Sign the Petition                                                                                                                                Make a Donation

Follow us at Twitter.com/OneInnocentMan                                                                                              

Robert White's Perjury and False Statements


At the time of the criminal case, the fact that Mr. White was pathological liar was not yet obvious to someone who had not been at the scene of the incident.”    Byron L. Warnken, Esq., Warnken, LLC and Law Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law


"It's already been demonstrated I think so far in cross-examination that this witness (Robert White) has only a passing acquaintance with the truth."  Daniel Karp, Esq., Karpinski, Colaresi, and Karp

 

Robert White's testimony in every legal proceeding was fillled with lies and false statements.  The full extent of his perjury is reviewed in the document below which compares his testimony in each proceeding, and provides the evidence that refutes his numerous lies.  The comparison includes links to the actual transcripts of each legal proceeding as well as White's original media statement.  You will see how White's version of the incident changed repeatedly, so much so that even he couldn't keep track.  It is unbelieveable that the States Attorney's office is willing to uphold a conviction based on such clear and unabashed perjury, particularly when the actual physical, scientific, and forensic evidence prove that White's testimony was not true and intentionally fabricated.  White, himself, even admitted in the subsequent civil trial that his criminal trial testimony had been false.

Robert White is a career criminal and repeat offender with a history of criminal assault, among many other crimes.  He is a registered sex offender and spent ten years in prision for breaking into a woman's home (a stranger) and sexually assaulting her.  White has attacked at least three different women in South Carolina; the statements below were taken directly from the police incident reports:

     "Robert grabbed her arm and swung at her.  He continued to swing at her...  He then grabbed her by the shoulders and threw her into the door in the hallway.  ...the lower half of the door was caved in.  I observed some debris on the floor as a result of the damage."  July 2008,  Andrews SC    

     "Ms. Jefferson stated that on this occasion Mr. White broke into her house around 3:00 a.m.  Ms. Jefferson stated that ...Mr. White pushed her down on the floor and she screamed for him to get out which he did.  Ms. Jefferson did state that she is afraid of Mr. White."  When the police arrived, Robert White was gone.   September 2010, Andrews SC 

     "Ms. Jefferson stated she was walking to her residence when she saw a Ford Ranger blue in color speeding down the road.  Ms. Jefferson soon realized that it was... Mr. Robert White.  Ms. Jefferson stated that ...Mr. White swerved in front of her like he was going to hit her.  Ms. Jefferson stated that she felt in fear for her safety."  January 2011,  Andrews, SC

     "Robert White broke in my front door; he went into my pocketbook stealing my money and my keys.  He went up the stairs in my home and laid on the floor next to my bed while I was sleeping and began touching my body with his mouth."    June 1995  Y. Jones, Andrews, SC   (For this crime Robert White was convicted of 1st degree sexual assault and spent ten years in prison.)

Even knowing of White's lengthy criminal record and obvious fabrication of the facts of this incident, the prosecutors, Joseph Wright and William Moomau portrayed White as a hard working Marlo delivery man, when in fact he was a career criminal with at least twenty-two arrests and at least twelve convictions at the time of the trial, and even more since then.  As evidenced by a signed affidavit by Marlo Human Resources Director Aquilla Ross, Robert White was not then and has never been a Marlo employee.  The fact is, Robert White who was high on cocaine when he arrived at the Washington's home, was picked up on the road the morning of the incident and proceeded to enter unsuspecting customers' homes.  In fact, Mr. Robert Baker, the customer immediately preceding the Washington's gave a written statement to the prosecutors clearly showing he had concerns about White.  Mr. Baker stated "The smaller of the two gentlemen (Robert White) acted very suspicious....he seemed to be either high or intoxicated.   My impression was that he seemed guilty of having just done something wrong and I was very relieved that my wife was not home alone when they arrived." 

The following is a review and analyis of Robert White's various statements and testimony in each of the proceedings related to this incident -- White's media statement, grand jury testimony, criminal trial testimony, civil deposition testimony, and civil trial testimony.  Each of White's statements are followed by the many contradictory statements he made, as well as the actual evidence that refutes his testimony.  As you read it, you'll find that White gave a different version of the incident each time he testified.  You'll further find that NONE of White's testimony was supported by the any of the physicial or forensic evidence.  Read Robert White's statements, then read how he, as well as the evidence, contradicts those statements; then go to the actual transcripts and the documented evidence to see for yourself.  Read and see for yourself how due process was denied and the judicial system manipulated by those involved in this case. 

 

"We put him (Robert White) on the stand; he was a witness of ours but you'll never see me standing in front of a jury saying what this witness says is the truth."

William Moomau, former Prince George's County Assistant State's Attorney who prosecuted this case

(based on this statement it seems that even Mr. Moomau did not believe Robert White)

 

 

 

 

 

ROBERT WHITE’S CIVIL TRIAL TESTIMONY (March 24, 2009)
61. Civil Trial Pg 2-136 L17-20: Mr. White is asked “Did you ever sign a contract for
work for Marlo?” Mr. White responds “No.” In previous testimony, Mr. White
testified that he did work for Marlo, and furthered that impression by saying his
insurance had been cancelled by Marlo. Mr. White’s testimony gave the
impression that he was a hard-working, bona-fide Marlo Furniture delivery man,
when in fact he was not employed by Marlo at all.
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. White testified in the Grand Jury (Pg18 L23-24) “Marlo’s cut my
insurance off, so I don’t have any insurance.” He made this statement
even though he knew he did not work for Marlo and thus could not have
had insurance with a Marlo health care provider. This statement
legitimized him as a Marlo employee, further giving the impression that he
was a bona-fide employee of the company.
b. Marlo’s Human Resources Director, Ms. Aquilla Ross, provided a signed
statement that Robert White has never worked for Marlo Furniture in any
capacity. (Aquila Ross Witness Statement).
62. Civil Trial Pg 2-141 L3-10: Mr. White testified “Well, we called Mr.
Washington before we even got to his house and asked him would he be
standing outside or have a light on or something because it was dark. We didn’t
know where we was. And he was outside when we arrived. Brandon gets out
of the truck. He goes to talk to Mr. Washington.” (This answer was false and
known by Robert White to be false.)
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. Phone records clearly show that no call was made to Mr. Washington from
either Mr. White or Mr. Clark. (See Phone Records)
b. Media Statement Par2 L1-L2: Robert White stated: “When we arrived
Brandon went inside to meet the customer. I waited in the truck.
Brandon came out of the house with the customer…” A clear
contradiction to Mr. White’s trial testimony. (This answer was false and
known to be false by Robert White.)
c. Grand Jury Pg29 L16-23: Mr. White testified about the alleged phone call
to Mr. Washington, adamantly stating that the call was made from his
phone: Q. “You said that you called Mr. Washington before you got
there, and then the supervisor was called.” A. “Right.” Q. “Do they
have that record on Brandon’s phone?” A. “Well, it’s on my phone. I
got my phone records. It shows where we called, we called him.” Mr.
White directly contradicts this statement in the Civil Trial testifying that
the phone call to Mr. Washington was made from Brandon’s phone. The
truth, as evidenced by the phone records, is that there was no call to Mr.
Washington. (This answer was false and known to be false by Robert
White.)
d. Criminal Trial Pg3-134 L11-18: White testified: “Well, before we got to
that lane, we actually called the customer to see if he was home (this
response was false and known to be false by Robert White), because it
was getting dark or dark, and we asked him could he either come outside
or turn a light on; we wasn’t far away from his house. When we arrived,
the customer was standing outside. Brandon gets out of the truck, goes
out to talk to the customer, comes back and says…” (This answer was
false and known to be false by Robert White.)
e. Criminal Trail pg 3-136: The State introduced Mr. White’s phone record
into evidence. (Robert White’s Phone Record ). Note: Mr. White’s
phone was registered in the name of his girlfriend, Debra Simmons.)
f. Deposition Pg 65 L12 – Pg 67 L22: Mr. White testifies that Mr.
Washington was called prior to their arrival. Q. “Did you speak with
anybody in the Washington house before you got there?” A. “Yes. We
actually called him and asked him, you know, to turn the light on or if
he’ll be standing outside and we will arrive. He was outside.” Q. “My
question was: Did you – did you personally speak with anybody in the
Washington house before you arrived?” A. “No.” Q. “When you say,
‘we called’, you mean Brandon called?” A. “Yes.” Q. “Brandon, did
he use your phone?” A. “Yes.” Q. “And that’s the phone that was
actually Ms. Simmons’ phone? A. “Right.” …. Q. “Where were you
when the call was made to the Washington house?” A. “In the truck. I
actually dialed the number and he talked to him.” (This answer was
false and known to be false by Robert White.) In this testimony there is
no denying that Mr. White is knowingly lying. He testifies that it was
actually he who made the call (dialed the number) to the Washington
home from his phone. The phone records irrefutably prove that Mr. White
did not call the Washington home that evening. He changes this testimony
in the Civil Trial.
Mr. White lied and changed his story repeatedly about what occurred
when they first arrived at the Washington home, and knowingly
committed perjury about the phone call he claims they made to Mr.
Washington that evening. His testimony was so full of lies, that he was
unable to keep them straight from one testimony to the next, and even
within the same testimony. The phone records provide irrefutable
physical evidence that no phone call was made to the Mr. Washington
from either Mr. White’s or Mr. Clark’s phone, yet Mr. White was still
allowed to testify to this lie repeatedly.
63. Civil Trial Pg 2-142 L124 thru 2-143 L1-2: Mr. White describes order in which
he, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Washington entered the Washington home, but his
testimony is completely inconsistent from one testimony to another. Q. “And
were you and Brandon – were you holding the bed rails?” A. “I was in the front
and Brandon was in the back.” Q. “And where was Mr. Washington in
relation to you two?” A.”He was in the front.” Mr. White is questioned
further about the order the men entered the Washington home:
Civil Trial Pg 2-199 L15-25: Mr. White is questioned further about his ever
changing testimony: Q. “Just tell me who was the first one of the three of you
up the stairs?” A. Keith Washington.” Mr. White is then asked about his
previous testimony in which he gave a different response: Q. “So it was your
testimony when I took your deposition in October 2008 that the order was almost
exactly the opposite of what you’re testifying to today?” A. “Correct.” Q. “Dare
I ask sir which is correct?” A. “Say again.” Q. “Which is correct?” A. “Yes.”
Q. “Yes what? Were you telling the truth then or are you telling the truth
now?” A. “I don’t know.” (This answer was false and known to be false by
Robert White.)
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. Media Statement Par 3 L1-3: Mr. White describes the position of the three
men upon entering the house with the bed rails, stating “We went inside
the house with Brandon and I carrying the box with the bed rails. The
customer was behind us directing us to a bedroom upstairs.” (This
answer was false and known to be false by Robert White). However,
he testifies to a completely different scenario in the Civil Trial.
b. Criminal Trial 3-137 L14-17: Robert White testifies to the order in which
he, Mr. Clark and Mr. Washington entered the house and went upstairs.
Q. “What happened when you went inside?” A. “When we went inside,
he direct us to a bedroom upstairs. I was walking first, in front of
Brandon. Brandon was walking behind me. He was behind
Brandon,..” (This answer was false and known to be false by Robert
White.) In this testimony White leads, followed by Clark, then
Washington.
c. Civil Deposition Pg 82 L12-18; Pg 83 L3-8: Mr. White is questioned as to
who entered the Washington home first; he testified that Mr. Clark was
first, followed by him (White),and Mr. Washington entered last: Q.
“Who entered the house first, you, Brandon, or Officer Washington?”
A. Brandon did. And then me and Mr. Washington.” In this version,
Clark leads, followed by White, then Washington.
Mr. White provides a different version in each testimony, and the Civil
Trial testimony is the complete opposite of his Media Statement, Criminal
Trial, and Grand Jury testimony. This testimony is particularly significant
because Mr. Washington testified that he (Washington) went upstairs first,
followed by Mr. Clark and lastly Mr. White. He testified further that once
he got into the master bedroom he realized Mr. White was not there and
then saw him coming out of his daughter’s bedroom at the top of the
stairs. The fact that Mr. Washington was in the lead, not Mr. White,
provides ample opportunity for Mr. White to enter the Washington
daughter’s bedroom as Mr. Washington testified. That was the action that
caused Mr. Washington to ask the men to leave the house (see Mr.
Washington’s testimony Criminal Trial Pg 6-47 – 6-49).
During cross examination in the Civil Trial, Mr. White was also asked
about the baby gate at the top of the stairs (Pg69 L11-14). He responded
“I didn’t see no baby gate. The gate you’re talking about, I didn’t see
that.” Q. “You didn’t see it when you went up the stairs?” A. “No.” If
Mr. White had indeed been the first one up the stairs as he testified in the
Grand Jury and Criminal Trial, he would have had to open the baby gate at
the top of the stairs to walk through to the second floor landing. This is
further indication that Mr. White lied, and that he was not in the lead when
they went upstairs. (Note: The baby gate was removed by paramedics in
order to facilitate moving the men from the second floor after the
shooting.)
64. Civil Trial Pg 2-145 L24-25 thru Pg 2-146 L1-6: White describes what occurred
immediately before the shooting saying “As we was walking – Brandon was
walking backwards. I was in-between them. I don’t know where he was behind
me.” Q. “So you don’t know where Mr. Washington is behind you?” A.
“Correct.” Mr. White describes this scene a different way in his Grand Jury
testimony:
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. Grand Jury Pg 9 L4-5: White testifies: “He (Brandon) got his hands up,
walking backwards, and I’m in front of him…” He changes his story
later when asked to elaborate by a Grand Jury juror:
Grand Jury Pg 21 L14-L17: RW testifies “What I’m saying was when
Brandon went out of the room backwards I’m behind him. I don’t
know if he was all the way out of the room or in the room because I
didn’t really look back at him.” In this description, Mr. White’s
testimony that he didn’t look back, indicates that he was in front of Mr.
Clark and already outside the bedroom door. This is a complete change
from other testimony in which he describes himself as being between Mr.
Washington and Mr. Clark.
b. Criminal Trial Testimony Pg 3-169 L24 – Pg3-170 L1: Questioning of
Mr. White: Q. “But you had walked out in front of Mr. Clark, correct?”
A. “I was in between both of them.” Q. “Your testimony is that you were
in between Mr. Clark and Mr. Washington?” A. “Correct.” (This answer
was false and known to be false by Robert White.)
c. Civil Trial Pg 2-200 L10-14: In the Civil Trial, Mr. White testified again
that he was between Brandon Clark and Mr. Washington. However, it’s
pointed out that the scenario that Mr. White describes is incredulous: Q.
“And, therefore, in order to have hit Brandon Clark first, which is what he
did according to your testimony, he either had to shoot over you or around
you; is that right?” A. “Right.”… (This answer was false and known to
be false by Robert White.)
Pg 2-200 L20-25 thru 2-101 L1-4: Q. “As I was looking at what you did,
as I was looking into my mind’s eye of what you were describing, it
sounded or looked to me as though when you grabbed Brandon, you were
below him. You were down on the second or third step.” A. “Correct.”
Q. “So in order to catch him you would have to run around him, to get
behind him and keep him from going down the stairs; is that right?” A.
“Correct.” (This answer was false and known to be false by Robert
White.)
d. Criminal Trial Pg 7-53 L14 – Pg7-54 L2: Dr. Jonathan Arden, qualified
expert in the field of forensic pathology, reviewed the State’s forensic and
medical records and provided expert testimony regarding his analysis. He
was presented with the various scenarios testified to by Mr. White, and
asked to assess if those scenarios were consistent with the evidence. In the
first scenario Dr. Arden is presented with Mr. White’s testimony that he
(Mr. White) was between Mr. Clark and Mr. Washington when Clark was
shot: Q. “Now the first scenario or hypothetical, Dr. Arden, that I’d ask
you to consider is if Mr. Clark has his hands up in a surrender position,
facing Mr. Washington, and Mr. White is facing Mr. Clark, in-between
Mr. Clark and Mr. Washington, and Mr. Washington fires his gun, do you
have an expert opinion as to whether or not the evidence that you
reviewed in this case, with that hypothetical scenario, is consistent?” A. “I
have such an opinion.” Q. “And what is that opinion?” A. “My opinion,
and all the opinions are with reasonable medical certainty, is that the
scenario that you’ve just set out for me, laid out for me, is not consistent
with the gunshot wounds on either Mr. White or Mr. Clark.”
Dr. Arden testified that for this scenario to be true, Mr. Clark would have
to be shot through Mr. White, and “Mr. White would have had to have
been shot in the back, with entrance in the back and exit in the front,
which was not the case.” He went on to say that this scenario is also
inconsistent with the forensic testing, ballistic testing, gunshot residue,
trajectory, fiber transfer from Mr. Clark’s pants to Mr. Washington’s
upper body clothing, and the presence of Mr. White’s DNA on the gun.
Criminal Trial 7-59 L18 – 7-60 L4: In the next scenario Dr. Arden is
asked to provide his expert opinion based on Mr. White’s testimony that
Mr. Clark was at the top of the stairs when he was shot: Q. “I’ll read the
scenario again because it’s very long. If Mr. Washington is standing at the
master bedroom, which is about eight feet, five inches from the second
step, and Mr. Washington shoots Mr. Clark, when Mr. Clark is at the top
of the stairs on the second floor, with his hands up in the surrender
position, do you have an expert opinion as to whether or not the evidence
that you reviewed in this case is consistent with that hypothetical
scenario?” A. “I do.” Q. “What is your expert opinion?” A. “My opinion
is that the hypothetical scenario is not consistent with the gunshot to Mr.
Clark.” Dr. Arden continues, explaining that the scenario as presented is
inconsistent with forensic evidence, positioning and trajectory, and does
not account for the fiber transfer from Mr. Clark’s pants to Mr.
Washington’s upper body.
Criminal Trial 7-60 L21 - 7-61 L9: Dr. Arden is questioned about another
of Mr. White’s scenarios: Q. “Another scenario, Dr. Arden, and, again,
assuming the distances that I asked you to for the soot and smoke. If Mr.
Washington is standing at the master bedroom door, which is about eight
feet, five inches from the second step, and Mr. Washington shoots Mr.
Clark, and then Mr. White catches Mr. Clark, lays him down, and Mr.
Washington then shoots Mr. White, do you have an expert opinion as to
whether or not the evidence that you reviewed in this case is consistent
with that hypothetical?” A. Yes,sir, I do.” Q. “What is your opinion?” A.
“My opinion is that the scenario you have just offered me is not consistent
with the medical and forensic evidences I’ve reviewed.”
Dr. Arden continues, explaining that Mr. White’s version of the shooting
is completely inconsistent with the forensic, scientific, and physical
evidence presented in this case. the ballistics evidence, the gunshot
residue evidence, the distance and trajectory, the soot and smoke deposits,
and does not account for the transfer of Mr. White’s DNA to the gun.
Mr. White’s story is refuted by every bit of physical, forensic, and
scientific evidence presented in this case. Among other things:
The presence of White’s DNA on the gun was a clear indication
that there was contact between Mr. White and the weapon; consistent with
an altercation as described by Mr. Washington and inconsistent with Mr.
White’s testimony that he was never close enough to touch Mr.
Washington.
The ballistics and residue analysis supported that the shooting was
close range; consistent with both Mr. and Mrs. Washington’s account of
the incident, and completely inconsistent with Mr. White’s allegation that
he was shot from the length of the hallway or even from the doorway to
the top of the stairs.
The trajectory was completely inconsistent with Mr. White’s
claims of how he was shot, but consistent with a shooting that occurred
during a struggle.
The identification of Mr. Clark’s pants fibers on Mr. Washington’s
upper body clothing was consistent with Mr. Washington’s testimony that
he was being kicked while in a crouched position during the assault; it is
inconsistent with anything Mr. White has testified to.
And although common sense and reasonableness may not be
scientific evidence, Mr. White’s version of the shooting (he was between
Clark and Washington and somehow managed to run around him and
down two stairs to catch Clark) and his alleged actions after he was shot
(instead of continuing downstairs to flee the danger, he walked back
upstairs, stepped over Mr. Clark, past Mr. Washington standing in the
doorway holding the gun, to the far end of the upstairs hallway), should
certainly call into question the veracity of Mr. White’s statements given
the volume of contradictory evidence.
65. Civil Trial Pg 2-147 L8-11: Robert White testified “I ran up to him and grabbed
Brandon, and the stairs is right there. So I walk down like two steps and laid him
down, and I said Brandon, ‘Where is the phone?’ because he had my cell phone in
his pocket.” (This answer was false and known to be false by Robert White.)
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. Criminal Trial Pg 6-126 – 6-127: Mr. White’s testimony that he grabbed
Brandon and laid on him is refuted by Leanora Brun-Conti, a forensic
chemist for the ATF and qualified expert in the field of forensic chemistry
and trace evidence analysis. She analyzed and testified to the fiber
transfer between Mr. White, Mr. Clark and Mr. Washington. Ms. Brun-
Conti testified that fibers from Mr. Clark’s pants were found on Mr.
Washington’s shirt and vest. Pg 6-126 L14-15: Ms. Brun-Conti stated “I
recovered a few polyester fibers from Mr. Washington’s shirt that were
consistent with the fibers from Mr. Clark’s pants.” Pg 6-127 L8-16:
“Again, I found a few fibers - a few polyester fibers on JW3, Mr.
Washington’s vest, that were consistent with the polyester fibers from Mr.
Clark’s pants.”
Ms. Brun-Conti’s analysis was performed at the request of the State (Pg 6-
114 L2-4): “Your Honor, for the record, this is – the state requested that
this analysis be done, and the State requested and took the actual
clothing…” Ms. Brun-Conti testified that the shape of the pants fibers
were unique, and that the dye lot was not of a usual color. Ms. Brun-
Conti’s findings of Mr. Clark’s pants fiber on Mr. Washington’s upper
body clothing is consistent with Mr. Washington’s testimony that during
the assault he was crouched, attempting to cover up, and that Clark and
White were “hitting and kicking me” (Criminal Trial 6-52 L8; L16). Ms.
Brun-Conti’s findings are in NO WAY consistent with Mr. White’s
testimony that Washington kicked Mr. Clark.
66. Civil Trial Pg 2-147 L14-18: Mr. White testifies that he was shot on the second
or third step, and then walked upstairs, turned the corner and walked to the end of
the hallway. Q. “And then what happened?” A. “And he shot me.” Q. “And then
what did you do?” A. I walked up the two steps and went and laid by a
bedroom.” (This answer was false and known to be false by Robert White.)
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. In Mr. White’s scenario, he was shot on the second or third step, and then
went up the stairs, stepped over Brandon at the top of the stairs, walked
past Mr. Washington who was allegedly standing in the master bedroom
doorway holding the gun, turned right, and continued to the opposite end
of the hallway where he lay down. The scene was processed by Prince
George’s County Police Evidence Unit and there was no blood trail from
where Mr. White claims he was shot on the steps to where he was laying
at the far end of the hallway when paramedics arrived. No physical or
scientific evidence corroborates Mr. White’s story that he was shot on the
steps and then walked to the end of the hallway. If his story were true,
there would have been a blood trail from the steps to the opposite end of
the hallway; there was not. There is also a reasonableness question to Mr.
White’s claim; is it reasonable to believe that after being shot, he walked
toward the shooter who was still holding the gun to an upstairs hallway as
he testified in the Civil Trial (Pg 202 L23-25 thru Pg 203 L1-14) Q. “And
as I understand your testimony, after you were shot, because you didn’t
want to be shot in the back, you walked up the stairs.” A. “Correct.” Q.
You walked up the stairs towards the direction of the person who had shot
you?” A. “Correct. I walked past him.” Q. “You walked past him. Was
he standing in the doorway as you walked past?” A. “Correct.” Q. “What
was he doing as you walked past him?” A. “He was still holding his gun.”
Q. “Was he holding it out s though he was pointing it at you?” A. “Yes.”
Q. “So he’s just watching you walk past him down the hallway tracking
you with his gun?” Pg 2-203 L13-25 thru Pg 2-204 L1-4: Q. “So let me
just make sure I understand this, sir. The man who you allege just shot
your friend for literally no reason twice in the chest and then shot you for
literally no reason, according to you, twice in the chest and abdomen, let’s
your walk up the stairs towards him, make a right hand turn, and walk
down the hallway in his house; is that right?” A. “Yes.”
By any reasonable standard, this is preposterous.
67. Civil Trial Pg 2-148 L14-17: Mr. White explains why Mr. Clark has his
(White’s) phone, testifying that it was because Clark’s phone was dead. Q. “If it
was your phone, why wasn’t it on your person?” A. “Because Brandon’s phone
actually went dead, and he asked to use my phone. And that’s how he did the
call to the supervisor.”
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. Civil Trial Pg 2-187 L20-25 thru 2-188 L1-6: When asked about the
phone call he allegedly made to Mr. Washington before arriving at his
house, Mr. White testified that the phone call was made from Brandon
Clark’s phone. He had clearly forgotten that his testimony just minutes
(several pages) before was that Brandon’s phone had died. Q. “Okay.
Let’s talk about some of these phone calls. You indicated that before
arriving at Mr. Washington’s house, there was a call made to him to
ask him to step outside and/or turn on the light.” A. “Correct.” Q.
“The phone that was being used is Ms. Simmons’ phone and that was
your girlfriend, correct?” A. “No.” Q. “Didn’t call from that phone?
A. “No.” Q. “Which phone was that call made from?” A.
“Brandon’s.” (This answer was false and known to be false by
Robert White.)
68. Civil Trial Pg 2-149 L7-17: Mr. White says he heard Mr. Washington make two
phone calls after the shooting: Q. “What do you recall happening next?” A.
“Everything else was like a blur. I heard him make - he made two phone
calls.” Q. “He being Mr. Washington?” A. “Mr. Washington.” … Q. “And
what is your recollection about those phone calls?” A. “The first phone call, he
called someone and said, Mr. Washington said, ‘these guys just busted in my
house and beat me up with a pipe and they beat me real good.’ He said,
‘They didn’t know I was a cop’”. (These answers were false and known to be
false by Robert White.)
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. Phone records verify that only one call was made after the shooting, and
that call was to 911. The call was made by Mrs. Washington; Mr.
Washington picked up the upstairs extension and dialed 911 not aware that
Mrs. Washington was already connected and speaking with the 911
operator. The 911 tape recording clearly proves that the statements Mr.
White testified to were never made. The 911 recording verifies that Mr.
Washington never said anything about being hit by a pipe, that he told the
operator the men were there to deliver furniture, and that he let them in.
(See Washington Phone Records , and 911 Call Transcript)
The truth is there was only one phone call made after the shooting, and
that call was to 911. The conversation Mr. White claims he heard and
quoted never happened, and the 911 call transcript is proof of that. Mr.
White attempted to portray Mr. Washington as cavalierly discussing the
shooting with someone and lying about how Clark and White came to be
in the house. None of that is true. The 911 recording and Washington’s
phone records were in evidence, and clearly showed that Mr. White was
both about the two phone calls, and about what Mr. Washington said.
Again, this evidence coupled with the other physical and forensic evidence
was a clear indication that Mr. White’s version of the shooting was not
truthful.
69. Civil Trial Pg 2-168 L7-8: White describes his relationship with Brandon saying
they are “getting tight.” However, in his deposition, Mr. White was completely
unable to provide any type of description of Mr. Clark, even indicating he had
never even stood next to him.
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. Deposition Pg27 L9- Pg28 L17: When asked to provide Mr. Clark’s
height and weight Mr. White says he doesn’t know. His responses are
evasive and provide further indication of his propensity to lie, even when
there is no reason. Q. “Okay. Can you tell me Mr. Clark’s approximate
height and weight as of January 2007?” A. “I don’t know.” Pg 27 L20-
Pg 28 L14: Q. “How much taller would you estimate Mr. Clark was than
you? A. “I don’t know.” Q. “Was he six inches taller than you?” A. “I
don’t know.” Q. “Was he one inch taller than you?” A. “I don’t know.”
Q. “Had you ever had occasion to stand next to him?” A. “No.” Q.
“You never stood next to him?” A. “No.” (All these answers were
false and known to be false by Robert White.)
70. Civil Trial Pg 2-169 L6-23: Mr. White admits he never worked for Marlo and
that he lied about his previous testimony: Q. Okay. With regard to Marlo – or
Robinson I guess, because you never worked for Marlo, right?” A. “Correct.”
Q. “You have given testimony that Marlo cancelled your insurance,
right?”… Q. “You’ve given that testimony in the past, have you not?” A.
“Correct.” Q. “And you know that’s not right because Marlo has never
insured you because you never worked for Marlo; isn’t that right?” A.
“Correct.” This testimony is a direct contradiction to previous testimony in
which he testified that he worked for Marlo, and even that Marlo had cancelled
his insurance, lending credibility to his lie.
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. Grand Jury Pg 6 L6-9: Q. “What job did you take after that?” A.
“Working for Marlo’s.” (This answer was false and known to be false
by Robert White.)
b. Criminal Trial Pg 3-126 L10-L13: Robert White is questioned by Mr.
Moomau: “Mr. White did you used to work as a furniture delivery person
working for or delivering furniture for Marlo Furniture? Robert White
answers “Yes, sir.” (This answer was false and known to be false by
Robert White.)
c. Grand Jury Pg18 L23-24: White testifies “Marlo’s cut my insurance off,
so I don’t have any insurance.” (This answer was false and known to
be false by Robert White.) This statement led the jury to believe that Mr.
White was an actual employee of Marlo Furniture which he knew was not
true. It legitimized him as a hard working, bona-fide employee, when in
fact he was not.
Although Mr. White clearly knew he did not work for Marlo Furniture, he
testified in both the Grand Jury and Criminal Trial that he did, and further
attempted to mislead the grand jury by stating that Marlo cancelled his
insurance, inferring that he was a legitimate employee of Marlo. The
jurors in the grand jury and criminal trial proceedings had an impression
that Mr. White was a genuine employee of the furniture company, just
doing his job. That was not the case. Mr. White was not vetted through
any type of application process and did not undergo the required
background check; but the impression to the jury was that he was a bona
fide employee doing the right thing.
71. Civil Trial Pg 2-170 L19-24: Mr. White is asked about his employment tenure:
Q. “How long had you worked for Marlo’s or Robinson, whatever you want to
call it?” A. “I think nine days, to be exact.” (This answer was false and
known to be false by Robert White.) Q. “That’s not the testimony you gave
when I asked you that same question in deposition, is it?” A. “I don’t know
what I said.” Mr. White testifies to an “exact” nine days here, but has provided
a different timeframe each time he is asked that question in every other
proceeding.
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. A signed Witness Statement from Ms. Aquilla Ross, Human Resources
Director for Marlo Furniture, proves that Mr. White has never worked for
Marlo Furniture in any capacity. (Witness Statement)
b. Civil Deposition Pg22 L13 – Pg23 L4: When ask how long he has worked
for Marlo, Mr. White is evasive, saying he doesn’t know how long.
Q.”How long did you actually work for Marlo or Mr. Robinson?” A.
“I don’t remember.” Q. “Was it a matter of days?” A. “I don’t
know.” Q. “Was it a matter of weeks?” A. “I don’t know.” Q. “Was
it a matter of months?” A. “I don’t know.” Q. “You don’t have any
idea how long you worked for Marlo?” A. “No.” Q. “Just a complete
mystery to you?” A. “Yes.” (These answers were false and known to
be false by Robert White.)
c. Civil Deposition Pg 39 L21- Pg40 L1: Mr. White’s answer to
interrogatories is noted. In interrogatories White stated he worked for
Marlo for two weeks.
Mr. White’s testimony regarding the length of time he worked for Marlo
was different each time he was questioned. Again, a clear indication that
his testimony in every legal proceeding is questionable at best and his
likelihood of being truthful is doubtful.
72. Civil Trial Pg 2-176 L3-25 thru Pg 2-177 L1-4: Mr. White testifies that he
understands that his interrogatories were taken under oath and is then asked about
his employment at his previous job, AMVETS. He admits that he lied in both the
interrogatories and in deposition: Q. “So you were not accurate in either your
answers to your interrogatories or deposition testimony or perhaps both,
correct? A. “Correct.” This is further proof of Mr. White’s propensity to lie
about any subject for any reason.
Pg 2-176 L7-25 thru 2-177 L1-4: Mr. White is confronted with his deposition in
which he lies about being fired from AMVETS. Q. “I further asked you at
deposition --- whether it was the case that you were actually fired by
AMVETS, did I not?” A. “Yes.” Q. “What did you answer?” A. “No.” Q.
“And I next said ‘You quit voluntarily?’ And what was your answer?” A.
Yes.” Q. “That was not truthful testimony, was it?” A. “Yes, it was.” Q. “In
fact, according to the stipulated records from AMVETS, which I’m offering
as Defense Exhibit Number 9, you were fired from that employer on October,
it looks like October 6th, for unsatisfactory work performance. And when
you were asked to sign the termination notice, you refused to do so. Isn’t
that accurate, sir? A. “That’s wrong.” The stipulated employment records
speak for themselves.
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. Mr. White was fired from the AMVETS position as identified in the
employment record stipulated to by counsel. Mr. White again displays
his tendency to lie, even when confronted by hard evidence. (See
AMVETS Employment Record)
73. Civil Trial Pg 2-177 L16-21: Mr. White is asked: Q. “What about Brandon
Clark. What was his height and weight, sir?” A. “I don’t know.” Q. “You had
previously given testimony that he was six feet four, 270 pounds; have you not?”
A. “I don’t remember.” (This answer was false and known to be false by
Robert White.) Mr. White is then shown his Deposition and referring to his
Deposition testimony is questioned about the truthfulness of his response: Pg 2-
178 L7-17: (Referring to Mr. White’s deposition) Q. “That was not truthful
testimony, was it, sir?” A. “I don’t know. I mean, I answered the best I could.”
Mr. White has first said he doesn’t know Mr. Clark’s height and weight even
though he provided it without hesitation in his Grand Jury testimony. He then, in
his Deposition and Civil Trial testimony, is unable to provide even the most
general description, stating that he has never even stood next to Mr. Clark.
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. Grand Jury Pg 12 L 20-21: When asked to describe Clark, Mr. White does
so with no hesitation: Q. “Describe Brandon.” A. “Brandon is 6-4, 270.”
b. Deposition Pg27 L9- Pg28 L17: Q. “Okay. Can you tell me Mr. Clark’s
approximate height and weight as of January 2007?” A. “I don’t know.”
Pg27 L20- Pg28 L14: Q. “How much taller would you estimate Mr. Clark
was than you? A. “I don’t know.” Q. “Was he six inches taller than
you?” A. “I don’t know.” Q. “Was he one inch taller than you?” A. “I
don’t know.” Q. “Had you ever had occasion to stand next to him?” A.
“No.” Q. “You never stood next to him?” A. “No.” (These answers
were false and known to be false by Robert White.)
c. Civil Trial Pg 2-168 L7-8: Mr. White testified that he and Brandon
worked together and that they were “getting tight” (Pg39 L7-9), yet he
was unable to provide even a general description of Brandon, and testified
that he had never even stood next to Brandon.
This series of testimonies regarding Mr. Clark’s height and weight is
another clear example of Mr. White’s willingness to lie about anything.
White provides a description without hesitation in the Grand Jury, then in
later testimony says he doesn’t have any idea. In his Deposition and Civil
Trial testimony, is unable to provide even the most general description,
stating that he has never even stood next to Mr. Clark.
Mr. White’s responses are indicative of his propensity to lie, even when
there is no reason, making his entire testimony in every proceeding
suspect and without credibility.
74. Civil Trial Pg 2-182 L6-11: Attorney Daniel Karp comments on Mr. White’s
testimony to the presiding judge Sean Wallace, saying “It’s already been
demonstrated I think so far in cross-examination that this witness has only a
passing acquaintance with the truth.” Judge you Wallace responded, verbally
agreeing with Mr. Karp’s observation, agreeing to allow three of Mr. White’s
convictions.
75. Civil Trial Pg 2-187 L4-19: When asked to provide an explanation as to how his
DNA came to be on Mr. Washington’s gun, Mr. White says “I don’t know.” He
was asked “Officer Washington never touched or poked you with the gun as far as
you know; is that correct?” A. “I don’t know.” (This answer was false and
known to be false by Robert White.) Q. “And as far as you know, you never
touched or grabbed the gun, is correct.” A. Correct.” Ms. Monica Ammann, the
State’s expert DNA analyst, testified that the most likely way was by direct
contact.
a. Criminal Trial Pg4-123 L18-24 Ms. Amman testified “DNA from more
than one individual was obtained from the swabs of the gun. Keith
Washington and Robert White cannot be excluded as contributors to this
mixture. Using combined probability of exclusion calculation, more than
99.99 percent of individuals in the Caucasian, African-American and
southeast Hispanic populations would be excluded as contributors.” Ms.
Amman’s DNA analysis was completed in March 2007, and in
conjunction with the other mountain of evidence, clearly indicated that
Mr. Washington acted in self-defense.
76. Civil Trial Pg 2-187 L20-25 thru 2-188 L1-6: Mr. White testifies that the phone
call allegedly made to Mr. Washington prior to their arrival was not made from
his (Debra Simmons) phone, but rather that it was made from Brandon Clark’s
phone. Q. “Okay. Let’s talk about some of these phone calls. You indicated
that before arriving at Mr. Washington’s house, there was a call made to him to
ask him to step outside and/or turn on the light.” A. “Correct.” Q. “The phone
that was being used is Ms. Simmons’ phone and that was your girlfriend,
correct?” A. “No.” Q. “Didn’t call from that phone? A. “No.” Q. “Which
phone was that call made from?” A. “Brandon’s.” (This answer was false
and known to be false by Robert White.) Mr. White’s entire statement is
fabricated. The phone records prove that no call was made to Mr. Washington
from either phone. Further, Mr. White’s testimony in the Grand Jury, the
Criminal Trial, and Civil Deposition was completely opposite this testimony; he
testified in those proceedings that his phone was used to make the call. Further,
Mr. Clark’s phone records clearly show that the last call made from Mr. Clark’s
phone was at 4:58 p.m. (See Brandon Clark’s Phone Record)
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. Civil Trial Pg 2-148 L14-17: Even within the same proceeding, Mr.
White contradicts himself just a short time before: “Because Brandon’s
phone actually went dead and he asked to use my phone.”
b. Phone records clearly show that no call was made to Mr. Washington from
either Mr. White or Mr. Clark. (See Phone Records)
c. Grand Jury Pg29 L16-23: Mr. White testified about the alleged phone call
to Mr. Washington, adamantly stating that the call was made from his
phone: Q. “You said that you called Mr. Washington before you got
there, and then the supervisor was called.” A. “Right.” Q. “Do they
have that record on Brandon’s phone?” A. “Well, it’s on my phone. I
got my phone records. It shows where we called, we called him.”
(This answer was false and known to be false by Robert White.) Mr.
White directly contradicts this statement in the Civil Trial.
d. Criminal Trail pg 3-136: The State introduced Mr. White’s phone record
into evidence, which clearly shows no call was made to Mr. Washington
(Robert White’s Phone Record ). Note: Mr. White’s phone was
registered in the name of his girlfriend, Debra Simmons.)
e. Deposition Pg 65 L12 – Pg 67 L22: Mr. White testifies that Mr.
Washington was called prior to their arrival. Q. “Did you speak with
anybody in the Washington house before you got there?” A. “Yes. We
actually called him and asked him, you know, to turn the light on or if
he’ll be standing outside and we will arrive. He was outside.” Q. “My
question was: Did you – did you personally speak with anybody in the
Washington house before you arrived?” A. “No.” Q. “When you say,
‘we called’, you mean Brandon called?” A. “Yes.” Q. “Brandon, did
he use your phone?” A. “Yes.” Q. “And that’s the phone that was
actually Ms. Simmons’ phone? A. “Right.” …. Q. “Where were you
when the call was made to the Washington house?” A. “In the truck. I
actually dialed the number and he talked to him.” (This answer was
false and known to be false by Robert White.) In this testimony there is
no denying that Mr. White is knowingly lying. He testifies that it was
actually he who made the call (dialed the number) to the Washington
home from his phone. The phone records irrefutably prove that Mr. White
did not call the Washington home that evening. He changes this testimony
in the Civil Trial.
Mr. White lied and changed his story repeatedly about what occurred
when they first arrived at the Washington home, and knowingly
committed perjury about the phone call he claims they made to Mr.
Washington that evening. His testimony was so full of lies, that he was
unable to keep them straight from one testimony to the next, and even
within the same testimony. The phone records provide irrefutable
physical evidence that no phone call was made to the Mr. Washington
from either Mr. White’s or Mr. Clark’s phone, but Mr. White was still
allowed to testify to this lie repeatedly.
77. Civil Trial Pg 2-191 L23-25 and 2-192 L7-9: Mr. White confirms that he has
never told his story or provided a statement to a police officer. By invoking his
Fifth Amendment Right, Mr. White was able to elude interrogation and several
months later contrived a totally fabricated story about what happened.
78. Civil Trial Pg 2-194 L21-25, 2-195 L1-5, 2-195 L22-25, 2-196 L1-10: Mr. White
admits that statements made in his original Media Statement were not true. Mr.
White’s original statement formed the basis of the allegations against Mr.
Washington, thus the State’s decision to prosecute. In his civil testimony, Mr.
White admits that his original statements were false.
79. Civil Trial Pg 2-200 L1-6: Defense counsel points out that when Mr. White is
asked the hard questions or when he’s feeling cornered and can’t answer
consistently, he says “I don’t know”. In Mr. White’s deposition he responded
with “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember” over 115 times.
80. Civil Trial Pg 2-202 L11-22: When asked how much time passed between the
time he laid Brandon on the landing and the time he was shot, Mr. White responds
with a series of “I don’t know”, unable to indicate whether it was seconds,
minutes, or hours. Q. “How much time passed between the time you ladi
Brandon on the landing and you being shot in the chest?” A. “I don’t know.” Q.
“Do you know if it was more than a few seconds?” A. “I don’t know.” Q. “Do
you know if it was more than a few minutes?” A. “I don’t know.” Q. “Do you
know if it was more than a few hours?” A. “I don’t know.” This testimony is
further indication of his total lack of credibility and unwillingness to be truthful.
81. Civil Trial Pg 2-203 L13-20: Q. “So let me just make sure I understand this, sir.
The man who you allege just shot your friend for literally no reason twice in the
chest and then shot you for literally no reason, according to you, twice in the chest
and abdomen, let’s your walk up the stairs towards him, make a right hand turn,
and walk down the hallway in his house; is that right?” A. “Yes.” (This answer
was false and known to be false by Robert White.)
Evidence of Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice:
a. The scene was processed by Prince George’s County Police Evidence Unit
and there was no blood trail from where Mr. White claims he was shot on
the steps to where he was laying at the far end of the hallway when
paramedics arrived. No physical or scientific evidence corroborates Mr.
White’s story that he was shot on the steps and then walked to the end of
the hallway. If his story were true, there would have been a blood trail
from the steps to the opposite end of the hallway; there was none. Mr.
White confirmed that from pictures he had seen of the scene, “the only
place you see any blood anywhere is at the top of the stairs where Brandon
was and at the end of the hallway where you were” (pg 75 L19-21).
There is also a reasonableness question to Mr. White’s claim; it is totally
unreasonable to believe that after being shot, he walked toward and then
past the shooter who according, to him was still holding the gun, to an
upstairs hallway as he testified.

Sign the Petition to help free One Innocent Man.

Click here to learn more about how you can help.