The defendant Eric Rivera took the witness stand in his own defense yesterday, and it wasn't pretty. He was subjected to an effective and withering cross examination by ASA Reid Ruben. The defendant had to admit his prior testimony at a motion to suppress that his confession was truthful; he repeated every question Ruben asked him; and at a crucial juncture over the whereabout of the shoes he claims he was wearing (as opposed to the shoes he admitted wearing which were linked to the crime scene) he had no answer and looked to his defense attorney for help.
Rumpole's Fourth Rule of jury trials: Never, ever, ever, put your client on the witness stand.
Closing arguments are set for 1pm. The jury will be instructed after arguments conclude and we will probably get a verdict tomorrow.
See you in court.
In the 1970s in a house in Coconut Grove there was a double murder and Steven Stanley was charged and went to trial before judge Baker. He took the stand. Does anyone remember the verdict and who his lawyer was?
ReplyDeleteStanley's lawyer was Jack Denaro.
ReplyDeleteThe prosecutor was Edward Carhart.
The verdict was not guilty.
The defendant took the stand.
After the not guilty verdict Stanley was charged with perjury for his testimony.
Steven Stanley was aquitted.
ReplyDeleteRump, while I agree with your premise there are certain isolated situations where you can, or should, let you client testify. This was not one of them.
I watched the cross by the State, on a live stream from channel 10 and this kid was pathetic witness. I would be shocked if he was aquitted.
To those who say the Defendant should never testify I say this:
ReplyDeleteWhen you have a confession and need to explain why it was coerced, how on earth do you do that without your guy testifying?
Really, there are times when the Defendant simply must testify or you will not win.
That said, generally speaking, best to keep Defendant's mouth shut.
I think you'll have a verdict about 3 minutes after they deliberate. Rivera's testimony was awful. And the repeating of every question would have been enough to drive me crazy.
ReplyDeleteJust another example of an uneducated thug who will go into jail at 17 and exit in a pine box.
Jack Denaro
ReplyDeleteNOT GUILTY!
I won one murder case , in Broward no less, where the client testified. It was self defense so It was necessary. However, what happens is that when a client takes the stand, the state's entire burden disappears And the jury decides on one simple point: was he believable? I usually won't make that trade.
ReplyDeleteBoy are you right senor Rumpy.
ReplyDeleteOnce the guy testifies, the entire focus is simple.
Did he tell the truth.
ReplyDelete9:55 am. He was not charged with Perjury. He was charged with Robbery. See below.
The STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Steven Allen STANLEY, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 12, 1981.
Rehearing Denied June 25, 1981.
Janet Reno, State Atty., and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. State Atty., for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Mark King Leban, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
FERGUSON, Judge.
The State appeals from an order discharging appellee, Steven Allen Stanley, for failure to bring him to trial within the time provided by the speedy trial rule, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191.
On August 3, 1977, Stanley was indicted and charged with two counts of first degree murder. The murders were committed on February 21, 1977. On August 4, 1977, Stanley was arrested on two charges of first degree murder. Stanley was brought to trial on the murder charges on April 3, 1978.
Testifying on his own behalf, Stanley related the following events: Stanley had been acting as a monthly drug courier for a drug dealer Robert Yuckman. In the fall of 1976, Stanley contacted several friends in New York and made arrangements for them to come to Miami and rob Yuckman. Stanley and his girlfriend were to feign being victims of the armed robbery. The robbery occurred on December 17, 1976 at a time when Stanley knew money would be in the house. After receiving $18,000.00 as his share of the robbery monies, Stanley was informed that Yuckman had hired a private investigator and wanted everyone present at the robbery scene to take a polygraph test. Stanley felt that he had to kill Yuckman before Yuckman killed him. He made a gun silencer. Stanley testified that he withdrew from the murder plan, that his girlfriend had gone to the house and killed Yuckman and Yuckman's girlfriend. Stanley later returned to the house with his girlfriend to destroy evidence.
After a nine day trial, the jury acquitted Stanley on both counts of first degree murder. The same day, April 14, 1978, the State filed a three-count information charging Stanley with conspiracy to commit armed robbery and two counts of armed robbery. The conspiracy was alleged to have occurred between December 1, 1976 and December 25, 1976. The two robberies were alleged to have occurred between December 10, 1976 and December 25, 1976. Stanley was taken into custody on the robbery charges on December 6, 1978.
CAP OUT .....
captain4justice@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteaddendum:
STATE v. STANLEYNo. 79-1918.
399 So.2d 371 (1981)
The STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Steven Allen STANLEY, Appellee.
On the Robbery case, Clerk web site says that Steve Mechanic was his defense attorney. It says he was convicted and received 99 years Probation? Never heard of anyone getting 99 years probation.
FDOC does not show Allen under supervision, so he is either dead, or someone granted a ETOP.
Cap Out ...
I think he was charged with perjury after he was on a wire tap talking to his girl who he fingered for the murder. He was saying sorry for lying about on the stand about her. I think he got two years for perjury. It was one of the greatest defense victories in Miami history that's for certain. Judge Baker called it a miscarriage of justice and it was. One of the victims was Yuckmans girlfriend.
ReplyDeleteSurprisingly, the jury is taking a lot more than 5 minutes. I hope the jury doesn't get stuck on lack of physical evidence. This isn't CSI people!
ReplyDeleteCap I don't get it. How could he be not guilty for murder but guilty for robbery. What did the case hold?
ReplyDelete