Thread by @RealBirdLawyer

I’ve got an hour before work and a copy of the preliminary hearing transcript from Tyreek Hill’s 2014 case. Several people have asked me for my thoughts so I’m going to read through it and live tweet as I go. First, let’s talk about what a preliminary hearing is:

A prelim is like a mini-trial. Essentially, the State has to put on enough evidence to show that the case is good enough to go to trial. The State must show that there is *probable cause* that a crime was committed by the defendant. Contrast this with a trial, where the State...

...must prove the elements of the crime *beyond a reasonable doubt.* We don’t get to put numbers on this stuff in our profession, but PC is approximately 51% proof, whereas BARD is more like 95% proof. It’s very easy to win a prelim, much much easier than winning a trial.

OK, let’s dive on in. The prelim took place on 3-9-2015, approx four months after the incident on 12-12-14. Hill is represented by Cheryl Ramsey - a private attorney who would withdraw from his case in June after he ran out of $$$. Hill plead guilty in August 2015

The State calls Espinal as its first witness. This is common in DV cases. In fact, DV cases are almost always going to live or die on the testimony of the victim, because DV usually happens in the home, without other witnesses. Prelims are very useful to the defense in DV cases

Because oftentimes the State wont even be able to produce a cooperative victim at all (they’ve gone back to their abuser and didn’t show), but also because the defense gets a chance to cross examine the victim under oath, as Ramsey will do shortly

Crystal says she started dating Hill in June 2014. The prosecutor is leading Crystal for the bulk of her initial testimony - meaning, asking questions that suggest the answer, e.g., “throughout the course of the relationship, did it ever become acrimonious or violent?”

That question suggests a yes or no answer. Espinal answers yes. Hill’s attorney objects early on (not to that question specifically) that the prosecutor is leading, but the objection is overruled. Leading the witness is not allowed, but in practice it’s pretty commonplace

Espinal IDs Hill in open court. Standard. Now the prosecutor asks about 12-11-2014. The prosecutor asks if something “out of the ordinary for your relationship” occurred. Espinal says yes. What? “Domestic violence occurred.”

People want me to tweet faster, so I’m going to skim a little bit. Y’all are plenty familiar with the allegations, anyway. Crystal says they were hanging out, were going to go out, then Hill went to take a shower, then he took her phone. If that sounds weird, it is, kinda

That’s not how she describes the events of that night on her recorded call with Hill from this year. But bear in mind that victims are not professional witnesses, and it’s scary to have to testify in court under oath even if you’re telling the truth. Also, this prosecutor...

...is not asking the best questions. Anyway, she says Hill took her phone and was going through it in the bathroom, and she could see what he was doing because it was synced to her Mac (?). She asks for her phone back and he gives it back, but he’s clearly mad. Now, he mad, but

According to Espinal, Hill was just giving her the silent treatment at this point. Not wanting to talk about what was wrong. Nothing physical has happened yet. At this point in the prelim, Espinal discloses she is pregnant (which y’all already knew)

So Espinal says she’s waiting Hill out, sitting in a chair on her computer with him on the bed, and she can wait until he’s ready to talk. He gets up and throws her computer into the hallway. Apparently not with enough force that it broke, which is interesting.

Espinal is now out in the hallway, and Hill shuts the door. She’s not wearing pants, and “he has roommates,” so she doesn’t want to be in hall. She “was able, you know, to get back into his room.” “And once I did that, he tackled me onto the bed where he began to punch my face”

She says Hill is punching her on her left eye. She tries to get up and he puts her in a “chokehold.” She says that she couldn’t breathe and he did this for more than a minute. Then she was on the floor and he ripped her shirt. Then he grabbed her hair & threw her around the room

Then he tackled her back onto the bed and punched her stomach on the left side. Then he grabbed her and started choking her again, up against the wall this time. He was “pounding” her head against the wall. But this time she’s still able to breathe

Then, he stopped. He says if she’s not going to leave, he will. He leaves. She is “gathering her things.” Hill is gone 5-10 minutes. Then, Espinal says she leaves. A few observations before we continue:

First, this testimony is *brutal.* You have an alleged strangulation. You have the punching of the stomach area with Espinal being pregnant. You have multiple punches to the face. You have her head being slammed against the wall. I’ve prosecuted my fair share of DV, and this...

Would be up there with the worst cases I’ve ever had. If it’s all true. I’m not going to comment on that quite yet, but I will say, based on Espinal’s testimony, you’d expect there to be some good corroborating physical evidence in this case:

Potentially blood on the bed and the wall, if not elsewhere in the room, from the punching and banging of the head against the wall. The ripped shirt. The laptop being thrown. And most of all, photos and medical records.

After Espinal leaves, she calls a friend. They go to the hospital. While at the hospital, someone there calls law enforcement. Hospital staff, it seems from Espinal’s testimony, photographed her injuries at this time. The State presents 12 photos as exhibits here

You can see the photos presented st the prelim here. medium.com/@claywendler/t…

I’m not going to pass judgment one way or the other on the photos themselves (not yet, anyway) but I will give some context. First, since the State’s burden at prelim is minimal, they likely did not show ALL of the photos that existed. You don’t want to waste the court’s time

That being said, most prosecutors, if not showing ALL the photos, would at least, for obvious strategic reasons, show the *worst* looking photos to the judge. The defense already has all the photos, so you’re not hiding anything from them.

Another point to remember: with bruising, it will look much, MUCH worse after some time has passed. It will look much worse after 24-48 hours than after two hours. So bear that in mind. Best practice is for law enforcement to take followup photos a day or two later, but...

That doesn’t always get done. In my jurisdiction, it’s pretty rare that that happens. According to the transcript, though, some of these first 12 photos were taken the day after the incident. Those would appear to be State’s Ex 8-12

The State then introduces Ex 13-16, taken the following day, 12-12-14, also available via the above link. But this seems like a good spot for a break, because I have to work now. I’ll try and answer any questions people might have so far before we get into cross around lunch

OK, we're gonna pick back up and go for another hour or so. Before we get started, couple of things I want to clarify: 1) I have not read this transcript in its entirety yet, I'm going through it as I tweet; 2) I am trying to be as objective as possible

So the State has now admitted 16 photos, available at the link above. You can draw your own conclusions about what those photos show, but remember, as I said earlier, bruising will look much worse a day or two or three later than it will a few hours after being caused

This is important, because there are more photos admitted at the preliminary hearing which, to my knowledge, are *not* publicly available, State's exhibits 17 through 40. These were taken by "Mary" at the detective's office, according to Espinal, some time later.

Prosecutor: Ma'am, throughout the time that you had these injuries, did they change or become worse over time?

Espinal: Yes.

So these photos, which, again, I haven't seen, supposedly look worse than the photos you have seen online.

Hill's attorney objects to these photos being admitted "for the reason they don't show anything at all. Most of the items - most of the photographs show no injuries whatsoever or alleged injuries whatsoever. And we would object to them being admitted into evidence."

"They don't show anything" is not a legal objection, mind you - but Hill's attorney is essentially objecting to the relevance of the photos, i.e., they shouldn't be admitted because they aren't relevant (because, she says, they don't show anything).

The objection is overruled (in my opinion, correctly) and the photos are admitted.

It's worth noting that Hill's attorney did not object to the earlier photos coming in. While she could have objected to these photos because they really *did not* show anything, and would be...

...a waste of time, usually defense attorneys object because they don't want whatever it is they're objecting to to be admitted as evidence. Remember, the judge hasn't seen these photos - and if she sustains the objection, she won't see them.

But she overrules the objection & the photos are admitted. The prosecutor then goes through the photos with Espinal. First, the photos you saw previously. Then, some of the photos you haven't seen: State's 17 & 18 (bruises caused by being punched), 20 (bruise from being grabbed)

State's 24 (same, but the opposite arm), 28 (depicting an "eye injury" "a couple of days after the fact" with bruising and swelling), 30 (same), State's 35 (the same marks you saw in Ex 3 and/or 5, but a few days later), and 37 (a close-up view).

There are some 23 additional photos admitted here, and 8 that are specifically referenced by the prosecutor, presumably in an effort to highlight those particular photos for the judge. Again, these photos haven't been published.

The prosecutor closes her direct examination of Espinal by confirming that she talked to a detective after the incident, Detective Bruce, in her home. She says that Bruce recovered the ripped shirt from the scene. We'll hear from Bruce later. Now, Espinal is subject to cross exam

Cross examination is Hill's lawyer's opportunity to question Espinal. As I mentioned earlier, prosecutors mostly hate preliminary hearings because, even though they're easy to win, they are forced to put victims/witnesses under oath and allow them to be crossed.

That can cause all sorts of problems down the road. Think of the old adage about winning the battle and losing the war - you might be able to prove probable cause (51% proof), but if your key witness falls apart under oath, you're not winning that case at trial (95% proof)

I'm not going to tweet out the cross exam word for word, but I'll go through it and point out parts that seem "newsworthy" 😉

First, Espinal says she and Hill were "on and off." She had clothes at his place and stayed there regularly, however

Ramsey: When you...were at his residence that day, did he tell you to leave?
Espinal: He did.
R: And did he take some of your things and put them outside the door?
E: He threw them.
...
R: Did he lock the door?
E: No.
...
R: Did he close the door and tell you to leave?
E: Yes.

Espinal says she was able to get back into the room because the door was open.

R: Even though you knew he didn't want you there, correct?
E: Yes.

Espinal explains that she didn't have any pants on, just underwear and a long t-shirt, which is why...

...she didn't go to his roommates or get in her car and leave. Ramsey then asks:

R: Well, why not? You didn't - did you think you were in danger at that point?
E: I mean, why would you go outside without pants on?
R: Well, if you thought somebody was going to do something to you

R (cont): why would you go back inside even if you could have left the residence?
E: I didn't think he was going to do anything to me.

Ramsey then questions Espinal about the last time she and Hill had sex. An hour or so before, according to Espinal. Then Hill got in the shower, and then the incident occurred.

R: When you left, when he put your things outside, did you ever have any contact with any of his roommates?
E: No.

(As an aside, 610 had one of Hill's roommates on last week. He said he saw Espinal outside the house that night. I don't think this means much either way, though)

R questions E about whether she called anyone. Her friend Antira, after she left. R tries to pin down when E had her phone, but doesn't quite get there.

R: And you had retrieved your phone?
E: In the hallway, yes.
R: He had given it back to you?
E: He had - yeah.

This might look a little funny to you if you don't practice criminal law - this sentence doesn't really make sense, it's an apparent contradiction, but it isn't really resolved by Ramsey - it just floats there. Did E retrieve her phone from the hallway or did Hill return it?

R: When he put all of your stuff out in the hallway, your phone was in there?
E: Not all of it.
R: Okay. What was not in there that you thought was yours?

Again, details about the phone are being lost. It's hard to blame R - lawyering is hard - but the devil is in the details

I'm not really sure it makes that much of a difference where the phone was, and when, and Ramsey could always have followed up on this at a deposition before trial. Some judges don't give defense attorneys a very long leash to cross at prelim (and shouldn't IMO, but I'm biased)

But the point is - and then I'm going to stop color commentating and get back to play-by-play - some details are being lost. In this type of case, that can become a problem down the road. Because R isn't always pinning E down, she can always correct the record later on her terms

R then questions E about whether Hill has a lock on his door, and whether one of his roommates, "Eric," has a key (note: not the roommate who was on 610). R asks E if Eric let her back into the apartment. E says no.

Eric didn't testify at the preliminary hearing, so it's impossible to tell why R is asking these questions. Is Eric going to testify at trial and contradict the testimony Espinal just gave? No way to tell. But that felt like one of those sneaky defense atty questions 🤷‍♂️

By the way, it's not unusual that Eric didn't testify at prelim. Unlike the State, which always has the burden of proof, the defense doesn't ever have to *prove* anything, and they don't ever have an obligation to put on witnesses. Not at trial, not at prelim. They often don't

Anyway, back to play-by-play:

R: When you went back into Mr. Hill's residence after he had closed the door and told you to leave, did you hit him?
E: No.
R: Never hit him at all?
E: No.
R: You just sat there passive and never made any defensive motions at all?
E: I pushed him

R: Okay. Where did you push him?
E: His chest.
R: When did you push him?
E: When he was choking me?
R: Okay. But you never hit him?
E: No.
R: Never bit him?
E: No

This doesn't really matter, legally - it would be hard for a defense attorney to claim with a straight face that Hill was acting in self-defense if he did in fact commit the acts alleged. But it's a pretty standard line of questioning in this type of case nonetheless

The next portion of the hearing is one I know those of you following the case are anxious to hear about - it involves Espinal being questioned about marks caused during sex, self-mutilation, etc. But I need to get back to my day job, so you'll have to wait for that part

Alright, we're back. Couple reminders: 1) I'm tweeting this as I read it, spoiler-free. I'll give conclusions at the end. 2) I'm trying to be as objective as possible.

We pick back up in the middle of the cross examination of Espinal by Hill's attorney, Ms. Ramsey:

R: When you were at the hospital and some photographs were being taken, there were some marks that didn't show up supposedly until later on; is that correct?
E: Yes.
R: Have you ever seen a psychologist?
E: What - yeah.
R: Okay. Is that because of self-mutilation?
E: No

R: Cutting yourself?
E: No.
R: Bruising yourself?
E: No.
R: How long has it been since you've seen a psychologist?
E: I'm seeing one currently now.
R: When did you see one before?

And finally, the State objects. Honestly, the prosecutor was asleep at the wheel a bit here

The objection is for relevance, which is exactly what it sounds like. The prosecutor says that this line of questioning isn't relevant.

R: It's my understanding from information that we have received that she's been seeing a psychologist for quite some time because of...

R (cont): self-mutilation. That's why I asked those questions.
Prosecutor: And the victim has indicated that's not the case.

The court sustains the objection. But the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Ramsey has already asked the questions she wanted to ask. State was late

Now, what's interesting about this line of questioning is R's response to the objection about "information that we have received" about Espinal. That information was never a part of the prelim other than here, in cross. Why?

Because, as I pointed out earlier, the defense doesn't have to prove anything, ever. They don't have to put on evidence. And they almost never will at a preliminary hearing. Unlike the State, the defense doesn't have to show its hand until trial.

So what information had Ramsey received? We don't know. But Espinal denied it under oath. Ramsey might've been fishing - that's not at all uncommon for defense attorneys whenever they have a State witness under oath - but she might not have. Anyway...

After a brief interlude about whether and when Hill left the apartment (Espinal says after the violence occurred, which is consistent with what she'd said on direct), Ramsey asks what the argument started about. You might be wondering why the State didn't ask this question

On direct (i.e., when being questioned by the State), Espinal says Hill took her phone and then got mad, but we don't get any explanation of *why* he was mad at what he saw on her phone. That might be a deliberate choice by the prosecutor not to bring it up, but maybe not

Anyway, Ramsey wants to know, and she asks. Espinal says "[Hill] found information in my phone."

R: About what?
E: Someone telling me he was hitting on high schoolers.

This is *not* the answer I was expecting, by the way. In like 99% of these scenarios...

That is, Person 1 finds something in Person 2's phone and gets angry, 99% of the time it's because Person 1 thinks they've found evidence that Person 2 is cheating on them. Espinal says that Hill got mad because someone told *her* that Hill was essentially cheating on *her*

That's a little weird, but I don't want to dwell on any of this stuff until the end of the thread, when we get to conclusion time. For now, let's just note that that's a strange thing for Hill to allegedly get furiously angry about.

Ramsey asks to see the photos that have been entered into evidence. She hands Espinal Ex 1 - the first photo published above - and asks:

R: Is that a hickey?
E: No.
R: Do you and Mr. Hill when you have sex, does he give you hickeys on a regular basis?
E: He has before.

R: But you're saying that is not one.
E: No.
R: And in relation to when this supposedly occurred, how long was it before that you two had sex?

The State objects, again (IMO) a little bit late. It's much better to object too early than too late. Anyway, the objection is relevance

Court: Ms. Ramsey, relevance?
R: As to hours before or the before as to injuries that could have possibly be depicted (sic) in this that are not injuries from abuse.

This time the court does not immediately sustain the objection, but asks R to "lay the foundation"

Which, here, is essentially judge-speak for "you'd better show me how this is relevant or I'm going to shut this down real quick." Ramsey goes back to the timeline, then asks "And when was the last time that you two had sex?" The State objects again.

Prosecutor: Again, I'm going to object as to relevance.
Court: Well, it's not relevant unless it's related to the injuries. Lay your foundation.

I don't want to editorialize too much, but I have to imagine Ramsey's reaction to the second "lay your foundation" was...

..."I'll show YOU my foundation." Because her next question was this, getting straight to the point:

R: Do you and him, Mr. Hill, usually have rough sex?
E: No
R: Have you ever been bruised or had hickeys because of sex with him before?
E: Yes.

This was a little bit of a tricky question by Ramsey, and technically objectionable, because it's a compound question: have you ever been bruised OR had hickeys? If the answer to one is yes, the answer to the question is yes.

Ramsey gets away with it, but hasn't specifically established *bruising* as a result of sex, because she didn't ask about bruising, she asked about bruising OR hickeys.

Anyway, she now has shown the court where she's going and is finally allowed to ask when they had sex

The answer is apparently around 8:00 pm, with Espinal leaving the apartment after the alleged assault around 10:00 pm. Ramsey follows up by confirming it was just her and Hill in the room, and that she didn't see his roommates during this period of time.

I mentioned earlier that Ramsey missed an opportunity on cross to clear up a detail about Espinal's phone - whether it was given back to her or thrown. She actually clears that up here:

R: Did he have your phone?
E: Yes
R: I thought you said he gave it back to you

E: He threw it into the hallway. I don't think that's giving it back to me.
R: Okay. But you had access to it?
E: Yes.

Ramsey confirms that Espinal had retrieved her phone and laptop and then asks "why was was it that you didn't leave at that point?"

R: Because you didn't have your pants on?
E: That, and I had other things in his room.
R: Have you ever been accused of self-mutilation?

The State is paying attention this time and of course immediately objects.

But this time the court says "lay a foundation," not "sustained"

R: Some of these bruises that you say occurred were not visible that night, correct?
E: They were visible. I mean, my eye was visible.
R: Well, that's my question. Some of them you said did not appear that night. That's why you went back to the police department the next day.

You can see where Ramsey is going with this. She's suggesting that Espinal caused some of the injuries in the later photos herself.

Now, if you missed this earlier, we don't have Exhibits 17-40, the later photos. And I mentioned earlier that bruising is more apparent after days

But the job of a defense attorney is to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Sometimes just asking the right questions - no matter what the answer ends up being - can be tremendously effective in that regard.

It's worth mentioning here that Ramsey's questions here could be COMPLETELY baseless. She might not have any information about Espinal having a history of self-mutilation, and even if she does, it might not be admissible in court. But she's made the suggestion

R: Have you ever been accused of self-mutilation or bruising yourself?
E: No ma'am.
R: Never seen a psychologist for that?
E: No ma'am.

/end cross

Honestly, it's a pretty strong performance from Ramsey. Very theatrical. Ended with a very suggestive line of questioning

My wife will be home for dinner before too long, so I'm going to break for an hour, hour and a half and come back and hopefully wrap this thing up tonight. Final thoughts might have to wait until morning, we'll see.

I hope you have enjoyed this installment of Twitter Court TV

OK, I'm back. We ended with Hill's attorney Ramsey completing her cross examination of Espinal. Now we'll get into re-direct, which is the State's opportunity to question Espinal again.

It's a baller move to not ask any questions on redirect - sort of a lawyer flex of sorts, like "yeah, you did you best on cross, but I don't care about what you just did to my witness, I'm good" - but that's not what happens here

The prosecutor begins her redirect by rehashing some things we've already been over on both direct and cross - aspects of the timeline, the fact that Espinal isn't wearing pants. This appears to be pretty pointless at first, but the point becomes evident here:

Prosecutor: Is it your practice to walk around without pants in front of other males?
E: No.
P: So this was embarrassing to you?
E: Yes ma'am.

So, there's the point the prosecutor wanted to make. This was a compromising situation, of sorts, for Espinal.

The prosecutor continues to go through the timeline with Espinal, continuing to ask variations of "After he did X, did he offer any explanation?" The answer, each time, is no. She is trying to highlight that Hill wasn't talking to Espinal about why he was doing what he was doing

To what end, I'm not yet sure. Remember, I'm live tweeting this. It makes it more exciting for me to not know what happens next. Maybe the prosecutor will tie these threads together at the end. Maybe not. Only one way to find out.

As a general rule, re-direct is supposed to be limited to issues brought up on cross, and cross is supposed to be limited by the scope of direct. In other words, the prosecutor isn't supposed to solicit new information in redirect. But she does.

I'm not sure if this will become relevant or not, but Espinal tells us on redirect that other than her friend Antira, she also called her aunt shortly after the incident. She did not contact anyone else before she went to the ER.

As an aside, you could probably tell when you were reading the live tweet of cross examination why the questions Ramsey was asking were relevant. This re-direct by the prosecutor - not so much. In fact...we're done. Re-direct was a nothingburger.

So now Hill's attorney gets to re-cross. She says she has "just a couple of questions." Heh. We'll see about that.*

*Lawyers never just have a couple of questions

Ramsey starts with a pretty strong line of questioning about the items Hill put out into the hall:

R: He put your property out in the hallway, correct?
E: Uh-huh.
R: To include your phone and your laptop?
E: Uh-huh.
R: The things that were most valuable to you, correct?
E: Yes

R: And you refused to leave, correct?
E: Yes.
R: He closed the door in your face, correct?
E: Yes.
R: And you still refused to leave?
E: Yes.
R: Nothing further, Your Honor.*

*Hey, Hill's lawyer actually did have just a couple of questions after all

The prosecutor asks one question on re-re-direct, whether Espinal had any pants on at all (I'm serious), and then Espinal is excused as a witness. Obviously, there's a lot to unpack here, but I think I'll try & save my thoughts for the end of the thread. We still have Det. Bruce

The State's second and final witness is Detective Kyle Bruce of the Stillwater Police Department. All we've heard so far is that Det. Bruce interviewed Espinal the morning after the incident, and took some photos.

The State's direct examination opens with the standard questions you always ask a law enforcement witness: where do you work, what do you do there, how long for, etc. Bruce has been working in investigations for 6 years.

P: Have you had the occasion to investigate crimes of domestic violence?
B: Yes, I have.

OK, great. How many times? Any special training in investigating domestic violence? We don't know, because the State didn't ask. It's a prelim, but still.

Bruce is asked if he was on duty on 12-11-14, did he become involved in an investigation, etc.

B: I was contacted by the DA's Office to do some further investigation in reference to a domestic violence that included some strangulation

*This is probably pretty typical in Oklahoma - I have no reason to think it isn't - but it's not typical of my experience as a prosecutor. We typically would not be directing law enforcement to do anything; they're the investigators, not us

B: The day I contacted her was on a Friday morning. She appeared that she hadn't had much sleep. She appeared to be pretty distraught. She had injuries on her face, her neck that were visible when I was interviewing with her, talking to her

Bruce met with Espinal on Friday, 12-12-14, the morning after the incident - after talking to her on the phone. They meet at her apartment. I'm assuming this will be brought up on cross, but there's going to be a gap between when Espinal leaves the ER and when she talks to Bruce

P: And had you reviewed any other materials prior to having contact with her?
B: Yes, I had.
P: Okay. Is that your customary practice?
B: Yes, it is.

WHAT materials? I don't know. Prosecutor didn't ask. I'm assuming Bruce reviewed the reports of the patrol officers, but 🤷‍♂️

And actually, that's another thing that I'm unclear on. It sounds like someone at the hospital called the police, who responded to the hospital. Presumably these were patrol officers who talked to Espinal. Then apparently they talked to the DA, who called Bruce

That sequence of events doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me personally, but I'm going to chalk it up to Oklahoma doing things differently than Missouri and not ascribe anything sinister to it. It's just...different. Anyway.

Bruce is your typical law enforcement witness. He's answering the questions that are asked and not volunteering a lot of extra information or launching into extended narratives. He says he observed Espinal's injuries when he met with her, and she described what had happened

B: She went into detail about the incident the day before.
P: Okay. And were her injuries that you observed on her person, were they consistent with her account of events?
B: Yes, they were.

Ramsey objects - slightly too late, because Bruce has already answered the question.

Ramsey's objection is that this answer is "outside the scope of [Bruce's] knowledge." The judge agrees and sustains the objection. Fortunately, there was no jury present, because asking a jury to unhear something is like asking Pat Mahomes to not throw touchdowns

Because the objection is sustained, the court isn't supposed to consider Bruce's answer, which was, "Yes (the injuries were consistent)." Judges are people, too, though, and it's hard sometimes even for judges to just ignore what they've seen or heard.

Anyway, the prosecutor doesn't try to get this answer another way. The objection is sustained and the prosecutor simply moves on to her next line of questioning, which is about Bruce's followup investigation. Bruce says based on his interview with Espinal, he got a search warrant

...for Hill's house.

P: Okay. And why did you prepare that search warrant?
B: Because based upon my investigation, I determined there was possible evidence that was related to the incident at his residence.
P: And this search warrant was granted?
B: Yes, it was.

At this point, the prosecutor asks the court to take judicial notice of the search warrant. Taking judicial notice is a practice wherein the judge admits evidence that is commonly known or undisputed. Here, the judge admonishes the prosecutor for not having a copy of the warrant

...in the court's online file. So the prosecutor provides a copy and the court goes off the record to discuss something related to the warrant. Since it's off the record, we don't know what this discussion was, but I can say with some confidence that it probably wasn't a big deal

When we go back on the record, Hill's attorney is objecting to the search. I don't want to get side-tracked talking about search warrants, but a valid search warrant has to be based on probable cause - the same standard it takes for the State to win a prelim. It's not hard

I don't really have any reason to question the validity of the search warrant here. There's not a copy of it in the record, but we know what the search warrant was for:

P: And what were you searching for?
A: Requesting to search for a turquoise tee shirt.

Bruce executed the search warrant on Hill's house and found the t-shirt in Hill's room.

P: Okay. Did you find anything else of significance to this case?
B: The only thing else I found of significance was an ultrasound photo.

(presumably in Hill's room? But that isn't asked)

The prosecutor then introduces exhibits 41-50, which are photos taken by Bruce when he executed the search warrant. We don't have these photos, but Bruce describes what's in them. There's a photo of Hill's room. Photo of the "torn and ripped" t-shirt. Photo of the ultrasound

(which was, in fact, hanging on a mirror in Hill's room)

I assume this will come up on cross, but it's interesting that there are not, apparently, any signs of struggle in Hill's room - blood on the bed or walls or floor, dents in the walls, etc. Potentially significant.

Bruce is now asked about taking the photographs of Espinal's injuries, which he did when he met with her that morning. These are the photos you've already seen, State's 13-16. The photos we're missing, 17-40, were taken by "Mary" a few days later.

Prosecutor asks why it is important to take photos of injuries over time. Here's Bruce's answer:

B: Injuries develop throughout time. They don't always show the injury on the day that the injury is sustained. Based upon the classes and training and experience that we've had...

B (cont): any bruising, marking, cutting, as the days pass, a bruise will show more color to the tinge of the bruise. Abrasions will show redness that possibly wasn't shown at the time of the injury. Swelling occurs at a later date and time. And it's important for us to document

B (cont): all the phases and stages of an injury so we can show how one can progress through an injury from the start to a later date.

But you knew all this already because you've read the whole thread, and I've already told you this a few times

That essentially concludes Bruce's testimony. Brace yourselves, because there's a LOT of material here for Ramsey to get into on cross examination.

Just from the transcript alone, you can tell Ramsey couldn't wait to start her cross. These are the first words out of her mouth.

R: Did you take her phone and look at it?
B: I did not.

R: So you don't - didn't take any forensics of the telephone as far as any damage to it or anything of that nature?
B: I did not.
R: Do you know if someone did?
B: To my knowledge, it was not done.

I just want to quote verbatim again for a bit, because this is a really good cross, immediately following the last part.

R: I'm going to hand you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 41. And I believe you said that was Mr. Hill's room; is that correct?
B: Yes, it is.

R: Now, that looks pretty clean to me. Doesn't it to you?
B: It looks pretty empty. I don't - your definition of clean and mine are probably different.
R: There's not a lot of stuff all over the place?
B: It's not clutter if that's what you're asking

R: Pretty tidy?
B: Again, there's not a lot of stuff in the thing to be tidy. But yes, it's not cluttered.
...
R: Did you see any damage to the apartment? I'm sorry. Did you see any damage to Mr. Hill's room?
B: I didn't note any damage to his room, no.

R: Any damage to his door or anything of that nature?
B: There was none noted.
R: And to his shower area?
B: I didn't go into the shower area.

I mean, I said analysis at the end, but you all see what Ramsey has done here.

Espinal's shirt is still in Hill's room, so he obviously hasn't taken any measures to clean it or cover up evidence. But there's no damage to the room, no physical evidence of any kind? That's...very surprising, considering what alleged occurred.

R: Now, you said that some of the bruising doesn't always show; is that correct?
B: It doesn't initially show, no.
R: Isn't it correct people do things to themselves also that show up later?
B: Excuse me?

(this was a bad question, but you can see where this is going)

R: She could have hit herself, couldn't she?
B: Are you asking for my opinion?
R: I'm asking you is it possible.

The State objects, about two questions too late (despite Bruce's valiant, and probably inadvertent, efforts to slow Ramsey down and avoid answering)

The State's objection is that this question calls for speculation, which, honestly, it does. But judges are often pretty liberal with the rules of evidence at prelim because it's just a probable cause hearing and they want to know what happened. Objection overruled

R: Could she have?
B: Could she have?
R: Yes.
B: Yes.
R: The only thing you know about this case is what you've been told, is that correct?
B: I know what I've been told and the observations I made.
R: But you were not there, is that correct?
...
B: No ma'am, I was not.

So Ramsey got what she wanted out of both Espinal and Bruce, even if she doesn't *actually* have any hard evidence that Espinal self-harms. She's established that it is *possible*, and for a defense attorney, that's half the battle

Ramsey returns to the phones and text messages. She's already asked this, but it was effective the first time, and if opposing counsel will let you ask the same questions over and over again, and they're effective questions, you might as well do it. She does.

Here's how she closes out her cross:

R: Did someone [look at the cell phones] at your request?
B: No, they did not. I'm the examiner at the department for cell phones. And to my knowledge, it was not done.
R: Okay. And what about his cell phone?

B: There were no cell phones examined or - during this case.
R: Did you see anything that was damaged in the apartment?
B: Did I see any damage to the apartment?
R: Uh-huh. Or his room area.
B: Other than the shirt that was ripped on the floor, no.

R: No furniture was moved around or anything of that nature?
B: Like I said, it was a pretty bare room. So no, ma'am, I was not - did not.
R: You've never met her before this time, is that correct?
B: No, I've never met either one of them.

/cross

Redirect time! Again, this is the prosecutor's opportunity to undo some of the damage done on cross. Again, it's extremely cool to not have any re-direct questions because that's telling the other attorney you think they did a bad job on cross. Again, not happening here

The prosecutor first talks about the timing of the search warrant - which I was curious about, so I'm glad they asked. The search warrant was served on the evening of 12-12, it sounds like - approximately 20-24 hours after the incident, per Bruce

This is interesting:

P: And were you expecting to find structural damage to the room?
B: No, I was not?
P: Why not?
A: The allegations or the investigation didn't make me believe that there would be any damage to the room.

That essentially concludes re-direct. Re-cross:

R: Did you ever call Mr. Hill to talk with him about this case?
B: No, I did not.
R: Did anyone at your request?
B: At my request?
R: Uh-huh.
B: No.

R: Or anyone from the Stillwater Police Department?
B: I - to my knowledge, the only contact made with him was via the patrol officers. And to the extent of any questioning, I'm not aware of.
R: Nothing further.

We're done with all the witness testimony, y'all!

I think I'm going to leave my *personal* conclusions to tomorrow morning, but before I conclude for the night, I'll go through Ramsey's argument at the close of the evidence real quick.

Judges, in my experience, aren't huge fans of lengthy argument at prelim.

The State's argument is cursory: the State stands on the evidence presented, we believe we've shown probable cause that the offense was committed, by Mr. Hill, and we ask you to bind the case over (send the case to the trial court).

I'll give you Ramsey's argument verbatim

Ramsey: Your Honor, at this time, we would demur to the evidence as presented by the State of Oklahoma. The evidence is not sufficient to show that a crime was committed, and certainly not sufficient to show that a crime was committed by Mr. Hill.

R (cont): We have have no witnesses. We have no personal knowledge with regard to the residence being in a state of disarray. We even see the photograph of the sonogram still in the mirror. The evidence that has been presented to this court is a person's statement...

R (cont): who says that she was told to leave, the door was shut in her face with her things set out in the hallway, to please get out of his apartment. She refused to do that. She refused and came back into his apartment. He told her to leave again. She still refused to leave.

R (cont): Even if she had on pants, she had her car - or didn't have on pants, she had her car keys. She had a long shirt. She could have gone to her car and left. But she chose to come back into the residence, and he couldn't get her to leave.

R (cont): At this point, Your Honor, we do not believe the State has proven that a crime was committed and much less that he committed a crime, other than perhaps her refusing to leave.

/end argument

Here’s the tl;dr

https://twitter.com/realbirdlawyer/status/1151461364944142338?s=21