2011.06.23 TRIAL Day Twenty-six (Afternoon Session)

Status
Not open for further replies.
if this ends in a mistrial how long will it take to reschedule?

Months at least. All of the players have other cases, and the Judge actually has even more work on top of that. To reschedule could even mean next year, given the length of the trial.


HHJP will come back with more caselaw and clearer thoughts on the issue at hand.

Rock meet hard place right now.
 
Simms went to far and now the Judge is trying to save the trial. She should not have gone down that road and once again they can violate rules of the procedure and then demand remedy.
 
jp screwed up letting ds go on with this line of questioning ,after ja objected to it.
now jp has got to clean up the mess or it will be a solid basis for appeal.
 
Possible mistrial? Someone please explain.

Burden of Proof shifting to Defense. In criminal law the defense does not have to do anything to include testing, witnesses anything and it can't be used against them for the burden lies solely on the Prosecution.

ETA: When JA asked the witness if he had seen any of the cans and he said no JA then asked if the DT had asked him to test it or if he had tested it - giving jury impression that the defense should have and yet law says they don't have to.

Okay now I'm confusing myself lol.
 
What scares me is that if it's a mistrial because of the prosecutors mistake, then it's possible for the defense to argue double-jeopardy and she could win that and walk.

I thought double jeopardy only applied when someone had actually been aquitted....that they could never ever be tried again for that same crime. No?
 
Hey everyone! I'm new and confused...

Were Vass' results published in peer-reviewed literature? If not, it's not subject to being "retested" or replicated. He was doing this testing for the State of Florida, right? That is, the State is his client. I would think the testing would be proprietary. Anyone know for sure?
 
Why didn't HHJP allow JA to withdraw the question, I wonder? Both sides here can just let this go, can't they?
 
To the defense: You can't impeach an expert about his expert opinion unless you have another expert who came to a different conclusion.

I don't understand why the judge let him testify to that then? Did he not know what the DT was going to use him for? It would seem that JA should be able to point this out to the jury.
 
Judge O.H. Eaton Jr. says he believes a curative instruction to the jury should be enough to repair the problem. No mistrial.
by Jeff Cousins/WESH.com at 1:31 PM

Our legal expert Judge O.H. Eaton doubts a mistrial will happen.
by Jessica Steck/WESH.com at 1:30 PM
 
My impression, is that the DT is the one who caused this, NOT JA. If it was a "mastermind plan" by the DT to look several steps ahead and try to cause a mistrial, who on the current team sitting in the court room is smart enough for that? CM is the only potential DT member in the court room who could figure this out, unless it was "texted" in....IMO, MOO, etc. But I do not think we are going to get any kind of a mistrial here because of this. IMO, MOO, not a legal opinion of any kind.
 
I just saw the replay on IS and JA did not slam the cans down. His attitude came across to me as indignant this guy is refuting evidence he himself never tested. I saw nothing wrong with his behavior.

From what I've seen JB and CM have been much worse.
 
Don't you guys realize that the DEFENSE are the only ones that can use theatrical dramatics? :eyeroll:
Indeed, the irony is rich.
 
I understand that the "burden of proof" is the states responsibility but could someone explain to me how the DT can throw things out there without having to PROVE the theory their witness is testifying to.

I hope this question makes sense, it did in my head but not sure it came out the same way!
 
Should the State just have no further questions, let him go, and then in rebuttal bring Dr. Vass back up and ask him questions relevant to this witness' testimony? Or is there something that NEEDS to be addressed now?
 
JA is willing to withdraw question and HHJP is not so quick to let him walk away from it.

I think HHJP is being so careful right now exactly because of this. So let's not worry if he rules in favor of the defense on this one. The Prosecution has tons of evidence - they can afford to let this lame witness say what he wants, even if it's anti-Vass. Vass can come in later and refute anything this guy says anyway. JA was right to say he'd let go of this line of questioning.

ITA. I think it's best not allow in at this point.
 
Its called Proffer. Basically the HHJP wants to know the answers to the questions before the witness testifies before the jury.

Thank you!

So then when the jury comes back in do they ask the same questions over again?
 
HHJP cannot let this result in mistrial. Doing so opens the door to allow any defense lawyer to use shoddy questioning as an strategy or mechanism to defend their client. It outright undermines the process and encourages bad behavior instead of good.
 
Should the State just have no further questions, let him go, and then in rebuttal bring Dr. Vass back up and ask him questions relevant to this witness' testimony? Or is there something that NEEDS to be addressed now?

That's how I would deal with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
59
Guests online
2,077
Total visitors
2,136

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,916
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top