Dummy Used to Show Jury Bullet Paths in Verna Case

A star witness in the trial of two men suspected of the 1983 killing of policeman Paul Verna testified Monday--without saying a word.

Instead, the witness, a dummy dubbed “Mickey Mannequin,” offered visual testimony that prosecutors hope will prove that both Raynard Cummings and Kenneth Gay fired the shots that killed Verna during a routine traffic stop in Lake View Terrace.

The six-foot dummy was brought into the San Fernando Superior Court trial to demonstrate prosecution theories about the possible entry angles of the bullets that struck Verna. The technicality is an important one, attorneys for both sides say.

According to eyewitness testimony, Verna was looking into the driver’s side of a car during a routine traffic stop when the first of six shots struck him. Deputy District Atty. John Watson said he hopes the dummy can help him prove that Cummings fired the first shot from the back seat.

But, as often happens during cross-examination, the dummy may also have proven a point in Cummings’ defense.

One of Cummings’ defense attorneys, Howard Price, said he believes the dummy will help convince jurors that Gay, sitting in the front seat of the car, fired all of the shots.

Joseph Cogan of the county coroner’s office drilled holes in the 40-pound dummy to match the bullet angles he had measured on Verna’s body during an autopsy two years ago. Attorneys inserted colored dowels into the holes to help jurors see the bullets’ paths.

The dummy did not always cooperate. When Judge Dana Senit Henry permitted Watson to move proceedings to the courthouse garage so jurors could see the dummy beside the murder car, the dummy repeatedly lost its head, legs and arms when moved to show possible stances Verna may have taken.

Because of its loss of limbs, the dummy eventually had to be seated on a chair to simulate the crouching position that Price, who has objected to the use of the dummy ever since it was introduced last week, alleges Verna was in at the time he was first shot.

Price has argued that the measurements used to drill angled holes into the dummy are “too imprecise to clearly demonstrate anything.”

But Watson defended his use of the prop as a graphic necessity.

“Crimes are highly emotional and courtrooms are as sterile as can be,” he said. “My job as a prosecutor is to try to bring some of the life back . . . and to re-create the conditions of June 2, 1983, as perfectly as I can.”