|
5-27 transcripts from Unabogie.
18 MR. HURLBERT: He cannot have all of the data,
19 Judge, because we don't have all of the data. So if we
20 don't have all of the data he can't have all of the data, so
21 how can he make a -- an opinion if he doesn't have all of
22 the data? That's not a circular argument, Judge.
23 THE COURT: You're telling me that you have no
24 idea what his opinion is, but you endorsed him, which
25 actually confirms the fact that there is no opinion that's
35
1 stated here in the summary.
2 MR. HURLBERT: No. But he cannot provide the --
3 we have an opinion, we just cannot provide the detail that
4 you're asking for without all of the evidence.
5 THE COURT: So he does have an opinion? I mean,
6 you've endorsed him --
7 MR. HURLBERT: Yes.
8 THE COURT: -- based upon the belief that he
9 has --
10 MR. HURLBERT: Right.
11 THE COURT: -- an opinion that would be in
12 rebuttal.
13 MR. HURLBERT: Of course, Judge --
14 THE COURT: So I'm just telling you -- I'm beyond
15 asking. I'm telling you if you want to maintain those
16 witnesses that you must provide such a summary and report
17 with specificity as to what that is.
18 Now, for the moment I will ask the defense when
19 you are anticipating providing the rest of the materials
20 relating to -- who is it besides Dr. Johnson?
21 MR. HURLBERT: What's that?
22 THE COURT: Who else besides Dr. Johnson that
23 you're waiting on?
24 MR. HURLBERT: That's it, Judge, the DNA with
25 Mr. Lee.
|
| |
| |
5-27 transcripts from Unabogie.
18 MR. HURLBERT: He cannot have all of the data,
19 Judge, because we don't have all of the data. So if we
20 don't have all of the data he can't have all of the data, so
21 how can he make a -- an opinion if he doesn't have all of
22 the data? That's not a circular argument, Judge.
23 THE COURT: You're telling me that you have no
24 idea what his opinion is, but you endorsed him, which
25 actually confirms the fact that there is no opinion that's
35
1 stated here in the summary.
2 MR. HURLBERT: No. But he cannot provide the --
3 we have an opinion, we just cannot provide the detail that
4 you're asking for without all of the evidence.
5 THE COURT: So he does have an opinion? I mean,
6 you've endorsed him --
7 MR. HURLBERT: Yes.
8 THE COURT: -- based upon the belief that he
9 has --
10 MR. HURLBERT: Right.
11 THE COURT: -- an opinion that would be in
12 rebuttal.
13 MR. HURLBERT: Of course, Judge --
14 THE COURT: So I'm just telling you -- I'm beyond
15 asking. I'm telling you if you want to maintain those
16 witnesses that you must provide such a summary and report
17 with specificity as to what that is.
18 Now, for the moment I will ask the defense when
19 you are anticipating providing the rest of the materials
20 relating to -- who is it besides Dr. Johnson?
21 MR. HURLBERT: What's that?
22 THE COURT: Who else besides Dr. Johnson that
23 you're waiting on?
24 MR. HURLBERT: That's it, Judge, the DNA with
25 Mr. Lee.
And more. This is hilarious.
17 MR. HURLBERT: And underlying data, Judge.
18 THE COURT: And underlying data. When can you
19 provide that?
20 MR. HADDON: June 4, as we had indicated for Your
21 Honor.
22 And for the record, Mr. Hurlbert on May 9 for the
23 first time asked for, and I quote, not only the reports of
24 your experts but also the correspondence and/or statements
25 made. He didn't ask for any underlying data. We intended
40
1 to give it to him on June 4 in any event, but he certainly
2 didn't ask for it.
3 THE COURT: Well.
4 MR. HURLBERT: It's their problem, Judge --
5 THE COURT: Well, the problem is you have not
6 identified either to the Court or the defense in this
7 summary a reason for the deficiency in the completeness of
8 the disclosure with regard to rebuttal witnesses. I
9 understand now, looking at the fax date on this as May 7th
10 and then the request that Mr. Haddon is referring to on May
11 9th and so forth, that there is some time sequence involved.
12 But you're standing here arguing in front of me
13 that this is complete. And by virtue of your argument
14 you're saying you don't have enough information for you to
15 have an opinion, so you're admitting that it's not complete.
16 And so why are we wasting time arguing about that instead of
17 just going to the issue of providing it?
18 MR. HURLBERT: I don't know.
19 THE COURT: And so the June 4th date is indicated
20 for the defense to provide all of the underlying data,
21 correspondence, and then the People's endorsement -- I mean
22 the People's summary, by when, Mr. Hurlbert? And if you
23 need that material.
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cgtlk8$942@dispatch.concentric.net>...
5-27 transcripts from Unabogie.
18 MR. HURLBERT: He cannot have all of the data,
19 Judge, because we don't have all of the data. So if we
20 don't have all of the data he can't have all of the data, so
21 how can he make a -- an opinion if he doesn't have all of
22 the data? That's not a circular argument, Judge.
23 THE COURT: You're telling me that you have no
24 idea what his opinion is, but you endorsed him, which
25 actually confirms the fact that there is no opinion that's
35
1 stated here in the summary.
2 MR. HURLBERT: No. But he cannot provide the --
3 we have an opinion, we just cannot provide the detail that
4 you're asking for without all of the evidence.
5 THE COURT: So he does have an opinion? I mean,
6 you've endorsed him --
7 MR. HURLBERT: Yes.
8 THE COURT: -- based upon the belief that he
9 has --
10 MR. HURLBERT: Right.
11 THE COURT: -- an opinion that would be in
12 rebuttal.
13 MR. HURLBERT: Of course, Judge --
14 THE COURT: So I'm just telling you -- I'm beyond
15 asking. I'm telling you if you want to maintain those
16 witnesses that you must provide such a summary and report
17 with specificity as to what that is.
18 Now, for the moment I will ask the defense when
19 you are anticipating providing the rest of the materials
20 relating to -- who is it besides Dr. Johnson?
21 MR. HURLBERT: What's that?
22 THE COURT: Who else besides Dr. Johnson that
23 you're waiting on?
24 MR. HURLBERT: That's it, Judge, the DNA with
25 Mr. Lee.
And more. This is hilarious.
17 MR. HURLBERT: And underlying data, Judge.
18 THE COURT: And underlying data. When can you
19 provide that?
20 MR. HADDON: June 4, as we had indicated for Your
21 Honor.
22 And for the record, Mr. Hurlbert on May 9 for the
23 first time asked for, and I quote, not only the reports of
24 your experts but also the correspondence and/or statements
25 made. He didn't ask for any underlying data. We intended
40
1 to give it to him on June 4 in any event, but he certainly
2 didn't ask for it.
3 THE COURT: Well.
4 MR. HURLBERT: It's their problem, Judge --
5 THE COURT: Well, the problem is you have not
6 identified either to the Court or the defense in this
7 summary a reason for the deficiency in the completeness of
8 the disclosure with regard to rebuttal witnesses. I
9 understand now, looking at the fax date on this as May 7th
10 and then the request that Mr. Haddon is referring to on May
11 9th and so forth, that there is some time sequence involved.
12 But you're standing here arguing in front of me
13 that this is complete. And by virtue of your argument
14 you're saying you don't have enough information for you to
15 have an opinion, so you're admitting that it's not complete.
16 And so why are we wasting time arguing about that instead of
17 just going to the issue of providing it?
18 MR. HURLBERT: I don't know.
19 THE COURT: And so the June 4th date is indicated
20 for the defense to provide all of the underlying data,
21 correspondence, and then the People's endorsement -- I mean
22 the People's summary, by when, Mr. Hurlbert? And if you
23 need that material.
The very definition of Incompetence......
If he only have the guts to wait till the DNA test were done, instead
of rushing under the pressure of some racist Sheriff
|
| |
| |
Huang Gang wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cgtlk8$942@dispatch.concentric.net>...
5-27 transcripts from Unabogie.
18 MR. HURLBERT: He cannot have all of the data,
19 Judge, because we don't have all of the data. So if we
20 don't have all of the data he can't have all of the data, so
21 how can he make a -- an opinion if he doesn't have all of
22 the data? That's not a circular argument, Judge.
23 THE COURT: You're telling me that you have no
24 idea what his opinion is, but you endorsed him, which
25 actually confirms the fact that there is no opinion that's
35
1 stated here in the summary.
2 MR. HURLBERT: No. But he cannot provide the --
3 we have an opinion, we just cannot provide the detail that
4 you're asking for without all of the evidence.
5 THE COURT: So he does have an opinion? I mean,
6 you've endorsed him --
7 MR. HURLBERT: Yes.
8 THE COURT: -- based upon the belief that he
9 has --
10 MR. HURLBERT: Right.
11 THE COURT: -- an opinion that would be in
12 rebuttal.
13 MR. HURLBERT: Of course, Judge --
14 THE COURT: So I'm just telling you -- I'm beyond
15 asking. I'm telling you if you want to maintain those
16 witnesses that you must provide such a summary and report
17 with specificity as to what that is.
18 Now, for the moment I will ask the defense when
19 you are anticipating providing the rest of the materials
20 relating to -- who is it besides Dr. Johnson?
21 MR. HURLBERT: What's that?
22 THE COURT: Who else besides Dr. Johnson that
23 you're waiting on?
24 MR. HURLBERT: That's it, Judge, the DNA with
25 Mr. Lee.
The very definition of Incompetence......
If he only have the guts to wait till the DNA test were done, instead
of rushing under the pressure of some racist Sheriff
Would it have made a difference? Now that the DNA offers some
exculpatory evidence, the DA is saying it's tainted and wants it thrown out.
|
| |
| |
Miguel M <PoetUNoet@iwon.com> wrote in message news:<10j72i04d0sqt95@corp.supernews.com>...
Huang Gang wrote:
Would it have made a difference? Now that the DNA offers some
exculpatory evidence, the DA is saying it's tainted and wants it thrown out.
He isn't saying it is tainted. Technically, here is what he says...
The DNA evidence could be tainted because there is a log that should
be blank but has mark on it. I don't know what the log is for. I
don't know what the mark means. Someone told me that it means the DNA
is tainted. No, I can't tell you who this someone is or how this
someone is qualified to make this comment. This comment is worth
stopping the case from going to trial and warrant a hearing.
(Speculative comment from Huang, this someone could well be Tjab or
Chas or some racists sheriff from Eagle County for all we know.)
The judge, being a very polite and sensible person asked a reasonable
question. You had this report months ago. You said you had nothing
against this report. You wanted this trial to go forward and made a
motion for it. You told the whole world you are ready. Now two days
before the trial is going to start you want me to stop the whole
frigging train because SOMEONE told you it means the DNA is tainted.
Why didn't you do so earlier?
The DA then made the following excuse:
Well, DNA testing is expansive and we wanted to save cost, so we just
assumed the DNA would not be part of the admitted evidence.
A S S U M E
Like I said, incompetence...
Basically, this is not a valid accusation from the DA's part. He know
what the DNA means and what it implies. He should have waited for
this test before he committed to make that charge.
He is making this claim for two purposes, to taint the jury pool and
to shoot for the chance that the trial be delayed.
If it is like he said that the DNA is really tainted, he would have
came out with at least an expert witness who will testify for him.
This expert didn't need to be in court, the DA just has to mention
his/her name and say he or she will testify and how he or she is
qualified to testify. That is what we call, "be prepared" He is
anything but prepared. Once again, incompetence...
No serious judge would grant a hearing on this kind of conditions.
Some judge would have threw them out of his court room for wasting the
court's time.
See, this DNA evidence is not new. It had been in the open for the
prosecution for a long time. He just didn't like the test result
because it showed the accuser had lied.
|
| |
| |
|
