While waiting for our own hearing to start down the hall, I attended a few minutes of the Nagin trial. A good direct and interesting cross examination of news reporter, Lee Zurik. The prosecution was showing the jury the calendar that Zurik received when he had sought to get a copy of Nagin’s calendar and emails as part of a public records request. Zurik also testified about written responses to questions he received from Nagin, through Nagin’s then attorney. I thought the evidence showed that Nagin blacked out or omitted information from his calendar. I also thought it showed that Nagin admitted in writing to deleting emails regularly even though the law required him to save it.
I thought the direct was smooth and made its point. On cross, the defense attorney made a few good points, but as is often the case, didn’t know when to sit down. The defense attorney made the point that the written responses and production of the calendar to Zurik was done through attorneys and third parties, so it was not a clear admission. These were some minor, but good points to make. However, the defense attorney kept talking, trying to make more of it then there was. He also tried to make jokes at Zurik’s expense, that I thought fell flat.