Guilty When Black. Carol Mersch

Guilty When Black - Carol Mersch


Скачать книгу
right. And on that day, did you, in fact, sell her any marijuana?”

      “No.”

      “Did she ever act aggressively towards you that day?”

      “No.”

      “Did she act paranoid towards you that day?”

      “No.”

      “Did you ever tell the detectives that she acted paranoid towards you that day?”

      “No.”

      “And specifically, the photograph that I showed you earlier, State’s…”

      “No.”

      “Exhibit 3, did you ever tell the detectives that this was, in fact, the woman in State’s Exhibit Number 3 who had come to your apartment that day?”

      “See… that’s what I’m trying to tell you. They never showed me a picture of nobody. They showed me a picture of me walking to my house. And they said that she came to my house and I told them, yes, a female came to my house that—that had short hair with a tattoo right here. But that’s not her,” he said, pointing to Miashah.

      The judge asked, “A tattoo right where?”

      “Right here,” Williams said, indicating to his lower right eye… And like I told him, how can I come to court about somebody that—that they never showed me?”

      From the visitors’ gallery, Miashah’s older brother, Keontae, let out an audible “Alright!” from the back of the courtroom. Keontae, a lanky 25-year-old, had been especially close to his little sister Miashah since the day she was born and was relieved by Williams’s refusal to identify her. The outburst interrupted court proceedings and caused Judge Youll to direct his attention to Keontae at the back of the courtroom.

      “Okay, folks, let me explain something to you. If I hear anything from the gallery that’s sufficient to disrupt the proceedings, you may be held in direct contempt of court. Direct contempt of court carries up to six months in the Tulsa County Jail and up to a $500 fine. So now that everybody is aware of that. I want to make sure we understand the rules. And likewise, if you leave the courtroom, you’re going to stay out.”

      Judge Youll continued, “I was going to say, Counsel, my understanding is that at some point he alluded to the fact that the female was not this female.”

      McAmis replied, “Yes, Your Honor. Again, the State should have the opportunity to impeach him with prior inconsistent statements,” essentially implying that Williams was lying on the stand.

      Judge Youll pressed her, “Has he provided any substantive testimony that would assist the Court today? I mean, you’re impeaching your own witness…”

      McAmis, still visibly upset at Torrance Williams’ failure, or refusal, to respond as she planned, continued to pursue her interrogation of Williams over repeated objections by Holmes, who believed McAmis intended to defame Miashah.

      “…Was your conversation that day between you and the female about drugs?

      “No.”

      “Did you ever tell anyone that it was?”

      “No.”

      “Did you ever tell the detectives that it was about money that the female owed your cousin for drugs?”

      “No.”

      McAmis’ questions were redundant to the point of hounding, and Sharon Holmes had reached her limit. She interjected, “Your Honor, I’m going to object to this whole line of questioning. When Mr. Williams first took the stand, he did indicate that this was not the female, so we don’t know who that is.”

      McAmis acknowledged the judge’s concern, but continued questioning Torrance Williams, painting a vivid picture of Miashah as the drug-crazed woman in question, even though Williams had clearly stated the black woman who came to his building to settle a drug buy with his “big cousin” was not Miashah. A common tactic of prosecutors is to throw enough spaghetti at the wall so that something would stick.

      But the spaghetti wasn’t sticking with Torrance Williams. His testimony contradicted the DA’s basis for charging Miashah with two felony counts of child neglect—specifically, that Miashah locked her nieces in the apartment to buy drugs.

      Williams was excused from the stand. McAmis then proceeded to call witnesses from the Tulsa Police and Fire Departments—witnesses she likely hoped would better support the DA’s theory.

      8

      Brick by brick

      MCAMIS called Tulsa Fire Department Investigator Mark Milstead to testify. Milstead, a seasoned Fire Marshall with impressive credentials, gave a meandering, detailed, and technical description of the heat levels and path of the fire from its ignition source on the stove burner through the apartment from the ceiling to the floor. However, when McAmis asked if Miashah’s statement that she left the stove on low heat was consistent with his own findings, Milstead was unable to give a definitive answer.

      “The stove hood had extensive oxidation, which means extensive fire damage to that hood element… We—we are currently going to try to do some investigation and more data to get more of a finite detail… So with that information, you know, it would take, obviously, a lot longer with a low versus a higher temperature to reach that.”

      He went on to add, “In the hallway, I located a smoke detector that was battery powered that was on the floor between the two bedrooms… It did have a battery located inside it with the numbers 6 of 15, assuming that’s the expiration date on the battery. But it was still intact, plugged in; however, it wasn’t operational, obviously, at that point.”

      McAmis asked him to continue. “Okay. Keeping going.”

      Milstead: I also observed the two bedrooms. We had extensive smoke staining throughout the bedrooms. And smoke staining is just when you have smoke deposit on the wall. Generally, that will start at the upper levels and work its way down. We had smoke staining from floor to ceiling, meaning that, you know, we had a heavy amount of smoke inside that apartment in both bedrooms.

      McAmis: And you were mentioning the two bedrooms. And you said you had two civilian victims. Where were the two civilian victims located?

      Milstead: Yes. Based on the fire firefighters’ statements to myself, one, the older child, was located in the southwest bedroom. She was found in a prone position, which is on her stomach, underneath—partially underneath the bed. She also was covered partially with covers and a pillow. And the younger child was found in the northwest bedroom. And she was located inside the closet doorway of that bedroom, on her back.

      McAmis: Okay. And, sir, was it the youngest child in the northwest bedroom that sustained the most injuries?

      Milstead: Yes, the child in the northwest bedroom had extensive burn injuries on and about her body… We had fire damage at the upper level, but not at the lower levels. The older child in the southwest bedroom, there were no obvious visible injuries noted on her.

      Milstead’s testimony that a smoke detector was found in the hallway corroborated Tina Long’s statement that she saw the maintenance worker run across the second-floor walkway and throw something into Miashah’s doorway. “I know for a fact that’s what Eddy threw into her apartment,” Tina said. “It was identical to the one in my apartment.”49

      Allen Gorenflo, the last electrician to work in unit #716, knew the layout of the apartment and made a detailed drawing showing that a smoke detector thrown through the front door would have bounced off the inside hall wall of the apartment and landed on the floor between the two bedrooms, precisely where Fire Investigator Milstead said it was found. Gorenflo remembered that the original smoke detector in Miashah’s unit was connected to an overloaded circuit that caused a bedroom ceiling fan to malfunction. To relieve the load, the breaker, which was electric and not battery-operated, had been disconnected.50

      Section 8 housing rules mandate that a functioning smoke detector


Скачать книгу