Name: Bill Brannon — Direct/Cross/Redirect - Day 2 - Charlie Adelson
Uploaded: 2023-10-27
Description: TPD Officer Bill Brannon's testimony covers his crime scene role on July 18, 2014 and his observation of a Honda Odyssey that approached the Trescott Drive roadblock, stopped, and turned around without inquiry. Cross-examination challenged the distance of the tape and the timing of the turn-around; redirect restored the visibility of law enforcement activity at the scene.

TPD Officer Bill Brannon's testimony covers his crime scene role on July 18, 2014 and his observation of a Honda Odyssey that approached the Trescott Drive roadblock, stopped, and turned around without inquiry. Cross-examination challenged the distance of the tape and the timing of the turn-around; redirect restored the visibility of law enforcement activity at the scene.

← Day 1

Day 3 →

Proceedings

Direct Bill Brannon - Direct Line 1

Cross Bill Brannon - Cross Line 106

Redirect Bill Brannon - Redirect Line 129

Direct Bill Brannon Georgia Cappleman

1 1:20:55

JUDGE EVERETT: State, please call your next witness.

2 1:20:55

MS. CAPPLEMAN: State calls Officer Brannon.

3 1:21:08

JUDGE EVERETT: Please raise your right hand, sir.

4 1:21:10

JUDGE EVERETT: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

5 1:21:14

BILL BRANNON: I do.

6 1:21:15

JUDGE EVERETT: You may take your seat.

7 1:21:21

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Please introduce yourself and spell your name.

8 1:21:24

BILL BRANNON: Officer Brannon, number 510. B-R-A-N-N-O-N. With Tallahassee Police Department.

9 1:21:30

MS. CAPPLEMAN: How long have you been with TPD?

10 1:21:33

BILL BRANNON: Approaching 25 years, and I was with FSUPD for a couple years prior to that.

11 1:21:38

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you go to the scene in this case on July 18, 2014?

12 1:21:42

BILL BRANNON: Yes, ma'am.

13 1:21:43

MS. CAPPLEMAN: What was your function there on Trescott Drive?

14 1:21:47

BILL BRANNON: I ended up writing the primary report.

15 1:21:51

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. What is the primary report?

16 1:21:53

BILL BRANNON: Just the initial report of the basics of, you know, what had occurred.

17 1:21:59

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And as part of your duties out there at the scene, did you maintain the crime scene integrity of the crime scene?

18 1:22:06

BILL BRANNON: Yes.

19 1:22:06

MS. CAPPLEMAN: How did you do that?

20 1:22:09

BILL BRANNON: We set up a perimeter, and once we established the perimeter around the crime scene, I was guarding the north end of it.

21 1:22:16

MS. CAPPLEMAN: What was the crime scene? Can you describe it for us?

22 1:22:21

BILL BRANNON: I was on Trescott Drive, and basically we blocked off the road three or four houses to the north and to the south.

23 1:22:29

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. So that whole area was considered the crime scene, and only law enforcement was entering or exiting until you were done?

24 1:22:36

BILL BRANNON: Yes, ma'am.

25 1:22:37

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. When you arrived there, who was present on the scene from law enforcement?

26 1:22:42

BILL BRANNON: Sergeant Sims was the first one on scene.

27 1:22:46

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Was EMS there by the time you got there, or did they arrive after you arrived?

28 1:22:49

BILL BRANNON: They were already there also.

29 1:22:51

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Did you participate in clearing the residence there at Trescott?

30 1:22:55

BILL BRANNON: Yes.

31 1:22:55

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Was there any evidence of a struggle or a robbery present at the scene?

32 1:23:00

BILL BRANNON: In the garage.

33 1:23:01

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. What was that? There was evidence of a robbery in the garage?

34 1:23:06

BILL BRANNON: Of an incident — a violent incident.

35 1:23:08

MR. RASHBAUM: Compound question.

36 1:23:08

MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm sorry. So there was some broken glass there?

37 1:23:13

BILL BRANNON: Yes, ma'am. Observed broken glass on the floor and inside of the vehicle.

38 1:23:16

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. But no evidence of anything that had intruded into the home?

39 1:23:20

BILL BRANNON: No.

40 1:23:21

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. As part of maintaining the crime scene perimeter, is crime scene tape put up across the road?

41 1:23:29

BILL BRANNON: Yes.

42 1:23:29

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you participate in doing that?

43 1:23:32

BILL BRANNON: I believe so, yes, ma'am.

44 1:23:34

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And I think you said it was a couple houses down in each direction is where the tape was placed?

45 1:23:40

BILL BRANNON: Yes.

46 1:23:41

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And where were you physically positioned?

47 1:23:45

BILL BRANNON: My patrol car was blocking the roadway.

48 1:23:48

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And were you on the — don't use north and south, because that would be lost on me — were you closest on the side of the scene closest to Centerville Road, or closest to the other side of Trescott?

49 1:24:04

BILL BRANNON: Closer to Centerville.

50 1:24:05

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. I'm gonna show you an aerial map that I've marked as State's Exhibit 125.

51 1:24:11

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do you recognize 125?

52 1:24:16

BILL BRANNON: Yes.

53 1:24:17

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that a fair and accurate map that includes the scene in this case?

54 1:24:21

BILL BRANNON: Yes, ma'am.

55 1:24:22

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does it include the position that you were in at the crime scene tape?

56 1:24:27

BILL BRANNON: Yes. We've been somewhere right up in that area.

57 1:24:30

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Permission to publish 125? Introduce and publish 125, Your Honor.

58 1:24:34

JUDGE EVERETT: Yes, ma'am.

59 1:24:36

JUDGE EVERETT: So — We can keep this moving. Mr. Rashbaum, are you objecting to the way he's approached?

60 1:26:49

MR. RASHBAUM: At this time, the defense has withdrawn any objection.

61 1:26:54

JUDGE EVERETT: You may continue with your examination.

62 1:26:56

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Am I published?

63 1:26:57

JUDGE EVERETT: You may.

64 1:26:58

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All — right, so can you explain for the jury where the roadblock was that you were positioned out at the crime scene?

65 1:27:48

BILL BRANNON: So that blue dot right there is the victim's residence. I would have been somewhere right in that area.

66 1:27:55

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And can you show us, in relation to that, where Centerville intersects with Trescott over here?

67 1:28:08

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. So if you were to turn onto Trescott from Centerville, can you just kind of show us with your light the route of travel from Centerville to the roadblock?

68 1:28:20

BILL BRANNON: Comes around here, up and back around.

69 1:28:24

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Would you have been able to see the roadblock from the intersection of Centerville and Trescott?

70 1:28:31

BILL BRANNON: No.

71 1:28:32

MS. CAPPLEMAN: If you had just started to turn on to Trescott and then rerouted back on to Centerville, would you have been able to see the roadblock that way?

72 1:28:42

BILL BRANNON: No, you'd have to go a considerable amount around.

73 1:28:46

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And from the roadblock where you were positioned, could you see the crime scene?

74 1:28:53

BILL BRANNON: Yes.

75 1:28:53

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And you mentioned that there was EMS and other law enforcement. Were there marked law enforcement vehicles in the driveway and roadway directly in front of the crime scene?

76 1:29:14

BILL BRANNON: When I was on the perimeter position, I know there was a lot of investigators and crime scene vehicles. I don't remember if any of the marked patrol cars were in front of the residence. They may have been.

77 1:29:27

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, so what type of vehicles were out there? Can you describe what sort of activity was happening at the Markel residence when you were at the perimeter?

78 1:29:36

BILL BRANNON: Basically, the investigators and the crime scene techs taking care of their portion, and the crime scene tech vehicles are marked police and have lights on them and stuff.

79 1:29:36

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so would it have been obvious to someone approaching your position in a vehicle that there was activity, law enforcement activity, going on at that residence?

80 1:29:57

BILL BRANNON: It seems likely.

81 1:29:59

MR. RASHBAUM: Objection, Your Honor.

82 1:30:01

JUDGE EVERETT: What are the grounds?

83 1:30:05

MR. RASHBAUM: Guessing.

84 1:30:08

JUDGE EVERETT: Sustained as to speculation.

85 1:30:11

MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm going to approach and show you what's been introduced in evidence. I'll just publish 18.

86 1:30:25

BILL BRANNON: It looks like a vehicle that I saw approaching the scene that day.

87 1:30:31

MS. CAPPLEMAN: I'm sorry, will you repeat your answer?

88 1:30:33

BILL BRANNON: It appears to be a vehicle that I saw approaching the scene that day.

89 1:30:38

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And this vehicle, are you familiar particularly with the make and model of this particular vehicle?

90 1:30:46

BILL BRANNON: Yes. My wife drove a — well, we still have it; my daughter drives it now — a 2006 Honda Odyssey.

91 1:30:53

MS. CAPPLEMAN: So at the time, you had in your family this same type of vehicle?

92 1:30:56

BILL BRANNON: Yes.

93 1:30:57

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And did you know at the time that Wendi Adelson drove this type of vehicle?

94 1:31:01

BILL BRANNON: Yes.

95 1:31:01

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right, so you noticed this vehicle, or a vehicle identical to this one, approach your position?

96 1:31:08

BILL BRANNON: Yes, ma'am.

97 1:31:09

MS. CAPPLEMAN: What did the vehicle do when it approached your position?

98 1:31:11

BILL BRANNON: It just stopped pretty quick and turned around and headed back in the other direction.

99 1:31:17

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did the driver stop and inquire of you what the activity was at the Markel residence?

100 1:31:23

BILL BRANNON: No.

101 1:31:23

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Do— You know what time of day that was that you observed this vehicle approach the roadblock?

102 1:31:38

BILL BRANNON: Sometime a little after noon, probably around closer to 1:00.

103 1:31:43

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And just to clarify, were there any other roadblocks between where you were positioned — and encountered this vehicle — and the Centerville intersection?

104 1:31:56

BILL BRANNON: No.

105 1:31:56

MS. CAPPLEMAN: No further questions.

Cross Bill Brannon Dan Rashbaum

106 1:32:36

MR. RASHBAUM: Officer Brannon, good morning.

107 1:32:38

BILL BRANNON: Morning.

108 1:32:39

MR. RASHBAUM: So I want to get a little bit more precise.

109 1:32:44

MR. RASHBAUM: Do you know how many houses the tape was away from?

110 1:32:49

MR. RASHBAUM: Because we just heard a couple; we heard maybe three. Do you know how many houses it was?

111 1:32:54

BILL BRANNON: I don't know exactly. I'm approximating three or four houses.

112 1:32:58

MR. RASHBAUM: Do you know a forensic specialist, Maltese?

113 1:33:02

BILL BRANNON: I'm familiar.

114 1:33:05

MR. RASHBAUM: She testified that it was five to six houses away. Could that be correct?

115 1:33:10

BILL BRANNON: Could be.

116 1:33:13

MR. RASHBAUM: Okay. You said that you saw the Honda Odyssey approach in the afternoon, and you said it was closer to 1:00. Do you recall testifying to that?

117 1:33:25

BILL BRANNON: I believe so, yes.

118 1:33:26

MR. RASHBAUM: Okay. Okay.

119 1:33:28

MR. RASHBAUM: Are you aware that cell phone data puts that car on the outer perimeter later, meaning after 12:30 p.m.?

120 1:33:39

BILL BRANNON: I'm not familiar with any of that.

121 1:33:41

MR. RASHBAUM: But it would be consistent with your memory that it was closer to 1 o'clock, right?

122 1:33:46

BILL BRANNON: That appears to be, but it's been nine years.

123 1:33:48

MR. RASHBAUM: And when that car left, you're aware that the ambulance was already gone, right?

124 1:33:57

BILL BRANNON: I believe so, yes.

125 1:34:00

MR. RASHBAUM: Could you see that the driver of the car was on the phone at the time that she approached?

126 1:34:06

BILL BRANNON: No.

127 1:34:08

MR. RASHBAUM: May I have one moment, Your Honor?

128 1:34:08

MR. RASHBAUM: No further questions, Your Honor.

Redirect Bill Brannon Georgia Cappleman

129 1:34:10

JUDGE EVERETT: Any redirect examination? Does the state have any redirect examination?

130 1:34:10

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Your Honor.

131 1:34:10

MS. CAPPLEMAN: So when the minivan approached, there was crime scene tape and your law enforcement vehicle in the roadway. Is that correct?

132 1:34:47

BILL BRANNON: Yes, ma'am.

133 1:34:48

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And beyond that, now I guess we're three to five houses down?

134 1:34:56

BILL BRANNON: I don't know exactly.

135 1:34:58

MS. CAPPLEMAN: What's your best estimate?

136 1:34:59

BILL BRANNON: My best estimate was three or four.

137 1:35:02

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, so three or four houses down from that tape is this law enforcement activity.

138 1:35:08

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Is that right?

139 1:35:09

BILL BRANNON: Correct.

140 1:35:10

MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. And would the driver, however far away it was, have been able to see that law enforcement activity at that residence?

141 1:35:10

MR. RASHBAUM: Objection.

142 1:35:18

JUDGE EVERETT: What's your objection?

143 1:35:21

MR. RASHBAUM: Speculation.

144 1:35:21

JUDGE EVERETT: I'll allow him to answer if he has a memory...

145 1:35:26

MS. CAPPLEMAN: You were there, right?

146 1:35:27

BILL BRANNON: I was able to see it from my perspective.

147 1:35:30

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay, nothing further.

148 1:35:32

JUDGE EVERETT: You may step down, Officer Brannon. Will he be recalled by any party?

149 1:35:37

MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir.

150 1:35:38

MR. RASHBAUM: No, Your Honor.

Insights

Direct Bill Brannon

TPD Officer Brannon established the July 18, 2014 crime scene perimeter on Trescott Drive and testified that a Honda Odyssey — the same model Wendi Adelson drove — approached his roadblock around noon, then quickly turned around without the driver stopping to ask about the police activity.

Case Significance

Brannon's vehicle sighting places a Honda Odyssey matching Wendi Adelson's near the active crime scene perimeter during the police response, and the driver's abrupt turnaround without inquiry is potentially probative of prior awareness of what was occurring at the residence.

Prosecution established Brannon knew Wendi Adelson drove a Honda Odyssey at the time
Aerial map showed the roadblock was not visible from Centerville Road — reaching it required actively traveling into Trescott Drive
Driver did not stop to ask about the law enforcement activity before turning back
Timing (around noon-1pm) falls within the July 18 post-shooting timeline

Highlights

Testimony

Brannon confirmed the roadblock was not visible from the Centerville/Trescott intersection — a driver would have had to travel 'a considerable amount around' to reach it, ruling out an accidental encounter.

“No, you'd have to go a considerable amount around.”

— Bill BrannonEstablishes that reaching the roadblock was not accidental — the driver had to navigate well past the Centerville intersection before the perimeter came into view.Ruling

Defense objection sustained on speculation grounds when Brannon said it 'seems likely' someone approaching would recognize the law enforcement activity.

Testimony

Brannon testified that a vehicle appearing to match a 2006 Honda Odyssey — the type Wendi Adelson drove — approached his roadblock around noon to 1:00 p.m., stopped quickly, and turned back without the driver stopping to ask about the police activity.

“It just stopped pretty quick and turned around and headed back in the other direction.”

— Bill BrannonThe core observation of the examination: the Honda Odyssey driver approached the crime scene perimeter and immediately retreated without inquiring — the fact the driver did not stop to ask is the detail the prosecution highlighted.

People Mentioned

Wendi Adelson David Sims Dan Markel

Locations Mentioned

2116 Trescott Drive Centerville Road / Trescott Drive intersection

Evidence Mentioned

State's Exhibit 125State's Exhibit 18

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Prosecution: establish vehicle sighting and driver's deliberate approach

Cappleman used the aerial map to show the roadblock was not visible from Centerville Road, then established that Brannon personally knew Wendi Adelson drove a Honda Odyssey, before eliciting his observation of the vehicle's approach and abrupt retreat — framing the driver's failure to inquire as potentially meaningful.

Case Theory Connections

Wendi Adelson's movements on July 18

The prosecution's prior cross-examination of Wendi traced her July 18 movements; Brannon's sighting of a vehicle matching hers near the crime scene perimeter in the early afternoon adds a potential corroborating data point to that timeline.

Evidentiary Or Procedural Notes

State's Exhibit 125 introduced and published

Aerial map of the Trescott Drive area was admitted and published to the jury without sustained objection, used to orient the perimeter position and the route from Centerville Road.

Impeachment Or Tension Points

Speculation objection sustained on law enforcement visibility

Rashbaum successfully objected when Brannon said it 'seems likely' someone approaching would recognize law enforcement activity; the court sustained on speculation grounds, limiting that inference to the jury's own assessment.

Testimony Themes

Crime scene perimeter and integrity

Brannon described the perimeter scope (three to four houses in each direction), his assigned position near Centerville Road, the visible investigator and crime scene tech activity, and broken glass in the garage as evidence of a violent incident with no intrusion into the home.

Honda Odyssey sighting near roadblock

Brannon recognized the approaching vehicle as a Honda Odyssey because his own family owned the same model; he knew Wendi Adelson drove one. The driver stopped quickly and turned around without asking about the police activity.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Officer Brannon was a patrol officer who helped establish and maintain the Trescott Drive crime scene perimeter on July 18, 2014. His significance is his eyewitness account of a Honda Odyssey — the model Wendi Adelson drove — approaching the roadblock and abruptly retreating without inquiry, and his testimony that the roadblock was not visible from the main intersection.

Cross Bill Brannon

Defense cross targeted two narrow points from Brannon's direct: the precision of his crime scene tape distance estimate and the timing of the Honda Odyssey approach — extracting concessions that cell phone data placing the car after 12:30 p.m. is consistent with his memory and that he could not see whether the driver was on a phone.

Case Significance

Brief cross mildly undercutting the prosecution's inference that the Honda Odyssey driver turned around because she recognized the police presence; no major concessions and no new evidence introduced.

Brannon acknowledged cell phone timing data is consistent with his recollection
Brannon confirmed he could not see whether the driver was on a phone
Ambulance already departed when the car turned around, reducing visible police signal

Highlights

Testimony

Rashbaum elicits that cell phone data places the Honda Odyssey at the outer perimeter after 12:30 p.m., which Brannon acknowledges is consistent with his recollection of 'closer to 1:00,' blunting the precision of the prosecution's timing narrative.

“That appears to be, but it's been nine years.”

— Bill BrannonBrannon accepts that cell phone data timing is consistent with his recollection while foregrounding the nine-year gap in memory, underscoring the limits of his recall and the uncertainty the defense sought to establish.Admission

Brannon confirms he could not see whether the Honda Odyssey driver was on a phone at the time of approach, opening an innocent-distraction explanation for the quick turn-around.

“No.”

— Bill BrannonFlat admission that Brannon could not see whether the Honda Odyssey driver was on a phone — supporting the defense's innocent-distraction alternative to the prosecution's inference of guilty recognition.

People Mentioned

Joanne Maltese

Evidence Mentioned

Cell phone data placing Honda Odyssey at outer perimeter after 12:30 p.m.

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Neutralize Guilty-Recognition Inference

Rashbaum's cross was entirely structured to minimize the inference that the Honda Odyssey driver turned around because she recognized police activity: the car arrived later, the ambulance was already gone, the tape may have been farther, and the driver may have been on a phone. Each concession individually is minor; together they build a record for closing argument.

Case Theory Connections

Honda Odyssey Turn-Around — Innocent-Timing Record

Defense built a factual record that the approach occurred after 12:30 p.m. (consistent with cell data), the ambulance was already gone reducing visible urgency signals, and the driver may have been on a phone — each element available for closing argument to rebut the prosecution's guilty-knowledge inference from the turn-around.

Impeachment Or Tension Points

Tape Distance: Three to Four vs. Five to Six Houses

Brannon estimated three to four houses; Rashbaum cited Maltese's five to six. Brannon yielded 'could be,' softening his estimate without fully retracting it.

Notable Admissions

Cell Data Timing Consistent With Recollection

Brannon acknowledged that cell phone data placing the Honda Odyssey at the outer perimeter after 12:30 p.m. is consistent with his own 'closer to 1:00' memory, though he was unfamiliar with the data itself.

Could Not See Driver on Phone

Brannon confirmed he could not see whether the Honda Odyssey driver was on a phone at the time of approach.

Testimony Themes

Perimeter Distance Uncertainty

Rashbaum softened Brannon's estimate of the tape placement from three to four houses to 'could be' five to six, per Maltese's prior testimony — suggesting the roadblock may have been less visually prominent than the direct implied.

Honda Odyssey Timing and Innocent Context

Defense established that the Honda Odyssey arrived after 12:30 p.m. per cell data (consistent with Brannon), the ambulance was already gone, and the driver could not be observed to be on a phone — each point supporting an innocent-distraction alternative to the prosecution's turn-around inference.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

TPD patrol officer who guarded the northern crime scene perimeter on Trescott Drive on July 18, 2014. His key direct-examination testimony was observing a Honda Odyssey approach his roadblock around noon to 1:00 p.m., pause, and turn around without the driver stopping to inquire — the prosecution's inference being guilty recognition of police activity. The defense cross targeted the precision of that inference through timing and contextual concessions.

Redirect Bill Brannon

Cappleman's two-question redirect re-established that crime scene tape and Brannon's patrol vehicle were visible in the roadway, and drew Brannon's first-person confirmation that he could see the law enforcement activity from his position.

Case Significance

A brief rehabilitative redirect on a single visibility point; no new evidence or admissions.

redirect limited to one substantive question
no new evidence introduced
no admissions obtained

Highlights

“I was able to see it from my perspective.”

— Bill BrannonBrannon's carefully first-person answer — given after a speculation objection was conditionally overruled — confirms the law enforcement activity was visible from his position at the perimeter, supporting the prosecution's inference that an approaching driver would have recognized the scene as an active police response.Objection

Rashbaum objected on speculation grounds when Cappleman asked whether an approaching driver could have seen the law enforcement activity. Judge Everett allowed the answer limited to Brannon's personal memory rather than sustaining outright, shaping the answer into first-person testimony about Brannon's own sightlines rather than a claim about the driver's perception.

Deep Analysis

Attorney Strategy

Single-point rehabilitation

Cappleman asked exactly one substantive question — targeted at the visibility inference Rashbaum had left ambiguous on cross — then closed immediately after receiving a favorable first-person answer, avoiding any opening for further cross.

Evidentiary Or Procedural Notes

Speculation objection resolved by memory-limiting instruction

Judge Everett's ruling neither sustained nor flatly overruled the objection; he conditioned the answer on Brannon's personal observation. Brannon's first-person framing of his answer was shaped by that instruction and avoided the speculation ground that would have blocked it.

Testimony Themes

Scene visibility rehabilitation

Cappleman used redirect to re-anchor the inference that crime scene tape plus a law enforcement vehicle in the roadway would have been apparent to an approaching driver, countering the defense's neutral-timing framing of the turn-around.

Witness Role And Importance

Witness Role And Importance

Brannon was the TPD patrol officer who guarded the northern Trescott Drive perimeter on July 18, 2014, and whose observation of the Honda Odyssey approach-and-turn is a small piece of the prosecution's circumstantial case that the minivan occupants recognized the active crime scene and deliberately avoided it.

Summary

TPD Officer Bill Brannon, a nearly 25-year department veteran, testified under direct examination by Georgia Cappleman about his assignment at the Trescott Drive crime scene perimeter on the day Dan Markel was shot. He guarded the northern end near Centerville Road, authored the primary incident report, and described broken garage glass with no sign of home intrusion. An aerial map established that the roadblock was not visible from the Centerville/Trescott intersection — a driver would have had to travel a considerable distance down Trescott before encountering it. The central exchange concerned a Honda Odyssey matching the model then driven by Wendi Adelson that Brannon observed around noon to 1:00 p.m.: the vehicle approached his roadblock, stopped quickly, and turned around without the driver stopping to inquire. A defense objection on speculation grounds was sustained when Brannon characterized the driver's likely awareness of law enforcement activity. Dan Rashbaum's cross-examination pressed two points. On tape placement, he noted that forensic specialist Maltese had testified the tape was five to six houses away rather than Brannon's estimate of three to four, and Brannon conceded the discrepancy. On timing, Rashbaum introduced cell phone data placing the car at the outer perimeter after 12:30 p.m., which Brannon acknowledged was consistent with his recollection that the time was "closer to 1:00." Brannon also confirmed the ambulance was already gone when the vehicle departed and that he could not see whether the driver was using a phone. Cappleman's redirect addressed a single point: she confirmed the roadblock included both crime scene tape and a law enforcement vehicle in the roadway, then asked whether an approaching driver would have been able to see law enforcement activity at the residence. Rashbaum again objected on speculation grounds. Judge Everett allowed the answer limited to Brannon's personal observation; Brannon stated he was able to see the activity from his own position.

← Wendi Adelson — Cross/Redirect 2 of 9 Jeffrey Lacasse — Direct/Cross/Redirect →