By Nate Rawlings
The name in question was Christie.
Depending on the theory, she was either a culprit, or a naive employee in the middle of an alleged fraud, and lawyers couldn’t even agree on her real name.
So it went today in the unfolding legal drama of the People of New York v. Ronald Kehinde, who stood accused of grand larceny, alleging that he operated an unlicensed training school selling fraudulent home health care certifications. The latest charge came two years after he was originally arrested for the same alleged scam. The question of Christie and her name was the subject of testimony of Hazel Walters, a senior investigator for the attorney general’s office.
Walters, dressed in a dark pants suit, took the stand and Assistant Attorney General Adam Shalet asked her to recall her visit to NCLEX Review and Preparatory Solutions, LLC, Kehinde’s company. Walters told how she went to 962 Ogden Ave. in the Bronx in April 2009, and there she met the aforementioned Christie, who appeared to be in charge.
Walters testified that she asked Christie for identifcation, perhaps a driver’s license. Christie, she went on, said had no drivers license. Her only identification was a hospital employee’s badge.
Shalet lifted a small stack of papers into the air and explained to Judge John Ingram that they were copies of Walter’s investigation notes. He placed them before the witness.
Standing in the middle of the court, Shalet asked Walters to read the notes. He then asked her to state the woman’s name from her hospital badge. Walters only wanted to read the name from her notes. Judge Ingram placidly explained that she could not read directly from the paper, because it was not entered into evidence. She could, however, paraphrase, but could not read aloud. Walters complied, spelling out Christie’s name.
But defense attorney Albert Brackley was not satisfied with the veracity of the name, nor it turned out, with Walters’ perception that Christie was in charge. He stood slowly, smoothed out his gray pinstriped suit, shuffled to the front of the courtroom, leaned against the railing, glanced at his notes, and askedWalters to read from the notes and to stop when she reached the name of the defendant.
Walters flipped through the pages. She flipped back, and flipped forward again, before announcing that the defendant’s name was not, in fact, in her notes,
Brackley murmured that he had no further questions. The jurors, who appeared disengaged, perked up; a couple shrugged and nodded.
Shalet returned his questioning, but now, with the question of Christie left hanging, he zeroed in on the defendant himself. He asked if Kehinde’s name appeared in her final report. It did.
Was there other information that was not in her hand-written notes that appeared in the final report?
Yes.
Was Mr. Kehinde present at NCLEX that day?
Yes.
No further questions.
Leave a Reply