They just had a sidebar, only for the judge to scold the defense attorney in front of the jury anyway. This dude ain't playing around.

I sort of think I see where defense is trying to go with this that there were other potential witnesses that were not interviewed by the police.

This defense counsel is awful. Asking leading questions on direct. Gets terminology wrong all of the time.

He's trying really hard to be Perry Mason. It's like he's learned how to question witnesses based on TV shows. Putting on a performance.

The problem is the jury may eat this up because they've seen the same shows.

Captain Positivity said:

---

He's trying really hard to be Perry Mason. It's like he's learned how to question witnesses based on TV shows. Putting on a performance.

The problem is the jury may eat this up because they've seen the same shows.

---

Hadn't thought about it until you posted that and you are correct. At this point, if I didn't know B'Ivy LaMarr was an attorney, I would think he wasn't.

So this random patrol officer also happens to be a bicycle expert?

Dr. John Black has been retained by the defense. The Rittenhouse video expert.

Captain Positivity said:

---

Dr. John Black has been retained by the defense. The Rittenhouse video expert.

---

And looks like Black's testimony will once again be limited.

Wish we had some idea of the composition of the jury. Defense is not telling a clear narrative, or clear enough narrative.

And they had the perfect opportunity upon cross exam of the wife, since she had credibility issues to get an admission that she wasn't sure whether her vehicle touched Edgecomb at all in the first encounter. Further, they didn't even ask if the windows were partially down on the car so that Edgecomb would have been able to hear them as they were talking to each other. We know the window was partially down when Edgecomb caught with them since he punched the decedent in the face through it.

So this self defense defense is beginning to look like it all comes down to the credibility of Edgecomb.

We're back. Another patrol officer called by the defense.

BTW, in Wisconsin, when the defense calls a LEO to the stand, they are considered hostile or adverse witnesses, so there is leeway in asking leading questions on direct examination.

aggiehawg said:

---

I got sidetracked and put this on hold, so I'm about 30 minutes behind but it is clear to me that the prosecutor did not prep the wife very well as she is testifying contrary to what she told the cops and then was captured talking on the phone to a relative relaying what had happened. (She was in the back of squad car, pro-tip here everything you say inside a squad car is usually being recorded.)

Mostly just she's denying her husband used profanity. But the discrepancy opens the door on whether the decedent used the N-word.

---

I don't know about other departments, but our department policy is that the recorder is running any time a subject is in the back seat. Putting two individuals who have been arrested/detained (as long as they weren't put there for fighting each other) in the back seat and letting them talk to each other is a well established tactic.

Also with some of the newer systems like the current generation Axons, someone with supervisor level access can watch and listen live any time the camera is running.

If you're talking to the cops, assume it's being recorded. I don't know about other states, but the TX legislature in the most recent session passed a law requiring that cops have body cameras running any time we are conducting any investigation. That includes things like simply talking to a driver on a traffic stop.

Thanks for that insightful input.

Stephanie Trotter is being called. She was in the Red SUV that pulled up after the shooting.

She observed the wife going through the pockets of her dead husband.

She called the cops that evening to tell them about the wife messing with her husband's pocket. There was no follow up from the police regarding that phone call no formal statement on that point.

ETA: Clarified her testimony that a detective did call her but that was in response to her 911 call. She then called back to the homicide department later. It was that second call that was not followed up on by police.

Judge just told defense counsel to "Knock it off!" harshly.

Branca may have just gotten Rekieta's video demonetized by holding up the gift from his wife.

Edgecomb won't testify until tomorrow. A few more witnesses today.

Another LEO. He's retired from Milwaukee PD. Now he's an investigator for another entity.

Guess they are trying to show he's an expert in homicide investigations.

Yep, that's why he's there. To critique the investigation.

Judge about to blow his top again, he calls a sidebar. And this judge hates sidebars.

This witness.as an expert but he's testifying as to what he would have done in investigating this scene. That's not what experts do because they weren't there and are not fact witnesses.

On cross, prosecutor is tearing this witness apart. He only saw and heard what the defense gave him not the entire police file, not BWC evidence, except for one, only one 911 call, etc.

Folks, this is why you have your expert in the courtroom listening to the proceedings. He was not in the courtroom hearing what the officers testified to.

Well, that was a disaster for the defense. When this guy first got up there he said he had only spent 10-12 hours reviewing the investigation and I thought that seemed a pretty short time for all of the surveillance video and squad car/ bodycam evidence.

I honestly don't understand what the defense thought they were going to prove with that witness.

IOW, this witness was put on the stand to testify about how this investigation was not properly or thoroughly done but he himself did not give a complete review and investigation of the investigation.

Judge is going to dismiss the jury for the day and then hear disputes about Edgecomb's testimony, Dr. Black's testimony, etc.

This should be lively as the prosecutor has been pacing in the courtroom. Prosecutor said he doesn't currently expect to do a rebuttal but may need to depending on what the defense does tomorrow morning.

Crap. Court shut down the feed so we can't hear what the judge is saying about Dr. Black's video evidence that the defense didn't provide to the state until this past weekend.

My suspicion is this judge will not allow this late evidence or severely restrict its use.

Lamarr has been downright awful. Just getting destroyed by the prosecutor time and time again.

historyrepeats said:

---

Lamar has been downright awful. Just getting destroyed by the prosecutor time and time again.

---

Yeah he has been awful. Really awful. Why anyone would hire this guy is beyond me. Why any lawyer would partner in a case with this guy is also beyond me.

I haven't practice crim nor civil law in years and years and I could shred this defense case on two martinis.

It is that bad.

Quote:

---

Crap. Court shut down the feed so we can't hear what the judge is saying about Dr. Black's video evidence that the defense didn't provide to the state until this past weekend.

My suspicion is this judge will not allow this late evidence or severely restrict its use

---

I just watched the Law & Crime footage of the argument. You are correct.

11:40 mark Prosecution just rubbing eyes in exasperation. 12 minute mark - Judge - "I don't even know what this means...."

Thanks for posting that. Gives me a better idea of how bad of a s***show today will be.

When Rekieta first started talking about this case, it sounded intriguing as to the elements of self defense that could come into play. and as we saw in Rittenhouse, elements of potential provocation.

Alas, the hype was just that all hype. Defense has not evinced much in the way of a self defense claim, instead choosing to blame the police for not doing a better investigation that would have provided them with that defense. There is no video of the first encounter when the Cleereman vehicle allegedly hit or swiped Edgecomb on his bicycle. Nor have the produced any witnesses to that supposed incident. They did a bad job in cross examination of the wife who was driving failing to establish what she thought had happened.

But the punch by Edgecomb to the face of the deceased is on video that the jury has seen a few times. That punch is likely sufficient to warrant the judge giving a provocation instruction that negates self defense.

This prosecutor has been nails. He's very good, although even he occasionally struggles to ask a coherent question. His cross of the defense "expert" on homicide investigations yesterday was brutal. Tore that guy a new one.

We'll likely never know if there was a real defense case here because counsel is so awful in general, plus they have fallen in love with their case and lost objectivity. That keeps leading them into unforced errors that this prosecutor and especially this judge won't let them get away with. Shoot themselves in their own feet. Unable to predict a few moves ahead and anticipate what the prosecution will do in response.

Rekieta is up.

We are up.

Defense calls a toxicologist.

Defense passes the witness. Not sure what, if anything, they got out of that. So the deceased had a BAC of .121. We already knew that. So the wife was incorrect when she said he only had three beers. Big whoop.

Makes no difference in what happened.

This is ridiculous. Defense is failing here. Judge interrupts and says even for drinkers in Wisconsin, 12 ouces of 100% whiskey is a lot.

Defense recalls Dr. Kelly. Judge tells defense counsel to "be brief."

The deceased BAC level was/is irrelevant.

Judge calls a sidebar. He's pissed.

There is no way the defense will finish their case before lunch unless the judge starts cutting them off with these stupid and irrelevant questions.