State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

[ncsu95]

Let me see if I understand the new router scenario:

There was an error in the CSA log for July 11 for an invalid or duplicate MAC on the lan.

The MAC address is that of one of two 3825 routers for the lab and its current location is unknown.

Does the MAC also appear in the VPN logs? System event log? BZ was trying to make it seem later and and I sensed that it was a little before 10:00pm.

Cisco GM testified that he and BC left work together between 5:30 and 6:00. By the way, he testified first testified that they left Cisco that Friday for lunch around 1:00; BZ carefully helped him adjust that to allow "1:00 to 1:30".

(Something seems off when discussing NC calling and leaving a message for him. Probably just me.)

When JW was reviewing the CSA logs, K appeared to confuse JW slightly about a time (roughly 14:00 -4:00) which was discussed as if the 14:00 was Z rather than local and they converted the 14:00 as 10:00 am. The -4:00 is the timezone adjustment so the time was actually 2:00 pm. Since it is easy to forget whether a time is Z or local, it is fairly common for 4:00 mistake in either direction. I plan to point back to this post when they find this router somewhere at Cisco.

How common would it be for someone like BC to tunnel to one router or computer and from there to another and maybe another still? How would that look on the wall?

We don't know anything other than it wasn't in the CSA log. It's in a system event report, not the CSA log.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Could the spoof be done via BC's blackberry through the fxo/router?

Not without a corresponding data connection from the phone.

 

[cassius]

There are specific rules to what you can and cannot introduce during rebuttal. Grit or some other lawyer would need to chime in to expand on that.

since the judge is allowing the D the chance at further rebuttal, this is new evidence and not rebuttal evidence. really hard to believe he is going to let in new evidence at this point after the jury has told him they don't want to hear anymore.

 

[otto]

I think that deal only would have mattered if the defense decided to not put on any witnesses (remembering from the conversation at the time). I have no real knowledge of this, but if I remember correctly, if the defense doesn't put on a witness, they get to speak last to the jury. He essentially waved this by introducing evidence during the prosecutions case in chief. But since the defense put on a case, it didn't make a difference. The prosecution will get to speak last.

Thanks.

Since the evidence is in, I wonder if defense asked for the right to introduce a new witness (not on the list) if necessary and if they will be granted extra funds for a new witness. Also, since they won't have time to review the evidence, it will be tricky to find a generalist expert to refute the testimony.

 

[macd]

He did not testify about the system event logs on the PC. So what testimony would this be rebutting? Did JW say a Cisco router wasn't connected to the laptop or accessed by it? If he did, this would be rebuttal testimony.

Just admit this is new evidence and the prosecution is trying to be sneaky in getting in in. Can you at least admit that? It means nothing...but it is the truth.

I think both sides are doing yeoman's job of aggressively representing their respective parties' interests.

Prosecution is saying this is not new evidence. Defense has had it for 2 years. No expertise it necessary to evaluate.
Defense is saying this is entirely new evidence. It was never provided. Only a new witness can evaluate it.

The truth is somewhere in between.

I'd like to hear the arguments before calling either side sneaky.

 

[unknown403]

There are specific rules to what you can and cannot introduce during rebuttal. Grit or some other lawyer would need to chime in to expand on that.

For sure, my undertanding is that is can be introduced if rebutting testimony. The judge feels it's allowable and therefore not ridiculous. Is it biased? maybe. I hear he was a prosocuter and in LE before but are judges not elected in the U.S.? I can't see anyone purposly throwing their own carreer on the fire because they have a hate on for some guy named BC. I could be wrong, it's happened before!

 

[ncsu95]

I think both sides are doing yeoman's job of aggressively representing their respective parties' interests.

Prosecution is saying this is not new evidence. Defense has had it for 2 years. No expertise it necessary to evaluate.
Defense is saying this is entirely new evidence. It was never provided. Only a new witness can evaluate it.

The truth is somewhere in between.

I'd like to hear the arguments before calling either side sneaky.

If the defense has had it for 2 years, then so has the prosecution. So why didn't they present it during their case in chief? (Not being snarky...I would really appreciate you answering that question).

 

[cityslick]

I think both sides are doing yeoman's job of aggressively representing their respective parties' interests.

Prosecution is saying this is not new evidence. Defense has had it for 2 years. No expertise it necessary to evaluate.
Defense is saying this is entirely new evidence. It was never provided. Only a new witness can evaluate it.

The truth is somewhere in between.

I'd like to hear the arguments before calling either side sneaky.

My only question is it is not new evidence, why wasn't this presented during direct? If the log with the MAC address existed during the state's portion of this trial, why are we only hearing about it now?

 

[NCEast]

since the judge is allowing the D the chance at further rebuttal, this is new evidence and not rebuttal evidence. really hard to believe he is going to let in new evidence at this point after the jury has told him they don't want to hear anymore.

The jury didn't actually say they didn't want to hear any more. That's probably pretty much what they meant, but they didn't say that. A jury can't drive a trial by what they want and don't want.

 

[Palomine]

I thought the prosecutor said today that Cisco wouldn't give up the information without a court order, also they are calling the rebuttal witness because when Jay was on the stand the defense brought out an actual router. With this new evidence they can establish that Brad (signed out 2 routers) only one is accounted for

 

[otto]

since the judge is allowing the D the chance at further rebuttal, this is new evidence and not rebuttal evidence. really hard to believe he is going to let in new evidence at this point after the jury has told him they don't want to hear anymore.

That is the only conclusion we can come to. Isn't it a violation of law to introduce new evidence after both sides have rested their case?

 

[SleuthinNC]

To not allow Mr M. to testify because he wasn't "on the list" and then let Mr. F testify with new evidence is ridiculous. The judge has made more random bad rulings regarding technology through the entire case and this is just another example.

This better be good information or I think it will be the absolute nail in the prosecution coffin in the eyes of the jury.

Like I said before. Prove he made the calls. It shouldn't be hard in fact the way to prove it should be plain as day to the Cisco people. It is to me. But as of yet it has not been proven.

 

[FullDisclosure]

If the defense has had it for 2 years, then so has the prosecution. So why didn't they present it during their case in chief? (Not being snarky...I would really appreciate you answering that question).

I asked that, too...I'm really confused by this "new" but "not new so it's rebuttal" evidence.

Sincere question. Shouldn't the State have had this info before they brought the case to trial? I do want all the evidence, but if this was "all on the computer" as Boz keeps stating, why didn't they have all this ready before they brought it to trial? Perhaps if they had produced such evidence to begin with, the State would have had a much stronger case and not have made a big deal about things like necklaces and ducks.

 

[unknown403]

Because there are trial rules that have to be followed. And there isn't a level playing field in this trial. The judge has consistently made rulings favoring the prosecution that don't seem right. And no matter how you spin it, this is brand new evidence. While it is great for seeking justice for Nancy Cooper (potentially...we'll have to see what the actual evidence is), it's not great for our judicial system.

I would agree with that, it is new evidence no matter how you spin it but they are introducing it on the technicality that the defence showed a router I belive so it can be used to rebutt that testimony. Is it a cheap trick? Yes. However every law system in the world has these loop holes, it's why we have lawyers!

 

[ncsu95]

I thought the prosecutor said today that Cisco wouldn't give up the information without a court order, also they are calling the rebuttal witness because when Jay was on the stand the defense brought out an actual router. With this new evidence they can establish that Brad (signed out 2 routers) only one is accounted for

They brought out a router to show the size of the router that the prosecutions witness said would be required to run an fxo card. That was due to Zellinger continuously pointing out the size of the fxo card. The only thing discusses about that router was the size of it, except for cross where Zellinger asked where the fxo port was. So what exactly are they rebutting? And you admitted yourself in your post that this is new evidence. So which is it? New evidence or rebuttal evidence?

 

[ncsu95]

I would agree with that, it is new evidence no matter how you spin it but they are introducing it on the technicality that the defence showed a router I belive so it can be used to rebutt that testimony. Is it a cheap trick? Yes. However every law system in the world has these loop holes, it's why we have lawyers!

So the prosecution is going to re-introduce the hard drive. This means the defense should be able to call a new witness to testify to anything and everything related to that hard drive, including tampering. So M should be allowed to testify as well then. Hell, let's just start the whole thing over.

 

[Palomine]

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/04/29/1164010/coopers-defense-rests-but-more.html

 

[gritguy]

That is the only conclusion we can come to. Isn't it a violation of law to introduce new evidence after both sides have rested their case?

it is not. the statue expressly permits new evidence up to verdict.

 

[macd]

If the defense has had it for 2 years, then so has the prosecution. So why didn't they present it during their case in chief? (Not being snarky...I would really appreciate you answering that question).

Clearly, no one noticed the entry or recognized the importance of it until now.
Of the ka-jillion bits on the hard drive, it seems the analysts from both sides focused on Internet history files, for obvious reasons.

I would guess that some Cisco employee, who knows maybe someone reading WS, had an idea to look closer at this log file that was not analyzed close enough before.

I am certain that the prosecution did not intend to delay this information until now. It would have been much more impactful in the case-in-chief.

 

[sunshine05]

Legally, this doesn't seem right. Prosecution rests and then gets to hear the entire defense case. After that I suppose I could understand rebuttal testimony. But adding a new witness?! When defense just tried to do that while still making their case and was barred from it? How can this be?

IMO, the defense should have been able to have the whole case thrown out based on the computer tampering and blackberry destruction alone.

I seriously think this will backfire because the jury is already sick of sitting through this trial and now they are prolonging it and I will be very surprised it they will be able to prove a call was spoofed at 6:40.