Llera v. LVMPD: DAY 7
Yesterday was the final full day of trial, with three witness testimonies that included more lying from officers and a contradictory testimony from a forensic expert who works closely with the police. Closing statements will take place today before the jury goes to deliberate on their verdict of whether the officers are guilty.
Expert Witness Testimony Thomas Martin
The defense called witness Thomas Martin, who is a forensic expert in scene reconstruction, shooting reconstruction, and homicide investigation. However, his credibility is lost as soon as he takes the stand, as he is a cop himself. He worked as a trooper with New York state police for several years but has worked as a forensic expert closely with police departments for 37 years, making it clear whose side he is on.
He has worked with many violent crimes and officer-involved shootings and has testified in 10 different states. His track record also includes attending autopsies and training police officers and Iraqi soldiers. He received a total of $3500 for his appearance in court, although he says, “I charge for my time, not my opinions”.
Initial Testimony
Martin stated that he reviewed the video footage, lab reports, Dr. Omalu’s report, depositions, and statements to reconstruct the event. He said he uses reports and information like bullet wound trajectory to evaluate body position. The judge asked how you can account for body position, and Martin gave a vague answer, saying every situation is different.
He showed a diagram where the bullets struck according to his findings. In his testimony, he discussed the following:
Firing began on the far right side of the scene.
He was concerned solely about lethal rounds.
The situation only lasted 2 seconds.
20 rounds were fired.
The bullets that hit Jorge were primarily on the left side of the body and had an upward trajectory.
The upward trajectory of the bullets could be because Jorge was running.
Attorney Galipo, Jorge’s family attorney, had to object multiple times because of the line of questioning. The defense attorneys attempted to say that Jorge was shot in the front, hinted at someone being able to turn their head and point a weapon while running (neither of which were verified actions), and also presented questions that led Martin to give his opinion instead of actual facts.
Cross-Examination with Plaintiff
During cross-examination, Attorney Galipo turned around some important questions, requiring clarification on Martin’s expertise. In this cross-examination, Martin said the following:
Martin’s case load involves at least 50% officer-involved shootings.
In his career, he estimates that he has reviewed 100 OIS cases.
He has only testified on behalf of the defense of the police officers in civil trials.
Of the 20 shots fired, there was one to the head, nose, and back, and multiple shots to the thighs.
He was unable to determine who fired first.
The markers on the wall showing where the bullets hit were consistent with guns being pointed downward at someone who was on the ground.
There were bullet defects to the front plate of the body armor Jorge was wearing.
The bullets fired were consistent with Jorge falling to the ground.
Despite the defense bringing this witness, Martin confirmed that Jorge couldn't have been facing officers due to how the shots hit him. Although Martin has testified in many cases, he appeared to be nervous, stuttering, tripping over his words, and asking for a rephrasing of some questions.
Jury Questions
The jury asked these questions, with Martin’s answers underneath:
“In regard to the low strikes on the wall, is it possible that those strikes were skip rounds?”
“Yes”
“If Jorge was struck with a round while on the ground, would it have a significant trajectory through the body?”
“I believe so, yes.”
Michael Lee Testimony
Michael Lee was yet another officer present at the protests. He was in the same car as Officer Silvia, the officer who said he did not see Jorge with a weapon, but he said that he got out after seeing someone with a rifle. He claimed that he saw Jorge’s hand on his rifle when they got out of the vehicle and started yelling, “Take your hand off the rifle”, and allegedly, the others from his vehicle made the same commands. Again, Officer Silvia said he never saw the weapon, despite Lee now saying that everyone from the car got out because of Jorge walking with his rifle.
During his testimony, Lee also said:
He recognized the sound of the bean bag rounds as bean bags.
He didn’t feel comfortable taking a shot with his weapon.
He was taking cover and didn’t see Jorge fall.
He supposedly saw Jorge grip his rifle and start to raise it.
He supposedly saw Jorge turn towards the officers, grab his rifle, and turn around.
When he first saw Jorge, he saw the rifle slung over his shoulder and pointed down to the ground.
He saw Jorge stationary at the bottom of the courthouse steps for about a minute, and never saw him touch his rifle while he was stationary.
Lee gave his first interview several hours after the shooting and said that he reviewed his initial statement before the court. He also never reviewed any of the other statements from the officers in the same car as him. However, Lee’s testimony felt almost as if he were saying what the defense side would have wanted to hear. He signed a declaration of the facts in 2022, and it was a whole different story from the one he gave in court yesterday.
Cross-Examination Plaintiff
During cross-examination with Jorge’s family’s attorney, Lee said that he is aware that Nevada is an open carry state. He said that he saw Jorge walking normally forward and that he never saw Jorge’s hands interlocked, but they may have been down at his sides. He also said that he never saw Jorge falling, as he had gone out of his view at that time.
In court yesterday, he said that he told Jorge to take his hands off his rifle. However, in his initial statement, he said that he never heard officers say “Bean bag,” that Jorge was under arrest, or “Put your hands up.” In that initial interview, he also never said that Jorge touched his rifle or pointed it at anyone.
He also said:
He wasn’t aware of the bean bag rounds being fired, as he thought they were rubber bullets.
He couldn’t see Jorge being hit with bean bags because he claimed he was exiting the vehicle.
He didn’t watch Jorge run after the bean bag shots (which means he also couldn’t have seen Jorge allegedly raise his rifle.)
He never saw Jorge’s backpack.
He drew his weapon because Jorge allegedly raised his weapon.
He agreed he never mentioned drawing his weapon in his initial statement.
Just like the testimonies of other officers last week, Lee contradicted himself, changed his story from his initial statement, and told a story that didn’t match up with the other officers.
Jury Questions
The jury asked Lee these questions, with his answers underneath:
“When you heard lethal rounds being fired, did you think it was from Jorge?”
“Yes”
“When you first saw Jorge’s rifle, how far were you?”
“About 25 yards to 75 feet”
“From the angle you were sitting and with Jorge running away from you, how did you see the rifle come up in front of you?”
“I saw the barrel in front of him stick out.” *he answered this while stuttering
“When you saw the rifle come up, did you see it pointing at something?”
“It was stationary, but it looked like he was getting ready to use it.”
“Was your view obstructed?”
“No, I took cover after”
“When you saw him running, did you see his arm swinging?”
“His left arm was free swinging.”
“Why didn’t you mention this in your interview?”
“I was told to answer questions specifically.”
Both sides also asked Lee a few follow-up questions. During this time, Lee said that he was told to answer questions specifically in his interview by his union representative. He said that he did recall the question to “Describe exactly what he saw,” so it’s questionable that there were so many aspects of the story that changed.
He also said that he didn’t know Jorge was dead, but thought he was seriously injured. He also claimed that he thought Jorge shot lethal bullets. He confirmed that he didn’t see Jorge fall down because he took cover, and only saw him on the ground after. Based on his story, it’s unclear when he saw Jorge supposedly “raise his weapon.”
Final Witness: Lieutenant Fryback
The jury was excused for the final witness, Fryback, to be cross-examined. He is a lieutenant with metro, has been with the department for 28 years, and also has a sexual assault case against him on his record.
During his testimony, he said that he doesn’t recall the exact time of arriving at the scene, but he wasn’t present initially. He said a dispersal order was given around 10-11 pm, claiming that protestors were “rioting” at this point because they were throwing objects. He claimed there was a danger created because of the big crowd.
During his testimony, Fryback said:
He did not witness any officers hit by gunfire.
He allegedly saw officers injured by objects thrown.
He confirmed protestors are allowed at Fremont Street and on Las Vegas Boulevard.
He said thousands of people were there, but there was no exact number.
He said verbal commands were given to disperse, but the crowd was not following the order.
He couldn’t recall if there was a location given for the dispersal order.
He said they did not give the dispersal order directly in front of the courthouse.
When asked if a dispersal order authorizes you to arrest someone in the area, he said, “I believe so”.
The dispersal order ended around 3 or 4 am when they maintained “Law and Order”.
Of course, Fryback’s testimony wasn’t much stronger or more truthful than the other officers. He kept saying there were thousands of people on Las Vegas Blvd, but even the judge had to say that there didn't appear to be any large groups of people in any of the videos shown in court. He also talked in circles and was unable to answer several questions directly, and didn’t recall important information like where they gave the dispersal order.
The judge asked Fryback if he saw violence in front of the courthouse, and he said yes, that he had seen it all night, despite having a hard time answering the question. He was asked if the dispersal order applied to someone walking to their car in front of the courthouse, and he said someone would be in violation if they weren’t going fast enough. By the end of the testimony, the judge didn’t appear to believe the dispersal order was lawfully applied to Jorge. Altogether, the testimony was another show of officers giving lies, talking in circles, and completely changing the sequence of events.
Going Forward
Today is the last day of the trial. Closing arguments begin at 8:30 am, and then the case will go to lunch. Jury deliberations will start in the afternoon, but we’re not sure how long these might last as they decide their verdict. Percy Hawkins’s fact-finding review is also happening today, and members of our team will be there to support and take notes. Thank you to everyone who has offered their support so far throughout the trial. We’re hoping today brings a small piece of Justice for Jorge Gomez.
