9.Laura Schadrie — Cross (Part 2)
90 linesMR. BUTING: Just a couple of other questions I need to ask you. Does the -- Are you familiar with the Cingular wireless dot com access site?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Yes.
MR. BUTING: A customer can go online and access information about their account?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Yes.
MR. BUTING: To do that, you type in the website, when you get to the website you have to put in a user name and a password, right?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Right. You have to first set up the account.
MR. BUTING: Okay. So in order to access those records, you would have to -- someone would have to know the user name and password, right?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Yes.
MR. BUTING: And before you can find out, online, whose making -- or what calls someone has been making on a particular Cingular account, you would have to get past that screen?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Yes.
MR. BUTING: That requires a user name and a password?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Yes.
MR. BUTING: There is no other way for me, or anyone else, to find out who you have been calling on your account, as an example?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Right.
MR. BUTING: And in Teresa Halbach's case, the focus here, since I don't know if it's a different type of account, but to your knowledge, for one to access Teresa Halbach's wireless account and find out who was calling her or who she called on October 31st, one would have to enter a user name and a password?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Yes.
MR. BUTING: Okay. All right. Maybe I better put this up on the ELMO so the jury can follow.
MR. BUTING: I just put an exhibit back up on the Elmo again, Judge, that's got numbers.
THE COURT: It has phone numbers. Is that going to be the first one you put up there?
MR. STRANG: Yes, that will be the first one.
THE COURT: All right. Then the TV camera is instructed not to show the screen for this next exhibit.
MR. BUTING: (By Attorney Buting)~ Exhibit 361 is -- is now on the screen, correct? Is that correct, ma'am?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Yes.
MR. BUTING: Okay. I'm sorry. And this is the report that -- this is the record that you were testifying about, on direct, as to information on Teresa Halbach's wireless account?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Yes.
MR. BUTING: I'm going to zoom it in a little bit because it's hard to see here, but, for instance, in the -- what would be the second column, its says call date, call time, it's got dialed number, duration, etcetera, right?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Yes.
MR. BUTING: Okay. And this column that says dialed number has a lot of blanks in between the numbers. It has got some numbers there and there are some that are blank, right?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Yes.
MR. BUTING: And even the numbers that are there don't give a name, right?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Right.
MR. BUTING: So this document doesn't really tell you who made a call, for instance, at 12:29:08 p.m. that lasted 40 seconds?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Correct.
MR. BUTING: And this document doesn't tell you whose number is 755-8715, does it?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Correct.
MR. BUTING: So Exhibit 362, where it says sent and received and has a whole lot of names in it, how did you get those names; how did you tie those names to any of these numbers, or to any of these calls, I should say, since some of them don't even have numbers?
MR. KRATZ: Judge, that's a summary exhibit, this witness did not create. I think that's been established.
THE COURT: I'm going to excuse the jury again for a couple of minutes here. The witness may stay.
MR. BUTING: I -- Do I take that down or leave it up?
THE COURT: You can leave it up.
(Jury not present.)
THE COURT: You may be seated. Counsel, maybe I'm missing something here, but if the parties agreed to have exhibits that only had names and not numbers, I guess I don't understand the significance of questions that are asking why these exhibits show numbers and not names.
MR. BUTING: Judge, let me clarify. I misspoke when I mentioned the one that's up there that has the 755 number. My question is as to the ones that are blank, where there is no phone number, some of which are on this exhibit, I believe.
THE COURT: I understand that, I wasn't second guessing that. But this is not the first time we have had some questions about why the summary exhibit show names, but the phone records show only numbers. And I think it's unfair to suggest to the jury that there's anything untoward about that if the parties have agreed that they want the summary exhibits to show names and not numbers.
MR. KRATZ: The Court directed us to do this and that's why this exhibit was created. We were in chambers and the defense agreed. There's not a stipulation, that's great. Let us know.
MR. BUTING: Bear with me, just one moment, your Honor. Judge, I think we have this worked out, I apologize. The summary exhibit includes phone numbers from other records and other exhibits, that have already been introduced, this witness doesn't know that.
I just want to clarify, through this witness, that the absence of numbers on this exhibit, where it says dialed, numbers in. That doesn't, for instance, mean that it's a *67 call or anything like that. The absence of those numbers is just because, as I understand, they are not Cingular customers; is that right?
LAURA SCHADRIE: The absence of the numbers dialed? You mean, are you talking about like on --
MR. BUTING: Yeah.
LAURA SCHADRIE: Just the missing numbers?
MR. BUTING: Right.
LAURA SCHADRIE: Those would be *67, or incoming calls.
MR. BUTING: Oh, so --
LAURA SCHADRIE: In our records, incoming calls are not shown.
MR. BUTING: Unless they are a Cingular person; if they are a Cingular person do they show up on incoming?
MR. BUTING: Oh.
LAURA SCHADRIE: No incoming calls show on the records, just the outgoing calls.
MR. BUTING: *67 or otherwise?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Right.
MR. BUTING: Okay. We'll just clarify that point for the jury --
THE COURT: Right.
MR. BUTING: -- and we'll also explain.
THE COURT: I think counsel should explain to the jurors that those summary exhibits have names and not numbers because the parties agreed that's how it's going to be done. Now, if there's -- if there's any disagreement about a number matching a name, that's a separate issue, but assuming that there's no disagreement about that, I think that should be clarified for the jury.
MR. KRATZ: I would appreciate it. Thank you.
THE COURT: Who wants to do it?
MR. STRANG: We will.
THE COURT: Very well. All right. Let's bring the jurors back in.
(Jury present.)
THE COURT: You may be seated. Members of the jury, I apologize for the extra exercise we have been giving you this afternoon. There was an issue about the use of telephone numbers and the names of the person -- persons associated with those numbers. And I believe the attorneys wish to put a stipulation on the record for you.
MR. BUTING: Judge, we have agreed that the summary exhibits, which would be 362 and 360, would not include phone numbers of the persons called, or calling in, for privacy reasons. And they would be -- the summary exhibits would be substituted with the names of the parties.
And having had some discussion now, we clarified that the -- this witness doesn't actually know all the information that's on 362, because some of that information comes from other exhibits. So that explains some of the confusion that we were having.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kratz.
MR. KRATZ: Judge, I just wanted to include in that stipulation that the Court and the attorneys had been asked to substitute what would have been phone numbers for names. Exhibits No. 360 and 362 were created by the State, at the suggestion of the Court and the acquiescence of the defense.
We believed those to be, and still believe them to be accurate reflections of not only the type of calls, the times, and the durations of the calls. If there continues to be any questions about that, we will call other witnesses to explain them.
But with Mr. Buting's acknowledgement that there was a confusion, at least with this witness and perhaps with others, we hope that that explanation for the jury suffices and that 360 and 362 can be admitted as Exhibits, as if approved as summary exhibits. And if there are any further questions, those can certainly be asked, but certainly there shouldn't be any further question as to the authenticity or accuracy of these two exhibits.
MR. BUTING: Judge, just so we're clear, we are stipulating as to the sent/received column, the names that are there. We still do dispute, because the exhibits are inconsistent as to the 4:35 p.m. phone call, one of which says the duration is zero seconds and another exhibit says 13 seconds.
So with that, otherwise, we don't have a problem with these two exhibits.
MR. KRATZ: I understand that. And we may recall that witness --
MR. BUTING: Okay.
MR. KRATZ: -- just to explain that one call, Judge.
THE COURT: Very well. Mr. Buting, do you have further questions?
MR. BUTING: Just one or two last ones.
MR. BUTING: (By Attorney Buting)~ Exhibit 361, which is still on the screen here, just so we're clear, the dialed number column there that has some phone numbers and also has some blanks --
LAURA SCHADRIE: Yes.
MR. BUTING: The ones that are blank are not blank because somebody uses the *67 necessarily, right?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Correct.
MR. BUTING: Those are simply all incoming calls of any sort. Cingular doesn't print out the phone numbers?
LAURA SCHADRIE: Correct.
MR. BUTING: All right.
MR. BUTING: That's all I have.
THE COURT: All right. Anything else from the State?
MR. KRATZ: Not of this witness. I will recall Ms Dohrwardt.
THE COURT: This witness -- You are excused. And then we'll allow the State to recall Ms Dohrwardt.
You may be seated. And, Ms Dohrwardt, you are still under oath. Mr. Kratz.
MR. KRATZ: Thank you.