CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - #57 *ARREST*

[Hatfield]

From what I heard about the hearing last week, the judge doesn't want a continuance but, geez, there is a ton of evidence that is just coming in to the DA's office from the FBI and other places and they are trying to get it over to the defense. It sounds like there is a LOT of information to wade thru by both sides.

JMO

Yea I can understand the judge not wanting delays and that sort of thing but gosh, going from a 3 month trial to a 3 week trial is a major difference which would force them to throw away a lot of their planned witnesses.

And the problem is nobody really knows which witnesses are going to strike the jury as the ones who convince them the most one way or another.

I sure hope the Prosecution doesn't throw away so many of its witnesses that they lose the case. Its a circumstantial type case to begin with and those can be some of the hardest to convince juries about. Right now, I want them to bring as many witnesses as they need, and I would hate to see where they had to eliminate some planned witnesses who could be important to the jury just because they feel pressured to shorten the trial days.

With that said, I do recall a judge limiting the prosecution attorney's closing arguments in the 1st trial of Sidney Moore where he got a mistrial. I was surprised there too when it happened. The judge literally cut off the prosecuting attorney's closing arguments and made her stop talking just because she went over her allocated time he gave each side.
I had never seen that happen before and Im still surprised it happened.

I can understand how there may have to be some guidelines because I am sure some attorneys would abuse their privilege and just fillibuster endlessly so I am sure there are some general guidelines. Its just that going from a 3 month case down to 3 weeks seems such a huge difference that it could affect the outcome of the trial if the prosecution is limited in that way.

 

[Mimi in London]

Ive been trying to catch up and Im not sure of any of the other criticism of the State but I have one from this that I would like to question.

Does the prosecution have to whittle down their witness list just because of a pre-ordained schedule? Trials, IMO, should take as long as they take to present witnesses and convict the accused defendant. If it takes over 200 witnesses and 3 months to get their whole case presented then so be it.

Why is the Prosecution being forced to pare down a 3 month case to just 3 weeks just because of some pre-ordained schedule?

Is that common that the Prosecution has to follow timeline guidelines presented to them by a judge? I always thought the judge would ask the lawyers how long their parts are going to take and then they schedule accordingly?

This doesnt make much sense to me if lawyers are forced under timeline guidelines for their entire case presentation?

Im probably misunderstanding something.

I assumed the prosecution is whittling of their own accord. May doesn’t want the jury to lose interest/fall asleep. He’ll use the best and enough to convince/convict.

 

[Seattle1]

I was disappointed also. However, the conversation with CB will be let in! Bam!

Sam Kraemer‏ @SamKraemerTV
A phone conversation between Kelsey & Cheryl Berreth on Nov. 22 described Kelsey’s day & other plans. Judge says they will be allowed. @KOAA #KelseyBerreth #PatrickFrazee

bbm

I believe it goes back further than Nov 22, and most likely will be entered under this allowance by Judge (as @SandyQLS mentioned above):

@SamKraemerTV
Judge says the 5-6 statements attributed to Cheryl Berreth will be allowed in court. He says it’s trustworthy under law. @KOAA #KelseyBerreth #PatrickFrazee

 

[Seattle1]

I sure hope the Prosecution doesn't throw away so many of its witnesses that they lose the case. Its a circumstantial type case to begin with and those can be some of the hardest to convince juries about. Right now, I want them to bring as many witnesses as they need, and I would hate to see where they had to eliminate some planned witnesses who could be important to the jury just because they feel pressured to shorten the trial days.

^^SBM

I think the list is more likely every potential witness vs relevant witnesses.

The last trial I watched had many complaints about "duplicate testimony" by neighbors. 5 witnesses repeating the same not necessary.

Nonetheless, I'm sure interviewing all the potentials was valuable to the State to paint the big picture they are going to tell to the jury.

 

[MyBelle]

Yea I can understand the judge not wanting delays and that sort of thing but gosh, going from a 3 month trial to a 3 week trial is a major difference which would force them to throw away a lot of their planned witnesses.

And the problem is nobody really knows which witnesses are going to strike the jury as the ones who convince them the most one way or another.

I sure hope the Prosecution doesn't throw away so many of its witnesses that they lose the case. Its a circumstantial type case to begin with and those can be some of the hardest to convince juries about. Right now, I want them to bring as many witnesses as they need, and I would hate to see where they had to eliminate some planned witnesses who could be important to the jury just because they feel pressured to shorten the trial days.

With that said, I do recall a judge limiting the prosecution attorney's closing arguments in the 1st trial of Sidney Moore where he got a mistrial. I was surprised there too when it happened. The judge literally cut off the prosecuting attorney's closing arguments and made her stop talking just because she went over her allocated time he gave each side.
I had never seen that happen before and Im still surprised it happened.

I can understand how there may have to be some guidelines because I am sure some attorneys would abuse their privilege and just fillibuster endlessly so I am sure there are some general guidelines. Its just that going from a 3 month case down to 3 weeks seems such a huge difference that it could affect the outcome of the trial if the prosecution is limited in that way.

ITA. It sounded to me that the prosecution is just as concerned about the tight timeline as the defense said it is concerned. I'm baffled why the FBI and the coroner are getting files to them so close to trial.

JMO

 

[MassGuy]

ITA. It sounded to me that the prosecution is just as concerned about the tight timeline as the defense said it is concerned. I'm baffled why the FBI and the coroner are getting files to them so close to trial.

JMO

Because DNA testing doesn’t happen overnight.

 

[Hatfield]

I assumed the prosecution is whittling of their own accord. May doesn’t want the jury to lose interest/fall asleep. He’ll use the best and enough to convince/convict.

You could be right that they may have given the judge those proposed timelines to begin with.

This link below was the part in the article where it talked about the prosecution whittling down their witnesses. I guess we really dont know where the 3 month or 3 week proposed schedules came from. Maybe the prosecution first told the judge it will take 3 weeks before they realized it will be more like 3 months and now they may be trying to accomodate what they originally told the judge. I guess we really dont know where these proposed timelines came from.

It just sounds strange to me to be forced to strike out witnesses just because of a proposed schedule. I always throught trials are fluid and things can change throughout the process.

I just hope any whittling down of witnesses doesnt affect the outcome of the trial.

"The process, currently slated for three weeks, includes jury selection.

Prosecutors originally submitted a list of 255 possible witnesses, but today they informed the judge they've reduced that number significantly, in an effort to accomodate a three-week rather than a three-month long trial. A final list will be provided to the defense before jury selection, at the latest."

Frazee back in court for pre-trial hearing on murder case

 

[gitana1]

Ive been trying to catch up and Im not sure of any of the other criticism of the State but I have one from this that I would like to question.

Does the prosecution have to whittle down their witness list just because of a pre-ordained schedule? Trials, IMO, should take as long as they take to present witnesses and convict the accused defendant. If it takes over 200 witnesses and 3 months to get their whole case presented then so be it.

Why is the Prosecution being forced to pare down a 3 month case to just 3 weeks just because of some pre-ordained schedule?

Is that common that the Prosecution has to follow timeline guidelines presented to them by a judge? I always thought the judge would ask the lawyers how long their parts are going to take and then they schedule accordingly?

This doesnt make much sense to me if lawyers are forced under timeline guidelines for their entire case presentation?

Im probably misunderstanding something.

No. They are paring down because as you go through prepping a case you eventually whittle it down naturally.

 

[GordianKnot]

You could be right that they may have given the judge those proposed timelines to begin with.

This link below was the part in the article where it talked about the prosecution whittling down their witnesses. I guess we really dont know where the 3 month or 3 week proposed schedules came from. Maybe the prosecution first told the judge it will take 3 weeks before they realized it will be more like 3 months and now they may be trying to accomodate what they originally told the judge. I guess we really dont know where these proposed timelines came from.

It just sounds strange to me to be forced to strike out witnesses just because of a proposed schedule. I always throught trials are fluid and things can change throughout the process.

I just hope any whittling down of witnesses doesnt affect the outcome of the trial.

"The process, currently slated for three weeks, includes jury selection.

Prosecutors originally submitted a list of 255 possible witnesses, but today they informed the judge they've reduced that number significantly, in an effort to accomodate a three-week rather than a three-month long trial. A final list will be provided to the defense before jury selection, at the latest."

Frazee back in court for pre-trial hearing on murder case

So, here's my take on the witness list vis-a-vis the trial schedule:

DA May would probably be the first one to tell you that he has the best kind of problem:
He's suffering from an embarrassment of riches, on account of PF helpfully supplied the prosecution a veritable avalanche of evidence with which to bury him.

I'm not certain where the three-month trial reference came from, but it may simply be that DA May looked at the "plethora" ( to use his word) of evidence he had available to him, and thought to himself, "It would take us 3 months to cover all this material in the courtroom. We don't even need half this much stuff!"

I'm sure DA May is making strategic decisions r/t trimming all the excess fat off the case.
He'll want to focus on presenting the meat of the case to the jury.
The prosecution's case will be like a filet mignon:
Grade A Prime, served up to the jury on a silver platter.

PF's defense, conversely, will be like a stale, 2-day-old Sonic burger.
Flame-broiled over an open bonfire at the franch.

I am not at all worried that the prosecution will leave one, single critical witness off their list.
In fact, I think it will still be like a tsunami wave of evidence that comes crashing into court to drown PF.
The evidence against PF is going to be overwhelming.

We're all going to wonder why in the world he didn't take a plea deal (if he was even offered one).

Of course, we all need to remind ourselves: "This is PF we're talking about here."

JMO.

 

[MassGuy]

So, here's my take on the witness list vis-a-vis the trial schedule:

DA May would probably be the first one to tell you that he has the best kind of problem:
He's suffering from an embarrassment of riches, on account of PF helpfully gave the prosecution a veritable avalanche of evidence with which to bury him.

I'm not certain where the three-month trial reference came from, but it may simply be that DA May looked at the "plethora" ( to use his word) of evidence he had available to him, and thought to himself, "It would take us 3 months to cover all this material in the courtroom. We don't even need half this much stuff!"

I'm sure DA May is making strategic decisions r/t trimming all the excess fat off the case.
He'll want to focus on presenting the meat of it to the jury.
The prosecution's case will be like a filet mignon.
Grade A Prime, served up to the jury on a silver platter.

PF's defense, conversely, will be like a stale, 2-day-old Sonic burger.
Flame-broiled over an open bonfire at the franch.

I am not at all worried that the prosecution will leave one, single critical witness off their list.
In fact, I think it will still be like a tsunami wave of evidence that comes crashing into court to drown PF.
The evidence against PF is going to be overwhelming.

We're all going to wonder why in the world he didn't take a plea deal (if he was even offered one).

Of course, we all need to remind ourselves: "This is PF we're talking about here."

JMO.

“I’m not merely stupid, I’m Patrick Frazee.”

I’m looking forward to learning the defense strategy, and exactly how far one is going to have to leap to buy any aspect of PF’s defense.

In the Fotis Dulos case, his defense attorney is floating the hilarious, “Gone Girl” defense. I think PF’s defense will be even funnier than that.

 

[Seattle1]

ITA. It sounded to me that the prosecution is just as concerned about the tight timeline as the defense said it is concerned. I'm baffled why the FBI and the coroner are getting files to them so close to trial.

JMO

Sorry you're baffled.

Defense stated at hearing that they received much evidence in the last two weeks, and more recently DNA analysis.

This is a no body case, and I don't think we're talking about standard test results with projected timeline for results.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are still waiting on forensic test results. It would serve no purpose for tests results to be intentionally delayed here.

MOO

 

[GordianKnot]

“I’m not merely stupid, I’m Patrick Frazee.”

I’m looking forward to learning the defense strategy, and exactly how far one is going to have to leap to buy any aspect of PF’s defense.

In the Fotis Dulos case, his defense attorney is floating the hilarious, “Gone Girl” defense. I think PF’s defense will be even funnier than that.

Ha! For sure.

Sneak Peak at the Defense Strategy:

"No body, no case."
"No body, no case."
"No body, no case."
"No body, no case."

What else does poor Stiegerwald have to work with here?

 

[Hatfield]

So, here's my take on the witness list vis-a-vis the trial schedule:

DA May would probably be the first one to tell you that he has the best kind of problem:
He's suffering from an embarrassment of riches, on account of PF helpfully gave the prosecution a veritable avalanche of evidence with which to bury him.

I'm not certain where the three-month trial reference came from, but it may simply be that DA May looked at the "plethora" ( to use his word) of evidence he had available to him, and thought to himself, "It would take us 3 months to cover all this material in the courtroom. We don't even need half this much stuff!"

I'm sure DA May is making strategic decisions r/t trimming all the excess fat off the case, so he focus on presenting the meat of it to the jury.
The prosecution's case will be like a filet mignon.
A prime piece, served up to the jury on a silver platter.

PF's defense, conversely, will be like a stale, 2-day-old Sonic burger.
Flame-broiled over an open bonfire at the franch.

I am not at all worried that the prosecution will leave one, single critical witness off their list.
In fact, I think it will still be like a tsunami wave of evidence that comes crashing into court to drown PF.
The evidence against PF is going to be overwhelming.

We're all going to wonder why in the world he didn't take a plea deal (if he was even offered one).

Of course, we all need to remind ourselves: "This is PF we're talking about here."

JMO.

Great analogies and this makes me feel better.

I especially liked the analogy about the 2 day old Sonic burger that even my dog would puke up.

Im still worried about our favorite expected witness but even without her, I believe you are correct that there should be plenty of other evidence that proves to the jury that PF is guilty as charged.

Im so glad we have so many of us here that know all about this case. It will be valuable during the trial to remind us of things that we should already know about.

Like until today, I didnt even realize who was in the car with KK when she brought the coffee over. Wow. Hope her passenger is called to the stand as well. Surely there was some discussion amongst those two why KK was going to hand deliver a cup of fresh coffee.

Why does this case remind me of Sheriff Andy Griffith of Mayberry (the good guys) prosecuting the town drunk (the bad guy)? LOL

I hope we see that some of the initial local PF defenders have come to their senses by now. If we still see some of them openly defending him or his actions like at the bank, it will be surprising to me.

 

[Dave F.]

I think that:
"No DNA of PF's in the condo, at all." and
"Unknown male DNA found."
might go a long, long way IMO

 

[MassGuy]

Ha! For sure.

Sneak Peak at the Defense Strategy:

"No body, no case."
"No body, no case."
"No body, no case."
"No body, no case."

What else does poor Stiegerwald have to work with here?

Besides an evil, murdering client who was kicked in the head by a horse?

Certainly not the facts, that’s for damn sure.

He’s probably hoping for a jury that is governed by emotion and grounded in fantasy.

Good luck with that.

 

[GordianKnot]

Besides an evil, murdering client who was kicked in the head by a horse?

Certainly not the facts, that’s for damn sure.

He’s probably hoping for a jury that is governed by emotion and grounded in fantasy.

Good luck with that.

I seriously ain't kidding (redundant) when I say this:

I want the prosecution to ask prospective jurors if they watch the Lifetime channel.

If they do, they need to be excused.

JMO.

 

[MassGuy]

I seriously ain't kidding (is that redundant?) when I say this:

I want the prosecution to ask prospective jurors if they watch the Lifetime channel.

If they do, they need to be excused.

JMO.

Ha! That, or CSI.

Because DNA results are not instant, and not every crime scene has DNA evidence of the killer.

Sometimes it takes logic and reasoning ability to reach a conclusion.

 

[Snowsnake]

I

I'd stick to his (May) original approach from last Feb. I think his first or last witness should be ma SF.

Mothers immediately get the attention of jurors, and if she refuses to answer questions, that will stay with them during the entire trial: more like if mom won't talk, I'd be suspect of the testimony of any other defense witnesses.

I agree. Start with Mother F and set the whole Freeze tone.

 

[Seattle1]

I seriously ain't kidding (is that redundant?) when I say this:

I want the prosecution to ask prospective jurors if they watch the Lifetime channel.

If they do, they need to be excused.

JMO.

!!!

 

[steeltowngirl]

I think that:
"No DNA of PF's in the condo, at all." and
"Unknown male DNA found."
might go a long, long way IMO

Where is the “no DNA of PF’s in the condo” coming from?