Author Topic: Opening Arguments #TTTBE  (Read 42431 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9808
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #810 on: January 19, 2020, 04:11:14 pm »
Spoiler
I'm going with A. Obviously the woman knew, and while she expressed reservations about the plan, she participated.

I don't think B, because they're not being charged with possession.

I don't think C, because her admission that she talked to her sister about the plan is evidence of conspiracy

I don't think D, because she did not withdraw, and continued to participate and would have profited if it succeeded. Further, even if she had withdrawn, I think she was still guilty of conspiring. If you conspire to commit a crime, take actions needed to commit the crime and then change your mind you're still guilty of conspiracy.
[close]

Spoiler

The woman did not admit that she talked to her sister about the plan. She only admitted saying there were "too many officers" at that airport. While we can assume she was talking about the smuggling plan, we cannot prove it. She has tacitly but not explicitly admitted to conspiracy. The women should be charged with smuggling, not with conspiracy.
[close]
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8384
  • Fanatically anti-bigot
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #811 on: January 19, 2020, 07:25:09 pm »
Spoiler
I'm going with A. Obviously the woman knew, and while she expressed reservations about the plan, she participated.

I don't think B, because they're not being charged with possession.

I don't think C, because her admission that she talked to her sister about the plan is evidence of conspiracy

I don't think D, because she did not withdraw, and continued to participate and would have profited if it succeeded. Further, even if she had withdrawn, I think she was still guilty of conspiring. If you conspire to commit a crime, take actions needed to commit the crime and then change your mind you're still guilty of conspiracy.
[close]

Spoiler

The woman did not admit that she talked to her sister about the plan. She only admitted saying there were "too many officers" at that airport. While we can assume she was talking about the smuggling plan, we cannot prove it. She has tacitly but not explicitly admitted to conspiracy. The women should be charged with smuggling, not with conspiracy.
[close]
Spoiler
Which is an argument that the defense could make at trial. It is the jury’s job to find the facts, and a juror could reasonably infer from her words that the two had discussed the plan. It’s for a judge to decide the meaning of the words before they’ve had a chance to consider them.

Note also that we are not being asked whether they should have been charged, but whether the case should be dismissed after it has already been presented to the jury but before they have a chance to deliberate. That is not something that is done lightly, and it should only be done in extreme cases where no jury could reasonably find her guilty.
[close]
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9808
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #812 on: January 19, 2020, 08:33:26 pm »
Spoiler
I'm going with A. Obviously the woman knew, and while she expressed reservations about the plan, she participated.

I don't think B, because they're not being charged with possession.

I don't think C, because her admission that she talked to her sister about the plan is evidence of conspiracy

I don't think D, because she did not withdraw, and continued to participate and would have profited if it succeeded. Further, even if she had withdrawn, I think she was still guilty of conspiring. If you conspire to commit a crime, take actions needed to commit the crime and then change your mind you're still guilty of conspiracy.
[close]

Spoiler

The woman did not admit that she talked to her sister about the plan. She only admitted saying there were "too many officers" at that airport. While we can assume she was talking about the smuggling plan, we cannot prove it. She has tacitly but not explicitly admitted to conspiracy. The women should be charged with smuggling, not with conspiracy.
[close]
Spoiler
Which is an argument that the defense could make at trial. It is the jury’s job to find the facts, and a juror could reasonably infer from her words that the two had discussed the plan. It’s for a judge to decide the meaning of the words before they’ve had a chance to consider them.

Note also that we are not being asked whether they should have been charged, but whether the case should be dismissed after it has already been presented to the jury but before they have a chance to deliberate. That is not something that is done lightly, and it should only be done in extreme cases where no jury could reasonably find her guilty.
[close]

Spoiler

Okay. But I guess what I'm saying is that, based solely on what we know, a jury could not reasonably find her guilty. As I understand the game, we are to assume that no other evidence was offered, and I think that her statement by itself is not sufficient to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy. Therefore the conspiracy charges should be thrown out.

You say that "... a juror could reasonably infer from her words that the two had discussed the plan." But I believe that a juror could not reasonably make such an inference. I guess we'll find out soon what the Law Board thinks.

[close]
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4268
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #813 on: January 20, 2020, 12:03:49 pm »
Answer to #162

Spoiler
[close]
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4268
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #814 on: January 24, 2020, 06:27:19 pm »
Next Question

Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline Swagomatic

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #815 on: January 24, 2020, 06:34:47 pm »
Okay, it's
Spoiler
got to be C or D, I think. I'm going to go ahead and say D.  I don't think those notes would be considered business records.
[close]

Oops, had to fix my answer
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
---George Bernard Shaw

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12912
  • "I ain't no doctor with degrees" - Think
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #816 on: January 24, 2020, 06:46:13 pm »
Spoiler
I'm going with D. But it could be A.

I don't think A, because the it is a contempraneous record of a business meeting.

I don't think B, because her immunity is not relevant to the notes she took at the time.

I don't think C, because while it was a business meeting, it was not the official notes or minutes that someone might have recorded as their job, but just her personal notes for her own recollection.

I think D because they are a contemporary record that can be used to support or contradict her testimony.
[close]
... and Donald Trump is president of the United States

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8384
  • Fanatically anti-bigot
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #817 on: January 24, 2020, 08:00:56 pm »
I’m going to say that because the records weren’t routinely taken as part of her duties they are not business records and therefore should be excluded as not within any exception.  If it were her job to take notes at meetings, it would be different.  These were just private notes.

A

Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4268
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #818 on: January 25, 2020, 09:24:53 am »
Spoiler
I'm going to go with D. I don't see there being an issue with admitting the notes as evidence. Unless there was a company policy on no notes being taken in meetings then maybe? I equate it as just gathering evidence in a crime. Like video at an ATM that records a crime that did not involve the ATM. I think C is the attractive distractor. They are not business records unless they were part of a recording secretarys job and if that was her job to take those notes.
[close]
Edited it to fix my typing
« Last Edit: January 25, 2020, 09:27:07 am by xenu »
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8384
  • Fanatically anti-bigot
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #819 on: January 25, 2020, 09:42:46 am »
on further thought, I think the essential question is whether she herself would be allowed to testify to what happened.  If she could not testify to what the others said at the meeting, then her notes should not be able, as it were, to testify.  If she can testify to what they said, then perhaps she can use her notes to refresh her memory.


Of course, for all I know there’s some sort of hearsay exception based on the idea that people don’t lie to their diaries or some bullshit.  Frankly, I hate hearsay questions.


I’m going to stick A, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to be D because fuck hearsay.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2020, 09:45:01 am by The Latinist »
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4268
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #820 on: January 25, 2020, 09:49:38 am »
I don't see a reason on her not being able to testify in court. It's not like it's attorney or doctor client privilege being evoked. Then again maybe there is ano obscure law that says board meetings are off limits.
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8384
  • Fanatically anti-bigot
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #821 on: January 25, 2020, 10:10:05 am »
She can’t testify to what others said in the meeting if that testimony is being used to establish the truth of the underlying facts. That’s hearsay.

ETA: Rereading the question, it says that they are being used to establish what happened at the meetings.  If that’s the case, she can testify to what happened at the meetings.  If that’s the case, I think she could testify to that.  The question then is only whether her notes can be entered into evidence, or if she has to testify herself.  I’m sticking with A, but I’m less confident, now.  I suspect that she would have to testify to the events but might be able to refresh her memory from her notes.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2020, 10:14:34 am by The Latinist »
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4268
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #822 on: January 25, 2020, 11:37:26 am »
I think the notes are not hearsay because they are notes from her direct conversations of the management team when the crime was being discussed. If they were notes taken from a conversation with someone that heard about the meeting then I can see not admitting them. She was at the meeting when the fraud was discussed. These are her recollections for those conversations..
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9808
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #823 on: January 25, 2020, 03:43:03 pm »
B is obviously nonsense.

And I don't think the notes are business records because she made them unofficially and for her own benefit after the meeting.

I can see arguments for both A and D. The woman's testimony is certainly admissible because she was a witness to the events. But if she had told someone else, that person't testimony would be hearsay. Are the notes like a third person who is repeating what they heard? I don't think so, but who knows what the law says?

The notes are definitely past recollections recorded, but that could be a trap, because I don't know if "past recollections recorded" are admissible as evidence. For that matter, I don't even know if hearsay is always necessarily excluded.

With a very low level of confidence, I'm guessing D.
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4268
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #824 on: January 28, 2020, 06:28:22 pm »
Answer to #163

Spoiler
[close]
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext