strawberry
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 12,052
- Reaction score
- 2,729
What time is recess over?
Someone posted a pic of her and her new look. Maybe they'll post it again?
Still haven't gotten an answer to this: If a witnesses testimony is impeached, what does that mean? Are they no longer an expert? Is the jury supposed to ignore what they said? I'm not sure what the purpose of "impeaching" is.
WFTV showing Casey got checks from people in Alabama, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and one other state I missed.
She bought make-up!
to discredit - or render unreliable or worthless, I believe
to discredit - or render unreliable or worthless, I believe
Yes, he's on the State's witness list, so my guess is Baez subpoenaed him.Melich for the defense ???
I think he did touch dna testing on the shorts and laundry bag(?) but found nothing. I think JB is trying to use the lack of dna to lead the jury to believe that the SA did do it's job in not testing the tape. Or something like that. Pffft, OTOH who knows at this point.
Still haven't gotten an answer to this: If a witnesses testimony is impeached, what does that mean? Are they no longer an expert? Is the jury supposed to ignore what they said? I'm not sure what the purpose of "impeaching" is.
OK, this is complicated, but here is what I think the issue is:
The defense does not have to prove anything (As CM frequently points out). So JA wanted the judge to "take judicial notice" (tell the jury) that JB got to send evidence to a US lab and chose not to send the duct tape. BUT that would imply (or might lead the jury to believe) that the defense had a burden to prove stuff and just chose not to. And they have no burden. And it is big error to imply they do. So JA is bascially screwed unless the judge can figure out a way to correct the mistaken impression JB left with the jury without making them think that the defense had to do anything with the evidence in terms of testing.
whew!!! I tried.
edited to add: And JB is kind of implying to the jury that he TRIED to prove something but was not allowed to. And that is dangerous for him because that might make the jury think that he HAS to prove anything.
Am I the only one who wonders what the jury is eating every day? :crazy:
Also, is it too early for a glass of wine?
I'll try and capture that when KC stands up for the jury - otherwise I don't think you can 'see' how it looks!
here is the wormhole: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140963&page=15 (trial thread) so we don't loose anyone ;-)