User talk:IndyLawSteve/trialtemppage

Wikipedians: This is a user's temporary sandbox for idea discussion. Please ignore, it will be deleted soon. kthxbye!

Who is doing what:

S --

Witnesses and exhibits

Response to reckless homicide instruction.

R -- Jury Instructions

MIL's:

Let's divide these up. How about I take Hellman's file, you take Jones'?

Responses:

Divide these up as well.

List of exhibits:

1) Map of Nita City, Nita (p43 in book)

2) Diagram of Carletti’s IGA (p45 in book)

3) Uniform arrest and disposition record of John Burns (p51-52 in book (expect them to suppress)

4) State of Nita Department of Motor Vehicles Registration Record (p55 in book)

5) State of NITA Dept of Public Safety Weapon Registration (p59 in book)

6) Medical Examiner’s Death certificate (p63 in book)

7) A diagram outlining the elements of Armed Robbery under NITA statute

8) A diagram outlining the elements of Felony Murder under NITA statute

9) AAA Appliance Repair Estimate (new facts)

10) The .38 gun.

11) Timeline

Anything else?

THEM (develop arguments if necessary):

A) Floor plan of Burns’ residence

B) The NITA Morning Globe


 * I agree we should only put up a small fight on this one.

C) Hellman’s personnel file

List of Witnesses:

1) James Silvio Carletti

2) Detective Arthur Hellman

3) Lauren Jones

(let’s give some thought as to the order of Hellman and Jones)
 * I like this order, as Hellman can tell the story of how Burns is linked to the robbery from a more authoritative perspective before we hear it from Jones.

Motions in Limine

US:

1) Detective Hellman's police personnel file

2) Lauren Jones' criminal record

3) Newspaper clippings- Try excluding based on best evidence rule.  For fun- it does not hurt us if we lose this one- just for extra credit on our final grade.  We can still stipulate that it is admissible if we decide to, can’t we?

4) Motion to exclude witnesses Mary Burns and Larry Roberts based on idea that they will change testimony to try to corroborate each other. (also for extra credit, since we know nobody will actually be excluded)

THEM (we need arguments for each):

1) Burns' prior convictions and arrests

2) Teresa Carletti's statements “same car, same man’, noticing someone casing the store in a green car- she thought the driver was planning to rob the store

3) AAA Appliance estimate receipt

Motions to Suppress

THEM:

Suppress

1) AAA Appliance estimate receipt (both suppress and in limine??)

Stipulations:

1) The .22 gun used by Carletti is AUTHETNTIC.

2) The .38 gun used by Jones was marked by Hellman and is readily identifiable by HELLMAN and JONES.

3) Bullet from Carletti’s .22 struck teresa

4) Teresa died as result of the gunshot (I guess we do not need the death certificate?)

5) Robbery was Saturday, May 9, 2007.

6) May 10th was Mother’s Day

7) All DOCUMENTS and NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS in ORIGINAL file (not new facts) are AUTHENTIC.

8) All depositions are AUTHENTIC

9) Burns’ signed his 10/26/07 statement.

10) Jones has never been to Burns' house

Others?

Our Requests

1) The AAA Repair receipt is admissible. They’ll never give that to us- can be bargain that it is authentic- trade them authenticity of AAA receipt for admissibility of TV clipping.  Relevancy and Best Evidence Rule will not be a problem.  If they give us authenticity, then we only have to find a way to get around hearsay and it will be admissible.  They will probably think we can’t get past hearsay so it won’t be admissible- let’s play it as if we are not aware of that.  They might be right about our inability to get it past hearsay, but I will try to find a way.   We have no chance at authenticity, though, without a stipulation.  This one will be fun.