McCafferty Trial: Defense Rests

[cooperstown]

I'm not sure a self-defense defense was presented.

 

I don't know either. Just responding that if a defense attorney felt he had either option (self defense/battered wife) as a legitimate defense to present, I would think that the battered wife would make more sense to a jury. Assuming, of course, such abuse had actually occurred and you had some evidence of such to present.

[Hearsay]

But then why not just leave the house or call police once he falls asleep? The immediate danger had passed. I think trying to sell that she was of the mindset that murdering him was her only option becomes a much tougher sell this way. I would think that it'd much easier to claim that a "battered and abused wife" loses the capacity for rational thinking and feels under such control of her husband that the only way out is to kill him.

 

Again, I'm not really up on the facts of this case, so I'm at a somewhat of a disadvantage. If she shot him after he fell asleep and the gun was no longer pointed at her side, then yes, I'd want to be able to explain that with mental testimony. My answer was more general in nature.

[mexitucky]

http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20081110/NEWS0103/311100080

 

It appears that some very important past instances may not have been allowed into evidence. I couldn't find the page that said whether they were excluded or not, but this article implies that they were. This is also a note supposedly posted by the daughter on my space after the homicide. I don't believe that this was permitted in either.

 

http://myspacekillers.com/2007/07/01/daughter-molly-mccafferty-wrote-myspace-message-after-dad-robert-mccafferty-killed.aspx

[Birdsfan]

It appears that some very important past instances may not have been allowed into evidence. I couldn't find the page that said whether they were excluded or not, but this article implies that they were. This is also a note supposedly posted by the daughter on my space after the homicide. I don't believe that this was permitted in either.

There's a lot more to this case than meets the eye. I just hope justice is served, for Bob's sake.

[theguru]

http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20081110/NEWS0103/311100080

 

It appears that some very important past instances may not have been allowed into evidence. I couldn't find the page that said whether they were excluded or not, but this article implies that they were. This is also a note supposedly posted by the daughter on my space after the homicide. I don't believe that this was permitted in either.

 

http://myspacekillers.com/2007/07/01/daughter-molly-mccafferty-wrote-myspace-message-after-dad-robert-mccafferty-killed.aspx

 

According to those two articles the Judge won't allow the abuse allegations into evidence and there are allegations that the accused was interested in other men.

[cooperstown]

Hearsay, I have a question for you. In the link posted by mexitucky, it says this:

 

"Earlier this week, Gambrel (one of McCafferty's defense attonreys), whose firm primarily deals with family law, including divorce, said Cheryl McCafferty had sought his consultation before the homicide. He said attorney/client privilege prevented him from elaborating on the consultation."

 

Clearly (or at least to me) the implication being made here is that McCafferty went to him to discuss a divorce and possible abuse issues prior to the killing. If this is information that would be beneficial to McCafferty establishing her claim of battered spouse or self-defense, and since she is the holder of the privilege, why would she not waive it to allow him to introduce their discussion? Just sounds somewhat disingenuous to me.

[theguru]

Hearsay, I have a question for you. In the link posted by mexitucky, it says this:

 

"Earlier this week, Gambrel (one of McCafferty's defense attonreys), whose firm primarily deals with family law, including divorce, said Cheryl McCafferty had sought his consultation before the homicide. He said attorney/client privilege prevented him from elaborating on the consultation."

 

Clearly (or at least to me) the implication being made here is that McCafferty went to him to discuss a divorce and possible abuse issues prior to the killing. If this is information that would be beneficial to McCafferty establishing her claim of battered spouse or self-defense, and since she is the holder of the privilege, why would she not waive it to allow him to introduce their discussion? Just sounds somewhat disingenuous to me.

 

I will answer, because there was probably some things said that would be incriminating or at least that would contradict the court version.

[Hearsay]

http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20081110/NEWS0103/311100080

 

It appears that some very important past instances may not have been allowed into evidence. I couldn't find the page that said whether they were excluded or not, but this article implies that they were. This is also a note supposedly posted by the daughter on my space after the homicide. I don't believe that this was permitted in either.

 

http://myspacekillers.com/2007/07/01/daughter-molly-mccafferty-wrote-myspace-message-after-dad-robert-mccafferty-killed.aspx

 

If this is true, this case should be reversed upon appeal:

 

KRS 503.050 (in part)

 

(3) Any evidence presented by the defendant to establish the existence of a prior act or acts of domestic violence and abuse as defined by KRS 403.720 by the person against whom the defendant is charged with employing physical force shall be admissible under this section.

 

(4) A person does not have a duty to retreat prior to the use of deadly physical force.

 

 

This is the self-defense statute. The fact that acts of abuse may have occurred, and were continuing, up to 15 years ago, actually supports McCafferty's defense. The fact that there are no "public records" of domestic violence does not in any way mean that it did not occur and even occur with regularity, as I am sure our law enforcement brethren will agree.

[Hearsay]

Hearsay, I have a question for you. In the link posted by mexitucky, it says this:

 

"Earlier this week, Gambrel (one of McCafferty's defense attonreys), whose firm primarily deals with family law, including divorce, said Cheryl McCafferty had sought his consultation before the homicide. He said attorney/client privilege prevented him from elaborating on the consultation."

 

Clearly (or at least to me) the implication being made here is that McCafferty went to him to discuss a divorce and possible abuse issues prior to the killing. If this is information that would be beneficial to McCafferty establishing her claim of battered spouse or self-defense, and since she is the holder of the privilege, why would she not waive it to allow him to introduce their discussion? Just sounds somewhat disingenuous to me.

 

Probably because if she introduces any part of the conversation, the prosecution can elicit testimony about the whole conversation. They might have discussed that she had had a sexual affair, that she was going to move with the children, or any of a number of other facts that are not pertinent to the prosecution or defense, but that would tend to inflame the jury against her.

[cooperstown]

If this is true, this case should be reversed upon appeal:

 

KRS 503.050 (in part)

 

(3) Any evidence presented by the defendant to establish the existence of a prior act or acts of domestic violence and abuse as defined by KRS 403.720 by the person against whom the defendant is charged with employing physical force shall be admissible under this section.

 

(4) A person does not have a duty to retreat prior to the use of deadly physical force.

 

 

This is the self-defense statute. The fact that acts of abuse may have occurred, and were continuing, up to 15 years ago, actually supports McCafferty's defense. The fact that there are no "public records" of domestic violence does not in any way mean that it did not occur and even occur with regularity, as I am sure our law enforcement brethren will agree.

 

But - and I'm sure the BGP defense attorney bethren would agree - unless there's some evidence to corroborate her claim of domestic violence - police reports, medical reports, eyewitnesses, something - it is only her word and the jury is not compelled to accept this as gospel truth. Simply that she says there was abuse does not mean it was so.

[Hearsay]

Incidentally, I'm just picking up one side of this and arguing it. I could argue the other side as well. I have no dog in the fight nor emotional tie to this at all. Sometimes its just fun to play with cooperstown and guru and some others similarly situated on here.

[cooperstown]

Probably because if she introduces any part of the conversation, the prosecution can elicit testimony about the whole conversation. They might have discussed that she had had a sexual affair, that she was going to move with the children, or any of a number of other facts that are not pertinent to the prosecution or defense, but that would tend to inflame the jury against her.

 

I agree completely and I'm sure that was it. But you read his quote and it is clearly meant to give the impression that he really wanted to provide some valuable expulpatory evidence on McCafferty's behalf, but was solely prevented from doing so because of the attorney-client privilege. And that just rings hollow, as she could have easily waived the privilege had it been in her best interest to do so.

[Birdsfan]

If this case does get over-turned on appeal it will be as big a travesty as the O.J. verdict.

[Hearsay]

But - and I'm sure the BGP defense attorney bethren would agree - unless there's some evidence to corroborate her claim of domestic violence - police reports, medical reports, eyewitnesses, something - it is only her word and the jury is not compelled to accept this as gospel truth. Simply that she says there was abuse does not mean it was so.

 

Absolutely 100% correct, BUT, the judge has not even given her that opportunity. The trial court has taken away even the opportunity for her to present it to a jury to see what they think, and that is the denial of due process of law. One of the most fundamental, black-letter legal principles is that a defendant has the right to present the defense that they desire and call witnesses in their own behalf. It is the most frequent cause for reversal in criminal cases.

 

I'm merely speculating, but it sounds as if the trial court substituted its own judgment as to the "weight" of that domestic violence evidence for the jury's judgment, a major no-no.

[cooperstown]

Incidentally, I'm just picking up one side of this and arguing it. I could argue the other side as well. I have no dog in the fight nor emotional tie to this at all. Sometimes its just fun to play with cooperstown and guru and some others similarly situated on here.

 

Same here. Nothing better than debating with a defense attorney. :thumb:

 

(Unless it's up on the stand. That can be uncomfortable at times).