FL vs Curtis Reeves

[RVInit]

This case goes back such a long time, I had nearly forgotten about it. Reeves is the retired police (or maybe Sheriff deputy?) that shot a man in a Florida theater after asking him to turn off his cell phone after the movie previews started.

I don't know if the whole trial will be broadcast, but I did find YouTubes and I watched last night.

LMK is doing a great job of keeping us up to date on the hate crimes trial against Ahmaud Arbery's killers. I would be willing to keep up with Reeves trial (probably more like the end of the day watching it and then updating here at night, so you'll be a day behind on details of testimony)

I watched yesterday's testimony last night, so I could go ahead and give a rundown of that. I am almost done with my work day, so I will do that in a bit. And then I will post from today's testimony later tonight after I have a chance to watch it.

My overall impression so far? The defense made some promises and set some expectations about what the evidence will show, but so far when it was their turn to make their points on some of what they promised, they fell far short. They are getting off to a bad start. I will give more details in a little while including specifics.

[Jim]

Thanks RV! I'll be keeping up and enjoying your updates.

[Dr. Caligari]

Thanks RV! I'll be keeping up and enjoying your updates.

...as will I!

[RVInit]

Notes from day 1:

The prosecution and defense gave their opening statements, after which only one witness was presented so far.

The prosecution told the jury they will present video from inside the movie theater as well as witness testimony to show that Curtis Reeves is guilty of 2nd degree murder for the shooting of Chad Oulson. Chad's wife sustained damage to her hand and one of her fingers and he's facing charges related to her injuries as well. Their opening statement was pretty much standard, they went through all the evidence they intend to put on and they painted a picture of the movie theater having enough lighting that a reasonable person would have no problem seeing what people were doing. They brought up and admitted that Chad Oulsen had apparently reached over, picked up a package of popcorn and tossed it at Mr Reeves. They mentioned that Chad had also made a couple of remarks to Mr Reeves after Mr Reeves had demanded that he turn of his phone, and that ideally Mr Oulsen should maybe not have done that. But they pointed out over and over that just because Mr Oulsen had not turned his phone off when demanded to do so, and just because he tossed a bag of popcorn, that is not justifiable reason to to shoot him. The prosecutor also mentioned to the jury to look closely at all of the video to see how easily Mr Reeves is able to move, how quickly he was able to react to pull his gun out and shoot Mr Oulsen. After listening to the defense opening I think the prosecution is probably anticipating correctly what kind of defense they will be facing, probably based on their witness list and expert reports.

The defense is trying for self defense based on Curtis Reeves having physical limitations such as arthritis and the theater having limited lighting. He was such a highly decorated police officer that the police asked him to start a SWAT team. The training he took and gave to his men including making sure he and they could safely return home at the end of the day. He knows what a "fist" can do to someone. The defense is going to present Mr Reeves son and daughter to tell the jury that they have seen their father lose the ability to do some things that he could do as a younger man. My sense in listening to this presentation is that they intend to suggest that Mr Reeves, not being as young, felt more threatened. They are going to present a psychologist who will talk about the aging process and what goes on in the head of an aging person. They are going to put on a radiologist to tell them about all the degenerative processes that can be seen inside his body on an MRI. He has osteoporosis, problems with virtually every part of his body, making him vulnerable to injury.

[RVInit]

The first witness was on the stand for so long that she was the only witness on the first day. Mrs Oulsen was very slowly and painstakingly taken through every detail of what happened from the time they walked into the theater until after Mr Oulsen was shot.

When they first sat down, they sat in the next to the back row of the theater. Her husband had his iPhone in his lap and was browsing Facebook. At some point Mrs Oulsen said she could sense someone in the row behind them sitting down.

After the previews started, Mrs Oulsen said her husband continued to look at Facebook and shortly afterward she testified that Mr Reeves, in an angry voice, demanded that her husband turn off the phone. According to her testimony, he did not ask politely, he demanded. Her husband did not react kindly to that, but he never turned around and directly addressed Mr Reeves. She said her husband continued to face forward and she heard him say something like "what's your problem"? but not really talking directly to Mr Reeves. At some point she became aware that whoever was behind them got up and left the theater. Her husband did turn off the phone at some point after the movie screen displayed the notice about turning off and putting away phones. But Mr Reeves had already gotten up to go complain to management.

In defense opening, the defense also claimed that evidence would show that Mr Oulsen turned and said in a snarky tone to Mr Reeves "I see you went and turned me in". However, the prosecutor took great pains to show the video over and over again to the jury as they asked Mrs Oulsen if her husband had ever turned and talked to Mr Reeves before eventually standing up. I am guessing the jury got a good look at the video, but it really wasn't very well shown on the camera angle for the trial feed I am watching. So I can only say that at least the prosecutor seemed convinced the video more closely shows the same thing Mrs Oulsen was saying rather than what the defense is saying because they kept playing it as she was testifying and seeming to match up her testimony with wht the video was showing.

Basically, she says that at some point she sensed that her husband got enough irritated at Mr Reeves and she sensed that he was getting up out of his seat. She says she became concerned that other people would start to be interrupted by the two men and she started to rise up so she could try to gently put her hand on her husbands shoulder as if to indicate to him "it's not worth it, just sit down and ignore that man". She didn't say those words, but said this is what she was thinking as she tried to stand and reach for her husband. But almost as soon as she reached over with her hand, she heard the gunshot, her hand felt like it was on fire, and within a second or two her husband was stumbling and fell from being shot. She described that she forgot all about her hand when she realized her husband was hurt far worse than she was, and she tried to get to him. She said another man came over and he found something to wrap her hand up and was trying to keep her away from her husband as other people were trying to help save his life.

All that testimony took ages it seemed. The prosecutor was really going almost second by second, so it took a very long time to complete her testimony, The prosecutor also had her describe how her left hand was perfectly normal prior to the gunshot wound and now she has no movement in most of one of her fingers, she had a metal rod inserted in that same finger, and she lost quite a bit of that finger so it's now shorter than it was. She also still experiences pain in that hand and finger and can't grip things with that hand as she used to be able to do.

[Dave from down under]

But well enough to be in possession of a firearm..

and well enough to be able to kill someone.. and wound another..

[RVInit]

I forgot to mention a couple of other things the prosecution got Mrs Oulsen to testify about.

They had her repeat that aside from the single time that her husband stood up and turned toward Mr Reeves, that she had not seen her husband turn or say anything to Mr Reeves. Mr Reeves told a different story to investigators, so the prosecution is taking great pains to match the video with Mrs Oulsen's side of the story, which is different from Mr Reeves' side. She said her husband was annoyed and repeated some words about "what's wrong with this guy" but not directly to Mr Reeves, it was more like he was saying it just in general for his wife to hear, but not turning or directing those words to Mr Reeves.

She was also asked if she had had any sense that her husband had picked up the bag of popcorn and thrown it in Mr Reeves' direction and she said no, from the angle of her vision she was only aware that he stood up, she reached over to try to "push" him gently back down, but before her hand could make contact, the bullet had hit her hand and her husband. There was "only" a single shot.

[Slim Cognito]

I'm old and have severe arthritis, as well. Does that mean I can go around shooting anyone whom I "think" may hurt me?

Also, thanks RV. Much appreciated.

[RVInit]

I was really surprised at how short and ineffextive was the cross examination of Mrs Oulsen. This was an area that I thought the defense made promises it didn't deliver. They asked a couple of questions, she didn't budge on her story, and then all the sudden they didn't have any questions left. Based on their own interpretation of the video I expected them to try to use the video to prove she had mischaracterized something, but no, they never brought up any of the video in their cross examination. I was taken aback when they said "no more questions".

The prosecution only spent a couple of minutes on re-direct and that was just to show again some of the video that matched Mrs Oulsen's testimony. I may have also forgotten to mention that at one point the prosecutor had Mrs Oulsen go over to the jury box so they could see her hand and finger injuries more closely since it would be hard to see from the witness stand.

That's the end of Day 1 impressions. I will go on to listen to Day 2 and probably post each witness separately.

[RVInit]

Day 2 impressions, Charles Cummings, eyewitness - Jan 13, 2014 is the day the shooting took place

Mr Cummings is an elderly man. He is retired, with three grown children. He took one of his children, who is disabled, to the movie theater. He describes the theater as having "mid light". Not dark, but lights were down, but it was easy to see. Mr Cummings usually would sit on the 2nd from last aisle, but the Oulsen's were already there. So, he took a seat at the end of the same row as the Oulsen's. He was asked if he was aware of people in the last row, behind the Oulsen's and he said yes, a man and a woman were there.

He was asked about the lighting conditions in the theater. He said the previews were not loud, he could talk quietly with his son.

He bcame aware of something happening to his left. He looked over and noticed Mr Oulsen's cell phone light, it didn't bother him, or cause him to not be able to see the previews and he says he was not bothered by it at all. What drew his attention was the talking. He said he heard Mr Oulsen say "I'm texting my daughter". Was it angry tone of coice? No, it sounded informative. Not loud, not angry. He turned his attention back to the previews. Then he heard voices again and saw Mr Reeves get up and leave the theater. He couldn't actually hear the conversation. mr Reeves was mumbling to himself, sounded agitated, he hit the back of Mr Cummings seat and head as he passed by. He did not apologize or say anything. He was gone about three or four minutes. He walked out normally, but when he came back he was walking faster. The reason Mr XCimmings noticed is because he thought Mr Reeves might hit his seat again.

Mr Cummings had his glasses on, has no problem with peripheral vision on his left side, whch is whre all the "activity" was taking place. There seemed to be a heated conversation between the two men. he only heard Mr Oulsen when he stood up. He thinks Mr Oulsen said something about "are you trying to get me thrown out of the theater".

He is asked if he ever saw Mr Oulsen trying to climb over tht back of his seat. In their opening, one of the things the defense claimed is that Mr Oulsen leaned all the way over his seat as if to attack Mr Reeves. Both Mr Cummings and Mrs Oulsen dispute that. Did you ever see him throw a punch or any object? No. Did you ever hear Mr Reeves make any sound to indicate that he had been punched or an object thrown at him? No. Did he ever react and grab his face or any other body part? No. Did you ever see Mr Reeves saying anything to indicate that something bad was happening to him? No. Did you see any popcorn in the air right before the gunshot? Yes. It was immediatly before, popcorn in the air, flash, bang. His telling of it seems to suggest Mr Reeves either had to have the gun in his hand already or else he has ultra fast reflexes.

After the gunshot, did you hear Mr Reeves say anything? Yes. What did he say? He said something like "throw popcorn in my face or throw pocorn at me". Did you realize what had happened? I realized there was a shot, but not if anyone was hit.

Did you see anyone move? Mr Oulsen was making kind of weepy sounds and moving toward mr Cummings. Mrs Oulsen also was starting to follow him. Mr Oulsen got almost to where Mr Cimmngs was and said "I can't believe he shot me" and then collapsed almost at Mr Cummings' feet. He told his son to leave the theater and to call 911. He was concerned about his son's safety and also that 911 needed to be called.

He never heard Mr Oulsen threaten Mr Reeves, never heard him cuss, throw F-bombs, yell, or anything. Cummings saw that blood was coming from Mr Oulsen's chest. He directed his attention to Mr Oulsen trying to help him. 15 minutes later approximately, help and police arrived. Cummings had blood on him, on his shoes, hands, etc from trying to help Mr Oulsen. Afer police and emergency medical arrived, Mr Cummings left the theater.

[RVInit]

Day 2 - Mr Cummings direct exam continued briefly,
Photos of Mr Cummings with blood on him are being published to the jury. Prosecutor is chcking his notes, probably to see if he covered everything with the witness.

Did you ever see Mr Oulsen throw a cell phone? I did not. Did you look for your son? yes. WHer was he? Outside. Did law enforcement ask you to come back to the theater? Yes. How many congregated where police asked you to go? About 15 or 20. Did any of you talk to each other about what happened? No. Were you given blank statement sheets? Yes. What did you write? Just a brief statement, hitting on the salient points, but not details. He knew he would be interviwed where he could give more detail. Never saw Mr Oulsen leaning over the back of his seat, never saw mr oulsen aggressive toward Mr Reeves. Did you ever see Mr Reeves hold his hand out as if to "stop" Mr Oulsen from agreessing (lol, is that a word?) him? No, I did not.

no further questions.

[RVInit]

Day 2 - Mr Cummings, cross exam

Defense attorney is starting right out with his written statement and his interview. Right off the bat I believe the defense is going to point out any discrepancy in any details Mr Cummings gave in written statments, depositions, etc. This is the first I've heard of depositions in this case. Two sidebars already and so far no question yet.

Question - were the previews loud? He answered yes in deposition. Now he's explaining that some scenes were louder than others, but he still had no problem in general hearing what people around him were saying. Some scenes in previews were louder, some not so loud. It's mixed. The witness doesn't seem intimidated by the defense pinging on him about whether he was more or less detailed during different interviews or being asked slightly different questions. During the previews you heard conversation to your left. At first you heard just one voice. Defense attorney is trying to ping him on his description of Mr Oulsen's voice. There is an objection about the defense attorney taking a description out of context because mr Cummings used two different words in teh deposition, one of them being the same word he used in direct exam.

Did you think Mr Reeves hit your chair on purpose? No. I thought he did not mean to do that. He was mumbling before he hit the chair - defense is attempting to characterize it as the mumbling was apologizing for hitting the chiar, but no, he was already mumbling. He did not know if Mr Reeves was angry. He heard Mr Oulsen's voice better than Mr reeves as far as the words that were being spoken. He could "hear" them both, but not make out exactly what Mr Reeves was sayng. Agrees that Mr Oulsen sounded upset but not angry. In his view there is a difference. Page 32 of deposition, he sounds irritated. Now we are im another sidebar.

Oh lordy, I think this trial is going to drag on and on. Now, the witnes is agreeing in the deposition he indicated Mr Oulsen sounded mad to him. He thinks Mr Oulsen may have been standing already when he said "you are trying to get me kicked out". he was yelling? His voice was above normal. I would not say yelling. Uh oh, now the deposition is coming out again. I have a feeling he's going to point out that this witness is using different language now than in the deposition. This case has been draggin on and on for 8 years, I have a suspicion we will see a lot of this kind of thing.

Another sidebar after defense indicates he wants to mark an exhibit. Now approaching the wtiness with the exhibit. Is that your signature, the date, etc. This is his handwritten statement. Defense is now pointing out details that are missing from his written statment. He already had said during direct exam that he did not write the details in the written statement as he understood he would be giving more detailed information during his police interview. Defense attorney is going through the statement and I can't see any oints being made during this exchange about the statement. I think some points were scored on the deposition part, but this part of the cross exam sounds like he's just agreeing to what he already testified to.

No re-direct. Subject to recall later.

[RVInit]

Day 2 - Jane Roy - retired bookkeeper

Jan 13, 2014 attended movie with husband. She had a brain tumor, leaving her left side of face paralyzed and deaf on left side. Her left eye had to be surgically closed because she was unable to close the eyelid.

Purchased tickets outside, went directly to the theater. They prefer the last row, center. What are lighting conditions like? Basically saying the same as other witnesses, easy to see. Someone was already in the back, center. The same man that was involved in the shooting, Mr Reeves. She did not know anyone in the theater at the time of the shooting. She ended up sitting a coupld seats away from Mr Reeves.

She was able to converse with her husband during previews. She could hear other voices, but she wasn't paying attention to what they were saying. The preview sound was not drowning out every sound in the theater.

A point in time her direction was focused on the left. She turned to directly look. Almost immediately after the message abut turning off the phones was on the screen, Mr Reeves leaned over the Ouson's to tell him to turn off his phone. After you saw him lean over, what is next thing you saw. mr Reeves stood up and started leaving the theater. He had to walk by her to get out. He was mumbling, he seemed irate about something and went down the stairs. Did it appear that he was having a conversation with his wife? No, he was definitely mumbling to himself, not to his wife, he was already past her and his wife was further away even.

He had no problem walking, he left briskly. He never said "excuse me or anythng as he walked by. She saw nothing threatening prior to Mr Reeves leaving. Says he was gone three to five minutes. She noticed him after he was about halway up the stairs. He had bumped her on the way out. She says she thought it was unintenional.

He sat next to his wife. She noticed something going on again. She saw Mr Oulsen stand up and said "you went and reported me". She then saw popcorn in the air and immediately Mr Reeves hand came up and saw the flash from the gun. She heard and smelled the shot and then realized "oh my God, he shot him". She was shocked.

Did Mr Oulsen try to crawl over his seat? No. Throw anythng at Reeves? No. Threaten him? No. Did Mr Reeves behave as if someone has done something to him? No.

Did you see a female with Mr Oulsen? No, she thought the defendant was the one acting mad and thought he might punch Mr Oulsen. She didn't notice Mrs Oulsen because she was payng attention to the men. They are establishing the Mr Reeves never behaved in any way as if he had been attacked in any way, or as if he thought he was going to be attacked. He never made any defensive type motions.

mr Oulsen took a few stps and fell. Mr Reeves acted completely calm after shooting Mr Oulsen. Were you given any instructions as to how to fill out the statement. She says her statement was very short, she was shaking, she didn't think she was supposed to give details on the written statement. She knew she would be interviewed. Her and her husband did not talk to anybody else from inside the theater prior to writing or giveing any statment.

Sorry, my keyboard is awful, excuse all the typos. End of direct exam.

[Phoenix520]

I'm old and have severe arthritis, as well. Does that mean I can go around shooting anyone whom I "think" may hurt annoy me?

Also, thanks RV. Much appreciated.

Despite what Reeve’s family says about him being an old ex-cop, he wouldn’t have been afraid of a guy with popcorn in his hand who didn’t return his agression. He was annoyed that he wasn’t obeyed. Tout suite.

ETA Yes, thanks RV.

[RVInit]

Day 2 Jane Roy, cross exam

She had the disability back when this happened. She can't see from the left eye. She also lost hearing on the left side. She has to turn her head to the left so her husband sits on her right.

She also has balance problems since before the movie incident. She did not have any testing on her left ear.

The previews were already been playing when she arrived in the theater. She is pushing back on his suggestion that the theater was dark. She had no trouble seeing right away that someone was in the seats she normally sits in, etc.

Defense attorney is sifting through papers. Asking if she remembers him taking her deposition in March 2015. She agrees the deposition was closer to the event than today. He asked her on the deposition if it was "pretty dark" and she had said yes, but she is pushing back and saying she does not beliee she's saying anythng different.

OMG - she just owned that defense attorney. She said "I could talk NOW and it's loud" in a certain volume and then she said "or I coould talk NOW and it's loud" even olousder. I think I am in love with this witness. She's not taking his BS.

This is gong to be short I think. She just owned him again when he tried to "prove" that she had already turned off her phone. She said "I don't have a cell phone". So then he tried to suggest her husband probably already turned of his phone and she said "he doesn't have one either". OMG. He needs to just say "no more questions". She will make him cry if he goes on much further.

She is sticking to her guns about being able to see and hear things even though the movie previews had started.

She agrees when Mr Reeves leaned forward and said somethng to Mr Oulsen, then he got up and left after a few seconds. he's asking her about mumbling from patrons in front of her. he's asking if she said mumbling or chattering. Could she tell if they were angry? no. Why could you tell if mr Reeves was angry? She gives very detailed description of his voice, his facial expression, and says he reminded her to Grumpy from Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

All I can say is the defense attorney needs to learn to read the room. Whatver points he may have made with the last witness are long forgotten because this witness is kicking his ass, but good. Could you hear what ws being mumbled? No, couldn't make out the words. he's trying to suggest that he was saying "excuse me". She disagrees, he never looked at her or directed the membling toward her as if he meant to say "excuse me" to her.

Was Mrs Reeves mumbling? She doesn't know, she was watching mr Reeves, because she had to move her feet for him to pass by. Now he's asking about a non-existent wall and she corrected him. I want to be clear, she's not owning him in an arrogant way. I have seen sometimes a witness correcting in an arrogant way, but she's not saying things in a way that might turn peoople off, IMO.

She agrees that the conversation on both sides was probably louder than normal for a movie theater. He is trying to to say that she said it was too dark to see facial features on mr Oulsen. She says she never said that. They are going to sidebar after he pulled something out and wants to reference a certain page. He asks her if she remembers the depoisiton. She had already said she doesn't specifically remember the deposition, she had so many different interviews and statements over the years. She is reading from the deposition. He's saying the deposition was closer to the incident and woul dher memory be better at that time. She says her recollection would have been better back in 2015 but for some reason he is not having any of the details of what she read to be put in front of the jury. I don't know what the point of that was. It gave one impression and I was expecting him to "prove" that she's sayng something differnt now, but he moves on without the jury being able to know what she said in 2015.

He seems to not know where he wants to go next. he brought up somethng about popcorn but I think he didn't expect her answer so he's moving on. He keeps asking her things and not getting anywhere. He's trying to give the impression that she didn't see mr Oulson jump over the seat once, twice or a third time. There has been NO testimony from anyone that Oulson ever attempting to come over the sat at Mr Reeves. OMG. He really needs to say "no more questions" at this point.


Once again he's goin gback to the deposition and if she remembers certain questions and answers. Objection. Judge says for him to approach the witness with the deposition again as she ahs told him once again that she doesn't specifically remember the deposition. Does it refresh her recollection that people in the concession area were talking about what had happened. So, he finally did score a little point, but then he's not doing anything with it. Does she remember any police officer telling her not to talk to anyone else. She agrees the police didn't say that to her. he is making the point that the police did not separate people.

Was her interview with the police officer short? She doesn't know what is typical so she can't say if it was "short". She previously said it may have been short, but she's again saying she doesn't ahve a frame of reference.

NO MORE QUESTIONS from the defense.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Thanks, RV. For some reason, I can't watch this trial. The whole "stand your ground" sh*t after the Zimmerman trial pisses me off.

[RVInit]

Day 2 - Jane Roy - redirect

Prosecutor is showing a photograph of the theater. So when she said there was no wall, she meant a full floor to ceiling wall. There is a short four foot partition behind the last row, it's not a full wall. That is why she said there is no wall.

Prosecutor is asking her to come down where jurors can see the large photo better and she can point things out.

She compensates for her vision on the left by turnin gentirely to the left. The prosecutor is clearing up the defense trying to say she said different things by using the words chattering vs mumbling. She says when peoople are talking to each other They are "chattering". Mr Reeves was "mumblling" to himself.

Prosecutor brings out the deposition and ponts out that she used the exact same word to describe the lighting in the deposition and also today in court.

Approached again with the deposition to show consistency between what she said during the deposition and today about peoople talking in the lobby area after the shooting.

Regaring what people were talking about after the shooting, is she using he rown memory or what other people said in any statement, deposition or testimony? She's using her own memory and words.

Between the time she saw popcorn in the air and the gun shot, how much time? Very quick. just a second or two. The popcorn didn't even fall before the gunshot went off.

re-cross:

Did you ever see Mr Reeves bracing himself on the divider (the short "wall') behind the seats. She says he did not brace himself on that divider, she is absolutely sure about that.

No more questions.

Witness released for now, but subject to recall. Not sure why they are doing that, so far all witnesses are subject to recall.

[RVInit]

Short break - I apologize for the typos. I had a bluetooth keyboard and mouse and the mouse was awful. So, I bought a new bluetooth keyboard and mouse and this keyboard is awful. I think I will go upstairs and get my keyboard and mouse from my work computer now. So hopefully my typing will be a little better. I am typing in notepad++ and then copy and pasting it here.

I hope I'm making the trial make sense and glad some of you are getting something out of it. I will plod on since there seems to be some interest. Thanks for the feedback. If you have any suggestions on making my posts better, let me know!

I guess I will be BOTB** for this trial.

** Boots on the bed. I plugged my laptop into the TV in my bedroom. I think I will put the TV on YouTube channel and laptop on notepad++ now.

[Azastan]

Short break - I apologize for the typos. I had a bluetooth keyboard and mouse and the mouse was awful. So, I bought a new bluetooth keyboard and mouse and this keyboard is awful. I think I will go upstairs and get my keyboard and mouse from my work computer now. So hopefully my typing will be a little better. I am typing in notepad++ and then copy and pasting it here.

I hope I'm making the trial make sense and glad some of you are getting something out of it. I will plod on since there seems to be some interest. Thanks for the feedback. If you have any suggestions on making my posts better, let me know!

You are doing a great job. Thanks for presenting it to us.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

i agree. Well done, giving us pertinent info without getting lost in minor details.

[Fiascoist]

i am enjoying your explanation of the trial, esp. the admonitions for the defense lawyer to quit before he goes further behind. Can't wait for tomorrow.

[RVInit]

Day 2 - Angela Hamilton

Jan 13, 2014 Monday. Sick the day before, she called in sick on this day, she lived with her husband and still does. He was off Monday. They made plans to go to the movies. The movie was supposed to start shortly after 1

They got drinks in concession area. The previews were playing when they walked in. They could see well, the main movie was not playing yet, so lights were still partly on. They like to sit in the last row. They sat in the last row that day.

Witness is stepping down to go to the board with large photo. Show the members of the jury where you were sitting. She points it out and goes back to witness stand. How was the volume of the previews. She indicates she can hear that peoople were talking, but not necessarily what was being said.

Her husband is a deputy sheriff, he had his gun, but he took it out of his holster and gave it to her to put in her purse so he would be more comfortable in the theater chairs.

Eventually there was a shooting. She names the people involved and establishes she learned the names later, she did not know anyone at the time of the shooting. She was aware there was a person with Chad Oulsen.

Did something catch your attention? yes, I saw Mr Reeves stand up and walk out. She had no knowledge of why. She saw him return at some point. Did something again direct attention away from the previews? Yes, Mr Oulsen stood up. She heard Mr Oulsen say he was texting his daughter. He was facing Mr Reeves at that time. She believes she heard an F bomb. She saw popcorn fly very quickly after he stood up. Immediately after that the shot came.

Did you ever seem Mr Oulsen attempt to come over his seat to the back row? No. They go over lots of different descriptions of anythng that may have happened that was threatening toward Mr Reeves. She answers no to every qustion. Does she recall what Mrs Oulsen was doing when shot was fired? No, I don't recall.

She saw Mr Oulsen fall to the ground. She looked at defendant. He was sitting back in his chair and rubbing his face. Mrs Hamilton's husband immediately had gotten up and gone over to the defendant as soon as he shot Mr Oulsen. Did you watch a video prior to testifying? Yes. Did you see in the video your husband get up and go over to Mr Reeves? yes.

When your husbadn went over, did he take anything from him? Yes, his gun. Did he give that gun to someone with the Sheriff's office? yes. Did you ever see Mrs Oulsen after that? yes. What was she doing? crying.

Were you in the theater when deputies and paramedics came? yes. Were you told to go to a specific area? Ye. Where you given a statement form> yes. Did they tell you how detailed to write your statement? No.

Did a detective interview you that day? Yes. Did you talk to others first? No. Did your husband tell you what to say? No. Was he in the room? Yes. Were peoople who were writing statements all spread out in the room? yes.

Checking with other prosecutors, they are discussing something. No further questions.

[Jim]

[Gregg]

I'm old and have severe arthritis, as well. Does that mean I can go around shooting anyone whom I "think" may hurt me?

Also, thanks RV. Much appreciated.

They gotta throw popcorn at you , and it has to be in Florida, Texas or South Carolina.

But basically, yeah. We're working on the stand your ground thing here in Ohio where we already have open carry so I'm looking for a cannon to carry in case someone cut me off reaching for the last bag of beef jerky at Kroger.

[RVInit]

Day 2 - Angela Hamilton - cross exam

She worked for the public school system? She called in sick, but went to a movie. Were you suffering from some illness where you couldn't see or hear clearly? No.

He's making a point that her husband is a deputy and they probably sit in the rear because her husband could see the whole room. But his gun is in your purse? yes.

Could you hear Mr Oulsen's voice over the previews? She says she was close to him, he was talking a little louder than normal. She agrees he may have been agitated. She only heard his voice.

Mr Oulsen was agitated, standing up, using the f-word? yes. Mrs Oulsen was looking at her husband? Yes. He was slightly leaning forward, but basically standing straight up.

She became alarmed and got her husband's attention. She heard Mr Oulsen call him a "rude old man". She believed Mrs Oulsen wanted to get Mr Oulsen to leave. She made that assumption based on Mrs Oulsen beginning to stand up. That is the only thing she offers as to why she though Mrs Oulsen wanted to get Mr Oulsen and herself out of the sitation. It's pretty consistent with what Mrs Oulsen sayd except Mrs Oulsen just wanted him to sit down and ignore Mr Reeves, not actually move to a different seat.

She tried to call 911 but had no service so she walked over to where her husband is with Mr Reeves. Mr Reeves said he hoped Mr Oulsen was going to be OK. She did not hear Mr Reeves say anything about having had popcorn thrown at him.

No further qustions


REDIRECT:

Prosecutor is getting the witness to agree that she was further from the defendant than other witnesses who actually testified as to what mr Reeves had said. Who went over to the defendant first? My husband. Was the shooting already over with before you went over there? Yes. It it possible that the defendant said things after the shooting but before you got close enough to him to hear anything? Yes.

Was mr Oulsen's body leaning over the seat as if to attack Mr Reeves? No. Prosecutor leans slightly over and she agrees that is how Mr Oulsen was leaning.

Prosecutor is bringing out a previous deposition. He wants to go over what she said about why she believed Mrs Oulsen wanted Mr Oulsen to leave the theater. She says it does refresh her memory. She had her purse hanging on her shoulder. She agrees she made an assumption.

No more qustions.


Re-cross

Do you know where Mrs Oulsen's hands were? No. Did you see her hand reaching up, tapping him? No


No more questions. On standby.