Police Officer Gets EXPOSED for Lying About Evidence

Added: 2026-06-02

[00:00:02]At Michigan's 34th District Court, Jeremy Taylor appeared before Judge Oakley for a preliminary examination on assault with a dangerous weapon and felony firearm charges. A woman reported a road rage incident on Interstate 275 where she claimed a gun was pointed at her. Trooper Johnson investigated, identified Taylor through license plate cameras, and conducted a traffic stop.

[00:00:23]During the interrogation that followed, the trooper said something to Taylor that would become a central issue at the preliminary examination. The defense attorney came prepared with serious questions, not just about the evidence itself, but about how that evidence was obtained.

[00:00:35]>> State your name for us.

[00:00:37]>> Uh Elizabeth Worrell.

[00:00:38]>> How do you spell your last name?

[00:00:40]>> W O R R E L L >> And Elizabeth as in Queen Elizabeth?

[00:00:44]>> Yes.

[00:00:45]>> Taking you back in time to April the 23rd of this year, 2025, at about 6:00 in the morning. Do you recall your whereabouts?

[00:00:55]>> Um I was on my way to work on 275 coming out to New England Village.

[00:01:00]Um to get to work from >> Are you alone in the vehicle or do you have company?

[00:01:04]>> No, I was like by myself.

[00:01:05]>> You started telling the judge about you on 275 North. Did anything unusual happen to you when you were traveling on 9275 North?

[00:01:13]>> Um I was on my way to work that morning and I noticed that there was a vehicle behind me.

[00:01:18]Um the vehicle was very close to the you know rear of my car. Um I had changed lanes a couple of different times. If I'm not mistaken, I changed lanes a total of four times.

[00:01:28]>> How was the weather when you were leaving? Was it raining out or dry?

[00:01:32]>> Um it was you know it was typical, you know, night time. Right before the sun's coming up, you know, like about 5:30 in the morning.

[00:01:41]>> Um are you able to Are you able to tell the judge the color of the other vehicle?

[00:01:46]>> Yes.

[00:01:47]>> What What's the color?

[00:01:48]>> Um it was like a dark gray, uh dark blue.

[00:01:51]>> Are you able to inform the court the model of the >> Yeah, it was a Chevrolet Malibu and the license plate was the first DJ behind.

[00:01:58]>> How do you know the license plate was DJ behind?

[00:02:02]>> Um, because as he was sitting away from me, um, and as I answered it onto my uh my exit to get off the work, he said he had to see a Malibu license plate and the construction of the vehicle.

[00:02:17]>> Anything more unusual happened on your trip on 975?

[00:02:21]>> Um, when I noticed that vehicle behind me, um, when like I said before, I had changed lanes, um, and the vehicle followed me.

[00:02:29]And I want to say it was the third time that I had changed lanes, the vehicle followed me again. Um, I did brake check the vehicle behind me, which I know you're not supposed to do.

[00:02:39]>> What happened after that when you brake check?

[00:02:41]>> Um, he got a little closer.

[00:02:43]And so, I had moved back into the middle lane, um, and he was again right behind me, um, even closer than he was before.

[00:02:50]>> Anything happen after you changed into the middle lane?

[00:02:53]>> Um, other than him following me, no, not until I had gotten up to close to the exit that I was getting off at.

[00:02:59]>> Which exit was that?

[00:03:00]>> Um, the West Huron exit.

[00:03:02]>> Anything unusual happened there that you know that happened?

[00:03:05]>> Yeah, as I, you know, after I had been followed back into the middle lane, um, I was just nervous at this point, so I waited until the last possible second, made sure that the lane next to me was clear, and I just booked it right off of the exit.

[00:03:19]Um, and then that's when the vehicle pulled up next to me.

[00:03:22]>> Anything happen when that vehicle pulled up next to you?

[00:03:25]>> I saw the outline of a handgun, um, pointed at me.

[00:03:29]>> How far were you from the person holding the handgun?

[00:03:32]>> Um, the vehicle had moved right next to me in that lane, so >> Can you give us an estimate on the distance? I'm going to walk towards you with the judge's permission, and you stop me when I reach that distance.

[00:03:43]>> Probably about right there.

[00:03:44]>> Judge, may the record reflect about, I don't know, short, but about 7 ft.

[00:03:47]>> How far are you certain are you that it was a handgun pointed at >> Um, upon closer observation, I saw the outline of a handgun.

[00:03:53]>> What were you thinking when the gun pointed at you in the first place?

[00:03:57]Um, that I was going to get shot. What did you do with anything after you the gun was pointed at you?

[00:04:02]Um, I just got out of the car and when I had looked over the vehicle next to me, the whole window rolled down and when he did that, um, that gun at me, um, I didn't see the outline of of the gun. Was the gun pointed at you on one occasion or two different occasions? Just once. What did you do after the gun was pointed at you?

[00:04:21]Did you contact authorities in some way?

[00:04:23]Um, I had pulled into work.

[00:04:25]You're all right. I pulled into work, contacted my wife and you know, let her know what happened. She told me that we should Can you tell us what she said?

[00:04:36]But anyway, you contacted your wife.

[00:04:39]Yeah, I contacted my wife. I ended up leaving work and at the end of the road that I work on both, there was a new box of police officer. Did you contact the police officer? Yeah, so I pulled up next to the officer, explained what happened and asked what I do moving forward and then that's when you know, he took my statement and this all happened. You weren't able to really identify the vehicle or the gun.

[00:05:01]Why not?

[00:05:02]Um, it was too dark. I couldn't see the face. You only had see the outline.

[00:05:06]Pretty broad. Mr. Weinberg, you're witness. Sure, sure. Sorry, go ahead and go through.

[00:05:11]Sure. I'm sorry, what was your name?

[00:05:13]It was Zipora. This is my name is Scott Weinberg. I'm going to ask you some questions. If you don't understand them, let me know. I'll stop there. Wait, I'll rephrase it, okay? Okay, sir, you said you said can you identify that man at the table? You cannot identify my client, Mr. Jeremy Taylor, is that correct? Objection, it's been asked today, miss. Is that correct? You can't identify him. Objection, it's clarification. So, you have no idea whether Mr. Taylor was the man you're talking about that day, correct? And it was too dark to identify him. Is that correct? What time of day was it?

[00:05:42]Uh, 5:30 approximately in the morning.

[00:05:45]5:30 in the So, it was dark.

[00:05:47]And the way that you claimed that he actually pulled up next to you was the lighting of his vehicle, correct?

[00:05:53]>> No, the lights on the you know, on the side of the freeway. That's how I could see that that's the I could like not see >> Okay.

[00:06:01]>> the face.

[00:06:01]>> Okay.

[00:06:02]>> Of what was the gun like.

[00:06:03]>> Okay. Did you ever touch that gun?

[00:06:06]>> No.

[00:06:06]>> And you can't identify anything other than the outline, correct?

[00:06:10]>> Correct.

[00:06:11]>> Have you ever seen a gun close up before?

[00:06:13]>> Yes.

[00:06:13]>> And you own a gun? Do you own a gun?

[00:06:15]>> No, I do not.

[00:06:16]>> Okay. You ever seen the outline of a handgun like this down here before?

[00:06:20]>> Uh I mean, to me, handguns for the most part >> You testified that this was a road rage type of situation, correct?

[00:06:27]>> Yes.

[00:06:28]>> And what did he do?

[00:06:30]At some point, he slammed the brakes on in front of you while you were driving, is that correct?

[00:06:36]>> Correct.

[00:06:36]>> All right. And that would precipitate this incident, correct? That morning, did you make a statement to the police?

[00:06:45]>> Yes.

[00:06:45]>> And again, did you tell them at that time that you could not identify the man or the person who allegedly pointed a gun at you?

[00:06:53]>> Yes.

[00:06:54]>> Okay. And did you ever tell the police that you heard this man say anything?

[00:06:59]>> No.

[00:06:59]>> So, you can't identify his voice, either. Is that correct?

[00:07:02]>> Correct.

[00:07:02]>> You can't identify anything other than you saw the outline of what you think was a gun, correct?

[00:07:08]>> Correct.

[00:07:09]>> I don't have any more questions.

[00:07:10]>> Any follow?

[00:07:11]>> Ingram, no further questions.

[00:07:13]>> Elizabeth Worl just admitted she cannot identify the person who pointed the gun.

[00:07:16]She only saw an outline. So, how is this case still moving forward? Under Michigan law, a preliminary examination requires two findings. First, that a felony actually occurred, and second, that there's probable cause to believe the defendant committed it. Worl's testimony creates problems on both. She can't confirm a gun was actually pointed, only that she saw an outline of something she believed was a gun, and she cannot identify Taylor as the person holding it. But, the state has something else, a partial license plate match, a gun found in his car, and Taylor's own statement that he was on that highway at that time. That's enough for probable cause. But, is it enough to convict?

[00:07:53]>> Ma'am, you can step down. Watch your step on my ramp.

[00:07:55]>> Your Honor, we have one other witness.

[00:07:57]We called him, and that's our trooper, Trooper Johnston Lawyer.

[00:08:01]>> Raise your right hand.

[00:08:01]>> Swear or affirm to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth today.

[00:08:04]>> I do so.

[00:08:04]>> Settle in. When you're ready, Mr. Calvin.

[00:08:06]>> Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, Trooper Lawyer.

[00:08:08]>> Morning.

[00:08:09]>> Sir, how many years have you been with the Michigan State Police?

[00:08:12]>> Uh 13.

[00:08:13]>> So, were you working on April 23rd, um 2020?

[00:08:17]>> Yes.

[00:08:18]>> Could you tell the judge where I-275, near South Huron River Road, is what municipality is in the area?

[00:08:25]>> Uh New Boston.

[00:08:27]>> In which county?

[00:08:28]>> In Wayne County.

[00:08:29]>> Uh sir, did you have an opportunity to speak to a woman named Elizabeth Horrell?

[00:08:33]>> I did.

[00:08:34]>> She no longer with us for the past few moments.

[00:08:36]>> That's fine.

[00:08:37]>> Where did you speak to Elizabeth Horrell?

[00:08:39]>> Uh Miss Horrell, um Avenue, right there, just west of I-275.

[00:08:46]>> Did you meet a man named Jeremy Taylor?

[00:08:48]>> Yes.

[00:08:49]>> If you saw Jeremy Taylor again, would you recognize him? Where did you speak to Mr. Taylor?

[00:08:55]>> Uh Mr. Taylor, um was my suspect, the registered owner of a vehicle matching the description of the black vehicle.

[00:09:04]>> Well, who provided you with a license plate, a partial license plate number?

[00:09:08]>> That's right.

[00:09:09]>> What would be the number of that is?

[00:09:11]>> It was EJY, the first three.

[00:09:13]>> Okay. Who provided that to you?

[00:09:15]>> Miss Horrell.

[00:09:15]>> Okay. The defense of that EJY 275 partial license plate description, did you attempt to determine the owner of the vehicle?

[00:09:25]>> Yes.

[00:09:26]>> How did you do that?

[00:09:27]>> Uh solely, uh using our license plate reader cameras in the area.

[00:09:32]I conducted a search using the criteria provided, a partial plate, along with uh a vague illustrative and was able to come up with two possible matches to that.

[00:09:46]>> Ultimately, you narrowed the field?

[00:09:48]>> Yes, sir.

[00:09:49]>> Who did you narrow the field who's left?

[00:09:51]The church side H8Y license >> Yes.

[00:09:54]>> You determined who >> Yes, sir.

[00:09:56]>> plate Yes, sir.

[00:09:56]>> So, from those license plate reader camera photographs taken of the at that vehicle I was able to retrieve that full license plate, run that license plate through our law enforcement information network.

[00:10:10]>> And through the lean identifying him, >> I did, yes.

[00:10:14]>> Who did it identify?

[00:10:15]>> It was Mr. Taylor as the registered owner of that vehicle.

[00:10:18]>> Ultimately, I'm going to skip ahead for a moment.

[00:10:21]Did you obtain pointed last written Taylor on his Miranda >> I did, yes.

[00:10:26]>> How did that occur?

[00:10:27]>> Uh traffic stop was conducted.

[00:10:29]>> Uh by >> I did.

[00:10:31]And I pulled him over on 275 near Eureka.

[00:10:35]Uh spoke to him briefly, introduced myself, asked him if he was armed or he declared to me that I didn't have to ask. He declared to me that there was firearm in the vehicle and he's CPL holder.

[00:10:46]Uh shortly thereafter, I read him his Miranda rights, took him into custody.

[00:10:49]>> So, don't worry for this. Tell me who read him the >> Yes.

[00:10:52]>> Reading him his Miranda rights Did you do so from your memory or from the form?

[00:10:57]>> That's read to him from a form. I read it to him from >> Can you estimate for Judge Oakley the number of times you have read the Miranda rights to suspects?

[00:11:04]>> I would say uh for arrests it would be several hundred times.

[00:11:08]>> Did you inquire as to where his whereabouts earlier in the day like April 23rd, 2025 at about 6:00 in the morning?

[00:11:18]>> Yes, I did.

[00:11:19]>> What did he tell you his whereabouts?

[00:11:21]>> He explained that he was traveling on Northbound 275 on his way to work at approximately that time. And then he said something along the lines of, "Oh, maybe that was this morning." And then goes on to describe the victim's vehicle and uh somewhat of a brief interaction between >> Did the individual make specific actions he claimed that the other woman instructs?

[00:11:43]>> Uh, to my memory that she brake-checked him and flipped him off.

[00:11:48]>> What is flipping off?

[00:11:49]>> Uh, presenting the middle finger to him.

[00:11:52]>> Derogatory in nature?

[00:11:55]Did you specifically ask him whether he pointed a gun at the other woman or not?

[00:12:00]>> I didn't.

[00:12:01]>> What did he say? He denied it.

[00:12:03]Does he wave and give an explanation as to >> He does.

[00:12:07]>> What does he say?

[00:12:08]>> Uh, he said that it could have been that what she saw was him pointing his finger at her and then later added that he may have had car keys in one of his hands at the time he pointed.

[00:12:18]>> You would have gave it to the judge earlier in the direct examination should it have been Did he say he had a gun at the time?

[00:12:26]>> Yes, he did.

[00:12:27]>> Did you find it on him?

[00:12:28]>> Yes.

[00:12:29]>> Where were you located at?

[00:12:30]>> In the center console between the driver and passenger seat.

[00:12:34]>> How far is that gun from the driver?

[00:12:38]So that the driver would have been able to see >> Directly next to him, within arm's reach.

[00:12:42]>> The information you were given about the vehicle he claimed as vehicle Does that match the match of the vehicle that you saw in the front of the vehicle?

[00:12:51]>> Yes, it >> How does it match?

[00:12:53]>> Uh, the first three of the license plate match and also she described the color and the model of vehicle along with uh, bumper stickers stretching from one tail light to the other across the back of the vehicle.

[00:13:07]>> coincide and match the same vehicle you noticed?

[00:13:10]>> Those all coincide.

[00:13:11]>> What happened to the gun?

[00:13:13]>> The gun was seized uh, from the scene of a traffic stop and put in the property uh, the knife shelf of the police.

[00:13:19]>> When you recovered the gun from the center console, was it closer to her purse?

[00:13:24]>> I do not recall.

[00:13:25]>> Would your report refresh your memory?

[00:13:27]>> Yes.

[00:13:28]>> Do you have your report with you?

[00:13:29]>> I do.

[00:13:30]Judge, do I have permission to approach you with this again when you use your report?

[00:13:33]>> Sure.

[00:13:34]>> What What does your memory tell you?

[00:13:35]>> Um that in fact the firearm was in the center console until certain >> Was the firearm loaded or unloaded?

[00:13:43]>> It was loaded. The magazine filled up the back.

[00:13:45]>> Have you investigated shootings in your career?

[00:13:47]>> I have. Yes.

[00:13:48]>> Tell the judge, who probably knows, a gun which is readily usable, a gun in his holster or a gun in his trunk?

[00:13:55]>> Holster.

[00:13:56]>> Big difference, right?

[00:13:57]>> Mr. Weinberg.

[00:13:58]>> Good morning. Scott Leahy. I'm going to ask you some questions if you don't understand something please let me know.

[00:14:02]>> Yes, sir.

[00:14:02]>> So, you were called out to the scene by other police officers.

[00:14:07]>> Correct.

[00:14:08]>> Who else was first on the scene there?

[00:14:10]>> Uh that would have been Trooper Austin.

[00:14:12]>> So, this was in the car earlier that was pulled over by an off-duty trooper.

[00:14:15]>> That's correct. Yes.

[00:14:17]>> And when you got to the scene, where was my client?

[00:14:20]>> That was unknown to me at the time where your client >> And at some point pulled him back. Did you pull that client over?

[00:14:27]>> Yes.

[00:14:28]>> You pulled him over earlier >> Yes, sir.

[00:14:31]>> So, when you pulled him over, you pulled him over because of this match and weight, correct?

[00:14:35]>> That's correct.

[00:14:37]>> And um did you first approach my client's car?

[00:14:41]>> I did. Yes.

[00:14:42]>> And he was in the driver's seat?

[00:14:43]>> He was.

[00:14:44]>> And he, as you testified, first told you right when you came up that he had a CPAP.

[00:14:49]>> That's right.

[00:14:50]>> That's what he was telling you at the time.

[00:14:52]He didn't see him on him at all.

[00:14:54]The gun.

[00:14:55]>> I did not see the gun at first glance.

[00:14:57]>> And at no time did he provide you with the gun, correct?

[00:15:00]>> Uh he did not provide me as a hand me the gun himself.

[00:15:03]>> Correct.

[00:15:04]So, [clears throat] who actually ended up pulling the gun out of the car? You found the gun.

[00:15:10]>> Uh to my recollection I found it located there.

[00:15:14]>> Do you remember where that actually searched and found the vehicle and found the gun in here?

[00:15:17]>> Yes. Now, I had two other troopers with me. Um so, that's why I say to my recollection uh, I'm the one who pulled it out of the the side console.

[00:15:27]>> And did you pull it out before or after you interviewed my >> Um, prior to us removing the weapon from the vehicle.

[00:15:34]>> But but you had already interviewed him, correct? Correct.

[00:15:38]>> I had spoken to him, yes, that's right.

[00:15:40]>> And you read his Miranda >> That's right.

[00:15:43]>> And at any point did you take my client, put him in your vehicle, and start discussing this matter, interviewing him without reading his Miranda?

[00:15:52]>> No, he had been read his Miranda rights prior to >> And you only read it once, so correct?

[00:15:56]>> That's right.

[00:15:57]>> Okay. And when you read it to him, where were you >> Standing on the side of 33.

[00:16:03]>> Where was he?

[00:16:04]>> Also standing with me.

[00:16:05]>> Outside of you?

[00:16:06]>> That's right.

[00:16:07]>> Okay.

[00:16:08]And when you first started when you first arrived at the scene, is it true that you took him out of his vehicle and had him sit in your squad car, correct?

[00:16:18]>> I don't recall at one what time in the time or when at the time frame he sat in my vehicle, but he did sit in my vehicle, that's right.

[00:16:26]>> And he had when he was in the vehicle, is that when you read his Miranda rights or is it after?

[00:16:30]>> I don't recall.

[00:16:32]>> Okay.

[00:16:33]But you recall getting a statement from him after you read his Miranda?

[00:16:36]>> That's yes, sir.

[00:16:37]>> And he was cooperative?

[00:16:38]>> Yes.

[00:16:40]>> And do you recall your conversation when you spoke to him?

[00:16:43]>> I do.

[00:16:44]>> Do you recall the questions and the and the comments you made to him when you were interviewing him?

[00:16:48]>> I not every comment, no, I'm sure not.

[00:16:52]>> But you but you remember your conversation?

[00:16:54]>> Yes.

[00:16:55]>> And do you recall telling him the rendition of what um, what's her name, the complainant?

[00:17:00]>> Miss Laurel.

[00:17:00]>> Miss Laurel, what she had told you or what your understanding is what the complaint was, and that um, there was some type of playing with the gun at her breath, >> Right, yes.

[00:17:10]>> Isn't it true that you told him that you also that he was involved in an accident with this woman?

[00:17:16]Do you recall that?

[00:17:17]>> No, I don't recall.

[00:17:18]>> Do you recall telling him that there was evidence to show that he actually did point the gun at her from a video camera?

[00:17:26]>> That's right.

[00:17:27]>> Do you have any evidence of that?

[00:17:28]>> No, sir.

[00:17:29]>> So, you lied to him then.

[00:17:30]>> You just heard a trooper admit he lied to Jeremy Taylor about video evidence that didn't exist. And the judge said he's allowed to lie. Here's why. Under the 1969 Supreme Court case Frazier versus Cupp, police can legally use deceptive tactics during interrogations.

[00:17:46]They can lie about fingerprints, DNA, witnesses, or video footage to get a confession. As long as the suspect was read their Miranda rights, it's not a constitutional violation. So, why is the defense hammering this point? Not because the interrogation was illegal, but because it destroys the trooper's credibility. Taylor was lied to, and he still denied pointing a gun. He said maybe it was his finger or a coffee cup.

[00:18:08]The trooper lied, got no confession, and Taylor faces 6 years in prison anyway.

[00:18:13]>> Yes, sir. And is it your practice >> Well, I have given this instruction, he's allowed to lie.

[00:18:18]>> Well, I'm asking the law.

[00:18:19]>> He can be Pinocchio, it doesn't matter.

[00:18:21]He can say whatever he wants.

[00:18:23]>> I understand that, and I agree with you, but that doesn't mean Mr. Weinberg can't ask him questions about it.

[00:18:28]So, is it your practice to lie to a suspect during the investigation?

[00:18:32]>> We have tracked that question, it doesn't matter what his practice is. It could have been the first time he lied, or he lies all the time. It's not relevant.

[00:18:39]>> That would be irrelevant. Go ahead.

[00:18:41]Irrelevant objection.

[00:18:42]>> It's not only irrelevant, your honor, it's also goes to his experience and his practice as a trooper, and perhaps to weighted the excruciating detail about how many types of subs he had in the night he had gun types of investigations, whether or not it was loaded, how he knows if practical to have something on his hip with this holster, or not. But, I'm just going by his practice in terms of interviewing witnesses.

[00:19:05]>> You're stretching, but I'll allow it.

[00:19:07]>> So, is it your practice to lie to a suspect while you're doing the investigation?

[00:19:12]>> It's not necessarily my practice, no, sir.

[00:19:14]>> But he chose to do that in this >> Yes.

[00:19:16]>> Okay.

[00:19:17]And he knew that um I I I can't remember what it was on this one.

[00:19:22]>> That's right.

[00:19:22]>> Was it oral or Just for the record, who is it?

[00:19:25]>> I just spoke to >> Tell me who uh uh oral was.

[00:19:28]>> Do you recall that >> told her and lied to him that there was evidence to show that he pointed the gun other than the slow or around saying that someone pointed a gun because she could not identify my client. Isn't that correct?

[00:19:43]>> Well, we're trying to Well, I'm still analyzing it, do you understand?

[00:19:47]>> Well, do you do you understand through?

[00:19:49]>> I'm I'm struggling to understand the question. So, let me rephrase it.

[00:19:52]>> Why did you lie to my client about the picture showing that he picture that didn't exist showing that he pointed a gun?

[00:20:00]>> Judge Wallace, do you doesn't Well, just put anything in the transcript.

[00:20:03]>> Yeah, what's your relevance?

[00:20:04]>> Relevance why he's trying to get my client to admit something.

[00:20:07]>> Well, I'll take judicial notice that it seems to have worked. If that helps.

[00:20:12]>> Well, did it Did he say that he would agree that he actually did point a gun?

[00:20:16]>> No.

[00:20:16]>> So, he denied it.

[00:20:17]>> That's right.

[00:20:18]>> And anytime before you read his Miranda rights or after you read his Miranda rights, did you ever Did he ever say that he pointed a gun?

[00:20:25]>> He did not.

[00:20:25]>> Okay. In fact, he did say that he might have pointed his finger or a cop. Isn't that correct?

[00:20:32]>> And did you hear Miss Morales testimony today?

[00:20:35]>> I did.

[00:20:35]>> And you >> Judge >> You can't >> You can't comment on the witness's >> I didn't say anything, Judge.

[00:20:41]>> I didn't ask him to comment. She's asking him to reply.

[00:20:43]>> That's not what I'm talking about.

[00:20:44]>> Besides Miss Morales saying she saw she saw an outline of a gun, is there any evidence you collected showing that my client pointed a gun at Miss Morales?

[00:20:53]>> No.

[00:20:53]>> Do you recall whether or not your squad car had a video on the side?

[00:20:58]>> It does, yes.

[00:20:59]>> And do you recall whether or not it recorded any of your conversation with my client in your vehicle?

[00:21:04]>> Yes.

[00:21:05]>> And do you recall whether or not Have you reviewed that book?

[00:21:08]>> It's been some time. I reviewed it either that day or that week.

[00:21:12]>> But it's your sworn testimony that prior to interviewing my client in that vehicle or outside the vehicle at any time that day, that you read his Miranda rights, correct?

[00:21:21]>> Yes, I read him his rights.

[00:21:23]>> I have no further.

[00:21:24]>> Mr. Kaplan, any redirect?

[00:21:26]>> Can you tell us straight from the judge that did the defendant make any gesture when you described possibly pointing his finger at the moment?

[00:21:35]>> He did, yes.

[00:21:36]>> Can you show the judge stand up and show the judge the gesture that he did?

[00:21:40]>> Yes. Uh he said that he may have pointed his finger and and did something like this.

[00:21:45]>> So, for the record, can we agree that the trooper has stood up and pointed his index finger with his thumb closed? Is that an accurate description?

[00:21:52]>> I object.

[00:21:53]>> Go ahead.

[00:21:53]>> I object.

[00:21:54]>> All right. Any recross? Trooper, you can step down. Watch your step on the ramps.

[00:21:59]>> You're excused, Trooper.

[00:22:00]>> Any defense witnesses?

[00:22:02]Argument?

[00:22:03]>> I'm going to tell you something, Judge.

[00:22:04]He's before you and you have a very good defense lawyer.

[00:22:08]But Judge, in this case, the witness says the gun was pointed at him.

[00:22:11]Quickly she misstated.

[00:22:13]>> Yes, she did.

[00:22:14]>> Quickly she misstated. The question is the probable cause of the gun being pointed at him.

[00:22:19]She seems certain, Judge. Despite a very effective cross-examination by Mr. Klein, she said that was a gun. She only outlined the gun. I've seen guns. That was her description. Now, in terms of who the culprit is, whoever did this, Judge, allegedly did it.

[00:22:35]Despite a dark-colored Chevrolet Malibu with the first three digits of the license plate being K chain I.

[00:22:43]Now, think about this, you're right.

[00:22:44]Think of the coincidence that he's not the one who got it. And then somebody else driving a dark-colored Chevrolet Malibu in that area, I-275 North, wasn't involved in this. The license plate leaks. So, can I say to you that >> Can you consider this carefully, your honor, in the interest of justice?

[00:23:00]>> No, but think of the likelihood of this license plate featuring E J Y and it being a dark colored Chevrolet Malibu.

[00:23:07]And you're going to go to the park. It wasn't close.

[00:23:11]Now, that's important. Means it's probably a cesspool.

[00:23:14]This was a low-rated instrument that Spinal cord injury control and it's very unfortunate, but fortunately nobody was injured. And the painter?

[00:23:24]What's the chances they may have only Yeah, they might have what else in the video? They might have something where I'm going to get Oh, it's like maybe it was my painter. That's not something you forget, judge. Wasn't it lucky that they didn't interview the slave? Yeah, maybe had quite enough painter.

[00:23:40]We were asked around by the kids so what are the chances?

[00:23:42]>> Mr. Weinberg.

[00:23:43]>> I just walked back. I will go by it. But that was a screen of an iPhone and he had the best attorney. But he can't just be he could be mistaken. This man is charged with a felony felony and a mandatory two-year felony felony firearm. They better have more than simply she could be mistaken. She denied identifying gun. They have no pictures of a gun. They've never identified any gun that she identified. They never had any evidence saying yes, that's the gun that was used for This is people with the gun look like. It was an outline of a gun which she readily admitted it was too dark even to identify my client. It was 5:00 something in the morning.

[00:24:20]There's no lights on, maybe some street lights. She has an extremely weak explanation.

[00:24:25]His I thought with the grace of God go us in this kind of case. And someone could just drive up and say that they actually saw someone with the gun and they get him charged with this. So I disagree with this experience prosecutor who's handled thousands of these cases that there is enough evidence to bind my client over. Maybe if they had a gun.

[00:24:44]Maybe if they had or even identified my client as the driver of the car, but they don't even have that. So I'm asking the court to dismiss this case.

[00:24:52]>> Go on.

[00:24:53]>> And you do and you know this started at 9:00, but even reviewing the case, you're going tell me that it was probable cause that we would be finding her and it was more than probable.

[00:25:02]>> I don't see any way in hell of getting a conviction, but the probable cause burden has been met. I'm tempted to dismiss it just so we don't waste any more judicial resources, but that's not my role.

[00:25:11]I'm going to bind it over.

[00:25:12]>> Thank you. Thank you.

[00:25:13]>> AOY is October 29th.

[00:25:15]>> At the close of the hearing, Judge Oakley sent the case to trial court, though he said from the bench he didn't see any way the prosecution could win.

[00:25:22]Mr. Taylor later took a plea deal for brandishing a firearm and was sentenced to two years of probation and 160 hours of community service. This case shows the gap between what police are legally allowed to do and what most people think is right. Trooper Meyer admitted he lied to Mr. Taylor during questioning, telling him there was video evidence when there wasn't. That might seem wrong, but it's completely legal. The law doesn't require police to be honest during interrogations. It only stops them from forcing confessions through threats or physical pressure. As long as the suspect agrees to talk on their own, officers can lie all they want and courts rarely question it. What the law allows and what feels fair to everyday people don't always match up and police interrogations are one place where you see that gap most clearly. Let us know if there is a case or courtroom interaction you would like us to explore in the comments below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to like and subscribe.