The trial of Cottonwood resident Dibor Roberts began shortly after 8 a.m. Wednesday, May 14, with attorneys for both the defense and the prosecution questioning potential jurors during a process known as /voir dire/. The purpose of /voir dire/ is to select a jury of 10 with two alternates who will sit in judgment of Roberts.
[Editor’s Note: Dibor Roberts is accused of resisting arrest and unlawful flight after an incident that took place July 29, 2007, when she was forced off Beaverhead Flats Road after dark for allegedly exceeding the speed limit.
Roberts claims she refused to pull over because she thought the arresting officer, Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Jeff Newnum, was an imposter and that she wanted to pull over in a lighted area for her own safety. Larson Newspapers Reporter Greg Nix is a former investigator with the
Arizona Child Protective Services.]
By Greg Nix
Larson Newspapers
The trial of Cottonwood resident Dibor Roberts began shortly after 8 a.m.
Wednesday, May 14, with attorneys for both the defense and the prosecution
questioning potential jurors during a process known as /voir dire/. The
purpose of /voir dire/ is to select a jury of 10 with two alternates who will
sit in judgment of Roberts.
couple of people who came up with great excuses for getting out of jury
duty: A pinched nerve in the back, sleep apnea, and a guy who said he’d
believe a cop over someone else anytime.
The 10 ultimately chosen, with two alternates, were equally split between
the genders: six men and six women.
Next came opening arguments.
Glen Hammond, the Yavapai County prosecutor, opened up with his viewpoint
that everything Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Jeff Newnum did the
night of Robert’s arrest was in accordance with policy, procedure, and
law.
Stephen Renard, defense attorney for Roberts, got up and talked about
liking movies. He told the jury that he likes to suspend his disbelief
from time to time and then concluded by saying that convicting Dibor
Roberts would mean that the jury collectively suspended their disbelief to
buy the prosecution’s argument.
I wasn’t too sure about that type of approach as it seemed to smack of
poor decorum, but I’ve gone toe to toe with Renard in court before in my
earlier life, so I know he’s nobody’s fool.
I was proved right as the day played out.
In a criminal trial, the prosecution gets to put on its case before the
defense. Logically, the prosecution’s first witness was Newnum.
Hammond went through Newnum’s resume, making sure everybody knew that he
is a career cop who has supervised detectives, trained other YCSO
officers, led training programs, and created special programs for YCSO.
Smart move, Hammy. I saw some jurors giving Roberts the stink eye after
those opening questions.
Hammond carefully walked Newnum through the whole arrest, looking to shoot
down Robert’s strongest arguments. Hammond tried to use Newnum’s testimony
to show that:
1) It was obvious Newnum wasn’t an impostor;
2) Roberts did nothing right in letting Newnum know she had every
intention of pulling over; and,
3) Roberts intentionally sought to hurt Newnum.
He did a pretty good job of it before Renard had a chance to cross
examine.
Based on my previous experiences as a CPS investigator, I know first hand
Renard is talented when it comes to the leading question and getting
people all tangled up in what they are saying.
He clearly tripped Newnum up by referring him back to his testimony before
the Yavapai County Grand Jury, showing that 6 months ago, Newnum couldn’t
remember if Roberts tried to drive away or if in the tussle her foot came
off the brake and "ran him over," as compared to today, when Newnum was
clear on it and said that Roberts definitely tried to drive away or run
him over.
He almost got Newnum to acknowledge he couldn’t state definitively that
Roberts actually injured him. Newnum recovered when he came back with a
quick statement after a couple seconds of silence, "Except she caused this
whole incident."
Renard got Newnum to acknowledge that Newnum believed his own wife should
drive to a lighted area if she is concerned for her safety, but not
Roberts, in this instance.
Hammond’s case rests on the jury seeing Newnum as reasonable and caring
and showing that Roberts acted in a knowing or intentional way to resist
her arrest and flee.
Renard’s case rests on the jury seeing that Roberts acted reasonably by
signalling to Newnum she wanted to pull over in alighted area and that she
wasn’t seeking to hurt Newnum.
To win acquittal, Roberts must persuade the jury that Newnum may have
been in the right in pulling her over, but that he did not give her the
chance to call 9-1-1 to confirm his identity, did not allow her to make it
to a lighted area, and that his own actions caused him to be injured.
At one point, Hammond asked Newnum to describe an incident where he had to
shoot a guy after being ambushed. Newnum choked up and said he couldn’t
talk about it. There were some angry murmurs and hisses and mutterings of
"crocodile tears" and all the rest, but it was obvious that some on the
jury sympathized with Newnum.
Cops do put their lives on the line everyday and Hammond may have
succeeded in getting some on the jury to see the situation through
Newnum’s eyes.
I can’t say that Newnum is a bad cop because I don’t know him, but the way
he presented himself in court today makes me think that he may not be a
bad cop, just a cop who got into a situation that he didn’t know how to
manage.
The trial continues 8 a.m. Thursday, May 15, at the Verde Valley Justice
Center
