Henry v MOA: Tide Turning? Rick Brown On Witness Stand

Rick Brown was hired by the MOA to investigate allegations that the APD had jeopardized cases of drugs rings and sexual assault at the National Guard.

I first saw Brown in a video  of his deposition with plaintiff attorney Rick Brown.  It was just my second day at the trial (I missed the first four days).  I was taking everything in.  My reaction that day to the deposition was that Ray Brown destroyed Rick Brown.  That was two weeks ago.

Since then, I've seen Ray Brown interrogate a number of witnesses and gotten used to his style and remarked on it here a couple of times.  He asks rapid fire clusters of questions embedded in questions encrusted with assumptions and insinuations.  This might be a reasonable tactic with a witness who isn't forthcoming at all.  It might work, or it might get false confessions and rattled testimony.  It may be good to raise doubts in the minds of jurors about the credibility and honesty of the witnesses.  But, if the witnesses are anything like me, if they see this style enough, they start to see through it.  And start to get sympathetic to the victims of Ray Brown's verbal assaults.

So, today, Rick Brown took the stand.  Defense's attorney Doug Parker asked him slowly about his background.  It's impressive.  He went into policing after the Navy with the Pennsylvania State Police and had years of experience in investigations.  After retirement he was called upon to participate in independent monitoring of federal consent decrees of different police departments - Oakland, Maricopa County, Detroit - and one in the state of New York.  

Not only was I impressed with his experience, but also his demeanor.  In an interesting move by Doug Parker, he was asked about his own interrogation style.  [below my rough notes from this morning, so words are missing, I tend to type the gist rather than the exact words.]

Parker:  What’s your style when you interview?
Rick Brown:  I’m very open, easy going, I know hard assignment for people you are interviewing.  Non-threatening approach, treat respectfully, with respect for work they’ve done.  Based on interviews etc.  focus, on inconsistencies  Ask non-threatening  Don’t want to shut officer down,  So I get whole story.
P:  Did Anchorage interviews, and Henry that way?
RB:  I did.

I immediately heard this to be a counter to Ray Brown's style, but Parker, apparently wanted to make sure the jury got the point.

P:  Feel like your style was used in the deposition?
RB: Not used.

From there he went into the substance of the case and his report.  Parker led Brown through some of the key points the plaintiffs have made about the inconsistencies, about how Henry had repeatedly asked to see documents to refresh his memory over dates, etc., about how many meetings there were with Katkus, who initiated them, whether sexual assaults were discussed.  He asked him how he reconciled the inconsistencies.  Essentially he compared Henry's accounts to all the other witnesses' accounts.   He played clips of Rick Brown's interviews with Anthony Henry.  [Again - these are rough notes from this morning.  I'm typing this at the lunch break so I don't have much time to clean up my notes.  Read to get a sense of what happened, not verbatim transcript.]

P:  Get to question Henry about being present June 4 in Gen Katkus office?
RickB:  He said there was no meeting.
P:  Asked about sexual assaults?   ????
RickB:  Exactly, he said no.
P:  [835  telling RickB to read the transcript on the screen of his interview with Henry]
RickB reading: “Also drug and also sexual assault allegations?  H: By then I would have known about it and had I known I would have communicated with McCoy.    RB: So you knew nothing in 2010? "
P:  Henry continued to deny any knowledge of sexual assault and to deny being at a meeting where it was discussed?
RickB: He did.
P:  IN this frist interview, did Mr. Henry ask you to [let him] look at any documents?
RickB:  No
P:  Remember being questioned by Mr Ray Brown that he told you that Henry had asked you to look at docs 30 times?  Remember?
RickB: I do.
P:  Surprised?
RickB:  Yes.
P:  Was it true?
RickB:  No
P:  Had chance to review transcripts of those meetings?
RickB: I did.
P:  Did he ask to show him documents?
RickB:  No
P:  You were asked several times, about the 30 times?
RickB: Yes, not true.
P:  How did you feel?
RickB:  Unnerving because it was false information.  I felt it was unfair to suggest that in th….
P:  Was Mr. Henry making suggestions to you about docs you should look at?
RickB:  Yes.
P:  Did you?
RickB:  Yes.
P:  By second meeting?
RickB:Yes
P:  What did Mr. H say about docs he had?
RickB: He said he had many and I said that whatever he had he should provide them.
P:  Did he?
RickB: yes.
P:  Was Henry the last interview you conducted before leaving Anchorage?
RickB: Best of my memory, yes.
P:  Talked about one meeting with K and sexual assault never came up.  Consistent with what others said?
RickB: No.
P:  That meeting SAU looking into drug allegations????  Who said that in interviews?
RickB:  Jack Carson.
P:  Hearing two different things?
RickB:  yes.
What did you hear about the second meeting?
RickB:  Meeting at K office and he was trying to get names of sexual assault victims.
P:  From?
RickB: McMillan.
P:  Did you know that Henry’s version was wrong?
RickB: No.
P: So?
RickB: I had a lot of work to do.
P:  Did you think what Henry told you might be true?
RickB: I did  

It's getting time to get back into court.  But this gives you a sense.  The Rick Brown we saw in court today was nothing like the Rick Brown we saw in the deposition.  Doug Parker still has more questioning to do.  And then we'll see how the plaintiffs deal with Rick Brown in front of the jury. Will Ray Brown question him again?  Or Meg Simonian?

More tonight.