State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

[RR0004]

Wow...some folks here are psychic. Now they're talking about the missing router.

 

[otto]

Just today?

Yes, this afternoon they were entered into evidence. They were in the house until the police were done with the house. Brad's mom told the lawyers to take whatever they wanted, furniture, the car and so on. The ducks ended up in someone's office and only during the trial, when the ducks were mentioned, did the mom follow up on what happened to the ducks.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

Does anyone think that the 1.3 inch mark on Nancy's neck could have been what was the mark made when one of those ducks was possibly used as a lethal weapon?

I believe a wooden duck was used, and one of the sharp edges left a mark after the blow that broke Nancy's hyoid bone.

 

[RR0004]

He was trying to intimidate the witness, and in doing so pretty much admitted that the foundation of their case is false. Too bad the prosecutors aren't a little more polite.

She didn't seem intimidated. She seemed p*ssed, IMO.

 

[cassius]

I do not think that is the law at all. Mrs. Cooper had no (legal) obligation on any of that.

Better, IMO, if JA had stuck to what she knew.

Were they given to Sandlin as payment? If so, neither Sandlin nor Mrs. Cooper had any duty to disclose.

 

[NCEast]

Well, the missing ducks and sticks were a big thing for me. I'm glad to have finally found out what happened to them. This revelation colors my outlook about what I had thought happened in the foyer. The cleaning frenzy in the foyer still remains, especially since the rest of the house was a horrid mess.

 

[gritguy]

But weren't they at one of the lawyers' office? Why is it her responsibility to speak up and not the defense?

I don't see it as the defense lawyer's issue either, unless those objects were the subject of a discovery request from the state. I didn't catch all the testimony, so if that were so the state would protest and I didn't catch that. I may have missed it.

If they were not, then it was totally proper to call your witness and blow the prosecution theory out of the water, as it pertains to the ducks.

 

[Cheyenne130]

He was trying to intimidate the witness, and in doing so pretty much admitted that the foundation of their case is false. Too bad the prosecutors aren't a little more polite.

I don't believe the ducks are the foundation of the case. I think what's being discussed right now is the foundation of the case.

 

[BrownRice]

So you're saying the black duck was never in the foyer? Just the other two? Because she didn't say anything about the color, just that it wasn't THE same ducks.

ETA: I said early on in this, that I'll bet they were packed away, along with the sticks since NC was packing up the house to move and it turns out that is exactly what it was. Isn't it funny that JA - ONE PERSON stating that there were ducks there on the Friday before resulted in *proof* of a struggle in the foyer. In fact, I think even JA said she wasn't positive they were there on Friday, just that she noticed they weren't there when she went on Saturday.

Yep, you sure did!

 

[otto]

JA said she saw them on the 11th. That started the whole mess since pictures showed they weren't there on the 12th. She said it after seeing the pictures from the 12th.

She did say that she saw them on the 11th, but at this point I'm not convinced that she was sure about seeing them on the 11th. I think she modified her story to match the theory of "Brad did it".

 

[nctekguy]

There are really just two key elements to this case:

1. The Google search of the body dump location the day prior to the murder
2. The morning phone call between home and BC

It looks like the State is working to get to the bottom of telephony aspects of this case some time by the year 2012.

 

[RR0004]

I'll admit...I don't know anything about the ducks...but for them to magically appear seems just a bit quacky to me.

 

[dgfred]

Were they given to Sandlin as payment? If so, neither Sandlin nor Mrs. Cooper had any duty to disclose.

I asked gritguy but he must have missed it.

Does the duty to disclose (discovery) go for both defense and prosecution?

 

[gracielee]

But weren't they at one of the lawyers' office? Why is it her responsibility to speak up and not the defense?

They were at the civil attorney's office, if I understand this correctly. Mrs. Cooper knew where they were, she was present for JA's testimony, understood those ducks were being discussed, weren't able to locate them, etc. And yet she did NOT make the defense attorney's aware, apparently, of who had them, where they were, and that they were NOT missing. What is that term for *hiding* evidence? Misleading evidence? I can't think of the legal terminology??

 

[BrownRice]

Just got in. Who was witness after HM? Is the Cisco evidence a bombshell? Is defense trying to block it or state?

 

[Sailor Bug]

Were they given to Sandlin as payment? If so, neither Sandlin nor Mrs. Cooper had any duty to disclose.

bbm
Did Mrs. Cooper have a moral oblication to disclose to Nancy's family any and all items given to Brads lawyer as payment :banghead:

 

[Amster]

When were these ducks given to the attorney?

 

[otto]

I don't see it as the defense lawyer's issue either, unless those objects were the subject of a discovery request from the state. I didn't catch all the testimony, so if that were so the state would protest and I didn't catch that. I may have missed it.

If they were not, then it was totally proper to call your witness and blow the prosecution theory out of the water, as it pertains to the ducks.

That was successfully done today, and the prosecutor kindly pointed out that this revelation painted all their witnesses as liars.

 

[sunshine05]

Does anyone think that the 1.3 inch mark on Nancy's neck could have been what was the mark made when one of those ducks was possibly used as a lethal weapon?

I believe a wooden duck was used, and one of the sharp edges left a mark after the blow that broke Nancy's hyoid bone.

This was allegedly premeditated murder and he chose a wooden duck to her neck to kill her? No, I don't think anyone thinks that.

 

[gritguy]

I asked gritguy but he must have missed it.

Does the duty to disclose (discovery) go for both defense and prosecution?

Depends.

If there are mutual discovery requests yes. If it is exculpatory to the defendant, then yes to the state (i.e., if ADA knew about them but had presented the theory they were missing).

Otherwise, the defense did bring them in, after the state chose to state they were missing as part of a struggle.

I'm not an expert on criminal discovery process though.

However, blowing a hole in your opponent's contentions by showing they are completely wrong is not improper. And that can be done with evidence not shared with the other side, unless there was an obligation to disclose.