Trooper Higbee’s Testimony

Today CNN/TruTV put the cameras back on the trial of NJ State Trooper Robert Higbee so that the defendant could answer the charges against him in public.

For the most part, the TruTV commentary was minimal. At least one commercial break, though, interrupted his account of the events of that night at the worst possible moment for this blogger: the commercial prevented the public from hearing what was in the trooper’s mind as he began to “close the gap” with the speeder. (More evidence that videotaping of trials and live coverage should either not be a commercial cable-TV venture or should be streamed live over the Internet and sponsored only through ads during courtroom breaks or elsewhere.)

As the trial went into lunchtime recess, TruTV anchor Jack Ford began discussing the trooper’s testimony with two lawyers, one of whom was the famous defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden. Once again, I’m struck by the difference in responses to such testimony from lawyers and the rest of the human race. Ms. Baden thought the trooper seemed oddly unemotional when he described observing the two deceased victims of the accident.

This very emotional mystery writer thought Trooper Higbee looked like he was on the verge of losing all self-control for a moment.

Ms. Baden thought Defense Attorney Subin ought to have handled the moment differently in order to elicit a more emotional response from the defendant. But, frankly, I suspect Ms. Baden is one of those defense attorneys who would never take a case in defense of a cop.

This former juror would not want to see a cop break down on the stand. I want all the gun-toting officers out there on the streets to be calm, cool, and collected—even when under fire.

CNN reporter Jean Casarez also described the jury’s response to the defendant’s testimony as being very intense. Most jurors kept their eyes glued to the faces of the defendant and his attorney. One juror, apparently, stared down. My assessment of this juror’s demeanor is that he’s an aural learner and was listening intently. (BTW: Ms. Casarez, also a lawyer, reported that Trooper Higbee had tears welling up in his eyes as he testified about the victims, so I guess I have to take back what I said about lawyers in general.)

Technorati Tags:

 
Trackbacks
  • Trackbacks are closed for this post.
Comments
Page: 1 of 1
  • 6/2/2009 6:09 AM SaveRob wrote:
    Very good observations. Has anyone ever seen a case were the prosecuting agency (Cape May County) didn't place one of their own investigators, in fact the lead investigator of th case on the stand? Didn't want the actual medical examiner to testify so they brought in another to read her report? Won't allow the accident report to be submitted into evidence? Limited the defense so that they can't talk about all the pre-crash / post crash engineering that was requested of the county by the township to fix that intersection? Had a judge who plays second prosecutor sua sponte?
    Reply to this
    1. 6/4/2009 6:28 AM The Hung Juror wrote:
      I can't speak to all your questions, but I believe the reason the ME who testified was not the one who performed the autopsy is that the original ME has moved on to a new position elsewhere. I'm not a lawyer--as I've tried to stress--so I don't know whether ME's can be subpoenaed once they move on. I was also startled to learn that the witness was the ME in Florida who initially declared the cause of death in a notorious prison-guard beating of a teenager in detention as death due to sickle cell anemia. How did this ME who was publicly alleged to be incompetent end up in this trial? (I believe I heard this on TruTV--I could be entirely wrong. If so, I apologize and will delete this comment.)

      The prosecution may not have put the original accident investigator on the stand, but they did put on their accident reconstruction specialist who analyzed the accident. He was a very unhappy state trooper who clearly wanted to be somewhere else. As I understand it, his report is the one that said the stop sign's placement was "not normal," and this aspect of his report was prohibited from being read aloud to the jury.

      I wish I was Sybil the Soothsayer and could predict an acquital in this case. All I can say is that if I were on this jury I would never vote for conviction.
      Reply to this

Page: 1 of 1
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.