2.Chelsey Koepsell — Cross (Part 4)
366 linescross-examination.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HENDERSON:
MR. HENDERSON: Good morning, ma'am.
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Good morning.
MR. HENDERSON: Now, it's my understanding that on February 24th of 2020 you responded to this crime scene; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Were you the first officer to respond to the crime scene?
MR. HENDERSON: So there were other officers who were there prior to you arriving; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Were you the first detective to respond to the crime scene?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: My -- myself and my partner, we all arrived at the same time because we left from the same location at the same time.
MR. HENDERSON: And who was your partner that day?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Detective Scott Lowen.
MR. HENDERSON: And so -- and throughout the whole time you and Detective Lowen worked on this case together; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes. He assisted me with this case.
MR. HENDERSON: Now, when you arrived on the 24th, how many -- approximately how many other officers were there?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Including, like, deputy sheriffs, like, in uniform?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Approximately four, maybe, I would say.
MR. HENDERSON: Had it been designated a crime scene at that time and had tape or security measures been taken to protect the scene?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, they had.
MR. HENDERSON: So that had already been done by the time that you arrived; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, that's correct.
MR. HENDERSON: Now, in the investigation, one of your -- or what you're trying to accomplish in the investigation is basically, you know, the basics of what took place, would you agree with me there?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I would.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. And you can do that one or two ways or a combination of ways. One is to take testimony of potential witnesses; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, it is.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. On this day, did you, in fact, do that?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I did.
MR. HENDERSON: And one of those potential witnesses was Sarah Boone; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, it was.
MR. HENDERSON: And you took a statement from Sarah Boone because we've all seen it; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, we have.
MR. HENDERSON: And at that point in time, Ms. Boone did not have to talk to you if she didn't want to, did she?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: No, she did not.
MR. HENDERSON: So she agreed to talk to you at that point in time?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, she did.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Were there any other witnesses besides Ms. Boone that you talked to on this initial date of the 24th?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Just Brian Boone.
MR. HENDERSON: And Mr. Boone told you what -- you had a chance to talk to him, he told you his involvement; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: That's correct.
MR. HENDERSON: And, in fact, wasn't Mr. Boone's testimony -- was that recorded too?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I conducted an audio recording, yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Is that standard procedure when you are doing your interviews to try to record the interviews?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: What's the benefit of that?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: So I know what was said.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. So -- and if something goes on for a long time you can refer back to it; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. All right. And that part of talking to witnesses or potential witnesses, okay -- also it's your job, too, to identify potential physical evidence in a case?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, it is.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. And, in fact, on the 24th, did you do that?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I did.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Did you have anyone assisting you in doing that aspect of it?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, crime scene investigators and digital forensic investigators.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. And was Ms. Melissa Roughgarden -- is that how it is pronounced?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Roughgarden.
MR. HENDERSON: Roughgarden, thank you. Did she help you in that area?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: She was the lead crime scene investigator, yes.
MR. HENDERSON: So were you-all walking around together? Give the jury an idea how that process takes place, please.
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Um, so yes, when I initially arrived on the crime scene, I introduced myself to Sarah Boone and explained that I wished to go inside her residence, which she gave me consent to go in and look around. I went in, looked around, and then when my CSIs arrived, they -- they would go in, take pictures, and then I had to leave them to do what they need to do as far as taking pictures and documenting things and measurements. And then that's when I conducted my interviews and then I would meet back up with my crime scene investigator after interviews were conducted to kind of follow-up with like things that. I was told that would help us, like, identify things from the scene. And so, I mean, there was, like, multiple occasions where I would have met with my crime scene investigator inside the residence.
MR. HENDERSON: So this is an ongoing process during that day, you get information, you consult with them, they have information, they consult with you, and you make a determination of what potential physical evidence that you-all at least like to document by camera, correct or pictures, or actually collect and take away; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, that's accurate.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. In that case, the suitcase was some evidence that you-all agreed on that we need to take this suitcase from the scene; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, it was.
MR. HENDERSON: How about the baseball bat, was that done that date?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: The baseball bat was collected, yes.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. In your viewing of the suitcase, did you see the suitcase while it was on scene?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I did.
MR. HENDERSON: Did you notice if there was any items, other independent, loose items, in the suitcase?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: There were, yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Were those items collected?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Some of them were, yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Who made the determination what items of that Suitcase would be taken or collected and what would not be collected?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I would say that I have the final say on what is to be collected or not collected. But we do discuss it together to make that determination for me to give the final yes or no.
MR. HENDERSON: Do you recall which items you decided to collect from the suitcase?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Do you have the property form that I can refer to?
MR. HENDERSON: No. I'll try to find one.
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I know some of them, but --
MR. HENDERSON: Ma'am, I don't have it, but to the best of your memory can you tell -- and I would understand there would be some stuff if you had a property report to refresh your memory you can give me more detail.
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes. To my understanding, to my recollection, we collected things that had blood left over on it. I want to say there was, like, a neck tie potentially. I do recall there being a small amount of clothing and miscellaneous paperwork, but I do not think that we collected the paperwork. There was also a cell phone in there. It was not -- it was dead, the cell phone, and then, like I said, there might be one -- I think we collected five to six items from the suitcase itself, but obviously the property form would tell you specifically, but that is what I recall.
MR. HENDERSON: Correct. And I understand and that's fair. Okay. So potentially you collect these items because you believe they are evidence for the case potentially; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: And some of these items you actually collect with the potential that you might need to have them examined in greater detail; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. An example of something like that is -- would be in this case if you found blood on something you might want to potentially examine that; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. And also, the stuff that you're learning outside of these items also helps you in making that determination, isn't that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I'm sorry, one more time.
MR. HENDERSON: The stuff that you learn, the information that you're getting or you're receiving about what happened at that time will lead you to determine what items might need to be collected and what items might need to be tested?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Correct.
MR. HENDERSON: Is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. So out of the items that were collected at the house or the apartment, those items, was anything to your knowledge, sent off for further examination?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I believe so but if it was, there would be a -- they would be sent to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for further testing.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. And do you have an independent memory of what items that were collected from the house that were sent to FDLE for further examination?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I don't recall specifically without looking.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Now, are you aware at one point in time there were some fingernail clippings or fingernail swabs taken from Ms. Sarah Boone; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: In fact, that was done on her interview date on the -- would have been the 25th?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: Is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. And that's what we witnessed in the video?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: That's what they were doing at that time, correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: (Nods.)
MR. HENDERSON: And I'm sure at the autopsy, which you were present at, is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: And those -- there would have been some fingertip swabs of Jorge Torres. Are you familiar with that?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: They do swabbing of the hands, to my understanding, and clippings of his nails.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Do you have an independent memory of the fact that Sarah Boone's fingernail swabs were sent to FDLE for comparison?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I would believe so.
MR. HENDERSON: How about the ones from Mr. Torres, do you have knowledge those were sent to FDLE for comparison for identification?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Well, they would have come from him, so I'm not sure what we would have compared them to.
MR. HENDERSON: Were they there to see or -- at least they are sent there to see if they can extract DNA?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Okay. Yes. I'm not sure if they did that testing for his nail clippings specifically, but it would be in the report if so.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Who would make the decision about sending his -- his fingernail swabs to FDLE for comparison or evaluation?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I would request it from or I would request it to the crime scene investigator and she would, like, author the, I guess, like, procedure for them to do so.
MR. HENDERSON: And then as to Sarah Boone's swabbings, who requested that those be sent to FDLE for evaluation?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Again, I would assume that I would have done that. I would have requested CSI to do that.
MR. HENDERSON: Are you aware of the results from those evaluations? I'm not asking you for the results, just if you're aware of the results.
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I believe I'm aware, but I would love to see a report before I specifically answer.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes. I'm not gonna ask you a specific question about it. Okay?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Okay.
MR. HENDERSON: But basically you're aware that it was done, the procedure was done?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: The analysis was done?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Now, ma'am, so you're through the first day, then we get to the second day which would have been, I believe, the 25th of February; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: And on the 25th of February, was Mr. Torres's autopsy done at that time?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, it was.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. Were you present during the autopsy?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I was.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. And did you communicate with the medical examiner at that time?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I did.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. During the course of things, is that where you found out through the medical examiner at the autopsy that there was blunt force trauma injuries?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes. That is where I learned more about his injuries.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Now initially when you were on the scene on the 24th, did you view Mr. Torres's body?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I did.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. Did you notice in and of yourself something that caused you concern that there might be blunt force trauma injuries?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I noticed injuries to him yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. So after the autopsy, you had additional information; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I did.
MR. HENDERSON: Now, there was an interview -- well, I don't know if it was an interview, there was a meeting set up for Sarah Boone; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: On the 25th; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Can you tell me how that meeting was arranged or how that meeting was set up, please?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: So either before I left the scene the night of the incident, I obviously met with Sarah and told her that we were leaving. We had to go make next of kin notification. And I would have either at that time said I would like to meet tomorrow and arranged it then at least to, like, let her know that I would like to meet after the autopsy, and then obviously from watching the video towards the end she said something about, like, recalling a conversation that we had, like, calling me. So there may have been a phone conversation that occurred later that evening where I either would have confirmed the time or told her the time then. I just don't have that, like, on an audio, but I know it either took place before I left the scene because I obviously, you know, would have said my goodbyes, hey, we're leaving, we're going go to make next of kin notification. She was very concerned about that, so I would want her to know that we were doing that. So it either took place then or it took place on that phone conversation that we had.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. All right. The day prior to that on the 24th, ma'am, you received Sarah Boone's phone; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, her phone was on the scene, yes.
MR. HENDERSON: And when you received that phone, Sarah Boone had given you that phone; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: No, she was not allowed in the apartment to give me the phone.
MR. HENDERSON: I'm sorry. Did she give you permission to take the phone?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Is that right?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I was given permission to go through her phone. Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Because at that time you hadn't applied for any type of search warrant to get or search the phone; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: No, I -- it was based off of consent.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. So she had consented to you for you to have her phone --
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: -- is that correct? She also provided you the code to get in the phone; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: So at this point in time Ms. Boone is cooperating with you, isn't that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Now ma'am, do you recall telling her, Ms. Boone, that she could get her phone back the next day?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I don't recall specifically telling her when she would be able to get her phone back, but I did say something along the lines of we were now going to be taking the phone. I obviously had digital come out for consent to go through her phone. There was evidence on her phone that I needed to be downloaded and at the time I was willing to give back her phone before going through it. And then once we had gone through it and those videos were found, I felt like this was very different and it changed my perspective on consent and I decided at that time that it was best to write a search warrant so consent couldn't be basically -- like I knew I was going to take her phone, so consent has to be basically given to me through the entire period, so she would have had no way to contact me to tell me she no longer consented. Therefore, because there was evidence on the phone, I took the phone.
Basically, I potentially told her, you know, maybe we didn't get a full download. I may have said something along the lines of that as far as me taking the phone. And then I wrote a search warrant. I either started to write a search warrant the night of but it wasn't signed until -- I didn't submit it until the next day and then it was signed the next day on the 25th.
MR. HENDERSON: So basically what you're telling us is that she could have withdrawn her consent at any time prior to that search warrant being received; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Well, while I was on scene, but at the end of the day there was evidence on the phone so I knew I could go through -- I knew I could get a search warrant to go through the phone based off there being evidence like the 911 calls and her explaining to me that they had spoken to family members.
(Cell phone rings.)
THE COURT: Please silence your cell phones.
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Since they had explained to me that they spoke with family members the night prior, so I wanted to obviously corroborate her statement. So I knew that I would be able to get into the phone through a search warrant, but yeah, she could have not consented and she could have not signed the paper consenting while we were on scene.
BY MR. HENDERSON:
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. But before you left the scene, you knew that Sarah Boone was not going to get that phone back; is that correct; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, that's correct.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. So when Sarah Boone called you the next day asking you about bringing her phone back, did you just tell her, Ms. Boone, you're not getting your phone back?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: There was not a conversation about her not getting her phone back. She may have inquired about her phone and I would have explained that we will talk about it when we meet that afternoon.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. So did you reach out to Ms. Boone that next day or did Ms. Boone reach out to you?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I don't recall a specific -- if she reached out to me the night of the 24th or before the interview on the 25th. I don't have my call records for that. I'm just basing it off of the interview where she had basically said that yeah, I have your business card and I can contact you like I did. So my assumption would be that we did have some sort of conversation either the night of the 24th or before the interview on the 25th.
MR. HENDERSON: On the -- on the 24th, did you make arrangements with Sarah Boone to meet with her on the 25th?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: So I either made arrangements on the 24th with her before leaving the scene and I would have told her I would like to meet with you the next day or I said -- and I may have given her a specific time at that moment, or when we spoke later that evening on the phone I may have confirmed the time or given her a time then, but she definitely knew we were meeting at 3:00 p.m. on the 25th at Orange County Sheriff's Office central operations.
MR. HENDERSON: And, ma'am, you don't -- you just don't remember at what point in time you informed her or set up this meeting with her; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: It's one or the other.
MR. HENDERSON: One or the other?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: As it could have been one or the other, you did -- you prepared the investigative report in this case; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I did.
MR. HENDERSON: And in the investigative report you basically summarized everything that took place on this case up to a certain point; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes. It was a summary, yes.
MR. HENDERSON: As far as evidence, as far as witnesses who were talked to and a synopsis of what they said to you at that time; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, things that I did specifically. It was a summary of that.
MR. HENDERSON: I found your investigative report to be in great detail because it helped me track this case from basically beginning to -- not to the end, but to the point where the report stops. And it seems like in your investigative report you were very thorough about details; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I would say I'm a detailed person, yes. Thank you.
MR. HENDERSON: So being the detailed person you are, and absolutely during your law enforcement training they tell you and they train you that your reports should be very much in detail; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Because you might have to refer back to them at a later time, is that one of the reasons; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, and to prepare myself for depositions and trials.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. And just to give an accurate picture of what you did and what took place and what people told you; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Being as thorough as you are with these contacts with people, I didn't see in the investigative report when the arrangement was made with Sarah Boone to meet you -- I'm sorry. Where did you-all meet?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: The Orange County Sheriff's Office central operations.
MR. HENDERSON: -- to meet you at the Orange County Sheriff's Office. I did not see that in the report. Do you have an explanation why?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: It's not typically something I would put in my report.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Do you remember in Volusia County the conversation with Ms. Boone about this meeting that was supposed to take place that you said that you could not return the phone to her that day because you were not feeling very good. Do you remember telling her that?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: That never happened.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Ma'am --
MR. HENDERSON: Judge, can I can have a moment to confer?
THE COURT: Yes,, of course.
(Counsel conferring.)
BY MR. HENDERSON:
MR. HENDERSON: Ma'am, during this time frame were you pregnant at that time?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I was.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. Well, anyway, Ms. Boone, there was a meeting arranged; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: For the 25th at 3:00 p.m., yes.
MR. HENDERSON: And Ms. Boone showed up for that meeting on the 25th?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: She did, yes.
MR. HENDERSON: That we saw. Okay. Now, ma'am, I'd like to talk to you about some other investigation on witnesses, other witnesses that you took their testimony or statements -- recorded statements at different times okay. Do you remember Abraham Moreno?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Did you take his record statement?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I did.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. At the time that you took Mr. Moreno's recorded statement was there anyone else with you?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: My partner should have been with me, Detective Scott Lowen.
MR. HENDERSON: Excuse me?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: My partner should been with there, Detective Scott Lowen.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Ma'tam, as to who was with you, would it help refresh your memory if were you to see your investigative report as to that interview?
MR. CACCIATORE: Your Honor, I would object. She hasn't said that she needs any aid in refreshing her memory.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
BY MR. HENDERSON:
MR. HENDERSON: Ma'am, was Detective Scott Lowen with you during that interview?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I believe so.
MR. HENDERSON: May we approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: Judge, I believe so is not an answer. I think the report clearly shows that. It's in and I think it can refresh her memory.
THE COURT: She hasn't established that she can't recall. If you believe it's contradictor, then impeach, but she has not said she can't recall or doesn't remember. She goes, I believe so. That is not a lack or gap in memory.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay.
(In open court.)
BY MR. HENDERSON:
MR. HENDERSON: Ma'am, do you have an independent memory of detective Scott Lowen being with you at that interview?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I believe my partner was with me on the interview, yes. I typically wouldn't go and do some follow-up with without my partner being with me.
MR. HENDERSON: Thank you very much. Now, ma'am, did that interview -- what date did that interview take place on?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I believe the 26th. February 26th of 2020.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you. Ma'am, was that interview recorded?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: It was audio recorded.
MR. HENDERSON: Was the entire interview audio recorded?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes. The entire interview was audio recorded.
MR. HENDERSON: Ma'am, are you familiar with a witness named Brandon Moats?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I am.
MR. HENDERSON: On February 27th of 2020, did you take -- interview Brandon Moats?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I believe so. It was either the 26th or 27th, yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. If you were to see your investigative report, would that help refresh your memory?
MR. CACCIATORE: Your Honor, I would again object. She hasn't indicated that she needs assistance with her memory.
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: I'm struggling with the refresh. She's not establishing the lack of memory.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
BY MR. HENDERSON:
MR. HENDERSON: Ma'am, if it was the 27th, you would not disagree with that, would you?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Well, I just stated that it was the 26th or the 27th.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Moats, he was the neighbor living in the apartment or the connecting apartment, wall apartment, with Ms. Boone and Mr. Torres; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: And he's the one who told you about the loud noise; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Did you interview anyone else in reference to that loud noise?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: So I was interviewing Brandon and then my partner was interviewing Vincent, the other witness, and I came in at the end of the interview with Detective Lowen.
MR. HENDERSON: So that's Vincent -- do you know his last name?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I would butcher it.
MR. HENDERSON: Me too. Battaglia, something like that?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yeah.
MR. HENDERSON: We are talking about the same person?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: And did that interview take place on February the 27th of 2020?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I believe so. I interviewed witnesses after I interviewed Sarah on the 26th or 27th would be my memory.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you. And then did he also talk to you about a loud noise?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I believe that I was refreshed on the conversation. And, yes, he expressed hearing a loud noise as well.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
Now, in those -- those interviews were actually audio recorded too; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, they were.
MR. HENDERSON: Now, let's go to Ms. Boone's interview. And that would have took place on the 25th; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. And Ms. Boone came down, and, ma'am, prior to Ms. Boone coming down for the interview, had you-all made the decision that Ms. Boone was going to be arrested?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes. I planned to arrest Sarah Boone.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Did you tell Ms. Boone in arranging the meeting that when she came down there she was going to be arrested?
MR. CACCIATORE: Your Honor, I'm gonna object as to relevance.
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Response?
MR. HENDERSON: I think it's very relevant. I think one of the things that go to an interview -- and it's actually in the jury instructions that they can look at the voluntariness of the interview, and if the jury doesn't think that it was voluntarily given, then -- and informed, then they can regard it what weight they want to give it or disregard it at all.
MR. CACCIATORE: The voluntariness of the interview would be determined by the subjective state of Ms. Boone during the interview, and that information is on ops or is on the camera there at the sheriff's office headquarters. The -- the determination of whether or not she was arrest -- going to be arrested beforehand, Ms. Boone wasn't aware of, could not factor in into the voluntariness of her statement. It would have been the conduct of the officers that was displayed towards her at that time.
THE COURT: Any further argument?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, Judge. At that point in time Ms. Boone was told that she was arrested. A lot of people would reach out to an attorney at that time and say -- and get some legal advice about going there and might even have the attorney go down there with them.
THE COURT: Okay. Anything further?
THE COURT: I'm gonna overrule the objection.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: Objection is overruled.
BY MR. HENDERSON:
MR. HENDERSON: So ma'am, at that time you did not tell Ms. Boone prior to coming down there that she was going to be arrested; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: No, I did not.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Why did you not tell Ms. Boone that she was going to be arrested?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: We planned to meet at 3:00 p.m. and go over the autopsy and have another interview. So, I mean, I'm not sure why I would tell her that she's going to be arrested that would potentially cause her to flee, you know, not come in and then we'd have to go find her and make it more difficult for everyone.
MR. HENDERSON: Or potentially get an attorney to come with her?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: She was read her rights that said she had the right to an attorney, and if one could not be provided for her, she would be appointed one.
MR. HENDERSON: I understand that you read her those rights when she got there, is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, I did.
MR. HENDERSON: You didn't read those rights to her before she got there, though, did you?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I wasn't in contact with her, like physical contact with her.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. So but she -- you said potentially for fleeing. My question was potentially she could have got an attorney too to come with her, is that not correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I misunderstood your question. I didn't hear potentially bring an attorney with her, but yes, I guess she could have potentially brought an attorney with her.
MR. HENDERSON: So Ms. Boone shows up and you tell her that there's some things we need to talk about; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Specific verbiage, I know I said something along the lines of obviously the autopsy had been conducted and there were things that we needed to, like, talk about in regards to that.
MR. HENDERSON: And prior -- okay, but prior to discussing that with her and asking her questions, you did read her Miranda warnings; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Prior to -- I'm sorry, one more time.
MR. HENDERSON: Before you started asking her questions, though, in this interview, before you started asking Ms. Boone questions, you read her her Miranda warnings; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes. Before I started asking any sort of incriminating -- potentially incriminating questions, she was read her Miranda warnings, yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Ma'am, do you remember as part of the Miranda warnings that you read to Ms. Boone, did you read her the one that states, if you decide to answer questions but want to stop answering and consult with an attorney, you may do so? Do you independently remember reading Ms. Boone that instruction?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I don't recall that specific, but I do have my Miranda card on me, but I don't recall that that's what that says, but it is on audio and video recording.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: You're welcome.
MR. HENDERSON: Now, ma'am, at that point in time Ms. Boone wasn't under arrest; is that correct?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Ms. Boone was not gonna be free to leave once she was in my custody.
MR. HENDERSON: At that point in time had you told Ms. Boone that she was not free to leave?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: No, I did not.
MR. HENDERSON: At that point in time had you told Ms. Boone that she was under arrest?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: I told her at the end of the interview.
MR. HENDERSON: Before the interview?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: No, I did not tell her before the interview.
MR. HENDERSON: Matam, why didn't you tell her before the interview?
MR. CACCIATORE: Your Honor, I'm gonna object as to asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: So I have to read her her Miranda warnings and that's what I did. I do not have to tell her she's under arrest at that time.
BY MR. HENDERSON:
MR. HENDERSON: Was there a reason -- could you have told her that she was under arrest before reading her her Miranda warnings?
MR. CACCIATORE: Your Honor, I'm gonna object as it calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. HENDERSON:
MR. HENDERSON: Ma'am, was it a strategic decision not to tell Ms. Boone that she was under arrest prior to reading her those Miranda warnings?
MR. CACCIATORE: Your Honor, I'm gonna object to relevance.
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: How is the sufficiency of Miranda a fact of consequence for the jury to consider?
MR. HENDERSON: It goes to the voluntariness of her statement, Judge.
THE COURT: But isn't that an issue of law for the Court that was previously decided in the motion to suppress?
MR. HENDERSON: The issue of law for the Court if the statement comes in, but to the weight they give the circumstances around the statement and everything else that takes place around the statement is totally relevant.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. CACCIATORE: Your Honor, the -- the jury instructions don't contemplate the jurors re-litigating the motion to suppress. They are given specific instructions about the -- that deals with them weighing the voluntariness of the defendant's statement, but that analysis is predicated upon the objective four corners of the evidence of the defendant's statement, the conduct of the officers on video towards her, the facts that the defendant would have been aware of at the time and the -- but in that analysis, the officer's subjective intent is really irrelevant. What's relevant is their objective conduct towards the defendant and the facts that she would have been aware of.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, Judge. I believe there is a difference with people when they know that they are under arrest because then when the Miranda warnings are read to them, they have a different idea before they are read it, and I believe law enforcement knows that. And I believe this was a strategic decision for her because she's going to be more likely to talk to us about this knowing that she is not under arrest.
THE COURT: I'm gonna sustain the objection because I don't think it is a subjective analysis from law enforcement and the questions seem to be geared toward the officer's subjective analysis. It's whether or not under the jury instruction 3.9(b), as to whether there was force or whether anyone promised and whether it was freely and voluntarily made, and it seems to be from the perspective of the defendant, not from the perspective of the law enforcement. So I'm gonna sustain the objection.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. HENDERSON:
MR. HENDERSON: Ma'am, and we were able to see the video of the interview. As a process of interviewing people such as Ms. Boone or in -- well, let me specifically -- in the process of interviewing Ms. Boone, is law enforcement free to give information that might not be accurate or true during the interview process?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Are you asking if we're allowed to lie to her?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes.
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Yes, to an extent.
MR. HENDERSON: Was that done at any time in this interview?
CHELSEY KOEPSELL: Did I lie to her? I don't recall lying to her, no.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay.
MR. HENDERSON: May I confer, Judge?