Suzanne Seemann, Jessica Hunt and Terri Vroman Little (from left) in 2011 after finishing a marathon in Santa Rosa. Photo courtesy Terri Vroman Little.

The second day in the double-murder trial of Jason Anthony Warren ended early today because Warren was feeling ill, but before the early recess the prosecution and defense dueled back and forth over the testimony of California Highway Patrol Officer Brent Walker.

Walker took the stand yesterday to testify about the “field of evidence” found at the scene on Myrtle Ave./Old Arcata Rd. where, in the pre-dawn hours of Sept. 27, 2012, runners Suzanne Seemann, Jessica Hunt and Terri Vroman Little were struck from behind by a car allegedly being driven by Warren. The collision left Seemann dead and the other two women gravely injured.

Under questioning from prosecuting attorney Paul Sequeira, Walker explained the procedure used to document and chart the evidence found at the scene. That evidence included shoes, socks, an Avenue of the Giants ball cap, broken headlamps and other pieces of attire that flew off the runners in the collision. 

Sequeira offered a series of photos taken by law enforcement on the day of the incident as exhibits for the prosecution, and he asked Walker to identify the evidence shown in those photos. For example, Walker said a triangular piece of plastic on the asphalt was found to be a shard of headlight that had come loose from the Kia sedan on impact. Another piece of plastic, coated in chrome, came from the car’s grille, the officer testified.

Several photos of evidence spoke to the violence of the collision. Seemann’s right running shoe, for example, was found nearly 80 feet from her body, tossed above and beyond a stack of shrink-wrapped hay bales in a large field. Sequeira had Walker cut open paper evidence bags and pull out the items inside. Among those items were shoes, socks, pieces of headlamps and a small mirror that, according to Walker, had been adhered to the Kia’s side-view-mirror housing with double-sided tape (a “quick-fix job,” he called it) but came loose after hitting the runners.

A few photos submitted as exhibits showed thick tufts of long brown hair that were found in the roadway.

Walker also testified at length about gouges in the asphalt at the scene of the crime. 

During cross-examination, Warren’s defense attorney, Glenn Brown, peppered Officer Walker with questions about the methodology of law enforcement’s evidence collection. Brown questioned the measuring techniques used to create a map of the “field of evidence”; he questioned the accuracy of the graphics on that map; and he dug in with a series of questions about the asphalt gouges.

Walker had testified that the gouges were “fresh.” How could he know that for sure? Brown demanded. And how could he know what caused the gouges? Walker admitted that he couldn’t know for certain. Brown submitted a series of photos into evidence. They were pictures from the investigation of the scene — close-ups of the evidence found on the road — and he handed printouts of them to the jury. Each member of the jury examined the photos carefully before passing them on to the next juror.

After Brown had finished his cross-examination, Sequeira was given a chance to redirect. “That gouge,” Sequeira said to Walker, “do you have an opinion about whether it’s new or old?”

Walker answered “yes,” but Brown immediately cut in with an objection, saying the question lacked a foundation and called for speculation. Judge Timothy Cissna sustained the objection.

Briefly flustered, Sequeira backed up and tried again. “Does it look like a fresh gouge?”

“Objection,” Brown repeated, and again it was sustained.

Sequeira then took some further steps back and tried to lay a foundation. He asked Walker about his experience analyzing asphalt gouges, and he asked how those gouges change in appearance over the course of hours and days. Walker explained that a fresh exposure shows white marks where the stones in the road have been shorn of the oil and tar in the asphalt. As time goes by those gouges start to fill in with debris and get dark.

So was the gouge in question fresh?

Brown again objected, but this time he was overruled. Sequeira asked about the freshness of another gouge. Brown again objected and was again overruled. Both gouges were fresh, Walker said.

Brown got another shot at Walker, and again he questioned his ability to determine the age and source of the gouges. Walker said he used the surrounding evidence to corroborate his opinion, and Brown asked him not to do that — to instead consider the gouge “in a vacuum.” If it was so important, why didn’t anyone scrape it out to be sure there was no debris in it? he asked. Why wasn’t the lack of debris noted in the officer’s report? How much foot traffic is there on that road shoulder? Did Walker inspect the bottom of the Kia for evidence that it caused the gouges?

Walker admitted that he hadn’t done so, largely because the U.S. Department of Justice had taken over the investigation of the evidence. 

Sequeira got one more chance to redirect. He asked Walker if, as an officer of the law, he’d been taught to look at evidence in a vacuum or rather to look at the big picture? Walker indicated the latter. “And you put [the gouge] in the diagram because you thought it was associated with an accident that killed someone?” Sequeira asked. 

“Yes,” Walker said.

Earlier in the day, Brown had requested an unscheduled break. In all previous breaks, Warren has remained seated until everyone else left the courtroom, but this morning, when the judge announced the recess, Warren immediately stood and left the room, looking a little green around the gills.

After Sequeira finished his questioning of Walker, Brown requested another break, and again Warren left the room quickly, looking pale. When court resumed, Judge Cissna announced that the day would end early because Warren is ill. 

The trial is scheduled to resume Thursday at 8:30 a.m.

PREVIOUSLY: