(Warning: This story contains allegations of sexual misconduct.)
HUSSON – As the testimony of the Deshon Watson case continues to unfold, the trenches dug by each legal camp are becoming more and more defined. Several exchanges may have been more revealing than last week’s interrogation of Houston police detective Kamesha Baker, whose 230-page revelation was obtained by Yahoo Sports.
Baker is one of two officers previously assigned to investigate 10 criminal complaints against the NFL quarterback, who is currently facing 24 civil cases on a number of sexual misconduct or sexual assault charges. Eight of the 10 women who have filed criminal charges against Watson also have pending civil cases against him, making Baker a potential key witness in the lawsuit. Her deposit was requested by Houston’s attorney Tony Busby, who represents the 24 women who tried Watson.
These 10 criminal complaints and subsequent investigations failed to bring charges from grand juries in Harris and Brazoria counties. But the internal work of these probes, along with the notes and opinions of the two investigating officers – Baker and 25-year-old HPD veteran Emma Rodriguez, who is also expected to testify in the coming weeks – could become a tool of contention. civil proceedings.
Focused on Baker’s testimony, three of the disputes in the central courtroom between Busby and Watson’s defense attorney, Rusty Hardin, appear to be emerging: whether Watson was entitled to any presumption of innocence during the HPD investigation; whether the burden of proof had to be placed on Watson to show his innocence; and the concept of coercion versus consent.
As a witness against Watson in civil court, Baker’s thought process can have a significant weight on all three. This is already influencing the court of public opinion, with Busby citing Baker’s Instagram, which testifies under oath that there is enough evidence for prosecutors in two Texas counties to prosecute Watson. This opinion was issued during a long period of direct research by Busby, which followed the question of whether Baker had “any suspicion” that a crime involving Watson had been committed. “No,” she replied.
The story continues
This was not the sum of Baker’s testimony. She testified about a number of different aspects of the Watson case that could arise in civil proceedings, including not being asked to testify before the Harris County Grand Jury, which heard nine of Watson’s complaints, but she was questioned before the Grand Jury of the Province of Brazoria. Regarding his testimony in Brazoria, Baker said in his testimony that the evidence before this grand jury has the greatest potential for criminal prosecution. No grand jury ultimately made the charges.
The outlines of the legal arguments in Deshon Watson’s civil cases are beginning to take shape, focused on the testimony of a Houston police investigator. (Ken Blaze / USA TODAY Sports)
Finally, Baker made it clear in his testimony earlier this month that he believed Watson was guilty of crimes in the 10 complaints investigated by the HPD. She pointed out the similarities between the stories of the women involved, emphasizing the common “towel” thread in their interviews, in which Watson allegedly used a “little towel trick” to try to sexualize the massages. Baker also complained that she had not been interviewed by Watson in an attempt to find out “his side” at the alleged meetings, but said her work on Watson’s complaints ended last September, about two months before civil cases began. .
As Busby clarified with her public comments on her testimony, Baker can be a powerful witness in civil proceedings. This will provoke a battle between lawyers over her methods and approaches as an investigator. And you can see him in Hardin’s cross-examination.
Here are some of the key exchanges that are likely to be reviewed during the civil process.
Presumption of innocence and burden of proof in the Deshaun Watson case
While the presumption of innocence is considered a fundamental right when someone is charged with a crime in court, this is not necessarily a guiding principle during police investigations. Baker’s testimony revealed this reality in a direct review by Buzbee and a cross-examination by Hardin.
The defense challenged Baker’s characterization of her immediate approach, and she placed the burden of proof on Watson to prove his innocence. In fact, Hardin seems to be digging into how Baker conducted her investigations, and in continuation she comes to her opinion about Watson’s guilt:
Busby: You didn’t think right away: Oh, he’s guilty and I’ll prove it?
Baker: I didn’t, I didn’t immediately think he was guilty. I wanted to give Mr Watson the benefit of doubt and give Mr Watson the opportunity to present his side of what happened. Which I explained to you and Mr. Hardin that we do. We will make both sides come to the truth.
Later, in cross-examination, Hardin returned to Baker’s approach to allegations of sexual violence. His focus was on whether or not Watson was entitled to a presumption of innocence when he was first sued by the HPD.
Hardin: And where in your world, Detective Baker, and I mean that very well, comes the judgment of authenticity? Does a woman always take advantage of doubt?
Baker: I start with the faith of all the victims. Absolutely. Keep this at 100 percent. Anyone investigating a sexual crime must begin with the applicant’s faith. Provided that the defense provides something that refutes it, we will believe this complainant.
Hardin: So in your world of investigation, the defendant always has to prove his innocence?
Hardin: All right. Aren’t you aware that the system doesn’t have to work the way it does? Isn’t it, Detective Baker, that it should work differently, that even when you’re investigating, that’s – are you saying that all it takes is for the woman to make a statement, and once she makes the statement, the defendant has to disprove it. ?
Baker: Yes. The defendant must refute it.
Hardin: That would mean, right, that in each of these situations where the woman made the statement in the beginning, then you will believe it until we succeed and convince you otherwise?
Baker: It’s not about persuasion. It’s about whether there is evidence to confirm your version of what happened to your client. Because, as you said earlier, in the other world of case investigation, the defendant is presumed innocent. This is the only crime – this is why it is difficult to prosecute and prosecute and do all this – is that women never take advantage of suspicion. They are always supposed to lie.
Hardin went on to look at the burden of proof, later focusing on how Baker would act as an investigator to resolve the allegation he made that happened without witnesses.
Prior to this exchange with Hardin Baker, he explained that the consistency in the alleged meetings with Watson gave the prosecutors confidence. Hardin continued to make exceptions, with the accused having to prove his innocence.
Hardin: Let’s assume that the accused does not provide you with any evidence. They just say it and deny it and say it’s not true. Are you with me
Hardin: And your position is that if the accused does not provide you with evidence to disprove what the woman is saying, then you will always trust the woman?
Baker: I have no other reason not to.
Hardin: All right. So when she makes the accusation, you start believing her?
Baker: Start trusting them.
Hardin: And then it’s up to the defendant to convince you as an investigator that they’re wrong. Is this true?
Baker: To provide evidence to support that they are wrong, yes.
Hardin: All right. So, if a private meeting only takes place between two people, what evidence can the accused provide to show that a woman says X has happened and he denies it?
Baker: In my cases, I’ve had videos. I had a suspect to hand over a video in which the complainant claimed one thing, said it was not by mutual consent. The video shown did not look – it seemed quite by mutual consent.
In a recent conversation, Hardin returns to Baker’s claim that she asked to speak to Watson to take “his side,” but was unable to conduct the interview. At various points in his testimony, Hardin alleges that his defense team provided investigators with a significant amount of material during the investigation. Baker agreed with this statement more than once during questioning. However, Baker also raised the issue of not being able to talk to Watson, which she seems to suggest has effectively impaired Watson’s ability to defend himself against the HPD.
Hardin: All right. So if you start believing the woman’s accusation, no matter what and …
Hardin: … it becomes our responsibility to convince you that someone has not done something and then the lawyer’s advice is for the client not to talk to the police and let the police make a decision based on everything else that is available, you will decided automatically that he did?
Baker: I’m glad you put it that way, because that’s exactly what happens in our world.
Baker: From now on, we get fees.
Baker: And the defendant will be charged, and of course you will go to court and represent him and present all your evidence to say the opposite.
Baker: And we’ll let the jury decide.
Coercion against consent when “power and influence are in the room”
This topic became irritating at one point in the testimony after Hardin made a special exception to one of Baker’s responses, as it was under direct scrutiny by Busby. The subject of coercion …
Add Comment