Prosecutors in the murder trial of former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor are determined to put his onetime partner on the stand, despite raising questions about his ability to accurately testify about the night Justine Ruszczyk Damond was shot.
As the prosecution's anticipated star witness, Matthew Harrity was the only other person there the night Noor shot and killed Damond in July 2017 after the two officers responded to her 911 call about a possible sexual assault behind her home. But both his recollection and cooperation have been shaky, prosecutors have contended. His version of what happened that night has changed, they said, and he has declined to make himself available for trial preparation.
Compounding the complications, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Patrick Lofton told jurors in opening statements last week that the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) — the agency tasked with investigating the shooting — repeatedly fell short, initially failing to test key evidence and interview certain witnesses.
"They made some assumptions and they tried to fill in gaps with things that they did not understand," Lofton said of the investigation.
As the internationally watched trial enters its third week Monday, prosecutors are placed in the unusual position of relying on the testimony of officers and investigators whose credibility they at times question.
In a pretrial filing, prosecutors wrote that jurors should be instructed to "question the credibility of any officer's testimony if he or she demonstrates an unwillingness to give full or truthful testimony because of a bias toward police. ... Similarly, the behaviors and statements of particular officers and investigators at the crime scene and during the investigation that demonstrate bias are relevant to show how and why certain evidence was or was not acquired or preserved."
Regardless, 10 of the 13 witnesses called so far at trial have been Minneapolis police officers or BCA specialists. Noor has maintained his silence since Damond's death, declining to speak with the BCA or to a grand jury investigating the shooting, and it is unclear whether he will testify in his own defense.
Some legal experts said that it makes little sense for prosecutors to cast doubt on the credibility of Harrity, whose testimony will be crucial to both sides' arguments. If anything, the state may be trying to lay a foundation for a later effort to convince the jurors that an officer was being untruthful in his or her testimony, experts say. But, the tactic could backfire, said veteran defense attorney Earl Gray.