Home > Our Blog > Defense Questions Angel Loja About the Attack on Marcelo Lucero

Blog Post

Defense Questions Angel Loja About the Attack on Marcelo Lucero

Posted March 24, 2010 by Ted Hesson
Categories: Hate Watch

This afternoon, I posted about Angel Loja’s direct examination testimony in the trial of Jeffrey Conroy, who stands accused of stabbing and killing Ecuadorian immigrant Marcelo Lucero in a hate crime.

I missed the first 25 minutes or so of the cross-examination in the afternoon, but I think I caught most of the relevant questioning. More thorough readers should check the Times and Newsday, as well (after reading this post, of course).

During the cross-examination, defense attorney William Keahon questioned Loja extensively about statements made during a 2009 grand jury hearing, contrasting Loja’s grand jury testimony with what he said on the stand today. Loja communicated through a Spanish-English translator.

One of the biggest focal points for Keahon was Loja’s rendition of how Loja and Lucero were attacked a group of young men near the Patchogue train station on the night of November 8, 2008.

According to the notes from the grand jury hearing, Loja had said that the group had attacked Lucero, and that Lucero eventually took off his shirt and belt, and began swinging his belt. As Lucero swung the belt, the notes said, the group of young men were sent “running” further into the train station parking lot, where Lucero “follows” them.

Keahon read Loja’s related grand jury testimony to him several times during the cross-examination:

“And the American guys start running towards West Avenue, and my friend follows them. He follows them to the parking lot,” Keahon read aloud to Loja.

During a back-and-forth sparring match that lasted upwards of thirty minutes, Loja tried to explain to Keahon what had happened that night, as opposed to what the grand jury testimony implied. Keahon, for his part, was intent on confirming whether the notes from the grand jury testimony were correct.

“Did your friend follow them until they got to the parking lot?” Keahon asked.

“I’d say he scared them,” Loja responded. “He didn’t follow them.”

Further describing the attack, Loja said, “It’s true that they do run towards West Avenue, but not with their back to my friend, they’re facing my friend.”

Loja wouldn’t concede that Lucero “followed” the group without further clarification, however: “What you’re saying is that my friend followed them: How could one person chase after seven people?”

At one point, Loja suggested that the translator might have made a mistake during the grand jury hearing when translating the “follows” passage, “because words change from one country to the next.” Regarding that particular part of the statement, Loja later added that he “might have said it, but that’s not the way it is.”

Keahon also questioned Loja about his name, which Loja originally reported to police on the night of the alleged attack as “Pablo Loja,” the name that he has used to obtain employment since coming to the U.S. illegally in 1994.

“You said that your name was Pablo A. Loja, isn’t that true?” Keahon asked.

“Yes, because in my wallet I had an ID that I always use,” Loja answered.

“Was that your true name?”

“It was the truth because that was the ID that was in my wallet and that I had used for years.”

His full name, Loja later explained, is Segundo Angelo Loja Matute. When Keahon asked whether Loja had two last names, Loja replied, “Yes, in Spanish-speaking countries, we have two last names, the maternal and paternal.”

Keahon asked Loja if it was “the government” that had told him that he could buy a document and put whatever name and date of birth on it that he desired. Loja responded that he didn’t realize at first that buying and using the document was fraudulent. Later Loja said, “Basically, I did lie to [the police] when I gave them that ID.”

Keahon also addressed the financial assistance that Loja received from the district attorney’s office from November 2008 until this March, clarifying that Loja had received $615 per month from November 2008 to December 2009, and that he had received $400 per month from December until the present (Loja testified to slightly different figures during direct examination, or at least that’s what I heard).

At one point, Loja—who testified on direct examination that he had lost his job two weeks after the alleged murder because of his employer’s fears about police and media attention—responded defensively to Keahon’s line of questioning about the payments from the D.A.‘s office. “You could believe that they’re buying me off, if you know what I mean, but I only received the money because I didn’t have a job for many months.”

On direct examination, Loja said that he had been considering leaving Patchogue and possibly returning to Ecuador before the D.A.‘s office had offered him financial assistance.

When Keahon asked whether the district attorney had told Loja whether the payments would stop in March, before the trial, Loja said that he had not been told by the district attorney’s office directly. It was Reverend Allan Ramirez, a Latino rights activist who had originally contacted the district attorney’s office regarding Loja’s financial problems, who had told Loja that the payments would stop, Loja said.

As Keahon wrapped up his cross-examination, he asked Loja about the alleged murder weapon:

“Did you ever see a knife?” Keahon asked.

“No,” Loja answered.

“Did you ever see anyone stab Marcelo?”

“No.”

The trial resumes tomorrow at 10am, but court will not be in session this Friday.

Tags : angel loja, hate crimes, jeffrey conroy, marcelo lucero

Permalink Comments