Okay - since I am not getting any comments I'm going to leave details out of a chunk out - where I asked that 3 prosecutors be forced to watch the trial because they had talked to the complainant when they had the file and I knew that the complainant had told them a different version of events (because she had told so many that I knew about). This was denied, as was a request for their notes, as was a request that their notes be sealed and made a part of the record! (Court's response to me after their lawyer said that THEY (HA) would make a Brady assessment at the conclusion of the proceedings. What is that story about the fox watching the chickens?! Court: "Well, obviously, there is a real -- there is a real -- I'm sure the motives are sincere, Ms. Henley; but obviously you start asking for their work product mid trial, that raises all kinds of legal issues." She was not applying "real" to my motives - in fact, I remember some surliness in the part about how my motives were sincere. I can say this - THEY WERE, AND I WAS RIGHT as it turned out. AND, I had been asking for this stuff since before the trial.)
BTW, if you have been reading my blogs, PNDL1 was one of the prosecutors who I wanted to watch the trial and point out the lies that the complainant told from the stand, at least based on the lies that she told to each prosecutor.
[I think that maybe I am the reason that no one interviews complainants now until just before trial. I think they are finally getting that contradictions in statements - ESPECIALLY when the complainant is 18! - is BRADY. Read the case for crying out loud!]
Court's next cute move was to pity the complainant on the stand in front of the jury. Prosecutrix shows the complainant a school photo of when she was younger and for some reason this photo (none of the graphic testimony or other photos) makes her tear up so the prosecutor asks for a tissue. Court: "Yes, ma'am. Can you take a second? Are you okay?" [This was directed at the c/w who I think was practicing for cross because she had been so flat in effect until then, and cross was just a few questions away . . .]
I'm setting up the living situation and the State objects to the mention of a man. (Long story but suffice it to say that she feared her complainant had been naughty with more than her share already.) Prosecutrix: . . ."I think is irrelevant and is not probative and has - you know, it's prejudicial and its' confusing." [Hey - I saved you from the prior 9 lines of jibberish.]
Court: "Well - -" ME: "It's not confusing." Court: I have a hard time really understanding your defense, Ms. Henley. . . ." [That's because (1) she didn't listen and (2) she didn't read and (3) she didn't care and (4) I was hurting the State's case, dang it!]
Return from lunch break and again IN FRONT OF THE JURY before I begin questioning: Court (to the c/w): "Okay. Thank you. Did you get lunch?" LIAR [whoops, I meant c/w]: "No, ma'am. I called some friends to get class work." I FREAKIN SWEAR!!!! I think this had to be set up while I was out rounding up witnesses - don't you?! Court: "All right. Are you all right without lunch?" [WHAT? If she says no, are we going to take another 1.5 hours so she can eat? There's really no need because I'm just about to feed her own words to her so she might want to keep her stomach empty to minimize the hurl. . . HA!]
So, we get into nitty, gritty details. I want that video of the c/w (of which I do not have a copy) in evidence so bad. I finally, with impeachment line by line of what I could get, badger prosecutrix into offer it. YEAH!
Last bit - I complain about the State's notice of extraneous because it says stuff like "licked the anus", etc. Uses the word anus. When I start asking the c/w about it, she says she never said that. Big storm at the bench & prosecutrix admits that c/w said "butt" and she used the word "anus". ME: "I'm going to want to call the prosecutor to impeach her." Court: "Which prosecutor?" ME: "This one, who gave me the notice. I don't know if there is someone else who knew this or not." Court: "She just told you as an officer of the court. Are you saying that she is not a truth teller, and you want to cross-examine her?" [WELL,I'd at least like her under oath because I'd already found lie - okay, I'll be nice - misrepresentation after misrepresentation. . . REMEMBER THIS OFFICER OF THE COURT BIT BECAUSE MY INTEGRITY GETS CALLED OUT SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT QUESTIONS I ASK, THAT THE PROSECUTRIX AND COURT SAY I DIDN'T (matters for impeachment) BUT GUESS WHAT - THE RECORD SHOWED I DID.
I start trying to explain how I wanted to impeach the complainant with what the prosecutor gave me as extraneous. It's similar to all these kinds of case. Court: "Sorry. There has been so much here I'm afraid I didnt' quite follow it. Give it to me one more time, that last part." [Good thing I didn't really give IT to her.] After discussion . . . Court: ". . .I have never had a defense lawyer try to call a prosecutor to the stand, and that's what youre telling me you plan to do." [See how nice she is being. She is calling me innovative.] ME: "Well, Judge, I - -" Court: I'm just asking a simple yes or not, not a speech." [ME give a speech? Heck, she NEVER seems to understand one thing I explain, & I've tried plenty of cases.] Me: "Yes". [A few seconds later she begins referring the prosecutrix by her first name. Poor whiny thing.]
That's it for today, folks. Comments?