Question...I been watching the AHERNANDEZ trial on youtube (PLEASE DONT SPOIL IT FOR ME) and got a question.

Why in some instances are the witnesses allowed to give testimony about conversations they've had and other times they aren't.

ie

Attorney: and did you receive a phone call?
Witness: yes
Attorney: from who?
Witness: Detective Baker
Attorney: And as a result of this conversation did you do something? (instead of the next logical question, what did he say)

Other times the witness would begin say what the conversation was but the judge or attorney would stop them.

And other instances they've repeated conversations that they were a part of.

What gives?


Also, aren't all questions leading??? What really is the point of objecting to a leading question when the attorney is examining his witness. Won't the witness just piggyback?

ie

Attorney: And did you look for video surveillance as well?
OBJECTION! LEADING!!
Attorney: I'm sorry your honor, I'll rephrase. Did you look for anything else?
Witness: Yes
Attorney: What else did you look for?
Witness: *smirks* video surveillance


I'm sure I can find this info on google but wwhat would be the fun in that. Sowhat, i promise i'm not trying to start an argument.

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

but it may have been these categories.

Recorded recollection
Records of regularly conducted activity
Public records and reports, as well as absence of entry in records
Records of vital statistics


But whats tripping me up is you got 2 police officers, both of them testified at trial, why can't they testify about what they talked about on the phone during the investigation?

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

>But whats tripping me up is you got 2 police officers, both of
>them testified at trial, why can't they testify about what
>they talked about on the phone during the investigation?

Their direct impressions/statements experiencing something (directly and first-hand) are generally admissible, but their discussions on the phone about an event (recollections) are in certain instances impermissible under laws governing hearsay - particularly if what's being offered is being used to prove the fact of a particular matter.

-->

>Question...I been watching the AHERNANDEZ trial on youtube
>(PLEASE DONT SPOIL IT FOR ME) and got a question.
>
>Why in some instances are the witnesses allowed to give
>testimony about conversations they've had and other times they
>aren't.
>
>ie
>
>Attorney: and did you receive a phone call?
>Witness: yes
>Attorney: from who?
>Witness: Detective Baker
>Attorney: And as a result of this conversation did you do
>something? (instead of the next logical question, what did he
>say)
>
>Other times the witness would begin say what the conversation
>was but the judge or attorney would stop them.
>
>And other instances they've repeated conversations that they
>were a part of.
>
>What gives?

testimony about statements made out of court are hearsay if the statement is offered to prove the truth of some stated fact. hearsay is generally not admitted at trial. a statement is not hearsay if it's not offered to prove the truth of a fact but is offered for some other allowed purpose - like to explain why the person who heard the statement took a certain action. so that's why in that example the attorney asked what the listener did after hearing the statement. the atty expected a hearsay objection and was working around it.

(this is a simplified version of the hearsay rules...there's more to them than i've posted here but most of that other stuff isn't relevant to your question, IMO)

>Also, aren't all questions leading??? What really is the point
>of objecting to a leading question when the attorney is
>examining his witness. Won't the witness just piggyback?
>
>ie
>
>Attorney: And did you look for video surveillance as well?
>OBJECTION! LEADING!!
>Attorney: I'm sorry your honor, I'll rephrase. Did you look
>for anything else?
>Witness: Yes
>Attorney: What else did you look for?
>Witness: *smirks* video surveillance

leading questions suggest an answer - usually yes or no.

like:

i haven't used capital letters in this sentence, have i?

leading questions are generally not allowed when an attorney is conducting direct examination - but they're allowed during cross examination. direct exam = questioning a witness the atty called to the stand. cross exam = questioning a witness the atty's opponent called to the stand.

during direct an attorney usually must ask open ended questions that don't suggest any answer.

like:

are capital letters used in this sentence?

generally i don't object to leading questions on direct...unless i want to shake up my opponent. some attys cannot conduct a direct w/o leading the witness. usually b/c they haven't prepared the witness properly and are afraid the witness will say something bad for the atty's case unless they suggest answers w/their questions.

fuck you.

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

inbox please Mr. SoWhat sir. lol

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

really remember the exact situations it was used. I'll pay more attention going forward.

But why is hearsay such a big deal? like for example, A detective questioned ahern's girl. The detective testified at trial. Ahern's girl testified later at the trial. Why can't the detective give testimony as to what he/she said during that convo? Or is it moreso the substance of that conversation that dictates whether or not he can relay it? And if there's nothing really inculpatory, the prosecutor doesn't have any reason to delve into it?



thanks for the 2nd explanation. Never knew that you could lead during cross but not direct. i guess it makes sense.
>

>
>generally i don't object to leading questions on
>direct...unless i want to shake up my opponent.

Why would you generally not lead them? bc the witness would pick u on it anyway. Does it depend on the er, intelligence of the witness at all? lol

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

>But why is hearsay such a big deal?

i think it's b/c in order for a criminal defendant to get a fair trial they have to be able to confront witnesses who will offer testimony during their trial. also, the fact finder (judge or jury) has to be able to examine the witness's demeanor on the stand in order to decide if they believe the witness is offering truthful testimony.

if hearsay were generally allowed in criminal trials i'm sure the prosecutors would only call police officers as witnesses and the cops would testify as to what they learned via their investigation, including statements made and that'd be it. it wouldn't be fair.

like for example, A
>detective questioned ahern's girl. The detective testified at
>trial. Ahern's girl testified later at the trial. Why can't
>the detective give testimony as to what he/she said during
>that convo?

b/c the girlfriend is an available witness. SHE can testify to what she observed. and the jury can look at her and listen to her and decide if they believe her.

if the cop testifies to what she told him about what she'd observed that might be unfair b/c the jury might be more inclined to believe she told the truth b/c a cop said she told him __.

if the lawyer knows the girlfriend told the officer she saw A but on the stand she says she saw B THEN the lawyer can call the officer to have him testify about what the girlfriend told him she saw. but that statement would be used to show the jury that she made inconsistent statements about what she saw (and so maybe they should discount what she says) but not to prove that she actually saw A or B.

Or is it moreso the substance of that conversation
>that dictates whether or not he can relay it?

no. it's more about the intended use of the testimony during the trial and whether the witness is available. if the statement is going to be used to prove something is true then it's less likely to be admitted. if it's used for some other reason but not to prove the truth of the statement then it's more likely to be admitted.

And if there's
>nothing really inculpatory, the prosecutor doesn't have any
>reason to delve into it?

they still might. i dunno.

>>generally i don't object to leading questions on
>>direct...unless i want to shake up my opponent.
>
>Why would you generally not lead them? bc the witness would
>pick u on it anyway. Does it depend on the er, intelligence of
>the witness at all? lol

b/c at some point the judge is going to throw a gavel at me if i keep leading my witness on direct after an objection has been sustained.

i don't usually have to lead witnesses on direct b/c i prepare them for testimony. i interview them so i know their story. then based on the interview i prepare questions that will help my case. i will then practice asking the witness the questions to find out how they'll answer. so when i get to trial i can ask open ended questions b/c i know what the witness will say (generally). under prepared lawyers tend to ask leading questions on direct.

also, lawyers get leeway to lead on direct when questioning police officers or experts. b/c we usually don't have time to prepare them very much. and we can lead lay witnesses about background facts but not about material facts.

fuck you.

>i think it's b/c in order for a criminal defendant to get a
>fair trial they have to be able to confront witnesses who will
>offer testimony during their trial. also, the fact finder
>(judge or jury) has to be able to examine the witness's
>demeanor on the stand in order to decide if they believe the
>witness is offering truthful testimony.

>
>if hearsay were generally allowed in criminal trials i'm sure
>the prosecutors would only call police officers as witnesses
>and the cops would testify as to what they learned via their
>investigation, including statements made and that'd be it. it
>wouldn't be fair.

Right, i understand that part.

>
>b/c the girlfriend is an available witness. SHE can testify
>to what she observed. and the jury can look at her and listen
>to her and decide if they believe her.
>
>if the cop testifies to what she told him about what she'd
>observed that might be unfair b/c the jury might be more
>inclined to believe she told the truth b/c a cop said she told
>him __.

No, i get that part but i was kind of asking something else. Its to convoluted to type and since i don't know what their actual conversation was, me trying to figure out why it was hearsay is speculation anyway. lol You did help clarify i bit thanks.
>




lol my bad i asked the wrong 2nd question smh. I meant to ask why wouldn't you OBJECT to counsel leading the witness. Not why you wouldn't lead them lol

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

bc it can turn off a jury.

fuck you.

.

The witness that testifies to the authenticity of the evidence, if the other side objects that the witness fails to authenticate the documents and is sustained by the judge...does counsel use another witness to authenticate it or are they stuck with that witness?

I actually had to do this at my last job, to get some notices that we sent entered as evidence. They sent my supervisor on a prior matter and she failed to get the evidence in causing the judge to grant the other side's motion to suppress the notices. I'd assume a murder case wouldn't be so cut and dry right?

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

>The witness that testifies to the authenticity of the
>evidence, if the other side objects that the witness fails to
>authenticate the documents and is sustained by the
>judge...does counsel use another witness to authenticate it or
>are they stuck with that witness?

they can probably try it w/another witness if the judge allows them to.

>I actually had to do this at my last job, to get some notices
>that we sent entered as evidence. They sent my supervisor on a
>prior matter and she failed to get the evidence in causing the
>judge to grant the other side's motion to suppress the
>notices. I'd assume a murder case wouldn't be so cut and dry
>right?

at that point it's going to be about whether there's another person on the witness list that can authenticate the documents. if there is such a witness the judge will likely allow the attorney to try authenticating the evidence w/that witness. if not the attorney may be stuck.

fuck you.

open/shut case and that was the only witness on the list. but my supervisor f'd up.

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

this is like law and order on steroids.

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

Do you pick apart or highlight every single error in the police investigations to make them seem incompetent, even if the mistakes were minor or didn't alter the evidence. Or is it on a case by case basis, and if you really got nothing you might as well throw ish at the wall.

The defense was harping on minor errors like crazy but never tie it into how it messed up the evidence or caused them to finger Hernandez incorrectly. It seems like they just want to make the cops/detective seem incompetent. But to me, they aren't glaring errors and just seems like the defense is nitpicking at this stuff bc they have no real defense.

I know it just takes 1 juror to get caught up in that for it to be successful....wondering your thoughts.

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

>Do you pick apart or highlight every single error in the
>police investigations to make them seem incompetent, even if
>the mistakes were minor or didn't alter the evidence. Or is it
>on a case by case basis, and if you really got nothing you
>might as well throw ish at the wall.

i only point out police error that supports my theory of the case.

fuck you.

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.