AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
Even though your work might not be in criminal court, I ask our four verified lawyers, would you still like to cross examine AL?
Sounds like fun to me.
Even though your work might not be in criminal court, I ask our four verified lawyers, would you still like to cross examine AL?
Has anyone explained what Juan is trying to accomplish with this Snow White testimony?
I have never seen anything like this, and I just don't get it.
Is it that ALV could determine that anyone was abusive and/or abused; that it is subjective, not objective?
Was it illegal for ALV to walk from the witness stand, straight up to Samantha Alexander and confront her; or, just a dumb move?
Can the defense team be sequestered, along with their witnesses, through the remainder of the trial? (J/K)
Okay, okay..serious question:
Can the defense team be held accountable for the actions of their witnesses, during the duration of the witness's testimony? Or, can this be brought up to the jury, to help impeach the witness's credibility and/or professionalism?
Could someone explain this to me? Why was ALV not allowed to read directly from the emails in front of her, but only give her interrpretation of them?
Why is some of the written evidence (texts, emails) shown to the jury and some hidden from them? Why have them as evidence in the first place, if the jury is not allowed to see them?
Sorry for being such a thicko.
Can the state use the videotaped interviews of her parents, more specifically the statement her mom made about Jodi telling her she had gas receipts that prove she didn't go to Arizona? Or would they have to call them to the stand as witnesses to use it (which they don't want to do) ? How does this work?
TIA!~
If the emails she was looking at had not been admitted into evidence, then she could not read from them.
Once something is admitted into evidence, it is not hidden from the jury. I think you are confusing having something marked as an exhibit vs. having it admitted as evidence. Before you can admit something as evidence, you have to (1) get it marked as an exhibit (this is the easy part lol), and then also (2) successfully move to admit it as evidence (this is where the objections come in). The jury doesn't get to see all the exhibits--only the ones admitted as evidence.
Before ending on Thursday, the judge asked if the jurors had any questions. If I were on a jury, I would not be shy about asking questions in front of the other jurors or the lawyers, but I would definitely be inhibited in front of courtroom spectators. Is there ever a time when jurors can ask questions of the judge when they are not being scrutinized by the public at the same time?
(This is similar to a previous question I asked, but asking for more detail this time.)
First, I want to thank all of the attorneys here for answering all of our questions. It is so appreciated. Your perspectives and expertise are so informative and helpful. I have a "what if" type of question. What if MM were to suddenly admit that he was involved in some way? For example, what if he admitted he was there and involved with the actual killing? Would that cause a mistrial? Would they have two new trials, with each of them as defendants? Or, what if he just admitted to the before and after stuff, like stealing the gun, helping dispose of evidence, etc? What would that do to the current trial, if anything?
During the trial JW has consistently challenged the judges' rulings (sustained/overruled motions) to the point that lately JW has started arguing with the judge in front of the jurors and courtroom. And, the witness's have been allowed to mock the prosecutor, question the prosecutor rather than answer his questions and overall behave disrespectfully in the courtroom.
This judge allowed ALV to continue reading from the journal for her answers although JSS had just sustained Martinez's objection which he had requested that ALV close the journals to refrain from reading directly from them and told JW and ALV to stop it.
This judge has allowed the DT to continue snickering, roll their eyes, mock the prosecutor when he is speaking and other condescending behaviors toward him in front of the jury and witness.
Although I've only been able to follow a few trials up to this point, I have never witnessed any other judge allow these sorts of behaviors in the courtroom. Watching this judge is like watching a dysfunctional parent whose child is being allowed to run the show. This sort of behavior is damaging in so many ways bc it destroys any credibility and respect for the parent.
Are there any remedies to address these issues when they continue to be allowed during a trial?
How does a lawyer prepare for closing arguments? Do most lawyers write everything out or do most lawyers feel it is better to talk from just a few notes?
Can either side make an objection during closing arguments?
Is there a time limit to closing arguments?
Which, in your professional opinion, is more "important": a good opening statement or a good closing argument?
Thanks!
How does the Judge differentiate between evidence and prejudicial/incriminating evidence that's allowed into the trial?Much obliged.
Attorneys,
Are any of you willing to sate how you believe this trial will turn out?
1. Guilty?
2. First degree with premeditation? Second degree? Acquittal?
3. If guilty of murder one, death penalty?
Thanks.