OHHHH...The DT was trying to get a lesser included MISDEMEANOR negligent manslaughter added....Judge said :denied:
Whoa! We are on to jury instructions already? So who testified this morning? And what was said?
OHHHH...The DT was trying to get a lesser included MISDEMEANOR negligent manslaughter added....Judge said :denied:
Is that the one she said "It's not supported by the facts, it's not supported by the law. I'm not giving it."?
So why do you suppose he was all the way on board, at least through August 2016? There is no evidence I'm aware of that wasn't know yet by the DT, and Diamond had 2 full years to fully familiarize himself with RH's case.
If it's true he will only come on board if he believes the death was accidental, then he believed that at least until August 2016, and seemingly committed to testifying at trial.
I just don't find it plausible that a credible expert witness bailed at the last minute because he got delicate about maintaining his reputation.
Is that the one she said "It's not supported by the facts, it's not supported by the law. I'm not giving it."?
Did I hear something about the smell of marijuana in a home? Who's home?
Can Dr Diamond say why he didn't testify after the trial is over?
YEP---I think that was it. I heard her say those words exactly.
such as? I thought the State provided some case law to say it should not be allowed?
This is a very experienced Judge. Thirty years on the bench. I wonder how often she is reversed?
The defense had some really good arguments for including charges on lesser includeds and different charges.
If she sticks with her "inclination" to not give those charges, this is one area I could actually see a reversal and new trial.
Yeah. She better watch it with that. This is not such a clear cut case (despite my personal beliefs that it was interional). The jury has to have the room to heavily are and decide what fits. The law I reviews seems pretty clear on various lesser includeds needing to be on the table.
Yeah. She better watch it with that. This is not such a clear cut case (despite my personal beliefs that it was interional). The jury has to have the room to weight the facts and decide what fits. The law I reviewed seems pretty clear on various lesser includeds needing to be on the table.
So he's been detained, handcuffed, had his phone with evidence of a crime on it seized, been driven to the police station and is being questioned about his son's death by a suspicious Stoddstd, and he decides to make LE's job easier by offering up, unilaterally, the beginning of his premeditated plan to murder his son?
No way would a defense expert that key to the case miss due to a scheduling conflict. And they knew his price when they put him on tbe witness list. He would've been the most important witness for Ross of all. I would've told his family to mortgage their homes to pay for him.
I guarantee it was not Diamond's expense that was the reason for him not testifying. I can also guarantee it was not because the defense decided they didn't need him.
Beyond that, it is completely speculation, but I wish I knew.
Hey thanks for that great synopsis on the psych's testimony. I understand what you meant. I think he did very well on cross. Good, solid witness. I just don't know that he helped the defense much. He can only do so much with the facts of the case.
And I wonder what the jury is going to think of his references to the elusive Dr. Diamond who they never get to hear testify.
Failure to give proper jury instructions is the one area where I did see a fair number of reversals in Georgia.
Thanks Katy. I'm riding with my sons to the ranch. Opening of deer season. Couldn't hear some of the discussion due to my sons (19 and 27) joking with each other
It was Boring who brought up Diamond. I got the sense that Brewer didn't want to go there, but last night i believed that was because the DT wanted Diamond to take the stand in all his glory, pristine , untouched and ready to save the day.
Now I wonder just when it was the DT knew he wouldn't be testifying.