CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #18

[gitana1]

If Chase is found not guilty, can he or his family members have a case against libel, rumor spreading and character defamation against him or his family members?

No.

 

[la2cabo]

Yes, I think it was another question about...guess who...Kavanaugh.

I wonder what the defense would do if they didn't have DK as their scapegoat? They'd probably try to hone in on another innocent person. Smh

 

[missy1974]

Maybe, in all the time they have hanging around outside the courtroom they collectively write questions they'd like to ask the judge. I don't know if that counts as discussing the case.

Any discussion or wondering about something in relation to the case IMO would be "discussing" the case lol I guess the Judge doesn't have a problem with it ... so must not be considered discussing the case... just seems coincidental that "several" would wonder the same thing.

 

[gitana1]

Is Maline definitely not DP qualified? If not, what you suggest could be possible then?

Unless they got a different death penalty qualified attorney to step in.

 

[missy1974]

I wonder what the defense would do if they didn't have DK as their scapegoat? They'd probably try to hone in on another innocent person. Smh

We won't know the answer to that because they do have DK to point the finger at in this case...

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

so my first thought with this was.... how is it that SEVERAL jurors come to ask the same question if they are not allowed to discuss the case? They all just coincidentally asked the same random "can we see the truck in person" question? I was listening at work... and have had time to think about it before getting home and I'm surprised no one here has wondered yet lol

I was a tad suspicious at first but then thought perhaps one or two of the jurors asked the foreman to ask the judge and the judge perhaps responded along the lines of...if there are enough jurors wanting to see the truck then yes, that can be organised/arranged. Something like that lol. MOO

 

[Tortoise]

I thought the defense and the judge went into chambers ex-parte? (in regards to McGee) I was expecting the live stream to come back afterwards with them discussing the video, but it didn't lol

Was it ex-parte because it excluded Merritt? Because I think the prosecution went into chambers with them.

Or maybe they just wanted to be able to discuss McGee's requirements (reclining chair, foot rest, nurse etc) without it being filmed.

 

[missy1974]

Was it ex-parte because it excluded Merritt? Because I think the prosecution went into chambers with them.

Or maybe they just wanted to be able to discuss McGee's requirements (reclining chair, foot rest, nurse etc) without it being filmed.

they asked for an ex-parte hearing... when the judge asked what for... Maline said McGee (I thought I saw him just point to him but was only half listening), I didn't see the pro's going into chambers, the next time I looked it was black. I looked to see if they uploaded yet today and they haven't. And Cathy did tweet this...

Cathy Russon‏ @cathyrusson
#McStay - Judge the defense and judge are in chambers with the court reporter. Maline asked the judge for an ex parte hearing and motioned that it may have something to do with McGee.

ex-parte is only one side... Merritt would have probably been asked if it was okay to exclude him (like last week) I would imagine it's a logistical thing with him and having to have a guard close by, etc.

 

[Cricket28]

Can you imagine the families going through all this again? Joey and Summer's families have gone through so much already.

No la2cabo I cannot imagine the families having to go through all this again. I really and truly cannot imagine. But even the innocent children of Chase and his family (the innocent ones) going through this again.

Uggg!!! MOO

 

[gitana1]

Welcome! I would say that a majority of the people here think that he’s guilty. A passionate minority thinks that he’s innocent. There’s a few cool skeptics around, too. Read a little while, and you’ll see who is who.

You’ll fit in, whatever you believe, as long as you don’t fly off the handle and start calling people names. I doubt that’ll be a problem.

So—what DO you think? Personally, I think he’s guilty—not sure what the jury will decide, though.

I haven't been folllowing. What stage of the case are we at? Is the state done with their presentation?

 

[gitana1]

@gitana1 Since you ARE a lawyer, would you be willing to weigh in on the wisdom of Chase sueing for defamation of character, if the jury finds him Not Guilty? (Not sure who he’d be sueing.)

He cannot. There is a litigation privilege such that no one can sue an attorney or opposing party for things stated during litigation.

 

[Longtimenoc]

Maybe, in all the time they have hanging around outside the courtroom they collectively write questions they'd like to ask the judge. I don't know if that counts as discussing the case.

Maybe a couple are discussing the case. Wrong but it's human nature. Lengthy lunches, high powered testimony, wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Tortoise]

I haven't been folllowing. What stage of the case are we at? Is the state done with their presentation?

Defense is almost finished.

 

[Longtimenoc]

And after all the testimony that nails Merritt and they are worried about the truck this is not good imo.

 

[gitana1]

Hmmm, class action lawsuits are where a lot of people sue someone/something. What do you call it when one person sues a whole lot of people? Is there a word for the concept?

It's just a lawsuit!

 

[Cricket28]

Of course I'm serious. I welcome Bennettfit and all other newcomers regardless if they think Merritt is guilty or not. So long as people are respectful I enjoy hearing other points of view. I can't imagine a system wherein everyone agrees and has the same opinion. How boring would that be?

AGREE!! 100%!!

MOO

 

[Cricket28]

so my first thought with this was.... how is it that SEVERAL jurors come to ask the same question if they are not allowed to discuss the case? They all just coincidentally asked the same random "can we see the truck in person" question? I was listening at work... and have had time to think about it before getting home and I'm surprised no one here has wondered yet lol

Actually, in all honesty, I have wondered. But my faith is in the jury. I have seen them in person.... and I have no doubt in them!

MOO

 

[gitana1]

I haven’t had time to listen to the trial. I assume that you mean that the state is objecting to questions? Are their objections being sustained? If so, it’s not a case of ‘trying to hide something,’ —it’s just a case of the defense asking questions that they’re not legally entitled to ask.

That's right. I haven't watched but examples could be that the defense is trying to introduce hearsay or statements that lack foundation, etc. Or issues that have been deemed inadmissible during pretrial motions.

We have rule of law for a reason!!

 

[missy1974]

And after all the testimony that nails Merritt and they are worried about the truck this is not good imo.

I think it could be looked at lots of different ways ... it could just be that they want to see the position of the dang lights themselves... maybe they want to see the latch? maybe they want to see the bumper... maybe they want to see how much room is in the back of the truck?

I am not sure that either side should feel comfortable with it... I would want the truck to be what it looked like in 2010 and it doesn't. It's been painted (I believe the back part used to be gray and not white) and I think the back top brake lights had been changed (not the side one) the box for the light or something had changed.

 

[gitana1]

so my first thought with this was.... how is it that SEVERAL jurors come to ask the same question if they are not allowed to discuss the case? They all just coincidentally asked the same random "can we see the truck in person" question? I was listening at work... and have had time to think about it before getting home and I'm surprised no one here has wondered yet lol

Maybe because they all had the same thought. I mean wouldn't they arrange for just one or two jurors to ask if they were all discussing the case?

From what I've seen jurors tend to take their duties super serious for the most part.