State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

[cassius]

I asked gritguy but he must have missed it.

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

Well, sure there is discovery going both ways, but there would need to be a discovery request made. Don't know if or what discovery requests were made by the prosecution. But I don't know if it would matter even. It could be that Sandlin was holding onto the info, if she is indeed the one that had them, until the issue of the ducks was brought up this week. Just don't know...didn't hear the testimony and haven't read the discovery requests.

 

[RR0004]

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

Well, then I guess there is another lucky coincidence...the ducks ending up in the attorney' office...and the only person who is claiming any of this all happened is the defendant's mother.

 

[otto]

I asked gritguy but he must have missed it.

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

I think it's just the prosecution.

 

[johnfear]

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??

Tampering? I don't think displaying the ducks in an attorney's office or leaving them in a box and not really thinking of them is tampering.

I get that these Cuppers think fast and all, but I think with your son charged with murder, the ducks can be forgotten about without it being a conspiracy.

 

[TigerBalm]

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??

Obstructing justice

:innocent:

 

[sunshine05]

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

You mean MH. After MH, it was Brad's mom.

ETA: I think the discussion of the routers was off camera. We don't know much yet except it is something the state is trying to introduce.

 

[gritguy]

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??

If she had told the defense attorney, and I were the defense attorney, and those ducks were not subject to discovery, then I'd get them, call Mrs. Cooper and proceed to show the state's witness was completely wrong.

There's no obligation to prevent the other side's witness from sawing off the limb they are sitting on.

 

[otto]

When were these ducks given to the attorney?

After Brad was arrested, some time in or after November. They weren't specifically given, but the attorneys were told they could help themselves to the stuff in the house.

 

[RR0004]

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.

I think they are obligated to disclose...but maybe different states work differently.

 

[BrownRice]

You mean MH. After MH, it was Brad's mom.

I did mean MH. Sorry. And thank you.

 

[gritguy]

Well, sure there is discovery going both ways, but there would need to be a discovery request made. Don't know if or what discovery requests were made by the prosecution. But I don't know if it would matter even. It could be that Sandlin was holding onto the info, if she is indeed the one that had them, until the issue of the ducks was brought up this week. Just don't know...didn't hear the testimony and haven't read the discovery requests.

If they were subject to a state discovery request, they would have objected mightily at the time the ducks landed in court.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

googling site on suicide including strangulation.....was that entered as evidence somewhere

 

[RR0004]

Tampering? I don't think displaying the ducks in an attorney's office or leaving them in a box and not really thinking of them is tampering.

I get that these Cuppers think fast and all, but I think with your son charged with murder, the ducks can be forgotten about without it being a conspiracy.

So you don't think she was aware of the "missing" ducks, meaning that piece of information was never told to her, but somehow she knew they weren't missing?

 

[sunshine05]

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??

I don't know if you remember, but JA said the pic of the black duck from the fridge was NOT the duck that was in the foyer. (We know now she was mistaken).

 

[Amster]

After Brad was arrested, some time in or after November. They weren't specifically given, but the attorneys were told they could help themselves to the stuff in the house.

Told by whom?? Bradley?? Like vultures picking over roadkill?? That is sick...:sick:

 

[gritguy]

I think they are obligated to disclose...but maybe different states work differently.

Certainly each state has its own rules of procedure. But here, at least on the civil side, if you didn't request it in discovery or get it through court order, you didn't get it from the other side. I don't see a criminal defense attorney having a higher duty to disclose anything that might prevent the state from making an error in their theory.

They should have left the ducks alone.

Hopefully the CISCO evidence coming will be material.

 

[3doglady]

If she had told the defense attorney, and I were the defense attorney, and those ducks were not subject to discovery, then I'd get them, call Mrs. Cooper and proceed to show the state's witness was completely wrong.

There's no obligation to prevent the other side's witness from sawing off the limb they are sitting on.

Maybe not, but if I were on the jury and had to sit through lengthy testimony about ducks when the defense knew it was a mute point I'd be ticked with the defense.

 

[dgfred]

If they were subject to a state discovery request, they would have objected mightily at the time the ducks landed in court.

Still no reason why LE didn't find them in the first place.

 

[kantoo]

googling site on suicide including strangulation.....was that entered as evidence somewhere

NO, judge did not allow, iirc

 

[nctekguy]

Yeah, the ducks are a total red herring, like so much in this case.