Trial Date Set/Pre-Trial Discussion

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
"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??
 
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.
 
Kimster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
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. :(
 
This is also part of that link:

""Defendant maintains that on Tuesday morning, May 5, 2009, he left his house at approximately 5:43 a.m. and drove to Gold's Gym located at 151 Concord Plaza in St. Louis, Mo," the court pleaded stated. " ... Defendant maintains that he was not home when the alleged crimes charged herein occurred."

O'Gara asserts that Coleman was not properly read his rights during the questioning by Columbia Police Det. Justin Barlow and Illinois State Police Sgt. David Bivens, and that Coleman never waived those rights".<snipped>

http://www.bnd.com/2011/01/27/1568540/coleman-doesnt-want-jurors-to.html#ixzz1CILFIt1q
 
I don't know if I recall discussion of these tapes before.:eek:

I would definitely have to find a way to be off that jury if I was called!:sick:

Yikes!
:yow:

fran
 
Figures. Someday very soon Chris will get his, and it won't be the life he PLANNED for when he wrote threatening emails, bought red spray paint, tossed the hard drive or wrapped his disgusting hands around the neck of his first of Three COMPLETELY INOCCENT VICTIMS. He makes me sick. I just don't understand anyone like him. Just too unbelievable to even think about. God bless Sheri, Garret and Gavin.
 
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_a3a6d544-4349-11e0-b3bf-00127992bc8b.html?mode=story

From article: "Jury selection was scheduled to begin Feb. 15, but pushed back for additional forensic testing.

The two sides are expected to discuss possible trial dates."

The picture with the story is from December 2010--he's not aging well through this process.

4d1a55b3086f4.image.jpg

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/7/e0/f11/7e0f110f-7de6-597b-b2c1-b00b40b830e7-revisions/4d1a55b3086f4.image.jpg
 
ynotdivein said:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_a3a6d544-4349-11e0-b3bf-00127992bc8b.html?mode=story

From article: "Jury selection was scheduled to begin Feb. 15, but pushed back for additional forensic testing.

The two sides are expected to discuss possible trial dates."

The picture with the story is from December 2010--he's not aging well through this process.

4d1a55b3086f4.image.jpg

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/7/e0/f11/7e0f110f-7de6-597b-b2c1-b00b40b830e7-revisions/4d1a55b3086f4.image.jpg
Click to expand...

:mad: grrrrr, just the sight of this man infuriates me. im glad he isnt aging well. moo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 171 more.
Total: 4,462 (members: 172, guests: 4,290)

Online statistics

Members online
172
Guests online
4,290
Total visitors
4,462
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,607
Messages
17,971,659
Members
228,842
Latest member
curiouscanadian
Back
Top