Twice Motion for Mistrials in 2 day
Oct 27, 2016 Thurs
4:30 p.m. Staley Clark is on the verge of going into recess when lead defense attorney Maddox Kilgore tells her he wants to "perfect the record" regarding his motion for a mistrial earlier in the day. Kilgore objected strenuously to the jury's viewing of Harris's SUV in the courthouse parking lot this morning. Calling this brief trip an "absolute disaster," he moved for a mistrial immediately afterward. Staley Clark denied the motion. She hears Kilgore, notes his comments for the record and then recesses the trial for the day.
9:54 a.m. "It was a disaster," Kilgore says. "An absolute disaster." Kilgore again asks for a mistrial.
9:53 a.m. Prosecution says this the car is the murder weapon for the entire case. The jurors were allowed to examine the evidence, Prosecutor Chuck Boring says.
9:52 a.m. Kilgore asks for a mistrial.
9:49 a.m. Kilgore says the lighting outside was different Thursday morning than the day Cooper Harris died.
9:46 a.m. Kilgore says all of the jurors are different heights, and many are shorter than Harris. Their view of the SUV would be different, the defense attorney says. The jurors have been "given free range to substitute their vantage point for the evidence," Kilgore says
Oct 28, 2016 Friday
3:43 Judge denies the motion.
3:42 Bryan Lumpkin says the defense is moving for a mistrial. He says the burden to prove the defendant's innocence has shifted to them with the state's argument. Evans disagrees and says they are "keenly aware" of what the burden is; witnesses' contact info was sent to both sides. That's not burden-shifting.
3:41 All rise for the jury's exit.
3:39 Judge Staley Clark gives a little talk to the jury and wishes them a good weekend.
3:37 Redirect by Lumpkin: Your guidance for what to look at and consider and talk to, those decisions were made by Det. Stoddard? Murphy says as far as witnesses, uniform officers had a list they handed him and he was told to interview them. He did, took notes, recorded it and turned over a summary to Stoddard. Lumpkin thanks him. Evans says he has no further questions.
3:35 The jury is back in and Murphy is on the stand. The cross-examination is brief by Jesse Evans. You were not the lead detective? Correct. More of a support role? Correct. If the lead detective needs something, you do it or delegate it? Correct.
Evans's cross is a series of questions to which Murphy answers mostly "Correct" or "Yes" to about his duties on the cas
3:34 Judge stands by her prior ruling.
3:34 Lumpkin: The state argues it's semantics. We are simply asking for truth. We want the truth to be able to come out. No matter how you slice it, this is not out-of-court statements offered for truth of the matter asserted, which is what hearsay is. He says they're operating under the defense's right under the law to put forth its defense in accordance with the law. That law says they should be able to ask the detective these questions--did you testify to this, have personal information about it, and if not, why did you testify to that? If it came from another witness who has testified, it could be used to impeach.
3:30 Evans explains the state's view of why this detective's testimony shouldn't be allowed. He says it's even rare that the state would call the second-in-charge detective. Evans reiterates that Murphy's knowledge is secondhand.
"Anything having to do with the search warrants is simply irrelevant in terms of what's being presented to the jury at this point," says Evans, who notes that he didn't object when Murphy corrected his own firsthand knowledge of how the car seat was strapped in the SUV.
He says with the statements about "searching child deaths in a car"--"we're talking about semantics," says Evans. It's hearsay, it's semantics, you made rulings about motions to suppress before. Where he got the information in question is hearsay that he got from another source. He wasn't in interviews. It's irrelevant.
"Clearly all the information he was passing along to the magistrate was information he was getting from other people," says Evans. "There's no constitutional right to present hearsay evidence."
3:27 "The state totally disregarded actual evidence right in front of them; they creative a narrative that landed us here today, contends Lumpkin.
3:23 "We have a right to put up a defense for Mr. Ross Harris," says Lumpkin, and part of that involves attacking the credibility of this investigation.
Lumpkin says the investigation has been fraught with misleading information and lies, and unfortunately, this jury has not been privy to knowing just how far this went to the point of testimony under oath that violates the truth. He says they have the right to impeach previous testimony. Mr. Harris's ability to have a fair trial pervades everything they do, and the State's objection that it's hearsay is clearly unfounded in the law. Lumpkin says frankly, they fear the State is putting the Court in a very difficult position.
He asks the court to reconsider letting them going into these areas of questioning.
"The truth should not be some weighty object that keeps us from going forward," says Lumpkin. The state did not want to allow us to bring out the truthfulness using this detective by calling him as their own witness, he says.
http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/ros...g/2016/oct/28/friday-oct-28-day-16-testimony/
I truly believe he thought he was going to get a slap on the wrist and was taken aback when arrested and charged. Therefore why go through all the trouble of deleting things off his phone and computer. JMO!
. 
