can this be brought up by Jeff Ashton:
State crime-lab chief to resign
Barry Logan, the embattled chief of the state Crime Laboratory, will step down in March.
By Jennifer Sullivan
Seattle Times staff reporter
Originally published February 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM | Page modified February 15, 2008 at 12:42 AM
"The embattled director of the State Patrol crime labs has resigned, accepting responsibility for allegations of sloppy work and fraud that jeopardized more than 100 DUI breath-test results in the past year."
and
"Logan's resignation comes just two weeks after a panel of King County judges ruled that the state toxicology lab one of the two labs overseen by Logan engaged in "fraudulent and scientifically unacceptable" practices while preparing and analyzing breath tests used to prosecute suspected drunken drivers. The judges called for the suppression of the tests and laid much of the blame on Logan, finding he bore "a good deal of the responsibility for [the lab's] shortcomings.""
There is much more. I don't understand why this guy is testifying about anything.
This kind of thing could come in (maybe) only if Logan were accused of doing something similar in this case.
Pulling this over from another post by AlwaysShocked, for some lawyer-take on it:
Not being familiar with "lawyerspeak" I will be awaiting hearing what both our "board lawyers" and the experienced lawyers on the TV shows have to say about the Lippman/Tuckman brouhaha.
Being very familiar with "doctorspeak" I can say that oftentimes when a doctor speaks to a patient/family members about a serious condition, it is often extremely significant what the doctor DOESN'T say.
Ex: When the CAT scan indicates what appears to be a cancerous tumor, if the doctor says "This is a highly treatable cancer. We will begin treatment immediately" that is different than the doctor saying "This is a cancerous tumor. We will begin treatment immediately". See the subtle difference?
If you have not been standing there listening to doctors making these kind of statements to patients/families for a long time you are not going to pick up on the difference.
I think lawyerspeak is similar and we will need to have another experienced attorney or two or three to decipher Mr. Lippman's latest statement.
What I suspect is going on is that Mr. Lippman went very, very close to the line in his conversation with Reporter Tuckman and now does not want to be accused of betraying client confidentiality.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6739763&postcount=373"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2011.06.22 - Breaking News Folks! George and Cindy Anthony think Casey is guilty!!![/ame]
My reading of that "clarifying" statement (LOL) was that Mr. Lippman "indicated" somehow to Tuckman that the As did not think Casey was innocent (of what, though? who knows?) but didn't exactly "say" it because he was trying to convey the information without technically revealing A/C privileged information. Just an educated guess based on the information left out of the statement.
CA did not testify today as to what was in her depo, can she be charged with perjury?
Sure, she "can" be charged. But she won't be charged, because it would be impossible to prove that she actually LIED either time vs. misspoke, was misunderstood, was on medication, newly remembered, blah blah blah. In addition, if prosecutors charged everyone who testified in court contrary to their deposition testimony with perjury, every significant trial in the country would result in multiple spin-off trials for perjury. It would be madness.
Mark Lippman has stated that his clients just want to know the truth. And while they do not agree with anything the defense said in their opening statement, they do not want the State to obtain their ultimate goal, which is the death penalty for their daughter. They also said they would do whatever they could to keep the State from obtaining their goal.... or words to that effect.
What I would like to know is can the State, in rebuttal, ask Cindy if she made the comment that she would do whatever she could to keep Casey from receiving the death penalty? Since Mark Lippman repeated it, I "assume" that it is no longer privileged information between attorney and client. And can LDB ask her, if her answer if yes, "Does that include lying?" (Or something like that
)
ETA: I tried to find the article that included Lippman's comments, but I was unable to find it. Maybe someone has a link to it.
TIA!!!
I don't think Lippman said they would "do anything" to prevent the death penalty. But in any event, Cindy will not be asked this question. There are hearsay and A/C privilege problems (and Lippman does not have the power to waive the privilege)--and besides, the SA have no idea what Cindy would say in answer to the question so they will certainly not ask it.
When testifying for the prosecution, did Cindy really say anything that helped them? Wasn't it more to put identified items into evidence? If they can prove she impeached her testimony, I know it will hurt the defense, but will it hurt the prosecution too?
In other words, is there any way the prosecution can reasonably get around Cindy's testimony today???
Yes, I think Cindy helped the prosecution the first time she took the stand. Just as one example, she said that the laundry bag was kept in the garage inside a black garbage bag (meaning it was empty, accessible to Casey, and already in a garbage bag for convenient body-disposal purposes).
She was certainly impeached by the prosecution today, but I don't think it will hurt her earlier testimony, because the jury will say (IMO), "Wow. It seemed like she was reluctantly honest earlier, but now she's lying for her daughter." IOW, the jury is not required to label a witness "TRUTH-TELLER" or "LIAR"--they can pick and choose which testimony to believe if there is some reason to think a witness is sometimes being truthful and sometimes lying.
"Is there any way the prosecution can reasonably get around Cindy's testimony today?" Yes, I think they've already done it by forcing her to jabber on and on about her fictional Google searches, and they can do more on rebuttal and in closing.
I recently had a mother on the stand who was equally ridiculous in the lengths she would go to to protect her daughter from facing any consequences for her actions. She said sometimes she would go in her daughter's room in the middle of the night and play with her daughter's phone and maybe accidentally sent text messages to a number that maybe she accidentally put in her daughter's phone if she was just trying to enter a number to remember it later but maybe entered it wrong.... Mothers have an instinct to protect, and it takes a certain strength of character to overcome that when necessary. The jurors will understand this.
I'm wondering if the State can argue to bring in Cindy's work records at this late date due to JP's ruling with regard to disclosure. Can they argue that Cindy changed her testimony from what she said in her depo as a reason to allow them to bring in this new evidence in order to impeach her?
They have already entered her work records as evidence. And it would not be a "late date" even if they entered them as evidence during the rebuttal phase--it would be exactly the right time.
Could the prosecution move to hold CA in Contempt, charge her with Perjury, or would it simply be easier to Impeach her?
We know that Cindy's work records are already part of the evidence the state has, but if they can prove her testimony today was an outright lie by subpoena of further records (i.e. time cards, computer activity, meeting schedules, phone records, or security entry/exit records), wouldn't they have enough to charge her with either Contempt or Perjury ?
Would the value of doing so outweigh the resources or amount of effort required?
Thank you so much for all of your time, assistance, and patience with non legal eagles like me !
I answered the question about perjury above. Contempt is not applicable here.
IMO the State may try to gather more evidence from Gentiva ASAP to present in rebuttal to completely decimate Cindy's claims, but they still won't charge her with perjury.
How are the measurements of the duct tape in relation to Caylee's skull not material? The State published to the jury hypothesized superimposed images of the tape in relation to her skull & face before decomposition.
I was really surprised by HHBP's ruling. Will this issue be revisited?
Hopefully someone who saw this part of the video will respond to you (I didn't see it). Whatever the ruling was, I am certain HHJP did not say that the measurements of the duct tape in relation to Caylee's skull were not material.
During Cindy Anthony's testimony today she brought up Casey being charged with Check Fraud. Did that open the door for the State to bring in Casey's previous convictions?
No. To "open the door" to that, the defense would have to bring out something like "Casey has never been in trouble with the law." Besides, if Cindy said it on her own, without being asked, there would be no "door opening" IMO.
