Paoli's train defense

[go4two]

The lack of experinced defense counsel, Paolis mistaken belief that he can bully his way through a trial. and divert attention from the real questions wih some half baked conspiracy theory will make things very difficult for JJ. Paoli should sit down shut up and let Pabst take this thing. Watching for a while on Friday, it occured to me that JJ had a change of demeanor. It was as if it occured to him, all of Paolis bloviating and bravado was problematic. He was indeed in deep shit, and what was going to happen in the trial was going to be a whole bunch different than the shit diet he has been fed for th past months. His tears were real, and I actuallly felt sorry for him. He is poorly prepared for whats coming.

I now know who you are. I sat fairly close to you on Friday. Shame on you for posting on Egriz! You are going to get fired when I expose you. For you to see JJ's tears, you could only be sitting in one area. Can any Egrizzers figure what area I'm talking about?

 

[Grisly Fan]

The lack of experinced defense counsel, Paolis mistaken belief that he can bully his way through a trial. and divert attention from the real questions wih some half baked conspiracy theory will make things very difficult for JJ. Paoli should sit down shut up and let Pabst take this thing. Watching for a while on Friday, it occured to me that JJ had a change of demeanor. It was as if it occured to him, all of Paolis bloviating and bravado was problematic. He was indeed in deep shit, and what was going to happen in the trial was going to be a whole bunch different than the shit diet he has been fed for th past months. His tears were real, and I actuallly felt sorry for him. He is poorly prepared for whats coming.

I now know who you are. I sat fairly close to you on Friday. Shame on you for posting on Egriz! You are going to get fired when I expose you. For you to see JJ's tears, you could only be sitting in one area. Can any Egrizzers figure what area I'm talking about?

Court reporter or bailiff?

 

[Fortpeckgriz]

Fortpeck,

Is it still hearsay if the person witnessed a conversation between two people. Such as, I testify that I heard X say yadayada to Y. In other words, can they call a witness to confirm or disprove a conversation between the victim and the accuser? Or is that a no go as well?

Well this depends. Is the overheard statement an admission by a party opponent or a statement against interest? If yes (and there are requirements for both of those) then the statement can come in. But if it is not, then the only way to bring it in is to show the effect on the hearer. Then you are not proving that the statement is true, you are proving what it did to the hearer's mind. Your best bet is to put the two people who said the statements on the stand. There are more hearsay exceptions but I'm just trying to give the basic rundown before boring everyone to tears.

Copper,

You start to get into some pretty sticky situations trying to get the evidence you mentioned in. Previous allegations start to venture into highly prejudicial waters. The judge has the discretion to not let those in, plus they could be hearsay as well. Previous medical records generally are never let in, plus those could be claimed privileged under the patient/physician relationship. You could try to get them in under the business record exception but that is tough. In order to do that the person transmitting the statements to the record must be under a DUTY to do so. A patient has no duty to transmit the info to the doctor. Generally, all records or reports (police reports, medical records, etc.) are hearsay and cannot be admitted into evidence. Now, here is where it gets complicated, you can have the person who created the record testify as to the creation and why he did it, but you must have the original record, and the record still does not come in as evidence, only the testimony does. Also, the reputation or opinion of the victim will NOT be let in at all because of the special circumstances here.

Finally, for all of you who think this trial will go poorly, I can't speculate on a likely result. However, keep in mind that this is CRIMINAL trial. The burden is on the state to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the crime was committed. Like what was said in the papers, this is a very high bar. He said/she said will not cut it. There must be direct evidence that meets this burden. If this were a CIVIL case then the burden would be a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. If you show that one party is 51% at fault, then this burden is met, and you can recover. This is not that hard to meet.

Think of it this way, when you see famous athletes get into these situations (Kobe Bryant, Roethlisberger, etc), how does it usually play out? First the criminal charges come. Then through discovery and the first stages of trial, the evidence boils down to he said/she said. Then the state drops the charges. Then the civil suit comes, which the athlete ALWAYS settles. Why does he always settle? Because usually the victim has just enough to win a civil suit but cannot meet the criminal burden. So instead of publicly losing a civil suit where you claim innocence (and get proven a liar in the process) you settle the claim out of court and include a gag order on the parties involved.

I have no idea if it will play out this way. I have no idea what the evidence is/who will testify/etc., but that is the main difference between Civil and Criminal trials.

 

[Cats2506]

Well this depends. Is the overheard statement an admission by a party opponent or a statement against interest? If yes (and there are requirements for both of those) then the statement can come in. But if it is not, then the only way to bring it in is to show the effect on the hearer. Then you are not proving that the statement is true, you are proving what it did to the hearer's mind. Your best bet is to put the two people who said the statements on the stand. There are more hearsay exceptions but I'm just trying to give the basic rundown before boring everyone to tears.

If you are trying to bring this statement in and the only way to do it was to show its effect on the hearer, wouldn't that effect on the hearer need to be part of the evidence itself.

confusing I know, but if A says something to B overheard by C, the reasoning to put C on the stand and get what A said to B into the record must be C's reaction, and C's reaction must be relative to the case, If C's reaction has nothing to do with the case I don't see how C could be called to testify.

BTW FPG thanks for providing some clarity to the legal mumbo jumbo

 

[ilovethecats]

Finally, for all of you who think this trial will go poorly, I can't speculate on a likely result.

this should tell everyone ALL they need to know. a guy with ACTUAL knowledge and who has been in law school won't speculate. be nice if the countless other "experts" would follow his lead. :lol:

 

[Fortpeckgriz]

Well this depends. Is the overheard statement an admission by a party opponent or a statement against interest? If yes (and there are requirements for both of those) then the statement can come in. But if it is not, then the only way to bring it in is to show the effect on the hearer. Then you are not proving that the statement is true, you are proving what it did to the hearer's mind. Your best bet is to put the two people who said the statements on the stand. There are more hearsay exceptions but I'm just trying to give the basic rundown before boring everyone to tears.

If you are trying to bring this statement in and the only way to do it was to show its effect on the hearer, wouldn't that effect on the hearer need to be part of the evidence itself.

confusing I know, but if A says something to B overheard by C, the reasoning to put C on the stand and get what A said to B into the record must be C's reaction, and C's reaction must be relative to the case, If C's reaction has nothing to do with the case I don't see how C could be called to testify.

BTW FPG thanks for providing some clarity to the legal mumbo jumbo

Think of it like this: say Bobby sues Tim for for a slip and fall on Tim's stairs. Bobby want's to put Kraig on the stand to testify that 2 days before the accident, Kraig overheard Pete tell Tim "your stairs are defective, somebody is bound to slip and fall on them." The statement overheard by Kraig is hearsay and CANNOT be brought in to prove that the stairs were in fact defective. It CAN be brought in as non-hearsay to show that Tim had notice (if he claims that he didn't have notice) and that Kraig did indeed hear it.

Remember this doesn't prove the main case at all, it just brings in evidence of collateral matters.

I should also note, another way to get it in as circumstantial is the present state of mind exception.

Say Bobby tells Tim, "I am going over to Tom's house tonight." That night Tom's house is robbed. Tim could be put on the stand to testify as to what Bobby said, but it would only be brought in as Bobby's state of mind earlier in the day, showing of intent to travel there. In cannot be used to show that Bobby did in fact rob Tom.

 

[grzz]

Finally, for all of you who think this trial will go poorly, I can't speculate on a likely result.

this should tell everyone ALL they need to know. a guy with ACTUAL knowledge and who has been in law school won't speculate. be nice if the countless other "experts" would follow his lead. :lol:

This. +1

 

[Cats2506]

Well this depends. Is the overheard statement an admission by a party opponent or a statement against interest? If yes (and there are requirements for both of those) then the statement can come in. But if it is not, then the only way to bring it in is to show the effect on the hearer. Then you are not proving that the statement is true, you are proving what it did to the hearer's mind. Your best bet is to put the two people who said the statements on the stand. There are more hearsay exceptions but I'm just trying to give the basic rundown before boring everyone to tears.

If you are trying to bring this statement in and the only way to do it was to show its effect on the hearer, wouldn't that effect on the hearer need to be part of the evidence itself.

confusing I know, but if A says something to B overheard by C, the reasoning to put C on the stand and get what A said to B into the record must be C's reaction, and C's reaction must be relative to the case, If C's reaction has nothing to do with the case I don't see how C could be called to testify.

BTW FPG thanks for providing some clarity to the legal mumbo jumbo

Think of it like this: say Bobby sues Tim for for a slip and fall on Tim's stairs. Bobby want's to put Kraig on the stand to testify that 2 days before the accident, Kraig overheard Pete tell Tim "your stairs are defective, somebody is bound to slip and fall on them." The statement overheard by Kraig is hearsay and CANNOT be brought in to prove that the stairs were in fact defective. It CAN be brought in as non-hearsay to show that Tim had notice (if he claims that he didn't have notice) and that Kraig did indeed hear it.

Remember this doesn't prove the main case at all, it just brings in evidence of collateral matters.

I should also note, another way to get it in as circumstantial is the present state of mind exception.

Say Bobby tells Tim, "I am going over to Tom's house tonight." That night Tom's house is robbed. Tim could be put on the stand to testify as to what Bobby said, but it would only be brought in as Bobby's state of mind earlier in the day, showing of intent to travel there. In cannot be used to show that Bobby did in fact rob Tom.

Thanks, I think I get it.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

You are going to get fired when I expose you.

At least give PR the opportunity to sue the guy first. :roll:

 

[oGriz]

Some additional reading on Wikipedia if you're inclined to:

Chewbacca defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

Red herring logical fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

 

[becker2117]

The lack of experinced defense counsel, Paolis mistaken belief that he can bully his way through a trial. and divert attention from the real questions wih some half baked conspiracy theory will make things very difficult for JJ. Paoli should sit down shut up and let Pabst take this thing. Watching for a while on Friday, it occured to me that JJ had a change of demeanor. It was as if it occured to him, all of Paolis bloviating and bravado was problematic. He was indeed in deep shit, and what was going to happen in the trial was going to be a whole bunch different than the shit diet he has been fed for th past months. His tears were real, and I actuallly felt sorry for him. He is poorly prepared for whats coming.

I now know who you are. I sat fairly close to you on Friday. Shame on you for posting on Egriz! You are going to get fired when I expose you. For you to see JJ's tears, you could only be sitting in one area. Can any Egrizzers figure what area I'm talking about?

Go4two, come on....out with it, would be nice to know who this TNT is...also interesting this person joined egriz right after all this came out....so very interesting!

 

[grizzfan]

Just a little change of pace here and it relates to Pat Williams' blatant statement in the NY Times that UM recruits "thugs" but excluded Johnson from this description for the moment. Following that discussion the other day was an article that posed that the word 'thug' is the new "N-word". By excluding Johnson from the 'thug' epitath (he's of course white) Williams dips his toe in the new racial stereotype. I've never cared for or respected Pat Williams. He was a horrible politician in his day and remains a divisive man today. He is certainly capable of racial slander and as a member of the Board of Reagents, he should be censured. And to this day he maintains the appropriateness of his words. Your bad, Pat. Your resignation would be a blessing for the University System and for racial harmony.

 

[mcg]

Fortpeck,

Is it still hearsay if the person witnessed a conversation between two people. Such as, I testify that I heard X say yadayada to Y. In other words, can they call a witness to confirm or disprove a conversation between the victim and the accuser? Or is that a no go as well?

Well this depends. Is the overheard statement an admission by a party opponent or a statement against interest? If yes (and there are requirements for both of those) then the statement can come in. But if it is not, then the only way to bring it in is to show the effect on the hearer. Then you are not proving that the statement is true, you are proving what it did to the hearer's mind. Your best bet is to put the two people who said the statements on the stand. There are more hearsay exceptions but I'm just trying to give the basic rundown before boring everyone to tears.

Copper,

You start to get into some pretty sticky situations trying to get the evidence you mentioned in. Previous allegations start to venture into highly prejudicial waters. The judge has the discretion to not let those in, plus they could be hearsay as well. Previous medical records generally are never let in, plus those could be claimed privileged under the patient/physician relationship. You could try to get them in under the business record exception but that is tough. In order to do that the person transmitting the statements to the record must be under a DUTY to do so. A patient has no duty to transmit the info to the doctor. Generally, all records or reports (police reports, medical records, etc.) are hearsay and cannot be admitted into evidence. Now, here is where it gets complicated, you can have the person who created the record testify as to the creation and why he did it, but you must have the original record, and the record still does not come in as evidence, only the testimony does. Also, the reputation or opinion of the victim will NOT be let in at all because of the special circumstances here.

Finally, for all of you who think this trial will go poorly, I can't speculate on a likely result. However, keep in mind that this is CRIMINAL trial. The burden is on the state to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the crime was committed. Like what was said in the papers, this is a very high bar. He said/she said will not cut it. There must be direct evidence that meets this burden. If this were a CIVIL case then the burden would be a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. If you show that one party is 51% at fault, then this burden is met, and you can recover. This is not that hard to meet.

Think of it this way, when you see famous athletes get into these situations (Kobe Bryant, Roethlisberger, etc), how does it usually play out? First the criminal charges come. Then through discovery and the first stages of trial, the evidence boils down to he said/she said. Then the state drops the charges. Then the civil suit comes, which the athlete ALWAYS settles. Why does he always settle? Because usually the victim has just enough to win a civil suit but cannot meet the criminal burden. So instead of publicly losing a civil suit where you claim innocence (and get proven a liar in the process) you settle the claim out of court and include a gag order on the parties involved.

I have no idea if it will play out this way. I have no idea what the evidence is/who will testify/etc., but that is the main difference between Civil and Criminal trials.

it would seem to me that there will be days of testimony that will attempt to influence the credibility of both defendant and accuser, but in the final analysis the testimony that counts will be JJ saying she said yes and the accuser saying she said no. Why then is is this case going forward? I suppose the prosecution may feel they have enough additional evidence to win the case.

this is a little politically incorrect, but when is the accuser identified publicly? I'm all for an appropriate amount of protection of privacy, but it seems to me when the case gets to trial the accuser should be identified. It sort of strikes me like the Salem witchcraft trials, unidentified accusations that are hard to refute.

 

[grizfnz]

Funny how Pat now says he didn't consider JJ to fit the "thug" label, yet in his rant regarding thugs being recruited for the football team he clearly identified beatings, vandalism and sexual assaults (more than one) amongst the "thuggery" which has to stop. I'm sure Pat is used to the double standard life that members of congress are afforded, but that no longer applies.

 

[msuhunter]

Finally, for all of you who think this trial will go poorly, I can't speculate on a likely result.

this should tell everyone ALL they need to know. a guy with ACTUAL knowledge and who has been in law school won't speculate. be nice if the countless other "experts" would follow his lead. :lol:

All law school is is speculation ...

 

[msuhunter]

The lack of experinced defense counsel, Paolis mistaken belief that he can bully his way through a trial. and divert attention from the real questions wih some half baked conspiracy theory will make things very difficult for JJ. Paoli should sit down shut up and let Pabst take this thing. Watching for a while on Friday, it occured to me that JJ had a change of demeanor. It was as if it occured to him, all of Paolis bloviating and bravado was problematic. He was indeed in deep shit, and what was going to happen in the trial was going to be a whole bunch different than the shit diet he has been fed for th past months. His tears were real, and I actuallly felt sorry for him. He is poorly prepared for whats coming.

I now know who you are. I sat fairly close to you on Friday. Shame on you for posting on Egriz! You are going to get fired when I expose you. For you to see JJ's tears, you could only be sitting in one area. Can any Egrizzers figure what area I'm talking about?

Wow ... you are a tool ...

 

[Copper Griz]

Fortpeck,

Is it still hearsay if the person witnessed a conversation between two people. Such as, I testify that I heard X say yadayada to Y. In other words, can they call a witness to confirm or disprove a conversation between the victim and the accuser? Or is that a no go as well?

Well this depends. Is the overheard statement an admission by a party opponent or a statement against interest? If yes (and there are requirements for both of those) then the statement can come in. But if it is not, then the only way to bring it in is to show the effect on the hearer. Then you are not proving that the statement is true, you are proving what it did to the hearer's mind. Your best bet is to put the two people who said the statements on the stand. There are more hearsay exceptions but I'm just trying to give the basic rundown before boring everyone to tears.

Copper,

You start to get into some pretty sticky situations trying to get the evidence you mentioned in. Previous allegations start to venture into highly prejudicial waters. The judge has the discretion to not let those in, plus they could be hearsay as well. Previous medical records generally are never let in, plus those could be claimed privileged under the patient/physician relationship. You could try to get them in under the business record exception but that is tough. In order to do that the person transmitting the statements to the record must be under a DUTY to do so. A patient has no duty to transmit the info to the doctor. Generally, all records or reports (police reports, medical records, etc.) are hearsay and cannot be admitted into evidence. Now, here is where it gets complicated, you can have the person who created the record testify as to the creation and why he did it, but you must have the original record, and the record still does not come in as evidence, only the testimony does. Also, the reputation or opinion of the victim will NOT be let in at all because of the special circumstances here.

Finally, for all of you who think this trial will go poorly, I can't speculate on a likely result. However, keep in mind that this is CRIMINAL trial. The burden is on the state to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the crime was committed. Like what was said in the papers, this is a very high bar. He said/she said will not cut it. There must be direct evidence that meets this burden. If this were a CIVIL case then the burden would be a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. If you show that one party is 51% at fault, then this burden is met, and you can recover. This is not that hard to meet.

Think of it this way, when you see famous athletes get into these situations (Kobe Bryant, Roethlisberger, etc), how does it usually play out? First the criminal charges come. Then through discovery and the first stages of trial, the evidence boils down to he said/she said. Then the state drops the charges. Then the civil suit comes, which the athlete ALWAYS settles. Why does he always settle? Because usually the victim has just enough to win a civil suit but cannot meet the criminal burden. So instead of publicly losing a civil suit where you claim innocence (and get proven a liar in the process) you settle the claim out of court and include a gag order on the parties involved.

I have no idea if it will play out this way. I have no idea what the evidence is/who will testify/etc., but that is the main difference between Civil and Criminal trials.

Thanks for the info FPG. Very informative and for once factual. This thing is like watching a "train wreck". I can't help but watch - even though the end result is going to be ugly.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

If TNT is an attorney working for the prosecution, he/she should be reported to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Otherwise, he/she is restating a criticism of counsel that others have offered in different matters. We'll have wait to see if counsel's approach ultimately has any import here, but if nothing else, counsel is no fool.

 

[granitegriz]

tnt~it's all over, JJ should just throw in the towel on the beginning of day two and plead guilty. Have you been drinking? Paoli only needs to connect with one juror who is selected and he will.

 

[Cats2506]

tnt~it's all over, JJ should just throw in the towel on the beginning of day two and plead guilty. Have you been drinking? Paoli only needs to connect with one juror who is selected and he will.

If the trial is left with a hung jury, isn't he still charged with a felony, and if that was the case wouldn't he still be suspended from the team until those charges were dropped by the DA.

Just wondering on how you think a hung jury would affect his playing status?