy, yes.

 

19 Q. And based on that particular training, did

20 you find -- did you observe impairment at levels at .08?

 

21 A. Yes.

 

22 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me. I'm going to make

23 the same objection, Your Honor, that there is no

24 foundation that's been laid. This is basically an

25 anecdotal class, and there is not sufficient foundation

 

315

 

1 for the witness to offer the proposed testimony.

 

2 COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

 

3 A. Yes, I have. Yes, I did.

 

4 Q. And can you describe the kind of impairment

5 you're speaking of?

 

6 A. They lose dexterity. They lose the -- some

7 have the -- kind of a euphoria type feeling. In fact,

8 our training indicated that the person that is between

9 zero-eight and one-three are probably the most concerned

10 for people on the street because they are in that

11 euphoric feeling. They have a -- well, to be blunt,

12 it's -- the person that's .20 that is very intoxicated

13 knows he's intox -- or he or she is intoxicated. Where a

14 party that's zero-eight to one-three, in that range, they

15 don't understand that they're intoxicated.

 

16 Q. They might not recognize their own

17 impairment?

 

18 A. They might not recognize their own

19 impairment, and along with the feelings, they may exhibit

20 some poor driving.

 

21 Q. And would they have a degree of confidence in

22 their ability or not?

 

23 A. Normally they do. It's that euphoric, you

24 know, it's a feeling that -- that they may be able to

25 drive, that they can drive. It's, like I said, it's a

316

 

1 person that's sometimes very intoxicated, he knows he's

2 intoxicated, and they have a tendency to be more careful

3 driving than a person that's in that zero-eight to

4 one-three range.

 

5 Q. Now, I believe you were asked some questions

6 about the ambulance records and reflecting time, that if

7 the ambulance records reflected that the defendant's

8 ambulance left at 11:19 from the scene that you didn't

9 have any problems with that; is that fair?

 

10 A. That's true.

 

11 Q. The hospital records indicated that Dr.

12 Robitaille was suturing the defendant at 1 o'clock a.m.

 

13 Do you have any problems with that?

 

14 A. No.

 

15 Q. Now, by the -- when you came in contact with

16 the defendant, had -- was he done suturing?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. Had he been -- did he have stitches in his

19 face?

 

20 A. Yes.

 

21 Q. So your contact with the defendant would have

22 been after Dr. Robitaille had sutured him up?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. Sergeant Wilson, there was a question asked

25 by Mr. Correll about Hudson Road, and I may have just

 

317

 

1 missed that, but what is Hudson Road?

 

2 A. It's a road -- what is it?

 

3 Q. Yes.

 

4 A. What type of roadway? It's a four-lane

5 undivided roadway approximately three-quarters of a mile,

6 mile to the west of Highway 58.

 

7 Q. Okay. So is it depicted up there?

 

8 A. No, it is not.

 

9 Q. Okay. So you'd have to go farther down

10 through Greenhill -- or through the intersection down

11 Greenhill Road to hit Hudson Road?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. Okay. And you indicated that it's your

14 opinion that the defendant was traveling the most

15 efficient way from Brooster's to his home on Ryan?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. Now, when you spoke to Juli Farrell, was

18 anyone else present with you?

 

19 A. Carol Eastman and Officer Venenga.

 

20 Q. Do you recall whether Mrs. Wanda Farrell was

21 present?

 

22 A. No, she was not.

 

23 Q. Do you recall -- at the time that you spoke

24 to Juli Farrell, did she indicate to you what color the

25 traffic control device was?

 

318

 

1 A. No. She just indicated that -- she repeated

2 that it wasn't her fault, it wasn't her fault.

 

3 Q. Okay. And if Officer Venenga indicated that

4 she was -- that Juli Farrell stated that she was

5 proceeding on a yellow, does that conflict with your

6 recollection?

 

7 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. That is

8 leading. I object to the form of the question. It's a

9 misstatement of the record.

 

10 COURT: Sustained.

 

11 MR. WADDING: On what ground?

 

12 COURT: Rephrase the question.

 

13 MR. CORRELL: It's --

 

14 Q. Could Juli Farrell have indicated the color

15 of the signal to Officer Venenga?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. And in your investigation, what would be the

18 color of the traffic control device that Juli Farrell was

19 proceeding under?

 

20 A. Yellow.

 

21 Q. Do you have any doubts about that conclusion?

 

22 A. No.

 

23 Q. And at the time that -- at the time that you

24 had contact with the defendant at the hospital, did you

25 form any opinion at all about his state of intoxication?

319

 

1 A. Did I form an opinion?

 

2 Q. Yeah.

 

3 A. It's like I said to Mr. Correll, I didn't --

4 I really didn't -- you know, I observed the signs of

5 alcohol, the red, watery eyes and so forth, but it wasn't

6 my job to specifically target -- not target. That's a

7 bad word. It wasn't my job to investigate Mr. Rokes'

8 sobriety.

 

9 Q. And if you -- if it -- if it were your

10 position, do you think you would have gotten to him a

11 little earlier than 1 o'clock in the morning?

 

12 A. Well, sure. Sure, I would have.

 

13 Q. And why is that?

 

14 A. Well, ideally you want to follow up on an

15 investigation as soon after the incident as possible.

 

16 Q. And any particular reason why in -- if you

17 were going to make a determination about someone's state

18 of sobriety?

 

19 A. Well, we want to determine -- try to

20 determine the state of sobriety as close to the incident

21 as possible. I guess just for their sake and our sake.

 

22 Q. And after -- at the time that you were asked

23 if you had an opinion about Mr. Rokes' state of sobriety,

24 where do you consider that time to be at?

 

25 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. There's

 

320

 

1 been no laying of any foundation for this witness to

2 offer that type of opinion.

 

3 COURT: I'm interpreting the question as

4 simply is he -- when he was answering your question, was

5 that it was his opinion based on his observations of the

6 defendant at the hospital, or was he extrapolating from

7 that to the time of the accident? Is that what you're

8 looking for?

 

9 MR. WADDING: Yes. I'll rephrase the

10 question.

 

11 Q. At the time that -- when Mr. Correll asked

12 you about forming an opinion about the defendant's state

13 of sobriety, where in time in the investigation are you?

 

14 A. Probably an hour and a half to two hours

15 after the -- after the accident.

 

16 Q. And -- I mean, are you taking into account,

17 when you about an opinion about state of sobriety, are

18 you asking about -- are you taking into account

19 everything that you found out subsequent to today's date

20 or at the time that you had contact with him out at the

21 hospital?

 

22 A. At that -- for that particular question  

23 answered it for what I knew at the hospital that night.

 

24 Q. And did you have the information, the same

25 information at the hospital at that -- at that time on

 

321

 

1 that night as you do now?

 

2 A. No, I did not.

 

3 Q. And could you form an opinion about a state

4 of sobriety at this point in time?

 

5 A. I would have a clearer idea at this point,

6 yes.

 

7 Q. And would you have an opinion as to whether

8 or not the defendant was impaired?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm

11 going to object to that. It is beyond the -- the

12 examination -- or beyond the scope of the cross-

13 examination.

 

14 COURT: Overruled.

 

15 A. Yes.

 

16 Q. And what is your opinion?

 

17 A. That at the time he was operating the motor

18 vehicle he was under the influence of alcohol.

 

19 Q. And what would you base that on?

 

20 A. Based on the whole factors, the fact that it

21 was -- there was a smell of alcohol, the red, watery

22 eyes, flushed face, the -- and the results of the

23 chemical testing.

 

24 Q. The fact that he ran through a red light have

25 anything to do with it?

322

 

1 A. And the fact that he ran through a red light

2 and he was operating a motor vehicle at the time.

 

3 Q. Now, you were also asked about the

4 speedometer and that -- the pinning of the needle, I

5 guess; is that how you would describe it?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. And that that's an acceptable way to

8 determine speed?

 

9 A. It is a way. It's not the only way.

 

10 Q. Do you know if that was used in the

11 determination of speed in this instance?

 

12 A. It was not.

 

13 Q. And why wasn't it?

 

14 A. Because the -- the dash had been crushed, and

15 the speedometer -- or -- my ability from motor vehicles

16 is sad, so -- the dash had been crushed and -- to a point

17 where it buckled which caused the needle to move and

18 get -- I don't know if it -- if it stuck in that position

19 at the time of impact or if it -- or because of the

20 folding of the dash that it moved the needle up.

 

21 Q. The integrity of that compartment is pretty

22 compromised, wouldn't you say?

 

23 A. Yes.

 

24 Q. And when you took the statement from the

25 defendant and in an investigation of this type, how would

 

323

 

1 you characterize the information that you're putting into

2 the statement?

 

3 A. Characterize -- I mean, it's -- it's

4 basically I'm just trying to get the facts of the -- of

5 the day before. I guess I don't understand.

 

6 Q. I mean, is it -- in a response -- is the

7 defendant free to give information, or is it -- is it

8 just simply a question and answer type?

 

9 A. A little of both. You usually -- I'll have

10 asked a question and, like start out, where were you

11 yesterday during the day? You know. And that's where he

12 stated he was in Mason City and he was working on a

13 stucco job and so forth.

 

14 Q. I believe that Mr. Correll asked you if you

15 had asked him about putting the statement that he had one

16 too many to drink in his statement. And you never asked

17 him that; is that correct?

 

18 A. I did not ask him that question.

 

19 Q. Why not?

 

20 A. I don't know.

 

21 Q. Would that -- is it possible that that would

22 change the complexity of or the contents of the

23 statement?

 

24 A. Sure.

 

25 Q. One other question about operating a motor

 

324

 

1 vehicle. Do you know of any particular time frame that's

2 suggested in checking, you know, your rear view mirror,

3 what's in front of you, your speed and things of that

4 nature?

 

5 A. It's been a long time since I've been in

6 Driver's Education. Periodically. I mean, you're

7 supposed to be checking constantly your environment

8 around you as you're driving down the road.

 

9 MR. WADDING: That's all the questions I

10 have. Thank you.

 

11 COURT: Mr. Correll?

 

12 MR. CORRELL: Thank you.

 

13 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

 

14 BY MR. CORRELL:

 

15 Q. Mr. Wilson, you did a five-page report that

16 you typed on this matter, correct?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. And isn't it correct in that five-page report

19 that you typed, you did not ever include in that report

20 anyplace any sentence or even a phrase that you were of

21 the opinion that Mr. Rokes was under the influence; isn't

22 that a fact?

 

23 A. That's true.

 

24 Q. And when you -- when I specifically asked

25 you, when you left his room that night you had not

 

325

 

1 reached an opinion that he was operating a motor vehicle

2 under the influence of alcohol when you left his room

3 that night; isn't that the fact?

 

4 A. That's true.

 

5 Q. And isn't it true on May 5 when I took your

6 deposition, didn't I expand that to say, "Isn't it fair

7 to say, Mr. Wilson, that as you sit here today," May 5,

8 "at this point in time, you do not know whether Tracy

9 Rokes was under the influence of alcohol at the time of

10 this accident or not? Isn't that a fact?" And didn't

11 you answer, "That is probably true, yes."

 

12 A. My understanding of that question --

 

13 Q. But isn't that your answer?

 

14 A. Yes, it is.

 

15 Q. Is it not a fact that, based on your

16 investigation of this incident, that it is apparent that

17 both Ms. Farrell and Mr. Rokes were distracted

18 immediately prior to this accident?

 

19 A. From the indications, yes.

 

20 Q. Thank you.

 

21 MR. CORRELL: That's all.

 

22 COURT: Mr. Wadding?

 

23

 

24

 

25

326

 

1 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

2 BY MR. WADDING:

 

3 Q. When -- well, what was your understanding of

4 the -- of the question with reference Mr. Rokes'

5 intoxication?

 

6 COURT: In his deposition or now?

 

7 MR. WADDING: In his deposition. Excuse me.

 

8 A. My understanding was, is that from the facts

9 that I had that night, from just the five-minute

10 conversation, what was my opinion of Mr. Rokes' sobriety

11 and not with all the information that I had available to

12 me on May 5th.

 

13 Q. And in that vain, if I just ask you about

14 your contact with Mr. Rokes at the hospital, does your

15 opinion change about that? Do you still think just

16 taking your contact with Mr. Rokes at the hospital alone,

17 would that -- did you have -- did you form an opinion

18 about his intoxication at that point?

 

19 A. I didn't really form an opinion that night,

20 because it wasn't that important to me in my part of the

21 investigation.

 

22 MR. WADDING: That's all I have. Thank you.

 

23 COURT: Mr. Correll?

 

24

 

25

327

 

1 FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION

 

2 BY MR. CORRELL:

 

3 Q. My question was very clear to you, wasn't it,

4 sir, in that deposition?

 

5 MR. WADDING: I guess I'm going to object to

6 that, Your Honor. I think it's argumentative. I think

7 it was obvious it wasn't --

 

8 COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

 

9 A. I -- I guess I can't -- my understanding of

10 that question that day was the fact that from my contact

11 with Tracy Rokes, what was my opinion that night?

 

12 MR. CORRELL: May I approach the witness

13 again, Your Honor?

 

14 COURT: You may.

 

15 Q. I'm going to hand to you a copy of your

16 deposition, and back on page 39 of that deposition, page

17 39 starting at line 19, that is where I asked your

18 opinion about Mr. Rokes at the time you left his room; is

19 that not correct? And take a moment to read that.

 

20 A. (Complied.) That's true. Do you want me to

21 read it out loud?

 

22 Q. Yes. Why don't you read the question that I

23 asked to you on page 39 starting at line 19.

 

24 A. "And I understand that, but in the specific

25 answer to my question, when you left the room, you had

 

328

 

1 not reached any opinion that he was operating a motor

2 vehicle under the influence of alcohol; isn't that a fair

3 statement?" And I said, "Yes."

 

4 Q. And did you understand that question when I

5 asked it to you at that time?

 

6 A. Yes.

 

7 Q. That is a -- that's your testimony today, you

8 hadn't reached an opinion when you left his room; isn't

9 that correct?

 

10 A. That's correct.

 

11 Q. And then at a later point in time in that

12 deposition, approximately 29 pages later, at page 68,

13 line 15, could you -- first, could you read that to

14 yourself to familiarize yourself with that starting at

15 line 15.

 

16 A. (Complied.)

 

17 Q. On page 68, I am now referring to what you

18 knew as you sat there during the course of my deposition

19 of you on May 5; is that not correct?

 

20 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object to that

21 question, Your Honor. It's testimony as to what Mr.

22 Correll is thinking at the time of the --

 

23 COURT: Why don't you just read the question

24 and --

 

25 Q. Would you read the question that I asked you

 

329

 

1 at page 68 starting on line 14.

 

2 A. Or 15.

 

3 Q. Line 15.

 

4 A. "Isn't it fair to say, Mr. Wilson, that as

5 you sit here today at this point in time, you do not know

6 whether Tracy Rokes was under the influence of alcohol at

7 the time of the accident or not; isn't that true?" And

8 my answer was, "That probably -- that's probably true,

9 yes."

 

10 Q. And when I say today, that was May 5, 1997,

11 was it not?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 MR. CORRELL: That's all, Your Honor.

 

14 COURT: Mr. Wadding?

 

15 MR. WADDING: I don't have any further

16 questions. Thank you.

 

17 COURT: Thank you.

 

18 WITNESS: Your Honor, I'm going to have to go

19 back to Des Moines. Is there anything --

 

20 COURT: May he be released from his subpoena?

 

21 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, we have that offer

22 of proof matter.

 

23 COURT: That's right. Let's take that up

24 right now. You're going to be asked a few more

25 questions. Mr. Correll?

330

 

1 MR. CORRELL: Mr. Wilson, you were notified

2 on Saturday in the afternoon that Ms. Farrell's condition

3 was worsening by people at the police department; is that

4 correct?

 

5 WITNESS: Yes.

 

6 MR. CORRELL: And isn't it a fact that that

7 surprised you?

 

8 WITNESS: Yes.

 

9 MR. CORRELL: You found it to be disturbing

10 and disappointing, did you not?

 

11 WITNESS: Yes.

 

12 MR. CORRELL: And have you not formulated an

13 opinion of yourself, based upon your experience and your

14 familiarity with this case, that had Ms. Farrell

15 received -- been taken to another hospital that she would

16 not have died?

 

17 WITNESS: That -- that opinion, I guess, is

18 just my opinion. I mean, I'm not a doctor. I can't say

19 what medical care she had or didn't receive, so I don't

20 know.

 

21 MR. CORRELL: That is your opinion, is it

22 not?

 

23 WITNESS: I was upset about the fact that she

24 died.

 

25 MR. CORRELL: And that was your opinion?

 

331

 

1 WITNESS: Yes.

 

2 MR. CORRELL: And that's still your opinion

3 today, is it not?

 

4 WITNESS: Well, I'm not happy with it. I

5 don't know what kind of medical care -- I never received

6 any medical reports from Sartori Hospital, so I don't

7 know what kind of medical care she received, but --

8 MR. CORRELL: Isn't it true that other people

9 that you know who investigated this case have shared that

10 same opinion, other, excuse me, law enforcement personnel

11 that --

 

12 MR. WADDING: I think I can object to that

13 even on an offer of proof. It's pure conjecture and

14 speculation and hearsay.

 

15 COURT: Mr. Correll's allowed to make his

16 offer of proof. Go ahead and answer.

 

17 WITNESS: There had been some discussion that

18 people were upset about her dying.

19 MR. CORRELL: But they were more than upset

20 about her dying, they were -- there are people other than

21 yourself who have worked on this case from a law

22 enforcement aspect who share your opinion about her dying

23 because of medical care; isn't that a fact?

 

24 WITNESS: There has been discussion, yeah. I

25 can't tell you who -- I --

 

332

 

1 MR. CORRELL: I'm not asking you to tell, but

2 that was their conclusion, isn't it?

 

3 WITNESS: Again, I'm not a doctor.

4 MR. CORRELL: I understand that, sir.

 

5 WITNESS: I was just upset at the time about

6 Juli dying, and I -- and I don't know about the medical

7 care.

 

8 MR. CORRELL: But you know how you feel?

 

9 WITNESS: I know how I feel, yeah.

 

10 MR. CORRELL: And you feel had she gotten

11 different care she would be alive today?

 

12 WITNESS: Well, I -- I guess I don't want to

13 make that broad a statement, but I -- I was upset.

 

14 MR. CORRELL: That's all.

 

15 COURT: Mr. Correll, was that the substance

16 of the answering machine message that was referred to in

17 the motion in limine that was filed in this case?

 

18 MR. CORRELL: No.

 

19 COURT: All right. May he be released from

20 his subpoena at this time, Mr. Wadding?

 

21 MR. WADDING: As far as the state's

22 concerned, yes.

 

23 COURT: Mr. Correll?

 

24 MR. CORRELL: Yes, Your Honor.

 

25 COURT: Okay. Thank you.

 

333

 

1 WITNESS: I'll be in Des Moines. Thank you.

 

2 COURT: Do you have another witness lined up?

 

3 MR. WADDING: I'd like to -- yeah. I

4 think --

 

5 COURT: Okay. Let's get started.

 

6 MR. WADDING: I don't know how long it will

7 be, but --

 

8 COURT: All right.

 

 

updated 12/29/16