Betty: I've been clear at my site that I really don't care what happens to Green. Sorry if that offends anyone, it's just where I'm at. As you, C.I., continue covering the hearing -- hearings? -- you are making remarks that I know offend some drive-bys who seem to think you're calling for Green to walk.
C.I.: The trial is over, Green's been convicted. The sentencing hearing is what's ongoing now and it resumes on Monday. I can understand if people are bothered by some of what I've written -- or all of it -- during the sentencing phase. There are a number of reasons for what I'm writing and one would include the fact that I've really been appalled by the job the defense has done. 'Experts' who do not know your client belong in the trial phase, not in the sentencing phase. Quit trying to retry the case and humanize your client or he will get the death penalty.
Dona: And it gets old, I'm sure. Monday through Friday, you have to have something. And when there's nothing in the news, you have to go through the court documents. So that's a factor as well?
C.I.: Well, yeah, and it's also true that, for Abeer, this case needs to be followed through to the end and there needs to be something, each time, something in an entry at The Common Ills, that has someone thinking about the case for a little longer. Even if it just ten seconds more. Evan Bright noted in his latest report that it's gotten a bit routine -- my term, not his -- in the court room and that he could use some Red Bull or something else to stay awake. The trial is over. It's not usually expected that the defense will spend longer in sentencing than they do in presenting their case in the trial itself but that is what has happened.
Wally: I found that interesting because the defense offered two days during the hearing, not even two full days, but in the sentencing, they've already offered four days of witness testimony. But you were talking -- Ava, C.I., Kat and I are on the road each week and fly back on Saturdays -- on the plane ride home yesterday about Evan's post specifically and I was hoping you would put that out here.
C.I.: Evan Bright has done a wonderful job reporting on the case. And if he's exhausted, that's not surprising. He's put in a huge amount of time in the court room, he's Twittered and he's also written these in depth reports about each day in court. So I'm not surprised if he's having trouble staying awake because he's so exhausted or because it's a turned into a chore. I don't know that it has on the latter, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. But what do I wonder is what that means for the defense.
Wally: Spell it out like you did on the plane.
C.I.: The jury has been present each day as well. If the defense's witnesses are making Evan Bright weary, what do you think they're doing to the jury? When I hear what was testified to in court, when I'm speaking to someone present or following the case, I hear an A a C and S worth noting but to get to those points people had to sit through the entire alphabet meaning the defense doesn't appear to be questioning the witnesses properly. They're letting everything spill out and when something spills out that needs to be underlined and highlighted, the defense isn't doing that. And I would fear, were I the defense, that the jury was as weary as Evan Bright is. And all the members of the jury are older than Bright. Remember, he's an 18-year-old high school senior so, presumably, he's got more natural energy than anyone else in the court room.
Kat: I'm glad Wally brought that up because we were talking about it on the plane home yesterday and I was talking about how I was sorry for him, for Evan, because he's going to see this through regardless but it's taken up so much time for him. And I wasn't even thinking, until C.I. brought up the jury, that if he's tired, what's that saying about the jury that's having to sit there? I've been thinking about that since the plane ride and I've got nothing else to add just wanted to underline that.
Stan: Well, I'm the newsest one with a site in the community, and there are days when I think, "I don't know what to write about tonight." And there are evenings when I search and search and I'm talking to others like Marcia or Mike to see if they have any ideas. And I don't have a defined scope so I can grab anything that I find interesting. And yet, point, there are nights when I really have nothing up until I start typing. So what happens when you've got to note the trial and there's nothing there?
C.I.: Generally, that's been when I go through the various court filings and responses and hope there's something that can be used. And I do understand Evan Bright being tired of it because it has become his entire focus and that's a lot to carry around -- for someone of any age. There's the fact that Green may be executed, there are the War Crimes themselves, and he's had to hear all of that in graphic detail and that's a lot to carry around inside.
Ava: You made a joke, to me, this past week about the scope. With the shooting last Monday, you were getting tired of the scope at TCI.
C.I.: Right. The Monday shooting was big and it had to be covered and we have to cover the Green trial because I'm not going to be someone screaming at friends who aren't covering it while I'm also ignoring it. But, yeah, thank goodness for the two Congressional hearings because it was really feeling like a crime blotter between John S. Russell and Steven D. Green.
Ruth: That gives me a question and I didn't think I had one. There's not really an effort by you to use "alleged" with Sgt. Russell. Why is that?
C.I.: A room full of witnesses saw him do it. His own father and his own son, speaking to the press, didn't use alleged. I don't really see the point in using "alleged" on that. If others want to, I think that's great and if I had time to just devote to Russell's story, I might as well. But unless he suddenly has a defense that pleads not guilty, we'll continue to not fret over "alleged." He may plead not guilty by reason of insanity and, should he do so, he would be on strong ground -- my opinion. But I really don't see him denying the shooting itself.
Jess: Jim noted at the top that no one's mad at C.I. in this and no one is. But Betty got very mad at me last week -- she said I could bring this up -- because I was defending Green from the death penalty. We started off with a calm discussion but it quickly went elsewhere. I understand why she felt the way she did and she understands why I do but what surprises me, as someone who works the public e-mail for The Common Ills and the private accounts for members is how community members haven't been bothered by your remarks during the sentencing.
C.I.: Jess' mother is a public defender and a great one. I think Jess needs to talk more about that and both his parents are opposed to the death penalty.
Jess: Yeah. And I could see my mother getting this case though she wouldn't have taken it due to the rape issue. But I know she's defended people who needed a lawyer, as everyone is guaranteed one, but been attacked for defending them and it just surprises me that some of your remarks haven't resulted in angry e-mails from community members.
C.I.: I would guess, and this is just my guess, that most members are grasping that I'm really appalled by the job the defense has done. It's equally true that we didn't pick this up, at TCI or community wide, a few weeks ago. We're all familiar with the War Crimes and have long weighed in on them. So I think I can argue that the defense is doing a poor job and not have someone think, "Wait, is C.I. saying it's okay what happened to Abeer?" I think my position, and all of our positions, on the War Crimes are plainly spoken enough that we don't have to worry about community members misunderstanding. My guess.
Jim: Equally true is that someone who, for example, might be rooting for the death penalty for Green can read your critiques of the defense and think, "Yes! He's not getting off! His attorneys are a joke and he's going to fry!"
C.I.: Yeah, they could think that.
Cedric: I want to get to the death penalty aspect in terms of the jury. You wrote about that on Friday. I want to be sure I'm clear on that aspect.
C.I.: There are 12 members on the jury -- I believe it's nine women and three men, but I'm tired and may be remembering that wrong. For Green to get the death penalty, all 12 have to agree he should be put to death. If they can't all agree, he doesn't get it. Only the jury can sentence him to death. The judge can't.
Marcia: You noted several times that it was both -- that it was better for the defense to have witnesses who knew Green. They are the ones who can humanize him, you've argued, and I agree. But I read over Evan Bright's reporting for the week earlier and your other point came through as well. You'd said that Marisa Ford, the prosecutor, wasn't going to question these personal witnesses. And she really hasn't. She's gone after the 'experts.' What's going on there?
C.I.: The prosecution has to look like they're after justice. I assume that's what they are after and I think Marisa Ford has done a wonderful job on this case. But the defense should have grasped that they can pull out all the stunts with a personal witness. Ford can only go so far with those or she will look vindictive. A witness cries on the stand about how great Green is. Even if Ford wants to question that witness -- and most times, there's no need -- it'll only go up to a point because the jury will be thinking, "S/he just cried and now the prosecutor's tearing into her/him." The prosecution has to look like they're out for justice, not like their mad dogs foaming at the mouth.
Rebecca: What do think the sentence will be?
C.I.: I don't know. If the hearing had stopped Tuesday, I think, my opinion, Steven D. Green would be facing an execution. The defense was much better on Wednesday and Thursday. The may continue that on Monday. But, back to the point about Evan Bright being weary, if he's weary, the jury is. And if the defense isn't hitting the main points with each witness and really nailing home the points made, Green's going to be sentenced to death.
Ty: It really does come down to what he told the arresting officers. Agents?
C.I.: Agents. The FBI arrested him. He told them, "You probably think I'm a monster." That's what the defense should have grasped the jury thought as well. And experts don't impress a jury that's already convicted someone --
Rebecca: On all counts.
C.I.: On all counts correct. Why are these experts up here? What do they say? That's what the jury thinks and I'm tossing to Elaine on this.
Elaine: And I'm completely unprepared. Okay, the convictions have been decided. The guilt's been assigned. The experts are brought in before that. They really don't belong in the sentencing unless they know Green and know him very well. Like Ty pointed out, it's the monster aspect. The defense has to, as C.I. says, humanize Green. That's the only way he's not getting the death penalty. The problem with the 'experts' is two-fold. First, they don't know Green. Second, they're 'experts.' Meaning the defense is putting people on the witness stand to say, "It's not strange. Not really." Well, no, it is strange to the jury. It is strange to the jury that convicted Green without ever hearing from these new found experts. And when they're told it's not strange they're likely to think that they're being told they were wrong. That they were wrong to convict. Any witness who appears to be telling the jury that they are wrong is a witness that's wasted because the jury's not going to listen. In fact, they may turn against the side that put a witness like that on the stand.
Jim: Okay, that's everyone but Mike. Mike?
Mike: Well I don't know. In the lead up to the verdict, I think, honestly, I wanted Green to get the death penalty. He was found guilty on all counts which is saying something and that is a victory. If he gets off now, I'm not going to be mad and, for a variety of reasons, I might even think that was the best thing. Does anyone have any idea when the jury's going to issue a sentence?
C.I.: I belive the thinking is that the jury may be able to begin deliberations on Wednesday. And Betty actually was going to add something completely non-related.
Betty: Thank you. Medium, NBC Monday, Anjelica Houston returns to her Emmy nominated role. And, in terms of what Mike's saying, I do agree. And before anyone wonders, yes, Jess did ask if it was okay to bring up our argument and it was more than okay.
Jim: Okay, NBC Monday night, don't miss Anjelica Houston. This was a rush transcript. Photo used is of Steven D. Green from when he was arrested. C.I. got it from the sherrif's department and declared that copy public domain. Anyone who wants to can use the photo, or our copy of it.
