Justice

The pundits will now move on, the center ring slowly emptying outside the Stark County Courthouse as the snaking cables from live trucks are rolled back into their hiding places, ready to unfurl at a courthouse or crime scene to be named later. Bobby Cutts, Jr. is guilty.


The questions most of us will ask the jury will likely center on just what
they talked about during their 27 hours of deliberations -- about half as long as the total testimony they heard inside Judge Charles Brown's courtroom. How did they decide against finding for aggravated murder in Count One, the murder of Jessie Davis? Was is Bobby's tears or did they find plausible attorney Fernando Mack's opinion that the death was a horrible accident, the intersection of a powerful elbow and soft tissue?

What plays loudest in the follow-up to the State v Bobby Cutts, Jr. is the apparent view of jurors forged by what seems to have been a lifetime behind closed doors, a dozen people charged with deciding life or death: the adults in this tragic play were held to a different standard than the one player who never had a voice to speak her side. Baby Chloe's only story could be told through the evidence, gruesome photographs simply too graphic to show on TV or the web. It was in consideration of her, two weeks shy of entering this world, that the jury found murder was more than just murder, it was enough to call aggravated and now triggers the next step.

The gag order continues for the lawyers and family members; no commenting, please, despite the calls coming in from New York to feed the media hunger when tonight's viewing audiences watch the evening after Nancy shared tragedy of school killings, OJ's girlfriend and other cases with her babies in the studio to spend some of Valentine's Day with mom. The so-called penalty phase will determine the measure of justice for Bobby Cutts, to be spelled out by the still promise of his unborn daughter.

Not A Good Night's Rest

The jury heads home for the night -- as long as you consider home a hotel paid for by the State, a location where they've set up dinner for everyone at the same time. No side trips to the Bell for a quick burrito, no slipping out to Rockne's even for a Firestone salad.

Chris Keppler has an excellent sidebar posted on AkronNewsNow on what it's like for the men and women making up the jury hearing the murder case against Bobby Cutts, Jr. It's no picnic and it is something that will stay with them for the rest of their lives regardless of what their verdict is.

Right now the decision is of guilt or innocence; the jury could accept the manslaughter charge, it could find aggravated murder or it could even acquit; these things are never the guarantees the pundits expect them to be. How many times have you turned on those programs and gotten an earful of "wow, what a surprise!" from the experts?

Tina Kaufmann was clearly exhausted after all the adrenalin of courtroom coverage the past seven days; last night she was on Fox with Greta, tonight she's on CNN Headline with Nancy. Eric Mansfield tells me MSNBC has been calling him as well and I know Phil Trexler's phone has been also ringing off the hook at the Akron Beacon Journal during his coverage of the story. I believe the local reporters have done a credible and responsible job reporting what's been happening in the courtroom, and note the public interest in this case hasn't hijacked the coverage to the point where we've seen a Judge Ito moment (or a Cochran or Clark moment from the lawyers, either) and justice seems to have been served well by the broadcast and webcast coverage of the trial. Even the usual suspects have been keeping their eyes on the ball and presenting the story in fairly straightforward terms and tone.

Another day of deliberations start bright and early for the jury and given tonight's forecast they can at least be thankful someone else is taking care of their ride into work tomorrow morning.

Will Tears Work?

In a stunning reversal of strategy the defense team for Bobby Cutts, Jr. put their client on the stand to plead his own case to the jury considering the capital murder case against him.

Fernando Mack's thoughts may have been the testimony in the prosecution's case may have been so damning last week that the defense had only once chance to keep Cutts out of the death chamber, and that was to make the jury feel sorry for him. After five straight days of graphic testimony and images surely seared in the brains of the jury will this afternoon's tears be enough to put the benefit of a death-row doubt in their hearts?

Cutts painted a confusing picture of Jessie's last night on earth, complete with another woman and claims he accidentally killed her when his elbow caught her in the throat. He could barely answer questions during the defense testimony without breaking down and crying but now that the prosecution is asking questions he's noticeably guarded in responding to the State. As a cynic I question the changing mood, but also admit he may simply be emotionally drained at this point after two hours before the cross examination begins.

If it was the decision of the defense team to put Cutts on the stand -- what a risky move. Just about any defense attorney you speak with will note the absolute worst thing most defendants can do is open their mouths, especially with the chance for prosecutors to take aim and come after their target and that's exactly what is happening now with a question on whether Cutts had a cold because prosecution lawyers really didn't see any tears. That may be enough to plant the seed in a wavering juror's mind to question what he or she has just witnessed as to whether it was sincere and the truth. If no, the strategy backfires in the worst possible way but then many question whether Cutts has anything to lose.

Ethics Question: When Is It Enough?

Quite a bit of discussion this morning in the newsroom on the graphic testimony from Dr. Lisa Kohler, the Summit County Medical Examiner, on the condition of Jessie Marie Davis' body when it was discovered after nine days of exposure. This is coverage you will not hear on our radio stations, and that's our choice.

The audio from today's testimony in Stark County Common Pleas Court in The State v Bobby Cutts, Jr. is very specific and not at all atypical of what any Medical Examiner or Coroner would testify to on the condition of a body and resulting autopsy procedure; anyone who's watching any of the CSI programs can figure that out. The difference is real versus Hollywood, and whether it really matters that those of following the Cutts case through broadcast reports (radio and television) should hear this testimony.

We will not use the graphic, disturbing autopsy audio on our broadcast reports. This material (condition of organs, viewing of Jessie's unborn child, etc.) doesn't leave much to the imagination and for the purposes of the official court record that's a good thing. For the purposes of reporting the case to the general public outside the courtroom, however, I'm not sure it is appropriate.

The testimony, while necessary for the jury, can be paraphrased for the sake of an audience that doesn't have the ability to control whether or not they hear or see it. If you are monitoring the case through online reports, you are in control of listening; when you are in the car a "...this graphic audio may be disturbing..." with a two-second warning to hit the switch offers little if in fact no choice at all for the listener.

The key issue in Kohler's testimony is not the condition of the body; we get that. If you don't, wait until summer and perform your own experiment by leaving dinner outside for nine days. The key issue is just why it has been so difficult for the experts to pinpoint the exact cause of death, and those questions can be answered in a fashion that doesn't require us to have advanced medical degrees or a lust for the excessively disturbing. It's a criminal trial, not another episode of the SAW movies.

Bottom line: if you want to hear it, you choose to click on the link; if you are in the car, washing the dishes, or listening at work we don't need to invade your space with the nitty-gritty. The content depends on the context it is presented in this case, and our judgment is to err on the side of the listener.

That difference of control is paramount.

On Sources & Reporting

I surely don't want to add the "we told you so" to such a horrible case...but it IS worth noting the reporting from AkronNewsNow and WAKR, WKYC's Eric Mansfield, 19 Action News team Sharon Reed and Ed Gallick, the Beacon Journal's Phil Trexler and the Canton Repository's team was pretty much right on the money in the Jessie Marie Davis case.

You may have missed today's widely-reported news on the filing from the Stark County Prosecutor with details on just what happened the day her body was found at the Top O' The World park site.


That day is still vivid in my mind; Toni Cicone and Joe Jastrzemski on WAKR, Kristen Russo's story on AkronNewsNow and 19 Action News anchor Sharon Reed first reported Bobby Cutts had confessed but our sources weren't holding news conferences -- that was two hours to come later. Eric Mansfield added critical details known only to investigators and his sources, including the report that Cutts himself led police to the site but at the time his report was dismissed.



Turns out he -- and other reporters -- were right.

Prosecutors, police and defense lawyers for Cutts and confessed accomplice Myisha Ferrell followed a self-imposed gag order before the case ever went before a judge, carefully limiting information in the case. It was a textbook example of controlling media we're now seeing play out in Chicago in the Stacey Peterson case, another high-profile missing woman that lept from the police blotter to the crime-and-punishment nightly TV lineup with a life of it's own.

There's plenty of room for debate on the treatment afforded these cases and the reporting style but what clearly isn't up for much debate now is that local reporters who trusted their sources acted responsibly, in large measure, in their reporting during the heat of the moment. Today's news reported first by the Canton Repository includes the now-confirmed truth from Prosecutor Ferraro's office: Bobby led them to Jessie's body.

The next step: will prosecutors take the death penalty off the table in exchange for a plea agreement? Ferrell took the deal, providing the State with damning testimony against Cutts and my gut tells me the filing by the Cutts defense team challenging the death penalty specification is positioning to force the prosecution hand on proving intent. If the capital spec holds, it puts more pressure on Cutts to accept a plea bargain if Jessie's family tells prosecutors they would be supportive. That's a question the family has been firm in side-stepping, and with good reason: it would weaken the case against Cutts to pull this legal weapon from their quiver.