Ryan Frederick Trial Day Five

I was back in Hampton fixing teeth today, but John Wilburn was able to attend the trial and sent me very thorough notes from which to prepare a report.

A ‘Jury Visit’ to the home was scheduled for today, but was delayed until tomorrow pending a motion by Prosecutor Ebert asking that the judge and attorney’s visit first to be certain there is no ‘prejudicial evidence’ which the jury might see. I’m not sure what he is concerned about, it is my understanding that the signs supporting Frederick covered by the signatures of his friends and neighbors, have already been taken down and stored.

Defense Attorney Broccoletti and Prosecutor Ebert sparred again over the re-enactment video, with the defense wishing to use it to impeach testimony from De. Roberts and Ebert arguing that as the prosecutor’s work product it could not be used fr that purpose. Judge Arrington will rule on that at a later time.

The jury was brought in and Det. Edward Winkelspecht, the officer who had left for Atlanta for BATF training, testified about the pre-raid briefing and his role in the raid. His account was similar to the other officers, noting that when the bottom panel of the door was broken out, he could see a pit bull inside and his attention was focused on the dog when he heard what he later learned was a gunshot, but what to him sounded like someone snapping their finger.

Again, it seems that house has some pretty good sound deadening properties, with gunshots not being recognized as such by trained police officers and a Pit Bull and Labrador Retriever being described as ‘small, annoying dogs’ by Det. Roerts last week.

When Frederick came out and surrendered, Det. Sgt. Chambers assigned Det. Winkelspecht to interview him and red him his Miranda Rights. The Interview was taped and the transcript ran ten pages, but the Prosecution does not want it introduced as they described it as ‘self-serving.’  On cross examination, Winkelspecht, described Frederick as logical and coherent, the the answers corresponding to the questions asked. So much for ‘stoned out of his mind’ and ‘drug crazed rage.’

Forensics Technician Neil Rogers produced the door with the missing panel.

Det. Meinhart (sp?) introduced a number of items recovered in the search of the house and garage, including small amounts of marijuana, a smoking device, literature on marijuana and, in the attic, un-assembled parts of grow lights. From the attic of the garage, tubs for two hydroponic setups and other supporting  accessories.

On cross examination, Det. Meinhart (sp?) explained hydroponics production of marijuanna and that one mature plant produced 8 to 12 ounces of smoking material.

I know nothing of the business of cultivating marijuana, but this evidence at most would establish that Frederick had at some past time grown some quantity of marijuana, but I have no idea if this was enough of a setup for a commercial, as opposed to personal use, operation. In any case, no cash was found, nor any money in bank accounts not attributable to Frederick’s legal employment.

The Confidential Informant/Burglar, Steven Wright was scheduled for after lunch, but Defense Attorney Broccoletti asked that the Prosecution be barred from asking Wright about any past activity which might have occurred but was not prosecuted that was not related to the current charges, as such testimony might be prejudicial while having no probative value on the current charges. Precedents were argued by both sides and Judge Arrington will rule before Wright testifies.

Were I the prosecution, I would hope the jury forget Wright even existed, as his testimony would also bring into question the means by which the warrant was obtained and possibly contradict testimony by Det. Roberts, leaving the prosecution with the task of convincing the jury Wright lied to the police, continued to lie about what he told them but was telling the truth with respect to Frederick. The Prosecutors, having already destroyed their personal credibility, would find that a tough sell.


40 Responses to Ryan Frederick Trial Day Five

  1. Jack says:

    Hey Doc,

    Incase wilburn may have lost a page of notes. I’ll gladly list all the narcotics manufacturing evidence intoduced today in court for you. Just let me know.

    • Don Tabor says:

      Jack –

      The point you seem to be missing is that even if Frederick were guilty of all charges, the method by which the warrant was obtained would still be an end-around of our Fourth Amendment rights and the service of that warrant would still be criminally negligent and reckless procedure which places innocent as well as guilty citizens and police at risk.

      It remains quite likely that Frederick acted in legitimate self defense even if at some past time he were guilty of the drug charge. His guilt would in no way make the actions and policies of the Chesapeake Police Department acceptable in a free society.

  2. John Wilburn says:

    In U.S. legal context, narcotic refers to opium, opium derivatives, and their semi-synthetic or fully synthetic substitutes “as well as cocaine and coca leaves,” which although classified as “narcotics” in the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA), are chemically not narcotics. Contrary to popular belief, marijuana is not a narcotic, nor are LSD and other psychedelic drugs. Specifically, steroids are not narcotics.[4]

    Many law enforcement officials in the United States inaccurately use the word “narcotic” to refer to any illegal drug or any unlawfully possessed drug. An example is referring to cannabis as a narcotic.

    Hey “Jack” have someone read this to you – sorry I couldn’t provide a picture…

  3. TPB says:

    Mr. John Wilburn:

    Thank you very much for you post today on Day 5.

    I would like to say that I have a whole differant perspective on the police, prosecutors, Informants now.

    Thanks Again,
    Stay Gold,

  4. Jack says:


    Sorry, just using lingo of the trade. In the drug world narcotics refers to all illegal drugs. Hence the name Narc. Didn’t realize you didnt understand. I’ll bumb it down for you from now on. How about that list?
    The defense said one plant would yield 8-12 ounces, not Minehart. Maybe that statement was made while you were sleeping, before the Deputy woke you up. Nice job representing your cause in a professional manner. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  5. John Wilburn says:

    You’re confused “Jack” – I was wide awake the whole time – and Meinhart confirmed the question regarding the amount of yield…

  6. Jack says:


    What are you talking about? Do you not know the law? The search warrant is legal. That has been ruled on. Did you miss that part. Can we please move on. Your last sentence makes sense, and believe it or not I agree with it. In a Totally Free Society, which is not reality. We are talking about the laws of the U.S. and the State of VA. Which we must all abide by, or face the consequences. Like it or not. Am I missing something? Are we talking, what if’s. What if this happened in a totally free society? Or are we talking about reality. You keep trying to make these points, which have been ruled to the contrary? Are you saying you are more knowledgable about the law than the judge?

    I have tried to keep this professional and have enjoyed the intelligent dialogue. However, Wilburn’s posts and your inability to discuss these issues in context of the real world are so nonsensical that I will be going elsewhere. Good Luck. Jack

  7. John Wilburn says:

    Incidentally, “Jack” – this isn’t my cause, and since I’m not being paid, I’m under no obligation to be “professional.”

  8. supercat says:

    The Interview was taped and the transcript ran ten pages, but the Prosecution does not want it introduced as they described it as ’self-serving.’

    Wouldn’t the fact that the prosecutor claimed in his opening statement that RF was stoned open the defense up to introduce rebuttal evidence, even if that evidence might otherwise not be admissible? The interview should be admissible in any case to establish the defendant’s state of mind, but the prosecutor’s opening statement should make the case for admission a slam-dunk.

  9. Jones says:

    I have to agree with Jack, Minehart never agreed about the plant production. It was objected to and he never answered it. Secondly I have to admit I agree with Tabor on one point. The fact that he was or wasn’t growing marijuana is quite irrelevent, It does however become relevent when people keep claiming there was no reason for the search warrant and that all the police are lying. The evidence showed there was a grow operation and like it or not the informants information ABOUT THAT was probably accurate. This is a horrible situation but people are going hardcore against the police and I don’t think they are lying or have anything to lie about. When it comes down to it, I think RF just shot too damn early. If your going to send a bullet you’d better be really sure of what your doing.

  10. Jones says:

    Supercat, by not putting in statements that would benefit the defendant, the prosecution forces the defense to put RF on the stand subjecting him to cross examination. The problem is RF has been lying from the beginning about a lot of things. When crossed he will look pretty bad I predict

  11. Blah Blah Blah says:

    Ummm………….for the not so great thinkers. Could it be Mr. Eberts stated he was stoned out of his mind to prove that he could, in closing, state that RF was in fact thinking clearly. In addition show that the officers have no issues with the truth……..dum dum dum. To be continued………. Welcome to court people.

  12. Lima Charlie says:

    Mr. Wilburn –

    Jack’s correct. Detective Minehart was asked about an 8-12 ounce yield by defense counsel. Before he answered, the Commonwealth objected because the defense had not established the witness as an expert. The question was never answered by the witness. That yield is a defense assertion.

    It’s curious that the defense wanted ask opinion questions from Detective Minehart but did not want to qualify him as an expert (which he clearly is). I think they were afraid to open pandora’s box.

    The jury has seen the grow lights and all of the associated equipment. I would be very suprised if they didn’t think this little pothead wasn’t selling his bud at some level. Even if RF was giving it away it would prove distribution.

  13. John Wilburn says:

    When the question was asked, I thought I saw Det. Minehart (I mean no disrespect to this officer – I’m not sure how to spell his name – or to Det Winkelspecht, either) nod his head, which is to me a “yes” – but you’re both right – Mr. Conway did jump up and object. I really didn’t see his point. I think he’d object if the defense told him the sky is blue…

  14. John Wilburn says:

    Would everyone who was there today, agree, at least, that my report (besides the issue of the yield of female plants) is reasonably complete, accurate, and unbiased?

  15. sober1 says:

    I follow this site very often, it is disturbing however to see the various views from the same information… Someone is wrong, I don’t know who but it is obvious. Of all the information I find it difficult to believe that this many officers would lie. In todays society it is hard enough to get two people to lie about one thing and keep it concealed. Do we really think with all this information that is now being released the Police are really tring to cover up something. They had a warrant issued and served the warrant I believe the arguement is whether Ryan Fredrick acted in self defense but I find it a stretch to think the police acted improperly. More and more lately it seems we want the police when WE need them and don’t want to see them in the mean time. Are they keeping our community safe? Who is willing to let all police go on vacation for two weeks, let everyone know, and hope for the best.

  16. Jack says:


    You stated in the article, “On cross examination, Det. Meinhart (sp?) explained hydroponics production of marijuanna and that one mature plant produced 8 to 12 ounces of smoking material.” Now your stating you thought you saw him nod his head. Well did you or didn’t you? What is it. I’ll tell you what it is, its a LIE. You are a liar. And you have the nerve to call the cops liars. You have disgraced your cause.


    Maybe this guy was trying a little too hard to impress you. But, he went too far. We can agree to disagree on the issues, but reporting outright false info as the fact, has no place in this or any other site. I expect to be challenged, but not lied to. You need to ban him from this blog. This was not his idea or inference he reported, this was fact that he observed firsthand. Then falsely reported it. Will-Burn has been discredited, dont let him bring down Tidewater Liberty.

  17. catinthehat says:

    I must side with Jack on this. Does anyone listen anymore, does anyone care about anyone but themselves anymore, it is obvious to me most don’t.

    I also agree with Sober-1 he or she must be the only one sober – If the police had a Search Warrant which at this time we must believe was not falsified then they were doing there job a job we all need to be done
    Getting drugs off the street.

    Why do people steal? To get money to buy drugs/ Why do people rob others? to get money to buy drugs. Why do people buglarize houses? to pawn items to get money to buy drugs. Narcotics is a multi-billion dollar enterprise each year in both the U.S. and overseas. So how should we go about this? I got it lets tell the cops we want only the drugs and the people that are obviously causing problems to be taken care of, in other words handle some of the problem but not all of it – brilliant.
    Lets look at our independence what if we half assed that where would we be. I don’t tell you how to pull teeth. Don’t tell me how to count my money and let us let the police do there job.

  18. Jack says:

    Will-Burn is accurate and unbiased.
    “The Prosecutors, having already destroyed their personal credibility, would find that a tough sell.” You can now read the Jury’s mind?

    Will-Burn is accurate and unbiased.
    “Det. Meinhart (sp?) explained hydroponics production of marijuanna and that one mature plant produced 8 to 12 ounces of smoking material.” Head Nod?

    Will-Burn is accurate and unbiased.
    “but was delayed until tomorrow pending a motion by Prosecutor Ebert asking that the judge and attorney’s visit first to be certain there is no ‘prejudicial evidence’ which the jury might see.” Broccoletti apologized to the Judge on three occasions because the house was not ready for the Jury to see it today. Frederick’s sister was at work until 6pm. And thus unavailable to open the house. Or did I just see him nod his head.

    Will-Burn is accurate and unbiased.
    “nor any money in bank accounts not attributable to Frederick’s legal employment.” You infer the PD has info pertaining to money legally obtained by Frederick. So far, the witnesses have not testified to finding any money.

    Will-Burn is accurate and unbiased
    ” Defense Attorney Broccoletti asked that the Prosecution be barred from asking Wright about any past activity” What activity could you be talking about? Maybe, the one they discussed for twenty minutes. I guess you didn’t think you might have seen a head nod.

    Will-Burn is accurate and unbiased? I could go on.

    Will-Burn is accurate and unbiased? You Decide.

  19. John Wilburn says:

    Hey “Jack”

    The following exerpt is from the actual report that I sent to Dr. Tabor;

    “The defense cross-examination, conducted by Mr. Korslund basically went over general information about marijuana cultivation;
    Female plants are preferable to male plants (higher yield of product & THC content).
    Male plants are kept limited – determining the sex of the plant is done in the latter stages of cultivation.
    One female plant yields 8 – 12 ounces of smoking material.”

    A RATIONAL person reading this would conclude that it was Mr. Korslund that made those statements – I made no mention of Det. Meinhart – Dr. Tabor reworded what I wrote, in the interest of brevity, not falsification…

    This is what the problem is “Jack” – Chesapeake cops acting on assumption, without thinking, or taking the time to find out the facts…

    Now, explain it to all of us again, what a liar I am…

    Now that I have your attention, “Jack,” permit me to refresh your memory about your previous post, above;

    “However, Wilburn’s posts and your inability to discuss these issues in context of the real world are so nonsensical that I will be going elsewhere. Good Luck. Jack.”

    So, you’re back already. Is this because you’re in love, or confused, or maybe you’re just not very good at telling the truth…

  20. John Wilburn says:

    Hey “JacK”

    You sound upset – try going to the top of this article, in the second sentence under the title (Ryan Frederick Trial Day Five), you’ll find the words “very thorough notes.” If you click on those three words, you’ll be able to see what I actually wrote.

    Do us a favor – it’s really embarrassing, watching you make an ass of yourself…

  21. supercat says:

    //the police had a Search Warrant which at this time we must believe was not falsified then they were doing there job a job we all need to be done//

    A warrant authorizes the police to perform a search or seizure in reasonable fashion. Any unreasonable search or seizure is illegitimate, warrant or no. From what I’ve read, to describe the police conduct in this case as “unreasonable” would be putting it mildly.

    Any reasonable person should recognize that a forced entry into a dwelling whose occupant is known to be particularly fearful of being robbed is likely to be dangerous, and should not be attempted unless necessary; other less dangerous ways of serving the warrant should be tried first. Rather than expecting an occupant to instantly distinguish between a real police uniform and a dime-store knockoff, it would make a lot more sense to allow the occupant enough time to make a real determination.

    To start with, if the occupant has a phone in the house, try to call it. If the occupant is likely to be asleep, make some noise to awaken the occupant and try again. If the phone doesn’t work, use a bullhorn and flashing lights. Invite the occupant to call 911 to confirm that there are real police outside. Use a forced entry as the last resort, not the first.

    Can you offer me any reason why a reasonable and prudent person would not believe that (1) a forced entry into a home whose occupant fears burglars is dangerous, (2) other methods of attempting communication would be safer, and (3) police officers have a duty not to endanger anyone unnecessarily?

  22. KBCraig says:

    Doc and John: I’m sorry you’re having to deal with such insulting comments from Paul Blart (I assume that’s Jack’s true identity) and other badge-lickers. I am a full time active LEO for a federal agency, and I’d be embarrassed to have such “supporters”. Then again, I’m a member of LEAP, so I don’t think that Demon Weed must be eradicated at all costs.

    “Wouldn’t the fact that the prosecutor claimed in his opening statement that RF was stoned open the defense up to introduce rebuttal evidence, even if that evidence might otherwise not be admissible?”

    IANAL, but I believe that attorney statements are not evidence and are not testimony. They cannot be formally rebutted, only countered by opposing counsel’s statements.

    “The evidence showed there was a grow operation and like it or not the informants information ABOUT THAT was probably accurate.”

    As reported by John Wilburn, the evidence does NOT show there was a grow operation, let alone a “major grow op” as was repeatedly stated in news articles immediately after the raid. Of the items seized that COULD be used to grow marijuana (which could also be used to start Japanese maple seedlings, tomatoes, etc., in winter months) NONE of it was hooked up or operational, or even shown to be functional.

    The items found in the house attic and garage attic could be used to grow *any* plant indoors, including marijuana. Ryan was known to all his family, friends, and neighbors as an avid garden hobbyist. More importantly, *none* of it was being used to grown anything at all.

    They introduced unused stuff stored in the attic(s) as evidence of an active growing operation? Seriously?

    If you can find any suburban home that doesn’t have items that could be described as a “grow operation”, then I guarantee you could at least find items that could be described as “precursors to manufacturing methamphetamine”, or “bomb-making materials”, or “key ingredients to making chemical weapons”. Got bleach and ammonia? Congratulations, you’re a terrorist! Sudafed, drain cleaner, and Pyrex dishes? You’re a meth lab! Sandwich baggies? You’re a drug distributor!

    The defense stipulated up front that Ryan smoked pot, and had even grown his own. None of the evidence presented so far says anything else. Certainly not that he ran a “major grow operation”.

  23. Chalicechick says:

    Wilburn’s notes back up everything he says here, as far as I can tell. I’m not sure why people are being so rough on him.

    Is there any evidence that the guy was “Stoned out of his mind?”

  24. ktc2 says:

    A good post today on reason which explains why malicious prosecutions like this go on:


  25. Jones says:

    Craig are you really that naive?? First of all I said there is evidence there “Was” (past tense) a grow op. Secondly those items are not in most homes. Wattage amps for high powered lamps. The bulbs in those lamps go for over a hundred dollars. And anyone who believes all that horticulture crap should be embarrased. He didn’t have about twenty books and magazines about how to grow tomatoes!! He had them about marijuana. And there was a marijuana leaf in one of the tubs which was analyzed and found to be marijuana. People don’t buy leaves to smoke, they buy buds. People who have leaves either have or had plants. I’m not saying he’s a kingpin but lets be realistic he was growing and selling weed.

  26. Bill says:

    For what it’s worth, sober1, I don’t think most of us are saying that all the police who testified are lying. I DO think that important information regarding the informant was concealed when the warrant was applied for–you can consider that a lie of omission–and I think there is some likelihood that the “knock and announce” was far more subdued than SOME of the officers are claiming. Remember that some of the officers who testified, who were STANDING ON THE PROPERTY, also didn’t hear the initial announcement. Unfortunately, the “Drug War” has fostered a culture of dishonesty among police, from the necessity to use the deception of undercover work, to the temptation of drug profits, to frequent “adjustments” to testimony. And there is a culture among police to stick together–an “us vs. them” mindset, so there is ample reason to apply skepticism to some of the testimony. It doesn’t mean we assume anyone is lying, just that we listen critically.

  27. Jones says:

    On the Wilburn conversation, I don’t think it’s a big deal how he analyzed the testimony. However it should be recognized that when several people sit in a sterile, safe courtroom there are different versions of what occurred just hours earlier. However everyone expects the Police to have exactly consistent recolection of the events that occurred a year ago when a friend of theirs was killed and they were under fire. Inconsistencies are common in trials and dont automatically make liers of those testifying. I believe they have all testified honestly and from the heart. The jurors are told that opening and closing statements made by the Commonwealth are their opinions of what the evidence will show not evidence. Det. Winkelspects testimony just show’s that they are honest and upfront. The small inconsistencies just show they didn’t sit around and script their story.

  28. ktc2 says:

    The “drug war” is an obscenity. There simply is no longer even so much as a “good faith” argument in favor of it. Anyone who supports it’s abuses is either a) misinformed or b) evil.

  29. Bill says:

    Jones, not to be difficult, but how do you KNOW he didn’t have twice as many books about how to grow tomatoes as how to grow marijuana? Yes, the books on growing pot are indicative that he had quite an interest in that (though I find it an unpleasant contrast with the First Amendment that what we read can be seen as evidence of a crime), but since books on growing tomatoes, or anything else, are not evidence supporting the charges about distributing controlled substances, we have no idea what percentage of his reading material was pot-related.

  30. Jones says:

    Bill, not to be difficult, but if he had a library of reading material on other plants don’t you think the defense would produce it. I know the defense hasn’t gottent their turn yet, but I’m still willing to bet my paycheck it’s not going to happen. There is a certain amount of common sense here. We can play devil advocate or conspirator all day your not going to get around the fact that he was growing and selling weed. You’ll see when the defense doesn’t even argue those points. Their argument will be that he didn’t know it was the police. They aren’t going to ruin they’re credibility by claiming he was growing tomatoes or any other legal plants.

  31. claude says:

    ” You’ll see when the defense doesn’t even argue those points. ”

    They dont have to. All they have to do is argue how the information became known to the cops. Burglary.

  32. tarran says:

    In ancient China, the Duke of Sung chivalrously waited for an invading army to fully cross a river and array itself in battle formation before attacking it. His forces were routed and he lost the battle.

    In a home invasion, if the invader gets into your home and can draw his weapon and fire upon you, your chance of survival drops significantly. If you are going to resist, the best time to resist is before they have managed to enter the home. We have no obligation to behave as the Duke of Sung.

    The police could have accomplished their goals simply by ringing a doorbell, and when he answered the door, presenting him with a warrant. The law that permits violent entries in search of grow lamps is manifestly unjust, and one that should be disobeyed.

    All the indications are that Ryan Frederick though he was being attacked by some violent gang that was other than the police. The fact that the police were so incompetent as to be unable to serve a warrant without behaving like murderous criminals in no way is his fault. If anyone should be on the stand for Shriver’s death, it should be his supervisors. Incidentally, when a person knows that someone has committed a felony and refuses to assist in his prosecution, isn’t that grounds for being charged as an accessory after the fact? I would think that the officers who encouraged the informants to burglarize homes would be facing serous jail time.

  33. RacerX says:


    It very well may be true that he was growing weed at some point prior to the raid. There is circumstantial evidence of that. However, there is no evidence at this point that he was selling it. IIRC, the police stated that they did NOT make any controlled buys nor did they have any other evidence to justify the warrant other than the CI’s word. You may be right that he was growing and selling weed. But with the evidence we know of currently, you cannot prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. You can infer and project all you want, but this man was never on the police radar until someone known to have a grudge against him broke into his home and reported back to the cops.

  34. ktc2 says:

    Laws that allow this type of behavior by LEOs really have lost all moral bearing.

    Personally I suspect that this “show trial” will result in the standard (98%) rubber stamp conviction. It’s an unfortunate reality of our legal system which long ago shed any semblance of a justice system.

    Arguing points of law is . . . pointless. Law is just a tool, nothing more. It’s a tool for man to create a system of justice, a system to protect those who are not harming anyone and punish those who are.

    What has happened is that the tool has run wild and become an end in and of itself. You see evidence of this anytime you hear someone ranting about “the rule of law” as if this is the ultimate end-all good which must be respected above all else.

    I seem to recall recently one US Supreme Court Justice was quoted as saying something to the effect of it should be perfectly legal to excute a man who has been proven innocent so long as “procedure has been followed”. If you needed any further evidence that our legal system is completely devoid of justice at even it’s highest levels well . . . there it is. I’m sure you can google the exact quote.

  35. omar says:

    “You need to ban him from this blog.”

    lolz. Jack is a saucy troll.

    John and Doc, thank you so much for taking time out of your busy lives to report on this case. You are doing a huge public service and you should be proud.

    I discussed this case with a lawyer friend of mine the other day – she is on track to become a NYC prosecutor. Her attitude was, without wavering or really thinking, “the prosecution is right. The cops are right. Even if the warrant was obtained illegally and RF didn’t know it was the cops, he still shot a cop. Throw the book at this meatcicle.” All that from my biased pro-RF opinion…I can’t imagine what she would have said if she heard it from the cops.

    I’m afraid this case is going to make me apply for law school to be a defense attorney. Someone needs to “cancel that vote”.

  36. Erica says:

    Thank U once again Mr. Tabor for taking your time to post on this case.


  37. Bill says:

    Jones, RacerX pretty well hit the nail on the head as to my point. My point is not that he wasn’t growing pot. But solely based on the books, what can be PROVEN? As the prosecutor said in the opening arguments, there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence to look at. Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily inferior, but since CPD didn’t do a controlled buy, what does the paraphernalia tell us about whether Frederick was selling, as opposed to merely growing, pot, or if he was doing either, how long ago it took place?

  38. RC says:

    I’ve never tried to follow a trial before and I’m not finding it easy. A good part of the time I can’t even make out what the people are saying, especially one of the prosecutors – sure wish they would be a bit louder. So I’m very impressed with the notes people have been taking because these notetakers are sure gleaning a lot more of this than I am.
    Guilt or innocence/legal or illegal, I’m not 100%convinced of anything at this point. And I don’t know who Jack is. But I feel obliged to say that I know he is wrong when he says that John Wilburn was woken up during the trial by a deputy. Unequivocally, and I’ll take an oath, John wasn’t woken up by a deputy because I was the one that fell asleep. Between being a little sleep deprived and the monotone prosecutor droning on, I was knocked right out. Just goes to show ya…eye witnesses should not be assumed to be credible.

  39. juris imprudent says:

    For those folks who think the police NEVER lie in drug cases, you should acquaint yourself with the Kathryn Johnston case in Atlanta (google it). I think that will cure you of that particular naive notion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: