People vs. Michael Arthur Cooper
Sep 30, 2007OUTCOME: Videotape of elder admissible in crim prosecution to show Capacity
Attorney Peters was consulted November 2001 by elderly victim, Mrs. Nelson, whose memory issues were apparent and the file was confidential. Later, her Court-appointed Conservator made a proper demand ... as the Holder of her Attorney-Client privilege and received the file. Mrs. Nelson was interviewed by police and social workers with interviews videotaped by each vocation. The Trial Court had to grant Mr. Cooper's "Crawford Motion" [Crawford vs. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)] that ALL videotapes were inadmissible because Mrs. Nelson was unavailable (being deceased) and so unavailable to testify or be cross-examined, to comply with Cooper's 6th Am right to confront witnesses against him. LA County DA STEVE COOLEY appealed on the ground that the videotapes showed who the victim was and her mental state, rather than reporting any of the takings or transactions with Mr. Cooper. The 2d Appellate District ruled that the "testimonial" videotapes (by the police) wee inadmissible but the social workers' videos were "non-testimonial", showing victim's mental state and case plan needs, and so were not 'testimonial', were admissible and could be the basis for an Expert Opinion by the DA's Forensic Psychologist that Mrs. Nelson lacked capacity. 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. LA County DA Robin Allen who took Mr. Cooper's guilty plea is available as a speaker for citizen groups.
