These were all provided on this thread before, perhaps you missed them. I included a couple criminal for you.
Feb. 27, 1992.
Certiorari Denied Feb. 28, 1992.
MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION DENIED.
The state trial court found that Dr. Geffner's affidavit lacked credibility for three reasons:
and an affidavit of Dr. Robert Geffner, which relies heavily upon hearsay information supplied by Clark's attorneys.
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov...8.92-2142.html
2013
appears his testimony didn't help the 10 yr old kid the shot / murder his neo Nazi dad any from his "learned helplessness" theme. Wasn't it Alyce that said that term is outdated? LOL
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...y-sexual-abuse
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan...trial-20130108
http://www.ndcourts.gov/Court/Briefs/20110197.atb.htm
Sandra Martire hired experts from California (Dr. Robert Geffner) and Georgia (Dr. Phillip Kaplan) to come in at the last second, with little to no objective / substantive knowledge of the case, to critique Dr. Hein Kolo's findings and to comment that Sandra was psychologically stable and was not alienating the children.
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...urr&SizeDisp=7
O'ROURKE v. O'ROURKE
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville.
November 3, 2009 Session.
The trial court found the testimony of Drs. Bernet, Walker and LaBarbera to be persuasive, but it did not find Dr. Geffner's testimony credible
Despite the trial court's announced sanction, it gave Dr. Geffner a great deal of latitude in his testimony at trial, even in the face of continued objections by Father's attorney. During almost a full day of testimony, the witness was able to fully express his criticisms of the purported defects in the evaluations performed by the other psychiatrists and psychologists in this case, and his opinions of the relative fitness of the parties for parental responsibilities, even though he never met Father.
The trial court ultimately found that Dr. Geffner was simply a "hired gun" and that his testimony was completely without merit. In light of the deference that the appellate court is required to give to the credibility determinations of the trial court, it appears unlikely to us that any additional testimony that Dr. Geffner might have been allowed to give would have had any effect on the ultimate outcome of this case. We find that the trial court acted within its discretion by imposing a discovery sanction on his testimony and that, in any event, Mother has not demonstrated how his testimony was in fact limited in a way that affected the outcome.
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
[QUOTE=Poppycock;3401913]Did you check for the 20th and 21st? I though one guy might be a possibility on the 20th. I wrote #8 down as 50ish gray haired male.
From what I remember he had a goatee. I can see the jury in my mind but I must confess, I did not have a notebook to take notes with so you could be right.
;l/
Last edited by Poppycock; 05-09-2013 at 09:43 PM.
So, assuming no other jurors are dismissed this is what we're looking at:
47.47% chance of 5 women and 7 men in the jury
29.67% chance of 4 women and 8 men in the jury
18.46% chance of 6 women and 6 men in the jury
4.40% chance of 3 women and 9 men in the jury
ETA: 1 in 5 chance now of any particular juror being excluded from deliberations where it was originally 1 in 3
Last edited by bryanwasdrunk; 04-25-2013 at 11:48 PM.
Ma'am, what is hard to explain about a person breathing or not breathing? what is so difficult? why is that a difficult concept for you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzkoiNQWaFA
IF fluidly? you mean like stutter around to support a lie about ninjas? and like flowing water, move on to 'truth' stories of a pathological liar that reported 'fogs' and gas can returns .. fill in any blank lie here ____!
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
;/
Last edited by Poppycock; 05-09-2013 at 09:44 PM.
I assume it has to do with a). case law that was posted by Lady Macbeth, b). to rehabilitate both Samuels and Alyce, c). to rebut DeMarte with someone who exceeds her education, experience and credentials, and most importantly d). the defense is fighting for Jodi's life. Doubtful he is under Jodi's spell. We dont yet know exactly what he will look at, right? All I am saying is he is the cream of the crop.
[QUOTE=faq_q;3401841]Jesus, what company do you work for? I thought I had good benefits but WTF...4 months paid for jury duty? Not even pregnant women get more than 6 weeks FMLA and that is unpaid unless they have vacation time.
I work for Assurant, an insurance company. Had the privilege to be on the Grand Jury in our county for a four month term.
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
Sorry it is so big. I am just figuring this out.
I think that pic is perfect!
Goes along with their egos!
Nicely done!
;/
Last edited by Poppycock; 05-09-2013 at 09:45 PM.
Admittedly I missed the start of this discussion & I'm going back to catch up now, but everyone has to be able to put on a defense. If people refused to appear for a defendant due to presumption of guilt, the entire system would collapse wouldn't it? & isn't batshit crazy exactly why an ethical practioner WOULD feel compelled to appear. That he's willing to do so after the other witnesses were savaged speaks to his ethics doesn't it? He can't think its a path to fame, fortune or popularity at this stage.
There are currently 217 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 217 guests)