|
Michigan v. Budzyn
Budzyn Defense Underway with Blood Spatter Experts
(DETROIT, MICHIGAN - March 3) The defense of former police officer Walter Budzyn began with a pair of blood spatter experts to counter the previous testimony of state expert Rod Englert.
During his testimony, prosecution witness Englert told jurors that his analysis of the blood spatter patterns found inside Malice Green's 1984 Mercury Topaz was consistent with having been formed by two persons beating Green about the head - one standing or squatting outside the driver's side door (Larry Nevers) and one leaning inside the passenger side door or straddling the victim (Walter Budzyn).
But Balash absolutely rejected that contention. According to the defense expert, the blood spatter inside Green's car is consistent with only one person delivering the blows - and that one person would have had to have been in the driver's side (or Nevers) position.
Balash told jurors he was basing his opinion on his personal examination of the blood stains he found in Malice Green's car. When Englert testified, he claimed he found evidence of both medium velocity projected blood (which could have come from Nevers' blows to Green's head) and cast-off blood (which could have come from the backswing of Budzyn's flashlight). But Balash insisted that the blood Englert interpreted as cast-off was misidentified - it was actually more projected blood or impact spatters, both caused by Nevers' blows. Even if the blood were cast-off, said Balash, it could not have been backward cast-off from Budzyn's flashlight, but rather cast forward from Nevers' flashlight as it sailed through the air to connect with Green's head.
In addition to his interpretation of the blood patterns found in Green's car, Balash said his recreation of the incident also tended to refute the prosecution's theory of the crime. He noted, for example, that it would have been physically impossible for Budzyn to swing his flashlight high above his own head, as prosecution witness Teresa Pace claimed at the defendant's first trial; the height of the car's ceiling would have made such an action impossible. And Balash told jurors that if Budzyn had actually been inside Green's car at the time of the beating, he would have been covered with blood spatter himself as a result of Nevers' blows.
Prosecutor Robert Donaldson began his cross examination by attacking the witness' credibility as a blood spatter expert. Compared to Rod Englert, suggested Donaldson, Balash was no more than a neophyte. Balash conceded that his expert consultation and testimony solely on blood spatter is quite limited. But he defended his qualification, noting that he has often been retained as a blood spatter expert in addition to his expertise in the fields of firearms identification and crime scene reconstruction. (It should also be noted that Balash has been recognized as an expert and testified in the past for both the prosecution and defense. Ironically, among the prosecutors who have utilized his professional services are Douglas Baker.)
Donaldson also attacked Balash's interpretations of the laws of physics, going through several hypothetical scenarios with the witness. But Balash refused to alter his basic contention that the blood spatter patterns Rod Englert insisted were cast-off were actually caused by other forces - willing to concede that the blows to Green's head from the Nevers position could have been administered by more than one person, but unyielding in his assertion that none of the blows to Green's head appeared to have come from the alleged Budzyn position inside the car.
On her redirect, defense attorney Carole Stanyar was able to suggest that Englert may have some credibility problems of his own - asking Balash about another case in which Englert reportedly offered the opinion that a person who suffered 32 blows to the head with a hammer actually committed suicide.
The second defense witness to discuss blood spatter, Toby Wolson, previously testified in Budzyn's original 1993 trial. On direct by Carole Stanyar, Wolson testified that, since the first trial, he has increased his knowledge of blood spatter by conducting additional experiments, often using the evidence from this case as a model. He also agreed with David Balash that Rob Englert's sketches did not accurately depict the blood spatters inside Green's car.
Wolson testified that there was nothing to indicate to him that the blood spatters on the ceiling of Green's car were cast-off patterns. He also stated that windshield blood clusters numbers three and four (as indicated on Englert's sketches) were likely to have been caused by projected blood - although, unlike Balash, he would not totally rule out the possibility of cast-off. However, Wolson went on to say the interior of Green's car was probably too small to allow the type swings necessary for the two clusters in question to have been caused by cast-off, and that there would have been more blood on the dashboard if those strikes had been delivered.
Wolson also described the patterns as being too unusually random to have been caused by cast-off. When asked if ridges in the metal flashlight could have caused the randomness, Wolson responded that he had conducted experiments with similar flashlights and found that random castoff patterns were not a result.
Wolson's direct testimony concluded by his telling the jury about an incident when Rob Englert called on him for advice (involving, interestingly enough, the bloody socks in the O.J. Simpson trial-Englert was listed as a prosecution expert but never testified). In contrast, Wolson has never asked Englert for advice.
The cross examination of this witness will begin first thing Wednesday morning.
Budzyn, originally expected to testify tomorrow, now appears tentatively scheduled to take the stand Thursday morning.
top of page
| 
