2011.06.18 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-Two)

[allycat1208]

What was Baez reprimanded for today?

 

[ynotdivein]

It occurs to me that there was a dust up by CM over whether the jurors had been speaking to each other when they asked to examine the heart sticker - it should have entered my mind earlier...

I really feel the sequestration rule they were talking about was the rule that applies to witnesses. Before they got started today when CJBP asked if the two sides had clarified "that matter," JA said yes, they had talked to Dr. Spitz and resolved it.

So I think it was about the good Doctor's penchant for giving interviews before testifying, and for watching the televised testimony of Dr. G before testifying, and for generally breaking the rules. :maddening:

 

[Turnadot]

What was Baez reprimanded for today?

Jose Baez May Be In Contempt Of Court


http://swflorida.blogspot.com/2011/06/jose-baez-may-be-in-contempt-of-court.html

HTH

 

[Tipstaff]

JB's defense has come out of the gate so poorly that if we hadn't watched the beginning of the trial we would not know what he is talking about. His theatrical opening appears to belong to another trial all together.

He rarely mentions Caylee's name, and even fewer times mentions the defendant's name.

His examination of his own witnesses are scattered and disjointed. The most I get from watching JB is the circus act of his own incompetence.

He pouts, he stammers, he becomes red in the face, and his favorite line is 'strike that'.

Thanks to all of you here who can watch him....and post such great information.

JB and ICA have been able to maintain their weird relationship this past 3 years because he is convinced it is all about him and ICA believes it is all about her and they are both incorrect - it is all about Caylee.

 

[pinkfly]

What was Baez reprimanded for today?

HHBP started with the comment that ‘as I told you in sidebar, you cannot choose which court orders you are going to follow’

It was a result of JA objecting at the testimony because it was not in the report and they never had a chance to depose. Big smackdown with threat of future action and solid warning. Anthropologist will be deposed this afternoon and will be back on the stand Monday morning.

It was an attempt at trial by ambush and it finally pushed the court too far.

 

[allycat1208]

HHBP started with the comment that ‘as I told you in sidebar, you cannot choose which court orders you are going to follow’

It was a result of JA objecting at the testimony because it was not in the report and they never had a chance to depose. Big smackdown with threat of future action and solid warning. Anthropologist will be deposed this afternoon and will be back on the stand Monday morning.

It was an attempt at trial by ambush and it finally pushed the court too far.

So, Jose may be punished because the witness was never deposed? It was Baez's responsibility to depose him because he is Baez's witness?

 

[coloradoteacher]

So, Jose may be punished because the witness was never deposed? It was Baez's responsibility to depose him because he is Baez's witness?

No because he did not have his experts submit every opinion they might give in their reports. This happened with the bug expert, huntington, yesterday and then again today with Rodriquez, who started to talk about the duct tape and had nothing in his report about the duct tape.
HJBP had issued a court order that all expert testimony needs to be in a report, even if it was written the day before so that there would be no trial by ambush.
JP then said lightening does not strike twice meaning that he could accept JB made the mistake honestly once but two times shows a pattern of deception and trying to withhold testimony from the SA.
He did not want to punish ICA by throwing the witness out and the case law did not supprt this, but it did support a stipulation letter from the SA to be read to the jury regarding this witness (i.e. This witness is testifying to things he is not an expert in and did not share until now) to basically diminish his credibility and/or contempt of court charges as well as JP submitting a report to the state bar.
JP then said the SA needs to draft the letter and he will make a decision at the end of the trial as to the contempt of court charges.
In the meantime, both sides need to depose the witness today at the end of court and JP pulled him (the witness) off the stand.

 

[pinkfly]

So, Jose may be punished because the witness was never deposed? It was Baez's responsibility to depose him because he is Baez's witness?

His weak explanation was that he had told all his witnesses that they needed complete reports so I think it must have gone more towards that. I cannot remember without re-watching what the reason for no depo. It was always aimed at ‘both’ sides but the threat of action was aimed at JB.

The whole thing is out there on vid and being replayed on TV.

 

[xin]

No because he did not have his experts submit every opinion they might give in their reports. This happened with the bug expert, huntington, yesterday and then again today with Rodriquez, who started to talk about the duct tape and had nothing in his report about the duct tape.
HJBP had issued a court order that all expert testimony needs to be in a report, even if it was written the day before so that there would be no trial by ambush.
JP then said lightening does not strike twice meaning that he could accept JB made the mistake honestly once but two times shows a pattern of deception and trying to withhold testimony from the SA.
He did not want to punish ICA by throwing the witness out and the case law did not supprt this, but it did support a stipulation letter from the SA to be read to the jury regarding this witness (i.e. This witness is testifying to things he is not an expert in and did not share until now) to basically diminish his credibility and/or contempt of court charges as well as JP submitting a report to the state bar.
JP then said the SA needs to draft the letter and he will make a decision at the end of the trial as to the contempt of court charges.
In the meantime, both sides need to depose the witness today at the end of court and JP pulled him off the stand.

Excellent job, COTeacher!

 

[ThinkTank]

Baez has got to know he really messed up when he got this punch of sympathy from Casey as she was leaving. Sympathy from Casey!! :loser:
Or maybe not -- he still has that cocky smile on his face.

its all fun and games to this Inmate [and her attorney]

 

[pinkfly]

No because he did not have his experts submit every opinion they might give in their reports. This happened with the bug expert, huntington, yesterday and then again today with Rodriquez, who started to talk about the duct tape and had nothing in his report about the duct tape.
HJBP had issued a court order that all expert testimony needs to be in a report, even if it was written the day before so that there would be no trial by ambush.
JP then said lightening does not strike twice meaning that he could accept JB made the mistake honestly once but two times shows a pattern of deception and trying to withhold testimony from the SA.
He did not want to punish ICA by throwing the witness out and the case law did not supprt this, but it did support a stipulation letter from the SA to be read to the jury regarding this witness (i.e. This witness is testifying to things he is not an expert in and did not share until now) to basically diminish his credibility and/or contempt of court charges as well as JP submitting a report to the state bar.
JP then said the SA needs to draft the letter and he will make a decision at the end of the trial as to the contempt of court charges.
In the meantime, both sides need to depose the witness today at the end of court and JP pulled him (the witness) off the stand.

Thank you Coloradoteacher for a wonderfully complete answer.

 

[coloradoteacher]

His weak explanation was that he had told all his witnesses that they needed complete reports so I think it must have gone more towards that. I cannot remember without re-watching what the reason for no depo. It was always aimed at ‘both’ sides but the threat of action was aimed at JB.

The whole thing is out there on vid and being replayed on TV.

JB's argument was that the report shouldn't matter b/c the SA chose not to depose this witness. JP basically said the depo's don't matter, hs court ruling was that all expert witness testimonies have to have reports on everything they will be discussing.

 

[allycat1208]

No because he did not have his experts submit every opinion they might give in their reports. This happened with the bug expert, huntington, yesterday and then again today with Rodriquez, who started to talk about the duct tape and had nothing in his report about the duct tape.
HJBP had issued a court order that all expert testimony needs to be in a report, even if it was written the day before so that there would be no trial by ambush.
JP then said lightening does not strike twice meaning that he could accept JB made the mistake honestly once but two times shows a pattern of deception and trying to withhold testimony from the SA.
He did not want to punish ICA by throwing the witness out and the case law did not supprt this, but it did support a stipulation letter from the SA to be read to the jury regarding this witness (i.e. This witness is testifying to things he is not an expert in and did not share until now) to basically diminish his credibility and/or contempt of court charges as well as JP submitting a report to the state bar.
JP then said the SA needs to draft the letter and he will make a decision at the end of the trial as to the contempt of court charges.
In the meantime, both sides need to depose the witness today at the end of court and JP pulled him (the witness) off the stand.

But isn't it the witness's fault if they did not put every opinion they have in a report?

 

[Just K]

For anyone who mentioned or noted the term "sub adult," used by Dr Spitz, here is a link to the definition:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subadult
": an individual that has passed through the juvenile period but not yet attained typical adult characteristics"

 

[xin]

But isn't it the witness's fault if they did not put every opinion they have in a report?

I think the attorney is to be aware of the scope of the report and not take the witness outside of the material. So, Baez blew it.

 

[Niner]

Week 4: Sidebars and Objections:

6/13, Monday, Day Seventeen: 5 (Testimony from: Shaw & Fontaine)
- Total Objections: 20

6/14, Tuesday, Day Eighteen: 8 (Testimony from: C. Theisen (FBI DNA/A. Burroughs (CSI)/CindyA/J. Welch (CSI/B Williams/Tattoo artist)
- Total Objections: 35

6/15, Wednesday, Day 19: 1 (State rests, plus affidavits for acquittal)

6/16, Thursday, Day 20: 10 (Defense starts Testimony from: G. Bloise (CSI)/H. Seubert (FBI DNA Lab/J. Welch (CSI)/L. Gottesman (FBI Lab-For Doc)/C. Oien (FBI Lab-Hair&Fiber trace evid.)
- Total Objections: 51

6/17, Friday, Day 21: 10 (Testimony from: Dr. Timothy Huntington (Forensic Entomologist)
- Total Objections: 83

6/18, Saturday, Day 22: 8 (Testimony from: Dr. W. Rodriguez (Forensic Anthropologist, US Armed Forces) partial testimony; Dr. W. Spitz (Med. Dr, Forensic Pathology (NOT a chemist! Testified to by Dr. Spitz...))
- Total Objections: 27


Total Sidebars for week 3: 42

Grand Total for trial: 175

I've posted the above at the "Trial Archivies" Trivia section. I will continue to count the sidebars and objections... :crazy:
Also, I'll go ahead and post some pixs I captured from today trial!

 

[Turnadot]

But isn't it the witness's fault if they did not put every opinion they have in a report?

It's the defense attorney's fault for asking about an opinion that isn't in the report.

That's the point.

 

[coloradoteacher]

But isn't it the witness's fault if they did not put every opinion they have in a report?

JP's description was that he would accept that one witness would forget to put things in a report but two? That he didn't believe. Also, all attys go over testimony with their witnesses and he should have known immediately from formulation of his questions that the witness's testimony was not in the report and had him create an addendum. JP said that he believed that JB was trying to play games and this is a serious matter for his client.

 

[Sabrina2011]

See guys, we don't have to worry about Spitz's age. He's a professional and took it like a man. Good for him.

Watch and learn Baez...watch and learn.

He absolutely did and he thanked JA on the way out.. He told the interviewer that JA did a very good job.

That says a lot when JB's witness thanked the prosecutor. He did take it like a man.

It was grueling to watch

 

[Dr.Fessel]

JP's description was that he would accept that one witness would forget to put things in a report but two? That he didn't believe. Also, all attys go over testimony with their witnesses and he should have known immediately from formulation of his questions that the witness's testimony was not in the report and had him create an addendum. JP said that he believed that JB was trying to play games and this is a serious matter for his client.

The witness and Jose both testified they had talked about this matter before today and Jose admitted he did not tell the SA about it. That is why he might be up for contempt.