Author Topic: June 6th Hearing  (Read 10529 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #75 on: June 07, 2013, 04:28:48 AM »
Wow, are you spinning that.

The remark was backhanded, highlighting White's criticism of Corey's failure to keep a campaign promise (6/6/13 hearing, 44:52).

Yes, good point.  The word "backhanded" didn't enter my mind.  You are right on, that although the punch line of his remark was superficially complimentary, the remark as a whole was critical.

The thought that crossed my mind a couple of time, as Bernardo was grilling White, was how much politics was coming into Nelson's courtroom in a criminal trial.  Simply amazing.  Oh well, it's Nelson's courtroom, and she runs it as she sees fit.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #76 on: June 07, 2013, 06:07:23 AM »
My impression is that she will interview the witnesses in chambers, before ruling.

'At this time the motion is denied' (6/6/13 hearing, 21:41).

A bit later, Nelson told the lawyer representing the witnesses that he could give her a list of their names (6/6/13 hearing, 22:31).

It seems clear to me that the issue is alive.
What she decides may be crucial.  I think Witness #6 doesn't want to be seen or his name used at trial.  I am just basing my guess on prior behavior.  Witness's #11 and #20 might be the other two represented by the lawyer (Name?) that appeared at the June 6th hearing.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #77 on: June 07, 2013, 06:31:51 AM »
What she decides may be crucial.  I think Witness #6 doesn't want to be seen or his name used at trial.  I am just basing my guess on prior behavior.  Witness's #11 and #20 might be the other two represented by the lawyer (Name?) that appeared at the June 6th hearing.

Fact witnesses can be compelled to testify.  Nelson can deny them anonymity, and, I think only on motion of defense, compel the witness to appear in court and provide testimony.  Those witnesses should obtain means of self defense and become proficient.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #78 on: June 07, 2013, 12:21:43 PM »
Nelson can deny them anonymity, and, I think only on motion of defense, compel the witness to appear in court and provide testimony. 

Of course. 6th Amendment. 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor . . .'

Quote
Those witnesses should obtain means of self defense and become proficient.

Or change their names and move to Idaho.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #79 on: June 07, 2013, 10:06:00 PM »
She could order the TV cameras not to show their faces while they testify. They do that with jurors all the time. Those in the courtroom can see them but not those watching on TV. Anyone who wants to see the witness' or jurors' faces can wait in line at the courthouse for a seat.


Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #80 on: June 07, 2013, 11:00:34 PM »
She could order the TV cameras not to show their faces while they testify. They do that with jurors all the time. Those in the courtroom can see them but not those watching on TV. Anyone who wants to see the witness' or jurors' faces can wait in line at the courthouse for a seat.

How long do you think it will take before the media will have vetted out those witnesses?  I think John already got some pressure because he gave an interview from behind a partially closed door.  It took but a nanosecond for all of us to get names going by property records.

IMO ONLY.  I think they have every right to be concerned.  Both witnesses and jurors.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #81 on: June 08, 2013, 12:21:06 AM »

Videos of 6/6/13 Hearing

Part 1, to first recess, 91m 44s

Part 2, Kruidbos to lunch break, 110m 6s


Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #82 on: June 09, 2013, 01:26:40 PM »
I would think the witness anonymity ruling could be immediately appealed to the DCA since it's a "cat out of the bag" issue.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #83 on: June 13, 2013, 03:41:37 PM »
I see the anonymous witness's attorney, Michael W. Nielsen, filed a notice of appearance for the June 6th hearing. I'm keeping an eye out for any action in the DCA seeking to overturn Judge Nelson's decision to deny anonymity.  I'd think that the fact the witness has his or her own lawyer makes that somewhat more likely.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2013, 03:49:10 PM by MJW »

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #84 on: June 13, 2013, 03:49:55 PM »
Refresh my memory about what Nelson denied.  I thought she would see the witness in her chambers to discuss it.  Has the defense formally appealed to the DCA? It is hard for me to see how she could refuse to give the witness at least what she gave the potential jurors, only people in the courtroom could see his/her face.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #85 on: June 13, 2013, 04:02:04 PM »
Refresh my memory about what Nelson denied.  I thought she would see the witness in her chambers to discuss it.  Has the defense formally appealed to the DCA? It is hard for me to see how she could refuse to give the witness at least what she gave the potential jurors, only people in the courtroom could see his/her face.

There seems to be some confusion about what exactly the judge decided, but she said. "At this time, the motion is denied." That seems to deny the motion, but allow for the possibility she will reconsider. The witnesses shouldn't wait to find out, or they may end up like GZ did with the W9 interview: before their lawyer can attempt to prevent it, the the beans have already been spilled.

As far as I can tell, no one has sought DCA review.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #86 on: June 13, 2013, 04:10:29 PM »
"Detailed Case View":

06/06/2013    MNFD    --COURT.*ORDER - COURT DENIED MOTION.***ORDER - WITNESSES NAMES TO REMAIN
06/06/2013    MNFD    --UNDER SEAL UNTIL THE START OF THE TRIAL. 
« Last Edit: June 13, 2013, 04:15:37 PM by MJW »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #87 on: June 14, 2013, 02:04:22 AM »
I don't know if anyone needs reminding, but I posted on witness anonymity a bit upthread.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking