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

[marspiter]

I'm with kaRN on this one. These experts probably can't refute the exact specifics regarding the evidence in this case.

I believe they (defense experts) will testify to generalizations and give opinions of what could refute said evidence, not that anything they actually tested did refute the SA's evidence.

 

[denjet]

Agree..it's really odd. I don't understand how there could be no reports.

Baez told his experts to list all of the exculpatory evidence in a report .... hence NO REPORTS ... :biggrin:

 

[denjet]

JB says, in the first part of the hearing, that he "didn't ask the experts to write a report", didn't want to waste their time with "redundancy". Well, I translate that to mean his experts didn't find anything valuable to the defense. Had there been something beneficial to the defense, I think Jose would have it in writing.

Glad you mention that ... when Jose made the "redundancy" remark, I gasped for a moment ... well he couldn't have been referring to reports and evidence that the defense has produced, so did he slip and mean "don't waste time reporting what has already been reported"? reported by the State, that is ... I'm still baffled as to how many times this guy opens mouth and insert foot .... what an idiot :loser:

 

[countzero]

If the attorneys wrote notes, they would be considered work product (e.g., HL reviews some item, then he, JB and CM go into the private room to discuss. If HL tells JB something and JB writes it down - then that is JB's work product). If HL made notes - or even an assistant of HL's - I don't think those would be considered work product. At least not once he is officially listed as an expert witness they plan on using at trial. (I feel pretty confident about that, but would really would like AZ or another atty to clarify for certainty. The scope of what can be considered work product can get a bit tricky.)

Not only this, but if the defense attorneys wrote their notes based on the defense experts talking, those notes would be the attorneys interpretation of what was discussed.

This was that dang inspection of evidence that JB has not released info about. Translation: HL to JB "give me tickety, car still stinky" ...

JB apparently doesn't take notes of what he says, what HHJP says or anyone else so how is JB expecting to write himself an outline of what he wants to examine and cross examine a witness on the stand without notes/documentation of examined evidence by defense experts (the ones still remaining) ?????

He wasted the good folks in Florida's money buying that iPad.

 

[NSS]

They should call upon me for my expert testimony.

As a mother and grandmother, I can testify that sometimes the kids brush the dog with their brush, and last Friday our dog went to doggie heaven. Maybe that hair you found actually belonged to Fido sir.

SA - But it was human hair

Yeah the one YOU found, you SAY is human, but it could have been Fido, if he'd been in the trunk, yes?

SA - Was Fido in the trunk?

Sheesh, Fido was just code for brown haired dog, I'm not going to tell you his real name.

SA - There was a deathband.

Didn't I just tell you, the dog formally known as Fido is dead?

NEXT

 

[MissJames]

Agreed - because Baez could write it to make his defense look good. His decision is a very bad one, and I'm quite shocked the experts went along with it. They might as well not bother showing up to court.

MOO

Mel

Unless I hear the experts say they did not produce reports I won't believe it. The depositions by the SA's should shed some light on the subject :dance:

 

[chefmom]

Unless I hear the experts say they did not produce reports I won't believe it. The depositions by the SA's should shed some light on the subject :dance:

BBM

ITA! It makes no sense that a professional would do an examination of evidense for a high-profile case yet put absolutely nothing in writing. This is just another one of JB's games. He seems to like to skirt the law, just teetering at the very edge, trying oh so hard to blur the lines between barely legal and not so fast. Remember, this is the man who consulted with an ethics attorney in the very early hours of this case. That says it all, IMO.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Hummming right along with all of you here..IF expert witness do not enter any report..how can they charge for their service..IF that is the case..they can only charge for time spent reviewing, and office expenses such as phone calls..etc...I have no doubt the prosecution is aware that defense is "hiding' things..claiming workproduct only..but its not a wonder they are requesting expenses and job description for all the defense experts.....Sorry thousands of dollars billed for phone calls, and looking at slides, pictures doesnt cut it!! JMOO but really..as Judge Judy says "Dont pee on my leg and tell me its raining"..:liar:

 

[logicalgirl]

BBM

ITA! It makes no sense that a professional would do an examination of evidense for a high-profile case yet put absolutely nothing in writing. This is just another one of JB's games. He seems to like to skirt the law, just teetering at the very edge, trying oh so hard to blur the lines between barely legal and not so fast. Remember, this is the man who consulted with an ethics attorney in the very early hours of this case. That says it all, IMO.

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

 

[chefmom]

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

I have heard several of our peeps say it's not unusual, but I still say that if there were something that was good for the defense, they would have a report and it would be posted on the internet, CA would be touring the media outlets waving it under every camera she could. Not being unusual doesn't make it the norm, KWIM? :dance:

 

[CarolinaMoon]

There have to be notes of conclusions if the defense is going to use the expert. Notes that aren't "work product" will be turned over, as per Judge Perry.

From watching so many trials since the inception of Court TV, I can tell you this happens quite often. There will be no hair expert because he found nothing to contradict the State's reports. If there is information from an expert witness that will support the defense, they will have to turn over the notes that say so. Remember, if an expert witness does write a report, it comes from his notes.

It just makes more work for the prosecution and I can't think of a better attorney to do the digging than John Ashton. He's been doing this for longer than Jose Baez took to gain admission to the Bar.

Same with the expense/billing issues. There is nothing sadder than watching an expert on the stand trying to remember how much he/she billed! Does nothing for his/her credibility.

I watched Alan Jackson, lead prosecuter in the Phil Spector case literally humiliate Werner Spitz and other well-known experts as they tried to do the math. Doesn't help credibility when such a smart person doesn't know how much he was paid.

 

[MissJames]

Hummming right along with all of you here..IF expert witness do not enter any report..how can they charge for their service..IF that is the case..they can only charge for time spent reviewing, and office expenses such as phone calls..etc...I have no doubt the prosecution is aware that defense is "hiding' things..claiming workproduct only..but its not a wonder they are requesting expenses and job description for all the defense experts.....Sorry thousands of dollars billed for phone calls, and looking at slides, pictures doesnt cut it!! JMOO but really..as Judge Judy says "Dont pee on my leg and tell me its raining"..:liar:

Not only is the Prosecution aware of it,but HHJBP knows a thing or two about defense experts

 

[AZlawyer]

I saw that and I agree with what she is saying. However, I thought they could be used to impeach a witness on the stand should their testimony change. I asked her on the hearing thread. Hoping to get some clarification in re. the value of the (non)reports.

A report could be used for impeachment. That could be one reason that reports are not being prepared.

Another question for our legal eagles -- how will the prosecution question any of these experts without reading their reports? It makes no sense to me.

ummmmm...mr expert....what did you do?

Yikes!

Mel

Yeah, pretty much like that. What information were you given by the defense? What evidence did you inspect? What did you do with the evidence? Then what did you do next? Do you have any opinions regarding the evidence? What are your opinions? Any other opinions? Etc.

If the attorneys wrote notes, they would be considered work product (e.g., HL reviews some item, then he, JB and CM go into the private room to discuss. If HL tells JB something and JB writes it down - then that is JB's work product). If HL made notes - or even an assistant of HL's - I don't think those would be considered work product. At least not once he is officially listed as an expert witness they plan on using at trial. (I feel pretty confident about that, but would really would like AZ or another atty to clarify for certainty. The scope of what can be considered work product can get a bit tricky.)

IMO if an expert/assistant made notes about what he observed, those would be discoverable.

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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.

Mr Baez stated that he did not ask for reports as that would be asking for extra work, and many of the experts are working Pro Bono or at JAC rates.
A couple of minutes later though, he states that there are no reports back from any of the experts that might have prepared them....
Semantics again...

 

[BondJamesBond]

I didn't get to see the hearing.

*snip*

I didn't get to hear the seeing.

If we can find someone that didn't get to speak the hearing we've got all the bases covered.

:Benny_monkeysmilies

OT: :ban me:

 

[ynotdivein]

*snip*

I didn't get to hear the seeing.

If we can find someone that didn't get to speak the hearing we've got all the bases covered.

:Benny_monkeysmilies

OT: :ban me:

Not sure about all that, but many of us sneered the hee-heeing...

:dance:

:truce:

 

[Nore]

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.

--------------
The minute I heard this I was sure he just didnt like what he heard.IMO if it were good news he'd be shouting it out.Sounds shady to me also chefmom.:croc:

 

[faefrost]

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?

 

[joypath]

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