United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Court Sets Ominous Precedent: Informing Jurors of Their Rights Is Now ILLEGAL
Source:
From The Trenches
URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... rors-rights-now-illegal/200165
Published: Jun 2, 2017
Author: Justin Gardner
Post Date: 2017-06-03 10:38:54 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 118921
Comments: 422
Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights. Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry. Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.” The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.” Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules. Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool. “I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO TRASH MY JURY TRIAL, BASICALLY,” TESTIFIED JUDGE [PETER] JAKLEVIC. “IT JUST DIDN’T SOUND RIGHT.” JACKLEVIC ENDED UP SENDING THAT JURY POOL HOME ON NOV. 24, 2015 WHEN YODER TOOK A PLEA. JAKLEVIC CONTINUED TO TESTIFY THAT HE STEPPED INTO THE HALLWAY WITH MECOSTA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BRIAN THIEDE WHEN DET. ERLANDSON AND A DEPUTY BROUGHT WOOD INTO THE COURTHOUSE THAT DAY. MECOSTA COUNTY DEPUTY JEFF ROBERTS TESTIFIED HE “ASKED WOOD TO COME INSIDE BECAUSE THE JUDGE WANTED TO TALK WITH HIM,” THEN THREATENED TO CALL A CITY COP IF WOOD DID NOT COME INSIDE. WOOD TESTIFIED JUDGE JAKLEVIC NEVER SPOKE TO HIM THAT DAY, OR HIM ANY QUESTIONS, BEFORE ORDERING HIS ARREST. HE TELLS FOX 17 HE HAD CONCERNS HIS CASE WAS TRIED IN MECOSTA COUNTY WHERE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED, INVOLVING SEVERAL COURT OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE JUDGE.” To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying information pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired and county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place. “So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.” Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury. “And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.” When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.” We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-114) not displayed.
.
.
.
#115. To: Vicomte13 (#112)
I agree. Two huge mistakes from the get-go. But, if you think you have an open and shut case -- and it was -- perhaps the prosecution felt safe in doing this. Trying the case in Simi Valley with an all-white jury could lead to riots in LA with blacks believing THAT was the reason OJ was convicted.
Blah, blah, blah. There's this and there's that. Technicality here, technicality there. They wore purple gloves not pink ones. They signed their reports in blue ink not black ink. They told a lie in 5th grade. Got it. You made your point. I'll ask again, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go?
Here is the fact. Marbury has stood as good law for over two centuries. In a court, you will not be permitted to argue otherwise. You are entitled to your opinion. The Court is empowered to order youk not to attempt to argue such a thing, and to hold you in contempt if you try. This is John Jay in a unique case. It is the only jury trial ever held at SCOTUS. However, it was not a jury of one's peers, but of specially selected experts in the subject matter of the case. It is an anomaly, not applicable to any other case. Yes, that is correct. However, it is violating one's oath to do so, and if one states his intent to do so, e.g., to other jurors, it is grounds to be kicked off the jury. It sure isn't perfect. As they say, you can't unring a bell. A judge's instruction cannot make one forget what one has heard, but that is the cure available. The alternative is to have every trial a party is losing, to have that party relate something inadmissible as evidence, cause a mistrial. A mistrial is other alternative.
That is whey everyone knows OJ is guilty. Even you. You are welcome to present the evidence, or even start another thread on the OJ criminal case. I believe it was possible that two people were there, possibly O.J. and another. I know that the criminal prosecution failed to prove its case against O.J. What you may "know" is not the relevant issue. What did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt? There were massive failures.
http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html Reason #1 is typical. Accepted as true, it does not prove much of anything. Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on.
Well, when you post "101 Reasons" you know there are going to be some lame ones. But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco, the gloves with victim's blood, OJ's shoe print at the murder scene, the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves, hair and fibers matching. Now, you can argue that each one individually proves nothing. But taken together, there's only one explanation.
Objection, your honor. The burden of proof is on the state to prove the case against my client. He has invoked the 5th Amendment and cannot be compelled to testify.
Correct. Our legal system is a game. The winner plays the game the best. It's a hard game, so if one has a great deal at stake, one hires the best gladiators to fight on one's behalf.
And when they demanded that OJ Simpson put on the glove, they blew themselves up. Whether it didn't fit because he scrunched up his fingers, or it didn't fit because he was wearing a latex glove to preserve evidence, the bottom line is that it didn't fit, and OJ got to hold up his hand and say "It doesn't fit." I got to watch it all in real time, except for one day. Except for that day, I also had it all on videotape, long since discarded. However, I have a full transcript. After watching what happened during the day, watching the fake news at night was like entering the twilight zone. They quickly brought charges. Simpson quickly invoked a California speedy trial provision. The prosecution was forced to begin months before they had the RFLP DNA results back. They spent months with repetitive and nonsense testimony, just stalling. The mess started to go south at a pretrial procedure where the autopsy doctor was destroyed. Dr. Golden, who performed the autopsy, testified at a pre-trial procedure, and he was utterly destroyed. He was so bad that when the trial came about, the prosecution kept him off the stand and had the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Lakshmanan (aka Dr. Lucky) testify about the autopsy. Dr. Lakshmanan was not at the autopsy. He never examined the victims other than by looking at photographs after the bodies had been released. Prosecutor Brian Kelberg wasted 8 days on direct examination. Defense Counsel Robert Shapiro ripped it to shreds in a few hours. This monumental waste of time was an object lesson in how to lose a sequestered jury. Remember, this jury was sequestered as the trial dragged on and on and on. That was just the prosecution case. Long before the glove fiasco, who can forget Barry Scheck, time after time, showing pictures demonstrating that the testimony of criminalist Dennis Fung was in error, punctuated with, "What about that, Mr. Fung?" A likely answer as to why the glove did not fit was that it got wet. Get leather wet and it shrinks. The case was in dire straights by then and the glove stunt was a desperation move. AS Prosecutor Kelberg made up one ridiculous hypothetical after another, the direct testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan seemed like it would never end. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [11504] MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. May we approach? THE COURT: No. Overruled. DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already said it could--it could be such a kind of perpetrator. MR. KELBERG: And Mr. Shapiro asked you would you stake your reputation to a reasonable medical certainty. Remember that question? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you stake your reputation that based upon the forensic pathology evidence you reviewed, that all of that evidence is in fact consistent with one killer, six foot two, 210 pounds, athletically built with the element of surprise with a 6-inch long single-edged knife killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Would you risk your reputation, stake your reputation on that? DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that. MR. KELBERG: And will you stake your reputation that all of the evidence is consistent with that? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. To see what horsecrap that was, we can visit what else was brought out. That was from transcript page 11504. The below excerpts are in chronological order, starting on page 11392. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [11392] MR. SHAPIRO: Good afternoon, Dr. Lakshmanan. DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good afternoon. MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Lakshmanan, you've been on the witness stand for approximately eight days? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, sir. MR. SHAPIRO: And as I understand your testimony, you can tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were victims of a homicide? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these victims died as a result of stab wounds? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Sharp force injuries. MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these individuals bled to death? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: You cannot tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty what time they died? DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct. MR. SHAPIRO: In fact, all of your expertise lends you to the opinion that a layperson could give, that they were last seen alive at 9:00, that they were found dead at 12:15, and that is the range of death; isn't that correct? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that's what I opined also, between 9:00 and 12:30. MR. SHAPIRO: And with all of your training, experience, education, reading all these books, you cannot tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people were responsible for the deaths of these two people? DR. LAKSHMANAN: I--I said that one person could have done it with one single-edged knife in my testimony. MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people are responsible for these homicides? DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many different weapons were used to accomplish these homicides? DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already opined saying that a single-edged knife could have caused all the injuries, but with reasonable medical certainty, I cannot exclude a second knife. MR. SHAPIRO: Can you exclude other types of sharp instruments within a reasonable medical certainty? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you expand on what you mean by "Other types of sharp instruments" before I-- MR. SHAPIRO: In your range of this vast experience, are there any other types of sharp instruments that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty could or could not have caused these injuries? DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would like you to be specific, what type of sharp instruments because I want to know what type of instrument you are talking about. I don't have experience like you do with these sharp instruments. MR. SHAPIRO: Are there any sharp instruments that you are aware of that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainly could have caused these injuries? DR. LAKSHMANAN: The main sharp instruments which I think could have caused these injuries is a--could have caused all the injuries was a single-edged knife. I already opined that. MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a double-edged knife could not have caused most of these injuries? DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that most--some of the injuries could have been caused by a double-edged knife, but a double-edged knife could not have caused all the injuries. MR. SHAPIRO: Could two single-edged knives have caused all the injuries? DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's a possibility. MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives have caused all the injuries? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Possibility. MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and a double-edged knife have caused all the injuries? DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's also a possibility. MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and two double-edged knives have caused all the injuries? DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is also a possibility. MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives, two double-edged knives and a broken piece of glass have caused all the injuries? DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't see--there's no evidence of any glass pieces on the bodies which I could see or--and also, the wounds look more like a more sharp instrument like a knife. MR. SHAPIRO: Are you saying a sharp broken piece of glass could not have caused any of these injuries? DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a possibility in some of the wounds. MR. SHAPIRO: Could a razor blade have caused some of these injuries? DR. LAKSHMANAN: On incised wounds, it's a possibility. MR. SHAPIRO: So after eight days, there's only about four facts that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that can help this jury in reaching an opinion? MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true, doctor, after eight days on the stand, there's only four facts you can testify to within a reasonable degree of medical certainly based on your education, background, experience as to how these two people died? MR. KELBERG: That's argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence and it's vague. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already discussed the findings. I've discussed my opinion that they were significant stab wounds to both the victims. I opined that the significant wounds on the body were caused by a single-edged knife. I think that's an important opinion which I have given. I have said that some of the other incised wounds could have been caused by a single-edged or double-edged knife which you cannot exclude with medical certainty. So I think I've been very clear that at least in most of the significant stab wounds, there's clear evidence that it was a single-edged knife. But your questions were more general wherein I indicated some of the wounds or most of the wounds, incised wounds, it was difficult to tell what type of weapon it was, wherein the stab wounds--the wounds we see on--some of the significant stab wounds on Miss Simpson and also on Mr. Ron Goldman, it was definitely a single-edged knife; and with reference to some of the incised wounds also, it would favor a single-edged knife rather then a double-edged knife, even though I cannot totally exclude it, especially the neck wound on Miss Simpson, it would favor a single-edged knife because of the bridge of tissue on the left side which I have discussed a few days ago. So I think I have given some direction. I won't say totally, but I think I have clearly established the cause of death in these two decedents. I also think I have given evidence which supports my opinion on the single-edged knife theory. And it seems medically, I can't exclude a doubleedged blade. I think it seems illogical that you have all the significant wounds caused by a single-edged blade, and you bring up the theory of a double-edged blade causing some of the not so significant wounds. So I don't think my eight days of testimony has been wasted. But if that's your position, I can't change it. MR. SHAPIRO: Well, you came to us because you have expertise above and beyond an average person in a specific field of medicine and science; isn't that correct? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: My question to you was a simple one. Can you tell us with that expertise within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both victims? MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, excuse me. Misstates the testimony. THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. MR. SHAPIRO: That one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both of the victims. DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is my opinion. I said it could have caused-- MR. SHAPIRO: No. My question--I want you to listen to this question very carefully. Can you tell us as a doctor, as a scientist and as the Chief Medical Examiner of one of the largest counties in the United States that within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, you will put your reputation on the line that one single-edged weapon was responsible for all the injuries to both victims in this case? DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't say that. MR. SHAPIRO: Is Dr. Golden sick? DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. He's still working in the Coroner's office. MR. SHAPIRO: Is he on vacation? DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, he's not on vacation. I told you he's working every day in the Coroner's office. MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he was not going to be called as a witness and you were? MR. KELBERG: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. KELBERG: Compound as well. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he wasn't going to be called as a witness? DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same time when Mr. Kelberg announced that he's not going to call him as a witness because Monday at 9:30, I thought they were meeting with him because that was the morning I was giving a lecture in Ventura. So that's the same time when you knew--I knew he was not testifying. MR. SHAPIRO: You would expect, as the person who is in charge of this medical office, that a doctor who performed the autopsy who is not sick, not on vacation, not doing other things that would prevent him from coming to court, would in fact be a witness; would you not? MR. KELBERG: Objection. Argumentative and irrelevant. THE COURT: It's argumentative. MR. SHAPIRO: Is that your practice; that the doctor who does the autopsy, if available, testifies? MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Objection. It's not within the province of the Coroner's office to determine who testifies and who does not. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you repeat the question again? MR. SHAPIRO: Is it the practice of the Coroner's office that you supervise that the doctor who performed the autopsy, when otherwise available, testifies? DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct. MR. SHAPIRO: And what is the reason that you have been told that Dr. Golden is not going to be called to testify? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, the same reason which was outlined here. They felt that I presented evidence in a manner which the jury can understand, and they didn't want to repeat the testimony again. This is my understanding from what was told in court right in front of all of us because I was not aware he was not going to testify until Monday morning when it was announced in court, and that's the truth. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [11404] DR. LAKSHMANAN: We did do that. MR. SHAPIRO: Don't you also have an obligation to somebody who is accused to make sure that asgood a job as is medically possible be done? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: And don't you have an obligation to correct mistakes immediately and look for errors? DR. LAKSHMANAN: We do that as soon as I ever find out about a mistake and it is a mistake, and I'm the first person to accept it and I always direct my doctors to correct it. And if there's a change of cause of death, we call the family and tell them that. At least all the cases--I'm aware of whenever there's a mistake, as I told this Court and this jury, we have to identify any mistake first to accept it. MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed a report in this case? DR. LAKSHMANAN: A report in the sense--what kind of report do you mean? MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any reports in this case? DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've not filed any reports except for the knife report I made, which I examined four knives presented to me by LAPD, and the other report which has been put in evidence as this chart, which I played a role in developing. MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any supplemental report to correct all the errors that you have found in this autopsy? DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that? DR. LAKSHMANAN: We could do that, but I thought we already presented the evidence in court. And we can do that. MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that? DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can and I-- MR. SHAPIRO: The question is, do you intend to? MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. I don't think the witness finished the answer. THE COURT: Yes. Finish the answer, doctor. DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't plan to do it because I was testifying here and the whole proceeding being televised and we have the--my charts which I introduced in evidence. But I could do it. MR. SHAPIRO: So you don't believe you have an obligation to the victims in this case to file a report that correctly reflects the autopsy in this case? DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have issued an addendum already. I met my obligation correcting the first mistakes we were aware of. These other smaller mistakes we just talked about, for example, in Goldman's, these abrasions, were not described in the addendum, and several other mistakes, we have notissued an addendum as yet. And as I said, it can be done, but--and I'll be happy to do it. MR. SHAPIRO: Are you going to do it? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: When are you going to do it? DR. LAKSHMANAN: After the trial, after the testimony is over. MR. SHAPIRO: You think that's proper, a year later, to file a report after the case is over? MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Irrelevant, argumentative. THE COURT: It's argumentative. You want to rephrase the question? MR. SHAPIRO: I'll just go on. Thank you, your Honor. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [11434] DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain. MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant or assailants were right or left-handed? DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already opined on that, I think. MR. SHAPIRO: I'm asking you are you certain? DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain. MR. SHAPIRO: And again, that is because you weren't there and there are no eyewitnesses to this; isn't that correct? DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct, but what I gave was what are the possibilities and based on the wounds. For example, the last wound on Nicole Brown Simpson had to be right-hand person because the wound travels, in my opinion, from left to right and it has to be done from the back based on the blood. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [11504] 06/15/95 Lakshmanan Day Nine, Direct Examination by Kelberg. DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that. MR. KELBERG: And will you stake your reputation that all of the evidence is consistent with that? DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16506 DR. BADEN: No. MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the weight of the perpetrator or perpetrators? DR. BADEN: No. MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the physique of the perpetrator or perpetrators? DR. BADEN: No. MR. SHAPIRO: Would you say you would have as much chance as determining whether or not somebody had a mustache from observing ashes in a cremation as you could of coming up with whether -- what the size, weight and height was of the perpetrators in this case? MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. I would like to hear the answer to this one. [16507] DR. BADEN: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding the timing of injuries, can this be based on the appearance of injuries in a photograph? DR. BADEN: Very dangerous to do it that way. MR. SHAPIRO: Why? DR. BADEN: Because part of the--of the timing of injuries, how long an injury has been present, is based on color changes, and that is very dependent on the color film, the speed, the flash and how it is developed. The naked eye direct visualization is very helpful and looking at the tissue under the microscope is the best means of determining how long an injury has been present in general. MR. SHAPIRO: And so that I understand you correctly, and the jury does, that when we are talking about timing of injuries, we are talking about whether it occurred before death, at the time of death or after death? DR. BADEN: Okay. That--I was going--how long before death an injury occurs and also the same applies for distinguishing whether--or trying to distinguish whether an injury occurred after death or before death, but that also is very difficult and often impossible. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [16559] DR. BADEN: What I said is that the witness, me in the blue chair, Dr. Lakshmanan in the blue chair here, can only answer the questions that the lawyers put to us, and I think we try to answer the questions the best we can. But if all we say is it's possible that it happened by a bushy-haired stranger whose righthanded from behind, yes, but it's also equally consistent with a bald-headed midget from the front who is left-handed. It's all -- it depends on what kind of information I want to give across as an expert, but I don't have control over your questions or Mr. Shapiro's questions. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Correct. OJ cannot be compelled to testify. He could present his shoes and gloves, however. The prosecution will simply leave it out there that OJ's rare and expensive shoes and gloves, evidence of which was found at a murder scene, cannot be produced by the defendant.
Just re-reading this testimony gives me a f**king headache. I have never read so many hypotheticals in a cross-examination based on zero evidence to the contrary. Could a Martian have done this? Could he have used a scalpel? Will you stake your reputation on your answer?
Except that is isn't a law it is a judicial decision. It sounds like you think legislating from the bench is a good thing. You know that is what they did that is why you called it a "law". If it is good or bad is irrelevant to the fact that it was a usurption of power never ever granted by congress or signed by any President.
I agree with White on this one. It was legal mumbo jumbo meant to trip up dumb people.
I would argue that the prosecutor is the one who "broke their oath" when they acted contrary to the constitution and interfere with the rights of the jury as John Jay made very clear.
I disagree. All we both have is our opinions.
So if you were on the jury you would have said not guilty. Ok.
There is nothing wrong with your intelligence. You're smart. But you are also wrong on things.
That will never happen.
No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books; not make them up. In making up laws this judge can be accused of judicial activism. As for the jury determining those facts, let's us hope they are actually receiving those facts and that the prosecution is not intentionally withholding some of those facts. We have seen this happen is many cases.
At the time that this OJ Simpson case was going on I was also studying law and do understand the basics about evidence. The defense team was effective because the LAPD botched up the forensics procedure on the blood evidence. In essence the LAPD had much to do with the acquital process. Even Mark Furman was disgusted with how the LAPD handled the investigation and tainting of evidence. They knew something and I believe they deliberately botched it up so as to prevent another Rodney King riot like what we endured in '92.
All you have to do is run into a 'roid ragin' cop and bam! You're an arrest resister with drugs in your car. And a jury of your peers will support the cops against you. You lose, unless you've got a Johnny Cochran working for you. Then you win.
If I were on the jury, it's difficult to say. The LAPD and the forensics lab truly did make a hash of it. Without the forensics, what was there? I probably would have heard the evidence about the hand cuts and the blood evidence and decided he was guilty. I would not have been able to persuade the rest of the jury though.
They did - the prosecution did put that out there. But whatever negative inference there may have been was overwhelmed by the other problems in the prosecution's case.
It sounds like you think legislating from the bench is a good thing. You are wrong. We use the Common Law system of law (except for the state of Louisiana). The collection of court rulings is the common law. A function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws. That is not legislating. Again, Marbury has been binding precedent for over two centuries.
Argue your nonsense in court and the judge will order you to stop, sit down, and not repeat the mistake. If you persist, you will be locked up in another room and watch the rest of your proceeding on TV. Your peculiar notions about the legal system are only good for blog posts.
And that is but a teeny excerpt. Dr. Lakshmanan testified for 8 days on direct examination. The trial opening arguments were in January 95 and this is what they were doing months later in June. And the jury was sequestered the whole time.
Not enough for a conviction. The forensics was a mess. LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination. Some wag may not have been wrong when he suggested the LAPD was caught trying to frame a guilty man. They were caught doing stuff that discredited whatever case they may have had.
Now you're saying that the jury should judge the law too. Make up your mind! http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html 101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE. That is some real proof there. Jill Shively sold her story to Hard Copy. She was discredited by the prosecution, never called to testify, and never said anything in court. Her story sold to Hard Copy was never evidence before the jury.
You mean the blood shown to contain EDTA? Or do you refer to the initially collected blood samples which were left in a truck all day in the heat, destroying DNA content? You mean the blood that was not there, and then significantly later, it was. Gloves with the victim's blood prove there were gloves with the victim's blood. Gloves that Christopher Darden decided to ask OJ to try on in front of the jury. They didn't fit. Mark Fuhrman conveniently found one glove at Bundy and went to Rockingham and found the other. He also was forced to plead the fifth, and the lady [McKinny] with the tape that proved him a liar, testified that Fuhrman stated that police planted evidence against black suspects. Not in evidence. At the criminal trial, it was only shown that the shoe prints indicated shoes of a size worn by OJ, and millions of others. The defendant is not required to produce any evidence for the prosecution, and need not say anything. He need not put on a case at all. The jury is instructed it may not draw any negative inference on that basis. It may only consider evidence actually presented in court. It is impossible for you to know that OJ couldn't produce something. They eyeballed hair and they eyeballed fibers. In this case, matching was used to denote consistent with. The found hairs did not include roots and were not testable for DNA. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The blood evidence was a great big bust. Serology cannot provide a definitive match. Yamauchi cross-contaminated everything with a blood-draw sample taken from O.J. Simpson. Barry Scheck absolutely destroyed Dennis Fung and Collin Yamauchi on cross-examination. One cannot impute much to evidence whose handling and processing is proven to be a scientific disaster. [7457] Prosecutor Goldberg questioning expert Matheson. MR. MATHESON: Well, first off, we want to know whether in fact it is blood. If that's what we have, if there is blood present, we want to know whether or not that blood is human in origin. And if that is a fact, then we continue on to identify the different genetic markers that might be present or identifiable in a bloodstain or an exemplar blood sample. MR. GOLDBERG: And are the tests that you perform in serology known as tests of exclusion? MR. MATHESON: That's a term for it, yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And what does that mean? MR. MATHESON: Well, the idea being is, there aren't any tests, particularly in conventional serology that would make a definitive match between a bloodstain and a particular individual. They can merely include somebody. In particular, they can exclude somebody. If you're doing an analysis and you find a marker that is in a stain that is not in a reference sample, then you can say absolutely that that bloodstain could not have come from that individual. It's an exclusion. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [9807] Prosecutor Harmon and Criminalist Collin Yamauchi MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. HARMON: How many bindles were in each of the coin envelopes? MR. YAMAUCHI: Two. MR. HARMON: Okay. And will you please describe your practice with respect to processing or how you process coin envelopes? MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, only one coin envelope or set of evidence item would be opened at one time. So in other words, I wouldn't have two coin envelopes open simultaneously. MR. HARMON: Okay. And why is that? MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that's bad lab practice. You want to eliminate any chance of crosscontamination. So you work on one thing at one time. Defense Counsel Barry Scheck Cross-Examining Criminalist Collin Yamauchi MR. SCHECK: And that was being done at the same time as the Bundy blood drops on June 14th? MR. HARMON: Objection. "Being done at the same time" is vague. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. SCHECK: That was part of your 23 samples? MR. YAMAUCHI: It was in that group, yes. MR. SCHECK: And also within those 23 samples was blood from the reference tube of Mr. Simpson? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, on June 15th, you received specimens, completed PCR amplification and obtained results on 19 different samples? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. On the 15th, counting the controls and everything, 19. MR. SCHECK: And you did all those in one day, June 15th? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I got through the hybridization step in that time period. MR. SCHECK: You received the samples, you cut them, you did PCR extraction and you did typing on the strip so that you could report results by the end of the day on all 19 of those? MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I couldn't report the results till all the other things were in place and everything was looked at and written out. But I would have results available for interpretation. MR. SCHECK: The evening of June 15th, you called Greg Matheson and gave him results on those 19 samples based on the PCR typing strips? [10,001] MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I told him what I got up to that poison. MR. SCHECK: The only thing that was missing, as far as the way you did this, was the PCR product gel, right? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, was it part of your training to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix up? MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, if you're referring to this case, I didn't do it in a short period of time. I did it in-- MR. SCHECK: Mr. Yamauchi-- MR. YAMAUCHI: --quite a big block of time. THE COURT: Wait, wait. No. You don't get to cut off the answer. MR. SCHECK: Move to strike. Nonresponsive. THE COURT: Overruled. Let him finish the answer. MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, because I went way beyond what a normal workday is in order to complete those steps. MR. SCHECK: Move to strike, not responsive. I asked him about his training, only his training. THE COURT: You're asking about the short period. Overruled. Proceed. Proceed. MR. SCHECK: In your training, were you taught to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix-up? MR. YAMAUCHI: You know, I don't know in those words if that was ever said to me. MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the amplitype user guide? THE COURT: Why don't you just ask him if he agrees with that concept. MR. SCHECK: No. I would like to show him the actual user guide. He said he didn't have anything in his training. [10,002] THE COURT: We're talking about common sense things here and we're spending a lot of time on it. MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we are talking about basic points of training. That's correct. THE COURT: All right. So let's proceed. MR. SCHECK: We're trying to establish with the witness what a basic point of training is. THE COURT: Proceed. Proceed. MR. SCHECK: Did you review in the amplitype user guide--withdrawn. In your training, did you review special precautions that are included in the amplitype user guide? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I've read through that entire user guide. MR. SCHECK: And you studied it? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. THE COURT: And you rely upon it. MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that along with another book, which would be our own protocol and procedure manual, and a lot of other journal articles and experience to make up my opinions, if that's what you're asking. MR. SCHECK: Okay. May I approach the witness? THE COURT: You may. MR. HARMON: May I see that section? THE COURT: Counsel, I assume you have that as well. Proceed. MR. SCHECK: And you're familiar with the section of the user guide entitled "Special precautions"? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And are familiar with paragraph 14 of the section on "Special precautions"? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. [10,003] MR. SCHECK: And do you rely on that paragraph? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I would agree with that. MR. SCHECK: And does not that paragraph state that you should limit the quantity of samples handled in a single run to a manageable number, approximately 15, "This precaution will reduce the risk of sample mix up and the potential for sample-to-sample contamination"? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. And I think 23 is a reasonably close number to 15. MR. SCHECK: You do? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do. And then there were the comments of the world renowned Dr. Henry Lee about the mishandled scientific evidence is like finding a cockroach in your spaghetti. Do you look to count how many cockroaches there are, or do you just throw it all out? DR. LEE: This examination, it's not a quantitative examination. It's not a laboratory test, the concentration becoming important issue. The best analogy I can give it to you is, if I order--goes to a restaurant, order a dish of spaghetti. While eating the spaghetti, I found one cockroaches. I look at it. I found another cockroaches. It's no sense for me to go through the whole plate of spaghetti, say, there are 13.325 cockroaches. If you found one, it's there. It's a matter of whether or not present or absence. I'm not coming here to tells you exactly how many and what's the distribution or quantitative analysis. [17620] DR. LEE: Only opinion I can giving under this circumstance, something wrong.
Now you're saying that the jury should judge the law too. Make up your mind! So, you mindlessly believe jurors are members of the judicial branch. Seek treatment.
Dang, your law school taught that the courts are a law enforcement group.
In any other trial it would have been no more than 8 hours. If that.
I see. The DNA crawled from one sample to the other? Maybe it flew through the air? What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?
Only because she sold her story. "Because the road was illuminated well, Shively said it was easy to see Simpson at the wheel and that she recognized him from his role in a Naked Gun film. She said that Simpson "glared" at her before she took down his license plate, only getting one letter wrong." "Because she places the sighting at 10:50 p.m., she's right on target for the suggested murder timeline. But even though detectives questioned her, Shively's decision to take money from Hard Copy undermined her ability to share her eyewitness account in court."
Yes, and that's a real problem. Had I been in the jury room, I would have initially voted to find him guilty. But when the other jurors did not go along (and they would not have gone along), I could have been persuaded that the processes used by the LAPD crime lab were such that the evidence was tainted, and we all know that the cops are not trustworthy (though back then I trusted them a lot more than I do now). I probably could have been persuaded, after a lot of arguing, that the evidence did not exist to convict him. This is a non-reciprocal thing: if my ithoughts coming out of the trial were that he was probably not guilty, if I were the lone holdout on the jury I probably would have remained so. In my mind, in a jump ball of uncertainty, I will always skew "Not Guilty". I fear and distrust the authorities too much to ever give them the benefit of the doubt when somebody's life is at stake. Granted, two people were dead here, but that's just it - they're did. Justice is not served by destroying the third life of an innocent man. I think OJ was guilty. If I were the lone holdout for guilty on a jury, I could have been persuaded, with patient argument, how the evidence was untrustworthy to establish guilt, and voted not guilty. I could never be persuaded in the opposite direction.
Enough to raise reasonable doubt.
I learned that in French law school. The maxim of French law is "Le juge n'est que la bouche qui prononce les mots de la loi" - "The judge is nothing more than the mouth that pronounces the words of the law." To emphasize that point, the French legislature has two criminal statutes that punish any judge who, in a legal decision, either cites to principles of equity, or who cites judicial precedent. It is a crime for French judges to write a legal decision based upon precedent or upon principles of fairness. They are limited to the laws passed by the legislature and the decrees and ordinances of the government. They must cite the specific loi, decret, or ordonnance upon which their decision is based. French legal decisions (never "opinions") are very short and direct, of the genre "Given Article 7 of the Law of 1938, given the following facts, now therefore it is found that the defendant has violated provision x, y, and z and is sentenced thus ..." In the Common Law system, of course, equity has been unified with law, and judges have full powers of equity as well as law. Further, the decisions of higher courts on matters are binding upon lower courts, so the Common Law system itself is a source of law for the judges of the Common Law judges. The combination of precedent, the dictum of earlier court decisions, and the appeal to general principles of fairness and equity work together to make American courts very unpredictable places. In France, what you wrote above is true. But in America and the rest of the Common Law world judges - by the very design of the common law - have equitable power far beyond merely enforcing the laws in the books.
Really? Are you sticking with that, despite it being refuted? OJ and Kato went to McDonalds that evening. French fries contain EDTA preservative, as do other foods. Small amounts of EDTA in human blood are considered normal. That's all that was found, not the larger amounts in a preserved blood sample. This is the kind of crap the defense used. If there was a one-in-a- billion chance of some other possibility, they focused on it and the jury believed it. "Or do you refer to the initially collected blood samples which were left in a truck all day in the heat, destroying DNA content?" "They also claimed that the blood had been severely degraded by being stored in a lab truck, but the prosecution's DNA expert, Harlan Levy, said that the degradation would not have been sufficient to prevent accurate DNA analysis. He also pointed out that control samples were used that would have shown any such contamination, but Scheck suggested that the control samples had been mishandled by the lab ... all five of them---and the jury bought it."
Are you saying that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove at OJ's house not knowing if OJ had an airtight alibi for that night and that someone else did the crime? A glove that might not be the right size? How did he know OJ owned these kind of gloves? And where's your proof that Fuhrman planted the glove?
It wasn't there or it wasn't seen? How did it get there later?
Comments (156 - 422) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe prosecutors CHOSE to bring the trial in the heart of black downtown LA, before a mostly female black jury.
#116. To: Vicomte13 (#112)
#117. To: A K A Stone (#99)
Here are the fact. Marbury vs Madison was usurpation. The courts were NEVER given the power they have under the constitution.
It is also a fact that the first chief justice of the supreme court. A founding father. Said jurors have a right to judge the law.
It is also a fact that you can ignore the judges instructions and render any verdict you want to.
When the judge tells you to ignore that evidence. You can also ignore that and nothing the black robe can do about it.
#118. To: A K A Stone (#100)
I'd have to disagree with that. That is nonsense.
#119. To: misterwhite (#106)
101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE:
1. Nicole's pet dog Kato, a ferocious Akita, did not attack the killer, suggesting the murderer was someone who the dog knew, such as OJ.
#120. To: nolu chan (#119)
"Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on."
#121. To: misterwhite (#116)
You made your point. I'll ask again, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go?
#122. To: misterwhite (#116)
Blah, blah, blah. There's this and there's that. Technicality here, technicality there.
#123. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#101)
I was in law school at the time and watched quite a bit of the trial. I agree with your assessment. The prosecution really did not put on a persuasive case. They spent oceans of time giving a mini- course on DNA evidence that was excessive.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume that there were bloody shoeprints found along the walkway leading from the bodies to the back of the Bundy location and that I want you to assume hypothetically that there will be testimony that those bloody shoeprints are consistent with a person who has a size 12 shoe, and I want you to further assume hypothetically that people who wear size 12 shoes tend to be six feet to six feet four based upon studies conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the FBI. Doctor, would that type of evidence, assuming it is true, serve to confirm your opinion that a single killer of a height greater than Mr. Goldman in a swift and violent assault on both of these human beings is the perpetrator?
06/14/1995, Cross Examination by Robert Shapiro
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO
MR. SHAPIRO: And when mistakes are made, don't you have a responsibility to do an intensive review immediately to correct those mistakes?
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant--as to whether there was one or more assailants regarding Nicole Brown Simpson?
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you stake your reputation that based upon the forensic pathology evidence you reviewed, that all of that evidence is in fact consistent with one killer, six foot two, 210 pounds, athletically built with the element of surprise with a 6-inch long single-edged knife killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Would you risk your reputation, stake your reputation on that?
MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the height of the assailant or assailants in this case?
MR. KELBERG: So, doctor, is it your use of the term "Possibility" to relate to doctors who talk in terms of "Consistent with" or "Inconsistent with" when questions are posed?
#124. To: Vicomte13 (#121)
"Objection, your honor. The burden of proof is on the state to prove the case against my client. He has invoked the 5th Amendment and cannot be compelled to testify."
#125. To: nolu chan (#123)
#126. To: nolu chan (#117)
Here is the fact. Marbury has stood as good law for over two centuries.
#127. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#125)
I have never read so many hypotheticals in a cross-examination based on zero evidence to the contrary.
#128. To: nolu chan (#117)
Yes, that is correct. However, it is violating one's oath to do so, and if one states his intent to do so, e.g., to other jurors, it is grounds to be kicked off the jury.
#129. To: nolu chan (#117)
This is John Jay in a unique case. It is the only jury trial ever held at SCOTUS. However, it was not a jury of one's peers, but of specially selected experts in the subject matter of the case. It is an anomaly, not applicable to any other case.
#130. To: Vicomte13 (#110)
#131. To: Vicomte13 (#110)
given all of your comments about my intelligence
#132. To: Vicomte13 (#110)
if you ever get picked up for a DUI
#133. To: nolu chan (#96)
It is for the Court to determine the applicable law. The Court instructs the jury on the applicable law. The jury determines the facts, based on the evidence presented.
#134. To: Vicomte13 (#101)
That's exactly what the jury did. The defense team was very effective. The prosecution was not.
#135. To: A K A Stone (#132)
#136. To: A K A Stone (#130)
#137. To: misterwhite (#124)
#138. To: A K A Stone (#126)
Except that is isn't a law it is a judicial decision.
#139. To: goldilucky (#133)
No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books; not make them up. In making up laws this judge can be accused of judicial activism.
#140. To: misterwhite (#125)
Just re-reading this testimony gives me a f**king headache. I have never read so many hypotheticals in a cross-examination based on zero evidence to the contrary.
#141. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite (#137)
The LAPD and the forensics lab truly did make a hash of it. Without the forensics, what was there?
#142. To: nolu chan, flip flopper, A K A Stone (#138)
A function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws.
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#143. To: misterwhite (#106)
5. Witness Jill Shively says she saw OJ driving his speeding Bronco from the Bundy murder scene around the time of the slayings.
#144. To: misterwhite (#120)
(a) OJ's blood at the crime scene,
(b) victim's blood in the Bronco,
(c) the gloves with victim's blood,
(d) OJ's shoe print at the murder scene,
(e) the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves,
(f) hair and fibers matching.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And I would like to turn to some of the testing that you performed in this case, Mr. Matheson. First of all, when blood evidence is collected from a crime scene and then submitted to the serology laboratory for analysis, what kind of information are you as a serologist looking for to derive from that blood evidence?
MR. HARMON: When you processed the items that are labeled 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 in this case, generally were there two bindles in each of those envelopes?
[10,000]
[17544 - 17545]
#145. To: hondo68 (#142)
A function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws.
#146. To: goldilucky (#133)
No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books;
#147. To: nolu chan (#140)
"Dr. Lakshmanan testified for 8 days on direct examination."
#148. To: nolu chan (#141)
LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination.
#149. To: nolu chan (#143)
"She was discredited by the prosecution"
#150. To: nolu chan (#141)
(Edited)
#151. To: misterwhite (#148)
What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?
#152. To: goldilucky (#133)
(Edited)
It is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books
#153. To: nolu chan (#144)
You mean the blood shown to contain EDTA?
#154. To: nolu chan (#144)
"Mark Fuhrman conveniently found one glove at Bundy and went to Rockingham and found the other."
#155. To: nolu chan (#144)
You mean the blood that was not there, and then significantly later, it was.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]