I am only watching bits of it. Sounds like she and the defensse lawyer are on two different planets. I think the jury may discount her testimony. I thought the woman who made the 911 call was very credible.

Yes, she is not a good witness and is very defiant when asked questions. Yet, if I remember correctly (I was on several jury duty cases but only one murder trial), as a juror, you can choose to disregard an entire testimony if a witness lies, or just parts of it (I may not be stating that exactly right).

I don't think she understands some of the questions. She admitted to the defense attorney when he gave her a transcript of her statement that she couldn't read cursive.

Oh, at the end of the day yesterday, judge asked defense attorney before they left for the day, how much longer will you need this witness on the stand and attorney says "a couple more hours." The girl says loudly "WHAT?"

I think the neighbor who made the call to the police as this attack was happening was a much much better witness.

Kly/DT if you haven't tuned in, she's testifying now on CNN


TIS

I am assuming the Prosecution will do a redirect on this witness. Boy, he has his work cut out for him.

It just came to my attention that she did not contact law enforcement until three weeks after the incident. Also, she is 19 and still in high school and can't read cursive.

TIS you are right on the money about being able to consider some of her testimony or throw it all out.

In most jurisdictions there is usuually a jury instruction that tells jurors to consider the intelligence of the witness. No pun here, buut in her case thats a no brainer.

Wish I could watch, but contrary to some disparaging comments by unnamed members who don't like my politics, I am at work.

At work? A lawyer works?

One commentator brought up something I hadn't thought about in regard to this witness. Regardless of credibility, is her recollection accurate? Because of her varying accounts, is that variability deliberate or a function of her deficient recollection?

Off-topic, but why are we still taught cursive? I remember having a professor back at college who said it was a pointless skill and dismissed it as "smug porn."

He had a way with words.

Kly and DT: in what order do you think it's best to present forensics evidence, ballistics evidence, and witness testimony?

Also, what are court rules regarding counsel approaching a witness?

:Lol:

It has nothing to do with your politics DT. Never did and never will. Everyone is welcome to their own thoughts on all subjects.

But it does seem that you can dish out some ball busting remarks, but can't take them when it goes back in your direction....and that what that remark was back then...Nothing more.

But that is really common to people who are very opinionated and vocal from what I see.
Instead of just laughing things off like many people do and come back with a laughable reply they strike back in a mean way.
Now you know for certain what was ment, and don't have to make assumptions. Straight from the horses mouth as they say.
signed, unnamed member

"ment?"

Technical evidence should be presented after key fact witness, establishing a basis for it. I think it's easier to understand then.

I do not do criminal law, but in general if I have to put on expert witnesses, and if their testimony is on the dry side, I will sandwich them between a
witness or two who has something to say right up to whatever the expert is going to say, and then try to be as brief as possible with the experts, because I am never certain juries pay attention to them anyway..usually its just to make a record.

As for approaching witnesses it varies, from what I have seen from judge to judge. If I need to hane a document to a witness or otherwise approach, I always ask for permission to do so. If I have to go over something in wiriting with a witness I also ask permission to do that. Most courts do not allow lawyers to get into the witnesses faces during testimony. In some Federal Courts lawyers are NEVER allowed to leave the podium, and marshalls take the documents to the witnesses.

Los Angeles (CNN) -- A southern California woman convicted of cutting off the penis of her then-husband and throwing it into a garbage disposal was given a life sentence Friday with the possibility of parole after seven years, authorities said.

Catherine Kieu, 50, of Garden Grove, California, and her husband were going through a divorce at the time of the July 2011 incident. The couple married in December 2009, but in May 2011 the husband filed for divorce, which was granted in August 2011, according to Orange County court records.

Is it going to be like Rodney King all over again if Zimmerman is acquitted?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/...ead-of-verdict/

13 Years In Jail For Writing On A Sidewalk With Chalk?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013...?utm_source=NPR
Please, somebody help me to understand the legal system in the US.

Since we're taking pot shots, I've always wondered why the German man who stabbed tennis star Monica Seles in 1993 never served a day of jailtime.

One of the most important aspects of America's criminal justice system for people to understand is that it is distributed among 50 states, over 3,000 counties, over 20,000 cities, and the federal government. In Texas alone there are 240 counties, 240 district attorneys, and over 400 felony courts. There are variables that accrue to all of them. For one, Texas juries decide punishment while in some other states judges decide punishment; federal judges always decide punishment (except death penalty punishment). While federal prosecutors are required to obtain an indictment before prosecuting a felony, only 38 states must do the same. The list of differences goes on.

I'm not trying to take pot shots. I just try to understand how it's possible to make it 13 different charges and to put them on top of each other.

The Seles case also made me angry. Seles has always been my favorite female tennis player. It's pretty sure that Parche (the guy who stabbed her) was severely mentally disabled, but then they should have put him into a forensic psychiatry.

The possibility of multiple charges originates with US federal law and state law and rules of criminal procedure. Every crime can be broken down into any number of steps or be accompanied by other crimes. For example, bank robbery is a crime; however,if one used a stolen gun to commit the robbery, then that is an included charge. If one obtained the stolen gun by breaking and entering, then that is also an included charge. If one kills someone with a motor vehicle while intoxicated, that is usually charged as manslaughter. However, an included charge will probably be assault with a deadly weapon. If the drunk driver had a child in the car at the time, then an included charge could be child endangerment.

I actually loathed Seles until that event because I hated her on-court grunting and I was such a Graf fan, but that was one of the saddest days in sports history. I was only 13 but still remember just being completely shocked by what I'd seen. Seles had won 8 out of the last 9 Grand Slams heading into that match and had owned Graf, and the Graf fan Parche got exactly what he wanted by stabbing Seles as Graf went on to dominate '94 winning every Grand Slam title. Martina Navratilova said Seles would have been the greatest female player ever if not for that day, and in addition to ruining her career it also sent her into extreme depression as she battled mental and eating disorders afterward. The only good thing that came out of that was that Seles went from being one of the most disliked players in the world to one of the most beloved. This past April marked the 20th anniversary of the event, btw. http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary...s-tennis-career

I noticed that I neglected to comment on this.

An attorney in trial or hearing must always ask the judge for permission to approach the witness. There usually needs to be a reason, such as asking the witness to read or authenticate an evidentiary document. Sometimes attorneys (usually on cross) like to get as close as they can to a witness, but the judge will back him or her up whether or not the opposing side objects. side

Danito, I read the article and might be able to add to what olivant stated. While the article states that the 13 counts carry a maximum of 13 years, there is no likelihood, even if convicted, that the defendant will serve jail time. It looks like he was charged with low level misdemeanors, and the maximum sentence of 6 to 12 monthswould only be imposed if there were serious aggravating circumstances and a significant criminal history.

Judges in most jurisdictions have sentencing discretion, but there are sentencing guidelines, based on the prior record and seriousness of the offense. If a judge departs from the standard range, his sentence may be overturned on appeal.

If this guy is found guilty of 13 counts of vandalism, his sentence will likely be 12 months of probation, all counts to run concurrently. The article is misleading as it tries to suggest that there is a realistic chance of doing hard time.

There is probably no reason for the defense to put Zimmerman on the stand for the defense unless something changes dramatically for the prosecution.

Kly, when the state includes other offenses, doesn't the prosecution have to provide evidence of those offenses within their total presentation of the primary evidence? Also, if an initial prosecution results in a not guilty verdict (murder), can the state then seek an indictment for manslaughter or would that be considered double jeopardy?

Another reason why multiple charges are loaded on defendents is to intimidate them into accepting a plea bargain. In a typical bust out here in rural Arizona, a perp will be arrested for carrying salable quantities of drugs, which is a major felony. They'll also charge him with "possession of narcotics," "possession of drug paraphernalia," "transporting prohibited substances," and if he's the typically stupid perp, "possession of a firearm by a prohibited person" and "driving on a suspended license." The DA will tell the perp that he's looking at decades in prison if they prosecute on all charges. But if he agrees to plead guilty to possession with intent to sell, they'll drop the others and ask for less than ten years.

Here's an interesting one that I'd appreciate Kly or anyone else commenting on:

Stephen DeMocker, a former stockbroker, has been in jail here since 2009, charged with murdering his ex-wife to get out of alimony payments and collect on an insurance policy. First trial ended in mistrial. Incredible legal maneuvering has delayed start of second trial, which is now scheduled to begin in two weeks with jury selection.

The judge has served notice on both sides that he wants to expedite things. He said that he intends to impose "no speaking objections" which will require lawyers to simply state, "objection," and that's all. I assume that means that the attorneys can't explain why they're objecting, or what they're objecting to. So, I wonder: If the defense says "objection" to something, and the judge says, "overruled," can't the defense claim, on appeal, that their client didn't get a fair trial because they weren't permitted to explain to the judge what they were objecting to, and he made a judicial error prejudicial to their client?

"Speaking Objections" for the most part are long winded objections that send a message to the witness as to what he or she should be answering, for instance, "Objection, how could my client possibly know what so and so was thinking?"

Most courts allow objections, and then one word defining the objection as in: "Objection, Hearsay."

Sometimes courts will instruct lawyers to cite the Evidence Code (in Fed Court or in those State courts which have evidence codes). There are actual "Pursuant to Section so and so" Then there is a record of the nature of the objection so if admissibility becomes an appellate issue there is no question what the nature of the objection was.

If a judge just wants the lawyers to say "Objection" and nothing else, then there will be multiple requests for and actual bench conferences where the objection is argued outside the hearing of the jury, but this hardly expedites trials, it is a waste of time. Also mere statement of "Objection" and a subsequent ruling of "sustained" or "overruled" would be insufficient to create a good record for appeal, and personally I would object to such a procedure if ordered to do so. This has never happened to me in 34 years, so I am imagining the court to which you refer either wants one word to describe the objection or citations to the Rules of Evidence as the basis for the objection.

More likely than not the judge just does not want speeches to accompany the objections.

As an aside, many judges have a habit of neither sustaining or overruling some objections. For instance if something calls for speculation, the judge will just tell the offending questioner, Move along, counselor." There is actually a case in Florida which holds the "move along" ruling is of no legal significance, and in a recent trial when the judge admonished my opponent to "move along," I had a bench conference and showed the judge the case, apologized to him and asked that he sustain the objection for the record, which he did.

Thanks, dt.

Question 1 is yes. If they fail to provide evidence supporting each element of the offense, the defense can have the judge dismiss the charge or lesser included offense at the close of the state's case.


After a not guilty verdict in a murder case, the state is barred from prosecuting a defendant on charges of manslaughter on double jeopardy grounds. moreover, double jeopardy generally prevents the state from trying the defendant from any subsequent prosecution for any crime arising from the circumstances of the previous case.

[quote=Turnbull].

The judge has served notice on both sides that he wants to expedite things. He said that he intends to impose "no speaking objections" which will require lawyers to simply state, "objection," and that's all. I assume that means that the attorneys can't explain why they're objecting, or what they're objecting to. So, I wonder: If the defense says "objection" to something, and the judge says, "overruled," can't the defense claim, on appeal, that their client didn't get a fair trial because they weren't permitted to explain to the judge what they were objecting to, ced him or her to articulate a reason for the objection, rather than having the judge consider it on another basis. I've seen objectionable testimony come in where the attorney provided a faulty reason for the objection.

If the judge does not allow the parties to state reasons for the objection, it would only be considered reversible error if there was no basis for the ruling on the objection, AND that error likely produced a result that altered the verdict or produced a result where no reliable adjudication could have taken place because of the error. Otherwise, it would likely be deemed harmless error.

I've never heard of a judge doing this before, though they often try to move things along quickly.