Hits: 0
WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. November 19, 2010:
A Department of Social Services Emergency Services aid Magdelena Diaz-Gomez testified Thursday afternoon that within 10 hours after Adam Bradley allegedly slammed a bedroom door on his wife Fumiko’s hand resulting in a charge of third degree assault and other charges, “I did not see any marks or bruises” on Mrs. Bradley’s left hand.
Earlier this week, Detective Robbins of the White Plains Police Department who took photographs of Mrs. Bradley’s hand after the alleged door-slam incident Sunday morning, February 28, testified his (Robbins’) prints of the photographs he took of Mrs. Bradley’ alleged injured hand did not look like Mrs. Bradley’s hand looked at the time Robbins took the photographs. The original camera card containing the originals, has not yet been introduced in the trial.
Thursday afternoon the Bradleys’ au pair, Yuko Watanabe, testifying through an interpreter, described how she saw the alleged door incident unfolding. Ms. Watanabe testified Mrs. Bradley went upstairs to the Bradley bedroom on her own screaming at Mr.Bradley for consuming lemonade.
At no time, Ms. Wantanabe said, (before the alleged incident unfolded), did Mr. Bradley come down the stairs. Originally, in testimony Mrs. Bradley said, Mr. Bradley pushed Mrs. Bradley up the stairs. Wantanabe recounted that after Mrs. Bradley went into the bedroom, she heard Mrs. Bradley yelling and screaming at Mr. Bradley. She testified that the disagreement started over he and his children drinking lemonade Mrs. Bradley had intended for “a girl friend (of hers).”
Wantanabe heard Mr. Bradley say, “Fumiko, please stop…please forgive me,” from the upstairs bedroom, then Ms. Wantanabe said she heard 4 or 5 door “closings,” while Mrs. Bradley continued yelling and screaming.
In later testimony, Ms. Wantanabe testified she saw Mrs. Bradley hit Mr. Bradley with her fist on the morning of Election Day 2009, and push him about eighteen feet. (The judge estimated the eighteen feet based on a positioning Ms. Wantanabe had indicated.) These two alleged acts testified as having take place by Wantanabe were denied by Mrs. Bradley under oath in previous testimony.
The Thursday session of the trial came to a close at 4:45 P.M., with Ms. Wantanabe still on direct examination by Mr. Bradley’s attorney. Friday will see the parties back in court to discuss procedural issues involving if and how Selena Bradley, one of the Bradleys’ daughters will be put on the stand to testify and how her testimony will be taken, if allowed.
An Offer of Proof Brings DSS worker to the stand
Ms. Diaz-Gomez, one of the Department of Social Services Emergency Service worker who interviewed Mrs. Bradley after her husband was arrested February 28 for the alleged finger slam in the door incident, was allowed to testify over objections raised by the Westchester County Attorney Office. The County Attorney representative argued reports of DSS that return a finding of “unfounded” when child abuse is considered to have occurred are “inadmissible.”
Mr.Penichet in earnest argument pointed out that in only two cases have such reports been allowed, one such matter was to demonstrate a false report. Judge Susan Capeci asked Penichet to delineate an offer of proof as to what areas Penichet wanted to explore with the DSS workers. After Penichet described those areas to Judge Capeci in lengthy argument, the judge allowed two of the DSS workers to testify, restricting them to questions of :
If the DSS workers saw no visible sign of injury at the time; whether the Bradley au pair, Yuko Watanabe, was in the house at the time of the incident the morning of February 28; if Mrs.Bradley mentioned she had seen a counselor on issues of domestic violence. (These were matters Mrs. Bradley had testified to previously in the trial.)
Possibility of Child Taking the Stand
Mr. Penichet, in making this offer of proof, said that he wanted to bring another DSS worker involved in an investigative interview with Mrs. Bradley and her attorney, Neil Comer. In this interview Celena, the Bradley’s 4 year old daughter (at this time) was said to say her mommy pushes her daddy and my daddy gets mad.
Mr. Penichet also told the Judge he wanted to ask the DSS worker Celena Bradley’s account of the January 11 incident where Mr. Bradley is alleged to have thrown tea on Mrs. Bradley. Celena is said to have indicated in the same investigation report furnished the District Attorney detailing the subtance of that meeting, that Mr. Bradley was holding a cup of hot tea and her mother pushed him, causing Mr. Bradley to spill tea on Mrs. Bradley as a result of the push.
Mr. Penichet told the Judge, “the relevancy (of allowing the DSS emergency workers to testify) is overwhelming,” He followed up his advantage saying, “It goes to her state of mind, extent of injury, knowledge, intent, motive.”
Penichet suggested to Judge Capeci “If I let this (DSS testimony) in for a limited purpose.”
Capeci asked him his reasons for bringing the DSS workers in to testify. Penichet cited Fumiko Bradley testimony from earlier in the trial. Penichet reread sections of Mrs. Bradley’s testimony and the judge relented. She did lay out limited inquiry specifically to four areas of controversy: presence of the au pair, extent of injury, whether domestic violence history was brought up with Diaz-Gomez, and whether she and Mr. Bradley hand seen marriage counselors.
“I did not see any marks or bruises.”
When Ms. Diaz-Gomez arrived from the field to testify at noon, Penichet asked Ms. Diaz-Gomez if Mrs. Bradley had told her about the couple having marriage counseling and Diaz-Gomez said “Yes.” He asked her if Mrs. Bradley had “made mention of domestic violence at the sessions.” Diaz-Gomez said “Yes.” Previously in the trial, Mrs. Bradley in her testimony did not remember whether she had or not on both questions. Later in the testimony Penichet asked Diaz-Gomez if during the alleged incident the morning of the 28th if the nanny was in the home.
Penichet asked if Mrs. Bradley told her the au pair (Yuko Wantanabe) was not there at the time of the alleged incident in the home (the morning of the 28th). Diaz-Gomez said, “Correct.”
He asked Diaz-Gomez, “Did you observe her (Mrs. Bradley’s) hand what did you see?”
Diaz-Gomez said, “I did not see any marks or bruises.”
Penichet asked “Was she (Mrs. Bradley) in pain?” Diaz-Gomez testified, “She was not in any pain.”
After completion of the Diaz-Gomez testimony, Amy Puerto for the prosecution conducted a cross-examination asking Diaz-Gomez to describe Mrs. Bradley’s demeanor during the interview the evening after the alleged incident. Diaz-Gomez said, “She was very distraught.”
Mr. Penichet said to WPCNR after this afternoon’s session ended that he did not call the second Department of Social Services worker because that testimony involved possible testimony of a child which Judge Capeci had said she would not let him focus on when she agreed to the questions Penichet wanted to ask Diaz-Gomez.
The trial then adjourned at 12:55 until 2:15 P.M. when the au pair, Yuko Watanabe was called as a witness for the defense.
Judge Capeci said she would consider allowing the child to testify. At the end of the day in court at 4:45 P.M. the Judge said the attorneys would meet Friday morning at 9:30 A.M. to consider “procedural issues” regarding whether Celena Bradley could testify. However, Luis Penichet, the defense attorney told the Journal News Thursday evening after parties had left the court Mr. Bradley would not let his daughter testify.
Detective Pays a Call
It should be noted that after Penichet’s extended discussion with Judge Capeci presenting his offer of proof and persuading the judge to allow his questioning Diaz-Gomez, Mr. Penichet brought up a matter he learned about Wednesday afternoon after court had adjourned.
Penichet told the judge he learned that Detective Robbins of the White Plains Police Department had paid a visit to the home of Bonnie Hagan Wednesday afternoon. Detective Robbins, incidentally, was one of the original investigating officers on the February 28 alleged door-slam incident. Robbins, photographer of Mrs. Bradley’s hand, also testified earlier in this trial.
Ms. Hagan, to set the scene for you, is the witness Mr. Penichet had sought the Judge to be allowed to testify yesterday that Mrs. Bradley had warned her (Hagan) not to testify. Penichet told Judge Capeci of Detective Robbins visit to Hagan after Judge Capeci had not allowed Hagan to testify.
Penichet said Detective Robbins asked Ms. Hagan , as a reason for his visit, “We’d just like to know what you were going to say at the trial.”
Penichet said Ms. Hagan was annoyed, having spent time at the trial yesterday and not being called. Judge Capeci said, “it’s irrelevant.”
Penichet said he believed the prosecution was preparing a rebuttal and was attempting to find ways to discredit Amy Tiinoken’s testimony Wednesday that Mrs. Bradley said to Mrs. Tiinoken (in the presence of Bonnie Hagan) “I lied to the police.” (After court, Penichet told WPCNR the prosecution, it was his understanding, was preparing to bring in seven witnesses to mount a rebuttal.)
Prosecutor Amy Puerto dismissed Detective Robbins’ visit to Hagan as part of the prosecution’s continuing investigation.
Penichet asked again for the Judge to rule that Bonnie Hagan could testify about what Mrs. Bradley had said to her. The Judge again denied it.
Enter the Au Pair
In Ms. Watanabe’s testimony Wednesday afternoon, she confirmed she was present in the home the morning of February 28. She said she had not seen Mr. Bradley that morning until one of his daughter’s said she was thirsty. Wantanabe said Mr. Bradley had not been downstairs at all that morning before the incident as previously testified by Mrs. Bradley who in earlier testimony said Mr. Bradley pushed her up the stairs.
She said the prelude to the incident started when Mrs. Bradley discovered lemonade had been consumed in the kitchen that had been intended for a friend of Mrs. Bradley’s.
Asked by Penichet if Mrs. Bradley had asked the children who drank the lemonade, Wantanabe said, “Yes. Both (children) said Daddy.”
Penichet asked what did Fumiko Bradley do? Watanabe said, “She went to the stairs and asked Adam whether or not he had drank the lemonade.”
Penichet followed with, “Did you see Adam come down the stairs?” Watanabe said “No, he didn’t.”
Penichet asked how Mrs. Bradley asked the “did you drink the lemonade question.” Watanabe said, “She was dominant. She was screaming in a loud voice.”
Penichet asked: Did Adam answer back. Watanabe said Mr. Bradley said, “Yes, I did.” Watanabe on further questioning testified that Mrs. Bradley asked why, that it was for one of her “girl friends” and that Mr. Bradley called down, “Sorry, I didn’t know that.”
Watanabe then recounted Mr. Bradley said he was going into the bathroom. At that point, Watanabe said Mrs. Bradley, who had not stopped screaming went (upstairs) to the bedroom. All the while, with Ms. Watanabe in the kitchen, Ms. Watanabe said Mrs. Bradley was screaming.
Peniche asked if Mr. Bradley said anything. Watanabe said “Yes.” Over an objection by the prosecution, vigorously argued, Judge Peniche overruled and Watanabe said she heard Mr. Bradley saying,
“Fumiko, please stop…forgive me.”
Asked how Mr. Bradley sounded, saying those words, Ms. Watanabe said, “Confused,pleading.”
Asked if Mr. Bradley said this in an angry voice, Watanabe said, “No.”
Peniche asked if Mr. Bradley said anything else “while Mrs. Bradley was yelling and screaming in the bedroom.”
Ms. Watanabe said, “He said it (“Fumiko, please stop”) a number of times.”
Penichet then asked “if there were any other noises or sounds?”
Watanabe said, “A door being closed, four or five times.”
Penichet continued asking, “when the door closed , was Mrs. Bradley still yelling and screaming?” Watanabe said “Yes.”
Watanabe said she then went to her room (in the basement). Mr. Bradley she said came down the stairs. Then went back up to the bedroom.
Testimony on Au Pair’s 30 Minutes with Fumiko Ruled Out
Under questioning, Ms. Watanabe said she saw Mrs. Bradley twice later the day of the 28th, (the day of the alleged hand-in-door incident), for two to three minutes and for about a half-hour at dusk.
Penichet asked what she and Mrs. Bradley talked about in that 30 minutes.
The prosecution objected.
The Judge would not allow Ms. Watanabe to answer the question. Penichet in yet another offer of proof said that Ms. Watanabe would testify that Mrs. Bradley said she never wanted Mr. Bradley to be arrested, and later he would say to the judge that Mrs. Bradley and Ms. Watanabe had a “heart to heart” during this 30 minute interval and Mrs. Bradley said to Ms. Watanabe, “she was tricked by the police.” Judge Capeci sustained the objection.
In the course of her two-hours on the stand, (with two 15-minute breaks for consideration of admissability of quetions), Ms. Watanabe was questioned about her presence at the lunch of February 27. She confirmed Mrs. Bradley’s screaming at Mr. Bradley, paralleling and confirming the testimonies provided by Mr. Passarella and Mr. Strongwater on Wednesday.
At the end of the day in family court at 4:45 P.M. the Judge said the attorneys would meet Friday morning at 9:30 A.M. to consider “procedural issues” regarding whether Celena Bradley could testify.
The strategy to place Celena Badley on the stand, according to The Journal News, changed after court concluded. Luis Penichet,Bradley’s defense attorney told reporter Ben Rubin Mr. Bradley had decided against having his daughter testify on how the tea found its way onto Mrs. Bradley January 11.
The judge indicated as court closed Thursday there would be no more testimony taken until Monday, November 29, because the interpreter was not available until that time, according to Prosecutor Audrey Stone.
Prosectuor Amy Puerto who has deftly parried Mr. Penichet’s daily Offers of Proof, said to several reporters after close of court today, this was the longest misdemeanor case she and Ms.Stone have ever been involved
