The DeOnte Rawlings Files Part 7: The Concerned Witness
Maybe you are sick of hearing about the DeOnte Rawlings case. The 14-year-old was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer on September 17, 2007. That's a long time ago. By now, the off-duty cops have been cleared by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the D.C. Police Department. Law enforcement contends that Rawlings had fired on the officers---James Haskel and Anthony Clay---first and was riding Haskel's stolen minibike. Officer Haskel only returned fire in self defense.
In this series, City Desk has set out to chronicle the case's oddities and various headscratchers. You can read part one here, part two here, part three here, part four here, part five here, and part six here. Our latest installment focuses on deposition witness: James Haskel's wife---Corsondra L. Haskel.
Mrs. Haskel is important. Why? Because immediately after the shooting, Clay drove Haskel's Tahoe back to her house. The first civilian he talked to was Corsondra L. Haskel.
Rawlings' family attorney Gregory Lattimer deposed her on April 9, 2009. Haskel seemed very concerned about why Clay had left her husband behind. She also contradicts Clay's testimony on a crucial point. Here is what she had to say about her interactions with Officer Clay:
Lattimer: What happened at that point when he brought the truck back?
Haskel: We talked.
Lattimer: We meaing---
Haskel: Officer Clay and I.
Lattimer: OK. What did you all talk about?
Haskel: We talked about---we talked about where he was or where my husband was.
Lattimer: All right. And what did you say and what did he say?
Haskel: He told me what happened.
Lattimer: What did he tell you?
Haskel: He told me what happened --- I don't remember what --- I don't remember his words as to what exactly he said.
Lattimer: OK. To the best of your recollection and as best as you remember, what did he tell you had happened?
Haskel: I don't remember.
Lattimer: You don't remember anything that he said?
Haskel: Can I take a break?
Lattimer: Well, there is a question pending right now. Once you answer the question, you can take a break....
Haskel: I asked him where was James, and he said that they saw the mini bike. And he told me about the fire exchange.
Lattimer: What did he say? Well, let me finish because you want to take a break. Let me let you finish your --- what you were saying before I started devling into questions.
Haskel: That's what he said...
(Haskel gets to take a break).
Lattimer: You say he told you about the fire?
Haskel: Uh-hu, there was an exchange of fire.
Lattimer: And what did you think he meant by that?
Haskel: What did I think?
Lattimer: Yes.
Haskel: Where was my husband if there was an exchange of fire?
Lattimer: Did he explaine to you how this gun -- this shooting had occurred?
Haskel: Did he explain to me?
Lattimer: Yes.
Haskel: Once they saw the bike, he said that they were shot at, and then there was gunfire. And I asked him, where is James? And he said around the corner. And I said, OK.
Lattimer: Did you say, is he all right?
Haskel: Yes, I said is he all right, and why did you leave him.
Lattimer: And what did he say when you asked if he was all right?
Haskel: He's fine.
Lattimer: And then you said why did you leave him, what did he say?
Haskel: He said---he said, he's OK. That's what he told me. He's OK.
Lattimer: Did he tell you why he left?
Haskel: No. He didn't tell me.
Lattimer: Did he tell you what happened to the young man on the bike?
Haskel: No.
Lattimer: So at that time what, if anything, did you do?
Haskel: I got on the phone and called my husband.
Lattimer: Did you reach him?
Haskel: No....And then I called him again.
Lattimer: Did you reach him that time?
Haskel: I spoke with him...
Lattimer: Did you ever tell Clay that a young man had been shot?
Haskel: No.*
*Why is this important? Clay claimed in his deposition that Mrs. Haskel told him about the boy being shot.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
5:12 pm
As tragic as this case is, the deposition is just awful. The Grand Jury must've been wondering about her conduct and Lattimer's aptitude. He was pretty much leading the witness in the questions if the deposition is correct.
6:01 pm
This was a deposition taken. This is not from Grand Jury proceedings. Lattimer is the family's civil attorney. He had nothing to do with the grand jury.
6:04 pm
Thanks Jason, your response makes the deposition even worse. Leading the witness is still NOT ALLOWED!
6:52 pm
I still thought the substance of her answers were interesting and moving.
9:51 pm
Q: Several of your comments on various postings during the past few weeks were well reasoned and, in my view, hit the mark. Your comments on this one, though, are puzzling. You're obviously not a lawyer. The deposition questions were not "leading". Example of a leading question would be: Isn't it true, Ms. Haskel, that you did not tell Clay that a boy had been shot? And "leading" questions are permissible anyway when questioning a witness aligned with a defendant (her husband). But what puzzles me is why you didn't address the substance of her sworn testimony, which seems to contrsdict the sworn testimony of Clay. And why is Officer Haskel around the corner somewhere? Pretty strange.
12:14 pm
Thanks Truth Hurts for the compliment. No, I'm not a lawyer, but the way the deposition is written (maybe I'm reading something else into it), it seems that Lattimer isn't asking straightforward questions. The "leading" (in my opinion) came into play during this exchange:
Lattimer: And then you said why did you leave him, what did he say?
Haskel: He said—he said, he’s OK. That’s what he told me. He’s OK.
Lattimer: Did he tell you why he left?
Haskel: No. He didn’t tell me.
Nowhere in the earlier testimony did Mrs. Haskel mention that she asked Clay "Why did you leave him?" Granted, this bit of information may not be crucial to some, it tells me that Lattimer is trying to go somewhere with it. Meaning that in the earlier article, it is established that both Ofc. Haskel and Clay abandonded the scene with no regard for Police regulations. The "implied asking" of that question by Mrs. Haskel once again establishes faulty reasoning on the account of Ofc. Clay.
I know that the purpose of this deposition is to establish "truth" and to contradict some of the sworn statements, but something seems missing. Basic questions establishing the interaction seem to be assumed, rather than asking direct questions like: "On what date and approximately what time, did Ofc. Clay arrive?" "What was his demeanor when he arrived?" or "What was your reaction to someone else driving your vehicle other than your husband?" The latter question actually presents the state of mind Ms. Haskel could've been in which in turn could establish her difficulty in remembering events.
If someone came to my house driving my wife's car (regardless if it is a family friend), my question would first be, how did you come into possession of my wife's vehicle. Where is my wife? While a rational person might assume the family friend is telling the truth, unless my wife had a habit of lending her car to folk, I'd want to check myself. Not only that, but even if there was a shooting involved (assuming my wife is a cop), unless my wife was incapacitated or part of the investigation, I would assume that she would drive the car home, especially since Ofc. Haskel was just "around the corner."
Like I said before, none of this may be relevant, but it paints some uncertainty on the count of this deposition. Yes, depositions can be biased and serve a sole purpose that may not be objective. Still, I (if I were a lawyer) would want to paint the highest of objectivity when the judge (or jury) considers the testimony of my witness.
6:24 pm
Q: You need to read the deposition again. Midway through, Ms, Haskel says:"I said is he alright, and why did you leave him". So the question as to what did he (Clay) say when you asked why did you leave him was merely a follow up. But yeah,you seem to get my point. Why was her husband around the corner and Clay driving his car? I'd probably leave that one for the jury because something seems fishy. And Ms. Haskel is not Lattimer's "witness". Just the opposite, she's aligned with her husband (the defendant).