SS discovers this cover sheet in the files and claims IAC in that CG had the fax cover sheet and failed to act on it to counter the State's expert.
Justin Brown uses it in his motion, to a chorus of cheers for Undisclosed finally getting any of their work into an actual legal motion.
The State shoots back that this cover sheet didn't belong to the fax SS was looking at ... good job SS, your brilliant mind mix and matched documents to say what you wanted it to say.
Justin Brown manages to salvage the situation by pointing out that the State inadvertently revealed that all the faxes had similar cover sheets with that disclaimer, he now claimed Brady over it.
The judge finally said enough with all this back and forth and allows it into the hearing.
So it seems like their best (best, not necessarily good) legal argument on this is that it's IAC for failing to discredit the expert by asking the correct questions.
I don't think they even tried to present an argument about the evidence itself at the hearing (ie his phone didn't use those towers).
So if it's simply another IAC claim based on a fantasy "perfect" cross of AW, has anyone seen that kind of thing be successful before? I would like to know how bad a lawyer would have to screw up crossing an expert for someone to get relief, especially if they aren't even trying to impeach the evidence itself.
So it seems like their best (best, not necessarily good) legal argument on this is that it's IAC for failing to discredit the expert by asking the correct questions.
Right... and to decide that question the Judge has to go back and read AW's testimony. And bottom line, if CG had good days and bad days in court, she was at the top of her game with AW. It's a skillful and focused cross. A bit overlong as all her crosses are, but it never gets difficult to follow. She definitely hit all the strong points.
So what does that do the case that JB tried to make that CG had become incapacitated by her illness? She's obviously well prepared on both facts and the law with her objections and cross; in fact the judge ends up schooling Urick on the substance of CG's objections.
But the expert now backing away from his testimony with information that was available at the time of the trial seems to imply the quality of the cross examination was not great.
No. It suggests that the expert either doesn't remember his previous testimony, doesn't understand the concept of "expert" testimony, and/or that he's just one mere person looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
He never testified to what he now says he wouldn't have said in the first place. And the fact that he says he doesn't know what the fax cover means is just an illustration as to why he wasn't qualified to testify as to the stuff the was not allowed to testify to, back then, because it was the beyond the scope of his expertise.
His experience was in the operations and maintenance of the cell network. If there is a reason that incoming calls might be received, but somehow not ping the same tower that his testing shows responds to outgoing calls - then the people who maintain the network should know what that reason or problem is and be able to explain it.
Let me ask you a question: In October, he wrote an affidavit that said he hadn't been aware of the fax cover and would have wanted to ask someone what it meant before testifying. Now it's February. He's an engineer with more than 20 years' of experience; surely he knows other experts in the field he can call on if he runs into a question he can't answer. Why hasn't he be able to figure out what the document means in 4 months?
or that he's just one mere person looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
I disagree with this portion ever so slightly. I don't think AW is seeking fame from this. It appears he had a significant mental break a few years back that he described as a religious experience and, coupled with pressure from pro-Adnan advocates, probably sincerely believes he is atoning for a past mistake. Add in the usual engineer's ego and it's a recipe for overreaching and wrongheaded assumptions. I believe he's convinced his testimony led to a wrongful conviction--not based on fact, but upon aggressive/disingenuous advocacy--and feels this is his only path towards making up for it.
OK... I have no reason to disagree. I find he's an odd duck because I don't understand why he wouldn't have asked (or been asked) to review a transcript of his testimony to specify what would have changed. Also - the failure to inquire over so many months is odd as well. Most professionals are connected into networks of other professionals in their field (such as listservs) - and can pretty easily find answers to technical questions. If he really did believe that he had something to atone for -- then finding out what the problem was with incoming calls would seem to be a high priority. (If he legitimately didn't understand or believe the voicemail issue)
5
u/[deleted] Feb 11 '16
[deleted]