Moment of Truth, Part Two - The First Lie?
→ The Out-Lawyer’s Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
And
The Policy Think Site: http://www.jaygaskill.com
All contents, unless otherwise indicated are
Copyright © 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by Jay B. Gaskill
Please contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com
Print version -- http://jaygaskill.com/ReiserFirstLie.htm
MOMENT OF TRUTH PART TWO - THE FIRST LIE?
The doubled edged nature of Han Reiser’s testimony was blatantly apparent, so much so that at times the defense direct examination by Bill DuBois was hard to distinguish from a cross examination by a prosecutor. To be fair, any competent defense attorney needs to take the sting out of a client’s admissions and concessions by presenting them first and in the best light. But the overall effect illustrates the downsides associated with calling this defendant to the witness stand at all, given the sheer number of damaging behaviors and circumstances that need to be persuasively explained.
THE DEFENSE HIGHLIGHTS
Hans bought the police procedurals after seeing his attorney – but not on his attorney’s recommendation. Hans was worried about police interrogation techniques.
Hans thinks his own DNA may have been deposited onto the Exeter post by reaching out and touching it. Others might have gotten their DNA on it via spittle. And Nina? Hans was allowed to speculate: One time in 06 Nina cut her finger on a cutting board (presumably in the kitchen) and another time she had a nosebleed (presumably not from striking the post).
Comment
Hans’ assertions here may or may not be helped or refuted by DNA evidence, but the fact that he has implicitly acknowledged the DNA identification tells me that the defense DNA expert may have little to add to the case, if that expert testifies at all…
The CRX
Hans slept in the CRX for a few days to avoid being arrested after Nina’s disappearance.
Hans admitted that he evaded the police because he didn’t want them to seize his CRX. He contemplated throwing away the police procedural books he kept there. He parked the CRX on Monterey Boulevard to hide it from the police and “ran like the wind” to get away from the car. [Remember this is the defense examination.]
The Battery
Hans admitted that he had not been honest earlier when he concealed the fact that he had a practice of removing the battery from his cellphone when he was not using it.
The Storage Unit
Hans admitted that he had explored using the Manteca storage facility to hide the CRX, but decided against it because there were guards 24/7. Hans explained that he wanted to be able to sleep there.
Hans admitted that he threw the passenger seat from the CRX into a dumpster by Tom’s Hardware and Auto in San Leandro. He first said that the location was on Hegenberger, then – after a juror shook his head – Hans corrected himself. The street was Hesperian. This disposal took place on Sept. 17, 2006. Why did he dispose of it? “That seat was not in good condition. Neither seat was in good condition.”
That ticket
Hans contradicted himself – again on direct examination – about what he was doing in Redwood City on September 12 when he was ticketed. At first it was business then it was to get a sandwich.
THE CROSS EXAMINATION
Paul Hora began by taking charge immediately.
Hans Lied to the Jury Earlier
Hora: Let me begin by asking if you're willing to admit, here and now, that when you testified you willfully concealed the fact that you routinely removed the battery from your cell phone after Nina disappeared?
Reiser: Yes, and I feel badly about that.
Hora: And that was a willfully false or deliberating misleading statement of a material fact, do you agree?
Reiser: Yes.
Comment
The court will later instruct the jury that a witness who testifies falsely about a material fact in one part of his testimony can be distrusted in all his testimony. Note here, that Paul Hora’s question has carefully narrowed the time frame to “after Nina disappeared”. This is what makes the omission particularly material.
What Was Hans hiding?
Reiser began to fence with Hora during questions about why he was evading police in the CRX even though he apparently knew that there was a search warrant.
Reiser: But I didn’t have an awareness that it was my legal responsibility to provide a car upon obtaining the knowledge that there exists, somewhere, such a lawful search warrant, and I don’t think that I have that legal obligation -- but I'm sure Mr. DuBois can direct me…. You’re kind of asking me for a legal conclusion, sir, as to whether I should have provided the police with my car. I guess you're implicitly asking me for a legal conclusion -- you didn’t explicitly. I don't have a great deal of desire to give the government all of my possessions -- not my underwear, not my car, definitely not my children.
Hora: And not information about where Nina is?
Reiser: Your question is ridiculous.
What Happened on September 3?
Then Hora took Reiser thorough a whole series of questions about the events on September 3. Reiser agreed that he and Nina discussed the divorce, but denied that voices were raised or that “passions were aroused”.
Hans denied striking Nina, pushing Nina; he denied accidentally or intentionally killing her; he denied that she committed suicide, denied that she tripped and fell, and so on. It was an amazing string of questions - in effect Hora was using the defendant to rule out any mitigation or defense to a killing, bringing the case down to an all or nothing choice.
One interesting question and answer:
Hora: Did you assault her?
Reiser: No.
Hora: Did you touch her?
Reiser: ….Probably not. [My emphasis. Reportedly Hans paused before answering that question.]
And at another point:
Hora: Did Nina hit you?
Reiser: She did not.
Hora: Did she apply any physical force to you at all?
Reiser: She did not.
Hora: Did she touch you?
Reiser: I believe she did not touch me. [Again my emphasis.]
Comment
Once again, some astute jurors may be paying attention to how Reiser chooses to express himself. “I probably didn’t touch her.” [And from his earlier explanation about why Hans didn’t jettison the police procedural books, “I figured if I was innocent, it wouldn’t really matter.”] These could be examples of careless syntax by an innocent genius or instances of unconscious slips by a very bright, but very guilty man under a lot of stress.
Hans as Physically Dangerous
As the day closed out, Reiser admitted that he is much heavier than Nina, that he had been taking judo lessons and practice for 19 years, that he studied for a time under a Russian judo champion, and that he, Reiser, has a black belt.
More
Then the topic turned to the nature and value of Hans’ company. More on that thread tomorrow…
In the meantime, you can be assured that the DA’s inspectors will be checking out a certain San Leandro auto and hardware store.
It may be a bit too early to identify the tipping point in this case, but Hans’ earlier pattern of deception and evasion may have just entered the courtroom. Much more of this pattern and there will be a shift in favor of the DA…
Stay tuned…
JBG
Comments
Argel (see below) may be right, of course. But if Hans Reiser is convicted, it will be because he acted in too many ways like a killer hiding his tracks, and was too lame and incredible in his explanations, not because of the maladroit expressions I've called attention to.
In general, killers leave traces in places that they've overlooked. If Hans killed Nina, he simply wouldn't have had the time to cover everything up. Alternatively, if Hans did not kill Nina, the small time frame becomes a factor in his favor...
But Hans' "change of testimony" (see below) was not explained today as the correction of a mere mistake - Hans has owned up to an attempt to mislead, i.e., to a lie...
JBG
I think you are reading too much into "probably", "believe", etc. -- many computer geeks are very left brained oriented and have a tendency to both interpret a question [too] literally and try to give technically correct answers. He is probably answering those questions with those qualifiers because e.g. if he tapped Nina on the shoulder to get her attention or vice versa he would not likely remember it. So he gave a technically correct answer to the literal question he was asked. He's done similar things, like saying "no" then saying she won at tug-of-war. I think his change of testimony for September 12 falls into that category as well. I just hope the jury does not convict just because he's "different". Disclaimer: I'm a computer geek as well.
Posted by: Argel | March 18, 2008 05:09 PM
The comment below is noted & worth reading.
As to the crux Q raised?
"As a society, do we want to imprison or execute the quite possibly innocent or do we want to let people not utterly proven to be guilty go free? I honestly don't know the answer to that one."
This is why juries are given an elastic standard, "reasonable doubt", to administer and why it matters that they actually observed the accused first hand...
JBG
Disclaimer: I claim to be something of a geek. See the URL pointed at by my name in the signature line. Although I live thousands of miles away from all this tragic action, I am well acquainted with the case from this blog as well as those run by Wired and sfgate.com. I use HR's latest file-system, which runs exceptionally well on my computers. However I don't think these facts have upset my judgement.
I have lived my life working as a technician programmer in an academic setting for many years, and have had a great deal more to do with the hands on raising of children than most men. I also know exactly how being in a position of great sorrow completely wreaks ones ability to code computer programs.
There are a large number of inconsistencies in this case. To whit: The DA paraded a considerable number of people through the court all of whom stated that Nina was a wonderful and loving mother. Yet later on we hear that young R. had caries sufficiently advanced to require a root-canal filling - in a 7 year old, for goodness sake. Frankly the mind boggles! Loving and caring parents, especially those from a medical background, just don't allow such things to happen. This indicates to me that the custodial parent, Nina, really couldn't give a jot about the child. That fact alone demonstrates to me that she was perfectly capable of taking off to Russia or elsewhere leaving Hans to the tender mercies of the DA.
The DNA: Hans is correct when he says that the patch of blood on the door-post in the house had an innocent explanation. It was, you might not remember because it was only mentioned once, at a height of only three feet six inches from the floor. That's the height of a child's hand, not that of a adult's. Anyway the whole house will be saturated with Hans' DNA simply because he lived in it for thirty odd years. There is simply not sufficient DNA in one place to definitively show that a fight to the death took place anywhere inside the house.
By his idiotic question asking where Hans' software was, the DA has demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that he has completely failed to do his homework about both the authoring and licencing of Free and Open Source software. I can't help but wonder where else he has similarly failed to do his background research? In many places I suspect. Your earlier comment about B grade personnel floundering around in an A grade case seems so apposite.
Much ado was made about Hans not remembering his telephone number correctly. I had to fill out a form yesterday which wanted my cell-phone number. I could not remember it fully either. I suspect everybody finds it pretty hard to remember, absolutely correctly, a ten digit number which you don't use very often. Have you had the need to ring yourself up on your cell phone - in fact ever? :-)
Yes, Hans' somewhat irrational behaviour immediately after Nina's disappearance could well indicate guilt, but I'm pretty sure that if I were to find myself innocently in similar circumstances, I might well flap around in a rather similar terrified and paranoid fashion. I've learnt a very valuable lesson from this sad saga about how not to behave if there is a inexplicable death in the family.
All that said, I suppose the real question which cases like this one make us ask ourselves is: As a society, do we want to imprison or execute the quite possibly innocent or do we want to let people not utterly proven to be guilty go free?
I honestly don't know the answer to that one.
Posted by: Christopher | March 19, 2008 05:37 AM
Re Argel's last line, below.
If Hans is factually innocent, then the next question is whether we are required by the defense to buy into the 'Nina is alive' theory. My focus has been on the extreme difficulites that this client poses for the defense -- difficulties that are every bit as real whether Hans is guilty or innocent. In my opinion, in order to persuade 12 jurors at this stage, the defense must identify at least one clear path to an alternate theory, one that "allows" this difficult defendant to be innocent. The "Nina is alive' notion is not that one clear path...at least as I see it from here.
JBG
Argel's comments follow...
Regarding the "big mistake" of being intentionally misleading, I guess the real question is whether he really felt guilty about that and really did want to set the record straight. Would the DA have likely caught it? In other words, did the Defense bring it up to mitigate damage or did Hans really bring it up because he felt guilty about it? And what will the jury think? I wish we could have seen and heard the testimony.
Similarly, how will the jury perceive Hans trying to protect his friend by not contradicting his friend's earlier testimony (about when he thought they were being followed on the way to the to the bar)? To me it is better for Hans to tell the truth than protect his friend. Because he doesn't it which makes me think he is not guilty (i.e. if he was really guilty I think he would be much more concerned about his own defense). It also in my opinion hinders the "narcissistic" angle the Prosecution tried to paint because if he really was narcissistic then he would not care about his friend.
A lot of things he has done seem unusual, but we are talking about someone who is eccentric. And if he has Asperger's Syndrome -- which seems reasonable -- then I wouldn't consider them very odd at all. Heck, washing the driveway in the manner he did seems perfectly reasonable seen from that light.
BTW, have you considered assuming Hans is innocent and evaluating the trial from that perspective?
-- Argel
Posted by: Argel | March 19, 2008 09:47 AM