LAKEPORT — The trial of John Robert Gray in the death of Eric Joaquin continued at 9 a.m. Thursday.
Gray is charged with murder and two special allegations of inflicting great bodily harm and using a deadly weapon for allegedly beating to death his then-roommate, Joaquin, with a metal bat during the early morning hours of Feb. 28, 2009.
Judge Arthur H. Mann presided while deputy district attorney Art Grothe represented the Lake County District Attorney”s Office. Gray was represented by Kevin Ikuma.
The defense called expert witness Peter Barnett from the consulting firm Forensic Science Assoc. in Richmond. Barnett examined Gray”s dog, Tesla, his Ford F100 pickup truck and the scene of the attack at Gray”s home on Del Monte Way in Kelseyville. Barnett also presented a series of slides, including diagrams of the home, photographs of the bedroom where the attack happened and photographs of the shoes, socks and jacket Gray was wearing on the day of the attack. Barnett also examined the Gray”s pants and T-shirt but photos of these were not included in the presentation.
Barnett”s examination of the dog found no blood in the dog”s fur and only one fragment of plasma on the dog”s paw which may have come from the dog itself. He examined the most likely places for blood in the truck, such as the pedals and running board, and found no blood in the truck.
Barnett”s examination of the clothes showed that there was no significant amount of blood on the pants and the T-shirt. He testified that because of the low level of the bed that at least the top of the pants should have had some splatter on them. Barnett”s examination of the jacket found five or six drops of blood on the lower right front of the jacket, that there was no way to determine when the jacket came in contact with the blood and that it could have happened at any time previous to the attack.
Barnett testified that the blood along the side of the shoes was contact transfer from stepping in a puddle of blood or brushing against a bloodied object, and the blood on top of the shoe was projected blood, not spatter, and could have happened from “splashing” in a puddle. Barnett had no explanation for the blood on the socks and how it had gotten there.
Barnett”s photographs of the bedroom showed the patterns of blood spatter along the walls and furniture around the room, including the door into the room and the closet doors. While the right hand door had spatter on it from top to bottom the left hand door had very little splatter on it indicating a void in spatter, also known as the shadow effect. This shadow indicates that the attacker most likely stood in this position during the assault.
Cross examination of Barnett showed that he had examined the scene on March 23, 2009 nearly a month after the Feb. 28 attack, after the home had been returned to the owner.
Barnett testified that the victim”s injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma and that the attack happened while the victim was on the bed, not on the floor. Grothe showed sheriff”s office photos of the side of the bed, the area under the rear of the bed and the underside of the bookshelves in an effort to show that the assault may have started on the bed but ended on the floor. Barnett stated that in his opinion the smears of blood along the side of the bed were from contact, perhaps from a head wound, and the drops of blood on the side of the bed and underneath were caused by projected blood, not spatter, and that it would be difficult to strike a blow from any position that would create a blood pattern of the type seen under the bed. Barnett did admit that the presence of the smears of blood along with the projected blood, which mostly likely happened when the victim coughed or exhaled with blood in his mouth, could indicate that the victim was alive when moving or being moved off the bed.
Grothe also brought up questions about areas of blood that were not on Barnett”s diagrams, including the area near the door, the likelihood of blood being transferred from one sock to the other upon removal and some hairs found on the jacket and the bat. He also asked about Barnett”s method of examining the clothing and the truck and the location of the truck when examined.
The second witness for the defense was Ernest Whaley. Whaley”s wife died in their home on July 21, 2003. Whaley testified that he woke up to discover his wife deceased in their bed at about 8 a.m. and the first thing he did was to call Gray. Gray “came right over” and took over calling the fire department and Whaley”s family. Whaley was grateful that Gray had been there to take care of him because he was too distraught to take care of things himself.
Nicole Costanza was called by the prosecution as the third, and final, witness of the day. Costanza was a deputy sheriff in 2003 and responded to the Whaley residence on July 21. She consulted a Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) report and the report she wrote following the death of Whaley. The CAD report stated that the sheriff”s office was not contacted until 1:53 p.m. and the caller was Ernest Whaley. Her report says that when she spoke to Whaley that he stated he had woken up at 1:30 p.m. and found his wife dead at that time.
Ikuma questioned why Costanza had responded to the scene when a detective and a deputy had arrived earlier. She stated she had been assigned first but that she had been on another call and, because the victim was already deceased, it was not considered an emergency. They also discussed that the fire department was already at the scene and that neither the calls to the fire department nor to the paramedics were included on the CAD report.
The trial will resume on Tuesday at 9 a.m.
