2011.06.23 TRIAL Day Twenty-six (Afternoon Session)

[NavySubMom]

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.

[strach304]

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.

[Jetaime]

Don't you guys realize that the DEFENSE are the only ones that can use theatrical dramatics? :eyeroll:
Indeed, the irony is rich.

[RSDhoping for a cure]

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!

[newsjunkie]

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?

[Mosby]

Originally Posted by sleutherontheside

JA is willing to withdraw question and HHJP is not so quick to let him walk away from it.

Originally Posted by ami

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.

[BigFatMommyDog]

Originally Posted by Blue Ridge

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?

It can apply to mistrial under certain circumstances

[raysgirl1126]

Originally Posted by Miss Anarchy

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?

[faefrost]

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.

[Mountain_Kat]

Originally Posted by newsjunkie

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.

[stilettos]

Let that Mack Truck roll..........

[PlainJaneDoe]

Originally Posted by ami

It's true. Unless their paper is specifically a methods paper (one that describes a new method) or they haven't done anything beyond well-referenced methods, there's almost always something summarized for brevity that could be further explained. And actually I've even had to contact authors of methods papers come to think of it. It's rare and perhaps impossible to get a complete 'users manual' in a publication.

Absolutely! There is always something to ask about or to clarify. Journal space is precious. The authors put in everything they can, but some things don't make the cut. And in my experience, everyone I've contacted in this situation, even our competitors, promptly responded and were helpful because they understand this.

[Etiana]

I don't know how HHJP does it! The man is a solid rock of fortitude and patience! He's trying his best to clean up the DT mistakes so that the trial can continue fair and square.

[shelbar53]

So did DS make the mistake and JA compound it? I don't understand what the specific problem is?

[ami]

Maybe Ashton should have pulled out a wrinkled memo pad, stuck it on an easel and drawn some pictures of cans (and labeled them "CANNS") and then pointed to them to question the witness.

[LadyL]

If I were on the witness stand, and JA slammed those cans in front of me like that, I'd be intimidated & possibly fearful.

[Florida Native]

Originally Posted by liltexans

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

For once, I'm glad to hear from Judge E.

I've been thinking about how ICA wrote to her pal that JB said it would end in a mistrial. Did he not explain that she would have to stay in jail and it would be a do-over? I think she thought she could walk away if a mistrial is declared.

[Pita]

Anyway you look at it, the jurors heard the final question.
No way to erase that now....yehaaaaaaa

[Dragonlady]

The DT's game is to get a mistrial because they fracked up royally and need to start fresh, and HHJP is on to them and trying his hardest to prevent that.

Is it possible for HHJP to do something about this without calling for a mistrial?

[Mosby]

Originally Posted by RSDhoping for a cure

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!

Makes sense to me. But the problem is that the DT has NO burden of proof and is not required to do any testing.

[Beyond Belief]

this is what "per bono" gets you......

[Linda7NJ]

Originally Posted by ami

Maybe Ashton should have pulled out a wrinkled memo pad, stuck it on an easel and drawn some pictures of cans (and labeled them "CANNS") and then pointed to them to question the witness.

Too flipping funny

[~n/t~]

The defense is trying to impeach Dr. Vass so how is it fair that the prosecution can't question the defense "expert" on whether or not he could've done the testing. I don't get it.

[TotallyObsessed]

Originally Posted by pcrum12

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.

The DT (per Sims) asked "could you replicate this test?"....opening up the line of questions from JA about did you? Why not? It boils down to the same thing we had the other day about the dna evidence. The DT never sent it, they never asked that this test be replicated, because of what it MIGHT prove against their client. And they didn't have to do that. That would be putting the burden on them to show their client DID NOT DO IT. In a criminal trial, the burden lies with they Prosecution in showing she DID DO IT.

[LoisDenominator]

What is this pit in my stomach?