Recent content by rsc42

Yes, they have an obligation to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence under Brady. But they also have a duty to disclose all relevant inculpatory evidence that they plan to use at trial in a timely fashion, as provided under the applicable discovery rules. There is no "trial by ambush," in...

Not a Florida lawyer, but in most states (and the federal system for that matter), if the last day of a prescribed period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the new last day is the next business day. So if 30 days falls on a Sunday, then they have the following Monday. Otherwise you are correct...

More likely weeks to a couple a months under these circumstances.

They are represented by Orin Snyder, who is an extremely well-respected prestigious lawyer that normally works in a totally unrelated practice area (think high-level corporate work), but has been helping the family due to some personal relationship he had with them.

To everyone above bemoaning the mistrial on KG, please take a step back and relax. Overall this was very much a win for the prosecution. Guilty on the triggerman, and a mistrial which very much favors the prosecution on the next go-round. KM will stay in custody pending a new trial, and the way...

I do not believe it is possible to poll the jury when a verdict is not reached. ETA: as a poster mentioned above, once this case is fully over and the jury is released from the admonitions, they can voluntarily disclose their feelings re the mistried defendant if they wish.

It is my pleasure, and thanks for the kind words. This case has been really fascinating to follow.

Your comment raises a very interesting point about juries and the jury trial process. The defense never has the burden of proof, and a defendant declining to testify and declining to present their own witnesses and evidence should never be held against them. In fact, the jury will be explicitly...

Correct. The standard for succeeding on appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel is that (1) counsel's performance was objectively deficient, and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have been achieved with different, adequate counsel. So not only is...

Yes, it is Wendi's statement that it is at issue - Wendi's statement to Lacasse, made in the course of normal conversation and not in a legal proceeding, which he is now being asked to testify about.

Correct, this is probably the best way to avoid getting a headache - just assume that this issue was litigated and that the statements have been ruled non-hearsay or hearsay-subject-t0-an-exception.

You quoted the rule listing the hearsay exceptions, and bolded the part about prior inconsistent statements, presumably to show that Lacasse's statements re what WA told him were admissible under that exception. However the rule specifically requires that the prior statement being offered be one...

Think about it this way. Our focus is on the statement that is being offered, and whether it is hearsay or not - we are talking about the prior statement. The rule says the prior statement can be admitted if (1) it is inconsistent with the current testimony of a witness, and (2) the prior...

Correct. Which is why Lacasse's statements would not be allowed in under the theory that they are being admitted to impeach WA. The rule requires that the statement being offered for impeachment was itself a statement given under oath. So Lacasse's statements are coming in under some other...

Look at subsection (a) though - the prior statement has to have been given under oath at a legal proceeding. In this case, the statements we are talking about are not WA's sworn testimony, we are talking about Lacasse's recollection of things she said to him during personal conversations.