GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #5

[sonjay]

If I were a witness in a criminal case and was asked not to talk, I wouldn't be talking. So, yes, I consider it's a good thing.
By the way, why doesn't EN talk? He can certainly talk if he wanted to. I guess that doesn't concern you.

Yes, he can talk if he wants to. We don't know how much he's talking to his lawyers. He absolutely has the right to tell his side in court, and he also has the absolute right not to talk, though. That not only doesn't concern me, but it makes me very happy. I wouldn't want to live in a country that forced people to incriminate themselves.

 

[ontheclock]

I'm thinking that this latest round of babbling from Bob might be an indication that LE has been getting tough in their questioning of RM, BM & KM. Pressing hard for the truth. Indicating that they don't believe their earlier statements.

I think Bob realized that his earlier stories aren't being believed -- so he comes out with yet another new version, and also lawyers up because he recognizes that he and his family may be getting themselves into legal hot water.

Totally agree. I can't see any other reasoning.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

"The team also intends to question the version of events given by both Las Vegas Metro police and the victim's family.'"

Which version would that be and will we be on like version 10.7 by the time the trial arrives?

 

[sonjay]

Can the defense call RM as a witness to testify what BM and KM told him about this neverending story?

Finding a way to get RM on the witness stand would be a dream come true!

I'm going to take a WAG that the Claus brothers are going to try to get RM's testimony about that allowed under one of the hearsay exception rules.

I don't think they'll succeed, but I hope they do.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Can the defense call RM as a witness to testify what BM and KM told him about this neverending story?

Finding a way to get RM on the witness stand would be a dream come true!

If the prosecution intends to call A and/or K or otherwise introduce evidence from them, I don't see how the defense could be denied RM as they'd be equivalent hearsay witnesses.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Whatever he was told or not told is hearsay. He isn't a witness.

Krisztian's hearsay testimony on what EN said was used to get the grand jury indictment against EN

 

[Miss Muffet]

Which version would that be and will we be on like version 10.7 by the time the trial arrives?

Newone said the versions the family and LE told BOTH told. Since LE isn't talking anymore, it's unlikely 10.7 would qualify.

 

[sonjay]

If the prosecution intends to call A and/or K or otherwise introduce evidence from them, I don't see how the defense could be denied RM as they'd be equivalent hearsay witnesses.

"Admission of guilt" is one of the hearsay exceptions -- at least in the federal code; Nevada's rules might be different.

A&K's testimony could be considered admissible under that exception.

RM's testimony probably wouldn't be -- unless BM and/or KM actually confessed to RM that they killed their mother, which is unlikely.

 

[jjenny]

Krisztian's hearsay testimony on what EN said was used to get the grand jury indictment against EN

What's allowed in the grand jury doesn't mean it will be allowed at trial. DA runs a show at grand jury. At trial, judge will decide what's allowed and what isn't.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Krisztian's hearsay testimony on what EN said was used to get the grand jury indictment against EN

I wonder why the male EN witness didn't. I'm guessing he's less credible looking/sounding than the female.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I'm going to take a WAG that the Claus brothers are going to try to get RM's testimony about that allowed under one of the hearsay exception rules.

I don't think they'll succeed, but I hope they do.

If any hearsay evidence from A and K is used by the prosecution but similarly situated hearsay evidence is denied to the defense, that would be grounds for appeal on any conviction obtained. The prosecution and defense have to be allowed to operate on a level playing field and if things get tilted where only the prosecution is allowed to introduce certain kinds of evidence that would not only be pretty straightforward grounds for a successful appeal but unjust as well. The only exception for RM that wouldn't apply to A and K would be spousal privilege, but that wouldn't apply to this case.

 

[jayme1133]

I'm thinking that this latest round of babbling from Bob might be an indication that LE has been getting tough in their questioning of RM, BM & KM. Pressing hard for the truth. Indicating that they don't believe their earlier statements.

I think Bob realized that his earlier stories aren't being believed -- so he comes out with yet another new version, and also lawyers up because he recognizes that he and his family may be getting themselves into legal hot water.

It has been my opinion all along that BM should have had charges too.Claus brothers are probably demanding reports of testing. IF no testing was done due to running w/ "road rage" they are in serious trouble! There must be some changes (questions) towards RM with LE so RM is explaining to us (ha). Not sure duct tape would keep him quiet.

I hope RM testifies but if he doesn't he will talk to reporters. Not sure I like all RM's "animal" references and worry about EN and his family when EN is released.

A

 

[jjenny]

If any hearsay evidence from A and K is used by the prosecution but similarly situated hearsay evidence is denied to the defense, that would be grounds for appeal on any conviction obtained. The prosecution and defense have to be allowed to operate on a level playing field and if things get tilted where only the prosecution is allowed to introduce certain kinds of evidence that would not only be pretty straightforward grounds for a successful appeal but unjust as well. The only exception for RM that wouldn't apply to A and K would be spousal privilege, but that wouldn't apply to this case.

This just simply isn't true. There are rules for hearsay. Just because some hearsay statements are allowed doesn't mean they all will be.

 

[jjenny]

I wonder why the male EN witness didn't. I'm guessing he's less credible looking/sounding than the female.

Because DA doesn't need two witnesses claiming the same thing.

 

[sonjay]

If any hearsay evidence from A and K is used by the prosecution but similarly situated hearsay evidence is denied to the defense, that would be grounds for appeal on any conviction obtained. The prosecution and defense have to be allowed to operate on a level playing field and if things get tilted where only the prosecution is allowed to introduce certain kinds of evidence that would not only be pretty straightforward grounds for a successful appeal but unjust as well. The only exception for RM that wouldn't apply to A and K would be spousal privilege, but that wouldn't apply to this case.

Exceptions to the hearsay rule are deceptively simple on the surface, but very complex in practice.

I have no doubt the defense will fight strenuously to keep out A&K's testimony. My non-lawyer's assessment is that they will fail, due to the "admission of guilt" hearsay exception.

I would guess the defense will also try to get RM's testimony about what BM & KM told him admitted. My non-lawyer's assessment is that they will fail, due to that testimony not falling under any of the hearsay exception rules.

They'll get Bob on the stand, no doubt. He'll testify about where he was when he heard about the shooting, and when he first got home after the shooting. He'll probably testify about any previous contact he had with EN, or times that he saw EN with TM or any of his kids. But I doubt they'll be allowed to ask him what BM & KM told him about what happened. Again, that's just my non-lawyer's assessment.

Bob might actually be smarter than what we give him credit for. He's kept the kids under wraps; they've hardly said anything publicly that they could be impeached for on the stand. Bob can't testify about what they've said to him, so he's free to say whatever he wants publicly, and it's likely that none of it will be admissible in court.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Because DA doesn't need two witnesses claiming the same thing.

Since they only needed one, they chose the one who would be the best witness.

The weaker male witness may be an advantage for the defense. He might not clean up well. He might be more hip-hop street type looking like EN. Since they're friends and all, that's my guess. He might not be a very articulate speaker too.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

This just simply isn't true. There are rules for hearsay. Just because some hearsay statements are allowed doesn't mean they all will be.

That is why I'm talking about similarly situated witnesses precisely because there are rules. Excited utterances heard from one prosecution hearsay witness follow the same rules as excited utterances heard from one defense witnesses.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I would guess the defense will also try to get RM's testimony about what BM & KM told him admitted. My non-lawyer's assessment is that they will fail, due to that testimony not falling under any of the hearsay exception rules.

Given how RM is on record contacting the media immediately while he was still out of state, I think it's pretty safe to say he received some excited utterances if not present sense impressions as well. Also the prosecution is going to have witnesses that are begging to be impeached based on prior inconsistent statements, which using someone as an impeachment witness is different than as a hearsay witness, which RM could impeach other witnesses.

 

[jjenny]

That is why I'm talking about similarly situated witnesses precisely because there are rules. Excited utterances heard from one prosecution hearsay witness follow the same rules as excited utterances heard from one defense witnesses.

Since both BM and KM will be available in court, there is no need for someone to come in with some sort of hearsay from them.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Since both BM and KM will be available in court, there is no need for someone to come in with some sort of hearsay from them.

That is precisely when you do as that is the very purpose of impeachment witnesses. Impeachment evidence will be begging to be introduced precisely because of what is testified to and that is where you introduce all RM's statements showing that whatever BM/KM are impeached by prior inconsistent statements. Also BM/KM would themselves be hearsay witnesses to what TM said, like her alleged refusal to have 911 called and for BM to get a gun and go in the car instead, which that in particular would be begging for impeachment and has been an ongoing issue of inconsistent statements where now it was an ambush unrelated to a car accident, which contracts the declaration.