2010.11.29 Hearing: RE: Defense's Experts Not Creating Reports

[Dear Prudence]

I didn't get to see the hearing. Was the defense ordered to turn over e-mail "reports"? I've had several cases in which the opposing counsel tries to hide written reports by having the expert's conclusions communicated solely by e-mail.

No the defense wasn't ordered to turn over emails. They have to turn over only notes, photos or videos taken by their experts during examination of evidence. The defense also has to provide the subject each expert will be testifying about to the prosecution. I really think the defense came out ahead today, but I just keep reminding myself it leaves little reason for appeals later on.

 

[mysteriew]

RHornsby just popped into the legal experts thread, and says it is not unusual for experts to not write a report.

That's what I was thinking.

This may be payback from JB. Remember early on, JB wanted several reports. I think maybe the autopsy and things from the FBI. He was told that there wasn't a report yet. And the judge said he couldn't make the state provide something that wasn't written yet.

Okay looking at it from the defense's point of view, let's say defense hires an expert and they have an opinion that differs from the state legal expert. If they reduce it to writing, it becomes discoverable and the state has a chance to review it with their own experts and come up with a strategy to clarify/explain/correct/rebut the defense experts conclusions. But with no written reports, the state and the state's experts have to guess at what the experts are going to testify to. Also if it is in writing, it is open to be brought up in court even if the defense doesn't like the experts conclusions or some part of the conclusion.

So the defense holds oral discussions with the experts finding out their conclusions, and determining what part of the conclusion they want to bring out in court. And the expert gives oral testimony.

 

[beach]

I understand sort of why the defense may choose to use a strategy of no written expert witness reports, but isn't that a huge risk for them? Among other things isn't the report what essentially allows them to where necessary impeach their own witness on the stand, should the witness start to stray into territory favorable to the prosecution? The report is the defenses formal guarantee of what the witnesses opinions are and what they will say on the stand. Is there a risk of going in without one the witness may back off of some verbally communicated stands and choose more middle ground positions that will preserve their general credibility, rather than linking them to the absurd claims of a sinking ship of a defense? I would think in this case it would be even more important since the defense is not the ones directly paying the expert. Once they hit the stand, they're gonna get paid by the state no matter what they say. Would the report not be the only leverage the defense had to insure that their witnesses say what they want or need?

Yes, it is a risk. If there was anything exculpatory we would know about it, IMO. So, the defense is just gonna have to trust that their experts can spin, confuse and double-talk with the best of them and do it without screwing up. By the time they testify the jury will have already heard testimony from the SA experts who HAVE provided reports that will be referenced by the SA. I guarantee that JA and LDB will rip the defense experts apart on cross-exam. Fear not people - they will be masters of damage control, blow all that ugly smoke right out of the room and provide the jury with fresh air and a reality check.

I love that the defense is left to trust any of these experts. Cause their real loyalty lies with themselves. I can think of a couple whose credibility is already sorely lacking....they can't afford anymore bad publicity on a national level.

 

[nums24]

Yes, it is a risk. If there was anything exculpatory we would know about it, IMO. So, the defense is just gonna have to trust that their experts can spin, confuse and double-talk with the best of them and do it without screwing up. By the time they testify the jury will have already heard testimony from the SA experts who HAVE provided reports that will be referenced by the SA. I guarantee that JA and LDB will rip the defense experts apart on cross-exam. Fear not people - they will be masters of damage control, blow all that ugly smoke right out of the room and provide the jury with fresh air and a reality check.

I love that the defense is left to trust any of these experts. Cause their real loyalty lies with themselves. I can think of a couple whose credibility is already sorely lacking....they can't afford anymore bad publicity on a national level.

If the defense were to find something exculpatory, they would most likely file another motion to dismiss or at the very least to remove the death penalty right?

 

[krisskross]

Not to be confrontational:innocent: BUT Did NOT the good Dr. perform his autopsy in December, 2008 WELL before the JAC payment figures went into effect? Was it ever identified that Werner served in a "pro bono" manner for the :croc:defense gang du jour:croc:?


Now THOSE notes should be available to the SA (not that they'll be of much use or value EXCEPT to concur with the information from the official District 9 OME report, but you all MUST remember I'm a :angel:biased female!:angel

I think Spitz may have done the autopsy in December, certainly no later than January 09. And I suspect he and Cathy Reichs got a big chunk a change from the ABC money. Never heard anything about Spitz working pro-bono (would be totally out of character) or reducing his findings to a report. I do however, remember hearing C Reichs on a tv show, saying she could not discuss her remuneration.

So,:waitasec: given today's ruling, :waitasec: if Spitz and Reichs don't make it to tomorrow's dead line witness list, they don't get deposed?........ :waitasec: ergo the State don't get to ask them how much they were paid? Is that how it works?

Im so confused. :crazy:

 

[chefmom]

I think Spitz may have done the autopsy in December, certainly no later than January 09. And I suspect he and Cathy Reichs got a big chunk a change from the ABC money. Never heard anything about Spitz working pro-bono (would be totally out of character) or reducing his findings to a report. I do however, remember hearing C Reichs on a tv show, saying she could not discuss her remuneration.

So,:waitasec: given today's ruling, :waitasec: if Spitz and Reichs don't make it to tomorrow's dead line witness list, they don't get deposed?........ :waitasec: ergo the State don't get to ask them how much they were paid? Is that how it works?

Im so confused. :crazy:

I'll have to re-read the motion and re-watch the first of the hearing, but I'm pretty sure that I heard/read JA include all past experts when he requested payment records. All of those currently needing/being paid and those that have been paid in the past. Something like that.

 

[beach]

If the defense were to find something exculpatory, they would most likely file another motion to dismiss or at the very least to remove the death penalty right?

Nah, they would just present it at trial and hope the jury saw it their way. If it were some earth-shattering bombshell (e.g., they found Zanny and added her to their witness list or their expert found JG's DNA all over the trunk) the jury would acquit her. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[krisskross]

I'll have to re-read the motion and re-watch the first of the hearing, but I'm pretty sure that I heard/read JA include all past experts when he requested payment records. All of those currently needing/being paid and those that have been paid in the past. Something like that.

Thanks Chefmom

I thought J Perry ruled the State can only get the payment details through deposition.

What I need clarified is .....if the defense decide not to use a particular expert, can the State still depose them? I tend to think not...but :waitasec:

 

[faefrost]

I think Spitz may have done the autopsy in December, certainly no later than January 09. And I suspect he and Cathy Reichs got a big chunk a change from the ABC money. Never heard anything about Spitz working pro-bono (would be totally out of character) or reducing his findings to a report. I do however, remember hearing C Reichs on a tv show, saying she could not discuss her remuneration.

So,:waitasec: given today's ruling, :waitasec: if Spitz and Reichs don't make it to tomorrow's dead line witness list, they don't get deposed?........ :waitasec: ergo the State don't get to ask them how much they were paid? Is that how it works?

Im so confused. :crazy:

I think if they don't add them before the deadline then they don't get to testify. At least not without a hearing showing a reason to add them at the late date.

 

[chefmom]

Thanks Chefmom

I thought J Perry ruled the State can only get the payment details through deposition.

What I need clarified is .....if the defense decide not to use a particular expert, can the State still depose them? I tend to think not...but :waitasec:

Lol! Sorry! I guess I read that wrong! :crazy: However, I feel, (note I am saying "feel" :dance that with so many questions surrounding the allocation of funds by the defense team, someone should at least know how much, if any, all of the original players were paid before the declaration of indigency. It would not surprise me at all to know that the original "experts" were stiffed on payment. The way that JA worded that motion, and the way he put emphasis on certain wordings in court today makes me think that he either knows something, or suspects something shady going on with JB and he is going to nip it in the bud or bring it to light. I don't know, but the SAO sure seems to be keeping a close eye on the defense. I am so glad that they are!

 

[RR0004]

My personal opinion...not that it's worth much...they're just not going to do anything to make the SA's job any easier. This trial cannot come soon enough.

 

[joypath]

I think Spitz may have done the autopsy in December, certainly no later than January 09. And I suspect he and Cathy Reichs got a big chunk a change from the ABC money. Never heard anything about Spitz working pro-bono (would be totally out of character) or reducing his findings to a report. I do however, remember hearing C Reichs on a tv show, saying she could not discuss her remuneration.

So,:waitasec: given today's ruling, :waitasec: if Spitz and Reichs don't make it to tomorrow's dead line witness list, they don't get deposed?........ :waitasec: ergo the State don't get to ask them how much they were paid? Is that how it works?

Im so confused. :crazy:

Absolutely he performed the post before Jan'09 as the OME gave permission for cremation (final disposal) on the death certificate on 12/31. Like you, it's my understanding that if the individual is not on the expert witness list by the impossed deadline, THAT'S IT!

 

[zoey]

My personal opinion...not that it's worth much...they're just not going to do anything to make the SA's job any easier. This trial cannot come soon enough.

But didn't you just love it when jb said he didn't want to do the work for the SA---that they did their own work by rolling up there sleves and so on and so forth??????LOVED THAT especially since he was told at several hearings that HE NEEDED to do HIS OWN WORK ---

this whole thing is a game for the defense---which makes me angry---I truly wish that it wasn't such a game ---- the search for the truth vs. the search for the ways around the truth (LIES).... :furious:

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Sounds like shady tricks to me. No reports, no discovery. If they don't reduce it to writing, they don't have to turn it over. Only someone who was trying to hide something or "get one over on" would do something like this. If they had something helpful to ICA, they would have written a report, faxed it to the news outlets and called a press conference. JMO.

BBM....BINGO...Chefmom...Baez is shrewd, eh...

Sorry I haven't read this entire thread but when I heard/read the experts did not generate any reports I felt this was a shrewd move. If there are no reports, there is no discovery filed...but His Honor was one step ahead and told Baez to hand over notes/photos from the experts...This didn't slip by JBP...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[kaRN]

BBM....BINGO...Chefmom...Baez is shrewd, eh...

Sorry I haven't read this entire thread but when I heard/read the experts did not generate any reports I felt this was a shrewd move. If there are no reports, there is no discovery filed...but His Honor was one step ahead and told Baez to hand over notes/photos from the experts...This didn't slip by JBP...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

Shrewd is a nicer word than what I was thinking. What would be the word for Ms Sims who makes a living shredding apart Medical Doctors for less than stellar reports? Hypocrite doesn't seem harsh enough.

My anger isn't directed at you LLL. It's the supression of truth that has my blood boiling.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Shrewd is a nicer word than what I was thinking. What would be the word for Ms Sims who makes a living shredding apart Medical Doctors for less than stellar reports? Hypocrite doesn't seem harsh enough.

My anger isn't directed at you LLL. It's the supression of truth that has my blood boiling.

I understand, Karn, my blood boils each and everytime I see ICA with that smile on her face. She still doesn't get it, does she? Seems to me, Baez is playing her hand. She will never admit to wrongdoing...BTW, I wonder if CA picked ICA's shirt yesterday...she wears orange all day long in her prison garb, what the hell was she thinking giving her an orange blouse to wear! Although, I admit, ORANGE is the color ICA will wear for the rest of her sorry life....so she may as well get used to it...LMAO...sorry for that off topic sentence..

I hate that Baez is playing foul, he's not honest, to say the least. He thinks this case is going to make him, I believe it will break him. His smug attitude will bite him in his butt, one day..I just hope it's the day those jurors vote, "guilty as charged" on the capital murder charge...I think he might feel he's going to win, which will bring no justice to Caylee. I hate that defenders try their cases as a win or loose, instead of justice being served. Stranger things have happened when jurors deliberate. I just hope those who sit on this one have the victims justice in mind. If ICA gets off, what an injustice that will be to Caylee, as if she hasn't been disrespected enough...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[Numbers]

I understand, Karn, my blood boils each and everytime I see ICA with that smile on her face. She still doesn't get it, does she? Seems to me, Baez is playing her hand. She will never admit to wrongdoing...BTW, I wonder if CA picked ICA's shirt yesterday...she wears orange all day long in her prison garb, what the hell was she thinking giving her an orange blouse to wear! Although, I admit, ORANGE is the color ICA will wear for the rest of her sorry life....so she may as well get used to it...LMAO...sorry for that off topic sentence..

I hate that Baez is playing foul, he's not honest, to say the least. He thinks this case is going to make him, I believe it will break him. His smug attitude will bite him in his butt, one day..I just hope it's the day those jurors vote, "guilty as charged" on the capital murder charge...I think he might feel he's going to win, which will bring no justice to Caylee. I hate that defenders try their cases as a win or loose, instead of justice being served. Stranger things have happened when jurors deliberate. I just hope those who sit on this one have the victims justice in mind. If ICA gets off, what an injustice that will be to Caylee, as if she hasn't been disrespected enough...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

If you will remember the bacne photos, Casey wears blah washed-out navy blue all day. Orange was probably a treat for her.

My eyes are still screaming, though.

 

[logicalgirl]

But didn't you just love it when jb said he didn't want to do the work for the SA---that they did their own work by rolling up there sleves and so on and so forth??????LOVED THAT especially since he was told at several hearings that HE NEEDED to do HIS OWN WORK ---

this whole thing is a game for the defense---which makes me angry---I truly wish that it wasn't such a game ---- the search for the truth vs. the search for the ways around the truth (LIES).... :furious:

What I liked was Baez's face when they were talking about the hearings on the 20th and 21st of December. He looked as if he has no intention of working that week and may have been planning to be out of town. Not a happy boy.

Also HHJP managed to slip in a couple of bear in minds and a working weekend crack at him also. Good times!

 

[chefmom]

What I liked was Baez's face when they were talking about the hearings on the 20th and 21st of December. He looked as if he has no intention of working that week and may have been planning to be out of town. Not a happy boy.

Also HHJP managed to slip in a couple of bear in minds and a working weekend crack at him also. Good times!

Lol! Yes! His face looked like he couldn't believe they were going there! JA and HHJP were casually discussing working those days leading up to Christmas, with JA saying maybe they would have to use 2 mornings due to other prior caseloads, and JB was glaring over at him in disgust! Hahahaha! If looks could kill! I bet they are messing up his plans! Maybe a Christmas excursion on Geraldo's boat? :dance:

 

[debbie0604]

You don't work without records and you would never testify without a copy of your records. EVER. The defense told their experts to destroy their records and shredded all of theirs IMO. There's no list of defense experts to contradict the states and won't be IMO.

:clap: Thank you!!!!! ITA!!!!!!