McCafferty Trial: Defense Rests

[Hearsay]

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.

 

Its always a tough judgment call. Lets says she had an affair - for whatever reason. She had been to the attorney to consult for divorce, and that piece of testimony (the consultation, drafting of petition for custody, etc.) could be used to support her contention that Bob flew into a rage when he heard it and held a gun to her side. Certainly a jury could see a man doing that in anger.

 

But then on cross, the lawyer is forced to reveal that she told him that she had had a sexual affair on him. And suddenly with that juicy tidbit the prosecution contends that she shot Bob in cold blood so she could run to the arms of her insidious lover.

 

If you're defense counsel, do you want the lawyer on the stand or not?

[cooperstown]

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

 

So I assume there's a lot of "inside" information/rumors/innuendo known to Ft. Thomas residents that others would not have heard and certainly wasn't presented at trial? And this information is apparently not all that flattering towards Ms. McCafferty? (Honestly, I have no idea).

[Hearsay]

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

 

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

 

I was cross-examining a trooper one time about (my contention) his failure to get a DUI signature on an implied consent form. He said he didn't need to. He then, right there on the stand, repeated verbatim the entire Implied Consent dialogue.

 

Bloodied and beaten, I said "no further questions," and departed, tail between legs.:walk::walk:

[cooperstown]

Its always a tough judgment call. Lets says she had an affair - for whatever reason. She had been to the attorney to consult for divorce, and that piece of testimony (the consultation, drafting of petition for custody, etc.) could be used to support her contention that Bob flew into a rage when he heard it and held a gun to her side. Certainly a jury could see a man doing that in anger.

 

But then on cross, the lawyer is forced to reveal that she told him that she had had a sexual affair on him. And suddenly with that juicy tidbit the prosecution contends that she shot Bob in cold blood so she could run to the arms of her insidious lover.

 

If you're defense counsel, do you want the lawyer on the stand or not?

 

I agree. Tough call. The missing factor in your scenario, however, is that obviously there would have been much more to the story of her affair, why she had the affair, why she wanted the divorce, possible prior abuse, etc.. and without knowing all of those facts it would be hard to make a call whether having her lawyer testify would be beneficial or not. But your point is well taken.

[cooperstown]

I was cross-examining a trooper one time about (my contention) his failure to get a DUI signature on an implied consent form. He said he didn't need to. He then, right there on the stand, repeated verbatim the entire Implied Consent dialogue.

 

Bloodied and beaten, I said "no further questions," and departed, tail between legs.:walk::walk:

 

And I was once humiliated on the stand by counsel because I was too lazy and arrogant to re-read all of my notes going into trial about a surveillance I conducted two years prior (I had been on the job about 5-6 years at that point, so I was a self-proclaimed expert who knew everything about everything - or so I thought), and he grilled me on some rather insignificant points of the surveillance that I just completely forgot about and had to have brought some doubt into the jurors' minds whether I really even saw (or accurately remembered) the critical part of the surveillance as I claimed (a drug purchase). The defendant was convicted, but in spite of my performance on the stand, not because of it. Good learning lesson and haven't repeated the mistake.

[mexitucky]

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

 

I'm not one to question relationships in Ft. Thomas b/c of how deep ties go in the community, but from the sounds of it, many people didn't know what was going on behind closed doors there. How can you be so sure that this is a travesty?

[Hearsay]

Another statute, KRS 503.010, gives definitions for the Penal Code:

 

(3) "Imminent" means impending danger, and, in the context of domestic violence and abuse as defined by KRS 403.710, belief that danger is imminent can be inferred from a past pattern of repeated serious abuse.

 

Thus, McCafferty should have been permitted to present this evidence to show why she might have waited for some time to shoot Bob.

[Poster Boy]

I'm not one to question relationships in Ft. Thomas b/c of how deep ties go in the community, but from the sounds of it, many people didn't know what was going on behind closed doors there.

I think most people strongly doubt that anything was. But you touched on something that is very true; the ties in this community to the McCafferty family are wide and deep. Bob was a gregarious man and highly involved in the community. And of course, the kids both go to school here.

[JPP]

A question for the lawyers. Can a judge deem that there is not enough evidence for a claim of battered spouse defense, or do they let the defense run with it and determine their own fate?

[Clyde]

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

 

Do you believe that he abused her?

[Run To State]

Do you believe that he abused her?

I have to question it, but one never knows. I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

[Birdsfan]

Do you believe that he abused her?

I have a very hard time with that idea.

[Qryche11]

I have a very hard time with that idea.

 

The question is do you believe she killed him in cold blood simply because she rang up some debt?

[Henry521]

The question is do you believe she killed him in cold blood simply because she rang up some debt?

 

No, I don't.

[Henry521]

I'm not one to question relationships in Ft. Thomas b/c of how deep ties go in the community, but from the sounds of it, many people didn't know what was going on behind closed doors there. How can you be so sure that this is a travesty?

 

Do people know what goes on behind closed doors in most other communities? :confused: