State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

[Cheyenne130]

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

I just went back and grabbed your post from 10:40 this morning:

NC Gen Stat 15A-1226 (in my old trial practice book, haven't checked to see if changed) says, "Each party has the right to introduce rebuttal evidence." The statute also makes clear the judge can allow new evidence during rebuttal, but if they do the other side has a right to rebut that. Subsection b says, "The judge in his discretion may permit any party to introduce additional evidence at any time prior to the verdict."

 

[gritguy]

NC Gen Stat 15A-1226 (in my old trial practice book, haven't checked to see if changed) says, "Each party has the right to introduce rebuttal evidence." The statute also makes clear the judge can allow new evidence during rebuttal, but if they do the other side has a right to rebut that. Subsection b says, "The judge in his discretion may permit any party to introduce additional evidence at any time prior to the verdict."

Quoting this statute again since the judge's ruling has come down.

 

[sunshine05]

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

gritguy, would you say this is a pretty rare occurrence for a judge to allow new evidence after both sides have rested? I have never heard of it happening before.

Maybe defense has time to get some Google witnesses together then and we can just keep going on and on with this trial.

OR is it only the state that can bring in new evidence?

 

[otto]

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

Thanks. So this is just procedure, and the defense is compensated by being allowed to refute the any new evidence. Fair enough, I guess.

 

[macd]

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.

I agree with you on this. Defense should be allowed a witness to discuss the information that M presented. (I even opined on this board yesterday that M should have been accepted.)

 

[Danielle59]

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.

Why do you think no one noticed it until now if it was on his laptop?

 

[sunshine05]

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.

But I thought ONLY forensic specialists were allowed to interpret the computer log information? How is this different from what JW tried to discuss in court? All of that was banned.

 

[FullDisclosure]

NC Gen Stat 15A-1226 (in my old trial practice book, haven't checked to see if changed) says, "Each party has the right to introduce rebuttal evidence." The statute also makes clear the judge can allow new evidence during rebuttal, but if they do the other side has a right to rebut that. Subsection b says, "The judge in his discretion may permit any party to introduce additional evidence at any time prior to the verdict."

So, here's my take. If both sides have the weekend to prepare, and then they can battle out the new evidence next week (as long as JG lets the Defense actually allow a witness who can get the job done) it should happen. We do want justice. If this new evidence shows that BC did it, I want to know that. (But I will petition the State for at least the last four weeks of my life back! )

 

[macd]

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?

Defense Testimony: Look how big this thing is. No way it was in his house and then removed from his house.

Rebuttal: This is exactly how big it was and here's evidence that it was in his house.

Seems on point to me.

 

[Danielle59]

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.

The state has had it longer than defense and they are jsut bringing it up. The harddrive alone should not be able to be used as existing evidence, the material on it should have already been examined, this is new evidence. No two ways around that.

 

[jrb0124]

But I thought ONLY forensic specialists were allowed to interpret the computer log information? How is this different from what JW tried to discuss in court? All of that was banned.

The defense will spend all weekend with it too. If its an event log from the laptop, like everything else on it - I'm sure there will be something questionable about it at the very least. In fact, this may open the door to some testimony the pros does not want in, and cause one big technical confusion cloud with the jury and (especially) the judge.

 

[ncsu95]

The defense will spend all weekend with it too. If its an event log from the laptop, like everything else on it - I'm sure there will be something questionable about it at the very least. In fact, this may open the door to some testimony the pros does not want in, and cause one big technical confusion cloud with the jury and (especially) the judge.

I hope it opens the door to allow all the testimony. I love how the judge just yesterday wouldn't let the defense use the argument that the prosecution would be introducing this new evidence as a reason to allow M to testify. He said they hadn't gotten to that point yet. He darn well knew it was coming though. I honestly wish they would allow all the evidence in (on both sides) for fairness.

 

[unc70]

WHAT??!! You know where the ducks are? Well, why didn't you tell Mr. Cummings before now??

:floorlaugh:

As for me, I'll be sitting on the beach in Emerald Isle. Have a nice, relaxing weekend everyone!!

At which mile?

 

[sunshine05]

So, here's my take. If both sides have the weekend to prepare, and then they can battle out the new evidence next week (as long as JG lets the Defense actually allow a witness who can get the job done) it should happen. We do want justice. If this new evidence shows that BC did it, I want to know that. (But I will petition the State for at least the last four weeks of my life back! )

But it isn't just a matter of the defense getting it together over the weekend. How are they supposed to find a witness to rebut this on such short notice? And if a new witness is allowed, why didn't the judge allow M to be added for the defense before they rested(that would have been worth the time, money and resources). This doesn't sit well with me at all.

Defense's rebuttal witness probably will be banned because he's not a forensic expert. It just really bothers me that all of a sudden the rules have changed and we are allowed to have non-forensic experts on to talk about the computer logs. If they had allowed it in the first place, JW could have talked in length about all of the logs from the computers and routers.

 

[unc70]

I don't like how this is playing out at all. At this point I don't trust the prosecution team one bit. They know as it stands now their case has been shredded to pieces and now they are desperate. I wouldn't put any underhanded trick in the book by this bunch. Then again they might get the ruling they want and it will turn out like so much of their other so called evidence and not amount to anything except smoke and mirrors.

In last weekend's thread, I posted then that in another week the prosecution's case would be shredded. I think I deserve another glass of wine. FD what do you think of the Veronese?

 

[sunshine05]

The defense will spend all weekend with it too. If its an event log from the laptop, like everything else on it - I'm sure there will be something questionable about it at the very least. In fact, this may open the door to some testimony the pros does not want in, and cause one big technical confusion cloud with the jury and (especially) the judge.

I suppose. Defense *could* put JW back to rebut the evidence but only if he's willing to suffer further humiliation regarding the WS post and FB.

 

[Danielle59]

Defense Testimony: Look how big this thing is. No way it was in his house and then removed from his house.

Rebuttal: This is exactly how big it was and here's evidence that it was in his house.

Seems on point to me.

That wasn't the testimony.

 

[macd]

Why do you think no one noticed it until now if it was on his laptop?

There are hundreds of thousands of files on the hard drive.
People were focused on the Internet search history.
Not hard to believe. I'll be there is other evidence on the hard drive too, that will never be found.

 

[less0305]

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.

I understood that this is a witness that has been on their witness list and has even testified already. I did not understand this was a "new" witness.

 

[sunshine05]

I think this wouldn't bother me so much if the judge had allowed M to be heard by the jury. It's almost a complete farce, why even bother having a trial, just lock people away. I just don't understand how such extreme bias can exist.