Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance And Discovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Detective: surveillance and bodycam place Leonard Thompson at Pierre’s apartment; court hears some footage missing and discovery gaps
Summary
Detective Jeff Hancock testified that surveillance and body-worn camera clips show the defendant entering and later leaving the victim's apartment; the court also heard that a key third-floor surveillance channel was not preserved on the downloaded drive and defense raised discovery concerns about phone and bank records.
A lead detective told the trial that apartment surveillance and brief body-worn camera recordings put the defendant, Leonard Thompson, at the victim’s apartment on the day prosecutors say the assault occurred — but the court also heard that parts of the surveillance download were missing and that the defense still needed certain investigative materials.
Detective Jeff Hancock testified that he reviewed Raintree Apartments surveillance video and identified the person later charged in the case. Hancock said he reviewed footage back through the time the victim entered her unit and located a black male who, the detective said, later was identified by property managers as Leonard Thompson. The detective told jurors Thompson arrived at the third-floor hallway, entered the unit and later left; he observed Thompson again exiting on the sixth floor and returning to an apartment on that floor.
Hancock used his department-issued body camera to record clips of the surveillance monitors while he and apartment staff viewed the footage. The court admitted two body-camera thumb-drive recordings (State’s exhibits 4 and 5) after the court resolved earlier objections.
However, Hancock also testified that when the full surveillance terabyte drive was later reviewed it did not contain the camera channel that covered the third-floor hall and elevator area leading directly to the victim’s apartment. He said he learned of that omission only after he turned the drive over; the recording he had captured on his body camera supplied the only preserved copy of that angle. The detective testified he and apartment management had downloaded the surveillance system and that he used the body camera to capture what he was viewing in the manager’s office.
Defense counsel pressed Hancock on chronology and thoroughness: the defense noted the volume of footage (multiple channels across many hours), asked how the detective compressed review time and probed whether other surveillance and investigative leads (a maintenance worker, other residents) had been fully followed. The defense also raised discovery and chain-of-custody questions: defense counsel asked why certain laboratory and phone records had not yet been produced. The court instructed counsel to check discovery and ordered prosecutors and investigators to confirm and, if necessary, produce outstanding materials.
Prosecutors said they had provided thumb drives and will confirm that phone and bank subpoena material are in the record; the judge directed the parties to confer over the lunch break and to make the courtroom and jury-room available for defense review of documents. The court set times for witnesses and left open the possibility of recalling witnesses if additional discovery required follow-up.
