Expert testimony. (Sorry, I know the question wasn’t addressed to me.)
@maya54: Of course the red carpet doormat is relevant. But if it is not placed into evidence because it got “lost” in/from the evidence room, then who was or would be an eyewitness that the a red carpet doormat was there at the same time that the officer was at the door ? Certainly not the officer who will testify that she never saw it or anything like it .
@SatchelSF: Are you kidding ? You cannot be serious regarding your post #380 above !
What you are asserting is that a court would allow expert testimony about the mental impressions of an officer to a scene at which the only witness alive is the officer &, according @Nrdsb4, the officer will not testify.
In order for an expert witness to be permitted to testify about the reasonableness of the officer’s actions would be after the officer testified.
Maybe I misunderstand your post above or maybe I am missing some key bit of information. If so, please share it.
No, @Publisher, I do think expert testimony would be allowed as to the general questions of perception and, for instance, the neurobiological processes involved in the startle response. Perhaps expert testimony to discuss the studies on police fatigue and even PTSD-like responses after being on an “elite-level” street crime unit. How about possibly even an expert on the psychological effects of being the sole woman on such a unit?
All this could be informed by testimony regarding the relative positions of the shooter versus the victim, and rebuttal expert testimony to counter any evidence introduced as a result of the police investigation and the coroner’s report.
The nice thing about a reasonableness defense is that it is based on objective criteria, not subjective impressions, so specific testimony as to state of mind shouldn’t be necessary. Of course, any potential testimonial evidence would have to clear the probative vs. prejudicial hurdle, but I would think when someone’s freedom is at stake there would be some leeway.
Last, any testimony that comes out could be highlighted in a classic closing argument, “Picture yourself exhausted at the end of a 15 hour shift, having battled criminals for the last 4 years…”
I don’t know for sure, just thinking out loud, and speculating like everyone else on this thread 
Re the red door mat – even if it did disappear from the evidence room, wouldn’t the testimony of the responding officer who logged it be enough to say there was “a” red mat there? And wouldn’t it been seen on the cameras that may be in the hallway (either on the floor or the officers picking it up and bagging it). Also I hope neighbor testimony that it was always there would be enough.
But, personally, I agree with those who believe it’s possible someone could be on auto-pilot going back to their home after a shift that long. (In terms of going to the wrong place, not as an excuse for any of her actions after that). Don’t know if this has been said, but I also think if you are engrossed in your phone – reading texts, reading email, looking at facebook – it would be possible to not notice a mat on the floor with your eyes glued to your phone and your mind absorbed in whatever you’re looking at
Not at all. The court would allow expert testimony about attention, inattention and automaticity. The officer would be saying that she was on autopilot when she approached the door, and the expert would be testifying about the reasonableness of such a claim.
The expert would not be testifying whether the officer was telling the truth, but merely whether selective attention is normal and usual.
Sorry, but your post # 383 seems ridiculous to me. For example, “perception” of what ? If the officer does not testify, then there is no “perception” to be debated or justified.
You wrote: “testimony regarding the relative positions of the shooter versus the victim” Whose testimony if the officer will not testify ?
@SatchelSF : Did you really write this sentence below (I ask because you claimed to have a law degree in past posts) :
"Last, any testimony that comes out could be highlighted in a classic argument, “Picture yourself exhausted at the end of a 15 hour shift, having battled criminals for the last 4 years…”
There is so much wrong with that sentence that you should know, as an attorney, that no such statement would ever be permitted in a court of law in a closing argument before a jury.
I have a SIL who could tell you exactly who wore what at a family event - 10 years ago. And most likely could tell you who wore what at all events since then. She immediately notices any change in our home. She would notice a different placement of a trinket. Me on the other hand…I barely notice what I was wearing, much less anyone else. I’ve pointed out things to folks thinking it was a new item, clothing, furniture placement - only to be told ‘it’s been like that for X amount of time’. Point being, some of us just are not programmed to notice certain things in our environment. We also have a lousy sense of direction. Put all that together and yes, we’ve sat in the wrong car and tried our key in the wrong room. I lived in a 3 story apartment building for about a year. More than once, after a long day at work, I got off on the wrong floor and walked to the wrong door.
Those folks who DO observe and notice the things above have a hard time believing someone else could ‘just not notice’.
That said, give me a strange smell or sound and I’ll know very quickly something is not quite right. H has learned to listen to my concerns when a car, appliance, pet or kid is making a ‘different’ sound. One he doesn’t register.
We all judge from our own experiences, our sensory strengths and weaknesses and from our own bias.
@CardinalFang: Please reread the relevant posts–all of which are based on the assertion by another poster that the officer would NOT testify.
“Re the red door mat – even if it did disappear from the evidence room, wouldn’t the testimony of the responding officer who logged it be enough to say there was “a” red mat there?”
Yep. And that’s all you’d need.
I don’t understand the fixation on the red carpet. Of course the red carpet was there, and nobody at trial is going to dispute that fact.
@SatchelSF; Thank you for your private message. This is very complicated stuff.
Not trying to pick on you, but in your post # 383 you wrote:
“The nice thing about a reasonableness defense is that it is based on objective criteria, not subjective impressions, so specific testimony as to state of mind shouldn’t be necessary.”
Again there is so much wrong with the above statement in quotes, that I will only address the most major issue.
Both the US Supreme Court &, accordingly, police training departments & lower courts nationwide struggle with this issue.
The US Supreme Court wrote in 1989 about a "subjective objective " standard regarding police shootings. “the objective reasonableness of a use of force depends on the subjective knowledge and perception of the officer”.
I don’t think that I need to say any more regarding this fluid, hotly debated and developing standard other than any thought that the officer in the instant matter will not testify & be able to also assert a defense based on reasonableness is absurd.
“The officer will testify that she never saw it. And we know of no other eye witnesses.”
Huh? Of course we know of many other witnesses. All of the responding officers. What in the world are you talking about.
Who will testify to the presence of the red carpet doormat AT THE TIME that the officer approached & was at the door. Not before, not after, but at that time. The officer will state under oath that she did not see any red carpet doormat when she was at the door.
The presence of the red carpet doormat goes to the issue of the reasonableness of the officer believing that 1478 was her apartment.
For those struggling with the red carpet doormat reasonableness issue : What relevance would the presence of the red doormat have BEFORE the officer arrived or AFTER the incident ? It is only relevant if it can be proven to have been there AT THE SAME TIME that the officer approached & was at the deceased’s door.
“Who will testify to the presence of the red carpet doormat AT THE TIME that the officer approached & was at the door. Not before, not after, but at that time. The officer will state under oath that she did not see any red carpet doormat when she was at the door.”
No one needs to. The officer will say it was there when they arrived. The jury will will be able to determine if there is reasonable doubt over whether the mat was there when the officer arrived vs in the 4 minutes bertween the call and their arrival.
@maya54: Sure, Good luck getting that admitted into evidence without introducing the red carpet doormat.
There will be no issue getting the officers testimony into evidence. What would be the basis for exclusion ?
I saw a picture of the door on line. If it is in fact his door, would they be able to bring that into court?
The thing that bothers me is that if she thought it was her apartment, then why knock at all? If the key didn’t work, why knock?
Who said she knocked?
@RandyErika , apparently some neighbors have come forward and said they heard her knocking on the door and demanding to be let in.
@“Cardinal Fang” Yes they said they did a blood test. I have not seen any mention of the RESULTS of that test.