it seems funny to be at the beach one day, then in a court room the next.
many of us were speculating that the trial may wrap up today, but it looks like we're in for at least one more day of testimony. i'm guessing that closing statements may happen on wednesday. but who knows. this thing has gone on longer than any of us expected. (i started attending on november 7; jury selection began the week before that.)
anyway, it was a short session today. the jury heard one minute of the action, and the rest of the testimony was voir dire -- heard outside the presence of the jury.
rp- robert petrick, the defendant. he's representing himself on first degree murder charges against his wife, janine sutphen.
edwards- petrick's court-appointed counsel. he sits behind petrick and gives legal advice to petrick when he asks for it. he otherwise doesn't speak while court is in session.
g- mitchell garrell, assistant district attorney
jh- judge orlando hudson
***
9:36
g- state found computer evidence involving jan 8 searches for “body decomposition” and “rigor mortis”.
rp- object to reopening of the case. undue surprise. they had 3 years to find this, and are only bringing it forward now.
jh- g, are you moving to reopen the case?
g- no.
jh- g is simply fulfilling the statutory requirement of notification of new evidence
9:40 -- jury enters
rp- defense rests (!!!!!!!!!!!)
(i guess this means rp didn’t find any “exculpatory” materials on his computer. our mouths are agape.)
9:41 -- jury exits
g asks to reopen case for rebuttal witnesses. wants to put ryan johnson back on the stand to testify as to some of the search terms rp wanted *his* computer expert to search for. (ryan was the one who delivered the materials to rp’s computer expert.) g is speculating that rp didn’t call his computer expert to the stand because rp didn’t want to open his computer exert’s testimony up to questioning on “rigor mortis” and “body decomposition”.
rp- this is just an attempt to get this material in. undue surprise. strongly objects to reopening the case.
g- did rp put in ‘rigor mortis’? no he did not. he did put in “depression”. he’s claiming undue surprise, but with 1.6 million pages we wouldn’t have come upon this material if he defendant hadn’t led us to it himself.
jh- i’m trying to digest the idea that the defendant is surprised by what is on his own computer
g- we’re just trying to show that certain materials showed up on the defendant’s computer screen on jan 8 2003. no one saw the victim after jan 7.
jh- rp is claiming that he only received the info this morning. you said you sent it on wednesday.
g- i gave the defendant pages which indicate what shows up when you google search for “rigor mortis” and “body decomposition”. we can show one of those pages was accessed. he just got *that* material this morning. if it is undue surprise, there is a remedy for that short of exclusion.
jh- since this is discovery, we should go forward with what you want to introduce.
g- remember that we worked hard to convince rp to get a computer expert in the first place. not to mention that they’re his computers to begin with.
9:55 VOIR DIRE WITH RYAN JOHNSON, durham police dept, computer forensics
johnson examined data from petrick’s computer on wednesday
g- did you receieve search terms that the defendant was requesting for his expert?
johnson- yes. we started out with keywords that the defendant submitted to his expert. 3000 hits. i made a copy of the data produced from this search. these are:
state’s exhibit 142 - history of browser activity which had been deleted by the user, but recovered by me. 8 page document. one item on page 4 indicates an address the browser visited. a google search for “body decomposition”. jan 8
state’s exhibit 141 - this is the actual google results page -- what would have been returned for an actual search for “body decomposition”.
exhibit 142- item 33 is a google search results page for “rigor mortis”. jan 8
g- the relationship between these two exhibits and the defendant’s computer is...?
johnson- SBI item 13 (the computer) contained these cached files and internet archive files
exhibit 142 indicates the file was visited but johnson couldn’t find it in the history file
johnson- one file is a list of pages visited, the other is what those pages would have looked like (taken from internetarchive.com - a ‘storage facility’ for past versions of websites. he mentions “bloodfest666.com” again -- it no longer exists, but you can find what it looked like by going through internetarchive.com)
g- how many search terms were requested by the defendant?
johnson- 6, i think. less than 10.
g- was one of those terms “rigor mortis”?
johnson- yes. it appeared in the results as “pathguy.com” (i think that’s right -- it’s the site for a pathologist)
CROSS:
rp- how did you determine the dates?
johnson- using macintosh absolute times. amount of time elapsed from jan something 2001.
rp- do you have any supporting documentation to support the translation from absolute time to the date.
johnson- i can get my computer out and show the court if you want
rp- you did a search on the strings we gave our expert. but you also did searches yourself. was one of those for “rigor mortis”?
johnson- no. we searched the safari history for “google search”. we searched those results for “body composition” and “rigor mortis”.
rp- so you decided to search for “google search” on your own?
johnson- that’s how i do my job
jh- anything else?
g- we might have one other witness. also a rebuttal witness. we should probably go ahead and have a voire dire on her.
on this issue, it’s discretionary standard to allow rebuttal witnesses. the most compelling piece of evidence here is how johnson testified to how he found this new material. given the volume and circumstances, we ask that we be allowed to reopen the case to present this evidence.
rp- johnson admits he did searches on terms we gave our computer experts, he also says he did his own follow-up investigation as a way to get in more information about things they didn’t think of before.
we limited our search terms in order to not have this be drawn out. we complied. but the state is jumping in at the last minute and doing last-minute searches. this new information wasn’t found as a result of information we supplied to our expert; this was new research they did on their own. i was first made aware of this evidence today -- i have to have 24 hours notice for visitors at state prison, so i haven’t even conferred with my expert on this. undue surprise. don’t reopen the case.
g- a hearing in september included an offer about the examination of computer files, as well as an offer to continue the trial. rp rejected that offer, saying he wanted to go forward.
rp- those disk images were offered in october, but not the computer, nor an expert. we were being offered material with no way to review them.
jh- information is relevant, not unduly prejudicial, and defendant has had adequate notice. the court will allow you, rp, if you so request, a reasonable delay before this evidence is presented. but this evidence may be presented in front of a jury.
10:23
rp asks for a quick recess so as to consult with the computer expert. he, edwards and a sherrif’s deputy go out to the hallway to talk to the expert.
10:31
rp- by the end of the day tomorrow my expert thinks he could present the information.
jh- i was thinking more of a short period of time to counter the charge of undue surprise.
rp- i want him to verify mr. johnson’s findings. whether it was access in the way he alleges, at the time it was accessed, by who it was accessed, whether in fact those searches were done. i can’t argue anything to the jury without that information.
g- it sounds like what he’s asking for are cross-examination issues. he’s looking for evidence that our witness perjured himself.
jh- we’ll continue this issue until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
g- maybe we should release the jury for the day. we should talk more about another witness that the defenant may object to.
10:35
jury enters, only to be dismissed for the day. to return at 9:30 tuesday morning. the only thing they heard today was rp saying “defense rests”.
10:37
g- my one additional witness is mary grigolia, the minister at the eno river unitarian universalist fellowship on garrett road. if she’s allowed to testify, she’ll say that on feb 20, 2003 she visited rp in jail. from one side of the glass, defendant asked about press coverage. grigolia described the search of the lake near the home, and rp allegedly said “they’ll never find her there.” there was someone else there --mr. tucker-- who wouldn’t be subject to any sort of privledge.
VOIRE DIRE
grigolia- i escorted a member of the congretation to the jail to visit rob, david tucker. we entered, and exchanged pleasantries and had a conversation.
g- describe the room
grigolia- we were on opposite sides of a glass partition.
g- tell us about that conversaton
grigolia- rob was interested in how the press was handling the story. he asked “so what is the press saying about my case?” david answered that in that morning’s paper the police announced they had plans to dredge the lake near where rob & janine had been living. rob then turned to the wall and said, “they’ll never find her there.” then he turned back to us.
g- you came forward with this information last week?
grigolia- yes. i contacted a criminal defense attorney, who contacted you.
exhibit 143 is a statement describing an interview grigolia had with terry mikels on november 18. it contains a written form of what she just testified to.
CROSS:
rp- when i was questioning david about the press coverage, was i expressing frustration that i was the only one being looked at as a supsect?
grigolia- yes
rp- could that comment could have been made in frustration over where they were searching?
grigolia- that was not my impression.
rp- was there anyone else in the visitors area?
grigolia- i don’t remember
rp- do you recall what time of day it was?
grigolia- no, i don’t, but my palm pilot might. i think it was in late afternoon.
rp- why was david with you?
grigolia- he had asked me to come to the jail with him
rp- part of the care team?
grigolia- yes. a care team comprised people who chose to visit and extend human kindness to you in a very challenging time. the care team didn’t have a lot of structure; it was there to support each other. an informal structure.
rp- a specific care team was put together and members alternated in visiting?
grigolia- the structure wasn’t formal
rp- are you aware of the care team having meetings?
grigolia- what i remember is informal conversations, one on one, as opposed to the whole care team.
RE-DIRECT:
g- rp asked you if his statement could have been made in frustration over the search. and you said you didn’t interpret it that way. how did you interpret it?
rp- he spoke with great disdain and arrogance.
jh- you do not believe on this occasion that you were visiting as his minister?
grigolia- rob had ceased to be an active member of our congregation, so no.
rp- how can you say that?
grigolia- i started my ministry at the end of 2001. in october of 2001, you and janine had stopped coming. she had withdrawn her membership, sending us a letter. i didn’t see you in church until december 2002, when janine came to perform in a sunday morning service.
rp- it’s psosible i did attend, but perhaps you didn’t see me?
grigolia- it’s possible.
rp- are you aware i also paid several hundred dollars in membership?
grigolia- no
rp- are you aware i also made pleas to the congregation about (something about the district)?
grigolia- i remember being told that. i’m generally aware of people who are actively involved in the general life of the congregation, and you were not.
rp- but it’s possible i was involved in other ways?
grigolia- i have no information about that.
grigolia steps down
jh- there may be some argument about privledge here. we’ll discuss that later.
10:55 court adjourned for the day. resumes tuesday at 9;30.
Posted by xta at November 28, 2005 11:58 AM | TrackBack