GUILTY - Tammy Moorer trial for Kidnapping Heather Elvis, 8 Oct 2018 #8

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good morning/afternoon, one and all!!

yupikgirl said:
Oh man I hope you sleep...you know they like to have delays in the morning!! Before I started going I spent every night watching every single hour when I got home from work- exhausting. Don't do that to yourself. But I remember when I lived in Thailand and did the same thing.....so I don't blame you if you do!
Click to expand...

Guess what? I tossed and turned all night!! In and out of sleep like a yo yo goes up and down, it was terrible!! I'm okay though, I did catch up on alot of sleep over the weekend, which is WHY I more than likely couldn't sleep last last night!! I had promised myself last Friday I would not visit Websleuths over the weekend but of course, that promise was broken as I couldn't resist logging in and going back over the posts to refresh my memory. I had missed a ton of posts too but by the time I got to the end of this thread had forgotten all that I had to say! Ugh! Nevermind. Have a safe trip this morning. Thanks again for being our ears and eyes in the courtroom, really appreciate it and look forward to reading your reports as the day progresses. :D

Bring on Day 11!!!!
bliss-smiley.gif
 
On a legal note, if prosecutors had been allowed to try TM & SM together on these charges, Bri's testimony about what SM said to HE during the payphone call would have been admissible, correct? Since SM would be there to defend himself.

I don't really understand why the SC supreme court didn't allow them to be tried together. So much money has already been spent trying this case; it made sense on so many levels. What was the legal reason SC supreme court denied their request?
 
yupikgirl said:
She goes home every day- well she doesn't live here anymore so i suspect she goes to polly's house? They live in florida still according to her testimony. This past weekend though she is still under oath/in the middle of testimony so there was discussion about what to do with her. She was given the talk about not talking to anyone etc. I believe the judge said something like "this is a first for me" meaning someone still testifying and they break for a weekend...seemed strange it would be a first.
Click to expand...
I think the judge was talking about TM being under the sequestration order--the defense asked for it & it has caused problems with her witnesses (family members). She wasn't even allowed to eat lunch with them on Friday. Then he said that if TM breaks the rule, she is facing a year in jail.
 
Carolina Girl said:
If a sworn witness is being asked about five different subjects, and only one of those topics carries a risk of self-incrimination, the witness can assert a Fifth Amendment privilege on the questions about Topic A, while still answering questions about Topics B, C, D, and E.

But if the witness asserts a Fifth Amendment privilege on Topic A, the witness cannot pick and choose the questions they like about Topic A. If the witness refuses to answer one question about Topic A on the basis of a Fifth Amendment privilege, but then agrees to answer a bunch of other questions about Topic A, many courts will say that the witness has waived their right to assert that privilege.
https://www.quora.com/If-youre-a-sw...ectively-answer-some-questions-but-not-others
Click to expand...
A defendant who chooses to take the stand waives the privilege and may be compelled to answer relevant questions on cross-examination. Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148 (1958). The Brown Court held that a defendant who elects to take the stand is subject to cross-examination about matters “made relevant by her direct examination.” Id. at 154. The defendant’s decision to testify amounts to a Fifth Amendment waiver, and “the breadth of his waiver is determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination.”


Selective Assertion of the Fifth Amendment Privilege
 
Richmond said:
On a legal note, if prosecutors had been allowed to try TM & SM together on these charges, Bri's testimony about what SM said to HE during the payphone call would have been admissible, correct? Since SM would be there to defend himself.

I don't really understand why the SC supreme court didn't allow them to be tried together. So much money has already been spent trying this case; it made sense on so many levels. What was the legal reason SC supreme court denied their request?
Click to expand...

BBM

I'm interested in knowing this as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 52 more.
Total: 2,333 (members: 53, guests: 2,280)

Online statistics

Members online
53
Guests online
2,280
Total visitors
2,333
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,011
Messages
18,133,224
Members
231,206
Latest member
habitsofwaste
Back
Top