Brown trial, Part 2

[Judge Roy Bean]

Jury instructions I've heard and seen basically hand the jury the responsibility for determining the credibility of a witness and it includes consideration of demeanor. Given the apparent behavior, Ed has done far more damage than good - except, of course in the only court he cares a whit about - the court of nutball opinion.

Demo - how are the jurors reacting?

[Red Cedar PM]

From Ed's testimony from his lawyer's questioning:

He admitted building the pipebombs, the Goex grenades with nails, and the zip guns, but denied using the zip guns as booby trap devices. He thought the Tannerite baggies in the trees were “kind of benign”, the “safest way to do it without anyone getting hurt.”

I am no attorney, but I have to think the prosecutor would have raked him over the coals on this and his other booby traps on cross examination. What other purpose could his booby traps have had other than to maim and kill law enforcement personnel? How the hell could something packed with high explosive and shrapnel be "benign?" I didn't see anything in the blog about this on cross, but I hope he would have gotten slammed for it.

[cynicalflyer]

Defense rests in NH tax evaders' weapons trial

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD99ACJV00

Both Sides Rest In Browns Trial
Jury Could Have Case By Afternoon
http://www.wmur.com/news/19991485/detail.html

[Thule]

I just checked the websites created or frequented by Brown supporters to see what kind of reporting or commentary they were posting, and the results were pretty much what I expected: Nothing.

Also, the comment-section on Red Crayons is more or less devoid of Brown-supporters. All kinds of nuts swarmed that blace back during the trial of the Frivilous Four.

[LPC]

From Ed's testimony from his lawyer's questioning:

He admitted building the pipebombs, the Goex grenades with nails, and the zip guns, but denied using the zip guns as booby trap devices. He thought the Tannerite baggies in the trees were “kind of benign”, the “safest way to do it without anyone getting hurt.”

I am no attorney, but I have to think the prosecutor would have raked him over the coals on this and his other booby traps on cross examination. What other purpose could his booby traps have had other than to maim and kill law enforcement personnel? How the hell could something packed with high explosive and shrapnel be "benign?"

Contrary to what you see on television, the usual purpose of cross-examination is to get some kind of information from the witness. Arguing with the witness over the witness's characterization of events, or trying to get some sort of obviously damaging admission, or just trying to make the witness look bad, is usually a waste of time and can be counter-productive if it bores or alienates the jury.

So, if I were the prosecutor, I might want to clarify Ed's testimony to eliminate any ambiguity or uncertainty about what he was saying. I might ask him if he really meant to say that an explosive device packed with sharpnel was "benign," and if he said "yes," I would then move on to something else. I would argue the absurdity of the statement to the jury, and not to Ed.

More generally, I suspect that the goal of the prosecutor on cross-examination (and you always want to have a specific goal or set of goals) will be to undermine Ed's claim of benign intent by bringing out his violent past (specifically his conviction for assault while in the Navy, which according to Demo as omitted from his own biographical presentation), his violent statements before and during the stand-off, his understanding of the destructive power of the weapons he owned or built, and his failure to end the stand-off peacefully.

(Footnote: Prior "bad acts," such as the Navy assault, are usually not admissible to show a propensity towards violence, but I think that Ed has "opened the door" by testifying as to his history, his nature, his intentions, and his relationship with the government in general and the Navy in particular. I could wrong, but I think it will get into evidence if the government wants it in.)

[LPC]

Defense rests in NH tax evaders' weapons trial

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD99ACJV00

It appears that Elaine did not testify, which is interesting.

[cynicalflyer]

It appears that Elaine did not testify, which is interesting.

I am partially wondering if Elaine's just holding out for a favorable sentencing recommendation and that Ed's testimony was enough to get out from underneath the mandatory-30-years charge(s).

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Defense rested (both of them). Elaine did not testify. Closing arguments are happening now, then the jury will be charged. Doubtful if the jury will start deliberations today.

Ed did finish testifying, but I was not there for that.

[Dezcad]

Both Sides Rest In Browns Trial
Jury Could Have Case By Afternoon
http://www.wmur.com/news/19991485/detail.html

So now we know what was in the elevator shaft. Interesting.

[Quixote]

From the WMUR story:

A juror was dismissed on Tuesday without explanation. The remaining 13 were ordered not to speculate why he was dismissed.

We, however, can speculate to our heart's content. Did a jury nullifier get to him? Did Ed's testimony make him nauseous?

[Dezcad]

From the WMUR story:

A juror was dismissed on Tuesday without explanation. The remaining 13 were ordered not to speculate why he was dismissed.

We, however, can speculate to our heart's content. Did a jury nullifier get to him? Did Ed's testimony make him nauseous?

Maybe he purposely got dismissed to surreptitiously go check out the elevator shaft and see if anything was still there.

[wserra]

But won't the judge allow the prosecution to argue to the jury that Ed's argumentativeness (I checked, and there is such a word) and unwillingness to answer questions undermines his credibility?

Demeanor on the stand is fair game for any witness in any trial.

[mutter]

Does the gov. contend he set these devises before or after the "seige" began?

[Pottapaug1938]

Does the gov. contend he set these devises before or after the "seige" began?

Does it matter? The issue is whether or not the :Browns had a right to set them AT ALL.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

From the WMUR story:

A juror was dismissed on Tuesday without explanation. The remaining 13 were ordered not to speculate why he was dismissed.

We, however, can speculate to our heart's content. Did a jury nullifier get to him? Did Ed's testimony make him nauseous?

Instead of listening to the testimony, he was staring at Scoop, drooling.

You will have to ask Scoop if he contacted her yet to ask her out.

[wserra]

Scoop on summations, followed by the usual Haasshit.

[mutter]

Does the gov. contend he set these devises before or after the "seige" began?

Does it matter? The issue is whether or not the :Browns had a right to set them AT ALL.

As you suggesting we do not have teh right to defend our property by any means we feel like?
Being civilized we do need boundries of course, we cant have people setting land mines.

the question was cos the gov contended they did it to kill or injure the Feds. So if these devices where done before the seige that theory goes out the window.

[cynicalflyer]

Browns convicted on all counts

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD99B3PGO4

They refused to stand when the jury and judge left the courtroom.

[cynicalflyer]

Also, the jury appears to have taken a hard look at Elaine's role in this.

http://www.fox44.net/Global/story.asp?S=10670772

NH jury asks about some Brown testimony

Associated Press - July 9, 2009 2:25 PM ET

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - The jury deliberating the weapons case against convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown has asked questions about testimony involving Mrs. Brown.

...

Mrs. Brown's lawyer maintained she played no active role in plans to harm agents. The jury on Thursday asked to hear the transcript of testimony concerning her comments on a radio program.

[Pottapaug1938]

As you suggesting we do not have teh right to defend our property by any means we feel like?
Being civilized we do need boundries of course, we cant have people setting land mines.

the question was cos the gov contended they did it to kill or injure the Feds. So if these devices where done before the seige that theory goes out the window.

First, I'm not suggesting, I am coming right out and saying that we do NOT have the right to defend our property "by any means we feel like". For example, I do NOT have the right to set up machine gun nests at each corner of my property, and an anti-tank gun pointing out the front door.

Second, what the :Browns did was unlawful whether or not it was before the siege. Besides, if you really think that the :Browns didn't do what they did with the Feds in mind, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.