Saturday, December 21, 2013
LINCOLN THE CROSS-EXAMINER
The centerpiece of the legend of the Almanac Trial is Lincoln’s
cross-examination of the eyewitness to the killing. Was he really a good
cross-examiner? Frederick Trevor Hill, who wrote the first book about Lincoln’s
law practice seems to have thought so. Hill said:
I
shall never forget my experience with him. I was subpoenaed in a case brought
by one Paullin against my uncle, and I knew too much about the matter in
dispute for my uncle's good, The case was not of vital importance, but it
seemed very serious to me, for I was a mere boy at the time. Mr. Paullin had
owned a bull which was continually raiding his neighbor's corn, and one day my
uncle ordered his boys to drive the animal out of his fields, and not to use it
too gently, either. Well, the boys obeyed the orders only too literally, for
one of them harpooned the bull with a pitchfork, injuring it permanently, and I
saw enough of the occurrence to make me a dangerous witness. The result was that Paullin sued my uncle, the
boys were indicted for malicious mischief, Mr. Lincoln was retained by the
plaintiff, who was determined to make an example of somebody, and I was
subpoenaed as a witness. My testimony was, of course, of the highest possible
importance, because the plaintiff couldn't make my cousins testify, and I had
every reason to want to forget what I had seen, and though pretty frightened, I
determined, when I took the stand, to say as little as possible. Well, as soon
as I told Mr. Lincoln my full name he became very much interested, asking me if
I wasn't some relative of his old friend John Hoblit who kept the house between
Springfield and Bloomington; and when I answered that he was my grandfather,
Mr. Lincoln grew very friendly, plying me with all sorts of questions about
family matters, which put me completely at my ease, and before I knew what was
happening, I had forgotten to be hostile and he had the whole story. After the
trial he met me outside the court-room and stopped to tell me that he knew I
hadn't wanted to say anything against my people, but that though he sympathized
with me, I had acted rightly and no one could criticize me for what I had done.
The whole matter was afterward adjusted, but I never forgot his friendly and
encouraging words at a time when I needed sympathy and consolation. Lincoln the Lawyer, pp. 225, 226.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
CROSS-EXAMINATION VIDEOS
Ann Murphy’s Gift of Cross-Examination Videos
Professor Ann Murphy (pictured here) has compiled a collection of videos and photographs that can be used to enliven any class presentation on evidence or cross-examination. This collection is valuable not only for evidence and trial advocacy professors but also for attorneys and law students who want to watch how to and how not to cross-examine.
Professor Murphy, who teaches evidence at Gonzaga Law School and whom I met last summer when she was a visiting professor at Seattle University, compiled the materials into a list in the order of the evidence rules (relevance through sentencing with Confrontation Clause material thrown in for full measure).
To watch videos on cross-examination, you can go to the pertinent
Rules 608, 609 and 611 on the list to find them. For instance, there are videos
of cross-examinations in the Dr. Conrad
Murphy case or how not to cross in the State
of Arizona vs. Jodi Arias case.
This collection of videos was Professor Murphy’s monumental
labor of love when she was operating as she describes it as “my People Magazine
Professor of Evidence at its full throttle.” When I contacted Professor Murphy
about sharing her Evidence Class Videos, she graciously said yes.
With thanks to Ann Murphy, here is:
ANN
MURPHY’S EVIDENCE CLASS VIDEOS (some are photographs)
Compiled
by Professor Ann Murphy, Gonzaga University School of Law
Rule 401 – Relevance
*U.S. v.
Johnny Reid Edwards (former presidential candidate) – Christina
Reynolds, friend of Elizabeth Edwards (John Edwards’ late wife) called to the
stand to testify about Elizabeth’s knowledge of John Edwards’ affair.
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/47270854#47270854 (good –
Edwards was charged with violating campaign finance laws, conspiracy to do so,
and false statements – is this witness’s testimony relevant)
*Illinois
v. Drew Peterson – after arrested for the murder of his 3rd
wife (4th wife is missing), he is exchanging “love letters” with
women from jail – have to suffer through Nancy Grace, but great to show
relevance (or lack thereof) -
Rule 403 – Prejudicial effect
*Massachusetts v. Aaron
Hernandez - “selfie” – photo, not video (very good)
*“Day in the Life” of a victim (very good) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw3NvI44xPU&list=PLaJXzcbJhHkKH5GVIOhm_85lm8kUHRXOK&index=7
*U.S. v. Karl Thompson
(Police Officer charged with excessive force in killing of Otto Zehm – who was
mentally disabled)
“All I wanted was a snickers
bar” – last words of victim (very good)
(may use also for 401 Relevance – the fact that
Zehm was innocent of any crime; and 606(b)(2)
– extraneous influence – the “ticker” on the television set that jurors may
have seen).
*State of Florida v. Casey
Anthony – scull superimposed on daughter’s face (very good)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEqQ98x0jPY (the latter part of the video is on fast
forward and not usable – after second 57)
And
http://www.today.com/video/today/43377132#43377132 (Today
show discussion of this and parts from the trial) (very good)
*Florida
v. George Zimmerman – photos of and texts from Trayvon Martin (not
a video) (good)–
*U.S. v.
Gilberto Valle (“the Cannibal Cop”) – very good – images that
made jurors shift in their seats.
* State of Arizona v. Jodi
Arias – photo of severe neck wound. Prosecutor Juan Martinez is questioning
a former girlfriend of Travis Alexander (the victim) – and basically asking if
she would have done something like this – big objection by Defense counsel.
YouTube video has come comments typed on it by the person who posted the video.
*Illinois
v. Drew Peterson – death scene photo of Kathleen Savio –
does not seem too gruesome.
*U.S. v. Ronald William Brown
– convicted of receipt & possession of child pornography – the first clip is
from “Young Turks” – a liberal website (so some of you may not want to play it
in class) – it shows his super creepy puppet show. He was a Christian
puppeteer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b7aNF3yI6s; and
the conviction- http://www.justice.gov/usao/flm/press/2013/july/20130729_Brown.html
*Colorado
v. James Holmes (Aurora theatre shooting) - 3D reconstruction
of Aurora theatre shooting – could also use for Authentication.
*Illinois
v. Drew Peterson – “cold hearted” reaction to death of 3rd
wife Kathleen Savio
*Pretty amazing video of
English police officer Dan Pascoe being hit by a stolen car, and then the
chase – video is half-way down the page (could use for Authentication too)
*U.S. v. Roger Clemens –
Judge declared a mistrial after prosecution showed a video that referred to
evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible -
*State of Florida v. Casey
Anthony – testimony about Casey Anthony’s daughter’s remains -
*Commonwealth of
Massachusetts v. Edward Fleury – Fleury charged with involuntary
manslaughter – he ran a gun demonstration and 8-year old Christopher shot
himself in the head with an Uzi. Issue was whether jury would see the shot –
very good.
*Mouse in a Can – of Monster
Energy Drink
Rule 404 – Character
*Florida v. George Zimmerman
– Is the Defendant trashing Trayvon Martin? (see video on the left-hand side of
this news story (very good) –
*Pennsylvania
v. Arthur (AB) Schimer – The “Sinister Minister” - accused of
murdering his second wife Betty – State allowed to bring in evidence that his
first wife (Jewel) died of blunt force trauma – also allowed to bring in porn
on his computer and his affairs.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032600/#50750909
(beginning at about 1:18 – great)
*California v. Dr. Conrad
Murray – Character Witnesses for Dr. Murray
*State of Washington v. Kevin
Coe (the “South Hill Rapist”) – “signature crime” – see minute 4 to minute
6:35. This entire case is fascinating - http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/5347081/backgr - his
mother arrested for trying to arrange hits on the judge and prosecutor and
State Supreme Court reverses – no hypnotically-refreshed recollection.
*Character Witness – from
the old T.V. show “The Odd Couple” – excellent -
Rule 412 – Rape Shield Law
*Ohio v.
Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond (Steubenville Rape Case)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/17/justice/ohio-steubenville-case/ - see
printed story (about ½ of the way down) – Judge allowed two of the victim’s
“former best friends” to testify she had a reputation as a liar, but did not
allow further evidence about her sexual history.
Also – Evidence via Facebook,
Twitter, and Text Messages - http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/steubenville-revelry-turned-rape-18795386
Rule 501 - Privileges
*Illinois
v. Drew Peterson – Reverend Neil Schori allowed to testify
about what Drew Peterson’s 4th wife Stacy (who went missing) told
him at a counseling session. No Clergy-Penitent Privilege as not raised.
He was allowed to testify about what Stacy told him about what she saw
the night Drew’s 3rd wife died, but not what Drew said to her (Marital
Privilege). Hearsay exception is Statement Against Interest. (very good)
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson
– Defense called Stacy Peterson’s (4th wife who disappeared)
attorney – she was not there to assert attorney-client privilege (she
disappeared) – but Defense opened the door to hearsay statements of Stacy.
*Executive
Privilege – Daily Show (comedy) – a little racy language
Rule 606 – Jurors
*Jackson v. AEG, Live jurors
– reasons for finding for the Defendant in the case - may comment on
deliberations but are not required to do so (O.K.)
*U.S. v. James J. Bulger
(“Whitey Bulger – Irish Gangster in Boston) – juror gave interviews after the
verdict of guilty, but she’s a bit of a nut (IMHO) -
Rule 608 – Impeachment
*U.S. v.
Barry Lamar Bonds – “ex-mistress” Kimberly Bell testifies –
cross gets a bit confrontational – very good
Rule 609 – Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal
Conviction
*State of Wisconsin v. Mark
Jensen – tried for murdering his wife – testimony of a “jailhouse snitch.”
This case is also good for the Confrontation Clause.
Rule
611(a) – Control by Court
*People
of the State of California v. Phillip Spector – “Benchslap” of Defense
attorney Bruce Cutler (excellent)
Rule 611 – Witnesses (in general)
* Eyewitness ID
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6fRH5MLBIU&feature=related (a bit
long – 6 minutes, but very good – eyewitness identification – faulty)
*Eyewitnesses – this is a
video done by our late colleague Margaret Berger – excellent -
*U.S. v. Jeffrey R. MacDonald
– this case has been the subject for a movie (Fatal Vision) and a book by Errol
Morris (A Wilderness of Errors) – witness told story, then was silent on the
stand (whole video is good, but long – you can begin at minute 4:45)
*North
Carolina v. Kenan Gay (former UNC football player and law student) –
middle of video is eyewitness – but also owner of the bar (bias?)
For more on what different
witnesses said (not a video) - http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/03/25/3124564/it-was.html#.UqVacOLOTxY (911
call on right-hand side of story)
*New
York v. DiGuglielmo (defending father, or murder?) – witness
indicated he was pressured by the police – begin at about minute 2:30 -
*North
Carolina v. Michael Peterson (convicted of killing his
wife Kathleen – the subject of the documentary “The Staircase” – and he had his
conviction reversed – awaiting new trial) – SBI Agent Duane Deaver lied about
his qualifications – he provided the bloodstain analysis (good) -
Rule 611 – Direct Examination
* State of Arizona v. Jodi
Arias - Taking the “sting” out – ask on Direct before it will be asked on
Cross (good) – minute 18:45 through 27:30.
* State of Arizona v. Jodi
Arias – Again, taking the “sting” out – ask on Direct before it will be
asked on Cross (excellent) – beginning at about minute 41 (note that part of
the sound is off – during bench conferences).
*State of Florida v. John Goodman (Polo
Tycoon) – three witnesses featured – two for the Defense and one for the State
*California v. Dr. Conrad
Murray – Direct of body guard who was the first on the scene at the death
of Michael Jackson - excellent
*Florida v. Casey Anthony
– really nice to show prosecution case and defense case – from start to finish
– a number of witnesses featured (a little long, but great) -
*Florida v. Casey Anthony
– Shows direct examination of an expert
– a forensic entomologist (testifies about decomposition of Casey Anthony’s
daughter – good -
*Utah v.
Martin MacNeill – Direct of Rachel MacNeill, daughter of
Martin MacNeill – very good -
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/martin-macneill-murder-trial-daughter-didnt-murdered-mother-20680576
Rule 611 – Cross Examination
*California v. Dr. Conrad
Murray – biggest jerk on cross-examination (great)
*State of Arizona v. Jodi
Arias – cross of domestic violence expert called by the Defense – it gets
interesting when the Prosecutor argues with the witness and then later revers
to a talk she gave on Snow White – there is a relevance objection to that
testimony (excellent)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU3zlhqVZqE – Cross
begins at minute 29:40. Some back and forth with witness at minutes 35 and 39,
and reference to Snow White at minutes 48 and 56.
*State of Arizona v. Jodi
Arias – impeachment (good)
*State of Arizona v. Jodi
Arias – cross-examination (bits and pieces of it – confrontational between
Prosecutor and Defendant) (good)
*State of Arizona v. Jodi
Arias – cross-examination – I believe over the top – objections about being
argumentative (good). How NOT to do a cross examination?
* State of Arizona v. Jodi
Arias – cross-examination (good) – defendant is crying, but admits to
killing the victim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuWWBTNyFtw (from
the beginning of the video)
*State of Arizona v. Jodi
Arias – cross-examination – Rule
611(c) Leading Questions – Argumentative (very good)
(see: at 30 seconds to minute
3; then minute 4:30 to minute 16)
*California v. Orenthal James
(OJ) Simpson – Cross-examination of
a police officer by F. Lee Bailey (excellent)
*Utah v.
Martin MacNeill – cross of defendant’s oldest daughter (Rachel)
beginning at minute 1:28 (prior inconsistent statement and bipolar diagnosis)
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/martin-macneill-murder-trial-daughter-didnt-murdered-mother-20680576
*Utah v.
Martin MacNeill – cross of defendant’s second-oldest daughter
(Alexis) from minute 13 to minute 28 (prior inconsistent statement and issues
with her medical school application)
*U.S. v.
Johnny Reid Edwards (former presidential candidate) – “star
witness” Andrew Young not credible
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/01/12009574-us-v-john-edwards-the-verdict-on-the-verdict (good)
*U.S. v.
Johnny Reid Edwards – witness is Cheri Young, Andrew Young’s wife-
great for cross exam
If you want more on this
witness (not a video) – see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/us/wife-to-edwards-aide-to-testify-a-second-day.html
*California v. Dr. Conrad
Murray – “star” witness for the Defense held in contempt – Prosecutor David
Walgren is one of the best attorneys I’ve ever seen – this is described as
“combative” – (or “combustive” hmmm) – excellent -
*California v. Dr. Conrad
Murray – this is just so fantastic – hostile witness (Nicole Alvarez) –
analysis done by the “Young Turks” – it is hilarious, but a bit racy at the
end.
*Florida v. Casey Anthony
– some nice cross-examination beginning at minute 1:52 – also good for a Rule
403 issue (bones) at the end of the video -
*Florida v. Casey Anthony
- Nice cross and then re-direct (of an expert) – very good -
*Direct Examination and
Cross Examination –
*State v. Hemy Neuman - Impeachment
of Andrea Sneiderman – murder of her husband by her boss – she was later
charged and convicted of perjury (State
v. Sneiderman)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNUXLJn_204 (minute
22 to minute 27:44)
Rule 701 – Lay Witness -
Opinion
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson
– very short – Defense called Drew’s son – he said he’d “never seen anyone so
sad”
*State of Florida v. John Goodman –
bartender testifies he did not appear intoxicated
*California v. Dr. Conrad
Murray – Defense questioning of Paul Gongaware of AEG, Live - good
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/crime/2011/09/28/conrad-murray-day-2-paul-gongaware.cnn.html
Rule 702 – Experts
*Post Mortem – The Death Investigation Crisis in America
(Frontline, NPR, ProPublica) (excellent) -
http://video.pbs.org/video/1774485437/ (from
the beginning up to minute 13:03) – the entire investigation is excellent, but
it is 60 minutes.
*The Real CSI (Frontline and ProPublica) (excellent) -
http://video.pbs.org/video/2223977258/ (from
the beginning to minute 13 – or if you want more on cognitive bias, go to minute
16) or (minute 28 to minute 34 (the Casey Anthony trial – smell in a can) - the
entire investigation is excellent, but it is 58 minutes.
*Texas
v. Cameron Todd Willingham – executed – bad forensic science of a fire.
Excellent –
*Florida v. Casey Anthony
– experts gave conflicting testimony and a corpse-sniffing dog (excellent)
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21134540/vp/43323449#43323449 (up to
minute 3:05 – or the entire interview is also good)
*Indiana v. David Camm –
two explanations for blood spatter (excellent). Camm was convicted twice – the
convictions were overturned twice and on October 24, 2013 he was found not
guilty in the third trial and released.
* Jackson v. AEG, Live Michael
Jackson severely addicted to prescription drugs- (no expert testimony in this
clip – case was not televised – but good coverage on the news) (very good)
*Marissa Tomai in My Cousin
Vinnie – speaking about cars and tire tracks (very good)
*Kansas v. Brett Seacat –
expert on hormone taken by wife and handwriting expert (good)
*Utah v.
Martin MacNeill – whether blood draw meets Frye standard – this clip indicates that
the Judge is disallowing the evidence, but actually he reserved his ruling
asking for a better foundation (very good, except Nancy Grace)
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/10/16/martin-macneill-jury-selection-toxicology-ruling (from
minute :50 to the end)
*Pennsylvania
v. Arthur (AB) Schimer The “Sinister Minister” – great computer
animation accident reconstruction.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032600/#50750909
(beginning at about 2:09 – excellent)
*Eyewitness problems
(great one)
*Expert Witness on
Suggestibility – “mousetrap study” – (from “Crime and Punishment” – from
actual trials) – excellent
*Problems with Expert Witness
(Dr. Steven Hayne – Mississippi)
Autopsy results questioned - http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/crime/2013/01/12/tsr-dnt-blackwell-bad-autopsies.cnn.html\
and http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO83247.pdf
(Mississippi Supreme Court finds Hayne’s work (and the work of another
prosecution expert) “woefully short of the requirements for admissibility).
*Problems with Expert Witness
(Annie Dookhan – Massachusetts)
*”Wind
Turbine Syndrome” – The Colbert Report (comedy)
*Florida v. George Zimmerman
– forensic analysis of 911 call – ultimately the Judge did not allow expert
analysis on this issue (good) -
*Blood Spatter – from
Dexter television show
*Arizona
v. Ray Krone (the “snaggletooth killer”) – two convictions
for murder based upon bite mark evidence – DNA later exonerated him (excellent)
*California v. Brandon
McInerney – “gay panic defense”
*Handwriting analysis –
does not seem this would pass Daubert or Frye – Not a video – photos – and
weird.
*Civil case – Deposition of
an Expert who seems not able to apply the math he used – and Accident
Reconstructionist – rather humorous.
*Florida v. Casey Anthony
– “talking heads” after the verdict of not guilty – good discussion of odd
expert witness evidence (the “smell of death”) and the jury. A bit long and
attorney Linda Kenney Baden had been on the Defense team, so it is a bit one
sided.
*Example of part of the
Standard Field Sobriety Test – the HGN test (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus) –
interesting -
704 – Experts
– Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
*California
v. Dr. Conrad Murray – Direct Exam of an Expert – see at minute
beginning 37 and continuing – the “ultimate issue” question is at minute 40
(excellent)
*California
v. Dr. Conrad Murray – Direct and Cross Exam of Experts – see at
minute beginning 3:21 through about 6:45 (excellent – but slightly chopped up)
*California
v. Dr. Conrad Murray – Direct of Expert–excellent – six “extreme
deviations from the standard of care” – evidence of “gross negligence.”
Rule 801 – Hearsay
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson
- Juror explains how hearsay testimony was critical to verdict.
801(d)(1) – Declarant Witness’s Prior Statement
*California v. Dr. Conrad
Murray – Conrad Murray’s girlfriend Nicole Alvarez - excellent
*U.S. v. Karl Thompson –
Police officer charged in beating of man (officer not charged with murder –
only with excessive force and lying)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrIhwjbXQaI (up to
about minute 1:30 – reference to Officer Moses)
801(d)(2) – An Opposing Party’s Statement – Not Hearsay
*Jackson
v. AEG, Live – examination of co-CEO of AEG, Live Paul
Gongaware – email (very good)
*California v. Dr. Conrad
Murray (and talking about Jackson v. AEG, Live) (about 4 minutes – lots of
statements of party opponents and also a bit of a 911 call) (good) Also good
statements of Jackson – undoubtedly not for truth of the matter asserted.
*Accidental 911 call made
by defendant (very good)
*Photo – what 20,000 pages of
“inappropriate emails” looks like –
*Tennessee
v. James Washington – gave “deathbed confession” to guard James
Tomlinson – confessed to killing Joyce Goodener. He did not die and recanted
the confession. It’s a statement of a party opponent and not hearsay, but a
good one to talk about a dying declaration – it would not be a dying
declaration because it did not concern the circumstances of his own death
*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v. Gerald Sandusky (really these are statements of party opponents for the
administrators at Penn State) – could also use for Authentication
*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v. Monsignor William Lynn – evidence of destruction of evidence by priests
– conspiracy and pleas
*Lowering the Bar – from
website (humor) – photo – not video (good) -
*People
of the State of California v. Phillip Spector – Opening Statement by Asst.
Dist. Attny. Alan Jackson – chose not to use some of the statements of Spector
– left Defense without much of its opening argument. Also – mentions a
“history” of violence – Rule 404 (good)
*Florida v. James “Bob” Ward
(millionaire who shot his wife Diane) – weird behavior and different stories
about what happened. Very good
5th Circuit Appeal
Brief: http://www.5dca.org/Clerk/James%20Ward%2012-49/12-49%20Initial%20Brief.pdf
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson
– Stepbrother of Drew Peterson testifies about Drew Peterson statements about 4th
wife Stacy Peterson (who disappeared) – good.
*From The Smoking Gun –
Statement? Photo – not video -
*Dennis Rodman – kicked
cameraman – this case settled. Dennis’s statement did not help him too much…
803(2) – Excited Utterance
*Dueling 911 calls -
great
*George Zimmerman –
arrested at home of girlfriend Samantha Scheibe – not yet charged -
Here is Samantha Scheibe’s 911
call.
And on this website, on the
right-hand side – you can click to hear George Zimmerman’s 911 call
803(6) – Business Records
*State of Florida v. John Goodman (Polo
Tycoon) – bar tab, also great for a defendant testifying and for a complaint by
juror that prosecutors were “making faces.” (excellent)
803(8) – Public Records –
Police Report
*Florida
v. George Zimmerman – police report – not video
804(b)(2)
– Dying Declaration
*Marvin
Harrison – A wide receiver for the Indianapolis Colts – was suspected of
firing shots at Dwight Dixon. Prosecutor did not press charges. Dixon filed a
civil suit. Then Dixon was shot and killed – gave a statement to the police as
he was being wheeled to the operating room [Harrison may indeed be charged –
see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/14/marvin-harrison-shooting_n_423586.html. This
story is great – it is a bit long – 13 minutes. If you start at minute 8:50,
you’ll get the gist of it. At minute 10, it mentions the dying declaration.
Also good for Confrontation Clause purposes.
*803-804 – Hearsay
Exceptions
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson
– convicted of killing his third wife Kathleen (his fourth wife Stacy
disappeared) – Hearsay statements of both Kathleen and Stacy (although there
was an Illinois law passed specifically to get the statements in, ultimately
the State did not use “Drew’s Law.” (excellent)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdkJzb2N-7Q
(minutes 28 through 36 – and the entire clip is good)
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson
(Pre-trial Hearing) – testimony of psychic who had talked to Drew’s 4th
wife; and testimony about how the investigation into his 3rd wife’s
death was botched. Good.
Rule 901 - Authentication
*Forensic Linguistics
(imbedded video on left-hand side) - excellent
*Commonwealth of Kentucky v.
Michael Baker – photo – not video (could also use for Rule 403)
*Alabama v. David “Gabe”
Watson – (the “Honeymoon Killer”) – his wife died on their honeymoon at the
Great Barrier Reef – she drowned – compelling picture –
*California v. Orenthal James
(OJ) Simpson – not a video, but
great for the photos of the Bruno Magli shoes -
*Florida
v. Patrick Evans (wealthy Jabil executive convicted of shooting
his wife and boyfriend) – the shooter’s voice was on the 911 call made by his
wife – very good
*Montana
v. Jordan Linn Graham (“newlywed murder at Glacier National Park) –
near the end of the video – mention of a “black cloth,” and a fake email.
*How to fake Twitter,
Facebook, Texts – the guy is a bit odd, but a great education on how to do
it and how easy it is -
*U.S. v.
Barry Lamar Bonds – Judge makes a ruling on Greg Anderson
(Bonds’ friend who refused to testify against him) – it looks as though the
government will not be able to get into evidence the urine. At trial, the
government used “chain of custody” (with a whole lot of witnesses) and actually
got the urine sample into evidence – he was convicted. But not of steroid use –
but rather of obstruction of justice.
*Just an amazing truck crash
–
*Calcagno v. Springfield (Rick Springfield – the singer and former soap
opera actor) – a photo, not a video – authenticating a buttocks
*Video of Florida teen
(Maffa?) – high on synthetic marijuana - called K2 – good
*Georgia Tech Phi Kappa Tau
– emails – good –
*Massachusetts v. Aaron
Hernandez- with gun?
*Rule 1101(d)(3) –
Applicability of the Rules – Sentencing
*Ohio v.
Thomas M. (TJ) Lane – school shooting – family members spoke and
TJ showed up in a “Killer” t-shirt and gave the families the finger. Good, but
a bit off the beaten track.
6th
Amendment – Confrontation Clause
*Ricardo Woods, Eyeblink
testimony to identify Defendant (excellent)
*Maryland
v. Jermaine Hailes - Another eye-blink case: http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Hearing-to-Rule-Whether-Paralyzed-Victim-Who-IDed-Suspect-by-Blinking-Can-Be-Used-at-Trial-230214771.html
(uncertain whether 6th Amendment was raised – Judge is deciding whether
testimony is allowed on reliability and dying declaration).
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson
– statement of 4th wife (who disappeared) to a neighbor – good one
for whether it’s testimonial.
*Alaska
v. Mechele Lineham – “letter from the grave”- after Appeals Court
overturned the conviction, she was never retried - http://articles.ktuu.com/2012-08-06/judge-philip-volland_33070560
Opening
and Closing Statements (not evidence, of course)
*New
Jersey v. Dharun Ravi (Tyler Clementi suicide case)
*Virginia
v. George Huguely (UVA Lacrosse player – murder of girlfriend) –
prosecutor cried in closing statement (odd) and characterized his client as a
“stupid drunk” – who lacked intent.
Longer
Videos
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson
– Dateline – 42 minutes
*State
of Arizona v. Jodi Arias - Dateline
*Many videos of Arizona v.
Arias case:
*Highlights of California v.
Dr. Conrad Murray - excellent
Prosecution highlights (19
minutes): http://www.hlntv.com/video/2011/11/05/murray-trial-prosecution-highlights
Defense highlights (22
minutes): http://www.hlntv.com/video/2011/11/05/murray-trial-defense-highlights
*Eyewitness – the case of North
Carolina v. Ronald Cotton – exonerated by DNA – now speaks across the
country with his accuser – amazing case
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)