Discussion in 'Trials' started by tlcya, Jul 29, 2017.
Improper phone conversations topic of hearing - Portsmouth Daily Times
As for the plastic tub of important information. Per notes from
Concerning the Defendant's motion to compel discovery, the Defendant, through her counsel, requested at the hearing that the Defendant be furnished copies of the contents of a plastic box, marked "important stuff," which the defense thought may contain forms or documents relevant to the present action. The Prosecuting Attorney stipulated to the defense at the hearing that the contents of the plastic box had been examined, and that it did not contain any such forms or documents as those sought by the Defendant to be produced. Counsel for the Defendant then indicated that the Prosecutor's stipulation was satisfactory"
I find it very interesting that JW was never put on SW's birth certificate, as her father, while HR was alive. Isn't that what this document is all about, JW proving he's SW's father? I'm so surprised it was never pressed as an issue by the W's. Weren't JW and HR planning a wedding at one point also? You'd think he'd have made it clear he wanted his name put on SW's birth certificate long before this date of 6 days after HR's death?
This is just over the top, IMO. What do you think the defense is really looking to do with this? What possibly could the Pike County Auditor have to do with RN's supposed forgeries?
"Also in the motion, the state says that Newcomb’s lawyers dropped a bombshell: they plan to call suspended Pike County Sheriff Charles S. Reader to the stand, along with his brother former Pike County Prosecutor’s Investigator Brian Reader, and the county’s elected auditor, Kayla Slusher."
Pike County Sheriff Charles Reader to testify in Rita Newcomb's trial next week - Scioto Valley Guardian
Rita Newcomb trial: What you need to know
Pike County murders: Rita Newcomb’s trial begins Monday
Here's what you need to know
Posted: 6:00 AM, Nov 17, 2019
Updated: 6:05 AM, Nov 17, 2019
By: WCPO staff
I assume there may be more than one outlet covering RN's trial. In your opinion what link will be best to view the streaming of the trial tomorrow? TIA
nothing -- just to muddy the waters and distract from their thin case
Replay: Good Morning Tri-State at 800AM
They streamed the hearings but I don't know if they will do the trial.
When Gerlach made this argument in court, JMO, it sounded like he was trying to get the charge thrown out because of jurisdictional issues - the crime, if it happened, occurred in Scioto Co and RN is charged in Pike Co.
Agree, he's slick and when he argues, it's a jumble and difficult to follow his arguments. He throws in a lot of conflicting an contradictory information.
That goes back to the legal trick of "Alternative pleading", where defense attorneys are allowed to make conflicting and even untrue claims about their client to see which defense sticks.
Alternative pleading - Wikipedia
"Richard "Racehorse" Haynes gave this example: "Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don't have a dog."
He's making a lot of conflicting claims about those documents, about the box, about where she was or wasn't when they were signed, etc. Then throw in Sheriff Reader and the "man in the blue uniform". The defense is allowed to lie in these situations.
Part of the defense, unfortunately. It's confusing to jurors and keeps the prosecution's arguments tangled up.
Gerlach will use the same trick to try to make it seem like Sheriff Reader was involved in gathering the evidence or showing up at the GJ hearing. Neither allegation is true, but Gerlach may be allowed to throw those in as "alternative pleading".
ETA: Maybe the defense will claim that Sheriff Reader is a "shape-shifter" capable of magically appearing in places, then disappearing. Just kidding.
Well, I know cops can lie to get a confession but this is a new one. Yah, he's hard to follow and it must be deliberate on his part because he can't be this confused. It's weird--uh--challenging--trying to transcribe what he says in court.
That is what he gets paid to do. Even if he knows his client is guilty, he has to do what he can to get them off with the smallest punishment if not no punishment...
I came across this when researching the Texas lawyer the other day. Many defense attorneys in Texas view Racehorse Haynes as their hero. I remember him in the news for some notorious cases when I lived there. Check T. Cullen Davis's wife's murder, with her boyfriend and young daughter.
I remembered Racehorse making that statement about defending a client whose dog bit someone, and Google did the rest. Light bulb moment - this is what Gerlach's doing. It sounds crazy when he's running it in the courtroom, but it works to confuse jurors and can make them distrust the prosecution.
ETA: In a case where the jury verdict must be unanimous - using a long list of "alternative facts" in the defense argument can cause different members of the jury to use different "facts" when weighing guilt or innocence.
LE being allowed to lie during interrogations and attorneys being allowed to be "untruthful" to get a client off is ridiculous.
For defense attorneys, I assume its allowed because the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
The only problem with this kind of defense, MOO/IANAL, is that you can't put your witness on the stand to testify. Otherwise, they will perjure themselves? Not sure how else that would work. If the defense attorney says their client didn't own a dog, that may be ok, but if the client gets on the stand and state asks them if they own a dog, then it's perjury.
I'm going to research it some more, and similar defense strategies.
Can Lawyers Lie?
Is it okay for a lawyer to lie if it helps the client?
Interesting. They basically can claim they didn't know they were lying?
"But what about when the lawyer isn’t under oath? The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer “shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact.” In other words, lawyers aren’t supposed to lie--and they can be disciplined or even disbarred for doing so. But notice, the key word here is “knowingly.” A lawyer cannot “knowingly” lie."
"Lawyers shouldn’t lie, but they don’t have to fact-check their clients.
There is, however, no rule that requires a lawyer to know what the truth is. As a result, lawyers are sometimes torn between the rule against lying and a separate ethical rule requiring lawyers to represent their clients “zealously.” Here’s what happens: a client approaches a lawyer. He’s being sued by someone, or is being criminally prosecuted by the state. The client tells the lawyer his version of the facts.
The lawyer is skeptical of the client’s story, but he’s under no obligation to fact-check the client. Rather, the lawyer can argue that it is his duty as a “zealous” advocate to accept the client’s version of the story, and try to produce evidence to support that story."
So to avoid discipline Gerlach has to
put the false info out to the public via news media, before the trial.
When there's a gag order, he has to do it during pre-trial hearings, by making different motions, arguing stuff.
He'll keep arguing various claims during the trial, but will have to be more careful
He can always claim that RN lied to him about the docs & forgery
He has to keep RN from testifying or carefully coach her to avoid perjury - that's why in pretrial she was very vague about the "man in the blue uniform" that she thought she saw in the GJ room.
All this done to confuse jurors so they argue different theories of what happened during deliberation and don't reach consensus
So when you hear Gerlach come out with some new hint of an explosive "alternative fact" don't believe it until he proves it. It may not be fact and he's allowed to put false info out there in court and news media.
I find this very interesting and I’m obsessed with speculating about contents of the “Box of Important Stuff”
After all, it was labeled by “someone” as Important Stuff.
Statement from Defense:
“which the Defense thought may contain forms or documents relevant to the present action.”
Statement from Prosecutors:
”...it (the box) did not contain any such forms or documents as those sought by Defendant ...”
Possibly Defense worded motion poorly, too narrow.
Prosecutor worded response very carefully.
Attorneys use words, definitions, to their advantage. Not saying anyone lies, but “word games” are known to happen.
The contents of the box must be something DEFINED as other than documents or forms, items such as papers, receipts, hand written notes, letters, or information downloaded and printed regarding ...almost anything ... items that were not a document or form by DEFINITION.
Contents of the box are items that ‘do not pertain to the present action’ but perhaps pertain to a future action, or can be a building block in some way relevant to one of other 4 Defendants actions.
Speculation as to exactly what is in the box could be endless
Defense Attorney may have lost sight of what was happening here and now this evidence has come in due to good work by Prosecutors.
JMO, see above. It's a distraction, a defense attorneys ruse to get people to focus on something other than RN's forgery activities.
Then again, it might be some evidence linked to the murders. We'll find out!