Mountain_Kat
Heca Firimar !
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2010
- Messages
- 13,966
- Reaction score
- 45,166
First witness...botanist Jane Brock.
2011.06.21 TRIAL Day Twenty-four (Morning Session)
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
BigFatMommyDog
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,932
- Reaction score
- -25
Master William has been dispatched to dig up witnesses
cricketann
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2009
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 0
Would Pillow Talk between GA and RC be considered Hearsay?
Eidetic
Open your eyes to the millions of lies that they t
Let's bring the jury in!
mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
All parties present.
JA: Addressing discovery - Mr. Eikelenboom - depo done yesterday afternoon. Counsel has received it as well. McDuffy v. State - at court's suggestion. At this point a discovery violation clearly has occurred, however outright exclusion is not necessary - not in the best interest of the Defendant or the future of this case. Proposed sanctions. We have been able to overcome procedural prejudice. Only area is the opinion that DNA is recoverable from decomp fluid. If this issue had been properly provided there would have been a Frey hearing. Witness - opinion not based on research, just anecdotal experience of his own. Witnesses's opinions formed on Saturday and he was never informed of the Court's order. We request that portion of the witness's testimony be excluded. The most similar holding is the Syber (sp) case. Defense has already had one issue test about this issue. We request an appropriate instruction to the Court - I've handwritten a suggestion.
JB: Filed response on 12/15/10 where Mr. Eikelenboom was discussed. In that response, he stated that his CV, field of expertise were listed and informed the court he would testify to DNA, crime scene analysis and DNA recovery. He would like Mr. E to testify to the issues raised about degradation of DNA and he thinks this notice should be sufficient. As these issues came up, he wanted to apply the Court's experience to this issue. He is not attempting to create any gotcha moments. Wants to call him to testify solely to the issue of DNA degradation. Would love to argue the point of exclusion - the issue of being able to obtain samples from the DNA fluid - no issue brought up when FBI Seubert testified to it. In effort to move things along, he proposes to solely limit testimony to explaining DNA - specifically low copy DNA and issues of degradation. He could give hypotheticals and then we can move on with this trial. CM will address issues with the other witness.
JA: Briefly, the State did not offer any DNA evidence in this case. DNA offered by defense and the defense is now rebutting its own evidence. If the witness will not be giving opinions about inability to obtain DNA from the carpet - then that resolves that issue, but he still feels sanctions are necessary.
HHJBP: At some point the Court granted the defense's motion to have certain items of evidence at tax payers expense to be tested for DNA.
JA: Sent to National Services Lab in Pennsylvania. The shorts and the bag were tested. The tape was not tested. The Defense never requested to have the tape tested.
HHJBP: And he is proposing to have the witness testify to the possibility of DNA on duct tape and testing the carpet for decomp fluid to extract DNA from that?
JA: According to the witness, he was never informed of which items were being tested or what the results were.
HHJBP: So, he was not aware those items were tested and could have been.
JB: This witness tests low copy DNA testing. This type is unique and we requested that they be allowed and that was objected by the State and the Defense was denied that opportunity. This witness is one of the pioneers in this type of testing.
HHJBP: So there is no certified lab in the U.S. that does low copy testing?
JB: The New York City crime lab only. It is quite prevalent in Europe.
HHJBP: Has low copy DNA been Frey approved yet?
JB: It has been used, but can't say if it has in Florida.
JA: This witness stated that low copy number is additional replicating runs. He did not indicate this was unique. Not aware what counsel is talking about.
JB: Not true - kit called mini-filer. Not just doing extra runs. JB has studied quite a bit on this area and Mr. E is known as a pioneer in this area. Objects to specialized instruction punishing the defense.
HHJBP: Court will grant the State's request for the instruction and at this time would prohibit the testimony concerning the possibility of testing by DNA analysis of the decomp fluid in the trunk. Out of an abundance of caution, since it looks like we are going to do this for the next 2 weeks, you can schedule a Frey hearing to consider whether or not it would be admissible. For the time being it won't be permitted as a sanction for not disclosing it, but I will not permanently shut the door.
JA gives HHJBP his written instruction to the Jury.
JB: Just got a copy of the instruction and said he would prepare an alternative.
JB: We can call Dr. Jane Bach while preparing alternative. DS talking to JB. Now JB says they can call other witnesses in the mean time.
Jury coming in at 9:12
JA: Addressing discovery - Mr. Eikelenboom - depo done yesterday afternoon. Counsel has received it as well. McDuffy v. State - at court's suggestion. At this point a discovery violation clearly has occurred, however outright exclusion is not necessary - not in the best interest of the Defendant or the future of this case. Proposed sanctions. We have been able to overcome procedural prejudice. Only area is the opinion that DNA is recoverable from decomp fluid. If this issue had been properly provided there would have been a Frey hearing. Witness - opinion not based on research, just anecdotal experience of his own. Witnesses's opinions formed on Saturday and he was never informed of the Court's order. We request that portion of the witness's testimony be excluded. The most similar holding is the Syber (sp) case. Defense has already had one issue test about this issue. We request an appropriate instruction to the Court - I've handwritten a suggestion.
JB: Filed response on 12/15/10 where Mr. Eikelenboom was discussed. In that response, he stated that his CV, field of expertise were listed and informed the court he would testify to DNA, crime scene analysis and DNA recovery. He would like Mr. E to testify to the issues raised about degradation of DNA and he thinks this notice should be sufficient. As these issues came up, he wanted to apply the Court's experience to this issue. He is not attempting to create any gotcha moments. Wants to call him to testify solely to the issue of DNA degradation. Would love to argue the point of exclusion - the issue of being able to obtain samples from the DNA fluid - no issue brought up when FBI Seubert testified to it. In effort to move things along, he proposes to solely limit testimony to explaining DNA - specifically low copy DNA and issues of degradation. He could give hypotheticals and then we can move on with this trial. CM will address issues with the other witness.
JA: Briefly, the State did not offer any DNA evidence in this case. DNA offered by defense and the defense is now rebutting its own evidence. If the witness will not be giving opinions about inability to obtain DNA from the carpet - then that resolves that issue, but he still feels sanctions are necessary.
HHJBP: At some point the Court granted the defense's motion to have certain items of evidence at tax payers expense to be tested for DNA.
JA: Sent to National Services Lab in Pennsylvania. The shorts and the bag were tested. The tape was not tested. The Defense never requested to have the tape tested.
HHJBP: And he is proposing to have the witness testify to the possibility of DNA on duct tape and testing the carpet for decomp fluid to extract DNA from that?
JA: According to the witness, he was never informed of which items were being tested or what the results were.
HHJBP: So, he was not aware those items were tested and could have been.
JB: This witness tests low copy DNA testing. This type is unique and we requested that they be allowed and that was objected by the State and the Defense was denied that opportunity. This witness is one of the pioneers in this type of testing.
HHJBP: So there is no certified lab in the U.S. that does low copy testing?
JB: The New York City crime lab only. It is quite prevalent in Europe.
HHJBP: Has low copy DNA been Frey approved yet?
JB: It has been used, but can't say if it has in Florida.
JA: This witness stated that low copy number is additional replicating runs. He did not indicate this was unique. Not aware what counsel is talking about.
JB: Not true - kit called mini-filer. Not just doing extra runs. JB has studied quite a bit on this area and Mr. E is known as a pioneer in this area. Objects to specialized instruction punishing the defense.
HHJBP: Court will grant the State's request for the instruction and at this time would prohibit the testimony concerning the possibility of testing by DNA analysis of the decomp fluid in the trunk. Out of an abundance of caution, since it looks like we are going to do this for the next 2 weeks, you can schedule a Frey hearing to consider whether or not it would be admissible. For the time being it won't be permitted as a sanction for not disclosing it, but I will not permanently shut the door.
JA gives HHJBP his written instruction to the Jury.
JB: Just got a copy of the instruction and said he would prepare an alternative.
JB: We can call Dr. Jane Bach while preparing alternative. DS talking to JB. Now JB says they can call other witnesses in the mean time.
Jury coming in at 9:12
Mountain_Kat
Heca Firimar !
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2010
- Messages
- 13,966
- Reaction score
- 45,166
:floorlaugh:
JSR
Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the ri
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,250
- Reaction score
- 11
This is simply unbelievable. ICA has a real possibility to get an ineffective assistance of counsel appeal.
JB's blunders aren't just small they're freaking HUGE!!! I'd be pissed if I were ICA.
JB's blunders aren't just small they're freaking HUGE!!! I'd be pissed if I were ICA.
laserdisc10
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2011
- Messages
- 1,478
- Reaction score
- 86
lol !
marleysmom
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 0
So I'm confused about what's going on...as a FL taxpayer I'm going to have to contribute to the DT doing DNA testing outside the US when everything states that the body was underwater for months thereby destroying any DNA????? All the b/c JB thinks he's a DNA expert and watched the OJ trial instead of going to law school?????
Neurotripsy
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 440
- Reaction score
- 60
Jennifer Welch is back.
Mountain_Kat
Heca Firimar !
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2010
- Messages
- 13,966
- Reaction score
- 45,166
Wait, Jennifer Welsh? I thought they were calling Jane brock?
liltexans
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 13,451
- Reaction score
- 25,905
As jury comes in Jose Baez is whispering to Lisbeth Fryor as she is writing. #CaseyAnthony -jfell
by cfnews13casey via twitter at 8:14 AM
#CaseyAnthony Judge agreed said Dr. E can't testify about lack of DNA in carpet in trunk but Judge left door open for Frye hearing
by amandaoberwesh via twitter at 8:14 AM
Defense objects to the jury instruction the prosec prepared..and while they write a new one, they'll call another #caseyanthony witness.
by abcashleigh via twitter at 8:13 AM
Ashton walked hand written Instruction for jury over to defense. They objected. Defense will prepare one. #CaseyAnthony -jfell
by cfnews13casey via twitter at 8:13 AM
by cfnews13casey via twitter at 8:14 AM
#CaseyAnthony Judge agreed said Dr. E can't testify about lack of DNA in carpet in trunk but Judge left door open for Frye hearing
by amandaoberwesh via twitter at 8:14 AM
Defense objects to the jury instruction the prosec prepared..and while they write a new one, they'll call another #caseyanthony witness.
by abcashleigh via twitter at 8:13 AM
Ashton walked hand written Instruction for jury over to defense. They objected. Defense will prepare one. #CaseyAnthony -jfell
by cfnews13casey via twitter at 8:13 AM
Drama Queen
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 0
The way I understood the HJP was that the attorneys for each side had to be at the court by 8:30 each morning so that court would officially begin at 9:00. That is what I understood and hope that this is helpful.
MOO
- Status