GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - #10

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #801
  • #802
Although this article is from a law journal in Michigan, an interesting information read:

Michigan Bar Journal March, 1997
OBTAINING THE UPPER HAND WITH MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Motions in limine are commonly used in trial preparation in order to narrow the issues for trial and further guide testimony and presentation of evidence, as well as possibly reduce a client's costs associated with trial. Motions in limine can also be used to gain important strategic advantages during pretrial and trial by limiting an opponent's proofs, or precluding an entire theory of his or her case.

A motion in limine is defined as:
A motion, heard in advance of jury selection, which asks the court to instruct the defendant (or plaintiff), its counsel and witnesses not to mention certain facts unless and until permission of the court is first obtained outside the presence and hearing of the jury. Lapasinskas v Quick, 17 Mich App 733, 170 NW2d 318 (1969).

Various Uses of In Limine Motions

The purpose of a motion in limine is to determine whether certain evidence may be presented to the jury, in any form and at any stage. See Lapasinskas, supra, and 63 ALR 3d 311. Generally, a motion in limine is used to exclude evidence that a party believes to be irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial. Often, motions in limine may also be dispositive in nature by seeking to exclude evidence necessary to prove a key aspect of an opponent's case. Examples of such motions in limine are those which seek to preclude an opponent from introducing speculative damages or an expert from testifying about unsubstantiated topics.

Motions in limine can also be effectively used to educate the court about the case, and hopefully cause it to question a key aspect about an opponent's case. Another purpose of the motion may be to aid the credibility of counsel. The jury may view counsel who make repeated objections, or who seek to excuse it, as attempting to hide information. Thus, a pretrial in limine ruling avoids disruption of the trial from needless objections, and avoids the jury being excused for offers of proof.

Lots more at link http://www.millerlawpc.com/journal/Obtaining_the_Upper_Hand_with_Motions_in_Liminie.html
 
  • #803
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt
 
  • #804
16)MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EMAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES ALLEGEDLY
SENT BY AARON LEWIS http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...RESTS-C-Lowery-guilty&p=12095163#post12095163

While it ironic is AL/CL used the Textme app, I am curious how Pros are going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "AL" sent the alleged emails/texts? Because of the testimony of someone who plead guilty in a plea bargain? If I am sitting on a jury, I want.. no expect the State to have more than that. Just like BC family stated the text messages they received "didn't sound like her" (and most likely were not, but so far all I have seen is the assumption it wasn't, not proof....I say this only in that if I was on the jury, prove to me what your alleging. No matter where it leads) JMHO

Makes me think of CL in that Instagram IIRC conversation with that other female. She was very aware of AL using the app to fake a number. Also having read about the Textme app that someone posted here.... you can also download on an iPad. We know from the Motions, that 1 iPad was taken in. Within reason is it possible someone could have used the phone or iPad interchangeably? I guessing that's where IP address and so forth will come in. JMHO

5. "While direct evidence is not required to authenticate a text message or email,
most jurisdictions require something more than just confirmation that the number or email
address belonged to a particular person." State v. Koch, 334 P.3d 280, 288 (Idaho 2014). "When
there has been an objection to admissibility of a text message, the proponent of the evidence
must explain the purpose for which the text message is being offered and provide sufficient
direct or circumstantial corroborating evidence of authorship in order to authenticate the text
message as a condition precedent to its admission." Id.

6. The need for authentication arises in this context because an electronic
communication, such as a Facebook message, an e-mail or a cell phone text
message, could be generated by someone other than the named sender. This is
true even with respect to accounts requiring a unique user name and password,
given that account holders frequently remain logged in to their accounts while
leaving their computers and cell phones unattended. Additionally, passwords and
website security are subject to compromise by hackers. Consequently, proving
only that a message came from a particular account, without further authenticating
evidence, has been held to be inadequate proof of authorship.
State v. Eleck, 23 A.3d 818, 822 (Conn. 2011).
 
  • #805
16) MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EMAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES ALLEGEDLY
SENT BY AARON LEWIS http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...3#post12095163

2. The State has provided Defendant with text messages and emails allegedly sent by
Matthew Davis.

3. Defendant believes the State intends to introduce text messages and emails
allegedly sent by Defendant in the trial. The State must meet two burdens. First, the State must
meet the authentication requirements under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 901, which is a condition
precedent to admission. Second, the State must also prove they were authored by Defendant or
they should be excluded as hearsay.

4. This Court should preclude the State from introducing any text messages
allegedly sent by Defendant unless the State has provided sufficient authentication under
Arkansas Rule of Evidence 901.

Wondering if Matthew Davis was the "referral person" ?

Rule 901. Requirement Of Authentication Or Identifcation [Identification].

(a) General Provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissiblity [admissibility] is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
(b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:
(1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be.
(2) Nonexpert opinion on handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.
(3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.
(4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.
(5) Voice identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.
(6) Telephone conversations. Telephone conversations, by evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time by the telephone company to a particular person or business, if (i) in the case of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one called, or (ii) in the case of a business, the call was made to a place of business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.
(7) Public records or reports. Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.
(8) Ancient documents or data compilation. Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form, (i) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, (ii) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and (iii) has been in existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.
(9) Process or system. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result.
(10) Methods provided by statute or rule. Any method or [of] authentication or identification provided by [the Supreme Court of this State or by] a statute or as provided in the Constitution of this State.

Associated Court Rules:
Arkansas Rules of Evidence
Group Title:
Article IX. Authentication and Identification
https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-a...1-requirement-authentication-or-identifcation
 
  • #806
16) MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EMAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES ALLEGEDLY
SENT BY AARON LEWIS http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...3#post12095163

. Additionally, Defendant objects on the grounds that the emails/text messages are
hearsay. A.R.E. 801; A.R.E. 802.

10. The State may claim that the text messages allegedly sent by Defendant are nonhearsay
because they are statements by a party-opponent. A.R.E. 801

Rule 801. Definitions.
The following definitions apply under this Article:
(a) Statement. A "statement" is
(1) An oral or written assertion; or
(2) Nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him as an assertion.
(b) Declarant. A "declarant" is a person who makes a statement.
(c) Hearsay. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
(d) Statements Which Are Not Hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if:
(1) Prior Statement By Witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (i) inconsistent with his testimony and, if offered in a criminal proceeding, was given under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a disposition [deposition], or (ii) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (iii) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him; or
(2) Admission By Party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (i) his own statement, in either his individual or a representative capacity, (ii) a statement of which he has manifested his adoption or belief in its truth, (iii) a statement by a person authorized by him to make a statement concerning the subject, (iv) a statement by his agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of his agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or (v) a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Rule 802. Hearsay Rule.
Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by law or by these rules.

https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-and-administrative-orders/arkansas-rules-of-evidence
 
  • #807
None of this is at all surprising. It's like throwing a whole lot of stuff at the wall and just hoping some of it sticks. It's what lawyers do. I do have to chuckle when I picture AL tryng to act as his own lawyer. He could have NEVER done all that!
 
  • #808
Wondering if Matthew Davis was the "referral person" ?


I think "Matthew Davis" may have been the fictional name that AL gave BC when he set up the appointment. Is that what you mean by referral person?
 
  • #809
I think "Matthew Davis" may have been the fictional name that AL gave BC when he set up the appointment. Is that what you mean by referral person?

I thought that was Steven Adams.
 
  • #810
  • #811
More Subpoenas filed yesterday

10/01/2015
09:02 AM SUBPOENA RETURN BY PROSECUTOR
Entry: STACY POWERS, 1-12-14-16, JT @ 8:30 AM
Images No Images

10/01/2015
09:02 AM SUBPOENA RETURN BY PROSECUTOR
Entry: BRENDA RHODES, 1-12-14-16, JT @ 8:30 AM
Images No Images

10/01/2015
09:02 AM SUBPOENA RETURN BY PROSECUTOR
Entry: JANE HALL, 1-12-14-16, JT @ 8:30 AM
Images No Images

10/01/2015
11:44 AM SUBPOENA RETURN BY PROSECUTOR
Entry: JOANN BUTLER, 1-12-14-16, JT @ 8:30 AM
Images No Images

10/01/2015
11:44 AM SUBPOENA RETURN BY PROSECUTOR
Entry: KIM MARTIN, 1-12-14-16, JT @ 8:30 AM
Images No Images
https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60CR-14-3928&begin_date=&end_date=
 
  • #812
I think "Matthew Davis" may have been the fictional name that AL gave BC when he set up the appointment. Is that what you mean by referral person?

As MPNOLA said, the names that the Pros stated at CL hearing July 7 used to set up the appointment were Steven and Crystal Adams. I am unsure who the "Matthew Davis" is, new name for me. Considering that it was in the Motion about text messages and emails, is why I was thinking that.


16) MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EMAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES ALLEGEDLY
SENT BY AARON LEWIS http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...3#post12095163

2. The State has provided Defendant with text messages and emails allegedly sent by
Matthew Davis.

3. Defendant believes the State intends to introduce text messages and emails
allegedly sent by Defendant in the trial. The State must meet two burdens. First, the State must
meet the authentication requirements under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 901, which is a condition
precedent to admission. Second, the State must also prove they were authored by Defendant or
they should be excluded as hearsay.

4. This Court should preclude the State from introducing any text messages
allegedly sent by Defendant unless the State has provided sufficient authentication under
Arkansas Rule of Evidence 901.
 
  • #813
None of this is at all surprising. It's like throwing a whole lot of stuff at the wall and just hoping some of it sticks. It's what lawyers do. I do have to chuckle when I picture AL trying to act as his own lawyer. He could have NEVER done all that!

Exactly!! On all points lol. I just think its interesting because thru these filings we get a few new little tidbits of information from actual court documents.

And your so right on AL never could have done lol, wore me out just reading and copy pasting. Or the legal sense either ;)
 
  • #814
Today is AL's omnibus hearing. 8:30 a.m.
https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-and-administrative-orders/court-rules/rule-203-omnibus-hearing
Rule 20.3. Omnibus Hearing.

(a) At the omnibus hearing, the trial court on its own initiative shall:

(i) ensure that standards regarding provision of counsel have been complied with;

(ii) ascertain whether the parties have completed the discovery required in Rule 17.1, and if not, make orders appropriate to expedite completion;

(iii) ascertain whether there are requests for additional disclosures under Rules 17.3, 17.4, 18.2, and 18.3;

(iv) make rulings on any motions, demurrers or other requests then pending, and ascertain whether any additional motions, demurrers or requests will be made at the hearing or continuations thereof;

(v) ascertain whether there are any procedural or constitutional issues which should be considered;

(vi) upon agreement of counsel, or upon a finding that the trial is likely to be protracted or otherwise unusually complicated, set a time for a pretrial conference; and

(vii) permit a defendant to change his plea.

(b) Unless the court otherwise directs, all motions, demurrers and other requests prior to trial should be reserved for the omnibus hearing and presented orally. All issues presented at the omnibus hearing may be raised without prior notice either by counsel or by the court. If discovery, investigation, preparation, or evidentiary hearing, or a formal presentation is necessary for a fair determination of any issue, the omnibus hearing should be continued until all matters are properly disposed of.

(c) Any pretrial motion, request or issue which is not raised at the omnibus hearing shall be deemed waived, unless the party concerned did not have the information necessary to make the motion or request or raise the issue.

(d) Stipulations by any party or his counsel shall be binding upon the parties at trial unless set aside or modified by the court in the interests of justice.

(e) A verbatim record or comprehensive summary of the omnibus hearing shall be made and preserved. This record shall include the disclosures made, all rulings and orders of the court, stipulations of the parties, and an identification of other matters determined or pending.

Associated Court Rules:*

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Group Title:*

Article V. Pretrial
 
  • #815
  • #816
  • #817
[video=twitter;651048357792616448]https://twitter.com/victoriapricetv/status/651048357792616448[/video]
Atty. Bill James told judge they will not be withdrawing #arronlewis plea of not guilty by reason of mental defect #ARnews
ETA: Guess this means his new mental evaluation proved different than the first one. Ugh.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
 
  • #818
If you want to see a video of AL, KATV CH 11 Phil Buck got video. LOL told him where to stand.... Only reporter in the courtroom was ARK Dem Gaz reporter.

AL in Courtroom total maybe 15 min.... Asked for Continuance ... Nov 16 830 a.m. Haven't checked Pacer for latest AL filings, but I can tell you this, if he is writing or filing anything, I doubt its coherent. He seemed def medicated and it took iirc 5 LEO to get him into the cruiser. His hair is longer and it kinda flipped up in back like a duck tail.

Waiting on Mental Report and Not withdrawing Not Guilty by Mental Defect.

:judge: That's it...
 
  • #819
http://www.thv11.com/story/news/cri...killing-realtor-granted-continuance/73374736/
AL was granted contunuance.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
He looks awfully smug on that picture. Really irks me. And this business of being a mental defect, so what, he probably is. I don't get why that gives them a pass to commit murder. They do the crime you should pay the price like any "normal" person that commits murder. I say that with irony because anyone that can kill someone intentionally or through gross negligence is defective.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
  • #820
I read an article over the weekend that said the Carters should have their Beverly Carter Foundation up by Nov 1. But there is inaccurate info in the article. That's what gripes me... Slackers in Reporting. Most stuff the screw up is in the documents... DP was off table long time ago and CL has been AL wife since April 20, 2014 JEESH!!!

Home » Fatal Realtor kidnapping pushes real estate industry to change
Real Estate
Fatal Realtor kidnapping pushes real estate industry to change
Suspect lured agent to remote property showing one year ago
Trey GarrisonSeptember 28, 2015 2:47 PM


snip
Arron Lewis, of Jacksonville, was arrested and stands charged with Carter's murder. He faces the death penalty. His girlfriend at the time, Crystal Hope Lowery, was also charged with capital murder for her role.

Lowery has since pled guilty and received a 30-year reduced sentence, contingent on her agreement to testify against Lewis. Lewis is scheduled for his capital murder trial on Jan. 12.

....
Carl and the Carter family are working on creating the Beverly Carter foundation, which will focus on providing assistance and support for women in a variety of areas.

“The goal of that will be to empower women from providing support for victims of abuse, whether domestic or violent crime, and to support for single mothers and education for women,” he says. “My mom only had a GED. She overcame a lot and we want to help other women do that in her name”

Carl says the family expects to have the foundation established by Nov. 1. More at link http://www.housingwire.com/articles...napping-pushes-real-estate-industry-to-change
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
3,363
Total visitors
3,485

Forum statistics

Threads
632,634
Messages
18,629,517
Members
243,231
Latest member
Irena21D
Back
Top