Cross-examination of Officer Angelica Guzman

📄 Cross-examination of Officer Angelica Guzman — Thursday, January 16, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\16\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-OFFICER-A.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 43 of 57

◀ Direct examination of Officer Angelica Guzman Redirect examination of Officer Angelica Guzman ▶

Witness: Angelica Guzman
Examiner: Edward Medvene
Called by: Defense • Date: Thursday, January 16, 1997 • Utterances: 24

Defense attorney Leonard cross-examined Officer Guzman, focusing on two admissions: that Guzman made assumptions rather than visual confirmations when filling out a vehicle report, and that he did not have eyes on the vehicle at all times. Leonard used Guzman's own report errors to undermine his credibility as a custodian of what was likely the Bronco. The examination ends on a pointed rhetorical question linking both failures together.

# 1 A:

No.

# 2 MR. MEDVENE:

Thank you very much. I have nothing further.

# 3 THE COURT:

Cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

# 4 Q:

Good morning, Officer Guzman.

# 5 A:

Good morning.

# 6 Q:

Is this the way -- the fashion in which you filled out this report, is that the way they taught you to do it at the academy?

# 7 A:

I was in training at the time and I was being taught during the course of my training, sir.

# 8 Q:

Did they tell you that you could just make assumptions about whether these parts of the car are actually there?

# 9 A:

No, sir.

# 10 Q:

They told you that you had to actually visualize that or look at it to confirm that, in fact, those parts were there when you filled out the report, right?

# 11 A:

That's correct.

# 12 Q:

So you made a mistake when you did this, right?

# 13 A:

That's correct, sir.

KEY QUOTE

# 14 Q:

You weren't as careful as you could have been at filling out the report?

# 15 A:

That's correct.

# 16 Q:

Now, you testified to this jury that you didn't see anyone, Officer Thompson, or anyone else, go into that car, correct?

# 17 A:

Yes.

# 18 Q:

And part of your job was to be as vigilant and careful as you could in making sure that no one approached the car who wasn't permitted to do so, correct?

# 19 A:

Correct.

# 20 Q:

And you didn't have your eye on that car the whole time, did you?

# 21 A:

No.

# 22 Q:

You don't know if somebody got in that car at some point when you weren't watching, correct?

# 23 A:

Correct.

# 24 Q:

And is it fair to say that you were as careful watching that vehicle as you were in filling out that report?

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Officer Guzman

That's correct, sir.

Guzman admits he made a mistake and was not as careful as he should have been in filling out the report — a concession the defense uses to cast doubt on his overall diligence.

Mr. Leonard

And is it fair to say that you were as careful watching that vehicle as you were in filling out that report?

The closing rhetorical hammer — linking the admitted report errors to his admitted gaps in surveillance, implying the vehicle could have been accessed without his knowledge.

Officer Guzman

No.

Admission that he did not have eyes on the vehicle the entire time, opening the door to chain-of-custody challenges.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Vehicle inspection/condition report filled out by Officer Guzman during training

challenged — defense established Guzman made assumptions rather than visual confirmations

Informal

The vehicle under Guzman's watch (likely the Bronco)

discussed — defense established gaps in surveillance

Notable Exchanges (1)

Mr. Leonard•Officer Guzman

Leonard systematically walked Guzman through his own report methodology, extracted an admission that he made assumptions rather than visual checks, then pivoted to his vehicle surveillance, getting Guzman to admit he did not watch the car continuously — ending on an unanswered question tying both failures together.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Officer Guzman

prior inconsistent conduct / admission of error

Leonard got Guzman to admit he made assumptions in his report rather than visual confirmations, then extended that established carelessness to his surveillance of the vehicle, suggesting someone could have accessed it without his knowledge.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 8836 • 24 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103