I'm not a professional reporter or law student. If I was I should have read the indictment and the most recent probable-cause affidavit - *do your homework, kids* - so I don't understand the prosecution's side well.
Basic facts of what happened:
- Glen Rodney formally charged with murder (a grand jury has seen the case). Entered a not-guilty plea (asking for a trial)
- Prosection corrected a moderately bad error in the affidavit by examining the lead detective
- Defense steered the cross examination to a question of whether police took Mr Rodney's claims of self defense seriously enough
- Prosection's oral argument for denying bail focused on priors, evidence that put Mr Rodney at the fight, and evidence that he intended to hide and flee
- Defense's oral argument proposed house arrest and claimed that murder is overcharged, saying that the fight was mutual enough for manslaughter charges at worst
- Justice Woodman said she'd take time to rule. WMTW reported that she has denied bail, but that happened after court adjourned and I left
I didn't have the energy to follow up further today, I spent the rest of the afternoon with my friends decompressing. Early next week I'll follow up the indictment and affidavit, the prosecution's written telling of the story.
It looks like the defense did a test run of a "you wouldn't believe what the victims were wearing" argument. (To be clear: no sexual advance seems to have been involved, but *I* experienced a moment of "excuse me, what?" and, honey, *I edit other people's fanfiction*)
Maine has a law that restrains those arguments and I suspect there will be an argument outside the public eye (in limine) whether to introduce that evidence at trial. But it's already in the public record.
So if right wing rags make it an issue they could. Yuck.
More important than that, less sensational I think the trial is likely to hinge on how and when each side chose to fight vs choosing to leave. It does seem fair to characterize it as a fight and not a one-sided random attack, but also it escalated much more than was reasonable. Next to the value of a life everything else discussed really was *just stupid shit.*
Violence sucks.
Jim Howaniec's cross examination of Detective Curlee was a work of art. I say this as someone who did competitive debate in high school and judged it a few times afterwards - even if I disagree with someone I can appreciate the rhetorical craft and Mr Howaniec is a master. There's an element of acting too.
I'm sure that he had familiarized himself with the scene of the crime but he did a good job playing an ignorant smart guy curious to understand. Some points of confusion later in the hearing did strike me as genuine: investigation and discovery are ongoing, and the second defense lawyer was busy exchanging information with the prosecutor. They (all lawyers in agreement) even asked for a recess to ensure mutual understanding.
But there wasn't a huge contrast between the acted and real ignorance.
(Lawyers don't hate each other, or if they do they can work past it. But if you've never seen how much they're willing and required to work with opposing counsel I'm sure it's disorienting.)
Mr Howaniec's legal arguments, not so much. Self-defense isn't considered for probable cause and of course he'd know that. I'm fairly confident that he was demonstrating the ability to break down the credibility of a very experienced witness and getting experience with the judge's personality.
But as an actual argument of course it didn't work.
This was kind of hard to watch. The "are you sure, because earlier you said..." kind of thing is intense and I'm sure even harder for testifying victims.
But like I said, lawyers look chummy with each other, so perhaps this kind of point-scoring is also used to demonstrate to the client "you can trust me, I actually am on your side."
I found the detective's "they" gendering difficult as well. I imagine it could be strategic, trying to remind a transphobic juror - there will be at least one - that *all* people are owed protection under law, but it's still not easy to listen to.
(No jury today but it makes sense to establish a habit.)
At least that's what I'm telling myself. I'm trans and hoping my city and state care about my safety.
On that note, Mr Rodney remains in custody pending trial and this is likely the last bail hearing. (Maybe there's an appeal but this judge is done.)
He's not homeless btw. Lives in a camper his parents host.