2011.06.21 TRIAL Day Twenty-four (Morning Session)
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
New Posts
-
TX TX-Brooks Co, 18+, UP91370, Found on the Mariposa Ranch, May 22- Latest: Bit of hope
- Status
Florida Native
Active Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2011
- Messages
- 544
- Reaction score
- 29
I respectfully disagree. I can put aside the fact that I think the prosecution is doing a much much better job and be objective. The fact is that this started a long time ago and the Order was put into place because of the game-playing by JB and his refusal to meet deadlines. I believe he was sanctioned for it as well. I cannot see how you could think that comes even close to a snide comment about texting.
Mendara
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,035
- Reaction score
- 303
Because they didn't have this theory either. When they came up with it they could not go back in time and change these reports, so they moved foward. It seems the theory was more important than violating the court orders.
Bottom line is that the JUDGE will allow the testimony therefore the defense got the information in anyway - even with a tongue lashing. He is risking his career, but he is getting it in, because the judge is scared of an appeal later.
Drama Queen
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 0
Tit for Tat??? JB needs to graduate from kindergarten attorney school. This kind of thing is not going to make him any more popular with the judge. Tit does not know Tat in this case.
MOO
MOO
BigFatMommyDog
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,932
- Reaction score
- -25
JB NO! It's 9:26!
Wholehearted
New Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 721
- Reaction score
- 1
JP cutting JB off before he launched into another complaint about the SA and discovery. I'm exhausted by all this, so I can't understand how JP deals with it. Truly huge amounts of patience. Can't they just get on with the trial already?
JSR
Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the ri
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,250
- Reaction score
- 11
Let's hope like hell that JA can come up with enough to get this testimony tossed in a Fyre hearing. If he can then the testimony doesn't come in and ICA won't get her ineffective counsel appeal handed to her.
mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
10:56 (no jury)
Court will come to order.
Next witness is Richard Eikelenboom.
HHJBP: reviewed instructions proposed by State and Defense. Did Dr. E provide a partial report?
JA: No he provided an affidavit.
HHJBP: I am looking at the affidavit. Is this what he provided?
JA: Yes.
All expert witnesses were required to provide to the Court complete statement of opinions, basis of opinions, data. These were due prior to trial. This witness report was not provided to the State until Saturday. You may consider this fact in judging the credibility of this witness's testimony.
JB: We maintain our objections.
HHJBP: I need to make an inquiry of the witness before imposing sanction. Bring the witness in.
HHJBP - Doctor, when were you first retained?
RE: First request was on 7/13/10.
HHJBP - were you informed that you were required to produce a report outlining the opinions that you rendered in this case?
RE: Except for the Affidavit, I was not told I was to write another report.
HHJBP - were you ever informed of the following: that he was required to provide his CV, his field of expertise, a statemet of specific subjects of testimony, substance of facts of expected testimony, summary of expert's opinion and grounds. Were you ever informed?
RE: He does not recall this order.
HHJBP - Where do you live?
RE: Prior to February he lived in the Netherlands. He now lives in California (?) They communicated by phone - email and skype.
HHJBP - Were you ever told to write a report in the above format?
RE: No I don't recall that.
HHJBP: Who was your principal defense contact?
RE: Mr. Baez and Michelle.
HHJBP: From 5/11 to today, were you ever asked to reduce your report in the written format I outlined including all of his opinions?
RE: Last Saturday he talked to JB and after they went to SA's office, he was requested to write a report. He wrote one last Saturday night.
HHJBP: 12/10 to 5/11 - how many times did you communicate with the defense?
RE: Lost contact with Defense at some point.
HHJBP: Were you available to the Defense?
RE: Yes.
HHJBP: You didn't disappear?
RE: No.
JB: Is this the first time anyone has ordered you to write a report on a case that had certain parameters?
RE: Dutch court orders certain reports.
JB: Contact with your company in 1/11, that was done with his wife and Ms. Medina, not directly with him.
RE: Yes. Info came from Ms. Medina to his wife and then to him.
JB: The Affidavit was done based on that information? Yes.
RE: Never told to narrow report or exclude things. Affidavit was based on what he thought was required. He never spoke with Ms. Medina on what the Court had ordered. That info came to him from his wife. He did not recall exactly what his wife told him. They were in the process of moving after that.
The opinions he formed on Saturday were first broached on Saturday. These are not opinions that he held before and had not been previously discussed.
He made the power point presentation on Friday. It was a general explanation of touch DNA - not specific to issues in this case.
RE: When he went to the State's attorney office, Mr. Ashton turned him away. He was kind of rude. He was then immediately instructed to do a report and emailed it to JB Saturday night.
JA: Is there any opinion that you expressed in your Saturday report that you could not have developed 4 months ago in a discussion with JB? If asked, he could have written a report about it. On Saturday, he received new information because he did not follow the case. He received his subpoena two weeks ago. Friday and Saturday he got new information about crime scene photos and FBI reports. He did not have all of them before Friday. He got a whole folder. He had seen reports before. Last week he requested more info after he got the subpoena.
HHJBP: Reference Richardson v State a FSC decision as amplified in McDuffie v State a 2007 decision, the Court will make the following fact - whether the discovery violation was willful or inadvertent, on 12/17/10 - the court entered an order. 12/10/10 motion to clarify. The defendant will also provide to the state that shall include subject matter and area of expertise. Court found Defense's list did not comply with order. To clarify the Court ordered experts to provide info previously outlined. Court thought matter was clear. In January the Court was back again to deal with this issue - going back to 12/10/10 order - info was to be provided by 3pm on 12/23/10. The same problem came up again and the court again specified what information and reaffirmed its prior order and assessed sanctions.
The Court finds this violation is not inadvertent and it should have been clearly communicated to the expert. The discovery violation was willful and not inadvertent.
Trivial or substantial violation? Certain opinions that will be expressed by this witness cannot be viewed as trial when we start talking about analyzing decomp fluid in a trunk. So, the Court finds it is substantial.
Prejudicial effect on opposing counsel? Court has delayed testimony from this witness so State can depose witness. If the witness had authored a report and complied with order, then this court would not have given the state an opportunity take his deposition. The question is whether or not to totally exclude his opinion about the possibility of DNA evidence and Frey issues and the court can not make that determination in this short period of time.
Exclusion of testimony is an extreme remedy to utilize in rare circumstances. At this time the court will not permit the witness to testify on the issue of the possibility of a DNA analysis of decomp fluid in trunk. Court will give defense until next week - by Saturday to file whatever potential motion to lay out for a Frey hearing. On Wednesday or Thursday evening the Court - after a one hour break - a Frey hearing will be conducted.
JB - I have another issue. Today we were handed discovery by the State....
HHJBP - we'll take that up at noon on YOUR lunch hour.
Court will come to order.
Next witness is Richard Eikelenboom.
HHJBP: reviewed instructions proposed by State and Defense. Did Dr. E provide a partial report?
JA: No he provided an affidavit.
HHJBP: I am looking at the affidavit. Is this what he provided?
JA: Yes.
All expert witnesses were required to provide to the Court complete statement of opinions, basis of opinions, data. These were due prior to trial. This witness report was not provided to the State until Saturday. You may consider this fact in judging the credibility of this witness's testimony.
JB: We maintain our objections.
HHJBP: I need to make an inquiry of the witness before imposing sanction. Bring the witness in.
HHJBP - Doctor, when were you first retained?
RE: First request was on 7/13/10.
HHJBP - were you informed that you were required to produce a report outlining the opinions that you rendered in this case?
RE: Except for the Affidavit, I was not told I was to write another report.
HHJBP - were you ever informed of the following: that he was required to provide his CV, his field of expertise, a statemet of specific subjects of testimony, substance of facts of expected testimony, summary of expert's opinion and grounds. Were you ever informed?
RE: He does not recall this order.
HHJBP - Where do you live?
RE: Prior to February he lived in the Netherlands. He now lives in California (?) They communicated by phone - email and skype.
HHJBP - Were you ever told to write a report in the above format?
RE: No I don't recall that.
HHJBP: Who was your principal defense contact?
RE: Mr. Baez and Michelle.
HHJBP: From 5/11 to today, were you ever asked to reduce your report in the written format I outlined including all of his opinions?
RE: Last Saturday he talked to JB and after they went to SA's office, he was requested to write a report. He wrote one last Saturday night.
HHJBP: 12/10 to 5/11 - how many times did you communicate with the defense?
RE: Lost contact with Defense at some point.
HHJBP: Were you available to the Defense?
RE: Yes.
HHJBP: You didn't disappear?
RE: No.
JB: Is this the first time anyone has ordered you to write a report on a case that had certain parameters?
RE: Dutch court orders certain reports.
JB: Contact with your company in 1/11, that was done with his wife and Ms. Medina, not directly with him.
RE: Yes. Info came from Ms. Medina to his wife and then to him.
JB: The Affidavit was done based on that information? Yes.
RE: Never told to narrow report or exclude things. Affidavit was based on what he thought was required. He never spoke with Ms. Medina on what the Court had ordered. That info came to him from his wife. He did not recall exactly what his wife told him. They were in the process of moving after that.
The opinions he formed on Saturday were first broached on Saturday. These are not opinions that he held before and had not been previously discussed.
He made the power point presentation on Friday. It was a general explanation of touch DNA - not specific to issues in this case.
RE: When he went to the State's attorney office, Mr. Ashton turned him away. He was kind of rude. He was then immediately instructed to do a report and emailed it to JB Saturday night.
JA: Is there any opinion that you expressed in your Saturday report that you could not have developed 4 months ago in a discussion with JB? If asked, he could have written a report about it. On Saturday, he received new information because he did not follow the case. He received his subpoena two weeks ago. Friday and Saturday he got new information about crime scene photos and FBI reports. He did not have all of them before Friday. He got a whole folder. He had seen reports before. Last week he requested more info after he got the subpoena.
HHJBP: Reference Richardson v State a FSC decision as amplified in McDuffie v State a 2007 decision, the Court will make the following fact - whether the discovery violation was willful or inadvertent, on 12/17/10 - the court entered an order. 12/10/10 motion to clarify. The defendant will also provide to the state that shall include subject matter and area of expertise. Court found Defense's list did not comply with order. To clarify the Court ordered experts to provide info previously outlined. Court thought matter was clear. In January the Court was back again to deal with this issue - going back to 12/10/10 order - info was to be provided by 3pm on 12/23/10. The same problem came up again and the court again specified what information and reaffirmed its prior order and assessed sanctions.
The Court finds this violation is not inadvertent and it should have been clearly communicated to the expert. The discovery violation was willful and not inadvertent.
Trivial or substantial violation? Certain opinions that will be expressed by this witness cannot be viewed as trial when we start talking about analyzing decomp fluid in a trunk. So, the Court finds it is substantial.
Prejudicial effect on opposing counsel? Court has delayed testimony from this witness so State can depose witness. If the witness had authored a report and complied with order, then this court would not have given the state an opportunity take his deposition. The question is whether or not to totally exclude his opinion about the possibility of DNA evidence and Frey issues and the court can not make that determination in this short period of time.
Exclusion of testimony is an extreme remedy to utilize in rare circumstances. At this time the court will not permit the witness to testify on the issue of the possibility of a DNA analysis of decomp fluid in trunk. Court will give defense until next week - by Saturday to file whatever potential motion to lay out for a Frey hearing. On Wednesday or Thursday evening the Court - after a one hour break - a Frey hearing will be conducted.
JB - I have another issue. Today we were handed discovery by the State....
HHJBP - we'll take that up at noon on YOUR lunch hour.
Sleuths4Me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,127
- Reaction score
- 397
Oh JB bringing up CD's he received..trying tit for tat,,,Just give it up JB you FUBAR'd up bad
BetteDavisEyes
Fasten your seatbelts...
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2010
- Messages
- 35,368
- Reaction score
- 79,064
Baez ready to take a dig at JA. What a big baby! He can't be wrong unless everyone else around him is wrong, too.
No slap on the wrist, HHJP just found another wilful violation of discovery rules.
These are all accumulating until after the trial when he should feel the weight of them all at one time.
aprilraindance
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 60
- Reaction score
- 0
For the theft charges she received the punishment of time served.
She is in jail right now as she can get no bond on the matter of killing her sweet baby.
mydailyopinions
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 5,524
- Reaction score
- 448
I don't mind. No doubt in my mind that JP will turn Baez over to the Florida Bar and with all his priors, he will loose his abilities by law to practice law.
Pebbles1968
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 67
- Reaction score
- 1
My son says "Mom, why are you hollaring at the t.v.? They can't hear you!" Whateverssss....
Unemployed fulltime-student.. No insurance anyway...
- Status