Henry v MOA: Rick Brown Fishes [Finishes], Drew Voth, Challenges Dr. Foster

This continued from the morning with Doug Parker questioning hired investigator Rick Brown.  Nothing earthshaking, just seemed to be working on details the plaintiff had raised in the deposition they played earlier in the trial.  Why did Rick Brown  think Henry wasn't being honest? He was evasive when I asked questions about [not exactly sure sure about what, but it had to do with the drugs at NG].  He got evasive, talked about OCDETF (Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force) and when I tried to redirect him to my question he went on about OCDETF.

Parker also wanted to talk about the nature of his communications with Dep. Municipal Attorney Blair Christiansen, getting the answer that they were basically routine about arrangements for travel, scheduling witnesses.  There were also suggestions for clarification of the drafts (there were 6 drafts of the report.)  There were suggestions she made about the content, but Rick Brown said he didn't take her changes.

Simonian (not Ray Brown) pitched questions for the plaintiffs in he cross-examination.  She began with his pay ($50,000 about 1/3 for expenses), then went after the fact that Brown didn't show Henry the timeline drawn up by McMillan and Carson when he wanted to check on dates.  She was now down from "thirty times he begged to see documents to fill in dates and other details" to just the timeline now.  And I wondered, as I did when this came up earlier, what investigator shows the information he has to interviewees?  He wants to hear what they know, not their reactions to what others said.  This was an investigation, not a consultation.

Them she got to the honesty issue.  Henry talked about OCDETF, because you asked him about OCDETF she told Rick Brown  He pointed out that he asked a different question and Henry started talking about OCDETF so he asked him what that was, and he took off with it rather than answering the original question.

Then Simonian put the APD IA(Internal Audit) policy for determining honesty, which warns investigator that just because different witnesses tell different stories, it doesn't mean one is lying. Then she accused Rick Brown of not following the IA policy.  He responded that he wasn't employed by APD. He said he didn't disagree with the policy but that it didn't govern him.   She kept accusing him of violating the policy.

Rick Brown:   That policy doesn’t govern me.
Simonian:  You don’t get to decide, the jury decides what governs you.  

Simonian put up a text messages between Rick Brown and Blair Christiansen.  She read from the messages (and my notes are rough but to the point)

Simonian:  Dec 17 you tell her, 3pm  You need to talk?  No Kevin and I had good interview, can show direct impact negatively.  She wrote great news.  

Simonian took this as proof that he was trying to show that there was a negative impact of Henry's disclosure to Katkus and that's why Christiansen said 'great.'  But in re-redirect Parker asked again, and Rick Brown said, Christiansen said great because there were no cases of sex abuse that were likely to still be a liability for the MOA.  

Simonian's questioning style is Ray Brown lite.   She sounds a lot like Rachel in Glee.  While she had a lot of nits to pick, I had trouble figuring out whether they were  important, or even a real issue or just something taken out of context, intended to make Rick Brown look bad in front of the jury.   So I wonder how the jury heard this.   I at least get to type notes in court and reread them and talk to people about what happened and write posts. That gives me lots of time to check and recheck what was said now and before.   The jury all get note pads and pens, but they have to leave them in the jury box and they aren't supposed to talk to anyone about the case, not even the other jurors until the trial is over and they start to deliberate the verdict.  There are a lot of facts and assertions floating around they have to reconcile.

Drew Voth, economist, dismisses Dr. Foster's analysis

When Voth was asked to give his background, he said he had an honors degree in economics.  I didn't know if I heard him right.  What's an honors degree?  Did he possibly say doctors degree?  

RayBrown, who now was pitching again for thet plaintiff, jumped all over this in the cross-exam.  OH, you mean you have a bachelors degree in economics?  Yes.  Well Dr.  Foster has a PhD!  A little bit of mine is bigger than yours.  

You can see a picture of Voth and read his qualifications at his firm's website.  He's a professional expert.  Basically, he

• Reiterated the argument Halloran made when the plaintiff rested, that since the plaintiff didn't present any factual data about his income, pension, and health benefits, there's no data on which to base potential compensation, so there's no need to talk about compensation.  But this hadn't been brought up with the jury present before.  (Is this a Federalist Society legal theory to deny payments to terminated employees?  If this gets introduced often enough in trials, are they hoping some judge will rule in their favor and set a precedent?)
• Said Foster's wrong in saying Henry has a loss, since he's earning more at Triple Canopy than he did as a police officer in Anchorage.  He dismissed the idea that he's working more hours at Triple Canopy since "Henry testified that he donated 3000 hours" to APD.  Ray Brown said there was a big difference between required work and  volunteered time.  
• Posited that the retire/rehire policy that Foster used to calculate lost retirement was bogus since no one at APD would rehire Henry.  Brown asked Voth if he knew that no one who had taken that option had NOT been retired.  I guess I would add no one who took that option had been terminated and sued the APD either.  (The retire/hire option arose when the APD was moved form the old Police Retirement System to the State's public employee retirement system.  It didn't make economic sense for experienced, retirement eligible APD officers to keep working under the new plan.  So they set up a way for them to retire and get their pension, and then be rehired, but not be part of the new pension plan.)

All this ended at about 4:19 and the judge decided there wasn't time for another witness so he dismissed the jury.  Then the judge and the attorneys discussed witnesses, time, jury instructions, and when they could get done.  The judge reminded them again that Monday is a holiday.  Parker said something about being able to finish with his witnesses by Wednesday, and the judge, said they could schedule closing arguments for Thursday then, with a smile.  Could they limit losing arguments to 30 minutes?  No?  An hour?  

So closing arguments could be on Thursday. (Don't hold your breath.)  I don't know if the jury could stay Saturday if they thought they were close to a verdict, or if they would even want to give up any of the three day weekend to be finished earlier.  This won't be an easy deliberation.

Tomorrow's tentative witnesses:  Jack Carson, Kenneth Blaylock,  Myron Fanning.  Carson is the SGT that the plaintiff's have made one of the key villains in their narrative.  And they talk about Blaylock's web posted allegations of problems with the National Guard as the 'Blaylock Manifesto.'  Henry talked about Blaylock as crazy, "he believes in aliens.'  Fanning was part of command.

Others mentioned - and I thought they said these might be video of depositions - include FBI agent Annie Kirkland (who has testified already) , Payne, Plummer, and Hebee.

It's natural for a trial to lean one way, when the plaintiff  case gets made before the jury, and then shift back over when the defense gets to call their witnesses.  Plaintiff painted some of the players pretty grimly, and as they testified in court, they turned out not to have horns and a tail - Rick Brown, Vandegriff, for instance.  If Carson and Blaylock turn out to not seem evil or crazy, then the credibility of the plaintiffs - Henry and the attorneys - will certainly] dip.

Tomorrow should be an interesting day in court if anyone isn't busy hoping to get voters to the polls or working or other normal activities.  Federal building.  The court is in the west end.  First you go through the regular building security, then the court security.  It's upstairs in Courtroom 2.

You can get to an index of all posts on this trial at the Henry v MOA tab under the blog header at top.  Or click here. 

[Damn autocorrect - changed whatever I typed to Rick Brown Fishes instead of Finishes.]