This trial has overlapped with the Halderson trial but I have been requested to start a separate thread.

Back ground:

Quote:

---

A bicyclist stands trial for fatally shooting an immigration attorney during a fateful road rage incident in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Prosecutors in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, say Theodore Malcolm Edgecomb, 32, was the aggressor when he killed Jason Cleereman, 54. The defense is poised to argue, however, that the victim started the fight. You can watch in the player above.

---

The race card was played by the defense counsel in opening remarks yesterday, claiming the deceased called him the N-word twice. Defendant punched him in the face through and open car window and then rode his bicycle away. The car, driven by the wife of the decedent followed him. Stopped, the decedent got out and chased him to a landing leading to some stairs going down. Defendant claims decedent had a knife in his hand and so he shot him in the face.

Elements of self defense? Provocation nullifying self defense? Defendant admits shooting him, so not a guilt issue, a legal issue depending upon the facts as the jury determines them. For entertainment value, have Johnny Cochranesque activist defense attorney and an irascible judge who has been called a racist.

Live feed is at Link

Showing video of Edgecomb riding his bike up to the passenger side of the Kia, punches the decedent in the face, then rides off.

There is some question why the clips of from the video cams were cut off short on some and then ran long without any further evidentiary value in others. Not a particularly salient fact but one that the defense needs to hammer.

So defense theory: three separate encounters: A) car/bike contact, B) Edgecomb thereafter pulls up alongside the vehicle on passenger side, some words are exchanged and then Edgecomb punches Clearman through the open car window and rides away, turning right at the next intersection, vehicle follows him, pulls over into the bike lane while Edgecomb has now gotten onto the sidewalk carrying his bike to walk downstairs, C) Clearman pursues him, Edgecomb shoots him in the face.

The guy on the stand right now is in orange jumpsuit, manacled and shackled with a deputy right behind him. A witness to the punch and then the shooting.

Prosecutor asks him to move the microphone closer, but his hands are shackled to his belt and he can't get his hands up. Funny.

Why are we supposed to care about all of these Wisconsin murder trials?

Sea Speed said:

---

Why are we supposed to care about all of these Wisconsin murder trials?

---

Don't care, don't click.

The witness in the jumpsuit and shackled was being held as a material witness, not for any other crime. But putting him on the stand in the manner the prosecution did was appalling for that reason. And to bolster that, they agreed to release that witness from jail after he testified. Unusual to say the least.

Bicyclist carrying heat changes everything! Thought the gay ass shorts prevented this chaos. Appears to be a hobo cyclist sub culture causing the disruption.

Easily self defense if he left and was pursued, IMO. The fact the decedent followed him in a car and got out to confront makes him the aggressor, regardless of what happened before. Dude may have punched him first, but then he walked away.

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Bicyclist carrying heat changes everything! Thought the gay ass shorts prevented this chaos. Appears to be a hobo cyclist sub culture causing the disruption.

---

Why his defense counsel insisted on being able to get their client a haircut before trial began. I now see why.

aggiehawg said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Why are we supposed to care about all of these Wisconsin murder trials?

---

Don't care, don't click.

---

I like reading the threads.
Then I don't have to watch them on discovery plus or Netflix

Tanya 93 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Why are we supposed to care about all of these Wisconsin murder trials?

---

Don't care, don't click.

---

I like reading the threads.
Then I don't have to watch them on discovery plus or Netflix

---

The more the merrier. Do you watch Rekieta feeds?

Court should be back in session in a few minutes.

Rekieta



Law and Crime site has removed their feeds for free. They are in a legal fight with Rekieta over his use of them, so they made it subscriber only. If anybody can find a feed other than Rekieta, please feel free to post it.

TIA.

Latent print examiner is now on the stand on direct exam.

Even if latent prints are found, cannot tell how long they have been there. Not sure why they need this because earlier testimony was that the knife found on the decedent was never examined.

Latent prints on the passenger side of the Kia? But no useful prints. Witness is dismissed. That is weird.

aggiehawg said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Why are we supposed to care about all of these Wisconsin murder trials?

---

Don't care, don't click.

---

I like reading the threads.
Then I don't have to watch them on discovery plus or Netflix

---

The more the merrier. Do you watch Rekieta feeds?

---

No

Guess I will start.

Is this a twitter thing?

Tanya 93 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Why are we supposed to care about all of these Wisconsin murder trials?

---

Don't care, don't click.

---

I like reading the threads.
Then I don't have to watch them on discovery plus or Netflix

---

The more the merrier. Do you watch Rekieta feeds?

---

No

Guess I will start.

Is this a twitter thing?

---

Both twitter and his youtube channel. Google Rekieta and you'll get both in the top results. Or just click on the link I posted above as he's live now on his youtube channel..

He also posts a feed every weekday night at 11 Central. Sometimes he'll review happenings in a trial that he is not covering live during the day, or other cases that have yet come to trial. He has other lawyers join in and comment. He also drinks during his nightly feeds and it gets funnier the drunker they all get. I don't stay up late but I'll check out the replays the next morning to see which subjects were discussed.

He has other lawyers on during stream to give their perspectives as well.

Well, this trial just went sideways. Defense counsel was badgering a lay witness and then trying to show bias in the witness by asking, "You didn't come talk to us? Did you?" on cross.

Prosecutor comes back and asks the witness if he had talked to anyone else and he said he had talked with a Blonde woman from the Milwaukee PD. Prosecutor then asks the defense's paralegal to stand and remover her mask. "Is that the woman you talked to?" Answer, Yes.

Protip, never have any investigator talk to any witness without clearly identifying themselves as investigators for the defense. Judge is hot!!

Trial resumes this morning.

Decedent had .121 BAC and metabolites of THC. Drunk and possibly stoned.

ME is still on the stand under direct. Prosecutor did say that the wife would testify today.

Wife is taking the stand. Judge has ordered the bailiffs not to let anyone in or out of the courtroom.

aggiehawg said:

---

Decedent had .121 BAC and metabolites of THC. Drunk and possibly stoned.

ME is still on the stand under direct. Prosecutor did say that the wife would testify today.

---

I'd say getting punched in the face through the passenger window probably harshed his buzz, except for the fact that getting shot after was way worse.

If our Defendant walks via self-defense, that's how you pull off road rage.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor comes back and asks the witness if he had talked to anyone else and he said he had talked with a Blonde woman from the Milwaukee PD. Prosecutor then asks the defense's paralegal to stand and remover her mask. "Is that the woman you talked to?" Answer, Yes.

---

Is there any fallout for the paralegal for this?

Faustus said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Decedent had .121 BAC and metabolites of THC. Drunk and possibly stoned.

ME is still on the stand under direct. Prosecutor did say that the wife would testify today.

---

I'd say getting punched in the face through the passenger window probably harshed his buzz, except for the fact that getting shot after was way worse.

---

Wife said he only had three beers and she had a glass of wine. For a 6'3" 250 pound man that doesn't make much sense for a .121 BAC. But I am guessing that place served pints?

aggiehawg said:

---

Faustus said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Decedent had .121 BAC and metabolites of THC. Drunk and possibly stoned.

ME is still on the stand under direct. Prosecutor did say that the wife would testify today.

---

I'd say getting punched in the face through the passenger window probably harshed his buzz, except for the fact that getting shot after was way worse.

---

Wife said he only had three beers and she had a glass of wine. For a 6'3" 250 pound man that doesn't make much sense for a .121 BAC. But I am guessing that place served pints?

---

It's also possible that the wife was prevaricating.
I don't think even 3 pints in 30 minutes would get a man that size to .121.

Faustus said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Faustus said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Decedent had .121 BAC and metabolites of THC. Drunk and possibly stoned.

ME is still on the stand under direct. Prosecutor did say that the wife would testify today.

---

I'd say getting punched in the face through the passenger window probably harshed his buzz, except for the fact that getting shot after was way worse.

---

Wife said he only had three beers and she had a glass of wine. For a 6'3" 250 pound man that doesn't make much sense for a .121 BAC. But I am guessing that place served pints?

---

It's also possible that the wife was prevaricating.
I don't think even 3 pints in 30 minutes would get a man that size to .121.

---

Also the bar where they were at is owned by the decedent's sister and brother in law. So I'd wager that tab was either torn up or never existed in the first place.

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.

Defense really messed up again. Used the same paralegal who had earlier been identified by a lay witness as someone who had identified herself as Milwaukee Police to print off some FaceBook posts of the decedent.

That is the second time they have made her a potential witness. Judge blows his top and bans her permanently from the courtroom.

Quote:

---

That is the second time they have made her a potential witness. Judge blows his top and bans her permanently from the courtroom

---

Guess that answered my question from earlier.

akm91 said:

---

Quote:

---

That is the second time they have made her a potential witness. Judge blows his top and bans her permanently from the courtroom

---

Guess that answered my question from earlier.

---

I was surprised to see her still in the courtroom late yesterday after the judge blew his top over the police identification. Judge gave them pass on that one but he's not inclined to grant them another pass.

And folks, losing your paralegal or 3rd chair lawyer that handles all of the documents and exhibits for a trial is a real problem for that defense counsel.

I love this judge. I'm a little behind as I had a meeting. I'm at where the judge banned the defense's paralegal from the court room and now D is up for cross.

Satellite of Love said:

---

I love this judge. I'm a little behind as I had a meeting. I'm at where the judge banned the defense's paralegal from the court room and now D is up for cross.

---

Judge is a no nonsense type for sure. More like the judges I knew and practiced before back in my day.

Both the state and defense lawyers ask crappy questions. Even Branca said he'd been a judge for Mock Trials and that 1Ls would be better.

The wife is saying now she said those were her words not her husband's.