Almaraz trial restarts
Legal session enters its seventh week Monday
By Katie Pizza
Argus Observer
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:11 AM PDT
Payette — A blood spatter expert testified for the defense Monday in the Payette County murder trial of Hector Brito Almaraz.
Almaraz was arrested and later charged with first-degree murder in connection with the shooting death of Gabriel Flores, 28, at a Fruitland tavern in April 2006.
Retired forensic scientist Pamela Markum testified about the path blood can take when it is expelled from the body from a bullet entrance wound. Markum said blood can appear on the shooter if they are close enough to the victim
“There can be something called back spatter, which can end up on the shooter’s hand or cuff,” she said.
Contrary to Idaho State Police Forensic Pathologist Dr. Glen Grobin’s testimony more than a month ago, Markum said the weapon does not have to be in close contact with the victim in order to receive blood spatter.
She also said high velocity weapons such as rifles or the .45 caliber handgun used in the shooting are able to force blood spatter to travel further because of the speed of the bullet entering into the body.
“I know I’ve been to suicides where a rifle was used where everything was covered in high velocity blood spatter,” she said.
Markum testified the blood around the bullet is forced out as the bullet is forced in. However, she said a variety of factors, such as clothing, can change how much blood is released.
“We’re veering onto an area that’s not really my expertise,” she said. “I just attended classes and a few lectures on this.”
Prosecuting attorney Anne-Marie Kelso then questioned Markum about the handguns that would be considered to fire at high velocity.
“.45s and .48s are pretty high because of the size of the bullet,” Markum said.
Kelso asked for clarification.
“It increases the killing power,” Markum said.
Kelso then asked Markum if she had any experience with .45 caliber weapons. Markum said she was sure that she had but could not remember when. She also asserted she, like Kelso, was not a gun expert.
Kelso said Markum was not testifying as a .45-caliber blood spatter expert.
Kelso then moved her line of questioning toward clothing.
“Clothing could impair high velocity droplets,” Markum said. “If it is a headshot, it is less likely to encounter clothing.”
Markum also said a headshot would result in an increased amount of droplets because it is a highly vascular area, meaning it contains a great deal of blood vessels. Kelso then referred to a phone conversation she had with Markum in which Markum said cotton is a highly-absorbent material and could have absorbed blood spatter. Flores was wearing a red cotton Chicago Bulls jersey and an undershirt on the night of the gunplay.
Defense attorney Rolf Kehne then asked Markum about how one would find blood spatter at a crime scene. Markum said it would take an expert with a trained eye, a magnifying glass and a good light source to find the droplets. She also said one could use Luminol, which glows blue when uncovering trace amounts of blood left at a crime scene. However, she said she could not testify about whether or not officers on the scene looked for the trace amounts of blood.
“I can’t testify about police officers,” she said. “I don’t know if they knew to get on their hands and knees and look for it.”
The jury also heard from Portland-based investigator Dean Muchow who testified about reports he read regarding the shooting.
“It seemed chaotic,” he said. “A complete evacuation didn’t occur.”
He said this was problematic because the movement in and out of the scene could destroy potential evidence such as burnt and unburnt gunshot residue.
Kelso then asserted that Fruitland Police Department Officer Dan Joines was previously heard on an audio saying “everyone out. Nobody leave.” Kelso said she believed this illustrated he was altering movement by patrons to vacate the inside of the bar. Muchow said he read the statement in a transcript.
“But you can’t make people stay,” Kelso asserted.
Muchow said the law would allow officers to do so if they were material witnesses. However, Kelso said an officer would have to prove that fact in order to not violate the person’s civil rights.
“You can’t tie people down and make them stay,” Kelso continued. “If a person chooses to leave there is nothing you can do about it.”
Muchow agreed.
He also testified that he read transcripts from officers on the scene at Club 7 and felt they should have taken notes as well as recorded audio.
“If they (the audio) were to be lost or destroyed, you’d have a backup,” he said.
However, Kelso asserted the audio was not destroyed and recorded a majority of the time the officers were on the scene. She also asserted audio can pick up audio portions of a scene better and in more detail than note-taking.
Muchow agreed audio recordings were of great value.
Kehne then went through surveillance recordings taken at Club 7 during the shooting, with Muchow narrating what was happening onscreen. Kelso objected to this testimony, stating Muchow was not a video expert and was not a witness to the shooting and therefore could not speak about what he believes he saw onscreen.
“The video should speak for itself,” she said.
Kehne countered, asserting Fruitland Police Department Lt. Stephanie Steele, a witness for the prosecution, had given her opinions earlier in the trial regarding what she believed she saw on the tape.
Judge Gregory Culet asserted the video had been viewed by the jury many times throughout the weeks.
“This isn’t new,” he said of the video.
Court reconvened at 9 am today.
