Monday, March 16, 2009

Team court & prosecutrix v. me - trial fun II

Okay I said I would start with the coaching on this blog so here ya go: Vol. III - p. 56 - The court: "The problem is, [prosecutrix], you were asking her [the supposed expert] about other cases and why do people do this . . . it's how you phrase it that's the problem. Prosecutrix: Okay. The court: Just to let you know. Prosecutrix: Thank you. (This was 11 lines in the record but it wasn't in front of the jury. I just let them have their fun. Shows bias on by the judge when it comes to appeal, especially as much as I had to put up with this kind of junk.)

Another bit - I hope any non-lawyer can appreciate that it is best if we truly believe in our clients and fear for their freedom - so this was outside of the jury's presence at the end of the first day of testimony. I had just argued that the State opened the door to let in something that should have been admitted anyway. Court disagreed (imagine that) and said Vol. III - page 185-86

"Can I make a suggestion to the lawyers: ME: Yes, Your Honor (and I didn't even choke!) Court: You know, it seems to me you-all are very emotionally involved in this case. long pause - OKAY, I remember that; it wasn't typed in the record.] I'm going to wait until you finish so you have time to listen to me. ME: I'm listening. (Apparently I was making notes for Trial Motion Day Two or something & not looking at her as she glared at me as she had all day.) Court: Can you look at me when I talk to you? (WHAT THE HELL?! Does she think I am her child?) ME: I'm sorry. (I think I did choke on that one.)

Court: You know, none of us were there. None of us were there. You don't know if the complainant is telling the truth [prosecutrix]; and you don't know if your client is telling the truth and if he did sexual things to her for years. So let's not assume as lawyers and a Judge [court reporter's capitalization - bet she's been admonished, too!] that somehow we have some -- some incredible insight that tells us that our position -- whether our position is right and whether our position is wrong. Those are tough cases, and I wouldn't assume that any of us know the truth. You know, that's what we're here to find out, because there is a certain righteousness, you know, that I see in this particular case, more from the Defense. [I didn't add the capital but HELL YES I'M RIGHTEOUS. What a fabulous compliment!!!!!]

In some trials I see it more from the State - it's righteous, my victim is telling the truth. And I think you're here, especially there is a lot of righteousness that your client has been wrongfully convicted. [WHAT? Does she know something I don't know? The trial just freaking started!!!!]

None of know that happened there. So let's not get too upset about anything. This is supposed to be a truth-finding mission [YES IT IS SO WHAT CAN'T I GET ANY EVIDENCE IN?????], and my job is to let in the evidence that will help the jury find the truth [if they can because it is being kept from them - OKAY - she didn't really say that - BUT, she meant it!] and keep evidence away [IF IT DEMONSTRATES HE IS NOT GUILTY - okay - she didn't say that, either.

Here is what she said:] if it is of little helpful or probative value, but highly prejudicial so they don't convict on the basis of some prejudice. [WELL -she knows the wording of the rule of law but I don't think they are goign to convict the complainant if I get my evidence IN, although they SHOULD have!]

Sometimes we all think we know what happened, and there's only two people here who know what happened." [EVEN THOUGH I LATER PUT ON AT LEAST 4 WITNESSES WHO WERE IN THE ROOM . . .]

Okay - what do you think my self-righteous behind said to that crap? Ready . . . . ME: "I agree with that, Judge. It's just that I want the jury to know the whole story and not just portions of it. " [HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA] Well, she didn't laugh.

Court: "They get to hear the portions admissible under the rules of evidence. [Oh, that dang crap again.] That's the way it works. So, I'm sorry you don't like my rulings.

[Is she KIDDING? Don't like them?! At first I HATE them because they are WRONG but as this continues throughout the trial,at least I know it is a FREE TRIAL now . . . COME ON COMMENTERS = WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?]

That my job here. Is there anything else? ME: Not at this time, I don't believe, Judge. . . . . Boy - I had to get working on that Trial Motion Day Two for sure!!!

Ready for another day? HA!

No comments:

Post a Comment

I appreciate comments but you must include your name to be posted. If you want to e-mail just me, do so - don't comment here. Any posting or comments made here are not intended to be legal advice. If you have a situation that does or may involve criminal law, seek the advice of an attorney via telephone or in-person meeting. I am not responsible for the contents of comments.