HOUSTON – As the Deshaun Watson case continues to unfold, the trenches dug by every legal camp are becoming more and more defined. A few exchanges may have been more revealing than last week’s lengthy interrogation of Houston Police Detective Kamesha Baker, whose 230-page testimony was obtained from Yahoo Sports. Baker is one of two officers previously assigned to investigate 10 criminal charges against the NFL general, who is currently facing 24 civil lawsuits alleging a series of sexual misconduct or sexual assault. Eight of the 10 women who have filed criminal charges against Watson also have pending civil lawsuits against him, making Baker a potential key witness in this trial. Houston’s lawyer Tony Bazby, who represents the 24 women who sued Watson, testified. These 10 criminal charges and the subsequent investigations that followed failed to bring charges against major jurors in Harris and Brazoria counties. However, the internal functioning of these investigations, along with the notes and views of the two investigators – Baker and 25-year-old HPD veteran Emma Rodriguez, who is also expected to testify in the coming weeks – could be crucial. controversy. in civil litigation. Focusing on Baker’s testimony, three of the court’s central arguments between Buzbee and Watson’s defense attorney, Rusty Hardin, appear to formulate: whether Watson was entitled to any presumption of innocence during the HPD investigation. whether the burden of proof should have been placed on Watson to show his innocence. and the concept of coercion versus consent. As a witness against Watson in the civil court, Baker’s thought process in all three could have significant implications. He is already influencing public opinion, with Buzbee referring to Baker on Instagram, who testified that there was enough evidence for prosecutors in two Texas counties to prosecute Watson. This opinion was developed during a long period of direct scrutiny by Buzbee, who then asked if Baker had “any doubt” that a crime involving Watson had taken place. “No,” she replied. The story goes on That was not the whole point of Baker’s testimony. She testified in several different aspects of the Watson case that could arise in a civil lawsuit, including that she was not asked to testify in Harris County Court after hearing nine of Watson’s allegations, but appeared before a grand jury for questioning. of County Brazoria. Regarding her testimony in Brazoria, Baker said in her testimony that the evidence before this grand jury had the strongest potential for criminal prosecution. Neither court decided to issue charges. The outline of the legal arguments in Deshaun Watson’s civil lawsuits is beginning to take shape, centered on the testimony of a Houston Police Department investigator. (Ken Blaze / USA TODAY Sports) Finally, Baker made it clear in her testimony earlier this month that she believed Watson was guilty of crimes in the 10 allegations investigated by the HPD. He pointed out the similarities between the stories of the women who participated, highlighting a common “towel” thread in their interviews, in which Watson allegedly used a “little towel trick” to try to sexualize the massages. Baker also lamented that she had not been interviewed by Watson in an attempt to “take his side” in the alleged meetings, and also said that her work on Watson’s complaints was completed last September, about two months before the civil lawsuits. As Buzbee has made clear in his public comments about her testimony, Baker could be a strong witness in a political trial. This will create a controversy among lawyers about her methods and approaches as a researcher. And you could see it at the Hardin junction. The following are some of the key exchanges that may be reconsidered during the civil proceedings.

Presumption of innocence and burden of proof in the case of Deshaun Watson

While the presumption of innocence is considered a fundamental right when one is accused of a crime in court, it is not necessarily a guiding principle in police investigations. Baker’s testimony showed this fact in direct examination by Buzbee and cross-examination by Hardin. The defense questioned the way Baker described her direct approach, as well as that she placed the burden of proof on Watson to prove his innocence. In fact, Hardin seems to be digging into the way Baker conducted her research and, as an extension, came to her opinion on Watson’s guilt: Buzbee: You did not immediately think, oh, he is guilty and I will prove it? Baker: Me – no, I did not immediately think he was guilty. I wanted to give Mr Watson the benefit of the doubt and give Mr Watson the opportunity to give his side on what happened. Which I explained to you and to Mr Hardin that this is what we do. We will make both sides come to the truth. Later in the cross-examination, Hardin returned to Baker’s approach to sexual assault claims. He emphasized that Watson was not guilty of wrongdoing when he first met with the HPD. Hardin: And where in your world, Detective Baker, and I mean, does the credibility crisis come? Does the woman always have the benefit of the doubt? Baker: I start by believing in all the victims. Absolutely. Stay at this 100 percent. Anyone investigating a sexual crime should start by believing the complainant. If the defense provides something that denies it, we will believe this complainant. Hardin: So in the world of investigation, does the accused always have to prove his innocence? Hardin: Okay. Don’t you know that’s not the way the system’s supposed to work? Is it not, Detective Baker, who supposedly works the opposite, that – even when you are investigating, you say – you say that all that is needed is for the woman to make a claim and as soon as she makes the claim, the accused should refute it? Baker: Yes. The accused must deny it. Hardin: That would mean, right, that in each of these cases where the woman made the claim in the beginning, then would you believe it until we can convince you otherwise? Baker: It’s not convincing. This is whether there is evidence to support your client’s version of what happened. Because as you mentioned before, in the other world of case investigation, the accused is presumed innocent. This is the only crime – this is why it is difficult to prosecute and blame and do all this – is that women never have the benefit of the doubt. They are always supposed to lie. Hardin went on to delve into the burden of proof, later focusing on how Baker would act as a researcher to settle a claim he said appeared without witnesses. Prior to this exchange with Hardin, Baker had explained that the consistency in alleged meetings with Watson gave credibility to the accusers. Hardin continued to make exceptions with the accused being the person who must prove his innocence. Hardin: So suppose the accused does not provide you with any information. They just say it and deny it and say it is not true. You with me? Hardin: And your position is that if the accused does not provide you with evidence that refutes what the woman is saying, then will you always believe the woman? Baker: I have no reason not to. Hardin: Okay. And so, when she makes the claim, do you begin to believe her? Baker: Start believing them. Hardin: And then it’s the burden of the accused to convince you as an investigator that they are wrong. It’s correct? Baker: Provide evidence that they are wrong, yes. Hardin: Okay. Well, now, if a meeting takes place in private between only two people, what evidence can the accused provide to show a woman saying that X happened and he denies it? Baker: In my cases, I had videos. A suspect misled a video where the complainant claimed one thing, saying it was not consensual. The video showed that he did not look – he seemed quite consensual. In a recent exchange, Hardin returns to Baker ‘s claim that he asked to speak with Watson to get “his side” but was unable to give this interview. At various points in the testimony, Hardin suggests that his defense team provided investigators with a significant amount of material during the investigation. Baker agreed with this claim more than once during the interrogation. However, Baker also raised the issue of his inability to speak to Watson, which seems to suggest that he essentially undermined Watson’s ability to defend himself in the HPD. Hardin: Okay. So, if you start believing in the category of woman, no matter what happens… Hardin:… It is our responsibility to convince you that someone did not do something and then the lawyer’s advice is for the client not to talk to the police and let the police decide based on whatever else is available. will he automatically decide that he did? Baker: So I’m glad you put it that way because in reality, this is exactly what happens in our world. Baker: We charge from that point. Baker: And the accused would be accused, and of course you would go to court and represent him and present all your evidence to say the opposite. Baker: And we would let the jury decide.

This issue was tested at one point in the testimony, as Hardin made a special exception to one of Baker’s answers as he was under direct consideration by Busby. The issue of coercion …