State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
LaLaw2000 said:
What Kurtz is trying to put over on the Prosecution was wrong. He should have gotten a real expert in the beginning. You do not ambush, and you do not introduce new experts in the middle of a trial.

JMO
Click to expand...

The judge made a strange ruling. JW was admitted as an expert, but much of the information in his expert report was not allowed as testimony because anything that got close to discussing the data that referenced anything provided by the FBI forensic analysis was disallowed by the judge.

They had not expected JW to be allowed as a forensic, but they had expected JW to be able to discuss as a network expert the critical evidence. The judge's ruling has left them in limbo.
 
WolfpackWoman said:
Typically motions in limine are filed prior to a case starting. Typically defense and prosecution keep in contact with each other throughout the process of the case. They alert each other in a reasonable time with issues the other side may need to prepare for. Watching the trial on TV, you would miss a lot of this. Anyone who's involved in litigation in person would know this, hence, why Kurtz made the bad faith argument.
Click to expand...

Agree there does not seem to be a healthy relationship between the counsel that would be the predicate for sharing info.

But, I can tell you from experience that experts are often challenged at the time they are presented for testimony (not that they can't be challenged beforehand). And, if the parties are at each other, they will do the most they can to catch each other off guard.
 
Levitan sounds like he'll qualify as an expert so far. But I'll need to see he facebook profile before I make my final ruling. ;)
 
unc70 said:
The judge made a strange ruling. JW was admitted as an expert, but much of the information in his expert report was not allowed as testimony because anything that got close to discussing the data that referenced anything provided by the FBI forensic analysis was disallowed by the judge.

They had not expected JW to be allowed as a forensic, but they had expected JW to be able to discuss as a network expert the critical evidence. The judge's ruling has left them in limbo.
Click to expand...

I think you have threaded the needle there. This seems a good way to put it.
 
unc70 said:
The judge made a strange ruling. JW was admitted as an expert, but much of the information in his expert report was not allowed as testimony because anything that got close to discussing the data that referenced anything provided by the FBI forensic analysis was disallowed by the judge.

They had not expected JW to be allowed as a forensic, but they had expected JW to be able to discuss as a network expert the critical evidence. The judge's ruling has left them in limbo.
Click to expand...

It is clear this judge does absolutely no critical thinking in making any rulings. The fact that he even mentioned the WS post relying solely on the State's assertion that it was JW is mindboggling. For crying out loud, I could have registered as JW and made the post he made.
 
It's nice to see the defense bring a real expert. This guy seems to run circles around JW in terms of qualifications. And I always thought JW took himself a little too seriously, and was insecure (which Cummings pounced on in cross ... I think Cummings is excellent on cross in terms of reading someone psychologically and how to question them and push buttons). I like that this guy makes light of his accomplishments "My published things are quite dry and boring"....
 
discussing cellphone forensics now, which is what he has been doing as a witness expert/independent contractor since 2005.

Teaches police departments how to use cellphone evidence to solve crimes, cites "policemen acting as amateur forensics people" as an issue - teaches them to use it correctly.
 
I know everybody sort of busted on the prosecution over the whole Facebook debacle. It amuses me, however, that none other than the witness himself has actually made them look a bit better over it, given the stuff that turned up here.
 
RaleighNative said:
It's nice to see the defense bring a real expert. This guy seems to run circles around JW in terms of qualifications. And I always thought JW took himself a little too seriously, and was insecure (which Cummings pounced on in cross ... I think Cummings is excellent on cross in terms of reading someone psychologically and how to question them and push buttons). I like that this guy makes light of his accomplishments "My published things are quite dry and boring"....
Click to expand...

Do you mean BOZ? Cummings is the slow talking older gentleman.
 
Once he is qualified as an expert, I'm assuming this guy is going to testify that the cell phone tower ping near the Fielding Drive site was irrelevant?
 
BL, this expert of cell phones is bring back fond memories:truce:..You remember when analogue phone, then digital phone, and those pesky "Roaming charges"???.. Yikes, I remember having to jump up and down on my deck near a lake just to get a signal?..

Awwwe those were the dayz :banghead:
 
I'm going to have to watch this this evening. I hope they show this on WRAL. The way you guys are laying it out here, this is fairly bizarre!

Judge relying on a web posting in any way??
State laying up new experts while saying defense can't call someone to discuss the MFT??
And what in the world is this mystery router that suddenly is being discussed? Is that the reason for the state's new experts?

I'm on the BDI side, but it seems to me the defense should be allowed to question the MFT presentation with a witness of their own. UNC70 explained how they may have been caught offguard on that with JW's testimony being limited.
 
SleuthinNC said:
Do you mean BOZ? Cummings is the slow talking older gentleman.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it was Cummings...who annoyed me on direct with the slow talk. But it's possible I'm wrong. I'm talking about the ADA who did cross on JW and RZ.
 
gracielee said:
In every trial I've ever watched, the discussion as to whether to allow or disallow an expert witness, is done at the time the witness is being called to the stand.
Click to expand...

Most of the time experts are on a witness list that has to be provided beforehand. The discussion at trial time is to determine whether they'll be able to testify as an expert and thereby give an opinion.

The discussion this time was very different since Mr M wasn't on Kurtz's list.
 
Bottle Cap said:
I know everybody sort of busted on the prosecution over the whole Facebook debacle. It amuses me, however, that none other than the witness himself has actually made them look a bit better over it, given the stuff that turned up here.
Click to expand...

JW's true self and ego forced him to come right to WS, the very night he testifed, to blow his own horn once again. And yet again, it tripped him up IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 90 more.
Total: 1,453 (members: 91, guests: 1,362)

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
1,362
Total visitors
1,453
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,791
Messages
17,958,928
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top