Movie theatre shooting SYG trial

[Irishiis49]

Originally Posted by McBain II

It is disputed what (if anything) Reeves said during the altercation. I don’t believe either of the witnesses from the theater have testimony consistent with that claim.

These witnesses were totally believable... Of course Reeves disputes it...it blows his defense away...and every apologist for Reeves looks like an idiot for defending him...

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by McBain II

The performance of the defense team during cross examination has been widely praised by most attorneys giving commentary. They shredded Nicole Oulson’s credibility and elicited testimony from EMS and a homicide detective stating that Reeves had marks in his temple area that were consistent with having been struck by Oulson.

for attorneys - maybe
for jury or regular out of street people who will decide - not so much

all witnesses were very clear and the tape of Reeves interview that they played in the court on day 3 proved he lied back then and just trying to cover his old ass.

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

These witnesses were totally believable... Of course Reeves disputes it...it blows his defense away...and every apologist for Reeves looks like an idiot for defending him...

I actually enjoyed watching witnesses on the stand. Some placed defense on their spot and I am sure jury saw it too.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

These witnesses were totally believable... Of course Reeves disputes it...it blows his defense away...and every apologist for Reeves looks like an idiot for defending him...

I fail to see how a statement about popcorn—even if true—could have such an impact on his defense. That seems pretty unimportant to me.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by EngGirl

for attorneys - maybe
for jury or regular out of street people who will decide - not so much

all witnesses were very clear and the tape of Reeves interview that they played in the court on day 3 proved he lied back then and just trying to cover his old ass.

That’s total nonsense. Attorneys base their entire trial strategy around how it will play to the jury. You are once against taking your own biased viewpoint and assuming six unrelated people whom you don’t know are feeling the same way.

I don’t recall any “lies” in Reeves statement and he made statements consistent with self defense.

[Irishiis49]

Originally Posted by McBain II

I fail to see how a statement about popcorn—even if true—could have such an impact on his defense. That seems pretty unimportant to me.

Ok... it wasn't about popcorn...it was about showing Oulson what happens to someone who throws popcorn in HIS face...you are being obtuse...

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

Ok... it wasn't about popcorn...it was about showing Oulson what happens to someone who throws popcorn in HIS face...you are being obtuse...

Again, I don't see how Reeves making a matter of fact statement about Oulson's aggressive actions toward him, after having fired the shot at him, does anything to establish the malice that the State is basing their case on. Perhaps you can elaborate on your thinking there.

In the meantime, lets talk about day 6 of the trial.

Dr. Donna Cohen, an Aging & Mental Health Specialist, testified first. Her testimony was basically limited to the effects of aging on vulnerability and risk mitigation. Nothing really groundbreaking there.

Curtis Reeves wife, Vivian Reeves, testified next. On direct examination she didn't really have anything substantial to offer as she has stated since the beginning that she either turned away or closed her eyes when Oulson began her attack. The State's cross examination was quite interesting though, as they came at her very aggressively in an attempt to fluster her. Their cross examination really fell apart in the last few minutes as they tried to use a very narrow part of a transcript to claim she had made a contradictory statement. She refused to back down and a defense objection forced the State to give a much less limited part of the transcript, which showed that Mrs. Reeves statements were actually quite consistent.

While the actual testimony of Mrs. Reeves wasn't too damaging to either side, the State's behavior toward her was quite telling. There were several objections during direct examination when the defense was contextualizing her answers, which made them appears afraid of her testimony. All but one of the objections IIRC were overruled. The cross examination made them look very unprepared and they were unable to fluster or effectively impeach Mrs. Reeves, and the end of cross made them look like bullies. Quite telling to me was a moment noted where ADA Glenn Martin tapped lead prosecutor Manuel Garcia on the shoulder during their floundering cross, in an apparent attempt to reign him in.

Overall, I thought Mrs. Reeves presented as much more resilient and credible than Mrs. Oulson did in her testimony.

Most importantly during the day though, was video introduced by the defense from the theater's security camera system which reports to show that Mr. Oulson did indeed strike Mr. Reeves at least once before he grabbed the popcorn and threw it at Mr. Reeves. The exact video the defense showed isn't publicly available yet by a similarly enhanced version can be see
in this video at approximately the 10:30 mark.

To me, that clearly looks like the illuminated screen of a cell phone being thrown at Mr. Reeves and landing at his feet, which is consistent with his statements and the forensic evidence.

Will be interesting to see what happens here in Day 7.

[bentlebee]

Originally Posted by McBain II

Again, I don't see how Reeves making a matter of fact statement about Oulson's aggressive actions toward him, after having fired the shot at him, does anything to establish the malice that the State is basing their case on. Perhaps you can elaborate on your thinking there.

In the meantime, lets talk about day 6 of the trial.

Dr. Donna Cohen, an Aging & Mental Health Specialist, testified first. Her testimony was basically limited to the effects of aging on vulnerability and risk mitigation. Nothing really groundbreaking there.

Curtis Reeves wife, Vivian Reeves, testified next. On direct examination she didn't really have anything substantial to offer as she has stated since the beginning that she either turned away or closed her eyes when Oulson began her attack. The State's cross examination was quite interesting though, as they came at her very aggressively in an attempt to fluster her. Their cross examination really fell apart in the last few minutes as they tried to use a very narrow part of a transcript to claim she had made a contradictory statement. She refused to back down and a defense objection forced the State to give a much less limited part of the transcript, which showed that Mrs. Reeves statements were actually quite consistent.

While the actual testimony of Mrs. Reeves wasn't too damaging to either side, the State's behavior toward her was quite telling. There were several objections during direct examination when the defense was contextualizing her answers, which made them appears afraid of her testimony. All but one of the objections IIRC were overruled. The cross examination made them look very unprepared and they were unable to fluster or effectively impeach Mrs. Reeves, and the end of cross made them look like bullies. Quite telling to me was a moment noted where ADA Glenn Martin tapped lead prosecutor Manuel Garcia on the shoulder during their floundering cross, in an apparent attempt to reign him in.

Overall, I thought Mrs. Reeves presented as much more resilient and credible than Mrs. Oulson did in her testimony.

Most importantly during the day though, was video introduced by the defense from the theater's security camera system which reports to show that Mr. Oulson did indeed strike Mr. Reeves at least once before he grabbed the popcorn and threw it at Mr. Reeves. The exact video the defense showed isn't publicly available yet by a similarly enhanced version can be see
in this video at approximately the 10:30 mark.

To me, that clearly looks like the illuminated screen of a cell phone being thrown at Mr. Reeves and landing at his feet, which is consistent with his statements and the forensic evidence.

Will be interesting to see what happens here in Day 7.

This is the first time I saw any video of what occurred. I haven't watched the trial, but you have to be a caveman to not have heard of the story and living in the area. I did see that the defendant was attacked, what in this case must have been popcorn but it looked very aggressive, and something seem to have fallen, maybe the cell phone. Does this mean that the person who attacked should have died? No, but when your actions are so aggressive you never know what someone else reaction is. It takes a split second to react.
In Florida, you can expect someone to have a gun, so better don't start an argument, fight, or attack someone for whatever reason. It is not worth it. Just ignore and if the dead person had not thrown anything then he would be here today.

Very sad...and this doesn't mean that I'm making a judgment on guilty or innocent as I do not have the facts other than watching the video. I will let the jury decide. They hear the case.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by bentlebee

This is the first time I saw any video of what occurred. I haven't watched the trial, but you have to be a caveman to not have heard of the story and living in the area. I did see that the defendant was attacked, what in this case must have been popcorn but it looked very aggressive, and something seem to have fallen, maybe the cell phone. Does this mean that the person who attacked should have died? No, but when your actions are so aggressive you never know what someone else reaction is. It takes a split second to react.
In Florida, you can expect someone to have a gun, so better don't start an argument, fight, or attack someone for whatever reason. It is not worth it. Just ignore and if the dead person had not thrown anything then he would be here today.

Very sad...and this doesn't mean that I'm making a judgment on guilty or innocent as I do not have the facts other than watching the video. I will let the jury decide. They hear the case.

That’s about where I’m at. I could see an argument for Reeves being guilty, but the State’s case surely didn’t convince me beyond a reasonable doubt. Now that they’ve rested, I can’t imagine that their case is going to get any stronger.

[Stephan A Smith]

Originally Posted by KPB

Who thinks Reeve's will get off on SYG (stand your ground) defense ? The trial is set for 1/11/16.

I personally hope he does not and hope he's charged w/ murder. I just can't believe that he actually thought he was in fear of his life. I believe he let his temper get the best of him.

I guess its up to the judge.

He was declared innocent by a jury of his peers and rightfully so.

All the evidence was provided to the jury, as opposed to the news who only wanted to focus on popcorn.

This is a case in point as to why people should not rush to judgement based on selected information a biased media decides to provide, while omitting other information.