Aurora movie theater shooting trial day 45: Cross-examination of schizophrenia expert continues

Day 2 in the Aurora movie theater shooting trial – People vs. James Eagan Holmes. Today, prosecutors open their case calling witnesses _____? During the course of the trial, prosecutors will argue that Holmes, the admitted gunman, was sane when he went into the midnight premiere of the Dark Knight Rises in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater and opened fire on the audience, killing 12 and wounding 70. His defense attorneys will try to spare Holmes’ life by arguing that he was insane. 7NEWS and TheDenverChannel.com will have gavel to gavel coverage of the trial starting at 8:15 a.m. (MST) everyday and ending around 5:30 p.m. (MST) Watch new live video on our YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/7NewsDenver/live Additional resources:LIVE VIDEO & BLOG: http://bit.ly/theatertrialTIMELINE of the case: http://bit.ly/theatertimelineJURY PROFILE: http://bit.ly/theaterjury CONTINUING COVERAGE: http://bit.ly/theatercoverage

3rd & 7 37yd

Dr should keep to lecturing and begging for grants..

by Dennie Carp 7/8/2015 5:43:40 PM
She sure has a wonderful, convenient memory IMO

by Mandi 7/8/2015 5:43:41 PM
Cheese-n-Rice, AC, Why didn't you write her notes for her, you're obviously eluding that you are a better note taker.

by Resa 7/8/2015 5:43:50 PM
OMG!!! Move on Brauchler!!!

by EK 7/8/2015 5:43:52 PM
Looks like she is trying to listen in on the conversation at the bench.

by Marsha Laurienti 7/8/2015 5:43:56 PM
A speaking objection is an objection where the lawyer speaks a complete thought in an effort to either a) provide additional information to the jury that they should not have b) aggravate opposing counsel c) give additional information to the judge that they want the judge to know or d) all of the above at the same

by BernerMom 7/8/2015 5:44:01 PM
But Alison, its a really, really bad report.

by Tammy Garrison 7/8/2015 5:44:21 PM
Speaking objection is where you describe what wrong with question with a narrative the jury can hear.

by Rob 7/8/2015 5:44:27 PM
PT is going to get their Grand Slam.

by Nicko 7/8/2015 5:44:32 PM
I find it interesting that the fact that JH was not a talker..at all... has been hounded to death in this case. Yet, the DT managed to find the only 2 people on the planet that JH would briefly meet and pour every tidbit of his darkest mind to and they just happen to be the only 2 professionals claiming that JH was insane. Too much of an illogical coincidence to remotely consider possible.

by SMH 7/8/2015 5:44:43 PM
@ Alison, I respectfully disagree, but I also think a lot of what we are seeing is this witness' inexperience in the witness chair.

by Suzi 7/8/2015 5:44:52 PM
Hmmm... Time to dig Foxholes?

by NT8 7/8/2015 5:44:55 PM
vt, agreed.

by Tammy Garrison 7/8/2015 5:44:57 PM
I bet jury deliberations take 3 days or less. There may be one or 2 holdouts against the death penalty... that 'reasonable doubt' piece. It shouldn't take long too get them on board. The case the defense has presented is just too weak, the evidence against him too strong.

The people on this board coming to the defense of Jimmy, or getting upset about how AC is running his case, I'm 99% sure they would have been disqualified from being jurors on this, or any other capital murder trial in the US due to their obvious bias in areas ranging from the death penalty, to justice, and what that actually means.

by Mark 7/8/2015 5:45:08 PM
Agreed @Alison. Defense could have attacked the same way.

by Rob 7/8/2015 5:45:25 PM
I think that is true Alison. Dr. Reid was smart in a way because a lot of what he presented was video-taped interviews. There was no reason to question them. But any written report can be scrutinized.

by Sherrie H. 7/8/2015 5:45:31 PM
I'm wondering now if the DT is regretting not having her record, video or audio, her interviews with the defendant.

by MyraJ 7/8/2015 5:45:37 PM
AC has resorted to "mocking", that voice was completely disrespectful.

by Resa 7/8/2015 5:45:42 PM
@Alison...you better be wrong about the DT being able to do this to Dr. Reid because if they could have and didn't that is clear malpractice...clear ineffective assistance of counsel and, frankly, nearly unfathomable to me...more likely, Dr. Reid wrote a good FORENSIC report and they did the best they could with him. Dr. Gur, for all her knowledge and brilliance in her field is so far out of her depth here it is painful and I feel sorry for her.

by PA Watcher 7/8/2015 5:46:07 PM
Mr. Brauchler is on top of his game here. He knows exactly when to let Dr. Gur ramble on and confuse or antagonize the jury. Despite her ability to handle the DT's softball questions she often looks like a deer in the headlights under cross.

by flip 7/8/2015 5:46:19 PM
NH, so could he make her so very upset that she says something she shouldn't? I think he has got to do that at least once today.

by Tammy Garrison 7/8/2015 5:46:27 PM
I've got to say, the smartest move by any of the medical witnesses this far was Dr Reid's decision to video tape the whole encounter with JH. I think this will be a lesson to future expert witnesses in other trials to video the entire encounter. It lends credibility to the whole of the witnesses testimony that is irrefutable.

by Alison 7/8/2015 5:46:33 PM
@Tammy : From the Legal Information Institute website: "Many states have rules and statutes that provide that an objection made in court or in a deposition must be made specifically and concisely rather than in an argumentative or suggestive manner. Objections made in violation of these rules are known as "speaking objections". These objections proceed beyond what is necessary to give the grounds on which the objection is based. This is often done by the attorney in order to coach a witness to say a particular thing. "

by ms 7/8/2015 5:46:38 PM
Does anyone know who the deputy seated in the back is very often turning around and visiting with in the gallery? Seems quite animated with whomever he is speaking with.

by Mara Randall 7/8/2015 5:46:43 PM
She is advocating via a narrative vs. presenting factual data and her analysis. Ie. what she included, excluded and why. A board certification in forensics would have come in handy here. Just saying.

by Ursomonie 7/8/2015 5:47:04 PM
The defense couldn't discredited Dr Reid because he VIDEOED his evaluation..

by Dennie Carp 7/8/2015 5:47:06 PM
Which is why it is so useful to have the videotape. Relying on memory is not a good plan, especially in a mass murder trial. There is no way of determining the truth or falsehood of these memories. When recorded it is right there. When noted at the time or shortly after an interview it is far more reliable. And any event which seems so important that you remember it in great detail a long time later seems important enough to put in a eport.

by 5W 7/8/2015 5:47:12 PM
@Pete... that's not always the case... just because it's not documented that doesn't ALWAYS mean it didn't happen!!

by LG 7/8/2015 5:47:22 PM
I left off the word "time" at the end of my comment regarding the Speaking Objection.

by BernerMom 7/8/2015 5:47:24 PM
@NT8--On time and on target.

by Tired 7/8/2015 5:47:26 PM
well said Mark. agreed.

by KML 7/8/2015 5:47:27 PM
DA is losing me with this cross. I understand the cross tactic of pointing out picayune omissions, but he's coming across as a one trick pony unable to cross on substance. Strikes me that the report is a summary of key observations with conclusions and that the purpose of direct and cross examination is to draw out the details through testimony.

by Hoddy 7/8/2015 5:47:38 PM
I think Brauchler is doing a great job doing exactly what his job is. Love him, and appreciate how thorough (sp) he is being. Considering most of her testimony for defense was about her research with very little about the shooter himself. now that he is asking about her findings with him directly, most of it was left out. Well done PT!

by AM 7/8/2015 5:47:51 PM
Reminder: The state has the burden to prove Holmes was sane. The defense does not have to prove Holmes was insane.

by Patty Scabby 7/8/2015 5:47:56 PM
@LG - Legally speaking, it does mean exactly that.

by Angela Freeman 7/8/2015 5:47:58 PM
this is like watching the titanic sink. it takes a few hours but its going down. Gurrrrrr

by bob 7/8/2015 5:48:53 PM
Wish we would get to the substance of her opinion -- I get the point on the report but please tell me they can directly undermine her opinion. This appears to be indirect. Wonder why Brauchler not challenging the opinion head on.

by Rob 7/8/2015 5:49:27 PM
@Mark, very well said!

by Liz 7/8/2015 5:49:29 PM
Titantic or a very slow train wreck.

by kdsmith 7/8/2015 5:51:35 PM
This Doc is seeing things that aren't there. Geez

by Ursomonie 7/8/2015 5:51:41 PM
I ate a bad clam once and became delusional...

by Tired 7/8/2015 5:51:43 PM
@Angela he's comment didn't say legally that's what I was addressing...

by LG 7/8/2015 5:51:49 PM
the jury questions to her are going to be amazing

by bob 7/8/2015 5:51:51 PM
anybody have a helmet handy to loan King?

by NT8 7/8/2015 5:51:55 PM
This is painful to watch....kind of like watching grass grow....

by Tired 7/8/2015 5:51:56 PM