I think that’s why posters here are asking. 
1 Like
Uh Goodwin threatened MB and RC, directly, in front of both of them… And that’s hearsay?
15 Likes
RC was threatened by RG.
Called hearsay again because RCs state of mind is not the question here,only the mind of MB that day.
RC confirms RG threatened MB - not specific but said something like, he wasn’t going to let MB determine what would happen with his and LKs horses.
Bilinkas now getting in trouble because RC answered the question and now he wants to show her the transcript so she can see what she said exactly when she already answered the question. Judge allows it.
4 Likes
In the legal sense, hearsay is any out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what the statement asserts (i.e., “He said he was afraid,” to prove that he was afraid). A statement like that is hearsay regardless of whether the testifier is participating in the conversation. Hearsay rules are complicated and there are lots of exceptions. I didn’t read this whole thing but on quick skim it looks like a good overview: https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/hearsay-evidence-basics
8 Likes
How could hearing RG threaten multiple people, directly, NOT potentially affect his mindset?
18 Likes
He was saying it didnt matter if it effected RCs mindsent. If it effected MBs, it matters
4 Likes
That’s exactly what I meant. I would think hearing RG threaten others would also affect MBs mindset.
11 Likes
This is a bit of a cluster. Bilinkas wants her to read it word for word but she already said she didn’t need to. They are arguing over whether she should be reading from the transcript or from memory. Judge allows it in this instance.
1 Like
Yes but they have to ask MB that, not RC. That was the issue.
5 Likes
Yes, if you want a witness to read a statement they made before, you need to lay the foundation that their memory needs to be refreshed. Ex:
“Do you recall exactly what you told detectives about XYZ?”
“No.”
“Would it help you to review the statement you gave on the day of the incident?”
“Yes.”
Then you can have the witness review the statement but it cannot necessarily be read or admitted into evidence. That’s what he’s doing now.
You can’t ask the question, not like the answer, then immediately ask the witness to read their statement.
4 Likes
This is why I didn’t go into law, this kind of stuff drives me nuts 
6 Likes
Now Bilinkas asks if RC was attacked by LKs dog…judge says irrelevant and arguing over it now
2 Likes
crystal clear as mud eh hahahaha A lot of it is super frustrating.
1 Like
Yeah but there’s a lot of different ways to “go into law” I did not choose the criminal law path, and you can avoid the courtroom all together, in many instances. Not going to say that you still won’t be driven nuts though 
5 Likes
RC doesn’t remember if the magazines were full of bullets or not. She can’t remember exactly. She thinks one was full and one was maybe half full.
She was afterall going to the shooting range in the days previously. (from yesterdays testimony)
She said I don’t know if I made it worse, or better.
“It depends”
1 Like
Defense lawyers answer… priceless:joy:
1 Like
I personally feel that he’s encountering the hearsay issue a lot more because he does not intend to call the defendant who can testify to some of these things personally.
The simplest way to understand it is to understand that saying “he told me he was afraid” is testimony that the conversation occurred, but it’s not evidentiary that the person was afraid. The person being afraid is only something that the person in question can state, and the other party can only state that they personally believed the other party to be afraid based on that statement.
A great deal of this has to do with the question he is asking and if it were phrased differently it would be allowed.
23 Likes
I think RC is a great witness, in that she’s trying to be accurate, trying to remain within the confines of the courts requirements
9 Likes
