State v. Bradley Cooper 5-2-2011

[otto]

Interesting that the judge isn't convinced that the prosecution successfully argued 1st degree.

 

[macd]

Unless I am completely mistaken the jury does NOT have evidence that a router capable of spoofing the call was used in hours before the murder. We have heard that information may be presented, the jury does not have that information because CF did not again take the stand.

You're right. That info was never presented.

 

[gracielee]

The State argues second?

Usually the state argues first & third. I missed it, but apparently the state chose to argue only one time, after the defense. Had the defense not put on any case, they are allowed to argue last. Because they did put on a case, and the state has the burden of proof, in my experience, the state always has two opportunites to argue, and they always have the last opportunity to close.

 

[Madeleine74]

No one can state Nancy was not wearing her necklace while shopping at HT on 7/11/08. They can state they don't see it. They can state the video doesn't show it. But it's an opinion and not fact. The clarity of the video is not good enough to make it a fact.

 

[momto3kids]

Interesting that the judge isn't convinced that the prosecution successfully argued 1st degree.

That is my feeling as well.

 

[otto]

So the State doesn't actually object to 2nd degree? Why the hell not. They built their case around nothing but 1st degree murder. They must see it as their "out" too.

It seems that no one is all that convinced that Brad is guilty of 1st degree murder ... no confidence in the strength of the case.

 

[ncsu95]

You're right. That info was never presented.

And I'm honestly shocked. Maybe it wasn't as cut and dry as we thought. That was my prediction on Friday....it would be more evidence open to interpretation.

 

[BrownRice]

A couple of posters have insinuated jurors are reading this board. Do you really think they would have complete disregard for the court's orders and disobey this rule? If I was a juror, it would be tempting, but I would be SO paranoid I'd be caught (with IP address or something), that I would never do it.

 

[macd]

Hmmmm. On second thought, the defense theory is that the hard drive data can not be trusted due to tampering. If you ignore that evidence, it is plausible that that someone would conclude that premeditation was not proven. Perhaps the judge is wise on this one.

 

[otto]

Is there a difference in sentencing for 1st and 2nd? Is it 25 years min anyway?

 

[ncsu95]

No one can state Nancy was not wearing her necklace while shopping at HT on 7/11/08. They can state they don't see it. They can state the video doesn't show it. But it's an opinion and not fact. The clarity of the video is not good enough to make it a fact.

Well the defense witness stated that he didn't see a necklace and the prosecution didn't argue. That pretty much makes it a fact for the jury.

 

[Palomine]

Interesting that the judge isn't convinced that the prosecution successfully argued 1st degree.

yes he was, he said that the jury could not all agree on premeditation

 

[jrb0124]

Unless I am completely mistaken the jury does NOT have evidence that a router capable of spoofing the call was used in hours before the murder. We have heard that information may be presented, the jury does not have that information because CF did not again take the stand.

You are correct. If anything, it shows BC may have taken home a 3825 in January. This means nothing, because '3825 model router' has nothing else in evidence or testimony mentioning it. Its already in evidence that he had an FXO-capable router in his house Jan-Apr. Today's testimony added nothing to the State's case, and maybe detracted from it by once again highlighting the last minute scrambling and lack of inventory security at Cisco.

 

[otto]

Unless I am completely mistaken the jury does NOT have evidence that a router capable of spoofing the call was used in hours before the murder. We have heard that information may be presented, the jury does not have that information because CF did not again take the stand.

That's my understanding. I think they are left with the lead detective's statement that there is no proof that any phone calls were spoofed.

 

[jrb0124]

he said that the jury could not all agree on premeditation

That's not what he said, and that's not the reason he added 2nd degree.

 

[gracielee]

So the State doesn't actually object to 2nd degree? Why the hell not. They built their case around nothing but 1st degree murder. They must see it as their "out" too.

The state did object to the second degree inclusion, the judge over-ruled them.

 

[LyndyLoo]

You're right. That info was never presented.

The ability to spoof calls was testified to by Cisco witness way back..listed 10 ways it can be done...But what they did not hear was that brad used that device 10PM night of July11th,2008...But it has been shown Brad had access to that very equipment and was the last know possesser of that router which used that FXO card...

I think I got that right :waitasec:

 

[momto3kids]

As we wonder if justice will or will not be served for NC, I am watching the dozens of vehicles drive behind my house of parents who just picked up their kids from Triangle Academy. NC won't ever do that again.......

 

[Shadow722]

No one can state Nancy was not wearing her necklace while shopping at HT on 7/11/08. They can state they don't see it. They can state the video doesn't show it. But it's an opinion and not fact. The clarity of the video is not good enough to make it a fact.

<mod snip>...The defense put up the video, their witness said "Look no necklace", and the prosecution did not rebut that testimony either via cross examination or in Rebuttal. Hello, that makes it a fact, not in dispute.

<mod snip>

 

[jrb0124]

The state did object to the second degree inclusion, the judge over-ruled them.

Wrong. They did not object. Didn't you hear Cummings right before the end of today's court session?