LK may prefer to forge ahead in her civil case and might be willing to harm the criminal case in the process (or unable to see the big picture and really understand/believe that her actions would impact the criminal case). Remember that she will not get damages in the criminal case. She is seeking damages in the civil case. Sometimes what a victim prefers is to get paid… and they don’t care as much about the criminal case. I don’t know what she is thinking here, I couldn’t possibly guess. But no, victims are not always in lockstep with the prosectuon and yes they sometimes do things in civil cases that harm the criminal case.
6 Likes
I’m not sure you can assume that. The paper discovery didn’t seem to be complete given the motion to compel. Often litigants don’t want to take depos until the paper discovery is complete.
Assuming the info in the deposition is relevant in the criminal case, maybe. They would have to find a hearsay objection. The defense can also call her as an adverse witness (if she’s not called by the prosecution) and then they don’t need the depo transcript (except to impeach).
2 Likes
Can you explain to me what you’re looking at that makes you think the prosecution is making statements in the civil case?
1 Like
No depositions in criminal cases (generally).
If there’s a depo in the civil case it will be LK and the various defendants present at the depo. The prosecution will not be there.
As the prosecution of COURSE you hope a victim is not off in a civil case sabotaging your criminal case. But you lack any real way of preventing that from happening. You can ask the victim not to do that, but at the end of the day you can’t do a whole lot.
And depos aren’t necessarily admissible as substantive evidence. Most of the time they’re not, unless the deponent is unavailable at trial.
I don’t mean to be short but it’s hard in discussions like this where there are fundamenal misunderstandings all along. Short of taking a 50,000 foot view, which from time to time I do, it can be hard to weigh in on a series of questions/discussions founded on misunderstandings.
This is NOT a criticism. I UNDERSTAND that the process is not clear or well known to non-lawyers. It’s just… sometimes it’s frustrating because the discussion goes off in directions predicated by misunderstandings and people are posting back and forth and it just sort of snowballs.
It’s really hard to come in later, after people have gone back and forth on issues that are wrong, and untangle all the knots.
11 Likes
Sorry, I meant a reply to KM, not within those messages. It was dated July 1 and she claimed she had not yet been deposed.
La-LaPopRiderHalfway Bronzed
Knights_Mom
“Yawn,” was as about as opposite a reply could be from you, when @Sdel informed you your posts had “made the cut,” into “legal arguments justifying the request.”
FTR- I am not Sdel. I do not know who Sdel is. I have some good guesses- but, that’s all they’d be. Guesses.
And, FWIW- I have not yet been deposed. Therefore, it’s very likely that subpoenas following last month’s hearing have not yet been dispensed/served. It’s also equally unlikely they will not be. Just going by Sdel’s remarks - one can judge for him/herself whether this poster is telling the truth wrt “things to come,” …… or not. If at 2 am I used the word “was,” rather than “will,” or the phrase, “will likely be,” - I think we can call that a truthful, perhaps, sleep depraved mistake. But definitely NOT “dishonest.” CERTAINLY not purposefully “dishonest.” You (g) run with information handed to you by possibly, THE most dishonest posters- with very obvious agendas and virtually ZERO factual information. But uh…… you label statements made by @Sdel - “lies,” suddenly, Bc I (more or less) agreed with it? If I called Sdel’s previously quoted statement “lies,” - would Sdel’s remarks then be “true,” Bc I disagreed with it? Can’t have it both ways.
Lemme give you some info. Any documents which “make the cut,” to be used in court (as Sdel mentioned) lead to …. Ugh. Never mind. Someone else can explain “the scope,” and it’s legal definitions/ramifications/justifications, etc.
Interesting, thanks. I honestly thought victims would be super cooperative with prosecution, which was, admittedly, naïve of me.
I had also imagined, absent unusual circumstances, that a victim would want both jail time/punishment from the criminal case and payment from a civil case, if applicable. It had not occurred to me that a victim wouldn’t care about the criminal case.
4 Likes
The motion to compel for LK was granted in February. The motion to compel for the prosecution was done in June. SGF’s direct argument was that they needed the files from the prosecution because her discovery was incomplete and it was not recoverable at the current date because it had been deleted/destroyed. And they knew this BECAUSE……The prosecution had already provided this to MB for the criminal trial……
MB is a member of SGF LLC….they already knew what they wanted to ask….
1 Like
I’m reading the motions and exhibits filed in the civil case. You can find the link the threads about the civil case.
And as a breakdown….we have initial claims filed by all parties….then we have LK’s motions to freeze assets…a few different agreements on discovery extensions……then we have motions to compel discovery from SGF’s for both LK and criminal prosecution….and now a stay request from SGF only. That’s the civil case in a nutshell.
2 Likes
Well, honestly, I ignored everything she tagged me in at that point, so I didn’t read it.
2 Likes
No need to apologize. That was the only reasonable action to take!
4 Likes
SDel, can you identify what you’re looking at specifically that you think the PROSECUTION filed in the CIVIL case? I can’t figure out what you’re looking at?
A letter to the court saying they didn’t want to give over the investigative file/SM discovery from the criminal case until after the criminal trial was completed.
Absolutely it could conceivably contain exculpatory evidence.
When it comes to this case, take nothing for granted or as a sure thing.
3 Likes
I think it’s safe to say this case is outside the scope of what 99% of us would do. I’ve seen and heard about a lot of assorted bad boarder situations over the years, and none of them ever involved a gun.
6 Likes
Yes, that’s my point. Lots of folks speculate on wanting stall cams here on COTH and IRL but almost never actually do.
1 Like
I don’t think SGF has any ability to stop the prosecution, or defendant, for that matter, from calling any particular witnesses. I’m not even going to hazard a guess. There is often a lot more going on in a lawsuit than is ever reported or even known outside the law offices.
1 Like
If she’s on the record testifying about the event in the criminal case…it would be a problem for the criminal case. The prosecution has said as much.
2 Likes
From the letter filed by the prosecution in the civil trial……
“The SGF pleading explicitly states that upon receipt of the prosecutor’s file, at least one potential witness, L.K., will be subjected to civil depositions during the pendency of the criminal prosecution. Defendant-Movant’s brief at 4. Compelled disclosure of the entire file could result in witnesses’ memories or ability to recollect the incident being compromised – either intentionally or inadvertently – and would subject witnesses to undue and adverse impeachment in the criminal proceeding. “
Also….
“ Second, SGF seeks access to the social media posts. The MCPO would raise the same interests as outlined above.”
And….
“ Although these postings were allegedly public at one point, they are not any longer.”
SGF’s response was essentially too bad, so sad, we have the right to prosecute our civil case unhampered and if that was a problem then there were another 22 months before the civil case had to be filed and if LK had waited we wouldn’t be at this point before the criminal case had concluded.
2 Likes
I think this was addressed in one or more of the previous threads but since New Jersey is a one party consent state, could the recordings potentially be inadmissible if the people on the recording were not informed of the possibility of a recording device?
