Brad Cooper: Appeal info

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
It totally made sense when you realize the rules of the court. Had they introduced that testimony from Chris Fry, THEN the defense could have gotten in the Masucci testimony. There were pluses and minuses to each (getting the Fry info in vs. leaving it out). The state decided they didn't need the Chris Fry testimony about that log file *so bad* to then allow the defense to be able to put Masucci on the stand in front of the jury. And that was the rule per the judge. If the state wanted Chris Fry with that late-breaking log file info from Cisco, then they had to accept Masucci.

And they decided not to put Fry's testimony about the log file in. We, the viewing audience, heard about it, but the jury did not.

Calculated risk, but turns out they didn't need Chris Fry's testimony about that log file. BC's friend from Cisco, Greg Miglucci, showed the IM chat log in which BC said he had taken a 3825 router home and the state felt that was good enough.

The jury convicted, so that tells you the risk to leave out the log file paid off.
 
Madeleine74 said:
It totally made sense when you realize the rules of the court. Had they introduced that testimony from Chris Fry, THEN the defense could have gotten in the Masucci testimony. There were pluses and minuses to each (getting the Fry info in vs. leaving it out). The state decided they didn't need the Chris Fry testimony about that log file *so bad* to then allow the defense to be able to put Masucci on the stand in front of the jury. And that was the rule per the judge. If the state wanted Chris Fry with that late-breaking log file info from Cisco, then they had to accept Masucci.

And they decided not to put Fry's testimony about the log file in. We, the viewing audience, heard about it, but the jury did not.

Calculated risk, but turns out they didn't need Chris Fry's testimony about that log file. BC's friend from Cisco, Greg Miglucci, showed the IM chat log in which BC said he had taken a 3825 router home and the state felt that was good enough.

The jury convicted, so that tells you the risk to leave out the log file paid off.
Click to expand...

It did pay off, but don't you think it would have been ... in a way ... more fair for the jury to have heard rebuttal testimony about the computer? It may have resulted in a not guilty verdict, and it looks as though the prosecution was aware of this possibility.
 
Masucci said he wasn't finished with his report. I don't know how fair it would have been to put on an expert witness whose report was only half done. Plus, his report was based on Jay Ward's info and not on any independent examination he made.

It would have been interesting to see all the evidence presented in the case, yes, but I say that as a spectator. What we spectators believe is fair (or unfair) doesn't have any bearing on what constitutes a valid legal decision to include or exclude a witness. Whole different set of rules, which is why lay people aren't lawyers. Imagine standing up in front of a judge and saying, "But your honor...that's not faiiiiirrrrr!" And when the judge asks you to cite precedent and case law for your argument, all you can do is give your best pouty face, stomp your foot, and whine again, "NOT fairrrrrr!"
 
Madeleine74 said:
Masucci said he wasn't finished with his report. I don't know how fair it would have been to put on an expert witness whose report was only half done. Plus, his report was based on Jay Ward's info and not on any independent examination he made.

It would have been interesting to see all the evidence presented in the case, yes, but I say that as a spectator. What we spectators believe is fair (or unfair) doesn't have any bearing on what constitutes a valid legal decision to include or exclude a witness. Whole different set of rules, which is why lay people aren't lawyers. Imagine standing up in front of a judge and saying, "But your honor...that's not faiiiiirrrrr!" And when the judge asks you to cite precedent and case law for your argument, all you can do is give your best pouty face, stomp your foot, and whine again, "NOT fairrrrrr!"
Click to expand...

It's that little bit of fairness that may have been overlooked that could result in a complete retrial through appeal (far more costly to the courts than providing additional funds for a witness). I guess we'll see how it plays out. One strike against the defense is that they wanted to introduce a witness that was not on the witness list, but understandably this happened after the witness they thought would be approved was discredited ... and I don't think a facebook page should really be used to discredit a witness, but it was.
 
One strike against the defense is that they wanted to introduce a witness that was not on the witness list, but understandably this happened after the witness they thought would be approved was discredited
Click to expand...
To me this was a major faux paus by the defense, and the biggest mistake they made in this case. Remember J Ward posted on WS right after he testified. In his posting he said he told the defense right from the get go that he was NOT a computer forensic expert. He told them he was a network expert. Yet the defense decided to go with him anyway, knowing full well it was a gamble. And they lost the gamble! J Ward said he agreed with Gessner's ruling to exclude him as a computer forensic expert.

You can't fault the state for the defense trying to get this guy in as a computer forensic expert and then losing that gamble. THEY KNEW from the beginning he was not qualified in that capacity.

The question I would be asking my defense attorney if I was the defendant was, "WHY did you go with this guy when you KNEW he wasn't qualified? WTH! Was there no one else you could possibly find who would be qualified as a forensic expert and find that person before the trial started?"

could result in a complete retrial through appeal
Click to expand...
The reason I don't think this particular issue will win on appeal is because the error was made by the defense (as detailed above). The judge's ruling was based on law and precedent. Defense gambled big time, knowing their guy (Ward) was not really a forensic expert. Had they looked for a real forensic expert back at the beginning, when Ward told them he wasn't qualified as an expert, they would have been much better situated. You have to ask, why didn't they? Trying to slide in a witness you just found, who hasn't even finished a report, is not such a good strategy.
 
Madeleine74 said:
It totally made sense when you realize the rules of the court. Had they introduced that testimony from Chris Fry, THEN the defense could have gotten in the Masucci testimony. There were pluses and minuses to each (getting the Fry info in vs. leaving it out). The state decided they didn't need the Chris Fry testimony about that log file *so bad* to then allow the defense to be able to put Masucci on the stand in front of the jury. And that was the rule per the judge. If the state wanted Chris Fry with that late-breaking log file info from Cisco, then they had to accept Masucci.

And they decided not to put Fry's testimony about the log file in. We, the viewing audience, heard about it, but the jury did not.

Calculated risk, but turns out they didn't need Chris Fry's testimony about that log file. BC's friend from Cisco, Greg Miglucci, showed the IM chat log in which BC said he had taken a 3825 router home and the state felt that was good enough.

The jury convicted, so that tells you the risk to leave out the log file paid off.
Click to expand...


I certainly don't remember that ruling. The defense pre-emptively argued that CFs testimony should allow GM, but the judge refused to base a ruling on what might happen, even though the prosecution said it was going to happen. When did Gessner say that GM could testify if CF testified?
 
The judge mentioned to the prosecution about 'opening the door' with the Chris Fry inclusion. That was his warning of what that would mean. It was during a hearing outside the presence of the jury, I don't remember the specific day, but around the time the defense tried to bring in Masucci. The judge would have allowed Masucci in had the state brought Fry and the log file in, and the state was left to ponder that decision and decide whether to take the risk or not.
 
Madeleine74 said:
The judge mentioned to the prosecution about 'opening the door' with the Chris Fry inclusion. That was his warning of what that would mean. It was during a hearing outside the presence of the jury, I don't remember the specific day, but around the time the defense tried to bring in Masucci. The judge would have allowed Masucci in had the state brought Fry and the log file in, and the state was left to ponder that decision and decide whether to take the risk or not.
Click to expand...

If either the defense or the prosecution had agreed to "opening the door," the decision could have elongated a trial that was well past its prime.

ALso, I think most lawyers agree that without adequate time to prepare for a witness, they would rather stick with those from whom they can anticipate the content and tenor of the testimony. rather than opening "new doors" at a late stage of the trial.

MOO....Interesting discussion.
 
Tink56 said:
If either the defense or the prosecution had agreed to "opening the door," the decision could have elongated a trial that was well past its prime.

ALso, I think most lawyers agree that without adequate time to prepare for a witness, they would rather stick with those from whom they can anticipate the content and tenor of the testimony. rather than opening "new doors" at a late stage of the trial.

MOO....Interesting discussion.
Click to expand...

The prosecution should not have wasted the jury's time with two weeks of neighborhood gossip. That would have left time for actual evidence. The prosecution appears to have been able to anticipate the defense rebuttal witness sufficiently to gamble that they didn't want the testimony admitted.
 
otto said:
It's that little bit of fairness that may have been overlooked that could result in a complete retrial through appeal (far more costly to the courts than providing additional funds for a witness). I guess we'll see how it plays out. One strike against the defense is that they wanted to introduce a witness that was not on the witness list, but understandably this happened after the witness they thought would be approved was discredited ... and I don't think a facebook page should really be used to discredit a witness, but it was.
Click to expand...

But otto, if a facebook page has some 'off-base' thoughts/stuff on there and other 'crazy' things don't you think it should be brought out if that person is testifying in a murder trial for one side or the other?

Like AK's 'Foxy Knoxy' on her facebook... it is only natural to question it.
 
dgfred said:
But otto, if a facebook page has some 'off-base' thoughts/stuff on there and other 'crazy' things don't you think it should be brought out if that person is testifying in a murder trial for one side or the other?

Like AK's 'Foxy Knoxy' on her facebook... it is only natural to question it.
Click to expand...

As far as I understand, he had some waist up shots without a shirt, and had written about his fascination with conspiracy theories. He was testifying as an expert and his facebook content goes to credibiity. I view the prosecution as being a bit desperate to use Facebook to discredit him and would have preferred to see them attack his credentials. They did somewhat attack his credentials by emphasizing that he had something like 6 jobs in 10 years - but it seemed like he was a consultant rather than an employee, which suggests to me that 6 jobs in 10 years is not unusual. I thought it was a low blow, but I have it on good authority that prosecutors everywhere would raise the question of credibility based on the kind of facebook page that JW had.
 
otto said:
As far as I understand, he had some waist up shots without a shirt, and had written about his fascination with conspiracy theories. He was testifying as an expert and his facebook content goes to credibiity. I view the prosecution as being a bit desperate to use Facebook to discredit him and would have preferred to see them attack his credentials. They did somewhat attack his credentials by emphasizing that he had something like 6 jobs in 10 years - but it seemed like he was a consultant rather than an employee, which suggests to me that 6 jobs in 10 years is not unusual. I thought it was a low blow, but I have it on good authority that prosecutors everywhere would raise the question of credibility based on the kind of facebook page that JW had.
Click to expand...

If the defense could have found someone with a "clean" facebook and would have said what they wanted him to say, the defense would have used that person. Bottom line, whether the defense pleads poverty or there was no one whose facebook page was "unobjectionable", this was probably the "best" witness who would agree with their theory. It wasn't the prosecution's issue, it was the defense's.

And, it says to me that the theory wasn't sound or likely.
 
Love Lies, the book based on this case comes out next week.
Two local book signings and Q&A with the author.
Barnes and Noble on Sunday and Quail Ridge on Thursday.
Anyone going? What questions would you ask Amanda?
 
From WRAL.COM 4/5/2012:
Raleigh, N.C. — An attorney for a Cary man convicted last year of killing his wife has asked the state Court of Appeals for an extension to appeal his conviction.

Brad Cooper was found guilty May 5 of first-degree murder in the July 12, 2008, death of Nancy Cooper, whose body was found in an undeveloped subdivision several miles from their home.

Ann Peterson, an appellate attorney for Cooper, says in a motion filed Tuesday that the transcripts from the nearly two-month long trial were originally due on July 12, 2011, but that there several delays and she did not receive the 8,800-page file until Feb. 10.

Peterson wants 30 days past the April 11 deadline to appeal because she needs more time to read and review the transcripts.

One possible ground for appeal is likely to center on evidence that jurors didn't get to hear.

Cooper's defense team claimed that someone tampered with a computer in which investigators found evidence of a Google Maps search of the site where Nancy Cooper’s body was found that was conducted the day before she went missing.

The judge, however, did not allow the testimony, saying the expert witness wasn't qualified. He also disallowed a second witness, because the prosecution argued that timing didn't allow them to prepare for adequate cross-examination.

Cooper, 38, is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole at Central Prison in Raleigh.
 
A little off topic, but not entirely ... Brett Wilson, the guy that Nancy Cooper was seeing before she married Brad, and who she was connecting with when the marriage fell apart, was awarded the Order of Canada.

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=14175
 
18 months to get to the point of filing. Although a significant portion of that time is waiting for the court reporters to finish the trial transcript. Tick Tock.
 
Based on the issues brought up in the appeal, I think it is highly likely that Brad gets a new trial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 196 more.
Total: 4,117 (members: 197, guests: 3,920)

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
3,920
Total visitors
4,117
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,527
Messages
17,953,774
Members
228,521
Latest member
sanayarford
Back
Top