GUILTY UT - Michele MacNeill, 50, found dead in bathtub, Pleasant Grove, 11 April 2007 - #5

[popsicle]

I really hope they push Gypsy hard today and she messes up and implicates herself as having knowledge and planning. Because that is what I believe to be the truth here, with her.

 

[Softail]

I really hope they push Gypsy hard today and she messes up and implicates herself as having knowledge and planning. Because that is what I believe to be the truth here, with her.

I do too! Sadly, I doubt it will happen. The prosecutors seem too "soft" for that! :twocents:

 

[bsk]

Good Morning,
Ugh! I will be missing part of the trial this morning. Won't be able to really view it until 1pm today.

I can't imagine MM on the witness stand and this being wrapped up this week. I really don't think he will be called.

I also had to look up the word ergonomics and I do not get where this fits in. Call me confused and can someone help me out here?

The only thing I could think of re ergonomics is related to various bathtub scenarios.

 

[turaj]

http://www.fox44.com/news/inmates-macneill-said-cops-cant-prove-it-was-me
WGMB (FOX44) - Baton Rouge, LA -- 11/6/13

Inmates: MacNeill said cops 'can't prove it was me'
by Amanda Sloane-CNN

Snipped:

The defense is expected to then call a few witnesses to support Martin MacNeill's alibi, including his co-workers and his daughter's teacher. They have also announced that they'll be calling Brett Besser, an ergonomics expert who is expected to testify that MacNeill was not able to lift his wife's body out of the bathtub by himself.

I can't imagine any physical circumstance short of not being able to walk or being wheelchair bound that would stop any normal person from just grabbing her out of that tub. No way. So you may further whatever injury he says he has...so what? No one would just stand there and say they can't lift a woman 180 lbs or not...MacNeill had been working out long before jail. I just cannot believe they can get a jury to buy that. And not only did he not lift her out himself...he refused the help of the two able bodied women that were there and insisted she get a "man". I mean who does that as your wife is dying or dead?????

 

[21merc7]

For the ergonomics portion, look up Brett Besser, Ergonomics Utah.

Here is a one paragraph PDF, but there are loads of written PDF's he has authored, this one is just a sort of hello note:

http://www.mech.utah.edu/ergo/pages/NORA/2011/Besser.pdf

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

Don't know if anyone else has mentioned this as I haven't gotten caught up yet. But I was super annoyed at the judge today. I thought it was really inappropriate to allow Spencer to ask a million ridiculous questions about the time line without any interruption yet the State had him read from a page that was actually significant and showing the moral side of Poirie and was being rushed. I don't understand why State wasn't given the same time and opportunity to do the same thing as defense. If defense is going to bring up a bunch of conversations that portray the witness in a poor light, the law states that prosecution is given equal opportunity yet that didn't happen today.

Multiple times defense went on and on and almost every time prosecution spoke the judge asked when they'd be done or to wrap it up.

What the heck?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

IMO it's this court. I've never seen a judge look so perturbed. As if he is gonna bust a gut any minute. I'm no doc (just like the defendant!) but he should look into getting something for his nerves.

 

[bsk]

Question for minor4th or any other atty types... Do defense lawyers have carte blanche in saying any kind of nonsense they want to make up in their statements, or is there supposed to be some good faith that they plan to prove what they contend in opening or that there was some testimony to back up what they say in closing?

The reason I ask is that I went back this morning to listen to the early part of the trial that I had missed. In her opening, Gustin says that MM had a painful toe condition called (whatever) and that he had three surgeries on it. Clearly the defense isn't calling anyone to back that up, and Martin is not taking the stand to claim it. Maybe they had his doctor or surgeon on their witness list or maybe not. If they had absolutely zero about it during the trial, can she allude to that again in closing?

She also made a couple of factual errors, not that they are critical. She was giving the jury a list of equivalent drug names, but in some cases they are not equivalent, as one has acetaminophen include and the other does not. It's especially ironic she would do that considering Spencer tried to make a big deal yesterday over inmate #1 mixing up oxycodone and oxycontin since they at least have the same active ingredient, whereas two of the ones she said were the same do not.

Lastly, she said that the inmates received favors for testifying. She could have said something like, "You'll have to ask yourself whether they are testifying because they received favors," but she said it as an absolute that it had happened. There has been absolutely nothing offered by the defense to back that up - we've just heard that the inmates HOPED they'd get favors but didn't.

 

[Cherry]

y'all going to join me in Judge Belvin Perry's court room this morning in fifteen min?

:coffeecup:

arty:

Jason Rodgriguez Trial WFTV live feed.

 

[turaj]

IMO it's this court. I've never seen a judge look so perturbed. As if he is gonna bust a gut any minute. I'm no doc (just like the defendant!) but he should look into getting something for his nerves.

I personally think the cameras have him severely on edge. He seems to have no rapport with the lawyers, jury anyone. He is robotic and I think a really good judge should have the ability to make everyone feel comfortable and make what can be a very tedious day somewhat pleasant...just asking the jury if everyone had a pleasant evening goes a long way. Maybe he has done this and I missed it. Maybe this is just how it is in Utah?

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

Defense seeks mistrial in MacNeill murder trial

Inmate #1 will return to the witness stand for more cross-examination on Thursday. Dr. MacNeill’s mistress, Gypsy Willis, is slated to testify again. Prosecutors said they may rest their case Thursday afternoon.

Defense attorneys said they intended to call Jim Van Zant, a co-worker of Dr. MacNeill’s; Linda Strong, a teacher of Ada MacNeill; and Brett Besson, an ergonomics expert to testify. They refused to say if Dr. MacNeill would testify in his own defense.

The jury could begin deliberations by Friday.


http://fox13now.com/2013/11/06/defense-seeks-mistrial-in-macneill-murder-trial/

I don't see how this timeline is possible especially if the defendant testifies. Doesn't each side have a couple of hours for closing? That's half a day right there.

 

[turaj]

y'all going to join me in Judge Belvin Perry's court room this morning in fifteen min?

:coffeecup:

arty:

Jason Rodgriguez Trial WFTV live feed.

Yes may do that...sounds like a nice change from this boring Judge

 

[cubbeegirl]

I really hope they push Gypsy hard today and she messes up and implicates herself as having knowledge and planning. Because that is what I believe to be the truth here, with her.

Me too Popsicle, and I will go even one farther, I believe she helped push the whole diabolical plan to murder Michelle right along....JMO

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

I can't imagine any physical circumstance short of not being able to walk or being wheelchair bound that would stop any normal person from just grabbing her out of that tub. No way. So you may further whatever injury he says he has...so what? No one would just stand there and say they can't lift a woman 180 lbs or not...MacNeill had been working out long before jail. I just cannot believe they can get a jury to buy that. And not only did he not lift her out himself...he refused the help of the two able bodied women that were there and insisted she get a "man". I mean who does that as your wife is dying or dead?????

The person responsible for her death?

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

y'all going to join me in Judge Belvin Perry's court room this morning in fifteen min?

:coffeecup:

arty:

Jason Rodgriguez Trial WFTV live feed.

Is Judge Perry finally signing the papers to charge Casey's mother with perjury?

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

I personally think the cameras have him severely on edge. He seems to have no rapport with the lawyers, jury anyone. He is robotic and I think a really good judge should have the ability to make everyone feel comfortable and make what can be a very tedious day somewhat pleasant...just asking the jury if everyone had a pleasant evening goes a long way. Maybe he has done this and I missed it. Maybe this is just how it is in Utah?

Maybe you got something there that this is his first time having a trial televised or he is camera shy. I know a couple of people that refuse to have their photo taken so maybe he is like that? He just makes a little anxious just watching him. Seriously that level of stress can't be good for a person's health. I think the judge in Jodi Arias's trail was also very nervous. Maybe he should have done what she did - have a million sidebars and don't explain any objection on camera.

 

[minor4th]

I personally think the cameras have him severely on edge. He seems to have no rapport with the lawyers, jury anyone. He is robotic and I think a really good judge should have the ability to make everyone feel comfortable and make what can be a very tedious day somewhat pleasant...just asking the jury if everyone had a pleasant evening goes a long way. Maybe he has done this and I missed it. Maybe this is just how it is in Utah?

From what I've read about him, this is just his personality. The judicial commission evaluation mentioned this.

 

[popsicle]

Question for minor4th or any other atty types... Do defense lawyers have carte blanche in saying any kind of nonsense they want to make up in their statements, or is there supposed to be some good faith that they plan to prove what they contend in opening or that there was some testimony to back up what they say in closing?

The reason I ask is that I went back this morning to listen to the early part of the trial that I had missed. In her opening, Gustin says that MM had a painful toe condition called (whatever) and that he had three surgeries on it. Clearly the defense isn't calling anyone to back that up, and Martin is not taking the stand to claim it. Maybe they had his doctor or surgeon on their witness list or maybe not. If they had absolutely zero about it during the trial, can she allude to that again in closing?

She also made a couple of factual errors, not that they are critical. She was giving the jury a list of equivalent drug names, but in some cases they are not equivalent, as one has acetaminophen include and the other does not. It's especially ironic she would do that considering Spencer tried to make a big deal yesterday over inmate #1 mixing up oxycodone and oxycontin since they at least have the same active ingredient, whereas two of the ones she said were the same do not.

Lastly, she said that the inmates received favors for testifying. She could have said something like, "You'll have to ask yourself whether they are testifying because they received favors," but she said it as an absolute that it had happened. There has been absolutely nothing offered by the defense to back that up - we've just heard that the inmates HOPED they'd get favors but didn't.

I am not a lawyer though I contemplated being a paralegal before going to nursing school. :lol:

Things stated in opening and closing are not facts in the case. It is just a run down of what they expect to prove. It is risky to make statements and then not prove it in trial because like all of us, jurys remember things.

In closing, the statements cannot misrepresent evidence presented in trial. That is one thing that will cause the other side to object during closing statements. As far as length of closing... I don't know if the judge decides a time based on the length of the trial or how.

Sorry for answering when I am not a legal expert. Great post!

 

[Italy]

Question for minor4th or any other atty types... Do defense lawyers have carte blanche in saying any kind of nonsense they want to make up in their statements, or is there supposed to be some good faith that they plan to prove what they contend in opening or that there was some testimony to back up what they say in closing?

The reason I ask is that I went back this morning to listen to the early part of the trial that I had missed. In her opening, Gustin says that MM had a painful toe condition called (whatever) and that he had three surgeries on it. Clearly the defense isn't calling anyone to back that up, and Martin is not taking the stand to claim it. Maybe they had his doctor or surgeon on their witness list or maybe not. If they had absolutely zero about it during the trial, can she allude to that again in closing?

She also made a couple of factual errors, not that they are critical. She was giving the jury a list of equivalent drug names, but in some cases they are not equivalent, as one has acetaminophen include and the other does not. It's especially ironic she would do that considering Spencer tried to make a big deal yesterday over inmate #1 mixing up oxycodone and oxycontin since they at least have the same active ingredient, whereas two of the ones she said were the same do not.

Lastly, she said that the inmates received favors for testifying. She could have said something like, "You'll have to ask yourself whether they are testifying because they received favors," but she said it as an absolute that it had happened. There has been absolutely nothing offered by the defense to back that up - we've just heard that the inmates HOPED they'd get favors but didn't.

As a practicing attorney, Minor4th will be able provide more helpful info w/ respect to opening statements, but as I remember & believe:

Increasingly, there is pretty much carte blanche for the Defense in making opening remarks. However, unlike Baez in the Casey Anthony case, they generally do not make wild, completely unsubstantiated assertions when trying to give the jury an outline of what the evidence will show. In the case of the Anthony jury, those brilliant souls just gobbled up as credible every wild, ridiculous, unfounded comment made by Baez and disregarded actual evidence.

There is usually a time limit on opening statement. As always, the judge is the arbiter of the courtroom and if an egregious abuse takes place in opening statements or closing arguments, the judge can "invite" the other side to respond or he can instruct the jury to disregard certain assertions. Granting a mistrial is an uncommon tho available option.

 

[Harmony 2]

A new thread is open and you can start moving over as this one will close in 10 minutes...

Martin MacNeill: Michelle's death murder or accident? -Utah #6 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[minor4th]

Question for minor4th or any other atty types... Do defense lawyers have carte blanche in saying any kind of nonsense they want to make up in their statements, or is there supposed to be some good faith that they plan to prove what they contend in opening or that there was some testimony to back up what they say in closing?

The reason I ask is that I went back this morning to listen to the early part of the trial that I had missed. In her opening, Gustin says that MM had a painful toe condition called (whatever) and that he had three surgeries on it. Clearly the defense isn't calling anyone to back that up, and Martin is not taking the stand to claim it. Maybe they had his doctor or surgeon on their witness list or maybe not. If they had absolutely zero about it during the trial, can she allude to that again in closing?

She also made a couple of factual errors, not that they are critical. She was giving the jury a list of equivalent drug names, but in some cases they are not equivalent, as one has acetaminophen include and the other does not. It's especially ironic she would do that considering Spencer tried to make a big deal yesterday over inmate #1 mixing up oxycodone and oxycontin since they at least have the same active ingredient, whereas two of the ones she said were the same do not.

Lastly, she said that the inmates received favors for testifying. She could have said something like, "You'll have to ask yourself whether they are testifying because they received favors," but she said it as an absolute that it had happened. There has been absolutely nothing offered by the defense to back that up - we've just heard that the inmates HOPED they'd get favors but didn't.

I think the others have answered your questions pretty well, but generally speaking in opening statements, you are not supposed to just throw out purported facts that you have no intention of supporting by any evidence (like Baez when he said Casey was molested by her father).

But as a practical matter, there's no way to know in advance what the evidence is going to show so there's no way to really limit in advance what is said in opening remarks.

I don't think this defense attorney's remarks went so far out of bounds that she would be penalized for it, but I suppose a lawyer could be sanctioned or disciplined if they did something really egregious (like Baez).