Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #26

[raisincharlie]

"I could be wrong but I think the civil case for custody will be held out of public access since it involves minor children so this will block one information access route other than just learning the outcome. I also have serious doubt that anything, to include the affidavits, associated with the civil case would be allowed under a criminal proceeding. I only say that because civil cases are indeed inflamatory and concluded on a much lower standard of proof."--RC

aaaaauh. I sure hated sitting there on the stand in the custody hearing, and seeing all these strangers sitting in the courtroom. Courtroom 8B, Wake County Courthouse.

Wow - you're kidding ? That is insane, no ones business but those involved. NC needs to rethink their laws if that is the case. That isn't right.

 

[raisincharlie]

So this deposition of BC today--

It's kind of like being put on the stand, except only one side is throwing questions at you and you have to answer or else take the 5th, unless your attorney directs you not to answer certain questions.

But some things may emerge in the course of the deposition which would not be seen in a favorable light by the judge, so there is exposure there. I guess part of me is surprised they (K&B) decided to continue with the custody case, allowed BC to be deposed, and not try to just extend temp custody for a few more months to delay or circumvent this process right now.

Thoughts?

If you watch Amanda Lamb's report at WRAL from noon - the judge is not present. Available by phone if there is an argument but not present. will all be a surprise to her.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3659251/

 

[jumpstreet]

So this deposition of BC today--

It's kind of like being put on the stand, except only one side is throwing questions at you and you have to answer or else take the 5th, unless your attorney directs you not to answer certain questions.

But some things may emerge in the course of the deposition which would not be seen in a favorable light by the judge, so there is exposure there. I guess part of me is surprised they (K&B) decided to continue with the custody case, allowed BC to be deposed, and not try to just extend temp custody for a few more months to delay or circumvent this process right now.

Thoughts?

You mean thoughts other than "he's innocent, has nothing to hide, and wants his kids back as soon as possible"?

 

[jumpstreet]

Small update posted the WRAL article. Long day for BC...

Cooper gave deposition for more than seven hours Thursday to the Rentzes' attorneys...

The Rentzes and Nancy Cooper's sister, Krista Lister, who has also filed for custody, will be deposed by Brad Cooper's attorneys next week. The temporary custody hearing is scheduled for the week of Oct. 13.

 

[jumpstreet]

If you watch Amanda Lamb's report at WRAL from noon - the judge is not present. Available by phone if there is an argument but not present. will all be a surprise to her.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3659251/

The judge isn't present, but the transcript of the deposition will be presented as part of evidence in the custody hearing, so ultimately, the judge will be privy to all of it, with the plaintiffs free (in court) to emphasize any pieces they think are germane to her decision. In a sense, he basically "took the witness stand" today, and I think depositions are given as part of 'sworn testimony'. [ ... with 7 hours of questioning, would seem unlikely that he simply 'took the 5th' ]

I assume a transcript of today's deposition won't be posted on the web later tonight, or ever, but who knows that the rules are on that ...

 

[Star12]

The judge isn't present, but the transcript of the deposition will be presented as part of evidence in the custody hearing, so ultimately, the judge will be privy to all of it, with the plaintiffs free (in court) to emphasize any pieces they think are germane to her decision. In a sense, he basically "took the witness stand" today, and I think depositions are given as part of 'sworn testimony'. [ ... with 7 hours of questioning, would seem unlikely that he simply 'took the 5th' ]

I assume a transcript of today's deposition won't be posted on the web later tonight, or ever, but who knows that the rules are on that ...

umm, i dunno. The depositions are considered discovery, not evidence, although they can be entered into9 evidence at the trial. I don't think the judge has a copy. What information that is given is not from a witness stand, although the statements are given under oath. It can be read in court if a witness for some reason can't be there. A depo is used a lot to impeach the witness, too.

 

[jumpstreet]

umm, i dunno. The depositions are considered discovery, not evidence, although they can be entered into9 evidence at the trial. I don't think the judge has a copy. What information that is given is not from a witness stand, although the statements are given under oath. It can be read in court if a witness for some reason can't be there. A depo is used a lot to impeach the witness, too.

Thanks for the clarification star. To me, the key pieces are (a) statements given in the deposition (while perhaps not physically given from a witness stand) are given under oath (and therefore have all the same legal 'weight/implications' as a statement given under oath from the witness stand). and (b) all or any piece of it can be entered into trial evidence, and presented to the judge, as the plaintiffs attorneys find necessary. Is that right?

 

[cygnusx1]

Here is a point I am unclear on. Is an affidavit not delivered under oath? Is the oath under which an affidavit is taken different than the oath under which deposition is conducted or witness tesitmony delivered? Is lying on an affidavit perjury?

 

[jumpstreet]

Here is a point I am unclear on. Is an affidavit not delivered under oath? Is the oath under which an affidavit is taken different than the oath under which deposition is conducted or witness tesitmony delivered? Is lying on an affidavit perjury?

Good question. I assume it is delivered under oath as "sworn testimony", and there's no difference in that regard. Assuming the affidavit is taken under oath, one key difference between the affidavit and the deposition is the determination of content.

With affidavit, of course, the individual submitting is totally in control of what they say (and what they don't say). In a deposition, opposing counsel is in control of the questions being asked. Finally, when called as a witness, counsel is in control also (with the additional element of the cross-examination opportunity from the opposite counsel).

It's been said that "one very rarely wins a case from the deposition chair... but you sure can lose it from there!"

All this is just how I understand it [caveat, I'm no legal expert, or at least I certainly don't play one on TV ]

 

[raisincharlie]

Here is a point I am unclear on. Is an affidavit not delivered under oath? Is the oath under which an affidavit is taken different than the oath under which deposition is conducted or witness tesitmony delivered? Is lying on an affidavit perjury?

If one signs an affidavit, if it is proven that there are mistruths and if it is determined the the mistruths were given to intentionally be deceptive then yes, the penalties applied to perjury can be applied against a person filing a false affidavit. You will note the opening line in the affidavits includes "being duly sworn".

 

[SleuthyGal]

7 hr deposition...wonder if they're done questioning him yet. Oh how I would love to be able to listen in and hear what the plaintiffs attorneys are asking (and see those attorneys in action).

 

[gritguy]

I thought about the affidavits and such being inadmissible during the murder trial. But could the Judge herself be called in as a character witness if BC wins custody? The defense could ask the judge why she did not rule in favor of the Rentz's thus getting her opinion of the murder case into the record and the jury's minds.

No way the judge could be called for that, or basically for anything.

 

[gritguy]

7 hr deposition...wonder if they're done questioning him yet. Oh how I would love to be able to listen in and hear what the plaintiffs attorneys are asking (and see those attorneys in action).

Yeah that's not really that long of a deposition. I wonder if they videotaped it. Thats useful sometimes to record sarcastic expressions, anger, nervousness or other things that might not come across in the transcript, if you can show it later.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Yeah that's not really that long of a deposition. I wonder if they videotaped it. Thats useful sometimes to record sarcastic expressions, anger, nervousness or other things that might not come across in the transcript, if you can show it later.

Oh yeah videotape! Now that would be useful. Wonder if I could sneak in pretending to be one of the attorney's assistants so I could sit in the back or off to the side. :wink:

 

[raisincharlie]

Yeah that's not really that long of a deposition. I wonder if they videotaped it. Thats useful sometimes to record sarcastic expressions, anger, nervousness or other things that might not come across in the transcript, if you can show it later.

If you watch the video report that Amanda Lamb gave - link posted above - you will note in the footage of Brad entering the offices of TS - he is carrying a tripod. If TS didn't record it - his own lawyers did.

 

[SleuthyGal]

If you watch the video report that Amanda Lamb gave - link posted above - you will note in the footage of Brad entering the offices of TS - he is carrying a tripod. If TS didn't record it - his own lawyers did.

RC, did you notice how TALL Brad is? I think taller than 6'3"!

 

[raisincharlie]

RC, did you notice how TALL Brad is? I think taller than 6'3"!

Tall iron man for sure :crazy:

 

[SleuthyGal]

heh. Yes.

 

[raisincharlie]

heh. Yes.

SG - I'm still studying on this Hiller affidavit. Something is just way off with this. You get that feeling ?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Yes. Big time. But I don't know exactly what is off about it.

BTW, I was re-reading Brad's rebuttal affy and found a mistake he made in one of his dates! It's not a huge thing, but it is a typo. The part where he states that he said he hadn't been on his training bike since June 3, 2007 but then looked at his training log and saw he was on his bike in January 2007--that should say 2008 to make sense.