Theater shooting trial day 37: Defense to call first witnesses

Defense attorneys will call their first witnesses Thursday in the trial of James Holmes, who has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to killing 12 and injuring 70 others on July 20, 2012.

3rd & 7 37yd

Shout out to Channel 7 by AC ;P

by Kristle 6/25/2015 4:35:27 PM
I think Woody is getting argumentative. He feels threatened....i think.

by Tired 6/25/2015 4:35:45 PM
Thank you Phil!

by Tammy 6/25/2015 4:35:46 PM
Woodcock says that in one instance the hyphen means "and" but another instance means "at" in his CV, even though formatting sounds same from page to page

by Phil Tenser 6/25/2015 4:36:23 PM
@FMM he came to court like that yesterday clean shaving :) your not seeing things!!

by LG 6/25/2015 4:36:24 PM
@Tired...totally agree!!

by Tammy 6/25/2015 4:36:24 PM
I am still proud of AC! right flip?

by Sally Mander 6/25/2015 4:37:26 PM
why is he drilling this guy so much? I don't understand

by Tara 6/25/2015 4:37:28 PM
@Tara: To prevent him being certified as an expert

by Phil Tenser 6/25/2015 4:37:40 PM
This poor doc is being hash browned---shredded and fried!

by Chipper 6/25/2015 4:37:42 PM
@Lynn--he is a professional criminal trial attorney. A good professional in this field of work will recognize that part of his job is to make persuasive theater in order to get his points across to the jury. The DT uses these same types of skills in support of their agenda. It shouldn't be surprising that the body language and other communications they use with experts is greatly different from witness to witness.

by flip 6/25/2015 4:37:45 PM
Good point, Resa, but GB is making very important points.

by Tammy Garrison 6/25/2015 4:37:46 PM
@FMM...you are correct!

by Tammy 6/25/2015 4:41:50 PM
sticking it to the man! wow

by Tommy Talbot 6/25/2015 4:41:51 PM
What you talkin bout Phil??? Tragedy in Lakewood? left us hangin :)

by ERICA 6/25/2015 4:41:55 PM
@ERICA: It was an old story. please read the link if you're interested

by Phil Tenser 6/25/2015 4:42:08 PM
So CAN he be denied as an "expert" witness by the judge? I guess it depends of PT objection and how the judge would rule. Would that be correct?

by Tammy Garrison 6/25/2015 4:42:11 PM
Oh snap! AC missed a sneeze.

by Kristle 6/25/2015 4:42:13 PM
Ahh ok makes sense now, so basically to try and get the judge to dismiss him as a witness?

by Tara 6/25/2015 4:42:14 PM
Mr King does not seem to be nearly as assured as he did when he started the defense this morning, does he?

by Harold Finch 6/25/2015 4:42:16 PM
he is grilling this guy

by The guy 6/25/2015 4:42:17 PM
AC is doing his job!

by Sally Mander 6/25/2015 4:42:18 PM
ac's got a point. did woodcock get someone else to type up his CV? if it says something, that should be what it means.. i don't know if a heading can be misconstrued? if there's a list entitled 'types of trees' it will likely list trees. why would this be any different?

by sydnijmm 6/25/2015 4:42:20 PM
@Lynn and @flip - I would guess I am the minority on this point, but I believe that type of "theater" is unprofessional and it would backfire if I was there. But I understand what you are saying that they think they have to make theater out of it.

by Niki C 6/25/2015 4:43:07 PM
I don't know why this bugs me but it does: has anyone else noticed the deputy sitting at the back who IMO continually turns around to chat rather animatedly with someone in the gallery during most breaks/sidebars?

by Mara Randall 6/25/2015 4:43:10 PM
Sorry. I think I kinda asked the same thing Tara did. So if not certified expert, he could still testify or not at all?

by Tammy Garrison 6/25/2015 4:43:13 PM
based on the lack of credentials - I don't feel that this dr.'s testimony should be admitted

by mandi 6/25/2015 4:43:18 PM
i'm with @tired. he's on defense now for sure.

by sydnijmm 6/25/2015 4:43:19 PM
AC is turning this testimony into a dunmpster fire

by NT8 6/25/2015 4:43:21 PM
@FMM Shave and haircut. I believe so. A tactic for creating impression.

by LB 6/25/2015 4:43:22 PM
@Tara--he is damaging the DT's expert witness credentials and credibility for the jury's benefit. This doctor is going to eventually say, "Holmes was insane at the time he killed and maimed all those people at the theater". Mr. Brauchler wants to make as sure as he is able that the jury does not believe the doctor really has enough professional expertise and gravitas to make that assertion seem believable. This is an extremely effective bit of prosecution, IMO.

by flip 6/25/2015 4:43:24 PM
Fenton and Feinstein did not testify as "expert witnesses" so they were held to a different standard

by mandi 6/25/2015 4:43:25 PM
@mandi I believe Phil posted the info that it was a murder case in the Springs and that it was at King's request this Dr took the stand for...someone correct if I'm wrong :)

by LG 6/25/2015 4:43:27 PM
I don't understand why they are wasting the court's time to approve these witnesses as experts. The judge makes that determination, not the jury, so it should have been done prior to the trial even starting. In my opinion.

by Niki C 6/25/2015 4:43:30 PM
I don't see why all the fuss about this, this is more professional than the DT coldly interrupting the victims/survivors testimony with their objections and constant attempts to censor them. This has more of an impact

by JG 6/25/2015 4:43:31 PM
The DA is doing exactly what any other DA does during a criminal trial. He is the voice of the victims and needs to point out whether or not the Dr. is qualified to determine if the defendant was insane or not. Anyone that follows trials knows that he is doing nothing out of the ordinary - most DA's do the exact same thing.

by Mandy L 6/25/2015 4:43:33 PM
Love watching GB make the defense witness look less than stellar. Thank goodness GB is really going into detail on this resume, the man shouldn't be an expert witness.

by Insider 6/25/2015 4:44:46 PM
@syd: Good point!

by Kristle 6/25/2015 4:44:47 PM
@mandi: True

by Kristle 6/25/2015 4:44:48 PM
OK, I found his resume and it does include the sections the DA is questioning him about www.ucdenver.edu

by Phil Tenser 6/25/2015 4:44:51 PM
Mandy is correct...however, if he wants to keep the jury 'on his side', he should avoid appearing to 'bet up' on the Dr.

by Justice 6/25/2015 4:45:37 PM
Well I don't know if the doc can just bluntly say that. as a juror I would think they would know this is the defense now so they need to really be open minded

by Tara 6/25/2015 4:45:38 PM
@mandi and what do you think the lack of credentials are to be disproved as an expert?

by Niki C 6/25/2015 4:45:39 PM
@niki the jury needs to know why he was qualified as an expert. they'd still have to go over it all in their presence.

by sydnijmm 6/25/2015 4:45:53 PM
More than anything, it sounds like Brauchler is saying he bolstered his CV, which may or may not be the case, but to get an MD and be specialized in neurology and psychiatry should be enough. I guess the PT disagrees with me.

by Niki C 6/25/2015 4:47:53 PM