katiecoolady
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Messages
- 9,177
- Reaction score
- 2,513
Since JA testified in the defense case, can Juan recall her in the rebuttal? Tia! ![Smile :) :)]()
Since JA testified in the defense case, can Juan recall her in the rebuttal? Tia!![]()
So since the email didn't come into evidence, Sky Hughes can still be called to testify about it?
At least she can testify she never saw Travis hit another woman or anything?
Also, I have been reading the snippets and I never read anything about abuse. They saw Travis uses women and treats them bad but no mention of abuse. This seems to be LaVi's interpretation. I could be wrong, though. Can Juan point that out without pointing out the worst parts of the email?
I thought I remembered the lawyers not being allowed to mention that JA is in jail, because it is prejudicial.
Then JA mentioned it (re: size of closet vs her cell) everybody got a little antsy. But LV mentioned it over and over on the stand and nobody complained. So did it change once JA mentioned it? Is it no longer considered prejudicial?
Confidential to AZlawyer: if I'm ever arrested in Arizona, how can I reach you?
Thinking about this further, there is a hearsay exception that has to do with the information and data that an expert reviews and relies on to formulate their opinion. It's possible Wilmott is able to get in some of this testimony that would otherwise be hearsay, except for the fact that the witness is an expert who relied on the information in formulating her opinion.
I'm not sure what AZ law is on hearsay exceptions and whether the rules are the same in criminal proceedings (I am a civil trial lawyer and the rules can be quite different)
Hi AZ and thank you soooo much for lending us your expertise! You are :great:
Question I have been wondering about since learning that this is Judge S's first death penalty rodeo, and hearing the (IMO natural and reasonable) doubts that some WSers have regarding her abilities & knowledge of the statutes etc.:
Are there any places that allow judges to have a "mentor" judge shadow and coach them through their first DP trial or two? It must be scary for any judge to take on that responsibility for the first time, and it just seems like it might make sense to give them someone experienced to be "second chair"--maybe a retired judge. Like judicial training wheels.
TIA (and LTNS :blowkiss: )
I was blindsided by the testimony about emails between the Hughes and Travis suggesting a history of Travis mistreating women. I only started following the case when the trial started. Were others aware of the information before ALV's time on the witness stand?
One thing that stands out to me is that JA said repeatedly that she kept information about violence and sexual deviances secret to protect Travis's reputation. That's a lie of course, but it's what she said. Now we hear that the Hughes "knew" about Travis's mistreatment of other women and that Skye shared those concerns with JA. How do we know that Skye Hughes told JA about that? At the very least it indicates that the issue had been raised and therefore Jodi wasn't truthful about living under the shroud of secrecy so often associated with intimate partner abuse. Are we going to be able to learn more about these email exchanges, or will we only hear how ALV interpreted them? That seems a little hinky to me.
It seems like we were able to view more documents and evidence in the CA trial than what I can access on line regarding this case. Is that just a difference between FL and NM, or am I missing something? We can access horrifying crime scene photos and sexually explicit photos, but only snippets of text messages. I haven't found any of the email evidence on line.
Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and expertise.
:hero:
I am NOT an attorney. But if you will wait for rebuttal you will see this is just not true and the Hughes and the emails will prove it.
Since JA testified in the defense case, can Juan recall her in the rebuttal? Tia!![]()
Sometimes a witness will answer a question and then the judge sustains an objection to the question. Should jurors disregard the answer? One time Martinez objected to something but then asked the judge to let the answer stand. Another time he objected and asked the judge to have the answer stricken. Usually the lawyer who asked the question gets to rephrase if an objection is sustained, so that clarifies it for the jury, but sometimes they leave it hanging.
Related question: I know that some witnesses are coached to wait for two seconds before answering in case of objection, but does that run the risk of making them look hesitant or evasive or look as if they are having memory problems?
Do you expect there to be any character witnesses for Travis in rebuttal?
I certainly do. The law allows the prosecution to present witnesses to rebut the allegation that Travis was abusive.
Sometimes a witness will answer a question and then the judge sustains an objection to the question. Should jurors disregard the answer? One time Martinez objected to something but then asked the judge to let the answer stand. Another time he objected and asked the judge to have the answer stricken. Usually the lawyer who asked the question gets to rephrase if an objection is sustained, so that clarifies it for the jury, but sometimes they leave it hanging.
Related question: I know that some witnesses are coached to wait for two seconds before answering in case of objection, but does that run the risk of making them look hesitant or evasive or look as if they are having memory problems?
Thank you for answering!
Another question: this email, Martinez would have known that she was going to talk about this already and prepared for it, I assume? This isn't new to him?
Sly way to get around the whole no talking about Travis thing.
after conviction, i'm sure she will be convicted, can she petition to serve her sentence in california to be closer to her family?
Certainly Juan is aware of the email because it was already marked and was discussed in a hearing away from the jury. However, Juan made numerous objections when the witness was basically giving hearsay evidence about the email that was not admitted for trial purposes (for the jury to see). I think Wilmott was eliciting or trying to elicit testimony that was beyond what the court had allowed.
I noticed the witness said that the whole email chain was not included, so I expect Juan to rebut her testimony through cross examination by talking about the context and perhaps related emails that the witness has not yet seen.
I would guess 3 1/2 weeks or so.