GA - Ahmaud Arbery, 25, jogger, fatally shot by former LEO and son, Brunswick, Feb 2020 *Arrests* #4

[Kristin Esq.]

I wonder if anyone is keeping track of TM’s inconsistencies in his statements and different from the video? If I was a juror that’s one thing I would do .

If the jury isn't, I'm sure the prosecution is and will talk about it in the closing argument.

 

[Smkd]

If the jury isn't, I'm sure the prosecution is and will talk about it in the closing argument.

I wanted to ask you since you’re an attorney, what do you think about the cross examination so far? From my understanding, attorneys can take more liberties when asking questions during cross, is that right? It felt like she wasn’t pressing very hard on some issues that in my (uneducated) opinion were worth pointing out, and also, even though she asked yes or no questions she still let him go on and over explain everything - for instance she asked “you knew that the man had been in the house two other times, correct?” And he goes on and on about how he knew he had been there many times and that stuff was stolen and remembered the way the man reacted on the 11th yada yada. Is there any reason that she’s not stopping him or asking him to just reply yes or no? Also wondering why he’s not being challenged when he’s constantly saying “break in” and things like that.

Is it that maybe because she’s not a defence attorney she’s not as used to doing cross-examination? Is that a thing?

 

[Kristin Esq.]

I wanted to ask you since you’re an attorney, what do you think about the cross examination so far? From my understanding, attorneys can take more liberties when asking questions during cross, is that right? It felt like she wasn’t pressing very hard on some issues that in my (uneducated) opinion were worth pointing out, and also, even though she asked yes or no questions she still let him go on and over explain everything - for instance she asked “you knew that the man had been in the house two other times, correct?” And he goes on and on about how he knew he had been there many times and that stuff was stolen and remembered the way the man reacted on the 11th yada yada. Is there any reason that she’s not stopping him or asking him to just reply yes or no? Also wondering why he’s not being challenged when he’s constantly saying “break in” and things like that.

Is it that maybe because she’s not a defence attorney she’s not as used to doing cross-examination? Is that a thing?

So, I will admit, I missed a lot of it yesterday because my family came home right around the time that she was doing her cross.

From what I did see, she made some good points and got him to flounder a bit. And from what I read on here, she was able to show that his training told him one thing but he did another on that day. During cross-examination, she is allowed to ask leading questions (basically questions where the answers are yes or no). A lot of what she is doing is going to strategy. Remember, she sees that jury everyday, which could be the reason that the confederate flag license plate wasn't shown in the pictures, and may be playing a bit to them.

My guess, and I'm not in her head, is that she's letting him give more of a narrative to that when she asks more pointed questions, she can catch him giving inconsistent testimony. If she really felt like his answers were harming her cross, she would tell him to just stick with the yes or no answer. As for the term break-in, I'm not sure why she is letting him consistently use it.

As a prosecutor, she is very much used to doing cross examination. Any trial that she has been a prosecutor on, she most likely conducted a cross of at least one defense witness.

Her cross examination is continuing this morning, so I expect that more important points will be made. It's never good to come across angry, so she will appear friendly. It's the questions themselves that matter less than the tone. Between this cross and the closing argument, I believe she is going to do an excellent job. But we will have to wait and see. I'll be able to watch the cross this morning as my family is at work/school and I'm working from home

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Here is the livestream of the trial:

 

[sds71]

@newsworthy17

We're in court now. Travis McMichael's team is raising the issue of the state asking about McMichael saying an "alleged epithet."
Attorney Kevin Gough says his client, William Bryan, has no intention of testifying. Says he's concerned, b/c of spill over effect, that state wants to ask another what his client said and that it'd be a violation of 5th amendment right not to testify
Travis McMichael's defense says that ques. of the racial epithet is unreasonable b/c Bryan (who can attest to hearing him Travis McMichael say it) will not be testifying

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Gough is now making a third motion regarding the pastors again.

 

[sds71]

Gough is now making a third motion regarding the pastors again.

Was he trying to provoke the Nation of Islam into coming to court?

 

[Smkd]

Gough is now making a third motion regarding the pastors again.

At what point can he be held in contempt for ignoring the judge and bringing the same thing up over and over again?

 

[Hope4More]

Impeach, impeach........

 

[Hope4More]

Maybe, maybe, maybe. The point is MAYBE.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

He thought "maybe" = assumption.

 

[Hope4More]

The problem cause is HIM. (Lol.....)

 

[Kristin Esq.]

He testified he's been trained, and even though he had arrest powers, he had to have probable cause.

A crime has been committed, and probable cause that the person you're arresting committing a crime.

He said he assumed, and the probable cause was AA. He's already getting tripped up.

 

[Hope4More]

Is "sneaking" a crime?

 

[Hope4More]

He's got 6 rote lines memorized, and no verbal ability whatsoever.

 

[ilovewings]

He testified he's been trained, and even though he had arrest powers, he had to have probable cause.

A crime has been committed, and probable cause that the person you're arresting committing a crime.

He said he assumed, and the probable cause was AA. He's already getting tripped up.

She is getting him good right here- just keep talking Travis------ you are digging a deep hole for yourself.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

He's got 6 rote lines memorized, and no verbal ability whatsoever.

That is his preparation from his attorney.

 

[Hope4More]

That is his preparation from his attorney.

Yes, but his lack of verbal dexterity is entirely his own.

 

[Hope4More]

Yep. Caught in the lie of his new story about Feb 11, AA advancing towards him.....

 

[wasnt_me]

I don't think that neighbor has testified. At least I don't recall him testifying. Unless and until he does, there is no evidence refuting TM's testimony about their conversation. But it does seem like the DA is teeing it up to call him on rebuttal. JMO.

I think that was the first I heard of it, but it's been heard and is in front of the jury. But hopefully, she will call the witness later now that she asked the question.

Just like that bike riding thing with Roddie.

ETA -- Oh, she got it in another way with the facebook post! And he was claiming it was someone else, not AA, BUT he put it as part of his statement on the day he murdered AA. So she is bringing out something different than I imagined.