CHESAPEAKE, Va. — Monday marked day three of evidence and testimony in the trial of Richard Humbert. He’s the man accused of hitting 8-year-old Forrest Hooper on South Battlefield Boulevard last October, then driving away. Doctors pronounced Hooper dead at the hospital later that day.
This is second trial for Humbert. The first ended in a mistrial over concerns jurors discussed and researched the case.
The closing arguments will start tomorrow, Tuesday, Nov. 19, at 9:15 a.m.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys rest on Day 3
The Commonwealth rested its case Monday morning, completing its witness list with a Chesapeake Police Department detective who investigated the cell phone records of Richard Humbert in the immediate hours after the fatal collision.
Humbert’s phone activity was downloaded from a Motorola phone, starting at 5:05 with an initial Google search indicating he was looking for information about what to do after a person hit an animal with their car. Within minutes, Humbert had also begun searching for Chesapeake “news” and “crash” related information, some of which began populating coverage of local media outlets picking up Hooper’s death.
It’s unclear from witness testimony, however, whether he clicked on certain articles or not.
Humbert’s defense attorneys reiterated arguments where certain web articles populated about the crash on his phone does not necessarily mean he actively clicked on them.
Prosecutors spent much of Monday afternoon in front of jurors cross examining the defense attorney’s primary witness, a former Washington D.C. police crash investigator now-turned private legal expect and consultant.
On the stand, he answered that the damage sustained to Humbert's car couldn't solely come from the impact of a car striking another person. Humbert’s claim since the deadly crash is that he failed to turn back around because he believed he hit a deer.
Prosecutors called into question the witness’ true investigative abilities as an independent crash analyst, arguing how a portion of his expertise and work is sub-contracted out through another, out-of-state LLC.
Day 2
On Friday, Nov. 15, the prosecution focused on the defendant’s car.
The jury heard from the forensic specialist who processed the vehicle after police tracked Humbert down days after the crash.
The specialist identified photos of a large dent in the hood of the vehicle, as well as a dented license plate.
The detective also explained the process of using “black powder” and “gel lift” techniques to reveal and extract fingerprints. She explained what appeared to be a small, smeared handprint on the car’s hood was not visible to the naked eye, but the black powder technique helps reveal sometimes hidden prints.
Humbert’s defense team questioned the specialist about whether she knew the condition of the car before processing it and if she knew when the suspected print landed on the car. The specialist replied, “There’s no timestamp on fingerprints.”
The jury also heard from a Chesapeake detective who specializes in digital forensics. He extracted data from Humbert’s cell phones after the crash.
In opening statements Thursday, the prosecution told the jury Humbert searched terms including “hit and run” and “accident” after the crash, but there has been no testimony about the contents of his cell phones so far.
Friday afternoon, the jury went to view Humbert’s car at a secure garage. The judge explicitly told them not to discuss what they see or anything related to the case until deliberations begin.
A verdict is expected Tuesday afternoon.