Prosecutor about a month after shootings asked Debruin if he wanted to add to his previous statement. DeBruin said no and said he felt pressured to change it to something that might not be accurate. Prosecutor then went through multiple horrible events that occurred and said that Debruin had left those out. (Such as some of the threats and aggressive behavior of Rosenbaum) Debruin essentially said he wasn't a detective and couldn't remember everything at once at the time of the riot and shooting. (entirely reasonable explanation)
One particularly disastrous line of questioning centered around Debruin feeling uncomfortable and anxious in police room where (because of the riots) there was no door and the prosecutor tried to make inference that being anxious shouldn't cause Debruin to not remember everything. Gave Debruin the opportunity to mention that he had been threatened numerous times for photographing events and he could see people outside through missing door as he was being questioned.
This will be a classic example of poor questioning for many years to come in seminars dealing with trial practice. Here is link
One particularly disastrous line of questioning centered around Debruin feeling uncomfortable and anxious in police room where (because of the riots) there was no door and the prosecutor tried to make inference that being anxious shouldn't cause Debruin to not remember everything. Gave Debruin the opportunity to mention that he had been threatened numerous times for photographing events and he could see people outside through missing door as he was being questioned.
This will be a classic example of poor questioning for many years to come in seminars dealing with trial practice. Here is link
Last edited:
