Trial - Ross Harris #8

[minor4th]

I'm listening to post-testimony proceedings, and I gotta say it makes me nervous when a lawyer has to ask what "reckless" means.

I almost want to hand him a dictionary, or better yet have JRH google it for him since he's good at that.

Words have meaning, right? Right? :facepalm:

So what does reckless mean as applied by the law?

 

[minor4th]

Well, I get a great ruling on support retroactivity, bad one on on-going support, neutral on child custody, good one on property, unjust one on discovery sanctions which should have been awarded to my client and that's probably appealable. She's pissed off but I'm happy we were done by 12!!! And despite not agreeing with some of the rulings, I liked the judge.

But I'm damned shocked diamond isn't testifying! Anyone know why not? That's stunning.

The law is an *advertiser censored*

 

[Hope4More]

No way would a defense expert that key to the case miss due to a scheduling conflict. And they knew his price when they put him on tbe witness list. He would've been the most important witness for Ross of all. I would've told his family to mortgage their homes to pay for him.

Those two possibilities from the "not guilty " camp weren't the only ones proposed, but who knows. Plenty of wild speculation going on, pick your flavor.

 

[minor4th]

OHHHH...The DT was trying to get a lesser included MISDEMEANOR negligent manslaughter added....Judge said :denied:

The defense had some really good arguments for including charges on lesser includeds and different charges.

If she sticks with her "inclination" to not give those charges, this is one area I could actually see a reversal and new trial.

 

[minor4th]

Did I just hear the judge say she will do some research into a lesser included charge of death by motor vehicle?

It wasn't death by a motor vehicle. It was some kind of child neglect statute.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Now that I realized this woman has been a judge for over thirty years---makes me more confident in her judicial rulings.

Thank Goodness she was nothing like Sherry Stephens (Judge in Jodi's Arias trial) as I found her far too wishy washy..indecisive..wasted so much time behind closed doors etc etc.. I know Juan Martinez prosecutor, was becoming so frustrated with her inability to decide anything without taking hours and days to decide!! She came across so insecure that I'm sure it's what ended up with the first mistrial!!!

Let's hope appellate decision looks at all her decisions ..and the consequences of them that led to "Unfairness" before they cause any retrial here!! Of course the lawyers seeking verdict overture have to lay out what the judge withheld from the juror's in order to make such a decision ...

 

[gitana1]

No. The Grinch stole Christmas.

Hey thanks for that great synopsis on the psych's testimony. I understand what you meant. I think he did very well on cross. Good, solid witness. I just don't know that he helped the defense much. He can only do so much with the facts of the case.

And I wonder what the jury is going to think of his references to the elusive Dr. Diamond who they never get to hear testify.

 

[minor4th]

I guarantee it was not Diamond's expense that was the reason for him not testifying. I can also guarantee it was not because the defense decided they didn't need him.

Beyond that, it is completely speculation, but I wish I knew.

 

[monkeypants]

And get this: the defense is going to pay upwards of 40k plus for a computer forensic expert that didn't have LE experience and didn't even produce a report for court.

Weighing the options I think the defense would have spent the 40k for Diamond rather than Moulton if cost were an issue. IMO

And refused to meet or speak with the state

 

[katydid23]

The defense had some really good arguments for including charges on lesser includeds and different charges.

If she sticks with her "inclination" to not give those charges, this is one area I could actually see a reversal and new trial.

I think there will be SOME lesser includeds at the end. But they were trying to get a misdemeanor negligent homicide added on. I don't think that is fair.

 

[minor4th]

It just dawned on me that if RH knew that his house of cards double life was starting to crack then that would be his motive. (In his words he loved his side life) So was CH's death just about not having to pay inevitable child support and have a custody dispute? I mean parents have killed over this. If he was planning an accidental death he only had a brief period of time in which to attempt such a thing. I think LH was only weeks away from finding out about all of his deeds. If she knew about his affairs she would have divorced him right then. Work was likely getting exasperated at him slipping. Something that really really bugged me was when LH said "What about your job?" He was at the police station and they had just found out their child was dead.

No. That makes literally no sense.

 

[katydid23]

Thank Goodness she was nothing like Sherry Stephens (Judge in Jodi's Arias trial) as I found her far too wishy washy..indecisive..wasted so much time behind closed doors etc etc.. I know Juan Martinez prosecutor, was becoming so frustrated with her inability to decide anything without taking hours and days to decide!! She came across so insecure that I'm sure it's what ended up with the first mistrial!!!

Let's hope appellate decision looks at all her decisions ..and the consequences of them that led to "Unfairness" before they cause any retrial here!! Of course the lawyers seeking verdict overture have to lay out what the judge withheld from the juror's in order to make such a decision ...

She has been a judge for 30 years. I think she has enough experience and accrued wisdom by now to understand what she can or cannot do legally with these decisions. She does make them quickly bi=ut I think i tis because she understands the law.

 

[minor4th]

I think there will be SOME lesser includeds at the end. But they were trying to get a misdemeanor negligent homicide added on. I don't think that is fair.

That's the one that absolutely should be included and there's a very good legal reason for that.

 

[katydid23]

That's the one that absolutely should be included and there's a very good legal reason for that.

such as? I thought the State provided some case law to say it should not be allowed?

This is a very experienced Judge. Thirty years on the bench. I wonder how often she is reversed?

 

[Bethan]

Posted in error

 

[Maisiebelle]

I just watched it back again. She is doing research on homicide by vehicle in the 2nd degree.

 

[DexterMorgan]

She has been a judge for 30 years. I think she has enough experience and accrued wisdom by now to understand what she can or cannot do legally with these decisions. She does make them quickly bi=ut I think i tis because she understands the law.

Agree.

Because judges have way more evidence than what they allow the jury to see.

 

[katydid23]

Judge Staley graduated *advertiser censored* laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree from the State University of West Georgia in 1975. She earned her Juris Doctor from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1978. After graduating from law school, Judge Staley served as an Assistant District Attorney for the Cobb Judicial Circuit from 1978-1982. She was elected Magistrate Judge of Cobb County in 1982, and then elected State Court Judge, Division I in 1984. She was elected Judge of the Superior Court of Cobb County in 1992, and served as Chief Judge from 2005-2006. She is currently the presiding judge for the Cobb County Mental Health Court.

Judge Staley is actively involved in many civic and professional organizations. She was selected to be a member of the 1996 Class of Leadership Georgia. She is co-author of Georgia Jurisprudence Family Law. She was the 2001 recipient of the Joseph T. Tuggle Professionalism Award, Family Law Section, State Bar of Georgia. She was recognized by the Cobb County Y.W.C.A as its 1994 Woman of Achievement. She was the 2014 recipient of the Cobb Schools Foundation Leaders & Legends Award. She was awarded the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce Distinguished Woman award in 2015. She served as president of the Kiwanis Club of Marietta 2014-2015. She served as president of the Council of Superior Court Judges 2014-2015.

https://cobbcounty.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2197&Itemid=981


She has mega experience, including being President of the Council of Superior Court Judges. and been a Superior Court judge and HEAD Superior Court Judge. I think she knows her legal precedents pretty well.

 

[TexMex]

I think there will be SOME lesser includeds at the end. But they were trying to get a misdemeanor negligent homicide added on. I don't think that is fair.

Is that the one she said "It's not supported by the facts, it's not supported by the law. I'm not giving it."?

 

[Hope4More]

Wow. That's bad for Ross's case. But I must say it tells me something about how Diamond feels about the case. I felt it didn't compare to those that he's testified on in the past.

So why do you suppose he was all the way on board, at least through August 2016? There is no evidence I'm aware of that wasn't know yet by the DT, and Diamond had 2 full years to fully familiarize himself with RH's case.

If it's true he will only come on board if he believes the death was accidental, then he believed that at least until August 2016, and seemingly committed to testifying at trial.


I just don't find it plausible that a credible expert witness bailed at the last minute because he got delicate about maintaining his reputation.