The Defense Attorney Who Keeps Going to War With the Judge

Three days in. Held in contempt on Day One. At war with the judge on Day Two. And this morning, defense attorney Cruz stood up and moved for a mistrial before the jury had seen anything more than an exterior photo of a house.

I need to talk about what's happening in this courtroom. Because what I'm watching is a pattern, and it's one that should concern anyone who cares about Edrick Faust getting a fair trial.

What Actually Happened This Morning

The state resumed direct examination of Brian Grove, an ATF fire protection engineer who's been testifying about fire dynamics and the arson theory in this case. The prosecution moved to display Grove's PowerPoint, a demonstrative aid containing photos of the crime scene and his lab testing. Defense attorney Cruz objected on lack of foundation. The judge overruled.

Then, after the state clicked to the very first slide, a photo of the exterior of 160 Fawn Drive, Cruz asked the jury to leave the room and moved for a mistrial.

His argument? The court admitted the demonstrative without requiring the state to lay foundation establishing similarity of conditions between Grove's lab tests and the actual fire at Tara Baker's home. He cited Monroe v. State, which requires demonstrative evidence to be "so nearly the same in substantial particulars as to afford a fair comparison." That's real law. That's a legitimate legal standard.

But here's the thing. The jury had seen one photo. An exterior shot of a brick house. Nothing about testing, nothing about conditions, nothing about similarity. Cruz was objecting to what the PowerPoint might show, not what the jury had actually seen.

The Legal Issue Is Real. The Execution Is the Problem.

Cruz isn't wrong about the law. Monroe v. State does require foundation for demonstrative evidence. If the state was going to show the jury lab tests and claim those tests prove how Tara Baker's fire started, they need to establish that the test conditions were substantially similar to the actual scene. That's a legitimate evidentiary gatekeeping function.

But the judge drew a distinction that matters: this was admitted as a demonstrative aid, not demonstrative evidence. Aids help a witness explain their testimony. They don't go back to the jury room during deliberations. The foundation threshold is different. Authentication and relevance, not similarity of conditions. The similarity gets established through the testimony itself, not as a prerequisite to showing a single slide.

And Cruz had reviewed this entire PowerPoint the night before. He didn't raise a pretrial motion. He didn't ask for a ruling before the jury came in. He waited until the first slide was displayed and then went nuclear with a mistrial motion.

What Cruz Said That Got the Judge's Attention

During his argument, Cruz told the court that "Mr. Faust's defense has been handcuffed" and that the state has had "free reign." He said his objections "aren't even acknowledged."

That's not a legal argument. That's an editorial attack on the court's impartiality. And the judge responded accordingly.

She told him directly that his characterization of the court's rulings was a "mischaracterization that is pretty frustrating for the court to hear." She pointed out that the state had voluntarily shared the PowerPoint with the defense the night before, something they weren't required to do. She denied the mistrial, finding no grounds whatsoever.

She was measured. She was specific. She was right.

The Pattern That Worries Me

Day One: Cruz violated the court's 412 ruling during opening statements and was held in contempt.

Day Two: Escalating confrontations with the judge over evidentiary rulings.

Day Three: A mistrial motion before the jury saw anything substantive, accompanied by claims that the defense is being silenced.

I've watched a lot of trials. Aggressive advocacy is not only acceptable, it's required. A defense attorney who rolls over isn't doing their job. But there's a difference between fighting for your client and fighting with the judge. One protects the defendant. The other puts the defendant at risk.

When you tell a judge that your client's defense has been "handcuffed" and the state has "free reign," you're not making a legal argument the appellate court will care about. You're antagonizing the person who controls every ruling for the rest of the trial. You're burning credibility you might need when a ruling actually matters.

The Irony Nobody's Talking About

Here's what kills me. Cruz proved his own point on cross-examination. Without the mistrial. Without the drama. Without the rebuke.

When he finally got Grove on cross, he walked him through everything the expert didn't know. Never visited the scene. Never saw the blanket. Doesn't know the mattress type. Doesn't know the bed frame material. Conducted testing 23 years after the fire with none of it specific to Baker's home. Then Cruz took the state's own PowerPoint and went slide by slide, getting Grove to confirm that every timeline referenced was from the Kinston test, "not specific to Miss Baker's home."

That was effective advocacy. That was the defense doing exactly what they needed to do. The jury heard "I have no idea" from the state's own expert over and over again. They heard "not specific to Miss Baker's home" repeated on every slide.

The better strategy was always to let the PowerPoint in and dismantle it on cross. Which is exactly what Cruz did. He just spent the first hour of the morning making the judge frustrated before doing the thing that actually helped his client.

📺 WATCH THE FULL TESTIMONY State's Fire Engineer Tested the Arson Theory 23 Years Later Without Visiting the Scene

What This Means for Faust

Edrick Faust is sitting in that courtroom watching his attorney antagonize the judge. I don't know what he's thinking. I don't know what conversations are happening between attorney and client. But I know what the jury is seeing.

Jurors are humans. They notice when the judge is frustrated with an attorney. They notice when someone keeps objecting and keeps losing. They notice tone. They notice tension. And whether it's fair or not, some of that perception can bleed over to how they view the defendant.

Faust hasn't been found guilty of anything. He is presumed innocent. He deserves vigorous representation. But vigorous representation means picking your battles wisely, preserving credibility for the moments that matter, and not making the trial about your relationship with the judge.

The foundation issue Cruz raised is legally sound. The way he raised it, when he raised it, and the language he wrapped around it turned a legitimate legal argument into a confrontation that earned him a rebuke and accomplished nothing the cross-examination didn't accomplish better.

What I'm Watching For

Day One: contempt. Day Two: war. Day Three: mistrial motion and rebuke. The trajectory is escalating.

Foundation is about to become a two-way street. The same standard Cruz demanded the state meet for its demonstrative, the judge is going to hold Cruz to when the defense presents its evidence. That's how courts work. You demand a strict standard, you better be ready to meet it yourself.

I'll be watching to see if Cruz adjusts. If he channels that energy into cross-examination, where it actually moves the needle, the defense can still be effective. The cross of Grove this morning proved that. But if the pattern continues, if every morning starts with a motion and ends with a rebuke, the person who pays the price isn't the attorney. It's the defendant.

And that's what I'm here to watch.