Bradley Young Trial Day 2 Part 2 09/30/16

TL;DR

A witness's credibility is called into question due to inconsistency in her responses and inability to differentiate between truth and lies, resulting in a request to strike her testimony.

Transcript

no you woke up this morning did you think you're going to be testifying a murder trial no you're honor very say your name and your position my name is Elize Sensi I'm a pre Services officer with the court of common Poli very and um the normal of your events do you administer drug tests to various defendants yes I do did you administer a drug test t... Read More

Key Insights

• 🛀 Elize Sensi administered a drug test, which showed negative results for various drugs.
• 🛰️ The defense challenges Sensi's competence as a witness due to her inconsistency in responses and difficulty telling the truth.
• 😵 The prosecution argues that the jury should assess Sensi's credibility during cross-examination rather than declaring her incompetent.

Questions & Answers

Q: How does Elize Sensi conduct drug tests on defendants?

After obtaining a urine sample, Sensi uses an instant test stick with four panels to test for THC, cocaine, methamphetamines, and opiates. She waits for the results to appear on the stick.

Q: Did Sensi test for Prozac in the urine sample?

No, she did not. Prozac would not show up on an instant test stick as it is a non-narcotic drug.

Q: Did Sensi engage in conversation with the defendant prior to conducting the test?

No, Sensi did not have any conversation with the defendant. She simply instructed her to hold the cup and observe that both hands were on the cup.

Q: Is this the first murder trial that Sensi has testified in?

Yes, it is her first murder trial.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Elize Sensi, a Pre-Services officer, testifies about administering a drug test to the defendant, which shows negative results for drugs like marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines, and opiates.

• The defense challenges Sensi's competence as a witness, arguing that she has difficulty telling the truth and is inconsistent in her responses, potentially compromising the case.

• The prosecution argues that although the witness may have difficulty with the truth, this is a matter for the jury to assess during cross-examination, and she should not be deemed incompetent based on these issues.