dsom223 asks: Where is June Grasso?

Court TV Host: June Grasso just got off the air a little while ago...and she's right here, about to start the chat!

June Grasso: Hello everyone. This is my first online chat, and I'm looking forward to answering your questions and hearing your comments on the trial. It has kept us here at Court TV intrigued.

Court TV Host: Thanks for being our guest today. Let's take the first question from the audience...

warhorse46 asks: Which side presented the strongest case, in your opinion?

June Grasso: I would have to say it was the prosecution. The prosecution has mounds of evidence against Carruth, from phone calls to Cherica Adams' deathbed notes and that 911 call that had people crying. It's difficult for the defense to counter that, plus the testimony of co-defendants. But I will say I think the defense put on the best case possible under the circumstances. The defense has gotten the jury to focus on a lot of things peripheral to the prosecution's case. Will it be enough to convince any jurors? The best the defense can hope for here is a mistrial.

June Grasso: I've just switched computers, so I won't have trouble with the runaway keyboard.

POPPYSWRL asks: If Rae Carruth didn't have anything to do with the killing why didn't he turn around or call Ms. Adams when he noticed she was no longer behind him, to see if she was ok?

June Grasso: That is a great question ... something the prosecution should stress in it's closing arguments. It hurts Carruth's story. And you are thinking of exactly the kind of things the jury will be hitting on when they deliberate. Despite all the smoke and mirrors the defense has put up, unless you believe that Van Brett Watkins was such a loose cannon that he would shoot Cherica Adams on his own, the defense case falls short. The defense can only hope that it was gotten one or two jurors who find that Carruth was such a nice guy, so great with kids, that he would never put a hit out on the woman carrying his baby. But if the jury does what you are obviously doing and looks at the facts only, Carruth may be facing a death penalty phase soon.

ommyx asks: I believe that the defense calling Mr. Watkins was a mistake. For me he was provided credible testimony. What do you think? June Grasso: I am sorry to day I disagree with you on that point. I thought that Watkins helped the defense. The jurors can look at his behavior on the stand which was bizarre to say the least, the lies he was caught in and the way he seemed to have no fear of anyone, even threatening the defense attorney. They might say to themselves, this man is such a loose cannon he could do anything. That's the real hope for the defense. Rudolph had to put Watkins on the stand in order to get the incriminating statement that he began his opening statement with, in front of the jury.

boredonehere asks: Do you think that the jury will consider the friendship that has developed between Michelle Wright and Amber Turner prior to their testimonies unusual? June Grasso: Well, I have to say that I find it a little unusual. But I know that many people think that it's not unusual because they had a lot in common --their dealings with Carruth. And when Michelle Wright was on Court TV she was pretty convincing in talking about her friendship with Amber. Of course the jury did not hear that, if they are following the instructions from the judge. But I think this is a minor (although interesting) point for a jury that has loads of evidence to consider.

pearljami2000 asks: Do you think Rudolf was too hard on Amber Turner? I thought he was starting to bully her.

jambo10092128 asks: What's your opinion on admonishing a witness (amber turner) for being condescending and sarcastic when the defense attorney provokes that by treating her that way initially, because he doesn't like what she is saying.

June Grasso: I don't think Rudolf was too hard on Amber Turner. She was not the kind of sympathetic witness that an attorney has to put kid gloves on when crossing her. And her reaction, her combativeness, was just what Rudolph wanted. She showed the jury that she was so biased against Carruth that she wouldn't even answer the defense attorneys questions without picking a fight. A witness' demeanor should be the same on cross as on direct. But Amber Turner was completely different on cross, from her body language to her responses, challenging the defense attorney. She even just about said that the defense attorney was lying about their conversations. Now if the jury likes the defense attorney (after spending all these weeks watching him), then Turner's attitude will hurt her in the jury's eyes.

darsmail_27520 asks: Do you think David will stress the fact that there is no proof of Amber's second pregnancy?

June Grasso: Oh yes. I think he is going to have a field day in his closings with that. And in this case, the more smoke and mirrors Rudolph can divert the jury with, the better chance he has of getting a juror to ignore the state's evidence and be confused by the side issues. This case has been filled with little "mini-trials" on the credibility of the different witnesses. And remember, it only takes one juror who is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, to make a hung jury.

derekjco asks: Hi June, this is the first time I have visited a chat room and hope I am using it properly. I was just wondering about the letter Amber received from Rae and the 15 items she outlined telling her what to say to the police. Wasn't that condemning evidence in itself, and why has there not been more controversy about those questions? I'm sure Amber did not make up those questions, so that should say something about Rae's guilt or innocence. Thanks, and I really enjoy Court TV. Christine

neogeoff asks: How important was the letter that Rae wrote to Amber Turner?

June Grasso: Welcome, this is my first time in a chat room as well, so I feel the same way. I think that letter from Carruth is incriminating. It is part and parcel of the state's theory in this case. And it is something that Carruth cannot deny. It may be one of the many reasons why we never saw Carruth take the stand in this case.

warhorse46 asks: If you were defending Rae would you have put him on the stand? Why or why not?

kaaren2002 asks: Rae C needs to testify. June Grasso: I think this is a case where as a defense attorney, you want to put your defendant on the stand if it's at all possible. However, Rudolf has, undoubtedly, put Carruth through mock direct and cross-examinations. So Rudolph, who is so experienced as a trial attorney, is the best person to know how Carruth would fare. Since he has not put Carruth one the stand, you can bet that Carruth was not able to explain or answer the barrage of questions that, you know, the prosecution was only too eager to ask him. Also, once you put the defendant on the stand, the whole case really boils down to a question of his credibility -- do the jurors believe him or not. I'm not sure Rae Carruth could have convinced these jurors, with the prosecution's evidence dumped on him in question after question on cross.

boredonehere asks: Do you think that it hurt the defense's case that they were unable to enter in more information about their drug dealing theory?

yoyo0105 asks: What happened to the drug deal evidence?

June Grasso: The defense lost possible points when it did not get its drug deal theory out to the jury in a credible form. The defense, in its closings, will have to fashion an argument that some of the jurors who may have started out thinking, "How could anyone like Carruth do this horrible thing?" will buy. Those jurors could then use it in jury deliberations to the advantage of the defense.

nobodysafe asks: I think it is kind of unusual how so many of Rae's ex-girlfriends are standing by his side, how do you feel about that?

dflo143 asks: Do you think all the 'lady friends' that were presented by the defense hurt or helped Carruth?

June Grasso: I think the women the defense presented as character witnesses for Carruth were good. They helped to paint this picture of a man who was kind, caring and loved children, so much so that he would almost become like an uncle to some of them. But once the state put on its sur-rebuttal case, I think a lot of that character evidence was negated. Then we saw the women who painted Carruth as a man who threatened and intimidated the women in his life, even the mother of his child. I think the women who testified for the defense remained friendly with him and probably did not see his darker side. It's often hard to believe that someone you know and have had a relationship with could hire a hitman to kill the woman carrying his child.

marjorie_morningstar asks: Hi June, why does it seem as if Court TV anchors seem to favor Rudolf, when the majority of the message board participants are quite critical of him. He comes across as quite arrogant and rude.

June Grasso: I think that we are looking at his technique in the courtroom and the way he has fashioned a defense case, where there seemed to be none. He has made a lot of tough strategic choices, such as putting Van Brett Watkins on the stand. He may come off as arrogant or rude to people watching, but that's not necessarily how the jurors who have spent all these weeks in the courtroom, watching him, feel. During voir dire, he should have weeded out those jurors that he felt might not have a rapport with him. It's something that an experienced trial lawyer can just "feel" by asking certain questions. That's why voir dire is so important. As a defense lawyer you have to get jurors off who are not receptive to you or your theory of the case. You also get a chance to let the jurors see another side of you during voir dire. You can tell them, for example, what to be prepared for in the courtroom. He is doing a job as a defense attorney in a tough case, and at times he has to get harsh with the witnesses. However, I don't think he has ever stepped over the line by attacking a sympathetic witness.

shakman33612 asks: Do you think there is a possibility of a mistrial because of Amber and Michelle's conversing and chatting?

warhorse46 asks: Is the admission that Amber & Michelle watched Court TV & posted to the message board a point for appeal in a conviction is handed down?

June Grasso: I don't think after 77 witnesses have testified, that the judge would grant a mistrial for something like that. It would take something egregious for the judge to do that at this point in the trial. But these kinds of issues are something to consider for appellate review. But it is so difficult to get a case overturned on appeal, and it is a position the defense definitely does not want to be in. Still Rudolf has preserved all his points for appeal in this case, as any experienced attorney would, "just in case."

cats1678 asks: What is a typical day for you?

June Grasso: I rush out of the house in the morning, without eating breakfast, because I have to get my ten-year-old to school, and we are both the type that hates it when the alarm goes off. After I drop her off, I take the train into Court TV and walk to the office (always stopping for a toasted bagel and tea on the way in). Then I review what has happened in the case the day before, talk to my producer and sometimes, the reporter on the trial we are covering. Before I go on the air, I go to get my hair and makeup done. (They can work miracles in our hair and makeup department.) After my shift I return lots of phone calls and emails. Then I start to work with the Court TV Radio division. I do a legal minute for radio that goes out to stations all over the country. I also do a lot of radio chats. They are so much fun to do, because you get to talk to people all over the country and see what they think about the case. I deal with any problems from home (typical 10 year old requests to get out of going to this after-school activity or that) by telephone. And I know whenever my cell phone rings, in the middle of something, it's my daughter (I sometimes question whether I should have told her "Call anytime you want."!) We sometimes have meetings in the afternoon, or I'll dash off to do some appearances on other stations at times. The time I go home varies from day to day. Whenever I'm done, I hop back on the train home (being careful not to sleep through my stop). Then I have dinner with my daughter and fight the homework battles. Although I have to say, I am relearning a lot of science and history through working with her. That is a typical day (minus the sticoms I watch).

Court TV Host: That's a long day...well, we'll try not to make it too much longer...here's the final question...

tamale7777 asks: How long do you think the jury may deliberate

much2strange2000 asks: Do you think this jury will spend a long time in deliberations before reaching a verdict?

June Grasso: That is a question that is SO difficult to answer...but...here, let me give you my opinion anyway. With a total of 77 witnesses in the case, and all the different "mini-trials" on several witnesses' credibility, I think the jury will be out for at least one day, and most likely more. I would be shocked if they came back with a quick verdict in this case, particularly with the death penalty the next phase, if they convict.

Court TV Host: Thank you so much, June Grasso, for being our guest today.

warhorse46 asks: How did you like your first chat & will you come to chat with us again?

June Grasso: I think this was fascinating. I really enjoyed it, and I will definitely come back to chat with you again.