CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #9

[Plumeria5]

Are there any photos of CJ?

 

[MsFacetious]

Oh boy. I would be so unhappy right now if Chase was my client! What a PAIN!

Wow!!! So she will be testifying. Can't wait.

I knew she'd testify... whether she's doing it happily is another issue altogether though.

I think we just now found out. And the judge has ruled that it's coming in. How will this go down on appeal? Can the DT say we were blindsided? Just awaiting arguments from the not guilty side. This is so much more interesting than cell phone data!

I'm not the "not guilty side" I'm just the "defense paralegal/PI poster" so I come across that way. I don't know if CM is guilty or not but I hope I'm sure before the trial is over. If that ever happens!

These recordings were done THIS month. So no, the defense can't claim trial by ambush. If it was a recording of him meeting his lawyer, that would be different. However, while one might not believe they are being recorded... there is no expectation of privacy.

It does make things VERY challenging though. A defense attorney cannot always go visit as frequently as they'd like. Yet they are the only ones who are protected when they do. So sometimes case stuff gets discussed in a regular visit, you just try and be careful it's nothing crucial.

#McStay - CORRECTION to this tweet. The recording devices were placed by Sgt. Ryan Smith, not Catherine Jarvis.
Cathy Russon (@cathyrusson) | Twitter

I was going to say if they had HER place them that could open a whole other can of worms! Glad to see that she was equally unaware.

Now it appears to be more lies, too bad, looks like some kind of entrapment by LE, defense can use this in their favor now.

This wasn't entrapment at all. If the defense tries to claim it was to use it in their favor, the jury is only going to believe they are idiots.

Thinking they had to make special provisions because he was talking through glass partition and not the phone. I suddenly have a renewed interest in this case. Was starting to lose heart.

My question would be how well the phones worked in visiting?
I once went to visit a client to inform him that his wife had rolled her car and was in a coma. The stupid phones in the visiting room cubicle didn't work worth crap!

We ended up literally writing things down in order to explain to him what happened. It was awful. I've also visited in ones where you had to push a button when you talked and that was a disaster too.

Quite honestly I prefer the ones without any communication devices, where you just talk through the holes next to the glass. It's still a pain but at least it's reliably painful!

I bet there is, or the defense wouldn't be fighting so hard to prevent the jury from hearing them.

I would fight to keep them out from pure exhaustion! This trial is already going to last FOREVER. If they bring in recordings, then the defense has to rebut them... that's just a longer trial and even more work. Unless they obviously helped the defense, I wouldn't want to deal with them even if they weren't damaging. It's just so time consuming.

There is ALWAYS a Deputy assigned to "visiting." Their job is to make sure no contraband gets passed or that an inmate has a way to escape. We had a visitor who tried to remove the screws holding the glass in one time. I'm not sure about SBSO, but "our" visiting rooms the deputy couldn't hear w/o the phones being used.

There are many visiting areas now that are not monitored at all in person. There are just cameras that the guards watch and if they see anything inappropriate there are intercoms. Some are so low tech they literally flash the lights when your visit is over. Some don't even do glass now, but video visits.

BBM. Will the jury know about all of that though? I'm just not sure how a jury would react to LE interviewing CJ and threatening her to change her story OR ELSE....and then she doesn't change it, she sticks to her story. Maybe the jury could see this as more evidence of confirmation bias? Just a thought.

I think that's very possible too. I have seen some awful situations of threats to a spouse by law enforcement! The favorite threat when it isn't being recorded is "we will come take your kids away!" We actually got personal apologies from Prosecutors for LE's behavior in those cases. We always encourage people we work with to record ALL communication that is case related.

Yep. The State might want to be careful what they wish for. The judge has made it clear that if they State uses it, he is then allowing the defense to bring in all her statements, some of those are recorded interviews with SBSD. Do they really want to do that?

JUST MY OPINION <<<< in case it's not clear

No, they don't want to do that. Please? We want this trial over before 2020!

Balancing these things are constant during trial. If we push for this evidence, do we really want to deal with refuting it? It's a constant evaluation on risk vs benefit vs time and delay. It's exhausting.

I wish we could have seen CM's reaction to what went on today. Are defendants only in street attire when the jury is present?

Yes. They only change on trial days when they will be in front of the jury. It's to avoid a bias from the jury. Same reason the victim's family can't wear pictures of the victim's in court.

 

[asyousay]

I am happy the tapes will be played they to have a reason why they want them in and regardless this trial is lasting until nearly Christmas at the pace they moving.

 

[missy1974]

I would fight to keep them out from pure exhaustion! This trial is already going to last FOREVER. If they bring in recordings, then the defense has to rebut them... that's just a longer trial and even more work. Unless they obviously helped the defense, I wouldn't want to deal with them even if they weren't damaging. It's just so time consuming.



I think that's very possible too. I have seen some awful situations of threats to a spouse by law enforcement! The favorite threat when it isn't being recorded is "we will come take your kids away!" We actually got personal apologies from Prosecutors for LE's behavior in those cases. We always encourage people we work with to record ALL communication that is case related.




No, they don't want to do that. Please? We want this trial over before 2020!

Balancing these things are constant during trial. If we push for this evidence, do we really want to deal with refuting it? It's a constant evaluation on risk vs benefit vs time and delay. It's exhausting.

McGee did mention the time consumption, may have been in regards to the defense having to ask for these things, that they shouldn't have to and he doesn't have the time to go through them all either (calls) lol Reading your post reminded me.

He also said in regards to Chase urging her to remember something... that he has evidence of LE doing the same and we could spend 2 months going down that road if they want lol

As for threatening to take kids ... that's horrible. That's why I'm not so sure the Prosecution really wants the defense to be able to play those LE interviews if there are any threats to CJ in them.

Also... about the phones. There was no mention that the phones were bad/hard to hear, etc. Just letting you know

 

[missy1974]

I am happy the tapes will be played they to have a reason why they want them in and regardless this trial is lasting until nearly Christmas at the pace they moving.

I *think* they will only be played if CJ takes the stand. JMO

 

[coastal]

ok all... I have listened to it all, I have typed up what I can... LOL It's lots, don't shoot me for typo's and/or grammar! I may have missed a word here and there... I have kids and a hubby coming in and out and 2 wiener dogs that bark every time the wind blows haha

Judge: Court finds, no expectation of privacy, to jail visits or phone calls. Further finds not a requirement to turn over routinely recorded phone calls. Only required when someone finds something that they want to use. ...

Snipped for space. Thank you, missy1974!

 

[Niner]

So I'm guessing this is a go for today?

Thursday, February 28th:
*Trial continues (Day 25) (@ 9:30am PT) - CA - McStay Family: Joseph (40), Summer (43), Gianni (4) & Joey Jr (3) (Feb. 4, 2010, Fallbrook; found Nov. 11, 2013) - *Charles "Chase" Ray Merritt (57/now 60) arrested (11/5/14) & indicted (11/7/14) of 4 counts of murder with special circumstance; plead not guilty. DP case.
12 jurors & 6 alternates were finalized on Tuesday (12/11/18). 8 women & 4 men, while the alternates include 4 men & 2 women. Trial started 1/7/19. Dark on Fridays.
Skipping Day 1 (1/7/19) thru 6 (1/15/19) – reference post #1180 here: CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #2
Skipping Day 7 (1/16/19) thru 11 (1/24/19) – reference post #1119 here: CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #3
Skipping Day 12 (1/28/19) thru 14 (1/31/19) - reference post #217 here: CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #5
Skipping Day 15 (2/5/19) thru 17 (2/7/19) - reference post #648 here: CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #6
Skipping Day 18 (2/13/19) thru Day 20 (2/19/19) - reference post #6 here: CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #8
Skipping Day 21 (2/20/19) thru Day 23 (2/25/19 - reference post #128 here: CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #9
2/26/19 Day 24: States witness: FBI Special Agent Kevin Boles on cross exam. Det. Edward Bachman (recalled to stand). Trial continues to 2/27 will only have morning session as a juror has a prior commitment.
2/27/19 Update: A juror had a personal issue this morning (alternate juror #5 took his wife to the hospital with chest pains) and since court was only scheduled for the morning, the judge cancelled the trial for today. However, Judge, attorneys are in court (different courtroom) for a hearing. Hearing has started. Defense filed a motion yesterday to exclude jail conversations Merritt may have had w/family & friends while in custody. Sgt. Ryan Smith is on the stand. Hearing happened w/o jury present. San Bernardino County has been recording jailhouse visits from earlier this month with Merrit's family/friends using a digital recorder. Merritt had stopped using the jail phone that's monitored. Merritt had been talking through the glass at visits, avoiding the phone. Cathy Jarvis - Merritt's girlfriend at the time of the murders - her name was specifically mentioned by Sgt. Ryan Smith as to Ryan placing recording devices in visiting area. Prosecutor Daugherty: We have evidence Charles Merritt attempted to sway Catherine Jarvis's upcoming testimony. Judge denies defense motion to exclude the recordings. They WILL be played for the jury at some point. Catherine Jarvis will testify for the prosecution. Trial continues to 2/28.

 

[MsFacetious]

Who knows Niner! We will know when it happens or doesn't.

 

[asyousay]

I *think* they will only be played if CJ takes the stand. JMO

Have they not already confirmed she is being called?

 

[MsFacetious]

Have they not already confirmed she is being called?

Even if they had they can always rethink it and choose not to. After realizing what can come in if they have her testify.
We spend most of trial actually kicking out evidence and witnesses we realize we don't need... rather than including more than planned.

 

[Niner]

@Mica - maybe can look up the court site & see what it says. She's probably asleep now. I can't access San Bernardino site....

 

[mrjitty]

Wow - i see i missed some excitement

 

[Tortoise]

I *think* they will only be played if CJ takes the stand. JMO

I think I heard someone (possibly Judge) saying recordings could be played even if she doesn't take the stand. I'm going to listen again.

 

[JMarsh]

Oh boy. I would be so unhappy right now if Chase was my client! What a PAIN!




I knew she'd testify... whether she's doing it happily is another issue altogether though.




I'm not the "not guilty side" I'm just the "defense paralegal/PI poster" so I come across that way. I don't know if CM is guilty or not but I hope I'm sure before the trial is over. If that ever happens!

These recordings were done THIS month. So no, the defense can't claim trial by ambush. If it was a recording of him meeting his lawyer, that would be different. However, while one might not believe they are being recorded... there is no expectation of privacy.

It does make things VERY challenging though. A defense attorney cannot always go visit as frequently as they'd like. Yet they are the only ones who are protected when they do. So sometimes case stuff gets discussed in a regular visit, you just try and be careful it's nothing crucial.




I was going to say if they had HER place them that could open a whole other can of worms! Glad to see that she was equally unaware.




This wasn't entrapment at all. If the defense tries to claim it was to use it in their favor, the jury is only going to believe they are idiots.




My question would be how well the phones worked in visiting?
I once went to visit a client to inform him that his wife had rolled her car and was in a coma. The stupid phones in the visiting room cubicle didn't work worth crap!

We ended up literally writing things down in order to explain to him what happened. It was awful. I've also visited in ones where you had to push a button when you talked and that was a disaster too.

Quite honestly I prefer the ones without any communication devices, where you just talk through the holes next to the glass. It's still a pain but at least it's reliably painful!




I would fight to keep them out from pure exhaustion! This trial is already going to last FOREVER. If they bring in recordings, then the defense has to rebut them... that's just a longer trial and even more work. Unless they obviously helped the defense, I wouldn't want to deal with them even if they weren't damaging. It's just so time consuming.




There are many visiting areas now that are not monitored at all in person. There are just cameras that the guards watch and if they see anything inappropriate there are intercoms. Some are so low tech they literally flash the lights when your visit is over. Some don't even do glass now, but video visits.




I think that's very possible too. I have seen some awful situations of threats to a spouse by law enforcement! The favorite threat when it isn't being recorded is "we will come take your kids away!" We actually got personal apologies from Prosecutors for LE's behavior in those cases. We always encourage people we work with to record ALL communication that is case related.




No, they don't want to do that. Please? We want this trial over before 2020!

Balancing these things are constant during trial. If we push for this evidence, do we really want to deal with refuting it? It's a constant evaluation on risk vs benefit vs time and delay. It's exhausting.




Yes. They only change on trial days when they will be in front of the jury. It's to avoid a bias from the jury. Same reason the victim's family can't wear pictures of the victim's in court.

Did you listen to the entire hearing?

 

[JMarsh]

At this point the state can only win with innuendo. None of their forensic evidence is holding up under scrutiny, and the defense hasn't even presented their case yet.

If you notice the DA isn't bringing forward any evidence of substance. They are presenting evidence of a "bad character". But not of murder. And if everyone who was a schmuck killed people, our species would already be extinct. Most people have character flaws. These jail recordings aren't evidence of anything but Chase trying to get the record straight.

Just imagine for a moment if you were suddenly arrested for something that occurred years ago. And from the point you are arrested you are isolated from anyone who can help you remember events as they happened. And for whatever reason, you can't remember. Chase has had some time to figure out what happened, he's just trying to make sure that Cathy did the same work to recall.

If Chase is innocent (which he really may be) this is traumatic for not only him, but for everyone in his immediate orbit. The state is not playing fair. They are basically dealing in the only currency they have left, character assassination -which isn't the same as hard, factual evidence of murder.

 

[missy1974]

Have they not already confirmed she is being called?

It was always said IF she testifies. So no, no confirmation.

 

[missy1974]

I think I heard someone (possibly Judge) saying recordings could be played even if she doesn't take the stand. I'm going to listen again.

hmmm maybe? Let me know! I don't have time to listen again, if it was said, my guess would be in the last 10 minutes of the recording. That could be when McGee said that he would put the detectives that interviewed CJ on the stand then to bring in her statement to them? I tuned out that last 10 minutes haha

 

[missy1974]

At this point the state can only win with innuendo. None of their forensic evidence is holding up under scrutiny, and the defense hasn't even presented their case yet.

If you notice the DA isn't bringing forward any evidence of substance. They are presenting evidence of a "bad character". But not of murder. And if everyone who was a schmuck killed people, our species would already be extinct. Most people have character flaws. These jail recordings aren't evidence of anything but Chase trying to get the record straight.

Just imagine for a moment if you were suddenly arrested for something that occurred years ago. And from the point you are arrested you are isolated from anyone who can help you remember events as they happened. And for whatever reason, you can't remember. Chase has had some time to figure out what happened, he's just trying to make sure that Cathy did the same work to recall.

If Chase is innocent (which he really may be) this is traumatic for not only him, but for everyone in his immediate orbit. The state is not playing fair. They are basically dealing in the only currency they have left, character assassination -which isn't the same as hard, factual evidence of murder.

What I found most interesting in the exchange about the 4th between the 2... Mr. Merritt telling Ms. Jarvis he was home, she says she knows... it was a Thursday, you would have been at the school.... Phone rang, you saw it, obviously, I didn't, I never remembered that phone call, ever, I still don't to this day.

These are statements made when they don't think anyone is "listening"

I want to know why on Thursday she would be at the school? They still think that she saw that call come through at 8:28pm but Chase didn't answer it, he still doesn't recall it though. I do recall a week or so ago, McGee showed someone that there were 2 calls on Joey's records, but only 1 on Chases.... I wonder if they are going with 'it didn't register on Chase's'? I will have to see if I can find that later or tomorrow.

 

[Tssiemer]

Did you listen to the entire hearing?

I have problems understanding audio only. Am I missing a lot?

 

[Mica]

@Mica - maybe can look up the court site & see what it says. She's probably asleep now. I can't access San Bernardino site....

From the Court Portal...