2011.06.23 TRIAL Day Twenty-six (Afternoon Session)
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
5:04
PROFFER OF ERIN MARTIN BY CM:
Request coordinator with FBI. Do you recall a 02/06/09 email you sent to Karen Lowe? No. She was shown Defense Exhibit DM. She then recalled it.
She read: Hey Karen, I decided not to give the measurements to Nick that Brian emailed us since it is part of your ae notes and it doesn't appear that the jpegs were saved. I'll just tell Nick that there were no photos. (Something about ETU and LPU) I don't understand why the ME didn't take scaled photos of the tape when it was on the skull.
She had no other involvement in this part of the case involving the tape.
Witness excused.
JA - relevance and hearsay.
HHJBP - Mr. Savage first - relevancy. Materiality?
CM: The material fact is whether there is or is not a murder weapon. JA has tried to create the existence of one by saying the tape could be one. He asked Nick Savage to find it and specifically one with scales on it. The response was - we'll just say we don't have the pictures. Hiding behind work product and should have been given to Defense as Brady material. This is evidence that they are trying to create this.
JA: The relevance is that the prosecution is trying to do something wrong. Attacks upon counsel are prohibited. If CM read the email more clearly, they are trying to produce what is available to prove a material fact.
CM: The prosecutor wants to know if it is possible for the tape to cover the mouth and nose area so as to do a computerized recreation. It's not attacking a prosecutor, but attacking the whole system. Someone is trying to create something is not there.
HHJBP: 90.401 - relevant evidence. Defendant is charged with a 7 count indictment. The court after hearing the testimony of Mr. Savage, finds that this does not go to any material facts of the indictment or impeachment. Assuming this is evidence of an attempt to fabricate evidence, that would be the subject of a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct and there is no evidence of that. This evidence does not go to any material issue in fact, purely collateral issue that have no bearing on credibility or believability of any witness. SUSTAINED as to this witness on this matter.
HHJBP: Now to Ms. Martin.
JA: Same argument - everything she had was told to her by someone else.
CM: Remember motion for mistrial regarding the photo images of the tape and skull - this is the same issue. They did not have it. They didn't have ME photos and that is what has just been established.
JA: He did not believe it is not a surprise that there were no photos of all three pieces of tape together to scale.
HHJBP: Court will stand behind it's previous ruling. Any more argument about the last witness that was proffered?
HHJBP: Again, evidence doesn't meet the test of relevance.
Anything else for the balance of the day?
Court in recess. (5:19)
Tomorrow you need to tell me and be prepared to go to 2:30 or 3:00 on Saturday. Dr. Mason - you look a little bewildered. (CM said something about feeding the jury).
PROFFER OF ERIN MARTIN BY CM:
Request coordinator with FBI. Do you recall a 02/06/09 email you sent to Karen Lowe? No. She was shown Defense Exhibit DM. She then recalled it.
She read: Hey Karen, I decided not to give the measurements to Nick that Brian emailed us since it is part of your ae notes and it doesn't appear that the jpegs were saved. I'll just tell Nick that there were no photos. (Something about ETU and LPU) I don't understand why the ME didn't take scaled photos of the tape when it was on the skull.
She had no other involvement in this part of the case involving the tape.
Witness excused.
JA - relevance and hearsay.
HHJBP - Mr. Savage first - relevancy. Materiality?
CM: The material fact is whether there is or is not a murder weapon. JA has tried to create the existence of one by saying the tape could be one. He asked Nick Savage to find it and specifically one with scales on it. The response was - we'll just say we don't have the pictures. Hiding behind work product and should have been given to Defense as Brady material. This is evidence that they are trying to create this.
JA: The relevance is that the prosecution is trying to do something wrong. Attacks upon counsel are prohibited. If CM read the email more clearly, they are trying to produce what is available to prove a material fact.
CM: The prosecutor wants to know if it is possible for the tape to cover the mouth and nose area so as to do a computerized recreation. It's not attacking a prosecutor, but attacking the whole system. Someone is trying to create something is not there.
HHJBP: 90.401 - relevant evidence. Defendant is charged with a 7 count indictment. The court after hearing the testimony of Mr. Savage, finds that this does not go to any material facts of the indictment or impeachment. Assuming this is evidence of an attempt to fabricate evidence, that would be the subject of a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct and there is no evidence of that. This evidence does not go to any material issue in fact, purely collateral issue that have no bearing on credibility or believability of any witness. SUSTAINED as to this witness on this matter.
HHJBP: Now to Ms. Martin.
JA: Same argument - everything she had was told to her by someone else.
CM: Remember motion for mistrial regarding the photo images of the tape and skull - this is the same issue. They did not have it. They didn't have ME photos and that is what has just been established.
JA: He did not believe it is not a surprise that there were no photos of all three pieces of tape together to scale.
HHJBP: Court will stand behind it's previous ruling. Any more argument about the last witness that was proffered?
HHJBP: Again, evidence doesn't meet the test of relevance.
Anything else for the balance of the day?
Court in recess. (5:19)
Tomorrow you need to tell me and be prepared to go to 2:30 or 3:00 on Saturday. Dr. Mason - you look a little bewildered. (CM said something about feeding the jury).
wenwe4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 9,498
- Reaction score
- 7,357
JA - relevancy and hearsay...
HHBP...take up Mr. Savage - deal with material facts
CM - whether or not there is a weapon....get photos to prove his theory ...ask Nick Savage to find it...with scales on it...show measurements related to skull...response back - we will just say we don't have the pictures....to me that is pretty outlandish - not simply hiding behind work product and potential brady material...try to create something to catch the evidence
JA - allegation that prosecution has done something wrong...even if that were true...still not admissable...acts upon counsel prohibited....if counsel would read....appreciate the compoliment trying to pursue evidence available...any good attorney would explore a viable option...be that as it may ...not relavant to a material fact.....prosecutor would like to know if any of you took pics of the skull and tape...they want to know if possible to see if tape covered nose and mouth....ME didn't take pics as they thought it would be done with us...
Karen speak to you when you are back...FBI - I decided not to give the measurements...blah blah....
Not attacking prosecutor....attack whole process.....I didn't understand why ME didn't take photos of the tape while on the skull
relevant evidence defined by FL ....Kc is charged in 7 count indictment - false info to LE X4, aggrvated child abuse, .....Mr. Savage ....does not go to impeachment or relevant material issues.....assume for moment this evidence of contempt to fabricate evidence that would be subject of a motion to dismiss based upon prosecutorial misconduct which has NO evidence of ....stretch your imagination to that....not evidence to dismiss....any material issues - purely collateral issues - no bearing on credible or believeability about any witness....Objection sustained on that issue.
Next arguement on Ms. Martin - JA something she was told by someone else....wait to see what that is unless it is the same arguement we just heard and then object is still same...
CM - image profer by prosecution tape over a child skull....they didn't have it and the ME didn't photo to scale....didn't have their own...surprise to anyone in this courtroom...didn't have picture to scale....
deal with next witness - last witness testimony profer - DT?
testimony is not relevant - nor does it go to material fact based upon what was profer- doesn't meet 9401 based uon relevant evidence..
anything else for balance for the day....
JB - have a nice evening sir...
HHBP going to try to....one last thing tomorrow to tell me - be prepared to go 2:30 or 3 on Sat. break @ noon for short lunch...Mason you look a little bewildered....
logistical problems - they will tell I am quite sure - if not I will assume no problems - in recess
UMmmmm me. But would love some..... Lol
Openmyeyes
On the road to Utopia
CM just used the word Mistrial, and refered to his arguement when he asked for a mistrial. A day doesn't go by.
Now HHJP just said they are going until 2:30 or 3:00 on Saturday.
Now HHJP just said they are going until 2:30 or 3:00 on Saturday.
2door73chevy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2011
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 0
Look at the client he's working with...Give him a break.
The Farm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 10,931
- Reaction score
- 7,506
You know I really fell for Cindy on that stand. I truely believed that the whole family had come to their senses and seen the light. Today she really blew me right out of the water.
I need a hot shower, been rainy and damp here all day.
Maybe some hot water blasting on my face will help.
I need a hot shower, been rainy and damp here all day.
Maybe some hot water blasting on my face will help.
ExpectingUnicorns
. . . only the pure of heart can see.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,617
- Reaction score
- 3,229
Casey gave CM a cute, encouraging little double pat as she passed him leaving the room. So sweet!
Mountain_Kat
Heca Firimar !
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2010
- Messages
- 13,754
- Reaction score
- 42,947
People can't eat on Staurdays?
Scamperoo
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,143
- Reaction score
- 6
GA: Please don't let this be my Caylee. That's what I thought. That's what I, my heart was saying. I opened it up and that's when I seen that bag. I did see a stain. I think it's right about where the spare tire was at. Basketball size, or something around there. I don't know if it's exactly circular.
LE: Was it there though? Was it where the bag was, or was it next to the bags?
GA: I don't know. But the bag was on the, you know where the tail light is on the left hand side?
LE: (affirmative)
GA: The bag was centered more towards that area.
LE: So the bag wasn't on the stain? The stain was a different spot?
- Status