GUILTY NC - Jameson 'Jamie' Hahn, 29, stabbed to death, Raleigh, 22 April 201

[borndem]

Arbour is being very disrespectful to Judge Ridgeway, in my opinion. Just short of contempt in my IANAL judgment.

Grrrrrrrr.

 

[borndem]

WTH is Arbour going with this carp??

The Office of the Defender must get rid of this man, IMO. Arrrrggghhhh. Dayam.

 

[borndem]

Your Honor, please bring in the Killer Owl from Durham as soon as possible...

 

[Prancy]

I have to run some errands today. I hope I don't miss too much this morning.

 

[borndem]

I suspect he wants to provoke the judge. That isn't likely to work. The judge could hold him in contempt, though. Once the court rules, you aren't supposed to go on and on about it.

Exactly!! I was getting ready to say that -- I am still not a lawyer -- it's time for His Honor to warn Arbour, IMHO. Then we might see, with our own eyes, a phenomenon known as spontaneous human combustion.... if only.... Ker-blooey!!!!

 

[borndem]

The horse that Arbour has been beating is way beyond dead. Way beyond.... Will this ever stop????

 

[Skigirl]

Do you think his strategy is to be super-boring? I mean, this is so incredibly boring that it's almost like he's trying to lull the jury into not listening.

 

[Prancy]

Please help me make sure I have this straight. The jury has a notebook that has a transcription of the interview that was introduced. So they can follow along, read and get for themselves what was said, in addition to what they heard when it was played on audio? Remind me why it's been gone over and over again.....

 

[Skigirl]

So, after the judge dismissed the jury, he wanted to get the matter of whether Broyhill will testify or not taken care of before they ajourned for lunch, but Broyhill's attorneys requested that it happen after lunch, but before the jury is brought back in at 2:30. Does that mean Broyhill and his attorneys are still trying to decide/attorneys are still trying to talk Broyhill out of testifying?

 

[Prancy]

So, after the judge dismissed the jury, he wanted to get the matter of whether Broyhill will testify or not taken care of before they ajourned for lunch, but Broyhill's attorneys requested that it happen after lunch, but before the jury is brought back in at 2:30. Does that mean Broyhill and his attorneys are still trying to decide/attorneys are still trying to talk Broyhill out of testifying?

I don't know, but I would suspect that the defense team just doesn't want to let the state know their plans. If it's for sure that the def. will testify, the prosecution team is likely going to work straight through lunch brushing up on their intended questions. If he's not going to testify, then they could have a regular lunch or just work on questions for someone else that might be called. This is JMO. Also, if he testifies, they may want to get some rebuttal witnesses on standby.

 

[Skigirl]

Blah blah move for mistrial, fishcakes.
Denied.

 

[borndem]

Please help me make sure I have this straight. The jury has a notebook that has a transcription of the interview that was introduced. So they can follow along, read and get for themselves what was said, in addition to what they heard when it was played on audio? Remind me why it's been gone over and over again.....

I think Arbour, besides mainly punishing His Honor for being so mean and biased <gag> and also punishing the jury and all who draw breath, is "putting his client on the stand" in the only way he feels he can. As in, "When you asked my client if he bought an Amtrak ticket to Charlotte, did he answer?" Answer by the witness, "Yes." So he is showing how thoroughly JB was grilled and that he answered every question. No answers from JB were quoted by the witness -- that dayam hearsay thing again -- but it's a his way of letting the jury know what JB was asked and that JB did not refuse to answer. That's what I've thought all along. I have never seen it done to this ridiculous minutia-laden extent until I saw Arbour.

 

[borndem]

I call BS to what Arbour is saying about bringing the Dr. from Craven Correction etc., etc. I hope His Honor will have his testimony voir-dired, since they didn't tell the PT about this witness.

 

[borndem]

Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Voir-dire!

Score one for His Honor and for the People of the State of North Carolina! And for common freakin' sense.

 

[Prancy]

I thought he was only going to ask what medications he prescribed for the defendan. He's asked at least a dozen more questions so far.

 

[borndem]

Yes he IS an expert witness, you dork. Grrrrr.

 

[borndem]

If JB was planning to commit suicide, why didn't he? No one stopped him.

 

[borndem]

For those who want details, here is General Statute 15A-905:

§ 15A-905. Disclosure of evidence by the defendant - Information subject to disclosure.

(a) Documents and Tangible Objects. - If the court grants any relief sought by the defendant under G.S. 15A-903, the court must, upon motion of the State, order the defendant to permit the State to inspect and copy or photograph books, papers, documents, photographs, motion pictures, mechanical or electronic recordings, tangible objects, or copies or portions thereof which are within the possession, custody, or control of the defendant and which the defendant intends to introduce in evidence at the trial.
(b) Reports of Examinations and Tests. - If the court grants any relief sought by the defendant under G.S. 15A-903, the court must, upon motion of the State, order the defendant to permit the State to inspect and copy or photograph results or reports of physical or mental examinations or of tests, measurements or experiments made in connection with the case, or copies thereof, within the possession and control of the defendant which the defendant intends to introduce in evidence at the trial or which were prepared by a witness whom the defendant intends to call at the trial, when the results or reports relate to his testimony. In addition, upon motion of the State, the court must order the defendant to permit the State to inspect, examine, and test, subject to appropriate safeguards, any physical evidence or a sample of it available to the defendant if the defendant intends to offer such evidence, or tests or experiments made in connection with such evidence, as an exhibit or evidence in the case.
(c) Notice of Defenses, Expert Witnesses, and Witness Lists. - If the court grants any relief sought by the defendant under G.S. 15A-903, or if disclosure is voluntarily made by the State pursuant to G.S. 15A-902(a), the court must, upon motion of the State, order the defendant to:
(1) Give notice to the State of the intent to offer at trial a defense of alibi, duress, entrapment, insanity, mental infirmity, diminished capacity, self-defense, accident, automatism, involuntary intoxication, or voluntary intoxication. Notice of defense as described in this subdivision is inadmissible against the defendant. Notice of defense must be given within 20 working days after the date the case is set for trial pursuant to G.S. 7A-49.4, or such other later time as set by the court.
a. As to the defense of alibi, the court may order, upon motion by the State, the disclosure of the identity of alibi witnesses no later than two weeks before trial. If disclosure is ordered, upon a showing of good cause, the court shall order the State to disclose any rebuttal alibi witnesses no later than one week before trial. If the parties agree, the court may specify different time periods for this exchange so long as the exchange occurs within a reasonable time prior to trial.
b. As to only the defenses of duress, entrapment, insanity, automatism, or involuntary intoxication, notice by the defendant shall contain specific information as to the nature and extent of the defense.
(2) Give notice to the State of any expert witnesses that the defendant reasonably expects to call as a witness at trial. Each such witness shall prepare, and the defendant shall furnish to the State, a report of the results of the examinations or tests conducted by the expert. The defendant shall also furnish to the State the expert's curriculum vitae, the expert's opinion, and the underlying basis for that opinion. The defendant shall give the notice and furnish the materials required by this subdivision within a reasonable time prior to trial, as specified by the court. Standardized fee scales shall be developed by the Administrative Office of the Courts and Indigent Defense Services for all expert witnesses and private investigators who are compensated with State funds.
(3) Give the State, at the beginning of jury selection, a written list of the names of all other witnesses whom the defendant reasonably expects to call during the trial. Names of witnesses shall not be subject to disclosure if the defendant certifies in writing and under seal to the court that to do so may subject the witnesses or others to physical or substantial economic harm or coercion, or that there is other particularized, compelling need not to disclose. If there are witnesses that the defendant did not reasonably expect to call at the time of the provision of the witness list, and as a result are not listed, the court upon a good faith showing shall allow the witnesses to be called. Additionally, in the interest of justice, the court may in its discretion permit any undisclosed witness to testify.

(d) If the defendant voluntarily provides discovery under G.S. 15A-902(a), the disclosure shall be to the same extent as required by subsection (c) of this section. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1; 1975, c. 166, s. 27; 2004-154, s. 6; 2011-250, s. 3.)

from:
http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_15A/GS_15A-905.html

 

[borndem]

So, after the judge dismissed the jury, he wanted to get the matter of whether Broyhill will testify or not taken care of before they ajourned for lunch, but Broyhill's attorneys requested that it happen after lunch, but before the jury is brought back in at 2:30. Does that mean Broyhill and his attorneys are still trying to decide/attorneys are still trying to talk Broyhill out of testifying?

Judge Ridgeway took the opportunity to be sure JB was aware that it was his decision, with the advice of his lawyers, whether to testify or not -- Ridgeway made it clear that he was not asking him whether he would testify or not. He said he just wanted to make sure he knew that it was his decision and his decision alone. JB said he understood.

The DT does not have to say whether or not they are calling the defendant -- until they call him to the stand.

 

[borndem]

Yes he IS an expert witness, you dork. Grrrrr.

Yes, quoting my own remark...

Prancy, please know that I wasn't directing that statement to you!! The post simply fell in line after yours!!! Accckkkkk!!