AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
The thread is getting too fast for me, so this might have been explained.
The felony convictions (which go to Casey's credibility and believeability) are not admissible generally unless she testified. BUT Baez elicted her statements from Cindy regarding the paternity of Caylee. So she kind of testified through those statements. The state has a case to rely on saying that they can now introduce her felony convictions. What is funny is that is a case that THIS JUDGE was the trial judge on and let in evidence of prior convictions in that case in similar circumstances and he was upheld by two levels of appeallate courts!
I'm confused. Probably because I'm not watching the video lol.
But did Jose introduce these statements of Casey (through Cindy) and suggest that Casey's statements about paternity were TRUE? Because that's the only way I could see that he "opened the door" to impeachment through the felony convictions.
So when he asked Cindy what Casey had said about Caylee's paternity, was Jose suggesting that Casey's answers were TRUE or FALSE? :waitasec: If he was suggesting that Casey was telling the truth, then I think he opened the door and there will be an argument of ineffective assistance of counsel for opening such a big door for no real benefit to Casey at all. If he was suggesting Casey was lying, then I think he did NOT open the door to impeachment, and if HHJP lets the felony convictions in, the defense will have a potential appeal issue.