And he won! He got MB off - not such a bumbling foolā¦
Question for you: Iāve never spent much time in the civil arena outside of family law (and evictions, lol). Can they use the testimony given under oath in the criminal trial to impeach in the civil case? Because clearly some of the witnesses had changed their stories from their original police statements, interviews with the Prosecutorās office, and the trial. And Mr B was really good at ārefreshingā their memory. But say they come in with a 4th version. Can you stack up all those statements? Is it overkill?
I canāt see a jury giving money to someone who has already admitted under oath that she had a plan to ādestroy him.ā But I could be wrong. And thatās why I want to watch!
Random aside, many years ago, my dad got to know the author of that book somewhere, somehow that I donāt remember. Consequently, I have an autographed copy.
I certainly hope that at least some of the jurors will talk to 48 Hours. I think it would very be interesting to hear how they arrived at the verdict, and if it was maybe a compromise to meet in the middle if some of the jurors had wildly different opinions.
Itās more fun not knowing.
Thatās a good question. So, the general rule is that hearsay (an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter it asserts - note that āout of courtā includes prior court proceedings) is not admissible. However, there are exceptions that are not hearsay - for prior inconsistent statements, e.g., someone testified differently prior in a deposition or at trial, or it contains an admission of a party-opponent, e.g., if MBās attorney offers LKās prior statement as some type of admission on the part of LK. Or the other way around. Usually, in a civil case, we impeach with deposition testimony. But since trial testimony is subject to cross, a court would probably allow it to the extent the prior testimony was inconsistent with what is being said NOW or is an admission of the party-opponent. (This excludes third-party admissions, though not third party inconsistent statements).
Note that a party cannot offer his or her OWN out of court statement into evidence. Thatās hearsay, and courts are unlikely to allow it.
ETA: Hearsay seems harder than it is. I remember taking the bar exam, and thinking, āthatās all it is?ā Basically, if you hear āhe told meā (or āshe told meā) on the witness stand, and the āheā or āsheā isnāt the opposing party, itās hearsay. LOL. Lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule, though.
That scene was brought to mind for me, as well, when reading this. As well as āMalice Prohibitumā. Ha hah, love that movie.
Me too! I think jury insights are fascinating, and Iām always happy when they agree to talk - though I understand why they sometimes do not wish to.
I donāt think I even realized at first that Dr. Hasson saw him after the stateās expert. But in hindsight, I can totally see that as a smart strategy by Mr. B.
The one that has been mentioned many times in previous discussions on the BB for accurate courtroom procedure is My Cousin Vinny.
Once he is deemed sane and not a danger to himself or others and is released then I understand he has full rights as a citizen except for conditions that can be placed by the judge to insure his recovery and safety of all. What conditions can the judge put on his release? Can the judge confine him to remain in New Jersey? Can the judge restrict him from owning firearms? Send him to a halfway house or responsible guardian?
Does being threatened by her count???
Thank you.
Thatās all going to be so interesting to play out. Just using LK right now since sheās the plaintiff, including depositions, we could be on version five or six by the time she testifies again.
I get why MBās future hearings are in camera, but it would also be interesting to watch those, because this verdict is so rare. Iām just so curious how things will be presented going forward.
I feel like there are enough exceptions that itās almost not a rule!
Havenāt watched it in awhile, but I love it and now want to watch it again! The one scene that stands out that I recall thatās quite accurate is the qualification of Ms. Vito as an expert. LOL!
Right. Thatās the idea. Haha. Though some exceptions are kind of hard to get - like excited utterance/present sense impression. But business records? Oh, we can come up with all kinds of ways to make things ābusiness records.ā LOL.
The bottom line is that most evidence comes in. One way or another. 
Donāt forget that she managed to have two different versions in the criminal trial just by testifying from one day to the next.
Thatās right! Mr B: you donāt recall yesterday? Me: 
