“I DIDN’T DO ANYTHING!”

We spent a lot of time in court, this process took years. I just came to the time that they brought the police officers in as witnesses because they truly believed it would help their case. Pure delusion.

What you don’t realize while in it is that the stress of it and the stress of recovering from traumatic injury means you just are not going to heal. This is why these things that happen to us in life take so long. It’s nearly impossible to know that you have to erect boundaries immediately and create a safe place that under no circumstances will be interrupted or sidetracked.

Immediately there are two groups of people in your life things. You are either helping us or you are hurting us. I am either comfortable or uncomfortable. You must retreat, get quiet, and let things process. The noise in your head is going to be so loud for so long if you don’t do this you may never be able to hear your inner voice again.

Trauma caused by violence is devasting to our lives. There is no possible way for it to not be. So many of us fall victim to its destruction. Recovering from the trauma caused by violence can sometimes feel worse than the violence itself. Trauma not caused by violence is undebatably destructive to our lives, but somehow, when it is Domestic, different rules apply, and people think it’s not their business. This is a secondary trauma.

I put my work into this for the past almost ten years since I survived NON-FATAL STRANGULATION. Rereading this transcript reminds me that there was still a big knowledge gap in how these responders speak of violence. Choking is on food not when someone puts their hands around your neck to try and kill you.

The other thing that it makes me think about is the entourage that this woman brought with her to court, some of whom were also my friends. The person who can convince people that they didn’t do anything but all the physical evidence shows that they did but they continue to believe the convicted criminal is fascinating to me. Had we gone to jury she would have gone to jail that is why she did a plea bargain. But these people who continue to this day believe that she didn’t do anything is fascinating to me. Do they really believe her? Can they feel good about themselves for doing it? Do they realize the damage to her child they do for doing it?

Not coming clean to the people you hurt due to your violent actions within a family/community perpetuates the trauma. Fast forward ten years. Her kids can’t have a wedding, because we can’t come it’s to awkward. I will never be willing put myself in a room with this person that destroyed my life and almost ripped me away from our daughter at the age of 4.

Everyone can heal. Everyone can forgive. Everyone can tell the truth.
The truth sets you free is so cliche but so spot on. If you don’t free yourself from the truth you make your body diseased. You slowly kill yourself.

But here is the kicker. For the better part of my decade of healing, I have come very clear about the energy work we need to do to heal after violent trauma and maybe any trauma because it’s agnostic to the body what happened to you. All human bodies work the same albeit some better than others. Putting your hands on someone in a violent nature around someone’s neck to end their life is a direct transfer of some of the most toxic energy. We are left with the task of locating and ushering it out of the body but no one tells us that the energetic download happened or could happen.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
FAMILY COURT DIVISION
DEPARTMENT NO. F-6 HON. PATRICIA GUERRERO, JUDGE
REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT
AUGUST 12, 2015
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
A P P E A R A N C E S:
FOR THE PETITIONER: SARA NEUMANN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHANA BLACK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
MINOR’S COUNSEL: HEATHER MILLIGAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
CATHY WILLIS BELL, RPR, RMR, CRR, CSR NO. 5454
OFFICIAL REPORTER
MS. BLACK: YES, WE WOULD REQUEST THAT WE GO FORWARD
ON MY CLIENT’S REQUEST FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER. ANY INTERIM
ORDERS WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THE COURT MAKE AFTER THE
HEARING FOR THE RESTRAINING ORDER. HE HAS NOT BEEN SERVED.
AND, IN ADDITION, THE PETITIONER’S RESTRAINING
ORDER, SHE PLED GUILTY IN CRIMINAL COURT, AND WE WOULD BE
REQUESTING THAT IT BE REISSUED SO THAT MY CLIENT WOULD BE
ABLE TO RESPOND APPROPRIATELY. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT IT IS
RES JUDICATA. SHE PLED GUILTY IN CRIMINAL COURT AND IS NOW
TRYING TO RELITIGATE IT IN FAMILY COURT, AND SHE SHOULD NOT
BE ALLOWED TO GET THE BENEFITS OF HER PLEA AGREEMENT IN
CRIMINAL COURT AND RELITIGATE HERE IN FAMILY COURT. SO MY
CLIENT HASN’T BEEN SERVED; HOWEVER, HE FILED HIS RESTRAINING
ORDER IN THE BEGINNING OF APRIL, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO GO
FORWARD ON THAT. IT HAS BEEN CONTINUED SEVERAL TIMES.

CHRISTOPHER CHARLES BERNARD,CALLED AS A WITNESS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT, HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND.

IF COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND
SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: CHRISTOPHER CHARLES BERNARD, LAST NAME
SPELLED B-E-R-N-A-R-D.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. BLACK:
Q OFFICER BERNARD, HOW ARE YOU EMPLOYED?
A I WORK FOR THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO.
Q AS WHAT?
A AS A POLICE OFFICER.
Q AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED IN THAT
CAPACITY?
A ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS.
Q WERE YOU THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN AN
INCIDENT INVOLVING AURELIA HER EX AND HIS NEW WIFE?
A YES, I WAS.
Q IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT TOOK PLACE
APRIL 12TH, 2015?
A YES.
Q WERE YOU THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER?
A YES, I WAS.
Q CAN YOU TELL ME HOW YOU CAME TO ARRIVE AT THE
RESIDENCE OF JONATHAN AND HIS NEW WIFE?
A A CALL CAME OUT OF AN ASSAULT WITH DEADLY
WEAPON IN PROGRESS. THE RADIO CALL CAME OUT, AND I
VOLUNTEERED TO GO TO IT.
Q WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU ARRIVED?
A I ARRIVED, AND I SPOKE WITH THEM , ASKED THEM WHAT HAPPENED.
Q WHEN YOU SPOKE WITH THEM, DID YOU SPEAK WITH THEM TOGETHER OR SEPARATELY? A FIRST I SPOKE WITH THEM TOGETHER JUST TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. THEY WERE PRETTY DISTRAUGHT WHEN I GOT THERE. AND EVENTUALLY ONCE THEY CALMED DOWN, I SEPARATED THEM AND TOOK THEIR STATEMENTS INDIVIDUALLY.
Q WHEN YOU JUST INDICATED THEY WERE DISTRAUGHT
WHEN YOU GOT THERE, CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR ME WHAT YOU
WITNESSED IN TERMS OF THEIR EMOTIONAL STATE?
AMY WAS CRYING, AND SHE SEEMED VERY
UPSET, AND JONATHAN WAS UPSET, VERY ANIMATED AND AGITATED.
Q AND DID YOU THEN INTERVIEW THEM?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND WHAT — WHO DID YOU INTERVIEW FIRST?
A FIRST I SPOKE WITH JONATHAN.
Q AND WHAT DID SHE TELL YOU?
A WELL, I SPOKE WITH JOHN FIRST. HE TOLD ME
TO — OR HIS EX-WIFE AURELIA CAME OVER TO DROP OFF SOME
BOOKS FOR THEIR KIDS, AND THEY GOT IN AN ARGUMENT OUTSIDE —
THEY WERE OUTSIDE THE FRONT DOOR, OUTSIDE THE GARAGE DOOR,
GOT IN AN ARGUMENT. ESSENTIALLY AURELIA ATTACKED AMY, HIS CURRENT WIFE, GRABBED HER AROUND THE NECK, SLAMMED HER ON THE HOOD OF HIS CAR, WHICH WAS IN THE GARAGE, AND THEN FELL ON TOP OF HER ON THE FLOOR OF THE GARAGE IN FRONT OF THE CAR AND WAS — HAD HER HANDS AROUND HER NECK. HE TRIED TO PULL HER OFF, WASN’T ABLE TO AT FIRST. EVENTUALLY HE DID AND PUSHED HER ACROSS THE GARAGE AND THEN TOLD AMY TO RUN OUT AND CALL 911. AND HE KIND OF BLOCKED FOR AMY AS SHE RAN AWAY, AND THEN HE WAS IN THE DOORWAY. AMY RAN OUTSIDE, AND AURELIA CHARGED AT HIM AND TRIED TO GET TO AMY, BUT HE KIND OF HELD HER BACK.
Q AND DID YOU OBSERVE ANY INJURIES ON JONATHAN?
A HE HAD AN ABRASION ON HIS LEFT FOREARM.
Q ANY OTHER INJURIES?
A NOT THAT I RECALL.
Q AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A NEXT I SPOKE WITH AMY, TOOK HER STATEMENT.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT AMY TOLD YOU?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND WHAT WAS THAT?
A SAME THING. AURELIA CAME OVER TO DROP OFF SOME
BOOKS, AND THEN THEY KIND OF GOT IN AN ARGUMENT ABOUT THE
CAT, SOMETHING OVER THE CAT THAT AURELIA HAD TAKEN FROM I
THINK JONAHTAN’S DAUGHTER. AND THEN AURELIA ADVANCED TOWARD CLARK SLOWLY. JONATHAN WAS IN THE DOORWAY, AMY BEHIND HIM. JONATHAN STEPPED TO THE LEFT, HELD HIS ARM UP BECAUSE AURELIA WAS COMING TOWARD THEM, AND THEN HE PUT HIS ARM DOWN. AND AMY SAID SOMETHING TO AURELIA LIKE, “I AM SO MAD I COULD HIT YOU.” AND THEN AURELIA SAID, “YOU ARE THE REASON” AND CHARGED AT AMY.
AMY SAID EVERYTHING WENT BLACK. AND THEN WHEN
SHE CAME TO, SHE WAS ON THE GROUND WITH AURELIA ON TOP OF
HER IN THE GARAGE WITH HER HANDS AROUND HER NECK, AND SHE
SAID SHE TRIED TO SCREAM, BUT SHE WASN’T ABLE TO. AND AT
CERTAIN TIMES SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS GOING TO LOSE
CONSCIOUSNESS.
Q AND WHAT HAPPENED AFTER YOU TOOK THE STATEMENTS
OF JONATHAN AND AMY? WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I LOOKED AT THE SCENE; I LOOKED AT AMY’S
INJURIES; AND I TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS.
Q AND WHAT INJURIES DID YOU OBSERVE ON AMY?
A AMY HAD AN ABRASION AND LACERATIONS ON HER EAR,
HER LEFT EAR, ABRASION ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HER NECK, HER
LEFT FOREARM, LEFT SHIN. SHE HAD BRUISES ON BOTH SHINS AND
I BELIEVE A SMALL LACERATION ON HER KNEE, AND SHE HAD A
COMPLAINT OF PAIN TO HER — UNDERNEATH HER RIGHT BREAST AND
ON HER BUTTOCKS.
Q AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, WHAT
IS THE GOAL OF YOUR INVESTIGATION WHEN YOU ARRIVE TO A SCENE
SUCH AS THE CLARK’S?
A JUST TO DETERMINE TO MY BEST KNOWLEDGE WHAT
HAPPENED, LOOK AT THE SCENE, SEE WHAT HAPPENED, SEE IF THERE
ARE ANY OTHER WITNESSES AROUND, DETERMINE WHETHER A CRIME
HAS BEEN COMMITTED OR NOT, AND TAKE STATEMENTS AND GATHER
EVIDENCE.
Q AND DID YOU DETERMINE THAT DAY WHETHER A CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED?
A I DID. IN MY BELIEF, A CRIME HAD BEEN
COMMITTED.
Q AND WHAT WAS THAT CRIME?
A IT IS ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON OR FORCE
LIKELY TO CAUSE GREAT BODILY INJURY, WHICH WAS BASED ON THE
WITNESS STATEMENTS. THE SUSPECT’S HANDS AROUND AMY’S NECK
POSSIBLY COULD HAVE CAUSED HER TO LOSE CONSCIOUSNESS OR
CHOKED HER.
Q AND IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, IT WAS DETERMINED
THAT AURELIA WAS THE AGGRESSOR IN THE INCIDENT?
A BASED ON THE TWO STATEMENTS I TOOK, YES.
Q AND AFTER TAKING THE STATEMENTS AND
INVESTIGATING THE SCENE, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I GOT A CRIME K.O.I. SPOKE WHILE I WAS
INVESTIGATING. FIRST I ASKED AMY, WHEN I FIRST GOT THERE, I
ASKED HER IF SHE LOST CONSCIOUSNESS OR FELT SHE WOULD LOSE
CONSCIOUSNESS. SHE SAID YES. AND I GOT ON THE RADIO AND TOLD THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS WHO HAD GONE TO AURELIA’S HOUSE, TOLD THEM WHAT I HAD SPOKEN WITH THEM ABOUT AND THAT AURELIA WAS GOOD FOR ARREST FOR THE ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. SO AFTER TAKING HER STATEMENTS AND EVERYTHING, I GOT A CASE NUMBER AND TOOK PHOTOS AND LEFT AND WROTE THE INVESTIGATION.
Q AND WAS AURELIA PRESENT WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE
THEIR RESIDENCE?
A NO, SHE HAD LEFT.
Q AND IN TESTIFYING, YOU INDICATED THAT JONATHAN
PUSHED AURELIA. DID YOU MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT
SELF-DEFENSE?
A I THINK HE WAS TRYING TO PROTECT AMY BASED ON
WHAT HE TOLD ME. HE PULLED AURELIA OFF AND PUSHED HER AWAY.
AND AS AMY RAN PASSED, HE GOT IN THE WAY TO BLOCK FOR AMY,
SO I THOUGHT IT WAS SELF-DEFENSE FROM WHAT HE TOLD ME.
Q AND AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF YOUR INVESTIGATION,
YOU STATED YOU SUBMITTED A K.O.A. OR SOMETHING?
A CRIME CASE?
Q YES.
A YES, WE PULL ANY — WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED,
YOU PULL A CASE NUMBER AND GIVE THE CASE NUMBER AND THE
RESOURCES TO THE VICTIM.
Q AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I KNOW AURELIA WAS ARRESTED. AFTER THAT, NO, I
AM NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED.
MS. BLACK: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MS. NEUMANN.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. NEUMANN:
Q DID AMY SEEM HOARSE TO YOU WHEN YOU
INTERVIEWED HER?
A NO, NOT THAT I RECALL.
Q DID SHE — WAS SHE HYSTERICAL?
A YES, SHE WAS.
Q AND WHEN SHE SPOKE TO YOU, DID SHE SEEM TO HAVE
ANY DIFFICULTY SPEAKING TO YOU AT ALL?
A SHE WAS CRYING SO SHE DID HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF
DIFFICULTY AT THAT TIME, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, NO.
Q THAT’S BECAUSE SHE WAS CRYING?
A I THINK SO.
Q AND DID SHE SCREAM AT ALL OR INDICATE THAT SHE
WAS VERY UPSET BY RAISING HER VOICE?
A WHEN I TOOK HER STATEMENT?
Q CORRECT.
A NO.
Q AND DID YOU ASK HER SPECIFICALLY WHETHER SHE
HAD LOST CONSCIOUSNESS?
A I BELIEVE THAT I DID. SHE NEVER SAID SHE LOST
CONSCIOUSNESS. SHE SAID SHE FELT LIKE SHE WAS GOING TO.
Q OKAY. SO YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT SHE STATED
THAT SHE FELT LIKE SHE WAS GOING TO LOSE CONSCIOUSNESS BUT
SHE NEVER DID?
A SHE DID SAY EVERYTHING WENT BLACK, SO WHETHER
THAT MEANS SHE LOST CONSCIOUSNESS OR NOT, I AM NOT SURE.
Q DID SHE SEEM LIKE SHE WAS EMBELLISHING ON WHAT
HAPPENED?
A I WAS NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT. I WROTE DOWN
WHAT SHE TOLD ME, AND THAT WAS IT.
Q DID EITHER OF — EITHER AMY OR JONATHAN TELL
YOU WHETHER THERE WERE MINOR CHILDREN PRESENT IN THE HOUSE?
A YES, JONATHAN TOLD ME HIS TWO CHILDREN WERE
UPSTAIRS IN THE BEDROOM.
Q DID HE TELL YOU WHAT THEY WERE DOING UP THERE?
A NO, HE SAID THEY WERE UP THERE.
Q DID HE INDICATE TO YOU WHETHER THEY SAW ANY OF
THE EVENT?
A HE SAID THEY HEARD SCREAMING, BUT THEY WEREN’T
PRESENT TO ACTUALLY WITNESS WHAT HAPPENED.
Q AND WHOSE SCREAMING DID THEY HEAR?
A I DON’T KNOW.
Q HE DIDN’T INDICATE WHOSE SCREAMING THE CHILDREN
HEARD?
A NO, NOT THAT I RECALL.
Q AND DID HE INDICATE WHAT BEDROOM THEY WERE IN?
A HE MIGHT HAVE, BUT I AM NOT SURE WHICH BEDROOM.
Q YOU DON’T RECALL AT THIS TIME?
A NO, I DON’T.
Q DID YOU BRING YOUR NOTES?
A I DID.
Q AND WOULD REVIEWING YOUR NOTES POSSIBLY REFRESH
YOUR RECOLLECTION?
A YES, I THINK I PUT IT IN HERE.
Q CAN YOU REVIEW YOUR NOTES AND LET ME KNOW WHEN
YOU ARE READY.
A SURE. I AM READY.
Q OKAY. AND SO WHAT DO YOU RECALL REGARDING
WHICH BEDROOM THE CHILDREN WERE IN?
A ALL IT SAYS IN MY REPORT IS THAT JONATHAN TOLD
ME THAT THE CHILDREN HEARD SCREAMING FROM WHERE THEY WERE IN THE HOUSE, WHICH I DIDN’T SPECIFY WHAT BEDROOM.

Q OKAY. AND YOU INDICATED IN YOUR REPORT THAT
THEY REPORTED THAT AURELIA WAS EMOTIONALLY AND
PHYSICALLY ABUSIVE TOWARDS THEIR DAUGHTER?
A I AM SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION.
Q YOU INDICATED IN YOUR REPORT THAT THEY
TOLD YOU THAT AURELIA AND HER CURRENT HUSBAND ARE
EMOTIONALLY AND PHYSICALLY ABUSIVE TOWARDS THEIR DAUGHTER?
A YES.
Q DID THEY STATE WITH ANY SPECIFICITY WITH WHAT
THEY ALLEGED?
A NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.
Q THEY SAID GENERICALLY THAT THERE WAS ABUSE?
A YES.
Q THE CHARGE THAT YOU ENTERED INTO WITH REGARDS
TO THE INCIDENT, WHICH IS ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON OR
FORCE, THERE WAS NO DEADLY WEAPON PRESENT.
A NO, THERE WASN’T.
Q SO YOU INDICATE STANDARD FORCE OF PUTTING YOUR
HANDS AROUND SOMEONE’S NECK WOULD BE AN INDICATOR IN THAT
PARTICULAR PENAL CODE SECTION BEING USED?
A YES, SECTION 245(A)(4), ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY
WEAPON OR THE FORCE LIKELY TO CAUSE GREAT BODILY INJURY.
ANYTIME SOMEBODY HAS THEIR HANDS AROUND SOMEBODY’S NECK, THE PERSON WHO IS BEING — WHOSE NECK OR WHO IS BEING CHOKED HAS A FEELING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO LOSE CONSCIOUSNESS OR, AS AMY PUT IT, EVERYTHING GOES BLACK, THERE IS THE LIKELIHOOD TO CAUSE GREAT BODILY INJURY.
Q NOW YOU ARE REQUIRED TO INDICATE ON YOUR REPORT
THE INJURIES THAT A VICTIM MAY HAVE SUSTAINED; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A YES.
Q IS THAT THE STANDARD OF PRACTICE FOR THE
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT?
A YES, IT IS.
Q WHERE IN YOUR RECORD IS IT LISTED THAT THERE
WERE ANY OTHER INJURIES OTHER THAN THE SCRATCHES AND
ABRASIONS ON AMY’S LEFT EAR AND THE LEFT SIDE OF HER
NECK?
A IT JUST SAYS WHAT SHE TOLD ME ABOUT THE HANDS
BEING AROUND HER NECK AND THEN THE VISIBLE INJURIES THAT I
SAW AND WHAT SHE TOLD ME BASED ON WHAT SHE RECALLED
HAPPENING.
Q SO YOU DIDN’T INCLUDE — YOU ALSO INCLUDED IN
YOUR REPORT THAT SHE DECLINED TO BE TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL
FOR EVALUATION?
A YES. I ASKED WHEN I GOT THERE IF SHE NEEDED
MEDICAL ATTENTION. BASED ON THE CALL, I THOUGHT SHE MIGHT
NEED AN AMBULANCE OR TO BE TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL. AND SHE
SAID SHE DIDN’T.
Q WAS AN AMBULANCE CALLED?
A I DON’T THINK SO.
Q THERE WAS NO AMBULANCE AT THE SCENE.
A NO.
Q AND WHEN YOU DESCRIBE THE EVENT, YOU STATED AT
ONE POINT JONATHAN WAS STANDING IN FRONT OF HIS NEW WIFE
WHILE STANDING IN THE DOOR TO THE GARAGE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A YES.
Q AND WHERE IN RELATION DID THEY REPORT AURELIA

Q AND HAVE YOU EVER INVESTIGATED A POSSIBLE ATTEMPTED STRANGULATION BEFORE?
A YES.
Q AND IN OTHER CASES THAT YOU HAVE INVESTIGATED,
WAS THE VICTIM ABLE TO GET UP AND RUN AWAY AND START
SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF HER LUNGS?
A YES, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ARE PRETTY
MINIMAL AS FAR AS THE CHARGING SECTION GOES. IF SOMEONE’S
HANDS ARE AROUND SOMEONE’S NECK AND THEY THINK THEY ARE
BEING CHOKED, YOU COULD CHARGE IT AS —
Q REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ACTUALLY
CHOKING THEM, LIKE IF YOU TOUCH SOMEONE, LIKE “GET AWAY FROM
ME?”
A NO, BASED ON WHAT PEOPLE TELL YOU, EACH CASE IS
INDIVIDUAL, BUT IF THE VICTIM FELT THEY WERE BEING CHOKED
AND THEY TELL YOU THAT, THEN IT IS BASED ON — I WASN’T
THERE SO IT IS BASED ON WHAT THE VICTIM TELLS ME.
Q OKAY. BUT, IN GENERAL, IF SOMEONE IN YOUR
EXPERIENCE HAS LOST CONSCIOUSNESS, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO RUN
AWAY THREE OR FOUR FEET?
A I WOULD IMAGINE. AGAIN, IT DEPENDS ON THE
SITUATION. I CAN’T SPEAK TO EVERYBODY WHO HAS LOST
CONSCIOUSNESS HAVING BEEN CHOKED, SO I DID IT BASED ON THIS
INVESTIGATION THAT I WAS MAKING.
Q SO YOU DIDN’T TALK TO AURELIA AT ALL AS PART OF
YOUR INVESTIGATION?
A NO, I DIDN’T.

BY MS. NEUMANN:
Q AMY SAID AURELIA WAS GETTING CLOSER TO HER?
A YES.
Q AND THE ONLY THING THAT YOU REPORTED THAT AMY
AND JONATHAN STATED AURELIA SAID WAS “YOU’RE THE REASON”?
A YEAH.
MS. NEUMANN: OKAY. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MS. BLACK.
MS. BLACK: YES, THANK YOU.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. BLACK:
Q BASED ON THE INJURIES THAT YOU OBSERVED ON AMY
IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH HER STATEMENT TO YOU?
MS. NEUMANN: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS
WITNESS’ EXPERTISE. THAT WOULD REQUIRE EXPERT OPINION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I AM SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THE
QUESTION.
BY MS. BLACK:
Q BASED ON THE INJURIES THAT YOU OBSERVED ON AMY,
WERE THOSE INJURIES CONSISTENT WITH HER STATEMENTS TO YOU
REGARDING WHAT HAPPENED?
A YES, BASED ON WHAT SHE TOLD ME, THAT SHE WAS
THROWN ON THE CAR AND THEN — WELL, SHE SAID SHE DIDN’T
REMEMBER. BUT FROM WHAT JONATHAN SAID, HE SAW SHE WAS
THROWN ON THE CAR AND THEN THROWN ON THE GROUND WITH A FEW SCRAPES AND ABRASIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED WHILE THAT WAS TAKING PLACE.

Q WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY
WEAPON WITH FORCE CHARGE, THAT’S TYPICALLY USED WITH
CHOKING?
A YES. WHEN SOMEONE IS CHOKED, THAT’S USUALLY
THE CHARGING SECTION.
Q THE INJURIES YOU OBSERVED ON AMY, WERE THOSE
CONSISTENT WITH BEING CHOKED?
A OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MS. BLACK:
Q DID YOU OBSERVE ANYTHING ABOUT THE VEHICLE THAT
WOULD INDICATE SOMEONE HIT THE CAR?
A YES, THERE WAS A SLIGHT LAYER OF DUST ON THE
ENTIRE CAR. I LOOKED AT THE FRONT LEFT PORTION OF THE HOOD
AND QUARTER PANEL, AND IT LOOKED LIKE THE DUST HAD BEEN
DISTURBED, SO SOMEBODY POSSIBLY MAY HAVE LANDED. BASED ON
WHAT THEY TOLD ME, I THOUGHT MAYBE THAT’S WHERE AURELIA AND AMY LANDED FIRST WHEN AMY WAS PUSHED ONTO THE CAR.
Q AND OPPOSING COUNSEL ALSO ASKED YOU ABOUT WHEN
YOU HAVE INVESTIGATED SOMEONE WHO HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CHOKED OR STRANGLED IN THE PAST, WHETHER OR NOT SHE, AMY, WOULD BE HOARSE OR HAVE DIFFICULTY BREATHING OR TALKING. WAS HER MANNERISMS AND HER BEHAVIOR, WHEN SHE WAS MAKING HER STATEMENT TO YOU, DID THAT SEEM CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE WHO HAD BEEN CHOKED OR ATTACKED?
A IT WASN’T WHEN SHE WAS TALKING THAT I SAID,
“OH, THIS IS DEFINITELY A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CHOKED.”
BASED ON WHAT SHE TOLD ME, THAT’S WHAT I WROTE DOWN. AND I HAVE TALKED TO PEOPLE WHO ARE HOARSE AFTER BEING CHOKED AND PEOPLE WHO AREN’T HOARSE AFTER BEING CHOKED. SO AS I SAID TO OPPOSING COUNSEL, IT IS INDIVIDUALLY BASED, AND PEOPLE REACT DIFFERENTLY WHEN THEY HAVE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF FORCE AROUND THEIR NECK.
MS. BLACK: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: MAY THE WITNESS BE EXCUSED?
MS. NEUMANN: ONE QUESTION.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. NEUMANN:
Q YOU PHOTOGRAPHED THE CAR THAT HAD A SLIGHT AREA
OF DUST REMOVED FROM IT?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHEN YOU OBSERVED THE AUTOMOBILE, WAS THERE ANY
INDENTATION ON THE AUTOMOBILE?
A NO, THERE WASN’T.
Q JUST SOME DUST THAT WAS MISSING.
A YES.
Q BASED UPON YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A POLICE OFFICER,
IF SOMEONE WAS PUSHED FORCEFULLY INTO A CAR IN A MANNER THAT AMY DESCRIBED, WOULD YOU HAVE — WOULD YOU EXPECT THERE TO BE A DENT IN THE VEHICLE?
A NOT NECESSARILY, NOT IN THAT CORNER OF THE
VEHICLE. IT IS A PRETTY STRONG PART OF THE CAR. MAYBE ON
THE CENTER OF THE HOOD OR AREA THAT HAS MORE SURFACE AREA
THERE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A DENT, BUT NOT WHERE THE
DUST WAS DISTURBED.
Q WOULD YOU EXPECT THERE TO BE ANY SCRATCHES OR
ANY OTHER SIGN OTHER THAN REMOVAL OF DUST FROM THAT TYPE OF INTERACTION BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE?
A NOT NECESSARILY. IF CLOTHING IS TOUCHING, IT
IS JUST CLOTHING TOUCHING THE CAR. NOT REALLY.
Q HOW LONG IN INCHES WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THAT THE
AREA WAS THAT WAS MISSING THE DUST LAYER THAT YOU INDICATED WAS NOT THERE?
A IT WAS PROBABLY ABOUT 24 INCHES.
Q AND YOU DON’T HAVE ANY INFORMATION, OTHER THAN
WHAT AMY AND JONATHAN STATED, THAT IT WAS AMY THAT WENT INTO THE VEHICLE. IT COULD HAVE BEEN AURELIA.
A IT COULD HAVE BEEN WHERE BOTH OF THEM WERE,
YEAH.
MS. NEUMANN: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, OFFICER BERNARD. YOU MAY STEP DOWN.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: PLEASE CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS.
MS. BLACK: OFFICER EVANS.

KAYLA EVANS,
CALLED AS A WITNESS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT,
HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT IN THE WITNESS STAND.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND
SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: KAYLA EVANS, E-V-A-N-S.
THE REPORTER: YOUR FIRST NAME?
THE WITNESS: KAYLA, K-A-Y-L-A.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. BLACK:
Q YOU ARE EMPLOYED WITH THE SAN DIEGO POLICE
DEPARTMENT?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q IN WHAT CAPACITY?
A PATROL, PEACE OFFICER.
Q FOR HOW LONG?
A TWO YEARS.
Q DID YOU RESPOND TO A CALL ON AUGUST 12TH TO THE
RESIDENCE OF AURELIA?
THE COURT: AUGUST 12TH?
MS. BLACK: APRIL 12TH, SORRY.
Q OF THIS YEAR?
A YES.
Q DO YOU RECALL THAT DAY?
A YES.
Q WHY WERE YOU CALLED TO HER RESIDENCE?
A CAME OUT AS A — I GUESS IT WAS LIKE SOME KIND
OF A FIGHT THAT OCCURRED AT HIS RESIDENCE. I WENT TO HER
RESIDENCE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT SHE WAS GOING TO BE
RETURNING HOME.
Q WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT?
A THAT SHE WAS GOING TO BE RETURNING HOME, SO WE WENT TO HER RESIDENCE TO SEE IF SHE WAS THERE.
THE COURT: FOR THE RECORD, WHEN SHE REFERRED TO
“HIM,” SHE WAS REFERRING TO THE RESPONDENT.
IS THAT CORRECT?
THE WITNESS: YES, MA’AM.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
BY MS. BLACK:
Q WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT HER RESIDENCE, WAS
AURELIA PRESENT?
A NOT IMMEDIATELY, NO.
Q AND HOW SOON DID SHE ARRIVE?
A A COUPLE MINUTES PROBABLY. I DON’T RECALL
EXACTLY.
Q WHAT HAPPENED WHEN SHE ARRIVED?
A SHE ARRIVED, AND WE CONTACTED HER AND ASKED HER
TO GET OUT OF THE CAR. SHE WAS UPSET. IT TOOK A COUPLE
TIMES, ASKED HER TO GET OUT OF THE CAR, EVENTUALLY SHE DID,
AND I DETAINED HER IN HANDCUFFS.
Q YOU STATED IN YOUR REPORT SHE WAS AGITATED.
AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHY YOU OBSERVED — WHAT YOU OBSERVED ABOUT HER THAT WAS AGITATED?
A SHE JUST APPEARED UPSET. I ASKED HER — CONTACTED HER, ASKED HER TO GET OUT OF THE CAR. SHE DIDN’T IMMEDIATELY GET OUT OF THE CAR, AND SHE RESPONDED, “I DIDN’T DO ANYTHING” OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. I HAD TO ASK HER SEVERAL TIMES TO COMPLY WITH MY VERBAL COMMANDS BEFORE SHE COMPLIED, BEFORE SHE LISTENED. SHE SEEMED IRRITATED, LIKE SOMETHING HAD HAPPENED.
Q OKAY. AND SHE EVENTUALLY GOT OUT OF THE CAR
AND COMPLIED WITH YOUR ORDERS?
A YES.
Q AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED?
A LIKE I SAID, DUE TO THE NATURE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON, I JUST DETAINED HER IN HANDCUFFS JUST FOR OFFICER SAFETY ISSUES.
Q AND WERE YOU ALSO TAKING HER STATEMENT THAT DAY?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND WHAT WAS HER STATEMENT TO YOU?
A I CAN READ IT FROM WHAT I HAVE IN MY REPORT, IF
THAT’S OKAY, OR I CAN —
THE COURT: BASED ON YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION. AND IF
YOU NEED TO HAVE YOUR MEMORY REFRESHED, COUNSEL CAN ASK YOU TO DO THAT.
MS. NEUMANN: I WOULD ASK THE WITNESS NOT REFER TO
HER REPORT AT THIS TIME AND TURN IT OVER.
THE COURT: YES.
IF YOU COULD TURN IT OVER, PLEASE.
THE WITNESS: SHE TOLD ME THAT AN ARGUMENT HAD
STARTED OVER A CAT, A FAMILY CAT. I GUESS HER DAUGHTER WAS
STAYING AT THE — AT HIS HOUSE AND WANTED TO HAVE THE CAT
OVER, SO THEY WENT AND GOT THE CAT WITHOUT TELLING HER, WHEN SHE HAD BEEN LOOKING FOR THE CAT AND FOUND OUT THE CAT WAS AT HIS HOUSE AND DEMANDED THEY BRING THE CAT BACK.
I GUESS THE DAUGHTER BECAME UPSET OVER THIS AND WANTED TO STAY AT HIS HOUSE FOR THE WEEK, SO SHE WAS GOING TO BRING HIM — I AM SORRY, BRING HER CLOTHING. AND WHENSHE BROUGHT THE CLOTHING OVER, SHE GOT INTO A CONFRONTATION IN THE GARAGE, AND A PHYSICAL ARGUMENT ENSUED, SAYING — I GUESS, THEY GOT INTO A VERBAL ARGUMENT. AMY SAID SHE WAS GOING TO HIT HER, AND SHE TOLD ME IN
DEFENSE SHE PUSHED HER, AND A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION BETWEEN
JONAHTAN AND HER ENSUED OF PUSHING AND SHOVING.
BY MS. BLACK:
Q AND DID SHE COMPLAIN TO YOU OF ANY INJURIES?
A SHE TOLD ME SHE HAD BEEN PUSHED IN THE CHEST
SEVERAL TIMES, AND SHE HAD A MINOR SCRATCH ON HER KNEE AND
HER FOOT.
Q DID YOU OBSERVE THE MINOR SCRATCH ON HER KNEE
AND HER FOOT?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU OBSERVE?
A JUST MINOR ABRASIONS.
Q OKAY. AND YOU INDICATED THAT SHE COMPLAINED TO
YOU OF PAIN BEING PUSHED IN THE CHEST?
A CORRECT.
Q DID YOU OBSERVE ANY INJURIES TO HER CHEST OR UP
EITHER BODY AREA?
A NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.
Q AND YOU WOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED FOR THAT AT
THE — AT HER RESIDENCE? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD DO?
A YES, I DID LOOK, AND I DON’T RECALL SEEING ANYTHING.
Q YOU RECALL LOOKING WHERE ON HER BODY?
A EVERYWHERE. HER CHEST, UPPER TORSO.
Q OKAY. AND YOUR REPORT INDICATES THERE WERE NO
VISIBLE INJURIES TO HER UPPER TORSO AREA, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q SO THE ONLY INJURIES YOU OBSERVED ON
AURRELIA WAS A MINOR SCRATCH ON HER KNEE AND A SCRATCH ON HER FOOT?
A CORRECT.
Q DO YOU RECALL WHERE THE SCRATCH WAS ON HER FOOT?
A I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK. I DON’T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE.
Q DO YOU WANT TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION BY LOOKING AT THE REPORT?
A IF I MAY.
THE COURT: YES.
MS. BLACK: GO AHEAD.
THE COURT: GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT IT, AND THEN PUT IT
DOWN AND LOOK UP WHEN YOU ARE DONE.
THE WITNESS: SMALL SCRAPE ON HER LEFT KNEE, SMALL
ABRASION ON THE TOP OF HER LEFT FOOT.
BY MS. BLACK:
Q DO YOU HAPPEN TO RECALL WHAT KIND OF SHOES SHE WAS WEARING?
A I CAN’T, NO.
Q AND THEN YOU ARRESTED AURELIA?
A BASED ON OFFICER BERNARD’S INVESTIGATION AT THE
ORIGINAL SCENE, I ARRESTED HER, YES.
Q AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED?
A I TRANSPORTED HER TO OUR SUBSTATION WHERE I
PROCESSED HER, AND SOMEONE ELSE TRANSPORTED HER TO JAIL.
Q THE SCRATCH ON THE KNEE AND THE FOOT THAT YOU
OBSERVED ON AURELIA, ARE THOSE CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE —
AURELIA BEING ON TOP OF ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL AND ASSISTING IN
THAT MANNER?
A I CAN’T CLARIFY THAT.
Q WITH RESPECT TO THE INJURIES, THE SCRATCH AND
THE KNEE AND THE FOOT, DID AURELIA REQUEST MEDICAL CARE?
A NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.
Q DID SHE REQUEST MEDICAL ATTENTION?
A NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.
Q WOULD THAT BE IN YOUR REPORT IF SHE DID REQUEST
MEDICAL ATTENTION?
A IT SHOULD BE, YES.
Q DID YOU NEED TO REVIEW YOUR REPORT TO SEE, TO
RECALL?
A NO.
Q SO BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT IN YOUR
REPORT, IT IS FAIR TO SAY SHE DID NOT REQUEST MEDICAL
ATTENTION?
A CORRECT.
MS. BLACK: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MS. NEUMANN.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. NEUMANN:
Q HAVE YOU EVER WRITTEN A REPORT AND NOT INCLUDED
ALL THE INFORMATION THAT SOMEONE GAVE YOU?
A NOT INTENTIONALLY.
Q SO IT IS POSSIBLE THAT AURELIA ASKED FOR
MEDICAL CARE AND YOU DIDN’T INCLUDE THAT IN THE REPORT?
A I DON’T RECALL HER REQUESTING MEDICAL ATTENTION.
Q BUT YOU DO RECALL THAT SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS
HIT SEVERAL TIMES IN THE CHEST, CORRECT?
A PUSHED SEVERAL TIMES.
Q WELL, YOUR REPORT SAYS “HIT.” DO YOU WANT TO
REVIEW IT?
A SURE.
CORRECT, IT SAYS HIT SEVERAL TIMES, YES.
Q SO YOUR REPORT INDICATES THAT SHE WAS HIT
SEVERAL TIMES IN THE CHEST BY HER EX-HUSBAND, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q AND IT DOES NOT INDICATE THAT SHE WAS ONLY
PUSHED BY HER EX-HUSBAND, CORRECT?
A MY REPORT SAYS “HIT SEVERAL TIMES.”
Q AND YOU HAD TO GO TO AURELIA’S RESIDENCE TO
ARREST HER BASED ON OFFICER BERNARD’S REPORT, CORRECT?
A OFF OF HIS INVESTIGATION AT THE TIME OF THE
INCIDENT, YES.
Q SO YOU DIDN’T HAVE ANY DISCRETION WHETHER OR
NOT TO ARREST HER OR NOT. YOU WERE REQUIRED TO ARREST HER BASED ON HIS INVESTIGATION.
A CORRECT. I WAS NOT DOING THE INITIAL
INVESTIGATION.
Q SO YOU WERE THERE TO ARREST HER AND TO TRY TO
TAKE HER STATEMENT; ISN’T THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q AND WHEN YOU ARRIVED, WAS SHE CRYING?
A SHE WAS UPSET, YES. I DON’T NECESSARILY
REMEMBER IF SHE WAS CRYING.
Q WAS SHE RED AND SWOLLEN FROM CRYING?
A I DON’T RECALL.
Q WHAT KIND OF CLOTHING WAS SHE WEARING?
A I DON’T RECALL.
Q DID YOU BRING — DID YOU TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF HER?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU BRING THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WITH YOU TODAY?
A I DID NOT.
Q DO YOU RECALL IF SHE WAS WEARING A DRESS OR SHORTS?
A I BELIEVE SHE WAS WEARING A BLACK DRESS, SOME
SORT OF DRESS.
Q WAS HER DRESS HIGH UP ON HER CHEST OR WAS IT A
V-NECK?
A I DON’T RECALL.
Q SO WHEN YOU CHECKED HER CHEST TO SEE WHETHER OR
NOT SHE HAD BRUISING OR REDNESS, DID YOU LOOK UNDERNEATH HER DRESS?
A I DON’T RECALL EXACTLY HOW I DID IT, NO.
Q IS IT POSSIBLE THAT OR WOULD IT BE SOMETHING
THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY DO IS TO LOOK UNDERNEATH SOMEONE’S
CLOTHING TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE INJURED?
A WITH PERMISSION.
Q AND YOU DON’T RECALL DOING THAT —
THE COURT: I AM SORRY. IS THAT “YES” OR “NO,” WITH
PERMISSION?
THE WITNESS: YES, WITH PERMISSION.
BY MS. NEUMANN:
Q DO YOU RECALL DOING THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR
CASE?
A IN MY REPORT IT SAYS I CHECKED HER CHEST FOR
ANY REDNESS. I DON’T RECALL DOING IT.
Q YOU DON’T RECALL LOOKING UNDERNEATH HER DRESS
TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS INJURED UNDERNEATH HER DRESS?
A MAYBE CASUALLY GLANCING.
Q AND YOU DON’T RECALL DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN
LOOKING AT THE EXPOSED AREA OF HER CHEST FROM WHERE HER
CLOTHING WASN’T COVERED?
MS. BLACK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE WITNESS’
TESTIMONY. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: IT WAS EIGHT MONTHS AGO. I DON’T RECALL.
BY MS. NEUMANN:
Q SO THE INFORMATION THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM
AURELIA, WHERE DOES THAT GO AFTER YOU TAKE HER REPORT?
A CAN YOU CLARIFY?
Q DOES THAT GO TO THE DETECTIVE WHO THEN
INVESTIGATES AND GIVES THE INFORMATION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY?
A CORRECT.
Q OKAY. SO ALL YOU WERE THERE TO DO WAS TO GET
HER STATEMENT AND ARREST HER AND TAKE HER TO BE BOOKED; IS
THAT CORRECT?
A ESSENTIALLY. I ARRIVED ON THE SCENE TO SEE IF
THERE WAS AN ISSUE THAT HAD OCCURRED. BASED ON HIS
INVESTIGATION, I ARRESTED HER OFF HIS INVESTIGATION AND TOOK
HER STATEMENT AND TRANSPORTED HER.
Q WHEN SHE INDICATED SHE HAD BEEN HIT SEVERAL
TIMES IN THE CHEST, ISN’T THAT AN ASSAULT?
A TECHNICALLY, YES.
Q AND AFTER HEARING THE INFORMATION THAT AN
ASSAULT OCCURRED, YOU DIDN’T REFER IT TO OFFICER BERNARD OR
ANY OTHER OFFICER TO HAVE JONATHAN ARRESTED FOR SUSPICION
OF ASSAULT?
A WHEN WE DISCUSSED IT, IT WAS DEEMED SHE WAS THE DOMINANT AGGRESSOR.
Q AND IS THAT BECAUSE SHE WAS AT THEIR
HOUSE?
A BASED OFF HIS STATEMENT. BASED OFF HIS STATEMENT AND WHAT WE DISCUSSED WITH OFFICER BERNARD, IT WAS DEEMED SHE INSTIGATED IT, THAT SHE WAS THE DOMINANT AGGRESSOR.
Q WAS THAT OFFICER BERNARD’S DECISION OR YOURS?
A HE IS THE INITIAL INVESTIGATING OFFICER, SO
YES. WELL, IT WAS BOTH OF OURS ESSENTIALLY, I GUESS, YES.
Q ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU TOOK OF AURELIA AT
THE TIME THAT YOU DETAINED HER ARE CONTAINED IN THE POLICE
RECORDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE SAN DIEGO POLICE
DEPARTMENT?
A I WOULD BELIEVE SO.
Q AND ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU TOOK ARE
ACCURATE REPRESENTATIONS OF WHAT YOU SAW AT THE SCENE; IS
THAT CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q WERE THERE ANY OTHER INJURIES THAT WERE
INDICATED ON AURELIA THAT WEREN’T INCLUDED IN YOUR REPORT?
A NOT THAT I CAN RECALL.
Q AND DID SHE COMPLAIN THAT SHE WAS ASSAULTED?
A SHE SAID THAT HE HAD PUSHED HER OR HIT HER
SEVERAL TIMES, YES.
Q AND DID SHE ASK TO FILE CHARGES?
A SHE SAID SHE WISHED TO, YES.
Q AND THAT WASN’T CONSIDERED?
MS. BLACK: OBJECTION; VAGUE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MS. NEUMANN:
Q IN REVIEWING WHETHER OR NOT ANOTHER CRIME
OCCURRED, YOU DIDN’T CONSIDER THAT INFORMATION TO DETERMINE
WHETHER A CRIME HAD OCCURRED?
A THAT’S WHY I INCLUDED IT IN MY REPORT FOR THE
DETECTIVE TO FOLLOW UP ON.
Q I AM LOOKING AT YOUR REPORT — I APOLOGIZE. ONE SECOND.
SO IN TAKING AURELIA’S STATEMENT, SHE NEVER
ADMITTED TO YOU THAT SHE DID ANYTHING OTHER THAN PUSH AMY
AWAY FROM HER?
A CORRECT.
MS. NEUMANN: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MS. BLACK, MAY THE WITNESS BE EXCUSED?
MS. BLACK: NO, I HAVE REDIRECT.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. BLACK:
Q YOU SAID IT WAS DETERMINED THAT AURELIA WAS THE
DOMINANT AGGRESSOR, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q AND WHAT INFORMATION OR INFORMATION GATHERED IN
YOUR INVESTIGATION LED TO THAT CONCLUSION?
A I DON’T HAVE IT INCLUDED IN MY REPORT, AND I
DON’T RECALL EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AT THE TIME.
Q DO YOU HAVE NOTES WITH YOU THAT WOULD REFRESH
YOUR RECOLLECTION?
A I KNOW PART OF IT WAS — IT HAD BEEN ACCUSED
SHE HAD ATTEMPTED TO CHOKE OR STRANGLE HIS WIFE, AND THAT’S
REALLY AS MUCH AS I KNOW.
MS. BLACK: OKAY. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.