Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lacrew

I’m new in my law school career, but with regards to the discovery process, I don’t even think the courts allow to admit a third hand account. A lawyer’s interpretation of the an interview with a third party would be considered work product, if I’m not mistaken. However, maybe since Krump is not actually involved in this trial from a legal standpoint, then they could admit his testimony regarding the DeeDee interview.

Either way, I’m pretty sure if they are going to use the DeeDee evidence, that have to provide the actual conversation to the defense team, and not just Krump’s account.


45 posted on 12/10/2012 2:52:59 PM PST by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: HawkHogan

Dee Dee is still around, right?

I would hope that they would:

1) Depose her
2) Compare her testimony to the Krump tape
3) Call her as a witness (I think she is such a train wreck, the prosecution probably won’t call her)

I know nothing about legal proceedings; but, this all seems logical to me...unless the prosecution does not bring up her account at all...then I suppose the defense would be best served to leave her out of it as well.


51 posted on 12/10/2012 3:18:57 PM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: HawkHogan

I have no legal experience whatsoever, but wouldn’t the defense have every right to interview DeeDee in consideration of possibly calling her as a witness, AND have the right to see a statement she gave near the time of the killing, to see if her statements are consistent?


52 posted on 12/10/2012 3:19:49 PM PST by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: HawkHogan
-- I'm new in my law school career, but with regards to the discovery process, I don't even think the courts allow to admit a third hand account. --

Discovery is wide ranging, and seeks evidence which may be relevant. Relevancy and admissibility are two -VERY- different standards. Much discoverable material isn't admissible, for one reason or another.

-- I'm pretty sure if they are going to use the DeeDee evidence, that have to provide the actual conversation to the defense team, and not just Krump's account. --

The issue here is the quality of what is represented as a contemporaneous audio recording of an interview with DeeDee. Assume for the sake of argument that the state never turns over the recorded evidence, but introduces DeeDee at trial, and she is allowed to testify. The only risk to the state is retrial, on the basis that defense was denied evidence that might be used to impeach DeeDee's trial testimony.

IOW, the "actual evidence" at trial will come from a personal appearance by DeeDee. The recorded interview has play in that, in that it limits how much she can now change her story.

57 posted on 12/10/2012 4:00:37 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson