Today, the defense in the trial of NJ State Trooper Robert Higbee continued to present its case in chief:

Attorney Subin wisely chose not to conduct re-direct this morning and instead to let the trooper’s dramatic testimony yesterday suffice.

• They presented about 40 character witnesses, who were only permitted to testify under NJ law to the trooper’s trustworthiness, veracity, and integrity, not to relate specific instances of his good character.
• They brought on Bruce Siddle, an expert in law enforcement, military, and intelligence officers’ memories of stressful incidents. He has worked with foreign security personnel as well as the FBI, CIA, ATF and other agencies to develop unique data showing that even under moderately stressful situations officers rarely remember their actions accurately.
• IMHO—and a non-legal opinion at that—the prosecutor in the case does not understand the defense experts’ testimony. He asks very confusing, off-point questions during most of his cross-examinations—and today was no exception.
• However, I do feel there are a couple of points the defense hasn’t been crystal-clear about either. Oh, well.

What’s important is that—despite being prohibited by the judge from offering testimony on the inadequacy of the intersection’s signage or prior accidents there—the defense has clearly demonstrated how it is possible that an experienced police officer might mistake which signs he was supposed to be observing that night.

It appears that tomorrow the parties will argue about jury instructions, unless the prosecution has a rebuttal. Jury instructions fascinate me, but I fear I won’t be able to hear either the discussion among the lawyers or the presentation to the jury.

One instruction I will research further has to do with character witnesses.