A Passive Attendee at His Own Trial

When I arrived today, 12/8, in the Mecklenburg Superior Court bldg at 900 AM, I thought I was late. When I finally found the courtroom, the door was locked. I was told by a cameraman sitting in a side-conference room that the courtroom doors don't get unlocked til 915 and proceedings start at 930. I am obviously new at this. With time, spectators came in, but all looked to be associated with victims or defendants (plus the press on the long bench along the back)...the defendant's side contained one bench of family and supporters, and the DA side---where I sat on the last row---- eventually filled with over 2 dozen persons, which I believe were lead by the parents of Hunter Holt, followed by a row of Cynthia Furr and McAllister Furr survivors. This row, from the inside aisle side, started with an elderly couple, well dressed, then a middle-aged woman, hair teased in a modern coiff and wrapped in a grey and black cape, wool, with fringes---very well dressed. The group on that row got a bit more motley as it moved down to the outer part, where I sat, capped with a wide-bodied female with spikey short hair and a couple of grandma types directly in front of me. The man to my left had an ungroomed beard, tshirt, jeans, and looked like he just came off a construction site. The lack of public attendees (like me) was surprising due to the fact that this story with photo was the top half of the newpaper today, Local Section. I guess people would rather just get the edited version from sitting at home, TV or paper.

The DA requested a jury visit to the site of the crash.....this was eventually granted for this afternoon---I was glad this trek would not shorten my visit this morning. Watching the defendant, Tyler Stasko, I was struck by the fact that he stared only ahead or at the wooden bar in front of his desk, he was completely passive as to the events going on before him. It was as if he is resigned to his fate and is merely going thru the motions, showing up where and when he has to, waiting for the inevitable. To some degree, his attorney, Mr Caudill was likewise. He objected as much as he could---the inclusion of the previous license suspension and of the child seat in use in the Furr vehicle---but to what effect? This solid-looking jury would not likely be swayed by what, so far, has been that a-good-boy-made-a-mistake theory that has been put forth so far. Will this be the closing argument as well? If so, it is a lame one indeed. But what else has he to work with? I assume the attorney informed the family that he had little to work with here.

Officer Jess Wood, a ram-rod straight clean-cut member of the "major crash investigation unit" testified about his attendence at the site once he answered the on-call page he received. Over a dozen pics of the site were shown, Wood narrated what all of us were watching. The vehicle of the Furr victims was the most riveting, the axels were visible, but everything in between was completely unrecognizable as a vechicle. The officer stated that the frame of the Mercedes was broken----meaning that when the tow truck tried to lift it, it collasped in 2 pieces. After this slide show, interest in the courtroom began to flag: people wandered out and short-term viewers on the back row/media row began to drift as well. Were they looking for a more interesting trial elsewhere in the building to attend? There is no doubt that listening to the details of the "linear momentum method" of crash reconstruction theory was not the most interesting to hear. The fact that there were no pre-impact skid marks at the point of impact was noteworthy, it means the Stasko car could not or did not brake prior to impact.

While typing this I watched the local NBC channel, the jury visit was taped and shown, with generous coverage showing the defendant. It was mentioned that the DA's case now concludes and the defense will take over, and their case will be based on the theory that the driver/victim, Cynthia Furr, was distracted by the child seat (because her daughter was not in it?) and thus deflecting blame.

I will be back in the courtroom tomorrow for my last visit, due to new job assignment that starts the following week.