Trial day 31: the defense continues it's case in chief #86

[lisalei321]

Gonna go vacuum the pool now...what a waste of time by the defense...good grief...

 

[popsicle]

The Time article really seems irrelevant to this case but I did notice this part and I wonder if this kicked in with JA and when...

Only later, in the ambulance, did Glennon begin to shake, just as he’d read people tend to do in the aftermath of an adrenaline surge.

 

[leebee52]

Can I just say that I love the FOGHORN sound effect that HLN keeps playing when they cut to JA testimony on stand. lol

Drat. I was so into reading the blog that I had forgotten to un-mute HLN. On now though.

 

[JSR]

I think the Judge made a nice compromise. She knows it was unfair to spring the PowerPoint on the State but she's giving Juan a chance to do another mini deposition.

I'm ok with how she ruled.

 

[OldCarGal]

I expect a heck of a lot of objections and sidebars coming up.
This Time Mag article was not published until 1-16-13.

 

[Weebles]

Will the expert about sexual deviant rely on an article from the National Enquirer?

 

[Litigatrix]

Ms. Ripley is writing a book on "the best public school systems in the world--and how they got that way." I am sure plenty of experts in brain and neurology are relying on that...smh.

 

[Lupie43]

Fog...fog...fog...LIAR, LIAR, LIAR

 

[StephanieHartPI]

I'm confused, I thought today was about hearing the defenses experts? What is the arguing about? The allowance of these experts?

The Defense expert made up a big PowerPoint show this morning filled with all kinds of things Mr Martinez has never seen.

so he objected to the big show he was going to put up and that he has never seen some of this new information.

so the Judge gave Mr Martinez 2 hours to re-interview Dr Samuels. They will come back at 1pm and discuss if they go forward.

 

[polleypockets]

i think the judge is doing the right thing, if she just threw out the expert, it would be automatic appeal - by giving martinez time to get more info to throw out this stuff, it will stick

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I know darn well I heard Juan say they are trying to get in things that were ruled not allowed. Therefore why is the judge making Juan take time during court to interview this guy? Why can't she take control of her courtroom and rule on something?

This trial is turning into a circus show with the only sane person up there being Martinez and the detective.

And it still sounds to me like she was snapping at the Prosecution. I just watched it again on HLN. She was said this is obviously something that should have been raised if there was a problem but that ship has sailed. The one with the problem is Mr. Martinez. Can someone explain how this is not against him?

HE still can not talk about what he has been ruled not allowed. JM is getting the opportunity to go over his testimony and see the new additions to his arsenal one on one.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Ok, Beth makes it sounds like the judge's statement was to the DT. Sure didn't sound like it, though.

 

[Donnareit]

if testimony by the expert of his opinion regarding premeditation is not allowed then there is no way she can permit the info regarding the two kinds of murder scenes. The purpose is to instruct the jury about what the murder scene means in terms of whether the murder was premeditated or not. It's not permissible-that is solely the province of the jury to decide whether a murder was premeditated. It is wholly irrelevant what any expert thinks a crime scene says. That is not a permissable expert opinion. That is a finding of fact solely in the jury's hands. I can't believe she is even arguing he can give this testimony. I really hope this judge shuts that down as the jury should in no way hear such testimony. Not to mention this "expert" figures out crime scenes how? By reading Time magazine? He's supposed to testify as a "psychologist" not a crime scene expert.

How can a psychologist address a crime scene and what it means? That's pretty absurd from what I know. A crime scene isn't a psychological condition. If his testimony is about how she had PSTD when she committed the crime in 2008 I'm not seeing how that can reasonably be morphed into him telling the jury how to evaluate the evidence at a crime scene.

Amen!

 

[leebee52]

Will the expert about sexual deviant rely on an article from the National Enquirer?

HAHA I had the same thought.

 

[Quester]

Due to utter frustration as a result of exceedingly poor time management of this court ...

I'm feeeeeling like Nurmi probably felt, when he couldn't get out of defending JA, and am now taking his lead ...

I'm resigning from my self-assigned role as countdown queen :Crown: ...

opening my own private office ...

and demanding $250 per hour to continue the countdown to court time service!!!

ropeller:

 

[kscornfed]

I think this appeals excuse is used way too much to justify bad judging.

AMEN. judges don't have to try a DP case as if they have a gun to their head. it's done quite successfully other places without bending over backwards for the defense. i don't think this judge has been fair to the state since day one. she will NOT allow JM to cross examine the witness, for one thing. nurmi's found out she likes the 'argumentative' objection a lot. that's part of cross examination, for pete sake.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

This judge never had control of this courtroom. She is very weak and overly cautious, to the point that it's detrimental to the state. She has to seek balance and she's bending over for the defense. I know why she's doing it, but I think it's weak and spineless.

And before anyone says they've never seen such a weak judge, may I turn your attention to Judge Lance Ito, OJ Simpson trial debacle, circa 1995. Weak doesn't even begin to cover it.

And also Judge Belvin Perry. Blowhard bluffer. I was never impressed with him, not from day 1.

I like my judges lean, mean, on point, punctual (and a little sarcastic, but that's just me).

One of the times that I served on a jury, the plaintiff ended up withdrawing her lawsuit (professional malpractice) because "she was afraid of the Judge". That is certainly not the case for JA because she has no fear of Judge Stephens who has pretty much allowed Jodi to run the show.

I understand that this is Judge Stephens first DP case and that she is being overly-cautious, but she has not demonstrated any control of these proceedings in her courtroom. Which side will benefit from her lack of authority remains to be seen. :moo:

 

[jojomonkey]

I think the Judge made a nice compromise. She knows it was unfair to spring the PowerPoint on the State but she's giving Juan a chance to do another mini deposition.

I'm ok with how she ruled.

I still have a problem with her allowing a blatant violation by the defense team with no repercussions whatsoever. I wish every judge were like Judge Judy.

 

[scorpio24]

Thanks Claudicici

and may I point out the date ????? 1/16/2013
it seems a rather NEW article...tss tss

Excellent point!

And at least now we know where the "freeze like a computer" concept JA kept using came from... :twocents:

 

[Tiger09]

Dude, really? Ok what's next? A literal rabbit out of a hat?