Defense tactic on cross of Brannon backfires in Tree case

Many witnesses in the Bodhi Tree trial are not perfect. During jury selection, jurors were questioned at length about expert witnesses and realistic courtroom presentations and not expecting Bones or CSI type crime reconstruction. They were asked how they felt about people with mental illness and addiction, whether they gave more credence to testimony from a law enforcement officer than someone struggling with addiction.

So far based on the evidence, the prosecution has proved their theory. The defense has not been able to discredit prosecution witneses. What they have succeeded in achieving is prolonging the trial by questions and information already covered in direct, having defense witnesses testify that offer nothing conclusive pointing to Tree being innocent.

Their frustration is evident in their agressive questioning and attitude towards prosecution witnesses. This morning during Casey Russo's cross, the Judge ruled in favor of Ms. Firpo's objection that Mr. Russo was being argumentative.

The judge ruled in favor of the prosecution again, when Ms. Firpo said, " this has been asked and answered." On direct, Ms. Firpo brings up any criminal record, details of immunity agreement yet each time the defense tries the same tactic of asking the same question without getting any favorable result. The defense strategy and questioning is so predictable, each cross seems the same.

Today, it seemed a  phone call between Brannon and a "mother figure" in his life may have worked to the defense's advantage but the questioning by defense and strategy backfired because most of it was about an unrelated incident. On redirect, Ms. Firpo was able to rehabilitate her witness.

The attack dog questioning of witnesses who are taking a risk, literally with their lives, coupled with Tree's courtroom attitude are not a winning combo for the defense.

Tree is getting a fair and good trial and he has two attorneys trying their very best for him. Yet, he acts like he is doing us a favor by being in the courtroom. The way he glares at certain witneses is very chilling.

Right now in the courtroom audience, there are no impartial viewers. We have family members, we have people who work as public defenders or worked on the case, we have community members with strong opinions, and some media whose personal views may not be reflected in their coverage.

There is a lot of speculation about how the case and which side is doing well from people who have never been in the courtroom for this trial.