Team court & prosecutrix v. me - trial fun FIVE

You may remember that the State doesn't want me to get into the fact that the 19 y.o. c/w has accused multiple people of all kinds of deviance against her & that she was caught in a situation when she was 12, leading to a touching accusation against Client. After not being believed (wonder why), she upped the ante to full blown sex when questioned about her sexuality by her mother (Client's best friend & sister.)

State has a motion in limine that I not talk about prior accusations (limine means I have to approach the bench before I do such naughtiness) & their circumstances. But, remember that I baited PNDL who deserves no number aka prosecutrix - hereinout P into putting the video in (which should have come in ANYWAY because almost every word of it was Brady (contradicting) to her current testimony in court.

The video has the prior allegations in it so I (dumbly, apparently) think the limine crap is out the window. ME: When your mom asked you when you were 12 about sexual contact, she accused you of having sex with a boy, didn't she? . . . P: [whining loudly so the jury can hear our bench conference] That's a violation of the motion in limine. ME: [YIKES - even I don't do that] No, it's not. It's on the video. (I really didn't think about it because the info was already in evidence through that video & I had already asked her once about it.) [Judge has the jury quote retired which means taken out to the jury room cuz she is about to light into me & I guess she figures she is so excited about the opportunity she won't be able to keep her voice low, and she knows me - I'll complaint ON THE RECORD about such.]

Court:...I thought there was a motion in limine on that. I can't [imagine disgust] imagine [doesn't have much imagination, does she?] why you did not approach the bench first. ME: [uh, I'm likely a bit nervous. In 20 years, I've never been held in contempt & I'm thinking that is about to change. Contempt means jail and/or fine.] I asked her about this on direct. She denied it the first time. Then we put the video in, and it's in the video. P: Your recollection of the video -- there's no accusations on the video. [REMEMBER - she wouldn't give me a copy & she had had it forever. I had notes from watching a few times but it is hard when you don't have the video and/or a transcript. I think most of us defense lawyers would call it, besides Brady violation, a good faith effort - meaning we really did think it was on there. I KNEW it was. I got a copy of the video after it was put in evidence the day before - funny she objected to that & the judge told her it was in evidence.... Talk about DDDUUUUHHHH!]

ME: Well, that's incorrect, because specifically she said, I remember it was around my birthday , and that we had a party or something and my mom thought I was having sex. And that is on the video, from my notes. And I did ask her about that on cross, before, And now she just changed her testimony. P: I object. She hadn't changed anything. [IS SHE FREAKING KIDDING? IF c/w is talking, the girl is lying & we all know you can't remember your lies!!!! I can you believe I'm still being shocked by such BS at this point?!] ...

Court: [Court reporter], I'm going to ask you read back the last question before the jury. {Obviously best since P & I can't agree on anything} P: I would say that's both a misstatement of the evidence , as the video -- ... I'm referring to the question. It's both a violation of the motion in limine, and it's as well, as misstatement of the evidence, or assuming facts that are not in evidence. Court (to me): You'll need to queue up the video. I'll need to see where you say it is on the video, Mssssssss. Hhhheeeennnlllleeeey. (imagine her saying my name like she's gonna get my butt now! (Remember before the court got upset because I questioned the veracity of P - court doesn't HESITATE to make me prove myself!)

I queue up the State's long (about 1 hour) video of which I only had notes & here is the difference: SHE SAID: Mom thought I was having sex. I told her I wasn't. WHAT I SAID: She accused you of having sex. DUH - excuse the hell out of me but that was pretty damn good for just notes.

Court: Well, it seems to me, clearly, on the videotape, she says my mom thought I was having sex, & I told her I wasn't. (turning to me because I was just about as close to right as could be & she is p.o.'d that she ain't gonna hearing the clanging of the cell behind my back) Court: Part of the problem is, you rephrase things to put them in the light most favorable to the case, Ms. Henley. So it doesn't all come down the way that it appears in the State's evidence. Bring the jury out. What? No apology? No nothing. OH HELL NO - NOW I'VE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY

ME: I would like to state on the record, I did not get a copy of this video until very late. I don't have a transcript. I'm doing this in good faith. And I would also object to her stating in front of the jury that I violated a motion in limine.

Court (to P): I wouldn't be so self righteous in light of fact that it appears there's some Brady material that hasn't been turned over to the defense. (Obviously P was prising around huffing & puffing) and I don't understand why you would want the jury to know you had a motion in limine. What's the point of having a motion in limine if you're going to tell them that?

DID I HEAR THAT RIGHT? Hm, so I decide to push a little more because now P is rattled. She is mad, she is shaking & she is out-of-control. No one has ever talked to her like this. Hmph. ME: She's striking over my should because she's accusing me of something wrong.

Uh, oh - you can almost see the judge remembering that I'm there & just made a point which she does not like at all. Court: Well, there was a motion in limine. You should have come to the bench. Both lawyers should have come to the bench. So I don't feel that either side has clean hands throughout this trial. [ARE YOU READY?! HERE SHE GOES:} I'm really disappointed about the way this case is being tried. [SHE IS?!!!!! What about my client who is being railroaded?! But, she is starting to see that I might know what I am doing. She instructs that the jury be brought in & advises P): Don't strike at the defendant over the lawyer's shoulder. (WOW! Of course my request that the jury be instructed to disregard is denied with a ridiculous admonishment that I should have approached [about evidence that is put in via the video by the State?! Duh, okay.])

That's it for today folks except one last lovely excerpt when I approach to ask if I can ask c/w what she was doing that made her mother ask her if she was having sex & P says it isn't relevant (she loves that nothing objection), ME: I guess at this point, you're not going to let it in any way because you're not letting in any prior accusations against any other people." (Do I sound like I'm tired of it?!) HA HA HA

Until next time . . .

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!