GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #6 *arrests*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
TTF14 said:
Oh, interesting. I didn't realize this. This could be a problem with ever getting WA prosecuted. I can't think of any direct evidence of her furthering this crime.

On another note, I wonder why Lacasse's testimony about Wendi wasn't hearsay?
Click to expand...

Chiming in to answer this along with any subsequent comments thereafter that echo the same curiosity regarding why this wasn't hearsay. Hearsay does not encompass every single statement made by someone else. First, hearsay means an out-of-court statement by someone else that is offered into evidence with the intent "to prove the truth of the matter asserted." So, saying "Mike told me on Tuesday that his dad was ill" is hearsay if offered to prove that his dad was indeed ill, but is not hearsay if offered simply to establish that I had a conversation with Mike on Tuesday.

Following that, even if something constitutes hearsay, there are numerous exceptions that allow otherwise hearsay statements to come in.

I have not been following the trial closely enough to have caught any of the rulings on objections that would clarify to me why certain of Lacasse's statements re WA's statements were allowed in, but it appears that the vast majority of them are allowed in because the prosecutor's position is that they are not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather only for the basic fact that WA said them. So, if "my brother joked about hiring a hitman" isn't being offered to prove that he actually hired a hitman, but rather simply for the fact that WA said this to JL, then it could come in. Alternatively, they could be allowed in under one of the exceptions, such as statement against interest, etc.
 
rsc42 said:
Chiming in to answer this along with any subsequent comments thereafter that echo the same curiosity regarding why this wasn't hearsay. Hearsay does not encompass every single statement made by someone else. First, hearsay means an out-of-court statement by someone else that is offered into evidence with the intent "to prove the truth of the matter asserted." So, saying "Mike told me on Tuesday that his dad was ill" is hearsay if offered to prove that his dad was indeed ill, but is not hearsay if offered simply to establish that I had a conversation with Mike on Tuesday.

Following that, even if something constitutes hearsay, there are numerous exceptions that allow otherwise hearsay statements to come in.

I have not been following the trial closely enough to have caught any of the rulings on objections that would clarify to me why certain of Lacasse's statements re WA's statements were allowed in, but it appears that the vast majority of them are allowed in because the prosecutor's position is that they are not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather only for the basic fact that WA said them. So, if "my brother joked about hiring a hitman" isn't being offered to prove that he actually hired a hitman, but rather simply for the fact that WA said this to JL, then it could come in. Alternatively, they could be allowed in under one of the exceptions, such as statement against interest, etc.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand, but thank you for trying to explain! :)
 
Mariposa said:
Was there any testimony on the time she pinged driving down by Trescott? Does it gel with the noon ish tine the TPD officer saw the burgundy van?
Click to expand...

Moo, exactly coincides within minutes, yet he had to guesstimate the time that he saw the car as he did not document the exact time. He just knew it was after he set up the perimeter and was told to watch out for a certain car and that car met the description he had been told previously. He thought that perhaps the neighbor had said that they had divorced, and he knew what the car looks like. Again, he did not document the exact time he saw the car but he did tell his supervisor and put that in the report. M o o
 
rsc42 said:
Chiming in to answer this along with any subsequent comments thereafter that echo the same curiosity regarding why this wasn't hearsay. Hearsay does not encompass every single statement made by someone else. First, hearsay means an out-of-court statement by someone else that is offered into evidence with the intent "to prove the truth of the matter asserted." So, saying "Mike told me on Tuesday that his dad was ill" is hearsay if offered to prove that his dad was indeed ill, but is not hearsay if offered simply to establish that I had a conversation with Mike on Tuesday.

Following that, even if something constitutes hearsay, there are numerous exceptions that allow otherwise hearsay statements to come in.

I have not been following the trial closely enough to have caught any of the rulings on objections that would clarify to me why certain of Lacasse's statements re WA's statements were allowed in, but it appears that the vast majority of them are allowed in because the prosecutor's position is that they are not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather only for the basic fact that WA said them. So, if "my brother joked about hiring a hitman" isn't being offered to prove that he actually hired a hitman, but rather simply for the fact that WA said this to JL, then it could come in. Alternatively, they could be allowed in under one of the exceptions, such as statement against interest, etc.
Click to expand...
Lacasse s testimony also contradicted many things Wendi said on the stand
That can be a hearsay exception
https://koehlerlaw.net/2019/01/can-hearsay-be-used-to-impeach/
 
Last edited:
TTF14 said:
I still don't understand, but thank you for trying to explain! :)
Click to expand...
Of course, it can get very complicated, and even seasoned lawyers and judges have trouble with defining hearsay and then applying any exceptions. Put it this way, for any of Lacasse's testimony that was admitted, assume the following: it was already determined to not be hearsay, or to be hearsay subject to an exception that allows it to be admitted anyways.
 
rsc42 said:
Chiming in to answer this along with any subsequent comments thereafter that echo the same curiosity regarding why this wasn't hearsay. Hearsay does not encompass every single statement made by someone else. First, hearsay means an out-of-court statement by someone else that is offered into evidence with the intent "to prove the truth of the matter asserted." So, saying "Mike told me on Tuesday that his dad was ill" is hearsay if offered to prove that his dad was indeed ill, but is not hearsay if offered simply to establish that I had a conversation with Mike on Tuesday.

Following that, even if something constitutes hearsay, there are numerous exceptions that allow otherwise hearsay statements to come in.

I have not been following the trial closely enough to have caught any of the rulings on objections that would clarify to me why certain of Lacasse's statements re WA's statements were allowed in, but it appears that the vast majority of them are allowed in because the prosecutor's position is that they are not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather only for the basic fact that WA said them. So, if "my brother joked about hiring a hitman" isn't being offered to prove that he actually hired a hitman, but rather simply for the fact that WA said this to JL, then it could come in. Alternatively, they could be allowed in under one of the exceptions, such as statement against interest, etc.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much! Our lawyers here try to tell us this each time and it is so hard to understand.

What is not allowed is that it is given as a fact as truth vs it is given as a fact that it was said?

I am not a lawyer, but it this interpretation from a very much lay person pretty much what you are trying to say succinctly?
 
Mariposa said:
Lacasse s testimony also contradicted many things Wendi said on the stand
That can be a hearsay exception
https://koehlerlaw.net/2019/01/can-hearsay-be-used-to-impeach/
Click to expand...

Oooohhhhhh......interesting!

"Whether or not an out-of-court statement is hearsay depends on the purpose for which it is offered. If it is offered to prove the truth of the matter, it is hearsay. If offered only to impeach (i.e., discredit) a witness, then it is by definition not hearsay."

His testimony definitely discredited some things she said.
 
Just a note and MOO. I have in my notes that Garcia's phone was last used on July 19th at 5:12 pm 2014 and Rivera's phone was last used on July 24th 2014.

According to law enforcement affidavits, after that, neither phone was ever used again and they perhaps were ditched and or disposed of.
 
rsc42 said:
Chiming in to answer this along with any subsequent comments thereafter that echo the same curiosity regarding why this wasn't hearsay. Hearsay does not encompass every single statement made by someone else. First, hearsay means an out-of-court statement by someone else that is offered into evidence with the intent "to prove the truth of the matter asserted." So, saying "Mike told me on Tuesday that his dad was ill" is hearsay if offered to prove that his dad was indeed ill, but is not hearsay if offered simply to establish that I had a conversation with Mike on Tuesday.

Following that, even if something constitutes hearsay, there are numerous exceptions that allow otherwise hearsay statements to come in.

I have not been following the trial closely enough to have caught any of the rulings on objections that would clarify to me why certain of Lacasse's statements re WA's statements were allowed in, but it appears that the vast majority of them are allowed in because the prosecutor's position is that they are not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather only for the basic fact that WA said them. So, if "my brother joked about hiring a hitman" isn't being offered to prove that he actually hired a hitman, but rather simply for the fact that WA said this to JL, then it could come in. Alternatively, they could be allowed in under one of the exceptions, such as statement against interest, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it seems it was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that there were attempts to hire a hitman) and I don't know what exception applies here. So I'm still curious why it was allowed in. I know there is a legal reason. I just don't know what the reason is.
 
TTF14 said:
Oooohhhhhh......interesting!

"Whether or not an out-of-court statement is hearsay depends on the purpose for which it is offered. If it is offered to prove the truth of the matter, it is hearsay. If offered only to impeach (i.e., discredit) a witness, then it is by definition not hearsay."

His testimony definitely discredited some things she said.
Click to expand...

Well, not quite. A prior inconsistent statement can be offered to impeach credibility of a witness, but only by directly confronting that witness with it, and only if the prior statement was made under penalty of perjury. So, for example, if WA said something at a sworn deposition (for example during her divorce proceedings) that is inconsistent with something she says now at the criminal trial, she could be confronted with the inconsistency during her own examination. But that's about it. Lacasse's statements cannot be admitted under the theory that they are undermining WA's earlier testimony. So it has to be one of the other rationales - that they are not hearsay to begin with because they are not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, or they are an exception to hearsay.

On the other hand, the fact that Lacasse's recollection has a tendency to undermine WA's statements is something the prosecutor could argue in support of the proposition that those statements are being offered for something other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
 
clearskies1 said:
Yes, but it seems it was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that there were attempts to hire a hitman) and I don't know what exception applies here. So I'm still curious why it was allowed in. I know there is a legal reason. I just don't know what the reason is.
Click to expand...
Lengthy..
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.

(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that:

(A) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or treatment; and

(B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.

(5) Recorded Recollection. A record that:

(A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;

(B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and

(C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.

If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.
 
rsc42 said:
Well, not quite. A prior inconsistent statement can be offered to impeach credibility of a witness, but only by directly confronting that witness with it, and only if the prior statement was made under penalty of perjury. So, for example, if WA said something at a sworn deposition (for example during her divorce proceedings) that is inconsistent with something she says now at the criminal trial, she could be confronted with the inconsistency during her own examination. But that's about it. Lacasse's statements cannot be admitted under the theory that they are undermining WA's earlier testimony. So it has to be one of the other rationales - that they are not hearsay to begin with because they are not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, or they are an exception to hearsay.
Click to expand...

So that fact that she testified during this trial that she was relieved her own motion to move to South Florida was denied and Lacasse testified that she was upset, hated Tallahassee and wanted to move wouldn't be considered discrediting her and therefore an exception?
 
TTF14 said:
So that fact that she testified during this trial that she was relieved her own motion to move to South Florida was denied and Lacasse testified that she was upset, hated Tallahassee and wanted to move wouldn't be considered discrediting her and therefore an exception?
Click to expand...

Well the statements do have a tendency to discredit her, but that is not the rationale for why those statements are being allowed in as either non-hearsay or hearsay subject-t0-exception.
 
clearskies1 said:
Yes, but it seems it was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that there were attempts to hire a hitman) and I don't know what exception applies here. So I'm still curious why it was allowed in. I know there is a legal reason. I just don't know what the reason is.
Click to expand...

Both KM and SG are charged with conspiracy to commit murder. CA is an unindicted co-conspirator. If CA's statements are being entered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (i.e. that he hired a hitman) some courts may admit the statement under the exception that it was against his interests as a co-conspirator. But hearsay gets super complicated in circumstances like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 171 more.
Total: 4,070 (members: 172, guests: 3,898)

Online statistics

Members online
172
Guests online
3,898
Total visitors
4,070
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,586
Messages
18,143,098
Members
231,446
Latest member
VAres67
Back
Top