Pretrial motions

[Just the Fax]

No doubt, :loser: Howard Kurtz plans to use the desperate tactic of dragging the victim through a deep mud bath.

 

[Just the Fax]

IMO, this desperate tactic by his lawyer at the 11th hour before trial is nothing more than a ploy to put out a laundry list of 'reasonable doubt' for the jury pool. Remember, Kurtz desperation wanted a change of venue because of what he considered all the "unfair" media attention against Brad. This was his desperate attempt before trial to even the score with the potential jurors by having the media publish items that 'appear' as possible reasonable doubt. Easy to do in a pretrial motion, as they can basically dream up any hogwash and splatter it to potential jurors via the media, without backing up anything at the actual trial.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Hi SG!
Where does it say there were undercover agents involved? Judge G read from the law saying that agents, certain family members etc were not to be photographed by the media during procedings. But I don't think that any undercovers were involved. ???

Hi Star! So nice to 'see' you here.

In the hearing that was held a couple weeks ago there was discussion in the courtroom of protecting the identity of some agents and also in the media reports there was something mentioned about FBI agents and needing to have their identity shielded. That's where our speculation has come from. My thinking is that it's not so much for the work they did on this case as it is perhaps maintaining their anonymity for other case work they may be assigned.

 

[Skittles]

From the Raleigh News and Observer:

"Media organizations including The News & Observer are planning to fight efforts to bar them from identifying four law enforcement officers when they testify in the murder trial of Brad Cooper."

<snip>

"Citing the First Amendment, Hugh Stevens, an attorney for the media companies, wrote [Judge Paul] Gessner on Thursday that barring the identification of trial witnesses whose names and affiliations are matters of public record would be unconstitutional prior restraint."


More at: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02...p-trial.html#storylink=misearch#ixzz1FDHsD6Bl

 

[Just the Fax]

From the Raleigh News and Observer:

"Media organizations including The News & Observer are planning to fight efforts to bar them from identifying four law enforcement officers when they testify in the murder trial of Brad Cooper."

<snip>

"Citing the First Amendment, Hugh Stevens, an attorney for the media companies, wrote [Judge Paul] Gessner on Thursday that barring the identification of trial witnesses whose names and affiliations are matters of public record would be unconstitutional prior restraint."


More at: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02...p-trial.html#storylink=misearch#ixzz1FDHsD6Bl

Very odd.
Why does the public need to know the identity of undercover agents that are working other sensitive cases?
Just because their names were already published in court documents, I see no point in showing their faces in the media.

 

[Jess]

http://www.630ched.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1371337

Jury selection set to begin for man in the middle of high-profile murder case
8:20pm
Jolene Chernoff
2/27/2011

Jury selection will get underway Monday for Brad Cooper.

He is accused of murdering his wife and former Edmontonian, Nancy in 2008 in Cary, North Carolina. She was found dead in the summer time near the couple's home.

The trial is expected to begin in early March, however it has previous been delayed. Last September, WRALTV in Raleigh reported that the judge believed more info needed to be exchanged between Brad's defence team and prosecutors. (jc)



In some of the reporting up here, there have been many mistakes, so I am not sure if this is true or not.

 

[Jess]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/9184089/


N.C. — Jury selection is set to begin Monday in the trial of Bradley Graham Cooper, the Cary man accused of killing his wife, Nancy Cooper, nearly three years ago and dumping her body in an undeveloped subdivision not far from their home.

It is expected to take about a week before opening statements begin in what is expected to be a lengthy trial. The state is not seeking the death penalty. (Watch live coverage of the trial, once jury selection is complete, on WRAL.com.)

Well, what do you know, the news up here got something correct !!!

 

[RKAB]

Hehe,

I used to be a roommate of Brad, hence my interest in the case. Would he befriend someone reaching out to him in a "co-inmate" situation such that he'd make incriminating statements?

I don't think so unless he was really vulnerable. But I also don't think the FBI would put one of their own in jail for so long as to gain his trust. I would think he's smarter than to trust a random inmate being put near him such that he'd open up. We'll see. Brad is bright, but lacks emotional intelligence, from my own point of view.

And this is why I'm so curious. Brad would not let his guard down easily.

I think you're right, I don't think that Brad would have let his guard down easily to anyone, particularly a cellmate. I don't think that the undercover agents were in the jail but instead were more involved in the time from Nancy's murder until Brad's arrest. It is highly likely that his lawyers have advised him to keep his mouth shut and keep to himself while in jail as well.

He looks tired and worn out in his current presentation. He doesn't normally have a hunch like that, a bit of rolled shoulders at times but not as overly hunched as he appears. Runners of his (previous) caliber typically have good posture and form. He is potentially weary or possibly his lawyers have tried to coach him to make him look more humble and not so much like his regular pompous, overconfident self. It's important to look more likeable to the jury.

I am happy to see this finally go to trial and interested in the information which has not been made public yet.

I have heard that Nancy's parents are planning to travel down for the trial and I will be interested to see if Brad's parents go down as well.

 

[otto]

This request comes at an unusually late stage. If this was so important to the case they could (read "should") have entered this appeal a long time ago. Only a small portion of the appeal relates to recent requests.

There is a collateral benefit to the defence if the case is adjourned. For example, witnesses move and lose contact, forget facts as memory fades, even die. We already know the medical examiner has retired.

I also think some of this information should have been disclosed. IF the daughter corroborated her dad's story that Nancy was alive and dressed to go running that morning, thats pretty significant. I capitalize IF for a reason.

If the blackberry was erased, that's sloppy investigation. But the emails would be available through the computers of the known recipients of the emails, and the communications would be logged through several servers.

Nancy slept with her sister's future husband while he was dating her sister? Ewww... not proven, but wow. It is pretty awful to cast aspersions on the deceased, and there is no way the defence is suggesting he was a potential murderer. This is just a deplorable attack on Nancy. It could be true, but certainly is not relevant.

The DNA issue... wow, that's incendiary. His attorneys must have had his permission to make these arguments. This allegation comes out of nowhere and smells of desperation. Saying someone else would kill her to avoid having to pay child support? Brad was the only one targeted for support. There were no suggestions until this filing that someone else could be Katie's father. Thus, who had the real motive at the time? Brad. He was going to be financially devastated from the separation (and I do think the financial proposal from Nancy's lawyer, whose emails to Nancy were being intercepted by Brad, was brutal and unfair to Brad) and as such he had the motive to kill because he has always been about his own financial and social status.

I expect the trial to be delayed. I also think this filing shows that the defence has little confidence they will succeed once the trial happens.

You introduce points about Nancy's child not being her father's daughter, whether she slept with her sister's husband. The daughter said the mother was there in the morning and her blackberry was erased? What about the pictures of Brad with the new girlfriend on the climbing trip ... or do they not count - infedelity does not mean murder until your wife disappears jogging.

Brad didn't killl her for child support because he wasn't the father of one of the children?

So ... do you think that Brad is innocent?
He may well be innocent, but if it can only be proven by trashing the reputation of his wife, then it doesn't work.

 

[otto]

Couldn't the defense have filed the Writ/Cert sooner, or did they have no choice but to do it when they did?

I surely hope that all files have been delivered to them, or at least were thought to have completely been delivered. I guess they are just trying to lay groundwork for appeal. ???

And this "daddy/DNA" thing -- come on now. :maddening:That one, I'm just not buyin.'

Personally, I think it was a mistake for the judge to rule that even though the prosecution was legally obligated to turn over all transmission regarding the case, that the defense had failed to ask for it so they lost their right to the information. Given the legal difficulties with NC law enforcement agencies to follow the rules ... this doesn't help.

 

[otto]

IMO, this desperate tactic by his lawyer at the 11th hour before trial is nothing more than a ploy to put out a laundry list of 'reasonable doubt' for the jury pool. Remember, Kurtz desperation wanted a change of venue because of what he considered all the "unfair" media attention against Brad. This was his desperate attempt before trial to even the score with the potential jurors by having the media publish items that 'appear' as possible reasonable doubt. Easy to do in a pretrial motion, as they can basically dream up any hogwash and splatter it to potential jurors via the media, without backing up anything at the actual trial.

It's looking like a change of venue tactic ... not being able to find one suitable juror - prosecution and defense - because everyone has heard about some legal expertise or another ... glanced at a newspaper. What are they thinking ... summer in California?

Maybe the trial should be moved to Canada to avoid the problem of exposure. Different Canadian laws prevent the types of problems currently faced by the jury selection process in NC and the US, in general.

 

[otto]

From the Raleigh News and Observer:

"Media organizations including The News & Observer are planning to fight efforts to bar them from identifying four law enforcement officers when they testify in the murder trial of Brad Cooper."

<snip>

"Citing the First Amendment, Hugh Stevens, an attorney for the media companies, wrote [Judge Paul] Gessner on Thursday that barring the identification of trial witnesses whose names and affiliations are matters of public record would be unconstitutional prior restraint."


More at: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02...p-trial.html#storylink=misearch#ixzz1FDHsD6Bl

The freedom of speech law is a funny law. On the one hand it's okay to protest the funeral of a stranger; totally disrespecting the autonomy of others, but at the same time it protects people that want to speak out but hide their identities. It's almost schitzophrenic ... say what I want, but never have to take responsibility for what I say.

Trial witnesses that don't want to be identified ... why not? Are they undercover officers? If so, shouldn't that be taken into consideration by the media ... those that want to publish their names?

 

[otto]

Very odd.
Why does the public need to know the identity of undercover agents that are working other sensitive cases?
Just because their names were already published in court documents, I see no point in showing their faces in the media.

The media does not need this information. Their reports can easily state that undercover officer 1 did A, B and C.

 

[otto]

I think you're right, I don't think that Brad would have let his guard down easily to anyone, particularly a cellmate. I don't think that the undercover agents were in the jail but instead were more involved in the time from Nancy's murder until Brad's arrest. It is highly likely that his lawyers have advised him to keep his mouth shut and keep to himself while in jail as well.

He looks tired and worn out in his current presentation. He doesn't normally have a hunch like that, a bit of rolled shoulders at times but not as overly hunched as he appears. Runners of his (previous) caliber typically have good posture and form. He is potentially weary or possibly his lawyers have tried to coach him to make him look more humble and not so much like his regular pompous, overconfident self. It's important to look more likeable to the jury.

I am happy to see this finally go to trial and interested in the information which has not been made public yet.

I have heard that Nancy's parents are planning to travel down for the trial and I will be interested to see if Brad's parents go down as well.

Are you speculating that undercover officers were placed in jail cells near Brad Cooper and are going to testify that he confessed, or do you know this to be true?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Hi RKAB! So glad you're still around.

Regarding motions, something to keep in mind: just because the defense asks for something in a motion, it doesn't mean it a. exists or b. is the truth.

Attorneys play lots of games with each other and filing motions is one way to put information (and rumor) out into the public. Since motions are filed and are part of the public record, media picks up the details inside motions and will report on the most interesting tidbits.

And....sometimes those salacious tidbits are not true, but the lawyers want the public to believe it so they can affect the potential jury pool. Sound contrived? It does, but this kind of thing does happen, more than we'd suspect.

Because the information inside of a motion isn't fact and isn't testimony, they can say and ask for whatever they want, no matter how ridiculous it is. And the judge will deny it, but that too is not a big deal. They use the system to get info & rumor out to the public.

So the bottom line: don't believe everything you read in a motion. Wait for trial testimony to see what is and isn't true.

 

[ohiogirl]

Personally, I think it was a mistake for the judge to rule that even though the prosecution was legally obligated to turn over all transmission regarding the case, that the defense had failed to ask for it so they lost their right to the information. Given the legal difficulties with NC law enforcement agencies to follow the rules ... this doesn't help.

IIRC, the defense asked for this stuff earlier and were denied. They were trying to get it anyway, in a different manner. I will have to find it.

 

[ohiogirl]

Can't find it, Otto, but it sure is a lot easier in Ohio to look up case records. See you next week.

 

[RKAB]

Are you speculating that undercover officers were placed in jail cells near Brad Cooper and are going to testify that he confessed, or do you know this to be true?

No, I'm speculating that they were NOT in jail cells but were involved in more undercover work between the time of Nancy's body being found and the actual arrest of Brad. This, again, is only my personal thought.

Hi to everyone, nice to see familiar names after all this time :seeya:

 

[Just the Fax]

No, I'm speculating that they were NOT in jail cells but were involved in more undercover work between the time of Nancy's body being found and the actual arrest of Brad. This, again, is only my personal thought.

Hi to everyone, nice to see familiar names after all this time :seeya:

I thought it was very clear when you said:
"I don't think that the undercover agents were in the jail but instead were more involved in the time from Nancy's murder until Brad's arrest."

 

[booradley]

Just saw on WRAL that trial is set to go tomorrow morning, anybody else hear this. Looking forward to discussing it with all of you.