Recent content by anglolawyer

Well, that was super-interesting. The defence moved yesterday for a beefed-up jury instruction on the hoodie business. They obviously aren’t satisfied with the modest one they got 1st time round & probably feel (rightly IMO) they dropped the ball when Brennan was pulling off his stunt with Wolf...

I forgot his name (Sgt. Burrows?) proved a piece was missing when the SUV was seized, about the size of a dollar bill. He noted damage to the tail light in his report. Where is that piece?

Any idea what happened to the missing piece?

Credible & yet how they could not know, viscerally, there were no such holes still beats me.

Baseball bat? Edge of stair?

Harping on some more about this dang business with the hoodie, the defence could have objected at once for lack of foundation, forcing Brennan to set it out & then kneecapping him when it turned out there was none and this would all have been seen by the jury!

No, I have not watched all the trial, far from it. If it was deliberate, well …

Not testifying. Probably a good call. There’s no need. This should be a slam dunk but juries …

If they saved it (a possibility) they badly miscalculated & also allowed their witness to be embarrassed. From the flustered way the application to dismiss was made, faffing around with the docs etc. I think they just missed it.

I have been thinking more about this hoodie business & I’m baffled by it. I already remarked on the defence team being asleep when Brennan was referring to holes in the back & using them to undermine the defence expert. The hoodie is a key piece of evidence. It all but settles the question...

Interesting points about the judge. Maybe I’ve been drinking too much defence KoolAde. I’ll keep an open mind. I still think she was too soft on Brennan. Wittingly or not, he damaged an important defence witness (who dealt with it well but likewise didn’t question the holes) & her softball...

On your 2nd point, Brennan pipes up with objections as a reflex, with the judge’s support usually. The defence, had it been awake, should have done likewise, expecting no sympathy but chalking up another point for a possible future appeal. And on your third, the defence annoyed the judge by...

IMO Brennan’s misuse of the hoodie was likely inadvertent. It would be utterly crass to expect to get away with it if he knew how the holes were made. He could not hope to fool the defence. It would (maybe will) be regarded as serious professional misconduct. OTOH it’s remarkable the defence...

IMO Brennan’s misuse of the hoodie was likely inadvertent. It would be utterly crass to expect to get away with it if he knew how the holes were made. He could not hope to fool the defence. It would (maybe will) be regarded as serious professional misconduct. OTOH it’s remarkable the defence...

Yes, this works. It must be something like this. Well explained.