Testimony Heats up in Levi Turner Trial

SAN ANGELO, TX – Court proceedings in the case against Levi Todd Turner continued early Wednesday morning in Judge Jay Weatherby’s courtroom. During the morning session, jurors had the opportunity to listen to various testimonies from law enforcement officials who responded to the scene, as well as the passenger in the car when Turner was arrested that night.

The State, represented by Assistant District Attorney Ashley Knight, called the first witness of the day, Jordan Page. According to her testimony, Page was in the vehicle when officers identified Turner’s vehicle as the one involved in the shooting. She stated that Turner had picked her up from her home after she was done with work, sometime after 10 p.m. 

Both the State and Defense Attorney John Sutton questioned Page about the timeline. After answering their questions, she was released but placed under the rule, which states that she may not discuss her testimony with anyone else other than the attorneys.

Next up was Officer Joel Fincher, who had made the initial identification of the vehicle based on the license plate and description provided by the victims. Fincher had seen the car in the parking lot of Stripes on 19th and Bryant Blvd. The State then proceeded to present the footage from the officer's dash cam. In the video, Fincher approaches the vehicle, calls out to Turner, and asks him to come over to where he is. Turner is heard questioning the officer as to why he wants to speak with him, and claims that he can't go towards the officer because he has to use the restroom. Fincher then conducts a safety search to ensure that Turner is not carrying a weapon on him, and, when asked, Turner states he has no weapon.

After several minutes of discussion, Fincher places handcuffs on Turner telling him, “I’ll be cool with you as long as you stay cool with me.” At that moment, the officer was alone with a potential subject of an assault with a gun, so the officer felt, in order to stay safe, the best course of action was to restrain the subject until backup arrived.

“My main concern was not getting shot,” Fincher said.

The video, which was edited for time-saving purposes, showed when other officers arrived on the scene and Turner questioning why he was a person of interest, to which Fincher replied, “This is an investigation. I’ll tell you in a little bit.”

Sutton then began questioning the actions that had led to the discovery of the firearm in Turner’s car and whether Fincher had touched the weapon prior to the arrival of SAPD’s Criminal Investigation Division team, who was in charge of photographing the scene. Fincher reiterated that, in the rest of the dash cam video of the scene, it can be seen where he spotted the firearm, a .22 revolver, and stepped away from the scene until CID arrived. He never came in direct contact with the weapon. He specified this after Sutton implied that on occasion officers come into contact with evidence unexpectedly and then try to the best of their ability to reposition the item to the “best of their relocation.”

Based on the evidence presented by the State, however, the butt of the gun was clearly visible from under the seat.

The next officer on the stand was Richard Ogan, the supervisor in charge of evidence with SAPD. The state asked Ogan to explain the way the chain of custody worked and what measures were taken to ensure that the evidence was not tampered with. He then presented to the jury the evidence box that contained the .22 revolver, 99 live rounds and other forensic evidence collected during the course of the investigation. Several other boxes were also brought in with the initial evidence, but they were not admitted into evidence because they were not pertinent to the case. The boxes contained the defendant's clothes from the night of the incident and arrest.

Deanna Garcia was recalled to the stand to reiterate that she had been the one to photograph the evidence, but that the gun had not been dusted for fingerprints. Turner, however, was swabbed for GSR (gunshot residue) at approximately 12:30 a.m. after the arrest. She also explained that she had not retrieved the bullet from the victim's car, buy that SAPD Detective Chris Chapa had been the one to do so and had turned the device into her with the time written on the evidence baggie and his initials.

When Detective Chappa took the stand, he explained how he had retrieved the bullet from the victim’s vehicle and confirmed that he had never, in fact, spoken with the victims of the assault. During the investigation, he and the police officers had collaborated to find any information on the vehicle and the owner, and he explained he was at the police station when he heard the call that the vehicle had been identified at the parking lot of the Stripes.

The state then called Chris Chany, a DPS Forensic Scientist in the Texas DPS Lab in Austin, to testify regarding the GSR testing done on the evidence of the case. After answering a few questions regarding his expertise and a brief rundown of how the the testing was done, ADA Knight proceeded to ask Chany the results of the test. Mr. Sutton then objected and stated that the jury needed to hear about the methodology of how GSR testing was done.

After a very thorough and in-depth explanation regarding the procedures of GSR testing on “stubs” that contain samples from the Defendant's hand and face, Knight once again asked the witness to state the results. Mr. Sutton once again objected, stating the jury needed to not only understand the methodology, but also the science behind the testing.

After another thorough explanation that included the process in which GSR was detected by the electrons in the specialized microscope, Chany told the jury that in the samples he had found one particle of residue on the face. This indicated that there was a high probability that the defendant had been in contact with a gun that had been fired within a four-hour time frame of the test. The results also yielded that Turner had no GSR on his hands when the swabs were taken, but Chany explained that it was easy for the particles to fall off or be transferred to another surfer. Washing hands would also effectively remove any trace. A four-hour window was established in order for the GSR to have a higher probability of being present on the person.

After finding the one particle on the face swab, the defendant's clothing was not tested for further confirmation of GSR. Particles found on the face were less likely transferred from another surface as opposed to the hands or clothing.

During his questioning, Sutton presented various hypothetical scenarios that seemed to suggest that the GSR could have been transferred from a different location, and that possibly the residue came from firing the gun earlier that day. Chany agreed that any of the scenarios were plausible, but that in his results all he could definitely say was he had found one particle in the swabs of the face and hands.

After Chany’s testimony concluded at 11:30 p.m.,  the court was in recess until 2 p.m. One of the state's witness, Detective Dye, was also testifying in the murder trial against Stephano Culbreath. For the latest details on that story, click here.

When court resumed in the afternoon, Dye took the stand outside the presence of the jury. He was questioned by Sutton regarding the "show up identification" that had led to Turner’s arrest. According to the detective, the standard procedure was to present the victims with a photo lineup of six individuals. At the time of the incident, the officer in charge of providing those lineups was not available. According to show up ID procedure guidelines, the ID must be made within two hours of the incident. In this case, it was done approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes after the event occurred.

Defense council then began to question the suspect's description the victims had provided to the officers. According to Dye, the victims had only stated he was a white male, and no further description, other than the license plate, was given. After Turner had been identified as the possible shooter, the detective drove the victims individually in front of the location of the suspect. In the videos recorded on the detective's cell phone, it can be heard when both victims identify the suspect. The female, Desiree Reyes, can be heard crying and stating that was the shooter. 

Turner was not handcuffed when the victims drove by the scene, but he was surrounded by four officers. Defense council argued that that may have been prejudicial to the ID, but Dye reiterated that Turner was not handcuffed despite being considered a dangerous suspect in a violent assault. At that moment, "officer safety and public safety was his main concern."

Ray Reyes, who was in the passenger seat, explained that the defendant and another occupant had followed them down Avenue N after they had an interaction near the Subway restaurant in the area. He described how the Defendant had exchanged words with the Reyes family, and that they had the opportunity to see his face clearly several times during the exchange as he had the passenger window of his car completely down.

Once again, they saw him after they stopped to get gas and he was at the intersection of the gas station on Sherwood Way. Mrs. Reyes explained that, as they made their way down Avenue N, she had attempted to slow down and speed up to allow the defendant to move past them, but he always matched her speed. When asked how fast she was going, she stated that she never went over 40 because her children were in the vehicle with her and her husband.

The Defense told Judge Weatherby that Reyes's testimony regarding identifying his client, Levi Turner, had flaws considering she mentioned the dispatch call was “happening so fast,” that she couldn’t identify what the driver looked like. Her testimony was taken in the absence of the jury once more.

Reyes said she gave a more detailed description to one of the detectives; however, neither could recall having more to go off of in identifying Turner other than the license plate number of his Mercury Marquis automobile; the driver being identified as a white male with the clothing description; and the casing of the bullet in the driver side door of Reyes's Dodge.

One issue that the Defense brought up throughout yesterday’s trial is the use of the live lineup, which only consisted of Turner. The Defense argued that a victim seeing a detained individual, surrounded by police officers, and standing next to the reported vehicle would lead them to believe that the person was guilty.

The Defense mentioned that the constitutional right of due process had been violated given only Turner was used in the line up.

 Knight said, “We are looking at reliability, the reliability of the victim’s identification.”

She continued, saying Reyes would have more reason to remember specific details about the driver given the stressful situation.

Judge Weatherby addressed the Defense's claim and denounced the suggestion that due process for Turner had been violated; however, he did see a problem with Reyes recalling information from “reconsidered memory.”  He told the State that neither Desiree nor Ray Reyes could make claims on identifying the Defendant from the night of the investigation while the jury is present. The exception being if a police officer involved in the case could add credibility to the information.

With this, the jury was called back into the courtroom to hear the remaining witnesses for the day.

The Defense called Austin Turner, brother of Levi Turner, as a witness. Austin Turner came with evidence needing to be submitted to the court, with photos of the Mercury Marquis taken Tuesday evening at around 5 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.

The claim being made by the Defense was to show how the vehicle would have been identified at that time of the aggravated assault--the relevance being that Desiree Reyes identified the vehicle as having a blue exterior during the dispatch call.

The State objected to some of the photos, saying it could be misleading to the jury with recreating the attempt to identify the vehicle as of today, but the objection was denied and all photos were published to the court as evidence.     

Diana Garcia, crime scene technician, also came back to the court with more evidence taken from the crime scene.

She presented the shell casings and live rounds still in the gun found in Turner's car during the investigation. She clarified to the jury that a “casing” is what's left behind after a bullet is fired. These are not “live” rounds anymore, she explained. The brass shell was the distinction between the bullet collected from Reyes's car door and the ammo found in the gun. She also presented to the jury the .22 caliber revolver located in Turner’s car.  

Next, Detective Dye took the stand again and identified the bullets to the jury that were taken as evidence from Turner’s car through a series of photos presented by the State's council.

He also gave the reason as to why a live-lineup was used to show the victims the defendant while he was detained at the Stripes on 19th and Bryant. A member of the Crime Division is needed to create a photo line-up for victims to identify a suspect, and seeing as it was close to midnight on Jan. 6, 2015, the only way Dye could do so was by contacting someone off the clock. Seeing as Dye could not make contact, it was decided the best course of action would be a live-lineup. The motivation was the necessity of time in locating a dangerous individual as to protect the victims, possible future victims, and the public as a whole.

Next, the jury was shown the live-lineup video recording taken that night with Dye’s phone.  

He conducted both showings with Ray Reyes and Desiree Reyes. They drove by the Stripes in a far off vehicle as to protect their identity. Both positively identified Turner after less than a minute. Dye made it known that Turner was not handcuffed and his appearance was not altered in any way.

A shaken-up Desiree was heard saying, “I knew he was wearing a black hat.”

After being positively identified, SAPD officials finished up the investigation and took Turner into custody for questioning. The jury was shown the video and audio of this conversation. After reading the suspect his Miranda Rights, Dye proceeded by asking Turner about his whereabouts on Jan. 6, 2015.

He claimed to have been sleeping between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. at his apartment. He said he was waiting to meet with Jordan Page after she finished working, but Dye told him she wouldn’t have finished work until 10 p.m., so that left a considerable gap in time.

An agitated Turner kept denying the claims that he had assaulted anyone that day, and when asked if he had been driving around with another person, he maintained that he was alone all day.

“How could they identify me if I wasn’t even there?” Turner proclaimed.   

As the Defendant became more agitated, his story kept changing, from the times he was sleeping to where he was driving that day.

When the revolver was brought up by investigators, they told him casings in the gun were still there when it was located by CSI. Turner could not recall if he had shot bullets that same day, or the day prior to the incident.

Though the Defendant was told he could end the interview at any time, he proceeded to keep recalling the events with more conflicting elements every time.

After Turner's testimony, the final witness for the day was Ray Reyes.

He was asked to explain to the Jury what had taken place the day of the assault.  

He said that before making a right turn onto Ave N, while traveling south on Bryant, the defendant’s vehicle failed to yield the right of way, almost causing a collision. This resulted in Desiree Reyes leaning on her car horn for approximately 20 seconds, according to Reyes’s testimony.

After doing this, the Defendant’s car was traveling in the left-hand lane, going down Ave. N and heading towards ASU. Reyes’s car was in the right-hand lane on the same street. He recalled the Defendant’s car remained at the same speed as their vehicle.

No verbal confrontation began until both vehicles passed Fairmount Cemetery, and this continued until stopping at the stop light at Ave. N and Jackson St. Reyes then recalled seeing the driver had placed his arm in a position that he defined as consistent with what happens from the recoil of firing a gun.   

The time the bullet had been discharged was simultaneous with the lights turning green, according to the testimony. After this, the car cut in front of the Reyes’s vehicle and turned right at the next block.

Ray Reyes said Desiree had called police dispatch at this time and was reciting the license plate numbers to them. Though his testimony seemed straightforward, Reyes had difficulties explaining the events leading up to the assault. This included not being able to determine what way of travel he and Desiree had taken from Texas Road House on loop 306 to pick up their three children from his mother’s apartment.

When the Defense asked how the family ended up on Bryant after collecting the children, Reyes kept mentioning his uncle lived on S. Randolph Street without giving a clear timeline of when this all happened. He eventually explained that his vehicle needed gas and they were going to collect the gas from his uncle’s house. It was after collecting this that Reyes and his family turned back onto Bryant and encountered the defendant’s vehicle for the first time.   

At the end of the testimony, Reyes recalled after the shooting that they turned right on Johnson street and stopped at the Stripes on Garfield and Sherwood. After purchasing gas, Desiree Reyes saw the Defendant’s vehicle heading towards Henry’s Diner on Sherwood way. She then called police dispatch to disclose the vehicle's location.

After Reyes concluded his testimony, the trial was called for recess and scheduled to continue today at 10:30 a.m. The jury will begin deliberating at that time.

Note: Cameron Niblock contributed to this article.