The sworn statement clearly disclosed 3 cameras at the house, not one.
One surveillance system with 3 cameras =/= 1 camera
1 Like
I do think I should point outâŠunless LK says something to differ than this under oath, it is NOT perjury. All of the other screenshots are not under oath and so they do not make her statements under oath perjuryâŠ
10 Likes
Correct.
2 Likes
Correct, one camera system, âA Blink security surveillance camera systemâ. Though thatâs an odd thing to focus on in my post when the big issue and the question asked is what are the implications of contradictory admissions/statements made outside the interrogatory process. But, people who know this stuff are answering so, no worries.
Of course, and thanks for making this point extra clear. I just wondered what, if any, interplay there could be between the stuff in the screen shots you provided and what was sworn to in the interrogatory. Would the only way to avoid the SM stuff being a problem be to admit the SM stuff was lies? How would one square having provided information that differs in the various different places?
This is a procedure question not necessarily specific to this case. The examples provided by @soloudinhere are exactly what I was looking for and wondering about.
6 Likes
Well, like I said, I got it from the NJ court website, and as such that it was public record.
3 Likes
yes. Generally, this mostly has to do with verifying the authenticity of an item, under 901 of FRE (or the stateâs equivalent) I canât produce just anything and say it is contradictory; I have to prove that it is an authentic item or statement.
If I want to introduce a note and say it was written by a person, I then will need to bring in testimony from someone who can verify the authenticity of the document - its author, someone who witnessed said person writing said note, etc.
Authentication and identification is a special feature of relevancy. It is why, when you watch say, Law and Order, you will see an attorney ask a witness to describe a document or item and explain how they are familiar with it, as a witness with knowledge is able to identify and verify an item.
I truly donât have enough familiarity with how social media posts are used in criminal trial. I do know thereâs some case law around it, but I really havenât studied it enough to know. I believe Tienda v. State of Texas litigated this to a conclusion, but I will have to dig into it more.
9 Likes
Fascinating, thank you! I imagine there must be a good bit about SM as evidence these days. With all the capitol riot cases, etc., I imagine itâs ever changing and hard to keep up with unless you deal with it very regularly.
In this particular case, I understand that a huge volume of SM records were produced. Does that suggest they will play a role - large or small - in the trial? I know you cannot know, just wondering what the huge production of SM in discovery would suggest to someone with experience.
7 Likes
I imagine they will play a role. It seems to me based on the very limited information Iâve read here (so, some or all of it can be untrue) that the SM postings construct a âtimelineâ if you will of actions and events that are critical to the eventual action that resulted in the trial.
Note I am not saying the victim is or should be on trial. Rather, I would think it is very relevant in a state that has a âheat of passionâ 2nd degree manslaughter standard.
Personal opinion only.
12 Likes
Understood, and thanks for being willing to share your expertise in a general way. The way the trial will play out and what will and wonât be admissible, etc. is what is interesting about this discussion and your answers add enormously to the understanding.
6 Likes
Whatâs interesting about the law in general, and what drew me to it in the first place, is that itâs really always down to interpretation. Sometimes (often) we are asking âwhat did someone mean when they wrote this statute or opinion?â Is that interpretation still valid given changing times and legal climates?
Every case is different. I donât know if criminal courts are open to the public for viewing remotely in NJ, but Iâd be interested to watch this one and see how some of the very new standards are applied in terms of the technology evidence, social media, etc.
12 Likes
And to be fair, IMâs previous statements clearly reflect this testimony as well.
5 Likes
Who uses this type of terminology? Does it simply mean âshot twiceâ or âshot four timesâ? 
15 Likes
If courtrooms open up completely in NJ, does that mean virtual access will end?
1 Like
Someone showing off how hip they are to gun violence terminology?
27 Likes
Gosh, I hope not.
Virtual access to things is one of the positives that came out of Covid. I would hate for things to backtrack on that front.
11 Likes
Syntax police. My error. I will correct.
1 Like
I just looked at the live stream for Judge Taylor now. Did they already get through MBâs case?
No. He handled another case.
Whatâs the link? When I went to the updated one it was civil, etc. the original link didnât seem to have Taylor, just a Sussex court.
ETA. Nevermind: reloaded and it is there.
If Taylor isnât there you just have to keep refreshing. All the counties are on one page. It frequently goes down or gets cut between defendants. mBâs lawyer is currently on with someone else.
2 Likes
