State v. Bradley Cooper 5-2-2011

[NCEast]

I can't blame the jury for being impatient. This trial has being going on for 2 entire months now. That is an awfully long time to serve on a jury, especially for those members of the jury who have jobs that they haven't been able to do. And when you add the fact that much of the two months has been wasted by pointless testimony that added no value, I can see why they are getting antsy.

But I do agree that he deserves a fair trial and that they should do everything the can to ensure that he gets one, no matter how impatient they may be.

I hate to continue to beat Cummings up but of all the witnesses he either examined on direct or cross, the sum total of that time could have been condensed into a few hours over the course of this trial.
After this case is said and done, he needs to stay out of the courtroom until his retirement. Seniority or not, he has lost his effectiveness.

 

[otto]

That is NOT what the judge said. The judge said 'it is not up to him, the judge, to preclude what one or more jurors MIGHT believe.' You must listen more carefully to what the judge is saying. He has to abide by the law in general, not simply this case, these attorney's, etc.

My understanding is that it would be an error in law for him not to include 2nd degree if it was his opinion that the state did not successfully argue 1st degre. He was citing all sorts of case law and maybe I missed a detail, but that's what I took away from it.

 

[oenophile]

In a way, the 2 hour argument will benefit Kurtz since he is generally long-winded. It will force him to be much more concise in his closing.

My question is, how much of the state closing will rely on testimony that has been discredited? Like the ducks. Like the necklace. Etc.

 

[bloghooligan]

I don't think a unified letter from the jury requesting expedience points to a hung jury. I don't think there could have been any juror in there convinced of guilt who was not willing to hear the rest of the defense's case (remember the timing of the note). I think its points to a decision and they've indeed been talking with all this down time in the jury room.

I honestly hope you're wrong. I hope this jury is following the rules (as best they can).

I was on a long trial many years ago. We had lots of down time too. In and out of the courtroom on a regular basis. However, we followed the court's order that we not discuss the case (at all) until all the evidence was in. On one occasion the prosecution brought a box into the courtroom and began opening it, the defense objected. We were sent from the room and when we came back the box was gone. The next time we were sent out one of the jurors said "I just want to know what was in that box". We all did... but several jurors spoke up and said 'we can't discuss it now".

It is also very hard to avoid hearing about the case in the news -- I'd have to leave the room while the news was on and not read articles in the paper - but I did as I was asked.

I hope these jurors have been following the rules (at least mostly).

 

[NCEast]

In a way, the 2 hour argument will benefit Kurtz since he is generally long-winded. It will force him to be much more concise in his closing.

My question is, how much of the state closing will rely on testimony that has been discredited? Like the ducks. Like the necklace. Etc.

I have a tendency to think the ducks and necklace won't even be mentioned in the State's closing.
I don't know exactly what will.....the deposition video with so many lies by Brad, the craziness of the morning of the 12th--all the emotional things that the jurors can perhaps relate to.
If they are wise, they will omit everything that they were not able to prove... and should have never been brought up during the course of the trial, as they can now see in hindsight.

 

[SleuthinNC]

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.

Especially the way people were totally called out during the trial for their internet business.

 

[bloghooligan]

IMHO this is a premeditation case. He was doing google searches the day before he killed her. He strangled her. Preplanning and then premeditation. If BC is guilty (and I believe he is) he should be convicted of 1st degree murder.

And no, I do not think there was any planting of evidence, nor anyone connected with the state's case changing files or changing timestamps, nor do I think his wifi network was hacked. Just throwing that spaghetti against the wall and claiming there could have been if someone who knew how to do something nefarioius had access to it, does not show me there was. As such, I discard all of that nonsense.

Since it appears the prosecution rested without presenting the evidence they discussed on Friday I'd agree that it was to avoid allowing Mascucci as an expert for the defense. Why was to Pros so afraid of letting Mascucci on the stand -- I think it was because he could poke a BIG hole in the already shaky google map evidence.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I stand by my original statement, the state asked for first degree only, the judge over-ruled them on it.

That is incorrect and Cummings very carefully clarified that point. The state did NOT object they remained mute. Only the defense objected and Cummings specifically mentioned it so the judge would know that against objections should be against objection NOT plural.

 

[bloghooligan]

snip
If anything, 2nd degree doesn't fit.

I agree I think the judge believes the jury may hang on 1st degree and may be able compromise on 2nd.

 

[ncsu95]

It's an interesting case. If the murder was not premeditated, and the phone calls were not spoofed, then Nancy did phone Brad in the morning ... she was alive shortly before 7, and then Brad's alibi of looking after the children is as solid as JP's alibi of looking after the children.

I have thought all along that if he did it, it was after the HT trips. I go back to the work related calls he did during and after the HT trip for my reason. I have always believed that the call at 6:40 was legit. I was ready to have that challenged by the new evidence...but alas, it wasn't introduced. So I go back to it being a legit call.

 

[ncsu95]

You have seen the poll here, right?

This is a very victim and prosecution favored site. Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but the majority of people on here are pro-prosecution.

 

[ncsu95]

I stand by my original statement, the state asked for first degree only, the judge over-ruled them on it.

Sorry gracielee, you are wrong here. The prosecution and defense both put forth 1st and ng. The judge added 2nd degree. Later, the judge stated that the objections (plural) were noted. Coomings stood up and pointed out to Gessner that he had said "objections" (again, plural), but that the state doesn't object to 2nd degree.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I have a tendency to think the ducks and necklace won't even be mentioned in the State's closing.
I don't know exactly what will.....the deposition video with so many lies by Brad, the craziness of the morning of the 12th--all the emotional things that the jurors can perhaps relate to.
If they are wise, they will omit everything that they were not able to prove... and should have never been brought up during the course of the trial, as they can now see in hindsight.

If the prosecution leaves out everything they can't prove they only need about 15 minutes.

BC gave NC $300 a week, the water got cut off, NC was pissed about the house being messy, NC didn't like being on a budget, NC told her friends BC was a bad dude, NC and BC had a few arguments.

Did I miss anything?

 

[cityslick]

This is a very victim and prosecution favored site. Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but the majority of people on here are pro-prosecution.

I agree, put the same poll on someplace like WRAL and you'll get vastly different results.

 

[SleuthinNC]

This is a very victim and prosecution favored site. Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but the majority of people on here are pro-prosecution.

Agreed. The twitter poll was very different results than the poll here.

 

[otto]

I have thought all along that if he did it, it was after the HT trips. I go back to the work related calls he did during and after the HT trip for my reason. I have always believed that the call at 6:40 was legit. I was ready to have that challenged by the new evidence...but alas, it wasn't introduced. So I go back to it being a legit call.

That presents a whole other set of circumstances such as transporting a body in broad daylight, more traffic, leaving children unattended when they are more likely to be awake, so on.

I was watching the gallery during the charge to the jury discussion. Nancy's father was sitting far forward. I wonder what the family is thinking knowing that 2nd degree is considered a reasonable verdict by the judge.

 

[ncsu95]

If the prosecution leaves out everything they can't prove they only need about 15 minutes.

BC gave NC $300 a week, the water got cut off, NC was pissed about the house being messy, NC didn't like being on a budget, NC told her friends BC was a bad dude, NC and BC had a few arguments.

Did I miss anything?

BC had an affair with HM. That was 4 weeks worth of testimony...how could you forget that?

 

[otto]

What I see as another shady thing by the prosecution is that the prosecution probably never intended to bring another witness. If they could keep the defense busy throughout the weekend, scrambling to anticipate the testimony and prepare a rebuttal, then the prosecution could comfortably prepare closing arguments. Now the defense has the afternoon and evening to pull their closing arguments together.

 

[NCEast]

If the prosecution leaves out everything they can't prove they only need about 15 minutes.

BC gave NC $300 a week, the water got cut off, NC was pissed about the house being messy, NC didn't like being on a budget, NC told her friends BC was a bad dude, NC and BC had a few arguments.

Did I miss anything?

Again, I think they will concentrate on the matters of the heart in hopes the jury will be able to relate. There are many, many things in this trial that don't add up, those will probably be mentioned as well.

 

[SleuthinNC]

BC had an affair with HM. That was 4 weeks worth of testimony...how could you forget that?

LOL wow how DID I forget that! :doh::floorlaugh: