My guess it would be evidence of intent? If she knew what so and so's handwriting looked like?
Of all the questions they could have asked...why that question? I gotta say it, I'm worried here. The question was asked by a man on the jury and I just don't understand why that question.
What is that relevant to? Does anyone know what the jury is trying to figure out? Does it show what they are concerned about?
The sample Tammi gave did match the handwriting on the "Craig Cherry" portion of the document, so it's hard to know what the juror was trying to clear up. I don't see it as a good sign that this is the only question -- are they paying any attention??? But it might be that if they are sure she falsely wrote "Craig Cherry," then she falsified the document and therefore tried to interfere with custody.
What is that relevant to? Does anyone know what the jury is trying to figure out? Does it show what they are concerned about?
Wow - Schutt took a seminar on adoption law - that makes him qualified to act as an adoption attorney?
Wow - Schutt took a seminar on adoption law - that makes him qualified to act as an adoption attorney?
inorite???? I want to take one pole dancing 2 hour class. Would that qualify me as a.... oops, never mind... :blushing:
who signed what papers i guess and this was my understanding that the paper Tammi signed is what the state is claiming is a crime. It did not sound like that to me and this entire case looks really shaky for the state. Like I said over and over and got bashed for it, I think the cops thought Tammi had some knowledge of the whereabouts of the baby and why they used their LONG ARM of the Law to ruff her up and get info out of her. When they discovered she did not do anything but try to help and be a bit of a buttinsky they should have dropped the charges. Just my opinion but I voted NG Friday after trial and I still say NG