State v Bradley Cooper 4/14/11

[Cheyenne130]

I just heard him say there was medicine in Nancy's car...nothing about them being sick. I was interrupted a lot today so may have missed it.

I heard him saying that he saw medicine in the car but he also said that Brad told him that Nancy and the girls had all been sick the week before and had been on medicine.

 

[gritguy]

Exactly. I don't think they should be frowned upon for laughing in the jury room. They are not allowed to discuss the case. And think about it, this is ALL they are living from 9:30 until 5:00 every day. They are probably dreaming about it. They NEED to be able to let off some steam, to laugh, to have some joy in their days. They deserve that.

Certainly so. Thanks for the insight from inside the courthouse too. :rocker:

 

[Tipstaff]

Listening to Det. Daniels testimony. After dodging NC's calls all day (know he took the call at lunch)....it stuck me as odd that he answers the 9 PM call from Nancy although it was MH on Nancy's phone regarding the tennis match. What made him answer this call after ignoring others - did he think NC was calling to check on the girls, tell him she was going to another friends? Does this seem odd to anyone else after his behavior earlier in the day of not answering her calls?

 

[RaleighNative]

Okay, I think I'm caught up with reading today's posts. Here's what I have to say:

In a nutshell--
Yesterday began with admonition not to "stare at the jurors." I worried that it was me he was talking about, because I had looked the day before to see general demographic make-up, reactions from time to time, and to see if they were falling asleep during some of the tedious computer testimony. Since it happened at the start of the day yesterday, I do NOT think it was in response to any big golo group showing up (which I didn't pick out yesterday if there was one.)

The lecture about electronic devices (Gessner was MAD!!) came after the afternoon break IIRC. Anyway, what happened is that news of the Fielding Dr. search hit twitter/the blogeshpere 6 minutes BEFORE WRAL broke the story on their website. Gessner found that highly inappropriate for some reason, so he banned all electronic devices except for council. Today there were signs posted to that effect, and warnings that they would be confiscated.

This afternoon after the break was when talking in the gallery was addressed. Gessner said he hadn't noticed it, but that some jurors had complained to the bailiff about it so it must have been distracting to them. I only noticed occasional whispering.

Thanks FullDisclosure, that clears things up!

What the heck is the problem with the twitter update? The judge is ticked it went to the internet before WRAL? Is the judge on their payroll or something?

Interesting that AL reported that WRAL's comment blog may have been what the judge was referring to with the admonishment. Yet you saw no evidence of that. Yet another reason AL annoys me greatly. She is a desperate climber grasping at fame.

 

[Maja]

Listening to Det. Daniels testimony. After dodging NC's calls all day (know he took the call at lunch)....it stuck me as odd that he answers the 9 PM call from Nancy although it was MH on Nancy's phone regarding the tennis match. What made him answer this call after ignoring others - did he think NC was calling to check on the girls, tell him she was going to another friends? Does this seem odd to anyone else after his behavior earlier in the day of not answering her calls?

And with the high-tech blackjack, NC's call more likely came in with her name in the view.

 

[FullDisclosure]

Are Brad's parents still there?? I didn't see them but again wasn't paying close attention.

Yes, they are still there.

 

[gbay]

And with the high-tech blackjack, NC's call more likely came in with her name in the view.

Not that it matters but she called him on the home phone.

 

[Madeleine74]

Anyway, what happened is that news of the Fielding Dr. search hit twitter/the blogeshpere 6 minutes BEFORE WRAL broke the story on their website. Gessner found that highly inappropriate for some reason, so he banned all electronic devices except for council.

So then Gessner should be telling the newsfolk to type faster!

He's angry that one form of media got the news out faster than WRAL did? WRAL updates their stories a few times a day. They too are tweeting to get quick updates out to their audience but they aren't the fastest on the trigger, or keypad as it were. I just think Gessner's very, very confused and needs a tutor to help him understand WTH this newfangled world of Internetweb is all about. His move to lock down all computers and communication devices is very unfortunate, and, IMHO, wrong.

 

[FullDisclosure]

So then Gessner should be telling the newsfolk to type faster!

He's angry that one form of media got the news out faster than WRAL did? WRAL updates their stories a few times a day. They too are tweeting to get quick updates out to their audience but they aren't the fastest on the trigger, or keypad as it were. I just think Gessner's very, very confused and needs a tutor to help him understand WTH this newfangled world of Internetweb is all about. His move to lock down all computers and communication devices is very unfortunate, and, IMHO, wrong.

I agree! He does need to join the 21'st century!

ETA--And WRAL does need to type faster!! (Which now that you mentioned that, I notice some clever editing of Gessner's rant by WRAL.)

 

[cityslick]

Okay, I think I'm caught up with reading today's posts. Here's what I have to say:

In a nutshell--
Yesterday began with admonition not to "stare at the jurors." I worried that it was me he was talking about, because I had looked the day before to see general demographic make-up, reactions from time to time, and to see if they were falling asleep during some of the tedious computer testimony. Since it happened at the start of the day yesterday, I do NOT think it was in response to any big golo group showing up (which I didn't pick out yesterday if there was one.)

The lecture about electronic devices (Gessner was MAD!!) came after the afternoon break IIRC. Anyway, what happened is that news of the Fielding Dr. search hit twitter/the blogeshpere 6 minutes BEFORE WRAL broke the story on their website. Gessner found that highly inappropriate for some reason, so he banned all electronic devices except for council. Today there were signs posted to that effect, and warnings that they would be confiscated.

This afternoon after the break was when talking in the gallery was addressed. Gessner said he hadn't noticed it, but that some jurors had complained to the bailiff about it so it must have been distracting to them. I only noticed occasional whispering.

BBM

I don't understand how he finds it inappropriate when he's invited members of the public into the courtroom. It takes all of 10 seconds to type something up on twitter (which was what was happening, people in the courtroom were posting stuff on the WRAL twitter feed before WRAL did).

 

[Madeleine74]

I suspect his anger is more because he doesn't understand the tech parts of the case, and the motions and objections with the tech details are way over his head, as he said the other day. I think he feels completely overwhelmed by it, and I believe that frustration is coming out in the form of trying to limit technology in the only way he can: by banning computers and devices in his courtroom. He can't remove the tech from the legal case itself, but he can remove the tech from the public's hands. His outburst/lecture was akin to a judicial tantrum and it wasn't pretty.

 

[RaleighNative]

I suspect his anger is more because he doesn't understand the tech parts of the case, and the motions and objections with the tech details are way over his head, as he said the other day. I think he feels completely overwhelmed by it, and I believe that frustration is coming out in the form of trying to limit technology in the only way he can: by banning computers and devices in his courtroom. He can't remove the tech from the legal case itself, but he can remove the tech from the public's hands. His outburst/lecture was akin to a judicial tantrum and it wasn't pretty.

Interesting insight. I hope that's not actually the case. If so, I would think this judge should be removed from the bench.

 

[cityslick]

I still think the 'staring' complaint is the weirdest one of all. Isn't that what everyone does most of the time, pay attention to what the jury is doing?

 

[cityslick]

Going back to the suicide website and the fact he's reconsidering that decision, I don't think he should and here's why:

At this point, I don't think the state needs it for a conviction. I understand wanting to pile on as much CE as possible but there's enough of that already, along with the smoking gun. Why introduce something potentially prejudicial that might cause issues later down the road?

 

[Cheyenne130]

Going back to the suicide website and the fact he's reconsidering that decision, I don't think he should and here's why:

At this point, I don't think the state needs it for a conviction. I understand wanting to pile on as much CE as possible but there's enough of that already, along with the smoking gun. Why introduce something potentially prejudicial that might cause issues later down the road?

I believed that he should have allowed it in the first place but since he denied it as prejudicial, I don't see how he can reverse that now. I understand why he is "considering" it. I think he's irritated that the defense asked that particular question knowing that the court had ruled other evidence found on the computer as inadmissable. I agree with the irritation and do feel that the question was out of line but sustaining the objection should have taken care of that issue without having to compromise his principles.

 

[gracielee]

Brad gave those replies, but I would have had to have heard the exact questions that were asked of him. Say the Det. said, she was found on Fielding Dr in an undeveloped portion of the development. I could then understand Brad saying that she never ran without sidewalks.

Or, if he saw her in the morning, which according to him that he did, that is not saying he saw her leave, then he may have saw her red and black sports bra.

He already stated, numerous times, on video, that the only thing he saw her wearing that morning was a white tee shirt of his. He was asked and specified, no, he didn't see her underwear, only the white tee shirt.

 

[Albert]

Brad gave those replies, but I would have had to have heard the exact questions that were asked of him. Say the Det. said, she was found on Fielding Dr in an undeveloped portion of the development. I could then understand Brad saying that she never ran without sidewalks.

Or, if he saw her in the morning, which according to him that he did, that is not saying he saw her leave, then he may have saw her red and black sports bra.

Hi Danielle. Did you get a chance to check out the phone records? Since there has been accusations of tampering with these records they are perhaps the most objective piece of evidence entered so far.

 

[Danielle59]

Listening to Det. Daniels testimony. After dodging NC's calls all day (know he took the call at lunch)....it stuck me as odd that he answers the 9 PM call from Nancy although it was MH on Nancy's phone regarding the tennis match. What made him answer this call after ignoring others - did he think NC was calling to check on the girls, tell him she was going to another friends? Does this seem odd to anyone else after his behavior earlier in the day of not answering her calls?

He was at work earlier in the day, he may have been in meetings, having discussions with employee's any host of things that people do at work that distracts them from picking up the phone.

 

[Just the Fax]

I still think the 'staring' complaint is the weirdest one of all. Isn't that what everyone does most of the time, pay attention to what the jury is doing?

Some jurors said it made them feel uncomfortable.
If they complained to him, I can see why he made the statement.

I will say there were 1-2 very sketch people in the courtroom when I was there this week.

 

[Madeleine74]

Interesting insight. I hope that's not actually the case. If so, I would think this judge should be removed from the bench.

What do you think his issue is? I don't know why would he care which place publishes news from the courtroom first. He seriously did not understand that people are reporting what goes on from the case in nearly live time, via the Internet? How long does he think it should take for what happens in court to be reported?