GUILTY AZ - Daniel Rodriguez, 29, fatally shot by Phoenix PD officer, 5 Oct 2010 #2

[MeeBee]

No, the State rested. I couldn't hear much but it sounded like JM wanted Haag to testify about no damage to the bike (from bullets?) but judge said it had been manhandled too much in court for him to testify to anything.

WHAT?! What the hell is that? That makes no sense!

Nothing they've done in court would compare to any damage the bike would have sustained that day. That is patently ridiculous.

\o/

 

[josie1986]

No, the State rested. I couldn't hear much but it sounded like JM wanted Haag to testify about no damage to the bike (from bullets?) but judge said it had been manhandled too much in court for him to testify to anything.

oh good god,handling the bicycle wouldn't cause damage that a bullet would.

oh well monday to look forward to,i know juan will do us proud

 

[aa9511]

Ok ladies, we need a plan for Monday. I will call both ABC15 and AZFamily in the morning. Josie, you can twitter ABC15 and whoever else you can. Hopefully if a lot of people call/tweet/facebook/email, they will try to get the ball rolling in time for the start of closing arguments. :scared:

 

[Zuri]

Judge Granville's son is a cop who was forced to resign because he filed a false report. OMG
ETA: Attempted to file a false police report.

Son had been drinking and talking on his cell phone when he struck a light pole and his airbag deployed. Son was an officer in Glendale and voluntarily resigned In February 2011 after meeting with Professional Standard Board and Internal Affairs. Son was worried that telling the truth might harm his AND his father's careers.

 

[Zuri]

Judge Granville worked as an Assistant Attorney General prosecuting white collar crime for 20 years 1979-1999. Appointed to bench in 2000. Family Court 2000-2002. Criminal Court 2002-2010. Criminal Associate Presiding Judge 2010-2013. 3/13-present Criminal Court

 

[aa9511]

Judge Granville's son is a cop who was forced to resign because he filed a false report. OMG
ETA: Attempted to file a false police report.

Son had been drinking and talking on his cell phone when he struck a light pole and his airbag deployed. Son was an officer in Glendale and voluntarily resigned In February 2011 after meeting with Professional Standard Board and Internal Affairs. Son was worried that telling the truth might harm his AND his father's careers.

OMG. Juan must have seen this and been like. OH SHI*.

 

[Zuri]

OMG. Juan must have seen this and been like. OH SHI*.

Why would Judge Granville not recuse himself? Judge Stephens had been assigned this case and then it was reassigned.

 

[geevee]

Why would Judge Granville not recuse himself? Judge Stephens had been assigned this case and then it was reassigned.

It's all a little odd, isn't it?

 

[Liebchenmutti]

Why would Judge Granville not recuse himself? Judge Stephens had been assigned this case and then it was reassigned.

I am LIVID!!!!!!!!!! Are you kidding me, Judge Granville? No wonder he wouldn't let Juan impeach that lady cop, and has been obviously biased towards a racist killer cop. Unbelievable. :stormingmad:

 

[Liebchenmutti]

Judge Granville's son is a cop who was forced to resign because he filed a false report. OMG
ETA: Attempted to file a false police report.

Son had been drinking and talking on his cell phone when he struck a light pole and his airbag deployed. Son was an officer in Glendale and voluntarily resigned In February 2011 after meeting with Professional Standard Board and Internal Affairs. Son was worried that telling the truth might harm his AND his father's careers.

Hey guys: PLEASE START TWEETING THIS INFO!!! It is important to get the truth out there--this judge has been favorable to the defense & I cannot believe that he can pretend to be impartial when his own son was dishonest and is now a disgraced former cop. There is no way he should have ever considered taking this case, and he should recuse himself.

 

[Zuri]

Upon further investigation, an article published in the East Valley Tribune, Judge Granville had a complaint filed against him in 2005 by the Maricopa County District Attorney's office, concerning a bias case. Granville was cleared of judicial misconduct, but admonished by the Arizona Commision on Judicial Conduct.

A conservative Republican blog site rated Judge Granville as a liberal judge. Judge Granville was up for Retention Election in 2010.

 

[Zuri]

Hey guys: PLEASE START TWEETING THIS INFO!!! It is important to get the truth out there--this judge has been favorable to the defense & I cannot believe that he can pretend to be impartial when his own son was dishonest and is now a disgraced former cop. There is no way he should have ever considered taking this case, and he should recuse himself.

Unfortunately, this is probably water over the dam. JM probably knew this going in as I am sure the Maricopa County attorney's office did. IMO

 

[Liebchenmutti]

Unfortunately, this is probably water over the dam. JM probably knew this going in as I am sure the Maricopa County attorney's office did. IMO

I know that Juan & his office knew--but the public does not! This judge was a poor choice for this case, and he should have recused himself. I just want to get the word out--Granville is biased & should not get to operate like that.

 

[TupeloMz]

Unfortunately, this is probably water over the dam. JM probably knew this going in as I am sure the Maricopa County attorney's office did. IMO

:banghead::stormingmad::maddening:

I agree...there is nothing that can be done now. Unfortunately the pros do got get a chance to appeal....
:sigh:

 

[geevee]

Here are all the tweets about Lucien Haag, last intended witness for rebuttal:

---
Trial Diva Jen ™ ‏@TrialDivasJ 2h Lucien Haag is being called by Juan but he has to explain to judge why...#richardchrisman

Trial Diva Sharee™ ‏@TrialDivasS 2h Court resumes with judge asking what the purpose is for Juan calling rebuttal witness Lucien Haag...stay tuned for ruling #richardchrisman

Trial Diva Sharee™ ‏@TrialDivasS 2h During lunch the red bike was examined by Lucien Haag #richardchrisman

Trial Diva Sharee™ ‏@TrialDivasS 2h Mehrens says Juan claiming he had not heard of bike story before yesterday is another example of trial by ambush #richardchrisman

Trial Diva Jen ™ ‏@TrialDivasJ 2h Mehrens says Juan had 2 years to do tests on the bike and it shouldn't be let in..#richardchrisman

Trial Diva Jen ™ ‏@TrialDivasJ 2h Judge isn't liking the fact bike has been manhandled through out trial..Judge denies..#richardchrisman

Trial Diva Sharee™ ‏@TrialDivasS 2h Lucien Haag is precluded from testifying to examing the bike today and his findings of examining the bike #richardchrisman

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 2h Jurors on their way in #RichardChrisman trial. #Aliens #Invading #LiveStream http://wildabouttrial.com/richard-chrisman-live-stream.html …

Trial Diva Jen ™ ‏@TrialDivasJ 2h Another win for #richardchrisman

Trial Diva Sharee™ ‏@TrialDivasS 2h The state rests their case #richardchrisman
----

No other explanation or clarification about what exactly the judge said, maybe the divas will have a recap on their site later or tomorrow with more info.

 

[josie1986]

how can judge granville possibly oversee this case without any bias! i can't believe whoever chooses which judge gets which case even considered him!!

if this was the other way about and it favored the state you know full well that the defense would be kicking up a fuss about it!

 

[MeeBee]

Why was the case re-assigned? I thought I remembered that Stephens (who I like and find impartial) was on it. It must have been re-assigned very recently.

WHY did the judge feel the need to question Juan about why he intends to call that last witness?

If the DT was the one that brought the issue up, ok. But every single issue they have brought up he been ruled in their favor and judge always rules against Juan. There isn't any reason why Lucien should not have been able to testify.

He was going to testify that there was no damage to the bike. Judge makes up bizarre reason why he can't testify to that. How would a bike being "manhandled" throughout a trial affect any kind of damage to a bike? Not only that, but would it being "manhandled" reverse any damage done to it prior? Because Lucien was going to testify to the LACK of damage, right? Besides, evidence gets "manhandled" all the time in trial.

It doesn't make a lick of sense...

 

[Zuri]

Why was the case re-assigned? I thought I remembered that Stephens (who I like and find impartial) was on it. It must have been re-assigned very recently.

WHY did the judge feel the need to question Juan about why he intends to call that last witness?

If the DT was the one that brought the issue up, ok. But every single issue they have brought up he been ruled in their favor and judge always rules against Juan. There isn't any reason why Lucien should not have been able to testify.

He was going to testify that there was no damage to the bike. Judge makes up bizarre reason why he can't testify to that. How would a bike being "manhandled" throughout a trial affect any kind of damage to a bike? Not only that, but would it being "manhandled" reverse any damage done to it prior? Because Lucien was going to testify to the LACK of damage, right? Besides, evidence gets "manhandled" all the time in trial.

It doesn't make a lick of sense...

ITA meeBee. I am hoping that if RC is found NG, the Maricopa County District Attorney will file another complaint of judicial misconduct. Heck, I want to file a complaint. Not just because I like JM, but because it has tied his hands in the pursuit of justice. The obvious bias is there IMO.

 

[Liebchenmutti]

Why was the case re-assigned? I thought I remembered that Stephens (who I like and find impartial) was on it. It must have been re-assigned very recently.

WHY did the judge feel the need to question Juan about why he intends to call that last witness?

If the DT was the one that brought the issue up, ok. But every single issue they have brought up he been ruled in their favor and judge always rules against Juan. There isn't any reason why Lucien should not have been able to testify.

He was going to testify that there was no damage to the bike. Judge makes up bizarre reason why he can't testify to that. How would a bike being "manhandled" throughout a trial affect any kind of damage to a bike? Not only that, but would it being "manhandled" reverse any damage done to it prior? Because Lucien was going to testify to the LACK of damage, right? Besides, evidence gets "manhandled" all the time in trial.

It doesn't make a lick of sense...

The bike issue is bizarre! It's Chrisman's testimony that the bike was a big part of the altercation--he shot the victim while he was holding this bike, right? That's why it's important to show that there was no damage done despite the fact that it had 2 bullets whiz by & then was dropped as the victim dropped. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that--I didn't see that testimony).

The judge was condescending and mocking at one point when Juan was arguing--he said something like "You sound like you're reading me a book--just give me the argument" or something like that.

I felt that the information/testimony painting Chrisman as an irresponsible, racist bully and bad cop should have come in. He's relying on people's perception of cops as wonderful, brave men & women who risk their own lives to protect us--which is true--but when you have a bad cop, he needs to be called out.

Chrisman planted crack cocaine on a mentally ill black woman as a "joke." He abused his position, he demonstrated what he thinks of people who are vulnerable--he enjoys tormenting them.

He shot the dog in the back & he shot an unarmed man twice in the chest at point blank range. Chrisman had a taser, pepper spray and a gun--the victim was holding a bike. :stormingmad:

 

[MeeBee]

A poster on JJ Fan Page said this re: the bike:

"I was there yesterday - The judge said two things as to why it was denied - First was the timeliness issue (Which I personally disagree with) Mr. Mehrens called this motion - trial by ambush - Juan only knew that Chrisman was saying the bike was the weapon and the reason for the shooting the day before. Also, the jury had a question about the bike. The other one was that during the earlier parts of the trial, the bike had been handled numerous times and any evidence that COULD have been there may have fallen off - MOTION DENIED -"

Another poster posted that Haag was going to testify to the lack of blood found on the bike.

This judge is dizzy. Blood doesn't just fall off. It will always be there unless you use special solvents, like bleach or some such. He is precluding evidence that will hurt Chrisman. It is NOT trial by ambush because Juan just learned of Chrisman's new version in his testimony. Just like introducing gas can evidence in JA trial is not trial by ambush nor is it untimely.

To say that Juan shouldn't let the guy testify because of the handling of the bike is ridiculous. That is just speculation on his part and if that was something that really was an issue, the defense simply could have pointed that out on cross examination and let the jury decide. That is huge, relevant evidence. The judge is not allowing Juan to present the best case he can. It's infuriating. And, I suspect that there will be more allegations of partiality to come up in the future with this judge re: this trial, especially if Chrisman is found not guilty. He never weighed the arguments of the motions. Whatever the defense brought up, the judge decided that was enough, it was all he needed and decided that anything that could hurt them should be precluded.

People may have issues with Judge Stephens, but at least she takes time to weigh all arguments equally and give a fair ruling. If she has to call recess so she can go back and do research before ruling, she does it. She is a sound judge.