I've been thinking about what JM can do with AVL on cross re what she's not supposed to testify about and how JW is trying to plant it in the jury's mind that she is testifying to it. Couldn't he ask her a string of questions like this, or would that open the door to anything. It's a given there will be objections galore of course.
"Ma'am, how many times did you interview Mr Alexander?"
"That right, none, because the defendant, whom you swore under oath that you "liked", stabbed and shot and killed him, right?"
"Without having interviewed Mr Alexander, you cannot say as an absolute fact that in your expert opinion he was abusive to the defendant, right?"
- That's the key one. She can give all this innuendo, but she is not allowed to state this, is she? If she agrees that she cannot, then in effect the jury can disregard everything she testified to; if she says that she can offer it, then wouldn't the judge have to toss that answer and instruct the jury that as a matter of law she cannot offer that as an expert opinion?
"And if in fact he had not been murdered (objection/sustained) slaughtered (objection/sustained) killed by the defendant, and you had been able to hear his side of the story, then it's possible that your expert opinion would be that in this relationship Ms Arias was actually the abusive party, right?"
- He'll surely work this in somewhere. She believes only women can be abused, but this question corners her. If she says it wouldn't be possible, then the jurors will see her bias because you know they're all thinking much of what she said on her first day sounds like JA; if she says it would be possible, then it shoots down almost everything that sounded so great for the defense. Either way, it neutralizes her.
