CNN
“I’ve been a prosecutor for 26 years and I’ve never seen anything like that happen”
“He was crying, and when it came out, he caught in his hand and just held it there,” said defense attorney Eileen J. Hurley, “It was a shocking event to witness.”
“Two jurors visibly gasped and jumped up like they were getting out of their seats,” Hurley said.
“The judge had to call recess and let everyone take a breath,” Gilson added.
Hurley said after the recess, she felt the trial couldn’t go on because the event could generate extra sympathy for Huttick, prejudicing the jury against Brunelli.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Truly an eye-popping case.
lester on February 8, 2013 at 3:35 PM
Good thing justice is blind.
lester on February 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM
Deep.
/
CW on February 8, 2013 at 3:38 PM
Couldn’t see that coming.
/
lester on February 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM
He’s keeping an eye out for any additional clues.
trs on February 8, 2013 at 3:40 PM
Hey, lester, how about backing up your post?
Link up, kiddo.
rogerb on February 8, 2013 at 3:41 PM
I don’t stalk people and save their comments to create gotcha moments (and then fail disastrously at that).
There was a particularly violent weekend in Chicago with more than a dozen casualties. Someone posted a news report and I listed the dead and they were all pretty much gang violence victims. Either gang members or in a couple of cases bystanders. Exactly the situation when “responsible gun owners” would have been of virtually no use.
You jumped in, as usual disregarding evidence and posted some irrelevant numbers, in your own mind “proving” that not all victims are of gang violence and gangs are a minor part of the problem in Chicago. As usual ignoring the discussion around the particular weekend since the facts were fairly obvious.
Did I just wait 2 minutes to type all that? That’s why one should ignore stalkers on public forums.
lester on February 8, 2013 at 3:53 PM
Good call, based on what little is in that article it appears that there was a conflict between Huttick and Brunelli the conflict was initiated by Huttick and as a consequence of that altercation Huttick lost an eye.
A very salient point being that no criminal charges were filed against Brunelli for assault and the case at trial now is a civil suit for punitive damages.
In short, Huttick picked a fight with Brunelli, lost an eye for his troubles, and is attempting to sue Brunelli for not allowing him to kick his ass.
SWalker on February 8, 2013 at 3:54 PM
Mistrial? Didn’t see that one coming.
kit dinker on February 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM
Guess he isn’t a teacher.
Because, you know, he doesn’t have pupils.
Oy. Tried too hard for that one.
JohnTant on February 8, 2013 at 4:01 PM
That is a good perspective on the case.
lester on February 8, 2013 at 4:04 PM
It’s slightly cornea, but you get a pass in my eyes.
lester on February 8, 2013 at 4:05 PM
I guess you really can cry your eyes out.
The Rogue Tomato on February 8, 2013 at 4:20 PM
All in favor of a retrial say, ‘Eye!’.
albill on February 8, 2013 at 4:31 PM
Phew! I thought this was going to be that cell phone smuggler.
ronsfi on February 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM
Fake!
OldEnglish on February 8, 2013 at 4:41 PM
Wow, the Unit is getting edgy. Especially when it drops Alinsky into its rant! We know we’ve struck a nerve…
What exactly do you do here on Hot Gas to begin with, Nessman? Nothing of consequence any of us can see.
And how exactly does one “wait 2 minutes” to type something?
Del Dolemonte on February 8, 2013 at 4:43 PM
Yeah, you dropped the eye ball there.
rbj on February 8, 2013 at 5:02 PM