- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 734
- Reaction score
- 2,969
I bet the veins are popping in the judge's head now.
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9464609/
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9464609/
wral WRAL NEWS in NC
ALERT: Brad Cooper defense asks for mistrial http://www.wral.com/
Ha ...ha...I knew it..I knew the defense really doesn't have much in the way of witnesses all they have are accusations of misconduct
Well, from what I've gleaned from colleagues who are in court on a day to day basis, there are A LOT of people questioning the way Gessner has handled this trial. And this is coming from people who are friendly with him and have cases before him on a regular basis. The complaints about the judge are legit and are coming from every direction.
If you are an attorney, this is flirting with Rule 8.2.
We have an obligation to reflect on our comments before airing them in public, and I think that includes even when we are behind screen names. Particularly, comments about the integrity of a judge (and isn't saying the judge has not been impartial "at any point in this trial" a comment on integrity since he would be violating the duties of his office completely) should be completely merited and not blown out of proportion.
Not a personal attack or a threat, just a perspective on the Rules of Professional Conduct as they relate to the judiciary.
The forensic copy (using equipment that blocked writing to the source disk) was made at Cisco using Cisco hardware and software.
Don't know Cicso's policy, if any, on this type of thing, but similar things are routinely done within the IT industry. We, for example, have a large collection of older systems and media formats that we allow others to use to retrieve data from ancient tapes, disks, etc. Usually, we do this as a courtesy to those in our community, and would only charge if the effort required were extensive.
I expect that K will call the FBI related witnesses back for questioning on topics that the pros. avoided introducing during their earlier testimony. Probably reworking Ward's reports to avoid the restrictions imposed by how computer and networking expert vs forensics expert are defined foravoid this case.
The whole FBI/national security/protected methods shielding of prosecution "evidence" has become a convenient epidemic. Swear in a local police detective as a Deputy US Marshal on the FBI Cyber Crime Task Force, and magically he avoids all those pesky defendant rights issues. Terror! Terror! Terror!
I believe the defense will rest and put in its closing they were kept from putting on a defense
I bet they are doing madzz scrambling to go to appellate level now. Gessner ruling wasn't incorrect. The guy simply is not a forensic computer expert no matter how long his resume is or regardless of how much he helped Anna Nicole Smith.
I think that actually might happen now.
I do wonder if Kurts has any feet left, he keeps shooting them![]()
I think the reference was to whether or not you are an attorney. Now me, I get a lot of time off from my brain surgery practice....... since I'm the senior member of the team.
:floorlaugh:
BTW, I'm not dissing you here, I'm laughing 'with me' not at you. Just wanted to make sure I'm not misinterpreted. :fence:
The ruling may or may not have been correct but MUCH of what BZ was arguing about should not have been taken into consideration as to whether he is an expert or not. It would come into play during cross examination before the jury, but now it has been made sure that the jury will never hear it.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I also don't recall people breaking down JA's appearance, mannerisms, etc.
What specifically did the agent on the stand now testify to for the prosecution?