:tyou:
BBM
1. Hearsay is often admissible in court, as "intentional communication of fact," right? Or another exception? Which one, do you think?
It would really depend on the importance and pertinence to the case. With his "spokeswoman" as the one relaying it, his attorney COULD file motion to dismiss it as hearsay. There's not substantial proof that he approved, gave, or told his "spokeswoman" to make those statements.
Hence... the "spokeswoman" could be made to be a witness to verify under oath whether or not she was told these things.
However, looking it into it, the "exclusions from hearsay rule" a.k.a. Rule 801, part d, section 2, articles C, D, and E can apply, which would classify it as non-hearsay.
Rule 801, part d, section 2, articles C, D, and E from Cornell University Law School
2. Chain of custody: Even when broken, items still be can used in the trial, can't they? The defense can ask that it be ruled inadmissable, but does that automatically mean that it would be? The phone for example. Can the fact that GR himself found the phone be used against him, or do you mean the phone's data can't be used based on breaking the chain of custody? I've seen rape cases where the chain of custody with evidence collection was breached and still that evidence was allowed in...BUT the reason for breaking that chain of custody was thoroughly examined, cross-examined, etc. Do you see that as a possibility in this case?
Even when broken, items still be can used in the trial, can't they?
Yes, it can be used.
The defense can ask that it be ruled inadmissable, but does that automatically mean that it would be?
All evidence will be scrutinized for admissibility and inadmissibility, so it's possible that it won't be automatically ruled out.
Can the fact that GR himself found the phone be used against him, or do you mean the phone's data can't be used based on breaking the chain of custody? I've seen rape cases where the chain of custody with evidence collection was breached and still that evidence was allowed in...BUT the reason for breaking that chain of custody was thoroughly examined, cross-examined, etc. Do you see that as a possibility in this case?[/B]
Yes, it can be used against GR. According to him, he picked up the phone and proceeded to photograph it before LE arrived.
This could raise problems though if used in a case. Let's assume that at the outcome of all of this that GR is ruled out as a suspect, but he found the phone.
That phone would be inadmissible due to that chain of evidence. LE only have it on his word as to where he located the phone. Could he have picked it up and moved it? Did he damage any potential prints? Did he wipe away evidence? Did he change the SIM-card? Did he delete any messages?
Let's assume that at the end, that he is the suspect, and he was the first to find the phone.
Then other factors would come into play. Again, LE would only have his word on where he located the phone. All of the above apply. But then you add in other factors. Did he plant the phone there to make it look like the phone was ditched? Was the phone even there to begin with? Was the phone exceptionally clean for having been out in the elements overnight? Would the phone have worked at all in regards to the "Find iPhone app" due to exposure of the elements?
They could nab him for planting evidence if they conclude that the phone was never there to begin with. Phone records themselves could be subpoenaed in order to conclude whether or not numerous calls were made to that number via GR's iPhone, or their house phone, which would be consistent of a "worrying" husband. If there is a lack of such, then it's possible that it was planted there, or wasn't phoned at all out of fear of a by-passer hearing the ringtone and picking it up (though that too could have been a plan, in order to get evidence damaged by having a by-passer hear it, and picking it up, not knowing it would be pertinent to an investigation).
3. Blood under seat: Do you mean that since GR's spokesperson commented on the blood, it can't be used in court? Also, she commented on his affair, calling it an "alcohol fueld tryst." I would imagine that both are key pieces of evidence and will be used as such in court, especially the affair, as motive. Do you? Besides having the spokesperson called to testify under oath herself, do you think it's plausible?
In my response to cluciano63
here, it's possible that it still can be used in court. Also going back to your first question, it's possible that Rule 801 could apply as well in this instance.
I believe that they're key pieces of evidence as well because they indeed highlight possible motives. Another thing that could also be factored in in ruling out hearsay is his (GR's) continued interaction with the "spokeswoman" even after all of those things were stated to the media as being spoken on his behalf.
I know if I were a POI in a case, and my spokesperson was revealing things to the media that I told them in confidence, or saying things to the media that would portray me in a negative light, or cast suspicion on me... I would cut off my interaction with that spokesperson.
The fact that he didn't leads me to conclude that it's possible that he is intentionally wanting to cast doubt and suspicion on himself, to either get a mistrial in any eventual case with him as the suspect (if it were to be tried in Chenango or the surrounding counties), and/or the possibility to request a change of venue to a city or county of his choosing.
lease:
