James McGee and Rajan Maline: advocates or puppets?

Motive

The State alleged I had a motive. These are the things my own lawyers did, or failed to do, that helped the State make that claim or weakened my answer to it. Each section ends with a link to the full record.

The storage keys

What they did

The storage unit: brought the “shared” shed into the record themselves.

Mr. McGee’s own question, “IS THAT WHERE MR. MC STAY RENTED THE POD?”, drew the detective’s answer that the shed was one “MR. MERRITT AND MC STAY HAD.” He let it stand (RT 3448:6-9).

Why it mattered: Mr. McGee did not object. An objection for lack of foundation (the detective had no ownership records, RT 3504:25-28) would have done two things: exposed that the claim had nothing behind it, and kept out the erroneous link between Joseph and a storage unit I rented, the link the State’s key argument depended on. With no objection, the jury was left to take the answer as conceded. When the detective repeated it two days later, Mr. McGee made exactly that objection, and the court sustained it (RT 3488:8-16). By then the first answer had stood for two days.

What they failed to do

The keys: never examined them.

The keychain was on the defense list of items to view from August 15, 2017, seventeen months before trial, and no one ever looked. The single key, the one the State’s argument depended on, wasn’t on the list at all. The State argued the two keys went “INFERABLY TO THE SAME LOCK” (RT 8245:8-9), and no one showed the jury they didn’t.

Why it mattered: The cuts on the two keys are different. Examining them would have done two things: shown the jury that the prosecution argued a fact its own evidence contradicted, and severed the alleged link between the keys and the storage unit.

What they failed to do

The keys: told the jury they never looked.

In closing, Mr. McGee said, “I would have loved to have looked at those keys a little bit closer” (RT 8335:16-17).

Why it mattered: It told the jury the defense had never done the one thing that would have shown the State’s key argument had no evidence behind it, and gave the jury the impression defense counsel didn’t care enough about the case to do even the most menial of tasks.

What they failed to do

The storage unit: never showed the jury who paid for it.

My payment to AMS Storage was in the State’s own discovery (Bates 010011), and the defense never used it.

Why it mattered: Showing it would have done two things: proved the State’s “shared” claim was contradicted by the State’s own records, and severed the alleged link between Joseph and the unit.

Susan Blake

What they failed to do

Susan Blake: let the prosecutor turn her interview on its head, without objection.

The prosecutor had Susan Blake review only “the first couple of lines” of page 158 of her interview (“That’s it.”), then asked: “And did you tell Detective Steers that Joey was going to buy Dan and Chase out?” She answered, “Yes” (RT 5535:18-28). Neither of my lawyers objected, even though on that same page, when the detective asked her directly whether Joseph wanted a new welder, she had said: “No. He didn’t say as much about Chase, wanting to get Chase out. He wanted to get more Dan out” (Interview, p. 158:1-8).

Why it mattered: Neither of my lawyers objected. An objection that the question misstated her interview, with page 158:1-8 showing her answer was “No,” would have done two things: shown the jury that the prosecutor presented a statement the witness’s own interview contradicted, and taken away the State’s evidence that Joseph was getting rid of me, the heart of the alleged motive, which the court called “critical evidence” (RT 4994). With no objection, the jury was left to take her “Yes” as conceded.

What they failed to do

Susan Blake, at the new-trial hearing: let the court rely on her account again, without objection.

At the new-trial hearing, when the court relied on the same account, Mr. Maline did not object or challenge it (RT 8942-8943).

Why it mattered: Mr. Maline did not object. An objection that the court’s ruling rested on an account her own interview contradicted (p. 158:1-8) would have done two things: shown the court its ruling rested on that account, and removed this alleged motive from the one hearing meant to catch trial error. With no objection, the court’s reliance stood unchallenged.

The Walker call

What they failed to do

The Walker call: never objected, and never showed the jury where the call went.

The State told the jury, “Joseph calls a place called Walker Welding, according to those records,” and “put it into context with what you heard from Mike and Susan and McGyver — another fabricator” (RT 8195:1-3). In closing it argued Joseph had “already called Walker Welding” (RT 8196:18). My lawyers never objected to the Walker claim. Joseph’s own phone record shows the call went to a number in Hopewell, Virginia, and the defense never showed the jury that.

Why it mattered: My lawyers never objected. An objection that the claim misstated the evidence, since Joseph’s own phone record shows the number he called was in Hopewell, Virginia, would have done two things: shown the jury the State argued facts its own records contradicted, and severed the alleged link between that call and my being replaced. With no objection, the jury was left to take the Walker claim as conceded.

And one phone call would have answered it. A few months ago, a friend of mine called that number. The owner of the Virginia business told her she remembered Joseph’s call: he was checking that she was satisfied with a waterfall she had bought.

More coming soon.

Decide for yourself.