Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Did the Jury Buy Buddy?

Well by my reckoning, it was another good day for the defense. Defense Attorney John McNeill was able to weaken most of the arguments advanced by Plaintiffs Attorney J Dale Golden after another long day of testimony.

Things seemed to have started off well enough for Golden, but it's hard to be sure. It's hard to know who the jury believes.

The day began with BTWA parent Buddy Clark on the stand. Clark presented himself as an ancillary character in this drama. Well dressed and articulate, he sparred with Golden over his involvement in the ousting of former Booker T Washington Principal Peggy Petrilli. But it was his effort at distancing himself that may have set off alarm bells for some jurors. He told the jury that he didn't even know if his Bishop Avenue address was in the Booker T Washington Academy district; which at this late date seems incredible after it has been made such an issue.

And Plaintiff's Attorney J Dale Golden was able to put some other information in front of the jury that may have raised some doubt about Mr Clark in their minds.

Golden: It is my understanding that you have a history as an
attorney but you were disbarred. Is that correct?

McNeill: Objection

Clark: That is not correct

Golden: In the past did you practice law..in Chicago?

Clark: I practiced in Wisconsin...and Chicago

Golden: But you no longer practice law…what is your current employment

Clark: Online ...a business selling herbs online
Clark crafted his answers carefully. If the jury thought he was simply being accurate, opinion may have broken in his favor. But to this observer, he could have just as easily been seen as shifty, leading the jury the other way.

For example, when asked about a draft agreement being negotiated between BTWA parents and FCPS Superintendent Stu Silberman, Clark responded, "This looks like what we agreed to." Clark admitted that he was aware that, "communications went back and forth..." He knew the details, "We can do this. We can’t do that" and that "there were back and forth communications…" He also wrote to Silberman, "We trust you will find the following points accurately reflect our discussions…"

He added language to a letter stating that in consideration of Silberman's response to his concerns "we would forego any legal action," which he also testified was never under consideration in the first place. "I never threatened anyone with a lawsuit," He said.

Then in subsequent testimony about the series of emails that led up to the August 22, 2007 meeting with Silberman, he backed off his own involvement saying, "I wrote…that format…I didn’t add anything to the substance…"

If the jury bought it, it's another plus for the defense. If they didn't, not so much.

Most of the day seemed to belong to the defense, but what do I know. It's late and my brain's fried. More tomorrow.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh, my! We have now have a witness possibly disbarred as a lawyer who does not seem to know his own address...

He definitely seemed to Superintendent Silberman's email address.

Anonymous said...

Looks like a movie in the making. Was he or was he not disbarred? Seems easy enough to find the answer. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..... You have to love email. And to the fact that he did not know if his address was in the district or not? Sounds like the old "it depends on the what the meaning of "is" is.