tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post4120086958171846941..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: New published NMCCA opinion -- Toto, I don't think we're in 1995 anymoreDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-22752182053630445102007-09-10T14:29:00.000-04:002007-09-10T14:29:00.000-04:00The victim-impact evidence was what you would expe...The victim-impact evidence was what you would expect from someone who had been repeatedly raped by her step-father for almost a decade: her life had been a mess since 1995. It didn't help that her family -- all of them -- sided with LCDR Davis (it was chilling to listen to the fam's opinion of it all). <BR/><BR/>The government was precluded from dredging any of that up on direct examination (despite our objection to the contrary). Instead, the gov't had to rely on an expert in "potential" psychological impact to go through a series of hypotheticals...it WAS very awkward and artificial.<BR/><BR/>But, in the end it was a non-issue; the MJ didn't even let the victim testify (her flight was delayed due to weather) when he denied the gov't motion to continue for half a day to let her arrive.<BR/><BR/>Also, to clarify, the gov't did object about the exclusion of post-trial evidence, citing U.S. v Rivers as persusive. But, we should have remained consistent with our original position -- that such evidence was admissible -- and not objected to the defense's attempts to offer it (even though they initially objected to any evidence that wasn't in existence in 1995).Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05316202880518572794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-57424844161261798032007-09-08T14:56:00.000-04:002007-09-08T14:56:00.000-04:00Is there any indication about adverse information ...Is there any indication about adverse information that was kept from the members, as a result of the procedure used. For example, the victim impact was significantly worse? Or vice versa, the victim impact had been signficantly mitigated. That might be a reason to "freeze" the evidence at a particular point in time?Phil Cavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14474250926717405497noreply@blogger.com