Mav Murder Trial Day 7, Part 1 Recap

CALLIE FRYE:

Day Seven. I went to the trial and they called two different witnesses. The third part is when they announced DNA results from the lab.

Dr. Katherine Raven was called by the defense team as a forensic pathologist. If you remember, Dr. Omalu testified a few days ago for the state. Now this is for the defense team. She was not able to show up in person because of concerns with coronavirus, so the court talked to her via Zoom video.

Dr. Raven was questioned by the defense attorney. She said she had 23 years of experience and received training in forensic pathology and neuropathology. She explained that she is certified and board licensed in medicine. She is a doctor by practice. She did autopsies on over 6,000 bodies at a rate of about 300 to 400 bodies a years and testified in court multiple times in various cases.

Dr. Raven said she reviewed the police report on Grant’s autopsy. She looked at the pictures and listened to Dr. Omalu’s testimony. The defense asked about Grant’s fingernails and why Dr. Omalu said it was not necessary to check them. Dr. Raven said it was standard practice for autopsies and should be done if the death was suspicious. It means that the fingernails must be tested for DNA.

The defense asked about Grant’s right side of head having no injuries, which meant that the surface was soft. Dr. Raven said there was no relevancy. She was asked about Dr. Omalu’s determination that Grant was lying down based on his height of 6’1. Dr. Raven said there was no impact, it has nothing to do with height. She was asked whether it was a blunt object and she answered in the affirmative. She said the injuries didn’t come from a gunshot or a knife wound. She was asked about which position Grant was in. Dr. Raven said there’s no way to know if Grant was standing, kneeling, or lying down, because there’s no way to know how severe the first blow was and where it was. She was asked if the first blow would cause Grant to become very disoriented, and she said you simply can’t know, so it’s a maybe, maybe not. She was asked about Dr. Omalu’s statement that Grant’s decomposed body showed no sign of defensive wounds. Dr. Raven said decomposition does cause injuries to disappear and said the presence of maggots could have the same effect. She said it depends on the struggle and who is stronger. She said in stabbing scenarios, the person who is the attacker typically don’t have injuries on their arms, while the victim will have injuries. Dr. Raven was asked about Dr. Omalu’s determination that Grant did not have signs of his arm being twisted by Mavrick. Dr. Raven said it may have been because there was not enough force to make it obvious. The defense’ final question was about what position Grant was when he was first struck — standing down, kneeling, or lying down. Dr. Raven said this is not the kind of evidence that you can find through an autopsy.

The district attorney asked if Dr. Raven was doing an autopsy on someone from head to toe — if they saw no injuries to a person’s legs, then would it be accurate to say that the legs didn’t need any more examining? She responded in the affirmative. The DA asked if it was really true that all autopsies check for fingernails. She said yes, all the time, regardless of the situation, because it is standard practice, with no regard to whether a body was decomposing or not. The fingernails must be tested for DNA every time. The DA took note of it and then asked whether she had a certification in neuropathology. Dr. Raven said that is true, as she had completed only one year out of a two-year certification program. The DA said ah, and then asked if Dr. Raven wrote the autopsy report. She said no. The DA asked if there were limitations to her analysis on Grant’s body because she only looked at pictures while Dr. Omalu’s performed the autopsy. Dr. Raven said it depends on whether the pictures were good or not, and said in this case, the pictures were excellent. The DA asked how long she worked on this case, looking at Grant’s pictures, and listening to Dr. Omalu’s testimony. Dr. Raven said four to six hours. The DA asked if it was accurate to say that the blow was equivalent to a 50 mph automobile accident. Dr. Raven said the impact was very significant and can be comparable, but not necessarily 50 mph, but comparable to an accident involving high speeds. The DA asked for clarification on the surface that Grant’s head was on — whether it would make a difference if it was a soft surface on his right side while he was struck on the left side. Dr. Raven said yes. The DA asked if the skull was a very strong bone that was very hard to break. She responded in the affirmative and said the skull, in the frontal areas, was broken down into a brittle because they were softer areas. The DA asked if she disagreed with Dr. Omalu’s conclusion that Grant was lying down when he was struck. She said she doesn’t disagree because it could have happened. The DA asked if the weapon could have been a rock. She said it could be, but she has not seen the rock. The DA asked whether she observed defensive wounds on Grant’s arms. Dr. Raven said she did not see any obvious defensive wounds. The DA asked if Grant was trying to defend himself from blows by using his arms, would the wounds be able to be seen? She said yes, she would expect to see them if Grant was blocking strikes with his arms, that there could be a fracture there. The DA asked about Mavrick’s cut on his finger, and asked if it could be an old wound from two or three days ago that was reopened due to the rock strikes. She said yes.

The jurors had several questions and I’ll pick one. The jurors asked if she would do an autopsy a certain way after having a conversation with police officers and reading a police report. Dr. Raven said no, she would do an autopsy the same way as she does all her autopsies. She clarified that if it was a homicide and there was some information from detectives, she would perform additional tests such as X-rays on the body.

[Sponsored video from Convo: www.convorelay.com]

The second part was when Detective Kreutzer took the stand. He showed a video recording of Mavrick’s exhibition. This is the second interview conducted here in Lake County by the local police. He was in an interview room and Mavrick is seen lying on the floor doing an performance of what happened. The detective was watching and making verbal notes as Mavrick did gestures. He spoke for audio recording purposes. Mavrick said he was lying down right by the tent’s zipper door. Mavrick said, “I saw Grant open up the tent, enter, and stand in front of me and watch me for about 30 seconds. He punched me and I blocked it with my hand, and when I felt the cut, I grabbed him.” Mavrick was sitting on the floor. He motioned that he then shifted his body to his right, grabbed a rock, and then struck Grant about five times in the head. The detective spoke, “five times.” In the video Mavrick did not sign in ASL, it was all gestures. The detective took verbal notes. Mavrick then acted like Grant, lying down on his right side, and taking the blows and then dying. The detective spoke, “Grant was hit five times in the head and then died.” The detective told Mavrick, “Your performance and your facial expressions really helped me to understand. What you described about Grant’s left side of his head does match with the autopsy report. But your descriptions are sometimes lost in translation to English. Thank you.”

The DA asked more questions to Detective Kreutzer and asked him to describe the tent and its measurements. The width, the depth, and the height. Kreutzer provided answers and included the brand name. He was asked about the length of the drive between Richardson Grove State Park and Lee’s ranch, and he was not sure, but after looking at a map printout, saw that it was an hour and 43 minutes away.

The defense attorney challenged the detective on why he spoke for Mavrick and did not ask him direct questions, but just spoke out loud based on Mavrick’s performance. The defense asked if the detective decided for himself on what Mavrick said and whether Mavrick spoke for himself. The detective said Mavrick did not speak and that the detective decided the words. The defense asked if the detective was making assumptions based on Mavrick’s performance, and he answered yes. The defense asked if the detective’s statement about the rock being outside of the tent was accurate information. The detective looked to the jury and apologized for being wrong.

Video Clip

DETECTIVE KREUTZER: I want to give a correction from my previous testimony in which I said there seemed to be a change between Mavrick’s first interview on the 27th and second interview on the 28th. I said it seemed like Mavrick grabbed the rock from inside of the tent, but I watched the film again and clearly I remember that my previous testimony was in error. This information is based on, and again I’m talking in direct terms, my information was based on the first interview on the 27th in which I got my information from a translator. It was also based on performances that Mavrick made (in the video) in which he made a large motion towards his far right side. He clearly had a longer reach. So I am assuming it was outside of the tent as he previously said (on the 27th).

CALLIE FRYE:

Now, the district attorney took her turn. She had a stack of papers that she said both the defense and her side agree to be the truth. The judge told the jury to please accept this information as the truth. The papers said what? The DNA results from the lab, if you remember, the detective from Humboldt County, Brandon Head, he took two rocks because he saw red or brown spots on it. They were tested and it was blood. DNA testing said the blood was Mavrick’s on both rocks. There was no sign of Grant’s blood on the rocks. The second thing is the knife that was retrieved from the car. The handle had both Mavrick and Grant’s DNA on it, but it was inconclusive whether the DNA came from blood or some other bodily fluid. It couldn’t be determined. The blade was tested and there were no clear results.