Replies

I'm so curious about this exchange! Distaso is questioning Brocchini on direct. In section "813", question #2 and answer #3. Can anyone venture to guess what it is that Brocchini feels he can't say?

18 A. I asked him if I could check his hands for gunshot
19 residue.
20 Q. And what did he say?
21 A. He said I could.
22 Q. What -- did he say anything about that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What did he say?
25 A. Well, when he saw me remove the kit, he said -- he
26 wanted to know if the exhaust from the outboard motor could
27 register positive as gunshot residue.
28 Q. And what did you tell him?

813
1 A. No.
2 Q. What's the next thing he told you?
3 A. He -- he told me something. I don't know if I can
4 say it or not. But --
5 Q. Okay. Well, let -- let me ask you this question,
6 then.
7 Did he tell you what his plans were going to be on
8 Christmas Day?
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. All right. What was that?
11 A. He was going to meet family and friends about
12 8:00 o'clock to continue the canvass.

Wow Scoot asked if his boat motor could be mistaken for gun powder residue?

I am not in the know but that was a stupid thing to ask.

A. It appears he did fire up the boat motor.

B. It kinda says oops I did fire my gun I wonder if I can cover it up by blaming the carbon exhaust of my boat motor.

Well that sums it up for me. Narcissistic, Anti-social murderers come in "dumb mode" too.

Not the brightest crayon in the box is he?

Yes--that is very intriguing, isn't it? I was burning with curiosity when I saw that. But then I forgot all about it! Thanks for reminding us!

I don't know much, but here's all I could come up with: they said that Scott's having that gun in his glove compartment w/o a permit was a violation of CA law. (Brocchini said that, and even Janie Weintraub, the "defendant's friend", admitted it.)

Maybe Scott said something incriminating--incriminating as to his crime of having the pistol under those circumstances, that is.

Now, during a trial, gratuitous remarks about a defendant's other crimes, OTHER THAN THE CRIMES FOR WHICH HE IS CURRENTLY BEING TRIED, can cause a mistrial. I've actually seen that happen.

But this was not a trial, true. BUT I just think Brocchini has been trained somewhat about testifying in criminal trials. That is, I think he's been schooled by prosecutors about that. So perhaps his instincts regarding not mentioning other offenses not on trial--perhaps his instincts about that welled up and told him to be cautious b/f he spoke, even though it was only a preliminary. Just my uneducated guess.