Member Since: February 13, 2007 Last Signed In: September 27, 2007 Profile Views: 4650 Blog Views: 86110 Brothers' attorneys face contempt hearing Judge: Brothers deserves to die Jury recommends Brothers should receive the death penalty VERDICT IN DEATH PENALTY No Verdict This Week Jury begins deliberations in Brothers penalty phase Defense attorney finishes closing argument Defense continues closing argument Defense attorney begins his closing argument Prosecutor finishes closing argument February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Defense attorney finishes closing argument
“We would never be here in Nepoleonic France,” defense attorney Anthony Bryan said, digressing into a history lesson.
“There is always the hint from those that worship authority...and make it comfortable for folks like you in your situation...It’s a necessity argument. One of the greatest prime ministers of England was William Pitt,” He goes on to quote Pitt. “Necesity is the plea...it is the crea of slaves,” “No one here proposes freedom for Vincent Brothers,” “We’re asking you to allow him to spend the rest of his life in prison,” “And you have the record of a long life before you,” “At the very worst, you have found that there was a horrible weekend in his life of 41 years, if you have no lingering down, but all the rest of that 41 years was honorable discharges... excellent bachelor’s degree, credential, mater’s degree, this is not a wreckage of the past case. His years are in his favor.” “What else would you have him do?” “Did he go to the wrong college, should he have gone to the Airforce, should he have gotten a Ph.D.” “We know Joanie and her immediate family were religious, but so was Vincent’s,” Bryan said. “Brothers was reading scripture to some athletes, that he separated some athletes from a fight,” Bryan said. “Counsel suggests that was a different person, that is convenient. That is Vincent Brothers, the same person that is in this courtroom,” “It is not only, not to be scorned, it is to be praised,” Bryan said. Bryan apologizes if anything he said has aggrevated the jurors. “Do not hold it against Vincent Brothers,” “I want to remind you of one more thing you will see in the jury instructions,” Bryan said. “You can vote for life if you wish,” “There were some attempt to attack them, and belittle them,” Bryan said. “In the last analysis, you can vote for life just because you want to vote for life,” Bryan said. “We have a horrible crime and nothing I have said or done has been intended to minimize,” Bryan said. “It’s been the most community effecting event since I lived in Bakersfield,” Bryan said. “I don’t in any way minimize it,” “I think there is lingering doubt, as to whether they convicted the right person,” “All things considered, I ask you to vote for life in prison,” 10 comments from 6 users
1
posted by
anonymous
on May 25, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Heading: Prosecutor continues to slam Brother's testimony, posted on Wedns. May 9, 2007 at 11:20 a.m. , the Prosecutor said Wayne Wallace, a defense investigator found the records in May 2006 . On May 23, 2003, he interviewed Brian Adkins.In Nov. 2005, Madera Dowell was traced down, the other witness of the crash. Is there a mistake regarding Wayne Wallace, a defence attorney interviewing Brian Adkins on May 23,2003? Wouldn't this be before the crime took place. Testimony posted April 24,2007 at 3:41 p.m. (found in May 2007 archives) includes more information than the testimpny posted 04-30-07 at 11:23 a.m. Heading: Prosecution accused the defense of withholding evidence about a critical piece of Vincent Brothers alibi, posted Tuesday May 1, 2007 at 9:43 a.m. In this heading, it is said that Wallace, a defense attorney asked for the 911 call but these were destroyed 2003. Wallace got the reports. When the Prosecution presented closing argument, posted May 23, 2007, she said, "I do not have the burden of proof any longer." The Prosecution had the burden of proof. She had an obligation to have him convicted. Someone had to take the blame for the viscious crime. The jury may have chosen to convict Vincent Brothers, but the evidence chosen to be used to convict him was not concrete. The Prosecutor talked about the crime impacting the community; of course it did. The prosecutor asks are there anymore innocent victoms? Mischievious, devious, senseless, hateful crimes have occurred and have risen recently. Are the real criminals being convicted? posted by
jfrancais
on May 25, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Well I'll just repeat what has been told to me numerous times and just about beat into my skull: There is no smoking gun in this case. Every case is not CSI. Only in fiction is where you'll get the DNA evidence or the "concrete" stuff to find the guilty culprit(s) everytime.
posted by
anonymous
on May 25, 2007 at 11:19 AM
You forget, in a Kern murder case the first place they look for DNA is in their nose and the tip of their fingers.
posted by
jfrancais
on May 25, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Forget what? I don't understand what you're inferring posted by
anonymous
on May 25, 2007 at 11:40 AM
The source of their smoking gun,is the evidence clinging to the tip of our great investigators fingers.
posted by
jfrancais
on May 25, 2007 at 12:01 PM
"Our" meaning Prosecution or defense?
posted by
anonymous
on May 28, 2007 at 07:32 AM
This was a strong circumstantial case. Brothers DNA in the house would not have made the case better because he once stayed in the house. Fingerprints in the victim's blood would have been solid but we all watch CSI and every killer knows to wear rubber gloves and new shoes that are either too big or too small. A good alibi would have created reasonable doubt for Brothers. But of course, you can't just buy those. posted by
NancyII
on May 28, 2007 at 07:40 AM
You guys are still trying the case. What happened to "let the jury decide?" Now that it has, you still want to be the ones to decide the case. Of course, now there's evidence (again) that Oswald may not have been the lone gun. Seems like people just keep picking at those sores so they never get well. I guess you folks may as well keep picking at the Brothers case too. For what purpose I'm not sure, but.... there must be one.
posted by
anonymous
on May 28, 2007 at 08:25 AM
It's that their lives are so boring, they must have something to do other than counting their toes.
posted by
anonymous
on May 28, 2007 at 08:28 AM
Anon 8:25 Have you taken a break from your interesting life to post your message here and read the messages of others.
1
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS: Loading Stories
|