Sitting in a Case Dealing With a Credit Card Fraud

On March 13th, 2013, I had the opportunity to go to Hennepin County Criminal Court and was able to observe a jury trial. The case that I sat in was about a credit card fraud that occurred at a gas station in New Hope Minnesota. The Defendant Mrs. Yesayan Gohar was charged with 8 counts of identity theft felony and Unlawful possession or use of scanning device or re-encoder. Mrs. Gohar was arrested in New Hope, Minnesota a long with her husband whose trial has not yet begun at the time.

The criminal proceeding was very interesting as the use of language was very direct and formal. 2 attorneys were representing the state as prosecutors. And the defendant had a defense attorney representing her as well as a translator who spoke into a microphone while Mrs. Gohar listened through headphones.

The defendant was accused of altering credit card machines at gas pumps at Shell gas stations in Plymouth, MN among other states throughout the country as evidence reviled.

The defendant was not a resident of the state of Minnesota but California and was arrested on July 8th 2012 following a traffic stop along with her husband. Suspicious behavior triggered the search of the car and the discovery of the skimmers which are illegal to possess in the state of Minnesota. Prior to summoning the jury the judge asked both prosecutors and the defense to have all exhibitions ready that they wanted to be entered into evidence at the time of cross examinations. The 12 jury members were brought in by order of the judge who instructed the usher to let them in from a side room.

Get quality help now

RhizMan

Verified

Proficient in: Credit Card Fraud

4.9 (247)

“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The trial has been going on and it was the 3rd day when I had attended at this time prosecutors were examining witnesses, the first witness was the detective in charge of searching the car at the time of the traffic stop, he was asked about what he found in the car and to describe them clearly so the jury could understand. Prosecutors had some evidence on hand to show the jury including 8 Credit

Cards that were blank and ready to be altered. Prosecutor asked the officer if he found the blank cards at the time of the stop, he answered “yes” and included that he also found skimming devices, keys to Shell gas pumps and a computer that had addresses and names of gas stations from across the states including 25 in Minnesota. According to the officer the digital evidence was taking to the secret service office in Minneapolis to be forensically analyzed. Prosecutes asked the officer what was the outcome of the analysis, officer stated there was a digital microchip attached to the computer which had credit card and bank information of other people including 19 in the state of Minnesota, he also found 3 credit cards in the name of the defendants husband in the front of the card and other persons information on the magnetic strip in the back of the card that were in the defendants purse. The prosecutor said he was done questioning the officer. The judge asked the defense attorney if he wanted to question the officer he said yes.

The defense attorney’s first question was if the officer was sure the purse belonged to the defendant, officer answered yes. Attorney then asked how, officer stated that he searched the purse after the defendant was detained in jail and it was a purse she checked into the personal property inventory. Attorney asked officer to explain how that process works, prosecutor objected the question as irrelevant to the jury, the judge sustained, the defense attorney had no more question. The next witness was the DNA analyst from the Minneapolis sheriff’s department who was asked to take oath before taking the witness stand. Prosecutor questioned her first she was asked if any of the DNA she examined matched the defendant, she answered yes and that out of twelve items that she tested 10 matched the defendant and 2 matched her husband’s DNA, prosecutor asked her if she was able to examine any more items she stated there was no need as there was

more than 3 key items that matched DNA at 100%. Prosecutor rested his question; judge asked the defense attorney if he wished to question the witness. The defense attorney asked the analyst if she was a civilian employee or an officer, she stated she was a civilian employee, he then asked her to explain what type of training she did to complete the certification of a DNA analyst to the jury. The attorney argued that the DNA analyst might have come with a different conclusion if she tested more than 12 items; she explained that there was no need as more than 3 items were a solid match. Attorney asked the analysts if the prosecutors asked her to give him that answer. Prosecutors objected and the judge sustained. The judge asked the jury to take a 10 minutes break; the usher directed them to the side room. The next 3 witness were the victims of identity theft brought to stand by the prosecutors.

Questions asked were; names, city of residence, identifying what gas stations they used and on what date they found out their identity was stolen. The witnesses were very emotional when they were asked what hardship they faced di to this crime, prosecutors also presented bank statements belonging to the victims as evidence. The defense attorney didn’t ask any of the victim’s questions. The judge then announced that the trial was adjourned and more witnesses were to be brought for examination the next day. I felt that the prosecutors had a very strong case as evidence was very clear and accurate witnesses. I felt like the defense attorney was not prepared for the witnesses and did not have clear questions, which also irritated the judge I believe. The atmosphere was very formal all questions were clear and if they were not the attorney repeated them. If the witness answered unclear they were asked to repeat the answer clearly. The judge was observant and respectful to both sides. After the court was adjourned the attorneys did shake hands praised each other on a good argument which I thought was professional of them.

In conclusion it was a very interesting trial which I’m glad I attended and would have liked to attend all hiring’s to see the outcome. According to WCCO radio the jury did convict the defendant and is now waiting to be sentenced on April 5, 2013.