Macushla
Our Royal Himalayan Gopher Hounds
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,405
- Reaction score
- 2
Chiming in for a quick sec -
I recall it exactly like ZsaZsa. For the record, the State DID object to the ex parte. Baez was so vague when asked by JP 2-3 times to 'give him a hint' - Baez replied that he really couldn't do that. It was at that point when JP summoned ALL attorneys to the sidebar. Immediately after the sidebar, was when the defense made the motion in open court that KC be allowed to waive her right to attend future hearings. I was left with the impression that it really wasn't an 'expert' at all JB wanted to discuss in camera, - that the motion being discussed at sidebar was about KC being allowed to waive her right to attend future hearings.
I could be totally wrong, but the reason I was led to believe that is because JP never granted or denied in open court the defense ex parte request.
Whatcha think, WS attorneys?
Interesting in that I saw it completely different. It's a good thing we are not being called as eye witnesses, isn't it? I thought after JB said he could not give any more hints, the judge called ONLY the defense up for a side bar and I thought that side bar was about this mystery expert (Who I am pretty darn sure is going to be a psychologist or some other mental health professional). When they returned to their seats, JP asked if there was 'anything else' and that was when Mason brought up KC not attending future hearings. *SIGH*, I guess I had better go watch that last part of the hearing again.
ETA: I just watched the last part of the hearing again, at about 19:40 into the video, just the defense meets the judge for a side bar. Have no clue what that means, but it was onlly the defense.