State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

[bloghooligan]

I hate to think that he did lie...but what he said doesn't make sense. Also, as a detective, he is taught to take notes. Yet he didn't take any notes at all on the phone call to AT&T. That bothers me considering the result.

I can't get over the fact that CPD was specifically on notice to preserve the data. And, after 9 attempts entering an invalid puc Young is warned that if he does it one more time he will permanently erase the data AND HE DOES IT ANYWAY. That is beyond innocent ignorance imo.

 

[unc70]

Yup. Precisely. It all started when....(kidding kind of) Kurtz accused the police of being inept and dishonest. DA's office and courts lit that on fire. Then it turns out to sort of kind of be true and that lit the defense on fire.

I still say the best thing is for the courts to impose a permanent ban on dating (for BC, not the residents of Lochsteria Lane) put a tracking device on him, postpone his case for five years and allow AS to hang him out to dry on a $100 million dollar WD civil case. Then pitch the charge and make him pay that amount to her family whilst working away. Everybody wins but NC, but let's be honest, she already lost. At least that way (the judgement,etc) I feel like something went her way and her kids can be taken care of via her family with BC's money.

They probably can't meet the wrongful death civil threshold, almost certainly not when this is over. There is a fair chance that several of the attorneys may be wanting to lie low and hope to avoid their own legal sanctions, rather than going after GC again.

 

[ncsu95]

Is anyone else on this forum losing sleep over or dreaming about this case? Please tell me it's not just me!

I'm losing sleep over not being able to fall asleep because I lay there and analyze this trial. I am ready for this thing to be over.

 

[otto]

Actually, the NC State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct (for attorneys) require neutrality.

Specifically, Rule 3.8 - Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
http://www.ncbar.com/rules/rules.asp

excerpt:

I would say that BZ has crossed that boundary and should probably be held accountable, or it will continue to happen.

 

[gracielee]

I agree. I think both witness and BZ were awful today. Almost unbearable to watch. However, if the jury was a annoyed as many of us were with this testimony, I think the main thing they will come away with is that the CPD (namely JY) erased all of NC's phone info (whether accidentally or intentionally really doesn't matter). It adds some value to Kurtz's opening statment that the CPD are inept. That is just my opinion.

The jury saw the photographs of Nancy Coopers dead body. We didn't. they, better than anyone, understand what this is all about. My point is, this is serious business, not just a soap opera drama. Nancy Coopers remains were very decomposed, the jury has had to look at that. Not the smiling picture of Nancy that the rest of us see. JMO I doubt a bit of witness discomfort would weigh heavily on me once I had to look at the autopsy photos. MOO

 

[cassius]

I kind of expect dirty tricks from defense lawyers as they're usually fighting an uphill battle. I expect better from the prosecution simply because they represent the people, and they are supposed to have all their ducks arranged neatly in a row from the outset. When the prosecution resorts to dirty tricks, it suggests the ducks are running wild in every direction - not a good sign.

without know the specifics of the exchanges you're talking about, during cross examination that is exactly what you do if you plan to later impeach that witness' testimony. it is not the defense's witness being examined, so they would ask questions like "isn't it true, Mr. Fudd, that you told Daffy Duck to be 'vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting wabbit'?" if in fact they later planned to call Daffy to testify that's exactly what Elmer Fudd said to him.

 

[RaleighNative]

I would say that BZ has crossed that boundary and should probably be held accountable, or it will continue to happen.

He did seem out of line...but I'm not an attorney. So the question remains...why hasn't the defense objected to BZ's demeanor on cross?

Any thoughts?

 

[bloghooligan]

Whereas the defense is not about justice but only about getting their client acquitted. MOO

That assumes that all defendants are guilty since getting an innocent person acquitted would be justice.

I used to believe as you seem to, until the Duke case. Official (PD, prosecutor, etc) misconduct happens more than we know.

Over 200 people, some that spent years on death row, have now been exonerated based on DNA evidence. The biggest cause of false convictions is witness testimony but... in many cases official misconduct is also involved. And this is just cases where DNA has been retained for testing.

There is mucho documentation at the innocent project website --

The proseuction used to be the guys with white hats on white horses for me but not anymore. I couldn't stand defending a guilty person but... defendants all deserve a strong defense AND better a guilty person go free than an innocent jailed, imo.

 

[FullDisclosure]

Yeah. You eloquently said what I was thinking!

When eloquence meets snark, it's a beautiful thing!

 

[johnfear]

I would say that BZ has crossed that boundary and should probably be held accountable, or it will continue to happen.

The state bar pretty much ignores the DA's office in Wake for some reason. I think Howard Cummings even told Kurtz to report him to the bar after the whole video snafu.

I think they are overrun with grievances and the DA's office is the last hornet's nest they want to stick a thumb in.

I listened to (and inadvertently recorded) an ADA telling a person in domestic violence court to not worry about the other party's lawyer. He was an unregistered sex offender and wouldn't be a problem.

I think the person (not ADA) was trying to indicate they would be caught in a lie on the stand by any lawyer, but I was like....huh? This is what we have going on here?

 

[LAWsy_ME]

This is the first trial I have witnessed in entirety, and I'll admit waking up at 4AM this AM thinking about all this. That is why I am considering unplugging it all when the trial goes off the deep end with the swinging tangent.....don't care to burn that into my neurological hardwire...I know it exists.....that is all my inquiring mind wants to know.

makes me wonder if justice will be served in this case....or if sensational testimony will be the mirrors and smoke that stands in the way of justice for Nancy

 

[FullDisclosure]

I'm happy to know I'm in good company. I think about it all the time and know myself well enough to know that I probably would not be able to.

After this trial, I'm starting a 12-step program for all who are interested. Maybe they'll let us meet in the jury room.

 

[SleuthSayer]

In the 141 page pdf document (motion to stay) that I can't figure out how to attach (help me out here someone, please!) if you look at p. 38-39 it talks about Nancy's cell phone records that they got and how they are missing info that BC's records contain. Not sure how helpful it is, but I found it interesting.

You probably don't want to attach it (it's pretty big), you just want to link to it.

Here is a link to it.

To do this your self:

1. pull up the PDF file in your browser then grab the URL for it (the thing at the top that starts with http....).
2. highlight the URL and click right and do "Copy"
3. start typing your post and then you highlight the words that you want to make a link. So, in my case, I highlighted the words "a link" above.
4. go up to the top of the box you are typing in and there is a little globe with a chain link at the bottom of it. Click on that globe.
5. a little box will pop up with "http://" in it. Replace that with the URL that you copied in step (2)
6. click OK

 

[unc70]

Both of the defense's expert witness were not that 'expert'. The man today may have been but he came to court today somewhat unprepared. I think if they are experts, they should testify with that demeanor. Neither had written notes or protocols of exactly what they did, etc. The man today brought with him some notes, not everything...and some things he didn't document. And the defense had not prepped him securely. JW and, I've already forgotten his name of today, were not strong witnesses. Today's man was too easily rattled, it's kinda funny to think that he's a somewhat regular on Nancy Grace's show.

Meant to say, too, that I totally agree with you. If they are weak, it's the opposing side's job to find that weakness and act on it.

Real experts suffer fools poorly, if at all.

It is a real challenge how to answer a question where each component of the question is misleading in a different way, designed to trip up the witness, and mislead and confuse the jury.

For example, asking for his foresenic opinion on something based on three or four underlying pieces of evidence each flawed in a different way. For example, the misplaced cell towers, the out of date 3-D map, the lack of forensic level detail all in an atmosphere of impatience with BZ making faces for the jury.

 

[SleuthSayer]

When eloquence meets snark, it's a beautiful thing!

I resemble that remark. :seeya:

 

[johnfear]

After this trial, I'm starting a 12-step program for all who are interested. Maybe they'll let us meet in the jury room.

I can see all of this coming back up in my custody hearing.

Mr. Fear, did you actually go online and post commentary in a case where the husband allegedly killed his spouse about exercising neutrality in rushing to judgment because of the fickle nature of technological case law? Do you feel this is an appropriate thing for a person who is a single parent to do?

 

[otto]

I actually think he was printing a picture to show the cell phone being tested had a cell signal. This was during the time that the witness was confused about using a test phone or NCs phone to re-enact the wiping of it. BZ asked him right before about the cell having a signal.

Yes, he had a picture on his computer showing Nancy's cell number on the screen. I'm not sure where he was going with it, but he succeeded in confusing the witness about whether the phone was working, whether it was Nancy's phone, or whether it was a test phone.

 

[cassius]

He did seem out of line...but I'm not an attorney. So the question remains...why hasn't the defense objected to BZ's demeanor on cross?

Any thoughts?

I think they get the sense that this is not playing out well with the jury. How the attorney appears physically as well as his demeanor plays a huge role in how a jury accepts what they are saying. I clerked for an attorney who handled a lot of p.i. cases for individuals against large corporations. This guy won a ton of cases and made a huge amount of money and in the office wore the finest clothes and the finest jewelry, had his own 737 airplane, etc etc. But at trial, he wore a suit off the rack at Sears and a Mickey Mouse watch. He told me it is much better that the jury identify with him than to see him wearing $2k suits and a 10K Rolex.

You can even see it illustrated in the Michael Peterson case. Rudolph was a bully the entire trial then in closing arguments asked the jury to not hold that against his client, that's just the way he is. Problem is, the jury already decided they didn't like him and by extension his client.

 

[RaleighNative]

The jury saw the photographs of Nancy Coopers dead body. We didn't. they, better than anyone, understand what this is all about. My point is, this is serious business, not just a soap opera drama. Nancy Coopers remains were very decomposed, the jury has had to look at that. Not the smiling picture of Nancy that the rest of us see. JMO I doubt a bit of witness discomfort would weigh heavily on me once I had to look at the autopsy photos. MOO

I'd agree the photos would weigh heavily on the jury. All the more reason the jury would want justice for NC.

I read the news reports when this happened, and like most people, figured "BC did it".

Then I began watching the trial and thought "Oh geez, the prosecution has completely screwed up this case. A guilty man may walk free, and no justice for NC".

And now, well into the trial, my thoughts are "Man, I think this guy may actually be innocent".

Convicting the wrong person does no justice for NC. And before I get slammed, I'll say it would not shock me if it turned out BC did actually do it. But IMO, this case is extremely weak. Evidence, even circumstantial, is lacking.

And today's testimony has me convinced evidence was compromised. I don't think there is any way that BB was accidentally wiped clean.

 

[Cheyenne130]

After this trial, I'm starting a 12-step program for all who are interested. Maybe they'll let us meet in the jury room.

I can't commit until the Jason Young trial is over. Oh, and the Raven Abaroa trial. (Dang! I DO need help!)