I am also confused about this “rule” that witnessed (aside from Maddi’s family) cannot use her first name. I went back to the articles covering the pre-trial rulings by the judge, and didn’t see any mention of this rule.
@PommyMommy outlined the findings of one such article in a great post up-thread (quoted below).
Another article references a 23-page document that outlines the pre-trial rulings, but not sure where or if this document could be accessed.
Regardless… it does seem like such a slimy move on behalf of the defense to be so insistent on this. I can understand if it’s professionals (LEO, investigators, professional witnesses) testifying, it would be fairly standard to expect them to refer to her as “Ms Kingsbury”, but otherwise it feels so unnecessarily cold. Especially considering a woman was murdered- regardless of who the defense feels is responsible, it seems important to remember this was an human who brutally lost her life.
Finally… I am not a lawyer or anything close, so I’ll pose it as a question- is there any way that witnesses using Maddi’s first name on the stand could be legitimate grounds for defense to request a mistrial??
ETA- reading the recent articles again, I’m so baffled by the defense objecting to the shared home being called a crime scene. It was, in fact, a crime scene. Even presuming AF is innocent until proven guilty, the house was handled as a crime scene, and IIRC, police cordoned it off and did not allow AF or any family to return while the scene was being processed. I’d love to hear the defense team’s reason for that objection too.
OCT 2, 2024
Buytendorp concluded that while the evidence of alleged domestic violence is generally admissible in court, there are some exceptions in Fravel's case.
www.kaaltv.com
Inadmissible testimony
- Comments made by Spencer Sullivan were disallowed in part because of the time lapse between the incident and comments Sullivan said Maddie made much later.
- Generic statements that Fravel pushed, choked, mentally abused, and otherwise acted violent and controlling toward Kingsbury.
- Comments Kingsbury allegedly made about mental distress shortly before her disappearance.
- Attestations that shortly before Kingsbury died, she told an associate that if something happened to her, ‘Adam did it’ are also unfairly prejudicial.
- Vague statements that suggest, but do not confirm Fravel may have been abusive toward Kingsbury around their children, or that he may have gained access to her phone.
Admissible testimony
- Maddie's friends and family will be allowed to describe specific injuries they saw on her in the years before, the time they noted them, and the explanations she allegedly gave.
- The testimony that Fravel referenced Gabby Petito.
- Testimony about Fravel’s failure to help around the house, as well as testimony that Kingsbury planned to break up with Fravel permanently and worried about his reaction.
- Statements about Fravel’s actions and text messages to Kingsbury shortly before her disappearance.
- A friend of Maddie's who heard Fravel make demeaning comments to Kingsbury.
Other courtroom procedure
- Witnesses and spectators may not wear clothing, jewelry, or other “displays” like buttons or ribbons referencing Madeline Kingsbury, “Justice for Maddi,” or violence against women.
- Witnesses will be sequestered, or separated from one another, during proceedings.