PDA

View Full Version : Judge to review hearsay evidence on December 27th, 2010


Kimster
12-13-2010, 09:03 PM
http://www.kplr11.com/news/ktvi-judges-rules-prosecution-can-gather-hearsay-evidence-121310,0,4298838.story?track=rss

:woohoo:

Sheri will get to tell HER side of the story!!!! This is AWESOME news!

Kimster
12-13-2010, 09:07 PM
Bringing this post over from the other thread:

I heard this evening that the Coleman 'hearsay comments' will be allowed to be used in court. I am wondering if this will take place during the February trial? Can anyone explain how the law works concerning these things? So many of us are grateful that these will be allowed in court. Will this hurry the trial on a little or will things continue at a snail's speed?

I heard this on the major news stations. It has also been posted online, on 2 and 5 at least. Also read Nick Pistor's article this morning on STL today and almost all the 20 or so comments agreed with allowing this information. How could they not? They have time, persons contacted, and actual comments Sheri made to many of those close to her? Would anyone knowledgeable share what the procedure is as far as the February trial and further? Thank you.

Sheri, Garrett, and Gavin, we will never forget you.

CCup
12-13-2010, 09:07 PM
Judge: Prosecution can continue quest to use hearsay in Coleman case
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_ff70b6e0-0679-11e0-a523-0017a4a78c22.html

Judge to decide whether claims about Coleman's bad marriage can be admitted in court
http://www.bnd.com/2010/12/13/1514719/judge-to-decide-whether-claims.html

Kimster
12-13-2010, 09:11 PM
The defense says "They're hearsay and they don't fit into any exception," O'Gara said. "They violate the sixth amendment right to cross examine witnesses."

I hate this crap! This is one reason I could never be a criminal defense attorney. HOW can you say that the victim who is dead isn't allowed to speak?????????

Sheri would have known more than anyone else! LET HER SPEAK! :furious:

TallCoolOne
12-13-2010, 10:01 PM
http://www.kplr11.com/news/ktvi-judges-rules-prosecution-can-gather-hearsay-evidence-121310,0,4298838.story?track=rss

:woohoo:

Sheri will get to tell HER side of the story!!!! This is AWESOME news!This IS great news! Finally victims can no longer be silenced by their killers.

There will be justice for Sheri, Garrett and Gavin.

CCup
12-13-2010, 10:15 PM
"Now, thirteen people who communicated with Sheri Coleman must appear before the judge later this month in open court so he can determine the veracity and necessity of what they have to say. The witnesses will be asked to detail their conversations with Sheri Coleman."

What exactly does this mean? They have to testify and then the Judge will decide what can and cannot be used??

Kimster
12-13-2010, 11:08 PM
I think so. Court proceedings are not my forte so I'm not sure? I'll see if we can get one of our verified attorneys in to take a look for us.

RLynne
12-14-2010, 12:30 AM
I think so. Court proceedings are not my forte so I'm not sure? I'll see if we can get one of our verified attorneys in to take a look for us.

Ooohh, thanks for the message, Kimster (I think). This is a complicated and evolving area of criminal law.

I am not an expert on the hearsay issues presented, but here are some basics.

In 2004, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling known as the Crawford case (some info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Washington). Basically, this case was a major change in criminal procedure. Previously, there had been lots of ways to admit hearsay testimony in court. Under Crawford, the SC basically said that in criminal prosecutions, when out-of-court statements are "testimonial" in nature, the only way they can be admitted is if (a) the person making the statements is "unavailable" to testify; and (b) if there was a previous opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine the person (think preliminary exam, or maybe a DV injunction hearing).

There are a couple of areas of evolving law. One: the Supreme Court didn't really define what they meant by "testimonial". Two: the SC may have left in place the concept of forfeiting the right of confrontation under the doctrine of "forfeiture by wrongdoing" (google Giles v. California).

This is all kind of theoretical. If, as a practical matter, a potential client came to me, as a defense attorney, with a domestic violence case with a living victim, I would say this: "Look, if the victim isn't willing to come to court, you maybe have a decent trial case." If, as a practical matter, a potential client came to me with a dead victim, after I referred the client to another attorney :), I would say, "The admissibility of the victim's statements depend on a lot of factors, including whether or not there is a probable cause finding that you caused the death of the victim."

I hope this helps. Like I said, evolving area of law--there are no absolutes, and the state court in this case will likely be setting new state precedents.

Kimster
12-14-2010, 07:24 PM
Thank you RLynne! What I'm hoping is that this case DOES set a new precedent - in favor of victims!!! IIRC, there was a ton of hearsay evidence in Nicole Brown Simpson's case that was not allowed at trial. I've been reading Nancy Grace's book "Objection!" and it states many many cases where hearsay wasn't allowed and it was just wrong when they had information and then were silenced at the hand of their killer on trial. :furious:

Honestly, I don't think Coleman has a prayer in this case. But if Sheri is able to set a precedence in the hearsay laws for victims, that would be a wonderful tribute to her and the boys.

Kimster
12-15-2010, 09:12 PM
Chris Coleman recently-filed court documents - WARNING: THE CONTENTS OF THESE COURT DOCUMENTS ARE VULGAR AND DISTURBING <snipped>

http://www.ksdk.com/news/pdfs/colemandocs.pdf

Docs at above link, article at link below.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=232729

Kimster
12-15-2010, 09:14 PM
Today, the judge ruled that all 13 people who claim Sheri made statements to them, will be brought in to testify later this month.
After that, the judge will decide if the evidence will be allowed at trial--which is scheduled for February.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=232729

OneLove
12-15-2010, 11:18 PM
Chris Coleman recently-filed court documents - WARNING: THE CONTENTS OF THESE COURT DOCUMENTS ARE VULGAR AND DISTURBING <snipped>

http://www.ksdk.com/news/pdfs/colemandocs.pdf

Docs at above link, article at link below.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=232729

Whew, really hard read. But thank you so much for posting the links.

Let the truth be told! I cannot begin to fathom how Chris Coleman became the monster he is.

The document reveals that he had Tara listen by phone to him tell his wife he wanted a divorce. I did not realize they had such detailed plans for a life together, to begin with a cruise immediately after filing for divorce. She had also already shopped for a home in the St. Louis area. What kind of human does this? Does anyone know what she is doing now? I hope the wives of the men she snookers next keep their security measures on high alert. Anyone know if she has any regrets for her actions?

Kimster
12-16-2010, 03:54 PM
We haven't heard anything from Tara at this point. She's been in the hands of LE since the murders, which is probably the best choice she's made. I'm really interested in hearing from her at trial time though.

And yes, this is a good lesson as to one of the reasons it is probably not a good idea to have a relationship with a married man. :(