court reporter, part two

i took notes again today.

i also took some photos of the examination of the defendant's car.

again, "rp" = robert petrick, the defendant, acting as his own lawyer
"jh" = judge orlando hudson
"g" = mitchell garrell, assistant district attorney

9:35, outside jury’s presence
edwards, with a laptop, conferring with rp for a long time
garrell talking with reporters. i hear some mention of “the car”, garrell rolls his eyes and says, “we’re going to discuss that.”

g- three things:
* wants to recall dilday outside the presence of the jury
* will produce wunderground.com data about 2003 precipitation
* wants to call final witness

9:40 dilday called to the stand - SBI crime laboratory, digital evidence
state’s exhibit 138 is a report dilday prepared which documents latest transfer of information from SBI to defendant
g- who requested this transfer?
dilday- judge’s order
g- when did it occur?
dilday- tuesday morning; it was information from the drives
g- did denendant ask for certain information?
dilday- yes; personal information. address book. i gave it to him.

cross:
rp- says he doesn’t have address book. names & email addresses. asked about image drives of all computers.
dilday says it’s possible he missed some of the information on the drives
dilday explains the “forensic image files” he created from the 17 hard drives he received

9:50
rp- edwards spoke with computer expert; with so much data to go through it’s taking some time. rp gave edwards (to give to expert) parameters to limit search to. info they need won’t be ready by tomorrow.
g- i heard it would be *two weeks* until he was ready. i’m looking for some guidepost on the schedule.
rp- i don’t have any desire to delay this trial any more than the prosecutor does. i’m certain i can come up with something that will cut that time down to less than two weeks.
jh- you’re searching for the *possibility* of exculpatory evidence. i won’t postpone the trial two weeks for just a possibility. you need to explain to the court how this photo you’re looking for --of a garment-- is exculpatory. *favorable* evidence is one thing, but exculpatory? they’re not the same thing.
rp- i contend that there’s info on the computer that will show that my search for “falls lake” will put the search in a new light. the state’s case is based on the fact that i planned this; i should be allowed the opporunity to prove that that wasn’t the case.
jh- i worry that you’ll take two weeks to find *favorable* evidence, and will fail to find exculpatory evidence. the experts will hopefully work over thanksgiving break, and when we return we’ll have more information.
g- state’s concern is that we put on our evidence and then the jury will have a weeklong break, then they’ll hear the defense and go right to deliberation. stated for the record.
jh- jurors take their jobs *extremely* seriously. even without a vacation, the juror’s might forget information, but chances are they will remember the evidence. i’m not too concerned about it.

rp- maybe our expert, in conjunction with dilday, can have the computers booted up in front of him. this would speed up the process of data retrieval. (now i understand rp’s questioning of dilday; getting to the fact that searching “disk images” is more difficult than searching an actual computer.)
jh- we don’t intend to do that.
g- suggests there be some sort of collaboration between SBI and rp’s expert. it’s my understanding, though, that dilday provided what rp asked for. if he asks for something else, we can discuss that.

10:05 - still outside the jury’s presence
g calls hugh carroll, dialysis nurse @ baptist hospital in W-S for 4 years; before that he was a psychiatric nurse at charter greensboro hospital.
carroll- met rp in 1997 through allison dunmore. had many social occasions with rp; once a week, maybe.
in march 1998 at charter hospital a patient death occurred.
g- were you aware of other deaths at other psych facilities?
carroll- yes.
g- what’s a basket hold?
carroll- a way of retraining agitated patients.
g- did you discuss basked holds with rp?
carroll- it came up because the patient death occurred because of the menthod of retraint. i demonstrated it for rp.
carroll demonstrates basket hold. patient crosses arms in front of him, nurse reaches from behind, steps to the side and uses leverage to push patient to the floor.
carroll- after the person is on the ground, i’d be on the ground with them, holding both arms. there is some affect on the lungs; the nurse on top even affects lung capacity even more.
g- is the baket hold an approved technique?
carroll- yes, at the time. charter hospital doesn’t use it anymore. one of the suggested causes of death for the patient who died could have been the basket hold.
g- did you demonstrate the basket hold for rp?
carroll- yes; he was aware that it was a potentially fatal hold, too. he saw the autopsy report at my house. additionally we discussed the other patient death which was attributed to the basket hold.

cross:
rp- it may still be an approved hold at some facilities?
carroll- probably.
rp- it’s not *likely* to cause death?
carroll- i was taught it was safe, but there were several deaths.
rp- if you were seeking to kill someone, this is not the hold you’d want
carroll- i’ve never sought to kill anyone. i can’t say.
rp- we were close? you trusted me to watch your children?
carroll- at one time, yes
rp- no knowledge of violent acts on my part?
carroll- no.
rp- these deathes were an overwleming part of your life?
carroll- yes. i chose not to work, due to the emotional situation.
rp- criminal charges against you?
carroll- no. an investigation, but no charges.
rp- because it was such an important and overwhelming part of your life you initiated conversations about this as much as i did?
carroll- yes. but we talked about lots of things.

g- this witness saw testimony from hennessy that seems identical to what he describes re: basket hold. (hennessy described janine saying the “air had been crushed out of her”) in conjunction with “22 ways”, this testimony could help the jury understand that this was a premeditated crime. we’re not alleging this witness knew janine, or that rp knew janine at the time he knew the witness. if “22 ways” was admitted, this should be too.
jh- not sure this can be admitted under 404b
rp- reading rule 404b out loud.
jh corrects rp on his interpretation
rp- carroll has indicated that the hold is *unlikely* to cause death. hearsay. not probative. prejudicial.
g- worried that rp will testify through his closing statement, if he doesn’t take the stand. medical examiner stated cause of death is asphyxiation. this is testimony that proves he obtained knowledge of a hold that could cause asphyxiation 5 years prior to this crime.
jh- testimony is relevant, probative. he’s letting it in.

10:30 - 10 minute break

10:47 - jury enters

g- calls hugh carroll
testimony is the same as the voir dire, including another demonstration of the basket hold.
carroll more clearly states the intent of the basket hold: keeps agitated patient still for a period of time until sedation can be given. there is pressure on the ribcage in the crossing of the arms. if the nurse were on top of the patient, additional pressure would be on the lungs.
carroll demonstrated the basket hold for rp in carroll’s home.
g- what caused you to contact the DA’s office?
carroll- saw a witness describe petrick tackling his wife and holding her in such a mamer that she couldn’t breathe. it sounded like the basket hold technique. what she described sounded exactly like what we discussed in my home
rp asks questions, similar to voir dire, about frequency of visits, breadth of social relationship, variety of discussions.
rp asks questions, similar to voir dire, about the criminal investigation, and how carroll needed to talk and in fact initiated conversations about the basket hold.
rp- are you sure you demonstrated the hold?
carroll- it was demonstrated
rp- this hold is used to restrain someone, but not to kill someone
carroll- i never used it for anything other than restraint
rp- until you heard the previous testimony in this case, you had no reason to believe that you had anything relevant to contribute to this case?
carroll- no

11:02
g introduces exhibit 139 - wunderground.com data from january 2003 on temperature and precipitation.
exhibit 140 - same data from may 2003

11:04 the state rests

jury is escorted out

rp asks for dismissal, citing lack of proof on the state’s part
no fingerprint evidence, no “solid” forensic evidence -- just contested evidence of cadaver dog. no eyewitnesses. no evidence of how “my wife’s body was transported”. all they have provided is circumstantial evidence. all they’ve proved is that i had financial misdoings and that i committed adultery, but not that i committed murder. or that anyone committed murder.
g- i urge you to deny the defendant’s motion
jh- motion denied

DEFENSE CASE BEGINS

11:12 jury re-enters and petrick calls his first witness

christopher currie, research assistant for ??
he’s a neighbor, right next door to RP & janine.
janine moved in prior to rp moving in.

rp- are the walls thin enough to hear noise from one unit to another?
currie- yes. sometimes i heard cello & harp. sometimes the stereo
rp- would you have been able to hear loud shouting.
currie- yes, and i never heard anything like that
rp- how often did you see janine?
currie- often, when i came home from work, she would be working in the garden and things like that
rp- any witness any hostile actions toward janine?
currie- no
rp- are you home fairly often in evenings?
currie- yes
rp- describe the area around our house
currie- trees, concrete walkway, parking lot with assigned spaces
rp- an open area where people could easily see?
currie- yes, plus street lights
rp- if i were stuffing the body of my wife in the car, it would be easily observed?
currie- if it were during the day
rp- but you never observed anything like that?
currie- no
RP tries to introduce evidence -- a sheet of paper-- but garrell objects and jh wants to read the whole thing first. after reading it he asks the jury to leave.

11:15
there are more people in the courtroom right now than i’ve seen all week. they’re too noisy for me to fully hear garrell’s objection to this sheet of paper.

rp- i intended to show this item to the witness to refresh his memory.
jh- you’re aware that this contains statements made by this witness to a herald sun reporter, and that it includes information about your previous convictions?
rp- i withdraw the evidence
jh- (smiling) i thought garrell is more concerned by the “good character” evidence in this document...

11:19 jury re-enters

rp- do you remember what you told a reporter back in 2003?
what was the last time you saw my wife?
currie- i told them i wasn’t sure. we saw each other so often it kind of blurs
rp- asks about a specific interview --perhaps the one contained on the sheet of paper-- but currie can’t recall that specific interview. he says he was interviewed so many times, he can’t recall.
rp asks for a moment with counsel.
rp then, apparently based on coaching from edwards, hands currie that same sheet of paper as a means to refresh his memory.
rp- do you remember this interview now?
currie- not entirely, no

g has no questions

[the testimony that occurred between 11:24 - 11:47 has been removed from this post.]

11:47
defense calls drew king (who apparently already testified on behalf of the state)
hands mr. king defense exhibit 28, a draft copy of his examination of rp’s house
rp- the last paragraph on the first page: you were there when the cadaver dog was present, in the bedroom?
king- yes
rp- two cats ran out from he bed?
king- yes
rp- if subsequent testimony indicated the cats didn’t run out, you would dispute that?
king- yes
rp consults with edwards and asks for a sidebar

11:52 jury leaves, so we can discuss the schedule for the day

rp- the car and his next witness aren’t available until 1pm
jh asks for details about the upcoming car viewing.
rp wants jury to view the car, specifically the trunk area
g doesn’t have any objection
jh no one is allowed to communicate with the jury at the viewing
g has concerns about the defendant being in custody during the viewing.

jury dismissed until 2:30. court personel needs to return at 1:30.

at 1:30 we assembled in the courtroom, then went down to where the car had been brought; a side lot of the courthouse. kate & i, along with the 3 boys, all got in an elevator with judge hudson and garrell. outside, rp joined us, as did officer king. the press was there, too, and began shooting tons of footage of rp near the car. (i counted at least 3 video cameras and an equal number of still cameras.) the court reporter arrived and figured out how she’d sit and record the events. all of this took about 15 minutes, at which time jh said we’d reconvene at that location at 2:30 with the jury.

FOJ’s remained outside until then, chatting.

at 2:30 the court personnel arrived and were followed shortly by the jury. jh gave some brief instructions, after which the jury began to file around the tow truck to the far side of the miata. while each jury member looked at the car, only one or two poked their heads into the trunk. everyone looked into the interior of the car. their examination lasted all of about 5-7 minutes.

kate commented to me on the elevator back up that she hoped the jury wasn’t confused about the difference between the two cars. they have seen evidence of janine’s car previously (the videotape of it being found in the parking garage) hoped that garrell can make it clear that this is not that same car.

2:50 back in the courtroom, outside the jury’s presence

rp moves the car into evidence.

rp then re-calls officer king to the stand.
then he says, “whoops. i guess we need to call the jury in first.”

jury enters

rp- was that same vehicle you found at my residence?
king- yes.
rp- is it in the same condition as you found it?
king- no. it’s more dirty now. plus, we used luminol in the trunk. that’s what the purple stains are.
rp- what contents did you observe in the trunk?
king- a computer cable, spare tire, jack and other undeterminable things.
rp- a bag?
king- whole foods market bag

garrell has no cross-examination

2:55
rp calls officer jenavis minor, 11 years on the department
came to residence to watch to make sure petrick didn’t leave the house.
(i assume this was in may 2003, after the discovery of janine’s body)
rp- did i look distressed that day?
minor- not until we detained you.
rp- i didn’t look suicidal when you first saw me?
minor- no.

cross-examination:
g- how long after you arrived did the media arrive?
minor- 30 minutes

the witness is excused.
petrick doesn’t have any further witnesses for the day.

3pm- judge excuses jury

outside the jury’s presence:

rp says his computer expert confirms that he can be finished by monday the 28th.
jh- so what are we doing tomorrow?
rp confers with edwards
rp- our only testimony tomorrow will take 10 minutes, maybe a half hour. we request adjournment until monday the 28th.
g- if the information he’s looking for is exculpatory, it seems like he could find it sooner than the 28th. can we review the search terms he’s given his expert? what are they looking for?
jh- presumed they wouldn’t close tomorrow; i assumed we’d be back the week of the 28th anyway. rp, who do we need to contact to make sure that testimony can be given on monday the 28th?
rp- i don’t even know the computer expert’s name
edwards- russell gilmore
jh, to edwards- contact him and make sure he can give that testimony on the 28th
edwards says ok
jh- if we’re going to be done early tomorrow, perhaps we can spend some additional time discussing jury instructions and such.

court resumes at 9:30 friday morning.

Posted by xta at November 17, 2005 04:34 PM | TrackBack