Hits: 0
WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. November 10, 2010 UPDATED 9:14 A.M. E.S.T. UPDATED NOVEMBER 12, 8:51 A.M. See “For the Record” Section:
Taking advantage of Prosecutor Audrey Stone’s calling White Plains Police Detective Robbins to the stand late in the day this afternoon, Mayor Adam Bradley’s defense attorney, Luis Penichet received a go-ahead from Judge Susan Capeci to question the detective about what Ms. Bradley said to him and another detective during their initial investigation of the incident.
This action by Judge Capeci allows Penichet to probe inconsistencies in Mrs. Bradley’s testimony in this trial and what she did or did not tell the two investigation detectives February 28.
Detective Robbins with Detective Rodriguez, took Mrs. Bradley’s first complaints on February 28 when she arrived at Police Headquarters that day complaining her husband had slammed the fingers of her left hand in the door of their bedroom.
The trial will resume Monday, the 15th at 9:30 A.M. with Detective Robbins back on the stand.
Earlier in the afternoon court action in the Bradley domestic abuse case, Adam Bradley’s attorney Penichet questioned the accuracy of the color reproduction on photographs entered in evidence by the District Attorney.
Mr. Penichet showed Fumiko Bradley the photographs. Penichet asked Mrs. Bradley if pictures of her bruised fingers, her house, and the clothing looked the way the looked to her after the alleged door-slam incident.
She testified the photographs of her fingers on her left hand did not look the way her hand looked February 28.
Detective Robbins was called to the stand by Prosecutor Audrey Stone to explain the initial investigation of the incident and how he and detective Rodriguez had conducted their interview with Ms. Bradley on February 28.
After Ms. Stone completed her presentation, Mr. Penichet showed Detective Robbins the same photographs (printouts of digital photographs taken by Robbins of Ms. Bradley’s injury).
Detective Robbins testified “No” when asked if the photographs of Ms. Bradley’s injured fingers, hand, her house among others did not look like they looked when he photographed them.
Subsequent questioning by Penichet produced the information that Robbins did not see the printouts of the photographs after he took them. He said he gave the datacard from the police digital camera to Detective Connelley and he, (Robbins), never saw a printout, but did see the finished photograph in the display screen of his camera.
Meeting the press outside the courthouse after court, Mr. Penichet emphasized he was not alleging the photographs had been altered in any way. He instead said what was needed was the actual datacard to reproduce the photographs.
After Penichet finished his questioning on the alleged photograph color inaccuracy with Detective Robbins, he asked Detective Robbins if during his investigative session with Mrs. Bradley, if Mrs. Bradley had told him Mr. Bradley had kicked her.
Prosecutor Stone objected sharply. Again Stone and Penichet made their individual cases to Judge Capeci on whether or not Penichet could proceed with this line of questioning: what Ms. Bradley told the original investigating detectives and what appears in her sworn police statement and her testimony so far about the incident in the trial.
Judge Capeci ruled Detective Robbins could answer the question. The hour being late, the case was adjourned at 4:30 to Monday at 9:30 A.M.
FOR THE RECORD…
At the beginning of Wednesday morning’s session, Judge Capeci heard the issue of whether or not Mr. Penichet would be allowed to bring a witness who could testify to the reasons Mrs. Bradley left a school where she had worked thirteen years ago. The prosecutor Ms. Stone again protested “it had no relevance” to the charge. Again relying on Richardson on Evidence legal reference, Penichet argued that the testimony would establish motive which is allowed according to Richardson’s. The Judge said she would reserve decision.
————
Mr. Penichet began his morning’s questioning attempting to establish why Fumiko Bradley had begun seeing marriage counselors in mid-2006, the February 2010 door slam incident. Mr. Penichet began questioning based on Fumiko Bradley’s list of notes and possible witnesses Mrs. Bradley provided to the District Attorney.
He observed reading with those notes in his hand, that in 2006, Fumiko Bradley had “in your notes written a “series of reasons (why you began to see marriage counselors, one of those was Amy Paulin, she’s the reason you took therapy in July.” Fumiko Bradley said “Yes.”
Penichet then asked “ And was she (Amy Paulin) part of the reason you were planning a divorce?” Mrs. Bradley said: “I can’t answer Yes or No.”
According to the notes, Penichet indicated, Mrs. Bradley first went to see a marriage counselor in 2006 (Amy Paulin was and still is an Assemblywoman in the New York State Legislature, and worked with Mr. Bradley at that time on Westchester issues.)
Penichet, observing from Mrs. Bradley’s divorce papers (filed in September, 2010),asked “in this divorce complaint, you alleged problems beginning with Paulin(in 2006) and before February 28 (2010) with Yuko (the au pair in the Bradley household)?”
Mrs. Bradley said “Yes, inappropriate (pause) with Yuko. Not sexual. Just lying to see her (Paulin). He didn’t tell me he was going to see Amy. He was going out late with her.”
Penichet then proceeded to introduce Mrs. Bradley’s letter to Adam Bradley of May 14, 2009 to establish with more authority that marital problems had been existing before the February 28 alleged door-slam incident. (See earlier story.)
——————-
In later testimony on Wednesday afternoon, Mrs. Bradley said responded to questions involving a live Madagascar cockroach which can grow up to 4 inches long.. She testified how Mr. Bradley held the cockroach (caged) to her face, a piece of testimony that has been picked up by the Associated Press. Mrs. Bradley said, “I did not want it (the cockroach) in my home. On the day we had a fight he put the cage (containing the cockroach) against my face. So upsetting to me. I told him to get out of the home.”
Penichet on cross-examination asked Mrs. Bradley if the cockroach was not purchased by Mr. Bradley as a pet for his daughters at the Bronx Zoo. The Judge did not allow Mrs. Bradley to answer the question.
————–
Mrs. Bradley, in mid afternoon, explaining her marriage, said, “I didn’t like what he did. But I liked him.”
