The Out-Lawyer's Blog: TREADING WATER OR SINKING?

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, 2007 and 2008 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

TREADING WATER OR SINKING?

It was not the best of all possible afternoons for the defense.

In the morning session, my impression was that Bill DuBois was treading water, making a tiny bit of headway at the expense of developing yet one more layer of motives for Hans to have murdered Nina.

This afternoon it got even worse for the defense, in my opinion.

Before turning the witness over to the DA for cross examination, the divorce lawyer answered defense questions that established that Nina was living an extravagant life style and was contemplating filing bankruptcy.

Now bankruptcy is a dramatic step, one that - according to the defense witness – would have thrown a wrench into the divorce proceedings: “When a bankruptcy is filed in a divorce case…a federal stay that is imposed on the case. The trustee now has possession of all the assets. …The only jurisdiction germane to the family law court is adjudication of support issues, custodial issues…”

I should add that a bankruptcy and divorce would together have wrecked havoc in the affairs of Hans’ company, Namesys.

Men have killed for less….

In his cross examination, the DA was able to establish that, in the event of Nina’s death, Hans and the children would inherit, but if the husband is convicted of murdering his wife, that would not be the case.

After a “research break” the divorce attorney was allowed to reveal that the reason he was investigating possible embezzlement by Nina was because Hans had in effect directed him to do that.

I suspect that, in Bill DuBois’ efforts to trash Nina’s character, he has stumbled into evidence that further weakens the defense case.

Why do this?

I also suspect that the defense team is trying very hard to keep Hans off the witness stand. This requires two things, in addition to any back stage conversations with their client: (1) Nibble away at the DA’s case until a reasonable doubt argument can be grounded in evidence other than Hans’ words. (2) Stall for time while Hans makes up his mind.

I’ll pick up the rest of today’s session, if any, when I post tomorrow.

JBG

The Out-Lawyer's Blog

TREADING WATER OR SINKING?

TREADING WATER OR SINKING?

It was not the best of all possible afternoons for the defense.

In the morning session, my impression was that Bill DuBois was treading water, making a tiny bit of headway at the expense of developing yet one more layer of motives for Hans to have murdered Nina.

This afternoon it got even worse for the defense, in my opinion.

Before turning the witness over to the DA for cross examination, the divorce lawyer answered defense questions that established that Nina was living an extravagant life style and was contemplating filing bankruptcy.

I should add that a bankruptcy and divorce would together have wrecked havoc in the affairs of Hans’ company, Namesys.

Men have killed for less….

In his cross examination, the DA was able to establish that, in the event of Nina’s death, Hans and the children would inherit, but if the husband is convicted of murdering his wife, that would not be the case.

After a “research break” the divorce attorney was allowed to reveal that the reason he was investigating possible embezzlement by Nina was because Hans had in effect directed him to do that.

I suspect that, in Bill DuBois’ efforts to trash Nina’s character, he has stumbled into evidence that further weakens the defense case.

Why do this?

I’ll pick up the rest of today’s session, if any, when I post tomorrow.

JBG

TrackBack

Post a comment