I had always wondered what lawyers talked about when they got in a huddle in front of the judge or 'the bench' in a courtroom. The transcript of the criminal trial of Neil's murder gave us an understanding of those conversations. The following excerpt is from the criminal trial in Cape Girardeau. The questioner is Mr. Mitchell, the defense attorney. The person on the stand answering is Missouri State Highway Patrol investigator, H.J. Folsom. Q. "Is it fair to say that  he was clearly under the influence of alcohol when you began your interviews with him on the morning of November 22nd?" A. "Yes." Q. "Thank you. Mr. Brooks consented to each and everything that was asked of him throughout this process, did he not?" A. "Yes, sir, he did." Q. "Consented to the search of his vehicle?" A. "Yes, sir." Q. "Consented to the seizure of his .22 gun?" A. "Yes, sir." Q. "Consented to the gunshot residue test?" A. "Yes, sir." Q. "Continued to talk--" A. "Yes." Q. "--to law enforcement officers, is that correct?" A. "Yes, sir." Q. "On February 15th of 2005, approximately two weeks ago, did you perform any additional testing or any additional searches regarding this case?" A. "I'm not sure of the date." If you'll allow me to check." Q. "Sure." A. "Yes, sir, I'm familiar with the search conducted on the 15th." Q. "On that day, you were taken to a place in Dent County?" At this point, Mr. Ahsens interrupts the questioning. Mr. Ahsens: "I'm going to object to this your Honor. May we approach?" The Court: "All right. Tell you what we're going to do. This is probably a good time to take a recess......" (The jury departed the courtroom, and the following proceedings were had:) MR. AHSENS: Your Honor, my objection is that this is an improper cross examination, trying to establish a negative inference. They made an effort to find things that were not found. It is also an attempt at this point to impeach a witness who tried to lead them to a location where they believed evidence might be found, that being Vickie Brown who has yet testified, and this is improper." THE COURT: This is the first I've heard of this. If I got my dates correct, are you saying Ms. Brown took an officer or officers to some location on the 15th of last month to look for something?" MR. AHSENS: Apparently. And according to the reports I have, they were looking for, they're looking for components for perhaps where a .25 caliber pistol Ms. Brown believed may have been fired in that area, and they didn't find anything. So at best this is an attempt to impeach a witness who has not yet testified, and that is improper. To go through him otherwise to ask him if he did something which resulted in nothing of evidentiary value in an attempt to establish a negative inference, which I think is also improper. We've had a lot of that here, and it seemed to be improper for those other things, but I haven't chosen to object. I object now." THE COURT: "This occurred some year and a half after the shooting?" MR. AHSENS: "Oh, yes, a year and a half at least." THE COURT: "Tell me where we're going with this, Mr. Mitchell." MR. MITCHELL: "Your Honor, what it is is to say that our case is predicated on the fact they don't have enough evidence. Clearly I think you can see where we're headed. They're attempting to find additional evidence 15 months after. However, they did absolutely nothing to find evidence back in November 21st or 22nd of 2003. They did nothing back then, but now they're trying to find it at the last day, right before the evidence comes in. She is going to testify, it is my understanding based upon his statement, as to where the gun that was fired out there came from." THE COURT: "Well, if Ms. Brown told them this information 15 months ago, you might have a point. If Ms. Brown told them this information--" MR. AHSENS: "Very recently." THE COURT: "--a month ago, then I'm not sure that point is well taken." MR. AHSENS: "It's not. I suppose the basis for my objection is relevance. I mean, it's completely attenuated in time." THE COURT: "I think we're not going to go into it now. We might go into it with Ms. Brown depending on what she testifies to. Then you might have to recall this witness then."

The following excerpt is now from the testimony of Vickie Brown at the criminal trial. The questioner if the defense attorney, Mr. Mitchell. Q. "On February 15th of 2005, you went somewhere with Corporal Folsom. Is that correct?" A. "Yes, sir." Q.  "..Where did you go?" A. "We went out to the woods that Brian and I used to meet at." Q. "Okay. And when you went there, what did you do?" A. "We were looking for a casing or a bullet." A. "No sir, we didn't look very long." Q. "And on that occasion, ma'am, is the first time that you told Corporal Folsom that you had information as to where Mr. Brooks' gun came from. Is that true?" A. "I'm sorry?" Q. "Isn't it true that on February 15th of 2005, not two weeks ago?" A. "Right." Q. "Is the first time that you informed Corporal Folsom that Mr. Brooks' .25 came from his father?" A. "I could have mentioned it at that time, yes. I'm sure I did, but I don't think that was the only time I mentioned it." Q. "You had not mentioned it before, though, had you?" A. "Sir, I believe I did mention it before." Q. "When would that have been?" A. "I thought I had mentioned it back at the beginning. It may have not been something taped. It may have been something that I mentioned because I met on another occasion."

The following excerpt is from the closing statement of Mr. Mitchell, the defense attorney, at the criminal trial. "There are so many inconsistencies, so many stories and the things that, the things that they claim that he said that are different, they don't even matter. They don't even matter. He never admitted to killing Neil Maxwell.  This gun, whether or not it belonged to his father, where is the proof in that? In Vickie Brown's testimony? In testimony where she said before we never discussed it? Well, I don't know. Of course, February 15, 2005, just barely over two weeks ago, we get a new statement from her. Oh, that's the one his father gave him. Prior to that, never discussed it." The state prosecutor interrupts. MR. AHSENS: "I'll object to that Your Honor. That is not consistent with the evidence." THE COURT: "Overruled."