Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 61
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,061
    Quote Originally Posted by TKS2003 View Post
    You are absolutely NOT a whiner, lol......
    We had to sit thru this persons posts thru the Scott P trial, and it was just as unpleasant then...I have taken to using that handy dandy "ignore" feature here, then you dont even have to read the posts from this person.
    I also wish that a mod could speak personally to someone inclined to antagonize and inflame peoples emotions on these threads, but I guess they just dont want to do that.
    I totally feel your pain, and put myself in "time out" the other evening, because I was coming periouslly (sp?) close to making a personal attack on a certain poster intent on making me do just that...I am sure you know what I am talking about, I think you were there, lol....
    Also, somehow a certain poster has rigged his reply/quote option to look as though the quotes arent coming from him, it's strange, and I wonder how he does it...


    All posters need to do to quote properly is to push the quote button. BUT BUT IF IF IF they want to fiddle with the system You just insert
    Miss Fit AND then put the stuff you are wanting to display as your own MENTAL input --- dopey deal - you can insert your name right after the quote part like I will put my name after the quote above in red. When finished you then put
    It then looks like you thought of it all yourself, instead of properly quoting the person who originally posted it ->that is the proper way to do a 'quote'.

    So you will note that not ALL of the correct parts of an original quote show up like they are supposed to IF IF the person just clicks the quote button to respond.

    Did I cover your question, or did I miss the boat?

    .
    .
    Opinions expressed by me, are mine, based on life experience, and known facts of any given case.





    """I am just a pixel in the universal plan."""


  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,630
    TKS2003:
    Also, somehow a certain poster has rigged his reply/quote option to look as though the quotes arent coming from him, it's strange, and I wonder how he does it...
    I had to manually change the incorrect attribution when I quoted a post which again, misreprestented a post of mine, just this morning.
    If you'll read those posts carefully, you'll see that this is done to everyone... seems to care not whose words he or she misrepresents. It's an old, cheap trick.

    Susan


  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    23,803
    I have noticed a few posts recently and saw a few comments about having problems with the quote function. If that happens try fixing it with by making sure that this is in the part you want quoted

    [QUOTE=name ]Quote[/ QUOTE] but remove the spaces. That should make the quote function work correctly.
    Just when I think that I have seen the most depraved things a human can do to another human, somebody posts a new story...........

    Why is it that when a custodial parent fails to provide for a child it is called neglect and is a criminal matter. But when a non custodial parent fails to provide it is called failure to support and is a civil matter?


    "Just when the caterpillar thought its world was over, it became a butterfly" ~ Michelle Knight


  4. #34
    I am going to try to link to an article I read this morning abt a case in WIS where they are using other people's testimony of the wife saying that her husband was trying to murder her. She was poisoned, they have her body, but trying to prove who poisoned her is similiar to Drew's case with both Kathleen and Stacy. Infact he even had a girlfriend waiting in the wings that is the new Mrs. Sound familiar..
    http://www6.comcast.net/news/article...isoning.Death/

    It has a great discussion about hearsay and circumstantial evidence..which there is alot of involving Kathleen's and Stacy's cases/


  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chico, CA
    Posts
    23,148
    Apparently some have now noticed that our software has a glitch that occasionally messes up the quotes. This has been going on since last March. No one needs to manipulate the quotes for it to malfunction.

    ENOUGH of the singling out of members. The next post that is about another poster I will be arranging some vacations from the board. Either edit your posts yourself or I will be deleting them.


  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Camper View Post
    Hmmm, I have not seen too many or hardly any legal questions posed here but but I have a question for pondering about 'a' lawyer, any lawyer or specifically Mr. Brodsky.

    WE read elsewhere that Hillary C. was Bill C's 'sounding board' on matters of national interest and other matters, with links to those exact words from Hillary's mouth.

    I am wondering IF IF Mrs. B is a sounding board for her husband in the matter of his case work for DP? Do WE think he discusses the case with his spouse?

    Am I the only one who thinks Mrs. B might indeed ask questions of Mr. B at the end of the day. Such as "Hello dear, how was yer day etc.?

    Do WE think that Mr. B, deep down feels his client is guilty? How difficult would this be IF IF WE were the defense attorney for someone like the current suspect of interest?

    .


    What might WE think of Mr. B, and whether deep down inside he believes his client to be guilty?
    My experience as a legal assistant is that you know what you can talk about and what you can't. In all honesty, there are things I just didn't tell my husband, b/c even though you think you can trust someone, they aren't under confidentiality agreements and can easily forget and discuss a case with someone else. In that case, my job, or the attorneys' job (and license) is on the line.

    Anything DP tells him in confidence has to be kept in confidence, wife or not. If he tells her something and she blabs it, his license can be pulled.


  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,344
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaDawn View Post
    I have a legal question involving Kathleen's death and Stacy's.

    We consider what others say that someone else told them as hearsay. But if that can be backed up with cell phone records is it then no longer heresay but admissable to let the pastor say what Stacy told him?

    Meaning Stacy says there were calls from her to Drew the night Kathleen was murdered that went unanswered. Drew says he was trying to call Kathleen all weekend with no response.If cell phone records show that Stacy was calling Drew at 3 AM say, and he didn't answer can then the pastor's timeline of events be used? Drew was supposed to be in bed with her and wasn't ..that was his alibi..it doesn't prove he was at Kathleen's, but does prove he lied about where he was and what he was doing. What do you bet he would comeup with another women yet, to say he was with her that night?
    There are twenty-four exceptions (my last count) to the hearsay rule. It is one of the most complicated and studied areas of law.

    Stacy's alleged statement to the pastor represents hearsay. If she were available to suffer from her alleged statement, it might be admitted at trial because it goes against her self interest, viz., if true, it incriminates her, at a minimum, as an accessory-after-the-fact to murder. Penalties for such a crime differ amongst states; e.g. in California, an accessory-after-the-fact is open to a charge of felony murder, which is as serious as it gets for an accessory-after-the-fact.

    Given that Stacy is not available, we are looking at twice removed hearsay; i.e., Drew to Stacy, Stacy to the pastor. I've said elsewhere that I see no clear hearsay exception that applies. In my mind's eye, admitting the alleged statement as evidence in a murder trial against Drew would represent new case law (if upheld upon appeal).
    It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings


  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    23,803
    Hey Wudge, can you explain to us what the changes are in the 2004 US Supreme Court decision on hearsay in cases where the defendant is believed to have been the cause for the victim/witness not being able to testify?
    Just when I think that I have seen the most depraved things a human can do to another human, somebody posts a new story...........

    Why is it that when a custodial parent fails to provide for a child it is called neglect and is a criminal matter. But when a non custodial parent fails to provide it is called failure to support and is a civil matter?


    "Just when the caterpillar thought its world was over, it became a butterfly" ~ Michelle Knight


  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,344
    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    Hey Wudge, can you explain to us what the changes are in the 2004 US Supreme Court decision on hearsay in cases where the defendant is believed to have been the cause for the victim/witness not being able to testify?

    I will dramatically net. The case is Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The ruling in Crawford supplanted the prior controlling standard covering unavailable witnesses and their testimonial statements. That prior standard being Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980).

    In "Crawford", the Supreme Court gave resolution favor to the Confrontation Clause in the 6th amendment, which gives the accused the right to confront witnesses against him. This tightened the standard held in "Ohio", which required an adequate indicia of reliability (famous guideline) along with a firmly rooted hearsay exception or, on another possible path, it looked for particular guarantees of trustworthiness.

    Bottom line, the ruling in "Crawford" narrowed the hearsay exception standard as regards unavailable witnesses and their testimonial statements.
    It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings


  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by Camper View Post
    All posters need to do to quote properly is to push the quote button. BUT BUT IF IF IF they want to fiddle with the system You just insert It then looks like you thought of it all yourself, instead of properly quoting the person who originally posted it ->that is the proper way to do a 'quote'.

    So you will note that not ALL of the correct parts of an original quote show up like they are supposed to IF IF the person just clicks the quote button to respond.

    Did I cover your question, or did I miss the boat?

    .
    .
    Thanks Camper, just checked back in and saw this helpful hint....yep, you covered it for me, now if only I remember it, lol!


  11. #41
    That was Ohio Wudge..did you read my link abouthow Wisconsin is about to take on a similiar case?


  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    SWGa
    Posts
    13
    I saw this story on the CNN page today too.

    "MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin (AP) -- Julie Jensen will essentially testify from the grave when her husband's murder trial begins this week....."

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/02/....ap/index.html

    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaDawn View Post
    I am going to try to link to an article I read this morning abt a case in WIS where they are using other people's testimony of the wife saying that her husband was trying to murder her. She was poisoned, they have her body, but trying to prove who poisoned her is similiar to Drew's case with both Kathleen and Stacy. Infact he even had a girlfriend waiting in the wings that is the new Mrs. Sound familiar..
    http://www6.comcast.net/news/article...isoning.Death/

    It has a great discussion about hearsay and circumstantial evidence..which there is alot of involving Kathleen's and Stacy's cases/


  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    23,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Wudge View Post
    I will dramatically net. The case is Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The ruling in Crawford supplanted the prior controlling standard covering unavailable witnesses and their testimonial statements. That prior standard being Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980).

    In "Crawford", the Supreme Court gave resolution favor to the Confrontation Clause in the 6th amendment, which gives the accused the right to confront witnesses against him. This tightened the standard held in "Ohio", which required an adequate indicia of reliability (famous guideline) along with a firmly rooted hearsay exception or, on another possible path, it looked for particular guarantees of trustworthiness.

    Bottom line, the ruling in "Crawford" narrowed the hearsay exception standard as regards unavailable witnesses and their testimonial statements.
    The Wis. case is the one I was referring to Wudge. And your explanation is dramatically different from what the media is explaining. According to what the media is saying, the US Supreme court seems to have allowed more leeway in the hearsay exceptions and the state courts are following up by reflecting that in their case law. You might want to read the articles quoted by DeltaDawn and Barfield.
    Just when I think that I have seen the most depraved things a human can do to another human, somebody posts a new story...........

    Why is it that when a custodial parent fails to provide for a child it is called neglect and is a criminal matter. But when a non custodial parent fails to provide it is called failure to support and is a civil matter?


    "Just when the caterpillar thought its world was over, it became a butterfly" ~ Michelle Knight


  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,344
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaDawn View Post
    I am going to try to link to an article I read this morning abt a case in WIS where they are using other people's testimony of the wife saying that her husband was trying to murder her. She was poisoned, they have her body, but trying to prove who poisoned her is similiar to Drew's case with both Kathleen and Stacy. Infact he even had a girlfriend waiting in the wings that is the new Mrs. Sound familiar..
    http://www6.comcast.net/news/article...isoning.Death/

    It has a great discussion about hearsay and circumstantial evidence..which there is alot of involving Kathleen's and Stacy's cases/

    I had not clicked on the link and read the case until you asked. I can see it becoming a classic upon appeal.

    Facts of the case.

    Along with other statements expressing concern, a wife leaves an accusatory letter with a neighbor. The wife dies. Her husband is charged with murdering (poisoning) her. The husband claims his wife killed herself so as to exact revenge for his affair.

    The Judge rules on admitting the letter and other statements as evidence at trial. He rules against the prosecution and for the defense.

    Prosecutors appeal the Judge's ruling. Wisconsin's Supreme Court says: "if the defendant's actions prevented the witness from testifying", then the Judge can allow the letter et al into evidence.

    The Judge reconsiders, after which he reverses himself and rules for the prosecution. He notes that it is reasonable to "believe" the husband prevented his wife from testifying.

    Necessarily, the impartial Judge (13th juror) has pre-judged the defendant to be guilty.

    Assume the husband is found guilty. He will appeal the Judge's revised ruling claiming his rights were violated, sc., 6th amendment (fair trial) and 14th amendment (due process).

    If SCOTUS hears the case, look for Justice Scalia to lead the case for reversal based on due process and fair trial violations. He wrote the majority opinion in Crawford.

    Note: In "Crawford", the Supreme Court did not define what constitutes "testimonial statements".

    (Thanks for pointing the case out to me.)
    It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings


  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,344
    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    The Wis. case is the one I was referring to Wudge. And your explanation is dramatically different from what the media is explaining. According to what the media is saying, the US Supreme court seems to have allowed more leeway in the hearsay exceptions and the state courts are following up by reflecting that in their case law. You might want to read the articles quoted by DeltaDawn and Barfield.
    I just finished reading and summarizing that case. It reads like a great law school hypo.

    I don't know how the media is interpreting and reporting on "Crawford" nowadays. I have heard absolutely nothing on it recently.

    Please understand that "Crawford" favored the Constitution's Confrontation Clause whereas "Ohio" did not. I can say with near certainty that after Crawford became the controlling case, a lot of prosecutors were necessarily faced with trying to figure out how to do under "Crawford" what would have been easier under "Ohio".

    HTH
    It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings


Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •