Ronnie's lawyer is getting his ass handed to him trying to cross this GBI agent. I don't think this Gough(?) is a very good lawyer.
He is a bit of a weird egg. He seems to like paying legal games. I am not accusing him of anything, but it has crossed my mind that making a controversial statement about black pastors could trigger some event that results in a mistrial or a later appeal. Or maybe it puts that story in the media where it might come up on a juror's phone and it comes out later they didn't tell the judge and becomes grounds for appeal. I do recall all that hubbub from the defense about wanting the judge to ask the jurors every day whether anything had happened in regards to seeing anything or talking with anyone about the case and their concerns that he was having the sheriff take care of that and all their issues with that.
I also find it odd that he handles different witnesses very differently. The first day I thought he seemed very defense and accusatory and petty arguing over the specific meaning of things like where "a few seconds" mean only 3-4 seconds or whether to could mean 45 seconds and what exact timeframe is covered by "in the moments before" the shooting. I understand why clarification of those things is going to be important to the defense, but he could have got that through clarification rather than accusations.
Yesterday he was rather cooperative and not arguing objections with the witness across the street. Today with Seacrist he is very laid back and speaking slowly and quietly, but definitely pushing a narrative to the edge of the boundary of what is allowed in terms of lines of questioning and forms of questions.
I wonder if that could backfire with the jury and they find that he comes across like he is putting on act. Being deceptive. Because I think he does put on n act. He sometimes takes on a persona of a bumbling country bumpkin lawyer, but I think he is much more wily than that.
For example, being accusatory with the first witness could have been strategic. He needed to get clarification on some minor phrases that would probably be considered irrelevant to the jury, especially since he hasn't made his opening statement.
During trial there are lots of seemingly meaningless questions because prosecution has to prove all kinds of things that don't really come up but have to be brought up like establishing that Arbery was person and that this happened in the State of Georgia and they aren't just saying it did. Things that are just slamming doors on a possible argument of not proving all the elements or reasonable doubt. Those things are really technicalities that have to be done rather than what they want the jury to consider. And establishing authority for certain actions and chain of command and so on.
Related to that is the the issue with foundation. It is objectionable for counsel to ask a witness a question unless it has been established that the witness has personal knowledge to be able to answer the question. For example, they want a witness to testify that they saw a gun in John's living room. They first have to establish that they know who John is, that they aren't talking about someone else named John, that they know this this was John's house and didn't just assume that because they were at a party there once and it seemed like his house, and that they know where the living room is, and that they were in a position to look into the living, and that they weren't just told by somewhere there that there was a gun in the living, or that someone brought a gun into another room and said they found it in the living room, and so on. That means asking a lot of questions about how they met John and how long they knew him and how often they were at his house and what they know about the layout of the house and why they were in or looking into the living room, and what it looked like and so on. A bunch of questions that are basically irrelevant to the jury but have to be asked to establish foundation.
With all these seemingly meaningless questions, Roddie's lawyer wants the jury to pay attention to what appears to be meaningless questions, especially from the beginning of the trial. Approaching these questions in an accusatory manner might not make the jury like him, but it will keep it in the minds of the jurors. They will remember questioning whether the cop was lying or not, and questioning why this lawyer is making such a big deal about these vague phrases. It doesn't make friends, but it does make jurors remember these important things and get them thinking about them even if they don't yet know why they should be doing that.
