The Brown criminal trial

[Demosthenes]

Greetings from New Hampshire.

I see you brought the sun with you.

Sort of. My plan had to circle the airport for more than a hour late last night, trying to sneak in through a break in the storm.

[webhick]

Greetings from New Hampshire.

I see you brought the sun with you.

Sort of. My plan had to circle the airport for more than a hour late last night, trying to sneak in through a break in the storm.

With the amount of rain we've had lately, I'm surprised a plane was able to sneak through at all.

[Demosthenes]

With the amount of rain we've had lately, I'm surprised a plane was able to sneak through at all.

I've been waiting two years for the trial. That plane was going to fricken' land.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sort of. My plan had to circle the airport for more than a hour late last night, trying to sneak in through a break in the storm.

With the amount of rain we've had lately, I'm surprised a plane was able to sneak through at all.

I'm surprised that Demo didn't need to fly in on a seaplane....

[Red Cedar PM]

Greetings from New Hampshire.

I see you brought the sun with you.

All we need - further proof of illuminati weather control.

[wserra]

Something tells me some of the people on the defense witness list will be asked to recount what they heard the defendants say about their fears.

The most important factor determining the admissibility of so-called "state of mind" hearsay (FRE 803(3)) is contemporaneity - the statement must show the declarant's state of mind at the time of the event, not at some time later. IOW, only statements of the Browns' at the time of the happening of the relevant events supposedly causing them to fear have a chance of being admitted. I stick to what I said - for this defense to have a snowball's chance in hell, they have to testify. There is a good discussion in United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2004).

[Gregg]

All we need - further proof of illuminati weather control.

Doesn't matter how much proof they have, as long as we have enough corrupt judges to rig the trials!

[Gregg]

Something tells me some of the people on the defense witness list will be asked to recount what they heard the defendants say about their fears.

The most important factor determining the admissibility of so-called "state of mind" hearsay (FRE 803(3)) is contemporaneity - the statement must show the declarant's state of mind at the time of the event, not at some time later. IOW, only statements of the Browns' at the time of the happening of the relevant events supposedly causing them to fear have a chance of being admitted. I stick to what I said - for this defense to have a snowball's chance in hell, they have to testify. There is a good discussion in United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2004).

I have to wonder if Ed is trying to figure out how to put himself on the stand, in abstentia, since he refuses to go the to the trial (although it looks like he lets his straw man go).

[ErsatzAnatchist]

I have to wonder if Ed is trying to figure out how to put himself on the stand, in abstentia, since he refuses to go the to the trial (although it looks like he lets his straw man go).

Unfortunately for Ed, they have some pretty good evidence against Ed's straw man related to the armed standoff. Take a look of Prosecution Exhibit 22-A:



Another problem with the defense is that the police also used their straw men in the investigation. Here is a picture of straw man of one of the U.S. Marshalls filming the compound after the arrest:

[Judge Roy Bean]

Something tells me some of the people on the defense witness list will be asked to recount what they heard the defendants say about their fears.

The most important factor determining the admissibility of so-called "state of mind" hearsay (FRE 803(3)) is contemporaneity - the statement must show the declarant's state of mind at the time of the event, not at some time later. IOW, only statements of the Browns' at the time of the happening of the relevant events supposedly causing them to fear have a chance of being admitted. I stick to what I said - for this defense to have a snowball's chance in hell, they have to testify. There is a good discussion in United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2004).

The Cianci case involved a tape of Cianci himself discussing his allegedly upstanding way of conducting the city's business with someone he thought was a Federal Agent. Clearly those statements could have been self-serving as well as deliberately misleading in the context under which they were made especially at the time they were made.

My view is that counsel for the Browns will put other people on the stand who were at the Brown's compound during the siege and can recount their contemporaneous conversations with them. I think it's reasonable to believe those will include statements about things the Browns said to them regarding their fear of the ebil gubment and what would happen to them if they surrendered.

Clearly counsel has already raised the issue. For all we know, there may be unpublished email exchanges that support the theory.

What else have they got? Joe Haas?

[Gregg]

How would anything anyone else said not be hearsay?

[Nikki]

There is no need for the members of Brown: family stupid to call witnesses who will repeat the witnesses' versions of what they heard.

E&E can testify as to what they said and what they felt. After that, they can call the relevant witnesses to corroborate THEIR testimony.

However, any testimony is subject to cross examination and to the prosecutor reaming new ones.

[Demosthenes]

http://www.redcrayons.net/

[LPC]

My view is that counsel for the Browns will put other people on the stand who were at the Brown's compound during the siege and can recount their contemporaneous conversations with them. I think it's reasonable to believe those will include statements about things the Browns said to them regarding their fear of the ebil gubment and what would happen to them if they surrendered.

I wonder if those witnesses will have counsel advising them about the definition of "conspiracy" and the possible consequences of those witnesses admitting that they were in the Brown compound talking to the Browns about their plans for the U.S. Marshals and the reasons for those plans.

I don't think that the government should intimidate witnesses, but I also don't think that the government should necessarily exonerate witnesses who happen to testify for the defense.

[LPC]

http://www.redcrayons.net/

Wow! Ed and Elaine showed up?

And Elaine was armed when she was arrested in 2006?

And where can I get a US Constitution Ranger mousepad?

[Judge Roy Bean]

There is no need for the members of Brown: family stupid to call witnesses who will repeat the witnesses' versions of what they heard.

E&E can testify as to what they said and what they felt. After that, they can call the relevant witnesses to corroborate THEIR testimony.

However, any testimony is subject to cross examination and to the prosecutor reaming new ones.

Which is why the Browns won't testify, Nikki. The objective is, IMHO, to infuse the jury with a sense of dread on the part of the Browns. In their minds, anything they did, and especially anything that was done on their behalf, will be couched in terms that it was done as a result of their deeply-held belief that surrender would result in some kind of violent act on the part of the ebil gubment in retribution for the embarrassment caused by the Browns being able to get out of their clutches.

As goofy as that sounds, remember all they have to do is get a juror to somehow empathize with that mental state.

I give them a one in thirteen chance.

[Nikki]

Are any of the Brown: Family UCC's exhibits or witnesses likely to actually to appear before the jury?

If not, all the jury will get to see (and hear) is cranky Ed blathering.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Are any of the Brown: Family UCC's exhibits or witnesses likely to actually to appear before the jury?

If not, all the jury will get to see (and hear) is cranky Ed blathering.

Not sure - Demo would know more about what is or isn't in, but I can't imagine the Judge has allowed any of UCC gibberish into evidence.

Barring a witness is problematic.

[LPC]

How would anything anyone else said not be hearsay?

There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, one of which is "state of mind."

If the "justification defense" that Elaine (or at least Elaine's counsel) seems to be aiming for is based on Elaine's subjective understanding of threats, then testimony as to Elaine's out-of-court statements that are relevant to Elaine's state of mind would be admissible.

But!

If the justification defense requires evidence of an *objective* (and not merely subjective) threat, then evidence of Elaine's state of mind is NOT necessarily relevant, and can be excluded unless there is objective evidence of a threat for which Elaine was expressing her fear.

In other words, if Elaine can justify her actions based on her own fears, no matter how irrational or paranoid, then the hearsay evidence is admissible. But if Elaine must prove a rational and factual basis for her fears, then the admissibility of her out-of-court statements of her fears is suspect.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[jg]

http://www.redcrayons.net/

After reading about the Browns, when I continued down and read the next article (which was quite enjoyable) it was not apparent what sentence, if any, Michael Irving ever received.
Please help the readers with another entry that describes the sentence given in that case, thanks.