Chapter 16 - Carla’s criminal trial begins
Carla’s trial began seven months after the barbecue.
Lily was still six.
Prosecutors avoided unnecessary child testimony because video and adult witnesses established much of the event.
Lily’s forensic interview was used only where legally permitted.
The prosecution showed:
Carla holding skewer.
Her statement.
Video.
Medical injury.
Witnesses.
Then motive?
Discipline.
No need property conspiracy to prove assault.
The property fight stayed mostly out because risk of unfair prejudice.
Good.
Defense said:
Carla struck Lily’s leg with flat side of skewer.
Did not intend puncture.
Wanted to stop unsafe behavior around grill.
Video showed Lily near swing, several yards from grill.
Bad.
Then defense attacked me.
Naomi kicked Carla.
True.
Was I angry?
Yes.
Did I dislike Carla before?
By then, yes.
Could I exaggerate?
Possible.
Video reduced importance.
Then Carla testified.
She said:
“Lily had been rude all afternoon.”
Prosecutor:
“Does rudeness authorize hitting a six-year-old with steel?”
“No.”
“Why did you do it?”
“I lost my temper.”
There.
Then:
“Did Naomi kick you while you still held the skewer?”
“Yes.”
“Were you going to strike again?”
“No.”
Could I know that?
No.
Defense of child judged by reasonable perception, not Carla’s later claim.
May you like
No charge against me.
The jury would decide only Carla’s conduct.
