LaredoBuzz.Com

Courtesy Monica Garcia,

(Laredo, Tx)- The Office of District Attorney Isidro R. Alaniz reports that a hearing on the motions took place yesterday morning in the capital murder trial of Jose Arredondo.  Arredondo is charged with the murder and aggravated sexual assault of two year old Katherine Cardenas.

 The majority of the morning was spent discussing the defense’s objection to the introduction of thirty-three autopsy photos by the State. 

 Eddie Pena, counsel for the defendant, argued that ‘the photos of the victim that were taken during the autopsy would, by their very nature, influence jurors to make decisions based on emotion’. 

 In response, District Attorney Isidro R. Alaniz, stated that “photos make an indelible impression but show the nature of the crime and nature of the wounds of the victim”.  He said that in cases such as this one, one of the major issues is the photos that accurately depict the wounds upon the victim, which makes them necessary.  “The photos are graphic, violent and gruesome but they depict the nature of the crime itself.”  “They are necessary to determine the extent and nature of the injuries to the child.”

 To this, the defense argued that officers on the scene who discovered the body could explain the nature of the injuries.  Pena once again stated that the photos would cause jurors to make emotional decisions versus rational ones.  He stressed that “some photos may be necessary but certainly not thirty-three photos”. 

To this, the State countered that “there are no repetitive photos of the same injury but there are in fact so many injuries…penetration of the anus, penetration of the vagina and also the asphyxiation.   Among that there are also many abrasions, contusions, bruising”. 

 After a short break, during which the Honorable Judge Joe Lopez went through the thirty-three photos, the hearing resumed and the Judge ruled on the admissibility of each individual photo with the majority of the photos being admitted into evidence.

 In another defense motion, there was a request for information regarding the admissibility of statements made by the defendant.  There was discussion before the court by both sides and the State conveyed that only a recorded conversation between the defendant and his father (incarcerated in federal prison at that time) would be admitted.   

 Elizabeth Martinez, co-counsel for the defense, argued a motion for updated contact information on the State’s witness list and then both sides discussed the admissibility of criminal history and the relevance and mentioning of bad character with regard to witnesses and the defendant.