mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
JB: He was just given documents dealing with the issue of work records of CA. 231 pages of print outs that he can't understand. He can only assume this info is to rebut CA's testimony as to the dates that she has run the searches of chloroform. It is a discovery violation. The State knew this in 2009 that CA was going to testify she ran the searches. If this becomes an issue we may need a continuance to depose these individuals to see how it relates to the case. I would also like records for other days when we know CA was not at work to give a better estimation as to whether someone can use someone else's computer at work.
HHJBP: We'll be stopping today at 5:00 so if you need to take someone's depo, you have from 5:00 to midnight. I presume when you put CA on the stand, you know what answers she was going to to give to the questions that you asked dealing with the computer searches being done by her; and I take it they have previously provided you with time cards. I assume they have provided you with records that she was at work and she testified that that didn't necessarily mean that she was there Isn't it sort of logical that... well, we will conduct a Richardson inquiry at the appropriate time. Whatever witnesses you want to talk with you can schedule for 5:00 or have them on standby so you can take them earlier if you want to see what they have to say; but it is sort of logical if someone testifies to A someone is going to try to see if B is not exactly true or false. We'll do a Richardson hearing to determine if it is a discovery violation and what prejudice has been suffered.
HHJBP: We'll be stopping today at 5:00 so if you need to take someone's depo, you have from 5:00 to midnight. I presume when you put CA on the stand, you know what answers she was going to to give to the questions that you asked dealing with the computer searches being done by her; and I take it they have previously provided you with time cards. I assume they have provided you with records that she was at work and she testified that that didn't necessarily mean that she was there Isn't it sort of logical that... well, we will conduct a Richardson inquiry at the appropriate time. Whatever witnesses you want to talk with you can schedule for 5:00 or have them on standby so you can take them earlier if you want to see what they have to say; but it is sort of logical if someone testifies to A someone is going to try to see if B is not exactly true or false. We'll do a Richardson hearing to determine if it is a discovery violation and what prejudice has been suffered.
