When Rachel Carlson Lieber, a prosecutor in the Robert Wone murder case, summed up the defense as blaming the horrific murder of Mr. Wone on a "ninja assassin intruder" she crystalized and ridiculed their argument at the same time.
The defense argument that someone scaled an 8 foot backyard fence, stepped on a plastic sandbox cover when a taller table and garbage can were right next to the sandbox, walked in a back door that had been left ajar, came upstairs and stole a knife out of a knife set, walked into another bedroom and killed Mr. Wone, and then left without anyone noticing or leaving any evidence of having been there does call into mind the special qualities of a ninja. One quality would be not leaving a trace, which is what the defense would have you believe happened on the night of the murder. Another would be finding the weapon immediately in one bedroom in a strange house and going to another bedroom to find the victim. A third would be scaling an 8 foot fence twice. The smashed sandbox cover must have been a mistake. Ah, well. No ninja is perfect.
Rachel Carlson Lieber called the defense out on all its assumptions and painted a picture for the judge, and onlookers, of what all of the arguments would look like strung together in the way the defense claimed. Yes, the murderer would have to be a ninja assassin to be able to successfully do all that. Her characterization of a "ninja assassin intruder" is perfect. Her delivery was clear and concise. She pointed out the obvious that can get lost in reams of paper and hours of testimony: the defendants know who killed Robert Wone. They won't say who it is. Justice is being denied because of this. They are protecting somebody. That's a conspiracy. That's obstruction of justice.
That girl has a serious future ahead of her in litigation.
It's too early to tell if the defense tactics worked. We can only know that after Judge Leibovitz renders her decision next Tuesday at 11 a.m.
Showing posts with label murder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label murder. Show all posts
6.24.2010
The Robert Wone Trial: The Best Lawyer in the Room
Hands down, the best lawyer in the room in the Robert Wone trial was the judge. Judge Liebovitz peppered the attorneys before her with questions, even interrupting their closing arguments frequently. She reminded the attorneys about questions about laying the proper foundation for the introduction of evidence and rounding out the foundation for expert witnesses. In the testimony of Dr. Farzad Najam, it was the judge's questions that revealed he had never been an expert witness before and that his opinion about the lack of bleeding externally from the victim, Robert Wone, was in reference to the stab wound to the heart and not the two stab wounds to the abdomen.
Today, the judge focused on when the conspiracy could have begun at its earliest or latest in questioning the prosecution. The scream, replied the prosecutor Kirschner, would be the latest. By the time of the 911 call, the defendants were speaking collectively. Aside from that, Econo-Girl noticed in the videotape played at trial that Mr. Price exclaimed "We didn't kill him!" during his interrogation with the police, speaking collectively.
The prosecution claimed the evidence that Mr. Ward was a conspirator was in the 911 call on the night of the murder. His statement was implausible, his discovery of the back door being ajar when he couldn't even see it, and his being silenced by Mr. Price with a glare in the living room when the police were there that night talking to them about what happened demonstrated that.
For Mr. Zaborsky, the indicators of a conspiracy were statements made after what the prosecution calls the "Mercedes meeting" in the parking lot of the police station the night of the murder. He became a conspirator after the scream by calling 911 and reading from a script because it's clear he spoke with Price.
The prosecution argued that the judge would have to find a communication that something bad happened from two of the defendants to the third. He stated that it would not have to be a communication of a specific fact to constitute obstruction of justice.
Bernie Grimm's closing statement pronounced the name of the victim incorrectly throughout. At least he was consistent. He stated that there was no evidence one way or another how this murder happened. He claimed that if a person didn't know the actual truth and they said something different from the truth, it was not a lie. He pointed out that Mike Price, his client, had his brother arrested for breaking and entering and this action demonstrated that he did not have a blind sense of loyalty that would cause him to lie to others in the event of murder.
Thomas Connelly's closing statement argued that Mr. Zaborsky never knew or talked to anybody or entered into any agreement. He cried when the police got there and "he simply doesn't know what happened." The attorney further argued that omitting information in talking to the police is not obstruction of justice unless the fact is material and significant.
Attorney Schertler's closing argument was engaging and troubling. "This case is built on assumption, speculation and innuendo." He pointed to the time frame 10:30 to 11:49 p.m. on the night of the murder. "If you don't know what happened, you can't prove they lied." "Nothing about the state's case is inherently credible." "There is a void in the evidence they just can't fill."
Talking about uncertainty about the charges against the defendents, Mr. Shertler said to the judge "I think we can see your lack of certainty by the questions you've been asking." Do you think this made her happy? She was asking everybody tough questions. This guy had some issues with the judge. You don't talk to judges this way. I know he used to be her boss. But still.
Counsel claimed that you cross the line when you make an affirmative answer which wasn't true, otherwise it is not an obstruction of justice.
Speaking of crossing the line, Schertler really did it after that. Dismissing Dr. Goslinoski's testimony as so refuted as to not be worth discussing, Judge Liebowitz became really annoyed. "She is the only person who testified who wasn't paid to be there. She was getting paid the same no matter what. SHE DOESN'T GET PAID TO CHANGE HER OPINION." That remark was a slam to Mr. Schertler, who used to be a prosecutor and now was a defense lawyer, presumably because it paid better.
Not stopping there, Mr. Schertler said there was no evidence on whether Mr. Wone was moved or not, which was not true. He claimed "this case borders on the Kafkaesque." He finished saying there is no evidence Mr. Ward knew more and lied to the police or saw or heard something and lied to the police about it.
The prosecution's rebuttal was argued by Ms. Lieber who did an outstanding job. She said that the defendants provided details contradicted by evidence. She painted a picture of a super ninja who scaled an eight foot fence, entered the house, stole a knife, killed Mr. Wone and then left without taking anything. As to the circumstantial nature of the case, she pointed out that it was a conspiracy case without an insider testifying. As such, it will be by necessity a circumstantial case. Very fine performance.
At last, the trial ended. And the judge treated us with a promise that she will render a verdict next Tuesday at 11 a.m.
Today, the judge focused on when the conspiracy could have begun at its earliest or latest in questioning the prosecution. The scream, replied the prosecutor Kirschner, would be the latest. By the time of the 911 call, the defendants were speaking collectively. Aside from that, Econo-Girl noticed in the videotape played at trial that Mr. Price exclaimed "We didn't kill him!" during his interrogation with the police, speaking collectively.
The prosecution claimed the evidence that Mr. Ward was a conspirator was in the 911 call on the night of the murder. His statement was implausible, his discovery of the back door being ajar when he couldn't even see it, and his being silenced by Mr. Price with a glare in the living room when the police were there that night talking to them about what happened demonstrated that.
For Mr. Zaborsky, the indicators of a conspiracy were statements made after what the prosecution calls the "Mercedes meeting" in the parking lot of the police station the night of the murder. He became a conspirator after the scream by calling 911 and reading from a script because it's clear he spoke with Price.
The prosecution argued that the judge would have to find a communication that something bad happened from two of the defendants to the third. He stated that it would not have to be a communication of a specific fact to constitute obstruction of justice.
Bernie Grimm's closing statement pronounced the name of the victim incorrectly throughout. At least he was consistent. He stated that there was no evidence one way or another how this murder happened. He claimed that if a person didn't know the actual truth and they said something different from the truth, it was not a lie. He pointed out that Mike Price, his client, had his brother arrested for breaking and entering and this action demonstrated that he did not have a blind sense of loyalty that would cause him to lie to others in the event of murder.
Thomas Connelly's closing statement argued that Mr. Zaborsky never knew or talked to anybody or entered into any agreement. He cried when the police got there and "he simply doesn't know what happened." The attorney further argued that omitting information in talking to the police is not obstruction of justice unless the fact is material and significant.
Attorney Schertler's closing argument was engaging and troubling. "This case is built on assumption, speculation and innuendo." He pointed to the time frame 10:30 to 11:49 p.m. on the night of the murder. "If you don't know what happened, you can't prove they lied." "Nothing about the state's case is inherently credible." "There is a void in the evidence they just can't fill."
Talking about uncertainty about the charges against the defendents, Mr. Shertler said to the judge "I think we can see your lack of certainty by the questions you've been asking." Do you think this made her happy? She was asking everybody tough questions. This guy had some issues with the judge. You don't talk to judges this way. I know he used to be her boss. But still.
Counsel claimed that you cross the line when you make an affirmative answer which wasn't true, otherwise it is not an obstruction of justice.
Speaking of crossing the line, Schertler really did it after that. Dismissing Dr. Goslinoski's testimony as so refuted as to not be worth discussing, Judge Liebowitz became really annoyed. "She is the only person who testified who wasn't paid to be there. She was getting paid the same no matter what. SHE DOESN'T GET PAID TO CHANGE HER OPINION." That remark was a slam to Mr. Schertler, who used to be a prosecutor and now was a defense lawyer, presumably because it paid better.
Not stopping there, Mr. Schertler said there was no evidence on whether Mr. Wone was moved or not, which was not true. He claimed "this case borders on the Kafkaesque." He finished saying there is no evidence Mr. Ward knew more and lied to the police or saw or heard something and lied to the police about it.
The prosecution's rebuttal was argued by Ms. Lieber who did an outstanding job. She said that the defendants provided details contradicted by evidence. She painted a picture of a super ninja who scaled an eight foot fence, entered the house, stole a knife, killed Mr. Wone and then left without taking anything. As to the circumstantial nature of the case, she pointed out that it was a conspiracy case without an insider testifying. As such, it will be by necessity a circumstantial case. Very fine performance.
At last, the trial ended. And the judge treated us with a promise that she will render a verdict next Tuesday at 11 a.m.
6.22.2010
The Robert Wone Trial: "It's Been Four Years of Hell"
That's the mother of a defendant Victor Zaborsky, not of Robert Wone. She's an upbeat, plump, sturdy blond with a determinedly cheerful smile. "He's our son," she told people waiting in line for the court doors to open. The experience become different when you are confronted with the obvious pain of a mother who seems like a very nice, respectable woman. My mind isn't changed, and my sympathy for the family of Robert Wone is not lessened. It just makes it harder to feel hostility towards the defendants.
Waiting for the trial to start, the line must have started 40 minutes before the doors opened. As usual, the press arrived late and were surprised that they were expected to stand in line with everybody else. The order for getting in the doors was family first, then lawyers and their hangers-on, and then the general public. The mysterious monochrome woman was there again today. While waiting, me and the women near me distracted ourselves with the good-looking sheriffs walking the hallways. And yes, DC has some very good-looking sheriffs.
The parents of both Victor Zaborsky and Dylan Ward were in the gallery today, and seated two rows behind them were the family of Robert Wone. Members of the Wone family left during some of the more grisly testimony.
Today's testimony was about Robert Wone's heart and how reasonable it was that not much blood was found.
Tracy Weaver was the first witness. She placed Wone in the medical unit and on a monitor. He was PEA, pulseless electrical activity. Her testimony that his arms were cold was not allowed.
The next witness was Dr. Fazad Najan, Associate Director of Cardiac Surgery. There was a Rule 16 objection and the ruling was that no PEA testimony was allowed because the defense didn't mention it earlier. There was another Rule 16 objection where blood in other parts of the body was not mentioned in the disclosure. The judge ruled that it addresses a matter that the prosecution already raised so the testimony was allowed.
Rule 703 objection because Dr. Najan was asked about his talking to colleagues about this case. The objection was overruled because the defense is not proving the matter asserted: i.e., that the other colleague agreed with Dr. Najan, but only his diligence. Right after that, counsel asked "Was that opinion consistent with yours?" "Yes" was the reply. The judge was very angry. Defense counsel went ahead and used the hearsay to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The judge commented on it and counsel basically ignored her and just continued with examining the witness. Not a banner day for the defense.
Dr.Najan essentially testified that a knife wound to the heart would not necessarily mean a lot of blood. The heart is covered by the pericardial sack which covers the lung also, the pluram and bony structure. As such, one would not see external hemmorage. It's all in the trajectory of the cut, not its size. The prosecutor got Dr. Najan to admit that it could have been more than 5 seconds until Mr. Wone passed out. He also admitted that his analysis did not extend to the wounds in the abdomen. So his nifty, stab-in-the-heart-but-don't-bleed theory doesn't really apply to what happened to Mr. Wone.
The the judge piled on. I just want to take a moment to note how smart Hon. Judge Liebovitz is. Wow. She's got to keep all this stuff in her head and keep the trial running. When one side or the other makes a motion, she immediately recalls the motions they made earlier in the trial. It's really impressive. Today's performance doubles that.
The judge asked a few questions that should have been asked by the prosecutors. "Have you ever testified as an expert witness before?" she asked. "No," Dr. Najan replied. More questions along this line, all answered no.
Then the judge asks if Dr. Najan has an opinion as to which wound was inflicted first. "No," said Dr. Najan. This is critical because all of the defense's testimony has been about how a person stabbed through the heart would lose consciousness almost immediately. No testimony has been given about if the other wounds happened first and if that would lead to sudden loss of consciousness. And no testimony about why those wounds would not cause external bleeding.
Dr. Najan further testified that if the the abdominal wound was first, he had no opinion as to the quantity of blood.
On cross, Dr. Najan testified that if someone were stabbed in the heart like Mr. Wone, he could pass out instantly, like in a snap of the fingers. The prosecutor even snapped his fingers for effect, and Dr. Najan agreed that a person could lose consciousness that quickly. After further questioning, Dr. Najan testified that an adult heart pumps out 50-60 cc's of blood per beat. Counsel reminded the witness that he said that it took 250cc's of blood in the pericardial for that to happen. "Wouldn't that take longer than a few seconds?"
Tracy Weaver was called to the stand again and was not allowed to testify about her observation that there was so little blood on Mr. Wone when she loaded him into the ambulance.
Today was a lot of technical information, a little rough to follow. I may have some spelling for the medical terms wrong. Oh, well. Got started late because of a dinner guest.
Waiting for the trial to start, the line must have started 40 minutes before the doors opened. As usual, the press arrived late and were surprised that they were expected to stand in line with everybody else. The order for getting in the doors was family first, then lawyers and their hangers-on, and then the general public. The mysterious monochrome woman was there again today. While waiting, me and the women near me distracted ourselves with the good-looking sheriffs walking the hallways. And yes, DC has some very good-looking sheriffs.
The parents of both Victor Zaborsky and Dylan Ward were in the gallery today, and seated two rows behind them were the family of Robert Wone. Members of the Wone family left during some of the more grisly testimony.
Today's testimony was about Robert Wone's heart and how reasonable it was that not much blood was found.
Tracy Weaver was the first witness. She placed Wone in the medical unit and on a monitor. He was PEA, pulseless electrical activity. Her testimony that his arms were cold was not allowed.
The next witness was Dr. Fazad Najan, Associate Director of Cardiac Surgery. There was a Rule 16 objection and the ruling was that no PEA testimony was allowed because the defense didn't mention it earlier. There was another Rule 16 objection where blood in other parts of the body was not mentioned in the disclosure. The judge ruled that it addresses a matter that the prosecution already raised so the testimony was allowed.
Rule 703 objection because Dr. Najan was asked about his talking to colleagues about this case. The objection was overruled because the defense is not proving the matter asserted: i.e., that the other colleague agreed with Dr. Najan, but only his diligence. Right after that, counsel asked "Was that opinion consistent with yours?" "Yes" was the reply. The judge was very angry. Defense counsel went ahead and used the hearsay to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The judge commented on it and counsel basically ignored her and just continued with examining the witness. Not a banner day for the defense.
Dr.Najan essentially testified that a knife wound to the heart would not necessarily mean a lot of blood. The heart is covered by the pericardial sack which covers the lung also, the pluram and bony structure. As such, one would not see external hemmorage. It's all in the trajectory of the cut, not its size. The prosecutor got Dr. Najan to admit that it could have been more than 5 seconds until Mr. Wone passed out. He also admitted that his analysis did not extend to the wounds in the abdomen. So his nifty, stab-in-the-heart-but-don't-bleed theory doesn't really apply to what happened to Mr. Wone.
The the judge piled on. I just want to take a moment to note how smart Hon. Judge Liebovitz is. Wow. She's got to keep all this stuff in her head and keep the trial running. When one side or the other makes a motion, she immediately recalls the motions they made earlier in the trial. It's really impressive. Today's performance doubles that.
The judge asked a few questions that should have been asked by the prosecutors. "Have you ever testified as an expert witness before?" she asked. "No," Dr. Najan replied. More questions along this line, all answered no.
Then the judge asks if Dr. Najan has an opinion as to which wound was inflicted first. "No," said Dr. Najan. This is critical because all of the defense's testimony has been about how a person stabbed through the heart would lose consciousness almost immediately. No testimony has been given about if the other wounds happened first and if that would lead to sudden loss of consciousness. And no testimony about why those wounds would not cause external bleeding.
Dr. Najan further testified that if the the abdominal wound was first, he had no opinion as to the quantity of blood.
On cross, Dr. Najan testified that if someone were stabbed in the heart like Mr. Wone, he could pass out instantly, like in a snap of the fingers. The prosecutor even snapped his fingers for effect, and Dr. Najan agreed that a person could lose consciousness that quickly. After further questioning, Dr. Najan testified that an adult heart pumps out 50-60 cc's of blood per beat. Counsel reminded the witness that he said that it took 250cc's of blood in the pericardial for that to happen. "Wouldn't that take longer than a few seconds?"
Tracy Weaver was called to the stand again and was not allowed to testify about her observation that there was so little blood on Mr. Wone when she loaded him into the ambulance.
Today was a lot of technical information, a little rough to follow. I may have some spelling for the medical terms wrong. Oh, well. Got started late because of a dinner guest.
The Robert Wone Trial: Rise of the BobbleHeads
It is a litigation trick to have your paralegals sit behind you during a trial and have them nod in agreement with your expert witness. So they seem like regular onlookers who are being convinced by the expert. The idea is that the jury, or judge, sees this while the testimony is being given and reacts with the natural human instinct to belong and gives more credence to what your expert is saying.
Such was the sad scene yesterday in court during the Robert Wone trial. Paralegals and assistants left and right sat behind the attorneys in the gallery and nodded their heads as defense witnesses testified. It's a bit of a cheesy trick, but it must be effective for the attorneys in the past if they are using it here.
Such was the sad scene yesterday in court during the Robert Wone trial. Paralegals and assistants left and right sat behind the attorneys in the gallery and nodded their heads as defense witnesses testified. It's a bit of a cheesy trick, but it must be effective for the attorneys in the past if they are using it here.
12.16.2008
Brittany Zimmerman
The vampire jaws of Nancy Grace have found another white woman to feed on: Brittany Zimmerman.
You really can't blame Nancy Grace. She has stumbled on a winning formula: white girl in peril, white girl dead, and someone could help her if only we make them talk. Hey! You can be a part of the interrogation! Watch!
The Nancy Grace formula has the benefit of making the viewers exact revenge from the evildoers, or scapegoats, of the show. The audience becomes part of the investigating squad, with Nancy Grace at the lead investigator and the viewer as the silent cop who is loyal and ready to spring into action when called upon.
It is an empowering experience to humiliate people on t.v., even if your job is just to watch and judge. Maybe it is nice to imagine that the criminals you are afraid of can still be punished even if they escape arrest.
And if one or two of them commit suicide, they must have been guilty anyway. So no moral culpability there.
Maybe once in a while we could be concerned that a black girl is missing or dead. Just once. We have a black President, don't we? It is time to integrate our true crime genre as well.
Cable News, Cable News Ratings, Caylee Anthony, Cnn, Headline News, Nancy Grace, Nancy Grace Christmas Card, Nancy Grace Ratings, Media News, Brittany Zimmerman
You really can't blame Nancy Grace. She has stumbled on a winning formula: white girl in peril, white girl dead, and someone could help her if only we make them talk. Hey! You can be a part of the interrogation! Watch!
The Nancy Grace formula has the benefit of making the viewers exact revenge from the evildoers, or scapegoats, of the show. The audience becomes part of the investigating squad, with Nancy Grace at the lead investigator and the viewer as the silent cop who is loyal and ready to spring into action when called upon.
It is an empowering experience to humiliate people on t.v., even if your job is just to watch and judge. Maybe it is nice to imagine that the criminals you are afraid of can still be punished even if they escape arrest.
And if one or two of them commit suicide, they must have been guilty anyway. So no moral culpability there.
Maybe once in a while we could be concerned that a black girl is missing or dead. Just once. We have a black President, don't we? It is time to integrate our true crime genre as well.
Cable News, Cable News Ratings, Caylee Anthony, Cnn, Headline News, Nancy Grace, Nancy Grace Christmas Card, Nancy Grace Ratings, Media News, Brittany Zimmerman
12.14.2008
Suicidal Skateboarders
Who was that suicidal skateboarder that I saw on 11th & H Streets Saturday around 3:30 p.m.? He was skating on the street, going through red lights, and without a helmet. He skittered all over the streets for blocks.
Why pick on him? I see the same thing over and over again. What is wrong with people? Have they been raised on a farm and have no idea how dangerous traffic in DC can be?
When a GW student was killed by a cab driver, the entire city went into an uproar. A murder conviction was stopped by one juror who stated that he told his kids not to skate in the streets for that very reason: you could get killed. Why should he convict someone of murder when the dead skater was so oblivious to the consequences of his actions?
Good point.
Why pick on him? I see the same thing over and over again. What is wrong with people? Have they been raised on a farm and have no idea how dangerous traffic in DC can be?
When a GW student was killed by a cab driver, the entire city went into an uproar. A murder conviction was stopped by one juror who stated that he told his kids not to skate in the streets for that very reason: you could get killed. Why should he convict someone of murder when the dead skater was so oblivious to the consequences of his actions?
Good point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)