Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #198

[AugustWest]

I agree with them here actually. The State can certainly ask the people what they directly heard RA say - no problem with that. But if they're asked to assess RA's mental health / thought process etc... I'd take issue with that. I'd agree that they're not really qualified to assess that formally, and I'd worry their uneducated opinions might affect the jury in a negative way. MOOOOO.

This is exactly why the defense is using a motion in limine on this issue, so this scenario doesn't happen.

Prosecution Q: What did you hear RA say?

Witness A: He said "X." I think he's mentally ill because "Y."

Defense: Objection, outside the scope of witness's expertise.

You can't get put the genie back in the bottle once the witness answers that way. The jury has already heard prejudicial testimony. Thus, motions in limine to determine what they may say and what topics they can/can't entertain.

 

[photographer4]

Just because someone could do something, doesn't mean they should, IMO. Is there no such thing as frivolous motions due to repetition or lack of merit that might do nothing but frustrate the court? At this point I'm only curious.

I'm confused as to why a lawyer (on either side) should NOT file a motion as they head into trial? I haven't followed cases this closely before so this is all a bit new to me... Is this somehow not expected or?

 

[SouthEnd]

You can't get put the genie back in the bottle once the witness answers that way. The jury has already heard prejudicial testimony. Thus, motions in limine to determine what they may say and what topics they can/can't entertain.

100% agreed!

See, I assumed (you know what they say about assumptions) that there were rules in place that prevented the state's witnesses from testifying on certain matters. But then again I suppose if everything was already decided by the State/country, you wouldn't have need for the objections and the sidebars, and the motions in limine. Just surprised that a person who is, lets say, a pilot, isn't by default forbidden to give their opinion on cellphone data analysis. Or in this case, a layperson isn't by default forbidden to testify on mental health etc. All my very uninformed opinions.

EDIT: Grammar

 

[SouthEnd]

I'm confused as to why a lawyer (on either side) should NOT file a motion as they head into trial? I haven't followed cases this closely before so this is all a bit new to me... Is this somehow not expected or?

Because it seemed to me that they were stating matters that were either already settled or matters that were already settled by existing law. I was obviously wrong on that.

 

[TTF14]

I agree with them here actually. The State can certainly ask the people what they directly heard RA say - no problem with that. But if they're asked to assess RA's mental health / thought process etc... I'd take issue with that. I'd agree that they're not really qualified to assess that formally, and I'd worry their uneducated opinions might affect the jury in a negative way. MOOOOO.

Absolutely!

 

[TTF14]

I'm confused as to why a lawyer (on either side) should NOT file a motion as they head into trial? I haven't followed cases this closely before so this is all a bit new to me... Is this somehow not expected or?

Normal in every trial I have followed.

As always, JMO.

 

[Arkay]

Could have been filed a lot earlier than 3 days before jury selection begins. MO

This is such an issue to me.

I wish (fruitlessly) that there were an amendment to the Constitution that ALSO gave surviving family of a victim the right to a “speedy trial.”

I have no argument with a defendant waiving his or her right to a speedy trial, but someone somewhere somehow needs to redress the agony and tumult to a family when a trial is endlessly stalled by crafty last-minute delay tactics.

I know there are multiple permutations that won’t allow this to happen, but mercy should count for a victim’s family.

Just my opinion as a layperson, yet still a human being.

 

[sunshineray]

It wasn’t filed improperly.

As always, JMO.

No but others were during this case. MO

 

[TTF14]

No but others were during this case. MO

Which ones?

 

[sunshineray]

They were just talking about Google AI, not the specific motion filed by the defense.

I was also thinking about how things were filed incorrectly during the case's history.

 

[sunshineray]

Um, not a lawyer, but the whole thing about 'substance' makes me think it's basically 'you said we didn't have any substance to our third party/conspiracy angle in the pretrial hearing but we think we did so that's enough for us to present it based on your wording about proof, and if you deny this we're going to drag things out and delay things throughout the trial'.

I don't think it's going to go down well.

I am not a lawyer, etc, and MOO.

I went back and looked, at the Aug 1st hearing there was Warden Galipeau, a prison investigator, ISP Harshman and Dr. Wala all testifying. So all about RA's confessions and his mental health at the prison.

Indiana State Police investigator says Richard Allen confessed 61 times to Delphi murders

The man accused of killing two Delphi teenagers has confessed more than 60 times to committing the murders, according to an Indiana State Police detective assigned to the case.

www.21alivenews.com