MsFacetious
What a Kerfuffle...
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 21,624
- Reaction score
- 33,041
Are we absolutely certain Chase lied? You are an attorney, you know that the assertion that he lied has to be proven. That's why perjury is so hard to prosecute, because the DA has to show that the person knew they were lying that they weren't just mis-remembering.
In your estimation, what proves that any of what Chase stated in that interview was a deliberate lie?
This is a very good point. We are using it right now in a case. I believe the witness doesn't remember at all, but is backing up the other witness on basic points to avoid looking inept. Others believe she is outright lying. It's all in how you look at it really.
The burden of proof is in any event on the state not on the jurors
We don't know at what point jurors decide things or change their minds
They need not give reasons. It's a black box.
This is why I prefer judge trials with proper crafted judgements
I'm inclined to agree. Although I'm not a fan of the much lengthier judges deliberation. There is also much less to possibly appeal with a bench trial.
Thanks for this! I have highlighted in red which days are FRI, SAT, SUN, there is clearly a pattern. For the most part, they didn't speak much on Sat/Sun. At first I was going to reply that this actually shows that the lack of communication after the 4th is telling (which it still is); however, I am not so sure about the lack of communication on the Fri/Sat/Sun would be as telling ... but come Monday, it's definitely out of the ordinary for there not to be a bunch of calls.
Yet, what if Joey had told Chase to get lost like Dan claims he was going to? Would the lack of calls be so odd then? I realize that isn't what Chase is claiming... just a thought.
We heard on Thursday morning that the State did have a forensic accountant look at Chases finances. (not sure when though? ) The defense was looking for discovery, specifically a report, which they didn't get, they are getting a bunch of paperwork, but no actual report. (Judge said they would give them time to talk with their own expert before cross)
This is stunning to me. We have to designate our experts, provide a report or the material and designate any rebuttal experts WELL in advance of trial!
In my current case it was done a year in advance because we were intending to go to trial on time but the prosecution keeps delaying. (Yes, that's backwards from normal.)
I guess maybe it's the length of the trial that is making this totally different from what we are used to. It's just so crazy to me that they are hiring or designating experts during trial. Just wow.
It would be great for him to take the stand and believe that CM might have the confidence to do it. But his attorneys are way too smart for that, IMO.
Absolutely, it would be very close to ineffective assistance of counsel to let him testify. There is absolutely no way that is happening.