December 14, 2018 at 4:14 p.m.
Judge hears testimony on defense motion in Mendez case
Falstad delays decision on admissibility of expert testimony
Judge hears testimony on defense motion in Mendez case
By By Jamie Taylor and Heather Schaefer-
Last February, more than three decades after she was found dead at her workplace, Oneida County authorities charged Robin "Bob" Mendez with the first-degree murder of his 33-year-old wife Barbara Mendez
Mendez, now 69, is accused of attacking his wife from behind as she performed closing tasks at the former Minocqua Park City Credit Union on April 28, 1982. Forensic pathologist Dr. Robert W. Huntington III listed her cause of death as "multiple blunt injuries, abrasions and lacerations to the head, with extensive skull fractures" following an autopsy.
Oneida County district attorney Michael Schiek alleges that Mendez used a specific type of pry bar, known as a Wonder Bar, to bludgeon his wife.
Huntington theorized that the injuries were caused by a blunt instrument with a long striking surface "and there's a strong suggestion of an angle in an instrument," according to the complaint.
According to Chris Robinson, an independent forensics consultant who is retired from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the injuries found on the left side of Barbara's face and head are "consistent with being made by a flat, elongated tool" such as a pry bar or a Wonder Bar, tools that are routinely used in the furniture upholstery business.
At the time of the murder the Mendez family operated an upholstery shop and he would have had easy access to such a tool, it was noted in the criminal complaint.
Robinson also stated in his report that the injuries to Barbara Mendez were consistent with being struck from behind by a left-handed person, the complaint states.
It is this testimony that defense attorney Peter Prusinski is challenging.
In a pretrial motion, Prusinski argued Robinson should not be allowed to testify because his work in this case lacks scientific validity. There were no scientific controls and there is no way to test the accuracy of his work, Prusinski added.
Robinson appeared before Falstad via Skype Thursday to answer questions about his findings.
Schiek began by reviewing Robinson's 21-year career in forensics.
"During my career, I logged over 15,000 hours on the comparison microscope, and I have performed over 100,000 forensic examinations," Robinson said. "I've currently worked over 8,000 actual cases. I have attended around 1,000 autopsies in my career."
Robinson also said he has testified in between 80 and 100 cases where he was called on to do wound analysis similar to what he was asked to do in this case.
He repeatedly stressed that crime scene reconstruction, which is his specialty, draws on many fields of study such as wound analysis, blood splatter and other factors.
After agreeing to conduct a wound analysis in this case, Robinson said he was sent the original police reports, photos and diagrams of the scene, autopsy reports, photos and test results. This is how he proceeds with any case he consults on, he testified.
"Anything that can be provided to me that can help me with my examination of the case (is reviewed)," Robinson said, adding that his work is scientific and listing four national or international organizations dedicated to the advancement of the practice
Schiek then entered a Wonder Bar and three clay pieces into evidence.
Robinson testified that he used the clay to reproduce wounds shown on two photos of Barbara Mendez's head taken at the autopsy. Although the clay isn't an exact match for human skin, hair and bone, it is a medium used by other crime scene reconstruction experts across the country, he testified.
"If you look at the ragged wounds on the head and you then look at the marks I made in the clay with the pry bar, you can see that they are very consistent with each other," Robinson said. "That is because the bar is moving across her skull, her head is moving, the assailant is moving, based on all the movement you have, it makes a ragged, irregular wound, not a straight wound."
He added that "a Wonder Bar, or a tool of that nature, would have been consistent with the type of tool that would have produced the injuries" that he observed in the autopsy photos.
Under cross-examination by Prusinski, Robinson testified he arrived at the conclusion listed in his report based on the tests he performed using the clay.
However, he admitted that he did not have any castings of the actual wounds Barbara Mendez suffered, did not measure the wounds he arrived at with the clay, didn't have any way to measure how fast the Wonder Bar was going when it struck the clay, and there are no peer-reviewed presentations on the techniques he used.
Still, Robinson stood by his work and report as being accurate to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.
After hearing from Robinson, Falstad said she would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date. Both lawyers then made their final arguments.
"This isn't a DNA case where you can use a number, 1 in 1.2 billion," Schiek said. "I don't know if that specific factor has to be applied across the board."
He also noted that Robinson has been found to be a reliable expert witness in other jurisdictions.
Prusinski noted that Robinson has never testified in Wisconsin and argued there are too many "loose ends" in his work as well as a lack of scientific rigor.
"The standards are lacking," he said.
In a separate hearing earlier the same day, Falstad took action on several other motions. She ruled the state can admit evidence that Mendez was having a sexual relationship with a teenage girl before his wife's death. It is the state's theory that the defendant's motive for killing his wife was the "affair" he was having with the teenager.
She also ruled Mendez will have to answer "one", if asked on the stand about his history of criminal convictions. In 2002, Mendez was convicted of inappropriately touching a young girl and watching her through a peephole.
He was sentenced to 8 years in prison and required to register as a sex offender.
Mendez was bound over for trial on the murder charge following a lengthy preliminary hearing in late February. He entered a not guilty plea in April and waived his right to a jury trial four months later.
Due to the jury waiver, Falstad alone will determine his guilt or innocence. Twelve days have been set aside on the court calendar for testimony.
Because the charge is based on the homicide statutes in place in 1982, Mendez faces live in prison if convicted.
Jamie Taylor may be reached via email at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.