COLORADO SPRINGS, CO — The trial of Joshua Johnson resumed on Tuesday around 9:15 a.m. following a hiatus on Monday.
In the opening, The People informed Judge Eric Bentley that they plan to finish through their court witnesses by 3 p.m. on Tuesday before the defense's witnesses are called forward.
The prosecution picked up where they left off Friday, with Detective Mike Lee focusing on clips of Johnson stacking red crates near a storage area of the store. According to the time-stamped video, Johnson began to stack the crates around 5:08 p.m. on the day of Riley's murder.
Detective Lee was then asked to present the issues with the surveillance footage of the store, and he said it was hard for detectives to accurately track people inside the center of the store especially as they walk through the center.
Detective Lee walked through when Riley logged off at 5:28 p.m. and pointed out when we saw Riley on security footage. The cameras show her leaving the cash register and entering a door that heads to the locker room and the break room. Detective Lee said they were able to track Riley leave the office and make her way to the break room.
The prosecution went ahead and pivoted to Alicia Schwenke, a woman who was in the store and testified to hearing Riley scream. According to security footage, Schwenke arrived right as Riley was clocking off around 5:28 p.m. Schwenke was seen on video reacting to a noise, and Detective Lee confirmed that the distance between Schwenke and the back area of the store where she heard the scream was the same distance as the witness stand and podium in the courtroom.
The prosecution diverted back to the stacking of the crates to check for any movement. Lee said that they were watching the boxes when they did see something interesting happen. Detective Lee pointed out that when a specific door opens, you can see light from the break room hit the door. The boxes were seen noticeably moving, followed by a moment of a grey Walgreens shirt being seen on camera.
In the cross-examination, the defense wanted to take it back to the beginning and Detective Lee's involvement with the case. Detective Lee said he was called on the evening of the murder and continued to collect statements and evidence in the days and months following Riley's death.
The cross-examination focused on what Detective Lee observed, who he interviewed, and who he did not interview. The defense identified that Detective Lee did not interview Justin Zunino or Jacob Leacock. The defense also focused on whether the detectives found anything in the defendant's vehicle. Detective Lee said they did not find much.
In the redirect, the prosecution followed up on whether Detective Lee would follow up with Zunino and Leacock if he deemed it necessary. He said he would if their initial interviews required a follow-up.
Following the redirect, the jury had a few questions for Detective Lee. The jury was curious if there was blood found in the defendant's vehicle. Detective Lee said they collected multiple samples of blood from the vehicle. The jury was also curious if bleach stains were found on the clothing collected at the defendant's home. Detective Lee said they were consistent with what bleach tends to do to clothing; however, they did not test for the presence of bleach.
The next witness called was a DNA Analyst with the Metro Crime Lab, Donna Manogue
Manogue was confirmed to be an expert in DNA analysis, serology, and DNA collection. The prosecution walked through what DNA is, the process for collecting DNA, and the way that DNA is analyzed to show DNA profiles and the genetic code that is taken from the process.
The prosecution went through the different areas that were presumptively positive for the testing of blood. According to Manogue, the defendant's clothing tested positive for the presumptive presence of blood, and Riley Whitelaw's fingernails tested positive for the presence of blood.
The prosecution also went ahead and asked about specific items that did not test positive for the presumptive presence of blood. These items include a name stage, radio system, and knife found in a sink near where Riley's body was discovered.
Manogue went on to describe the process of extracting DNA from certain samples. When asked how long DNA will remain present on an object, Manogue said in the right conditions it can last up to 30 years. Before testing samples of DNA taken from the crime scene, Manogue went ahead and created genetic profiles of Whitelaw and Johnson.
The next piece of evidence shown in the courtroom was a white shirt from the defendant. Manogue went ahead and tested the stain and said based on her notes that there were only two contributors: Johnson and Riley Whitelaw, down to a one-octillion deviation error. That is a one followed by twenty-seven zeroes.
One article of clothing that was found was a pair of blue pants with apparent blood stains. Manogue determined there were three contributors to this stain: Riley and Johnson but another genetic profile that could not be used for comparison. Manogue went on to talk more about other articles of clothing with apparent blood stains that all came back with confirmation of Riley Whitelaw's DNA.
When it came to a multi-use tool that was found at the scene of the crime. Swabs from the blade and handle tested positive for blood with three contributors. The major presence of DNA that was identifiable came to match Whitelaw's DNA. DNA taken from a separate part of the knife handle tested positive for matching with Johnson; although, there was another source that was not identifiable.
One of the last pieces of evidence talked about was blood found on fingernail clippings from Riley. The two DNA samples came back as a positive match for Riley but also another contributor who was identified as male. Due to the limited testing at the Metro Crime Lab, Manogue sent the fingernail clippings off for Y-STR testing with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, to single out the DNA of the male contributor.
In cross-examination, the defense wanted to focus on the things DNA could not tell you. For instance how DNA got onto a specific item or article of clothing. The defense asked if touch is one way DNA can spread and Manogue confirmed that it was. The defense focused back on the DNA found under Riley's fingernails, Manogue confirmed that during her testing she could not confirm who the second contributor of DNA was.
The defense focused on a handle in which DNA evidence was collected, the defense confirmed with Manogue that there were multiple incomparable male samples from the handle. The defense continued to ask about other pieces of DNA evidence collected that were not viable for comparison due to a lack of genetic profiles.
In the redirect, the prosecution asked if the samples that were determined to be incomparable, get ruled out. Manogue said they are not even compared to the genetic profiles of Riley and Johnson.
The next pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution were DNA collection swabs from the defendant's body. Manogue said there was a presence of two major contributors, one being that of Johnson, but the minor contributors were undeterminable if they were male or female DNA samples when questioned by the defense. This line of questioning ended Manogue's testimony.
Before the lunch recess at 12:00 p.m., the prosecution said they expect to get through their witnesses by the end of the day.
Following the lunch recess, the prosecution called forward Lindsey Roup a Forensic Scientist for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation in the Serology Section. In her testimony, the prosecution walked through what DNA collection of specific evidence was done by CBI DNA analysts in this case. The prosecution focused on the specific evidence sent in by the Metro Crime Lab, for Y-STR testing and the results of that testing.
The Y-STR testing focuses on singling out the Y chromosome in DNA sequencing. In the sample provided by the Metro Crime Lab from the fingertips, the Y-STR test went ahead and came back positive to the male lineage of Joshua Johnson. The prosecution had no further questions for the witness.
The defense in cross-examination focused on the fact that Roup was looking over another analyst's data to see if she would come to the same outcome, she said that she did come to the same outcome. The defense shifted to focus on the use of the Y-STR tests in general. The Y-STR testing is based on locating specific male DNA. Roup testified that while the DNA came back positive for Joshua Johnson's profile, she could not specifically say which male in Johnson's lineage the DNA would point to and to positively make that call would need samples from all the males in Johnson's family.
In redirect, the prosecution had one simple question, "did the DNA sample come back positive with the DNA profile of Joshua Johnson?" Ms. Roup answered that it did. This ended the testimony of Lindsey Roup.
The prosecution called Jennifer Fanelli, and a Latent Print Examiner with the Metro Crime Lab for Colorado Springs. Fanelli explained what latent prints are to the courtroom. The difference between latent and patent prints is the difference in the depositing of natural oils from the skin onto another surface, latent prints often are not visible to the human eye.
Fanelli was responsible for the processing of the latent prints at the scene and eventually in charge of comparing these prints to prints from Joshua Johnson. Fanelli walked the court through certain fingerprints, and identifiable features on the print. Fanelli said that based on two prints, a latent and a patent print found at the scene both were Johnson's. Fanelli testified that eight of the fingerprints found at the scene were of value.
In cross-examination, the defense asked the witness if a person is operating in a space, they will undoubtedly leave fingerprints throughout the area. The defense asked Fanelli if the prints found on the Gerber multi-tool matched Johnson's. Fanelli said they could not use those prints as they were not matchable. The same goes for fingerprints found on a stack of red crates that were found.
Jeniffer Fanelli was dismissed from the case following her testimony.
The next witness called forward by the prosecution was Amber Garcia, the other Colorado State Patrol Officer that responded to the scene was Trooper Miller, who first found Johnson. Trooper Garcia walked through the night they found Johnson near Trinidad.
Johnson told Trooper Garcia that he was assaulted. Garcia noted in court that his hair looked as though it had just been shaved. Garcia stated that Johnson told them that he found Riley with her assailant over her before running away. Trooper Garcia said in court Johnson said that it may have been someone that he suspected was bothering "his girls." According to Trooper Garcia's report, Johnson told both State Patrol Officers that he had given "his girls" box cutters to protect themselves. The prosecution had no further questions.
The next witness called to the stand by the prosecution was Detective Stephen Aulino, who is the Lead Detective and Investigator in this case. Based on all the evidence gathered from the initial scene, the prosecution asked if investigators were able to identify a suspect. Aulino said there were and proceeded to say that the prime suspect was Joshua Johnson and identified him in court.
The next piece of evidence presented by the prosecution was the interview between Johnson and Detective Aulino. This was played for the courtroom in its entirety and is over an hour long.
The next witness called to the stand by the prosecution was Detective Stephen Aulino, who is the Lead Detective and Investigator in this case. Based on all the evidence gathered from the initial scene, the prosecution asked if investigators were able to identify a suspect. Aulino said there were and proceeded to say that the prime suspect was Joshua Johnson and identified him in court. The next piece of evidence presented by the prosecution was the interview between Johnson and Detective Aulino. This was played for the courtroom in its entirety.
Following the playing of the video the prosecution asked what his opinion of the stains on the defendant's clothing were. Detective Aulino said that he believed these stains to be blood. The prosecution asked if he thought they may be bleach stains, to which the defense objected as a leading question. Judge Bentley sustained the objection. The prosecution ended its questioning.
In the cross-examination of lead Detective Aulino the defense focused on the timeline of the case specifically when public information was released. Aulino stated there indeed was an arrest affidavit that was released with some information regarding the case.
After focusing in on a conversation about Johnson's safety concerns with the store and specific people Johnson seemed to determine a liability the defense ended the questioning of their witness.
The jury had a few questions following the defense's questioning. Among those was why detectives did not interview Jacob Leacock, Riley's boyfriend at the time, and Detective Aulino stated it was because as lead investigator he was able to vet Jacob and determined he had no involvement in the killing.
The court went into break around 4:15 p.m. after the prosecution rested and was done to ensure the prosecution's evidence list matched the court list and plan out what the remainder of the trial would look like as the prosecution had finished presenting its evidence.
Moving forward Joshua Johnson will undergo a Curtis Advisement, to see if Johnson plans to testify. According to Judge Bentley jury deliberations may begin Wednesday afternoon depending on how long it will take for the defense to present their evidence.
In an early reading of Johnson's Curtis advisement Johnson was understanding of all the questions asked of him and answered "yes" to them all. But, Johnson will answer whether or not he will testify on Wednesday morning as per the defense's request. Following this the defense asked for an acquittal of Johnson, stating that there was no strong evidence showing that Johnson caused the death of Riley Whitelaw.
The defense stated the only evidence that places Johnson in the room where Riley was killed is from Johnson himself. The motion for judgment of acquittal was denied by Bentley, stating there was enough evidence for the court to go to judgment.
Court was dismissed at 4:45 p.m. and will resume at 8:45 a.m. on Wednesday.
____
Watch KOAA News5 on your time, anytime with our free streaming app available for your Roku, FireTV, AppleTV and Android TV. Just search KOAA News5, download and start watching.
