court reporter

each day of this trial, someone from the "friends of janine" group has been taking detailed notes and publishing them to the list. for those who knew janine, newspaper accounts clearly don't go into enough detail (and sometimes get the facts wrong). having a blow-by-blow summary of what was said in court is helpful not only to supplement published news articles, but also for janine's friends who live outside the area and can't be here in person.

today it was my turn to take notes. if you're interested in my account read on, but be warned that it's long...

Garrell, or "g" is the assistant district attorney, mitchell garrell. the prosecutor
RP is robert petrick, the defendant. representing himself.
jh is "judge hudson"

****

9:35 - without jury

Garrell - re: petrick’s car. we're planning on bringing car this morning, as rp requested. it'll be coming via wrecker, because it has flat tires.
RP - yes, go ahead

Garrell - warren sparrow is a criminal defense attorney in greensboro; they spoke on 11/14; sparrow says a former client of his --a nurse-- was a friend of RP’s 4 years ago. this nurse worked at a mental hospital. patients died when they were restrained. RP had visited patients with ms. dunmore on several occasions. (speculation that RP was perhaps involved in those retraints??) hennessy’s testimony about janine being choked sparked an interest in this nurse, because the testimony was so similar to the nurse’s past experiences wirh RP.
garrell is suggesting that the state be allowed to rest today, but re-open tomorrow for the presentation of this additional witness.
RP- argues against allowing this witness to testify. nurses used bedsheets to restrain patients.
JH- he sounds confused by this new info. (so are we.) he doens’t seem interested in re-opening the prosecution case after they’d rested. it’s discretionary, but not sure about how appelate courts treat it.

9:55am- JURY IN

dr. karen bremer, dentist for 20+ years, treated janine since feb 2002
Garrell: introduing dental records into evidence
bremer gave janine’s dental records to the Durham PD in may 2003

9:57
dr. thomas clark
immediate sidebar
the jury leaves

RP-objects to autopsy photos on the grounds of relevance
G-voire dire
clark-has worked for medical examiner’s office since 1987. has autopsy photos.
G says there are only two which he plans on discussing:
135-face & chest of janine
136-cropped version of the same
clark- i took 19 photos total, but don’t need to refer to any of them unless asked.
G- stipulates limiting photos to just #136; no need to introduce other photos
photo necessary to identify victim. it’s routine for the ME to refer to photos to explain the state of the body. jury has the right to see what the ME is talking about.
RP- ME indicated he doesn’t need to refer to photos. may i question the witnes?
JH-yeah
RP- how did you idenify janine?
clark- dental records
RP= was she so decompsed that that she was unidentifiable?
clark- not unidentifiable, but it required dental records for confirmation
rp- photos don’t indicate how she died? nor do they indicate who committed the crime?
clark- other photos include chains, tarp, etc, which could possibly indicate who committed the crime, but image 136 doesn’t include those items.
rp to jh- not probative. inflammatory. probative probative probative. blah blah blah.
g- RP through his questioning indicated potential use for ALL photos in his cross-examination. perhaps we should introduce ALL of them, now that he’s opened that door.
garell launches into a long speech on how certain he is that this crime was premeditated. i wanted to cheer.
jh- as you are aware, the defendant has denied guilt.
court finds photo #136 is relevant, it is gruesome but won’t be used to inflame the passions of the jury.

10:15 - jury re-enters

clark give his credientials, which are impressive and he addresses the jury directly. he’s performed 3500 autopsies in his career.

exhibit 137 is the ME’s report. clark details procedure for bodies arriving at ME’s office.
janine was “presumptively identified” upon arrival, but confirmed only through dental records.
describes external examination.
janine arrived wrapped in body bag & sheet, which had been added by police
upon removal, there were more layers:
green tarp, duct tape
chain around legs
sleeping bag
another tarp (silver) with more duct tape

janine was dressed in a knit shirt, jeans, tennis shoes & hiking socks.
when those were removed, clark was able to fully determine decomposition.
dark discoloration on back & chest & thighs -- color seeped from dark sleeping bag?
skin missing in areas of eyes & nose, POSSIBLY indicating pre-mortem injury.

g moves for photo #136 published to jury.
RP objects
JH immediately overrules

as the autopsy photo is being passed from juror to juror. no one wants to look at it very long. the women in the front row of the jury look disgusted as they quicky pass the photo along. it’s like a hot potato. some jurors are very affected by the image.

describes internal examination and toxicology report.

G- your opinion on the cause of death?
clark- she was not shot, not stabbed, not a severe beating, but decomposition hindered my abillity to declare it anything but a homocide. it’s likely she was asphyxiated. couldn’t be sure she was strangled, because of degree of composition.

cross-examination:
RP- how many murder cases have you testifed at?
clark- lots
RP- always a witness for the state?
clark- no
rp- a clause on the report says “no anotomic indications to indicate asphyxiation”
clark- it was a determination through elimiation
RP- so it’s possible she died of something else, like a drug overdose?
clark- “victims of drug overdose don’t wrap themselves in tarps and throw themselves into a lake.”
RP- no marks on her neck to indicate strangulation?
clark- no marks i could interpret due to the level of decomposition
rp- asks about some specific bone that can break during strangulation
clark - that bone was intact, but it’s not the best indicator for strangulation. there’s also the possibility of a pillow over the nose & mouth.
rp- so the cause of death is a guess?
clark - firmly: “it’s not a guess. it’s much more than a guess.” he’s certain it’s a homicide, confirmed by years of experience and training.
rp- have you dealt with people shocked by tasers or stun guns?
clark- no, death is rare by that manner
rp- would marks remain on a body that was shoecked with a taser for 15 minutes?
(clark is very firm, clear-spoken and stern throughout.)
clark- marks would remain, but this body was too decomposed to be able to tell.

10:40 - sidebar, which results in jury being evicted, once again.

RP- more questions on the stun gun, and what kind of marks would remain after 15 minutes of being stunned
garrell objects
jh looks really confused. rp keeps talking. i guess he thinks that because there’s a doctor on the stand he can somehow get somewhere with the stun gun stuff.
clark- i’m unable to describe marks resulting from stun gun exposure. there are too many variables. there aren’t any deaths reported from stun guns, so i can’t possibly comment on this.
rp- how about minimal effect of stun gun exposure?
clark - likely painful, and preclude movement

10:45 jury re-enters.

RP, still cross-examining- what would happen if someone were exposed to 6000 volts for 15 minutes by a stun gun?
clark- pain, but it’s highly unlikely that death would occur

re-direct:
garrell- given the way the body was wrapped & disposed, describe the movement of the body
clark- gas prouction causes body to float when water warms up.
the rate of decomosition depends almost entirely on temperature.
at room temperature a body can begin discoloration in 24 hours

re-cross:
rp- at room temperature how long before a body starts exuding trace evidence.
clark- fluids, skin slippage, etc can occur after 24 hours at room temperature.
(peg whispers to me that this is RP going back to the cadaver dog evidence)
garrell- recounts the layers... tarps, chain, sleeping bag, tarp:
if a body were wrapped in this many layers and secure with tape, and stored at a temperature in the 50-58 degree range, and if a person approaching this body as it floated on the water said they noted no smell, would you be able to give an opinion as to whether that body being stored for 10 days would have left --as RP described it-- “trace elements” on the scene where it was wrapped?
clark- after a few days the body was probably moist and probably would have left evidence. however, if it were immediately wrapped in the way i found it, there’s not much chance anything would have leaked out. the body was well-wrapped.
garrell- the scent of death that might be detected by a dog, is that dependent on the presence of OBSERVABLE human remains?
clark - i’m not qualified to answer. no experience with cadaver dogs.
rp - no further questions

on a personal note, that witness KICKED ASS.

10:55 - jh asks jury to be removed
asks garrell’s status

g wants to call at least one more witness: his assistant. she would testify to what she heard when they were setting up the screen for the slides yesterday. she can testify that as RP was scooting his chair around to see the screen she heard him say “did they bring the popcorn?”

unbelievable.

jh isn’t sure he wants to allow that testimony.

additionally, RP’s car will be available for viewing at 2:30

11:00 - jury is called back in and told they can have a break until 11:20

in the meantime we hear voir dire from lesley __?__, garrell’s assistant.

testifies that she heard defendant make a comment about “having popcorn” during the set-up of the slide presentation.
RP- there were reporters, etc in the jury box. is it possible that was a wry, sarcastic comment on my part about that?
i didn’t register lesley’s response.

RP argues to JH to not allow the testimony
garell - this is a first degree murder trial. everyone involved should be aware as to what they’re saying. the jury, if they’re allowed to hear it, will be able to make up their own minds as to what the comment means. it does help boost premeditation, though, which is what i’m going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
RP- it doesn’t prove premeditation.
garrell - i’ll give him a law book that will help explain that it is premediation
rp- this testimony doesn’t prove anything. this testimony is designed to force me to take the stand in order to discount the testimony.
garell- actions by the defendant after the act can be taken into consideration.
JH- the court believes that RP made the statement. however, JH believes it’s prejudicial and won’t allow it in.

BREAK UNTIL 11:30

11:48 - outside jury’s presence
rp- the computer expert that was finally provided me is still going through the evidence. it will be several days until this evidence is presentable. the expert is looking for photos of a specific garment (red jacket, i presume), as well as other exculpatory evidence, including a history of searches that will reduce the imapact of some of the evidence presented by the state.
g- rp already had the opportunity, back in september and october, to ask for a continuance. he wanted no further delay back then, but now he’s trying to create a delay, specifically to have the jury go away for a weeklong vacation then close up his case.
also, he intially didn’t even want a computer expert. we had to convince him to get one, and provided him a list. g questions what the expert is really looking for, and how relevant this search really is. if petrick is trying to prove that he searched for “lakes” 100,000 times, g might be willing to stipulate to that, because what does that really tell the jury? he again asserts that this is just a tactic for RP to delay the trial through thanksgiving break.
rp- we’re not satisfied with the discs we were given. it’s not what i was promised.
g- he’s called me a liar one too many times in court
rp- this was last-minute discovery, and we’re trying to counter it. we should be given time to conduct reasonable research. we’re not asking for delay; we’re simply declaring that there may be difficulty in presenting this evidence as early as friday.
g, angry- if the defendant had a law license, he wouldn’t be able to call into quesiton the intergity of an officer of the court. he’s impugned the honesty of officers of the court too many times. i’m asking for relief from the court.
rp- i’m only making reference to items on the record.
jh- he’s challenging your cavalier attitude.
rp- he said he didn’t intend to call into evidence certain items, and then he turned around and did it. he did it several times.

note: i’m not sure what’s going on at this point. it seems more a personal argument than a legal argument.

jh- basically tells rp to behave and to disagree in a civil manner, showing decorum. don’t use harsh language to describe g’s action. i don’t want to sanction either one of you. you both need to be more graceful in the way some of these issues are handled. i’m putting you on notice, petrick, on some of these computer issues. the court is not inclined to continue this case to give the defendant’s experts the opportunity to look for what is --at best-- the *possiblity* of exculpatory evidence. there’s no bad faith on the part of the state. defendant hasn’t even convinced the court that there even IS exculpatory evidence on the computers.

rp- again, we’re not asking for a continuance. there just might just be a slight delay.

12:05 - discussion on whether to recess for the day, and what the timeline of this trial is going to be. ending this week? off all next week? jh is not inclined to change his mind about having the entire thanksgiving week off.

g- wants to reconvene at 9:30 tomorrow, and then will likely rest by 10:30. the car will also be brought to the courthouse tomorrow.

12:12 - jury enters

jh- part of my job is trying to juggle schedules. we’re recessing for the day. court reconvenes at 9:30 thursday.

12:15 - court ajourned

Posted by xta at November 16, 2005 1:42 PM | TrackBack