People vs. Michael Arthur Cooper

Outcome: Videotape of elder admissible in crim prosecution

Description: Attorney Peters was consulted November 2001 by elderly victim, Mrs. Nelson. Her memory issues were apparent and the file was confidential until later, when her Court-appointed Conservator made a proper demand as the holder of her privilege.. Mrs. Nelson was interviewed by police and social workers. Some interviews were videotaped. Pasadena Trial Court ruled pursuant to the federal Supreme Court's holding in Crawford vs. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) that all videotapes were inadmissible: since Mrs. Nelson was now dead and unavailable, she was unable to testify or be cross-examined by the criminal defendant. Therefore admission of the videotapes would violate Cooper's 6th Am right to confront witnesses against him. LA County DA appealed on the grounds that the videotapes showed who the victim was and her mental state, rather than reporting any of the outflows or transactions with Mr. Cooper. 2d District ruled that the police video's were 'testimonial' and so not admissible. But the social worker video's which showed victim's mental state and case plan needs were not 'testimonial', and so were admissible and could be part of the basis of the forensic psychologist's expert opinion testimony. Remanded to trial Court for trial. Defendant Cooper pleaded out (Sept. 2007). Similar logic about the evidentiary rules has been used in criminal prosecutions in other jurisdictions, and LA County DA Robin Allen (213) 580-3229) is available as a speaker for citizen groups interested in the topic..