I didn’t really get when he “prematurely ejaculated,” whether it was before or after the condom went on/off. But he is trying to use that as an explanation for why there was semen/his DNA on his underwear.
ETA: At least that’s how I understood it.
I wonder if it could have been pre-ejaculate on the outside of her underwear.
I meant her underwear above. Sorry.
@dstark Thanks for the compliment but I’m not a prosecutor.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. If he says he doesn’t recall, then the prosecutor can ask “Whether or not you recall the specific conversation, did Thomson let you know he thought the girl was too young for you to pursue?” If Labrie says no, I think it would hurt his credibility.
And, you can still argue in closing that even if he doesn’t recall now, he would have been aware of Thomson’s attitude back then…unless Thomson is lying.
I may not be explaining this well but the idea is to ask him a few questions he hasn’t thought through. Remember…if he denies that Thomson said it, the prosecutor may, depending on the actual words, put Thomson back on the stand.
I’ve never bought the ‘don’'t ask a question you don’t know the answer to" thing anyway in a situation like this. In regular civil cases, it makes sense because you ask everything in discovery. But in criminal cases, you never know what a defendant who does testify will say. Most of them don’t talk to the police as freely as Labrie did.
The prosecutor didn’t really know what Labrie would say in response to ANY of the questions he was asked on cross.
Good coverage of today’s testimony from the New York Times: http://nyti.ms/1KNw9yY
I don’t get the sense this reporter found Labrie particularly credible.
Classic, textbook closing argument by the defense. Points out inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative, and then pulls together seemingly innocuous pieces of evidence to strengthen the defendant’s narrative.
Is anyone else surprised that the prosecution did not recall the victim to the stand to rebut some of the defendant’s testimony?
@midwestdad3, I’m not sure what the girl would add. She was thoroughly crossed. But i was surprised that the defense could not muster up a single student or expert witness on the issues of what was said or the scientific dna evidence.
It sounds like she didn’t do all that well under cross the first time.
MidwestDad3, I have been following your commentary with interest, due to your legal expertise. I saw a snippet of Labrie’s testimony on the news last night and he seemed confident on the stand. Regarding the potential rebuttal of the victim, do you think it was because her emotional demeanor might be a negative contrast to Labrie’s more measured testimony?
@prospect1 I don’t think the defense needed to counter the DNA evidence. In this case, unfortunately for the prosecution, it is almost worthless.
Regarding recalling the victim, I think @hunt and @catlady are correct. Also, in skimming allymanning’s tweets from yesterday, I see that the victim was actually out of the courtroom for much of the defendant’s testimony. So the prosecution probably thought it was too risky to put her back on the stand to rebut.
I guess my feeling is that the prosecution’s cross-examination just wasn’t that strong yesterday if the tweets are accurate. @jonri should have been doing it! I’m left with the feeling that the prosecution didn’t have much confidence in their witnesses, whereas the defense made a very gutsy move by putting the defendant on the stand.
If the dna evidence was weak, then shouldn’t the defense have hit on that more in closing? I guess I didn’t realize that the dna evidence was so weak.
Isn’t it weird that the prosecution asked for a break during closing argument?? Why would you want to lose that momentum?
Based on the tweets, I do like the points made by the State.
So what does everyone think the jury will decide?
As I mentioned before, to me there are so many doubts about this case that I really don’t see a guilty verdict coming down.
^^^I think most of the jury probably understand how two people making out, even just in their underwear, could leave behind DNA.
Where that evidence would be helpful is if the defendant had said, “I never went up to the room with her.” But he’s not saying that. He acknowledges that he was there and, uh, that some, uh, fluids were present.
I would not be at all surprised by a not guilty verdict, or at most a misdemeanor result. But it’s impossible to predict without having been in the courtroom to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and the jury reactions. For example, did the girl’s repeated bouts of crying and leaving the courtroom come off as genuine or overly dramatic? Did Labrie come across as confident…or just arrogant/smug? Did the “friend” witnesses with their personal lawyers look honest… Or trying to side with the right horse/cover their butts/distance themselves from the accused? Did the lawyers come across as sure of their sides or faltering? Did witnesses’ body language convey anything?
No matter what the verdict is, the accused lost.
Pulling out the tricks to get a 15 year old girl to have sex…we see the accused’s character.
I wish the tweets showed what objections were made, which were sustained and which were overruled.
If the jury comes back fairly quickly, I would think NG on all counts. But if they are out a while, G on the misdemeanors and NG on the felonies. But as @prospect1 suggests, without having been in the courtroom it is only guessing. The bottom line is that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a very difficult standard to meet when it is essentially a he said/she said case.
I agree that you can’t tell what the jury is going to do, but I’m going to say either not guilty on all counts, or guilty on all counts. If the jury decides that he was lying about having sex with her, they may well think he was lying about everything else as well.
Too hard to tell just going by random tweets - not seeing all the testimony, tone and body language, objections, etc. I am too biased as well to give an objective analysis on the limited amount we’ve been privy to. Hoping for some misdemeanor charges at least.
Going off the tweets, daily newspaper summations and the little clip of Labrie’s testimony that I watched last night, I think he can’t be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. I personally feel the circumstances brought out in the trial are murky enough that he shouldn’t be. That being said, I have no doubt that something untoward happened and I feel terrible for the girl and her family.