TN - Chris Newsom, 23, & Channon Christian, 21, murdered, Knoxville, 6 Jan 2007 #10

[SuziQ]

Defense making the point that the DA never asked for any call but this one to Stacy.

 

[SuziQ]

TK recross. The sixteen calls were all to Stacy? The prosecution did request all the phone call to this number. And asaik, these were the only calls GT made.

 

[steelergirl]

Playing phone call.

ooooo no!!!! I missed the phone call...I got my own phone call at the same time!!! Any clue what was said in the phone call? Lordy, I hope we get those transcripts!!!

 

[SuziQ]

Defense recross to ask this was the only number asked for by prosecution.

 

[SuziQ]

http://twitter.com/jamiescoop

Jurors hear now infamous "should'ce could've would've but didn't" comment from Thomas

 

[Muffet]

The guy said he made other calls, but the state only asked for copies of the ones he made to Stacey. There were 16, and they were given all 16.

Did TK just say Stacey is testifying next?

 

[SuziQ]

Steelgirl, I couldn't hear anything but excited utterance. Hopefully the transcript will be released. Stacy was clear though, she told him off.

 

[SuziQ]

http://twitter.com/jamiescoop

Dillard hammering that state cherry picked one call from more than dozen Thomas made from Ky jail

 

[SuziQ]

Dang calling it a day. Stacy on tomorrow am.

 

[SuziQ]

http://twitter.com/jamiescoop

Stopping early. See KNS tomorrow for full report and online for transcript of jail call

 

[steelergirl]

http://twitter.com/jamiescoop

Stopping early. See KNS tomorrow for full report and online for transcript of jail call

:woohoo:

eta: on the transcript not the ending early...I was hoping to hear/see Lawson and now I don't think I'm going to be able too.

 

[Muffet]

GT started chuckling with his lawyer(s) and Gary looks over at him... I can only imagine Gary's face:

 

[PrairieWind]

anybody know why VC is not testifying? or why her statements can't be used?

Vanessa's recorded or written statements can't be used because, as an out of court statement, they are heresay and barred by the rules of evidence. Now, each defendants OWN statements can be admitted since hearsay made by a party(defendnat) is admissible. Vanessa could be subpoenaed to testify, but since her own trial is pending, should could just chose to invoke her rights against self incrimination. The state never offered her any immunity so I assume they believe they can get a conviction.

 

[Muffet]

An article yesterday referred to Vanessa's case as groundbreaking... Are they saying she talked because the feds gave her immunity, but then the state refused to give her immunity, and used her words against her?

(I couldn't care less, as long as it sticks - just curious.)

 

[SuziQ]

An article yesterday referred to Vanessa's case as groundbreaking... Are they saying she talked because the feds gave her immunity, but then the state refused to give her immunity, and used her words against her?

(I couldn't care less, as long as it sticks - just curious.)

I've never seen that happen before this trial. I glad it seems to be sticking. Her attorney says he might make another appeal. Her attorney seems alot like Davidson's.

 

[steelergirl]

An article yesterday referred to Vanessa's case as groundbreaking... Are they saying she talked because the feds gave her immunity, but then the state refused to give her immunity, and used her words against her?

(I couldn't care less, as long as it sticks - just curious.)

Gonna do some googling...but I believe at first they thought that she had a very small role in this and they even went so far as to put her in witness protection. She then said she wanted out of witness protection, so they released her from that. Then I think she went on and testified at the Grand Jury, and something happened around that time that they figured out she was there the whole time and was more of a player than they originally knew and she was lying to the Grand Jury. I saw an article once that explained it, I'll see if I can find it again for ya!

 

[steelergirl]

Ok, so it seems that the feds offered her immunity?? I think this is the article you were talking about too, it says at the end that her case can be "groundbreaking."

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/dec/01/coleman-denied-reprieve/

During LD's trail, I found this article and on the left hand side of the article it said "read Judge Baumgartner's opinion on Vanessa Coleman." I definately clicked on that as well, and I've attached it to this post for you guys to read too...lots of legal talk but I still found it a rather interesting read.

Article: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jun/11/judge-declines-dismiss-carjackslayings-charges-aga/

Judge's Opinion: http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/061109coleman-ruling.pdf

 

[PrairieWind]

Steeler, I remember it all hinged around that grand jury, but can't remember. I'd love to know what you find out. I thought maybe she had been given immunity by the feds (or a suggestion of immunity) in order to testify to the grand jury. then when the investigation showed her involvment to be greater that first thought the state filed murder charges against her. I suspect there was a lot of firery converstations between fed and state prosecutors about that time.

 

[steelergirl]

Steeler, I remember it all hinged around that grand jury, but can't remember. I'd love to know what you find out. I thought maybe she had been given immunity by the feds (or a suggestion of immunity) in order to testify to the grand jury. then when the investigation showed her involvment to be greater that first thought the state filed murder charges against her. I suspect there was a lot of firery converstations between fed and state prosecutors about that time.

Hey Prairie! I think that's exactly what happened. I don't fully understand it, but it appears that the feds offered her immunity (or were going to offer her immunity?) and the state/local prosecutors didn't know about it. But then the immunity became null after the Grand Jury testimony when she didn't invoke her 5th Amendment Rights?

She testified on Jan. 17th, was offered and took the protective custody on Jan. 26th, decided to leave protective custody on Jan. 28th, and was formally charged with the same 46 counts as the others on Jan. 31st..

I'm a little more obsessive about her testimony and trial because as a woman, she disgusts me with her role, or lack there of, in this case. Out of all of them, her interrogation bothers me the most (unless G or Boyd's are released and worse of course) the pure coolness and no care in the world when giving her interview is sickening.

 

[Muffet]

Here's another article about it:

http://www.volunteertv.com/special/headlines/78218262.html
Snippets:

[her lawyer] Greene had argued an immunity agreement prepared by federal prosecutors protected the defendant from prosecution by the Knox County District Attorney General Office.
...
Coleman's attorneys said federal prosecutors had drafted a immunity agreement in exchange for testifying before a federal grand jury, regarding the events leading up to the couple's death.

Coleman "never invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination before testifying," the order stated.

Her defense attorneys argued the charges arose from a joint investigation by state and federal authorities.

Coleman's defenders said federal authorities acted as "agents" of the DA's office when she was subpoenaed to testify.

Coleman's attorneys said that was enough to trigger the immunity protection, based on a cited legal rule. Therefore, they say, she was protected against prosecution from the state.

The panel of judges disagreed.

"Even if we concluded in a [pre-trial] appeal that the federal authorities were acting as agents of the District Attorney General....there is a strong likelihood that [Coleman] still would not prevail on the argument that she is entitled to immunity from the prosecution," the judges wrote.

The judges also cast doubt on Coleman's success on a post-trial appeal.

"We cannot conclude that the defendant's probability of success on appeal is so great as to justify [this] appeal," the order stated.​