Some notes on the Cordell Jude trial

For those interested, the Cordell Jude trial is entering its second full week, and perhaps not surprisingly there is little interest by the media. Nothing by the local print media, not even on their websites.  The local Fox affiliate in Phoenix--which had requested the cameras--had a brief report on the trial on November 4, but that's it. The prosecutor, Kirsten Valenzuela, asked detective Jennifer Mellinger if she and the officers at the scene found the pole or metal baseball bat that Jude originally claimed that Daniel Adkins had threatened him with (going to credibility), and Mellinger stated that nothing of the kind was found despite a thorough search of the surrounding area. 

As to Jude's claim that Adkins had struck his car, Mellinger noted that the only indication that his car was struck was a dent found on top of the car, but detectives doubted that Adkins was responsible for it. Defense attorney Ursula Gordwin managed to extract the admission that Adkins--who was shot at close range--could have been standing within two feet outside the driver’s side door when Jude shot him; however, I'm not sure what good this would do the defense, since at such close quarters Jude should have been able to see that Adkins was not "armed" with anything except a dog leash with a dog attached to it. Also, if Adkins was that far to the side of the car, Jude could have simply driven away without hitting the dog as he rationalized to police. Why didn't he? 

That's about it. The "minutes" of the trial are posted on-line, but they provide little information save evidence exhibit numbers (without describing what the evidence is) and the names of witnesses (without describing what they testified to). I would think at least that when the trial ends and verdict is reached we'll hear something about that; but until then I doubt they'll be much of substance to report.