Does it strike you as odd that mayoral candidate Cherelle Parker’s run-in with the law over a decade ago has only been mentioned in passing a few times during this campaign? I mean, at least Kwame Kilpatrick, the former Mayor of Detroit, had the good sense to wait until after he’d been elected to be sentenced to jail time, right?
That’s obviously a flippant take, but you get my drift: There’s one mayoral candidate with a criminal justice record, and we’ve spent precious little time inspecting it. What does it say about Parker’s judgment? Is it even relevant at all, this far removed? I’m a big proponent of second chances. But does it matter that we haven’t even wrapped our heads around the circumstances of the original offense?
Here’s the shorthand: In 2011, then-State Representative Parker was pulled over for driving erratically the wrong way on a one way street late one night and was subsequently arrested for driving under the influence, with a blood alcohol level reportedly twice the legal limit. In November 2012, then-District Attorney Seth Williams (who, not to be outdone, would later go on to become intimately acquainted with the inside of a prison cell) recused himself from the case because of his friendship with Parker before Municipal Judge Charles Hayden dismissed the charges against her, holding that the arresting officers didn’t have sufficient probable cause for the traffic stop. But then a second judge reinstated the charges against Parker after it was learned that Hayden was Facebook friends with her.
I’m a believer in this principle: The more information, the better. If you’re a voter, maybe this transcript helps you. Or not. It’s up to you.
That second judge, Gerald Corso, found Parker guilty in 2013. She was sentenced to between three days and six months in jail — she served the three days — and her driver’s license was suspended for a year. She had to pay a $1,000 fine and attend safe driving and alcohol awareness classes. The conviction was upheld on appeal two years later.
Cards on the table: I think it is relevant, on the general principle that we should not have lawmakers with a history of breaking laws. That said, Parker, a former City Councilperson, has ably and honorably served the city since, having been reelected time and again. (Parker declined to comment for this story.)
Given that it’s now 2023, I totally get it if you think Parker’s arrest and conviction are not germane to this election. Either way, though, shouldn’t we know what happened that night? A job interviewer — which is what a citizen is in an election — surely would at least explore the facts of such a transgression on an applicant’s record, no?
After all, questions of judgment might arise. For example, throughout the long and winding history of the case, Parker never backed off implying that the arresting officers had lied about her. Well, it seems reasonable to ask, how will a police force respond to a mayor who has seemed to accuse two of its members in sworn testimony of essentially being out to get her?
So, in an effort to understand what transpired on the night of Parker’s arrest, I read the September 20, 2011 hearing transcript, which featured testimony by the arresting officers and Parker. It’s actually a fascinating read, and, I have to say, after reading it, I’m kind of on the fence. The cops don’t come across well on key matters under cross examination. Then again, it’s beyond me that Parker let this case go so far — and for the life of me I don’t understand why she had 10 fish platters in the car, which the cops maintain she wouldn’t stop talking about upon being pulled over.
Here are some key testimony excerpts.
These are edited to focus in on key moments; the full transcript is attached, above. You decide if there’s anything in here you’d want to know as a voter.
Let’s begin with the testimony of arresting officer Israel Miranda, Jr, questioned first by prosecutor John Flannery:
Q. Now, where did you first come into contact with
her?
A. Well, as we were traveling westbound on Haines
street towards Germantown.
Q. What did you see?
A. Well, I saw Ms. Parker traveling eastbound on
Haines towards Baynton —
THE COURT: I’m sorry, you saw her
traveling eastbound —
THE WITNESS: Eastbound on Haines.
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. Now, what drew your attention to the defendant?
A. On that night, well, she was traveling eastbound
and that’s a one-way street, she was traveling the wrong
way on Haines Street.
Q. And do you remember — well, after you observed
the defendant driving the wrong way on Haines Street what,
if anything, did you do next?
A. As she was traveling eastbound on Haines, she
was swerving left and right. When she got to the corner
of Haines and Bateman, she made a left on Bateman going
northbound, that’s when we turned on our emergency lights
and she pulled over to the side by Baynton and Ridge,
which is the 1500 Block of Baynton.
Q. Now, what happened next, tell the Court.
A. Well, when we stopped Ms. Parker, I got out of
my vehicle and I approached the driver side where Ms.
Parker was behind the wheel. I asked her for her driver
license and registration and insurance, as she was — she
had a big black handbag, she was fumbling looking for
information, then she stopped then she told me she had
just came from Champagne’s —
MR. KELLY: Objection, not in
discovery.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: She had fish platters on
the back seat. And I asked her —
THE COURT: I’m sorry, I couldn’t
understand.
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, some fish
platters in the back seat.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: I asked her if she had
something to drink, she said yes, she had two
beers and a couple of chocolate martinis.
THE COURT: And she had what?
THE WITNESS: A couple of chocolate
martinis.
THE COURT: Two beers and a couple
chocolate martinis, go ahead.
THE WITNESS: At that time I smelled a
strong odor of alcohol on her breath, she had
glassy eyes and she was a little disoriented, you
know, she couldn’t comprehend what I was asking
her.
Parker: Officer Miranda stated that I told him I had beers and two chocolate martinis, and I am telling you, I did not say to him what he communicated today.
MR. KELLY: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained, as to what she
could comprehend.
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. Let me back you up here, she told you about the
beers and the martinis. It’s then you observed her eyes;
is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you described her eyes as being what, sir?
A. Glassy.
Q. Okay. What if anything did you smell on the
defendant’s person?
A. A strong odor of alcohol on her breath.
Q. Did the defendant remain seated behind the wheel
of the vehicle or did she attempt to get out?
A. Well, she was behind the wheel of the vehicle
and as we had a conversation, I asked her politely if she
would step out of the vehicle. And she cooperated. As
she was stepping out she stumbled a little bit, so I
grabbed her so she wouldn’t fall. So I took her to the
back of the vehicle where my partner was.
Q. Back of which vehicle?
A. Oh, my patrol car.
Q. All right, sir.
A. And from there my partner did a pat down, that’s
our procedure. And from there my partner asked her what’s
her name because she didn’t have the identification on
her. So my partner got her name and date of birth, she
went back in the car while I stayed with Ms. Parker and
he ran her name through the Bureau of Motor Vehicle, and
that’s how we obtained her driver’s license.
Q. Now, at some point you say that you asked for
her license and registration; is that right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And what, if anything, was her response to that?
A. Well, she didn’t respond right away, she
actually just looked at me, that’s when I asked her for
information and then she started stumbling into her
pocketbook. Then she stopped, then she spoke to me about
the fish platters she had in the back, and that’s when I
asked her if she had something to drink and she said, yes,
she had two beers and a couple of chocolate martinis.
Q. So, did she ever produce for you an actual
physical driver’s license?
A. No.
Q. Did she ever produce a registration card?
A. No.
Q. Did she ever produce proof of insurance?
A. No.
Q. Now, beyond stating that she had some beers and
martinis what, if anything else, did the defendant say to
you?
A. Well, all she talked about was the fish platters
that she had in the back of the car.
Q. Now, do you have training in detection of
impaired drivers?
A. Yes, they teach us that in the Academy.
Q. And what’s that training they give you in the
Academy?
A. We go through all the motor vehicle laws and all
the DUIs, how to detect DUIs.
Q. I see. And have you ever made a DUI arrest
before?
A. Yes.
Q. About how many times?
A. I’d say about 200 in my career.
Q. And have you had occasions to see intoxicated
persons during the course of your career and in your
personal life?
A. Yes.
Q. And about how many times?
A. About 100.
THE COURT: I’m sorry?
THE WITNESS: About 100, roughly.
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. So, let me ask you this, sir, based on your
professional and personal experience and training, did you
form an opinion as to whether or not the defendant was
capable of safely driving a car at the time that she was
arrested?
A. No, she wasn’t.
Q. So, do you have an opinion —
A. Yes, I’m sorry, yes, that’s my opinion.
Q. The next question, what is that opinion?
A. She wasn’t capable of driving.
Q. And you base that opinion on what, sir?
A. On my training and observation and my previous
DUI arrests.
Now let’s hear Officer Miranda undergo cross-examination by Parker’s lawyer, Joseph Kelly:
BY MR. KELLY:
Q. Okay. You said, one of the questions you said
on direct was that you had 200 DUI arrests?
A. Yes.
Q. You said you’ve only come into contact with 100
people intoxicated?
A. That’s in —
Q. Well, 100, so you arrested 100 people that you
believe weren’t intoxicated?
A. Well, I arrested people that were intoxicated
and they came back not intoxicated, I can’t help that.
Q. So you arrested 100 people that weren’t
intoxicated, is that what you’re telling me?
A. No, I didn’t say that, can you clarify the
question for me.
Flannery: Incidentally, what’s in a chocolate martini?
Parker: Actually, sir, I’m not a bartender, so I don’t make them, so I can’t answer that question.
Q. Well, let me get back to your testimony, your
testimony was to the Commonwealth, you said I had 200 DUI
arrests in my 11 years, that’s what you said, that’s your
testimony?
A. Correct.
Q. And, now you told the Commonwealth also that
you’ve only encountered 100 people in your life that were
intoxicated, correct, that’s what you said?
A. Right.
Q. So now we have, I’m North Catholic [sic], 200 and
100, so that’s the difference of 100 people; right?
A. Right, but I’m comparing my social life to my
police —
Q. Let me just finish the question —
Q. So we agree, you arrested 100 people without the
intoxication signs; is that fair?
A. No, I arrested for DUI.
Q. You believe you arrested people who weren’t
intoxicated, is that a fair statement?
A. No…
Q. Is there any other traffic coming down toward
Germantown, on Haines?
A. That was 12 o’clock in the morning, there’s
nobody outside.
Q. Excuse me?
A. It’s 12 o’clock in the morning, there’s nobody
outside.
Q. Your testimony is, on a Friday night and
Saturday morning, at 12 midnight, in the Germantown
section of Philadelphia, there’s no cars out?
A. There’s cars parked, but there’s no cars —
Q. There’s no cars traveling?
A. No.
Q. On a Saturday night?
A. No because everybody’s in the club somewhere.
Q. The whole world is in the club?…
Q. Now, you said on direct that she pulled in the
southbound lane, correct? That’s a pretty important fact
to this case; isn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. Why is it not in the paperwork?
A. It’s in the paperwork.
Q. Officer, why is the fact that she pulled in the
southbound lane not in any paperwork?
A. Well, my paperwork is a summary of what actually
happened, a summary.
Q. Okay. What time did you
interact with Ms. Parker?
A. 12:18.
Q. Directing your attention to C-2, it says
occurrence, 12am. You just said 12:18, which one’s
wrong?
A. It was 12:18.
Q. So the paperwork is wrong?
A. I’m not saying —
THE COURT: The question, there’s a
question he asked, can you read that question
back, that last question?
THE COURT REPORTER: “So the paperwork
is wrong?”
THE WITNESS: No, the paperwork is
right.
BY MR. KELLY:
Q. It says occurrence 12am.
A. I put 12:18.
Q. So 12am there in that spot of occurrence is
wrong; correct?
A. Right.
Q. And you did the PARS; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told me it’s accurate; right?
A. Yes.
Q. But, here, it’s not accurate.
A. That, no.
Q. And what did you say about her eyes?
A. Her eyes were glassy.
Q. You’re sure about that?
A. Yes.
Miranda: As she was traveling eastbound on Haines, she was swerving left and right.
Q. Direct your attention to Page 2 of the PARS.
Q. C-2, descriptive data, you see eye
characteristics at the bottom right there? You see that?
A. How far up?
Q. All the way down, near the bottom, descriptive
data?
A. This one?
Q. Yes, page 2, all the way down the bottom, it
says descriptive data, you see it?
You prepared
that; right?
A. Right.
Q. What does it say about her eyes on the far right
there, eye characteristics, you put normal. But yet you
testified on direct it was glassy, which one is wrong?
A. It’s glassy.
Q. So the paperwork is wrong again?
A. They were glassy.
Q. The question is, is the paperwork wrong again?
A. I put glassy. Like I said, sometimes the
computer just, the system is not correct.
Q. Well, you told me the paperwork was accurate?
A. Well I wrote everything on here that I saw.
Q. Well, you said glassy?
A. Yes.
Q. The paperwork says normal.
A. Okay.
Q. So —
A. When I observed her she had glassy eyes.
Q. Then why did you tell me the paperwork was
accurate?
A. I put glassy on it, I don’t know what happened.
But I know that when I observed Ms. Parker she had glassy
eyes, she had a strong odor of alcohol and then I politely
asked her if she had something to drink, she said yes…
Q. And you have 11 years on the police
department; right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Would you agree people can drink alcohol and
operate a vehicle?
A. No.
Q. You can’t have one beer and operate a vehicle,
that’s your testimony; right?
THE WITNESS: My testimony is that if
you’re drinking any type of alcohol and driving,
more than likely you might be impaired.
BY MR. KELLY:
Q. So, your testimony is you can’t drink alcohol
and operate a vehicle; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So, and we agree that you told the
Commonwealth’s attorney that you have training in DUIs;
correct?
A. Through the Academy.
Q. You don’t have training in DUIs, do you?
A. I do.
Q. What’s the training entail?
A. The training we had at the Academy with the
motor vehicle and we have also classes on the side. You’re
talking about the year 2000, when I went to the Academy.
Q. Classes on the side, you took classes?
A. I took classes on the side.
Q. What classes did you take?
A. I took classes on my own.
Q. On your own?
A. Yeah.
Now here’s testimony from the other officer, Stephanie Allen, questioned by the prosecutor:
Q. Now, what did you and your fellow officer do at
that point in time?
A. Well, we ran her tag and we observed that her
tag came back to Department of General Services in
Harrisburg. We got out and we approached the vehicle and,
at that time, my partner proceeded to speak with Ms.
Parker.
Q. Now, what happened at this point in time?
A. Well, from what I observed, I couldn’t hear
because the window on my side was rolled up, I was the
recorder. From what I observed, Ms. Parker appeared to be
looking for her information, her driver’s license,
registration and insurance.
Q. Describe her actions within the car?
A. She was disoriented, she was moving rather slow,
she kept looking from the back to the front, she was
looking around the front. She had containers of food in
the car, platters, and she actually spilled a platter of
food into the passenger seat, the front passenger seat.
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. Now, what happened next after making this
observation?
A. She was still looking for information, she was
speaking to my partner. Again, I don’t know what she was
saying to my partner, because the window was rolled up.
Q. Right.
A. And, at that time, my partner makes a little
motion to me as to say that she seemed like she’s been
drinking, he makes a little motion.
Q. What kind of motion, can you explain?
A. It’s a motion like, she’s intoxicated.
Q. Show the judge. I already saw it.
A. Like this. (Demonstrating.)
THE COURT: Drinking.
THE WITNESS: Yes, like she had been
drinking, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Motion with her right
hand toward the mouth.
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. Now, when she spoke to you, can you describe her
speech to the judge?
A. Her speech was a little slow, she just appeared
to be a little slow, I mean, she was polite, cooperative.
Q. Can you describe her eyes please?
A. She had glassy eyes. And like I said, her
speech was slow and she was moving slow.
Q. How did she walk?
A. She had a little trouble walking.
Q. Was she able to stand when she got out of the
car; do you remember?
A. She had a little trouble standing.
Here, parts of the cross-examination of Officer Allen:
Q. Now, you testified that my client pulled into a
southbound lane of traffic on Baynton; correct?
A. Baynton Street, goes north and south, that is
correct, and she pulled to the left.
Q. That’s important; right?
A. Yes.
Q. But yet it’s not in the paperwork, why?
A. I had put that Ms. Parker was heading eastbound
Haines Street, which is a one way, the street runs west.
Q. That’s not the question. I will ask it again.
Why is it that you said that my client was in the
southbound lane on Baynton when she pulled over, why is
that not in the paperwork if you believe it was important?
A. In the ’48A it’s just a short summary of the
events that happen.
Q. So short that you put a 19 digit VIN number
there; right?
A. The VIN is required on the ’48A. That’s why
it’s listed.
Q. So it’s pretty detailed when you want to be
detailed and not detailed when you don’t want to be
detailed; right? Now, you testified on direct that my client came
out of the vehicle; correct?
A. Yes, she was taken out of the vehicle by Officer
Miranda.
Kelly: There’s no cars traveling? Miranda: No.
Kelly: On a Saturday night? Miranda: No because everybody’s in the club somewhere.
Q. Taken. As a matter of fact you first said she
was pulled out of the vehicle, that’s what you said?
A. I did say pulled, yes.
Q. Now, you’re retracting it, she was pulled out of
the vehicle by Officer Miranda, wasn’t she?
A. She was taken out of the vehicle by Officer
Miranda.
BY MR. KELLY:
Q. How long was your interaction with my client
before she was handcuffed?
A. My interaction with Ms. Parker was about maybe
six minutes.
Q. Did you handcuff her?
A. That’s correct, I handcuffed her.
Q. You handcuffed her?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you handcuffed her, where was she
located?
A. She was still standing at the tail end of her
vehicle.
Q. Tail end of her vehicle. So she gets out of the
vehicle with Officer Miranda, you get to the back of the
vehicle, you pat her down; correct?
A. Correct, yes.
Q. To arrest her; right?
A. That’s correct, yes.
Q. And then you stand there for six minutes?
A. It took six minutes to get her handcuffed,
patting her down and letting her know what I was doing,
that took six minutes.
Q. I’m going to direct your attention to the PARS,
which is C-2; correct? You see that, you see the document?
A. Yes, I see the document.
Q. And it’s accurate?
A. To the best of my knowledge, it appears
accurate.
Q. Okay. So it says occurrence 12am, that’s
accurate?
A. The time is 12:18.
Q. Well, you just told me the documents are
accurate?
A. To the best of my knowledge the time is 12:18.
Q. Well, how do you know it’s 12:18?
A. That is the time that we stopped Ms. Parker.
Q. How do you know it was 12:18?
A. The time is on my phone.
Q. On your phone?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On your phone. Okay. And I guess the arrest
time was you put 12:35, that’s on your phone also?
A. 12:35 is the arrest time.
Q. Now, look at Page 2 of the PARS, it says
descriptive data, do you see that?
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. Eye characteristics, normal?
A. I see that.
Q. That’s accurate too?
A. I did not do the PARS.
Q. But you just told me a minute and a half ago
that the paper was accurate?
A. I stated to the best of my knowledge that the
paper was accurate, I did not do it.
Q. So that’s wrong too, eyes, normal, that’s wrong?
Is that what you’re telling me?
A. To the best of my knowledge the PARS is
accurate, I did not —
Q. So we can agree her eyes were normal?
Now comes redirect questioning from the prosecutor:
Q. Now, where Mr. Kelly asked you about descriptive
data on the back part, page 2?
A. I see it.
Q. Where it says characteristics, he zeroed in on
eye characteristics, normal. Did you prepare that? Did you prepare that
part?
A. Again, as I stated earlier, I did not prepare
the PARS.
Q. Do you know who prepared that?
A. No, I do not.
Now we get to Parker’s testimony. First, her lawyer questions her:
BY MR. KELLY:
Q. Ms. Parker, you remember the night you were
arrested; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell us what happened where you were going, and
what happened during the arrest, tell us in your own
words.
A. I was leaving a restaurant on Chelten Avenue
after hosting an annual event that I have there in my
community. I left there at approximately 11:30, I can be
very specific about the time I left out of the door
because I had to wait 15 minutes for the food to be
prepared when I was leaving from another event that was
taking place on Germantown Avenue. So I want to make sure
I’m clear in putting it in perspective. I start the
evening with —
Q. You can lower your voice because the microphone
is real loud.
A. Okay.
Q. Okay.
Kelly: Why is it that you said that my client was in the southbound lane on Baynton when she pulled over, why is that not in the paperwork if you believe it was important?
A. I start the evening at an event that I’m hosting
at this location on Chelten Avenue, I leave because the
woman’s organization that I am a part of is hosting
another event on Germantown Avenue, not far from where I
hosted mine at. I left that event. While I’m on my way
actually to my car, to actually go home, after supporting
the second event, one of the host from my event called me
and said you need to go back to that location because we
had —
MR. FLANNERY: Objection, hearsay.
THE WITNESS: I had to go back to the
location where my event was hosted in order to
pick up food and that was about 11:15, about
11:10 maybe when we were on the phone. And they
already knew that I was on my way to pick up the
food. So, by the time I got there —
MR. KELLY: Keep your voice down, it’s
echoing.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: So I had to go back to the
location to pick up food that was left there from
the event I held earlier. I did just that. When
I left the location it was 11:30. I had about 9
to 10 platters, I had platters that I put on the
back of my seat and platters, two platters that I
put on the side, on the passenger side because I
was the only person in my vehicle during that
time. My vehicle was parked about three cars
from the front door of the location that I was at
on Chelten Avenue, so I really didn’t have far to
walk. I was wearing the shoes that you
referenced earlier —
MR. FLANNERY: Objection, Judge,
unresponsive to the question.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain that.
BY MR. KELLY:
Q. Tell us, you leave the place, you’re traveling,
go ahead.
A. I get into my car, the food has now been loaded,
it’s about 11:35 to 11:40, I go up Chelten Avenue, I’m a
few feet away from Germantown Avenue. I make a right onto
Germantown Avenue, I make a right onto Rittenhouse. When
I make a right onto Rittenhouse, I go straight up
Rittenhouse and, you know, there is one stop sign, after
that stop sign you get to the next stop sign. I made a
left which was Baynton Street. Baynton Street is a
two-way street, sir. I made the left, I continued to go
straight up Baynton Street.
Q. Let me stop you there — why did you make a
right onto Rittenhouse?
A. First and foremost, sir, I’m familiar with that
community, it’s the northwest section of Philadelphia, and
I happen to know it pretty well. And if you’re familiar
with the area on a Friday night or Saturday night or even
if you just have to travel for work in the morning,
commuting to and from, if you don’t have to ride
Germantown Avenue with the traffic lights, if you know
another route that you can get around in that area, you go
that way. And, for me, the best route wasn’t to go
straight up Germantown Avenue, it was best for me if I
wanted to avoid lights, to make a right onto Rittenhouse,
to make a left onto Baynton. I continued to go straight
and, as a matter of fact, while I’m driving up Baynton
Street the light is green when I get to Baynton and Haines.
MR. FLANNERY: Again, Judge, it’s not
responsive.
THE COURT: Overruled. As I said with
your witness earlier, counsel, Mr. Flannery, some
witnesses, this is how they are going to testify.
I’m going to allow it.
BY MR. KELLY:
Q. What’s the traffic condition at that time, midnight?
A. Well, I really needed to get off of Germantown
Avenue, which is why I’m going to turn at Rittenhouse
Street because I see the traffic backed up and it’s not
just backed up one way, it’s backed up both ways. So I
want to avoid the lights, which is why I make the right
onto Rittenhouse Street. And I make the left on Baynton
Street. I go straight up Baynton Street, when I get to
Haines Street I don’t have to wait because there is a
green light, when I cross Haines Street and I get almost
three quarters to the corner, that’s when I saw the
sirens, the lights going on. I immediately pulled over, I
didn’t continue driving, I immediately pulled over to the
side. And where I pulled over, the location is Baynton
and High —
Q. Let me stop you there for a second. You heard
the officer say you pulled over into the southbound lane,
the left, which direction did you pull over?
A. I pulled over to my right, sir.
Q. Into a parking spot or where did you —
A. Well yea, to the right, it’s a residential
block, so when you pull over into a parking space, you’re,
in essence, pulling over on the side of the street where
people live. So it’s on the right side where people park.
Q. Now, you heard the officer say that you were
traveling up Haines Street the wrong way?
A. Haines Street is a one way street, I took Haines
Street for 17 years when commuting to and from my home to
work, it has a bike lane in it —
MR. FLANNERY: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. I’m going to
allow it. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: It has a bike lane. In
addition, to that, if you wanted to go up a
street that was wrong, Haines street wouldn’t be
it because Haines Street, like Germantown Avenue,
if you’re familiar with it, there is always a
high volume of traffic on Haines Street so —
MR. FLANNERY: Objection to that, that’s
a conclusion.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain that.
BY MR. KELLY:
Q. How was traffic that night?
A. It was substantial traffic, we’re talking about
ten of twelve, quarter of twelve, so that is not the time
when people are automatically simply inside the locations.
People are traveling to and from locations. And if anyone
is familiar with that area of the city —
MR. FLANNERY: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. I’ll allow it.
Go ahead.
BY MR. KELLY:
Q. So you pull over at Baynton and High Street?
A. Yes, Baynton and High.
Q. Explain your interaction with whatever officer
you interacted with?
A. The first officer who immediately came to the
car was the gentleman who spoke first, I think his name
was Officer Miranda. The first question that Officer
Miranda asked me is, ma’am, have you been drinking. I
said, yes, I have. I never told the officer I hadn’t been
drinking. He asked me what had I been drinking, I said I
had a chocolate martini, a chocolate martini. The officer
obviously immediately wanted my license and registration,
I immediately went into my pocketbook, which, by the way,
as I note for the record, was on the floor and on the
passenger side, just like the shoes that I had on.
Immediately when I got in the car to leave the
location that I was hosting the event at, the first thing
I did was took off my shoes. Now, they may not be high to
someone else but they are high enough to me when you’ve
been walking and wearing them.
Q. Let me stop you there. So when you’re driving
the vehicle, do you have your shoes on?
A. I don’t. The shoes, along with my big black
pocketbook that was mentioned earlier, they are on the
passenger side and they are on the floor and there are
food platters on the passenger seat. And there are also
food platters along the back seat in the back, from
loading the car.
Flannery: So at 12:18 in the morning, when they pulled you over, you were in your state vehicle riding around and you had a drink; is that correct?
Q. Okay. Did you ever give your license to Officer
Miranda?
A. Yes, I did. I took my license out of my
pocketbook, it was on the floor. I had to push, I had to
push the lights on. I pushed the lights on because I had
to lean over, I had to go into my pocketbook and my shoes
were right there, so if I wanted to get my shoes or
anything out of my pocketbook, I had to turn on the light
to lean over to see.
Q. So you gave Officer Miranda your license?
A. My driver’s license. Now, I just want to state
for the record —
MR. FLANNERY: Objection, Judge, there
is no question before her.
THE COURT: I will sustain that
objection.
Q. What happens next?
A. Once I give him my driver’s license, he takes my
driver’s license, he walks away for just a minute and
immediately comes back and says, ma’am, can you step out
of the car.
Q. And what do you do next?
A. Once I step out of the car, uhmm, the tall lady
whom the second officer, she was exactly right, I walked
up to the end of my car.
Q. Let me stop you, when you get out of the car, do
you have your shoes on?
A. I had to put my shoes on, finish — I’m sliding
my shoes on, sir, while I’m in the car, in the driver’s
seat. I had to lean over from the passenger side and put
them on. When my feet touched the ground, when I’m
getting out of the car, I had to bend down to finish
putting my shoes on.
Q. You don’t need the microphone, you’re like me,
you don’t need a microphone. Okay. So you put your shoes
on; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, tell us your interaction with Officer
Miranda, how long until he orders you out of the vehicle?
A. It was at least — it wasn’t a minute, if it was
a minute, immediately from the time when he asked me had I
been drinking he wanted my driver’s license, he walked
away for a hot second, he came right back, and said,
ma’am, you need to step out of the car. When I stepped
out of the car, I had grabbed my shoes, put my shoes on,
get down, finish putting the shoes on and I walked and
Officer Miranda did have — when I opened up the door, it
wasn’t that I just opened up the door and got out freely,
when I opened up the door, it’s my left arm and he did
have my left arm. When we started walking, we walked to
the rear of my vehicle and, at that time, the lady officer
said, ma’am — she told me what she was doing, ma’am, I’m
getting ready to pat you down right now. And she did
exactly just that. And I was handcuffed and I was put
into the car.
Q. So how long would you say your interaction with
Miranda was before she came up to you?
A. A minute and a half.
Q. Now, so you’re put in the back of the car and
then you’re taken to the roundhouse; correct?
A. Yes, I am, sir.
Q. The — how long were you at the scene before the
wagon comes I guess, how long were you at the scene until
the wagon comes?
A. Sir, I actually just remembered the time being
about ten of twelve. And I know it’s about 11:50, I know
I was handcuffed and I know that I was in the car because
I know what time I left the place. I know what time I
looked at my dashboard, when I got out of the car. And I
don’t remember how long it took the wagon to come, I can’t
remember that.
Q. And you heard Officer Miranda say that you told
him you had two beers and I guess numerous chocolate
martinis; is that true?
A. That is absolutely not true. I was forthright
when the officer immediately asked his question, I never
denied having a drink. I told the officer, he said have
you been drinking ma’am, I said, yes, I have, I had a
chocolate martini and that is how I responded to the
gentleman. When they turned on the lights and pulled me
over, I immediately stopped. Everything they asked me to
do, I did it in accordance to the law, like any other
citizen is supposed to do.
MR. KELLY: That’s all I have, Judge.
THE COURT: Cross examine, Mr. Flannery?
MR. FLANNERY: Thank you, Judge.
Now, Parker’s cross-examination:
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. Ma’am, you were at an event that night; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were, you admit that you were drinking
that night; isn’t that correct? Alcoholic beverages?
A. I had a drink after — if you will allow me,
sir —
Q. No, I’d like you to answer my question. My
question that I put to you, and I’m trying to be very
respectful —
A. Yes.
Q. The question that I put to you was, you admit
that you were drinking alcoholic beverages on April the
30th, 2011?
MR. KELLY: Objection, not the
testimony.
THE COURT: Well, he did ask the
question, it’s cross examination and he’ll have
to accept her answer. Answer the questions, Mr.
Parker.
THE WITNESS: After an event that I
attended Friday night, I did have a drink, after
picking up food while waiting for food that I was
picking up that evening at the same location
where I held my event.
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. So I guess the short answer is then, yes, you
had a drink; right?
A. I had a drink.
MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. Now, you said that this event was at, was it
Charmane’s or Charlene’s, what was the name that Officer
Miranda said, I’m not familiar with that establishment, is
that where you were?
A. It was an annual fish fry that I host, along
with my community, at a restaurant called Champagnes.
Q. Champagnes. So, when Officer Miranda indicated
that you informed him that you were drinking at
Champagnes, that part of Officer Miranda’s testimony would
be accurate; correct?
A. No, it wouldn’t, sir, because you said drinking,
as if you’re referring to the plural. When Officer
Miranda came and approached my car and asked me had I been
drinking I said yes, Officer Miranda, I had a chocolate
martini, and he asked me where I was coming from and I
said Champagnes.
Q. So you had a drink at Champagnes according to
your testimony; right?
A. Yes.
Q. So at least the part where Officer Miranda asked
you did you have a drink and you answered yes and you said
at Champagnes; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, after you had, according to you, you had a
drink at Champagnes, you heard Officer Miranda’s
testimony; right?
Flannery: And you would agree with me that citizens are required to operate their motor vehicles safely; isn’t that correct?
Parker: Yes, I do.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Officer Miranda testified you had a couple of
beers and a couple of chocolate martinis; is that correct?
A. Officer Miranda testified that he said that what
I told him was that I had two beers and two martinis, but
that’s not what I said. So is that what he said when he
testified, yes, it is, sir.
Q. So you disagree with that testimony; is that
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you don’t know Officer Miranda; right?
A. No, sir
Q. You never meet him prior to April the 30th of
2011; is that correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. Never had any bad problems any fights, any
arguments with Officer Miranda; is that correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. He’s a Philadelphia police officer; isn’t that
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. KELLY: Objection, I think we know
that.
THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. And is it your testimony that Officer Miranda is
making up this testimony about what you told him that
night?
A. Sir, I’m not going to make any assumptions about
what anyone thinks about his testimony. You asked me a
question and I’m giving you my answer. My answer is that I
had a chocolate martini. Officer Miranda stated that I
told him I had beers and two chocolate martinis, and I am
telling you, I did not say to him what he communicated today.
Q. Now, you agree that they pulled you over on
Baynton Street; is that right?
A. They pulled me over on Baynton Street, about a
car or two, not far from the corner of High Street.
Because I was heading straight down Baynton Street to
Walnut Lane to make my right.
Q. So you were the only person in your vehicle;
isn’t that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you do drive a silver Jeep Cherokee; isn’t
that correct?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. And the Jeep Cherokee that you drive is, in
fact, owned by the Department of General Services of the
State of Pennsylvania; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. That’s because you’re a state representative;
isn’t that correct?
A. Yes, sir, I am.
Q. And that was a state car; isn’t that right?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. So at 12:18 in the morning, when they pulled you
over, you were in your state vehicle riding around and you
had a drink; is that correct?
MR. KELLY: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled, go ahead.
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. Is that correct? Is that correct? I asked you a
question, ma’am, you’re looking at me. Can you answer my
question?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you are familiar with Haines Street; isn’t
that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Haines Street is one way out towards, westbound,
towards Germantown Avenue; isn’t that right?
A. Yes, it is, sir.
Q. And you heard Officer Miranda and Officer Allen
both testify that they observed you in your state car,
which you admit to driving —
Q. Driving on the wrong way, and they testified
that you were driving by yourself; isn’t that correct?
MR. KELLY: Objection, it’s a confusing
question, Judge.
MR. FLANNERY: Let me rephrase.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FLANNERY: Thank you, Judge.
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. They observe you — they testified they observed
you driving the wrong way on Haines Street; correct?
A. That is what they testified to.
Q. And you admit to having a drink at Champagne’s;
isn’t that correct?
A. While waiting for my food, yes, sir.
Q. And you admit that they pulled you over on
Baynton Street; isn’t that correct?
A. I didn’t say Haines Street, I said Baynton —
Q. I’m sorry, I misspoke, Baynton Street?
A. Baynton Street, but right at, near Baynton and
High.
Q. Now, they put on their emergency lights and
sirens, isn’t that correct, to pull you over?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And you pulled over exactly where they testified
you pulled over; right?
A. No, sir, I pulled over on the residential side
of the street on Baynton Street. The second place that I
went to go and pick my car up from when I was released the
next morning, is the same place that I pulled over, which
was about two to three cars from the corner of Baynton and
High Street, which is a residential block.
Q. On the south side —
A. Right, right.
Q. Which is what they testified to, the south side
of Baynton Street; isn’t that correct?
A. I can’t recall whether they said it was the
north or south, but I know it was on the right side of the
street, the way I’m driving up Baynton Street traffic in
my route, in my way, is on the right side of the street.
When the officers drove up behind me on Baynton street,
right before you get to High, I immediately pulled over to
the right side of the street. Even when I went to pick my
car up the next day, that’s where I picked it up on the
right side of the street, where they stopped me.
Q. Now, when they stopped you, well — incidentally,
what’s in a chocolate martini?
A. Actually, sir, unfortunately, sir, I’m not a bar
tender, so I don’t make them, so I can’t answer that
question.
Q. Would you agree with me that a martini is a
pretty strong drink?
A. I would say that a chocolate martini is a drink
that I had that night that I enjoy.
Q. The question that I put to you, thank you for
your answer, but would you mind answering my question,
which was, would you agree with me that a martini is a
strong drink?
A. I don’t —
MR. KELLY: Objection, that calls for
speculation.
THE COURT: She can answer the question
yes, no or maybe. I’m going to overrule it. Go
ahead.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know, sir, whether
to call it a strong or a weak drink. It’s a
chocolate martini, it’s flavored with chocolate
and it’s a martini, so I guess it depends on who
you are and depending on who you are, would
determine whether or not you think it’s a weak
drink, a strong drink, I don’t know.
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. Now, you indicated that you got out freely of
your car, is that correct, that was your testimony?
MR. KELLY: Objection.
THE COURT: You may answer.
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear an answer.
A. When Officer Miranda asked me, ma’am, can you
please get out of the car, and I opened up my car door,
his hand, Officer Miranda had my left hand, which is what
I had used to open up the door. But, as soon as the
officer gave me the instruction, ma’am, can you please get
out of the car, I did exactly what he asked me to do, like
any other citizen would be expected to do.
Q. Well, you would agree with me that citizens are
expected not to drive the wrong way on a one way street,
would you agree with me on that?
A. Yes, I would.
Q. And you would agree with me that citizens are
required to operate their motor vehicles safely; isn’t
that correct?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you would agree with me that citizens are
also required to maintain driving their vehicle safely and
not drive while under the influence of alcohol, would you
agree with me on that?
A. I agree, wholeheartedly.
Q. Now, you said that you had food platters in the
car; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you heard the officer’s testimony about the
food platters in the car; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And so their testimony as to that aspect was
correct, isn’t that right, there were food platters in the
car?
A. The only thing I didn’t recall was whether or
not he said that there were food platters in the back, he
didn’t make mention of the fact that there were two
platters that were actually on the front seat because
there was a total of about nine or 10, two on the front
seat and they were spread evenly on the back seat. And,
as a matter of fact, I did touch one when I had to kneel
down on the passenger side on the floor to pick up my
shoes and to pick up my pocketbook so that I could go into
it to get the driver’s license when he asked for it.
Q. You heard the officer’s testify that they walked
you back to the patrol car because you were unsteady on
your feet; do you remember that testimony?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And the officer, a female officer according to
you, escorted you back to that car; is that right?
A. No, she patted me down, sir, she patted me down
at the end of my vehicle, the silver vehicle. I was not
on, leaning on, touching, or near her police car at that
time. When the officer patted me down and she instructed
me, Ms. Parker, this is what am about to do, I’m about to
pat you down, I also need to look into your pocketbook.
She did all of this while I was leaning over on the rear
of my vehicle. Immediately after that, I was handcuffed
and I was put in the rear of the patrol car.
BY MR. FLANNERY:
Q. Now, you said that you were driving, you didn’t
have shoes on when you were driving?
A. No, sir. Immediately after I loaded up my car,
on the back seat and the passenger side with food from the
venue that I left, the first thing I did, and it may seem
a tad bit abnormal, but the first thing I did, especially
after wearing heels all day, dancing in them, walking in
them, interacting with them for about seven or eight
hours, the first I did when I got in the car, was take off
my shoes.
Q. So you took off your shoes, you were driving in
your bare feet?
A. I actually had, they have something rolled up,
they are rolled up slippers that come in a knapsack that a
young lady had given me after my event that night, Dr.
Scholls makes them, they are little ballerina slippers
that women can wear when you go out and you want to be
comfortable, after you’ve been wearing heels you can put
them on. I did have them in my car, but I was not driving
in them, I immediately took my shoes off and, yes, I was
driving with no shoes on. And, I mean, it may be abnormal
for the average person, but it’s not abnormal for me.
MR. FLANNERY: Judge, I have nothing
further.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelly?
MR. KELLY: I have nothing, Judge.
I don’t know about you, but I find the whole thing fascinating.
The fish platters, the driving barefoot, the long-winded answers that obfuscate more than clarify (a harbinger?), the she-said, they-said discrepancies over who said what and when, particularly when it comes to how much Parker had to drink and whether she was driving the wrong way on a one-way street and whether she did, in fact, produce a driver’s license or not. There were inconsistencies in the cops’ testimony, but also some troubling dissembling in Parker’s.
Most important for our purposes in 2023, there’s this: Even the most charitable reading of this transcript can’t lead you to the conclusion that Cherelle Parker exhibited mayoral behavior on one night in 2011, or beyond when it comes to this story, which, again, dragged on for four years.
You might think Cherelle Parker’s DUI arrest and conviction is not relevant today, and I grant you that. (Did you think the same in the 2000 presidential campaign when the same type of story surfaced about George W. Bush?)
But grant me this: It’s arguably germane, which begs the question, why has there been no coverage of it? Its relevance lies in the judgment and character revealed, if at all, by Parker’s actions and statements under oath.
I’m a believer in this principle: The more information, the better. If you’re a voter, maybe this transcript helps you. Or not. It’s up to you. For me, I will forever be haunted by the most lasting unanswered question of this whole sordid saga: Whatever happened to all those fish platters?
