CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010

[Chelly]

I bet the defense will be regretting having mentioned CM's criminal history. Opens up a line of inquiry they more than likely didnt want the jury to know about.

The defense only brought up CM's criminal history because they knew the Prosecution would present it for sure. The State is well aware of every little crime and infraction Chase has committed over the years and is eager to present it to the jury. SOP for defense to put it out there first.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The defense only brought up CM's criminal history because they knew the Prosecution would present it for sure. Surely you don't think the State doesn't already know every little crime and infraction Chase has committed over the years? SOP for defense to put it out there ASAP.

Its extremely odd that the defense would do so though.

Usually the judge rules before trial prior criminal acts by the defendant are ruled inadmissible during the guilt phase.

If convicted everything changes and all CM has ever done criminally wrong comes in since he no longer has the presumption of innocence any longer.

I don't think I've seen other defense attorneys do this for it now does open the door wide for the state to bring them in during this phase. But it seems the judge agrees that the defense mentioned it in OS.

Imo

 

[Tortoise]

This is what I was eeferring to from Emi's last post.

Cathy Russon on Twitter
Cathy Russon‏ @cathyrusson 2m2 minutes ago
#McStay - Judge found no action against the prosecution was necessary. Defense spoke about Merritt's criminal past during their opening. Family pic shown to Michael on the stand was never shown to jury.

I wish websleuths still had numbered posts. It made referencing certain post much more convenient.

If you're using a phone I think I've seen posters saying turning the phone sideways (landscape) lets them see the post numbers.

 

[missy1974]

The defense only brought up CM's criminal history because they knew the Prosecution would present it for sure. Surely you don't think the State doesn't already know every little crime and infraction Chase has committed over the years and is eager to discuss it in court.? SOP for defense to put it out there ASAP.

I got the impression that they were not supposed to bring it up, the prosecutor said 'but they brought it up in the opening statements'.. Judge even said if the defense had objected, he would have sustained it, but they didn't object (during testimony)

When the trial video's from today are uploaded, I will go back and listen. I missed the first minute or 2 and didn't hear what the defense attorney said because I took my headphones off thinking it was a "real break" lol

 

[missy1974]

Its extremely odd that the defense would do so though.

Usually the judge rules before trial prior criminal acts by the defendant are ruled inadmissible during the guilt phase.

If convicted everything changes and all CM has ever done criminally wrong comes in since he no longer has the presumption of innocence any longer.

I don't think I've seen other defense attorneys do this for it now does open the door wide for the state to bring them in during this phase. But it seems the judge agrees that the defense mentioned it in OS.

Imo

BBM I have searched to see if there was a motion to exclude prior criminal acts, but I can't find anything. Maybe some posters who have been more diligent all these years can weigh in on this one

 

[Chelly]

Mike's mood is radically different from when he appeared on video years ago. He seems so very tired.

 

[Chelly]

Its extremely odd that the defense would do so though.

Usually the judge rules before trial prior criminal acts by the defendant are ruled inadmissible during the guilt phase.

If convicted everything changes and all CM has ever done criminally wrong comes in since he no longer has the presumption of innocence any longer.

I don't think I've seen other defense attorneys do this for it now does open the door wide for the state to bring them in during this phase. But it seems the judge agrees that the defense mentioned it in OS.

Imo

Not odd at all. Defense knows State will bring out evidence of all crimes CM has committed. State will present Chase in as bad a light as possible. It behooves the Defense to bring it up first to make it "less of a shock" to the jury....as if to say..oh yeah we already knew about that. You are correct, this is always to be determined by the Judge. He runs the show.

 

[Emi]

Cathy Russon on Twitter
Cathy Russon‏ @cathyrusson 14m14 minutes ago
#McStay - That's it for today. Cross will pick back up tomorrow morning with Mike McStay still on the stand.

 

[HelenK]

Defense sounds aggressive towards Michley witness.

He sure does. Why would that be, I wonder?

 

[la2cabo]

Mike's mood is radically different from when he appeared on video years ago. He seems so very tired.

I was thinking the same thing. He seems like a very broken man.

 

[la2cabo]

Cathy Russon on Twitter
Cathy Russon‏ @cathyrusson 14m14 minutes ago
#McStay - That's it for today. Cross will pick back up tomorrow morning with Mike McStay still on the stand.

Thanks for the updates, etc., you're doing a fantastic job!

 

[Texas Red]

Not odd at all. Defense knows State will bring out evidence of all crimes CM has committed. State will present Chase in as bad a light as possible. It behooves the Defense to bring it up first to make it "less of a shock" to the jury....as if to say..oh yeah we already knew about that. You are correct, this is always to be determined by the Judge. He runs the show.

The prosecution normally is not allowed to introduce past criminal acts of a defendant durning the guilt phase of a criminal trial.

 

[Jewels53]

Day 3 Part 1 This is a Motions Hearing.
I will upload the Trial when it becomes available.

 

[Jewels53]

Day 3 Part 2

 

[Jewels53]

Day 3 Part 3

 

[Chelly]

The prosecution normally is not allowed to introduce past criminal acts of a defendant durning the guilt phase of a criminal trial.

Isn't this a matter argued pre-trial and ruled upon by the Judge?

 

[Simply Caustic]

The prosecution normally is not allowed to introduce past criminal acts of a defendant durning the guilt phase of a criminal trial.

The probative value must outweigh the prejudicial effect, in order to be admitted.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I got the impression that they were not supposed to bring it up, the prosecutor said 'but they brought it up in the opening statements'.. Judge even said if the defense had objected, he would have sustained it, but they didn't object (during testimony)

When the trial video's from today are uploaded, I will go back and listen. I missed the first minute or 2 and didn't hear what the defense attorney said because I took my headphones off thinking it was a "real break" lol

Ah now that makes a lot more sense.

I felt the judge hadn't ruled the state could bring priors in. That just doesn't happen in this phase unless an error has been made by the attorneys. Failing to object is one of them.

The only way I've seen prior bad acts come in during the guilt phase is if the prosecutor proves to the judge they are same like pattern crimes as the ones the defendant is on trial for...

Yes if they don't make an objection at the time it stands.

Bad move for the defense. Not sure how far the judge will let them open the door though. He may think it wasn't that egregious but will let what the prosecutor said...still stand.

Imo

 

[Texas Red]

The probative value must outweigh the prejudicial effect, in order to be admitted.

And that's clearly not the case here.

 

[missy1974]

They still don't have all the video added for the day. Will check back later to see what the defense argued about the criminal record. It usually is ruled on before trial, but I cannot seem to find any news stories about a ruling or a motion, etc.