Opinion ID: 2010460
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State's Case-in-Chief.

Text: Trial began on February 2, 2007. During the preliminary instructions to the jury, the trial judge explained that [i]t is improper for an attorney to state an opinion as to . . . whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The trial judge also explained that [w]hat an attorney thinks or believes about the evidence or the credibility of a witness in a case is absolutely irrelevant and you are instructed to disregard any personal opinion or belief which an attorney offers during opening or closing statements or any other time during the course of the trial. The prosecutor then gave his opening statement. When the prosecutor was finished and the trial judge excused the jury for a recess, defense counsel asked to approach the bench and told the trial judge that, during the prosecutor's opening remarks, Mr. Cooke handed [defense counsel] a note that indicates that he would like to talk to the Judge, please. The trial judge asked defense counsel to ask Cooke what he wanted to speak to the judge about and defense counsel left the courtroom to meet with Cooke in the conference room behind the courtroom. Before they left, defense counsel said they thought that Cooke might want to enter a plea of guilty. But, when defense counsel returned from the meeting with Cooke, they explained that Cooke did not want to enter a plea of guilty. Cooke wanted to address the Court. [9] Defense counsel also explained that, although Cooke might not necessarily act out in the courtroom, Cooke's level of agitation [wa]s rising and that it would be best if the court addressed the matters with Cooke somewhere other than in the courtroom in the presence of the media and the public. Defense counsel explained, I think that that has the possibility of making it into the paper and possibly tampering with the jury's judgment of this gentleman at this stage of the trial. The trial judge agreed that if he spoke with Cooke, it should be somewhere other than in the courtroom but would have to remain a public proceeding nonetheless. [10] The trial judge concluded that he was obligated to let Cooke speak to him, and it might be best if I did so sooner rather than later to let some of the steam off. The trial judge preferred to wait until after the defense's opening statement. The trial judge's reason for waiting was that Cooke would have a chance to hear what his counsel said to a jury in an open courtroom in a public setting and could factor that in. The trial judge wanted Cooke to have a chance to hear his legal voice in the same context as he heard the State's legal voice. The State contended that it was best if the trial judge spoke to Cooke as soon as possible, preferably before the defense's opening statement, because Cooke had wanted to talk to [the trial judge] for a couple of days now and it would be better if we can control the timing and the place of that discussion to prevent him from simply blurting things out in ways that could prejudice the trial. Defense counsel agreed with the trial judge that it made sense to conduct the colloquy after the defense's opening statement, but requested that the trial judge inform Cooke of that timeframe in open court. The trial judge told defense counsel that he would not address Cooke in open court prior to the defense's opening statement and that, instead, defense counsel should explain to Cooke that he would have a chance to address the judge after the opening statement. The trial judge wanted defense counsel to explain to Cooke that he wanted Cooke to hear what his attorneys had to say first. Cooke had not had any outbursts during the State's opening statement, but had grumbled from time to time. The State asked defense counsel if they thought Cooke could make it through the defense's opening statement without having an outburst and defense counsel said that they thought he could, although he might continue grumbling. Defense counsel stated: I have indicated to him that his family supports what I'm intending to do and that may dissuade him to some extent, but I can't guarantee. The statements made during that conversation suggest that defense counsel and the prosecutors knew that Cooke's outbursts were precipitated by his objection to the presentation of mental illness evidence. The State was very concerned that Cooke would have an outburst in court if the trial judge did not speak to Cooke before the defense's opening statement and before defense counsel mentioned Cooke's mental illness or a guilty but mentally ill verdict in its opening statement. The conference ended and defense counsel spoke with Cooke privately. The jury was brought back into the courtroom. Defense counsel made the opening statement, which focused entirely on Cooke's mental illness and requested a verdict of guilty but mentally ill. [11] When the defense concluded its opening statement, the trial judge excused the jury and the public and announced that proceedings would continue following the lunch recess. Prior to the resumption of the trial, the trial judge met with the prosecutor, defense counsel, Cooke, and a court reporter in a separate courtroom. The trial judge told Cooke that he had the opportunity to speak about his concerns. Cooke said that he would prefer to speak in the presence of the jury. The trial judge explained that Cooke would have the opportunity to address the jury later in the trial if he chose to testify, but for now he could tell the judge about any questions or concerns that he had. Cooke first explained that he was concerned that his attorneys would not ask witnesses the questions he wanted his attorneys to ask. The trial judge said that the attorneys normally decide which questions to ask the witnesses, but Cooke was free to give his attorneys his suggestions. Cooke's second concern was that the State was lying and his attorneys would not contradict the lies. The trial judge explained that he was not Cooke's lawyer and was simply trying to find out if there was some problem that was really bothering Cooke that the trial judge could address. Cooke responded as follows: Yeah, sure. I'm full of matters. I've got a lot of problems, I mean, with my counselors. They went beyond, you know, the reasons thatwith this mental ill defense. I never agreed to none of that stuff and I've got the papers, you know, that prove I never agreed to that stuff and that's like going over my head, taking my rights from me, you know. Rather than address the dispute between Cooke and his attorneys about the decision to pursue the guilty but mentally ill verdict, the trial judge said to Cooke, I'm not so sure I want to get into advice between you and your lawyers on that issue, Mr. Cooke. It's not really my function. Cooke persisted, stating that he did not agree to the presentation of the mental illness evidence and that his attorneys knew that, but were presenting the evidence anyway. [12] Cooke also explained that he did not want the State to play portions of the tape recordings of the police interview with his girlfriend, Rochelle Campbell, without playing the entire recording. The trial judge told Cooke that the decision to play all or a portion of the recordings was a decision for Cooke's attorneys to make because [t]hat is a tactical decision. Cooke responded: That's their tactic. That's not my strategy. If I'm telling you right now that I have talked to them about that and we disagree on that, they going to still override me and it's going to make it look like I'm pushing that issue that way. I'm not pushing that issue that way. They're using their own strategies. You know, their strategy, they want those pieces to be seen to make it look like I'm this mentally ill person, you know. That's wrong. The trial judge addressed Cooke's other concerns, but never addressed Cooke's objection to his attorneys presenting evidence to support a guilty but mentally ill verdict. Trial then reconvened in Courtroom 8B, and the State began presenting evidence in its case-in-chief. The trial continued without any mention of the dispute between Cooke and his attorneys about the guilty but mentally ill verdict and without any outbursts by Cooke, until February 5, during the prosecutor's direct examination of Amalia Cuadra about the burglary of her home. Cooke interrupted her testimony when he said: Oh, man. I don't care. Excuse me, man. The jury was taken out of the courtroom. Cooke continued: Oh, man. You setting me up in this whole place. They don't even know me. Only got four different reports here, man. Four different reports. Give me my stuff. Give me my stuff. [13] The trial judge excused Cooke and his counsel so that counsel could try to help Cooke calm down. After meeting with Cooke, defense counsel reported to the trial judge that Cooke was very agitated and expressed his opinion about what is happening here in the trial. Defense counsel explained that in Cooke's opinion, it has not been a fair proceeding and he thinks he's being railroaded. Defense counsel had reminded Cooke that, if he wanted to remain in the courtroom, he would have to abide by court rules and could not talk until he testified. Defense counsel reported, however, that I cannot guarantee that he will not have another outburst. The trial judge decided to stop the proceedings for the day to give Cooke time to calm down overnight. The trial judge said that he would talk to Cooke in the morning, before Cuadra resumed her testimony, and would advise Cooke about the risks of having another outburst in court. The prosecutor appeared frustrated that Cooke had interrupted the trial testimony. He said: It seems to me unfair to allow the defendant to cause a recess in the proceedings because of misconduct. He doesn't have a right to recess the proceedings. The trial judge said that Cooke has a right to be present, which I have to respect. [14] The next morning, February 6, before the jury was brought into the courtroom, the trial judge addressed Cooke and explained that it was not in Cooke's best interest to display the verbal conduct that he had displayed the day before, during Cuadra's testimony and in the presence of the jury. The trial judge explained that if another similar incident occurred, I may have to decide at that point ... that you would have to be removed from the courtroom. Then the trial would continue without you present in the courtroom. When the trial judge asked if Cooke understood him, Cooke asked if he could speak. The trial judge told Cooke that he could not. Cooke then accused the trial judge of threatening him during the February 2 colloquy and of violating his constitutional rights. Cooke also said: I told you they wasn't representing me right. You still allowed that to go. Cooke seemed to be referring to the fact that his counsel mentioned the guilty but mentally ill verdict in their opening statement despite his objection. Cooke also was angry about the possibility that certain tape recorded interviews would not be played in their entirety. The trial judge had Cooke removed from the courtroom and held that Cooke could not return until he informed his lawyers that he could be quiet in the presence of the jury. The court took a recess. About twenty minutes later, defense counsel reported that Cooke was ready to return and would not misbehave in front of the jury. Defense counsel also explained that Cooke understood that he could be banished from the courtroom and forced to watch the trial by closed-circuit television from a holding cell if he had another outburst. [15] The trial judge requested that Cooke be brought back into the courtroom, and asked Cooke if he could behave in the presence of the jury. Rather than respond to the trial judge's question about whether he understood that he needed to remain quiet during the proceedings, the defendant answered: I do understand that you're racial, biased. The trial judge asked again if the defendant could remain in the courtroom without having another verbal statement such as you had yesterday afternoon and the defendant did not respond. The trial judge decided to give it a try. The trial judge had the jury brought back in and instructed the prosecution to call its witness. Later that day, the prosecution concluded its direct examination of Cuadra. When the prosecution finished its direct examination, a short side-bar conference was held. After the side-bar, defense counsel stated that they had no questions for Cuadra on cross-examination. The trial judge excused the witness, and Cooke had another outburst, presumably because his attorneys did not to cross-examine Cuadra. Cooke said: No, no, you can't keep railroading me; you railroading me like this. Come on, man, you keep railroading me like this; oh man, this is a racial case; oh man. The trial judge asked that the jury be removed as Cooke continued: All these witnesses pass here. You got no questions for none of them. All of the statements these ladies made, oh man, oh. Ain't no shush, shush. These women said it was a dark male. At that point, defense counsel said: Your Honor, we ask that Cooke be removed and Cooke was escorted out of the courtroom. The witness was excused and there was a short recess so defense counsel could talk to Cooke. After the recess, defense counsel explained that Cooke remained agitated but wanted to return to the courtroom. Cooke was brought back in, and the trial judge told Cooke that his right to be present in the courtroom was not absolute and could be surrendered if he was disruptive by commenting on a witness's testimony in the presence of the jury. The trial judge also explained that if Cooke had another outburst, the trial judge would move the trial to another courtroom and Cooke would have to watch the trial by television from a holding cell. The trial judge did not give Cooke an opportunity to speak. Trial resumed on Monday, February 8, with the testimony of Georgia Carter, a handwriting analyst. The prosecution began with voir dire outside the presence of the jury. Cooke had another outburst. He was removed from the courtroom and the trial judge explained that Cooke's disruptions were not tolerable, even outside the presence of the jury. The trial judge stated that voir dire would continue without Cooke, and afterwards, he would check to see if Cooke was willing to behave. The trial judge noted that Cooke had already had three outbursts in the presence of the jury, in addition to this one outside the jury's presence. Defense counsel continued cross-examination and voir dire of Carter. When voir dire concluded, the trial judge excused the parties so that defense counsel could speak to Cooke and see if he was prepared to return to the courtroom. Defense counsel returned for a sidebar conference and reported that Cooke had calmed down and wanted to return. Defense counsel also reported that Cooke expected the Court to engage in a colloquy with him about his courtroom behavior. Cooke was brought back into the courtroom and the trial judge began to explain to Cooke that he had a right to be present in the courtroom. Cooke replied: You have a right to give me my fair trial? The trial judge answered that Cooke's right to be present in the courtroom was not absolute and could be forfeited by disruptive behavior. The trial judge said his purpose was to give Cooke a fair trial. Cooke said: Ain't no fair trial. You telling me fair trial? The trial judge asked Cooke to decide whether he wanted to remain in the courtroom or be excused, and Cooke replied that the trial judge could do whatever he wanted to do because it was the trial judge's courtroom. The trial judge said: Mr. Cooke, it is your right, sir. It is your choice. Cooke had another outburst at that point, his second outside the presence of the jury. [16] Cooke was removed from the courtroom. When the jury was brought in, the trial judge instructed the jury that they were not to construe Cooke's absence from the courtroom as an indication of his guilt. The prosecution conducted its direct examination of Carter without Cooke present. Cooke did not watch the proceedings by closed-circuit television because Courtroom 8B was not configured with a camera for that purpose. The camera was in Courtroom 6D and the trial judge had not yet decided to move the proceedings to that courtroom. Around 2 p.m., the parties reconvened and Cooke was brought back into the courtroom. Again, the trial judge asked Cooke if he could remain quiet and not be disruptive. Cooke brought up his dispute with his attorneys about seeking the guilty but mentally ill verdict. He said: Why did you give me public defenders that's not representing me right? I talked to you about that on that Friday, February the 2nd. I didn't never pick this guilty but mentally ill. They said I was guilty. The trial judge said that Cooke's concern was a matter of record already and not under discussion at this point. Cooke said: But the more I tell you, the more you allow this stuff to go on. The trial judge said that there was nothing that he could say to Cooke at that point. The discussion continued as follows: The Defendant: I mean, you can, you a Judge. The Court: No, not at this point. The Defendant: That means you just putting me on a railroad track and letting the train run over me. The Court: Mr. Cooke, I would not sit here as a Judge and allow anyone to be railroaded. The Defendant: That's what you doing. You are doing that, you capable to do something about that. The Court: I can't stop you from having that opinion if you want but The Defendant: That's not opinion. That's the truth. I'm being railroaded. I'm speaking from the heart. You might be speaking from the mouth. The Court: Well, Mr. Cooke, getting back to my question: Are you going to remain quiet if you stay here in the courtroom? The Defendant: I already gave you my word. I said at the beginning. The trial judge determined that Cooke would behave and had the jury brought back into the courtroom. The prosecution continued the presentation of its case-in-chief without any disruptions from Cooke for the rest of the day. Trial resumed on Thursday, February 15, and Cooke returned to the courtroom. The trial judge asked Cooke if he could behave, meaning no further verbal outbursts at any time or other kind of demonstrations such as hitting the desk or doing anything else like that. Cooke said he would behave. Before the jury was brought into the courtroom, defense counsel told the trial judge that Cooke wanted to leave the courtroom when the medical examiner's photographs were introduced and the medical examiner testified. The trial judge addressed Cooke directly and asked whether he chose to leave the courtroom and return to the holding cell. Cooke said that he did want to leave and return to the holding cell. Cooke said he would return for the testimony of Detectives Rubin and Maiura but did not want to be present for the medical examiner's testimony. The trial judge excused Cooke. Defense counsel had explained to Cooke that portions of the video tapes from the Newark Police interrogation and handwriting exemplar session were going to be played. The trial judge noted that one of Cooke's concerns about the trial was that he wanted the entire tapes from those two sessions played and not just portions selected by the State. The trial judge decided to speak to Cooke before the detectives' testimony to explain that only portions of the tapes would be played and to warn Cooke not to have an outburst. Cooke was then brought back into the courtroom and the trial judge explained that only portions of the taped sessions would be played. Cooke said that he understood but thought it was unfair, because he was treated badly by the police and those portions of the tape would not be shown to the jury. Cooke felt that the prosecution was tampering with evidence because they were not showing the entire tape. The trial judge tried to explain that failure to show the entire tape did not constitute tampering with evidence. The trial judge also explained that he had watched the entire videotape of the session with the handwriting analyst for a pre-trial ruling regarding its admissibility, but had not watched the tape of the police interrogation. The discussion continued as follows: The Defendant: You can't cut pieces out like that. What they said about me and stuff like that. Remember they depicted, they called me the killer first. They called me the killer. They came at me like that. The Court: Okay. Well, let me tell you, Mr. Cooke. The problem is that probably would be inadmissible anyway because the police view of whether you're guilty or not The Defendant: Let the jury decide that. The Court: That's exactly the point. The Defendant: [If you're] not playing the whole thing, they can't decide that. They will decide what them put on the table. They not laying the whole foundation. The Court: Well, there's been an agreement about what should be shown or not shown, both from the point of view of the prosecution wanting to show what it needs to show and what your attorneys believe would be The Defendant: They're not working for me. I'm not guilty. They use that mentally ill. I didn't agree with that. You know that. The Court: Mr. Cooke, I know that you don't agree with it, and that's why I'm The Defendant: Why are you allowing it to go on? The Court: Because The Defendant: That's unconstitutional, though. The Court: No, it's not, sir. The Defendant: Yes, that is.... You can't give me somebody that is not representing me right. You forcing them on me. The Court: That's not true. The Defendant: That is true. The Court: Anyway, I'm not going into the details of that at this point. The trial judge asked Cooke whether he could remain in the courtroom without having an outburst while portions of the videotapes were played for the jury or whether he should be removed. Cooke indicated that he would stay and be quiet. The jury was brought in and the State recalled Detective Maiura. The defense did not conduct cross-examination. Next, the prosecution called Detective Rubin. The defense did not conduct cross-examination of Detective Rubin either. The jury was taken out of the courtroom. Because the medical examiner was going to testify next, the trial judge gave Cooke the opportunity to leave the courtroom, since Cooke had indicated earlier that he did not want to be present for the medical examiner's testimony. Cooke said: I'm staying; and he was permitted to stay. The jury was brought back into the courtroom and the prosecution conducted voir dire of the medical examiner. Defense counsel declined to conduct voir dire. The prosecution began its direct examination by asking the medical examiner about the autopsy of Lindsey Bonistall and about photographs of the victim's body. The trial judge interrupted the direct examination to give the jury an instruction, warning that some of the photos would be unpleasant and reminding the jurors that they had to decide the case without being influenced by emotion or sympathy. The trial judge concluded: So, please keep those instructions in mind as you view the photographs, which will now be presented to you by the State. This precipitated another outburst by Cooke. He said: Instruction? I'm not guilty. I'm not guilty. And they chose this mentally ill, and not me. You know, yeah, keep that in mind. The jury was taken out of the courtroom and Cooke was removed. Defense counsel asked the trial judge to declare a mistrial because Cooke told the jury about his dispute with counsel about pursuing the guilty but mentally ill verdict. Defense counsel said: The remarks that the defendant made were louder than he normally does and specifically addressed the statement ... basically to the effect that this mental ill defense is not what I'm about, and I'm not guilty, and phrases to that effect. That's highly prejudicial to the defense that we're putting on at this point. The outburst itself was disturbing, I would imagine, to the jury. The correctional officers did a fine job of moving him from the courtroom with as little disruption as possible; nevertheless, this is, to my count, the eighth or ninth time that they witnessed an outburst like this. And as such, we feel that the ability for him to have a fair trial in front of this jury has been so prejudiced that the Court needs to declare a mistrial. The State responded that the dispute between Cooke and his counsel about presentation of the mental illness evidence was caused by Cooke and by counsel, not by the State, and therefore the trial should proceed. The prosecutor noted that [o]ne can easily envision if Cooke testifies we might hear similar kinds of outbursts, and the State had in the past, in the course of this proceeding cautioned that allowing this conflict to fester between counsel and defendant could cause problems. The trial judge noted that the writ of mandamus has been denied. The State explained that it was concerned that Cooke was causing the problems and should not be able to benefit from his own misconduct. The trial judge addressed the arguments and explained his position as follows: I start from the premise that there's been no dispute about this defendant's competence to stand trial, that he's been found competent to stand trial.... That means he's competent to assist counsel or not assist counsel. He does not assist counsel by these outbursts. The issue of these outbursts, it's a little hard to say, because ... while the Court has read some of the material submitted by the parties in connection with ... partly the issue raised in the writ of mandamus, as well as the ongoing matter in this Court, as far as the claims by Mr. Cooke about his wishes versus ... how defense counsel have approached this case. Again, there's nothing in what I have read in the reports from the two experts retained by the defense which would indicate ... that Mr. Cooke is incapable of standing trial [or] incapable of making conscious decisions about things, including how he conducts himself in this courtroom or in court. The trial judge noted that originally Cooke did not want to be present for the medical examiner's testimony, but later decided that he wanted to stay. Then, Cooke had an outburst when the medical examiner began to testify. The trial judge concluded that there was nothing in the psychiatric expert's reports to suggest that Cooke was incompetent to stand trial and therefore the trial judge found that Cooke's outbursts were voluntary. He explained: I'm disturbed by the fact that he said he could remain in the courtroom for the medical examiner's testimony, would remain calm, and then chose to have this outburst in the presence of the jury, which I view as entirely within his power to do or not to do. The trial judge stated that any prejudice caused by Cooke's conduct was self-created and denied the motion for a mistrial. The record reflects that the trial judge was focused more on the prejudicial effects of Cooke's outbursts than on Cooke's objection to his attorneys presenting evidence to support a guilty but mentally ill verdict. The trial judge did not directly address the dispute or attempt to resolve it. The prosecution requested that the trial judge rule, based on Cooke's repeated outbursts and misconduct, that Cooke waived his right to be present in the courtroom. The prosecution wanted Cooke excluded from the remainder of the proceedings, particularly because the defense's case-in-chief would focus entirely on Cooke's mental illness. The prosecutor explained that, given that Cooke has repeatedly said on the record, and now in front of the jury, [that] he does not want that defense to be pursued, it is, I think, unreasonable to expect that he will control himself or behave himself. Defense counsel asked to wait until the next morning to decide the issue so that Cooke had time to calm down, but suggested that they continue the rest of the day's proceedings without Cooke. The trial judge agreed that Cooke had waived his right to be present for the rest of the day, and the proceedings continued. Cooke watched by television from the holding cell. After the medical examiner testified that the cause of death was strangulation, the prosecution concluded its direct examination and defense counsel engaged in a brief cross-examination. Defense counsel asked the medical examiner if she had an opinion as to whether Cooke was mentally ill at the time of the crime. The medical examiner said that she did not have an opinion and could not address that issue. That was the extent of defense counsel's cross-examination. The State rested its case-in-chief. The defense moved for a judgment of acquittal without additional comment. The trial judge ruled that the State had established a prima facie case on all of the charges and denied the motion.