When you are finished with Day Eleven click the back button to return to this page.
Transcript Analysis
Day 11, Aug. 31, 2006
-
Page 1-23 The court modifies the elements of the offense in trial without going back to the grand jury. Mistrial. No Hobson's choice.
-
Page 30-12 What happened to transmit it, received, purchased etc. Indictment has been modified. Mistrial. No Hobson's choice.
Closing Arguments
-
Page 48-17 Big feet, probably the camera angle. Statement not supported by evidence. Get a photo expert for this.
-
Page 49-7 They do if they were promised money for their testimony.
-
Page 51-1 This point corroborated the premise that the photos in 1999 have no connection with evidence in trial and may possibly have been different photographers if the 1999 pictures existed at all.
-
Page 51-24 Not worried because kids are asleep. Now that makes everything all better doesn't it?
-
Page 52-12 She most certainly didn't know there were coming. See Day 10, Page 55-19.
-
Page 59-17 She did not pay off the mortgage. See Day 8 Page 185-9. She never said she paid off the house.
A.R.Cr.P. Page 26.10 Judicial Decisions/Set-aside.
A sentence must be set-aside where the defendant can demonstrate that false information formed part of the basis for the sentence; the defendant must show:
(1) that the information before the sentencing court was false or misleading.
(2) the court relied on the false information in passing sentence. See also:
State vs. Grier, 146 Ariz. 511,707 P.2d 309 (1985).
Larrison vs. U.S. , 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir 1928)
A new trial should be granted to when (a) the court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness is false; (b) that without it to the jury might have reached a different conclusion; and (c) that the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet or did not know of its falsity until after the trial.
(Note: as discussed in the above, this case was the basis for the Larrison standard followed by many circuits.) See also:
U.S. vs. Natanel, 938 F.2d 302 (1st Cir 1991)
U.S. vs. Nixon, 881 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir 1989)
U.S. vs. Mass, 867 F.2d 174 (3rd Cir 1989)
U.S. vs. Butler , 567 F.2d 885 (9th Cir 1978)
U.S. vs. Anderson , 509 F.2d 312 (1975)
U.S. vs. Johnson, 487 F.2d 1278 (4th Cir 1973)
-
Page 60-6 and how did she lose her teaching job? The jury never heard that story.
-
Page 120-1 evidence was misstated severely. See Day 5, Page 80-6.
A.R.Cr.P. Page 26.10 Judicial Decisions/Set-aside.
A sentence must be set-aside where the defendant can demonstrate that false information formed part of the basis for the sentence; the defendant must show:
(1) that the information before the sentencing court was false or misleading.
(2) the court relied on the false information in passing sentence. See also:
State vs. Grier, 146 Ariz. 511,707 P.2d 309 (1985).
Larrison vs. U.S. , 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir 1928)
A new trial should be granted to when (a) the court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness is false; (b) that without it to the jury might have reached a different conclusion; and (c) that the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet or did not know of its falsity until after the trial.
(Note: as discussed in the above, this case was the basis for the Larrison standard followed by many circuits.) See also:
U.S. vs. Natanel, 938 F.2d 302 (1st Cir 1991)
U.S. vs. Nixon, 881 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir 1989)
U.S. vs. Mass, 867 F.2d 174 (3rd Cir 1989)
U.S. vs. Butler , 567 F.2d 885 (9th Cir 1978)
U.S. vs. Anderson , 509 F.2d 312 (1975)
U.S. vs. Johnson, 487 F.2d 1278 (4th Cir 1973)
For questions or comments about this web site contact: jcoghill2@cox.net
