Day 1: June 9, 2014
First, he uses the recording from the Shot Spotter to demonstrate that only 14 shots were fired as recorded by #2.
He then explains the system has only one purpose, to detect gun shots. He doesn't mention firecrackers.
We can hear the shots, tell where they were shot.
He claims 13 pieces found from officer's weapons, only one from Hulsey, backed up by pieces found at the site.
Microphone #11... he says you can hear the ricochet of shot #11.
It goes on, but it sounds like he relied heavily on those Shot Spotters to support his case.
THEN, on the 17th, he has the study done?
Something is way off kilter here. He must have had someone before the witness prior to the trial.
ETA: I just went back and read the testimony tweeted by Jen. The ORIGINAL report was done in 2007. Juan brought this out in cross when he pointed out that sensors were in good order in the 2014 report. IMHO, the defense was counting on him not noticing that LITTLE detail. Can't fool Juan Martinez!
Also to be noted from this thread is that it is POSSIBLE to be able to tell how many guns fired, but NOT in this case.
With the fact that the witness testified that eye witnesses are needed to back up the information gleaned from the Shot Spotters added in, I believe the defense overly relied on them and the number of pieces of "brass" found can't help him either.
