The Reiser Trial: Tuesday Was Bicker Day
As Published On
→ The Out-Lawyer’s Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
And
The Policy Think Site: http://www.jaygaskill.com
All contents, unless otherwise indicated are
Copyright © 2005, 2006 and 2007 by Jay B. Gaskill
Tuesday -
Bicker Day
A testifying lawyer is often a nightmare witness and DuBois evidenced his frustration with Ms. Gordon’s run-on answers. At one point, DuBois tipped his hand by complaining that attorney Gordon was “trying to put in information and material that we’ve moved to exclude.” That could only be a reference to Gordon’s negative assessment of the defendant’s character. Recall that a defendant's character is not in issue unless the defense decides to rely on character as evidence of innocence. The couple’s marital dispute is relevant to motive, however, and some character evidence is allowed to slip in for that limited purpose -- but not to show that the accused had a predisposition to kill, for example.
→ The Out-Lawyer’s Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
→The Bridge to Being Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog2/
→ The Human conspiracy Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog3And
The Policy Think Site: http://www.jaygaskill.com
All contents, unless otherwise indicated are
Copyright © 2005, 2006 and 2007 by Jay B. Gaskill
Permission to publish, distribute or print all or part of this article (except for personal use) is needed. [Permission for use in group discussions is almost always routinely given.]
Please contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com
Please contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com
Tuesday -
Bicker Day
Today, the jury suffered though direct and cross examination of the divorce attorney, Shelly Gordon, who represented Nina and (surprise) had a less than favorable opinion of Hans.
This testimony must have been as dispiriting as looking at autopsy photos (no- there aren’t any), while far less relevant to the merits. Everyone already knows that it was a bitter divorce.
The emerging picture is that Hans was a controlling personality (as if the jury hasn’t already detected that from the defendant’s courtroom behavior) and that he had a “myopic focus” on things.
A testifying lawyer is often a nightmare witness and DuBois evidenced his frustration with Ms. Gordon’s run-on answers. At one point, DuBois tipped his hand by complaining that attorney Gordon was “trying to put in information and material that we’ve moved to exclude.” That could only be a reference to Gordon’s negative assessment of the defendant’s character. Recall that a defendant's character is not in issue unless the defense decides to rely on character as evidence of innocence. The couple’s marital dispute is relevant to motive, however, and some character evidence is allowed to slip in for that limited purpose -- but not to show that the accused had a predisposition to kill, for example.
At one point, DuBois was rebuked by the judge: “…if you ask a question and you don't like the answer, it’s not her fault”. This defines a bad day for the defense. But in truth little harm was done as long as the gaping hole remains.
Much more to come…
JBG
