State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

[unc70]

This is a huge interest in this case from various parts of the country and Canada. Some guests may be in the Pacific time zone, they are just getting warmed up--and I'm getting ready for bed.
I have a rather large garden to plant first thing in the morning--must be finished by 9:30am!

And I have to run an unexpected errand that will take an hour. I am in Chapel Hill, NC. Was about to take out my contacts.

 

[bloghooligan]

Actually, the defense wants to do an offer of proof so it is part of the record for appeal. Looks like we will get to hear it Thursday afternoon (and probably Friday afternoon). The jurors won't, but I assume it will be broadcast for us.

I just went back and listened to the Micucci discussion from Monday morning. I didn't understand the meaning of preserving the record with an offer of proof but it sounds like they'll put Micucci (sp?) on the stand and elicit testimony but, regardless what the guy can testify to, the testimony won't be allowed in this trial, it will only be allowed on appeal (if necessary).

So, even if Micucci can show that the google search/bmp files were somehow generated by someone or some process other than BC, this jury won't get to hear it.... wow.

Seems to me the defense is more prejudiced by this decision than the prosecution.

 

[cody100]

I was astounded at what I saw in the courtroom today with the witness asking the prosecutor questions and the prosecutor answering them. The back and forth, sans decorum, was right out of the comedy channel. I guess if that's what N.Carolina wants the world to see, so be it - court comedy at a murder trial.

I have never seen that before, Otto. Both Bz and the witness were out of line, and not stopped. I was shocked, but then I can't explain a number of things I have seen in this trial. MOO

 

[MoonFlwr]

Where the heck are you? Wow, that's pulling an allnighter. :seeya:

I am in Australia. My partner is from Los Angeles and several Christmases ago, while I was in LA, I got hooked on Court TV & the message boards, so, after that, I returned home and have watched several trials at those hours...

Mary Winkler, Melanie McGuire, Bobby Cutts, Mark Jensen, Phil Spector x2! and probably more...lol!

Can you imagine setting your alarm for 3 am to watch Punkin Pie (in the Phil Spector case) testify!?

 

[cassius]

I just went back and listened to the Micucci discussion from Monday morning. I didn't understand the meaning of preserving the record with an offer of proof but it sounds like they'll put Micucci (sp?) on the stand and elicit testimony but, regardless what the guy can testify to, the testimony won't be allowed in this trial, it will only be allowed on appeal (if necessary).

So, even if Micucci can show that the google search/bmp files were somehow generated by someone or some process other than BC, this jury won't get to hear it.... wow.

Seems to me the defense is more prejudiced by this decision than the prosecution.

Yes, you are correct. Without the proffered testimony the appellate court cannot competently determine whether the exclusion of the evidence was erroneous, let alone prejudicial to the party seeking to have the evidence admitted. If no offer of proof was made, then the party seeking its admission waives the right to raise the issue on appeal and the appellate court can only review the exclusion for plain error.

 

[cody100]

Yes, you are correct. Without the proffered testimony the appellate court cannot competently determine whether the exclusion of the evidence was erroneous, let alone prejudicial to the party seeking to have the evidence admitted. If no offer of proof was made, then the party seeking its admission waives the right to raise the issue on appeal and the appellate court can only review the exclusion for plain error.

I think they plan to do that Thursday or Friday afternoon when the jury is off. In your opinion, what did you think of this ruling to exclude testimony?

 

[cassius]

I think they plan to do that Thursday or Friday afternoon when the jury is off. In your opinion, what did you think of this ruling to exclude testimony?

Well, I posted earlier that I thought since the judge has allowed the State a basically unfettered pass to introduce their expert without having to release a certain product of their investigation of the computer thereby limiting BC's right to cross examine him, that the judge should allow it to ensure that BC has a fair shot at the evidence. I don't buy BZ's argument that they don't have time. They have the entire resource of the DA's office and you can't tell me for a second that there are only two FBI agents capable of assisting BZ understand/prepare for this witness and that those two witnesses happen to be unavailable.

To me the ruling on it's own is probably erroneous, but it is just another piece that is piling up for BC's appellate arguments, should it come to that. I will say however that I'm sure HK didn't want JW to admit on the stand that he's not a forensic expert, though I think the distinction of where to draw the line as to what a forensic expert can testify to and what a network security expert can testify to is a very difficult one to draw. I will say, however, that I don't have much faith in the appellate court, and that's just coming from experience and knowing that the overturn rate in this state is not very high. I think one thing that is probably going to help on appeal if it goes there is the judges admitted lack of technological knowledge and his seemingly arbitrary rulings in those areas, rulings that have mostly sided with the State. In appellate review, the transcripts are goldmines. You'll find all kinds of little nuggets in there and some of the judge's comments like "I don't know what Facebook is so I'll let it in" will play a part in the panel's decision.

 

[cody100]

Well, I posted earlier that I thought since the judge has allowed the State a basically unfettered pass to introduce their expert without having to release a certain product of their investigation of the computer thereby limiting BC's right to cross examine him, that the judge should allow it to ensure that BC has a fair shot at the evidence. I don't buy BZ's argument that they don't have time. They have the entire resource of the DA's office and you can't tell me for a second that there are only two FBI agents capable of assisting BZ understand/prepare for this witness and that those two witnesses happen to be unavailable.

To me the ruling on it's own is probably erroneous, but it is just another piece that is piling up for BC's appellate arguments, should it come to that. I will say however that I'm sure HK didn't want JW to admit on the stand that he's not a forensic expert, though I think the distinction of where to draw the line as to what a forensic expert can testify to and what a network security expert can testify to is a very difficult one to draw. I will say, however, that I don't have much faith in the appellate court, and that's just coming from experience and knowing that the overturn rate in this state is not very high. I think one thing that is probably going to help on appeal if it goes there is the judges admitted lack of technological knowledge and his seemingly arbitrary rulings in those areas, rulings that have mostly sided with the State. In appellate review, the transcripts are goldmines. You'll find all kinds of little nuggets in there and some of the judge's comments like "I don't know what Facebook is so I'll let it in" will play a part in the panel's decision.

Thanks for your input. I should not have been surprised at the decision based on many other rulings, but I thought he should have been given the opportunity to bring the expert in to testify. If not today, then tomorrow. I was puzzled though why the expert did not just testify on FBI findings and not include JW's results since I felt they were not clear how he did his test. I doubt JW's message here was helpful to the case (assuming he really was the one in WB). This has been a fascinating case to watch. I thank you for your thoughts.

 

[cassius]

My 2 biggest problems with this case are the super secret FBI stuff and the JW facebook stuff. Both went directly to the only piece of physical evidence introduced in this case. The judge allowing the facebook crap in showed a complete lack of understanding of the rules of evidence. I haven't read the ruling on the FBI stuff and would have to research it, but again it limited the defense's ability to effectively cross examine the witness who testified to the only piece of physical evidence in this case.

 

[cassius]

Thanks for your input. I should not have been surprised at the decision based on many other rulings, but I thought he should have been given the opportunity to bring the expert in to testify. If not today, then tomorrow. I was puzzled though why the expert did not just testify on FBI findings and not include JW's results since I felt they were not clear how he did his test. I doubt JW's message here was helpful to the case (assuming he really was the one in WB). This has been a fascinating case to watch. I thank you for your thoughts.

The judge didn't include the WS post in his ultimate ruling, but he did mention it during arguments, which is amazing in its own right. The fact that he held up a piece of paper that was a post from "Jay123" and blindly relied on the State's assertion that it was indeed Jay Ward because whoever wrote said they were Jay Ward, just solidifies his complete lack of technological understanding. But you don't even need to consider the technology aspect of it. It could have easily been a handwritten note from JW. He should have looked at it, saw or asked if it has been authenticated, saw that it wasn't and moved on.

 

[cody100]

My 2 biggest problems with this case are the super secret FBI stuff and the JW facebook stuff. Both went directly to the only piece of physical evidence introduced in this case. The judge allowing the facebook crap in showed a complete lack of understanding of the rules of evidence. I haven't read the ruling on the FBI stuff and would have to research it, but again it limited the defense's ability to effectively cross examine the witness who testified to the only piece of physical evidence in this case.

I have another problem with this case in addition to your two, which by the way are my two major problems as well. This third major problem is the handling of the evidence by CPD and some of their testimony in the court. Just My Opinion. I am still trying to understand how you ignore warnings on NC's phone that you will destroy the information if you continue to try to get into the phone unauthorized. But the issues surrounding the FBI and Facebook are major issues that definitely bother me immensely.

 

[bloghooligan]

Thanks very much for your input cassius!

Something else that bothers me is the body language of the judge. At times during defense arguments he appears to look at the prosecution table and roll his eyes, sigh and just generally seem put out with what he's said on several occasions is a waste of the court's time . If I see this, I'm sure the jury does too.

Also, if I didn't 'know' better, it seems that the prosecution may have briefed the judge on some of their arguments in advance and taken advantage of the his lack of understanding of the technical evidence. Definitiely feels like the prosecution is more about beating their opponents (Kurtz/Cooper) than administering justice.

ITA with your comments on the judge inconsistent rulings/admission of evidence. JW's testimony is a case in point. It's obvious to me that an analysis of activity on a network would necessarily involve reviewing activity files, logs, data. In some cases his testimony in these areas was not allowed but then he was allowed to comment on subject of google maps .bmp vs .cur which, imo, is not network related.

I believe BC is probably guilty & that the prosecution isn't able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt but the judge's prosecution-leaning rulings and behaviors will lead the jury to convict. just my thoughts.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think SH may now have an opinion on BC's guilt since he and the Rentz family hugged. He's probably heard a few things since 2008 that made him go 'hmmmm.'

 

[cassius]

Thanks very much for your input cassius!

Something else that bothers me is the body language of the judge. At times during defense arguments he appears to look at the prosecution table and roll his eyes, sigh and just generally seem put out with what he's said on several occasions is a waste of the court's time . If I see this, I'm sure the jury does too.

Also, if I didn't 'know' better, it seems that the prosecution may have briefed the judge on some of their arguments in advance and taken advantage of the his lack of understanding of the technical evidence. Definitiely feels like the prosecution is more about beating their opponents (Kurtz/Cooper) than administering justice.

ITA with your comments on the judge inconsistent rulings/admission of evidence. JW's testimony is a case in point. It's obvious to me that an analysis of activity on a network would necessarily involve reviewing activity files, logs, data. In some cases his testimony in these areas was not allowed but then he was allowed to comment on subject of google maps .bmp vs .cur which, imo, is not network related.

I believe BC is probably guilty & that the prosecution isn't able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt but the judge's prosecution-leaning rulings and behaviors will lead the jury to convict. just my thoughts.

Oh, BOZ is definitely playing into the judge's lack of knowledge, and probably to a large extent his own lack of knowledge. I can't for one second imagine how anyone with a passing familiarity with the internet could think that not updating privacy settings on a social network site has anything to do with keeping your home wireless network secure. So either BZ knew the judge had no idea on the subject or they both had no idea. I would think it is the former.

re body language. Unprofessional, probably so. Am I shocked or surprised? Not really, but I guess that just comes from being in the courtroom so often and seeing it first hand and having more than one judge give me the business during a trial.

 

[cody100]

Oh, BOZ is definitely playing into the judge's lack of knowledge, and probably to a large extent his own lack of knowledge. I can't for one second imagine how anyone with a passing familiarity with the internet could think that not updating privacy settings on a social network site has anything to do with keeping your home wireless network secure. So either BZ knew the judge had no idea on the subject or they both had no idea. I would think it is the former.

re body language. Unprofessional, probably so. Am I shocked or surprised? Not really, but I guess that just comes from being in the courtroom so often and seeing it first hand and having more than one judge give me the business during a trial.

I have seen defense attorneys use the tone of voice and approach that Boz used on several defense witnesses. Honestly I have never seen many prosecutors that did that. I call it defensive posturing. I never thought it went over with most juries very well, but that is my opinion. Of course, yesterday we had the defense witness countering with his own set of facial expressions and tone of voice.

 

[cody100]

I think SH may now have an opinion on BC's guilt since he and the Rentz family hugged. He's probably heard a few things since 2008 that made him go 'hmmmm.'

I think SH would hug the Rentz family no matter what opinion he had of BC to be honest. He is just a very mannerly and great guy. MOO

 

[Tink56]

I think SH may now have an opinion on BC's guilt since he and the Rentz family hugged. He's probably heard a few things since 2008 that made him go 'hmmmm.'

I think I remember reading as far back as 2008 that SH had a change in opinion that he voiced after BC's arrest. It's probably too far back to find the news article that related this.

Also, a quick question for anyone who might know: What is BC's brother's occupation. IIRC, he's a professor in ??????? Just wondering..

 

[cassius]

I have seen defense attorneys use the tone of voice and approach that Boz used on several defense witnesses. Honestly I have never seen many prosecutors that did that. I call it defensive posturing. I never thought it went over with most juries very well, but that is my opinion. Of course, yesterday we had the defense witness countering with his own set of facial expressions and tone of voice.

you never really know what a jury is thinking, but my thoughts are that they were very glad when that circus was over and took very little, if anything, from his testimony. i mean you had an expert who was probably too much of an expert and while very good at telling people he was an expert, he was not very good at explaining things to the jury. then you get boz coming in on cross and waiving his arms around like a gorilla and flinging poo all over the courtroom. i think boz can only hope he didn't hit any of the jurors with some of that poo.

 

[dramamama]

I think SH may now have an opinion on BC's guilt since he and the Rentz family hugged. He's probably heard a few things since 2008 that made him go 'hmmmm.'

Yes, I thought he was probably answering a little more vaguely than Kurtz anticipated. He probably said a big hmmm after watching the deposition video.

 

[FullDisclosure]

But is there video? On a cell phone that the CPD may have confiscated?

Also, is there video of the re-enactment that Kurtz and Zellinger did of your re-enactment?

There was, but once CPD got the phone....well, you know.