Page 64 of 114 FirstFirst ... 14 54 62 63 64 65 66 74 ... LastLast
Results 946 to 960 of 1698
  1. #946
    o/t

    Welcome to our new members here on this thread. We are glad to have you. You are asking very bright questions. You are going to love it here at Websleuths and we are going to love having you!!!:Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june:


  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to The World According For This Useful Post:


  3. #947
    Are pending bar investigations, over the trust account and Todd's 70K, for example, public record?


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to The World According For This Useful Post:


  5. #948
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Waiting
    Posts
    4,518
    If this has been asked and answered already, I apologize. If GA's Grand Jury testimony is kept private and not released, what will happen if he deviates from that testimony during trial? Will the SA be able to call him on the discrepancy? How will it be done? TIA!




    It Was Ancient Aliens!


  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to chefmom For This Useful Post:


  7. #949
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Sooner Fan View Post
    Does she have to have to have an offer from the state to do that?
    To change her plea to guilty? No.

    Quote Originally Posted by chefmom View Post
    If this has been asked and answered already, I apologize. If GA's Grand Jury testimony is kept private and not released, what will happen if he deviates from that testimony during trial? Will the SA be able to call him on the discrepancy? How will it be done? TIA!
    The SA will throw a fit and try to get the transcript released again. IMO, HHJP will allow it if he is told that the GJ testimony was directly in conflict with the trial testimony.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94


  8. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  9. #950
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Utah
    Posts
    1,684
    I have a question. I'm reading a book about a (federal) trial and re the testimony of a psychiatrist the author writes:

    It was not the first time the expert had been invited by both sides to consult in the same case; indeed he prefers to speak to both sides before agreeing to testify for either. Eventually he decided to testify for the government because the law says that the findings of the government's experts are available to the defense if the government decides not to use them, whereas the reverse does not obtain.

    does that apply in this case? the consulting w/ both sides and the use of discarded expert findings being a one-way street? mucho TIA


  10. #951
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
    Posts
    14,638
    Originally Posted by chefmom
    If this has been asked and answered already, I apologize. If GA's Grand Jury testimony is kept private and not released, what will happen if he deviates from that testimony during trial? Will the SA be able to call him on the discrepancy? How will it be done? TIA!

    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    The SA will throw a fit and try to get the transcript released again. IMO, HHJP will allow it if he is told that the GJ testimony was directly in conflict with the trial testimony.
    Apparently several of us have been confused about this. ThinkTank did some successful digging on the 'Motion for George's Grand Jury testimony..' thread (see post #201) and discovered that JS has already granted the SA's motion.

    Below is the pdf link to JS's Order dated Oct. 6, 2009.

    http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21218532/detail.html

    The defense is asking for reconsideration, since JS did not address their joint request in their earlier motion. Their argument citing case law is on PDF pgs. 4 & 5, paragraphs 12-16 in the recent Motion for Reconsideration linked below. It is my understanding that this should be addressed at tomorrow's hearing.

    http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23477589/detail.html


    This piques my curiosity. Just wondering how HHJP could be expected to handle this. Will his decision be based on whether the SA found good cause and plan on using the GJ testimony to impeach GA if necessary?
    WEBSLEUTHS ON FACEBOOK


  11. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to beach For This Useful Post:


  12. #952
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,356
    Quote Originally Posted by gramcracker View Post
    I have a question. I'm reading a book about a (federal) trial and re the testimony of a psychiatrist the author writes:

    It was not the first time the expert had been invited by both sides to consult in the same case; indeed he prefers to speak to both sides before agreeing to testify for either. Eventually he decided to testify for the government because the law says that the findings of the government's experts are available to the defense if the government decides not to use them, whereas the reverse does not obtain.

    does that apply in this case? the consulting w/ both sides and the use of discarded expert findings being a one-way street? mucho TIA
    Yes, the State has to disclose its expert findings to the defense if the State's expert ends up supporting the defense. The defense is not under the same obligation.

    Quote Originally Posted by beach2yall View Post
    Apparently several of us have been confused about this. ThinkTank did some successful digging on the 'Motion for George's Grand Jury testimony..' thread (see post #201) and discovered that JS has already granted the SA's motion.

    Below is the pdf link to JS's Order dated Oct. 6, 2009.

    http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21218532/detail.html

    The defense is asking for reconsideration, since JS did not address their joint request in their earlier motion. Their argument citing case law is on PDF pgs. 4 & 5, paragraphs 12-16 in the recent Motion for Reconsideration linked below. It is my understanding that this should be addressed at tomorrow's hearing.

    http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23477589/detail.html


    This piques my curiosity. Just wondering how HHJP could be expected to handle this. Will his decision be based on whether the SA found good cause and plan on using the GJ testimony to impeach GA if necessary?
    I just saw the order on the other thread. If the SA has already determined that the grand jury testimony was not materially in conflict, and therefore will not be used at trial, I don't believe that the defense will get to see it. If the SA is going to use it at trial, IMO the defense will get a copy.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94


  13. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  14. #953
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
    Posts
    14,638
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    I just saw the order on the other thread. If the SA has already determined that the grand jury testimony was not materially in conflict, and therefore will not be used at trial, I don't believe that the defense will get to see it. If the SA is going to use it at trial, IMO the defense will get a copy.
    Thanks and I was thinking the same.
    WEBSLEUTHS ON FACEBOOK


  15. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to beach For This Useful Post:


  16. #954
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,042

    2010.06.01 - What did Richard Hornsby see at the hearing?

    Kind of going along with Amil's thread of what he/she saw?

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...9&postcount=17

    I would like ask Mr. Hornsdy what he saw at the hearing.
    It's the journey, not the destination.


  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jomo For This Useful Post:


  18. #955
    DaughterAlice's Avatar
    DaughterAlice is offline ''I'm sorry if that sounds selfish, sweetie, but it's me! Me! Me! Me!''
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    512
    To our WS esteemed legal professionals . . . if the KC defense team succeeds in getting new rulings (from Judge P) on previous rulings by Judge S, would this/could this jeopardize the ruling Judge S made on Jan 25th, for the money that KC admitted to stealing from AH? If I recall, Judge S. gave her time already served. Does that stand?


  19. #956
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,356
    Quote Originally Posted by DaughterAlice View Post
    To our WS esteemed legal professionals . . . if the KC defense team succeeds in getting new rulings (from Judge P) on previous rulings by Judge S, would this/could this jeopardize the ruling Judge S made on Jan 25th, for the money that KC admitted to stealing from AH? If I recall, Judge S. gave her time already served. Does that stand?
    That ruling would be unaffected by the motion to disqualify JS, which was filed in the murder case only (and was filed after the fraud case was resolved). Also, the defense has requested reconsideration of only a handful of JS's rulings; it is my understanding that most or all of those requests were denied at the hearing yesterday.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94


  20. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  21. #957
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,543
    Az I went through the docket and could not find anything from either side called Notice of Disclosure. Is there another name for it? thanks


  22. #958
    wonders's Avatar
    wonders is offline My opinion's may not alway's be right but they are mine and mine alone.
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Here There and Everywhere
    Posts
    3,353
    Hi AZlawyer,

    I have been thinking about what Mason said at the hearing (I don't remember exactly how he said it) when he talked about Caylee being placed where she was found after KC was in jail. He said something like "even if she did do it" **murder?**. What in this world was he thinking? What kind of backlash do you see coming for KC from him saying such a thing? Surely that statement wasn't lost on everyone, was it?
    A grandchild fills a space in your heart that you never knew was empty....


  23. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to wonders For This Useful Post:


  24. #959
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
    Posts
    14,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Jomo View Post
    Kind of going along with Amil's thread of what he/she saw?

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...9&postcount=17

    I would like ask Mr. Hornsdy what he saw at the hearing.
    FYI - Mr. Hornsby posted a brief post last night on Amil's thread.
    WEBSLEUTHS ON FACEBOOK


  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to beach For This Useful Post:


  26. #960
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,009
    Quote Originally Posted by wonders View Post
    Hi AZlawyer,

    I have been thinking about what Mason said at the hearing (I don't remember exactly how he said it) when he talked about Caylee being placed where she was found after KC was in jail. He said something like "even if she did do it" **murder?**. What in this world was he thinking? What kind of backlash do you see coming for KC from him saying such a thing? Surely that statement wasn't lost on everyone, was it?
    Okay...I totally heard that one too. TY for mentioning it...
    To add to the above question by Wonders, AZ Lawyer, do you believe that the defense is going towards some type of mental defect defense...????


  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Bittiness39 For This Useful Post:


Page 64 of 114 FirstFirst ... 14 54 62 63 64 65 66 74 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*
    By Kimster in forum Zahra Clare Baker
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 07-20-2011, 04:04 PM
  2. Replies: 458
    Last Post: 06-28-2011, 02:16 PM
  3. Legal questions for our VERIFIED lawyers on the board
    By Capri in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 09-12-2010, 04:36 PM
  4. Legal Q&A Answers from VERIFIED Legal professionals only
    By JBean in forum Somer Renee Thompson
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-17-2010, 02:40 AM
  5. Legal Questions
    By daisy7 in forum Byrd and Melanie Billings
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 01-01-2010, 09:18 PM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •