Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The first note for anyone who decides they are smarter than the DA, You are NOT smarter than the DA it is NOT advisable to attempt to prove you are, it will do nothing but end up showing a side of you that you do NOT want the jury to see. Second note if your guilty and your going to lie about what you did, keep your story straight! Third if you decide to take notes up to the stand to keep your story straight, do NOT have your lawyer type them up, it makes it look like it's his story not yours. And lastly do NOT EVER go to the stand get caught lying then try to claim the 5th, it just don't look good hahaha. Now on the the fun summary of the day :) A combative, unremorseful Reco Jones took the stand today and tried to place the blame for the murders of Yolanda Bellamy and four children squarely on one of his ex-girlfriends, Maliaka Martin. But when confronted by prosecutor Kevin Simowski during cross-examination, Jones admitted that he was following a "script" during his prior testimony and undermined his story about Martin. Jurors heard an entirely different version of the slayings from Jones. He testified that he had visited Martin in the middle of the night (4:30) and had fallen asleep at her house. According to Jones, he and Martin were together for a brief time the previous night, and they had argued about Jones's having female friends and continuing to talk to Bellamy. Jones said that he visited Martin to settle the argument with her and claimed that he also had CDs belonging to Bellamy that he wanted to return. Jones then decided to drive to Bellamy's house to return her belongings, and Martin accompanied him, how many people are going to be up that early? And why go over that early to get CD's? According to the witness, he also wanted to settle the hard feelings between Bellamy and Martin over the love rivalry they had involving him. He is such a Romeo! (VBG) Jones told the jury that when he and Martin arrived at Bellamy's house, Martin attacked Bellamy. He said that he tried to break up the fight between them, but Bellamy had already been stabbed. "What did you do that for?," Jones claimed he asked Martin. (Jones also claimed that his arm was cut accidentally by the murder knife while he tried to separate the two women.) Martin, Jones claimed, went on to kill the four children, but he never explained why he never stopped her. Poor Jones just stood by in total shock and watched this massacre happen, what he didn't realize his story did even if true, which I doubted, is he had just made himself an accessory to the crime. He also said he never washed his hands at the house, but his blood was found at the sink. The defendant then claimed that he and Martin returned to her home, both showered to wash the blood off their bodies, and then ultimately returned to the murder scene to help cover up the crime. Jones acknowledged that he went to his friend Tamika Terrell's house and that she helped them burn some of his bloody clothes. He denied telling Tamika that he "cut the fuck out of Yolanda". Jones's direct examination was labored and difficult for his own attorney, John McWilliams. Both on and off the stand, Jones argued with McWilliams over his answers to the questions and wanted to give detailed answers when McWilliams tried to persuade him to follow his instructions. Judge Kym Worthy had to excuse the jury multiple times to remind Jones that he must only answer the questions asked by his attorney and that McWilliams was trying to help him. (I was LOL a couple of times, I felt sorry for his attorney though, but there was no way this man was going to play by the rules on the stand. He was his own worse enemy.) The defendant denied confessing to the murders when interrogated by police and said that he jumped out of the window at police headquarters because he was scared and knew Martin and the police were trying to pin the murders on him. However, prosecutor Kevin Simowski took an immediate, aggressive approach during his cross-examination of Jones, saying, "You like to tell stories and lie, don't you, Mr. Jones?" To that, Jones incredibly replied, "Yes." (I was floored when he said that!) Simowski continuously accused Jones of lying, saying that he was really the one that killed Bellamy and the children. Jones replied that he was following his "script," when he told the story about Maliaka Martin and the murders. He said openly in court in front of the jurors that he was following his script. (This implied that his prior testimony was a story Jones's attorneys had made up for him. His attorneys later said on record that they did not encourage him to make up a story. They only made up notes so that they could verify the facts of the case with Jones.) I can just imagine what the jurors were thinking! This cross was wonderful! I was glued to the TV watching it. The prosecutor asked Jones to confess, tell the court the truth about his role in the murders. An unrepentant Jones only kept referring to his script, denying that he killed the victims. When asked whether he knew the truth in this case, Jones said he did not. Finally, prosecutor Simowski gave Jones the chance to confess to the murders in open court, but Jones refused to answer, and attempted use his Fifth Amendment Rights, which he could not do under these circumstances. With that, Jones's cross-examination ended. His defense did not present re-direct questions. Yes folks I sat there with my mouth dropped open, I checked the channel okay It was CTV and not Perry Mason showing! LOL I swear it looked like one of the shows you see on TV from La La land! Closing arguments will take place tomorrow. The prosecution did not call Jones's former prison roommate Rauol Williams, because he wanted to make a deal in exchange for his testimony. If convicted of murder, Jones faces life in prison without parole. One note it should be advised there will probably be a big appeal in this case if he's convicted first the attorney he has, this is his first murder trial, he wanted to admit some previous evidence that the judge told him not to. The jury was not present but his attorney wanted to admit a conviction that Reco had for assaulting another women, beating her around the head and such, the Judge looked at him shocked, telling him, you don't want the jury to hear that, it's not the best thing for your client. She then retracted a bit later and told him, she was not trying to tell him how to run his case, but that she was trying to help him. My feelings were this, the attorney wanted to show that yes Reco had an abusive past, but he didn't kill the other lady, so he would hope the jury would think he didn't kill Yolanda and the children. OTOH the judge was reasonably thinking don't even let them know about this, otherwise they may think he's just escalated in his violence towards women. I sided with the judge on this. Don't muddy the waters anymore than they already are. This cross was amazing and a thing of wonder to watch, it was clear that Reco's lawyer was out of his league here. I would have expected a LOT more objections, and was surprised there wasn't as many as there should have been, I got the feeling his lawyer kind of gave up on his client once Reco started fighting with the DA. I expect an appeal with him saying he had incompetent representation. In reality there wasn't much any attorney could have done to help though, the one thing is he should have never even taken the stand, he managed to show me he was the killer and no one else was. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
